UNIV. of
1
!' • •
lilOl WHI 1 O
THE JOURNAL
OF
*
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES
THE JOURNAL
OF
HELLENIC STUDIES
VOLUME XLI. (1921)
PUBLISHED BY THE COUNCIL AND SOLD ON THEIR BEHALF
BY
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED, ST. MARTIN'S STREET
LONDON, W.C. 2
MOCCCCXX1
Rights of Translation and Reproduction are
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
RICHARD CI.AY & SONS, LIMITED,
BUNGAY, 8UFFOLK.
to
CONTENTS
PAOI
Rules of the Society ix
List of Officers and Members xiii
Proceedings of the Society, 1920-1921 xvi
Financial Statement xxxi
Additions to the Library xxxv
Accessions to the Catalogue of Slides li
Notice to Contributors Ixvii
BAONANI (G.) Hellenistic Sculpture from Cyrene. (Plates
XVII., XVIII.) 232
BICKNELL (C. D.) Some Vases in the Lewis Collection.
(Plates XII.-XVI.) 222
BOAK (A. E. R.) An Overseer's Day-book from the Fayoum.
(Plates X., XL) 217
VAN BUREN (E. D.) Archaic Terra-cotta Agalmata in Italy and
Sicily. (Plate IX.) '.. ... 203
EVANS (ARTHUR) On a Minoan Bronze Group of a Galloping
Bull and Acrobatic Figure from Crete,
with Glyptic Comparisons, and a Note
on the Oxford Relief showing the
Taurokathapsia 247
HASLUCK (F. W.) The Crypto-Christians of Trebizond 199
HOLLEAUX (M.) Ptolemaios Epigonos 183
MACURDY (GRACE H.) Hermes Chlhonios as Eponym of the
Skopadae 179
PRYCE (F. N.) A Minoan Bronze Statu.-ttc in the British
Museum. (Plate I.) 86
vi CONTENTS
PAGE
ROSE (H. J.) The Greek of Cicero 91
TARN (W. W.) Alexander's foro/u^/iara and the 'World-
Kingdom ' 1
„ „ Heracles Son of Barsine 18
TILLYARD (H. J. W.) The Problem of Byzantine Neumes 29
TOD (M. N.) ' The Progress of Greek Epigraphy, 1919-1920 50
URE (P. N.) When was Themistocles last in Athens ? ... 165
WAGE (A. J. B.) Archaeology in Greece, 1919-1921 260
WALTERS (H. B.) Red-figured Vases recently acquired by the
British Museum. (Plates II.-VIII.) ... 117
WEBB (E. J.) Cleostratus Redivivus 70
Notices of Books 151,277
Index of Subjects 311
Greek Index 314
List of Books Noticed 315
CONTENTS
vn
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
LIST OF PLATES
Minoan Bronze Statuette. British Museum.
Kylix signed by Euergides. British Museum.
Attic Red-figured Vases. British Museum.
Pyxis with Wedding Procession and Cosmic Deities. British Museum.
Attic Red-figured Vases. British Museum.
Archaic Terra-cotta Heads : (1) Hermes, Veii; (2) Zeus, Satricum.
Waxed Diptych from the Fayoum, I. (top half). Michigan University
Library.
Waxed Diptych from the Fayoum, II. Michigan University Library.
Kylix from the Barone Collection. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Red-figured Kotyle : Eos seizing Tithonos. Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge.
Red-figured Kotyle : Companions of Tithonos. Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge.
Red-figured Kylix : Symposium (A). Corpus Christi College, Cam-
bridge.
Red-figured Kylix : Symposium (B). Corpus Christi College, Cam-
bridge.
Marble Statues from the Thermae at Gyrene : (1) Alexander the Great;
(2) Eros stringing Bow.
Marble Statues from a Temple at Cyrene : (1) Zeus, Bengazi; (2)
Athena, British Museum.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
A Minoan Bronze Statuette in the British Museum.
Fig.
1. Minoan Bronze in the British Museum
2. Minoan Bronze from Tylissos
3. Minoan Envoy on the Tomb of Rekhmara at Thebes
PAGE
87
87
98
Fig.
Red-figured Vases recently acquired by the British Museum.
1. Interior : Kylix of ' mixed ' technique 118
2. Exterior: ,, ,, „ „ 119
3. Fragments of Kylix by Chachrylion 1:21
4. Kylix : Early Archaic Period 122
5. Kylix by Briseis Painter 125
6. Kylix : School of Douris 126
7. Lekythos by Bowdoin Painter 1:27
*viii CONTENTS
PAGE
Fig. 8. Oinochoe, Satyr 130
„ 9. Lekythos of Early Free Style 132
,,10. Two Kylikes : Early Free Style 135
,,11. Lekythos of Ripe Free Style 140
,, 12. Model of Loutrophoros 143
,, 13. Subject on body of Pyxis : Wedding Procession 144
,, 14. Oinochoe with opaque Figures 148
Archaic Terra-cotta Ag-almata in Italy and Sicily.
Fig. 1. Seated Goddess, Granmichele 204
„ 2. Seated Goddess from Predio Ventura, Granmichele 205
,, 3. Gorgon from Temple of Athena, Syracuse 208
,, 4. Foot and Fingers, Syracuse 210
„ 5. Horse and Rider from Catania 212
„ 6.. Apollo, from Veii 213
„ 7. Reconstruction of the Terra-cotta Votive Group from Veii 215
Some Vases in the Lewis Collection.
Fig. 1. Red-figured Kotyle 222
,, 2. Red-figured Kylix, interior 224
„ 3. Early Cycladic Kernos 231
Hellenistic Sculpture from Cyrene.
Fig. 1. Two Groups of the Graces from Cyrene 233
„ 2. Large Group of the Graces from the Thermae at Cyrene 235
,, 3. Eros stringing his Bow, from the Thermae at Cyrene 242
„ 4. The Capitolirie Eros 242
,, 5. Scythian stringing Bow 243
On a Bronze Group of a Galloping- Bull and Acrobatic Figure
from Crete, with Glyptic Comparisons and a Note on the
Oxford Relief showing the Taurokathapsia.
Fig. 1. Front View of Group 247
„ 2. Side View of Group 248
„ 3. (a) Galloping Bull and Acrobatic Figure on Tiryns Fresco; (6)
„ ' Offertory ' Bull on Painted Sarcophagus, Hagia Triada 249
„ 4. Acrobatic Figure 250
,, 5. Diagrammatic Sketch showing Successive Positions of Acrobat after
grappling Bull 253
„ 6. Clay Sealing from Temple Repository, Knossos 254
„ 7. Clay Seal Impression, Corridor of Bays, Knossos 254
„ 8. Clay Sealing, Zakro 255
,, 9. Oxford Marble Relief of Taurokathapsia 257
,, 10. Clay Sealing L.M. II. Deposit, Knossos, with countermark omitted 258
„ 11. Banded Agate Lentoid, Mycenae 259
,, 12. Green Jasper Lentoid, Mycenae 259
RULES
OF THE
Soctttn f0r t|)c |rom0ti0u of Hellenic
i. THE objects of this Society shall be as follows : —
1. To advance the study of Greek language, literature, and art, and
to illustrate the history of the Greek race in the ancient, Byzantine,
and Neo-Hellenic periods, by the publication of memoirs and unedited
documents or monuments in a Journal to be issued periodically.
II. To collect drawings, facsimiles, transcripts, plans, and photo-
graphs of Greek inscriptions, MSS., works of art, ancient sites and remains,
and with this view to invite travellers to communicate to the Society
notes or sketches of archaeological and topographical interest.
III. To organise means by which members of the Society may have
increased facilities for visiting ancient sites and pursuing archaeological
researches in countries which, at any time, have been the sites of Hellenic
civilisation.
2. The Society shall consist of a President, Vice-Presidents, a Council,
a Treasurer, one or more Secretaries, 40 Hon. Members, and Ordinary
Members. All officers of the Society shall be chosen from among its
Members, and shall be cx-officio members of the Council.
3. The President shall preside at all General, Ordinary, or Special
Meetings of the Society, and of the Council or of any Committee at
which he is present. In case of the absence of the President, one of
the Vice-Presidents shall preside in his stead, and in the absence of the
Vice-Presidents the Treasurer. In the absence of the Treasurer the
Council or Committee shall appoint one of their Members to preside.
4. The funds and other property of the Society shall be administered
and applied by the Council in such manner as they shall consider most
conducive to the objects of the Society : in the Council shall also be
vested the control of all publications issued by the Society, and the
general management of all its affairs and concerns. The number of the
Council shall not exceed fifty.
ix b
5. The Treasurer shall receive, on account of the Society, all
subscriptions, donations, or other moneys accruing to the funds thereof,
and shall make all payments ordered by the Council. All cheques shall
be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Secretary.
6. In the absence of the Treasurer the Council may direct that
cheques may be signed by two members of Council and countersigned
by the Secretary.
7. The Council shall meet as often as they may deem necessary for
the despatch of business.
8. Due notice of every such Meeting shall be sent to each Member
of the Council, by a summons signed by the Secretary.
9. Three Members of the Council, provided not more than one of
the three present be a permanent officer of the Society, shall be a
quorum.
10. All questions before the Council shall be determined by a
majority of votes. The Chairman to have a casting vote.
11. The Council shall prepare an Annual Report, to be submitted
to the Annual Meeting of the Society.
12. The Secretary shall give notice in writing to each Member of
the Council of the ordinary days of meeting of the Council, and shall
have authority to summon a Special and Extraordinary Meeting of the
Council on a requisition signed by at least four Members of the -Council.
13. Two Auditors, not being Members of the Council, shall be
elected by the Society in each year.
14. A General Meeting of the Society shall be held in London in
June of each year, when the Reports of the Council and of the Auditors
shall be read, the Council, Officers, and Auditors for the ensuing year
elected, and any other business recommended by the Council discussed
and determined. Meetings of the Society for the reading of papers
may be held at such times as the Council may fix, due notice being
given to Members.
15. The President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer, Secretaries, and
Council shall be elected by the Members of the Society at the Annual
Meeting.
16. The President shall be elected by the Members of the Society
at the Annual Meeting for a period of five years, and shall not be
immediately eligible for re-election.
17. The Vice-Presidents shall be elected by the Members of the
Society at the Annual Meeting for a period of one year, after which they
shall be eligible for re-election.
XI
18. One-third of the Council shall retire every year, but the Members
so retiring shall be eligible for re-election at the Annual Meeting.
19. The Treasurer and Secretaries shall hold their offices during the
pleasure of the Council.
20. The elections of the Officers, Council, and Auditors, at the
Annual Meeting, shall be by a majority of the votes of those present.
The Chairman of the Meeting shall have a casting vote. The mode in
which the vote shall be taken shall be determined by the President
and Council.
21. Every Member of the Society shall be summoned to the Annual
Meeting by notice issued at least one month before it is held.
22. All motions made at the Annual Meeting shall be in writing
and shall be signed by the mover and seconder. No motion shall be
submitted, unless notice of it has been given to the Secretary at least
three weeks before the Annual Meeting.
23. Upon any vacancy in the Presidency occurring between the
Annual Elections, one of the Vice-Presidents shall be elected by the
Council to officiate as President until the next Annual Meeting.
24. All vacancies among the other Officers of the Society occurring
between the same dates shall in like manner be provisionally filled up
by the Council until the next Annual Meeting.
25. The names of all Candidates wishing to become Members of the
Society shall be submitted to a Meeting of the Council, and at their
next Meeting the Council shall proceed to the election of Candidates
so proposed : no such election to be valid unless the Candidate receives
the votes of the majority of those present.
26. The Annual Subscription of Members shall be one guinea, payable
and due on the 1st of January each year ; this annual subscription may be
compounded for by a single payment of £15 155., entitling compounders
to be Members of the Society for life, without further payment. All
Members elected on or after January I, 1921, shall pay on election an
entrance fee of one guinea.
27. The payment of the Annual Subscription, or of the Life
Composition, entitles each Member to receive a copy of the ordinary
publications of the Society.
28. When any Member of the Society shall be six months in arrear
of his Annual Subscription, the Secretary or Treasurer shall remind him
of the arrears due, and in case of non-payment thereof within six months
after date of such notice, such defaulting Member shall cease to be a
Member of the Society, unless the Council make an order to the contrary.
62
Xll
29. Members intending to leave the Society must send a formal
notice of resignation to the Secretary on or before January I ; otherwise
they will be held liable for the subscription for the current year.
30. If at any time there may appear cause for the expulsion of a
Member of the Society, a Special Meeting of the Council shall be held
to consider the case, and if at such Meeting at least two-thirds of the
Members present shall concur in a resolution for the expulsion of such
Member of the Society, the President shall submit the same for con-
firmation at a General Meeting of the Society specially summoned for
this purpose, and if the decision of the Council be confirmed by a
majority at the General Meeting, notice shall be given to that effect to
the Member in question, who shall thereupon cease to be a Member of
the Society.
31. The Council shall have power to nominate 40 British or Foreign
Honorary Members. The number of British Honorary Members shall
not exceed ten.
32. The Council may, at their discretion, elect for a period not
exceeding five years Student-Associates, who shall be admitted to certain
privileges of the Society.
33. The names of Candidates wishing to become Student- Associates
shall be submitted to the Council in the manner prescribed for the
Election of Members. Every Candidate shall also satisfy the Council
by means of a certificate from his teacher, who must be a person occupying
a recognised position in an educational body and be a Member of the
Society, that he is a bond fide Student in subjects germane to the purposes
of the Society.
34. The Annual Subscription of a Student-Associate shall be one
guinea, payable and due on the ist of January in each year. In case
of non-payment the procedure prescribed for the case of a defaulting
Ordinary Member shall be followed.
35. Student-Associates shall receive the Society's ordinary publica-
tions, and shall be entitled to attend the General and Ordinary Meetings,
and to read in the Library. They shall not be entitled to borrow books
from the Library, or to make use of the Loan Collection of Lantern
Slides, or to vote at the Society's Meetings.
36. A Student-Associate may at any time pay the Member's entrance
fee of one guinea, and shall forthwith become an Ordinary Member.
37. Ladies shall be eligible as Ordinary Members or Student-
Associates of the Society, and when elected shall be entitled to the same
privileges as other Ordinary Members or Student-Associates.
38. No change shall be made in the Rules of the Society unless
at least a fortnight before the Annual Meeting specific notice be given
to every Member of the Society of the changes proposed.
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES.
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1921 — 1922.
President.
SIR FKKDKKIC KENYON, K.C.B., D.Lrrr., P.B.A.
Vice-Presidents.
VISCOUNT HRYCK, O.M.. G.C.V.O., D.C.L.,
l.i i r.l>., K.lt.A.
SIR SIDNKY COLVIN. D.LITT.
SIR ARTHUR KVANS, K.R.S., D.I.iTT., LL.D.,
F.B.A.
MR. 1.. R. FARNKLL, D.LITT., F.B.A.
SIR ]. G. KRAZKR, D.LITT., Lirr.D., LI..D.,
D.C.L., F.B.A.
PROF. KRNKST GARDXER.
PROK. PERCY GARDNER, Lnr.D., D.LlTT.,
F.B.A.
MR. G. F. HILL, F.BA.
MR. D. G. HOGARTH, C.M.G., F.B.A.
PROF. HENRY JACKSON. O.M.. F.B.A.
PROF. H. STUART JONES, F.B.A.
MR. WALTER LEAF, LITT.D., D.LITT.
PROF. GILHEKT MURRAY, F.B.A.
PROF. SIR W. M. RAMSAY, U.C.L., LL.D..
LITT.D., D.D., F.B.A.
PROF. SIR WILLIAM RIDGEWAY, F.B.A.
SIR JOHN SANDYS, LITT.D., F.B.A.
REV. PROF. A. H. sAYCE, Lnr.D., D.LITT.
MR. A. HAMILTON SMITH.
SIR CECIL HARCOURT SMITH, C.V.O., LL D.
SIR CHARLES WALbTON, LITI D., Pii.D.
L.H.D.
Council.
MR. W. C. F. ANDERSON.
MR. N. H. BAYXES.
MR. J. D. BEAZLEY.
MR. H. I. BELL.
MR. R. C. liOSANOUET.
REV. PROF. HENRY BROWNE.
MR. W. H. BUCKLER.
MR. M. O. B. CARY.
MR. A. M. DANIEL.
PROK. R. M. DXWKINS.
MR. J. P. DROOP.
MR. C. C. EDGAR.
MR. TAI.KOURD ELY, D.LITT.
LADY EVANS.
MR. E. J. FORSDYKE.
MR. THEODORE FYFE.
MR. E. NORMAN GARDINER.
MR. H. R. HALL.
MISS C. M. KNIGHT, D.LITT.
MR. H. M. LAST.
PROF. W. R. LETHABY.
MK. R. W. LIVINGSTONE.
MR. F. H. MARSHALL.
MR. ERNEST MYERS.
PROF. W. RHYS ROBERTS.
MR. J. T. SHEPPARD.
MRS. S. ARTHUR STRONG, LITT.D., LL.D
PROF. PERCY N. URE.
MR. A. J. B. WACE.
MR. H. B. WALTERS.
Hon. Secretary.
MISS C. A. HUTTON.
Hon. Treasurer.
MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN, D.LITT., ST. MARTINS STREET, W.C. a.
Assistant Treasurer.
MR. GEORGE GARNETT, ST. MARTIN'S STREET, W.C. a.
Hon. Librarian.
MR. A. HAMILTON SMITH.
Secretary, Librarian and Keeper of Photographic Collections.
MR. JOHN PENOYRE, C.B.E., 19, BLOOMSBURY SQUARE, W.C. i.
Assistant Librarian.
MR. F. WISH.
Acting1 Editorial Committee.
MR. E. J. FORSDYKE. | PROF. ERXi.sT GARDXER.
MR. G. F. HILL.
Consultative Editorial Committee.
SIR SIDNEY COLVIN I PROFESSOR PERCY GARhXI-R
PROFESSOR HENRY JACK^'N. I'KOKKSSOR GII.I'.ERT MIKRAY, SIR FREDERIC KENYON
and MR. A. J. 1!. WACE (ex officio as Director of the British School at Athens).
Auditors for 1921-1922.
MR. C. F. CLAY.
MR. W. E. F. MAC Mil I AN
Bankers.
Ml — Ks. COUTTS & CO., 15, LOMBARD STREET, E.C. j.
xiii
XIV
LIST OF MEMBERS.
This List includes members elected during the year 1921 only.
Considerable misapprehension still exists over the long list published in the last
volume of the Journal (J.H.S. XL.). That list, as stated on its opening page,
was the list of members elected since the publication of J.H.S., Vol. XXXVIII.,
and not the complete list of members of the Society.
Allan, Miss Gladys B., 19, Manor Road, Bishops Stortford.
Antonius, G., Dept. of Education, Jerusalem, Palestine.
Atkinson, Rev. A. V., St. Luke's Vicarage, Mersey Park, Birkenhead.
Barton, Rev. Walter John, Epsom College, Surrey.
Beck, H. M., Aldenham School, Elstree, Herts.
Birkett, Daniel M., J.P., Leigh House, Hastings Road, Bexhill-on-Sea, Sussex.
Bradley, L. J. N., Stormarn, Chorlton-cum-Hardy.
Brown, A. D. Burnett, Greenhurst, Beaconsfield, Bucks.
Brundrit, D. F., Wadham College, Oxford.
Buncher, Llewellyn, 2, Caroline Place, Mecklenburgh Square, W.C. i.
Carbery, Mary, Lady, Stafford Hotel, St. James' Place, S.W.
Caskey, Dr. L. D., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
Choremi, A. D., c/o Davies Benachi &> Co., Orleans House, Edmund Street, Liverpool.
Clarke, D. Harcourt, Stancliffe Hall, near Matlock, Derby.
Cole, S. C., 30, Regent Park Square, Strathbungo, Glasgow.
Cotterell, Miss M. F., Royal School, Bath.
Dillon, Gerald D., Balliol College, Oxford.
Elliot, Mrs. Scott-, 19, Allen House, Allen Street, W. 8.
Errandonea, Rev. Ignatius, S.J., Campion Hall, Oxford.
Evans, Mrs. L. Conway, Woodbury Lodge, Exton, Exeter.
Farrington, B., The University, Cape Town, S.A.
ffrench, the Lady, 45, Lower Belgrave Street, S.W. i.
Fitzpatrick, J. F. J., Kabba, Northern Provinces, Nigeria.
Flecker, H. L. O., Dean Close School, Cheltenham.
Francis, Miss F. G., 40, Callcott Road, Brondesbury, N.W. 6.
Gatehouse, Miss R., Abbot's Grange, Bebington, Cheshire.
Gaudet, Miss C., 120, Cheyne Walk, Chelsea.
Gidney, Mrs., 3IA, Kingsbury Street, Marlborough, Wilts.
Goddard, B. R., The Training College, Winchester.
Gurner, C. W., I.C.S., c/o Messrs. King, Hamilton & Co., Calcutta, Bengal, India.
Gutman, P, 47, Kempsford Gardens, Earl's Court, S.W. 5.
Harvey, J. D. M., 42, Castelnau Mansions, Barnes, S.W. 13.
Haydon, J. H., The Grove, Mill Hill School, N.W. 7.
Jolowicz, Herbert F., 70, Compayne Gardens, West Hampstead.
Kerr, R. Browne, The University, Edinburgh.
Le Roux, Prof. Th., The University, Cape Town, S.A.
Levy, Miss G. R., 40, Rotherwick Road, Colder' s Green, N .II' '.
Lorimer, W. L., 19, Murray Park, St. Andrews.
XV
Elected 1921 (continued)
Lynam, A. E., School House, Bardwell Road. Oxford.
Manning, F., Edenham Bourne, Lines.
Martin, Robert F., 18, Cranley Gardens, Muswell Hill, N. 10.
Montgomery, Marshall, 302, Woodstock Road, Oxford.
Ogden, H. L., Alproham, Torporley, Cheshire.
Pierce, Miss Elizabeth D., Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York, U.S.A.
Powell, Miss M. H., St. Michael's Hostel, Grove Park, Lee, S.E. 12.
Reynolds, Miss R. M., Bincleares House, Weymouth.
Riches, T., Kilwells, Shenley, Herts.
Russell, Miss Phyllis, 17, Manor Court Road, Hanwell, IV. 7.
Sawaki, Professor, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shackle, R. J., The Warders, Feltham Avenue, East Molesey, Surrey.
Spencer, Col. Maurice, C.M.G., The Old Rectory, Lower Hardres, Canterbury.
Stobart, J. C, Elmdene, Ruislip, Middlesex.
Woodhouse, R. K. E., cjo Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney, 18, Birchin Lane,
Lombard Street, E.G. 3.
SUBSCRIBING LIBRARIES.
Elected 1921.
GREAT BRITAIN
Beckenham, The Library of The County School for Girls, Beckenham, Kent.
Edinburgh, The Library of St. George's Training College, Garscube Terrace,
Edinburgh, W.
Holborn, The Holborn Public Library, 198, Holborn. W.C.I.
Lough ton, The Library of The Loughton High School for Girls, Loughton, Essex.
Preston, The Library of The Park School, Preston.
Southampton, The Library of The University College, Southampton.
FRANCE.
Strasbourg, La Bibliotheque Universitaire et R^gionale, Strasbourg, France.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Beloit, The Library of Beloit College, Wisconsin, U.S.A .
Bryn Mawr, The Library of Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Penn., U.S.A.
Cleveland, The Cleveland Public Library, Cleveland, U.S.A.
Columbus, The Ohio State University Library, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Greencastle, The De Pauw University Library, Greencastle, U.S.A .
Haverford, The Library of Haverford College, Haverford, U.S.A.
Michigan, The Michigan State Library, Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.
New York, The Library of Hunter College, New York, U.S.A.
Portland, The Library of Reed College, Portland, U.S.A .
Princeton, The Library of Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., U.S.A.
Providence, The Brown University Library, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
Swarthmore, The Library of Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, U.S.A.
Texas, The Library of University of Texas, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
„ The Library of the Catholic University, Texas, U.S.A .
Washington, The Library of the University of Washington, Seattle. Washington,
U.S.A.
„ The Library of the Catholic University of America, Washington. U.S.A .
XVI
PROCEEDINGS
SESSION 1920-1921
During the past Session the following Papers were read at Meetings
of the Society :—
October I3th, 1920. Mr. A. J. B. Wace : Mycenae, with some account
of the recent excavations of the British School at Athens.
November gth, 1920. Mrs. S. Arthur Strong : The imagery of the recently
discovered basilica near the Porta Maggiore, Rome.
December I5th, 1920. Mrs. S. Arthur Strong : Recent archaeological
research in Italy (see below, p. xviii).
February 8th, 1921. Mr. H. B. Walters : Red-figured vases recently
acquired by the British Museum (see J.H.S., xli. pp. 117-150).
March 1st, 1921. Mr. Jay Hambidge : Further evidences for Dynamic
Symmetry in ancient architecture (see below, p. xviii).
March I5th, 1921. Mr. G. F. Hill : The Greek theory of portraiture
(see below, p. xix).
May loth, 1921. Sir Arthur Evans and Mr. F. N. Pryce : Two recently
discovered Minoan bronzes (J.H.S., xli. pp. 86-90).
THE ANNUAL MEETING was held at Burlington House on Tuesday,
June 28th, 1921.
Mr. George A. Macmillan, Hon. Treasurer, moved the adoption of
the following
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE SESSION 1920-21.
In one way only, but that the most important of all, can the efforts
made last year to put the Society on a firmer basis be counted a success.
Whether tested by its many meetings, the use made of its library and slide
collections, its publications, or the mere numbers on its roll, Hellenic
Studies have been more actively promoted during the past session than
heretofore.
XVII
But the Society suffers from its old difficulty, and for that the Council
can only recommend its old remedy. Though the position is eased for t In-
time by Sir Basil Zaharoffs donation of £1000, expenditure still exceeds
regular income by £300 a year. The best remedy still seems to be, not to
curtail this or that activity, but to make them all easier in working,
larger in scope and more fruitful in result by increasing our resources,
i. e. by adding more and more members to our list. Exclusive of our
subscribing Libraries we have now 1370 members, double the number
with which we were left at the end of the war. Another 300 would
make us safe and solvent. Something is done daily officially in this
direction, but the best and surest foundation is the approval and interest
of our existing members and their consequent efforts for fresh recruits.
If there are fewer learners of the Greek language in England to-day
than last year, there are more people who are appreciative on general
grounds of the legacy that Greece has left us. We have, anyhow, a
cause worth the pleading — the retention, as a permeating influence in
a sick and troubled world, of the immemorial freshness and charm
of ancient Hellas.
Changes in the Society. — Among the losses by death which the
Society has sustained, special mention should be made of Dr. C. B.
Heberden, formerly Principal of Brasenose, Dr. F. Imhoof-Blumer, Mr.
W. R. Paton, Prof. E. Petersen, Prof. G. G. Ramsay, Mr. Arthur
Sidgwick and Mr. W. Warde Fowler.
Mr. E. R. Bevan, Mr. F. M. Cornford, and Prof. Flamstead Walters
have retired from the Council. To fill the vacancies so caused, and that
resulting from the death of Dr. R. M. Burrows, Mr. H. M. Last, Mr. F. H.
Marshall, Mr. J. T. Sheppard and Prof. W. Rhys Roberts have been
nominated for election. Mr. Penoyre has returned to his duties as Secre-
tary and Librarian, and the Council wish to place on record the Society's
great obligation to their Hon. Secretary, Miss C. A. Hutton, for having
carried on the work at Bloomsbury Square during his absence.
The Council recently circulated a formal enquiry among ex enemy
hon. members asking whether they wished again to receive the Society's
publications. The answer was unanimously in the affirmative, and the
Journal will accordingly be sent to them as from January 1920.
Meetings. — Seven Meetings have been held in the course of the
Session.
On Oct. i3th, 1920, at the first Students' Meeting, Mr. A. J. B.
Wace delivered a lecture on ' Mycenae,' with some account of the recent
excavations of the British School at Athens.
On Nov. gth, at the first General Meeting, Mrs. Arthur Strong read
an illustrated paper on ' The imagery of the recently discovered basilica
near the Porta Maggiore, Rome.' This paper will appear in the Society's
Journal. Sir Frederic Kenyon (who presided), Sir Rennell Rodd,
XV11I
Mr. Arthur Smith, Mr. Hill, and Sir Arthur Evans took part in the
discussion which followed.
On Dec. I5th, at the second Students' Meeting, Mrs. Strong gave par-
ticulars of recent archaeological research in Italy. The slides, lent for
the purpose by the Italian authorities, illustrated letters in the Press
from the Director of the British School at Rome, Dr. Ashby. They
included views of the recent excavations at Veii; 5th -century walls of
a Lucanian hill fortress; photographs from aeroplane of Ostia, showing
interesting details of the streets with blocks of flats and a ' bar ' ; the
recent excavations at Cyrene, including a photograph of the Nike ; the
Sepolcreto San Paolo in Rome ; plans for the excavation of the imperial
fora in Rome; and the fine series of 4th-century terra-cotta figures
from Falerii, now in Florence.
On March ist Mr. Jay Hambidge, at a Special Meeting, gave an
illustrated communication on ' Further evidences for Dynamic Symmetry
in Ancient Architecture.' This was a joint meeting of the Society and
of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and was held at the Royal
Institute.
After introductory remarks by Sir Charles Walston, who presided,
Mr. Hambidge began by arguing that with the Greeks of the classic
period it was customary to study arithmetic with the aid of simple
geometrical diagrams. Plato, in the Theaitetos, supplied a lesson in
this method of study wherein root rectangles are used. If we used this
method of arithmetical study, and the same diagrams, the result was
the same dynamic symmetry as the speaker had worked out from the
best examples of ancient Greek architecture and general craftsmanship.
During the past year some of the most important of the classic
buildings in Greece had been re-measured and examined in detail for
the purpose of determining precisely the methods used by the ancient
master builders in fixing their proportions, or, as they termed it, symmetry.
These buildings included : The Parthenon at Athens, the temple of Apollo
Epikurios at Bassae in Phigaleia (both by the Periclean architect Iktinos) ,
the Zeus temple at Olympia, the temple at Sunion, and the temple of
Athena Aphaia at Aegina. It is the speaker's belief that the results of
this labour showed conclusively that we had recovered the classic Greek
method of fixing building proportions.
An interesting situation was revealed by a comparison of the two
buildings designed by Iktinos — the Parthenon at Athens, and the temple
of Apollo at Bassae. The symmetry of the Parthenon was characteristic
of the building; it was subtle, refined, and modified in many ways by
the introduction of curvature. The building at Bassae was without
curvature, except that of the circular columns and their capitals. The
Parthenon column has an extremely delicate entasis, while that at Bassae
is perfectly straight. Of all examples of Greek design so far found to
conform to dynamic symmetry, that furnished by the Bassae temple was
the simplest.
XIX
As was explained in lectures of last year, the highest type of
symmetry was furnished by areas which are fixed by a diagonal to two
squares in relation to a side of one of the units.
If a side of one square equals i, two sides equal 2.
And a diagonal of the two units equals 2-23606 plus, or root 5.
The mystery of classic Greek proportion will, therefore, be found in
an area the end of which is i- and the side 2-23606 plus.
Iktinos seemed to have thoroughly understood this, as the nave,
the column centring, and the placing of the statue of Athena were
arranged in strict accord with the proportions inherent in this peculiar
figure. The proportions of the Parthenon unfolded from the centre of
the statue of the goddess like those of a flower.
The proportions of the Bassae temple were another evolution of
this basic form of -236.
The overall plan at Bassae was 2-236 plus -236 or 2-472, i. e. four
whirling square rectangles or -618 multiplied by 4.
The stylobate proportion was 2-618 or 1-618 plus i.
The naos proportion was 3-236 or 1-618 multiplied by 2.
The cella proportion was 2-472 or a similar figure to the whole.
If they divided the length of the temple by 2-36 they obtained the
length of the cella. If they divided the width of the temple by 2-36
they obtained the width of the cella.
The Zeus temple at Olympia and the temples at Aegina and Sunion
showed variations of the same basic ideas of proportion found in the
Parthenon and the temple at Bassae. It should be remembered that
the proportions of all details in these buildings conformed strictly to
their general proportions.
The lecture was illustrated by particularly beautiful lantern slides,
a selection from which have been presented to the Society.
The paper was discussed by Sir Charles Walston, Mr. P. W. Hubbard,
Mr. George Hubbard, Mr. Cloudesley Brereton, and Mr. Theodore Fyfe.
Thanks were accorded to Mr. Hambidge for his paper, and to the Royal
Institute for kind hospitality.
On Feb. 8th, 1921, at the second General Meeting, Mr. H. B. Walters
gave an illustrated description of the red-figured vases recently acquired
by the British Museum. Mr. Walters' paper, which will be published in
the Journal, was discussed by Sir Frederic Kenyon (who presided),
Professor Ernest Gardner, Sir Henry Howorth, and Sir Charles Walston.
On March isth, at the third Students' Meeting, Mr. G. F. Hill
read a paper to illustrate ' the Greek theory of portraiture.' He thought
that portraiture made its appearance in ancient art at an earlier period
than was generally supposed. Early portraits were not now easily
recognised as such, partly because the artist had not developed the
power of seizing individual traits, but also because we were unfamiliar
with his method of giving them expression. He was, further, critical of
another widely held opinion, that the art of the 5th century expressed
XX
character, and that of the 4th century passion. In the 5th-century
heads associated with the name of Polyclitus pathos was, if anywhere
else, discernible ; while the 4th-century Demeter of Knidos could hardly
be more ethical.
With portraiture he would give an earlier date than was generally
assigned to the rise of naturalism generally. The fact was the greater
arts had been studied to the exclusion of the minor, and it was in these
latter that its early appearance was found. Returning to portraiture,
he pointed out that it was earlier and better developed in the countries
where the Hellenic element was partly barbarised or subjugated.
Among the illustrations discussed were a fine 5th-century male head
from Copenhagen, which might be an Apollo, an athlete, or, as he was
inclined to think, an early portrait; coins of Cos on which the head of
Herakles showed some resemblance to the head of Mausollos, in whose
principate they were struck; the 4th-century bronze head of a Berber
prince in the British Museum; and the bronze head of an old man
recovered from the sea at Cerigotto.
On May loth, at the third General Meeting, Sir Arthur Evans and
Mr. F. N. Pryce offered illustrated papers on ' Two recently discovered
Minoan bronzes.' The papers, which will be published in the Journal,
were discussed by Sir Frederic Kenyon (who presided), Mr. Hogarth,
Dr. Leaf, Mr. Seager, Mr. Forsdyke, and Prof. Ernest Gardner.
The Joint Library and Photographic Collections. — The following
figures indicate the scope of the Society's work in this department for
this session and its predecessor.
1919-20 1920-21
Visitors to the Library 1,564 2,000
Books taken out 815 1,382
*Books added to the Library .... 387 315
Slides hired 3,7°9 6,125
Slides sold to members 672 621
Photographs sold to members .... no 127
Slides added to the collection 283 213
The accommodation for books in the Main Library continues adequate,
additional space having been provided in the premises on the top floor.
Here a room has been made ready for the Society's collections of larger
drawings : this will be open in the course of the session. The reference
collection of larger photographs is also being transferred thither. A
complete outline index to the Journal has been added to the Library,
and an index of the individual essays in collective in honorem works is
in preparation. Improvement has been made in the arrangement of
pamphlets, opuscula and current numbers of periodicals.
* Exclusive of periodicals.
XXI
Among the more important accessions are the following : Antoniades,
*£tc<f>pa<Ti<i XT/? 'A7ia<? 2o<£ia<?; the Byzantine Research Fund's publication
of the Church of Our Lady of the Hundred Gates at Paros, by H. H. Jewell
and F. W. Hasluck; the definitive publication of the excavations at
Miletus ; the records of the Princeton archaeological expeditions to Syria ;
the facsimile reproductions of the papyri in Berlin, Giessen and Strassburg;
and Strzygowski, Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa.
The Library has added the following to the periodicals which it
receives in exchange for the Society's publications : The A ntiquaries
Journal, the Bulletin de la Societe Archeologique Bulgare, the Byzantinisch-
neugriechische Jahrbiicher and the French Government publication on
research in Syria. All the series of foreign periodicals which were inter-
rupted by the war are now complete to date.
The Council acknowledge with thanks books from H.M. Government
of India, the Trustees of the British Museum, the Chief Secretary of
the Government of Cyprus, the British Academy, the Museum of Fine
Arts at Boston, L'Association Guillaume Bude, and the University Presses
of Oxford, Cambridge, California, and Columbia.
The following have also kindly given books : Messrs. J. T. Allen,
W. C. F. Anderson, Prof. A. Andreades, Signer G. Bagnani, Messrs. E. R.
Bevan, W. H. Buckler, S. Casson, Prof. E. Drerup, Mr. A. W. Gomme,
Prof. B. P. Grenfell, Prof. W. R. Halliday, Mr. J. Hambidge, Mrs.
F. W. Hasluck, Sir T. L. Heath, Messrs. G. F. Hill, M. Holleaux, Miss
C. A. Hutton, Rev. Gifford H. Johnson, Dr. K. F. Kinch, Messrs. L.
Laurend, J. G. Milne, Mrs. J. G. Milne, Signer S. Mirone, Mrs. Ludwig
Mond, Prof. J. L. Myres, Messrs. E. T. Newell, M. P. Nilsson, Dr. F.
Poulsen, the Hon. Misses Russell, Messrs. R. B. Seager, G. A. S. Snyder,
Dr. F. Studniczka, Dr. J. Sundwall, Messrs. W. W. Tarn, M. D. Volonakis,
A. J. B. Wace, Dr. J. Wackernagel, Mr. R. J. Walker, Prof. T. Wiegand,
Dr. A. Wilhelm, Prof. P. Wolters, and the Librarian.
The following have also presented copies of recently published
works : Messrs. G. Bell & Sons, B. H. Blackwell, Butterworth v: Co.,
H. Champion, Chatto & Windus, Jacob Dybwad, G. Franz, P. Geuthner,
W. Heinemann, S. Hirzel, A. Holder, Macmillan & Co., F. Meiner, Picard,
F. Schoningh, Seemann, Topelmann, and Weidmann.
The Library is specially indebted to Mr. W. H. Buckler and Mr. and
Mrs. Grafton Milne for the gift of valuable books.
The collection of lantern slides increases in utility, over 6000 having
been lent during the session. Members are reminded that they can now
borrow slides in two ways. They can make their own selection from the
pictures arranged for the purpose in the Library, which is the better way
for detailed scientific purposes, or, for more general lectures, they can
order one of the special sets that have been compiled for the purpose.
Recent additions to these sets comprise Ancient Life (a second set);
Greek Papyri; Greek Architecture; and the travels of St. Paul. The
Roman Society has similar sets in preparation. Difficulties in the photo-
XX11
graphic trade continue to hamper the production of slides for sale to
members, but the Council have kept the charge for hire at its pre-war
figure of id.
Gifts to the collections are acknowledged from the British School at
Athens, Prof. H. E. Butler, Mr. T. Fyfe, Prof. Ernest Gardner, Mr. Jay
Hambidge, Mr. M. Holroyd, Miss C. A. Hutton, Mr. H. Lang Jones, and
Dr. Whatmough.
The reference collection of photographs has received large additions
and is being rearranged on the top floor. There is no more attractive
or informing task than the turning over a large number of photographs
and original drawings, arranged in a strict subject order, illustrating the
results of excavation and museum research. This collection has involved
considerable cost and labour, and the Council think that, when it is more
accessible in its new home, it should be of greater use and enjoyment to
members.
It will be within the recollection of members that, to cope with the
Society's increased activities without multiplying officials, a rota of
voluntary workers was established in the Library. The Society is
indebted in this way to generous help given by Mr. E. P. Baily, Mrs.
Culley, Miss M. Davidson, Miss C. A. Hutton, Miss A. Lindsell, and Mrs.
Grafton Milne. Unfortunately the Library has lost its most constant
helper, it is hoped only temporarily, by Miss Davidson's illness. Mean-
time there is very much to do and few to do it. Any member who can
spare a morning or an afternoon regularly once a week, and does not
mind what she or he does for the good of a good cause, will be very
welcome.
Finance. — The last financial year has been a critical one in the history
of the Society. With every effort at economy, the preceding year had
ended with a deficit of over £250 on the ordinary Expenditure and Income
account. But, encouraged by the response to the appeal for the War
Emergency Fund, which was inaugurated to provide means for the imme-
diate future, it was decided to adopt a bold policy. The Journal has again
been issued in two parts, while in other departments the aim has been to
recreate and extend all former activities. To raise the revenues to meet
the necessary increase in expenditure, effort was made to obtain new
members and increased subscriptions. It was felt that if the objects
and aims of the Society justified its existence, funds would be forthcoming
to enable it to carry on the work it had undertaken.
The result has been good as far as it goes. The membership roll has
been raised to 1370, and the list of subscribing libraries to 280, bringing an
increase to the revenues for the year of between £600 and £700. Further
donations to the War Emergency Fund have provided £181. (New
members paying life compositions have contributed a total of no less than
£393. but this of course cannot be treated as revenue, and a sum has been
invested to cover this and contributions to the Endowment Fund.) The
XX111
Council desire to express their best thanks to all the members who have
contributed to bring about this result.
But the expenditure during the "year has necessarily been heavy, the
cost of the Journal overshadowing everything else. Other headings show
considerable increase, some part of which has been incurred in the effort
to extend the list of members. The net result is that the increased
receipts of £700 have failed to balance the increased expenditure
of £800, and the Society is left with a slightly larger deficit than last
year.
A further annual income, therefore, of about £300 is still required to
ensure relief from financial embarrassment. It is hoped that every effort
will be exerted to bring about this desired result, and to this end members
are earnestly invited to (i) introduce new members; (2) increase their
subscriptions wherever possible; (3) contribute to the War Emergency
Fund, which provides additional funds during the present unsettled
times; or (4) send donations to the Endowment Fund, which is intended
by investment to provide a source of permanent revenue.
Mr. Angelo Hayter seconded the motion for the adoption of the
report which was formally put to the meeting and carried unanimously.
The Vice-Presidents of the Society and the members of the Council
retiring by rotation (Messrs. J. D. Beazley, W. H. Buckler, M. Cary,
E. J. Forsdyke, E. N. Gardiner, H. R. Hall) were re-elected, and Messrs.
H. M. Last, F. H. Marshall, J. T. Sheppard, and Prof. W. Rhys Roberts
were elected as members of the Council.
Votes of thanks to the auditors, Messrs. C. F. Clay and W. E. F.
Macmillan, were moved by Sir Charles Walston and Mr. Penoyre.
The President, Sir Frederic Kenyon, K.C.B., P.B.A., D.Litt, then
delivered the following address on " The Requirements of a Law of
Antiquities."
IT is impossible to begin an address to-day to a gathering of student- of the
classics without reference to the loss which British scholarship has sustained through
the death of Mr. Warde Fowler. It is true that his mark was made in connexion
with Roman rather than Hellenic literature ; but the provinces cannot be strictly
demarcated. A Virgilian scholar is necessarily a Hellenist as well as a Latinist;
and Mr. Warde Fowler knew and loved the literature of Greece as well as that of
Rome. There are some men who to the knowledge which other scholars possess
add a certain spirit which we instinctively recognise as that of the true humanist,
of the " happy warrior " of scholarship, whom every scholar would wish to be.
Such a one was Henry Butcher, and such was Warde Fowler. In men of this
temper lifelong familiarity with the classics has given a peculiar insight into their
spirit, so that they are able to interpret them to others with something like
prophetic strain. Warde Fowler exemplified this, not only in his writings on Roman
religion, of which his sympathetic knowledge made him an unequalled interpreter,
but perhaps especially in that Virgilian trilogy which was his reaction from the
strain of the years of war. One had hoped that there might be more of them;
for it is seldom that there arises a scholar who has in himself so much of the delicate
charm, the cunosa felicilas. of the poet whom he interpreted.
XXIV
I pass now to some general considerations on the work of our Society, and to a
particular topic which I wish to lay before you.
The past year has been for our Society, as for so many other institutions, a
year of attempted reconstruction. We have been trying to accommodate ourselves
to the new conditions, and this is for us, as well as for the world at large, a slow
process. One cannot yet say that the conditions have reached stability. We do
not yet know how or when we shall reach economic equilibrium; we cannot judge
what will be the value of money six months hence. Finance is necessarily at the
bottom of everything. Before we can tell what we can do to promote Hellenic
studies, we must know with some approach to accuracy what our income is likely
to be, and what is the amount of our office expenses. Next after them comes the
expenses of the Journal ; for the production of the Journal is the form of our activities
which takes precedence of all others. In this respect the prospects are improving.
The cost of paper has already begun to come down, and it is difficult to believe
that wages in the printing trade will escape from the general downward tendency
as the cost of living falls. When we have reached stability in our office expenses
and in the cost of the Journal, we shall be able to judge what balance we have in
hand for the other departments of work.
Finance therefore is the key to the whole position, and it is finance which
has been the first concern of our officers. No words of praise can be too high for
the exertions of our Secretary and Librarian, Mr. Penoyre (very efficiently seconded
by our Sub-Librarian, Mr. F. Wise), to bring in fresh subscribers. I hope the
Society realises, as those who are most closely associated with its work realise,
that without Mr. Penoyre we should have been in danger of extinction. He has
devoted the energy, which during the war was directed to the well-being of our
soldiers, to setting the Society on its legs again. It has been a laborious and uphill
task, and he has strained himself to the utmost limit of his powers, and at serious
risk to his health. I should not be doing my duty to the Society if I did not put
in the forefront of my annual address an expression of our gratitude to him.
The extent to which these efforts, which have been loyally backed by the
personal influence and ungrudged services of our Honorary Secretary, Miss Hutton,
have been successful, has been set out in the Report, and I will not dwell further
upon them here. I want rather to look forward, and to consider what shall be the
programme which we should put before us.
As I have said already, our first duty is the Journal. It is the main organ of
classical archaeology in this country, and without it our scholars in this field of learn-
ing would be voiceless. I believe I am right in saying that there is no lack of
material to fill its pages. Our archaeologists have now returned from the war duties
which so many of them performed with such conspicuous success, and are getting
to work again with all the more zest because of their enforced abstinence. The
men (and the women too) are there, and are ready to work, if the material is
forthcoming.
That is the problem which we now have to solve. We shall not have restored
our pre-war standard until the machinery for archaeological field-work is again
in working order, and is again putting out its full quota of results. That is not
yet the case. It is only slowly that the regions affected by the war are becoming
once more open to the explorer and the excavator. Mesopotamia, in which valuable
work was done during the concluding stages of the war, has been closed for two years
through the unsettlement of the political situation. No work has been possible
during the past autumn and spring at Carchemish, which lies in the debatable
area between the French and the Angora Turks. On the other hand the Palestine
Exploration Fund has been able to begin work at Asculon, and the Egypt Explora-
tion Society at Tell-el-Amarna. But Asia Minor is still closed, pending some
settlement between the Greeks and the Turks, and labour difficulties, we are told,
prohibit the resumption of exploration in Crete. The British school at Athens
has got to work at Mycenae, and the results of the past season have been recounted
to us by Mr. Wace ; but we can hardly say yet that the School has resumed its full
XXV
activity. The supply of students, arrested by the war, is only beginning to flow
again, and it will necessarily take a year or two before we have the necessary numbers
of trained directors and enthusiastic learners. The same is the case with the School
at Rome.
This then is the ideal which we have to keep before us, and for the present
we must be content to record advance rather than achievement. Work has been
begun and projects put forward ; it is our duty now to see that the work begun
is maintained, and that projects are considered and brought to feasibility. Two
projects in particular may be mentioned. One relates to the site of Colophon.
In this neighbourhood the French are already proposing to work; but Mr. Wace,
recalling from the past a somewhat nebulous scheme of excavations there by the
British Museum, has put in a claim for leave to revive it, and has ascertained that
the French are quite willing to agree to a division of the area, which would leave
Old Colophon to us, while they would undertake New Colophon, or Notium. All
recognition is due to the courtesy of our French friends in this matter ; whether we
shall be able to take advantage of it is another question. So far as the Museum
is concerned, there are two rather serious fences to be surmounted. In the first
place it is doubtful whether any funds would be forthcoming ; for if the country
is ever to be relieved from a six-shilling income tax, the Civil Service Estimates
will have to be cut down rather drastically, and it may well be that little or nothing
will be forthcoming for such luxuries as excavations. And secondly there is some
obscurity as to the conditions under- which excavations would be made in the part
of Asia Minor which has been placed under Greek administration by the Treaty of
Sevres (if it is ever ratified). On this point I shall have something to say presently.
The other project which has been brought to our notice is a more ambitious
one. It is no less than the excavation of Constantinople. A high political and
diplomatic authority, and a good friend of art and the classics, has urged that
the time is opportune for the excavation of the Hippodrome of Constantinople,
the site where stood the famous monument of Plataea. In one sense the time is
indeed opportune for excavation at Constantinople ; for the extensive fires which
ravaged the city during the war have laid bare great areas which before were covered
with buildings. On the other hand, the political conditions are still so unsettled
that it might be very difficult to obtain authority for the work, even if we could
obtain the funds for so extensive and costly an undertaking. If the work is to be
done by any one, we have a good claim to priority, since a concession of the site
had been given before the war to Dr. van Millingen, who was anxious that England
should undertake it ; nor could there be any justification for international jealousies,
since there is room and to spare in Constantinople for all the countries that are
likely to want to work there. But finance and diplomacy stand as two li« is in
the path.
Now as to the desirability of our allied institutions, the Hellenic Society and
the British School at Athens (with or without the co-operation of the British
Museum) resuming active field-work, I do not think there can be two opinions.
Activity is the life-blood of a Society, and field-work is the basis of Archaeology.
The discovery of new material, the training of a new generation of workers must go
hand in hand with the study of the materials discovered. Each is essential to the
other, and healthy progress is only possible if both flourish. On the other hand,
the possibility of it, as I have said already, depends upon finance. But while the
desirability is admitted and the possibility doubtful, I should like to take this
opportunity to consider under what conditions archaeological work ought to be
regulated in regions such as those of which we are speaking.
The treaty of peace with Turkey imposes on that country the duty of abrogating
its existing Law of Antiquities, and of enacting a new law upon lines which are
laid down in a series of eight propositions. These propositions, which were drafted
by an international sub-committee, after consultation (so far as this country was
concerned) with the Joint Archaeological Committee, indicate what, in the opinion
of the Western Powers, shall be the principles of archaeological administration in
c
XXVI
the historic lands of the Near East. The Powers cannot, without stultifying them-
selves, lay down one set of principles for Asia Minor, and another for Syria, Palestine,
Egypt, and Mesopotamia. The essential conditions are in each case the s*ame.
In each case the inhabitants are either indifferent to antiquities altogether, or are
interested in them solely as a potential source of wealth. In each case the land
contains antiquities of the highest interest to those Western countries whose civil-
isation is based upon the civilisation of which they are the record. It is therefore
necessary, first, that the inhabitants should be enlisted on the side of the preserva-
tion and scientific investigation of these antiquities, and next that the scientific
investigation of them by trained Western archaeologists should be encouraged and
facilitated. These are the two principles which underlie the provisions of the
Treaty of Sevres ; and it is because British officials do not always appreciate them
and their implications that it appears desirable to take any opportunity that presents
itself to explain and enforce them.
First with regard to the inhabitants of the lands in which we desire to dig.
They have a material interest, which they fully appreciate, and a moral interest,
which for the most part they do not. Their material interest is to be allowed to
make as much money as they can out of the antiquities which their land contains,
just as if they were a crop which the land produced by nature. This interest is
best served by allowing free traffic in antiquities; by permitting foreigners to buy
any objects that are brought to light by the searches of the natives, and by encour-
aging foreign tourists and explorers to come and spend money freely in the country.
There is no question, and experience has amply proved it, that the interest of the
native, as he himself sees it, lies in the fullest freedom of traffic.
On the other hand the moral interest of the native lies in his education to take
a higher view of the records of the past history of his country. It is the duty of
every country which holds another in tutelage to educate it up to a higher apprecia-
tion of moral and intellectual values. The tutor country is bound to look forward
to a time when the pupil country will have reached a higher stage of development,
and to see that the heritage of its past is not destroyed meanwhile. When a people
arrives at years of discretion, it should not find that during its minority its guardian
has allowed it to be plundered of the possessions which it has too late learned to
prize. This is a consideration which tends to action in a direction exactly contrary
to that which has previously been put forward, and, if pressed to extremes, would
lead to the retention in the country of every object of antiquity which might come
to light in it. The moral and material interests of the country appear therefore
to be at odds with one another.
At this point, as another factor in the problem and as a contribution towards
solving the apparent antinomy, may be brought in the consideration of the interests
of countries other than the country of origin. A people that inhabits a given
area of the earth's surface is not merely the proprietor of the objects found therein;
it is a trustee for them in the interests of humanity, just in proportion as they
are of value for the well-being of humanity. It is not entitled to preserve solely
for its own use the goods of which it is the fortuitous possessor, although it is
entitled to make a profit out of them. The moral claim of foreign nations varies
according to the closeness with which the objects desired are associated with the
population which now inhabits the land in which they are found. If the Greek race
had been obliterated by a Mongol invasion, the claim of the Western nations which
derive their civilisation from ancient Greece to the possession of the antiquities
found in the soil of Greece would be much greater than that of the Mongol residents.
The claim of the modern inhabitants of Mesopotamia to an interest in the Moham-
medan antiquities of the country is very much greater than their claim to an interest
in the Symerian and Babylonian antiquities which throw light on the books of
the Pentateuch.
However this may be^it is clear that the Western nations have a very legitimate
interest in the antiquities of the Near and Middle East, both as elements in the
advance of knowledge in general, and particularly as monuments of the civilisation
XXV11
on which their own is based. It is plain, also, that their interest in connexion
with the administration of antiquities in the lands of which we are speaking lies,
first, in the preservation and scientific investigation of these antiquities, so that
no portion of their evidence or their significance may be lost ; and next in having
them placed where they can best be studied, and where they are accessible to the
largest number of persons who can profit by the sight and examination of them.
The vote of this interest would be in favour of the removal of antiquities from
the country of origin just in proportion to the inaccessibility of that country from
the centres of modern civilisation, and the absence of inhabitants capable of
studying them and making their value known to the civilised world.
We have therefore three forces to take into account in framing a just Law of
Antiquities in lands of archaeological importance : first, the material interests
of the country of origin; secondly, the moral (or intellectual) interests of the
country of origin; and, thirdly, the moral (or intellectual) interests of countries
other than the country of origin, which may be more compendiously described
as the advancement of knowledge. A settlement which ignores any of these claims
will be defective, and it is the business of archaeologists and official administrators
to endeavour to find a solution which will satisfy all of them to the fullest extent
possible.
I do not think that a satisfactory solution is hard to find, if only intelligence
and toleration could be presupposed among administrators and scholars. I believe
it is possible to satisfy both the interests of the country of origin and the interests
of other countries in the advancement of knowledge. But it seems necessary
to repeat what to many, if not all, here are almost truisms, because we know by
bitter experience that they are by no means always realised by those in whose
hands important decisions lie.
In the first place, there are certain solutions which should be ruled out at
once as incompatible with the principles which have been laid down. A law which
prohibits all export of antiquities is only defensible — if at all — in countries which
are able to make the fullest provision for their preservation, for their accessibility,
and for their study. The best example, perhaps, is Greece. Greece is well aware
of the moral, as well as the material, value of its antiquities; it makes good pro-
vision for their exploration and for their preservation ; it permits excavation
(though not exportation) by foreign scholars; and it is reasonably accessible to
the nations most vitally interested in the study of these antiquities. Nevertheless
I do not think it can be denied that the world would have been the sufferer if such
a law of exclusion had always existed and been enforced. Greece has been and
is the schoolmaster of the world because the products of its great age went Abroad
to Italy in the past and to Europe and America now; and although Greece may
at times lament over its vanished treasures, the name of Greece stands higher,
and even its political position is stronger, because the influence of its artistic genius
has been spread throughout the civilised world.
A policy of exclusiveness is bad for the world, and bad for the country which
practises it. How much does not Italy owe, in reputation and in the affection of
other peoples, to the fact that its pictures have been spread broadcast in Europe
and America ? On the other hand, the artistic reputation of England has suffered
because our artists are so poorly represented in the galleries of France and Italy.
Except in rare isolated instances, I do not grudge the migration of English pictures
to America ; not merely because America has a right to a share in England's past,
but because I believe that the increased appreciation of English art and literature
adds strength to the bonds which unite England and America. What is needed
is not exclusiveness, but an equitable balance between the claims of the mother
country and of other lands.
And if exclusiveness is a doubtful policy in the case of countries like Greece
and Italy, which possess trained scholars of unquestioned competence and educated
publics which fully appreciate their artistic treasures, it is wholly bad in the case
of less advanced countries. I enumerated just now three interests which have
XXV111
to be taken into account — the material interest of the country of origin, the moral
and intellectual interest of the country of origin, and the advancement of learning.
In the case of such countries as Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor,
two of these interests suffer by a policy of exclusion, and the third does not benefit.
The material interest of the country of origin suffers; and consequently one
invariably finds the natives, in whose interest the law of exclusion is supposed
to be enforced, using all their ingenuity to evade it, and joining hands with the
smuggler and the foreign agent against their own government. The interest of
the advancement of learning suffers, because scientific exploration is discouraged,
while smuggling, which obscures the history and significance of the objects found,
is encouraged. Finally, for the moral and intellectual interest of the country of
origin exclusiveness is not necessary, because there are in all these countries a
supply of antiquities amply sufficient to meet the needs of the country and at the
same time to supply a good representation of its art to lands outside.
It is very hard to get this truth into the minds of administrators who have
little knowledge of archaeology; and therefore I would ask the members of this
Society to use all their influence to spread the light, and to make it a matter of
common knowledge. Museum officials and excavators who preach this doctrine
are apt to be suspect, and to be regarded as plunderers who would cloak their
nefarious designs under a specious veil. It is those whose motives are recognisably
disinterested who can best convince the suspicious ; and when they have, as
members of this Society have, sufficient knowledge of the facts to support their
doctrine by concrete instances, their testimony will carry weight, and may event-
ually discredit the error which is so full of danger to archaeology and civilisation.
Another error which should be ruled out at the start is the delusion that a
Law of Antiquities works best by terrorism. It is a matter of common knowledge
that in the past, both in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, the law has tried to work
by penalties and prohibitions. One would be glad to think that this procedure
was wholly extinct now. Some penalties no doubt there must be ; but they should
be kept in the background. The consequences of terrorism are wholly bad. If
a native realises that the possession of an antiquity may lead him into trouble
unless he conforms to a procedure which he does not understand and which may
be inconvenient to follow, he will either hide what he has found or destroy it. If
he preserves it, he will expect a higher price for it to compensate him for the risk.
Either way, science suffers.
It is for this reason that the first of the principles laid down in the Annex
to article 421 of the Treaty of Sevres runs as follows : ' The law for the protection
of antiquities shall proceed by encouragement rather than by threat ' ; and this
is amplified by the provision that ' any person who, having discovered an antiquity,
reports the same to an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded
according to the value of the discovery.' If this provision (to which it is legitimate
to add the warning that ' any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or
damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty ') can be carried into effect and
become generally known, the interests of the native population will be enlisted
on the side of the preservation and notification of antiquities, and we may hope
that the sad tragedies which have been recorded in the past will not be repeated.
The first principle of a Law of Antiquities therefore is to secure the preserva-
tion and notification of objects found. The second is to encourage the finding of
them by scientific methods. And the third is to secure that they be so disposed
of as to satisfy the needs alike of the country of origin and of the advancement
of knowledge in general. The securing of these two latter principles depends on
the regulations which may be made to govern the distribution of the results of
excavation. This is a somewhat delicate matter, but it is of vital importance that
a clear understanding should be arrived at with regard to it by those who are
responsible for the areas in the Near and Middle East which are now under civilised
administration.
What is needed is to reconcile two conflicting interests. It is desirable that
XXIX
excavation by competent archaeologists should be encouraged; and it is right
that the country of origin should have first consideration in the disposal of the
objects discovered. If the excavator is allowed to take everything, the country
is denuded of the relics of its past history; and if the country of origin is too
grasping, foreign archaeologists and societies will not dig, except in those rare
instances where the honour and glory of discovery and publication are likely to
be sufficient compensation for their labour and expenditure.
The Treaty of Sevres does not undertake to lay down any very precise ruling.
It says merely that ' the proceeds of excavation may be divided between the
excavator and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department.
If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive a
fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.' The main principles are, however,
indicated : the right of the excavator to a part of the proceeds ; the right of the
Department representing the country of origin to determine what objects must
be retained for the local museum ; and the right of the excavator to be compensated
if the needs of the local museum leave him too small a residue.
In Egypt, for many years past, the working understanding has been that the
proceeds of excavation should, so far as possible, be divided equally between the
excavator and the Cairo Museum, the latter having the power to claim objects of
special importance for its collections, but being expected to see that the excavator
nevertheless receives an approximate half of the value of the total finds. This
understanding has worked satisfactorily on the whole, so far as so rough-and-
ready a rule can ; and I think it indicates a correct apportionment between the two
interests concerned. The museum is secured in the possession of the objects most,
needed by it ; and the excavator receives a sufficient share of the results of his
labour and expense to make it worth his while to undertake the work. Any
apportionment which departs widely from this proportion is likely to defeat its
own object ; for if the excavator does not receive enough to induce him to dig,
excavation will not take place (except surreptitiously, by the natives) and the
museum consequently will not benefit, while the cause of science will suffer. I
therefore regarded with some apprehension the draft ordinance of antiquities for
Palestine, which enacted that the local museum should first take all that it required,
and then that the residue should be divided equally between the museum and
the excavator. Unless the museum was very moderate in its initial claim, the
excavator would be likely to come off very indifferently under this regulation.
The ordinance has been the subject of discussion, and I hope it will be modified
so as to admit of an approximate half-and-half division, while preserving the right
of the museum to a first choice.
The Palestine ordinance is of special importance, because it is the first to be
drawn up for the territories recently liberated from Turkish rule, and is likely to
serve as a model for the others. It is therefore satisfactory that it has been based
upon, and in most respects conforms with, the recommendations of the Archaeo-
logical Joint Committee. The Committee, after consultation with the Director of
Antiquities at Jerusalem, has suggested certain modifications in details, and there
is reason to hope that they will be accepted. We trust that similar regulations
will be enacted by our French friends in Syria. With regard to Asia Minor, it is
impossible to speak with precision in the present indeterminate position of affairs.
It may, however, be presumed that part of it will remain under Turkish adminis-
tration, and possibly part under that of the Greeks. We are, I think, entitled to
hope that the area which may be placed under Greek administration will be treated
on the same principles as the areas which come by mandate under British or French
control. The doctrine of exclusive ownership, which Greece is entitled to apply
to the territory which belongs to it in full ownership, can hardly be claimed as
applicable to territories of which it is, in effect if not in name, the mandatory.
This brings me to the last principle to which it seems necessary to call attention
in connexion with the administration of antiquities. It is embodied in the final
words of Article 421 of the Treaty of Sevres :
XXX
' The Turkish Government undertakes to ensure the execution of this law on
a basis of perfect equality between all nations.'
In matters of archaeology, international jealousies should be ruled out. The
civilisations of the ancient world are the common heritage of the modern nations.
The fact that a European nation is administering a portion of Asia or Africa does not
give it the right to exclude members of other nations from all share in the work
of exploration or in the products of such exploration; and if any nation were to
claim such exclusive rights in the territories under its control, that should be a
sufficient reason for refusing to allow it the privilege of working in the areas con-
trolled by other nations. In Asia Minor, in Syria, in Palestine, in Mesopotamia,
in Persia, in Egypt, there should be a fair field and no favour, and similar Laws
of Antiquities should regulate exploration and excavation in each of them. So
far as I have had communications with the representatives of the other nations
concerned, I believe that this principle would be accepted by them; but it is
important that it should be laid down clearly at the outset, and put into force
without reserves or qualifications. We in this country, who have control in areas
so important as Palestine and Mesopotamia, have the opportunity of setting a
good example, and I trust and believe we shall make use of it. The only ground
on which the exclusion of the representatives of any country could be justified
would be if archaeological exploration were made a cloak for political designs ; and
this is only a particular case of the general principle that archaeology must not be
made the cat's-paw of politics. It has been so sometimes in the past. Let us do
what we can to guard against it in the future.
I have taken the opportunity given to me to-day to deal with principles of
international archaeology which concern all civilised nations. I would conclude
with a corollary which concerns ourselves alone. Our duty is not ended when we
have thrown open the gates for international activities in the areas committed
to our charge. It is likewise our duty to be foremost in undertaking such activities
ourselves. It would be a shame to us if we permit other nations to do all the work
in countries such as Palestine and Egypt and Mesopotamia, or if we failed to do our
share in the further exploration of Greek lands. The times are difficult for all work
which needs money, and our Government does not take the same view as other
European Governments of the value to a nation of such contributions to knowledge
and civilisation. All the more is it the duty of societies such as our own, on which
falls the representation of our country in these spheres of activity, to take up the
burden courageously, and to lose no opportunity of bringing home to others the
greatness of the need, and the high privilege of assisting to enlarge the heritage
of the past, and to increase the intellectual wealth of the human race.
After a question from Mr. N. H. Baynes on the archaeological
position in Rhodes the proceedings terminated.
•
XXXI
.
- oo N e
r*
ti *** H
M
. -
:
o
"**
w O O
*^*
•
M
.
-TNT :
<^ ^
- t
s
„
pi
•
«> o> *
f
M
0
^J
f^l GO ON •
IT) M M I
•H OO ^
•
S
«««} w> tx
tx '
-
S^ £
-
• •
-
>~
r
|
S
II
-
•
^H*
•tt
M
0 ; :
0
*0
-'
= 1
o'
P*
C
tv O
o\
M
—
—
rr> 0
M
.
M
e
ft
j
i
1
I
05
3
05
4
:
j
g
•o
c
g
1
-^
~
U
1
U]
=
i
W
o
8
•
- -
-
\
[
Q
—
» "2
— c
C rt
0
w
II
d
N
i
i
:1
1
1
o
H
_t/j
"e
2
c «
1 e
°
* rt
j
•
-
|
r
o"
£
C
£ -2 8
.« t; c
- o"
1-8
«n
25
c!
•k
|
h
j
u
*y O ^^
•t
j
-
o ^ o
' S . ^3 *—
M
•a "3
pq
J
. =
JANUARY i
Ics. including
Per M.I. null, i
u ^ o
1 ll
s 3«
0.
'S
JANUARY
V) C/5
1 =
"S.
'S 5
8
>, TO DECEM
^
k
j
]
i
j
:
n
j
-
i
I
i
i
S
•
&
Q
05
M
d
!•
o
^,
M
x
2*
$
s
at
PQ
fe
«
M
PC
1
OUNT
•w c
c
tx N O (
z
»
-e« ^
•w •* >n ro o <
' 1
O
8
4 s
.
^
•> tx o «O
-.
0
*o 0 '^ ^x ON ^
A
1- <^
- -
H
f
i
"*
<
s, 2
-. -
!/•
i N «x ^- j
•) N tx -f
-
: w
*-*? f ITJ M ON »
-
^-n-
-
-
h
3
*
5
M
^ »_.
o «
Q
N
I
>*
C/3
C
ri' X
S
»* OS
"^J
W
HH
ta
S
05
5
bj
H
X
g
(/3
H
p
0
>— i
2
Q
0
z
•fl
C
o
2
i
Q
8
W
*
5
t*
05
X
o
t/3
is
05
Ib
M
<j -^
CQ
' JOURNAL O:
P
.
1
"j
n
U
and Engraving
ind Reviews
Addressing, and Carria
LANTERN SLID:
id Photographs for Sale
ir Hire
aphs for Reference Colh
to Income and Expend
•
-
as
Q
|
=
*
1
f.
1
E
III
111]
i
I
J
1
o
:
'
£
1
B Sk S 3S
H " - -
K
XXX11
-«' -"'l
^00
o
• MO o O CO Ix
0
0 0
OOOO O"-1 "^D
to C^ ^
CO
o o* o o
M IH
N O* O O O
O if t»» O O^OO 'Oil
M M IH 1
M
M M
co
00 M NO
w 1/1
ooo :
1 ^ ^ M 00 O I
CO
>-^ n u-> ir> M
oo •<»•
c/l w W
N N 1
^
^j O w M O O
0 0
5»'
v» O O ^*O
vO O
IH IH
: .cr
m co >oo
^* if OO (S M
c
«
> N
1 CO
U
IH N
• <u
o'
H
W
H IH
, .^
: c
: : '
•i
o>
9
—•
: "
5 O
i '""
'. '. •«->
: en
M
0)
: j
5 2
•g.is
: "o
en : PH
il
co
V
9 •
: 9
H O
•^ i-2
I O
• x>
&
W
jj
• •
n£S
rt • m
>> : JD
!(S
c l:al •«
1
: C
B
|
."d
• M MB
:«-3
q ; o
« :«
i >2
5 V «J 4) CLi
i 8
P
o
H
O*
N
»H
•H
|
J
f Members' Subscriptions —
Arrears
1920
Members' Entrance Fees
Libraries' Subscriptions —
a
3 o
- rt
1 ~
* M
Life Compositions brought
Dividends on Investments ...
Interest on Deposit Account
Contributed towards Rent by
at Athens and British Scho
use of Society 's room
Rent of room occupied by the
logical Institute
Rent received from Lady
Glass Fund
, Contributed by the Society
of Roman Studies — •
Rent
Use of Library
Donation from Greek Govern
Sale of Aristophanes. Code:
' Sale of 'Excavations at Phyl;
Balance from Lantern Slid
graphs Account
Balance to War Emergency
[CY FUND
3y Balance brought forward ...
deceived during year (for list of
*""*
m
- "
-
"
^ ^
g
h—t HH
0
C
g
PH
(I
-4M 5!
• M M
O
J
^J O O •<*••«»• ^ O 00 TJ-
o o w
o
If) ^
(1
<^oo •*
CO
52
co 1/1 vO C^ M ^"00 O*
O
O C^ coO "">
M
^
)H M
w
h
1 IH
•--oo
CO
0
i/1 vO O OO CO
*i- o> oo
o i <^ 5 ^
CO
o\
O
vo O ^ M O^ co
o oo
u~
N
«^
M *^
^rt
c
5 CO M
H
N
•^
tj 000
o o
H?
J
^ o 1/1 M
O 0
IH
p
vo O O O
Tf Tf C>
82
M
"c
c
^•^
8
i
: 2
IH
rt
en ;
Q
PH
m
• .Q
"3
X
; g
X3
IH
M
••S
• «
3
•4-J
C/5
en
g
3
Q
z
I
h
be
'S
en
C 0
^4)
-
rt
0
•3
0)
a
3
C
i
i "io
eu
s3<
3
R
W
«MC
IH S C
$ il
en • 3
0
*> O
§<M
—
•o
^
o u 2
iU
o
Q
c
8
?l|
S
8
"o .
^rt
CO
#
•
B
fc
c u r2
g
CM
i -
be
1
li
u
o
*j
C/5
8
c
J "S ^
• c
-^-
hj!"1
*4H
^^
• JH
j0
O
•4
<3 In S-^
en
' "c i
en
S £
c
ju B £? O
• -r
1-3 (I
I "C *
P P*
.2
en C J2 C
fli •* ^^. *H
: PH en" S , v3 ^ C *{
45 >, § ** E 1 o o o '3
w
V 4)
0 o
C C
'C IH 'CJ 2
r;"— "
j 'J
< C
5 3 <
) IH
ct 42
"^* «* 3 ^ '^
P^C/3 flScfl
1 3*
Putyj
"s
O
««
'«
rQ rQ
o .
o - - - :
, - -
J
•
" ;
I
H -
H -
XXX111
•w 60
II
o
O O 0 v
3
m
M M
»•
**
•o M W
fl
•> o
•<r o «
*">
0
O *O
*-rt NO tx
« N
4
1
j
*•
^s^ - c
* «*>
0
„
H
/_
*** M M
M O
^*j
f^ O
z
V-jOO O> M ,3" 9
^00 M •*• 00 t^
"*• 2
in o
. a
° I?
M
*4 M
pt
1
i
H
M
Assets.
n Hand — Bank
Assistant Treasurer
Petty Cash
Receivable
tments (Life Compositions)
„ (Endowment Fund)
Reserved against Depreciation
eency Fund — Total Expended ....
itions of Stocks of Publications ....
„ Library
nses ' Strabo ' carried forward
r in hand for printing Journal
^ .
— ' •
o *
«•
1
8
1
|
i Si
3
o
W
C3 Q
^ (^
> W
Cu
1
7
w
[2 S 5 S
C
Q
'I
«
U)
S
. -y 0 0
O
• c
o
M
w
M
^
• «•>
9
• tx O 00
^ M M
oo
M
)i
ii
I <*•>
CO
v^.% O W O^
f
\i
I V)
m
8
3
e
e
X
5
<
5 0
o o
^ M
•J
•^
<
7> in
M- 0
o •*
M
S
«>
C
M
5 fO
N 0
<n oo
^
•H?
«
3 o^
Jj"
vO
1
i4
M
4J g "O
U
rt ® 5
^
•d
^•^ S-4
V
1
•S 8 M
9
3 O
2 ^ N -^ c*
S 0 T3 N 5
i
•3
V
J*
5 1 2* s
o
X
s s> *°
q s ^S51: ^
1 i^*!
•5
§
1
1!
"S"2
C eft
rt co
M V V
- & •£
x y e
•O -rt ^ •< 4) "2
'§, 3 S 0 5 §
Received
ions and
M C
s'§
rt -o
ll
V 0
C Jj
1*
<J u
£^
0 S
rt rt 5
•— > ^ P
*• *•
rt g rt
u O v
U u U
C — C
rt o ij y o ••-• >,
air 1
111 i
Q c^ W
Furniture)
Total
Life Composit
Is
** s
^
3 §
5 8
3
, Surplus Bala
Add Balance
Surplus Bala
O - « :
J
H ' "
XX XIV
INCREASED SUBSCRIPTIONS
As a result of the information communicated last year the following
members have increased their annual subscriptions
Abercromby, Lord McKenzie, Rev. H. W.
Anastasiadi, P. Macmillan, George A.
Barge, Mrs. M. Mavrogordato, J. J.
Baring, Thos. Millingen, Mrs. A. van
Beck, Horace C. Minet, Miss Julia
Bell, Edward Orpen, Rev. T. H.
Berry, James Petrocochino, D. P.
Bevan, E. R. Richter, Miss Gisela
Churchill, E. L. Ridley, The Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Cookson, C. Robinson, W. S.
Corning, Prof. H. K. Rotton, Sir J. F.
Courtauld, Miss S. R. Seager, R. B.
Dickson, A. G. M. Seebohm, 'Hugh
Dobie, M. R. Seligmann, Prof. C. G.
Eumorfopoulos, N. Shewan, Alexander, M.A., LL.D.
Fleeming-Jenkin, Mrs. Tarn, W. W.
Ford, P. J. Ure, Prof. P. N.
Gidney, A. R. Vellenoweth, Miss
Greene, H. W. Vlasto, Michael P.
Hogarth, Miss M. I. Walston, Sir Charles
Kipling, Mrs. Ward, W. Henry
Lamb, Miss W. Wood, J. R.
Laurie, G. E. Woodhouse, Prof. W. J.
Lindsell, Miss Alice Woodward, A. M.
Lloyd, Miss M. E. H. Wynne-Finch, Miss Helen
Maclver, D. Randall Wyse, W.
DONATIONS
The following have sent donations to help the Society through the financial
crisis caused by the War.
1920
I s. d. I s. d.
Anderson, James ... i i o Henn, The Hon. Mrs i 10 o
Baker -Penoyre, Miss i i o Holro yd, Michael ... ... 1515 o
Barr, Mark ... ... ... 500 Jones, T. E. ... ... ... 10 o
Booth, His Hon. Judge ... 220 Kenion, T. D 500
Buckler, Miss L. R i i o Lethaby, Prof. W. R i i o
Buckler, W. H 100 o o Low, Miss Janet 1 500
Buren, Mrs. Van 330 Maclver, D. Randall 10 o o
Caton, Richard, M.D i i o Murray, Miss S. W 220
Chitty, Rev. G. F. ... ... i i o Myers, Ernest ... ...• ... 2 2 o
Courtauld, Miss S. R. ... ... 5 5 o Oldham, J. B. S. ... ... i o o
Cripps, Reginald 4 4 o Ormerod, H. A. i i o
Davies, John i i o Rose, Prof. H. J. i i o
Esdaile, Mrs. A. 10 6 Sharpe, Miss C 500
Eumorfopoulos, N i o o Swallow, Canon R. D i i o
Hazzidaki, Dr. J. ... • ... i o o Walters, W. H 10 6
The following additions have been made to the permanent Endowment Fund.
1920
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Berry, James ... ... i i o Pope, Mrs. G. H. v 500
Lamb, Miss W. ... ... 10 o o Scott, G. F. ... ... ... i i o
The Council consider this permanent Endowment Fund of the greatest
importance to the Society, and would welcome further donations to it.
XXXV
EIGHTEENTH LIST OF
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
ADDED TO THE
LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY
SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE CATALOGUE.
1920—1921
With this list are incorporated books belonging to the Society for the
Promotion of Roman Studies. These are distinguished by B.8.
NOTE.— The supply of the original Catalogues (1903) is now ex-
hausted, but copies may be had on loan. The accession lists can
still be purchased on application.
Adai. See Liturgy of Adai arid Mari.
Adams (L. E. W.) A study in the commerce of Latium [Smith.
Coll. Class. Stud. 2.]
9x6. Northampton, Mass. 1921.
Aeschylus. Eschyle I. Les suppliantes— Les Perses— Lea sept centre
Thebes — Prometb.ee enchaine. Ed. and transl. P. Mazon.
[Assn. Guillaume Bude.] 8 X 5J. Paris. 1920.
Aeschylus. The Oresteia. Agamemnon, Choephori, Eumenides :
the Greek text as arranged for performance at Cambridge
with an English verse translation by R. C. Trevelyan.
7J X 5. Cambridge. 1920.
Aldenhoven (C.) Gesammelte Aufsaetze herausgegeben von Dr.
A. Lindner. 9J X 6|. Leipsic. N.D.
Allbutt (T. C.) Greek Medicine in Rome.
9 X 5J. 1921.
Allen (T. W.) The Homeric catalogue of ships edited with a com-
mentary. 9x6. Oxford. 1921.
Allison (R.) Translations into English verse mainly from the Greek
anthology. 7 X 5$. 1921.
Alt (A.) Griechische Inschriften der Palaestina Tertia. See Denk-
malschutz Kommandos.
American Numismatic Society. American Journal of Numismatics.
From vol. 45 (1911).
11x8$. New York. In Progrt**.
Numismatic Notes and Monographs. From No. 1 (1920).
6J X 4J. New York. In Progre**.
R.s. = the property of the Roman Society.
XXXVI
Andreades (A.) De la population de Constantinople sous les em-
pereurs byzantines. 9 X 6£. S. L. 1920.
*••• Id. Another copy.
*•»• Antiquaries Journal, The. From Vol. 1 (1921).
10 X 6J. In Progress.
Antiquaries, Society Of. A short account of some particulars con-
cerning Domesday Book.
A short account of Danegeld.
An account of the copper table discovered, 1732, near
Heraclea. By P. C. Webb.
The Latin inscription on the copper table. By J. Pettingal.
A dissertation upon the Tascia. By J. Pettingal.
[Five dissertations, 9x8, 1756-73, bound together.]
Apelt (0.) Translator. See Diogenes Laertius.
ApiciUS. Apici Caeli de re coquinaria libri decem. Edited by C. T.
Schuch. 8 X 5J. Heidelberg. 1867.
Aristotle. Atheniensium Respublica. Ed. F. G. Kenyon. [Script
Class. Bibl. Oxon.] 7f x 5J. Oxford. 1921.
Aristotle. Oeconomica : Atheniensium Respublica. Translated into
English by E. S. Forster. 9 X 5f. Oxford. 1920.
Aristotle. Politica. Translated by B. Jowett.
9 X 5|. Oxford. 1921.
Aristotle. Aristoteles tiber die Dichtkunst (German translation by
A. Gudeman). 1\ X 5. Leipsic. 1921.
Athens. Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, Vol. II. By S. Casson.
With a section upon the terra-cottas, by D. Brooke.
1\ X 5. Cambridge. 1921.
EJ. Id. Another copy.
Aufhauser (J. B.) Das Drachenwunder des Heiligen Georg in der
griechischen und lateinischen Ueberlieferung. [Byzant.
Archiv. 5.] 10 X 6|. Leipzig. 1911.
AureliUS (M.) Map*ou 'AvroviVou AvroKpardpos TU>V eis eaurov /8i/?A.ia i/?".
5| X 3J. Glasgow. 1744.
«j Avramow (V.) La voie de Trajan du Danube jusqu'a Philippopoli.
(In Bulgarian, with French precis.)
10J X 7£. Sophia. 1915.
Baalbek. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den
Jahren 1898 bis 1905. Herausgegeben von T. Wiegand.
Vol. I. By B. Schulz and H. Winnefeld and others. Text
and Plates. 14 X 11. Berlin and Leipzig. 1921.
Bachmann (W.) Petra. See Denkmalschutz Kommandos.
Bauer (A.) Lukians Ar/juosfoVovs 'EyK<o/uov.
9x6. Paderborn. 1914.
Bent (J. T.) See Hakluyt Society.
EJ Bericht der romisch-germanischen Kommission. [Deutsches
Archaolog. Institut] From Vol. I. (1904).
11 X 7£. Frankfurt. In Progress.
Berlin, Archaeological Institute. Geschichte des deutschen Archao-
logischen Instituts, 1829-1879. 9x7. Berlin. 1879.
Berlin, Royal Museums. Aegyptische Urkunden aus d. K. Museen :
Griechische Urkunden, Vols. I.-IV.
12£ X 11. Berlin. 1894-1912.
B.s.=the property of the Roman Society.
XXXV11
Berlin, Royal Museums. Insdiriften von Priene. Heratugegeben
von F. F. Miller von Gaertringen.
13 J x 10. Berlin. 1906.
Biblica. Oommentarii edit! a Pontificio Institute Biblico. From
Vol. I. 1920. 10 X 6$. Rome. In Progress.
Bieber (M.) Die Denkmaler zum Theaterwesen im Altertum.
11 X 81 . Berlin and Leipzig. 1920.
Blackman (A. M.) The rock tombs of Meir. See Egypt, Archae-
logical Survey. 24th Memoir.
Blackman (A. M.) Les temples immerges de la Nubie. Temple of
Bigeh. See Cairo, Supplementary Publications.
Bohn (R.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Institute, Supp.
publ., No. 2.
Boissonade (J. F.) Editor. See Poetae Graeci gnomici.
Boston. Museum of Fine Arts, 1870-1920.
9x6. Boston. 1920.
Bouchier (E. S.) A short history of Antioch, 300 B.C.-A.D. 1268.
7f x 5. Oxford. 1921.
Braeunlich, A. F. The Indicative Indirect question in Latin.
9£ x 6$. Chicago. 1920.
Brehier (L.) Sculpture Byzantine : — Etudes. [Nouvelles Archives,
No. 3.] 9J X 6£. Paris. 1913.
Bre*hier (L.) Sculpture Byzantine : — Nouvelles recherches. [Nou-
velles Archives, No. 9.] 9J X 6£. Paris. 1913.
Brenot (A.) Recherches sur 1'Ephebie attique. [Bibl. de 1'Ecole
des Hautes Eludes, 229.] 10 X 6|. Paris. 1920.
Brooke (D.) See Athens, Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum.
Brusa. Catalogue des Sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines
du Musee de Brousse. 10 X 6$. Athens. 1908.
Buletinul Comisiuni Monumentelor Islorice. From Vol. I.
(1908). 12J x 9£. Bucharest. In Progress.
Bulletin de la Societe Archeologique Bulgare. [In Bulgarian with
short precis of the articles in French.] From Vol. IV.
(1914). 10£ X 7f Sophia. In Progress.
Bums (C. Delisle). Greek ideals, a study of social life. 2nd ed.
7± x 5±. 1919.
Butler (H. E.) Translator. See Quintilian.
Bywater, I. See Jackson, W. W.
Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbiicher. From Vol. I. (1920).
9$ X 6. Berlin. In Progress.
Cagnat (R.) and Chapot (V.) Manuel d'Arche'ologie Romaine. II.
9 X 5}. Paris. 1920.
Cairo. Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du
Caire. Manuscrits Coptes by H. Munier.
13J X 10. Cairo. 1916.
Naos. By G. Roeder. 13 j X 10. Leipzig. 1914.
Royal Mummies. By G. Elliot Smith.
13| X 10. Cairo. 1912.
Cairo. Supplementary publications of the Service d»-s Antiquites.
Les temples immerges de la Nubie. Temple of Bigeh,
par A. M. Blackman. 13J X 10. Cairo. 1915.
R.s. = the property of the Roman Society.
xxxvm
Temple de Kalabchah, par H. Gauthier. Pt. III.
13| X 10. Cairo. 1914.
Cartault (A.) Editor and translator. See Persius.
Casson (S.) See Athens Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum.
Cauer (P.) Grundfragen der Homerkritik. 9£ X 6. Leipzig. 1921.
Chapot (V.) See Cagnat (R.).
Cicero. Ciceron. Discours I. Pour P. Quinctius, Pour Sex. Roscius
d'Amerie, Pour Q. Roscius le comedien. Ed. and trans.,
H. de la Ville de Mirmont [Assn. Guillaume Bude.]
8 X 5±. Paris. 1921.
Cichorius (C.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Institute,
Supp. publ., No. 4.
Constantinople. Musees imperiaux Ottomans. Catalogue des Sculp-
tures grecques, romaines et byzantines. By G. Mendel.
Vol. II. lOf x 7J. Constantinople. 1914.
Constantinople. Publicationen der Kaiserlich Osmanischen Museen.
I. Zwei babylonische antiken aus Nippur. By E. linger.
II. Reliefstele Adadniraris III aus Saba'a und Semiramis.
By E. Unger.
III. Die Stele des Bel-Harran-Beli-Ussur, ein Denkmal der
Zeit Salmanassars IV. By E. Unger.
IV. Die beiden ' Sasanidischen ' Drachenreliefs (Grund-
lagen zur Seldschukischen Skulptur). By H. Gliick.
V. Die Reliefs Tiglatpilesars III aus Nimrud. By
E. Unger. 9£ X 6|. Constantinople. 1916-17.
Katalog der Babylonischen und Assyrischen Sammlung
III. By E. Unger.
9£ X 6£. Constantinople. 1918.
Conze (A.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts, Supp.
publ., No. 9.
Core 11 (J.) See Hakluyt Society.
Croiset (M.) Editor and translator. See Plato.
Cyprus. Annual Report of the Curator of Antiquities, 1914, 1915,
1916. 9£ X 7. Nicosia. 1916-17.
Dallam (T.) See Hakluyt Society.
Delehaye (H.) Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum graecorum
Monasterii S. Salvatoris nunc Bibliothecae Universi-
tatis Messanensis.
Catalogus codicura hagiographicorum graecorum biblio-
thecae D. Marci Venetiarum.
Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum graecorum biblio-
thecae comitis de Leicester Holkhamiae in Anglia.
Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum graecorum regii
monasterii Scorialensis.
[Extracted from the Analecta Bollandiana.]
10 X 6J. Brussels. 1904-9.
Delehaye (H.) Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice
Sirmondiano. [Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum 1902, Nov.]
16 \ X 11. Brussels. 1902.
DenkmalsChutz-KommandOS, Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen
des deutsch-tiirkischen
B. S. = the property of the Roman Society.
XXXIX
1. Sinai. By Th. Wiegand.
2. Die griechischen Inschriften der Palaestina Tertia
westlich der 'Araba. By A. Alt.
3. Petra. By W. Bachmann, C. Watzinger and
Th. Wiegand.
4. Damaskus die antike stadt. By C. Watzinger
and K. Wulzinger.
13J X 10$. Berlin. In Progrest.
*•*• Devizes. Catalogue of the Antiquities in the Museum at Devizes.
2 Parts. 8vo. Devizes. 1896-1911.
Diest (W. VOn). See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts,
Supp. publ., No. 10.
Diogenes Laertius Leben und Meinungen beriihmter Philosophen.
tlberetzt und erlautert von 0. Apelt. 2 vols.
7$ X 4}. Leipzig. 1921.
»J< Dodd (P. W.) and Woodward (A. M.) Excavations at Slack, 1913-
1915. [Yorkshire Arch. Journ., 26.] 9£ x 6$. N. D.
Doerpfeld, (W). Die Bestattung der Toten bei Homer.
9£ x 6J. Munich and Leipzig. 1917.
Doerpfeld, ( W.) Leukas. Zwei Aufsatze tiber das homerische Ithaka.
9* X 6J. Athens. 1905.
Doerpfeld, (W.) Sechs Brief e uber Leukas-lthaka.
9 X 6$. 1905-11.
Donovan (J.) Theory of Advanced Greek Prose Composition with
digest of Greek Idioms. Part I. Syntax and Idiom of
. the subordinate clause. Functions and equivalents of the
parts of speech. 8£ X 5£. Oxford. 1921.
Drerup (E.) Homerische Poetik. Vol. I. Das Homerproblem in
der Gegenwart. Vol. III. Die Rhapsodien der Odyssee,
von F. Sturmer. 9£ X 6£. Wurzburg. 1921.
Drerup (E.) Kulturwerte des Humanismus. [Werbeschr. des
humanist. Gym. in Bayern, I.]
9x6. Wurzburg. 1921.
Ebersolt (J.) Mission Archeologique de Constantinople.
10 X 6f Paris. 1921.
Ebersolt (J.) Rapport sommaire sur une mission a Constantinople
(1910). [Nouvelles Archives, 3.]
9J x 6$. Paris. 1911.
Ebersolt (J.) Sanctuaires de Byzance. 10 X 6$. Paris. 1921.
Egypt, Archaeological Survey of. 24th Memoir. The rock tombs of
Meir. Pt. III. The tomb-chapel of Ukh-Hotp, son of
Ukh-Hotp and Mersi. By A. M. Blackman.
12* X 10. 1915.
Egypt Exploration Society. 37th Memoir. Balabish. By G. A.
Wainwright. 12J X 10. 1920.
Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, 1889-90. By W. Flinders
Petrie, with chapters by A. H. Sayce, E. L. Hicks,
J. Mahaffy, F. LI. Griffith, and F. C. J. Fletcher.
12 X 10$. 1891.
Kahun, Gurob and Hawara. By W. M. Flinders Petrie,
with chapters by F. LI. Griffith and P. E. Newborn-.
12 X 10$. 1890.
ms. = the property of the Roman Society.
xl
Naqada and Ballas, 1895. By W. M. Flinders Petrie,
J. E. Quibell and F. C. J. Spurrell.
12 x 10J. 1896.
Tell el Amarna. By W. M. Flinders Petrie, with chapters
by A. H. Sayce, F. LI. Griffith, and F. C. J.
Spurrell. 12 X 10J. 1894.
Ehrenberg (V.) Die Rechtsidee im friihen Griechentum.
9£ X 6£. Leipzig. 1921.
Endres (H.) Die offiziellen Grundlagen der Alexanderuberlieferung
und das Werk des Ptolemaus.
8* X 5|. Wurzburg. 1913.
'E«£?7//.€pis 'ApxeuoAoyiKT?. Text and Atlas of plates.
Text ll| X 8J. Plates 15£ X 13£. Athens. 1837-1841.
EpictetUS. La traduction fran£aise du Manuel d'epictete d' Andre
de Rivaudeau. 10 X 6£. Paris. 1914.
Emout (A.) Editor and, translator. See Lucretius.
Forsdyke (E. J.) Some arrow-heads from the battle field of Mara-
thon. [Proc. Soc. Antiqu., 1920.]
9 X 5£. 1920.
Forster (E. S.) Translator. See Aristotle.
Foucher, (A.) See India, Arch. Survey of.
Fowler (H. N.) Translator. See Plato.
Frazer (J. G.). Ancient stories of a great flood. [Huxley Mem.
Lecture, 1916.] 11 X 7|. 1917.
Frazer (J. G.) Studies in Greek scenery, legend and history.
7J x 4|. 1919.
E.S. Fronto (M. C.) Correspondence with M. A. Antoninus, L. Verus,
Antoninus Pius, and various friends. Vol. II. Ed. and
transl. C. R. Haines. [Loeb Class. Lib.] 6| X 4£. 1920.
Fuehrer (J.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts,
Supp. publ., No. 7.
Gagkos (M.) See loannides (S.).
Gauthier (H.) Les temples immerges de la Nubie. Temple of
Kalabchah. See Cairo, Supplementary Publications.
Gerkan (A. von). See Milet.
Glueck (H.) See Constantinople, Publicationen der Kaiserlich
Osmanischen Museen.
Godley, (A. D.) Translator. See Herodotus.
Gomme (A. W.) Mr. Wells as historian : an inquiry into those parts
of Mr. H. G. Wells' Outlines of History which deal with
Greece and Rome. 9 X 5£. Glasgow. 1921.
Greece. A handbook of Greece, Vol. I. The mainland of Old Greece
and certain neighbouring islands. [N.I.D., Naval Staff,
Admiralty.]
?i X 5J. 1921.
Greenfield (W.) The polymicrian Greek lexicon of the New Testa-
ment. 4x3. 1831.
Gregorii Nysseni Contra Eunomium Libri. Pt. I. Books I. and II.
Ed. V. Jaeger. 9£ X 6. Berlin. 1921.
Grenfell (B. P.) The present position of papyrology. [Bull. John
Rylands Library, VI.] lOf X 6|. 1921.
n.s.=the property of the Roman Society.
xli
Griffith (F. LI.) Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, 1889-90.
Kahun, Gurob and Hawara.
Tell el Amarna. See Egypt Exploration Society
Gudeman (A.) Translator. See Aristotle.
Gummere (R. M.). Translator. See Seneca
H. B. See Ince.
" Hadzsits (G. D.) Going to church in ancient Rome. [Univ. of
Pennsylvania Faculty Lectures, 7.]
9X6. Pennsylvania. 1921.
Halm (J. G. V.) Reise von Belgrad nach Salonik.
10 x 6f . Vienna. 1868.
Haines (C. R.) Editor and translator. See Fronto.
Hakluyt Society. Early voyages and travels in the Levant.
The diary of Master Thomas Dallam, 1599-1600.
Extracts from the diary of Dr. John Covell, 1670-1679.
Edited by J. T. Bent. 9x6. 1893.
Halliday (W. R.) Memorial note on F. W. Hasluck. [Folk-lore,
31 (*)•] 8| x 5|. 1920.
Hambldge (J.) Dynamic Symmetry : the Greek vase.
11 X 8$. Newhaven (Conn.). 1920.
Hamilton (J. A.) The Church of Kaisariani in Attica. [Trans, of
Scottish Arch. Soc.]. 11 J x 8|. Aberdeen. 1916.
Hargreaves (H.) See India, Arch. Survey of.
Harrison (J. E.) Epilegomena to the study of Greek religion.
8£ X5£. Cambridge. 1921.
Heath (T. L.) Greek Mathematics and Science. [Leeds meeting of
Class. Ass., etc.] 8J x 5J. Cambridge. 1921.
Heisenberg (A.) , Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologen-
zeit. [Sitzbr. der Bayer. Akad., Philos-philolog. Kl., 1920,
Abh. 10.] 9 x5f. Munich. 1920.
Heitland (W. E.) Agricola. A study of agriculture and rustic life
in the Graeco-Roman world from the point of view of
labour. 10 x 6|. Cambridge. 1921.
B4- Id. Another copy.
Herodotus. Books I. and II. With an English translation by
A. D. Godley. [Loeb Class. Lib.]
6f X 4$. London. 1921.
Hesiod. 'Ho-ioSou 'Ao-^at'ov Imj. Ed. C. H. Weise.
5J X 3$. Leipsic. 1844.
Hicks (E. L.) Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, 1889-90. See Egypt
Exploration Society.
Killer V. Gaertringen (F. F.) Aus der Belagerung von Rhodes 304 v.
Chr. [Sitzungsber. d. K. Preus. Akad. d. Wissenschaften
(1918), 36.] 10 x 7. Berlin. 1918.
Killer von Gaertringen (F. F.) See Berlin, Royal Museums, In-
scriften von Priene.
HippolytllS. Philosophumena. See Origen.
Hoffmann (W.) Das literarische Portrat Alexanders des Grossen
im griechischen und romischon Altrrturn.
9x6. Leipsic. 1907.
Homer. Iliad, Book XXI. Ed. A. C. Price.
7 X 4}. Cambridge. 1921.
R.s. = thc property of the Roman Society.
xlii
Homer. The Homeric catalogue of ships. See Allen (T. W.).
Humann (C.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts,
Supp. publ., No. 4.
Humann (K.) und Puchstein (0.) Reisen in Kleinasien und Nord-
syrien. Text and Plates.
Text 11£ x 8. Plates 17 X 13. Berlin. 1890.
Ince. An account of the statues, busts, bas-reliefs, cinerary urns,
and other ancient marbles, and paintings, at Ince. Col-
lected by H. B. 10J X 8. Liverpool. 1803.
India, Archaeological Survey of. Vol. X. South Indian Inscriptions
(continued). By V. Venkayya. 13 X 10. Madras. 1913.
By H. Krishna Sastri. 13 x 10. Madras. 1917.
Vol. XXIX. South Indian Inscriptions (continued). By
H. Krishna Sastri. 13f x 10. Madras. 1920.
Vol. XXXIX. Coorg Inscriptions. By B. Lewis Rice.
13 x 10. Madras. 1914.
Vol. XLI. Tile-Mosaics of the Lahore fort. By J. Ph.
Vogel. 13£ X 9|. Calcutta. 1920.
Notes on the Ancient Geography of Gandhara. By A.
Foucher. Translated by H. Hargreaves.
13 X 10J. Calcutta. 1915.
loannides (S.) and Gagkos (M.) Sa^ia^ No/xo0e'<na.
8£ X 5|. Samos. 1875.
[Irvine (J.)] Catalogue of a fine old collection of impressions of
engraved gems. 8£ X 5£. N. D.
Isaacs (W. H.) See Paul, second epistle to the Corinthians.
Jackson (W. W.) Ingram By water: the memoir of an Oxford
scholar, 1840-1914. 9x6.. Oxford. 1917.
Jaeger (F. M.) Lectures on the principle of symmetry and its
application in all natural sciences.
9| X 6£. Amsterdam. 1917.
Jaeger (V.) Editor. See Gregorii Nysseni libri.
Jaeger (W.) Humanismus und Jugendbildung.
8£ X 5£. Berlin. 1921.
Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts Supp. publi-
cations.
1. Die Calenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre 354.
By J. Strzygowski. 11 X 8£. Berlin. 1888.
2. Altertumer von Aegae. By C. Schuchhardt and R.
Bohn. 11 X 8J. Berlin. 1889.
3. Die Villa des Hadrian bei Tivoli. By H. Winnefeld.
11 X 8J. Berlin. 1895.
4. Altertumer von Hierapolis. By C. Humann, C. Cichorius,
W. Judeich, F. Winter. 11 x 8J. Berlin. 1898.
5. Gordion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Jahre, 1900.
By G. and A. Korte. Appendix by R. Kobert.
11 X 8£. Berlin. 1904.
6. Antikes Zaubergerat aus Pergamon. By R. Wiinsch.
11 X 8£. Berlin. 1905.
7. Die altchristlichen Grabstatten Siziliens. By J. Fiihrer
and. V. Schultze. 11 x 8£. Berlin. 1907.
8. Die calenische Reliefkeramik. By R. Pagenstecher
11 x 8£. Berlin. 1909.
xliii
9. Mamurt Kaleh. Bin Tempel der Gottermutter unweit
Pergamon. By A. Conze and P. Schazmann.
11 X 8|. Berlin. 1911.
10. Nysa ad Maeandrum. By W. v. Diett
11 X 8|. Berlin. 1913.
James (H. R.) Our Hellenic Heritage. Vol. I. (1) The great epics.
(2) The struggle with Persia.
7J x 5. London. 1921.
Jenkins (R. C.) Heraldry, English and foreign : with a dictionary
of heraldic terms. 6j x 4j. 1886.
Johnston (G. H.) Corfu. [The Queen, June 14th, 1919.] (Single
sheet-) 16 X 10$. 1919.
Jouguet (P.) See Lille, Papyrus grecs.
Journal Of Hellenic Studies. Supplementary Publications.
1. Excavations at Megalopolis (1890-1891). By E. A.
Gardner, W. Loring, G. C. Richards, and W. J. Wood-
house, with an architectural description by R. W.
Schultz. Folio. London. 1892.
2. Ecclesiastical sites in Isauria (Cilicia Trachea). By
A. C. Headlam. Folio. London. 1893.
3. Plans and drawings of Athenian buildings. By the
late J. H. Middleton. Edited by E. A. Gardner.
8vo. London. 1900.
4. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos. By T. D, Atkinson,
R. C. Bosanquet, C. C. Edgar, A. J. Evans, D. G.
Hogarth, D. Mackenzie, C. Smith and F. B. Welch.
8vo. London. 1904.
Jowett (B.) Translator. See Aristotle.
Judeich (W.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Institute,
Supp. publ., No. 4.
Keith (A. B.) Professor Ridgeway's theory of the origin of the
Indian drama. 8| x 5f . N. D.
Kenyon (F. G.) Editor. See Aristotle.
Ker (W. C. A.) Translator. See Martial.
Kinch (K. F.) Le tombeau de Niausta, tombeau Macedonien
[Acad. Roy. de Danemark, 7i6me Se>. Sect, des Lettres.
4 (3).] 8J X 10$. Copenhagen. 1920.
Klio. Supplementary publications.
7. Funde aus Naukratis. By H. Prinz. ,
11 J x 7$. Leipsic. 1908.
9. Spatromische und byzantinische Zttnfte. By A. Stoeckle.
11J x 1\. Leipsic. 1911.
10. Senatores Romani qui fuerint inde a Vespasiano usque
ad Traiani exitum. By B. Stech.
11 J X 7J. Leipsic. 1912.
11. Die einheimischen Namen der Lykier. By J. Sund
wall. 11 i X i\. Leipsic. 1913.
12. Der Feldzug des Xerxes. By E. Obst.
11 J X 7J. Leipsic. 1913.
Kluge (Th.) Studien zur vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft der
Kaukasischen Sprachen. II. : Die lykischen Insoriften.
[Mitt. d. Vorderasiat. Gesell. 1910, 1.]
9} x 6|. Leipsic. 1910.
xliv
Kobert (R.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Institute,
i ) Supp. publ., No. 5.
Kohl (R.) De scholasticarum declamationum argumentis ex historia
petitis. 9x6. Paderborn. 1915.
Kdrte (G. and A.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts
Supp. publ., No. 5.
Krumbacher (A.) Die stimmbildung der Redner im Altertum bis
auf die zeit Quintilians. [Rhetorische Studien, 10.]
9x6. Paderborn. 1921.
Langlotz (E.) Zur Zeitbestimmungen der strengrotfigurigen vasen-
malerei und der gleichzeitigen Plastik.
9£ X 6£. Leipzig. 1920.
Lantier (R.) El santuario Iberico de Castellar de Santisteban.
[Com. de investig. paleontol. y prehist., 15.]
lOf x 7f . Madrid. 1917.
Legge F. Translator. See Origen.
Leopold (E. F.) Editor. See Tertullian.
Lille. Papyrus grecs. Publics sous la direction de P. Jouguet.
Vol. I. [Inst. papyrol. de 1'Univ. de Lille.]
11 X 9. Paris. 1907.
Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari.
12£ X 9|. London. 1893.
Lloyd (W. A.) Address delivered to the Anglo-Hellenic League in
the Central Hall, Liverpool, Jan. 8th, 1920.
7f X 5J. 1920.
Loewy (E.) MS. classified catalogue of collection of casts in Rome.
11 X 9. 1903.
R.S Lucretius. Lucrece. De la nature. Ed. and trans. A. Ernout.
[Assn. Guillaume Bude.] 2 vols. 8 X 5J. Paris. 1920.
Ludovici (A. M.) Man's descent from the gods, or the complete
case against prohibition. 9x6. 1921.
BJ. Macdonald (G.) F. Haverfield, 1860-1919. [Proceedings of the
British Academy. Vol. IX.] 9| X 6J. N. D.
Macedonia. A handbook of Macedonia and surrounding territories.
[N.I.D. Naval Staff, Admiralty.] 7£.X 5J. 1921.
Mahaffy (J.) Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, 1889-90. See Egypt
Exploration Society.
Malta. Annual Report of the Curator of the Valetta Museum for the
financial year 1912-13. 12| x 8J. Malta. 1913-14.
Mari. See Lifurgy of Adai and Mari.
B.S Martial. Epigrams, II. With an English translation by W. C. A. Ker.
[Loeb Class. Lib.] 6| X 4£. London. 1920.
Mayer (J.) Der Bildungswert des humanistischen Gymnasiums
und die Notwendigkeit der humanistischen Bildung.
[Werbeschr. des humanist. Gym. in Bayern, 2.]
9x6. Wiirzburg. 1921.
Mazon (P.) Editor and translator. See Aeschylus.
Meillet (A.) Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. [Coll.
Ling. publ. par Soc. Ling, de Paris, 8.]
10 X 6J. Paris. 1921.
Melida (J. R.) El amfiteatro Romano de Merida.
9£ X 6|. Madrid. 1919.
R.s.=the property of the Roman Society.
xlv
Melida (J. R.) Museo arqueologico na9ional di Madrid, adqui-
seciones en 1916, 1917, 1918.
9J x 6f . Madrid. 1917-19.
Mendel (G.) See Constantinople, Musees imperiaux Ottomans.
Milet (Miletus) Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und UntereuchunMO
seit dem Jahre 1899. Ed. Th. Wiegand. II. Hft. 1.
Das Stadion. By A. von Gerkan.
13J X 10$. Berlin and Leipsic. 1921.
Miller, W. Essays on the Latin Orient.
9f x 6$. Cambridge. 1921.
Milliet (Recueil) Textes grecs et latins relatifs a 1'histoire de la
peinture ancienne, publics, traduits et commented par A.
Reinach. 10 x 6$. Paris. 1921.
Mirone (S.) Mirone d'Eleutere. 9£ x 6|. Catania. 1921.
Montgomery (M.) " Cursed Hebona " as Guaiacum officinal* (or
Lignum vitae) in Shakespeare's Hamlet, I. v. 62. [Proc.
Royal Soc. of Medicine.] 10 X 7. London. 1921.
Munich. Fuehrer durch die Glyptothek Koenig Ludwigs I. in
Muenchen. By P. Wolters. 7J X 5. Munich. 1921.
Munier (H.) Manuscrits Coptes. See Cairo, Catalogue general.
Myres (J. L.) The Dodecanese. [Geograph. Journ., LVI. 5, 6.]
9£ X 6. 1920.
Navarre (0.) Editor and translator. See Theophrastus.
Newberry (P. E.) Kahun, Gurob and Hawara. See Egypt Ex-
ploration Society.
Nilsson (M. P.) Olympen : en framstallning av den Klassiska
mytologien. Vol. I. 10 X 7. Stockholm. N. D.
Notiziario archeologico del Ministero delle Colonie. Vols. I., II.
Pts. 1, 2. [Monografie e Rapporti coloniali.]
12| x 9. Rome. 1915-16.
Obermaier (H.) El dolmen de Matarrubilla (Sevilla). [Com. de
investig. paleontol. y prehist., 26.]
lOf x 8. Madrid. 1919.
Obermaier (H.) Vacimento prehistoric© de las Carolines (Madrid).
[Com. de investig. paleontol. y prehist., 16.]
lOf X 7|. Madrid. 1917.
Obermaier (H.) and Wemert (P.) Las pinturas rupestres del bar-
ranco de Valtorta (Castellon. [Com. de investig. paleontol.
y prehist., 23.] 11 X 8. Madrid. 1919.
Obst (E.) See Klio, Supp. Publ., No. 12.
Olympia. Le Musee d'Olympie : Catalogue illustre. By C. Courou-
niotis. 7x5. Athens. 1909.
[Origen] Philosophumena, or the refutation of all the heresies formerly
attributed to Origen but now to Hippolytus. Trans, by
F. Legge. 2 vols.
1\ x 5. London and New York. 1921.
. Pachterre (F. G. de) La table hypothecate de Veleia. [Bibl. de
1'ecole d. hautes Et., 228.] 9| X 6f Paris. li»20. •
Pagenstecher (R.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts,
Supp. publ., No. 8.
, G. I. 2u^/3oAtu </« -njv Itrropiav T»/S Trap' rjpiv iKK\r)ffi-
/iov<ruc^?. 9x6. Athens. 1890.
R.s. = the property of tho Roman So
xlvi
Paribeni, R. Le terme di Diocleziano e il museo nazionale Romano.
1\ X 5. Rome. 1920.
E.S. Passmore (A. D.) Roman Wanborough, Wilts. 8£ x 5£. 1921.
Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. A study in translations
and an interpretation. By W. H. Isaacs.
10 J X 7£. Oxford. 1921.
Perrin (B.) Translator. See Plutarch.
B.S. PersiUS. Perse. Satires. Ed. and trans. A. Cartault. [Assn. Guil-
laume Bude.] 8 X 5J. Paris. 1920.
Petrie (W. M. Flinders) Illahun, Kahun and Gurob.
Kahun, Gurob and Hawara.
Naqada and Ballas, 1895.
Tell el Amarna. See Egypt Exploration Society.
Pettingal (J.) See Antiquaries, Society of.
Phokylides. See Poetae Graeci gnomici.
Plato. Platon, (Euvres Completes I. Introduction — Hippias Mineur
— Alcibiade — Apologie de Socrate — Euthyphron — Criton.
Ed. and trans. M. Croiset. [Assn. Guillaume Bude.]
8 x 5J. Paris. 1920.
Plato. Theaetetus — Sophist. With an English translation by H. N.
Fowler. [Loeb Class. Lib.] 6f X 4£. London. 1921.
Plutarch. Lives. Demetrius and Antony : Pyrrhus and Caius Marius.
With an English translation by B. Perrin. [Loeb Class.
Lib.] 6| X 4£. London. 1920.
Poetae Graeci gnomici. Theognis, Tyrtaeus, Solon, Simonides,
Pythagoras, Phokylides, etc. Ed. by J. Boissonade.
4f x 3J. Paris. 1823.
Poseidonios. See Reinhardt.
Poulsen (F.) Ikonographische Miscellen.
9£ X 6. Copenhagen. 1921.
Praschniker (C.) Muzakhia und Malakastra, Archaologische Unter-
suchungen in Mittel Albanien. [Oest. Arch. Inst.]
ll| X 8J. Vienna. 1920.
Preisigke (F.) Griechische Papyrus der Universitats — und Landes
-bibliothek zu Strassburg. Vol. II.
12 J x 9|. Leipzig. 1920.
Price (A. C.) Editor. See Homer.
Priene. See Berlin, Royal Museums.
Prinz (H.) See Klio, Supp. Publ., No. 7.
R.S. Pro Alesia. I.-V. Supplements 1-6. 10 X 6£. Paris. 1906-14.
New series, I.-V. 10 X 6£. Paris. 1915-19.
Puchstein (0.) See Humann (K.). Reisen in Kleinasien.
Quibell (J. E.) Naqada and Ballas, 1895. See Egypt Exploration
Society.
s-s- Quintilian. Institutio oratoria. I.-III. With an English transla-
tion by H. E. Butler. [Loeb Class. Lib.]
6| X 4£. London. 1921.
Rassegna Italiana di lingue e letteratura classiche. From Vol. I.
(1918.) 10 X 7. Naples. In Progress.
Recueil Milliet. See Milliet (Recueil).
Reinach (A.) Editor and translator. See Milliet (Recueil).
Reinhardt, H. Poseidonios. 9£ X 6£. Munich. 1921.
K.S. = the property of the Roman Society.
xlvii
Reitzenstein (R.) Das iranische Erlosungsmysterium. [Religions-
geschichtliche Untersuchungen.] 9 X 6J. Bonn. 1921.
BJ. Id. Another copy.
RhoadeS (J.) Translator. See Virgil.
Rice (B. L.) See India, Archaeological Survey of.
Richardson (R.) Vacation days in Greece. 8J x 5j. 1908.
Rivaudeau (A. de) Translator. See Epictetus.
Rolfe, J. C. Translator. See Sallust.
EJ SallUSt. With an English translation by J. C. Rolfe. [Loeb Class.
Lib.] 6| X 4f London. 1921.
Salonius (A. H.) De dialectis Epirotarum, Arcananum, Aetolorum,
Aenianum, Phthiotarum. 9 x 5f. Helsingfors. 1911.
Salonius (A. H.) Varia de origine et sermone tabularum Dodonae
effossarum. 8J x 5f. Helsingfore. 1915.
RJ Salonius (A. H.) Vitae Patrum. Kritische untersuchungen iiber
text, Syntax und Wortschatz der spatlateinischen Vitae
Patrum (B. III., V., VI., VII).
9$ x 7. Lund. 1920.
Salonius (A. H.) Zur lateinischen Komparation.
9J x 6|. N. D.
Sandys (J. E.) A History of Classical Scholarship from the Sixth
Century B.C. to the end of the Middle Ages. In three
volumes. Vol. I. Third edition.
7J x 5|. Cambridge. 1921.
EJ. Id. Another copy.
San Francisco. La Science fra^aise a 1'exposition de San Fran-
cisco. 2 vols. 8J x 5|. Paris. 1915.
Sastri (H. Krishna) See India, Archaeological Survey of.
Sayce (A. H.) Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, 1889-90. "
Tell el Amarna. See Egypt Exploration Society.
Schazmann (P.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Institute,
Supp. publ., No. 9.
Schneider (E.) De Pompei Trogi historiarum philippicarum consilio
et arte. 9J X 6J. Weida, Thuringia. -1913.
Schuch (C. T.) Editor. See Apicius.
Schuchhardt (C.) See Jahrbuch des Kais. deutech. archaol. Institut .
Supp. publ., No. 2.
Schultze (V.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutech. archaol. Institute,
Supp. publ., No. 7.
Schulz (B.) See Baalbek.
Schwab (M.) Mission de Philologie en Grece. [Nouvelles Archives,
10.] 9J X 6$. Paris. 1913.
Schwab (T.) Alexander Numeniu vtpl (r^fMartav in seinem Verhaltnis
zu Kaikilios, Tiberios und seinen spateren Benutzern [Rhet.
Stud., 5.] 9x6. Paderborn. 1916.
Science Francaise. See San Francisco.
*••• Seneca. Ad Lucilium Epiatulao Morales. II. With an English
translation by R. M. Gummere. [Loeb Class. Lib.]
6} x 4J. 1920.
Seta (A. della.) Museo di Villa Giulia. 6J X 5. K<>m.~. 1918.
Simonides. See Poetae Graeci gnomici.
Smith (C. F.) Translator. See Thucydides.
R.s. = thc property of the Roman S«>;-i'-t> .
xlviii
Smith (F. D.) Athenian Political Commissions.
9£ x 6£. Chicago. 1920.
Smith (G. Elliot.) Royal Mummies. See Cairo, Catalogue General.
Smyth (W. H.) Addenda to the Aedes Hartwellianae.
12 x 10. 1864.
Solon. See Poetae Graecae gnomici.
Speltz (A.) The Styles of Ornament. From prehistoric times to the
middle of the nineteenth century. Revised and edited by
R. Phene Spiers. 10 X 7J. New York. 1910.
Spiers (R. P.) See Speltz (A.). Styles of Ornament.
Spurrell (F. C. J.) Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, 1889-90.
Naqada and Ballas, 1895.
Tell el Amarna. See Egypt Exploration Society.
Staehlin-Erlangen (0.) Christentum und Antike. [Werbeschr. des
humanist. Gym. in Bayern., No. 3.]
9x6. Wurzburg. 1921.
Stail (G.) Ueber die pseudoxenophontische A0HNAIQN 11OAITEIA.
[Rhet. Stud., 9.] 9| x5|. Paderborn. 1920.
Steph (B.) See Klio, Supp. Publ., No. 10.
Stein (A.) Romische Reichsbeamte der Provinz Thracia.
9x6. Sarajevo. 1920.
Stoekle (A.) See Klio, Supp. Publ., No. 9.
Stoop (E. de.) Het Antisemitisme te Byzantium onder Basilius den
Macedonier. 8| X 5£. Ghent. 1913.
StrzygOWSki (J.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts,
Supp. publ., No. 1.
StudniCZka (F.) Kalamis. Ein Beitrag zur griechischen Kunstges-
chichte. 11J X 7f. Leipzig. 1907.
Stuermer (F.) See Drerup (E.). Homerische Poetik.
Sundwall (J.) Zur deutung Kretischer Tontafelchen. [Acta
Academiae Abeensis humaniora, II.]
9| x 6£. Abo. 1920.
Sundwall (J.) See Klio, Supp. Publ., No. 11.
Svoronos (J. N.) Paris, cite Protohellenique. [L'Acropole, I. 3.]
10 X 6J. Athens. 1921.
Tertullian. Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera, ad optimorum libro-
rum fidem expressa. curante E. F. Leopold. 4 vols. in 2.
7£ X 5. Leipsic 1841.
Theognis. See Poetae Graeci gnomici.
Theophrastus. Theophraste Caracteres. Edit, and translat. 0.
Navarre. [Assn. Guillaume Bude.]
8 X 5J. Paris. 1920.
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, Books III. and IV.
With an English translation by C. F. Smith. [Loeb Class.
Lib.] 6| X 4£. London. 1920.
Toynbee (A. J.) The tragedy of Greece. [A lecture delivered at
Oxford in May 1920.] 7J X 5J. Oxford. 1921.
Tozer (H. F.) Researches in the Highlands of Turkey. 2 vols.
8 X 5J. 1869.
Trevelyan (R. C.). Translator. See Aeschylus. Oresteia.
TrogUS (P.) See Schneider (E.).
Tyrtaeus. See Poetae Graeci gnomici.
R.s.=the property of the Roman Society.
xlix
Unger (E.) See Constantinople, Publicationen der Kais.-rlich Ostna-
niscben Museen.
Van Buren (E. D.) Figurative terra-cotta revetments in Etruria
and Lit in m in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.
10J X 7$. London. 1921.
BJ. Id. Another copy.
Yen Kayya (V.) See India, Archaeological Survey of.
Ville de Mirmont (H. de la.) Editor and translator. See Cicero.
BJ. Virgil. Translated into English verse by J. Rhoades.
6 X 3f. Oxford. 1921.
Vives y Escudero (A.) Estudio di arqueologica cartaginesa : la
necropoli de Ibiza. lOf x 7$. Madrid. 1917.
Vogel (J. Ph.) Tile mosaics of the Lahore fort. See India, Archaeo-
logical Survey of.
Volonakis (M.) Saint Sophia and Constantinople.
9$ x 6. 1920.
Wackernagel (J.) Vorlesungen ueber Syntax, mit besonderer
Beriicksechtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutech.
First series. 9£ X 6J. Basel. 1920.
Wainwright (G. A.) Balabish. See Egypt Exploration Society.
37th Memoir.
Walker (E. M.) Greek history, its problems and its meaning.
6 X 4J. Oxford. 1921.
Watzinger (C.) Petra. Damaskus. See Denkmalschutz Kommandos.
Webb (P. C.) See Antiquaries, Society of.
[Weber (H.)] Catalogue of the collection of Greek, Roman and
Egyptian antiquities formed by the late Sir Hermann
Weber. 9J x 7|. 1919.
Wehberg (H.) Wider den Aufruf der 93.
9| X 6£. Charlottenburg. 1920.
Weise (C. H.) Editor. See Hesiod.
Wemert (P.) See Obermaier (H.).
Whitaker (J. I. S.) Motya, a Phoenician colony in Sicily.
10 X 6J. London. 1921.
BJ Another copy.
Wiegand (Th.) See Baalbek.
Wiegand (Th.) Sinai. Petra. See Denkmalschutz Kommandos.
Wilhelm (A.) Attische Urkunden. Pts. I., II. [Sitzber. d. K.
Akad. d. Wissensch. in Wien.]
9J X 6J. Wien. 1911, 1916.
Wilhelm (A.) Bin Brief Antiochos' III. [Phil. hist. Kl. Akad. Wien,
1920, No. 17-27.] 9| X 6. Vienna. 1921.
Wilhelm (A.) Iphiades von Abydos u. Archonides von Herbita.
[Phil-hist. Kl., Akad. Wien, 1911, No. 14.]
9f X 6. Vienna. 1911.
Wilhelm (A.) Neue Beitrage zur griechischen Inschrifts Kunde.
4 pts. [Sitzber. d. K. Akad. d. Wissensrh. in Wien.]
9J X 6|. Wien. 1911-1915.
Winnefeld (H.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Institute,
Supp. publ., No. 3.
Winnefeld (H.) See Baalbek.
H.s. = tho property of the Roman Society.
1
Winter (F.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts,
Supp. publ., No. 4.
Wolters (P.) See Munich.
Woodward (A. M.) Excavations at Slack. See Dodd (P. W.).
Woolley (C. L.) MS. copies and sketches of inscriptions at Kedos
and Ak-Chalan. 8x6. [Copied during the war.]
Wuensch (R.) See Jahrbuch d. Kais. deutsch. archaol. Instituts
Supp. publ., No. 6.
Wuerthle (P.) Die Monodie des Michael Psellos auf den Einsturz
der Hagia Sophia. 9x6. Paderborn. 1917.
Wulzinger (K.) Damaskus. See Denkmalschutz Kommandos.
Zeitschrift flir Bildende Kunst. August 1919. [Articles on the
protection of works of art during war. By P. Clemen,-
H. Dragendorff, G. Karo, Th. Wiegand and F. Sarre.]
13J x 10J. Leipzig. 1919.
Zuazo (J.) Meca : noticia de algunos descubrimientos arqueologicos
en Montealegre (Albacete). lOf X 1\. Madrid. 1916.
SEVENTH LIST OF
ACCESSIONS TO THE CATALOGUE OF SLIDES
IN THE JOINT COLLECTION OF THE SOCIETIES FOR
THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC AND ROMAN STUDIES
PUBLISHED IX VOL. XXXIII. OF THE JOURNAL OF HELLENIC STUDIES,
AND ISSUED WITH VOL. III. OF THE JOURNAL OF ROMAN STUDIES.
(Subsequent accessions are published annually.)
Copies of this Accession List may be had, price 4rf.
The slides prefixed with the letter B are the property of the Roman Society.
TOPOGRAPHY
EXCAVATIONS AND MONUMENTS IN SITU.
THE EAST.
7102 Amritsar, the Golden Temple of the Sikhs.
7103 Hindu Kush mountains, view in
7186 Kashmir, view on the Canal of Sweet Waters.
B 735 Baalbek, Acropolis, plan.
B 727 „ „ general view.
B 734 „ Temple of Jupiter, general view.
B 724 „ ,. .. .. columns on S. side.
B 720 „ „ „ .. id., nearer view.
B 722 „ „ „ „ forecourt.
B 731 „ „ .. „ great court.
B 723 „ „ „ „ id., exedra.
B 728 „ „ „ „ id., retaining wall.
B 726 „ „ „ „ court of the altar.
B 732 „ „ „ ., upper court, approach.
B 730 „ „ „ „ id., entrance.
B 736 „ Temple of Bacchus from S.\V.
B 725 ,. „ ,, portal with view into cella.
B 737 „ .. „ interior, north wall.
B 733 „ fallen block of cima.
B 729 „ The spring.
44(58 Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives.
lii
ASIA MINOR.
C 73 Ephesus, the theatre, general view.
4675 Pergamon, the theatre, general view looking towards the sea.
4498 Ayazeen, Phrygian rock tomb. Lions flanking an obelisk (J.H.S., 1882. pi. xvii.).
B9883
1099
1097
109S
B9881
7118
B9882
2801
C 201
C 202
C 71
C 203
C 204
C 205
C 206
C 207
B8333
6194
B8335
B8782
B8783
B8781
B8784
B8785
B8787
B8788
B8790
B8791
B8792
B8789
B8786
B 703
B 755
B 758
B 676
B 707
B 760
B 759
B 593
B 597
B 598
B 599
B 715
B 704
EGYPT, etc.
Alexandria, ' Column of Diocletian.'
Gyrene, plan of the Terme (Notiziario Archedogico, II. pi. 1 and 2).
„ N. slope of the Acropolis (id., I. p. 118, fig. 57).
„ Fountain of Apollo (id., I. p. 119, flg. 58).
Esneh, Capitals of columns : Roman period.
Giza, desert scene near.
Philae, Temple of Trajan.
MISCELLANEA TOPOGRAPHICA.
Kimolos, general view of the town.
Athens, Parthenon, E. end from above : beyond, Lykabettos.
„ „ the N.W. angle from within.
Epidaurus, general view looking down and across the theatre to the plain.
Phigaleia (Bassae), the temple from the N. distant view.
„ „ id., nearer view,
„ „ one of the colonnades.
,, ,, interior looking S.
„ ,, the E. wall from inside.
Agrigentum (Girgenti), view of Acropolis : fallen 'Atlas' in foreground.
Selinus, plan of the ruins (Benndorf, Selinus, pi. 13, fig. 6).
Taormina, the theatre, general view with Etna in distance.
ROME.
View illustrating the history of the Forum.
The Forum about 1490 (Huelsen, Roman Forum, 2nd ed., 1909, fig. 8).
„ ,, in 1536, seen from the Capitoline (in front, SS. Sergio e Bacco), (id., fig. 10).
,, ,, Temple of Romulus, Basilica of Constantine, about 1550 (id., fig. 125).
„ in 1575 (id., fig. 11).
The Arch of Severus in 1594 (id., fig. 35).
„ „ in 1650, seen from the Capitol (id., fig. 9).
,, „ in 1650, seen from the Arch of Titus (id., fig. 13).
„ in 1824 (id., fig. 15).
„ in 1871 (id., fig. 16).
„ in 1881 (id., fig. 17).
The Sacra Via in 1750 (id., fig. 127).
S. Maria Liberatrice and the Farnese Gardens in 1750 (id., fig. 90).
Demolition of S. Maria Liberatrice, 1902.
Plan of the region outside the Arch of Sept. Severus.
Forum, view from Capitol. «
„ ,, „ Palatine.
„ and Capitol from the ' Penus Vestae.'
„ central portion, looking towards Capitol.
„ temple of Castor in centre.
Comitium, supposed ' wolf pedestal ' inscribed by Maxentius.
Basilica Aemilia (1899), Ist-century plaque and 5th-century base.
„ „ (1900), columns of Africano marble and 3rd-century wall.
„ „ (1900), pavement of Africano marble.
„ '„ Bank and houses above.
„ „ houses now destroyed.
liii
B 615
B 70(5
B 592
B 705
B 706
B 672
B 511
B 596
B 763
B 513
B 595
B 762
B 711
B 712
B 710
B 757
B 764
B 761
B 713
B 674
B 675
B 708
B 765
B8337
B 512
B 673
B 767
B 756
B 518
B 740
B 739
B 738
Lapis niger, pedestal of lion, inscribed stela and cone, 1899.
,, ,, cippus below
Curia, facade of (S. Adriano), with Christian locvli.
Fons Jutnrnae.
Regia, entrance looking \V., Sacrarium of Mars, within.
Temple of Vesta, drawing of podium (cf. Platner, Topography, p. 201, fig. 34).
, capital found near, showing emblems of Magna Mater (1900).
Atrium Vestae(1902).
„ ,. lower portion of a goddess, probably Cybele.
„ „ path between Regia and Atrium Vestae.
„ „ Apsidal Chamber, perhaps 'Penus Vestae.'
Temple of Faustina.
Sepulcretum from cornice of the Temple of Faustina.
Basilica Maxentii.
„ „ region in front of.
Via Sacra.
., „ and Arch of Titus.
„ „ excavations, 1903.
Capitol, approach from W.
Forum of Nerva (Amelung and Holtzinger, II. fig. 37).
Palatine, altar of the 'Wandering Voice.'
Column of Marcus Aurelius.
Quirinal and S. Trinita from Pincio.
Janiculum, plan of the three superimposed temples in the Lucus Furrinae.
Via Flaminia, pietra pertusa 1898.
Via Praenestina : Ponte di Nona.
Aqua Claudia and Anio novus, section and elevation.
Anio Vetus, Ponte della Mole di S. Gregorio.
ITALY OTHER THAN ROME.
B8330 Assisi, view of the churches and the plain.
B8331 Avernus, Monte Nuovo and Ischia : Panorama from Camaldoli.
B8332 Calascibetta, view from Enna.
B8334 Naples and Vesuvius.
B 742 Ostia, view of Tiber.
B 743 ,, shrine of emperors in barracks of vigiles.
B 744 „ so-called Imperial Palace.
B 768 Ravenna, Tomb of Theodoric.
B 746 Terracina, platform of Temple of Jupiter.
B 745 Tivoli, upper terrace-wall of villa near Regresso (P.B.S.R., iii. pi. xvii. fig. 34).
ROMAN EMPIRE.
B 751 Map of the Roman Empire (after Kiepert).
B9152 „ „ „ „ „ in the time of Valentinian I, A.D. 364-375.
B9153 „ „ Europe in A.D. 451.
B9154 „ „ „ at the beginning of the reign of Theodoric in Italy, A.n. 493.
B 701 Timgad : plan of Forum.
B 576 Badenweiler, plan of baths.
B 570 Cologne, Roman gate, plan and elevation.
B :>7'.i Heddernheim, plan of Mithreum.
liv
B 571 Igel, Igelsaiile.
B 567 Regensburg (Ratisbon), Porta Praetoria.
B 577 Saalburg, reconstruction of Romerkastell, after Jacobi.
B 572 Trier, comparative plans of imperial palace and Hadrian's villa, Tivoli.
B 575 „ plan of baths, after Hettner.
B 585 „ plan of Porta Nigra, ground and first floors.
B9151 Map of Gaul at the time of Attila's invasion, A.D. 451.
B 687 Alesia, section across line of Caesar's circumvallation.
B 697 ,, remains of Gallo-Roman dwelling.
B 695 „ from Mussy over Plaine des Laumes, Montagne de Flavigny on R.
B 696 „ remains of Mandubian dwelling.
B 698 ,, remains of Gallo-Roman dwelling.
B 700 „ remains of Gallo-Roman public buildings.
B 566 Orange, Roman theatre, interior.
B 574 Vienne, Temple of Augustus and Livia.
B 752 Map of England and Wales under the Romans.
B 753 „ „ Military Britain.
B 754 Cromhall, plan of the Roman Villa.
PREHELLENIC.
2567 Anthropomorphic vases from 'the Troad (Rayet and Collignon, fig. 8).
2774 Vase, with exaggerated neck, from the settlement at Zerelia (B.S.A., 14, p. 208, fig. 10).
2758 Late Mycenaean vases from Gonnos (Tempe).
C 501 Minoan bearded head of stag's-horn, from Crete, front view (J.H.S., 40, pi. 6, o).
C 502 „ „ „ „ „ „ back view (J.H.S., 40, p. 174, fig. 1).
C 503 „ „ „ „ „ „ profile (J.H.S., 40, pi. 6, 6).
C 60 Ivory Minoan statuette of a snake-goddess, Boston Museum (A.J.A., 1915, pi. 10).
C 61 Head of above (id., pi. 13).
C 62 Ivory helmeted head, from Mycenae (Eph. Arch., 1888, pi. 8).
C 64 Faience rhyta (human and animal heads) from Enkomi (Hall, Aeg. Arch., pi. 22).
C 81 Minoan bronze statuette, male figure, three views, B.M. (J.H.S., 41).
C 82 id., upper portion, compared with the ' cup-bearer ' fresco from Knossos.
C 83 Minoan bronze statuette, woman praying ( 1), two views (Hall, Aeg. Arch., pi. 19).
C 84 Minoan bronze statuette, male figure, two views (Hall, Aeg. Arch., p. 68, fig. 14).
C 65 Parts of a gold sceptre ( 1) (Schliemann, Myk., p. 287, Nos. 451, 452).
C 66 Parts of a bronze and silver sceptre ( 1) (Tsountas and Manatt, fig. 64, drawing).
C 67 Sceptres ( 1) silver plated with gold (Schliemann, Myc., p. 201, Nos. 309, 310).
C 68 Rock crystal knobs, possibly sceptre handles (Schliemann, Myc., p. 200, Nos. 307, 308).
C 69 Decorated gold cylinder, possibly part of sceptre (Schliemann, Myc., p. 251, No. 366).
C 70 Silver cup with gold heads inlaid, from Mycenae (Eph. Arch, 1888, pi. 7).
C 85 A tribute bearer, outline drawing from the tomb of Rekhmara at Thebes.
C 63 Painted terra-cotta head of a sphinx, from Mycenae (Eph. Arch.).
INSCRIPTIONS.
B1636 Co4ehester, Roman altar dedicated to the Sulevian Mothers.
B6391 Peak, (Yorks), late Roman inscription (J.R.S., II. p. 210, fig. 31).
B 678 Rome, dedicatory inscription of Basilica lulia to Lucius, grandson of Augustus.
B 589 „ Second-century altar to Keraunian divinities and Nymphae Furrinae, on the
Janiculum (cf. Acad. des Inscr. et Belles-LMres, 1907).
B 590 „ id. Another view.
B 591 „ Inscribed part of fountain dedicated by Gaiones (2nd century), Janiculum.
Iv
PAPYRI.
0 122 Writing materials of the ancients (Schubart, A'i'n/. in d. Papyrtukund*. fig*. 12-14).
0 124 Papyrus plant growing in Kew Gardens.
C 120 Sample of prepared papyrus (end column of Tiraotheos, Pertae).
C 121 Papyrus roll, open and sealed, letters sealed (Schubart, Kinf. in d. Papyriukundt
figs. 3-11).
0 117 Sarcophagus with three groups of figures holding books both closed and open, Vatican
(Birt, Die Buchrolle in d. Kunst, fig. 41).
0 116 Relief of four scribes holding rolls, Florence (Birt, Die Buchrolle in d. Knn.it, fig. 13).
0 118 Attic grave relief, a boy reading (Birt, Die Buchrolle in d. Kunst, fig. 90).
C 123 A reader in his library, relief on sarcophagus, Villa Balestra, Rome (Clark, Care of books).
0 125 Sketch map of Egypt to illustrate the principal Papyrus finds.
Uncials on Papyrus.
C 126 Aristotle, constitution of Athens, B.M. facsimile, pi. xi. cols. 16 and 17.
0 103 Bacchylides, 1st century B.C., B.M., Pap. 733 (4), last 2 cols, but one.
C 101 Comedy, fragment of a, early 3rd century B.C., B.M., Pap. 1824 (1), 1st col.
C 113 Euripides, fragment of the Cretes, 2nd century A.D. (Schubart, Pap. Berol., pi. 30o).
0 115 Herodas, (B.M., facsimile of Papyrus, 135, pi. 10).
C 111 Hesiod and Homer, 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. (Schubart, Pap. Berol., pi. 19).
C 105 Homer, Iliad, II., 2nd century A.D., B.M., Pap. 742; best fragment, Iliad, II., 770-803.
C 155 „ id., the printed text.
0 110 „ Iliad, A.D. 1431, B.M., Kings, 16 f., 137.
C 104 „ Odyssey, 1st century A.D., B.M., Pap. 271, 5th col., Odyssey III., 457-197.
C 154 „ id., the printed text.
C 107 „ B.M., Pap. 46, col. 4, verso, lower part.
C 102 Plato, 1st hah* of 3rd century B.C., B.M., Pap. 488, (1), bottom fragment.
C 114 „ Anonymous Commentary on the Theatetus of Plato, 2nd century A.D. (Schubart,
Pap. Berol., pi. 31).
C 119 Timotheos, Persae, portion showing the author's name.
C 127 Letter from Nearchus, B.M , Papyrus 854.
C 177 id., the printed text.
C 112 Epistula Apionis ad Epimachum patrem, 2nd century A.D. (Schubart, Pap. Berul., pi. 28).
C 162 ill., free translation.
Uncial on Vellum.
C 108 Codex Alexandrians, 5th century A.D., B.M., 1, D. viii. p. 76.
Minuscules.
C 109 Gospels, 9th or 10th centuries A.D., B.M., 11300, f. 120.
0 106 Sayings of Jesus, 3rd century A.D., B.M., Pap. 1531, Verso.
SCULPTURE.
*= taken from original or adequate reproduction.
C 406 5th century male head * from Copenhagen, 2 views.
8908 Mausoleum, the frieze * (B.M.). Kneeling warrior defending himself with shield against
an Amazon.
0 410 Mausollus,* head in profile. B.M.
B 677 Aphrodite (Hellenistic), brought from Alexandria in 1810. B.M.
VARIOUS LATER RELIEFS.
0 79 A scene from a Comedy.* Naples Mus.
0 75 Euripides, seated, between Dionysos and ' Skene.' * Constantinople.
B1575 The Column of Trajan * (Cichorius, pi. Ixxv. 268-270), Lustratio exercitus.
B1580 „ ,, „ „ * (Cichorius, pi. Ixxx. 286-289). Columns advancing.
Ivi
B8336 Roman sarcophagus,* the slaying of the Niobids. Mus. Lateran.
B 514 Carved panel,* naturalistic plant forms, Rome, 1st century
B 573 Mithras relief,* Saalburg.
B 578 „ „ * Heddernheim.
B 580 Relief of feast,* Neumagen. Trier Mus.
B 583 Relief of ship loaded with barrels,* Neumagen.
B 587 Panel of lupiter Saiile.* Mainz Mus.
B 586 „ „ „ „ * Mainz Mus.
B 588 Jupiter Saiile, views of all four sides of the monument. Mainz Mus.
B 569 Relief of teacher and pupils,* Trier.
B1713 Cippus of Titulenius Isauricus * (B.M., Cat. of Sculpt., 2377).
B1714 „ „ Vernasia Cyclas * (B.M., Cat. of Sculpt., 2379).
B1716 Roman altar with relief of Diana and Vulcan * (?) Mainz.
Bills The tomb of the Haterii,* shewing workmen engaged on a crane. Lat. Mus.
B1654 Centurion Monument,* 1st century A.D. Colchester Mus. (Joslin Coll.).
B1627 Sphinx.* Colchester Mus.
B6386 Bone relief,* probably a ' Mater ' goddess, from Corstopitum.
PORTRAITS.
C 74 Statue of a tragic poet,* possibly Aeschylus. Vatican.
B1711 Head of Domitian * ( ?).
B1633 Head of Domitian * ( ?), from a statue, found at Shoebury. Colchester Mus.
C 76 Head of Menander.* Boston.
B1710 Male portrait, head, Constantinian period.
BRONZE WORK.
C 407 Bronze head * from Gyrene, 4th century, B.M., 2 views.
C 78 Grotesque comic actor.* Bronze statuette from Dodona.
B1674 Bronze antefix,* head of Silenus, 1st century A.D. Colchester Mus.
B1675 Bronze bust of Caligula.* Colchester Mus.
B1619 Bronze helmet found at St. Alban's. Colchester Mus.
B1646 Bronze mirrors. Colchester Mus. (Joslin Coll.).
B1655 Mirrors of white bronze, 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. Colchester Mus. (Joslin Coll.).
B1656 Bronze mirror and brooches. Colchester Mus. (Joslin Coll.).
B1653 Gallo-Roman brooches, latter half of 1st century A.D. Colchester Mus. (Joslin Coll.).
B1616 Bronze pins. Colchester Mus.
B1639 id.
B1625 Bronze flagon, found containing hoard of silver denarii from Nero to Alexander Severus.
Colchester Mus. (General Coll.).
TERRA-COTTAS.
B1658 Antefix tile, Gorgon's Head. Colchester Mus. (Joslin Coll.).
B1649 Clay figurines from burial group 124. Colchester Mus. (Joslin Coll.).
B1622 Lamps. Colchester Mus. (General Coll.).
B6387 Pottery in relief from Corstopitum, fragments of a god with battle-axe.
VASES.
* Denotes a photographic view of the whole vase from the original.
^ Denotes a reproduction of the picture subject only from an adequate illustration.
2571 Funerary vase from Villanuova. Geometric ornament, metal technique (Rayet and
Collignon, fig. 23).
1068 A sea goddess,^! design from a Corinthian alabastron (Rayet and Collignon, pi. 4).
2584 Ary hallos from Cameiros.^ Bearded, winged figure (Rayet and Collignon, fig. 32).
4590 Archaic amphora. ^j Heracles and Eurystheus (the Erymanthian boar) (Gerhard, 97).
4539 Early B.F. amphora. H Judgment of Paris (J.H.S., 1886, pi. 70).
Ivii
4489 Marriage Procession (J.H.S., Vol. I. pi. 7).
4680 Kylix and aiiiphc.ru from Vnlc-i." Nereus on a sea-horse; Triton holding a dolphin
and a wreath; Two men seated (Gerhard, 8, *• •• •).
4500 Kylix from Hh..<lr>.f Combat of two warriors (J.H.S., 1884, pi. 42).
0 1 Kylix* combining B.F. and R.F. techniques, B.M. Interior (B.F.). A slinger.
C 2 id. Exterior (H.F.). A mule.
C 25 Two Kylices * from Deepdene. Views showing their external geometric decoration,
in the B.F. technique. B.M.
C ~>',\ Krater* from Deepdene. Youthful Apollo on swan. B.M.
C 37 Oinochoe.* Mystical marriage of Dionysos, and the Basilinna (much repainted). B.M.
0 42 Crater* (Paestan style). Dionysus and his train, B.M. (of. C41 for reverse picture).
C 46 Calyx Krater * in the style of Meidias : the court of Dionysos, B.M. (cf. C47 for reverse).
C 49 Pelike * (Attic, 4th century). Satyrs and Maenad. B.M.
0 43 Cylix * with the signature of Hermaios. Int., Hermes making libation. B.M.
0 52 Krater* from Deepdene. The return of lacchus ( ?). B.M.
7496 Heracles and the Lernaean Hydra r (Gerhard, 148).
4.~>\H Deianeira presenting her son Hyllos to Heracles •' (Gerhard, 1 16).
C 21 Stamnos * by the vase-painter Polygnotus. Heracles and Nessos. B.M.
7493 „ from Vulci.' Heracles received into Olympus (Gerhard, 146-7).
0 24 Kylix,* exterior. Theseus and the Minotaur. B.M.
2655 Aryballos from Cumae.* Theseus fighting the Amazons (Rayet and Collignon, fig. 91).
C 47 Calyx Krater* in the style of Meidias, the choice of Paris, B.M. (cf. C46 for obverse).
7500 Gaia, rising from the ground,* presents Erichthonios to Athena (Gerhard, 151).
0 38 Squat lekythos.* Gryphons guarding a heap of gold. B.M.
C 41 Crater * (Paestan style). Orestes and the Eumenides, B.M. (cf. C42 for reverse picture).
2586 Red-figured vase. Death and Sleep carrying off the body of Sarjiedon. B.M. (cf. Rayet
•and Collignon, fig. 78).
C 27 Krater.* Palaestra scene, boxing. B.M.
C 7 Cylix * with the signature of Euergides. B.M. Ext. Palaestra scene, watching the
javelin-thrower (cf. C5 and C6 for other subjects of this vase.)
C 26 Krater * with the signature of Nikias. Torch-race scene. B.M.
C 22 Stamnos * from the Morrison collection. Combat between Greek and mounted Amazon.
B.M.
C 3 Kylix * with the signature of Pamphaios. B.M. Int., a hoplite.
C 4 id. Ext., a parade of hoplites.
C 11 Kylix * (severe style). B.M. Int., youthful warrior with crescent sha]»ed shield.
C 12 id., nude hoplites exercising.
C 13 /'/.. the same scene continued.
C 20 Oinochoe.* Two views: Scythian on foot; Scythian riding a mule. B.M.
C 44 Alabastron.* Horse-taming scene. View of the whole vase. B.M.
C 10 Design on an alabastron ^ (rotated photograph,). Horse-taming scenes. B.M.
C 6 Kylix * with the signature of Euergides. B.M. Ext., youth leading a j>air of horse*.
Sphinxes (cf. C5 and C7 for other subjects of this vase).
C 14 Kylix * (severe style). Int., boy playing with bird in cage. B.M.
C 18 Nolan amphora.* B.M. Flying Eros with torches.
C 1!) „ „ „ Boy retreating (reverse of the above).
C l.~> Kylix* parodying the style of Douris. B.M. Int., Banquet scene. Ins. « «i« r$t
dvpi&os (Jacobsthal, (lottinyen Viifnn, pi. 22).
C 16 id. Kxt., Banquet scenes. Ins. <f>aal>- a^t'i rafra (irf.)
C 17 id. „ ,, „ ln~. TOI (id.)
0 48 Pelike.* Flute players. IUI.
0 50 Lucanian Kotyle.* The game of Kottabos. B.M.
C 51 „ „ Youth and maiden (reverse of the preceding).
C '.W Lucanian Guttus * witli romic scenes of revelry. B.M.
0 40 irf. (reverse of tin- prrrrding).
C :{-' I'yxis * with bridal scenes. B.M. The procession from the house.
C :W «l. Torch-bearer.
C :U ill. The bridal chariot.
C :r> id. The return to the house.
t
Iviii
C 36 id. Scenes on the cover : possibly Helios, Eos, Selene.
C 31 Miniature model * of a loutrophoros. B.M.
C 30 Fragments * of a loutrophoros. Bride, bridegroom and Eros. B.M.
C 29 Pair of lekythoi * (possibly a wedding present): on one, the bride; on the other, Eros
with a gift. B.M.
C 9 Alabastron * of the period of Epiktetus. Two views : a lady at home ; a lady abroad. B.M.
C 5 Cylix * with the signature of Euergides. B.M. Int., Maiden dancing with castanets
(cf. C6 and C7 for other subjects of this vase).
C 23 Hydria.* Toilet scene. B.M.
C 45 Stamnos* from the Morrison collection. Two ladies entertaining a guest, B.M. (reverse
of C22).
C 28 Two Oinochoae.* Baby in chair with rattle : two children at table. B.M.
C 8 Fragments of a cylix with the signature of Cachrylion.^} B.M.
1069 Rhyton in the form of a bull's head (Rayet and Collignon, p. 278, fig. 106).
2591 Athenian Lekythos. Woman seated beside a stele between two attendants (Rayet
and Collignon, fig. 88).
2587 Lekythos from the Peiraeus. Woman at a tomb (Rayet and Collignon, pi. 11).
9100 Mourning youth and woman at the tomb of a mother and child (cf. Riezler, Weiss
grundische Lekythen, Tafel 22).
VASES ETC. IN THE COLCHESTER MUSEUM.
B1614 ' Samian ' ware.
B1660 „ bowl. Form 29, c. 60-70 A.D. (Joslin Coll.).
B1642 „ „ partly restored, Domitian period (Joslin Coll.).
B1629 „ „ No. 37. East Gaulish ware. With potter's stamp IOENALTS.
c. 100-110 A.D.
B1671 Castor ware. The ' Colchester vase.' Early 2nd century A.D.
B1672 „ „ id.
B1673 „ „ id.
B1679 „ „ Beaker. 3rd century A.D. (Jarmin Coll.).
B1617 Buff ware. Amphora with upper portion detached to admit burial, 1st century A.D.
B1618 ,, „ ' Face urns,' from various Burial groups.
B1634 „ „ Flagons, 1st century A.D.
B1640 „ „ „ id.
B1621 „ „ „ 2nd century A.D.
B1648 ,, ,, ,, 1st and 2nd centuries A.D.
B1647 „ „ „ (Joslin Coll.).
B1680 „ „ Triple Flower Vase (Jarmin Coll.).
B1635 ,, „ ' Incuse Tazzas.'
B1628 „ ,, Lagenae, 1st and 2nd centuries.
B1641 „ „ Unguent ( ?) Pots. ? 2nd century A.D.
B1623 Small globular beakers with pellet and scale decoration in relief, 1st and 2nd centuries.
B1631 Infants' feeding-bottles in buff, grey and sigillate wares, 1st and 3rd centuries A.D.
B1645 Colour-coated beakers with painted decoration, 3rd to 4th century (Joslin Coll.).
B1624 Beakers, 3rd century.
B1678 ' Smith's Vase ' of Buck Red ware (Jarmin Coll.).
B1637 Red ware flagons, modelled on bronze examples.
B1652 Burial group, No. 30, c. A.D. 50 (Joslin Coll.).
B1650 ,, „ 1st century A.D. (Joslin Coll.).
B1665 „ „ „ „ „ (Taylor Coll.).
B1668 ,
B1669
B1677 „ „ A ., -. (Jarmin Coll.).
B1659 „ „ c. 60-100 A.D. (Joslin Coll.).
B1664 „ „ c. 80-100 A.D. (Taylor Coll.).
B1667 „ „ c. 110-120 A.n. „
B1630 „ ,. 2nd century A.D. (General Coll.).
B1661 „ „ „ „ „ (Joslin Coll.).
lix
B1602 Burial group, 2nd century A.D. (Jo«lin Coll.).
B1663 ,
B1666 „ „ (Taylor Coll.).
B1670 , ,
B1657 „ „ • probably 3rd century A.D. (Joslin Coll.).
B1644 Child burial group, 1st century A.D. Glazed St. Remy ware (Joalin ColU.
B1643 „ „ „ 2nd century A.D. (Joslin Coll.).
B1651 (Jlass flask or amphora, c. 250 A.D. (Joslin Coll.).
B1632 „ ware.
BI615 Silver spoons.
B1620 Roman lead coffins.
B1681-1709 (28 slides). Pieces from the hoard of 4th-century Roman silver found at Traprain
Law, Haddingtonshire, and now in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh.
PAINTING AND MOSAIC.
0 77 Naples Mus., Fresco: Tragic actors : lady and attendant.
B 568 Darmstadt, mosaic of sea god from Viebel.
B 584 Kreuznach, mosaic of gladiators fighting.
COINS.
CITIES.
C 339 .-R. Argos, Corinth (grazing Pegasus), Phaestus (Talos) (A'wm. Chron., 1919, p. 11).
C 340 /R. Caria, uncertain of Cnidus, Rhodes (Num. Chron. 1919, pp. 11 and 12).
C 340 .^. Cnidus, uncertain of Caria, Rhodes (A'wm. Chron., 1919, pp. 11 and 12).
C 339 .R. Corinth (grazing Pegasos), Argos, Phaestos (A'i/m. Chron., 1919, p. 11).
C 402 .H. Cos, 366-300 B.C.
C 331 .R. Croton, Nola, Metapontum (Num. Chron., 1919, pi. 1, l~l).
C 321 Cydonia, Phalasarna, Polyrhenium. .R.
C 323 „ and Sybrita. JR.
C 333 .R. Gela, Leontini, Segesta (Num. Chron., 1919, pp. 4-5).
C 333 .R. Leontini, Gela, Segesta (Num. Chron., 1919, pp. 4-5).
C 404 Lykia : Kharai.
C 331 .R. Metapontum (head of Heracles), Nola, Croton (Num. Chron., 1919, pi. 1. l~*).
C 331 /R. Nola, Metapontum (head of Heracles), Croton (Num. Chron., 1919, pi. I, '-«).
0 324 Phaestus .H. Resting Heracles.
C 325 „ /R. Velchanos.
C 330 „ . 1 :. and . K. Talos and his dog.
C 339 „ .R. (Talos), Argos, Corinth (Num. Chron., 1919, p. 11).
C 321 .R. Phalosarna, Cydonia, Polyrhenium.
C 321 .R. Polyrhenium, Cydonia, Phalasarna.
C 340 .H. Rhodes, Caria, Cnidus (Num. Chron., 1919, pp. 11 and 12).
0 333 .R. Segesta, Gela, Leontini (Num. Chron., 1919, pp. 4, 5).
C 335 .R. Siculo-Punic tetradr. : Syracuse (Num. Chron., 1919, p. 6).
C 332 JE. Scylacium (Num. Chron., 1919, pi. i. p. 6). .R. Tarentine Horseman (id,, p. 3).
C 323 .R. Sybrita and Cydonia.
C 334 .}<. Syracuse, early t.. mid fifth c-entury, tetradr. (A'uro. Chron., 1919, p. 6).
C 335 .R. „ Kuaenetusdecadr. : K.L. 4th century. .R. Siculo-Punic tetradr. (N um.
Chron., 1919, p. 6).
C 332 .R. Tarentine horseman. &. Scylacium (Num. Chron., 1919, p. 3).
0336 .R. Thasos: Philip II. .R. and A '. (A ' um. Chron., 1919, pp. 7 and 8).
DYNASTS.
C 341 .R. Alexander I. Bala : Seleucus I. (Num. Chron., 1919, pL 2, "• ").
C ;: :i7 Alexander III. A", and .R. Philip IV. .R. (Num. Chron., 1919, p. 8).
B5371 Allectus .V. London. Carausius A'. London.
(2
Ix
C 401 Antiochus I, JR. Three portrait heads showing the king young, middle aged, and old.
C 326 Antiochus IX of Syria (Num. Chron., 1919, pis. x., xi.).
C 327
C 328 „ „
C 329
B5372 Augusta (London) : Theodosius : Mag. Maximus.
B5371 Carausius A". London. Allectus AT. London.
C 405 Eumenes I., JK. (B.M. Guide, V.A. 9).
C 403 Flaminius, T. Quinctius AT.
B2189 Hadrian, &. Sesterce. Ob. portrait, Rex. Britannia.
«5374 John VIII., 1488 : Leo III. : John Zimisces.
B5374 John Zimisces, 969-976; Leo III. ; John VIII.
B5374 Leo III., 716-741 ; John VIII., 1488; John Zimisces, 969-976.
C 322 Lysimachus JR. tetradr. : Magistrate Aithon.
C 338 „ AT. and JR. (Num. Chron., 1919, p. 9).
B5372 Maximus (Mag.) A'., 383-388. Theodosius Augusta.
C 336 Philip II., JR. and A7". Thasos JR. (Num. Chron., 1919, pp. 7 and 8).
C 337 Philip IV. JR. : Alexander III. AT. and JR. (Num. Chron., 1919, p. 8).
C 341 JR. Seleucus I. : Alexander I. : Bala (Num. Chron., 1919, pL ii. 10, 11).
B5373 Tetricus, British imitations of coins of.
B5372 Theodosius A'., 379-395 : Mag. Maximus A7., 383-388 : Augusta (London).
B5375 Terra-cotta moulds for casting fdles of Constantius Chlorus, Caesar, and Maximius II.
Caesar.
B5376 Gaulish coin : impression from die.
MISCELLANEA.
4836 St. Paul's Cathedral, W. front.
4837 The old Divinity Schools, Oxford.
Ixi
SETS OF SLIDES FOR LECTURES.
When the main Catalogue was published in 1913 there were included, to meet the demand
for more elementary lectun>n, sundry selected li.stH of slides which could be ordered by quoting
the name or number of the set. These sets were : —
I. Greece.
II. Athens.
III. Olympia.
IV. Rome.
V. Pompeii.
VI. Prehellenic Age.
VII. Greek Sculpture.
VIII. The Parthenon.
IX. Greek VMM.
X. Greek Coin*.
XI. The Ancient Theatre.
XII. Daily Life.
The success of the experiment has been such that it has been decided to add the following
•eta: —
SET XIII.
B9101
5189
7454
7195
1301
5669
4693
4952
9942
C 27
9944
9039
2235
2236
2091
2090
B 627
977
9384
2173
799
691
C .-•
9023
DAILY LIFE.
(Second Set)
PUBLIC LIFE, BUILDINGS, ETC.
Assos, a Greek agora, restored. B 661
Pompeii, the market-place. B91 10
Temple of Concord at Agrigentum. B9118
Unfinished temple at Segesta. B2653
Theatre at Pergamon. 9395
.. .. Athens. A 12
„ „ Segesta, restored.
Baths at Bath.
., „ Pompeii.
Houses at Pompeii.
„ „ .. windows.
. decoration of.
ATHLETICS.
Stadion at Delphi.
.. ., Athens.
Athletes entering the arena to take
part in the pentathlon. (Vase paint-
ing.)
Boxing. (Vase painting. )
A youthful discobolos. (Vase paint-
ing-)
7£83 Group of four-horsed chariots : decor-
ation of a prize vase found ut
Sparta.
7134 Bronze strigyL
5000 Physical exercises. (Vase painting.)
1754 A victor's wreath of ivy carved on
his tomb.
HOME LIFE.
The bath-room. (Vase painting.) 2093
Earthenware wool-carder. B1614
Sketch on a vase showing how the 2176
above was used. A 29
Brushes and combs.
Scissors and knives. 6548
Visit to a butcher's shop. (Relief.) 7074
SCHOOL.
Interior of a Greek school : a reading 2087
lesson. (Vase painting.)
A music lesson. (Vase painting.)
Spelling exercise : multiplication table,
etc., from originals.
Kitchen utensils.
Cups, saucers, etc.
Household scales.
An early Greek cook at work : coloured
statuette from Bceotia.
Greek coins.
Greek seals.
Spelling exercise, enlarged drawing of
Multiplication exercise, enlarged draw-
ing of.
RECREATIONS.
A game of knuckle-bones. (Fresco.) 0 14
An intimate conversation. (Terra-cotta 0 28
group.)
A game of pickaback. (Terra-cotta.) 2092
A lady dancing. (Vase painting.) 6573
The game of koltabos. (Vase paint-
ing-)
The birdcage. (Vase painting.)
A baby's chair and rattle. (Vi
painting.)
Earthenware and rag dolls.
Toys from a bride's grave.
1112 A boy^ mourner at a tomb. (Vane painting.)
1111 Grave relief : a girl with her dolL
Ixii
SET XIV.
ARCHITECTURE.
1039 The pyramids of Giza. "I
1663 Jain temple, Mount Abu.
6321 Unfinished Greek temple at Segesta. I
Introductory (for comparison).
7916 Sketch map of the /Egean area.
TEMPLE BUILDING AND COLUMNAR ARCHITECTURE.
DORIC.
5716 Archaic temple at Corinth.
7910 Athens, the Acropolis, plan.
6561 „ „ „ restoration.
5656 The Parthenon from N.W.
6306 „ „ restored.
5814 „ „ N.E. angle.
7607 The Theseion, colonnade.
5182 Paestum, temple of Poseidon.
7606 Erechtheion, N. porch.
8949 Temple of Nike Apteros.
8235 Temple at Aezani, Asia Minor.
4589 Ionic capital at Eleusis.
7184 Olympia, temple of Zeus, restored.
7605 Stylobate of Parthenon, showing curv-
ature.
9843 Olympian pediment, restored.
A 3 ) Coloured decoration in Doric
A 6J architecture.
IONIC.
3940 Erechtheion, N. Porch, decoration.
1934 „ „ detail of.
7129 Porch of the Maidens.
CORINTHIAN.
6535 Acanthus growth.
1957 Capital from Epidaurus.
682 Olympieion at Athens.
4567 „ fallen capital.
4568 Olympieion, fallen capital, continued.
5721 Baalbek, octagonal temple.
5760 „ details of decoration.
5751
ROMAN MODIFICATIONS.
B 472 The Pantheon, exterior view. B 473 The Pantheon, interior.
4836 St. Paul's Cathedral.
RENAISSANCE ADAPTATIONS.
4837 The old Divinity Schools.
ANCIENT ARCHITECTURE OTHER THAN TEMPLE BUILDING.
1180 The walls of Aegosthena.
B9101 The Forum at Pompeii.
1954 Theatre of Epidaurus.
1956 ,, „ nearer view.
4693 Stadion at Delphi.
B9046 Coliseum, distant view.
B 451 interior.
B 53 The Pont du Card.
B 523 „ „ „ nearer view.
BOO 14 Arch of Constantino.
B6044 Column of Aurelius.
8268 The Mausdeion, restored.
B 661 Roman bath at Bath.
B9118 Pompeii, House of the Vetii.
Ixiii
SET XV.
GREEK PAPYRI.
(1) INTRODUCTORY: GKKKK WRITING OTHKR THAN THAT ON PAPYRI.
1378 Pedestal (marble) of a lost statue by Hryaxis. Athena, Nat. Mu*.
L'2,'13 Helmet (bronze) dedicated by Prince Hieron of Syracuse at Olympia.
6640 Slab (bronze) recording a treaty for 100 years between Elis and Herea. H..M.
983 Fragments (terra-cotta) with painted inscriptions in the Corinthian alphabet.
C Iti Inscription on a vase caricaturing the style of the painter Dnuris.
1302 Inscription (mosaic) from Delos in honour of Apollo Kynthios.
9337 A Greek fortune-teller's signboard, from Egypt.
(2) WRITING MATERIALS, ETC.
0 122 Specimens of wooden and wax tablets, an ostrakon, pens, styli, etc.
2173 Sherd with spelling exercise : tablet with multiplication table and reading lesson.
2086 I
2174 [Larger views of these. For details see B.M. Guide to Greek and Roman Life Exhibition.
2087]
977 School scene : music and reading lessons. (Vase painting by Douris.)
4998 The writing master. (Vase painting.)
(3) THE- PAPYRUS ROLL.
C 124 A group of papyrus plants at Kew Gardens.
C 120 Sample of prepared papyrus (end column of the Persae of Timotheos).
C 121 Papyrus rolls, opened, and sealed : sealed letters.
C 117 Roman sarcophagus, with group of figures holding books closed and open.
C 116 Egyptian authors with their books. (Relief.)
C 118 Attic tombstone : a boy reading.
C 123 Roman sarcophagus : a reader in his library.
(4) PAPYRI FOUND BY EXCAVATION.
C 125 Sketch map of Egypt showing where the papyri were discovered.
2742 Dr. B. P. Grenfelfdirecting the excavation of papyri in the desert at Oxyrhynchus
C 126 Aristotle : a page of the Constitution of Athens (1st cent A.D.).
C 103 Bacchylides (1st cent. B.C.).
C 101 Comedy, anon. (3rd cent. B.C.).
C 113 Euripides' lost play, the Cretes (2nd cent. B.C.).
C 115 Herondas : a page of the Mimes.
C 111 Hesiod and Homer : fragments (1st and 2nd cents. A.D.).
C 105 Homer, Iliad II., 770—803 (2nd cent. A.D.).
0 155 „ id., the printed text.
C 110 ,, Iliad, minuscule on vellum, A.D. 1431.
C 104 „ Odyssey III., 457—497 (1st cent. B.C.).
C 1">4 „ id., the printed text.
C 107 Magtfc formularies (4th cent. A.D.).
C 102 Plato, Phaedo, pp. 68s— 69A (3rd cent. B.C.).
C 114 „ anon, commentary on Theatetus (2nd cent. A.D.).
C 1 1 9 Timotheos, Persae : portion showing author's name.
C I-'T A letter from one Nearchus describing his travels up the Nile.
C 177 Id., the printed text.
C 1 12 A soldier's letter from the Egyptian front
C 162 Id., free translation (H. L. J.).
0 108 Codex Alexandrinus : closing words of the Acts and beginning of KpMt of S. James.
C 109 Gospel in minuscule (9th or 10th cent. A.D.).
C 106 Part of one of the newly recovered " Sayings of Jeans " from Oxyrhynchus.
Ixiv
SET XVI.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT.
4521 Coins of Philip II., father of Alexander : Olympian Zeus and Macedonian cavalry.
743 Head of Demosthenes.
5318 Coin of Thebes (inscribed Epameinondas).
848 Bust of Aristotle.
8496 Coinage of the Great King.
7101 Sketch map illustrating the Eastern campaigns of Alexander.
5601 Troy, the walls.
5599 „ the great ramp.
3702 Ephesus, sculptured pillar from the great temple of Artemis : the return of Alcestis.
6434 „ head of Hermes from the above.
6435 „ head of Thanatos „ „ „
0 73 „ the theatre.
1399 Halikarnassos : the mediaeval castle.
8268 „ the mausoleion.
3690 „ mausollos.
539 ,, charioteer from the mausoleion.
2007 Afium Karahissar (Nicopolis).
2983 Cilician gates.
1085 Battle of Issus : mosaic from Pompeii.
1083 Id., detail, figure of Darius.
B9143 „ „ „ „ Alexander.
1061 Damascus.
1062 Among the cedars of Lebanon.
1072 Shepherds at Gaza.
1045 Giza, during inundation.
7118 Scene in the desert.
5780 Euphrates, bridge near Kiakhta.
5782
5805 „ at Khalfat.
2381 Tigris, circular boats made of skins (cf. Herod. I. 194),
6294 Babylon, gate of Ishtar : frieze in moulded brick.
6295 Id., detail.
5277 Susa, procession of archers : frieze in encaustic brick.
1047 Persepolis, Palace of Darius : gateway.
1051 „ Royal tomb.
1055 „ Propylaea of Xerxes.
1664 The Khyber Pass.
7103 View in the Hindu Kush mountains.
7186 Kashmir, view on the Canal of Sweet Waters.
7102 Amritsar, the Golden Temple of the Sikhs.
1661 Mount Abu, Jain temple, interior.
1663 Bailoor, Indian temple.
1642 Coin of Antimachus, Baktrian with Greek inscription.
1636 Coin of Ptolemy I., Soter.
8497 Coins of Seleucus I.
7597 Alexander, the Louvre herm, profile.
3707 „ the B.M. bust, full face.
7124 „ hunting : sarcophagus from Sidon.
1087 „ „ head of the king.
4678 „ coin of Lysimachus, with idealised head of Alexander.
Ixv
SET XVII.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE TRAVELS OP ST. PAUL.
8471 General map. 2014
2015 Attaleia (Adalia), the city wall.
7473 „ detail of the arch of Hadrian. 2599
3710 Antioch : statue of the city of Antioch 4468
by Eutychides ; her foot rests on the 1062
river god Orontes. 3760
5453 Assos, restoration of market-place. 3759
8943 Athens, Acropolis, from Pnyx. 2400
6561 „ „ nearer view, re- 2542
stored. B9005
4451 .. Areopagus and Theseion from
Acropolis. B9042
57 1 6 Corinth, early temple of Aphrodite and
Acro-Corinthus. B 294
4491 „ view from Aero - Corinthus B 450
towards Peloponnesus. B6625
3734 c nidus, the ancient mole. 2917
1402 „ Sir C. Newton removing the 2376
Lion of Cnidus. 7682
1802 Cyprus, Famagousta (near ancient 2392
Salamis). 7959
1061 Damascus, view in the town. B7145
3109 Ephesus, general view seawards.
3209 „ the theatre, view of the
stage. 7124
7375 „ angle of the Temple of
Artemis, restored. 5410
3702 „ sculptured pillar base : the
resurrection of Alcestis.
Ephesus, coin, the statue of Artemis
in her temple.
Iconium. monastery near.
Jerusalem, from Mount of Olives
Lebanon, the cedars of.
Myra, cliff of rock-cut tombs.
.. theatre.
Neapolis (Kavalla), aqueduct.
„ (near), a forest village.
Rome, the Forum : view across the
house of the Vestals.
.. the Arch of Titus, slab showing
the candelabrum.
.. the Coliseum, exterior.
„ „ ,, interior.
„ bridge on the Appian Way.
Salonika, the K. walls.
„ interior of S. Demetri.
„ S. Sophia, exterior.
„ „ mosaics in dome.
„ . • „ restored.
Sidon, coins showing the meteoric
stone of Astarto in its sacred
carriage!
„ sarcophagus of Sidon : detail
showing Alexander hunting.
Syracuse, coin of Queen Demarete
showing the nymph Arethusa and
a victor's chariot.
6107 Restoration of the great altar at Pergamon (possibly the " throne of Satan where thou
dwellest "), dedicated by King Eumenes after his victories over the Galatians, < i
or Gauls.
3711 The dying Gaul.
part Q{ a 8imilar dedication by King Attalus of Pergaiuon.
144.-)
4336
1446
1072
1447
Characteristic pictures of village and nomadic life in Syria and Asia Minor.
B7403 Augustus, upper portion of a statue found at Prima Porta, Rome.
B 279 Tiberius, portrait head on a coin.
B7415 Nero, marble head of (Terme Mus., Rome).
ixvi
SETS OF SLIDES ISSUED COMPLETE
WITH LECTURES
With a view to the further popularisation of Classical Studies there have been added the
following s-ets which are issued with printed lectures specially written for the purpose by
recognised authorities.
Set XVIII. Pompeii. By A. W. Van Buren.
Set XIX. Horace. By G. H. Hallam.
Set XX. The Roman Campagna. By T. Ashby.
Other sets in preparation are : The Palatine and Fora, by Dr. Ashby; The Beginnings of
Rome and Sicily, by Prof. H. E. Butler; The Via Appia, by Mr. R. Gardner: Roman
Portraiture and Roman Sculpture, by Mrs. S. Arthur Strong ; Roman Britain, by Dr. Mortimer
Wheeler.
The Societies are greatly indebted to Mr. G. H. Hallam both for the idea of the new sets
and for practical help given in their compilation.
JOURNAL OF HKU.KNH -II |i||>
Nov. :ir-
NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS.
THE Council of the Hellenic Society having decided that it is desirable
for a common system of transliteration of Greek words to be adopted in
the Journal of Hellenic Studies, the following scheme has been drawn up
by the Acting Editorial Committee in conjunction with the Consultative
Editorial Committee, and has received the approval of the Council.
In consideration of the literary traditions of English scholarship, the
scheme is of the nature of a compromise, and in most cases considerable
latitude of usage is to be allowed.
(1) All Greek proper names should be transliterated into the Latin
alphabet according to the practice of educated Romans of the Augustan age.
Thus K should be represented by c, the vowels and diphthongs v, at, ot, ov,
by y, ae, oe, and u respectively, final -o<? and -ov by -us and -urn, and -pos
by -er.
But in the case of the diphthong «, it is felt that ei is more suitable
than e or i, although in names like Laodicea, Alexandria,
where they are consecrated by usage, e or i should be preserved ;
also words ending in -eiov must be represented by -cum.
A certain amount of discretion must be allowed in using the
o terminations, especially where the Latin usage itself varies
or prefers the o form, as Delos. Similarly Latin usage should
be followed as far as possible in -e and -a terminations,
e.g., Priene, Smyrna. In some of the more obscure names
ending in -pos, as Aeaypos, -er should be avoided, as likely
to lead to confusion. The Greek form -on is to be preferred
to -o for names like Dion, llii-mn. except in a mine so common
as Apollo, where it would be pedantic.
Names which have acquired a definite English form, swli as
Corinth, Athens, should of course not be otherwise npetented.
It is hardly necessary to point out that forms like //«•/••
Mercury, Minerva, should not be used for //• r«,L i, //• riMt, and
At)i>
Ixvii
Ixviii
(2) Although names of the gods should be transliterated in the same
way as other proper names, names of personifications and epithets such as
Nike, Homonoia, Hyakinthios, should fall under § 4.
(3) In no case should accents, especially the circumflex, be written over
vowels to show quantity.
(4) In the case of Greek words other than proper names, used as names
of personifications or technical terms, the Greek form should be transliterated
letter for letter, k being used for *, ch for ^, but y and.w being substituted
for v and ov, which are misleading in English, e.g., Nike, apoxyomenos,
diadumenos, rhyton.
This rule should not be rigidly enforced in the case of Greek
words in common English use, such as aegis, symposium. It
is also necessary to preserve the use of ou for ov in a
certain number of words in which it has become almost
universal, such as boule, gerousia.
(5) The Acting Editorial Committee are authorised to correct all
MSS. and proofs in accordance with this scheme, except in the case of a
special protest from a contributor. All contributors, therefore, who object
on principle to the system approved by the Council, are requested to inform
the Editors of the fact when forwarding contributions to the Journal.
In addition to the above system of transliteration, contributors to the
Journal of Hellenic Studies are requested, so far as possible, to adhere to the
following conventions : —
Quotations from Ancient and Modern Authorities.
Names of authors should not be underlined; titles of books, articles,
periodicals or other collective publications should be underlined (for italics).
If the title of an article is quoted as well as the publication in which it is
contained, the latter should be bracketed. Thus :
Six, Jahrb. xviii. 1903, p. 34,
or —
Six, Protogenes (Jahrb. xviii. 1903), p. 34.
But as a rule the shorter form of citation is to be preferred.
The number of the edition, when necessary, should be indicated by a
small figure above the line; e.g. Dittenb. Syll? 123.
Ixix
Titles of Periodical and (W/rr//*v Publications.
The following abbreviations are suggested, as already in more or leas
general use. In other cases, no abbreviation which is not readily identified
should be employed.
A.-K.M. = Archftologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen.
Ann. d. I. = Annali dell' Institute.
Arch. Am. = Archaologischer Anzeiger (Boiblatt zum Jahrbuch).
Arch. Zeit. = Archftologische Zeitung.
Ath. Mitlh. Mittheilungen des Deutschen Arch. Inst., Athenische Abtheilung.
Baumeister = Baumeister, Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums.
II. <'.!{. = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique.
Berl. Vas. — Furtwangler, Beschreibung der Vasensammlung zu Berlin.
li.M. Bronzes = British Museum Catalogue of Bronzes.
lt.M.(\ = British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins.
B.M. Inscr. = Greek inscriptions in the British Museum.
B.M. Vases = British Museum Catalogue of Vases, 1893, etc.
B.S.A. = Annual of the British School at Athens.
Bull. d. I. = Bullettino dell' Institute.
C.I.G. = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.
C.I.L. = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
('I. Rev. = Classical Review.
C.R. Acad. Inscr. — Comptes Rendus de 1'Academie des Inscriptions.
Dar.-Sagl. = Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquites.
Dittenb. Syll. = Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum.
O.D.I. = GoUitz, Sammlung der Griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften.
Gerh. A.V. = Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder.
O.G.A. = Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.
I.O. = Inscriptiones Graecae.1
!.(•'. A. = Kohl, Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissimae.
Jahrb. = Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Institute.
Jahresh. — Jahreshefte des Oesterreichischen Archaologischen Institutes.
J.H.S. — Journal of Hellenic Studies.
Le Bas-Wadd. — Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage Archeologique.
Michel = Michel, Recueil d' Inscriptions grecques.
Mon. d. I. — Monumenti dell' Institute.
Miiller-Wies = Miiller-Wieseler, Denkmaler der alten Kunst.
M us. Marbles = Collection of Ancient Marbles in the British Museum.
Neue Jahrb. Icl. Alt. — Neue Jahrbiirher fiir das klassische Allertum.
Neue Jahrb. Phil. — Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie.
1 The attention of contributors is called to the fact that the titles of the volumes of the second
issue of the Corpus of (ireek Inscriptions, published by the Prussian Academy, have now been
changed, as follows : —
l.G. I. = Inscr. Atticae anno Euclidis vetustiores.
II. = , „ aetatis quae est intor Kud. ami. ct Aui-usti toiii|x>ra.
III. = , „ aetatis K<nnanae.
IV. = , Argolidis.
VII.
IX.
XII.
XIV.
Megaridis et Boeotine.
i. ic Scptcntrionalis.
iiiMil. Mari.- Aci;aci |>ractci Dcltnn.
Italiae et Siciliae.
Ixx
Num. Chr. = Numismatic Chronicle.
Num. Zeit. = Numismatische Zeitschrift.
Pauly-Wissowa = Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissen-
schaft.
Philol. = Philologus.
Rev. Arch. = Revue Archeologique.
Rev. £t. Gr. = Revue des Etudes Grecques.
Rev. Num. = Revue Numismatique.
Rev. Philol. = Revue de Philologie.
Rh. Mus. — Rheim'sches Museum.
Rom. Mitth. = Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Romische Abtheil-
ung.
Roscher — Roscher, Lexicon der Mythologie.
T.A.M. = Tituli Asiae Minoris.
Z. f. N. = Zeitschrift fur Xumismatik.
Transliteration of Inscriptions.
[ ] Square brackets to indicate additions, i.e. a lacuna filled by conjecture.
) Curved brackets to indicate alterations, i.e. (1) the resolution of an
abbreviation or symbol; (2) letters misrepresented by the engraver;
(3) letters wrongly omitted by -the engraver; (4) mistakes of the
copyist.
> Angular brackets to indicate omissions, i.e. to enclose superfluous
letters appearing on the original.
. . . Dots to represent an unfilled lacuna when the exact number of missing
letters is known.
Dashes for the same purpose, when the number of missing letters is
not known.
Uncertain letters should have dots under them.
Where the original has iota adscript, it should be reproduced in that form;
otherwise it should be supplied as subscript.
The aspirate, if it appears in the original, should be represented by a
special sign, h.
Quotations from MSS. and Literary Texts.
The same conventions should be employed for this purpose as for inscrip-
tions, with the following important exceptions : —
( ) Curved brackets to indicate only the resolution of an abbreviation or
symbol.
[[ ]] Double square brackets to enclose superfluous letters appearing on the
original.
< > Angular brackets to enclose letters supplying an omission in the
original.
The Editors desire to impress upon contributors the necessity of clearly
and accurately indicating accents and breathings, as the neglect of this
precaution adds very considerably to the cost of production of the Journal.
THE BRITISH ACADEMY
CROMER GREEK PRIZE
WITH the view of maintaining and encouraging the study of Greek,
particularly among the young, in the national interest, the late Lord Cromer
founded an Annual Prize, to be administered by the British Academy, for
the best Essay on any subject connected with the language, history, art,
literature, or philosophy of Ancient Greece.
The Prize, which is ordinarily a sum of £40, is awarded annually in March,
under the following Rules :—
1. Competition is open to all British subjects of either sex who will be
under twenty-six years of age on 31 December preceding the award.
2. Any such person desirous of competing must send in to the Secretary of
the British Academy on or before 1 June of the year preceding the award
the title of the subject proposed by him or her. The Academy may approve
(with or without modification) or disapprove the subject; their decision will
be intimated to the competitor as soon as possible.
3. Preference will be given, in approval of subjects proposed, to those
which deal with aspects of the Greek genius and civilization of large and
permanent significance over those which are of a minute or highly technical
character.
4. Any Essay already published, or already in competition for another
prize of the same nature, will be inadmissible. A candidate to whom the
Prize has been awarded will not be eligible to compete for it again. But an
Essay which has not received the Prize may be submitted again (with or
without alteration) in a future year so long as the writer remains eligible
.under Rule 1.
5. Essays of which the subject has been approved must be sent in to
the Secretary of the Academy on or before 31 December. They must be
typed (or, if the author prefers, printed), and should have a note at. iched
stating the main sources of information used.
6. It is recommended that the Essays should not exceed 20,000 words,
exclusive of notes. Notes should not run to an excessive length.
7. The author of the Essay to which the Prize is awarded will be
expected to publish it (within a reasonable time, and after any necessary
revision), either separately, or in the Journals or Transactions of a Society
approved by the Academy, or among the Transactions of the Academy.
The Secretary of the Academy will supply on application, to any person
qualified and desirous to compete, a list of some typical subjects, for general
guidance only, and without any suggestion that one or another of these sub-
jects should be chosen, or that preference will be given to them over any
other subject of a suitable nature.
Communications should be addressed to ' The Secretary of the British
Academy, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W.'
Ixxi
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BV
RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,
BUNGAV, SUFFOLK.
ALEXANDER'S vTro^^una AND THE 'WORLD-KINGDOM
So far as authority goes, Kaerst founded his theory of Alexander's world-
kingdom on two passages in Diodorus and on nothing else. The first, 17,
93, 4, alludes to Animon having conceded to Alexander the power over the
whole world, rrjv a-naa^ T% 7>;<? e'£oiWai>; the reference is to 17, 51, 2,
where Alexander says to the priest of Ammon, fl-n-e poi « poi SiSta? rrjv
a7r«<r779<T>}<?>77}9 apxyv, and the priest replies that the god grants this.
The second passage is 18, 4, 4, the story of Alexander's supposed plan to
conquer Carthage, etc., and go to the Pillars, from his alleged v-rro/jLvrj/juira.
Every one will agree with Kaerst when he says that the political information
in the Arrian tradition is imperfect, and that it is very desirable to supplement
it; but the real question, which has to be faced, is, are we in a position to
supplement it ? It is no good using unsound material as a supplement ; it is
better to say we do not know, if it comes to that. My object here is to examine
the Diodorus passages and see what kind of material they offer.
The Ammon oracle may be briefly dealt with; for it is only Egyptian
ritual. No doubt the oracle, as we have it, came through Cleitarchus, as is
shown by the agreement of Diodorus, Justin, and Curtius ; Cleitarchus may
or may not have got it from Callisthenes, who may or may not have been
at Siwah with Alexander. Against Callisthenes' authorship is the fact that
Strabo (17, 814), the only writer who professedly cites Callisthenes' account,
though he gives much detail, gives only part of the Diodorus oracle, the item
that the priest hailed Alexander as son of the god. This item is true, for the
priest could not do otherwise; but the other items of the oracle, including
the promise of world-dominion, are more than doubtful. Callisthenes possessed
in fullest measure the vice of writing for effect ; l and in his history he added
to the Ammon oracle an oracle from Didyma (Strabo Lc.) which was certainly
a pure invention. For, first, the Didyma oracle is based on a story that Didyma
was sacked by. the Branchidae in Xerxes' time, which is simply untrue (Herod.
6, 19); and, secondly, it prophesied the battle of Arbela and the death of
Darius, i.e. it was composed after 330. Consequently, the promise of world-
dominion, if from Callisthenes, does not necessarily stand on any better footing
than the Didyma oracle. But if it be not from Callisthenes, the case is even
worse; for Cleitarchus is poorer authority and was not even contemporary
1 See e.g. Strabo 17, 814 (possibly Didymof, Mom. <!•• 1'Arad. dee Inner. 1907,
Eratosthenes' criticism), and the very 136 seq., on Callisthenes' panegyric on
just remarks of P. Foucart, Etude *ur Hermeias.
J.H.S. — VOL. XLI. B
2 W. W. TARN
with Alexander.2 As Callisthenes is quite clear that Alexander went into the
oracle alone, and as the same thing is implied in Arrian's account, then, if the
world-dominion promise were not invented by Callisthenes or Cleitarchus,
it can only have come from one of two sources, Alexander or the priests.
But Arrian and Plutarch both say that Alexander told nothing. If, then, it
were not invented, it came from the priests. And if it were invented, the
material was equally supplied by Egyptian priests.
For in fact the ultimate source of the Ammon oracle is not history but
Egyptian ritual. In one of the hymns to Amon which formed part of Amon's
daily service, Pharaoh (i.e. the priest representing him) thus addresses the
god (Moret's translation) : Le Pharaon est venu vers toi, Amon-Ra, pour que
tu lui donnes qu'il soit a la tete des vivants.3 This is precisely Alexander's
supposed question. The god, of course, accepted the appeal, and there are
many references to his conferring the gift sought. E.g., when Khnum fashions
Hatshepsut, he repeats the instructions he has received from Amon : ' I have
given to thee all countries, all peoples.' 4 The hymn of victory of Thutmoses III
(Amon speaks) : ' I have come, causing thee to smite the uttermost ends of
the lands ; the circuit of the Great Circle (Okeanos) is enclosed in thy grasp.' 5
In the Harris papyrus, Ramses III says : ' Thou didst assign to me all the
lands as far as the circuit of the sun.' 6 This is the supposed answer to Alex-
ander. Sir G. Maspero, though he did not give the details, long ago pointed
out with great emphasis the exact agreement of the story of the Ammon-oracle
with the ritual,7 and Mahaffy followed him.8 Certainly Maspero believed
that Alexander did in fact go through the ritual ; but that is another matter.
Neither Callisthenes nor Cleitarchus is good enough evidence to prove this;
all they prove is that some one knew what might be expected to happen,
i.e. knew the Egyptian practice. Besides, Alexander, some years later, did
tell one thing that passed, and it has no connection whatever with Diodorus'
story; he said that Ammon had told him to what gods to sacrifice (Arr. 6,
19, 4). Personally, therefore, I do not believe that Alexander went through
the ritual ; but that is not the real point. The point is, that once we see that
we are dealing with a ritual, with its roots far down the centuries, it matters
nothing whether the thing happened or not, or what Greek historian first
2 F. Reuss, Bh. Mus. 67 (1902), 581 Egypte, 1897; republished in his Etudes de
seq. ; 63 (1909), 58 seq. ; P. Schnabel, mythologie et d'archeologie egyptiennes, vol. 6
'Berossos und Kleitarchos,' 1912; and see (1912). See esp. p. 265, " Ceremonial et
Th. Lenschau, ' Bericht iiber griechische discours, tout y est conforme au rituel des
Geschichte 1907-14,' p. 191, in Bursian- temples pharaoniques," etc.; and p. 274,
KrolPs Jahresbericht, 1919. " II serait difficile de rencontrer roi si
3 A. Moret, ' Le rituel du culte divin pietre que les dieux ne lui eussent fait la
journalier en figypte;' Annales du Musee meme promesse " (world-rule) "a satiete;
Quimet, Bibliotheque d' Etudes, 14 (1902), Amon terminait son entretien avec Alex-
p. 128. Moret mentions other hymns to andre comme il 1'avait commenc6, par un
the same effect. compliment emprunte au rituel en usage
4 Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, II. depuis le commencement de la monarchic
203. egyptienne, et qui n'avait rien que d'ordin-
5 76. II. 265. aire dans son esprit."
• Ib. IV. p. 142. 8 4 History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic
7 Comment Alexandre devint dieu en Dynasty, 1899, p. 16.
ALEXANDER'S
AND THE 'WORLD-KINGDOM'
related it ; for it has ceased to have any bearing on what we want to know —
what did Alexander intend or plan or claim ? Because a Pope granted to a
series of monarchs the title of ' Most Christian King,' we do not deduce there-
from the personal attitude of this or that one toward religion ; and if an Egyptian
liturgy promised Alexander, as it promised many other Pharaohs, world-
dominion, we must not on this ground attribute to him claims to world-dominion
or plans for world-conquest. The promise of world-dominion was of no more
importance, outside of Egypt, than the claim attributed to the McNeils of Barra
was of importance outside Barra.9 In this respect, it is very important to
note that what Alexander asks for, and what the god grants, is not ' authority
over all men,' but ' the authority,' ryv ap-)(r)v, Trjv Qovaiav (twice repeated), a
known thing ; 10 it had been known in Egypt for many centuries.
The other passage, Diod. 18, 4, 4, goes to the root of the whole matter;
and the first thing any one has to do, in considering Alexander, is to make
up his mind about the vital matter of Alexander's vTro/j,vijfjLara ; is he, with
the majority — e.g. Kaerst,11 E. Meyer,12 Jacoby,13 Schubert,14 Endres,16
and Kornemann ie — to assume that they are from Hieronymus and to treat
them as history, or with Niese, Beloch, and I imagine one should add Wilamo-
witz,17 to reject them altogether as unhistorical ? Personally, I agree in
substance with Niese; but the story has never been analysed — both sides
merely make assumptions — and it is high time that somebody tried to analyse
it. I hope first to prove that a great deal of Diodorus 18, chs. 2-4, is not from
Hieronymus, and that therefore we cannot assume that the vTro^vij/j.ara are
from him ; then I will consider what the viro^vri^ara were ; then I will analyse
the contents, which is the really important thing. I use two premises. One
is that Schubert, whatever we may think of his details, has proved that Diodorus
books 18-20 is a composite work, containing a good deal which is not Hier-
onymus ; the other is that we cannot, as a rule, detect Hieronymus by phrase-
ology, but only by substance. If any one will trouble to read through (say)
those books of Diodorus which deal largely with things Macedonian, 16-20,
he will find the same favourite words and phrases throughout, whatever author
• The story is that, after McNeil had
dined, his piper used to proclaim that now
the other kings of the earth might dine.
Marco Polo has a similar story of a chief
in Central Asia.
10 The Latin versions (Curtius, Justin)
cannot, of course, represent this ; and
neither Arrian nor Strabo gives the world-
dominion promise of the oracle. Plutarch
has kept TTJ* &pxw* but has interpreted it
away.
11 Geschichte det HeUenimntu 1» (1917),
p. 493, n. 2.
11 • Alexander der Grosse und die absolute
Monarchic' (Kleine Schrijten, 1910), p.
299, n. 1.
11 ' Hieronymos ' in Pauly-Wissowa
(1913).
" Die QveUen zur Gttchichte der Diado-
chenzeit (1914), p. 29.
14 'Krateros, Perdikkas, und die letzten
Plane Alexanders,' Bh. Mtu. 1917-18,
437.
" 'Die letzten Ziele der Politik Alex-
anders des Grossen,' Klio 16 (1920), 209.
Kornemann professes not to go the whole
way with Kaerst; but he goes a pretty
long way.
17 'Alexander der Grosse,' in Reden aut
der Kriegneit 5, XI. (1916), p. 18: fur
die phantastischen Plane, die man ihm
damals und heute unterschiebt, spricht ea
nicht, dass die nachweiabaren l"nt«-r-
nehmungen Nutzbauten und Entdeckunga-
fahrten in grossen Stile sind.
u2
4 W. W. TARN
Diodorus be copying ; and it is obvious that a phrase which occurs in 16 or 17
as well as in 18-20 cannot be used as a test for Hieronymus. I shall give
one or two details in their place.
A. ITEMS IN DIODORUS 18, 2-4, WHICH ABE NOT HIERONYMUS.
(a) 18, 2, 4. After the reconciliation of cavalry and infantry, they make
Philip king; no mention of any reservation of the claims of Roxane's child,
as in Arr. Diad. (Hieronymus with \ey6/j.€va) and Justin (usually supposed to
be from Hieronymus). Contemporaries, we know, found it difficult to under-
stand who was king, for three inscriptions 18 give Philip alone, while O.G.I.S. 4
gives Philip and Alexander; but there is no question that Hieronymus regularly
gave 01 /3aat\€i<; (Diod. and Arrian passim). This passage, then, is not
Hieronymus.
(b) 18, 2, 4. They then make Perdiccas eVt/teX^T?;? (regent). In Arr.
Diad. there is no regent appointed ; § 3 Perdiccas becomes chiliarch, which
carries the guardianship (e-rmpoTrrj) of the whole kingdom, and Craterus
Trpo(rraTr)<; TT/? <&i\t,7nrov /3aai\eia<i, executive of the idiot's kingship (not
kingdom) — i.e. Craterus was meant to have Philip's person and seal.19 In
plain English, the regency was (very naturally) put into commission ; Perdiccas
had the effective power, but could only lawfully act on Craterus' counter-
signature. (Of course the system never came into force.) But much more
important here is Diod. 18, 23, 2. This chapter, 23, with its intimate know-
ledge of the minds of Perdiccas and Antigonus, and its praise of Antigonus,
is Hieronymus beyond question (cf . Schubert, p. 46) ; and it says that at first
Perdiccas' position was not secure, but later he took over the royal army and
the 7rpo<TTa<ria TWV /8a<nXeuwi>,20 i.e. became executive of the two kingships ;
this means that, events having put into his possession the persons of the kings
and Philip's seal, he attempted to legalise his position by getting his army
to make him TrpoffTarrjs, a thing, of course, not recognised by Craterus and
Antipater. Hieronymus then flatly contradicts the statement (b), that Perdiccas
was at once made regent.21
(c) 18, 2, 4 (Perdiccas) to whom Alexander dying gave his ring. The ring
18 O.G.I.S. 8 (v) and Syll3. 311 (his first Bum. 2, 1 and 2, summa, i.e. de facto
year); I.G. IIs, 401 (before Antipater's power (vague); Just. 13, 4, 5, Meleager
death). and Perdiccas generals with regum cura
19 An enormous literature. Much the jointly. Contra, Just. 13, 6, 10 (Perdiccas
best is R. Laqueur, Zur Oeschichte des when in Cappadocia has regum cura) and
Krateroa, Hermes 54 (1919), 295, who saw App. Syr. 52 (at some time before his
in effect that the regency was put in death he was irpo<nar^s riav ftaat\<<av) agree
commission. with Diod. 18, 23, 2, i.e. Hieronymus ;
20 So Parisinus R ; 0atri\tuv only in the Memnon § 4, -riav o\uv liriffTavros, also refers
inferior MSS. (Laqueur). to this later period. The only document
11 The other passages usually quoted for which, for what it is worth, agrees with
Perdiccas being regent merely show some (6) is the Heidelberg Epitome, where
form of power, which nobody doubts : Perdiccas from the start is tirirjoiros xal
Curt. 10, 10, 4, general of the army ; Nepos, ^iri^tA^rfyj ruv &U(TI\IKU>V
ALEXANDER'S ino^^ra AND THE ' WORLD -KIXCDOM1 5
story is inseparable from two other stories ; that Alexander at the end be-
queathed his kingdom T£ fcparia-ry, and that he said he foresaw an fjrtru^iov
peyav dyuva. These two stories are untrue, as he could not speak; they
come together with the ring story in Diod. 17, 117, 4; Justin 12, 15, 6; and
Curtius 10, 5, 5 ; the concurrence of these three sources shows that all three
stories are from Cleitarchus. Arrian, 7, 23, 6, does not give the ring story,
but says that its two adjuncts did not come in Ptolemy or Aristobulus. The
ring story, then, has nothing to do with Hieronymus. Diodorus repeats it
here of himself from book 17, just as, of himself, he has repeated the two
adjuncts in 18, 1, 4, his personal preface.22 No deduction need be drawn from
18, 1, 4 T<p dpi<TT<p as against 17, 117, 4 T£ jr/MT&rrp, for Curtius also has qui
esset optimus ; it may show that there were two versions of the Cleitarchean
tradition, but equally it may only illustrate the common habit of quoting
by substance and not by form.
(d) 18, 2, 4. The rest is not Hieronymus, because of T£ /8a<rt\€t.
(e) 18, 3, 1. The first three lines cannot be Hieronymus, because Perdiccas
has TIJV TWV o\wv riyepoviav, i.e. is regent,23 and in Hieronymus he is not — see
(6). Then Perdiccas gives the satrapies as regent. This again cannot be
Hieronymus, whose version was that Perdiccas gave the satrapies on Philip's
(pretended) orders.24 In fact, of course, it is obvious that there must have
been a bargain between Perdiccas and Ptolemy; Ptolemy's price for recog-
nising Perdiccas was Egypt and the appointment of Arrhidaeus to control
the funeral arrangements. Curtius, who occasionally represents Hieronymus,
does say (10, 10, 1) that the division was made by the generals in council;
and it may be that Hieronymus' complete version was that Perdiccas called
a council-, alleging Philip's orders, and the council bargained the matter out.
The phrase (Perdiccas) avve^p€v<ra<; /xera TWV rjyepovtav cannot be used to
prove that (e) is from Hieronymus, as does Schubert, p. 29, comparing
Diod. 19, 48, 1 crvve&peiKTas /*era TWV <j>i\(i)V, for the phrase is Diodorus'
own.25
(/) 18, 3, 4, a well-known crux, which needs a little care. It says that
Perdiccas gave Seleucus the hipparchy of the Companions, being the .nost
illustrious; Hephaestion had been its first commander, then Perdiccas, and
Seleucus third. It has to be considered together with Duns ap. Plut. Eum. 1 :
Perdiccas on Hephaestion 's death succeeded to his rdgi? (probably meaning
his hipparchy),26 while Eumenes took over Perdiccas' hipparchy. In both
accounts, then, Perdiccas succeeds to Hephaestion's hipparchy on his death,
in direct contradiction to Arrian 7, 14, 10. — First of all, there never was an
office called the hipparchy, though some modern writers discuss it quite seriously.
I had better take out the facts in Arrian, as this has never been done; they
11 He does repeat from himself; e.g. identified each time. Cf. 18, 23. 2 ami 3.
17, 114, 2 from 17, 37, 5. M Arr. Diad. § 5, ut 'Apfrilaiov it*k.tvorrui .
13 This phrase, though Diodorus' own Cf . App. Syr. 42 ; Schubert, p. 134.
(17, 23, 5 and 6, of Memnon's extraordinary "Diod. 16, 11, 4; cf. 10, 59, 4 and
command), is used regularly in book 18 as 17, 9, 1.
equivalent to tirtnt\na, the regency, -see 18, " r«i{«» = hipparchy; Arr. 5, 21, 1 ; ~
36, 6 and 47, 4, where the two are formally 14, 10.
6 W. W. TARN
are quite simple. On Philotas' death the Companions were divided into
two hipparchies, commanded by Hephaestion and Cleitus the Black (Arr.
3, 27, 4) ; they are called hipparchs, but as each nominally commanded 1000
men they could, no doubt, also be called chiliarchs, like many other com-
manders in the army.27 At the Hydaspes battle, beside the agema (the old
royal i\r)), now commanded by Alexander personally, we find 5 hipparchies,
commanded by Hephaestion, Perdiccas, Craterus, Demetrius, and Coenus
(Arr. 5, 11, 3 ; 12, 2 ; 16, 3) ; as Hephaestion's command could not have been
reduced, each hipparchy nominally contained 1000 men, though not, of course,
Macedonian aristocrats ; this agrees with the number that crossed the Hydaspes,
some 5000 horse (5, 14, 1), viz. 4 hipparchies, 1000 horse-archers, and the
agema, perhaps 250. The hipparchies had now each one Macedonian fX?;;
the rest were Bactrians, Arachosians, etc.28 When Alexander set out home-
ward through Gedrosia, he took the Macedonian ifX?; from each hipparchy with
him (Arr. 6, 21, 3), and returned the native cavalry to their satrapies.29 The
break in Arrian obscures the next step ; but probably what remained of the
original Macedonian Companions were collected into one hipparchy and placed
under Hephaestion (Arr. 7, 14, 10). There were, of course, other hipparchies
formed, probably entirely of Asiatics ; 30 but when Hephaestion died he was called
chiliarch of the Companion cavalry, which was, however, only one raft? of the
cavalry (7, 14, 10). Arrian (ib.) states that no new commander of this rafts
was appointed, but it continued to bear Hephaestion's name; this statement is
certainly Ptolemy's, for Curt. 10, 4 is in verbal agreement, a clear proof in a
military item. Consequently the statements of Diodorus and Plutarch (above)
that Perdiccas succeeded Hephaestion in command of his hipparchy cannot
represent the facts, and therefore cannot well be from Hieronymus. As
Plutarch is Duris, so is (ultimately) Diodorus. Duris is worth little enough.
Let us suppose, however, meanwhile, that he is correct in this, that Perdiccas
succeeded Hephaestion in something, and that the term he (Duris) uses, rafts,
perhaps may not here mean a hipparchy.
The whole trouble has arisen, both in Duris and some moderns, from a
confusion of the Macedonian military chiliarchs with the Persian official whose
title the Greeks unfortunately translated as ' the chiliarch,' an official who
was originally commander of the Guard (the full phrase was apparently 6
s ITTTTOV), but had become a sort of vizier. Alexander had revived
27 The commanders of the battalions of 2* This follows from Diod. 18, 7; Per-
the hypaspiste (Arr. 1, 22, 7 ; 4, 30, 5 ; diccas can only spare Peithon 800 horse,
5, 23, 7) and of the archers (4, 24, 10) are but orders the eastern satraps to give him
called chiliarchs. See generally 7, 25, 6. 8000, which they do.
28 This comes out clearly in Arrian 's so E.g. Kallines', Arr. 7, 14, 6; cf. Arr.
account of the Hydaspes battle. It is Diad. § 33, ol "iirirapxoi. The statement in
given formally Arr. 7, 6, 3-4, where it Arr. 7, 6, 4 that the fifth hipparchy, formed
(like Alexander's Persian dress) relates to after the others, was not entirely ' bar-
pa^ events. Droysen's theory of 8 hip- barian,' points to the existence later of
parchies was a mere misunderstanding of hipparchies that were entirely Asiatic, like
^{(7«as in 4, 22, 7 ; ynifftas means ' some many of the cavalry formations of the
of,' as Droysen himself saw clearly in 5, Successors.
13, 1, where no doubt is possible.
ALEXANDER'S vTro^/xara AND THE • WORLD -KINGDOM
the Persian office (Diod. 18, 48, 5); and, if so, he revived it for Hephaeation,
who was his second in command qua the Persians as Craterus qua the Mace-
donians (Plut. Alex. 47). This office is what Hieronymus 81 means by ' Hephaea-
tion's chiliarchy,' of which he says Perdiccas was made chiliarch after Alex-
ander's death. But as Perdiccas had to be made chiliarch (vizier), he was not
vizier at Alexander's death. We can now see what did happen. Hephaestion
at his death held two separate offices ; he was commander of the hipparchy
which comprised the original Companions, and he was vizier; to both offices
the term ' chiliarch ' could be applied. The hipparchy in question remained
unfilled till Alexander died, when it was given to Seleucus. The vizierdom
may have been informally filled by Perdiccas between the deaths of Hephaes-
tion and Alexander; i.e. he did the work without the title, he was ofumVo?.
Duris may have been trying to say this ; but he mixed up the two chiliarchies
and did say ra£t<?, which might mean anything, but which Diod. 18, 3, 4 very
naturally turned into hipparchy. Duns' statement that Perdiccas gave up
his own hipparchy and Eumenes succeeded,32 though immaterial, can hardly
be true; for Eumenes' mediation between cavalry and infantry shows that
he belonged to neither. — (/) then is not from Hieronymus.
($r),18, 3, 5. Preparation to take Alexander's body to Ammon. Alex-
ander's wish to be buried at Ammon (Curt. 10, 5, 4) comes in the middle of
the three stories considered under (c) and is clearly Cleitarchus. Schubert,
p. 181, recognised this, but suggested that the generals did in fact select Ammon
as a neutral spot. But it was no more neutral, in actual fact, than Memphis;
and the passage in which the idea of taking the body to Ammon again occurs
is quite late, as shown by the statement that Alexandria ' is almost the most
illustrious city of the world ' (Schubert, p. 186). (It cannot be Diodorus'
own comment; he would not have so phrased it with Rome before him.)
Consequently the reference to Ammon in 18, 3, 5 must be also much later
than Hieronymus.
(h) 18, 4, 7. Perdiccas slanders Meleager. Not Hieronymus, who favours
Perdiccas except where Antigonus is concerned. It comes from the ' infantry
source' (Schubert, p. 115).
(i) 18, 4, 8. Revolt of the Greeks in the upper satrapies and sending of
Peithon. A short duplication of the account in ch. 7, which is admittedly
Hieronymus, and which formally introduces Peithon, who has therefore not
been mentioned before. But I lay no stress on this duplicate, as it is obviously
Diodorus' own anticipation of a future narrative ; ** and TWJ> t-rrufraviav dv&ptov
is his own phrase, too common to call for references.
(k) 18, 4, 1 (Craterus to Cilicia) is a similar anticipation of 18, 12, 1,
where it is in place.
I come now to the passages that may be Hieronymus.
18, 2, 1. Alexander dies airai<:. The source here is one which recurs
several times later and treats Alexander as having one son only, Roxane's.
11 Arr. Diad. § 3; Dexippus fr. 1. ** He often anticipates. See the refer-
11 Arr. Diad. § 2 cannot be made to enee to the argyraspids, 17, 57, 2, and the
support this. long reference to Agathoclee, 17, 23, 2.
8 W. W. TARN
I am examining this at length elsewhere ; M there is no reasonable doubt that
it is Hieronymus.
18, 2, 2 and 3. Generally supposed to be Hieronymus ; but so colourless
that there is -no certainty. There is, however, one definite argument against
it. The reconciliation between cavalry and infantry is brought about by
oi %api€(naToi rtav av&pwv, a phrase of Diodorus' own,35 whereas Hier-
onymus almost certainly named Eumenes.36 If Diodorus were here copying
Hieronymus it is difficult to see why he omitted Eumenes' name and sub-
stituted a vague phrase.
18, 3. The satrapy list as settled at Babylon must have appeared in
every writer, and may have rested ultimately on an official document.
Diodorus' list may be derived through the medium of Hieronymus, as there
is a certain resemblance between 3, 1 a? 'A\ei;av&pos OVK cTrrjXBev K.T.\.
and App. Mith. 8 = Hieron. fr. la; but the resemblance is not close.
The result, then, is this. There is only one phrase cf which we can say
with reasonable certainty that it must be from Hieronymus, while there are
many passages which are certainly not.36" This proves my preliminary point ;
we cannot assume that the story of the vTrofj,vij/j,a,Ta, Diod. 18, 4, 1-6, is from
Hieronymus ; it must be examined on its merits.
B. THE vTTOfj,vrj/j,aTa.
First, the form of the story. Craterus, when sent off to Cilicia (some
months before Alexander's death), received written orders (eWoXcu) which
Alexander gave him to carry out, but on Alexander's death the Successors
decided not to carry them out. For Perdiccas found in the king's viro^vi^a-ra
certain plans (eVt/3oA,al), etc. — Endres, p. 441, says that the word ' for '
identifies the orders and the plans; this is true. He then says they are
identical ; a very different thing. For the identification is made by Diodorus
whose language is his own throughout. As many of the plans relate to Asia,
it is clear that they cannot represent orders given to Craterus, who was sent
to take Antipater's place as viceroy of Europe ; moreover, in Diodorus' narra-
tive, the orders are set aside by the Successors, the plans by the army on
Perdiccas' reference to them. Diodorus' identification then is prima facie
wrong, a matter which shows at the outset that the whole story requires careful
investigation.
There is another reason why the ' plans ' cannot be identical with Craterus'
orders ; we know what Craterus' orders were. He was to govern Macedonia,
84 Heracles son of Barsine, in this number partition of Babylon : — the Caspian is a
of this Journal. lake, the Ganges and Chandragupta are
85 ol x«P<«'ffT6poj, 16, 65, 6. unknown, Media is still undivided and
36 Plut. Eum. 3, with full details. Armenia still a satrapy (a fiction abandoned
3*a The formal commencement of Hierony- at Babylon), and Susiana 'happens to be'
mus may have been the old document Diod. part of Persis, i.e. is under Peucestas, — the
18, chs. 5 and 6, which (obvious additions KOIVWS «Ix« of Dexippus, fr. 1.
apart) dates from 324/3, i.e. before the
ALEXANDER'S ^o^ara AND THK 'WORLD-KINGDOM' 9
Thrace, and Thessaly, and preside over, or order (c'£iryet<r0cu), the freedom
of the Hellenes.866 Antipater had not thought much about ' freedom ' ; he
had kept the peace of the League with his oligarchies and garrisons; but
Alexander's exiles' decree had altered all that, and the new policy required a
new man ; the returning exiles, mostly democrats, were not likely to trust
Antipater. It is the standing antithesis of the two policies — the Antipater-
Cassauder policy of oligarchs and garrisons, and the Alexander-Antigonus
policy of democracy and ' freedom ' (more or less) — which divided the world
down to 301, not to mention later offshoots. Craterus, in effect acting President
of the League vice Alexander, was going to have his hands full, and could
hardly prepare world-conquests in addition. In the face of Arrian's statement
it is impossible to identify the plans and the orders.
Endres accordingly, though he does not notice Arrian, tacitly drops this
identification, and proceeds to identify the v-no^vijuara with Alexander's
€<f)r}fj^pi8f<f. Certainly v7rofj.vijfj.aTa can mean a king's Journal ; 87 but
whether it does so in any particular case is a mere question of fact. It is a
common word at every period, applied to many sorts of documents. Were
Arafus' argumentative vTrop.vrjfj.aT a, for example, tyrj/jiepiScs, or those of
Polybius 1, 1, 1? In the present case, it is impossible to contend that the
v7rofj.vtjfj.aTa TOV ftaaiXeax; of Diod. 18, 4, 2 were Alexander's well-known
Journal, because they are mentioned again in 18, 4, 3 in a context which abso-
lutely precludes their being anything but the eVi/9oXat ; they are identified
with the €7rif3o\al, the plans, i.e. they are the written plans. But there is,
of course, a much stronger argument against identifying the v7rofj.v^fjiara
with the Journal ; the Journal itself. Endres' argument is, that Alexander
during his last illness discussed things with his generals, and must therefore
have discussed the Carthaginian expedition, etc., and this must have appeared
in the Journal. This, of course, frankly begs the whole question ; but apart
from that it is refuted by the Journal itself, as given in Arrian (7, 25) and
Plutarch (Alex. 76) with considerable minuteness. It shows that what Alex-
ander did do was to give orders connected with the Arabian expedition, once
concerning the land forces and thrice concerning the fleet ; to discuss wi h his
generals the appointments to vacant commands ; and to listen to some things
Nearchus had to tell him about his voyage and the ' great sea.' Arrian used
Ptolemy's excerpt from the Journal, and Plutarch (or his source) some one
else's. Now I think no one can read Arrian and Diodorus 18-20 consecutively
without noticing how (what we think is) Ptolemy and (what we think is)
Hieronymus agree in little things and compliment each other; and I note
that Schubert (p. 35) has evidently felt much the same thing. Yet what
Endres (who assumes the inrofu'wara story to be Hieronymus) asks us to
believe is in effect this : that these two capable men, both experienced soldiers
and administrators, excerpted the Journal for the few days of Alexander's
illness without taking out the same facts in any one single case ; that Ptolemy,
•» Whatever be the right reading (see A. " U. Wilcken,
Wilhelm, Atlische L'rkunden 1, 1911, p. 16), 53 (1894), 80.
the sense is not in doubt.
10 W. W. TARN
who found and gave three notices of the Arabian expedition, absolutely over-
looked the far more important schemes of conquest in Africa and the Mediter-
ranean and everything else in Diod. 18, 4, 1-6 ; while Hieronymus, professing
to give Alexander's plans, left out the Arabian expedition, of which Alexander
spoke at least three times and which was just ready to start. I do not think
I need go further.38
We have seen that the vTrofwrj/jLara, according to Diodorus, are the written
plans. Now the word v7ro/j.vij/j.aTa, in and after the third century, had one
very common meaning; the term was often applied to a book of extracts
or stories on this or that or any subject, the sort of thing we call a common-
place book, full of snippets ; Aelian's Varia Historia is a late surviving speci-
men. A few instances are the vTro^vyjfiara of Hegesander of Delphi, the
or lo-ropiica vTrofj,vrjfAara of Carystius of Pergamum, the i
of Euphorion and of Hieronymus of Rhodes, the
of Persaeus, the o-f/i/u/tTa vTro/j,vrjfjiaTa of Herodicus of Babylon,
the vTTOfivrjfiara or draxra or (rvfji/MiKTa of Istrus, the tfearpitca vTro/jLvijfiara of
Nestor ; and we meet with at least two volumes of ItrropiKa vtro^v^^aia whose
compiler was uncertain, one collection being attributed to ' Aristotle or Theo-
phrastus,' the other to ' Callimachus or Zenodotus.' There were many other
such collections bearing special titles; and sometimes we get both sorts of
titles ; for instance, Persaeus' book is called both avfiiroTiKa uTrofii^/zara and
o-v/jLTTOTiKal SiaXoyal. I am not going to suggest definitely that there was a
book of v7rofj,vr)fj,aTa going about called 'A\egdvSpov eVt/SoXat or /3a<nA.eW
eVt^oXal39 or something of the sort, because I know of no proof; but as
there was certainly a collection (or collections) of Alexander's letters, partly
forgeries, and similar collections of other people's letters, Olympias', Anti-
pater's, Eumenes', etc., some of which were probably forgeries also, there is
no inherent improbability in the supposition of a collection of royal plans;
and it may be that this would be a useful line of research for some one whose
knowledge of Alexandrian literature is greater than I can lay claim to.
C. THE PLANS.
Here I drop Craterus and his orders, and consider our document (18, 4,
1-6) on its merits as a collection of plans attributed to Alexander, its source
being (so far) an open question. I note first that Arrian knows of a number
of plans that Alexander really had in hand when he died, and that work had
been done on all these and all were dropped ; such are the rebuilding of the
temple of Bel at Babylon, the formation of a mixed phalanx, and the Arabian
88 If Lehmann-Haupt (Hermes 36, 319) 39 There were, of course, many other
were right in attributing Plutarch's excerpt ' plans ' beside Alexander's, as can be seen
to Hieronymus, my argument would be from writers like Pliny. Some were ex-
greatly strengthened. But this depends on tremely wild, like Seleucus' alleged inten-
his belief that there were only two copies tion to cut a canal from the Caspian to the
of the Journal in existence, an idea entirely Black Sea.
in the air.
ALEXANDER'S fayu^/tara AND THE 'WORLD-KINGDOM' 11
expedition, i.e. conquest for settlement of the west coast of, and the islands
in, the Persian Gulf. It is, of course, a strong argument against the genuineness
of the vTTOfjLvtjfjiaTa that they do not give a single one of the plans known
from Arrian, though certainly the rebuilding of E-sagila and the Arabian
expedition were /u^/ti/? dfcia.
To take tne plans in the vTrofiv^fiara in order.
(1) The completion of Hephaestion's pyre at Babylon. The pyre waa
already finished; the elaborate description of it as a work of art in Diod.
17, 115 cannot be pure invention. Endres, p. 443 (if I understand him aright),
implicitly suggests that trvvreXetav refers only to payment for the work.
This is impossible; for avvreXctav refers to avtne\€<rai and avvreKelv two
lines before, whose meaning is not in doubt ; and in fact crvvTeXelv, always
in the sense of ' do, perform, complete,' is extremely common in Diodorus.
The first plan, then, is a historical absurdity.
(2) Building of six temples in Europe at a cost of 1500 talents each.
This might be true ; for Alexander had already ordered two temples in Asia,
of Zeus at Sardis and Bel at Babylon. In Plutarch de fort. Alex. 343o this
building is alluded to, with a round figure for the whole (10,000 talents);
this may be confirmation, or may merely be the same source.
(3) TroXetav a-woiKia-fiov^. No synoecism of cities by Alexander, done,
begun, or planned, is known. Those of his cities of which anything is known
were mixed settlements of Europeans and Asiatics or Egyptians ; there was
no place in his system for synoecism as practised by his successors.
(4) Interchange of peoples between Europe and Asia. So far as sending
more Europeans to Asia goes, Alexander must certainly have thought of it,
or even begun it ; for the original settlers in his cities in Asia, so far as they
were Europeans, had native wives, and European women were an absolute
necessity, if the cities were not to become purely Asiatic. The intention of
Craterus and Antipater to transfer the Aetolians bodily to further Asia is,
however, no confirmation; for what they intended was punishment, after
the fashion of Darius I. At first sight it looks as if the words ei? tcoivrjv opovoiav
teal ffvyycvitcrjv <f>i\iav support the genuineness of this plan, as they rather recall
Alexander's prayer at the banquet at Opis for op.6voidv TC KCU Koiwviav rfc
dpxf}<t*° But no stress can be laid on this ; for tcoivrj ofwvota is a known phrase
of Diodorus'.41 It is, however, probably safe to believe that this plan, at any
rate in part, had genuine tradition behind it.42
(5) A great temple at Ilion. Strabo 13, 393 may be evidence that Alex-
ander had thought of this years before.
(6) A tomb for Philip irvpapLbi, TrapaTr\r)aiov fua rfj fjityiffrrj Kara ir\v
Aiywm-ov, which they call one of the seven wonders of the world. In
Diodorus 16-20 irapaTr\ii<nov regularly means ' like ' (in shape, etc.) and
not ' as large as.' ^ The idea of reproducing the Great Pyramid at Aegae
40 Arr. 7, 11, 9; cf. Plut. de fort. Alex. worth, by Curt. 9, 7, 1, Graeci miliU-8 nup«r
330 E b^votav Kol Koivoiviav vpbi aAA^Aoi/i. in colonies a rege deducti.
41 16, 20, 6; 60, 3. " 17, 10, 4; 50, 1; 52, 3; 87, 5; 105, 1.
4 It is supported, for what it may be I have not, however, searched books 1-15.
12 W. W. TARN
is one that a sense of humour should have prevented any one ever taking
seriously. This * plan ' originated in Egypt, and bears with unmistakable
clearness the stamp of that sphere of ideas which produced the Graeco-
Egyptian Alexander-Romance. Diodorus knew and used that half-way house
to the Romance, the Letter to the Rhodians.44
So far, then, the plans given in the vTro^vrinara are a mixture of things
very possibly true and things certainly false. Of the latter, one is obviously
of Egyptian manufacture ; while the former relate to building and colonisation.
(7) We come now to the thing that matters, 18, 4, 4 : — 1000 warships
larger than triremes to be built in Phoenicia, Syria, Cilicia and Cyprus for the
expedition against Carthage and against the other maritime peoples of Libya
and Spain and the coast co-terminous with these countries as far as Sicily
(i.e. Gaul and Italy), and a road to be made along the Libyan coast as far as
the Pillars of Heracles. — Note especially that it is not an expedition, as often
represented, but the expedition, a thing settled on and known, though there
is no reference to it anywhere in the good tradition — a strange thing, seeing
that Ptolemy of the Staff must have known, had an expedition on such a vast
scale been already planned. It can, I think, be shown that this ' plan ' is
only part of a legend which exhibits a regular growth from small beginnings.
The legend is primarily based on three things that are facts : the Amon ritual
already noticed; embassies from afar did come to Alexander at Babylon;
Alexander did build ships in Phoenicia. There is, of course, a fourth fact,
that Alexander's enemies at Athens, even as early as 330, were alluding to
hi™ as lord of the ' inhabited earth.' 45 This is mere rhetoric, and not only
has no bearing on Alexander's acts or intentions, but did not (so far as I can
see) influence the growth of the legend ; but it may show that the world was
ready enough to absorb the idea of Alexander's world-kingdom, once that
idea got started.
First of all, to the certain embassies,46 some one, almost certainly Clei-
tarchus, added a number of others (Diod. 17, 113, 2); Carthage, the Liby-
Phoenicians, and all the African peoples as far as the Pillars; and (beside
Greeks) the Illyrians, Thracians, Macedonians, and Galati. Illyrians and
Thracians are possible enough, though quite immaterial; but Macedonians
did not send an embassy to Alexander, while Galati (as distinct from Celtae)
were not known to the Graeco-Macedonian world till 279. These mistakes,
of course, would discredit the whole list, even if Cleitarchus were respectable
authority; and they make it very difficult to believe in the embassy from
Carthage, which otherwise is possible enough; for one did come to Athens
towards the end of the century (I.G. ii2. 418). The vulgate indeed has a story,
very strange in its detail, that an embassy from Carthage came to Alexander
during Parmenion's life-time (Just. 21, 6); but it must be remembered that
44 Diod. 20, 81, 3, Alexander's ' Testa- *8 Libyans, Bruttians, Lucanians, Etrus-
ment ' deposited at Rhodes; see Ausfeld, cans; Arr. 7, 15, 4. As all embassies ap-
Bh. Mus. 56 (1901), 517 seq. peared in the Journal, it is difficult to credit
48 Demosth. de Corona 270 ; Hyperides, any not in Arrian.
Epitaph., 20.
ALEXANDER'S ino^fiara AND THK 'WORLD-KINGDOM' 13
Cleitarchus and the vulgate are rather obsessed throughout by the idea of
Carthage.47 The Carthaginian embassy, then, is possible, but not proven.
The peoples of Mauretania are frankly impossible. — Other writers proceeded
to improve on the list ; Spain and Gaul were first added, Gaul being manu-
factured out of the Galati (Just. 12, 13, 1 ; Arr. 7, 15, 4 Xeyerat); with these
were conjoined Sicily and Sardinia (Just. I.e.) or the Ethiopians and European
Scyths (Arr. I.e.) ; last of all was added Rome.48 The view of these embassies
given by Cleitarchus and the vulgate was, that they came from nearly all
the inhabited earth (Diod. 17, 113, 2), and that their states entrusted Alexander
with the composing of their differences, so that he did seem to be lord of the
earth (Arr. 7, 15, 5, \eyerai). Here we have both the reason for, and the
refutation of, this tremendous extension of the certain embassies ; Cleitarchua
was committed to the statement that Ammon had said that Alexander was
to have the power over the whole earth, and if this was to mean anything
outside of Egypt, it was necessary to show that Ammon had delivered the
goods. In this working over of the Cleitarchean embassies the vulgate makes
Alexander lord of the earth by those from the ends of the earth submitting
their disputes to him.
But this was not enough ; to be lord you must conquer. Here comes in
Alexander's shipbuilding (Arr. 7, 19, 3, cf. Strabo 16, 741), which was actually
a modest affair : 2 quinqueremes 3 quadriremes 12 triremes and 30 triakontora
were built in sections in Phoenicia, carried to Thapsacus, and brought down
the Euphrates to Babylon ; while at Babylon he was (when he died) building
a few more from such timber as could be collected from the parks in the district.
On these two considerations, becoming lord and the shipbuilding, is based
the invaluable story preserved by Curtius (10, 1, 3), in which the embassies
have become a scheme of conquest of the same countries. Curtius says that,
after Nearchus rejoined in Carmania, Alexander planned to conquer Carthage,
march to Gades and the Pillars, go to Spain, and thence cross the Alps into
Italy ; therefore he ordered his generals in Mesopotamia to build at Thapsacus
700 heptereis and bring them to Babylon. This extraordinary patchwork
attempt to press a real fact (the shipbuilding) into the service of the ide*. that
Alexander was to be lord of the earth is most illuminating; for it is hardly
necessary to remark that if you are going to the Pillars you do not begin by
sending your fleet to Babylon . The 700 heptereis alone are a sufficient absurdity
to discredit any story ; 49 incidentally, heptereis were not invented till nine
years after Alexander died, and were first used at Salamis in 306.
47 Curt. 4, 2, 11 and 3, 19; Just. 11, 4> The largest fleets of the 4th and 3rd
10, 12; Diod. 17, 40, 3. centuries are : — Dionysius I. (reputed 400);
4 • Arr. 7, 15, 5. If it came in Cleitarchus, Athens, 413 in the docks in 325; Persia
as Pliny says, it is impossible to see why in 334, reputed 400; these largely triremes.
Diodorus omits it. The new theory ad- For fleets of a larger average sire; Deme-
vanced by R. B. Steele, Cku». Philol. 13 trius in 306, about 330, not all at sea;
(1918), p. 302, does not meet this ditlirnlty. Ptolemy II. • ,V, 250, some 336 (on paper);
The Pliny passage contains another gross Rome in 208, 280, all at sea. References,
1 hinder (Schnabel, op. cit., p. 48) and is etc., in Tarn, Antigonos Oonattu, 82 seq.,
untrustworthy. 154 seq.
14 W. W. TARN
The legend now bifurcates. One branch, represented by our passage,
Diod. 18, 4, 4, agrees with the Curtius story as to the round Alexander is to
take, but throws over the last link with reality, the fleet at Babylon, as being
unworkable; Alexander now builds and keeps his fleet on the Mediterranean,
in Phoenicia, etc. The fleet has naturally grown from 700 to 1000 ships
" greater than triremes " ; but looking at what happened to Xerxes' fleet
one is astonished at the author's moderation. The reason for it is simple;
the author has recollected an innocent remark of Aristobulus that the basin
which Alexander was digging at Babylon was large enough to hold 1000 war-
ships— a simple method of indicating its size.50 These 1000 ships, designed
for the conquest of the west, turn up again in a very curious context ; in Just.
13, 5, 7, Alexander orders them, not for the conquest of the world, but —
for the Lamian war ! Incidentally, we can now see why Diod. 18, 4, 4 gives
the expedition to Carthage and not an expedition ; the writer is referring to
previous stories, such as Curtius 10, 1, 3, and who knows what other inter-
mediate developments of the legend; it proves that the Diodorus story is,
as we have already seen, part of a chain or sequence in the development of
the idea which it handles. — The other branch of the legend is determined to
keep Babylon in the picture, and therefore throws over the march to the Pillars
along the Libyan coast ; instead, it makes Alexander plan to circumnavigate
Africa with his army and fleet (like the Phoenicians in Herodotus, only they
had not an army and fleet to feed), conquer Carthage from the west, and from
Sicily go on to the Euxine and Maeotis (stories collected in Arr. 7, 1, 2).51 —
And the last stage of all is the Romance, which gathers up all the ' plans '
and turns them into accomplishment ; here Alexander does conquer Carthage
and Rome, does sail through the Pillars, and does go north far beyond the
Maeotis. There is thus a perfectly complete sequence of development in the
story from the Cleitarchean embassies to the Romance.
This sequence of development precludes any possibility of Diod. 18, 4, 4
being from Hieronymus. But in fact we can get one date in the growth of
this sequence. In the Curtius story, Alexander's plan to march from Spain
to Italy over the Alps is obviously taken from Hannibal's march, and this
story therefore is later than 219; and the story in Diod. 18, 4, 4, which is
still later, cannot therefore be earlier than the very end of the third century
and may be much later. We shall see (§ D) that this terminus ante quern non
can be confirmed.
Herewith falls to the ground the whole story of the vTro/j,vrjfj,aTa, as
history.51" We have already seen that they are a compilation, composed of
60 Arr. 7, 19, 4. The basin was primarily round Africa, or in the Atlantic like
for merchantmen ; warships were not kept Pytheas ; precisely as he did send an
afloat. I note that Aristobulus does not expedition to explore the Caspian,
say that docks were built for 1000 ships, 61a E. T. Newell, The dated Alexander
but that (some) docks were begun — coinage of Sidon and Ake, 1916, p. 31, has
naturally. noted an ' unprecedented activity ' in the
81 It is likely enough that Alexander Sidonian mint in 323, which he refers to the
may have meditated sending out expedi- Carthaginian expedition. It was really due
tions of exploration and discovery, whether to the coining of the 500 talents which
ALEXANDER'S ^o^ara AND THE ' WORLD-KINGDOM ' 15
things possibly true and things certainly false ; we see now that the compilation
cannot have originated, at the earliest, much before 200, and is probably later,
as time must be given for development. Hieronymus is utterly out of the ques-
tion. And this is, after all, the natural conclusion from Arrian ; for Arrian, who
knew his Hieronymus well, knows nothing of the vTrofwijuara ; he says (7, 1, 4)
that he had no idea what Alexander's future plans were. Perhaps it would
be more correct to say that, if he did know the v-rrofiv^fiara, he classed them
where they belong, among those \ey6fieva in which he found other world-
conquest stuff which, to his credit, he did not believe. Kohler's suggestion
that Arrian, when he wrote the Anabasis, had perhaps not yet read Hieronymus,
was rather a counsel of despair, seeing the \ey6fMeva which Arrian had read ;
but as the vTrofj.vijfjuira were not in Hieronymus, the matter is immaterial.
D. THE ABANDONMENT OF THE PLANS.
There remains Diod. 18, 4, 3 to be considered : — Perdiccas does not like
to set aside Alexander's plans of himself, and so refers them to the army.
Endres (p. 440) argued that, as this passage favours Perdiccas, it, and therefore
the whole v-jrop,vrifiara story, must be from Hieronymus. How it favours
Perdiccas to represent that he took steps to set aside Alexander's plans I do
not know; neither does Endres, for he concludes his article with an attack
on Perdiccas which effectually refutes his own argument. Now as a fact
Perdiccas showed loyalty to the dead ; he secured the kingship for his son,
and took steps to complete, in what he understood to be Alexander's sense,
various things which Alexander had not had time to finish, e.g. the conquests
of Cappadocia and Pisidia, and the restoration of the Samians. It is not quite
easy to believe that Hieronymus would have represented that Perdiccas, as
one of his first acts, took steps to secure the abandonment of Alexander's
plans wholesale. But this is not the point I want to make. The real point
is, that the whole of this story of the reference by Perdiccas of Alexander's
plans (i.e. matters of policy and finance) to the Macedonians is imposbible,
and could never have been written by a contemporary who understood Mace-
donian usage, like Hieronymus. The Macedonian people under arms, the
army, had authority in two cases, and in two only ; in treason trials (the king
being a party), and the election of a king or regent when the throne was vacant.
Whenever any of the Successors refer matters to the Macedonians in their
army, as they often do, it is always for one of these two things. The Mace-
donians, e.g., elect Peithon and Arrhidaeus temporary regents (Diod. 18, 36, 7)
and Antipater regent (18, 39, 3), beside their election of Philip as king; the
powers claimed by Perdiccas in 322 (18, 23, 2) and by Antigonus (19, 61, 3)
Miccalus brought to Phoenicia to hire or Balacrus' attack on Isaura (Newell in .4m.
buy settlers for the Persian Gulf (Arr. 7, J. Num., 1918, 81). But preparations for
19, 5). A local cause would stir up one an expedition against Carthago and Spain
mint ; see the activity at Tarsus prior to must have been reflected in every mint.
16 W. W. TARN
were purported to be conferred by their troops. Treason trials, or condemna-
tion for treason, are common ; beside the Philotas and Hermolaos trials under
Alexander, we have Eumenes, Alcetas, and their friends (18, 37, 2) ; Sibyrtius
(19, 23, 4); Olympias (19, 51, 1); 52 and possibly Nicanor (Polyaen. 4, 11, 2).
But there is no trace anywhere in the tradition that the Macedonians had
any authority in matters of policy or finance. Occasionally kings or dynasts
read out their rescripts to the army when promulgating them, to secure pub-
licity, so Alexander his order for the return of the Samians, Syll? 312, and
Antigonus his proclamation of Greek freedom to an assembly of his army
and the inhabitants of the district, Diod. 18, 61, 1-3 ; but they did not consult
the army ; the rescripts were purely autocratic. If the army wanted to make
its voice heard about policy, as it sometimes did, e.g. over Eurydice's marriage
with Philip, it could only do so by mutinying (Arr. Diad. § 23), as it had done
on the Hyphasis, and at Opis. Diod. 18, 4, 3 cannot then be Hieronymus.
This conclusion can be reinforced by the language of the passage. Per-
diccas refers the plans to TO KOIVOV rcov MaKebovwv TrXfjOos. Now Diodorus
often uses TO 7r\ij6o<; alone of the Macedonian army ; M and he uses ol Matce&oves
of the army as a tribunal;54 but his commonest phrase for a meeting of
troops, and especially of Macedonian troops, is eWX?7<7ia. or Koivrj e/ctcXrjaia.55
But instead of any of his three usual phrases he has here used a phrase to
which he shows no parallel, and which (I may add) has no sense ; for what a
KOIVOV 7r\fj0o<; may mean, when only one army is in question, I do not know.
Probably, then, the phrase in some way derives from, or is connected with
his source. What it derives from can be easily seen ; the original writer had
in his mind the KOIVOV TWV McuceBovayv, known from Syll.3 575, and Tr\f)0o<; is a
later addition. That this interpretation is correct is shown by Polyaen. 4, 6, 14,
where Antigonus has Peithon condemned by TO KOIVOV rtav Ma/ceSoi><wz>. If any
one will trouble to compare Polyaenus' account with Diod. 19, 46, he will see
that the two versions differ in practically every detail ; and as Diodorus is
certainly Hieronymus, Polyaenus cannot be. That is to say, we have in
Polyaen. 4, 6, 14 a second case in the extant literature in which some one,
who is certainly not Hieronymus, has mixed up the eV#X?7<n'a of the
Macedonians as a court for the trial of treason with the later Kotvov.56
Now the KOIVOV T(OV MaxtBovw cannot be earlier than Antigonus Doson ;
there is no place for it under Gonatas, and it must have some connection with the
change in the royal style of the Antigonids from MaKeotav to Kal Ma/ee&oves.57
Consequently the reference to the KOIVOV in Diod. 18, 4, 3 brings us round by
82 Cassander's anxiety to prevent Olym- 3, 1; 4, 3. 17, 74, 3; 94, 5; 108, 3;
pias speaking shows that she was tried for 109, 2. 18, 36, 6. Other troops : 16, 18,
treason and not mere murder ; for on mur- 2 ; 79, 2. — KO»P^ tKK\r)ala. Macedonian
der she had no case, but as to treason she troops : 18, 39, 4. 19, 51, 1. Other
could have said some very awkward things. troops : 16, 10, 3; 18, 3; 78, 2.
83 16, 35, 2. 17, 84, 6; 107, 4; 109, 2. 8« There is a third case of this KOIVOV in
So TCI ITA^TJ; 17, 56, 2; 18, 39, 4. Arr. 7, 9, 5, Alexander's speech at Opis,
84 17, 79, 6; 80, 1. 18, 36, 7; 37, 2; which dates the composition of the speech.
39,3. 19, 51, 2 and 4. " Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, 54, n. 36;
88 iKx\riaia. Macedonian troops: 16, 390 n. 61.
ALEXANDER'S iiro^^ra AND THK WORLD-KINGDOM' 17
another road to what we have already seen from Curtius, viz. that the
vTTOfjLvtj^ara story has nothing to do with Hieronymus, and cannot be earlier
than the very end of the third century.
To sum up. The alleged {nro^v^a-ra are a compilation of things possibly
true (all relating to building and colonisation) and certainly false, made far
later than Hieronymus. The principal item, the plan to conquer Carthage
and the Mediterranean basin, is part of a legend which developed by regular
stages from the Cleitarchean embassies to the Romance, whose basis is admittedly
the last echo of the Cleitarchean vulgate. This item was not formulated
fin-lier than c. 200 B.C. The legend derives, in the ultimate resort, from the
Amon-ritual ; and this, combined with the reference to the Great Pyramid,
points to an Egyptian origin for the compilation. So far as positive evidence
goes, the idea of Alexander's world-kingdom has nothing to do with history;
it belongs solely to the realm of legend and romance.
I have to omit the most interesting point, for I am not competent to
discuss it. The development of this Graeco-Egyptian legend, in which Alex-
ander plans world-conquest, and of the Graeco-Egyptian romance, in which
he achieves it, are not likely to be unconnected. I can only hope that some one
with the necessary knowledge of the queer borderland which exists between
history and the Romance will investigate this connection.
W. W. TARN.
J.II.S. — VOL. XLI.
HERACLES SON OF BARSINE
SOME of our extant authorities, as Justin and Appian, state or assume
that Alexander had two sons, Roxane's and Barsine's. Others, as Diodorus
in the events prior to 309, and Curtius in parts, state or assume that he had
only one, Roxane's. Now it makes a considerable difference in our view of
the events of 309 whether the lad called Heracles, who appeared in that year
as a reputed son of Alexander and Barsine, were really Alexander's son or
an ordinary pretender. No modern historian has even noticed that there is
a conflict of authority ; for though Beloch saw that Heracles' age was wrong
he did not follow it up, but altered the age. Before coming to the events
of 309, the source of the evidence for Alexander having one son only must
be considered.
Diodorus first, (a) 18, 2, 1, Alexander dies anais. (b) 18, 9, 1, Alexander
dies rrj<; fla<ri\eia<; viovs StaS6%ou9 OVK €%OVTO<;, (c) 19, 11, 2, Olympias
/J,€TO, TOV 'A\e£dv&pov TTttiBbf (one only), (d) 19, 35, 5, Olympias e^oixra
TOV vlov TOV 'A\€t;dv8pov. (e) 19, 52, 4, 6 Be K.d<ravopo<; Bieyixafcei /u,ei> dve^eiv
'AXe^dvBpov TOV iraLoa . . . 'iva /irjSel? y BidBo^o^ TT}<? /3ao-A.eia?. (/) 19, 105,
4, after the murder in 310 of Roxane's son the dynasts are relieved from fear
of the king; ovtcen yap ovros ovSevbs TOV BiaBe£a/j,evov Trjv dp^rjv each held
the %&)/>a allotted to him as if it were SopiKTrjTos. This is all plain enough.
It is obvious, from the reference to the BiaBoxy, that (6), (e) and (/) come
from the same source : (c) and (d) also come from the same source.
To take (/) first, 19, 105. § 1 of this chapter, which gives the terms of
the treaty of 311 between Antigonus, Cassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus,
is indisputably Hieronymus. § 2 gives the murder of Roxane's son' by
Cassander. Parts of the Cassander narrative in Diodorus are, however, from
Diyllus (Diyllus fr. 3). The question is, how much? There is both a
pro-Cassander and an anti-Cassander tradition running through Diodorus —
that is not in doubt; and it is certain from fr. 3 that Diyllus' attitude,
as far as it went, was pro-Cassander, though it does not follow that all the
pro-Cassander narrative is Diyllus.1 This § 2, however, is anti-Cassander,
1 Schubert, Die Quellen zur Geschichte der have been able to see both sides of Cas-
Diadochenzeit (1914), to which I shall often sander, as he certainly did to some extent
refer, makes Diyllus play a large part in in Perdiccas' case ? When he wrote he
Diodorus 18-20; but the foundations of was the friend of Cassander 's nephew
this belief (it is an old controversy) are Gonatas, who in part continued the
very shaky indeed. I should be sorry to Antipater-Cassander tradition ; and in esti-
assume (for instance) that all the pro- mating his attitude we must allow for this
Cassander material must be Diyllus, because no less than for his friendship with Cassan-
one bit is. Why should not Hieronymus der's enemies, Eumenes and Antigonus I.
18
HERACLES SON OF BARSINE 19
and cannot be Diyllus ; and no one has ever doubted that the anti-Cas§ander
material is Hieronymus. However, for the moment I will leave § 2 open.
Then follow §§ 3 and 4, the passage cited above (/). This is certainly
Hieronymus, because of the meaning of £O/H*TI;TOS x^Pa- I have shown
elsewhere2 that you cannot identify the Hieronymus material in Diodorus
by language, that being Diodorus' own ; but you can by the meaning behind
the language ; and though Bopi/c-rtjro^ is common enough from Homer onwards
for conquest, and is so used elsewhere by Diodorus himself (e.g. 17, 17, 2),
it is used here in a technical sense ; Bopifcrrjro^ x<*>P&, spear-won territory, was
in Macedonia equivalent to x«°pa @a<ri\ticiit King's Land ; for, the King being
the State, spear- won territory became his private property.8 And the mean-
ing of the statement that the dynasts now held the satrapies assigned to
them as the king, whether in Macedonia or Asia, held 7^7 0atri\tKijt is this,
that they kept the revenues themselves and did not remit them to the central
power. Ptolemy had, in fact, remitted no revenues since Antipater's death,
if indeed he ever had ; * Seleucus had evidently done the same.5 After 310,
however, all could claim to be legally entitled to keep their revenues. It is,
I think, obvious that the reference to this rather technical point of the
Macedonian law of land can be due to no one but Hieronymus. As the
whole of ch. 105 is organically connected — the murder arose from the terms
of the treaty, which was a plain invitation to Cassander to kill the boy, and
the retention of revenues arose from the murder, the whole chapter is
therefore Hieronymus, including (naturally, as being anti-Cassander) § 2.
(/) being Hieronymus, (e) and (6) must be so too ; but one can demon-
strate it also for (e). 19, 52 is a patchwork; § 5 is known to be Diyllus
(= fr. 3), and possibly §§ 1-3 may be also; for all these sections are pro-
Cassander. But § 4, containing the passage in question, is strongly anti-
Cassander, (intention to murder the boy; unworthy treatment of him in
prison), and is so exactly parallel to 19, 105, § 2 (note, too, the mention by
name of the warder Glaucias in each passage) that it must be from the same
source, i.e. Hieronymus. As to (6) there is nothing to show; but 18, 9, 1
runs on ..without even a stop from ch. 8, which is certainly Hieronymus vsee
Schubert, p. 242). Hieronymus, then, is the common source of (6), (e)
and (/).
Now (d). 19, 35, at any rate § 4 to the end, is Hieronymus for several
reasons : Olympias in a favourable light ; details about the elephants (we
can follow throughout Diodorus exactly what happened to Alexander's
elephants, and this can be due to no other writer); and the mention of
Aristonoos ; this particular Bodyguard is a mere name in Arrian's Anabasis,
1 • Alexander's inronvhuara. and the " world- of hia reign,
kingdom ",' in this number of J.H.S. * Diod. 19, 55, 3; he asserts in 316 that
3 See generally Rostowzew, Oeschichte der he owes no account of his revenues to
rdmischen Kolonatea (1910), p. 251 seq. ; anybody. If the statement in App. Syr. 63
Tarn, Antigonoa .Oonataa (1913), p. 191. that he reigned forty-two years (i.e. i
* Diod. 18, 43, 1, his claim that Egypt 321) represent a true tradition, then he
is toplKTirros. Also, after he took the royal also reckoned his satrapal years as pert of
titl.-, IK- reckoned his satrapal years as part his reign.
20 W. W. TARN
and it is only in Hieronymus that he, loyal to Eumenes' friend Olympias,
becomes a living man.* As to (c). 19, 11, § 4 to the end (favourable to
Eurydice, and Olympias in a very bad light), is pro-Cassander ; but § 2,
which contains our passage, is anti-Cassander and must be Hieronymus
because of the .glorification of Olympias and the reference to Alexander's
good deeds (standpoint of Antigonus I.). Hieronymus, then, is the common
source of (c) and (d).
As to (a). 18, 2 is generally attributed to Hieronymus; but I have
shown elsewhere (see note 2) that part of it cannot be his. As to the state-
ment, however, that Alexander died a7rat9, if this be not from Hieronymus
we have a second and quite unknown source agreeing with Hieronymus;
and I am not going to postulate anything so unscientific. There can be no
reasonable doubt that it is from Hieronymus; though it would not affect
my argument if it did come from an unknown source in agreement with
Hieronymus. It is, of course, a perfectly plain statement that Alexander
had no son but Roxane's, as yet unborn ; and as it had to be explained
away, the accepted explanation has been that Heracles, being illegitimate,
did not count. But to read modern legal concepts into the fourth century B.C.,
and to construe reXevrijaavros ajraiSos as an English court construes ' die
without issue ' in a settlement, is utterly indefensible. Did not Philip
Arrhidaeus count ? In a society like the Macedonian aristocracy, polygamous
without fixed rules, legitimacy was at best rather a vague matter, as any one
can see who tries to ascertain what were the ' marriages ' of Demetrius or
Ptolemy I. ; all that really counted was blood, and when we do get a legitimacy
question it is concerned, not with wedlock, but with a doubt whether some
person were really his reputed father's son (e.g. Alexander's case).
It seems quite certain, then, that Hieronymus, writing long after 309,
knew of one son of Alexander only, Roxane's.
Next Curtius. Curtius' sources in 8, 4, 23-30; 10, 7, 2 and 15, know
nothing of Heracles. In 8, 4, 23 seq. Alexander has obviously not associated
with any Persian woman prior to Roxane. In 10, 7, 2 Arrhidaeus is solus
heres', and again, si proximum (Alexandro quaeritis), hie solus est. This is
in a speech; but 10, 7, §§ 6 and 15 sum up the same as narrative. The
source of 8, 4, 23 is .guesswork; it may be Cleitarchus, who probably knew
nothing of Barsine. The ultimate source of 10, 7 must be the ' infantry
source' which Schubert has so well elucidated (pp. 115 to 120), a source
which gives the point of view of the phalanx after Alexander's death and
whitewashes Meleager. It may not be of great authority, but it must be
very early, and quite possibly before 309 ; no one was going to trouble about
Meleager long after his death (323).
I come now to a source almost certainly prior to 309, the first draft or
kernel of the pfetended Testament of Alexander. The Testament is no part
of the Romance proper, as it also appears in the Metz Epitome; Ausfeld's
• The Vatican fragments of Arrian Diad., (9, 5, 15 and 18; 10, 6, 16) are, of course,
§ 6. The references to Aristonoos in Curtius not historical.
HKKACI.KS SOX OF BARSINE 21
f
version compares all the known texts.7 I absolutely accept Aiuf eld's con-
clusion that §§ 1 and 2 of the Testament, apart frora the obvious Rhodian
additions, represent a document of Antipater's time, published, if not during
his life, at any rate so soon after his death in 319 that it was still worth
attacking him, and that people would understand the attack without explana-
tion.8 In this the original portion of the Testament Alexander makes provision
for all those related to him by blood ; that the provisions are not historical is
immaterial here; the point is the list of relatives. Beside Olympias, the
writer mentions the one legitimate child of Philip II., Cleopatra; the three
illegitimate ones, Philip Arrhidaeus, Cynane, and Thessalonice ; and Cynane's
daughter.9 He mentions Roxane's expected child, and provides for either
contingency, boy or girl. And he does not mention Heracles; he knows
nothing of Heracles or Barsine, though he knows all the members of the
royal house known to history.
I must notice the criticisms directed against Ausfeld's date for §§ 1 and 2
of the Testament. The first is Reitzenstein's ; 10 he says that the Testament
makes Philip Arrhidaeus temporary king, while in fact there was a joint king-
ship; and as history must be earlier than legend, the Testament must be later
than Ausfeld's date. I am afraid that legend precedes history often enough ;
the world has had quite enough experience of that in recent years. Besides,
though we (rightly) accept the joint kingship on Hieronymus' authority,
contemporaries were frankly puzzled as to who was king, because decrees
were issued in Philip's name alone (e.g. Diod. 18, 56); the contemporary
inscriptions are divided on the subject.11 The other two criticisms are
Bauer's.12 The first is that the Testament does not mention Antipater's
son-in-law Demetrius, as it ought to on Ausfeld's view, Ausfeld's point being
that Alexander allots royal brides to those who in fact married Antipater's
daughters. Of course Demetrius is not mentioned ; he only married Craterua'
widow later — he was merely a substitute, so to speak — and the Testament
has to speak as from Alexander's death, when Demetrius was an unknown
boy of thirteen, of no possible importance. The second is that Antipater
is not really completely passed over in the satrapy-list of the Testai <ent,
as Ausfeld says; his name doea occur in the version given in the Metz
7 A. Ausfeld, • Das angebliche Testament dice, it being necessary, on the scheme of
Alexanders des Grossen,' Rh. Mua. 66 the document, for Leonnatus also to receive
(1901), 517. a royal bride, and there being reason to
8 It may have belonged to the propa- suppose that Cynane's daughter is, anyhow,
ganda war of 318-317 between Olympias the person meant. Double names of queens
and her friends on one side, and Cassander are so common at this time that some
and the Peripatetics on the other (Pint. must have changed their name at marriage :
Alex. 77). But this war may have been e.g. Audata-Eurydice, Adeia-Eurydice,
going on, with different protagonists, since Cynna-Cynane, Myrtale-Olympiaa, Fthodo-
Alexander's death, or even since Callis- gune-Sisygambis, Barsine-Stateira.
thenes'. No one seems to have studied it. I0 Poimatidrcs (1904), App. 5, p. 315.
If it could be reconstructed (and part* of » O.O.I.S. 4, both kings. O.G.LS. 8 (v.)
it are obvious) we should know more of Syll* 311, and I.G. ii*. 401, Philip akme.
the history of the Successors than we do. " Georg Bauer, Die Heidelberger Kpitom*
* Taking Cleodice as representing Eury- (1914), p. 81 uq.
22 W. W. TARN
Epitome. Quite so ; and, in fact, it also occurs, always as satrap of Cilicia,
in several other of the known versions of the Testament, though this has
been overlooked ; and this greatly strengthens Ausfeld's case. For Antipater
never was a satrap ; he was <rrparr}y6<f of the European possessions ; and
which is more derogatory, to turn the great viceroy of Europe into a petty
satrap of Cilicia, or merely to omit his name, which might lead the reader
to suppose that he was meant to retain his former office ?
There is, then, nothing in the criticisms directed against Ausfeld's dating.
On the other hand, it is quite probable that Duris knew this first draft of
the Testament ; for Curtius 10, 10, 5 says that some believed that Alexander
had distributed the satrapies by his Testament, and it is very likely (Schubert,
p. 124) that ' some ' means, or includes, Duris.
The result derived from an examination of the sources is, then, that both
Hieronymus, and any document we have which is or may be prior to 309,
know of only one son of Alexander's, Roxane's; and this ought to be
conclusive. I note for completeness that Ptolemy certainly, and Cleitarchus
probably (see post), knows nothing of any Barsine as Alexander's mistress.
It remains to consider the story of the youth who in 309 appeared as a
pretender to the throne of Macedonia under the name of Heracles, son of
Alexander and Barsine. Diodorus' story (20, 20 and 28) is that in spring
309 Polyperchon brought Heracles from Pergamum and attempted to make
him king; in the autumn, as part of a bargain with Cassander, he put him
to death. The reference in Lycophron (Alexandra 801) shows that the story
was known and believed early in the third century.
First, the historical background. The peace of 311 left Polyperchon
isolated, holding Corinth and Sicyon with his mercenaries as a mere soldier
of fortune ; he had played no part in affairs since 315/4 ; save for his hold
on Acrocorinthus he was little but a name. Antigonus had spoken of putting
him down (O.G.I.S. 5). But in 310 Polemaeus revolted from Antigonus and
allied himself with Cassander, who thus became again in theory at war with
Antigonus, though both were exhausted and did not mean to fight again as
yet. Then Cassander murdered Roxane's son, and Antigonus seized the
opportunity of paying him out for Polemaeus. For this purpose he decided
to use Polyperchon, who welcomed the chance of again playing a part in
affairs. No one has asked how Polyperchon, in his position, got the money
and the 21,000 men with whom he invaded Macedonia in spring 309. Part
were the Aetolians, Antigonus' allies, and Antigonus supplied the money to
raise more mercenaries. He also supplied a cause, by sending Heracles from
Pergamum; if Cassander had killed one son of Alexander he should be
threatened with another. Naturally Polyperchon could not have got a
pretender from Pergamum unless Antigonus had been co-operating. Some
Macedonian royalists joined Polyperchon, and it looked as if he might create
enough disaffection in Macedonia to bring Cassander down. Cassander saved
himself by getting an interview with Polyperchon, at which he convinced
him that if he succeeded he would nevertheless be nothing but Antigonus'
servant (Diod. 20, 28, 2, Troujaei TO TrpocrraTr6/j,€i>ov t/<^>' trepwv), whereas if he
I
HKRACLES SON OF BARSINK 23
killed Heracles and joined Cassander he could be general of the Peloponneee
and share Cassander's power (irdvrtov rS)v eV -rfj SvvaaTtia rff Ka<r<rdvBpov
KOIVWVOS effrai). It is obvious that, if Heracles had really been Alexander's son,
and Polyperchon had put him forward on his own account and not on Antigonus',
Cassander's bribe was entirely inadequate; for Polyperchon, in the event of
success, would have been virtual ruler of Macedonia. Diodorus' record of
the interview between Polyperchon and Cassander is based throughout on the
assumption that both men knew they were dealing with a puppet of some
one, who can only be Antigonus. None of the three could afterwards afford
to tell the truth ; Polyperchon, because he dare not explain that he had
raised the Macedonian royalists, who doubtless suffered, on false pretences;
Cassander, because he could keep Polyperchon to heel as the man who had
killed Alexander's son who trusted him; Antigonus, because he had an
excellent propaganda weapon against Cassander for procuring the boy's death.
The incident was soon forgotten in greater matters.
Now, is Diodorus' story from Hieronymus or not? I take it to be
substantially Hieronymus. The light in which Cassander is represented is of
importance for this ; and naturally Hieronymus could not say that Antigonus
was behind the plot, seeing the pains Antigonus had taken to cover his tracks ;
the story did not appear in black and white in his Journal, and perhaps
even Hieronymus did not know all the details. But the writer has given
indications enough; the Aetolian alliance, the mention of Pergamum, the
fact that Polyperchon a-vvfjye xprjfiara without it being specified how the
discarded soldier of fortune achieved this desirable operation, the details of
the interview with Cassander. It does not appear what writer but Hieronymus
could have given these indications ; but what clinches the matter is the refer-
ence to the boy's age (seventeen). As we shall see, his age did not, and could
not, appear in the vulgate tradition ; it could only have been known to some
one in close touch with Antigonus. Naturally, Diodorus' remark that Heracles
was son of Alexander and Barsine is not from Hieronymus, who, as we have
seen, knew only one son of Alexander, Roxane's; this remark is Diodorus'
own addition, drawn from the vulgate.13 Possibly what Hieronymus vrote
was ' who was called a son/ etc. ; but this is guesswork. But we do know
from Lycophron that the vulgate had a long innings before Hieronymus
wrote ; and it naturally imposed itself on the world, precisely as the Alexander-
vulgate did. The vulgate, of course, must essentially have been the story
which Polyperchon gave out when he invaded Macedonia in 309; and we
must now attempt to ascertain what that was.
Barsine's story is professedly given by Plutarch (Alex. 21). She was
Memnon's widow, captured after Issus (at Damascus) ; she was daughter of
Artabazus, who was of the blood royal; she was a gentle creature, and
Aristobulus says that Alexander made her his mistress because Parmenion
advised him to. Psychologically, of course, Aristobulus' story that Alexander
13 Diodorus often makes such additions looted by Jacoby, ' Hirr»nyin<M ' in Pauly-
on his own account; see the instam-o ...I \\issowa, and Schubert pa*g\tn.
24 W. W. TARN
acted on Parmenion's advice is hopeless ; a man of Alexander's nature may
be overcome by passion, but not by some one else's recommendation. It is
equally hopeless as fact; for as Heracles was seventeen in spring 309, he
was begotten in 'the summer of 327, two years after Parmenion's death, and
nearly six years after Issus; and therewith the story falls to the ground.
Incidentally, Alexander never did take Parmenion's advice, as any one can
see from Arrian. He rejected it at the Granicus, at Miletus, at Persepolis;
he rejected it (if really given) about Darius' offer, and a night attack at
Gaugamela. He is supposed to have accepted it once, when he examined the
battlefield before Gaugamela ; but that is part of the legend which makes the
Persians put down caltrops, presumably to wreck their own chariots. Yet
Aristobulus could say that he took Parmenion's advice two years after he put
Parmenion to death, and no one since has even questioned the statement.
What Aristobulus does prove is, that he himself did not know Heracles' age ;
and, as he often took trouble to inform himself about matters not within his
own knowledge, this is most important ; it shows that the boy's age was not
known to the world, i.e. it formed no part of the vulgate.
But perhaps Plutarch's story might be true, and only the Parmenion
part wrong? In early spring 327 Alexander -married Roxane, and in early
summer 327 started for India ; we are to suppose, then, not only that he took
his first and only mistress just after his marriage, but that, while he refused
to take Roxane, daughter of a mere Bactrian baron who was his enemy,
otherwise than as his wife, he thought good just afterwards to take the
daughter of the very important Artabazus, who was his friend and recently
satrap of Bactria, as his mistress, the lady, moreover, being of the blood royal.
The whole thing is absurd. No one, I think, has ever supposed that Barsine
was maitresse en litre from 333/2 onwards, or anything but a passing fancy;
the idea would not be worth wasting words on.
As to Heracles, one need hardly go further; but who was 'Barsine'?
Take it point by point.
First, the historical Barsine. Only two women of the name are known
in this period prior to 309 ; both are known from Ptolemy : 14 (a) Mentor's
wife, and (b) the elder daughter of Darius III., whom Alexander married.
Now Mentor belonged to a much older generation than Alexander. He is
last heard of alive in 342/1 ; 15 his sister, Artabazus' wife, had twenty-one
children by 342 (Diod. 16, 52); his son Thymondas commanded the mer-
cenaries at Issus, and himself had a grown-up son in 327/6, (I.G. ii2. 356) ;
his daughter and Barsine's married Nearchus in 324 (Ptolemy ap. Arr. 7, 4, 6).
Clearchus of Soli the Peripatetic adds something; he couples Mentor's wife
with Artabazus' wife as two women distinguished for insolent pride (Athen.
6, 256 D). Obviously Mentor's wife, like Artabazus' wife and Mentor himself,
belonged to an older generation; but nothing else is known about her.
14 Arr. 7, 4, 4 seq. As Arrian quotes a ture of Hermeias (Forschungen zur Geschichte
variant from Aristobulus, this list is from des auagehenden Junften und dea vierten
Ptoleny. Jahrhunderts, 1910) is now generally
11 I think Kahretedt's date for the cap- accepted.
HKKAM.KS SON OF BARS INK j;,
I lowever, Curtius 3, 13, 4 (Cleitarchus) l« says that three of Mentor's daughters
were captured at Damascus, but does not mention his wife; presumably,
therefore, Cleitarchus thought she was dead.
Next, Memnon's widow. She is known only from Cleitarchus (Diod.
17, 23, 5; Curt. 3, 13, 4). She was captured after Issus, at Damascus; but
neither her name nor any in formation about her is given. Like his brother
Mentor, Memnon belonged to an older generation ; he had grown-up sons at
Granicus (Arr. 1, 17, 5). Presumably his widow, if she existed, was not
young; but we know nothing about her. That she was Mentor's wife, married
by Memnon after his brother's death, is a purely unfounded conjecture of
modern writers, copied by one from another till it has become accepted
through much repetition. Incidentally, Mentor's wife was long since a
grandmother.
Next, Plutarch's Barsine. She is not Mentor's wife, quite apart from
the question of age ; for she is ^metrcr)*; and Mentor's wife was the reverse.
She is identified by Plutarch (or rather by his source) with the ' Memnon's
widow ' of Cleitarchus ; but as Cleitarchus probably knew nothing of any
Barsine who was Alexander's mistress after Issus,17 the identification must
be later than Cleitarchus, i.e. not earlier than about the middle of the third
century. Plutarch then stands thus : the Aristobulus-Parmenion part of his
story is impossible; his Barsine is not Mentor's wife; and her identification
with Memnon's widow is far later than the vulgate (I come to Artabazus
daughter later). The residue, which must belong to the vulgate, is this :
Alexander after Issus took a captive, named Barsine, as mistress.
We can get a little further by means of the generals' speeches after
Alexander's death, as given in Curt. 10, 6, and Justin 13, 2. The speeches
are made up; but the authors, with the vulgate tradition before them, felt
that Heracles had somehow to be introduced.18 In Curtius, Barsine is a
Persian ; that is why her son is rejected. It is a mere duplication of the
story that the infantry rejected Roxane's child for that reason; the two
women and their sons are often enough confused, as we shall see. This
reason formed no part of the vulgate, i.e. of what Polyperchon gave out;
for Polyperchon's business was to get the Macedonians to accept the son of
the Persian woman. In Justin, Barsine and Heracles are living at Pergamum,
a simple fact which would naturally appear in the vulgate. We get, then,
an extension of the vulgate, thus : Alexander after Issus took a Persian
captive, named Barsine, as mistress, and had by her a son Heracles; the
two lived at Pergamum. Omitting the Pergamum part, this is comprised
in Duris' statement in Plut. Eum. 1 ; and as Curtius' speeches seem to be
w Darius' brother is called Oxathres ; to relate an intrigue, e.g. the Amazon queen,
this proves, that this passage is Cleitarchus ; and Cleophis.
see Diod. 17, 77, 4; Curt. 7, 5, 40; Plut. " Ptolemy's speech in Curtius, in alluding
Alex. 43. His real name was Oxyartes; to Heracles, reproduces what Polyperchon
Ptolemy ap. Arr. 7, 4, 6. did later, precisely as, in alluding to the
11 Nothing in Diod. 17, or in Curtius till Alexander-tent, it reproduces what Eumenee
after 10, 6, i.e. after Cleitarchus ceases. did later.
This is very notable ; for Cleitarchus loved
26 W. W. TARN
coloured by Duris (Schubert, p. 123), there can be little doubt through
whom Curtius derived his statement.
Can we go further yet ?
Four terms are found identified in Plutarch: (1) Barsine the captive;
(2) Artabazus' daughter ; (3) Memnon's widow ; (4) Barsine of the blood royal.
Of these, (1) and (2) were formally identified by Duris in the passage already
referred to, Plut. Bum. 1. It is a worthless passage, full of errors; for
instance, the brides of Ptolemy and Eumenes in 324 are called Apama and
Barsine (how many daughters called. Barsine did Duris suppose Artabazus
to possess ?), whereas their real names (Ptolemy ap. Arr. 7, 4, 6) were
Artakama and Artonis; presumably Ptolemy knew his wife's name. The
Duris passage, then, cannot be used for facts — few things in Duris can; and
the identification of Barsine the captive with a definite Persian, Artabazus'
daughter, may be merely Duris' own and may have no foundation in the
vulgate ; we cannot say. (3) I have already dealt with ; (4) I come to
presently.
The vulgate tradition, then, i.e. what Polyperchon gave out, was this :
Alexander after Issus took a Persian captive named Barsine as mistress, and
had by her a son Heracles ; the two lived at Pergamum ; and he may or
may not have added that Barsine was Artabazus' daughter. This vulgate
was circulated by (among others) Duris, who certainly made Barsine
Artabazus' daughter. Aristobulus, who often rationalised, and who knew
quite enough about Alexander to feel that some explanation of a proceeding
so contrary to his character was necessary, tried to improve the vulgate
by bringing in Parmenion ; 19 it was a poor shot, but then he did not know
the boy's age ; Polyperchon naturally had not stated that (if he knew it),
for it would have given his whole story away. Much later, somebody
identified ' Barsine ' with (3),. the Memnon's widow of Cleitarchus ; this is no
part of the vulgate. We cannot say who made this identification, nor' is it
material; for the identification rests on an obvious confusion of Mentor and
Memnon, of Mentor's half -Persian wife Barsine with ' Barsine ' the Persian
captive.; and such confusions are. unfortunately far too common throughout
the literature relating to the Macedonian epoch to call for comment.20
Lastly (4), Barsine of the blood royal. Artabazus had played an
important part in affairs for many years; we have a mass of references to
him in the extant literature, but nowhere else is his royal descent alluded
to, and there is no reason in the tradition to suppose it a fact.21 It is
* It is more than possible (as we shall every one's ideas of how a conqueror ought
see) that Parmenion did give Alexander to behave.
such advice, but with regard to the real «<> See another case of Memnon for
Barsine, Darius' daughter, and that Aristo- Mentor, Strabo 13, 610.
bulus had some idea of it, and, with the 21 That Artabazus was a son of Pharna-
vulgate before him, naturally supposed bazus and Apama, daughter of Arta-
that it referred to the other (Polyperchon 's) xerxes II., is a pure guess, and not very
' Barsine ' and that Alexander had taken probable on the dates. Apama was mar-
the advice. We know that Alexander's ried late in 387. In 342 Artabazus had
treatment of Darius' family sadly upset twenty-one children by one wife (eleven
HKRACLES SON OF BAR8IM 27
possible, therefore, that Plutarch's mention of royal descent was made, not
because of Artabazus, but because of Barsine; it was the lady who had to be
of royal descent, and this could only be on the father's side, Artabarufl' wife
being a Rhodian. The key to the whole thing is given by Justin 15, 2, 3,
who has a story that Heracles was ' over fourteen * when murdered. Now a
theory has been put forward that fourteen was the Macedonian throne-age,
the age at which a prince could begin to exercise royal power, and that
therefore Justin only means that Heracles was ' of a£e.' ** The theory is far
indeed from being proved, and there is a rival theory which makes the
throne-age eighteen; both seem to shatter on (beside other evidence) Diod.
19, 105, 2 (Hieronymus ; see ante), which says that some in Macedonia said
that Alexander's son ought now to rule, he being from twelve to thirteen
years old. I am not going into this; for even if the theory were proved,
few would care to believe that Justin (or Trogus) was so confident that his
Roman readers would know the one-time Macedonian throne-age that he
could allude to it in this extraordinary way without explanation. I take
Justin to mean exactly what he says; there was a story which made the
boy's age over fourteen in autumn 309. He was then supposed to have been
born about summer 323; that is, in this story he was a legitimate son of
Alexander and Barsine his wife, Darius' daughter. Plutarch's Barsine of the
blood royal is an echo of this ; some one ( ? Duris) mixed this story up with
the vulgate, the very different story told by Polyperchon. The confusion
with Roxane's son, who was born July 323, is obvious; and, in fact, Justin
elsewhere (14, 6, 2 and 13) does call Heracles the son of Roxane.23 The
confusion goes further still in Porphyry (fr. 3, 1), where Roxane is Darius'
daughter instead of Barsine. This story also suggests that ' Barsine,'
Heracles' mother, the supposed captive of Issus, was really derived from
Barsine, Darius' daughter, the real captive of Issus; and lends support to
the supposition (see note 19) that Parmenion did give Alexander the advice
Aristobulus says he did, but about Darius' daughter. It is tempting to
suppose that behind all the confusion may have lain a story or stories with
a purpose, the purpose of showing that Alexander left a son of AchaeL.enid
race, just as he himself in Persian legend became a son of Artaxerxes Ochus,
and Roxane became Darius' daughter.
sons), and Mentor that year gave 'his bazus'son; but Nb'ldeke's idea that Apam*
sons ' commands in the army (Diod. 16, was his mother was baaed solely on the
52, 4). Literally, this means the whole belief that he had a daughter Apama.
eleven. Probably it really means 'some.' This, as we have seen, was a mere blunder
Even so, Artabazus cannot well have been of Duris', possibly due to the fact that there
married later than 370, and most probably was an Apama (Spitamenes' daughter)
married much earlier; for, even if Curtius among the brides at Susa.
be wrong in making him ninety-five in 330, " Bauer, op. c. p. 51 n., with reference*.
at any rate he retired from his satrapy in M F. Schachermeyer, • Das Knde dec
328 on the ground of old age; and the makedOnischen KOnigshauaee,' Klio 16
period was one which saw men of eighty (1920), 332, suggest* that Heraclea in Justin
still commanding armies in the field. If 15, 2, 3 means Alexander IV.; but his
he were Apama's son, he was under sixty article is quite superficial and does not
when he retired. He may have been Pharna- examine the questions involved.
28 HERACLES SON OF BARSINE
To sum up. Alexander had one son only, Roxane's; his intrigue with
' Barsine ' is as mythical as that with the Amazon queen. Heracles of
Pergamum was an ordinary pretender, chosen by Antigonus doubtless for
some facial resemblance to Alexander, but five years too young for his alleged
parentage. Who his mother was is unknown. We are thus quit of two
very grave difficulties in the received version of events ; we no longer need
ask how it could have happened that a son of Alexander should grow up to
seventeen unnoticed, and never be used as a pawn in the game by any one ; or
how it came to pass that Alexander's veterans, three days after that last
touching scene when they insisted on filing past their dying king's bed,
preferred Philip's idiot son to the son of Alexander.
W. W. TARN.
THE PROBLEM OF BYZANTINE NEUMES.
IN past numbers of the Annual of the British School at Athens and
elsewhere I have tried to deal with some of the questions connected with
Byzantine Music, and, having brought to a close my studies of the Round or
Later Mediaeval System, I am unwilling to leave the subject without giving
iny views on the abstruse and difficult problem of the older notation.1
The later forms of the Linear or Neume System have a visible likeness
to the earlier forms of the Round System already familiar, and hence all
investigators seem to have started with the idea that the general principles
of decipherment could be transferred from the later to the earlier stage, or,
in other words, that the task simply consisted in the interpretation of certain
interval-signs possessing fixed value. But of the two scholars who have
published their researches in this field, Gastoue and Riemann, neither has
been able to carry this principle through, and their proposed solutions fail to
give us such a chain of interval-signs as we are tempted to expect.
Riemann claims the following concessions : —
(1) In every phrase the progression makes a fresh start from the Finalis.* (2) Onlj
the first sign over a syllable has interval-value : what follows is ornamental.3 "<) The
I son at the end of a hymn has an indeterminate value, i.e. it always denotes the
Kii i;ili-, no matter what the foregoing tone may have been.4
1 Authorities : Gastoue, Am., Introduction a School at Athens; and also to Mr. F. C.
la Paltographie muticalt byzantint. Riemann, Nicholson, Librarian at Edinburgh Univenitj,
H., Die byzantinische Notenichrift im 10 6w 15 for his valuable aid in procuring access to
Jahrhundert. Thibaut, J., Origine byzantine MS. material at a difficult time. To various
de la Notation neumatiqiu dc f£gli»e /aline gentlemen, whom services I have acknow-
I have written on the Xeumes in Amer. Journ. ledged in former papers, I once again express
Arch. 1916, p. 62, and I.M.O. (Monthly Mag. my sincere gratitude.
of Internal. Mus. Soc.) 1913, p. 31. For the * Die byz. XoteMckrin, p. 57. The Latin
Round Notation see my articles in U.S.A. term Finalis is here used to indicate the note
vols. xviii., xix., xxi. and xxii. on which the melody ends, being also thai
As this article forms the end of the series, I from which the progression starts,
should like to convey my thanks to several * Ibid. p. 56.
friends, especially to the Editor of the Annual 4 Ibid. p. 57. The signs are given in Fig. 1,
ami t<> the Managing Committee of the British and explained below.
89
30 H. J. W. TILLYARD
To these licences there are several objections : (1) (a) The result of Riemann's
practice is that the same sign within a couple of bars may denote a totally different
progression. This would inevitably lead to confusion. (6) The punctuation of the MSS.
is too variable and uncertain to be the basis of our musical interpretation. On Riemann'n
hypothesis the dropping of a dot in the MS. might entirely alter a whole passage of
melody. Besides this he is fond of dividing versicles for rhythmical reasons against the
MSS. Will he then say that the music starts afresh from anon-existent punctuation-dot?
(2) Here again we have confusion and inconsistency. Some compound signs, like
Kentema above Oxeia, Riemann seems to treat as single-value symbols, keeping their
full power. But he has failed to tell us how to distinguish these from divisible groups
where only the first factor counts. Indeed, in the case of the Kentemata he owns himself
at a loss how to classify the compound.5 His examples are full of contradictions in these
respects.
(3) A repeated note was the most common cadential formula in Byzantine music ;
and the use of the Ison for this purpose seems imperatively needed. Of all signs that
for repetition (or zero interval-value) seems the least capable of a fluctuating equivalent.
Gastoue considers that all phrases in all modes begin from g, as a kind of fixed
reciting-note. (He does not say whether he expects those modes that have some other
Finalis to reach it automatically at the end of a hymn or whether some' transposition is
needed.) In attempting to apply this rule to the Round System, Gastoue has fallen into
grave error ; and from the single specimen of which he gives both original and transcript
in the Linear System, it would perhaps be rash to judge of the merits of his theory. His
frequent confusion of the Diple // with the Kentemata • • is a palpable defect ; and
anyhow the critic must demand more examples of successful interpretation before
accepting such a hypothesis.6
In abandoning the principle of a chain of interval-signs, we lose the only
mathematical check on the correctness of our evaluation and translation.
But no other course seems to be open to us. Riemann says he spent ' many
decades' studying Byzantine music, while of Gastou£ he remarks: 'Mr. Gastou6
has, like myself, made extended experiments of all kinds, but has not reached
any definite result.'7 Finally, he sums up his own labours thus: 'Here I
present the method of interpretation which, after wearisome experiments
with every possible or probable scheme of evaluation, has alone proved
satisfactory.'8 It is hard to believe, if the problem had merely been one
of evaluation (as, for example, the Round System would have been without
the help of the Papadike), that two such eminent musical palaeographers
after their protracted labours should have failed to clear up the mystery.
For my part, after photographing hundreds of hymns and making numerous
copies and trial versions (often thirty or forty from the same hymn according
to different theories), I am ready to maintain that the Linear Notation is a
5 Ibid. p. 80. 8 Ibid. p. 58. Yet in Riemann's comple-
• Gastoud, op. cit. pp. 12-16, 23-28, 32-38, mentary volume (Riemann- Festschrift, Leip-
and the ex. pp. 41-47. (Gaisser in a review zig, 1909 (same date as Riemann's own book)),
in the Jiaas. Grtgor. says that G.'s versions Oskar von Riesemann regards the Byzantine
'have no scientific value.') Although I differ Neumes as entirely undeciphered. Riemann
from Gastou6 on tlie main question, I had already submitted his main contentions
have, like Riemann himself, found many in an article published in 1907. So we may
useful suggestions ant! good material in his safely leave him to the verdict of his own
book. admirers (see R.-Feettschr. p. 189, and I.M.G.
7 Op. cit. Introd. pp. iii-iv. Sammelbdnde, Oct. 1907).
31
true Neume System, where the values of some of the signs were not yet
mathematically fixed, and the interpretation of which can only be sought in the
light of parallel texts in the Round Notation. This similarity of melody in
the two notations is exactly what Riemann's theory fails to give us. Indeed,
Riemann expressly repudiates it.9 To this may be answered: (1) When a
new notation was invented, it would be most likely to find favour if it
supplied an improved way of recording tunes already in use, not if it tended
to supersede existing melodies. (2) In the Round Notation we can trace
the survival of a melody in some cases for several centuries. Now the Round
and Linear Systems were contemporaneous in the twelfth century, so that
there was no interval of years in which ancient tunes might have lapsed into
oblivion and fresh compositions have been needed to take their place.
(3) The Round System triumphed completely and finally over its rivals by
the end of the thirteenth century. This must have been due to some weighty
advantage, by which it also held the field throughout the later middle age«.
Such an advantage would have been contained in the adoption of fixed
interval-values. (4) Between the late Linear and early Round versions of
many hymns there is a clear graphical likeness. Was this a whim of the
scribe, or were the two systems really recording substantially the same
melodies ?
Whatever ans\yer we give, there is little scope for positive proof. But
the general similarity of corresponding passages in the two notations is too
frequent to be accidental ; and if the reader will glance at the parallels
supplied in this article, if he will bear in mind that they are only typical of a
great many others equally striking, then I think he will be strongly inclined
to believe that we are on the right track at last and that the Neumes may
yet yield up their secret. In evaluating the particular symbols we shall find
no great difficulty. Some of them are already known in the Round System,
either as interval-signs or subsidiaries. In this way the name and direction
of moat of the older forms can generally be seen. Much can also be inferred
from parallel passages in the Round Notation.
THE LATEST FORM OF BYZANTINE NEUMES (THE MIXED OR
CONSTANTINOPOLITAN SYSTEM).
This phase of the notation (whichever of the proposed names we choose
to give it, and all are equally unscientific) shews the greatest outward
likeness to the Round System. It is represented by such MSS. as Paris,
Coislin 220, Athens, Nat. Libr. 840, and many at Mt. Sinai, belonging to the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
As a compliment to French scholarship I am calling this the Coislin
System — a short name which begs no questions.
The symbols used in this system, with their probable meanings, are as
follows (see Fig. 1): —
1 Ison: equality.
• Ibid. p. 35.
32 H. J. W. TILLY ARD
2 Oligon : ascending second. In the intermediate and earlier phases of
Neumes this sign is the Ison. Riemann considers that it always represents
the Ison in the Linear System.10 But this is almost certainly a mistake ; for
(1) where the Coislin System shews a plain stroke, this reappears in parallel
passages of Round Notation as the Oligon. (2) When we compare earlier
and later Neumatic passages, we find that the straight Ison in the former is
quite regularly represented by the hooked Ison in the latter. Where the
Coislin System has the Oligon, the earlier form either has an Oxeia or gives a
different turn to the phrase. If we admit the general principle of constant
tradition, these arguments seem conclusive. But, from the nature of the
case, we cannot give a mathematical proof. If Riemann's evaluation worked
out satisfactorily, I should have accepted it ; but the opposite is the case.
3 Oxeia and ^
4 Petaste — these are used exactly as in the Round System. I Ascending
5 Kentemata : also used as in the above. J second.
6 Kentema. Here the value was probably not fixed. 7 and 8 usually
made an ascending third, but 9 and 10 may also have served for an ascending
fourth.
11 Hypsele: used in various compounds, such as 12, 13, 14. These
probably made an ascending fifth or sixth.
15 Apostrophus. The juxtaposition of passages in the two notations
forces us to conclude that the Apostrophus represents not only the simple
value of a descending second, but also the value of the later compounds
16 and 17, viz. descending third and fourth respectively. The Double
Apostrophus 18 has the same interval- value as the single, but prolongs the
note. No. 19 means two successive descending seconds.
20 Hyporrhoe : two descending seconds over one syllable, used as in the
Round System.
21 Chamele : mostly found with the Apostrophus, as in 21 a. It probably
indicates a descending fifth or sixth, unless the melody had already reached
the lower parts of the scale, in which case it may only have registered a fifth
from the middle Finalis.
The following signs survived only as subsidiaries in the Round Notation,
but in the Linear they evidently had sound and value.
22 Apoderma : probably a prolonged repeated note or Ison. It usually
answers to an Ison, under which it appears as a lengthening Hypostasis,
as in 23 (frequent in Round System).
24 Bareia : this has the same indeterminate value as the Apostrophus.
The compounds at 25 may have any of the values assigned to the simple
signs. This seeming paradox is proved by parallel passages. In such cases
the Bareia gave warning of an approaching accent.
26 Double Bareia (later Piasma) has the same interval-value as the
simple sign, but prolongs the sound. In composition with the Apostrophus
the Double Bareia may lose its value just as the simple Bareia appears to do.
w Op. dt, p. 55.
THE PROBLEM OF BYZANTINE NEUMES
33
27 Diple, 28 Kratema, and 29 Xeron Klasma (to give them their later
names). All these properly denote an ascending second with prolongation.
Sometimes, however, they seem to be used merely as subsidiaries, especially
when placed below the Ison.
Also in the compound 30 only one ascending second seems to keep its
mathematical value. For we find very often the formula 30 a in the Linear
13 <_
14
-
16
\
5 \l
6 S
•
7 —
»3
B._^^ « v
12
22
23
Fio. 1. — SYMBOLS USED IN THE Coisus SYSTEM.
System answering to 306 in the Round Notation, both being common at
cadences ; the effect was probably
answering to
(Linear)
J.H.S. — VOL. XLI.
(Round)
34 H. J. W. TILLY ARD
31 Kouphisma: ascending second, perhaps followed by some ornament.
When a dot follows, the compound may be spread over two syllables ; this is
probably not the Kentema but an archaic punctuation-sign which we shall
meet again in the earliest system. The total value is still, therefore, an
ascending second.
32 Kratemohyporrhoon : the Kratema now, of course, will count. So
the value will be a second upwards and two seconds downwards.
Hypostases. Many of those already familiar in the Round Notation
occur in the Neumes, the commonest being the Klasma v or \_x. In the
older Nenmes this is used alone and seems to be a compound of Bareia and
Oxeia, the value being one or two notes down and one up.
The Argon ~] or /~\ or /r\ is found very frequently in some MSS. At
first sight we are tempted to take this as Elaphron, or descending third (so
Gastou6 and Riemann). But we must note: (1) The semicircular sign never
occurs alone except where it can be more naturally understood as the
Apederma (large size). (2) The small half-circle may occur as many as five
times in succession in conjunction with the Apostrophus. To treat it as
Elaphron, descending third or fourth, in such cases would give an impossible
progression. (3) The Elaphron-compounds in the Round Notation, as we
have seen, answer regularly to a simple Apostrophus in the Coislin System.
Where the latter shews the small semicircle the Round Notation more often
has some ascending sign. (4) The almost complete disuse of the Argon in
the Round System suggests that the semicircle was taken up for a new
purpose, while the angular form ~|, alone given in the Papadike, was too much
like it to be used without confusion.
33 Parakletike: this seems still to have no value in the Coislin System.
In the earlier phases it may stand alone and perhaps denotes an ascending
second. (See Fig. 3, below.)
34 Thematismus Eso and 35 Thema Haploun may now sometimes
indicate formulae not shewn by the interval-signs. ( V. ibid.}
Hypotaxis. We have already mentioned that the Diple seems to lose
its value in certain cases, as does the Bareia. Further, Oxeia or Petaste
even above an Ison, over one syllable, seems to be annulled. The general law
of subordination had not been established so early.
The reader will now easily understand our transcriptions from the Coislin
System (see Figs. Nos. 2 and 3). It must be remembered that when a
medial cadence has been made on a Finalis, the sequence may be broken and
the melody start afresh from the other Finalis. This was rarely done in the
Round Notation, but is frequent in the Linear. It is quite a different thing
from beginning every new phrase from the Finalis (as Gastoue and Riemann
do) no matter where the preceding one left off.
In every case we supply the parallel hymn from the Round Notation.
The degree of similarity varies greatly, and where there is only a remote
general likeness, any translation of the Neumes will be mainly guesswork.
The task of the future will be to gather materials for more extensive
comparison, and as every melody extant in the Linear Notation has many
THE PROBLEM OF BYZANTINE NEUMES 35
counterparts in the Round System, a thorough collation of the versions
of various dates should eventually fill up most of the gaps in our present
knowledge.
In the Round System, when an ascending sign is annulled by an Ison or a descending
sign, some ornamentation was probably implied. The exact execution may have been
left, as it is in modern Greek Church music, to the discretion of the singer. For the
annulled Petaste I put a mordente. This, in quick time, is conveniently sung an a triplet
(including the principal note). For the annulled Oligon or Oxeia I put a grace-note or
accaciatura ; for the annulled Kouphisma — a double mordente.
D 2
36
H. J. W. TILLYARD
A ,
(I) A - yoA - Xt - ao* - 6<a rj KTI • at? (2) ov - pa - vol cu - $pa.t-
- <rav (3)
a Id -
N
-K>7S' (4) X/>tcr - TO? ya/J o
os
A "
pu»
B *•
A<i - o*as (6} ras a - fJ.ap • Tt - as "f}-
« . _~/
5 ^ 5^"^ //
(7) «ai TOV 6<i - VOL-TOV vt. • Kpw - eras (8)
S N°
^ X" i ^> ^
FIG. 2.
THE PROBLEM OF BYZANTINE NEUMES
37
A. COD. ATHON. VATOPED. 288. F. 374 (Round Notation).
B. COD. SINAIT. 1214 (Linear: Coislin System).
M°DE *'
From Sticker* Ana*a*ima
(1) '
r} KTI - o-« (2) ov - pa - rot tu - <^>p<u -
B
B
•*---*-•
m
B
v-viys- (4) Xpur - TOS yap 6 ©e
- K K ^
J J r
^ttai
• (5) T«?
:=?=
**:
TP^-^
?
pa» irpotr -
aas (6) Ta? d - /nao - Tt - a? 17-
B
i
m
11 Piasina. 18 Fresh start from lower Finalis. u Fresh sUrt from midiilf Finalis.
38
H. J. W. TILLYARD
/ x
fUf C -
X \
p»» - <ra - TO (9) V€1T- TU)
»co .- TO. 7ov 'A - So/* (10) tray yc - v^ a - va - orjj - 0-05,
X i ^ \ *S- _._ _ ;X y b Sf
Opto - IT os
FIG. 2.
(1) *€ - Ac - 77 - CTOK fj - /tas (2) TOUS TTTOLI - ov - ra? <rot TTO\
. . (3) Ka6' i - icao- - njv w - pav w Xpiv -
Fro. 3.
THE PROBLEM OF BYZANTINE NEUMES
39
^3
fi.IV
A
o*a - TO (9) weir - T«D -
,— .X N-
S=^— L^-EZZF
:qsnq*p— . fiL
=g^-^gg^
HX
HO - TO, TOV.
'A - Sa/t (10) Tray -y€ - i^
iB^=^5g:S
d -
va - on; - <ras,
B^
*^F
i
- 7TOS.
A. COD. ATHON. VATOPED. 288 F. 368 b. (Round Notation).
B. COD. SINAIT. 1244. (Linear: Coislin System).
MODE II. From Stiehera Ana*ta*ima
Xc - rj -
m
pas (2) Toi'S irrat-oi' - TO? <rot wo/V -
i
B
M Parakletike.
" Fresh start from lower Finalis : clear dot in text of Sinait.
40 H. J. W. TILLYARD
« . . . ftov . (4) vat KOS ir/>o rt - Aou? rpo • TTOV? TOO
A. i, / 6" X ^> XX i cy
A cX V^> ^<— 33
A Q
ue - ra - vo , ~ tlv 2oi
» - tX \ ^S< 35 O —
Note on the Russian Nenmes.
The Russian Church, besides translating most of the Byzantine Liturgy into the
Slavonic language 18 also borrowed her sacred music from Constantinople. It is, however,
a remarkable fact that the so-called Kondakarial Notation, the oldest known in Russia
(llth-12th century), cannot be traced in any Greek manuscript, though a few of the signs
seem to agree with the Ecphonetic. This system is totally unintelligible at present ; but
che slightly later Sematic Notation is so much like the Coislin Neumes thab a valid
interpretation of the latter would almost certainly supply us with its clue. Unfortunately
the materials are buried in the libraries of Russian monasteries, where there arc small
facilities for study, while the publications, as far as they are available at all in this
country, are altogether inadequate for our purpose.
Thibaut reproduces one ode of the blaster Canon in the early Sematic Notation.19
This we have tried to decipher on the analogy of Coislin 220.
For the hymns given by Riesemann I have no parallels available.20 The later stages
of the Sematic Notation, to judge from Riesemann's facsimiles, have scarcely any likeness
to the older. This may be due to the fact that he has no examples between the twelfth
and the seventeenth centuries. At the latter date we find a highly developed notation with
group-symbols and red diacritic letters, which can be read with certainty by the help of
numerous mediaeval handbooks and the tradition of the Old Believers.21 An extensive
publication of hymns in this script has been carried out in Russia. Here, therefore, the
18 Cod. _s some correction needed. M Oskar von Riesemann, Die Notationen
17 Lygisma. deft alt-rutsischen Kirchenyesangf.i, Leipzig,
1S For information as to Russian liturgy, 1909. Musicians owe a debt of gratitude to
see Neale, J. M. , Hist, of Holy Eastern Church, this scholar, who has set out in a concise and
Introd. pts. 1 and 2. clear form a mass of information otherwise
19 Op. cit. PL VIII. (No transcription accessible only in Russian.
attempted. ) In the next facsimile is a speci- 21 MSS. of this class are common all over
men of the later Sematic Notation. How Russia and are found in western libraries,
widely they differ will be seen at a glance. I bought three at the Nijni Novgorod fair in
The same writer discusses the Ecphonetic 1911; the latest may belong to the early nine-
Notation on pp. 17 ff. teenth century.
Tin-: PR<)|;I,I;M (»K UY/ANTINE NEUMES
41
re ... fJiov . (4 ) xal So? irpo r« • Aov* rpo - -rov* rov
r-
p.e - TO. - vo- - civ
~ ; T~
42
H. J. W. TILLYARD
western scholar need only come as a learner ; but in the more ancient neumes there
seems to be plenty of room left for investigation and methodical criticism. To this
subject, which lies beyond the range of the present article, I should be glad to return at
some later date.
RUSSIAN NEUMES; EASTER CANON.
Facsimile in J. THIBAUT, op. cit. PI. VIII.
BOC - Kpe
ce - Hi - a nenb npo - cet • TH - MT> ca
JIKDH - H - -b. nac - xa roc - non - b - HH nac - xa. o - n>
Cl> Mbp - TH - K> BO - KT> >KH3 - HH H O - Tb 36M - JIH • H3
He - 60 XPHC - TOO - -b 6or - T> Ha - ct npH - Be - m>
ec -
- ny -
no - 10 - me
THE EARLIER FORMS OF BYZANTINE NEUMES.
Before the supremacy of the Coislin System, matters seem to have been
chiefly in the experimental stage ; and to classify all the varieties of Byzantine
Notation would hardly be possible until a much more detailed sifting of
materials can be undertaken in the libraries of Athos and Sinai, where alone
the specimens are available in large numbers.
We may, however, distinguish an intermediate stage (in the eleventh
and twelfth centuries), marked by the use of a plair horizontal stroke, as the
22 Fresh start from lower Finalis.
THE PROBLEM OF BYZANTINE NEUMES 43
only Ison (for repeated note), and an archaic stage, sometimes called Palaeo-
byzantine (tenth and eleventh centuries), where a blank space is left instead
of an Ison, and the end of a hymn, or other important pause, is marked by a
heavy dot in line with the Neumes. We have already mentioned that certain
signs, which are only subsidiaries in the Coislin System, have interval-value
in the earlier phases.
Many MSS. of the intermediate class are very ornate, using a great
number of compound signs of obscure meaning. The extreme example of
this we find in the Chartres fragment and the MS., Laura r, 67, from which it
seems to have been torn. This MS. contains a leaf of a musical handbook
dealing in a summary fashion with the notation in question. This latter
fragment I have discussed in an earlier article.23
Two examples of early neumatic passages, with approximate trans-
criptions, will be now given. The parallelism is sometimes fairly close
between the intermediate and Coislin versions; only in such cases can an
accurate transcription be expected.
For the Easter Ode we offer three versions (Fig. 4). The Laura MS.M
(c. 1000 A.D.) is the oldest known specimen of Byzantine Neumes, while that
from the Iberian Monastery is the oldest that I have seen in the Round
Notation.25 It is often hard to decipher and contains errors besides remini-
scences of the Neumes. The laws of subordination are sometimes over-
looked, and the sequence is broken occasionally at a medial cadence. The
middle stage is here represented by Coislin 220, from which the system
takes its name.
The Hymn for S. Stephen is a fairly simple instance of the intermediate
Neumes (Fig. 5.) The frequent use of the Argon will be observed, and also
the compendious sign in line 7 (Thematismus eso). An unusually close
parallel is afforded by the Trinity MS., which probably belongs to the early
fifteenth century.20
n B.S.A. xix. pp. 95-108. The Chartres graphs; the MS. is clear) while his ven :ons
fragment is discussed by Gastuue, op. cit. p. 96, are open to the objections already mentioned,
who gives facsimiles. Any translation in the '-'* Cf. my article in AfvaiccU Antvj. 1913,
present state of knowledge is mainly guess- 205, 220. We should probably add a Diple to
work. the last Ison but one in the hymn reproduced
* For this MS. see my article, B.S.A. xix. from this MS. in Fig. 5, in order to secure a
pp. 95 ff. and PL XIV. Ricmann, op. cit. normal ending, as in the transcription.
73-94, also gives specimens; his reproduc- '•"Forotherexx.fromthisTaluableMS.se*
tions are almost illegible (from bad photo- B.S.A. xxi. pp. 136,143; cf. ibid, xxiii. p. 201.
44
H. J. W. TILLYARD
A X
X
B <_ <^- X a X
(1) AfO - re 7Tu> - /ta irt • w
C C_ c — cJ^^ /
icai - vov (2) ov« IK
V ~
i— -
Vf-rpas a - yo vov rt -pa- rovp - yov - pt-vov (4) d\\' a-
0 _X ^ X y^ _ ^ — x"^ ^c- t7 ^
X
B V x^ 5"
erf -" as irrj - yijv (5) t<
0
- arav - TO. Xpt<r-
<_C_ b V
TOV (6) <v ai arc pe - ou - /*e - d
.
Fio. 4.
THE PROBLEM OF BYZANTINE NIUMi >
CANON FOR EASTER.
A. PALAEOBYZANTINE; LAURA B 22, f. 10 b.
B. COISLIN SYSTEM. COD. COISLIN 220.
C. ROUND SYSTEM (ARCHAIC) COD. ATHON, IBER. 222, f. 5.
ODE III. MODE I.
45
(1) AeD - re TTU> - /ia TTI - a> - /xev icai - vw (2) owe CK
p ^ f — s— f*
^
---
^=?t
Trt-rpa? a - yo - vov rt - pa - rovp
-^=^ii=tf—^
E£fe
you - fju-vov (4) a\\ ,i- <£0ap-
ai > h-
fe^^E^i^
,M
^
3t=^t:
o-i - as ITT;
yijf (5) (K TO. - <f>ov 6fJL • ftprj - q-av - ra Xpwr-
=1=^— ^ |i^r|^-^z^T^-^^g^: ii^q
^^zgr:^EE^=U P P I F
-x
Ol/ (6) «K «{) OT« p€ - OV
E^E^§3E3E
II. J. W. TILLYARD
' b ^
(1) Ilpw-ros cV
2 / ^ :>
Si
X
~- KO - voty (2) 7ry><3 - TOS xa\ eV
pap • TV - trw i • &(tx-0rjs (3) irav - a - yi - c
STC
ve- (4) 6 • £os yap i - ye' - vow rots d - yt - oi« . . .
2 X* xxX1 _X* V >
(5) KOI TroX-XoisTw Ku - pi - w- (6) irpov - 7y - ya - yes pap -TV - pas'
i XX 5 :> X^ — ^ ^ i . X v ii \
(7)8c.6 . .
2 ^
oi - fia. - vos <roi ty - 01 - yei (8) KO\ ®<-
_ X- b \ ^x_ /-
FIG. 5.
THE PROBLEM OF HYXANT1NE NEUMK.s
47
HYMN FOR S. STEPHEN (Dec. 26M)
1. CANTAB. TRINITATIS, B. 11. 17, f. 107 (Round System).
2. SINAITICUS. 1219. NEUMES (Intermediate Form).
MODE II.
(1) UpW-TOS eV St
^i=£
H
I
- TOS ty
3*
II
X
KO - voiy (2) irpoJ- - TO« xat eV
g=^==*q
^3^=^£ s
^g k- =i j ^
^=q:
-x-
*=£3:
^
*ll *
yTTO^
- TV - <riv c
(3)
27
- a - yi - c
S
• *«•»
sc*
^
E3^
(5) Kut TroX-AousTuJ Ku - pi - w- (G) ffpoo- - T; - ya - yes fiap - TV - pas'
Ml
(7) S. - i, .
ou - pa - vo? <roi
(8) itai
!i-e3E»Eei
.rt from Finalis. » Argon (pvwim). '•• ThemntiHrnus-compendious sign.
48
II. J. W. TILLYARD
- ./
o? o-ot c -
2 * >
//"
a - v>;- (9) aw - TOJ/ t - ice' - rev - e (10)
- vat ris •f.w • \as rj - /twx.
V-X -TE
Vw. 5.
THE PROBLEM OF BYZANTINE M;I NIKS
^£=ts:
49
3=$E£*£E&*=2
-r- _
os (rot i - <^a - vrj- (9) au - TOV I - Kt - rtv - € (10) au>-
^=^ h H^PH ^rr~"h"
i?
^^r^g^i^^g^g
A«
^
i
- vat ras
^
SS
H. J. W. TlLLYARD.
University College, Johannesburg.
*° Baroia.
J. U.S.— VOL. XLI.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920.
IN my last Bibliography (J.H.S. xxxix. 209 ff.) I attempted to cover the
three and a half years from July 1915 to December 1918 inclusive, though I
was only too well aware that, under the conditions of the period of war and
armistice, I could not claim completeness for my record. In the present
article I deal primarily with the years 1919 and 1920, but I have inserted
references to a number of books and articles which actually appeared earlier
though they did not become accessible to me until the years under review.
Excavation has not yet been renewed on anything like the pre-war scale and
the number of Greek inscriptions published for the first time is correspondingly
small, but gratifying progress has been made in many directions in the
restoration of mutilated texts and the fuller interpretation and utilisation of
documents already known. The reader who glances even cursorily through
the following pages will, I hope, be struck, despite the compression necessitated
by considerations of space, by the vitality and interest of the study to which
they relate, and by the many-sided contribution it has made to the under-
standing of Hellenic language, literature, religion and history.
General. — In addition to my own Bibliography above referred to, the
' Bulletin Epigraphique ' of P. Roussel and G. Nicole J calls for mention : the
' Literaturbericht ' for 1916 drawn up by P. Kretschmer 2 has a more specialised
aim and therefore a narrower scope, but is invaluable for philologists. A very
concise account of Greek and Latin epigraphy is incorporated in Laurand's
Manuel des Etudes Grecques et Latines? but this, though containing some
useful suggestions and bibliographical data, is too brief to serve as a satis-
factory introduction to the study of Greek epigraphy. The excellent little
work entitled How to Observe in Archaeology* addressed primarily to travellers
who have received little archaeological training, takes some account of inscrip-
tions and contains two tables of Greek and cognate alphabets, one relating to
Asia Minor and the other to mainland Greece and the islands.
The year 1920 has seen good progress made with the third edition of
Dittenberger's Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, of which two new instalments 5
have been issued. Volume III contains the 359 texts (of which 44 did not
appear in the second edition) selected to illustrate various aspects of the
public, religious and private life of the Greeks. The great majority have been
edited by F. Hiller von Gaertringen, but E. Ziebarth has undertaken this
1 Rev. £t. Or. xxx. 409 ff. « London (British Museum), 1920.
1 Glotta, x. 213 ff. 5 Leipzig (Hirzel).
a Fasc. 7, Paris (Picard), 1919.
50
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920 51
responsibility for some sixty inscriptions, chiefly dealing with private lif«\
and 0. Weinreich and H. Diels have dealt with a few texts falling within their
special provinces. The first section of Vol. IV comprises Indexes of personal
names, divine and human; of their accuracy and fulness there need be no
doubt, but it is hard to approve of the change whereby human beings other
than potentates are arranged not solely on the alphabetical principle but
under the several states to which they belonged.
E. Preuner has published 6 extracts from the papers of H. N. Ulrichs
relative to Greek inscriptions, following the order of the I.G. ; most of these
shed fresh light on, or suggest corrections of, published texts, but some afford
new material for Troezen, Tanagra, Thespiae, Thebes and Delphi. A metrical
epitaph, the provenance of which is not indicated, has been discussed by
T. Reinach 7 and may receive a passing mention here.
In the dialectological sphere special attention may be called to two
articles 8 in which F. Bechtel examines dialect-forms found in Thessalian,
Boeotian, Locrian, Delphian, Arcadian and Lesbian inscriptions. J. C. Hoppin
has given us, in addition to the valuable work noted in the following section,
some corrections 9 of Nicole's Corpus des Ceramutes Grecs, C. Robert has
examined fully 10 the scenes from the Iliad and from the Nosti occurring on
two inscribed Homeric vases, and the brief inscriptions on several gems ll
seen by Antoine Galland (1646-1715) and on a glass weight from the Vienna
Hof museum 12 also call for notice. Of much greater interest is E. Premier's
detailed examination 13 of some points of contact between archaeology and
epigraphy, in the course of which he attempts a new restoration of the
Micythus-inscription from Olympia, reconstructs the stemma of the Megarian
sculptor Callicles, investigates the evidence for the artistic activities of
Daedalus, a Sicyonian bronze-caster of the early fourth century, collects the
references to a family of Athenian potters in which the names Bacchius and
Cittus are prominent, calls into being from an epithet a Theban artist Euan-
critus, deals with the titles on portraits of Menander, Solon and Archilochus,
.traces the source of the forged inscription on a relief at Wilton House, and
shows how the allegation that Cyriac of Ancona copied in Chios an epii iph of
Homer rests apparently upon the fact that he copied the metrical epitaph of a
certain Isidote which refers to Chios as the trdrpa TroXui^arov 'Opijpov.
To two French scholars we owe able and important volumes the materials
for which are drawn largely from inscriptions. In his work 14 on the trans-
lation into Greek of the consular title M. Holleaux reviews successively the
translations found in documents emanating from consuls, in dedicatory in-
scriptions set up by the Italians of Delos, in decrees and dedications of Greek
origin, in Polybius, and in the acts of the Senate. A chapter is devoted to
critical remarks on the title <7Tparrjyo^ vira-ros, and in an appendix (p. 131 ff.)
• Rh. Mu«. Ixxiii. 273 ff. " Rev. Arch, xii (1920), 104 ff.
' C. R. Acad. Inter. 1920, 57. " ATiim. Zeit. li. 194 ft.
• Gott. Nachr. 1918, 397 ff., 1919, 339 ff. " Jahrb. xxxv. 59 ff.
• Am. Journ. Arch. xxi. 308 ff. " Etude mr la Induction en gree du titrt
10 Jahrb. xxxiv. 65 ff. conntlaire, Paris (Boccarcl), 1918.
52 MARCUS N. TOD
the author reproduces his discussion 15 of the so-called letter of Cn. Manlius
Volso to the state of Heraclea sub Latmo. The addenda and corrigenda
include a new fragment of a letter of Sp. Postumius, remarks on the dedica-
tions of Roman magistrates mentioned in the Delian inventories and a new
letter of the Senate, written probably early in 188 B.C. and inscribed at Delphi.
No less interesting is J. Hatzfeld's exhaustive discussion of the Italian
negotiatores in the Greek East,16 in which, after some preliminary remarks on
Latin names in Greek inscriptions (p. 7 ff.), the writer traces minutely the
history of the expansion of the negotiatores over the Hellenic world (17 fi.)
and then reviews (193 £E.) their professions, origin, social status and organisa-
tion, their relations to the Greek population, and the role they played. The
full and excellent index adds greatly to the value of a notable book. Other
important books and articles also draw largely or mainly upon epigraphical
sources. Among these are W. Schubart's remarks on the style of the letters
written by Hellenistic kings,17 T, Klee's monograph 18 on the yvfivitcol d^wves
at Greek festivals, which, starting from the Coan victor-lists here first pub-
lished, discusses successively the programmes of the competitions, the age-
classes of competitors, the times of the several festivals and the victors in the
four sacred dywves, M. Holleaux's admirable collection 19 of the epigraphical
occurrences of the title <rrparrjjo<} avdinraTos, and F. Imhoof-Blumer's article 20
on the significance of the title tVTrt/co? and the employment of Roman knights
as officials in Greek cities. U. Wilcken's examination 21 of the formulae of
Imperial rescripts from the time of Augustus to that of Diocletian also owes
something to inscriptions, notably that of Scaptopara.
One of the most marked features of the past few years has been the lively
interest shown in the question of the. derivation of the Greek alphabet and
indeed of alphabetic writing altogether, an interest which has been specially
stimulated by the work of Evans, Sethe and Gardiner, who approach the
subject from the side of the Cretan, Egyptian and Sinaitic inscriptions respec-
tively. I am not competent to discuss all the articles written and all the
suggestions advanced, nor indeed are they all relevant to a bibliography of
Greek epigraphy, but the content of some of them must be briefly indicated.
J. Sundwall, who continues to do valuable work on the Cretan scripts
has attempted 22 an interpretation, necessarily provisional, of some tablets
in the linear script A, and has also discussed ^ the question of the origin of
the Cretan writing, rejecting the theory that this was the ' Urbild ' of the
Phoenician, and tracing back fifty-three Cretan signs to Egyptian hieroglyphs :
there cannot, he holds, be the slightest doubt that the Egyptian hieroglyphic
writing served not only as a stimulus but as a pattern and that the Cretans
15 Rev. £t. Anc. xix. 237 ft. Reviewed Berl. phil. Woch. xxxix. 169 ff.,
16 Lea Trafiquanta Italiena dona V Orient Class. Phil. xiv. 90 f. Cf. Klio, xvi. 192 f.
HeUenique, Paris (Boccard), 1919. Re- " Rev. Arch. viii. (1918), 221 ft.
viewed by P. Roussel, Rev. l£t. Anc. xxii. 20 Num. Zeit. xlviii. 94 ff.
138 r*. 21 Hermea, Iv. 1 ff.
17 Arch. Pap. vi. 324 ff. 2* Acta Acad. Aboenaia Humaniora, ii,
18 Zur Qeachichte der gymniachen Agone Abo, 1920.
an griech. Festen, Leipzig (Teubner), 1918. 23 Ibid.i.2. Reviewed Phil. Woch.xli. 12.
n
took over the Egyptian phonetic values together with the signs. Of W. N.
Bates' paper on * Recent Theories on the Origin of the Alphabet ' I know
only a brief summary,24 but it is noteworthy that he thinks that the Greek
alphabet is not derived from the Phoenician. This same thesis is maintained
by W. M. Flinders Petrie, who, in an article26 resuming and restating the
view already set forth in his work, The Formation of the Alphabet, admits
indeed the close connexion between the Greek and the Phoenician alphabet,
but argues that the latter was neither the sole source of the former nor the
source of all other alphabets. He rejects the claims of the hieratic, Cretan
and Sinaitic scripts to have originated alphabetic writing, and traces the use
of a signary of some sixty signs back to a very early stage of Egyptian history,
in many cases prior to the use of hieroglyphs. Of these signs various people
made different selections, or the same people, as for example the Greeks,
used now a fuller and now a shorter selection. Reviewing this article, a
writer in the Revue Archeologique,2* though not committing himself to the
whole theory, holds that at least it ' merits discussion.' E. Hermann, on
the other hand, has written an interesting summary 27 of Sethe's article in
which the Sinaitic inscriptions are regarded as bridging the gulf between the
Egyptian hieroglyphs and the Semitic scripts. The Phoenicians took over the
hieroglyphic signs but not the Egyptian values; the pictographs received
their Semitic names and their value was then determined on the acrophonic
principle. The Greek alphabet in turn was derived from the Phoenician,
as has been shown afresh by M. P. Nilsson, whose work (vide infra) Hermann
summarises and criticises (p. 54 ff.). The same scholar has protested 2(J
against the misrepresentation of his article on the letters Pi and Beta by
A. Mentz, who has made a brief rejoinder.29 M. P. Nilsson's work ** contains
a re-examination of the theory of a Phoenician origin of the Greek alphabet
and an attempt to trace its development on the basis of simple and consistent
principles, aided by a well-guarded use of analogy. He insists that in the
Semitic and Greek alphabets the acrophonic principle determines without
exception the phonetic value of a letter, which represents the first sound of
the letter-name, and examines at length the procedure followed in other
alphabets and also in Greek to secure signs for sounds hitherto unrepresented,
the main method consisting in a differentiation of the sign which is phonetically
most closely akin to the sound for which a new sign is sought. In a paper 81
dealing mainly with some points in the history of the Etruscan and Latin
alphabets, M. Hammarstrom has devoted to the history, form and value of
the Greek letter H a full and valuable discussion, which students of the Greek
alphabet cannot afford to neglect. Considerations of space and of relevance
forbid any detailed notice of J. Capart's estimate and critique of recent dis-
" Am. Journ. Arch. xxiv. 80. »° Kgl. Danake Videntkabernt* Seltkab.
" Scientia, Dec. 1918. Hist.-filol. MeddeUUer, i. 6. Copenhagen,
" x. (1919), 379 f. 1918.
>7 Deutache Literaturztg. xl. 27 ff., 51 ff. " Acta Societati* Scient. Fennicae, xlix.
28 Berl. phil. Woch. xxxix. 264. ~2. Helsingfore, 1920. Reviewed by
" Ibi-l. .-»7ti. Hermann, Berl. phil. Woch. xl. 1067 ff.
54 MARCUS N. TOD
coveries relative to the history of the alphabet 32 and of R.f Eisler's bold and
noteworthy attempt ^ to decipher the Sinaitic inscriptions, written according
to the author in an alphabet of twenty-two letters, almost all of which can
be traced back to Egyptian hieroglyphs, though their sense is not that of
the Egyptian signs but of the Semitic letter-names. Special attention should,
however, be drawn to E. Kalinka's essay on the origin of alphabetic writing,34
in which the writer maintains the Semitic origin of the Greek alphabet, but
after an examination of the pictographic value of the earliest Phoenician
letter-forms concludes that the inventor of the alphabet was not a Phoenician
but a member of some nomadic people in the Phoenician hinterland, possibly
the Israelites, and to C. F. Lehmann-Haupt's long and suggestive study 35
of the same subject, in which the writer develops and supports suggestions
made by him in 1904 and 1910, insisting that whereas the ' inner form ' of
the Phoenician alphabet is certainly derived from an Egyptian source, the
' outer form,' i, e. the signs employed, should not be traced to Egyptian,
Babylonian or other originals (as appears from the two recorded American
cases of the invention of scripts in recent times), though an eclectic use of
Cretan or other signs may have been made without regard to their phonetic
values; the general conclusion is that the Phoenician alphabet arose in
Palestine not very long before 1100-1000 B.C., probably at the period when
Egyptian rule over Palestine had ceased, and there was no single and compact
regime in Mesopotamia.
Attica. — The new Attic inscriptions published during the period under
review are few in number and of no very great interest, but valuable work
has been done in the restoration and interpretation of previously known
texts. At Sunium B. Sta'is has found two fragments of archaic dedications
and a number of stone balls inscribed with numerals and, in some cases,
the name of a certain Zo'ilus ; 36 their purpose he regards as enigmatic, but
J. Svoronos has conjectured 37 that they served as weights in the Athenian
mint at Sunium. Investigation of the grotto of Pan near Phyle has yielded
sixteen texts, of which all save one are new, mostly votive in character.38
E. F. Rambo has illustrated an article 39 on Attic grave-stelae by three hitherto
unpublished examples in the Philadelphia Museum, and F. Behn has dis-
cussed 40 two Panathenaic amphorae from Egypt, now preserved in the
Pelizaus Museum at Hildesheim. F. Hiller von Gaertringen, who is at present
engaged on a special study of the earlier Attic inscriptions, has discussed the
restoration of the ' Salaminian Decree,' 41 documents relating to the Heka-
tompedon, Athenian public works and the Apolline worship,42 and two archaic
32 Acad. Royale de Belgique. Bulletin de 35 Zeits. D.M.G. Ixxiii. 51 ff.
la Claeae dea Lettrea, 1920, 408 ff. 36 'Apx- 'E<J>. 1917, 201, 203.
33 Die Kenitiachen Weihinachriften der 37 Journ. Intern, xviii. 122.
Hyksoazeit im Bergbaugebiet der Sinaihalbin- " 'Apx- 'E0- 1918, 19 ff.
eel, Freiburg i. Br. (Herder), 1919. Re- »• The Museum Journal, x. 149 ff.
viewed , Aegyptus, i. 373 ff., Rev. Arch. x. 40 Arch. Anz. xxxiv. 77 ff.
(1919), 380, Berl. phil. Woch. xl. 1184ff., « Berl. Sitzb. 1919, 660 f. : cf. Hermes,
Hist. Zeita. cxxiii, 303 ff. liv. 112.
34 Klio, xvi. 302 ff. «2 Ibid. 1919, 661 ff.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920
epigrams.43 W. Bannier has published a further instalment ** of hia valuable
comments on Attic inscriptions, dealing with the sixth and fifth centuries,
and the latter century is further represented by L. Weber's re-examination **
of the two epigrams of I.G. i. 333, both of which he refers to the battle of
Marathon and connects conjecturally with the basis of the Hermae erected
in the Athenian Agora to celebrate the victories won over the Persians, and
by C. F. Lehmann-Haupt's discussion46 of the phrase tcaOa-jrep ol a\\ot
Xa\fci8eij<; in the ' Chalcidian Decree.' New and valuable light has been thrown
on the decree of 401/0 (I.G. ii.2 10.) granting privileges to those metics and
foreigners who had aided in the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants and the
reinstatement of democracy : the document is discussed in detail, mainly
upon the basis of the generally accepted restoration, by P. ClochS,47 while
P. Foucart sets himself with marked success to the task of restoring the text
and interpreting the exact nature of the services rendered and the rewards
granted.48 Turm'ng to the fourth century we may note Cloche's dating tt
of the Attic fragment mentioning King Tachos of Egypt (I.G. ii. 60= ii.2 119),
E. Reisch's article 50 on the date of the statue of Syeris sculptured by Nico-
machus (ii. 1378), K. Kunst's examination 51 of a famous Eleusinian account
(ii. 834 6= Dittenb. Syll.2 587), and G. Glotz's attempt 52 to fix in June or
July 332 B.C. the date of the accounts relating to the Portico of Philon at
Eleusis (ii. 834 c). To B. Leonardos we owe very careful and detailed com-
mentaries M on the decree granting citizenship to Menestheus of Miletus
(ii. 455) and on the catalogue of the demesmen of the Acamantid tribe (ii. 1032).
In a series of epigraphical studies on Athens in the imperial period, P. Graindor
discusses M (a) the date of the archonship of Philopappus (iii. 78) and of
Plutarch's avpTroGiaica Trpo^rj^ara, (b) the decree in honour of an Emperor,
probably Hadrian, of which I.G. iii. 7 and 55 are parts, (c) a dedication (iii. 132)
to Asclepius and Hygieia, and (d) the date of the catalogue, I.G. iii. 1012.
T. Reinach draws attention 55 to a fragment of a copy of I.G. iii. 5 (Dittenb.
Syll.3 885) in the Biblioteca Bertoliana at Vicenza and to the presence of
certain other inscriptions in the same Library. E. Michon traces the history
and corrects the text 56 of I.G. iii. 94, on a bust of Melitene, priestess of the
Metroon in the Peiraeus, now in the Louvre. Mention must also be made
of L. R. FarnelTs able and convincing interpretation 67 of a fragment of Plato
Comicus in the light of an Attic ritual inscription, T. Homolle's exhaustive
discussion 58 of three inscribed reliefs from Phalerum, 0. Weinreich's article M
on the inscription (Dittenb. Syll.3 1125), statue and cult of A tow at Eleusis,
tt Hermet, liv. 211 ff., 329 ft. " Berl. phil. Woch. xxxix. 493 ff.
44 Berl. phil. Woch. xl. 40 ff. •* Rev. £t. Or. xxxi. 207 ff.
44 Philologua, Ixxvi. 60 ff. M 'Apx- '**• 1918, 100 ff., 104 ff.
«• Klio, xvi. 193 ff. " Rev. £t. Or. xxxi. 221 £f.
" Rev. tit. Or., xxx. 384 ff. " Ibid. 91 ff.
4» Un decret Athenien relatif aux com- •• Mem. Soc. Nat. Ant. de France, Ixxv.
baUants de Phyte (M6m. de 1'Acad. Inscr. et 91 ff.
Belles-Lettres, xlii. 323 ff.), Paris, 1920. " Clots. Quart, xiv. 1 39 ff.
K.-viewed Clots. Rev. xxxv. 36 f. •• Rev. Arch, xi (1920), 1 ff.
•• Rev. Egyptologique, i. (1919), 213 ff. " Arch. Rel. xix. 174 ff.
*° Jahreth. xix.-xx. 299 ff.
56 MARCUS N. TOD
W. B. Dinsmoor's theory 60 that the pedestal in front of the Athenian Propylaea,
which later bore a statue and inscription of Agrippa, was originally erected
about 178 B.C. on the occasion of the victories won in the Panathenaic chariot-
races by Eumenes II and his brother Attalus, F. Bechtel's interpretation 61
of the epigraphically attested name Syno/ro/oSo?, and B. Schroeder's list 62 of the
accessions made since 1903 to the German collections of antiquities, including
a votive relief from Peiraeus and three Attic gravestones. W. Dorpfeld's
latest article ** on the Athenian Hekatompedon makes constant appeal to
epigraphical evidence, and inscriptions form the chief basis of G. Smith's
interesting examination 64 of the Attic casualty lists and cognate questions
such as those of mobilisation, military organisations, the treatment of the
wounded and the care of the invalided, widows and orphans. R. C. Flickmger's
book 65 on the Greek theatre devotes a chapter (ix, p. 318 fi.) to ' Theatrical
Records,' in which some account is given of the surviving fragments of the
three great Athenian dramatic records — the Fasti, the Didascaliae and the
Victor-lists. H. McClees deals with the subject of the part played by women
in Athenian public and private life ais viewed through the medium of the
inscriptions, but her book is still inaccessible to me.*6 The vexed, but very
important, question of the chronology of the Athenian archons has given rise
to two articles, in one of which 67 J. Kirchner discusses the new results relative
to the archons of the second and first centuries B.C. reached by P. Roussel in
his work Delos : Colonie Athenienne, while in the other 68 P. Graindor corrects
the dates attributed by him in a recent article to certain archons of the second
century after Christ. J. C. Hoppin's Handbook of Attic Red-figured Vases
Signed by or Attributed to the various Masters of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.69
is invaluable, not only to the student of Greek vase-painting but also as giving
a complete and authoritative list of artists' signatures within the limits indicated
by its title. On the historical side the posthumous work of B. Keil, edited
by R. Laqueur, entitled Beitrdge zur Geschichte des Areopags calls for special
notice. Starting from an examination of an Epidaurian stone (I.G. iv. 936-8)
the author discusses with minute care the evidence, primarily epigraphical,
for the character and position of the Athenian Areopagus as reorganised in
the period of Roman supremacy, when the old oligarchical council was placed
above the two democratic bodies, the ftov\ij and the ecclesia, and incidentally
deals with the powers exercised at this time by the arehons, the a-Tpanryoi
and other magistrates. An interesting parallel is drawn (p. 79 f.) between
the Areopagus with its Kijpvl; and aipeoets on the one hand and the English
Town Council with its Town Clerk and its Standing Committees on the other.70
60 Am. Journ. Arch. xxiv. 83. . Journ. Arch, xxiii. 73, Class. Rev. xxxv.
81 Hermes, Iv. 99 f. 76.
•» Arch. Am. xxxiv. 109 ff. " Berl. phil. Woch. xl. 836 ff.
«3 Jahrb. xxxiv. 1 ff. «8 B.C.H. xl. 74 ff.
84 Class. Phil. xiv. 351 ff. " Two vols. Harvard University Press.
«5 The Greek .Theater and its Drama, Vol. i. reviewed by E. Pettier, Rev. Arch. x.
Chicago (University Press), 1918. (1919), 259 ff.
66 A Study of Women in Attic Inscriptions, 70 Berichte der Sachs. Akad. Phil.-hist.
Columbia University Press, 1920. Cf. Am. Klasse, Ixxi. 8.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920 57
Pdoponnese.—K. K. Smith has published 71 forty-two inscriptions found
at CORINTH, mostly during the excavations carried on from 1902 to 1907,
together with a number of valuable notes on previously published texts from
the same site : they comprise decrees, catalogues, dedications and epitaphs,
and, though the majority are seriously mutilated, some — such as the four
archaic dedications (Nos. 71-74), two sculptors' signatures (Nos. 80, 82), and
especially an early boundary-stone giving warning of a fine to be imposed on
trespassers (No. 70)— are of considerable interest. In addition, Corinth has
produced a proconsular rescript of the third or fourth century of our era and
two funerary inscriptions.72 To W. Vollgraff we owe two further instalments n
of his epigraphical discoveries at ARGOS, numbering twenty-four texts ranging
from the fifth century B.C. to the late Roman period and including a fragment
of a fifth-century treaty between Argos and Epidaurus (No. 5), a list of actors
who took part in certain musical contests (No. 25), an inscription in honour
of Pompey the Great avrofcpdrup TO TCTaprov (No. 27), and a letter of
Agrippa to the Argive yepovo-ia (No. 28), which gives rise to an interesting
discussion of yepova-iai in general (p. 265 ff.). Four epitaphs from the
neighbourhood of Argos and Nauplia have been added to the Nauplia Museum.74
C. A. Giamalides' article 75 on the ancient churches of EPIDAURUS contains a
large number of Byzantine and Christian inscriptions together with a few (Nos.
1, 2, 5, 26, 28, 50) of an earlier period. The numerous inscriptions found by
P. Cawadias in the course of his recently renewed excavations at the Epidaurian
Asclepieum have not yet been published, but five of them, of which a preliminary
account has appeared,76 bid fair to prove of exceptional value. The longest
and most important, which throws new light on the working of the Achaean
League and clears up some of the problems left unsolved by Polybius, is a law
passed by the Achaeans in 223 B.C. to define and regulate the fresh situation
created by the admission of the Macedonians and their allies to the League,
modifying some articles of its constitution, and granting to the .Macedonian
king the right of intervention in its affairs. G. H. Macurdy has interpreted 77
the puzzling word d^areiv, which occurs in an inscription of SPARTA (I.G. v. 1.
209), as being equivalent to d<f>€Teiv, ' to act as starter.' ¥. Hiller von Gt»er-
tringen has proposed 78 to read Nt*o7ro\i9, the city-goddess of Nicopolis, in
an inscription of Mantinea in ARCADIA (I.G. v. 2. 297), and W. Vollgraff, after
publishing 79 as new a bronze fragment containing accounts of a very early date,
subsequently found 80 that it had previously appeared (I.G. v. 2. 410) among
the inscriptions of Lusi, north of Cletor. From Aegira in ACHAEA we have 81
a new, but incomplete, dedication and a revised version of the metrical epitaph
published by Wilhelm in his Beitrdge zitr griechischen Inschriftenkunde, 109,
No. 93.
71 Am. Journ. Arch, xxiii. 331 ff. 7* Acropole, i. 6 ff.
72 'Ap%. AeAr. iv. *ap. 5 ff., 'Apx- '£$• 1917, 7T Class. Rev. xxxiv. 98 f.
108. 7i Hermes, liv. 104 f.
71 Mnemosyne, xlvii. 160 ff., 252 ff. 7t Mnemosyne, xlvii. 66 ff.
74 'Apx- 'E*. 1917, 108. M Ibid. 230.
75 'A0TjK<«. \\v. Hi.-, ff. " Jahresh. xix.-xx. Beiblatt, 38 ff.
58 MARCUS N. TOD
Northern Greece. — Seven inscriptions from the sanctuary of Amphiaraus
at OROPUS have been carefully edited 82 by B. Leonardos : among these the
most interesting are (a) the stele (No. 91) bearing the word 1STIHS from the
altar described by Pausanias, i, 34, 3 ; (6) a list (No. 92) of subscribers to an
avaBrma set up in 328/7 B.C. and an Attic decree in praise of three men who
helped in its erection; (c) a new version (No. 93) of the famous iepbs vofuts
published in I.G. vii. 235, Leges Graecorum Sacrae, 65, and elsewhere; (d)
a record (Nos. 95-97) of the honours paid to (nparrj^ol ori Tel x<opai, eVt rwi
Heipaei and eVl ret 'A /ere? and others in 324 B.C., the front of the stone being
occupied by a list of the eleven \o%ayoi and sixty-three e<j>r)f3oi (their names
arranged under their respective denies) who united in bestowing the crowns here
commemorated. Few of the new finds from BOEOTIA are of special importance.
A. D. Keramopoullos' investigations at Thebes M have brought to light twenty-
three inscriptions, chiefly votive in character, from the temple of Ismenian
Apollo and other sites. Some of them go back to the sixth century B.C. (pp.
35 f., 61) and among the divinities honoured are Apollo Hismenios, Pronaia
(p. 35 f.), the Great Mother, Aat'/iwj/ MiXi'%to9, Attis and Artemis Orthosia
(p. 421 ff.). An inscribed vase 84 with scenes from the Noo-rot also comes from
Thebes, while from the Boeotian Cabirium is derived a leaden token 85 with the
inscription KAB. A. Skias has given us 86 fifteen new Plataean texts found in
1899, two unpublished documents from a MS. of Stamatakis, and corrected
versions of two inscriptions already known (I.G. vii. 1679, 1705-6). G. de
Sanctis has discussed 87 the meaning of the phrase r^iwv eve/cev found in the
Senatus consultum relating to Thisbe, and E. Preuner has devoted a long and
valuable article 88 to Honestos, the author of the epigrams engraved on a number
of statue-bases from the Thespian sanctuary of the Muses : in this the epigrams
are examined afresh, their relation to the monuments on which they are engraved
is discussed, and the date of one of them — that which refers to Se/Sao-r^,
whom Preuner regards as Julia, Augustus' daughter — is fixed at ca. 3/2 B.C.,
a valuable datum for determining the period of the epigrammatist.
In DORIS a single archaic epitaph 89 has been found. W. Vollgraff has
proposed 90 an emendation in a well-known inscription (Dittenb. Syll.z 844) of
Amphissa in LOCRIS, and E. Schwyzer has attempted 91 to explain the puzzling
word A MAT A in the treaty between AETOLIA and Acarnania recently discovered
at Thermum (Dittenb. Sytt* 421). .
DELPHI takes a more prominent place in the epigraphical history of the
past two years. F. Poulsen's admirable account of the history and archaeology
of Delphi, translated by G. C. Richards,92 makes considerable use, as is but
natural, of epigraphical materials. P. Cloche's full discussion93 of Greek
82 'ApX- '£<*>. 1917, 39 ff.t 231 ff., 240, 8« Hermes, Iv. 388 ff .
1918, 73 ff. « B.S.A. xxiii. 111.
•* 'A.px. A«AT. iii. 22 ff., 35 f., 61, 64, •« Mnemosyne, xlvii. 72.
366 ff., 401, 421 ff. »l Rh. Mus. Ixxii. 434 ff.
84 Jahrb. xxxiv. 65 ff. M F. Poulsen, Delphi. London (Gylden-
85 Journ. Intern, xviii. 114. dal).
88 'A/>x. 'E<f>. 1917, 157 ff. •> B.C.H. xl. 78 ff.
87 Atti di Torino, liv. 526 ff.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920 N
politics from 356 to 327 B.C. is based largely on the financial records of the
vao-rroioi, which not only receive illumination from the literary texts but
themselves in turn supplement and give precision to those texts, and works
out in detail the view expressed by E. Bourguet in 1896 (B.C.H. xx. 223) that
the composition of this college gives the most exact idea of the relative import-
ance of the various Greek cities at the sanctuary. A. C. Johnson attempts **
a new chronological arrangement of the Amphictyonic records and of the Del-
phian archons of the period 240-202 B.C. by bringing into close relation the
epigraphical discoveries made at Delphi and at Athens and by applying the
principles (a) that no member of the Macedonian Empire or of the Achaean
League ever participated in the Amphictyonic Council while it was dominated
by Aetolia, and (b) that when we find any state represented on the Council,
that state must be free from Macedonian control at the time. The article
closes with a list (304 ff.) of Delphian archons and councillors and hieromnetnones
for 239-202 B.C. By a re-examination of a Delphian inscription G. Glotz
shows 95 that at Delphi (as at Delos, Boeotian Orchomenus, Corcyra and Corinth)
the -%a.\icovs is the twelfth part of the obol. In the course of his article ** on
the title ffTpaTijybs avdvTraros, M. Holleaux discusses six Delphian texts,
one of which (No. 13), set up by the Amphictyonic KOIVOV in honour of Q.
Ancharius, was previously unpublished. In the renewed Thurian promanteia
(Dittenb. Syll.3 295) E. Bourguet proposes97 to restore tr[po 'lr]a\iatrav [irdv]rtav
for the 7r[/9o]a\tG>Taj/ [iov]rwv conjectured by Dittenberger and generally
accepted. In this connexion 98 and also in a special article,99 Bourguet voices
an outspoken criticism of the procedure and competence of H. Pomtow as shown
in his treatment of the Delphian texts published by him in the first volume of
the new edition of Dittenb. Syll. Pomtow has continued his publication of
Delphian inscriptions in a fourth series of Delphische Neufunde.100 Under the
general heading ' The Liberation of Delphi by the Romans,' he deals fully with
twenty-eight inscriptions, almost all of the second century B.C., many of which
have already appeared in Dittenb. Syll.3 607 ff. The second group (Nos.
115-123 : cf. Dittenb. Syll3 607-12) comprises, according to the editor, histori-
cally the most important Delphian texts of the second century, recording ' vhe
liberation and restoration of the Delphian ecclesiastical state by M'. Acilius, the
expropriation of the Aetolian lands and houses by the Delphians, the sanctioning
of these measures by the Senate, the revenge of the Aetolians by the murder
of the three Delphian envoys returning from Rome, etc.' The third section
(p. 141 ff.), entitled, * The Restoration of the Delphian Amphictyony after
188 B.C.', contains inter alia the important decree of 184 B.C. (No. 123») previously
edited by Blum (B.C.H. xxxviii. 26 ff.), and another of 119/7 B.C. (No. 125)
which refers to a religious o-rao-f? which ' exercised a very marked influence in
hampering the public and private life of the community.' The concluding
section deals with the rivalry of two states in E. Locris, Thronium and Scarphea,
•• Am. Journ. Phil. xl. 286 ff. " Ibid. 77 n. 2.
ts Rev. £t. Or. xxxi. 88 ff. •• Rev. Arch. vii. (1918), 209 ff.
•• Sev. Arch. viii. (1918), 221 ff. 10° A7io, xvi. 109 ff.
•7 Rev. &t. Anc. xxi. 77 ff.
60 MARCUS N. TOD
and includes three documents of great interest, that relating to the disputed
right to nominate the Epicnemidian hieromnemon, settled in favour
of Thronium by an Athenian tribunal of sixty-one members (No. 130), that
relating to a frontier-dispute (No. 131), and that containing a supplement to a
frontier-settlement between Thronium and the ' Engaioi ' (No. 137).
The new finds from THESSALY consist of an honorary inscription,101 set
up at Lafissa by the KOIVOV ©eo-craXwy, and fifty-four texts from Chyretiae
(Perrhaebia) discovered and published 1C2 by that indefatigable explorer of
northern Greece, A. Arvanitopoulos : of these thirty-nine are manumissions of
the usual Thessalian type, four are honorary inscriptions, two are decrees
(Nos. 301, 304), one of them accompanied by a letter borne by the Chyretian
envoys who communicated the text of the decree to the people of Oloosson, one
(No. 3Q2) is a letter from Titus Quinctius Flamininus, a-TpaTiyyb*; VTTCLTOS
'PwfjLaifov, to the state of Chyretiae, and eight are funerary, of which one is a
metrical epitaph dating apparently from the last quarter of the fifth century
B.C. In addition several inscriptions from Scotussa, Phalanna and elsewhere
have been corrected or annotated.103 The mosaic-inscriptions from the early
Christian basilica at Nicopolis in EPIRUS excavated by A. Philadelpheus have
been published by their discoverer 104 and commented on by A. Hadjis.105
Islands of the Aegean. — EUBOEA has produced no new inscriptions, but
the epigraphical and other discoveries at the sanctuary of the Egyptian deities
at Eretria have been discussed by P. Roussel,106 and K. Swoboda has suggested107
some emendations and restorations in the hymn addressed to the Idaean dactyls
(I.G. xii. 9. 259). Of the Cyclades DELOS alone is represented. The article
of Roussel just referred to deals also with the Delian shrine of the Egyptian
gods, and some valuable remarks are to be found in F. Durrbach's reviews 108
of Roussel's recent works — Delos : Colonie Athenienne and Les Cultes Egyptians.
J. Kirchner has devoted an article 109 to the statement and examination of some
of the results reached by Roussel in the first Appendix to the former book,
which deals with the chronology of certain of the Athenian archons of the second
and first centuries B.C. In the course of a long and detailed study no F.
Durrbach examines the chronology of the Delian archons from 314 down to
166 B.C., especially of those from 301 (Lysixenus) onwards, which is settled by a
Delian text discovered in 1912 and confirmed by Glotz's article m on the price
of pitch. Inscriptions are of very secondary interest in A. Plassart's full
report 112 on the excavation of the residential quarter lying to the east of the
Stadium : Delian inscriptions, however, play an important part in the articles
of Holleaux referred to in the opening section of this Bibliography. An archaic
dedication to Apollo is found on a vase from ScYROS.113 A vigorous duel has
101 Rev. Arch, viii (1918), 235, No. 19. 107 Woch. kl. Phil. 1918, 262.
102 'Apx- 'E</>. 1917, 1 ff., Ill ff. 108 Rev.,Et. Or. xxxi. 122 ff., 128 f.
103 Mnemosyne, xlvii. 116, Rh. Mua. 10» Berl. phil. Woch. xl. 836 ff.
Jxxii. 426 ff., 'APX. 'E0. 1917, 38. uo B.C.H. xl. 298.
104 'ApX. '£«>. 1917, 48 ff., 1918, 40. m Rev. Et. Or. xxix. 281 ff.
108 Ibid. 1918, 28 ff. m B.C.H. xl. 145 ff.
10f Revue Egyptologique, i. (1919), 81 ff. 113 'Apx- A«AT. iv. irapapr^a, 38.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920 61
been waged over the pre-Hellenic inscriptions -from LEMNOS between E. Lattes 114
and L. Pareti,115 the former of whom maintains that the language is Etruscan,
while the latter regards the proofs brought forward in support of this theory
as insufficient and is inclined to trace in the inscriptions Thracian rather than
Etruscan affinities. The contributions of CRETE are not of great interest ll6 with
the exception of an archaic text from Gortyn, written boustrophedon, giving,
according to D. Comparetti,117 ' the indispensable complement of the last
clause of the law on the division of the inheritance contained in the Gortynian
Code which has come down to us in the Great Inscription ' : in fact, however,
it is not a later addition but a considerably earlier enactment, omitted in ' that
badly arranged and imperfect body of laws which we possess in the Great
Inscription.' One of the greatest problems of the Code of Gortyn is discussed
by A. Debrunner,118 who examines the meaning of the phrase ai otca in S.G.D.I,
4991, v. 1. 4 f., and the significance of the passage in which it occurs. W.
Krause has attempted 119 to determine the pronunciation of 6 in Gortynian
speech, concluding that in the first period it had the value tc, while in the third
it took the spirantic value \>.
Of the publication of some new inscriptions of Cos in T. Klee's work on
the Greek dywves mention has already been made : P. Stengel's examination 12°
of the word ev&opa, which is found in Coan inscriptions (Paton-Hicks, 37, 38,
40), also calls for notice. Some fifty-three inscriptions, among them several
of considerable interest, discovered in the course of the Greek and German
excavation of the Heraeum of SAMOS, have been published by M. Schede.121
They include four texts set up by the Athenian settlers on the island, eleven
belonging to the period of the Antigonids (322-300 B.C.), most of which contain
some reference to the exile ((frvyifi or to the restoration (*n'#o8o?) of the Samians,
six of the Ptolemaic period, including a long and interesting record (probably
dating from 243/2 B.C.) of the services rendered to his native state by a certain
Bulagoras, and nine of late Hellenistic times : the remainder, which are of
the Roman period, include the inscriptions from statue-bases of M. Cicero,
of Calpurnia, wife of Julius Caesar, of Agrippa Postumus, of Julia the daughter
of Augustus, of Brasilia the sister of Caligula, and of other well-known historical
personages. E. Preuner has re-examined 122 a much-discussed epigram
(Kaibel 872) relating to a certain Vera, hydrophoros in the cult of Artemis of
PATMOS. Valuable contributions have been made to the study of the inscrip-
tions of RHODES by F. Hiller von Gaertringen, to whom are due a suggested
new reading 123 of a sacrificial inscription from Netteia copied by L. Ross, a
thorough discussion 124 of the topography of the demes of the Rhodian cities,
in the course of which a new inscription from lalysus is published, and a
re-examination 125 of the inscription on Aridices and Hieronymus. The
114 Riv. fil. xlvii. 321 ff., xlviii. 378 ft. m Ath. Mitt. xliv. Iff. Cf. Berliner
111 Ibid. xlvi. 163 ff., xlviii. 55 ff. Museen, xli. 117 ff.
"• 'Apx- A«AT. iv. tapiprnna, 11 ff. 1M Hermes, Iv. 174 ff.
117 Rendiconti dei Lincei, xxvii. 207 ff. 1M Arch. Rtl. xix. 281 ff.
"• Rh. Mu*. Ixxiii. 362 ff. m Ath. Mitt. xlii. 171 ff.
"• Zts. vgl. Sprachforschung, xlix. 121 ff. »• Hermes, liv. 105 ff.
»»° Hermes, liv. 208 ff.
62 MARCUS N. TOD
' Lindian Chronicle ' has given rise to two valuable articles, in one of which 126
M. Rostovtseff deals with the sources of the €Truf>dveicu and adduces striking
parallels from other inscriptions, notably the honorary decree of Chersonesus
for the historian Syriscus (l.O.S.P.E. i. 184, iv. p. 277), while in the other 127
L. Radermacher maintains the identity ol the grammarian Timachidas with
the Timachus from whose work we have several citations, and gives a number
of other instances in which the name of the same man occurs in a full and also
in a shortened form. S. Zervos' sumptuous work on Rhodes makes apparently
little or no use of epigraphical sources,128 but L. Pernier's valuable survey of
recent exploration in Rhodes includes a provisional publication of minor
epigraphical finds at lalysus, Camirus and Cymisala.129
Asia, Minor. — B. Haussoullier has discussed 13° the architectural terms
j3(0/j.6(nreipov and (nreipoKe^aXov which occur in various inscriptions from Asia
Minor. AEOLIS is represented only by W. VollgrafE's suggestions m relative
to the compact between the Aegaeans and the Olympeni dealing with the
importation of wool. Among the states of IONIA only two make any con-
tribution. J. Keil, after a careful investigation 132 of the epigraphic and
numismatic evidence for the third neokoria of Ephesus, concludes that Ephesus
was never neokoros of Caracalla but that in the third and the fourth neokoria
of the city that of Artemis was reckoned, and that the retrogression from the
fourth to the third was due to the damnatio memoriae of Elagabalus. F. Hudson
Williams' account,133 accidentally omitted from my last Bibliography, of the
Milesian ' Education Bill ' 134 and of the similar document from Teos (Dittenb.
Syll.3 578) may be mentioned side by side with Vollgraffs conjecture 135 of
a)vo<j)v\aj;i for olvo<j>v\a%t, in a text from the Milesian Delphinium (Milet, iii.
2. 33e). B. Haussoullier returns to the building-records of the great temple
at Didyma, using the Milesian list of eponymi to determine their relative and
absolute chronology. Of the five documents comprised in the first group,
which dates from the close of the third century B.C., three are here published
for the first time.136 while a second group is brought into chronological order
and provisionally dated in 175/4 B.C. and the adjacent years : 137 'this article
includes the first publication of an honorary inscription for the prophet
Autophon (p. 38), and an appendix on the family of the prophet Antenor
(p. 55 if.) contains two epitaphs previously unpublished. Several inscriptions
of Didyma are re-edited with considerable improvements by E. Preuner in
aji article 138 on ' Zwei Hydrophoren.' An article 139 by R. Feist and others
on records of legal proceedings in the Ptolemaic period deals mainly with
papyri, but has also a brief discussion (p. 359 f.) of the dossier from Cnidus
relating to the case of Diagoras' sons (Dittenb. Syll? 953).
126 Klio, xvi. 203 ff. 133 An Education Bill from Ancient
127 Philol. Ixxv. 473 f. Greece, Cambridge (Univ. Press), 1917.
128 Rhodes, Capitate du Dodecanese, Paris. 134 E. Ziebarth, Aus dem griech. Schul-
See fig. 85. wesen; Dittenb. Syll.* 577.
129 Bollettino d'Arte, 1914, 224 ft., 233, 136 Mnemosyne, xlvii. 71 f.
241. 13« Rev. Philol. xliii. 176ff.
130 Rev. Philol. xliv. 72 ff. 137 Ibid. xliv. 31 ff.
131 Mnemosyne, xlvii. 68 ff. 138 Hermes, Iv. 174ff.
132 Num. Zeit. xlviii. 125 ff. 13» Arch. Pap. vi. 348 ff.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920 63
A. Cuny has devoted one of his studies in Greco-oriental questions to the
Lydian-Araraaic bilingual text from Sardis : 14° of 0. A. Danielsson's discus-
sion 141 of the Lydian inscriptions, mentioned in my last Bibliography, I
cannot speak from first-hand knowledge. A brief reference is made to the
Greek inscriptions found at Sardis in a summary 142 of the excavations carried
on there from 1910 to 1914. Some of the texts discovered by Keil and von
Premerstein in their recent journeys through Lydia have given rise to interesting
discussions,143 — notably that of the Philadelphian /epos I/O/MX? (Dittenb. Syll*
985) by 0. Weinreich 144 and that by M. Rostovtseff 145 of a document referring
to the T€ipa>va>i> <rvvre\eia, which, taken in conjunction with the famous
inscription of Pizos in Thrace (ibid. 880), shows that in the third century of
our era recruiting had already become compulsory, resting on the village as
a whole and carried out by the village magistrates in the same way as the
payment of a tax. S. Rfeinach] contributes a note 146 on W. H. Buckler's
treatment of the Lydian penitential inscriptions, and F. Hiller von Gaertringen
points out 147 the pia fraus by which the people of Nysa, by substituting
'Pwfjuiiwv for 'Pa>/ieuov9 in Dittenb. Syll.3 741, avoided giving offence to
the Romans only by sacrificing the sense of the whole passage.
From Lydia we pass to CABIA. A relief of the Roman period from Tralles,
bearing a previously unpublished inscription, is described in B. Schroder's
account 148 of the accessions made since 1903 to German collections. W. H.
Buckler has re-examined and restored 149 with characteristic thoroughness
and marked success a group of legal documents from Mylasa and Olymus.
showing how the landed investments of the Carian temples were administered
about 76 B.C. and deriving some fresh information regarding legal rules and
customs. The well-known inscription of Maussollus from the same city
(Dittenb. Syll.3 167) has beenr dealt with 15° by P. Cloche" in connexion with
his discussion of Greco-Egyptian relations from 405 to 342 B.C. Continuing
his ' Studies in Hellenistic History,' M. Holleaux has given us an attractive
new restoration 151 of the decree of Bargylia in honour of Posidonius, which
has a peculiar interest on account of its reference to the war of Aristonic s.
Fifty-six texts from the temple of Hecate at Lagina, copied by J. Chamonard,
have been published 152 with a careful commentary by J. Hatzfeld : most of
them are honorary inscriptions, dedications and lists of sacred officials and
several of them are of considerable interest, particularly the decree relating
how with divine aid the S/)/no5 was saved from its perils and became free and
autonomous (No. 1 : cf. 4), and the addendum (Trp6<r*fpapna) to the general
regulations of the temple relative to the maintenance of the woodland attached
to it (No. 11).
140 Rev. £l. Anc. xxii. 259 ff. "• Rev. Arch. vii. (1918), 184 £.
141 Skrifter utgijna af Kungl. Humanu- 14T Hermes, liv. 107.
tiska Vetenakape Samfundft, xx. Upsala 148 Arch. Anz. xxxiv. 110.
(Akad. Bokhandel). "• B.S.A. xxii. 190 ff.
»" Rev. Arch. xi. (1920), 371 f. 1M Rev. tigyptologique, i. (1919), 217.
148 Rendiconti dei Lincei, xxv. 74 ff. 1H Rev. £t. Anc. xxi. 1 ff.
144 Sitzb. Heidelberg, 1919, No. 16. »" B.C.H. xliv. 70 ff.
145 J.R.S. viii. 26 ff.
64 MARCUS N. TOD
W. Kubitschek has subjected to a careful re-examination 153 the inscrip-
tion on the great granary of Andriace, the port of Myra in LYCIA, dated in
A.D. 389-392 by the name of the prefect Flavius Eutolmius Tatianus, to whom
C.I.G. 4693 also refers, and E. Ritterling has attempted 154 a more exact dating
than has hitherto proved possible of the earlier documents of the dossier
forming the Opramoas-inscription. Under the title ' A noble Anatolian Family
of the Fourth Century,' W. M. Ramsay has investigated 155 two inscriptions of
about A.D. 340-380, both apparently from a large family mausoleum, one
• forming the epitaph of C. Calpurnius Collega Macedo, orator, philosopher and
doctor, a member of the curia of Antioch in PISIDIA, the other the metrical
epitaph of his son. The same scholar has also published 156 the result of a
fuller examination of the dedications discovered at the sanctuary of Colonia
Caesarea, and first published in this Journal (xxxii. Ill ff.), together with an
account of the sanctuary itself and of the period, occasion and dedicators of
the inscriptions, the religious principles they reveal, the meaning of the oft-
discussed term reK^opevw, and the nature of the Tetcf^wp to which it refers.
A. Rosenberg points out 157 the special significance of a dedication to the
emperor Gallienus found at Adanda, south-east of Selinus-Trajanopolis in
CILICIA (Mon. Ant. xxiii. 168), which adds Cilicia to the provinces which under
Gallienus were governed not by a senator but by a knight. G. de Jerphanion
has collected 158 ten epitaphs in CAPPADOCIA, and a votive inscription, eighteen
epitaphs and a fragment in PONTUS. I have not been able to examine A. P. M.
Meuwese's De rerum gestarum divi Augusti versione graeca,159 an addition to
the already copious literature dealing with the Monumentum Ancyranum.
Outlying Regions. — A votive inscription of the Imperial period has been
discovered 16° at Brestovizza in north-eastern ITALY, in a cavern on the Carso.
E. Esperandieu has republished 161 an inscribed altar from Lodi Vecchio, now
preserved in the Milan Museum. F. Cumont and L. Canet discuss 162 a text
from the Mithraeum in the basement of the Thermae of Caracalla, showing
the substitution of Mithra for Sarapis and pointing out how ' in the syncretism
of the Imperial period the various gods assimilated to the Sun could replace
each other and had become interchangeable in value ' (p. 317). Valuable light
has been thrown on the life and thought and organisation of the Jewish com-
munity at Rome by the discovery and investigation of two extensive Jewish
burying-places. The inscriptions of the Jewish catacomb on the Monteverde,
many of which were published by Schneider-Graziosi in the Nuovo Bullettino
di Archeologia Cristiana, xxi. 13 ff. (cf. xxii. 193, xxiii. 31), have been carefully
edited with full commentary and ample illustrations by N. Miiller and N. A.
Bees : 163 of the 185 texts comprised in this volume, 128 are Greek, five Greek
188 Num. Zeit. li. 63 ff. 16° Notizie, 1920, 101.
181 Rh. Mus. Ixxiii. 35 ff. m Rev. Arch. iii. (1916), 25 ff.
156 Cl. Rev. xxxiii. 1 ff. "2 G.R. Acad. Inter. 1919, 313 ff.
166 J.R.S. viii. 107 ff. m Die Inschrif tender judischen Katakombe
187 Hermes, Iv. 319 ff. am Monteverde zu Rom, Leipzig (Harras-
188 Melanges Beyrouth, vii. 1 ff. sowitz), 1919.
18» Bois le Due (C. N. Teulings). Reviewed
by Nohl, Woch. klass. Phil. 1920, 440 f.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920 66
and Latin, and three Latin written in Greek characters, while the remainder
are Latin or Hebrew. Nineteen similar epitaphs from the same cemetery
are added by R. Paribeni 164 and several of them are annotated by C. Clermont-
Ganneau.165 Another Jewish catacomb has been found on the Via Nomentana,
and, though as yet incompletely excavated, has yielded 1M fifty-two inscrip-
tions, of which forty-eight are Greek and one bilingual. The other discoveries
made at Rome consist of a commemorative inscription 167 and two fragments,
probably of epitaphs.168 The three fragments 169 unearthed at Ostia are of
negligible value, but the famous relief of Archelaus of Priene, found at Bovillae
and now in the British Museum,170 has been discussed afresh at some length
by J. Sieveking.171 D. Comparetti offers a new and complete reading in of
a leaden defixio from Cumae, and the archaic inscriptions from the same site
form the subject of an article 173 by F. Ribezzo which I have been unable to
consult. A funeral stele from SARDINIA, with a fragmentary inscription,174
is lodged in the Archaeological Museum at Milan.
B. Pace publishes 175 eleven Rhodian amphora-handles, five clay stamps,
an inscribed vase and a fragmentary epitaph from Lilybaeum on the west
coast of SICILY, D. Comparetti discusses 17' three defixiones from Selinus, the
earliest of which, inscribed on both sides of a leaden disc found at the temple
of Demeter Malophoros, is earlier than 450 B.C., and P. Orsi's account 177 of
the investigations conducted by himself at Syracuse contain eleven epigraphical
finds, one of which, a fragment written boustrophedon, may well be the earliest
extant inscription from Syracuse.
The majority of the Greek texts found in AFRICA — at Cherchell,178 Lam-
baesis,179 Gigthis 18° and Thuburnica 181 — call for no detailed notice. C.
Bruston has shown by an examination of two magical stones of Carthage 182
and Sousse 183 that inscriptions apparently meaningless may become intelligible
if transliterated into Hebrew. The excavations at Carthage have produced 184
a large number of inscribed gems, seals, leaden bullae, gnostic stones, amphora-
handles and similar objects as well as fragments of inscriptions on stone. Of
greater interest are the finds 185 made in the Cyrenaica, which I know only at
second hand.186 These include two copies of a bilingual inscription, dated
1M Notizie, 1919, 61 ff. »»• Bull. Arch. Com. Trav. Hut. 1918,
"• Rev. Arch, xi (1920), 365 f. cclxiv., 228 f.
1M Notizie, 1920, 143 ff. "• Ibid, cclxiv.
"7 Ibid. 231. "• Mtlanget, xxxiv. 284 ff.
"• Butt. Com. Arch. Com. xlv. 226, 234. 1§l Butt. Arch. Com. Trav. Hi*. 1918,
"• Mon. Ant. xxvi. 368; Notizie, 1920, 164.
46. "« Rev. Arch. xii. (1920), 47 ff.
170 B.M. Inter. 1098. 1M Ibid. x. (1919), 28 ff.
171 Rom. Mitt, xxxii. 74 ff. "« Ibid. viii. (1918), 383; Butt. Soc. Nat.
171 Rendiconti dei Lincei, xxvii. 202 ff. Ant. de France, 1917, 146 f., 166 f., 163 f.,
17» Riv.indo-greeo-ital.ni. 71 ff. 168 f., 211, 218 f., 242 f. ; 1918, 118f., 129 f.,
174 Rev. Arch. iii. (1916), 27 f. 143 f., 159 f., 173 f. Bull. Arch. Com.
174 Notizie, 1919, 80 ff. Trav. Hist. 1918, ccxvii. ff., ccxxvii. ff.,
17< Rendiconti dei Lincei, xxvii. 193 ff. ccxxxiii., cclxi. ff., 331.
177 Mon. Ant. xxv. 607 ff., Notizie, 1918, 1M Notiziario Archcol. ii. 1. 2.
275 ff. 1M Rev. Arch. x. (1919), 435 f.
J.H.S. — VOL. XLI. F
66 MARCUS N. TOD
A.D. 71, marking the frontier between the territory of Gyrene and that of Rome,
a dedication by a proconsul of Crete and Gyrene in A.D. 161, a dedication to
Hadrian and Antoninus set up in A.D. 138 by the city of Gyrene, and the record
of the refounding of Claudiopolis by the Emperor Claudius Gothicus 077X0*9
ava<ni\a<> rrjv Tro\v%povL<av MapfjuapiTwv dpaav-r^ra. Two previously pub-
lished Cyrenaean texts have been emended by W. Vollgraff.187 For the inscrip-
tions discovered in Egypt and Nubia I may once again refer to my Biblio-
graphies in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.™*
The epigraphical chapter 189 of Jaussen and Savignac's account of their
mission to ARABIA contains eighteen Greek inscriptions, including a Graeco-
Nabataean bilingual dedication, of which the great majority are commemorative
graffiti. F. Vollbach has published 19° an inscribed amulet of unknown pro-
venance in PALESTINE. F. M. Abel has collected twenty-two texts,191 for the
most part epitaphs dating from the sixth or early seventh century, from El
'Aoudjeh and other sites in the Negeb ; F. C. Burkitt has edited 192 seven inscrip-
tions of Beersheba, found by D. P. Blair 193 and transported to Jerusalem, of
which four are epitaphs and one a new portion of the interesting Byzantine
edict of which a number of fragments have previously come to light: F. M.
Abel has discussed 194 several of these, and A. Alt has published 195 with a
valuable commentary, especially on the chronological problem, a sixth-century
gravestone from the same place.196 A brief epitaph from Mammas,197 a
fragmentary mosaic-inscription from a Byzantine chapel at Beit el Djemal,198
a group of inscriptions, mainly sepulchral, from Caesarea 199 and a votive
text from Samach on the Lake of Gennesaret 20° deserve mention but do not
call for comment. The use of the term -rrvpycx; in Syrian inscriptions and in
the New Testament to denote a W irtschaftsgebdude is discussed by E. Meyer *°l
and by A. Alt.202 Among the publications relating to SYRIA the foremost
place is taken by F. Cumont's valuable volume entitled Etudes Syriennes,203
which embodies the ' archaeological and geographical results of a journey
undertaken in the spring of 1907 in northern Syria and of investigations carried
on in the following years thanks to the documents brought back from these
regions, hitherto but little explored.' It contains eight essays, four of them
not previously published, and the remainder recast or enlarged, a detailed
itinerary and an account of certain Greek MSS. of Syria. The inscriptions,
forty-eight in number, are collected in a separate section (p. 317 ff.), including
a few which have already been imperfectly published : most of them are epi-
taphs, but among the remainder are several dedications (Nos. 7, 8, 43, 45),
187 Mnemosyne, xlvii. 251. 1M Previously published Pal. Expl. Fund
"• J. E. A. vi. 214 ff., vii. 105 f. Ann. iii. 136.
"• Mission archeol. en Arabic, Pt. II. c. 197 Pal. Expl. Fund Q.S. 1920, 47.
v. Paris (Geuthnor), 1914-20. »• Rev. Bibl. xvi. 244 ff.
"• Amtl. Ber. 1918, 123 ft. IM Rev. Bibl. xxix. 316.
191 Rev. Bibl. xxix. 113 ff. 20° Berl. phil. Woch. xl. 850.
"• Pal. Expl. Fund Q.S. 1920, 16 ff., 51. 201 Hermes, Iv. 100 ff.
»» Ibid. 15 f. 202 Ibid. 334 ff.
1M Rev. Bibl. xxix. 259 ff. 20» Paris (Picard), 1917. Baviewed by
lt4 Zeits. d.d. Pal.-Vereins, xlii, 177 ff. R- Dussaud, Syria, i. 250 f.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920 67
a milestone (No. 46) and the boundary stone of a place of asylum (No. 38).
E. Schwyzer has pointed ^ out that the inscription from Nebi Abel, between
Damascus and Heliopolis, published by him in Rh. Mus. kviii. 634, is a copy
of, but not identical with, Dittenb. O.G.I. 606, and was previously edited by
M. R. Savignac.205 The results, so far as they here concern us, of the French
archaeological mission to Sidon in 1914 w* and of the epigraphical mission
which visited Palmyra in July of the same year M7 are of moderate value :
J. B. Chabot, a member of the latter mission, has suggested 208 a new interpre-
tation of a previously known text from Palmyra dated A.D. 327. J. Waldis
has examined the language and style of the inscription set up by King Antiochus
I of Commagene on the summit of the Nemrud Dagh (Dittenb. O.G.I. 383 if.)
in a careful dissertation ^ somewhat disproportionate in length to the interest
of the subject with which it deals.
Political events in southern RUSSIA have temporarily suspended the
archaeological exploration of that district, whose results from 1912 to 1917
have been interestingly summarised 21° by M. Rostovtseff, who has also dis-
cussed,211 in connexion with the ' Lindian Chronicle,' several inscriptions of
Chersonesus, notably those in honour of the historian Syriscus (S.G.D.I. 3086)
and of the general Diophantus (Dittenb. Syll.3 709) : otherwise there is nothing
to report save the publication 212 of an inscribed oinochoe bearing the names
4>o</3o9, Aa$j>77, rio#o<?, etc. Remarkably rich are the epigraphical spoils
won in the excavation of Histria in ROUMANIA during 1914 and 1915 and pub-
lished by B. 'Parvan in a lengthy memoir,213 to which are appended a useful
summary in French and fourteen excellent plates. They number sixty-four
texts, of which eighteen are Latin and the remainder Greek or bilingual, and
include honorary inscriptions for Hadrian (No. 20), Antoninus Pius (21),
Septimius Severus (31), Caracalla (32), etc., but the most interesting is the
dossier of letters (15, 16) from various Roman governors about A.D. 50 confirming
to Histria the enjoyment of fishing and other rights. The Greek inscriptions
found at Ulmetum 214 and Tomi 215 are late and of slight interest.
K. Lehmann has published 216 two inscriptions found at CONSTANTINOPLE,
one a Christian epitaph, the other a list, perhaps ephebic, dating from late
Hellenistic times and containing 257 names, each accompanied by a patronymic :
there is reason to believe that this did not originally belong to Byzantium,
and a probable conjecture of the editor assigns it to Cyzicus. THRACE has
not been especially productive of new inscriptions recently. M. Olsen, com-
menting on the inscribed ring found at Ezerovo, near Philippopolis, has sug-
104 Rh. Mus. Ixxii. 436. "• Journ. d. Savanto, 1920, 49 ff.
104 Rev. Bibl. ix. 533 ff. Cf. Zeitt. d.d. «« Klio, xvi. 203 ff.
Pal.-Vereing, xxxvi. 220. »" Rev. Arch. v. (1917), 313 f.
"• Syria, i. 33, 49 f., 109, 198 ff., 225 : •" AnaleU Acad. Romdne, II. xxxviii.
cf. 230 f. (1915-16), Mem. Secf. Ittorice, 533 ff. Cf.
407 Rev. Bibl. xxix. 359. Rev. Arch. x. (1919), 401 ff.
"• C. R. Acad. Inter. 1919, 376. »« Ibid, xxxvii. 267, 275 f., 301 f.
••• Sprache u. Stil d. groasen griech. "» Ibid, xxxvii. 419 f., 446.
Iruchri/t v. Nemrud-Dogh in Kommogene "• Ath. Mitt. xlii. 185ff.
(Nordtyrien), Heidelberg (Winter). Re-
viewed by Maas, Sokrotes, viii. 280 f.
F2
68 MARCUS N. TOD
gested 217 that the word fgXra at the close means ' gold ' : G. Seure, however.
thinks 218 that the ring-inscription is not a Thracian text but a votive to a
Thracian divinity containing three names, each with patronymic and ethnic,
and holds that in all likelihood we shall never know the Thracian language,
which, ' only spoken and never written, is dead beyond the possibility of resur-
rection.' The same scholar argues 219 for a Thracian origin of the name
TeXecr^opo?, which he would derive from the form TtXe<r7ropo<?, and has also
devoted a further article 22° to the publication and interpretation of eighteen
' unpublished or little-known ' inscriptions, of which fourteen are Greek and
the rest Latin. B. Filow describes 221 a silver omphalos-saucer from Radiivene
in north-western Bulgaria with the inscription KOTUO? 'Eyyijlo-Ttov, inter-
preting the latter word as the name of an otherwise unknown Thracian tribe.
We have only to note further a votive relief to Zeus "OXy8to<? from Gallipoli,222
a valuable corrrection and discussion by M. Rostovtseff 223 of a phrase in the
famous inscription of Pizos (Dittenb. Syll.3 880) and several minor discoveries
in Bulgaria collected by G. Kazarow.224
MACEDONIA has produced a disappointingly small number of inscriptions
when the development and exploration of the country during the war are borne
in mind. Of new Greek inscriptions the present writer has published 22S
eighteen, of which two-thirds are epitaphs : the most interesting are the dedi-
cation of a vaos to Horus-Harpocrates (No. 14) and an inscription in honour
of M'. Salarius Sabinus, a prominent and public-spirited citizen of Lete in the
early part of the second century of our era (No. 7). G. Oikonomos, editing 226
an inscription of Salonica bearing the name of Justinian, infers that this
Emperor visited Thessalonica and traces the connexion between him and St.
Demetrius, in whose church the inscription came to light. In the course of a
valuable article 227 on Upper Macedonia which, though published in 1914,
only came into my hands towards the close of 1920, N. G. Pappadakis published
forty inscriptions, almost all of them for the first time, from Eordaea, Lyncestis,
Orestis, Western Elimea, Macedonian Illyria and Almopia, including an interest-
ing dedication by a \i0oy\v(f>os to Artemis 'Ziftovvtierj (No. 54). The same
writer devoted a long appendix (p. 462 ff.) to a discussion of the important
decree of the [Ljapinaei published in J.H.S. xxxiii. 337 ff. In an article on
the Macedonian provincial era I have attempted 228 to restate and confirm the
arguments for dating that era from 148 rather than from 146 B.C. W. Vollgraff
proposed 229 a restoration of an Amphipolitan text in which he subsequently
found 23° that he had been forestalled by P. Perdrizet. The journey of C.
Praschniker and A. Schober in Albania and Montenegro 231 resulted in the dis-
217 Indog. Forach. xxxviii. 166 ff. «• 'Apx- '£$>. 1918, 41 ff.
218 Rev. fit. Anc. xxii. 1 ff. «' 'Afliji/a, xxv. 430 ff.
"• Rev. fit. Or. xxxi. 389 ff. 228 B.S.A. xxiii. 206 ff.
220 Rev. Arch. x. (1919), 333 ff. "» Mnemosyne, xlvii. 72.
221 Rom. Mitt, xxxii. 53. 23° Ibid. 231.
222 Arch. Am. xxxiv. 111. 2S1 Archdol. Forschungen in Albanien u.
223 J.R.S. viii. 29. Montenegro (Schriften der Balkankommis-
224 Jahreah. xix.-xx. Beiblatt. 43 ff. sion : Ant. Abt. VIII.), Vienna (Holder),
2" B.S.A. xxiii. 67 ff. 1919. Pp. 45, 65 ff., 69 ff.
THE PROGRESS OF GREEK EPIGRAPHY, 1919-1920
ao
covery of six texts from Durazzo (Dyrrhachium), Fieri and Apollonia. C. Cler-
mont-Ganneau has put forward 282 a solution of a puzzling epitaph of Salona
in DALMATIA.
At Vidy in Canton Vaud, SWITZERLAND, a Greek graffito has been
unearthed,233 scratched on a fragment of wall-plaster, containing part of the
versus reciprocus recorded by Planudes (vi. 13) and recurring at Pompeii (C.I.L.
iv. 2400 a). From FRANCE we may note an epitaph from Marseilles,284 C.
Jullian's reminder235 of an important votive discovered thirty years ago at
Agde, and the publication 236 of a fragment from the Mus4e Lapidaire at Aries,
together with the re-editing 237 of an epitaph copied by the Chevalier de Gaillard
in 1767.
MARCUS N. TOD.
Mi C. R. Acad. Inacr. 1918, 308 S.
"» Rev. tit. Anc. xix. 273.
"* Butt. Arch. Com. Trav. Hist., 1918,
3 ff. ; Rev. tit. Anc. xxi. 227.
"5 Rev. tit. Anc. xxii. 56.
«»• Ibid. 181 f., No. 18.
157 Ibid. 182f., No. 19.
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS
THE question when, and by whom, our constellations were invented, will
probably never lose its fascination, because it is never likely to find its solution.
For those who have allowed themselves to be brought under its spell the name
of Cleostratus has a special interest. If we could by any means learn more
about the man who is said to have been in some sort the deviser of our zodiac,
we might obtain a light upon the history of the celestial globe which at present
seems likely to be for ever withheld, unless some Egyptian papyrus should
reveal some part of the lost History of Astronomy by Eudemus.
By his careful collection — in the December number of this Journal, 1919
— of all the notices that we have of Cleostratus, Dr. W. K. Fotheringham
therefore deserves a gratitude which I am the more anxious to express because
I cannot at all agree with the theory of Babylonian influence which he deduces
from them, nor with the interpretation of Greek and Latin passages which he
puts forward in support of that theory. The latter point I could willingly
leave to the criticism of scholars abler than myself, whom I cannot think
likely to be convinced by Dr. Fotheringham that the passages bear the sense
which he has endeavoured to extract from them. But the former point is of
more importance. To Babylonian astronomy, as to Egyptian, the Greeks
owed — and acknowledged — a debt. But that this debt was, in the case of the
Babylonians, much greater than they acknowledged, so great indeed that it
has only been hidden from posterity by a conspiracy of silence lasting through
the many centuries of Hellenic culture, does not seem to me probable, and is
certainly not proved by any evidence supplied in Dr. Fotheringham's article.
It is only with a part of that article that I have space here to deal, but it
is with the part in which the author's assertions seem to be most strongly
supported by what he considers to be evidence.
Cleostratus flourished at Tenedos, and — if Dr. Fotheringham is right, as
I think he is — about 520 B.C. As to the place, Dr. Fotheringham reminds us
of a tradition that Tenedos was where Thales died. He may have founded
a school there of which Cleostratus, twenty years later, was the chief repre-
sentative. As to the time, Dr. Fotheringham might have noticed that it is
just that in which the original of the famous astronomical tablet, dated in
the seventh year of Cambyses, 523-522 B.C., was compiled. That tablet
shows that not all the astronomical knowledge displayed by the Babylonians
of Seleucid times was possessed by the Babylonians of the sixth century,
whom we are to suppose the teachers of Thales and Cleostratus.1
1 Cp. Zeitechrift Jur Assyriologie v. 281, xvii. part 2-3, p. 203.
70
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS 71
What else Dr. Fotheringham has been able to tell us of Cleostratus may
be summed up under four heads.
1. He wrote an astronomical poem. As only two lines of it, not con-
taining a complete sentence, have come down to us, it affords little material
for discussion. The missing words unfortunately are just those which might
speak for — or against — Dr. Fotheringham's views.
2. He made observations at Tenedos with a view to determining the
exact time of a solstice, probably the winter solstice, as a mountain south-east
of Tenedos is said to have been used for the purpose. Rude and imperfect as
such observations doubtless were, they have for us a significance which Dr.
Fotheringham does not seem to have perceived. For they prove that Greek
astronomers of that day, so far from confining themselves, in Dr. Fotheringham's
words, to ' exercises in the art of combining days, months, and years, of which
the relative mean durations had been learned from Babylon,' were actually
endeavouring to ascertain these durations for themselves. Owing doubtless
to these endeavours, the Greeks, at least as early as the time of Meton and
Euctemon, in the next century after Cleostratus, had discovered the inequality
of the sun's motion, which seems never to have been recognised either by
Egyptians or, of old, by Babylonians, who ignore it sometimes even in the
second century B.C.2
3. He is said, on the authority of Censorinus, to have been the real inventor
of the ' octaeteris,' the famous luni-solar cycle, on which I hope to say a few
words later on.
4. He is said, on the authority of Hyginus, to have introduced the asterism
of the Kids into the celestial sphere, and on the authority of Pliny — at least
as generally understood — to have been practically the inventor of our zodiacal
constellations. It is with this latter statement that the most remarkable
part of Dr. Fotheringham's article is concerned. The passage in Pliny runs
as follows :
' Circulorum quoque coeli ratio in terrae mentione aptius dicetur, quando
ad earn tota pertinet, signiferi modo inventoribus non dilatis. Obliquitaum
ejus intellexisse, hoc est rerum fores aperuisse, Anaximander Milesius traditur
primus Olympiade quinquagesima octava, signa deinde in eo Cleostratus, et
prima Arietis et Sagittarii, sphaeram ipsam ante multo Atlas.'
In the first sentence there is no difficulty. Though Pliny will not discuss
the circles on the celestial globe until he comes to speak of the terrestrial globe,
he must make mention at once of the framers of the zodiac, whom evidently
he, believed to be Greeks. The second sentence is not so easy, I think only
because, in Boll's words, ' das Verbum hat Plinius in gewohnter Kiirze ver-
schwiegen.' 3 ' Intellexisse ' is made to govern ' obliquitatem,' ' signa,'
' prima,' and ' sphaeram,' but no translator can find any one word for it that
will give a satisfactory rendering in every case. We may, with Dr. Fothering-
ham, make Anaximander ' recognise ' the obliquity of the ecliptic. But what
« Cp. Kugler • Sphaera, p. 192.
72 E. J. WEBB
did Cleostratus do ? The constellations in the zodiac had to be made before
they were recognised, they are not, like the obliquity, wholly Nature's work.
He must have in some sense invented them, and why should he invent Aries
and Sagittarius first ? Ought we, as has been suggested, to read ' primum/
implying that — as no doubt was the case — some of the constellations were
there before Cleostratus?
Personally I do not think that any change is required, and indeed it seems
to me that what Pliny meant to say is plain enough. ' Signifer ' is, of course,
a common Latin equivalent for ' zodiac ' (signifero in orbe qui Graece faBiaicbs
dicitur 4), and the ' signa ' which Cleostratus made out in the zodiacal belt
are naturally the signs of the zodiac. But in this phrase there is an unfortunate
ambiguity, which it will be as well to point out here, as its recognition will
become important later on. By the ' signs of the zodiac ' we may mean either
the zodiacal constellations, Karrja-repia-^eva £q>Sia,5 twelve groups of stars
very unequal in extent, through which the sun passes in his annual journey,
or the ecliptic divisions, StoSe/caTrj/uLopia, twelve exactly equal spaces of 30 degrees
each, which in ancient times coincided roughly with the constellations whose
names they bear, but owing to precession do so no longer. When we say
that Eegulus is the brightest star in Leo, or that the equinoctial point, which
was once in Aries, is now in Pisces, we are speaking of constellations. When
we say that the sun enters Aries at the equinox, or that Jupiter, being at the
10th degree of Taurus, is in opposition to the sun, which is at the 10th degree
of Scorpio, we are speaking of ecliptic divisions. The division into degrees —
30 to each sign — is, of course, inapplicable to constellations, which are unequal
in extent and have no definitely marked beginning or ending.
That by the ' signs ' which Cleostratus devised in the zodiacal belt Pliny
meant constellations no one will doubt. The sense of the passage seems then
to be simply this : * Anaximander made out the obliquity of the zodiacal belt,
Cleostratus devised the constellations therein, and first those of the Ram
and the Archer.' Why these should have come first I will endeavour to explain
later. But for the moment it will be enough to contend that ' prima ' is to
be understood as qualifying ' signa,' supplied, as Dr. Fotheringham says,
' from the first half of the clause,' but having the same meaning, though
Dr. Fotheringham thinks otherwise, in the second half as it had in the first.
Dr. Fotheringham's view is far more original. He maintains that the
noun to be understood with ' prima ' is indeed ' signa,' but that it bears an
entirely different sense from that which it bore when it occurred half-a-dozen
words before. This is what he says :
" Prima " should either qualify " signa " supplied from the first Kalf
of the clause, or should mean first things or first points without a word
understood.'
But surely if it means ' first points ' a word is understood, namely, the
word ' signa.' And, indeed, Dr. Fotheringham goes on : ' The clause would
then mean " Afterwards Cleostratus is said to have recognised the signs in it,
4 Cic. LHv. II. 42, 89. 6 Cp. Hipparch. ii. 1. p. 126 Manit.
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS 73
i. e. in the zodiac, and the first points or first signs of Aries and Sagittarius."
The fact that no commentator has yet taken the passage in this literal way is,
doubtless, due to their failure to find a sense for it.'
Surely another reason may be that no commentator has yet thought
even Pliny capable of making ' signum ' in the same sentence mean a sign of
the zodiac and also a point in a sign of the zodiac, that is to say, a part of itself.
However, Dr. Fotheringham goes on :
' No commentator has grasped that " prima signa " was a technical
term, being the Latin translation of -rrptara o-t^pJeta, which occurs in the passage
from the Rhesus of Euripides and the scholium upon it, which make up my ninth
excerpt. I take it, then, that what Pliny asserts is that Cleostratus is said
to have recognised the signs in the zodiac and the Trpatra <njp€ia of Aries and
Sagittarius.' To explain what he takes to be the meaning of these words
Dr. Fotheringham proceeds to lay violent hands upon a well-known passage,
which many of us have admired, and ventured to think we understood, with-
out suspecting the presence of a ' technical term ' suggesting Babylonian
influence any more than one suspects a cryptogram when reading Hamlet.
It will be remembered that the lines in question are put by the poet into
the mouths of a company of soldiers who have been keeping watch by night
before the walls of Troy, and who complain that no one comes to relieve them
though their time is long up, as they prove by the changes visible in the heavens
since they came on duty. Though we are concerned here only with a few
lines, it will be well to quote the whole, that the reader may see how ill the
passage sustains the character of the astronomical treatise for which Dr.
Fotheringham seems to take it :
Tw/09 d
rdv efidv ', Trpwra
Bverai <rijfA€ia teal k
n\eia8e9 alQepiar pea-a S' Atero9 ovpavov irorarai.
e, rl fjLe\\ere ; KOITO.V
777)09 (f>v\atcdv.
ov \ev(T(T€T€ nrjvdBos diy\av ;
aa>9 Brj 7re'\a9, da>9
yiyverai, icai ris TrpoBpofjuov
oBe 7' €o~riv do-rijp.
And now the scholium, which shows that there were dull people in antiquity
as well as poets :
Kpdrr)? dyvoelv $r}&i rbv Eivpnri&ifv rr)v -Trepl ra fjL€T€o>pa ffecapiav Sta
TO vkov en elvat, ore rov 'Pijtrov eBiSao-tce' p>rj yap Svvatrffai HXeidSuv
fcaraBvofievcav <rot»9> rov derov fieaovpaveiv. VTTO yijv ydp ean rare o
aiyofcepw?, efi ov 6 afTO9 iBpvrai, /cat ert HXeidSwv SvofJGixav virep i*cv yifc
elffl %tpoia rdBe, ravpos BiBvfioi xapicivo<t \€cov TrapBevo? £1/709' inro yijv &*
rdBe fftcopTrio? ro^orrjt alyotcepa)1; vBpo%oo<; t^i/9 xptof. ical ravra pev 6
74 E. J. WEBB
eoiice Be VTTO T//9 (fipdcrecos dfj,<f>t^6\ov <oucrr)<;> K€fcparrjcrOai. TO,
yap TrpwTa a-rj^ia /cat ra? Yl\eidBa<; wr\0r] Ka-raBvea-Bai \eyetv TOV ^vpnrLBrjv.
TO Be ov% ovTCi)<f e%€i, d\\d TO, fiev TrpwTa <rrfp,ela rij<; <£uXa/cr;9 (f>r)(Tt BvecrQai, TU?
Be II\etttSo9 dva-T€\\eiv. 7nw9 yap eVt tcaTaSvoftevtov elirev aldepias
w<TTe Tpi%60ev rov KdLpov viTo <TWV> <f)v\dtccov Br)\ov(70ait d-rro T7/9
dvaTo\rj<; ical fieffovpavij/jiaro^.
'O j4€v ovv nap/jLevifftcos Trpwra aijiiela <f>r}(ri \ey€<T0ai ra9 TOV a-fcopiriov
7rp&)Ta9 /u,otpa9 Bid TO VTTO TWV dp^aicov OVTOX; avTas \€j€(70ai, teal OTI rauTat9
6 Boam;9 a/ia a/a^erai icaTaBveffOai. K.\e6<rTpaTOi> yovv TOvTeveBiov dp^alov
OVTW
'A\V oTTOTav TpiTOv r/fuip eV oyBwicovTa fievrjai,
^tcopTTiov et9 aXa TriTrret a// ^ot <f}aivofj,evr)<f)i. . . .
TOVTO Be TrapaBelgas 6 Hapfj,evi<TKO<; OTI KaTaBverai TO. Trp&Ta <r?;/i€ta
TOV GKopirlov, /col TO, TT€pl T^9 II\eia8o9 67TtToX^9 e7re^ei(riv. ' OTdv yap,'
(frrja-lv, 'EvpnriBr]*; \eyr) xai eTTTaTcopoi IlX,eta8€9 aldeptai, ov Bveadat TOTS
dvTas, a\X' efjL7ra\iv dvaT€\\eiv etc TOV VTTO <yrjv> r/i7;/x.aT09 et9 TO vTrep
<TOV> 6pi£ovTa dviova'a*;' teal TOVTO elvai TO teal eTnaTropoi Yl\eidB€S,
olov 619 TOV &>9 7T/)09 i7/za9 ovpavov d(f)ifcvov/j,€voi,. raOra Be
<f>r)(rl, ' rot9 ^ivpnriBov TO. <f>aivopeva. — ra ne
et9 BIHTIV K€%(opr)tcev, rj Be H\eids di/areXXet, 6 Se dero9 77/309 TO //.ecroz/
As so much could be said about the passage, one must suppose that it is
not so easy as at first sight appears, and one cannot but admire the courage
with which Dr. Fotheringham advances to the attack, calling trigonometry to
his aid, and armed with calculations for the age of Euripides and the latitude,
not only of Athens, but of Troy itself. The soldiers, it will be seen, perceive
by the movement of the stars that the hour of their relief is come and past,
the glimmer of the rising moon shows them that the night is nearly over, the
appearance of a herald star announces the dawn. Dr. Fotheringham here says
sadly that after all his toil he is ' unable to identify . . . the TrpoBpo^wv da-T^p.'
I do not see that there need be more difficulty about it than about Milton's
unnamed ' bright morning-star, day's harbinger.' Whether the planet Venus
actually was a morning star in the spring of the year in which Rhesus came to
Troy, we shall, I am afraid, never know.
But it is with the mysterious irpwTa <rrj^ela that we are here principally
concerned. Did the poet intend to express himself indefinitely, or had the
phrase some meaning as precise as the names of the Pleiades and the Eagle ?
Dr. Fotheringham unhesitatingly takes the latter view. But I am convinced
that the former is right.
That the soldiers meant, as the scholiast says, to indicate the hour by the
aid of stars rising, stars culminating, and stars setting, must have been clear,
one would think, to every one, ancient or modern, who has read the passage,
except Crates. The failure of this celebrated critic to perceive that aldepiai
(ela-t) is opposed to BVCTUI makes one wonder how he gained so much reputa-
tion, but his astronomy is correct enough. It should, I think, be pointed out
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS 75
that his little lecture on the zodiacal signs does not at all imply that he saw
any reference to them in the word <rrjfi€ta. It was usual for a Greek of his time
to treat the ecliptic as the fundamental line, in relation to which the position
of the other stars was denned. There is nothing to show that he did not think,
as I do, that o-^/xeta means merely ' stars ' or ' constellations.'
But ' the Greek o-^/ietoi/,' says Dr. Fotheringham, ' unlike the Latin
" signum," is never a zodiacal or other constellation.' I am the less inclined
to accept this dogma because, as "will presently be shown, Dr. Fotheringham
is himself an unbeliever; and I feel no doubt that Trpwra arjftela here means
simply the stars or constellations that were, as the Scholiast says, Trpana T»)S
<f)v\aicfj<;, those that were up at first when the watch began. These are now
sinking; the Eagle, which was then low, is now high in the sky, the Pleiades,
which were then invisible, are now above the horizon. This, I think, is all
that the poet meant, this clearly is all that the Scholiast understood him to
mean, this surely is all that most modern readers have either supposed or
desired him to mean. It may no doubt be possible, from the data supplied
by the Pleiades and the Eagle, to find out what these setting stars were or
should have been ; but the poet himself did not care to inflict too much of this
sort of thing on his readers, and his judgment was probably sound.
But let us examine the statement that vijuelov ' is never a zodiacal or
other constellation.'
In the first place, if it is true, it is surprising. Stars are constantly said
by their appearances a-ri^aiveiv or fTTKrrjfiaiveiv, and arjp^la would seem to
be the natural Greek equivalent and original of the Latin ' signa,' which
certainly does mean ' constellations.' In Latin, indeed, the original sense of
the word seems to be entirely forgotten ; when Horace, for instance, says that
nox . . . diffundere signa parabat,6 he means no more than that the stars
were coming out.
Secondly, even if it be true that arjfieiov is nowhere else used in the sense
of ' constellation,' is that a conclusive reason for thinking that it cannot be
so used here, by a poet, in a poem ? When Shakespeare's boatswain says to
the courtier : ' What care these roarers for the name of king ? ' 7 are we tvrong
in supposing that by ' roarers ' he means ' waves ' ? Would Dr. Fotheringham
deny it on the ground that, while passages may indeed be found in which
waves are said to roar, there is none other discoverable in which a wave is
actually called a roarer ? 8 When Homer in a famous passage speaks of ra
reipea irdirra rd T* ovpavbs e<rre<£ai>a>TflU,9 we know from the context that
by reipea he means ' constellation.' But it is not easy to find another passage
in which the word has the same sense, and without the context it might be hard
to answer Dr. Fotheringham if he were to argue that it must mean ' rainbows,'
as indeed it does elsewhere.
But thirdly, is it quite true that stars are never called arjfj*ia unless it
• Hor. Sat. i. 5, 10. safely say that this use of the word ii
7 Tempest i. 1. unique.
8 Mr. Mascfield (Reynard the Fox, part • 11. xviii. 485.
II) calls hounds " rompers." One may
76 E. J. WEBB
be so here? Euripides, who perhaps wrote the Rhesus, certainly wrote the
Ion, in which (line 1157) we read, among other constellations, of 'T«Se<? re
vavri\ois a-a<f)e<Trarov (rrjuelov. I do not for a moment maintain that the
word is here merely, as in Latin, a synonym for ' constellation ' : the Hyades
are so called because their rising was an indication of rough weather to come.
But the fact remains that a constellation is here called a 0-77/1,6101;, and why should
not other constellations be called so too, particularly when it is on their office
as ' indicators ' of the changing hours that the speaker is dwelling ?
And lastly, the rarity of the word (njfjLeiov in this sense is easily explicable.
Before Euripides older poetical usage had put a kindred word ar)p.a in possession
of the field. To Homer Sirius is a /caicbv cr^ta,10 and Aratus has the word over
and over again. When he says that Zeus rd <ye cr^/zar' ev ovpavw ecrTtjpi^ev,11
what does he mean but constellations ? His reason for using a-rjfjLa rather than
(TrjfjLelov was no doubt chiefly because it was conventionally the right word
in poetry. But by his time probably o-rjfielov had become impossible, because
it had already acquired the meaning of ' point ' which it bears in mathematical
and astronomical prose. When the Rhesus was written mathematical literature
was yet scarce.
I think, therefore, that Trpwra (rrjfiela means merely ' first constellations,'
and that we are left to make out for ourselves, if we choose, what these con-
stellations were. Dr. Fotheringham, on the other hand, thinks that the words
had for a Greek a meaning as definite as nXewSe? or 'Aero?, and is pleased
with a trigonometrical proof that the setting of the stars which he supposes to
be meant, ' tallies exactly with the meridian passage of Altair, the central and
brightest star of Aquila, if we make the computation either for Athens or
for Troy, and for the middle of the fifth century B.C.' This would be much
more convincing did he not proceed, in the next paragraph, to lament the poet's
* imperfect acquaintance with astronomy ' as shown by his placing the Eagle
in mid-heaven when the Pleiades were seen in the east. * Assuming that they
(the Pleiades) could be seen when their central and brightest star Alcyone
was at a true altitude of 2°, I find that Altair would have passed the meridian
by an hour and three minutes if we compute for Troy, by an hour and six
minutes if we compute for Athens.' Moreover — a much more damning proof
of inaccuracy — the stars which Dr. Fotheringham takes for irpwra a-rjfjieia
' would have set long ago.' Surely this argument is somewhat illogical. If
Dr. Fotheringham had found Euripides accurate in treating of stars whose
identity is not in doubt, he might fairly infer that he would be accurate in
treating of the other stars whose identity is to be ascertained. But if the two
statements which we can test are found to be inconsistent with each other, it
is clear that a third hypothetical statement gains nothing in validity by being
shown consistent with one of them.
Here, however, the difficulty seems to me entirely of Dr. Fotheringham's
own creation. The soldiers, it may be observed, do not say that a particular
star is on the meridian. They say that a group of stars is soaring in mid-
heaven, a very much vaguer statement, and, it may be added, very much
10 11 xxii. 30. ll Phaenom. 10.
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS 77
more in character. The exact position of the meridian is not easily ascertained
— even by people who know what it means — out of doors in a strange country.
And the soldiers, on Dr. Fotheringham's own showing, were not very far out.
Let us now, however, try to ascertain — it is very far from an easy task —
what Dr. Fotheringham really does take TrpSyra (rrjfieia to mean. ' An answer,'
he says, ' is supplied in the ninth excerpt by Parmeniscus.' One is surprised
at this confidence in a critic whose comment is presently described by Dr.
Fotheringham himself, with perfect justice, as ' otiose ' and as ' dragged in *
only to display its author's learning. But in fact, as will soon appear, the
' answer supplied by Parmeniscus,' in its unedited form, satisfies Dr. Fothering-
ham little better than it does me. It is not upon what Parmeniscus said, nor
even upon what Dr. Fotheringham thinks he said, but upon what Dr. Fothering-
ham thinks he ought to have said, that we are to rely.
'O piv ovv T\app.€vLaKO<i irpSyra arffiela <J>i}(rl \eye00at ra<? rov aKopirlov
TjyxuTa? poipas Sia TO VTTO rtov dp%ai(i)v OUTOX? avra<; \eyea0ai, teal on. ravrais
6 BowTTj? apa ap^erai Kara&veffQai. It is almost entirely upon this short
passage that Dr. Fotheringham grounds his strange theory that irpta-Ta a-rjfj.ela
means, and was generally understood to mean, ' the first points,' or, rather,
' the first stars of Scorpio,' and of Scorpio only. He thinks, indeed, that the
missing words in the passage from Cleostratus would corroborate him if we
had got them. Unfortunately we have not got them. But surely the theory
is such a strange one, the improbability that people ever said ' there are the
Pleiades, there the Eagle, there the First Points ' is so great that, even if the
scholiast's words naturally bore that meaning, we should do wisely to inquire
if they could not bear another.
And do they naturally bear that meaning 1 Would not the writer, if he
had meant that, have written retinas, not aura?, in the first clause, as he has
written ravrais in the second ? To me, the more often I look at the passage
the plainer it seems to become that the meaning is simply this : Parmeniscus
thought that trpiara arj^ela, ' first points,' was equivalent to Trpotrat polpai,
1 first degrees,' because they were so called by the ancients — that is to say,
the ancients said o-ijjieia for palpus — and he thought that the first degrees nere
mentioned were those of the sign Scorpio, because it is those degrees that
are setting when the Pleiades rise and when Bootes begins to go down.
This interpretation, at any rate, agrees with history. Mot/ja, though
arj/jielov in this sense may still be found, is the usual word in Ptolemy for
what we call a ' degree,' that is to say, the 30th part of an ecliptic sign, or the
360th of the whole circle. And it had acquired this sense by the time of
Hipparchus. But its use at first was not so restricted. Aratus uses it more
than once 12 to denote a whole sign, that is to say, the 12th part of the ecliptic.
All that Parmeniscus meant to say was that ' first points ' must signify * first
degrees of an ecliptic sign,' and that the sign here in question was Scorpio.
The idea that ' first points ' meant in a special sense ' first points of Scorpio,'
never, I feel sure, even entered his head. This is indeed shown by his after-
wards explaining the expression — we have here apparently his own words —
" Seo cspeciall Phacnom. 560, and D*o». 8.
78 E. J. WEBB
as trpwra ffrjueia T/;? w/aa?, which is equivalent to the Scholiast's Trpwra TT}?
TJ<f, ' the first of our appointed hour.'
Lest it should be thought that the remarks about Bootes made by Par-
meniscus, and by the Scholiast on Aratus next cited by Dr. Fotheringham, lend
any support to the latter's theory, a little explanation is necessary. It is quite
true that Parmeniscus introduced the subject merely to display his knowledge,
but it is also true that his remark, when properly understood, shows that to
him Trpwra ar^ela meant ' first points of the Scorpion,' not always, as Dr.
Fotheringham maintains, but only in this particular case.
A curious consequence of the popularity enjoyed by the poem of Aratus
in antiquity is that, among the innumerable commentaries to which it gave
birth, we have preserved to us the larger part of a work by the great astronomer
Hipparchus, whom otherwise we should know, save for a few quotations in
Ptolemy, only at second hand. It contains a lively polemic, not indeed against
Aratus, for whom as a poet Hipparchus seems to have shared the general
admiration, but against an Aratean commentator, one Attalus, who persisted
in asking the second century B.C. to accept as accurate loose statements made
by a poet of the early third century on the authority of an astronomer of the
early fourth. One of these statements was this : ' The constellation of Bootes
takes so long in setting that during the process no less than four zodiacal
divisions, namely the Ram, the Bull, the Twins, and the Crab, have time to
rise.' Hipparchus shows that the statement was exaggerated, and that in
Central Greece Bootes did not begin to set until the whole of the Ram and a
small part of the Bull had risen. But when Taurus begins to rise the opposite
sign of Scorpio begins to set, and later in his work Hipparchus proves this too.
The first star of Bootes sets along with the sixth degree of the sign Scorpio.13
This piece of knowledge only, and no secret about the primacy of the
Scorpion, is what Parmeniscus parades. And the passage quoted by Dr.
Fotheringham from the Aratean scholia has no other meaning. ' When certain
parts of the Whale are rising,' says the Scholiast, Tore 8rj KOI 6 'Ap/cTo$i/Xa£
ap^erai pera rov irpcorov ^wbiov, rovreffrt rov ^icoprriov, Svveiv, 05 ecrri
tcara Sidfierpov ry Tavpw. There is no suggestion whatever that the
Scorpion was styled TO rrpwrov %a>8iov par excellence. The writer means only
that it was the first of the signs with which Bootes set, not the second, as
it would have been if Aratus had been right, and the Ram instead of the Bull
had been rising.
Parmeniscus then, if I understand him aright, gives no support whatever
to Dr. Fotheringham's theory, that rrpwra crrfp,ela was a ' technical term ' for
the first points of Scorpio. On the other hand, he does undoubtedly oppose
the explanation which I have advocated, namely, that (rrjpeia merely means
stars or constellations, whether in the zodiac or out of it. Parmeniscus certainly
took ar^^ela to mean, not stars, but points or degrees of a zodiacal sign, that
is to say, ' of the invisible ecliptic,' as Dr. Fotheringham puts it. But is it
even conceivable that Parmeniscus was right? The Rhesus belongs to the
fifth century B.C., not the second, and it is a poem, not an astronomical treatise.
11 Hipparch. ii. 2 23-29.
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS 79
Could a poet — and that poet perhaps Euripides — make the resentment of injured
soldiers express itself in a ' technical term ' implying their sense of the dis-
appearance of invisible points in an invisible circle ? It would be too much
to expect of a chorus consisting of assistants in the Greenwich Observatory.
And it is too much for Dr. Fotheringham to believe. Suddenly discarding
the ally whom he has so proudly paraded, he announces that ' we are not to
take Parmeniscus too literally.' He ' and his contemporaries were doubtless
in the habit of specifying the degrees of the invisible ecliptic that rose and set
with different stars. . . . But we may rest assured that Cleostratus did nothing
of the kind, much less did Euripides or whoever wrote the Rhesus imagiiu>
that a Trojan guard measured the movements of the invisible ecliptic. The
irp&ra crrjutla are doubtless not the first degrees of Scorpio on the ecliptic,
but the first stars of Scorpio to set.'
With these remarks, down to the last clause, I warmly sympathise. But
if they are sound, what becomes of the ' answer supplied by Parmeniscus '
on which Dr. Fotheringham so confidently relied? If'was simply wrong—
and ridiculous. Indeed, it seems that Parmeniscus himself to Dr. Fother-
ingham, as to me, appears as a dull pedant, supplying an impossible inter-
pretation to a passage in a tragic writer. He surely cannot also be a
trustworthy historian recording a habit of the dpxatoi, who said ' first degrees '
when they meant first degrees of Scorpio and of no other sign. This piece
of information is admittedly false. Dr. Fotheringham has no right to correct
a statement, and then to use the corrected statement as evidence.
Especially since, as I shall proceed to show, this corrected statement,
namely that trpwra ai]^la means ' first stars of Scorpio,' is even less credible
than that it meant ' first degrees' Dr. Fotheringham proceeds : ' The Greek
a-r)/j.€iov. . . is never a zodiacal or other constellation, but either a mathematical
" point," such as the first degree of Scorpio, and the solstitial and equinoctial
points on the ecliptic, or else an " indication," such as the rising or setting
of a star or group of stars which might indicate the time of year or the time of
night. It is clear that the word is here used in the latter sense, except that it
is not the abstract setting of the star, but the concrete star setting whicu is
called ffrjfjieiov."
This is a somewhat puzzling passage. We must remember that, if Par-
meniscus be discredited, there is no reason whatever to suppose that the
concrete star here said to be setting was necessarily in Scorpio. And if after
all ffrjpeia does mean ' concrete stars,' why deny that it can mean * zodiacal
or other constellations,' which is what most readers of the Rhesus have supposed
it to mean ? For the difference between setting stars and concrete stars setting
is indeed so subtle that one page further on Dr. Fotheringham abandons the
attempt to maintain it. Having decided that Trpatra arj^la, in spite of Par-
meniscus, must mean, not degrees, but stars, he now adduces in his favour a
passage from the calendar in Geminus, where Euctemon is reported us saying
that on a certain day rov SKO/JTTIOU oi rrptaroL d<rrepf<f Svvovfftv.
One might have supposed this passage to tell against, not for, Dr. Fother-
ingham. For why should Euctemon have been at the trouble to add rov -*o-
80 E. J. WEBB
pTrlov, when on the theory Trpwroi aa-repes meant ' first stars of the Scorpion ' ?
But Dr. Fotheringham ignores this little objection. ' Euctemon,' he says,
' was an ap^ato? and a contemporary of Euripides.' ' The adjective TT/HUTO?
applied as here to particular stars is, so far as I know, unique in the Greek
calendars.' Dr. Fotheringham will find it often enough in Hipparchus, who,
in fact, takes us through the constellations, telling us in each case the TT/XWTO?
uGTrjp to rise and the Trp(oro<i acrrrjp to set. Nor is there anything in the least
surprising in its use by Euctemon. He and the other observers cited in the
Calendar usually distinguish stars by their places in the figure, as ' the Scor-
pion's sting,' ' Orion's shoulder,' ' the Bull's horn.' But there are several
stars in the Scorpion's tail going down much at the same time. Hipparchus,
who aimed at a precision unknown to Euctemon's age, distinguishes one as
o T/31TO? cr<f)6v8v\o<; tnro TWV €V ra> fcevrpw apiO^ov/j^vo^, etcros Se wv TWV
fiera rov<; €v ry arijOei. The early star-watchers did not write like that.
But if it were hard to believe that Trpwra a-rjfieia could mean always ' the
first degrees of the sign Scorpio measured on the ecliptic,' which is what
Dr. Fotheringham thinks that Parmeniscus said, it is harder still to believe
that it can have meant ' first stars of the constellation Scorpio,' which is what
Dr. Fotheringham maintains that he ought to have said. For there is at
any rate no doubt as to which the first degrees of an ecliptic sign are. The most
westerly degrees rise first, culminate first, set first ; they are always first, look
at them as you will. But with the stars in a zodiacal constellation it is different.
They are not strung out like beads along the ecliptic; they lie at varying
distances from it, some to north, some to south. In our hemisphere a northerly
star rises earlier and sets later than the corresponding point on the ecliptic,
a southerly star rises later and sets sooner. It by no means follows that the
first stars to rise will be also the first stars to set. The Scorpion's case is
especially in point. Part of the tail stretches so far to the south that in England
it never rises at all. In Greece the stars that set first were also the last to rise.
By their technical term ' the first stars ' the Greeks must have had to under-
stand, not merely ' first stars of the Scorpion,' but ' first stars of the Scorpion
to set.'
But if they really had this amazing expression, what can have induced
them to adopt it ? 'To this,' replies Dr. Fotheringham, ' there is a simple
answer. If we arrange the different zodiacal constellations in the order in
which they began their cosmical settings at Tenedos about 520 B.C., we shall
find that Scorpio comes first after the vernal equinox. The vernal equinox
was the starting-point of the Babylonian year and of the Babylonian zodiac.
Cleostratus, as we shall see, derived his zodiac from Babylon, and therefore
Scorpio took the first place among the cosmical settings.'
A ' simple answer ' indeed. Babylon ! Only to those who have felt the
full blessedness of the word ' Mesopotamia ' can it appear either simple or
satisfactory. Does Dr. Fotheringham really expect all these confident state-
ments to be accepted without protest? The time-honoured belief that the
Babylonian year began at the equinox had, one had thought, been hopelessly
shattered by Kugler, who shows that it began with a spring month kept to its
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS 81
place by observation, not of the equinox, but of star-risings.14 And was the
vernal equinox the starting-point of the Babylonian zodiac? This can only
mean that the Babylonians made the equinoctial point itself the first point of
their first sign A'w, as we make it the first point of our Aries. And that they
did so has, of course, been assumed over and over again, generally by writers
who had no idea that any other arrangement was possible. But it is only
one of several arrangements adopted in antiquity, and it does not appear to
have been the one favoured at Babylon, at any rate in Seleucid times. ** Further,
even if the Babylonians had done what Dr. Fotheringham says they did, why
should we assume without evidence that Cleostratus would have done so too ?
If he had, is it not likely that the Greeks in general would have followed his
example from the first ? But they did not. Dr. Fotheringham indeed asserts
later on that Hipparchus began his series of signs with the actual spring
equinox. Where is the evidence for this ? It is true that the Aries of Hip-
parchus began at the equinoctial point, but it in no way follows that he regarded
Aries as the first sign. In his only extant work he begins, not with Aries, but
with Cancer — at the solstice instead of at the equinox. That he must have
done so later, after he had begun to suspect precession, appears from that
interesting chapter of the Almagest 16 in which Ptolemy cites the alignments
of stars which Hipparchus had made in order that his successors might see
whether the stars outside the zodiacal belt were moving with those within it.
Ptolemy, who himself puts Aries first, would not have started here with Cancer
unless Hipparchus had done so. Again, the calendar in Geminus begins with
Cancer. So evidently did that of Meton. Dr. Fotheringham's conviction
that Cleostratus must have begun with the equinox cannot be considered as
evidence that he did. And if he did so, why should his very singular phrase-
ology be adopted by other Greeks, who did not? Euripides, for instance,
was an Athenian, and the Athenians began their year at Midsummer.
But let us come back at last to the passage in Pliny, to explain which
Dr. Fotheringham's researches have been undertaken. We were to understand
that ' prima (signa) ' was a translation of Trpfara tnjfieia, and -rrp^ra ffTjpeia
we have now learnt to interpret as ' the first stars of the Scorpion to set.'
But on returning to Pliny we find, not ' prima Scorpii,' but ' prima Arietis et
Sagittarii.' This is surprising, but it is more surprising still to find that
Dr. Fotheringham, to whom we turn for explanation, has none to offer. At
best he can suggest a reason for the presence of Aries, but he has ' sought in
vain for any ' that will account for the absence of Scorpio. The explanation,
that his own theory is wrong, does not seem to have occurred to him. He
' inclines to the opinion that either Varro or Pliny has erroneously substitute i
Sagittarius for Scorpio.'
I cannot think that this inclination will be shared by many, but it may
be well, before leaving this subject, to point out that even with Aries Dr.
Fotheringham's explanation is not very happy. His argument is brief :
14 Kugler, Sternkunde, ii. 300, and Erg&n- " e.g. Kugler, Mondrtchnung, p. 74
zungen zum I und II Buch, p. l'. and Enttricklung, p. 173.
lt Almag. vii. 1.
J-H.S. — VOL. XLI. <*
82 . E. J. WEBB
* If then we have Trpwra arjueta of Scorpio in respect of cosmical settings,17 is
there any other series that we might expect? The morning setting would
naturally be matched by the morning rising, and the zodiacal constellation
which first began to rise heliacally after the vernal equinox was Aries.' There
were therefore two sets of Trpwra a-rj/jieia, which elastic phrase might mean
' Scorpion setting ' or ' Aries rising,' according to circumstances. But Dr.
Fotheringham's expression ' first after ' the vernal equinox is vague. What
we want, or rather what he wants, is clearly some stars whose heliacal rising
took place at the same time as the cosmical setting of the first stars in Scorpio.
Dr. Fotheringham himself has reminded us that Euctemon, as quoted in
the Geminus Calendar, mentions the morning setting of TOV Z/copTriov ol TTP&TOI
da-Tepes. But this setting is made to take place, not after, but two days before,
the vernal equinox, as determined by Euctemon himself. To require exact
agreement between observers of star-risings would be absurd. But Euctemon
lived within a hundred years of Cleostratus, and some at least of his observa-
tions were made nearly in the latitude of Tenedos.18 We want, therefore, to
find stars which rose heliacally at, or immediately after the vernal equinox,
and Dr. Fotheringham will hardly maintain that any stars of Aries were visible
so soon. Especially as the most conspicuous of them, our a Arietis, was, as
Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Al Sufi alike testify, considerably less bright in
antiquity than it is now.
Is there really no simpler explanation of the Pliny passage than that
given by Dr. Fotheringham, which, as already observed, requires us to give
' signa ' as understood a different meaning from ' signa ' as expressed in the
same sentence ? Surely there is.
If Cleostratus made it his task to provide constellations for the zodiacal
belt, the direction of which had been traced by Anaximander, we are not to
suppose that throughout its whole course he could find none already awaiting
him. The Scorpion with his Claws was probably familiar to men before Greek
or even Babylonian astronomy arose; and indeed, the mere fact that the
zodiacal constellations are conspicuously unequal in longitudinal extent proves
that they cannot all have been called into existence at once by a creator whose
object was to divide the zodiac into twelve equal parts. The reason why Cleo-
stratus busied himself first with the Ram and the Archer is that there, and prob-
ably there only, he found vacant spaces. Jhere are no parts of the zodiacal
belt so empty of bright stars, or marked configurations of stars, as the regions
of Aries and Sagittarius.
The constellation of Aries is easily recognised by two conspicuous stars,
those marked a and y9 in our maps. Not only, however, is it certain that the
brightest of them is brighter now than of old, but it must be noted that they
are both so far to the north of the ecliptic as to be really not in the zodiacal
belt at all, if we give to it its conventional breadth of twelve degrees. As
17 A star sets cosmically when it goes A star which at the same time rises just soon
down in the morning twilight just before enough to be seen is said to rise heliacally.
the light is strong enough to extinguish it. 18 Ptol. Phas., p. 67 Heib.
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS 83
Ptolemy's alteration of Hipparchus's figure shows, it must have required some
ingenuity to bring these stars into the figured Ram. Of the stars actually
in the zodiacal belt, and forming the bulk of the figure, Ptolemy marks only one
as slightly exceeding the fourth magnitude, and only two others as equalling it.
This dimness of the zodiacal Aries is often remarked upon by the ancients.
In the ' Catasterisms ' we have the quaint explanation suggested that the Ram,
the bearer of the golden fleece, had been skinned before it was taken up into
the heavens. Aratus, too, has a story that, because the Ram itself was so dim,
the Triangle was set in the sky to point out its place ; and it is remarkable that
Hipparchus in his comment confines himself to pointing out that the brightest
stars in Aries are as bright as those in the Triangle. Nothing could show more
plainly that a Arietis then was not, as it is now, a second-magnitude star.
At the western end of the Archer is a group of very noticeable "stars, con-
taining the bow and arrow. But these stars are confined to the western part
of the figure — in the time of Cleostratus several of them were really in the sign
of Scorpio — and, moreover, their natural connexion is with a larger group
stretching far to the south, as may easily be seen in the south of Europe. In
the eastern part of the constellation, where the horse-body of the centaur is
now placed, there are scarcely any visible stars, and the brightest recorded
by Ptolemy does not attain to the fourth magnitude. If Dr. Fotheringham's
vague saying that ' Cleostratus . . . derived his zodiac from Babylon ' means
that he copied his constellations from a Chaldean globe, let him reflect that in
the Seleucid tablets none of our Sagittarius stars is used for comparison with
the places of the moon and planets. So far as I know, the only star so used
in Pa-bil-sag, which corresponds to our Archer, is one which the Greeks placed
in the constellation of Ophiuchus.
It may be remembered that Parmeniscus describes Cleostratus as an
ap^ato?. Dr. Fotheringham, who does not scruple to write ' Scorpii ' for
' Sagittarii ' when it suits his purpose, is properly severe upon a German com-
mentator who proposed here to write aarpoXoyov for ap-^alov. The offence
is more serious than might have been thought. ' I do not think,' he writes,
' that it has ever been noticed that ol dpxaiot in Hipparchus and Geniuius
when not qualifying a noun regularly means the early astronomers, beginning
with Thales and descending as far as the third century B.C.' He is probably
right : I should doubt whether Hjpparchus and Geminus themselves, neither
of whom even mentions Thales, ever noticed it. The dpxaloi of whom they
speak are people who lived before them and who were busied with the things
of which they are speaking. Why ' the use of the same term by Parmeniscus '
should suggest ' that it had acquired something of a technical meaning,' I do
not understand. Were a man to say that ' the ancients ' made ivory statues,
one would understand that he was speaking of ancient sculptors, but one would
not conclude that to him ' an ancient ' was a technical term for an ancient
sculptor. But to Dr. Fotheringham the discovery is a great one. ' Had this
fact been realised, chronologists would not with one consent have mistaken the
astronomical calendars described in the eighth chapter of Geminus for successive
official calendars of Athens.'
84 E. J. WEBB
I should have thought that chronologists, not at all a harmonious race,
had been very far from unanimity on this subject. But why should the dis-
covery that tt^cuo? meant ' ancient astronomer,' even supposing it to be true,
affect our theories about the Greek astronomical cycles ? Apparently because
Dr. Fotheringham does not consider a cycle to be a cycle unless it has been
used by some one not an astronomer. Now Geminus merely says that these
cycles were used by dpxaiot ; upyaloi, were only astronomers, not real people
like archons, and these cycles are therefore to be considered as merely ' astro-
nomical conceits.' Indeed Dr. Fotheringham seems even to deny that the
later of them owed ' their origin to defects in earlier systems proved by experi-
ence.' ' They were exercises in the art of combining days, months, and years,
of which the relative mean durations had been learned in Babylon.'
Such a view seems to me unintelligible. Leaving questions as to whether
or when this, that or the other cycle was in use here, there or anywhere to
scholars as learned as Dr. Fotheringham, I quite agree that attempts to trace
the existence of an eight-year cycle before Cleostratus are not very successful.
But when the question is as to the development of Greek astronomy, if we know
that a particular form of calendar was even suggested, I cannot see what differ-
ence it makes whether Athens or any other state adopted it. Undoubtedly
Geminus does mean us to understand that the defects revealed by experience
in one cycle were corrected in the next. And surely the sixth-century cycle
attributed to Cleostratus is less accurate than the fifth-century cycle attributed
to Meton, and this again than the fourth-century cycle of Callippus. Moreover
the ' relative mean durations ' of days, months, and years are not the same
in all the cycles. Was it the better or the worse estimates that were learnt
from Babylon, and is it conceivable that the ap-^aioi, after amusing themselves
with these ' conceits ' for two centuries, could not decide between the worse
and the better more easily than they could in the beginning ? The ' octaeteris '
itself, with all its elegance, fails through giving to the month a mean duration
twenty minutes too short, which error, in the ninety-nine months contained
in the period, amounts to a day and a half. It is difficult to suppose that Cleo-
stratus would have put forth a scheme which he knew must require amendment
almost as soon as it had been once tried; yet he must have known this if he
had derived from Babylon even so accurate an estimate of the relative lengths
of month and year as appears in the Metonjc cycle.
I shall say little as to an argumentum ex silentio, by which Dr. Fotheringham
(pp. 173 sqq.) strives to show that none of our zodiacal constellations can have
been known in Greece before Cleostratus. Whatever the conclusion may be
worth, the argument seems to me worthless, for what literature has come down
to us which was likely to contain such evidence ? But for the accident that
Aratus wrote a famous poem, we perhaps could not prove that the bulk of our
constellations were older than the third century B.C.
But there is a real argumentum ex silentio, the strength of which can only
be appreciated by those who have read enough about Greek astronomy to have
some idea not merely what was known about its history but what was not.
To me the only true value of the passage from Parmeniscus lies in the evidence
CLEOSTRATUS REDIVIVUS 85
it affords that in his time the poem of Cleostratus was still extant. Eudemus
must surely have been acquainted with it. How comes it, if the borrowings from
Babylon had been so recent and on such a scale as Dr. Fotheringham asserts,
that neither Eudemus nor any one else has recorded them ? Dr. Fothering-
ham must have felt this difficulty strongly, for to surmount it he propounds
a theory which to me appears one of despair. He supposes, in fact, a deliberate
conspiracy of silence. ' Of sixth-century Greece, with its mind open to the
barbarian, later Greece was ashamed. Barely an admission is to be found in
Greek sources of anything in science or philosophy learned from the Chaldaeans,
the enemies in the golden age. What Thales learned abroad he was said to have
learned from the Egyptians. Even Herodotus, who, as became an Asiatic
Greek, still cherished in the fifth century B.C. an admiration for the civilisation
of the East, is accused by Plutarch of being <J>i\oftdpftapo<;.'
A passage more misleading was surely never written. Dr. Fotheringham
admits in a footnote that Herodotus does trace to Babylon ' the sun-dial,
the gnomon, and the twelve hours of the day.' He omits, however, to add
that Herodotus makes the remark 19 only to correct the impression he might
have given that all scientific knowledge came to Greece from Egypt. Why
should not Herodotus, who may have been born in the lifetime of Cleostratus,
have mentioned other Babylonian gifts to Greece if he had known of them ?
As to Plutarch's accusations of philo-barbarism, who would not suppose from
Dr. Fotheringham's words that Herodotus had been blamed for tracing Greek
science to an Eastern origin ? There is not a word of the sort in the whole essay,
and the passage in which (f>i\oj3dp@apo<; occurs refers to a case in which the
historian compares his countrymen unfavourably, not with Orientals, but with
Egyptians.
Space fails me for a discussion of Dr. Fotheringham's opinions about the
eclipse of Thales, and the art of predicting eclipses in antiquity. I can only say
that they appear to me as unsatisfactory as those which I have been examining,
and which, with all respect for the learning and ingenuity of their propounder,
I cannot but think fantastic and illusory.
In conclusion, I will say that, while Cleostratus may have been, as ^r.
Fotheringham seems to suggest, one ' of Earth's wisest,' I cannot think that
Dr. Fotheringham, to whom he is merely a Babylonian echo, has gone far to
represent him in that light. It is greatly to be lamented that we do not know
more of him, but if Dr. Fotheringham is right in supposing that his ' vates
sacer ' was Parmeniscus, that may help to explain it.
E. J. WEBB.
" Herod, ii. 109.
A MINOAN BRONZE STATUETTE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
[PLATE I.]
THE bronze statuette reproduced for the first time on PL I. and Fig. 1
has for many years past formed part of the national collections. The earliest
date to which it has so far been traced is 1885, when it was included in the
category of ' unclassified or suspect bronzes.' Beyond 1885 it enjoys at present
the happiness of having no history; but as in that year it bore no mark of
registration, the inference may be drawn that it entered the Museum with the
' old collections,' perhaps a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. It
remained in retirement until the early years of the present century, when
attention was called to its affinities with the newly discovered art of prehistoric
Crete; and the publication, in 1912, of the Tylissos praying figure1 (Fig. 2)
supplied a parallel sufficiently close to establish beyond doubt that the British
Museum bronze was a work of the same school and period.
The statuette represents a beardless man standing in the familiar attitude
of adoration with the right hand raised to the forehead, palm upward and
fingers clenched; the left hand hangs stiffly at the side, the forearm slightly
in advance of the hip, and the hand tightly clenched with knuckles to the front.
The feet and legs are closely pressed together and the whole pose is one of
strained attention, which is emphasised by the Minoan mannerism of exag-
gerating the curve of the back. On the other hand there is none of the Minoan
pinched-in waist or slimness of figure; the waist is normal and the outlines
suggest obesity. The statuette is heavily and solidly cast, apparently from a
wax model; the metal appears to be almost pure copper. The surface for
the most part is in wonderfully good preservation and shows well the naturalistic
finish, particularly on the breast and arms ; and the faintly incised lines which
indicate details of costume are drawn with delicacy and precision. As in most
Minoan bronzes, the technique of the casting has not proved equal to the
artistic demands made upon it; the details of the face are blurred and at
several points are lumps and excrescences of waste metal, which apparently
there has been no attempt to remove.2 The more noticeable of these are the
rough furrows under the chin and on the right shoulder ; the curious lump on
the left wrist, shaped like a pointed leaf, suggests the branch or spray held by
votaries, but is probably only another flaw in the casting. The height of the
statuette is "195 m. (7| ins.), and the height over all, including the base, '22 m.
(8| ins.).
The figure stands on an oblong base about three millimetres in thickness ;
1 'Apx- 'E^.,1912, PI. XVII., p. 223; Hall, 2 On similar defects in other Minoan
Aegean Archaeology, p. 68, Fig. 14. bronzes, see Hall, Aegean Archaeology, p. 67.
86
A MINOAN BRONZE STATUETTE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 87
in front of the left toe, the left half of the front is rectangularly cut back about
4 mm. Below the base is a rectangular plug about 2 cm. in length. The
combination of plug and base common on Minoan bronzes ; to give only the
better known examples, it is found, on the Tylissos figure, on the Gournia
statuette,8 and on a praying man from the Cave of Psychro.4 There can be
no doubt that it is a deliberate feature to facilitate mounting in a base slab
FIG. 2 — MINOAN BRONZE FROM
TYLISSOS.
FIG. 1. — MINOAN BRONZE IN THE
BRITISH MUSEUM. 1 : 2.
and that the plug does not represent merely the metal jet of the casting, as the
Gournia excavators have suggested.5 The cut-away of the base-plate probably
is likewise intended to provide a better grip for the mount. The Tylissos
statuette has two such cut-backs at back and front; and in the Psychro
• Gournia, PI. XL, B 21.
4 To be published by Sir Arthur Evans
in the forthcoming Palace of Minoa. I am
indebted to Sir A. Evans for the reference.
* Gournia, I.e. Compare also such
bronzes as those figured on Tsountas and
Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, p. 161, Figs.
55, 56, where the base-plate is omitted and
there is a plug under each separate foot.
88 F. N. PRYCE
bronze this is developed into a decorative feature and the whole front edge is
cut into a regular scollop pattern.
The costume is indicated with care and comprises high Cretan boots and
an elaborate combination of waist-band or belt and kilt. The boots, reaching
half-way up the calf, are of the type which has long been familiar from the
footgear of the soldier on the ' Chieftain ' Vase from Hagia Triada 6 and the
Petsofa figurines,7 where the colouring has led Prof. J. L. Myres to suggest
that, like modern Cretan boots, they were made of white or pale buff-coloured
leather; the details, however, are more clearly indicated than on any pre-
viously known example. The sole is flat and heel-less; the quarter-pieces
are cut with a triangular slope up to the ankles where a seam runs round the
entire leg, and on the outer side a smaller seam runs directly down from the
ankle-seam to the edge of the quarter-piece. On the front is a pointed toe-cap
with a raised seam on each side running back to the quarter-piece, and a
third seam running up the middle of the foot. Above the ankles, the boot is
in one piece.
Round the waist comes a thick band of strongly convex outline ; on the
right half of the front of this are incised half a dozen lines sloping up to the
left, of varying length and roughly parallel — obviously a fold-over in the cloth.
At the back, a flat loop projects on the right above this band ; on the left side
the surface is worn, but traces of a second loop are still visible. Below this
band comes a second and much narrower belt, marked off by incised lines;
the markedly concave profile of this second zone at once suggests that it is
the familiar Minoan metallic belt, to which presumably would be attached
the ' Libyan sheath ' worn underneath the kilt. The presence of this sheath
in combination with the kilt is suggested also on the Tylissos and Leyden
statuettes; 8 but in the present instance this feature is so exaggerated as to
raise a doubt as to whether a ' gliedfutteral ' is intended, or whether we have
not to deal with an actual case of ithyphallism.
Below the belt falls the kilt; at the back it assumes the form found on
the Tylissos and Psychro statuettes — rounded and reaching to just above
the knees; an incised line represents an ornamented border. On the left
thigh the kilt is cut away to expose almost the whole of the leg ; then in the
front it falls almost to the feet in a long flap or apron; the left edge of this
is slightly sloped inwards, with a rounded edge at the bottom, and a faintly
incised line runs just within the edge. The right side of the flap falls straight,
and a raised band, with an incised line running down the middle, falls parallel
to the edge. This may be a band of raised ornament ; the Psychro statuette,
which has a similar flap, shows furrowed lines down the right side; but it
seems rather to be an object distinct from the kilt, and the question may be
raised whether it does not represent a hanging tail, the combination of which
with the kilt is not infrequent.9
6 1 The footgear is best illustrated in • E. g., on a seal impression from Hagia
Mosso, Palaces of Crete, p. 227, Fig. 107. Triada, Mon. Ant., xiii., p. 43, Fig. 40; and
7 B.S.A., Vol. IX. p. 363 PI. IX. on a gem from Mycenae, Furtwaengler, Ant.
• Jahrb., xxx., 1915, PI. I., p. 65. Gemmen, iii. p. 44, Fig. 20.
A MINOAN BRONZE STATUETTE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 89
The kilt is fastened on the right hip, both ends passing up under the belt ;
and at the junction hangs down a loose end with a heavily indented border.
This appears to be the end of the rear part of the kilt. The end of the fore
part may be the fold over the upper band round the waist ; but it is not certain
whether this upper band, above the belt, is to be regarded as the top of the
kilt, or as a separate object. In favour of its being part of the kilt is the fact
that the loops are attached to it, and similar loops are shown in the Rekhmara
fresco (Fig. 3) 10 clearly attached to the kilt; while against this view is the fact
that in no other example does the kilt so far rise above the belt. If it is a
separate piece of clothing, it would appear to be a folded waist-cloth, like the
modern cummerbund; in shape it strongly recalls the girdle of the Berlin
' snake-charmer,' which appears to be a votive
ceinture, fastened in front, and allied to the
snake girdles of Knossos.11
In the Rekhmara fresco we may trace the
belt, the two loops and the kilt fastened on the
right side with the end hanging down in front.
The prolongation of this loose end into the
rounded apron is seen on the Psychro bronze,
which, save for the absence of the upper roll
about the waist, presents an exact parallel to
our bronze. In discussing the Psychro bronze,
Sir Arthur Evans calls attention to various seal
impressions 12 which seem to show a similar
rounded flap, and suggests that it is a ritual
garb used in ceremonial processions, a conclusion
which is supported by the hieratic attitude of
the British Museum statuette. The seal im-
pressions are all of M.M. iii. date, and the
Psychro bronze is also assigned to the same
period. It seems probable that the apron is
characteristic of that epoch, in which case the position of our bror-se in
Minoan chronology is fixed in the Third Middle Minoan period.
The head is disfigured at some points by blurred casting ; the rough furrows
beneath the chin are particularly noticeable. The ears are cast flat with no
attempt at interior modelling; the eyes are deep sunk; the nose is slightly
aquiline and finely modelled; and the lips appear parted in a smile. The
top of the head is smooth as though clean-shaven, save for three ridges, of
which the two at the side, beyond doubt, represent hair; they originate in
a spiral curl over each temple and sweep back as a slightly raised line behind
the ears to unite at the back of the neck in a flat plait or hair-slide, whence
two thick snaky pigtails fall down the back. The third ridge is larger and in
Fio. 3. — MINOAN ENVOY ON
THE TOMB OF REKHMARA AT
THEBES.
10 Reproduced from Bossert, Alt Kreta,
PI. CCLVII.
11 Hall, Aegean Archaeology, PI. XIX.;
vide also Evans, B.S.A. ix. p. 83.
11 J.H.S. xxii, p. 78, Fig. 5 (ritual pro-
cession with the double axe) ; cf. also ibid.
Fig. 6 and PI. VI. 7; Mon. Ant. xiii. p. 41,
Fig. 35.
90 F. N. PRYCE
higher relief; it rises on the front of the head, immediately behind the raised
hand ; the end is broad and flat, in shape strongly suggestive of a snake's head ;
it then falls in serpentine curves behind the left ear into the hair knot, out of
which the tip of a tail just emerges on the left side (Fig. 1). The interpretation
of this third ridge is a matter of doubt. If it represents hair, we have three
pigtails, as on the Gournia bronze; but the analogy is not convincing, for in
the Gournia statuette all three locks are of equal thickness, and the middle one
is the longest of the three ; whereas in the British Museum bronze, the middle
ridge is the shortest, and by its more pronounced relief is clearly differentiated
from the side-locks. Supposing it not to represent hair, and eliminating it
from the analysis of the coiffure, this will consist of two locks knotted behind
and falling in two tails, an arrangement which is exactly paralleled by the
hair-dress of the Tylissos and Psychro bronzes. Comparison with these two
closely allied examples suggests strongly that the arrangement of the hair
in all three statuettes is intended to be identical, and that the middle lock on
our bronze is not hair at all ; and its resemblance to a snake has already been
noted.
Interpreting the centre ridge to be a snake, or possibly an artificial repre-
sentation of a snake, a new light is thrown upon the significance of the statuette,
which now enters the numerous company of figures associated with the Minoan
snake-cult. In the case of some of these doubt exists as to whether deity or
votary is intended, but in the present instance there is no suggestion of divinity ;
a worshipper is represented and in this respect the statuette may be considered
the masculine counterpart of the well-known Berlin bronze, formerly known
as the ' Mourner.'13 Thiersch has denied any religious significance to this,
seeing in it merely a snake-charmer and comparing it with the bull grapplers.14
Caskey has called it a priestess performing magical rites with serpents in honour
of the goddess.15 But on an almost identical statuette found at Hagia Triada,16
while the snakes are omitted, the posture of the right hand is repeated. Similarly
the Psychro and Tylissos bronzes reproduce the hieratic attitude and almost
the costume of our bronze with the exception of the snake. Obviously no
stress need be laid on the presence of the snake, which is merely a ritual
attribute. Whether the bronzes display the snake or not, all alike represent
the same class of worshipper, male and female, standing in stiff reverence
before the shrine of the goddess.
F. N. PRYCE.
18 Hall, op. cit., PL XIX. 16 Mosso, Palaces of Crete, Fig. 26, p. 69;
14 Aegina, Heiligtum d. Aphaia, p. 372. Bossert, Alt-Kreta, PL CXLVII.
15 A.J.A., 1915, p. 248.
THE GREEK OF CICERO.
IT has occurred to me more than once that there was yet some work to
be done on this topic, even after the meritorious and very accurate labours of
Steele,1 the notes and indices of a series of editors, notably Ernesti,8 Orelli,3
and Tyrrell and Purser, and the dissertations of Bolzenthal,4 Font,5 and
Laurand.6 Of these, the editors are concerned chiefly with establishing a
correct text, and explaining the meanings of the words, which last task has
for the most part been satisfactorily performed (see Tyrrell and Purser, jxusim,
also Boot's excellent edition of the Letters to Atticus). Laurand mentions the
matter only incidentally, and gives a list, not very reliable, of the words used
in the rhetorical works ; Font's chief interest is not lexicographical, but rather
an attempt to answer the question why Cicero should ever use a Greek word
at all when a Latin one was available. Bolzenthal I have not been able to
consult, but gather from Font's synopsis of his work, pp. 3, 28 sqq., that it is
largely superseded by Steele. Steele sets out to study the whole vocabulary
of the letters, including quotations, but omitting the Greek words in the other
works; and his chief interest, apart from tracing the quotations to their
sources, is in a grammatical analysis of the words used by Cicero and his corres-
pondents, with a list of those words which occur only or for the first time in
the letters. How admirably this work has been done is evident to any one
who studies it closely; the very few errors I have been able to detect arise
almost wholly from the fact that the materials for forming a judgment which
were available in 1900 were less abundant than those which were at hand
at the time of writing (1920).
My object has been, first, to give as complete and reliable a list aa possible
of the words used by Cicero himself (not his correspondents, though T have
included half-a-dozen words quoted from Atticus and Caesar), omitting literary
quotations of all sorts, including proverbs and the chapter-headings of the
Paradoxa, and taking account of all the works, whole or fragmentary, which
have come down to us. This list is my own compilation, not taken over from
the earlier ones, which, except that of Merguet,7 are not full alphabetical
lists of all the words, and include quotations as well as Cicero's own words.
Within its assigned limits it is, I think, fairly complete and in accordance with
up-to-date texts.
1 Amer. Jour, of Phil., xxi. (1900), pp. • De Cicerone graeca uerba uturpante,
387-410. Paris, 1894.
1 Clauis Ciceroniana, at the end of his ed- • Etude* tur le ttyle des diecourt de
• Onomcuticon, in Baiter-Orelli's ed. Ciceron, pp. 61, 73-76. Paris, 1907.
4 De graeci aermonis proprietotibus quoe 7 Lex. tu den philot. Schriften, end.
in Ciceroni* epittolit inueniantur, Custrin, This gives the words in the philosophical
1884. treatises only.
91
92 H. J. ROSE
Secondly — and this is the more important object — I have tried to compile
some material for answering the question : How did an educated man talk,
in Greek-speaking circles, at that date ? We know fairly well how he wrote,
for publication at least; we have much evidence of the style of speech of
provincials, more or less educated, in the non-literary papyri of Egypt; but
outside of Cicero, I know of but little that can tell us what the Greek sermo
urbanus was like after the classical period. The question is of some interest
in itself, but more so as helping to throw light on two other questions, viz.:
To what extent did the Atticising movement, initiated apparently in part by
the Rhodian school,8 affect educated speech ? and, Would the vocabulary and
syntax (apart from rhythm and other rhetorical features) of a non-literary
work, such for example as the second Gospel, strike a cultured reader as offen-
sively rustic, or as merely artless ? And would a markedly literary, yet still
Hellenistic style, say that of Diodorus Siculus in one of his bursts of platitu-
dinous reflection, or of Dionysios of Halikarnassos in a speech, be so far different
from the language of every-day life, as to be hard of comprehension by, say,
a poor and uneducated Greek ?
It may be objected that Cicero is a foreigner, and thus poor evidence for
colloquial usage. But it must be remembered that even for a well-educated
Roman his Greek appears to have been very good ; that he commonly wrote,9
spoke, and disputed in it, had Greek correspondents, had lived for years in
Greece, and was the close friend of Greeks, and of the largely Hellenised
Atticus. No doubt an Athenian could have told by small nuances of pro-
nunciation and perhaps of choice of words that a foreigner was speaking to
him; but if we remember how often in our own experience the nationality
of an English-speaking Frenchman is betrayed only by slight differences of
intonation which would disappear on paper, we may, I think, assume that a
passage of plain Greek written by Cicero, and one written, for example, by his
old tutor, Antonius Molon of Rhodes, would differ only in an almost imper-
ceptible degree.
In my list of words I have given full references, save for those words which
occur very commonly. Letters to Atticus are cited without title ; adfamiliares,
by the abbreviation F ; other works, by the usual abbreviated titles. I have
annotated the words as follows : c denotes a classical usage, including Attic
prose, unless followed by the sign -a; a, Attic prose and comedy, including
Menander, but not Xenophon or Aristotle, who, as transitional authors, are
cited by the usual abbreviations of their names. C indicates a word found
only in Cicero ; C1, a word which occurs for the first time in him ; h, a Hellen-
istic word. Unless the contrary is stated, words marked c or a persist in
Hellenistic usage; where a nearly contemporary author, such as Diodorus or
Philodemos, seems to have been the first to use the word, he is cited by name.
Here I have been greatly helped not only by the investigations of Steele,
but by the Lexicon Suppletorium of Herwerden. Liddell and Scott, on the
8 Christ-Schmidt, Griech. Lit., ii. 2, p. exile and after the death of Tullia, he used
263. Greek as little as in his official communica-
• In seasons of distress, as during his tions.
THE GREEK OF CICERO 93
other hand, bristles with sins of omission and commission to such an extent
that I have marked with a query all information for which I can find no better
authority. No part of the lexicon stands in more need of revision than the
articles on post- Attic words; and a good dictionary of Hellenistic, which
should take into account the evidence of papyri and inscriptions, is greatly to
be desired. Words found in the N.T. are marked accordingly, on the authority
of Soutar's lexicon; LXX usage I have seldom taken into account, partly
because of the abnormal character of much of its Greek, partly owing to the
length of time over which its compilation was spread.
A.
os, ' silly ' vii. 7/4. Luc. quomodo historia 2; hence perhaps a.
dj3\dj3eia, Tusc. iii. 16. ? C in this sense (dftXaftijs, innocens, a).
tryeXao-To?, Fin. v. 92. a.
dyevvcta, x. 15/2. h.
dyor)T€vra><i, xiii. 3/1. C ( TO? h, late).
dy<ov, i. 16/8. c; N.T.
aSeok, xiii. 52/1. a.
d8rj\o<f, Acad. ii. 54. c ; N.T.
dbia^opla, ii. 17/2. ? C.
dSid<f>opos, Fin. iii. 53. Stoic t.t.
d8irjyr)Tos, xiii. 9/1. a (dveicSiriyriTOS, N.T.).
f (pun), ii. 12/4. C ; cf. for formation dSiKaioSoros, Diod.
, xiii. 21a/l. a, but h in tech. sense ' unrevised.'
, xvi. 11/2. a.
;, i. 1/2. c; N.T.
, v. 20/6. a.
d^r)\orinrrjro<f, xiv. 19/4. C1.
drj&r)<;, xii. 9. a.
ddanfila, Fin. v. 87. c (Demokritos).
£0609, N.D. i. 63, iii. 89. c; N.T.
'A0r)vaio<>, ii. 9/4 and quot. c ; N.T.
oiWy/io<?, ii. 19/5; vi. 7/1. c (a poetical).
ai/Deo-i?, F xv. 16/3, haeresis, xiv. 14/1, ' school,' h in this sense. N.T.
atperot, xv. 19/2. c.
atV^pof, ix. 6/5 and quot. c ; N.T.
am'a, xv. 12/2. c; N.T.
ij, sc. avvrafa xiii. 12/3; the full phrase 16/1. h.
, ix. 4/3. c (— ox?; N.T.).
/a, xiii. 19/3. ), (Aca(jemic t.t.).
, Acad. ii. 18.
F xv. 17/4. C1.
, xv. 21/2. c; N.T.
ia, xii. 45/1. h mostly.
i, ii. 19/5. a.
94 H. J. ROSE
?, xvi. 18/1. c.
?, vi. 3/7. a. - TW? vi. 1/7. C.
dtco\acria, xiv. 11/1. a, less commonly h.
•La, F xvi. 18/1. C (a*o7ro9 c).
i, xii. 4/2. a.
?, Fxiv. 7/1. c; N.T.
'19, de diu. ii. 111. h.
*, v. 21/3. a.
aKpwrrjpiov, v. 20/1. C.
tt/crt?, ii. 3/2 (math.) c in general sense.
d/cv0r)pos, vii. 32/2. h.
aicvpos, xvi. 17/1. h (a/cu/ow N.T.).
'AXa/3ai>£ei9, F xiii. 56/1.
aX??, x. 1/4. c, mostly poet.
?, ix. 13/5. a.
?, ii. 2/8, 19/1. c.
ifr, xiv. 13/1. h (Diod., Strab.).
d\\rjyopia, ii. 20/3; orat. 94. h (Philodemos) as rhet. t.t. (a, v-rrovota).
oXXo9, vi. 5/2 etc., and quot. c; N.T.
aXo7<u, xii. 3/2. c— a ; h.
d\oj€i>oij,ai, vi. 4/3. C.
aXo7icrTa>9, ix. 10/4. a.
dXo7&)9, xu. 35 ; xiii. 48/1. a (0X0709, N.T.).
d\vo), vi. 5/1. c — a; h.
'\fjLah0eia, i. 16/18; AmaUhea, ii. 20/2; 'A/iaX0etoi/, \ 16/18.
d^.dpT7)na, xiii. 44/3 ; xiv. 5/1. a; N.T.
a/Lte/ATTTo?, vii. 1/9. a; N.T.
a/i€Ta/ieX77T09, vii. 3/2; xiii. 52/1. a; N.T.
d/j,r)xavia, xv. 29/1. c.
cifiopfos, vii. 8/5. c.
a/A0t/8oXta, F vii. 32/2. Arist., as t.t.
d/ji<^i\a<f)ia, Q.F. ii. 4/3, 14 (15 b)/3. C1 (a^tXa^>^9 c).
&v, ix. 4/2, etc. c; N.T.
di>a/3o\rj, i. 21/1. c; N.T.
dva0ea>pr)<ri<;, xiv. 15/1, 16/2. C1; cf. Diod. xiii. 35/4.
am#7//ia, i. 1/5.; N.T.
dvaXoyLa (usually analogia in Varro), vi. 2/3; x. 11/4, Tim. 13. a; N.T.
?, Q.F. ii. 8(10)/1. C1.
•tor, XV. 13/2. dvavTKfxavrjTos, vi. 1/23. Both C.
?, ix. 1/3. C1.
?, xvi. 7/5. h ; N.T.
dva^aiva), ii. 10/1. C, c; N.T.
dva<f>ep(o, xiii. 49/1 ; with dat. c (but mostly^with et9 and ace.) ; N.T.
i, ix. 4/2. c ; N.T.
?, ii. 6/2; xiv. 17/6 ' unpublished.' h (Diod.) in this sense.
09, xv. 19/1; — 6-repa, xii. 45/1 ( — 009 quot.). c; N.T.
THE GREEK OF CICERO M
?, xiii. 12/2; xvi. 7/2. a.
?, xiii. 37/4. h.
dvel-ia, v. 11/5 ' ut Siculi dicunt.' C.
din)0oTTot,r)To<i, x. 9/6 ' not in «haracter.' h (Diod.).
dviJKCffTos, ix. 4/2. c.
dvi'jp, i. 18/6 and quot. c ; N.T.
di>0ijpoypa<J)ovfj.ai, ii. 6/1. C1.
av0o<f (pi., ' elegant extracts '), xvi. 11/1. h.
dvi<nopr)(ria, vi. 1/18. C (dviaToprfro^, h).
dvoiKew, xvi. 11/4. h (Diod.).
dvrifferov, orat. 166. a.
dvTifj,vKTr)pifa, F xv. 19/4. C ; but cf. e*/* — Lc. 1614.
i, vii. 8/5. a.
?, Acad. ii. 123. a, h (Strabo).
v, Tusc. i. 68 (' S. hemisphere '). ? C1 in this sense.
»,xv. 4/1. c; N.T.
u£ia, Fin. iii. 20, 34 (' honestum ') Stoic t.t.
* f» / -™ili O7 /O
tt£to7r(,<rT&>9, xiu, o7/o. a.
dgiwfjui, Acad. ii. 95; Tusc. i. 14; de fat., i. 20, 21. Arist.
dirdffeia, Acad., ii. 130. Stoic t.t.
•La, xiii. 16/1. a (aTraiSeuro?, N.T.)
?, orat. 229. h.
dtravTot, vii. 5/3. c; N.T.
aTrai/TTjem, ix. 7/2; xvi. 11/6. h; N.T.
dTrappijffiaffTos, ix. 20/2. h.
aTretpia, Fin. i. 21. c (aTreipos, N.T.).
dTre\cv0€pos, vi. 4/3, 5/2. a ; N.T.
aTrepavro\oyia, xii. 9. C1.
dTroyi(y}v(i)<TKQ), vi. 5/2. C.
;/, xii. 51/3 (' copy '). h, but elsewhere — 09.
?, Acad. ii. 26. c.
?, i. 16/13; xii. 12/1, 36/1, 37a ( = 37/4). h.
u. %/>eo9.
?, viii. 16/1. The superl. is C.
10?, xvi. 7/3. a.
r.., Irj>evov, F ix. 7/2 ; F in iii. 151 ; apoproegmerwn, ibid. 15. Stoic/.t.
diropLa, vii. 12/4, 21/3, etc. c; N.T. d-rropu, vii. 11/3; vi. 1/8, etc. c; N.T.
aTTeNT/CTJTTTft), XU. 5/1. C.
d-rrorevyna, xiii. 27/1 ; F ix. 21/1 ; Q.F. iii. 2/2. Stoic t.t.
tt7roTo/L«u9, x. 11/5. a; N.T.
aTTorpiftti), vii. 5/5. a.
«7ro</>aTf/co<?, topic, 49. Arist. t.t.
dTro<f>0eyfj.a, F ix. 16/4, de off., i. 104. Xen., Arist., h.
a7rpa*T09, i. 14/6. a.
U7rpocr&i6vv<ros, xvi. 13/1. C1.
aTrpoanos v. 20/6. h ; N.T. •
96 H. J. ROSE
;, viii. 8/1. C1.
apa, xii. 5/11 and quot. c ; N.T.
61/9709, u. X<>709.
, U. Trdyos.
), ii. 3/3 (rrjv dp€<TKov<rav sc. yixa/j.rjv). h in this sense.
aperrj, x. 10a/4 and quot. c ; N.T.
apijyw, ix. 4/2. c — a ; Xen.
apia-reta, xiv. 15/2 ; xvi. 9. c.
, ii. 15/3; — /co>9, i. 14/2; ii. 3/4. a.
(' aptimates ') ix. 4/2. c.
'A/oto-TOTeX?79, xii. 40/2; — etov, xiii. 19/4. h.
ia, Tusc. i. 19 ; Tim. 27. c.
, Tusc. iv. 23 (' moral imperfection '). Stoic t.t.
io9, vi. 1/18 (rbv rrjs dp^aia^, sc. /c<u/i&>£ta9). h in this sense.
, x. 5 c (= 5/4), xvi. 3/1. h (Dion. Hal.).
n, x. 10/4. c ; N.T.
' Apxi/j.r)?)eio<t, xii. 4/2 ; xiii. 28/3. h.
ao-a^>e'o-Tepo9, xiii. 25/1. a.
do-eXyijs, ii. 12/2. a (d<re\yeia, N.T.).
a<r/*ei>«rro9, ix. 20/2, 16/9. h.
, xiii. 22/1. a ( — &>9, N.T.).
t, ii. 9/4, 12/4. c ; N.T.
acnrovSos, ix. 10/5. c.
dcfrpaTrjyrjTo^t vii. 13/1, h. dcrrpaT'rjyiK(t>raTO<;, viii. 16/1. C.
aa-rv, vi. 5/2. c (h mostly uses TroXt?).
ao-u7«Xa)o-TO9, vi. 1/17. C1.
d<r<t>d\€ia, ii. 19/4; xvi. 8/2. ao-^aX^?, vii. 13/3; - - co9 Q.F.i. 2/3;
Allc; N.T.
acra>/u,aT09, N.D. i. 30. a. .
drapa^ia, F xv. 19/2. Demokritos, Epicurus.
aT€X»;9, xiv. 12/1 (possibly a quot.). c.
are%i'09, topic. 24 (rhet. t.t.). Arist. in this sense.
droTrcorarov, xv. 26/1. c; aro7ro9, N.T.
'ArpelSai, vii. 3/5 ? parody of Eur.
ia, xiii. 16/1. C.
6<;, iv. 19/1 (' atticism of style '). h in this sense.
'ATTf/co9, i. 13/5; — toTaT09,vi. 5/3 (pun); — torara, adv. xv. la/12, c.
aTi/7T09, (' Balbus '), xii. 3/2 e coni.; clypo, M. C1 in this sense; atypus
Gell. iv. 2/5.
, vi. 9/2. a.
, x. 9/1. C1.
avdwpei, ii. 13/1. h.
auTo9, ix. 4/2, etc. (xv. 27/3 e coni.; autem. M.) c; N.T. avTorara, vi.
9/2, cf. auToraro? AT. Plut. 83 (TreTraitcTat /c&)/ii«<w9 Schol.).
avrovofj-ia, vi. 1/15. c.
, vii. 2/3. c.
THE GREEK OF CICERO 97
d<f>aipc<Tt<f (' lessening regimen '), vi. 1/2. ? Cl in this sense. Cf. the use
of <\(f>aipeli>, Ar. Ran. 941 and comm. ad loc.
, xiii. 9/1 ; xv. 19/2. c.
fo i. 18/1 ; — ok, vi. 1/8, 7/1. Both c (tt^Xori/?, N.T.).
(' shrine '), xiii. 29/1. ? C1 ; h (Diod.). a, i&pvfjM.
, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
, ii. 17/2. C1 (other comps. of a + <fx\ — in N.T.).
, vi. 5/2. c ; N.T.
w, F xvi. 17/2. C.
v or aphractum, iv. 11/4, 12/1. h.
ta, ix. 7/4. a (a^aptoro? ; N.T.).
B.
J3a0vrr)s ('mental depth,' 'profundity of thought'), iv. 6/3; v. 10/3;
vi. 1/2. ? C. in this sense.
(SaTTapifa, vi. 5/1 (' chatter '). h; cf. N.T. fSarra\oy(a.
j38€\vTTOfjiat, xv. 29/2. a ; N.T.
/3\dfifjM, Fin. iii. 69. Stoic t.t.
#Xao-<£?7/xo9, xv. 11/4. a; N.T.
f3ov\evr^piov, 2 Verr. ii. 50. c.
/3ov\eva>, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
/3ov\ri<ri<;, Tusc. iv. 12. c.
@ov\v<w, xv. 27/3. C (/3ov\vr6<; c).
#>w7ri?, ii. 9/1, 12/2, 14/1, 22/5 (nickname of Clodia).
Bpovros, xv. 12/2.
r.
yavpiw, xvi. 5/5. a, but mostly h.
7«,vi. 1/20; xvi. 15/3. c; N.T.
, i. 14/2, — nrcpov, ix. 10/6. Arist. in this sense.
os, xii. 1/2. a, but rare; — otrepov, ibid. C; yepatv, de r.p. ii. 50.
c; N.T.
V€t0ypa<j>iK6<;, ii. 6/1 (title of a book) ; geographia, 7/1, etc. h (Strab).
ci)9, xii. 5b. Anst.
, N.D. ii. 67.
7XaO£, F vi. 3/4; ix. 4/2 (prov., v\ai>K «t? 'A^T^i/a?; but translated, Q.F.
ii. 15(16)/5.) a.
, xvi. 1/5. c.
, v. 21/4. c.
ypafj.fj.ij, iv. 8a/4 and understood ii. 3/2 (math. t.t.). c.
f, i. 6/2, 9/2. C.
' (' Book IV.'), xii. 38a/2. h in this sense.
aifjioviov, de diu. i. 122 (of Sokrates). a; h, generally £at>«y in this
context,
j. H. s. VOL. XLI. H
98 H. J. ROSE
Bai/j,o)v, Tim. 38. c.
Bdtcvu, xiii. 20/4. c; N.T.
Bdfj,ap, vi. 4/3. c (archaic).
Be, ii. 16/4, etc., and quot. c; N.T.
BeBoitca, vi. 4/3, 5/2 and quot. c.
Set, vi. 1/20. c; N.T.
Beppts, iv. 19/1 (sense doubtful), a.
BevTepos, vi. 5/2. c ; N.T.
£77, vi. 4/3 and quot., BJJTTOV, ibid, c; N.T.
, iv. 8a/2, N.D. ii. 67.
, vi. 6/2, vii. 3/10. c; N.T.
, xv. la/2.
Bid, with ace. ix. 4/2 ; with gen. ibid, c ; N.T.
Bid0e<ri<;, xiv. 3/2. a.
Biatpeo-is, vi. 1/15. c; N.T.
Bia\€KriKrj, de Or. ii. 157, topic. 6, 57 ; dialectid topic. 56. a.
BidXoyo?, v. 5/2 ; xv. 13/2, orat. 151.
, xv. 12/2. a; N.T.
, F xv. 16/1. a.
Bicnro\iTeia, ix. 4/2. C1.
BiappijBrjv, F xvi. 21/6. c.
Bidppoia, F vii. 26/2. a.
Biarv7T(i)(ri<;, Q.F. iii. 5/4. Arist.
Bid<j>a<ri<i, ii. 3/2. Theophr.
Bia<f>6pr)(n<;, F xvi. 18/1. C1.
Bij3a(f>o<;, ii. 9/2. h.
, x. 12a/4. c ; N.T.
, vi. 5/2. h. (Biaa-tcevd^o), a).
Bievicpiv<t>, vii. 8/3, 5.
BIKCUW (' execute ') 2 Verr. ii. 148; said there to be Sicilian, but c in this
sense.
Bifcporov or dicrotum, v. 11/4, etc. a.
Ato8&>/0o<?, F ix. 4.
, F xiii. 57/1 (administrative t.t.). h (Strabo).
, N.D. iii. 53. c — a ( — Kopoi). h; N.T.
Si<j>0€pa, xv. 24/1. c.
$nr\f) (critical sign), viii. 2/4. h.
B6y/ut, Acad. ii. 27, 29. a.
BoKifuifa, ix. 4/2. a ; N.T.
Sotcu, vi. 4/3, 5/1 ; ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
Sofa, Fin. ii. 20., N.D. i. 85.
$vvafj,i<;, ix. 6/5. c; N.T.
, F ix. 4, de fato. 1, 17. c; N.T.
, v. 4/1. C1; h (Dion. Hal.).
Sv<T€K\d\r)To<;, v. 10/3. C1; h (Dion. Hal.), cf. N.T. dvetc— .
Bvvevrepia, F vii. 26/1 ; — t«o<? ibid. c.
THE GREEK OF CICERO 99
Bva-ovpia, x. 10/4. c.
, xvi. 7/6 (' tight money '), h; &v<rxpr)<TTo<:, vii. 5/3. c.
, Fin. iii. 69, Stoic t.t.
, xiii. 33/2 ; xvi. 15/2. C1.
E.
e' (' Book V '), xii. 38a/2. cf. 8'.
€dv, xv. 12/2. c; N.T.
, avrov, vi. 5/2; ix. 4/2, etc., and quot. c; N.T.
, xii. 25/2, 29/2, 44/2. C1 (from Atticus).
vi. 1/8. Xen.
, i. 19/10. Arist.
u), vi. 4/3 (pov, fwi) and often quot. c; N.T.
e6e\ovTrj<;, ix. 4/2. a.
el (' si ') ii. 16/4 (' num '), ix. 4/2, etc. c; N.T.
€4809, topic. 30 and quot. a, late ; N.T.
€i8u\ov, ii. 3/2; F xv. 16/1, Fin. i. 21. c.
euro, vi. 5/2. c; N.T.
ellucpivfa Q.F. ii. 6(8)/l. c; N.T.
€ifiapfji€vij, N.D. i. 55, de diu. i. 125. c.
clfu, vii. 5/2, etc., and quot. c ; N.T.
etfu, ix. 4/2 ; xiv. 22/2. c.
eipatv, de Or. ii. 270, Brut. 298, de off. i. 108. c.
eipcovevofj-cu, F iv. 4/1, bis. c.
elpcoveia, xvi. 11/2, Acad. ii. 15; ironia, Brut. 292. a.
€t9, ii. 3/3 ; ? vi. 4/3, 6/2 (with ellipsis of vb. of going), c ; N.T.
el?, vi. 4/3 (€49 Lachmann) and quot. c. ; N.T.
€*aTe/>o9, ii. 3/3, 9/3. c.
etcXoyij, xvi. 2/6 (Reid; eclogarii uolg.). h (N.T. as theol. term.).
eKTeveia, x. 17/1 ; etcTevijs, xiii. 9/1 (' oflScious friendliness ' ; ' ostentatiously
friendly '). h (N.T. in different sense).
€'/cT07rto-/Lto9, xii. 12/1. h (Strab.)
€K(f>(i)vr)(Ti<;t x. 1/3. h.
ii. 3/2. Arist.
ia, ix. 14/2. c ; N.T.
i'fw, vi. 5/2. c; N.T.
ij, xiii. 52/1 (' regimen of emetics '). h ( ? c in this sense).
€'/xo9, vi. 5/1 and quot. c ; N.T.
ffjLTrepTrepevofuii, i. 14/4. Arr. Epict. ii. 134. cf. TTfpirepevercn, 1. Cor. 134.
evdpyeta, Acad. ii. 17. a.
ev, i. 13/4, etc.; ii. 19/5, expressing agency; €v Swdpei, pro imperio,.ix.
6/4. c, last two uses chiefly h ; N.T.
, Tusc. i. 22. c.
, v. 14/3, 21/4. c — a (poet).
;, xii. 4/1. h; comp. C.
H2
100 H. J. ROSE
evBovffia<Tfi6<;) Q.F. iii. 4/4. a.
, i. 14/4, topic. 56 (rhet. t.t.). Arist.
, V. 14/1. C.
ewota, topic. 31 ; Acad. ii. 30 ; Fin. iii. 21 ; Tusc. i. 57. a.
evrdfaov, xii. 29/2. c.
evrexvos, F vii. 32/2 (rhet. t.t.). Arist.
evrvpavvovfiai, ii. 19/1. C.
€%aKavOlfa, vi, 6/1. C.
€%a(r<f>a\.i£ofuu, vi. 4/3. C1 ; Strab.
vi. 5/1. h; N.T. uses air — only. Dio. Cass. seems to use
. = libertinus, e£eX. = libertus.
lv- 15/7 C eminence '). ? C1 in this sense ; N.T.
e o>Te/w*o9, iv. 16/2 ; Fin. v. 12. Arist.
€7rayy€\\ofji,ai, ii. 9/3. a; N.T.
efrdyto, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
€Trayo)yij, topic. 42. Arist.
€7rcx*>, vi. 6/3 ; Acad. ii. 59, 148. Skept. t.t.
€Tri with gen. ii. 5/3, with dat. quot. only, c ; N.T.
, Fin. iii. 32. Acad. t.t.
os, orat. 37, 207 ; epidicticus, ibid. 42. a.
€TTi8r)/j,io<;, xii. 10. c.
€TrifC€<f>d\iov, v. 16/2. h.
67TI/CT17T09, Vii. 1/5. C.
or epicopus, v. 11/4; xv. 16/1. ? C1. Cf. Gell. x. 25.
), vi. 5/2. c.
€7rt/i€\oO/iat, x. 10/6 with gen. c; N.T.
€7riffrjfjLa<ria, i. 16/11 ; xiv. 3/2. h (Diod.).
, vii. 11/5 (administrative t.t.). a.
, xiii. 27/1. h (Diod.).
, V. 20/1. h.
€7ri<t>opd, F xvi. 23/1 (med. t.t.). ? C1.
, i. 19/3. C1.
, vi. 9/3. c, but rare.
CTTO? (' epic ') Q.F. iii. 9/6; but epicus, opt. gen. or 1, 2, etc. c.
n, vi. 6/3, 9/3; xv. 21/2 (Skept. t.t.), xiii. 21/3 (nautical), h.
, vi. 5/2 C1. Si\o<f>o<;, etc., c.
€7TTa/i?7i/mtO9, x. 18/1. h; — /i^i'09, c.
e/?ai>o9, xii. 5/1. c.
epyov, xiii. 25/3 e com. ; at ego codd. c ; N.T.
, xv. 19/1. c.
, xiii. 19/5. c.
e'/>am*o9, ix. 10/2. a.
, N.D. ii. 53. c.
, N.D. ii. 67.
), iv. 8a/4. c; N.T.
€Ti, xvi. 1/1 and quot. c; N.T.
THE GREEK OF CICERO 101
ia topic. 35 ; Acad. i. 32. h (Dion. Hal.).
ov, ii. 3/1 ; xiii. 40/1 (' good news ') h ; N.T. ; ii. 12/1 (' reward
to bringer of good news ; ' plur). c.
cvayeayw, xiii. 23/3 e com. ; cvayfa or evXa£w9 codd. C ; — 09 a.
€i>avdrp€7rrof, ii. 14/1. C1.
evytveia, F iii. 7/5. c ; evyet^i, viii. 9/3 ; xiii. 21a/4. c ; N.T.
evSai^wv. ix. 11/4. c.
evSogia, Fin. iii. 57. c.
€i>€\Tria-ria, ii. 17/2. h.
e^/yyeTT;?, ix. 4/2, 5/3. c ; N.T. ; evepyc™, ix. 4/2. a; N.T.
€vi]0eia, vi. 2/10. c (fuapia ; N.T.).
€VT)fj.€pr)iJM, v. 21/2. h; evrjfiepia, ix. 13/1. c.
evBavaa-la ('honourable death'), xvi. 7/3. Quoted from Atticus; O.TT.
tip. in this sense.
ia, Fin. v. 23, 87 (Demokritos).
w, F ix. 22/5. C1; cf. ev0vppr)nov€<rT€po<it F xii. 16/3, from
Trebonius.
ia, xvi. 8/2 ; Fin. iii. 45, de off. i. 142. evxcupos, iv. 7/1 ; evicaipw,
xiii. 9/2; Q.F. ii. 3/6. All a; N.T.
, xiii. 21a/3. a.
t, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
ia, xiii. 22/4. a; evXoyos, xiii. 5/1, 7, 33/3; xiv. 22/2; xiii. 6a. c.
ev\v<rla, F xvi. 18/1 (med.) ? C1.
€Vfj.€V€ia, xvi. 11/2. c.
evTTiinj*;, xii. 6/4, — w?; xv. 17/2. C1 in this sense; Dion. Hal.
Ei;7roXt9, iv. 1/18.
eu7ro/)«o-T09, vii. 1/7. h.
;, F xiii. 15/2. ,
os, xiv. 5/2. C1.
, ix. 5/2 (' good-naturedly '). C1.
evragia, de off. i. 142 (phil. t.t.) ? C1 in this sense.
evToxrjffev, x. 18/1. h, including the form of the augment.
€vrpaTT€\ia, F vii. 32/1 (pun.). Arist. in this sense; N.T. (= /Sw/
or — ia, Fin. iii. 69. Stoic t.t.
(' permit '), ix. 4/2. c, but frequent in h.
(' notice '), xiii. 38/1. Arist. in this sense.
exa, xv. 12/2. c; N.T.
eo), xvi. 1/1 unless corrupt, and quot. c; N.T.
eo)\o9, xiii. 21a/l, F ix. 2/1. c.
Z.
frXorwrria, Tusc. iv. 17 (18). a (rare) ; h.
£77X0™™, xiii. 13/1; 17/2 (18). a. ,
^rrjfia, vii. 3/10; Fix. 20/1. a; N.T.
£», ii. 12/2 (fro-rj? jxovfc), xii. 2/2; xiv. 21/3. c; N.T.
9, de diu. ii. 89. h.
102 H. J. ROSE
H.
r)y€fj,ovtic6<;, N.D. ii. 29. Stoic, t.t.
tfovr), F xv. 19/2, 3; Fin. ii. 8, 12, 13; iii. 35. c; N.T.
r)9iKo^, orat. 128 (rhet. t.t.). Arist.
^009, x. 10/6, 12a/4, de fat. i. c; N.T.
rifieis, vi. 5/2, etc., and quot. c; N.T.
rmepoXey&ov, iv. 15/3. c.
'HpatcXciSetov, xv. 4/3, 13/3, 27/2 ; xvi. 2/6. h.
'HpvSr)*;, ii. 2/2, etc.
fj/>o>9, vii. 13/1 ; xiv. 4/2, etc. ; often written heros. Homer, and h in this
sense.
dfa, ix. 4/2 ; Acad. ii. 93. c ; N.T.
0.
Od/jui, vi. 5/1. c.
®eo7ro/i7ro9, xii. 40/2.
#eo9, xiii. 29/1 (777)09 9eo>v) and quot. c ; N.T.
®eo</>ai/7;9, ii. 5/1.
060-49 (' generalised case '), ix. 4/1 ; topic. 79, orat. 46. Arist.
#€TtK09, Q.F. iii. 3/4 ; — £9 Farad. 5. \ C1 in this sense ; Strab.
0e(apr)fj,a, xiv. 20/3, de fat. ii. h, OewprjTiteos, ii. 16/3. Arist. ffenpia
(' enquiry '), xii. 6/2. c.
eopv/3o7roi5>, F xvi. 23/2. h (Died.).
09, X. 11/5. h.
, Tusc. iv. 21. h.
I.
4Sea,x>rat. 10; Acad. i. 30; Tusc. i. 58. a.
'I\ta9, viii. 11/3 (I. tca/cwv). c.
"va, vi. 5/2 and quot. ; see section on grammar, h ; N.T.
, vi. 1/15. h.
ia, N.D., i. 50, 109. Epic. t.t.
fa-o*, xiii. 51/1. c; N.T.
iffropia, xiii. 10/1. c; ItrrvpiKos, i. 19/10; vi. 1/8, 2/3; h in this sense.
io-xww, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
K.
xaOrjKov, xv. 13/6; xvi. 11/4; Fin. iii. 20, de off. i. 8 (' qffirium'). Stoic.
t.t.; h; N.T.
/ca^o8o9, vii. 11/1. a.
/ca^o\t/co9, xiv. 20/3. h.
/cat, ii. 12/4; vi. 1/20, etc., and quot. c; N.T.
/eatpo9, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
/ca/a'a, Fin. iii. 39, 40; Tusc. iv. 34 (/ca*o9 quot. only), c; N.T.
tcaKoo-Tofiaxos, F. xvi. 4/1 (' fastidious '). ? C ; Anth. xi. 155, 4, the right
reading is clearly
THE GREEK OF CICERO 103
*aXo9, ii. 19/1; vii. 11/1, etc. (/eaXw? quot. only), c; N.T.
, xiii. 12/3, see comm. ad loc.
j, i. 14/4 (rhet. t.t.). a.
, vi. 6/3.
vv, F xvi. 17/1. a; N.T.
Kapa8oK(t>, ix. 10/8. C.
Kara, ii. 7/4, 17/4, etc., and quot. c; N.T.
, xiii. 13/2, 31/3, 32/2 (title), c; N.T.
, xiii. 1/2. C1.
/cara/eXei?, ii. 3/4 (' clausula '). ? C1 as t.t.
o?, Acad. i. 41 and u.l. ii. 18. Ka-rd\^t^, Fin. iii. 17 ; Acad. ii.
17, 31, 145. Both Acad. t.t.
, ix. 4/2. a.
, vi. 5/2. h.
i), i. 14/4. a ( — a£iw ; N.T.).
, iv. 13/2. c (h rather ire pi — ).
, orat. 94. Arist.
, Tusc. iv. 21 (' predicate '). Arist.
f, xiii. 42/1 (a quot. ?). c.
. 12/2 (' education,' ' upbringing '). h (/car^oi, N.T.).
, Fin. iii. 24, 45; iv. 15, de off. i. 8. karopffoxri^ Fin. iii. 45.
Stoic t.t.
, i. 14/4. h.
o9, v. 20/3. Cf . Thuc. iii. 30/4 and Classen, ad loc. ; u. inf.
K€vo<nrovSo<;, ix. 1/1. C1.
Kfvrpov, Tusc. i. 40 (math. t.t.). a.
K€TT<f>ovfj,ai or K€K€Tr<t>a)fji.ai, xiii. 40. C1.
fcepas, v. 20/9, 21/9; vi. 1/13 (' musical instrument '). Xen.
tc€<f>d\aiov, v. 18/1; xvi. 11/4. a; N.T. (xe^aXrj quot. only).
os, ii. 17/3. h.
, ii. 9/4, 12/4.
vco, ix. 4/2. c; N.T. tcivbvvos, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
i, vi. 5/2. a; N.T.
tcoi\ia, F xvi. 18/1. c; N.T. KtuXioXiWa, x. 13/1. C.
fcotvorepos, xiii. 10/2. a.
tcoXatceia, xiii. 27/1, 30/1. c; N.T.
, orat. 211, 223 (rhet. t.t.). h.
', vi. 5/2.
Kopla, N.D. iii. 59.
/coo-/io?, Tim. 35. c; N.T.
, xiii. 31/3; F. ix. 4. c; N.T. Kpivo^fvov d'point at issue ') 'orat.
126, topic. 95 seems h.
, F ix. 4. c; N.T.
K/301/05, N.D. ii. 64.
Kporwf mr?;?, vi. 4/3, 5/6 ; — 4*09, 5/2.
, N.D. ii. 47. c;N.T.
104 H. J. ROSE
Kvpios, Fin. ii. 20; N.D. i. 85 (the *. Sogai). Epic. t.t.
KO/J09, ii. 3/2 ; ix. 25/1 ; xiii, 38a/2 ; in the last Wilamowitz — Moellendorf
would read Kvp<ra<;, Platon, Vol. II. p. 272.
tc&\ov, Brut. 162; orat. 211, 223 (rhet. t.t.). Arist.
Ktopv/caioi, x. 18/1.
K(i)<f>6<i, xiii. 19/3 (K. Trpoawnov). h in this phrase.
A.
Aa,Ku>i>itcos, x. 10/3.
Xa*o>wo>io9, F xi. 25/2 (' laconic saying '). h, ? C1.
Xa/*7r/>o9, v. 20/6. c ; N.T.
\avddvu), vi. 1/8. c; N.T. XeXT7#oT&>9, vi. 5/3; F ix. 2/3. h.
Xa7rt£a>, ix. 13/4 (' swagger '). C1 in this sense. Xa7rto-/ia, ix. 13/4. C.
Xe7«u, vi. 4/3 ; ix. 7/13. c ; N.T. Cic. never uses XaXai, but
Xe£t9, xvi. 4/1 (irapa X. ' ungrammatically ' ? C). Elsewhere quot.
Xe7TT09, ii. 18/2 (Kara X.) and quot. a in this phrase.
Xeo-^7/, vi. 5/1 ; xii. 1/2. c.
AevtcoOea, Tusc. i. 28; N.D. iii. 48.
j, i. 14/3 (' purple patch '), C1 in this sense.
i, de diu. ii. 108. Arist.
X%>09, xiv. 21/4; xvi. 1/4. a; N.T.
XT;i^t9, vii. 7/3; ix. 2/1, etc. (' attack ' sc. of fever), c.
j, vii. 26/2 (not rhet. t.t.). h (Diod.).
09, xiii. 19/5 ; Fin. i. 22 ; Tusc. iv. 33, de fat. i. Arist. ; N.T.
\oyo0 €(0pr)TO<;, Dicta fr. 22. C1.
Xo709. 0/0709 X., de fato. 20; Stoic t.t. Elsewhere quot.
Xot7ro9, vi. 1/30 (ri \onrov;). c; N.T. cf. Mod. Gk. \onrov = ovv.
\virr), Tusc. iii. 61. c; N.T.
\vpi/c6<t, orat. 185. h in this sense.
M.
fidicap, xii. 3/2 u. vrja-os.
ftd\a,i. 14/2; xiii. 42/1; xv. 12/1. c; pa\\ov, ix. 4/2. c; N.T. pa*
quot. only.
fiavia, Tusc. iii. 11. c; N.T.
pavTiKij, N.D. i. 55, de diu. i., de legg. ii. 32. c; fiurris de diu. i. 95 and
quot. c.
/i€7a9, ix. 4/2 and often quot. c ; N.T.
'a/)/tofa>, xii. 12/2. a.
, (' inferiae '), xiii. 27/2. a.
ia, Tusc. iii. 11. c.
e'\«, xii. 2/2, 3/3; xiv. 17/3 and quot. c; N.T.
err), v. 10/3. c.
, ix. 4/2 ; TO fie\\ov, ix. 10/8. c ; N.T.
/te>/rt9, viii. 2/2 ; xiii. 13/2, 49/1. c.
pev, vi. 5/2; F xvi. 8/1 and quot. c; N.T.
THE GREEK OF CICERO lor,
, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
, xiii. 22/2 (ra Kara /*.). a; N.T.
MecroTTOTa/ua, ix. 11/4.
T7;9, Tim. 23 (math. t.t.). c.
, v. 11/6; xv. 14/4. c.
a, orat. 93. li.
/, ii. 16/4, etc.; fj^jTrat, often; fjujBe, vi. 5/2; xvi. 15/3; fti?5«fct vi. 1/16
(never /t^—)- c; N.T.
jXovfuu, xii. 51/2. C in middle; act. c, but rare.
v (' month '), vi. 5/2. c ; N.T.
s, ii. 9/4 ; xiii. 21a/l (oyu* — quot. only), c ; N.T.
ta, ix. 11/4. Arist. ; u.l. paicp — , C, but cf. ^aKpoBv^La.
fAi<Tdv0pa>7ro<;, Tusc. iv. 25. a.
/arc?, xiv. 16/3 (Kara /*.). h.
fiva, vi. 5/2. c; N.T.
jjivrjpoviKos, xiii. 44/3 ; xiv. 5/1. a.
fWV<TOTra.TaKTO<;, Q.F. 8 (10)/1. C.
, F xiii. 56/1.
s, iv. 2/7; vi. 4/3 (' private '). h in this sense, mysteria always in
Lat. letters.
, v. 20/6, c — a ; h ; N.T. in peculiar sense.
N.
vexvia, ix. 11/2. Tusc. i. 37. h (Diod.).
V€KVOfjMVT€lOV, TUSC. i. 37. C.
vefj.€<r(0, v. 19/3. c.
, vi. 2/3. c.
o9, xiv. 5/3. c.
vetorepoi, vii. 2/1. c.
vrjaros, xvi. 13/2 ; fjutxtipcav, v. xii. B/2. c ; N.T.
Nt/c«ui/, F vii. 20/3.
No/uo?, N.D. iii. 57.
, de legg. iii. 46. c.
, Tusc. iv. 23. c ; N.T.
vovfj.ijvla, vi. 5/2. c; N.T.
?, vi. 5/1 ; <rv\\— , xiii. 30/3, 32/3. c.
£vvdopo<i, vi. 5/1. c (Doric) only.
O.
o, 17, TO, passim ; 58e, quot. only, c ; N.T.
o£e\i'£a>, F. ix. 10/1 (gram. t.t.). h.
6/80X09, vi. 5/2. a.
106 H. J. ROSE
o£o9, v. 21/13; vii. 1/5 and quot. c; N.T.
olBa, vi. 4/3; ix. 7/3, etc., and quot. c; N.T.
oi/mo9,i. 10/3; ix. 4/2. Acad. ii. 38. c; N.T.
oifcoSea-TTOTi/cos, xii. 44/2. C1 ( — rr)<; ; N.T.).
olfcovo/ua, vi. 1/1, 11 (' arrangement '). h mostly in this sense.
oi/jL(b£a>, Q.F. iii. 9/8 ( ? a quot.). a.
i, vi. 1/1 and quot. in Pis. 25/61. c.
, vi. 5/2. a; N.T.
"O\o9, ii. 17/3; xiii. 40/2. c; N.T.; but u. infr.
, vi. 5/2. h mostly.
, i. 16/1. h.
6fM>i67rTa>Tov, Dicta, fr. 16. h.
jfc, ii. 6/1. Arist.
xiii. 15/1 and quot. c ; N.T.
6fio\oyia, Fin. iii. 21. Stoic, t.t.
o//,o\oyou/i«>et>9, ii. 17/1. Xen. ; N.T.
6fj,o7r\oua, xvi. 1/3, 5/3. C.
o/toW/409, vi. 5/2. c.
ovap (adv.), i. 18/6. a (noun in N.T.). ovetpov, vi. 9/3 (proverb).
, ii. 12/2; iv. 13/1. c.
?, 'OTTOVVTIOS, vi. 2/3.
opyavov, F xi. 14/1. c.
opL^wv, de diu. ii. 92. Arist.
opfirj, de fin. iii. 23 ; v. 17 and often in phil. works ; Stoic, t.t. oppaiva) quot.
only.
opw, x. 8/7 (misquot. of Tmic.); opwpevov, ii. 3/2 (math.), c; N.T.
09, vi. 4/3. c; N.T.
00-09, vi. 5/2. c;N.T.
ov, ovSe, ou8et9 (never ovQeis), OVTTOTC, ovre passim, but mostly quot. c;
N.T. (but once or twice ovBeis).
Qvpios or Vrius, 2 Verr. iv. 148 (title of Zeus); v. 12/1. c.
OWT09, passim, c ; N.T.
6<f)€i\rjfia, vi. 5/2. a; N.T.; fyetXco, ibid, c; N.T.
o^nfia0^} F ix. 20/2. a.
o-jh9, ii. 3/2 (' sight '). c.
n.
7rayo9. "A/o«o9 TT., i. 14/5, elsewhere Ariopagus, — itae. a; N.T.
TraBrjTiKo^, orat. 128. Arist.
7rd0o<t, xii. 3/2; F vii. 26/1, often in phil. works and quot. c; N.T.
TraiSeia, ii. 3/2 (Kvpov TT., with pun) ; F. ix. 25/1. c; N.T.
7rat9, ii. 15/3 and quot. c ; N.T.
ia, vi. 6/4. h (Philo).
ia, ii. 9/1 ; iv. 5/1; vii. 7/1. a.
Havalnos, xiii. 8.
, i. 14/1. c; N.T.
THE GREEK OF CICERO 107
. TTOVIKOV (' canard/ ' scare '), v. 20/3; xiv. 3/1 ; xvi. 1/4; F xvi. 23/2.
Trdvv, xv. 27/1. c.
Trapd, xiii. 10/1, 16/1 and quot. c; N.T.
(' spurious,' sc. ori^ot), F. ix. 10/1. ? C in this sense,
or jrapa ypdp/Ma (kind of joke), F. vii. 32/2. Arist.
, vi. 5/2 ; uid. inf.
, vi. 1/16; Acad. ii. 136; Fin. iv. 74; Par. 4. a; N.T., but
also Stoic t.t.
Trapaiv€TiK(!)<>, x. 10/1. h.
TrapatcivBvveva), xiii. 27/1. a.
7rapaK\€7TTCi), X. 12/2. a.
Trapd\v<Ti<i, xvi. 7/8. Theophr.
7ra/oa7n77/ia, V. 14/1. h.
7rapa<f>0eyyofjiai, vi. 4/2. a.
Trapa<f>v\dTTQ)t vi. 9/2. a.
•jrapeYxelprj&is, xv. 3/3. C1.
•rrdpei/u, iv. 13/2; vi. 5/2; x. 8/7 (Thuc., misquoted), c; N.T.
7rdpepyov,v. 21/13; vii. 1/6; eV TT. Q.F. iii. 93. a.
Traptcrropto, vi. 1/25. C1.
Trap68<p, ev, v. 20/6. Arist.
ia, de Or. ii. 256.
-ia, i. 16/8. a; N.T.
a?, vi. 5/2; F xv. 17/1. c; N.T.
Trd<rx°>> «• 4/2; xv. 20/3. c; N.T.
ijp, vi. 5/2 and quot. c ; N.T.
H?, ix. 4/2, etc. c; N.T.
ta, Brut. 59. c.
(' be attacked by,' sc. a disease), xvi. 7/8. h (Strab., cf. N.T.).
ijin), xii. 5/1.
), ix. 4/2. c.
, xiv. 21/4; xv. 2/4. C.
Tr€Tr\oypa<f>ia, xvi. 11/3. C; but TreVXo? = miscellany, h.
i, xiii. 52/2 ; x. 13/1, etc.; after its noun ix. 4/2 ; an archaism? c;
N.T.
, Brut. 162, orat. 204 ; i. 14/4. Arist.
ij, xiii. 15/3 (' passage '). ? C1 in this sense, for which cf. Act. 882.
os, xiii. 19/4. h.
7repiVaT09, F xvi. 18/1. a.
Tr€pianc€^rdfj,€vo<;, vi. 4/3. a.
TrepiffTdo-Ki, iv. 8a/2, xvi. 11/4. h.
Il€p<r€<t>6vii, N.D. ii. 66.
Hepaticij, sc. arod, xv. 9/1, where see comm. a.
7T€>t9, F xvi. 18/1. Arist.
pegma, iv. 8/2 (' binding ' of book). C1 in this sense.
Tridavos, xiii. 19/5. a.
TTll/05, 7T€7riV&)/A€I/09, Xvi. 7/2. hj — 0)9, XV. 16/1. C.
108 H. J. ROSE
, ix. 13/4.
7rXou8o*«, x. 8/9. C; cf. KapaSotcw.
7rXov9, xv. 21/3. a (irXoos; N.T.).
IlXouTwz/, N.D. ii. 66.
Trot, xii. 5/1 ; Trot, ix. 4/2. c ; N.T.
Troirjrfa F ix. 10/1. c; N.T.
TrotijTifcof, Fin. iii. 55. Stoic t.t.
7T040T??9, Acad. i. 25 ; N.D. ii. 94. Plato.
7Toiovfj,ai, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
7roX€/io9, v. 20/3 ; ix. 4/2, etc. c; N.T.
•jro\iopic<a, ix. 4/2. c.
TToXtreta, TroXirevof^ai, passim. c, Tro\i,TevfjM, vi. 1/13; ix. 7/3. a.
iroXt9Fxv. 17/2. c; N.T.
TToXirifcos (subst. and adj.), passim; -Ktorepos, ii. 1/3, -ACW<?, ibid., -tcwrepov,
adv. v. 12/2. a.
7ro\vypa<f)caTaTos, xiii. 17/2(18). C1.
IIoXi;*:XT79, vi. 1/17.
7roXu9, passim, c; N.T. TroXXoO ye «at Set, vi. 1/20. a.
wo, xiii. 32/3 (figurative). ? C1 in this sense.
e, ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
, vi. 1/17. c; N.T. TrpayfiaTevopai, ix. 4/2. a; N.T.
or pragmaticw, xiv. 3/2, de Or. i. 198 ; — /c<J>9, Q.F. ii. 14
(15 b)/2. h; in sense of ' attorney ' C1.
os, ii. 7/4, 16/3. a.
, x. 13/1 ; xiv. 12/1, 19/5 (with pun), c; N.T.
, xiii. 16/1; orat. 70; de off. i. 93. Plat. N.T.
, xii. 2/2, 4/2, etc. Arist. in this sense.
r), xiii. 21/3 (' boxer's guard '). Karneades.
i, vi. 5/2. C1.
7rpor)yfj,evov or proegmenon. Fin. iii. 15, etc. Stoic t.t.
7rpo0€<T7ri%(i), viii. 11/3. Aesch. ; h.
ij, xv. 16. h (Diod.) ; N.T.
, N.D. ii. 114. h.
s, topic. 31, N.D. i. 43, 44; Acad. ii. 30. h.
Trpovoia, N.D. i. 18 ;. ii. 58, 73 and quot. c ; N.T.
7rpooiKovovfj,ai (mid.) Q.F. ii. 3/6. 1 C1 in this mood.
7r/>oVXao-/io, xii. 42/4. h.
TrpdTrvXov, vi. 1/26, 6/2. c, but usually plur.
Tr/ao?, often; TT. Betav, xiii. 29/1. c; N.T.
7rpo<ravaTp€<f>(i), vi. 1/2. C1.
TrpoffSofcia, F vii. 32/2 (Trapa irp.). Arist.
7r/3o'crXr/>/rt9, diu. ii. 108 (' minor premise '). h.
Trpowevvis, v. 4/2. h.
Tr/joo-Traer^o), ii. 19/1. a.
7rpo<T<f>c0v£>, xiii. 21a/l; xv. 13/6; xvi. 11/4 ('dedicate'), h,
770-49, xiii. 12/3. C1.
THE GREEK OF CICERO 109
v, xiii. 32/3 ('person,' 'character'), h; xiii. 19/3, u. *o>^o'?; F
xv. 17/2 (' face '). c; N.T.
?, i. 16/1, 2 and quot. TT/XUTO?, vi. 5/2 and quot. Both c; N.T.
trpovpyov, ix. 4/3. a.
UMJV, vi. 4/3. c.
9dvofjuii, x. 1/1 and quot. c; N.T.
o'et9, N.D. ii. 52. h.
n, vi. 6/2. c.
P.
orepa, Q.F. ii. 15(16)/5. a.
pijrwp ('orator'), orat. 61. c; but rhetores (' rhetoricians'), 93. h; N.T.
prjropeva), xv. 16a. a.
po-rnj, xvi. 5/4. a.
pvBuds, orat. 67. ? 170. a, rhythmici, de Or. iii. 190. h (Dion. Hal.).
pwiroypafftia, xv. 16a. C.
aa/o8oVto<? (ye\a><;), F vii. 25/1. c.
<TCfjLv6<;, ii. 1/3; xii. 5/1 ; xv. 12/1 (u.l. —OK). c.
arjfielov, xiii. 32/3 ( ? ' abbreviation '). c; N.T.
(rr)<ria>&€<TT€pov, vii. 17/2 (a coinage).
StTTOl)?, ^ITTOVVriOl, VI. 2/3.
ffi\\v0o<; or sillybus, iv. 4a/l, 8/2. C.
, vi. 8/5. c ; N.T.
, vii. 8/3, 21/3; x. 1/3. a
, xii. 3/2. a.
, xvi. 9. c.
(TKrf^lf, i. 12/1. C.
o-Acta/ta^ta, F xi. 14/1. C1.
cr/co'Xto9, xiii. 39/1 and quot. c ; N.T.
ff/coTro?, ii. 18/1 ; xv. 29/2. c; N.T.
fffcopBov, xiii. 42/3 (so Tyrrell), h; a frequent vulgarism.
o-Koreji/09, Fin. ii. 15. c; N.T.
ffxv\fjM<i, iv. 13/1. h.
axvrdXrj, x. 10/3. C.
, xiv. 6/2 (' in bad taste '). Xen., cf. v-rroffoX—.
, Q.F. ii. 15/3.
, ii. 16/2. a (act. LXX, N.T.); ffojiffrcvto, ii. 9/3; be. 9/1. a,
;'"?, quot. only.
<ro</>o9, Fix. 22/5; Fin. ii. 24; Tusc. v. 7 and quot. c; N.T.
ao&a or sophia, ? F ix. 10/2, de off. i. 153. c ; N.T.
a-rrevSopai, xv. 29/2. C.
ffTrov&eidfav, vii. 2/1. h.
<r7rov&d&, xiii. 21a/l; F xv. 18/1. a; N.T. tnrovSalos, v. 3/2; xiii. 52/3.
a; N.T. (nrovBrj, ii. 1/8; F. xvi. 21/6 and quot. c; N.T.
110 H. J. ROSE
, topic. 93 (' depulsio criminis '). h.
>, vi. 5/2. c — a (poet.).
, ix. 16/7 ; a-Topyij, x. 8/9, both c.
, N.D. i. 49. Epic. t.t.
os, topic. 48 (rhet.). Arist.
o-T€<f>dvr) or stephane, N.D. i. 28 (Parmenides).
SriX/Sow, N.D. ii. 53. h.
os, F vii. 26/1. c.
, N.D. iii. 15. a.
, xvi. 15/3. C (Stratilax in Plaut. True. draw. pers. is a
ghost- word ; see Lindsay's crit. note.)
<rv, passim, c ; N.T.
, xvi. 6/4. c.
'i<t, Acad. ii. 37. Acad. t.t.
va), ix. 4/2. a.
, ii. 12/2. h.
, F xvi. 21/4. h; N.T.
ia, topic. 12, 38. Arist.
<rv\\oyo<>, see ^uX — . *
0-u/i/3uoo-t9, F ix. 10/3. h. o-u/i/StwTv?, F ix. 10/3. a.
crv/j,/3o\ov, topic. 35. Arist. in this sense.
(rv/jL/3ov\€VTiK6v, xii. 40/2. Arist.
, F xvi. 18/1. c.
, iv. 15/1, etc., N.D. iii. 28, etc. Arist., h, o-vfJuraOax;, v. 11/7;
xiii. 44/1. h. o-t//A7rao-%&>, xii. 11. a; (N.T. avfitradS)}.
i, vii. 7/7. a.
, ii. 12/2. c; N.T.
, v. 17/2. h.
<rvp<f)i\o\oya), F xvi. 21/8. C1.
(ry/4<£fA.o<To<£ft), iv. 18/2. Arist.
<rvfjuj>opd, xii. 41/2. c.
<ryi/, quot. only.
a-vvayojytj, ix. 13/3 ; xvi. 5/5. a (N.T. in different sense).
ffvvaya)vi(t>, v. 12/2. h.
ffwairoypd^o^ai (' enlist along with '), ix. 4/2. a, late.
<Tvv(nro@vij(TKa), vii. 20/2. c.
, Q.F. ii. 15/3. c, avvSenrvov, F ix. 20/3. a.
vQ), viii. 9/3. Xen.
(' next point '), ix. 7/1. a.
a-vvvaos, xii. 45/2. h.
crvvvocrw, ii. 2/1. c — a.
avwovs, xiii. 42/1 ( ? a quot.). a.
, xiii. 12/3 ; xv. 14/4. h.
, xvi. 3/1 (' collection of writings '). ? C1 ; Diod.
i, xvi. 7/3 (' compile '). h.
THE GREEK OF CICERO 111
is, x. 8/9 (metaphorical). Arist. ? C in this sense.
<ruz/To/A09, vii. 3/5. c ( — <o<?; N.T.).
ffv<rfC€vd%o[4ai, ii. 17/1. a.
<r<t>alpa, N.D. ii. 47. h, as t.t. <r<j>aipo€i&ij<f, Tim. 17. c.
, x. 12a/2. c.
, vi. 5/2. c ; N.T.
£a>, vi. 1/11. a. cr^eStacr/Lia, xv. 19/2 (' invention,' ' trumped-up
story '), cf. a-xe&id&tv = nugari (Diod. often). ? C in this sense.
oi>, vi. 5/2. c; N.T.
, topic. 34, Brut. 141, 275; orat. 85, 181 (rhet. t.t.). Arist.
*;', ii. 5/3 ('leisure'), c. schola, ix. 22/5; Fin. ii. 1 ('disputation'),
h. <rxo\iov, xvi. 7/3. C1 (from Atticus).
fftpfr, vi. 5/2; xvi. 15/3. c; N.T.1
2&)/c/oaTt/co><?, ii. 3/3. h.
crw/ua (' collection,' ' collected edition '), ii. 1/3. h.
<r &><£ poffvvrj, Tusc. iii. 16, ffcixfrpwv, ibid, c; N.T.
T.
, xvi. 11/3. c.
re, vi. 5/2, etc. and quot. c ; N.T.
TeQpnnra, v. 21/7. c.
<f} vii. 4/3. Arist.
, vii. 2/21 and quot. c ; N.T.
, iv. 8/1 (Soph., with a pun), c; N.T.
, xii. 6/2; xiii. 12/3; Fin. i. 42; iii. 26, c; N.T. reXi/co?, Fin. iii.
55. Stoic t.t.
), iv. 15/5. c — a.
-reov, facteon, i. 16/13 (comic hybrid).
Te>9, viii. 9/4. c; N.T.
TevfcpK: or Teucris, i. 12/1, 14/7.
•rexvo\oyia, iv. 16/3. C1.
Tt? ; iv. 1/20 and quot. ; T«? vi. 5/2, etc., and quot. c ; N.T.
TITO?, ii. 9/4, 12/4.
rot, ix. 7/3 and quot. c.
TotoOro?, xvi. 15/3. c; N.T.
TO*O?, vi. 5/2. c; N.T.
TOTTIKIJ, sc. rexvrj topic. 6. h.
ro7roe€ffia, i. 13/5, 16/18. C1.
Tore, ix. 9/3 and quot. c; N.T.
rpek, xiii. 57/1. c; N.T.
rptcrapeioTrayirai, iv. 15/4. C.
-K, F xvi. 18/1 (' massage '). ? C1 in this sense.
?, Brut. 69 (rhet. t.t.); ix. 4/2. Former sense h, latter c; N.T.
S), xiii. 29/1. cf. Schol. AT. Ran. 1432. C1.
1 Whether Cicero wrote <rVC«». or ff«C«» etc., can hardly be determined
112 H. J. ROSE
, de legg. ii. 64. c.
typus (' statuette '), i. 10/3, c. TI/TTW&U?, iv. 13/2. h (Strab.).
rvpavvis, ii. 17/1, etc., and quot. ; c, rvpavvw, ix. 4/2, etc. ; c,
or tyrannoctonus, vi. 4/3 ; xiv. 6/2. h.
tyrotarichus, iv. 8/1 ; xiv. 16/1 ; F ix. 16/9. ? C.
Tv<f>\(tiTT(a, ii. 19/1. c.
T€Tv<j>a>ficu, xii. 25/2. a; N.T. rv<j>o<;, xiii. 29/1. a. Written as Latin by
Varr. ap. Non. 229, 16 M., and elsewhere.
T.
1/74779, x. 12/4 and quot. c ; N.T.
inra\\ayri, orat. 93. h (Dion. Hal.).
a (' property,' ' goods '), vi. 4/3, 5/1, h (^p^fuira, ovcria, c), cf.
1 Cor. 133.
Tiffefiai, vii. 17/4. c.
, with gen. ix. 4/2. c ; N.T.
vTrepaTTiicos, xv. la/2 (with pun). C1.
virep/3o\ij, F vii. 32/2, topic. 45. a, V7repfto\itcax;, v. 21/7; vi. 2/4. h.
Former also N.T., but not in tech. sense.
VTT€p€V, X. 1/3. a.
vTrr)V€fuo<t, xiv. 10/1 (' windy '). h.
virrjpeffia, ix. 13/5. a.
VTTO, with gen. xvi. 15/3; with dat., quot. only; with ace. ix. 2/1. c;
N.T.
hypodidascalus, F ix. 18/4. a, rare.
(' case '), topic. 79; i. 14/4, etc. a.
(' counsel '), ii. 17/3; vir. or hypotheca (' pledge,' ' pawn '), F xiii.
15/2. c.
i, ix. 10/4. a.
;, vi. 1/2. C; cognates h.
or hypomnema, ii. 1/2; xv. 23; xvi. 14/4. c.
os, v. 11/6; F xiii. 1/5. h.
vTTo<r6\oitco?, ii. 10/1; xiv. 21/3. C1; cf. 0-0X01*09.
s, ii. 3/3 (v. nostram ac TroXireiav), h in this sense (Trpoaipeffis, c.).
, X. 11/1. C.
), vi. 5/1 with tmesis. C, but <f>vpa), c.
, i. 20/5 (' disgrace,' ' one in the eye for . . .'). ? C1 in this sense;
cf. vTrwirid^o), Luc. 185, 1 Cor. 927 (' treat contemptuously.').
verepos, i. 16/1 (v. irpoTepov, 'OftrjpiKws, i. e. wrong end first, like Homer's
rpefav 778' eyevovro, A 251). h phrase.
vo), N.D. ii. Ill ; Hyades, ibid. c.
, N.D. ii. 52. h, as name of planet.
, xiii. 39/2.
THE GREEK OF CICERO 113
, vii. 21/1 ; xiv. 22/2. C.
<f>a\dicpa>i4a, xiv. 2/3 and c. ? ibid. 2. h (LXX).
<f>a\apiano<;, vii. 12/2. ? C.
</>oXXo9, xvi. 11/1 (Gurlitt, uallo codd. ; 'indecency'), c, but C in this
sense.
<t>avra<ria, ix. 6/5 ; F. xv. 16/1 ; Acad. i. 40 ; ii. 18. a. h often (N.T. always)
in sense of ' display/ ' showiness.'
), vi. 5/2. c ; N.T.
ovS>, v. 19/3; ix. 4/2. c; N.T.
, xii. 41/2; xiii. 20/2; F iii. 7/6. c.
, Q.F. ii. 15(16)/5. h.
<t>i\avria, xiii. 13/1. h ($i'XauT09, N.T.).
<J>i\ft&i1fj,(i>v, xii. 6/2 (doubtful). C1; Strabo.
<f>t\€\\r)v, i. 15/1. C.
<JuX«;8o£o9, xiii. 19/3. h.
4>t\yj8ovo<;, F xv. 19/3. c ; N.T.
<f>i\nnri^(i), de diu. ii. 118. a.
<f>i\oyvvia, Tusc. iv. 25. h.
<j>i\obitcaio<;, F xv. 19/2.
<f>i\o0€a)po<;, F vii. 16/1. a (late) and h.
<jbtXo*aXo9, F xv. 19/3. a.
<}>i\o\oyia, F xvi. 21/4. Arist.
<£tXoXo709, xiii. 12/3 (-direpos, C1), 52/2 ; xv. 15/2. Arist. in this sense.
</>tXo7raT/3<9, ii. 1/4; ix. 10/5. h.
<f>i\07rpo<rr)V€<TTaTa, v. 9/1. C.
, i. 13/15. h (Philodemos).
(noun), ix. 4/2; adj., quot. only, c; N.T.
<f>i\o(To<t>ia, de Orat. i. 9, and often as a Lat. word. <£*Xo<7o</>o9, ii. 12/4;
-w9, xiii. 20/4; -w-repov, vii. 8/3; <£<Xo<ro<£d), i. 16/3; ii. 5/2, 13/2;
F xi. 27/5. c, the first two also N.T.
<f>i\o<TTopy6Tcpo<;, xiii. 9/2. The posit, in Xen. ; N.T. 0tXo<rTo/>7a)9, xv.
17/1. Arist.
^>tXoTe^v77/Aa, xiii. 40/1. C1.
<f>t\oTifjiia, vi. 9/2; vii. 1/1. c.
, vi. 2/3.
, F xv. 18/1. a.
os, xiii. 37/2. c; N.T.
4>povo>, vi. 5/2. c; N.T. <j>p6vr)<ri<;, de off. i. 153. a; N.T.
, vii. 11/1. c.
iJ9, vi. 9/2; vii. 1/9. C, cf. vvro^vpu, <f>vp(a, vi. 4/3, 5/1. c.
09, xiv. 5/1. C1 (Diod.).
i, v. 20/6 (' ghrior '). a ; N.T.
o9, vii. 2/4, de Orat. i. 217. Xen.; N.T. <f>vffio\oyia, de diu. i. 90.
Arist.
j, ii. 12/2. c; N.T.
, N.D. ii. 53. h.
j. H. s. VOL. XLT. i
Il4 H. J. ROSE
X.
%ai/ja>, viii. 8/2 and quot. c ; N.T.
ijp, Q.F. ii. 15(16)/5, topic. 83; orat. 36, 134. a; N.T.
os, vi. 5/2.
j, Fxiv. 7/1. c.; N.T.
eos, vii. 11/1 (\pewv airoKOirds). c.
eT77<?, vii. 8/5. h ; N.T.
?, Tusc. hi. 16. c; N.T.
cx;, ix. 10/5. c.
?;<?, i. 6/2. h (-&><? Philodemos).
ovos, N.D. ii. 64. c ; N.T.
, F xvi. 8/1 (med.). c.
, F ix. 4.
vpa, ix. 4/2. c ; N.T.
os, xv. 26/1. C1.
, de diu. ii. 11 (logical t.t.). h.
, vii. 18/4. C.
, vi. 4/3, 5/1. c; N.T.
, xii. 4/2. a.
n.
, vi. 1/17; x. 15/2, etc. c.
DVIJ, v. 16/2 ('saleable commodity'), vi. 4/3 ('sale'). Latter sense c;
former inscr., e.g. Ditt. Syll.2 226. 52.
, Fin. iii. 33, 69. Stoic t.t.
w
The above list might be lengthened by including a number of established
loan-words from Greek, such as acratophorus, dica (2 Verr. ii. 44), idiota, and
others; but as these have been sufficiently discussed by Laurand (op. cit.
p. 62 sqq.) and others, and in any case belong rather to the history of Latin than
of Greek in their Komanised form, I omit them. Neither do I intend to make
a detailed study of the words listed (about 1000, including proper names).
From the point of view of their structure, I have nothing to add to the remarks
of Steele in the article already cited ; but I would call attention in general to
certain outstanding characteristics of the vocabulary, perceptible without
elaborate statistics. Cicero might, to judge by his tastes in Greek literature,
be expected to classicise. Of the scores of quotations, for which see Steele
p. 393 sqq., from various poets, two only can be traced definitely to post-
Attic writers, one to Rhinton and one to Leonidas of Tarentum (Q. ix. 18/3,
x. 2, where see T. and P.), while another, viii. 5/1, TroXXa ^arrjv Kepdsa-a-iv e<?
r)epa Ovfjujvavra, has perhaps an Alexandrian flavour. In prose, the Platonic
epistles and Thucydides divide the honours, save for one scrap of Epicurus.
It would seem as if the later philosophers whom he read for their content
furnished him in matters of style only with the many technical terms with
which his works are besprinkled. In his own Greek style, when he wrote for
THE GREEK OF CICERO 11.1
the public, he no doubt showed himself a true follower of the classicising
Rhodian school which had so profoundly influenced his Latin.10 Yet the
familiar style of his letters is interspersed with as plain and colloquial, in other
words, as Hellenistic, a Greek as his Latin is easy and informal. A very large
percentage of the vocabulary is Hellenistic ; not a few words are unexampled
elsewhere, i. e. formed part of the current vocabulary of his day,11 for that he
should coin them is most unlikely ; there are one or two frankly vulgar words,
as aicopbov and probably e/xTre/jTre/aeuo^tat.
In more detail — in small matters of spelling, such as the assimilation or
non-assimilation of <rvv-, we cannot gather much information from our ill-
written MSS. ; yet it would seem that the Hellenistic verb €VTOICI}<T€V has the
Hellenistic augment ev- for T/U-. Hellenistic formations, such as the long list
of compounds of eu-, meet us at every turn ; and very numerous words have
non-classical meanings while classical enough in form. In this connexion it
is noticeable that ra o\a, on both occasions that it occurs, means ra rravra,
resembling the modern usage.
Pronunciation is indicated in two places. One is the reading ra tccva
helping to date the variant KUIVOV-KCVOV in Thuc. iii. 30/4, cf. Arist. Eth. iii.
1116b 6, and agreeing with Diod., who likes the phrase and often uses it
(xvii. 86/1; xx. 30/1, 67/4); which indicates that e and at were pronounced
alike, and incidentally that even to the educated ear Greek quantity was
growing less distinct. A clearer indication is given in F ix. 22/3 : cum ' bini '
(loquimur) opscenum est. ' Graecis quidem ' inquies, t. e. bini sounded like
ftlvei, the distinction between « and i being lost. We now see the signific-
ance of a point in Cicero's translation of the epitaph on Thermopylae,
die, hospes, Spartae nos te hie uldlsse iacentls
dum sanctls patrlae leglbus obsequlmur.
To him, the original was a series of I-sounds, and his rendering brings this out
most clearly.12
Turning to the discussion of his grammar, we must note in the first place
that almost the only pieces of continuous Greek we have (in vi. 4 and 5) are
written in an affected and purposely obscure style, in riddles, as Cicero himself
says. To this fact we owe the archaic a<rrv, &d/j.ap, %vvdopos, the last being
also Doric; the tmesis vrro ri Tre^vparcevai', and the whole roundabout and
artificial tone. Still, even here the syntax is Hellenistic. The chief character-
istics of non-Attic grammar which I have noted here and elsewhere are as
follows : —
1. Disappearance of the dat. case has already begun; it is replaced by
«? with the ace. vi. 5/2.
2. iva after a verb of commanding, expressed or understood, as vi. 5/2.
3. Perfect as a historic tense, xiii. 20/4; xiv. 6/2. This would be par-
ticularly natural for a Roman.
10 I think it likely, though it is not yet Philodcmos gives us new examples of more
proved, that his prose rhythms are Rhodian than one &wo£ «irjj»«W of Cicero.
in origin. " See Rhys Roberts, Eleven Word* of
11 The recovery of a good part of Simonide*, Camb. 1920, pp. 15, 21.
12
116 THE GREEK OF CICERO
4. An odd construction, of which I can find no other example, is the use
of TrapaSiSwpi, vi. 5/2, where, apparently in the sense of ' submitted accounts
showing that. . . ,' it is followed first by a participle and then by an infinitive.
We may, however, recollect the fairly numerous cases in Attic where the
infinitive carries on a construction which began with some other form of
oratio obliqua.
There are also a few things which seem like Latinisms. The quasi-
imperative fut. indie. (j,r)\(otrrj, xii. 51/2 is, indeed, in itself passable Greek;
but Cicero's reason for using it is likely enough his fondness for that con-
struction in Latin. In vocabulary, the odd words vTrorre^vpatcevai and fyvpaTw
are naturally accounted for by conturbare. How easily Cicero could slip from
one language into the other is indicated by the macaronic facteon and ofioiov-
que (xiv. 51/1), which seem to look forward to Ausonius' oddities, Drummond's
highissimus, and Lowell's stickere bowieknifeo. Often, again, a name is written
in Greek letters for no particular reason, as F xiii. 15/2, 56/1. An isolated
archaism is e\ev0€pia<; frept, ix. 4/2, perhaps motived by some reminiscence
of a tragic tag, such as rvpavviSos "rrepi, Eur. Phoen., 524.
It is instructive to compare this non-literary Hellenistic with the equally
non-literary style of most of the N.T. Here we find indeed a general resem-
blance in vocabulary and grammar, but the details are very different. Putting
aside the theological terms of the one and the philosophical and other techni-
calities of the other, we see that the words common to the two documents
are for the most part found also in classical style. Now and then we can
see how a tendency just appearing in Cicero has become developed a century
later; thus Cicero uses avpirddeia, etc., but cru/iTrao-^o), while in the N.T.
the secondary formation av^aQw has displaced the latter. To Cicero again,
TrepTrepevopai is apparently a slang word, from its jocular context; St. Paul
can use it in the gravest and most elevated writing. But on the whole, Cicero's
departures from the older forms of expression lead in a different direction
from those of the later writers. They coincide with him but rarely in the use
of words which we find for the first time in him, as a glance down the word-
list will show clearly. We are thus reminded of the fact that, quite apart
from Hebraisms, Latinisms, and all the vagaries natural to a language in
process of becoming a lingua franca, Hellenistic, even as revealed by our
imperfect records, contains many divergent tendencies, and therefore it is
hazardous to generalise from the documents of one region to the practice of
another.
H. J. ROSE.
RED-FIGURED VASES RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE
BRITISH MUSEUM.
[Plates II.-VIIL]
IN Vols. XVIII. (1898) and XXXI. (1911) of the Journal I gave some
account of black-figured vases acquired by the British Museum subsequently
to the appearance of Vol. II. of the Catalogue of Vases in 1893. On page 1
of the latter volume a promise was made that another paper should follow,
describing red-figured vases similarly acquired ; but its appearance has been
delayed by the war and other circumstances, with the result that the number
of vases now included amounts to nearly fifty. Seventeen other vases acquired
during the period 1895-1920 are omitted here as having been already published
elsewhere, but a list is appended on page 150. The total number of red-
figured vases added to the collection since 1894 is thus over sixty. The terminus
post quern for this paper goes back over a year previous to the publication of
the Catalogue in 1896, as several vases were acquired while it was passing
through the press, and were too late for inclusion.
In view of the large number of vases included in this paper, I have thought
it advisable to make the descriptions as brief as possible, especially as the
majority are not remarkable for their subjects. The vases are described as far
as possible in chronological order, and for this purpose they may be roughly
classified in five groups, corresponding more or less to the classes adopted by
Mr. J. D. Beazley in his recent work on Attic Red-figured Vases in American
Museums, from which I have derived much valuable assistance.
These five classes are :
(1) Early archaic or ' severe ' style (Chachrylion, Epiktetos, etc.).
(2) Ripe archaic or ' strong ' style (Euphronios, Douris, etc.).
(3) Late archaic.
(4) Early free or ' fine ' style.
(5) Ripe free or ' late fine ' style (Meidias).
In the last class are included one or two vases which more strictly belong
to the period of the South Italian wares, though they still retain much in
common with the work of Athenian artists. Beginning with a cup which
illustrates the transition from the B.F. to the R.F. method, we thus cover in
our survey the whole period of the development and decline of this phase of
Greek art.
117
118 H. B. WALTERS
I. EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD.
(1) KYLIX of ' mixed ' technique.
Ht. 17 cm. Diam. 37-2 cm.
This cup was presented to the Museum by Miss A. F. Pariss in 1896, and
is mentioned by Klein in his Lieblingsinschriften, 2nd edn., p. 54, no. 2. It
belongs to the transitional class with B.F. interior design and R.F. exterior
designs, which I have discussed in a previous paper in connexion with the potter
Hischylos (J.H.S., 1909, pp. 110, 115). It is there mentioned in the list of
kytlikes of mixed style, and is assigned to the workshop of Chelis, who on one
occasion uses the /eaXos-name Memnon, which also occurs on this vase. Hoppin,
in his list of vases attributed to Chelis,1 does not include those which bear the
name Memnon, which in point of fact is also used twice by Chachrylion. We
Fio. 1. — INTERIOR: KYLIX OF 'MIXED' TECHNIQUE.
cannot therefore be absolutely certain from what workshop the cup came, but
it must belong to the earliest phase of the R.F. period, while the new method
was still in the trammels of the B.F. method, the treatment of the exterior
with the large eyes leaving little room for figure subjects.
The B.F. design in the interior (Fig. 1), which is a rough piece of work
and in very bad condition, represents a slinger moving to the right and turning
round to aim with his sling in the opposite direction. He wears a Corinthian
helmet, greaves, a short tunic ornamented with an engraved pattern of crosses,
and a cloak with purple stripes and border over his shoulders. A bag made of
the skin of a panther, which hangs at his back, may be a case for holding the
sling. Round the figure is inscribed MEM. ON KA . . $, Mefi(v)tav *a(Xo)?.
Slingers are not a very common subject on Greek vases; other examples are
1 Handbook of R.F. Vases, i. 183 ff.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 119
E 285 in the Brit. Mus., and Hartwig, Meisterschalen, PI. 18, 1 (a vase in
the late Dr. Mauser's collection).
On the exterior (Fig. 2) we have on either side the typical large eyes of
the B.F. kylix, but in the R.F. method. The space between is occupied on
one side by an ithyphallic mule, which stands braying to the right, and on
the other side is a trefoil-shaped object, probably intended to represent a
nose.2 On each side of the handle is a palmette of the type common on B.F.
vases.
(2) KYLIX by Euergides (Plate II.).
Ht. 13 cm. Diam. 30 cm.
This cup was known some 70 years ago, but had since then been lost sight
of. It reappeared at a sale at Sotheby's in 1920, and the Museum had the
FIG. 2. — EXTERIOR: KYLIX OF ' MIXED' TECHNIQUE.
good fortune to secure the vase, which bears the signature of the potter Luer-
gides, and is the best existing example of his work. It was published in the
Annali for 1849, but the illustration, which was used by Rizzo in his mono-
graph on Skythes,3 and by Hoppin in his recently-issued handbook, is now
shown to have been a most unsatisfactory one. Beazley's verdict that
Euergides' painter was of rather mediocre ability must, I think, be modified
now that the vase itself is before us.
The cup has both interior and exterior decoration. In the interior is
represented a dancing girl to right, with head turned round to left, holding
castanets in her hands. She wears a long chiton of crinkly and partly trans-
parent material with short sleeves. Her right leg is kicked up behind. Round
the edge of the circle runs the potter's signature EVER A I AE*E PO I • • • Ev«/>-
-rro(irjff€i'). An almost identical figure occurs on an alabastron at Athens,
* Cf. the Ricketts-Shannon cup, J.H.S., • A/on. Piot, xx. 142.
1909, pi. 8.
120 H. B. WALTERS
with the same signature, and another on a kylix in the Louvre, which Pettier
assigns to Epilykos.
On the exterior we have two scenes each closed by a Sphinx, seated with
head turned away from the centre; each one on the left holds up her right
paw. The side A represents a nude youth leading two horses with halters,
and carrying a stick or goad behind his head. Above him is inscribed
PAEXSIPPOS, TTX^TTTTO? or ' Whipper,' a sort of descriptive name. It
occurs on two other cups in the Museum (E 20-21), which may also be from
Euergides' workshop. On B, a nude athlete walks to right, looking round
and holding a javelin in both hands ; facing him are two draped youths, one
of whom holds a rod, the other a flower. The attitude of the javelin-thrower
shows that he is just preparing for a throw, drawing the pointed end back
with his left hand so as to pull the thong of the amentum tight, as explained
by Mr. Norman Gardiner in describing a similar figure on a kylix at Munich.4
As regards the artistic qualities of this cup, the interior figure is distinctly
good, and almost equal to the contemporary work of Epiktetos. The exterior
figures are somewhat dwarfed in proportions, and recall the work of the painter
Skythes,5 whom Bizzo is probably right in regarding as the actual painter of
Euergides' cups. The composition has not really advanced beyond the stage
of the transitional cup-painters. The vase is in astonishingly fine condition,
and there is not a trace of injury about it; the varnish is brilliant in the
extreme. The shape of the rim should be noted, recalling the cups of Brygos.
(3) KYLIX signed by Chachrylion (Fig. 3).
Diam. of complete vase about 23-5 cm.
These fragments of a cup, which were purchased in 1897, are illustrated
by Hoppin in his Handbook, i. pp. 158, 159, but as he only gives one of the
exterior subjects (B), I publish the other here also for completeness' sake.
The cup is also given in Nicole's list of Chachrylion vases,6 but is not mentioned
by Beazley.
The cup is in very fragmentary condition, only the upper part of the
interior design and isolated bits of the exterior designs being preserved. A
peculiar feature of the decoration is that the interior has been left red, except
for the central design, and the exterior only is varnished over. The surface
of the red clay is ruddled over. The interior design exhibits very fine drawing.
Purple pigment is used for the wreath, flames, bow, and inscription. Below
the exterior designs is a band of palmettes and lotos-flowers alternating.
In the interior a beardless archer with long hair kneels or sits to the right,
and looks down at an arrow held in his left hand; in the right he holds an
unstrung bow. He wears a Corinthian helmet with two bull's horns and a
flowing crest rendered in silhouette. Only the head, shoulder, and left fore-arm
remain, and above is painted the inscription ...UION..-EN, Xa^/wJXaM*
[eVot7;o-]«/. The subject is one typical of early R.F. interiors, but I have not
come across an exact parallel.
4 J.H.S. xxvii. 262. « Rev. Arch, iv! (1916), p. 396, No. 71, 19.
6 Cf. Beazley, Vases in Amer. Mus., p. 21,
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 1UI
The exterior design (A), which is not given by Hoppin, represents a
sacrifice or libation. A woman (of whom only an arm holding bowl, sleeve and
edge of chiton, and part of feet remain) holds a fluted libation-bowl over an
altar, of which only part of the base and the flame on the top remain. On the
left is visible part of the torso of a man to right, who carries a large basket on his
shoulder. On the right are seen the right half (to the waist), and right fore-
arm of a youth looking to the left, who has drapery twisted round his waist
and holds a fruit in his left hand. On the extreme right are seen the foot
B A
Fio. 3. — FRAGMENTS OF KYLIX BY CHACHRYLION.
and part of the leg of a figure moving to right. Above the alter is the inscrip-
tion ... 0$ KA ... , which must be intended for \€ayp]os *a[Xo?, as
that is the only /mXos-name ending in -09 used by Chachrylion.
The fragment remaining of the other design (B) represents a procession
of three youths moving to the right. The first youth, whose figure is complete
except one knee and part of the right hand, looks back, and wears a myrtle-
wreath and a mantle ornamented with stars, and a border over his right shoulder ;
in his right hand he carries a rod held behind him, and in his left are flutes.
Of the second only one foot and part of the leg are visible, and of the third
(on the right) only one heel. Above is part. of an inscription . . . \05 • • •
122 H. B. WALTERS
(4) KYLIX.
Ht. 7-7 cm. Diam. 19-8 cm. Found in Asia Minor, and purchased in
1896.
This cup also belongs to the early archaic period, but is of somewhat
inferior workmanship, and cannot be assigned to any particular workshop.
It has been made up from fragments and is practically complete ; the varnish
is of a dull black.
There is only an interior design (Fig. 4), which represents a young soldier
stooping to left, with couched lance. He wears anklets, and a helmet with
flowing crest and cheek-pieces^ and holds a circular shield with device of a
cock to left at the level of his knee. The legs are out of proportion in the
drawing.
FIG. 4. — KYIJX : EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD.
(5) ALABASTRON, of the school of Epiktetos (Plate VIII.).
Ht. 8-2 cm. From Attica ; purchased 1902.
The vase is complete except that one ear-handle and part of the edge of
the lip are missing, and it has been repaired at the neck. The varnish is brown,
and purple is used for wreaths and inscriptions. The minute and careful
drawing is of the early archaic period, to which the inscriptions also show that
it belongs. The designs consist of two single figures in panels separated by
broad vertical bands of upright palmettes. Above and below the designs
are continuous bands of enclosed palmettes, those above being upright, the
lower horizontally placed to left. On the bottom of the vase is a large single
palmette.
(A) A woman stands to right, with left hand raised as if in greeting ; she
wears a long chiton with wide sleeves, and her hair is tied in a knot behind
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM li>:j
with a fillet, the ends of which hang free. On the right is inscribed E P 0 1 E 5 EN ,
€TToirj(T€i>, but no artist's name.
(B) A woman stands to left, facing the other; her right hand is held in
front of her with fingers upright and palm outwards ; she wears a coif, sleeved
chiton, and mantle over her shoulders. Round her head is inscribed
PPOSAAOPEVO, -rrpocrdyopeva), and on the upper edge of the lip is the
inscription 0. AISK . • • o (7r)at<? *[a\o<?.
This vase is discussed by Brueckner, Lebensregdn auf athenische Hoch-
zettsgeschenken, pp. 8, 11, who explains it as a ' Besuch bei den Epaulien,' or
visit paid by a friend to the bride on the eVauXta or day following the wedding.
The expression Trpocrayopeva) was probably a ceremonial form of greeting
used on these occasions. It occurs on other vases of the school of Epiktetos,
one of which, an alabastron similar to the one under discussion, is in the Louvre,
and has been published by M. Pottier, who refers all these vases to a supposed
artist TlaiSiKos.7 The signature eiroL^aev by itself is also found on other
vases of this period, mostly of the school of Epiktetos, but one in the Louvre
(G 40) is assigned by Pottier to the school of Chachrylion.8
It would therefore seem that we may assign this vase to the school of
Epiktetos. But it is worth noting that the signature of the painter Psiax is
found on two other alabastra, one at Karlsruhe, the other at Odessa, each of
which has a single figure painted each side, and we must not therefore ignore
the possibility that this little vase is also his work.
II. RIPE ARCHAIC PERIOD.
(1) KYLIX, of the school of Euphronios (Plate III.).
Ht. 9-5 cm. Diam. 24 cm. Bought 1897.
This vase has been made up from fragments, but is almost complete;
it had been broken and riveted in ancient times. The surface is covered with
a good black varnish, and the red clay of the design has been ruddled over.
The inner markings are in brown, the inscriptions in purple. The drawing
on the exterior is hasty and careless, but that of the interior is more meritorious.
It would seem that, as in the case of Pamphaios' ' Sleep and Death ' cup
(B.M., E 12), two hands had been at work on it. The use of the *a\o<j-names
Athenodotos and Leagros clearly brings it within the circle of Euphronios and
his school. It is also mentioned by Klein (Lieblingsinschr.1, p. 92, no. 10).
The interior design, which is enclosed within two red circles, represents
an Amazon striding to the left, holding a spear couched in the right hand.
She wears a chiton of crinkly material, a large chlamys with bands of pattern
(embattled, rays, zigzags, and dots) over her shoulders, and a helmet with
crest and cheek-pieces ; on her left arm is a peUa ornamented with two eyes
7 Pettier, Rtvuedes&udesUreeque*, 1893, • See Klein, Meistert. pp. Ill, -'-'".
pp. 40, 41 ; cf. also G 82 and G 101 in that J.H.S. xii. 346; Ri>m. Afitth. 1890, p. 341 ;
collection ; and see id., Cat. des Vases du Pottier, Cat. de» Vase* du Louvre, p.
Louvre, p. 924. Hoppin, Handbook to R.F. 910.
Vcuet, ii. 275, assigns this group to Paidikos,
but does not mention the B.M. vase.
124 H. B. WALTERS
divided by a band of maeander. In the field is inscribed AOENOAT05,
The exterior design (A) represents three nude youths kneeling to left, each
with spear in right hand and circular shield in left ; they have long hair, and
wear crested helmets with cheek-pieces. On the shield of the first is a kylix ;
on the second, a horse to left ; on the third, ^O1AA3A, Aeaypos. Above is
the inscription AEATP . . KAU05, Ae'ay/o(o<?) Ka\6$.
The design on (B) is similar, but the head of the foremost youth is missing ;
the shield-devices are (1) bull's head between eyes; (2) tripod; (3) the word
t^CH A )!, /raXo<?, which is also repeated in the field.
Beazley, in his discussion of vases by the ' Panaitios Painter,' * incident-
ally refers to this cup as resembling a fragmentary one in New York with
the /mXos-name Panaitios. It may therefore«be assigned to the vases of the
Euphronios-cycle which were decorated by that artist, the producer of the
Theseus cup in the Louvre and of the Brit. Mus. Eurystheus-cup (E 44). Five
of his vases bear Euphronios' signature as maker ; seven have the /caX6<?-name
Athenodotos, and one besides the present example has that of Leagros in
addition. Mr. Beazley may, however, be right in preferring to associate our
vase and the New York cup with the Colmar Painter, another artist of the
beginning of the ripe archaic style. He assigns to this painter sixteen cups,
three of which have the /caXo9-name Lysis. The style of our cup, at all events
that of the exterior, is hardly worthy of the man who could produce the lovely
interior of the Theseus cup in the Louvre, to say nothing of the Eurystheus
scene on the Brit. Mus. example.
(2) KYLIX, of the school of Euphronios.
Ht. 8-8 cm. Diam. 18 cm. Found in Rhodes, and given by Sir A. Biliotti,
1901.
This vase is much broken, nearly all of the right side of the design being
deficient. From the style of the drawing it may be assigned to the Panaitios
painter already discussed; the style resembles that of the B.M. vase E 46,
attributed to him by Beazley.10 The black varnish is good ; the inner markings
are executed in light brown, the wreath and inscription in purple. The pupil
of the eye is close to the inner angle, which is open.
The design is in the interior only, and represents, within two circles of red,
a youth kneeling to left, who is just about to drink from a large cup shaped
like a female breast (/lao-ros), which he holds tilted up in his right hand ; he has
apparently partly filled it from a krater beneath. His left hand has held a
knotted staff, and he wears a wreath and a mantle hanging from the right
elbow and left arm, which latter is now missing. In the field is the inscription
0* . NCHA>I, ... 05 Ka\6<f (1), which may be intended for Aeaypos *aXo<?,
a name which also occurs on the B.M. cup E 46.
(3) KYLIX.
Ht. 9-2 cm. Diam. 23 cm. Found at Vulci, and presented by Miss A. F.
Pariss, 1896.
' Vases in Amer.Mus. p. 87. 10 Op. cit. p. 87.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH Ml SKI. M u:,
This vase was found at Vulci in 1845, and is included in a Sale Catalogue
of that year (No. 116).11 It has been made up from fragments, and most of
the rim is wanting. The black varnish is good ; there are no inner markings,
but purple and thinned-out varnish are used for accessories. The eye is of
transitional type, with inner angle open.
The design is on the interior only (Fig. 5), and is surrounded with a border of
' stopped ' maeander ; it represents a nude woman stooping to right and plunging
both hands into a laver on a fluted stand, the capital of which is ornamented
with an egg-and-tongue moulding ; round the bottom of the laver is a hatched
band in thinned varnish. The woman wears earrings and a tight-fitting
coif, the strings of which are in thinned brown varnish, the clasp being indicated
FIG. 5. — KYLIX BY BRISEIS PAINTER.
by two black dots. Above the laver is inscribed (in thinned varnish) Al >*l,
and on the left is AAOP in purple.
Beazley 12 assigns the kylix to the ' Briseis painter,' the artist of the two
Museum cups E 75 and E 76, the latter of which represents the story of Briseis.
These were formerly assigned by Hartwig to his ' Bald-head Painter.'
(4) KYLIX, of the school of Douris.
Ht. 9-2 cm. Diam. 23-5 cm. Found at Orvieto.
This cup was formerly in the Bourgnignon collection, and was acquired
at the sale of the same in 1901. It is No. 52 in the Sale Catalogue, and an
inadequate illustration is given on p. 18 of that publication. The vase is much
broken, and has been repaired in antiquity. The drawing is of the ' late strong '
style, and is suggestive of the school of Douris ; the vase is given by Hoppin 18
11 Notice d"une collection de va»ea peints " Amer. Vote*, p. 110; see also Hoppin,
d'Etrurie, 1845. Handbook, i. 102.
" Handbook, i. 283.
126
H. B. WALTERS
in the list of works which have been attributed to that master. The pupil of
the eye is near to the inner angle, which is slightly open, thus showing an advance
in the treatment of that organ. Purple is used for inscriptions, wreaths, and
strings of suspended objects.
In the interior (Fig. 6), within a circle of ' stopped ' maeander, is repre-
sented a youth seated on a stool to right, holding on his knees a large bird-cage,
containing a bird, perhaps a fighting quail ; he appears to be opening the cage
with his right hand, the fingers of which are outspread. He wears a fillet,
and over his legs and left shoulder hangs a garment. Above are the inscription
A I K AUO5, o 7r)at(<?) /caXo?, and a bird-clapper with long handle. That such
instruments were used in antiquity for scaring birds off crops is suggested by
FIG. 6. — KYLIX : SCHOOL OF DOURIS.
an allusion in Virgil, Georgics i. 156, ' Et sonitu terrebis aves.' But the lexicons
give no hint as to the name by which they were known.
Exterior (A) : Three ephebi, of whom the middle one sits on a stool to
right, the others stand facing him, leaning on sticks. All wear cloaks, and the
right-hand youth holds out an open set of tablets in his right hand. In the
field are a bird-clapper and a writing-tablet with stilus, also the inscription
Al* K A . O5, o 7r]at9 *a(\)o9.
Exterior (B) : Similar; in the middle, youth as on (A) with stick in left
hand ; on the left, wreathed youth in cloak, leaning on stick and holding out
an open tablet-case. The right-hand figure is missing. In the field, clapper
and tablets, and the inscription AOPA . $K A, N]a o ?ra(t)9 *a(\o9.
Tame birds and other animals kept in cages are represented on other vases ;
one is given in No. V, 16, below (Plate III. ; other examples are Petrograd
1791 (Cvmpte-Rendu, 1860, PI. I.) ; Bibliotheque Nationale 361 (Reinach, Rep.
ii. 262) ; and Mon. dell' Inst. x. PI. 37 (rabbit in cage).
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM li'T
(5) NOLAN AMPHORA (Plate IV.)
Ht. 30-5 cm. Found in S. Italy or Sicily, and given by Mr. E. P. Warren,
1896.
Although not mentioned by Beazley or Hoppin in their lists, this vaae
is evidently one of the works of the ' Charmides painter,' as the *a\<k-name
implies. The drawing is of the ' later strong ' period, the treatment of the eye
being transitional, with pupil in the open inner angle. The vase is slightly
repaired, and has the usual brilliant varnish, with inner markings in brown,
purple being used for inscriptions and other details. The handles are double-
grooved, and below the designs is a band of ' stopped ' maeander.
Like most vases of this class, it has a single figure painted on each side,
Fio. 7. — LEKYTHOS, BY BOWDOIN PAINTER.
the action of the two being connected. Usually in such cases the scene is of
the ' pursuing ' type, a god, hero, or man pursuing on one side, and the pursued
figure, generally a woman, on the other. In the present case we have :
(A) Eros flying to right, wearing fillet; he holds out flaming torches,
two in the left hand and one in the right. On the right is the inscription
KAUO5 XAPMIAES, xa\o<; XappiSw (see Klein, Lieblin</fn'nscfir*, p. 145,
No. 17).
(B) Youth retreating to right with hands extended, wearing a mantle
with border. In the field is inscribed K A AO 5-
(6) LEKYTHOS (Fig. 7).
Ht. 17-8 cm. Found in Rhodes and presented by Sir Henry Howorth, 1916.
128 H. B. WALTERS
Slightly repaired ; good black varnish ; purple for inscriptions and details.
Treatment of eye archaic. On the shoulder, black rays and palmettes ; below
the design a band of maeander.
A nude youth to right plunges his hands into a laver; above hangs a
sponge. In the field is inscribed KA . . $, /ca(Xo)?, and on the laver is
^ T K O in large black letters.
Beazley (Amer. Vases, p. 72) assigns this vase to the painter of the Bowdoin
box.14 As he points out, red-figured lekythi are not found until the archaic
style was fully developed, owing to the survival of the B.F. technique for this
shape. But he reckons no fewer than sixty-two examples which he attributes
to this one artist alone.
(7) LEKYTHOS.
Ht. 32-8 cm. Presented by Miss Preston, 1899.
Style still somewhat severe, the treatment of the eye being archaic, but
the vase is assigned by Beazley 15 to the painter of the Paris Gigantomachy
vase, which is of more developed style. Good black varnish ; purple for fillet
and inscriptions. Round the neck, egg-pattern.
Nike flying to right, looking back, and holding out a phiale in right hand.
She wears a chiton, ornamented with stars, and bordered himation, and her hair
is looped up at the back with a long purple fillet. In the field is inscribed
KAUO^E, *a\o? el.
Beazley's verdict on the painter of this group is that he has ' reduced the
fabrication of Brygan pieces to a mechanical process,' his work entirely lacking
originality. The subject of a flying Nike, though always decorative, is certainly
a stock one on R. F. lekythi, and occurs, for instance, on ten of the lekythi by
the Bowdoin artist mentioned above.
III. LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD.
(1) KYLIX.
Ht. 8-5 cm. Diam. 23 cm. Bought 1895.
The vase has been repaired, but is almost complete. The surface of the
designs has been ruddled, and the black varnish is of good quality. The drawing
is somewhat careless, but still slightly archaic, the eye being in elementary
profile. Inner markings in light brown. Below each handle is a double
palmette.
Interior. Within a border of ' stopped ' maeander, Satyr and woman.
The Satyr stands to right in three-quarter back view, looking down on the
woman and placing his right hand on her shoulder ; a wine-skin hangs from his
left shoulder. The woman is seated on a rock ; she wears a coif, chiton, and
himation, her arms being muffled in her drapery. In the field is an ivy-spray.
Exterior (A). Three youths with drapery over their shoulders : the first
on the left holds a kylix by the foot in his extended left hand, and balances a
14 See also Hoppin, Handbook, i. 98. 1S Amer. Vases, p. 96 ; see also Hoppin,
Handbook, ii. 324.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 129
stick in the right ; the middle one leans on a stick and raises a kylix to his lips,
and the third bends forward, holding up a wine-jug.
(B). A similar design. The youth on the left moves to right with lyre
in left hand and stick in right ; the next has a stick over his shoulder and holds
out a kylix; the third, who is bearded, retreats to right, holding a stick in his
right hand. Part of the head of the middle figure is wanting. Above, a XeySi/s
is suspended by cords.
(2) OINOCHOE (Plate VIII.).
Ht. 19 cm. From Cervetri. Bought 1912.
The form of this jug, with its trough-shaped lip, is an unusual one ; there
is a similar example in the British Museum (E 564). It is further peculiar
for an oinochoe in having an obverse and reverse design. The varnish is a
brilliant black, and the surface of the figures has been deeply ruddled. Drawing
of the late archaic period, the eye being transitional, with the pupil near the
inner angle, which in the figure (B) is slightly opened.
(A) Scythian or Persian, mounted on a mule, to right ; he sits facing the
front, with head turned to left, on a side-saddle, with a ledge to support his
feet. He is bearded, and wears a Phrygian cap with flaps, and a tight-fitting
garment, covered with dotted squares forming a chequer-pattern, which has
long sleeves and reaches to the ankles ; over this is a cuirass. In his right hand
is a battle-axe with spike.
(B) A similar figure, walking to right, carrying a flail in right hand and
a battle-axe over his left shoulder ; a bow hangs at his left thigh. His under-
garment is decorated with a pattern of ovals, and he wears shoes, the points
of which are slightly turned up.
Beazley assigns the vase to the painter of the Brussels oinochoae, ie and
calls attention to the strong, bold drawing of this artist, who excelled in his
treatment of subjects on \ovrpo<f)6poi. His oinochoae are all of the same unusual
form as this vase.
(3) OINOCHOE.
Ht. 21 cm. Found at Vulci.17 Presented by Miss Pariss, 1896.
Ordinary form ; much broken, but only a small fragment wanting. Draw-
ing of ' late strong ' style, the eye archaic in treatment. Inner markings in
light brown ; purple for fillet and inscription. On the top of the handle is an
enclosed palmette ; on the neck, band of similar palmettes, and below the design
a broad red line.
The design (Fig. 8) represents a Satyr leaping to left, with head turned
to right, wearing a fillet ; his left hand is placed on his head, and in the right
he holds out an ivy-branch. On the right are a thyrsos, and the inscription
HOPAI* KAV05, o 7rai9*aXo9.
(4) ALABASTRON (Plate V.).
Ht. 20-5 cm. Presented by Mr. C. Fairfax Murray, 1917.
Late archaic period ; eye still archaic ; careful drawing.
" Amer. Vcuet, p. 133; see also Hoppin, 1T Canino Sale Cat. (.Vat ire de Vcuei
Handbook, i. 104. peints), 1845, No. 36.
J. H. S. VOL. XI- 1. K
130
H. B. WALTERS
Designs in panels, divided by vertical bands of spirals : (A) Priestess ( ?)
moving to left, carrying olive-branches in left hand, and holding torches in her
right ; she has her hair gathered in a knot at the nape of the neck, and wears
an embroidered sphendone, chiton spotted with crosses, and himation over her
arms.
(B) Woman to right, with left hand raised ; she has long hair bound by a
fillet, with a curl hanging down in front, and wears a long chiton fastened up
the sleeves, and himation. At her side is a cock walking to right.
Above the design, elongated tongue-pattern and band of maeanders and
diagonal-cross squares ; below, a band of key pattern and a plain red line.
FIG. 8. — OINOCHOE : SATYR.
IV. EARLY FREE STYLE.
(1) STAMNOS.
Ht. 44 cm. From the Morrison collection, 1898 (Sale Cat. No. 281).
Brilliant black varnish ; inner markings in brown, with purple for details
and inscriptions. Drawing of the finest period, the eye in correct profile.
(A) Combat between a mounted horseman and a foot-soldier (Plate VII.).
The latter thrusts with his spear at the former, whose horse advances to right ;
his left foot is placed on a high rock. The horseman is armed with a spear, and
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 131
a bow at his back ; he wears a crested helmet, short chiton, breast-plate with
Gorgoneion, and shoes. The foot-soldier has crested helmet, chiton, and breast-
plate, and is armed with sword and shield, the latter bearing the device of an
arching snake. On the right a youth armed with spear hastens up ; he wears
a petasos, bordered chlamys, and high boots with tongues at the sides, and
round his head is a fillet shown in the colour of the clay. In the field is the
inscription KAAE, *a\>;'.
(B) Libation-scene : In the centre is a draped, bearded man to right, with
sceptre and laurel- wreath, on either side of whom stands a draped woman, with
a fillet wound several times round her head. The woman on the left holds a
libation-bowl, from which wine falls on the ground, and the other holds Ml
oinochoe tilted up so that the wine overflows from it ; it is held with the spout
to the front, and is consequently much foreshortened. In the field hangs a
sash, and in front of the woman on the left is inscribed KAAE, xaXij.
Subsidiary decoration as follows : on lip and round base of handles, egg-
pattern; above the design, B.F. tongue-pattern; below, continuous band of
maeanders in threes, broken by saltire crosses ; above and below the handles
palmettes joined by tendrils.
The paintings on this stamnos approximate in style to the work of the
Altamura painter, and of the Lykaon 'painter.18 Though certainly not by
either artist, it is more likely to belong to the period of the later one (the Lykaon
painter), the drawing being of the earliest phase of the free style (contemporary
with the vase-painter Polygnotos), with great attention to detail. It may be
compared with G 342 in the Louvre (Millingen-Reinach, Pis. 49^50), which
is by the Altamura painter.
(2) HYDRIA or KALPIS (Plate IV.).
Ht. 18-5 cm. Bought 1920.
This vase is one of the most charming and delicately-executed products
of the later red-figure period. The care and refinement with which the vase
is modelled and the decoration executed makes it difficult to believe that, it
is contemporaneous with the later free style. The group to which it belongs,
of which there are three or four more examples in the British Museum, is
included by Mr. Beazley among the work of the ripe free period, but I am
disposed to regard it as an earlier development.19 The drawing, it is true,
shows no signs of archaism, and the subject is more in keeping with the pyxides
and round-bellied lekythi of the end of the fifth century ; but the treatment
of the handle-palmettes and the maeander-band under the figures recalls the
work of the period of Duris and Brygos.
The subject is a simple one : a woman at hd*toilet, regarding her face in
a mirror, and an attendant holding a perfume-jar and a box probably containing
jewels. Most of the small hydriae and amphorae in this group are decorated
with similar scenes.
The vase was purchased at a sale at Sotheby's in 1920.
11 Beazley, Amer. Vcuet, pp. 144, 172. »• Vaset in Amer. Mtu. p. 196. SM
Brit. Mu«. E 202, 204, 207.
132
H. B. WALTERS
(3) LeKYTHOS.
Ht. 35-2 cm. From Sunium. Bought 1905.
Careful drawing, of early fine period; eye in profile. Surface of design
ruddled; purple for details. Much repaired and neck restored.
Design (Fig. 9) representing Demeter with the car of Triptolemos. The
goddess stands turning to the left and holding out a wheat-ear over the
winged car, which is empty. She wears a laurel-wreath, chiton, and himation
with crenellated border, and on her right wrist is a bracelet in thinned gold ;
FIG. 9. — LEKYTHOS OF EARLY FREE STYLE.
in her left hand is a long sceptre. On the seat of the car is an embroidered
cushion. Above Demeter her name was inscribed AH MI-IT HP ; on the right of
the sceptre was inscribed vertically AIOTIM05 K.VO., At<m/io? *(a)\o(s),
but these names were modem and have now been removed.
Round the base of the neck is an egg-pattern; on the shoulder of the
vase, three palmettes and two honeysuckle ornaments ; above and below the
design are maeander patterns.
(4) KANTHAROS (Plate V.).
Ht. 11-3 cm. Diam. 10'7 cm. Bought 1919.
Early free style, with eye in profile.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 133
On one side of the cup is a woman seated in a chair ; her hair is knotted
up at the back, and she wears a chiton with wide loose sleeves, over which is a
himation. She is engaged in spinning, and holds out the distaff in her left
hand, the top inserted in a mass of flax, from which she draws out a thread
with her right hand, to be wound on the spindle which hangs below.*0 The
same action is to be seen on a relief from the frieze of the Forum of fterva
at Rome.
On the reverse is a woman standing, turning to the left, and holding out
in her right hand an object of embroidered material with a ring attached to
the edge, probably a cap of conical form. In her left hand she holds up an
alabastron. She is attired like the other, with the addition of a fillet round
her hair.
(5) KANTHAROS.
Ht. 14 cm. Diam. 11 cm. Bought in 1898.
The drawing is of an advanced period ; good black varnish. One handle
with the rim and side adjacent, and the foot, have been restored.
(A) Scene at tomb : A nude youth with a staff in left hand stands to
right before a tall stele on a base, down which is inscribed vertically PA. N 0 N
lAIPE, nX(a>w(» (x)aLpe.
(B) Similar : The youth stands to left and holds a thyrsos ; the stele has
no base, and on it is inscribed A T I A . The head of the youth is wanting above
the mouth, as is also part of a plant on the right of the figure.
For other inscriptions on stelae, see Walters, Ancient Pottery, ii. 263, 272.
(6) KYLIX.
Ht. 8 cm. Diam. 22 cm. Bought 1920 (Fairfax-Murray coll.).
This kylix is of no great artistic merit, but it gives a new version of a well-
known subject. On one side of the exterior (Pkte III.) we have a scene from
the combat of Theseus with the Minotaur, but here the combat is over ; the
Minotaur is fallen dead, with closed eyes, against a column of the labyrinth,
and the victorious Theseus is receiving a wreath from Nike in recognition of
his valour. It is very rare to find any other moment represented except
the actual combat, which is a great favourite with B.F. painters, and on the
Theseus cups of the period of Euphronios and Douris usually occupies the
interior design. On a B.F. amphora also purchased by the Museum last year,
this subject is depicted on both sides of the vase. The subject somewhat lost
its popularity after the early years of the fifth century, but was revived on
the well-known cup at Madrid signed by Aison, and its counterpart, No. E 84
in the Museum collection.
The other designs are of no great interest ; on the other side of the exterior
we have a bearded man, marked as a king by his sceptre, between two women,
one of whom holds out a wreath, the other a libation-bowl ; in the field are the
inscriptions *aX»/ and *aXo?. In the interior Nike is represented, confronted
by a draped youth. Between them is inscribed *aXo?.
10 See on the subject Bluemner, Technologic, 2nd edn., i. 121 ff. ; Smith, Diet, of Antiqt*.
i. 897.
134 H. B. WALTERS
(7) KYLIX.
Ht. 9-8 cm. Diam. 22 cm. Presented by Miss Preston, 1899.
The vase has been broken across and mended. The varnish is poor and
of a greenish tinge. Drawing hasty, with eye in profile; inner markings in
light brown and details in purple.
In the interior, within a circle of maeander pattern in threes, broken by
red cross squares, is a bearded man advancing to right, carrying a long wand,
surmounted by a lotos-flower at the top, horizontally in his right hand. He
wears a wreath, and a cloak hangs over his extended left arm ; his hair appears
to be long, and rolled up at the back. It is possible that the figure is intended
to represent Zeus ; there is a very similar figure on a vase in the Bibliotheque
Nationale (Cat. 371), where, however, the thunderbolt carried by Zeus leaves
no doubt of his identity. The lotos-topped sceptre is, as a rule, a mark of a
superior deity, such as Zeus or Poseidon.
The exergue of the design is left red.
Exterior (A) Gymnasium scene : In the centre a nude youth with strigil
in right hand and staff in left, moving to right; behind him is a goal-post.
On either side is a draped youth facing him, each holding a stick. In the
field hang a sponge, three aryballi, and a pair of jumping- weights.
(B) Similar scene : All three youths wear mantles, and the one in the
centre stands holding a wreath ( ?) over the post ; the other two look round as
they turn away. In the field are two aryballi and a pair of jumping-weights.
Under the handles are double palmettes, with an ivy-leaf each side.
(8) KYLIX
Ht. 4'8 cm. Diam. 16 cm. Presented by Miss Preston, 1899.
Low foot; good black varnish, inner markings in light brown. Slightly
:epaired. Drawing late and careless.
Interior design only : Within a thin red circle a nude youth advances
towards an altar on the right, his hands extended above it, with palms down-
wards. On the left is a fluted column on two steps. The exergue is left red.
(9) KYLIX.
Ht. 7 cm. Diam. 21*7 cm. From the Deepdene collection; given by
Mr. G. Durlacher, 1917.
The form of the cup is late, with low broad foot but no stem ; the interior
of the bowl is rebated about half-way down. Careless drawing ; eye nearly in
profile ; no accessories in interior ; good varnish.
In the interior, within a double circle, is a bearded man wearing a himation,
with spear or wand in right hand, facing a woman wrapped in a mantle ; she
wears earrings and necklace, and her hair is covered with a coif.
The exterior (Fig. 10) is decorated on either side with panels of lozenges
in oblique lines, forming a diaper pattern ; they are alternately black, and red
with black dots. On either side are panels of inverted elongated B.F. lotos-
buds. Under each handle is a panel with vertical borders of network pattern,
in which is a B.F. goat leaping to right, very carelessly drawn in silhouette.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 135
Underneath the foot are carefully moulded and painted concentric circles.*1
The style of ornamentation on the exterior is not unknown on vases of
this period; compare, for instance, the B.M. kotyle E 151, and one or two
others uncatalogued ; but this and the following seem to be the only instances
of its adoption for a kylix. We may also compare the ' lattice-amphorae '
of fifth-century date so often found in tombs in Cyprus and Rhodes.
(10) KYLIX, similar to the last, but somewhat later in style, the treatment
of the eye being less archaic.
Ht. 6 cm. Diam. 21 '3 cm. Similarly acquired.
In the interior, a bearded man, wearing himation and shoes, with a staff
in his right hand, faces a woman who holds out a libation-bowl to him; she
wears a chiton and mantle, and a coif covering the back- of the head.
Fio. 10. — Two KYLIKES : EARLY FREE STYLE.
On the exterior (Fig. 10) are panels of lozenges as on the preceding ,ase,
but with white crosses on the black lozenges, and under each handle a B.F.
palmette between vertical bands of chevrons.
Underneath the foot, concentric circles as before.
Much
V. RIPE FREE STYLE.
(1) BELL-KRATER.
Ht. 27-5 cm. Bought 1900.
Drawing of late fine style, somewhat careless; no accessories,
repaired ; good varnish.
The principal subject (Pkte VII.) represents a group of boxers. In the
centre of the scene is a small Doric column, on the abacus of which rest a
cushion and an aryballos with cord ; round the centre of the shaft is a fillet.
" Cf. E 128 in Brit. Mus.
136 H. B. WALTERS
On the left are two youths boxing, with the left feet well advanced and arms
nearly horizontal ; each has seized his opponent's nearer arm above the elbow,
and raises the other arm, as if to ward off a round-hand blow. They have
thongs bound about their wrists. On the right of the column a bearded
judge hastens up with raised rod ; he wears a wreath and cloak, and his face is
partly missing. Behind him Nike, wearing radiated fillet and long chiton with
double overfold, holds out a wreath in both hands.
In reference to the position of the boxers, each with the left foot well
advanced, Mr. E. N. Gardiner 22 points out that this is characteristic of boxers
on Greek vases, and that it is not, as suggested by Mr. K. Frost,23 a mere con-
vention, but is the result of the sideways position usually adopted for blows at
the head. The Greeks appear to have discountenanced body-hitting altogether.
On the reverse of the vase are the usual three draped youths, the two
outer holding sticks and facing the middle one, who turns to left. Below the
rim of the vase is a laurel- wreath with a purple line below ; below each design
is a maeander pattern, that on the obverse broken by two cross squares.
(2) BELL-KRATER.
Ht. 32 cm. Diam. 36 cm.
This krater, which was purchased in 1920, was formerly in the Deepdene
collection, but does not appear to be included in Tischbein's engravings of
those vases, though he illustrates a very similar one in Vol. V. PI. 8. (Reinach,
Rdp. ii. 335). Like the majority of the Deepdene vases, it belongs to the latest
stage of Attic vase-painting, and was probably actually made in South Italy.
The work is rather careless ; purple and white are occasionally employed for
details. The ornamentation is of the usual type : a laurel wreath round the
neck, maeander with chequer-squares below the design, and egg-pattern round
the bases of the handles.
The principal design represents the contest of Marsyas and Apollo, a very
favourite subject at this period. The Satyr is seated on a rock in the centre
of the scene to right, playing the flutes ; he has shaggy hair and beard, and wears
a wreath coloured purple. Before him stands Apollo, in an attitude of surprise,
with a long branch of laurel in his left hand ; he wears a laurel- wreath, and a
chlamys hangs over his left arm. On either side of the central group is a woman
facing the scene, wearing a long chiton with overfold ; the one on the left holds
a lyre, and the other draws up the edge of her garment on her right shoulder.
On the reverse are the usual three draped youths.
(3) CALYX-KRATER (Plate VII.).
Ht. 31-5 cm. Bought 1907.
The style resembles that of the school of Meidias, but is coarser and more
careless. The foot has been repaired. The varnish is of a reddish-brown,
much discoloured; the Erotes and part of the central figure on (A) were in
some opaque pigment, which has completely disappeared, leaving a red
22 Greek Athletic Sports, p. 419. likely in the cases of vases of the later period
28 J.H.S. xxvi. 219. This is even less such as the present one.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 137
silhouette, the wings being in the usual R.F. technique. (Hiding has originally
been used for the raised beads of which the necklaces are composed.
(A) This scene may represent the courting of Anchises and Aphrodite, the
principal figures being a youth in Oriental costume and a woman accompanied
by Erotes ; but, as in many other scenes on vases of this style and period, the
characterisation of the figures is not strongly marked, and there is also an
absence of action, which suggests that the painter had no very definite intention
beyond an effective grouping of figures. The same feature is to be observed
in some of the large vases from Kertch published in the plates of Stephani's
Comptes-Rendus^ and also in many of the vases of Southern Italy.
In the centre is a woman seated to left, with head turned to right, lifting
up the end of her drapery with her right hand ; her left elbow rests on a casket
ornamented with wave-pattern. Her hair falls in ringlets over her shoulders,
and she wears a radiated band over her forehead ornamented with wave-pattern,
and a garment over her knees embroidered with a broad border of wave-
pattern and rays. Owing to the disappearance of the opaque pigment, her
features and other details are no longer visible. An Eros stands with right hand
on her left shoulder, and below her another crouches to right with a sash across
his knees; the details of the wings alone remain, the rest of the figures having
been covered with pigment. On the woman's right, at a slightly higher level,
stands a youth (Anchises?) holding two spears in his left arm; he wears a
Phrygian cap with long flaps and a wreath round it, and a chlamys over his
left arm. His hair falls in long curls, and is visible over his head behind the
cap, which is drawn as if transparent. Beyond him a bearded Satyr, infibulated,
leans forward with left foot raised as if on a rock, holding up his left hand.
Below him sits a woman watching the scene, wearing sphendone, necklace,
bracelet on right wrist, bordered chiton, and himation with girdle covering her
thighs ; ' her hair is gathered in a bunch of curls at the back, and one curl falls
in front of her ear. Beneath the casket, in the centre of the scene, is a young
Phrygian seated to right, looking round ; in his left hand he holds two spears.
He wears a Phrygian cap (like the other but not transparent), short chiton
richly ornamented with bands of wave -pattern and rays, and trousers nth
horizontal bands of pattern ; behind him is a myrtle-plant. On the right of the
scene are two women, each wearing earrings, necklace, bracelet on left arm,
sphend&ne, long chiton with girdle and himation, their hair being arranged
like that of the one on the left. The nearer one stands to left, fingering her
necklace, the other moves away, looking back and carrying a large casket on
her left hand ; between them is an Eros (as before). Above the design are
four pairs of myrtle-sprays.
(B) Scene in the garden of the Hesperides : In the centre is a tree with
large fruit, on the upper level ; on the left of it stands a woman conversing with
another seated to right on the other side of the tree and looking round ; each
wears a radiated sphendone, necklace and bracelets, and sleeveless chiton with
14 See Reinach, Ripertoire dtt Vaaet, i. century B.C.) see P. Ducati, Saggio di ttudio
1 ff. For an interesting study of the sulla ctramica attica figtirata. Rome, 1916.
Greek painted vases of this period (fourth
138 H. B. WALTERS
girdle ; the chiton of the one on the right has a border of wave-pattern. They
have luxuriant hair, gathered at the back in a bunch of curls, with a ringlet
falling in front of the ear. On either side is an Eros hovering in the air. Below
the women another Eros attacks a goose with a club ( ?) ; the opaque pigment
having worn away in both cases, the interpretation is not certain. A nude boy
stands to left, looking down at this group. On the left of the scene a youth
seated to left with drapery under him raises his right hand as if conversing with
a woman, at whom he looks up ; her hair and costume resemble those of the
middle figures, and with her left hand she draws forward the edge of her drapery.
On the right a similarly-attired woman leans to right, with left foot raised on a
rock, and also draws forward her drapery with her left hand. Beneath the
seated youth is a myrtle-plant. *
Subsidiary ornamentation as follows : round the rim, egg-pattern, with a
laurel-wreath below ; below the designs on each side two rows of egg-pattern,
enclosing on (A) palmettes horizontally enclosed, sloping to right; on (B)
maeanders with a chequer-square in the middle; at the bases of the handles
are also egg-patterns.
(4) PELIKE.
Ht. 36 cm. Bought 1910.
Drawing of late fine style ; inscriptions and fillets in purple. Lip repaired ;
varnish discoloured.
(A) Contest of flute-players (Plate VII.). In the centre of the scene is a base
with two steps, on wThich a flute-player stands to right, and another is mounting
it on the left. Each has a band ($op@elov) round his mouth, and wears a
myrtle-wreath and long-sleeved robe with dotted border, embroidered with rows
of pointed leaves. On the right, Nike floats down, holding a long purple sash
in both hands ; she wears a radiated sphendone, necklace, and long spotted
chiton with overfold. On the left another flies down, holding in right hand a
large libation-bowl, in the left two, one inside the other; she wears a coif
and radiated sphendone, and a sleeveless chiton with overfold and dotted
border. Above the first Nike is inscribed K AVH, Ka\rf; above the other,
K AV(M, fca\6<;.
(B) The usual design of three ephebi, one on each side facing the central
figure, who stands to the right ; the one on the left leans on a stick. All wear
purple fillets and thick cloaks. In the field hangs an alabastron.
Above the design, laurel-wreath ; below, ' stopped ' maeanders with
diagonal-cross squares at intervals ; under the handles, palmettes with tendrils.
For the subject on the obverse, which is not a common one on vases,
compare B 188 and E 354 in the Brit. Mus. ; the reverse of the Antaios krater
in the Louvre (G 103) ; and a vase at Leyden (Roulez, Vases Grecs, PI. 18 ;
Reinach, Repertoire, ii. 274).
(5) PELIKE.
Ht. 30 cm. From Capua. Bought in 1901.
The vase is of the late fine period, the drawing resembling that of many of
the vases of this style found in the Cyrenaica. The brilliant black varnish
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 139
is discoloured in parts ; inner markings are rendered in thin black lines, thinned
out to brown for the hair, and the body of Eros is painted white.
(A) Satyrs surprising a Maenad (Plate VIII.). The Maenad reclines to
right in the centre of the scene against a bundle of reeds, her head resting on
her left arm ; below her is rocky ground strewn with flowers. She wears a
short chiton. Above hovers Eros with wings spread, to right, and on each side
of her a Satyr approaches in a stooping attitude, with hand extended. Behind
each Satyr another retreats in an outward direction, looking round.
(B) Tlyee draped youths, two standing to right, facing the third ; in the
field hangs a sponge.
Round the lip, and above and below the design, are egg-patterns, and at
the base of the handles, addorsed palmettes.
The vase is mentioned by von Salis in his article on the Naples vase repre-
senting preparations for the Satyric Drama.25 He points out that the sleeping
figure must be an ordinary Maenad, and not Ariadne, and that there is no
adequate reason for associating the subject with the Satyric Drama. Similar
scenes occur on the following vases : Brit. Mus. E 555; Berlin 2241 ; Naples
S.A. 313; Reinach, Repertoire, i. 340, and ii. 261 (Bibl. Nat. 852).
(6) OINOCHOE (Plate IV.).
Ht. 11 cm. From Athens. Bought 1910.
Late fine style. *
In a panel, bordered above and below by tongue-pattern, is represented
an infant in a high chair to right, waving a rattle in the form of a club ; round
his head is a purple fillet. The chair has a solid base, and a board above,
through which the child's legs protrude, and is of the same hour-glass-shaped
form as that depicted on a vase formerly in the Van Branteghem collection.28
On the left is an oinochoe ; on the right a toy cart, with handle leaning against
the edge of the design.
(7) OINOCHOE (Plate V.).
Ht. 8-3 cm. From Athens. Bought 1910.
Late fine style. Slightly repaired ; dull black varnish.
Design in a panel with borders of egg-pattern above and below, representing
a child in cart drawn by two other children. The first child wears a garment
leaving the right shoulder bare, and holds out a stick in the right hand ; the
other two are nude, with belts across the breast ; the nearer one looks back and
the other holds out a torch-holder in the left hand. The cart is in the form of
a seat on solid wheels, with pole.
These two jugs belong to a well-known class of vases, evidently made as
toys for children. Not only are the subjects appropriate, but jugs of this type
are frequently depicted on them, and must have been used as playthings. The
reason for their frequent occurrence is not quite clear, as they hardly seem
suitable for toys. Possibly the game described by Pollux (ix. 113) under the
iVSa may give a clue. It corresponded to our ' Tom Tiddler's ground,'
" Jahrbuch, xxv. (1910), p. 137. M Froehner, Cott. Branteghtm, No. 163.
140 H. B. WALTERS
but the object of the attacking party was not to catch the player representing
Tom, but to touch a jug which represented his property. Sometimes, however,
the latter player was himself called the
(8) OINOCHOE (Plate IV.).
Ht. 13 cm. Bought 1910.
Late fine style. Repaired ; varnish discoloured.
The design is in a panel with a border of egg-pattern above, and represents
a woman at a meal. She is seated in a high-backed chair on the left, before a
table on which is a dish with domed cover between two high stands, to* the nearest
FIG. 11. — LEKYTHOS OF RIPE FREE STYLE.
of which she puts out her right hand. She wears a spotted coif, earrings,
chiton, and himation. On the right a boy with himation over his left shoulder
stands touching the stand nearest to him with his right hand, his left holding
a skyphos represented in silhouette. Above the table hangs- a sash.
For the subject compare E 769 in Brit. Mus.
(9) LEKYTHOS (Fig. 11).
Ht. 17 cm. Presented by Miss Preston, 1899.
Late careless work of fine style, with good varnish. Broken at neck.
Artemis, to right, aims with her bow and arrow ; she wears chiton, spotted
himation girt round her waist, and boots. The bow-string is indicated by a
line of raised varnish. In front of Artemis is a square rock or box; behind
hangs a sash.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSUEM in
On the shoulder is a band of B.F. palmettes ; above the design, band of
quares of maeander and of dotted crosses, alternating.
(10-11) PAIR OF LEKYTHI (Plate IV.).
Ht. of each 33 cm. Acquired from the Rome collection, 1909.
Both have been repaired; they have wide lips and thick, short necks;
the varnish is dull. The body in each case is plain, with the design on the
shoulder.
The design on the one being complementary to that on the other, the
vases are evidently a pair, and the ornamentation is identical in each case;
round the neck is egg-pattern ; on the top of the body, sets of four maeanders
divided by chequer-squares, and at the bottom similar ornament except that
some of the squares have cross-squares instead of chequers.
The two designs represent Eros carrying a casket to a woman; on the
one vase he is shown flying to right holding a large casket, and on the other
is the woman seated in a high-backed chair to right, looking down into the
casket, which lies open on her knees, and taking a necklace therefrom with
her right hand. Her hair is drawn into a knot at the crown of the head, and
she wears chiton and himation. On each vase the design is framed each side
by palmettes enclosed and set horizontally inwards.
From the subjects it may be conjectured that this pair of vases was made
to be given as a wedding-present, and if so, they certainly show very good
taste on the part of the donor.
We may note here the predominance at this period of vase-subjects
dealing with the life of women. It does not, of course, imply any feminist
movement, such as we hear of somewhat later in the plays of Aristophanes.
The ladies represented on the vases are, like most Greek women, content with
their homes and the pleasures to be derived from the domestic arts or simple
pastimes. Their chief excitement in life must have been their own or their
friends' weddings. The popularity of these subjects is reflected in the six
following vases, four of which have wedding scenes.
(12) LEKYTHOS of round-bellied type.
Ht. 14-2 cm. Found at Athens, and bought 1895.
Late fine style; brilliant glaze; jewellery, fruit, and hydria in low gilt
relief, but the gilding is largely worn away.
The design (Plate III.) represents a scene in a garden, with rocky ground
indicated by a line faintly incised in the varnish. In the centre is a tree with
fruit, on the left of which a boy is crawling on the ground, with drapery about his
feet. On the right of the tree a nude woman stoops down and holds out a bird
on her right forefinger to the boy ; her left hand rests on her raised right knee.
Her hair is gathered in a knot and confined by a broad band with key-pattern
and jewelled upper edge ; she wears necklace, bracelets, chiton, and himation
embroidered with crosses. Behind her stands a woman holding a necklace
suspended from her outstretched right hand; her hair is arranged as in the
preceding figure, and she wears earrings, necklace, jewelled girdle, chiton,
142 H. B. WALTERS
and himation embroidered with palmettes between bands of maeander. Behind
the boy a third woman advances, holding out her hands to take a gilded hydria
standing on a high rock. Her hair has a jewelled band round it and flows
loose behind ; she wears necklace, earrings, and bracelets, chiton, and himation
thrown over the left shoulder and fore-arm.
Round the lower part of the neck is a B.F. tongue-pattern; on the
shoulder, a band of enclosed palmettes between lines. Below the design all
round, egg-pattern; below the handle, double palmette with long upright
tendril and two phialae each side.
(13) FRAGMENT OF LOUTROPHOROS-AMPHORA (Plate VII.).
Ht. 12-5 cm. Length 28-5 cm. Bought 1896.
Best period of fine style; eye in developed profile. Varnish browned
by fire.
The part which remains consists of a fragment of the upper part of the
body and a small portion of the flattened shoulder, just showing where the
neck springs. On the shoulder is an elongated tongue-pattern, and below
this, two rows of egg-pattern.
The design, so far as it is preserved, represents a marriage-scene : on
the left is the bride, wearing sleeved chiton and starred veil; only her face,
the upper part of the body, and the right arm remain. On the right the bride-
groom holds out his right hand to her ; he wears a wreath and bordered hima-
tion. The lower part of his face, shoulders, and most of right side, and legs
are missing. Between them Eros flies right with right arm extended. On to
the left is the vvfjL<f>evTpia ( ?) wearing a chiton and holding a torch in either
hand ; the upper part of her head and all below the elbow are wanting. On
the right is a similar figure with torch, wearing a bordered himation, her hair
falling in long curls ; only the lower part of the face and the right side remain.
The form of the vase probably corresponded to that illustrated by Perrot,
Hist, de VArt, x. 667, Fig. 365, an amphora of elongated type with slim neck
and handles, derived from the ' prothesis-amphora ' of the B.F. period. It may
be noted that the change from funeral to nuptial scenes for the decoration of
\ovTpo<f)6poi took place about the middle of the fifth century. A change was
also made later in the form, the body becoming spherical, with vertical handles
formed of double loops, and resting on a detached stem, instead of being
prolonged to a low foot. E 810 in the Brit. Mus. is an example of this type,
which Welters identifies as a \ef3v)<} yafutcos for providing warm water rather
than a Xouiyjo^o/Kx?.27 The old form was at all events preserved for the
marble \ovrpo<f>6poi which came into vogue for placing on tombs in the
fourth century. See on the subject generally Wolters in Ath. Mitth. xvi.
(1891), p. 371 ff. ; Daremberg-Saglio's Diet., s.v. ; and Perrot, loc. cit.
(14) LOUTROPHOROS, model of (Fig. 12). «
Ht. 13-4 cm. Bought 1910.
27 Jahrbuch xiv., (1899), p. 219.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 14.{
Late fine style. Slightly repaired. On the shoulder is a tongue-pattern,
and below the designs, egg-pattern.
On the body are two designs : (A) Eros and a bride : The bride is seated
to right in a high-backed chair, wearing chiton and himation ; at her feet is
a tendril with volutes. Before her a diminutive Eros flies down with out-
stretched hands. On the left a female attendant in a chiton brings an open
casket, and on the right stands another to left, wearing chiton and himation,
X
FIG. 12. — MODEL OF LOUTROPHOROS.
•
holding out a spotted sash, which she has taken from an open casket held in
her left arm.
(B) Bride and bridegroom clasping hands ; The bride is on the left, veiled,
with chiton and himation ; the bridegroom faces her, extending his right hand
to meet hers, and wears a chiton leaving the right shoulder bare.
On the stem of the vase are two figures : (A) Nike flying to right, holding
in both hands a casket, over which hangs a sash. (B) Woman moving to
right, with outstretched hands, wearing chiton with overfold. Below all
round is a laurel- wreath.
The form of the vase is a combination of the two types discussed under
the preceding heading; the upper part reproduces the older elongated form
144
H. B. WALTERS
18 The subject is reproduced in Fig. 13 by
means of the cyclograph, the photograph
of body, -neck, and handles, but the
stem is organically distinct, though
not actually detached from the rest of
the vase.
(15) PYXIS (Plate VI.).
Ht. 17 cm. Diam. 17 cm.
This pyxis was bought at a sale
at Sotheby's in December 1920, and
is one of the finest examples of its
class, apart from the interest of the
subj ect. Round the body is represented
a wedding procession (Fig. 13),28 with
several new features. The moment
selected is that of the departure of the
married pair from the bride's home,
indicated by a pair of folding-doors on
the left of the scene, one of which is
being closed by a maid who looks out
to take a last sight of her mistress. The
bridegroom mounts a car drawn by
four horses, in which the bride stands,
covered with her wedding veil. On
the further side of the horses, facing
them, is a woman with a torch, pre-
sumably the bride's mother.29 The
torch indicates that the procession
took place at night. Behind the
bridal pair is a procession of three
figures : first a man, who may be the
7ra/jo%o5, or groomsman, also holding
a lighted torch ; next, a maid carrying
the bride's trousseau in the form of a
flat square box, presumably for dresses,
and a bundle of nondescript shape
containing other articles of costume or
toilet; and lastly, another attendant
carrying a Xovrpcxfropos, of the type
represented by No. 14 above. The
part which these vessels played in
connexion with weddings we have
having been taken under the supervision of
Mr. A. H. Smith, the inventor of the machine.
29 Cf. Schol. in Eur. Tro. 316 : vtmnov
ydp tffri TT) fiiijTpl SaSouxtiy I" TO?S ydfj.ots ruv
Ouyartpwv, and Schol. in Eur. Phoen, 344 : £0os
i}f r^v vvpQiiv virb TJ/S /J.rirpbs rof
/j.(ra AajuiraSwi' fi<r<lyt(rOai.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 145
already discussed. The composition is completed by the herald who leads
the way, holding a caduceus or herald's staff, and wearing the usual petasos,
chlamys, and high boots of such officials.
This pyxis belongs to a class of which the Museum already possesses two
or three fine examples, belonging to the ripe free style, and illustrating various
aspects of women's life in Athens. But it is rare to find a representation of
a wedding procession full of such interesting detail.80
The scene on the cover is also characteristic of the period. We have here
three cosmic deities, such as are seen on the famous Blacas Krater,and on another
pyxis in the Museum (E 776). First is Helios driving a four-horse chariot,
and also distinguished by a representation of the sun at the upper edge of the
design. Next comes a goddess in the close-fitting tunic of the charioteer,
driving a two-horse chariot ; and thirdly, within a space cut off by two parallel
curved lines, a goddess on horseback seated sideways on the off-side of her
steed, and holding up her hands with a gesture of surprise or encouragement.
The interpretation of these two figures presents some little difficulty. We
may, however, assume that the riding figure is Selene the Moon, as she is
usually represented on horseback on the vases, although in the East Pediment
of the Parthenon she is undoubtedly driving a chariot. For the other figure
the names of Eos or Nyx immediately suggest themselves, but the difficulty
is that here the goddess has no wings, such as we are accustomed to associate
with those two personifications. On the Sabouroff pyxis in Berlin (No. 2519)
we have a scene almost exactly like that on the Museum vase, but here the
third figure is winged. Furtwaengler called her Eos; but Robert points out
that the Moon would not come between the Sun and Dawn, and prefers to call
her Nyx. There is indeed a Roman sarcophagus on which Nyx is unwinged,
and she appears thus on Trajan's column ; but this is not good evidence for
Greek vases. But on the whole I prefer the identification as Nyx in the
present case.
(16) PYXIS.
Ht. 7-3 cm. Diam. 16-8 cm. Bought 1907.
Late fine style ; good black varnish ; inner lines in light brown or black.
Flat circular shape, with projecting rim and base (cf. E 776 and E 782 in B.M.).
The bronze ring of the lid is broken away.
Round the body is a laurel- wreath, and the main design is on the lid (Plate
III.), representing four women playing, each wearing chiton of crinkly material
and himation. The first, who wears a broad band round her hair, picks up the
end of her himation as she runs to right towards the second, who is seated
facing her in a high-backed chair, and holds out a long spotted sash. Behind
her is a large chest. The third woman runs to left, holding out an embroidery
frame; below is a wool-basket, and behind her a stork to left. The fourth,
who wears a coif, is seated to right in a high-backed chair, and tosses up five
10 1) II in the B. M. may be compared with this: but here the bride and bridegroom are
on foot.
J. H. S. VOL. XLI. L
146 H. B. WALTERS
balls in the air ; before her is a bird in a large cage which rests on the ground
(cf. No. II. 4 above).
Round the edge of the lid is a band of black chevrons.
(17) OINOCHOE, with design in opaque pigment (Plate IV.).
Ht. 23 cm. Found in a tomb at Mitsovo, Macedonia. Bought 1906.
Design in opaque colours over white, with yellow markings, and details
in raised gilt; the hair is stippled yellow. On the neck, laurel-wreath with
berries in raised gilt ; below the design, a raised gilt line. The practice of
painting in opaque colours on a black ground is not new, but it is very rare to
find instances of it in the late R.F. period, and especially when executed with
the care and delicacy of the present example.
The design represents the marriage of Dionysos and the Basilinna or wife
of the Archon Basileus at the festival of the Anthesteria. In the centre is
the Basilinna, seated to right in a high-backed chair, wearing wreath, earrings,
necklace, bracelets, white chiton, and red himation. Her left hand holds a
sceptre, and the right is thrown over the back of the chair as she turns to
look at Dionysos, who stands to right with right hand on his hip. He wears
a wreath, and in his left hand is a thyrsos, round which is tied a fillet. In
front of the woman an Eros flies down, offering a casket in which are three
gilt balls, and behind Dionysos another flies down with a sash in both hands ;
their wings are blue and gilt, and both wear fillets. On the right stands Nike
to left, holding a burning torch in each hand ; she wears a wreath, bracelets,
armlets, and necklace, and a blue sleeveless chiton ; her wings are red and
gilt.
The mystic marriage of Dionysos and the Basilinna took place on the
second day of the Anthesteria.31 The chief authority for the details of the
ceremony is the speech of Demosthenes contra Neaeram, 73-76, in which he
accuses her daughter Phano of unlawful participation : avrt) 77 71/1/77 . . .
elar)\6ev ol ov&els aXXo? ^AdrfvaLwv rocrovrwv ovratv elffep^erai aXX* 77 rov
y3aa-iXe«i>9 71/1/77 . . . egeSodr) 8e rq> ^.tovvcrw 71/1/77', eTTpage oe v-rrep TT}? 7ro\€a>9
TO. Trdrpta ra "irpbs TOI»<? ffeovs TroXXa Kal ayia ical aTropprjra (§ 73).
Further on he says (§ 76) : airal; rov eviavrov exda-rov avoiyerai rb ap-%cuora-
rov iepbv rov AIOVVGOV /ecu dyioararov ev Ai/Avais rfj ocaSetcdrij rov
'AvOeffrrjpitovos ^772/05. Aristotle in the ^drjvaiwv HoXtTeia (3, 5) gives the
additional information : en Kal vvv <yap rfj<; rov /Sao-tXeo><? yvvai/cbs 77
ffVfi/jL€i^i<; evravda (i. e. in the Bot»/coXtoi/ near the Prytaneum) yiyverat rta
Aiovvvy Kal 6 ydftos.
The old temple of Dionysos .«/ Ai^vai 5 contained a %oavov of Dionysos
Eleuthereus,32 and also a stele on which were inscribed the regulations con-
cerning the union of the Basilinna with the god, who was represented by the
old wooden image.33 Full details of the marriage ceremony and the solemn
procession to the Bof KO\IOV are given by Mommsen ; 34 our vase, which probably
dates from the first half of the fourth century, gives the proceedings in the
31 Mommsen, Feate der Stadt Athen, p. 392. 83 Demosth. c. Neaer. § 75.
38 Paus. i. 38, 8. * Op. cit. p. 394.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 147
more conventional fashion in which bridal scenes are usually represented on
vases of this period (cf. Nos. 13-15 above).15
(18) OINOCHOE (Plate V.).
Ht. 14 cm. Found near the Olympieion at Athens. Bought 1910.
Repaired; varnish discoloured. Design in opaque white with yellow
markings.
In a panel, with egg-and-dart pattern above, and egg-pattern below, is
a design representing two Nikae flying towards a tripod, one on each side;
each wears a long chiton with overfold (that of the one on the right has sleeves),
and holds in both hands a long white sash with ends hanging. In the centre
is the tripod, supporting a \ffirjs, above which is an openwork design of circles
in which are crosses <g>, with a vandyked edge above ; it stands on a double
plinth on which is inscribed
AriHEMEAO*
AAIPIA05
TO*
perhaps intended for
(iel <f>i\6<:
rot? <f>i\oi<;.
(19) OINOCHOE (Fig. 14).
Ht. 10-8 cm. From Eretria. Bought 1894.
Thin fabric with dull black varnish. Base repaired. Design in opaque
colours over white with yellow markings, and in raised gilt.
A dog leaps to right through a hoop, which is held on the left by a girl and
on the right by a boy ; the latter is nude, the former wears a blue chiton with
overfold, and each wears a fillet; the hair is in raised gilt, as is also the hoop.
Above are three gilt dots.
(20) LEKYTHOS or ARYBALLOS (Plate VIII. ).
Ht. 8 cm. From a tomb in Eretria. Bought 1894.
Design in opaque white and blue with gilding. Repaired. At the base
of the neck is a tongue-pattern ; on the shoulder, egg-and-tongue with raised
gilt dots; below the design, egg-pattern; below the handles, palmette with
spirals.
Two gryphons confronted; their bodies are white, and their wings blue
with gilt dots ; between them an ant-hill covered with gilt dots.
The explanation of this scene is to be found in several passages of ancient
writers which deal with a tradition of gryphons guarding gold in the far north-
east. Herodotus locates them beyond the Issedones in Central Asia (Turkestan):
18 This vase was described at a meeting v. 260, and by Mr. A. B. Cook, Ztut, L 686
of the Hellenic Society by Mr. (now Sir) and 709, note 2, but so far no illustration
Cecil Smith in 1906, and is also mentioned of it has been given.
by Mr. Farnell in his C\dt» of Greek States,
148
H. B. WALTERS
virepoiiceeiv 'A/3i/ua0"7roi)9 avSpa? ^.ovvo^>6d\p.ov^, irrrep 8e rovrtov
rovs xpvffo<f>v\atca<i ypvTras (iv. 13, cf. iv. 27): 'lo-<Ti]8ove<; elffi ol \eyovres
rov<; p,ovvo<f>6d\fjLov$ avO p(i.Trov<i /eal rovs %pV(To<f>v\aKa<; ypvTras eZi/cu). In
another passage (iii. 116), speaking of the quantities of gold found in Northern
Europe, he says : \eyerat 8e VTTCK rwv ypvirwv dp-jrd&tv 'Apifiao-Trov? av8pa<;
povvo<f>0d\fjLov<;.3* The story is further amplified by Ktesias (quoted by
Aelian, Nat. Anim. iv. 27, from the Indica, ch. 12) : Batcrptoi \eyovcriv
(SC. ypvTra<;) <^>uXa/ca? elvat, rov Kpvaov avroBi teal opvrreiv re av-rov
'Iz>Sol 8e ov tftaffiv av-rovs (frpovpovs elvai rov irpoetprj/jLevov,
FIG. 14. — OINOCHOE WITH OPAQUE FIGURES.
yap 8ei<r0ai xpvtriov ypvTras . . . aXXa avrovs fj.ev eVt rrjv rov
adpoiaiv d<f)iKvei(T0ai. He does not, however, mention the Arimaspi, but
it is probably to this story that we owe the representations of combats
between Arimaspi and gryphons so common on vases of this period. The
story was also known to Aeschylus.37
The whole legend is, of course, as Rawlinson points out, ' a mere Arabian
Night's story,' comparable with that of the roc in the tale of Sindbad the Sailor.
' The only truth contained in the tale is the productiveness of the Siberian gold-
region, and the jealous care of the natives to prevent the intrusion of strangers/
The gryphon is a familiar motive in the art of Southern Russia in the fourth
*• Rawliiisoii, ii. 505, points out that
Herodotus regards Europe as including
the whole of Northern Asia. The district
of which he is speaking is that east of the
Ural Mountains, i. e. South-western Siberia,
to the north-west of the territory assigned
to the Issedones.
87 Prom. Vinct. 830 ff. iii. 23.
RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM 149
century, and in the vases of Kertch, which the vase under discussion resembles
in style.88
It will also be noted that the gold is here represented as lying on an ant-hill,
which suggests a reference to another passage of Herodotus in which he describes
how, in Northern India, the ants throw up sand-heaps as they burrow, and
these sand-heaps are full of gold (iii. 102 : ovrot oi /iv/o/^e? Troievpevot oimjtriv
VTTO yijv ava<f>op€ov<ri rrjv •^•dp.p.ov . . . 77 Se t/ra^o? »J dvafapofj-evrj ten
Xpvffin^ The painter of this vase, if not intimately acquainted with the text
of Herodotus, was at least familiar with the legends which through the historian
had become a commonplace of Greek literature.89
(21) GUTTUS (Plate VIII.).
Ht. 14 cm. Bought 1920.
This vase, which may be regarded as more curious than beautiful, belongs
to the later stage of R.F. vase-painting, when the industry had been transferred
to Southern Italy. The technique and style are, however, purely Attic, except
for the ivy-wreath in B.F. method round the neck, a pattern which is often
found on South Italian vases. The shape is very peculiar, and rare among
painted vases. It is of the form usually known as a guttus, from the long,
narrow spout which enabled liquid to be poured drop by drop, as in the many
varieties of the aa/co? ; but the handle and the neck are those of an oinochoe.
The wide, squat body is also characteristic of the guttus.
The subject of the paintings is a procession of Bacchanalian figures, who
from their equipment are probably setting out to a banquet or other form of
revelry. On one side we have a Maenad brandishing two torches, and an
elderly Satyr in a sort of fancy dress, comprising a large mantle in which his
whole body is wrapped, and an ornamented sash wound round his head and tied
in a large bow at the back. He carries a thyrsos in his left arm. On the other
side another bearded Satyr, but this time nude, carries a skin bag in his right
hand and a torch in his left. He looks round at his companion, a young Satyr
who holds a cottabos-stand in either hand and kicks up his left leg in a sort
of careless abandon. In his left hand he also holds a small oinochoe an i a
phiale with a long handle like that of a strainer. Both the cottabos-stands
have three feet like those of a candelabrum, but it will be noted that one hat
the ir\dffrty^, or plate on to which the wine was thrown, at the top, the other
about one-third of the way down. Both types are to be found on vases of this
period, on which the playing of the game of KoTraftos is a favourite subject.
The figures are treated with a deliberate grotesqueness which is unusual,
and I do not know of any other vase-painting quite in the same style.
H. B. WALTERS.
The following vases, acquired since 1894, are not included in this list,
having already been adequately published elsewhere.
M See Roscher, Lexikon, i. 1768, for the Greek*, passim, and Ducati, Ceram. att. fig.
gryphon in Greek mythology, and for p. 92.
illustrations in art, Minns, Scythians and ** See also Minns, op. cit. pp. 112, 440.
150 RED-FIGURED VASES ACQUIRED BY BRITISH MUSEUM
(1) Kylix (1895). Flute-player. Hartwig, Meisterschalen, pp. 350, 351.
(2) Kylix (1895). Imitation of Duris. Jacobsthal, Gottinger Vasen, PI. 22.
(3) Pelike (1895). Zeus and Nike, Elite Cdram. i. 14, 30; Stackelberg,
Grdber der HeU. PI. 18, 2 ; Hoppin, Handbook, ii. 468.
(4) Amphora (1895). Triptolemos. Mite Cdram. iii. 57 A-B; Gerhard,
A. V. 46 (Reinach, ii. 34).
(5) Kylix (1896). Signed by Hermaios. Elite Cfram. iii. 73; Hoppin,
ii. 17.
(6) Stamnos (1898). Signed by Polygnotos. Robert in Man. Antichi, 1899,
PI. 3, p. 7, Fig. 1 ; Hoppin, ii. 378, 379.
(7) Krater (1898). Signed by Nikias. Froehner, Coll. Tyszkiewicz, PL 35;
Hoppin, ii. 218.
(8) Lekythos (1899). 'AX/t/ieuW *aAo5. J.H.S. xix. 203; Beazley,
Amer. Vases, p. 92. «
(9) Kalpis (1899). Troilos and Polyxena. Forman Sale Cat. p. 67, No. 339 ;
Beazley in J.H.S. xxxii. PL 2.
(10) Lebes (1899). Amazons. Furtwaengler and Reichhold, Gr. Vasenm.,
i. PL 58.
(11) Alabastron (1900). Horses training. Murray in Melanges Perrot, p. 252.
(12) Kotyle (1902). Kottabos. Archaeologia, Ii. PL 14, p. 383.
(13) Kylix (1907). Signed by Pamphaios. Hoppin, ii. 296, 297.
(14) Krater (1917). Anodos of Dionysos. Tischbein, Vases d'Hamilton, i. 32 ;
Reinach, ii. 287.
(15) Krater (1917). Apollo on Swan, Elite Ceram. ii. 42 ; Reinach, ii. 296.
(16) Kylix (1917). Theseus and Minotaur. Tischbein, Vases d'Hamilton,
i. 25 ; Reinach, ii, 285.
(17) Hydria (1920). Kaineus and Centaurs. Bull. Arch. Nap. vi. PL 2;
Reinach, i. 474.
NOTICES OF BOOKS
Tales of Aegean Intrigue. By J. C. LAWSOH. Pp. 271. London: Chatto ft
Windiis, 1920. 12s. 6rf.
The writer of these tales served during the War as Naval Intelligence Officer in Crete,
and had consequently exceptional opportunities of applying his wide knowledge of the
Greeks and their ways to the picturesque incidents which such service provokes. He
seems to have taken an active part in the events which resulted in the National Defence
Movement, and the establishment of a Venizelist administration in insular Greece. As
he confines himself to what he himself saw or experienced, some knowledge of the main
course of events is presupposed, if these ' Tales ' are to be fitted into their place in it. He
has clear and emphatic views on some defects in our organisation and war-policy, which
are commended to those whom they concern. Of less ephemeral interest are the examples
of propaganda-literature and mock-ballad in local dialect ; and those who have seen other
specimens will wish Mr. Lawson had printed more.
A Description of the Monuments of Cyprus. By GEORGE JEFFREY, F.S.A.
Pp. 467, 37 text- illustrations, 5 plates. Nicosia : Government Printing Office,
1918. Is. 6d.
Mr. Jeffrey has been for many years Inspector of Ancient Monuments in Cyprus, and has
exceptionally detailed acquaintance with architectural remains of all periods in the island.
This handbook, therefore, is based on close personal observations throughout, and is a
most valuable record of the present state of the monuments which it describes. The
brief Introduction brings together all the general information as to the administration and
topography of the island, which is necessary for the purposes of such an archaeological
survey, with a select bibliography, list of maps of Cyprus, and outlines of a classification
of the ancient buildings by period, and style, and purpose.
The body of the book is arranged topographically, and would serve therefore as a
guide, as well as inventory, for any student who might follow in the author's steps ; and
as even the smaller settlements are distributed in accordance with natural features, they
fall naturally into groups along the principal routes. At the end of the book are notes
on the history and chronology of Cyprus, on mediaeval costume (in relation to the sculptured
tombs of the period) and on the Venetian officials whose names are likely to be met in
inscriptions. There is a full index ; adequate plans, and a few well-selected photographs.
Mr. Jeffrey is much to be congratulated on the completion of this important and very
handy volume. It reveals, as nothing else could, the wealth of ancient remains in this
curious region, and the devoted enthusiasm which the author has devoted to their study
and conservation.
J. L. M.
Under the Turks in Constantinople. By G. F. ABBOTT. Pp. 418. London:
Macmillan & Co., 1920. IBs.
This book contains a record of the Embassy of Sir John Finch to Turkey, 1674 to 1681.
It has a commendatory Foreword by Lord Bryce, and as a frontispiece a reproduction of
the portrait of Finch by Carlo Dolci.
151
152 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Mr. Abbott has taken much pains over this record, and appears to have digested the
State Papers of the period with success. It is a careful and detailed account of the
activities of one of our Ambassadors — a man of good brains and considerable energy —
who was in the difficult position of being in almost equal shares the servant of the King
and the Levant Company. The story of his tribulations in his contact with the corrupt
and dilatory Turkish officials makes interesting reading.
There are not so many details of seventeenth-century Turkish life and manners as
could have been hoped, but this deficiency may be supplied by a reading of Mr. G. E.
Hubbard's The Day of the Crescent, published by the Cambridge University Press last
year; the two books taken together enable the reader to reconstruct Turkish life in that
century as far as an outsider could ever appreciate it.
As a point of exceptional interest attention may be drawn to the fact that our Ambas-
sadors in Turkey appear to have exercised arbitrary authority over all British subjects;
thus, if an Englishman conducted himself in a manner prejudicial to the peace or the
interests of the ' Nation,' as the Community was called, the Ambassador would sometimes
go so far as to expel the delinquent from the Turkish dominions.
Sir John Finch is of some importance in the history of our relations with Turkey
at any rate up to the War, and in spite of the humiliating reception with which he met
from Ahmed Kuprili on his arrival, he appears soon to have succeeded in gaining the
Grand Vizier's goodwill, and it was he who obtained for us the English capitulations as
they existed up to 1914. After Kuprili's death, under the administration of the terrible
Kara Mustapha extortion became more rampant still, and Finch had to fight hard for
the interest of his nation, using bribes for Turkish officials and the practice (of which
Mr. Abbott does not say much) of ' battulation ' ; this was a kind of boycott under which
the Ambassador prohibited all Englishmen from trading with a particular Turk, or even
sometimes with a whole class of Turks.
There is room for another volume to show how the old grants made by Kuprili to
Finch were later interpreted to allow far greater privileges than they were at first intended
to confer. In the time of the later Stuarts, and even of the early Hanoverian Kings, no
extra-territoriality was allowed to Englishmen, except in cases of lawsuits among them-
selves, and evidence appears that where a Turk was concerned the Englishman as a matter
of course submitted to Turkish jurisdiction; owing, however, to the customary careless-
ness of the Turks, we were gradually allowed to wrest the capitulations into a sense vastly
beyond their original meaning, and in the end we claimed for our subjects almost complete
immunity from Turkish jurisdiction; usage, however, is so thoroughly recognised in
Turkey as having fully the same force as law, that by virtue of this well-understood
principle we were entitled to claim for Sir John Finch's capitulations the liberal inter-
pretation which long custom conferred upon them.
The Idylls of Theocritus. With Introduction and Notes by R'. J. CHOLMELEY. New
edition. Pp. 449. London : G. Bell & Sons, 1919. 18*. 6U net.
The first edition of this well-known book supplied a long-felt want when it appeared in
1901. Until then there was no good English commentary on Theocritus, the notes in
Kynaston's school edition being of a very elementary character. Those students who
were able to read German notes were fairly well provided for by Killer's edition (Teubner,
1881), which is a model of good sense and sobriety. Unfortunately, it was never reprinted,
and in course of time has become difficult to procure. It is now, also, out of date, since
it does not take into account new facts and theories which have accumulated since 1881,
including contributions of Hiller himself. To this day Germany does not possess a modern
commentary, though a great deal of work has been done on the text and subject matter.
Cholmeley published his book some seven years after leaving Oxford. During this
time he had been occupied in teaching, first at the City of London School, and afterwards
in South Africa, where he fought in the Boer War. He was prevented by military service
from seeing it through the Press, and it contained a number of misprints and some slips,
NOTICES OF i;nnK> 153
which would have been removed by the author under normal circumstances. Its meriU
were at once recognised. It was indeed a young man's work, not without blemish but
full of promise for the future. He was full of enthusiasm for his subject, he had a great
capacity for taking pains, he was attracted by new theories, he advanced some novel
explanations, sometimes very acute, his conjectures were frequent and clever, though
sometimes over-daring. In his notes he sometimes seemed too subtle, especially when
treating points of grammar, and he had a tendency to employ slang phrases which grated
on many readers. It is no small praise to say of him that various suggestions which he
has made will have to be carefully considered by all editors. He could be very conser-
vative. Thus in Id. vi. 11-12 the MSS. give : —
ra 5« vtv Ka\a.
Kax\d(oin-a if' alyia\oio
Editors had here read Ka*A«f£oiTor from the Juntine to avoid the hiatus. Wilamowitz
quotes one MS. for this reading, also the Scholia, but an inspection of these will show that
the statement is incorrect. While ' plashing ' is naturally used of the waves, it is not
natural to speak of the ' plashing beach.' Cholmeley retains the reading of the MSS.,
pointing out that hiatus after a trochaic caesura in the third foot is legitimate in Theocritus,
and accepted by editors in other places. As an example of a neat emendation may be
taken Id. xxiv. 125. Here the MSS. give : —
Sovpan Sf irpo$o\ai(ii far' atririSt VUTOV
avSpbs opf^arrOat ^ityfiiiv T' ayf'xf<T0a< out/XM^-
It seems odd that an advancing warrior should have his shield slung over his back.
Cholmeley restores the sense by reading Stpov for vwrov. Here also the corruption is
due to a wish to avoid a legitimate hiatus. As a specimen of an ingenious, though some-
what subtle interpretation, we may take Id. xxvi. 29.
ftri 8' Imxcri)? fj KO.I SfKaru iirt&alvoi.
The words are simple enough, but in the context in which they occur the meaning is dark.
Cholmeley shows by references to the Anthology that children were sometimes initiated into
the mysteries of Dionysus, and proposes the interpretation, ' may he be pure of heart
even as a young child.' This can hardly be right, but it is certainly clever.
Most subjects connected with the life of Theocritus and the contents of the poems
ascribed to him are highly controversial, and have been discussed in countless monographs
and scattered articles, the great majority of which have proceeded from German scholars.
Cholmeley made a determined effort to master this mass of literature, and there is very
little which escaped his notice. His Introduction, consisting of sixty pages, deals "ith
the life of Theocritus, the subject matter of the poems and the MS. authority for the text
in the light of the most recent information. The notes also contain much that must have
been new to most of his readers.
The book passed through four reprints, in course of which most of the misprints were
removed and some slips were rectified. At the outbreak of the Great War he was engaged
on the preparation of the present edition. At that time he was lecturer in Greek at the
University of Queensland in Brisbane. Although he was no longer young, and was a
married man with a daughter, he threw up his post and came home to fight. The Preface
to his new edition, which is dated June 1915, was written at sea. In it he speaks of the
difficulties which he had experienced in procuring the necessary books when working in
a distant colony, and the interruption of his studies, now that
Hinc movet Euphrates, illinc Germania bcllum.
He received a commission in the Cheshire Regiment, and refusing work behind the lines
took his place in the trenches. He gained the Military Cross for bravery and was wounded
twice. The present writer made his acquaintance for the first time when he was lying
in hospital at Oxford, suffering from a wound in the head received on Vimy Ridge. He
had then passed through one operation and another was impending, but there were Greek
154 NOTICES OF BOOKS
books beside his bed and he -was full of Theocritus. His military ardour was not abated
by the armistice, and, having acquired a knowledge of Russian, he volunteered for service
in that country. He was drowned there on August 16, 1919, having been swept over-
board while overhauling machine-guns required for action at daybreak.
It is to be regretted that the publishers did not allow him to issue a completely new
edition. If this had been done, it is probable that certain immaturities of judgment and
style would have been removed. Apparently they wished to make as few alterations as
possible in the body of the book, which seems to have been stereotyped. Accordingly,
the Introduction and notes have been left practically intact, and only a few changes have
been made in the text. The new matter is to be found in the Addenda (pp. 32) and in
an Appendix on the dialect (pp. 28). In the Addenda he frequently retracts views pre-
viously expressed, and adopts readings other than those printed in the text. His final
views, therefore, are to be found in the Addenda, not in the body of the book. This does
not seem to be a desirable arrangement. There are a number of new notes, the most
elaborate of which deal with questions of folk-lore. This is a subject in which he had
long been interested, as is shown by the frequent references in the first edition. It is
probable that he was attracted, rather than repelled, by the hazardous character of some
speculations which he discusses. The Appendix on the dialect is a fine piece of work,
and exhibits strikingly his love of completeness and gift for minute study. No more
admirable synopsis of the subject is to be found elsewhere.
It seems tragic that so clever a scholar, with all the instincts of a researcher, should
have had so little leisure and, owing to his love of adventure, should have had to work
under so many difficulties. The war has furnished other examples of students who have
become enthusiastic soldiers, but no case is more striking than that of the editor of
Theocritus.
ALBERT C. CLARK.
Euclid in Greek. Book I., with Introduction and Notes. By Sni THOMAS L. HEATH.
Pp. 181. Cambridge : University Press, 1920. 10s. net.
It is refreshing to read Sir Thomas Heath's Preface to this (needless to say) admirable
edition of the first book of the Elements. ' Elementary geometry is Euclid, however
much the editors of textbooks may try to obscure the fact.' ' There is no subject which,
if properly presented, is better calculated than the fundamentals of geometry to make
the schoolboy (or the grown man) think.'' ' When compulsory Greek is gone, the study
of Greek will be no whit less necessary to a complete education.' All which sentiments
we heartily endorse. Whether schoolmasters will be found to make use of the means
here provided for enabling their more intelligent boys to grasp how the Greeks thought
things out from the beginning we do not know : but we hope that the experiment will be
made. Sir T. L. Heath provides exactly what is wanted to make the study interesting ;
his discussion of Euclid's definition of a straight line, for instance, is a model of clearness
and is packed with information. Many people probably have a hazy notion that Euclid
defined a straight line as ' the shortest distance between two points.' The note referred
to furnishes the antidote.
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, a GULIELMO DITTENBERGERO condita et
aucta, nunc tertium edita; volumen tertium, voluminis quarti fasciculus prior.
Pp. 402. Leipzig : Hirsel, 1920. M. 45.
The rapid progress towards completion of the new edition of Dittenberger is a subject for
unfeigned rejoicing. If the third volume, so anxiously awaited, does not entirely fulfil
the anticipations of those who meet with it, this will not be because of any decline in the
editorial standard , which remains as high as ever, but solely by reason of the fact that it
NOTICES OF BOOKS 1M
has not been expanded as much as we could have wished by the inclusion of new material :
we miss, in fact, some familiar friends, and do not feel that the loss is sufficiently com-
pensated. For example, the statute of the tparpia, of the Aolwt&u at Delphi
(No. 438 in ed. 2) has disappeared, together with the accounts of the J*Hrr4r«u 'l\ivfH>6*»
(No. 587) and those of the Delian Itpowotoi (No. 688); all of these should have been
retained if possible, and we should have welcomed the inclusion of some specimen of the
third century Delian accounts, the importance of which for economic history is consider-
able. In the selection of new documents the chief stress seems to be laid on religious
antiquities, of which we have no complaint to make. The Leges Sacrae of Cos (No. 1000),
Miletus (No. 1002) and Priene (No. 1003) are welcome additions, and we may especially
note No. 985, referring to an oltcos itpts at Philadelphia, from Keil and V. Premer-
stein's third Bericht. It is needless to say that the texts of the older inscriptions have
been brought up to date with the aid of Ziehen's Leges Sacrae and such-like works : thus
the word JoXoo-x'fw'o now appears in the funeral law of lulis (No. 1218 = No. 877,
ed. 2). Misprints are exceedingly rare (yvnvturrafx^ 1003.26, M]nvroi 1221. 1) :
No. 1268 should be indicated as a new addition. The first volume of the Index
is arranged on a new principle : place-names form headings, and individuals are subsumed
thereunder. We cannot regard this as an improvement, as some loss of time is inevitable
in use. Some cross-references should be added : THXu, for example, is not to be found,
and it requires presence of mind to turn to *AX«J without delay.
Epicure : Opere, Frammenti, Testimonialize sulla sua Vita, tradotti con
introduzione e commento, da ETTORE BIGNONE. Pp. 271. Bari : Laterza e
Figli, 1920. L. 15-50.
Since the publication of Usener's Epicurea in 1887, much incidental work has been done
in elucidating the text of Epicurus' writings and expounding his intricate and subtle
doctrines. Iii Germany Brieger wrote several tracts — marred by excessive emendation
of the text — and Wotke in 1888 published the eighty new fragments discovered in a kind
of philosophical Anthology in a Vatican MS. of the fourteenth century. In our own country
there have been the studies of Wallace, Professor A. E. Taylor and Mr. R. D. Hicks
(Stoic and Epicurean) together with incidental observations in Dr. Masson's Lucrdivs :
Poet and Epicurean, all of which appear to be unknown to Dr. Bignone. But the chief
work has been done in Italy, where classical scholars have of late devoted themselves
largely to the study of the outlying Greek philosophies. The brilliant essays of Giussani
in his Studi Lurreziani were followed up by Pascal and Tescari and by several articles in
periodicals by Dr. Bignone himself. No writer has, however, had the courage hitl Tto
to undertake a complete edition of the Epicurean remains. It may therefore be said at
once that the present volume is a most valuable contribution to the study of Epicurus —
it is the first complete translation in any language— and that the execution of the work
is fully worthy of its importance.
Dr. Bignone gives us a translation with full annotations of the three Letters and the
Kvptai At!{a« preserved by Diogenes Laertius, of the Will of Epicurus and his Life from
the same source, of all the actual cited fragments — including the Vatican Floiilegium,
which constitutes an important addition to the collection of Usener — and of certain of the
more important statements of his doctrines in other writers. To these he has added an
Introduction concerned chiefly with the style of the Letters and ' Main Principles ' and
certain problems connected with them, together with a very valuable Appendix, in which
some of the chief difficulties of the Letter to Herodotus are discussed at greater length.
We are promised a second volume, which will presumably contain essays on Epicurus'
doctrine.
The obvious want for a student using this volume is that of the Greek text. It was
presumably excluded by the scope of the series in which the book is published, but with
so difficult a writer as Epicurus it is a mental gymnastic of the first order to follow Dr.
Bignone's translation in Usener's text, making for oneself the many incidental corrections
156 NOTICES OF BOOKS
required by the commentary : it would have been invaluable for working purposes to
have in front of one the text as Dr. Bignone has reconstituted it. The want is the more
severely felt in that the new text would undoubtedly be greatly superior to that of Usener.
Dr. Bignone is naturally of a conservative disposition, but by his commanding knowledge
of the Epicurean system he has in many places demonstrated that the MS. text may safely
be retained, and that Usener's ' corrections ' were due to misunderstanding. Having
worked at the text of Epicurus for a good many years, I may perhaps say that in very many
places I had independently made the same restorations, and that in many more I should
now agree with Dr. Bignone's suggestions. All editors, however, have their own nostrums,
and Dr. Bignone seems to me to assume too frequently that words have dropped out
through ' haplography.'
The translation is accurate but free, that is to say, it does not always follow literally
the Greek order of words and clauses and frequently expands, but it brings out admirably
the full force and meaning of the original. There are places in which Dr. Bignone seems
to strain the meaning of the Greek unduly, and others — especially in the Letter to Menoeceus,
where one feels that he is apt to lose the full force of the rather strange and picturesque
words of Epicurus by a too commonplace rendering — but it is difficult to judge of this
in a language not one's own.
The notes are models of conciseness and lucidity. One is always given full references
to parallel passages which elucidate the doctrines, the most crabbed writing and subtle
theories are briefly and clearly explained, and controversy, where it is necessary, is kept
within the briefest limits. Here and there, as, for instance, in the sections in the Letters
to Herodotus on <™/ij8«0i7*c<$Ta and av^irrw^ara (68-73), repression seems almost too great
and one would gladly have more.
For this reason one of the most valuable parts of the book is the Appendix, in which
Dr. Bignone has dealt at greater length with some difficult points in the theory. A com-
parison, for instance, of his treatment of the Epicurean Cinetics with that in Giussani's
brilliant essay shows a markedly greater command of the subject and sobriety of judg-
ment : Giussani had his own theory to which he made Epicurus conform* Dr. Bignone
has with great care and ingenuity worked out a consistent theory on the data given us
by the MSS. I do not myself feel convinced yet that Epicurus held that the «f5«Aa of
vision moved with ' atomic velocity ' or that the portions of sections 46 and 47 of the Letter
to Herodotus, which Giussani wished to transpose, can be retained in their place as relating
to the movement of the eTSa-Aa — but at least Dr. Bignone has made a good case for his
conservatism.
It is indeed the outstanding sobriety of judgment and the complete mastery of the
Epicurean system which give the book its value and place it very high in the classical
work of the present century. It is to be hoped that it will become well known in England
and that it will not be long before Dr. Bignone publishes his second volume of exposition.
C. BAILEY.
Le Phedon de Platon et le Socrate de Lamartine. By JOSEPH ORSIEK.
Pp. 149. Paris : Boccard, 1919. 12 f.
M. Orsier is rather a lawyer and historian than a philosopher, and his accustomed field
is modern rather than ancient times. He explains that the French Ministry of Education
sent him in 1916-17 to teach ancient philosophy at Toulon, and that the present essay
is the fruit of this mission. The volume consists of two more or less equal parts ; of which
the first was originally published separately. This is a detailed criticism of Lamartine's
well-known poem, Socrate, by comparison with its source, the Phatdo of Plato. Appre-
ciation, illustrated by frequent quotations, of Lamartine's eloquent alexandrines is inter-
mingled with protests against the poet's occasional modernisations, falsifications, and
flights of imagination. Much of this is interesting, though more from a literary than
from'a philosophical point of view, and more, perhaps, to a Frenchman than to an English-
man. The second section is called by M. Orsier ' un apei^u historique et critique sur la
NOTICES OF BOOKS 157
philosophic ancienne jusqu'a la renaissance.' It is in fact an attempt to outline the
history of philosophy from Thales to Descartes. Seventy pages are really not enough
for this, however great the writer's skill and knowledge. M. Orsier's ability to master
his material may be judged from the four pages devoted to the pre-Socratic philosophers.
These are grouped as (1) Materialists (the lonians and the Atomistn), (2) Idealists (Pytha-
goreans, Eleatics, Empedocles, Anaxagoras), (3) Sophists. We see no justification for
this kind of compendium.
A Critical History of Greek Philosophy. By W. T. STACK. Pp. 386. London :
Macmillan & Co., 1920. Is. M.
This book, which is based upon a course of public lectures, discusses with admirable
lucidity the chief systems of philosophy from Thales to the Xeo-Platonisto. The author
is frankly critical and gives short shrift to any doctrines which do not contain at least
the germs of modern idealism. Some readers may therefore feel that his treatment
of, for example, part of Plato, the Stoics, Epicureans and Neo-Platonists is a little too
summary and heavy-handed. The sworn foe of ' symbolism ' and ' sensuous thinking,'
Mr. Stace has no patience with the ' mythical ' side of Plato's thought. The ardent friend
of the ' rational ' and the ' objective,' he condemns the mysticism of Plot inns as the extreme
of subjectivism, which, forsaking reason, tries to reach truth by means of a miracle. This
perhaps is hardly fair. The mystical consciousness is a fact, and a very important fact
for those who have it, and such persons may fairly retort that a philosophy which fails
to take account of it is inadequate. Moreover some of us, alas ! may feel doubt whether
all the concepts of modern idealism are quite as ' objective ' as their upholders maintain.
But this is not the place to discuss fundamental problems of philosophy, and if we admit
that Mr. Stace's standpoint is the only correct one and that subjectivism can be entirely
eradicated from metaphysics, we must hasten to add that the author has performed his
task extremely well.
His treatment of the earlier philosophers appears to us excellent. In discussing the
Sophists and Socrates he concerns himself almost entirely with the problem of the reduction
of subjectivity to objectivity. In this connexion might it not have been well to mention
that Protagoras held some perceptions to be better than others and thereby made some
approach to an objective standard ? Mr. Stace's views as to the order of the Platonic
dialogues cannot, we think, be accepted. The Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman and
Partnenides he assigns to Plato's middle period, regarding them as earlier than the Sym-
posium, Republic and Phaedo, which h« thinks are the works of Plato's maturity, when ' the
style returns to the lucidity and purity of the first period.' ' The second period van
concerned with the formulation and proof of the theory of Ideas, the third period under-
takes its systematic application.' This is quite contrary to the usual view that the
Parmenides, Sophist, etc., correct crudities in the metaphysical doctrines of the Republic
and Phaido. In speaking of the Timtuu-s he summarily dismisses the Creator as a myth
and a dens ex machina, introduced because ' in the Ideas themselves there is no ground of
explanation.' Plato, he says, has failed to deduce his Ideas from the Idea of Good, which
ought to serve as an Absolute, but does not. This criticism is very much to the point.
It is a criticism, however, which, we fear, can be levelled against any and every absolutist
philosophy. So far from ' deducing ' the world from an Absolute, modern idealists merely
try to convince us that ' somehow ' all contradictions are resolved in that transcendent
mystery.
Mr. St&ce has profound respect for Aristotle, whose system is ' the perfected and
completed Greek idealism.' His account of Aristotle's advance upon Plato is clear and
interesting, but to his just critique of the Aristotelian philosophy should he not have
added a fuller statement of the difficulties and lacunae in the doctrine of roCt ? Post-
Aristotelian philosophy occupies less than forty pages of the book. Its cursory treat nu-nt
is deliberate, because in Mr. Stace's opinion it lies outside the main stream of idealistic
development. Although this may be true of the Epicureans and in a less degree of the
158 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Stoics, it does not seem true of the Neo-Platonists. Mysticism may be distasteful to
some idealists, though not to all, — Mr. Bradley himself has been called a mystic, — but
there is much in Plotinus and Proclus which foreshadows, and indeed has contributed to,
the idealism of to-day.
J. H. S.
Transition in the Attic Orators. By R. D. ELLIOTT. 8vo. Menasha, Wisconsin :
The Collegiate Press, 1919.
This book displays great diligence and accuracy and a love of detail for its own sake.
Scholars especially interested in the technical criticism of. ancient rhetoric will find some-
thing of value in the discussion of the Major Parts of the Oration. The main body of the
book consists of statistics arranged under an ingenious technological shorthand which
would be more tolerable if the subject were of more importance or if the statistics issued
in useful conclusions, as for instance, about the date of speeches. Transitions in Attic
Oratoj-s are far more the instinctive tact of a clever speaker than the conscious application
of highly complicated rules, and Mr. Elliot's method of analysis does less than justice to
an artist like Lysias, ' il ne faut pas que le levier soit plus lourd que le fardeau.' There
is a good deal to be learnt from this as from all careful and well-arranged work, but readers
of it will do well to take a speech of Lysias after every chapter as a corrective.
Primitive Time-Reckoning. A Study in the Origins and first Development of the
Art of counting Time among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples. By MARTIN
P. NILSSON. Pp. 324. Lund & Oxford : The Oxford University Press, 1920. 21s.
The value of ethnology has long been recognised as a means of illuminating the problems
of antiquity, and of indicating the true source and meaning of such primitive features as
remain embedded in our own civilisation. It was with a view primarily to tracing the
origin and pedigree of the ancient Greek calendrical system that Professor Nilsson under-
took that intensive study of primitive methods of reckoning time, which is embodied in
the present volume. He has ransacked ethnological literature and collected nearly all
the available data relevant (as well as some that are not wholly relevant, e. g. star-lore)
to his subject ; these he quotes verbatim, and with full reference to his authorities. The
work has, in fact, the character of an encyclopaedia. At first sight one might be excused
for questioning the utility of multiplying examples illustrative of a single principle.
Undoubtedly the author's argument would not suffer by excision and compression. On
the other hand the book's very copiousness of detail makes it invaluable as a work of
reference. Moreover, it is only by a comprehensive survey of this kind that fundamental
principles are seen to emerge in clear perspective from a solid background of fact, and
that the remarkable resemblance in mentality shown by the most diverse races in tackling
similar problems becomes apparent.
The author disclaims exhaustiveness ; nevertheless his survey is so comprehensive
as to make certain omissions the more noticeable. He himself points out the incomplete-
ness of his data from northern Asia, which is due to the relevant publications being in
Russian. But the omission of any reference to the remarkable calendrical systems of pre-
Columbian Mexico and Peru, though no doubt intentional, is none the less regrettable.
The ancient Mexican calendar is peculiarly interesting on account of its dualism, and it
presents the unique features of having 20-day months, and cycles of 104 years regulated
by the sy nodical revolutions of Venus. The Peruvian calendar, too, is of interest on
account of the analogy it presents with that of ancient Egypt in having 12 months
of 30 days each and an appendix of 5 odd days. Perhaps the author considered these
systems too highly developed for inclusion under the present title.
The actual contents of the volume may be briefly summarised. After an Introduction
in which the general nature of the subject is explained, there are separate chapters dealing
NOTICES OF BOOKS 159
with the following subjects: the day; the season*; the year; the stars, including a
digression on star- lore; the month; the months, regarded as a series; old Semitic months
(Babylonia, the Israelites, and the pro-Mohammedan Arabs); calendar regulation, with
special reference to intercalation and the determination of the beginning of the year;
popular months of European peoples; solstices and equinoxes; artificial periods of time,
especially in connexion with markets and religious feasts (including a discussion on the
origin of the Sabbath); the calendar-makers as a professional class; finally there is a
chapter of conclusions, to which is appended a brief discussion of the ancient Greek
calendar, a subject which the author has treated more fully elsewhere.
There are certain fundamental points in which, in spite of endless varieties of detail,
almost all primitive people seem to agree. Keen observation of the changing phenomena
of nature and the absence of a developed mathematical sense leads them into descriptive,
as opposed to numerical, terminology. Regularly recurring concrete phenomena are
used to indicate season or time of day. Thus the Nandi of East Africa would render
' November 30th at 8.0 p.m.' by saying ' in the month of the strong wind, on the day of
the moon's darkness, at the time when the porridge is cold.' A list of the time indications
used by this tribe is in fact practically a description of their life. The method survives
with us poetically in such phrases as ' cock-crow ' or ' the fall of the leaf.' Moreover,
primitive peoples conceive of time not in connected periods but ' aoristically ' as a number
of discontinuous points. Periods are reckoned on the para pro toto principle, a day and
night being frequently denoted by a ' sleep,' a month by a ' new moon,' a year by a ' winter.'
Enumeration occurs only sporadically, the'Maories of New Zealand being unique in having
a numbered series of months.
Practically all primitive peoples agree, too, in adopting the moon as their indicator of
longer periods of time, and lunar months are related to seasonal phenomena and occupa-
tions. Cycles of 12 or 13 months are adopted as a rough approximation to the year,
primitive mathematics being inadequate to the appreciation of a period of 365 days,
except in the case of certain North American tribes who kept tallies in the form of notched
sticks. The displacement of the months in relation to the seasons becomes obvious after
a few years, and is corrected by intercalating or omitting (' doubling ' or ' forgetting ')
a month, as the case may be. Such intercalations are empirical, not systematic; the
treatment of the calendar's disorders is therapeutic rather than prophylactic. An addi-
tional check on the months is provided by the stars, of which most ' uncivilised ' peoples
are careful observers, particularly the Polynesians (as navigators), and the South American
Indians. The rising or setting of the Pleiades and Orion are most commonly used to
indicate the proper time for sowing or planting. The solstices and equinoxes are in rarer
cases observed, and the influence of environment is here apparent, the Eskimo near the
Arctic circle being particularly favourably placed for observing the solstices. One would
be inclined to doubt whether any people closely in touch with nature can have failec* to
notice the turn of the year by the changing position of sunrise and sunset, though records
of the fact may be lacking.
The author considers the Greek calendar of historic times, with its cyclical inter-
calation, to have been derived from Babylon, and he makes out a fair case for ita trans-
mission through Ionia to Delphi, which naturally acted as a means of its diffusion through-
out Greece. His argument is also partly based on the absence in Homer of any mention
of the germs of intercalation from which the later system could have grown. He considers
Homeric time-reckoning to have been essentially primitive. But it is at least doubtful
whether he is justified in laying so much stress on the negative evidence of the poet. \N V
should hardly expect to obtain a clear idea of the Julian or Gregorian calendar by an
appeal to the evidence of our own poets. Such phrases, for instance, as ft«/i£Aw*« ^aA«rra
3/uap cannot be seriously treated as evidence in this question. As regards the Baby-
lonian calendar the author agrees with Kugler, as opposed to Weidner, that cyclical inter-
calation did not come into force before the Persian period, although knowledge of the
astronomical facts in Babylon long antedated their practical application.
The evolution of a true calendrical system is primarily a question of mathematics,
since it presupposes the power to assess the year in terms of days, a thing beyond the
160 NOTICES OF BOOKS
mind of primitive man. It is difficult to recognise a logical and continuous development
from what was essentially concrete and non-numerical to the purely abstract and numerical.
It would appear more likely that the mathematical faculties were developed independently
of time- reckoning (though this may have provided a contributory stimulus), and being
subsequently applied to the proper regulation of time, as required in an organised polity,
produced a revolution, in other words a system, in the calendrical world.
In a work of this nature we might perhaps have expected to find more than a passing
reference to the water-clock, which in the form of a perforated bowl was in use from very
early times in India and Ceylon, as well as in Britain in the early iron age.
The style of the book is not entirely free from the awkwardness to which translations
are liable, while a fuller index including the names of tribes mentioned would add to its
utility.
These are, however, minor defects, and whatever interpretation we may feel inclined
to put upon the facts here collected, there can be no question that the author has performed
a very thorough piece of research which should be of great value as well to the student
of archaeology as of ethnology.
H. J. B.
Greek Tragedy. By GILBERT NORWOOD. Pp. 396. London : Methuen and Co., 1920.
This manual, adapted in language and content to the use of elementary students, forms
a useful introduction to Greek Tragedy.
The book is conveniently divided into six chapters : (1) The Literary History of
Greek Tragedy; (2) The Greek Theatre and the Production of Plays; (3) The Works
of Aeschylus; (4) The Works of Sophocles; (5) The Works of Euripides; (6) Metre and
Rhythm in Greek Tragedy.
The writer does not attempt to say anything new, nor does he state the orthodox
views so concisely as he might. His chapter on Metre seems needlessly perplexing.
But the combination of facts presented in his book is unusual, and for that reason it
may be hoped that it will find purchasers.
A. W. M.
A Handbook of Greece. Vol. I. The Mainland of Old Greece and certain
Neighbouring Islands. Pp. 782, 19 plates, 2 maps.
A Handbook of Macedonia and Surrounding Territories. Pp. 524, 5 maps
and plans. Compiled by the Geographical Section of the N.I.D., The Admiralty.
London : H.M. Stationery Office.
These volumes belong to an extensive series of handbooks compiled during the early part
of the War by the Geographical Section of the Naval Intelligence Division, Naval Staff,
Admiralty. They are now, with a few corrections and additions, made available for the
general public.
The Handbook of Greece consists of brief, well-informed chapters on geographical and
climatic conditions, ethnology, social conditions, trade, government and administration, and
also a very extensive series of itineraries. The itineraries being written from a military
standpoint contain no descriptions of antiquities, hotels, or other such attractions; they
will nevertheless be found of considerable value by the tourist, especially if used in
conjunction with a guide to Greece of the usual civilian type. The volume contains
several good illustrations, including some of places that deserve to be better known.
The bridge of Tatarna is a case in point. The large annual fair mentioned as being held
at Magoula nearby has, we fear, lost much of its old importance.
The Handbook of Macedonia is similar in plan, but of considerably less value. The
data from which it had to be compiled were most insufficient and unreliable. During the
NOTICI> OF I'.nnKv 16l
War an immense amount of information wag obtained on the geographical, climatic and
hygienic conditions of Macedonia. Old n\&\w were corrected, and a large atrip of country
behind the Allied lines from the Adriatic to the Aegean was carefully surveyed. A
number of new roads were made, and old ones altered. The present volume is con-
sequently of very little use. We hope its existence will not prevent a new handbook,
materials for which are now available, from being issued in the near future.
M. S. T.
Hellenism in Ancient India. By GAURANOA NATH BANEBJEE. Second Edition.
Pp. 344. London and Calcutta : Butterworth & Co. 1920. 16*.
The fact that this book has reached a second edition in less than two years is the beet
testimony that could be given to its usefulness. Mr. Banerjee investigates very fully
the possibilities of Hellenic influence in all branches of Hindu art, literature, philosophy
and science. His book shows a remarkably wide range of reading, and few of the theories
.put forward by European scholars suggesting Hellenic influence in India seem to have
escaped him. His judgments are eminently sensible, and he rightly holds that the possi-
bilities of direct Greek influence on Hindu civilisation have been exaggerated, notably
by Niese and Windisch and even occasionally by Vincent Smith. The author opens with
a discussion of the debt, admitted on all sides, that Indian architecture and sculpture owe
to Hellenistic art. He agrees with Sir John Marshall against Stryzgowski and Vincent
Smith that the influence is indirect and cannot be traced directly to any particular centre
of Hellenistic culture. Painting has every claim to be considered a native Indian art.
In the case of the coinage which Mr. Banerjee next discusses we have a native invention
fundamentally altered in character by direct foreign influence, although the earliest coins
struck by Greeks in India follow native types. It was the great Kushan and Saka empires
whose coinages, naturally following Greek medallic types, gave Indian coinage its definitely
Western character. Our author next discusses astronomy, and has no difficulty in agreeing
with the view that Hindu astronomy as an exact science can be traced to the Alexandrian
schools. The case of mathematics is different ; while Greek influence is not impossible
it is more difficult to trace. There are, for example, no technical terms of obviously Greek
origin as in the case of astronomy; and in the case of the so-called Arabic numerals it is
the West that has borrowed from India. Mr. Banerjee discusses at some length the views
that have been held on the relations of the Greek and Indian schools of medicine, but
rio finality has yet been reached on this question. The chapter on the origin of the Indian
alphabets, in which sufficient consideration is not given to Buhler's views, hardly deserves
a place in a book on Hellenism in India, as no one suspects Greek influence here ; nor t *»
any one seriously hold nowadays that the great Indian epics show direct borrowings from
Homer.
The theory of the Greek origin of the Indian drama, first championed by Weber and
\\indisch, is still not without supporters; to the latter we recommend Mr. Banerjee's
able discussion of the characteristic differences between the Greek and Indian drama.
He, however, is too ready to accept the nature-myth theory of the origin of the drama.
The fourth part of the book discusses the independent evolution of religion, philosophy
and fables in India and Greece, and contains a good deal that hardly comes within the
subject of the book. The author does not seem to know of Professor Berriedale Keith's
important article on Pythagoras and the Doctrine of Transmigration in the J.K.A.S.,
1909, pp. 569-606.
Mr. Banerjee has an excellent knowledge of his subject and shows considerable critical
ability, but his book might be greatly improved in a future edition. It might with
advantage be a good deal shorter; murh that has no special connexion with the subject
could be omitted. The author has a great fondness for quoting his sources in the original, and
his book is full of long quotations in French. German and Dutch, which, while they may
impress his compatriots with his learning, must be quite unintelligible to the majority of
them. The book has an unnecessarily large number of misprints and the foreign passages
J. H. S. VOL. XLI. M
162 NOTICES OF BOOKS
swarm with them — ' gyothi seantor,' on p. 288, is a specimen. The last quarter of the
book, on religion and philosophy, is much too ambitious and lacks lucidity. This is hardly
the place to call attention to many minor inaccuracies on purely Indian points, such as
the use of the antiquated, terms ' Indo-Pali ' and ' Scythian ' languages and the extraordinary
statement on p. 242 that Patanjali refers to dramatic representations of Krishna's love
affairs. In their present form the bibliographies appended to each chapter are of little
use except to show the author's pedantry. The lists should be cut down to books and
articles that are really important, and full and accurate titles with details of publication
should be given.
The Greek Orators. By J. F. DOBSON. Pp. 321. London: Methuen, 1919.
7s. 6d. net.
JEBB'S Attic Orators is now long out of date, and since 1876 there has been no book published
in English which covers the Orators as a whole. So Professor Dobson's work is welcome,
and will prove very useful to students. The book does not aim at the exhaustive com-
pleteness of Blass, but at supplying a handy and interesting introduction to the Greek
orators. This is the standard by which it is to be judged, and judged by this standard it
can claim success. The author — though he clearly is master of the literature of the
subject — rightly avoids polemical discussion of complicated points of chronology and law.
Sometimes he is almost too careful to give both sides of the question. For instance, the
unhappy theory of Benseler and Dobree that the Battle " at Cnidos " in Isaeus V is the
battle in 394 B.C. might by now be passed over in silence.
Professor Dobson has succeeded in being brief without obvious signs of compression,
and has omitted little that is important. On p. 20 one misses a reference to the interesting,
though tiny, fragment of Antiphon's speech, Trept T^S /Aeroo-rao-eos, published by
Nicole in the Geneva Papyri (1907). So, too, we are told of Antiphon's speech on the
tribute of Samothrace, but not of that for the Lindians. But there is little in the way of
omission of which a critic can fairly complain, in view of the scale on which the book is
written. We are fortunate in possessing much ancient criticism of the Attic Orators,
and to this criticism the author has done ample justice. His selection and translation of
illustrative passages are excellent. As regards the treatment of the several orators, there
is room for criticism, or, at least, for a difference of opinion. Andocides, for instance,
gets more attention than he deserves in comparison with Lysias, so greatly his superior
in the versatility and subtlety of his art. On the other hand, to accuse Andocides of
extreme scurrility may produce discouragement in some readers and disappointment in
others. For the full appreciation of the Attic Orators the nicer feelings are rather out of
place, and throughout the book Professor Dobson seems a trifle too prone to censure.
The chapter on Isaeus is extremely good, and so is that on Aeschines, where the author's
sober and discriminating criticism is seen at its best. A single, though a long, chapter
on Demosthenes must always seem too short, but the chapter is skilful in compression
and well balanced. Isocrates' contribution to the development of Greek rhetoric is ably
stated, though one regrets that Professor Dobson denied himself a little more space to
treat of the orator's influence on later prose, both Greek and Latin. In the last chapter,
which deals with the decline of Oratory, the author seems to under-estimate the continued
importance of rhetoric in the political affairs of Athens and other Greek cities. The
philosophers of the second and third centuries owe much of their political authority to
their eloquence, as did the mediaeval prelates with whom they have so much in common.
Something, however, has to be sacrificed to the need of keeping such a book as this within
useful limits of space and cost, and in this hard task Professor Dobson has succeeded
admirably.
NOTICES OF HOOKS 163
The Sayings of Jesus from Oxyrhynchue. Kdit.-.l, «iti, lntr«.<lu< t...,,. critical
Apparatus and Commentaiy. by Hn;n (;. KVKI.YN WIIITK. l'|.. l\\\
Cambridge : University Press, 1920. I2a. 6rf. net.
The author of this excellent volume apologises for his intrusion into a sphere which ia not
his own. With yet far greater reason must the present reviewer make a similar apology;
but so far as he is qualified to judge Mr. Evelyn White's incursion is amply justified by
results. The volume is indeed a very important contribution to a subject which offers so
many points of doubt and controversy, that there is room for treatment from several «ffot
It shows a mastery of the literature concerned with and bearing on the Sayings upon which
the author is to be congratulated; and with this are combined a sound judgment and
great acuteness in conjecture.
Beginning with a bibliography of the subject, the author first reproduces the actual
text of the two MSS. (P. Oxy., 654 and 1), without restoration of lost words or letters, and
next gives the restored text adopted by himself, not distinguishing (a feature which is to
be deprecated) the restorations from the MS. readings. This is followed by an '" Intro-
duction," which is really an elaborate essay on the nature of the Sayings, and finally the
Sayings themselves are given one by one, with the various readings proposed by scholars,
and lengthy notes. The volume concludes, it is satisfactory to note, with an index.
The main theme of the introduction is the question as to the nature of the Sayings.
Do they constitute an independent tradition going back to Apostolic times, or are they post-
Apostolic, put together on the basis of the Gospels or of some one Gospel ? And if so,
which Gospel ? Mr. Evelyn White rejects alike the theory of an independent tradition
and that of a comparatively late origin. He places them, with the original editors, in the
sub- Apostolic age, t. e. in the first half of the second century ; and he believes them to come
from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. They (and so, of course, the Gospel from which
they are taken) are, he thinks, based on the Synoptics, particularly Luke, but are worked
up in a literary way, with the addition of original matter; and they show traces of
Johannine thought, but as yet in an early stage of development.
It follows that the Sayings can claim no original authority; their interest lies, in the
author's view, in their character of early Christian literature, not in that of historical
evidence; but from the former point of view they are of great value as illustrating the
growth of a literary tradition, and, if the theory be sound, as throwing light on the nature
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. As to the theory itself, it must be admitted that
it is extremely well argued, with converging lines of evidence, constituting, in their ensemble,
an undoubtedly strong case ; but it is hardly to be regarded as established, and Mr. Evelyn
White seems a little too positive in some of his conclusions. Thus, in point (1) on p. Ivi,
his statement " there can be no doubt whatever that the evangelist of the Hebrews' G< -»pel
is here elaborating his main source, Matthew, with reminiscences of the Lucan parable of
the Rich Man and Lazarus " is surely too strong; and in point (5) on p. Iviii the thread
of evidence is extremely slender.
Mr. Evelyn White's remarks on and restorations of the individual Sayings are always
worthy of consideration, and not infrequently brilliant. Particularly does this last remark
apply to his treatment of the Prologue. It would perhaps be going too far to say that his
restoration of 1. 2 solves finally the perplexing problem of the mention of Thomas in 1. 3,
but it is certainly beyond comparison the most satisfactory suggestion yet made, and his
acceptance of Brunton's £u>o7rot<u in 1. 1, taken in conjunction with his own version of 1. 2,
and the certain restoration of 1. 4, gives the whole Prologue a connexion and inner unity
which it has never yet received.
This is probably Mr. Evelyn White's most brilliant single contribution to the textual
criticism of the Sayings, but many of his restorations and comments are of considerable
importance. His TTU.[\-TU, indeed, in 1. 23 (Saying III), is very weak, though it must be
confessed that the passage is puzzling. His common sense and soundness of judgment
are seen in his view of Saying VIII (Logion III), as against the fanciful interpretations of
some commentators; and he adduces some excellent parallels for the words /ju#iorra«
and &eiif/w(v)Ta, which have caused much unnecessary perplexity.
WHEN WAS THEMISTOCLES LAST IN ATHENS?
THE twenty-fifth chapter of the Aristotelian Constitution of Athens contains
a circumstantial account of the overthrow of the Areopagus, which differs
from the accepted version of the same affair in ascribing an important, though
not the foremost, part in the attack to Themistocles. The newly discovered
version does not, it is true, stand entirely by itself. But it is found elsewhere
only in an argument to the Areopagiticus of Isocrates,1 written probably by a
sixth-century Christian.2 As between the argument and the papyrus, it is
the latter that alone can give any serious historical value to the former. But
what is the historical value of the account in the Constitution ? If it is true,
then, as was recognised at once by Kenyon in his editio princeps, it revolutionises
the history of the later part of Themistocles' career.3
But it was at once recognised also that the version of the Constitution was
difficult to reconcile with the accounts of Themistocles to be found in Thucydides,
Plutarch, and other writers.4 These all say that the trial that drove Themis-
tocles to Persia took place while he was living ostracised from Athens at Argos.
The ostracism of Themistocles took place before the condemnation and death
of Pausanias, with whom the Athenian statesman was accused of having
intrigued during his period of ostracism. As the downfall and death of Pausanias
have generally and with good reason been dated about 468 B.C., it has been
inferred that Themistocles cannot have been in Athens after about 469 B.C.5
This reckoning, again, has been thought to be confirmed by the accounts
of the flight to Persia. Themistocles is said by Thucydides to have reached
Persia when Artaxerxes was 'newly' on the throne: Artaxerxes succet led
his father Xerxes in the year 465 B.C. Even on the loosest interpretation of
' newly,' 6 it is hard to see how even a Themistocles can have got through all
the adventures that befell him between his ostracism and his arrival at the
Persian court if the former event took place during or after the attack of
Ephialtes on the Areopagus and the latter shortly after the accession of
Artaxerxes. Furthermore, Themistocles is said by Thucydides to have fallen
TU xal e«ju«<rr<MtAf/j xPtit<rro^l^rtt * Kniyon, ad loc.
Tjj wo\«t xf^Mara *al tiooni STI, idv otK<tffuon> * Thuc. i. 135-8; Plut. Them. 22 f. ;
ol ' Apfoiraylrai, irdrrus avotuaovai, Kara\i'<rcn Dicxi. xi. 54-59 (Ephorus); Corn. Nep.
atroi/? ffuffav -r^v *6\tv ... 6 yap 'ApicrroT«'A»jt Them. 8-10 (mainly Thucydidee).
A«7«i iv rp woAiTffi TUV '\8i)vnl<ev STI *ai o * E.g. Holm Hint. dr. ii. p. !M ; I' M
atrtot fo n*i irifra oiK<i£ny rovt Get. d. Alt. III. i. p. 519.
' See below, p. 171. n. 27
1 Rose, Ath. Pol. p. 423, accepted by
Sandys, Ath. Pol*, p. 107.
J.H.S. — VOL. M.I. 1«5 N
166 P. N. URE
in on the way to Persia with the Athenian fleet blockading Naxos. The date
of this blockade is not quite certain ; but it preceded the battle of Eurymedon,
which in turn preceded the siege of Thasos, which last event can be dated with
some certainty as having begun in 465 B.C., or, at the latest, early in 464. If
Themistocles was on the way to Persia at the time of the siege of Naxos, he
cannot have been in Athens in 462 B.C.
The effect of all these considerations has been to discredit very seriously
the narrative which states that he was in Athens at the later date. It has been
commonly assumed that there is a flat contradiction between the writer of
the Constitution and Thucydides, and that the earlier authority must be accepted.
The narrative of Chapter XXV. of the Constitution is stated by two English
scholars to reach the acme of absurdity. To take it seriously, so we are told
by a leading German scholar, is a ' Zeichen philologischer Unmiindigkeit.' 7
Of those who hold such views as have just been quoted, it is not surprising
that some have proceeded to excise the offending passage, partly as being
inherently improbable, partly because it is not reproduced in Plutarch's life
of Themistocles.8
Most scholars do not go so far as this. They regard the narrative as genuine
but unauthentic, and quote other cases where our author makes mistakes in
his history.9 But if these other mistakes are compared with those that axe
alleged to occur in Chapter XXV., we shall find that they are of a quite different
order; either slips in points of fact or chronology that have no important
bearing on the narrative, or mistakes on difficult questions of ancient con-
stitutional history (of which the most noticeable is the much disputed fourth
chapter on the Draconian constitution), or lapses into partisanship, as when
7 Mitchell and Caspar! in their edition of stance of this paper will make it unnecessary
Grote, p. 283, n. 1 ; F. Cauer, Deutsch. to revert to them in detail.
Literaturzeit. 1894, p. 942. Cp. also (inter » See the list given by Th. Reinach, Rep.
olios) Berard, Rev. Hist. xlix. (1892) p. 296; Ath. pp. xxvi-xxvii (Cimon ' youngish ' in
Botsford, Cornell Stud. Class. Phil. 1893, 462 B.C., c. 26; Spartan peace proposals
p. 220, n. 2 ; Busolt, Or. (?2. III. i. p. 29 ; put after Arginusae instead of Cyzicus, c.
Costanzi, Rivista di Fil. 1892, pp. 353-5; 34, cp. Philoc. F.H.G. i. fr. 117-8; all the
Dufour, Const. d'Ath. p. 113; Giles, Eng. generals put to death after Arginusae
Hist. Rev. 1892, pp. 332-3; E. Meyer, Ges. instead of all who were put on trial and
d. Alt. III. i. p. 519; Niese in Sybels Hist. appeared before the court, c. 34; confu-
Zeits. xxxiii. (1892), p. 43; Th. Reinach, sions or contradictions in the accounts of
Rev. Et. Gr. 1891, pp. 149-151; Ruehl the o-eio-oxeeia, c. 6, and \oyia-rai, c. 64,
Rhein. Mus. 1891, p. 431; De Sanctis, cp. c. 48). For the Ath. Pol. drawing
Stud. Costituz. d'Atene, pp. 4-6, and Rivista inferences, sometimes wrong, as to early
di Fil. 1892, pp. 108 f. ; Sandys, Const, of constitution-usages, see Swoboda, Arch.
Ath*. p. Ixix. ; Walker, C.R. vi. pp. 95-99; Epig. Mitt. xvi. pp. 57 f. on Ath Pol. 16. 10.
Wilamowitz, Aristot. u. Athen. i. pp. It is, of course, easy to find in the Con-
140 f. stitution's account of the fifth century
8 Th. Reinach, C.R. Acad. Inscr. June much that is ' palpably legendary,' De
1891, and Rev. Et. Gr. 1891, pp. 149-151, Sanctis, Studi Cost. Aten. p. 11, if we regard
cp. Repub. AtMnienne, p. 46 ; Buseskul, as such any new information that disagrees
Aristot. Ath. Pol. Their arguments are with our preconceived conceptions of the
answered by Politis, Parnassos, 1893, pp. period. For a good protest against this
95-6, and Schoeffer, Jahresber. Fortschr. cl. attitude, see Politis, Aristot. Ath. Pol. in
Alt. Ixxxiii. (1895), pp. 220-1. The sub- Parnassos, 1893, p. 13.
WHEN WAS THEMISTOCLES LAST IN ATHENS? 167
Themistocles is described as merely a soldier 10 as contrasted with the statesman
Aristides. Mistakes and slips of these kinds are inevitable in any historical
writing, ancient or modern. The mistakes laid to the charge of the writer of
Chapter XXV. of the Constitution are of a different and much more damning
order. It is one thing to sum up the Duke of Wellington as a distinguished
statesman, or George Washington as an eminent soldier. It would be an
entirely different thing if a modern historian should be found assigning, let
us say, a prominent and circumstantial part to John Hampden in the trial of
Charles I. This latter is the sort of mistake that is alleged to occur in Chapter
XXV. of the Constitution, but nowhere else in the whole work.
The prevalent attitude that has just been described seems, therefore,
on the whole, less tenable than that of the extremists who resort to excision
or abuse. But are we bound to accept any of the views so far quoted ? Is
Chapter XXV. of the Constitution really so impossible to reconcile with our
other sources for the later history of Themistocles as has been generally assumed ?
More than one writer has accepted the Constitution on Themistocles and
endeavoured to reconcile it with our other sources. The first attempt was
made by Bauer,11 who proposed a completely new set of dates for the events
of the period, based on the information contained in Chapter XXV. The
death of Pausanias is ascribed to 462-1 B.C., after which comes the ostracism
of Themistocles, his final condemnation and flight, the siege of Naxos, the battle
of Eurymedon, the revolt of Thasos at the time of the earthquake in Sparta,
and the fall of Thasos, which last event is placed in 457 B.C. This chronology
has not found any acceptance ; as shown by E. M. Walker 12 and others, it
lands us in extreme difficulties, not only for the period of Themistocles, but also
for the years that follow.
A different line of defence is suggested by von Schoeffer, who supposes that
the attacks on the Areopagus began long before the grand assault of 462 B.C.,
and that Themistocles took part only in the earlier phases before the generally
accepted date of his ostracism.13 But this defence is as difficult to maintain as
it would be damaging if maintainable. The Constitution says distinctly that
the attack did not begin till ' about seventeen years after the Pers'ian Wais.'
The circumstantial account of the dealings with Ephialtes has to be explained
away as part of a generally accepted Themistocles legend. In dates, in details,
and in emphasis it has to be admitted that our author was seriously wrong.
The same objection may be made to Wilamowitz when he suggests that the
basis of the story was a report spread abroad in Athens in 462 B.C. by the
enemies of Ephialtes, to the effect that he was merely the tool of the absent
and exiled Themistocles.14
10 Cp. Plut. dm. 5, where Cimon, the " Jahruber. Fortschr. cl. Alt. Ixxxiii.
pro tege of Aristides, is described as ' incon- (1895), p. 251, cp. Nordin, Stud. i. d.
ceivably the superior " of Themistocles as a Themittoklcajrage, p. 61.
statesman. " Wilamowitz, Arittot. u. Ath. i. 140.
11 /•' orach. Ath. Pol. p. 171 f. The whole question as to how far by the
4* C.R. vi. pp. 95-99. Against Bauer's time of Aristotle or even Thucydidea
chronology, see also Ruehl, Johrb. Cl. Phil. Themistocles had won his way into the
Suppl. xviii. (1892), p. 695. fabulous is beyond the scope of this arti< •!<>.
X '-'
168 P. N. URE
Still more unsatisfying is the attempt at a reconciliation between the
Constitution and Thucydides made by A. Brieger,15 who suggests that the
Areopagus was predominant after the Persian Wars, not for seventeen years
but for seven. Seventeen years is confirmed as the original reading by the
reference to the archonship of Conon, and by the fact that Ephialtes' death
is dated as not long after his great success, and six years before 457 B.C. Brieger
here emends six to sixteen, and there are other consequential changes that his
suggestion leads to if it is carefully followed up.
In examining the discrepancies, apparent or real, between our author
and Thucydides, it is important to remember that if we accept the former it
does not imply any criticism of Thucydides half so serious as that which we
must pass on the author of the Constitution, if in so recent and important a
matter as the history of Themistocles he could record fiction under the impres-
sion that it was fact. The best of historians sometimes wrongly omit. Only
the worst would in such a case as we are considering invent, and only quite
inferior writers would be misled by the inventions of others. A truthful and
careful writer in a position like that of Thucydides writing on Themistocles
may easily omit important facts and get wrong in a chronology that he is him-
self constructing from not very adequate data.16 Nobody has ever recognised
this better than Thucydides himself.17 His chronology for Themistocles is
difficult and dubious on any showing, and his account of him is a digression
that was never intended for a full biography. It takes him back beyond the
period for which he claims special authority, and, moreover, is confined strictly
to events in which Themistocles played the leading part, which in the Constitu-
tion itself is disclaimed for him as regards the attack on the Areopagus.18
Omissions, therefore, and even misleading omissions cannot be ruled out of
the question.19
It is certainly exaggerated by Wilamowitz that Thucydides himself in i. 20 appears
in the work just cited. It is o^e thing to realise the mistakes of the Book VI.
to show that a historical character has account, which is probably the earlier,
become the victim of unhistorical anecdote ; Thucydides is also corrected by the Ath.
it is another to determine whether or to Pol. (31-3) on points of detail about the
what degree the anecdotes in question are four hundred : Weil, ibid. p. 204.
free to violate the historical setting. 8 Ephialtes is much the more prominent
15 Unsere Zeit, 1891, ii. pp. 28-9; cp. all through the chapter. Where both are
O. Seeck, Klio, iv. (1904), pp. 302-3. mentioned together, Ephialtes is put first.
18 Thucydides quotes (i. 138) relatives of Themistocles has merely a share in the re-
Themistocles as stating that his bones were sponsibility, (rwairiov yfvontvov eejuioro/cAf ous.
brought back to Athens and secretly The same inference is to be drawn from
buried; but it does not follow that the c.41, €05<fyt7j 8« ^ /tero TO.VTTIV V 'Api<rT«i57jy
historian was able to get full information M*" virtSet^tv, 'E^iaArTjsS* tirtr(\fffev Kara\v<ras
about the life of the dead statesman from T^V 'Apeuiray'tTtv &ov\-fi"- In these last words
this source. The only relative of Themis- Mathieu, Bibl. Ecole Hautes Etudes, 216
tocles known to have remained in Athens, (1915), p. 64, wrongly finds traces of a
his son Kleophantos (Plato, Me.no, 93), was tradition according to which Ephialtes was
notoriously interested in nothing but horses not aided by Themistocles.
and athletics. 19 Compare the remarkable omissions in
17 Note, too, that Ath. Pol. 18 tacitly Thucydides' synopsis of the history of
corrects Thuc. vi. on several points in the Athens between the Persian and Pelopon-
Harmodius story, and that it has been nesian wars, i. 97 f. -•' There is nothing
claimed by Weil, Journ. d. Sav. 1891, p. 203, about the political measures of Ephialtes
WHEN WAS THEMISTOCLES LAST IN ATHKXS? 169
Is it possible to discover in Thucydides any comparatively unimportant
omission or inaccuracy that would account for the discrepancies between his
narrative and that of the Constitution ? If I am not mistaken, one possibility
has yet to be considered that saves the latter without bringing to the charge
of the former anything but a most pardonable piece of ignorance with some very
natural but unfortunate consequences. My suggestion is that Themistocles
did take part in the attack on the Areopagus, but that he did so not before
he had been ostracised, but during a brief return to Athens at the end of his
ten years of ostracism.20
This, of course, implies that Thucydides is wrong on two points : he makes
Themistocles fly to Persia while ostracised, instead of bringing him back to
Athens for the attack on the Areopagus, and he makes his escape from the
Athenian fleet take place off Naxos instead of Thasos. But it is not difficult
to imagine how he was led into these errors, if, as I believe, I am right in so
regarding them.
As regards the attack on the Areopagus, there may well have been a
conspiracy of silence on the part of the historian's informants. At Athens
he moved in Periclean circles. Pericles continued the work of Ephialtes and
Themistocles in destroying the privileges of the Areopagus; but in doing so
he appears to have reversed the policy of his family in the period immediately
preceding : it was the Alcmaeonid Leobotes 21 who had prosecuted Themistocles
and prevented him on our hypothesis from remaining in Athens to take part
in the last phase of the attack. The incident is one that Periclean circles may
not have cared to recall. Except for the four years between Pericles' death
and the beginning of Thucydides' exile, years that were largely spent by the
historian on active naval service, and for the uncertain period that followed his
return from exile, when he had probably completed his account of Themistocles,
the Periclean party was supreme throughout the period when Thucydides
had access to Athens. State documents uncongenial to a strong government
do not tend to be very much in evidence, and this would be particularly
or Pericles, nothing about the divisions of copino, Bib. Fac. Lett. Paris, xxv. p. 117.
opinion on the question of sending help to Diod. xi. 55. 2 gives it as five and Philochorus
the Spartans at Ithome, nothing about the fr. 796 as originally ten, later five. If
ostracism of Cimon or the political activity Diodorus is not confusing with the Syracusan
of Thucydides the son of Melesias : events petalismos, which he also describes, he
• •ith«T closely connected with external might be explained by Philochorus, but
affairs, or so important that they might note that the last victim of ostracism,
have seemed to demand mention in the Hyperbolas, was ostracised for six years,
most cursory sketch of the period.' Theopomp. F.H.O. i. p. 294. CimOn
Forbes, Thuc. i. p. cxvii. seems certainly to have been sentenced for
10 The duration of ostracism is given as ten years. If, therefore, the length of the
ti-ii years by Plato, Qorg. 516 D., Plut. sentence was ever shortened it was pro-
dm. 17, Nic. 11, Corn. Nep. pa»«im, sumably after tiu> time of Themistocles.
pseudo-Andoc. iv. 6, schol. Aristoph. Vesp. « Plut. Them. 23, de Eril. 1"> (Moral.
947; cp. Theopomp. F.H.O. i. p. 293, 005 E); Kratoros F.H.G. ii. 619. fr. 5.
Cimon was recalled from ostracism oMww For Alcmaeonid hostility to Thomistoclea,
W*VT« trwr »op«A»jAi/fl<$Taif. If the sen- see also Plut. Praec. Ofr. Rep. 10 (Moral.
tence had been for five years we should 805 C), Arutid. 25.
expect not ir«W«, but rav wtrrt, <
170 P. N. URE
the case in connexion with an incident like that of the Alcmaeonid prosecution
of Themistocles, which no important party or personage had any particular
motive for recalling.
Equally misleading may have been the results if, as is highly probable,
Thucydides made inquiries about Themistocles at Argos, which he, too, in all
probability, like Themistocles, knew as an exile.22 He tells us that while there
Themistocles made frequent excursions to other parts of the Peloponnese.
Assume that Themistocles began his final flight from Athens by a last hurried
visit to Argos, and the brief period of the final sojourn in Athens may well have
been concealed in the Argive version among the various excursions made by
Themistocles from his Argive headquarters during his period of ostracism.
If this one assumption be granted, the rest of the mistakes that we have
to suppose in Thucydides become purely consequential. It was known that
when sentence was passed on Themistocles he was an exile in Argos. It was
also known that in the charges the name of Pausanias had figured very promi-
nently. What more natural, especially for a historian of the rationalist school
like Thucydides, with only a limited amount of information at his disposal,
than to assume for the trial and flight a date very shortly after the fall of the
Spartan traitor ?
It is doubtful whether the mention of Naxos is to be regarded as an inde-
pendent piece of evidence. The name of the island is immaterial to the point
of the story; very possibly none at all appeared in the original version,
in which case the name appearing in Thucydides is only the result of chrono-
logical conclusions reached on other grounds. There are hints that there was
in antiquity another chronology that required the fleet to be not at Naxos
but at Thasos, and can be reconciled with the story in the Constitution.
According to Thucydides, the landing of Themistocles in Asia took place at
Ephesus ; but a version found in Plutarch 23 makes him reach the mainland
up in the North at Cyme, a place of arrival that ill suits a passage past Naxos,
but fits in well with a passage past Thasos. The incident with the Athenian
fleet is not mentioned by Plutarch in giving this version. He quotes it only
in connexion with the Thucydidean version, which he also gives, but with the
remarkable variant in one MS. that Thasos appears as the original reading,
subsequently corrected to Naxos. The MS. in question is said to give the best
readings for some of the lives, including that of Themistocles. To judge from
the way in which he treats Thucydides, Plutarch was probably abbreviating
the version that introduces Cyme. It looks as though Thasos was the original
reading,24 emended in the other MSS. or their prototypes by learned scribes
who knew their Thucydides, and that the original reading, Thasos, was due
to the fleet incident having been located there by the version that landed
Themistocles on the mainland at Cyme.
It will be convenient at this point to summarise the order of events implied
by the suggestions just offered. Themistocles would have been ostracised
" Cp. Thuc. v. 26. 24 So Wilamowitz Aristot. u. Ath. i.
M Plut. Them. 26. p. 150, n. 47.
WHEN WAS THEMISTOCLES LAST IN AT HI
171
between 474 and 472 B.C. ; 25 he proceeded to the Peloponnese, and while there
fell under the suspicion of intriguing with Pausanias; from the Spartans'
point of view Pausanias was the chief danger, and after crushing him they
ceased to be alarmed about Themistocles, who was left an exile on the worst
of terms with the pro-Spartan Government at Athens ; then in 464 or 463 B.C.
the ostracism expired, and Themistocles returned to Athens to find Ephialtes
beginning his attack on the Areopagus, which was at this time in sympathy
with Cimon and the Alcmaeonids, and like the Alcmaeonids supporting Cimon
in his pro-Spartan policy ; the Spartans saw their influence in Athens threatened,
and furnished alleged evidence of Themistocles' support of the medism of
Pausanias some years before; eventually he was prosecuted on this and
perhaps other charges, with an Alcmaeonid conducting the case and Cimon
in the background; before the trial began it was obvious which way it must
go, and Themistocles withdrew from Athens ; 26 perhaps he began by hurrying
back to Argos, which had been his home for the greater part of the previous
ten years, and where he had a good deal of influence ; but very soon he was
compelled to fly further, and ultimately reached Persia in 462 " after a narrow
escape on the way from the Athenian fleet, which was either just concluding
the siege of Thasos, or cruising off the island after successfully ending the siege.
IS This date accords quite as well as any
other with the meagre evidence, which is
fully set forth by Busolt, Or. Ga. III. i. p.
113.
*• Diod. xi. 54 speaks of two trials,
the first at Athens before the ostracism,
ending in acquittal, the second at Sparta,
after the ostracism, resulting in Themis-
tocles' flight and condemnation. Diodorus'
evidence is not decisive ; he assigns the
events of a number of years to the single
year 471-470 B.C., and makes the unlikely
statement that the trial that drove Themis-
tocles to Asia took place at Sparta; but
an early trial and acquittal can be easily
reconciled with the order of events suggested
above.
17 Artaxerxes in 462 B.C. might still be
newly on the throne ' from the point of
view of Thucydides writing after the close
of his long reign of 40 years. The version
that brings Themistocles to Persia before
the death of Xerxes may be dismissed
(so e.g. Bauer, Forsch. p. 69) as a poetic
emendation of the facts. The flight to
Persia is indeed dated 471 B.C. by Diod.
xi. 64-6, and 472 B.C. by the Armenian
version of Eusebius, but their evidence is
weak : on Diod. see note preceding;
Euseb. is probably based on Diod. The
flight is probably misdated by either writ, r
to the year required by his chronology for
the ostracism (in which case we have here
a further possible explanation of the double
dating with a ten years' difference already
noticed in the chronology of Themistocles,
by J. A. R. Munro, C.R. vi. (1892) pp.
333-4. On Cic. de Amic. 14, 42, which
has been thought to confirm Diod. and
Euseb., see below, p. 177. Wilamowitz,
Aristot. n. Athen, I. pp. 143—4 and Busolt
Or. Q*. III. i. pp. 113n, 128. accept 471 B.C.,
but their arguments are flimsy, based on
the assumption that the three authorities
who alone give a definite date to the flight
are based on contemporary documents,
notably the ffrrjAoT xa\Kai r»v aAiTTjpi'uii iral
riav irpoSoTwv and copies made by Krateros
of Athenian decrees. But because Krateros
is known to have published the charge
brought against Themistocles, it hardly
follows that Diodorus derived from him
the date of Themistocles' flight. As
regards the trrTjAat rwy wpotorAf it is
rather remarkable that they are never
once mentioned in connexion with Themis-
tocles. If they are to be used at all as
evidence, that is one point that must be
taken into account. Can the explanation
be that the trial and condemnation took
place, as the dating proposed in this paper
implies, during a comparatively brief set-
back in the progress of the party to which
Themistocles belonged, and that conse-
quently his name never got posted up ?
172 P. N. URE
We may now proceed to consider whether the course of events just sug-
gested is chronologically possible. According to the generally accepted datings,
it is nearly so, but not quite. Chapter XXV. of the Constitution is held to
imply 28 that Themistocles was in Athens in the archonship of Conon, which
began about midsummer 462 B.C. The siege of Thasos is usually dated 465-
463 B.C. Further, some months at least must be allowed for Themistocles
to get to Asia from Athens, via Corfu and Pydna, with various adventures
on the way.
But if we look more closely into the chronology of these years, we shall
find that Themistocles may have left Athens early in 462, or even late in 463,
and that the Athenian fleet may have been still off Thasos late in 462 B.C.
The great attack on the Areopagus culminated after Conon became archon ;
but it began before,29 possibly in 463 B.C.30 As regards the part played by
Themistocles in the final triumph of Ephialtes, the Constitution says simply
that he was partly the cause of it.31 These are hardly the words that our
author would have used if he had pictured Themistocles as taking an active
part. Contrast the sentences immediately following, which describe Themis-
tocles' activities earlier in the struggle. We are indeed told that both reformers
brought a series of charges against the Areopagites till they had deprived them
of their power ; but this latter statement, which, as far as it concerns Themis-
tocles, seems hardly quite to harmonise with the statement just referred to
from earlier in the same chapter,32 was probably qualified in the sentence
immediately following. Unfortunately, there is a lacuna in the narrative at
this point ; but the gist of the missing words may well have been that Themis-
tocles was brought to trial and fled from Athens before the final triumph of
his party.33 After the lacuna the narrative informs us that Ephialtes was
' not long after ' removed from the scene, being treacherously murdered by
Aristodikos of Tanagra. Ephialtes met his death in 462-461 B.C., the year
in which he overthrew the Areopagus.34 The murder, therefore, cannot be
placed very early in the year ; but there is no need to place it very late. Revo-
lutions can get a long way in a short time when once they have gathered the
!8 So e.g. E. M. Walker, C.R. vi. p. 96 words as associe, conoours, co-operation,
and Kenyon ad loc. conjunction, cooperatore, compagno, Unter-
2* KO.\ TrpSrrov ^tv avtlKtv iro\\ovs TW stiitzung, beteiligt, Mitwirkung. But the
'ApficiraytTuv . . ., tireira, . . . M Kdvaivos Greek for this would surely be some such
&PXOVTOS Ath. Pol. 25. 2. word as a-vnirpdrrovros or jSorjOoOcroj.
30 This year could easily be regarded, 32 See previous note.
especially on an inclusive reckoning, as 33 The sentence might perhaps be com-
" about 17 years after the Persian wars," pie ted in some such way as this: <cal
which is how the Constitution dates the a.vripfdi\ < ptv 6 &efj.ttrroK\rjs SiKriv KaTaHiKcurdfls
beginning of Ephialtes' attacks, Ath. Pol. yU7j5«r,uoC ipli^v, avypeSri > 5e KU\ 6 'E<ptd\rrjs.
25.1. See further, Hertlein, Korrespondenz- Kaibel Stil u. Text d. FIoA. A0. pp. 182-3
Blattf. d. Oelehrten-u. Realschulen Wuerttem- states that the words avyptdri 5« *al 6 '£</>.
bergs, 1895, pp. 2-3. imply that the missing words told of the
11 tirpa{« 8* -ravra ffvvairiov ytvoptvov 0*/i«r- death of Themistocles : but may not
ToxAt'ow. The word ffuvatnos is rendered by avriptOii mean simply ' was removed ? ' cp.
the translators (Th. Reinach, Haussoullier, Ath. Pol. 25. 2 avei\tv iro\\ovs TWV 'Apeoira-
Poste, Dymes, Zuretti, Ferrini, Poland, yiriav ayuvas lirnptptav irtpi rwv
Kaibel and Kiessling, Erdmann) by such 34 Kenyon, ad. Ath. Pol. 26. 2.
WHEN WAS TUKMISTOCLKS LAST IX ATHKN 173
necessary impetus. The downfall, therefore, of Themistocles probably occurred
at latest fairly early in the year 462-461. But there is no reason why it should
not be put back as early as the middle of the year 463-462. The demand
that Themistocles should be put on trial had been made at an early stage in
the struggle, and may have been pushed home during a temporary success of
the party opposed to the reformers. If the original intention of a prosecution
before the Areopagus was now abandoned for an eitrayyeXia before the people,
the change of tactics need not 35 cause any surprise.
The fall of Thasos is generally dated 463 B.C. But the evidence leaves it
possible that it took place rather later than is generally supposed. The revolt
probably started in 465 B.C., since it broke out, according to Thucydides,
' about the same time ' as the Athenian expedition to Drabeskos, which is
assigned with some certainty to that year.36 But it is by no means certain
that it was all over by the end of 463.37 This date for its conclusion is an
inference from the statement of Thucydides that the siege ended in the third
year. By the third year, however, he means the third year of the siege : it
may have been the fourth of the revolt. We do not know what time of year
the revolt began. When news of it reached Athens the Athenians had first
to collect a fleet38 and send it to the island, where they landed only after
winning a naval victory. This is the point in his narrative at which Thucydides
inserts the account of the expedition to the Strymon and the Drabeskos
disaster. If the narrative is strictly chronological, this may mean that active
operations against Thasos were for a time held up. Thucydides has still to
tell of land battles39 against the islanders won by the Athenians before they
were able to begin the siege. The year 464 may have been well started before
the three-year siege began. The blockading squadron, too, is not likely to
have sailed away the moment Thasos surrendered.
With all these facts to bear in mind it can hardly be maintained that
it is chronologically impossible for Themistocles to have supported Ephialtes
in Athens even till the beginning of 462 B.C., and yet to have encountered the
Athenian navy off Thasos in his flight to Persia.
May we not even go further and see in the course of the attack
on the Areopagus a reflection of various phases of the Thasian revolt?
The outbreak of the revolt coming at the same time as the disaster at
Drabeskos must have done much to prepare the way for Ephialtes and his
35 Pace Th. Reinach, Rev. £t. Or. 1891, of Cimon's career is difficult, but it seems
p. 156. For the presumed change in the on the whole most probable that the
form of attack cp. Ath. Pol. 25. 3 and above urgency of the situation in Thasos was the
n. 1 with F.H.O. II. p. 619. reason why Cimon came back from his
»• E. M. Walker, C.R. vi. p. 97. first Spartan n-li.-f ox|MHlition in so great
»7 Diod. xi. 70, apparently dates the fall of a hurry that he had not even time for thr
Thasos in the archonship of Archidemides, usual civilities to the states through which
464-3 B.C., but (pace Cam-r //'//. Arittnt. he passed en route.
p. 27) he may be like the moderns, merely »• The MSS. vary K,t«.,,, udxv "id
making an inference from Thucydides. n<ixait. The TeubntT and in-w Oxford
*• And perhaps also to recall Cimon texts both print fidxp. But M»Xa'* »•
from Sparta to take the command (Plut. the difficilior lectio and has the support of
14). The chronology of this part a good group of MSS. 1 1 is read by Forbes
174 P. N. URE
supporters. But if the news of military difficulties and disasters abroad had
started the revolution at home, reports that the Thasian situation was now
well in hand may have led to the first reprisals against the reformers. The
situation at Thasos was retrieved by Cimon, the friend of Sparta and enemy
of Themistocles, and the first attack would naturally be concentrated on
Themistocles, not merely because he was particularly obnoxious to Cimon and
his friends, but also as being more open to attack than the scrupulous and
incorruptible Ephialtes, who is only disposed of when the revolt that gave him
his great opening has been completely quelled.
In making the attack on the Areopagus take place during the siege of
Thasos we are disregarding Plutarch, who apparently pictures Ephialtes as
beginning his campaign after Cimon had come home from Thasos and sailed
away again on fresh active service. But Plutarch is a biographer, not a
chronicler. His arrangement of his material is based largely on its character.
His chronology is often vague and not infrequently misleading,40 and he cannot
on a point like this be quoted as invalidating conclusions that have been shown
on other evidence to be probable.
It is not only in his chronology that Plutarch diverges from the Constitution.
He does so also on an important point of fact. He makes the chief supporter
of Ephialtes the youthful Pericles, or, rather, he reverses the position and
makes Pericles from a rather obscure background direct the activities of the
more prominent Ephialtes. But here again Plutarch's evidence is highly
dubious. In one of the passages where he makes this statement he himself
throws doubt on it : ' the rest of his policy he (Pericles) carried out by com-
missioning his friends and other public speakers. One of these, so they say,
would only become real evidence for assigning to Pericles a part in the attack,
was Ephialtes, who broke down the power of the Areopagus.' 41 This passage
if the words ' so they say ' were omitted, and the word ' who ' emended to
' through whom he.' It will be observed that Pericles does not appear in
person on the scene. Another passage associating Pericles with Ephialtes is
vaguer : ' for forty years he (Pericles) stood first among such men as Ephialtes,
Leocrates, Myronides, Cimon, Tolmides, and Thucydides.' 42 This passage,
though supported by Cicero,43 unquestionably antedates the rise of Pericles
to a leading position in the State. He was not the foremost man in Athens in
469 B.C. Of the men who are said to have played second to him, Ephialtes,
who died in 462, at least five years earlier than any of the rest, is the only one
who supports this improbable ascendancy of forty years.
It is true that in the Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae we find the words,
' as Pericles through Ephialtes degraded the Areopagus.' 44 But these words,
40 For examples of unsatisfactory chron- 476 B.C. is mentioned just before the
ology in Plutarch see his accounts of account of 480 B.C. and Salamis.
democratic developments at Athens, dm. 41 Plut. Per. 7.
15, the two expeditions of Cimon to Sparta, " Plut. Per. 16.
dm. 16 f., and the various occasions on 43 Cic. de Oral. iii. 34, 138.
which he returned from active service to 44 Plut. Praec. Qer. Rep. 15 (Moral.
Athens, dm. 14, 15, 17 : cp. also Them. 812 C).
5-6, where the choregia of Themistocles in
WHEN WAS THEMISTOCLES LAST IN ATHENS? IT:,
which merely make an incidental comparison, must be read in the light of the
passages previously quoted. Though they do not explicitly mention the forty
years of political predominance, they come very near to implying them. The
leader of the opposition in 463 B.C. can hardly have entered politics much after
468. Plutarch himself makes so long a political leadership unlikely, since he
states that as a young man Pericles ' had nought to do with politics, but
devoted himself rather to a military career, where he was brave and
enterprising.45
This, of course, does not mean that Pericles must have kept entirely
out of politics till after Ephialtes had been killed. When Cimon returned
from the reduction of Thasos he was brought to trial by his enemies, and
Pericles, so Plutarch tells us,48 took part in the prosecution. This is probably
the first event in Pericles' political career that can be fairly closely dated. The
return of Cimon from Thasos probably just preceded the death of Ephialtes.
In any case, there can only have been a short interval between the two
events.
Plutarch himself, if read in the light of the Constitution, suggests that
Pericles first entered politics as a supporter of Ephialtes just before the over-
throw of the Areopagus. He tells us that ' when Aristides was dead and
Themistocles in banishment and Cimon was kept by his campaigns for the
most part abroad, then at last Pericles decided to devote himself to the people.'
Previously ' he had nought to do with politics.' 47 The date of Aristides' death
is uncertain,48 but one account given by Plutarch makes him die in Athens
. of old age, while another attributes his death indirectly to the exile (<f>vyi)) of
Themistocles.49 If we reckon by events and disregard years, we can agree
entirely with Plutarch's dating in this passage of Pericles' entrance into
politics. It is only his absolute dating to about 469 or earlier that has to be
challenged. But though on this latter point the Constitution compels us to
question the biographer, it also offers an explanation as to how it was that
Plutarch went astray. If, as Plutarch implies, Pericles entered politics as the
successor of Themistocles, and if, further, Plutarch had seriously antedated
the last appearance of Themistocles in Athenian politics, then the rise of
Pericles would have to be antedated to correspond. No events were available
for these extra years. A simple way out of the difficulty was devised by
transforming Ephialtes from a forerunner and guide of Pericles into an early
subordinate and tool.50
Plutarch may have been led into his mistake, or, at least, confirmed in
it, by the Politics of Aristotle, where it is stated that the Areopagus was shorn
«• Plut. Per. 7. " Plut. Arist. 26.
'• Plut. Ctm. 14. *° That Ephialtes had been the master
47 Plut. Per. 1. of Pericles would have been forgotten the
*• Pace Busolt Or. Q*. III. i. p. 113 n. more easily since the position of •iViryirK*
The difficulties raised by Corn. Nep. Aritt. or 8iW<r*aAoj rttf TOAITIKUK to Pericles was
fin., which dates the death of Aristides " fere commonly ascribed to Damonides or Damon,
post annum quartum quam Themistocles see A th. Pol. 27. 4, Plut. Per. 9. 4. The latter
Athenis erat expulsus ' need not be here quotes Plato Comicus on Damon : rv y4p>
discussed. * 4>a<nr, i Xfipter l(«0p«tfaf n«pi*A«'a.
176 P. N. URE
of its power by Ephialtes and Pericles.51 But a careful reading of what is said
there confirms the view that Pericles entered the struggle late and played a
subordinate part. The words of Aristotle are real rrjv fiev ev ' ApeoTrdyu
ftov\r]v 'E<£m\T77<? €tco\ovcr€ real HepiK\f)<;. The word order with the singular
predicate shows that Ephialtes was foremost in the writer's mind and Pericles
little more than an afterthought sufficiently explained by the sentence that
follows.52 A writer who puts the matter thus in this passage might well,
on another occasion, omit the part played by Pericles altogether.
It cannot be maintained that in Chapter XXV. of the Constitution
Themistocles is written by mistake for Pericles or any other name. The
double-faced stratagem attributed in the text to Themistocles is a typical
illustration of his duplicity : 53 nothing could be more unlike the Olympian
Pericles. But there is no need to be surprised that Plutarch makes no
mention of the incident in his life. Not only does it conflict with his
chronology for Themistocles, but in itself it is neither improving nor amusing,
and may very well have been omitted on its own demerits by a moralising
biographer.54
When the wife and children of Themistocles joined him on his way to
Persia, they came from Athens.55 If, therefore, Themistocles passed direct
from ostracism to banishment, we must suppose that his family had been con-
tent to be separated from him all the time that he was living in honourable
retirement at Argos, but now suddenly joined him while fleeing for his life.
This may have been the case. The Greeks were certainly prone to visit the
sins of the father on the rest of the family. But if, as this paper has endeavoured (
to show, there are grounds for the view that Themistocles returned to Athens
from ostracism before his flight to Persia, then we may quote in support of
it the fact that it was from Athens and not from Argos that his family set out
to join him on his last journey, and we may do so the more since Plutarch gives
a pleasing picture of his family life.58
There are thus a number of considerations all supporting the belief that
Themistocles went back to Athens after his ostracism. The weak point in the
evidence so far adduced is the fact that no ancient authority has been quoted
to the effect that Themistocles did indeed return. But when these pages had
already been written, my colleague, Mr. E. R. Dodds, drew my attention to a
passage of Cicero where the return is referred to in so many words. ' Cuius
studium in legendo non erectum Themistocli fuga redituque retinetur \ ' 57 Many
editors have rejected the MS. reading, but only on purely historical grounds
which this paper has at least demonstrated to be not beyond question. The
context of the words strongly favours the MS. reading. They occur in a letter
written by Cicero in 56 B.C. shortly after his return from banishment. It is
81 Aristot. Pol. ii. 1274 A. further (in spite of his mistaken chronology),
52 TO 8« StKCHTT-t.pta. m<r6o<t>6p3. Kartarrifft Bauer, Forsch. p. 82, and Nordin, Stud. i.d.
rUpiKATjy. Them istoklesj 'rage, pp. 62-3.
•» Sandys, Ath. PoP. p. 109a. •• Plut. Them. 24.
" Face Ruehl Rhein. Mua. 1891, p. 433. 6« Plut. Them. 18, cp. 24.
As to why Plutarch may have omitted, see " Cic. ad Fam. v. 12. 5.
WHEN WAS THK.MISTOCLES LAST IN ATHENS? 177
addressed to the historian Lucceius, and urges him to write a sp.-rial mono-
graph on Cicero's career, ' a principio coniurationis usque ad reditum nostrum.'
Editors have suggested changing the name Themistocles, or emending reditu
to interitu.5* But either change spoils the sense. Nothing could be so
Ciceronian as to compare his own recent feeble vacillations with the masterly
versatility of Themistocles, nothing less appropriate than a reference to the
death in exile of the great Athenian novus homo. Several passages are indeed
quoted by the editors in which the flight and death of Themistocles are unques-
tionably coupled by Cicero,59 but in all these passages the association is
eminently appropriate. They belong to a later phase of the orator's career,
when his country was plunged in civil war, and the ultimate fate of Themis-
tocles was far more likely to be often before his mind.
The most serious objection to accepting the MS. reading in the letter to
Lucceius is to be found in another statement of Cicero, which is generally
thought to confirm 471 B.C. as the date of the flight to Persia. It occurs
in the de Amicitia and runs thus : ' (Themistocles) cum imperator bello
Persico seruitute Graeciam liberauisset propterque inuidiam in exsilium
expulsus esset, . . . fecit idem quod xx. annis ante apud nos fecerat
Coriolanus.' 60
The attack on Rome by Coriolanus was assigned to 491 B.C., so that,
according to the somewhat vague language of the de Amicitia, Themistocles
fled to Persia not later than 471 B.C., and, if we are to assume that Cicero does
not contradict himself, either this passage or the letter must be emended.
There is, however, no reason to assume that it is the letter that must on this
assumption be corrupt. Nothing could be simpler than to emend xx. to xxx.
in the de Amicitia, and then the treatise is in complete agreement with the
unemended letter.
But is there any need to look for such agreement on such a point between
a letter written in 56 B.C., and a treatise on Friendship, written twelve years
later? There is reason to think that shortly before writing the de Amicitia
Cicero was somewhat exercised over the credibility of the Themistocles narra-
tive ; 61 very possibly he may have modified his views on the subject as a res. Jt.
But if he did so, it by no means follows that his later opinions were always the
sounder.
Or again, considering how experts differed both as to the credibility and
the chronology of the Themistocles narrative, we have only to assume that
Cicero used different authorities when writing the letter of 56 B.C. and the
treatise of 44 B.C., and it becomes perfectly possible that the latter contradicted
the former without the writer having been aware of the contradiction. It is
not even as though we had two statements of fact in conflict. It is merely
a case of a statement of fact conflicting with the implications of an alleged
date.
48 See Tyrrell and Jeans ad loc. (54 B.C.), but in a context that deals with
*• Tyrrell quotes Brut. 43, ad Alt. ix. the subject of suicide
10. 3, de Amic. 42. The death of Themis- •• Cic. de Ami-: 4-'.
tocles is mentioned in the pro Scauro " See Cic. Brut. 43 (46 B.C.).
178 WHEN WAS THEMISTOCLES LAST IN ATHENS?
On no showing, therefore, does the de Amicitia offer any good reason for
rejecting the MS. reading in the letter to Lucceius, supported as that is both
by the context and by independent historical evidence, when it tells us that,
like Cicero himself, Themistocles had been not only banished but also restored
from banishment.62
P. N. URE.
*a Mention should perhaps be made of ad loc.) ; but though ingenious this emend-
Boot's neat emendation ' reditusque spe ation is as untenable as the rest. The con-
tenetur (cp. Purser Script. Class. Bibl. Oxon., text requires a reference to an actual return.
HERMES CHTHONIOS AS EPONYM OF THE SKOPADAE
FROM the tenth Pythian ode of Pindar we learn that both the Aleuadae,1
who had their seat of power at Larissa, and the Skopadae, lords of Crannon,
once called Ephyra, were descendants of Heracles. These families are chiefly
known to us through the poets, and in the case of the Skopadae, from the
passage in the Protagoras of Plato in which a poem of Simonides is discussed.
The statement of Theocritus,2 that the great families of Thessaly would be
buried in obscurity but for the songs written in their honour, is amply justified :
TToXXot €V AvTl6%OlO So/iOf? KOI dvCUCTOS
efifjirjvov efieTptjcravro TT€ve<nai'
5e 3,KO7ru8aicrtv €\avv6/j.evoi TTOTI <rrjtcov<;
<rvv Kepaf/criv €fJ.VKt')aavro fto€<rcrt
fju Tre&iov Kpavvcovtov evSida<TKOv
<iXX' ov cr<f>iv TWV 7)809, e-Tret J\VKVV f
ffvfjibv e? evpeiav cr^eSmi/ crrvyvoio yepovros,
ufjivacrrol 8« TO. TroXXa teal 6\flia Tfjva \nr6vrcs
SeiXot? lv vetevecrcri ^,aKpov<t aiwvas
fl fj,Tj 8eivo<f dot&b<t 6 Kr/to? ato\a
8dpf3iTov e<?
The Aleuadae are more conspicuous and more often mentioned than the
Skopadae, who were the younger branch of the Aleuad family, as the Kreondae
are the younger branch of the Skopadae at Krannon. Both families appoqr
to have immigrated from Thesprotia. The eponym of the Aleuadae is one of
the Thessalian heroes whose story brings them into connexion with the serpent,
of whom the most famous is Asklepios. Of him Rohde writes : ' In Wahrheit
ist urspriinglich auch er ein in der Erde hausender thessalischer Ortsdaimon
gewesen, der aus der Tiefe, wie viele solche Erdgeister, Heilung von Krankheiten,
Kentniss der Zukunft (beides in alter Zeit eng verbunden) heraufsandte.' 8
The name Aleuas, as I have previously pointed out,4 means Averter of
111, and is closely connected with the name of the goddess of Mantineia and
Tegea, whose title Alea has been interpreted by M. Fougeres 5 as the goddess
affording the ' protection qui eUoigne le mal.' Aleuas was evidently once the
name or title of a divine hero of the order of the Thessalian Heracles. In the
northern Greek countries, in Aetolia, Epirus, Macedonia, and Thessaly, names
1 Boeckh on Pindar, Pyth., 10, pp. 531- » Ptyche, 1, 141.
534. « C.g., xiii., 3-4, 170-171.
1 Id., 16, 34 ff. • B.C.H.. xvi.. 573.
170
180 GRACE H. MACURDY
from the verbs meaning to ward off ill are exceedingly common among the
princes and other distinguished men. Amyntor, Amyntas, Alexander, Alkon,
Alketas, Aleuas will serve for examples of such.
It would seem probable that the name Skopas, which maintains itself in
the Skopad genealogy, had some especial meaning such as that which kept the
name Alexander so prominent in the north of Greece. The value of that
name is seen in the health deity Alexanor, as well as in the epithet applied
to Heracles, Hermes, Apollo, and other divinities, d\e£i'/ta«:o<?. The name
Skopas evidently comes from the root (TKCTT-, which has in it the meanings of
shelter, watch, and look, and may be compared with Latin tueor, which signifies
both to guard and to gaze. The meaning of shelter is seen in connexion with
the chthonic deities at Hermione, in a definition in Suidas, in which, under the
phrase avff 'Ep/zitui/o? is the following :
'Etpfjuovrj yap eV IIeXo7roi>>;<T&> TroXt? Koprjs teal Atj[j,r)Tpo<> acrv\o<f, ware
Trape^eiv rot? iiC€T€VOV<ru>.
This is the most useful example of the root for my purpose, which is to give the
meaning of Shelterer, Protector to the name Skopas, and to attach it to a
chthonic deity of Thessaly, for whose cult at Crannon and Larissa, and at many
other places in Thessaly, there is inscriptional evidence.6
The chthonic deity is Hermes, from whom a Thessalian and Aetolian
month was named. This month, Hermaios may, as Stein 7 suggests, testify
to a very ancient cult of Hermes as ' Totengott ' in Thessaly and Aetolia. There
is evidence 8 that Hermes was worshipped at Pherae, that seat of divinity that
traffics with the dead. The chthonic deities are notably the gods of increase of
field and flock, and in the sixteenth book9 of the Iliad Hermes lies with Polymele,
the One of Many Flocks, and there is born to him a son Eudoros, an epithet
that recalls titles of the Earth, the All-Giver. Hermes himself has the title
of eVfftf/Xio?, and the word TroXu/^Xo? 10 occurs in the Iliad in connexion
with Phorbas (the Feeder of Cattle), the Trojan most beloved by Hermes, who
gave him wealth.
There is no need to dwell on these well-known facts, which I use in
leading up to the interpretation of Hermes' epithet euovcoTros, as the
Shelterer or Protector, an interpretation which would link the word with Skopas,
the eponym of the lords of Crannon, whose ten thousand goodly sheep were
watched by countless shepherds on the plains of Crannon. I would interpret
both words in the sense of the lines addressed to another shepherd god :
thou god of shepherds all,
which of our gentle lambkins takest keepe
and when our flock into mischaunce mought fall
dost save from mischiefe the unwary sheepe,
Als of their maisters hast no less regard
than of their flocks, which thou dost watch and ward.
• P.W., 8, 738, gives the references. • //., 16, 180 ff.
7 P.W., 8, 763. 10 II., 14, 490.
8 Calleim, Frag., 117.
HERMES CHTHONIOS AS EPONYM OF THE SKOPADAE 181
4 Watch and ward ' expresses the etymological meaning of the root seen
in both words. The words evcrtceirijs n and eva /crn-ao-rov ,u passives to
euo-/ico7ro9, both mean sheltered, the passive forms evidently retaining the
more ancient meaning. The active form evvKOTro? passed over into the
meaning ' with good aim,' and is applied once in the Odyssey to Artemis in
that significance. It is later used of the other gods of the bow, Apollo and
Heracles. It is not suited to Hermes in that sense, and is found with reference
to him twice in the Iliad and twice in the Odyssey, both in connexion with the
much-disputed epithet dpyetyovrr)?.
The lines in the seventh book u of the Odyssey, in which the epithets
appear, suggest the meaning of Shelterer, the ' custos maximus ' of Horace, for
SeTrdea-ffiv eW*o7Tft>
& -rrv/Mary a-jrfv&e&icov, ore fivrj^aiaro tcoirov.
Before lying down in sleep, which is so akin to death, they commend them-
selves to the protection of the God of Souls. Here is the true meaning of
evffKOTrof with reference to Hermes. . By contamination with the meaning seen
in o-/co7ro9, mark, the epithet assumed the significance which made it appropriate
to archer-gods. The other epithet, dpy€i<f>6vrrj<i, whatever its meaning, has in
it the root which appears in the name of the dread Death Goddess, Persephoneia,
and if the etymology of ' lU/oo-e-' is that which is declared in Roscher 2,1288,
to be the only satisfactory one, i. e. ' stiirmendes Licht,' the meaning of
dpyei^ovTij would closely approach that of Persephoneia in both parts of its
composition.
In the genealogy of the Skopadae, so far as known, the name Skopas
appears as the name of three of the family. The name Diaktorides appears
among the suitors of Agorista in the sixth book of Herodotus — e*£e
0€<r<7aXt7;9 f)\0e TOW/ 2/co7ra8e&>i> Ata/cToptS?;? Kpavi'wvios, etc Se Mo\oa<raii>
"\\Ktov. The name of the Skopad suitor is derived from an epithet of the god
Hermes, which appears always in the Iliad in the phrase SiaKTopos d
Of the ten instances of the word in the Odyssey it accompanies d
in eight. It appears alone in the Odyssey, once in the genitive, and once in the
vocative. The epithet is appropriate to Hermes ^i^o-Tro/i-Tro?, who guides
souls to and from the realm of Persephone.
Connecting the name Skopas with the epithet eiWoTro?, and noting the
name Diaktorides, which points directly to a cult of Hermes, I argue that just
as the Aleuadae traced their family to a hero, perhaps a hypostasis of Heracles,
whose name was Aleuas, Averter of Evil, so the Skopadae, lords of many flocks,
had for their eponym a hypostasis of Hermes Chthonios under the name of
Skopas, the Protector.
A third name, for which Gruppe's theorising would furnish me an argument,
I must regretfully forgo. He does not discuss the Skopadae, but finds that the
hero Kreon is a hypostasis of the Thessalian Hermes. We learn from Plato's
11 Theophrastus, H.P., 4, 11. » Od., 7, 136-138.
» Thuc., V., 71.
J.H.S. — VOL. XLI. O
182 HERMES CHTHONIOS AS EPONYM OF THE SKOPADAE
Protagoras that the father of Skopas of Simonides' pde was Kreon. Gruppe 14
writes of Hermes Kpea>v, worshipped in Thessaly, but the train of reasoning
by which Hermes is shown to have had this title is to my mind unsound. The
only passage quoted in which the title is actually given to Hermes is a fragment
from Anacreon, and I have been able to find no other. It is, of course, possible
that Hermes may have borne this title, which is a usual one for divinities and
heroes, and in that case he would serve excellently as the eponym of the younger
branch of the Skopads, the Kreondae.
Like the names Alexanor, Alketas, Alkon, Alexander, Amynander, etc.,
the name Skopas appears in the western part of northern Greece. It is found
in inscriptions 15 referring to Aetolians, and the well-known strategos of the
Aetolians 16 (whose name occurs in the second of the two inscriptions cited)
was named Skopas. It is significant for the prevalence of these names of
religious origin in the north-western parts of Greece, as well as in Macedonia
and Thessaly, that among the witnesses on the bronze tablet discovered at
Dodona 17 are the names of two Molossians, Alexanor and Skopaios. (It must
be said that the first two letters of the latter name are supplied.)
Hermes does not appear on the coins of Thessaly, which chiefly testify
to the worship of the great Thessalian god, Poseidon, but the cult of Hermes
was widespread in this land of flocks and herds, and it is characteristic of
Thessalian cult that he should be worshipped as %0oi/to9. From this god,
who watched over their wealth and gave them increase, I think the Skopadae
got their name.
GRACE H. MACURDY.
14 Handbuch, 5, 2, 1323. " Aetolia, Geography, Topography, and
15 Ditt., Sylloge, 845, 11; 923, 3. Antiquities, Woodhouse, p. 235.
17 Ditt., Sylloge, 839, 5.
PTOLEMAIOS EPIGONOS
J'ESPERAIS bien n'en plus parler; j'en ai parle", jadis, assez longuement.1
Mais un important article, publiS en 1915 dans YHertnes par E. von Stem et
dont je n'ai eu connaissance qu'en ces temps derniers,2 m'oblige a en dire
encore quelques mots.3
II s'agit, une fois de plus, de ce IlroXe/iato? o Avaifui^ov, appe!6 aussi
'Eiriyovos,4 dont fait mention un decret vote", en 240 avant notre
ere, par les citoyens de Telmessos en Lycie ; 5 qui, par la faveur de Ptol6m£e
III fivergetes, e"tait devenu peu avant cette date prince souverain de Telmessos ;
et qui re£ut des Telmessiens, en recompense de ses bienfaits, les plus rares
honneurs.
J'avais cru reconnaitre 6 dans ce personnage PtolemSe, fils du roi
Lysimaque, n<§ du mariage de celui-ci avec Arsinoe" (II), fille de Ptol6me"e I Soter et
soeur de Ptole'me'e II Philadelphe. E. von Stern ne doute pas que ce ne soit la
une erreur.7 II s'applique a demontrer que le fils de Lysimaque et d'Arsmoe" fut
adopte" par Philadelphe, a 1'instigation de sa soaur devenue sa femme, et par lui
associe" a 1'empire ; qu'il ne differe pas de ce (Ptole'me'e), ' fils ' (y/o<?) de
Philadelphe, dont parle le roi dans sa lettre aux Mile'siens ; 8 qu'il est identique
aussi au ' co-re"gent ' de Philadelphe, connu par les papyrus e"gyptiens des
anne'es 267/6-259; identique enfin au gouverneur d'tfphese qui se reVolta
centre Philadelphe et pe"rit assassine" en 259.9 Et il ne m'en coute nullement
1 B.C.H. 1904, 408 aqq. E. Pozzi, Mtm. Accod. di Torino, Ixiii.
1 £. von Stern, Hennea, L. 1915, 427 1911/1912, 345, 3; G. De Sanctis, Alt,
aqq. ; voir notamment 436-444. — Le present Accod. di Torino, 1911/1912, 810. M. G F.
mi'' tit din- a ete redig£ en novembre 1920. Hill veut bien me rappeler que le Brit. Mua.
1 La bibliographie du sujet, que W. W. poasede une monnaie (^Vum. Chron. 1912,
Tarn qualif iait dej4 de ' tremendous ' 145, n. 24) qui pent etre attribute 4 Ptolemee
en 1910 (J.H.S. xxx. 1910, 222), s'est de Telmessos.
sensiblement accrue depuis que j'en ai 4 La restitution iwly[ot>o]rt que j'ai pro-
dresse le tableau dans B.C.H. ibid. 409, 1. posee pour les 11. 22-23 du decret de
Les indications d'E. von Stern ne sont Telmessos (B.C.H. 1904, 410-412), est
point completes. Aux 6crits qu'il a cites acceptee sans hesitation par E. von Stern
(Bouche-Leclercq, Hut. dea Logidet, iv. (Hermes, ibid. 438). Bouche-Leclercq a
311-313; A. Rehm, Delphinion, 303 et ete seul jusqu'ici a en contester 1'exactitude
note 4; Wilamowitz, Qott. gel. Anz. 1914, (Hiat. dea Logidea, iv. 312). II n'a pas dit
88), ajouter : Dittenberger, Or. gr. inter. ce qu'il y voudrait substituer.
ii. odd., p. 549 (ad n. 224, not. 4) ; C. ' Dittenberger, Or. gr. inscr. 55.
Lehmann, Klio, 1905, 385, 389, 1 ; D. • B.C.H. 1904, 408 aqq.
Cohen, De mogiatrcU. Aegyptiia, etc. diss. 7 Hennea, ibid.
Lcyden (1912), 13-14; M. Rostowaew, • A. Rehm, Delphinion in Miltt, 300,
Stud, tur Oeach. dea rom. Kolonotea, 278; n. 139,1. 9.
W. W. Tarn, J.H.S. xxx. 1910, 215, 39, • Trog. pro/. 26; Athen. xui. 593A.
et 221-222; Antig. Gonottu, 445-447;
183 02
184 M. HOLLEAUX
d'accorder que cette demonstration est conduite avec beaucoup d'art et qu'elle
aboutit, par une suite de deductions ingenieusement enchaine'es, a des conclu-
sions qui paraissent, en soi, fort plausibles.10
Ces conclusions admises, il va sans dire que Ptolemee, fils de Lysimaque
et d'Arsinoe, n'a plus rien a faire avec le nroXe/Acuo? o ^vai^d-^ov de Telmessos.
E. von Stern voit, en effet, dans ce dernier, comme on 1'avait propos6 depuis
longtemps, un neveu de Ptolemee fivergetes, fils de son frere Lysimaque.
Or, c'est ici qu'a mon avis commencent les difficulty's.
I.
Ptolemee EVergetes eut un frere cadet appele Lysimaque.11 Ce Lysimaque
eut-il un fils appele Ptolemee? Nous 1'ignorons parfaitement. Ptolem^e,
neveu d'EVergetes, n'existe que par hypothese.12 Au reste, j'accorde que
1'hypothese, au moins a premiere vue, n'a rien que d'acceptable. Acceptons-
la done, sauf a voir ce qui en resulte.
Si ' Ptolemee, fils de Lysimaque,' honore par le decret des Telmessiens, est
le neveu d'Evergetes, il avait a peine vingt ans 13 lorsqu'il rec.ut de son oncle,
peu avant 1'annee 240, la principaute de Telmessos. II n'y a, des lors, aucun
motif de ne point 1'identifier, d'une part, avec IlToXeytiato? Av&ipdxov, dona-
teur a Delos en 188,14 de 1'autre, avec Ptolemaeus Telmessius, mentionne par
T. Live 15 (d'apres Polybe) a propos du traite d'Apamee, sous la date de
189. Effectivement, 1'identite des trois Ptoleme'es est admise par E. von
Stern,16 comme elle 1'avait ete avant lui par Ad. Wilhelm 17 et par plusieurs
autres. En raison de 1'indication donnee par T. Live, Ptolemee fils de
Lysimaque, neveu d'Evergetes, aurait done regne sur Telmessos durant plus
de cinquante ans. — C'est precisement la ce qui me fait douter que le prince
de Telmessos fut, comme on 1'assure, le neveu d'fivergetes.
Nous sommes bien peu renseignes sur ce Lysimaque qu'on lui donne pour
pere.18 Au vrai, nous ne savons de lui qu'une chose, c'est qu'il fut mis a
10 II faut observer pourtant qu'au I se place entre 285 et 280 (J. Beloch,
lendemain .de la publication de la lettre Oriech. Qesch. iii. 2, 130) ; PtoMmee
de Philadelphe aux Milesiens (Ddphinion, n. (EVergetes) est ne en 280 ou peu auparavant ;
139), G. De Sanctis a donn6 des 11. 8-9 de la naissance de Lysimaque, son frere, est
ce document une interpretation tout a ant^rieure a 274 (cf. Beloch, ibid. 132).
fait contraire a celle que propose E. von 14 Dittenberger, Sylloge2, 588, 11. 94-95;
Stern (Atti Accad. di Torino, 1913/1914, 188 est la date (Hablie par F. Durrbach.
1238; ce m6moire parait avoir ete ignor6 Cf. Ad. Wilhelm, Gott. gel. Am. 1898, 211.
• de E. von Stern). [Depuis que ces pages 18 Liv. (Pol.) 37, 56, 4-5. J'ai 6t6 le
ont et6 ecrites, j'ai pu, grace a 1'obligeance premier, je crois, a appeler 1'attention sur
de W. Vollgraff, prendre connaissance d'une ce texte : Rev. de Philol. 1894, 119 sqq.
etude de A. W. de Groot (Rhein. Mus. ls Voir, notamment, Hermes, ibid. 442.
1917/1918, 446-463 : ' Ptolemaios der 17 Ad. Wilhelm, ibid.
Sohn '), oil la these de E. von Stern est 18 Je ne sais si 1'inscription hi^roglyphique
vigoureusement battue en breche.] et demotique de Thebes [et non de Koptos,
11 Pol. xv. 25, 2; Schol. Theocr. xvii- Sottas],ouestnomme'Lysimachos, stratege,
128 (p. 324, C. Wendel). frere des rois ' (Krall, Sitz.-ber. Wien. Akad.
12 L'hypothese a et4, pour la premiere 1884, 366-368; cf. Bouche-Leclercq, Hist.
fois, exprimee par Ad. Williehn, Gott. gel. des Lagides, i. 162, 2; 283, 3; iii. 129, 2),
Anz. 1898, 210. se rapporte, comme je 1'ai cm sur la foi de
ls Le mariage de Philadelphe et d'Arsino6 Krall, au frere d'fiverg6tes (Rev. fit. one.
PTOLEMAIOS EPIGONOS 185
mort par le fameux Sosibios, le tout-puissant ministre d'tfvergetes, puia de
Philopator.19 Voici ce que nous apprend la-dessus Poly be : (xv. 25. 2)
KOI irpa)T(p fiev dprvffai (Sosibium) <f>6vov Avaifid^y, o? ^v w'os 'Apffivorjs
T/;<? Avffifjid^ov teal UroXe/j-aiov (II), Sevreptp 8% Maya r$ Uro\€fuiiov (II)
KOI GepevUijf XT;? Maya, Tpirrj 8e Bepevitcrj rff llroXefiaiov f^rjrpl rov
<t>iXo7raTO/9O9, r€rdprm KXeo/ieW* rq> "S.TrapridTTj, tre^-mri ffvyarpl RepfviKijs
"Apaivorj. — Quand raourut Lysimaque ? On suppose d'ordinaire que Sosibios
le fit p6rir en meme temps que Magas et Be><hiice, c'est-a-dire presque
aussitot apres I'av4nement de Philopator. Pourtant, ceci ne ressort point
ne'cessairement du texte de Polybe : ce texte indique seulement que le
meurtre de Lysimaque pr4c4da ceux de Magas et de Berenice. II se pourrait
qu'il les eut prece'de's de longtemps ; il se pourrait des lore que Lysimaque
cut e"te mis a mort des le regne d'Evergetes. C'est une hypothese que j'ai
autrefois e'nonce'e ; 20 je la regarde, encore aujourd'hui, comme plausible.
Mais, pour simplifier les choses, nous pouvons negliger ce point et nous en
tenir a 1'opinion courante. Pour 1'objet qui nous occupe, il importe, apres
tout, assez peu de connaitre 1'epoque exacte de la mort de Lysimaque.
Ce qui est capital, en revanche, c'est que le meurtre de Lysimaque, comme
celui du prince Magas, frere de Philopator, comme celui de Berenice, veuve
d'fivergetes, fut un crime politique. Lysimaque portait ombrage a Sosibios.
Le soupfonneux vizir jugeait inquietant le frere d'fivergetes ; il en redoutait
1'opposition ou 1'ambition: e'est pourquoi il lui parut opportun de s'en
debarrasser. Or, selon 1'adage connu, ' qui tue le pere doit aussi tuer les
fils':
vtJTrios o? jrarepa tc-reivas vioix: /earaXfiTret.21
Les memes motifs qui determinerent Sosibios a supprimer Lysimaque le
devaient decider aussi a se d4faire de Ptol6m4e. Je ne vais pas, cependant,
jusqu'a exiger qu'il le fit tuer ; je n'ai pas 1'ame si cruelle. Mais je soutiens
qu'il devait, a tout le moins, le mettre ' hors d'etat de nuire,' c'est-a-dire le
s6questrer et le resserrer etroitement, comme on sait, par exemple, qu'il fit
pour KlSomenes.22 Car il est trop clair que, ne fut-ce qu'en raison de son *ge,
1912, 374 et note 7). Spiegelberg (Demot. voulu tirer argument de 1'absence du nora de
inschr. 54) est d'avis, comme Wiedemann Lysimaquesurrexedreconsacree.aTliermos,
(Philol. 1888, 90) et Strack (Dynast. 95, 5), par les Aitoliens 4 Ptolomee Evergetos
qu'il en faut abaisscr considdrahlcmcnt la et a ses proches (G. SotiriadLs, 'E<p»)^. apx-
date, en raison surtout de 1'expression 1905,90-94). Ce monument est incomplet ;
' frere des rois,' qui impliquerait 1'exis- au t^moignago de Q. Sotiriadis, il y manque
tence d'une ' Mit- oder Sammtherrechaft.' deux pierres (i'6i<f. 90 et 92); le nom de
Cependant M. Sottas a eu 1'obligeanco de Lysimaque pouvait etro grave sur Tune
me faire savoir que rien dans 1' inscription d'elles.
ne ' milite en favour d'un abaissement de tl Vers de Stasinos, cit^ par Polybe,
la date ' d'abord adoptee. xxiii. 10, 10.
19 Que Sosibios ait ete au pouvoir d6s le " Sosibios en aurait use de memo 4
regne d'Evergetes, c'est ce qu'a, le premier, 1'egard de Berenice, si Ton en croit Zenobioa
vu J. Beloch (Oriech. Ouch. iii. 1, 713), et (iii. 94; dans Leutach, Paroemiogr. Or.
ce qu'a confirme le decret vote par les 81), dont Niese (ii. 361) accepte le temoi*
Deliens en son honneur (IG. xi. 4, 649); gnage. La reine aurait et^ internee dans
cf. Holleaux, Rev. Et. anc. 1912, 370 «?7. son palais, et s'y serait cmpoisonnee.
10 C'est 4 tort, toutefois, que j'avais
186 M HOLLEAUX
Ptole'mee etait plus a craindre que Lysimaque. Et il ne pouvait 6chapper a
personne que la mort meme de Lysimaque aurait pour effet necessaire de le
rendre particulierement redoutable : a moins de 1'imaginer denature, comment
ce fils n'eut-il point eu a coeur de venger son pere ? D'autre part, Lysimaque
et Magas une fois disparus, Ptolemee, en sa qualite de cousin de Philopator,
se trouvait etre 1'unique heritier de 1'empire. Le tentation ne lui viendrait-elle
pas, avant que Philopator fut marie,23 avant qu'il cut un fils, de se mettre
en possession d'un si bel heritage ? Si Sosibios n'a point fait des reflexions si
simples; si, en 221/220, apres la mort de Lysimaque et de Magas, il a souffert
que le neveu d'Evergetes demeurat tranquille a Telmessos, j'avoue ne rien
comprendre a sa conduite. Polybe vante son a^-yivoia : 24 cet homme
' subtil ' m'a plutot 1'air d'un sot.
Qu'on n'aille point dire, en effet, que, residant en Lycie, loin de 1'Egypte,
Ptolemee etait par la meme devenu inoffensif. C'est justement loin de 1'Egypte
qu'il lui etait loisible de preparer de longue main et de machiner a 1'aise quelque
coup dangereux centre le roi regnant. La rebellion du ' fils ' de Philadelphe
avait naguere fait voir ce que pouvait tenter en Asie un prince entreprenant.
Et Ton se rappelle les inquietudes si raisonnables que Polybe prete a Sosibios,
en 220, lorsqu'il s'agit de renvoyer Kleomenes en Grece : (v. 35, 9)
(ol 7T€pl 1t,aHrij8lOv) fj,ij 7TOT6 - — ftapvs teal <£o/3e/oo? auTO?
afyiai yevtjTai, (10) - - dewpSyv — TroXXa ra
KOI fiaicpav airecrTraafjieva rrj<f /3a<rt\6ia? KOI 7roXXa<?
€%ovTa 7r/>o9 TrpayfiaTcov Xo70jr(ll)/cat jap vav<f evTOis Kara Sa/ioz> ^aav To?rot?
OVK oXiyai KOI a-rparKDTMv 77X77^05 eV rot? tear "E<£eo-oi/. Si peu digne que fut
le principicule de Telmessos d'etre compare a 1'heroiique roi de Sparte, son sejour
en Lycie etait propre a faire naitre des apprehensions de meme sorte. . . .
Lui aussi pouvait jeter du cote d'fiphese et de Samos des regards indiscrets.
Si Ptolemee de Telmessos est le fils de .Lysimaque, frere d'Evergetes et
victime de Sosibios, il est done inconcevable qu'apres avoir fait perir son pere
et Magas, Sosibios lui ait laisse la liberte. J'ajoute maintenant qu'il est moins
concevable encore qu'il lui ait laisse la vie apres la mort de Philopator.
Car, a partir de ce moment, c'est a Ptolemee de Telmessos, comme au seul
agnat survivant de la famille royale, qu'appartiennent legalement les fonctions
d' eVtT/aoTro? et de regent, aussi longtemps que durera la minorite d'fipiphanes.25
On sait que, pour s'assurer le pouvoir pendant cette minorite, Agathokles et
Sosibios jugerent bon de supprimer la reine-mere Arsinoe et de fabriquer un
testament,26 attribue a Philopator, par lequel le roi defunt leur confiait la
23 Le mariage de Philopator avec ss dinaatico, etc. (Studi di Star. ant. iv.).
soeur Arsino6 (III) fut, comme on sait, 57 sqq. ; 74. — On observera que le rapport
tardif (cf. Pol. xv. 25, 9); il est certaine- de parente est exactement le meme entre
ment post^rieur a I'ann6e 217; cf. Niese, ii. Ptolemee, fils de Lysimaque (a supposer
405-406 ;Strack,Z)yncw<iederPtoiem. 194, 14. que Lysimaque soit le frere d'fivergetes),
24 Pol. xv. 25, 1 ; 34, 4. et Ptolemee Epiphanes, qu'entre Antigone
25 Sur les regies en vigueur dans les Doaon et Philippe V.
monarchies macedoniennes, concernant la 28 Pol. xv. 25, 5 : SiaOr)Kr)v riva. irapav tyvtaffav
r^gence et la tutelle du roi, au cas ou (Sosibiua et Agathoclea) •wfir\auTfjiffiiv, iv fi
celui-ci est mineur, voir J. Beloch, Or. yrypannevov l\v STJ Kara\«iffi rov weutbs itrrrpd-
Oesch. iii. 1, 384; E. Breccia, II diritto -rovj 6 0<wriA*i'S 'Aya9oK\fa KO! 2<a<rl&iov.
PTOLEMAIOS EPIGONOS 187
tuteile de son fils. Mais, cependant, a quoi bon ce crime et cette fraude, si
Ptoteme'e, neveu d'Evergetes et par consequent cousin de Philopator, continue
d'exister? C'est avec lui qu'ont d'abord a compter Agathokles et Sosibios.
L'assassinat d' Arsinoe ne s'explique que si la reine est le principal obstacle entre
eux et la regence.27 Le testament suppose" de Philopator n'a pareillement de
raison d'etre que si toute la parente" masculine d'Epiphanes est 6teinte; il
est absurde dans le cas contraire. Pourquoi, le fils de Lysimaque 6tant tou-
jours en vie, Agathokles et Sosibios auraient-ils eu recours a cette inutile
supercherie? Comment se seraient-ils flatted que les Alexandrins, d'ailleurs
si mal disposes pour Agathokles,28 s'y pourraient laisser prendre ? II est trop
evident que la piece est apocryphe, puisqu'elle confere la qualite1 de tuteure
du roi a deux particuliers, au detriment du dernier prince du sang, c'est-a-dire
en violation du droit monarchique : cette na'ive imposture est la meilleure
preuve qu' Agathokles et Sosibios ne sont, pour parler comme Polybe, que des
•^revSeTrLTpoTroi.29 Et, d'autre part, une fois Agathokles renverse", comment la
re"gence passe-t-elle apres lui, d'abord a Tlepolemos, puis a Aristomenes ? *°
Comment ces deux personnages, qui, tres diffe"rents d' Agathokles et de Sosibios,
sont de loyaux serviteurs de la couronhe, usurpent-ils cette dignite" sur le prince
parent d'fipiphanes? Et, enfin, comment celui-ci, au lendemain de la mort de
Philopator et pendant les annees suivantes, se laisse-t-il si benoitement de"pos-
s6der, souffre-t-il d'une ame si egale qu'on le tienne a l'6cart, et ne tente-t-il
rien pour faire valoir ses droits ? 31 Comment, dans cette pe"riode agit£e de
Thistoire d'tfgypte, n'est-il jamais parle de lui ?
Re'sumons ces observations. Si, comme le veut E. von Stern, Ptolem6e
fils de Lysimaque, seigneur de Telmessos, est le neveu d'fivergetes, il faut qu'il
rentre dans 1'ombre des 220, il faut surtout qu'il meure en 203 M au plus tard :
autrement, on se heurte a d'intolerables paradoxes historiques, ou mieux, a
de radicales impossibilites. Mais E. von Stern admet — et son systeme 1'oblige
d'admettre — que le fils de Lysimaque regnait encore sur Telmessos en 189/8.
17 A d6faut d'agnat dans la ligne mascu- do Pol. xv. 25, 25 : r<? 5« nitoiv fx««" vpAatfrov
line, et si le roi defunt n'a pas institu£ par i^ioxftwv TO Ttpoarqalntvov, tccd 81' ol rV op V
testament de conseil de regence, la tuteile «jj rbf '\ya8oic\ta KO! r^y 'Aya6cic^tiai> iwtptl-
du roi mineur et la r6gence sont ordinaire- aorrtu (ol wo\\oi), r^v ^<rux«tt*' ^7<"'> 'T* f^""
ment devolues a la reine-mere; cf. E. lAvfSa Kapa&oKovrrfs T^y KVTO. rbr TATJ»O\«>»«I'
Breccia, ibid. 74. — La lecture de Polybe g& mtrj wfttmt&frm. Comment expliquer
(xv. 25, 8; 25, 12; 26a) ne permet pas de ce langage, s'il existe en ce moment un
douter qu' Arsinoe ait et£ assassinee apres prince, proche parent du roi, qui peut et
la mort de Philopator ; la verite, sur ce doit exercer le pouvoir en son nom ? Corn-
point, a 6t6 vue par Bouche-Leclercq ment les Alexandrins ne mettent-ils point
(H itt. des Lagide*, i. 338-339), qui toutefois, en lui leurs eepoirs, et comment n'est-il
s'est etrangoment m6pris sur le sens des point a la tete de ['opposition qui se forme
mots (Pol. xv. 26a, 1): trwvai TO Kara r^v centre Agathokles ?
£o«riA«fav, lesquels signifieraient selon lui " C'est a 1'automne de 203, comme je
'sauver la reine.'' 1'ai indique main tea fois, que mourut
" Cf. Pol. xv. 25, 10; 25, 23-25. Philopator, ou, tout au moins, que sa mort
*• Pol. xv. 25, 1. fut revelee au public. [II m'a eU* tr*s
30 Pol. xvi. 21-22 (regence de Tlepote- agreable de constater tout recemment que
mos); xv. 31, 7; xviiL 53-54 (regence Ad. Wilhelm a donne a cette opinion 1'appui
d'Aristomenes). de sa grande autorit^ : Amcig. der. Wien.
11 II faut preter attention a ce passage Akad. 1920, xviL-xxvii. 55 »qq.}
188 M. HOLLEAUX
Nous devons, en ce cas, renoncer a rien entendre a 1'histoire inte'rieure de
1'figypte dans le temps qui suit la mort de Philopator. Cette histoire devient
intelligible si, a la fin du III1' siecle, le prince de Telmessos est le cousin d'Epi-
phanes, ou, simplement, s'il est un Lagide.83 C'est la preuve par 1'absurde que
le systeme est faux. Je ne sais, et personne ne sait, si Lysimaque, frere d'Ever-
getes, eut un fils appelS PtolemSe; mais, a coup sur, ce fils n'etait point le
personnage celebre par le decret des Telmessiens. Et, des lors, quel sera le
pere de celui-ci, sinon Lysimaque roi de Thrace? Pour Schapper a cette
conclusion, qui parait necessaire, inventera-t-on un troisieme Lysimaque —
inconnu de 1'histoire ?
Je crois done, apres examen, devoir m'en tenir a ma premiere opinion.
' Liegt sonst eine Notigung vor,' ecrit E. von Stern,34 ' das Dekret der Telmessier
auf den Sohn des Diadochen Lysimachos zu beziehen? ' II repond a cette
question par un ' striktes nein ' ? Je pense avoir montre qu'il faut repondre
par 1'affirmative.
II.
Je dois discuter maintenant certaines critiques qu'a souleve'es mon
interpretation du mot eVi/yoi'o? joint au nom de Ptolemee.
Ce mot, ai-je dit, est une epithete, un surnom. Ptolemee, fils de Lysi-
maque, est appele Ptolemee 1' ' Epigone.' II est des lors le fils de Lysimaque,
roi de Thrace : en effet, les ' fipigones ' sont les fils des ' Diadoques.' 35
On a juge que cette interpretation d' ITTL^OVO^ etait un anachronisme, et
que j'attribuais na'ivement a ce mot un sens qu'il n'a pris que de nos jours.
' Nulla ci obbliga,' Scrivait le regrette E. Pozzi,36 ' a dare in questo caso alia parola
eTriyovos il senso determinato e, direi, tecnico, con cui essa e adoperata ora nella
storia ellenistica.' Et Bouche-Leclercq craint pareillement que je ne sois
victime d'une ' illusion.' ' Nous sommes habitues,' dit-il,37 ' a appeler " Epi-
gones " les fils des " diadoques " : mais ilfaudrait demontrer que cette expression,
employee une fois par Diodore (i. 3),38 . . . etait en usage au temps oil vivait
88 C'est pourquoi, A supposer que la simple particulier. C'est ce qu'avait vu,
chronologie le permette, on ne gagnerait rien, des 1896, comme je m'en suis apercu trop
dans le systeme de von Stern, a faire de tard, W. B. Paton, Rev. fit. gr. 1896, 422, 1.
Ptolemaeus Telmesssius (identique au Tiro- Cf. A. Kehm, Delphinion, 299, n. 138, E. von
Ae^aios Aixri/uoxof de D61os) 1'arriere petit- Stern, Hermes, ibid. 439, et aussi W. W.
fils, et non le fils, du frere d'Evergetes. Tarn, J.H.S. 1910, 214-215, Wilamowitz,
n n'est pas possible que la dynastie de Textgesch. der griech. Bukoliker, 200. — H est
Telmessos soit un rameau de la famille surprenant que 1'hypothese d'Usener ait et6
royale d'^gypte. encore accepted en 1912, par W. Bettingen,
81 Hermes, ibid. 440. Konig Antigonos Doaon von Makedonien
38 Je n'ai pas besoin de dire que je (diss. lena, 1912), 23 et note 6.
renonce maintenant a tirer argument de 36 E. Pozzi, Mem. Accad. di Torino,
l'6pigramme de Cnide, Anc. Greek inacr. 797. 1911/1912, 345, 3 «./.
L'interpr6tation de H. Usener (Rhein. Mus. 37 Bouch6-Leclercq, Hist, des Logides,
1874, 25sqq.=Kl. Schriften, iii, n. xvii, iv. 312.
382 sqq.), qui, je 1'avoue, m'avait long- 38 II y a la une forte erreur. BouchS-
temps s6duit, doit Stre d6finitivement Leclercq oublie Dionys. Hal. Arch. i. 6,
abandonnee. II est certain aujourd'hui Suid. s.v. NVM<#»* et Strab. xv. 736 ; d'autre
qu' 'Avrlyovos, le Kovpot 'Etrty6vov, 6tait un part, il ne voit pas que, dans i. 3, 3, Diodore
PTOLEMAIOS EPIGONOS 189
notre " tpigone" C'est un de ces termes de synthese historique qui ne s'em-
ploient qu'apres coup, pour grouper les faits dans la perspective. . . .'
La demonstration reclam6e par Bouche-Leclercq est ais4e a fournir, et
je 1'avais deja fournie. Le venerable 6rudit n'a pas song6 & 16 demander d'ou
nous vient 1'habitude d'appeler ' Epigones ' les fils des ' diadoques ' ; il n'a
pas pris garde qu'elle remonte aux Grecs du IIP siecle, dont nous ne faisons
que suivre 1'exemple.
Comme je 1'avais rappele et comme en convient E. von Stern — au lieu que
Bouche-Leclercq 1'oublie — le mot e-rriyovot, a e"te" employe, dans la premiere
moitie de ce sidcle, par Nymphis d'H6rakleia et Hi6ronynos de Kardia,
pour designer les fils et rejetons des Diadoques. Le premier composa un
ouvrage Trepl 'A\€%dv8pov KOI rtav 8ia&6%(t>v teal €7rty6va>v, le second, une
histoire intituiee tffropiai rtav SiaSoxwv ical e-myovfov.39 II n'est pas tres
vraisemblable que ces deux ecrivains aient introduit chacun, dans le titre
de son livre, un terme que les lecteurs eussent eu peine a entendre. Si, tra-
vaillant a 1'dcart Tun de 1'autre, ils se sont rencontres pour faire du mot
€Triyovoi le meme usage tres particulier, c'est, je pense, qu'autour d'eux cet
usage etait etabli; c'est qu'on avait, de leur temps, accoutume d'appeler
' Epigones ' les descendants des Diadoques. Or, le temps ou ils e"crivaient
etait precisement celui ou vivait Ptolem^e de Telmessos. Je veux bien,
comme 1'assure Bouche-Leclercq, qu' ' epigones ' soit ' un de ces termes de
synthese historique qui ne s'emploient que pour grouper les faits dans la
perspective.' • Je constate settlement que ce ' terme de synthese historique '-
ou je verrais beaucoup plus volontiers, je 1'avoue, une appellation d'origine
e"rudite (cf. ci-apres) — cut la vogue de bonne heure.
Si Ton en fit emploi, ce ne fut point peut-etre par un pressant besoin de
' grouper les faits dans la perspective ' ; ce fut plutot, je crois, par esprit
d'imitation. J'avais rappele a ce propos 40 le nom d' fTriyovoi, donn6 par
Alexandre a la seconde generation de ses soldats et aux jeunes recrues barbares
de son armee.41 E. von Stern estime le rapprochement oiseux. Selon lui, la
denomination d' ' fipigones ' appliquee aux descendants des Diadoques est
la chose du monde la plus naturelle ; il n'y a rien la que de confonne au t>jns
primitif et habituel du mot tirlyovo? : ' Die Bezeichnung entspricht dem
Wortsinn von eiriyovof und ist ganz naturgemass.' 42 Bouche-Leclercq etait
du meme avis : ' II n'y a pas lieu d'invoquer comme precedent les e-rriyovot
d' Alexandre.' 43 Je persiste a croire, au contraire, que le ' precedent ' est
renvoie aux anciens auteurs qui tit rovt lt» Lagides, 53, 55, 62; cf. G. Schubart,
8«a8<Jxoi/i *> TOUJ iiny6rovs Kartarpf^w r«kf Quaett. de reb. militar. quale* fuerint in
(rvvrd^ft<i. regno Lagidarum, 32-33.
»• Pour les references, voir B.C.H. 1904, 41 E. von Stern, Hermes, ibid. 439.
412, 4; W. W. Tarn, J.H.S. 1910, 215, u Bouch6-Leclercq, Hitt. det Lagidet,
38; E. von Stern, Hermes, ibid. 440. Je iv. 312. — Bouch6-Leclercq et E. von Stern,
ne crois pas devoir partager les doutes de celui-ci reproduisant une phrase de BouchA-
F. Jacoby (P.-W. viii. 1547) sur le titre de Leclercq (Hist, des Lagides, ibid.), me
1'ouvrage de Hi^ronymos. reprochent d'avoir parW hors de propoa
40 B.C.H. 1904, 412. (cf. B.C.H. 1904, 412, 3) dee iWfxroi -Hji
41 Sur la question, voir, en dernier lieu, iviyovrit de 1'anndo lagide. J'ai seulement
J. Lesquier, Instil, milit. de Ftigypte sous fait allusion, en g4n6ral, non aux n«>«roi T^J
190 M. HOLLEAUX
des plus instructifs. Mais, pour le faire entendre, il me faut insister quelque
peu sur 1'histoire, mal connue, semble-t-il, du mot ejriyovos.
II est bien vrai qu'en raison de 1'etymologie, ce mot signifie post natus, et
peut, par consequent, avoir le sens soit de ' descendant ' (posterns ; cf. e
vofj-evos, ol €7Tiyiv6fjievoi), soit de ' piiine".' II en est exactement de
comme de 777)6701/09 ; ce sont tennes correspondants et qui s'opposent. L'un
designe simplement le minor, comme 1'autre le maior natu, que la compa-
raison porte sur des personnes appartenant a des generations successives ou a
la meme generation.44 Dans le premier cas, les Trpoyovoi sont les representants
des generations anterieures a celle que Ton considere, done ses ' ascendants,'
ses ' ancetres ' ; inversement, les e-rrLyovoi en sont la ' posteriteV Dans le
second cas, c'est-a-dire a 1'interieur d'une meme generation, le qualificatif de
7rp6yovo<f marque la primogeniture: c'est ainsi que le fils aine peut etre dit
(6 wo?) 6 irpoyovos ; 45 pareillement, eVt/yovo? pourra se *dire du fils puine.
— Mais, ceci reconnu, on peut douter que, pris au sens soit de ' puine,' soit
de ' descendant,' ou, plus generalement, de post natus, le mot eiriyovos soit
jamais entre dans 1'usage ordinaire. Ce qui est sur, en tout cas, c'est que, s'il
a d'abord eu cette large acception, il est devenu tres vite une sorte de nom
propre collectif, employe seulement au pluriel, dont la signification, singu-
lierement restreinte, a ete fixee une fois pour toutes.
Dans la grecite classique, les etriyovoi sont expressement, et Ton peut dire
exclusivement, les fils des Sept-Chefs celebres par 1'Epopee thebaine. Le terme
ne se rencontre qu'au sens etroit qu'il avait re£U des Cycliques. II appartient,
jusqu'aux temps alexandrins, au vocabulaire epique. ' Descendant ' s'est
dit, en grec, ou bien Ztcyovos, ou bien cnroyovos, ou bien €7riyiv6fj,€vo<;, mais
non point e-n tyoi>o? ; les Grecs ne connaissent pas d' ' epigones ' en dehors des
' Epigones ' legendaires.46
tTTtyovris, mais aux homines dits TTJS tiriyovris ; voulu, a ma priere, relever tons les passages
et tout ce que j'ai voulu indiquer, c'est que des auteurs classiques oil le mot tiriyovot ne
Is meme idee, qui a suggere 1'appellation designe point les fils des Sept. Ces pas-
ttriyovot, se retrouve aussi, semble-t-il, dans sages se reduisent a cinq. Et, dans deux
1'expression rris tiriyovris. C'est un point seulement (1 et 5), iiriyovoi a le sens plus
qui parait aujourd'hui hors de doute; ou moins net de 'descendants'; dans un
cf. J. Lesquier, ibid. 55 sqq. [La significa- seulement (4), un sens approchant de celui
tion, si contestee, du terme TTJS iitiyovfis de ' puin£.'
vient tout dernierement d'etre fix6e par 1°. Aesch. Sept. 903 : /ueVei Kriava 5'
U. Wilcken (Arch. f. Pap.forsch. vi. 368). iiriy&voi s, |8i* &v alvon6pois, \ 5«" <av vtiicos t&a. \
II est desormais acquis qu'il designe les fils «al Oavdrov T*'AOS. Le poete ne parle point ici
de soldats (ffrpaniarai), nes en Egypte, des ' Epigones.' ' Eteocle et Polynice ne
jusqu'au moment oil ils en trent dans 1'armee laissent point de posterite (cf. 828). II ne
et deviennent eux-memes soldats. Voila s'agit done pas de leurs descendants, mais
qui rappelle necessairement les veteranis des generations suivantes en general.
patribus tironea filii (succedentes) institutes Eschyle, toutefois, se sert ici du terme par
par Alexandre, Jes Epigoni, dont parle lequel la tradition d6signait les fils des Sept-
Justin (12, 4, 5 «qq.).] Chefs, les Epigones. 11 ne peut ee degager
44 Cf. les remarques de E. von Stern, entierement dee souvenirs de r epopee ..."
Hermes, ibid. 440. (P. Mazon, Eschyle, i., ed. ' Guill. Bude,'
48 Voir, par exemple, un decret de 1920, p. 141, n. 2, de la traduction).
Kalymna : Dial.-inschr. 3555, 11. 7-9. 2°. Plat. Leg. v. 740c : — tet> 5« THT»K ^AA«-
46 M. Paul Mazon, que je ne saurais wu-ffiv x<^PlTts> ^ irAt/ouj Itlyovoi yiyvuin-ai
assez remercier de son obligeance, a bien ftftAtu ^ nvts &pptvts fmiarvv /C.T.A. — 3°. xi.
PTOLEMAIOS EPIGONOS 191
Appliqu6, soit aux recrues d' Alexandre, soit aux princes issue des Diadoques,
le quulif icutif d' e-rriyovot n'a done point 6t6 tir6 de la langue commune — pour la
bonne raison qu'il 6tait Stranger a cette langue. II n'est pas d6riv6 simple-
ment du ' Wortsinn ' comme 1'a pens6 E. von Stern : car le ' Wortsinn '
6tait oubli6. Dans les deux cas, il est d'origine litt£raire ; dans les deux cas,
il n'y faut voir qu'une reminiscence des vieilles 6pop4es. Et Ton observera,
qu'en effet, dans les deux cas, conform6ment a 1'usage des poetes, le mot
garde son caractere de nom propre collectif, reserve", bien que transmissible
par h^r^dite1, & une categoric Iimit6e de personnes.
C'est Alexandre qui, le premier, s'inspirant directement des souvenirs
6piques, rajeunit ainsi 1'antique expression par une application nouvelle; il
en fit un vocable militaire : ses veterans, comme jadis les Sept, eurent leurs
' fipigones.' Apres lui et sur 1'exemple qu'il avait donne", ' Epigones '
devint, en figypte, le nom de jeunes soldats, fils eux-memes de soldats.47
Rien que de naturel, semble-t-il, si, vers le meme temps, on se servit du meme
terme pour designer la posterite des genSraux macedoniens, compagnons
d'armes du conquerant. Des qu'on se refere a 1'emploi analogue et tout recent
fait par Alexandre du mot farvyovot, cette derniere appellation s'explique
ais^ment. Si, au contraire, on 4carte et neglige ce ' precedent,' on cree une
difficulte inutile : car il s'agit alors de savoir comment 1'idSe put naitre de
donner aux fils et descendants des Diadoques, en le detournant de 1'usage
consacre par la tradition, le nom archa'ique, poStique et, comme tel, passable-
ment imprevu d' ' fipigones.' Et, par surcroit, il devient necessaire d'admettre
929c : OLfOK-npvxQtvra 8« &v ns 8«'(ca fr&f qui se tire naturellement de l'6tymologie.
ur? tin0vn-f]<ry 8trl>v vl&v wonicraatiai. rovf TWV Ce terme srrvirait a designer, moins lo liU
tinyovwv ^iriju«A7/ras run tit r^v airoiKiav puine, que le fils du second lit par opposition
trim \ttirdai Kol rovroiv. — Dans ces deux a celui du premier.
passages, le mot fitly ovoi no signifie ni 5°. Xenoph. Oecon. vii. 34 : — «col rov ytyvo-
' descendants ' ni ' puin£s ' ; il est pris /u*Vou r6xov fwi^f \ilrai (apum raj inn) »t
dans une acception toute particuliere : ixTptQ-nrar txntav 5« txTpa^ri na.1 i£iotpyol ol
' sunt tilii post heredes legitimoa nnti et vtorrol ytriovrat, awoiKl^ti oirrovt evv TMK
sufficient f>n liberorum numerum excedentes, tiny A yen? rivl irytuAvi. La le^on i-nyd*** a
qui hanc ipsam ob causam in coloniam ete contestee ; cf. Sturz, Lex. Xenoph, ii. -"-.
mittuntur' (T. Mitchell, Ind. graec. Platon. «.v. : 'all. Iwonttvw.' Si on la maintioi.t.
i. 276) ; ' post natus, praec(ipue), qui post il n'est pas douteux que le mot signifie :
heredes legitimot natti* est ' (Fr. Ast, Lex. " la generation nouvelle." ' [Dans le Rhein.
Platon. i. 771). Platon entend ici par Mu». 1917/1918, 617, O. Klotz ecrit, a
iwlyovot les enfant.s nes ' par surcroit,' en propos du passage d'EIschyle cite plus haut :
sus des heritiers legaux. C'est un sens que • Also ist das Wort fwlyovot, dessen Bedeu-
I'et3rmologie autorise, mais qui est d'ailleurs tung ja nicht auf dieso Helden beschrankt
sans exemple. ist, sondern das der lebendigen Sprach*
4°. Texte attribu6 par von Stern (Hermes, angehort, allgemein zu fasaen.' C'eat la
ibid. 440) a Platon sur la foi du Thesaurus these meme de E. von Stern, mats les faits
(avec la reference fausse Leg. v. 740c), ne la confirment pas : fwlywot n'appartient
mais qui, en realito, n'est point de Platon; pas 4 la 'lebendige Sprache.']
il se trouve dans Pollux, iii. 25, sans 4T Cf. Pol. v. 65, 10. — Sur 1* question,
indication d'origine : tl 8« *al i* 9m<(>6p*i> J. Lesquier, 53 : ' Quelques rare* papyrus
TII>«» ^TjTt'pwf tJtv, fflyovoi tif & Stfctpot rf ... emploient le mot fviyo*<n pour
»por«p<fi ovondfaro. II est visible que 1'auteur designer une categoric de soldats. 11 n'y
inconnu, a qui est empruntee cette phrase, a pas de raison de tenir oes imiyovot pour
propose d'attribuer au terme trlyovoi une tliffdrents de ceux qu« font connaitre In
signification quelque peu differente de cello historiens d'Alexandre, etc.*
192 M. HOLLEAUX
qu'on fit, a la suite d' Alexandra, sans pourtant 1'imiter, justement ce qu'il
avail fait ; qu'on eut, comme lui, mais independamment de lui, le caprice, assez
etrange, d'aller chercher dans le vocabulaire de 1'epopee, pour la transporter a
des contemporains, une denomination qui, jusque la, semblait appartenir en
propre a des personnages h^roi'ques. Une telle rencontre serait trop singuliere.
Quoi qu'ait pense von Stern, entre les eTriyovoi (fils de soldats), ressuscites par
Alexandre, et ceux (fils et descendants des Diadoques), dont les ecrivains,
comme Nymphis et Hieronymos, ont conte 1'histoire, il existe une relation
directe. C'est aux premiers que les seconds doivent leur nom. La repetition
est ici signe d'imitation.
A present, je reconnais volontiers que j'avais donne du mot eTriyovoi, tel
qu'on 1'employa au IIP siecle, une interpretation ' trop etroite ' ; 48 que ce
nom a designe, comme le montrent precisement les titres des ouvrages de
Nymphis et de Hieronymos, non seulement les fils, mais encore les petits-fils
des Diadoques; que, par suite, donne a nroXe/iaio? 6 Avcri^d^ov, il n'implique
pas necessairement que ce personnage fut le fils d'un Diadoque, et ne saurait
done fournir la preuve que Lysimaque, son pere, fut le roi de Thrace. Sur ce
point les critiques de E. von Stern sont fondees. Du fait que IlToXe/iato? o
Av(Ti/j.dxov est dit 1' ' fipigone,' j'avais conclu a tort que son pere ne pouvait
etre que le grand Lysimaque. — Mais, a son tour, von Stern devrait m'accorder
que si UroXefj-alos 6 h.vaipd'xpv est le fils du Diadoque Lysimaque, la quali-
fication d' eTriyovos lui convient parfaitement : 49 car, si Ton en a fait usage pour
designer les petits-fils ou meme tous les rejetons des Diadoques aussi bien que
leurs fils, c'est cependant a ceux-ci qu'elle s'est d'abord appliquee et c'est sans
doute pour eux qu'on la remit en honneur.
Au contraire, les choses iront beaucoup moins bien si Ptolemee a pour pere
Lysimaque, frere d'EVergetes. En ce cas, j'ai peine a comprendre qu'on ait
tenu a inscrire a la suite de son nom, dans le decret de Telmessos, 1'epithete
honorifique d' eTriyovos. Car ^ si Ptolemee n'est un 'Epigone' qu'a la
troisieme generation, si son pere et son ai'eul 1'ont ete avant lui, 1'epithete n'a
plus rien de caracteristique et perd singulierement de son interet. A la verite,
selon E. von Stern,50 €71-1701/09 equivaudrait ici a ' der Jiingere, der Nach-
geborene, der Neffe des Euergetes ' : on aurait appele de la sorte le fils de Lysi-
maque pour le distinguer de son oncle, le roi Ptolemee III. Mais, nous 1'avons
dit, eTriyovo? n'a point en grec le sens usuel de ' Nachgeborene ' (post natus). Et,
d'autre part, la precaution qu'imagine E. von Stern aurait ete bien superflue.
A qui fut-il venu a 1'esprit de conf ondre les deux Ptolemees ? Le decret des
Telmessiens est redige' de fa9on si claire qu'il exclut toute equivoque. Au
surplus, pour faire entendre cette chose si simple que Ptolemee, fils de Lysimaque,
48 Cf. E. von Stern, Hermes, ibid. 440. und von iihm unterschieden sein sollte.'
49 J'avoue ne pas bien entendre 1'objec- A mon avis, les r6dacteurs du decret ne
tion formulae par E. von Stern en ces se sont nullement proposes de distinguer
termes (ibid. 441) : ' befremdend miisste nro\f/j.aiot 6 Ai/«r«^t£xou dQ Ptol6m6e fiver-
das Epitheton sein, wenn damit der viel getes; cette opinion est particuliere a mon
altere Ptolemaios, des Diadochen Lysi- contradicteur (cf. ci-apres). Par suite, je ne
machos Sohn, der dergleichen Generation vois pas du tout pourquoi 1'epithete donnee
wie Ptolemaios Philadelphos angehorte, au fils de Lysimaque serait ' befremdend.'
dem Konig Euergetes gegeniibergestellt 60 Ibid. 441.
PTOLEMAIOS EPIGONOS 193
e"tait ' le neveu de son oncle,' pourquoi se fut-on servi de ce terme inattendu
d'cTriyovos ? N'eut-il point e^e" pre'fe'rable d'^crire \\ro\f f^alov TOV dof\<f>iBovv ?
J'ajoute qu' eTriyovos, au sens (d'ailJeurs inusite") oil le prend E. von Stern,
serait sans doute propre a designer le descendant par rapport a 1'ascendant, le
fils par rapport au pere, le frere puine" par rapport a 1'aind; en revanche, il
s'en faut qu'il soit heureusement choisi s'il s'agit d'un neveu qu'on oppose 4
son oncle : car, en pareil cas, 1'ordre de primogeniture n'a rien d'e'vident, un
oncle pouvant etre moins age* que son neveu. Ce serait la premiere fois, je
pense, qu'on en aurait fait ce douteux emploi. Et puis enfin, si eiriyovos
avait la signification qui lui est ici pretee, n'est-ce pas plutot TOV (Triyovov
qu'il eut convenu d'e"crire ?
Pour moi, il me semble evident qu'il existe une correspondance exacte
entre ces deux appellations, FlT-oXe/taio? o AvtnfjLu^ov, IlroXt/itato? eV 1701*09,
donne"es simultane'ment a la meme personne. Elles doivent s'expliquer 1'une
par 1'autre. La seconde s'explique en effet, et tr&s simplement, si, dans la
premiere, Lysimaque est le Diadoque roi de Thrace. Dans le cas contraire,
je ne vois guere comment 1'interpreter.
Ill
J'examinerai, pour terminer, une diificulte,51 grave seulement en apparence,
qui m'est opposee par E. yon Stern.52
Dans le decret des Telmessiens (1. 7-8), Ptolemee, fils de Lysimaque, est
appele n-roXe/iaio? 6 Aurrt/ia^ov. S'il avait pour pere le roi Lysimaque, il
devrait etre dit ITToXe/zato? o ySatrtXe'eu? Afcrt/ia^ou : 1'omission du mot
/3ao-f Xeu? serait ici d'autant plus choquante que les Telmessiens, en rendant leur
decret, ont pour objet de faire honneur au fils de Lysimaque, leur seigneur et
bienfaiteur.
La reponse parait aise"e. Si les Telmessiens se proposent d' honorer
Ptol4m4e, fils de Lysimaque, il est sur, d'autre part, qu'ils n'ont garde de de"plaire
aft roi d'l^gypte, Ptol6mee fivergetes, duquel, en dernier ressort, ils se trouv°nt
toujours dependre, et qui, s'il n'est plus leur suzerain direct, demeure pourtant
leur souverain. Cependant, ils n'ont pas donne" son titre royal a Philadelphe,
p^re d'Evergetes. A la 1. 9 du de"cret (cf. 11. 2-3), nous lisons : -napa\afi(ov
( Hro\€/j.alo^ 6 Avert fiii^ov) TTJV TTO\IV Trapa /8a<rtX€&)? Tlro\€fjiaiov rov
Hro\€fiaiov. Et, sans doute, je n'ignore pas qu'une telle formule est
autoris^e par 1'usage officiel; qu'il s'en rencontre de multiples exemples; et
qu'on peut a la rigueur soutenir que le titre de /9a<rtXeu9 est implicitement
attribue au pere des qu'il Test expresse"ment au fils.53 Mais il n'en demeure
pas moins que la nomenclature protocolaire, employee parfois par fiverg^tes
61 Elle ne m'4tait pas demeurde inapeif ue nroAffiaToi Avvipaxov. On verra ci-apris, 4
(cf. B.C.H. 1904, 413, 3). Pour la rfooudre, TAppendice, que c'etait la une erreur et
j'avais cru pouvoir m'autoriser de 1'Invon- que, dans 1'inventaire, Lyumaque porte
taire delien de Kallistratos, oil le fils de toujours le titre royal.
naquo aurait 6t6 dit simple-merit, M Hermea, ibid. 441.
commo dans le decret de Telmessos, M Cf. E. von Stern, Hermes, ibid. 443.
194 M. HOLLEAUX
lui-meme, est y3a<Tf\ey<? IlToXe/iato? /SatrtXew? IlToXe/Aatoi;,54 et que, pour
faire court, les Telmessiens se sont dispenses de la reproduire : il leur a
paru suflSsant de donner son nom, sans litre, au second Ptol6mee, qui n'etait
mort que depuis sept ans. Quoi d'etonnant qu'avec Lysimaque, mort depuis
quarante ans, ils aient use de la meme liberte ? C'est le contraire qui serait
singulier.
Mais, au surplus, il se peut que je n'aie pas su rendre raison de 1'omission
du titre royal devant le nom de Lysimaque; il se peut que j'aie mal explique,
dans le decret de Telmessos, la signification du terme eiriyoixx;; quand j'aurais
erre sur ces deux points, mes premieres conclusions (ci-dessus, p. 188) n'en
sauraient etre aucunement affectees. II resterait toujours vrai — et c'est par
la que je veux finir — que, lors de 1'avenement d'Epiphanes, la dynastie lagide
n'avait plus, hormis lui, de representant masculin; que le prince qui regnait
en ce temps-la sur Telmessos (que ce fut HToXe/tato? Avatfid-^ov premier du
nom, c'est-a-dire 1' ' Epigone/ ou un IlToXe/iato? Avcri/jLa^ov second du nom,
son j>etit-fils K) n'appartenait done pas a la famille royale; qu'ainsi Ptolemee
1' ' Epigone ' n'etait pas le neveu d'Evergetes. Et, la-dessus, je reviens a
ma question : De quel Lysimaque 1' ' fipigone ' a-t-il pu etre fils, sinon de
Lysimaque, roi de Thrace ?
M. HOLLEAUX.
APPENDICE
E. von Stern a cru possible de discerner, dans 1'Inventaire delien de Kallistratos,
une mention du pretendu neveu d'Evergetes, Ptolemee, fils de Lysimaque, prince
de Telmessos, a cote de celles de Ptolemee, fils du roi Lysimaque.11 Le premier se
serait appele n-roAe/imos Avo-i/xa^ov ; le second serait designe par les mots :
llToAe/mios /JacriAc'ws Avtri/xa^ov, OU /JacriAevs IlToXc/Aaios Avcri/Aa^ov.
Afin de savoir une bonne fois ce que les textes de Delos sont susceptibles de
nous apprendre et sur ce point particulier et sur 1'ensemble de la question traitee
dans ce memoire, j'ai prie mon ami F. Diirrbach, 1'admirable editeur des fasc.
2 et 3 du t. xi. des Inscr. Graecae, de vouloir bien me faire connaitre, en y joignant
ses observations, tous les documents provenant de Delos, ou figure un Ptolemee,
fils d'un Lysimaque. Je transcris ici, en le remerciant vivement de sa complaisance,
la ' consultation ' qu'il a eu la bonte de m'adresser.
5* Voir 1'inscription d'Adulis (Ditten- Cf., pour Ptolemee II, ibid. 26, 27; SyUoge*,
berger, Or. gr. inscr. 54), 11. 1-2 : &aai\fvs 433 ; pour Ptolem6e IV, ibid. 76, 77, etc. —
Htyas nro\efj.atos, vibs 0affi\fus Hro\tnalov E. von Stern lui-mome cite (Hermes, ibid,
ical $afft\ifffftit 'Apffif^Tji Otuv 'A$t\<(>wv — ; la 441) sept inscriptions ou le titre de /3a<nA* vs
<ledicace du temple d'Isis a Philai (ibid. est donn6 au roi defunt pere du roi regnant.
61) : Paffi\tvs nTotencuos fa<rt\fui nToX(«)fiafoi; «8 Cf. B.C.H. 1904, 415-416.
KO! 'Ap<riv6ns 6t<av 'ASeA^wv— ; Syllog&t 462. a Hermes, ibid., 443-444.
PTOLEMAIOS EPIGONOS 195
I.
' (1) Fragment d'inventaire un peu anterieur a celui de iJemares [I.G. xi.
3. 427], 1. 15 : [<£idAui cyu. TrXi^ciot? || ... fiia IlTojAc/iuioc TOV A[vtrtfui^ov
avuftffJLO. . . .].
(2) Autre fragment [I.G. xi. 3. 428], 1. 7 : la mention de la phiale, certaine a
cette ligne, est entierement restitute.
(3) Inventaire de Tetesarchides II. [I.G. xi. 3. 439; date rectified : 181], a,
I. 85 : texte identique a celui de 1'inventaire de Demares.
(4) Inventaire de Demares [I.G. xi. 3. 442 ; date rectified : 179], B. 11. 94-95 :
4>iuAut tfi irAivtfeiois ||, vrrtp TO MpcrpM^ us Iffxurav dvaTcflj/vai cVi TJJS avrwH dp;^
Xaipc'a? Kai TcAeoroK/HTOs [date rectifiee : 188], /tuW llToAc/ioiov TOV Avj^o-i/iuxov
dfu^e/na,1' aAAr; 'AvriTTUTpov TOV 'ETTiyoVov.
(5) Inventaire de Xenotimos [I.G. xi. 3. 443; date rectifiee: 178], B. b,
II. 20-21 : texte identique a celui de Demarts, sauf omission de la formule is
((Jxicrav K.T.A,
La phiale consacr^e par IlToAe/ualov Avo-i/naxov se retrouve dans les Inventaires
attiques ; mais elle y est separee de celle d'Antipatros, et elle a change de place.
Voici deux mentions qui se completent 1'une 1'autre.
(6) Inventaire T 307 (= P. Roussel, Delos col. alhen., 399, n. xxiii.), A. col. i.
11. 28—29 '. [oAATj (<f>td\rf) Xfia o>s TToStaia, ava]OffJia ATyAtdStoi', iin&ovTos TlTO\.(fuuov TOV
Awri/id^ov O.VTTJ Sia TO TTf(r(fiv ?)|2fl [. . . Kai r/v ? «V Ttot vatut *]ai t^et vjroy€ypafjip.(ytji'
TTJV alriav.
(7) Inventaire d'Hagnotheos [precedemment appel^ Archon ; date probable :
140/39], A. 11. 27-28 : dAAv/v (^>iaXrjv) Actav u>s TToSuuav, dw0c/xa [ A»/Aturt<Dr. e?rt8oiTOS
TOV Avl^o-i/nd^ov airn; 8ia TO Treo-eiv ? . . . *c]al ^v ev Tu>t faoii K«U e^ci
v amav.
II.
(8) Inventaire de Kallistratos [date approximative : 157/6], A. col. i. 11. 8-14 :
ev T<oi OIKWI TO»I Trpos Toil CKKXrjtTUKrrrjpiw ei|9[Kova ^aAic^v] /3curiAt'o*<n/v '
dvudc/^ia IlToAt/u.aiou- dyaA/na Ai'|10[0«'oj' €/x TrAivJ^eiw}, q.ya.^^.0. IlToAe/xatou TOV
Avcrt/Ltd^ov>|11[Trii'aKa CTTI /8]tto-«ws Tf&vp<a[icvov, dvaOffiti 'A
12[dAAov CTTI] /Su'o-ctos d6*i'p<DTO»', c^on-a ypafojv, avaOtpa. IlToAe/iai'l^fov TOV /3ao-]iAe<os
Avo-ifid^oV dAAov «Adrrova ddi'pajrov, c^ovra|14[ypa«^»Jv], /8ao-iAca)« Avo-i/id^ov.
Viennent ensuite un certain nombre d'offrandes consacr^es par divers particu-
liers, une do-7ris et des series de Qvptoi. — LI. 24-30 : dAAoK (Ovpcov) linriKov tirixpvaov,
*\ovra [in rasurd] eyl^Kav/^o, dvddc/Lta ^3ao-iAc«os IlToAc/iaiov TOV Awifia;(ov dAAoi-|
287T€^iKOV TT(pixpv<rov, c^ovTa Kepavfof f7ri\pvarov, dvd^e|27fia IlToAf/iaiov ^ao-iAcuK Av<ri-
P.O.XOV do-7ri8a fp. TrAaio-tcji dv«|283ri'ypa«^ov, cyovo-ai' lyKav/na- ^iTui^a ACVKOI-, dvddc/m
KAeol^oa/xa' dAAov €/yt irAaio-iox /xc(rdAevKOV, dfd^«/xa IlToA«/iaiov| ^TOV Avo-i/idxof
dAAov K.T.A.
Cette partie de 1'inventaire de Kallistratos est d'autant plus precieuse que
je ne lui connais pas de double dans la serie des documents atheniens, a 1'exception
toutefois d'un texte tres mutile, dont il ne reste que quelques lettres au bord gauche :
(9) Inventaire T 505 (= P. Roussel, Delos col. athen., 397, n. xvii.), B. col. ii.
11. 24-29 : lv TWl OUtWl TWl irpOS TO CKKAj^TlJl^OOTTJpl'oH- CUCOKQ
b Le mot ayifl«/Mi avait 6t6 omis par Th. Homollr.
196 M. HOLLEAUX
'Apo'ivoTys, dvd^e/xaJl^nToAe/natou TOV /3[amA«os Avo"i//.d^ov TriVaxa CTTI /3do"ttos Te0vpo>]
28/ic'vov, dvd6ffj.a 'A^tfaOovyTov KOL 'Aptoreov aAAov CTTI /3do~£u>s]|27d$i'pa>Toi', l^ovTfa
dvd$ffj.a IlToAe]|28/Aatov TOV [/Jao-iAe'cos Avo-i/tu^ov aAAov (cAaTTOva) dflvpaxrov,
29ypa«^>^v, y3a[o~iA£w? AVO*I/AU^OV K.T.A.
La 1. 27 de cet inventaire est un peu plus courte que les autres. On ne voit
pas ce qui peut manquer au texte : y avait-il un mot in rasura ? Au contraire,
la 1. 28 est un peu trop longue :' c'est pourquoi je mets entre ( ) le mot iAdrroi/u
qui manquait peut-etre ; mais il se peut que ce soit /Jao-iAe'ws qui ait et4 omis. A
part cela, les restitutions paraissent certaines ; le fragment apporte deux precisions
interessantes : d'abord, le niot^iKoVa, a la 1. 24; et surtout, a la 1. 25, la mention
IlToAe/Luu'ov TOV /3[ao-<A«f<os, au lieu de rtToAe/xaiov, qui se trouve a la 1. correspondante
(1. 9.) de 1'Inventaire (8) de Kallistratos. II resulte de cette variante que le texte
de Kallistratos ne donne, comme c'est 1'usage de tous les inventaires, que des
notations abregees. Nous ne serons done pas surpris de lire, aux 11. 29-30 de
Kallistratos (8), IlToAe/u.atov TOV Avo-i/xd^ov sans adjonction du titre royal. L'absence
de fiewriAews, soit devant rEroAe/xatbv (cf. 1. 25 de Kallistratos), soit devant Avo-i^td^ov,
ne peut etre alleguee comme une preuve qu'il s'agisse ici de deux Ptolemees diff brents.
Ce serait un liasard par trop singulier que deux personnages quasi-homonymes —
Ptolemee, fils du roi Lysimaque, et le TlToAe/Lcaio? Avo-t/xd^ov de 1'Inventaire de
Demares (ci-dessus, 4) — fussent nommes simultane'ment dans ces quelques lignes.
Comme le premier y est mentionne cinq fois (11. 9, 10, 12, 25, 27), il y a toute appa-
rence que c'est encore de lui qu'il est question la sixieme. Je me demande me'me
si, a la 1. 14, il ne figurait pas une septieme fois. On est quelque peu etonne de
rencontrer tout-a-coup une ofirande du roi Lysimaque en personne : le scribe n'aurait-
il pas omis, avant ce nom, les mots (dvdOtp,a IlToAe/xatov TOV) ?
III.
(10) Inventaire de Phaidrias [date approximative : 153/2], A. col. i. o, 11. 49-53
(cf. B.C.H. 1905, 537) : /Sw/xt'o-KOV vdAivov|50[7r£pi*c€^pvo-a)/x€voi', fldo-w e^ovTa] If
K.T.A.
(11) Inventaire d'Hagnotheos [date probable : 140/39], A. 11. 92-93 :
vdAivov
dvd6cp.a AiyA]dvopos Kvprjvaiov K.T.A.
Les deux passages paraissent se corresponds. Mais alors il faut supposer que
les mots avdOepa HTo\ep.aiov TOV . . . ont ete omis dans 1'Inventaire d'Hagnotheos.
Avec le xaAidStov lAe^di/Tifov, qui r^pond a 1' dAAov eAc^dvTtvov de 1'Inventaire de
Phaidrias (10), on a la description d'une nouvelle offrande, celle de N. Kalch.e"donien.
De toute fayon, Hagnotheos ne peut apporter aucune lumiere sur 1'identite du
nToAe/Acuos nomme dans Phaidrias. Quel est ce personnage ? J'ai restitue, non
sans temerite, TOV [/Sao-iAc'ws Avo-ifidxov] dans B.C.H. 1904, 409, 5, et simplement
TOV [Auo-i/tdxov] dans B.C.H. 1905, 537; mais le supplement Avo-i/xdxou est-il
assure"? La seule raison qui m'engageait a voir ici le fils d'un Lysimaque, c'est
que je ne connais pas, dans les inventaires deliens, de Ptolemee (sans titre royal)
qui soit fils d'un autre que Lysimaque.. Mais cette raison est fragile. La seule
c [0uo (comme Ovia), ' bois de thuia.' M.H.]
PTOLEMAIOS EPH:n.\«.N 197
remarque que Ton puisse faire avec quelque fondemcnt est cellc-ci : nous sommea
ici dans 1'inventaire du temple d'Apollon ; or, cet inventaire, nous 1'avons in extenso
dans Demaret, et 1'offrande en question n'y figure pas. Elle est done posteri<'ur«-
a 179, — a moins, ce qui est encore possible, qu'eile n'ait e'te' transferee d'un autre
edifice dans le temple d'Apollon.'
Je n'ajouterai que peu de mots aux excellentes observations de F. Dun-bach.
II n'y a point a s'arreter a la dedicace faite, en 188, par IlToAc/iuIo? Awi/ia^or,
et mentionne'e d'abord dans 1'Inventaire de Bernards et les textes contemporains
(ci-dessus, 1-5). Ce personnage ne pouvant eVideinment etre le fils du roi Lysimaque
— il est son arriere-petit-fils selon moi,a le neveu de Ptolemee fivergetes, selon
E. von Stern — 1'absence du titre royal avant \va-ip.d\ov est parfaitement normale.
Nous devons pareillement faire abstraction de la dedicace rappelee dans
1'Inventaire de Phaidrias (ci-dessus, 10). II est impossible d'en suppleer la partie
manquante et de savoir quel en est 1'auteur.
Le texte qu'il convient d'examiner avec soin est 1'Inventaire de Kallistratos
(ci-dessus, 8), rapproche de 1'Inventaire anonyme 505 (ci-dessus, 9). Comme 1'a
justement note F. Durrbach, on y trouve, une fois de plus, la preuve que, dans les
inventaires sacres de Delos, les dedicaces jointes aux offrandes ont etc, le plus
souvent, resumees sommairement, a la hate, sans un suffisant souci d'exactitude.
Le principe trop hardiment pose par E. von Stern (Hermes, ibid., 443) — " ich gehe
dabei von der Voraussetzung aus, dass in einem officiellen Verzeichnis, das von
einer Hand hergestellt ist, die Titulaturen nicht willkiirlich und nach Gutdiinken
gesetzt oder weggelassen sein konnen " — ne sera admis d'aucun de ceux qui ont
la pratique de ces documents. Celui de Kallistratos y apporte un dementi formel.
La dedicace de la premiere offrande enregistree (8, 11. 8-9 : tucova xa\Kf}v
/WiAiWr/s 'Apo-ivor/s) est ainsi libellee : avd6(/j.a llruAc/uuov (1. 9). L'abreviation
est evidente, puisque 1'Inventaire anonyme (9) donne (II. 24-25) : avdOffia nroAeMaibu
TOV /Jfao-iAcW Ava-Lfjid^Qv].0 Pour les dedicaces de la seconde et de la troisieme
offrandes (8, 11. 9-10 : ayaX/xa XiOivov K.T.\. 11 12-13 : a\Xov (irivajea) K.T.A ), nous
avons : n\>tWtp.a UroXtfiaiov TOV fta.(ri\.€(as A.wriftd)(pv. Libelle identique de la troisieme
dedicace dans 1'Inventaire anonyme (9, 11. 27-28). — Pour la quatrieme offrande (8,
11. 13-14 : dAAov (jriva.ua) cAurrora K.r.A.), on lit, comme sans doute aussi dans 1'In-
ventaire anonyme (9, 11. 28-29) : ^Sao-tAe'ws AUO-I/AU^OV. D'accord avec F. Diirrbac..,
je ne doute guere qu'il n'y ait la une omission, d'autant que la chute de ardOtpn est
inexplicable, et qu'on ne doive suppleer (dm0e/*a IlroAc/xaiov TOV) K.T.A. — Les
Ovpfoi, 1'un [TTTTIKOS, 1'autre irc£i»cos, qui forment la cinquieme et la sixieme offrandes,
ont ete certainement consacres en meme temps. Cependant, on lit, d'une part
(8, 1. 25) : avdO(fJ.a /Jao-iAt'w? flroAe/ia/ov TOV Avo-ifia^ou/ et, de 1'autre (11. 26-27) :
d II le doit 6tre n^cessairement, d6s toute 1'argumcntation implique {'existence,
qu'on fait de Ptol6mee ' l'£!pigone ' le fils indemontree, indemontrable et nullement
duroi Lysimaque (cf. B.C.H. 1904, 415-416). neceasaire, d'un neveu d'Evergetea, fils du
C'est de quoi E. von Stern se montre mal prince Lysimaque.
satisfait (Hermejs, ibid. 442), sans que j'cn " Pas plus que F. Durrbach, je ne pense
comprenne la raison. Ce qu'il ap|M>llo a qu'on puisse mettre en doute la restitution
tort ' une nouvelle hypothese ' n'est que du nom Aixrifirfxoi/.
la consequence indiscutable d'une suppo> f Selon E. von Stern, il s'agirait ici de
sition qui, plausible ou non, peut seule Ptolemee, tils de Lyaimaque, a 1'epoque oil
preter a controverse. On s'etonne de il etait pr6tcndant au trone de Macedoine
trouver aussi ombrageux un critique doiit (Hermts, ibid. 443).
J.H.S. — VOL. M. I. P
198 PTOLEMAIOS EPIGONOS
avdOefia IlroXe/taiov /?a<riXt'<os AWI/AUXOU commepour la premiere (cf. 9, 11. 24-25),
la seconde et la troisieme offrandes. La seconde lecon est vraisemblablement la
bonne. — Dans ces conditions, il ne parait pas dottteux que la dedicace de la
septieme offrande (8, 11. 29-30 : uAAov (xtrwva) — n&roktvKov) n'ait etc arbitrairement
simplifiee, et que dfade/xa nroAe/xatov roD Avo-ifia^ou ne aoit une abreviation, au
lieu de aviiOf/jLO. UroXf^aiov rov (3a<Ti\t<t><; Av(T^/<i^ov.
Je tiens done pour certain que toute* les offrandes enumerees aux 11. 9-10,
12-14, 24-27,29-30 de 1'Inventaire de KaUistratos & proviennent d'un meme donateur,
lequel s'intitulait nroAc/iato? /Sao-tA^ws Avo-t/ta^ou. II s'agit, chaque fois, de
Ptolemee, fils de Lysimaque et d'Arsinoe II ; et, chaque fois, le titre de /StunAcvi
a ete joint au nom de Lysimaque.— Des lors les consequences divergentes que E. von
Stern, d'un cote, et moi, de 1'autre, nous avions pense tirer de la presence, aux
11. 29-30, des mots IlroXc/MWu rov Auo-i/xa^ou ne sont point legitimes. C'est a tort
que von Stern a cru que ces mots designaient, non le fils du roi Lyjimaque, mais
HTc\ffiaio<; At'0-i/u.d^ou donateur a Delos en 188. A mon tour, je me suis mepris h
quand j'ai voulu voir dans ces memes mots, qui ne sont qu'une abreviation, une
repetition de la formule nroXe/uAios 6 Avcri/xa^ou que donne le decret de Tel-
messos : le titre royal, omis dans oe decret, ne faisait jamais defaut dans les dedicaces
de Delos. Autrement dit, Ptoi^mee, dans ces dedicaces composees par lui-meme,
a toujours pris soin de rappeler que son pere etait le ' roi ' Lysimaque. Mais il
est clair que les Telmessiens n'etaient point tenus de faire comme lui.
8 Les sept offrandes peuvoht etre a peu 1'epoque oil Arsinoe n'etait point encore reine
pres contemporaines. La pfemiere, 1' tlit&v d'Egypte.
Xa\Kn &a(ri\lffff7)s 'Apo-ij'dTjs, e*t necessairement h B.C.H. 1904, 413, 3.
anterieure a 270, et poutrait remonter a
THE CRYPTO-CHRISTIANS OF TREBIZOND
WHILE the number of crypto-Christians among the heterodox tribes of
Asia Minor has probably been considerably exaggerated,1 it cannot be denied
that crypto-Christians exist or that cases of forced conversion affecting large
sections of the population can be cited.2 But under the Ottoman Turks at
least there is very little historical evidence for conversion on a large scale in
Asia Minor.
Exceptionally in the district of Trebizond we have both a credible legend
of conversion and an existent population, outwardly Mahommedan, which
seems in some cases to retain something from the more ancient faith and in
others to practise it in secret. Of the first category may be cited certain villages
in the district of Rizeh, which, though Mahommedan by profession, preserve
some memories of the rite of baptism and speak, not Turkish, but Armenian.3
Crypto-Christians proper, belonging to the Greek rite and Greek by speech,
also existed till recent years in the neighbourhood of Trebizond : they were
known generally as ' Stavriotae,' from a village Stavra in the ecclesiastical
district of Gumush-khane. They are said at one time to have numbered 20.000
in the vilayets of Sivas, Angora, and Trebizond : now all have returned to the
open profession of their faith.4 The local authorities refer these populations
to a persecution which arose at the end of the seventeenth century and resulted
in the conversion of 8000 families and the flight of many others to the Crimea
and elsewhere. Of the converted Greeks some were till lately to be found
in the mining district of Kromna and were only outwardly Musulman ; but most
reverted to open Christianity about I860.5 Others are settled in the regions
of Rizeh and Ophis ; 6 all retain their language and some, in spite of th ir
changed religion, jealously preserve their Christian sacred books.
1 Cf. my ' Heterodox Tribes of Asia • Cuinet, Turq. d'Asie, i. 121. These
Minor ' in the forthcoming Journ. R. Aitihr. people seem to be identical with the
Ingt. Armenians of the Batoum district, who
1 Individual conversions are in a different were converted ' two hundred years ago *
category and have probably at all times (Smith and Dwight, Missionary Researches
taken place to a greater or less extent. m Armenia, 1834, p. 457).
Cf. Burckhardt, Travels in Syria (London, * R. Janin in hrhos d'Orient, xiv. (1912),
1822), p. 197, who cites the case of a Meccan 495-505. Cuinet (Turq. d'Asie, i. 12)
nlii-rif family, which, being entrusted with says there are 12,000 to 15,00<> Kn-mli*.
the rule of the mountain, became crypto- living in nine villages not far from
Christians in order to have more hold Trebizond.
over the Christians of Lebanon. Sir • 8. loannides, '\a-ropia. Tp«wt(ovirrot, pp.
R. Burton (in Lady Burton's Inner Life 134 "•.
fria, p. 146) records wholesale local * For the Ophites cf. M. I)«-ffner, n«W«
conversions in Syria on account of govern- 'E/38o/iel8*j »ap«k ro't ifmatffrrioitott rfr'O*«i, in
niriit or private oppression. 'E<rrfa, 1877, No. 87, pp. 547-50.
I'M P 2
200
F. W. HASLUCK
All the traditions of the persecution at Trebizond seem to go back to one
source.7 The date (c. 1656) is fixed rather arbitrarily after the building-date
of a certain famous house which is supposed to mark a ' high-water mark '
of Christian 8 prosperity, and more particularly by the transformation of two
churches (S. Sophia and S. Philip) into mosques a few years later. But the real
dates of these transformations is given by Evliya 9 as 1573 and 1577 respect-
ively, while the date of the house is irrelevant. It thus seems probable that
we have to reckon with two outbursts of anti-Christian fanaticism in the six-
teenth and seventeenth 10 centuries respectively. We may surmise, but cannot
prove, that these were due to political circumstances, the earlier perhaps to
the battle of Lepanto n and the later to the Russian aggressions.12
7 Apparently S. loannides, 'la-ropia Tpcnre-
£ovvros, p. 132 ft., which is followed by
Triandaphyllides, novrtxti, p. 56, and preface
to the same author's Ot 4>tryo5es. E. I.
Kyriakides, 'Itrropta TIJS Mov/is 2oi^ueA.a
(Athens, 1898), p. 91 ff., adds a reference
to Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Forties Hist.
Trapez., i. 150-165, for a contemporary
poem. David's history of Trebizond may
be the source of all. For the Christian
practices of the Stavriotae of Lazistan (the
Ophite crypto-Christians ?), see Pears,
Turkey, p. 266 f. ; Ramsay, Impressions,
p. 241.
8 The Trapezuntine crypto-Christians are
also mentioned casually by Hamilton, Asia
Minor, i. 340; Smith and Dwight, op. cit.,
p. 453 ; Flandin et Coste, Voyage en Perse
(1840-1), i. 38, who call the sect Kroumi
(from Kromna, one of their villages) or
Messo-Messo (' half-and-half '). The best
and most recent account of them is given
by Janin in Echos d'Orient, xiv. (1912),
495-505. He draws for their early history
on the Greek authors mentioned above,
and for recent events on local sources,
describing the gradual return of the crypto-
Christians to open profession of their
faith. They are now said to be undergoing
a forced re-conversion to Islam (Uarpis,
April 16, 1915).
9 Tr. von Hammer, ii. 45-6. Evliya
wrote about the middle of the seventeenth
century.
10 Two Cappadocian villages near Nev-
shehr are said by Oberhummer to have
been converted to Islam ' a hundred and
eighty years ago ' (Durch Syrien und
Kleinasien, p. 143). There was an unsuc-
cessful Turkish campaign in 1677 against
the Russians. It is to be noted that
Trebizond is particularly accessible to
Russian agents.
11 See my ' Mosques of the Arabs '
(B.S.A. xxii. 162). Cf. also Hobhouse,
Journey through Albania, ii. 976.
12 About the same time Thomas Smith
at Constantinople mentions that ' a certain
Prophecy, of no small Authority, runs in
the minds of all the People, and has gained
great credit and belief among them, that
their Empire shall be ruined by a Northern
Nation, which has white and yellowish
Hair. The Interpretation is as various as
their Fancy. Some fix this character on
the Moscovites ; and the poor Greeks flatter
themselves that they are to be their
Deliverers. . . . Others look upon the
Sweeds as the persons describ'd in the
Prophecy' (Ray's Voyages, ii. 80 f.). This
is the ' Yellow Race ' of the Prophecy of
Constantino (Carnoy et Nicolaides, Folklore
de Constantinople, 48 f. etc.) current already
in the sixteenth century (cf. Gerlach,
Tage-Buch, 102). The text was said to
have been found in the tomb of Constantino
and to have been interpreted by the
patriarch Gennadius, according to the
regular machinery of apocryphal ' dis-
coveries ' (see my ' Graves of the Arabs '
in B.S.A. xxi., p. 190). As the Russians
are Orthodox and the Swedes Lutheran,
the prophecy more probably refers to the
former and may have been concocted about
the time we first hear of it, as Ivan the
Terrible was then showing that the Russians
would one day be dangerous. It probably
revived regularly when Russia threatened :
for instance, Volney (Voyage en Syrie,
Paris, 1825, i. 42) found the prophecy
common among the Turks about 1784
during the Turko-Russian war to which
the Treaty of Kainardjik put an end.
Similarly, Hobhouse heard it during his
wanderings in Turkey. The eighteenth -
century K. Dapontes speaks of TTJJ
'E\i<r<£j8€T riav EavBtav fj.(yi\ris "Racn\(ffni\s
(KT/iros Xapiruv, p. 195), presumably with
THE CRYPTO-CHRISTIANS OF TREBIZOND
201
The Greek authors give some curious details of the secret Christianity of
their compatriots in the Trebizond district. They kept the Orthodox fasts
strictly. Their children were baptised, and habitually bore a Christian and a
Turkish name for secret and public use respectively : such Turkish names as
' Mehmet ' and ' Ali ' were, however, avoided. As to marriage, they never
gave their daughters to Turks, but the men were not averse to taking wives
from among their Turkish neighbours. In this case the parties were married
secretly according to the Christian rite in one of the monasteries before the
consummation of the marriage. If pressure were necessary, the bridegroom
threatened to leave his bride. When a crypto-'Christian died, the burial
service was read for him in a Christian church while he was being interred.
Mullahs were sent to the crypto-Christian villages in Ramazan, but were got
out of the way when services were held.13
the prophecy in mind. In his time
Burckhardt found that the Syrians made
no mystery of it : the ' Yellow King '
was merely another way of saying ' Em-,
peror of Russia ' (Travels in Arabia,
London, 1822, p. 40). According to
Polites (nzpa&6fftis, ii. 669, drawing on
DuCange, Gloasar., s.v. flavus), the prophecy
appears first in Roger de Hoveden, who
says that a prophecy written up over the
Golden Gate of Constantinople stated that
a Yellow King, who was a Latin, should
enter by it. As the Flavian Theodosius
built the Golden Gate, there may have
been a long Latin inscription, full of
abbreviations and containing the word
Flainus over the gate. This misread may
have originated the idea. It is interesting
that the prophecy should have been
applied first to a conqueror rather than a
deliverer. Something of the same con-
fusion as to the Yellow Race appears in
the tenth-century 'O^dans of Daniel
(Polites, napa5<Wu, ii. 665 IT.; Migne, Diet,
des Apocrypha, ii. 188), alleged to have
been found by Leo the Wise in the tomb
of Daniel, the Daniel in question having
been a monk, later confounded with
the Biblical prophet. The 'Opiant may
thus be merely another name for Leo's
oracles. Such discoveries of magic books
in graves are rather interesting : they
add prestige to the books in question :
the ' discovery ' sounds genuine owing
to the practice of burying books with
the dead ; cf. L. Cahun, Excursion* sur
lea Bords de VEuphrote, p. 263, who found
a copy of the Koran in a sheikh's tomb
he had opened. I myself heard the same
tale at Manisa. In such cases the Koran
is possibly intended to help the dead in
the examination he undergoes from the
two angels after death, for which see
especially d'Ohsson, Tableau de I' Empire
Othoman, i. 239, and Lane, Modern
Egyptians, ii. 265. The practice among
Moslems may derive ultimately from
Jewish custom. Jewish rabbis are fre-
quently buried with a pentateuch (a
perfect copy is never used) : hence dis-
coveries of holy books in Jewish prophet*'
graves are numerous (cf. Loftus, Travels
in Chaldaea, p. 36, and Migne, Diet, de*
Apocryphes, ii. 1309; tmile Deschamps,
Au Pays d' Aphrodite — Chypre, p. 230,
and Tischendorf, Terre-Sainte, p. 201,
both mention a gospel found in the tomb
of Barnabas in Cyprus). In the Jewish
instances, the book, not the holy man,
is the essential : as they prohibit images
and are eager for knowledge to which the
sacred book is the key, this book becomes
almost an object of adoration with thi i.
At Tedif near Aleppo a certain synagogue
was greatly venerated by Jews on account
of an ancient manuscript kept there
(Pococke, Voyages, Xeuchatel, 1772, iii.
495). A pentateuch written by Esdras
was preserved in a synagogue of Old Cairo :
it was so holy that people could not look
on it and live (Carmoly, Itineraires de la,
•;• Sainte, pp. 527, 542-3; cf. Pierotti,
Legendes Racontees, Lausanne, 1869, p. 39).
A glance at the half stone, half fleah image
of the Virgin in the Syrian convent of
Sidnaya had the same fatal effect (J. L.
Porter, Fire Years in Damascus, p. 130;
cf. Ludolf, De Itin. Terrae Sanctae, p. 99 ff.,
Maun. h, 11. I 'oyage, Utrecht, 1705, pp. 220-1,
and Baronius, s.a. 870).
" Triandaphyllides, norrutt (Athrns.
1866), pp. 55-92.
202 THE CRYPTO-CHRISTIANS OF TREBIZOND
I mention here for the curiosity of the subject a community of crypto- Jews
alleged to exist in the neighbourhood of Pergamon, at a village named Trachalla.
This village was visited by MacFarlane in 1828-9 : 14 according to his account,
the inhabitants betray their Jewish origin by their physical type, and though in
externals Mahommedans by religion, keep Saturday as a holiday. We can only
suppose them to be an offshoot of the Turco-Jewish (Dunmeh) community of
Smyrna,15 probably attracted to the Pergamon district by its prosperity under
the rule of the Karaosmanoglou family during the eighteenth century.16
whom see Wace and Thompson, Nomads
of the Balkans, p. 29, and Berard, La Mace-
doine, p. llOf. Their turning seems to
have been part of a considerable move-
ment in the Balkans during the eighteenth
century, when the Russian danger caused
the Turks to put pressure on their rayah
populations to convert. It may be noted
that the Valachadhes preserve their
churches as they were, especially at
Vrostena, Brontiza, and Vinani, and fre-
quent them at certain seasons — or so my
informants assert. A community of some
400 souls exists at the present day in the
heart of Constantinople itself, in the Top
Kapou Serai quarter, which lies between
the east end of S. Sophia and the Serai
walls : outwardly they are Moslem and
attend the mosque, but in secret they have
eikons : they are very poor and live by
making beads. Crypto-Christians are
mentioned in Bosnia by Boue (Turquie
d'Europe, iii. 407), and in S. Albania (ibid.,
iii. 407-8). On the phenomenon in ge leral
in Islam see G. Jacob, ' Die Bektaschijje,'
p. 29 (in Abh. k. Bayr. Ak. xxiv., 1909).
F. W. HASLUCK.
14 Constantinople, ii. 335 ff.
15 The heresy of Sabatai Sevl, the seven-
teenth-century Messiah whose followers
turned with him to Islam, had much hold
in Smyrna, though its chief connexions are
now with Salonica. A follower of his,
Daniel Israel, was expelled by the cadi from
Smyrna in 1703, but seems to have been
still living there in 1717 (G. Cuper, Lettrea,
Amsterdam, 1742, pp. 396, 398).
16 Crypto-Christians are recorded else-
where also. Walpole mentions a group of
five such Albanian villages in the Morea
(Travels, p. 292). Professor R. M. Dawkins
heard in Crete that during the Greek revolu-
tion of 1821 many Cretan crypto-Christians
declared themselves openly for Christianity
and were massacred accordingly. A long
article by R. Michell in the Nineteenth
Century for May, 1908, describes the Lino-
Vamvaki (lit. ' linen-cotton ') of Cyprus.
Hahn cites the Karamuratadhes of the
middle Voyussa in Albania as recent and
partial converts to Islam (Albanes. Stud.
p. 36). The alleged date (1760) of their
conversion squares well with the accounts
of the Valachadhes in S.W. Macedonia, for
ARCHAIC TKRRACOTTA AUAUIATA IN ITALY AND S|< II, V
[PLATE IX.J
VOTIVE statues of the gods placed in the temples, forecourts or
were common in Greece at an early period, and material evidence has proved
that in Sicily and even in Italy there were numerous examples of the same
custom. In Greece, a land rich in marbles, the sculptor's art rapidly developed
and flowered into masterpieces which became the models for the western world.
In Sicily, and even more markedly in Italy, regions which in the archaic period
produced little marble or good, workable stone, the material chiefly used was
clay ; hence, owing to their perishable nature, comparatively few of the creations
of these early masters have come down to us. Yet the Sicilian School had a
great reputation and led the van for daring initiative and mastery of technical
difficulties.
Although most of the marvels credited to Daidalos must be imaginary,
yet the very fact that his works were put almost upon a par with those of
Hephaistos shows how great was his reputation in antiquity. He was the
founder of the Sicilian School, but his successors were also men of note. To
Perillos was attributed the bronze bull in which the tyrant Phalaris roasted
his victims. Pausanias (III. xvii. 6) mentions Klearchos of Rhegion ' who
(according to some) was a pupil of Dipoinos and Skyllis, but according to others
of Daidalos himself,' but in another passage (VI. iv. 4) he states that he was
the pupil of Eucheir, the artist who followed Damaratos, the father of Tarquin,
to Etruria.
An examination of the earliest plastic works found in Sicily l show that th-s«'
in stone kept close to the traditions of that school which seems to have had
its origin in Crete,2 whereas those in terra-cotta developed a line of their own and
embodied more directly the ideals of native artists.
The first great problem to overcome was the difficulty of baking evenly
a figure of any large size and then withdrawing it intact from the oven. Investi-
gations among uncivilised tribes to-day have shown the remarkable results
which can be obtained in the most elementary ovens ; among the Ila-speaking
tribes in Rhodesia the women bake pots of considerable dimensions, perfectly
spherical in form, in fires made of logs and bark piled up cone-fashion.3
The earliest Sicilian statues are rudely modelled, of badly purified clay,
1 Biagio Pace, Mem. R. Accad. Lined, » E. W. Smith an.l A. Murray Dale.
cccxiv. (1917;, pp. 504-37, especially p. 532. The, lla-»peaking People of Northern
1 E. Loewy, ' Typenwandcrung,' in Rhodesia (London, 1920), i. p. 194. Fig. in
Oesterr. Jahreth. xii. (1909), pp. 243-304: text.
xiv. (1911), pp. 1-34.
m
204
E.DOUGLAS VAN BUREN
malformed owing to shrinkage in unexpected places, and with a surface too
rough to hold the colour applied to it, which has consequently almost entirely
flaked off. These defects were soon remedied, and eventually figures were
produced which have nothing to fear from a comparison with contemporary
Greek marble statues.
In Sicily and Magna Graecia the earliest statues were usually female,
possibly partly because the enveloping drapery concealed the faulty anatomy,
but chiefly because the dominant cults were those of goddesses, Aphrodite
at Eryx, Persephone at Henna, Hera at Lokroi. In Latium and Etruria, on
the contrary, Apollo was portrayed at Veii, Zeus at Satricum and on the Capitol.
For our present purpose we must
define tryaX/iara as votive or cult statues
of gods or heroes erected outside the
temples, within the temene, and exclude
all statues or statuettes found in tombs
or sepulchral in meaning, and all ex-voto
or figurines, thus eliminating the splendid
series of busts from Gela, the ex-voto
from Agrigentum, Rosarno Medma and
many other sites.
Cicero (In Verrem, II. iv., xlix., 110)
relates how Verres wished to carry off
the terra-cotta statues of Ceres and
Triptolemos, ' pukherrima ac perampla,'
which stood before the temple of Ceres
at Henna. But their cumbersome size
was their salvation, and Verres had
to content himself with removing the
Nike whom Ceres bore on her right
hand.
The earliest example of these figures
which has come down to us is the
seated goddess found at Granmichele,
possibly the ancient Echetla * (Fig. 1).
From the feet of the throne to the crown of her head the figure measures cm. 75 :
it is made of clay mixed with volcanic particles to give resistancy to the walls,
and a layer of very pure clay was spread over the surface to hold the colour
with which the whole statue was decorated. It was worked freehand and the
surface was polished with a tool, but the imperfect baking, insufficient
inside and excessive on the surface, has produced many cracks. She sits,
clad in a long chiton with short sleeves, with her open right hand resting ver-
tically upon her knee and her left closed to hold some cylindrical object. Her
large, flat face with bulging eyes, straight mouth and small, highly placed ears,
FIG. 1. — SEATED GODDESS, GRANMICHELE.
4 P. Orsi, Mon. Ant. d.Lincei.vii. (1897),
cols. 217-21, Plate III.; xvii. (1906), col.
573: N.S., 1903, p. 434; Deonna, Statues
de Terrecuite dana Vantiquitf, pp. 45-48;
Winter, Typen d. fig. Terrak. p. xcviii.
ARCHAIC TERRA-COTTA AQALMATA IN ITALY AND SICILY 206
is framed by the long locks which hang down upon her back. The base of the
throne projects to provide a support for her feet; the sides of the throne were
painted with geometrical patterns, and although there are arm-rests, there is
no back, which is also the case with the enthroned goddess of Prinia. The
works which most nearly resemble this goddess (although somewhat later and
far better finished) are the seated man found in a tomb at Caere and now in
the Museo dei Conservatori,5 with his two
female companions in the British Museum.6
The Sicilian statue, however, reveals where
the artist of the Caere figures derived his
inspiration. Other fragments found at
the same time show that similar statues
were also grouped around : part of a head
adorned with a diadem ; the left shoulder
and long curls of a female figure ; a closed
right hand ; a male right leg, bent at the
knee, and pieces of a throne. Like the
goddess, they cannot be dated later than
the middle of the sixth century.
Less rude is the goddess from Lokroi,
ht. cm. 53.5, now in the Museum at Reggio,
Calabria,7 seated stiffly on a high-backed
throne, her hands upon her knees. On
her head is a low polos, and, although she
has no attributes, Persephone alone can be
intended, for the type is always repeated
with only one exception. The extraordi-
nary similarity of the types has caused
Pick 8 to suggest that, since in Tarentum
no goddess played any particular role in
the cult, the Lokrian traders or colonists
there set up a statue of their own goddess,
a copy of the one in her temple at Lokroi.
The Tarentine makers of statuettes who
imitated this statue introduced sundry
small changes, such as the three locks
over the shoulders, but in the main they
adhered closely to the Lokrian prototypes.
Far more advanced, artistically speaking, is the fine seated goddess from the
Predio Ventura, GranmicKele,9 which belongs to the end of the sixth century.
(Fig. 2). The part most damaged was the face, which was cracked in antiquity
• C. Albizzati, AUi Pont. Accad. Rom. pp. 207 ff., Fig. 4; Winter, op. cit. pp. 121.
(TArch. Serie II. xiv. (1920), pp. 6-14, Fig. 6.
Plates I., II. • Pick, op. cit. p. 212.
• Cat. Terrac. D. 219, 220. • Orai, A/on. Ant. xvii. (1906), col. 573;
7 B. Pick, Jahrb. d. Imt. xxxii. (1917), xviii. (1907), cols. 136-45, PUtes IV., V.
and Fig. 3: Pare. op. cit. p. 521.
FIG. 2. — SEATED GODDESS FROM
PREDIO VENTURA, GRANMICIIKLK.
206 E. DOUGLAS VAN BUREN
and is now remodelled in plaster. Her height is cm. 98, and *he wears a chiton
with close, vertical folds and loose elbow-sleeves, a wide himation and thick-
soled sandals. Her left forearm is broken, but on the right which is pressed
against her breast are eight coils of a serpent bracelet ; an earring is preserved
in her right ear and on her head is a stephane adorned with bosses and a little
sakkos which covers her crown. Her hair is waved on either side of the fore-
head and hangs over her shoulders in narrow strands divided horizontally
into innumerable overlapping sections. She sits solemnly upon her lion-
footed throne, the seat of which is covered with a cushion with tasselled corners,
her feet resting upon a stool. The statue is hollow and consists of a rough core
worked freehand, the various parts being soldered together before firing;
details were carefully worked out with a tool over a second layer of clay and
finally the whole was covered with a slip and then painted. The delicacy
and charm of the work are such that the only comparison one can make is
with the seated marble figure in the Berlin Museum,10 also from Southern Italy,
which embodies the ideal to which the creator of the goddess of Granmichele,
working in a humbler material, strove to attain.
The earliest of the standing figures is one broken at the hips from Megara
Hyblaea, formerly in the Melilli Collection, but now in the Syracuse Museum.11
It measures about cm. 40, and was found in one of the city sanctuaries. It
belongs to the early sixth century and is scarcely evolved from a xoanon, the
body being merely blocked out in harsh planes, the arms hanging straight against
the sides. Attention has been focussed upon the face with its large heavy
features and immense triangular eyes without lids, and the elaborate coiffure,
consisting of flat disc-like curls round the forehead ; over the back of the head
the hair is divided geometrically, bound at the nape of the neck and hangs over
the shoulders in thick locks cut up into overlapping sections ; a band encircles
her head and is kept in place by a flat disc on the very crown of the head.
She wears a closely fitting garment, girt at the waist, with triangular pieces
over the shoulders which form short sleeves. The whole figure recalls the early
Sicilian works in stone of Cretan type, and shows none of the Ionic or Attic
influence evinced by later examples. Fragments belonging to two, possibly
to three, statues were also found at Megara Hyblaea : the folds of a chiton, a
mass of hair divided into sections, a life-sized hand with very long cylindrical
fingers which once held a flower or metal object.12 In the recent excavations
Professor Orsi discovered a fragment of the back hair of some figure, treated
in narrow vertical waves, and also part of a beard or fringe of drapery, both of
red clay.
The hands of the statue from Megara Hyblaea are missing, but what their
position must have been is shown- by a fragment from Bitelmi, Gela, 13 where
the arm is pressed to the side and the closed fist is pierced to permit the insertion
10 Ant. Denkm. iv. 3, Plates XLIL- op. cit. pp. 48 f. ; Benndorff, Oesterr.
L., Arch. Am. xxxii. (1917), cols. 118- Jahresh. i. (1898), p. 6.
51. " Orei, op. cit. col. 573; B.C.H. xix
11 P. Orsi, Mon. Ant. xvii. (1906), col. (1895), pp. 308-11, Figs. 1-3; Deonna,
573; Kekule, Terrak. v. Sic., p. 7, Fig. 1; op. cit. pp. 51 f.
Winter, op. cit. i. p. 103, Fig. 10; Deonna, ls Orsi, op. cit. col. 691, Figs. 517,_518.
ARCHAIC TERRA-COTTA AQALMATA IN ITALY AND SICILY 207
of a tubular object, a flower or ear of grain. With it was found another
roughly modelled hand, also closed. Yet another hand with the fingers stretched
straight out and too thin for the hand — which is life-sized — comes from Aknigax
and is a work of the fifth century : the clay is cream-coloured.14
Very different is the large fictile torso, probably from Mamerina and now
in the Museo Biscari, Catania.15 Although broken of! just below the waist,
we can easily restore the figure by reference to the Korai of the Acropolis.
She stood solemnly erect, both arms hanging by her sides, clad in a chiton,
a belt elaborately marked out in squares and a chlaine or scarf over her shoulders.
Below the high stephane her hair is elegantly waved and hangs in long strands
over her breast. Her face is sharply oval, with obliquely set eyes and a slight
smile hovering round her bow-shaped mouth.
The influence of quite a different school of art is manifested by the maiden
from luessa, now in the Museo dei Benedettini, Catania.1* She stands, ht.
m. T19, with her draperies falling in long severe folds; her battered condition
has destroyed much of her charm and unfortunate restorations have further
contributed, but most detrimental of all is the fact that the hair, which was
parted, smoothed back in heavy masses and gathered into a knot behind,
was worked separately and then put on in detached parts ; this has now fallen
away, giving the head a most unpleasant appearance. She wears a Doric
peplos with apoplygma reaching to the waist, and her bare feet rest upon the
original square base. Her right arm is broken off at the elbow, but the left,
although broken off, is preserved as far as the wrist and shows that the forearm
was bent at right angles to hold some object. The head resembles the statues
of the Olympian pediments and certain coins of about 460 B.C. The figure
belongs to a series of maidens wearing the peplos discussed by Arndt and
Mariani ; 17 but it is of especial importance since it is the only one of the group
whose arm has been preserved, thereby demonstrating that the bent arm was
used to break the long, straight lines of the drapery and to give vivacity
to what might otherwise have been too rigidly architectonic.
The lower part of a figure which goes back to the first half of the fifth
century is almost analogous with the Inessa maiden. It was found in the MaL Ira
Lauretta, Camarina, where the deposit of terra-cottas suggests a sanctuary.18
The fragment measures cm. 72, and shows the Doric peplos with a rather longer
apoptygma.
There are a whole series of feet placed in such a position that they must
have formed part of statues very near to or slightly more evolved than the
" Syracuse Mus., Room XVI. Girg. Orei, op. cit. col. 573; Furtwaon^I.-r,
No. 16929. Sitzungsberichte . . . Bayer. A had. ii. (1899),
" Orei, Mon. Ant., xvii. (1906), col. 573, p. 589; 50* Berliner II tnckelmanntpr.
note 4; Kekute, op. cit. p. 08 Plate I.; (1890), p. 130, n. 22; K.-kul.-. »/». fit.
\Viiit.-r, <>[>. cit. p. 100, Fig. 6; Deonna, p. 37; Deonna, op. cit. pp. 54-61, Fig.
op. cit. pp. 49 f.; Benndorff, op. cit. p. 6; I7 Cilyptothek A'y CarUberg, pp. 49 ff. ;
Gerhard, Ann. In»t. vii. (1835), p. 42; /*•<//. < om. xxv. (1897). pp. 169-95, Plates
Pettier, Statuettes de Terrecuite (Paris, 1890), XII.-XIN t (1901), pp. 71-81, Plat*.-
,, LMMI. F,K til. VI.; Benndorff, Orsterr. Jahreth. xv. (1900).
16 Kizzo, Atti Ace. \npoli. xxiii. (1905), p. 24.T
pp. 103-89, Plate XX 111, and Figs. 1-5; »._Fig._35.
208 E. DOUGLAS VAN BUREN
Inessa figure. One such pair was found in the Deposito del Cavallucci, Rosarno
Medma; 19 they stand upon a rectangular base, the left a little in advance,
and the lower part of the peplos covers the ankles. The feet are well worked,
but somewhat bony in structure. Other minor fragments of the figure to
which the feet belonged — bits of the back and drapery — were found with them.
This bony structure is discernible also in the life-sized right foot from Bitelmi,
Gela, in hard greyish clay, mixed with volcanic particles.20 It measures cm. 2T5
in length, but the heel is missing ; the rest of the foot, with its long slim toes,
carefully marked nails and highly arched instep, is beautifully modelled. A
FIG. 3. — GORGON FROM TEMPLE OF ATHENA, SYRACUSE.
fold of drapery falls over the ankle, and a thick-soled sandal was bound in
place by thongs which passed between the toes. At the same time numerous
fragments of drapery were found, but they seem of rougher workmanship
than the foot, and the quality and tone of the clay denote several different
statues.21 At the necropolis of S. Anastasia, Randazzo, on the slopes of Mount
Etna,22 another base came to light. Upon it rested two feet which measure
cm. 15 m length and must have belonged to a statue more than two-thirds
life-size. This fragment is now in the Collection Vagliasindi. The toes only
" N.S. 1917, p. 59, Fig. 34. " Orsi, Man. Ant. xvii. (1906), col. 691,
20 Orsi, Man. Ant. xvii. (1906), cols. Figs. 515, 516.
690-1, Fig. 514; xxv. (1918), col. 628. » Rom. Mitt. xv. (1900), p. 243.
ARCHAIC TERRA-COTTA AQALMATA IN ITALY AND SICILY 209
of a well-modelled life-sized foot of red clay were discovered in the excavations
at Akragas and are now in the Syracuse Museum.
Rather larger than life are the admirably modelled feet discovered at
Ardea,23 all that remains of a large statue of the close of the fifth century.
It evidently portrayed a god, because the feet are coloured red, and the statue
must have been a very fine one, for the feet testify accurate observation of nature,
the nails and veins being minutely indicated with a tool. The whole surface
was delicately polished and the sandal straps must have been painted ; only
the border of the garment remains. The fragment was presented by the
Duca Sforza-Cesarini to the Museo di Villa Giulia.
We must now discuss a series of figures which, although fragmentary,
are among the finest examples of the school of early Sicilian masters.
They are sixth-century works which formed groups depicting mythological
scenes. Foremost among these remains are those found at Syracuse in the great
bank of breccia from the early temple and not far from the north-east corner of
the actual temple of the Deinomenidai. The best preserved is the arresting
figure of a Gorgon advancing to left in the archaic running manner with one
knee touching the ground (Fig. S).24 . Her legs are in profile, but her trunk and
face are fully frontal, so that she stares at the beholder with great round eyes.
Her features are so conventionalised that they are treated almost like a decora-
tive pattern ; her forehead is framed by six spiral curls and four large ' pearl-
locks ' hang over either shoulder. Her gaping mouth, with its double row of
strong square teeth, is rendered monstrous by the addition of two pairs of tusks
and by the pendant tongue which covers her whole chin. She wears a red
rliifoniskos enriched by elaborately patterned borders and endromides furnished
with recurved wings instead of tongues. The great wings which- spring from
her waist rise up on either side of her face and make a vari-coloured background
to her figure. Under her right arm she clasps the little winged Pegasos which
sprang from her blood, and her left arm is bent sharply down at the elbow with
stiffly extended fingers in the attitude of the archaic runner. The dark back-
ground of the relief must have formed an effective contrast to the gaily coloured
Gorgon, and the whole figure produces a wonderful impression of force nd
impetus. A small piece which is apparently the hip of a similar Gorgon, covered
with a chitaniskos, decorated with elaborate chequer pattern in red and black,
was found at the archaic temple, Gela, and there is also part of a shin with
the top of the endromides. These groups appear to be of too small dimensions to
have served an architectonic purpose, and if they were placed even at a short
height from the ground much of the delicate minutiae of the treatment would
be lost. Most likely they were placed on a level with the spectator, and, if
they were not dyaXfiara complete in themselves, they formed part of some
larger work which, as a whole, is lost to us.
In the excavations at S. Mauro various small bits evidently belonging
" N.S. 1900, p. 63, Fig. 4; Helbig, Fig. 1 ; E. Gabrici, Atti R. Acctul. Palrrmo,
Fuhrer, 3rd ed., ii. p. 348, No. 17- Serie III., xi. p. 10, Plate I I l'«».
" Orsi, Afem. Ant. xxv. (1919), cols. Memorie R. Accad. Lincei, cccxiv. (1917),
614-22, Plate XVI.; N.S. 1915, pp. 177 f., p. 526, n. 5.
210 E. DOUGLAS VAN BUREN
to a group were discovered.25 They consist of a double curved wing, cm.
29 x 23-5, without plastic relief ; the end feathers are painted alternately red
and black on a cream ground. The piece is hollow, but the walls are very thick.
One cannot say if a fragment of the left side of a very archaic face was in the
round or in high relief, for all the back of the head is missing, but the muzzle of
a horse was certainly in the round, as also the head of a small serpent. Further
lesser fragments are a piece, cm. 14 in length, of uncertain destination, but
suggesting the hair of a Gorgon by the pearled strands radiating from the centre,
and two pieces of imbrication, seemingly part of the chiton covering the thigh
of a large figure. None of these pieces fit together, but a consideration of them
FIG. 4. — FOOT AND FINGERS, SYRACUSE.
all induces one to think that they may once have embodied such a group as the
Gorgon from Syracuse, moving swiftly in the ancient running scheme with bent
knee, clad in an embroidered tunic with serpent girdle, embellished with curving
wings and clasping under one arm the little Pegasos. Yet this group must have
been an advance upon the one from Syracuse, because it was in the round, and
therefore needed no slab as background. Professor Gabrici has shown how
beloved a form of decoration the Gorgon was in archaic times and in those
regions,26 and it is quite probable that, apart from the temple sculptures, a
Gorgon group figured among the dydX/jLa-ra of the precinct.
To another Syracusan group belong the leg and paw of a lion, ht. cm. 35 ;
also a hind leg placed horizontally and a portion of the right thigh of the beast.27
"Orel, Moru Ant. xx. (1910), cols. (1919), pp. 1-15, Plates I., II.
792-5, Figs. 52-5, Plate VII., 2. " Oral, Mon. Ant. xxv. (1919), cols.
24 Atti R. Accad. Palermo, Serie III., xi. 622-3, Figs. 212-14.
ARCHAIC TERRA-COTTA AOALMA 7 I IN ITALY AND SICILY 211
Even more suggestive is a left hand grasping a horn and another almost flat
piece with brown circles on a cream ground, 28 part of a bull's flank spotted lik«-
the panthers of the pediment of the early temple of Athene on the Acropolis.
Orsi recalls the toreadors of the Tiryns fresco or Herakles with the Marathonian
bull : indeed, to the latter subject one's thoughts naturally turn, and even
preferably to the hero's contest with Ahelocus as figured on the arula from
Lokroi.29 With these are connected the fragments of an animal's leg, ht. cm.
17 '5, painted with lines to indicate muscles, with dots to denote the hide ; 80 the
cheek and eye-socket of an animal with round, widely open eye ; all the details
of the muscles are marked by black lines as on the leg. The eye has a black
pupil and a reddish -brown iris encircled by a black outline. There is also part
of a limb covered by a dark red chiton with a border of tongue pattern in red
and black which may be the bent knee of Herakles with which he holds down the
bull.
Interesting because it links up with a whole series of similar fragments is
a right foot (ht. cm. 17) shod with elaborate endromis, a pointed boot with thick
sole, fastened with crossed laces (Fig. 4).S1 With it were the four fingers of an
open right hand, length cm. 7, the nails marked by a black outline. Besides
these, there is the calf of a right leg (length cm. 18) with the top of the endromis
outlined black and adorned with two cream rosettes on a red field,32 but this
seems on a larger scale than the foot. The boot is identical with the footgear
of the rider on the akroterion from Camarina,33 and is similar to that worn by
the Gorgon from Syracuse, a resemblance so greatly enhanced by the fingers
held in the same rigid manner as the left hand of that monster as to suggest
that here we have the debris of another group figuring the same subject. At
Gela another foot of this type, as yet unpublished, was found. From as far
north as Caere comes a right foot with part of the plinth, cm. 17 x 23.31
Only the toes rest on the ground, so that the person was apparently in motion.
With it were found the lower part of a women's leg shod similarly; the nude
right foot of a man, for it was painted dark red ; fragments of drapery with
traces of red and black; the smooth horns of an animal in relief (cm. 16 x 14),
also with vestiges of colour. In the excavations at Velitrae a foot tK-ee-
quarters life-size was discovered, wearing a shoe with pointed, upturned toe.35
The coarse clay is covered by a cream slip, and as there is no trace of a base, the
foot must have projected, perhaps from a narrow pedestal upon which individual
statues were erected. In this connexion, although it must be dated towards
the end of the fifth century, mention must be made of a woman's foot, about half
life-size, shod in a soft shoe from which the colour has been entirely obliterated.
" Ibid., cols. 029-30. Figs. 220-1. »* Boll. d'Arte, i. (1907), faso. 111.. \>. ~.
" Mus. Syracuse; N.S. 1917, p. 119, Fig. 1.
Fig. 24. *4 Antiquarium, Berlin; A. 7.. 1ST1. |>|>.
*» Orei, Mon. Ant. xxv. (1919), cols. 123 f.; Rizzo, Bull. Coin. 1911. p. 54;
624, Fig. 217. D.-oima. NM/MM de Terncuitt dan* I'Anti-
" Ibid., cols. 628-9, Figs. 218-19. i/nit,', pp. 101 f.
11 Orei. M»n. Ant. xxv. (1919). IM.it,- »• Mus. Civico, Vrllotri.
XVI T.B.
212
E. DOUGLAS VAN BUREN
The edge of the long chiton falls over the instep, and to one side sits an owl which
identifies the fragment as part of a large statue of Athene, set up in some temple
precinct.36
One further scrap of terra-cotta from the Olympieion, Syracuse, is interest-
ing because it is so archaic that it has been dated in the beginning of the sixth or
even in the seventh century. It is the lower part of a beard of black hair, the
surface furrowed by deep incisions to give the effect of strings of pearls in
accordance with the early artistic convention, and it must have formed part of
an almost life-sized statue.37 Near it was found a bit of drapery, long tabs
ending in a fringe ; the clay is red, but all vestige of colour has disappeared.
FIG. 5. — HORSE AND RIDER FROM CATANIA.
In the excavations at Gela the statues were found reduced to miserable
fragments, but among them is the beautifully modelled neck of a female figure,
the upper part of the red chiton adorned with hammer pattern in red and black :
there is also part of a shoulder ( ?) with cream drapery and a border of black
meander, and another portion of the same drapery also with the border. There
is, moreover, a bare foot with the toes a little upturned.
The left side of a very beautiful life-size female face from Metaurum is
now in a private collection in Naples.37" It is well modelled, but intensely
individual in type, for the almost square chin is cleft by a dimple, and the
34 Mus. Nazionale, Rome.
87 Oral, Mon. Ant. xiii. (1903), cols.
387 f., Fig. 5.
370 Ibid., N.S. 1902, p. 128, Fig. 3, Nos.
2,6.
ARCHAIC TERRA-COTTA AOALMATA IN ITALY AND SICILY 213
large almond eye is fringed by painted lashes. The cream slip is so fine and
highly polished that it gives the effect of soft flesh. Possibly the statue
represented Athene, for with it was found the head of a serpent which may
have reared its coils beside the shield of the goddess.
A most remarkable monument was for long in private possession at Catania,
FIG. 6. — APOLLO, FROM VEIL
where it is stated to have been found (Fig. 5).38 It represents a rider on horse-
back, but all that remains of the rider is the piece from waist to thigh, showing
the very full chiton which flows out all round like a ballet skirt. The horse's
head, foreleg and tail are broken : he prances forward with one leg raised and
has a barrel body, very long legs and a hogged mane, in fact the type of horse
found on archaic terra-cotta friezes or on Dipylon vases. The group stands on a
»• Mus. Syracuse, Room XV.. Cat. No. 41608.
J.H.S. — VOL. XLI.
214 E. DOUGLAS VAN BUREN
square base and the solid slab under the horse's body gives a disagreeable
effect, because want of skill prevented the artist from cutting away the ground
of the relief, so that it is only the upper part of the work which is really in the
round. In the base are holes for the nails which fixed it down. The clay ig.
very dark grey mixed with volcanic particles. From the waist of the rider to
the ground measures cm. 41 ; the length of the base is cm. 38.
Further north the temenos at Veii was adorned with a splendid group
depicting the contest of Apollo and Herakles for a stag, assisted by Artemis and
Hermes (Plate IX., Fig. G).39 The figures (ht. m. l-75) stand erect each on its
own base and were juxtaposed in a line, a simple but effective arrangement (Fig.
7). The supports are cleverly masked by palmettes enclosed between broad
spiral bands. The deities with their lively poses, strong, rich colouring and grace-
ful drapery are full of force and animation. Our admiration is excited by the skill
of the artist who could ensure the equally distributed firing of such large and
complicated figures. The discovery of these statues has lent credence to what
the ancient writers relate in praise of Vulca of Veii and the school of workmen
who adorned the earliest Roman temples with notable works in terra-cotta.
The sanctuary at Satricum was another shrine rich in dyd\fj.ara of the
sixth and fifth centuries, too damaged, unfortunately, to permit of the recon-
struction of whole groups, but sufficiently preserved to give a vivid impression
of the strength and realism of this flourishing art. Among the finest specimens
are the debris of a statue of Zeus, especially the bearded head with broadly
modelled features which betoken dignified calm (Plate IX.). The long hair
is treated in a solid mass which ends in spiral curls round the forehead; the
eyes were originally filled with some vitreous paste which intensified the liveli-
ness of the expression.40 He once held the stylised thunderbolt of which only
a small piece now remains. An irregular plinth supports the lower limbs of a
male and female figure who advance to right with rapid steps. Only the man's
right foot remains, but his companion is preserved almost to the knees. She
wears a long chiton and over her back hangs a heavy mantle, or rather, the
back part of the aegis which in front merely covered her breast. She must
therefore be Athene in the attitude of Promachos, and her companion was
Zeus.41 Part of the head of Athene is also preserved, covered with a helmet
with raised cheek pieces. Beneath the helmet her hair peeps out in small
straight locks.42 The fragment of Athene's torso gives us the chiton partly
covered by the aegis adorned with a large Gorgoneion in low relief, with wrinkled
forehead, little crossed eyes, squat nose, gaping mouth with protruding tusks
and pendant tongue.43 Yet another female head with hair waved over the
forehead must be that of Hera : M it is of the same dimensions and style as the
head of Zeus, and evidently the three gods were here grouped together, one of
the earliest examples of the Capitoline triad. Yet it is not certain that they
formed a self-contained group, for with them was found the right side of a male
z» G. Q. Giglioli, N.S. 1919, pp. 13-37, 41 Op. cit. No. 9981.
Plates I.-VII. " Op. cit. No. 9984.
40 Delia Seta, Cat. Mus. di Villa Oiulia, «» Op. cit. No. 10020.
No. 9982, p. 275, with full bibliography. 4* Op. cit. No. 9983.
ARCHAIC TERRA-COTTA AGALMATA IN ITALY AND SICILY i'l.-,
head covered with interlaced bands.45 This head, however, although archaic,
seems to be rather later in style than the others.
Numerous eyes, ears, mouths, fragments of hair and limbs prove the existence
of at least four other statues. Besides bits of drapery, a hand grasping the hilt
of a sword, etc., there is the fine torso of a warrior with a cuirass decorated with
bands of meander pattern ; 46 the shoulder pieces were in relief and were fastened
by crossed cords passed through rings on the flaps and breastplate. There are,
moreover, remains of animals — a pair of bovine eyes, a horse's hoof, a lion's
paw — which may have been the feet of a throne or similar ornamentation.47
Fio. 7. — RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TERRA-COTTA VOTIVE GROUP FROM VEII.
To the beginning of the fifth century belongs a group from the Larger
Temple, Falerii.48 One of the figures is a woman who moves to left. Her
chiton has been pushed aside and merely covers her back with a loose edge
rising over the shoulder. The other, whose nude trunk only is preserved, with
a beast's skin hanging from one shoulder, seems to be a Centaur. If the two
were really combined together, the group depicted the rape of a nymph by a
Centaur, a subject less frequent than the more common one of the dance of
nymph and Satyr.
These early groups in humble material were the precursors of the works in
bronze or marble, or the chryselephantine statues of a later age : but although
" Op. cit. No. 9980.
«« Op. cit. No. 10021.
" Op. cit. No. 10028-31.
" Op. cit. No. 7297, pp. 180 f.
Q2
216 ARCHAIC TERRA-COTTA AGALMATA IN ITALY AND SICILY
they were despised in the Capital, yet in the country districts the art lingered
on and produced numerous fine works in the fourth and later centuries, the
splendid pediment groups of the temple of Apollo, Falerii, those from Luni and
Telamone, and the recently discovered heads from Arezzo 49 and Orvieto. In
Sicily the art vanished more completely, being replaced by the delicately wrought
works in marble and bronze which fell a prey to the rapacity of Verres, so that
only the earliest monuments, safely buried in the kindly earth, escaped the
ravages of vandal conquerors.
E. DOUGLAS VAN BUREN.
Rome, May 1921.
4» L. Pernier, Dedalo i. (1920), fasc. II., pp. 78-85.
AN OVERSEER'S DAY-BOOK FROM THE FAYOUM
[PLATES X., XL]
Ax the Library of the University of Michigan there is a waxed diptych
from the Fayoum, secured for the University by Professor Kelsey while in
Egypt in 1919. The leaves of the diptych are of wood, about 11 J inches
long and 8J inches wide, slightly hollowed out and coated with black wax on
the inner sides. These inner sides are shown in the photographs which accom-
pany this article (Pis. X., XL). In explanation of the photographs, it should
be said that they were taken with the aid of a strong artificial light coming from
the left at an angle of 45 degrees. This has caused the incisions and depressions
on the wax to reflect the light in such a way that they seem to stand out
above the general surface of the wax. Thus the white blotches which appear
on the first leaf are really hollows and not projections, as they seem to be
in certain lights. It should also be stated that a transcription was made of
this leaf before the wax crumbled away, probably owing to unfavourable
atmospheric conditions, along the edge of the crack in the lower part of
the leaf.
The photographs also show how the diptych was held when in use. The
two leaves were turned back to back, i. e. with the wooden surfaces touching,
the edges with the two pairs of holes being at the left. When all the space
on the waxed surfaces of the upper tablet was filled, the writer turaec the
diptych over vertically and not horizontally, and began to write on the other
waxed surface. The result was that, when the two waxed faces subsequently
were folded together, the top of one leaf was opposite the bottom of the other,
and the writing on one of them would appear upside down.
The diptych contains a series of accounts written in uncial letters, in
roughly parallel columns which are at times separated by vertical lines and
regularly divided by horizontal strokes to indicate the transition to new items
or new dates. There is no indication of the year to which these accounts
belong, but, on the basis of the forms of the letters, /9, e and 9, they are
probably to be assigned to the third century A.D. In preparing the accom-
panying transcription of the diptych I have had the collaboration of my
colleague, Assistant Professor F. E. Robbins.
The accounts for the most part deal with a series of harvest orations —
reaping and threshing carried on bet wren Pauni 2 and Epeiph 30. In
addition there are three short entries, the relation of which to the foregoing
217
218 A. E. R. BOAK
is not clear. The work referred to was performed on several holdings, partly
at a place called the Island (^ NT/O-OS) and partly at another called Bachias,
which is very probably the village of Bacchias in the Heraclid section of the
Arsinoite nome. The accounts form a series of day-by-day entries of the
names of labourers, the place at which they worked, the character of the work
performed, and the total return from each operation.
At the top of leaf I. the series opens with the Xoyo<? yecapyias Herei/jew?
tcai rov dBe\<f>ov, — tcpiOrjs, 0€pi<n(a\) epydr(cu). This account covers the whole
of column i. and lines 4-17 of col. ii., running from Pauni 2 to 7. On col. i.,
1. 26, the number of workmen is given as twelve, a number which corresponds
to the names listed for Pauni 2 and 3, 'ItnSwpo? taking the place of Kayflwv on
the latter date. The work done up to Pauni 5 must have been reaping, for on
that date the labourers were engaged in threshing (aXowvre?). On 1. 17, col. ii.,
we have the total amount of barley threshed — (dprdftat) /*£. Apparently the
n'ext entry is the Xoyo? yecapyias TT}? Nrjvov, dated Pauni ( ?) 25 and beginning
on 1. 7, col. iii. Here the names of seven labourers are given, but there is no
reference to the character or amount of work performed. The lower right
half of this leaf is occupied by a single column, equal in width to both of the
columns in the upper right half. Here is entered the Xoyo? yewpyias 'Apre-
fiaros TIJS N^o-ou for Pauni 26 and 27. The work is reaping (SwxwTfj? 8epi£a>v).
The position of the date *£ (27), far to the right of the line under Ptolemaios,
seems to indicate that it belongs to the list of names below that line. This
is confirmed by the recurrence of the name Ptolemaios directly under the
line and the absence of any other date to accompany this fresh list of
names.
The record now passes to the second leaf. There, dated Pauni 29, is
the Xoyo? ycopyias d\wvla<; 'A prepare*;. This account occupies 11. 1-14 of col. i.,
covering the four days from Pauni 29 to Epeiph 2. As we see from the
heading of this account, the grain just mentioned as harvested on the holding
of Artemas was threshed out on his threshing floor, and the number of artabai
obtained is given in 1. 14.
A fresh account, the \6yos jrepl Ba^mSo? Oepia-pov, opens with 1. 16 of
the same column, filling the rest of this and the whole of col. ii. The harvest-
ing of this crop took from Epeiph 7 (col. i., 1. 18) to 17 (col. ii., 1. 27). A
peculiarity of the entry for Epeiph 9 is that the six labourers are grouped in
pairs, possibly because of the character of the work done on that date, and
the names of each pair are followed by a numerical symbol, which probably
indicates the amount of their joint labour.
At the top of col. iii is the entry A 0705 aXwvlas, which runs over into
col. iv., and must be connected with the date (Epeiph) 17, indicating that the
threshing of the harvest at Bachias began on the day on which the reaping
ended. The threshing continued till Epeiph 19 (col. iii., 1. 13), and the result
is indicated in 11. 5-7 of col. iv. — Ua^mSc? Kpeifffjs (dprdfiai) dy i{3. On 1. 17,
col. iii., a new account begins — the Xoyo? opeftov, which occupies the rest
of this column (to 1. 27), and also 11. 9-20 of col. iv. This account
contains entries for the dates Epeiph 19, 20, 21, 27, and 30, and the amount
AX OVERSEER'S DAY-BOOK FROM THE FAYOUM 210
of this crop is given in the last line of the account— opoftov
The two short entries which follow in col. iv. do not show any clear
connexion with the foregoing accounts. The names of the workers recorded
in them occur in previous entries, but nothing is said with reference to the
place or character of their tasks. Furthermore, the days mentioned here
(y ( ?) and 18) have no indication of the month, and so cannot be brought
into relation with the dates given above. The significance of the numeral
signs placed after several of the names in these lists is also obscure.
Finally, col. iv. closes with the \6yos dija-ap rov €pyu£e<r8at, consisting of
a list of three names, each of which is followed by the symbol for one obol.
How this entry should be interpreted is also problematical.
For the explanation of the accounts on the diptych I am indebted to
Mr. H. I. Bell of the British Museum. He suggests that the tablet was the
day-book of an overseer, who kept thereon a detailed -record of the daily work
performed by the various labourers employed on the estates under his super-
vision. This record he would use as a memorandum for the calculation of
the wages to be paid these workmen, and also for the compilation of a report
of expenditures to be presented to his employer, the owner or lessee of the
estates. Mr. Bell calls attention to a report of this character in P. Lond.
1170, verso (III., 193 ff.), where there is a record of the number of workmen
employed, without their names, and of the wages paid.
Besides the accounts on the wax faces, the diptych has some writing on
the wood of the first leaf. Some letters, probably with a numerical significance,
were scratched in a vertical line across the top of the inner side, with the leaf
held on its side. However, only two of these letters, an A and a $, are legible.
Then, across the outer side of the same leaf run two lines of incised letters
from \ to | in. high. They read as follows :
M (}> N € T €
MAPI A — £
Taken numerically, as Mr. Bell points out, the first line, without the final € ,
might be either 50,555 \ or 15,555^, and the second, without the final £f
would be 11,111. However, there does not seem to be any connexion between
these figures and the accounts contained in the diptych, and the former may
be mere idle scratchings.
A. E. R. BOAK
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
TRANSCRIPTION OP THE DIPTYCH.
I.
Havvi ft o
Xo[/yo<?] yewpytas [H]eT€ip€(o<; Kai rov [d
epyare .
a\ocovro<f Havvt e
Taitav
Havvi 9
Yaiwv
Sara/Soy?
Havvi £
X.apiSijfjbo<f
Havvi 7
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Tlereveus
Sara/So u?
epyarai ift
28.
29.
30.
31.
1.
2.
3. HaKV(Ti<;
4. X
Xo7o?
f 6
Taicov
TOU
ITa/cucrt?
II.
a\a>vta<f
aXtovias
Notes : Col. L, 1. 3, Otpurrt tpyarf for 1. 7, ytopyias (also II., col. L, 1. 2) for 7*
Otpurrai fpydrcu : 11. 5, 17, 'loi/Xis for 'louXtos. 1. 12, Xopr/5i/ios for X
Col. ii., 1. 4, oAowjToy for oAow»'T«j. Col. iii.,
XaptSrjfws
'H/aa?
HeT€<rv<;
HTT;. . <70i/6 .
~o 1 i
Xoyo9 TTepi te Yaiwv Yaitav
Baxi-
a8o9 6epi(rp.ov 'Icrt8&>^>o9
ETT^TT £ Kwffwv iB
IlTo(X)e/mt(o)9 EUT a . . 9 a — a
111/606/30)9
opeft
0
Taitav /cat
o
I<7*Sa>/3O9 t
XapiSrjfjiOS
t? Fata>i/
\api8rj fj,o<f
' (d pidiv
'Aw»79 wo9 Sara/?of 9
i
Ka
\api8r) pos
. v aoa — a
29. la
30.
31. '
32. 'tt
University o
X Yauav
Il6T6<TU9 =(—
AN OVERSEER'S DAY-BOOK FROM THE FAYOUM 221
5. EwtTT a Xa/jto»7/4O9 Xaot^i^/xo9 Iiav/a6o9
6. I lavi'fT/s 'A^<XXa9 IIOV»(* Hl/60€/30)9
rioinrd
7. riToX6/iat(o)9 iara^oi'v
8. p I la/rt'rr/v A.<f>po&i(Ti$
9. ITToX6/iat(o)9 tS Fa/for Saroy9oi;9 /^f Fata>i/
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28. v
Il6T6(Tl'9
'opofiov o /9 L
•y 2&>Y<uT7'1
Ls 3
tS 'H/>a9 L3
IT6T60-U9 T§
rov
A. E. R. BOAK.
Notes: Col. i., 1. 31, 'A<ppo5«m, here and
elsewhere for 'A^poSiV.oi, cf. 'lou\-» ami
nr*A»/io<j. Col. ii., 11. 13, 19, apparently th.-
«ame name occurs in each line, tut the — a
appears in 1. 19 only. There is a somewhat
-iinilnr word in col. iii., 1. 27. What the
sixth letter Ls in col. ii., 1. 19 and iii., I. 27, 1
cannot say, unless a peculiarly formed f,
11. 30, 31, 'Clptvv in two successive lines M
strange, but certain. Col. iii., 1. 17, OJM&K
for <'po/3o*. Col. iv., 1. 28, is Oritraf rov to be
read 9if<rauputbt rov ?
SOME VASES IN THE LEWIS COLLECTION
[PLATES XII.-XVL]
ON March 31st, 1891, died Samuel Savage Lewis, librarian of Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge, and one of the original members of the Hellenic
Society. To his college he left a large collection of coins, gems and miscellaneous
antiquities, among them the following vases :
(1) Red-figured kotyle, from Castellani Collection.
Castellani Sale Catalogue (Rome 1884), p. 12, No. 67 (not figured).
(A) Goddess running off with youth, who holds a large lyre.
*o>|A>| l<AUo^ (Plate XIII.)
(B) Two youths in attitudes of alarm; one holds a double flute.
(Plate XIV.)
Under each handle is a
large double palmette from
which spring elaborate pal-
mette and tendril ornaments
on either side (Fig. 1).
Purple is used for 'the
letters, the cord of the lyre
on (A) and the hair fillets of
the youths on (B).
Details are represented in
the main by black relief lines ;
the less important body
muscles of the youths by
brown glaze lines.
The vase is entirely free
from breakages or restora-
tions, but some of the finer
details have been partially obliterated by excessive cleaning.
The style is that of the' late archaic period, c. 480 B.C.; the drawing of
the eye already shows signs of departure from the archaic usage, though entire
correctness has not yet been attained. The drawing is on the whole careful,
though a few lapses are noticeable ; thus one of the youths on (B) has six toes
222
FIG. 1. — RED-FIGURED KOTYLE.
SOME VASES IN THE LEWIS COLLECTION 223
on his right foot, and their tips are cut off by a carelessly drawn ground-line.
The faces, especially on (A), are the least satisfactory feature; that of the
female figure is especially inadequate. On the other hand, meticulous care
has been expended on the folds of her chiton, and on the musculature of t lie-
two nude bodies.
The strings of the lyre, as on both the vases shortly to be mentioned,
are in bkck relief, with the result that they are only visible against the black
background in certain lights.
The palmette and tendril ornaments recall those affected by Douris in
his later years; a curious feature is the projection of the central petal of the
flanking palmettes of one group only beyond the encircling tendril.
The subject, from the analogy of a vase in the Paris Bibliotheque Nationale l
on which the figures are inscribed, is presumably the kidnapping of Tithonos,2
though the winglessness of Eos is unusual.3 Save for this latter detail the
type is not rare.* The two figures on (J5) undoubtedly form part of the same
scene ; they are the victim's companions, interrupted in the midst of a musical
party, as the flutes held by one of them show. It is no rare thing, on kotylai
especially, to find pursuer and pursued occupying opposite sides of a vase;
it is but the logical extension of the same process to find the chief and the
secondary figures in an incident thus distributed.
(2) Red-figured kylix, from Lecuyer collection.
Terres Cuites Antiques ; Collection Camitte Lecuyer, PL E 5 (interior and
part of (B) only), with notice by Cartault (before 1885) ; Froehner, Lecuyer
Sale Catalogue, pp. 62-4 (same figures repeated) (1883); Wernicke, Arch. Am.
1889, p. 149; P. Hartwig, Meisterschalen, pp. 326-7 (quotes Wernicke's
description) (1893); J. D. Beazley, Vases in America, pp. 93-4 (1918); J. C.
Hoppin, Handbook, i. p. 458 (wrongly given as in Oxford ; corrected ii. p. 494)
(1919).
Interior : a bearded bald-headed man reclines on a couch and blows
furiously on the double flutes ; on the edge of a table beside him sits 5 a L ide
boy holding a long stick, swinging his legs and beating time with his left hand.
A large lyre hangs up (Fig. 2).
Inner border : three (or in two cases four) separate interlocking maeanders,
to one ' Dourian cross-square.'
1 De Ridder, 846 (ii. p. 497, Fig. 120 and however, is unsuited to tin- Kt-phalos
PI. III.). This is another kotyle, of the legend, and the ascription is probably a
developed fine style contemporary with painter's error.
Polygnotus (the vase painter). The subject J Another instance is a kotyle in Florence
is continuous all round, two of Tithonos' (4228), contemporary with the Paris vase,
companions, a musician and a huntsman ' E. g. the New York stemless kylix.
• tli.- latter through confusion with the .4.7.^1. 1915, p. 405, Fig. 3, and the t\M-t
K«-|ihnlos legend?), being named Priamos handled amphora (present whereabouts un-
and Dardanos, thus showing that the artist known), Mon. In. iii. PL XXIII.
definitely had the Tithonos legend in mind. * In the British Museum ' Pilipos ' kylix,
1 On a contemporary lekythos in Madrid E 68, a similar figure is dancing. This may
(Leroux, 159; Ossorio. I'l. XXXVI.) the have been intended here, though the effect
youth i> MUMI-M! K. phalos. Such a figure, is rather that of sitt inn.
224
C. D. BICKNELL
(A) Four bearded banqueters forming two groups which are
Exterior :
as follows :
a. Two on one couch, one with his head on his hand being sick on the
floor, the other raising his kylix to pledge nobody in particular. The first-
named is bald-headed; a foot of the second is wrongly drawn as a hand.
Under the couch is a pair of shoes.
FIG. 2. — RED-FIGURED KYLIX (interior).
b. Two on separate couches, one handing a kylix to the other, whose
couch is shown as end on, back towards us.6 A table, from which hangs
a fillet with vine twigs in the ends, stands beside the first-named, who holds,
also, a kylix shown in black silhouette against his body. He wears a scarf
round his head under his vine wreath. At each end of the scene a cross-
handled sta.f leans against the vase handles; three baskets, a lyre and an
oinochoe hang up (Plate XV.).
• Cf. similar representations on B.M. E 38 (F.R. 73), by Epiktetos, and B.M. E 49
(W.V. vi. 10), by Douris.
SOME VASES IN THE LEWIS COLLECTION L'_' .
i />' i A naked hetaira with bobbed hair stands playing the double flute
between two couches, on each of which recline two bearded banqueters. Those
to her right are bald-headed; one holds two kylikes; the other, with head
thrown back, appears to be hiccuping. The foot of the latter is here correctly
drawn. The other two appear to be waving their arms in time to the music,
one brandishing a kylix (he is probably not playing kottabos, as Cartault
thought), the other a kylix and oinochoe. A lyre and basket hang up; a
knotted staff leans against one handle (Plate XVI.).
Diameter 29 cm.
The vase is in perfect preservation, free alike from breakages or restora-
tions. Purple is used for vine wreaths and the cords of lyres; other details
are shown by black relief lines. A cushion on (B) is covered with a yellow
glaze wash. Imitation inscription in the field of (B).
Hartwig (Meisterschalen, p. 326) attributed this vase to ' Brygos ' ; Beazley
(I.e.) to his ' Foundry Painter,' the artist of the famous kylix 7 Berlin 2294
with the kalos-name Diogenes and representations of a bronze statue caster's
workshop. The relationship in style between this and the other vases Beazley
groups with it and the best of the signed Brygos vases is patent ; on the other
hand, there are differences in detail and handling of the subject which betray
the work of an inferior artist very susceptible to external influence. While
such distinctively ' Brygan' details occur as the baskets on the wall and
the bobbed hair and cross-legged pose of the flute-playing hetaira on the vase
under discussion, various other features are no less characteristic of Douris
or the ' Panaitios Master ' — the painter of most of the vases signed by
Euphronios as maker.
Thus the couch shown end on, head towards us, was inherited by Douris
from Epiktetos, and a certain woodenness about some of the figures is a failing
shared with Douris' later efforts ; on the other hand, the angular poses, sug-
gestive of the angularity of old age, and bald heads of several of the banqueters
are to be paralleled on such productions as the Boston komos kylix signed
by Euphronios as potter.8
Commonplace though it may appear at first sight, the subject matter of
the scenes has bearing on at least one interesting problem, which has received
but scanty attention in the past, namely the interrelation of the exterior
and interior pictures of kylikes.
In the earliest red-figure kylikes, e. g. those of Epiktetos which have
external designs, and those of the various painters who worked for Pamphaios
and Chachrylion, no thought whatever seems to have been given to the matching
of the scenes on even the opposite sides of the exterior. Thus in the t\vo
kylikes by Epiktetos in the British Museum, E 37 and E 38 9 a mythological
7 F.R. i:r>. ivtoreburg (Hartwig, Pis. XLVIII. and
* Beet published in the 1888 Burlington \ I.I \.) is also interesting in this connexion.
<'lnb Catalogue, No. 8, Pis. IV.-VI. ; also • Hoppin, i. pp. 31(> 11: F.K. 7:1
Etetwfe, I'ls. XLV1I-. XLVIII. - Hoppin, Hoppin, i. p. 313.
i. p. :{,S7. The much-restored kylix in St.
226 C. D. BICKNELL
scene — Theseus and the Minotaur : Herakles and Busiris — is opposed on the
exterior to a symposium scene, the break being marked by large handle orna-
ments, while the interiors of both bear convivial scenes of a type not specially
harmonising with those on the exterior. Approximately contemporary with
these are the Corneto kylix by Euxitheos and Oltos 10 and the Florence Theseus
kylix of Chachrylion,11 both of which show advance, inasmuch as the handle
ornaments are suppressed and the design carried without a break right round
the exterior, forming in one case a continuous scene,12 in the other six scenes
forming a continuous narrative. In neither case, however, has the internal
figure-subject, in one case a young warrior, in the other a flying love-god, the
slightest possible connexion with the rest.
Nor is there any advance in the Munich kylix painted by Euphronios for
Chachrylion,13 nor in the Berlin Sosias kylix,14 also probably painted by
Euphronios; nay, rather a retrogression, as composition is not that great
artist's strongest point. Here the external scenes must be conceived of as
forming a straight frieze bent round to form a circle, the break between the
beginning and end of which is marked by a more or less irrelevant detail under
one handle, in the first case a palm tree, in the second a female head in a
curious reserved medallion.
Taking these cases as typical of countless others, we may generalise and
say that, up to about 500 B.C. or thereabouts, it had not occurred to the leading
kylix painters to evolve one comprehensive scheme of decoration for the whole
vase,15 and when, as occasionally does occur, in battle, athletic and thiasos
scenes, the interior design does happen to be of the same nature as the others,
it is a pure accident.
It is in the workshop of Euphronios in the latter part of his career, and
in those of his contemporaries Hieron and Douris, that we first meet with
undoubted attempts to bring interior and exterior designs into close relationship.
Thus the New York Herakles kylix,16 painted by the ' Panaitios Master ' for
Euphronios, and the Louvre Memnon kylix,17 G 115, painted by Douris for
Kalliades, each bear three scenes from a single group of myths, the exploits of
Herakles and the Trojan War. More to the point as regards the vase under
discussion are the numerous products of both these artists with scenes of a
genre character, athletic, convivial, Dionysiac, or military, not to mention the
innumerable ' conversations ' and thiasos scenes painted for Hieron by Makron,
in which exterior and interior tally exactly in character, assuredly of set
purpose. To quote a few instances accessible in excellent publications, we
may mention the Boston komos kylix already mentioned, the Munich Hieron
10 Mon. In. x. Pis. XXIII., XXIV. = adorned outside and in with eleven running
Hoppin, ii. p. 251. warriors, all exactly alike save for their
11 Muse.0 Italiano, iii. PL II. = Hoppin, shield device, can hardly be quoted as an
i. p. 153. instance of design at all. It merely
" The presence of a small and incon- betokens lack of ideas on the part of the
spicuous palmetto under each handle hardly artist,
influences the general unity of the design. 1§ A.J.A. 1916, Pis. II.-VI. = Hoppin,
" F.R. 22 - Hoppin, i. p. 391. i. p. 393.
14 F.R. 123 = Hoppin, ii. p. 422. 17 W.V. vi. PL VII.; Hoppin, i. p. 245,
15 Thus the Pamphaios kylix, which is from photos.
SOME VASES IN THE LEWIS COLLECTION 227
kylix 18 with seven similar pairs of Silenoi and Maenads, the New York speci-
men 19 with seven ' loving couples,' and the Vienna kylix painted by Douris
for Python 20 with arming scenes. In all these the closest correspondence
may be noted between external and internal scenes.
No less is this the case among the vases attributed by Beazley to hi*
' Foundry Painter,' to an unusually large proportion of which, as compared
with the works of the artists just cited, this criticism applies with full force.
Besides the Berlin foundry kylix itself we may instance B.M. E 78 21 with
boxers, etc., Berlin inv. 3198 22 (komos scenes), and, finally, the vase under
discussion itself.
All of which leads up to the main point of our discussion : how far, in
cases where the external and internal scenes of kylikes do show close corre-
spondence, are we to consider them merely separate scenes intended to match
like a modern ' pair of pictures,' and how far should they be considered actually
one picture, distributed, like the frieze of the Parthenon, by force of circum-
tances, over various positions not all visible at once, but yet, by an artistic
convention, to be thought of as if they were so?
Foreign though the latter notion may seem to modern minds, yet I think
it will be admitted on considering the evidence that it is probably correct.
Its origin may be as follows. In all spontaneous art — mediaeval no less than
ancient, non-European no less than European — it is usual to represent suc-
cessive stages in a story side by side in one picture without indication of a
break. Should space not permit of this plan being adhered to, what more
natural course could be hit upon than to depict each incident separately in a
series of smaller spaces, if such are available? From this to a further sub-
division, the spreading of the component parts of each scene over a series of
separate spaces, is but a step. Its extreme development may be seen in the
sculptured porches and coloured windows of mediaeval churches, where vast
and elaborate compositions are depicted by great series of single figures, each
occupying its separate niche or light.
To a Greek, for whom the rules of perspective, which form an integral
part of our sense of vision, could scarcely be said to exist, it would probably
appear just as obvious a way to represent a complicated subject from the
point of view of an internal spectator, to whom the whole is only visible by
turning about, as from that of an external spectator with a bird's-eye view of
the whole at once.
This is just exactly what seems to have happened on the vase under
discussion. The artist, or that of the model he had in mind, seems to have
imagined himself standing in the middle of the andron of some Athenian house
with couches arranged on three sides — probably — close to the walls, leaving
the centre of the room clear. We will imagine the flute-playing girl of (B) to
be somewhere near the spectator in this central space. Looking straight past
" F.R. 46 = Hoppin, ii. p. 63. " J.H.S. xxvi. (1906), PI. XIII. (outeide
" A.J.A. 1917, Pis. I.— III. = Hoppin. only); Murray, Detign*- ''' XIV. 55 (inside
ii. pp. 68-9. only).
10 F.R. 53 = Hoppin, i. pp. 266-7. " Arch. Am. 1892, p. 101, Fig.
228
C. D. BICKNELL
her to the far side of the room, all that would probably be visible of its contents
would be the two couches shown one on either side of her on (B). Should
he turn about and look towards the opposite side of the room, presumably
further away from him, and thus coming rather more into his range of vision,
in addition to the two couches ranged along it he will get a diagonal view of
the couch in the furthest corner of the room, at right angles to them. But
as the art of the day is incapable of depicting an object seen corner- wise, to
distinguish it from the others seen from the side it is shown as end on. Thus
we get the scene on side (.4). This accounts for five out of the six couches
with which the room is furnished, presumably.
The sixth our spectator will see directly before him should he cast his
eyes straight along the room to its far end. Doubtless in reality he would
see both couches at this end of the room from his original position, but as one
has been depicted already on (^4), and the artist did not wish or had not space
to represent it twice, we must imagine him taking a step or two nearer the
end of the room so as to narrow his range of vision to include only this ; the
larger scale of the interior drawing lends additional colour to this latter sup-
position. The possible point of view of the artist when drawing the various
sides is illustrated in the appended diagram : —
(1) POSITION OF SPECTATOR
FOB VIEWING SIDE (B).
(2) POSITION FOB VIEWING
SIDE (A).
(3) POSITION FOR VIEWING
INTERIOR DESIGN.
(4) GIRL FLUTE-PLAYER.
Probably a similar scheme could be made out with more or less com-
pleteness from any other symposium kylix of the time; such, for instance,
as the British Museum ' Pilipos ' kylix (E 6S),23 attributed to the ' Brygos
Painter ' himself. Here in addition the fourth side of the room is indicated
by boy attendants leaning against the columns which may be supposed to
separate it from the courtyard of the house.
Probably, too, most of the komos and thiasos scenes on the kylikes of
the time must be conceived of as beheld by a spectator in their very midst,
the figures on the two sides of the vase being to his right and left, and those
of the interior, perhaps, immediately in front of him. How far, of course,
th 3 actual artists whose works we are dealing with were conscious of this con-
vention is hard to say; but it looks very much as if they were conscious of
28 Hartwig,Mei8terschalen, Pis. XXXIV., XXXV.
SOME VASES IN THE LEWIS COLLECTION
229
it and that it was a new and delightful invention in their time. The idea,
of course, reaches its apotheosis in the Parthenon frieze, which must be imagined
as depicting the procession as beheld by some participant in its midst, perhaps
Athene herself, the presiding genius of the whole, as impersonated by the statue
in the temple it encompasses. On this supposition the whole scheme of the
frieze becomes easily intelligible. The spectator has only to imagine himself
in the midst of the ranks of horsemen riding ten or a dozen abreast, those
of the north side being to his left, those of the south to his right. The groups
not yet lined up on the west frieze we must imagine dotted irregularly behind
him ; the heads of the horses we must imagine as all facing east, the reason
for their all facing north being merely that to represent them end on would
be unsuited to the nature of the relief, while to show some as facing north
and some south would be contrary to fact when all are really supposed to be
facing one way. Ahead of us is the central scene of all, the ceremonial folding
of the peplos, and behind this group and facing us is the semicircle of enthroned
gods. What scheme could be more natural or convincing, once we dissociate
ourselves from modern conventions of perspective ?
We have already seen, on the Tithonos kotyle, a mythological scene
distributed over two separate spaces on opposite sides of a vase ; surely, bearing
this additional fact in mind, we can employ the facts we have adduced by
studying the composition of the symposium kylix, for the final solution of a
problem which has baffled very many archaeologists, the subject of the exterior
of the Boston Kephalos kylix,24 round which Hartwig constructed his ' Baldhead
Painter.' Here we have in the interior a very ordinary representation of
Eos flying off with Kephalos, such as, by itself, would call for little or no
comment. "Running all round the outside we have a scene by itself frankly
unintelligible. A warrior with one foot on the bottom of a rocky mass gazes
skywards, while behind or around him a crowd of men in civilian attire, several
old and baldheaded, one with a hunting net over his shoulder, run aimlessly
backwards and forwards, in most cases obviously perturbed by something
•up above them. Surely that something is the group in the interior of the
kylix ; the men with nets are no other than Kephalos' companions 25 on his
unlucky hunting trip; whether he is to be imagined as still actually visible
in the clutches of the winged goddess or whether he has merely suddenly
vanished skyward to the bewilderment of his companions matters little. Either
supposition is sufficient to explain their attitude more than adequately. And
yet a recent writer 26 has succeeded in convincing himself that the subject is
the seizure of Salamis by the Athenians under Solon, a representation of a
recent historical event such as is hardly to be paralleled in early art, Greek,
Japanese or mediaeval ! 27 Who has not seen a mediaeval ' Ascension ' in
" Hartwig, MeutenchaUn, Pis. XXXIX.,
XL. • -- Hoppin, ii. p. 47.
" This was suggested by Van Branteghem
as long ago as 1888.
*• E. Peterson, Jahrbuch, xxxii. (1917),
pp. 137-45, PI.
17 Such subjects as the murder of Thomas
J.H.S. — VOL. XLI.
a Becket and the life of St. Francis form no
exception to this rule, as they had become
an accepted part of the religion of the age,
no less than the legends of such saints as
St. Catharine and St. Margaret, by the time
they found their way into art. The same can
hardly be said of the occupation of Salamis !
R
C. D. BICKNELL
which the Apostles gaze skyward in the direction whence the Saviour has
vanished or his feet are disappearing in a cloud? and surely the art of an
age when the victors of Crecy were commemorated as tiers of saints and angels
is no bad analogy for that of one which typified the downfall of the Mede by
the victories of deified ancestors over Centaurs and Amazons? Surely the
final proof that ensures conviction is in this case supplied by the totally inde-
pendent evidence of the kotyle, in which the young musician snatched away
by the gpddess occupies one side of the vase, while on the other, and entirely
separate, are his two companions left to their confusion.
(3) Red-figured stemless kylix, from Barone collection (Plate XII.).
Minervini, Bulletino Napolitano, new series, vi., p. 33, PL IV. (all subsequent
publications are reproductions of this) ; A. Furtwangler, 5Qth Winckelmanns-
programm (1890), p. 163 (no illustration); Roscher's Lexikon, iii. 1 (1897-
1902), s.v. Orpheus, p. 1178, paragraph 103, Fig. 3; A. Furtwangler, Antike
Gemmen, iii. p. 248, Fig. 139 (1900) ; J. Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 467, Fig. 145
(1903) ; Robert, Jahrbuch, xxxii. (1917), pp. 146-7, Fig.
Interior unpainted; an impressed pattern of concentric circles.
Exterior : (A) The head of Orpheus giving oracles, under the direction of
Apollo, to a seated youth who takes them down with stilus and tablets.
(B) A Muse with a lyre ; another stands by with a taenia. Under handles
large tendril ornaments. One handle and adjoining portion of the bowl
missing and restored ; (A) is broken across and clumsily mended. The surface
of the ancient parts of the vase is practically undamaged and untampered with.
The taenia held by the Muse on (B) seems to have been originally painted
in white, which has nearly all flaked off ; it is only visible on close examination.
Diluted glaze is used for various details, e. g. hair and the tufts on Apollo's robe,
all other details are in black relief lines.
This famous vase was seen by Furtwangler in the Barone collection in
Naples in 1877 ; how or when it came into the Lewis collection is not recorded.
As Furtwangler remarks,28 the old illustration, so often reproduced, gives no
idea of the style, of the excellence of which he carried away an exaggerated
idea. Fine and delicate it certainly is, betraying the hand of a highly skilled
artist, should he care to do himself justice, but is careless and listless to a
degree.
The composition is not by any means lacking in dramatic effect, though
the truncated proportions of the figures detract sadly from their dignity.
A further serious defect in the general effect of the vase is the disproportion-
ately large size, compared with the figures, of the tendril ornaments around
the handles. They are of the type usual in the period immediately preceding
Meidias, of whom the artist was certainly a contemporary; the pose and
drapery of the girl with the taenia on (B) are especially reminiscent of such
figures as the ' Lipara ' on the lower zone of the Meidias Hydria.29
28 50th Wpm. (1890), p. 163, note. " F.R. 8.
SOME VASES IN THE LEWIS COLLECTION
231
(4) Early Cycladic multiple vase (' kerchnos ') 30 (Fig. 3).
Unpublished ; origin unrecorded.
Cf. Bosanquet, B.S.A. iii. pp. 57-61 and PI. IV. ; J. Harrison, Prolegomena,
p. 160, Fig. 16 ; Edgar, in Phylakopi, pp. 23 and 102, PI. VIII. 14 (1904) ;
Dussaud, Les Civilisations Prfhelltniques, p. 87, Fig. 62.
Greatest diameter 18 cm. ; height 15 cm.
The central bowl is an upward continuation of the foot; eight small
cups are joined to it by projecting arms and to one another by cross-pieces.
The whole was originally covered by a whitish slip; the outer sides of the
small cups and connecting cross-
bars are painted with a black net
pattern, now almost obliterated.
This is the smallest and most
primitive of a small series of early
vases all of which, so far as their
provenances are recorded, which is
unfortunately not always the case,
appear to come from Melos, and
probably from Phylakopi, where
one specimen was found intact by
the British School explorers. The
specimen is only about half the size
averaged by the others. It was
probably brought from Melos by
some French explorer in the second
quarter of last century at the
same time as the two specimens
in the Sevres Museum, and was acquired by some private collector ; unfortu-
nately no record exists as to how it came into Mr. Lewis' possession.
In concluding I must express my sincerest thanks to the Master and
Fellows of Corpus Christi College for a generous grant towards the cost of
the illustrations for this article, and, above all, to Sir Geoffrey Butler, Librarian
of the College, for his kindly co-operation, without which its preparation would
have been impossible; to Mr. A. B. Cook, for many helpful hints; to Mr. J. D.
Beazley of Oxford for much invaluable advice and criticism; and, finally,
to Miss E. T. Talbot for the patience and care she has lavished on the drawings
for the illustrations.
C. D. BICKNELL.
FIG. 3. — EARLY CYCLADIC KERNOS.
*° For undoubted kerchnoi from Eleusis
see Philios, 'E^.'Apx-, 1885, PL IX., Nos.
5, 7, 8, and 9. Miss Harrison, in her Pro-
legomena, talks as if the Mclian vases wen-
identical with these, which is, of course, not
the case.
R'J
HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM GYRENE
[PLATES XVII., XVIII.]
EXACTLY ten years ago the Italian Government wrested the territory of
Tripolitania from the Turks, and the hope was at once entertained that
archaeology, safe from the blind fanaticism that had so seriously hindered
former expeditions, might reap a rich harvest from the ruins of the famous
cities of the Pentapolis, and especially from Gyrene. This hope has not been
disappointed. I do not intend to study here the recent discoveries under
the Hellenistic Temple of Apollo of the remains of the Temple celebrated by
Pindar, nor to anticipate the prospects of discovering its slips votiva, or of
finding the site of the earliest necropolis. To study the former we must await
the completion and publication of the excavations; to justify the latter a
far more settled state of the country is indispensable. I will therefore limit
myself in this paper to the discussion of some of the numerous statues
discovered that can be ascribed to the Hellenistic age.1
On the night of the 27th of December, 1913, a torrential downpour flooded
the platform of the Temple of Apollo and broke down part of the retaining
wall at the N.E. corner. The next morning the soldiers of the garrison found,
still glistening with the element from which she had been born, the beautiful
statue of Aphrodite Anadyomene. Under such favourable auspices began the
archaeological exploration of Gyrene. Excavations were started at once at
this spot, and the work was rewarded by the discovery of the Thermae. a
This building, if perhaps not actually erected, was extensively restored and
modified by Hadrian, who decorated it with many statues of earlier date
which had been injured by Semitic fanaticism during the great Jewish insur-
rection of A.D. 116.3 Most of these statues bear traces of having been restored
in antiquity, certainly on this occasion, thus proving that they were already
in Gyrene and were not imported but merely restored by Hadrian.4 The
preservation of the statues, some twenty in all, is due to the violence of the
1 The excavations at Gyrene are directed architettura delle Terme di Cirene* Noti-
by Dr. Ghislanzoni, and are sumptuously ziario, vol. ii. pp. 129-151.
published by the Ministero delle Colonie 3 See Notiziario, ii. p. 155, for an interest-
in the Notiziario Archeologico, of which two ing epigraphical document of this insurrec-
volumes have already been published, and tion.
a third is in preparation. To this publica- * Notiziario, ii. p. 198. The same res-
tion I shall constantly refer. torations are noticeable in many of the
* For an account of the architecture and statues from Gyrene in the British Museum,
technical details of these Thermae, see e. g. Catalogue of Sculpture ii nn 1403,
Guastini : 'Prime note aulla struttura f- 1401. 1405
232
HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM CYRENE
233
earthquake which destroyed the building almost to the very foundations, thus
preserving its contents from human vandalism.5
By far the finest of the sculptures is the Aphrodite (J.H.S., vol. xl.,
Plates IX., X.), a cast of which was at once despatched to the Colonial
Exhibition held at Genoa in 1914.6 Yielding to the universal desire, the
Government made an exception to the rule that the works of art should
remain in Africa, and brought it to Rome, where it is exhibited in the Museo
delle Terme.7 Prof. E. A. Gardner's article in the last volume of this Journal
saves me from describing the statue at length; I trust, however, I may be
allowed to examine a few points which must have escaped him owing to the
insufficiency of the material at his disposal.8 It is hardly possible, merely
Fio. 1. — Two GROUPS OF THE GRACES FROM CYRENE.
(a). From the Iseum. (6). From the Thermae (small group).
on the grounds of style, for the statue to have any connexion with the fresco
of Apelles, and it is very probable that the type of Aphrodite Anadyomene
is older than the famous painting.9 A very important contribution to the!
study of the statue has been made by the discovery in the Thermae of a small
group of the Three Graces (Fig. 1, 6). Dr. Ghislanzoni at once pointed out
the striking analogy between each of the Graces and the Aphrodite. To use
his own words : ' Had we found one alone of the figures we would have
• Notiziario, ii. pp. 13, 147. This earth-
quake evidently destroyed the whole city.
In the recent excavations at the ayopd we
have found three skeletons, the remains of
victims of the cataclysm.
• E. Ghislanzoni : La Moetra Coloniale
di Oenova, 1914, 2nd ed., pp. 169 ff.
7 R. Paribeni : 11 Museo Nazionalc
Romano, 3rd ed., 1920, p. 119 n., 357.
• The articles of Ghislanzoni in \<>t
i. p. 192, and of Prof. L. Mariani in Bolltttino
d'Artf, 1914, p. 171, and in Anniiario deUa
K. Accademiti di S. Luca, 1914-15, are
indispensable.
' See Mariani's articles mentioned above
for a detailed criticism of the Apelles theory.
While some of his conclusions must be
modified in view of the discovery of the
group of the Graces, his remarks on the
style of the statue are of the greatest value.
234 GILBERT BAGNANI
thought it a reduced copy of the Aphrodite.' 10 Now the position of the
head of the central figure proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the group
is a copy of a relief or painting,11 and therefore the sculptor could not have
copied the Aphrodite. On the other hand, the great artistic difference between
the Aphrodite, a masterpiece worthy of the greatest sculptors, and the very
second-rate execution of the group excludes the possibility of their being both
from the same hand. Thus the only explanation of this extraordinary analogy
is that both sculptures are derived from the same original, a painting of the
Three Graces of the middle of the fourth century.12 This work, probably by
one of the most famous Greek masters,13 was copied both by a mere artisan
who limited himself to the faithful translation of the picture into the round,
and also by an artist of the highest order who, by isolating one of the figures
and giving it an entirely new meaning, can be said to have created an original
masterpiece. Such a development of an earlier artistic ideal is characteristic
of the Hellenistic age, and the Venus de Milo is an excellent example.14 In
this period, moreover, sculptors frequently copied reliefs and paintings in
order to enrich their repertory of types. A Maenad, found in these Thermae,15
is certainly derived from a pictorial motive.
The many points of contact between the Gyrene and the Louvre Aphro-
dites, both of which represent the same severe and dignified feminine ideal
in direct contrast to the sensual derivations of the Cnidian type,16 induce
me to look for other works that might be attributed to the sculptor of the
Anadyomene. The great and beautiful statue of Apollo from Gyrene now in
the British Museum can, I think, be from the same hand. A close resemblance
has been noted between this statue and the Venus de Milo,17 who would thus
serve as a connecting link between the Apollo and the Anadyomene. Since
the Aphrodite lacks any distinctive drapery, the attribution of the Apollo to
the same sculptor is ever likely to remain hypothetical, but a careful examina-
tion of the originals has led me to see a close resemblance in the artistic
inspiration of both statues ; a considerable realism held in check by a striving
after monumental grandeur. Again the relation of the Apollo to the works
that preceded it is the same as that of the Aphrodite, a modification of a fourth-
century original.18 Lastly, they are both approximately of the same date and
from the same site, and are both the work of a great artist. The most recent
excavations at the Temple of Apollo confirm Mr. Lethaby's supposition that
the Apollo and the Venus de Milo are contemporary. The ancient fifth-
10 Notiziario, ii. p. 58 and Figs. 29, 30, ls By supposing the original painting to
where the statues are placed side by side. have been by Euphranor, Mariani's attrac-
11 Notiziario, ii. p. 60. tive theory, based on an admirable study
11 Although most authorities consider of the style of the statue, might still be
that the Graces were first represented naked retained. See Boll. d'Arte, 1914, p. 184.
in Hellenistic times (Frazer : Pausanias, 14 Furtwaengler, Masterpieces, 384 ff
vol. v. p. 176; Roscher : Lexicon, vol. i. 15 Notiziario, ii. p. 37.
p. 883), I can see no reason for supposing " Mariani : Boll. d'Arte, 1914, p. 183.
them later than the Cnidian Aphrodite, 17 W. R. Lethaby in «7.f/.<S.,xxxix. (1919),
and Cyrene, '4 rvv Xapiruv \6<j>os', would p. 206.
be among the first to possess a group in 18 Catalogue, ii. p. 223. Helbig : Fiihrer,
the new style. 3rd ed., p. 482. Ausonia, iii. p. 133.
HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM CYRENE
235
century temple was destroyed by fire and rebuilt in a late Hellenistic epoch ;
therefore the middle of the second century B.C. is certainly a limit ante quern
the statue could not have been executed.
Dare we go still further and ascribe to the same sculptor the original of
the charming statuette of Aphrodite Euploia, also in the British Museum ? 19
The thick and somewhat massive legs and ankles and the conical and divergent
breasts are noticeable in this as in the Anadyomene. It is true that the
execution is very coarse, but the original statue of which this is a reduced
copy might well be the work of our sculptor.
Besides the group of Graces mentioned above, another and larger group,
FIG. 2. — LARGE GROUP OF THE GRACES FROM THE THERMAE AT CYRENE.
fortunately in a remarkable state of preservation, was found in the Thermae
(Fig. 2),20 and a third group has recently been found in an Iseum on the
Acropolis (Fig. I, a.) The three groups that have been recovered from ' the Hill
of the Graces ' have nothing in common except the subject, and are thus of
considerable interest in furnishing three independent renderings of the same
subject. The larger group derives, like the smaller, from a relief or painting,
but the sculptor has taken more care in avoiding the unpleasant features
that such copies usually present. The head of the central figure is in its
natural position, while in a group that has just been discovered by Prof.
Amelung in the Magazzino of the Vatican, and that much resembles our
group, especially in the position of the arms, the head is turned in the same
19 Catalogue, ii. p. 236. Smith and
Porcher : Ditcoveriet, p. 85, Plate LX X I .
*° Ghialanzoni: Notiziario, ii. pp. 60-80.
Mariani in Tirto, Anno xiv. (1917), n. 1.
#236 GILBERT BAGNANI
unnatural way as in the smaller group from the Thermae. The sculptor has
even gone so far as to alter the natural shape of the faces in order to correct
certain optical illusions to which the spectator is subject.21 The original of
this group is undoubtedly much later than that of the smaller one. In the
latter the figures are somewhat stiff and badly knitted together, they all
stand in exactly the same position, and are totally devoid of any movement,
either real or apparent. In the larger group, on the other hand, the sculptor
has successfully varied the attitudes of the three figures and linked them
together in an harmonious whole, skilfully suppressing as far as possible the
unsightly props. The original of the earlier group is, as I have said, of the
fourth century, while that of the later one presents all the characteristics of
advanced Hellenistic, or even Graeco-Roman, art. The third group is again
very different, inasmuch as it does not derive from any pictorial representa-
tions of the Graces, but has been formed by joining together three modified
copies of the Cnidian Aphrodite.
These three groups are sufficient to prove that no artist ever produced
a canonical representation of the Graces, such as Phidias made of Athena and
Praxiteles of Aphrodite. The subject lent itself to pictorial treatment, and
the earliest efforts were made in painting. In the fourth century there is a
general tendency to represent the various goddesses naked, a tendency that
culminates in the Cnidian Aphrodite. This goddess was so intimately con-
nected with the Graces that all subsequent representations of the latter were
more or less directly influenced by the standard type of the former, which
would naturally form the basis of any directly sculptural attempt to represent
them. This actually occurs in the group from the Iseum, the only replica
that has no painting as a model. The smaller group is a very accurate copy
of the original painting, for there is no attempt to disguise the defects which
| become very noticeable in the round. Although the sculptor of the larger
group is far more skilful, we can get a very good idea of the painting which
he copied from two frescoes from Pompeii, which are almost contemporary
with the group.22
It is not without much hesitation that I advance the theory alluded to
above about the early picture of the nude Graces, which served as a model
to the sculptors of the smaller group and the Aphrodite. Its approximate
date can easily be fixed ; it is earlier than the Aphrodite of Cnidos, which is
usually dated about 350 B.C.23 Had it been later its painter could not have
remained so completely indifferent to its influence, which can even be traced
in the eclectic later groups and paintings. On the contrary, the proportions
of the figures, both in the group and in its derivative the Aphrodite, are very
peculiar; the severity so characteristic of the Peloponnesian school with a
lengthening of the arms and legs. The only head preserved, that of the
central Grace,24 is of considerable size in comparison to the body, and, although
of very poor workmanship, slightly resembles the well-known head in Munich
21 Notiziario, ii. p. 73 and Figs. 35, 36. a* I am regretfully obliged to contradict
12 Dcnkmdler der Malfrei, Plates XLIX.-L. the rumour that the head of the Aphrodite
88 Collignon : Hiatoire, ii. p. 272. has been found.
HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM CYRENE 237
which certainly belongs to a non-Praxitelean conservative school of the fourth
century.25 The legs are long, and the knees and ankles singularly defective.
All this agrees perfectly with the little we know of the style of Euphranor,
who was the connecting link between Polyclitus and Lysippus. We must
remember that he was a Corinthian by birth, and that there must have been
active intercourse between Corinth and Cyrene, both Doric cities. The begin-
ning of Euphranor's activity may be placed shortly after the hundredth
Olympiad (380 B.C.),26 and I would attribute the picture of the Graces to
the earlier part of his career, before he went to Athens. A youthful work of
this artist of second rank could easily have been forgotten in the days of
Pliny, especially as it was in a decaying city of N. Africa. The fact that an
artist who could sculpture the Aphrodite took the painting as a model proves
that it must have been from some celebrated hand. Euphranor may well
have been induced to represent his Graces naked as a contrast to those,
probably clothed, with which his great predecessor, Polyclitus, had decorated
the crown of the Argive Hera.27 Since we are in almost complete darkness
regarding this sculptor and painter, no attribution can claim to be more than
a very tentative hypothesis, but I think that the original of the Graces and
of the Anadyomene is much closer to Pliny's description of his style than
many of the somewhat fantastic and self-contradictory attributions of
Furtwaengler.28
The central niche in the great hall of the Thermae was occupied by a
colossal statue of Alexander the Great which has been recovered in a nearly
perfect condition29 (Plate XVII., 1). The king is leaning on the lance and is
represented as one of the Dioscuri, as is shown by the horse's head at his feet.
The back of his head was originally covered with a bronze pilos and the right
hand should be restored as holding a sword. The head is an extraordinarily
fine portrait of the monarch, and takes its place midway between the realistic
Azara head in the Louvre and the much exaggerated later portraits, such as the
one in the British Museum. It presents all the characteristics enumerated in
the descriptions of the famous statue by Lysippus of Alexander with the
lance.30 On the other hand, the body bears almost throughout the distinctive
character of the Polyclitan school with the solitary exception of the knees,
where some traces may be seen of Lysippean influence. Although the right
leg is bent and drawn slightly backwards, the position is more like the
Doryphorus than the Apoxyomenus : there is no trace of that restless movement
so characteristic of Lysippus and especially noticeable in the bronze statuette
in the Louvre, usually supposed to be a copy of the statue by Lysippus.81
I am absolutely unable to see any relation whatsoever, except in the subject,
: Recue.il dtT&ee, Plate CCXXL, pp. 93-97. Ghislanzoni : Notiziario, ii. pp.
p. 178, but he goes too far in attributing it 105-122.
for certain to Silanion. '• Notiziario, ii. p. 116. Mias Taylor hat
•• Brunn : Getchichte der Kiinstler, i. rightly pointed out the analogy with the
p. 314. terra-cotta Apollo in Villa Oiulia. P.BJS.R.,
27 Pausanios, II. xxvii. 4. viii. p. 9.
" Masterpiece*, pp. 348-364 . *l Collignon :] Lyfippe, p. 51.
M Mariani : Rendiconti dei Lincei, xxi\ .
238 GILBERT BAGNANI
between the Gyrene statue and this bronze, although Dr. Ghislanzoni goes
so far as to consider them both copies of the same original. The rhythm in
the two statues is entirely different, as can be seen even in the drawings on
which Dr. Ghislanzoni bases his theory.82 My opinion has been further
strengthened by a recent inspection of the Louvre bronze. As to the head,
it is obviously impossible to institute any comparisons between a much-corroded
statuette a few inches high and a marble statue over life size.
The dating of this statue presents considerable difficulty. Dr. Ghislanzoni
claims it for the age of Hadrian mainly on account of the use of the drill in the
working of the hair.33 This element does not seem to me sufficient to bring it
down to such a late date. The use of the drill is to be found in many
Hellenistic statues; it can even be noticed about the feet and toes of the
Aphrodite Anadyomene. The mixture of Polyclitan and Lysippean elements
is often to be found in Hellenistic sculpture and is also visible in the Aphrodite.
The sfumato noticed even by Dr. Ghislanzoni is the characteristic mark of the
school of Alexandria,34 and would hardly have been so pronounced in the
second century A.D. It seems unlikely that Alexander would be taken to
represent a Dioscurus in Hadrian's time, when the intended flattery would be
meaningless, but it would be quite intelligible in the Ptolemaic period. Finally,
the statue bears considerable traces of ancient repairs. Now if we accept,
as we have every reason to do, Dr. Ghislanzoni's own theory about these
repairs, they prove that the statue must have been at Gyrene before the insur-
rection of A.D. 116, that is, before the time of Hadrian. We may therefore
consider the statue an original product of the late Ptolemaic period, only
indirectly, and in its general motive, influenced by the statue of Lysippus.
In connection with the statue of Alexander should be studied the colossal
statue of Zeus at^to^o? that has been discovered in a temple near the dyopd 35
(Plate XVIII., 1). The statue was found lying in front of a large base that bears
a long dedicatory inscription to the Emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.
AvTotcpaTOpi Kaitrapi, ®eov Tpaiavov
via), ©eoO Ne/>ova viwvw, Tpatavw 'ASpiaixa
avro/cpdropi TO ft', dp%i€pei fieyia-rtp,
tcrjs ejfovcrias K/3' , vTrcnw TO y , irarpl
fftarrjpi KOI KriffTrj, Koi avTOrcpdropi TtT^> Ai\i<o Kat-
aapi 'AvToveivqy, via) 'A&piavov ^fftaaTov,
77 Kvprjvaiayv TroXt? KO<r^6elaa inr avrov
The titles of Hadrian fix the date of the inscription between the 25th of
February and the 10th of July, A.D. 138.36
This temple had already been partly explored in 1861 by Smith and Porcher,
who found there a headless statue of Athena and another headless female
statue. The indications given in the text of Discoveries at Cyrene (p. 75) are
M Notiziario, ii. p. 119 and Figs. 53, 64. 88 Ghislanzoni : Notiziario, ii. pp. 195-
»» Notiziario, ii. p. 122. 216.
M Dickins : Hellenistic Sculpture, p. 2 Iff. s« Notiziario, ii. p. 198.
HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM CYRENE 239
not very precise, but a careful study of Smith's reports to Panizzi and Newton
has convinced me that they were undoubtedly found in this temple. I intend
to discuss these two statues in detail in a forthcoming volume of the Notiziario.
We may therefore consider all three of them decorations of this temple, which
was probably dedicated to the Capitoline Triad. Dr. Ghislanzoni notices a
very strong resemblance between the Zeus and the Alexander, and, notwith-
standing the numerous analogies that he himself observes with Hellenistic
sculpture, assigns it to the age of Hadrian and confidently identifies it with
the statues mentioned in the inscription. I do not think this theory can be
maintained. In the first place, the inscription on the base has nothing to do
with the statues that stood on it. The teal dyaX/jaffiv in the last line means
that the city had been decorated by Hadrian ' and also ' with statues. Had
they meant the actual statues in the temple and on the base they would have
said so. In fact the inscription seems to me to prove decisively that other
statues are intended, and in any case laudatory inscriptions should always be
taken cum grano salis, especially in Africa. Then this identification is dis-
proved by the statues themselves. The Athena in the British Museum
(Plate XVIII., 2) 37 is undoubtedly an original of late Hellenistic times. It has
considerable affinity, for instance, with a statue in the Capitol, which is usually
attributed to the school of Pergamon.38 Thus in any case one of the statues
that stood on the base is much more ancient than Hadrian, and therefore
that part of the argument that founds itself on the inscription falls to the
ground. There remains the part founded on the alleged late style of the
Zeus. Now the aegis of the Athena closely resembles that of the Zeus. The
gorgoneia are practically identical and both the aegides are fringed with little
serpents in exactly the same way. In the British Museum statue they have all
been broken off, but have left clear traces. They are, however, present in a
replica of the statue at Newby Hall.39 Even the technical treatment of the
hair is the same. Then, again, the attitudes of the two statues are very similar
and are both the same development of the Polyclitan type, in which the forward
motion is only apparent and not real.40 The right hip is thrust forward in a
very pronounced manner, and the position of the right arm was the t^rne in
both. It was supported at the elbow by a large prop, which is still preserved
in the Zeus, and has left an unsightly mark on the Athena. The right hand
of the Zeus holds a thunderbolt, in the Newby Hall copy Athena holds an owl.
The way the himation is thrown over Athena's left shoulder is exactly similar
to the position of the aegis of Zeus. Athena must certainly have held a spear
in her left hand, and, when complete, must have presented much the same
appearance as the Zeus, so much so as to make me believe that they might
17 Catalogue, ii. p. 255 n., 1479. It is in »• Clarac. Plate 462A, 888n-Reinach,
the Graeco-Roman basement. I publish a 220, i. Michaelis : Ancient Marble*, p.
photograph of it as a sample of the fine 529 n., 23. I must thank Miss Button for
sculpture from Cyrene which is in the obtaining, and Lady Alwyne Compton-
British Museum. Vyner for granting, permission to photo-
•• Helbig : Fuhrer, 3rd ed., i. p. 497 n., graph this statue. It will be published in
883. Capitoline Museum Catalogue, p. 340, the Notiziario.
Plate LXXXV. " C. Anti : BollrMina tTArif, 1920. p. 7.V
240 GILBERT BAGNANI
both be from the same hand. The resemblance noticed by Dr. Ghislanzoni to
the Alexander really supports my thesis, for we have seen that the latter statue
is a work of the Hellenistic period.
But does the Zeus resemble the Alexander ? Dr. Ghislanzoni says that it
is so marked that both statues must come from the same workshop. I must
confess that, after a careful examination of the statues themselves, I am quite
unable to see it. In the Zeus all the muscles are tremendously emphasised in
comparison with the Alexander. Especially noticeable is the little triangle
of fat between the two pectoral muscles and the great and somewhat unpleasant
prominence of the lower part of the abdomen from the navel to the pubes.
The fleshy masses of the trunk and the segments of the rectus dbdominis are
very exaggerated, in contrast with the refined and somewhat flat treatment of
this part of the body in the Alexander. The same can be said of the inter-
costal spaces and the prominent serratus magnus. Even the hair, which is
always for Dr. Ghislanzoni the most important characteristic, is very different
in the two statues. The curls of Zeus are quite different from the locks of
Alexander. A definite proof can be found in the treatment of the pubic hair,
which in the Zeus is in little curls and in the Alexander in tufts.
But all this does not mean that the Zeus is Hadrianic, only that it is later
than the Alexander. We know enough about the state of art at Gyrene under
Hadrian to say definitely that no such work could have been produced there
at that time. For example, the statue of Hadrian in the British Museum 41
which, as the recent excavations show, decorated the temple dedicated to him
near the Temple of Apollo, is a very inferior work. It is not even all of one
piece, but the head has simply been inserted on to a trunk. Surely for the cult
image of their emperor and benefactor the Cyrenaeans exerted themselves to the
utmost, and we may consider that statue as the best that could be produced.
And Dr. Ghislanzoni asks us to believe that the Zeus is contemporary !
Finally, we must examine what has been supposed to be the signature
of the sculptor of the Zeus. On one of the sides of the great base that
supported the three statues there is cut the name Zrjvicw Zrjviwvo^. This
name has been placed by Professor Mariani in connexion with the names
of sculptors of the school of Aphrodisias, who flourished under the reign of
Hadrian.42 If we are to refer this name to the statues that stood on the base
we must refer it to all of them : all three must be the work of this Zenion. But
•the other statue in the British Museum43 is certainly a Roman work. It
very probably represents a lady of the imperial house, and its place as Juno
in the Triad may be due to a piece of gross flattery. It is quite possible that
the ladykthus honoured is Sabina.44
41 Brit. Mu9. Cat., ii. p. 224 n., 1381. ** It bears a close resemblance to the
42 Notiziario, ii. p. 216 and note. statues in the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence.
43 Catalogue, ii. p. 255 n., 1478. It is Dutschke, 659. An undoubted portrait of
at the bottom of the staircase of the King Sabina in the National Museum in Rome
Edward VII. 's Galleries. My thanks are has the mantle drawn over the head in the
due to Mr. A. H. Smith for leave to have same way. Paribeni : Quida (3rd ed.)
this and the Athena statue photographed n. 587.
and for a great deal of help in my work.
HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM CYRENE 241
A fragment of the head of this statue was found during the excavations
of the temple. It agrees both in marble, technique, and size with the British
Museum statue. All its traits show that it is a portrait, especially the nose
and the fat throat. The fragment is far too small to allow me. to identify it
with any certainty, but it certainly does not exclude the possibility of its
representing Sabina. In fact it seems to me to resemble considerably her
profile on the coins.
In any case a comparison between this certainly Roman, and possibly
Hadrianic, work and the Athena and the Zeus is all that is required to prove
that the two latter must be of an entirely different period. Thus the artist
who made the one could not have made the others, and the name on the pedestal
belongs perhaps to the actual workman who built it.
The statue of the Athena, however, cannot have been intended by the
sculptor to stand with the Zeus. The attitudes are so much alike that together
they must have presented an unpleasant parallel effect. My own theory is
that when the temple of the Capitoline Triad was built or extensively restored
by Hadrian, the people of Gyrene took as cult images a Zeus and an Athena
of the same late Hellenistic sculptor which stood in different buildings in
Gyrene but were both of suitable size. Even after the insurrection there must
have been a superabundance of statues in the city. Hadrian .was probably
content to restore and distribute them anew among the principal buildings.
Naturally a certain number of portrait statues of the Imperial family would
be erected by the grateful population, but bringing sculpture on a large
scale to the cities of North Africa was like carrying coals to Newcastle. To
complete the Triad they executed a statue of Sabina and dedicated the whole
to the glory of the Emperor who had shown such signal interest in their welfare.
Of entirely different character but of the same age is the statue of a
Satyr carrying the infant Dionysus.45 The subject makes one think at
once of the Hermes of Praxiteles, but there is a complete difference in style.
The movement is most characteristically Lysippean; compare it with the
Louvre bronze mentioned above, which has almost identically the same motion.
Yet this motion is more apparent than real ; it is the motion in repose created
by Lysippus which influences all Hellenistic art.46 We shall not be far wrong
in attributing the creation of this type to a modification of the Hermes or of
some similar statue of Praxiteles by a Hellenistic sculptor very much under the
influence of Lysippus. The statue is also noteworthy on account of the con-
siderable traces of red colour on the prop and panther-skin. The sculptures
from Gyrene have fortunately preserved to a remarkable extent their
polychromy, and a statuette of an oriental divinity recently found in the
Iseum is more perfect in this respect than any other statue I know of. The
overturned vase upon which the panther rests its paw is pierced, and it must
therefore have decorated a flow of water in the Thermae. But the statue was
executed a considerable time before Hadrian, and the question therefore arises
whether it belonged to the Hellenistic building repaired by that Emperor or
whether it was taken from another part of the city altogether. We have not
45 GhUlanzoni : Notiziario, i. p. 200. «• Loewy : La SctiUura Grcca, p. 112.
242
GILBERT BAGNANI
got, at present, sufficient data to warrant an answer, but I take the opportunity
to point out that the Aphrodite was also used in the Thermae as a fountain
decoration. The shape of the base is Roman and is due to an alteration of the
original one in order to make it fit a niche.
The discovery in the Thermae of a fine replica of the well-known statue
of Eros bending the bow (Plate XVII., 2; Fig. 3) 47 raises some interesting
problems of Greek art and antiquities. I feel quite justified in examining it at
some length, as it has usually been attributed to Lysippus, whom we may
well consider the founder of Hellenistic sculpture. The principal value of
this new copy lies in its very perfect state of preservation, which allows us
FIG. 4. — THE CAPITOLINE EROS.
FIG. 3. — EROS STRINGING HIS Bow, FROM
THE THERMAE AT CYRENE.
to restore the exact position of the bow. In the Capitoline copy (Fig. 4),
which has been usually considered the best, the restorer has made Eros
string his bow by drawing it towards himself with the left hand, while forcing
the two ends nearer together, the upper end with the right hand, the lower
by pressing it against the right thigh. This restoration has been supported
• in general by the evidence of two gems 48 and of traces of the end of the bow
on various replicas.49 This restoration is impossible, both on physical and
monumental grounds. How could Eros, unless he had a third hand, get the
bow-string into the notch? Such a position is only possible with a straight
47 Ghislanzoni : Notizivrio, ii. pp. 42-51. «« Furtwaengler : Die antiken Qemmen,
Mariani : Oazelte dee Beaux Arts, 1918, Plates XIV., 9; XLIIL, 60.
PP- !-*• ° Capitoline Catalogue, p. 87 : Helbig :
Fuhrer, 3rd ed., i. p. 426.
HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM CYRENE
bow. The famous English long-bow was strung by one extremity being
placed on the ground against the foot, and when the bow was bent by the
pulling of the left hand, the right, holding the bow-string, slipped along the
upper extremity till it reached the notch. But the ordinary Greek bow was
not straight. The usual epithet for a bow is TraXtWofo*?, which can only
apply to the Scythian bow whose extremities curved away from the archer,
and which is the weapon placed by the restorer in the hands of the Capitoline
Eros.50 In the copy from Cyrene the lower end of the bow is preserved;
it passes behind the right thigh and its extremity is curved right up against
the left leg. This makes everything clear. The right hand alone holds the
upper end of the bow, the left is pulling at the bow-string ; the bow is being
bent chiefly by the pressure of the legs, the right one pressing down and the
left up, while the hands tend to unite. This position is entirely confirmed
by the few representations we have of people stringing bows. In the well-
known Naples vase a youth is bending a bow
by pressing his knee on it, but it is uncertain
whether he wants to string it or merely
render it more supple.51 But no doubt is
possible in connexion with the figures on
a vase in the Louvre 52 and on a silver
vessel from the Crimea (Fig. 5).M Here the
position is identical with that of the Cyrene
Eros, and we must infer that in antiquity
this was the usual way of stringing the bow.
How, then, was the Capitoline type created ?
If we imagine the Cyrene copy restored
we can see that the bow would not present
a very satisfactory appearance to a spectator who faced the statue
squarely. He would see it, so to speak, from the inside and in perspective,
the bow-string and the bow forming two almost coinciding straight lines.
This seems to prove that the statue is not designed to be seen from this point
of view, but rather that it should be seen from the side, when the spectator
would look on the god full-face. Eros, then, from this point of view would
appear to be preparing to shoot the spectator himself, and they would thus
be brought into the most direct and intimate relationship, while from the
front the statue presents exactly the same defect as the group of the Tyranni-
cides; M it is not self-contained, but must be completed by the addition of
an imaginary mark at which the god is preparing to aim. The position I
have suggested is the one mentioned by Ovid, who almost certainly had the
original of our statue in his mind as he wrote : —
5.— SCYTHIAN STRINGING Bow.
*• Daremberg and Saglio, sub voce Arcus.
Jebb on Trachiniae, v. 511.
&1 Schreiber- Anderson : Alia*, Plate
LXXX. 7.
11 Daremberg and Saglio : Dictionnaire,
i. p. 389, Fig. 472.
M Reinach : Artiiquitts du Botphore Cim-
mtrien, p. 85, Plate XXXIII. Friede-
richs : Amor mit dem Bogen de» Hertmle*
in 27t«« Winckelmannsfestprogramm, 1867.
** Lechat : La sculpture attique avant
Phidiat, p. 448.
244 GILBERT BAGNANI
' pharetra cum protinus ille soluta
Legit in exitium spicula facta meum
Lunavitque genu sinuosum fortiter arcum
" Quod " que " canas, votes, accipe " dixit " opus ! " ' 55
This is almost a description of our statue and of the effect it was designed to
produce. It adds an interesting detail for the restoration of the original.
While the tree-trunk is an addition of the copyist, the quiver, 'pharetra
soluta,' was certainly present in the bronze original, perhaps lying on the
ground, whence it was taken to disguise the prop in the marble copies. But
to return to the study of the development of the type. The great popularity
of the original inspired at once a host of reproductions, and, since we find it
on gems, we can be certain that it was copied in paintings. In pictorial art,
however, the reproduction of the Eros in what I believe to be the correct
position is of considerable difficulty. Drawing, far more than sculpture in
the round, tends to present figures in their broadest aspect,56 and I think we
may confidently attribute to painters and to the necessities of their technique
the alteration of the position of the statue from the lateral to the more tra-
ditional frontal, a position which, as there would be no need of foreshortening,
was far easier and more satisfactory. From the usual point of view the statue
has almost the appearance of an archaic relief in which the head is in profile,
the torso full-face, and the legs inclining again to the profile. Moreover, in
this position it takes up much more room — no trifling consideration for an
artist who had to decorate large expanses of wall-surface. The bow, .however,
was a great obstacle to painting the statue in this position, for of course it
would not be seen in its broadest aspect. In the two examples I have given
above in which the stringing of the bow is correctly shown, the artist has
quite arbitrarily drawn the bow in profile. Such an ingenuous way out of the
difficulty is not to be thought of for artists of the Hellenistic age, so the only
thing to do was to alter the entire movement of the statue and make Eros
string the bow in quite a different fashion, possibly the way to string the long
straight bow, uncommon but not unknown in antiquity.57 Neither the Greeks
nor the Romans were archers, and they were probably just as unfamiliar as
we are with the niceties of toxophily. These pictorial copies, on their part,
influenced in course of time sculpture in the round, and insensibly the original
point of view was lost and the more easily copied frontal aspect became pre-
dominant. The great interdependence between sculpture and painting can
never be sufficiently emphasised, especially in the Hellenistic age.
Let us now see what value these brief observations have for determining
the style of the statue. It has been up till now almost universally attributed
to Lysippus, but recently Prof. Amelung 58 has, on a pretended analogy with
the portrait of Menander, given it to Kephisodotos and Timarchos, the sons
of Praxiteles, and Dr. Ghislanzoni thinks that the statue from Gyrene supports
68 Amorer, i. 1., w. 21-24. " Daremberg and Saglio, i. p. 390.
*• Loewy : Nature in Greek Art, p. 12 . " Helbig : Fiihrer, 3rd ed., i. p. 428.
HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM CYRENE 245
this theory.59 Prof. Mariani, on the other hand, still clings to the older
attribution, and I am firmly convinced that this is the correct view. If the
restorations I have outlined above are carefully considered, the figure of Eros
obtains a degree of movement that could only have been thought out by
Lysippus. The arms and legs are all in varied and contrary motion, and the
play of the muscles, ' Muskelspiel,' 60 the real characteristic of the master,
becomes remarkably emphasised. Seen in what I believe to be the correct
position, it acquires more markedly than any other statue the tridimensionality
which Lysippus first introduced into Greek sculpture. Loewy described the
Eros as the Apoxyomenus seen sideways 61 : seen from the correct angle it
becomes almost identical with the Apoxyomenus not only in rhythm but also
in position. The right shoulder is advanced in the same way as in the so-called
Jason in the Louvre. Even if we admit the traces of Attic influence in the
head, this is no reason for rejecting the Lysippean character of the whole.
Those critics who consider both the Agias and the Apoxyomenus the work
of the same master 62 have much more to explain. Finally, the great popu-
larity of the Eros (there must be now some forty copies in existence) is sufficient
evidence that the original cannot have been by the sons of Praxiteles, or else
Pliny M would hardly have failed to mention it. Moreover, Pliny considers
them as essentially sculptors in marble, while there is no need to enumerate
all the reasons that prove the original of the Eros to have been in bronze.
The new statue from Gyrene is a remarkably accurate copy. Not only
has it preserved unaltered the original position, but its technical execution
shows, especially in the treatment of the hair, a careful copying from bronze.
But this general excellency is marred by the removal of the wings, which are
present in all other replicas. The artist has not stopped here, but has thickened
the dorsal muscles to such an extent that the back is quite deformed. This
proves that the copy is an accurate one, for the copyist was no real artist,
but merely a marble cutter who, had he departed from his model in any other
particular, could not have produced such a pleasing work. The reason the
wings were removed is probably that the copy was meant to stand acrainst a
wall, and we may therefore suppose that in the original they were not spread
out as far as in the Capitoline type, but were much closer together.
Is the Eros with the bow a copy of the famous statue by Lysippus which
stood in Thespiae? This is a far more difficult problem. The only positive
evidence in its favour is its great popularity. If the Eros in Naples is a copy
of the statue of Praxiteles,64 we might consider the Eros with the bow to have
been executed almost in emulation. It represents the Eros of Naples in action ;
the motive of the bow places him in more direct connexion with the spectator,
but since the former attribution is very hypothetical, the latter must remain
still more so.
In this paper I have no space in which to notice many other discoveries
•• Notiziario, ii. p. 50. Delphi, p. 286.
•° Loewy : Ly.iipp, p. 26, passim. M xxxvi. 24.
•' La Scullura Greca, p. 112. •* Collignon : Histoin, ii. 267. Furt-
0 Collignon : Lysippe, p. 31. Poulsen : ~ Vgler : Masterpieces, pp. 317 ff.
J.H.S. — VOL. XI. I. s
246 HELLENISTIC SCULPTURE FROM CYRENE
of interest, but I hope the few I have described are sufficient to make the
English archaeological public realise the great importance of the excavations
in Libya. In the exploration of this region Englishmen in the past have taken
an honourable place, and it is much to be regretted that the results of Smith
and Porcher's excavations at Gyrene in 1860 have received so little attention
from archaeologists. Over a hundred statues from this site are now in the
British Museum, many of them of great merit, and yet they are nearly all
unknown. Perhaps when they alone represented Cyrenean art this indifference
could be excused, but now that a regular archaeological exploration of the
region has begun they acquire a far greater value. The sculpture from Gyrene
should be studied as one indissoluble whole ; only thus will we be able to
understand the artistic activity of this remote Greek colony. The rise,
greatness and fall of ancient civilisation in Africa is a subject of equal
interest to the archaeologist, to the historian, and to the philosopher.
GILBERT BAGNANI.
Rome, 1921.
ON A MINOAN BRONZE GROUP OF A GALLOPING BULL AND
ACROBATIC FIGURE FROM CRETE.
WITH GLYPTIC COMPARISONS AND A NOTE ON THE OXFORD
RELIEF SHOWING THE TAUROKATHAPSIA.
THANKS to the kindness of its owner, Captain E. G. Spencer-Churchill,
I am able to describe a remarkable Minoan bronze object found in Crete, in
the shape of a galloping bull with an
acrobatic figure turning a back somer-
sault over his back, both modelled in
the round. Views of the group as seen
in its original state from the front and
side are given in Figs. 1 and 2.
The length of the bull at full stretch
is 0*156 m., and the height of the group
is 0'114 m. Beneath the forefeet of the
animal is a metal attachment of angular
form, upright in front. It must in some
way have served the same purpose of
holding the bronze in position as the
tangs or nail-like projections visible in
the case of many figurines of the votive
class. The bull may have been held in
some kind of framework, and it is
probable that the hind-legs were fixed
in a similar way.
The high action and skilful model-
ling of this animal is altogether unique
among the relics of Minoan metallurgic
craft. The bronze bulls and other
animals frequent in the votive deposits
of the Cretan caves, from the closing
Middle Minoan Period onwards, are
uniformly represented in a standing
position, and cannot compare with the
present example for excellence of execu-
tion. At the epoch when this object
was made it is clear that the art of
bronze casting was already very far
advanced, indeed the casting o^on , •
acrobatic figure above in one p'
1. — FRONT VIKW OF GROUP.
s2
I
FIG. 2. — o.
-.ale 1 : 1.)
ON A MINOAN BRONZK <;i:nrp FROM CRKTK
the bull must be regarded as a real tour de force of the early metal-worker's
craft. The figure itself is attached to the animal both by the feet and by
the long tresses of his hair, which are drawn together into a kind of pigtail for
the purpose.
Though, as is noted below, the arrangement has been simplified by the
stumping off of the acrobat's fore-arms, it is still so complicated that we must
Fio/_3. — o. GALLOPING BULL AND ACROBATIC FIGURE ON TIRYNS FRKSCO.
6. 'OFFERTORY' BULL ON PAINTED SARCOPHAGUS, HAOIA TRIADA.
suppose that the whole group had been first very carefully modelled in some
plastic material, such as wax. The bronze is not hollow as in the later cire
perdu process ; on the other hand, there is no trace of a joint such as is often
left by a double mould. The surface, as is usual in Minoan bronze figures, is
somewhat rough and certain features lack definition.
The full stretch of the bull's legs conforms to the ' flying gallop ' scheme *
1 See S. Reinach, ' La representation du galop dans 1'art ancien et moderne ' (Rev.
Arch., 1900-1901).
250
ARTHUR EVANS
very characteristic of painted representations of this class, and of which we
have examples in the fresco panels of the Knossian Palace and at Tiryns
(Fig. 3a). It is well illustrated by a bull on one of the Vapheio cups. It is
also frequent on seals and seal-impressions exhibiting such subjects. This
' flying gallop,' as I have elsewhere shown,2 was already a feature of Cretan
Art by the close of the Second Middle Minoan Period. In Egypt, however,
it only comes into vogue, in the wake apparently of Minoan influences, under
the New Empire.3
That this was in fact regarded as the typically sacred attitude is shown
by the small figures of bulls borne by ministrants as offerings to the departed
on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus (Fig. 36), which, as Dr. Paribeni has well
observed, are simply copies of the standard Minoan type of galloping bull
FIG.
, 6, c. ACROBATIC FIGURE.
on the frescoes.4 For sacrificial victims borne in the hands of votaries such an
attitude is in itself quite out of place.
As is so generally the case in such Minoan representations, the human
figure performing the acrobatic feat — marvellous as that feat seems to us —
is from the artist's point of view a secondary consideration. The sacred animal
— for such he must be regarded — is, as usual, rendered on a proportionately
larger scale and in a grander manner.
The small human figure itself (see Fig. 4 a, 6, c) apart from the conventional
attenuation of the waist, is, however, finely executed and even the features of
the face, though abnormally diminutive and incompletely brought out by
the casting, were carefully rendered by the artist. The sinewy development of
form, due to athletic training, is also well indicated. As is often the case with
Minoan figures, the legs are disproportionately long, and measure from the sole
* Palace of Minos, Vol. I. p. 714, seqq.
3 See loc. cit.
* Mon. Ant., xix. (1908), p. 28.
ON A MINOAN BRONZE GROUP FROM CRETE 251
to the waist-band 62 mm. as compared with 45 for the upper part of the body.
The lower parts of the legs from the knee to the ankle are wanting.
It must, however, be observed, that, mainly, no doubt, owing to the
limitations of metal technique — still far from mature — the freedom of
execution in this case does not by any means attain to the elan visible in the
leaping youth from the Ivory Deposit at Knossos, which must be regarded
as a more or less contemporary work.
As to the male sex of the figure there can be little doubt, though, so far
as these feats of the Minoan taurokathapsia in its various aspects were con-
cerned, the performers seem to have been, almost indifferently, of either sex.
On the best preserved of the fresco panels from Knossos a girl, distinguished
by her white skin, is seen seizing the horns, while a youth, coloured red according
to the invariable convention, turns a back somersault over the bull's back,
and a second girl behind seems to be about to catch him. On what must be
regarded as the most artistic fragment of these frescoes 5 we again see a female
figure, as well as on a fragment of a miniature group from the Queen's Megaron.
The figure, moreover, seizing the bull's horns on the Tiryns fresco, from its
pale colour must unquestionably be recognised as a girl. In these cases the
drapery round the waist of the female performers, in all its arrangements,
even in the indications of the sheathed member, is made to conform with the
male fashion. The coiffure, too, of the young performers of both sexes, with
its side locks and flowing tresses behind, at first sight leaves little to choose.
At the same time the regular arrangement of small curls over the forehead,
such as is seen, for instance, in the case of some of the Knossian figures, may
be regarded as a female characteristic. Otherwise the slim athletic bodies
of the two sexes present few points of difference, a female breast, however,
being clearly rendered in the case of the hindmost figure in the Knossian
panel referred to above.
In the designs of similar figures to be found in metal-work and on a
numerous series of seal-types, where we have no colour conventions to guide
us, the difficulty in distinguishing the sex of the performers becomes much
greater. It appears certain, however, that the figure clinging to the bull's
horns in the scene on one of the Vapheio cups is that of a girl. Compared
with that of the cowboy falling beneath the animal, not only is a certar
pectoral development manifest, but the tresses of the hair are much mr^
luxuriant, and here, too, we remark the characteristic row of short
across the forehead. In the case of the youth the flowing tresses behi 3
replaced by a single pigtail. r
There is a kind of bunched forelock in the bronze figure of t ,
group, but there is no trace of the formally arranged curls. Abou* / £
ment of the hair behind there is nothing distinctive, two r/
are traceable, and the whole is drawn together with the tec'
affording an attachment to the top of the bull's head. The
pectoral muscles themselves showing only a slight develr
we are bound to conclude that the figure in this case ip
• To be published in Vol. II of Palace of Minos and in my .'
252 ARTHUR EVANS
The girdle is rather broad,6 and the drapery about the loins with the flap
behind, just covering the buttocks, conforms to that of the figures on the
Knossian scenes referred to and of the Vapheio cups. The costume, in other
words, answers to that in vogue in the First Late Minoan Period among those
who took part in such sports.
At one point indeed, as already observed, the craftsman's resources alto-
gether failed him. The requirements of plastic art in the round made it
necessary to find the support for the upper as well as the lower part of the
figure in the acrobatic position in which the artist caught it, and this, as we
have seen, was obtained by bunching together the hair so as to form a kind
of stem rising in one piece from the bull's head. This expedient was resorted
to in order to give a second support to the revolving figure of the boy, since it
is necessary to suppose that his hands had already released their hold of the
bull's horns, and that the arms could not therefore be legitimately used for
attachment.
At the same time the arms, with a backward direction after losing contact
with the bull's head, would have crossed the line of the connecting stem formed
by the youth's hair, and this complication of the design was clearly beyond the
artificer's powers. He therefore solved the difficulty by stumping off the
arms at the elbows.
The point in the acrobat's course which the bronze group aims at illus-
trating may be best understood by means of the annexed diagrammatic
sketch '(Fig. 5).
(1) Shows the charging bull seized by the horns near their tips.
(2) The bull has raised his head in the endeavour to toss his assailant,
and at the same time gives an impetus to the turning figure.
(3) The acrobat has released his grip of the horns, and after completing
a back somersault has landed with his feet on the hinder part of the bull's
back. This is the moment in the performance of which a representation
is attempted in the bronze group, but the upper part of the body is
there drawn much further back and dangerously near the bull's head,
owing to the technical necessity of using the bunched locks of hair as a
support.
In (4) he makes a final leap from the hind-quarters of the bull — a most
fJOT^&cult feat, as he would naturally be thrown violently forward. This part
is frofe6 performance, indeed, would have been so likely to cause broken limbs
_ for s^ seems to have been usual to station an attendant to catch the leaping
larger scaanc^ thus arrest his fall.
The s^e Des* preserved of the Knossian panels a female figure is seen about
attenuation o\ youth, who is turning a back somersault from the bull's back,
the face, thouY the same arrangement occurs on a remarkable agate lentoid
the casting, were - - —
form, due to athlet^ob fe visible on the recently published by Mr. F. N. Pryce
Minoan figures, the let It is possibly an (J.H.S., xli. Pt. I. PL I. ; and cf. p. 88).
__ _ * those on the sides 7 Executed, in accordance with my sug-
1 Palace of Minos, Vol. I.se of the Minoan gestions, by Mr. Theodore Fyfe, F.B.I.B.A.
8 See loc. cit. British Museum
ON A MINOAN BRONZE GROUP FROM CRETE
253
=
£
9
j
5
7.
-
I
H
a
254
ARTHUR EVANS
from the Peloponnese.8 It is also illustrated, moreover, by a clay seal
impression from the Temple Repositories at Knossos in connexion with an
acrobatic performance more nearly corresponding with that of which we see
the penultimate phase in the bronze group (Fig. 6).9 In this representa-
tion the acrobatic figure, the position of which is somewhat affected by the
amount of field available on the signet, is performing a back somersault over
the bull's head, and may have been intended to alight on its hind-quarters
in the same way as in the bronze group, previous to his final leap into the arms
of the attendant. It is possible, however, that in thi^ case the intermediate
position of rest was omitted, and the acrobat landed without a break after
his release from the bull's horns. This, at any rate, he seems to have done
in a scene on another seal impression from the Knossian Palace (Fig. 7).10
It is noteworthy that both these seal-impressions occurred in deposits dating
from the close of the Third Middle Minoan Period (M.M. III. b.).
The nearest approach to the actual attitude of the youthful performer
FIG. 6. — CLAY SEALING FKOM TEMPLE
REPOSITORY, KNOSSOS.
FIG. 7. — CLAY SEAL IMPRESSION,
CORRIDOR OF BAYS, KNOSSOS.
in the bronze group is supplied by a clay impression, of approximately the
same date as the others, from the Zakro Hoard (Fig. 8),11 though here
again we must allow for a certain lowering of the upper part of the performer's
body due to space conditions of the gem, in this case apparently a lentoid.
As I have shown elsewhere,12 this representation belongs to an interesting
series in which a record is preserved of the ' triple gradation ' such as that
which supported the painted reliefs on the walls of the Great East Hall at
Knossos. In this case the globules below give a further architectonic indica-
tion of a dado border, either with round coloured disks reminiscent of the
beam ends beneath an architrave, or of their decorative equivalent, the
linked spirals, such as are fully shown on some Minoan gem types. These
11 See op. cit. p. 686, Fig. 504 a. This
impression has been re-drawn for me from
a cast kindly supplied by Dr. Hogarth. In
the original publication, owing to a mis-
interpretation of the acrobat's arm, the
animal had been described as a goat.
12 Op. cit. I. pp. 687, 688.
8 To be published in Palace of Minos,
etc., Vol. II. The gem is in my own col-
lection.
» See Palace of Minos, Vol. I. p. 694,
Fig. 514.
10 From a hoard of sealings found by the
entrance of the Corridor of the Bays. Op.
cit. I. p. 686, Fig. 504, d.
ON A MINOAN BRONZE GROUP FROM CRETE 255
features are of great interest as indicating that the scheme, of which we have
a small version executed in the round in the bronze group, belongs to a class
of painted reliefs that had, as we know, already appeared on the Palace walls
ot KHOSSOS in the last Middle Minoan Period.
It will be seen that the bronze group with which we are at present con-
cerned, and the representations of the seal-types and painted stucco panels
above described, belong to a special branch of the Minoan taurokathapsia,
to be distinguished from that which concerned itself with the capture by
trained ' cowboys ' of either sex, of wild or half-wild bulls in the open. We
have here to do with much more artificial performances, which clearly took
place in some ' arena ' prepared for the purpose. The course of the bull in these
cases can only be conceived in an area of round or oval shape enclosed by
barriers. What we witness, in fact, are the feats of the Circus, performed in
honour of the great Minoan Goddess, and doubtless overlooked by her pillar
shrine, such as we see it in the Knossian Miniature Fresco. That on either side
of this were grand stands crowded with spectators,
appears, moreover, not only from the fresco panel
but from the introduction of the characteristic pillars
of these stands between representations of scenes of
the taurokathapsia on steatite rhytons.13
It further appears that the remarkable painted
stucco fragment found by Schliemann in the area of
the tomb circle at Mycenae, in which women are seen
looking out from a sanctuary window — connected,
as we now know, with the cult of the Double Axe
— stood in relation to a spectacle of the same kind.14
With it, in fact, was found another fragment in the
same semi-miniature style, showing part of the back Fu;. 8. —CLAY SEALING,
of a bull with the hands of a turning acrobatic figure
above its back.15
Another interesting conclusion may be drawn from the characteristic
incident of the tumbler caught by the figure who emerges at the critical
moment with outstretched arms. It is evident that such immediate aid,
necessary in these cases to avoid broken limbs, could only have been given if
a relay of ' catchers ' had been set at close intervals, possibly in some recesses
arranged for the purpose along the borders of the course.
The acrobat, however, may not always have been caught in this manner.
One of the Knossian frescoes referred to shows a youth springing down behind
the bull with his right arm thrown back and the left forward, almost touching
the border of the panel on that side, without any sign of another performer
ready to catch him. So, too, on another very beautifully executed fragment
we see an alighting female figure by herself in a somewhat similar attitude.
The border of the panel is not shown, however, in this instance, and it cannot
be regarded as certain in either case that no trained assistance was rendered.
13 See op. cit. p. 688, »eqq. PI. IX. (cf. Palace of Minos, L p. 344,
11 Kodenwaldt, Ath. MiUh. xxxvi. 1911. Fig. 320). " Ibid.
256 ARTHUR EVANS
It is noteworthy that in the two representations of the Knossian fresco
panels in which a female ' taureador ' is seen grappling the horns of the
charging bull, the action seems to be performed by a dash from the side —
indeed it is difficult to see how anyone standing in the direct course of the
animal could avoid injury.
To the same group with these Circus scenes, — at least as regards the
artificial arrangement of the surroundings, — must be referred the remarkable
tour deforce, illustrated by a gem, of a small acrobatic figure springing down
from some coign of vantage to grapple the head of a bull while he is engaged in
drinking at a high square basin. The palatial connexions of this scene are
well brought out by the remarkable fact that the decoration of the tank,
consisting of a lattice-work square with diagonals, corresponds with that of
the painted stucco preserved on two recesses on either side of the North
entrance of the Central Court at Phaestos.16
The actual enclosure of the Circus round which the bulls ran in the usual
type of those ' Corridas,' may well have been, as generally in Spain and
Southern France to-day, a wooden palisade. In that case it is hardly .probable
that the actual remains of such will come to light.
That these artificial sports of the ' bull-ring ' standing in a sacral connexion
go back in Crete at least to the beginning of the Middle Minoan Age, is made
probable by the subject of two M.M. I. rhytons in the form of a bull found in
the early ossuary tholos of Messara. There we see three small acrobatic figures
clinging to a bull's head and horns in a symmetrical manner more suggestive of
Circus performances than of the grappling of the wild animal.17 It appears
indeed from a cylinder impression on a sealed clay envelope from Cappadocia,18
dated by Sayce at about 2400 B.C., that sports of a similar nature had existed
at a still earlier epoch on that side. A bull is there seen kneeling, with a throne-
like structure on his back. A man appears in front, with his face on the
ground and feet in the air, falling on his left arm and with his right stretched
out backwards, while to the right is a man standing on his head.
One fact that is clearly brought out by the bull rhyton with the acrobatic
figures is, that by the epoch to which it belongs, that is c. 2000 B.C., the long-
horned Urus breed of cattle was already introduced into Crete. The earlier
indigenous class, a form of shorthorn, Bos Creticus of Boyd Dawkins, was
indeed not well adapted for such a form of sport.
The Urus, or Bos primigenius, is the characteristic wild ox of prehistoric
Europe. But its range certainly extended over a large Western Asiatic tract.
Varro speaks of wild bulls in the Troad in the first century B.C.19 Already in
the Sumerian period, moreover, as appears from the copper bulls' heads of
Tello and other evidence, it was found on the Mesopotamian plains. The
struggles of Gilgamesh and Ea-Bani, as seen on early cylinders, are, in fact,
16 See on this Palace of Minos, i. p. 377 18 Pinches, Liverpool Annals of Archaeo-
and Fig. 274. logy and Anthropology, i. p. 76 seqq., No. 23.
17 Palace of Minos, i. p. 189 and Figs. 19 Also in Thrace (De Re Rustica, ii.
1376. c, d. Cf. Mosso, Scavi di Greta, p. 11).
184, Fig. 86.
ON A MINOAN BRONZE GROUP FROM CRETE
257
a real anticipation of sports which in the ensuing age make their appearance
in Cappadocia and Crete.
The Circus performances themselves must be regarded as a secondary
offshoot of the prowess of early hunters and herdsmen. And this more
primitive class of cowboy feats not only continued to jpo-exist with the other,
but formed, as we know from the Vapheio vases and other sources, an almost
equally favoured theme of the Minoan artists. It had, indeed, much grander
potentialities and was also more fertile in tragic episodes.
It is noteworthy that the Greek traditions of the bull-grappling feats of
Theseus and Herakles clearly acknowledge a Minoan source. It was at the
behest of Eurystheus, King of Mycenae, that Herakles captured the Cretan
bull, received by Minos from Poseidon. In the case of the Marathonian bull,
the feat which, according to the Athenian legend, had been unsuccessfully
attempted by Androgeos, son of Minos, was achieved by the national hero,
Theseus.
FIG. 9. — OXFORD MARBLE RELIEF OF TAUROKATHAPSIA.
It is true that in the later versions of the bull-grappling sports, whether
in the open or in the arena, horses play a part. But with an equestrian race
this may well have been a natural development.
The feats indeed, mutatis mutandis, were much the same. Thus one
particular method of using a coign of vantage to spring at the bull's head,
and so to overthrow the monster by a dexterous twist, of which we have
hints in Minoan representations, was a well-known tour deforce of the Thessalian
horsemen. This feat entered into the programme of the Circus sports of the
' taurokathapsia,' introduced by Claudius,20 when the Thessalian riders first
wearied the animals by driving them round the arena, and then brought them
down by jumping on them and seizing their horns. A special class of gladia-
torial ravpoKaOdtnai, thus sprang up, recorded in inscriptions.21 The best
10 Suetonius, Claud. 21. Thessalos
equitos qui feros tauros per spatia agunt
insiliuntque defessos et ad terrain cornibus
detrahunt. Cf. Dio Case. Ixi. 9. Accord-
ing to Pliny (H. N. viii. 172), Caesar, as Dic-
tator, first introduced the sport. The action
of the TaupoKoflciirTTi* is described in detail
by Heliodoros (Aethiop. x. 30), writing in
Theodosius' time, and in an epigram of
Philippos (Anth. Pal. Lx. 543 Did.). Cf.
Max. Meyer (Jahrb. d. arch. I tut. vii. 1S93,
pp. 74, 75).
11 r./.G'. iii. 114.
258
ARTHUR EVANS
illustration of these Circus sports is to be seen in the Greco-Roman relief from
Smyrna, in the Ashmolean Museum,** illustrating a scene of " the second day
of the taurokathapsia." The riders are represented by boys, wearing round the
middle part of their bodies the leather bands, or fasciae, that distinguished the
aurigae of the Roman Circus. The relief is for the first time photographically
reproduced in Fig. 9.
I am informed that the method of the sport here illustrated exactly
corresponds with certain cowboy feats still practised in the Wild West of
America. Young bulls or steers are there pursued on horseback till the rider,
springing at their horns, throws them over and, as is shown in the relief, pins
the animal down by sitting on its head. According to Pliny,23 however, in the
case of the Thessalian sport the performer was able by a violent twist of the
neck to kill the animal. Such
a termination of the encounter
would, have eminently suited
the taste of the Roman spec-
tators.
It appears, moreover, that
the earlier practice of tackling
the bull on foot was still a
recognised form of the sport.
On the obverse of fifth-century
coins of Larissa and other
Thessalian cities, though the
national emblem, a galloping
horse, is seen on the reverse,
a youth appears on foot grap-
pling with a bull's horns and
head and endeavouring to
overthrow it. This earlier
Thessalian version is practic-
ally identical with that which recurs in some representations of Theseus and
the Minotaur. But the Herculean feat — matched by those of Gilgamesh in
his struggles with Ea-bani — very closely recalls a scheme of which we have
more than one version on late Minoan seal types.
The most characteristic of these designs are seen on some lentoid gems, or
their clay impressions, showing a convoluted arrangement that marks the full
adaptation of such subjects to a round field. This class of intaglio is very
characteristic of the closing phase of L.M. I. and of the last Palace Period at
Knossos (L.M. II.). A very good example of the type is supplied by a clay seal
impression belonging to the Fifth Magazine there, which is countermarked
by a barred 2 sign and endorsed with sign groups of the linear Class B.
22 Chandler, Marmora Oxoniensia, ii. gentis inventum est, equo juxta quadrn-
p. 58 (cf. Michaelis, Ancient Marbles, etc., pedante, cornu intorta cervice tauros
p. 673, No. 136). necare."
23 Plin. H. N. viii. 172 : " Theswalorum
FIG. 10. — CLAY SEALING L.M. II. DEPOSIT,
KNOSSOS, WITH COTJNTERMAKK OMITTED.
ON A MINOAN BRONZE GROUP FROM CRETE
The countermark somewhat interferes with the effect of the design,24 which is,
however, clearly shown in a sketch, made for me by Mr. Fyfe, in which this
feature is omitted, Fig. 10. A man wearing the usual peaked helmet,
doubtless adorned with rows of boars' tushes, and exhibiting the usual loin
attire and foot-gear, has one arm over the bull's nearer horn, which he grasps
close to its root, while with the other hand he presses on the animal's lower jaw.
On a banded agate lentoid from Mycenae we see a much weaker version
of a similar scheme in a reversed position (Fig. II),25 and a similar design,
in this case boldly cut, appears on a green jasper lentoid from the same site
(Fig. 12).28 Here the man holds the tip of the bull's further horn with his left
hand and grasps the nozzle with his right.
The very prominent nose of the Knossian seal impression, Fig. 10,
FII:. 11.— BANDED AGATE LENTOID, MYCENAE. FIG. 12. — GREEN JASPER LENTOID, MYCENAE.
which is still further accentuated in the hooked type seen on the last-mentioned
gem, recalls the proto-Armenoid physiognomy of what appears to have been a
Minoan priest-king, represented on a seal-impression from the Hieroglyphic
Deposit at Knossos, of M.M. II. date.27 This, indeed, may have a real
significance in showing that such feats were a special tradition of the old
Anatolian stock in Crete.
Herculean feats such as the above, repeated thus in Minoan gem types,
may well embody the traditional prowess of some godlike hero of the ancient
stock. The Athenian tale of the great athletic champion Androgeos, the son
of Minos, who grappled — in this case to his ruin — with the Marathonian bull,
may well refer to the original subject of these designs. ARTHUR EVANS.
14 For the seal-impression as counter-
marked, see Scripta Minoa, I. p. 43, Fig. 20.
21 Furtwangler, Antikc Oemmen, iii. p. 49,
Fig. 28.
*• Drawn for me by Gillieron : See, too,
Perrot, Orice primitive, vi. Fig. 426, 24 (and
of. Furtw. loc. cit. Fig. 28); A. Reichel,
Ath. Mitth. 1909. PL II. 5 A poor design
on a cornelian 'flattened cylinder' from
Phaestos (Savignoni, Mon. Ant. 1905,
p. 625, Fig. 97 6) may be also cited. A
half-kneeling man seizes a bull by the tips
of both horns. The bull stands in an atti-
tude like the conventional suckling cow.
17 Palace of Minos, L p. 8, Fig. 2o.
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921
THE following report has been compiled at the request of the Editors of
the Journal of Hellenic Studies and has been made as complete as the short
notice given has allowed. I have to thank my colleagues of the Greek
Archaeological Service and of the other foreign schools in Athens for the inform-
ation, which they have so courteously placed at my disposal. Thanks are also
due to the Managing Committee of the British School for permission to give a
brief account of its latest work.
AMERICAN SCHOOL.
In the spring of 1920 Miss Walker conducted careful and scientific excava-
tions at Corinth, on and around the hill where stands the Temple of Apollo,
in the hope of obtaining further stratified evidence to illustrate the prehistoric
inhabitation of the site. The area dug had been considerably disturbed by the
building of the temple and by Roman alterations. On the south side of the
temple in the lowest stratum, amid the debris of what were probably rude
huts, were found quantities of pottery resembling that of the First Thessalian
Period, and in the upper portions there appeared wares more closely related
to the Second than to the First Thessalian Period. On the north side the
deposit produced no pottery resembling that of the First Thessalian Period,
but wares contemporaneous with the Second and an almost equal quantity of
Early Helladic pottery. To the south-west of the Temple Hill other trial pits
produced principally Early Helladic ware, though there were occasional frag-
ments related to the Second and Third Thessalian Periods. All the areas
yielded obsidian knives and stone implements of the usual types, and one
piece of a marble vase similar to those of the Cyclades was also discovered.
The publication of these finds, which are very important for determining the
relative dates of the first three Thessalian periods and the Early Helladic Age,
will be awaited with great interest.
In 1921 an expedition of the school under the leadership of Dr. C. W. Blegen,
who very kindly invited members of the British School to take part, con-
ducted excavations on the mound of Zygouries near the village of Hagios
Vasileios in the plain of Kleonai, and to the east of the site of the ancient city.
Here remains of all three Helladic periods were found, though the mound had
been somewhat telescoped and had suffered from Christian, probably Byzantine,
occupation. On the top the ruins of a considerable Early Helladic settlement
were laid bare, including part of a narrow street and several houses. The
houses are in plan generally rectangular, and seem to have had flat roofs with
walls of crude brick resting on a low stone foundation. Some had more than
260
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921 261
one room, though the largest was apparently a one-roomed house. But it,
like many of the others, had in one corner a row of three or more pithoi for
keeping produce or household stores. The street was paved with gravel
mixed with potsherds and off it there seemed to be one or two small alleys.
The pottery of this settlement was all Early Helladic, and a large number of
complete vases were found including several with simple painted decoration,
two ' sauceboats ' with spouts in the shape of a ram's head, and innumerable
specimens of the ordinary coated and uncoated Early Helladic wares. Other
small finds comprise a bronze dagger blade, a terra-cotta seal with signs that
resemble some of the earliest Minoan characters, and a small terra-cotta
figurine of a woman. • Above this settlement there had been one of the Middle
Helladic Period, but the ruins of this seem to have been swept away in Late
Helladic times, and most of the Late Helladic buildings had in their turn
suffered similarly in Christian times. One or two Middle Helladic graves were
found of the usual cist type known at Orchomenos and elsewhere. In one of
these were two small matt- painted vases and a necklace of crystal and paste
beads. In the Third Late Helladic Period a large and important house was
built on the east side of the mound, where two basement rooms were cleared,
which were full of unused pottery. There were so many vases that one can
only assume they were intended for trade rather than for household purposes.
One room yielded five store jars, one of which was extracted complete, and a
mass of broken kylikes. Of these latter some thirty with painted decoration
have been put together and many more will probably be restored, when the
detailed study of the pottery is undertaken. They make a most interesting
series and well illustrate the development of the Mycenaean kylix from the
Minyan goblet through Ephyraean ware. In the other room were not far short
of three hundred cooking pots of a casserole type, which had been piled in
rouleaux upside down, and been telescoped into one another by the collapse of
the roof. In spite of this, ten were extracted unbroken. The same room
produced three gigantic and six smaller stirrup- vases in fragments and quantities
of unpainted pottery, small saucers, scoops, jars and so on, very many of
which are still unbroken. In a drain trap just above were found a bronze
knife with an ivory handle and a small gem, while near by many fragments
of wall paintings came to light, unfortunately all too small for any design to be
made out. The importance of this excavation lies in the discovery of the
Early Helladic houses, the first so far found, and in the fine series of Late
Helladic III. domestic ware.
Recent exploring work has brought to light a neolithic mound in Arcadia,
between Mantineia and Tegea, with pottery of a northern type very similar
to that from Corinth. It thus seems that the so-called Thessalian or northern
culture was spread all over Greece in neolithic times, and that the Bronze Age
people of the Early Helladic Period were intruders from Crete or the islands, to
judge by the close kinship between the different kinds of pottery. This,
(on pled with the finding of Early Helkdic ware near Vaphio and Old Phaleron,
shows that the background of the Mycenaean Age on the mainland is daily
growing wider.
J.H.S.— VOL. XI. I. T
262 A. J. B. WAGE
BRITISH SCHOOL.
In 1920 and 1921 excavations were undertaken at Mycenae on the sugges-
tion of Sir Arthur Evans in an attempt to solve in the light of the Cretan
evidence some of the problems propounded by Schliemann and Tsountas. The
success of the excavations was partly due to the courtesy of Mrs. Schliemann,
who lent for reference her husband's original notebook of his excavations, and
to Professor Tsountas, who most unselfishly gave up his rights on the site in
favour of the School. The new investigations have been directed to three
main spheres, the Grave Circle, Lion Gate and surrounding area, the Palace
on the summit of the Acropolis, and the cemeteries.
The six Shaft Graves later enclosed within the Grave Circle were once
part of a cemetery, which lay on the hillside at this point just below where the
hard limestone stops and soft rock begins sloping down to the valley. Thus,
this was the nearest spot to the Acropolis rock suitable for a cemetery, as graves
could not be dug in the hard limestone. The cemetery began to be used in
Middle Helladic times (1800-1600 B.C.), for within the Circle on the east
Schliemann x found several and Stamatakes 2 found four Middle Helladic
graves, and now to the south underneath two Late Helladic III. houses (Ramp
and South Houses) four certain and three probable such graves have been dis-
covered. To the north of the Circle underneath the building known as The
Granary, which lies between the Lion Gate and the entrance to the Circle,
another Shaft Grave was found. The contents of this had been removed in
ancient times, but it still contained nineteen gold discs, some worked boars'
tusks, six beads of glass paste, and two crushed vessels of lead. This grave
seems later than the other six, but is probably not much later than the begin-
ning of the Second Late Helladic Period. It cannot be later than that period
because the Granary is an L.H. III. building. At the beginning of the Third
Late Helladic Period, when the great Cyclopean wall of the Acropolis was laid
out, the later palace built and the whole citadel replanned, it was found that
the intended line of the wall running south-west from the Lion Gate would
pass through the Royal Graves. Consequently the wall was made to bow
outwards so as to avoid them, and at the same time the Grave Circle itself
was constructed to enclose them within a kind of temenos and to preserve
their sacred character. A careful study of the levels recorded by Schliemann
has shown approximately the level of the sloping surface before the Grave
Circle was built and the area enclosed was terraced. That the Grave Circle
was an open space and not the base of a tumulus is proved by the finding of a
line of pavement slabs laid against the upright slabs on the inside and by the
erection of the stelai over the graves. These stelai are considered by Sir Arthur
Evans, Dr. Kurt Mueller and other authorities to be contemporaneous with
the interments; they must therefore have been lifted to the higher level when
the Grave Circle was made. The Ramp, the Granary, the House of the
Warrior Vase and other houses lying south of the Grave Circle are consequently
1 Schliemann, Mycenae, pp. 102 ff. 2 Tsountas-Manatt, Mycenaean Age, p. 97.
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921
later in date than the creation of the latter and the building of the Acropolis
walls, as Late Helladic III. pottery has been found below the floors of the
Granary and South House. Below the Ramp House a large number of frag-
ments of fresco came to light with L.H. I. and II. pottery. These fragments
are identical in style and subject with the fresco fragments found by Schlie-
mann,3 the exact provenance of which was unknown. One interesting piece
shows part of a bull against a blue ground, another two acrobats or bull-baiters,
and there are many pieces of a large frieze of iris or lilies, while the commonest
pattern is an imitation of wood graining which seems to indicate a Victorian
tendency in Mycenaean art.
On the summit of the Acropolis the palace found by Tsountas 4 has been
re-explored with most interesting results. Beneath the existing palace, which
seems to date back to the beginning of the Third Late Helladic Age, are the
scanty remains of an earlier building, probably that in which lived the kings
who were buried in the Shaft Graves. The fine staircase of approach from the
south had at least two flights with lobbies and landings, was lighted by a
window, and was on the whole no unworthy successor of the Grand Staircase
at Knossos. From the top of this one enters a room, which probably served
the same purpose as the Throne Room at Knossos, and the court, whence the
megaron and domestic quarters are reached. The hearth in the megaron
proves to have had ten layers of painted stucco and more fragments of the
frescoes from the walls were found badly burnt, but on the best preserved
can be seen an elaborate architectural background before which stands a lady
with auburn hair. The domestic quarters which lay higher up the hill — the
palace is built on a series of terraces and had at least two stories — have almost
vanished, but at one point are the remains of a stepped tank coated with red
stucco, which may have been a bath like the Knossian examples. On the other
side of the court a corridor leads to the Western Portal, a massive threshold of
conglomerate flanked outside by ashlar walls of poros. This entrance was
probably approached by a sloping passage through a propylon situated to the
north-west. Unfortunately on this side the palace ruins have suffered from
Hellenistic disturbance just as on the summit they were partly destroyed by
the foundations of the Doric temple. Interesting minor finds include a series
of small clay cups with different coloured paints — the palette of some long-
forgotten artist — a table of offerings of painted stucco on a backing of clay,
and part of a bull's head rhyton in steatite. Fragments of two more such
rhytons were found in a well which also yielded a clay sealing showing a sacred
pillar guarded by two quadrupeds. Over them fly two doves, while a third is
perched between the horns of consecration which crown the pillar. This sealing
is the first of its kind to be found on the mainland and shows that more such
sealings are to be expected, and perhaps also inscribed clay tablets like those
of Knossos.
A re-examination of the famous relief of the Lion Gate shows that the
main lines were cut out with saw and drill and that the figures thus blocked out
» Ath. Mitt. 1911, pp. 222 ff., PI. IX.;
Jahrbuch, 1919, PI. IX.
4 npa*Ti*a, 1886, pp. 59 ff., Pla. 4, 5.
T'2
264 A. J. B. WAGE
were finished with the chisel. The entrance to the Lion Gate has been cleared
of the fallen Cyclopean blocks, and the architectural appearance is now much
more imposing. It has also been discovered from the evidence of dowel holes
in the top blocks of the wings that the gate was roofed over inside, in the same
way in which modern entrance gateways in Greece are roofed. One of the
grave stelai found in situ by Schliemann 5 over the Fifth Shaft Grave has been
practically completed by two more pieces. The stele has a flat and not a gable
top and was divided into three registers of equal height. The upper and
lower registers contained purely decorative patterns (rosettes and spirals)
and between them was framed the central register representing a man in a
chariot. This fresh evidence for the shape and composition of the stelai is
most important.
Efforts to find earlier tombs outside have been most successful. In a
hitherto unexcavated area on th« north slope of Kalkani hill, a cemetery which
dates back to Late Helladic I. times has been discovered. One tomb has no
less than eight strata of interments. The first stratum is represented by the
remains of at least six skeletons swept into a pit in the floor of the chamber.
With them were some fine glass beads and a blue faience cylinder said to be
a Mycenaean copy of an Anatolian imitation of a type derived from Mesopo-
tamia. The pottery associated with them is of L.H. I. and II. types ; there
is a fine rhyton similar but superior to the splendid example from the Second
Shaft Grave, a typical L.H. I. saucer and three small alabastra. With the
third interment was a stirrup-vase of the Tell-el-Amarna style showing that this
and the later interments are of L.H. III. date. The fourth interment, presum-
ably a woman, had a long necklace of white crystal, cornelian and paste beads.
Of another tomb only the entrance passage has been cleared, but here were
found a set of seven painted clay alabastra, a large terra-cotta spindle-whorl
with a fine design of iris, a granulated gold bead, and six gems of which five
are of the finest style. One, an onyx, has a magnificent lion, two other onyxes
show respectively a cow suckling her calf — a scene full of sympathy — and two
couchant oxen. Two cornelians have identical representations of the Mother
Goddess arrayed in the usual flounced skirt and open bodice, with a fine rampant
lion on either side. Below her feet three lines make a kind of exergue — an
unusual feature — and above her head is a ritual object, formed apparently of
snakes, from the centre of which rises the sacred symbolic double axe. In
view of Hesychius' equalisation of 7re\e*t><? with /cuyS^Xt? we may see in her the
goddess Kybele or Rhea. Since one of these gems was found on the west and
the other on the east, they may have been so placed with the intention of giving
her protection to the dead amid the shades below. These and the other objects
found in the entrance dromos are archaeologically of the same date as the
Vaphio tomb, and so there are great hopes that when in the coming excavations
the chamber itself is cleared, really important objects will be found.
A re-examination of the Treasury of Atreus, the Tomb of Clytemnestra
and the other tholos tombs goes to show both from the finds and on architectural
6 Schliemann, Mycenae, p. 86, Fig. 141.
ARCHAEOLOGY IX GREECE, 1919-1921 265
grounds that these two tombs and the smaller perfect tholos tomb fall towards
the end of the series about the beginning of the Third Late Helladic Age.
This is naturally only a brief summary of the more interesting results,
but the amount of fresh information that has been collected is very great.
Mycenae was first inhabited in the Early Helladic Age, but does not seem to
have been very important. In Middle Helladic times it advanced in civilisa-
tion and towards the end of this period arose the dynasty whose princes were
laid in the Shaft Graves. About this time Mycenae rose to a high pitch of
power and wealth, and it is an open question whether this was due to conquest
and colonisation from Crete or to peaceful penetration by trade and the like.
Whatever the cause, the Middle Helladic culture of the mainland suddenly
became saturated with Minoan influence. In the first two phases of the Late
Helladic Age the underlying mainland element began by degrees to affect
more and more the imported Minoan style. The earlier beehive tombs are
probably those of the dynasty which succeeded the Shaft Grave dynasty.
Then with the Third Late Helladic Period Mycenae reached the zenith of its
dominion and riches, so well illustrated by the rebuilding of the palace, the
replanning of the city and the laying out of the gigantic fortifications, corre-
sponding so well with those at Tiryns, which the Germans have now proved to
be of the same date. The Treasury of Atreus agrees so well architecturally
with the Lion Gate that it is possible that the great king who built the
Cyclopean walls, built also for himself the Treasury of Atreus as his tomb, in
the same way in which in Egypt the pyramid building kings constructed each
for himself a tomb pyramid. The prominent features of this time were great
accuracy in architectural planning, and amazing mechanical and technical
skill in cutting hard stone and moving gigantic blocks : it was an age of
monumental engineering. It was a late period it is true, but the walls, palaces
and tombs of Mycenae and Tiryns prove that it was not degenerate.
The two campaigns at Mycenae have been an unqualified success; but
after another season's work in 1922, principally on the tombs, it has been
decided to suspend the excavation of this Homeric site in favour of a classical
one.
Two minor excavations were also carried out under the aegis of the School
in 1921. Professor P. N. Ure, assisted by his wife, made some additional
researches in the cemetery at Ritsona in Boeotia, which yielded such an
abundant harvest to the late Dr. Ronald Burrows and himself in 1907-1909.
Some forty more graves were discovered, of which the earliest belongs to the
' Geometric ' period, a considerable number show various phases of Corinthian
pottery, and the richest series were furnished with late black-figured vases,
Boeotian kylikes of the latest phase of the style, and innumerable black-glazed
kantharoi. In the latest graves the vases were almost all black-glazed cups
with occasional floral black-figured kylikes and small Proto-Corinthian skyphoi.
Terra-cotta figurines were fairly frequent in all types of graves except the
earliest, while beads, rings, strigils and other objects were also found. The
1 1 indes of burial were various and there were many cremation graves. The
evidence continues to point conclusively to single interments as the normal
266 A. J. B. WAGE
practice, and there is every prospect that the new series of graves will throw
further light on the chronology both of the pottery and the figurines, with
which they are so abundantly furnished.
The other was an experimental excavation on behalf of a research com-
mittee of the British Association conducted by Mr.* S. Casson at Tsaousitsa
in Macedonia. This site, which the excavator identifies with Kalindoia, is
large and complex, and has yielded objects ranging from neolithic to Roman
times.6 This year a cemetery was examined on a low mound where some
burials came to light during military excavations in the war. Fifteen graves
in all were found which yielded a large number of spiral armlets, pins, beads
and spectacle fibulae of bronze, iron knives, and several vases of strongly con-
trasted types. Some of the vases are plain red jugs with cutaway necks;
others have simple geometric ornamentation and are compared to the earlier
geometric or Marmariane-Theotokou ware of Thessaly; and some are ribbed
wheel-made vases of grey-black ware. The excavator thinks that no very
great period of time is covered by the burials on the mound, and dates the
culture they represent to between 1100 and 650 B.C. It is proposed to continue
the work in the spring, when scientific excavation should solve some of the
interesting problems raised by these finds, which the excavator associates
with the Dorians and Makednoi.
FRENCH SCHOOL.
In Argolis in 1920 the Mycenaean acropolis of Asine 7 near Tolon, seven
kilometres from Nauplia, was planned. The ancient fortifications were studied
and preparations made for the excavations which will be carried out there in
March 1922 by a Swedish archaeological expedition under the patronage of
H.R.H. The Crown Prince of Sweden.8
The exploration has been begun of a Pre-Mycenaean and Mycenaean site
near Schoinochori, which should be perhaps identified with Lyrkeia mentioned
by Pausanias. The human occupation of this site probably goes back at least
to the Middle Helladic Age, as Minyan ware was found. In the cemetery five
rock-cut chamber-tombs with short dromoi yielded vases, figurines and gems
of the Late Helladic Period, and some interesting observations on the funeral
customs of the age were also made.
In central Greece supplementary researches have been made at the sanc-
tuary of the Muses near Thespiai and at Thebes to prepare for the publication
of the results of the excavations of Jamot and de Ridder on these sites.
At Delphi work was carried on in 1920 and 1921, when studies of certain
portions of the hieron were continued and completed, especially with regard
to the Portico of Attalos and the terrace of the Apollo temple, while the Altar
of Chios has been partially reconstructed through the generosity of the modern
authorities of the island.9 At Marmaria the exploration of the lower archaeo-
• B.S.A. XXIII, pp. 29 if., 36 ff. ; 8 Bull, de la Soc. des Lettre* de Lund,
Antiquaries Journal, I., pp. 209 ff. 1920-21, p. 17 ff.
7 Renaudin, B.C.H., 1921, pp. 295 ff., • Replat, B.C.H., 1920, pp. 388 ff.
Pis. VIII-XII.
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921 267
logical strata has resulted in a fortunate series of finds which completely change
our ideas about the arrangement of the kieron of Athena Pronaia. A new part
of the enclosure has been found with a new entrance on the south-east, thus
enlarging the temenos to the east of the archaic altars; and bronzes, vase-
fragments and ruins of curved houses have been found on this side below the
stratum of the seventh century B.C. The two buildings hitherto considered
to be keroa (of Phylakos and possibly Autonoos) belong to a terrace of treasuries
analogous to those at Olympia. The temenos of Phylakos was probably to the
north of Marmaria where excavations will be undertaken. A collection of
votive offerings has been found in the second temple of Athena in poros. New
documents have furnished quite new material for the study of the two
treasuries,10 the Doric and the Aeolian, while to the west of the fourth century
tholos an archaic crypt has been discovered which was destroyed when the
limestone foundations of the temple of Athena were laid down. The founda-
tions of the Sikyonian Treasury in the hieron itself, which are largely composed
of the remains of rectangular and circular buildings, have been subjected to a
new examination to determine better the character of these earlier construc-
tions. MM. Colin and Courby have completed the publication of the monu-
ments of the temple terrace, and fresh soundings have been made in the theatre
in preparation for definite plans. By the way leading to Marmaria from the
east a necropolis of the sixth century was discovered, and one tomb here has
produced among other vases a fine alabastron signed by Pasiades and similar
to the example in the British Museum which was until now unique.
Delos. — An important inscription at Mykonos, a consular law passed by
the comitia in 58 B.C., which regulated the financial situation of Delos after the
war with the pirates, has been copied and commented upon. On the north-
east of the southern slope of Mount Kynthos a temenos of Artemis Eileithyia
has been cleared, together with an altar of the fifth century, and a small temple
and a series of marble votive reliefs of the third century. New discoveries
have also been made in the theatre in connection with the stage. The explora-
O f
tion of the hippodrome has been resumed and the tribune has been cleared.
In the neighbourhood several small sanctuaries have been found ; one of them
with a central row of columns is archaic. The vase-fragments have enabled
the Archegesion to be identified, and further to the south the clearance of an
avenue leading from the hieron to the gymnasium has been commenced.
Macedonia and Thracian Archipelago. — Round Philippi and at Philippi
itself important results have been obtained. Exploration of Mount Pangaion,
the plain north and south of Philippi, and the valley of the river of Nevrokop
has enabled the prehistoric sites of the Drama-Kavalla district to be mapped,
and eighty-six Greek and Latin inscriptions have been found, among which
may be noted a milestone of the Via Egnatia, the oldest yet known. At
Philippi excavations have brought to light the temenos of the Egyptian gods,
consisting of five parallel cellae with many inscriptions, and the shrine of
Silvanus, which is thirty metres west of the rock with the dedication of P. Hosti-
10 B.C.H., 1920, pp. 316 ff.
268 A. J. B. WACE
lius Philadelpheus. In the theatre the orchestra has been cleared and the
general plan of the basilica has been verified, but it does not agree very well
with that given by Strzygowski. u Shafts sunk in the prehistoric mound known
as Dikili Tash have yielded quantities of prehistoric pottery and many figurines,
especially animals. The study of the stratification of the pottery from this
important mound should provide a good sequence to form the basis of a classi-
fication of Macedonian prehistoric wares.
At Thasos the excavations interrupted by the war have been resumed,
and on the Acropolis the study of the fortifications has been completed. Here
a gigantic statue of Apollo Kriophoros three and a half metres high was dis-
covered ; it is unfinished, but is one of the largest examples of an archaic Apollo
yet found. In the lower town the general arrangement of the porticoes in the
agora has been determined, and in the northern portico an interesting fragment
of the medieval walls of the Gattelusi came to light. In the theatre the stage
buildings and the orchestra have been begun, and the arrangement of the
analemma and the Jcmlon has been made out and a study of the monumental
inscription of the orchestra balustrade has been undertaken. Near the spring
Archouda outside the walls the temenos of Archouda has been identified, with
a large archaic altar and a sixth century temple.
Asia Minor. — At Notion the interrupted work has been taken up again,
although the excavation house had been destroyed during the war. On the
Acropolis the general topography has' been ascertained. In particular the
discovery of the Athenaion to the west fixes for us the division of the city,
of which the eastern half even at the end of the fifth century was still occupied
by the Persians. Certain buildings are repeated on either side of the diatei-
chisma mentioned by Thucydides ;12 there were, for instance, two agorai.
The Athenaion has been completely cleared and its identification is verified
by an inscription. It has a closed peribolos with an entrance to the north-east,
four Doric porticoes, a sacrificial altar and a temple, which in its present state
is of Roman date and of the Corinthian order. Many votive figurines of terra-
cotta were found and some fragments of the cult-statue. The necropolis
has been located, and an exploring journey between Teos and Lebedos has
yielded a bag of about eighty new inscriptions, while the Proto-Ionian site of
Poyteichides has been identified.
Crete. — At Mallia, some nine hours east of Candia on the north coast of the
island, operations have been commenced at Kato Chrysolakkos, some four
hundred and fifty metres north-east of the palace (Ano Chyrsolakkos) found by
Dr. Chatzidakis in 1917-18.13 So far attention has been directed to a square
building with thick ashlar walls of the same date as the palace and with an
opening to the west. This was perhaps a sanctuary : in it has been found still
in situ a column of clay coated with red stucco with flutings of a novel type.
Many small objects of obsidian, steatite, marble, a Minoan seal, and pottery
of the Middle and Late Minoan Periods were found. To the same periods
11 Baukunst d. Armenier, pp. 843, 846, 1S 'Apx- AfArf^- IV. (1918),
Fig. 798. pp. 12 ff.
" III. 34.
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921 :_'<;<)
belong vases of stone and clay found in the adjoining houses and in the
cemetery, though some specimens reach to a post-Minoan period. Three
polychrome larnakes were also unearthed.
GERMAN SCHOOL.
The only excavation actually undertaken was a small trial by Professor
Studniczka near the Monument of Lysicrates in Athens, which was afterwards
carried on by Dr. Philadelphefs with the assistance of Dr. Welter. Dr. Noack
continued his work on the fortifications of Acarnania and Aetolia, and his
researches into the history of the Telesterion at Eleusis. This latter study
produced important results and throws further light on the plans of Kimon
and Iktinos. It appears that the latter's plan was never carried out by him,
as he was probably relieved of the work when Phidias and the Periclean party
fell into disfavour, and its completion was then entrusted to the three architects
mentioned by Plutarch. This would account for many of the peculiarities
and shows that the original plan of a large columnar hall goes back beyond
the time of Pericles, probably to that of Kimon. This fact, taken in con-
nection with the discovery of the Odeion of Pericles in Athens, gives a fresh
aspect to Athenian architecture of the fifth century. It was also found that
the earlier roadway did not follow the line taken by the later entrance through
the Roman propylaea, but ran more to the south-east. At Tiryns Dr. Kurt
Mueller has been continuing his study of the walls in view of the forthcoming
publication. The citadel of Tiryns, it now appears, had three periods. To
the first belong the earliest entrance below the propylaea of the outer court of
the palace and the walls running from it westwards and south-eastwards,
so as enclose the highest part of the hill. To the second period belongs the
upper and middle citadels, except for the galleries, the south-east tower, the
great gateway and the ramp. To the third period are to be assigned the
galleries and other additions to the upper citadel, the great gate and ramp and
the whole of the lower citadel. In the north wall of the second period there
seems to have been a kind of gallery or store chamber with a flat roof sup-
ported on wooden beams. The first period is probably L.H. I. or II. in date,
but the second and third are without doubt Late Helladic III. That the
famous galleries of Tiryns should be shown to belong to a comparatively
advanced date in the L.H. III. period is a further proof, if any were needed,
that this was not a degenerate age.
GREEK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICE.
Athens and Attica. — In 1921 Dr. Kastriotes resumed his excavations in
the Odeion of Pericles, which he had begun in 1914. 14 As a result of his two
campaigns on the traditional site of the Odeion at the south-east corner of the
Acropolis and directly adjoining the theatre of Dionysos on the east, he has
found a building which must be identified with it, although it does not conform
14 'A?X. 'E?. 1914, pp. 143 ff.
270 A. J. B. WAGE
to the plan which all authorities prophesied for it. He has cleared the north
side and parts of the east and west sides of a large hypostyle hall, for the rest
of the area is occupied by small houses which are to be expropriated. On
the north the wall is preserved to a height of three metres and is built against
the rock, which has been cut away to accommodate it, and is composed of
poros and crystalline limestone in ashlar work. It was originally faced with
marble slabs. Above this ran the diazoma, the so-called peripatos, behind
which were rows of seats as in the bouleuterion at Priene. The foundations
of the east entrance were also laid bare and a large substructure on the west
is in all probability that of the western entrance, which was closely connected
with the theatre, for as we learn from Andocides 15 the conspirators entered the
orchestra from the Odeion. The seats were of marble and had in front sculp-
tured owls, and some have been found in the Zappeion garden in the ruins
of a Roman bath. The north-west angle of the Odeion adjoins the north-
east supporting wall of the theatre, and ran into it far enough to cut off the
upper parts of three wedges of seats. Apparently, from what we know now,
both buildings were planned in the time of Pericles, although the theatre seems
to have been completed by Lykourgos. Within the area of the Odeion only
four column bases were found in situ, but the places where the others stood
are quite clear. They were six metres apart and there were in all, it is cal-
culated, six rows of six columns each. These marble columns probably
belonged not to the Odeion of Pericles, which very likely had wooden columns,
but to the Odeion as it was restored by Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia, after its
destruction during the siege of Athens by Sulla in 86 B.C. The column drum
with the dedication to Ariobarzanes,16 which stands near the temple of
Dionysos below the theatre, was one of them, as it is of the same marble and
has the same diameter. It very probably supported a statue of the king,
the head of which has been recognised.17 Between the columns the floor
was paved with slabs probably of marble; none of these have as yet been
identified and none found in situ, and the discovery of three large limekilns
of later times within the area explains their disappearance. The restored
Odeion seems to have perished by fire, for a thick stratum of wood ash was
found during the excavations.
The most important result of this excavation has been to show that the
Odeion of Pericles was not a circular building as most authorities have hitherto
assumed,18 according to a misinterpretation of the passage of Plutarch
describing its likeness to the tent of Xerxes. The Odeion was certainly a large
rectangular hypostyle hall cut on the north side into the rock and on the south
built upon an artificial terrace. Plutarch's reference to the tent of Xerxes
applies only to the roof, which was sloping and possibly round. Dr. Kastriotes,
who is much to be congratulated on the success of his patient efforts, compares
the relations of the Odeion and the Theatre to those of the Thersileion with
the theatre at Megalopolis. Dr. Doerpfeld and all other archaeologists who
15 De Myst., 38. 17 'Apx- 'E<f>. I.e. Fig. 20.
" 'ApX. '£$>. I.e. Fig. 17. 18 Cf. Weller, Mon. of Athene, pp. 200 ff.
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921 271
have seen the excavations are in entire agreement with him that he has at last
solved a very interesting problem of Athenian topography.
Dr. Leonardos' latest work at the Amphiareion has already been described
elsewhere.19
As remarked above, Dr. Philadelphefs continued, with the assistance of
Dr. Welter of the German School, the excavations begun by Professor Studniczka
by the Monument of Lysicrates. At a depth of three metres the pavement of
the Street of Tripods appeared, and by it the foundations of two other choragic
monuments, probably like that of Lysicrates, while on the north side also a
similar foundation was cleared. Trials were made to trace the line of the Street
of Tripods towards the theatre, and in the course of these some parts of the
Odeion of Pericles came to light.
Argdis and Corirtihia. — In 1919 and 1920 Dr. Philadelphefs excavated
five chamber-tombs at Priphtani south of Mycenae and two at Mycenae itself.
All were of the Third Late Helladic Period. The Priphtani tombs yielded
principally vases of well-known types, but one of the Mycenae tombs contained
an interesting gem. This, an onyx, shows three female figures dancing with
their arms akimbo. The central figure is larger than the others and probably
represents a goddess. The same archaeologist has also commenced operations
at Sikyon with the assistance of Dr. Welter. Near the theatre he has cleared a
stoa and a rock sanctuary, probably of the nymphs, a spring and a cistern whence
water was led in pipes to the agora and town. Near by has been discovered
a hypostyle hall with three rows of seats and sixteen columns, which is probably
the bouleuterion mentioned by Pausanias. North-east of the theatre, beside
a building cleared by the Americans many years ago, the excavator found the
substructure of an important building which he thinks may be either that of
the temple of Artemis Limnia or of the Stoa of Kleisthenes, both mentioned by
Pausanias.
Achaia. — In the summer of 1921 Dr. Kyparisses began excavations in the
cemetery of the ancient Olenos near the modern village of Kato Achaia, where
local tradition reported great treasures had been found. In fact a rich tomb,
well constructed withporos slabs and one and a half metres long by one broad,
was excavated. This had belonged to a wealthy family of the third century B.C.
and had contained several bodies. It seems certain at least that there were
buried in it a man, a woman, and a child, to judge by the gold ornaments
recovered. These ornaments principally consist of wreaths in the form of
leaves of many different kinds, olive, oak, myrtle, etc. The wreath with oak
leaves and that of the child have in the centre a head of Medusa probably with
an apotropaic object. There were several diadems of curious form, but only one
was complete. The grave-clothes consisted of some stuff woven partly with
gold thread, for in the earth of the tomb was found a great quantity of fine gold
thread, which, being metallic, had survived when the rest of the stuff perished.
There were also sewn on to the clothes small gold ornaments with various
figures such as small Erotes, Pegasos, Helios and so on. Other finds include
'• 'Apx. '£*• 1919, pp. 99 ff.
272 A. J. B. WAGE
earrings with winged Nikai or three-legged designs, a necklace from which hung
myrtle leaves, several finger-rings, and bracelets in the form of snakes. Beside
the gold objects there were some fragments of bronze and silver, and a few poor
clay vases, one of which contained rouge so that the deceased could still beautify
herself in the other world.
Boeotia and Phocis. — Dr. Papadakis has completed his excavation at the
monastery of the Taxiarches near Koroneia, and found many very important
inscriptions. Apart from the usual crop of grave stelai, there is one dealing
with the sale of a large estate to a sanctuary of the Egyptian gods, and a series
of five long imperial rescripts from Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius
relating to the construction of dykes in the west part of the Kopais basin,
towards which funds were contributed from the imperial privy purse. On
Mount Oeta at a place called Marmara (on the Xerovouni of Pavliane) he has
continued his excavation of the shrine of Herakles. Apart from the great
rectangular pit of burnt debris, full of bones of oxen, pigs and rams, clay vases
and bronzes, a small Doric shrine has been cleared. This, which stands on the
remains of a yet older shrine of poros, has two unfluted columns in antis at each
end and store-chambers closed by gratings constructed between the columns
and the antae. There was an altar in front and some distance away a long stoa
of seven rooms dating from the times of the Aetolian League, though to judge
by the deeper finds it was first built at an earlier period. Among the burnt
debris were a few fragment of black-figured vases, but the most noticeable finds
are two bronze statuettes of Herakles striding forward with upraised club,
several bronzes bearing votive inscriptions to Herakles, a bronze and an iron
club, and tiles from the stoa with the inscriptions IEPAIH [PAKAEOTS]
or IEPOCH [PAKAEOT2]. There are a few coins of the fourth century,
many of the times of the Aetolian League, and of imperial times down to
Maximinus.
At Thebes Dr. Keramopoullos continued his exploration of the House
of Kadmos with great success. It is now clear that there were two palaces, to
the earlier of which belong the frescoes representing a frieze of ladies with
elaborate dresses and carrying flowers or ivory pyxides. Below this earlier
palace there are strata of the Early and Middle Helladic Periods. The later
and upper palace dates from the Third Late Helladic Period, and of this a few
rooms are preserved though not in very good condition. A corner wall built of
large ashlar blocks is the only trace of any large room, but there are a number of
small rooms and corridors, mostly store-rooms apparently. In two of these
excavated this year, Dr. Keramopoullos has found a great number of stirrup-
vases. One deposit of about thirty seems to have consisted of inscribed vases,
for the only two unbroken specimens both have inscriptions in the mainland
variety of the Cretan script similar to the well-known examples from Orchomenos
and Tiryns. Many of the fragments are also inscribed, and the inscriptions,
instead of being written at random on the side of the vase, form part of the design.
This find of what we may term Kadmean letters at Thebes is most interesting,
and the marked difference between the mainland script (as shown by Thebes,
Orchomenos, Tiryns and Mycenae) and the Minoan (which is of course the parent
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921 273
of the other), very likely indicates, as Sir Arthur Evans has suggested, a
difference in language.
ThesscUy. — Dr. Arvanitopoullos has made a small trial excavation at the
Kastro of Volos which is usually held to be the site of lolkos. Here on the neo-
lithic stratum he has found a building (a ' palace ') with a floor of stucco, and
painted stucco on the walls, but as the site is covered with modern houses no
details could be ascertained. At Pherai, some twenty minutes west of Velestinos
on the right bank of a small torrent, he has found a large temple of the fourth
century B.C. On the east side the stylobate is preserved with the two lower
steps of white local marble ; of the other sides the foundation is only partly
preserved. The temple was Doric and hexastyle with columns of poros coated
with stucco. Some fragments of the cornice with carved and painted decora-
tion have also come to light. At the north-east corner are four fluted columns
of poros of an archaic type, which with various other finds prove that there was
an earlier temple built about 650 B.C. This seems to have been burnt about
400 B.C. and replaced by the building found, which was in its turn destroyed
by fire. To judge by inscriptions it was dedicated to Zeus Thaulios. The
finds are very numerous ; there are inscribed bronze plates with proxeny decrees,
bronze libation vessels, many archaic bronze figurines of animals, bronze rings,
lead figurines, couchant ivory animals, terra-cotta statuettes and many bases
and other fragments of statues. The vase-fragments range from the neolithic
age to the third or second century B.C.
Aetolia, Kerkyra, etc. — At Alyzia, in searching for the temple of Herakles,
Dr. Romaics has found an interesting mausoleion of the second century A.D.
This enclosed a sarcophagus and stood on a foundation 9'30 metres square
resting on four steps, the uppermost of which ended at the four angles in vultures'
heads. Above the steps comes an ashlar wall topped with an Ionic frieze and
cornice. Above this was a row of low orthostatai crowned at the corners with
akroteria of an acanthus design, in the midst of which rises an eagle holding a
wreath in its beak. The whole construction had the form of an altar, and as
yet no trace of a door or any other entrance has been made out, nor has the
position of some Ionic columns discovered in the excavation been determined.
At Kerkyra more work has been done on the great temple which yielded the
famous pediment sculptures with the Gorgon and lions during the excavations
of 1911-1914. The west side has now been uncovered and the results confirm
Doerpfeld's restoration of the temple, and add a few fresh details. Over the
prodomos ran a continuous sculptured frieze, and the Gorgons, which adorn the
centres of the east and west pediments, were true pendants, as the western
Gorgon advances her left foot and the eastern her right. Another discovery
confirms the view that this was a temple of Artemis, for a pamphlet of 1812 by
a native of Corfu called Vrakliotes says that a dedicatory inscription to Artemis20
was found on this site.
At Thermos the continued examination of the temple of Apollo has given
new and important details. The existing stylobate is archaic dating from the
*° ].(,'., IX. 1, No. 700.
274 A. J. B. WAGE
end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth century B.C., and only a few
blocks were replaced after its destruction by Philip V. in 218 B.C. The long
narrow building below this is clearly a temple, probably of the ' Geometric '
age, and is much better preserved and more important than the early temple
of Artemis Orthia at Sparta. The cella was divided into three as in Sicilian
temples, and was surrounded by a colonnade which was curved at one end.
Technically this temple is connected with the apsidal houses of the second
millennium B.C. (Middle Helladic Period).
Macedonia. — Dr. Pelekides has actively carried on his researches in
Salonika and the neighbourhood. Outside the western walls of the city he
has found a cemetery of the time of Constantine the Great with built graves
covered either with slabs or vaults. In them were vases of late Roman times,
glass vessels, and many bronze ornaments such as crossbow fibulae and buckles :
some of the latter are of silver and some gilt. In the Vardar quarter he has found
a temple dedicated to Sarapis and other Egyptian divinities, which seems
according to the evidence of an inscription to date from the very end of the
pre-Christian era. This has yielded a sphinx in black stone, a statue of Athena
(a copy of an original of the fifth century), and a copy of the well-known Venus
Genetrix type, which some consider to represent the Aphrodite eV /ctJTrois of
Alkamenes. At the mound of Hagios Elias 21 he has found a settlement of the
six and fifth centuries B.C., perhaps the site of Therma with a cemetery near by.
The finds include Corinthian-and black-figured vases, female terra-cotta figurines
of an archaic type, and ornaments of gold, silver and bronze. At Amphipolis
an early Christian basilica with three aisles has been cleared, and also on the far
side of the Strymon on the hill called Nkrantista foundations of houses of the
fifth century which perhaps mark the site of Thucydides' Kerdylion.
Epirus. — Dr. Philadelphefs resumed his work at Nicopolis in the summer of
1921. He completed the excavation of the temple of Poseidon and Ares found
in 1913. Then he proceeded to examine the space north of the spring and great
reservoir of the city. Here two adjoining buildings of the Christian period were
found, one of which he thinks was a Bouleuierion from the presence of two marble
larnakes or fonts. Both buildings are assigned to the fifth or sixth century A.D.,
because the construction and the mosaics resemble closely those of the Basilica
of Dometios. With the co-operation of an officer lent by the Fifth Army Corps,
he was also able to make a plan of the site, which had not previously been done.
Crete. — In 1919 Dr. Xanthoudides excavated at Nirou Chani some
thirteen kilometres east of Candia on the coast. Here he has cleared a large
Minoan house rectangular in shape and measuring about thirty by thirty-four
metres. The entrance was on the east through a porch with two columns.
Within there are some forty different divisions of the house — rooms, courts,
corridors, etc. Many rooms have gypsum slabs on the floors and interior walls,
while the majority of the walls were covered with painted stucco. A staircase
led to an upper floor which generally seems to have been divided like the ground
floor. In plan and construction the house is a much smaller version of the palaces
21 B.S.A., XX. p. 127, B 1 ; B.S.A., XXIII, p.
26.
ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921 L>:.-,
of Knossos and Phaestos, for there are corridors and light wells, halls with
gypsum seats, rows of store-rooms with big pithoi and other details. The IMMM
important finds are four enormous double axes of bronze plate found in a room
on the ground floor; one measures 1'20 metre across, and the other three '90
to TOO metre. In two small rooms was a store of some fifty altars or tables of
offering, of painted stucco on a clay backing, with three feet. Four steatite
lamps were found and some fifty vases of the First Late Minoan Period, which
enable us to date the house. It seems to have been the residence of the chief
of the seaside settlement, traces of which are to be seen on the beach and to the
east with part of an ancient mole. The number of ritual objects found seems
to exclude the possibility that they were all for use in this one house. Are we
therefore to assume that the minor priest-kings of Minoan Crete kept in their
hands the monopoly of supplying ritual objects, such as tables of offering, to
their dependents ?
Aegean /s/awfo. — In Lesbos Dr. Evangelides has excavated at Klomidados
in search of the temple of Apollo Napaios located there by Koldewey.22 No
ruins, however, of the temple were found and it seems that the ancient architec-
tural fragments on the spot had been brought there in Byzantine times to build
the church of the Taxiarches. In 1921 in continuation of his search he excavated
at a place called Keramidote west of the village of Hagia Paraskeve. Here he
found the foundations of a large temple very much destroyed, among and near
which were discovered four column capitals of Koldewey's Aeolic type and
fragments of others, so that this may be the Temple of Apollo Napaios. In
Samos the same archaeologist has commenced the excavations of the ancient
cemetery of Glyphada, and cleared so far thirty tombs, which have not, however
yielded anything very striking.
Ionia. — Dr. Oikonomos has begun work at Klazomenai and has discovered
the cemetery whence come the famous painted terra-cotta sarcophagi that
adorn so many museums. The place, called Monasterakia, is on the east side
of a small plain opening to the north-east to the Gulf of Smyrna, and the whole
surface is covered with the fragments of vases and sarcophagi. About fortv
graves with painted terra-cotta sarcophagi not later in date than the second
half of the sixth century were excavated. The burials were made without anv
system or arrangement and the sarcophagi were often placed one above the
other, so that sometimes there are as many as six layers of them. This shows
the long period during which the cemetery was in use, and ought to assist in
arranging a chronological series of the sarcophagi. As in the case of those
already known, the upper edges are decorated with a great variety of patterns,
wavy lines, triangles, meanders, friezes of flowers and lotus buds alternately,
and finally animals such as sphinxes, lions and oxen. In them nothing was
found, but all around in the soil were quantities of vase-fragments. Each
sarcophagus contained one skeleton, and only in one case were two skeletons
found in one sarcophagus. They were usually covered with slabs of poros,
and in one case with a big terra-cotta slab. On the island of Hagios loannes,
" Koldewey, Lesbos, pp. 44 ff., PI. 16.
276 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1919-1921
which formerly served as a quarantine station and lies in the bay of Klazomenai,
excavations have revealed a street of the ancient city. This has been uncovered
for a distance of about one hundred and fifty metres, and here and there side-
streets diverge from it. It is paved with stone slabs and is four metres wide.
In one of the houses at the side a fine mosaic came to light. On this within a
polychrome border Amphitrite is shown riding a hippocamp advancing to the left.
This central circular picture is set in a square, the corners of which are occupied
by white seabirds with red legs and beaks. This in turn is surrounded by
another broad decorative border, and near the door is a pretty scene of a Psyche
trying to defend herself against an Eros armed with a spear. On the east
side of the island another mosaic floor has been cleared. The design of this is
mainly decorative, but at one point are two peacocks drinking out of a crater.
The character of the building to which this belongs cannot yet be determined,
but it is apparently of the Roman period. Finally on the rocky summit of the
island excavations have been begun in what seems to be a shrine of Athena
partly cut in the rock and partly supported by a terrace wall.
Byzantine Excavations. — In 1919 Dr. Soteriou began work at Chios in the
church of St. Isidore and St. Myrope outside the city. The church in plan is
cruciform with a central dome, and in the centre of the north side was a crypt
with the graves of the martyrs. This church belongs to the beginning of the
second millennium A.D. and is built above an older church (of the seventh
century A.D. ?) of which only the atrium could be made out. In the citadel of
Chios the ruins of an early Christian basilica were found. In 1921 the same
archaeologist began at Thebes the examination of the supposed site of the church
of Hagios Gregorios, a building of the ninth century known from inscriptions.
Part of the diakonikon was uncovered, and many architectural members were
decorated with sculptured designs.
In Asia Minor, on the hill of Agiasoulouk, near Ephesos, Dr. Soteriou has
begun to clear the great church of St. John the Theologian. This was built
in the reign of Justinian, was cruciform with five domes, and largely constructed
of marble blocks taken in all probability from the Artemision. There were
arcades between the colossal piers that supported the domes. The excavation
of this important Christian monument will be continued.
ITALIAN SCHOOL.
The Italian School has not yet been able to undertake any excavations
since the war, but its members have been actively engaged in exploring the
coasts of Caria and Lycia, and it is hoped that in 1922 it will be possible to begin
operations on some Carian site, perhaps Mylasa.
A. J. B. WAGE.
NOTICES OF BOOKS
Baalbek. Bd. I. By BRUNO SCHULZ and HERMANN WINNEFELD. Edited by THEODOB
WIEGAND. Pp. 130, 89 illustrations; also Atlas of 135 plates. Berlin and Leipzig:
Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger, W. de Gruyter & Co., 1921.
This first and very splendid part of the German Oriental Society's publication of Baalbek
is devoted almost exclusively to architectural technicalities : but we must wait for the
second volume before the actual temples will be published. The present instalment deals
first with outlying remains — the Town Walls and Gates, the Water Conduits, the Quarries,
the Cemeteries and the Theatre. Then it describes the gigantic Podium of the Temple
block as a whole, and finally, the Propylaea, the Forecourt and the Mam Court, containing
the Altar and the finely preserved tanks.. This arrangement clears the way for the second
volume, which will treat of the great Temple of the Heliopolitan God and the lesser Temple
of Bacchus. There is reserved also all historical discussion, e. g. the dating of the various
parts of the block, with which Dr. Wiegand himself is to deal. The first instalment
envisages hardly any archaeological question that is not a constructional technicality :
for example, it offers no precise date for the Town Walls and Gates, perhaps because
they have been so largely reconstructed in Arab times that certainty is unattainable. Also
it publishes almost no non- architectural finds. A rude sculpture of the Heliopolitan God
and some ruder terra-cotta versions of the type, all found in the ' Klarbassin ' (filter- tank)
of the chief Water Conduit, which comes down from Anti-Lebanon ; one or two sepulchral
stelae from the Cemeteries, and a mutilated statue of a seated goddess found in the
Temple Court, exhaust the list. We believe that there are not many more non-
architectural objects to be published even in the second volume. The operations, which
Koldewey began and the ex-Kaiser blessed on his visit in 1898, continued to the end to
be more in the nature of clearance than of excavation. The chief work was done from
1902 to the end of 1905, and this, as Dr. Heberdey once told the writer, was from first
to last more an engineer's job than an archaeologist's, and resulted in very few plastic or
epigraphic discoveries. The restoration and the reconstitution of architectural rema'os of
the later classical times, which appealed strongly to the grandiose imagination of Wilhelm
II., and have claimed most of the resources and energy of German and Austrian excavators
during the past generation, constitute a great work and a great advantage not only to
architectural students, but also to the sightseer ; but one sighs that so little effort should
have been made to explore the earlier strata of the great sites cleared superficially at such
enormous expense. Our regret has been shared by more than one of the excavators
themselves, notably by the late Dr. Benndorf in respect of Ephesus. But, after all, wo
have as yet only a first instalment of the Baalbek publication before us, and perhaps
in the second Dr. Wiegand, who is as interested as any one in early things, may throw
light on a sanctuary and a cult, which can hardly not have been of much greater antiquity
than the extant remains of the 'Kalaa' attest. This Atlas is apparently not the only
one that we are to have. About a third of the 135 plates are plans, architectural drawings
and restorations of the remains treated of in Volume I. of the Text. The balance is made
up by splendid views of Baalbek as a whole from various points, and by photographs of
remains in general and in detail. As examples of photographic reproduction the plates
could hardly bo surpassed. It is refreshing to be so amply assured that this sort of
thing can still be done in Germany.
D. G. H.
J.H.S. — VOL. XI. I. 077 U
278 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Motya, a Phoenician Colony in Sicily. By JOSEPH I. S. WHTTAKEB. Pp. 357,
with frontispiece, maps, and 116 text illustrations. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1921.
The small island of San Pantaleo, north of the modern Marsala, has long been recognised
as the site of Motya, one of the oldest and probably after the Greek invasion the most
important of all the Phoenician entrepdts in Sicily. Stormed and sacked by Dionysios of
Syracuse in 397 B.C., it was not reoccupied on his retreat by the Carthaginians, who, instead,
established themselves at Lilybaeum on the mainland, probably because, as Mr. Whitaker
suggests, the island was too cumbered with ruins. There is thus probably no Phoenician
site which offers greater promise to the excavator; and the author of the book under
review, after having for forty years cherished the project of excavation, had at length
the satisfaction of becoming sole proprietor of the island. One could wish all ancient sites
were equally fortunate. Digging was at once commenced, but then came the war and the
work had to be suspended ; and pending its resumption, Mr. Whitaker was well advised
to publish this book, which will call attention to the site and its possibilities.
The book is, of course, only a preliminary report, and most of the problems of the
town still await solution ; but useful work has been done on the fortifications, the dock
or ' cothon,' and the burial-grounds. The individual finds are well illustrated ; nothing
seems as yet to have appeared -which might modify the low value set nowadays on
Phoenician art. We find the usual Punic stelae, and masses of deadly dull pottery ; and
all finer pieces are Greek importations. A curious mosaic (Fig. 24) deserves mention;
it obviously derives its inspiration from South Italian red-figure vases. We await with
interest the final report which Mr. Whitaker will give us some day, after the com-
pletion of the excavation.
Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen des deutsch-tiirkischen Denkmal-
schutz-Kommandos. Herausgegeben von TH. WIEGAND. Berlin and Leipzig :
W. de Gruyter & Co., 1921.
Heft 2. Die griechische Inschriften der Palaestina Tertia westlich der
'Araba. By A. ALT. Pp. 62, 10 illustrations.
Heft. 3. Petra. By W. BACHMANN, C. WATZINGER, TH. WIEGAND. Pp. 94, 2 plates,
79 illustrations.
These two works form the second and third parts of Wiegand's report of the activities
during the War of the German Commission for the protection of Ancient Monuments on
the Palestine front. The first part, dealing with the ancient sites of the border region
lying between the desert of Sinai and the hills of Southern Palestine, was reviewed in this
Journal about twelve months ago. Part II. is a collection of the Greek inscriptions found
within the same area. It must be confessed that the material is poor and unpromising ;
beyond a tariff inscription from Bir Saba, previously edited, there is little but Byzantine
epitaphs; still the editor has striven diligently to squeeze from them such scraps of
information as they contain with regard to the social conditions of this little-known
Debatable Land.
Part III. is of more general interest ; it is a report of a lengthy re-examination of
Petra, and contains much that is new. The high dates assigned to some of the monuments
will, we think, hardly commend themselves ; it is startling, for instance, that the Hasne,
which the late Sir Mark Sykes has somewhere aptly likened to a colossal drawing-room
clock, is considered to be of the early Hellenistic period. An appendix, ' Zur Erklarung
der Petraischen Felsfassaden,' by K. Wulzinger, propounds a novel explanation of the
peculiarities of Petraean architecture; it is suggested that the architects, forced by the
exigencies of the site to build perpendicularly instead of horizontally, developed a perspec-
tive style as in scene-painting for the stage, and that the piled-up stories with their broken
pediments and aedicula are meant to represent the normal domestic architecture of the
period with fore and back colonnades brought into the same plane. The illustrations of
some of the monuments are inadequate, but the work is of course not designed as a definitive
publication of the Nabataean capital.
NOTICES OF BOOKS 270
Muzakhia und Malakastra. By CAMILLO PRASCHNIKER. Pp. 235, 131 illustra-
tions. Vienna : The Austrian Archaeological Institute, Alfred Holder, 1920.
An archaeological survey, made under war-time conditions, of the district of central Albania
«-ntring round the ancient sites of Apollonia and Byllis; the unfamiliar title is taken
from the modern Albanian names for the area. A general survey of Albania was under-
taken by Praschniker in 1916 and published under the style of Archaeologische Forschungen
in AH" i ni i a u. Montenegro. In late 1917 he returned for more detailed work on the Apol-
lonia sector, ' at once the richest in antiquities and the most exposed to damage by its
proximity to the fighting line.' This laudable activity was, however, brought to an abrupt
end, and many of the finds were lost. Before this, however, the site of Apollonia was mapped
and the walls were examined ; some remains of an ornate Flavian temple had been laid
bare ; the western end of the Via Egnatia was visited ; and a collection of miscellaneous
finds of sculptures and inscriptions was installed at Durazzo. Of the sculptures mention
may be made of a fifth-century relief with a wrestling scene and of a group of third-century
stelae from Apollonia with Erotes and rosettes which surely must be copied from Hellenistic
earrings. A mosaic from Durazzo reproduces on a gigantic scale the female head seen on
Apulian painted vases ; and among the inscriptions we observe the epitaph of Robert de
Montfort, banished from England in 1107.
Epilegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. By JANE ELLEN HARRISON.
Pp. 40. Cambridge : The University Press, 1921. 3s. 6d.
This little volume is the sequel to the Prolegomena and Themis. Very briefly and simply
Miss Harrison summarises the results to which her long work on the origins of Greek religion
have led her. There are three chapters ; the first two show that both primitive ritual and
primitive theology spring from one common source — ' the impulse to the conservation of
life.' Chapter I., ' Ritual,' emphasises the group idea as the base of religious notions —
first the totem-group, arising out of the social conditions of the early human family,
according to Durkheim's view; indissolubly connected with the practice of exogamy in
its origin, and bearing in the embryo form of tabu all later notions of sin and sanctity.
Then follows the wider idea of the tribal group with its consequent of initiation rites. Out
of these groups arises the individual in the shape of the medicine-man or king-god, the
ruler and yet the servant of the tribe ; lastly there is to be considered the expression of the
tribal wish to live, the fertility play or dance, emphasising the sequence of seasons and
harvests, of death and resurrection. Chapter II., ' Theology,' traces the development
of the idea of a deity ; out of a succession of leaders of ritual dances comes the hazy nation
of a daimon of the dance ; the ritual decays or is no longer believed in, but the daimon
lingers on, becoming more dehumanised, more isolated, and thus finally an Olympian
deity. Chapter III., ' The Religion of To-day,' compares the primary motives which
produced Greek religion with the Immanentist movement of to-day.
La Religione di Zarathustra nella Storia religiosa dell' Iran. BY
RAFFAELE PETTAZZONI. Pp. xix -f 260. Bologna : Nicola Zanichelli, 1920. L. 15.
The outstanding feature of Professor Pettazzoni's clear and interesting sketch of the
position of Zoroastrianism in the religious history of Iran is the attempt to show that
Zarathustra's teaching in its closely allied features of monotheism and universalism was
strange to the genius of the people of Iran, and that it was not until the Sassanian period
that Zoroastrianism was able, by a process of acceptance of polytheism and nationalism,
to attain the rank of the religion of the Persian people. These characteristics of tin-
history of the faith have suggested to the author the further conclusion (pp. 82, 83) that
Zarathustra drew his inspiration from a foreign source, which may be found in the teaching
of Israelites, deported by the King of Assyria to Media after the fall of Samaria to Sargon 11.
in 722 B.C. The deportees may have sought to propagate their monotheistic views, and
u2
280 NOTICES OF BOOKS
the intellectual ferment thus set up may have evoked the monotheism of Zarathustra and
his attacks on the daeva worshippers. This view renders it natural to hold that the
scene of the prophet's early work lay in Media, and leads the author to deny the traditional
view that Zarathustra's patron, Vistaspa, ruled in Bactria, and to hold that Bactria was
a late acquisition of the Iranians (p. 75).
Ingenious as the theory is, it may be doubted if it can stand serious investigation.
That the deportees from Samaria were monotheists anxious to spread their faith is a pure
conjecture, and by no means convincing. Moreover, if we accept it, we are bound to adopt
a late date for Zarathustra, Now, it is true that one line of tradition would place the
activity of Zarathustra hi the period 600 B.C., but the value of this tradition is rendered
minimal by the fact that we can see the ground of its coming into being, the certainly
erroneous identification of Vistaspa, the prophet's patron, with the father of Darius. Every
other consideration, and beyond all the extraordinary closeness of the language of the
Giithiis to that of the Vedic hymns, tells in favour of a date not later than 800 B.C. and
possibly a couple of centuries earlier.1 Nor does it seem wise to seek to trace the Iranian
movement as predominantly one from west to east; later history strongly supports the
natural assumption which holds that in the Indo-Iranian period Bactria was occupied
by pro-Iranians. There is also some measure of exaggeration in deducing (p. 90) the
universal character of Zarathustra's faith from his seeking to win Turan over to it ; Turan
denotes merely the nomad Iranians, and Zarathustra's teaching, despite its nobility, is
clearly dominated by conceptions directly due to local surroundings, which must from the
first have made it far more difficult to spread his doctrines outside Iran than it was to
extend the circle of followers of Buddhism.
It is difficult also to follow Professor Pettazzoni in his distinction between the status
of Zoroastrianism under the Achaemenidae (pp. 128-130) and its position in the Sassanian
kingdom. Whatever may be said of Darius's predecessors, that long was emphatically
a devotee of Auramazda, and if, like his successors, he believed also in other gods, the
Sassanians were in similar case. Moreover, Zarathustra himself had left the way open for
the recognition of inferior deities in his own acceptance of the Amesa Spenta, and at no
tune can we suppose that his monotheism was ever fully appreciated except in a select
coterie. The attempt, which was made by the last Persian dynasty, to associate the
revival of the old faith with the new national kingdom evidently failed to extend effect-
ively the sphere of Zoroastrianism, as is proved by the success of the Nestorians and the
Manichaeans, even when the kingdom could use its temporal power against heresy, and
the rapid passing over of Persia to Islam when the Arabs overwhelmed the state. But,
whether we accept Professor Pettazzoni's conclusions or not, recognition must be accorded
to the value of his discussion and to his command of the literature.
A. BERRIEDALE KEITH.
Das iranische Erlosungsmysterium. By R. REITZENSTEIN. Pp. xii + 272.
Bonn a. Rh. : A. MARCUS & E. WEBER, 1921. M. 45.
Dr. Reitzenstein's latest work vindicates for Iran an important part in the .development
of the ideas of immortality and of a Saviour in the Jewish and Christian beliefs, thus
negativing in essentials the results attained by Dr. J. Scheftelowitz in Die altpersische
Religion und das Judentum (1920). The author's views have been largely influenced to
his new conclusions by study (pp. 2 -10) of a Zoroastrian fragment which seems to him to
contain ideas which afford a clue to the ultimate source of the doctrines expressed by Paul
in 1 Cor. xv. An elaborate examination of Manichaean fragments and of the Mandaean
Book of the Dead (pp. 43-92) is made to yield the conclusion that it is fundamentally
erroneous to seek in Greek philosophical developments the source of dualistic views, which
can far more easily be derived direct from Zoroastrianism, and a determined attack is
directed (p. 106) against Leisegang's effort to derive the doctrines of Philo from a Greek
1 Compare J. H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism, pp. 18 ff. ; H. Oldenberg, Die Rdigionen
des Orients, p. 91.
NOTICES OF BOOKS 281
source. The author's arguments suffer from complication and lack of orderly present-
ment, but they serve to show that it is unwise to ignore the existence of the Zoroastrian
creed as an important factor among the causes which brought forth early Christian doctrine.
It may be feared, however, that in his enthusiasm for his case Dr. lieitzenstoin has fallen
into the error of underestimating the evidence which can be adduced on the other side.
Thus he traces the distinction in Philo of the o\>o<Lviot Av^wwot and the yhtvot &t>8p<vwos
to the Iranian distinction between the soul and the spirit, the latter embodied in matter,
while the former comes from the world above ; and Paul's views he would refer to the
same ultimate source. Yet it must be remembered that there was ready in the De Anima
(iii. 5) the germ of a similar distinction. If, as it is open to argue, the »ovs
is inseparably combined with the body, whose form it ultimately is, then the vov
may come from without and be divine.1 We may believe that the Iranian doctrine may
have affected Philo, but there is no reason to suppose that the conception which it
suggested was in any way incompatible with the development of Greek philosophy.
In somewhat loose connexion with the main object of his work stands a treatise
of considerable length (pp. 151-250) on the conception of the Aion and the eternal city,
ideas which are carried back through Iran to India itself. The speculations of the
Brahmaiias culminate in the conception of Prajapati as the year and the symbol of eternity :
in Zoroastrianism there appeared at an uncertain date the conception of Zervan Akarana,
time as uncreated and eternal ; from this comes the conception of Aion in the Hellenistic
period, and the treatment of the Aion in the Epistle to the Ephesians and in I Cor. ii. 6.
In Babylon (p. 207) the Iranian idea took shape in the form of the conception of the eternal
city, an idea which is to be discerned in the Roman doctrine of Janus and of the aeternitas
imperil. The theme is expounded with much curious learning and ingenuity, but the
Iranian origin is very far from being proved. There is much also in the attempted demon-
stration that is obviously wrong ; to assert (p. 175) that the seven-day week is derived from
the progress of the moon through her twenty-eight stations goes far beyond the available
evidence, and ignores the fact that India for centuries held the doctrine of the moon stations
without thinking of a seven-day week. To suggest that the conception of a thirty-day
month or 360-day year is later again contradicts the Indian evidence, which shows this
division as obviously primitive. Nor is there any plausibility in the suggestion (p. 249)
that the conception of the Aion as a charioteer is to be derived from the Indian view of
the horse as the symbol of the sun.
A. BERRIEDALE KEITH.
Sanctuaires de Byzance. Recherches sur les anciens tresoiv des
6glises de Constantinople. By JEAN EBERSOLT. Pp. 158, 24 illustrations.
Paris : E. Leroux, 1921.
In this learned monograph the writer gives us a careful study of the relics preserved
at Constantinople in the centuries before the sack of 1204, and so puts vividly before us an
interesting side of Byzantine faith and practice. The book consists of two parts : in the
first, Les anciens sanctuaires de Constantinople, the author discusses the most notable
collections of relics preserved in the churches of Constantinople, and in the second, La
dispersion des trisors des sanctuaires, the types of Byzantine reliquaries as they are known
from the examples preserved in the churches of Europe, to which a certain number found
their way after the sack of 1204. This second part gives him occasion to remark upon
th<- influence which these examples of the art of the Byzantine goldsmiths and jewellers
exercised upon western Europe.
unplete has been the dispersion of the relics and reliquaries and the destruction
of the churches in which they were stored, that the first part of the book has to rest almost
entirely upon literary sources. Of the churches whose treasures are, as it were, recon-
st it uted only S. Sophia, S. Irene and the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus are now stand-
ing ; of Vlachernai and of the Pigi nothing is left but the sacred springs over which they
1 De Gen. An. ii. 3, 736 b 27 : \tiirntu. 8i rfcy voiv fu&»ov Ovpatkv iwttam-cu *al fetor •Zrai
282 NOTICES OF BOOKS
were built. All the others have disappeared, unless indeed the mosque known as Kilissi
Mesjedi is the church of Agia Anastasia Pharmacolytria, a point on which the author
would have done well to consult Van Millingen's Byzantine Churches in Constantinople.
The second part finds its material in the actual relics and reliquaries of Byzantine work
scattered about in Europe, many of which can be directly traced to the depredations of
the Crusaders. And even amongst these much has been lost; many examples, formerly
preserved in France, disappeared at the Revolution, and are now known only from earlier
descriptions.
The study of these sanctuaries is carefully documented throughout, and affords
striking evidence of the part played by relics in the popular and official worship of the
church at Constantinople. This is all the more valuable, as a change has come about
in this matter owing to the wholesale dispersal of relics by the crusaders and Turks.
Conspicuous relics are now comparatively few in the Christian east, and the popular devo-
tion which was formerly spent upon them is now mainly directed to wonder-working
eicons. The present book reminds us that this was not always the case ; the city was full
of relics, and these were regarded as its protection against enemies, and received on fixed
days the ceremonial visits of the emperor and the Court. Finally, mention must be made
of the very interesting illustrations of the cult of relics drawn from the Menologion of
Basil II.
R. M. D.
Mission archeologique de Constantinople. By JEAN EBEBSOLT. Pp. 70,
6 illustrations in text, 40 plates. Paris : E. Leroux, 1921.
This book contains five papers and an appendix, the results of the author's archaeological
studies in Constantinople in 1920, of which the first and the third are of the greatest general
interest.
The first deals with a series of sarcophagi at Constantinople, now brought together
in the Imperial Museum. First we have a series of seven and fragments of two more,
all in porphyry, datable by their shape to the fourth and fifth centuries. Literary
authorities tell us that nine emperors, from Constantino the Great to Marcian, were buried
in such porphyry sarcophagi. Although no individual sarcophagus can be traced, there
is a strong probability that we have here a series of imperial sarcophagi of this period.
Next, there are five sarcophagi of verd antique, a material known to have been used for the
sarcophagi of six emperors from Leo I. to Basil I., and lastly other sarcophagi of various
marbles. Since the violation of the imperial tombs by the Latins in 1204, the sarcophagi
have been so much moved about that no definite identifications are possible, but there is
no doubt that this collection now in the museum represents as a whole the tombs of the
earlier emperors. The second paper records observations made amongst the ruins of the
great palace of the emperors, now made possible by fires which have destroyed the houses
by which they were until recently concealed. The third paper deals with the Arab-
jami. F. W. Hasluck wrote a paper (B.S.A. XXII., p. 157) on the traditions connected
with the building and on its present name, a point upon which Ebersolt does not touch,
and traced its existence back into the Genoese period, when it was dedicated to St. Paul
and belonged to the Dominicans. A recent restoration has now cast fresh light on its
history. Besides traces of frescoes, a series of sculptured slabs have been found, which
date some of them to the fifth and sixth, some to the tenth or eleventh century. The
position in which they were found we are not told, and they have now been removed to
the museum, They are shown on the Plates, and the author points out that they go to
show that there was possibly a church on the site in the fifth century, reconstructed in the
tenth or eleventh, or that in a church built at the later date use was made of earlier
materials. The flooring slabs with Latin inscriptions and Genoese coats of arms, men-
tioned by Hasluck, have also been removed to the museum. Of the twelve Byzantine
inscriptions ' inedites ou peu connues,' published in the fourth paper, eleven are funeral
epitaphs in Greek of no great interest, but the twelfth, a 12-line metrical epitaph in bad
Latin elegiacs dated tw 361. is of a kind less common in Constantinople. The last paper
NOTICES OF BOOKS 283
consists of notes on Greek MSS. preserved in the library of the Seraglio. It is curious that
no one who goes there seems to see all the MSS., so that each visitor's list differs a little from
that of his predecessors. It is gratifying to see that the unique MS. of Critobouloe*
' History of Mahommed II.,' is still there. The short appendix is devoted to a fragment of
a sculptured column.
The appearance of this fully illustrated volume is very welcome, especially as it shows
that it is now possible to do archaeological work in Constantinople, and it is to bo hoped
that this fair promise will be continued..
R. M. D.
Ikonographische Miscellen. By FKEDERIK POULSEN. Pp. 94, 21 illustrations in
text, 35 plates. Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk Meddelelser.
IV. 1. Copenhagen : Ny-Carlsbergfondets Direktion, 1921.
Dr. Poulsen's good fortune in discovering so much new material is only equalled by the
skill with which he handles the now haokeneyed subject of Greek and Roman iconography.
His little book opens with a discussion of two unpublished portrait heads at Steengaard,
one a new replica of the head of Hypereides, the other a rather poor copy of that of
Chrysippus, distinguished from all other replicas by the spirited turn of the head to the
right, which gives new life and meaning to the figure as we know it in the Paris statue,
now wrongly restored with the head of Aristotle.
With the two unpublished portraits in the National Gallery of Edinburgh, interesting
as they are, the reviewer is less concerned than with the admirable vindication of the
Naples Zeno as the Stoio as against those who hold that the owner of the famous Villa at
Herculaneum was too fanatical an Epicurean to admit the head of a rival school into his
collection, and with the extremely luoid and interesting discussion of the Menander of
Studniczka in connexion with other Hellenistic portraits of the same character. The dis-
cussion of the double henn of Menander and the Pseudo- Seneca is both interesting and
profitable, and Dr. Poulsen is certainly right in regarding the latter as the portrait of a
poet earlier than the second century B.C. In the present writer's opinion, based on the
replica, larger than life-size, in the British Museum, the poet in question must not only
be earlier, but much earlier, as no author of the fifth or fourth centuries could conceivably
be heroised after this fashion. Hesiod, the one inexplicable gap in our poetic iconography
of Greece, seems to fulfil this condition sufficiently well, and the combination with
Menander on the double herm of the Villa Albani might be explained by the fact that
both were essentially gnomic poets, and quoted as such over the whole Hellenic world.
Of the seated Borgheso poet of the Ny-Carlsberg collection, of the famous Caligula
there and the almost equally well-known statue of Metrodorus, Dr. Poulsen has much to
say, and the admirable effect of the Athens head of the philosopher when added to the
torso makes us wish that a similar experiment could be made with the Louvre Chrysippus
and the new head discovered by Dr. Poulsen, who justly contrasts the stately bearing
of Epicurus on his cushionless 0p6»ot with the comfortable lounge of his disciple. ' Der
Meister thront wie ein Prophet, wahrend Metrodorus es sich ganz menschlich bequem
macht.'
The tentative identification of two portraits, Nos. 619 and 628, in the Ny-Carlsberg
as Antonia and Agrippa Postumus is bold but not unjustifiable ; and the further identifi-
cation of another perplexing portrait known to us from two replicas (Hekler 191 and the
Ludwigshafen bust here reproduced) as Mark Antony is of the first importance; if we
imagine the head placed more upright, as on the coins, the likeness to the issues bearing
the head of Antony is remarkable, and the suggestion merits careful consideration.
The final essay on Technical Innovations in the Portraits of the Hadrianic Age is of
great interest, and points the way to a fuller treatment of the subject of the artistic render-
ing of the pupil of the eye, the polishing of the surface, and the use of the drill in the hair.
Perhaps Dr. Poulsen will see his way to producing the treatise on the beginnings and
cause of the new technique which he urges on others in his concluding sentences. Mean-
while we must note that thirty-five plates and twenty-one drawings, all well reproduced.
284 NOTICES OF BOOKS
add to the attraction of his luminous and entertaining pages, one of the few works on
the subject which we could wish longer. How much of interest has been omitted from
this brief review the student who consults the book will soon discover.
Die Denkmaler zum Theaterwesen im Altertum. By MARGARETE BIEBEE.
Pp. 212, 142 illustrations in text, 109 plates. Berlin & Leipzig, 1920 : Vereinigung
Wissenschaftlicher Verleger, W. de Gruyter & Co., 1920.
A greater service could hardly be rendered to students of the Greek drama than the gather-
ing into one volume of all the scattered archaeological evidence, which can be reproduced
in illustrations, bearing upon the history and external setting of the Greek Drama. In the
present volume this task is very well carried out, and its 109 plates and 142 illustrations
in the text leave out very little that is important. The illustrations are well executed, and
the accompanying explanations short and clear. In the summaries, given at different
points in the book, of the history of the various types of drama there is inevitably much
that is disputable ; for instance, Dr. Bieber takes in the main Dorpfeld's view of the place
occupied by the actors, and follows the conventional theory of the relations of Tragedy
and Satyric drama ; but whatever may be said on these obscure matters, she shows excel-
lent judgment and self-restraint in drawing conclusions, e. g. from vase paintings ; as
regards the history of the drama, she is well aware of the limits of this method, and not
infrequently differs with good reason from Robert and others of her predecessors. The
illustrations of the remains of extant theatres, which are particularly good, are followed by
a long series bearing upon the costumes worn in Tragedy, Satyric drama and Comedy.
Dr. Bieber shows a special interest in questions of costume (as those who are
acquainted with her article on the Dresden Relief would expect), and these are more fully
discussed in the text than are some other subjects. After these come a large number of
reproductions of Phlyakes- vases and Terra- cottas illustrative of Comedy, and the work
concludes with a brief treatment of Music. There is a good bibliography, but the third
(1906) edition of Haigh's Attic Theatre should have been cited, not the second (1898),
and there is no mention of the writings of Flickinger and J. T. Allen ; there are, in fact,
very few references to English or American work. On p. 194 (' Bootische Posse ') Mr.
A. B. Cook's paper in the Classical Review for 1895 should have been mentioned. By an
odd slip of the pen, ' Andromeda '• for ' Andromache,' occurs twice on p. Ill, but the work
as a whole is thoroughly careful, and will be valuable to scholars, not only for the time
that it will save them, but for the brief and clear indications of questions at issue and
(often) of the chief arguments which have been used in the solution of them.
A. W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE.
The Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus. Represented in English and explained.
By EDWARD GEORGE HARMAN. Pp. 111. London : E. Arnold, 1920. 10s. 6d. net.
This book seeks to prove that the P. V. is a political allegory. Zeus represents the
sovereign Athenian democracy ; the foolish marriage points at Themistocles' naval policy ;
Prometheus is the poet himself, with some reference to Aristides ; the oppressed mortals
are the subject-allies.
Mr. Harman's treatise has very few of those exciting details which one has learned
to expect from critical filibusterings of this kind. But there is one good example; on
p. 16 he maintains that Oceanus represents the old landed aristocracy, as is shown ' by
the play on the traditional Eupatrid claim to be yijyfvt'is and avroxOoves ' — TeTp7jp«$>fj
avrttcTir' &vrpa (w. 308 sq. ).
Any one who essays to show that a literary work does not aim at its ostensible object,
but possesses a quite different meaning, must obviously prove not only that the work
suits the supposed allegory but also that it does not fit the ostensible object. Mr. Harman
fails even more markedly in the latter respect than in the former. His only relevant
NOTICES OF BOOKS 285
suggestion here is that the conception of Zeus in the P. I '. differs from that found else-
where in Aeschylus. This argument most people would answer by referring to our con-
siderable knowledge of the companion-plays. Mr. Harman, however, does not believe
that the P. V. formed part of a trilogy ; indeed, he will have it that the play was never
performed on the stage. His proof of these two contentions is entirely unconvincing.
GILBERT NORWOOD.
Our Hellenic Heritage. Part I.— The Great Epics. Part II.— The Struggle with
Persia. By H. K. JAMES. Pp. 408, 12 illustrations in text, 12 maps. London :
Macmillan & Co., 1921. 6s. net.
Mr. James has made an experiment which should excite the interest of all phil- Hellenes.
He accepts the ' Greek-less ' school as an established fact, but far from losing courage he
recognises that nothing is lost irretrievably so long as Greek civilisation continues to be
studied, and he believes that this civilisation can be salvaged from the wreckage of the
old linguistic curricula. In the present volume the author surveys the life of Greece from
the earliest days down to the ' great deliverance ' from Persia. In his introductory chapters
he summarises the distinctive features of the Greek land and people, not forgetting the
people's achievements and sufferings from Chaeroneia to Navarino. He next illustrates
Homeric Greece with translated extracts from the lliml and Odyssey and an explanatory
chapter on the archaeological background of Homer. The third section of the book
contains a brief description of the age of colonisation, and of Spartan and early Athenian
institutions. The remaining chapters tell the story of the Persian wars, interwoven with
numerous excerpts from Herodotus.
In regard to the author's choice of subjects our only regret is that he did not find
room for a passage or two from the Argonautica to illustrate the adventures of the age' of
Discovery ; apart from this, his selection could hardly be improved upon. His treatment
of the subject-matter is uniformly scholarly and up-to-date. He is unduly reticent about
the blind violence of the Homeric heroes and the crass parasitism of Sparta. He decidedly
over-emphasises the distinction between Dorians and lonians. He does not always make
clear his attitude to Herodotus' good stories, e. g. whether Xerxes really brought along
1.700,000 men. Nevertheless his picture of early Greece is true in all essentials, and it
is drawn in clear outlines. The chapter on prehistoric archaeology is conspicuous for its
lucidity, and the narrative of the Persian wars reproduces Herodotus' own sober enthusiasm.
We shall look forward with interest to Mr. James' second volume, which will deal with
Greek art and literature, and (let us hope) Greek science.
The Greek Renaissance. By P. N. UBB. Pp. 175, 12 plates. London : Methuen,
1921. &?. net.
In this volume Prof. Ure provides for the general reader a brief and bright account of the
most momentous of the world's many renaissances. He begins by setting off the civilisa-
tion of historic Greece against the dark background of the 500 years that followed upon the
collapse of the prehistoric culture of Greece. He then proceeds to discuss the causes of
the great revival of the seventh and sixth centuries. Among these causes he emphasises
(1) the slow resumption of settled industry, as typified by Hesiod, in place of the ' city-
sacking ' habits of Homer's heroes ; (2) the stimulus of contact with Lydia and other foreign
powers ; (3) the growth of wealth consequent upon colonisation, and the resulting political
upheavals which ended in the establishment of a progressive type of government under
the so-called ' tyrants.' Prof. Ure makes comparatively little use of the striking parallel
between the Greek renascence and the last three centuries of the Middle Ages; and he
does not define the contribution of the Homeric school of poetry towards the regeneration
of Greece.
rtheless his presentment of early Greek life and thought is both comprehensive
286 NOTICES OF BOOKS
and sharply defined. Of the many felicitous remarks in Prof. Ure's book it will suffice
here to single out two. Prof. Ure aptly points out that the comparative failure of the
Greeks in the field of natural science had two really serious effects : it retarded political
co-ordination and it prevented that diffusion of knowledge which might have made the
world safe for Greek culture. Best of all, he reminds us that to the Greeks tradition was
a guide but not a strait-jacket, and that early Greek art and literature were anything but
' classical ' in the bad sense of that word. Altogether, The Greek Renaissance is a
thoughtful and a thought- compelling book, and it certainly should realise the author's
hopes of ' bringing ancient Greece nearer to us than to our fathers.'
Greek History. By E. M. WALKER. Pp. 165. Oxford : Basil Blackwood, 1921.
This booklet contains a reprint of Mr. Walker's contributions to the eleventh edition of
the Encyclopaedia Britannica. A full third of it is devoted to a discussion of sources and
authorities ; in the remaining part the author characterises the principal epochs of Greek
history down to the death of Alexander and discusses the key problems of each period.
Mr. Walker has nothing to say on the important question whether Philip and Alexander
were foreign oppressors or legitimate successors in the hegemony of Sparta and Athens over
Greece. But apart from this omission he makes reference to all the chief topics of Greek
political history. We may mention, honoris causa, his refutation of Beloch's heresies
concerning the Dorians, his defence of the tyrants and of the Peloponnesian League, and
his excellent summary of the strong and weak points of Athenian democracy. But the
whole book is a storehouse of close-packed argument, and a model of method to
students who desire to think things out.
Olympen. En framstallning av den klassiska mytologien. Vols. I. and II. By MARTIN
P. NILSSON. Stockholm : H. Geber, 1918-19.
This is a popular book, but it includes in its short chapters nearly all the important results
of recent researches in ancient mythology. The facts are placed with sure appreciation
of their importance, and are frequently illuminated with parallels or observations from the
religions or superstitions of other peoples.
The first chapters describe the different sources of art and poetry, from which know-
ledge of Greek religion is derived, and trace the scientific treatment of the myths from
the logographers down to modern scholars. Of great interest is the chapter on Cretan-
mycenean survivals in Greek religion and myth, a field of research to which the author
has lately contributed an excellent little study, Ueber Die Anfiinge der Gottin Athena (Med-
delelser af Kgl. danske Vidensk. Selsk., 1921). Subsequent chapters deal with the myths
of the creation of the world, the great Greek gods, the gods of the Romans (with many
valuable observations), the cult of the Roman emperors, personifications and allegories
in Roman belief, and the Oriental and German gods.
The second volume contains the legends of the Greek heroes, so far as they are not
told in relation with the gods, the Roman myths, and finally a list of genealogies. The
whole book is finely and copiously illustrated, and well deserves translation for the benefit
of other than Scandinavian readers.
F. POULSEN.
from the Earliest Times. By WILLIAM RADCLIFFE. Pp. 478, with
numerous illustrations. London : John Murray, 1921. 285. net.
Mr. Radcli^e's net is of fine mesh, and he has cast it very wide. He has pursued the
history of fishing from A.D. 500 to its earliest recorded origins not only among the Greeks
and Romans, but in Egypt, Judaea, Assyria, and China, with sidelights from other
NOTICES OF BOOKS 287
quarters of the world. The book is written with zest and industry, with an ample
equipment of scholarship, and with a practical knowledge of angling and pisciculture.
The abundant illustrations, chiefly from archaeological sources, are not merely a delight
to the eye, but have been chosen with a strict regard to the elucidation pf the argument.
Besides a few misprints (as Tuncus for Juncus, hirundinibus for hirudinibus), the chief
blemishes are a fondness for following irrelevant issues and a forced and slangy jocosity.
The four historic methods of fishing are by the spear, net, hand-line, and rod ; fish-
weirs and other fixed engines, and the use of poisons and explosives, may be regarded as
subsidiary. The earliest fishing implements that we know of are the harpoon or spear,
and the gorge — the primitive ancestor of the fish-hook. Strangely enough, there is no
record of the fish-spear or the rod having been used in Mesopotamia ; and it is even more
remarkable that the rod appears not to have been used by the Jews, though it was familiar
in Egypt. Physical conditions may partly explain these diversities of practice. Fish-
spearing requires either such a firm bank over deepish water as is afforded by our own
salmon-rivers, or calm water, neither too deep nor too turbid, if practised from a boat.
The rod is fundamentally a device for projecting a line beyond a screen of vegetation on
the river- bank, or far enough to reach deep water, and secure a certain amount of con-
cealment, when the fisherman is perched on a rock, as in the lively representation attributed
to Chachrylion, and reproduced on p. 131.
It has already been observed that nearly all Homer's references to fishing occur in
similes; and this is natural when his main narratives are of war and adventure rather
than the pursuits of civil life. Mr. Radcliffe discusses at length the only passage (Od. xii.
250-4) in which Homer definitely mentions a fishing-rod. There seems here a point in
the description of the fisher as fishing for ' little ' fish ; for it is probable, as Mr. Radcliffe
suggests, that Greek fishermen preferred the hand-line for catching heavier fish, as did
all our own sea-fishermen until very lately. Sea-fishing with a rod, now growing popular,
is a development not of commercial fishing, but of sport. Mr. Radcliffe quotes, on the
other hand, ' the contention of modern fishermen (that) the value of the rod as an imple-
ment increases in proportion to the weight of the fish on the hook.' This surely applies
only to the powerfully elastic modern rods, equipped with reel and running line —
these last an improvement since Isaak Walton's time. In the same passage, as well as
in II. xxiv. 80-3, occurs the much-disputed problem of the ' horn of the field-ox ' which
the fisher casts into the water. Mr. Radcliffe inclines to the view that this was a horn
lure, like a metal pike-spoon, and states that horn spoons are now used in England in
pike- fishing. But the Greek says definitely ' a horn,' not any fragment of horn ; and in
the passage in the Iliad, Iris plunging into the sea is compared to a piece of lead fastened
to a horn. It seems clear that the horn and the lead formed a sinker, like leaden weights,
or split shot, to-day. Perhaps an ox-horn was chosen as a common and con^ onient
receptacle into which molten lead could be poured.
Aristotle's recognition of at least the elements of the recently developed science of
scale-reading is justly quoted as another example of his superiority to all other naturalists
for nearly 2000 years. Passing to authors of the Roman period, Mr. Radcliffe claims to
find in Martial the first mention both of the use of the fly in angling, and of the jointed
rod. The first of these contentions is the sounder, and the more interesting if accepted
as true. Martial (Ep. v. 18, 7) asks who does not know that the eager scarus is deceived
by the fly it devours. Since all the MSS. read musca, there is no need to substitute
musco, in the sense of alga, and understand that a bait for the scarus was a piece
of weed. But there is here no hint of an artificial fly; the first mention of this is still
. Kliun's. who not only describes its use on the river Astraeus in Macedonia, but gives
precise directions for trying it. As for the jointed rod, the crucial line (Ep. ix. 55, 3) is
Aut creacente levis traheretur har undine praeda, and neither here nor in the lamp-design
illustrated on p. 149 is there any indication that the prey was fish and not birds. The
three rods of the grotesque fowler on the lamp need no more be meant to be fitted together
than three arrows, though Mr. Radcliffe affirms the contrary 'past peradventure.'
Crescentc, and crescit in Ep. xiv. 218, seem simply to mean ' quietly lifted ' — unless
crescent can possibly mean ' tapering ' — with the form of the growing reed, as a ' crescent '
is the form of the waxing moon.
288 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Greek Medicine in Rome, with other Historical Essays. The Fitzpatrick Lectures
in 1909-10. By Sir T. CLIFFORD ALLBUTT, N.C.B., M.D., etc. Pp. 633. London :
Macmillan & Co., 1921. 30*. net.
The editor of Dioscorides has shown that a philologist can write excellent treatises on
Greek medicine. This book proves, what is perhaps more remarkable, that distinguished
labours in the practice of the art may be combined with accurate and scholarly know-
ledge of its history. But the monographs of Wellmann and others serve only as paving-
stones — duly marked — for a footpath along the Roman road which stretches through
more than a millennium of human history, and the numerous necessary deviations add
to the interest of the journey. After an account of theurgic and folk medicine in early
Rome, and elsewhere, the author makes ' a long digression ' to the Ionian and Italo-
Sicilian schools of philosophy and medicine. He lays much stress on the naturalism of
the lonians, their aSeiffi5ai/j.ovia, and points out that Greek science is derived directly
or indirectly from them. Some may be surprised by the statement, ' Cos and Cnidus
were Ionian,' yet it may be fairly argued that the Hippocratic writers, as well as the
Cretan Diogenes and Empedocles of Acragas, had their spiritual homes in Ionia, though
the physician who gave science her first watchword against superstition, vd<p« na.1 ^f/jLvaff'
a-Kimtiv, probably thought himself a good Dorian. Another long digression deals with
the Alexandrian schools, and we return to Rome fairly well acquainted with early Greek
philosophy and medicine. The achievement of the latter is well portrayed in one of the
lucid summaries which abound in the book.
In spite of ' the manifold doxies spun by Greek ingenuity . . . there were for the
wiser physician three factors of safety. He was free from magic : he was a master of
hygiene, and, whatever his abstract notions, he never forgot to treat the individual.'
From the second century B.C. all roads led to Rome, and we may safely conclude that
Rufus, Soranus, Antyllus and Philumenus sojourned there, as well as Asclepiades, Archi-
genes, Heliodorus and Galen. The reader will find no better combined account of these
and other remarkable men than that which is given in the seven following chapters, where
the author shows himself at home with the latest German monographs and competent
to pass an independent judgment, as for example the Marx-Wellmann-Ilberg controversy
on the sources of Celsus. Greek medicine in the East from Oribasius to John Actuarius
is set forth in a chapter on Byzantine medicine, while an essay on Salerno joins western
Rome to the Middle Ages. Fragments which may remain are gathered up in essays or
addresses on the ancient doctrines of the pulse and generation, hygiene, infectious and
other notable diseases, and pharmacology, while others deal with later episodes in scientific
and medical history down to our own day.
This method involves some amount of repetition, but the reader is left asking for
more, since by a little straightening out and filling in of gaps we should get an admirable
and complete history of Greek medicine, legitimately continued to the author's own time,
for, as he tells us, his teachers retained ' no little remnant of Galenism.' Ionian Maeander,
however, was probably a pleasanter river than ' the swift Hebrus,' and a copious index
directs the reader to any desired point.
In dealing with so vast a subject some oversights and doubtful statements are
inevitable. No one, for example, can carry in his mind all the voluminous works of
Galen ; which probably accounts for the statement (p. 42), ' Galen does not mention it
[Aesculapian worship] even to attack it,' and for what is perhaps the only serious over-
sight in the book (p. 143 f.), which the author shares with another distinguished scholar,
the failure to notice that the mysterious but ' learned and distinguished Alexandrian
physician ' of Dr. Budge's Syriac Book of Medicines is none other than Galen, large portions
of whose De locis affectis, including all the ' cases,' are clearly visible through the double
translation.
NOTICES OF BOOKS 289
Aristotelis Meteorologicorum Libri Quattuor. Recensuit Indicem Verborum
Addidit F. H. FOBES. Cantabrigiae MassachnsettenHium o Typographeo Aoademiac
Harvardianae. MDCCCOX VI I H. lfo.net.
What Mr. Fobes on his title-page professes to have done he has done so well and so
thoroughly that we cannot help regretting that he has not done, nor apparently contem-
plated doing, a little more. The contents of Aristotle's Meteorologies, are so interesting
in themselves, and make so strong an impression of the author's wide knowledge, wide
research, and wider curiosity, that a few notes from a scholar so competent as Mr. Fobes
would have been very welcome, at least in those places where his emendations of the text
imply an alteration in the meaning. His discussion in the Classical Review, 1916, of a
difficult passage in the second book shows how valuable a commentary he could have
made in a small space; but when we turn to the passage we find nothing but a brief
intimation in a foot-note that the text has been changed. And surely a diagram might
have been inserted at the two or three places where the author employed one.
Mr. Fobes retains not only Bokker's division into chapters, but also his paging, so
that comparison is easy. He has also given us a list of all the passages in which he has
made any considerable alteration in Bekker's text. It will be found that he is chary
of suggestion; for example, in 371 o, 4, he rejects vupcrwv avr<av in favour of yurrur&r
ix.6rr<av without any hint as to the meaning of the unusual word thus restored to the
text. In another passage, 376 b, 23, where Bekker's -rS»v 8« vpot rjj yy ar^o^oufv^-v
is not very satisfying, he does indeed hint in a note at a possible solution, but contents
himself with printing in the text the unmeaning and improbable MS. word *-po<nrr«pi£oju«V«f .
A peculiarity of the volume is that plywm, HIKTJS, /uTJis are always spelt fulyvvm,
HfiKrfa, /*«'{<*• If I understand Mr. Fobes aright, he regards this unusual spelling
as merely a freak of the scribe of his favourite MS., and if so, one hardly sees why the
familiar forms should not be retained. Mr. Fobes gives a very clear and very full account
of the many MSS. he has examined, and a most valuable ' notitia litteraria ' containing
a list of commentaries on the Meteorologica, ancient and modern. There is also an index
verborum, the more valuable because the vocabulary of the fourth book in particular is
extraordinarily rich. Altogether he has given us in a beautifully-printed and very port-
able volume a most satisfactory edition of a most remarkable book.
Figurative Terracotta Revetments in Etruria and Latium in the VI. and
V. Centuries B.C. By E. DOUGLAS VAN BUREN. Pp. 74, 32 Plates. London :
John Murray, 1921. 16*. net.
This attractive volume will be welcomed on many grounds, and especially by those readers
whose appetites were whetted by the articles on Italian architectural terra-cottas by
Mrs. Strong and Mrs. Van Buren in Vol. IV. of the Journal of Roman Studies. The
authoress expresses, almost too modestly, the hope that ' a simple catalogue of the figura-
tive terra-cotta revetments from Etruria and Latium in the earliest periods may be found
useful,' for this is much more than a simple catalogue and will prove not only useful but
indispensable. In scale and sumptuousness it does not, naturally, rival Koch's Dachterra-
kotten aus Campanien — a pre-war publication — but it provides a handy and lucid collection
of similar material from Etruria and Latium, collating duplicate examples of types,
quoting helpful parallels, and revealing an extensive acquaintance with a wide range of
material.
Thirty-two plates of good photographs — many of which reproduce several pieces —
are a generous but not excessive allowance for the seventy-four pages of text, for so little
of this material is easily accessible to students in this country, and it is somewhat of a
M vdation to see how many museums have been drawn upon for the purpose.
The catalogue is divided into three sections — Antefixae, Acroteria (which includes a
t y of other architectural members), and Friezes — and each is prefaced by a short
290 NOTICES OF BOOKS
introduction. When we observe that on pp. 31-35 there comes a brief, but clear and
scholarly discussion of the ancient authorities for the fictile decoration of Italian temples,
we realise that the book is an accretion of three articles, which might with advantage
have been rearranged so that all the introductory matter preceded the catalogue proper
under its three headings; indeed the miscellany appended to the Acroteria might well
have formed a fourth and separate section. We feel also that the usefulness of the book
would have been increased by even a short discussion of these terra-cottas on a chrono-
logical basis, to justify the bald statement of dates, e.g. ' VI. century,' ' VI.— V. centuries,'
etc., given without further explanation, which may puzzle readers who are naturally less
familiar with the material. Certain other omissions can hardly pass without comment :
(1) references to the Plates at the end should have been inserted in the text as well as in
the elaborate table on p. ix. f. ; (2) the scale of the illustrations is not given ; (3) the
dimensions of all fragments, not merely of a selection from acroteria and friezes, should
have been furnished. Scarcely less serious, and perhaps more irritating, is the inadequacy
of the press-correction. Misprints occur rather too frequently for a book of reference of
only 74 pages. We note antifixae (p. 3, twice), satyr sand Pans (p. 25), Straticum (for
Satricum, p. 36), and Keldewey and Loescheke (pp. 57, 69, 71) among authorities cited;
PI. XXXI. represents Type V., not VI., of the friezes. The foot-notes seem to have been
inexcusably neglected, as witness the four citations of the excavations at Gordion by the
brothers Korte :
p. 35 (note 8) : G. A. Korte, Jahrb. d. Inst., Ergdnzunsheft, v (1904),
p. 57 (note 2) : G. u. A. Korte, Jb. d. Inst. Ergdnzungsheft, v (1903),
p. 65 (note 1) : Korte, Jb. d. Inst, Ergdnzungsheft, v (1904),
p. 66 (note 2) : G. u. A. Korte, Jb. d. Inst. Engdnzungsheft, v (1904).
We hope that the descriptions and references have been checked with more care
than this inaccuracy and inconsistency indicates. The descriptions given are usually
clear and ample, though ' height, cm. 8 by 10'5 ' (p. 16, note 3) is a rather Thucydidean
construction, and the ' lateral akroterion of a horse ' (p. 59) is mystifying without the
context. It has not been possible to check the completeness of the catalogue, but surprise
may be expressed at the omission of the large series of architectural terra-cottas from
Lanuvium presented by the late Lord Savile to the British Museum; in fact the antefix
' Division IV., Type XX.' (= B. M. Terracottas, B 605, of which there is another slightly
different example in the Museum at Leeds, unknown to the authoress), is almost the only
type figured from this site. But perhaps the other pieces would not come under the title
' Figurative,' of which the reviewer unfortunately does not know the literal meaning.
And after all, even this rather formidable list of minor blemishes, mostly easy of remedy
in a subsequent edition, does not seriously impair the value of this attractive book, and
we offer congratulations to the authoress on the successful completion of a laborious
but clearly congenial task.
Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbiicher. Internationales urissenschaftliches
Organ unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen. Herausgegeben von Dr. Phil.
NIKOS A. BEES (B«V). Berlin- Wilmersdorf, Weimarische Strasse, 19: Verlag der
Byzantinisch-Neugriechischen Jahrbiicher.
This new periodical, of which the first volume was published in 1920, and the first half
of the second in September 1921, deserves a hearty welcome. An introduction by Dr. Bees
lays down the lines which it is to follow. The war put an end to several periodicals on
Byzantine matters; thus Byzantis and the Neos Hellenomnemon and the two Russian
journals, the Vizantijskij Vremennik and the Journal of the Russian Archaeological
Institute at Constantinople have all disappeared, and if Byzantine studies are not to fall
behind, their place must be filled. It is remarkable that neither in this list nor in any
part of the introduction is any mention made of the most important of all these periodicals,
NOTICES OF BOOKS 291
the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, founded by Karl Krumbacher at Munich, carried on after
his death until August 1914, and begun again in 1920 with the third and fourth parts
of Volume XXIII. This omission cannot pass without notice in view of the groat
services rendered to Byzantine studies by Krumbacher, and it is in this case all the
more curious as the new periodical follows exactly the admirable arrangement of the
Zeitschrift in dividing its contents into three parts, original articles, reviews and
short notices. The present undertaking is purely private : — the editor writes, ' Das
Unternehmen ist — ich betone dieses ausdriicklich — nicht von irgendeiner Regierung
angeregt, sondern rein privat.' It is published by Dr. Bees himself, and the necessary
expenses have been found first by Mr. George Pianos, a Greek of Dresden, and then by
subscriptions from a number of Greeks, all resident in Germany. A very wide field is
to be covered; the new periodical is to deal with Byzantine literature both learned and
popular, internal and external history, language, folklore, art, religious life, the geography,
topography and ethnology of the lands which formed part of the Byzantine empire,
epigraphy, numismatics, sigillography, jurisprudence, medicine, and other departments
of Byzantine and modern Greek science. In addition the editor lays stress on his intention
to deal with papyri and manuscripts, the koine, early Christian art, the Greek diaspora,
and the influence upon other peoples exerted by the Greeks both in the Middle Ages and
in modern times. The character of the periodical is to be international, and articles will
be admitted in Greek, Latin, German, French, English, and Italian, although everything
at present has been in German, except two articles and two reviews in Greek and one
review in French, which is, however, by the Greek Professor Andreades. The future of
the periodical largely depends upon whether it can obtain the support of Byzantine
scholars outside Germany and Greece, but to this beginning a warm welcome can be
extended. All readers of the old Byzantinische Zeitschrift know how much such a
periodical is needed, and Dr. Bees will have all good wishes with him in his enterprise.
The articles published are various and interesting, and it will be especially gratifying to
members of the Hellenic Society to read the editor's warm appreciation of the work of
the late Mr. F. W. Hasluck and his wish for a complete edition of all his papers. In con-
clusion the price is moderate; for this country 25 French francs for each annual volume,
and this first volume contains 456 pages. R. M. D.
Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. The Gifford Lectures delivered
in the University of St. Andrews in the year 1920. By LEWIS RICHARD FARNELL.
Pp. 434. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1921. 18*.
" This," says Dr. Farnell of a somewhat foolish theory, " is ingenious, but much that is
ingenious is not worth saying." To the Thucydidean ideal of scientific investigation
here implied he remains himself true. He is not concerned to make a demonstration of
dexterity nor to balance inverted pyramids of hypothesis upon some random analogy,
and his investigations start inductively from a collation of all the facts ascertainable about
particular problems.
The result of this method is deadly to the assumptions of most schools of mythologists,
from the champions of the solar myth to those who would read into every legend an
hieratic meaning. The only assumption upon which Dr. Farnell insists, and here the trend
of modern scholarship is with him, is that saga, whatever accretions of folklore it may
have collected, contains a nucleus of historical tradition. Not that he believes in any
single master key which will unlock the mysteries of the origin of all Greek hero cults.
The Greeks themselves supposed that all their heroes had once been mortal men ; Usener,
on the other hand, was sure that they were all faded deities. Dr. Farnell gives uncritical
adherence to neither view, but his bias is rather towards the Greeks. He recognises a small
group of heroes, Trophonios, Linos and the like, who appear to have their origin in cult,
and he acknowledges the existence of some functional heroic powers. But of the other
lasses into which he divides the heroes of cult, all consist of persons who at the time
of their canonisation were, rightly or wrongly, believed to have once been living men.
292 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Opinion may perhaps be divided as to the assignment of particular heroes to particular
categories, but the broad lines of Dr. FarnelTs classification would appear difficult to shake.
IK 8« -r<av flpijufvuv TtKfiypiuv ofitas roiavra &v rts ftftfwf ftd\nTTa & 5(7?A0« ovx o/uapTavoj rjupriffOai
i}^/i\ffa^tvos 4ic Ttav firHftavftrrdToiv trrtudw is iraAoua tfi/ai ino^piaifrui.
The most important cults considered are those of Herakles, the Dioskouroi and
Asklepios, to all of whom a heroic origin is assigned. The weakest case is that of Asklepios,
for here the most certain of Dr. FarnelPs tests fail. The meaning of the name is unknown
and the evidence of cult, appropriate equally to a hero or a chthonian deity, is inconclusive.
The case rests ultimately upon general probability and the fact that Homer appears to
consider Asklepios the human father of Machaon and Podaleirios. The analogy between
Asklepiadai and such professional patronymics as Talthubiadai, Homeridai and the like
supports upon the whole the heroic theory. But though doctors are from Homer onwards
the ' sons of Asklepios,' the remarkable thing about the cult is the lateness of its emergence
as a Pan-Hellenic worship of the first importance and the extraordinary success which it
then achieved. From the fifth century B.C. to the end of Paganism its popularity steadily
increased. Although Trikka was the original home of the cult, this expansion was certainly
due to Epidauros. It is true that various cults, both in the Peloponnese and elsewhere,
derived directly from Thessaly, but we know very little about them before the period of
Epidaurian influence and nothing about the parent cult, except that it had a sub-
terranean adyton. Perhaps the most satisfactory feature of the discussion of the cults of
Herakles and the Dioskouroi is the clearing away of much obscuring lumber. The
criticism of solar and stellar explanations is ruthless and convincing. Throughout Dr.
Farnell rightly emphasises the importance of historical perspective and the chronological
sequence of the evidence. It is important that Kastor and Poludeukes are not called
Dioskouroi earlier than the Homeric Hymns, and that not before Euripides is there any
trace of their stellar associations. Similarly the apotheosis of Herakles in the flames of
Oeta is unknown to Homer and Hesiod, and therefore points not to the Phoenician origin
of Herakles, but to a confusion resulting from the identification in historical times of the
Greek hero with the aliens Sandan and Melqart. The advisability of treating evidence
in its chronological sequence may seem too obvious to need emphasis, but in practice it is
often ignored.
The book is full of matter which demands reflection, and most readers will find that
postulates, which they have uncritically held, need re- examination. For example, it may
come to others also as a surprise to find that the distribution of the cult of Herakles has
little or no connexion with the movements of the Dorians; the facts which Dr. Farnell
adduces appear conclusive upon this point. But upon the whole the very great value of
the evidence of cult upon questions of tribal movements is once more demonstrated in
this volume, and interesting results would be likely to follow a systematic examination
of the religious material from the ethnographical standpoint. Boiotia would seem here as
central a point of importance as in the Catalogue.
In view of the mass of material which is contained in the book, it is perhaps a pity
that the index is not more elaborate. There is no entry, for example, under ' Minyans,'
though there is much in the text which throws light upon the distribution of that people.
There are one or two misprints, chiefly caused by the difficulty of maintaining consistency
in the transliteration of Greek names upon an uncompromising system of letter for letter.
Praisos upon p. 159, where the allusion is clearly to the Hagia Triada sarcophagus, must be
a slip for Phaistos. The most notable omission as regards subject matter is the absence
of any reference, whether for praise or blame, to Sir William Ridgeway's theory of the
origin of tragedy.
La Religione nella Grecia antica flno al Alessandro. By RAFFAELE
PETTAZZOKI. Pp. 416. Bologna : Nicola Zanichelli, 1921. L. 20.
This little book suffers by comparison with Dr. Farnell's Outline History of Greek Religion,
The author has read widely, but may be suspected of a better acquaintance with theories
both ancient and modern than with the actual facts of Greek cult. His work lacks the
NOTICES OF BOOKS 293
clarity, caution and grasp of essentials which distinguishes the English book, and his
ilisntiniis are too often based upon disputable assumptions. In this respect the
ratlirr part of the book is particularly weak. It is stated as a fact that the Mycenaean*
in tin- [x-riod of the shaft graves spoke Greek, which the Minoans did not. Inhumation,
and with it the worship of the dead, was abandoned by the invaders of Asia because they
had perforce left behind them their ancestral graves in Greece. Greek polytheism
developed from the reaction of the poems of the Asiatic Homer upon mainland Greece,
and the new Olympian gods of Homeric mythology absorbed the pre-existing Sonderpott er-
as cult titles. The importance of the cult of the Nature goddess in the Bronze Age is not
sufficiently appreciated; the emphasis is laid upon the worship of the dead and its
continuity. It is therefore surprising to find that Adrastos and Melanippos are assumed to
be faded deities of vegetation. The claim of Delphi, which is surely inconsistent with the
facts, that the policy of the oracle had been consistently opposed to tyrants, is made the
basis for argument. The initiate of Euripides' Cretans would be surprised to learn that
it was by the words rds r' i^o^a-youf Salras Ttktffas that he proclaimed his conversion to
vegetarianism (proclaim di aver posto fine ai pasti cruenti).
The assumption that the worship of Demeter was in origin peculiarly the property
of an agricultural as opposed to an urban class suggests a misapprehension of the size;
and economic conditions of early Greek communities. It is of course true that Greek
religion absorbed, sobered and civilised wilder elements, both native and foreign. But
this is true not only of Athens but of Greece, and the attempt to show from the peculiar
political and social history of Attica that the process is connected with the acquisition of
political power by the lower classes will not carry universal conviction.
If indeed one is to philosophise upon the history of Greek religion, the forces which
call for analysis seem rather to be those centrifugal and centripetal tendencies which
characterise Greek civilisation throughout — Pan-Hellenism and particularism, civic
religion and individualism. Eventually, and here the tendencies of the later pagan
philosophies and religions prepared the way for Christianity, the middle term of these pairs
of opposites, based as it was upon a political fact which had ceased to exist, became
eliminated. Religious thought in its various manifestations tended to become universal
in its scope, embracing not merely Hellenes but mankind, and individualistic in its.
absorbing interest in the hopes, fears and needs of the individual soul.
The Church q£ Our Lady of the Hundred Gates (Panagia Hekaton-
tapyliani) in Paros. By H. H. JEWELL and F. W. HASLUCK. Pp. 78, 14 Plates.
Published on behalf of the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund. London :
Macmillan & Co., 1920. 50s.
The Byzantine Research and Publication Fund has added to its previous volumes on
8. Irene and the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem this study of the Church of our
Lady of the Hundred Gates in Paros. The description and discussion of the architecture,
the drawings and the bulk of the photographs are the work of Mr. Jewell, a travelling
student of the Royal Academy of Arts, who visited Paros in 1910, and later completed his
researches by a second visit to the island; the late Mr. F. W. Hasluck has contributed
chapters on the history of the church and on the inscriptions, while Mr. H. A. Ormerod, a
member of the British School at Athens, rendered assistance in recording the inscriptions.
The church is situated at Paroekia, the capital of Paros, and is indisputably the finest
in the Cyclades. In the earliest records the church is known as Katapoliani, which is, it
seems, the adjective derived from the place-name K.ariwo\a, probably from icdna and
*6\it , for both at KardwoXa in Amorgos and in Xaxos with their churches named Kara»oA«a»^,
as here in Paros, the church is built on lower ground than the adjacent village. Even
in Paros the old name remains the common spoken form ; the new name, appearing first
according to Mr. Hasluck in the rtuyyaQla of Meletios 1661-1714, reflects the pride of the
islanders in their church. ' The new name is accounted for by the legend that the great
J.H.S. — VOL. XLI. X
294 NOTICES OF BOOKS
church had a hundred doors (TUA.CU, which common sense compels the Parians to construe
doors and windows), of which ninety-nine are visible, and the hundredth is to be revealed
when the Greeks take Constantinople ' (cf. Kambanis in the Athenian periodical 'E05o^oi
iii. [1886] p. 345).
Apart from local legend (see pp. 1-3) we possess no history of the church during the
Byzantine period, but Mr. Hasluck refers to the account of the political mission of Xiketas
((Magister) to the Saracens of Crete in A.D. 902. This account is contained in the /Si'oi rfis
daias /UTjrpbs rtfioiv QtoKrlarris TT)S httrftias TTJS affKri<rdffi]s Kal KuifnyOtiffris iv v'tifftf TTJ Ka\ov/j.(vr) f[aptp
written by Niketas himself. ' Niketas on his way to Crete, being detained by contrary
winds,' to quote the summary of Mr. Hasluck, ' put into Paros, and being there, thought
well to make his prayers at the Church of the Virgin. He found the island entirely
•uninhabited save for a hermit, who told him the story of S. Theoktiste the Lesbian ; the
saint, carried off by Arab pirates from a convent in her native island, had eluded them
in Paros, and for the rest of her life lived as an anchorite in the abandoned church, where
she was discovered by a hunter from Euboea and eventually died in the odour of sanctity.'
Mr. Jewell suggests that the crypt hi the present church situated under the holy table
(11 ft. X 3 ft.) is apparently the traditional retreat of S. Theoktiste (see pp. 43-4).
Niketas describes the deserted church as o{io0«'aTos /cal \tityava a&fav Utrn TT)S woAaias
ipaj^TTiTos' ffvfj.fj.fTpds re yap tf>f8fj.i)To Kal Kioffi ffvxyois TTJS IK &O.OI\IKOV ypfipfiffro \idov, irpia-T'f re
\(6tf iraWa TO?X<"/ ri/j.<pi€(rTn irapair \riaicas -rots Kloffiv. Els roffovrov Sf rbv \l6ov \firrvvas ^v^avfv 6
TfXvlrr,s us SoKflv e£ ixpafffudron' -rbv Tolxov IvSttivffBai fivaaivtav and praises the TTJS o-f^offTTJy /cal
6eias TpaW^r/y virfpKfifjievov op6<pioi> ttau> TT)S irv\ns lately broken by Nisiris an Arab raider who
had tried unsuccessfully to carry it off: Kal yap ta-nevSt . . TTJ ffvvayiayfi -rovro TU>V rfis^Ayap
avddrina KaTaQiffdai-1 This account of Xiketas may be illustrated by the fact that the
original cupola of the ciborium has perished, and been replaced by cement.
Since the Byzantine inscriptions give us only the names of two bishops, Hylasius and
<j}eorgius, both otherwise unknown, the sole means of dating the construction of the church
is thus the architecture of the building itself. The great church has incorporated an earlier
church of S. Nicholas which stands to the N. of the bema and to the E. of the X. transept.
This small church was, Mr. Jewell argues, originally of a basilica type planned as a simple
nave with aisles; to this the dome and cruciform upper structure were added at a later
date, probably at the time of the building of the great church. With the original form
of the church of S. Nicholas Mr. Jewell compares the plan of the church at Bin-bir-kilisse
(cf. Strzygowski : Kleinasien, p. 104). The great church itself is of cruciform plan with
a single dome and transepts; a baptistery adjoins the church on the S., and is approached
both from the aisle and the transept. Although in type and character the great church
a,t Paros seems to be unique, Mr. Jewell argues that it probably da£es from the reign of
Justinian, and is perhaps contemporary with the church of the Holy Apostles in Con-
stantinople. The baptistery would seem to have been built soon after, possibly in the
latter part of the sixth century.
This is no place to enter into the detailed considerations by which Mr. Jewell supports
his views (cf. pp. 49-52) : two points of special interest in the church ma}', however, be
accentuated here. The columns, bases, capitals and lower screen of the original iconostasis
are still intact, and with the exception of the columns are all of Parian marble. Mr. Hasluck
notes that a stone screen preserving so much of its original form is rarely met with in
•Greece ; as probably the best example he cites the screen at Torcello. In Greek lands the
absence of such screens is attributable partly to the transformation of churches into
mosques and the consequent removal of the screens as obstructions, and still more to the
vogue of carved and gilded wooden screens dating in particular from the eighteenth century.
Further, the ciborium, praised by Nicetas and apparently contemporary with the foundation
of the church, which still stands, is probably unique in the East, for here even in churches
which have remained in Christian occupation the stone ciboria have been replaced, like
the stone screens, by others of carved wood.
Students of Byzantine architecture have every reason to be grateful to the Research
Fund for this valuable study of a most interesting building. X. H. B.
1 Of this jSi'oj the best text is published by loannou in his M r//u«ra 'AyioAoyi/ca, Venice, 1884.
from which the citations are made, pp. 4, 5, 7.
NOTICES OF BOOKS L".I.,
A Short History of Antioch, 300 B.C.-A.D. 1268. By E. S. BOUCIIIEB. Pp. 324,
4 Plates. Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1921. 12*. 6U
Mr. Bouchier's sketch of Antioch on the Orontos is in his own words ' an attempt to gather
together a few leading points regarding the history, life, manners and interests of this great
centre of population ' from its first foundation down to its devastation in 1268 at the hands
of the Sultan of Egypt. ' I am quite conscious,' he writes, ' that such a book, like its
predecessors, will be open to a charge of superficiality.' But teachers, at any rate, will be
alow to raise the charge. Such general sketches of a city's life will help them in accentuat-
ing the continuity of historical development as well as the individuality of the centres of
Hellenistic civilisation, while they may readily awake in students an interest which will
only be satisfied by further detailed work upon special aspects of the city's story. It is
for this reason that one could have wished that the bibliographies given at the close of
chapters could have been more adequate : thus the reader hears of Julian at Antioch,
but he is not reminded that a large part of Julian's works is now translated in the Loeb
Library, there is no reference to King's useful collection of translations in the Bohn Library,
nor to any of the recent studies (e. g. by Geffcken or Bidez) on the apostate emperor; a
picture is drawn of the rhetoricians of Antioch with Libanius at their head, but there ia
no mention of Walden's book with its valuable chapters on the later Greek rhetoricians,
nor to Missong's recent study of the paganism of Libanius. It would also have been well
if some hints could have been given to the reader of the contents of the books cited, a
mere title, though adequate for the specialist, is often an insufficient guide for the uninitiate.
A well-written popular book is an admirable thing, but its greatest achievement is surely
that it should stimulate curiosity and itself supply some direction towards the satisfaction
of that curiosity.
In a work like the present every student will naturally find omissions which he regrets ;
the reviewer looked in vain for a mention of the long-lived legend of S. Mercurius and the
death of Julian (cf. W. R. Halliday in Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, vii. pp. 89-
106), he would have welcomed some account of the life of S. Simeon the Younger (the
Vita printed in the A. SS. is mentioned in a footnote, but cf. now Engelbert Miiller : Studien
zu den Biographien des Styliten Simeon des Jungeren. Miinchen dissertation Aschaffenburg,
1914). In the treatment of Jewish hostility to the Christians in Antioch in the seventh
century it is a pity that the frank confession of James the Newly Baptised was not utilised
(cf. the edition of N. Bonwctsch in Abh. d. kon. Gesellschaft d. Wiss. phil.-hist. Klasse, N. F.
xii. No. 3, Berlin, 1910, p. 391), while there is apparently no reference to the influence of
Syrian traders in western Europe (cf. L. Brehier : Lea Colonies d"Orientaux en Occident au
commencement du moyen age. B. Z. xii. (1903), pp. 1-39, and papers in Chambre de Com-
merce de Marseille. Congres fran^ais de la Syrie : Seances et Travaux. Fasc. II. Marseille,
1919). The list could of course be prolonged, but it would serve no purpose. Mr. Bouchier's
book, let it be repeated, will be of real use alike to the teacher and the general reader.
N. H. B.
Aus der Offenbarung Johannis. By F. BOLL. Pp. 151. Leipzig : Teubner, 1914.
THIS small book of 151 pages is the most original contribution to the study of the
Apocalypse of John that has been made for many a long day. The author, Professor
Boll of Heidelberg, is the chief living authority on the Astronomy and Astrology of the
Graeco-Roman world. He is engaged in making a Catalogue of all ancient astronomical
and astrological MSS., and some readers of this JOURNAL may know his book Sphaera.
In the work before us he has turned aside to tell us the impression made by the Apocalypse
in the New Testament on one whose special business it is to be familiar with what mm
thought in tin- first century A.D. about the sky.
The result is startling. The late Dr. Cumming (who predicted the end of the world
in 1867), Ferdinand Christian Baur the Tubingen theologian, and Canon Charles, are found
x2
296 NOTICES OF BOOKS
on one side, Professor Boll on the other. Baur and Charles and Dr. Gumming differ very
widely, but they agree in this, that the Apocalypse is a book of cryptic history. Dr. Gum-
ming and old-fashioned scholars thought it contained future history, Baur and Charles
think it contains history now past, but they all assume that the word-pictures painted in
the Apocalypse refer to events on earth — a Parthian invasion, a flight of Christians to
Pella, etc. Prof. Boll will have none of this, or very little of it. He believes that there is
very little reference in the book to current events on earth, but that the seer supported his
belief in the imminent trials and miraculous vindication of his fellow-Christians by literal
signs from Heaven, signs in the stars and constellations as interpreted in current myths
and beliefs about the heavenly bodies. Do we suddenly hear about the Altar in heaven
(Rev. vi. 9), under which are the souls of the Martyrs? Naturally, says Prof. Boll (p. 33),
the Altar is in the Milky Way; you can find it if you look for it on the Celestial Globe.
And of course the Martyrs are underneath it, i. e. nearer the horizon : does not even Cicero
tell us in Scipio's Dream that the souls of the virtuous dwell in the Milky Way ?
Possibly the astrological key will not unlock all the difficulties to which Prof. Boll
applies it, but in certain cases this new method of interpretation sheds at least some light
and order where all before was confusion, and in no case is this more so than in his
explanation of the woman clothed with the Sun (pp. 98-124). In Rev. xii. the Seer sees
a great sign in heaven, a woman arrayed with the Sun and the Moon at her feet ; she is
about to bear a child, and a great red Dragon stands in front of her to devour it when born.
The child is born, but is caught up to God; there is war in heaven, and Michael casts
the dragon down to earth, who proceeds to persecute the woman, now transferred herself
to earth : the monster casts a river of water out of his mouth to carry her away, but the
earth swallows the river, and the Dragon goes off to make war with the woman's seed,
which ' hold the testimony of Jesus.' It is not too much to say that no explanation has
ever before been given of this famous word-picture (or rather moving panorama) that has
been even plausible.
Prof. Boll regards it as an adaptation of the myth of Isis and Typhon by the Christian
writer, who turned it into a myth of the birth in heaven of the pre-existent Messiah. A
sign in heaven in touch with Sun and Moon must, says Prof. Boll, be in the Zodiac ; we
naturally think of Virgo, below which is Hydra, the sea- monster. The name notwithstand-
ing, ' Virgo ' was connected with Isis nursing Horus (p. 110). Further, when both the
' Dragon ' and the ' Woman ' come down to earth, the image of the earth swallowing the
Dragon's river to help the woman fits the Isis- myth, for the land of Egypt swallows
the Nile.
Yes, it may be said, the Isis-myth fits the imagery of Rev. xii. well enough, but what
is the Christian application ? How did the Apocalyptist come to put it in his book ? This
question also is considered by Prof. Boll, and he suggests that the Apocalyptist regarded
the Isis-myth and the Constellations connected with it as a mystery or type of the cosmic
drama of Redemption, particularly of the pre-mundane birth of the Messiah. He points
out that we must not think of the Apocalyptist and his first readers as acquainted with
our Gospels, or as familiar with the doings on earth of ' Christ after the flesh.' Jesus
indeed had come to earth, died, and had risen again and was about to come to reign in
glory over the Saints, but little more than this can be gathered from the Book of Revela-
tion. When, therefore, the Christians began first to ask themselves what was the origin
of their Lord, it was not in every place that they were well instructed in all things from
the beginning by those who were eye-witnesses (Luke i. 2, 3), but they had the text from
Isaiah, ' Behold, the Virgin shall conceive.' Revelation, chap, xii., seems to show that
there were some Christians of Asia Minor who interpreted this of a birth from a heavenly
Power or Being, whom the heathen had corrupted into Isis, the Queen of Heaven.
This interpretation of the passage is not without difficulties, but at least it gives some
sort of a sense, which in my opinion no previous explanation has given, and for that reason
it should not be lightly rejected because of its strangeness. In fact, I venture to think
that no one should reject Professor Boll's conclusions, novel as they are, without a careful
study of his book as a whole.
F. C. BURKITT.
NOTICES OF BOOKS 297
Greek Vase-Painting. By ERNST BUSCHOR. Translated by O. C. RICHARDS, with a
preface by PERCY GARDNER. Pp. 180, 160 illustrations. London: Chatto ft
Windus, 1921. 26s.
Ever since its appearance in 1013 (second edition 1914), Dr. Buschor's book has been
recognised as the best consecutive account of Greek vase-painting. Wide knowledge,
and a wide outlook : a love of beauty, but none of verbiage : the essential facts seized,
and expressed tersely and vividly : the illustrations well chosen, and nearly all from
excellent drawings or photographs. Not a book for beginners : or rather the best kind
of book for beginners, one which is not for beginners only.
The book was hard to translate, and Mr. Richards' translation reads like a trans-
lation; it seldom breaks into English. Nearly all foreign sentences need to be recast,
and not merely construed before they begin to be English : the translator must observe
English sentence-order and English idiom, or his rendering will be not only cacophonous,
but often obscure as well.
In his interesting preface (pp. ix-x), Prof. Gardner speaks as if there were no beauty
in Greek vases before the middle of the sixth century, but only historical interest.
Happily this is not Dr. Buschor's view. He finds beauty, of form and of decoration, in
Minoan and in geometric vases, in protocorinthian, in early Attic and elsewhere. Prof.
Gardner also states that ' German scientific writers aim at an exactness in the use of terms
which we seldom attempt.' This is not true of chemists or mathematicians; and I trust it
is not true of archaeologists.
A short bibliography might have been added to the translation, since the chief defect
of Dr. Buschor's book was that the series to which it belonged did not allow footnotes.
PI. LXXXIX has been retouched, and some of the illustrations are fainter than in
the German edition. The gilt tondo on the side-cover is an error of taste, but excusable
if it helps to sell this excellent book.
J. D. B.
Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum. Vol. II. Sculpture and Architectural
Fragments. By STANLEY CASSON, with a section upon the Terra-cottas by DOROTHY
BROOKE. Pp.459. Cambridge : The University Press, 1921.
The first volume of this Catalogue, containing the archaic sculpture, by the late Guy
Dickins, appeared in 1912. It should have been followed at a short interval by Mr. Casson's
volume on the sculpture of the fifth century and later, and the MS. of this work was actually
ready in 1914, when the War intervened to delay its publication for seven years. Mr.
Dickins had set a very high standard in his admirable Catalogue; and Mr. Casson h»H not
fallen below it, though the material he has had to deal with and the problems he has had
to face are of a very different nature. It has not been practicable in this volume, as in
tbo other, to give an illustration of almost every number in the Catalogue ; but the need
for this is to a great degree met by the publication of series such as the fragments from the
Parthenon in the British Museum plates, or of the Erechtheum frieze in the Ant ike
Denkmaler.
It was not to be expected that many new discoveries or identifications could be made
in material so often worked over by different archaeologists. But a careful account is
given of the assignment of various fragments in Athens to their place in the metopes or
frieze of the Parthenon, the frieze and balustrade of the temple of Nike, the Erechtheum
frieze, and other compositions. Some new joins are recorded, and some new identifications
made — notably the fine female head from a metope, published for the first time on p. 96.
Another interesting point is that Mr. Casson thinks, from the style of the work, that
repairs of late Greek or Roman date can be recognised in some of the sculptures, notably
in No. 27 from the Nike Balustrade and in some of the wings from the Parthenon pediment.
Such repairs are known at Olympia, but have only been recognised in one or two doubtful
< as.-s at Atlirns.
The descriptions and references appear, so far as can be judged without using the
298 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Catalogue in the Museum, to be very accurate. The numbering as previously marked on
the figures and fragments has been preserved, but this causes little trouble to the reader,
thanks to the index given at the end. The only omission I have noticed is No. 1044, which
is described as part of the recently reconstituted slab of the frieze on p. 101. The
two horses of Selene on the East pediment of the Parthenon have now been transferred
to the Museum; it is stated that these are perhaps the middle two. But, according to
Prof. Sauer's investigations, the lost fourth horse was that nearest to Selene, and the two
in Athens were at the extreme end. In the unfinished statue, No. 1325, the grooved lines
are said to be ' cut with a gouge.' A sculptor has assured me that the instrument used was
a round chisel. That it should be worth while to mention such minor points is a testimony
to the general accuracy. There are two or three oversights in details. On p. 284 ' 5th
century ' is a misprint for ' 6th century ' (date of Andokides); and on p. 321 ' terminus
post quern ' should read ' ante quern ' (in the section on terra-cottas).
The section on the architectural fragments is interesting, particularly in the sugges-
tion that the painted architectural fragments, which are all stated to be in Pentelic marble,
are later than the painted terra-cotta fragments — probably about the first decade of the
fifth century, and that in earlier buildings the terra-cotta simas and antefixes were actually
replaced by marble ones. The date suggested, however, seems later than necessary,
especially if, as stated, the painted fragments from the Pisistratid peripteral building are
also in Pentelic marble.
In the treatment of the terra-cottas, Mrs. Brooke (Miss Dorothy Lamb) acknowledges
her indebtedness to Dr. Winter's type catalogue and to Miss Hutton's discussion of the
reliefs. Here, as in the sculpture, an introduction summarises the evidence as to the
various types and technical questions. It is noted as unfortunate that there is little record
as to where, on the Acropolis, the various terra-cottas were found.
The whole volume will be a most useful work of reference for all who are making a
detailed study of Attic art.
E. A. G.
Grundfragen der Homerkritik. By PAUL CATJER. Dritte umgearbeitete und
erweiterte Auflage. Erste Halfte. Pp. 406. Leipzig : S. Hirzel, 1921. M. 66.
The third edition of this well-known handbook is welcome. Paul Cauer has always dis-
tinguished himself among Homeric scholars by his candour, impartiality, clear reasoning
and competence, more especially on the philological side. The third edition, of which
this, the first half, contains Book I, ' Textkritik und Sprachwissenschaft,' and Book II,
' zur Analyse der Anhalts,' augmented by a chapter on the Homeric hexameter, takes
account of recent literature up to the date of publication without megalomania or campani-
lismo. With all this openmindedness Herr Cauer does not seem to have materially altered
his own position, e. g. with regard to Ithaca, the Homeric dialect, or the reality of the
Trojan war. And indeed, in face of such distances of time and the possibly impending new
evidence, we must be content to say TO.VTO, /j.fv ££«<7Tcu TOI/J 0^071 vuffKoiras xpivtiv vpbs ras
«5ias (KaffTov irpoaipffffis.
T. W. A.
Homerische Poetik. Edited by ENGELBERT DRERUP. Vol. I., Das Homerproblem
in der Gegenwart. By E. D. Pp. 511. Vol. III., Die Rhapsodien der Odyssee.
By FRANZ STURMER. Pp. 632. Wiirzburg : Becker, 1921.
As much cannot be said for this book. The first volume, of 510 pages, contains a farrago
of people's opinions on all subjects connected with Homer except the MSS. Information
may be obtained from it, but the utility of the information is qualified by the value of
past and present Homeric criticism. It is pathetic to see Herr Stunner to the tune of 627 pp.
NOTICES OF BOOKS i'!»i»
tliinking by an effort of the intelligence to recover the original sections of the Odywey.
Herr Drenip will apply the same process to the Iliad in Vol. II as yet unpublished. This
is understood to be a defence of the Unitarian position. .\<>,, tali auxilio. This
book, and Homer itnd die Ilias by Wilamowitz (1916), show that the leopard does not
change his spots, bricks do not wash, and the Germans, like the Bourbons, have learned
nothing. On passera outre.
T. W. A.
Recueil Milliet. Textes grecs et latins relatifs a 1'histoire de la peinture ancienne.
By ADOLPHE REINACH. Vol. I. Pp. 430. Paris : Klincksieck, 1921. Fr. 30.
MB. MILLIET having presented a sum of money to the Association des Etudes precques
for the publication, with translation and commentary, of the passages in ancient writers
which treat of art, the work was entrusted to Mr. Adolphe Reinach, who had completed
a great part of his task when the war broke out. After Mr. Adolphe Reinach's heroic
death, the duty of publishing hia manuscript fell to Mr. Salomon Reinach. The first
volume deals with Greek painting from the earliest times to the Hellenistic period, and
supersedes the corresponding section in Over beck.
' II s'agissait,' as Mr. Solomon Reinach truly says in his preface, ' moins de com-
menter des textes que de les etablir et- de les interpreter.' The value of this volume,
however, lies chiefly in the comprehensive and interesting commentary. The translation
is not free from errors ; and the treatment of the text is unsatisfactory : there is no
critical apparatus; conjectural readings, certain and uncertain, are admitted without
warning; the manuscripts are sometimes quoted, but not always correctly. The punctua-
tion is erratic, and misprints very numerous. It would be unjust to impute these faults
to the author : we may be sure that he would have removed many of them in his final
revision.
In the translation : p. 8, I. 2, rustica . . . decerptae is ' gathered by the attentive
rustic ' : p. 25, 37, Qov\ti is not ' il veut ' : p. 36, 16, vitium indecentiae go together :
p. 44, 12, tenentes ordinem inventae artis is not ' observant les regies d'un art perfectionne,'
but ' observing the sequence in which the processes were discovered ' (the idea Aristotelian,
see no. 37) : p. 44, 18, T^V ISiay ^op^» is not ' leurs propres traits ' : p. 46, 4, of/ree* is
' and then ' : p. 46, 24, ras $o£ov<ras flvai *aAa$ is translated as if it were TUS SoKoviras : p. 75,
18, <rx4para means ' attitudes ' : p. 82, 17, titya Qpovtlv is not ' to enjoy a reputation ' : p. 112,
17, inrtvTp<oTo.i, under his body, not under his feet : p. 132, 3, <rw«<rraA0a< is not ' tomber ' :
p. 146, 10, v&pias plural : p. 168, no. 165, rb tfavov is simply the statue (of Zeus), not ' the
wooden parts of the statue ' : p. 208, 10, the subject of ^^tyxrai is & au\J>j : p. 21s*, 15,
airXoTy xp<^«<" is contrasted with the avBripcu* /3a</>euj of no. 172 : p. 220, 10, multa contulit
is not ' made many works,' but ' contributed greatly ' to the progress of the art : p. 234,
7, fyij> mistranslated : p. 248, 3, p^ttrontvov is passive : p. 280, 8, the subject of dixit is
Euphranor : p. 286, no. 363, the translation misses the point of the anecdote : Nikias
was so fond of his work that he would often ask his servants, ' Have I had my bath ? Have
I had breakfast ? ' : p. 294, 7, T^ tnr60*<rn> is not ' such a subject ' (that is, cavalry
engagements), but 'Subject': p. 300, 12, $\o<rvpbs is not 'grave': p. 301, 20, manu
and brevior go together, ' too small for his hand ' : p. 302, note 2, farck Ztv^if must mean
' of the same rank as Zeuxis ' : p. 336, 27, artificis and Coi together : p. 340, 15, xp«<™0
goes with Xe£p«T«j : p. 354, 24, nulla in Apellis tectoriis pictura erat is not ' il n'y avait
aucune peinture a fresque d'Apellc': p. 358, 1, quam . . . jactat is 'on which he
particularly prides himself.'
In the text : p. 101, note 3, the manuscript reading, 4*1 rovrott rkr, is not ascertain-
able from the critical note : p. Ill, note 4, rbv av^varra i«p«'a is the reading of all, not
some, manuscripts, in 39 (not 31): p. 142, no. 118, no MS. reads tx°™' ** • P- 242,
no. 297, ' Overbeck ecrit locum ' : so do the MSS. : p. 268, no. 342, Aristidi is not the
reading of some MSS., but a conjecture : p. 397, note 5, the readings of the better MSS.
are not given : rectoris is printed in the text, and pictoris translated.
300 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Misprints : p. 4, 1. 3, read experiment ; 6, 8, quum ; 15, 37, penicilli ; 16, 10, prose printed
as verse; 19, 43, read reliqua; 20, 1, igni; 26, 5, marmorea nuda; 26, 8, inimicus; 28, 1,
minii; 28, 14, autem (not ad); 30, 5, VII: 34, 27, vere : 38, 14, Protogenis; 44, 35,
illita; 46, 22, a whole line of Plato is omitted: 48, 5, read ofov; 49, last, dissimillimique ;
52, 32, /wnotjiV; 58,10, •Kapa.Ka\iaa^tv ; 60, 17, f) ; 60, 20, --ypetyaj ; 72, 6, alaxivrn (the
misprint is taken from Overbeck). 80, 13, deesse is missing. 85, 24, read Op6vov; 117, 22,
f. r.; 122, 22, iirtMt'tv; 128, 1, Kar&, 5, Aieioty and yvftvAs, 8, Qpvyts, 9, ffrparlav, 13, TV
$6<p<f, 15, irpoffuirov; 132, 15, Jtyw, 23, tnroKparypiSiov ; 135, 28, inlita (not inclita as here,
nor illi as on p. 158 in the same passage); 135, 36, o-xovo-a and f}cw«f> and lavartpov; 148,
9, x«V« (an emendation anyway for the MS. WwX^) ; 150, 2, Thespiis ; 150, 17, iropflt? ira\« *al
(not irpoteT Kal); 160, 3, 6pv\o\>n.tvov, and 175, 35, Siarf6pv\rrro ; 166, 34, tiroirjfft; 174, 25,
typa^fv; 188, 3, StSitres; 188, 19, postea (not poeta); 192, 14, risu (misprint after Over-
beck); 196, 22, iroioCvTa; 214, 18, Ulmeis; 222, 2, r6 re, 231, 35, *poffitfirarra\tvnfv<»> ;
234, 9, <riv p*; 234, 13 nobilissimae ; 240, 23, quas; 246, 12, addidisset; 254, 23,
^<pu\ov; 280, 3, est (not et); 298, 3, aliquando. 302, 19, vicit is missing. 306, 19, read
/cafl^aro; 308, 39, ayvoowra ; 309, 31, rt not n ; 312, 7, TUXOS; 316, 20, quo, 27, vindica-
turum; 336, 2, effingere; 336, 27, est is omitted. 346, *, read & 8*; 358, 17, obnoxia;
358, 23, signata ; 366, 7, philosophi ; 378, 2, a-irdyti ; 380, 5, nw (not piv) ; 381, 14, E6tion;
404, 2, rbv; 420, 6, attollit, 420, 15, teatnafrv, 25, TO imp*; 421, 26, a\r,6iyav and -fttov and
£<p7pa<£«cf}$; 341, 21, Orff\ffaro.
By the omission of a stop, or the deft insertion of a comma in the wrong place, the
difficulty of a sentence may be considerably increased : yet the object of punctuation
is to facilitate reading, not to impede it. P. 4, 5, read permanentes, quod calx : 8, 2, fabro-
rum, cerae; 22, 14, colon after est, question-mark after facis; 23, 29, comma after
aitfovaav ; 24, 14, f15ta\a rats ; 26, 27, quaeque, transfunduntque ; 46, 3, ffK\rip6rnras, arex™*
Siff-irtp; 46, 27, Qaiverat ntv, loixe ; 58, 110, *60tv olv ; 72, 7, eI5or ioutiiiav; 86, 18, pingeret :
Tel; 122, 15, aQlxeroM; 151, 30, nubila cristae, et; 208, 8, full-stop after ^Aeyicrai ;
228, 17, £ifoyp<i<p<ev £> ; 240, 19, comma after sodalibus ; 276, 33, Ofitra OVK, 34, KUK^ irarpbs ;
288, 1, colon after Danaen, 21, comma after Olympi; 342, 6, rwrris iipiartvae ; 344, 20
and 40, full-stops after fuit and crinem; 358, 17, aderat nullis; 376, 11, TJJ, «s; 382, 17,
tabellis, utraque. In the Vitruvian passages, Choisy's extraordinary punctuation is usually
retained, but not consistently.
The commentary deals at length with the historical, technical and other questions
suggested by the text. It shows wide reading, and the material collected will be useful to
students of ancient painting.
In the commentary : p. 7, 1. 4, is obscure : we do not know that all monochromes were
on marble. P. 44, no. 31, for splendor and lumen, see Seneca, Epp. 2, 9, 2. P. 65, note 4,
most of the Clazomenian sarcophagi, if not all of them, are much later than the beginning
of the seventh century ; p. 75, on no. 786, it is doubtful whether any such painting existed
in the time of Timachidas, and the inscription is almost certainly a fabrication; p. 77,
note 2, the metopes of Thermos must be earlier than the middle of the sixth century;
p. 88, no. 106, refers to the Iliupersis at Athens, and should be placed with no. 116; p. 113,
note 2, the ' vase de 1'Italie du Sud ' is the Attic vase in Vienna ; Dike is not covered
with spots ; her clothing is : p. 125, note 4, Pausanias does not say that the lyre was at
the feet of Thamyris in the statue; p. 141, note 4, if the artists had meant Theseus to be
receiving a ring, they could and would have made their meaning quite clear ; p. 147, note 12,
the youth on the cup Jfon. 11, 33, which must be earlier than 469, is not seizing a spear
but holding one ; that the subject is Achilles in Scyros is improbable : the ' hydria ' in
Munich is a neck-amphora, the style singularly unlike that of the Brygos painter; the
new publication in Furtwangler-Reichhold should have been mentioned, also Hauser's
discussion of the Nausicaa vases, and of Polygnotos' Nausicaa, in volume 8 of the Jahres-
hefte ; the Berlin vase mentioned next is not a bf. fragment, but a rf. Nolan amphora ;
p. 167, the reference to Winter unintelligible : p. 175, note 3, Glaukytes dated too late ;
pp. 180-1, Robert's publications of nos. 3 and 4 should have been cited; p. 199, note 3,
the vase is Faliscan not South Italian ; p. 229, note 3, the vase belongs to the third quarter
of the fifth century, not to the fourth : what is the seated type of Philoctetes found from
the beginning of the fifth century ? p. 236, there is no ground for calling the terra-cotta
NOTICES OF BOOKS 301
nuraee Thracians : a Thracian nurse (tattooed) is represented on the early Lucanian
fragment, B.M. Cat. Vases, 3, p. 308; p. 270, note 8, the principal publication of
the Alexander mosaic is Winter's; p. 271, the text no. 344 does not mention portrait* of
women; p. 272, the abridgment of the passage from Quintilian makes it unintelligible;
p. 360, note 2, there is no reason to suppose that the archaic representatives of the Births
of Athena or Dionysos are meant to be caricatures ; p. 380, note 2, doubtful if the signature
of Action is genuine; pp. 420-21, note 1, the Polybian passages do not refer to animal
painting, and the last not even to painting.
Mr. Salomon Reinach states in his preface that a second volume, dealing with the
later painters, is ready for the press : we hope that its appearance will not be long delayed,
but we hope also, that Mr. Salomon Reinach, or some other scholar, will make himself
responsible for giving it those finishing touches which it doubtless deserves.
J. D. B.
Linguistique historique et linguistique generate. By A. MEIU.KT. (Collection
linguistique publiee par la Societe de Linguistique de Paris, VIII.) Pp. 334.
Paris : E. Champion, 1921.
Of this collection of twenty-two papers on the study of language two appear for the first
time ; the others, written since 1905, are collected from various periodicals. They find a
unity in the point of view of the author. To the mediaeval mind, as he remarks, grammar
appeared as a branch of logic, and it was only in the nineteenth century that this way of
looking at the matter gave way to scientific observation and to an impartial collection of
the facts. Professor Meillet would now carry the study a step further and co-ordinate
these facts in accordance with certain ' regies generates que determinent les conditions
universelles de toute langue.' This can only be done in one way, by taking into considera-
tion that language exists as a product of society, and that therefore ' les causes dont
dependent les faits linguistiques doivent etre de nature sociale, et que seule la consideration
des faits sociaux permettra de substituer en linguistique & 1'examen des faits bruts la
determination des proces ' (p. 232) ; that is, to arrange facts in their real sequence of
development. Until recently the study of language was confined in the main to the
psychical factor, itself generally unconscious, and to the examination of the physical
mechanism of the production of sounds; to these must be added the social factor. It
is in the perpetual variation of social conditions that the author sees the causes of linguistic
development, for which the physiological and mental factors, owing to their fixed nature,
cannot satisfactorily account ; although whether these two factors are really ' pmrtout
sensiblement les memes ' is perhaps not so certain as he would have us believe. That it
is not easy to set down the precise nature of the action of this social factor is a difficulty
inseparable from the problem, but it none the less remains that the author lays himself
open to the charge of invoking a factor as an explanation on no other ground than that it
undoubtedly accompanies the phenomenon to be explained, avoiding the very difficult
task of showing that they have any causal connexion. To many readers in this country
the whole book will perhaps seem rather too deductive in method, with occasionally what
looks like an attempt to force the evidence. For example, on p. 106 the possibility of the
existence of mixed languages gets in the way of the view that borrowed elements can always
be readily distinguished from the native in a language; but to say that they are the
languages ' de populations inferieures ; ils ne survivent generalement pas,' is not to get rid
of the fact, and to go on to say ' au cas oil ils survivraient, il est permis de se demander si
Ton en pourrait faire la theorie : les faits seraient beaucoup trop compliques,' is to set a
theory above the facts upon which all theories must be based. Space does not allow us to
do more than mention the fundamental principles which underlie all the author's treatim-nt
of the subject. The book is full of the most suggestive ideas, and this insistence on the
social aspect of language marks a real advance, as well as the resolute aiming at the dis-
engagement of general ideas of universal validity. Some of his views cut very deep into
302 NOTICES OF BOOKS
generally accepted notions. If, for example, we follow him in his paper on Les parenlet
des langues in admitting that similarities in kindred languages may proceed not from a
period of linguistic unity, but from parallel and independent developments due to similar
tendencies in the daughter languages spoken in similar social conditions, not only are we
forced to grant, as he says, that the idea of ' latin vulgaire ' is a fallacy, but many beliefs
as to the character of the Ursprache must disappear also. And certainly long and similar
but quite independent developments, provided an original source of the impulse existed in
the period of linguistic unity, seem in no way impossible. But all depends upon the exact
nature of a ' tendance generale ' (p. 74), and this it is not easy to grasp precisely, nor is it
easy to see what social conditions will produce what ' tendance.' That these deep problems
are raised shows that Professor Meillet has given us an important and most stimulating
book, and it is because of the interest of his theoretical views that we have devoted space
rather to the chapters on general questions than to the latter part of the book which treats
of special subjects. But these are no less worthy of attention ; in particular we would call
attention to the two papers on the problems of gender and to the paper Comment les mots
changent de sens. The last paper, La religion indo-europeenne, shows us what is left of the
once so rich contributions of comparative philology to the early religion of the Indo-
Europeans after the evidence has passed through Professor Meillet's sieve.
R. M. D.
Balabish. By G. A. WAINWRIGHT. With Preface by T. WHITTEMORE. Pp. 78,
28 plates. Thirty-seventh Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society. London : Allen &
Unwin. 1920.
This small memoir describes the results of an excavation undertaken in 1915 by the American
branch of the Egypt Exploration Society (then the Egypt Exploration Fund) under the
direction of Mr. G. A. Wainwright, one of the British archaeologists working for the Fund.
Prof. Thomas Whittemore, the American representative on the Committee of the Fund,
was charged with the general oversight of this special work on behalf of the American
subscribers, and he explains the circumstances of the excavation in a preface to the scientific
part of the work, which is written by Mr. Wainwright. Tombs were excavated at various
dates from the predynastic period to the New Kingdom, and yielded a fair amount of
archaeological material of the usual kind for the contributing American museums.
Mirone d'Eleutere. By SALVATORE MIRONE. Pp. 136, 11 plates, containing 64
illustrations. Catania : F. Tropea, 1921.
Our knowledge and appreciation of Myron and his work have been increased in the most
remarkable way in recent years; and therefore Signor Mirone' s monograph upon his
namesake appears very opportunely. The identifications of the Athena at Frankfort
and Dresden and of the head of Perseus at Rome have placed the artistic character of
Myron in a new light; and in addition to these there are numerous other suggestions and
attributions, some of them less convincing, that are scattered throughout archaeological
literature. The author has collected and criticised this material with great care and
thoroughness, and all students of Greek sculpture will be grateful to him. If he is some-
times too ready to discover or to accept Myronic qualities on scanty evidence, this may
readily be forgiven to the author of such a monograph, especially since he states the evidence
in every case.
The work is clearly arranged ; it opens with a discussion of the ancient authorities as
to Myron's art and as to his various works, together with such extant sculptures as can be
connected with them. As these are in all cases copies and not originals, the question of
NOTICES OF BOOKS 303
the fidelity of the copies to the style of Myron is important. Signer Mirone discusses this
carefully in each case; among the copies of the Discobolus he regards the new example
from Castel Porziano as the most trustworthy. But he is somewhat too ready to accept
an attribution to Myron where little or no evidence exists in its favour. For instance, the
fine group of Heracles wrestling with the lion, which appears on many coins of the fifth
century and later, may be worthy of Myron ; but there is no proof that he designed it.
And it is a strange oversight to associate the triple Hecate on coins of Aegina with
Myron's statue, which Pausanias expressly says had only one head and one body.
Again, the poor reproduction of two warriors from an Athenian lead tessera does not
suggest at first sight the &vSpn SIKJTU>T<S *is M^X'J" whom Pausanias describes as
Erechtheus and Immaradus. A discussion of works wrongly attributed to Myron, or
really belonging to a later Myron, is useful. Among these the drunken old woman is
assigned to the Pergamene age. The dates of Myron's career are fixed. There is also a
discussion of the character of Myron's art, especially in relation to the ancient criticisms
quoted by Pliny. Here the much-disputed ' numerosior ' is interpreted on the supposition
that the Latin ' numerus ' is a translation of pve^6s.
Finally, there is a list of such other works as may be attributed directly or indirectly
to Myron and to his pupils; most of these are now generally recognised as showing his
style. In general, Signer Mirone points out the great influence exercised by Myron on his
contemporaries and successors, and even on such works as the sculptures of the Parthenon.
In contrast to Phidias and Polyclitus, who were the leaders of traditional schools, Myron
was especially the master of those who showed their individuality by breaking away from
tradition. The plates are useful as serving for the identification of the various works
mentioned in the text ; but the reproductions are far from clear, especially in the case of
coins.
Man's Descent from the Gods, or the Complete Case against Prohibition.
By ANTHONY M. LUDOVICI. Pp. 255. London : Wnu Heinemann, 1921.
It is a bewildering task to present to readers of this austere JOURNAL an adequate summary
of the work under review, so wondrously is it compounded of Greek mythology, dietetic
values and Nietzschean misogyny. Let us, at all events, make a beginning with the
mythology.
The wov aria, whence Mr. Ludovici essays to move a universe of Puritans and Pro-
fessors, is Herbert Spencer's dictum that ancient deities are traceable back to human
origins. Armed with this explanation, we attack the myths of Prometheus and Dionysos.
Zeus is a chief of a Cro-Magnon tribe which has seen better days and is now reduced to
mixing with Aryan Greeks, people so ignorant that they cannot make fire for themselves,
but must beg it of Zeus. Prometheus, desiring to usurp the place of Zeus and thinking to
gain the support of the Greeks, reveals the secret. But the result is unexpected ; having
now fire at their disposal, the foolish Aryan Greeks use it to cook the meat which they had
hitherto oaten raw; and, rolling in dyspeptic agonies, they gladly witness the righteous
punishment inflicted on Prometheus by Zeus. But the evil gift once imparted cannot be
recalled; and mankind suffers all the woes of malnutrition until a great teacher arises,
Dionysos, who restores health and vigour by a regimen of raw meat and fermented drinks.
We confess that this bald summary hardly does justice to the fresh enthusiasm of
Mr. Ludovici's style, or the rigorous detail of his method, which is seen at its best in the
section on the Prometheus myth. The chapter on Dionysos is not so good ; Mr. Ludovici
has made a great mistake in admitting the existence of the ' miraculous or supernatural ' ;
it suggests that after all there may be more things in Greek mythology than were dreamed
of in the Spencerian philosophy. But it was with regret that we concluded these thrilling
chapters of mythological discovery and plunged into the disquisition on food values and
\ •itaiuiin-..
304 NOTICES OF BOOKS
The general conclusion of the argument is that beer is a prime necessity of life under
civilised conditions. It may be objected that this great truth needed no illustration from
ancient myths, but all the same we are grateful to Mr. Ludovici for his book. Nor is the
conclusion the only sane part about it. For example, the section on the value of traditional
memory would be accepted by most historians nowadays : in fact, while Mr. Ludovici
persistently damns the archaeologists, he does not always seem acquainted with the more
recent developments of archaeological thought, and thereby misses more than one oppor-
tunity. It is waste of powder to bombard poor Max Miiller and his solar myths ; they have
been dead this many a day; but we would have read with much interest Mr. Ludovici's
views on the Zeus of Mr. A. B. Cook or on the Eniautos-Daimon.
Dynamic Symmetry : the Greek Vase. By JAY HAMBIDOE. Pp. 161, with 16
plates and numerous figures in the text. Yale : The University Press, 1920.
Dynamic Symmetry: A Criticism. By EDWIN M. BLAKE (The Art Bulletin, an
illustrated Quarterly published by the College Art Association of America, Vol. Ill,
pp. 107-127).
The system of proportion called by its discoverer, Mr. Jay Hambidge, Dynamic Symmetry
has already been made known in this country by papers read by Mr. Hambidge before the
Hellenic Society, November 10th and October 16th. 1919, and March 1st, 1921, and reported
in J.H.S. xl. p. xxxvi, xli. p. xxi, and by a journal devoted to the subject, called The
Diagonal, of which we have seen the first number only. An account of the theory, based
upon these sources, was given also in the Times Educational Supplement in 1920. We
have now in addition the present book, in which his system is applied in elaborate detail
to the shapes and proportions of Greek vases. The author has devoted so much labour
and enthusiasm to this study, his views have gained so much acceptance, and out so deeply
into the fundamentals of artistic design, that we welcome the appearance of this book, in
which the theory is for the first time applied to a definite class of objects on a comprehensive
scale.
Dynamic Symmetry Mr. Hambidge opposes to what he calls Static Symmetry. In
the chapter devoted to the latter in this book he does not describe it as clearly as might be
desired, but it appears that Static Symmetry is a system of designing the proportions of
a work of art resting on squares and equilateral triangles and their inscribed and escribed
circles. A notice of a paper on this system which Mr. Hambidge read before the Hellenic
Society in November 1902 will be found in J.H.S., \\iii. For the present purpose it is
enough to say that the essence of the static system is that the underlying circles have
radii in the proportions of 1:2:4:8:, etc., and therefore the measurements of works of
art designed on this system will be, if not confined to these ratios, at all events numerically
commensurable. On this system in 1902 Mr. Hambidge was ready to analyse not only
numerous natural forms but also the Parthenon. This latter point is of interest, because
increased study has now shown him that this view must be abandoned, for he tells us that
dynamic symmetry, the system which he is now expounding, was borrowed by the Greeks
from the Egyptians in the 6th or 7th century B.C., and continued to be used by them for
some three hundred years, and not only for the pottery with which the book deals, but also
for their temples. ' There is no essential difference,' we are told on p. 7, ' between the plan
of a Greek vase and the plan of a Greek temple or theatre, either in general aspect or in
detail. The curves found in Greek pottery are identical with the curves of mouldings
found in Greek temples.'
The Dynamic Symmetry which Mr. Hambidge now finds in Egyptian and Greek works
of art, but except in nature nowhere else, is based not upon any such system of dimensions
of commensurable length, but upon the proportions of certain rectangles, which he calls
the (square) root-two rectangle, the root-three, and the root-five rectangle, and the ' rect-
angle of the whirling squares, the base of dynamic symmetry,' which is closely connected
NOTICES OF BOOKS :«>:,
with the root- five rectangle. These rectangles are those of which the shorter side is to the
longer in the proportion of 1 to the square root of 2* 1 to the square root of 3, and so on :
beyond the root-five rectangle the Greeks seldom went. The result of using these rectangles
as a basis for design — that is, of fixing the main points of a design in accordance with a
group of rectangles of one of these types and the forms based upon it — is that the pro-
portions of the work will not be commensurable relations of numbers but incommensurable,
involving, that is to say, the irrational ratios of unity to such surds as the square root of 2,
and so on. What will be commensurable in dynamic symmetry is not the linear measure-
ments of the work, which are not in the relations of numerical units to one another, but the
areas of the squares erected upon these measurements, naturally in the corresponding
ratios of 2, 3, etc. We quote The Diagonal, p. 48 : ' Both nature and Greek art show that
the measurableness of symmetry is that of area and not line. . . . That is the secret.
Dynamic symmetry deals with commensurable areas.' It is thus utterly opposed to the
system of design by moduli, according to which it may be laid down, for example, that the
human figure is so many heads in height. In this book, after a few preliminary chapters,
in one of which is an attempt to apply the method to the proportions of the leaf of the
American maple, Mr. Hambidge gives us a series of profile drawings of vases in the Museums
of New York and Boston, and their analysis according to the principles of his symmetry.
Rectangles of his proportions are applied to the profiles of the vases, and it is shown that
all the leading points of the profile coincide with the angles in certain arrangements of
these rectangles : one vase is therefora called ' A theme in three root-two rectangles ' ;
another, ' A theme in three whirling-square rectangles,' and so on. The groups of rect-
angles derived in this way from study of the vase are supposed to be those used by the
original designer in planning out the shape : he worked from the rectangles to the vase,
Mr. Hambidge the converse way from the vase to the fundamental rectangles.
These applications of the system show that a great deal of manipulation of the rect-
angles by subdivisions is allowed, and although the analysis of each vase is confined to one
set of rectangles, root-two, root-three, etc., yet the division of these rectangles give* so
much latitude that the reader is apt to think that with an equal amount of ingenuity
almost any work of art could be got into such very elastic moulds, so much more accommo-
dating than the bed of Procrustes, that they can be made to fit any patient really almost
painlessly. And the attempt to apply the same system to the maple leaf makes the reader
who is aware of the irregular development of leaves pause very seriously.
Mr. Blake's criticism in the Art Bulletin, which we only read after Mr. Hambidge's
book, is much on these same lines. He remarks that the number of rectangles which can
be used for an analysis on the Hambidge system is very great, indeed theoretically un-
limited, although he very fairly does not press this point; but according to the examples
shown so great that any design can be analysed in many different ways and according to
any system. By figures calculated on the root-five and on the root-thirteen rectangle,
and lastly on a rational system, that is on a system of commensurable linear measurements,
he shows that it is possible to analyse the design of one and the same vase not only by the
use of the Hambidge root-five rectangle, but also by another rectangle of the same class,
the root-thirteen, and finally on a basis which is not ' dynamic ' at all. Space forbids any
detailed repetition of Mr. Blake's work, but any one who reads his pp. 112 to 121 will not,
we think, escape from the conclusion that any vase can be analysed in any way, and that
t hen- is no proof, and can hardly be any proof, that any one of these systems was actually
used, whilst from the absence of any literary evidence there is every probability that they
wen- not. We may add that the statement that Lysippus reduced the size of the head and
made it about one-eighth of the total height of the figure instead of like Polycleitus one-
seventh, is directly against the use in sculpture of the dynamic system.
In dealing with the claim that dynamic symmetry is the method of nature, amongst
many interesting points Mr. Blake touches on the one which we have made above about
the maple leaf : he points out the great variety in the proportions of human skeletons,
' quite out of harmony with the exactness and incommensurability which distinguish
dynamic syminct ry ' (p. 123). In the point made by Mr. Blake, that this, or we gather any
system of design, has no very clear connexion with aesthetic impression, we cannot alto-
306 NOTICES OF BOOKS
gether follow him. If it were proved that in the works of nature or in the more admirable
of the works of men this or any other 'system were followed, we too should do well to follow
it, and that without knowing why the results were pleasing. But the practical examples
given by Mr. Hambidge have made it to our mind so little likely that the Greeks knew of
this system or that nature uses it, that the further question need not occupy us.
Professor Rhys Carpenter (A.J.A. xxv. 1921, pp. 18-36) has discussed Mr. Hambidge's
theory with much the same results. His mathematics are very plain, and lead to a con-
demnation stronger than his very moderate conclusion that Mr. Hambidge's evidence is
ingenious but ambiguous, and his theory a priori improbable. From the artistic standpoint
he observes that dynamic symmetry does not touch the important element of beauty
afforded by the shape of the curves of the vase, and that it can therefore at most be only a
contribution to the beauty of the whole.
In conclusion we should like to see both Mr. Blake and Professor Rhys Carpenter turn
their able attention to Ad Quadratum, a Study of the Geometrical Bases of Classical and
Medieval Religious Architecture by F. M. Lund (Batsford, 1921). The author, primarily
interested in the Cathedral of Throndhjem, takes occasion to explain the design of Greek
and mediaeval religious architecture in general by means of diagrams made up of the square
and the pentagon, and involving, we might almost add of course, the golden section. By
this system he analyses the beauties not only of the Norwegian Cathedral but also of the
Parthenon, which yields up its secrets to Mr. Lund, just as it did twenty years ago to Mr.
Hambidge's earlier system and now again does to his dynamic symmetry.
R. M. D.
The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical
Sermons of St. John Chrysostom. A Study in Greek Rhetoric.
By Rev. THOMAS E. AMERINGEE, O.F.M., M.A. Pp.103. Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University of America, 1921.
A DISSERTATION submitted to the Faculty of Letters of the Catholic University of
America in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
The Art of Transition in Plato. By GRACE HADLEY BILLINGS. Pp. 103. Chicago :
University of Chicago Libraries, 1920.
A DISSERTATION submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature
in candidacy >f or the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Recherches sur 1'liiphe'bie attique, et en particulier sur la date de
1'institution. By ALICE BRENOT. Bibliotheque de 1'Ecole des Hautes Etudes,
Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, 229me Fascicule. Paris : E. Champion, 1920.
The Greek Orthodox Church. By Rev. CONSTANTINE CALLINICOS, B.D. With a
Preface by the Right Rev. J. E. C. WELLDON, D.D. Pp. 60. London : Longmans,
Green & Co., 1918.
A SCHOLARLY and impartial account of the history of the Greek Orthodox Church, its
geographical extent, its doctrine, worship and organisation, its present state and its
relations with the Anglican Churches.
The Agamemnon of Aeschylus. Translated by RUSHWORTH KENNARD DAVIS.
Pp. 70. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell, 1919.
NOTICES OF BOOKS 307
The Redemption of Saint Sophia. By Rev. J. A. DOUGLAS, B.D. Pp. 79, with
coloured illustrations. London : The Faith Press, 1919.
THIS book, which is an appeal to the British people to insist upon the restoration of
S. Sophia to Christian worship (without, however, giving offence to Indian or Arabian
Moslems), contains a popular account of the fall of Constantinople, the ancient monu-
ments of the city, the history and legends of the cathedral, and the misdeeds of the
Turk.
Theory of Advanced Greek Prose Composition. Part I. By JOHN DONOVAN,
S.J., M.A. Pp. 124. Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1921. 5a. net.
TIM-; work is designed for the use of students preparing for University scholarships or
taking the Honours Course in Greek at a University. The present volume presents more
than half the treatise on the ' Functions and Equivalents of the Subordinate Clause
• and of the Parts of Speech,' together with a corresponding ' Digest of Greek Idioms.'
The large collections of examples, which the author modestly claims to be ' possibly
unique,' are a valuable feature.
Aristoteles iiber die Dichtkunst. By A. GUDEMAN. Pp. 91. Leipzig: Felix
Weiner, 1920. M. 10.
A NEW translation into German of the Poetics, with an introduction and an explanatory
index of names and subjects.
Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit. By A. HEISENBERG.
(Sitzungsberichte der Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosoph.-philolog. u.
hist. KL, Jahrg. 1920, 10 Abh.). Pp. 144, 4 Plates.
THE subjects are : I., A MS. of Georgios Pachymeres (Cod. Monac. gr. 442). II., The
two-headed eagle of the Byzantine Emperors. III., On the Records of Monemvasia.
IV., A Prostagma of the Emperor Michael VIII. Palaiologos. V., The court ceremonial
of Peripatos and Prokypsis.
The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. By WILFRED H. ISAACS.
Pp. 87. Oxford : The University Press, 1921. Is. 6d. net.
THIS is a new translation 'intended to comprise an exact transference of the Apostle's
thought from Greek to English,' with some critical notes upon the text, and an intro-
duction dealing with translation generally.
Humanismus und Jugendbildung. By WERNER JAEGER. Pp. 43. Berlin:
Weidmannsohe Buchhandlung, J921. M. 3.
A PAPER on education read to a meeting of supporters of the Humanistic Gymnasium in
Berlin.
Le Origini del Romanzo greco. By BRCXO LAVAGNIXI. Pp. 104. Pisa: F.
Mariotti, 1921.
The Subject Index of Periodicals. I., Language and Literature. Part I.,
Classical, Oriental and Primitive. London: Issued l>v tli«- Library Association,
1921. 2s. 6d. net.
308 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Speeches from Thucydides, selected from Jowett's Translation. With an Intro-
duction by GILBERT MURRAY. Pp. 78. Oxford : The Clarendon Press, 1919.
THE introduction indicates some parallel political conditions in Greece at the time of the
Peloponnesian War and now in Europe.
Flosculi Graeci, vitam et mores antiquitatis redolentes quos ex optimis auctoribus
decerpsit A. B. POYNTON. Pp. 162. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1920.
7s. 6V/. net.
Homer, Iliad, Book XXI. With Introduction, Notes and Vocabulary, by A. C.
PRICE. Pp. 60. Cambridge : The University Press, 1921.
Rhetorische Studien. Edited by E. DRERUP. Paderborn : F. Schoeningh.
3 Heft (1914). Lukians &i)/j.off$ei>ous 'Eyxuniov. By A. BAUER. Pp. 106.
4 Heft (1915). De scholasticarum declamationum argumentis ex historia pelitis. By
R. KOHL. Pp. 116.
5 Heft (1916). Alexander Numeniu irfpl ffxrindrtav in seinem Verhaltnis zu Kaikilios,
Tiberios und seinen spateren Benutzern. By T. SCHWAB. Pp. 119.
6 Heft (1917). Die Monodie des Michael Psellos auf den Einsturz der Hagia Sophia,
By P. WURTHLE. Pp. 108.
9 Heft (1921). fiber die pseudoxenophontische 'A-Or)i>a!<av Tio\iTfia. ByG. STAIL. Pp.134.
10 Heft (1921). Die Stimmbildung der Redner in AUertum bis auf die Zeit Quintilians.
By A. KRUMBACHER. Pp. 108.
Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides. By JOHANNA SCHMITT. Pp. 106. (Reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, XVII Band, 2 Heft.) Giessen :
A. Topelmann, 1921.
Athenian Political Commissions. By FREDERICK D. SMITH. Pp. 89. Chicago :
University of Chicago Libraries, 1920.
A DISSERTATION submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Litera-
ture in candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Oxford after the "War, and a Liberal Education. By J. A. STEWART.
Pp. 35. Oxford : B. H. Blackwell, 1919.
Studien zu attischen Festen. By F. J. TAUSEND. Pp. 37. Wiirzburg: C. J.
Becker, 1920.
Observaciones acerca de los Fragmentos de Esquilo. By R. J. WALKER.
Pp. 20. Privately printed, and published by the Author, 1920.
,•1
INDEX TO VOLUME XLI
J.H.S. — VOL. XI.I.
INDEX TO VOLUME XLI
I.-INDEX OF SUBJECTS
ACHAIA, excavations. 271
Africa, Greek inscriptions, 65
Aleuadae, family. 179
Aleus, name of Heracles, 179
Alexander the Great, army, 6, 189; ro-
mance, 17 ; sons, 18 if. ; statue from
Gyrene, 237; successors, 18, 189; testa-
ment, 20; world-kingdom, 1 ff.
Alphabet, derivation, 52
Alyzia, excavations, 273
Ammon and Alexander, 1 ff .
Amphipolis, excavations, 274
Anthesteria, festival, 146
Apollo with head of Orpheus, in vase-
painting, 230
Appian, on Alexander, 1 ff.
Arabia, expedition of Alexander, 1 1 ff . ;
Greek inscriptions, 66
Aratus, astronomy, 78
Arcadia, neolithic remains, 261
Archouda, in Thasos, 268
Areopagus and Themistocles, 165
Argos, Themistocles at, 170 ff.
Ariobarzanes, column at Athens, 270;
statue, 270
Aristides, death, 175
Aristotle, Constitution of Athens, 165; on
Areopagus, 176
Arrian, on Alexander, 2 ff.
Artemis, in vase-painting, 140
Asclepius, in Thessaly, 179
Asia Minor, inscriptions, 62
Astronomy, 70 ff.
Athena, statue from Cyrene, 238
Athenodotus, love- name on vases, 124
Athens, excavations, 269
Attica, inscriptions, 54
B
BABYLON, Alexander at, 11 ff. ; astronomy,
70
Bachias, Egyptian village, 218
Barone Collection, vase, 230
Barsine, mistress of Alexander, 18 ff.
Basilinna, at Athens, 146
Bird-clappers, 126
Birds in cages, vase-paintings, 126
Boxers, in vase-painting, 136
Bridal scenes, in vase-painting, 142-7
British Museum, Minoan bronze statuette,
86; red- figured vases, 117ff. ; sculpture
from Cyrene, 238
Bull and acrobat, Minoan bronze group, 247
Bull- fighting, 252
Byzantine Neumes, 29 ff.
CALLISTHENES, on Alexander, 1
Callistratus, Delian Inventory, 194
Cambridge, Lewis Collection, 222
Cappadocia, bull-sports, 256
Carthage, Alexander's expedition, 12
Catania, terra-cotta horseman, 212
Chachrylion, cup in British Museum, 120
Charmides, love-name on vases, 127
Chios, Byzantine church, 276
Christians, in Turkish Empire, 199
Chthonic deities in Thessaly, 180
Cicero, Greek grammar, 115; vocabulary,
91 ff. ; on Pericles, 174
Circus, bull-fighting, 257
Clazomenae, excavations, 275
Cleitarchus, on Alexander, 1 ff.
Cleostratus, astronomer, 70 ff.
Corcyra, temple of Artemis, 273
Corinth, prehistoric, 260
Cosmic deities, in vase- painting, 145
Crannon, Scopadae at, 179
Crates on Rhfsus of Euripides, 74
Crete, archaic sculpture, 203 ; bronze bull
and acrobat, 247 ; bronze statuettes,
86 ff.; frescoes, 251; gems, 254; ex-
cavations, 268, 274; inscriptions, 61
Crypto- Christians, 199
Curtius, on Alexander, 1 ff.
Cycladic kernos, 231
Cyrene, Hellenistic sculpture, 232
DELOS, excavations, 267:
inventories, 194
Delphi, excavations, 266;
311
inscriptions, 66;
inscriptions, 58
Y2
312
INDEX TO VOLUME XLI
Demeter, in vase-painting, 132
Diaktorides, 181
Diodorus, on Alexander, 1 ff.
Dionysos and Basilinna, 146
Diyllus, in Diodorus, 18
Duris, on Alexander, 5, 26
JEWS in Turkish Empire, 202
Justin, on Alexander, 1 ff.
EC
EGYPT, Greek harvest accounts, 217;
ritual of Amon, 2
Elephants of Alexander, 19
Eleusis, Telesterion, 269
Eos with Tithonos, in vase-painting, 223
Ephesus, church of 8. John, 276
Ephialtes and Themistocles, 166
Ephyra = Crannon, 179
Epicurus, in Cicero, 114
Epirus, excavations at Nicopolis, 274
Eros, Capitoline and Gyrene statues, 242
Euctemon, astronomer, 80
Euergides, cup in British Museum, 119
FLUTE-PLAYERS, contest, in vase-painting,
138
Frescoes, Minoan and Mycenaean, 249, 263,
272
G
GEMINUS, calendar, 82
Gournia, Minoan bronze statuette, 87
Graces, groups from Gyrene, 233
Granmichele, terra-cotta statues, 204-5
Gryphons guarding gold, in vase-painting,
147
HELLADIC periods, 260
Heptereis, 13
Heracles son of Barsine, 18 ft
Heracles, in Thessaly, 179
Hermes Chthonios, 179 ff.
Hieronymus, in Diodorus, 3
Hipparchus, on Aratus, 78
Hipparchy in Alexander's army, 5
INSCRIPTIONS, 50 ff . ; Coroneia, 272 ; Gyrene,
238; Delian inventories, 194; Mace-
donia, 267; Mycenaean, 272; Myconos,
267 ; Thessaly, 273
Isocrates, Areopagiticus, 165
Italy, Greek inscriptions, 64 ; terra-cotta
statuary, 203 ff.
KERNOS, Cycladic, 231
Kreondae. family, 179
LEONIDAS of Tarentum, in Cicero, 114
Lesbos, excavations, 275
Lewis Collection, at Cambridge, 222
Libyan sheath, in Crete, 88, 251
Loutrophoros vase, 142
Lucceius, letter of Cicero, 176
Lysicrates Monument at Athens, 271
Lysippus, works of, 245
M
MACEDONIA, excavations, 267, 274 ; inscrip-
tions, 68; prehistoric remains, Philippi,
268; Tsaousitsa, 266
Marsyas and Apollo, in vase-painting, 136
Memnon, love-name on vases, 118
Michigan University, waxed diptych, 217
Minoan bronze group of bull and acrobat,
247 ; statuettes, 86 ff. ; language, 273 ;
seals, 254
Minotaur, in vase-painting, 133
Mosaic pavements, Clazomenae, 276
Music, Byzantine, 29 ff.
Mycenae, excavations, 262 ; cemeteries, 264,
271 ; Lion Gate, 263; palace, 263
N
NAMES, Thessalian, 180
Neumes, Byzantine, 29 ff.
Newby Hall, statue of Athena, 239
Notion, excavations, 268
0
ODEION of Pericles, 269
Oeta, shrine of Heracles, 272
Oracle, of Ammon, 1 ff. ; head of Orpheus,
230
Orpheus, head giving oracles, 230
Oxford, marble relief of taurokathapsia, 257
PARMENION and Alexander, 24
Parmeniscus on Rhesus of Euripides, 74
Pasiades, signed alabastron, 267
IXDKX TO YOLr.MK XLI
313
Peloponnese, inscriptions, 57
Perdiccas and Alexander, Ifi
Pericles, and Areopagus, 169; Odeion, 269
Persian legend of Alexander the Great, 27
Pherae, temple, 273
Philippi, excavations, 267
Plato, in Cicero, 114
Pliny, on the zodiac, 71
Plutarch, on Themistocles, 166
Polybius, on Ptolemies, 185
Polyperchon, 22
Porphyry, on Roxane, 27
Prehistoric Greece, 260
Priphtani, Mycenaean tombs, 271
Pronunciation of Greek, in Cicero, 115
Psychro, Minoan bronze statuette, 87
Ptolemaios Epigonos, 183; son of Lysima-
chus, 183
Ptolemy, astronomy, 83
B
REKHMARA, Minoans in tomb painting, 89
Rhesus of Euripides, 73
Rhinton, in Cicero, 114
Rhytons, bulls, Minoan, 256
Ritsona, tombs, 265
Romance, Alexander the Great, 17
Rouraania, inscriptions, 67
Roxane, 20 ff.
Symposium, in vaae- painting, 224
Syracuse, terra-cotta statuary, 208
Syria, Greek inscriptions, 66
Taurokathapaia, Minoan, 251 ; Thessalian
257 ; Oxford marble relief, 257
Telmessos, Ptolemaios Epigonos, 183 ff.
Terra-cotta statuary, 203 ff.
Thasos, excavations, 268; revolt from
Athens, 173
Thaulios, Zeus, 273
Thebes, Byzantine church, 276 ; House of
Cadmus, 272
Themistocles, 165 ff.
Thermos, temple of Apollo, 273
Theseus and Minotaur, in vase-painting,
133; legend, 257
Thesprotia, families, 17P
Thessaly, exploration, 273 ; bull-fighting,
257; families, 179
Thucydides, in Cicero, 114; on Themis-
tocles, 165
Tiryns, excavations, 269
Tithonos seized by Eos, in vase-painting,
223
Toys, vases, 139
Trebizond, Crypto- Christians, 199
Tylissos, Minoan bronze statuette, 87
SAT-GIUKA, archaeological discoveries, 274
Samos, excavations, 275
Satricum, terra-cotta statuary, 214
Schoinochori, excavations, 266
Scopadae, family, 179
Sculpture, Cyrene, 232; Minoan, 86, 247,
263; terra-cotta, 203
Scythian, in vase-painting, 129
Seals, Minoan and Mycenaean, 254, 264, 271
Shaft-graves, Mycenae, 262
Sicily, Greek inscriptions, 65 ; terra-cotta
statuary, 203 ff .
Sicyon, excavations, 271
Slingers, in vase-painting, 118
Snakes in Minoan cult, 90, 264
Sosibius, 185
Spinning, woman in vase-painting, 133
Strabo, on Alexander, 1 ff.
Sumerian bull-sports, 256
VASES, prehistoric, 231, 260, 266, 268;
red- figure, 117, 222
Veii, archaic terra-cotta group, 213
Volos, neolithic building, 273
W
WAXED diptych, Michigan, 217
Wreaths, funeral, 271
ZENION, sculptor at Gyrene, 240
Zeus, statue from Cyrene, 238
Zodiac, 71
Zygouries, excavation, 260
IL-GREEK INDEX
lyioxos, 238
s, 181
Myovos, 188
4irifj.it\ios, 180
fs of Alexander, 9
s, 180
ttrtiopa, 61
, 68
eajv, 182
= vt\(Kvs, 264
iraXivrovos, 243
FIAaj'a)!/ xaipf. 133
iroAuyurjAoj, 180
irp6yovos, 190
irpwra (TTjyueio, 73
TavpoxaOdirTai, 257
virou.vrifj.ar a of Alexander, 1 ff .
oi;, 6
yuo?pa, 77
^Tpo, 140
^rplvSa, 139
^pa &aai\iK'fi, 19
314
III.-BOOKS NOTICED
Abbott (G. F.), Under the Turk in Con-
stantinople, 151
The Admiralty, .4 Handbook of Greece,
Vol. I. 160 "
— .4 Handbook of Macedonia and Sur-
rounding Territories, 160
Allbutt (T. C.), Greek Medicine in Rome,
288
Alt (A.), Die griechischen Inschriften der
Palaestina Tertia westlich der 'Araba, 278
Bachmann (W.), Watzinger (C.), and
Weigand (Th.), Petra, 278
Banerjee (G. N.), Hellenism in Ancient
India, 161
Bieber (M.), Die Denkmdler zum Thealer-
wesen im AUertum, 284
Bignone (E.), Epictiro, 155
Boll (F.), Aus der Offenbarung Johannis,
295
Bouchier (E. S.), A Short History of Antioch,
295
Buschor (E.), Greek Vase- Painting, trans-
lated by G. C. Richards, 297
Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbiicher, 290
Casson (S.), Catalogue of the Acropolis
Museum, Vol. II, 297
Cauer (P.), Grundfragen der Homerkritik,
Ed. 3, 1st half, 298
Cholmeley (R. J.), The Idylls of Theocritus,
152
Dittenberger (W.), Syttoge Inscriptionum
Graecarum, Ed. 3, Vol. Ill, IV, i, 154
Dobson (J. F.), The Greek Orators, 162
Drerup (E.), Homerische Poetik, Vol. I, 298
Ebersolt (J.), Mission archeologique de Con-
stantinople, 282
— Sanctuaires de Byzance, 281
Elliott (R. D.), Transition in the Attic
Orators, 158
Evelyn White (H. G.), The Sayings of Jesus
from OfyrhijHchiis. 163
Farnell (L. R.), Greek Hero-cults and Ideas
of Immortality, 291
Fobes (F. H.), Aristotelis Meteorologicorum
l.ihri Quatuor, 289
llainbidge (J.), Dynamic Symmetry: the
/. I ase, 304
Harman (E. G.), The Prometheus Bound of
Aeschylus. i>s4
Harrison (J. E.), Epilegomena to the Study
of Greek Religion, 279
Heath (T. L.), Euclid in Greek, Book I, 154
James (H. R.), Our Hellenic Heritage,
Parts I, II, 285
Jeffrey (G.), A Description of the Monu-
ments of Cyprus, 151
Jewell (H. H.) and Hasluck (F. W.), The
Church of Our Lady of the Hundred Gates
in Paros, 293
Lawson (J. C.), Tales of Aegean Intrigue, 151
Ludovici (A. M.), Man's Descent from the
Gods, 303
Meillet (A.), Linguistique historique et Lin-
guistique genirale, 301
Mirone (S.), Mirone d"Eleutere, 302
Nilsson (M. P.), Olympen, 286
— Primitive Time- Reckoning, 158
Norwood (G.), Greek Tragedy, 160
Orsier (J.), Le Phedon de Platon et le Socrate
de Lamartine, 156
Pettazzoni (R.), La Religione della Grecia
antica fino al Alessandro, 292
— La Religione di Zarathustra nella
Storia religiosa deW Iran, 279
Poulsen (F.), I konographische Miscellen, 283
Praschniker (C.), Muzakhia und Mala-
kastra, 279
Radcliffe (W.), Fishing from the Earliest
Times, 286
Reinach (A.), Recueil Milliet, Vol. I, 299
Reitzenstein (R.), Das iranische Erlosungs-
mysterium, 280
Schulz (B.) and Winnefeld (H.), Baalbek,
Vol. I, and Atlas, 277
Stace (W. T.), A Critical History of Greek
. Philosophy, 157
Stunner (F.), Homerische Poeiik, Vol. 111,298
Ure (P. X.), The Greek Renaissance, 285
Van Buren (E. D.), Figurative Terra-cotta
Revetments in Etruria and Latium, 289
WainwrL'ht (G, A.i. Balabish, 302
Walker (K. .M.). Gruk History, 286
Whitaker (J. I. S.), Motya, 278
315
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITKD,
BUN'OAY, SUFFOLK.
J.H.8. VOL. XL). (1921 >. PL. I.
UJ
CO
UJ
N
z
o
cc.
CQ
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (1921). PL. II.
KYLIX SIGNED BY EUERGIDES
BRITISH MUSEUM.
J H.8. VOL. XLI. (1921). PL. III.
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (1921). PL, IV.
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (1921'. PL. V.
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (1921). PL. VI.
PYXIS WITH WEDDING PROCESSION AND COSMIC DEITIES
BRITISH MUSEUM.
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (192H. PL,
J.H.S. VOL. XLI. (1921). PL VIII.
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (1921). PL. IX.
CO 2
Q *
< S
UJ
I ^
J.M.S. VOL. XLI. (1991). PL. X.
WAXED DIPTYCH FROM THE FAYOUM, I. TOP HALF (MAU
J.H.S. VOL. XLI. (I0ai>. PL. XI.
^fi&
vxi /»'
vxi /
•
WAXED DIPTYCH FROM THE FAYOUM. II. UCM.I »:t)
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (1921). PL. XII.
KYLIX FROM THE BARONE COLLECTION
iOHPUl CHRIST! COLLEGE. CAMBRIDGE.
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (1941). PL. XIII.
JH.S. VOL. XLI. (1B21). PL XIV.
J.M.8.' VOL. XLI. M«21). PL. XV.
3
-n
I
DO
0
-u
•
O
J.H.3. 'VOL. XLI. (1921). PL. XVI.
tg
^
3
5
X
J
>
O
HI
c
>J
B
J.H.8. VOL. XLI. (1921). PL. XVII
UJ
Z
LU
DC
>
0
OJ
O
tc
u.
(0
UJ
D
UJ
J.M.8. VOL. XLI. (1021) PL. XVIII.
u
Z
u
QC
>•
o
u
_l
Q.
UJ
LU
CO
oc
THE JOUKNAL
OF
HELLENIC STUDIES
Hill SOCIKTV FOK TIIK PROMOTION OK IIKLLKNIC' STUDIES
THE JOURNAL
OF
HELLENIC STUDIES
VOLUME XLII. (1922)
if
• • . $r
PUBLISH HI > BY TIIK COUNCIL AND SOLD ON THEIR BEHALF
HY
MACMILLAN VXD CO., LIMITED, ST. MARTIN'S STREET
LONDON, W.I'. L'
- A'('y/</> "/' TruiiJutinii mt-l /{>>/, m'/i<, -/inn are Reserved
MADE AND PRINTKD IN GUKAT BRITAIN.
UlCHAKU Cl-AV & SuNS, l.lMMKh,
PKINTKRS, BUNGAV, SUFFOLK.
CONTENTS
PACK
Rules of the Society ... ix
List of Officers and Members xiii
•
Proceedings of the Society, 1921-1922 xvi
Financial Statement xxiii
Additions to the Library xxix
Accessions to the Catalogue of Slides xlvii
ASHMOLE (BERNARD) Notes on the Sculptures of the Palazzo dei
Conservator*. (Plates VIII.-X.) 238
„ „ Locri Epizephyrii and the Ludovisi Throne.
(Plate XI.) 248
BEAZLEY (J. D.) Citharoedus. (Plates II.-V.) 70
BURY (J. B.) The End of the Odyssey 1
CARY (M.) Notes on the apurrtta of Thebes 184
CASSON (S.) Bronze Work of the Geometric Period and
its Relation to Later Art 207
CHILDE (V. GORDON) The East European Relations of the Dimini
Culture. (Plate XII.) 254
CLEMENTS (E.) The Interpretation of Greek Music 133
HASLUCK (F. W.) The Caliph Mamoun and the Prophet Daniel 99
MARSHALL (F. H.) A Greek Manuscript describing the Siege of
Vienna by the Turks in 1683 16
MILLER (WILLIAM) The Last Athenian Historian: Laonikos
Chalkokondyles 36
PHILADELPHEUS (A.) Three Statue-Bases recently discovered at
Athens. (Plates VI., VII.) 104
VI
CONTENTS
REINACH (THEODORE)
SEYMOUR (P. A.)
SHEPPARD (J. T.)
Six (J.)
TARN (W. W.) '..
TOD (MARCUS N.) ... .,
URE (ANNIE D.)
Notices of Books
Index of Subjects ...
Greek Index
List of Books Noticed
Poet or Lawgiver? 50
The 'Servile Interregnum' at Argos 24
Traces of the Rhapsode 220
Asklepios by Bryaxis. (Plate I.) 31
The Constitutive Act of Demetrius' League
of 303 : ... 198
Greek Inscriptions from Macedonia 167
A Black-Figure Fragment in the Dorset
Museum 192
107, 276
... 299
... 302
303
LIST OF PLATES
I. Two Heads of Asklepios. Alexandria. British Museum.
II. Amphora. New York, Hearst Collection.
III. Amphora of Panathenaic Shape. Vatican.
IV. Amphorae of Panathenaic Shape. Munich.
V. Amphora of Panathenaic Shape. Munich.
VI. Reliefs on Marble Basis. Athens, National Museum.
* •'"*•• » » J> » » » »
VIII. Athlete. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori.
IX. Statue of a Girl (fragment). Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori.
X. Sleeping Eros. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori.
XI. Marble Relief from the Esquiline. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori.
XII. Prehistoric Pottery from Kostowce in Galicia. Oxford, Ashmolean
Museum.
CONTENTS vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
Asklepios by Bryaxis.
PAGE
Fig. 1. Head of Sarapis from Arsinoe, Cairo 31
„ 2. Asklepios. Statuette found at Epidauros 32
„ 3. Coins of Alexandria and Cos 33
The Last Athenian Historian : Laonikos Chalkokondyles.
Map. The Near East in 1451 41
Poet OP Lawgiver?
Fig. 1. So-called Sophocles. Koine, Lateran 50
,, 2. Head of the Lateran ' Sophocles ' 54
„ 3. Sophocles? Bust in the Vatican, Sala delle Muse 54
„ 4. Sophocles. Lost Marble Medallion of the Farnese Cabinet 55
„ 5. Sophocles. Herm in the Belvedere of the Vatican 56
„ 6. Sophocles. Albano Bust, British Museum 56
„ 7. Ephebe, from Eretria. Athens, National Museum 59
,, 8. Demosthenes. Vatican 60
,, 9. Aeschines. Statue from Herculaneum, Naples Museum 61
„ 10. Herm of Solon. Florence, Uffizi 65
,,11. Christ (from the Berlin Sarcophagus) 68
Citharoedus.
Fig. 1. Amphora. New York, Hearst Collection 72
27^
»> » » >i »> •*•
„ 3. „ Once in Rollin's Possession 75
„ 4. „ Naples 77
,, 5. Fragment. Acropolis 79
„ 6. Amphora. Louvre 81
„ 7. „ Petrograd :. 81
„ 8. „ Munich 83
A Black-Figure Fragment in the Dorset Museum.
Fig. 1. Fragment of Kylix 193
Bronze Work of the Geometric Period and its Relation to Later Art.
Fig. 1. Bronze Horse from Olympia 209
. ,, 2. Bronze Group of Man and Centaur: New York 209
„ 3. Bronze Centaurs : (a) from Olympia, (b) and (c) from the Acro-
polis at Athens 210
,, 4. Bronze Figures of Zeus : (a) and (c) from Arcadia, (b) from
Dodona 212
„ 5. Bronze Figure of Zeus 212
„ 0. Bronze Figures of Zeus from Olympia 212
. 7. Bronze Figures of Warriors : (a) from Corinth, (b) from Delphi,
(c) from Dodona 213
viii CONTENTS
PAOB
,, 8. Heads of Bronze Figures from the Acropolis at Athens ...... 213
„ 9. Head of Bronze Figure from the Acropolis at Athens ......... 214
„ 10. Heads of Bronze Figures from the Acropolis at Athens ...... 214
,, 11. Silver Tetradrachms of Athens of the Earliest Type ......... 215
5> **• J» » » » » )) » J> ......... ^10
„ 13. Terra-cotta Relief: Funeral Scene. From Olympos in Attica ... 217
„ 14. Fragments of a Proto-Attic Vase from the Kynosarges Cemetery,
now at Athens ................................. 217
,, 15. Limestone Head of Maiden from an Archaic Pedimental Sculp-
ture on the Acropolis at Athens .................. 219
„ 16. Silver Tetradrachm of Athens of more Developed Type ...... 219
Notes on the Sculptures of the Palazzo del Conservator!.
Fig. 1. Standing Discobolus, Antiquarium, Rome ............... 238
,, 2. Conservator! Athlete. Antiquarium Discobolus ............ 239
,, 4. Eirene, Munich. Fragment, Conservator!. Sauroktonos, Dresden 240
,, 5. Fragment of Female Figure, Palazzo dei Conservator! ......... 241
,, 6. Herm in the Palazzo dei Conservator! .................. 241
,, 7. The Conservator! Herm, the Hermes of Praxiteles, and the Petworth
Aphrodite compared ........................... 243
,, 8. Detail of Eyes and Brows compared .................. 245
,, 9. Conservator! Herm. Petworth Aphrodite ............... 246
,, 10. Sleeping Eros, Conservator!. Sleeping Hermaphrodite, Museo delle
Terme .................................... 246
Locri Epizephyrii and the Ludovisi Throne.
Fig. 1. Terra-cotta Relief from Locri. British Museum ............ 249
„ 2. Sacred Pit at Locri .............................. 252
The East European Relations of the Dimini Culture.
Fig. 1. Polychrome Urn from Transylvania, with Design reminiscent of
Maeander .................................... 257
,, 2. Ornamented Dishes from Petreny ..................... 259
,, 3. Stylisation of Animal Motives at Petreny ............... 259
,, 4. Typical Dimini Bowl, after Tsountas .................. 259
,, 5. Cups with Conical Bases from Petreny .................. 261
„ 6. Cup with Conical Base from Kostowce. Ashmolean Museum ... 261
„ -7. Large Urn with Conical Base from Petreny ............... 261
„ 8. Large Urn with Conical Base: Culture A on the Dniepr ...... 263
,, 9. Diagrams showing Development of Conical Bowls from Szipenitz ... 263
„ 10. Conical Bowl and Intermediate Form from Petreny ......... 263
,,11. Handle-building on an Urn from Petreny ............... 263
,, 12. East European Figurines : a, 6, d, from Rzhishchev, c from Petreny 265
„ 13. Seated Kourotrophos Model from Sesklo .................. 265
,, 14. Incised Pottery from the Dniepr Region .................. 272
,, 15. Single and Double Stands from Culture A on the Dniepr ...... 273
RULES
«
OF THE
irfij for tljc /promotion 0f Jtjcllcnic
i. THE objects of this Society shall be as follows :—
1. To advance the study of Greek language, literature, and art, and
to illustrate the history of the Greek race in the ancient, Byzantine,
and Neo-Hellenic periods, by the publication of memoirs and unedited
documents or monuments in a Journal to be issued periodically.
II. To collect drawings, facsimiles, transcripts, plans, and photo-
graphs of Greek inscriptions, MSS., works of art, ancient sites and remains,
and with this view to invite travellers to communicate to the Society
notes or sketches of archaeological and topographical interest.
III. To organise means by which members of the Society may have
increased facilities for visiting ancient sites and pursuing archaeological
researches in countries which, at any time, have been the sites of Hellenic
civilisation.
2. The Society shall consist of a President, Vice-Presidents, a Council,
a Treasurer, one or more Secretaries, 40 Hon. Members, and Ordinary
Members. All officers of the Society shall be chosen from amonc: its
Members, and shall be cx-officio members of the Council.
3. The President shall preside at all General, Ordinary, or Special
Meetings of the Society, and of the Council or of any Committee at
which he is present. In case of the absence of the President, one of
the Vice-Presidents shall preside in his stead, and in the absence of the
Vice-Presidents the Treasurer. In the absence of the Treasurer the
Council or Committee shall appoint one of their Members to preside.
4. The funds and other property of the Society shall be administered
and applied by the Council in such manner as they shall consider most
conducive to the objects of the Society : in the Council shall also be
vested the control of all publications issued by the Society, and the
ral management of all its affairs and concerns. The number of the
Council shall not exceed fifty.
5. The Treasurer shall receive, on account of the Society, all
subscriptions, donations, or other moneys accruing to the funds thereof,
and shall make all payments ordered by the Council. All cheques shall
be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Secretary.
6. In the absence of the Treasurer the Council may direct that
cheques may be signed by two members of Council and countersigned
by the Secretary.
7. The Council shall meet as often as they may deem necessary for
the despatch of business.
8. Due notice of every such Meeting shall be sent to each Member
of the Council, by a summons signed by the Secretary.
9. Three Members of the Council, provided not more than one of
the three present be a permanent officer of the Society, shall be a
quorum.
10. All questions before the Council shall be determined by a
majority of votes. The Chairman to have a casting vote.
11. The Council shall prepare an Annual Report, to be submitted
to the Annual Meeting of the Society.
12. The Secretary shall give notice in writing to each Member of
the Council of the ordinary days of meeting of the Council, and shall
have authority to summon a Special and Extraordinary Meeting of the
Council on a requisition signed by at least four Members of the Council.
13. Two Auditors, not being Members of the Council, shall be
elected by the Society in each year.
14. A General Meeting of the Society shall be held in London in
June of each year, when the Reports of the Council and of the Auditors
shall be read, the Council, Officers, and Auditors for the ensuing year
elected, and any other business recommended by the Council discussed
and determined. Meetings of the Society for the reading of papers
may be held at such times as the Council may fix, due notice being
given to Members.
15. The President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer, Secretaries, and
Council shall be elected by the Members of the Society at the Annual
Meeting.
16. The President shall be elected by the Members of the Society
at the Annual Meeting for a period of five years, and shall not be
immediately eligible for re-election.
17. The Vice-Presidents shall be elected by the Members of the
Society at the Annual Meeting for a period of one year, after which they
shall be eligible for re-election.
XI
18. One-third of the Council shall retire every year, but the Members
so retiring shall be eligible for re-election at the Annual Meeting.
19. The Treasurer and Secretaries shall hold their offices during the
pleasure of the Council.
20. The elections of the Officers, Council, and Auditors, at the
Annual Meeting, shall be by a majority of the votes of those present.
The Chairman of the Meeting shall have a casting vote. The mode in
which the vote shall be taken shall be determined by the President
and Council.
21. Every Member of the Society shall be summoned to the Annual
Meeting by notice issued at least one month before it is held.
22. All motions made at the Annual Meeting shall be in writing
and shall be signed by the mover and seconder. No motion shall be
submitted, unless notice of it has been given to the Secretary at least
three weeks before the Annual Meeting.
23. Upon any vacancy in the Presidency occurring between the
Annual Elections, one of the Vice-Presidents shall be elected by the
Council to officiate as President until the next Annual Meeting.
24. All vacancies among the other Officers of the Society occurring
between the same dates shall in like manner be provisionally filled up
by the Council until the next Annual Meeting.
25. The names of all Candidates wishing to become Members of the
Society shall be submitted to a Meeting of the Council, and at their
next Meeting the Council shall proceed to the election of Candidates
so proposed : no such election to be valid unless the Candidate receives
the votes of the majority of those present.
26. The Annual Subscription of Members shall be one guinea, payable
and due on the 1st of January each year ; this annual subscription may be
compounded for by a single payment of £15 155., entitling compounders
to be Members of the Society for life, without further payment. All
Members elected on or after January i, 1921, shall pay on election an
entrance fee of one guinea.
27. The payment of the Annual Subscription, or of the Life
Composition, entitles each Member to receive a copy of the ordinary
publications of the Society.
28. When any Member of the Society shall be six months in arrear
of his Annual Subscription, the Secretary or Treasurer shall remind him
of the arrears due, and in case of non-payment thereof within six months
aftt T date of such notice, such defaulting Member shall cease to be a
Mnnber of the Society, unless the Council make an order to the contrary.
62
Xll
29. Members intending to leave the Society must send a formal
notice of resignation to the Secretary on or before January i ; otherwise
they will be held liable for the subscription for the current year.
30. If at any time there may appear cause for the expulsion of a
Member of the Society, a Special Meeting of the Council shall be held
to consider the case, and if at such Meeting at least two-thirds of the
Members present shall concur in a resolution for the expulsion of such
Member of the Society, the President shall submit the same for con-
firmation at a General Meeting of the Society specially summoned for
this purpose, and if the decision of the Council be confirmed by a
majority at the General Meeting, notice shall be given to that effect to
the Member in question, who shall thereupon cease to be a Member of
the Society.
31. The Council shall have power to nominate 40 British or Foreign
Honorary Members. The number of British Honorary Members shall
not exceed ten.
32. The Council may, at their discretion, elect for a period not
exceeding five years Student-Associates, who shall be admitted to certain
privileges of the Society.
33. The names of Candidates wishing to become Student- Associates
shall be submitted to the Council in the manner prescribed for the
Election of Members. Every Candidate shall also satisfy the Council by
means of a certificate from his teacher, who must be a person occupying
a recognised position in an educational body and be a Member of the
Society, that he is a bond fide Student in subjects germane to the purposes
of the Society.
34. The Annual Subscription of a Student-Associate shall be one
guinea, payable and due on the 1st of January in each year. In case
of non-payment the procedure prescribed for the case of a defaulting
Ordinary Member shall be followed.
35. Student-Associates shall receive the Society's ordinary publica-
tions, and shall be entitled to attend the General and Ordinary Meetings,
and to read in the Library. They shall not be entitled to borrow books
from the Library, or to make use of the Loan Collection of Lantern
Slides, or to vote at the Society's Meetings.
36. A Student-Associate may at any time pay the Member's entrance
fee of one guinea, and shall forthwith become an Ordinary Member.
37. Ladies shall be eligible as Ordinary Members or Student-
Associates of the Society, and when elected shall be entitled to the same
privileges as other Ordinary Members or Student- Associates.
38. No change shall be made in the Rules of the Society unless
at least a fortnight before the Annual Meeting specific notice be given
to every Member of the Society of the changes proposed.
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES.
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1922—1923.
President.
SIR FREDERIC KKNYON, K.C.B., D.LITT., P.B.A.
Vice-Presidents.
SIR SIDNEY (01. YIN. I>.|.ITT.
SIR ARTIU'R KVANS, F.R.S., D.Lin., LI..D.,
F.B.A.
MR. I.. R. FARNEI.L, D.l.irr., F.B.A.
SIR I. <;. FRA/Kk, D.l.iTT., LlTT.D., LL.D.,
D.V.I.., F.It. A
PROF. KRNKST C.ARDNKR.
I'ROF. PERCY t.ARDNKR, I.lTT.I)., D.LiTT.,
F. B.A.
Mls> |A\K HARRISON, D.Lirr.
MR. (I. F. Ml 1. 1.. F.BA.
MR. 1). C,. HOGARTH, C.M.G., F.B.A.
PROF. M. STUART JONES, F.B.A.
MR. \VAI.TF.R I.KAF, Lm.D., TXLiTT.
I'ROF. C.II.IIKRT MURRAY, F.B.A,
PROF. I. l.INTON MYRKS, D.LITT.
PROF. SIR W M. RA.MsAY, D.C.L., I.L.D.,
LITT.D.. I >.!)., F.B.A.
PROF. SIR WILLIAM RIDGEWAY, F.B.A.
RKV. PROF. A. H. SAYCK, LITT.D., D.LiTT
MR. A. HAMILTON SMITH.
SIK CECIL HARCOURT SMITH, C.V.O., LL.D.
MRS. S. A <THUR STRONG, LlTT.D., LL.D.
SIR CHARLKS WALsTON. LITI D., Pii.D.
L.H.D.
Council.
MR. W. C. F. ANDERSON.
MR. N. M. BAY NFS.
MR. I. D. BKA/LKY.
MR. H. I. BELL.
MR. R. C. BOSANOURT.
RKV. PROF. HENRY BROWN K.
MR. W. H. BUCKLKR.
MR. M. O. B. CARY.
MR. S. CASSON.
MR. A. M. DANIEL.
PROF. R. M. DAWKINS.
.MR. I. P. DROOP.
MR. TALFOURD ELY, D.Lrrr.
LADY KVANS.
MR. K. J. FORSDYKE.
MR. THEODORE FVFE.
MR. K. NORMAN GARDINER.
MR. H. R. MALI-
MR. M. HOLROYD.
MISS C. M. KNIGHT, D.LITT.
MR. H. M. LAST.
PROF. W. R. LF.THABY.
MR. R. W. LIVINGSTONE.
MR. F. H. MARSHALL.
PROF. A. C. PEARSON.
PROF. W. RHYS ROBERTS.
MR. I. T. SHEPPARD.
PROF. PERCY N. I'RE.
MR. A. I. B. WAGE.
I. H. 1!. WALT
MR.
WALTERS.
Hon. Secretary.
MISS C. A. HUTTON.
Hon. Treasurer.
MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN, D.LITT., ST. MARTINS STREET, W.C. a.
Assistant Treasurer.
MR. GEORGE GARNETT, ST. MARTIN'S STREET, W.C. a.
Hon. Librarian.
MR. A. HAMILTON SMITH.
Secretary, Librarian and Keeper of Photographic Collections.
MR. JOHN PENOYRE, C.B.K., 19, BLOOMSBURY SgUARE, W.C. i.
Assistant Librarian.
MR. F. WISE.
Acting Editorial Committee.
MR. E. .1. FORsDYKK. ! PROF. ERNEST GARDNER. ; MR. G. F. HILL.
Consultative Editorial Committee.
SIR SIDNEY COI.VIN | PROFKs>t)R I'KRCY GARDNER
PROFESSOR GILBERT Ml'RRAY | SIR FREDERIC KKNYON
and MR. A. J. B. WACK (ex offic'm as Director of the British School at Athens).
Auditors for 1922-1923.
MR. C. F. CLAY. MR. W. K I MAC Mil I \V
Bankers.
-.. COUTT» .<. co.. ,=. IMMI-.ARD SIRKM. i
xiii
XIV
LIST OF MEMBERS.
This List includes members elected during the year 1922 only.
f Life Members.
Adams, Miss E. M., 180, Aldergate Street, E.G. i.
Anderson, Prof. L. Francis, 364, Boyer Avenue, Walla Walla, Wash., U.S.A.
Ashdown, Miss Joan, Little Hallingbury, Bishop's Stortford.
Augustino, P., c/o Messrs. P. Augustino, Alexandria, Egypt.
Barnard, Miss E. M., Bredcroft, Stamford.
Borie, Chas. I., 112, South i6th Street, Philadelphia, Penn., U.S.A.
Chandler, Miss L., 140, Broomspring Lane, Sheffield.
Chapman, Miss A. C., 25, Wilbury Road, Hove, Sussex.
Childe, V. Gordon, Bloomsbury House Club, Cartwright Gardens, W.C. I.
Eleftheroudakis, M. Constantin G., Director of Publishing House, Eleftheroudakis
Athens, Greece.
Fairweather, W. Cranston, 62, Saint Vincent Street, Glasgow.
Fitz Herbert, R. J. A., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Cover, Miss M., 3, St. Aubyns Mansions, Church Road, S.E. 19.
Green, Christopher, Christ Church, Oxford.
Greenwood, Leonard, Abberley Hall, Worcestershire.
fHasluck, Mrs. F. W., c/o H.B.M. Consul, Salonica.
Hickie, Eric Wynne, 6, Redlands, Tiverton, Devon.
Hight, G. A., 2, Bardwell Rd., Oxford.
Jennewein, Paul, 560, West 26th Street, New York City, U.S.A.
Jenkin, Miss D. H., c/o British Consulate, Teneriffe, Canary Islands.
Kahn, Ely Jacques, 25, Claremont Avenue, New York City, U.S.A.
Kennedy, W. Rann, 2, Garden Court, Temple, E.G. 4.
Lamburn, Miss R. C., 9, Cherry Orchard Road, Bromley Common, Kent.
Levi, Philip A., 6, Artesian Road, Bayswater, W. 2.
Lewis, Geo., Engle Street, Tenafty, N.J., U.S.A.
Lloyd, Miss A. M., No. i, North Park, Gerrard's Cross, Bucks.
Lomer, Colonel Sydney, 41, St. John's Wood Road, N.W. i.
Magonigle, A. van Buren, 101, Park Avenue, New York City, U.S.A.
Manley, E. R., 60, St. Cross Road, Winchester.
Moxey, Mrs., Framingham Hall, Norwich.
Nash, Miss Gladys, 2, Wadham Gardens, N.W. 3.
Newton, Miss A. A., Lanehead, Woodhead Road, Glossop.
Nightingale, A., Bramston House, Oundle, Northants.
Phipps, Miss M. E. A., 64, Endwell Road, Brockley, S.E. 4.
Popham, Miss M. E., County School, Chatham.
Powell, W. H., 350, Maddeson Avenue, New York City, U.S.A.
Price, Eli K., City Hall, Philadelphia, Penn., U.S.A .
Reinach, M. Theodore, Villa Kerylos, Beaulieu-sur-Mer, Alpes Maritimes, France.
Rhead, F. H., 45, Muskingum Avenue, Zanesville, Ohio, U.S.A.
XV
Elected 1022 (continued)
Robertson, R. A. F. S., The Manse, Old Cummock.
Rush, Mrs., Albemarle Club, 37, Dover Street, W. I.
Scott, J. E., Gonville and Cains College, Cambridge.
Smith, H. R. W., St. Francis Xavier's University, Antigonish, N.S., Canada.
Simkins, R. M., Manchester Grammar School, Long Militate, Manchester.
Solon, Paul H., 16 East 415* Street, New York City, U.S.A.
Solon, L. V., 16 East ^ist Street, New York City, U.S.A.
Totten, Major Geo. Oakley, jun., 2633, i6th Street, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Volonakis, Dr. Michael, 7, Spring Street, Paddingtvn, W.
Walker, Miss M. E., 119, Edmund Road, Hastings.
\\ almsley, Mrs., Skeyness, Edenbridge, Kent.
\\iuslow, Mrs. Frederick, 275, Clarendon Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
SUBSCRIBING LIBRARIES.
Elected 1922.
GREAT BRITAIN.
Holborn, Public Library, 198, High Holborn, IV. C. r.
Lutterworth Grammar School, Leicestershire.
Swansea, The Library of the University College, Swansea.
AUSTRALIA.
Melbourne, The Library of the High School, Spring Street, Melbourne, Australia.
XVI
PROCEEDINGS
SESSION 1921-1922
DURING the past Session the following Meetings were held : —
(1) November 8th, 1921. Mr. H. I. Bell : Hellenism in Egypt (see below, p. xviii).
(2) December i6th, 1921. Hasluck Memorial Meeting : Mr. N. H. Baynes, Prof.
Lethaby and the Librarian (see below, p. xviii).
(3) February I4th, 1922. Mr. Arthur Hamilton Smith : The frieze from Aphro-
disias in the British Museum (see below, p. xix).
(4) March 2ist, 1922 (Students' Meeting). Mr. E. J. Forsdyke: The decorative
art of Prehistoric Greek Pottery (see below, p. xix).
(5) May gth, 1922. Symposium in honour of the publication by Sir Arthur Evans
of the Palace of Minos, Vol. I. Mr. Th. Fyfe, Dr. H. R. Hall and Mr. D. G.
Hogarth (see below, p. xx).
(6) The ANNUAL MEETING was held at Burlington House on Tuesday, June isth,
1922, Sir Frederic Kenyon, President of the Society, occupying the chair.
Mr. George A Macmillan, Treasurer of the Society, presented the following
Report for the Session 1921-22.
The Council would be failing in their duty if they did not state in the forefront
of their report that the Society's income does not yet keep pace with its activities.
Account of these is given below. The Journal is, as it was, the best thing of
its kind : meetings are better attended : the Library grows increasingly useful : and
there are nearly twice as many members as before the war. Yet the devastating fact
remains that, after not unsuccessful attempts to do double work on half rations,
normal expenditure exceeds normal income at the rate of £300 a year. How is
this to be countered ? Appeals for large sums of money are at once unbecoming
the time and unproductive in themselves. On the other hand, the public will
still support with guinea subscriptions a Society which gives good value for the
money — provided that th^y know of its existence. Here the endeavour of our
present members to make our work known is our best asset. Perhaps these are
the hardest years. But the Society is not, nor ever should be, a paying proposition :
it is a mission, and should be served as such.
Obituary. — The Society has sustained the loss by death of two Vice-Presidents,
Viscount Bryce and Professor Henry Jackson ; an original member of the Council,
Mr. Ernest Myers ; and three hon. members, Monseigneur Duchesne, Dr. K. F. Kinch
and Professor Carl Robert. Special mention should also be made of the death of the
following : — Dr. Henry Boyd, Mr. H. T. Gerrans, the Earl of Halsbury, Mr. "Walter
Morrison, F. W. Sanderson, Prof. F. B. Tarbell and the Rev. A. W. Upcott.
xvii
TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF PADUA
FROM THE
SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION
OF HELLENIC STUDIES, LONDON
HE Society for the 'Promotion of Hellenic Studies desires to
offer its mosJ sincere congratulations to the University of
"Padua on the occasion of the celebration of its seven hundredth
anniversary. In common with all English scholars, it recognises the debt
which England in the <^Middle <-4ges owed to the famous Universities
of Italy. In particular it recalls that it was at "Padua, and within the
firsJ generation after the foundation of the University, that the firs!
translation of the "Problems of Aristotle was made by "Metro d'^4bano,
and that for a long period "Padua was the home of Aristotelian
philosophy. When the sJudy of Greek^ was reviving in England in
the sixteenth century, it was to "Padua that many Englishmen went in
order to acquire the new learning.
To Italy, as the land of the Renaissance, all lovers of Greek^^udies
are for ever bound in affectionate remembrance. Italy, the borne of
classical tradition and the fountain-head of modem art, has always
held a peculiar place in the heart of England: and the political events
of the nineteenth, and again of the twentieth century have drawn yet
closer those bonds of sentiment, which are more powerful than the bonds
of interesJ . It is therefore with warm sympathy that the Society greets
your ancient and honourable home of learning on this auspicious
occasion, and wishes you a future no left distinguished than the glorious
pasJ which you now commemorate.
On behalf of the Council,
-f v.
o
.4pril 192:. TmiJent.
Facsimile (reduced) of the Council's address to the University of Padua.
XV111
Changes on the Council. — The Council have recently nominated Miss Jane
Harrison, Prof. J. L. Myres and Mrs. S. Arthur Strong for election as Vice-Presidents
of the Society, and Mr. S. Casson, Mr. M. Holroyd and Prof. A. C. Pearson as
members of the Council.
Relations with other Bodies. — The Society has renewed its financial grants
to the British Schools in Athens and Rome. It views with pleasure the revival
of the activities of both Schools after the war. Interesting publications are expected
from them both, the long promised Excavations at Palaikastro from the School
at Athens, and the reproduction in facsimile of a seventeenth-century artist's
sketches of the pictures of his day, from the School in Rome.
The friendliest relations continue with the sister Society for the promotion
of Roman studies. It is not always realised that the resources of both Societies
at Bloomsbury Square are open to any member of either. A small restriction,
framed in the interest of both bodies, is that a member of one Society is entitled
to borrow three books only at a time, while members of both are allowed six and
upwards.
The Council has recently addressed to the University of Padua on the occasion
of its yooth birthday an expression of the Society's congratulations and goodwill.
(A reduced facsimile of this address appears on the opposite page.)
Messrs. Baynes, Beazley, Bell, Forsdyke, Gardiner, Last, Livingstone,
Sheppard and Ure have been appointed by the Council as a sub-Committee to deal
with the question of the further popularisation of the classics. They are working
with a similar Committee appointed by the Roman Society.
(1) Meetings. — On Tuesday, Nov. 8th, at the first General Meeting of the Society
for the session, Mr. H. I. Bell read a paper on ' Hellenism in Egypt.'
Taking as his text the earliest extant non-literary Greek papyrus, dated in
311-10 B.C., which, he showed, was typical of the conditions of that period, he
propounded the problem : given a minority of Greek settlers, not organised in
poleis, but scattered among an alien majority and subjects of a monarchy which,
however much coloured by Hellenic culture, was Egyptian and absolute in character,,
what would be the fate of Hellenism in such surroundings ? On the one side he
illustrated the Hellenism of the settlers, on the other their Egyptian environment
and the syncretism of religion and culture which was already beginning in the
third century B.C., and traced the gradual strengthening of the Egyptian elements
and the simultaneous weakening of the distinctively Greek elements throughout
the Ptolemaic period. The Roman conquest brought some advantage to Hellenism,
since the Romans differentiated sharply between Greeks and Egyptians and gave
the former a privileged position. In particular the status of the metropoleis tended
to rise and to be assimilated in fact, though not in law, to that of the Greek poleis
or Roman municipia, until at the beginning of the third century they actually
received senates. But the Hellenism of Roman Egypt was largely superficial;
the population was much mixed, the culture did not go very deep, and a steady
economic decay was threatening the position of the middle classes, and with that
the existence of Hellenism. The general adoption of Christianity in the fourth
century was a further blow to Hellenism, which to the Christian Copts was, on the
one hand, pagan, on the other the expression of an alien culture, the representative
of the Byzantine Government; on both grounds detested. Relics of Hellenic
culture survived all through the Byzantine Age, but grew ever slighter, and the
Greek language was maintained largely because it was the instrument of adminis-
tration. Hence, after the Arab conquest it soon perished, and Egypt became once
more merged in the Oriental world from which the genius of Alexander had
separated it.
The proceedings closed after observations by the President and Mr. N. H. Baynes.
(2) On Tuesday, Dec. i6th, was held the first Students' Meeting of the Session.
This was devoted to the memory of the late F. W. Hasluck, sometime Assistant
XIX
Director of the British School at Athens, and a frequent contributor to the Journal
of Hellenic Studies.
After Mr. Penoyre had given particulars of Mr. Hasluck's posthumous works
and sundry personal recollections of their author, Mr. N. H. Baynes contributed
a short address on the development of East Roman asceticism. He accentuated
the importance of the Life of Antony by Athanasius as the great classic of Christian
monasticism, and sketched the rise of the coenobitic ideal with Pachomius and its full
development with S. Basil. He traced the strength of the eremitic conception of
asceticism in Palestine, and from the legislation of Justinian on monasticism turned
to the period of the Iconoclast Controversy and to the rise of Athos as the centre
of the ascetic devotion of the Eastern Church. He sketched the constitutional
changes in the government of the monastic republic and attempted in a few words
to characterise the contemplative spirit of orthodox asceticism — its supreme goal
the beatific vision of God.
From such a paper there emerged the real need for a general study of monas-
ticism in the East Roman Empire. The works (inter alias) of Leclercq, Holl,
Clarke, Tougard, Dobroklonsky, Nissen, Lake and Meyer had laid the foundations,
the publication of Byzantine typika by Dmitrievsky, Petit and Delehaye and of
hagiographical documents especially by Kurtz and Clugnet had provided new
material : the time seemed ripe for a comprehensive treatment. Was there no
British scholar to attempt the task ?
Prof. Lethaby then showed by means of the lantern the long and beautiful
series of photographs taken by Mr. Hasluck of the monasteries of Mount Athos.
He emphasised throughout the natural, homely and unacademic character of these
buildings, in contrast with the mechanical productions of the later Russianising
period.
The communications were listened to by a large audience, and the whole
meeting was a not unworthy memorial of a fine scholar and loved personality.
(3) The second General Meeting was held on Tuesday, Feb. I4th, 1922, when
Mr. Arthur Smith described the frieze from Aphrodisias in the British Museum.
The recently acquired friezes from the Gymnasium at Aphrodisias (and other
sculptures from Aphrodisias now at Constantinople) showed the climax of the
decorative system which is based on the running scroll of acanthus. This could
be traced from its first origin in the fifth century B.C., when the acanthus leaf was
added to the palmette. During the two following centuries the scroll form was
increasingly used, especially in architectural decorations, and on Hellenistic vases.
At the beginning of the Roman Empire the pure acanthus scroll was fully developed.
The addition of half figures to the flowers belongs to the Augustan period (Vitruvius,
VII. 5, ' Coliculi dimidiata habentes sigilla '). In the first and second centuries
the half figures became whole figures, and groups, surrounded by acanthus scrolls,
from wliich they tended to free themselves. In its various forms, especially the
acanthus scroll pure and simple, and the acanthus combined with figures, the
decorative motive could be traced in many later arts, e. g. Coptic, Early Christian,
Byzantine, Buddhist, and Celtic.
The President, Prof. Lethaby, and Sir Henry Howorth offered observations
after the paper.
(4) On Tuesday, March 2ist, 1922, at the second Students' Meeting, Mr. E. J.
Forsdyke showed the lantern slides in the Society's collection illustrating the
Decorative Art of Prehistoric Greek Pottery. Besides the better-known Cycladic
and Minoan vases, the subjects chosen represented the art of the newly identified
Helladic culture of the Greek Mainland and the neolithic pottery of Thessaly and
Macedonia. The principles of decoration and their development were followed in
each case, and particular attention was given to the influence of material upon
the shape and ornamentation of the vessel.
This communication, like others given at previous Students' Meetings, was based
on the Society's existing resources for illustration. It is proposed that at the
XX
next Students' Meeting Mr. Forsdyke's paper should be followed by a similar
exhibition of the slides which the Society has accumulated covering the black-
figured period of vase-painting. Some of these are very good and seldom
used.
(5) The third General Meeting of the Session was held on May gth, 1922. This
was convened to celebrate the publication of the first volume of the long expected
work on the Palace of Minos by Sir Arthur Evans.
Mr. Arthur Smith (V.P.) having taken the chair, Prof. J. P. Droop gave a
general summary of the contents of the book, illustrated by lantern slides. These
included all the plates in colour, the beauty and interest of which were highly
appreciated by a crowded audience.
Mr. Th. Fyfe then offered some observations on Minoan architectural mould-
ings in stucco. Starting with the remarkable libation table from Psychro, which
he characterised as not merely a table but an architectonic motive adapted to a
table, he proceeded to illustrate and discuss the stone slabs and rosettes from
Knossos. A peculiar feature of these was the careful finish given to back as
well as front. In a stone seat from Phaestos he saw a direct suggestion of the
triglyph and metope of the Greek Doric frieze. Perhaps the highest achievement
of the Minoan architect, in the treatment of detail, was to be found in a tiny mould,
apparently for casting a series of juxtaposed brackets, showing double or ogee
curves. Mr. Fyfe concluded by showing various slides illustrating architectonic
motives in frescoes from Knossos.
Dr. H. R. Hall contributed observations on the relations between the Minoan
civilisation and ancient Egypt. He said he should confine himself on this occasion
to an appreciation of what Sir Arthur Evans had done in this book to make plain
to all the fact of the early cultural connexion between Crete and Egypt, and the
history of its development up to the time of the Hyksos king whose inscribed alabaster
lid had been found at Knossos. Dr. Hall said that Sir Arthur's volume stopped
short just at a most interesting time, for the most recent discoveries had thrown
new light upon the history of the ancient world of the Near East, and we now
had not only Egyptian civilisation impinging from the beginning on that of Greece,
but the Hittite and the Babylonian were now apparently preparing to invade the
Aegean sphere, and even the Assyrian, if we could trust the asserted results of
certain recent researches, was at a quite early period so active in Asia Minor as
to alter our ideas of the early history of that part of the world and open up various
new, if still vague, possibilities. However this last novelty might eventually
turn out, there are certainly now possibilities of an artistic and cultural connexion
between the Aegean area and Babylonia in the third millennium B.C. which will
have to be reckoned with seriously, though it may be found to confine itself to the
realm of relief sculpture and glyptic : Babylonian influence in the fact of the use
of the clay tablet possibly had always been apparent, and if one idea could come
from Mesopotamia to the Aegean, so could others. Egypt, therefore, though not
challenged in her pride of place as the most potent overseas influence on prehistoric
Greek culture, would seem to have been not the only influence of the kind.
One could not be too sufficiently grateful to Sir Arthur Evans for the illumin-
ating way in which he had presented the facts of this Egyptian connexion and
influence, even if perhaps we were inclined to doubt whether he was not inclined
occasionally to be aegyptiis ipsis aegyptior. His unqualified acceptance of M. Wei 11 's
view of M. Jondet's stated discovery of ancient moles and other now submarine
works in the harbour of Alexandria as relics of a prehistoric Aegean monumental
harbour might seem to be a case in point : one would like to have some confirmation
of these works and definite assurance of their date before treating them as proof
positive of a great and flourishing commerce between Greece and Egypt in early
days which demanded harbour-works for its accommodation, whether built by
Egyptians or Aegeans, of gigantic size. The connexion is a fact; but is the date
of these works certain ?
XXI
One thing Sir Arthur had done for the first time. He had brought Minoan
C.ri-rce to the a>M>tance of Egypt in the matter of disputed chronology. Hi^
work on the Middle Minoan period showed very clearly the difficulty in accepting
Professor Petrie's view of an enormously long period of time between the Xllth
and the XYIIIth Dynasty; the Cretan evidence was all in favour of the shorter
chronology. So Cretan discovery repaid the help which in the past Egyptian re-
search had given in the task of establishing the approximate chronology of prehistoric
Greek civilisation.
After further remarks by Mr. D. G. Hogarth the chairman summed up the
debt which the Society, and archaeologists generally, owed to Sir Arthur Evans for
his long and successful labour, and offered him warmest congratulations on the
fine instalment now published.
The Joint Library and Photographic Collections. — The following figures
indicjite the scope of the Society's work in this department for this session and
its predecessor.
1920-21 1921-22
« Books taken out 1,382 1.520
*Books added to the Library 315 311
Slides hired 6,125 8,343
Slides sold to members 621 1,299
Photographs sold to members 127 555
Slides added to the collection 213 820
The Council acknowledge with thanks recently published books from H.M.
Government of India, the Trustees of the British Museum, the British Academy,
the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the Carnegie Institution at
Washington, the Catholic University of America, the Museum of Fine Arts at
Boston, Bryn Mawr College, the University Presses of California, Cambridge,
Chicago, Illinois, Manchester, Oxford, Princeton, and Wisconsin, C. H. Beck, G.
Bell & Sons, B. H. Blackwell, E. de Boccard, Chatto & Windus, Jacob Dybwad,
Fontemoing et Cie., P. Geuthner, Walter de Gruyter & Co., S. Hirzel, A. Holder,
Henry Holt & Co., C. Klincksieck, E. Leroux, Macmillan & Co., Marcus & Weber,
F. Meiner, Methuen & Co., J. Murray, P. Noordhoff, Topelmann, H. Vaillant-
Carmanne, Weidmann, Williams & Norgate, and Zanichelli.
The following have also kindly given books : Prof. A. Andreades, Signor G.
Bagnani, Rev. J. E. Barton, G. Bernadakes, E. M. Blake, Dr. A. Boethius, R. C.
Bosanquet, W. H. Buckler, Prof. R. M. Dawkins, Prof. E. Drerup, J. Eberpolt.
Sir Arthur Evans, E. J. Forsdyke, W. S. George, D. A. Glenos, H. R. Hall, G. F.
Hill, Sir Frederic Kenyon, B. Lavagnini, Dr. T. S. Lea, J. F. Leutz-Spitta, M.
Montgomery, Prof. H. J. Rose, C. T. Seltman, J. Solch, Prof. F. Studniczka, Prof.
J. Svoronos, W. W. Tarn, F. J. Tausend, Dr. R. E. M. Wheeler, Dr. Wiegand,
Dr. A. Wilhelm, and Dr. Paul Wolters.
Accessions of special interest are : the complete publication of the Excava-
tions at Assos (one of many donations from the Library's most generous helper,
Mr. W. H. Buckler), the first instalment of Dr. Wiegand's monumental Baalbek,
Bieber's Denkma'ler zum Thealerwesen im Altertutn, and Sir Arthur Evans's Palace
of Minos, Vol. I. The Loeb classical texts are now complete to date.
One of the most valuable assets of the Library is the large number of periodicals
which it receives. Of these there are now over 100 in working order and up to
date. The last fascicules of the more important are conveniently arranged for
consultation.
Attention is also drawn to the Society's collection of nearly 3000 pamphlets,
containing material difficult to find elsewhere. They are catalogued, both under
author and subject, in the General catalogues.
* Exclusive of periodicals.
XX11
The combined detailed index of the Volumes of the Journal subsequent to
Volume XVI, 1896, is in progress and will, it is hoped, be ready to appear in
an early issue of the Journal. The Society owes this important index to the
protracted labours of Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Smith. The outline index of the whole
Journal (articles and authors) maintained in the Library has been brought up
to date. The promised index of the separate articles in the in honorem collections
is far advanced.
The whole of the collection of negatives has been checked, and put into new
envelopes and boxes on a plan which makes every individual negative readily
accessible. As this collection consists of upwards of 10,000 items, ranging from tiny
films to glasses two feet square, the work involved has been considerable. Practi-
cally the whole of this has been carried out by Members of the ' Association of
Friends of the Library.' This body, recently formed with the Hon. Librarian as
Chairman, is, as the name implies, a band of voluntary helpers coming for the
most part of one day a week. The members are : Miss G. Ainslie, Mr. and Mrs.
E. P. Baily, Mrs. Barge, Miss A. Bruce, Miss C. Chapin, Miss J. E. Chitty, Mrs.
Culley, Miss Geare, Miss E. M. Marriage, Mrs. Grafton Milne, and Miss G. Nash.
Miss K. M. Horsfall, Miss C. M. Knight and Mr. Paul Hopkinson have given
occasional valued help.
The Society at large is probably unaware of how much it owes to this associa-
tion. Year by year the scale of operations grows at Bloomsbury Square, and it
is not too much to say that no section of the work could be adequately maintained
and developed without the help given by its members. Their presence also makes
it possible for the Librarian to get away occasionally.
By far the most notable addition to the collections during the year has been a
munificent donation of over 1000 topographical negatives from Mr. Shirley C. Atchley ,
of Athens. The larger part of these were taken in Northern Greece and the
Peloponnesus, and they embrace several little known sites. The President trans-
mitted to Mr. Atchley the sincere thanks of the Council and the Society for this
important gift. Prints of all the negatives have now been added to the collections.
Donations are also acknowledged from Miss G. Ainslie (the donor of a valuable
collection formed by her father, the late Mr. R. S. Ainslie, a life member of the
Society), Mr. St.Clair Baddeley, the British School at Athens, Prof. H. E. Butler,
the Colchester Museum, Mr. Talfourd Ely, Messrs. E. S. Forster, R. H. Forster,
C. R. Haines, P. Hasluck, G. F. Hill, M. Holroyd, and Mr. and Mrs. Grafton Milne.
Considerable additions have been made to the Sets of Slides for popular lectures.
The Societies owe a debt to Mr. G. H. Hallam, who has organised the preparation
of six sets, mainly on Roman subjects. These are : The Roman Forum, The Cam-
pagna, Horace, Pompeii, Sicily, and Roman Britain. They have the distinctive
feature of being accompanied by a typed lecture written by a recognised authority
on the subject. The Hellenic Society proposes to add similar lectures to its existing
Sets on Athens, Olympia, The Prehellenic Age, Architecture, Sculpture, and The
Ancient Theatre.
The Council approves of this departure and begs Mr. Hallam to accept their
thanks for the successful pains he has given to starting the movement.
The quarto collection of pictures and photographs is now at last accessible
(in the Librarian's room on the top floor). In any collection of this kind the first
need is a good framework. The essentials are that any one photograph must be
immediately accessible, the subject order must be strictly observed and the frame-
work must be susceptible of indefinite expansion. These conditions are now
fulfilled.
The Society greatly misses the skilled and generous help of the late F. W. Hasluck
in this department. Year by year on his travels he maintained the habit of buying
up photographs of interest and presenting them. for this collection. We shall be
grateful if members on their travels will bear this point in mind. Good topo-
graphical views and photographs of works of art in local museums are specially
XX11I
asked for. Members prcM-nting photographs will have the satisfaction of knowing
that tlu-v an- intelligently treated and properly cared for.
The collection of larger drawings will be proceeded with as soon as the negatives
at present occupying the space can be moved to their permanent home.
Finance. — The Statement of Accounts for the financial year ending December
3ist, 1921, apart from the sum of £ioo written off for depreciation of stock of the
Journal, shows a deficit of £42. Considering the difficulties of the times, this
must be considered a satisfactory result. The outstanding feature on the expen-
diture side is, of course, the cost of production of the Journal, and it seems
improbable that the cost can be appreciably reduced in the near future. The
special sales of back volumes to members amounted to a considerable sum (hence
the depreciation above referred to), which, while materially reducing the deficit
balance this year, will not be forthcoming again. In order to compare the present
financial position with pre-war days the following tables showing the principal items
of expenditure and ordinary sources of revenue have been prepared : —
(a) The years 1913 and 1914 (normal conditions in pre-war days), (b) The year
1919 (when costs were highest and income at its lowest. In this year the Journal
was issued in one part only, and hardly anything spent on the Library), (c) The
years 1920 and 1921 (showing the results to date of the efforts made, beginning in
December 1919, to overcome the difficulties caused by the war).
Journal
Slides and Photographs ....
Rent
Salaries
Grants
Various Expenses
Library
Journal (Sales and Advertise-
ments)
Slides and Photographs ....
Subscriptions (Members and
Libraries)
Rents
Dividends
Interest. .
EXPENDITURE.
(a) (b) (c)
1913 1914 *919 1920 1921
563 662 685 992 1,172
71 63 42 71 93
205 205 205 205 205
267 279 272 376 417
150 150 100 IIO I2O
239 213 204 506 389
84 90 21 142 138
1,579 £1,662 £1,529
1913 1914
160
74
,223
75
62
9
154
75
,156
85
68
12
£1.603 £1,550
INCOME.
1919
in
38
923
201
91
£2,402 £2,534
1920 1921
£',364
172
73
1,542
no
81
45
£2,023
462
no
1,593
1 80
100
4*
(The above figures do not include donations to the War Emergency Fund or
to^the Endowment Fund.)
Tin- total amount of Investments of Receipts for Life Compositions and
Donations to the Endowment Fund was : —
1913
£1763
1914
£1954
1919
£2054
1920
£2054
1921
£2554
XXIV
During the session a generous donation of £100 was received for the Endow-
ment Fund from a member who prefers to remain anonymous.
The number of members and subscribing Libraries now on the books shows
an increase of nearly 500 as compared with 1913, and this in spite of the heavy
loss caused by the war.
For the last two years it must be remembered that the policy has not been to
give less and charge more, but to revert to pre-war standards without increasing
the Annual Subscription. So far this has been justified by the results; donations
to the War Emergency Fund, increase of membership and increased subscriptions
by some of the old members have made it financially possible to carry on, and
funds already in hand are sufficient to meet this year's requirements, although the
deficit will no doubt be heavier than last year.
It is obvious that, if the Society is to be successfully carried on, much will have to
be done in the near future to secure additional income. It is desirable to increase
rather than restrict its activities, and to this end the assistance of all members is
earnestly invited either by the introduction of new members, increasing subscriptions
wherever possible, or by sending donations to the Endowment Fund.
The President in the course of his address laid stress on the loss to the Society
occasioned by the death of two of its Honorary Members, Monseigneur F. Duchesne
and Dr. Hermann Diels. He concluded by moving the adoption of the Report,
which was seconded by Mr. J. M. Paton, and, being put to the Meeting, carried
unanimously.
The President then announced the following elections and re-elections : —
ELECTIONS.
As V ice-Presidents : Miss Jane Harrison, Prof. John Linton Myres, Mrs. S. Arthur
Strong.
As Members of the Council : Mr. Stanley Casson, Mr. Michael Holroyd, Prof. A. C.
Pearson.
RE-ELECTIONS.
The Vice-Presidents of the Society.
The following Members of Council : Rev. Prof. H. Browne, Mr. A. M. Daniel, Prof.
R. M. Dawkins, Prof. J. P. Droop, Mr. Talfourd Ely, Mr. Th. Fyfe, Prof. P. Urc.
Mrs. S. Arthur Strong, Assistant-Director of the British School at Rome,
then gave to the Meeting Professor Amelung's account of his recovery in the
magazzini, or basement, of the Vatican of a number of sculptures which included
several dating from the finest period of Greek art. Mrs. Strong's letter to The
Times, giving particulars of this discovery, is, by courtesy of the paper, here
reproduced.
' This notable find is the result of researches undertaken by Professor
Amelung, who has resumed his work on the third volume of the great official
catalogue of the Vatican sculptures, and it is thanks to his liberality and to
that of the Director-General of the Pontifical Galleries, Professor B. Nogara,
that I received permission to make the best pieces known in England.
' Though the majority are only fragments, they are all remarkable for
the freshness of their surface, and owing to the absence of all restoration are
especially valuable to artists and archaeologists desirous to study Greek
technique. They include the head of a Lapith from a metope of the
Parthenon, which doubtless found its way from Athens to Rome by way -of
Venice; the best replica so far known of the head of the Pheidian Anacreon,
a famous work that once stood on the Athenian Acropolis; the replica, on a
colossal scale, of the head of the Hermes propylaios of Alcamenes. The
Hermes stood " at the gates " of the Acropolis, and there is much to commend
Professor Amelung's view that the original was probably itself on this large
XXV
scale, so as not to be dwarfed by its monumental surroundings. A fourth
fragment connected with the Acropolis is the fresh and delicately carved
head of Athena from a copy of Myron's " Athena and Marsyas."
' Besides these four pieces, all representative of the best Attic art in
Athens, there is much else from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. I may note
a fine fragment of a head which, from its close likeness to the Nike of Olympia,
must be attributed to Paionios of Mende ; further, there are excellent replicas
of the heads of the " Apollo on the Omphalos "; of one of the Charites from
the group of the sculptor Socrates; of the Sappho, corresponding to the
" portrait " of the poetess on the coins of Lesbos. Of the so-called " Phaon "
in Madrid, we have among the new Vatican fragments a replica of such beauty
that it is difficult not to believe it to be an original of Pheidian date.
' Of great interest is a new variant of the Aphrodite of Cnidus by Praxiteles,
in which the vase stands on the ground, and the drapery is treated in long
straight, almost archaic folds. Among examples of the later Greek schools
are a replica of the head of the " Silenus carrying the infant Dionysus"; a
life-like rendering of the " baby with the goose," the original of which stood
in the Temple of Cos and was described by the poet Herodas; a charming
head of Eros ( ?), of the Hellenistic period, another example of which exists
at Petworth ; a fragment of quite peculiar interest representing a composite
divinity armed with sword, trident, and thunderbolt, while an eagle perched
on a huge cornucopia fills up the composition on the left.
4 Among the reliefs are two of fourth-century date : one a well-preserved
stele of a lady with her maid (more probably Demeter and Persephone) ; the
other a better and earlier replica (it might be a fragment of the original) of
the left-hand portion of the relief of the Muses in the Chigi Palace at Siena.
' A number of Greek and Roman portrait heads are mostly of types so
far unknown. Among the numerous Roman portraits one of the time of
Tiberius representing a middle-aged man deserves special attention for the
amazing freshness of the technique and the great beauty of modelling and
silhouette.
' The preservation of these antiques is certainly due to the fact that
when the Vatican collections were formed only statues and busts that could
be used in a decorative manner were appreciated and selected for exhibition,
while the examples now described, being of too fragmentary a character to
attract the restorer, were tossed aside and left for more than a century buried
under veritable rubbish heaps.
' I should like, in conclusion, to mention likewise the finds recently made
under the auspices of the Italian Government at Formia, where six statues
of early Imperial date, all admirably preserved, were recently unearthed.
One with the head of a young Julio-Claudian prince of singular beauty, who
resembles Augustus in his prime, reproduces the body of the famous Lans-
downe Hermes; another — a togate statue — is, again, of an unknown Imperial
personage; the pose and every detail of costume and drapery are those of
the Augustus from the Via Labicana. At Ostia, among a number of frag-
ments which had evidently been destined to the lime-kiln, there was found
this winter an admirable statue of a young girl, figured as Diana, with individual
and characteristic features. According to its discoverer, Dr. Calza, it may be
of the Flavian period ; whatever its date, it is certainly one of the most beautiful
works of art found in recent excavations.
' Altogether it is many years since our knowledge of classical art has been
so enriched as by the Roman and other Italian finds of the last twelve months.'
The warm thanks of the Meeting were accorded to Mrs. Strong for her com-
munication,and to Professor Amelung and Professor Nogara for the materials,
including the admirable slides, generously placed at her disposal.
c
XXVI
^ "> ° * :
-Q o tx in
V ON 0 N H
. _, £> in
K
0
ON f"J ON
N tx O
S? if M O '
-
T tx *
SI
S
4
-Q ui O
^ >n ^
c
.?
i—
3
M
~* " "~
O
ON
^* S3 f^ f^i
0
M
•-1 M ro
o
«*!
.
to
<U
u
fo
^
3
PH
W
'•3
W
CQ
c
W
rj
o
^3
^^ Qi
w
w
o
o
W
Q
8
M
• w "c
3 «? «
^ * i g
° • ^ ° S
> o >N ;n S
^ CJ •£ +3 g
Q
o
H
M
C*
3
0> &0
.- ^
S 3
•S-3
rt **^
c>
ij cy 'o « '-'
M
CO
cs o > o
F— - t^
ft
,O C (/} "O -*-•
M
rt rt
K-
bo JS o **< o
(/) t/5
JANUARY
•S ^ 'S g c
l|| !|
•-__ u _ _"&,
o" PU " '**
JANUARY
42
o
rt ^
u
-S
S
in PH
5
PH
O
«
>^
K
pq
pq s
OUNT
• u-j O "-1 O >O
g
P | . ^.,H« I.
O ~ M «o >o >n to
Q
• O O ON u~J u*! "
O ; <o' o o M « u^
<
., i- O NO M >O r
< ^~~^
"** in ON ^ 00 ON
^ ffi ^*« « 2
M
^ £ ... ^
t-H
Q
S
-
£
8
C/3
H
O
t—i
g
Q
O
K
PH
"c
3
2
1
Q
8
Q
(d
^
Z
' <!
H
O
^1
g «
2 >-•
V
C/5
'-5 3
§
•J
j
K
60
.2
*C
•
0
w
p
i
en
1 1|
z
S
§
•—>
1
o
a
*rt
PH
•e
3
•d
60 C
C rt
til
60-5 •%
C > y>
W « £J
iSi
§ e<
LANTERN
1 i^
rt "jj rt
1 Jo 8
"** •- in C
TI . "a. 9
» g>l*«
c ?; <<
3 ,9 R, 49
K
Q
1 2 1 1 1
PM PL, Q W PL,
in i/i O i
<U 4) •*-> J5
ss^-s
en en PH PQ
o -.-•>-
0 » „ .
H - ' '
w
H i
^8
£ o
3 <l>
8 '-3
3 C
CJ 13
"o rt
•3 I
t/5 U
•; o
T3 **
§! S
1 S
PQ -
fc
X
P
0
CJ
5&0
.S
o -a
.2 =
XXV11
•«' *°o oo«io ooooooo «o"£ tT
^ ?*£ r? ° ^j* ° ° ° o o o o -10 M
^J ££ \£" «-S2- 2 ° 2 oo«fN txw «
jj N *2 * S . «*«•*» - j eg
"^ *O O O O >JJj
o5 if ui vO tx
v_> O<O oo O>
•*> O N «•>
• 1 N
c> "
M
3
B
8-2 o : 2
J3 ai 2 • "*
: o
M«
o
*•
S
</) c £ : r
1
.2 PH
Ci «»
_n
JZ f\$ ^C * m
g
'w
w |
^ 4j rt • o
O ^ . •O
fi 8
o
'C rt >» ' ri
o 3 CL, (fl
9 &
c
QQ— ,2:o
Ui
n ^
*r o K :«
•2
ti -< <o
ANUARY i. 1921. TO DECI
V)
C
_g
'-3
cx
1
3 «5
«!
£t
|<
o
%
-
~
—
si
4> C
^ S
»T!
(J —
C'C
II
Wc^|
ill
is
I>S
^j
'i
o
—
4->
.e
60
I
^2
S
.0
!-
c c
0 3
^8
«^
>*« •!,
3
•M r2 w •
c-^-g JT : x
!§«<* r.i'S
l|«ls^ ;J
£ ^^ <« .t: § ^ : -
flE-lNJ
c as'o >,8 3
>—l4)OC-|-'O-'-'TI
a Q * « J S^ P -d
o-otnoe;2>c
illililli
Is-c^ °oS^^
3||2||?«|
sS.s"1^-^0
4)
'o
•o c
60^ Oj j
J
-
H
*yO ^lOfitxO *
" O O fi vO O
o'
D
"o "1 «x,O oo 00 O '
*• 'O O "O N N
—
O
1-1 t-i « >.
< IH H
1 "" M «-"
0
^ **£ «x.«o*-Oo O O O rs. ov o
^o .- oooo oo >5 S P> §"§
M
oo
<j
.
^
Is,—
0 |
ti 0 o m
0 0 O
^
2
<o O O tN
o o o
D
*^
H
^ O O JN,
8D O
—
00 «O 00
«
Q
M
cu
^
2
|
a
.2 ' '•
U)
J
H
J9
3
tn
Q
"§
S
6C
55
e
.5
^
<v.
o
tn
'5
4*
(4
^3
U
^ ; •
C
S " «J
' «
0
W
|
a :
u. h c
o SJ rt
•4-J
S
U
111
C ~V
O •*-.
S
3
cx
\J
U
g
c
Ct
Salaries —
Librarian and Sc
Assistant Treasu
,, Librari
Typist, &c
Insurance .,
Expenses
J5
3
60
C
•o
c
(4
60
Grants —
British School at
Excavations in I
Balance from Library Ac
Balance from ' Journal o
Account ..
Depreciation of Stocks of
Miscellaneous
Stationery
Postaee .
>ferc
w
B
.0 , ;.....>
•« M
r 2 :
C 2
XXV111
^
M
t
• O
1
o o o
M
0
— M
N
<->
in in
— M
i
•> o
N 0 M
S
M
M in
•
t- o
\O O M
N
v:
*•*?
30 00
i
•4 N
i- in
-r
co
M C*
i
| '
f
ft!
^
•« ^ 2 M
M 0
M
M 0
M
*> M" "^ M
CO 0
m o
vp co co ^t"
1- 0
in o
CO
0 M
(/> •_
e
o
•c
o
tn
C- T3
"rt
8> ^
•
-P
•a
O *•*
P
to 3
'(/3~ ,—*
rt
c
•^J .^
Sjf
M
^ i
§ §
i
u
Cu
c
.s o
o
i— >
u
H A
V 3
Jo
lit
PQ •< PU
le
ife Compositi
tldowment F
8-
Q
1
'rt
rt
X
"rt
"o
jQ
£ 1
o 53
CO >> «
^ b -
0 5 n
.2 £ 3
for printing
0
M
|
-a aa
.> <»
1
3
^ 3 1
*O C/5
c
cn
a
0 "S
OP <D
« 6 -
0
i
>
U
U
M
en
O •; 4>
M
J2 to "
C
rt
U
U
-
S
titj
'I
"S **
CJ ^
Q >S
"
V
W
5,
rt X
> W
f
t-J
m
U
^j 00 0 0
0
c
'
d'
PI
E
*° MM
CO
M
t
h
0
M
(«
fx .
-J-
*
i
M
CO
f»1
V^ j^ . —
• W
u
•>
M
30
o
tx. O\
ro
t
t
I
i
m
00
•J
^^
5
O
o
0 0
O "">
_j
ts
o
^5
•<!
FH
• o
•n- o
in in
<c
CO
s ^
in *r
pi
N
O "™"
f
N
u S -a
c
o
-a
JS C rt
^<
rt
J3 °
O
b
3
0)
JH]
<2
N , — . g
*i
E
c>
*^j
C ^*^ o5 "^
1
•a
o
>M
•»*
o "o N ii
1
c
o
m
••*
M
d
o
0
g,
CO
Li,
Debts Payable
Subscriptions paid in advance
P'nHn'wment Fund .
(includes legacy of £201
Canon Adam Farrar
the late Rev. H. F.
Emergency Fund (Library
rurnnurej
Total Received
Life Compositions and Donatii
Tr.tal at Tan T TO2T
Received during year
L«ss carried to Income and EJ
count — Members deceased..
Surplus Balance at Jan. 1,19
Less Deficit Balance from
Expenditure Account
Surplus Balance at Deceml>er
o
« ..
„
.
H '
~
>s
xxix
NINETEENTH LIST OF
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
ADDED TO THE
LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY
SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE CATALOGUE.
1921—1922
With this list are incorporated books belonging to the Society for the
Promotion of Roman Studies. These are distinguished by R.S.
NOTE.— The supply of the original Catalogues (1903) is now ex-
hausted, but copies may be had on loan. The accession lists can
still be purchased on application.
Adam (R.) De Herodoti ratione historica, quaestiones selectae
sive de pugna Salaminia atque Plataeensi.
8J X 5f . Berlin. 1890.
Aeschylus. Four plays of Aeschylus, rendered into English verse by
G. M. Cookson. 7$ X 5. Oxford. 1922.
Alexandria. Rapport sur la marche du service du musee pendant
Texercice, 1919-1920. 11$ X 7J. Alexandria. 1921.
Allinson (F. G.) Translator. See Menander.
Alviella (G. d') Une initiation aux Mysteres d'Eleusis dans les
premiers siecles de notre ere. 8J X 5|. Brussels. 1902.
Ameringer (T. E.) A Study in Greek Rhetoric : the stylistic influence
of the second sophistic on the panegyrical sermons of St.
John Chrysostom. 9x6. Washington. 1921.
Andersen (I). Translator. See Poulsen (F.).
Andler (C.) Le pessimisme esthetique de Nietzsche, sa philosophic
a 1'epoque Wagnerienne. 9 X 5J. Paris. 1921.
Andreades (A.) Henry Monnier. [Byz.— Neugriech. Jahrb. 2.]
9$ X 6$. Berlin. 1921.
Andreades (A.) Le montant du budget de 1'empire byzantin.
10 X 6*. Paris. 1922.
Andreades (A.) La venalite des officfs, est-elle d'origine byzantine?
9x6. Paris. 1921.
Apollodorus, The Library. With English translation by J. G.
Frazer. [Loeb Class. Libr.] 2 vols. 6J X 4$. 1921.
Aratus. See Callimachus.
AristOtle. -a-epl yevcVeon KOLI <£0opu«. Ed. H. H. Joachim.
9J X 6. Oxford. 1922.
Aristotle. Tin* works of Aristotle translated into English.
De caelo : de generatione et corruptione. Ed. J. L.
Stocks. 9x6. Oxford. 1922.
XXX
Aristotle. Lehre vom Beweis. (German translation of the
Analytica Posteriora. By E. Rolfes.)
7f X 5. Leipsic. 1922.
Aristotle. Lehre vom Schluss (German translation by E. Rolfes.)
7J x 5. Leipsic. 1922.
Aristotle. Politik. (German translation by E. Rolfes.)
7f X 5. Leipsic. 1922.
ASSOS. Investigations at Assos : drawings and photographs of the
buildings and objects discovered during the excavations of
1881-3. By J. T. Clarke, F. H. Bacon, R. Koldewey.
Edited by F. H. Bacon.
21J X 14t. London: Cambridge, Mass.: Leipsic. 1902-1921.
Aufhauser (J. B.) Das Drachenwunder des Heiligen Georg. See
Byzantinisches Archiv. 5.
B.S. Ausonius. With an English translation by H. G. E. White. Vol. II.
With the Eucharisticus of PAULINUS PELLAEUS. [Loeb
Class. Lib.] 6f X 4£. 1921.
Bacon (F. H.) Editor. See Assos.
Bailey (C.) Editor. See Lucretius.
Bang (W.) Ueber die Herkunft des Codex Cumanicus. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber. Feb., 1913.]
10£ X 7f Berlin. 1913.
Barber (E. A.) See Powell (J. V.).
Barton (J. E.) A short guide to reading and notes on works of art.
8| X 5£. Wakefield. 1915.
Bauer (P. V. C.) Editor. See Stoddard Collection.
Baumeister (A.) Bilder aus dem griechischen und romischen Altertum
fur Schiiler. 10£ X 8£. Munich. 1889.
Baumgarten (F.) Poland (F.) and Wagner (R.) Die Hellenische
Kultur, 3rd edition. 10 X 7. Leipsic. 1913.
Baumstark (A.) Geschichte der syrischen Literatur.
lOf X 7|. Bonn. 1922.
Beaman (A. G. Hulme-) Twenty years in the Near East.
9x6. 1898.
Berlin. Archaeological Institute. Jahresbericht iiber die Thatig-
heit des K. Deutschen archaeologischen Instituts.
lOi X 7|. Berlin. 1895-1904, 1907-08, 1911-12.
Berlin. Konigliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der antiken
Munzen, I, II, III (1). 7| X 5J. Berlin. 1888-9.
Berlin. Handbiicherd. Konigl. Mus. zu Berlin. Museum fur Volker-
kunde. Buddhistische Kunst in Indien. Von A. Griinwedel.
7f X 5. Berlin. 1900.
Berlin. Handbucher d. staatl. Mus. zu Berlin. Die griechische
Skulptur, von R. Kekule von Stradonitz.' Dritte Auflage
bearbeitet von B. Schroeder.
8J X 5i. Berlin and Leipsic. 1922.
BernadakeS (G.) Ac£t*ov tp/xr/vevTt/cov TWV €V8o£oTaTwv 'EAA.j/i'UH'
iroirjTwv KO.I o'vyypcK^eau'. 2nd ed.
10J X 7£. Athens. 1918.
Bidez ( J.) La tradition manuscrite du Lexique de Suidas. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jul. 1912.] 10£ X 7£. Berlin. 1912.
Bidez ( J.) Editor. See Julian.
K.s. = the property of the Roman Society.
XXXI
Billings (G. H.) The Art of Transition in Plato.
9£ x 6J. Chicago. 1920.
Blake (E. M.) Dynamic Symmetry; a criticism. [Art. Bull. 3.]
10 X 7. Providence. 1921.
Blegen (C. W.) Korakou : a prehistoric settlement near Corinth.
[Am. School of Class. Stud, at Athens.].
12 X 9. Boston and N. Y. 1921.
BoethillS (A.) Der Argivische Kalender. 9f X 6|. Uppsala. 1922.
Bond(F. B.) See Lea (T. S.).
Botsford (G. W.) Hellenic history. 8| x 6. New York. 1922.
Brandis (F.) Monnaies grecqucs. lOi X 7i. Paris. 1922.
Breccia (E.) Alexandrea ad Aegyptum : a guide "to the ancient and
modern town and to its Graeco-Roman Museum.
7 X 4$. Bergamo. 1922.
British Museum. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopo-
tamia and Persia, by G. F. Hill. 9x6. 1922.
British Museum. Catalogue of the Silver Plate (Greek, Etruscan,
Roman) in the British Museum, by H. B. Walters.
11J X 8|. 1921.
British Museum. Carchemish. Report on the excavations at
Jerablus. Part II. The Town Defences, by C. L. Woolley.
12? X 10. 1921. '
British Museum. Guide to a special exhibition of Greek and Latin
papyri presented to' the British Museum by the Egypt
Exploration Fund, 1900-1914. 8£ X 5J. 1922.
British Museum. How to observe in archaeology. 7 X 4£. 1920.
Broecker (H.— G.) De Timachida scriptore Rhodio.
9£ X 6. Weidae Thuringiorum. 1919.
Brownson (C. L.) Translator. See Xenophon.
. Buckland (W. W.) A text-book of Roman law from Augustus to
Justinian. 9£ X 6J. Cambridge. 1921.
Burton (R. F.) and Drake (C. F. T.) "Unexplored Syria. 2 vols.
9*x 5£. 1872.
Buschor (E.) Greek Vase-painting, translated by G. C. Richards.
10 1 x 6£. 1921.
Bussell (F. W.) Marcus Aurelius and the later Stoics,
8£ X 5. Edinburgh. 1910.
Butler (H. C.) See Sardis.
Butler (H. E.) Translator. See Quintilian.
Byzantinisches Archiv.
1. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache.
By K. Dieterich. 1898.
2. Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus. By
J. Strzygowski. 1899.
3. Sammlungen und Cataloge griechischer Handschriften.
By V. Gardthausen. 1903.
4. I document! greci medioevali di diritto private dell'
Italia meridionale. By G. Ferrari. 1910.
5. Das Drachenwunder des Heiligen Georg. By J. B.
Aufhauser. 1911.
9$ X 6|. Leipsic. In progress.
CaiCQ (L.) Translator. See Cervesato (A.").
R.s. = tho property of the Roman Society.
xxxn
Callimachus and LYCOPHRON, translated by A. W. Mair. ARATUS,
translated by G. R. Mair. [Loeb Class. Libr.]
6£ X 4j. 1921.
Callimachus. Fragmenta nuper reperta, edidit R. Pfeiffer.
7| x 51 Bonn. 1921.
Carchemish. See British Museum.
Carpenter (R.) The Esthetic Basis of Greek Art of the 5th and 4th
centuries B.C. [Bryn Mawr Notes and Monographs I.]
6| X 4£. New York. 1921.
R.S. Id. Another copy.
Carr (J.) Descriptive travels in the southern and eastern parts of
Spain and the Balearic Isles, in the year 1809.
lOf X 8|. 1811.
Caskey (L. D.) Geometry of Greek Vases : Attic vases in the Museum
of Fine Arts analysed according to the principles of pro-
portion discovered by Jay Hambidge.
12J X 8|. Boston, Mass. 1922.
Casson (S.) Ancient Greece. 1\ x 5. 1922.
Id. Another copy.
R.S, Cervesato (A.) The Roman Campagna. Translated by Louise
Caico and Mary Dove. 10^x7. 1913.
Chapot (V.) La Flotte de Misene, son histoire, son recrutement, son
regime administratif. 10 X 6i. Paris. 1896.
E.S. Cicero. De divinatione liber primus. With commentary by A. S.
Pease. [Illinois studies VI. 2, 3.]
lOf X 7J. Illinois. 1920.
Clarke ( J. T.) See Assos.
Classics in Education. Report of the Committee appointed by
the Prime Minister to inquire into the position of Classics
in the educational system of the United Kingdom.
8J X 5J. 1921.
B.S. Colchester. The Corporation Museum of local antiquities. Report
of the Museum and muniment Committee for the two years
ended March 31st, 1922. 8} X 5£. Colchester. 1922.
Conybeare (E.) Triremes. 8£ X 5£. 1885.
Cook (A. B.) Triremes. 9| X 6. [1906.]
Cookson (G. M.) Translator. See Aeschylus.
Cotterill (H. B.) Ancient Greece. 8| X 5£. 1913.
*•*• Cramer ( J. A.) A geographical and historical description of ancient
Italy, with a map and a plan of Rome. 2 vols. and atlas.
8| X 5£. Oxford. 1826.
Cumont (F.) Editor. See Julian.
Delatte (A.) Essai sur la politique Pythagoricienne. [Bibl. de la Fac.
de Phil, de I' Univ. de Liege, 29.]
9x6. Paris and Liege. 1922.
Demosthenes. Orations. Vol. II. Part II., edited by W. Rennie.
7f X 5J. Oxford. [1921.]
DenkmalSChutz-KommandOS, wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungeu
des deutschtiirkischen.
6. Die Denkmaler und Inschriften an der Miindun<; dos
Nahr el-Kelb. Von F. H. Weissbach.
14 X 10 J. Berlin and Leipsic. 1922.
R.s.=tho property of the Roman Society.
XXX111
Dennis (G.) Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. 2 vols. 3rd edition.
9J x 6. 1883.
Diels (H.) Antiki- Schulknabenscherze auf einem sizilischen Ziegel-
stein. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jul. 1913.]
10£ X 7±. Berlin. 1913.
Diels (H.) Der SchlUssel des Artemis- tern pels zu Lusoi. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jan. 1908.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Diels (H.) Die Stele des Mnesitheos. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber.,
Nov. 1908.] 10J x 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Diels (H.) Ueber einen neuen Versuch, die Echtheit einiger Hippo-
kratischen Schriften nachzuweisen. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzungsber., 1910.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1910.
Diet eric h (K.) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen
Sprache. See Byzantinisches Archiv. 1.
Dindorf (L.) Editor. See Historici Graeci minores.
Dove (M.) Translator. See Cervesato.
Drake (C. F. T.) See Burton (R. F.).
Dressel (H.) Das Iseum Campense auf einer Miinze des Vespasianus.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Mai 1909.]
10* X 7£. Berlin. 1909.
Dressel (H.) Das Tempelbild der Athena Polias auf den Miinzen von
Priene. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Mai 1905.]
10£ x 7£. Berlin. 1905.
Dupreel (E.) La legende socratique et les sources de Platon.
10 X 6£. Brussels, Paris and London. 1922.
Edmonds (J. M.) Translator. See Lyra Graeca.
Egypt Exploration Society. Graeco-Roman Branch. The Oxy-
rhynchus Papyri, Part XV. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S.
Hunt. 10J X 7J. 1922.
Eitrem (S.) and Fridrichsen (A.) Ein christliches Amulett auf
Papyrus. 9J X 6[. Christiania. 1921.
England (E. B.) Editor. See Plato, The Laws.
EunapillS. Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists. See Philostratus.
EJ Evans (A. J.) The palace of Minos.
I. The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages.
10 X 7$. 1921.
Evans ( W. J.) Allitteratio Latina, or alliteration in Latin verse reduced
to rule. 8£ X 5|. 1921.
Farnell (L. R.) Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality.
9J x 5|. Oxford. 1921.
Farnell (L. R.) The present and the future of Hellenism. [Congress
of the Universities of the Empire.] 9| X 6. 1921.
Ferguson (W. S.) Legalised absolutism en route from Greece to
Rome. 10£ X 7. 1912.
Ferrari (G.) I documenti greci medioevali di diritto private. See
Byzantinisches Archiv. 4.
*••• Ferrero (G.) The ruin of the ancient civilisation and the triumph of
Christianity. 9 X 5f. New York and London. 1921.
•••• Fiesole. Gli scavi : il museo civico. By E. Galli.
6J X 5. Milan. [N. D.]
Filow (B.) Die Legionen der Provinz Moesia. See Klio, Supp.
Pub. 6.
R.8.=the property of the Roman Society.
XXXIV
Fimmen (D.) Die Kretisch-mykenische Kultur.
10 X 7£. Leipsic. 1921.
K-8- Fletcher (B.) A history of architecture on the comparative method.
6th edition. 9£ X 5J. 1921.
BS- Frank (T.) An economic history of Rome to the end of the Republic.
8x5£. Baltimore. 1920.
Frank (T.) Vergil, a biography. 9 X 5|. New York. 1922.
Frazer (J. G.) Translator. See Apollodorus.
Freese (J. H.) A new pocket dictionary of the English and Russian
languages. Russian — English. 1\ x 5. 1919.
Fridrichsen (A.) See Eitrem (S.).
Galli (E.) See Fiesole.
GardlkaS (G. K.) 2tyx./?oAai Kpmfcat *ai ep/u^evri/cat'. [Athena, 33.]
9x6. Athens. 1921.
Gardthausen (V.) Sammlungen und Cataloge griechischer Hand-
schriften. See Byzantinisches Archiv. 3.
Glenos(D. A.) Twautfos uvflpoW^o?. 8f X 6. Athens. 1921.
Godley (A. D.) Translator. See Herodotus.
Gordon (G. S.) Editor. English literature and the Classics.
9 X 5|. Oxford. 1912.
Greece, Modern. (Anon.) A sheaf of Greek folk songs gleaned by an
old Philhellene. 8 X 5|. Oxford. 1922.
Grenfell (B. P.) See Egypt Exploration Fund.
R.s. Groot (A. W. de) Der antike Prosarhythmus. I.
9£ X 6£. Groningen. 1921.
Gruenwedel (A.) See Berlin. Handbucher der Koniglichen Museen.
Gsell (S.) Editor. See Inscriptions Latines de 1'Algerie.
Guhl (E.) and Koner (W.) Das Leben der Griechen und Romer.
4th ed. 9£ x6£. Berlin. 1876.
Gummere (R. M.) Seneca the philosopher and his modern message.
[" Our Debt to Greece and Rome " series.]
1\ X 4|. Boston, Mass. 1922.
BJ. Another copy.
Gummerus (H.) Der Romische Gutsbetrieb. See Klio, Supp.
Publ. 5.
Hall (H. R.) A Preliminary account of the British Museum Exca-
vations in Southern Babylonia, 1919. [Proc. Soc. Antiqu.
1919.] 8£ X 5£. 1919.
Hardie (W. F. R.) A Lucianic Dialogue between Socrates in Hades
and certain men of the present day. [Gaisford Greek Prose,
1922.] 7| X 5. Oxford. 1922.
Harmon (A. M.) Translator. See Lucian.
Hamack (A.) Die Adresse des Epheserbriefs des Paulus. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., July 1910.] 10£ X 7£. Berlin. 1910.
Harnack (A.) Die angebliche Synode von Antiochia im Jahre 324/5.
[Preuss. phil.-hist, Sitzber., Mai 1908 and Mar. 1909.]
10i X 7J. Berlin. 1908 and 1909.
Harnack (A.) Chronologische Berechnung des ' Tags von Damas-
kus.' [Preuss phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jul. 1912.]
10£ X 7£. Berlin. 1912.
Harnack (A.) Der erste Klemensbrief. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber.,
Jan. 1909.] 10£ X 7|. Berlin. 1909.
R.s.=the property of the Roman Society.
XXXV
Harnack (A.) Der Geist der morgenlandischen Kirche iin Unter-
schied von der abeiKllumlischen. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzbcr., Feb. 1913.] 10£ x 7J. Berlin. 1913.
Harnack (A.) Die Geschichte eines prograinmatischen Worts Jesu.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Feb. 1912.]
10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1912.
Harnack (A.) Das hohe Lied des Apostels Paulus von der Liebe
(I Kor. 13) und seine religions-geschichtliche Bedeutung.
[Preuss. phil.-liist. Sitzungsber., 1911.]
10| X 7£. Berlin. 1911.
Harnack (A.) ' Ostiarius.' [Preuss. phil.-hist, Sitzungsber., 1910.]
10* X 7£. Berlin. 1910.
Harnack (A.) Das Problem des zweiten Thessalonicher briefs.
[Preuss. phil.-hist, Sitzungsber., 1910.]
10£ X 7£. Berlin. 1910.
Harnack (A.) Tertullians Bibliothek christlicher Schriften. [Preuss.
phil.-hist, Sitzungsber., 1914.]
10^ X 1\. Berlin. 1914.
Harnack (A.) Das ursprUngliche Motiv der Abfassung von Martyrer-
und Heilungsakten. in der Kirche. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzungsber., 1910.] 10£ X 1\. Berlin. 1910.
RJ- Hasebroek ( J.) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius
Severus. 9J X 6|. Heidelberg. 1921.
»•»• Haverfield (F. J.) Roman Leicester. [Arch. Journ. 2nd series, vol.
25.] 9£ X 6£. 1918.
Hazzidakis ( J.) Tylissos a 1'epoque Minoenne.
11 X 7i. Paris. 1921.
Headlam (W.) See Herondas.
Heath (T.) A History of Greek Mathematics. 2 vols.
9 X 5i. Oxford. 1921.
Heeg (J.) Das Miinchcner Unzial fragment des Cassius Felix.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzungsber., 1910.]
10£ X 1\. Berlin. 1910.
Heeg (J.) Ueber ein angebliches Diokleszitat, [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzungsber., 1911.] 10£ X 7i. Berlin. 1911.
Heinemann (F.) Plotin. Forschungen iiber die plotinische Frage :
Plotins Entwicklung und sein system.
9x6. Leipsic. 1921.
". Heitland ( W. E.) The Roman Fate : an essay in interpretation.
8£ X 5£. Cambridge. 1922.
Hempl (G.) The solving of an ancient riddle : Ionic Greek before
Homer. [Harper's Magazine.] 9J X 6. New York. 1911.
Herodotus. With an English translation by A. D. Godley. Vol. II.
Books III. and IV. [Loeb Class. Libr.] 6fc X 4±. 1921.
Herondas (or Herodas). The mimes and fragments : with notes by
Walter Headlam. Ed. A. D. Knox.
9J x 6. Cambridge. 1922.
Hill (G. F.) Nochmals das Stabkreuz. 9x6. Berlin. [X. D.]
Historic! Graeci minores. Edited by L. Dindorf. 2 vols.
6J X 4J. Leipsic. 187O-7 1 .
Hoernle (E. S.) Notes on the text of Aeschylus.
1\ X 5. Oxford. 1921.
n.s.= the property of the Roman Society.
XXXVI
Holleaux (M.) Rome, la Grece et les monarchies hellenistiques au
IIP siecle avant J.-C. (273-205).
10 X 6£. Paris. 1921.
Id. Another copy.
Horneffer (E.) Der junge Platon. I. Sokrates und die Apologie.
8| X 6. Giessen. 1922.
Hunt (A. S.) See Egypt Exploration Fund.
Hyde (W. W.) Olympic victor monuments and Greek athletic art.
10 X 6|. Washington. 1921.
Inscriptions Latines de I'Alglrie. I. Inscriptions de la pro-
consulaire. ByS. Gsell. 16J X \\\. Paris. 1922.
Italy. Italian Guide books. Guida d'ltalia del Touring Club Italiano.
Italia Centrale. Vol. II. Firenze-Siena-Perugia-Assisi.
By L. V. Bertarelli. 6£ X 4J. Milan. 1922.
Joachim (H. H.) Editor. See Aristotle.
Julian. Imp. Caesaris Flavii Claudii Juliani epistulae, leges, poematia,
fragmenta varia. Edd. I. Bidez and F. Cumont.
8 x 51- Paris and London. 1922.
Kapp (I.) Callimachi Hecalae fragmenta. 9x6. Berlin. 1915.
Karo (G.) See Maraghiannis (G.)
Kawadias (P.) Die Tholos von Epidaurus. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzber., Apr. 1909.] 10| X 7J. Berlin. 1909.
Kazarow (G. I.) Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte der Thraker.
9J x 6. Sarajevo. 1916.
Kekule von Stradonitz (R.) See Berlin, Handbucher d. staatl. Mus.
zu Berlin.
Kekule VOn Stradonitz (R.) Die Geburt der Helena aus dem Ei.
[Preuss. phil-hist. Sitzber., 1908.]
10J X 71- Berlin. 1908.
Kekule VOn Stradonitz (R.) Ueber den Bronzekopf eines Siegers in
Olympia. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1909.]
10£ X 71. Berlin. 1909.
Kennedy (J.) The secret of Kanishka. 8| X 5|. 1912.
Kirchner (J.) Die Doppeldatierungen in den attischen Dekreten.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzungsber., 1910.]
10* X 1\. Berlin. 1910.
Klagenfurt. Fiihrer durch die antiken-sammlung des Landes-
museums in Klagenfurt, von R. Egger.
7J X 5£. Vienna. 1921.
KllO. Supplementary Publications.
1. Zur Geschichte der Gracchenzeit. By E. Kornemann.
1903.
2. Die neue Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus. By E.
Kornemann. 1904.
3. Romische Bleitesserae. By M. Rostowzew. 1905.
4. Epigraphische Beitrage zur sozial-politischen Geschichte
Athens im Zeitalter des Demosthenes. By J. Sund-
wall. 1906.
5. Der romische Gutsbetrieb. By H. Gummerus. 1906.
6. Die Legionen der Provinz Moesia. By B. Filow. 1907.
8. Das Attentat der Konsulare auf Hadrian im Jahre 118
n. Chr. By A. von Premerstein. 1908.
Ill X 7£. Leipsic. In progress.
R.s.=the property of the Roman Society.
\\XVII
Knox (A. D.) Editor. See Herondas.
Koechly (A.) Editor. See Onosandrus.
Koldewey (R.) See Assos.
Koner(W.) Sec Guhl (E.).
Kornemann (E.) Zur Geschichte der Gracchenzeit. See Klio, Supp.
Pub. 1.
Die neue Livius-Epitome. See Klio, Supp. Pub. 2.
Krischen (F.) See Milet (Miletus).
*.«. Kromayer ( J.) Drei Schlachten aus dem griechisch-romischen
Altertum. [Abh. d. sachsischen Akad. d. Wissenschafter,
34(5).] 11 J x 7$. Leipsic. 1921.
Kromayer (J.) and Veith (G.) Schlachten-Atlas zur antiken Kriegs
Geschichte • 120 Karten auf 34 Tafelu mit Text. From 1
(1922). 16 X 10£. Leipsic. In progress.
Kunst (K.) Die Frauengestalten im attischen Drama.
10 X 6|. Vienna and Leipsic. 1922.
Labarte (J.) Le palais imperial de Constantinople et ses abords,
Sainte-Sophie, Le Forum Augusteon et I'Hippodrome.
12£ x 9£. Paris. 1861.
BJ. Lagier (C.) A travers la Haute figypte
8 X 5jj. Brussels. 1921.
«•. Lanciani (R.) Ancient Rome in the light of recent discoveries.
9£ X 6}. N. D.
Lascaris (K. A.) 4>u>? «*? TO ©ovKvSioVoy *E/>C/?OS.
9£ x 6£. Athens. 1922.
Laurent (P. E.) Recollections of a classical tour through various
parts of Greece, Turkey and Italy, made in the years 1818-
1819. 10J x 8£. 1821.
Lavagnini (B.) Le Origini del Romanzo Greco.
9J x 6J. Pisa. 1921.
Lea (T. S.) and Bond (F. B.) Materials for the Apostolic Gnosis,
Part II., 1,2. 8J X 5|. Oxford. 1922.
Leake(W. M.) Notes on Syracuse. 8£ X 5J. 1848.
Leake (W. M.) On some disputed questions of ancient geography.
9x6. 1857.
Lear (E.) Journals of a landscape painter in southern Calabria, etc.
10i X 6i. 1852.
Lenormant (F.) Atlas d'histoire ancienne de 1'Orient.
13 X 10. Paris. X. D.
Lethaby ( W. R.) Address to William Richard Lethaby with his reply.
18th January, 1922. 9 X 5|. Oxford. 1922.
Leutz-Spitta (J. F.) Korfu = Ithaka. 6 X 4$.Berlin. 1920.
Library Association. Subject Index to Periodicals.
I. Language and Literature; Part I., Classical, Oriental
and Primitive. 12 X 9|. 1921.
»J. Id. Another copy.
Lidzbarski (M.) Eine punisch-altberberische Bilinguis. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., Feb. 1913.]
10J X 7$. Berlin. 1913.
»j. Lindsay (W. M.) and Thomson (H. J.) Ancient Lore in Medieval
Latin Glossaries [St. Andrews University Publications, 13.]
8J X 5|. Oxford. 1 '.»•_> 1.
K.S. — the property of the Roman Society.
XXXV111
Literatuur-Overzicht. [Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, 1922.]
9J X 6|. Groningen. 1922.
Livingstone (R. W.) Editor. The Legacy of Greece. [Essays by
various authors.] 1\ X 5. Oxford. 1921. "
R.S. Livy. Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri. Edd. G. Weissenborn and M.
Mueller. 6 vols. 7 X 4f . Leipsic. 1891-1910.
Loofs (F.) Die chronologischen Angaben des sog. ' Vorberichts '
zu den Festbriefen des Athanasius. [Preuss, phil.-hist.
Sitzber., Oct. 1908.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1908.
E.S. Lucas ( F. L.) Seneca and Elizabethan tragedy.
8 X 5£. Cambridge. 1922.
LllCian. With an English translation by A. M. Harmon. Vol. III.
[Loeb Class. Libr.] 6| X 4£. 1921.
B.S. Lucretius. Lucreti De rerum natura libri sex. Ed. C. Bailey.
[Script. Class. Bibl. Oxon.] 8| X 5. Oxford. 1922.
Luebeck (E.) Das Seewesen der Griechen und Romer. Parts I. and
II. 11 X 8|. Hamburg. 1890-91.
Lueders (H.) Die £akas und die ' nordarische ' Sprache. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., Mai 1913.] 10£ X 7£. Berlin. 1913.
Lupus (B.) Die Stadt Syrakus in Alterthum.
9x6. Strassburg. 1887.
Lycophron. See Callimachus.
Lyra Graeca. Being the remains of all the Greek Lyric poets from
Eumelus to Timotheus excepting Pindar. Ed. and transl.
J. M. Edmonds. [Loeb Class. Libr.] I. 6| X 4£. 1922.
Maas (P.) Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Kirchenvatern und Soph-
isten, I. and II. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Oct. and Nov.,
1912.] 10£ X 7£. Berlin. 1912.
Madrid. Exposicion de arte prehistorico espanol : Catalogo-guia.
6f X 4f, Madrid. 1921.
Magie (D.) Translator. See Scriptores Historiae Augustae.
Mair (A. W.) Translator. See Callimachus.
Mair (G. R.) Translator. See Callimachus.
Manuscripts, photographs of. Reports from H.M. Representatives
abroad respecting facilities for obtaining photographs of
MSS. in Public Libraries in certain foreign countries.
9i X 6. 1922.
Maps. Portf. iv. Greek lands, &c. : part of Europe, compiled at R.G.S.
under the direction of the Geographical section, General
Staff, 1916. 8 sheets. Comprises (N) Ancona — Varna, (S)
Crete. 1 : 1,000,000. 28 x 28. 1916.
Maraghiannis (G.) Antiquites Cretoises.
Premiere serie : Texte de L. Pernier et G. Karo. 1912.
Deuxieme serie : Texte de G. Karo.
12£ x 9J. Candia. N. D.
Mark ham (C. R.) The story of Majorca and Minorca.
8£ X 5£. 1908.
8.1. Marvin (F. S.) Editor. Western races and the world. [Unity series.]
9J X 5|. Oxford. 1922.
Masson (J.) Editor. See Virgil.
*•»• Matheson (P. E.) The Growth of Rome.
7£ X 5. London and Oxford. 1922.
R.s.= the property of the Roman Society.
XXXIX
»J- Mail (A.) Pompoji in Leben und Kunst. 2nd edition. (Appendix in
separate volume.) 9$ X 6J. Leipsic. 1908 and 1913.
•••• May (T.) The Roman forts of Templebrough near Rotherham.
11 X 7J. Rotherham. 1922.
Meautis (G.) Recherches sur le Pythagorism. .
9^ X 6J. Neuchatel. 1922.
Mediterranean. I. D. 1117. Notes on climate and other subjects
in Eastern Mediterranean and adjacent countries. Pre-
pared on behalf of the Admiralty and the War Office.
7^ x 5. 1922.
Meister (R.) Inschriften aus Rantidi in Kypros. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzungsber., 1911.] 10£ X 7f Berlin. 1911.
Meister (R.) Kyprische Sakralinschrift. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sit-
zungsber., 1910.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1910.
Meister (R.) Kyprische Syllabarinschriften in nichtgriechischer
Sprache. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzungsber., 1911.]
10£ X 7£. Berlin. 1911.
Menander The principal fragments, with an English translation by
F. G. Allinson. [Loeb Class. Libr.]
6| X 4J. 1921.
Mewaldt (J.) Die Editio princeps von Galenos In Hippocratis de
natura hominis. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Oct. 1912.]
10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1912.
Mewaldt (J.) Eine Falschung Chartier's in Galen's Schrift uber das
Koma. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Mar. 1913.]
10i X 1\. Berlin. 1913.
Meyer (E.) Zu den aramaischen Papyri von Elephantine. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzungsber., 1911.]
10£ X 7$. Berlin. 1911.
Meyer (E.) Die Bedentung der Erschliessung desalten Orients fur die
geschichtliche Methode und fur die Anfange der mensch-
lichen Geschichte uberhaupt. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber.,
Jun. 1908.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Meyer (E.) Bericht iiber eine Expedition nach Aegypten. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jul. 1913.] 10* X 7J. Berlin. 1913.
Meyer (E.) Der Diskus von Phaestos und die Philister auf Kreta.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Oct. 1909.]
10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1909.
Meyer (E.) Das erste Auftreten der Arier in der Geschichte. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jan. 1908.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Meyer (E.) Isokrates' zweiten Brief an Philipp und Demosthenes'
zweite Philippika. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jun. 1909.]
10£ x 7±. Berlin. 1909.
Meyer (E.). Die Schlacht bei Pydua. [Preuss. phil.-hist, Sitzber.,
Jun. 1909.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1909.
Meyor (E.) Untersuchungen iiber die alteste Geschichte Babyloniens,
u.s.w. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Nov. 1912.]
10£ x 7±. Berlin. 1912.
Meyer (E.) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Zweiten Punischen
Kriegs. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jul. 1913.]
10| X 1\. Berlin. 1913.
R.s.=the property of the Roman Society
xl
Meyer (K.) Ueber eine Handschrift von Laon. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzungsber., 1914.] 10£ x 7£. Berlin. 1914.
Meyer (Ph.) Die Haupturkunden fur die Geschichte der Athos-
Kloster. 9 X 5f . Leipsic. 1894.
Milet (Miletus). Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen
seit dem Jahre 1899, von Th. Weigand. Vol. III. 2. Die
Befestigungen von Herakleia am Latmos. By F. Krischen.
13| x 10J. Berlin and Leipsic. 1922.
*••• Miller (S. N.) The Roman fort at Balmuildy on the Antonine wall.
9x7. Glasgow. 1922.
Mirmont (H de la V. de). Apollonios de Rhodes et Virgile. La
Mythologie et les dieux dans les Argonautiques et dans
1'Eneide. 9J X 5f. Paris. 1894.
Modona (A. N.) La vita publica e privata degli Ebrei in Egitto nell
eta ellenistica e romana. [Aegyptus, 2 and 3.]
9£ X 6} . Milan. 1921-2.
Monro (D. B.) A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect.
9x6. Oxford. 1891.
More (P. E.) The religion of Plato. [The ' Greek Tradition ' series,
1.] 8£ X 5£. London and Princeton. 1921.
M OY2EION KCU f3i(3\to6r)Kr) TT}? euayyeAiK?}? o^cA^s. See Smyrna.
Mueller (I. von) Editor. Atlas zur Archaologie der Kunst.
13£ X 10J. Munich. 1897.
Mueller (M.) Editor. See Livy.
Mueller (V. K.) Der Polos, die griechische Gotterkrone.
9x6. Berlin. 1915.
E.8. Muenchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst. From Vol. XI. (1921).
1H X 9. Munich. In progress.
Munich. Fiihrer durch die Glyptothek Konig Ludwigs 1, zu Miinchen.
By P. Wolters. 7x5. Munich. 1922.
BJ< Id. Another copy.
Neugebauer (K.) Studien uber Skopas.
9£ X 6J. Leipsic. 1913.
Nicole (J.) Memorial notice of. 10 J- X 7|. Geneva. 1922.
Niemann (G.) Das Nereiden-monument in Xanthos : Versuch einer
Wiederherstellung. 19 X 14£. Vienna. 1921.
Nilsson (M. P.) Die Anfange der Gottin Athene.
9£ X 6. Copenhagen. 1921.
EJ. Nilsson (M.P.) The race problem of the Roman Empire. [Hereditas.]
9£ x 7. Lund. 1921.
Noack (F.) Ovalhaus und Palast in Kreta: ein Beitrag zur Frvih-
geschichte des Hauses. 9£ X 6£. Leipsic, etc. 1908.
Norden (E.) Aus Ciceros Werkstatt. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzungsber.,
1913.] 10£ x 7|. Berlin. 1913.
Onosandrus. Strategikos. Ed. A. Koechly.
7 X 4£. Leipsic. 1860.
*•»• Palaeographia Latina. [St. Andrews University Publications.] From
1 (1922). 9£ X 6£. Oxford etc. In progress.
RS Park (M. E.) The Plebs in Cicero's Day.
9x6. Camb., Mass. 1918.
Pasolini (P. D.) See Ravenna.
R.s.= the property of the Roman Society.
xli
Paulinus (IVllaeus). See Ausonius.
Pearson (A. C.) Verbal scholarship and the growth of some abstract
terms. 7$ X 5. Cambridge. ' 1922.
Pease (A. S.) Editor. See Cicero, De divination.-.
Pennell (J.) Pictures in the land of temples [reproductions of
lithographs, March-June, 1913], 9| X 7. [N. D.]
Perdrizet (P.) Negotium perambulans in tenebris, etudes de demono-
logie greeo-orientale. 10x6}. Strassborg. 1922.
Pernier ( L.) See Maraghiannis (G.)
Perrin(B.) Translator. See Plutarch.
Pettazzoni (R.) La religionc nella Grecia antica Him ad Alossandro.
7} X 4f. Bologna. 1921.
Pettazzoni (R.) La religione di Zarathustra.
7i x 4£. Bologna. 1920.
Pfeiffer (R.) Editor. See Callimachus. "
Phaedrus. See Zander.
PhilostratllS, Lives of the Sophists. EUNAPIUS, Lives of the
Philosophers and Sophists. Transl. W. C. Wright. [Loeb
Class. Libr.] 6J X 4£. 1922.
Plato. The Laws, edited with introduction, notes, etc., by E. B.
England. 2 Vols. 7} X 5. Manchester. 1921.
Plaumann (G.) See Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. von).
PlessiS (F.) Motrique grecque et latine. 6| X 4}. Paris. 1889.
Plotin. See Heinemann.
Plutarch. Lives, with an English translation by B. Perrin. Vol. X.
[Loeb Class. Libr.] 6| X 4£. 1921.
Poland (F.) See Baumgarten (F.)
Poulsen (F.) Etruscan Tomb paintings, their subjects and signifi-
cance; translated by I. Andersen.
10£ X 7£. Oxford. 1922.
R.S. Id. Another copy.
Powell (J. V.) and Barber (E. A.) New Chapters in the History of
Greek Literature. 9x5}. Oxford. 1921.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift. From Vol. V. (1913).
lOf X 7£. Leipsic. In progress.
Premerstein (A. von) Das Attentat der Konsulare auf Hadrian.
See Klio, Sapp. Pub. 8.
Prideaux (H.) Marmora Oxoniensia, ex Arundellianis, Seldenianis,
aliisque conflata. 12J X 7|. Oxford. 1676.
R-8- Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria. Transl. H. E. Butler. [Loeb Class.
Libr.] Vols. II.-IV. 6| x 44. 1921-22.
Radcliffe (W.) Fishing from the earliest times. 9$~x 6. 1921.
Rahlfs (A.) Griechische Worter im Koptischen. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzber., Nov. 1912.] 10J X 7J. Berlin. 1912.
Ravenna. Ravenna e le sue grandi memorie. By P. D. Pasolini.
9x6. Rome. 1912.
Redan (P.) La Cilicie et le probleme Ottoman.
8x 5J. Paris. 1921.
Reinach (T.) Textes d'auteurs grecs et latines relatifs au Judaisme.
10 X 6i. Paris. 1895.
Rennie (W.) Editor. See Demosthenes.
F.s.= the property of the Roman Society.
, xlii
Rhetorische Studien. From No. 1 (1913).
9x6. Paderboru. In progress.
Ricaut (P.) The history of the present state of the Ottoman Empire.
7 X 4£. 1682.
Robert (C.) Oidipus : Geschichte eines poetischen Stoffs im grie-
chischen Altertum. 2 Vols. 9J X 6|. Berlin. 1915.
Robert (C.) Zu den Epitrepontes des Menander. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzungsber., 1912.] 10£ X 7i. Berlin. 1912.
Rolfes (E.) Translator. See Aristotle.
Roscher (W. H.) Omphalos. Neue Omphalosstudien [Sachs, phil.-
hist. Abhandl. 29. 9 and 31. 1.]
11 J X 7|. Leipsic. 1913 and 1915.
Roscher (W. H.) Die Zahl 50 in Mythus, Kultus, Epos und Taktik
der Hellenen und anderer Volker besonders der Semiten.
[Siichs. phil.-hist. Abhandl., 33. 5.]
11J X 7|. Leipsic. 1917.
Rose (H. J.) On the alleged evidence for mother-right in early Greece.
[Folklore, 22.] 9 X 6f . 1911.
Rose (H. J.) Asinus in tegulis. [Folklore, 34.] 8| X 5f. 1922.
Rose(H. J.) The Greek Agones. [Aberystwyth Studies, 3, 1922.]
9£ x 6. 1922.
RostOVtzev (M.) A large estate in Egypt in the third century, B.C.
[Wisconsin Studies, 6.] 10 X 6£. Madison. 1922.
R g. Id. Another copy.
RostOVtzev (M.) Romische Bleitesserae. See Klio, Supp. Pub. 3.
Rostowzew (M.) See Rostovtzev (M.).
Roussel (L.) Grammaire descriptive du Romeique litteraire. [Bibl.
d. ficoles franc. d'Ath. et de Rome, 122.]
10 X 7. Paris. 1922.
Roussel (L.) La prononciation de 1'Attique classique.
7 X 4|. Paris. 1921.
ROUX (J. Ch.) See Vienne.
Sandys (J. E.) A companion to Latin studies. Third edition.
9x6. Cambridge. 1921.
B.J. Another copy.
Sardis. Publications of the American Society for the excavations of
Sardis.
Vol. I. The Excavations. Part L, 1910-1914. By H. C.
Butler. 13£ X lOf. Leyden. 1922.
Schmidt (E.) Archaistische Kunst in Griechenland und Rom.
9f X 6£. Munich. 1922.
Schmidt (K.) Eine Epistola Apostolorum in koptischer und latein-
ischer Ueberlieferung. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Nov.
1908.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Schmidt (K.) Ein neues Fragment der Heidelberger Acta Pauli.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Feb. 1909.]
10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1909.
Schmidt (K.) and Schubart ( W.) Ein Fragment des Pastor Hermae
aus der Hamburger Stadtbibliothek. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzber., Oct. 1909.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1909.
Schmidt (M.) Ueber griechische Dreireiher. 10 X 8. Berlin. 1899.
Schmitt (J.) Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides. [Religionsgesch.
Vorarbeiten 17 (2).] 9 X6J. Giessen. 1921.
R.s.= the property of the Roman Society.
xliii
Schreiber (T.) Griechische Satyrepielreliefs. [Sachs, phil.-hist. Ab-
handl. 27 (22).] 11 J X 7|. Leipsic. 1909.
Schroeder (B) Editor. See Berlin, Handbucher d. Staatl. Mus.
zu Berlin.
Schubart (W.) See Schmidt (K.).
Schuchhardt (C.) Der altmittellandische Palast. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzungsber., 1914.] 10£ X 7$. Berlin. 1914.
Schuchhardt (C.) Westeuropa als alter kulturkreis. [Preuss. phil.-
hist. Sitzber., 1913.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1913.
Schlllten (A.) Die romischen Grundherrschaften.
9* x 6. Weimar. 1896.
Schulze (W.) Etymologisches. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1910.]
10£ x 7J. Berlin. 1910.
Schulze (W.) Der Tod des Kambyses. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber.,
1912.] lOfc X 7J. Berlin. 1912.
Schwarz (A. B.) Die offentliche und private Urkunde im romischen
Aegypten. [Abhandl. der Sachs. Akad. d. Wissenschaften,
31 (3).] 11 £ x 7$. Leipsic. 1920.
Schwarz (F. von) Alexanders des Grossen Feldziige in Turkestan.
9 X 6J. Stuttgart. 1906.
Schweitzer (B.) Herakles: Aufsatze zur griechischen Religions- und
Sagengeschichte. 10£ X 7£. Tubingen. 1922.
Schweitzer (B.) Untersuchungen zur Chronologic der geometrischen
Stile in Griechenland, I. 9 X 5j. Karlsruhe. 1917.
Scott ( J. A.) The unity of Homer.
9x6. Berkeley, California. 1921.
R.S. Scriptores Historiae AugUStae. Transl. D. Magie. [Loeb Class.
Libr.] I. 6| x 4$. 1922.
Seltman (C. T.) The Temple coins of Olympia.
Hi X 8$: Cambridge. 1921.
Sieg (E.) and Siegling ( W.) Tocharisch, die Sprache der Indoskythen.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jul. 1908.]
10£ x 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Siegling (W.) See Sieg (E.).
Singer (C.) Greek biology and Greek medicine. [Chapters in the
history of Science, I.] 7£ x 5. Oxford. 1922.
R.S. Slater (D. A.) Sortes Vergilianae, or Vergil and to-day.
9 X 5£. Oxford. 1922.
Smith (C. F.) Translator. See Thucydides.
Smith (R. Bosworth). Carthage and the Carthaginians.
7£ X 5^. 1897.
Smith (V. A.) The Kushan, or Indo-Scythian, Period of Indian
History, B.C. 165 to A.D. 320. 8| x 5J. 1903.
Smith (V. A.) The Position of the autonomous Tribes of the Panjfib
conquered by Alexander the Great. 8J X 5|. 1903.
Smyrna. Moucreiov KO! fttft^.io&r]Krj TT)<; tuayyeXiK^s 0-^0X^5. Parts 1-4.
1 = 8J x 5£.
2 — 4 = 9 X 6. Smyrna. 1873-84.
Soelch (J.) Historisch-geographische Studien tiber bithynische Sied-
lungen : Nikomedia, Nikaa, Prusa. [Byz.-Neugriech. Jahr.]
9J X 6J. Dresden. 1921.
Solon (L. V.) Architectural Polychromy (6 articles from the Archi-
ti-ctural H<-cord, 1922). 10J x 7. New York. 1922.
R.s.= the property of the Reman Society.
d 2
xliv
Stein (E.) Untersuchungen tiber das Officium der Pratorianer-
prafektur seit Diokletian. 9£ x 6£. Vienna. 1922.
Stocks ( J. L.) Editor. See Aristotle.
Stoddard Collection. Catalogue of the Rebecca Darlington Stod-
dard Collection of Greek and Italian Vases in Yale
University. By P. V. C. Bauer.
11£ x 8£. Oxford, etc. 1922.
Strangways (A. H. FOX-) Tune. [Music and Letters.]
9£ X 6|. 1922.
Struck (A.) Zur Landeskunde von Griechenland.
8£ X 6. Frankfurt-a.-M. 1912.
StrzygOWSki (J.) Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus. See
Byzantinisches Archiv. 2.
Studniczka (F.) Zur Ara Pacis. [Abh. d. K. Sachsischen Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften 27 (26). 11J X 1\. Leipsic. 1909.
Studniczka (F.) Die Fibula des Odysseus. 8| X 6. 1921.
Studniczka (F.) Myron's Ladas. [Sachs, phil.-hist. Berichte, 52.]
9J X 5J. Leipsic. 1900.
Studniczka (F.) Polybios und Damophon. [Sachs, phil.-hist. Berichte,
63.] 9J X 5|. Leipsic. 1911.
Sundwall (J.) Epigraphische Beitrage zur Geschichte Athens. See
Klio, Supp. Pub. 4.
Tausend (F. J.) Studien zu attischen Festen.
8£ X 5£. Wiirzburg. 1920.
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Bericht der Kommission fur den
Thesaurus. lOi X 7£. Berlin. 1907-9, 1911-13.
Thiel (J. H.) Editor. See Xenophon.
Thomson (H. J.) See Lindsay (W. M.).
Thucydides. With an English translation by C. F. Smith. Vol. III.
Books V. and VI. [Loeb Class. Libr.] 6f X 4£. 1921.
R.S. Tibur. Atti e memorie della societa Tiburtina di storia e d'arte,
1(1,2). 9£x6£. Tivoli. 1921.
Timotheus. Der Timotheos-papyrus gefunden bei Abusir am 1 Febr.
1902. With introduction by U. von Wilamowitz-Moellen-
dorff. [Wissensch. Veroff. d. deutsch. Orient- gesells., 3.]
14£ X 10. Leipsic. 1903.
Toynbee (A. J.) The Western question in Turkey and Greece.
9 X 5|. 1922.
Trombetti (A.) ' Elementi di Glottologia.
10 X 7. Bologna, 1922.
Union Acade"mique Internationale. Organisation du corpus
vasorum antiquorum (1919-1921).
9 X 5£. Paris. 1921.
Ure (P. N.) The Greek Renascence. 7£ X 5. 1921.
Ure (P. N.) The Origin of Tyranny. 9£ X 6. Cambridge. 1922.
R g Another copy.
Vahlen ( J.) Zwei Briefe des Alkiphron. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber.,
Oct. 1908.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Vahlen (J.) Uber einige Lticken in der Fiinften Decade des Livius.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Nov. 1909.]
10* X 7J. Berlin. 1909.
Vahlen (J.) Ueber eine Stelle in Aristoteles' Poetik. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzungsber., 1910.] 10^ X 7|. Berlin. 1910.
n.s.= the property of the Roman Society.
xlv
Veith (G.) See Kromayer (J.).
Viedebantt (0.) Forschungen zur Metrologie des Altertums. [Sachs,
phil.-hist. Abhandl. 34 (3).] 11J x 7|. Leipsic. 1917.
Id. Another copy.
Vienne. Par J. Charles-Roux. [Bibliotheque rcgionaliste.]
7J X 5J. Paris. 1909.
R.8- Virgil. Selections from the Georgics. Ed. J. Masson.
6J X 4£. Cambridge. 1921.
Volonakis (M. D.) The Island of Roses and her Eleven Sisters, or
the Dodecanese. 9x6. 1922.
Vomdran (L.) Die Aristocratea des Demosthenes als Advokatenrede
und ihre politische Tendenz. [Rhetorische Stud. 11.]
9x6. Paderborn. 1922.
Wagner (R.) See Baumgarten (F.)
Walters (H. B.) See British Museum, Catalogue of Silver Plate.
*•»• Warren (H.) Virgil in relation to the place of Rome in the history of
civilisation. 8J x 5f. Oxford. 1921.
Weber (L.) Die Losung des Trierenratsels.
9 X 5|. Danzig. 1896.
Weissbach(F. H.) Die Denkmaler und Inschriften an der Miindung
des Nahr el-Kelb. See Denkmalschutz-Kommandos.
Weissenborn (G.) Editor. See Livy.
Wellmann (M.) Aelius Promotus 'tarpiKOL <f>v<riKa teal avrnraOrrriKu.
[Preuss. phil.-hist, Sitzber. 1908.]
lOi X 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Wellmann (M.) Pseudodemocritea Vaticana. [Preuss. phil.-hist.
Sitzber., 1908.] 10£ X 7J. Berlin. 1908.
Wellmann (M.) Ueber eine spatorphische Schrift medizinischen
Inhalts. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzungsber., 1911.]
10$ X 7$. Berlin. 1911.
Westaway (K. M.) The educational theory of Plutarch.
8$ X 5$. 1922.
B.S. Wheeler (R. E. M.) An insula of Roman Colchester.
8$ X 5i. Colchester. 1921.
White (H. G. E.) Translator. See Ausonius".
Wiegand (Th.) See Milet (Miletus).
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. von) Mimnermos und Properz.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1912.]
10J X 1\. Berlin. 1912.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. VOn) Neues von Callimachos. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1912.] 10J X 7J. Berlin. 1912.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. von) Neues von Kallimachos II.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1914.]
10i x 7J. Berlin. 1914.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. VOn) Pindarische Gedichte. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1909.] 10J X 7£. Berlin. 1909.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. VOn) Pindar's siebentes nemeisches
Gedicht. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1908.]
10$ X 7|. Berlin. 1908.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. VOn) Bin Stuck aus dem Ancoratus
des Epiphanios. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzungsber., 1911.]
10$ x 7J. Berlin. 1911.
R.s. = the property of the Roman Society.
xlvi
Wilamowitz-MoellendorfT (U. von) Ueberdas0der Ilias. [Preuss.
phil.-hist, Sitzungsber., 1910.] 10$ X 7$. Berlin. 1910.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. von) See Timotheos.
Wilamowitz-MoellendorfY (U. von) and Plaumann (G.) Ilias
Papyrus P. Morgan. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1912.]
10$ X 7$. Berlin. 1912.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (U. von) and Zucker (F.) Zwei Edikte
des Germanicus auf einem Papyrus des Berliner Museums.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzungsber., 1911.]
10$ X 7$. Berlin. 1911.
Wilhelm (A.) Inschrift zu Ehren des Paulinus von Sparta. [Preuss.
phil.-hist. Sitzber., 1913.] 10$ x 7J. Berlin. 1913.
Wilhelm (A.) Neue Beitrage zur griechischen Inschriften Kunde.
Part 6. [Sitz. ber der k. Akad. der Wissensch. in Wien.]
9| X 6}. Vienna. 1921.
Wilhelm (A.) Zu Inschriften aus Delphi. 9f X 6. Vienna. 1922.
Wolters (P.) See Munich.
Woolley (C. L.) See British Museum, Carchemish.
Wright (W. C.) Translator. See Philostratus.
Wuest (E.) Vom Wert der alten Sprachen fiir die Ausbildung unserer
Jugend. 9x6. Wurzburg. 1922.
Xenophon. Hellenica VI. VII. Anabasis I.— III. With English
transl. by C. L. Brownson. [Loeb Class. Libr.]
6| X 4$. 1921.
Xenophon. Eci/o^uvros -n-upot cum prolegomenis et commentariis
edidit J. H. Thiel. 9$ X 7$. Vienna. 1922.
R.S* Zander (C.) Phaedrus solutus vel Phaedri fabulae novae xxx.
9$ x 6|. Oxford. 1921.
R.S. Zeitschrift fur Ethnologic. From Vol. 48 (1916).
10J X 6$. Berlin. In progress.
R.S. Zeitschrift fur Rechtsgeschichte. Vols. "i-13 (all published).
8| X 5|. Weimar. 1861-1878.
continued as the
R.S. Zeitsehrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte. Romanis-
tische Abteilung.
8| X 5f. Weimar. 1880-99, 1905-6, 1908-21.
Zimmer ( H.) Beitrage zur Erklarung altirischer Texte der Kirchlichen
und Profan-litteratur 1. 2. 4. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber.,
Dec. 1908 and Jan. 1909.]
10$ X 7J. Berlin. 1908 and 1909.
Zimmer (H.) Ueber alte Handelsverbindungen Westgalliens mit
Irland, 1, 2, 3a (imperfect), 3b. [Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber.,
1909.] 10$ X 7J. Berlin. 1909.
Zimmem (A.) The Greek Commonwealth : politics and economics
in fifth-century Athens. Third edition.
9 X 5|. Oxford. 1922.
ZolotaS (G. I.) 'IcrTopia Tr}s Xi'ov. A'. 'loropiKT/ TOJroypa^i'a.
10 X 6$. Athens. 1921.
Zucker (F.) Urkunde eines romischen Statthalters von Aegypten.
[Preuss. phil.-hist. Sitzber., Jul. 1910.]
m X 7J. Berlin. 1910.
Zucker (F.) See Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Zwei Edikte des Ger-
manicus.
R.8.=the property of the Roman Society.
xlvii
EIGHTH LIST OF
ACCESSIONS TO THE CATALOGUE OF SLIDES
IN THE JOINT COLLECTION OF THE SOCIETIES FOR
THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC AND ROMAN STUDIES
WHICH WAS ISSUED WITH VOL. XXXIII. OF THE JOURNAL OF HELLENIC
STUDIES, AXD WITH VOL. III. OF THE JOURNAL OF ROMAN STUDIES.
(Subsequent accessions are published annually.)
Copies of this Accession List may be had, price 6</.
The slides prefixed with the letter B are the property of the Roman Society.
SETS OF SLIDES.
THE main collection of nearly 6000 lantern slides, to which this list forms the eighth
supplement, can be drawn on in any quantity, large or small, for lecturing on practically any
branch of classical archaeology. For those who have opportunity, no method is so satisfactory
as to come in person to the Library, and choose the slides from the pictures there arranged in
a subject order corresponding with the printed catalogue.
But the scheme for supplying SETS OF SLIDES for popular lectures, and also for those lecturers
who have not facilities for choosing their own slides, grows increasingly useful.
For these sets, in accordance with a suggestion made by Mr. G. H. Ha I him, various scholars
and archaeologists have been good enough to write texts, forming lectures of about an hour's
duration. These are issued with the sets and can be used either as they are, or to form a basis or
corrective of the lecturer's own treatment.
The thanks of the Society are accorded those who have been at the pains of undertaking
the not easy task of telling a plain tale on the subjects with which they are most familiar to a
general audience.
Suitable handbooks dealing with the different subjects can aho be lent from the library to
lecturers in advance of their lectures.
LIST OF SETS.
Those in darker type are specially recommended for the purpose for which the series was
— the bringing of the most striking and characteristic features of the ancient world
a general audience.
The Prehellenic Age (K. J. Forsdyke).
The Geography of Greece (A. J. Toynbee).
Ancient Athens (S. Casson).
Ancient Architecture (D. S. Robertson).
Greek Sculpture (J. H. Hopkinson).
Tho Parthenon (A. Jl. Smith).
kVMM M. A. B. Braunholtz).
Vases of the red-figured period (J. D. Beazley).
*S«»me Coins of Sicily (('•. K. Hill).
k I'a]>yri(H. I. Bell).
•Olympia and Greek Athletics ( K. X. Gardiner).
Alexander the Kreat (!>.<:. Hogarth).
xlviii
The Travels of St. Paul.
*The Ancient Theatre (J. T. Sheppard).
Daily Life, Greek (E. J. Forsdyke).
Daily Life, Roman (E. J. Forsdyke).
Rome (H. M. Last).
"The Roman Forum (G. H. Hallam).
*The Via Appia (R. Gardner).
*The Roman Campagna (T. Ashby).
"Horace (G. H. Hallam).
*Pompeii (A. van Buren).
*Sicily (H. E. Butler).
*Timgad (H. E. Butler).
*Roman Britain (Mortimer Wheeler).
There is also a lengthy series of slides, with text by l)r. Ashby, on the Palatine and Fora
of Rome, suited to advanced students and adequate for two lectures.
* These lectures are ready, both texts and slides. Of the rest, nearly all the slides are ready
but the texts are in preparation.
The sets consist of about 50 carefully selected slides, and the cost of hire, including postage
to members, is 4s. 6rf.
Application should be made to :
The Assistant Librarian,
Hellenic Society,
19, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 1.
TOPOGRAPHY EXCAVATIONS AND MONUMENTS
IN SITU.
C 187 Map of the Aegean basin to illustrate the Bronze Age (Hall, Ancient history of the nearer
East, p. 32).
1675 General map of Balkan States and Greece (modern names).
ASIA MINOR.
C 241 Adalia, the walls and towers.
C 242 „ door of a Moslem seminary.
C 130 Aezani, the temple : general view.
C 134 ,, ,, three detached columns.
C 135 ,, ,, one of the colonnades.
C 379 Aphrodisias, view of ruins (Soc. Dil. Antiq. Ionia, III, ch. II. pi. 3).
C! 372 ,, gigantomachia slab, in situ.
5454 Assos, Eastern end of the stoa (Asaos, p. 29, fig. 1).
C 231 Ephesus, the Artemisium, restored.
4438 Marmarice, the town, harbour and shipping.
C 235 Priene, lavatory in the Gymnasium.
C 236 Sardis, Temple of Artemia from E.
C 243 Smyrna, the great aqueduct.
1693 Troy, the plain from the excavations.
4440 „ Primitive basket ox waggon (Troad ?).
C 240 Constantinople, plan of burnt areas.
EGYPT.
C 431 Egypt, sketch map showing principal ancient sites.
C 432 Abu Simbel, rock-cut facade of smaller temple.
C 433 „ „ „ „ larger temple.
C 434 Beni Hasan, entrance to tombs.
xlix
C 427 Cairo, rikonoutaais of the Coptic church.
C n:> Deir el-Bahari, general view.
C 4'M „ chapel showing ' Doric ' column.
C 4.'t7 Ghizeh, great pyramid and Sphinx.
1 1.'! 7 „ the Sphinx.
C 4!lS K6m Ombo, double temple.
C »:»'.» Medinet Habu, reliefH.
C 44<i Sakkara, the stepped pyramid.
C 441 Thebes, etc., Temple of Amenhetep III.
C U-J „ Kaniac great temple, central avenue.
C m „ „ „ „ gateways.
C 444 „ Uamesseum, general view.
C 445 „ „ S. portico.
C 4 1C,
C 447 „ (Colossi of Amenhetep III.
C 448 „ relief of Victory of Shaahank I (Shiahak).
C 440 „ wall painting of Sacred Boat.
B 081 Petra : el Khazneh el Farioun.
The following pages of the topographical section contain selections from a munificent donation of
negatives from Mr. S. C. Atchley.
CRETE AND ISLANDS.
C1870 Askyphon, Farangi, narrowest part.
C 210 Cnossos, grand staircase, reconstruction of elevation (Evans, Palace, I. fig. 247).
C 96 „ plan and section of latrine (B.S.A., 8, p. 85).
C1885 H. Rumeli, mountains to W. of village.
C1890 Ornalo, view towards the gorge of H. Rumeli.
2618 Corfu, the harbour and castle.
1712 Cos, altar decorated with cornucopiae wreaths, etc.
C 253 Patmos, Convent of the Apocalypse, S.W. angle.
C 255 „ „ ,, ,. ikonostasis in church.
4884 Samothrace. Plan of the later Temple of the Mysteries (Springer-Michaelis, tig. 531
C1800 Thera, ancient temple, now church.
N. AND CENTRAL GREECE.
C1103 Acheron, R. (Ep.), looking upstream to Skala Djavellas.
C2d2:{ Alyzia (Ac.), Ka.stri near gate in wall.
01127 .. .. -. from inside.
C1128 ,. „ ,, sculpture on rock.
C1008 Aous R. i Kp. i. from Konitsa Bridge.
0700 Athos, map of Mount.
4430 ., monk bearing sanis.
ClOlli Calamas R. (Ep.), natural arch below Zitza.
C1375 Chaeroneia, Acropolis from E.
C1380 .. the lion.
C1252 Chalkis (Act.), tower in N. wall.
C1382 Cithaeron, from below Plataea.
01 300 Delphi, the Phaedriades.
C1322 .. Treasury of the Athenians.
C1323 „ Roman base at E. end of Temple.
C1315 .. ' Omphalos.'
C13U4 .. camels in Crissean plain.
Cl<>2S Dodona, plain and Mt. Olytsika from \.
ClolJs Gephyra (Eub.), monastery of St. John, ancient arch.
C1305 Helicon, \ic\\ nf Mount.
Cll4»i Komboti (Ac.), pseudo-arch from K.
1
Cll 14 Lamia, general view of town and Acropolis.
ClloO Lirnnaea (Ac.), gate in E. wall.
1209 Livadia, Gorge of.
C1259 Misolonghi, from the sea.
C1260 „ the Heroon.
C1277 New Pleuron (Aet.), ' cisterns.'
C1278
C1290 „ ,, S. walls showing projecting drain.
C1167 Oeniadae (Ac.), ship houses.
C1171 „ W. wall, gate.
C1175
C1180 „ ,, „ from inside.
C1181 „ grand arched gate, near port, inside.
C1183 „ W. wall.
C1065 Olytzika, Mt. (Ep.), looking E. from Paramythia-Dodona path.
C1407 Orchomenos (Boe.), Acropolis walls from S.W.
C1190 Palaeomanina, (Ac.), gate in wall from inside.
C2038 ,, pseudo-arch.
C1204 Palaeros (Ac.), grand arched gate from inside looking N.
C1339 Panopeus (Phoc.), tower near W. end of Acropolis.
C1075 Parga, the port.
C1349 Parnassos, from Corycian Cave.
C1354 „ from Chacroneia.
4426 Salonika, street scene.
C2052 Stratos (Ac.), vaulted tomb and walls.
Cll 17 Tempo, Vale of the Peneus.
C1414 Thebes from S.
ATHENS.
C 108 Athens, Distant view from the road to Eleusis.
C1420 „ Acropolis from Philopappos monument.
2045 „ „ „ the excavations to the W.
C1445 „ Erechtheion, porch of the Maidens.
2721 „ The Odeion of Herodes and the Stoa of Eumenes from S.E.
2722 „ The monument of Thrasyllos from below.
3175 „ The small Metropolis : the W. fa9ade.
ATTICA, &c.
C1450 Aegina, from Phalerum.
C1461 ,, olive trees near Temple.
C1483 Eleutherae, the fortress.
C2047 „ nearer view.
1905 Hymettus, view from British School.
C1489 Marathon, village from near Ninoi.
C1499 Pentelikon, marble quarry and cave.
C1500 „ spring at Penteli ; Lykabettos in distance.
C1511 Rhamnus, temple from S.W.
C1523 Thoricus, pointed gate.
PELOPONNESUS.
C1757 Alpheios, R., view from bridge below Karytaena.
C1761 „ looking N. from Olympia.
C1560 Buraikos, gorge of, below Megaspilio.
C1675 Cenchreae, the pyramid, general view from E.
C1673 „ ,, nearer view.
C1684 Epidaurus, theatre, general view.
C1570 Megaspilio, the Monastery from S.
C1697 Merbaka (near Argos), Byzantine church.
li
ClTl'4 Mycenae, view S.\V. fn.in ( 'l\ tnnnestra'H tholos.
C i>:H> ,. MOM gat*.
C 637 „ ., „ nearer view.
C 004 ., „ „ the lion relief from N.\V.
C 605 .. ., „ relief from W.
4427 „ ., ., before excavation (from old photograph).
C 623 ., grave circle.
C 642 „ „ „ granary and lion gate (from inside).
C 607 „ the palace, N.W. angle.
C 606 „ ., „ column bases at N.W. angle.
C 608 „ -- ., great S. stairway from W.
C 610 „ „ „ threshold from above.
C 615 „ .. .. megaron, hearthstone from S.W.
017 11 „ Astern from inside.
C 648 „ tholos of Atreus, dromos.
0 649 „ „ .. entrance : N. door jamb.
C 650 „ „ ,. S. door jamb.
C 651 „ unexcavated tholos between tomb of Clytenmestra and Acropoli*.
C 660 „ tholos at Kato Phournos.
C 719 „ ' tholos of Aegisthus,' dromos and doorway.
C 722 „ ., » doorway.
C 727 „ „ ti Ihe tholos, interior during excavation.
C 731 „ ' Lion tholos ' : the entrance, from inside.
C 626 „ tomb 502.
C 742 „ tomb 518 : a burial.
C 761 „ tomb 527 : burials in dromos.
C1732 Nauplia, from near Tiryns.
C1768 Olympia, the Heraion.
4478 Patras, the harbour and mountains behind.
4479 „ the tfl and gulf, from above Patras.
C1638 Pheneatike, the lake bed (1914).
C1787 Samiko, view of the fortress.
C1642 Stymphalus, the lake and mountains to S.
C1825 Taygetos, range from near Sparta.
C1830 „ view from summit looking S.E.
C1815 .. Mistra.
C1806 „ Langada pass.
C1846 „ „ „ near Lada.
C1813
C1739 Tiryns, general view of the mound from E.
SICILY.
7884 Selinus, restored plan of.
C1978 Syracuse, amphitheatre.
C1974 „ Temple of Apollo, the steps.
ITALY.
89(516 Map of ancient Italy (Murray, Classical Atlas).
C1900 Avernus, Cai>o Miscnum, etc.
C2019 Baiae, the bay by moonlight.
3800 Brindisi, the harbour.
B9629 Gabii, settlement at.
C1908 Misenum, the cape.
B9C26 Nexni, the lake and town from Genzano.
BM'.IL'.-I Ostia, main stm-t looking W. (J.R.S., 2, p. 100).
B9926 „ main street looking E. (id., 2, p. 167).
B9904 „ 'grain vats.'
lii
B9969 Ostia, reconstruction of the main street.
B9970 .. reconstruction of crossing of two streets.
B9965 Parenzo, atrium of basilica of Euphrasius.
B9971 Pompeii, front of shop, with advertisements.
B9618 ., Plan of a typical Pompeian house (Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, fig. 115).
C 153 „ Plan of the house of the Faun (id., fig. 132).
B9619 „ Restoration of the house of Sallust : view through the house towards the garden
drawing (id., fig. 135).
B9620 „ Restoration of the House of the Vetii from above : drawing (id., fig. 157).
B8338 Rome, plan of the forum under the republic.
B9621 „ 17th-century Panorama : view from Janiculum to N.W.
B9622 „ „ „ „ „ „ „ N.E.
C1942 „ the Forum, the Temple of Saturn.
B9639 „ .. „ Arch of Septimius Severus (S. opening with forum, etc., beyond)
3080 „ „ „ Basilica Julia from S.W.
3057 ,, ,, ,. Basilica Maxentii from S.
3058 „ , „ „ S.W.
B 682 ,, „ ,. „ „ plans and sections (Ferguson, I. p. 295)
B 084 „ „ ,. „ „ vaulting (Borrmann and Xeuwirth, p. 245).
B9637 ,, theatre of Marcellus, exterior wall.
B8339 ,, the issue of the Cloaca Maxima into the Tiber.
B 683 „ Baths of Caracalla, Tepidarium restored (Smith, Die. out., I. p. 282).
B9962 „ Colosseum, after Piranesi.
B1729 „ Castel S. Angelo.
C 230 „ „ „ „ restored as Mausoleum of Hadrian.
C 172 Venice, the lion from the Peiraeus.
ROMAN EMPIRE.
B3701 Timgad, plan of the forum and theatre.
B37M2 „ the forum, general view.
B3703 „ „ , northern portico.
B3704 „ „ „ N. Cardo.
B3705. „ Arch of Trajan, the market and Capitol.
B3706 „ the baths, plan.
B3707 „ „ „ N. swimming bath.
B3708 ,, ,, „ the tepidarium.
B3709 „ „ „ the Caldarium.
B3710 „ the theatre (2 views).
B3711 „ Temple of Victory and Tribunal.
B3712 „ Municipal library.
B3713 „ cloth market.
B3714 ,, shops with stone tables.
B3715 ,, House (Maison aux jardinieres).
B3716 „ mosaic in Maison de la piscine.
B1722 Aries, Roman Baths (" Palais de Constantino ").
B1726 Hyx (Pyr. Orient), Romanesque Church.
B1730 Map of Roman Britain.
B9944 Castleshaw, plan of the forts.
B9945 „ inner fort, hypocaust.
B9946 ,, „ ,, rampart at S. corner.
B9947 „ •• „ trench across N.W. rampart.
B9948 ,, „ „ base of oven found at E. corner.
B9910 Corstopitum, a granary.
B9914 „ site XI, exterior W. wall (cf. Report, 1908, p. 22, fig. 6).
B9913 „ „ interior.
B9957 Gellygaer fort, (Glam.), plan.
liii
B9805 Hard Knott Camp. X.W. tower and fosse.
B989I „ „ interior of S.W. tower.
B9956 Manchester, Roman fort, plan (of. Roman Fort at Manchester, folding plan No. 1).
B9927 „ capital found at (id., pi. 46).
B'.i'.rjx „ „ „ restored (id., pi. 47).
B9939 Melandra Castle, plan (Melandra Ccuttf, p. 42).
B'l'.Mo „ „ foundation of W. end of N. gate from N.E. (id., p. 27).
B9941 „ „ restoration (irf., p. 75).
B9942 „ ., plan of H.Q. buildings.
Bit 1 .').'> Roman Wall : Aesica, VV. gateway.
B'.H.Vi „ „ Procolitia : the goddess Corentina.
B9157 „ .. Borovicus Deae Matres (from a drawing).
B9159 „ .. Miles Castle, MuruH and vallum.
B9899 „ „ Ravenglass, Walls Castle, view from N.W.
B9897 „ „ „ „ „ doorway from inside.
B9158 „ „ the Great Wall of China (for comparison).
B995S „ ., section of the Roman wall.
INSCRIPTIONS.
B9645 Antioch (Pisidiae) Inscriptions commemorating athletic victories (cf. J.K.S., 3, pi. 22,
and p. 292, fig. 68).
B992!) Manchester, altar to Fortune the Preserver found Manchester, 1612. Ash. Mus.
(Roman Fort at Manchester, pi. 6).
B9930 „ altar of the Raeti (id., pi. 8).
B9943 Melandra Castle, Centurial Inscription (Melandra Castle, p. 122).
C 342
C 343
C 344
C 345
C 346
C 347
Drawings of
moulded
stucco
decorations
at
Cnossos
PREHELLENIC.
ARCHITECTURAL.
(J.R.I.B.A., 1903, p. 109, figs. 1-3).
(id., p. Ill, figs. 4-12).
(id., p. 113, figs. 15-22
(id., p. 116, figs. 28-30,
(id., p. 117, figs. 31-34).
(id., p. 124, figs. 58-59).
C 348 Development of a bracket from cast of a mould (Evans, Palace of Minos, I. fig. 350).
C 349 Faience bracket (id., fig. 368).
VASES.
C 190 Lids with incised patterns from Yortan, Asia Minor, B.M.
C 189 Two-handled jug with incised spirals from Salonika, B.M. (B.S.A., 23, pi. 53).
C 188 Pedestal bowl and ladles. Early Thessalian Red Ware, Al, B.M.
C 179 Dimini ware, B3o, Jar (Wace and Thompson, Prehist. These., pL 1).
C 180 „ „ „ Bowl (Tsountas, Ai^xt «a< 2<<rKAo, pi. 9).
C Isl „ „ B3>. Jar(iW., pi. 11).
C 192 Early Helladic ware from Syra (B.S.A., 22, pi. 8, 9).
C 191 „ „ bowl and jugs, Urfurnis ware, from Corinth (B.S.A., 22. pi. 6).
C 193 Early Cycladic incised jars from Antiparos, B.M.
9464 Middle Cycladic painted jugs, Phylakopi (B.S.A., 17, pi. 5, "•• •»).
94&"> - » „ „ „ (id., 17, pi. 6, «• 1M- »»»).
9457 „ „ painted jug, Phylakopi.
C 1!>4 E.M.II, jug and dish, Mochlos (Seager, Mochlo*, p. 36, fig. 13).
C 196 E.M.I II, | mint i-il ware, Mochlos.
C l'-»7
C 198 .. painted and stone vases, a tomb group, Mochlos.
liv
C 195 E.M. and M.M., Vasiliki ware, B.M.
A 51 M.M.I — M.M.II, Barbotine polychrome ware (Evans, Palace, I. pi. 1), coloured
slide.
A 52 M.M.I LA, polychrome bowls (id., pi. 2), coloured slide.
A 53 „ polychrome vase (id., pi. 3), coloured slide.
C 93 M.M.III, ' Trickle ware ' vase from Gournia (Hall, Aeq. Arch., fig. 195).
A 57 „ survivals of polychromy (Evans, Palace, I. pi. 7), coloured slide.
3275 M.M.III — L.M.I, transitional vase (Seager, Pachyammoa, pi. 15).
C 92 L.M.I. Vase from Egypt (Hall, Aeq. Arch., pi. 21).
C 91 „ Jug from Gournia (id., fig. 27).
C 704 L.M.II. Octopus vase from Mycenae.
C 94 Mycenaean pottery from Rhodes (Marshall, Discovery in Gk. Lands, fig. 7).
A 103 „ sherd with plant forms (Perrot and Chipiez, 6, pi. 21), coloured slide.
C 3S2 ,, vases from tomb 502 (B.S.A. excavations, 1921).
FRESCOES.
A 54 Cnossus, ' the saffron gatherer,' M.M. II (Evans, Palace, I. pi. 4), coloured slide.
A 56 „ Painted plaster with lily sprays, M.M. Ill (id., pi. 6), coloured slide.
C 212 „ Painted stucco band spiraliform design (id., fig. 269).
C 216 ,. fresco pillar shrine with double axes (id., fig. 319).
C 220 ., fresco (restored) : the ' ladies in blue ' (id., fig. 397).
A104-7 (4 slides), coloured adaptations of Cnossian frescoes.
A 102 H. Triada, Sarcophagus (Dussaud, Lea civ. prehell.2, pi. D), coloured slide.
A 101 Tiryns, a boar hunt (Dussaud, id., pi. C), coloured slide.
SCULPTURE MODELLING, &c.
A 108 Statuette of snake goddess, Cnossus (Hall, Atg. Arch., frontispiece), coloured slide.
A 58 ,, ,, ,, 2 views (Evans, Palace, I. frontispiece), coloured slide.
C 98 Gesso relief of an arm holding a horn [ ?] (Spearing, Childhood of Art, fig. 283).
C 219 faience plaque : cow and calf (Evans, Palace, I. fig. 367).
C 215 „ ' sacral knots ' Mycenae (id., fig. 309).
C 214 ,, ' sacral knot ' of ivory, Cnossus (id., fig. 308).
C 157 „ miniature votive dress with panels of crocus on skirt (cf. B.S.A., 9, p. 82).
C 218 „ chalices, Cnossus (Evans, Palace, I. fig. 357).
C 156 Steatite vase from Hagia Triada, a warrior chief (cf. Dussaud, Les civ. prehell.*, p. 69)
C 97 „ head of a bull from Cnossus (Evans, Tomb of Double Axes, fig. 87o).
C 211 Columnar lamp of purple gypsum (Evans, Palace, I. fig. 249).
A 55 Inlaid gaming board (Evans, Palace, I. pi. 5), coloured slide.
C 217 , detail (id., fig. 338).
C 95 ' Boxer vase ' from H. Triada (Hall, Aeg. Arch., pi. 16).
C 350 Psychro libation table restored (Evans, Palace of Minos, I. fig. 465).
C 356 Terra-cottas from Mycenae tomb 513 : grotesque animals.
C 232 Gold cups from Vaphio : bull-taming scenes in relief.
C 87 „ earring (Schuchhardt, Schliemann, fig. 171).
C 88 .. work from Phaestus (Baikie, Seakings, pi. 32).
C 89 „ ' garter-holder ' (Schuchhardt, Schliemann, fig. 266).
C 90 „ hair pin (id., fig. 172).
ENGRAVED GEMS, SIGNET RINGS, &.c.
C 213 Bull captured while drinking at tank, Cnossus (Evans, Palace, I. fig. 274).
C 359 The snake goddess with double axe between lions, Mycenae.
5926 The snake goddess, (a) from Crete, (6) and (c) from Mycenae.
C 208 ' Mourning scene for divine youthful hero,' Mycenae (Evans, Palace, I. fig. 116).
3303 ' The goddess in sacred ship arriving at her shrine,' Mochlos (Seager, Mochlot, fig. 52).
Iv
C 3<>l Athlete and bull. Mycenae.
C .'{ii<> Animal forms, Mycenae.
C •-'•".! Cretan script : a sealing of M..M. 1 1 period with portrait head (Kvans, Palace, I. fig. 206).
ARCHITECTURAL MISCELLANEA.
C 426 Reconstruction of an Etruscan temple (outline drawing only).
C 383 Early forms of palmette (Meurer, Fonnenlehre, p. 56)
C 3S4 loafer forms of ])almette (id., p. 303).
C 301 Relief from house of Kumachia (id., p. 210).
C 302 Scroll from Forum of Trajan in Lateran (id., p. 414).
C 304 Acanthus frieze from Bouyes, 12th century (id., p. 415, fig. 14).
C 393 Scroll from Baalbek (Wiegand, Alt. Denk. aug Syria, pi. 76).
C 306 Frieze with acanthus and animals from Pompeii.
C 414 Coptic frieze animal forms in scrolls (Wulff, Alt. chr. Bildw., 211).
C 410 Christian panel from Porto (Marucchi, Mon. d. Mm Crist. Lot., pi. 4).
6365 The Radcliffe Library, Oxford. From a drawing (Fergusson, Mod. Arch., p. 290).
6366 St. George's Hall, Liverpool. From a drawing (id., p. 307).
SCULPTURE, &.C.
* = taken from original or adequate reproduction.
C 227 Archaic Medusa,* from pediment at Corfu.
6600 Archaic male torso,* B.M.
C 225 Relief (Athens, 1922) group of athletes * (J.H.S., 42, pi. 60).
C 224 „ „ wrestling* (id., pi. 66).
C 226 „ „ epheboi with animals * (id., pi. 6c).
C 223 „ „ chariot scene * (id., pi. la).
C 222 „ „ playing hockey * (id., pL 76).
C 221 „ „ chariot scene * (id., ])1. 7c).
5560 Thasos, archaic relief * from : Hermes and a nymph.
5570 „ „ „ ,, three nymphs.*
1000 The Elgin Marbles in Park Lane, 1810. Sketch by Cockerel! (J.H.S., 36, p. 299)
1220 „ „ „ The temporary Elgin room. Drawing by Prior (id., p. 350).
1017 „ „ „ „ „ „ „ By Archer, circ. 1817 (id., p. 352).
5984 Draped female torso * from Claudos (Crete). B.M.
C 163 Diadumenos from Delos,* head of.
5565 Lycian monument * : the tomb of Payava. B.M.
6700 Standing discobolos.* B.M.
C 233 Aphrodite * (Medici type). Rockfeller Coll.
1021 Athena, head by Euboulides.* Ath. Nat. Mus. 234 (Diekins, Hell. Sculpt., fig. 44).
5921 Eros with the bow.* B.M.
1043 Nike of Euboulides.* Ath. Nat. Mus. 233 (Dickins, Hell. Sculpt., fig. 43).
6107 Zeus, head of * : Otricoli collection.
B0950 Kelief from tomb of Haterii: detail showing workmen on crane (from a drawing).
5713 „ „ Arch of the Goldsmiths, Rome.* Severus and Julia Domna sacrificing.
B9628 „ of C. Julius Saecularis.* Mus. Terme (Altman, Pom. Crab-altdre, fig. 179).
B001 1 „ of a warrior leading a horse.* Corstopitum (Report, 1908, p. 40, fig. 11).
BOOS I ,. Mithraic relief found at Hulme, 1821 * (Roman Fort, pi. 12).
89060 „ Capture of a daughter of Leucippus.* Basilica near Porta Maggiore, Rome.
0 380 Aphroilisias frieze, B.M. Sin-n an<l Seasons.*
C 381 „ „ ,. Hunting, etc.*
CocUtijiht: Birdcage.*
Ivi
C 373-6 (4 slides). Pilasters from Thermae of Aphrodisias * (cf. Constant. Mus. Cat. 493)
C 400 ' Tomb of Theodoras.' * S. Apollinare in Classe.
C 418 Pierced decorative panel; cross .between birds : scroll work.*
C 412 Early Christian Tomb in Lateran * (Marucchi, Man. d. Mus. Crist. Lat., pi. 32).
C 170 Porphyry group of four knights.* St. Mark's, Venice.
C 171
C 166 Byzantine relief of a bull.* Acrop., Athens.
(5200 Augustus,* head of.
C 164 Demosthenes,* head of.
6364 Harpocrates, head of. B.M.
1063 Plato,* bust (J.H.S., 40, p. 191).
Vat. Mus.
7185 Bronze statuette of Apollo * dedicated by Ganyaridas.
C 86 „ Etruscan statue. The ' Orator,' * Florence.
C2014 „ Hermes from Anticythera,* head of.
C 229 „ statue of a boy,* Met. Mus., New York.
C 237 „ horses * : St. Mark's, Venice.
B.M. (J.H.S., 29, p. 156. fig. 76).
7886 Terra-cotta Etruscan funerary group.* B.M.
C 238
C 239
7119
C 423
7189
Apollo (6th century) from Veii.* Front view.
„ „ „ „ * Back view.
Tanagra figurines * : three ladies in outdoor dress.
Etruscan masks * (B.M., Cat. Vases, I. (2), pi. 18).
foodwarmer in the form of a shrine * (J.H.S., 29, p. 164).
VASES.
* Denotes a photographic view of the whole vase from the original.
C 150 Interior of B.F. dish : a vineyard (drawing only).
2187 Crater in Louvre : above, the Argonauts: below, the Niobids (outline drawings).
C 141 Cantharos * : a lady spinning. B.M. (J.H.S., 41, pi. 5).
C 143 Oinochoe * : children playing with dog and hoop. B.M. (J.H.S., 41, p. 148).
C 144 Lehythos * : garden scene. B.M. (J.H.S., 41, pi. 3).
C 146 Oinochoe * : children with cart. B.M. (J.H.8., 41, pi. 5).
C 149 Lid of Pyxis : * ladies at play. B.M. (J.H.S., 41, pi. 3).
B9915 ' Samian ' bowl. *Colchester.
B9937 ,. „ *Manchester (Roman Fort at Manchester, pi. 99).
B9938 „ „ *Manchester (id., pi. 26).
B9949 „ „ *Castleshaw.
B9953 „ „ *
B9936 „ pottery. *Ellesmere Collection (Roman Fort at Manchester, pi. 99).
B9954 Grey ware * (Roman Fort, pi. 98, 1).
PAINTING AND MOSAIC.
C 234 Beit Jibrin (Samaria). Greek painted tomb. Interior of main chamber.
B9963 Boscoreale fresco, garden scene.
B9967 Rome, Tomb' near Porta Maggiore, fresco ' the Twelve Apostles.'
5930 Naples : Mosaic of fine style : priestess, or votary, holding offering.
Ivii
THE MINOR ARTS.
C l.V.i Trtradrachm of Thurium with head of Athena in fine style.
BUIH58 Bronze mooring-ring from Lake Nemi.
3500 „ prow of Roman galley : Actium. B.M.
B9932 „ and silver objects (Roman Fort at Manchester, pi. 43).
B9935 „ flagon (id., pi. 95).
B9934 .. fibulae, etc. Ellesmere Collection (id., pi. 89).
C 421 .. mask of Roman parade helmet from Ain Tab. B.M.
C 422 „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ (B.M., Cat. Bronzes, 877).
C 151 Iron helmet with vizor mask from Newstead (Curie, Roman Frontier Fort, pi. 29).
C 1~>- Brass visor mask : «/., pi. 30).
C 378 Lead coffins from Sidon.
•9608
B.M.
Colchester.
3381 Silver armlet from Sierra Morena (A"um. Chron., 1912, p. 65).
3382 „ tore from Sierra Nevada (id., p. 66).
C 413 Ivory diptych of Areobindus (Molinier, Ivories, pi. 3).
C 415 Coptic ivories (Wulff, Alt. chr. Bildw., pi. 27).
C 420 Bookcover : the legend of S. Gall. (Molinier, Ivories, pi. 11).
MISCELLANEA
C 228 California University ; stage of Greek theatre.
C 424 The hoplite race (drawing).
C 425 A stadion race (drawing).
Phalera (soldier's clasp) (Roman Fort at Manchester, pi. 88).
Pila in u nil in. Castleshaw.
„ „ from Oberaden.
' Uppers ' of Roman shoes, Castleshaw.
Mortar. (Roman Fort at Manchester, pi. 68).
7885 Modern Greek life : children with mule.
B9933
B9951
B9952
B9950
JOURNAL OF HELLENIC STUDIES.
Nov. 3rd, 1903.
NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS.
THE Council of the Hellenic Society having decided that it is desirable
for a common system of transliteration of Greek words to be adopted in
the Journal of Hellenic Studies, the following scheme has been drawn up
by the Acting Editorial Committee in conjunction with the Consultative
Editorial Committee, and has received the approval of the Council.
In consideration of the literary traditions of English scholarship, the
scheme is of the nature of a compromise, and in most cases considerable
latitude of usage is to be allowed.
(1) All Greek proper names should be transliterated into the Latin
alphabet according to the practice of educated Romans of the Augustan age.
Thus K should be represented by c, the vowels and diphthongs, v, at, 01, ov,
by y, ae, oe, and u respectively, final -05 and -ov by -us and -urn, and -po?
by -er.
But in the case of the diphthong ei, it is felt that ei is more suitable
than e or i, although in names like Laodicea, Alexandria,
where they are consecrated by usage, e or i should be preserved ;
also words ending in -etov must be represented by -eum.
A certain amount of discretion must be allowed in using the
o terminations, especially where the Latin usage itself varies
or prefers the o form, as Delos. Similarly Latin usage should
be followed as far as possible in -e and -a terminations,
e.g., Priene, Smyrna. In some of the more obscure names
ending in -po?, as Ae'aypo?, -er should be avoided, as likely
to lead to confusion. The Greek form -on is to be preferred
to -o for names like Dion, Hieron, except in a name so common
as Apollo, where it would be pedantic.
Names which have acquired a definite English form, such as
Corinth, Athens, should of course not be otherwise represented.
It is hardly necessary to point out that forms like Hercules,
<i, should not be used for Heracles, Hermes, and
Athena.
lix
Ix
(2) Although names of the gods should be transliterated in the same
way as other proper names, names of personifications and epithets such as
Nike, Momonoia, Hyakinthios, should fall under § 4.
(3) In no case should accents, especially the circumflex, be written over
vowels to show quantity.
(4) In the case of Greek words other than proper names, used as names
of personifications or technical terms, the Greek form should be transliterated
letter for letter, k being used for K, ch for %, but y and u being substituted
for v and ov, which are misleading in English, e.g., Nike, apoxyomenos,
diadumenos, rhyton.
This rule should not be rigidly enforced in the case of Greek
words in common English use, such as aegis, symposium. It
is also necessary to preserve the use of ou for ov in a
certain number of words in which it has become almost
universal, such as boule, gerousia.
(5) The Acting Editorial Committee are authorised to correct all
MSS. and proofs in accordance with this scheme, except in the case of a
special protest from a contributor. All contributors, therefore, who object
on principle to the system approved by the Council, are requested to inform
the Editors of the fact when fo warding contributions to the Journal.
In addition to the above system of transliteration, contributors to the
Journal of Hellenic Studies are requested, so far as possible, to adhere to the
following conventions : —
Quotations from Ancient and Modern Authorities.
Names of authors should not be underlined; titles of books, articles,
periodicals or other collective publications should be underlined (for italics).
If the title of an article is quoted as well as the publication in which it is
contained, the latter should be bracketed. Thus :
Six, Jahrb. xviii. 1903, p. 34,
or —
Six, Protogenes (Jahrb. xviii. 1903), p. 34.
But as a rule the shorter form of citation is to be preferred.
The number of the edition, when necessary, should be indicated by a
small figure above the line; e.g. Dittenb. Syll? 123.
Ixi
Titles of Periodical and Collective Publications.
The following abbreviations are suggested, as already in more or less
general use. In other cases, no abbreviation which is not readily identified
should be employed.
A.-E.M. = Arch&ologisch-epigraphische Mitthcilungen.
Ann. d. I, = Annali dell' Infitituto.
Arch. Am. =<Archaologischer Anzeiger (Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch).
Arch. Zeit. = Archaologische Zeitung.
Alh. Mitth. = Mittheilungen des Deutschen Arch. Inst., Athenische Abtheilung.
Baumeister = Baumeistor, Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums.
It.i'.H. = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique.
Berl. Vas. = Furtwangler, Beschreibung der Vasensammlung zu Berlin.
B.M. Bronzes = British Museum Catalogue of Bronzes.
B.M.C. = British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins.
B.M. Inscr. = Greek inscriptions in the British Museum.
B.M. Vases = British Museum Catalogue of Vases, 1893, etc.
B.S.A. = Annual of the British School at Athens.
Bull. d. I. = Bullettino dell' Institute.
C.I.G. = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.
C.I.L. = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
Cl. Rev. = Classical Review.
C.R. Acad. Inscr. = Comptes Rendus de 1' Academic des Inscriptions.
Dar.-Sagl. = Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquites.
Dittenb. Syll. = Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum.
(i.D.I. = Gollitz, Sammlung der Griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften.
Gerh. A.V. = Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder.
O.O.A. = Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.
I.O. = Inscriptiones Graecae.1
I.O.A. = Rohl, Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissimae.
Jahrb. = Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts.
Jahresh. = Jahreshefte des Oesterreichischen Archaologischen Institutes.
J.H.S. = Journal of Hellenic Studies.
I^e Bas-VVadd. = Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage Archeologique.
Michel = Michel, Recueil d' Inscriptions grecques.
Mon. d. I. = Monumenti dell' Institute.
Miiller-Wies. = Miiller-Wieseler, Denkmaler der alten Kunst.
Mus. Marbles = Collection of Ancient Marbles in the British Museum.
Neue. Jahrb. kl. Alt. = Xeue Jahrbiicher fur das klassische Allertum.
Seue Jahrb. Phil. = Xeue Jahrbucher fur Philologie.
1 The attention of contributors is called to the fact that the titles of the volumes of the second
issue of the Corpus of Greek Inscriptions, published by the Prussian Academy, have now been
changed, as follows : —
/.'•'. I. = Inscr. Atticae anno Euclidis vetustiores.
„ II.- „ „ aetatis quae est inter Kuel. ana. et August! tempora.
Ill .. ,, aetatis Romanae.
IV. • „ Argolidis.
\II. .. Megaridis et Boeotiae.
„ IX. = ., Graeciae Septentrional^.
„ XII. - - ., insul. Maria Aegaei praetor Delum.
\1\. Italiae et Siciliae.
Ixii
Num. Chr. — Numismatic Chronicle.
Num. Zeit. = Numismatische Zeitschrift.
Pauly-Wissowa = Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissen-
schaft.
Philol. = Philologus.
Rev. Arch. = Revue Archeologique.
Rev. El. Gr. = Revue des Etudes Grecques.
Rev. Num. = Revue Numismatique.
Rev. Philol. = Revue de Philologie.
Rh. Mas. = Rheinisches Museum.
Rom. Mitth. = Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Romische Abtheil-
ung.
Roscher = Roscher, Lexicon der Mythologie.
T.A.M. = Tituli Asiae Minoris.
Z. f. N. = Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik.
Transliteration of Inscriptions.
[ ] Square brackets to indicate additions, i.e. a lacuna filled by conjecture.
( ) Curved brackets to indicate alterations, i.e. (1) the resolution of an
abbreviation or symbol; (2) letters misrepresented by the engraver;
(3) letters wrongly omitted by the engraver; (4) mistakes of the
copyist.
< > Angular brackets to indicate omissions, i.e. to enclose superfluous
letters appearing on the original.
. . . Dots to represent an unfilled lacuna when the exact number of missing
letters is known.
- - - Dashes for the same purpose, when the number of missing letters is
not known.
Uncertain letters should have dots under them.
Where the original has iota adscript, it should be reproduced in that form;
otherwise it should be supplied as subscript.
The aspirate, if it appears in the original, should be represented by a
special sign, >-.
Quotations from MSS. and Literary Texts.
The same conventions should be employed for this purpose as for inscrip-
tions, with the following important exceptions :—
( ) Curved brackets to indicate only the resolution of an abbreviation or
symbol.
[[ ]] Double square brackets to enclose superfluous letters appearing on the
original.
< > Angular brackets to enclose letters supplying an omission in the
original.
The Editors desire to impress upon contributors the necessity of clearly
and accurately indicating accents and breathings, as the neglect of this
precaution adds very considerably to the cost of production of the Journal.
THE END OF THE ODYSSEY
THE course of Homeric criticism during the last twenty years or so has
not indeed given us any grounds for thinking that unanimity on fundamental
questions is likely to be reached in the near future, but it has accomplished
one thing. It is possible now to think and speak of Homer as a man who was
born at a definite fortunate moment, ate, drank, and even slumbered, com-
posed two long epics much in the same way as other men of genius have com-
posed great works, had his joys and sorrows, triumphs and disappointments,
and ultimately died — it is possible to think and speak of him thus without
being considered absurdly simple or simply absurd. And so one can venture
to approach the problem of the last section of the Odyssey in just the same way
that one would approach a similar literary problem in a later age of the world,
taking it for granted that the poet lived and worked under ordinary human
conditions. In this paper I assume without discussion the truth of the Unitarian
view that Homer was the author of the Iliad and of the Odyssey (at least to
•ty 296), and also that the Odyssey, is the later of the two ; I assume that in
composing them he was aided by the art of writing; and I assume that he
lived about 900-850 B.C. at latest.
The end of the Odyssey, suspected as unhomeric by two of the leading
ancient critics — 'A/jto-ro^avr;? real 'Apiarapxo*; 7re/>a<? T% 'O£f<r<m'a<? TOVTO
[sc. i/r 296] Troiovvrai — though not formally athetised, has in modern days
been condemned by such an accomplished and discreet critic as Mr. Allen.
The case against it is essentially literary, and therefore in some measure sub-
jective, but it appears to me to be extraordinarily strong. Essentially literary,
though some points in language and metre have been alleged in its support.
They are not very numerous and they are not very serious. There are few
considerable sections in either of the two epics in which a critic who is in quest
of diasceuasts cannot find ' marks of lateness,' and in some other sections such
points are much more abundant than in this. As all these difficulties or similar
ones recur elsewhere in the poems, they need not be discussed here.1
1 For instance, the impossible form there is no metrical ' necessity ' for fftjf ,
fMx*o\>ntvoi in w 113 meets us in A. 403 and Mr. Monro pointed out that r|tv should
iMxtovptvov, where the same passage occurs. be read there). A contracted genitive
The right reading is clearly nax*6n*yov, which from a nominative in -tvs ('oSi/ff.Dj t» 398)
was changed to suit posthomeric metrical happens to be unique; but here the only
canons. The incorrect fay (twice in this question which really arises is whether it is
section \f> 316, o> 343) should be amended to a case of contraction or of synizesis, a
$tv, as also in r 283 ; in each of these three particular case of a general question which
cases it occurs as the first foot of a verse pervades the poems. I should be inclined
and at the end of a clause followed by dAAo to read 'O&uatos. In the same way 'Ep/u<a?
or 9t, and the emphatic position enables the might well be restored in o> 1, « 54 and'
trochee to do duty for a spondee (in A 808 elsewhere ; the form is preserved in E 390.
J.H.S. — VOL. XI.II. B
2 J. B. BURY
Language and metre, then, furnish no good evidence even for suspecting
that -ty- 297 to the end of &> could not have come directly from Homer's hand.
It is the literary art that must decide, and it seems to me to be decisive. (1)
We have, in the first place, i/r 310-343, the story of his wanderings which
Odysseus relates to Penelope, and which reads like a table of contents to
Books €-/*; and then &> 125-185, Amphimedon's recapitulation of the story of
the wooing of Penelope and all that had happened since the landing of Odysseus
in Ithaca. Mr. Allen is very properly severe on both these passages.2 I do
not know that I should go as far as he does in urging against them the generalisa-
tion that Homer nowhere epitomises himself. I do not see why he might not
have epitomised once or twice if an artistic effect was to be gained. And
has he not epitomised himself in ij where Odysseus (244-296) recapitulates
the narrative of e and £? And in p (108-147) where Telemachus epitomises
for his mother the events of his journey which was told in 7 and 8 ? Homer
may deprecate the practice
but this means that he does not propose to repeat a recapitulation for the
benefit of the same audience. Odysseus will not repeat in /* for Alcinous and
his court the story he had already told them in ij. Homer's art does not
exclude recapitulations as such, but he knows how to make them interesting.
The tale of Amphimedon is intolerably tedious, while it is impossible to see
that such a conscientious dvaKefyaX-aiwais as -fy 310 K.T.\. is useful or requisite
in the economy of the poem. This summary is a smooth and fluent exercise
in hexameters, with one redeeming feature, the vividness of v. 342,
TOVT apa Sevrarov etvre CTTO? ore oi ^\VKV<^ VTTVOS
(2) The epitome of Amphimedon is part of the Psychostasia, which was
athetised by Aristarchus and is certainly the weakest part of the ending of the
Odyssey. The talk between Agamemnon and Achilles, before the souls of the
suitors arrive, is irrelevant, if not insufferable.3 These two heroes had been
together in the under- world for many years ; Odysseus had spoken with them
in X ; and now they are made to meet as if it were for the first time. Mr.
Allen, like others, has rightly insisted on this incongruity, which cannot be
defended by a parallel like the Teichoscopia. I cannot agree with him, however,
that a ' second Nekyia ' is in itself unhomeric on the ground that ' Homer
does not repeat himself in this way ; there is no case of such a repetition of a
motive once used.' After all, in the Iliad there is a /iovo/ia^ta in F and
another in H. A great deal depends on the precise significance of a ' motive.'
I cannot see why Homer might not have taken his audience with him on two
different occasions into the world of ghosts for two completely different purposes.
He had described that world in X and made it known ; and if, for some reason
2 The Canonicity of Homer, in Cl. Q. vii. it (Die Odyssee ala Dichtung, p. 187) is
4, Oct. 1913. quite unconvincing.
* The attempt of Mr. Rothe to defend
THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 3
connected with his argument, it was convenient for him to revisit it afterwards,
is it quite fair to call this a repetition of a motive once used ? If he had taken
Odysseus there a second time, the criticism would be unexceptionable. But
tin- place of ghosts beyond the Ocean stream was a geographical fact; the
ghosts of the suitors inevitably went there ; and if something for the purpose
of his theme was to be gained by following them for a few minutes, was there
anything inartistic in taking us there although we had, for a totally different
purpose, spent an hour there before ? The objection to this second visit to
the shades lies for me not in the visit itself but in the clumsiness of the execution,
the uselessness as well as the tediousness of a great part of it. If Homer wrote
it, his hand had lost its craft.
There is another argument against the psychostasia which can hardly be
esteemed very strong. It is urged that it -contains conceptions about the
\\orld of the dead which are inconsistent with the beliefs that can be traced
in Homer elsewhere. To this it may be said in general that beliefs about
ghosts and the other world did not form a definite body of doctrine, that
inconsistencies, reflecting the vagueness of the conceptions, are rather to be
expected, and that a poet was at liberty to select from the popular beliefs
whatever was useful for his immediate purpose, without concerning himself
whether the various intimations in all parts of his poems could be wrought
into a perfectly consistent picture.4 And, as a matter of fact, the other passages
bearing on Hades— ^ 65-107, * 490-540, X, ® 366-369— do not present a clear
consistent conception contrasted with that of to ; in them too there are incon-
gruities which it is not easy to harmonise. To the particular objection raised
by Aristarchus, that Homer did not elsewhere introduce Hermes performing
the function of a conductor of souls,5 the answer might be made that it did not
happen to suit Homer to do so. It does not prove that Hermes ^V^OTTO^TTO^
is posthomeric. And offices of Hermes in connexion with death are implied
in the attributes of his wand, vy r dvSpwv o/x/xara OeXyft K.T.\. H 343, e 47.
(3) As to the rest of to more will be said below ; it is enough to say now that
taken as a whole it is not unhomeric, but it is, in parts at least, perfunctoi/
and gives the impression that if Homer wrote it he was impatient to get to
the end of his task and was not feeling the joy of creation. Altogether it must,
I think, be admitted that ' the end of the Odyssey, to put it bluntly, is bungled,'
in the words of Mr. Mackail,6 though the bungling begins not, in my opinion,
where he puts it, at the end of r, but near the point where Aristophanes and
Aristarchus thought that Homer's own work terminated.
How then did this last canto of the Odyssey, containing some parts which
4 I observe that Mr. Rothe has made of Elponor in A, would a description of
inurli tli«- same remark, op. cit. p. 180. the soul's journey to Hades have been in
••I cannot agree with Mr. Monro (in his the least relevant, the amplitude <-laini.,l
note ad loc.) that 'the passing away of for the argument ex silent io really disap-
hi. j.s so often described in the Jlitid and pears. In the case of Elpenor a mention
Odyesi •••/ tluii thin argument is as strong as of Hermes would have been relevant, but
arK'uuii nt ex ailentio can be.' For it was not necessary,
in none of these cases, except in that • Lectures on Greek Poetry, p. 59.
4 J. B. BURY
it seems impossible to ascribe to the author of the rest of the poem — for there
are limits to the ' bungling ' of a Homer — along with others which a Unitarian
might not be inclined to suspect if they stood alone, come to be there?
The latest answer to the question is that of Mr. Allen, and it deserves careful
consideration, coming from one who has such an intimate knowledge of
Homer and all Homeric problems. His view is that the end of the Odyssey
was the work of a diasceuast who derived the ' retrospective scenes ' in i/r and
the nekyia from the Thesprotis of Musaeus, and himself composed the
* country scenes ' (<u 205 to end). The theory is definite and attractive.
Of the Thesprotis, attributed to Musaeus, who is only a name, we know
very little. The title we get from Pausanias (viii. 12, 5), and Clement of
Alexandria states that it was copied, in fact appropriated, by Eugammon in
his Telegonia. Clement's words are :
yap ra erepcav y<£eXo/zez>ot w? i&ia e^rjvey/cav KaOdirep
Et"yayu.//,&>z> 6 K.vprjvaio<> etc hlovcraiov TO
From this it is a legitimate inference that the subject of the poem of Musaeus
was, or included, a visit of Odysseus to Thesprotia, where there was an entrance
to the under-world at the river Acheron. Mr. Allen assumes that it began
with a precis of the Odyssey which supplied the diasceuast with his material for
the recapitulations, and he finds the significant point of connexion between the
Thesprotis and the diasceuast in &> 11 :
Trap £' Iffav 'Cltceavov TC /aoa? Kal Aevxd&a Trerprjv,
where he takes A.TT. to be the terrestrial Cape Leucas in Dulichium (I accept
unreservedly Mr. Allen's convincing defence of Bunbury's equation Dulichium =
Leucas), and supposes that the poet conceived the ghosts flying north from
Ithaca over Leucas and along the Albanian coast to the Thesprotian river.
This interesting conjecture appears to me to be beset by two particular
difficulties. (1) The Thesprotis must have been a very short poem. For it
was incorporated whole in the Telegonia (if we make use of Clement's statement
we cannot neglect his emphatic 6\oK\tjpov), and the Telegonia was itself a
short epic consisting of only two Books,8 while its main subject was the slaying
of Odysseus by his son, which we have no reason to suppose was part of the
Thesprotis. These being the data, it seems somewhat hazardous to suppose
that a short poem contained an epitome of the Odyssey, running to a good many
verses. This is not, of course, a decisive objection — we know so little of the
Thesprotis — but it is at least a difficulty. (2) The interpretation of Aev/cd&a
7reTpr)v as a reference to the island of Leucas implies that <a/ceavov is used
in a posthomeric sense, equivalent to 8d\a<rcra, and this, of course, is possible,
though I do not know of an early parallel for daiceavov poai referring to a
small portion of the sea like that between Leucas and Ithaca. Mr. AJlen
says that while in this verse the indications of the route are terrestrial, in the
next verse (»?Se Trap r/€\ioio Trv\a<? Kal Sfjfwv ovelpwv) we are taken beyond
7 Strom. VI Chap. II. 25, 1 (p. 442, ed. 8 Proclus, Chrest., p. 109 in Allen's ed.
Stahlin). of the Cycle.
THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 5
the sphere of earth, presumably, into the neighbourhood or suburbs of the
place of ghosts. But the theory is that the entry to that place is near the
Acheron in Thesprotia, apparently by a subterranean passage, and, if so, it
is difficult to explain what the gates of the sun mean in this connexion. The
passage seems to me much simpler if we take Ocean in its Homeric sense and
assume that the ghost-world is in the same locality in which it is conceived in X,
that is in the east, beyond the circumambient stream. Hermes and the ghosts
flying eastward across land and sea reached Ocean before the poet begins to
describe their route /ear' €vpa>ei>ra Ke\ev0a. The Leucadian rock must then
be a legendary landmark, by the river Ocean. That the topographical in-
dications here are not the same as in X (where we are told of the Cimmerians,
but the Leucadian rock and the deme of dreams are not mentioned) is no
disproof of the identity of the general conception of the whereabouts of Hades
in o> and X ; because the ghosts need not have reached their habitation by the
same road by which Odysseus reached it from Aeaea.9 On the whole, the
Leucas-Thesprotic interpretation of o> 10-12 seems to involve more serious
difficulties than any which arise from understanding wiceavov poa? in the same
sense as poov uuceavolo in X 21.
But passing over these particular objections, we are met by a general
difficulty when we consider what the addition of the diasceuast's work to the
epic of Homer implies. We know nothing definite about Musaeus, but I
suppose that the Thesprotis cannot with any probability be placed prior to
750 B.C., when the earliest cyclic poets may have been living. As Eugammon's
date falls in the last thirty years of the seventh century, the limits for Musaeus
would be roughly 750 and 650, and I suppose Mr, Allen would hardly choose a
date earlier than 700 for his diasceuast. I find it, then, hard to believe that
if the Homeric Odyssey (ending at -^ 296) had been recited for 150 or 100
years, and its compass was perfectly well known to the Greeks, a new canto
could have suddenly been attached to it and gained universal acceptance as
Homeric. Such an addition is not like single verses or short passages which
were intruded from time to time into the body of the two poems, such, for
instance, as the 0/0/71/09 Mov&dcov, if, as Aristarchus judged and as may well
be the case, that was a later insertion in o> itself (60-62).
To any one who holds, as I do, that Homer could not have designed i/r 296
as the termination of his epic, the theory of a diasceuast, whether in the eighth
or in the seventh century, adding a new section to the Odyssey and foisting
upon it a new ending, will be still more difficult. That the poet could have
contemplated the reunion of Odysseus with Penelope as an artistic or even
tolerable ending to his poem appears to me almost incredible.
• The island of Circe was in the east so that this stream in Homer's conception
(n 4), and north of the land of the Cim- flowed in the opposite direction to the
merians («c 507). Therefore the land of movement of the hands of a clock. Mr.
the Cimmerians and the ghost-world were Berger(MythischeKo«mographiederGriechen,
imagined by Homer as in the east or south. p. 32) placed the world of the dead in the
not in the north, much less in the west. west, but his idea of the routes is not
Tin- n-tiirn journey northward to Aeaea lucidily expressed, and I am not sure that
was facilitated by the current of the Ocean, I understand his \
6 J. B. BURY
For (1) 10 it was necessary, for the satisfaction of those who listened to the
recitation, to tell how the inevitable feud between Odysseus and the men of
Ithaca whose kinsmen he had slain was composed, and this necessity was
stronger in a work addressed to Greek ears than it would be in the case of a
story-teller writing for modern readers. Odysseus and his son were in a serious
predicament, as the Homeric Odysseus so fully realised that, always ' most
provident in peril,' he took corresponding precautions (\|r 118 /c.r.X.), and if the
outcome was not to be related in the Odyssey, those precautions (in fact the
whole passage ty 117-152) should have been omitted. They are irrelevant and
inartistic if the poem was to close at v. 296 ; their meaning and justification
are furnished by the sequel told in ty 361-372 and ay 412 K.T.\.
(2) No less requisite was a meeting between the son and the father. The
interest in Laertes, the fact that he was living in the country neglected and
sorrowful, never coming to the city, is insisted on not once but repeatedly, at
intervals throughout the poem. At the beginning, Athene in the form of
Mentes speaks of him to Telemachus as
epTTv^ovT* dva yovvbv a\a>/5<? olvoTrcBoio (a 189).
The web that Penelope was weaving was to be a rcuftTjlov for Laertes (/3 99).
When she and Telemachus are mentioned as pining for the wanderer's return,
Laertes is never forgotten (8 111, £ 173). When she is anxious about the
absence of Telemachus, she thinks of sending a messenger to Laertes to ask
for his advice (8 738). Anticleia tells her son of his father's forlorn life in the
country (X, 187-194), and Eumaeus repeats the description when Odysseus
inquires for his father and mother (o 353). When Telemachus returns safe,
the thought of Eumaeus is to send the news at once to his grandfather (TT 138).
When Odysseus enjoins on Telemachus to keep his own return a secret from
every one, he thinks of Laertes first (rr 302). Laertes is never passed over in
any context where it was relevant to mention him, and in my view Homer
would have shirked his work most unhomerically if he had thought of con-
cluding the epic without showing the meeting of the father and son.
The <nrov8ai and the dvayva>pi<Ti<; were simply indispensable. The
tyvxocnaaia was not. But (3) it is to be observed that the psychostasia had
a use and a meaning in the economy of the poem. It served to strike finally
a note which had been struck at the very beginning, and afterwards recurrently,11
the contrast between the tragedy of the return of Agamemnon and the tragi-
comedy of the return of Odysseus. The story of the tragedy is told three times,
— by Nestor, by Menelaus, by Agamemnon himself, — and it is skilfully used
both to stimulate Telemachus by the example of Orestes 12 and to suggest
the contrast between the good and the bad queen. The emphasis which the
j
10 The substance of this and the follow- J1 a 29-30,35 K.T.A., 298-300; 7 193-198,
ing considerations has of course been urged 248 K.T.\. ; 8 512 K.T.A ; A. 409 K.T.A. cp. 44.~>.
often by those who hold w genuine, and 12 This has been well brought out by
recently, I st-e, by Mr. Rothe in Die Odyasee Mr. Sheppard in his interesting article
o/« Dichtung, pp. 181 sqq. They were well J.H.S., xxxvii. 47 aqq.
put by Miss Stawell, in Homer and the Iliad.
THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 7
poet laid on this motive is shown by his selection of it in the first scene of the
poem as the topic with which Zeus opens the conversation in the Olympian
palace and gives Athene her opportunity for intervening on behalf of Odysseus
(a 28 AC.T.X.) ; and again by its introduction at the first convenient point in
the second part of the poem, when Odysseus says to Athene (v 383) :
<y TTOTTOI, T) p.(i\a 8r)
<j>di,ae(T6ai KO,KOV olrov evl
el firf fjioi (rv €Ka<rra, 6ed, Kara fioipav
To recur to it again after the denouement, after Odysseus had escaped such a
fate as that of Agamemnon and Penelope's fidelity had been established, was
not indeed a necessity of the story, but was it not almost a necessity of Homer's
treatment ? The poet who made such insistent use of the motive would not
have been likely to let it fall out of mind at the end. And a psychostasia was
an ingenious and simple invention for reintroducing it in an effective way.
The ghosts of the suitors went to the ghost-world and the poet takes us with
them in order that we may witness Agamemnon hearing the news and pro-
nouncing the praise of Penelope. That is a dramatic incident, and if it were
well executed would be much more effective than it would be, for instance, to
place some comment on the Agamemnonian tragedy in the mouth of Odysseus
himself or any one at Ithaca.
(4) There is yet another reason for hesitating to believe that ty 296 could
have been the end contemplated by Homer. We might expect an intimation
that Odysseus told his story to Penelope. For that Homer had this in his mind
is shown by \ 223, where Anticleia says :
ravra Be Trdvra
ted* '(va tcai /i€T07rto-#e refj eiTrrj&ffa <yvvaitci.
And that he had not forgotten, is proved by i/r 241-246. For it is in order to
give the husband and wife time to recount to each other their experiences that
Athene prolongs the night, and any one who believes that Homer fixed >|r 296
as his termination must omit those six lines as an interpolation of the diaswuast
who was responsible for the last section. As a matter of fact, we have the
conversatibn of the king and queen described as Homer might have described
it in the unexceptionable passage ty 297-309. The only reason for placing the
end of Homer's work at 296 instead of 309 was that it seemed to make a better
conclusion.
On these grounds Mr. Allen's theory involves for me the additional difficulty
that I should have to suppose that the present ending of the Odyssey replaced,
in the eighth or seventh century, a genuine Homeric ending, and that although
the general argument and incidents in the new ending were virtually the same
as in the old. And this difficulty is for me insuperable.
The problem, as I conceive it, may be stated thus. The actual ending of
the poem, as it has come down, was not composed by Homer, but its contents
represent partly what Homer must have designed and partly what he might
well have designed as the conclusion of the Odyssey. The meeting of the father
and son, and the (nrov&ai, were absolutely necessary. The psychostasia was
8 J. B. BURY
an incident, invented with Homeric skill for an artistic purpose, and spoiled
by a less cunning hand than Homer's own. But this ending cannot have been
attached to the poem after it had been constantly recited for more than a
hundred years and was well known to have been complete at -^ 296 ; and it is
inconceivable that a genuine conclusion should have been ejected to make way
for inferior work of similar argument.
If this statement of the problem is admitted, a solution is clear. The
poet died before he completed the Odyssey, but he knew exactly what the
conclusion^ should be. His two epics were valuable property. Now in the
case of works left by their authors in an unfinished state, in later times, and
addressed to a reading public, the literary executors usually issue them in
their incomplete condition. That was the case with the Aeneid. Varius
and Tucca published it after Virgil's death, sub ea lege tit nihil adderent.
In the case of the Odyssey that could not have been done. An unfinished epic
was of little use for solemn and regular recitations at feasts. Audiences did
not want a story without its proper termination. It was therefore a practical
necessity that as Homer could not do the conclusion it should be done at once
by another hand. Homer realised this himself and provided for it, by com-
municating to a disciple the plot of the final section. These two assumptions,
that Homer died before the poem was finished and that he entrusted to a
successor the general argument of the last canto, form the hypothesis which
explains the data. We may speculate whether the rhapsode who played the
part of literary executor was also Homer's heir, we may wonder whether his
name was Stasinus, who, a tradition recorded, married Homer's daughter ; 13
but these are questions we cannot answer. Whoever the disciple was, he
knew the poems thoroughly and was versed in the master's technique. The
important thing is that the end of the Odyssey dates from Homer's own age,
and was in the possession of the Homerids of Chios (on whom Mr. Allen's
criticism 14 has shed new light) from the very beginning.
We may perhaps go further. Homer worked ' by wit and not by
witchcraft.' There is no reason whatever to suppose that he composed either
of his epics continuously from beginning to end in the order of the argument,
as it were stans pede in uno, and never wrote a later before an earlier scene.
On the contrary, it appears highly probable that in the Iliad later parts were
composed before earlier parts and afterwards changed to conform to the earlier
parts which had been composed in the meantime. The theory of the expansion
of the Iliad is true, only Homer himself was the expander. There need be no
question of expansion in the Odyssey, but the evidence of the Iliad justifies the
view that Homer, like other creators, may have often worked out scenes when
he had conceived them without waiting until he actually came to them and had
completed all that went before. I suggest that this was the case with o> 205-
412. The whole scene of the meeting of Odysseus and Laertes is not unworthy
of Homer, and the passage (336-348) in which the son recalls an incident of
his boyhood, in order to convince his father that he is indeed Odysseus, shows
13 Cp. Suidas sub "O/iTjpos (p. 258 in 14 Cl. Q. i. 3, July 1907.
Allen's ed. of the Vitae).
THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 9
the same mastery of pathetic effect — though here the pathos is in the tragi-
comic, not in the tragic tone — as Homer displayed in the Astyanax episode in
the Iliad. It is easier to be confident that a passage could not, than that it
could only, have been written by Homer, and the authorship of this episode
cannot be argued. One can only have an opinion.
One is naturally shy of introducing into a philological argument an opinion
or impression, — the ' subjective element ' which depends on personal reaction.
But it is impossible to exclude it altogether from an investigation like the
present. Let me illustrate by a minor instance. The Alexandrian critics,
Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, athetised M 175-181, and many
modern scholars have endorsed their judgment. The passage is :
o>5 e<f>ar\ ovBe Aio? ireWe <f>peva TOUT' dyopevtov
' Ettcropi yap ol dvfibf eftovXero /cvBos ope^ai.
175 dX\oi 6* a/i</>' dXXrjfft /itt^T/i/ ep,d\pvTO TrvXyo'iv
dpyaXeov Be fie raOra deov to? irdvr dyopev<rai.
irdvrr) yap Trepl ret^o? opoapec 0e<nriBae<; irvp
Xdivov 'Apyeloi Be Kal d~)(vvfi€voL irep dvay/cy
vijcov rjfivvovro- deal 8' dxa^yjaTO dvpov
180 Trdvre<f otroi kavaoiai fj.d%r)s eimappodot,
<rvv 6' e/SaXov AcuriOai iroXe/j-ov KOI
There cannot indeed be much hesitation in rejecting 177-181 as an interpolation,
and a bad one. But I am not less convinced that 175-176 are genuine. 176
has for me the Homeric touch, and I cannot believe that it was written by an
interpolator or by any other poet than Homer himself. In this case, as it
happens, I can find an ' objective ' confirmation of this opinion. On the usual
assumption that the work of the alien hand began at 175, no motive for the inter-
polation is apparent. But given 175-176 as genuine, the motive at once appears.
The interpolator asked himself, ' Why dpyaXeov ? ' and w. 177-181 are his
infelicitous answer.
%
In considering a question of this kind, account must be taken of the general
scheme of the composition of the poem. Mr. Drerup's investigations have
brought this subject to the front, and in his interesting study of the aristeia of
Diomede he has proposed schemes for both the epics.15 I fully agree with Mr.
Drerup that Homer did not compose formless narratives, but built up his
poems on definite plans, carefully thought out, and that the symmetrical
disposition of the parts was a consideration which affected the design; and I
agree that as the poems were intended not for reading but for reciting, those
plans must have had some regard to the practical conditions of public recitation.
But of those conditions we know nothing, and I do not see how we can deter-
mine the powers of endurance of an Ionian audience. Obvious of course it
is that the Iliad or the Odyssey cannot have been recited from beginning to
end without intervals ; the audience must have dispersed and returned more than
once ; but we cannot know a priori how often. It appears to me that Mr.
14 DasfQnfte Buck der Ilia*, 1913.
10 J. B. BURY
Drerap has started from the wrong end. He argues for the assumption that
the length of the single recitation or pa^tpSia varied from about 600 to 1000
verses, because he finds a number of parts which seem to be, relatively, self-
contained (like E, I, K, ^, fi), varying roughly between these limits. On
this assumption he bases his schemes, and divides the Odyssey into fifteen and
the Iliad into eighteen such pa^rwUai, which he then proceeds to combine
into larger unities and arrange symmetrically. In a great many cases the
divisions which he has thus determined correspond to natural pauses in the
story, points at which the reciter might conveniently stop for a few minutes to
give himself and his audience a rest. But these pauses differ greatly in value :
while some mark important stages in the development of the plot, some have
little significance and might easily be replaced by others, if it were not for
numerical considerations. Nor do all Mr. Drerup's rhapsodies correspond to
the definition of a rhapsody with which he sets out, as an aTroKOfi^a of an
epic, €~)(ov ev eavTfo oXiyrjv KOI /j,iKpav /cal \€Trr^v nva TrepnreTetav.16
This definition, given by a scholiast, and the similar definition of Dionysius
Thrax, do not mean that an epic poem was composed throughout of such
rhapsodies, but only that any part of an epic which was a more or less self-
contained story and had its own TrepnreTeta was called a rhapsody, evidently
because it could be taken out and recited separately. The last Book of the
Iliad and the Doloneia are obvious examples of the rhapsody. But it does
not follow that the Iliad was built up of rhapsodies, or the Odyssey, and it
does not follow that Mr. Drerup's sections are the basic units in the composition
of the poems. They may mean something as subdivisions, and some of them no
doubt do.
The only method by which we have some chance of reaching a probable
result seems to be quite different. We must start from the argument of the
poem as a whole, and find the divisions into which it naturally falls. In the
case of the Odyssey, of which the construction is simpler than that of the Iliad,
the first step is plain. Nothing can well be clearer than that it falls into two
Parts, and that Part I. ends at v 92. The poet emphatically marks the close
by echoing the lines of the opening :
ft>9 77 pi/jiffra deovaa 0a\do'orj<;
av8pa <f)epov<ra deals eva\iyKia
09 irpiv /AW /zaXa TroXXa irdO* aXyea ov Kara dvfiov
/C.T.X.
v 92 is, as a matter of course, the ending of one of Mr. Drerup's ' rhap-
sodies/ — the eighth, which his scheme designates as the central piece of the
poem, on either side of which six others are symmetrically grouped. But in
point of contents it has no special title to a central position. It is not a con-
necting link in any more eminent sense than is implied in the obvious facts that
the conclusion of the first part of any composition must immediately precede
the second, and that when the second part is a little shorter than the first, the
conclusion of the first must occupy the middle. The Odyssey falls into two
16 Op. dt. p. 57.
THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 11
Parts, and Part I. (6255 vv.) is longer than Part II. (5742 vv.) ; 17 that is the fact
from which we must start.
In Part I. we have a well-defined, unmistakable division at the end of 8,
where the continuity is broken by the transition from Ithaca to the island of
Calypso, from the adventures of Telemachus to the adventures of Odysseus.
Again, we have a well-defined section in the long tale of his wanderings which
Odysseus tells the Phaeacians. As there is no change of scene (as at v 93 or
the beginning of e) for the persons of the story, though there is for the audience,
the beginning of this section is not so sharply marked. We may possibly find
it at 6 469-470 (where one of Mr. Drerup's rhapsodies begins) or at the
beginning of t. Thus we should obtain three large sections in Part I. :
(1) a-S = 2207 vv. (2) e-B 469 = 1633 w. (3) 0 470-i/ 92 = 2415 w.
In Part II. the story is continuous, and the sections do not fall apart of
themselves as in Part I. But there are two important points in the story,
the points that mark the most distinct stages in the development of the plot,
namely, at the beginning of TT, where Telemachus reaches the hut of Eumaeus,
and at the beginning of <f>, where Penelope, at the inspiration of Athene, proposes
the rogou 0€<ri<j which leads up to the denouement. If the story of Part II.
were dramatised, these appear to me to be the points at which divisions between
Acts would most naturally fall. If I am right, we have three main sections in
Part II. :
(1) v 93^o, 1512 vv. (2) TT-V 2493 w. (3) <£-<u 1838 w.
The whole poem thus falls into two Parts, and each Part into three sections ;
and in point of length these six sections may be divided into two classes :
one, which we may denote by A, ranging above 2100 lines, and the other B,
between 1500 and 1840 (taking T/T and &> as they stand in the text). From this
point of view the result is symmetrical :
ABA BAB.
This result has been reached by considerations which are entirely independ-
ent of any presuppositions as to the conditions of the rhapsodic performances.
It is now legitimate to ask, was there a relation between these sections and the
actual performances, as designed by Homer ? It may be conjectured that the
section was designed to correspond to a sitting, and that the Odyssey was
meant by the poet to be recited at six sittings, the audience dispersing at the
end of each. These sittings were not all of the same length ; some might last,
say, for three hours more or less, others for four hours more or less, and in
the case of the Odyssey Homer made the longer and shorter alternate. Pauses
17 The length of Part II. in the common both passages. My view is that the second
is 5805 vv. I have omitted 63 as passage is entirely genuine, and that in
interpolations — generally recognised as the first some verses have been interpolated,
such. In regard to the two passages viz. 281-283 and 286-296. But I have not
about the removal of the arms into the included them in the list of interpolations
tfaAauoi, I have not followed Zenodotua I have allowed for in counting the verses
in athrtising *• 281-298, nor Kirchhoff in of the Odyssey. In Part I. I have omitted
T 4-52, nor Monro in rejecting forty-eight verses.
12 J. B. BURY
in the course of each performance would be a matter of course, and such pauses
may in many cases correspond to the breaks between Mr. Drerup's ' rhapsodies.'
But it is not necessary, for the present purpose, to enter into the question of
subdivisions.18
The Iliad is more difficult. It does not fall of itself into two Parts, like
the Odyssey, its construction, obviously, is quite different. I may consider
it briefly, as it is relevant to see whether the two types A and B can be found
in it, but the following suggestions are made with considerable hesitation.19
Two points stand out conspicuously as marking stages in the development
of the plot. One is where Patroclus persuades Achilles to let him lead the
Myrmidons into battle, at the beginning of Book XVI. This is the definite
beginning of the denouement. The other is the repulse of the overtures of
Agamemnon by Achilles, Book IX. It is not till Book VIII. that Zeus begins
seriously to perform his promise to Thetis by commanding the gods not to
intervene. The situation in this Book is that the Greeks, who have fenced
themselves in with wall and trench, are thoroughly alarmed and Hector is
confident. It ends with the picture of the camp-fires of the Trojans lighting
up the plain, like stars, in the night. «<? ol pw T/aeoe? </>tAa/ca? e^oi/
(1. 1). After the vain effort to conciliate Achilles, the consequences of the pf/vis
are slowly developed through the following Books, till at the end of Book XV.
it is not the camp-fires in the distance that the Achaeans see, but fire in the hands
of Hector and his army for the burning of their ships. That these fires corre-
spond— that the Trvpa TroXXa of & portend the threat which at the end of O
is about to be realised — is indicated by Homer by a remarkable device. In
@ 555 the camp-fires are likened to stars in a striking simile :
ft>5 6' or' ev ovpavw aarpa (fraeivrjv djj,<f)l aeXijvrjv
<j)aiver' dpnrpeTrea ore T' ejrXero vijv€/j.os aWijp
556 etc T' 6(f)avev Tra&ai a-KOTrial KCL\ Trpwoves a/cpoi
real vdiraf oiipavoOev 8' ap inreppdyr} a&Treros aWijp,
Trdvra Se elBerai aarpa yeyrjOe £e re (fipeva TTOI/AIJV.
When the fire which is catching the ships is extinguished by the efforts of
Patroclus, the relief of the Greeks is illustrated by another simile, II. 297, in
which two of these verses are repeated :
&><» 8' or' «</>' tnJr^Xr}? Kopv(j)rj<f opeos
Kivrjay TTVKivr)v ve^eXrjv (rrepO7rr)<yepera
299 etc r' e(f>avev Traa-ai (TKOTTial teal irpatovts axpoi
ical vaTrai' ovpavoQev S* ap vTreppdyr) acrTrero? aidrjp.
It is perverse to follow the Alexandrian critics in supposing that these two lines
were gratuitously introduced into ® from II by some foolish interpolator.
18 I may say that Mr. Drerup's ' rhap- <px ', $o>. I have not seen Mr. Sturmer's
sodies ' (which were independently deter- book, Die Rhapsodien der Odysaee, 1921.
mined by Mr. Adcock) seem to be satisfactory 19 Mr. Sheppard has just put forward a
as subdivisions in Part I. If I were seeking very different arrangement, in a paper read
for convenient intervals of five minutes before the Cambridge Philological Society
in Part II., I think I should divide thus : (Cambridge University Reporter, May 23,
v 93-{; o; ir-p 327; p 328-r 50; r 50-u; 1922, p. 1005).
THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 13
The repetition was designed by the poet as a pointer to the parallel between the
later and the earlier situation. In both crises recourse was had to Achilles.
In the first case, when the peril of the Achaeans was only grave, he refused ;
in the second, when it was desperate, he gave way so far as to save the situation.
The Iliad therefore appears to fall into three Parts, of which the lengths
are: Part I., 4946 (4977) w.; Part II., 4596 (4622) w.; Part III., 5947
(5999) vv.
The sections into which Part III. naturally falls are three, and can hardly
be mistaken :
(1) DP, (2) 2-X, (3) ^n.
In Part I. there seems to be one pretty clear division at the beginning of
F where the fighting begins, and a second might be found at Z 237, where the
scene, which had twice shifted for a few minutes from the plain to Troy in F, is
now removed again to the city for a much longer time.
In Part II., the ret^o/za^/a in M seems to be the central scene of the
long battle, and suggests a division into two sections. We might find the line
of division between A and M, or else, within M, perhaps at 194 just before the
portent of the eagle and snake and Hector's disastrous rejection of the advice
of Polydamas. The precise point does not matter much for the present
purpose.
The whole scheme would then be :
Part I. (1) AB,20 1480 vv. (2) F-Z 236, 2142 vv. (2) Z 237-0
1320 w.
Part II. (1) I-A 2135 w. (2) M-O 2555 w.
or (1) I-M 194 2229 w. (2) M 195-O 2361 vv.
Part III. (1) HP 1623 w. (2) 2-X 2638 vv. (3) ¥O 1694 vv.
These eight sections correspond in point of length to the two types we found
in the Odyssey, the longer varying here between 2640 and 2140, the shorter
between 1700 and 1320, and the arrangement is symmetrical, though 'different
from that of the Odyssey :
BAB AA BAB
The average length of the As is to that of the Bs about as 3 to 2 ; but the
difference between the longest and the shortest B (518 w.) is greater than
the difference between the longest and the shortest A (496 w.).
Now the longest of all the B sections is that which includes the end of the
Odyssey, and the excessive length (1838, 144 lines above the next longest) might
raise a certain presumption that the end of the poem is not right as it stands.
But on the view that it ends at -fy 296, omitting, as we must, the six lines ^r 241-
246, the length of the section would be 1208 lines, diverging far in the opposite
direction. Thus so far as numerical considerations may be allowed to have
any weight, they confirm on the one hand the conclusion that ty 296 was not the
10 Mr. Drerup's idea that the latter part me unintelligible. Mr. Sheppard (loc. cit.)
of B (484 to end) was not a part of the poem, regards the Catalogue, the Doloneia, and
but a sort of excursus or appendix, is to the Shield (in 5) as "interludes."
14 J. B. BURY
end of the poem as Homer designed it, and on the other hand suggest that the
present conclusion ty 297-<u 548 may be too long. By the omission of the un-
necessary and indubitably unhomeric passage -v/r 310-343, the 1838 w. of the
last section are reduced to 1804, and if we assume 1700 as the limit for B
sections, the inference is that Homer would himself have done the psychostasia
in not more than 100 verses. It would have been ample.
Little stress, however, can be laid on this argument. The penultimate
section in the Iliad is considerably longer than all the other A sections, and
the same kind of reasoning might be employed to prove that it contains a
considerable interpolation. The whole question of the composition and struc-
ture of the epics, as affected by the conditions of recitation, is too speculative
to justify any one in building much on a particular scheme. On the scheme
which I have hazarded, the numerical facts are rather adverse to the theory
that the poem ended at i/r 296, while they rather favour a theory which would
curtail the ending by 140 lines or more. The result is not of much importance ;
so far as it goes, it suggests that the theory advocated here is not inconsistent
with the construction of the poem.
It would not be surprising to find that the balance of the poem, resulting
from a symmetrical arrangement of the parts, was reinforced by harmonies
and correspondences, parallelisms and contrasts. Now, with the exception of
the excursion to the Peloponnesus and the brief scenes in Ogygia and on the
waters of the high seas, the action of the Odyssey passes in two lands, Ithaca
and Phaeacia. The purpose of the Phaeacian episode (which occupies about
a third of the poem) is to provide the scene for telling the story of the earlier
adventures of the hero ; that is its purpose in the construction of the plot ; but
it is remarkable how long the poet lingers over the tranquil life of the Phaeacians.
Nearly 1400 verses are devoted to the experiences of Odysseus in their land.
I suggest that besides its function in the plot, Phaeacia has another value, in
presenting a parallel and contrast with Ithaca. The country of the Phaeacians
is a sort of ' earthly paradise,' and this privileged people, who though not
divine yet are near to the gods (afyiviv eyyvQev etyueV, ij 202), lead a
life of unbroken enjoyment which resembles, but in a sublimated form, the life
which the suitors, those idle men of pleasure, lead in Ithaca. And Homer
makes us feel what a restful and happy life Odysseus might have enjoyed in
Phaeacia, where he had at last reached safety, if he had married Nausicaa and
been able to dismiss Ithaca from his thoughts. He could not forget Ithaca,
he was wild for home, though it was to mean toil and care and weariness
in a land in which, however good, men did not live easily like gods. Laertes
seems to have been a successful gardener, but his garden did not grow like the
garden of Alcinous. In Phaeacia Odysseus arrived naked, and was clad in
fair raiment by a king's daughter and feasted sumptuously in a royal palace.
In Ithaca he arrives in this goodly apparel, but the first thing he has to do is
to change into the guise and rags of an old beggar and his first meal is the fare
of slaves in a poor hut.
Such a contrast was, I think, in the mind of Homer, and I think he devised
minor incidents to call attention to it. One of the Phaeacian chieftains,
THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 15
Euryalus, is so ill-mannered as to attempt to ' rag ' the guest. Odysseus is
provoked and rebukes him sharply :
l-tiv, ov KO.\OV e«7re?' araa-0a\y dvBpl
Euryalus has j ust a little of the spirit of the suitors, for whose conduct aracr6a\Lai
is the word that is repeatedly used. But when Odysseus has given an exhibition
of his power, at which Athene assists (0 193), and established his prowess as an
athlete, Euryalus makes amends and presents him with his sword. Now one of
the incidents which display the draaffaXiai of the suitors is when Antinous
refuses to give a dole of meat to Odysseus and then hurls a stool at him. But
when Odysseus smashes Irus, Athene again assisting (a- 69), Antinous, in
recognition of his victory, makes some amends by giving him a large yaarrip.
And it is to be noticed that when the incident in Phaeacia gives Odysseus
occasion to describe his athletic accomplishments, it is on his skill in archery
(0 215-228) that he enlarges. This is, no doubt, intended to be remembered
when we come to the ordeal of the bow in </>. Again, the exciting moment
when Odysseus discloses his identity to the Phaeacians, who do not suspect
that they are entertaining such a far-famed hero (i 19), corresponds to the
great moment when he reveals who he is to the unsuspecting suitors (^ 35).
If these incidents, signalling across the intermediate reaches of the poem,
are not accidents, but a feature of Homeric technique, the conclusion,
arrived at above on other grounds, that a visit to the world of shades in the
final section was a part of Homer's design would be supported. A nekyia in
the last section of Part II. would be the counterpoise to the nekyia in the
last section of Part I.21
J. B. BURY.
u It is obvious in any theory that the a repetition which is quite Homeric and
author of the second nekyia had the first illustrates, in my view, the disciple's know-
nekyia in his mind. E. g. ty 20-22= A 387-9, ledge of Homer's method.
A GREEK MANUSCRIPT DESCRIBING THE SIEGE OF VIENNA BY
THE TURKS IN 1683
I THINK that those who take an interest in the history of the modern Greek
language may possibly welcome a short note on a manuscript in the British
Museum, which appears to me to be worth some attention, chiefly perhaps
from the point of view of the part played by Greek culture in Roumania in
the seventeenth century.
The manuscript in question is Add. MS. 38890 in the Department of
Manuscripts,1 British Museum. It was acquired at Hodgson's sale, June 25,
1914, Lot 413, and is from the collection of the Hon. Frederic North, but was
later in the possession of Richard Taylor. It is well written and presents but
few difficulties of decipherment, and the number of errors is comparatively
small. At the end the date of completion is given, viz. December 1686, and
the place of writing — Bucharest.
I think the general character of the MS. will be best explained by the
reproduction of the short preface prefixed to it. I give it here, together with
a translation. The pages and lines are those of the MS., and spelling, punctua-
tion and abbreviations are reproduced as they stand, though I have not adhered
to the very fluctuating use of the acute and grave accents.
Ta\vv(i)TaT€, eva-e/Seo-Tare, teal tcpaTHTTe rjye/jiwv,
ou7/cpo/3Xa%ia?, tevpie, Kvpte, lotdvvrj, o-epftdve ftorjo'ovSa,
tcavTatcov^rjve, evreive KOI /car' evoSov, CVCKCV T% TWV
V 7TtCTT§&>5.
'E/e 7r/>OT/307rr}<? TOV jJLeya\OTCp€TT€(TTdTov era9 dve^iov, teal
Bapiov, icvpiov KwvcrTavrivov fLirpaKoftdvov, TO rrapbv /3i/3\idpiov
ttTTO Tr)V lTa\LK)]V, 619 TT)V r)fJ,€TepaV T(t)V ypaiKWV d"ir\r)V 8ld\€KTOV
Triffra €/ji€ray\(i)TTr]a'a> TO OTTOIOV aXXov Sev Trepie^ei, Trapa fuav av-
Kdl avvrofjiov, a\Xa dXrjdeardrrjv teal Kadapav iffTOpiav TOV aTro-
K\.et<rfjiov T^? Trepi($>r)p.ov TroXetw? y3tei/a9, UTTO TOI)? Kara rrdina ttTTtcrroy? 10
teal dOeovs fjLovcrov\fj,dvov<;, a-v\\oyi^6fjL6vo<; TO \onrov, TWOS vd d<f>ie-
p&MTO) TOVTOV fJLOV TOV KOTCOV, Sid VCL €%€l TTeptCTCTOTepav TlfJUJV, GlfJid
€1? roi»9 dvayivcacTKovTaf, aXXo Bev eBidXe^a Trapd TO <Te(3ao~Tov cra9 ovo^a,
TO otTOtov r) Xpia-Tiavitcr] fcai /3a(ri\iKij o~a$ Biaywy^, TOGOV \afiTrpov
Kal %apn(i)/jievov TO etctjpv^ev ei9 TOV Kocrp.ov, OTTOV o\oi o~%eobv TO €v- 15
v, teal cr
1 I have to express my thanks to Mr. ment of Manuscripts, British Museum, for
J. P. Gilson and Mr. H. I. Bell of the Depart- drawing my attention to this manuscript.
16
GREEK MANUSCRIPT DESCRIBING THE SIEGE OF VIENNA 17
3
HoXXa irapaBeiyfiara agio, aroxao-pov, teal ^vfiij<T€d)<f Bia\afi@dv€i
17 IvropLa, KOI d<f>rjvci)vra<: rrjv drjrrrjrov dvBpeiav ruv arpardp^tav la>-
dvvov prjybs rrjs Xe^ia?, ical rov SOVKOS \wpevas rot) 6avp,aarov
ical d^torrperrfffrdrov \orapvyxov, aroyaaov 77 yaXvvorrjs <rov, ical 0av-
fuicre rrjv BcBoga&ftevrjv rrpovoiav rov 6v' , 17 ortola firjv vTroffreptavras 5
jrXeov rrjv o~K\rjpordrrjv, ical Bia/3o\iKrjv rvpavvoiav, OTTOV Kara ratv-
€v<7€/3a)v roffovs %povov<; €$€if;€vt r) inravia T0)v dyaprjvo)v, e£a<f>va, teat
Trap€\TriSa €£VTTVTJ<T€ 6/9 rat? KapSiai*; o\ov<av r<av ^Wav /9ao-iXeo)i/, TrPa
ra opyrjs, Bid vd avKwBovv o\ot crv/j^xavw^ ^ rrjv Svvapiv ffrpSv, vd
avvrptyovv TTJV fyappaicepriv K€(f>a\ijv r<av rvpavvovvrtav dyapr^vfav, 10
teal i&ov OTTOV ftorjffeia, /cat veixrei T^5 avTrji Qelas Trpovoias, tceirerai
6ea/j.a eXerjvov, 6 VTrepi<f>avo<;, d-rro /cara) diro rd ovvyia rwv evaefBwv,
teal Ktv8vv€V€t vd ylra)<f)ijarrj TTavrdiraai' dXXa, irapaica\w, Bev elvat /cat
o o-epftdvos ftoT)@6v&a<;, teal tx'o? ^a<Ti\€O)v, ical dv et? irapd piKpdv iirap-
avBevrr)?, ical /Sao-tXey?; val /9e/9ata /Lte TO IXco? rov dv'' a? /if- 15
TO XotTrov, /cat a? \d/3rj rov %f)\ov ru>v rrpoyowv rrj<;, Bid vd Bia<pev-
revtrrj orav ica\eo-r) 6 xaipos, rrjv XpKTrtavtoo-vvrjv, a? prjv Bei\id<rr), a? pqv
<f>oj3T)0fjt Biari, rov dv elvai rj vevo-is, teal 77 rrporporrr), oirov fie <f>avepd
aqftela <f>(i)vd%€i, tcadaif evdv icaipbv rov /ioi)o"€&)5, TOU irjaov rov vav? t
rov yeBetav, rov Ba/Si'B, ical rwv aXXtuv, eyeipeaffe IBov yap BeBcttca 20
TOL/5 €-)(OpOV<S TJfJLWV, €19 Ttt? ^€t/3a? Vfl(t)V, fir) <f>€lO-€0~0€ avrSiV, OUTW9 eXTTi'ftU
/cat eya>, ical o\ov TO raXaiTrwpov /cat Kara&icXaftcofievov, yevas rG>v-
pwftaitov, vd io~xyo-r] 6 0$ ea>? TeXou9 rrjv yaXvvorrjrd ffov, ical o\r)v
rrjv %pio~riavci)o-vvT)v, Bid vd TrpoffKwrjrai ev fiid deorrjrt, o "nrfp,
6 uto9, fcal TO dyiov rcvd, 77 071101 ical Trpoo~Kvvr}rr) rpid<;, et9 rrjv oiroiav 25
Beofievof €y(»>, rr}<; ydXyvorTjrds aov, evrv^eiav, fjuucpor)fj,€p€Vffiv, ical vL-
Ki]v Kara rwv opartav, /cat dopdrcov e^dpoiv, do~Trd£ofiai rrjv-
ctKprjv T^9 o~e/3ao-rr}<; 0*09 7rop<f>vpa<f, /cat viroypd<f>ofiai
8oOXo9 euTeXet9 /cat €v^err)<: Qepfioraros
'le/06/At'a9 /ca/ca/9eXa9 o tepoicrjpv^. 30
' Most Serene, Pious and Mighty Ruler of all Ugro-Wallachia, Lord John,
Voivode, Servan Cantacuzenos, be strong and prosper in thy way on behalf
of the Christian faith.
' At the instance of thy most illustrious nephew and protospatharios, Lord
Constantine Bracovanos, I have translated the present little book from the
Italian faithfully into our simple Greek dialect. It contains nothing but a
brief, though perfectly true and clear account of the siege of the famous city
of Vienna by the utterly treacherous and godless Mussulmans. So on con-
sidering to whom I should dedicate this work of mine that it may have the
more honour in the eyes of the readers, I chose none other than your revered
name, which your Christian and Royal bearing 2 has proclaimed as so brilliant
and gracious to the world, that nearly all acclaim and revere it.
1 Of. the description of Servan Canta- at Vienna (quoted by Hammer, Getch, d.
cuzenos in MS. No. 886 in the Hofbibliothek oam. Reiches, vi. (1830), p. 403, n.) : 'In,
J.H.S. — VOL. XLII. C
18 F. H. MARSHALL
' History treats of many examples worthy of reflection and imitation,
and leaving aside the invincible courage of the generals John, king of Poland,
and the wonderful and brilliant Duke of Lorraine, your Serenity should reflect
upon and marvel at the glorious providence of God, which, no longer suffering
that most harsh and diabolic tyranny which the Hagarenes in their inhumanity
showed for so many years against the god-fearing, suddenly and unexpectedly
aroused in the hearts of all the Christian kings the spirit of anger, that they
should all with one accord arise in the power of the Cross to crush the poisonous
head of the tyrant Hagarenes, and lo ! with the help and at the beck of the
same divine Providence, the proud lies low, a piteous sight, beneath the talons
of the pious, and seemeth ready to perish altogether. But, I ask, is not Servan
also a Voivode and a son of kings, yea, and a king to boot, even though he be
lord over but a very small province ? Yes, verily, by the mercy of God. Let
him imitate, therefore, and take up the zeal of his forefathers, that when the
time summons he may champion Christendom; let him not shrink, let him
not fear, for the bidding is the Lord's, and the exhortation, which calls with
clear signs, even as once to Moses, Joshua the son of Nun, Gideon, David
and the others : Rise up, for, lo ! I have delivered our enemies into your hands,
spare them not. Even so it is my hope, and the hope of all the hapless and
enslaved race of the Romans, that God may strengthen your Serenity to the
end and all Christendom, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the
holy and worshipful Trinity, may be adored in one Godhead. To which
Trinity I pray on behalf of your Serenity for success, length of days and victory
over your foes visible and invisible, and kiss the hem of your revered purple,
and subscribe myself
' Your humble servant and fervent well- wisher
' JEREMIAS CACAVELAS THE PREACHER.'
I think we may be confident that this translation made by Cacavelas was
never printed. It is nowhere mentioned in the accounts of Jeremias Cacavelas
and his work, to which I now pass.
Jeremias Cacavelas,3 the translator of this monograph, was born in Crete.4
He became a monk, and in his zeal for learning travelled widely. He visited
Asia Minor, and afterwards went to Leipzig, where he became acquainted
with the teachers, and in particular with John Olearios, Professor of Greek.
From Leipzig he went to Vienna, and from there wrote in 1670 a letter to
Olearios signed 'lepe/ua? 6 "Ei\\r)v SiBdfftcaXos rijs 'AvaroXiKfjs 'E/e/cX^o-ta?.
This letter was printed by Olearios in his notes to the Chronicle of Philip of
Cyprus. The present MS. shows that Cacavelas was at Bucharest in 1686.
Valachia il principe moderno Serbano e ii. 162, 173; Grober, Qrundriss der rom.
uomo di gran spirito, potente e ricco per se Philologie, ii. 3, pp. 278, 283, 313, 393.
stesso, amato dai Bojari e Grandi, ha gran * I may mention that Prof. R. M. Daw-
parentela, due fratelli ... ha molti nepoti kins, who has been kind enough to go
esperti, fra 1'altri il Conte Brancovano che through my copy of the MS. with me, noted
fu spesso Generale di queste provincie, certain forms and turns of expression as
persona di gran talenti.' Cretan before he knew that the translator
8 Sathas, NtotAAT)v«K>; <pi\o\oyta, 1868, came from that island,
p. 383 f. ; Xenopol, Hist, des Roumains,
GREEK MANUSCRIPT DESCRIBING THE SIEGE OF VIENNA 19
Later he moved to Jassy, where he is mentioned as Professor in the
A.v0ei>TtKT) \\Ka8rjfiia in 1698.
His residence in Wallachia brought him into contact with its subject
prince. The translation is dedicated to Servan Cantacuzenos, Voivode of
Wallachia (1679-1688), who was compelled to serve with the Turks in the
siege of Vienna in 1683. In that campaign the Wallachians and Moldavians
were not trusted to fight, but were employed in cutting timber 5 and in bridging-
work, it may be said, which appears to have been done very unwillingly and
ineffectually.6 Indeed the inefficiency of the Turkish bridges over the Danube
seems to have contributed materially to the success of the relieving force.
Servan Cantacuzenos left behind him a memorial of his devotion to Christianity
in the form of an inscribed wooden cross.7
Constantine Brancovanos, called in our MS. Bracovanos, who succeeded
his uncle Servan Cantacuzenos, is regarded as one of the most remarkable
figures in Roumanian history. Something more will be said about him later
on. Here it should be pointed out that one of his chief merits is to have
reorganised and greatly enlarged the Greek school founded by his predecessor.
I quote Xenopol on the subject of this school.8
' The first systematic organisation of public instruction in Greek was
carried out in Wallachia by the Roumanian prince Scherban (Servan) Canta-
cuzenos. Though this prince scarcely had love for the Greeks and his policy
towards them was even hostile, he nevertheless recognised the superiority of
their culture, a thing which is the less surprising since then, as to-day, there
was the same confusion between the modern Greeks and their celebrated
ancestors. Del Chiaro tells us " that Scherban Cantacuzenos greatly favoured
the development of teaching by giving splendid salaries to the Professors of
the Greek language who taught grammar, rhetoric and philosophy to the
children of the nobles." Scherban Cantacuzenos was the first to found a Greek
school at Bucharest.'
We can thus understand why Cacavelas migrated from Vienna to
Bucharest, and why Brancovanos prompted him to make the present transla-
tion. The appropriateness of its dedication to Servan also becomes clear.
The fact is that Greek culture had been transferred from Greece proper to
Wallachia and Moldavia. We know that Greek printing presses were set up
both at Bucharest and Jassy.9
4 See a letter of Georg Chr. von Kunitz • Xenopol, p. 73 : ' Si les princes rou-
dated July 22, 1683 : ' Der Fiirst aus mains, qui sympathisaient avec les chre-
Walachei (Fiirst Cantacuzene) ist mit seiner tiens, ne lew fussent venus en aide en di-
Mannschaft beschaftigt, Hals iiber Kopf verses occasions, au peril de leurs tetes, il
Bauholz zuziifuhren, welches er alles in est tres probable que la ville n'aurait pu
dem Waldlein bei Schdnbrunn schlagen und attendre le secours que lui amenait le roi
nach Wien ins Lager fulin-n liisst ; dieses, de Pologne.'
glaube ich, will man zu den Minen gebrau- 7 Klopp, Das Jahr 1683, p. 237 ff . ;
chen.' (Quoted by Camesina, Wiena Camesina, op. cit., p. 134 f.
Bedrangni** m, .Inlire 1683, p. 25, n. 6). • Xenopol, ii. 173 ff.
Kunit/., \\Iin \\iis Imperial Agent at Con- * More will be found on the subject of
stantinople, was at the time a prisoner in Greek culture in Roumania in Xenopol's
the Turkish camp. See also Hammer. letoria Ituminilor dm l><n-,n Traiand,
Oeech. d. at • .«, vi. (1830), p. 403, n. Vol. IV. p. 640 ff.
c2
20 F. H. MARSHALL
Besides the letter to Olearios mentioned above, the only work of Caca-
velas previously printed is a translation of Platina's De vita summorum ponti-
ficum made by order of Brancovanos in 1689 and a few poems.10 He knew
Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Italian, and was a noted preacher of the Gospel.
This accounts for his present translation from the Italian, and also for his
description of himself as 'lepotcijpv!;. His residence at Vienna will have made
him specially interested in the siege, though I think it is clear that he himself
was not present at it.
Later on Cacavelas migrated to the court of Constantine Cantemir in
Moldavia, and taught Constantine's son Demetrios. In this connexion it is
worth while to consider in somewhat greater detail the situation of these
subject princes of Wallachia and Moldavia.
Their position was one of peculiar difficulty, since they formed as it were
a buffer between the German and Turkish empires.11 Even after the defeat
of the Turks before Vienna in 1683, Servan Cantacuzenos was not able to
declare openly for the Emperor Leopold, in spite of the proofs of his leanings
which he had given during the siege. After the great Imperial victory over
the Turks at the battle of Harkany, near Mohacs, in 1687, the Emperor sent
a letter to Servan inviting him to join the Imperial side, and as a result the
Voivode collected a considerable army with a view to adopting this policy.
The Emperor held out various inducements, promising to recognise the right
of the Cantacuzene family to the throne of Wallachia against an annual pay-
ment of 75,000 piastres, and even going so far as to offer to make Servan
Emperor at Constantinople should the Turks be driven out of Europe. Despite
the great skill which the Voivode showed in impressing the Austrians with a
belief in his devotion to their cause, while at the same time lulling the
suspicions of the Turks, the strong anti-German party at Bucharest (which
included his nephew Constantine Brancovanos) brought his efforts to nought,
and secured his removal by poison on October 29, 1688.
His successor, Constantine Brancovanos, reigned till 1714. He started
as an anti-Imperialist, and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Austrian General
Haisler in 1690. But in the next year he reversed his policy. His long reign
was a continual effort to placate both Turks and Austrians, and in doing this
he showed extreme ability. But in the end he was unable to ward off the
fate which constantly threatened him. He was deposed by the Turks, removed
to Constantinople and there executed together with his family.
We may now take a brief glance at the careers of the Moldavian princes
Constantine Cantemir and his son Demetrios, the latter a pupil of Jeremias
•Cacavelas. Constantine reigned as Voivode of Moldavia from 1685 to 1693.
He showed Turkish leanings, and as a result came after 1691 into collision with
Brancovanos. From 1693 to 1711, Nicholas Mavrocordato, a Phanariote
Greek, reigned at Jassy and was on terms of intimate friendship with Branco-
10 Sathas, p. 384 : tvprivrai KO.\ ^ptafKtyt'ta. Liturgy into Roumanian (Grober, op. cil.).
avrov t-Kiypa.nna.Ta. fls -r&ft.ov 'Ayanri)! Aoondtov, ll For what follows I am indebted to
(irKTTaffiz TOV ^KSoBti'r(a). Xeiiopol, ii. p. 73 S.
Cacavelas also translated the Greek
GREEK MANUSCRIPT DESCRIBING THE SIEGE OF VIENNA 21
vanos. He was replaced in 1711 by Demetrios Cantemir,12 owing to the desire
of the Turks to bring about the fall of Brancovanos. But though installed as
a pro-Turk, Demetrios was firmly convinced that the power of Turkey was on
the wane and went over to the Russians, whose defeat on the Pruth he shared
in 1711. It was with great difficulty that Peter the Great secured the personal
safety of Demetrios and gave him an asylum in Russia.
Though the historical value of the MS. is not a question which strictly
concerns the Hellenic Journal, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words
on this subject, especially since I have devoted a good deal of time to reading
the contemporary and later literature dealing with the siege.
The Italian original from which Cacavelas made his translation was
printed and published, though I shall have something to say on the strange
omission of all allusion to it by specialist writers on the history of the siege.
I owe my information to the courtesy of Sig. P. Zorzanello of the Biblioteca
Nazionale di San Marco, to whom I sent extracts from the MS. His reply
leaves no doubt that the original was the following book, a copy of which is
in the library of San Marco at Venice.13 His description of it is as follows : —
' Raggualio historic© della Guerra tra 1'Armi Cesaree e Ottomane dal prin-
cipio della Ribellione degl' Ungari fino 1'Anno corrente 1683, e principalmente
dell' Assedio di Vienna e sua Liberazione, con gl' incominciati progress! delle
dette Armi Cesaree e Confederate. All' Illustriss. & Eccell. Sig. Giulio Gius-
tiniano cavaliere. . Venetia, MDCLXXXIII, Presso Gio. Giacomo Hertz*
(in 12°, pp. (xii), 215 e due tavole). These two plates are no doubt the illus-
trations from which Cacavelas made his two illuminations in the MS., viz.
a portrait of the Emperor Leopold I. and a picture of the Turkish flag captured
by John Sobieski and sent by him as a present to the Pope, Innocent XI.
With regard to the author of the book Sig. Zorzanello supplies me with the
following information from the Preface.
' Due Amici, uno somministrando le migliori notitie, e 1'aHro impiegandovi
1'ordine, rornamento e qualche picciola reflessione, hanno condotta al suo
fine quest' opera.'
Sig. Zorzanello then goes on to quote passages from the beginning and
end of the book which correspond exactly to those in the MS.
The fact that the MS. is a translation of a published work certainly
diminishes the interest of the document from the historical standpoint. Yet
it seems to me a matter for surprise that an account, not merely of the details
of the actual siege, but also of the general political circumstances from 1660
to October 1683, should, as far as I have been able to ascertain, have been
entirely neglected by the specialist writers on the subject. The first edition
of the book at all events is not included in Kdbdebo's Bibliography of the
two sieges.14 Nor can I find any allusion to it in the exhaustive works of
11 See also A. J. Evans in Encyclopaedia Geschichte der beiden Turkenbelagerungen
Britannica', Art.' Roumania.' Demetrios in Wietu. Vienna, 1876. It would seem,
exile wrote a Deacriptio Moldaviae in Latin. however, that the following work mentioned
" The book does not appear in the British by Kabdebo in his Supplement (p. 130,
Museum Catalogue. No. 339) is a second edition of the book.
4 Kabdebo (Heinrich), Bibliographic zur ' Kagguaglio della guerra tra 1'armi
22 F. H. MARSHALL
Camesina 15 and Klopp.18 There are, however, many indications that early
writers on the subject, such as C. Contarini in his Istoria della guerra di Leopoldo
I. contra il Turco (Venice, 1710), and the author of Theatrum Europaeum,
Vol. XII. (Frankfurt am Main, 1691), and several others of, approximately the
same period, used the same sources as the authors of this Italian account
of the siege and the circumstances attending it.
In view of this, it may not be out of place briefly to give my impression
of the value of the book from the historical standpoint. In the first place
it appears rather a remarkable achievement that the work, in spite of its
obvious shortcomings presently to be alluded to, should have been printed
and published in the same year as the siege, which ended as late as September 12.
It is much more than a mere diary of the siege, which is the form taken by
most of the works relating to the siege published in 1683. It has the appear-
ance of a political pamphlet put together somewhat hastily by writers who
had access to good sources of information, but were so anxious to get the
work out quickly that they were betrayed into a good many inaccuracies of
detail. The general aim seems to be to foster harmony between the various
elements of the Holy Roman Empire and the Poles with a view to the further
prosecution of the war against the common enemy, the Turk and his Hungarian
allies. Of the two policies open to the Emperor after the defeat of the Turks-
before Vienna — war with Louis XIV. or the crushing of the Turk — it is clearly
the writers' business to recommend the latter. To this end the intrigues of
Louis XIV. are almost ignored, as is the friction which existed between the
various elements of the relieving force.
It is not surprising, in view of the shortness of the work, that its com-
prehensiveness is paid for by a good deal of superficiality. The attention
given to detail is curiously unequal. One instance may be cited. The forces
of the Elector of Saxony are described with considerable minuteness. Those
of the Elector of Bavaria are practically ignored. In the case of the Poles
the absence of such detail is compensated for by a general description of the
elements of which the Polish army is composed.
The inaccuracies alluded to are chiefly those of dates. There is also a
tendency to confuse minor military actions. In general, however, the work
seems to me to give a clear picture of all the main features of interest (viewed,
it is true, from the Imperial standpoint) belonging to the period with which
the writers deal. I think that the specialist student would find the identifica-
tion of the sources used for the work an interesting problem.
The Greek text, which includes many Turkish and other foreign words,
should throw fresh light on the history of the Greek language in Roumania.
F. H. MARSHALL.
Cesaree et Ottomane da principio della 1S Camesina (Albert), Wiens Bedrdngnisa
ribellione degli Hungari sino 1'anno cor- im Jahre 1683 (in Berichte und Mitteilungen
rente 1684, e principalmente dell' assedio di des Altertumsvereines zu Wein, Vol. VIII.,
Vienna e sua liberatione con la vittoria di 1865).
Barcan, aggiontovi in quest' ultima impres- ls Klopp (Onno), Das Jahr 1683. Graz,
sione la presa di Strigonia, molt' altre 1882.
curiosita. In Venetia, 1684. .4°.'
GREEK MANUSCRIPT DESCRIBING THE SIEGE OF VIENNA 23
ADDITIONAL NOTE.
Bound up with the MS. are two inscriptions. They are in Roumanian.
The first, on p. i at the beginning of the volume, is in Cyrillic character. The
following transcriptions have been kindly supplied me by the Museum authori-
ties on the understanding that they are to be regarded as provisional, since
there is no expert there in this branch.
' Alu Kostandin Brankove"nu V(oda) Spa(tar), skoasa de Jeremija Kakavela
dasculu(l) sj egume(nul) Plavic6nilo(r) dupe limba france"sca pe limba grece'sca
si scrisa de popa nekula : l(una) noe(mvrie) a(nu)l a%ir&
The second inscription, on p. v at the end of the volume, is in both Roman
and Cyrillic scripts and reads :
' Dic(emvrie) 15, 7195 arzintul de la steaesca ( ?) dramar(i) 1217.'
Though there is some uncertainty as to forms, there does not seem any
doubt that the following are approximately correct translations :
1. ' To Constantino Brancovano Voivode and Spatar. Translated by
Jeremias Cacavelas, Teacher and Abbot at the monastery of Plavicenii, from
Italian into Greek. Written by the Priest Nicholas, November 1687.'
2. * December 15, 1687. Payment for the copying ( ?), Drachmae 1217.'
Mr. L. C. Wharton of the Department of Printed Books, British Museum,
has very kindly helped me in the interpretation of these inscriptions.17
F. H. M.
17 I may add that Cacavelas must have du Metoque du Saint -Sepulchre at Con-
been still living in 1714, for he was the stantinople :
author of a historical work on the wars ET8i7<m ImopiK^ virb 'Ifptuiov Ka/ca/3fAa
between the Hungarians and the Turks, lepoic-fipvKos cupttpovvros ain^v ds rlv Jiytfj.6ra
dedicated to Stephanos Cantacuzenos, who Ovyypo0\axia* ~S.vi<pavov KavraKovfyvAv, fins
was Voivode of Wallachia, 1714-1716. fi. Sta\afj.0avtt 'nrroplav wo\*/j.cuv M'Ta^ OHyypnv
Legrand in his Epiatolaire grecque (Biblio- KO\ Tovptcwv £px*Tai "'^ r°v I860 frou*.
theque grecque vulgaire, iv., p. xiii. (c))f M. Legrand was unable to obtain access
mentions the following as included in the to this and other MSS.
Catalogue of the MSS. in the Bibliotheque
THE ' SERVILE INTERREGNUM ' AT ARGOS
OUR evidence for events in Argos after her crushing defeat by Kleomenes
at Sepeia (circ. 494 B.C.) is so scrappy, incoherent, and to a large extent so
late, that accurate reconstruction is well-nigh impossible. But a fresh
attempt may at least throw into relief certain points which deserve more
consideration than they seem to have received.
If we except the passage in Aristotle, Pol. 1303A (the exact significance
of which is disputed), our sole authority for the so-called Servile Interregnum
is Herodotos, Bk. 6, 83. It is necessary to quote the passage in full.
"A/J709 Be dvBp&v €%ijp(i)0r) OVTO) &<ne ol Bov\oi avratv €O"%ov Trdvra ra
7rpijyfj,ara ap^ovres re teal BteTrovres, €9 o eTrrj^rjcrav ol TWV dTro\ofji€vci)V
eTretre ff<f>ea<; ovroi dvaKT^^evoi oTriaw €9 eo>i>TOU9 TO "Apyos
ev/jievoi Be ol Bov\oi l^dxv ^ffXov TipvvOa. Teo>9 /J>ev Brj a$i
f)v ap6p,ia e9 d\\rj\,ovs, eTreira Be 69 TOV$ BovXovs f)\0e dvrjp fiavris KXeavBpos,
e<ov <$>i<ya\ei><; air ' Ap/caoir)?- ovro<j TOU9 SouXoi/9 dveyvaxre €7ri0e(T0ai
Seer7TOTj7<rf. etc TOVTOV Se 7ro\e/i09 o-<£t fy eVt %/JGVOJ/ a-v^vov, e9 o Brf
ol 'Apyeloi eTretcpdrrja-av
Dr. Macan J infers fr6m this chapter ' the admission of the " slaves "
to the franchise.' The wording of the first sentence in the extract may seem
to support this inference, but Dr. Macan himself considers the chapter to
involve both ' exaggeration and misconception/ and we may later see some
considerations that tell against his inference. For myself I can find in
Herodotos' account no convincing evidence of the actual and formal enfranchise-
ment of the slaves. On the contrary, they are throughout described as 8ov\oi,
and the last episode in the narrative is an attack from Tiryns of these slaves
against their masters. Another remarkable point is that until the outbreak
of hostilities at the finish, we hear nothing of any actual conflict between the
slaves and their Argive owners. The natural presumption is no doubt that
the servile upheaval could not fail to be attended by intense friction and even
actual fighting ; but neither when the slaves first took charge, nor again when
they were later expelled, does Herodotos mention any armed conflict. The
first battle in which he says the slaves took part is against, not Argos, but
rebellious Tiryns. After the expulsion, there is actual concord between masters
and slaves; and the subsequent rupture is represented as due to external
influences. These points in the story may prove significant.
Plutarch2 took Herodotos to mean that the slaves were enfranchised,
1 Vide Macan's Hdt., 6, 92, note. SouAoi?, a\\a. ruv irtpioimav iron\ad^*voi ToAt'rar
1 Plut., de Mul. Virt., 4 : 'Eita.vopOovft.evoi TOVS apicrrovs, ffvv<fKi<ra.v rekt yvva.?na.*.
oi>x, i* 'Hp6Sorof iffropti, -rois
24
THE 'SERVILE INTERREGNUM' AT ARGOS 25
and expressly contradicted his alleged statement. But we must repeat that
Herodotos does not say that Argos rectified her 6\tyavBpia by admitting slaves
as citizens ; his assertion is that Argos had to submit to an unwelcome slave-
domination, of which she rid herself as soon as she was able. Plutarch's
reference to the enfranchisement of -rrepioiKot will be considered below.
We may safely assume that this servile upheaval, whatever its actual
form, occurred practically immediately after the battle of Sepeia, i. e. in 494. It
will help to give perspective to the problem if we now consider when the slaves'
domination was brought to an end by their expulsion from Argos. Busolt3
thinks that by 481 at least Argos was again in the possession of its former
lords, since the embassy from the Panhellenic Congress at the Isthmos finds
a king there and the (3ov\r) in charge.4 Indeed, he believes that the slave-
supremacy could not have lasted beyond 487, since ' only the old Dorian
Argos could have demanded from the Aeginetans and Sikyonians the pay-
ment of the fine ' imposed on them by Argos, apparently on religious grounds,
after Sepeia.5 But it seems to me impossible to date the expulsion earlier
than 478. There were troops from Mycenae and Tiryns at Plataea in 479,
apparently a joint contingent of 400 men ; 6 these Tirynthians could not have
been the expelled Argive slaves, with whom we can scarcely believe Mycenae
would willingly co-operate, for while, of course, the Mycenaeans would welcome
a close understanding with Tiryns when they both fell away from Argos in or
soon after 494, they must have rather felt keen resentment against those
SovXoi who subsequently defeated their Tirynthian friends in battle and seized
their town. The slaves' seizure of Tiryns must accordingly be dated subse-
quent to 479. Again, the Tirynthians' presence at Plataea meant that they
accepted Spartan leadership and acknowledged Spartan hegemony — a capital
offence in Argos' eyes. There could have been no concord between the slaves
at Tiryns and their late owners if the former had already thus openly sided
with Argos' most deadly foe. Thirdly, Herodotos is explicit that the expulsion
did not take place until the sons of the slain at Sepeia had reached manhood,
a process not yet fully completed in 481. 7 On all these grounds I think we
cannot date the slaves' expulsion before 478. The considerations urged by
Busolt do not meet the arguments just set out against his earlier date, but
they do go to strengthen the impression that the aristocratic fiouXij at
Argos was never really dislodged from its position after Kleomenes' victory ;
in other words, that Sepeia was not followed by a period during which
enfranchised slaves took absolute charge of the State.
Can we define with any clearness the .position of slaves in Argos prior
to 494 ? Unfortunately, our information on this point is of the scantiest.
There were doubtless many slaves in the private houses of Argos ; we hear of
these oifcerat in Thucydides 5, 82. But the lexicographer Pollux mentions
also a class of yvpviJTes, whom he ranks alongside of the Lacedaimonian Helots
* Busolt, Gr. Qetch., 2, p. 564, note 2. 7 Cp. the Argive reason for desiring a
4 Hdt., 7, 148-9. thirty-years' truce with Sparta. Hdt.,
* Ibid., 6, 92. 7, 149.
* Ibid., 9, 28.
26 P. A. SEYMOUR
and the Thessalian Trei/e'crrat.8 Was there then in Argos, as in Lacedaimonr
a class of land-serfs, owned by the State and allotted by it to individual citizens
for the cultivation of their estates ? Busolt suggests 9 that these yvfivfjTe*;
may have been poorer citizens who served as light-armed troops, and whose
economic and social position, like that of the Hektemoroi in Solonian Athens,
was practically that of slaves.10 We cannot doubt that in a commercial city
like Argos there were many poor unprivileged citizens, and that after the great
loss of life at Sepeia, they would attain a new value and political importance
in the life of their community. But there is no need to reject the valuable
morsel of information as to the existence of land-serfs preserved for us by
Pollux. Even if the name yvpvfjTes points to the use of those bearing it as
light-armed, that would not prove citizen-status; the Lacedaimonian use of
the Helots in this capacity was notorious. I suspect indeed that the existence
of these agricultural serfs throws considerable light on the nature of the ' servile
interregnum.' Among them there must have been many who had gained their
masters' confidence sufficiently to be appointed overseers on the estates, just
as on Attic farms a slave might become an eVtVpoTro? or an eVfo-raTT;?.11
When thousands of these masters were suddenly cut off in battle, leaving
only small children at home, who then remained competent to undertake the
management of their properties except these slaves ? Can we doubt that many
estates at once fell practically into the hands of the slaves who lived on them
to work them ? Even in cases where the overseer or the serfs generally remained
loyal to the house they served, the Argive authorities would know that their
control over their vassals had now become highly precarious, and that they
must walk warily if they wished to avoid open rebellion. The Sov\oi must be
placated, or worse might follow. No doubt a spirit of unrest spread rapidly,
both in the rural districts and among the domestic slaves in the city itself.
But the aristocrats apparently handled a desperate situation with great skill.
They succeeded in avoiding an open rupture; and thus the old ftov\i] of the
eighty remained at least in nominal charge. They even perhaps avoided any
overt or formal act whereby the slaves became legally free or secured citizen
status. But they allowed them to behave very much as if they were free ; in
much of the business of the farms and of the city the co-operation of the slaves
had become suddenly indispensable. Some of them even forced their way
into the subordinate offices; 12 and in the dangerous years that followed 494
they were no doubt left to believe that their new status would not be ques-
tioned. Thus for sixteen anxious years, the Argive aristocrats submitted to
a degree of servile domination which, however galling, had to be endured
until the boys became men; and Herodotos' chapter is but an exaggerated
8 Pollux, Onomastikon, 3, 83. Meraji; St Mem., 2, 5, 2; 2, 8, 3; and Heitland's com-
i\f\i04f><av KOI $ov\vv ol A.a.KeSa.ifj.ot'l-jav f1\vTts ments, Agricola, p. 59.
Kal ®rna\vv irfffarat KO.\ Kpijrwi/ K\apa>rat Kal 12 Thus I suggest Herodotos' phrase
/j.vtairai KO). MapiavSuvui/ $ti>po<p6pji Kal '\pytl<av &pxnvr*s re Ka^ SitirovTes should be inter-
yvnvrirts KO.\ "ZiKuuvitev Kopwrj<p6poi- preted. Even so, the phrase probably
• Busolt, Or. Oesch., 1, 211 note. overstates what actually occurred, the
10 Cp. Ath. Pol., chap. 2. Kal &ov\tvov ol exaggeration being due either to Herodotos'
TtV7jT«j rots Tr\ovfflois K.T.A.. source, or to his own misunderstanding
11 For slaves as ' overseers,' Cp. Xen., of it.
THE 'SERVILE INTERREGNUM' AT ARGOS 27
account of this strained and abnormal situation. The aristocrats could not
have been altogether bereft of power, or they could never have succeeded so
\v«-ll. They would certainly be much aided by disunion and lack of organisation
among the slaves themselves; they would rally the poor and hitherto unprivi-
leged burgesses to their side ; and perhaps further strengthened their position
by enfranchising members of some of the perioecic cities; probably, too, the
Argive women, fearing the indignity of wedlock with their former slaves,
gave the $ov\ri support far beyond woman's wont, for they seem to have been
well able to assert themselves with vigour in times of crisis.13
We have only the most summary account of the expulsion in 478 or
thereabouts. The boys, having now grown up, er<£ea<? fl;efia\ov, ' threw the
slaves out.' There is no hint of any actual fighting between the two parties
at this date, except what is implied in these words ; and they do not necessarily
imply that the matter came to actual blows. What follows in Herodotos
rather suggests that the slaves left Argos after an understanding had been
arrived at. For years probably the serfs had been pressing for the regularisation
of their position, and they doubtless became most insistent and discontented
as the heirs of their dead masters in increasing numbers reached manhood,
and threatened to reassert the earlier servile status of their dependants.
One thing the Argive councillors must have sought to avoid above all things
during this period of humiliation and weakness was an outbreak of open
hostilities with their own slaves; and by adroit means we can only guess at,
they managed to evade the issue until well after Plataea. Then, because
the /3ov\ij judged the moment propitious or because the slaves themselves
insisted, the matter came to a head. Actual strife was still avoided; but it
was made clear to the slaves that the city would not yield their claim to citizen-
ship and was now in a position to maintain that refusal ; on the other hand,
the disaffected &ov\oi were too numerous and determined to be reduced with-
out a ruinous intestine struggle. An agreement was arrived at. The slaves
were to leave Argos, and make an attempt upon rebellious Tiryns. If they
succeeded in reducing that fortress, the Argives undertook to recognise 'hem
as members of an allied perioecic city. Tiryns, like Mycenae, had been a
thorn in Argos' side ever since it had thrown off its allegiance in 494. In concert
with Mycenae, it had sent a contingent to Plataea; had recognised Spartan
hegemony ; and could be used by Sparta to hold Argive pretensions severely
in check. Nothing would be more agreeable to Argos than its reduction by a
body of slaves who were prepared to recognise Argive leadership ; and we
need not doubt that if some time between 487 and 481 Argos could spare 1000
volunteers to aid Aegina against Athens,14 there would be many Argives willing
to serve in the same capacity with their expelled slaves against Tiryns. On
the other hand, the slaves would gain a new home where they would enjoy all
but complete freedom, and an entirely new and higher status relatively to
their old masters. This compact was successfully carried out. The slaves
fell upon the Tirynthians, defeated them in battle, and took possession of their
" Cp. Plutarch. '/. M,,l. Vin.. 4 -. uu<l the Thuc., 5, 82.
women's help in building the Long Walls, u Hdt., 6, 92.
28 P. A. SEYMOUR
city. Thereafter for a term, probably till 473-2, they were at concord with
Argos, until seduced from their loyalty by the intrigues of Sparta and the
* prophet ' from Phigalia.
It remains to discuss Plutarch's statement, mentioned above, that after
Sepeia Argos enfranchised ' the best ' of the Trepioitcoi. Plutarch's statement
does not stand alone. Aristotle 15 also says that, following on the disaster,
the Argives rfvayfcda'drjffav TrapaBe^acrOai rwv Trepioi/ccov nvdf. Pausanias 16
again twice speaks of a <rvvoiKia-fj,6<i during this period, in one reference giving
it so large a scale that Busolt 17 thinks his narrative must be exaggerated.
Obviously these Trepioiicoi were the members of the Argolid cities which had
been reduced under Argive hegemony to the status of subject allies, though
information as to the exact details of their condition is wanting. From
Herodotos 8, 73, it would seem that they were also known as Orneatae, from
the fact that Orneae having been among the first places reduced, its citizens
gave their name to a political status ; but Dr. Macan suspects that the phrase
from which this inference can be made is a gloss. At all events, after Sepeia
some of these perioecic cities, notably Mycenae and Tiryns and perhaps others,
fell away from their alliegance. Some, however, remained loyal, particularly
perhaps Cleonae ; and as later in 418 and 415, so perhaps now Orneae was also
a staunch centre of Argive influence.13 Many others no doubt were wavering;
and in the circumstances it would have been no surprising thing for Argos to
seek to strengthen their loyalty and at the same time to repair her own broken
citizen ranks by enfranchising many of their members. This policy need not,
and in fact, as I imagine, did not, imply the total dissolution of the favoured
communities, and the transplanting of their whole citizen body to Argos. The
rebellious towns, Mycenae and Tiryns, were indeed ultimately razed, and their
existence as separate communities brought to an end; but in these cases
we have evidence 19 as against Pausanias that no enfranchisements took place,
but rather only enslavement and expulsion ; though we may see below that
there were interesting exceptions to this rigorous vengeance in the case of
Tiryns. For the other towns mentioned in Pausanias (Hysiae, Orneae, Midea,
and the rest) we have no direct evidence that they rebelled at all ; I suspect
that any or all of these were communities whose loyalty was secured after
Sepeia by the enfranchisement of some of their citizens, and a liberal revision
of the terms of alliance between them and the hegemonic state of Argos.
15 Arist., Pol., 1303A. aSftffrepa rots 'Apytiots vTrdp^avra Kal apa 4s
l* Paus. 8, 25, 8. 'Aveffrijffav 5< Kal Tipvv- TOVS ntptoiKovs lff\vv yevofj.fvrii' avrois'
Qiovs 'Ap7«?o«, ffwolitovs irpoff\a/3f'ii> Kal r'b "Apyos 17 Busolt, Or. Oesch., 3. p. 114 note.
iwautriffai 0f\-f)<ravTfs ; and 8, 27, 1. ' The 18 For Cleonae as ' ally ' of Argos against
Arcadians gathered together at Megalopolis (a) rebellious Mycenae (468 ?), (b) at
to increase their strength,' &re Kal 'Apytiout Tanagra (457), (c) at Mantineia (416), v.
itriffrdfjitvot ra iuv t-ri iroAeu^Ttpa n6vov ov Kara Strabo 377; inscription quoted in Hill's
filav i]fi.tpa.v l>cdffTiii> Kirfwevovrai v*b AafccSai- Sources, chap. iii. No. 95, and Thuc., 1, 107;
noviwy irapaffTrivai rf tro\(/Aif>, lirtiSrj 5t avdpiaTTcav and Thuc., 5, 67. For Oriicai, cp. Thuc.,
ir\^8fi rb "Apyoj iirr\v^j}ffav Kara\vffavrts, 5, 67 and 6, 7.
tipwOa KOI 'TWj -rt Kal 'Qpvtks Kal Mi/ic^as Kal " Diod., XI. 65; Ephoros (apud Steph.
MfScmv Kal tl S-fi n &\\o Wxto>ia OVK a£i6\oyo>> Byz.) frag. 98; Strabo, 372-3.
tv ry 'Ap7oAi'5( -ffv, TO. rt airb AaKcSai/ioviW
THE 'SERVILE INTERREGNUM' AT ARGOS 29
Certainly Orneae is met with later as a separate community 20 in alliance with
Argos, and Hysiae 21 seems also to have been in the same condition.
If the reconstruction suggested in this article recaptures at all the essential
truth for this period, it involves a sharp distinction between the treatment
accorded to the perioecic cities (whose free members would be themselves
Dorians), and that dealt out by Argos to her own yvpvrjTe*; or agricultural serfs
(who would be mainly of pre-Dorian stock) ; and the racial difference would go
far to explain the divergent treatment. We have taken Aristotle's reference
in the Politics to be to the enfranchisement of members from the subject cities.
This is very much the interpretation of Aristotle's passage given by Susemihl
and Hicks; but Newman22 objects on the ground that the word irepioiicoi
in Aristotle never seems to bear a meaning analogous to that which it would
bear in any technical discussion of, say, the Lacedaimonian constitution.
Newman accordingly takes the Aristotelian irepioticoi to be here equivalent
to Herodotos' SovXot, and consequently infers, like Dr. Macan, that the slaves
were actually enfranchised. But in the light of all the evidence, it seems
to me far more probable that in this passage Aristotle has simply taken over the
word TTepioiKoi, which he found in his authority ; and that in that authority,
whatever it was, irepiotKoi referred to the inhabitants of the subjected Argolid
towns. In that case, the testimony of Aristotle tells rather against any
enfranchisement of the 8ov\oi, and in favour of the views elaborated above.
Our last task must be to clear up, if we can, when this partial avvoiKitTpos
took place. Plutarch's story necessitates the view that it occurred soon
after Sepeia, as the enfranchised irepioiicoi were wedded to the widows of
those slain by the Spartan king. On the other hand, Pausanias' reference,
to some extent corroborated by Strabo, seems to date it subsequently to the
reduction of Tiryns and Mycenae, the former of which was perhaps besieged
from 472 to 468, and the latter from 468 to a date after the Helot revolt (464).
We can dismiss the date which depends upon the reduction of Mycenae, for the
reason given, that other evidence shows that no Mycenean was granted Argive
citizenship. But apart from this, there is no necessary conflict between Plutarch
and Pausanias. The policy of enfranchisement may have begun as early as-
494 and need not have ceased until after the fall of Tiryns more than twenty
years later. It was perhaps most vigorously pursued in the earlier years-
immediately after the disaster, when most of all it was urgent for Argos to-
confirm the allegiance of her wavering Trepioticoi, and to increase her own
citizen roll. There was then probably a lull, but the policy was resumed for a
moment when Tiryns surrendered. But who were the Tirynthians that were
accepted into the Argive register ? We can hardly believe that they belonged
to the slaves who had gone back on the compact of 478, and had treacherously
assailed the city which had connived at their establishment at Tiryns. We
have probably here the outcome of a pretty episode of conflicting passions
and intrigue. Even in 494, when Tiryns first fell away, there may have been
a party loyal to Argos. But the disloyalists prevailed, and placed themselves
10 Thuc., 5, 67 and 6, 7. fl Newman's edition of the Politic*,.
" Thuc., 5, 83. Vol. IV. p. 304, note.
30 P. A. SEYMOUR
under the protection of Sparta, and served with her at Plataea. When the
SovXoi seized their city in 478, they no doubt expected Spartan succour. But
Sparta, preoccupied with other matters, allowed them to be shamefully
subdued to a servile domination ; and later, about 473, when faced by the formid-
able insurrection of Tegea and the Arcadians allied with Argos, Sparta even,
in her anxiety to create a diversion against Argos and to detach her from the
rebels, sent the Phigalian seer and made common cause with the slaves. This
base betrayal rankled in the Dorian hearts of those who, having freed Tiryns
from Argive control, and having fought alongside Sparta in defence of Greece,
found that their only reward was to be abandoned beneath the heel of eject
slaves. Many of them must have swung back to loyalty to Argos ; and doubt-
less, during the long siege of the serfs to which Argos had to resort, they gave
much aid to the besiegers. Argos, again, would have no mercy for the slaves
who had played her false. Thus, when at last the gates of Tiryns were opened,
those Dorian Trepioitcoi who had repented of their post-Sepeian rebellion,
became citizens of victorious Argos ; while the treacherous slaves were driven
out, after the failure of their two great efforts for freedom — first in Argos itself
and then in Tiryns — to find a precarious livelihood as fishermen in the mean
coastal township of Halieis.23
P. A. SEYMOUR.
23 Strabo, 373; Ephoros, /ragr. 98.
ASKLEPIOS BY BRYAXIS
[Plate I.]
IN the Museum of Alexandria is to be seen a colossal head of fine work-
manship which has its face curiously surrounded by rough planes where curly
hair would be expected, and where this must have been added originally in
coloured plaster l (PI. I. a). It has been taken for a head of Sarapis or Zeus,
and I must confess I have
accepted the former name un-
suspiciously, so great is the
similitude in style to the
various copies of the Sarapis of
Bryaxis, of which the Egpytian
museums possess several 2 by
far exceeding in artistic merits
the more generally known head
of the Vatican. On the other
hand, it reminded me so much
of the famous Blacas Asklepios
from Melos in the British
Museum (PI. 1.6) that I did
not doubt the likeness went
so far as to prove the latter
to be another work of Bryaxis.
On further investigation,
however, I found that those
parts of the hair and beard
that have been executed in
marble correspond neither lock
by lock to the beginning of the
curly beard, nor to the bases
of the massy curls that over-
shadow the earnest face of the
, . ., j • j -, FIG. 1. — HEAD OF SAKAIM-* i m>.\i AKSINU&, CAIRO.
mysterious Alexandrian deity.
The moustache especially is easy to compare, and is seen to be absolutely
different. In the Alexandrian head, though drooping at the ends, it leaves
the upper-lip entirely free. Among the copies of Sarapis, the largest and
finest, I think, is that from Arsinoe at Cairo8 (Fig. 1). Here the moustache
1 E. Breccia, Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, Arch. Am., 1906, p. 134.
p. 203, Fig. 75; Brunn-Bruckmann, Fig. * Amelung, Rev. Arch., :i, IV. ii. p. 177,
No. 605, p. 3, Abb. 6 (Sieveking); Mauser, PI. XIV.; Atieonia, 1908, p. 115 ft.
Berl. Phil. ]\'och., 1906, p. 69; Rubensohn, » Cat. Gtntral, No. 27432 (Ht. 0-90 m.).
31
32
J. SIX
ends in a spiral and, by hiding the corners of the mouth, accentuates the
expression of strength of the straight under-lip, so different from the goodness
that speaks from the fuller form of the other.
Upon turning to a closer comparison of the Alexandrian and Melian
heads, I was surprised to find the greatest similarity where I had failed to
find it before. The way the hair borders the forehead is exactly the same,
and the little that remains of the hair fits in very well. The half-open mouth
particularly is very like, and the surrounding growth of hair on the Egyptian
head differs only in so far that the forms are more sharply cut, in a more
realistic contrast to the mellower surface of the flesh. On the whole the
identity of the types is evident. It merely seems that the Egyptian fragment
is everywhere far superior in artistic quality to the famous head from Melos
in the modelling of the forehead with its curious
swelling at the right temple, and in the deep-laid
eyes with their Praxitelean hygrotes. Though both
works seem to render the same conception, they
differ somewhat in the shape of the nose, which is
a trifle broader, especially in the nostrils, at Alex-
andria, though not quite so much perhaps as it
seems from the photograph which I have before me,
the same as is reproduced in the Museum Guide, for
it shows less under a different light in the one which
Sieveking has reproduced as his Figure 6 in the
commentary on a head of Zeus from the Villa Albani.
But on the whole the resemblance is such that
we cannot doubt they go back to the same artist;
and that this must be Bryaxis seems plain by the
similarity of style in these works and the various
replicas of his most famous Sarapis, which to my
mind is even closer than that which Amelung has
noted between the Zeus of Otricoli and the Alexan-
drian god.4
It seems worth while mentioning that this author compares another
head (though he does not know where it is) with both the Zeus of Otricoli
and the Asklepios from Melos.5 To me it appears to be nearer to the style
of the Mausolos.
Wolters 6 has shown, with ample evidence, that we may know the general
form of the statue to which the Melian head belongs, by a series of statuettes
found at Epidauros (Fig. 2). He has, however, left open the question by
whose hand this was, and where it may have stood.
It seems possible to put forward an acceptable proposition about this
locality, now that we feel sure about the artist. Epidauros itself is out of
question, since the chryselephantine statue of Thrasymedes was seated, as
we know from Pausanias, and we need not dwell on any further difference
FIG. 2. — ASKLEPIOS.
STATUETTE FOUND AT
EPIDAUROS.
* Ausonia, I.e., p. 115.
& I.e., p. 118, Fig. 18.
• Ath. Mitt., 1892, pp. 3 and 4, Pis. II.
and III.
ASKLKIMOS BY MKVAXIS
33
either in ikonography or style. Nor can we find the original which we are
looking for in the Asklepios of Bryaxis mentioned by Pausanias, without
further detail, at Megara with a Hygieia by the same hand. The coins 7
that have preserved a memory of this work, be it ever so slight, suffice to prove
that if it was analogous, it was certainly not the statue that we are looking
for. That Pliny 8 mentions an Aesculapius in his catalogue of bronze-workers
as one of two works of our master, does not help us any further. And if we
might be induced to connect with our Alexandrian find the notice of Pausanias
about the statue in the temple which Antoninus built at Epidauros for the
Egyptian Hygieia, Apollo and Asklepios, we should soon be corrected by the
Alexandrian coins. These show a head that agrees wonderfully well (Fig. 3, I),9
FIG. 3. — COINS OF ALEXANDRIA AND Cos.
but have a very different body (Fig. 3, 2) : 10 not so much in the general
pose, which is akin, as in the action — the right hand holding a phiale, the left
arm wrapped in the mantle, whilst that which we are in search of leans on a
long stick, with part of his garment propped under his left armpit, his right
hand resting on his hip. This was, from the time of Mikon, a not unusual
Attic scheme. The Egyptian deities whom the emperor introduced at
Epidauros were, no doubt, Sarapis, Isis and Harpokrates.
Bryaxis, though Athenodoros calls him an Athenian, and though he may
have developed his art in the Attic metropolis, bears a Carian name, and
certainly worked in his native land, as the youngest, probably, amongst the
famous sculptors of the Mausoleum in the middle of the fourth century, at
7 Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner, Num.
Comm. Megara, vi. and vii.
• Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 73
J.H.S. — VOL. XLII.
• Brit. Mua. Cat. Alexandria, PI. V.,
No. 1706 and specially 1782.
10 I.e., No. 703, 705, 1315, 1613.
34 J. SIX
Rhodes and at Cnidos, where five colossal gods of bronze and a marble
Dionysos respectively are mentioned by Pliny.11
Now as Cos was one of the most renowned sanctuaries of Asklepios it
seems worth while to inquire if there be any trace of his having made a statue
of the god for this island. So it certainly is not unexpected that a unique
Coan silver tetradrachm of the second century, with the magistrate's name of
Nikostratos, in the Hunterian collection 12 (Fig. 3, 4), bears an Asklepios of
grand style that corresponds in every detail to the Epidaurian statuettes,
and differs only in its finer feeling for the great lines and the rhythm of the
more svelt figure. Nor do the heads of Asklepios in profile, which occur in
the same epoch on the smaller coins of Cos (Fig. 3, 3),13 present any objection
to the supposition that the image of the god at the sanctuary had the aspect
of the Asklepios Blacas. That the Asklepios on the bronze coins of Hadrian 14
presents another type is no serious objection.
I need hardly recall the frequent intercourse of Alexandria with Cos
(which after the death of Alexander fell to the share of Ptolemy, and of which
Herondas left us such a lively scene in his visit of Kunno and Kokkale, the
Alexandrian housewives, to the sanctuary) to support the theory that our
fragmentary head may have been a copy of the Coan original, as well as the
Epidaurian statuettes and the Munich torso which Wolters cites.15 How-
ever, I should prefer another solution. Close as we found the resemblance
of the colossal head to the Melian, we yet had to observe a difference in the
shape of the nose, which might easily be accounted for by the work of the
copyist, but may not less well be due to the variations which an artist would
make in using the same ideas of form and expression for different statues of
the same god. And as we have found on the Alexandrian coins a type that
stands no farther away from the Coan than the Megarian does, it looks as if
Bryaxis might have made an Asklepios for Alexandria as well as a Sarapis.
The Alexandrian fragment even seems to be of such excellent quality
that I venture to ask if it might not be an original, though I lack means to
decide if the rather rare technique of plaster hair, surrounding a marble face,
might be as early as Bryaxis and not beneath his standing as an artist.
If Bryaxis should thus have made an Asklepios for Megara, for Cos and
for Alexandria, slightly varying in attitude though identical in type, one
feels inclined to suggest that the Roman replica in the Pamfili collection,16
which Wolters mentions as differing from the Epidaurian statuettes by its action
and by the overlap of the mantle falling in front, might be a copy of the
Aesculapius mentioned by Pliny. It would therefore be a fourth work, inter-
mediate between the Coan and the Alexandrian, holding a phiale like the
latter, but leaning on a stick like the former. Not that there is any reason
to assume that our artist had a special predilection for sculpturing the healing
god, but that as he succeeded in creating a type that answered to the highest
11 Hist. Nat., xxxiv. 42 and xxxvi. 22. 14 I.e., p. 218, No. 241. I owe the cast
13 Greek Coins in the Hunterian Coll., to the kind help of Mr. G. F. Hill.
II. PI. 64, 18 ; B. M. Cat. Caria, PI. XLV. 6. 18 I.e., p. 10, PI. IV.
18 B. M. Cat., PL XXXII. 2-5. " I.e., p. 6; Clarac iv. Taf. 651. 1160 c.
ASKLEPIOS BY BRYAXIS 35
expectations of his age, he was called upon to repeat his success. If Petersen 17
was right in suggesting that Bryaxis created his Sarapis on the analogy of
the Asklepios of Thrasymedes at Epidauros, and Wilcken 18 in accepting this
view, it is probable that the advisers of Ptolemy advised the king to com-
mission Bryaxis to make this statue, because his Asklepios had met with such
success. It was their intention to resuscitate the Egyptian god Hesar-Hapi
as a syncretic Hellenistic deity, whose character as a god of the dead was
to be softened by qualities like those of the healing god.19
Be this as it may, it seems evident that the Alexandrian and the Melian
head and the Coan coin go a long way to enlarge our knowledge of Bryaxis.
the Carian artist who did so much to develop the Praxitelean style in the
second half of the third century B.C., and who, attempting under the influence
of Euphranor, to give a more earnest character to such gods as Zeus or Sarapis,
solved this problem best in rendering the benignity of the god who heals the
sufferings of the sick and ailing.
J. Six.
17 Arch. f. Relig., xiii. p. 72. illis gentibua numen, plerique Jovem, ut
18 Jahrb. xxxii., 1917, p. 190. rerum omnium potentem, plurimi Ditem
18 Tacitus, Hist. IV. 84, clcuin ipsum patrem, insignibus qune in ipso manifesto
multi Aesculapium, quod medeatur aegris aut per ambages conjectant.
corporibus, quidam Osirin, antiquissimuin
D2
THE LAST ATHENIAN HISTORIAN : LAONIKOS CHALKOKONDYLES
FROM the Roman to the Turkish conquest of Greece, a period of sixteen
centuries, Athens produced only three historians : Dexippos, Praxagoras and
Laonikos Chalkokondyles. Of the two first only meagre fragments have
come down to us; indeed, of the three treatises of Praxagoras, The Kings of
Athens, composed when he was only nineteen, his History of Constantine the
Great, written at the age of twenty-two, and his maturer study of Alexander,
King of Macedon, only a summary of the second, amounting to two pages,
has been preserved by that omnivorous reader, Photios, in his Library.
Such juvenile histories cannot, however, have had much greater value than
prize essays, conspicuous rather for their correctness of style than for any
seasoned judgment. But we may regret that only thirty-five pages of the
three works of Dexippos, The Events after the Death of Alexander, The Historical
Epitome, which went as far as the time of Claudius II. in 268, and The Scythian
Affairs, have survived.1 For Dexippos was an author of a very different type,
a man of affairs as well as of letters, the type of historian of which we have
familiar examples in England in Grote and Macaulay, in Clarendon and Bryce.
A worse writer, but a better general, than his model, Thucydides, he defeated
the Goths when they invaded Athens, on which occasion a Gothic leader
urged the sparing of the Athenian libraries, in order that the Athenians might
unfit themselves for the arts of war by much study of books ! After these
two historians, who flourished, Dexippos in the third, and Praxagoras in the
fourth centuries, no Athenian took their place till, in the second half of the
fifteenth, Laonikos Chalkokondyles composed the extant ten books of his
history, one of the most interesting and valuable productions of the mediaeval
Greek intellect.
Laonikos, or Nicholas, Chalkokondyles, was, as he tells us in a sentence
imitated from Thucydides, ' an Athenian,' and a member of the leading Greek
family in the Athens of his day. Unlike the modern diarist, he talks little
about himself; but on July 30 and August 2, 1447, the famous archaeologist
and traveller, Cyriacus of Ancona, mentions meeting at Mistra, the mediaeval
Sparta, then capital of the Greek principality in the South of the Morea, of
which Constantine Palaiologos (subsequently the last Greek Emperor) was
then ruler, the young Athenian, Nicholas Chalkokandyles, son of George,
' egregie latinis atque grecis litteris eruditum.' 2 This can have been none other
than the future historian, of whose surname there were several forms : Chalko-
kandyles (' the man with the brazen candlestick '), Chalkokondyles (' the
1 Hiatorici Qraeci Minorca, i. 165-200, * Miscellanea Ceriani (Milano, 1910),
438-40; Photios, Bibliotheca, codd. 62, 82. pp. 203-4.
SO
THE LAST ATHENIAN HISTORIAN 37
man with the brazen pen '), and an abbreviated version of the latter, Chalkon-
dyles, corrupted in the vernacular into Charkondyles. His father, ' the
Athenian optimate,' was, as the historian informs us,3 a kinsman of Maria
Melissene1, the Duchess of Athens, wife of its Florentine Duke, Antonio I.
Acciajuoli, and therefore connected with one of the most distinguished Greek
families. For the Duchess' father, the lord of Astros and Kyparissia, both
historic places in the Morea, was great-grandson of the Strategopoulos, who
had recovered Constantinople from the Latins in 1261, and whose family had
been mentioned as early as 1082. When, in 1435, the Duke of Athens died,
the ambitious Duchess sent the elder Chalkokondyles on a mission to Murad II.,
asking that the government of Athens might be entrusted to herself and her
relative, and offering a large sum as bakshish. But Greek leaders always
have rivals, and in this case the normal rivalry was accentuated by racial
antipathy. The Florentine party at Athens and the other Greek notables
hostile to Chalkokondyles enticed the Duchess, during his absence, out of the
Akropolis and proclaimed a young scion of the Acciajuoli family, Nerio II., as
Duke of Athens. The expulsion of the family of Chalkokondyles from its
native city and the marriage of the Dowager Duchess with the new Italian
Duke restored peace to Athens. Meanwhile, George Chalkokondyles had
fared badly at the Porte. The Sultan, despite the offer of 30,000 gold pieces,
declined to accept the Greek envoy's proposal, cast him into prison and
demanded the unconditional surrender of the Duchy. The envoy managed
to escape to Constantinople, leaving his retinue, tents and beasts of burden
behind him. But on the voyage from Constantinople to the Greek dominions
in the Peloponnese, he was captured by an Athenian ship and taken back to
the Sultan, who pardoned him. This was not his only experience of Greco-
Turkish diplomacy. Eleven years later he went on a mission from the Despot
Constantine to Murad, who imprisoned him at Serres.4 In that year, 1446,
his son, the historian, was evidently an eye-witness of the Sultan's attack
upon the Hexamilion, or Six-mile Rampart, which defended the Isthmus of
Corinth.5 But a later writer, Theodore Spandounis,6 finds no confirmation
in our text of Chalkokondyles, when he describes the latter as secretary of
Murad II. and as present at the fatal battle of Varna in 1444. The date at
which he composed his history can be approximately fixed. The latest event
which he mentions is the capture of Lemnos by the Venetians early in 1464.
As he speaks of the Venetians as still holding Euboea, which was captured by
the Turks in 1470, he must have written between those two dates. We
might perhaps infer from his mention of the Teutonic Knights as still occupying
Prussia, that he wrote before 1466, when the second treaty of Thorn compelled
them to cede West Prussia to Poland and to hold East Prussia as a Polish fief.7
The appendix, which exists in some editions, carrying the narrative down to
1565, is, of course, not his, nor is there any authority for the theory of Vossius,
that he lived till 1490 or later. If we may believe the fragmentary Life by
1 P. 320 (ed. Bonn). • ApudS&thaa,yivT)ptta'£\\T)i>titT)s'iff'roplat,
4 P. 343. ix. 261.
* P. 344, W«a<ra'ju«9a. » Pp. 132, 208, 565.
38 WILLIAM MILLER
the Greek doctor, Antonios Kalosynas,8 he, like his brother Demetrios, and
most other Greek scholars, left Greece after the Turkish conquest, when Mistra
was no longer the seat of a Greek court and an agreeable residence. He would
probably in that case have settled in Italy, of which his history shows special
knowledge, and where Demetrios, who was born in 1424, has left a name famous
in the revival of learning. Invited by Lorenzo the Magnificent to fill the
chair of Greek at Florence, he there brought out an edition of the Iliad, and
exercised indirectly a profound influence upon English education, because
Grocyn and Linacre were his pupils. In a letter written from the Villa
Medici, Politian mentions him, but he died at Milan in 1511, after bringing
out a volume of Questions there, the father of ten children. Even
after the Turkish conquest, however, the family still resided at Athens.
In 1545 a ' Demetris Charkantyles ' is mentioned in an inscription in
a convent-farm of the famous monastery of Kaisariane, which was tra-
ditionally connected with that family, and the, in Turkish times, far more
prominent Benizeloi. Spon,9 who visited Athens in 1675, found it, however,
' of modest fortune.' ' Stamati Calcondili,' whom he describes as ' a descendant
of the historian,' was a small tradesman, who ' had a house under the Castle,'
but ' generally resided at Mistra.' Still, the Chalkokondylai were long
reckoned among the twelve oldest Athenian families, and belonged to the
Archontes — the first of the four classes into which the Athenians were divided
in Turkish times. The French traveller, Linguet, visited three members of
the family in their ' humble workshop ' at Athens in 1729, and a Nicholas
Chalkokondyles was living there in 1883, while a modern street preserves the
surname of the last Athenian historian.10
Chalkokondyles differs from all other Byzantine historians in the choice
of his theme. While they wrote of the Greek Empire, which in his day came
to its end, he wrote of the rise and progress of the young and vigorous Turkish
Empire which had taken its place. He is, in fact, the mediaeval Herodotus
— the historian of that centuries-old duel between Europe and Asia — Graecia
Barbariae lento collisa duello — which began at Troy, was checked at Marathon
and Salamis, renewed on the field of Kossovo and on the ramparts of Con-
stantinople, continued in our time at the battles of Sarantaporon, Kumanovo
and Liil6 Bourgas, and almost finished by the treaty of Sevres. With an
impartiality rare in a part of the world where racial hatred burns so fiercely,
he describes the origin, organisation and triumph of his nation's great enemy,
while he extends his narrative beyond the borders of the Greek Empire, to
the Serbs, the Bosniaks, the Bulgarians and the Roumanians, with interesting
and curious digressions, quite in the style of Herodotus, about the manners
and customs of countries beyond South-Eastern Europe — Hungary, Germany,
Italy, Spain, France and England. This great variety justifies the remark
of a critic, that ' he has the gift of arousing our attention, by inspiring us
with curiosity, and of not letting us fall asleep over his book.'
8 Apud Hopf, Chroniques greco-romanes, 10 Kampouroglos, Mvij/uela TTJS
p. 243. ruv 'A8rii>al<ov (ed. 2), i. 305-8; '
• Voyage, [Ital. trans.], p. 425. 'ApxoyTo\6yiov, 11.
THE LAST ATHENIAN HISTORIAN 39
Chalkokondyles remarks in his introduction, that the events which he
is about to relate are inferior in importance to none. In that he was, indeed,
a prophet, for the entry of the Turks into Europe, where they made their
first permanent settlement in 1353, exactly one hundred years before the
capture of Constantinople, not only completely revolutionised the Balkan
peninsula, but created for Western Europe that terrible Eastern Question,
which has set nation against nation, caused directly or indirectly most of
our modern wars, and still, like a Sphinx, propounds its riddle to statesmen
and diplomatists, which none can solve, because it is insoluble. Beginning
his narrative with speculation upon the origin of the Turks, Chalkokondyles
describes how, early in the thirteenth century, one of their tribes, named
Oghuz, fleeing before the Mongols from its home in Central Asia, entered
Armenia, and ultimately settled on the then frontier of the Byzantine Empire
in Asia Minor, at Eski-shehr, the ancient Dorylaeum, where the Crusaders
had won a famous victory in 1097 on their way to liberate Jerusalem, and
where the Greek troops have now established their front against the Kemalists,
and at Sugut (' the willow '), where Osman, the eponymous hero of the Osmanli
race, was born. Thence the Turks spread over Asia Minor ; Brusa was taken
in 1326 and became their capital ; Nicaea, the seat of the famous Councils and
the refuge of the Greek Emperors during the Latin occupation of Constantinople,
became Turkish in 1330; and the quarrels of the Balkan Christians, Greeks
against Greeks, Serbians against Bulgarians, Greeks against Serbians, invited
and facilitated the expansion of the young and vigorous Turkish power into
Europe.
The historian here dwells upon the prowess of the great Serbian Tsar,
Stephen Dushan, the dominating personality of the Balkan peninsula in the
middle of the fourteenth century, a legislator as well as a conqueror, whose
people he pronounces to be ' the oldest and greatest of the nations of the earth,'
but whose vast and heterogeneous empire, like all Balkan creations, made
too rapidly and too forcibly to be assimilated, was the work of one man and
died with him. There follow the transference of the Turkish capital to
Adrianople and the two fatal Serbian defeats on the Maritza in 1371 and on
the historic field of Kossovo in 1389, with which the first book appropriately
ends. The last fragment of Bulgaria nine years later was completely anni-
hilated and Bulgaria disappeared from the map for nearly five centuries, till
the sword of Russia and the pen of Gladstone called it into existence again in
1878, only to demonstrate in the late war the truth of Bismarck's cynical
saying, that ' liberated nations are not grateful but exacting.' A tributary
Serbian principality lingered on for seventy years after Kossovo on the Danube
by the sufferance of the Sultans; a divided Bosnian kingdom continued to
exist, after the death of its great king, Tvrtko, combining, like Jugoslavia
to-day, Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs, Slavs of the interior and a Latin
population in the coast towns, and undermined by the Bogomil heresy, which
preferred the Turk to the Catholic, and by the Slavonic law of succession, which,
by excluding primogeniture, created rival candidatures to the throne at every
vacancy, and surrounded a weak monarch with a too powerful aristocracy.
40 WILLIAM MILLER
Beyond the Danube the Turkish authority began to penetrate; in 1391
Wallachia became a tributary province of Turkey; five years later the first
attempt of Europe to drive the Turk back to Asia ended, owing to the
impetuosity of the French, in the overwhelming defeat of Sigismund of Hungary
and his new Crusaders at Nikopolis, where the Serbian Prince, Stephen Lazare-
vich, struck the decisive blow for the Turks against his fellow-Christians.
In vain the Greek Emperor, Manuel II., visited the French and English courts,
for the speech which Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Henry IV.,
' As far as to the sepulchre of Christ
Forthwith a power of English shall we levy,'
remained a pious wish, like that of Henry V., that he and Katharine of France
should ' compound a boy, half French, half English, that shall go to Con-
stantinople [not yet Turkish] and take the Turk by the beard.' For one
cannot agree with Stubbs, that even had Henry V. lived, he could have succeeded
in ' staying the progress of the Ottomans.' Manuel was treated with every
honour, like Peter I. of Cyprus nearly forty years earlier, to whom, according
to Froissart, Edward III. had regretted that he was ' growing too old ' to put
on the red cross, but must leave crusading to his children, like Leon VI., the
last King of Cilician Armenia, to whom Richard II. had assigned an annuity
of £1000. But the House of Lancaster was prevented by internal disputes
and the French war from renewing the exploits of Richard I. and Prince Edward
in the Holy Land.
The defeat and capture of Bayezid I. by Timur-lenk at Angora and the
ensuing civil war between his sons, to which events Chalkokondyles devotes
much space, deferred the complete conquest of the Balkan peninsula and gave
the Christians a respite of twenty years. But the accession of Murad II. was
followed by the further expansion of the Turkish Empire. Salonika and
Joannina became Turkish in 1430, and remained so till 1912 and 1913 respec-
tively, and the tardy Greek reconquest of nearly all the Morea was at the
expense not of the Turks but of the Franks, and was merely the swan-song
of Hellenism in its classic home. The temporary success of that picturesque
figure, Hunyad, ' the white knight of Wallachia,' was eclipsed by the great
Turkish victory at Varna in 1444 — a just retribution for the violated treaty
which the perjured Christians had sworn to keep with the Infidel four months
earlier. Another attempt by Hunyad four years later was wrecked on the
fatal field of Kossovo by Roumanian desertion and Serbian treachery, for
selfishness and mutual jealousy made it as easy for Murad II. as for Abdul
Hamid II. to divide, and so rule over, the Balkan Christians.
We have now reached the events of which Chalkokondyles was a con-
temporary, and his narrative henceforth acquires additional value. With
his aid and our later knowledge, derived from Western sources, let us see what
was the position in the Near East in 1451, when Mohammed II. ascended the
throne. Our author n has defined the extent of the Greek Empire on the
11 P. 8.
THE LAST ATHENIAN HISTORIAN
41
II U N G A R Y :\;
3 E^v^l Venetian Colonies
3aS£22 M»net/an Families or Dependencies
4 Ev/4 Genoese (Gattilusj) 3
4a.IHIl Genoese Chartered Company (Maona>
5 ^H Kmghts of Rhodes
6 H:'il:il Duchy of Athens (Florentine)
7 HHI Neapolitans (Jocco Family)
8 £4^1 A/ban/ana
9 (T U Serbian Principality
10 ES3 Bosnian Kingdom
11 ^^Dochyof St.Sava (The Herzegovina)
12 l»iS»l Republic of Ragusa.
ty of WaJla.chia.
I4.lt ttlT>M. Zeta (Montenetfro)
Scale of Miles
o ao 40 60 so 100
THK NKAK EAST IN 14."»1.
42 WILLIAM MILLER
eve of its fall. That once vast dominion then consisted of Constantinople
and a small strip of adjacent territory extending as far as Mesembria on the
Black Sea and Herakleia (the modern Eregli) on the Sea of Marmara — a little
more than that left to Turkey by the treaty of Sevres. The two strategic
islands of Imbros and Lemnos (the latter so familiar to our troops in the late
war), which command the mouth of the Dardanelles, and the Northern
Sporades, were all that remained to the Greek Empire of ' the isles of Greece ' ;
and the most important portion was the Peloponnese, then wholly Greek, except
for the four Venetian colonies of Modon and Coron (with the bay of Navarino) in
the south-west and of Argos and Nauplia (with the outlying places of Kastri and
Thermisi) in the east. The rest of the Greek world was either Turkish or still
Frankish. Athens was the seat of a Florentine, and Naxos of a practically
Venetian, Duchy — for even the ' non- Venetian dynasties ' of the Cyclades
' were glad to be regarded as Venetians, whenever the Republic concluded a
treaty of peace with the Turks,' while fresh Venetian families had latterly
been acquiring insular baronies. Crete, Corfu (with its seven continental
dependencies of Butrinto, Strovili, Saiada, La Bastia, Suboto, Parga and
Phanari), Aegina (just acquired this very year), Tenos, Mykonos, and the
continental outposts of Lepanto and Pteleon, strategically placed near the
respective mouths of the Gulfs of Corinth and Volo, were direct Venetian
colonies. Cerigo was partly a Venetian colony, partly a Marquisate hereditary
in the Venetian family of Venier ; Cerigotto was the still minuter Marquisate
of the Venetian Viari ; Paxo, reckoned as an integral part of Corfu, and placed
under the supreme jurisdiction of the Venetian proweditore of the larger island,
formed the barony of one of the great Italian families settled in the Ionian
Islands; and Euboea, still nominally divided into the three original fiefs
instituted at the time of the Frankish conquest, was practically governed by
the Venetian bailie at Chalkis, whom the triarchs recognised as the representa-
tive of their suzerain. The Genoese family of the Gattilusj ruled over Lesbos,
Thasos, Samothrace, the Thracian town of Aenos and Foglia Vecchia (or
Phocaea) in Asia Minor ; the Genoese Chartered Company, the maona, adminis-
tered Chios, Samos, Psara and Foglia Nuova with its alum mines ; the Genoese
Bank of St. George (whose palace at Genoa was chosen as the seat of the recent
Genoa Conference) owned Famagosta in Cyprus ; the Genoese house of Arangio
governed Ikaria. The rest of Cyprus belonged to the French dynasty of
Lusignan. The Neapolitan family of Tocco possessed the remaining Ionian
islands with the three points of Vonitza, Varnazza and Angelokastron on the
opposite continent ; the King of Naples was lord of the island of Kastellorizon,
or * Castel Rosso,' as it was then called, recently bestowed upon him by the
Pope, which the treaty of Sevres has ceded to Italy. Of the thirteen Sporades
occupied by Italy since 1912, three, viz., Astypalaia, Karpathos and Kasos,
belonged to the two Venetian families of Quirini and Cornaro; Patmos and
Leipso were practically the unmolested home of the monks of St. John's,
while Rhodes and the other seven islands were ruled by the Knights, who held
on the mainland of Asia one castle, S. Pietro, the ancient Halikarnassos, and
the modern Budrum. One independent Greek state, the Empire of Trebizond,
THE LAST ATHENIAN HISTORIAN 43
famous for the beauty of its princesses, still survived on the southern shores
of the Black Sea, where in our own time a movement is on foot for the creation
of an autonomous Greek state of Pontus, and where Genoa still possessed
colonies at Samsun and Samastri.
Such is a picture of the Greek-speaking world two years before the fall
of the Byzantine Empire. Outside those limits a tributary Serbian prin-
cipality, already once absorbed but allowed to re-exist till it pleased the Sultan
to end it, lingered on the Danube, and still stretched as far as Podgoritza in
Montenegro. But Belgrade had been ceded to Hungary, and Serbia no longer
possessed an outlet on the Adriatic; the Serbian capital was the castle of
Semendria, which still reminds the traveller down the Danube of old George
Brankovich and the last days of mediaeval Serbia. Of the other Slav states,
the Bosnian kingdom, in frequent strife with Serbia over the possession of
the frontier towns, was divided against itself by the King's conversion to
Catholicism and persecution of the Bogomils, who flocked into what had
recently become ' the Duchy of St. Sava ' — the modern Herzegovina, through
the assumption of the ducal title by. the powerful noble, Stephen Vuktchich,
but what Chalkokondyles calls ' the land of Sandales,' 12 from Vuktchich's
uncle and predecessor, Sandal j Hranich, and whose inhabitants he describes
as Koudougeroi, or Bogomils. The latter half of this word (used also by
the Patriarch Gennadios) is perhaps a translation of the Serbian Staratz (' old
man ') — the title of a Bogomil official. Montenegro was just beginning its
glorious, but now ended, career under Stephen Crnojevich; Skanderbeg still
held out in Albania, where Venice maintained colonies at Alessio, Drivasto,
Dagno, Satti, Scutari, Durazzo, Antivari and Dulcigno. Practically all the
Dalmatian coast was Venetian, broken only by the independent Republic
of Ragusa, while the smaller Slavonic Republic of Poljica was under Venetian
protection. Ragusa excited the admiration of the Athenian by its excellent
aristocratic government and the fine buildings which adorned the city, ' obscure
perhaps in glory, but a good nursing-mother of shrewd men.' Ragusa was,
indeed, called ' the Slavonic Athens.'
Chalkokondyles gives us a long and graphic account of the capture of Con-
stantinople, of the block at the gate of St. Romanes, of the massacre in St.
Sophia; he is sufficiently superstitious to repeat the popular conviction that
its fall was a punishment for that of Troy, and wonders that some people
disbelieve the Sibylline oracle, which omitted from the list of Emperors and
Patriarchs the last Constantino and Joseph II., who died during the Council
of Florence and whom he erroneously calls Gregorios. He describes at great
length, as is natural in one intimately acquainted with the country and the
people, and who, as in the case of the massacre at Leondari, had his account
from eye-witnesses, the final destruction of the Greek rule over the Morea
and of the Florentine Duchy of Athens; he narrates the end of the Empire
of Trebizond (the memory of which lingered on in Rabelais 13 in the next
century and in Pe"rez Galdos in the last) and of the domain of the Gattilusj,
11 Pp. 248-49, 531, 533, 534, 540, 543. " Bk. i. ch. 33; P6rez Gald6s, Trafalgar,
p. 5.
44 WILLIAM MILLER
the annihilation of all that remained of Serbia and of the kingdom of Bosnia.
And he puts into the mouth of Capello a speech urging Venice to go to war
against the Turks in 1463, in which he makes the Venetian statesman reproach
the Republic for not having helped to defend Constantinople, and for not
having assisted the Despots of the Morea and the King of Bosnia. ' Our
abandonment of them one after the other,' Capello says, ' brings shame and
disgrace to us among other European nations, as if we had abandoned races
of the same religion as ourselves for the sake of trade and filthy lucre.' 14
These Avords might have been addressed on several occasions during the last
thirty years to certain Great Powers, whose abandonment of the Christian
populations of Turkey may be traced to concessions and other lucrative
* affairs.' Such was the gloomy situation in the midst of which this patriotic
Athenian closed his history. Yet he had a glorious vision of his nation's
resurrection. Writing, probably in the bitter exile of a foreign land, he yet
foresaw the day when a Greek king and kings that should spring from his
loins should rule over ' no mean kingdom,' whither the children of the Greeks
should gather together and govern themselves according to their own customs
in a manner to secure happiness at home and respect abroad.' 15 The modern
Greek kingdom, established in 1832 with modest and impossible frontiers,
but four times enlarged since then, might be regarded as a realisation of the
last Athenian historian's remarkable forecast. A hundred years ago last
April the massacre of Chios convinced Western Europe that the Greeks could
no longer live under the Turks.
Chalkokondyles had carefully studied the arrangements which had
helped the Turks to conquer their divided foes. He gives an elaborate account
of the Turkish financial system and revenue in the reign of Mohammed II.
He considers the Turks as the only people who looked properly after their
commissariat in time of war ; he mentions their excellent cannon, and remarks
that a Roumanian was Mohammed's chief artillery officer at the siege of
Constantinople; he shows no trace of bigotry in his sketch of the Moslem
religion; he alludes to the fatalism which it engenders; and admires the
great speed of the Sultan's messengers, who, thanks to relays of horses, could
travel from the Morea to Adrianople in five, instead of the usual fifteen, days,
and says that in the art of rope- walking the Turks excel all others.16 Nor
does he show the least Chauvinism in treating of other races settled upon
Greek soil. He mentions the Slavs of Taygetos and the Wallachs of Pindos ; 17
of the Roumanians beyond the Danube, people who were ' always changing
their rulers,' he truly says that, though Roumanian resembles Italian, it is
so corrupt that Italians would understand it with difficulty, and he has no
idea of their origin. But he writes at length of their terrible but resolute
prince, Vlad ' the Empaler,' who defeated the Turks in 1462 and aroused
the admiration of Mohammed II. by the fear that he inspired in his subjects;
and he celebrates the prowess of Skanderbeg, although Albanian ethnology
baffled him as so many others.
In dealing, therefore, with the Balkan peninsula he is singularly fair.
14 P. 549. " P. 4. " Pp. 361,383, 435, 504. "Pp. 35,319.
THE LAST ATHENIAN HISTORIAN 45
There is in him none of that vehement hatred of the Latins which characterises
the pages in which Niketas, with whom in point of interest he may be com-
pared, displays his hatred for the Latin conquerors, masquerading as Crusaders,
who seized and sacked Constantinople. This is all the more creditable, because
his family had been expelled from Florentine Athens, just as Niketas had had
to flee from Latin Constantinople. There is more objectivity in his narrative
than in that of his contemporary, Phrantzes. He lacks the vanity of Anna
Comnena, nor is his history an apologia pro vita sud, like that of Cantacuzene.
The lack of theological discussions and digressions marks him off from Nike-
phoros Gregoras and most of the other Byzantine historians. And the period
in Balkan history of which he wrote was the most thrilling known except
our own.
Like a modern Athenian, this fifteenth-century scholar was also keenly
interested in ' Europe.' Before our author the only mediaeval Greek historian
who had treated of our country was Procopius, nine centuries earlier, for
whom the British isles were a mythical country, as unreal as the Isles of the
Blest. He describes England as the abode of departed spirits, ferried over
from the opposite coast by fishermen, who, instead of tribute, perform this
melancholy office. Julian the Apostate, two centuries before Procopius,
had described, from personal residence, a severe winter in Paris — the huge
blocks of ice in the Seine, the lack of central heating, and the dampness of
the walls which filled his head with fumes when a fire was lighted. Phrantzes,
a contemporary of Chalkokondyles, whose daughter, ' Theodora Phranza/ in
the curious novel of Neale, is represented as marrying an English knight,
alludes to the British as practising polygamy.
The visit of the Emperor Manuel II. to France and England in 1400 and
1401, in the hope of obtaining aid against the Turks, gives the historian an
excuse for digressions on the manners and customs of those countries, based
upon information brought back by some one in the Emperor's retinue and
handed down orally to the next generation. He describes our ancestors in
the time of Henry IV. as ' a numerous and strong race,' inhabiting ' great
and rich cities and very many villages.' He knows that London, ' a city
excelling in power all the cities in this island, and in wealth and other good
things second to no city of the West, and in courage and warlike spirit superior
to its neighbours and to many other Western cities,' is the seat of the monarchy,
to which ' not a few principab'ties are subject; for the king could not easily
deprive any of these princes of his principality, nor do they think fit to obey
the king contrariwise to their customs; and in this island there have been
not a few disasters, when the princes came into disagreement with the king
and with one another ' — an accurate summary of the relations between the
Crown and the feudal baronage during the Plantagenet and Lancastrian
dynasties. England, he adds, produces no wine nor, indeed, much fruit, but
wheat and barley and honey. Its wool is the best in the world, and is used
in manufacturing large quantities of clothing ; the language of its inhabitants
resembles none other; their dress, manners and mode of living are the same
as those of the French. There follows a passage about our family life which ^
46 WILLIAM MILLER
owing to a mistranslation in the detestable Latin version of Clauser, has
scandalised English readers who took the account of Chalkokondyles second-
hand from Burton or Gibbon. But a modern Greek, who was both a scholar
and a gentleman, has shown 18 that this idea rests upon a misunderstanding of
two verbs in the text, and has vindicated our ancestresses from the charges
brought against them. According to him, the passage should be translated
as follows : ' Their treatment of their wives and children is simpler (than in
France), so that throughout the island, whenever any invited guest enters a
friend's house, the lady of the house lets herself be kissed by the visitor as a
mark of welcome. And in the streets the English everywhere introduce their
wives to their friends. And it is no disgrace to them for their wives and
daughters to be kissed.' That this was the historian's meaning is conclusively
proved by two passages, one of the Corfiote traveller, Noukios,19 who visited
England in 1545, and who wrote that the English ' display great simplicity
and absence of jealousy in their usages towards females. For not only do
those who are of the same family and household kiss them on the mouth with
salutations and embraces, but even those too who have never seen them.
And to themselves this appears by no means indecent.' Similarly Erasmus,20
who first visited England in 1497, wrote of the English : ' They have one
custom which cannot be too much admired. When you go anywhere on a
visit the girls all kiss you. They kiss you when you arrive ; they kiss you when
you go away ; and they kiss you again when you return. Go where you will,
it is all kisses; and, my dear Faustus, if you had once tasted how soft and
fragrant those lips are, you would wish to spend your life here.' This freedom
of social life, even so innocent a custom as to introduce one's wife to a casual
acquaintance met on a walk, would naturally strike a Greek as most extra-
ordinary, owing to the complete seclusion in which, as we know from Doukas
and others, Byzantine women were kept. Indeed, even to-day there are
places in Greece where the women are not introduced to visitors, and it is not
only in Greece that the independence and easy-going manners of the Anglo-
Saxon girl arouse the occasional surprise of the foreigner.
The Athenian writer admits that the French are a great and rich race
with a great opinion of themselves, for they think that they excel all other
Western nations. They claim to be the first Western race wherever they may
be ; but have given up somewhat of that foolish idea since the English subdued
their territory and besieged Paris. Of the Hundred Years' War between
England and France he has something to say. He mentions the capture of
Calais by Edward III. in 1347, and has heard of Joan of Arc, whom, however,
he supposes to have died in war. Under the name of ' the plain of grief ' he
evidently conceals the battle of Azincourt, which he had heard pronounced
and mistook for Chagrincourt.21 French diet he esteems as more refined than
18 Sp. Moraitis in Revue dea etudes grecques Nucius of Corcyra (Ed. Cramer, J. A.,
(1888), i. 94-98, who shows that tcvaavr* is London, 1841), p. 10.
aorist participle uf Kvvtiv (' to kiss ') and 20 Epist. 65> To Anderlin (Ed. Froudo,
KvtffOo.1 passive infinitive of KU«IX (also ' to 1895).
kiss '). !1 P« 91, rtf \iitrris ireSitfi.
" The second book of the travelu of Nicander
THE LAST ATHENIAN HISTORIAN 47
Italian; he speaks of the wealth of Paris, and, like Ariosto, specially cites
the wonderful bridge of Avignon.
Germany he considers the best governed of all Northern and Western
countries, and invincible, if it were unanimous and directed by one ruler — a
prophecy falsified by recent events. The Germans are very warlike and clever
at mechanical work, and some think that they invented cannon. He has
heard of the prevalence of duelling among them, and knows about the German
Order of Knights in Prussia. Prussia, he has heard, is conspicuous for its
' very beautiful and well-ordered cities.' He praises the bravery of the
Hungarians, whose language, he finds, ' resembles no other,' and whose kings
are foreigners, as they, in fact, had been since the extinction of the male line
of Arpad in 1301. About the Bohemians he thrice remarks that they had
only recently ceased worshipping the sun and fire, attributing their conversion
to Capistran, the famous Franciscan, who played such a prominent part in
defending Belgrade against the Turks in 1456,22 just as a woman, St. Nina,
had converted the Georgians. This may perhaps be the form in which the
rising of the Bohemian Taborites, & Hussite sect, who encamped upon a
mountain which they called Tabor, reached the Greek writer. The Czecho-
slovak Minister to the Quirinal, M. Kybal, himself a distinguished historian,
informs me that there is no foundation for this strange legend of sun-worship
among his countrymen.
Of all Western countries the author devotes most space to Italy, about
which he had collected much information either first-hand or from his brother
and others. Venice, whose constitution he describes, excels all Italian cities
in the magnificence of the palaces and in their construction on the sea. After
Venice the richest Italian city is Florence, being both a commercial and an agri-
cultural centre ; while its inhabitants are thought to surpass all other Italians in
intelligence and its women in beauty. Bologna, even in those days, before
the conflicts of Communists and Fascisti, had a reputation for turbulence, but
also for learning. Genoa, whose name he derives not from genu (owing to
the formation of the coast), but from janua, as being ' the door ' of Italy, he
defines as neither a democracy nor an aristocracy, but a mixture of the two.
The two great local families are the Doria and Spinola, but the rulers are
usually either an Adorno or a Fregoso. He realises the weakness of mediaeval
Genoa — its division into rival parties, one French, one Italian. He was
specially well-informed about Milan, although it requires some ingenuity to
recognise in the dynasty of the Mariangdvi the Visconti, whose representative
then bore the names of Filippo Maria, whereas we easily discover in the
Klimakioi of Verona a Greek translation of the Scaligeri. His translation
of Fortebraccio as Bpaxvs (' short ') is less successful. He has heard much
about the Papacy. He believes the legend of Pope Joan, which one of his
modern compatriots, Roides, has made the subject of perhaps the best-known
Greek novel ; and he alludes to the prophecies of a certain sage, named Joachim,
about the Popes, meaning the Calabrian Abbot, Gioacchino de Flore, who lived
in the thirteenth century. He gives a curious account of a Conclave : the
" Pp. 133, 419, 425, 468. English Historical Review (1892), vii. 235-52.
48 WILLIAM MILLER
' grand electors ' to the Papacy are the two most powerful families, the Colonna
and the Orsini, but the Cardinals generally agree in choosing some one who is
an outsider and therefore a neutral. The practice of taking a new name
upon election he regards as a sign of the transformation which comes over
the elect. But he is baffled by the origin of the dispute between Guelphs and
Ghibellines. Nor is he always accurate in his papal nomenclature, calling
Calixtus III. ' Eusebios.' Of Cardinal Bessarion he remarks, that in natural
intelligence he excelled all the Greeks, that his judgment was excellent, and
that he was second to none in Greek and Roman learning. Thus, the Turkish
history of Chalkokondyles is really a survey of Europe from the Greek standpoint
shortly after the fall of Constantinople. Like all universal historians, the
author was variously informed according to the nearness or remoteness of
the country described. He is a first-hand authority for Greece, shows great
knowledge of Serbian, Bosnian and Turkish affairs, and has a fair acquaintance
with nations farther afield, especially with Italy.
Of his predecessor, Dexippos, it was remarked by Photios that he was
' a second, but a somewhat clearer, Thucydides ' ; of our author it may be
said that he was a mediaeval Herodotus, although he does not write in the
Ionic dialect. Like most Byzantine historians, he writes in the literary, not
the vulgar, language, and has the tiresome and pedantic habit of calling
mediaeval races by ancient names, the Bulgarians ' Moesians ' and the Serbs
' Triballians ' ; but his reader must at times throw classical syntax to the
winds. With that premise, his language is not difficult, but there is no writer
in the Bonn edition of Byzantine historians who has suffered so much from
the infamous Latin translation appended to the text. The Bonn edition of
Chalkokondyles bears the great name of Immanuel Bekker, but the translator
was not only ignorant of some of the easiest Greek words, but was totally
devoid of any knowledge of Balkan history and, therefore, unable to identify
many of the Slav proper names which lurk beneath the Greek declensions of
the classically minded Athenian, just as in the modern Greek newspaper it
requires some knowledge of foreign politics to make out the names of Western
statesmen and publi cists, like Mr. Bonar Law, or the late J. D. Bourchier, in
their Greek dress, or to realise that the Tribuna is the B%ia and the Morning
Post the 'E(i)0iv6<; Ta^y8po/zo9. A new edition of Chalkokondyles with historical
notes by some one familiar with Balkan history would throw much light upon
a period of history which, if for the Greek Empire be substituted the Turkish,
presents a striking similarity with our own. For the Greek and Slav states, of
which Chalkokondyles witnessed the fall, have arisen to fresh life, while Turkey,
whose triumph he described, has for most practical purposes retired to that
continent whence she came to encamp — for it was only a long encampment —
in the Balkan peninsula now since 1919, and the disappearance of Austria
from Bosnia and the Herzegovina recognised as belonging exclusively ' to the
Balkan peoples,' just as the Iberian to the Spanish and Portuguese, and the
Italian to the Italians.
Following the practice of Herodotus and Thucydides, Chalkokondyles is
fond of putting speeches, 'sometimes of considerable length, into the mouths
THE LAST ATHENIAN HISTORIAN 49
of historical characters. These orations, given textually, are like the verbatim
reports of what passes within a papal conclave or a secret meeting of the
Supreme Council by special correspondents; they are works of imagination,
pleasing, no doubt, to the reader, who likes to hear the great talk in the first
person, but not true. They have, however, the advantage, also not unknown
to journalists, of enabling the author to put his own views on questions of
policy through the medium of some important personage, whose name com-
mands respect, just as it is usual to attribute good stories to eminent persons
(in many cases incapable of having told them), whereas their real parentage
is humbler.
For us to-day the last of the Athenian historians has a message, and it is
this : that the discord of the Eastern Christians and the selfishness of the
Great Powers brought the Turks into Europe and kept them there ; and that,
to use their own phraseology, it was ' fated ' that one day they should quit
it for their own continent. As the late Lord Salisbury once said, Christian
territory, once emancipated from Turkey, cannot be restored to it, because
the Turkish Government has shown that it cannot govern, as some others can
govern, races of another religion. The history of every Balkan State tells
that tale; and on every occasion when diplomacy with its half-measures and
its stop-gap compromises which please no one, neglects the eternal processes
of history, the latter has been proved to be right.
WILLIAM MILLER.
J.H.S. — VOL. XLU.
POET OR LAW-GIVER?
FEW Greek statues are so famous as the draped marble figure, somewhat
larger than life, known under the name of ' Sophocles,' which has been for many
years the chief attraction of the Lateran
Museum (Figs. 1, 2). Indeed it was on
account of this statue, and on the occa-
sion of its discovery, that Pope Gregory
XVI ordered a part of the Lateran Palace
to be converted into a Museum, wishing
to provide the gem with a worthy shrine
of its own.
Nor is such fame undeserved.
The calm and dignified attitude, the
high-spirited head, the clever and har-
monious arrangement of the drapery, the
careful, broad and supple workmanship
— everything combines to make our statue
not only a masterpiece of Greek art, but
the classical type of an Athenian gentle-
man shown in the bloom of full manhood,
as he may have been met with sauntering
about the theatre or agora in the fifth
century B.C.
Though all do not agree that we have
here, as has been often said, the finest life-
size portrait which has come down to us
from Hellenic sculpture, at any rate, since
the first day of its appearance, artists
and archaeologists have been unanimous
in its praise. Their admiration was some-
times even expressed in dithyrambic style,
hardly admitting a cautious criticism
concerning the lack of individuality in
the features and expression, a somewhat
theatrical touch in the bearing, a rather
overdone elaboration in the head-dress and the folds of the mantle, a superficial
rendering of the moral and intellectual character.
We shall see presently how far these strictures are justified. The purpose
of this paper is not to put forward yet another aesthetic description and dis-
60
FIG. 1.-
-So-CALLED SOPHOCLES.
LATERAN.
ROME,
POET OR LAW-GIVER? 51
cussion of the statue. It is merely to test the accuracy of its identification.
My inquiry bears only on this : Is this famous marble rightly called Sophocles ?
On what grounds is it usually given as a faithful copy of the portrait, the only
portrait of the great poet which is historically certified — I mean the bronze
statue set up between 340 and 330 B.C., on the motion of the orator Lycurgus,
in the theatre of Athens, by the side of those of his great rivals, Aeschylus and
Euripides? l
II
A certain amount of mystery still prevails around the date and circumstances
of the discovery of the statue, nor is there any agreement as to who was the
first to point out its merits, and, if I may say, to christen the child.
All that we know is that it comes from the ruins of Terracina, otherwise
called Anxur, the old city of the Volsci, so picturesquely seated at the outlet of
the Pomptine marshes, on a high white cliff overlooking the passes of the Via
Appia. Every scholar remembers the line of Horace : Impositum saxis late
candentibus Anxur.2 Beneath the cliff, in the suburbs and neighbourhood of
the old town, stood many villas of the Roman aristocracy ; one belonged to the
Emperor Domitian, in another one Galba was born.3 Our statue is said to
have been dug up in the so-called ' sand district ' (arene) south of the canal,
about a hundred yards south-west from the amphitheatre of the Memmii.4
Did there stand formerly in this place some public building (such as a library
or Court of Justice) or rather a private villa ? We do not know, and it would be
well worth while to make a fresh inquiry on the spot and dig the place more
thoroughly.
The statue had been lying for some years — non sono molti anni — forsaken,
face downwards, in the courtyard of a house of Terracina, when, in the spring
of 1839, during an inspection tour of Pope Gregory XVI, the Counts Antonelli,
on whose ground it had been unearthed, gave it as a present to the Pontiff.
So we are reminded by the inscription engraved on the pedestal : FAMILIA
ANTONELLIA TERRACINENSIS DONAVIT ANNO MDCCCXXXIX.
1 I completely share the doubts expressed not of Sophocles, but of the hero Alcon, a
by Wieseler (Gott. gel. Anzeigen, 1848, p. statue vowed by Sophocles but set up, after
1220 sq.) concerning the usual interpre- his death, by his son (Comp. Lycurgus I.
tation of a corrupted passage in the anony- 147, 43 : f}po>« /caret -w&\iv — ISpvf/nfoi). I have
mous FiVaSopAoc/i«(Westermann'8Bio7p<i<f>o«, my doubts about the insertion of rpaiptis.
p. 128 = Overbeck, 1413), from which The sense may be that the statue of Alcon,
archaeologists have inferred the existence with that of Asclepios, were both set up
of an older statue erected to Sophocles, near the statue of Chiron : so we would
soon after his death, by his son lophon — have here a group of three statues. In this
of whom, by the way, the learned gossip case avrov ought to be inserted before or
knew little else than his sad quarrels with after Tt\t\ni\v.
his father. Here is the text of the MSS. * Sat., i. 5, 26.
as corrected by Meineke : f«rx« 8« *«* *V * Martial, v. 1 ; Suet. Galba 14. Cp.
TOU "AAwvo* ("AA^wvoi Meineke; but La Blanchere, Terracine (1884).
cf. E. Schmidt. Ath. Mitt, xxxviii. 73) « La Blanchere, p. 136 and PL II. He
itpwffvvnv, fcj Ijpwi $i> f^tr' 'AiTKArprioD wapa gives, however, for the discovery the wrong
\tiftn>i <Tp«ufnlsl add. Mein. > . . . (desunt date 1846, and quotes no authority for the
quaedam) itpwOflt inr' 'loQiirrot rov vlov utra particulars above mentioned.
T^\V rt\tvTfiv. This seems to point to a statue,
E2
52 THEODORE REINACH
Now who had pointed out to the generous owners the uncommon beauty of
this piece of work, lost, until then, in the mass of the ordinary figurae palliaiae ?
Who was the first to suggest its being a portrait of Sophocles ?
Here our authorities disagree.
At the Winckelmann birthday festival celebrated by the Archaeological
Institute of Rome on December 9th, 1839, when Marchese Melchiorri revealed
to the learned world the sensational discovery, the marquis claimed for himself
the double praise of first appreciating and first naming the statue. Credit
for this was also bestowed on him ten years later by Emil Braun, the German
archaeologist" Primo trai dotti ad osservare ed apprezzare. On the contrary,
Father Garrucci, in his short notice of 1861, attributes the merit of having
recognised Sophocles in the Lateran statue to an antiquary, or rather a dealer
in antiques, called Luigi Vescovali. Finally, according to an oral tradition
gathered in 1867 by Benndorf and Schone, the sculptor Pietro Tenerani is said
to have been the first to call attention to the beautiful workmanship of the
statue.
We are not expressly told that Tenerani was also the first to identify the
statue, but at any rate he accepted, without controversy, the proposed identifica-
tion, and largely contributed to propagate it. In fact he was the artist entrusted
with the task of restoring the ' Sophocles,' a task which he carried out with as
much skill as taste. The restoration includes the nose, part of the brows, right
cheek, moustache and hair, the right hand, the whole feet and a piece of the
lower flap of the drapery. Tenerani also supplied the scrinium or volume-case
placed at the foot of the statue : this last addition may have been suggested
by the statue of Aeschines at Naples, the resemblance of which to our marble
had been immediately noticed. However, by adding the volume-case to the
Lateran statue upon his own authority, Tenerani stamped it implicitly as the
portrait of a ' man of intellect,' and, strange to say, certain critics have been
thoughtless enough to seek, in this entirely modern detail, an argument in
favour of the traditional denomination.4 "
III
Be this as it may, these points of history offer but an anecdotic interest.
The main issue is to ascertain on what arguments is based the identification,
which, since the day when it was first publicly suggested (December 9th, 1839),
has never, as far as I know, been seriously contradicted.5
If we go through the long series of articles and memoirs published about our
statue, from the first and thorough study of Welcker (1846) to the most recent
histories of Greek portraiture, not omitting the standard works of the Germans
4a Whether the scnnium was rightly * See, however, Sal. Reinach on Clarac,
restored is a difficult question. According Repertoire, I. p. lix, PI. 510, No. 3 : ' n'est
to Birt (die Buchrolle in der Kunet, p. 292) pas Sophocle." I remember also doubts
this does not appear before the Hellenistic expressed by Prof. Heuzey in his lessons
age. If, as shown later, the tffigy is that on Greek costume at the lilcole des Beaux -
of Solon, an &£<av would have been the Aits,
proper accessory.
POET OR LAW-GIVER? 53
Benndorf and Schone (1867), and the Swiss Bernoulli (1901), we cannot but
be struck by the astounding poverty and weakness of the foundations on which
rests an identification so far-reaching in its consequences.
Let us first set aside such sentimental or purely rhetorical motives as the
' triumphal bearing ' of the statue, the ' harmonious balance ' of features and
gesture, the ' serene beauty ' of the face, the friendly expression, the joy and
pride of life — all particulars which, in the prejudiced eyes of certain critics,
clearly express the ' complete man,' the ' universally beloved man ' that
Sophocles is said to have been : whereas others have vainly searched this same
face and this same attitude for any traces of the spiritual life and for the reflected
glow of the great tragedian's supreme poetry.
What shall I say of the arguments drawn from the costume? So eager
have some critics been to detect a distinctive Sophoclean feature in the careful
and exquisite arrangement of the dress, that one of them, a German,6 insisted
in his enthusiasm on the wonderful elegance of the sandals, which, as we have
seen, are, as well as the feet themselves, entirely the work of the Italian
Tenerani !
Finally, no greater stress is to be laid on the fillet, termed for the purpose
taenia, which binds up the hair. Some have imagined to see therein the symbol
of the many dramatic triumphs earned by Sophocles, or the sign of his literary
kingship, of his pre-eminence over his two great rivals. True it is that on the
authentic images of Sophocles which I shall discuss later on, as well as on the
busts of Homer, the headband is never wanting. But it has been rightly
pointed out long ago that, on the Lateran statue, the so-called tamia is nothing
but a narrow ribbon, holding together the abundant locks, as was the fashion
among Athenian noblemen until the general adoption of short cut hair. More-
over, for the spectator who looks at our statue in front and from below — and
thus it was certainly meant to be viewed — the tiny stripe is utterly invisible !
What remains then in favour of the proposed identification? a single
palpable argument, indefinitely repeated since the day when Melchiorri first
stated it : that is, the resemblance which is supposed to exist between the head
of our statue and a very small bust in the Sala delle Muse of the Vatican (No. 492),
the provenance of which is the garden dei Mendicanti 7 (Fig. 3). This Roman
bust — for it is not properly a herm — ends in a sort of shelf, broken on the left
side, on which one can still read the letters . . . OKAHZ, that is to say,
considering the available space, most likely ZO<J>] OKAHZ.
Such is, as confessed by Welcker,8 the only material basis on which rests
the traditional identification (guidati dal solo busto Vaiicano). What is this
basis worth ? Exactly as much as the pretended likeness. Now this likeness
appears to me, and will appear to every unprepossessed judge, quite faint and
insignificant. It is nothing more than the family air which, of necessity, exists
between all unrealistic representations of well-born Athenians, forty or fifty
years of age, carved towards the end of the fifth century B.C. In the series of
• Amelung, Moderner Cicerone, p. 341. conti, Museo Pio Cltmentino, vi. PI. 27.
7 Found 1778; first published by Vis- • Annali deW Institute, 1846, p. 129 foil.
54
THEODORE REINACH
the Attic funeral sldae of those times, it is easy to find a dozen male heads,
belonging to the same type,9 and presenting, like the Lateran head and the
Vatican head, regular features without any marked individuality, plentiful hair,
and a full beard divided into thick locks.
To postulate a special connexion, whether of descent or kinship, between
two specimens of such a widely multiplied type, a close comparison ought
to reveal some really characteristic parallels. Now, what we find is exactly
the contrary. Though small and of slovenly workmanship, the Vatican bust,
when carefully examined, shows features far more individualised than the
Lateran head. The loftier skull gives a more elongated outline; the folds
of the forehead, more strongly stamped, are those of an older man ; the middle
FIG. 2. — HEAD OF THE LATERAN
' SOPHOCLES.'
FIG. 3. — SOPHOCLES ? BUST
IN THE VATICAN, SALA
DELLE MUSE.
locks of the beard are broader, the eyes more deeply sunk in their sockets,
the arch of the brows .somewhat higher and more pointed, and all this combines
to give the Vatican head a distinctly thoughtful, almost sulky expression,
sharply contrasting with the haughty serenity which pervades the Lateran
head.
Several of these differences have already been noted with his usual fairness
and not without disquiet by Bernoulli. However, he ended in conforming —
though not without hesitation — to the common opinion, relying, as he says,
' upon the general character of the two heads and upon certain concordances
in the arrangement of the hair and beard.' I, for my part, can only see, in
such a conclusion, or rather capitulation, the mighty effect of routine, and an
• See, for instance, the well-known stele of Prokles and Prokleides in Athens, with two
heads of this style.
POET OR LAW-GIVER? 55
undue respect for German infallibility. My own conclusion, on the contrary,
is that there is no reason whatever to suppose that both heads are derived
from one and the same original, and several reasons to incline to the contrary.
So that, even if the poor bust of the Vatican was the only certified portrait
of Sophocles, we would be quite unwarranted in inscribing the same name under
the Lateran statue. But, as we shall see, this is not the case. To these negative
arguments I shall now add other reasons, of a positive character, that will
help to make the traditional designation not only improbable, but impossible.
IV
If the Vatican bust is the pretended front-rank man of a series of anonymous
heads grouped by Bernoulli under the heading ' Sophocles, Lateran type,' there
exist, next to it, two other ancient marbles,
equally certified as portraits of Sophocles by
inscriptions of undoubted genuineness.
One is the medallion or marble shield
(imago clipeala), found in a tomb near the
Porta Aurelia, which, from the old collection of
Fulvio Orsini, passed into the Farnese cabinet
(Fig. 4). It is mentioned in an inventory of
the Villa Farnesina dated 1775, and, E. Q.
Visconti declares he still saw it there.10 Since
then it has unfortunately disappeared, but it is
known by two engravings, the latter of which,
due to Galle, seems fairly trustworthy n; here
the shield bears in full the name C000KAHC.
The other document is a small herm (Fig.
5), formerly placed in the gardens of the
Vatican and since 1896 transferred to the
Belvedere (Amelung, No. 69 B). Here the inscription CO<1>OKAHC is still
entirely legible; the head is much worn and damaged, but what remains is
enough to show a close resemblance with the engraved medallion.
Thus, these two monuments have become in their turn the front-rank
men of a series of anonymous replicas, christened by Bernoulli ' Sophocles of
the Farnese type.' n" Among them are specially to be noted : (1) two double
herms, one in Dresden, the other in Bonn, in which the head of Euripides is
associated with another head, most probably that of Sophocles 12 ; and (2) the
fine herm, almost perfectly preserved, coming from the vicinity of Albano,
10 Iconogr. grecque, i. 107.
11 1st publication : Ursinus, Imagine*
(1570), p. 25; 2nd publication : Ursinus,
lUtutrium Imagines (1598), PI. 136. See
Hulsen, Die Hermeninschrijten, etc., in
Ath. Mitth. xvi. (1901), p. 123 foil; No. 40.
1U To the list (21 numbers) given by
Bernoulli (I. 129 foil.) Arm It adds now two
FIG. 4. — SOPHOCLES. LOST
MARBLE MEDALLION OF THE
FARNESE CABINET.
(After the Engraving by Galle.)
new instances in private collections at
Jaffa and Munich.
11 I say probably, because, strange to
say, Euripides is also sometimes associated
\vith Solon (his countryman from Salamis,
and, like him, a Sage) ; for instance, in a
herm of Velletri, now at Naples (Bernoulli,
i. p. 38).
56
THEODORE REINACH
which we can admire in the British Museum (Fig. 6; No. 1831 of Smith's
Catalogue).
The common characteristics of all these heads are, first of all, the very
conspicuous ' Homeric ' fillet, binding the hair ; then, the long moustache with
FIG. 5. — SOPHOCLES. HEBM IN THE BELVEDERE OF THE VATICAN.
its two branches falling down to the chin, the forehead furrowed with deep
folds, the countenance of at least a sexagenary, the downcast glance, the
meditative aspect; last and chiefly, the peculiar
design of the eyebrows : first rising sharply, then
dropping abruptly towards the temples, a stroke
already hinted at in the Vatican bust, but here more
forcibly marked and conferring upon the expression,
to use the words of Friederichs and Wolters, a ' touch
of grandeur.' All these details contrast strongly with
the countenance of the Lateran head, whose low and
softly rounded eyebrows contribute so much to the
expression of benevolence and mildness, mixed wTith
self -consciousness.
Of course, such and other characteristic differ-
ences did not escape the keen observation of Bernoulli.
' Height of the forehead, eyes, nose, mouth,' says he,
' everything differs between the two types.' How then
was such an impassable gulf to be bridged over ? In
his fixed determination to reconcile all facts, Bernoulli is compelled to have
recourse to a desperate hypothesis : namely, the existence of two original
portraits of Sophocles, quite independent of each other, which are supposed
to have become respectively the fountain-heads of the Farnese and the
FIG. 6. — SOPHOCLES.
ALBANO BUST, BRITISH
MUSEUM.
POET OR LAW-GIVER? 57
Lateran type. The former portrait, representing an aged Sophocles, may have
originated at the beginning of the fourth century, when the remembrance of
the poet's outward appearance was still vivid. The later portrait, more
strongly idealised, showing a youthful Sophocles, is supposed to have sprung
up about fifty years later, as an original creation inspired not by any
iconographic tradition, but by the literary image of the poet as it impressed
itself upon the minds of a younger generation. Other archaeologists, going
still further in their preciseness,13 give us as the ancestor of the Farnese type
the statue of Sophocles erected by his son lophon, and as the ancestor of the
Lateran type, either the Lycurgus statue or a supposed work of Silanion.14
It is useless to dwell on the arbitrary and improbable character of all
these suppositions. That is romance, not history. The statue of lophon,
as we have seen, is a myth ; that of Silanion, a dream ; as to the statue of Lycur-
gus, the only one duly testified, we have no reason to believe that the artist
tried to idealise in it more than usual, and specially to dip Sophocles in a bath
of youth, when we see how faithfully the contemporary statue of Euripides
reproduces the worn-out countenance of the philosopher-poet, when we know
that nothing was deeper engraved in the memory of the later Athenians than
the splendid old age reached by Sophocles in which he had still reaped so many
triumphs. All in all, it would have seemed as unfitting to represent in the
theatre of Dionysos a youthful Sophocles as, in our own days, to set up in the
Theatre Fran§ais at Paris a Victor Hugo aged thirty or thereabouts.
The only thing to be gathered from Bernoulli's intricate discussion is this
candid confession, which I quote in his own words : ' The Lateran Sophocles
gives the idea, not only of a younger man but of quite another person altogether
than the Farnese Sophocles.' And again : ' It is almost against my will that
I have come to this conclusion. Elsewhere, I have disputed, as a thing beyond
analogy or probability, the hypothesis of several distinct types for one and the
same person. If also in the present case such a theory were to be disposed of
as inadmissible, the mistake ought to be looked for, not in the Farnese, but in the
Lateran type.'
Here at last we are touching the truth. Bernoulli, as one sees, was on the
way to it ; he only lacked courage and independence from his German masters
to grasp it. We need surely not show the same scruples. Having proved,
on the one hand, that the Farnese type (Orsini medallion, Belvedere herm)
certainly represents Sophocles, on the other hand, that this type is practically
irreducible to that of the Lateran statue, we shall simply draw the inference
that this last represents another person than Sophocles. Or, to put it in other
words, having tested all the foundation stones of the traditional denomination
and found them all unsound, we may conclude that it is nothing more than one
of the most remarkable instances of literary psittaritm in the story of classical
scholarship.15
" Delbruck, Antik>- Portrats (1912). must have been ordered from some cheap
inter. figure carver, by a Roman amateur, eager
15 If any one still insists on the distant to get a set of literary busts with more or
analogy of the Vatican l.ust. we shall less arbitrary inscriptions, cannot seriously
answer that such a trivial work, which be taken into account in an iconographic
58 THEODORE REINACH
So far we have pulled down the old fabric : the question is now to rebuild.
If the Lateran statue is not Sophocles, whom, then, does it represent ?
In approaching this new problem, I shall not Begin with considerations
of likeness, which are often fallacious, especially when we have to deal with
effigies designed a long time post mortem. Let us remember the words of the
elder Pliny : pariunt desideria non traditos voltus.16 The right method, when
we have the rare luck to deal with a full-size statue, is to endeavour to determine
first of all from the general attitude to what group, to what social or intellectual
class the person represented belonged. Everybody knows what high importance
and subtle significance the Greek artist laid on the general aspect, the garb,
the gait and the gesture of a figure, as means to express the class, profession,
ethos and pathos of a man.
That we have before us a public monument, a statue set up for a remarkable
citizen, cannot be doubted. But to what social category of public men did
this great citizen belong? He cannot be a general — for then he would wear
military cloak and helmet — nor a philosopher, who would dress and pose
with far less ostentation. Neither can he be a poet, be it Sophocles or any
other, and it is incredible that so many have made the mistake.
Let us review the rather numerous figures of Greek poets represented in
ancient art, which have been collected by Otto Jahn, Sieveking and others.
Most of them are shown seated.17 If the poet is standing he is usually playing
the lyre, like Sappho and Alcaeus on vases, unless the artist wanted to show
him staggering in drunkenness, like Anacreon.
As a rule, he is characterised by some accessory, indicative of his calling :
thus the barbitos of the Lesbian poets, or the mask which the Euripides of Naples
holds in his hands. The head has a thoughtful expression, the look turned
towards the inner world, as in the portraits of Euripides and Aeschylus, or raised
towards the world above, as in the face of the blind seer Homer, that admirable
creation of the Rhodian school.
Do we find the slightest analogy between all these figures and the personage
of the Lateran statue, with his solemn pose, his slight corpulence, his arched
chest, his arms wrapped up in the folds of the himation, and, above all, with
that proud head, slightly thrown back, and that glance neither downcast nor
upraised, still less dreaming, as my countryman, Collignon, fancied, but looking
straight before him with an air of authority, almost of command? No, this
man is facing an audience, which we must fancy standing in the distance or
seated on several tiers of benches : hence the direction of the glance rises some-
what above the horizontal, in order to reach the spectators perched on the
problem. Moreover, under its slovenly 14 Hist. Nat. xxxv. 9.
workmanship, in which all distinctive 17 Reliefs of Euripides in Constanti-
features are blurred, we have nevertheless nople, of Menander in the Lateran ; statues
noticed above several details, especially the of Poseidippos (Vatican), Moschion (Naples),
design of the eyebrows, showing characters Sappho (Constantinople, mentioned by
more akin to the Farnese series than to Christodorus), etc.
the Lateran statue.
POET OR LAW-GIVER? :.<>
upper seats. Such an attitude does not suit a meditative person, a solitary
thinker, a poet absorbed by his mental vision, nor is it the bearing of a prophet
(uomo chi profetizza), as Welcker once thought. It is, simply and distinctly,
the attitude of an orator, conjured up in his characteristic gesture, addressing
or about to address the crowd gathered in the Pnyx or in the theatre, which
is listening to him, breathless, attentive and already conquered.
VI
Here then we have the first word of the riddle, for such an evident truth
needs only utterance in order to convince. We have certainly before us an
orator, and, let us add immediately, an orator of
the good old time, as is proved by the costume, or
rather by the fashion of wearing it.
True it is that the posture and the style of
dress — both arms wrapped up in the mantle, the
left arm bent back behind the hip, the right hand
laid on the chest and supported by the broad folds
from which emerge only the finger tips — this
ensemble is not by itself characteristic of a calling :
such was, to quote Welcker again, the normal
deportment of a well-bred Athenian in the fifth
century B.C.,18 who, once properly wrapped in his
mantle, would have made a case of conscience of
disturbing a single fold.19
But such a manner of wearing the dress,
customary in the fifth century B.C., was thoroughly
antiquated in the next century. It continued in
use only in the case of boys, for whom it remained
a mark of decency and good bearing,20 as may be
illustrated, for instance, by the fine ephebic statue
from Eretria (Fig. 7). Not so with the grown-up.
People were surprised when they saw a man like
Phocion clinging to the old custom and for ever keeping his arm wrapped in
his himation.21
In particular, as far as parliamentary manners are concerned, that attitude,
which had been the fashion or even the rule, of orators in the fifth century,
was in the fourth discarded as an affectation of archaism. Says Aeschines in
his speech against Timarchus (343 B.C.) 22 : ' The older orators, Pericles,
FIG. 7. — EPHEBE, FROM
ERETRIA.
ATHENS, NATIONAL MUSEUM.
18 By imitation this attitude was per-
petuated in works of art until Roman
times (see, for instance, the statue of
Epidaurus, Collignon, Rev. arch. 1915, i.
p. 40). On the ' motif ' in general compare
Bullo in his commentary of the statue of
Eretria (Brunn-Bruckmnnn, No. 519), who
goes, however, quite astray in the dating of
the Latcran statue.
19 Robert, Archaol. Hermeneutik, p.
131.
10 Dio Chrysostom. xxxvi. 7, and other
passages quoted by Sittl, Gebdrden, p. 7.
11 Plut. Phoc. 4. Here and elsewhere,
as is shown by Quintilian (below), x"P
means arm, not hand.
" Oral. At. ii. 34, § 25 Did.
60
THEODORE REINACH
Themistocles, Aristides the Just, were so careful of propriety,23 that to speak
with the arm outside the mantle, as we all do nowadays,2* seemed to them an
ill-mannered thing, and one which they all refrained from doing.' So it is
only the orators of the old age that Quintilian alludes to when he writes 25 :
' quorum brachium, siciit Graecorum, veste continebatur.' In the fourth century
not all orators were quite as unceremonious as Timarchus, who actually threw
his mantle away and spoke in a plain tunic. Most of them were content with
the attitude which we notice in the statues of Demosthenes, derived from the
original of Polyeuctus : they rolled the upper part of the himation around their
waist and threw up the end of the flap over their left shoulder, so as to leave
their breast bare, that is to say, merely clothed with the tunic ; the right arm,
quite free, was used to punctuate the speech with
appropriate gestures (Fig. 8).
This is the arrangement which Aristotle has in
mind in the work so happily restored to the world by
Sir Frederick Kenyon, when he writes that Cleon was
the first to address the people with his mantle " used
as a belt (or sash),' 26 whereas the former orators
had observed decorum,27 which ' decorum ' consisted
precisely in keeping the arm in the mantle and under
no pretence disturbing the folds, even in the most
pathetic passages of a speech; such was still the
practice of Pericles, as is expressly noticed by
Plutarch, quite in agreement with Aeschines.28 But
after the Peloponnesian war the new fashion uni-
versally prevailed.
Such being the case, it seems hopeless to seek
for the model of our statue among the orators of the
fourth century. There is, however, one notable ex-
ception to be considered. Among these orators there
was one, and only one, who sometimes spoke in
public, attired according to the ancient fashion ; this
was Aeschines. I say (sometimes) because he himself at first seems to have
usually conformed to the more recent mode, as above quoted : ' as we all do.'
But we see, by other evidence, that Aeschines occasionally made a point of
reviving on the tribune the classical attitude of which he had sung the praise.
In the speech on the False Embassy (341 B.C.) Demosthenes, alluding to
the same passage of the speech against Timarchus, exclaims : ' Such is the
tale that Aeschines told the judges, and he even mimicked the attitude thus
described by him ; ' 29 and further : ' the question is not, Aeschines, to speak
with the arm in your mantle, but to carry out your embassy in that modest
FIG. 8. — DEMOSTHENES.
VATICAN.
23 ouTia aw(ppovft.
24 i vvv\ iravrts iv edd irpdrrofitv, rb
25 Instil. Oral. xi. 3, 130.
28 irtpi£a>ffauifvos (Const. Ath. 28).
Plut. Nicias, 8 : irfpio-irairos rb I/J.O.TIOV.
27 ruv &\\uv iv K6rru<i> \ey6vriav.
28 Pericles, 5; Praec. ger. reip. 4.
2* De falsa legal. 251 : TOVTO juii
irf Tols StKaffTciis KCU
Cp.
POET OR LAW-GIVER?
61
way.' *° Lastly, in the De Corona91 he calls his opponent ' that fine statue,' and
ciiinmentators have rightly interpreted these words as an ironical allusion to the
old-fashioned bearing, the sober gesture, the almost motionless attitude which
Aeschines sometimes affected on the tribune, and which most likely he had still
more cultivated and exaggerated since his famous outburst against Timarchus.
So we understand why the sculptor who immortalised the features of
Aeschines in the statue of which a copy was found at Herculaneum 32 (Fig. 9)
has represented him in the classical attitude with which his name was associated.
The statue of Naples is draped exactly like that of the Lateran, though with
somewhat more simplicity. Aeschines is standing still, whereas the orator
of the Lateran is speaking or about to speak.
The family air of the two statues is too striking
to have escaped the notice of commentators. Most
of them, from the first, have dwelt on it, and the
only astonishing fact is that, having recognised an
orator in the motionless figure of Naples, they
failed to recognise one, far more plainly, in the
statue of the Lateran, which seems to move
towards us and almost to open its lips !
But, I hasten to say, the resemblance is con-
fined to the attitude. If we compare the heads of
our two statues, there is not the slightest possibility
that the Lateran statue should represent Aeschines.
Look at the full, fleshy face of the latter, as it is
distinctly shown as well in the statue at Naples as
in the inscribed Vatican herm which served to
identify the full-size effigy. We have before us a
modern politician (to use a word of Collignon)
trying to look as calm and friendly and smiling
as possible, but without a touch of pride or real
grandeur. Look at the Lateran statue and
measure the difference. As has been wittily said,33 next to the so-called
Sophocles, Aeschines looks like a bourgeois by the side of a king.
Now, as Aeschines was the only orator in the fourth century to keep up
the ancient garb, we must dismiss the fourth century altogether and go farther
back to find the original of our statue, that is, before the innovation of Cleon.
FIG. 9. — AESCHINES. STATTK
FROM HERCULANEUM,
NAPLES MUSEUM.
VII
Can it possibly be an orator of the fifth century B.C. ? We need only go
through the list of the leaders of the Athenian people, given by Aristotle,34
to know the contrary.
10 De falsa If < int. •_'. V,.
11 Decoron. 129.
11 Formrrly rnll.-<| Ari-t iilrs. ul.-nt ilir.l
in 1834 by L. Viscemti, thanks to the Vatican
(inscribed) herm, Sola delle Mute, 502.
M La Blanchere, op. cit., p. 137. Hut
he ought not to have added that the ntti-
tinlt is similar to one of a man ' putting
his hands in his pockets.'
M (,'onxt. Alt,. 28.
62 THEODORE REINACH
All great orators of that period, with the sole exception of Ephialtes, who
cannot be taken into account, were, at the same time, illustrious warriors, and
this last quality overweighed so much, in general opinion, the merit of eloquence
that, if they had been gratified with public statues, these great statesmen
would certainly have been represented clad with the cloak and helmet of the
strategus. But, as a matter of fact, we know by the distinct evidence of Demo-
sthenes that no such statue was ever erected to an Athenian Commander, before
that of Conon.83
Thus, we must take a new step backwards and extend our inquiry to the
sixth century B.C.
Here we meet with two possible names : Cleisthenes and Solon. But,
though modern criticism has recognised in Cleisthenes the real founder of
Athenian democracy, for the Athenians themselves his fame was quite thrown
into the shade by that of Solon : no statue of Cleisthenes is ever mentioned.
Solon, in the eyes of the fourth-century Athenians, assumed gradually
the shape of a national hero, of a kind of second Theseus. All existing laws,
even those which were certainly much younger than his time, were given under
his name. The constitution he had framed, so moderate and verging on
plutocracy, was held for the groundwork of the now restored democracy.
Although no documents of his oratory, but only of his poetry, had survived,
legend made him the prototype of a great popular orator. For all these reasons,
it was natural that his statue should be erected in some outburst of national
gratitude, and such was actually the case.
We know of two public statues of Solon, both in bronze, which were
set up in the course of the fourth century B.C. : one in the agora of Athens,
in front of the Stoa Poecile (Overbeck, 1398-1401), the other in the agora of
Salamis (Overbeck, 1395-1397), either because this island was supposed to be
his birthplace, or because his fiery exhortations had driven the Athenians to
reconquer that valuable possession.
Of the statue in Athens we know nothing, not even its exact date.36
Concerning the statue in Salamis, which seems to have been the older
and more famous of the two, we have definite information.
Aeschines, after having recalled, in a passage already quoted, the custom
of ancient orators of speaking with their arm wrapped up in the mantle, proceeds
thus :
' And of that fact I can give you a striking proof. You have all of you,
I suppose, crossed over to Salamis and looked at the statue of Solon. So you
could all bear witness that in the agora of Salamis, Solon is figured with his arm
inside his mantle ; 37 this, Athenians, is a record and a likeness of the attitude
which Solon observed when he used to address the people of Athens.'
35 C. Leptin. 70 (Overbeck, 1393). The a speech delivered under Alexander. The
private statues of the fifth century, from words used point to a recent dedication ;
which derive the herms of Themistocles, the statue probably did not exist at the
Pericles, Alcibiades, are all helmeted. time of Aeschines's speech against Timarchus.
36 It is first mentioned by the Pseudo- *7 tvrbs T^V x*'f"» %X.<at'-
Demosthenes (C. Ariatog. ii. 23, p. 807) in
POET OR LAW-GIVER? 63
From this passage, we can immediately draw two weighty consequences :
(1) In the statue of Salamis, Solon was shown in the posture of an old-
fashioned orator, his arms entirely wrapped up in the himation, that is, exactly
like the statue of the Lateran.
(2) If Aeschines, wishing to support by a plastic example his description
and praise of the stately bearing of the older orators, is compelled to go as far
back as Solon and his statue in Salamis, the inference is, that at this date (343
B.C.) there existed in Athens no other public statue representing a statesman
in that attitude, and that even the statue of Solon in the city, which was most
likely a copy of the Salamis one, had not yet been cast.
If we know from Aeschines the pose of the Salamis statue, and from
Diogenes Laertius the epigram which was inscribed on the base,38 we owe to
Demosthenes a valuable piece of information concerning the time of its erection.
Let us reopen the speech on the False Embassy (341 B.C.). Demosthenes
charges Aeschines, among other misdemeanours, with having deceived the
Athenians by giving them (in the aforesaid speech against Timarchus), as an
authentic proof of the bearing of ancient orators, the statue of Solon in Salamis.
He continues thus : ' And yet the people of Salamis tell us that this statue
has not been standing there for more than fifty years, whereas 240 years have
elapsed between Solon and our own time. So that, not only the sculptor
himself, who selected that attitude, but even his grandfather, was not a con-
temporary of Solon.' M The fifty years or so, elapsed between the speech on
the False Embassy and the casting of the statue of Salamis, bring us, for the
latter, to about the year 391 B.C.
VIII
Let us halt a moment to draw some inferences from these well-proven
facts.
I think I have shown :
(1) That the Lateran statue represents, not a poet, but an orator;
(2) That this orator, by reason of his dress and attitude, must have lived
before the Peloponnesian War ;
(3) That none of the famous orators of the first two parts of the fifth
century had obtained in Athens the honour of a public statue ;
(4) That among the older orators, Solon is the only one of whom literary
tradition mentions a public statue existing in the middle of the fourth century
B.C., i. e. the time below which we cannot place the original of the Lateran
statue ;
(5) That overwhelming evidence proves the statue which rose on the agora
of Salamis to have represented Solon exactly in the posture and dress of the
Lateran marble.
This series of facts leads of necessity to the conclusion that we possess in
»• Diog. La. i. 62. »• Dcfabaleg. 251.
64 THEODORE REINACH
the Lateran statue a faithful copy of the Salaminian statue of Solon. I say
a copy, because the Lateran statue is in marble, whereas the statue of Salamis
was in bronze ; we are told so distinctly by the anonymous sophist 40 whose
speech Cori-nthiacus has crept into the collection of Dio Chrysostomus's lectures.
Otherwise, one might be not disinclined to follow the opinion of some antiquaries
who, in their rapture over the Lateran statue, have gone so far as to see in it a
true Greek original. Certainly it would be vain to seek in its technical execution
any of those marks (so fallacious, in that period) which point to a bronze proto-
type. Nevertheless, I think that most connoisseurs are right in considering,
even for purely archaeological reasons, our statue as a copy, though an excellent
one. The back, with the exception of the head, is carved in a somewhat
summary fashion, suggesting that, in its original site in Terracina, the statue
stood before a wall or in a niche. Such was not the case of public statues
set up in the fourth century B.C., and, in particular, of the Salamis statue,
which we must fancy rising in the very middle of the market-place and visible
from all sides.
On the other hand, no archaeologist will be surprised not to find in a statue
of the fourth century, designed about 200 years after the life of the person
represented, the archaic type of countenance or dress, which an artist of our own
time would have striven to lend to Solon. Considerations of historic or local
colour were quite alien to Greek classical art. So the sculptor, who, of course,
had no documents whatever concerning the physical appearance of Solon,
was wisely content with giving him the somewhat idealised figure of a well-
born Athenian of his own time, the dress and attitude of the ' old orators ' in
general, and the stately, though friendly, expression which befitted the ' Father
of the Fatherland,' the man whose verses teem with love of his countrymen
and justified self-consciousness.
A comparison will best express my feelings.
Under a copy of Michael Angelo's Moses, a philanthropist of our own days
had once these words engraved : ' To the greatest of law-givers.' Solon was
something like an Athenian Moses. Those who are inclined to sneer at his ideal
portraiture by an artist of the early fourth century are the same who, in the
presence of the immortal creation of Michael Angelo, would only think of criticis-
ing the Jove-like attitude, the superhuman hand and the cataracts of a fluvial
beard.
IX
Let us now, before proceeding further, approach the problem by another
way.
I said above that, in posthumous statues of this kind which are not really
portraits, too much stress need not be laid on iconographic details or questions
of likeness. Nevertheless, it appears that once a physical type was fixed by a
40 Dio Chrys., xxxvii. (ii. 293, Dind., it (as Aeschines led his audience to believe)
Overbeck, 1397). This man, who had to be contemporary with Solon : r'b lv
certainly never seen the statue, believes SoAa^Ivj x«*f<>0s tardvai ^iya. woioiijuevoj.
POET OR LAW-GIVER?
masterpiece for the features of a great man of the past, it was faithfully copied
from generation to generation, as we see by the busts of Homer and Socrates.
Therefore, the hypothesis developed above would be strengthened if we
could adduce in its favour a monument showing the same lines as the Lateran
head and inscribed by the ancients themselves with the name of Solon.
I believe this to be the case. In the Museum degli UJfizi in Florence (*Sa/a
delle Inscrizioni, 287) 41 there stands,
or rather stood, a fine herm of Pentelic
marble (Fig. 10), at present (Spring,
1922) exiled for some reason of re-
organisation in an almost inaccessible
store-room. This herm bears the
inscription in late Roman script :
COAUJN 0 NOM00ETHC, the genu-
ineness of which is warranted by the
most experienced of judges, Professor
Kaibel.42
Now the head of this herm, very
slightly restored (nose, knot of the
ribbon), is not only, as it has been some-
times said, distantly similar,43 but, in
the words of the candid Bernoulli,44
practically identical with that of the
Lateran statue. If the original of the
henn, as it is natural to suppose, be
the Salamis statue of Solon, we have
here a documentary proof that the
Lateran statue derives from the same
source and actually represents the great
Athenian law-giver. Such is surely the
conclusion which would have been
drawn by Ennio Quirino Visconti, the
only scholar who has hitherto published
this herm 45 (in an indifferent engrav-
ing), if he had not died twenty years
before the find of Terracina.
Unfortunately, though the genuine-
ness of the inscription, so thoughtlessly put in doubt by the German Braun,46
is no longer disputed to-day, another German, Dutschke, who closely
examined this work, declares that the head, as is so often the case, does not
belong to the body, and that the marble of the latter has even been given
a colouring to match with the tint of the head. Having succeeded in seeing
44 Icon. i. pp. 38 and 39.
44 Iconog. gr. i. PI. IX. «, p. 143.
*• Bullettino, 1847, p. L'l.
FIG. 10. — HERM op SOLON.
UFFIZI.
FLORK\' i .
Aniiki- Ii,l,l,r, /•/-. . ,-t,-.. m.
17!t. No. \W.\.
" Inac. X ;•-,!. IL'U'.I. Of. C. L O. tllOl
*» Dutschke \>hnlirl,k>-it).
J.H.S. — VOL. XLII.
66 THEODORE REINACH
the herm lately, though by very unfavourable light, I can only express my
agreement with Dutschke's opinion.47 However, admitting that bust and
head are not of the same material, they may very well have belonged to each
other from the beginning; or else, they may have been assembled in classical
times by a learned amateur, who knew, from other sources, that this was really
the traditional head of Solon. I really see no other explanation of the present
combination of head and herm. So there is no reason whatever for putting
the case, as is sometimes done, ' the head of Sophocles on a herm of Solon.'
Curiously enough, there exists in the Villa Albani a head of the same type *8
under which has been placed a herm, undoubtedly modern, but equally inscribed
with the name of Solon. Bernoulli supposes that this ' forgery ' was suggested,
in the seventeenth or eighteenth century, by the genuine inscription of the
Florentine bust. It follows, at any rate, that in those days, before the discovery
of the Lateran statue, most antiquaries agreed to put under the name of Solon,
those bearded, filleted, idealised heads, which Bernoulli has grouped under the
fallacious denomination ' Sophocles of the Lateran type.' 49 And we now know
that these antiquaries were right.
X.
Let us return to the original of the Lateran statue.
We have seen that it dates from about 391 B.C. This agrees much better
with the style of the extant work than the date of circa 330 suggested by the
imaginary connexion with the ' Sophocles ' of Lycurgus. If, indeed, in the
humane countenance, in the rather elaborate, not to say fastidious, elegance
of the drapery, we feel already, as it were, the approach of the refined age of
Praxiteles, on the other hand, the solemn pose, the severe outline of the whole
figure and even certain characteristic details of the face (as, for instance, the
broad and strong swelling of the lower eyelid), connect our statue very closely
with the lofty art of the fifth century. It belongs to that transitional period
which includes several of the most admirable sepulchral stelae of the Ceramicus,
the average date of which is fixed by the year, exactly known, of the Dexileos
monument (394 B.C.).
Are we to stop our inquiry here, or may we go further and attempt to find
out the author of the statue as well as its date ? Here a happy discovery of
Wilhelm Klein will relieve me of long argument. As far back as 1893, in a
short contribution to the Eranos Vindobonensis,50 that German scholar dis-
cussed a text of the elder Pliny,51 mentioning among the works of bronze by
47 Some critics may wonder at the flap 48 Villa Albani, Coffee House, No. 731
of drapery which hangs down the left (Bernoulli, p. 137, No. 4).
shoulder and is not continued on the right. *• These are, in addition to the Florence
But (1) the same arrangement appears and Albani herms, two herms of the Capitol
on the herm of ' Antisthenes ' (Naples, (Sala dei Filosofi, 33 and 34), one with
6155), which is of one block; (2) most the modern inscription FIINAAPOC and a
likely the right shoulder (left from the bronze bust in Florence, Museo A rchaeologico.
spectator) has been badly restored, and &0 Eranos, p. 142. Substantially repro-
should be squarer, showing a bit of drapery duced in his Praxiteles, p. 48, and his
twisted round the neck as on the Euripides Geschichte der griechischen Kunst., ii. 243.
herm (Naples 6135). 81 xxxiv. 87; Overbeck, 1137.
POET OR LAW-GIVER? 67
Kephisodotos — the elder of the two sculptors of that name — a statue thus
described : contionantem manu elata, persona in incerto est. By an emendation
as felicitous as obvious, by merely supposing the omission of one repeated letter,
instead of manu elata, Klein writes manu uelata, and he finds thus in this
contionans or ayopevtav an official orator, his arm in the mantle, i. e. in the
attitude of the Solon of Salamis. The coincidence, as well in the subject as
in the date, is so perfect that Klein did not hesitate to identify the contionans of
Pliny with the Solon of Salamis, whose further identity with the Lateran
' Sophocles ' he, however, failed to perceive.
Klein's theory met with contradiction.62 It has been objected that if the
contionans were the famous statue of Salamis, it would not be easy to understand
why the compiler adds : ' the person represented is uncertain.' One can answer
with Klein himself by reminding the reader of the controversy waged between
Aeschines and Demosthenes concerning the genuineness of the portrait of Solon,
t. e, whether the sculptor had the opportunity of knowing and reproducing the
features of his model. That discussion, which had passed into the rhetorical
schools, may well have been deformed little by little, so as to become, in
Pliny's notes, a controversy concerning the identity of the person represented.
It may also be answered — and for my part I should prefer to answer-
that the statue of Salamis, as many other bronzes, was ultimately taken down
from its pedestal, and carried away to adorn an Hellenistic residence or a palace
of Rome. Then the basis, with the inscription still preserved by Diogenes
Laertius, remained standing in situ, as was, for instance, the case with the statue
of Sappho by Silanion, which Verres stole from the Prytaneum in Syracuse.68
The statue thus became anonymous, though still inscribed with the signature
of Kephisodotos, and henceforth, in the inventories of the quaestors or in the
works on archaeology, it was, like so many statues of athletes which had under-
gone the same adventure, merely designated by the gesture of the personage :
' the orator with his arm wrapped up.'
Admitting this, the emendation of Klein really seems convincing. Not
only is the reaoUng of the MSS., elata manu, of rather dubious latinity,64 but
the gesture which it indicates, that of an orator speaking with his arm uplifted,
is unknown in Greek art and literature. It is only met with in the imperial
Roman period, and even then seems specially reserved for the allocutio of the
commander-in-chief ; thus we see it given on several monuments to the
emperors, or to certain warlike divinities such as Mars and Minerva.66 In
Greek art, on the contrary, the uplifted arm is only and always the expression
of amazement.66 Even in more recent times, when the orator's arm was
41 Milchhofer, Gurlitt, etc. It was Titus (Vatican) ; Gallienus on medals, etc.
adopted by Collignon (ii. 184), who, however, Comp. Sittl, Oebdrden, p. 303. The armu/a-
did not draw the necessary inference. tore at Florence is of doubtful interpretation.
41 Cicero, Verr. iv. 57, 126 (Overbeck, " See the Marsyas of Myron, the Blacas
1355). vase, the Heracles vase of Assteas, etc.
44 erecta would be the proper word. See, Vainly did Milchh6fer try to find an orator
however, Ammianus, xxvi. 2, 5: elata in the Arcadian relief, Ath. Mitt. vi. 51;
prospere dtxtra. Sittl, loc. cit.
44 Statues of Augustus (Primaporta),
F2
68
THEODORE REINACH
disengaged from the cloak and remained free for gesticulation, Quintilian, follow-
ing, as it seems, later Greek rhetors, ridicules the barrister who raises his arm
ad tectum.61
It is therefore unthinkable that, in the beginning of the fourth century B.C.
Kephisodotos should have represented an official orator in such an attitude.
This is so clear that certain commentators before Klein supposed Pliny or his
authority to have been guilty of misinterpretation. Poor Pliny was accused
of having mistaken a personage in the act of prayer for an orator ; 58 but even
prayer in Greek life and art does not admit of that gesture.
On the other hand, the expression manu uelata, though not supported, as
far as I am aware, by an identical instance, finds close parallels in Latin litera-
ture.59 At any rate, nothing is more natural than
to suppose a manus velata in the figure carved by
Kephisodotos, nothing more natural than the clerical
error of the Plinian copyists, familiar with statues of
emperors raising the arm and unfamiliar with Greek
orators wrapped up according to the ancient fashion.
Let me add that the date which we have ascer-
tained for the erection of the Solon statue in Salamis
(391 B.C.) agrees perfectly with the known data of
the artistic activity of Kephisodotos. His oldest
testified work (Overbeck, 1141) is the altar in the
temple of Zeus Soter in Peiraeus, which appears to
have been dedicated after the battle of Cnidus (394
B.C.), the most recent one (Overbeck, 1140) is a
statue in a temple of Megalopolis, a city founded in
372 or 371 B.C.60
We cannot determine the date of his famous
group of the goddess of Peace, nursing the infant god
Plutos, which has come down to us in the fine replica
of Munich.61 This beautiful statue was, until now,
the only evidence that we possessed of the manner
of Kephisodotos : the drapery with its fluted folds, the full and dignified
proportions still keep his style close to the tradition of Phidias and the korai
of the Erechtheion; but the motherly motive, the sweet and friendly coun-
tenance of the goddess inclining her head towards the child, already promises
the Hermes of Olympia, the subject of which, as is well known, Kephisodotos
had also anticipated.
FIG. 11. — CHRIST. (From
the Berlin Sarcophagus.)
57 Instil, oral. xi. 3, 117. Comp. Augus-
tine, In lohannem, 87, 2.
88 MilchhOfer, Festschriftfiir Brunn, p. 39.
69 Ovid, Fast. vi. 412 (pede velato). In
prose (Livy, v. 21) as well as in poetry,
velatus stands for amictus.
80 The career of Kephisodotos, according
to Pliny (01.102, 372-69 B.C.), culminated
perhaps in this work. In fact he must
have been then an old man.
41 Commonly dated 374 (on account
of the sacrifices instituted for Eirene,
Isocrat. xv. 109; Nepos, Timoth. 2), but
this date is now disputed by many (Klein,
op cit., Ducati, Rev. arch. 1906, i. p. Ill),
who go back as far as 403.
POET OR LAW-GIVER? 69
' By his style,' Collignon most justly writes,62 ' he is a conservative, respect-
ful of the past; by the nature of the subjects he treats, by the feeling which
pervades them, he may already be reckoned among the interpreters of the new
spirit.'
That appreciation applies almost word for word to the statue of the Lateran
and confirms, if confirmation is necessary, its attribution to Kephisodotos.
Thus, thanks to the discovery of Klein, supplemented by our own identifica-
tion of the Lateran and Salamis statues, we are now enabled to illustrate by a
new and splendid instance the talent of the gifted artist, whose son and pupil
seems to have been Praxiteles.63 Already known as the creator of the first
monumental allegorical group, Kephisodotos now also appears as the author
of the first and finest commemorative portrait statue in the history of Greek
sculpture. And by a curious coincidence, the man to whom Christian art is
indebted for the prototype of the motherly Madonna is the same who gave
us the noble prototype of the ' doctor ' Christ, that law-giver of the early
Middle Ages (Fig. II).64
Hellenic scholars will perhaps relinquish with regret the illusion of possessing
a life-sized portrait of their favourite tragic poet, but I hope they will find some
comfort in recovering, or rather recognising, a new work by the great master
who stands out more and more as the herald of a new dawn of art, as the real
link between the divine Phidias and the divine Praxiteles.
THEODORE REINACH.
61 Hist. ii. 184. one on a sarcophagus of the fourth century
M The old hypothesis, founded on the at Clermont (these two quoted by Brehier,
name of one of Praxiteles's sons, is more L'art chrdtien, p. 53, who aptly compares
likely than Furtwangler's theory, which them with the Lateran statue), the Christ on
makes Kephisodotos the elder brother of a sarcophagus of the ' Sidamara type '
Praxiteles. If such was the case, why in the Berlin Museum (Post, History of
should historians give Phocion as the brother- Sculpture, Fig. 1), etc. Brehier shows that
iii-law of Kephisodotos (Plut. Phoc. 19) this same type was adopted for the figure
rather than of the far more famous Praxi- of Buddha on early Greco-indian monu-
teles ? ments of Gandhara and Bactriana, such as
•• Compare, among others, the Byzantine the gold coin of Kanerkes (Kanishka). Br.
ivory op. Cahier, Melanges, iv. 75, a figure Mus. Cat. of Indian Coins, PI. XXVI, 8.
in the cemetery of Praetextatus, another
CITHAROEDUS
[PLATES IL— V.]
THE vase reproduced on PI. II. and in Figs. 1 and 2 was sold by Messrs.
Sotheby in the summer of 1919, and is now in the collection of Mr. William
Randolph Hearst of New York. It is unbroken and well preserved. The
height is sixteen inches and a half, say forty-two centimetres. Photographs
of both sides were published in the sale catalogue; 1 but the drawings from
which PL II. has been made have not been published before.
The shape of the vase is not a common one. It is a land of amphora;
and I use the word amphora, unqualified, to cover all those types in which the
neck passes into the body with a gradual curve ; instead of being set sharply
off, as it is in the neck-amphorae, in the amphora of Panathenaic shape, and
in the amphora with pointed foot.
Three types of amphora were used by the makers of red-figured vases.
Type A,2 which has flanged handles and a foot in two degrees, is used by black-
figure painters as early as the middle of the sixth century, is a favourite with
the painters of the archaic red-figured period, and disappears about 460.
Type B,3 which has cylindrical handles and a foot in the form of an inverted
echinus, is older than type A; for it is used by Attic painters at the very
beginning of the sixth century.4 It survives type A, but not for long : the
latest specimens date from the period of the vase-painter Polygnotos.5 The
amphorae of type C, the type to which our vase belongs, are smaller than most
of the other amphorae, ranging from about 37 to 43 centimetres in height.
The body is of the same shape as in the other types, but narrower : the principal
characteristic is the mouth, which instead of being concave with a strong flare,
as in types A and B, is convex with the lower diameter only slightly shorter
than the upper. The foot is sometimes shaped like an inverted echinus as in
type B ; and sometimes, just as in certain neck-amphorae, torus-shaped, with
a cushion between foot and base. Our vase has the echinus foot.
Type C first appears in the so-called affected class, a class of Attic black-
1 Sale Catalogue, Sotheby, May 22-23, 1898, p. 283; in London, A 1531, ibid. p.
1919, No. 270 and PI. 11. Miss Richter 285; in Munich, Hackl, Jahrbuch, xxii.
kindly confirmed my belief that the vase pp. 83-85.
had passed into the Hearst collection. 8 Athens 1166 (CC. 1220); Louvre G
Height of the figures, 21'5 centimetres. 534. The amphora signed by Polygnotos
2 Lau, Griechische Vasen, PI. 12, 1 ; (Hoppin, Handbook, ii. pp. 376-7), an early
Furtwungler-Reichhold, i. p. 266 ; Caskey, work of the painter, is a unique variant of
Geometry of Greek Vases, pp. 60 and 61. type B ; the foot is echinus-shaped, but
8 Lau, PI. 11, 2; Caskey, pp. 58 and 59. the handles are ridged.
4 Amphorae in Athens, Pettier, B.C.H.
70
dTHAKoKDrs
71
figured vases which belongs to about the second quarter of the sixth century.*
Then the type disappears for a while : at any rate I do not know of any black-
figured examples apart from the affected ones. The red-figured examples
» number seventeen : the earliest of them bears the signature of the potter
Euxitheos, and was painted by Oltos : hardly earlier than about 520 B.C.
The other sixteen range between this date and about 480. Our amphora is
one of the latest : a vase in Wiirzburg may be a little but cannot be much
later. After 480 the shape vanishes.7
One or two red-figured amphorae of type C have a pair of figures on each
side and frame the pictures with bands of pattern. But most of them follow a
principle which is characteristic of the riper archaic period of red-figured vase-
painting. The painter places a single figure on either side of the vase, and
covers the rest of the surface with black ; cutting the patterns down to a plinth-
like band under each figure — in our class of amphorae a simple reserved line ;
and sometimes even dispensing with this band, so that the whole decoration of
the vase consists of a single figure on the front, and another on the back,
standing out from the black background. This sober and noble form of
decoration loses its popularity at the end of the archaic period : the free style
wanted more figures and more pattern ; the archaic vases seemed sombre and
bleak.
The subject of our amphora is clear in the main, though some of the details
offer difficulty. On the front of the vase, a youth with a cithara is singing : on
the back stands a bearded man dressed in a himation, holding a wand in his
left hand and making a gesture with his right. The youth is a virtuoso ; for
• Karo, J.H.S. xix. 148, b. He compares
the Chalcidian amphora Munich 592 (Jahn
1108), which is now published in Hackl,
Vatenaammlung zu Mftnchen, PI. 21 ; there
the mouth is rifled.
7 The red-figured examples are the
following :
(a) The pictures framed :
(1) Orvieto, Faina 33. By the
Tyszkiewicz painter (A.J.A. 1916,
p. 152, No. 24).
(2) Louvre G 63. A ,silen and maenad;
B, two silens.
(3) Formerly in the Higgins collection.
Gerhard, A.V. PI. 276, 1-2. Burl-
ington Cat. 1903, K 99, No. 83.
(4) Wiir/.burg, 309. By the Syleus
painter (V.A. p. 67, No. 12).
(6) The pictures not framed :
(1) B.M. E. 258. V.A. p. 9, Fig. 4 =
Hoppin, Handbook, i. p. 449. By
Oltos (V.A. p. 9, No. 3). Hoppin
says the vase is much repainted ; it
was so, but is so no longer, and was
not when I made the drawings which
he reprod'
(2) Petrograd 602 (St. 1639). Compte-
rendu, 1868, pp. 58 and 5.
(3) Naples 3174. £l. Cer. i. PI. 9.
(4) Petrograd (St. 1637). Compte-
rendu, 1866, PI. 5, 1-3.
(5) Petrograd 603 (St. 1593). By the
painter of Boston 98, 882 (Flying
Angel painter) (V.A. p. 57, No. 1).
(6) Vienna, Oest. Mus. 332. Masner,
PI. 6, No. 332, and p. 7. By the
same (ibid. No. 3).
(7) Paris, Petit Palais 328. By the
same (ibid. No. 2).
(8) Milan, Must-o Teatralo 416. Cat.
Vend. Coll. Sarti 5 maggio 1906,
PI. 19; Cat. Coll. Dr. B. et M. C.,
PI. 20, No. 169; Cat. Coll. Jules
Sambon, PI. 1, No. 9. By the same.
(9) Louvre G 212. A, man with spear;
B, man. Repainted. By the same ?
(10) Boston 98, 882. V.A. p. 58 : the
shape, Caskey, Oeomttry, p. 80. By
the same (ibid. No. 4).
(11) Petrograd 604 (St. 1601). A.
l..-l.p.59. Bythesame(i'6u/. No. 5). .
(12) Louvre G 220. A, komast ; B,
komast.
(13) The Hearst vn
72 J. D. BEAZLEY
his instrument is the heavy elaborate cithara, made of wood, with metal and
ivory fittings. It is Apollo's instrument, and is to be distinguished from the
lighter, simpler lyre invented by the infant Hermes. But the youth is not
Apollo ; for no immortal plays or sings with such passion ; and a short-haired »
Apollo would hardly be possible at the period to which the vase belongs.
Again : in these large vases with isolated figures the figure on the reverse is
FIG. 1. — NEW YORK, HEARST COLLECTION: A.
usually related in subject to the figure in the obverse : there are many excep-
tions to this rule, and our vase might be one of them ; but from the gesture of
the man's hand he seems to be beating time to music, and so connected with the
musician. Now the man is a mortal, for no god carries a forked wand : there-
fore the youth cannot be Apollo ; and Apollo is the only god he could have
been : therefore he is a mortal.
The long forked wand is commonly carried by athletic trainers and umpires
in athletic contests. It is seldom found in pictures of cithara -play ing ; but it
CITHAKOKDl'S
73
is found. On a small neck-amphora, with twisted handles, in the Vatican,
the picture on the obverse consists of two figures : a bearded citharode standing
on a platform, and a man in a himation with the forked wand in his right hand.8
The man on the obverse of our vase, then, is a judge or an instructor : con-
sidering the movement of his hand, an instructor rather than a judge, and the
subject of the vase a rehearsal, perhaps, rather than a performance.
Fi'.. i*. — \K\V YORK, HEARST COLLECTION: B.
In his right hand the musician holds the plectrum, which is decorated with
a tassel, and fastened to the cithara by a cord. His left hand, which is out of
action, is seen to be passed through a retaining band, no doubt a leather strap
punched with a row of holes.9 The parts of the cithara are all clearly indicated :
• By the painter of tin- Louvre Centauro-
rnnehy ; to be added to the list of his works
in V.A. pp. 158 1 vi
• The back of this band is well seen on
the bronze corslet Bromen von Olympia,
PI. 59, and on a fragmentary cantharos,
by the Pan painter, in Athens (Woltere,
Jahrbuch, xiv. p. 104; J.H.S. xxxii. p. 363.
No. 4.1).
74 J. D. BEAZLEY
the wooden sounding-box; the arms, partly of wood and partly of ivory or
horn ; the strengthening pieces on the inner side of the arms ; the cross-bar,
terminating in a metal disc, for turning it, at either end ; the seven strings,
fixed into the tail-piece, stretched over the bridge, and wound round the
cross-bar; the cover or apron, of fringed and embroidered cloth, attached to
the sounding-board and swinging with the motion of the singer. The bundle
of cords hanging from the outer side of the cithara is present in most repre-
sentations of citharae, but what the function of the cords is I am not sure : 10
conceivably they are spare strings.
The costume of the citharode consists of two pieces : a long Ionic chiton
of ordinary cut, loosely belted, and a cloak made of a rectangular piece of cloth
covering the middle of the body, flung over both shoulders, and kept in position,
not by brooches or pins, but by its own weight. The drawing of the mantle is
strongly but not fantastically stylised. A similar mantle, unless I am mis-
taken, is worn by a cithara-player on a contemporary vase in Munich.11 The
hang of the garment resembles that of Apollo's cloak in a Wiirzburg vase
which we shall discuss later.12
A few words will suffice for the technique of the painting : most of the
points will be clear from the reproductions. Only parts of the contours are
lined in with relief lines : on the obverse, the face and neck, the fingers of the
right hand with the plectrum, the inner outline of the left thumb, the feet,
and portions of the cithara ; on the reverse, the forehead and nose, the neck,
part of the right shoulder, the right hand, the right side of the body where it is
bare, the feet, the lower edge of the himation, and the part of the himation on
the lower half of the right-hand side of the picture. The folds of the chiton on
the obverse, and the minor folds of the himation, in the region of the elbow,
on the reverse, are in brown ; in brown also the minor internal markings of both
bodies, including the man's nipples; the hair and eyelashes of the musician;
and the loose ends of the instructor's hair and beard. The space between the
two lines immediately above the fringe of the apron is filled in with brown.
Ankles and nostrils are rendered by relief lines. Red is used for the wreaths
and the plectrum cord.
Among the many vases on which citharodes are represented, that which
resembles ours most closely is one which was formerly in Rollin's possession
and which is published by Lenormant and De Witte.13 In the text which
accompanies the plate, the authors call it an amphora of Panathenaic shape :
and this it may well have been; for although number 68 on their plate of
forms, to which they refer the reader, is not an accurate rendering of any known
type of vase, yet a vase in Naples, which they also publish, is likewise stated
to be of shape 68, and the Naples vase is in truth an amphora of Panathenaic
shape.14
The decoration of the Rollin vase (Fig. 3) consists of two figures, one on
10 Th. Reinach, in Daremberg and Snglio, 12 F.R.H. PI. 134, 1. See p. 80.
s.v. Lyra 1446, thinks that the cords were 13 £l C6r. ii. PI. 16; text 2, p. 38;
for fastening the apron to the cithara. previously in the Canino collection.
11 Neck-amphora with twisted handles, 14 Ibid. ii. PI. 75. Style of the Meidias
2319 (Jahn 8). painter.
clTUAIloKDrs
75
either side of the vase ; the French reproduction combining them into a single
picture. On the obverse, a bearded citharode with his head back, and his
mouth open singing, dressed in a long Ionian chiton and a short himation of
normal Ionian type ; on the reverse, a bearded man clad in a himation, leaning
forward a little and supporting himself on his stick, his right arm stretched out
with two fingers bent and the others extended : the gesture is the same as in
our amphora, but the hand is seen from the front and not from the side. The
drawings in the Elite, although lacking in sensitiveness, are evidently not
untrustworthy. There is one part, however, which is open to suspicion, and
FIG. 3. — ONCE IN ROLLIN'S POSSESSION. (From El Cir. ii. pi. 16.)
that is the himation of the man on the reverse, where it curls up round the
lower side of the left forearm. This wear, quite unfamiliar to me, I take to be
unantique. I suggest that this portion of the Rollin vase was modern.
Lenonnant's draughtsman, as can be seen in the original plate,' though
scarcely in our reduction, has distinguished the brown lines of his original from
the black, which is more than many copyists do. It is clear that brown was
used for most of the inner markings in the bodies, for the vertical lines in the
upper part of the chiton and for the intermediate folds in the lower part, for
the folds of the sleeve, and for the dots on the apron of the cithara. Three of
the ankles are black, the fourth is given as brown.
Let us compare the figure on the reverse of the Rollin vase with the
76 J. D. BEAZLEY
corresponding figure on our amphora. There is no reason why the two figures
should be replicas, and they are not : the attitude is not the same, and there are
certain variations in drawing. We shall examine the differences before pro-
ceeding to the resemblances. The Rollin man has a little arc on his right arm,
between the two heads of the biceps, and the digitations of the serratus magnus
are indicated : these lines are absent in our amphora. Again, in our amphora
the transverse folds of the himation run alternately from our left and our right,
the left-hand lines being short, the others long : whereas in the Rollin vase this
system is observable, indeed, below the knee, but above the knee it gives place
to a system of long continuous lines running from the outer edge of the garment,
on our left, to the long vertical folds on our right. There can be no doubt
which is the more satisfactory rendering : the Rollin system is unbearably
monotonous. Now we noticed above that there was good reason to suppose
that the Rollin himation was not wholly genuine : if the himation was restored,
as we thought, about the forearm and below it, then the folds in the region
between navel and knee may also have been restored or repainted ; and I
suspect that this is so, because of their ugliness.
Let us now turn to the resemblances : I lay no stress, of course, on the
rendering of the nipple as a circle of dots with the centre marked ; for this is an
extremely common rendering of the nipple ; but I would draw attention to the
bounding lines of the breasts, with the curvilinear triangle at the pit of the
stomach ; to the omission of the off clavicle ; to the line of the hither clavicle,
recurving at the pit of the neck without touching the median line of the breast ;
to the curved line which runs down from about half-way along the line of the
clavicle, separating shoulder and breast ; to the smaller arc in the middle of the
deltoid; to the indication of the trapezius between neck and shoulder; to
the pair of curved lines on the upper right arm; to the projection of the wrist
when the position of the hand requires it ; to the two brown lines on the neck,
indicating the sterno-mastoid ; to the marking on the body between the lower
boundary of the breast and the himation; to the form of the black lines
indicating the ankle ; to the pair of brown lines running from each ankle up the
leg ; to the forward contour of left leg and knee showing through the himation ;
in the himation, to the peaked folds on the left upper arm, the loose fold in
the region of the navel, and the triangle where the inside of the garment shows
at the shoulder.
We will now consider a third vase, an amphora of Panathenaic shape in the
Vatican (PL III.).15 In this vase also, the man on the reverse is very like the
corresponding figure on our amphora. First the differences : in our amphora
there is a line more in the ear, an additional line at the anterior end of the
collar-bone, a series of arcs to model the ends of the toes; the outline of
the himation in the region of the shoulder and upper arm is more complex ; the
himation has a line border ; the forehead-nose line and the horizontal line of the
mouth are lined in with relief, whereas in the Vatican vase no relief lines are
16 Helbig 488; Mua. Greg. ii. PI. 58, strengthened the brown inner markings
1; phots. Alinari 35773-4, from which in front of the original ; nearly all of them
our reproductions are made ; I have is visible in the photograph.
riTHAKnKnrs
77
used for the contour of the face. All these differences fall under one heading :
the amphora is a somewhat more elaborate work than the Vatican vase, and
the artist has put a little more detail into his figure. Now look at the
resemblances : the form of the breast is the same ; the triangle at the pit of the
stomach is the same, the brown lines on the breast are the same, and the brown
FIG. 4.— NAPLES RC. 163 : B. (From A/on. Line. 22, pi. 82.)
lines on forearm, upper arm, and neck ; wrists and trapezius are indicated in
both ; the feet are the same, apart from the absence of the toe arcs in the less
studied of the two figures : the ankle and the brown lines on the leg are the
same; the system of folds is the same; and in both vases we find brown
intermediate folds in the region of the elbow. The hands are hardly comparable,
since they are not in the same position : for parallels to the Vatican hands we
may turn to the Rollin man, who has his left hand drawn in the same manner,
78 J. D. BEAZLEY
the same pair of brown lines on the left forearm, and the same black line at the
spring of the fingers in the right hand.
Leaving, for the moment, the obverse of the Vatican vase, let us turn to
another vase of exactly the same type, an amphora of Panathenaic shape in
Naples, and inspect the youth on the reverse (Fig. 4).16 I have taken the
liberty of adding the dotted nipple, which is present in the original and has been
overlooked by the Italian draughtsman : I would also remark that the ankle
lines do not really meet below, as would seem from the reproduction. In the
Naples youth, the triangle at the pit of the stomach is absent, one of the sides
being omitted, and there is no brown vertical line on the left breast. Moreover,
as the left hand is held lower, there is room for the brown body-markings which
are absent in the Vatican man, but are given in just the same way in the Rollin
vase and in our amphora. In nearly every other respect the Naples youth is as
like the Vatican man as could be, and the strips on which they stand are
decorated with the same, by no means common, pattern. I would invite the
reader to compare the Naples youth, not only with the Vatican man, but with
the two others, to make sure that I am not gradually leading him astray.
Fig. 5 reproduces a fragment in Athens, found on the Acropolis.17 The
curve of the fragment suggests that the vase was an amphora of Panathenaic
shape. Here we find once more the two brown lines on the neck, the recurving
collar-bone, in which the recurve is of just the same length as in the Naples
youth, the brown line bounding the shoulder, the little brown arc in the middle
of the deltoid, the dotted nipple, the short brown vertical line on the breast,
the loose folds of the himation on the left of the drawing, the end of the himation
flung over the left forearm, the intermediate brown line between this and the
shoulder-folds. There are three lines on the left forearm instead of two, but so
there are on the right forearm of the Rollin man : the only new detail is the
tiny brown arc emphasising the jutting wrist.
In Fig. 6, one of three figures on the reverse of a stamnos in the Louvre,18
the himation is worn differently, concealing the left arm and hand : the subject
of the drapery, if one may so speak, is not the same as in the five previous
figures. In other respects the himation is as like the Vatican and Naples
himation as possible : the same system of folds from left and right, the same
left leg line, the same rendering of the inside of the garment at neck and flank.
The forms of the body — shoulder, neck, breast, arms, legs, feet and ankles —
are the same as before : the only difference is that the figure being more
summarily executed, nipples and vertical breast lines are left out. The little
arc at the heads of the biceps appeared on the Rollin vase. In the rendering
of the pit of the stomach, the new figure stands midway between the Naples
youth and the Vatican man : the triangle is complete, but the third side of
it is in brown, not in black. The proportions of the figure are shorter than in
16 Gabrici, Mon. Line. xxii. PI. 82. The vase have been found, but I have not seen
two long faint lines on the himation from them.
mid forearm to elbow are sketch-lines. 18 G 186; the obverse, Cat. Coll. A.
17 G 139a; the letter after the numeral B(arre), PL 5. Height of the figure re-
suggests that other fragments of the same produced, 19- 7 centimetres.
<TIHAK<>KI>rs
79
the other vases, for it is one of three figures on the reverse of a broad vase, not
the single figure on the reverse of a tall vase.
Another example of the Louvre type of himation is given in Fig. 7, the
youth on the reverse of a column-krater in Petrograd.19 The figure is frag-
mentary, and the upper part of the right ankle is missing. The profile nipple
is new to us ; but nothing else. I will only remark that the pattern below the
picture is the same as in the Vatican and Naples vases.
The only other reverse figure which I shall show comes from a Panathenaic
amphora in Munich (Fig. 8).20 The himation of the Munich youth takes us
back to our first type : it stands particularly close to the Naples and Vatican
himatia; while the line of the
lower edge, with the two garment
ends on our extreme right, is
exactly as in the Rollin vase.
We have mentioned eight
vases; but hitherto we have
considered the figures on the
reverse only : let us now turn
the vases round and look at
the obverse, beginning with the
Vatican vase.
The discobolos (PI. III.) re-
sembles his friend on the reverse
in all comparable features. As
the discobolos is naked, we are
able to study the rendering of
parts which were concealed by
clothing in the reverse figures :
especially the hips, the thighs,
the knees and the calves. A
second naked figure is the Eros
on the front of the Naples vase.21
The breast of Eros, with all its brown lines, is rendered in the familiar
way, except that in the boyish figure the triangle at the pit of the stomach
is absent : arms, neck, and profile foot are as usual ; and the lines of the
profile leg are the same as in the Vatican athlete. Now the very fellow of
the Vatican discobolos is the discobolos on the obverse of the Panathenaic
amphora in Munich mentioned above (PI. IV. 2). The two pictures speak for
themselves : one figure is in profile, the other frontal, but wherever you
can compare them they tally, even to the whisker. The nipples are both
in profile; but we noticed a profile nipple in the Petrograd youth. The
FIG. 5. — ACROPOLIS G 139 a.
" 635 (St. 1528); the obverse, Compte-
rendu, 1873, p. 22. Height of the figure
on the reverse, including the pattern, 23
centimetres.
•° 2313 (J. 9). The obverse, PL IV. 2.
Height of the figures, including the pattern :
obverse, 26'7 centimetres; reverse, '24 ."»
centimetres.
11 Mon. Line. xxii. PI. 82.
80 J. D. BEAZLEY
frontal knee, leg and ankle find close parallels in the Naples Eros. The render-
ing of arms, breast, neck, profile foot and ankles, and all the parts which a
himation would leave visible, are the same as in the series of reverse figures.
The Munich vase bears the love-name Socrates, which occurs on only one other
vase, the Petrograd column-krater which we have already considered. A third
discobolos is inseparable from the two in the Vatican and in Munich : he
decorates the obverse of another, somewhat earlier, Panathenaic amphora in
Munich (PI. IV. I).22 The satyrs on a third vase in Munich, of the same
shape as the other two (PL V.),23 preserve all the bodily features of the
Vatican discobolos and of the other naked figures with which we have com-
pared it. These satyrs find their very fellows on another still grander vase,
the Berlin amphora 2160.24 Finally, on one of the plates in Furtwangler-
Reichhold, Hauser has published two amphorae of Panathenaic shape, one in
Munich and one in Wiirzburg.25 The Munich vase looks somewhat earlier
than the other, but the drawing of the forms is the same in both, and the same
as in all the figures, reverse or obverse, mentioned above. Reichhold's pictures
will show that at a glance : to enumerate the resemblances would be merely to
make a list of the parts of the body. But let us turn back for a moment to the
first vase we mentioned, the citharode amphora, and compare it with the last,
the Wurzburg vase.26 The subjects are totally different, and the clothing in the
one — cloak and lionskin — naturally offers few points of comparison with the
clothing in the other — chiton and himation. But look at the naked parts :
the neck, the breast and shoulder with all their boundaries and inner markings,
the arms, the feet and ankles. Lastly, the Munich Perseus vase : 27 the short
chiton worn by Perseus offers a parallel for the delicate system of gently waving
brown lines in the chiton of our citharode : the chiton of Medusa terminates
below in the same pair of engrailed black lines as our citharode's : the lower
border of Perseus' chiton is different, but it interests us nevertheless : it consists
of two narrow bands, one set with black dots, the other filled in with brown :
invert it, and you have the border of the apron which hangs from our cithara.
The band filled in with brown sounds a simple sort of border; but actually it
is not at all common in vase-painting.
It will be admitted, I think, that the thirteen vases described above are
closely interconnected. We had to examine them consecutively, but we were
continually referring back and across. Shuffle the thirteen, inspect them in
any order you like, and they will be found to belong to the same suit.
It cannot be maintained that the points in which these figures resemble
one another or one the rest are trifling, few, or restricted to one part of the
figure. They comprise both the master lines which in archaic art demarcate
11 2310 (J. 1). Height of the figure, 26 24 Gerhard, E.C.V. Pis. 8-9; J.H.S.
centimetres. The horizontal line on the xxxi. Pis. 15-16 and p. 276. The only
left ankle represents a string. reproductions which do justice to the beauty
23 2311 (J. 52). Height of the figures, of the original are those published by Winter
25'8 and 24'2 centimetres. The surface of in Jahrefihcjte, 3, Pis. 3 and 4, and 5, 1. A
the legs has suffered a great deal, so that new publication is promised in Furtwangler-
much of the inner marking has dis- Reichhold.
appeared. " PI. 134. 2« PI. 134, 1. « PI. 134, 2.
ClTHAIIOKDfS
81
the several parts of the body and of the drapery, and the minor lines which
subdivide or diversify the areas thus demarcated. We may speak, in fact, of
a coherent and comprehensive system of representing the forms of the human
body naked and clothed.
The system is not restricted to the thirteen vases described. It appears on
FIG. 6. — LOUVRE G 186: PART OF B.
FIG. 7. — PETROGRAD 635: B.
a much larger number of vases : I have given a list before, and I repeat it
rearranged, and increased by several items, later in these pages.28 To point
out the resemblances between the vases which we have examined, and the others
in the list, would take a long time, and part of the work I have done elsewhere.
I will confine myself to one or two details which bear upon the citharode vase.
The double band of pattern — a band with dots, and a band filled in with brown
" See p. 91 and note.
J.H.S. — VOL. XI. II.
82 J. D. BEAZLEY
— which we noticed on the apron of the cithara, as well as on the chiton of
Perseus in the Munich Perseus vase, recurs on the embroidered chiton of
Athena in the Munich stamnos and the London volute-krater.29 For the
wavy brown gold lines on the citharode's chiton we may refer to the chiton of
Thetis on the volute-krater or of the woman on the fragment in the Cabinet
des MSdailles.30 Finally, the himation of the man on the reverse : compare
the himation of Apollo on the volute-krater, and, as far as it goes, that of
Triton on the small neck-amphora in Harvard.31 We have already looked at
one of the reverse figures on the Louvre stamnos G 186 (Fig. 6) : we observed
that the himation was not worn in the same way as in the vases which we had
previously examined ; but if we turn to the obverse of the stamnos 32 we shall
find the excellent Chiron wearing his himation shorter, it is true, than fashion
would have prescribed in Athens, but in just the same manner as the instructor
on the citharode vase and all his companions ; and the rendering of the folds is
exactly the same.
This system of renderings cannot be said to be the system universal at the
•period. It will hardly be disputed that the neck-amphora E 278 in the British
Museum ^ belongs to the same period as the vases we have examined, that is
to say, it is not later than the latest of them or earlier than the earliest. Now
the attitude of the Apollo on the London vase is very like that of the Apollo on
the Wiirzburg vase mentioned above ; but if we place the two figures side by
side, we shall hardly find a feature or a line in the one body which is the least
like the corresponding feature or line in the other. The system of renderings
in the London vase is totally different from the Wiirzburg system. Like the
Wiirzburg system, the London system is not confined to one vase, but reappears
on a good many others ; M for instance, on the New York amphora reproduced
immediately after the London vase in my Vases in America.35
Let it be assumed that the London vase and its fellows are a little earlier
or a little later than the vases of our group : admitted, as it must be, that both
these and the London vase belong to the ripening or ripe archaic period ; but
denied, that the two groups can be called contemporary. It may then be
contended that the relation of our system to others is still that of a temporal
sequence : that ours is the system of a shorter period within the riper archaic
period ; a decade, say, or a year. But our system is not confined to the thirteen
vases mentioned above : it appears, as we shall see, in a much larger number ;
but among this number there is not one cup. Such a cup may turn up to-
morrow ; but even so the other vase-shapes will continue to have an immense
preponderance. Is it possible to think that during the assumed universal
prevalence of this system, the decoration of cups was wholly suspended or the
29 F.R.H. PI. 106, 2 ; J.H.S. xxxi. PI. 14. but the reproduction of the himation is
30 De Bidder, p. 280. sufficient for comparison.
81 V.A. p. 39. 3S B.S.A. xviii. Pis. 11-12 and p. 221;
32 Cat. Coll. A. B(arre), PL 5; Chiron the Apollo only, V.A. p. 45.
alone, Morin-.Tean, Le dessin des animaux 34 See B.S.A. xviii. pp. 217-233, and xix.
en Orece d"apr£s lea vases peints, p. 108. p. 245; V.A. pp. 45-47.
Neither drawing is accurate, and Morin- s5 V.A. p. 46.
Jean omits all the brown lines on the limbs ;
CITHAROEDUS *<
output at any rate vastly decreased? Is it not more natural to consider
that many of the very numerous cups which we still possess were painted
contemporaneously with the thirteen vases and their companions, but painted
in quarters where this system of renderings was not employed ?
The system of renderings described above stands in a certain relation to
nature : the individual ren-
derings are more or less
inspired by nature, that is,
by a desire to reproduce the
actual forms of the body.
But nature does not ordain
that an ankle or a breast
must be rendered in just this
way and no other. Nor does
nature insist, that once you
have drawn an ankle with
black lines of a certain shape,
you must put a vertical line
on the chest, or a little arc
in the middle of the deltoid.
But on the vases, the one
rendering brings the other
with it : where you find this
ankle you find these lines,
and the rest of the render-
ings, within reasonable limits,
are predictable.
It may be objected that
this system cannot be segre-
gated as I have segregated it,
that it passes insensibly into
other systems, so that one
cannot say where it begins
and where it ends. Now
there would be no cause for
wonder if the edges of its
area were somewhat blurred ;
but they are not blurred.
Memorise the system, and
walk through the Louvre or the British Museum : you will not be in doubt
on which vases it is present or on which absent. Or turn over the pages of a
large collection of good reproductions : Furtwangler-Reichhold, or Hoppin's
Handbook of Signed Vases. I think everyone will admit that it occurs on
three vases in the first book, and three only, and that no other vase in the
book shows anything the least like it ; and that in the second book it does
not occur at all.
02
Fit;. 8.— MUNICH 2313: B.
84 J. D. BEAZLEY
A system so definite, coherent, distinctive, and in some respects so wilful,
is most easily intelligible as a personal system : inspired in some measure by
observation of nature, influenced and in part determined by tradition, and
communicable or prescribable to others; but the child, above all else, of one
man's brain and will. The personal character of the system does not necessarily
imply that all the works which exhibit it are the work of one hand. Suppose
we took a member of the group — the citharode amphora, or the Wiirzburg
vase ; or let us say a single figure, the citharode, or the Apollo — and asked the
question, at what point in the genesis of the work the system of renderings
entered into it ; three kinds of answer might be given. First, the figure before
us may be a substantive work, the man who executed it having also designed
it. If E be the execution, R the system of renderings, and D the design, the
work done by the executant may be roughly represented by the formula
E + R + D.
Secondly, the figure may be a copy, the man who executed it not having
designed it, but having made a faithful reproduction of a model which was
rendered in R. The executant's share of the work may be represented by E :
R + D being the work of another man.
Thirdly, the figure may be a translation, the man who executed it not
having designed it, but having reproduced a model, which was not, however,
rendered in R but in another system : R being imported by the executant,
whose share of the work may be represented by E + R : D being the work of
another man.
The whole group of vases which we have been studying may consist of sub-
stantive works ; or of copies ; or of translations ; or of any two ; or of all three.
I think it is inconceivable that R can have been a copyist's system and no
more. It was we who detached it from the other formal elements in the vases
where it appears, and dealt with its particulars piecemeal. But a system so
clearly and carefully thought and felt out, so adequate to express a definite
conception of the human form, must have been originally inherent, must have
had its home, in a number of finished figures. It cannot have been meant to
be clapped beside alien designs like a kind of substitution table. And if
merely a copyist's system, how could it have kept itself pure through a number
of years ; always at the beck of others, yet not losing or altering anything in
itself ? The foreign forms continually in front of him, and the constant criticism
of his superiors, must have ended by wreaking some change or confusion in the
copyist's style. ,
It may be that some of the vases which exhibit this system are copies of
designs executed on another system; but the main function of the system
cannot have been translation. All sorts of borrowing went on in the Ceramicus ;
but if the system was applied to an alien design, it would so transmute it that
the result would be a more or less substantive work.
We have now to consider the two other possibilities : substantive work,
or faithful copy of a model. In both cases the system of renderings, and the
other formal elements, cohere ; the second case moves the ' original ' a degree
farther back.
CITHAROEDUS 85
That the vases of our group are all copies is unlikely : it seems to me that
the tendency to degrade the actual executant of the vase-painting into little
more than a mere mechanic, and to separate him from a presumed designer,
' the only true artist ' in the matter, is incorrect. We do not know very much
about the organisation of potter's industry in Athens, but we know enough to
be sure that the analogy of great modern industrial establishments like Creusot
or Renault is a fallacious one.36 Modern industries of the kind depend on
standardisation, on the production of an immense number of replicas. Now
replicas exist among ancient vase-paintings, but on nothing like the scale which
we should expect to find if the industry was regularly organised on the principle
of one design copied in great numbers. That more or less faithful copies of
successful vases or of other models by successful artists were made by younger
or lesser men in some of the ancient establishments I am ready to believe;
but not that in the majority of vases the designer of the drawings is different
from the executant.
The application of a system of renderings, someone may say, is not sufficient
to create a work of art; and the detection of s.uch a system in a number of
vases is not equivalent to an exhaustive examination of their content. There
are aspects of the citharode amphora, for example, or of the Wiirzburg vase,
which I have hitherto seemed to be wholly or partially disregarding. There
is the material aspect — the nature of clay, glaze, instruments employed, and
the like. There are the shape, features and proportions of the vessel itself.
There are, finally, those aspects which come under the general heading of
design — the arrangement of dark with light, and of line with line, to form a
pattern (design in the narrower sense), and to represent something in nature
(theme, movement, ethos and pathos). Now with the material aspect we
need not concern ourselves : the recipes for making the clay and the glaze, for
forming the pot, and so forth, reached their final form early in the sixth century ;
the brush was perfected later, but by the time of our vases it had been long in
common use : these things do not alter from the early days of the red-figured
period to the latest. As to the shape of the vases, I have said something and
shall say more later. The aspect of design remains.
Let us give our attention, first of all, to the distribution of the figure- work.
We make a distinction between decoration which consists of a single figure,
and that which consists of more than one : single and plural decoration. If
the vase has two sides, and a figure on each side, this counts as single decoration,
even although the two figures may be connected in subject and motive; since
only one of the figures can be seen at a time. Now both single and plural
decoration occur in our group, as we should indeed expect ; but there is a marked
• These firms are not specified by Mr. n'eussent jarnais tenu la poterie entre leurs
Pettier, but I submit that I am not mis- mains et pourtant quo cette oeuvre d'art
interpreting the implication of the following fut vraiment lo produit de leur intelligence,
passage (Catalogue des vatca du Louvre, 3, eomino aujourd'hui quelque engin formid-
p. 705), where the author is speaking of able de 1'industrie metallurgique sort d'un
the heads of the workshops, whom he atelier, sans que celui qui 1'a cree et con-
supposes to have provided tin- executants struit 1'ait seulement touche du bout du
with models: 'II pourrait se faire qu'ils doigt.'
86 J. D. BEAZLEY
preference for single decoration. This liking is not confined to our group :
it is characteristic of the ripe archaic period, apart from the cups, as a whole ;
but in our group it is more pronounced than in almost any other. This is not
merely a consequence of many of the vases in our groups being tall thin vases,
such as amphorae of Panathenaic shape or neck-amphorae. Single decoration
suits such shapes, but they can be decorated plurally, and sometimes were so
decorated by contemporary artists. And in our group single decoration is not
restricted to tall thin vases. The four bell-kraters 37 are all decorated singly,
and single decoration is rare in bell-kraters.38 Again, the list contains three
hydriai of the old black-figured shape. Two of the three have plural decoration,
but one of them, in the single figure between palmettes which forms the sub-
sidiary picture, that on the shoulder of the vase, shows a leaning towards the
favourite principle. The third hydria is very interesting ; 39 for obvious reasons,
it is difficult to apply the single system to this type of vase ; but here it is done :
the subsidiary picture, on the shoulder, has been dropped; the sharp angle
which separates shoulder from body has been boldly ignored ; and the magni-
ficent design has been flung o%ver both parts, so that head to waist of Apollo
are on the shoulder of the vase, and the rest of the figure on the body. The
same tendency is traceable in the Berlin amphora : *° it was hard to think of
a single figure which could be made ample enough to decorate the side of this
huge vase without looking dwarfed : there are actually two figures on the
front, not to speak of an animal ; but they are set so closely together, and their
projecting limbs and attributes so interlaced, that the two, or the three, tell
as one.41
The use and the nature of the ornamental patterns chimes with this love
of sparse figure decoration. Patterns are used sparingly in our group. It is
true, as I have hinted before, that the riper archaic period is less lavish of its
patterns than the periods which follow and precede it ; but our group is sparing
even for the period. In the whole long list there are only two vases in which the
pictures are framed by bands of pattern. Palmettes at the handles are rare,
and of the simplest description : floral or other decoration on the neck of the
vase is also rather rare ; even the rays at the base, common in other sparsely-
decorated vases, are almost unknown. The pattern decoration usually con-
sists of a short strip below, and sometimes another above the picture. In the
stamnoi the lower strip is often a simple reserved line; in the Panathenaic
amphorae the lower strip is sometimes omitted, just as in our citharode amphora,
87 See p. 94. the neck; they are duly present in the
38 I know but two other examples ; original.
Petrograd inv. 13387 (Izveatiya, xiii, pp. *° P. 91.
188-189), and the small vase formerly in 4l There is only one rf. amphora of type
the Kircheriano and now in the Villa Giulia A or B which has but a single figure on
(A, Mon. Line. xiv. p. 307). The Villa either side ; the Achilles amphora in the
Giulia vase is by the Achilles painter (J.H.S. Vatican (Mua. Greg, ii, PI. 58, 3 ; A, J.H.S.
xxxiv. 179-226; V.A. pp. 163-164), who xxxiv. 180; phots. Alinari 35816 and
continues in a later age the tradition of our 35815). The Achilles painter, as I have
group. observed before (note 38), continues the
39 P. 95. Alinari's excellent photo- tradition of our group,
graphs do not show the two brown lines on
CITHAROEDUS- 87
so that the vase is devoid of all pattern decoration. Such patterns as occur in
our group are very often of a peculiarly simple type. The normal meander,
with its maze of interlocking lines, is pretty frequent ; but not nearly so frequent
as in most contemporary and later groups of vases. The place of the meander
is often taken by much simpler forms of pattern, forms which are generally
included, and with reason, under the general term meander, but which I prefer
to distinguish as ' key patterns.' There are two types : the running key,
which is found occasionally in our group, and is common enough in others;
and the stopt key, which is curiously rare outside our group, and extremely
common within it.42 The tendency to use the key-pattern where other groups
would use the more complicated meander is another manifestation of the love
of simplicity and clarity which characterises our group.
The rhythmic combination of meander with pattern-square is a decorative
idea which seems to have arisen in Eastern Greece and in the eighth or seventh
century : it passed into the repertory of Attic vase-painters in the course of
the sixth, became extraordinarily popular in the riper archaic period, and
retained its popularity as long as the art of the vase-painter continued to
flourish.
This class of pattern is common in our group, as in most others of the
period : stopt key and meander are found combined with pattern-squares.
But the combination is almost always according to a particular principle : this
principle is rare outside our group, and if it becomes not infrequent, for a while,
later, it is almost restricted to certain groups of vases which, on other grounds,
would seem to be related to ours. The principle is this : stopt-meander-
groups (generally one stopt key, or one or two stopt meanders) and pattern-
squares are so arranged, that the meander-groups face alternately left
and right, while the pattern-squares hang alternately from the upper and
the lower horizontal bounding line.43 The pattern-unit is therefore a large one :
it consists of two different meander-groups and two different pattern-squares :
the recurrence of the pattern is postponed as long as possible. The consequence
is that the pattern-band has a longer, gentler wave than other combinations
of meander and pattern-square.
It is significant that out of the various kinds of pattern-square used by
red-figure painters, our group shows a distinct predilection for one : the most
linear of them, that in which the effect depends least on the semi-colouristic
contrast of dark and light : the saltire-square with a dot between each
pair of arms. Significant, because the other pattern-squares catch the eye
quicker and hold it firmer, breaking the pattern-band up into short staccato
sections.
Most of the patterns used in the group fall under one of the two headings,
stopt key; and stopt key or meander combined with pattern-squares on the
principle described above. A handsome floral pattern is also used : a special
variety, rare outside the group, of a common general type.
It may be well to point out here, that throughout the history of vase-
« E. g. Figs. 4, 7, 8; Pis. III., IV. 2. «» Examples of this principle; J.H.S.
xxxi. 279, NOB. 2-5 and 7.
88 J. D. BEAZLEY
painting the pattern-group tends to coincide with the stylistic group, and this
is natural enough : there is no reason to suppose that the patterns were not
regularly executed by the same hand as the figures ; the labour may sometimes
have been divided, though I do not for a moment believe that it was often so ;
but even then the artist of the figures would naturally prescribe the patterns.
Two examples only. In many of the cups signed by the painter Douris,44
the interior picture is surrounded by a variety of meander and cross-square
pattern : this variety of pattern, and even the particular sort of meander which
is one of the elements, are rarely found in vases which do not exhibit the style
of Douris. Again, the painter Makron encircles the interior picture in his
cups with a meander of a particular kind, the meander running in twos. This
is not a rare pattern like Douris' patterns ; but Makron uses hardly any other :
there is only one cup in his style which has it not.
It cannot be said that the comparatively few examples of plural composition
in our group are in any way peculiar. Throughout archaic painting, the plural
schemes are few, and the main lines of a composition are seldom of an
unfamiliar type. It may be merely by chance that one common type is very
rarely found in the vases of our list : the two-figure composition consisting
of two restful figures facing each other.
Let us now consider the separate figures, whether isolated or grouped with
others. We shall expect to find that they have much in common with the other
figures of the riper archaic period, particularly in their relation to ideal space.
It is well known that towards the end of the sixth century a great advance
was made in the exploration of the third dimension.45 The new concep-
tion of form in space manifests itself in a good many ways ; but most obviously
in the treatment of leg and foot. The more usual foreshortenings of foot and
leg are used freely in our group. In a standing figure, one of the legs may be
drawn frontal with the foot seen from the front ; in a running or flying figure, one
leg may be drawn frontal with the foot extended frontally as if seen from above.
Three-quarter views of the back appear in the riper vases, and a three-quarter
foot of a special form. The chest is often three-quartered, sometimes timidly,
in the later vases with more courage ; and a certain desire to give depth to the
upper part of the body is shown by indication of the trapezius, where it would
be ignored in other groups ; and of the front of the farther shoulder when the
upper part of the arm is concealed. On the whole, the attitude towards fore-
shortening is one of moderation : the more uncommon postures do not occur :
there is no full back- view ; and none of the daring experiments which we find
in the work of the Panaitios painter and others. This moderation is consonant
with the love of clarity to which we have alluded, and with the love of varied
contour of which we shall presently speak.
Let us now turn to the relation of the figure to the actual background :
44 Hoppin, Handbook, pp. 208-275, Nos. examples in sculptured relief, the warrior
4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27. seen from behind on the cornice of the archaic
45 V.A. pp. 27-28; Ancient Gems in Artemision at Ephesus (Hogarth, Ephesus,
Lewes House, pp. 21-22; where I should PI. 17, 30).
have mentioned, as one of the earliest
CITHAROEDUS 89
the contour. I think we may trace in this group of vases a special concern to
make the contour at once harmonious and interesting : harmonious, by the
use of long gentle curves ; interesting, by the careful disposition of long pro-
jections radiating from the centre of the design — arms, legs, wings, big objects
in the hands. I say a special concern, since the concern for harmony or interest
in the contour is obviously widespread in vase-painting; but it sometimes
happens that the contour is harmonious without being particularly interesting,
or interesting without being particularly harmonious ; and in many vases one
feels that not the contour but something else has been uppermost in the artist's
mind. One of the grandest examples of the combination is the group, already
discussed, on the obverse of the Berlin amphora. I think it is possible to trace
a real kinship between this design and the design on the Apollo hydria in the
Vatican. I mention these two first because they are perhaps the two most
complex. But I do not think it is fanciful to find something of the same quality
in simpler designs : of course in the Munich silens ; but also in the London
komast, in the Munich discoboloi, in the Naples Eros, in the Wiirzburg Apollo
and Herakles, in the Louvre Ganymede ; even in the earliest vase of the whole
group, the hydria with Achilles and Penthesilea in New York ; and even in a
fragment like the Nike in the Cabinet des Me"dailles.
Even in the best vases of this group, relief lines are used but sparingly in
the contour. This economy of relief lines is not due to haste, as it is in the
reverse figures of most vases, and in the principal figures of many. It is
evidently deliberate : the contour is the softer though not the weaker for not
being completely lined in.
How far the effect of these figures and of the others is due to the contour
and how far to the lines within the contour is not always easy to determine.
The two sets of lines work together, and their spirit, one is inclined to say
their inspiration, is the same. The character of the lines within the contour
seems to be determined by the same feeling as the contour line : by the dislike
of the harsh, abrupt, violent and unsymmetrical, by the love of equable, har-
monious curves, usually with a wave-like flexure, drawn with a rather full
brush, and dividing the body into compartments of a clear and pleasant
shape. „ .
A word about the shapes of the vases in this group. The range is wide ;
but there are no kotylai, and above all no cups. Some shapes are commoner
than others : the Panathenaic amphorae form a considerable proportion of the
extant red-figured specimens : next to these, stamnoi and neck-amphorae with
twisted handles are the most frequent, and of the smaller vases, Nolan amphorae
and lekythoi. It is more important to observe that the vases of one class of
shape are apt to be of a single, sometimes a peculiar variety ; to have proportions
and features (mouth, foot, handles) in common, and to resemble each other in
the distribution of the figures and the distribution and nature of the orna-
mental patterns. Now we noticed above that the pattern group tended to
coincide with the stylistic group : the same may be said of the shape group.
This rule, like the other, may be illustrated from the work of Douris and of
Makron. Nearly all the signed cups of Douris have a curious feature below the
90 J. D. BEAZLEY
foot : the reserved strip at the edge of the foot below is set off from the rest
of the foot by a ledge. This ledge is a regular feature in a type of cup which
was used by the earliest red-figure cup-painters ; but in the type of cup which
Douris generally uses, the commonest of the red-figured cup types, it is rare
outside the signed or unsigned work of Douris. The cups painted by Makron,
which include most of the cups with the signature of the potter Hieron, also
have a peculiarity in the foot ; the little ledge, seldom lacking in the commonest
type of cup on the upper side of the foot, is set particularly near the edge.
The cause of the affinity between shape group and stylistic group is not so
obvious as the cause of the other affinity : it points at any rate to a close
connexion between the potter and the decorator ; but the question need not
be examined here.
To sum up, we began by speaking about a peculiar system of renderings,
through which a certain conception of the human form found expression. We
found that the vases which exhibited the system had more than this in common :
they showed, as a group, a liking for a certain choice and use of patterns, for
certain principles of decoration, for a certain relationship between contour
and background, for lines and curves of certain kinds. The system of render-
ings was not easy to separate from the other elements of design : it was, from
one point of view, their vehicle, and from another, a collateral expression of
artistic will.
I believe the best way of explaining the homogeneity of this group of
vases is to suppose that it represents the work of a single anonymous artist,
whom I have called, after his masterpiece, the painter of the Berlin amphora.
I am ready to admit that some of the vases in the following list may be school-
pieces, or, more precisely, faithful copies of the artist's drawings executed by
subordinates at his instigation and under his supervision, although I confess
that some of those pieces which I have queried may possibly be authentic
works of the Berlin painter in a dull or a careless mood. I admit such a
resemblance between the works of the Berlin painter and the works of older
and of younger artists as may be accounted for by the necessary supposition
that he learnt his craft from others, by the natural one that he trained
assistants to follow in his steps. . But between his masters — Phintias, or
Euthymides, or both, or another — and his pupils — Hermonax and the rest
— his personality stands out as distinct as that of Douris, or Epiktetos, or
Euphronios, or Polygnotos, or any other vase-painter whose name has been
preserved.
ClTHAkoKDrs 91
WORKS BY THE BERLIN PAINTER AND HIS SCHOOL 48
Amphora, type A.
(1) Berlin 2160. Gerhard, E.C.V. Pis. 8-9; Winter, Jahreshefte, 3,
Pis. 4, 3 and 5, 1 and p. 121 ; J.H.S. xxxi. Pis. 15-16 and p. 276.47
Amphora, type C.
(2) New York, Hearst collection. PI. II. and Figs. 1-2.
Amphorae of Panalhenaic shape.
(3) Vatican. Mus. Greg, ii., PL 58, 2; phots. Alinari 35775-6.
(4) Munich 2312 (J. 54). F.R.H. PL 134, 1, and text, 3, p. 77.
(5) Munich 2310 (J. 1). PL IV, 1 ; A, V.A. p. 35.
(6) Munich 2313 (J. 9). PL IV, 2 and Fig. 8; A, J.H.S. xxxi. PL 8, 2.
(7) Vatican H. 488. Mus. Greg. ii. PL 58, 1 ; A, J.H.S. xxxi. PL 8, 1 ; A
and B, phots. Alinari 35773-4 = PL III.
(8) Cabinet des Medailles 386, fragment. De Ridder, p. 280.
(9) Wurzburg 319. F.R.H. PL 134, 2.
(10) Bryn Mawr, fragment. J.H.S. xxxi. PL 10, 1 ; Swindler, A.J.A. 1916,
p. 334.
(11) Naples R.C. 163. Gabrici, Man. Line. xxii. PL 82 ; B, Fig. 4.
(12) Florence 3989.
(13) Leyden 18 h 34. J.H.S. xxxi. PL 13.
(14) Munich 2311 (J. 52). PL V. ; A, .7.//.S. xxxi. 278; A, V.A. p. 36.
(15) Athens, Acropolis G 139a, fragment. Fig. 5.
46 I have already put together most of Finally he steps into the ring himself :
these vases in J.H.S. xxxi. 276-295 ; ' a la liste qui en (of the artist's works) a
linrliwitnn M<ifja~ine, xxviii. pp. 137-138; ete dressee, nous serions tentes d'ajouter
and V.A. pp. 35-40 and p. 193. See also le groupe d'Alcee et de Sapho ' (F.R. PI.
Hauser, F.R.H. 3, pp. 77-80, and Perrot, 64 ; Perrot, x. PI. 15). This looks almost aa
Histoire de VArt, x. pp. 630-634. if Mr. Perrot accepted the list; else why
Mr. Perrot exhibits considerable caution should he be tempted to add to it ? Let
at first ; between the Berlin and Wurzburg us now see the tokens (' indices ') which lead
vases, he begins, there is ' une resemblance him to make this striking attribution,
assez marquee pour que Ton soil fort tente ' L'oeil n'y est pas encore franchement
d'y voir I'oeuvre d'un meme artiste, auquel ouvert ; le trac6 est le meme que dans lea
il y a peut-etre lieu d'attribuer plusieurs profils des tetes de nos deux amphores.
autres peintures, qui ne sont pas sans La longue barbe d'Alcee, qui tombe en
analogic avec cellos des deux vases. . . .' pointe sur sa poitrine, rappelle la barbe
Many of my tokens (indices), however, are duSilenecompagnond'Hermes.' Evidently
not very convincing : ' c'est vraiment we must number Mr. Perrot also among the
abuser de la conjecture.' As he proceeds, connoisseurs.
he becomes bolder : he is now ready to In the list in the text above I have given
define the style of the artist (pp. 632, 634). the subjects of the pictures only where the
There is some subtlety hero which escapes vase was unpublished and not mentioned
me : one would have expected Mr. Perrot in my previous accounts,
to make quite sure that tin- artist existed 47 See not
before attempting to define his style.
92 J. D. BEAZLEY
(16) Formerly in the Paris market (Rollin). EL Cer. ii. PI. 16.
(17) London, B.M. E 287. A small school-piece.
The small vase Cabinet des Medailles 378 (Luynes, PL 40) belongs to the
later school or following of the Berlin painter.
Neck-amphorae with twisted handles.
(18) B.M. E 266. J.H.S. xxxi. Pis. 11-12 and p. 281.
(19) Louvre G 199, fragmentary.
(20) Munich 2319 ( J. 8). School-piece ?
(21) Petrograd 612 (St. 1638). A, Compte-Rendu, 1775, p. 66. School-
piece ?
(22) B.M. E 268. EL Cer. i. PL 76. School-piece?
(23) Leyden 18 h 33. EL Cer. i. PL 76 A. School-piece ?
(24) Berlin 2339. School-piece ?
(25) B.M. E 269. School-piece?
(26) B.M. E 267. Birch, Archaeologia, xxxi. PL 4. School-piece ?
(27) Louvre G 198, fragmentary. School-piece?
(28) Vatican H. 490, fragmentary. Mus. Greg. ii. PL 59, 3. School-piece ?
(29) Munich 2318 (J. 5). F. Thiersch, Ueber die hellenischen bemalten Vasen,
PL 5; B, Lau, PL 25, 1. Badly repainted. School-piece?
(30) Oxford 274. P. Gardner, Ashmolean Vases, PL 11. A small school-
piece.48
Small neck-amphora with double handles.
(31) Harvard 1643, 95. A, V.A. p. 39; A, Hambidge, The Greek Vase,
frontispiece and p. 45.
Nolan amphorae with triple handles.
(32) Formerly in the Panckoucke collection. A, EL Cer. iv. PL 49.
(33) Naples 3137. A, small photograph, Sommer 11069, third row first.
(34) Louvre G 201.
(35) Mannheim.
(36) Naples 3192.
(37) Vienna.
48 All these vases, save the small vase in p. 199, and Waldhauer, Kratkoe Opisanie,
Oxford, are of a single type. There are PI., p. 88, Fig. 9) is by a pupil of the Berlin
only five other vases of just this type : painter, Hermonax ; the foot is lost, but
the first, Munich 2317 (Jahn 2; Liitzow, in all other respects the vase corresponds to
M&nchener Antiken, PI. 18 and p. 30), is the Berlin painter's type. The last and
contemporary with the earlier members of latest is the Euphorbos vase in the Cabinet
our series, and is the work of the Eucharides des M6dailles (Mon. ii. PI. 14 ; A, phot,
painter (B.S.A. xviii. p. 224, No. 6). The Giraudon); it is by the Achilles painter, a
second and third, in Providence (Gerhard, craft-descendant of the Berlin painter in
A.V. PI. 24) and in the Vatican (Mite. the third craft -generation (J.H.S. xxxiv.
Grey. ii. PI. 59, 2; A, phot. Alinari 187, No. 2). We noticed above (note 41)
35813), are by the Providence painter, who that the only amphora of type A or B, which
seems to have been at one time a pupil of was decorated in the same manner as the
the Berlin painter (see note 50) ; the fourth Berlin amphora, was also by the Achilles
(Petrograd 696; A, Compte-rendu, 1875, painter.
CITHAROEDUS
93
(38) New York 07.286.69. A, V.A. p. 37.
(39) Tarporley, Hon. Marshall Brooks (formerly in the Biscoe collection).
(40) Naples 3150. A, small photograph, Sommer 11069, second row,
seventh.
(41) Naples 3087.
(42) Dresden 289. School-piece ?
(43) Carlsruhe 203. Welter, Aus der Karlsruher Vasensammlung, PI. 14,
No. 30 B and A. School-piece ?
(44) Yale 133. School-piece ?
(45) Louvre G 219. School-piece ?
(46) Louvre G 218. School-piece ?
(47) Rome, Museo Barracco. School-piece ?
(48) Tarporley, Hon. Marshall Brooks (formerly in Deepdene). Tischbein,
iii. PL 7 ; £l. C6r. i. PL 99. School-piece ?
(49) Petrograd 697 (St. 1628). School-piece?
(50) Naples inv. 126053.49 School-piece ?
(51) Girgenti, Baron Giudice. School-piece?
(52) Frankfort, Stadtisches-historisches Museum. School-piece ?
(53) B.M. E 310. School-piece?
(54) B.M. E 313. School-piece ?
(55) Louvre G 204. Dubois, Description des antiquites . . . Pourtales-
Gorgier, p. 27; Catalogue Pourtales-Gorgier, p. 29, No. 132; Miiller-
Wieseler, 2, PL 2, 9. School-piece ?
(56) Naples 3214. School-piece ?
(57) Oxford 275. P. Gardner, J.H.S. xiii. 137. School-piece.
(58) Brussels. School-piece.
(59) Naples (A, Dionysos and maenad running ; B, maenad running). School-
piece.
(60) Naples 3068. School-piece.
(61) Villa Giulia (formerly in Augusto Castellani's collection). School-
piece.
(62) Louvre G 214 (Bull. Nap. n.s. 6, PL 7) : a later school-piece.50
<• Hoppin (Handbook, i. p. 62, No. 26)
confounds this vase with Naples Heyd.
3129, which is by a different and much later
painter.
40 The tradition of the Berlin painter's
Nolan amphorae is continued, on the one
hand by the Providence painter (V.A.
pp. 76-80; the Nolan amphorae, ibid.
pp. 78-79), who seems to have detached
himself, however, from the Berlin painter
before very long, and competed with him;
and on the other, more directly, by
Hermonax. Five Nolan amphorae by
Hermonax are mentioned in V.A. p. 127,
Nos. 34-38; others are in London (E 311;
£l Ctr. i. PI. 39) and in Naples (A, Zeus :
B, woman with torches) ; and three rough
vases (Brussels, &l Ctr. iii. PI. 22 ; Dresden
309, and Altenburg 280) are probably also
his. The subsequent stage in the tradition
is represented by the Nolan amphorae of
the Achilles painter and his pupils and
imitators : a list of his Nolan amphorae is
given in J.H.S. pp. 192-196; add Naples
3093 (Triptolemos) and Munich 2336
(J. 263; A, Lau, PI. 24, 2). The Nolan
amphorae of the Achilles painter are
succeeded by those of his pupil, the painter
of the Boston phiale (V.A. pp. 168-169;
add Cambridge 167 and Naples Santangclo
240).
94 J. D. BEAZLEY
Pdikai.
(63) Villa Giulia (formerly in Augusto Castellani's collection).
(64) Vienna, Oest. Mus. 334. A, Masner, PI. 6. School-piece ?
Volute-Kraters.
(65) B.M. E 468. J.H.S. xxxi. PI. 14 and p. 283 : detail, EM. Guide to
the Exhibition illustrating Greek and Roman Life, p. 101, fig. 102.
(66) Louvre G 166, fragments.51
Calyx-Kraters.
(67) Winchester, fragment. Herford, Handbook of Greek Vase Painting,
p. 72.
(68) Athens, Acropolis, G 28, fragments.
(69) Syracuse.
(70) Oxford 291. School-piece?
Bell-Kraters.
(71) Corneto. A, phot. Moscioni = J.H.S. xxxi. PL 10, 2.
(72) Louvre G 174.
(73) Louvre G 175. Annali, 1876, PI. C ; J.H.S. xxxi. 284.
(74) Formerly in the Roman market (Depoletti).
Column-Kraters.
(75) Petrograd 635 (St. 1528). A, Compte-Rendu, 1873, p. 22 ; B, Fig. 7.
(76) Villa Giulia (formerly in Augusto Castellani's collection).
Stamnoi.
i
(77) Munich 2406 (J. 421). Gerhard, A.V. PL 201; F.R.H. PL 106, 2, and
2, p. 235.
(78) Louvre G 56. A, Pettier, Album, PL 95.
(79) Palermo. Inghirami, V.F. i. Pis. 77-78.
(80) Louvre G 186. A, Cat. Coll. A. B(arre), PL 5; one of the figures on
B, Fig. 6.
81 My attribution of Louvre G 166 to modern, and the big palmette-designs on
the Berlin painter (B.S.A. xviii. p. 226 the body are a modern addition. More-
note 1, and V.A. p. 40) was based on the over, unless I am greatly mistaken, the
picture on the reverse. A fresh examina- man who built up the vase used fragments
tion has convinced me that the obverse of two different volute-kraters, one by
pictures (phot. Giraudon = Mons. Piot, the Berlin painter, and one by another
ix. p. 39) are not by the same hand as the artist. It is well known that such a pro-
reverse. I do not think, however, that this ccdure was not uncommon in the last
is an instance of two painters working on century ; Mr. De Mot once told me that he
one vase. The vase is in miserable con- had found a pelike in the Ravestein collec-
dition; Mr. Pottier had already observed tion to consist of fragments from six
that the upper picture on the reverse was different vases,
completely modern ; but the foot is also
CITHAROEDUS 95
(81) Castle Ashby 25. Detail of B, Burl. Mag. xxviii. PI. p. 138, G.
(82) Louvre G 185. A/on. 6-7, PI. 67.
(83) Oxford 1912, 1165 (given by Mr. E. P. Warren). J.H.S. xxxi. PL 17;
the lion, Burl. Mag. xxviii. PI. p. 137, C.
(84) Louvre G 172. Gaz. Arch. 1875, PI. 1, 14-15. School-piece?
(85) Castle Ashby 2.
(86) Berlin 2187, fragment, School-piece?
(87) Leipsic, fragment (head of old man, and shield). School-piece ?
(88) Vatican. Mus. Greg, ii, PI. 21, I.52 School-piece?
(89) B.M. E. 444. School-piece.
(90) Berlin 2186. Annali, 1860, PI. M. School-piece, late.
(91) Boston 91, 226. School-piece.
(92) Boston 91, 227A. Robinson, Cat. PI. p. 152; Hauser, Jahrbuch, xxix.
p. 30. School-piece.
(93) Louvre G 371. Strube, Bilderkreis von Eleusis, PI. 1 = Overbeck, K.M.
PI. 15, No. 20. School-piece.
Louvre G 370 ( Mon. 6-7, PI. 58, 2) ; is a school-piece, from the hand of the
Providence painter (V.A. p. 80, no. 43). M
Hydriai of black-figured shape.
(94) Cabinet des Medailles 439. Phot. Giraudon 75. School-piece ?
(95) Madrid 160. Ossorio, PI. 35, 3 ; detail, Burl. Mag. xxviii. p. 136, B.
(96) Vatican H. 497. Mus. Greg. ii. PI. 15, 1; Mon. 1, PI. 46. Phots.
Moscioni 8575 and Alinari 35778-9.
Hydriai-Kalpides.
(97) New York 10, 210, 19. J.H.S. xxxi. PI. 9 and Fig. 7.
(98) Formerly in the Guarducci collection. Inghirami, V.F. i. PI. 63.
(99) Petrograd 628 (St. 1588). Burl. Mag. xxviii. p. 136, A, and p. 139,
D-F.
(100) Boulogne 449.
(101) Boston 03, 843, fragment.
(102) Cabinet des Medailles 441. De Bidder, p. 333. School-piece.
Lekythoi.
(103) Athens 12394 (N. 1628). Eph. Arch. 1907, p. 234.
(104) Palermo (komast).
41 Hoppin (Handbook, i. p. 73, No. 94) Pentheus stamnos mentioned above, in
confounds this vase with the stamnos which a single picture runs right round the
MUA. Greg. ii. PI. 19, 1, which is by the vase, is continued by Hermonax; a list
Aegisthus painter (A.J.A. 1916, p. 147, of hia stamnoi is given in V.A. p 124;
note 1; see Hoppin, 1, p. 79, No. 8). the Busiris stamnos in Oxford (521 : Annali,
*» B.M. E. 445 (Gerhard, A. V. Pis. 174- 1865. Pte. P-Q; J.H.S. xxiv. 307-308)
M5) is a later school-piece, contemporary stands very close to the earlier work of
with the earlier work of Hermonax. The Hermonax.
series of stamnoi initiated by the Oxford
96 J. D. BEAZLEY
(105) Palermo 2683 (young warrior).
(106) Palermo (Nike flying with head frontal).
(107) Syracuse. Orsi, Mon. Line. xvii. PI. 19.
(108) Girgenti, Baron Giudice (Maenad running).
(109) Munich A 915. (Demeter.)
(110) Terranova, Cav. Navarra. Benndorf, G.S.V. PL 49, 2. School-piece.
(111) Girgenti, Baron Giudice (woman running). School-piece.
(112) B.M. E. 574. Phot. Mansell 3195 middle = Walters, Ancient Pottery,
i. PL 36, 2. School-piece.
(113) Palermo (Poseidon running).54 School-piece.
(114) Syracuse. Orsi, Mon. Line. xvii. PL 15, 2. School-piece.
(115) Berlin 2208. Genick, PL 39, 3; von Liicken, Greek Vase Paintings,
PL 48, left. School-piece.
(116) New York (woman running with torch and phiale). School-piece.
(117) Compiegne (woman running with torch). School-piece.
(118) Oxford 323. School-piece.
(119) Harvard 4.08.
(120) Munich 2475 (the body black : a lion on the shoulder).55
Oinochoai, shape 1.
(121) B.M. E 513. El Cer. i. PL 93; phot. Mansell.56
(122) B.M. E 514. El C6r. ii. 1, PL 12. School-piece.
Oinochoai, shape 3.
(123) Munich 2453 (J. 789).
(124) New York. Catalogue des Objets d'Art antiques ' vente ' Hotel Drouot,
le 7 juin 1922, PL 4, no. 56.
Lekanis.
(125) Taranto. School-piece?
Plate.
(126) Athens, Acropolis B9, fragment.
Fragments, the shapes of the vases not determined.
(127) Brussels (two fragments, each with part of a male leg and foot).
(128) Bonn (young warrior). School-piece ?
(129) The Hague, Mr. C. W. Lunsingh Scheurleer (foot, and stopt key).
(130) The Hague, Mr. C. W. Lunsingh Scheurleer (part of a female figure with
oinochoe).
(131) Athens (phallos-man).
(132) Munich Z 1 (young rider; from a small vase).
" Miscalled a kalpis by Hoppin (Hand- in note 50.
book, i. p. 71, No. 82 bis). 54 Lately cleaned : part of the charao-
85 The line of lekythoi which is headed teristic ankle, previously invisible, and
by those of the Berlin painter runs parallel omitted in the old publication, reappeared,
to the line of Nolan amphorae described
CITHAROEDUS 97
(133) Munich Z 6 (head of youth; from a small vase).
(134) Munich Z 7 and 8 (parts of two male figures wearing the himation; from
a neck-amphora of no great size).
(135) Florence (Campana collection; upper parts of a silen and of Dionysos
holding a cantharos ; from a small vase).
Let us return to our citharode. I am sensible that I have not got his lower
lip quite right : the error is tiny, but the Greek artist, if he could see my draw-
ing, would complain that I had made the lad look licentious. I am aware that
the right hand of the instructor is not quite accurate in my copy : it is a
trifle less incompetent in the original ; but the Greek artist would admit that
this was not his most successful hand. In spite of such faults, the drawings,
in conjunction with the photographs, give a good idea of the singular beauty of
the original : they show the powerful shape of the vase, the sobriety of the
decoration, the clarity of the design, the sureness and strength of the black
and brown lines, the light yet vigorous movement in the expressive figure of
the musician. The Berlin painter drew many musicians, both citharodes and
lyre-players ; but none so animated as this. The Rollin citharode is older and
statelier, and he has acquired the correct majestic manner : 57 even the satyr
musicians, on the vases in Berlin and Munich, are grave in demeanour and
deliberate in action. To find a counterpart to our citharode we must turn to
works by other artists : to the Dionysos on the cup by the Brygos painter in
the Cabinet des M4dailles : 58 or to the Judgment of Paris on a cup with the
signature of Brygos in the Louvre ; 59 where Paris sits singing to his lyre in
the lonely hills, and where the abstraction of the singer gives the picture a
peculiar tone. Archaic art portrays the influence of music on the player ; and
sometimes the influence on the hearer : it shows men capering and bawling
at the sound of the flute; but such influence as does not issue in violent
gesture it is hardly able to express. The artists of a later period set themselves
to represent the quieter emotion which reveals itself not in gesticulation but in
attitude. In the Berlin krater with Orpheus and the Thracians, which belongs
to the third quarter of the fifth century,60 the musician himself is conceived in
much the same manner as Paris on the archaic cup; but his hearers, in the
varied expressiveness of their bodies and faces, go far beyond the capacity of
the archaic style. On an oinochoe in the Villa Giulia,61 a lyre-player is mounting
the platform, and two girls are waiting for the first notes. One of them sits
with face up, an arm cast along her knee, her chin propped on one hand, her
whole body relaxed. The scene is the same, in the main, as on a much earlier
47 Compare the young citharode on the poor drawings in Perrot, Hittoire de VArt,
n> rk-amphora by the Providence painter x. pp. 559-501.
in the Vatican, Mu». Greg. ii. PL 59, 2; •» Furtwangler, 50 Berliner Winckel-
phot. Alinari 35813. manruprogramm, PL 2 = Kleine Schriften
"576. Hartwig, PL 531 ; repainted in 2, PL 50; Buschor, Griechitche Vaten-
parts; the drawing is unworthy of the malerei, p. 197; see also Hauser, F.R.H. 3,
original. pp. 108-109.
»• Mon. 1856, PL 14 = 11".]'. 8 PL " Savignoni, Bollettino d'Arte, 10, p. 347.
3 = Hoppin, Handbook, i. p. 116; new but
J.H.S. — VOL. XLII. H
98 J. D. BEAZLEY
vase, the calyx-krater signed by Euphronios ; 62 but there the listeners are
scarcely characterised : Polycles looks expectant, but he shows it by his raised
chin only : the girl on the oinochoe is listening with her whole body. In
another picture of about the same period as the Orpheus vase and the oinochoe,
the Terpsichore in London,63 the characterisation of the figures is less marked
than in the others : the artist wishes to render a less passionate, more solemn,
more Apollonian mood : he has not succeeded, for his figures, meant to
be plain and grand, are in fact a little empty.
All these pictures of music are simple drawings, without shading and with-
out colouring. When we moderns think of a music picture, our minds turn to
Signorelli's Pan, to some Dutch interior, to some Venetian landscape, where the
impression is determined, in great measure, by the harmony of colour and by
chiaroscuro. Such music pictures cannot have existed in the fifth century.
But in a later work, the Pan and Nymphs from Pompeii,64 colour and
landscape combine with composition to make a music picture of memorable
charm.
J. D. BEAZLEY.
62 F.R. 2, PI. 93, 1 = Hoppin, Handbook, 64 Herrmann, Denkmaler der Malerei, PL
i. p. 397; Pettier, Album, PL 101. 69.
C3 F.R.H. PI. 139; Buschor, p. 199.
NOTE. — My thanks are due to Dr. Sieveking, to Comm. Nogara, to Mr. Pettier, and
to Dr. Waldhauar for giving m3 parmiasion to publish vases in Munich, in the Vatican, in
the Louvre and in Petrograd ; and to Messrs. Alinari for allowing me to use their
photographs of a vase in the Vatican.
I. CALIPH MAMOUN AND THE MAGIC FISH
THE circumstances attending the death of the Caliph Maraoun (A.D. 833)
are thus related by Masoudi (+ c. 956), 'who wrote about a century after the
event. On his return from a victorious raid against the Greeks the Caliph
encamped in the beautiful valley of Bedidoun.1 Like all Orientals, he was
susceptible to the charm of clear, running water, and at his orders a rustic
pavilion was constructed over the spring called Kochairah, from which the river
Bedidoun flowed. In this the Caliph sat. A silver coin was thrown into the
spring, and so clear was the water that the legend of the coin beneath its surface
could be read. Mamoun then noticed in the spring a fish ' a cubit long and
shining like an ingot of silver,' which he desired should be caught for him.
This was done, but the fish, when brought to the Caliph, escaped by a sudden
movement into the spring, sprinkling the Caliph's breast, neck and shoulders
with cold water as it did so. It was again caught, and the Caliph gave orders
that it should be cooked. As he did so he was seized by a shivering fit, and
when the fish was cooked he was in a high fever and unable to eat it. This
was the beginning of the illness which caused his death. Before this took place
he had the guides and prisoners called and asked them the significance of the
name of the spring Kochairah. He was told that it meant ' stretch out thy
feet,' which he took for an omen of his death. He then asked the Arab name
of the country he was in : the reply was ' Rakkah.' As it had been foretold
him that he should die at a place thus named, he knew that his hour was come.
And he died then and was carried to Tarsus and buried on the left side of the
mosque.2
As to the local nomenclature in this story two observations may be made.
(1) To Masoudi and the Arabs the name Kochairah meant nothing; but the
historian says that some held that it was Bedidoun, and not Kochairah, that
meant ' stretch out thy feet.' We have thus clearly a local Greek derivation
of Podandus from Troy? (foot) and reivot (stretch).3
In Rakkah we have probably to do with a corrupt form of the name of
the neighbouring Byzantine fortress Herakleia, called by the Arabs Irakla :
1 Podandus, the modern Bozanti, two Cont. Const. Porpli., V. xxv. p. 113 P.
i rom Tarsus on the post-road to Eregli. A.D. 838 (cf. Bury, J.H.S. 1909, 125),
1 Let Prairies d'Or, ed. and tr. Barbier where Omar inquires the local names from
de Meynard, vii. pp. 1-2 and 96-101. Greek captives and derives bad omens
* If the pun seems far-fetched, what from th<> names. The idea is probably
about 'IKOVWV Sia TO r,K(van rfcy Tltperia Greek, as in both cases the Moslem comes
(Preger, Script. Or int. i. 72)? off badly and the puns are Greek.
For punning on local names cf. Theoph.
00 II 'J
100 F. W. HASLUCK
the resemblance between Rakka and Irakla is close enough for the purpose of
the story.4
The story itself is pretty evidently based on a folk-legend turning on the
theme of inevitable fate.5 But what is the point of the elaborate fish episode ?
It is clear that the fish was a magic fish, otherwise it could not have caused
the Caliph's death as it did. The only hypothesis which really explains the
story is that both spring and fish were sacred, that the Caliph sinned by wishing
to catch the fish, and persisted in his sin even after his first warning. This
hypothesis is backed by two points. (1) The Greek name of the spring is
given as Aidareka, which evidently contains the name of a saint, to whom
the spring was held sacred by Christians. (2) A coin was thrown into it,6
evidently in accordance with the world- wide custom at sacred springs and wells.
This incident may be held to prove that the Caliph knew from the first that the
spring was sacred. One can hardly doubt that the tale came originally from
a hostile (Christian) source. Masoudi had plenty of opportunity for access
to non-Moslem writers and is said not infrequently to have made use of them.
The memory of Mamoun seems to have survived at Tarsus, at least among
the learned, till the middle of the seventeenth century, when the incidents
recorded of his death were located not at Podandus (Bozanti), but quite near
Tarsus itself.7 Of his tomb nothing is recorded after the thirteenth century,
when it was still a Moslem pilgrimage, though Cilicia was in Christian hands
and the mosque had become a church of SS. Peter and Sophia. This curious
fact rests on the authority of Yakout (1225)8 and Willibrand of Oldenburg
(1211). 9 The latter speaks of the tomb as that of the ' sister of Mahommed,'
which looks as if the identity of its occupant was already becoming vague
among the common folk. The church of SS. Peter and Sophia is thought by
Langlois10 to have occupied the site of the present Oulou Djami, a purely
Mahommedan building, but this is far from proved.
II. SACRED FISHES IN THE LEVANT
Sacred springs are exceedingly common in Turkish lands. Christians
regularly, and Turks occasionally, associate them with the names of their
saints. Springs containing sacred fish are not uncommon in Syria. Most
famous are the fish of the sacred tank dimly connected with Abraham at Urfa,11
4 An Armenian authority of 1108 (cited 8 Le Strange, E. Caliphate, p. 133.
by Tomaschek in Sitzb. Wien. Akad., Phil. • Ed. Leo Allatius, EV^IKTU, 137.
Hist. Cl. cxxiv. 1891, viii. 66) speaks of a 10 Voyage dans la Cilicie, p. 317. See
fortress Krakka near Kybistra or Herakleia my Graves of the Arabs in B.S.A. xix. p. 182.
Kybistra = Eregli). 1X The first modern writer to mention
6 The lesson seems never to be learnt. it seems to be an Italian merchant (c. 1507 :
6 For this world-wide practice see Frazer's see Italian Travels in Persia, ed. Hakluyt
note on Pans. i. 34 (4). For Asia Minor Soc.,p. 144). See also Barkley, Asia Minor,
see V. de Bunsen, Soul of a Turk, p. 173. p. 254; Buckingham, Travels in Meso-
Niebuhr (Voyage en Arabie, ii. 281) records potamia, i. Ill; Warkworth, Diary in
that the Yezidis are reported to throw Asiatic Turkey, p. 242; Pococke, J)escr.
gold and silver into a cistern at Sheikh of the East, II. i. 160; Ta vernier, Voyages,
Adi in honour of their saint, and he com- p. 68; Olivier, Voyage, iv. 218; Sachau,
pares the Jebel Sindjar practice. Reise in Syrien, p. 197; S. Silvia, ed. Geyer,
7 Hadja Khalfa, tr. Norberg, ii. 360. p. 62; Thevenot, Voyages, iii. 141; de
THE CALIPH MAMOUN AND THE PROPHET DANIEL 101
and the fish of Sheikh Bedawi at Tripoli,12 which are treated with the greatest
respect and never caught. An interesting passage in Febure"s Theatre de la
Turquie probably refers to the Tripoli fish, almost certainly to Syria. It runs
as follows : —
' Us ont une espece de respect & de veneration pour les poissons de certains
lacs & fontaines, oil qui que ce soit n'ozeroit pescher, si ce n'est de nuit & en
cachette, le plus secretement qu'ils peuvent ; ce qui fait qu'ils s'y multiplient
en tres-grande quantite", & qu'il y en a de monstrueux. Us les appellent Checs
[i. e. Sheikhs] qui est la qualite" qu'ils donnent a leurs principaux Religieux,
& leur allument la nuit des lampes par devotion.' 13
The stages in the development of these Syrian fish-cults seem to have been
as follows. First the fish as the denizen of the spring is regarded as the incar-
nation of the spring divinity himself, whence the fish-tailed Baals of Syria ; 14
later it is conceived of as a sort of famulus of the divinity, under his immediate
protection. Numerous secular folk-stories of Eastern origin deal with fish
possessed of miraculous powers as well as with fish which are really human
beings enchanted.15
Similar fish-cults in the Turkish area are hard to find. Fish are preserved
in the sacred well of the Shamaspur Tekkeh near Aladja 16 in Paphlagonia, while
on the Christian side we have at Constantinople a well-known instance in the
famous fish of Baluklu.17 We should probably find that both these are ulti-
mately of Syrian origin. The religious significance of the fishes concerned
seems to have died down to a minimum. The fishes of Baluklu at least have
become a mere peg for folk imagination.18 Those of Aladja are probably
thought of as deriving their sanctity merely from their sacred surroundings,
just as the fish of the river which flows by the tomb of Daniel at Susa are now
said to be immune from capture in honour of the prophet ;19 though the origin
Bunsen, Soul of a Turk, p. 218; Niebuhr, Hartland, Perseus, i. 24; Legrand, Contes
Voyage en Arabic, ii. 330; Rubens-Duval, Grecs, p. 161, all give examples of magic
Hint. d'Edesse, in Journ. Asiat. 1891-2, fish. The first story in Burton's edition
p. 92. of the Arabian Nights mentions a bewitched
12 Lortet, La Syrie (Taujourd'hui, p. fish.
58 f . ; d'Arvieux, Me'moires, ii. 390-1; *" Wilson in Murray's Asia M inor, p. 36 ;
Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, p. 166; Kelly, Hamilton, Asia Minor, i. 403; H. J. Ross,
Syria and the Holy Land, p. 106; Renan, Letters from the East, p. 243. The fish
Mission de Phtnicie, p. 130; Soury, Etudes mentioned by Hamilton (op. cit. i. 98) at
sur la Greece, p. 66. Mohimoul near Tauschanli may also have
w Paris, 1682, p. 35. Cf. Jessup, been sacred. For sacred fish near Afioun
Women of the Arabs, pp. 296-7, who says Kara Hissar see Calder in J.R.S. ii. 246.
one black fish at Tripoli is the Sheikh of 17 Carnoy et Nicolaides, Folklore de
the saints, whose souls are in the fish of the Constantinople, pp. 54 ff. (many versions),
pool. Death is supposed to follow the eat- See my forthcoming Studies in Popular
ing of these fish, but the sceptical Jessup Religion.
experimented without any untoward result*. 18 Fishes are similarly kept in the ayasma
During the Crimean War many of the fish of riavayia nafapuariffaa at Gemlek (Kios)
went off under the sea to Sevastopol and in Bithynia, but this is probably due to the
fought the infidel Russians, some returning influence of Constantinople,
wounded. lf Le Strange, Eastern Caliphate, p. 240;
11 For a fish river-god in Asia Minor cf. Benjamin of Tudela, ed. Asher, i. 117 iT. ;
see the dedication OOTAMfl ETXHN in J.H.S. Carmoly, Itineraire* de la Terre Sainte,
\\\. 76(32). p. 459 (citing .li.-hus Ha-Abot (A.D. loGl),
14 Cosquin, Contes dc Lorraine, i. 60; ed. Uri de Biel).
102 F. W. HASLUCK
of the tabu is explained by a historical legend, it may be older than the tomb
itself. The fish, that is, may have begun as the incarnation of the river deity,
to be eventually ousted by the personality of the prophet and degraded to the
position of a mere protege.
III. THE TOMB OF DANIEL AT TARSUS
What appears to be the chief Moslem pilgrimage of modern Tarsus is
the Mosque known as Makam Hazreti Daniel (' Station of his Excellency
Daniel '), which is supposed to contain the grave of the Prophet Daniel.20
This grave has been shown as Daniel's certainly since the latter part of the
seventeenth century. Lucas says in his description of Tarsus : ' les Habitans
assurent que c'est chez eux ou est mort le Prophete Daniel : j'entrai dans une
Mosquee, sous laquelle on pretend qu'il a ete enterre. Les Turcs y ont mis sur
une grande tombe un cercueil de bois, qu'ils reverent ; & ils le font voir eux-
memes comme une rarete. Ce cercueil est tou jours couvert d'un grand drap
noir en broderie.' 21
Barker, for many years consul at Tarsus, gives the following description of
the tomb : —
' The Turks hold in great veneration a tomb which they believe contains
the bones of this prophet, situated in an ancient Christian church, converted
into a mosque, in the centre of the modern town of Tarsus. The sarcophagus
is said to be about forty feet below the surface of the present soil, in consequence
of the accumulation of earth and stones ; and over which a stream flows from
the Cydnus river, of comparatively modern date. Over this stream, at the
particular spot where the sarcophagus was (before the canal was cut and the
waters went over it), stands the ancient church above mentioned ; and to mark
the exact spot of the tomb below, a wooden monument has been erected in the
Turkish style. [This monument is covered with an embroidered cloth, and
stands in a special apartment built for it, from the iron-grated windows of
which it may occasionally be seen when the Armenians take occasion to make
their secret devotions ; but generally a curtain is dropped to hide it from vulgar
view, and add by exclusion to the sanctity of the place.] The waters of this
rivulet are turned off every year in the summer, in order to clear the bed of
the canal.' 22
This ' tomb of Daniel ' continues down to our own day to be an object
of Moslem veneration. The best authenticated ' tomb of Daniel ' is, however,
the interesting sanctuary at Sus (Shushan?), the traditions of which
seem to go back at least to the sixth century A.D.23 A point of contact
between the two graves, noted by Barker, is that both are said to lie beneath
89 It is mentioned by Lucas and Barker Kalesi is omitted in Bianchi's translation
(cited below), also by Langlois, Cilicie, of Menassik-el-Hadj (in Recueil de Voyages,
p. 329, and by Cuinet, Turq. d'Asie, ii. 48. ii. 103).
21 Voyage dans la Qrece, i. 272 f. (Amster- 2Z Lares and Penates, p. 17, and note.
dam, 1714). Hadji Khalfa is silent. The 23 Theodosius, De Situ Terrae Sanctae,
legend of Daniel in Cilicia at Shah Meran ed. Tobler, 359 (ed. Geyer, p. 149).
THE CALIPH MAMOUN AND THE PROPHET DANIEL 103
streams.24 A learned Mussulman professor, consulted at my request by Dr.
Christie of Tarsus, gave it as his opinion that the identification of the younger
' tomb of Daniel ' rested on a confusion between Sus and Tarsus, which is
probably correct; the coincidence (?) of the grave being under a stream may
have aided, or even have been devised to aid, popular acceptance of the Tarsian
' tomb of Daniel.' There seems a considerable probability that it really marks
the site of Mamoun's grave,25 which would thus have been continuously vener-
ated, under various names, from the death of the Caliph to our own day :
we may readily conceive that the name of its occupant became lost under the
Armenian kings, though the spot was vaguely known to be sacred. At some
date unknown, the name of Daniel was given to it under learned inspiration.
With the incident of Mamoun and the magic fish transferred, as we have seen
it was, to the immediate neighbourhood of Tarsus, it would be interesting to
know whether the new ' tomb of Daniel,' like the old, places a tabu on the
neighbouring stream, since this would form a link between the cycles of Caliph
and Prophet.
14 For the tomb of Daniel at Sus see
Jewish Encyclopaedia, iv. 430, s.v. Daniel,
Tomb of ; for details of its legendary history
Asher's edition of Benjamin of Tudela, i.
117 ff., and for its present state Ouseley,
Travels, i. 420; Loftus, Travels in Chaldaea,
pp. 416 ff. ; de Bode, Travels in Lauristan,
ii. 190; Rawlinson in J.R.O.S. ix. (1839)
69, 83; Layard in J.R.O.S. xvi. (1846) 61.
Cf. also Carmoly's Itindraires, pp. 489 ff.
A plan is given by Loftus in Trans. Roy.
Soc. Lit. v. (1856) to face p. 422; a view
is given by Flandin and Coste, Voyage en
Perse, PI. 100, and a sketch accompanied
by a short account of the tomb may be
found in the Field of July 13, 1918.
25 There is, of course, no proof of the
' Mosque of Daniel ' occupying the site
of the church of SS. Peter and Sophia;
but the former is placed by Barker (loc. cit.),
as the latter is by Willibrand (in Allatius,
a, p. 137), in the centre of the town.
F. W. HASLUCK.
THREE STATUE-BASES RECENTLY DISCOVERED AT ATHENS.
[This communication was given by its author, Mr. A. Philadelpheus, Ephor of
Antiquities of Attica, to the British School at Athens, for publication in the Annual of the
School. In view of the importance of the subject, the Committee of the School has passed
the paper for prompt publication to the Editors of the Hellenic Journal, since the Annual
will not appear before the autumn of this year.]
[PLATES VI., VII.]
ON January 20th, and again on February 10th of this year, while digging
was taking place on the property of M. Poulopoulos between Erysicthon Street
and Thessalonica Street, near the ancient Ceramicus, for the construction of a
shop, sections of the Themistoclean circuit wall were brought to light. Built
into them were found three quadrangular bases of Pentelic marble, two of
which have sculptured reliefs on three of their four sides, while the third has
on its principal face alone a painted design, and inscriptions, both of which,
however, have been almost completely defaced with some sharp tool.
On the upper and lower surfaces of all three bases are large ellipsoid or
rectangular depressions, in the centre of each of which is a socket with lead
filling, the upper one being for fixing the statue, the lower for fixing another
quadrangular block to complete the basis.
These bases are now in Room A of the National Museum.
I. No. 3476 (Plate VI.). (Measurements : each side 0-82 x 0-32
metre.) On the principal face are represented four naked epheboi. The two
that form the centre of the composition are practising wrestling, or, more
exactly, a/tpo%et/3to-/io5, grasping each other's hands and each trying to
throw his adversary. To the left, another athlete is standing on tiptoe with
hands outstretched to the front, preparing to jump, while on the right a fourth
is holding diagonally across his body the long akontion which he is getting
ready to throw.
On the left face, six epheboi, upright but in varied poses, are playing one
of the ball-games so dear to the ancient Greeks. The first from the left holds
in his right hand a small ball, which he is about to throw with all his force up
in the air to the right. All the rest hold their hands in different attitudes to
catch it.
On the right face is a very clear and interesting representation of a scene
from the palaestra. In the centre are two epheboi seated opposite one another,
each wearing the himation arranged in the usual manner, so as to leave the
breast and right arm bare. The one on the right is holding by a string in his
right hand a cat, and the other in the same way a sheep-dog. The animals
face one another, fiercely baring their teeth. The tragi-comic scene is followed
with close interest and obvious delight, not only by the two who are holding
the animals, but also by two other epheboi, one on each side, behind the seated
104
A. PHILADELPHEUS 105
figures. Their left arms rest on long staves, as do those of the seated epheboi.
Especially to be noticed is the attitude of the one on the right, who leans his
right arm with an affectionate gesture on the shoulder of the young man in
front of him. The two standing epheboi wear their cloaks in the same way as
the two in the centre.
In style these sculptures belong to the advanced archaic style of the end of
the sixth century B.C. The depth of the relief is remarkable, enhanced as it
is by the colouring, which originally must have been very bright and lavishly
applied, but is now preserved only on the background, and in a few traces on
the hair of some of the youths.
The state of preservation of the reliefs is also quite extraordinary, for
very few parts have been injured : a few scratches on the bodies of the epheboi
do not detract from the wonderful impression created by the whole work,
which must assuredly be reckoned among the finest of archaic sculptures.
Their vigorous modelling, the gracefulness of the movement, the variety of
the positions, the excellent anatomical knowledge of the human body, the
natural and lively character of the reliefs arouse the admiration and charm the
eyes of all lovers of art.
II. No. 3477 (Plate VII.). (Measurements : long sides 0-82, short 0-59
metre, each 0-275 high.) Three faces of this basis also are decorated with
reliefs similarly representing scenes of sport.
On the principal face appears a game here met with for the first time in
ancient art. For, though it is a ball-game, it is played with curved sticks,
like hockey-sticks, which the players hold in their right hands.
As in the scene on the first basis, six naked epheboi are here taking part.
The two in the centre are bending over a small ball, lying on the ground between
them, of which each appears to be trying to get possession with his stick. They
stand on either side of the ball quite symmetrically. To right and left stand
two pairs of epheboi, also naked, eagerly watching the two players in the
centre, waiting to come in, it seems, and holding their sticks ready for the
purpose. Their attitudes are both varied and natural, and the whole scene
gives the impression of an instantaneous photograph.
On the two remaining faces of this basis are two reliefs, the scenes on
which are almost identical with one another, the only difference being that
one is turned to the right, the other to the left. Thus a strict symmetry marks
this basis throughout.
The scene represented is that of the dya>v dTroftaritcos, which formed
part of the chariot race in the hippodrome. In a four-horsed chariot
stands the driver wearing a helmet and the usual dress of a charioteer, viz. the
long chiton; close by, ready to jump up into the chariot, is a bearded warrior
fully armed with helmet and shield, greaves and breastplate, and carrying a
spear ; behind, two young hoplites, also in full armour, form an escort, marching
one behind the other. The leader of the two is beardless, and is a charming
figure, the other has a pointed beard.
The sculptures on this basis differ much in execution from those of No. 3476.
The relief is very slight, the modelling hardly perceptible, and the bodily
106 THREE STATUE-BASES RECENTLY DISCOVERED AT ATHENS
structure only faintly indicated. But the artist has a keen perception of
beauty of line and fidelity to nature, and has succeeded in imparting to his
work a rare grace and symmetry.
III. No. 3478. (Measurements : the long sides 0-715, the short 0-631
metre, each 0-415 high.) This basis resembles the others in shape, but only
the principal face has a design, which is painted instead of being in relief, and
is accompanied by inscriptions. Of these one is immediately to the left of
the head of the figure and is vertical ; the other, to the left of it, is horizontal,
and consists of three lines.
As was noticed above, both design and inscriptions have been carefully
defaced with a chisel or some other tool, so that it is very difficult to make out
the one or decipher the others ; but the composition seems to represent a woman
seated on a throne and holding in her left hand a sceptre ; her long chiton is
adorned with a pattern of rosettes.
The vertical inscription alone can be read, as follows : ENAOIOZ KAI
TONA5 ETTOIE. From this alone the great importance of this basis is
evident ; for on it must have stood a statue from the hand of this celebrated
sculptor of the sixth century.
What inference is to be drawn from the careful and systematic defacement
of design and inscriptions ? Is it an echo of the Persian sack, or of some act
of political revenge after the fall of the Peisistratids ? It is a difficult problem,
which perhaps only the decipherment of the remaining inscription can solve.
ALEX. PHILADELPHEUS,
Ephor of Antiquities of Attica.
Athens, April 1, 1922.
NOTICES OF BOOKS .
The Palace of Minos. A comparative account of the successive stages of the early
Cretan civilization as illustrated by the discoveries at Knossos. By SIR ARTHUR EVANS.
Vol. I. The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages. Pp. 721, 542 figures in text,
plans, tables, coloured and supplementary plates. London : Macmillan & Co., 1921.
£66*.
The first volume of Sir Arthur Evans's final publication of his excavation at Knossos
now lies before us. It is twenty years since the work on the hill of Kephala began, and the
fresco of the Cupbearer was revealed to an astonished world, and thereafter the work of
excavation went on year by year until the events of the last ten years of necessity
terminated for a time the labours which the discoverer had set himself, and which he had
carried out almost entirely at his own expense. In the first few years preliminary pub-
lication in the Annual of the British School at Athens went on pari passu with the work
of excavation. Then, no doubt because it was obvious that it was only fair both to Sir
Arthur and his publishers that too much should not be given out in preliminary form,
and that the final publication should now be considered, we were contented with yearly
notices in the Times and occasional references in other publications of Sir Arthur's, such
as the first volume of Scripta Minoa and in Archaeologia. The war caused a cessation of
work, during which Sir Arthur has been employed in the preparation of the first volume
of the final publication, and, as this break synchronised with the almost complete
excavation of the main palace, it provided a convenient opportunity for this work,
which the discoverer always intended to produce. Now 'that the first volume has
appeared, it is to be hoped that it will be no long time before the second and third come
out, with the indices, of which the reader so greatly feels the lack in the first.
It is natural that, in a work which includes and sums up previous publications as well
as providing us with much new and unpublished material, we should meet again with
many old friends among the illustrations. Practically everything that has previously
been illustrated reappears, as is right and necessary, and in addition we have many repub-
lications, for purposes of illustration, of the discoveries of other explorers. But this does not
mean that we are not provided with a feast of new illustrations. The plates of polychrome
ware and other illustrations of Middle Minoan pottery, the fresco of the saffron- gatherer or
* Blue Boy,' the columnar lamp of purple gypsum (Fig. 249), the fresco of ' The Ladies in
Blue ' (Fig. 397), the votive bronze figure from Psychro (Fig. 501), to name only the most
outstanding of the previously unpublished objects, are of first-rate importance. Whereas,
also, much of the letterpress has inevitably appeared already in a similar form, it now falls
into place as part of a fully developed argument, enriched by the results of years of study ;
and t line is, of course, very much that is wholly new. We can only note the generosity with
which Sir Art hur Evans and Messrs. Macmillans have during the progress of the excavations
published or facilitated tin- speedy publication of so many of the most important dis-
rovrries. with the result that the final edition of them must necessarily seem merely a
republication. But their discoverer has had his reward for thus anticipating his magnum
<»IIH* in the interest that his discoveries have everywhere evoked, in the help that he has
1. 1 . is rd in their elucidation from the comments of students and in the impetus which he
thus gave to other explorations in Crete, which have been of such value as affording com-
parisons with the work at Knossos, and would never have come about on so large a scale
l>ut for the continuous publication of the Knossian results, which showed the learned world
what illicit l>e expected from archaeological exploration elsewhere in Crete. The method
of full preliminary publication might seem to detract from the final publication : in reality
108 NOTICES OF BOOKS
it has enhanced its value, since without it the great book could never have taken on the
wonderfully comprehensive character which is its chief distinction.
The book is not merely a record of the Knossian discoveries. Sir Arthur does not only
describe the excavation of Knossos, but also compares it with those of other sites, such
as Phaistos, Gournia, Mochlos, Palaikastro, etc., and uses them to elucidate his own, while
also throwing upon them illumination derived from Knossos, illustrating the discoveries
of others as well as his own. Thus the book becomes a record of Cretan archaeology,
grouped r,ound Knossos as its central point, as is fitting. Its value is then greater even
than had it been a publication of Knossos alone. It is not only that, but a guidebook to
Early and Middle Minoan archaeology.
The method of publication is chronological. In the preliminary reports we had the
record of the progress of the excavation, with publication of objects of all periods, as they
were found. In the book everything is ordered chronologically, beginning with the neolithic
period. This volume takes us fo the end of the Middle Minoan period, roughly contem-
poraneous with the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt and the beginning of the XVIIIth
Egyptian Dynasty, c. 1580 B.C. The second volume will cover the First and Second Late
Minoan periods, the third will deal with the Third Late (the ' Mycenaean ') period and
contain the indices. This is an obvious and convenient division. k
In the course of his argument the author takes us from one part of the work to another,
passing from pottery to frescoes, to architecture, to seals, to inscribed tablets, to weapons,
more than once from Crete to Egypt and back, with excursions to the Cyclades and the
mainland, by easy transitions that rarely interrupt the flow of the narrative, gradually
building up his corpus of our knowledge of Minoan and specifically Knossian art and
civilisation. The principle of division cannot always be the same : we look at Knossian
culture sometimes from one angle, sometimes from another. To combine the description
of so many-faceted a culture with the explanation of the actual excavation of Knossos
can have been no easy task, and it has been complicated, as is explained in the preface,
by the constant discovery of new facts, that have often compelled the rearrangement of
the matter and even the breaking-up and remarshalling of the type during the long process
of writing and printing, which began even before 1914. Naturally the book bears traces
of this remodelling. But we may be well content with the result, and congratulate Sir
Arthur Evans (and his helper, Dr. Duncan Mackenzie) heartily on the completion of the
first volume of his great task. A great task indeed; but great discoveries impose great
obligations, and a nemesis awaits the discoverer of such a place as Knossos in the vast
labour of publishing his results. Yet we cannot deubt that to Sir Arthur it is a labour
of love, and that he will go on to the completion of his work (as well as to that of
Scripta Minoa) with undiminished energy.
To analyse the book in general would be a task beyond the scope of this review ; even
to appreciate the new points of view that the author puts before us would needs be to tran-
scend the limits of the space allotted to it. With regard to Sir Arthur's dealings with
Egypt in this volume a few words of comment may not be unacceptable. From the
study of the shapes of the early Cretan stone pots he well brings out for the first time
the undoubted fact that relations between Egypt and Crete go back into the predynastic
period. We may perhaps demur, at any rate till the matter has been further elucidated,
to his unquestioning acceptance of M. Weill's view of the date of the supposed prehistoric
harbour- works discovered by M. Jondet at Alexandria. One may reasonably doubt, until
confirmation of some kind is available, that these gigantic works were constructed by
Minoan engineers on the Egyptian coast at least as early as the time of the Egyptian Middle
Kingdom. One may even be permitted to wish that other engineers and archaeologists
should certify us that M. Jondet has really discovered ancient harbour works at all.
Another doubtful point is Sir Arthur's equally unquestioning acceptance of M. Weill's
hypothetical reconstruction of the royal history of the Egyptian Intermediate Period
and the time of the Hyksos, which is open to manifold objections. The reading now pro-
posed by Mr. Griffith for the name of the Egyptian on the little diorite figure of the XIHth
Dynasty found at Knossos, and preferred on general grounds by Sir Arthur to the older
reading proposed by Petrie, is undoubtedly correct : the name is compounded with that of
NOTICES OF BOOKS 109
the goddess Uazet (Buto), not with that of the crocodile god Sebek. Sir Arthur Evans
notes the similarity of the convention which both in Egypt in the time of the XVI I It h
Dynasty, and in both contemporary Minoan days in Crete, and in somewhat later Mycenaean
times in Cyprus, turned the natural spots on the hide of the cow or bull into quatrefoils
or crosses. This similarity was first pointed out and the comparison made, so far as I
am aware, by myself in my article on ' The Discoveries in Crete and their relation to the
History of Egypt and Palestine' in the Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 1909, p. 146, PI. XVIII.
though it is possible that Sir Arthur may have anticipated me in some publication
that I have missed. For it is rarely that Sir Arthur omits a reference. The footnotes
are a treasure-house of references and, as usual, admirably illustrate the wide range of
the author's learning. And there are but few slips ; the present writer is, however, on one
occasion credited with the authorship of a book that was written by Sir William Ridgeway.
Once or twice Sir Arthur finds it necessary in a note to administer a well-deserved rebuke
to the somewhat discourteously expressed incredulity of M. Franchet. But it is rarely that
the least note of disagreement with others, or even of criticism of their views, appears in
the book. There is little need for him to disagree with anybody, for, after all, nobody
but M. Franchet does disagree now with Sir Arthur Evans (except on matters of detail), for
all the rest of us recognise his profound knowledge of his material, and his unrivalled power
of illustration from all regions and periods of ancient archaeology, history, and mythology;
we are inclined to think that he knows more about Knossos and Cretan archaeology than
anybody else; we respect his authority, which is the more impressive from the mastery
with which it is formulated. So we can admire the capacity with which the whole story
of Knossos during its first two periods of culture- development is envisaged for us, and
mark the ingenuity with which all the various threads of the narrative are interwoven to
make a readable whole. For (if we may except some purely architectural detail which,
naturally, will interest the architects) the book is eminently readable.
The appearance of the text-illustrations suffers to some extent from the miscellaneous
styles of those that have appeared already, but all the newly published are of uniform
character and are finely executed. The coloured plates are specially worthy of
commendation. The complete and elaborate plans are the work of Messrs. Th. Fyffe and
Christian Doll.
One does not wish to seem to praise overmuch, but neither can one find anything in
the book to blame, except that sometimes Sir Arthur's enthusiasm runs away with him a
little, as in the case of the Egyptian instances noticed above and perhaps in his idea that
the Phaistos Disk contains a hymn ' to the Great Mother,1 an idea which seems to be
based on little but faith. M. Cuny's idea, quoted by Sir Arthur, that the disk is in reality
an amulet from some Asia Minor shrine stamped with a religious text, the use of ' type '
being accounted for by the need of printing a number of similar examples for sale to
devotees, seems, however, highly probable. If so, Sir Arthur's idea may not be s- • far-
fetched after all, and criticism, even in this case, may be misjudged. In any case, Sir
Arthur may well say to me, in the words of the poet,
TvScidr/, /U.T/T* «p* /n« fid)C aivtc firfTf n vcixei
ei8<xri yap rot ravra p.€T "Apyeiot? uyopei'ci?.
H. R. HALL.
The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. Translated and Explained by J. T. SHEP-
PARD, M.A.. Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. Pp. Ixxix + 179. Cambridge
University Press, 1920.
This lMX)k falls into three parts: 1. Introduction. 2. Text with blank verse translation
to face the text. 3. Notes.
The Introduction, in four chapters, is intended to support the thesis that Oedipus is
regarded by Sophocles and is meant to be regarded by the audience as innocent — ' as a
110 NOTICES OF BOOKS
hero not without faults, yet noble, involved, not because of his faults, but in spite of his
virtue, in pollution.' This very sound and orthodox conclusion is supported by some
arguments which do not strike us as quite so sound. For example, so anxious is Mr. Shep-
pard to contrast the attitude of Aeschylus with that of Sophocles that he tells us that
' Aeschylus treats the whole story as a tale of guilt and retribution. Lai'us sinned against
Apollo, who forbade him to beget a son. In Sophocles we notice that it is left doubtful
whether even Laius sinned against the god. Nothing that Sophocles says makes it impossible
that Apollo simply foretold the future destiny of a child already begotten ' (p. xix). Mr.
Sheppard cannot have forgotten O. T. 711 ff. : xprjoyxos 7"P rj^Oe Aaiw TTOT' . . . o>s
avTov TJ$OI fiolpa Trpos TraiSos Oavciv, ooris yeVoir' f/mov re KaKciVov Trapa. We
must suppose then that Mr. Sheppard has been misled by Blaydes' egregious note :
' OO-TIS ytvoiT, ' who had been born,' not ' who should be born,' which would be OOTIS
ywrivoiTo : which is, of course, nonsense. Again, chap. iii. on ' The Tyrant,' in reference
to the choral ode 863 ff. and especially v. 889, ei' fj.r) TO Ke'pSos Kepoavel SiKatw?, is
vitiated by a far too narrow view of the meaning of KepSos and Kepoaivco. The last,
and perhaps the best, chapter on Sophrosyne, is similarly weakened by a forced inter-
pretation of the word Kaipos. No one doubts that Kaipos sometimes means ' due measure '
and has no explicit temporal reference. But the temporal reference is by far the com-
moner : Aristotle, Eth. N. 1096a, 26, defines ' the good ' in the category of time as Kaipds.
In several of the passages where Mr. Sheppard renders Kaipos by ' measure ' his rendering
is at least doubtful : e. g. 1516 TTOVTO. yap fcaipw KaAa, which Mr. Sheppard renders
' Measure in all things is best,' we should prefer to understand as ' there is a time for all
things ' ; in others it is demonstrably wrong : e. g. Aesch. Sept em 1. xprj Ae'yeiv TO. Kaipia,
Mr. Sheppard renders ' must speak well-measured words.' But the phrase is in fact nothing
but a verse rendering of the ordinary Xeyfiv TO. fic\Tio-Ta (Demosth. 3. 11, and passim;
Aristoph. Eccl. 152), and means to speak ' to the purpose,' ' opportunely,' in the widest
sense. If TO. Kcupia here means ' well- measured,' what are we to make of Aesch. P.V.
1036, T)p2v p.ev 'Ep/x^s OVK aKaipa ^atVerai Aeyeii/ t What of Sophocles, Ant. 724,
£t TI Kaipiov Ae'yei, where Mr. Sheppard's version would be impossible ? Or of Philoct.
862, jSAeV ei Kaipia <£0€yyei ? But, above all, what of O.C. 808 f., Kp. xwP'« T0 T*
eiTretv TroAAo. KCU TO. Kaipia. OL. MS 8/7 <ri> /3pa^e'a TO.VTO. o' Iv Kaipw Ae'ycis ?
If Mr. Sheppard's rendering were right, then verse 808 would be a flat truism. Moreover,
v. 809 defines precisely the meaning of TO. Kaipia as ' brief and to the point.' How easily
the meanings ' untimely ' and ' excessive ' pass into each other is illustrated by the com-
bination in Latin of ' intempestivua ' and ' immodicus,' and doubtless Mr. Sheppard might
hold that 'brief and to the point' is exactly 'well-measured.' But what of Spav TO.
Kaipia, Aj. 120; <f>povovvTi Kaipia, El. 227 ? and what of Kaipiav o' vfjiiv opw . . . OTCI-
Xovo-av 'loKao-Trjv, O.T. 631 ? So in Prose, where /catptos is rather a rare word, Mr. Shep-
pard's version is quite unsuitable : e. g. Herod I. 125, <f>povTi£<av Se evpio-Kt re TavTa
KaipuoTaTa ilvai; Thuc. 4. 10, UTTO vewv ats TroAAa TO. Kaipia Sfi fv TTJ 6a\dcr<Tr) £vfjt.(3f)vai.
When Mr. Sheppard renders O.T. 324 f., 6pw yap oiSe arol TO o-ov <^wv>y/Li' tov Trpos Katpov by
' I see thy own word quit the path of safety ' he ignores the attested sense of Trpos Kcup6v=
' to the purpose,' as, e. g. Trpos Kaipov TTOI/W, Aj. 38, slightly varied in Phil. 525 ; Trpos TO
Kaipiov Troveiv, Trpos Kaipov Aeywv, Phil. 1279; Trpos Kaipov cvfcVeiv, Track. 59.
But the climax is reached in Mr. Sheppard's version of O.T. 1512 ff. Reading
vvv Of TOUT' (v^fo-Of P.OI, ov Kaipos ttei ffiv, ftiov Se Awovos vp.a<s Kvpr)O~ai TOV (pvrfvcravTos
Trarpos he renders ' be your prayer to live where fortune's modest measure is,' etc. On
p. Ix, he prints ' to live where the Due Measure is,' and while in the present passage and
in v. 325 Kaipos has a small initial letter, in the footnote on p. Ixxiv we have Kaipov in all
the seductive dignity of a capital. It may be disputed whether we should read fvxfo-Oe
fj.01 or evxfo-6' C/U.GI; whether the subject to {fiv is Oedipus or his children; whether we
should read dei £T)V, (3iov of or la (we should ourselves prefer rj) £r/v, TOV /3i'ou oV;. but
there surely cannot in any case be the remotest doubt as to the meaning of ov Kaipos
ifiv, ' to live where occasion serves.' Mr. Sheppard himself tells us (p. 102) that
' Sophocles does . . . not perform meaningless verbal gymnastics.' When, then,
Sophocles uses a phrase so common and so definite in meaning, we must refuse to give
NOTICES OF BOOKS 111
it here A meaning which is perfectly unexampled. The reference of Kcupoc being usually
ti-mj)oral, the phrase is usually introduced by a temporal conjunction. Thus, to confine
ourselves to Thucydides, we have OTTOTC xaipoc efy, 4. 77 ; orav Kutpo? 77, 4, 126 ; 6, 93 ;
eV«i8»; Kaipos tyi 7. 5; 7. 51; liraoi} *<n/>os iooK€t «uat, 7. 34; C'TTCI&T/ «$o£e Katpos cktn,
7. 5 ; but neglecting such more ambiguous uses as cV u> oV Katpo? 77, 4. 17 ; *}»' xcupo? y, 4. 92 ;
Tjv irou Kaipos 77, 8. 27 ; <us &v Katpo? 77, 8. 1, we have a definitely local use in Thuc. 4. 54,
(favXt^o/icyoi raiv x<i>pi'u>v °^ xaipo^ tirj tojjow TTJV y*lv> and 4. 90, irrpyovs T£ (v\ivovs
Ka.T(<rrr)<rav 77 «catp6; T^. In view of these facts, that Sophocles should have used the
words in Mr. Sheppard's sense is simply incredible. On any interpretation the main em-
phasis lies on the second clause, and the meaning is, ' wherever you live, may your life
be happier than your father's.' If we should render ' wherever I live,' then Oedipus will
be repeating the same indifference to his own fate with which he began his reference to his
children : oXA* T/ /ici> rjfjLwv fMoip' oironrtp ei<r', ITU> (v. 1458). One of the passages quoted
by Mr. Sheppard to support his interpretation is Bacchylides fr. 21, iravpdicri oc tivartav
TOV airavra. %povov oaifjuov towtccv | irpatrerovTas cv Kuip<j> iro\ioKpoTa<f>ov | y^pas iKi'iitr&ai
Trplv eyKvptrai ova, which Jebb renders : ' To few mortals is Fate wont to grant that they
should have happy fortunes through all their years, or come to the first grey hairs of age
without encountering woe.' Mr. Sheppard, with his customary engaging confidence,
rejects this rendering and tells us that Bacchylides means ' few have the happy life of
moderate prosperity.' Would Mr. Sheppard have cited this passage, we wonder, if he had
remembered Thuc. 4, 59, avra. o€ TO.VTO. tl fii] <«>'>• Kaipw n'^oiev c/carepoi irpdcrcrovTis ?
The Translation is a sound piece of work, and may fairly be said to succeed in its purpose,
which is ' to give the reader a faithful version ' (p. x). In one passage, indeed, Mr. Sheppard
hardly does himself justice. When locasta, 1071 f., says tor, lov, Sv<mjvf' TOVTO yap
<r* €\m | fj.6vov TrpoaciTreiv, aAXo 8' OVTTO&' vrrrtpov, we cannot think her words are ade-
quately rendered by ' O Wretched, Wretched utterly ! That name | I give you, and
henceforth no other name.' ' Wretched ' is a poor rendering for a word of such quality
as Swrn/vo?. Moreover, the whole point lies in lov, tov, ova-rrjve ; the rest, beautiful as it
is, is but a concession to convention. For locasta's grief silence alone is adequate, and the
point is that, save for the ejaculation, she is silent. Hence CTKOTT^S in v. 1705. So Aietes,
tu£ev 8* a^covi/Vtu Trcp l/ATra? axci (Pmd. P- iv. 237).
The Notes are rather desultory in character and of uneven quality. They are intended
mainly to expound the dramatic value of particular words, phrases, and episodes, and
here they show evidence both of acuteness and of careful study. Mr. Sheppard shares,
indeed, to the full the capacity of so many modern scholars for ' hearing the grass grow.'
When, for instance, we are told that irnvra. rw/u~,r. v. 300, ' with irdvra for the opvtOav
of Aesch. Sept. 26 prepares our minds, subtly and without our conscious perception of it,
for the suggestion of Ke'pSos as the motive of the seer, because we half remember the
Homeric KcpSca VW/AOJV,' we can only say with Dominie Sampson, ' Pro — di — gi — ous ! '
A subsidiary purpose of the Notes is to defend the reading adopted when it differs
from the text of Jebb or to explain the rendering given in the Translation. The most
notable reading is perhaps Trtrpaios o rarpos, which we are glad to see restored in v. 478.
It is to be hoped that uroravpos may now join that other ' palmary emendation,' Coning-
ton's XC'OKTO? Iviv (Aesch. Ag. 718), in a kindly oblivion. In our space we cannot
do more than notice some passages which we think Mr. Sheppard might usefully reconsider.
In v. 11, reading oTe'p&nre? Mr. Sheppard renders : ' in what mood stand ye here- — Of
panic — or good courage ? * and he thinks the objection that ' those who are resigned have
no ground for supplication ' is sufficiently answered by Isocrates, Demon. 8ft, trrepye /itc
TO. irapovra, £»/Vei 8t TU /JeArioTa. But since <rrt'p£avres must indicate not the mood
merely of the suppliant but the motive of his supplication, the quotation is pointless, unless
it means that contentment with the present state is a motive for seeking a better. 44 f., w;
TOUTIV ffi-TTtipouri K.T.\., is explained to mean : ' It is in the case of men of experience, above
all others, that I find both counsel and event live,' t. e. ' what happens in regard to what
they plan, as well as (»cat) what they plan.' This seems to approximate to the scholiast's
interpretation of o-vfjufropds as a7ro/?a<r«s, but we frankly do not follow Mr. Sheppard's
reasoning. V. 54 : c?7r«p «p£«s r^<r8e yfjs oxrrrfp /cparcis. Mr. Sheppard thinks that the
112 NOTICES OF BOOKS
editors miss the point here ' inasmuch as they make no distinction between apx<o and
xparw. It would be easy to show that the words are used by the poets indifferently, and
if the distinction imagined by Mr. Sheppard were intended, Kparflv in the next line should
have been ap^eiv. V. 65 : VTTVW y' euSovra p. Mr. Sheppard curiously thinks that y
is out of place and reads VTTVW /u,' evSovra y. But in a composite phrase like VTTVU) euSeiv
Greek regularly attaches the ye to the first word of the phrase, e. g. IK ye 1-179 TroAews,
never unless under stress of metre ex rJJs iroAews ye. V. 88 : e£io'vTa is adopted from
Suidas for the MSS. e£tX66vTa, although in any reasonable sense it is quite impossible.
V. 95 : The note on Ae'yoi// dv quite ignores the fact that Ae'yoi/z' oV is a regular formula
for commencing a speech : e. g. Eurip. Iph. T. 939, Etc. 1132, El. 1060, Suppl. 465, and
contains no implication of ' I will if I must,' which would naturally be the explicit Ae'yoi/n'
dv el \pr) (Eur. El. 300) or the like. V. 133 : There seems to be no ground either in
etymology or in Greek usage for supposing that tVa&'ws is stronger than d£tws. V. 156 :
ri p.oi rj ve'ov r/ . . . TraAtv c^avwreis ^peos- Surely the phrase e^avi'crti? XP€'°S ^as no
reference to exaction of a debt, but merely means ' what thing new or recurrent wilt thou
accomplish.' Cf. Aesch. Ag. 85, TI XP€/OS5 TI ve'ov K.T.\. V. 227 ff. : Ket /xev <f>o(3tLTa.i
TOVTriK\.r)/j.' v7re£eXeiv | auros »ca$' avrov — Tre'icrerai yap K.T.\. is Mr. Sheppard's reading,
and his note, in which he follows Blaydes, is, ' Construe literally : " And if he fears to
produce the charge himself bringing it against himself — why? " (there is a simple ellipse)
" he shall suffer no worse penalty than banishment." ' Although we certainly do not
accept any interpretation hitherto proposed, because one and all seem to misunderstand
{'7re£eAwv, we cannot agree with Mr. Sheppard. In the first place we know no parallel to
the supposed sense of V7re£atpeiv, and neither Blaydes nor Mr. Sheppard supplies one.
Even if we present Mr. Sheppard with Pindar's on «e <rvv XapiVwv TIT^O, yAwo-cra <£pevos
e£e'Aot fiaOfias, his case is no better. But a more serious objection remains. The ellipse
which Mr. Sheppard thinks ' simple ' is so far from being so that not merely is it to us a
priori incredible, but we know no ellipse in Greek (no one, we hope, would compare
Horn. II. 1. 581 f. !) which even remotely resembles it. V. 464 : Mr. Sheppard reads
eiSe, which is surely inferior, especially in view of u> Aios dSveTres <£oVi in v. 151. Lastly,
it is strange that on the strength of a gloss in Hesychius, f)y6p.r)v Birjyov- 2o<^oKA^s
©UC'O-TT; Seurepw, Mr. Sheppard should give jjy6p.^v the unattested sense of ' I passed my
days ' when the ordinary rendering ' I was reckoned ' is well supported ; e. g. Thuc. 8.
81, iva . . . 01 ev TTJ 2a/A<i> Tifjuwrepov avrov dyouv; Xen. Ages. 11. 6, ras Se TWV
dp^dvTwv (a/nnpTia?) p;eyaA.as ^yc.
The only minor errata we remember to have noted are p. Ixxiv, footnote 2. Euripid.
Ph. 871 for 471, and p. 642 Spwrra for Spwvra.
A. W. M.
]ischyle. Texte etabli et traduit par PAUL MAZON. Tome I. Pp. xxxv + 199. Soci6t6
d'Edition " Les Belles Lettres." Paris, 1920. Fr. 15.
This is a volume in the recently inaugurated series of Greek and Latin authors, after the
manner of our own Loeb Series, containing text with French prose translation to face the
text, short introductions, and brief explanatory and critical notes. The series, which is
the creation of a group of French men of letters, members of the Institut and of the College
de France, who have founded at Paris the Association Guillaume Bude for the defence
and propagation of Classical culture, will be welcomed by British scholars with sympathetic
interest.
This first instalment of Aeschylus contains a short general Introduction to Aeschylus,
the Bi'os Aio-xvAov from the Medicean MS., and the Supplices, Persae, Septem, and
Prometheus, each of which is introduced by a short ' notice.'
The Introduction begins with a sketch of the life and work of Aeschylus, followed by a
few words on the moral ideas of his poetry. M. Mazon, who finds the central idea to be
the idea of Justice, rather puzzles us by his remark on Ch. 308, TO SI'KCUOV /neTa/3cu'vei,
' le Droit se deplace,' ' c'est la 1'idee nouvelle et originale d'Eschyle ? (p. vii). The second
NOTICES OF BOOKS 113
part of the Introduction gives an admirably lucid account of the history of the Text, the
.M^v. and tin- principles on wliidi tin- Ivlitor proceeds in constituting his text. HiH view
of the problem is summed up in the concluding words of the Introduction. ' Notre texte
a subi des alterations par le fait des poc-tes et des acteurs qui ont remani£ les |
d'Eschyle aux v* et iv* siecles, par le fait des grammairiens qui ont multiplie les editions
scolaires de la vulgate alexandrine, par le fait des Byzantins qui ont, a leur tour, reedit£
pendant cinq siecles le seul exemplaire qui leur fut parvenu d'une de ces editions; et
cet exemplaire lui-meme ne contenait qu'un texte de qualite mediocre, oil les fautes ne
manquaient pas. Et, malgre tout cela, nous ne lisons pas un Eschyle corrompu et deforme
sans remede : nous possedons bien, dans son ensemble, le texte meme du poete. Notre
devoir est de n'y toucher qu'avec prudence et respect.' The brief ' notices ' prefixed to
the individual plays are admirable.
M. Mazon's text is in general prudent and orthodox. Suppl. 444 : //tTf/iTrAijo-ai (for
fjLty' «/xirA.T;<ras), which is given as the conjecture of the Editor (after Droysen's
7rA»/<ras), was anticipated by Tucker. Suppl. 604 : BrjfjLov Kparovtra ^«tp TTOO-W TrA
is read by M. Mazon from his own conjecture : ' a quelle majorite aussi a prevalu le vote
populaire.' Suppl. 835 : he adopts Headlam's ydidva£. Pers. 451 : he adopts Stahl's
e^oio-oiuTo (from Herod, viii. 76, e^oifro/xeVwi/). But the conjecture is surely needless, and
the syntax, orav — c£o«roiaTo, unparalleled in good Greek. Pers. 815 : dAA' CT* cWaiSeucrai
is retained and rendered, ' et va grandir encore.* Sept. 13 : wpav fyovfy' tKaa-rov u>s TI
<ru/*7rp« Trt? is read, ' chacun enfin se donnant au role qui convient a ses forces.' Sept. 45 :
M. Mazon reads, *Apr/ T', 'Eww, »cai <f>i\ai/jLaTov &6f3ov. We do not remember any parallel
to the construction here implied A T«, B, KCU F. It seems that we should read either
"Apr/v, 'Evvci, Kai, or possibly "Aprjv T' 'Evwo, i. e. "Aprjv T' 'Ewd\iov. The corresponding
masculine to 'Evuo> would be *Ej/vu>v, and there is no reason why it should not have an
accusative in — w, as 'ATroAAto, IIoo-fi8u>, etc. Prom. 2 : a/Bporov is preferred to ufiarov,
and (v. 17) ti/wpta^civ to i£wptd£eiv. In 463 crw/xacriv is rightly retained: 'des betes
soumises soit au harnais, soit a un cavalier.'
The Translation is a highly meritorious piece of work. It differs, of course, in some
respects from what for some years has been regarded among us as the ideal to be aimed at
in translating a Greek poet. In the first place, the French translator does not aim at
giving his diction a specifically poetical colour, and the use of antiquated words, as e. g.
nef = navire (Suppl. 135, etc.) is rare. Again, while the English translator usually
endeavours to find a corresponding word to translate a Greek word, the French translator
is often compelled by the lack of compound words to employ a periphrasis. Hence there
cannot in French be the same economy of words as in Greek and English, and the French
rendering is apt to give an impression of diffuseness. Thus, e. g., Suppl. 186-190, M. Mazon
requires 54 words to render 29. Again, Prom. 467-8, OaXnaa-oirXayKTa 8' OITIS aAAos
avr' €fiov / Ao'OTiTcp' fvpt vavri'Awv o^T//xara, is rendered : ' Nul autre que moi non plus
n'inventa ces v6hicules aux ailes de toile, qui permettent au marin de courir les mere,'—
22 words to render 10. Pera. 81-86, Kvdveov 8' oft|za<rt \tvtrcr<av / <J>oviov Bfpyp.a Spuicovros,/
TroAv^cip xal iroAwavras, Hi'pu'tv 8' apfta 8tbJK<uv, / eVayci SovpiKAvrois av- / Spu'tri ro^oBafjiVov
"Ap»7 : ' En ses yeux luit le regard bleu sombre du dragon sanglant. II incut mille bras et
mille vaisseaux et, pressant son attelage assyrien, il conduit a 1'attaque des heros qu'
illustra la lance 1'Aves a 1'arc triomphant ' ; — 40 words to render 19. Occasionally, no
doubt, the French is even more terse than th<- Greek, e. g. At'£<o 8c croi (Pers. 180) becomes
' ecoute.' But, in any case, it may fairly be claimed that the periphrastic language of the
French translator conduces to lucidity, and renders his version almost equivalent to a
commentary. Nor is he wanting in spirit and vigour. As a fair illustration we take this
well-known passage from the Messenger's account of the battle of Salamis (Persae, 386
sqq.) : ' Mais, quand le jour aux blancs coursiers epand sa clarte sur la terre, voici que,
sonore, une clameur s'eleve du cote des Grecs, modulee comme un hymne, cependant que
1'echo des rochers de 1'ile en repete 1'eclat. Et la terreur alors saisit tous les barbares,
(1. ..us dans leur attente; car ce n'etait pas pour fuir que les Grecs entonnaient ce ix'-an
solennel, mais bien pour marcher au combat, pleins de valeureuse assurance; et les appels
de la tmni|M-ttc cinbrasaient toute leur ligne. Aussitdt les rames bruyantes, torn bant
J.H.S. — VOL. M.I I. I
114 NOTICES OF BOOKS
avec ensemble, frappent 1'eau profonde en cadence, et tous bientot apparaissent en pleine
vue. L'aile droite, aligned, marchait la premiere, en bon ordre. Puis la flotte entiere
se degage et s'avance, et Ton pouvait alors entendre, tout proche, un immense appel :
" Allez, enfants des Grecs, delivrez la patrie, delivrez vos enfants et vos femmes, les
sanctuaires des dieux de vos peres et les tombeaux de vos aieux : c'est la lutte
supreme ! "
An unusual feature is the printing with the choral parts of ' indications musicales ' :
we are unable to estimate the value to the reader of such indications as ' un peu plus
anime,' ' un peu elargi,' ' ferme et bien marque,' etc., but, at the worst, they can do no
harm.
The footnotes, explanatory and critical, are admirably lucid, and slips, such as that
on p. 65, where Perseus is described as son of Danaos, are rare. We note the absence of a
Bibliography such as the volumes of the Loeb Series give ; but to have been of any real
service it would have had to be of unconscionable length. The printing of the volume
is excellent, and our one regret is that it is issued in paper covers instead of in publisher's
binding. In these days, when individual binding is so expensive, this will necessarily
considerably increase the cost to the purchaser, since, even with the most careful handling,
the book, if unbound, will speedily fall to pieces.
A. W. M.
The Unity of Homer. By JOHN A. SCOTT, Professor of Greek in North- Western
University ; Sather Professor of Classical Literature in the University of California,
1921. (Sather Classical Lectures, Volume I.) Pp. 269. Berkeley, Cal. : Univ. of
California Press. 1921.
The contents of this book are well summed up by the author himself, p. 269 : ' Everything
fits into the theory of a single Homer ; the civilisation, the language, the gods, the outlines,
the marks of genius; and all these are supported by the unanimous verdict of the best
poets and the greatest critics of twenty-five hundred years.' That Prof. Scott has contrived
to cover so much ground in a short and eminently readable book is no mean testimony to
his literary skill. The work is a summary, partly of arguments its author was himself the
first to bring forward ; and while the professed student of Homer may read it with profit,
any intelligent person in possession of a good prose translation of the Iliad and Odyssey
can use it by skipping half-a-dozen pages in the chapter dealing with language. It fills a
gap, for we know of no other work in English so convenient and so complete.
The reviewer disagrees with Prof. Scott on some minor points, finds the chapter on
' Antiquities and kindred matters ' (ch. iv.) rather inadequate, and wishes he (and certain
other writers) would not use the phrase ' higher critic ' to mean ' separatist.' Against
these few defects may be set very many excellences, for example the exposure, p. 242 ff.,
of the unsoundness of the analogy between the Wolfian handling of Homer and the
application of superficially similar methods to Hebrew and other Oriental documents.
We wish this book a wide circulation.
Herakles. Aufsatze zur griechischen Religions- und Sagengeschichte. By BEKNHAKD
SCHWEITZER. Pp. vii + 247. 38 illustrations. Tubingen : J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1922.
Two essays, the first dealing with the Aktorione, in whom Schweitzer sees a twy- bodied
pre-Dorian god. The evidence is largely archaeological. The author has made a special
study of vases of the geometrical period, but does not arouse great confidence in his critical
skill when he uses (p. 166) a gross and notorious forgery (details in Rev. archeologique,
Tom. XIV, 1921, p. 154) as a genuine piece. The second essay deals rather with saga
and Marchm, which Schweitzer deliberately confuses, and attempts to restore the primitive
form of the Twelve Labours.
NOTICES OF BOOKS 115
We notice much that is old-fashioned in the author's philology and anthropology,
much rhetoric, and not enough close reasoning. Some of the material may be incidentally
of interest.
Die Reohtsidee im friihen Griechentum. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
werdenden Polis. By VICTOR EHRENBERG. Pp. xii +150. One plate. Leipzig :
S. Hirzel, 1921.
This little work, while confessedly owing much to various predecessors, notably R. Hirzel's
Themis, Dike und Verwandtes, is not without pretensions to originality. The author
sketches the development of the terms 0c/xt?, 81*77, 0*07*0?, and vop.o<t, the first with its
cognates receiving the most elaborate handling, though part of the space might have been
spared, as it includes a long demonstration of the well-known connection of Themis with
Ge. He insists on the original sacral connotation of 0c/u?, and has some ingenious
suggestions as to the origin of the goddess herself and her relation to the omphalos (p. 48).
AtVo; he would connect, not with 8(tKWfj.i, but with BtKtlv, supposing it to have been
originally a casting of lots. Whether his suggestion be right or not, he is probably correct
in thinking that the development of Dike the goddess is relatively late, while in the case
of Themis the goddess is earlier than the abstract idea. He is at times over-subtle and
hampered in more than one place by the antiquated separatist theories concerning Homer.
The Homeric Catalogue of Ships. Edited with a Commentary by THOMAS W.
ALLEN. Pp. 190, 2 maps. Oxford : The Clarendon Press, 1921. 16s.
' The Catalogue occupied historians of all ages,' but with this difference, that whereas the
ancients regarded it as canonical and a safe starting-point for their own ethnological
researches, the moderns for the most part have condemned it as the work of a later writer,
a Boeotian patriot intent on glorifying his native country, or a pamphleteer with political
theories of his own. Mr. Allen, reverting to earlier methods, has given us a valuable
study, of which all subsequent speculations as to the political and geographical distribution
of peoples in early Greece must take account. Whether or no we accept Mr. Allen's view
(p. 169) that the catalogue stood originally at the beginning of the saga, he has shown
that the conditions described are such as never existed in the Greece known to later ages,
and from that result produces the following dilemma : either the description is invented,
or it represents the actual facts at the time of composition. If the latter, it should be
consistent with the remainder of the poems, with the mass of ancient legend and with the
archaeological evidence as known to us at the present time. Consistency with the two
first could in some degree be attained by a later imitator, consistency with the third was
attainable only by a writer contemporary, or almost contemporary, with the events which
he describes.
To take an example : In spite of Mr. Allen's rehabilitation of Aulis and his geographical
explanation of the position which Boeotia holds in the catalogue, without believing that
the compiler was himself a Boeotian it is difficult to account for the extent of his local
knowledge, which is greater for Boeotia than for any other part of Greece. Nevertheless
the local writer does nothing to distort the picture ; by his very treatment of Boeotia he
gives us security for the accuracy of his description as a whole. It might, of course, have
been possible for a later writer to have himself evolved the state of affairs as described in
the catalogue, a Boeotia divided into a number of small states, as local politicians at a
lat IT date desired, with Thebes in ruins, as a close attention to legendary chronology
demanded; such, too, is the description postulated by the rest of the poem. But we
may seriously doubt whether a local poet writing at a later date would have deduced such
a state of affairs or have been ready to express it, and it is even more inconceivable
that a later poet could have deduced his description of the Peloponnese either from legend
or from later political aspirations. Still less could he have done so with Thessaly. In
II'
116 NOTICES OF BOOKS
both these cases our present archaeological knowledge goes far to confirm the compiler's
description, and in each section of the catalogue as treated by Mr. Allen we are left with
the impression that the compiler was describing facts which he and his audience knew to
be the case.
With regard to the Trojan portion of the catalogue Mr. Allen puts forward a new
theory, suggested by Mr. Arkwright, that the four lines of Trojan allies radiating from
Troy correspond with the four winds. The description is perhaps more convincing than
that of trade- routes, but difficulties arise in the case of the ' Northern ' line if we are
to adopt the view of Eratosthenes that Homer knew nothing of the coastal towns of
Paphlagonia. If Alybe was an inland district of Cappadocia and was approached overland,
it is almost inconceivable that the compiler should have considered it ' in the direction of
Boreas.'
If a small detail may be mentioned, is it necessary to suppose that the Pylos of I. 295
is the historic Pylos of the Thucydidean narrative ? The towns which Agamemnon offered
to his prospective son-in-law lay on the borders of Pylos — that is to say, on the southern
frontier of Nestor's kingdom — just as the debatable town of Thryon (venr*; Hv\ov
•fjnaOoevTos) lay on his northern frontier. We cannot tell what were the local conditions
which allowed Agamemnon to dispose of this district as he proposed. The normal frontier
of Nestor's kingdom reached as far as Modon and Coron — for some reason unknown to us
the king of men could exercise a certain jurisdiction here.
Cases such as this, where our knowledge is inadequate, do not make it necessary to
condemn all passages where we are unable to confirm the compiler's description. On the
contrary, historical criticism will take the opposite view, that in the case of a document,
which in cases where it can be tested is proved to be correct, its other statements may be
accepted as the basis for further investigations into the early age of Greece. In this lies
the great value of Mr. Allen's book.
The Origin of Tyranny. By P. N. URE. Pp. xi + 374, 46 illustrations. Cambridge :
University Press, 1922. 35*.
This volume elaborates a thesis which Prof. Ure first put forward in this Journal in 1906,
that the Greek tyrants of the seventh and sixth centuries were essentially men of business
who owed their political success to their ability as money-makers. It examines not only
the case of the principal despots of early Greece, but also that of the contemporary rulers
of Lydia, Egypt and Rome; and it reviews the available evidence, and especially the
pottery record of the seventh and sixth centuries, with the minutest care. The materials
thus amassed have been utilised by Prof. Ure for all they are worth, and sometimes maybe
for a little more. Many of his arguments are temptingly ingenious and are put forward
with excellent wit and force, yet depend on too many uncertain factors to contain more
than a bare possibility of truth. It must suffice here to mention one strange piece of
reasoning, that the tyrants ' got a bad press ' among the later Greeks because of their
commercial origin (p. 303). On Prof. Ure's own showing their economic activities were
usually far more beneficial than those of the gradgrinding ' Junkers ' whom they superseded.
The traditional view that the Greek tyrants, like the Italian ' signori ' and our own king
John, damned their own memory by the cruelties and outrages which they committed, is
surely good enough. But in spite of a weak argument here and there, the cumulative
force of Prof. Ure's plea cannot be denied, and this much at least of his case seems well
established, that the tyrants as a class were men who had considerable riches at their
command.
But how was this economic capital converted into political power? On this vital
point Prof. Ure unfortunately leaves too much to the imagination of his readers, and the
only two clear statements which he makes are open to dispute. In the first place, in
emphasising the fact that the rise of tyranny coincided with the invention of coinage, he
asserts that coinage was ' perhaps the most epoch-making revolution in the whole history of
commerce.' But expansions of currency are the effects rather than the cause of commercial
NOTICES OF BOOKS 117
booms, whose wpwrov KIVOVV should rather be sought in improved technical processes and
tin <i]»eniiiLr ii|i of new markets; and coinage hardly ranks in importance with two other
products of ancient inventiveness, a metallic currency and credit-money. Again, Prof.
Ure draws too sharp a distinction between the earlier (Jreek despots and those of the fourth
century, whose demagogic wiles and military coups Plato and Aristotle (to say nothing of
Herodotus) regarded as typical of tyrant-craft. Just as there are clear cases of latter-day
Greek despots owing their power, like the Medici, to judicious usury, so we have undoubted
instances of early tyrants posing as friends of the people and acquiring or maintaining
t heir dominion by sheer force. Is it not simplest to assume that investment in mercenaries
was the commonest method by which usurpers disposed of their wealth, like most of the
Italian ' signori ' and untold numbers of Oriental despots ? But assuming that some of
the earlier Greek tyrants also put their riches to a more subtle and less brutal use, as we
may fairly assume with Prof. Ure that they did, was it by way of money-lending, or of
rinding employment for large masses of labour, or by some other method, that they acquired
political power? On these points Prof. Ure throws out hints, but he does not follow out
his arguments. Lastly, the parallel which he draws between ancient tyrants and modern
' oil kings ' is merely confusing, for the social and political effects of present-day ' big
business ' are not as clear as the ex parte writers quoted by Prof. Ure would make out.
It appears, then, that Prof. Ure has not fully worked out his case. But he has
undoubtedly thrown a flood of fresh light on his subject, and indeed on early Greek history
in general. Whatever measure of assent his present book may command, it will certainly
rank as a first-rate contribution to Greek historical studies.
Geschichte des Hellenismus. By J. KAEHST. Second Edition. Vol. I. Pp. xii -f-
536. Leipzig and Berlin : B. G. Teubner, 1917. M. 16.
The second edition of this volume, first published in 1901 under the title Geschichte des
hellenistischen Zeilalters, shows an increase of 103 pages. It is divided into three books.
The first, dealing with the Greek city state, is 53 pages longer and has been largely rewritten.
The second, Macedonia and Philip II., is little altered. The third. Alexander, shows an
increase of 26 pages, chiefly in the first chapter, the Orient before Alexander ; the actual
story is little modified, though more space is given to the Asiatic Greeks, but the chapter
on Alexander's world-rule is completely recast. The appendices have nearly doubled in
length. The volume is really a history of Graeco-Macedonian political theory, and the
parts rewritten are those dealing with the main theme. The connexion of the books
seems to be this : (1) why the polis failed to achieve national unity; (2) how the national
Macedonian monarchy came near to achieving unity; (3) how Alexander's world- kingdom
transcended both the national monarchy and the polis, and achieved, or was in the way
to achieve, a greater synthesis.
The work is one of the most important histories dealing with Hellenism which have
appeared; it is well written, very interesting, and has the quality of making the reader
think; it has cost much labour, for Kaerst began to write on the subject in 1878; and,
since I hold its main conclusion to be unfounded, I wish to emphasise both the pleasure
and the profit I have derived from reading it. There are few sections which do not contain
some acute observation or arresting idea. It is written subject to certain limitations,
explained in the preface to the first edition : Kaerst is not interested in the details of
actual historical events, especially on the military side (hence he gives no maps), or concerned
overmuch to cite the modem literature on the subject. This does not mean that he regularly
ncL'lects detail. He is often very good; I may instance the mercenary world (where his
hclicf that the mercenaries affected the Alexander-tradition seems confirmed by Oryr.
Pap. 15, 1798); Callisthenes, where a little paragraph on p. 448 opens up a large vista;
and the League of Corinth, where In- usefully corrects Wilhelm. But it means that you
ne\ IT i(\iito know when he trill ne«_'le.-t detail ; and the neglected detail has a way of making
a hole in your theories. Also he seems to know little of recent work outside Germany, a
severe handicap when he comes to India.
12*
118 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Book I. deals with the State versus the individual, as exhibited in the polls. The
spiritual basis of the polls (ch. i.) is law — not particular laws, but a general moral order
which unifies the community. But as in the polis the community and the State are one,
the polis has no power of expansion. Freedom, to the citizen, meant (he thinks) only a
share in the government; you therefore naturally sought the power of your own class;
hence the unending class-wars. No city, certainly not fifth-century Athens, cared for
Hellas or sought more than its own interest. Things were made worse by the sophists
(ch. ii.), who championed individualism; they began with something like Rousseau's
Social Contract, and arrived at something like Bentham's greatest happiness of the greatest
number (all orthodox Germans despise Benthamism); they made of the State merely a
collection of individuals, seeking each his own advantage. The ideal philosophies (ch. iii.)
tried to remedy this by insisting on the State as an organic thing, of which individuals
were only members ; but unfortunately they exercised no practical influence. Ch. iv. deals
with the internal break-down of the polis after the ' King's Peace ' had ended any chance
of national unity ; ch. v. is Panhellenism, or the reaction against the King's Peace, with
more stress on the political importance of Isocrates than in the first edition. Much in
this book is true ; but it is written from the view- point of a believer in the orthodox German
theory of the State, to whom ' freedom ' merely hinders unification ; and there is a whole
side left out — the case for political democracy and political liberty.
Book II. is mainly Philip. On the Macedonian kingdom, Kaerst thinks it grew out of
the (originally absolute) king, and that the rights of the Macedonian people under amis
were only acquired much later, when Philip remodelled the army. But how acquired ?
If wrested from Philip, why did they never seek to enlarge them later ? As I see it, the
Macedonians after Philip did not seek to enlarge their rights, but did regard them as
fundamental, old, an essential part of Macedonia. It makes a difference, in Alexander's
story, whether the Macedonian monarchy was quasi-limited from the start. — Kaerst does
not profess to give the affairs of Athens ; but he does not share the modern cult of Aeschines,
and has some idea of Demosthenes' greatness; like most people, he rejects Kahrstedt's
view of him as a Persian agent. And he does not make the mistake of treating the League
of Corinth as a real unification ; it was a political arrangement of great possibilities. But
Philip's Persian project cannot have formed part of the constitutive law of the League, as
Kaerst thinks ; Wilcken has since cleared this up, and, moreover, the form of a constitutive
law seems to render it impossible.
Book III., Alexander, is much the longest, and is so treated as to lead up to Kaerst's
well-known theory that Alexander's aim was to be the divine ruler of the whole earth (das
gesamte Welt). It must be said plainly that his Alexander, created in 1895, is not historical,
but is a direct product of certain lines of (chiefly German) thought in the nineteenth century.
It is a companion figure to Mommsen's Caesar. The same conception of Alexander was,
however, independently put forward, also in 1895, by Radet in France; and though it
has naturally swept Germany, even there some, as Niese and Strack, have vehemently
protested. I can only notice three main points here. (1) Kaerst has done much work on
the sources, and long ago reached the conclusion that you may, nay must, use the Cleitarchus
vulgate to supplement Arrian. But unfortunately his .enlarged appendix on the sources
omits to consider the one thing vital to his view; between his first and second editions
Reuss practically, and then Schnabel (Berossos und Kleitarchos, 1912) conclusively, proved
that Cleitarchus was no contemporary of Alexander's, but wrote not earlier than c. 260.
This will make it impossible to use the vulgate for Alexander's ideas after c. 330, when
Callisthenes ceases ; for what remains ? Arrian shows Aristobulus knew nothing of his
mind ; and shall we suppose that, if he did not confide in his lifelong friend Ptolemy, he
did talk to Onesicritus the pilot or Chares the usher ? I fancy the ground has been cut
away from beneath Kaerst's use of Diodorus. (2) The Orient before Alexander. Kaerst
defines a world-kingdom (p. 290) as one which aims at embracing all the world it knows.
But, supposing Accad and Assyria were ' world-kingdoms,' how does this bear on
Alexander's intentions ? Did he study their rulers' titles in the cuneiforms ? Take India
instead. There ' universal monarchs ' were common enough from Vedic times onward ;
every king who performed the horse-sacrifice was a ' conqueror of the whole earth ' ; but
NOTICES OF BOOKS 119
it was only a title, with little meaning; two at once seem known. The 'whole earth '
meant your next-door neighbours, as often in the O.T. Kaerst takes these sort of titles
too seriously. And he does not really argue that the Achaemenid* claimed world-rule.
On the one side, their inscriptions negative it ; their style was King of kings, which was
true; even so, Alexander never used it. And on the other, they did not attack Greece
till Athens attacked them. (3) Kaerst's belief in Alexander's world-kingdom is based
upon Ammon, the supposed ' Memoirs,' and the Indian expedition. I have dealt with
Ammon and the 'Memoirs' at length elsewhere (J.H.S. 1921, 1); but I note here that
Kaerst argues in a circle : p. 488, Alexander's plan to conquer the Mediterranean shows
he aimed at world- rule; p. 509, the Mediterranean plan must be true, as it is what a
world-ruler would do. The Indian expedition requires doing again. Was it the completion
of the conquest of Persia's one-time empire, or not ? Kaerst says it was not ; Alexander
was invading a new world, i. e. world-conquest. But that Persia once ruled east of the
Indus is certain ; Kaerst does not consider the evidence, he merely assumes. Again, the
historian of Alexander must find out — it is vital — what Alexander thought India was;
that is, he must study Aristotle's geography, which Alexander had in mind at starting,
and must sift the strictly contemporary evidence from that coloured from Megasthenes —
no easy task, seeing that Megasthenes is much earlier than Cleitarchus. I cannot find
that Kaerst has attended to this at all. Incidentally, the manner in which he alludes to
Alexander's original idea that the Indus was the Nile shows that he has missed a valuable
section of (German) work here, which -would have helped him. One detail must be
mentioned. The huge army Alexander led into India, and the use of Iranian cavalry,
show (Kaerst says) that he was going outside the Achaemenid empire. But he had already
used Iranian cavalry in Sogdiana (Arr. 4, 17, 3); and had Kaerst cared to work out the
details of Alexander's known formations, he would have seen that the huge army he
postulates is a myth.
How now does the world-kingdom synthesise the polis of Book I. ? Kaerst's answer
is, culturally : the polis provided the Empire's culture (which is true) ; but world-culture
is the correlate of world-kingdom, and the Oecumene is therefore the polis universalised.
But the cities paid for their cultural supremacy, he thinks, by the loss of freedom ; on the
theoretic side, Greek political thought had evolved into the idea of subjection to a monarch ;
on the actual side, the cities were virtually ruled by Alexander. This seems to me entirely
misconceived. The former idea (drawn, I suppose, from Aristotle) is frankly inconsistent
with the history of contemporary Athens (whose plucky attempt at reform Kaerst does
not notice) and with much third-century history. And Alexander's rule rests solely on
the exiles decree. Kaerst knows too much about the League of Corinth to attempt to
reconcile it with his idea, so he treats the League as virtually abolished in 330, — reduced
to ' a shadow.' But Alexander in Tapuria settled matters strictly according to the league
(Arr. 3, 24, 4 ff, which Kaerst omits) as a demonstration that, in this sphere, nothing
was altered. Kaerst makes Alexander treat the Ionian cities as if king, on the faith of
the headings (ySao-iAt'ws *AAe£<u'8pov) of the letters to Priene (O.Q.LS. 1) and Chios (Syll.3
283); but these headings were only put on the steles by the cities themselves; Alexander
did not write to the Chians in oratio obliqua with lapses into oralio recta (our document is
a summary), or date his rescript by a Chian magistrate, as the heading does. And of the
instances given by Kaerst (p. 504) of Alexander's interference with the cities later, not
one will stand criticism, except the exiles decree. There Alexander did begin to interfere.
He might ultimately have gone the way Antigonus I. went; we cannot say. But in fact
he died. Alexander's ' world-kingdom ' does not connect very well with Book I. ; possibly
because it did not exist.
The work resembles an old statue with a modern head; one may admire the head,
but one must recognise that it is not authentic. It has the merit of putting clearly before
the reader one of the crucial problems of historical writing : if our best efforts can only
draw from the sources an imperfect picture, how far (if at all) may we seek what Kaerst
calls ' a deeper understanding ' by completing the picture ourselves ? I suppose different
minds will always answer that question differently.
W. W. T.
120 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Poseidonios. By KARL REINHARDT. Pp. 474. Muenchen : Beck, 1921.
Posidonius is unquestioned king among the ghosts that haunt the pages of Graeco-Roman
philosophy. Rumoured on every hand, his influence is suspected where rumour fails;
but first-hand evidence is not to be obtained. A great wealth of reference proves an
immense reputation, and provokes further inquiry ; but inquiry ends where it began, with
the reputation. The real man and his work remain a problem. In the treatise before us
Dr. Reinhardt, who has already proved his courage by his book on Parmenides, attempts
an even harder task, to bring life and body to this phantom. The fault of the diligent
source-hunters, he seems to say, who have set us this problem, is the externality of their
method. They collect sticks, and are surprised that they do not make a human body.
The only fruitful hypothesis is that of a personality, and such a hypothesis, grounded on
the certain instance, affords the only sound criterion for determining the doubtful case.
His method, therefore, as he follows his author over the vast field of his writings, through
geography, meteorology, cosmology, ethics, anthropology, divination, and eschatology, is
to attempt to fix in each case the characteristic trait, and so little by little to build up a
personality. Under each head he considers only main sources, e. g. in Geography, .Strabo
and Vitruvius, in Theology, Cicero and Sextus; but with these he deals very fully,
determining in detail what is Posidonian and what not. And no doubt he hopes that the
marginal cases, not explicitly considered, will settle themselves according to his results.
The clue to Reinhardt's interpretation of Posidonius seems to be a phrase from Strabo —
' he is too much given to causal theories and Aristotelianism.' Posidonius is in the main
the natural philosopher, who will have a reason for everything. Even his theories of
divination are not the Oriental occultism that most have suspected. Oriental they may
be, but not in the sense in which Philo is Oriental, and they ' breathe the same spirit as
the tract On the Ocean and the rest.' ' If in the end he believes in miracles, he seeks first
for causes. He is developing into the aetiologist and Aristotelian, never resting until he
has completed a cosmology which penetrates even to the last things.' The mystery which
pervades his thought is the mystery of nature's immense productivity, the mystery of life
itself in its innumerable forms and varieties, and the impulse behind it all is the desire to
pursue this principle into its infinite detail. However complex the detail becomes,
Posidonius shows himself always a systematic thinker and a philosopher, by his conscious-
ness that the real subject of all his predicates is the Kosmos. One might summarise this
view by saying that Reinhardt regards Posidonius as a second Aristotle, but a less meta-
physical Aristotle, whose central conception is Process instead of Form, in whom, therefore,
the exploration of detail takes precedence of ' First Philosophy.'
Dr. Reinhardt's faith is great and infectious. It almost succeeds in carrying off all
this tiresome search among the chaff for a few grains of corn. Almost, but not quite ; for
no faith, however great, will move the mountain of a defective tradition. The evidence
is, after all, slight, and in the main uninteresting ; only just sufficient to warrant a conjecture
as to what Posidonius may have been. We grant that he may have been what Reinhardt
says; but hypothesis remains hypothesis however positively it is asserted. Many of
the negative theses of the book are both true and timely, especially the emphasis on the
danger of certain kinds of literary deduction. One must also welcome the attempt to
construct a real Posidonius. But gratitude for these and other things will not force the
admission that Reinhardt has shown the real man. To us he remains the shadowy eclectic
encyclopaedist, the omnipresent influence, the king of the ghosts.
J. L. S.
La Pessimisms esthe"tique de Nietzsche. Sa philosophic a 1'epoque wagnerienne.
By CHARLES ANDLER. Pp. 390. Paris : Editions Bossard, 1921. Fr. 18.
In this third volume of his impressive series Nietzsche, sa vie et sa pensee, M. Andler has
composed into an organism, whose elaborate structure and beauty of detail does not obscure
his singleness of vision, the splendid tumult of Nietzsche's thought during the period
which Opened with The Birth of Tragedy.
NOTICES OF BOOKS 121
He begins at the source, with Nietzsche's re-statement of the, problem of Art in its
two aspects of ' intoxication,' or escape into the suffering will behind phenomena, which
he called Dionysus, and ' imagination,' or its appeasement in form, which he called Apollo.
Without ignoring in that first book such details as were doubtful or even false,
M. Andler jHTceivoH in the discovery of the Dionysian spirit its claim to immortality.
The dimness of Apollo's figure he attributes to inevitable ignorance regarding the priniit ive
powers, whose conquest by the Olympians was indeed the birthday of Europe. But
Niet/srhe never placed much dependence upon historical analogies. It would seem rather
that as ' the disciple of a yet unknown God,' he could then focus no other image.
When, however, his illumination began to shape itself into thought, and turned to
that other ' fleur miraculeuse ' of the Greek spirit — her philosophy — he beheld in the
unceasing movement of the very substance of life, the conflict of Apollo and Dionysus as
perception and will, held together by the common memory which reveals itself in the
regularity of natural laws.
M. Andler devotes the greater part of his book to the tracing of their relations in
Nietzsche's mind, as it explored the pre-Socratic philosophers or the researches of modern
biology, until he arrived at the conception of a relativity of values, whose adjustment
amid the illusions of eternal change could create the future.
He shows him emerging at last to construct a theory of civilisation, which he grandly
defined as a unity of style in all the activities of a people's life. Nietzsche saw in the
past but one such moment of equilibrium of forces, a sole Theoxenia in which the brother
Gods clasped hands. He affirmed that the spectator of that festival could evoke from the
dormant energies of the present an imperishable vitality, of which the untimely flowering
of Greece was but a prophecy.
Zarathustra was about to be born, and those who have followed him to that point
will await M. Andler's coming volumes with impatience.
G. R. L.
Agricola. A Study of Agriculture and Rustic Life in the Greco-Roman World from
the point of view of Labour. Pp. x -f 492. By W. E. HETTLAXD. Cambridge :
The University Press, 1921. 47s. 6rf.
In this valuable work Mr. Heitland begins his inquiry with the Homeric poems, and with
1111 wearying persistence pursues it through the relevant authorities to the fifth century A.D.
Amid all the changes and increasing complexity of this long period, he keeps to his chosen
topic — rustic labour conditions in the ancient world — with an almost rigid fidelity. Thus,
in dealing with the earliest primitive conditions, he will not be drawn from his special problem
into any discussion of the origin of Property : ' We can only begin with ownership in some
form, however rudimentary ; ' in particular, ' how private property grew out of common
ownership is a question beyond the range of the present inquiry.' Similarly, when the
tif t h century of our era is reached and Roman Gaul is in question, he will attempt no ' full
description ' of contemporary society there ; for that, we are referred to the ' admirable '
work of Sir Samuel Dill. Even labour conditions in callings other than agriculture are
throughout considered mainly in order to illumine by way of contrast or comparison the
rustic conditions under discussion. Agriculture is singled out for special examination for
three reasons : firstly, it is the basic industry — on it human life and all other industries
and all progress ' did and do rest ; * secondly, as time went on, its economic importance in
the ancient world manifestly increased; thirdly, its importance is not merely economic;
as a nursery of steady citizens and at need of hardy soldiers, agriculture possesses a moral
value which may not be overlooked. Yet this strenuous adherence to one topic of inquiry
implies no narrowness of outlook in its treatment. On the contrary, Mr. Heitland brings
to bear on the discussion not only the widest and most intimate acquaintance with classical
writers; he calls to his aid Byzantine authorities also, and a goodly array of writers who
122 NOTICES OF BOOKS
deal with analogous conditions among modern peoples. All this varied material he handles
in such a way that it is never allowed to obscure the central problems of his book.
The main conclusions Mr. Heitland reaches may perhaps be thus summarised. Labour,
simply as labour, without regard to the possible profit and loss attending its results, was no
more desired or engaged in for its own sake in ancient times than it is now. The farmer,
be he owner himself or merely tenant, was from earliest times always willing to devolve the
f Arm-work upon others whenever he could ; and as a means of escaping the drudgery he found
the accepted institution of slavery ready to his hand. Free wage-labour never really compe-
peted with slave-labour in agriculture ; that free men worked for wages on farms we know,
but of such free workers we hear very little, and then almost entirely as temporary helpers
in seasons of special pressure. Thus, ancient civilisation rested in fact on a basis of slavery,
and Mr. Heitland inclines to the view that slavery in some form or degree was an ' indis-
pensable ' condition of its progress. The lot of the rustic slave was far from being a happy
one. Unlike his urban brother, who as crafts and industry developed might be made use
of in ways which allowed him some degree of liberty and the hope of manumission, the rural
slave had no prospect of freedom ; at the best, he was kept at work till he could work no
longer, and then left to linger on the estate, feeding on what he could find and decaying in
peace ; at the worst, after long years of exhausting labour he was sold off to a new master
for what he would fetch — the ' stonily merciless ' policy (as Mr. Zimmern once termed it)
approved by the elder Cato. The former treatment was what he might ordinarily expect
on farms where the primitive ' domestic ' conditions still prevailed, under which a slave
found a place, however humble, in the family, a close union of persons bound together by
ties of blood and religion under a recognised Head. But as great estates emerged — on
which agriculture had been industrialised, and was conducted by means of gangs of slaves
driven on by overseers whom the system compelled to be merciless — the old domestic
relation disappeared in the brutal exploitation of human animals for immediate profit.
The lot of these plantation slaves, cowed by the scourge, the fetters, and the prison, and
with no prospect save that of being cast off when worn out, is (with the single reservation
that their occupations, being above ground in the open air, were healthier) to be compared
only with the lot of the unfortunate wretches who were kept in thousands in bondage in
the mines, where they slaved till they perished. The brutal callousness this system implied
and the degradation of manual labour it undoubtedly caused were not its only evils. Through
its tendency to remedy all shortcomings by simply using up more flesh and blood, it fatally
deadened inventive genius and prevented economic improvements; and from all this
followed, naturally enough, first the stagnation and then the decay of ancient civilisation.
The slave-system became a canker economic, social, ultimately political. ' I believe,'
writes Mr. Heitland, ' that the maladies from which the old Greco-Roman civilisation suffered,
and which in the end brought about its decay and fall, were indirectly or directly due to
this taint more than to any other cause.'
Were these conclusions presented simply as among the impressions left upon a scholarly
mind by a lifetime of research, they would demand attention. But we are not asked to
accept them merely on authority. It is a conspicuous merit in this book that Mr. Heitland
seeks always to give us the contemporary evidence on which his conclusions rest. From
century to century we are kept in vivifying contact with such evidence as remains. And
since, unfortunately, ' the available record neither provides adequate labo\ir statistics nor
furnishes a criticism of existing conditions from the point of view of the handworkers,' it
became necessary ' to take each witness separately, so far as possible, and not to appraise
the value of his testimony without a fair consideration of his condition and environment.'
This enormous labour Mr. Heitland has in no wise shirked, but has patiently put his authori-
ties into the witness-box and questioned them one by one. It is, he admits, a long method ;
assuredly, it must have cost its user much weariness of the flesh ; but the result is a careful
collection and sifting of authoritative passages bearing on the conditions of rural labour
during well-nigh fifteen centuries, which as a mc>e marshalling of evidence (apart from other
merits) possesses permanent value, and will provoke in many who use it both gratitude
and admiration for its author. The jealous Fates have withheld from Mr. Heitland the
gifts of style; often, too, there is grammatical roughness in his writing, which is rarely
NOTICES OF BOOKS 123
other than bald and pedestrian ; indeed, the book is not easy reading. But these defects
are more than balanced by the unfaltering thoroughness, the cautious circumspection, the
erudition and the wisdom with which the evidence is sought out and examined.
P. A. S.
Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art. By WALTER WOOD-
BURN HYDE. Pp. xix -f- 406, 30 plates, 80 illustrations in text. Washington : The
Carnegie Institute, 1921.
The athletic monuments of Olympia have given rise to a considerable amount of scattered
literature. In the present elaborate volume Walter Hyde, who has devoted many years
to this study, has collected and discussed all this material. The clearness of the arrange-
ment, the excellent table of contents and index make the book invaluable for all students
of the subject.
Beginning with a brief account of Greek games and prizes, he proceeds to discuss the
characteristics of victor statues. The bulk of the book consists in a classification of
athletic types and a discussion of existing remains that illustrate these types. The last
chapter deals with the positions of the athletic statues described by Pausanias in the Alt is
of Olympia.
The writer's conscientiousness makes the book somewhat difficult reading. Amid the
multitude of authorities and opinions quoted it is not always easy to discover his own view,
nor is he always quite consistent. Thus it is not quite clear whether he regards the ' manus
supinas ' of the Praying Boy as uplifted in prayer or not (p. 132). In discussing the Standing
Diskobolos he accepts the orthodox view that the statue represents a mortal athlete taking
up his position for the throw (pp. 76, 220) ; yet on p. 78 he would restore it as a Hermes
with a caduceus in his right hand, not realising that the whole effect of the statue, every
line of which denotes preparation for action, would be ruined by the addition of such an
attribute. Again, while accepting on p. 117 the earlier date for Polykleitos, on p. 151 he
places the Doryphoros many years after Pheidias.
Hyde clears away many misconceptions. Victor statues, he shows, were not made
exclusively of bronze, nor are they necessarily life-size. Plutarch's statement that only
those who had won three victories were allowed to erect portrait statues, even if true of his
own time, was certainly not true of Greek times. The vexed question whether victor
statues were dvaBrjfiara or, as Pausanias says, iv a.6Xov Xo'yw, he compromises somewhat
weakly : ' Some athletic statues were votive, some were not.' The distinction made by
Pausanias is purely artificial. Dio Chrysostom, in a passage quoted by Hyde on p. 41,
states that athletic statues were avaB^ara and contrasts them with honorary statues.
Is a memorial window in a church a memorial or a dedication ? Surely it is both, and so was
the athletic statue in a Greek sanctuary.
The most valuable chapters in the book are those in which he classifies and discusses
athletic types in art. It is often difficult to determine the motive of a statue, especially
when the statue is a late copy or is mutilated, and some of Hyde's interpretations are very
doubtful. Thus, I cannot agree with him in regarding the famous Subiaco marble as a
belated survival of the archaic Knielauf motive. It is incredible that an artist who could
conceive and execute such a torso should have so completely failed to represent the attitude
of running. Nor can I agree that the two marble statues from Vellrtri now in the Palazzo
dei Conservatori are ' our best representations of runners ' (p. 198). They may be
wrestlers, they may be diskoboloi, they cannot possibly be runners. Men do not run with
their feet at right angles. A far more likely representation of a runner is the marble statue
in Boston which Hyde interprets as a charioteer.
Hyde discusses in some detail certain heads from Olympia. The two archaic helmeted
heads he assigns to statues of Hoplitodromoi. This may be correct ; and if so the statues
may have been those of Phanas of Pellene, and Phrikias of Pelinna, if the latter was a man
and not a horse (Pindar, Pyth. x. 12). The date of the fine bronze portrait head of a boxer
is much disputed. Hyde dates it in the third century, and on the strength of this assigns
124 NOTICES OF BOOKS
it to the statue of Kapros. He discusses very fully an ideal head of a boxer, sometimes
described as a head of Herakles. By careful comparison with the Agias he shows that it is
certainly Lysippean in character, but this does not justify us in describing it as an actual
work by Lysippos himself or in identifying it with any particular statue of his. Such
conjectures are fascinating, but in the present state of our knowledge most hazardous,
especially when used as bases for further conjectures.
The last chapter, which is based on Hyde's earlier work, De Olympionicarum Staluis,
is a useful contribution to the vexed question of Olympian topography, and vindicates the
accuracy of Pausanias. Indeed, where, in my opinion, Hyde errs, is in not sufficiently
appreciating this accuracy. He shows how Pausanias begins his round by describing
the statues south of the Heraion, and then proceeds southwards till he reaches the statue
of Telemachos, the basis of which was found in situ close to the south wall of the Altis.
The next fixed point is the basis of Philonides, also found in situ close to the south-west
corner of the Altis. Hence most writers assume that the statues enumerated by Pausanias
(vi. 13, 11-16. 5) were placed between these two points, and that Pausanias describes them
as he saw them, going from east to west. Hyde, however, proposes to place them east of
the Telemachos statue, arguing from the fact that the inscription of Aristophon, the first
on the list, was found just to the east of Telemachos, and one part of the base of Xenombrotos
further east, near the Colonnade. Now, the blocks of buildings in the Altis were so freely
used by later inhabitants for building, and are so widely scattered, that little reliance can be
placed on their evidence except so far as they confirm Pausanias. In the case of Xenombrotos
one block was found to the east, another inscription belonging to another statue in his
honour was found to the south of the Temple, not far from the spot where we should expect
from Pausanias to find it. Hyde admits that both statues must have stood together.
The obvious inference is that they both stood south of the Temple. The next nineteen
statues were placed by Hyde in his earlier work west of the Temple. He has now changed
his opinion, and without any evidence assigns them to a row of bases south of the Altis
wall and a shorter row opposite the Leonidaion. To this there are serious objections.
First, it makes Pausanias retrace his steps needlessly. Secondly, these bases form a very
remarkable and distinct group. They are large bases evidently belonging to one period,
and from their size probably supported equestrian statues. Two of them actually bear the
inscriptions of Roman magistrates. A little further east in the same line is the monument
of Mummius. It is reasonable to suppose that on all these bases stood statues of Roman
officials and benefactors, many of whose inscriptions have been found.
Two small errors may be noted. On page 47, speaking of the nudity of athletes, Hyde
quotes the story of Pherenike as told by Philostratos. The latter is speaking not of
athletes but of yu/^vao-rat at Olympia. Again, on page 237 he wrongly describes as
^ci'Ai^ai the glove on the bronze arm in Fig. 52. The hard leather round the knuckle
shows that they are i/xavres of €is.
If I have dwelt unduly on points on which I disagree with Hyde, it must be remembered
that the whole subject is full of difficulties. In these cases the careful and ample references
which the author gives enables the reader to form his own opinion. E. N. G.
The Temple Coins of Olympia. By CHAKLES T. SELTMAN. Pp. x + 117, 12 plates.
Reprinted from Nomisma. Cambridge : Bowes and Bowes, 1921. £2 2*.
Mr. Seltman has done a laborious piece of intensive work in Greek numismatics. The
great feature of it is the scrupulous care with which he has recorded every die known to him,
and the conjunctions of obverse and reverse dies. Thus he has secured a wider and more
exact basis for the determination of the dates and character of the successive issues. On
the other hand, he has not followed the example of Mr. G. F. Hill and others in stating in
each case the position of the two types in relation to one another. In any case his twrlvr
quarto plates of coins, and his exact descriptions of them in the text, constitute a far more
complete apparatus of the coins than has before existed.
It is satisfactory to find that this new and valuable material completely confirms the
NOTICES OF BOOKS 125
dates for the scries adopted in the British Museum Catalogue (Peloponnesus, Gardner,
1887). But though Mr. Seltman accepts these dates, he resolutely refuses to connect them
with tin- history of Elis. Thus he dates the first appearance of the head of Hera on the
coins to 421 B.C., but refuses to connect it with the formation of a league between Elis and
Argos which took place immediately after the peace of Nikiaa. He assigns some at least of
the coins with the inscription API to about 271 B.C., but refuses to see in the inscription
the name of the Elean tyrant Aristotimus, who ruled at that time. Such scepticism,
which is certainly excessive, is based on his view that all the coins which bear the name of
tin- ]>eople of Elis wen- in fact struck at Olympia, and belong exclusively to the sacred site.
The coins bearing as types the eagle or Victory or the head of Zeus were, he thinks,
st ruck in the precincts of the temple of Zeus — which, by the way, did not exist when the
earliest of them were issued — and the coins bearing the head of Hera in the precincts of the
Heraeum, which does not appear to have had any precincts.
It has long been recognised that the coins have a close relation to the sacred site, and
were issued largely in connection with the agonistic festival. But against the view that
they were struck continuously and in the Altis itself there are certainly objections. Only
a few of them, under special circumstances, bear the name of Olympia. Some of these
seem to date from about the time of the <rwoiKioyios of the people of Elis, when their
citadel was built ; for the rest Mr. Seltman accepts the generally received date of 363, just
after the Eleans had expelled the people of Pisa from the presidency of the games. It is
difficult to agree with him that the inscription OAYNI1IKON stands for 'OAvyxTriKoiv,
which he interprets as 'OAv/nTriKwy a.y<i>vwv <n}/x.a. A great number of parallels, and
especially that from the coins inscribed 'ApKaStKoy, suggest that the form is really neuter,
'OAv/xTriKov 1'Ofjntrp.a. For the other reading no parallel can be cited. And when
FAAEION occurs on one side of the coins and OAYNIIIKON on the other, it is hardly
possible to avoid putting the two together : ' The Olympian issue of the money of Elis.'
However, the point is of no great importance ; whether the coins were minted at Elis
or at Olympia, they belong alike to the state of Elis and to the sanctuary of Olympia.
That the Eleans, the wealthiest people of Peloponnese, had no state coinage is most improb-
able. That the Zeus mint and the Hera mint worked independently Mr. Seltman has
certainly proved : and this is a notable gain.
The least satisfactory section of the book is that which deals with the weights of the
coins (p. 109). The author formulates the view that ' it is the Olympian standard, and not
the Aeginetan, as has been generally supposed, upon which the Elean coins were struck.'
The two standards are in fact identical : both are of Pheidonian origin. Mr. Seltman accepts
the dictum of Sir W. Ridgeway that ' the ancient mint-master was no more inclined than his
modern representative to put into coins of gold or silver a single grain more than the legal
amount.' But this is quite inconsistent with the facts. In the pure silver coins of Athens,
and even in the gold coins of Philip and Alexander, which do not lose weight by oxidation,
there are found variations, not of a single grain, but of several grains. It has been a matter
of dispute among numismatists whether the standard weights of series of coins should be
decided by weighing the heaviest known example, or by taking an average of the well-
preserved specimens. Neither system is satisfactory if accepted mechanically : one must
use one's wits. But the dominant fact, which must never be lost sight of, is the well-
established custom, in the case of ancient minters as well as in the Middle Ages, that the
responsible officials had to strike a definite number of coins out of a given weight of metal.
They had no means of exactly regulating the weights of individual specimens, as does the
modern mint- master, but tried to approximate to an average. Thus if a few of the coins
were somewhat heavier than what was due, they struck others lighter than what was due
in compensation. Where the blanks were cast in a mould, as at Syracuse, greater exactness
was possible ; but in many issues the wide variations show rougher measures of adjustment.
Thus the many savants who have busied themselves in trying by weighing to ascertain,
often tn the hundredth of a gramme, the precise legal standards of coins have laboured in
vain : an approximation is all that is possible. 1 11 1 his matter, as in the case of the arrange-
ment s of the (Jreek theatre, and in other oases, modern prejudices have hindered the full
understanding of ancient conditions.
126 NOTICES OF BOOKS
However, setting aside these historic doubts, we must conclude by expressing our
gratitude to Mr. Seltman for placing before us so orderly an arrangement of so beautiful
and interesting a series of coins. It is a laborious piece of work successfully accomplished,
and its value will be great to all students of Greek coins.
Catalogue of the Silver Plate (Greek, Etruscan, and Roman) in the British
Museum. By H. B. WALTERS, M.A., F.S.A., O.B.E. Pp. xxiv + 70, with 30
collotype plates and 78 figures in the text. London : Printed by Order of the
Trustees, 1921.
This handsome volume is slimmer than one could have wished. The British Museum is
unfortunately less rich in ancient silver-plate than some of its continental rivals ; it contains
no single finds at all comparable to the great hoards from Hildesheim or Boscoreale or
Berthouville. Moreover, the exigencies of organisation have relegated two of the most
noteworthy of the treasures which it does possess — those from the Esquiline and from
Carthage — to a different department; they have been admirably handled by Mr. Dalton
in his Catalogue of Christian Antiquities, but there are so many points of contact between
them and the later of the pieces with which Mr. Walters deals that it would have been very
convenient to have had the whole group brought together, particularly as it is for the study
of this later period that the present Catalogue will be most valuable.
Greek silver-work of the best period is extraordinarily uncommon everywhere. It is
therefore not surprising that there are few examples of it here. On the other hand, the
London specimens of the craftsmanship of Alexandria, as of the provincial industries to
which it gave birth, are fairly numerous and representative. The table-service from
Chaource and the patera from Caubiac might be singled out for special mention. But there
is much besides that is arresting. So far as Britain itself is concerned, the votive tablets
from Barkway and Stony Stratford are perhaps the most intrinsically interesting objects.
The exiguous set of fragments from Coleraine tells precisely the same story as does the much
more abundant series discovered a year or two ago in Scotland ; the two must have been buried
about the same time and under very similar circumstances. The condition of the Capheaton
treasure suggests a different reflection. To spare the decorated parts of vessels is more like
a modern vandal than an ancient one. Can they have been mutilated, not before they were
concealed, but after they were discovered in 1747 ?
Mr. Walters has performed his task of description carefully and well, and the notes
which he adds will be of material assistance to those who have occasion to use the book.
The Introduction is a lucid and helpful summary of what is known as to the technique and
the history of the silversmith's art in antiquity. On p. xiv it is truly said that ' during the
best period of Greek art, from the sixth century down to the end of the fourth, we hear
little of working in silver.' But a reference to the passage in which Thucydides explains the
trick played upon the Athenian envoys by the Egestaeans would have been in place here.
A few lines further down, where we are told that ' a cup by Acragas with hunting- scenes
also enjoyed great fame,' room might have been found for mention of Th. Reinach's highly
ingenious interpretation of the Acragantis venatio of Pliny : it is a singularly attractive
conjecture and would account for an otherwise unknown artist. These, however, are
trifles. Taken all in all, the Catalogue with its excellent illustrations is worthy of the great
national institution with which it is associated. And there could be no higher praise.
GAMMA.
'Ep/jLTjvevriKov. By GREGORIOS N. BERNARDAKIS. Athens: Petrakos, 1918.
Mr. Bernardakis, who is perhaps best known in England as the editor of Plutarch's Moralia
in the Teubner series, has now produced under the above title a second edition of an earlier
work. Besides having undergone a general revision, this edition differs from its predecessor
in giving the explanation of passages quoted under one head only, while by means of an
NOTICES OF BOOKS 127
index, or 'EvptTrjpiov, a reference to any passage there will show every page and column
of the lexicon where it is cited. Consequently, though containing more matter, it is less
bulky than the earlier issue. Nevertheless it is a volume of considerable size, as the
following statistics will show. It contains 24 pages of Introduction, followed by 1283
pages of double columns, S.\ inches in height by 5 in width, a full column containing 63
lines. It will be admitted that this is a great undertaking for any one man to venture
upon, and the author is to be heartily congratulated on having brought his work to a
successful conclusion.
As the title implies, his object has not been t «'• compile a complete dictionary of the
language — as indeed is plain from the contents of the first page, Jaw. d^a/vcco.
t'lfiuKilt. d/JaAe. d/SuTrrio-Tos. d^3uo-»caVTa)s. a^aro?. — but rather to use selected words
as pegs on which to hang explanations and emendations of passages where he does not
agree with the reading or exposition accepted by other scholars. To deal with these at
all fully would require a volume rivalling the lexicon itself, but a few may be selected from
the examples cited by the author himself in his introduction, and therefore, it may be
presumed, those by which he would wish to be judged.
In the following passages he holds that no emendation is needed. JEscb. Pers. 815.
fKiraiSevcTcu. " ou8«Vto y«p> (frrjrrt, TOJV KUKMI' Kprjirls viroKtLTai ovoe o~vveo~TY]Kt' TO. yap
KaKti, f)yovv i) /ne'AAowa roir vcwTCptov 'EAX^wv yeved, eKTpt<freTai tri KOI (KTraioeverai KCU
7rapao-K€ud£cT<u. (When full-grown) ^ie'yi<rra KO.KO. TOVS IIcp<ras fpydo-ovrai."
^Esch. Ag. 967. " t£tTeive o-Kiav tis diroTpoir^i/ (= virtp — ) ruv KW'Ktuv Kav/xariov."
Soph. Phil. 1128 seqq. " epfj.rjvevo'ov '. opas (tfJ-t) TOV Hpa/cAt'ovs oidoo^ov (=TOV
*Hpu.K\eior), a>8e a^Xiov ( = ourws d^Aiw? 8iu.Ktifj.erov : < <TTOV cvpt'oxo/tat e«s Tavnjv -rijv
aOXiav KaTuorao-ii' > >), OVKCTI \prjo-ofjuvov (rot ( = TW TO£U>) TO fitOvvrfpov."
Soph. Aj. 1281. ov&e crvp-ftrfvai TTOOI. Teucer interprets the TTOV ftavros TJ TTOV
trravTos of Agamemnon as follows : " oTrov&ijiroTe tfiaivev rj oirovBiJTroTe urraTo A "us,
Kayo) wap^v, Trpwros pev cyw, Sei'repos 8' tKelvos : eyw p.tv 7/yor/txei o?, tVcti/os 8* c</>C7ro/^cvos
KOU rot? ffiov prjfJia.(Ti Trei^d/xevo?. Kara ravra KOL evrai'6a TO ov&e <rvfj,ftr)vai iroSt =
ovSc <rvv <roi f3rjvat (o-v/*y8a8iVai w? «rov To-u)) rlAX* aKoAov^rai." But can we understand
so much here, or again in Eur. Heracl. 884 : " Ndei oiSt : iva avrov Sia TU>V o<f>0a\p.<t)v
iSr/s TOV (aAAoTf) KpaTovvra KGI (vvv) TQ <rjj X€tP' Kpa.Tovp.tvov (VTTO T^S <r^? XflP0<»
The following passages he would emend : —
Soph. Fragm. 950. 0«a for ©ti'a, explaining oi^ virdp\ei yijpas TWV o-o<^a)v, ev ots 6
?v Qtias Tpo</>^s (TT}S (ro^ta?) yeytv/ie'ros (aTroAeAavKw?) ouiyti rov xpovov., and referring
for £rve(m xpdvo) to Aj. 622.
Eur. Phoen. 22. Treipas (ddp. TOV Trttpta) for o-7rcipa?, omitting 26, 27.
Ar. Eg. 755, where by a slip 'A^apv. is printed for 'ITTTT. (p. 17). tfiiroXifrav for
ep.irooi£ti)v. " tvprjrai Be TO ep.tr oA.i'^0) Trapa IlToAc/Ltaio) <Ls o~vv(awfj.ov TOV eva£ovi£u> . . .
'E p. TT o A i £ o> v Aoi^or o~>y/x.atV<i : irepvwv oia TWV ovo TrdXwv (TWI' 8vo aKptoF) Tail' O"UK«OV
airapTtii, KOI ovrui TTOIOIV 6p|xa$ovs."
Arist. Poe/. c. 21. otov TOI iroAXa Ttov /ueyaXcwuraiv, 'Ep/^oKeuKo^ai^os » » (By-
water). But A* has /LtcyaAtwTon/, and Mr. Bernardakis would extract from this p.eyav
Ai" dirrjii', writing the whole passage thus : oiov TU TroAAa TWV Mao-o-aXiwTtuv, peyav
At di riTir Epp.oKatKo^ui'dos.
Tlii-se citations will suffice to show what the author offers to his readers, and it must
be left to our leading scholars to decide what can be accepted, and what must be rejected.
Non nostrum . . . tantas componere lites.
H. W. G.
'Affrjvaitcov 'Ap%ovTO\6yiov. A'. Ot ap^ovrf<f "M-rrevi^eXot. By D. G.
KAMPOUROOLOS. Athens : Sideres, 1921.
K. Kampouroglos has long been known as a profound student of Turkish Athens, upon
which he has published three volumes of documents and three more of a history, un-
fortunately not continued after 1687. The present treatise of 208 pages is the first instal-
128 NOTICES OF BOOKS
ment of a biographical and genealogical account of the Athenian archontic families, which
formed the first of the four classes composing Athenian society in Turkish times. Of these
families that of the Benizeloi — not to be confounded with the still greater name of the
famous Greek statesman of our day — is the most interesting, having produced a con-
siderable number of local celebrities under the Turks. Tradition connects the Benizeloi
with the Acciajuoli, the Florentine Dukes of Athens ; but the first documentary mention of
any member of this, the foremost of the 12 chief archontic families, occurs in the office of the
Blessed Philothee, daughter of Angelos Beniz61os. This patriarch of the family was bom
about 1490, and his celebrated daughter, whose remains are still an object of veneration,
was martyred by the Turks in 1589. The Benizeloi produced several prominent teachers,
notably Angelos ' the triumphant,' so-called for his victory in a theological discussion,
commemorated in the poem of Bouboules; Demetrios, mentioned by Babin and Spon;
and Joannes, the historian of Athens in the latter half of the eighteenth century. They
can boast of an artist, who decorated the monastery of Phaneromene in Salamis, and their
name is commemorated in an inscription of 1682 in the still more famous monastery of
Kaisariane, which was traditionally connected with them and the family of Chalkokondyles,
the last Athenian historian of the Middle Ages. In modern times, as English readers will
learn with interest, the mother of K. Gennadios, for long Greek Minister in London, was
the daughter of a Benizelos. This scholarly little book ends with a genealogical tree of the
Benizeloi. WILLIAM MILLER.
New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature : Recent Discoveries
in Greek Poetry and Prose of the Fourth and following Centuries B.C.
Edited by J. U. POWELL and E. A. BABBEB. Pp. xi + 166. Oxford : Clarendon
Press, 1921. 10s. 6d. net.
The need of such a volume as this, gathering together the results of recent discoveries, has
long been felt, and the editors and contributors have earned the gratitude of all students.
One may indeed wish — human beings are notoriously an ungrateful race ! — that they
had widened the scope of their undertaking to include recent additions to Greek literature
of all periods ; but that would, of course, have meant a much bigger volume, which in these
days would have involved heavy expense, and we must be thankful for what we are given,
hoping that the editors may some day follow up their gift with a second.
Apart from one or two exceptions, like the appendix to Chapter V, in which a brief
description of the farce and mime in P. Oxy. 413 and the mime in Pap. Londin. 1984 is
given, the editors have fixed their lower limit of time in the second century B.C. ; thus
the volume really includes only the sub-classical period of the fourth century B.C., and the
Hellenistic period down to the virtual absorption of the Greek world into the Roman
Empire. Within these limits of time the editors have cast their net widely, and the volume
gives a very complete review of the recent discoveries. It does not aim at furnishing an
exhaustive bibliography of the works mentioned, but the principal editions and most
important commentaries are usually referred to, and the character and literary merits
(or demerits) of the compositions are indicated.
There is possibly, here and there, a tendency to overrate the importance of the new
finds, but that is natural enough in the circumstances, and is certainly better than the
excessive depreciation with which some scholars, disappointed in their (often absurdly
exaggerated) expectations, have treated them. Perhaps the tendency referred to is most
marked in Mr. Lumb's chapter on Menander. That he should emphasise the many merits
of that, in his degree, admirable writer, as against the quite unjust strictures of several
critics, is all to the good; but he surely exaggerates them in more than one place. In
his synopsis of the IlepiKeipofu'vT/ he rather misses the fun of Sosias's ' army ' ; and he
should not speak (p. 91) of the fragments coming ' chiefly from the tombs and earthen
vessels of Egypt ' ; ' ruins and rubbish heaps : would be a better representation of the
facts. But these are small points ; the chapter is to be welcomed as a salutary corrective
to the popular depreciation of Menander.
NOTICES OF BOOKS 120
Mr. 0. ('. Richards ^ivrs a very discriminating review of the mimiambi of Herondas;
and wholly admirable is Mr. E. M. Walker's account of the Helknica Oxyrhynchia and the
Athenaion Politeia. It is, however, invidious to single out individual chapters; the whole
volume can be read with profit, though not all the views expressed in it will meet with
equal acceptance. Already, too, some additions have to be recorded both to the list of
new discoveries and to the bibliographical references on those dealt with ; but that is
inevitable so long as new discoveries of papyri continue to be made.
Callimachi Fragmenta nuper Reperta (Kleine Texte fur Vorlesungen und
Obungen, herausgegeben von HANS LIETZMANN, No. 145). Edidit RUDOLFUS
PFEIFFER. Pp. 94. Bonn : A. Marcus und E. Weber's Verlag, 1921.
This admirable series, which is now familiar to workers in many different spheres, continues
to grow steadily, despite the difficulties of the time, and the present volume will be not
less welcome to the classical scholar than its predecessors in the same field. The editor
in his brief preface explains that his first intention was to include only the more important
fragments found in the papyrus or vellum MSS. from Egypt, but he eventually decided
to add also the smaller scraps recovered from scholia, lexica or papyri. These scraps
are often small or of little value, but it is convenient to have a complete collection, and his
decision is therefore to be commended.. He gives, besides the texts, brief introductions
and bibliographies to the single pieces and a rather full critical commentary, dealing
separately with scholia (where these are found in the papyri concerned), questions of
reading, and points of interpretation. He has collated the Berlin papyri, and incorporates
new readings of the Geneva vellum fragment, supplied by Prof. Martin. As he has also done
a good deal himself in the way of restoration and interpretation, it will be seen that the
volume, like others in the series, is not a mere school-book but a substantial contribution
to knowledge. In one respect, through no fault of his, it is ill-timed ; it appeared just
before the publication, in Part XV. of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, of some important new
Callirnachean fragments. But this is a fate to which all workers in the field of papyrology
are liable, and it may be hoped that a second edition will be called for, in which the new
fragments can be incorporated. The editor indeed, in a note at the end, expresses the hope
that he may be able to include them in an ' editio maior cum indice verborum,' which he
is to publish shortly; and he also promises a volume of ' Kallimachosstudien,' to which
there are frequent references in the notes to the present volume.
Jules Nicole, 1842-1921. Edited by CHARLES BERNARD. Pp. 79. Geneve:
Edition Revue Mensuelle, [1922]. FT. 4.
This is a memorial volume in honour of the regretted Prof. Nicole of Geneva. Various
scholars, Swiss, French, German, and British, have contributed appreciations or reminis-
cences of the deceased scholar, of whom an excellent photograph serves as frontispiece.
Prof. Jouguet has compiled a bibliography of Nicole's works; Georges Nicole, the son of
the subject of the memoir, contributes a translation of the Georgos of Menander, acquired
and edited by Nicole, with a photograph of one page of the MS., and several of Nicole's
articles, chiefly on papyri, but including alao a very interesting one on Isaac Casaubon's
Journal, are reprinted, together with some of his poems. The volume is a pleasing act of
homage to the memory of an excellent scholar and very attractive personality, and it gives
a good idea of the great services rendered by him to classical studies in general and to the
I'liiversity of Geneva in particular. The purchase of the Geneva collection of papyri is a
lasting memorial of his enthusiasm and energy ; and it is pleasant to know that the traditions
set by him are being continued by his successor, Prof. Martin, who has recently been
instrumental in securing an addition to the papyrus collection.
130 NOTICES OF BOOKS
British Museum. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia
and Persia (Nabataea, Arabia Provincia, S. Arabia, Mesopotamia,
Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Alexandrine Empire of the East, Persis,
Elymais, Characene). By G. F. HILL, KB. A. Pp. ccxx + 360, Map, 55 plates.
London, 1922. £3 10s.
This volume brings much nearer completion the splendid series which it adorns; there
remain to be published but the Catalogues of Gyrene, Carthage and N. Africa, Spain and
Gaul, and at the other end of the world the coins of Alexander. Here we have an account
of what may be called the Semitic and Iranian fringe : just as no one but Mr. Hill could
have written it, so no one in the kingdom is competent to review it.
Of the most generally attractive group, the coinage of the Achaemenids (PI. XXIV.-
XXVII.), Mr. Hill has lately treated in this Journal and no more need be said : it leads
on to the coins of Alexander struck at Babylon (PI. XX.-XXIIL), which offer a clear
example of the continuity of his empire with that of the Achaemenids; his satraps such
as Mazaeus were more inclined to follow the Greek fashion. Mr. Hill is ready to allow
that the famous decadrachm (PI. XXII. 18) with the horseman attacking an elephant
may celebrate the victory over Porus. In this and in the view that the punch-marks on
the Danes were not impressed in India he is supported by Dr. G. Macdonald in the Cambridge
History of India. The coinage of Mesopotamia (PL XII.-XIX. ) is perhaps the least interest-
ing part of the book, being mostly city issues of Antonine and later date with Greek and
Latin inscriptions. Edessa furnishes the only exception with its royal coins, the earliest
of them with Aramaic writing. In the other regions it is the Greek which gives way to
Semitic scripts. The rest of the area is occupied by obscure kingdoms. The task of
working out their skeleton history mainly falls upon the numismatist : from the coins we
learn the kings' names and sometimes their dates ; more often they have to be set in order
by considerations of type and style; rarely do inscriptions or literary sources, Classical
and Oriental, afford any help ; but of all this evidence Mr. Hill is master.
Apart from names and dates, the Nabatean coins (PI. I.— III.) are interesting for the
simultaneous use of two standards intended for commerce in different directions; after
the kingdom was reduced to a Roman province the emblems of various Semitic gods,
some of them going back to Old Testament times, call for most attention (PI. III.-VII. 2).
The Sabaean and Himyarite coins (PI. VII. 3— XL 19) with their imitation of Attic types
are one more evidence of the wide range of Attic commerce : the Aramaic (?) inscription
which appears side by side with the S. Arabian monograms has not yet been deciphered :
Mr. Hill has separated from the Sabaean and Himyarite series certain coins that he ascribes
to the Katabanians and Minaeans. Other imitations of Attic types come from N. Arabia
(PI. XI. 20-26, LV. 2-9).
In the other Semitic region of Characene (PI. XLIIL-XLVI.) round about Muhammerah
the war, as is not surprising, has added to our knowledge : to it we owe a hoard of coins
struck by a new king Attambelos (PI. LV. 10-14) who comes before the known Attambeli, so
that they must be renumbered. The name has been interpreted as ' the gift of Ba'al ' but
the literary Greek forms 'A0a/z/?iAos, 2a/x/3iAos suggest something like an Arabic
x> or \J* and a meaning like ' Ba'al has strengthened ' (cf. Gedaliah) : no form is very
like the name on XLV. 3-XLVI. 16 which seems to read Atmabiaz. As between the two
forms ABINHPFAOY and AAINHPFAOY (cf. Josephus, 'Afifwypiyo-;), the former is
supported by the easy interpretation ' Nergal is my Father ' (cf. Abijah), and the triangular
form of B on the Avroman Parchments (J.H.S. xxxv. p. 26) makes a mistake easier :
though again a form like Iddinna-nabu, ' the gift of Nebo,' gives a possible sense to the
second reading : neither seems connected with the name on PI. XLIV. 11, 12 that Lidzbarski
plausibly reads Ibignai. The other names of the dynasty look rather Iranian.
In the true Iranian region Mr. Hill first discusses the coins of Andragoras and the related
coins and ring from the Oxus treasure with UhSu : he has convinced himself of their
genuineness and puts them round about 300 B.C. in N. Persia. For the coinages of Persis
(PL XXVIII.-XXXVII. 1, 250 B.C.-A.D. 230) and Elymais (PL XXXVIII.-XLII.) he
NOTICES OF BOOKS 131
mostly follows Colonel Allotte de la Fuye. They remind us that the Parthian Empire
was only the greatest of the Iranian kingdoms.
But the chief importance of all these coins is not so much historical or strictly
numismatic as epigraphic, as aids to the study of the dark ages of Semitic writing. By
th»-in we can trace the changes in Aramaic letters from the clear forms of Mazaeus till they
merge into Protopehlevi in Persis, into Mandaean in Characene, into something not unlike
Estrangelo in Edessa and till in Nabatean a few forms are on their way to Kufic. The
Himyaritic, the ancestor of Ethiopic, is clear enough save for its habit of making mono-
grams : the Aramaic is less unfamiliar, but in these later alphabets several letters are like 7
and others like I, so conjecture would be unrestrained were it not for the severely critical
spirit in which Mr. Hill takes the proposals of former scholars and nearly always produces an
acceptable result.
Mr. Hill has given an excellent table to the degraded script of Persis. It would have
been a help to the mere classic who wishes to study the coins intelligently, if the author
had given the same to all the others : it is laborious to construct tables for oneself and
those published are rather out of our beat. Also it would have been helpful if the coin-
legends discussed in the Introduction could have been repeated in its text instead of being
given only in the actual catalogue.
Six supplementary plates, giving room for nearly a hundred coins, include so many of
the important specimens belonging to other collections, that the volume almost counts as
a Corpus Xumorum within its limits. It is a most solid contribution to the history of the
Nearer East from Alexander to Ardashir.
I'.. If- M •
The Legacy of Greece. Edited by R. W. LIVINGSTONE. Pp. 424. Oxford :
Clarendon Press, 1921. 7*. M.
The idea of this work is a happy and a timely one : a statement of what Greece has taught
and can still teach the modern world. The writers describe the great and manifold
achievements of a civilisation which owed comparatively little to its predecessors or its
contemporaries : and they argue that the study of that civilisation has a special value for
the world of to-day ; since Greece is the source from which most of the ideas which constitute
our modern culture are directly or indirectly derived, and if we would understand these
ideas thoroughly we must investigate them at the source. In the words of the Dean of
St. Paul's, our civilisation is ' a river which has received affluents from every side ; but its
head waters are Greek.'
Prof. Murray speaks of the straightforwardness, sanity and distinction of the Greek
genius in an introductory essay which is a model of suavity. Dr. Inge, in his essay
on religion, is not concerned with Hesiod and ^schylus, with Zeus, Dionysus and
Apollo, but with the Christian Church, the dogma and organisation of which he shows
to be rooted in Hellenism : he lays more stress than any of his fellow-contributors
on the continuity of Western culture from Greek times to the present, and the
eccentricity of his attitude may be forgiven him on that account. Prof. Burnet traces the
development of Greek philosophical speculation, and maintains that our philosophers niay
learn from the Greeks to take a broader and humaner view of their task. The chapters
contributed by Sir Thomas Heath, Dr. Charles Singer, and Prof. D'Arcy Thompson provide
the best short account of Greek science in English and form one of the most valuable portions
of the book. Dr. Singer writes so genially that it seems pedantic to point out that the
picture on p. 266 is an Attic work of about 480—470 B.C., not an Ionian of about 400.
From this point onwards the chapters are less narratory and more reflective : the
main facts about Greek literature, history and art being taken as known. Mr. Living-
stone's essay on Greek literature follows the excellent precedent set by himself in his
previous treat incut s of the subject. I wonder whether the lover of English literature might
not accuse him of a certain unfairness. Unless we i-eail Mr. \.\\ iuL'stnnc very closely, we
may be inclined to say that he pays too much attention to the literature of the nineteenth
132 NOTICES OF BOOKS
and twentieth centuries, which is after all only one phase of our literature ; that he has a
habit of placing the worst English verses he can find (pp. 264-266) beside the best Greek
verses, and bidding us observe the superiority of the Greek; as if there were no bad or
mediocre verses in Greek literature, whereas the lines quoted on p. 282 are a good example
of the epic style turned somewhat blowsy; and that he is overstating his case when he
maintains that such directness of expression as we find in the Homeric farewell of Hector
can hardly be paralleled in our literature ; since we can point to the Farewell of Launcelot
and Guenever in Malory's Morte <P Arthur and to hundreds of other passages in the same
book. The answer to these objections would be that Mr. Livingstone is especially con-
cerned, in this essay, with dangers which beset us at present and to which we have often
been prone in the past ; that while simplicity, and moving simplicity, is a common quality,
found even in Gipsy and Blackfellow tales, Greek literature is characterised by a union
of simplicity with elaborate complexity through a strong sense of style and form ; that
although this union appears in our best writers as well as in Greece, all our best writers are
products of a civilisation which is a branch of the classical, and nearly all of them have
been directly, consciously and profoundly affected by classical literature.
Mr. Toynbee frightens us a little when he announces his intention of treating the
history of ancient Greece as a work of art, or more precisely as a tragedy in five acts ; but
he treads the wire so deftly that we soon lay our fear aside. Mr. Zimmern discourses on
the political thought of Greece with all the stops out, paints a richly coloured picture of
the Greek citizen, who ' brought to politics the best of Conservatism, together with the
best of Radicalism,' and then sets to work on a vaster canvas, where against a background
of contorted personifications a baroque Thucydides is submitted to apotheosis. Prof.
Gardner describes the Lamps of Greek Art, eight in number. I am not sure if he will win
Greece many friends by belittling other artistic periods — Egyptian, Gothic, post- Renaissance
— or by such challengeable statements as that the Greek athletes and spectators thought
more of form (he means style) than the modern, or that ' among the most notable achieve-
ments of chemistry are poison-gases.' The notion of comparing the Vatican Demosthenes
with Barnard's underrated Lincoln was a good one ; but the Demosthenes should have been
given his true hands; and tiie argument from photographs would be better away. The
Heaulmiere is hardly comparable with the Conservatori Shepherdess : especially as the
head of the shepherdess is by an Italian sculptor of about 1870.
The book concludes with a spirited account of Greek architecture by Sir Reginald
Blomfield.
. The editor describes the book as the first of its kind in English. Zielinski's magni-
ficent defence of classical studies has long been available in an English translation; but
the plan of the present work is different. Its great interest and value will be clear, I think,
from what I have said. Every Hellenist will find much in it which he did not know or had
not thought of. It is not addressed, however, to Hellenists only, or perhaps mainly, but
to a wider .circle of educated and critical readers; and that is why I have signalled certain
exaggerations which I regard as tactical errors.
J. D. B.
EDITORIAL NOTE. — In the notice of Mr. A. J. Reinach's Recueil Milliet, published in the
last number of this journal (vol. xli, page 300, line 1), expriment should be read for experi-
ment. The editors apologise for this misprint, which was introduced after the proofs had
been corrected. The reviewer is therefore not responsible for it.
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
I. INTONATION IN GENERAL
Inadequacy of our Theory. To whoever may desire to understand the
music of ancient Greece, I would recommend that he put away from his mind
that sense of superiority which our progress in counterpoint, harmony, form
and orchestration has engendered, and devote his attention to the shortcomings
of our music, for they relate to those very matters concerning which Greek
music has the most to teach us.
Our music has come down to us from remote ages through the Greek
system. The first stage in its progress was marked by the collection of a
multiplicity of Harmonies and modes, not unlike those upon which the
classical music of India is based. Of the diatonic scales, some were soft,
employing septimal or soft intervals, and others were hard, employing semi-
tones, and major and minor tones, differing among themselves in the order
in which these intervals were strung together. The Greeks may have added
to this collection. Their chief contributions to musical progress, however,
were instrumental heterophony and the science of intervals. They wrere
driven to the use of the former by the tyranny of the ' metrici.' Thus the
long and short of Greek poetry led indirectly to the harmonic system of music,
which is one of the main achievements of European civilisation. The founda-
tions of musical science were laid by Pythagoras. The results of his labours
were soon apparent in the classification of the enormous number of scales in
use, the adoption of a musical notation based upon an intricate system of
correlated keys, and the art of modulation. In the break-up of Roman and
Greek civilisation, the subtle distinctions between the various Harmonies
were the first features of the music to go under. Curiously enough, the
innovations introduced by the master minds of Greece survived in the art of
modulation, and the contrapuntal tradition. A new series of keys was invented.
This degenerated, under the growing influence of keyed instruments, and the
craze for unlimited modulation, into the musical freak of equal temperament,
in which a scale, grotesquely out of focus, is set up as a standard and basis
of theory. Players on the pianoforte and organ perform tempered music
in tempered tones to admiring audiences. Orchestras are given tempered
music to play, and are expected to find out for themselves without the guidance
of an adequate theory, how to bring it into focus. Naturally enough, the
Pythagorean or ditonal scale, which employs major tones only, and is for
that reason the nearest thing in the hard diatonic to equal temperament,
has an immense vogue. It is perhaps the ugliest scale that was ever put
J.H.S. — VOL. XLJI. K
134 E. CLEMENTS
together. The Indians and Greeks combined a ditonal tetrachord, for the
sake of the contrast, with some other form of diatonic. There is no evidence 1
that they ever sang or played, as we do, in the ditonal scale. I think that we
too would tire of it if it were not wrapped up in various ways and disguised
by much modulation.
The theory, notation and terminology of temperament are unequal to
the task of interpreting the Greek keys and describing the Greek Harmonies.
I propose to name the intervals with which real music is concerned in the
simplest terms possible, and to make slight alterations in the accidentals of
the staff notation. The theory of real music, treated from the standpoint
of the musician, is a new science.
Intervals. Of the names of intervals in the following table, some are
new, such as those which include the appellation ' soft,' and the terms used
to differentiate the varieties of the semitone. I have seen the terms false
fifth and false fourth applied, quite unnecessarily, to the diminished fifth
and augmented fourth. As I use them, they point out a vital distinction.
The ' soft ' intervals are derived from septimal harmony, that is; directly or
indirectly, from the seventh partial tone. The others can all be got from
different combinations of the first six partial tones and the intervals formed
/3 4 9\
by them. Thus the fourth from the fifth gives the major tone \5 "^ o = o )'
The fourth less the maior third is the semitone (5 -r T = T«)« The major
\o 4 ID/
tone less the semitone is the residual semitone (^ -r ^ = _- ,-x). The major
\O 1O IZtS/
third less the major tone is the minor tone ( r -r = = Q J ; and the minor tone
^^ O */ *
less the semitone is the small residual semitone ( f- -=- 1K = 0. ). The rough
\ y ID ^4/
minor third, one of the most important intervals in music, contains a minor
tone and a semitone ( X ,-> = 07). If the major tone be subtracted from
ID Z I '
^ /32 9 256\
it, the diminished semitone or Xet/i/ia will result ( ^ -f ~ = sjo /•
•^7 o ^4o/
1 The use of the ditonal numbers for space prevents my .doing more than pre-
the notes of the Lydian key, by late and senting a bald outline of the views I hold
ignorant authors (such as ' Anonym us '), is regarding the history of music,
no evidence, in my opinion. Want of
THK IXTKIMMM-TATION OF GREEK Ml'SK
l.T.
TAHLK <>i- IMKKVALS FROM THK FIFTH TO THK SK.MITOXK
.._
3-
V ;
s »
Interval.
iatio,
• 1 1
S£S
Interval.
Ratio.
ill
555
I2
s o
O w
o
0
I 1. Fifth . .
3
2
702
1 13. Soft tone .
8
<j
231
2. False fifth
680
»14. Major tone
9
8
204
64
3. Diminished fifth -45
610
15. Minor tone . .
10
182
(4. Augmented fourth
5. False fourth
45
32
27
20
590
520
^16. Semitone .
17. Residual semitone
16
15
135
128
112
92
6. Fourth
4
3
498
18. Diminished semitone .
256
243
90
I 7. Soft ditone
9
7
435
19. Soft semitone
21
20 85
] 8. Ditone
81
64
408
20. Small residual semitone
£ ™
9. Major third
5
4
386
21. Small soft semitone .
28
27
63
10. Minor third
6
316
5
11. Rough minor third
32
27
294
12. Soft minor third
7
267
I «
/Q1
To these may be added the simple quarter-tone or comma ( ^ ; cents 22).
\ol) /
This interval results when the minor tone is subtracted from the major tone,
or the rough minor third from the minor third, or the diminished semitone
from the semitone. There are other varieties of ' quarter-tone,' but their
importance is not such as to demand a special terminology. The quarter-
tone in general may be defined as the remainder when one variety of semitone
is subtracted from another. I propose also to use the term enharmonic in
a special sens^e. If two notes differ in pitch by a simple quarter-tone I shall
call the lower note the ' enharmonic ' of the higher note. Thus, if the upper
note in the interval of the fifth be replaced by its enharmonic, the false fifth
will result.
Accidentals : Hard. I take c t) as the enharmonic of c tj, and c ^ as
the enharmonic of c JJ. I distinguish the sharps in the same manner, using
the signs $, JJ, $, and for the flats I take ^., -^ and b. In the matter of tuning,
pitch C will be c" t^ The table which follows shows how the notes are con-
nected by strings of just fifths; separate signs for the different octaves are
omitted, being unnecessary.
J Int<-rv;ils 7 to 9 are all varieties of the major third.
136 E. CLEMENTS
ENHARMONIC: PROGRESSION
1st string. 2nd string. 3rd string 4th string.
fJt
e tj e ty
at] a Q
d(j dlj
g^ gtJ gR
c
c tj
ft] fq fH
b^ b-fc. bb
e 4 e ^ e.b
a=fet a -k a b
d-j* db
c
fb
The ditonal scale, being built up from fifths only, will take its notes from
one and the same string. Hence notes of the same string will give the following
intervals, — the fifth, fourth, ditone, rough minor third, major tone, diminished
semitone. If the semitone or minor third above a given note be required,
it will be found in the next higher string; the major third will be found in
the next lower string. The note which is a minor tone above a given note
also belongs to the next lower string. It may be observed that the low sharps
(ft) belong to the first string, the low naturals (ty to the second, and the low
flats (-k.) to the third; the ordinary sharps (ft) belong to the second, the
ordinary naturals (t)) to the third, and the ordinary flats (b) to the fourth.
We can manage to dispense with high flats, but will on some rare occasions
require three extra low flats (=k). I think the following progression by semi-
tones is worth the space it occupies, as it is easily memorised, and when grasped
makes the whole system clear. The skhismatic progression is indispensable.
The skhisma is the difference (approximately 2 cents) between the major third >
and the nearest approach to that interval to be got from a string of fifths.
386 - (5 X 1200 — 8 X 702) = 386 - 384 = 2.
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC 137
PROGRESSION BY THE JUST SEMITONE ( =•_ ) 8
/18\
\15/
String*
I. 2. 3. 4.
*$ ga
- bQ cfl
dJJ eH ffl
c JJ d t] e b
f8 gH ai>
aft bj) eft db
dft e £ £ U gl>
gft *& b^ c*
eft d (J e-k
fft glj a^.
c () d.|*
f 1 g-bi
PROGRESSION BY THE SKHISMA
String.
1. aft dft gft
2. a
3. f| bt) et| atj dt} gt; cH ft; b
4. gb cb fb
The last table teaches us that, for all practical purposes, a high sharp is
equivalent to an ordinary fat, an ordinary sharp to a low fat, and a low sharp
to an extra low flat.
Accidentals : Soft. The hard minor seventh, a discordant interval, such
2916
as c ty to b -k, or g ^ to f tj, is the octave less the major tone (r -i- o = -jr ; cents
i o y
996). When this interval is flattened to a certain point, it is resolved into a
7
rich soft semi-consonance, without beats, the soft minor seventh, , cents
969. In the notation, we shall mark the relationship between these intervals
by a similarity of sign, and draw attention to the septimal origin of the soft
minor seventh by using the figure 7. The soft counterpart of b -^L will be b -^. 7,
3 A low sharp is here followed by a low note takes the lower variety of accidental.
natural, a low natural by a low flat, and so The varieties of hard diatonic are therefore
on. If both are naturals or flats, the lower easily described.
138
E. CLEMENTS
of b b, b |>7, of d t), d t)7, of f ft, f #7. In the chord of the seventh g $ b t) d $ f t,
the root, fifth and seventh belong to the same string. It is therefore a matter
of extreme simplicity to discover a note which is a soft tone below, or a soft
minor third above a given note. For example, a -^.7 is a soft minor third
above f t5, and d t> 7 a soft minor third above b b.
Suggestions for a Keyboard. The niceties of intonation with which we
have to deal need not arouse any misgiving. One need not have a phenome-
nally good ear to learn to detect major tones, minor tones and soft intervals.
I have known an uneducated Indian girl pick up in a very short time the soft
intervals of some of the rarer Indian rdgas, and sing them with accuracy and
without the slightest hesitation. When a European audience rewards a
singer or soloist on the violin or 'cello with rapturous applause because of
the exquisite feeling he has shown, the secret of his success is to be discovered
in the felicity with which he has (perhaps unconsciously) managed his quarter-
tones and other intonational nuances.4 Gifted musicians constantly employ
these shades of meaning. My own limited experience further leads me to
the opinion that the more highly educated and trained the performer the less
sense of harmony does he exhibit.
The best way to train the ear to detect real intervals is to have an American
organ constructed with seventeen notes to the octave, to arrange suitable
music for it, and to familiarise one's self with different scales. I suggest
the following keyboards and tuning, the one on the left for European music,
and the one on the right to render the extant specimens of Greek music
accurately intoned.
/•-:
£bV
:•::»<.:
I.
EUROPEAN KEYBOARD
,
^ ^
at,
. ,.
i
&
atj
II.
GREEK KEYBOARD
The extra keys may be coloured red ; they should be raised above the black
keys and should be placed sufficiently far back to allow of easy access to the black
keys. It is possible to place seventeen vibrators with their action side by side
without widening the octave unduly. These keyboards will present no great
difficulty to the player.
* I have often heard really musical soloists
indulge in septimal harmony. In Swiss
jodeling for two voices, I have heard it in
the lower part.
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
139
TUNING METHOD (WITHOUT BEATS)
I.
Fifths from c tj (1) up
(2) down
Major thirds from c ty (1) up
(2) down
Fifths from a b (1) up
(2) down
Fifths from e t) (1) up
(2) down
g q-d q-a q.
fp-b^-e-b
e ^.
ab.
e b-b b-f ft.
d fr-g b-
H
(1) up
(2) down
(l)up
(2) down
(1) up
(2) down
up
II.
g 5-d lj-a
f U-b^
et).
ab.
e b-b b.
d b-g b-
The owner should learn to tune the instrument himself. Vibrators will not
keep in tune for long ; and in real music everything depends upon accuracy.
i
II. GREEK INTONATION
Preliminary. No one can tackle the Greek notation with any chance
of success unless he makes a preparatory study of the structure of scales.
Pythagoras was the father of this branch of science. Other philosophers
could devise no better method than to lump together all the scales they knew
and guess what eq*ual division of the octave might produce all the notes required.
This method was followed in ancient India. The number guessed was 22.
The octave was conceived of as consisting of 22 srutis, of which 4 went to
the major tone, 3 to the minor tone and 2 to the just semitone. I mention
this fact as I find the sruti figures convenient for the brief description of true
diatonic scales. In Greece, musical philosophers thought the tetrachord the
most useful instrument for the classification of scales.5 They divided their
tetrachords into three genera, the enharmonic, chromatic and diatonic.
Aristoxenos was a prolific writer who has been extensively quoted by later
authors. He scorned the application of numbers to music.6 He preferred
his own slipshod method of guesswork. Like the rest of the Greeks he thought
in terms of the E mode. In order that what he says on the subject of the
three genera may be better understood, I give the typical tetrachords in staff
notation —
& S
£ § $
J
1 & a
A ^JvJi?^
5
I
~
I I
3
t
=
\
PI
£
ENHARMONIC
CHROMATIC
DIATONIC
* A scale might tiiki- t«-tnu-hord X fol-
lowed hy ti-trarhonl V. Thus two tetra-
chords might explain four scales, namely,
\\. \ \ . x\ . y\.
• Dr. Mac ran 's Harmonica of Ari»toxeno»,
Oxford, 1902, p. 189.
140 E. CLEMENTS
The two intervals between the hypate and the lichanos were termed the
pyknon; the hypate was the barypyknos, the parhypate the mesopyknos,
and the lichanos the oxypyknos. The hypate and mese were <f>06yyoi eo-Teore?
or invariable tones and the parhypate and lichanos tcivovf^vot, that is of
course having regard to the construction of tetrachords. Aristoxenos gives
one species of enharmonic, three chromatic, namely syntono-, hemiolio-, and
malako-chromatic, and two diatonic, the soft, malako-diatonic, and the hard,
syntono-diatonic. He tells us that the enharmonic pyknon contains two
enharmonic dieses. He estimates elsewhere that the enharmonic diesis
amounts to one fourth of the difference between the fifth and fourth.7 The
enharmonic pyknon gives a lichanos a half tone above the hypate. He
describes no other enharmonic tetrachord. He lays down that the lowest
chromatic lichanos is one-sixth of a tone higher than the enharmonic. He
also informs us that the tendency in his time was to degrade the enharmonic
into a variety of the chromatic by widening the pyknon (Harmonic, i. 25).
Ptolemy (Harmonic, i. 14) describes a number of tetrachords by relative string
lengths. The enharmonic he gives may be represented thus g t3, a -^7, a \>, c t}.
In such a scale, melody would naturally fall into some such figure as g fy a \>,
ctj, a -p.7, gtj, the intervals being semitone (,~), major third (-7), soft ditone
V4,
9 \ /27\
=• } small soft semitone ( 0-~ . I have not space to discuss the rest of Ptolemy's
I / \.aO/
scales. The inference to be drawn is that the enharmonic pyknon consisted
of two intervals, semitone, quarter-tone,8 in that order, amounting together
to a just semitone ; the chromatic contained two semitones, and the diatonic
a semitone followed by a tone.
The Diatonic falls into two broad classes, the soft, which employs septimal
harmony, and the hard. The latter includes the ditonal and the True
Diatonic. The True Diatonic is made up of three major tones, two minor
tones and two just semitones. There are five varieties in common use in
our own music. They were also contained in the Greek system of keys, as
I shall show. Other forms of true diatonic scale are possible. As we think
mostly in terms of the major scale, I give the five scales in that form. In
order that the scales may be the better compared on the first of the two organs
above described, I give two examples of each. The position of the false
fourth or fifth, which is an important factor in the harmony, is shown by
brackets, and the sruti figures are given below each scale.
7 This is the major tone. The diesis of 8 According to the classification herein
Aristoxenos was a conception of no practical followed. ' Quarter-tone ' is here used in its
value. general sense.
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
TRUE DIATONIC SCALES
COMMON CHORDS
I. Ionian Scale. (2 Major, 1 Minor.)
141
4324432 4324432
II. Just Major Scale. (3 Major, 2 Minor.)
4324342 4324342
III. Aeolian Scale. (2 Major, 3 Minor.)
3424342 342*4342
I\r. Dorian Scale. (1 Major, 2 Minor.)
3 423442
V. Scale of Raga Kanada
(Indian). (1 Major, 1 Minor.)
342344 2
44 2 3 432
4423 432
In our music, diatonic passages of any length rarely remain faithful to one
form of scale. Enharmonic changes are the rule rather than the exception. An
example of Scale I is the opening theme of Tschaikowsky's Seasons — July ;
of Scale II, the first theme of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony ; of Scale III,
the main theme of the Andante from the fifth Symphony. Our Minor (descending
melodic form] is generally in Scale III. IV and V are found in passing modula-
tions, more especially the former. The fifth Symphony of Beethoven— first phrase
in octaves — seetns to me, as played, very like No. V, A mode.
I conclude this subsection with a note on the subject of modes. The C mode
may be taken in Scales I, II, or III. IV is tised when a passing modulation
/x ininh- into the supert»n i< minor. I and IV suit (he D mode, both fourth and
fifth coming out true, but I is preferable as IV gives what is very little else than
a rai-ie'f/ of the minor mode. The oriental D mode is almost alirayx in Scale I.
142 E. CLEMENTS
The E mode may be taken in 77, 777, or IV ; its ethos varies from sweetness
to strength in that order. The same remark applies to the A mode which may be
taken in Scales 77, 777, IV, or V. Scale V gives an extremely rugged and
manly scale, very popular in India. The G mode is best in Scale I, and the
F mode in Scale 77. The B mode is merely a variety of the E mode, and need
not be discussed separately. In harmonising the modes, if he wishes to preserve
their purity, the student must avoid spurious concords. No common chord which
contains either a false fifth, or a ditone, or a rough minor third, is permissible.
The ditone may be replaced chromatically by the minor third, the rough minor
third may be replaced chromatically by the major third, or, in suitable positions,
the third of the chord may be omitted. The ditone, or rough minor third, or the
corresponding sixths, may occur between passing notes.
The Introduction of Alypius. The Introduction of Alypius is the only
comprehensive guide to the Greek notation extant. It is a fragment of uncer-
tain date. It purports to exhibit the whole range of keys, that is to say
fifteen, in the diatonic and chromatic genera, and six and part of three others
in the enharmonic. In the first key, the Lydian, in the chromatic genus, four
of the notes which mark the distinction between that genus and the diatonic-
are crossed out.
The first thing to notice is that the enharmonic, whenever exhibited, is
identical with the chromatic. The second is that all the keys in all the genera
follow the terminology of the E mode. It is the pyknon from the hypate
to the lichanos in the E mode tetrachord which is changed to mark the genus.
Nevertheless, the parhypate suffers no change in passing from one genus to
another. Alypius has therefore not only confounded the chromatic with
the enharmonic,9 but has likewise, in his enharmonic keys, confounded the
parhypate with the lichanos.
Bellermann worked out the order of tones and half tones in the diatonic
keys. The question which is still unanswered is — what was the order of major
and minor tones? The amazing opinion of Bellermann and Westphal that
the Greeks were well acquainted with equal temperament is based upon no
evidence beyond a stupid passage from that unscientific writer, Aristoxenos.10
As regards pitch, Bellermann makes the Lydian key start from D. I prefer
C, as it simplifies the notation, and gives a much more comfortable compass
to the extant compositions.
The keys are in what was known as the Greater Complete System. The
section called the synemmenon, which I have enclosed in brackets, served as
a modulatory bridge between each key and the next. The Hypolydian key
and all the keys between the Lydian and Hyperdorian are of the same pattern.
The paranete synemmenon and trite diezeugmenon in these keys are distinguished
by different signs, although, at first sight, they seem to stand for the same
note. Herein lies the clue to the Harmony. No other scale will fit into the
scheme except Scale IV. When that scale is applied to the keys named, the
whole notation of the diatonic stands revealed.
' See the remarks of Aristoxenos above 10 Macron, p. 207.
quoted.
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
THE DIATONIC KEYS
Lydian — Scale IV-
i
£L tt ^p- tt Q_ o
IT fl K
7 •] R4> C P M I
Si3g
>j^^A
o ru z E u-e-x M'I'
VNZ CuZ'tv T<
ffyber/ycjian — &ca
rn
-0
c
4> c P M i
F cu q
o ru
v NZ /•
'*
i
v T<'y'N z
i^
6
3PN-7FH^ THM CPMJ
D n cu n <
0 r v
VNZ
4e^ft
A H
I 0 f U * i M'
frs-^
i^S
s&
i
B
m
•>s
s
r/-^^ '
nMAHTB*lU
>N / A y 2
P\h^l;n^
i M'A'HT'
y
p
I
^»
h^r
^^
M -mvh't'Tn OKH MAH
REuiH/v^^ K^\>n<>N
~ky $kh is mafic jra n sbos / 6/0 M
i
I
tin OKH ZA* r B * i O'K'H'
^^
ai
O
s
fc»^°r
UMWHVlXTCOKnOK HZ
R H3H rM C K A OKA >C\A
144
(CT-. 1 lu late^PT/
vy^E^T I I k
&
HV1XTCOKIZA H Z A *
^CKA <C\ > C \ A M K A
Hype. rae olian. - *3 <*<z/<s IT
ffi
<.n
£
i
w
[J*
m
X T CO K I Z A
1CKA <C\Z
O'K'I'Z'A'
K'A'<T'\'
/-. r —
W^m*?1^
£
9
i
X JlcMI*
HU9NH7TX </>CO TCOKIZ/^
FCK 1 CKA<C\
Tonicm- Scale- I -n,o^.u(a^<na into JCa,le Y -
'Pa
Mlrf^
g
<c A<
—r J ca.l
If
TX<t>COZ I Z E U-e-A u-e-o's'l'Z
— ^c^/e /F_
JBfi
,-t?
(^
^
^^
K
-5^®1
145
14« E. CLEMENTS
The notation ignores the skhisma. No question of temperament is involved,
as the Greeks never constructed an instrument to take the whole system of
keys. Indeed, some of the keys were never used. I have made the necessary
transposition at the most convenient point.
Let us now turn to the so-called chromatic and enharmonic keys. Of
these, the Hyperlydian, Hypophrygian, Phrygian, Hyperphrygian and Hypo-
dorian, all of which are in Scale IV, make use of signs which we have already
identified. These keys, whether designated chromatic or enharmonic, prove
to be built up of tetrachords of the type c t}, d -k, d t>, f tj. They are arranged
in the order c fy d b, d ^, f p, the parhypate and lichanos having changed places.
These are enharmonic and not chromatic tetrachords. The Hyperaeolian
and Hypoionian enharmonic and chromatic, which likewise use signs already
ascertained, give a chromatic scale, which may be represented thus : —
H ct;, cJJ, et), fJJ, gt|, gtf, H
The rest of the keys contain four new signs : —
M W
*f and its octave .., and and its octave A. Alypius gives the instru-
-fl )l "1 ]
mental sign of the third of these as b. Aristides Quintilianus (Meibom. p.
21) uses .1, which appears, from the instrumental scheme below, to be cor-
rect. An examination of the remaining chromatic keys on the lines already
indicated easily establishes Y and N to be a ft (skhismatic b 4t) and V and A
to be d ft (skhismatic e =fet). In the Lydian and Hypolydian enharmonic keys,
Alypius takes e =k and b 4t as enharmonics of e |> and b (j respectively. He
is followed in this by Aristides Quintilianus. The three manuscript hymns,
in most recensions, use e -^. as enharmonic to e [>. Some recensions of the
hymns to Helios and Nemesis, however, give A, wrhich may be meant for
A (e^O- In the instrumental notes to the song from Orestes, ~\ (corresponding
to the vocal V or e^) again appears. From the context, it is evidently a
wrong note, being intended for e -fa. (f). I think there is good reason to hold
that the frame of the instrumental scheme (which see below) led the ignorant
to suppose wrongly that e 4). and b ^ were the correct enharmonics of
e (> and b [>.
The truth of my interpretation is established not only by the versions it
presents of the old Greek compositions but by the extraordinarily ingenious
alphabetical arrangements here set forth : —
THE VOCAL S( II KM i:
fss
ABTAEZH0/K
ao/agi
F7ri
THE INSTRUMENTAL SCHEME
(Sharps akhismatically changed into flats.)
V y Z/- A N / \
^
a
brf^!'rfef bp^f qpi>(*
®z
n<A
rti
E iu3 h _cH H y fl
147
148 E. CLEMENTS
It is evident from the instrumental scheme that the fully developed kithara
was tuned to the ditonal scale. This was undoubtedly one of the many
innovations brought in by the Pythagoreans. To them also must be awarded
the credit for inventing the notation, and not to Aristoxenos. The bar of
the kithara enabled the player to tighten the strings by any interval up to a
full semitone. In India, the bina, which is the principal instrument, is tuned
to a collection of notes based not upon any favourite scale, but upon con-
siderations of convenience. The nuances, which transform the fret notes
into the required scale, are obtained by pressing hard upon the wire or drawing
it to one side. The Pythagorean method was similar ; the bar gave any note
required. The adoption of the relative string lengths of the ditonal scale for
the intervals of the Lydian key by late and ignorant authors, such as
Anonymus n and Aristides Quintilianus, is therefore no longer a mystery,
and the assertion that Greek music was founded upon the ditonal scale stands
refuted.
Other Notational Signs. The Epitaph of Seikelos, an inscription discovered
by Sir "VV. M. Eamsay at Tralles, and the papyrus fragment containing a
chorus from Orestes (lines 338 to 343) bear rhythmic signs. The length of the
notes is shown by marks placed above them, — for a note of two time-units
and _i for one of three. A note upon which the beat comes bears a dot. In
the chorus, a distinction is drawn between beats, one kind being denoted by
a dot above the note, and the other by a dot at one side. I assume that the
former method marks the main stress, and the latter a subsidiary stress. The
epitaph makes use of the following additional signs (1) ^- as in I k, and (2) x
N^^ ^/ \^S
as in CXI- These are dealt with in Anonymus de Musica. Bellermann takes
X to mean staccato, X to mean quasi-staccato, and ^ to mean legato. ^ is there
V-X
applied to different notes, while the other two signs are also applied to
repetitions of the same note. From this, and judging by the peculiarities of
oriental music in general, I think it is more b'kely that ^ stood for portando
or the glide, X for the ' leap,' that is for the absence of glide, and x for staccato.
v^
The staccato sign was sometimes written thus, X.
III. SCALES, HARMONIES AND MODES
The Greeks employed three different methods of representing scales. In
discussing the structure of scales, as we have seen, they made use of the tetra-
chord. In exhibiting the modes of a Harmony, they adopted the full octave
(Ptolemy, Harmonic i. 16, ii. 14). It was also customary to show the tessitura
of a composition by stringing together the actual notes contained. This
method was probably the most ancient, as the further back one goes in the
history of music, the more importance seems to be attached to matters of
compass. The Dorian, for example, was in early times only allowed to descend
a tone below the hypate. I think it very likely that this circumstance led the
Church to suppose that the Dorian was a D mode. To illustrate my meaning,
I give a few compass scales.
11 Anonymus de Musica, edited by Bellermann (Berlin, 1841).
THE INTERPRETATION OP GREEK MUSIC
140
Lydian
ARISTIDES QUINTILIANUS
Dorian
=
RVCO
L 1 C K
Ionian *
NZE f C P ft I 2 £' A 9-
. C u F Coo< C u j <
Phrygian
1 R V C M /
r L i c n <
<|>CPni Z
F Co < C u
Mixolydian
Syntonolydian
as
7RV<|>CPnZ
ZL1CCODC
1 R V C M
r L i c n
OTHER SCALES
God Save the King (in A*) The Epitaph The Chorus
* The Lydian and Ionian appear to be misnamed. There are also mistakes in the notation.
J.H.S. — VOL. XLH. L
150
E. CLEMENTS
As regards the genera, we may acquire some further knowledge from the
Greek compositions. The enharmonic or chromatic sometimes formed the
sole basis of a composition. The enharmonic genus was much favoured in
the strict classical school represented by the agon of Delphi. The enharmonics
were frequently omitted, leaving a pentatonic scale as in the opening of the
long hymn to Apollo. The enharmonic genus was often mixed with the
diatonic as in other passages in the same hymn, and in the chorus from Orestes.
A sparing use of the genus was also made in compositions in diatonic scales.
This will be observed in each of the three manuscript hymns. The enharmonic
seems to have been employed, like the chromatic chord of modern times to
add piquancy to the music. The manner of its employment is well-deserving
of study. The phrase e [>, d tj, e -^., b -k, a b, g tj, b ^ in the hymn to Calliope
provides a beautiful climax to the melody. We have many such instances
in our own music, but no one except the naturally gifted musician pays any
attention to them. The following excerpt from the ' haunting ' melody in
the Unfinished Symphony is given in two renderings, A and B :- —
B
In the passage marked a b, g $ a (5 is followed first by e fc), which, being
a just fourth below a t), leaves no doubt as to the intonation, and then by the
enharmonically raised pair g JJ, a tj. Similarly, in the hymn to Calliope, e (>
is separated by one note d ty from its enharmonic e -^, and the changed intonation
is emphasised by a leap to b -^ . Schubert, needless to say, was neither a victim
of the temperament habit, nor of the ditonal habit. A is therefore what he
intended, and it is in the best Greek manner. I heard a small and well-trained
French orchestra play the symphony. The 'cellos, who were led on that
occasion by a celebrated soloist, played as in A. The violins replied with B.
The next day in answer to my questions, the conductor said he had noticed
the difference. The rendering of the 'cellos made certain notes flat. The
rendering of the violins was plus juste, by which he meant, as he admitted,
more in tune with the piano ! Rendering B, to my mind, degrades the music
into a kind of musical pun. And that is the rendering which is generally
given. The surviving examples of Greek music throw very little light upon
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC 151
the treatment of chromatic scales. There are interesting passages in the
first of the mural hymns in which the chromatic, diatonic and enharmonic
are all used together. The hymn to Calliope also employs a chromatic note.
The orthodox Greek chromatic genus is still to be found in India in the Karnatic
raga Kanakangi amongst others. It is not, however, an interesting scale.
Most of the Greek chromatic scales must have been compounded of mixed
chromatic and diatonic tetrachords. Finally, to revert to the enharmonic
genus, melodies in purely enharmonic scales would be much appreciated by
the musical experts of India or Persia, at the present day. The best Indian
singers make a lavish use of enharmonic changes. To the European, the singer
appears to attack his notes in a slovenly way, beginning a little sharp or flat
and sliding on to the correct pitch. That style of singing is strongly suggested
by the chorus from Orestes.
The Harmonies and Modes. The modal scale, as used by Ptolemy, and
by European musicians, takes no count of the compass of a composition.
In the Greek system it stretched downwards for the space of an octave, either
from the nete diezengmenon, or from, the mese ; we take our scales from tonic
to tonic. Aristotle compares the mese to the conjunction in speech, because
it frequently recurs, and links the other notes together.12 The mese, in that
view, was the predominant note of the melody, or more briefly, the pre-
dominant.13 The hypate was the final, upon which the voice came to rest
naturally, and without effort.14 These remarks will be found to apply most
aptly to all the compositions except the last two manuscript hymns. Those
hymns, to Helios and Nemesis, make the hypate 15 the predominant, and the
mese the final. This brings us to the important distinction embodied later
on in the terms authentic and plagal. In the Byzantine period they were
known as eZSo? aTe\e9, ending on the hypate (i. e. authentic), and etSo?
re\etov (or plagal), ending on the mese.16 In the authentic mode, therefore,
the predominant was a fourth above the final ; in the plagal mode it was a fifth
above. A further corollary to be drawn is that every complete parent scale
had the latent capacity of producing fourteen modes.
The old Harmonies of Greece can best be discussed in the diatonic form.
In Athenaeus 14. 624 is a fragment from Heraclides Ponticus in which the
following passage occurs : ' The term app,ovla should not be applied to the
Phrygian or Lydian scales; there are three Harmonies, as there are three
tribes of Hellenes — Dorians, Aeolians, lonians. . . . We must conceive a
very low opinion of theorists who fail to detect differences of species, while
they keep pace with every variation of pitch. . . .' The passage describes
the ethos of the three Harmonies, and states that, in the author's time, the
Aeolian was known as the Hypodorian, being below the Dorian on the aulos.
Aristoxenus 17 describes the scale-system in question thus : ' Others again,
looking to the holes of the aulos, separate the three lowest keys, the
" Prob. xix. 20. See also Prob. 36. " Or the nete.
13 This term is preferred to 'dominant,' " Bryennios (circ. 1400 A.D.) John Wallis,
being free from ambiguity. Opera Math. iii. 259. Oxon. 1699.
14 Prob. xix. 334. " Meibom. p. 37; Macran, 128. 193.
152
E. CLEMENTS
Hypophrygian, Hypodorian, and Dorian by an interval of three-fourths of a
tone. . . .' There is no reason therefore to connect the Aeolian with the
Hypodorian of later times.18 We can identify the harmony with certainty
from another source. The ' Introduction ' formerly attributed to Euclid
(Meibom. 20. 1) contains this passage, descriptive of the keys: ' Two Lydian
keys, a higher, and a lower also called Aeolian; two Phrygian, one low also
called Ionian, and one high; one Dorian; two Hypolydian, a higher, and a
lower, also called Hypoaeolian; two Hypophrygian, of which the lower is
also called Hypoionian.' This description accurately corresponds to the
keys of Alypius, if we omit the Hypodorian and the high keys (Hyperlydian,
etc.), three of which are merely low keys transposed an octave higher. The
modes which formed the nucleus of the keys are at once apparent if we take
octave scales upwards from either R (e (?) or n (e -Ip.) in the ' higher ' keys, and
l~(dtj) in the ' lower ' keys.19 The instrumental notes involved in this collec-
tion of scales include eight of the groups of three, beginning respectively with
the letters rj/FCKrl<[I and finishing up with one note N. I give below the
resulting modal scales : —
THE HIGHER MODES
1. Hypolydian. 2. Lydian. 3. Hypophrygian.
dk
3442 342 3423442 4423423
4. Phrygian. 5. Dorian.
4234423 2344234
THE LOWER MODES
1. Hypoaeolian.
2. Aeolian.
3. Hypoionian.
3442342
3424342
3424324
4. Ionian.
3241 3 24
1 * Heraclides was a pupil of Plato. are, in that sense, functional names. Each
19 As the notes are named by Alypius mode, however, had its own mese, the mese
the mese is always the base of a Dorian of position. This is clear from Ptolemy's
tetrachord. The names have regard to scales, and from other indications,
the theoretical structure of the keys. They
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC 153
The first batch are in one Harmony, Scale IV. That can be no other than
the national scale par excellence, the Dorian. If the lower keys of Alypius
be examined it will be found that they form a kind of patchwork cementing
the whole structure. Two of them, the Aeolian and Ionian, are in distinctive
Harmonies to which the others are merely introductory. Their titles are
sufficient to proclaim that they are the two other famous Harmonies, which,
with the Dorian, represented the three tribes of Hellenes. The Dorian was
therefore an E mode, the Aeolian a C mode, and the Ionian a D mode. The
symmetry of these scales is apparent when one describes them in sruti figures
with the point of conjunction emphasised.
234 - 4 - 234; 342 - 4 - 342; 324 - 4 - 324.
Let me add that our Harmonies are the major and minor (descending
melodic form). The former is supposed to be the just. major (Scale II.), and
the latter is the Aeolian, A mode. It is quite a mistake to think of the minor
as the A mode of the major. This is only so, speaking generally, in equal
temperament or the ditonal. As Mr. J. Curtis points out,20 the Pythagoreans
persuaded the theatre to accept the whole range of Dorian modes. In this
way the rpotros came into existence. The school founded by Pythagoras
performed inestimable services to the art of music, but this innovation was
a severe blow to the old national Harmonies, and was strongly resented by
men of taste. The Lydian T/OOTTO? was a poor substitute for the Aeolian.
The Phrygian was a scale of extreme austerity. This may be realised from
the Hymn to Nemesis. The more pleasing of the Dorian rpo-rroi were the
Dorian, Mixolydian, and Hypodorian,21 as these were most suited to the
Harmony. Among the Greeks, as the above quotation from Heraclides shows,
the conceptions mode and Harmony were not clearly differentiated. It is
not surprising therefore to find that many Greek writers used the terms apfiovia
and T/JOTTO? without discrimination. The distinction was that the rpoTroi
of any parent-scale differed, as regards intervals, in starting point only ; they
were octave scales cut out in different places from the same string of intervals.
The Harmonies, on the other hand, were taken from different strings; their
major and minor tones were arranged in a different order.
I add the following note upon the surviving examples of Greek music.
The first mural hymn makes use of the Dorian mode in two forms, one in
Dorian Harmony, commencing in the pentatonic form, the other in Aeolian
Harmony. The latter on its second appearance is highly ornamented
chromatically and enharmonically. The second mural hymn, in the instru-
mental notation, employs the Dorian and Hypodorian modes of Dorian
Harmony. The Epitaph is in the Ionian, hexatonic form. The chorus from
Orestes is in the Dorian with enharmonic embellishment. The three manu-
script hymns are masterpieces. The way the cadences are managed and
tonality maintained is most artistic. The hymn to Calliope is in a free form
of the Dorian, employing a chromatic note and descending a fourth below
the hypale. The hymn to Helios or Apollo is in the Mixolydian, and that to
10 J. H. S., XXXIII (1913), p. 35. » /. e. the E, B and A modes.
]54 E. CLEMENTS
Nemesis in the Phrygian. It will be observed that the last two modes are
clearly plagal. We may conclude that the Mixolydian was a plagal B mode
somewhat resembling the Dorian, employing the chief cadences in the form
a [>, g tj, g ty being the mese, that it made use of the high d ^ frequently, this
fact imparting to it the shrill flavour for which it was noted, and that it revelled
in a variety of cadences borrowed from other modes. The leading note of
the Dorian was a tone below the hypate (f ty a tone below gtj).
» ,
IV. RHYTHM
With the exceptions of the Epitaph and Chorus from Orestes, the extant
compositions give no indication of rhythm. From this circumstance, the
unwarranted inference has been drawn that the rhythm followed the metre.
Greek music has thereby been made a laughing-stock. In ancient Greece,
poetry wielded such an immense influence, that the melody of the nomos,
or of the classical ode, was subordinated to the metre. This led to what we
should regard as a straining by the poet after metrical effect, for no poetry
could equal in scope or freedom the rhythm of music — and to the development
of new forms of instrumental accompaniment. The nomos was sung by the
priest to the kithara. His skill was shown, not in the melody of the voice
part, which was so circumscribed, that no room for originality was left to
him, but by an elaborate counterpoint on the kithara. Quotations from
Greek authors, which in unequivocal terms describe the heterophony of the
accompanying instruments, have been collected by Westphal.22 But the
musician did not meekly submit to the poet. Much of the controversy between
the ' rhythmici ' and ' metrici ' was due to a revolt, beginning as far back
as the time of Euripides (480-406 B.C.), against the irksome practice of restrict-
ing the musician in the time he could allot to each syllable. Many quotations
bearing on this point are to be found in Bellermann's notes to Anonymus
de Musica. Dionysios of Halicarnassos, who wrote upon the subject of Greek
pronunciation, at the beginning of the Christian era, regretted that, in his
days, vocal and instrumental music subjected the words to the melody instead
of the melody to the words. He gives an example from Orestes in which
most of the accents are wrongly treated, and states further that musicians
were wont to make the syllables fit the time, instead of cutting the time to
fit the syllables. Very little imagination is needed to convince one that a
musical and artistic nation could not have tolerated the tyranny of long and
short in their music. The music of the two examples we have (the Epitaph
and Chorus alluded to above) violates the metre in many instances. Then
again, if we turn to Anonymus de Musica, we shall find a wealth of rhythmic
forms which remind one of the tolas or musical measures of India.23 Oriental
music of the present day indulges in the utmost complexity of rhythm. The
22 Author of Harmonik and Melopoie IS Some recensions of the hymn to
(1863 and 1886) and Musik dee Griechischen Calliope contain instructions which seem
Alterthums (Leipsic, 1883). to refer to the rhythm of the music.
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC 155
absence of rhythmic signs in the three manuscript hymns presents no obstacle
to the conclusion I wish to draw. In India, until recently, no one ever
attempted to write down the rhythm of a song, although the notes in a kind
of tonic-solfa were often placed above the words, just as in the examples
before us. When popular teachers of music set to work to remedy this state
of affairs, the only means that suggested itself to them was to take the unit
of time known as the matra, and to put below each note a number or a fraction
showing how many units of time or parts of such units it should occupy.
Another row of signs was used to show where the beats came. The Greek
metrical signs were obviously unsuited to any but the simplest forms of melody.
In my opinion, nothing can be more certain than that the music of the
hymns to Calliope, Apollo and Nemesis did not slavishly follow the metre.
It is therefore necessary to reconstruct the rhythm of these three specimens.
The question arises whether the rhythm should be based generally upon accent
or quantity, in other words, whether the strong beat of the bar should coincide
with an accented rather than with a long syllable.
These three hymns belong td the second century A.t>. It appears to
me that the only way to make musical sense out of them is to follow the
accents in preference to the metre. In the epitaph and chorus from Orestes,
which are the only sure guide we have, the rhythm does not come amiss to
the modern Greek. The chorus quite clearly makes rhythm follow accent.
Some writers have traced the modern Greek stress-accent to the beginning
of the Christian era. If the chorus from Orestes can be relied upon in this
connexion, the stress-accent is to be credited with a much higher antiquity.
Two views on the subject, widely held, are open to strong criticism. One
is that the ancient Greeks, in conversation, put the ictus on the long syllables.
In a great many words this would imply a stress upon one syllable, and a rise
of pitch on another. One has only to realise the difficulty of stressing a
syllable without raising the voice, or raising the voice in pitch but not in loud-
ness, to hold that the very strongest evidence is necessary to support such a
view. The opinion is based upon two assumptions — one that the arsis and
thesis of poetry imported a stress,24 the other that the stress thus inferred
was not confined to poetry. The second view which many hold is that the
Greek language could not have had any stress-accent, as the grammarians
say nothing about it. Perhaps, in future generations, antiquarians will give
as their considered opinion that the English language had no pitch-accent,
as the lexicographers confined their attention to the ictus.
Is it not a curious circumstance that the Greeks divided their syllables
into unit syllables and two-unit syllables, and subjected their speech-intonation
to rule ? The spoken word must always be fluid and liable to slight variations
following the meaning. Even in regard to the position of the ictus, there can
be no simple hard-and-fast rule. The pitch accent demands a considerable
latitude and the relative length of syllables even more elasticity. What was
it then that impelled the Greek poets to harness the metre and put shackles
14 Mr. Goodell (Chapters on Greek Metric, Yale University Press, 1901 ) criticises this theory.
156 E. CLEMENTS
upon the pitch-accent of speech? With extreme diffidence I suggest the
following answer. The laws of metre were older than writing. They served
as a mnemonic system. No better device for the preservation of knowledge
could have been invented. Poetry, founded upon this artifice, wielded
unbounded influence. Like the Vedas, it was sung and not merely declaimed.
In order that the subtleties of the metre should stand forth, the ictus of speech
was suppressed, and the coincident pitch-accent was subjected to rule and
made to do duty for both.
In the renderings which follow, the rhythm of the three hymns has been
based broadly upon the ictuses as they occur in modern Greek, as much
allowance being made as is reasonably possible for differences in the length of
syllables.
E. CLEMENTS.
/ have added a harmonised accompaniment to three of the Greek compositions,
and a counterpoint to the hymn to Helios and the first mural hymn. My main
object in writing these accompaniments is to draw attention to the correct harmonies.
I merely give a few excerpts from the extremely fragmentary second mural hymn.
Missing words in all cases have been copied from the Supplement to the Musici
Scriptores Graeci, Teubner Series. In filling up lacunae in the music, the
rules followed as far as possible have been : —
(1) The acute-accented syllable is raised.
(2) The unaccented is lowered.
(3) The grave remains at the pitch of the preceding syllable or is raised,
generally one degree.
(4) The circumflex takes the falling tone.
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
157
SEVEN MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS OP ANCIENT GREECE.
The organ should be tuned as above described.
If a harp is used, it should be constructed and tuned as follows. The double-action
harp, except for the skhismatic substitution of d^ and g^ for cj{ and f JJ, gives exact
intonation. The single-action harp gives e ^ for e ^, b Q for b {j, g -^ for g [> .
Double-action Harp.
Pedals : First notch, the diminished semitone.
Second notch, the just semitone.
Tuning : in C Major, Ionian Scale —
Just fifths from c : g-d-a, and f.
Major thirds : c-e and g-b.
Single-action Harp.
Pedals : the diminished semitone (taken in some instances as a substitute for the
residual semitone).
Tuning : in C Minor, Aeolian Scale —
Just fifths from c : g-d, and f.
Minor third : c-e b.
Fifths from e b : b b and a b.
Key Lydian, Harmony
and Mode Dorian.
I. TO CALLIOPE
Ascribed to Dionysius,
2nd Century A.D.
Jt.trrn-S«TV. , /l«7b«?f v'ov'i ^f^-
/«•'.
(a) Two recensions have what may be the staccato sign ( — in one, — in another ;
it should be *)• The sign ~ is also to be found after the first syllable of Aarovs.
(6) Some recensions have N for H.
158
E. CLEMENTS
Key Lydian, Harmony
Dorian, Mode Mixolydian.
) Organ
II. TO HELIOS.
Ascribed to Dionysius,
2nd Century A.D.
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
159
160
E. CLEMENTS
III. TO NEMESIS.
Kejr Lydian, Harmony
Dorian, Mode Phrygian.
Ascribed to Mesomedes,
2nd Century A.D.
AfoJtb Moderate \
MMMMMMNCM<|>PC<J>
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
161
MM d>MMMPCM
EE.EZZIM I IZM
162
Z M
E. CLEMENTS
M ^V¥UZ E CM P M
C M P M
23i£l5=!i=i= -Vl- :>>>]•? 1
IV. CHORUS FROM ORESTES.
Key Lydian, Harmony
and Mode Dorian.
Papyrus
fragment.
i-vi St A.«r^0y w's -rcy «- /co
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
163
V. DELPHIAN HYMN I.
Original Key Phrygian,
modulating into Hyperphrygian.
Transposed,
The bars imply no stress.
Mural Inscription,
3rd Century B.C.
Voise
164
E. CLEMENTS
THE INTERPRETATION OF GREEK MUSIC
165
*v ;.f • f p 'Ffrp-g
5gg =^ jl LI
o M lor ^
':
£
[Concluding fragmentary portion omitted.]
VI. EPITAPH OF SEIKELOS.
Key Ionian, Harmony
and Mode Ionian.
Inscription found
at Tralles.
cri Kill "K i IKOC"
NOTE. — The glide is shown by a line. The effect is immensely improved by substitut-
ing f Q 7 for f Q. Whether separate notational signs were used for the soft notes is unknown.
.l.II.S. — VOL. XI.1I.
M
166
E. CLEMENTS
VII. EXCERPTS FROM DELPHIAN HYMN II.
In Instrumental notation, the bars imply no stress.
A. Harmony Dorian, mode Hypodorian,
hexatonic ; key c Q.
23
Mural Inscription,
1st Century B.C.
B. Harmony Dorian, mode Dorian, hexatonic ; key d Q.
te
epn
mii'J''
M f p\ /
J N r C J
.
r-y
At /xcAtVfooi/ 5« Af/3yj, the original mode is resumed. The modes of the two excerpts
are employed alternately. At 6 Si 7*700* on, a return is made to the Dorian in d;
then, at o/^l irAoK^/xof, the Hypodorian re-enters. Lines 124 to 168 are too fragmentary
for any conclusion to be drawn. The music appears to end, in a different tempo, in the
mode in which it begins.
E. C.
GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM MACEDONIA1
I. THESSALONICA AND THE PANHELLENION.
IN May, 1918, Captain A. E. W. Salt, then Base Censor at Salonica, sent
me a rough copy of an inscription, about which he wrote : ' It is copied from
a stone which I had cleaned, lying not 100 yards from my house near the
Hippodrome, not, I think, in its original position.' I was unable to examine
the stone personally, and my reading of the text is therefore based wholly
upon Captain Salt's copy, which fortunately proves to be remarkably accurate
if the difficulties of making such a copy and its provisional nature are borne
in mind. It is here reproduced, save that I have ignored certain erasures
and corrections, giving only the text as finally read by Captain Salt.
TA WOf\J TE N\E' A/I^
K AHEPATYC A//TA-OE# AAP/ANfA kAlAl~O
N O0ETTH TA/VTATW/V/vErAAW/v TTAAE AAhT
JVf W N EN~f-\ H ITTA h€. AArN IAA(P A^ANTA
AlAQi OTOI c AYTOK PATOPE/A/T/PWT-.CON- E
NO/VE./VON APXONTATTA^AAHS/WVATT
AAIPMPOTTAT^COCCC: AAO/S£/ K E
TYM/VAE i A Px HT ANTAKATTI PWTAPXKTA
TA EAVHAAMTTPATAYTH TOAE/^ON AE£YTT
EXECEWCEI CTHM BACIAIKHN TAYTHM ^.YN TN
TTHX MYP/^C AOnc-EY c ANTA EKOE'AC
TTP<I 7A~£ E W C TC AnOAAWNlA TW/V TTWAE
\VC T-C TIP^: TWI ON I WKOATT WTE
^AYMT A. H OYTA-H P TWA/ TTATEPA
we
1 Throughout this article I use the the numbers refer to the inscriptions
abbreviation ' Dem.' to denote M. G. published in that work and not to its
Demiteas, 'H Ma*«5o>{a, Athens, 1806; pages.
167 M o
168 MARCUS N. TOD
My transcription of the text is as follows :—
T. Al'Xtov Yepdviov Maiee&ova,
rov dp^avra rov 'ATTIKOV Tlave\\i)viov
KOL leparevaavra deov 'ASpiavov teat dyo-
vodeTTjcravra TWV /ieyaXtoi' TIave\\r)-
5 vlwv ev rfj rji flai/eXXTji/ittSf, pd^avTa
8ia ftiov TO49 avTOfcpdropGiv, jrpcorov ye-
vopevov dp^ovra Have\\ijv<i)i> UTTO TT}?
<yv/J,vacriap'Xij(ravTa tea
10 ra ev rfj Xayu-Trpa ravrp TroXei, Sovra e'£ ti7r[o]-
et? rrjv ftacriXiicrjv ravrrjv j~v\a>v
WU 7Tft)Xe-
0)9 T^9 7T/J09 Tft> Toi/lft) KO\TTW, rc^€lVia
15 'OXu/A7r[t]a[9] 77 Ovydrrjp rwv Trarepa
In the foregoing transcript I have retained mis-spellings where they
seem to occur on the stone, and have marked missing letters by the usual
convention of square brackets : I have not, however, thought it necessary
to indicate all the points in which I have diverged from the copy, as these
can easily be seen by comparing the copy with the transcript. Here I mention
only those which are of importance.
In Captain Salt's copy the words HTTO All stand at the head of the text :
but they are a later addition in ink (the rest of his copy is in pencil), and they
indicate, I imagine, a conjectural restoration.2 As the concluding words
suggest that we have here a memorial set up privately by the daughter of
the man commemorated rather than one erected by the community, I have
felt justified in rejecting Captain Salt's conjecture.
L. 3. Probably the re of lepareua-avra are ligatured (as in \oyiffTeva-avTa,
I. 12). The last letter of the line may be due to an engraver's error or to a
mistake in the text which he followed. Cf. 7ro>Xe&>9 (1. 13) and TO>I/ Trarepa
(1. 15).
L. 6. I take the sixth element to be the monogram ov, which occurs in
II. 2, 3, 12. I can make nothing of the letter which follows the T of Trpwrov
and think it may be due to a slip of the modern copyist.
L. 10. The T of SOVTO. may have been written in ligature with the v, but
as this ligature is not found in this inscription, though nine opportunities of
using it presented themselves, it may be better to assume here also an over-
sight of the copyist.
L. 11. I read the last word of this line as %v\(av, although conscious
that the change of NT to AW is a bold one.
2 Incidentally it may be noted that the form 2 does not occur elsewhere in the copy.
GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM MACEDONIA 169
L. 15. I have adopted the suggestion made to me by Dr. A. Wilhelm
and read 'C)Xi;/47r<a<? in view of the space left in the copy between the A and
the succeeding H. *O\t//*7ria is possible, but to my mind less probable.
The inscription, which was perhaps surmounted by a statue of Macedo,
was erected by Geminia Olympias in honour of her father, T. Aelius Geminius
Macedo, the first citizen of Thessalonica to preside over the Attic Panhellenion,
who at the eighteenth celebration of the Great Panhellenia had been priest of
<li\ ine Hadrian and aycavoOeTt)? of the festival. In his own city he had held
the offices of gymnasiarch and of first magistrate and had given 10,000 cubits
of timber for the construction of the basilica, in or near which, it would seem,
this memorial was erected. He had also by Imperial commission served as
curator of Apollonia on the coast of the Adriatic.
No other record has, so far as I know, survived either of the father or of
the daughter. The name MaiceS(ov is fairly common, and the cognate forms
Ma*eSoi>ia (Dem. 27 = 'AffipH, xx. 7), Ma/ce8oi/mi/o<? (Dem. 380 = 'Affrjvd,
xv. 40; I.G. Rom. iii. 357), MatceSovLtcos (Dem. 1) and Ma*eSoi>*o9 (Dem.
556 ? ; I.G. Rom. iii. 1529) also occur.3 At Ancyra we have two records (I.G. Rom.
iii. 184, 195) of a P. Aelius Macedo, who held high office in the province of
Galatia, but despite the identity of nomen and cognomen we have no reason
to connect him with the T. Aelius Geminius Macedo of our inscription. The
praenomen usually associated with Aelius is Publius, but Titus is occa-
sionally found, e.g. in a dedication from Istros (Jahresh. BeiblaU, xiv.
151) and in a Latin epitaph from Timacum Minus, the modern Ravna
(ib. vi. 46).
The name Olympias occurs at Olynthus (Dem. 746, 749) and at Amphi-
polis (Dem. 892), and also on a sarcophagus at Thessalonica (B.C.H. xxxvii.
113), probably of the second century of our era, dedicated to Geminius Olympus 4
by his wife Aequana Antiochis and their daughter Geminia Olympias, who also
buried in it the fifteen-year-old daughter, named Megethin, born to her and
her husband Castor. What relationship, if any, existed between this Geminia
Olympias and that of our inscription must remain uncertain.
For the word evrvx&s at the close of honorary inscriptions, especially
common in the Thraco-Macedonian region, see G. Gerlach, Griech. Ehrenin-
schnften, 98 f. To the examples there collected add Corolla Numismatica, 223
(Nicopolis ad Nestum) and Ath. Milt. xxiv. 90 (Philippopolis). The same word
closes several of the manumission-records found at Edessa (XOrfva, xii. 71 f.,
Nos. 2, 5, 6, 9).
The record of Macedo's activities falls into three sections, relating respec-
tively to (a) his presidency of the Panhellenion, 11. 2-8; (6) the magistracies
held in, and the benefaction bestowed on, Thessalonica, 11. 9-12; and (c) his
office as curator of Apollonia, 11. 12-14. No indication is given of the order
» For names derived from nationalities Griech. Pertonennamen, 332 ff.
see F. Bechtel, Hitt. Personennamen de» « So the transcript gives the name; in
Oriechifchen, 536 ff. Cf. Bechtel-Fick, the commentary it appears as Olympius.
170 MARCUS N. TOD
in which these various functions were discharged, but it is antecedently
probable that Macedo reached the highest rank in the municipal magistracy
of Thessalonica before becoming president of the Panhellenion and being
selected by the Emperor to administer the affairs of an important city. The
gift of timber for the basilica of Thessalonica may, however, have been his
latest recorded action if, as seems probable, this statue was erected in, or just
outside of, the building in question (rrjv fiaa-iXitcrjv ravrrjv, 1. 11).
For the ^v^vaaiap^ia in general, and particularly in Macedonia, see my
note in B.S.A. xxiii. 75. nyoeoTa/^crafi/jra (1. 9) refers to Macedo's tenure of
the supreme magistracy of Thessalonica. For the archonship see von Schoefler's
article s.v. in Pauly-Wissowa, ii. 565 ff., and W. Liebenam, Stadteverwaltung
im rom. Kaiserreiche, 285 f. On the Attic archons of the Imperial period
P. Graindor's recent work, Chronologic des Archontes Atheniens sous VEmpire
(Brussels, 1922), should be consulted ; for the power of the archonship at this
time see B. Keil, Beitrdge zur Geschichte des Areopags (Leipzig, 1920). At
Athens the first place among the archons is taken by the eVa^u/io? apxwv
(D. Fimmen, Ath. Mitt, xxxix. 130 ft.), who frequently bears the simple title
ap%a)v, and Dio Cassius refers to his office as 77 /j,eyicrrrj Trap avrois up%ij (Ixix.
16) : so far as I know, however, the title TT/OWTO? ap^wv is not found at Athens.
The chief magistrates at Thessalonica in Imperial times were the
(see my note B.S.A. xxiii. 79 f.), and I believe that the term
in the inscription under discussion refers to the chairmanship of this board and
does not point to the supersession of iroXirapxai by ap-^ovre^ at some unknown
date. Thus at Andros we hear of 6 Trpcordp^cov aTparrjyos (I.G. xii. 5. 724),
at Magnesia sub Sipylo the phrase crTpaTrjyov irpwrov ical . . . rwv a-vvap^ov-
TWV avrov occurs (I.G. Rom. iv. 1336), and the title TT/OWTO? apxjuiv is borne by
the first crTpaTvjyos (C.I.G. 3407, 'EXX. <f>i\. 2uX\. xv. 54) ; at Blaudus the
chief of the (TTparrjyoi is designated a dp^wv (I.G. Rom. iv. 239), and the
same seems to be the implication of the phrase rov dvafidvra etc TWV
<TTpaTr)<ywv dp^ovra TrpwTov, which occurs in a Samian decree (Ath. Mitt.
xliv. 31). But the question involves considerable difficulties, and this is not
the place in which to discuss it at length.5 The verb Trpcarap^efo is rare, but
recurs in an inscription of Trajana Augusta (I.G. Rom. i. 750), 6 while the variant
7rpa)TapxovT€V(i> is found at Chersonesus Taurica (I.O.S.P.E. iv. 105). The
title Trpwrdpxwv is met with at Thera (I.G. xii. 3. 326), at Cyzicus (I.G. xii. 8.
189) and at Trapezopolis in Phrygia (O.G.I. 492) ; far more often, however,
we find the phrases irpSiTo^ dp^wv (I.G. xii. 3. 481, 1119, xii. 7. 240, etc.),
a dpxw (I.G. Rom. i. 713, 749, etc.), apywv TTPCOTO? (ib. iv. 1249, 1294, etc.),
dpXtov a (ib. 619), Tr/jtwroXoyo? dp^wv (C.I.G. 2760-4, etc.), apxtav T°v a
TOTTOV (I.G. Rom. iii. 7),7 a a/r^% (ib. i. 756), dpgas rrjv TrpwTrjv (or TTJV a')
8 I. Levy, Rev. fit. Or. xii. 268 ff. ; 6 Cf. irpair^Korrnos, ifptaroKoifjiiav in numerous
V. Chapot, La Province Romaine d'Asie, Cretan texts (I.G. Rom. i. 979, 981, 983-
237 ff. ; W. Liebenam, op. cit. 558 f . ; 1002, etc.).
Keil and von Premeratein, Bericht iiber eine 7 Cf. ffroarriyfiffas rbv TrpSnov T-6*ov (I.G.
Reise in Lydien, No. 4. Rom. iv. 585).
CKKKK INSrmmoXS Kltn.M MA( 'Klx >\IA 171
(ib. 564, 630, 631, etc.).8 The office could be held by the same person
thrice (C.I.G. 2760-2, 2799, I.G. Rom. i. 564, iv. 700) or even four times
(I.O.S.P.E. i. 22).
Macedo had also distinguished himself by his liberality in giving 10,000
cubits of wood for the construction of the basilica at Thessalonica. For the
formula e£ uTroo-^eVew? cf. I.G. Rom. iv. 242, C.I.G. 2713, Liverpool Annals,
iv. 43 ; we also find Kara v-jroa^aiv (e.g. in Dumont, Inscr. et Mon. Fig. 61 c).
With the whole phrase we may compare C.I.G. 3841 h (Aezani) SOI/TO? eis
aura? rov \\<TK\rj7rio8(t)pov dvrl rwv %v\iv<av . . . Brjvdpia Trevratcocrta, I.G.
xii. 3. 324 (Thera) rrjv a-roav evreyaaav etc rwv loiajv rt)v rwv gv\a>v teal
rtov (rrputrqpaiv v\ijv real rtjv €7raKo\ov0oucrav ei<t rrjv crreyrjv SaTrdvrjv rtaaav
TrapaiT^of^evoi tear a Swpeav KT\., ib. 326 ei(Ttj[y]y€i\€v . . . rrjv ev rfj TroXet
fta<ri\iK7)v aroav . . . e[tc] rtav i&iwv Karaaicevdaeiv . . . etc re T>}? rrept-
iAt/e?7<? uX[?75 rov Bp]v<f>atcrov . . . [ic]ara<T[tc]€vd(ra<i [^^[pa]-
See also I.G. xii. 2. 14 (Mytilene), I.G. Rom. iv. 556 (Ancyra). Of
the various forms of timber used for constructional purposes we have a
glimpse in I.G. xii. 9. 907 = S.I.G.3 905 (Chalcis, A.D. 359). The abbreviation
•n-^X- f°r 7r7?x(«<») recurs in C.I.G. 4693 (restored by Kubitschek, Num. Zeit.
li. 68 f.) and 4863 (where TTIJ. is also used), and is found in papyri (e.g. Oxy.
Pap. 1450, 1742). I know no other reference to a basilica at Thessalonica.
For the basilica in general see the articles s.v. by Flather and Purser in the
Diet, of Antiquities, by Guadet in Dar.-Sagl. and by Mau in Pauly-Wissowa,
iii. 83 ff. To the places at which the existence of basilicas is attested (Mau,
85) we may add, besides Thessalonica, Nauplia (/.£. iv. 674, A.D. 364-75),
Thera? (xii. 3. 1651), Gortyn (I.G. Rom. i. 977), Philadelphia (ib. iv. 1637),
Aphrodisias (C.I.G. 2826), Aezani (O.G.I. 511 = I.G. Rom. iv. 580, ca. A.D.
170), Bosoa? (Princeton Univ. Arch. Exped. to Syria, III. A. 701, A.D. 330),
Djeneine (Le Bas-Wadd. 2189).
Macedo also served (1. 12 ff.) by ' divine/ i.e. Imperial, mandate as curator
of Apollonia, not far from the point at which the river Aous falls into the
Adriatic Sea. The town, described by Strabo as evvofiwrdrrj (vii. p. 316),
was an important one, lying almost immediately opposite to Brundisium and
forming one of the starting-points (Dyrrhachium was the other) of the Via
Egnatia. In order to distinguish it from other towns of the same name it
was sometimes called ij eV T£ 'low'p *o'\7rp (Hdt. ix. 92, Ael. V.H. xiii. 16),
rj 7T/3o<? rq> 'lovim KoXjrq) (Dio Cass. xlv. 3 and here) or ev rtp 'lovLqt (Paus. v. 22).
For its history see Hirschfeld, Pauly-Wissowa, ii. Ill if.; for the site and
ruins of the ancient town Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, i. 368 if., Heuzey-
Daumet, l Archeol. de Macedoine, 393 ff., C. Praschniker u. A. Schober,
Ai-i-haol. Forschungen in Albanien u. Montenegro, 69 ff., B. Pace, Annuario,
iii. 287 f. Its coinage extends from the first half of the fourth century B.C.,
* Compare the phrases &p£as r^v ^tyiffrrtf the fttylffTttv *ol iwuiw^ov aax'^" of Benndorf-
(I-Q- Rom. iii. 01, 68, 69, etc.), Nirmimn, Reifen in Lykien it. Karien, No.
4p£ai rV M*9fur ifxtr (<&, i. 759, iii. 407, 96: has the word &p(aira slipped out
424, etc.), Hpxtev f^v juryftfTijf tyx*!* before it ?
(I.O.S.P.E. i. 22). I do not understand
172 MARCUS N. TOD
or even earlier, to the reign of Geta (A. Maier, Num. Zeit. n. f. i. IS., Head,
H.N.* 314).
For the title \oyi(nr)<;, the Greek counterpart of curator reipublicaeoicivitatis,
see my note, J.H.S. xxv. 44 f. To the general references there given Mancini's
article s.v. curator in E. Ruggiero, Dizionario Epigrafico, ii. 1345 ff., and D.
Magie, De Romanorum iuris publici sacrique vocabulis, 61, should be added.
I append a corrected and supplemented list of places at which the office is
found, to supersede the very defective list given in J.H.S. loc. cit. Though
still, I fear, incomplete, it may perhaps prove useful.
I. MAINLAND GREECE (references to I.G.}. Athens (iii. 10, B.C.H. xiv.
650), Uberae civitates (iii. 631), Epidaurus, Chaeronea, Coronea and Thebes
(iii. 677), Troezen (iv. 796), Patrae (v. 1. 524), Arcadian Orchomenus (v. 2.
346), Tegea (v. 2. 152, 155), Corone (v. 1. 1398), Asine (v. 1. 1412), Chaeronea
(vii. 3426), Amphissa (C.I.L. iii. 568).
II. THE ISLANDS. Histiaea (l.G. xii. 9. 1235), Andros (I.G. xii. 5. 758),
Gortyn (I.G. Rom, i. 977).
III. ASIA MINOR AND CYPRUS (in alphabetical order : references to I.G.
Rom. save where otherwise noted). Adanda ( ?) Ciliciae (Mon. Ant. xxiii. 168 :
see Rosenberg's note in Hermes, Iv. 321), Alexandria Troas (iv. 1307), Antioch
in Pisidia (iii. 304), Aphrodisias (O.G.I. 500, 509, C.I.G. 2791, B.C.H. ix. 71),
Attalia (iii. 474, iv. 1168), Balbura (iii. 468), Bithynia (iii. 174-5 = O.G.I. 543 :
see Dittenberger's note), Cidyessus (Head, H.N.2 670), Citium (iii. 977), Cius
(iii. 69), Cyzicus (C.I.G. 2782, B.C.H. xi. 349), Ephesus (C.I.G. 2977, C.I.L.
ii. 4114, Orelli 798),9 Eumenia (iv. 739), Hormoeteni (B.C.H. ix. 395), lasus
(ib. xi. 216), Iconium (iii. 264), Ilium (iv. 218), Julia Gordus (iv. 1294), Magnesia
ad Maeandrum (I.v. Magn. 197), Magnesia sub Sipylo (iv. 1341, 1343), Nicaea
(iii. 39 = S.I.G* 895; iii. 40, C.I.L. v. 4341), Nicomedia (iii. 6, 63 = O.G.I.
528; C.I.G. 3773, C.I.L. ii. 4114, v. 4341, vi. 1408, Orelli 798), Oenoanda
(iii. 491), Olba (iii. 849), Philadelphia (iv. 1642), Priene (I.v. Priene, 230),
Sagalassus (iii. 440), Sardis (J.H.S. vi. 348), Smyrna (Philostr. Vit. Soph.
i. 19), Synnada (Head, //.2V.2 686), Termessus (iii. 440), Tira (iv. 1660, 1662,
1664-5), Trajanopolis (iv. 626), Tralles (C.I.G. 2926), a group of cities (C.I.G.
3497). The title eVt/ieX^r?;? — a close translation of the Latin curator — is
rarely substituted for \ojiarij<j.10
IV. ELSEWHERE. Callatis (I.G. Rom. iii. 581), Histria (B. Parvan, Anal.
Acad. Romdne, II, xxxviii. 623 f., No. 27), Gerasa (C.I.G. add. 4662 6), Syria
(C.I.L. x. 6006),11 Palmyra (I.G. Rom. iii. 1048 : cf. Rev. Bibl. xxix. 378 f.),
Egypt (C.I.G. 5085, 5090, Oxy. Pap. 42, 52, 53, 66, 83-87, etc., Ada S. Didymi
et Theodorae, 28 Apr. 304). C.I.G. 6829 is of uncertain provenance, and I.G.
xii. 3. 1119 speaks in general terms of Tro\ewv eTri^avea-rdrcav Xoyurreias
evpdfjievov.
The foregoing list excludes the financial officials who existed before the
9 See J. Menadier, Qua condicione Ephesii A. Wilhelm, Jahresh. xii. 147 f. (Athens).
usi sint, 86 ff. Cf. W. Gurlitt, fiber Pauaaniaa, 237.
10 O.Q.I. 492 (Trapezopolis in Phrygia), ll Cf. C.I.L. viii. 7039, 7059-60.
GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM MACEDONIA 173
Imperial period in some of the Greek states,12 as Athens, Delos, Aegiale on
Amorgos (l.G. xii. 7. 515), Astypalaea (xii. 3. 168 = S.I.G.* 722), Ephesus
(S.I.G.3 742), Eretria (l.G. xii. 9. 236), Halicarnassus (B.M. Inscr. 893?),
los (l.G. xii. 5. 1005), Tenos (ib. 880-3, 885), Tragurium (J. BmnSmid, Inschr.
tt. Munzen d. griech. Slddle Dalmatiens, p. 31). It also excludes \oyicnai who
supervised the finances of a <rvvo&os, yepovaia or other body and not those
of a whole city — e.g. at Clazomenae (l.G. Rom. iv. 1555), Dia (ib. iii. 1427),
Egypt (O.G.I. 722), Ephesus (O.G.I. 508, C.I.G. 2987 6), Rhodes (l.G. xii. 1.
83," 155) and Tralles (O.G.I. 501).
But the most prominent place in Macedo's record is reserved for his
offices as president of the Attic Panhellenion, priest of divine Hadrian and
agonothetes of the Panhellenia (11. 2-5), offices which clearly constituted his
greatest distinction and shed most lustre on his city, no citizen of which had
previously presided over the Panhellenes (11. 6-8). The phrase jrpwrov
jevof^evov /tr\.13 usually occurs in the fuller form /AOJ/O? real irpotrot (e.g. l.G.
Rom. iii. 69), or/t. /cat TT. (or TT. /cat /*.) TQ>V air aitavos (e.g. l.G. iii. 129, C.I.G.
3208, l.G. Rom. iv. 1344, Inschr. v. Magnesia, 180), which in turn is expanded
into /A. KOI TT. T(ov a?r' aia)vo<f TTUVTCOV avOpdmrtov O.TTO TT}<? avrov 7raT/9i'8o<? in an
inscription of Trajana Augusta (Rev. Arch. ii. 1915, 200). The title of the city
also is comparatively simple. A letter from Thessalonica to the Delians in
240-30 B.C. begins 77 TroXt? Qecraa\oviK£U)v AT/Xuuy ri}i fiov\f)i teal ran SJ//I&H
•^aLp^iv (l.G. xi. 1053 ; F. Durrbach, Choix d'inscr. de Delos, 49), but later a
title devoid of laudatory epithets no longer contented the Greek city. In an
honorary inscription Thessalonica is called, as here, 77 \afnrpoTdrr} Oeero-aAo-
veitceatv <%> TTO\I<; (Ath. Mitt. xxv. 117); elsewhere it is termed ?; \ap.Trpa
fjLTjrpoTTo\i<f KOL KO\a)V€ia %ecraa\oveiKewv TTO\I<; (A.-E.M. xvii. 118 = Ath.
Mitt. xxii. 224), [®eo-o-a]\<w/cai'&>i> [77 fj.]r)Tp6Tro\t<; [teal Ko]\faveia (Dem. 373),
17 \\afjk\irpa €)eer[<ra\o]p«/cata>i/ fiij[TpoTTo]\i<j KCU /e[o\(ui>eia] (B. ph. Woch.
xxxi. 597) or 7; SecrffaXovei/cewv /*. xal K. (ib. xxii. 957). In commenting on
the inscription A.-E.M. xvii. 118, Mommsen says that, to the best of his
knowledge, Thessalonica is first called ' colony ' on coins struck under Decius
(B.M.C. Macedonia, p. 128), and though this is questioned by P. N. Papageorgiou
on the strength of an inscription dated erou? 79°"' (B. ph. Woch. xxii. 957),
I have little hesitation in reckoning this date by the Augustan era and so
assigning the inscription to A.D. 261/2 (B.S.A. xxiv. 66). The absence of
the title KoKwela in Macedo's record thus enables us to date it with some
confidence between A.D. 200 (see below) and 251, the close of Decius' reign.
The triple title given to Macedo seems to have been the full official desig-
nation of the president of the Panhellenion, for it recurs in almost the same
terms in two letters sent by the Panhellenes, one to the council and people
of Aezani, the other to the concilium of the province of Asia (O.G.I. 504, 507 =
l.G. Rom. iv. 573, 576) : both open with the formula 'O apx<ov
11 Cf. H. Swoboda, Staattaltertiimer, in navt\\rjva, which Dittenberger now inter-
K. F. Hermann's Lehrbuch, i.$ 3. p. 153. prets as ' the first Megarian to be appointed
18 Cf. l.G. vii. 106 (Megara) vpvror a nar.'AATjt-' (O.O.I. 504, note 1).
174 MARCUS N. TOD
Hav€\\i]V(ov Kal iepevs deov 'A&piavov Ylav€\\r)viov KOI dywvoffeTij?
fieyd\wv llave\\ijvi(t)v (name) teal ol HaveXX.ijves. Very similar is I.G. iii.
681, TOV dpxo[vTa T<av] crefjLVO\rdT(t)v II av]e\\ijva)[v Kal tepea] Beov 'Ao[piavov
\\ave\\\t]vL[^ov KOI d-y(i)]v[d]6[£\r\r)v TWV IIai/eXXi7]i/[i&>i/]. We may believe,
with Dittenberger (O.G.I '. 504, note 3), that normally the three offices were
conjoined, though they are not always named together : e.g. in a Corinthian
inscription of Hadrian's reign we meet an dp-%ov\ra TOV] TlaveXXrjviov /cat
tepea 'Aopiavov l\ave\~\.rjviov (I.G. iv. 1600), in an Epidaurian text we have
an apxovTa TOV dywvos TWV Ha[ve\\rjvia)v] (I.G. iv. 1474), 14 and another
dyutvode^Tt]^ TWV /j,eyd]\a>v TlaveXXrjviwv occurs in an Attic inscription of
about A.D. 250 (I.G. iii. 1199). 15 The concluding words of a decree of the
Panhellenes have been restored (I.G. ii.2 1088 = iii. 12) [6 dp^iepevf r<av]
2e/3a[crTcoi> Kal dp^wv TOV cre/jLvoTaTov avveSpiov TWV Have\\ijv(i)v] Tt. K\.
'H[/3wS>7<? 'ATT£/CO<? MapaQewtos]. Philostratus refers to the tenure of the office
by Herodes Atticus (eXeiTovpyrja'ev 'Adrjvaiois rijv re eTrwvvfJiov Kal TTJV rStv
HaveXXrjviwv, Vit. Soph. ii. 1, 5), and by Rufus of Perinthus (TTJV r&v
Have\\t)vla>v 'A0iji>r)<rtv eu/cXsai? rjpt;€v, ib. ii. 17 : cf. I.G. ii.2 1093 = iii. 17).
For the priesthood of Hadrian see also I.G. Rom. iii. 20, 115 and B.C.H.
xxxviii. 354 ; for the dywvodecrla see E. Reisch ap. Pauly-Wissowa, i. 870 ff., E.
Saglio in Dar.-Sagl., and the geographical list in W. Liebenam, Stddteverwaltung,
542 fE. The frequent association of dywvodea-ia and priesthood is illustrated
by Dem. 55 ap^te/>e&>9 TWV [2e/3a<r]rci)j/ Kal dywvo6f{rov TOV KOIVOV] Ma«e-
Bovwv, 60 TOV Sid fiiov dp%tepea T£)V "Zeftaa-rwv Kal dya)vo0€Tr}v T. K. M., 367,
373, 811, 812, etc.
The word IlaveXXrjves first appears as a comprehensive term for the
Hellenes in Homer (II. ii. 530),16 Hesiod (Op. 526). Pindar (Isth. ii. 56, iii.
(iv.) 48) and other authors (see Pape-Benseler, Gr. Eigennamen, s.v., and add
I.G. xiv. 1294, and, I think, iii. 636), while the neuter TO Have\\ijviov is used
in the same sense (Eustath. pp. 18, 827, 1414). Nav€X\.ijvios was an epithet
under which Zeus was worshipped in Aegina (Paus. i. 44, ii. 29, 30). 17 The
name HaveXXrjves bears a more precise and restricted meaning in two Acrae-
phian inscriptions (I.G. vii. 2711-2), the earlier of which belongs to about
A.D. 37 and the later to the reign of Claudius or of Nero. These refer to a
League bearing the full official title TO KOIVOV 'A^aion* Kal ROIWTWV Kal
AoKpwv Kal 3>MKea)v Kal Eu/3oeo)v (2711 11. 1, 22), whose representative council
(ffweoptov) met at Argos (2711 11. 7, 101; 2712 1. 40).' So long a title was
unsuitable for general use, and it was variously abbreviated. Sometimes the
term JA%aioi is employed to represent the whole League (2711 11. 50, 100;
especially 1. 119 eV T&> KOIVW TWV \\xaiwv), sometimes " 'EXX^i/e? is so used
14 Cf. I.O. ii.2 1077 = iii. 10, a[vr]a.pxovTos Tlrufa, et d6put6 d'Acraephiae au Pan-
rov Ifpurdrov a.y[an>os rov U]ave \\rjviov. In heltenion ' (B.C.H. xxii. 246).
'E<^. 'Apx- 1894, 184 the title may have been ls The authenticity of the line has,
abbreviated to the simple &px<»y (see below). however, been doubted in ancient and
18 But the phrase rbv aytavoBfrrtv Kal modern times.
navfAATji-a of an Acraephian text is rightly 17 Roscher iii. 1533 f. The inscription
interpreted by Perdrizet ' agonothete des I.O. iv. 1551 is undoubtedly spurious.
GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM MACEDONIA IT:,
(2711 1. 13 TTtivrtav r&v 'EA[X»;v&>]i>, 1. 15 TJ} (rvvoora TWJ/ 'l\.\\i')Vd)v, 1. 20 TO
ifrrfouTna ru)v *BXXifn0y), but most frequently HaveXXvjves occurs in this sense
(-711 11. 10, 61, 67, 101 ev rat Kotvp rwv HaveXXt'jvcov T« a%0€VTt cv" \pyct;
•_'7Ii> 1. 45) : once we meet with rip TO>V JA.%ai<av KOI T\.ave\\riva>v o-vve8pio)
€1- "Apyei (2712 1. 39). The Emperor Gaius permitted the continuance of
the League (2711 1. 29 e'w i)//,a<? o~vvto~Ta(jL€vov<;), but of its subsequent history
we know nothing with certainty, nor can we trace its relation to that League
of Achaeans of which a fragmentary decree has survived, dating from A.D.
211-222 (l.G. ii.2 1094 = iii. 18).18 C. G. Brandis (Pauly-Wissowa, i. 195 if.)
regards the KOIVOV of the Acraephian inscriptions as a temporary and ad hoc
union for the purpose of congratulating Gains upon his accession. He points
to the absence from its title of all reference to various Koivd within the
province of Achaea whose existence is attested in the Imperial period, and he
emphasises the continued existence of the KOIVOV TOJV <J><o/eea>i>, the KOIVOV TU>V
BottoTwi/ and the KOIVOV rtav 'A%at(t>v. He sees a similar ad hoc combination
in TO KOIVOV BoiwT&ii' Eivffoew Aoxpiav ^(OKCCOV A dt/jft <•/>;-. which honoured
M. Junius Silanus, probably shortly before the battle of Actium (l.G. iii-
568 = S.I.G.3 767). His arguments, however, fail to convince me. The
appearance of a <npaTrjy6<; (for the title in l.G. vii. 2711 1. 1 is restored with
practical certainty) at the head of the union and the phrase above quoted
from the Emperor's reply seem to me to point to greater permanence than
Brandis allows. Nor does he, in my judgment, take sufficient account of the
vague and elastic nature of the term KOIVOV. That there should be a KOIVOV
TOJV BOKDTOJV, for example, continuing its separate existence and its individual
action within the larger federation (KOIVOV) seems to me a perfectly simple
and natural supposition. But this is not the place in which to discuss more
fully this intricate question, to which I hope to return on a future
occasion.
Hadrian's third visit to Athens witnessed in all probability the dedication of
the Olympieum and the foundation of the temple of Zeus Panhellenios,19 with
whom Hera appears to have been associated.20 The account of Dio Ixix. 16,
8 Marquardt's conclusion (Rom. Stoat*- reasoning is accepted by F. Hiller von
r, nrnltnnij* i. 513) seems to me very Gaertringen (S.I.G* 842) and by P. Graindor
doubtful. (Chronologic dut Archontes, 130 f., 261).
• Paus. i. 18, 9 : cf. l.G. ii.» 1088 = iii. W. Gurlitt, Cber Pawsanias, 278 f., 328 ff.,
13. An inscription found at the Epidaurian argues conclusively against the identified -
Asclepieum (I.O. \v. 1052 = S.I.G.* 842) tion by G. Hirechfeld of the Olympieum
proves that the dedication of the Olympieum with the Panhellcnion.
and the foundation (xrlait) of the Pan- *3 This seems to follow from the words
hrllt-nion belong to the same year. E. of Pausanias, loc. cit., though Hitzig and
Korm-iiuuiii. Kuixi-r Hadrian, 55, refers this Hliimncr in their commentary think that
to A.D. 128/9 (cf. .1. Durr, Reiaen dea Kaistrs Hera may have had a separate temple.
//•/</>-(/), 44, n. 202), but this involves See C. Wachsmuth. Stadt Athnt. i. 690,
the alteration of an n' in the inscription W. Gurlitt. op. rit. 276. That the Krnpress
int. • i'. \V. \\ ntfnuchungen zur Sabina was identified with Hera is a prob-
Qetchichte de* Kaisers Hadrianus, 208) able conjecture (W. Weber, op. cit. 272.
assigns the two events to 131/2, and his note 994).
176
MARCUS N. TOD
TOV 76 <TI]KOV TOV eavTOV, TO Have\\ijviov (avofj,ac7/j,€vov, ot/co£o//.r;crao-#flu Tot?
"E\\r)<Tiv eTrerpe-^re, is not quite clear, but probably means that from the
outset the temple was regarded as shared between Zeus and his earthly vice-
gerent.21 In any case, the encouragement of the cult of Panhellenian Zeus
led to the assimilation of the Emperor to the god, and he added to the title
'O\u/i7rto5, which he had borne sporadically since A.D. 128/9, that of
TIave\\i)vio<t.Z2 At the same time the Emperor enhanced the dignity and
brilliance of Athens by making it the capital of a new union of Greek states,
termed the T\.ave\\i']viov, which, though devoid of political significance, served
to unite the Greeks, both European and Asiatic, and to revive the memories
of the great civilising mission of Hellenism in the past.23 At its head stood a
council (ffvveopiov), composed of representatives of the states comprised in
the union, and presided over by the apxwv, whose title we have already dis-
cussed. This was termed [TO crvveSptov TO Tlave]\\ijviov (l.G. ii.2 1088 = iii. 12),
[TO (T€fjLvoTaT\ov Tlave[\\ijv(Dv o-vveSpiov] (ii.2 1090 = iii. 15), [TO a€p,vorarov
<rw]eSpiov [TO>V Hav€\\r)vc0v] (ii.2 1092 1. 2),24 or, more shortly, TO Have\-
\ijvtov (l.G. iv. 1600, xiv. 829 = O.G.I. 497, O.G.I . 506; possibly also l.G.
ii.2 1093 = iii. 17),25 TO KOIVOV TOV l\ave\\r]vLov (O.G.I. 504 1. 11), ol
o-e/jLvoTaToi Have\\r]ve<f (l.G. iii. 681), or simply ol Hai/eXXi/i/e?.26 Each
member (evveSpos, C.I.G. 3841 ; cf. (rvveopeia, O.G.I. 504 1. 7) of the council
was entitled H.ave\\r]v, and the post was regarded as a high distinction (l.G.
ii.2 1368 = S.I.G.3 1109 and note 67). The following list shows the names and
states of the Have\\rjves known to us from inscriptions and literature : those
who occupied the presidential chair are asterisked.
21 G. F. Hertzberg, Gr. Gesch. ii. 323 f . ;
F. Gregorovius, Kaiser Hadrian, 477;
H. Schiller, Gesch. d. rom. Kaiserzeit, i. 625.
Dittenberger, however, held (O.G.I. 504
note 6) ' superstate quidem principe [Hadri-
ano] lovis fuisse delubrum et sacerdotium,
post obitum vero ad Divum Hadrianum
alterum lovem Panhellenium translate. '
23 l.G. [ii.2 1088 = iii. 12], iii. [485], 681,
iv. 1600, v. 2. 127, vii. 70, [71], 72; B.M.
Inscr. 501 ['O\vpir]ioi> Hal Have \\4\vicv ical
KwAvtov ; O.Q.I. 504, 507; Head, H.N.*
321. About the same time we find at
Ephesus a list of persons who celebrated
mysteries in honour of Dionysus, Zeus
Panhellenios and Hephaestus (B.M. Inscr.
600). Cf. B.C.H. xlv. 529.
23 Cf. W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics
of Phrygia, p. 430. Hadrian's attitude
reminds us of the words penned by the
younger Pliny, Ep. viii. 24. 2-4.
24 The same -phrase is restored in l.G. ii.2
1088 = iii. 12 ad fin.
25 Only in the Thessalonian inscription
is it called -rb 'ArriK^y nave\\T)viov. The
exact sense of Hcu>e\\fivtov in l.G. ii.*
1093 = iii. 17 and ii.» 1107 = iii. 33 is
uncertain owing to the mutilation of these
texts. The phrase KO! tit navt\\i)viav
ovSiv (iii. 1141) is an unsolved enigma. I
cannot accept Dittenberger's interpretation
of Uav(\\i\viov in S.I.G.3 842 = l.G. iv.
1052 as ' concilium splendidissimum omnium
Graecarum civitatum ab Hadriano Athenis
institutum.' To my mind it refers to the
temple of Zeus Panhellenios.
24 l.G. ii.2 1091 = iiu 16 = O.G.I. 503;
ii.s 1092 1. 6, iii. 85, 'E^. 'Apx- 1894, 184,
No. 29, UpaKTtKd, 1887, 54, O.G.I. 504
11. 1, 3, 506, 507 11. 1, 3. The curious phrase
TV tco\ntiav ra>v 'Svvirai>(\\'{ivuv (O.G.I. 507
1. 9) is unparalleled and seems to refer
to the constituent states rather than to
their delegates met in council : cf. ffwirciro-
\tT(v/j.ti>oi' rjfjLflv (O.G.I. 504 1. 6).
CI5KKK INSCmiTloXS I'Ko.M MACKlx ).\l.\
177
Name.
State.
Period.
Reference.
*Titus Flavius Cyllus.
»
A.D. 156
<>.(!.[. 504.
*Claudius Jason.
V
A.I). 157
O.i l.l. .-)(i7.
*Tiberius Claudius Hen ><\<-*
Athens
A.U. 131-38
1.0. ii.» 1088;PhiIostr.
Vit.
Atticus.
Soph. ii. 1, 5.
M. Aurelius Alcamenes.17
M
A.D. 209-10
l.G. ii.« 1077.
*AI. - . .»•
.. (?)
A.D. 251/2 (?) l.G. i\\. 1199.
Cn. Cornelius Pulrln-r.
Corinth
Hadrian
l.G. iv. 1600.
T. Statilius Timocrates
Argos
I.O. iv. 590.
Mi-mmianus.
Dionysius Pathas (?)
Methana
—
l.G. iv. 858.
Bassus Alleiua. Epidaurus
—
l.G. iv. 1474.
Corinthaa Nicephori f. Sparta
3rd cent.
l.G. v. 1. 45.
Spendon Spendontis f. ,,
„
l.G. v. 1. 47.
Xenagoras.
M
—
l.G. v. 1. 164.
Pasicrates.
—
l.G. v. 1. 164.
C. Curtius Proculus.
Megara
—
l.G. vii. 106.
Co ran us.
Paeae?
l.G. vii. 192.
Heraclitus Horacliti f. ,,
—
l.G. vii. 192.
Paramonus Aphrodisii f. Acraephia
—
B.C.H. xxii. 246.
M. Ulpius Damasippus.1*
Phocis
Septimius
l.G. ix. 1. 218; TlpaxriKd,
1909;
Severus or
130.
Caracalla
*T. Aelius Geminius
Thessalonica
A.D. 199/200
Present inscription.
Macedo.
*Aurelius ( ?) Rufus. Perinthus
Antonines
Philostr. Vit. Soph. ii. 17
; l.G.
ii.» 1093.
M. Ulpius Apuleius Eury- Aezani
A.D. 156?
O.G.I. 504, 506, 507.
cles.
P. Claudius Dionysius.
M
Hadrian
C.I.G. 3841.
Primus ?
Apamea
—
l.G. Rom. iv. 801.
M. Julius Praxis.
Apollonia
A.D. 172-75
l.G. iii. 534.
(Cyrenaica)
To this list I am inclined to add the name of *Flavius Amphicles from an
Eleusinian dedication, probably of the reign of Hadrian or Pius, which runs
Ot eVt <&\aoviov 'A/i^iArXeoi"? apxovros Tlave\\rjv€<; etc T^<? rov ArjfjLrjrpeiov
icapirov d-rrapx^ C*ty. ^PX- 1894, 184, No. 29). Graindor, indeed, regards
Amphicles as eponymous Athenian archon (Chronologic des Archontes, 131 f.),
but there is no other evidence for an archon of that name, and the word may
here be used in place of the fuller title dp^tov rov QomeXXifi^bv or T<MI> Ilai/e\-
\/;i'&>z>.30 If this is so, it seems to me not unlikely that the Amphicles in question
7 I assume that Alcamenes, as amipxoiv
of the Panhellenia, was a navtAArjc.
;* I have assumed that Al . . ., being
ayvvoOtTTi* of the Great Panhellenia, was
also apx'-vv rov navt\.\r)viov.
" According to npatrixd, 1909, 129, 130.
M. Julius Damasippus. He would appear
to have been a citizen of the three Phocian
towns of Anticyra, Amphiclia and Tith-
ronium : see l.G. ix. 1. 8.
80 The order of the words seems to me
to point to this conclusion. A Panhellenic
body would hardly designate itself by the
name of a local archon, and if the archon's
name was required for purposes of dating,
the phrase twl . . . &pxoyroi would, I
think, have stood at the beginning or at
the end of the inscription. I cannot resist
a suspicion that another archon's name
may lurk beneath the enigmatic ipicrroIV]
of the similar Eleusinian text, l.G. iii. 85.
Cf. •£*. -Apx- 1894, 184, No. 30; Weber,
op. tit. 273 and note 1002.
178 MARCUS N. TOD
is Amphicles of Chalcis, said by Philostratus (Vit. Soph. ii. 8, 10) to have been
one of Herodes Atticus' best pupils (cf. S.I.G.3 1240, P. Graindor, op. cit. 132
note 1). What is more likely than that Herodes Atticus, himself one of the
earliest presidents of the Panhellenion, should have been followed in the
office not only by his friend and pupil Rufus of Perinthus but also by Amphicles
of Chalcis ?
We cannot determine the number of states composing the Panhellenic
union. It may, I think, be assumed that most or all of the states which
figure in the above list were members, and there is evidence that the same is
also true of Thyatira (I.G. ii.2 1088 = iii. 12, 13), Cibyra (xiv. 829 = O.G.I.
497), Magnesia ad Maeandrum (ii.2 1091 = iii. 16 = O.G.I. 503) and possibly
Sardis (ii.2 1089). Part of the decree survives by which the Panhellenes granted
to Magnesia its certificate of membership, and a votive offering set up by the
state of Cibyra [KCITO, TO S6]y/jui T[O]U Tlave\\r)viov €vypa[<f)eia-a elf TOI><?
HaveXXrivcK;] (O.G.I. 497, restored by Dittenberger) relates to a similar
occasion. In both cases the pure Hellenic descent of the state is emphasised,
and doubtless the same qualification was demanded of all applicants seeking
admission.31
Several texts attest the close relations existing between the Panhellenes
and the Eleusinian sanctuary, but of their exact nature we are not informed.32
Nor are we told whether the council consisted of one representative of each
state or whether, as is antecedently probable, the larger and more influential
states sent several (rvveSpoi. In support of the latter view we may note
the fact that at Pagae two Panhellenes united in a dedication (I.G. vii. 192),
while a list of €7r[iffrdTai TT}? ai>a#e]o-e&>9 at Sparta contains the names of at
least two, and apparently of four, Panhellenes (v. 1. 164). Nor, again, do we
know how long the Panhellenes held office. Dittenberger was convinced that
the presidency of the Panhellenion was an annual office (O.G.I. 504 note 4J,33
but P. Graindor strikes a note of caution in his assertion that ' il est seulement
probable et non certain que les fonctions de synedre des Panhellenes etaient
annuelles ' (op. cit. 138 note 3). Perhaps each state in the union settled the
question as it liked, and though, at least in democratically organised states,
annual election would probably be in favour, it is almost certain that to an
office which must involve considerable expense there was an unlimited right
of re-election. No argument can be drawn from the phrase ev rfj rji
Tlai'e\\r)vidSi, which denotes a year and not a period of four years (Graindor,
op. cit. 255).
One of the chief functions of the Panhellenes was to conduct the festival
of the Panhellenia, instituted by Hadrian in connexion with the foundation
81 A. von Domaszewski, Oesch. d. rom. unnoticed. Cyllus and Jason, though ap-
Kaiaei, ii. 201, Weber, op. cit. 272 f. parently presidents in successive years,
82 I.G. ii.z 1092, iii. 85, 'E<f>. 'Apx- 1894, both bear the title aywvo6tTr]t riav (j.fya\wv
184, No. 29, UpannKi, 1887, 54. Cf. Ha»t \\wlaw (O.O.I. 504, 507), which
A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen, 169 should only be held by every fourth presi-
note 2, W. Weber, op. cit. 273 f. dent if the office is annual and the Great
83 One difficulty seems to have passed Panhellenia are a pentaeteric festival.
CI1KKK IXSrmi'TloNS I-KO.M .M.\( KI)( )\l A
179
of the Panhellenion.34 According to R. Neubauer (Comment. Epigr. 52) and
A. Mommsen (Fesle der Stadt At hen, 168 if.), it was modelled on the Eleutheria,
which since 479 B.C. had been celebrated every four years at Plataea in com-
memoration of the Greek victory over Mardonius; A. Mommsen, however,
points out (p. 168 note 6) that Neubauer was certainly at fault in holding
that the Eleutheria were renamed by Hadrian and transplanted to Athens.35
The Hav€\\i)vta — which bear the epithet peydXa in the inscription of
Thessalonica, in I.G. iii. 1199, O.G.I. 504, 507, and probably in I.G. ii.2 1093 =
iii. 17 — are frequently mentioned, especially in the records of victories won
by athletes and others (I.G. iii. 32, 128, 129, 1184, xiv. 739), usually with an
explicit reference to Athens (I.G. iii. 127, 128, vii. 49, xiv. 1102, Inschr. v.
Oh/nip. 237, EM. Inscr. 611, 613, 615, I.G. Rom. iii. 370).36 The title was
reminiscent of the ancient contest reputed to have been founded by Hellen
in 1520 B.C. (I.G. xii. 5. 444 vi.). Of the character of the festival literature
gives no details and inscriptions but few; we may, however, conjecture that
it followed closely the customary, more or less stereotyped lines.37 We hear
of boys' contests (B.M. Inscr. 613, 615), and of competitions of runners (ib. 611,
613, I.G. Rom. iii. 370), wrestlers (I.G. xiv. 739), boxers (iii. 128, B.M. Inscr.
615?), TTayfcpaTiaarTui (I.G. xiv. 1102) and heralds (iii. 129, Inschr. v. Olymp.
237). There are reasons for supposing that the Panhellenia were first cele-
brated in A.D. 131/2 and thereafter took place annually, early in the month
Metageitnion : the use of the epithet peydXa (v. supra) suggests that, like the
Panathenaea and certain other festivals, they were celebrated with special
pomp and splendour every fourth year.38 If this is so, the festival over which
14 Dio Cass. Ixix. 16 byuva if' a:rrf
KotTftrT-tiaaro ; Hieron. ad Abr. 2148 Hadrianus
agonem edidit. Cf. W. Weber, op. cit.
note 736; E. Cahen ap. Dar.-Sagl. ».v.
85 I cannot accept T. Mommsen's identi-
fication (Provinces of the Rom. Empire, i.
266) of the xotvltv ffuvitiptov ruv '¥.\\-iivwv
TO>V th riAaTTjaj avvdvrtav (I.O. vii. 2509 =
S.I.O.* 393) with the Hadrianic Pan-
hellenion. I further agree with Ditten-
berger (O.O.I. 497 note 5) in declining to
identify rb itoivbv TTJT 'EAAd'Soj (/.(/. xiv.
829) with the Panhellenion, as is done by
T. Mommsen (loc. cit.) and R. Cagnat
(I.G. Rom. i. 418).
»• The references in I.O. iii. 681, 682 are
doubtful. I.O. ii.» 1077 = iii. 10 refers to
& itpanaros d>y[an' i> n\ai>f\\r)vi<>s, iv. 1474 to
6 ayiay -riav Tla[vf\\ri»ta»']. The legend I\avt\-
AV<« appears on some Attic coins of the
third century (Head, H.N.* 390).
*7 For the programmes of the leading
Greek festivals see T. Klee, Znr Oeschii-/,t>
der (jymnischen Agone, 20 ff.
38 A. Mommsen. lor. cit., P. Graindor,
op. cit. 261 f. Professor Graindor has
kindly confirmed this view in a private
letter, from which I quote these words :
' Comme les Panathenees, les Panhellonia
se ce!6braient certainement chaque annee
mais uussi. avec plus de solennite, tons les
cinq ans : c'est, du moins, ce quo me
parait resulter, de toute evidence, de
1'emploi de I'expression jtt-yd'Aa Uaft A. A. r, via.'
Further evidence for the annual recurrence
of the ay^iv may, I think, be found in
B.M. Inscr. 613, which records three
victories won at that festival in boys'
races. For the reorganisation of the Pan-
athenaea under Hadrian' see Graindor,
B.C.H. xxxviii. 396 ff., Chronologie, 255 ff.
Pentaeteric festivals were common under
the Empire : see, e.g., I.O. Rom. iii. 61,
67, 1422, 1423 oi /icydAoi wtiratTiipiKoi
Au7ow<rrf«oi (' A.vrwv'n'tioi) aywvit at Prusias, ib.
319, 804 oi f*tyd\oi ir. Kai<rapT)oi ayuvts at
Apollonia and Aspendus, ib. 487 TO *•.
nf-ya.\a i(To\vfj.ina Outffwaffidvfta at Oenoanda,
ib. iv. 579, 858, C.I.O. 2987 6, etc. A.
Wilhelm, Die penteteriachen Feste der Athener
(Anzeiyrr d. AkmL in H'j'tn, 1895, ix.) is
inaccessible to me.
180 MARCUS N. TOD
Macedo presided, the eighteenth of the pentaeteric series (1. 5), would be that
of A.D. 199/200. The word Uave\\r)vtd<f is new, but is formed on the analogy
of 'OXu/iTTia?, Hv0id<t, etc. Cf. J.G. V. 1. 479 dywvoOerr)*; XT}? 8evTepa<?
*O\V[jL7rid8o<f, 659 veiKij(ras Trai&wv jrdXrjv OvpavidSa rpirrjv, xiv. 1102
veiKt'jaas 'OXu/zTrta (Alexandrina) jravtcpdriov OXv/,Mrta$i CKTTJ, Ath. Mitt.
viii. 325 veiK[ijcr]avTa TraiSwv 7rd\r)v 'O\v/j,TridSa va , etc.
I cannot determine the meaning of pd-fyavTa in 1. 5 of the Thessalonian
inscription. It is hard to resist the conclusion that the copyist has been at
fault here, yet no convincing correction suggests itself. Is it possible that
Macedo may have been a kind of poet laureate to the Imperial house?
Cf. [Hesiod]/r. 265 eV A^Xw Tore TT/JWTOI/ ejo> tcaVOfj.'rjpo*; doiSoi fie\TTopev eV
veapotf V/JLVOIS pd-fy-avres doiBrjv
II. Two UNPUBLISHED EPITAPHS FROM GALATISTA.
To the kindness of Mr. A. J. B. Wace I owe copies of the two following
inscriptions.
1. At Galatista, by a spring. Grave stele of marble : -25 m. X '41 m.,
letters -02 m. Above the inscription is a decorated gable and below it are
two broken rosettes. Date, probably second century B.C.
AEMHNinnONIKOY
'\TnroviKov.
The name IIoA.e/ia>i> occurs in an inscription of Amphipolis dating from the
Macedonian period (S.I.G.2 832, Dem. 848) and in an epitaph (Dem. 150)
found between Yanitsa and Vodena (Edessa). It also appears in Leake's
copy of the pre-Roman inscription of Aivatli (Lete) published C.I.G. 1967 b
(Dem. 677), but the reading is doubtful (see B.S.A. xxiii. 94, No. 19).
'ITTTTOVIKOS is found in G. P. Oikonomos, 'EiriypcKJial rfc Ma/ceSow'a<?, 26-
No. 42.
2. At Galatista, in a house. Grave monument (cippus) : -55 m. X -33 m.»
letters -04 m. with traces of red paint in them.
KAIAY -Kalhv-
HA I A E A n [p]>j\ia 'EX?r-
ICAPHAIM t? 'ApijXi'p
A NZ I K H T M T 'Aveucyry r-
NTAYKYTAT 5 y yXvKVTdr-
MTEKNMIKTM « Tetcvy CK TW-
NKO I IVW 10 fM V KOLVWV KOTTW
NMNIIACXAP v ftveias
GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM MACEDONIA 181
The illiterate character of this inscription, which probably falls in the
third century of our era, is shown by the persistent disregard of the syllabic
division of the lines. I know no other example of the use of M , in place of W ,
to denote o>. The omission of the v in 'ApjjXtp (1. 3) may be a mere error, or
it may reflect the popular pronunciation at the period : the representation of
av by a is specially frequent in the word earov, etc. ; see B.S.A. xxiii. 71, K.
Meisterhans, Grammatik d. att. Inschr.3 154, note 1318 ; E. Schweizer, Grammatik
d. Pergamen. Inschr. 91; E. Mayser, Grammatik d. griech. Papyri, 114 f.
Mr. G. F. Hill has kindly drawn my attention to the occurrence of the form
APHAI on coins of Trajana Augusta (B.M.C. Thrace, 178, No. 12) and of
Marcianopolis (F. Imhoof-Blumer, Die antiken Miinzen Nord-Griechenlands,
i. 1. 213 f., Nos. 614-21) dating from Caracalla's reign. The names 'E\7rt<? (Dem.
44, 627) and ' Avei/cr)To<i (Dem. 1, 727, 786, B.C.H. xxxv. 238) occur elsewhere
in Macedonia. For the phrase eV T<UI> KOIVWV Koirmv see B.S.A. xxiii. 83 : the
epitaph must have begun with a reference to the father of the dead.
Mr. Wace also copied a cippus at Galatista, close to that published in
B.S.A. xxiii. 84, No. 12 : -47 m. X 1-3 m., letters -02 m. This proves to be
Dem. 785, published by Duchesne (Archives des Missions Scient. III. iii, No.
125) but apparently much damaged in recent years. Mr. Wace's version of
1. 2 (OMITCOTCKNCONI in place of Duchesne's AOMITIti)C€BBIOJNl) is
worth noting.
in. HPni HPonvoni
In a recent number of the Revue de Philologie (xlii. 60 ff.) M. Paul Foucart
published the above text from a squeeze, which he found among a collection
left to him by Charles Blondel, sometime member of the French School at
Athens. It bore no indication of provenance, but the lettering suggested
that the inscription belonged to the second half of the fourth century B.C.
This early date and the position of the word ijpwi preceding the proper name
with wjiich it is associated seem to M. Foucart to prove that we have to do
not with an epitaph but with a dedication to a ' true hero ' Heropythus, and
he proceeds to develop the theory that this was the same Heropythus who is
spoken of by Arrian (Anab. i. 17. 11) in a passage which describes how, on the
advent of Alexander the Great in 334, the Ephesian democrats TOU<? rrjv eiVora
rrjv <&i\iTnrov TTJV €v T(ft tepq> (T% 'Apre'/uSo?) KaraftaXovra? Kal TOV rd<f)ov
€K TJ}? dyopd? dvopvj-avras TOV 'tipoTTV0ov TOV eXevBepaxravTOS TTJV TTO\IV
wpfjLTjffav diroKTeivat. Arrian does not, it is true, refer to Heropythus as
having received the title and worship of a hero, but what is more likely than
that the liberator of the city should be honoured not only with a tomb in the
market-place but also with heroic worship? The case of Brasidas affords a
striking parallel.39 Hence M. Foucart naturally concludes that ' 1'inscription
** Thuc. V. 11 tufT«k 5« TOUT a rbv BpaaiHav . . . T^P an-oiwiay us olmffrrj irpoatdtcray . . . vopl-
trinoaia. (Oa^av iv TJJ »d\«i irp6 TT)S vvv ayopas ffavrn rbv ft.tv BpaariSav a<ar?ipd rt afyoiv
oC<rr)j ' KO.\ rb \oiwuv oi 'A/i^tvoAtrai . . . is ytftyrfffOai KrA.
rt irri(ju>ouoi Kal ri/nds SftwKaffif . . . xal
J.H.S. — VOL. XLII. N
182 MARCUS N. TOD
que nous venons d'etudier provient du premier ou du second heroon
d'Heropythos ' (p. 61).
I hesitate to call in question so attractive a theory, set forth with such
skill and cogency and supported by the weight of M. Foucart's authority;
but I think it right to draw attention to certain facts which to my mind tell
powerfully against it. The inscription was not, as M. Foucart thought,
previously unpublished. It was edited by Duchesne in his ' Mission au Mont
Athos,' 40 and, twenty years later, by M. G. Demitsas ('H MaxeBovia, i. 636,
No. 766). Duchesne placed it among the inscriptions of Potidaea-Cassandrea
and noted that it was found ' au metokhi du couvent de Dokhiarion,' and
though it may possibly have been brought by sea from Ephesus to Chalcidice,41
such a supposition is unlikely in itself and unsupported by any evidence.
Further, Duchesne expressly describes it as a ' stele funeraire carree,' and adds
that ' le bas-relief represente un banquet funebre.' In view of this explicit
statement of the only scholar who has described the monument, we must, I
think, regretfully abandon M. Foucart's view, since he certainly knew nothing
of its find-spot and of the accompanying relief. Blondel, who died 42 on
16th September, 1873, must have seen the stone before Duchesne, whose
mission extended from February to June, 1874; that Blondel paid at least
one visit to Chalcidice is certain.43
So far we have reached only a negative result, nor can I maintain with
confidence any positive conclusion. It is possible that, even if the connexion
with Ephesus disappears, we have here a dedication to ' un heros veritable ' :
the inscription, that is, may be similar to the votive relief inscribed Kvpip
ijpwl ' HpaK\[ei] found at Drama and published by S. Merdjidis.44 But Duchesne's
description of the monument and the absence of any other mention of a hero
Heropythus in Macedonia or Thrace are serious difficulties in the way of such
a theory. Two alternatives then remain for consideration.
(1) Hero may be a feminine proper name and the stone may commemorate
jointly Hero and Heropythus. 'H/jto is familiar as a personal name and occurs
in an epitaph from Athos which apparently precedes the Roman period and
in another from Amphipolis which belongs to the age of the Antonines.45
(2) It seems to me, however, more probable that we have here an early
example of the application to the dead of the term rjpws, ' appellation devenue
banale a Fepoque greco-romaine ' (Foucart, loc. cit.). So far as I can judge,
40 Archive* des Missions Scient. III. iii. 1885). See also Dem. 1064. Cf. the Thracian
270, No. 115 (Paris, 1876). dedications icvplip fipu'i (Dumont, Inscr. et
41 E.g., an inscription from Cape Mon. Fig. de la Thrace, Nos. 24, 32, 39).
Taenarum was found in the island of 4S The earlier inscription is published,
Syme (I.O. v. 1. 1233). after Leake, C.I.Q. 2007 I, Le Bas 1416,
42 G. Radet, L'Hiatoire et VOeuvre de Dem. 775, the later B.C.H. xviii. 425,
rticole Franyaise d'Athenes, 457. Dem. 863. The objection that we should
43 Radet, op. cit. 325, ' en classant les have 'Hpo? on the stone is strong, but not
papiers de Blondel, Foucart avait remarque to my mind fatal. Mavrf is found as a
des scolies qui portaient 1'indice de la dative at Thessalonica (C.I.Q. 1989, Dem.
hibliotheque conventuelle du monastere de 486), and the 'Hpwt AvcravSpov of an epitaph
Vatopedi.' at Aix (C.I.Q. 6954) may perhaps afford a
41 "Eptvvai Kal ptXtTai TOTroipaf.Kut (Athens, parallel.
GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM MACEDONIA 183
the inscription Tipo£ij\un kafyvaiov rjpm from Salonica, which also accompanies
a relief representing a funeral banquet, is likewise comparatively early,46
and I am inclined to assign to the pre-Roman period several other Macedonian
inscriptions which use the term ijpax;.47 As regards the order of the words,
our example may go back to a time when no stereotyped tradition existed,
and even later, when usage had created such a tradition, we find occasional
deviations from it, as in Duchesne 68 (J.H.S. viii. 365, No. 8, Dem. 435)
'H/3&H Harpofiitp r<p yXvicvrdrp reicvtp KT\*B Although at first sight there
may seem to be an impassable gulf fixed between the semi-divine heroes of
the Greek mythology and the humble folk, sometimes slaves or even children,
who in later times received heroic honours, yet it must be remembered that,
once an unquestionably human being was heroised for outstanding services, —
the founding of a colony, maybe, or the liberation of a state, — there was no
means of defining precisely the nature or value of the services justifying the
bestowal of this honour. Consequently the ' he"ros veritable ' shades off
imperceptibly into the rank and file of the ijptaes. What service Heropythus
had rendered to his community we have no means of determining. An inter-
esting review of the multiplication of heroes in the historical period is given
by Eitrem in Pauly-Wissowa, viii. 1134 ff., and by Deneken in Roscher, i.
2516 if., but the best general review of the whole subject will be found in
P. Foucart, Le Cvlte des Heros chez les Grecs (Paris, 1918), and L. R. Farnell,
Greek Hero Cults (Oxford, 1921).49
A few words may be added on a point to which M. Foucart does not
allude in his article. The liberator of Ephesus is named 'llpowvdos by Arrian,
loc. cit., and this name, though rare, is usually retained, being known,50 e.g.y
as that of a Colophonian writer (Athen. vii. 297 £), of one or two Chians (G.D.I.
5656-7) and of a Magnesian (S.I.G.3 685), and appearing also in the decrees
inserted in Demosthenes xviii. 164, 165. Roth, however, would substitute
'Hpo(j>vrov for 'HpoTrv0ov on the strength of a passage of Polyaenus (Strat.
vii. 23. 2), in which Mausolus is spoken of as €9 TlvyeXa Trapi'ov &>? SeSitas
'Hp6<f>vTov '&<f>€(Tiov. It is almost certain that Polyaenus and Arrian refer
to the same man, but it would seem that, if any change is to be made, it should
be in the text of Polyaenus, where 'Hp6<f>vrov is Roth's conjectural restoration
of the Upo^vrov of the archetypal manuscript F.
MARCUS N. TOD.
'• Duchesne, op. cit. 246, No. 77 (Dem. •• For the funeral banquet on grave-
533) : Duchesne calls it ' assez ancien.' stelae see P. Gardner, J.H.S. v. 107 ff. and
47 Dem. 23, 145, 150, and perhaps also Deneken, op. cit. i. 2571 ff.
870. M The names Atyubrvtfot and Mirrpowvdot
48 Cf. also Delacoulonche, Revue dt» also occur : names with FIuOu- as their first
Sociitia Savantet, v. (Paris, 1858) 795, element are very common (F. Bechtel,
No. 43 (Dem. 67). Hi«tori»che Ptrsonennamen dea Oriechitchen).
N2
NOTES ON THE apurreia OF THEBES
I. THE SPARTAN FORCES AT LEUCTRA
ACCORDING to the calculations of Busolt; whose elaborate essay on the
Spartan army may be regarded as the standard work on this subject, the
forces which King Cleombrotus took into action at Leuctra consisted of four
out of the six /aopat, each containing 35 out of the 40 service classes, and 300
/TTTret?, or Guards.1
That 35 classes were mobilised for the campaign of Leuctra is directly
attested by Xenophon 2 and cannot be called into question. That four out of
the six nopal took part in the battle is an inference from another passage in
Xenophon, which states that three years previously Cleombrotus was despatched
to Central Greece with four fiopai.3
This inference is only valid if we may assume that the Spartan forces in
Phocis were maintained at undiminished strength from 374 to 371 B.C. But
such an assumption is hardly justified. A priori it is unlikely that a force
representing some 60 per cent, of the entire military establishment of Sparta
should have been marooned in Central Greece for three years on end. The
Spartan government was of necessity most economical in the use of its citizen
troops.4 As a general rule it reserved them for the critical operations of a
field campaign and recalled them home at the close of each fighting season.
For the routine duties of garrison service it relied almost entirely on mercenaries.
But the emergency which had necessitated the sending of a large field force
to Phocis in 374 B.C. had passed away long before the campaign of Leuctra.
In 374, no doubt, a strong Theban force was concentrated for the invasion of
Phocis. In 373 and 372, however, the Thebans were preoccupied with the
coercion of Thespiae and the occupation of Plataea ; 5 and in view of the ill-
concealed hostility of Athens 6 and the presence of an Attic force on the Boeotian
border at Oropus,7 we may fairly assume that a considerable portion of the
Theban field forces had during these years to be called away from the Phocian
frontier. In the spring of 371 B.C. Thebans and Spartans alike were more
1 Hermes, 1905, pp. 387-449. Professor Pherae, because they could not beat up an
Toynbee (J.H.S. 1913, p. 271) reaches army of any sort for this purpose (Hellen. vi.
similar conclusions. 1. 17).
* Hellenica, vi. 4. 17. 6 Hellen. vi. 3. 1. For the date see Grote,
8 Ibid. vi. 1. 1. History of Greece (1903 ed.), vol. viii. p. 150
4 In 374 B.C. the Spartans had to refuse sqq.
an urgent request from Polydamas of • Vide the Plataicus of Isocrates.
Pharsalus for assistance against Jason of ~ Ibid. 20.
184
NOTES ON THE dpimia OF THEBES 185
taken up with diplomatic negotiations than with military operations.8
Under these circumstances we may well doubt whether the Phocians continued
to be in such danger as to require the continued presence of four strong popai.
A further doubt is suggested by the smallness in numbers of the Spartan
contingent actually engaged at Leuctra. This force, according to Xenophon,'
was only 700 strong. Accepting these figures, Busolt has reckoned out that by
371 B.C. Sparta's total military establishment had sunk to some 1000 men.10
This conclusion does little credit to the premiss from which it proceeds. In
418 B.C., as Busolt has shown, Sparta's military population numbered about
2200.11 This leaves us with a depopulation of more than 50 per cent, to
explain away. But neither the wastage of previous wars nor the social and
economic changes which befell Sparta in the early years of the fourth century 12
will account for such a catastrophic reduction in numbers. We are therefore
driven to infer that the 700 Spartans at Leuctra constituted a smaller portion
of the Spartan citizen levy than Busolt assumes.
Another difficulty in the way of Busolt's estimate is this. About 380 B.C.
the Spartans introduced a ' formula togatorum ' for their allies, by which
each dependent community was bound to contribute a fixed quota of soldiers
to each joint expedition.13 In 374 B.C. Xenophon expressly mentions that the
allies of Sparta contributed their allotted share to Cleombrotus' force, and there
is no reason for supposing that in 371 B.C. the Peloponnesian contingent in this
force had been reduced below the normal. Now the normal ratio of other
Peloponnesians to Spartans and Perioeci was 6:1. But if the Laconian
contingent at Leuctra was over 2000 strong, as on Busolt's showing it must
have been,14 it follows that the other Peloponnesian contingents exceeded
12,000, and that the entire Peloponnesian corps numbered some 15,000 com-
batants. If to these be added the Phocian and Heracleote divisions which
accompanied Cleombrotus,15 the grand total of his force cannot have fallen
far short of 16,000-17,000 men. But this total considerably exceeds the
estimate of 11,000 men given by Plutarch,16 and it is quite out of keeping with
• This consideration scorns decisive against ll Op. cit. p. 417.
Beloch's theory that Cleombrotus' force " The tfrpa of Epitadas, which permitted
was not sent to Phot-is until 371 B.C. the concentration of the Spartan land in a
(Qriechische Qeschichte, 1st cd., vol. ii. few hands, probably belongs to the middle
p. 251, n. 3). rather than to the beginning of the fourth
• Hellen. vi. 4. 15. century (Toynbee, p. 273). In any case,
10 Op. cit. p. 425. Busolt further con- its effects by 371 B.C. could not have been
eludes that at Leuctra the proportion of devastating.
Spartan citizens to Perioeci in the p6pai The severe depopulation upon which
had sunk to 1:6. Professor Toynbee Aristotle comments (Politics, ii. 5) was the
(loc. cit.) establishes a ratio of 1 : 10. result of the disasters which befell Sparta
Neither of these estimates is inconceivable, after Leuctra.
for in Spartan field tactics the rear-rank J» Diodorus, xv. 31.
men were trained merely to follow No. 1 " Op. cit. p. 422. Professor Toynbee
in each file (Xenophon, Re«p. Lac. ch. 11), raises the Laconian contingent to 4,480
and one Spartan as wpvroirrdrris to each hoplites.
file would at a pinch be sufficient. But we ' •• Hellen. vi. 4. 9.
should feel happier if we could assume a leas " Pelopidat, ch. 20.
complete dilution of the >top«< with wtplotitoi.
186 M. GARY
the conclusions of the most recent historians, who argue with considerable force
that the disparity of numbers between Cleombrotus' and Epaminondas' armies
cannot have been great, and are therefore inclined to regard Plutarch's
allowance as rather generous.17
We must therefore relinquish the view that the Spartans had four papai
engaged at Leuctra : their contingent must have been considerably smaller.
Any more exact estimate can only be guess-work. But if we accept Plutarch's
figures for Cleombrotus' force as being approximately correct, we may assume
that his Peloponnesian contingent represented TO et? TOI>? fivpiov? aiWay/za,18
and that the Laconian quota consisted of 1400-1500 men. If we deduct from
these the 300 Guards, there remains a force sufficient to make up two strong
popai.19 This estimate fits in well with Xenophon's figure of 700 for the
Spartan citizen troops. As the 300 Guards formed a special corps, we have
400 Spartan soldiers of the line left over, i. e. 200 men to each fiopa. On this
reckoning the proportion of Spartans to Perioeci in each fj,6pa was roughly
2 : 3, which was also the relative strength of their respective contingents at
First Mantineia,20 and the ratio of their casualties at Leuctra itself.21 We may
therefore conclude tentatively that the Laconian contingent in ^his battle was
two fiopai strong.
II. WHERE WAS ARCHIDAMUS?
In telling the story of Leuctra modern historians since Grote have invariably
given preference to the account of Xenophon over that of Diodorus. But
Professor Bury, instead of rejecting Diodorus' version in toto, has discerned a
substratum of truth in his assertion that the army of Prince Archidamus joined
hands with King Cleombrotus' force in time to participate in the battle. While
he shares the accepted view that Archidamus was not actually on the field at
Leuctra, Professor Bury suggests that Archidamus marched out from Sparta
before the battle and fell in with the remnants of Cleombrotus' army on the
second or third day after the fighting.22 On this hypothesis, as he points out,
a further reason is supplied for Cleombrotus' devious line of march via Creusis,
for this harbour was obviously suited to serve as a joint base for two co-opera-
ting forces from Phocis and Peloponnesus ; and the delay in the retreat of the
defeated Spartan forces from their camp at Leuctra can be reduced from a
17 Meyer, Oeschichte des Allertuma, v. Guards' corps was practically annihilated,
p. 412; Delbruck, Oeschichte der Kriegs- and that the total losses of the Spartan
kunat, i. p. 156, n. 2. citizen troops were relatively far heavier
18 This was the strength of the corps (op. cit. p. 271). But according to Xeno-
levied for service against the Chalcidians phon the battle at first went in favour of
in 382 B.C. (Hellen. v. 2. 20). the Spartans at the point where King
19 The strength of the p^pa varied Cleombrotus stood (Hellen. vi. 4. 13). The
according to the number of service classes impact of the Theban phalanx therefore
mobilised. According to Busolt's careful fell upon the /udpeu rather than upon the
calculations, the p6pcu engaged at Leuctra Guards, in which case the Perioeci probably
numbered at most 576 men each. suffered their full share of casualties.
20Busolt, p. 433. 22 History of Greece (1913 ed.), p. 596.
21 Professor Toynbee assumes that the
NOTES ON THE apurreia OF THEBES 187
week or more M to a matter of one or two days. To these arguments it may be
added that in the light of Professor Bury's theory the strictures which Isocrates
makes Arohidamus pass on Cleombrotus' leadership M gain a good deal of point.
In Xenophon's version of events it is hard to see where the bad leadership
comes in : Cleombrotus here appears as a good general who has the misfortune
to meet a great general. But if Cleombrotus precipitated an action a few days
before the arrival of reinforcements which would have made the issue safe for
Sparta, Archidamus had good reason for saying that Leuctra had been thrown
away by bad strategy.
On the other hand. Professor Bury's reconstruction involves the rejection
of Xenophon's detailed and explicit statement that Archidamus' force was
mobilised after and in consequence of Leuctra.25 Although a slip in Xenophon's
memory on this point was possible, it should not be assumed without further
investigation.
It will be agreed that the arguments drawn from Cleombrotus' route of
march and from Isocrates' aspersions on him are in any case but a make-
weight. While these incidents fit in excellently with Professor Bury's version
of events, they are not out of harmony with Xenophon's account. Whether
Cleombrotus expected reinforcements from Peloponnesus or no, it was worth his
while to make a detour via the Boeotian seaboard and so to turn the strong
defensive positions in north-western Boeotia. Whether Isocrates' comments
on Cleombrotus were just or not, they were in any case appropriate to Isocrates'
purpose, for in the passage in question it was his cue to explain away the disaster
of Leuctra as the result of mere bad leadership.
The main point at issue is whether the beaten Spartan army spent a week
or so in contemplating the scene of its defeat. On Xenophon's showing, it
could not have heard of Archidamus' expedition, and therefore could not have
been waiting for him to come up and retrieve the previous disaster. Again,
though the first day or two of its stay at Leuctra may have been taken up with the
burying of the dead, for which purpose the Thebans had granted it a truce, these
burial operations will not account for a delay of a week or more in its retreat.
But there remains one simple explanation which if true is all-sufficient,
that the Spartans remained in situ because their retreat was cut off or at all
events endangered. Professor Bury, it is true, assumes that the Spartans had
an open road, and on his behalf it might be pointed out that a resolute hoplite
force could not be stopped except by being engaged at close quarters, as Agesi-
laus proved on his march through Thessaly in 394 B.C.26 But the army of
Leuctra was demoralised as well as defeated,27 and the furtiveness with which
it eventually withdrew to Creusis, and that too under a convention which
secured it from attack,28 indicates that it expected to be waylaid and did not
M In assuming that the delay did not " Archidamus, § 9 : 5e8u<rruxij*«'»'a. Jo-
exceed a week in duration, Professor Bury KOV^V ... 5.4 TO* ot>* op Ows rr
states the case as unfavourably as possible " Hdlen. vi. 4. 16-17.
for himself. A detailed calculation will " Ibid. iv. 3. 3-9.
show that seven days represents the *7 Ibid. vi. 4. 15, L'l.
minimum lapse of time. " Ibid. vi. 4. 25-6.
188 M. GARY
feel «qual to cutting a path for itself. The haste with which Archidamus'
force was moved forward also suggests that its task was not so much to beat
the Thebans in a return match 29 as to extricate a beleaguered force.
Thus it appears that the Spartans had an adequate, not to say a compelling
reason for staying on at Leuctra. In that case there is no need to overthrow
Xenophon by antedating Archidamus' advance.
III. THE ' PHYLARCHUS ' INSCRIPTION
Our chief source of information about the federal council of the Arcadian
League is an inscription recording a grant of irpo^evia to one Phylarchus of
Athens by the Council and Assembly of the Arcadians, and setting forth the
names of fifty deputies, drawn from ten of the Arcadian communities, who
evidently constituted the federal council at the time in question.30 Unfortun-
ately the date of this inscription has long remained a matter of dispute among
scholars, some of whom would assign it to the fourth century B.C., others to the
third.
A definite terminus ante quern has recently been provided for our document
by Hiller v. Gartringen, who has pointed out that some of the communities
which figure in it as independent constituents of the Arcadian League were
absorbed in 361 B.C. in the borough of Megalopolis, and thereby lost the right
of separate representation on the federal council.31 This may be taken as
proof conclusive that the decree was issued not later than 361 B.C.
By this discovery the margin of doubt as to the date has been enormously
reduced, for since the Arcadian League only came into existence in 370 B.C.,
it is evident that the Phylarchus decree must belong to the ensuing decade.
Is it possible to fix the date still more precisely ? On the strength of the
words irpo^evov ical evepyerrjv elvai 'Ap/cdSwv jrdvrcov Hiller v. Gartringen
has further inferred that the decree was not drawn up until after the battle
of Mantineia, because then, and then only, did the Arcadian federal state
comprise the entire territory of Arcadia. Our document, therefore, must fall
within the limits of the Athenian archon year 362/1 B.C.
This argument has at least the merit of enabling us to assign the decree
to a very definite occasion, viz. the negotiations for a new Arcadian— Athenian
alliance which ensued after Mantineia, and resulted in a treaty of which we
still have a record in the ' Molon ' inscription.32 But two objections can be
urged against it.
(1) It is Iby no means certain that the ' ' A/j*a8e<? ' of the Molon inscription
really stood for all Arcadia. Before the battle of Mantineia the Arcadian
"Else Archidamus would have waited (3rd ed.), No. 183; Niese, Hermes, 1899,
for his Peloponnesian allies to fall in, instead pp. 542-548.
of hastening on ahead of them (Hellen. vi. 81 Athenische Mitteilungen, 1911, pp.
4. 26). 349-360.
30 Hicks, Greek Historical Inscriptions, " Hicks and Hill, Greek Historical In-
No. 171; Michel, Recueil d? Inscriptions scriptions, No. 119.
Grecques, No. 193; Dittenberger, Sylloge
NOTES ON THE dptareia OF THEBES 189
League had notoriously been sundered into two hostile sections, and as we are
nowhere explicitly told that the rift was subsequently mended, we cannot be
sure that the party which entered into alliance with Athens was not a sub-
group (presumably the Mantineian group) which pretended to speak on behalf
of the Arcadians in general.
(2) Whatever the precise extent of the Arcadian League may have been
in 362/1 B.C., it is clear that the federal Arcadian council, as detailed in the
Phylarchus inscription, was not properly representative of Arcadia as a whole,
for on this council the deputies of the North Arcadian communities of Alea,
Caphyae, Cynaetha, Pheneus, Psophis and Stymphalus are conspicuous by their
absence.
So far, then. 362/1 B.C. remains a possible date, but ceases to be the only
conceivable date for Phylarchus' decree.
This brings us to the crux of the problem, which is to reconcile the expres-
sion 'irpoj-evov *Apfcd8a>v Trdvreav' with the de facto non-representative
character of those who conferred this pan- Arcadian title.
The difficulty cannot be evaded by assuming that the absence of the
deputies from northern Arcadia was accidental. Though one or two councillors
might have been ill in bed or otherwise engaged, it is inconceivable that all the
twenty or thirty representatives of six district communities should simulta-
neously have been prevented from attending.
Again, we cannot suppose that the North Arcadian communities were
deprived of seats on the federal council on the score of their insignificance.
True enough, none of them was as important as Mantineia or Tegea ; but none
of them was more Lilliputian than Lepreum, which furnished two deputies,
or Thelpusa, which provided five.
A more plausible suggestion is that only the larger Arcadian cities enjoyed
permanent representation on the Arcadian council, and that the lesser com-
munities took it in turn to provide the remaining deputies. A parallel for this
might be found in the constitution of the League of Nations, which provides
permanent seats on the League Council for the ' Big Five ' only, and allots a
beggarly representation of four members to the remaining signatories of the
Covenant. But under such a system we should expect to find a better distribu-
tion of the available seats among the minor communities. Whether these
seats were filled by annual election or on some fixed principle of rotation, it
is incomprehensible that in any given year the entire northern zone of Arcadia
should have been excluded from the council, while all the tiny communities
of the south sent their full quota of delegates.
There seems no escape from the conclusion that, in spite of its claim to speak
on behalf of 'Ap/edSe? -jrdvTes, the council of the Phylarchus inscription was only
representative of southern and central Arcadia, and that the inscription itself
belongs to a period at which northern Arcadia had not yet joined the League.
The council's profession was therefore a hopeful anticipation of the future
rather than an accurate description of the present.
Once we adnu't that the League was incomplete at the time of the decree
in honour of Phylarchus, we win a new terminus ante quern for this document.
190 M. GARY
In 366 B.C. the town of Stymphalus, which does not figure in our inscription,
had become a member of the League, for in that year it provided the federal
(TTpcnTiyos.33 The decree was therefore issued at some earlier date than
366 B.C.
On the other hand, the inscription contains the names of several councillors
from Megalopolis, and therefore must be subsequent to the foundation of that
city. The year in which Megalopolis was founded is a matter of dispute, but
369 B.C. is the earliest possible date.34
Our conclusion, therefore, is that the Phylarchus decree belongs to 369, 368
or 367 B.C.
The precise occasion on which Phylarchus was appointed Trpb1*€vo<s cannot
be ascertained. But the commonest service for which this title was conferred
was the rendering of assistance to travellers, and especially to official emissaries.
It therefore appears not unlikely that Phylarchus befriended some Arcadian
embassy on the occasion of the peace negotiations of Delphi (368 or 367) or
Susa (late 367).
IV. I.G. VII. 2408
This inscription, which records a grant of Trpo%evla by the Boeotian federa-
tion to a citizen of Byzantium, has been used as a means of dating Epaminondas'
naval campaign and the punitive expedition which the Thebans sent to Thessaly
to avenge the death of Pelopidas. The list of eponymous Boeotarchs at the
foot of this document contains the names of the two generals, Malecidas and
Diogeiton, who took command of the punitive expedition to Thessaly,35 but
it omits the names of Pelopidas and Epaminondas. Since it is practically
certain that Epaminondas was a Boeotarch in the year of his naval campaign,
and Pelopidas in the year of his death,36 it has been argued that the year of
Malecidas and Diogeiton's Boeotarchy must be a different one.37 Now Pelopidas
died in 364 B.C.38 Therefore the expedition of the two generals must be dated
forward to 363. Epaminondas' naval campaign can be assigned on general
grounds to either 364 or 363. Ex hypothesi it does not belong to 363;
therefore its date is 364.39
33 Hellen. vii. 3. 1. 36 Pelopidas was Boeotarch every year
34 See Niese, Hermes, 1899, pp. 527-542. (so Diodorus, xv. 81), or thirteen times (so
The date selected by Niese, 367 B.C., is Plutarch, ch. 34) since 378 B.C. Since
rather too late, as Meyer (Oeschichte dee Epaminondas' fleet must have been a
Altertums, v. p. 433) has pointed out. The federal Boeotian armament, and not merely
foundation of Megalopolis probably stands a Theban affair, it may be taken for granted
in connexion with the second Peloponnesian that its admiral was a Boeotarch (pace
expedition of Epaminondas, which befell Meyer, op. cit. v. p. 462).
in 369 according to the common dating, or 37 Kohler, Hermes, 1892, p. 638.
in 368, according to the more credible 38 The eclipse which preceded his death
reckoning of Clinton and Niese (Hermes, 1904, took place on July 13, 364. (Ginzel,
pp. 84-108). Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfin-
38 Plutarch, Pelopidas, ch. 35. The sternisse, pp. 24-5, 182.)
' Malcitus ' of Plutarch's text can safely be « Beloch, op. cit. ii. p. 281, n. 3.
identified with the ' Malecidas ' of the
'nscription.
NOTES ON THE aptareLa OF THEBES 191
This conclusion stands in conflict with Plutarch's account, which declares
that Malecidas' and Diogei ton's army went out hot-foot to avenge Pelopidas.
On the face of it this version is more credible than a theory which interposes
a long delay between Pelopidas' death and the avenging expedition, and a
further investigation will show that there is after all no reason to reject it.
The evidence of the inscription would be conclusive if it could be proved
that Malecidas and Diogeiton were Boeotarchs once only. But there is no
ground whatever for asserting that these two generals did not hold office
repeatedly, as the Boeotian constitution undoubtedly allowed them to do.
The date of our inscription, therefore, remains indeterminate. For all that we
can prove to the contrary, it remains quite possible that Malecidas and Diogeiton
were Pelopidas' colleagues in 364 and avenged his death in the selfsame year.
It is equally possible that Epaminondas was their colleague in 364 or in 363,
or in both these years, and our inscription leaves it an open question to which
year his naval campaign belongs.
M. GARY.
A BLACK FIGURE FRAGMENT IN THE DORSET MUSEUM
IN the Dorset County Museum at Dorchester l there are thirteen fragments
of Attic Black Figure pottery2 which form part of a collection of antiques
acquired by the Museum in 1885 from the late Mr. Charles Warne, F.S.A.
Most of Mr. Warne's collection consists of objects of local interest, and nothing
is known of the history of the Greek fragments beyond the fact that on the
back of one of them 3 is written the name Campanari. This fragment no
doubt came from Campanari's excavations in Tuscany, but there is no
evidence to show whether all the pieces have the same provenance, nor even
whether they were all acquired by Mr. Warne from the same source.
The most interesting of the sherds is a fragment of an eye-kylix which
once bore the signature of the maker. The clay is fine and clear, the glaze
good. The outside decoration needs no description, since every detail can be
seen in the photograph here published (Fig. 1). The inside is black with a line
reserved in ground colour just below the rim. As it stands to-day the
inscription ... 5 E P O I ... is somewhat baffling. The remaining $ of the
signature tells us little, since there are not more than half a dozen known
Black Figure potters whose names do not end in this letter. The identifica-
tion of the master, therefore, depends on the discovery of a signed vase
with kindred decoration.
Eye-kylikes were common in Athens in the later Black Figure and early
Red Figure periods, and in the Black Figure technique there have come down
to us eleven with potters' signatures. They are as follows : —
Amasis, one (fragmentary). Boston Mus. of Fine Arts, No. 03.850
(AJ.A. xi., 1907, p. 159, Fig. 2).
Exekias, one. Munich, No. 2044 (Wiener Vorleg. 1888, Taf. VII. i.).
1 My thanks are due to the Curator, tween eyes in black silhouette seated figure
Capt. J. E. Acland, for very kindly giving of Dionysos with rhyton, vine-branches
me permission to publish this fragment. and grapes in field; (ix) fragment of kylix :
* They are as follows : (i) fragment of the winged female figure in chiton and himation
eye-kylix dealt with in this article ; (ii) and to right; (x) fragment of kylix: deep
(iii) two kylix fragments which fit together ; black rim, below it band of palmettes, leaves
bearded man in chiton and himation run- black and purple ; (xi) fragment probably of
ning to right and looking back, carrying an kyathos : sphinx to right, looking back,
aryballos on a string; (iv) fragment of branches. The two following are B.F. on
kylix ; lower part of man in himation walk- pale ground : (xii) fragment of kyathos
ing to left wearing winged shoes ; (v) frag- with modelled female head at base of
ment of kylix ; ivy- and vine-branches and handle ; on each side of handle, leopards,
grapes, rays; (vi) fragment of kylix : lion's branches; (xiii) part of rim of same or
head, neck, and part of tail, floral decora- similar vase, female figure in chiton,
tion; (vii) fragment of kylix: nude man branches, part of black object (?eye). Of
riding mule, head and shoulders of man of these Nos. (i) to (v) are good early work,
larger size; (viii) fragment of kylix : be- 8 No. (iv) of previous note.
192
A BLACK FIGURE FRAGMENT IN THE DORSET MUSEUM 193
Nikosthenes, six. Louvre, F 121, F 122 (Wiener Vorleg. 1890-1891,
Taf. V. i.) ; Florence, No. 3888 ; New York (Richter, Handbook of
the Classical Collection, Metropolitan Museum, p. 77, Fig. 46) ; Munich,
No. 2029, and Rouen, No. 450 (Klein, No. 63).*
Pamphaios, two. Louvre, F 127 bis; Vatican, Helbig's No. 543 (Mus.
Greg. ii. 66, 4).
Hischylos, one, painted by Sakonides. Cambridge, No, 60 (Gardner,
Catalogue of the Fitzwilliam Collection, PI. XXII.).
Andokides, one, in ' mixed ' style. Palermo (Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire
de VArt x. Fig. 180).
On vases in general with this prophylactic eye there is considerable variety
in its rendering. Sometimes it is drawn in outline, leaving the ' white '
Fio. 1. — FRAGMENT OF KYLJX.
of the eye reserved in the ground colour of the clay, while the coloured part
is represented by painted rings. Often the ' white ' is covered with a coat
of paint, either a realistic white or more often black, so that the eye stands
out in silhouette against the red ground of the vase. The coloured rings of
the pupil and iris are then painted on according to the taste of the painter
over the black or white of the silhouette. Now, in spite of the very large
number of permutations and combinations possible in the colouring of the
eye, a study of eye-vases shows that there was a certain standardisation and
that individual artists tended generally to use the same type. At least, on
4 This vase, which Klein and Nicole could by the Director, M. Loon de Vesly, in Note*
not locate, is now in the Musee des Anti- Archtologiquts, Rouen, 1908.
quit<Ss at Rouen, and has been published
194 ANNIE D. URE
vases which group themselves together on other grounds the eyes are frequently
found to be uniform. Of the signed kylikes listed above, the two from the
workshop of Pamphaios both have eyes drawn in outline, the pupils coloured
black with a tiny purple dot in the centre covering the mark of the compass-
point, and the iris (reading from the inmost ring outwards) purple, white,
black. Five of the kylikes of Nikosthenes have eyes precisely like those of
Pamphaios, except that in the former the mark of the compass point is not
always covered with purple. The sixth, the one in Munich, has an additional
black ring in the iris, that is, the pupil is black, the iris purple, black, white,
black. Of the four potters who are represented by only one cup each,
Andokides has on the black-figured side of his cup an outlined eye with a
black pupil and three rings of black for the iris, while Sakonides paints his eye
in white silhouette with the pupil black, the iris black, purple, black, and
Exekias uses the same eye as Pamphaios. The fragmentary kylix of Amasis
in Boston is the only one which has an eye identical with that of the Dorchester
fragment, that is, an eye drawn in outline with the pupil purple, the iris black,
white, black. This Amasis eye is extremely rare on black-figured vases
though common on red-figured. Of nearly 300 black-figured eye vases of
various types which I have examined, not one except the cup signed by Amasis
had an eye of precisely this description. Only 32 had the pupils coloured
purple, and in every case the purple pupil was found on an eye that was
painted in silhouette, and which therefore belonged to a different class from
the outlined eyes of the Boston and Dorchester fragments.
Further comparison of our fragment with the signed black-figured cups
shows that it shares other peculiarities of the kylix of Amasis. Both have
only one figure in the space between the eyes. That of the Boston cup is all
lost except a tiny piece of fringed drapery and an ivy spray, but measure-
ments show that there was room there for only a single figure.5 On the other
hand, the remaining signed cups, except when they follow the Ionic fashion
of putting a nose between the eyes, fill that space with a group of two or more
members.6 The size of the signed kylikes is generally large, those of Pamphaios,
Nikosthenes, Exekias and Hischylos (Sakonides) varying from 28 to 38 cm.
in diameter, while that of Andokides measures as much as 43-5 cm. The
kylix of Amasis, however, in its complete state was only half the size of the
others, measuring 17-5 cm., which was also the diameter of the Dorchester
cup. Also the Amasis cup is the only one which, like ours, has the two words
of the signature written symmetrically one over each eye.
There are thus good grounds for associating the Dorchester kylix with
the Boston kylix of Amasis. It remains to be seen whether the other signed
vases 7 from that master's workshop have enough in common with our fragment
to bear out the attribution.
5 Walton, A.J.A. xi. (1907), p. 159. 7 Three amphorae and four olpae, cp.
* An exception is the kylix of Nikos- Nicole, Corpus des Cdramistes grecs, Rev.
thenes, Louvre, F 121, which on one side Arch., 1916, corrected by Hoppin in A.J.A.
has the single figure of Heracles with an xxi. (1917).
enormous club.
A BLACK FIGURE FRAGMENT IN THE DORSET MUSEUM 195
There are certainly a number of points in which the figure between the
eyes of the Dorchester vase reflects the idiosyncrasies of the Amasis painter
(assuming that the amphorae and olpae are all the work of one hand). We
have here the fringe, which, though it cannot be regarded as the trade-mark 8
of Amasis' work, is habitually used by him and occurs only rarely on vases
signed by other potters.9 The small foldless himation passing under the right
arm with the end thrown over the left shoulder appears several times on his
signed vases (e. g. the figure of Poseidon on the Louvre oenochoe), and the
pattern on it of purple spots and rosettes formed of a ring of white dots round
a purple centre is equally familiar. The beard with its parallel incised lines is
of the type normally used by the Amasis painter. The eager movement of
our reveller, though it contrasts with the rather stiff repose of most of his
figures, is paralleled by the Dionysiac figures beneath the handles of the
Boston amphora (Klein, No. 3) and by the maenads on the reverse of the
amphora in the Bibliotheque Nationale, and is surpassed in liveliness by
the trumpeter and the Phrygian archer on the shoulder of the latter vase. The
awkward drawing of the right arm is an unsuccessful experiment which recalls
once more the Paris maenads and finds a still closer analogy on the Wiirzburg
amphora attributed with good reason to the Amasis painter by Karo.10 On
the other hand, the execution of the Dorchester fragment is of a different
order from that of the larger vases with their meticulous accuracy. There
is nothing in them so careless as the incision outlining the hand which holds
the oenochoe, or the hasty way the purple of the himation borders is laid on,
seldom entirely filling the space between the incised edges. More important
is the difference in the rendering of certain details, e.g. the muscles of the
knee, which the Dorchester painter has represented in a manner unknown
on the vases signed by Amasis.
There is no single figure on any of the signed works of the Amasis painter
which is obviously brother to ours. There are, of course, none of the same type
with which to compare it. The groups painted in the panels of the olpae
and on the amphorae are of a larger size and of a more serious nature than
this single decorative figure which fills the gap between the eyes on the Dor-
chester vase. The tiny figures which form a frieze of subordinate decoration
on some of the larger vases are just as far removed in the opposite direction.
The only kylix figure which we know to have been painted in the workshop of
Amasis is practically all lost. If, therefore, we compare our fragment only
with the amphorae and olpae we must come to the conclusion that though
it resembles them in many points it is not by the hand of the same painter.
Now there is no evidence that the Amasis kylix in Boston is by the same
hand as the larger vases signed by Amasis. As the kylix has no human figures
and the other vases have no eyes there is no basis for comparison. The
Dorchester fragment, which has both elements — the eye exactly matching
the Boston eye, which is of a most unusual type; the figure resembling
* Karo, J.H.S. xix. (1899), p. 138. " The fourth figure from the right on the
' K. y. on the pyxis in Florence signed small frieze above the panel on each side
by Nikosthenes. of the vase, J.H.S., 1899, PI. V.
196 ANNIE D. URE
the figures of the olpae and amphorae, yet not having quite the same
individuality — suggests that possibly the kylikes which Amasis put on the
market were painted by a different and rather less competent painter than
the one who decorated the costlier vases, but one, nevertheless, who was
influenced by the same models and traditions.- It is perhaps significant that
the formula used by the painter of the kylikes was EPOIE$EN, while the
painter or painters of the larger vases, except perhaps the lost olpe (Klein,
No. 6),11 used MEPOIE5EN.
As to the period at which the kylikes of Amasis were made, the evidence
is scanty, but that afforded by the one certain example in Boston suffices
to show that it connects more closely with early red-figured kylikes than with
black-figured. The eye used by Amasis was the peculiar property of the Red
Figure painters, and decoration with a single figure only between the eyes was
their habitual practice. The probability is, therefore, that the Boston kylix
was made during the later period of Amasis' activity, which appears to have
overlapped the beginnings of the Red Figure technique.12
If the Dorchester fragment be accepted as a product of Amasis' shop, this
probability is heightened, for, allowing for the difference of technique, there
is something in the drawing of our bearded votary of Dionysos which recalls
more than anything else the ephebes who occupy the same position 13 on the
earlier red-figured eye-cups.14
The painter of the Dorchester cup probably did not confine himself to
the decoration of kylikes. There is in the Louvre a skyphos (F 70) of unusual
shape 15 with Black Figure scenes done in a style so similar to that of the
fragment here published that it is tempting to suggest that it, too, represents
the less ambitious products of the later days of Amasis. This skyphos has
already been recognised by Pettier 16 as reflecting the style of Amasis, but it
has closer affinities with the Dorchester kylix than with any of his larger vases.
The decoration is on much the same scale, and the striking resemblance of style
is borne out by a correspondence in details which is too close to be due to chance
coincidence. There are the same ivy sprays, the same garlands, purple borders,
fringes, and patterns on the garments, the same rendering of eyes and knees,
and the slender oenochoe from which a youth pours wine into a kylix held out
by a maiden suggests the same metal original as does that on our fragment.
One further point may perhaps be noted. The wine-cup in the left hand
of the Dorchester figure has the general shape of a kantharos, but instead of
the high vertical handles characteristic of that type of cup it has small hori-
11 For this Klein gives EPOIE5EN, introduce the Ionic eye -kylix into the Attic
copying apparently from an old drawing potteries (Buschor, Greek Vase Painting,
of the vase. trans., p. 102), or whether in his later years
" Mauser, Jahreshefte dee oest. arch. Jnst, he followed a fashion already made popular
x. (1907), p. 3 ; Loeschke in Pauly-Wissowa, by others,
j i^g ls Both sides of the vase are figured in
11 E. g. the trumpeter on the kylix in Vase* Antiques du Louvre, Plate LXIX.
the Vatican, Alinari photo, No. 35782. li Catalogue des Vases Antiques du
14 It is, therefore, a question whether Louvre, p. 746.
Amasis is to be regarded as one of the first to
A BLACK FIGURE FRAGMENT IN THE DORSET MUSEUM 197
zontal ones resembling those of a kylix. Did the painter start with the inten-
tion of drawing a kylix such as the one on the Louvre skyphos and then expand
it into a kantharos, forgetting to alter the handles to correspond ? Or did he
deliberately draw a cup of this un-Attic shape? Whatever his original
intention may have been, the vase as he has left it bears a curious re-
semblance to the cups of Naukratis, and suggests that he was not unfamiliar
with the pottery of the city from which Amasis has been thought to have
derived his Egyptian name.
ANNIE D. URE.
J.H.S. — VOL. XLII.
THE CONSTITUTIVE ACT OF DEMETRIUS' LEAGUE OF 303
THE important inscription from Epidaurus, published in Aug. 1921 by
M. Cawadias,1 raises many questions beside those dealt with in the very
full commentary. Cawadias attributes the document to 223 and the Achaean
League. It is, I think, certain that it cannot belong to the Achaean League,
and almost certain, as I hope to show, that it belongs to 303 and the revived
League of Corinth of Demetrius I. The last few lines of the inscription have
long been known (I.G. iv. 924), and have been exhaustively studied by A.
Wilhelm,2 who placed the fragment which in I.G. is marked y8; Cawadias
does not refer to Wilhelm's study, and unfortunately omits any mention of /3
from his restoration. The document contains no proper names.
A preliminary point is to restore 1. 13, if possible. LI. 11-18 run as
follows :—
crv-
12 veBpovs €/JL fJLev rr)i elptfvrjt TO[ ............ ?e]i/ oe TW
ocra/cis av oorcf)i
13 crv/j,<f)epeiv rot? crvveopois fcal [rot? ap-^ovai ? «a]t TOH VTTO raw
€tr\ rijs tcoi-
14 v]r)s <f>v\arcr}<i KaTa\e\eifj,/j,ev[ci)i- ^v^ve&peveiv Be O7ro<ra9 av rjfjiepas ol
TTpoe&poi
15 TOV avve&piov 7rapayy€\\(0(r[iv- T]a? £e ffwoSovs yeveadac rov
avve&piov, [e-
16 to? fiev av 6 KOIVOS 7roXeyu,09 \v\0r)i, o]v av ol TrpoeSpoi Kal 6 /Sao-iXeu? f)
6<i> VTTO T(ov /i?a-
17 <TI\€(I)V dTroSeSei'y/J.evos <rTp[aT]r)<yo<j 7rapay<ye\\iji, orav 8' »} hprjvrj
18 ov av ol o-T€(f>avirat aywves
Now these two clauses balance each other ; one declares ivhen the a-vveopiov
is to assemble, and the other where. This can hardly have been decided by
two such different sets of authorities ; if ' the king ' helped to say where,
he must also have helped to say when. Consequently for Cawadias' tentative
restoration in 1. 13 [rot? ap^ovat ? Ka\l, I suggest that we must read [rwi
@acri\€i] ^. The inscription is not written O-TOIXTJOOV, and the lines vary
1 P. Cawadias, 'H 'Axoi'ic^ 2ujuiro\iT«(o /car' 2 Attische Urkunden, I. 1911, pp. 31-44.
^iriypa^ii IK TUV avatrKaipiev 'EiriSoupou. 'E(^. Cf. U. Wilcken, Beitrdge zur Qesckichte des
'Apx- 1918, 115. The inscription in question korinthischen Bnndcs, Sitzungsb. Akad.
is No. 3, p. 128; I shall also have to refer Munich, 1917, Abh. 10, p. 37.
to Nos. 2 and 3 j3.
198
TMK CONSTITUTIVE ACT OF DEMETRIUS' LEAGUE OF 303 199
considerably in length ; taking Cawadias' arrangement of the fragments and
measuring the gap, ran j3ao-i\el r\ fits very well, while the mark oh the stone
(it is the lower half of an upright stroke) which Cawadias restored as the iota
of teat may just as well be the lower half of the second upright of H. It
follows from this restoration that, if the decision is to be made by the vvveBpot
(or their -rrpoeBpoi), acting in the one case in conjunction with ' the king or
the general appointed by the kings,' and in the other case in conjunction with
' the king or the person left (appointed) by the kings for the common pro-
tection,' then the person appointed for the common protection and the kings'
general are the same man, his formal title being given the first time only.
I will now first give briefly the reasons why the League of the inscription
cannot be the Achaean. (1) The Assembly is a avveSpiov (1. 15, twice) com-
posed of a-vveopot, (11. 11, 13, 22, 24, 37). The term evveSptov is unknown to
the Achaean League, whose two Assemblies are, in Polybius, always a-ujK\ijro<;
and eruj/oSo?.3 (2) Nomographi (1. 23) are to be chosen by lot c£ edvovs rj
7r6\ea>5, i. e. the constituent members of the League comprise *6vi] as well as
cities. There were no eQvrj in the Achaean League, any edvos joining being
broken up into cities or districts.4 There was one exception, Elis; but Elis
was not a member till later than 223. (3) The League officials include
ypa/j-fjiareif (11. 24, 26). The Achaean League had only one ypafifiarevf.^
These 7/>a/i/AOT€t? must be those of the various constituent members of the
League, whether effvtj or independent cities. (4) Five irpoeSpoi (11. 16, 21)
are to be elected from the vvve&poi. This office and title are unknown in the
Achaean League, and apparently are unknown everywhere else except at
Athens. (5) When peace is restored, the League meetings are to be held
(1. 18) ov av ol ffT€<f>avirat dywves aywvrai, i. e. at the four Panhellenic
festivals. The Achaean League in 223 could never have contemplated holding
its meetings at Delphi or Olympia, Delphi, moreover, being actually and Elis
indirectly controlled by the unfriendly Aetolians. Cawadias attempts to
restrict the meaning to the Isthmia and Nemea ; but the Greek cannot, I think,
mean this. In fact, the meetings of the Achaean auvo&os in the years following
223 were not held in accordance with the provisions of our inscription (either
for peace or war), but continued to be held as usual at Aigion.6 (6) There is a
joint kingship, which excludes the Achaean League of 223 (see post). (7) The
provision of a general eVl rrjs Koivfjs <£uXa*f;<? is unknown to the Achaean
League. (8) That Antigonus Doson should have been given the right to
interfere in what were, in fact, domestic concerns of the Achaean League, as
k the king' of 11. 11-18 would be entitled to do, is almost incredible, seeing
that the basis of Doson's League was the old formula that the constituent
members (of whom the Achaean League was one) were to be e
' Details, etc., in Swoboda, Staateallcr- * Ib. p. 381.
turner (in Hermann's Lehrbuch, 1913), p. 8 Ib. p. 410.
388 seq. That Pausanias calls the ovvolos • Polyb. 2, 54, 3. 4, 7, 1; 26, 7-8;
awttpiov is* immaterial. Plutarch jjivos 82, 7.
crvpfSpoi onrc (A nit. 3.")), but Polybiu-*
never.
o2
200 W. W. TARN
TroXtreicu? Ka\ VO/AOIS x/3<w/ie't>oi><? ro?9 Trar/atof?.7 Philip's interference in 218,
when he supported a particular candidate for the generalship, is represented
by Polybius (4, 82, 5-8) as a usurpation, inspired by Apelles. (9) Our inscrip-
tion is written in ordinary Hellenistic Greek, and should therefore deal with
the relations of several states, as both Wilhelm and Cavvadias point out. —
These reasons seem to me to be conclusive.
Cavvadias' reasons for attributing the inscription to the Achaean League
are three. (1) The stone was found built up in a wall together with the stone
containing No. 2, a list of voftoypd^oi of the Achaean League at a time when it
included Sicyon, Argos, the Acte, and Megalopolis ; and Cavvadias thought that
the two were probably connected and that No. 3 might be the j/o/io? provided
for by No. 2. (As, however, No. 3 provides for the appointment of nomographi,
the connexion, if any, might have to be reversed, No. 2 being that appoint-
ment.) But two stones, even if taken from the same precinct, used in a later
building have not necessarily any connexion with each other. (2) The League
in question is a league of cities only. This is negatived by 1. 23, eg i!0vov<t
77 TToXeo)?. (3) L. 18, TO, 8e Sogavra rot? crvve[8]poi<i [fcvpia] elvai, fits (he
considers) the Achaean League, but not Doson's, since Polyb. 4, 26, 2 shows that
the acts of the a-vveSpiov of Doson's League were not Kvpia. But there is
nothing in this point. Even if [tcvpia] be correct, the distinction cannot be
maintained; for the acts of the synedri of Doson's League were tcvpia with
certain exceptions, e. g. declaring war ; 8 and the acts of the ervvoSos of the
Achaean League (with which Cavvadias equates the avveBpiov of the inscrip-
tion) were in no better position", as the o-yj/o&o? (among other disabilities)
could not declare war, that being reserved to the general assembly, the
cruy/cX^TO?.9 Also rcvpia, if correct, may fit other Leagues beside the
Achaean.
We are then, it appears, dealing with a League which comprised both
Wvt] and TroXet?, which contemplated holding its (political) meetings at the
four Panhellenic festivals, and in which ' the king ' had authority. That
' the king ' must be some Macedonian is certain ; the only alternative (if it
be one), Areus I of Sparta, has been considered and rejected by Cavvadias
for reasons quite conclusive. There are consequently three alternatives to
be considered : the League of Corinth of Philip II and Alexander, dissolved
in 323 ; the revival of this League by Demetrius I in 303 ; and the League of
Doson and Philip V. As regards the letter-forms of the inscription, I note
here that Frankel called I.G. iv., 924, fourth or third century ; Wilhelm (I.e. p. 33)
has said it is certainly (sicherlich) fourth century; Cavvadias says in one 'place
(p. 129) that it is third century, and subsequently (p. 135) that it may (&vvarcu)
be third century. Evidently then the fourth century is open, if historical
considerations point that way.
Now Wilhelm definitely attributed I. G. iv., 924 to the League of Corinth;
7 Polyb. 4, 25, 7; 84, 5. Cf. 2, 70, 4. constitutes only an exception to their
8 Ib. 4, 13, 6, tireKvpuiav; 4, 26, 2, powers.
roD $6yna.Tos KvptaOfvros. This shows that * Swoboda, pp. 393, 396.
the inability to declare war of 4, 26, 2,
THE CONSTITUTIVE ACT OF DEMETRIUS' LEAGUE OF 303 201
and there is a very startling parallel in language between the Covenant of that
League and our inscription; 1. 25 TWI VTTO ran/ j3affi\€a>v eVi TT}<? *O<I>T}<?
<j>v\aKt)<; fcaTa\€\€tf*pev[oH recalls Pseudo-Demosthenes, On the treaty with
Alexander, § 15, TOU? ^-rrl rfj teoivfj <j>v\aKjj reraypevov? (cf. I.G. ii.2,
1, 329). (As we have already seen from our inscription that the person
appointed eVt TJ}<» KOIV!}<; <f>v\aKfj<f is probably the same as the general of
' the kings,' it seems to follow that Kaerst's interpretation of the phrase
in Pseudo-Demosthenes is probably right ; 10 that is, the phrase does, in fact,
refer to Antipater.) Nevertheless, there can be little question, now that we
have more of the document of which I.G. iv. 924 formed part, that it does
not refer to the League of Corinth at all. (1) There is a joint or double king-
ship,11 which puts both Philip II and Alexander out of the question. (2) The
League is engaged in a war, KOIVOS 7ro\e/i09 (11. 7, 12, 16, 36), and that war
is on the Greek mainland, making it necessary for the synedri to contemplate
having to meet in different places. This puts every year from the foundation
of the League of Corinth to its dissolution in 323 out of the question, except
the autumn of 331 ; and as to 331, the circumstances and duration of Antipater's
campaign against Agis of Sparta prohibit the idea that in the middle of that
brief struggle delegates from the League States met to settle a new constitu-
tion, Alexander, moreover, being in Asia and Antipater otherwise engaged.
(3) The scale of penalties for failure to send troops. For brevity's sake I
refer once for all to Wilhelm's discussion ; it suffices to say here that the penalty
in our inscription of twenty drachmae a day for a hoplite shows that a hop-
lite's pay was two drachmae a day, the same payment as is provided for in
the treaty between Aetolia and Acarnania of circ. 272 (Syll.3 421), while in
Alexander's time his hypaspists only got a drachma a day (I.G. ii.2 1, 329),
and as they were his best heavy-armed infantry, a hoplite cannot possibly
have got more ; consequently we are dealing with a period later than Alexander,
when the fall in the value of money consequent on the circulation of the Persian
treasure had taken effect. — The League of Philip II and Alexander may there-
fore be left out of consideration ; and the question is, Demetrius or Doson '.
There are a number of facts which are ambiguous. The find-spot,
Epidaurus, was in Demetrius' League (Plut. Dem. 25) as well as (through the
Achaean League) in Doson's. In all the three Panhellenic Leagues the organ of
the League was a avveSptov or assembly of avveSpoi,12 and the Macedonian
kin^ was called T/ye'/ituv.13 The scale of penalties affords no help as between
303 and 223, for it seems that the rate of pay remained much the same ; 14
10 Wilhelm, I.e. p. 47 (cf. Niese, 1, 38), »* Philip and Alexander : Syll* 283 and
contended that the phrase in Pseudo- 261, and much literary evidence. Deme-
Demosthenes denotes a special authority trius: Diod. 20, 46, 5; Plut. Dem. 25.
representing huth Alexander and the synedri Doson: Polyb. 4, 25, 5; 26, 2. 5, 28, 3;
of the League of Corinth; while Kaerst 102,9: 103, 1.
(Rhein. Mut. f>2. 532; Oesch. dea HeUen- " Philip II: I.G. ii.« 1, 236. Deme-
i»mus, I1, 529), followed by Wilcken, op. cit., trius: Plut. Dem. 25. Doson: Polyb.
interpreted it as meaning ' das makedon- 2, 54. 4.
Koni^tiiin selli-it und seine Organe.' u Doson's treaties with Eleutherna and
11 LI. n, Hi, TUV 8a<ri\fjii/ ; 1. 29, ffvn- Hieropyt nn ; Wilhelm op. cil., with refer-
p&vruv TOJJ /3a<ri\«f<rii'. rneea. Unfortunately not in Dittenberger.
202 W. W. TARN
neither does the war on the Greek mainland, which may equally well be the
Cleomenic war or the war of Demetrius and his League against Cassander.
The resemblance already noted to Alexander's League with regard to the
KOIVTJ <f>v\afcij does not help, for both Demetrius and Doson were largely copying
Alexander. But there are five points which should enable us to decide.
(a) The joint kingship. In 11. 11-18 we have before us, twice, an alter-
native authority for doing something, either ' the king ' or ' the general of
the kings ' ; that is, if ' the king ' be not actually at the crweSpiov himself,
or for some reason be not acting, his place is to be taken, not by a general
appointed by himself, but by one appointed by ' the kings.' ' The kings '
then were both in existence at the moment when our document was drawn
up, and cannot (as Cavvadias thought) refer generally to the dynasty. In
303 Antigonus I and Demetrius I satisfy this condition. We do not know
their precise relationship as joint kings; but as Demetrius took orders from
Antigonus, and in particular formed the League of 303 pursuant to such orders 15
(the idea being his father's), there is no difficulty in supposing that his deputy
would be appointed in his father's name as well as his own, or (1. 29) that some-
thing should be spoken of as agreeable to them both. But when we turn to
223, we are met by the difficulty that Doson was sole king. Certainly there
is a reference to ' the kings ' in an inscription of Eretria (I.G. xii. 9, 199),
which Tsuntas, who published it,16 interpreted as meaning a joint kingship of
Doson and Philip V ; but I think no one has adopted this suggestion, and the
nscription undoubtedly belongs to 303 or 302 ; Ziebarth in I.G. xii. 9 prints it
among a group of inscriptions of the end of the fourth century. On the other hand,
the evidence that Doson and Philip Vwere not joint kings seems complete.16*
Polyb. 4, 2, 5 says that Philip TrapeXdpftave rrjv Ma/ceZovcov ap^rfv, and this
verb seems regularly to mean to take over from a dead predecessor as an
inheritance, the term for a joint king succeeding to the entirety being Bia-
Sefao-#at.17 Doson's political testament (Polyb. 4, 87, 7) is irreconcilable
with a joint kingship. Above all, there is Doson's own dedication on Delos
to commemorate Sellasia (I.G. xi. 4, 1097), made at the very end of his life;
in this he is sole king without reference to Philip. And this is common sense ;
for the reason for a joint kingship (e. g. Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II in 285/4)
would normally be an old man's desire to make safe the coming transition
of power ; but Doson died unexpectedly in the prime of life. ' The kings '
then of the Epidaurus inscription are Antigonus I and Demetrius I, and ' the
king ' is Demetrius. There is epigraphic evidence for Greek states referring
to Demetrius simply as ' the king,' 18 and to him and his father as ' the
kings.' 19 But our inscription may have named Demetrius previously.
15 Diod. 20, 99, 1; 100, 5; and in par- did not understand Doson's real position,
ticular, 20, 46, 5. 17 The evidence is collected in my
16 'Ef. 'Apx- 1887, 80, No. 2. Antigonos Oonatas, p. 433.
J*a Certainly one cannot set up Eusebius' 1S I.O. xi. 2, 146, A. 1. 76 (Lysixenos'
statement (Schoene, 1, 239, 240), that Philip year, 301, i. e. it refers to an event of 302);
after Doson's death xuP^s r°v ^"'trpfatv . . . I.O. xi. 4, 566, 1. 10.
&pX(iv tptaro, against Doson's Sellasia dodica- 19 LO. xi. 4, 1036,1. 46, and 566,1. 7;
tion. It merely shows that Eusebius' source I.O. ii.2 1, 495, 555, 558, 560; Syll.*, 347.
THE CONSTITUTIVE ACT OB' DEMETRIUS' LEAGUE OF 303 203
(6) The four Panhellenic festivals. In 223 Aetolia was, to Doson, an
unfriendly neutral, barring his way through Thermopylae (Polyb. 2, 52, 8).
She controlled Elis, and Elis' attitude was similar. Doson's League, there-
fore, cannot have thought of holding meetings at Delphi or Olympia. (The
known meetings up to 217, two at Corinth and one at Panhormus, are no
argument, being in war-time.) On the other hand, whether Phocis (as is prob-
able) or Aetolia controlled Delphi in 303, Phocis was in Demetrius' League w
and Aetolia (whether or not in his League) was his ally (Diod. 20, 100, 6) ;
while Elis, freed in 312 by Antigonus' general Polemaeus (Diod. 19, 47), and
not apparently attacked again by anyone, would be favourable to Aetolia's
ally and may well have been in the League, though our scanty sources do not
say. But there is more than this. It is very probable, as Droysen originally
suggested, that the a-vveSpiov of the League of Corinth met (or was meant to
meet) at the four great festivals (it certainly met at the Pythia), and, if so,
Demetrius was almost bound to adopt the same idea. I refer for details to
Kaerst's study of this question ; 21 it looks as though his prophecy (p. 529)
about Demetrius' League, ' Wir wurden dann hier ebenso . . . die panhellen-
ische politische Aktion wieder an die panhellenische Festfeier angelehnt
finden,' has come true.
(e) The fleet. L. 40 seq. of our document ( — I.G. iv. 924) gives the scale
of penalties for not supplying troops, calculated for four categories : horse-
men, hoplites, light-armed, and something else. Wilhelm placed here the
fragment ft of I.G. iv. 924, which contains the word vavrrjv, and made the
fourth category sailors. He read (end of line 42 and beginning of 43) [/cajra
8«] vavrrjv[ .... SJyoa^/Aa'?. Cawadias' reading is [/ecu /ca]|ra TO[£OTT;V
TreWe SJ/oa^/xa?, the principal new fragment, which he numbers ft', showing
four letters TATO at the beginning of 1. 43, after which it breaks away.
Now ft in the diagram in I.G. has a sort of tail which reaches to the margin
and shows a blank space of four or five letters, and from the shading it appears
that the surface has gone ; and I imagine that it will be found that the break
is a splintered one and that the tail of ft fits underneath that part of the surface
of ft' which bears the letters TATO. Only examination can show if this be
correct ; but if it be, then the reading seems clear : [teal KO] \ ra ro[v] vaintjv
[ . . . . 8]/3a^/ia<?. Now it is known that the maritime cities of Demetrius'
League had to supply ships (I.G. xii. 9, 210). But this is very doubtful as
regards Doson's League. We hear of no warships in the Cleomenic war ; and
in the Social War Philip V gives no thought to the sea till the second year,
when he decides that he must take to the water, and so begins by hiring some
Illyrian vessels, and subsequently collects a few from his allies and improvises
a Macedonian fleet by putting his phalangites to the oar.22 The matter is
not certain ; but Philip's improvisations seem quite inconsistent with a definite
provision for naval warfare in the constitution of the League.
(d) The -rrpoeSpoi of our inscription recall Demetrius' beloved Athens,
who was in his League, but not in Doson's ; and they recall nothing else.
*° Beloch, 3, 2, 300. " Polyb. 5, 2 aeq. ; 4, 29. 7.
11 Rhein. Mu«. 52, 1897, pp. 526-529.
204 W. W. TARN
(e) Our inscription generally calls the constituent members of the League
in question 7ro\e*<? (11. 11, 21, 37, 40), but refers once to eOvrj (1. 23). This
excludes Doson's League, whose constituent members were all e6vq or /toii/a.23
The position in regard to Demetrius' League is unknown, but the probabilities
agree well enough.
The result then is that (epigraphical reasons apart) historical considerations
imperatively demand the attribution of the Epidaurus inscription to Demetrius'
League of 303. The only argument for attributing it to Doson's League would
be that it was found built up into a wall with another stone containing an
inscription referable to about Doson's time. This does not necessarily mean
anything at all.
Now what sort of a document is our inscription 1 It is clear that it is not
a treaty or a-vvQijtcr) forming the League ; we possess the very end of it (shown
by the blank stone below), and it contains neither oath-formula nor any other
mark of a treaty ; moreover, 1. 37 probably refers to the preceding ffvvfffjtccu,
—[&v] Be Tt? TroXt? [A?) tt7ro<TTe[iA.?7t tc]ara ra? [<rvv0rjKa]s GweBpovs- — ,
while the reference in 1. 40 to rrjv Bv[va/j,iv rr)]v reTafyfievrjv shows that the
contingents of the members had already been settled, presumably by the
crvvfffjKtu. It seems equally clear that it is not a decree or law of the avveBpoi ;
no doubt they could have decided as to their meetings, fixed a quorum, appointed
TrpoeBpoi, and other such matters, but they could never have decreed such
provisions as 1. 18 TO, Be Bogavra rot? a-vveB[p]oi<; [xvpia] eivai, or 1. 20 Trepl
Be ra)[v ei>] rcot crvveBpiwi Bo^dvrwv fj,rj e£ecrr[a> rat?] | 7roXeer4z> evffvvas
\a/jL/3dvetv [7rap]a TWV aTroo-re^Xofievcav avveBpw[y. It must then be an act
of the constituent assembly of the League, a constitutive act.24 The League
would be formed by a number of treaties; delegates or 7r/jeo-/3et9 from the
constituent members would then meet and pass the constitutive law of the
League, of which I take our document to form part; subsequent meetings
would be held by the synedri.
This being so, one can probably restore the gap in 1. 40 : — /cat av TIS
7roX<<? [fj,r) a\Tro(7TeL\r)t, TTJV Bv[vafM,v TTJ^V reray/jLevrjv, [rjv av 6 ap^wv ?
7ra]| payye\\r)i, K.T.\. The spacing of the letters in the inscription varies, and
as far as I can see from measurements the twelve letters given for this gap by
Cawadias constitute a maximum, while eleven would be fully sufficient. As
the contingent of each city was already r€Tay/j,evrj, fixed (i. e. by the treaties,
presumably), it cannot have been provided that some one should fix it again.
On the other hand, the calling out of the contingents already fixed would
certainly rest with Demetrius as commander-in-chief. Hence I would read,
after rerayfievrjv, [av 6 rjyejuiwv rTra]payy€\\i)i.25
It is unfortunate that the latter part of 1. 36 is so broken. Cawadias
prints the reading of I.G. iv., 924 : Tlpoebpeveiv [Be ..... ](av pacrr
13 Emphasised by Beloch, 3, 1, 737. League of Corinth) : troKe^au — KaOAri — 6
24 See the interesting study of the con- TJ-ytfM""' Ke\fvrii]. Also the proceedings of
stitutive law of the League of Corinth Philip V in the Social War with regard
given by Wilcken, op. cit. to the League troops.
" Cf. I.G. ii.2 1, 236 (Philip II and
THE CONSTITUTIVE ACT OF DEMETRIUS' LEAGUE OF 303 205
[ *Ai>]. But Wilhelm considers that Nikitsky's later reading
Pact (for paar) is certain. As Ma*e66i/]o>j/ is out of the question in 303, the
reading must be Ilpoc&peveiv [£e .... r]wv /3a<ri[\€(i)v. — *Av . . ], i. e. there
is a space of two letters vacant at the end of the line ; the lines end irregularly,
and as many as three spaces are vacant at the end of 11. 5 and 6. The subject
of the sentence being TOI»? Trpoe'Spoi/?, the real question now is, was the pre-
position avrl or fjiera ? If pera, one would expect rov ftaffiXea)?, as Antigonus'
presence could hardly be expected ; still, the proedri might be considered in
theory the colleagues of both kings. If dvrl, a rather startling vista is opened
up. I see no means of deciding.
Lastly, one must look at the fragment 3/9. As it contains part of an oath-
formula, it belongs to a (rvvdijicrj. as Cavvadias points out ; it cannot, therefore,
be part of our inscription, No. 3. It may not belong to the same period at all.
Whether it can be part of one of the preliminary (rwBrjKai of Demetrius' League
may depend on the true reading of 1. 31, which Cavvadias gives as [/9a<r]tXetai>
TTJV a ? . What Cavvadias' representation of the stone shows, however,
is clearly a lambda, A ; perhaps a fresh examination might show if it be really
A, or A\yTi^6vovt or &[i)fj.r)rpiov. The two proper names in 3 0, 'A^atou?
and 'HXctoi"?, offer no difficulty. Elis, we have seen, may well have been in
Demetrius' League; and as to Achaea, Demetrius freed some towns in 303
(Diod. 20, 103, 4). I am aware that many text-books state that Alexander
dissolved the Achaean League in 324 ; but the statement is quite unfounded.
The passage in Hyperides (Kara Ae/it. col. 18) runs KCLI rwv fTTirayfJuircov tav
TJKCV <f>ep<i)i> irap 'A\e};dv8pov .... Trcpl rov rovs KOIVOVS o-i/XX^you?
'A%ai(t)v re /cat 'Ap/ca&oi/ /cat BO*<UT(UI> [breaks off]. The words as they
stand have no meaning, and we have no right to invent one. The
invention is not even probable; for if Alexander really gave these three
peoples a first-class grievance by ordering the dissolution of their Leagues
(he can have had no time to carry out the dissolution, any more than he
had time to carry out the restoration of the Samians, which he did order
in 324), how came it that Achaea and Arcadia refused to join the Greeks in
the Lamian war, while Boeotia heartily aided Antipater ? In fact, Polybius
(2, 41) is quite explicit about the old Achaean League ; its dissolution took place
somewhere between Alexander's time and the 124th Olympiad (284/3-281/0 B.C.),
and he implies that it was not an act but a process. If A^atou? must mean
a League (why not a Folk?), there is no difficulty about supposing that
the old Achaean League existed in 303. But 3 /9 may not belong to this
period.
The conclusion then is that in the Epidaurus inscription No. 3 we have
part of the constitutive act of Demetrius' League of 303, a League of which the
literary sources tell us comparatively little, but which is epigraphically attested
by three inscriptions of Eretria (LG. xii. 9. 198, 199, 210). Details of procedure
apart, we see that Demetrius' League was primarily (though not exclusively)
based on cities, that it was planned on a Panhellenic scale, and that, after
Cassander was overthrown, it was to meet at the four Panhellenic festivals.
The adoption of the system of irpoebpoi was meant as a compliment to Athens.
206 W. W. TARN
The inscription also confirms the well-established fact that Antigonus I re-
garded himself (and Demetrius) as standing in Alexander's place and monarch
of the whole empire ; for Demetrius envisages the day when, himself in Asia,
he shall hand over the conduct of the League's affairs to a general appointed
' for the common protection,' just as Alexander had entrusted them, under
the same title, to Antipater.
W. W. TARN.
BRONZE WORK OF THE GEOMETRIC PERIOD AND ITS RELATION
TO LATER ART
' IN the pottery of the Geometric style/ says Dr. Buschor in his Greek
Vase Painting* ' are latent the forces which we see afterwards expanding in
contact with the East as well as the oldest beginnings that we can trace of
that brilliant continuous development which led to the proud heights of
Klitias, Euphronios and Meidias. Its producers may be unreservedly
described as Greeks.'
The statement is a challenge to the less cautious supporters of the con-
tinuity of Bronze and Iron Age culture in Greece. But it is concerned only
with vases and vase-painting. One is tempted to search farther afield for
fuller illumination, particularly in branches of art other than vase-painting.
Whatever stage of development a culture may be in, it always requires pottery,
however crude and in however small a quantity, since pottery is for use :
objects purely ornamental, however, can, under certain circumstances, be
dispensed with. In pottery, therefore, a certain minimum of continuity in
tradition and inheritance from previous cultures is inevitable ; but in the arts
of pure adornment this may not be the case. Thus sculpture and bronze work
are branches of art which may remain submerged during periods of unrest
and upheaval. Peoples on the move will not burden themselves with works of
art ; conquerors in the flush of victory have not the inclination nor the conquered
the courage or incentive to develop the non-utilitarian arts and crafts. Thus
the continuity of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Greece may be tested by evidence
other than that of pottery; metal-work in particular may afford instructive
evidence, especially ornaments in bronze, which, from their nature and material,
might contain the germ of revival and continuity.
I propose, then, in the course of this paper, to examine some of the earliest
known examples of the bronze-worker's art of post-Mycenaean times, both
from the point of view of the technique employed and of the types most
favoured. The results may help to throw some light on the relation which
the cruder plastic works of Geometric art bear to fully developed Hellenic art.
That the period of unrest and upheaval in history which corresponds to
the so-called Geometric period in art produced no sculpture seems certain.
On a priori grounds it seems almost incredible that sculpture, however crude,
can have been achieved at least in the tenth and ninth centuries B.C. In fact
no examples of it have been found. That the earliest and crudest bronzes of
<;••< unetric times are not studied is principally due to the fact that they are
1 P. 18, Mr. Richards' translation.
307
208 S. CASSON
almost wholly unattractive, often ludicrous. Yet, standing, as they do, at
the threshold of Hellenic art their importance is manifest.2
Technique. — The method of manufacture of the crudest and earliest
Geometric bronze figures is not so much the method of bronze-casting as that
of bronze-welding. The simplest human figures (see Figs. 4, 6 and 7, a, b, c)
in bronze consist of one or more bars of bronze which are hammered out into'
the four component limbs. The legs, as a rule, remain together and are
barely separated, consisting of two parallel bars. The arms consist of smaller
bars welded on or bent and beaten into the required attitude. The waist is
the central body of the bar, and the shoulders and breast are formed by flat-
tening the upper part of the bar itself. The narrowness of the waist is increased
and emphasised by the cutting away of the arms.3 These ' fiddle-shaped '
waists are the result of technique and are, I think, in no way derived from
Mycenaean or Cycladic ' fiddle-shaped ' idols. The head and neck are achieved
by the working of the end of the bar. All other bronzes of the crudest
Geometric type are similarly formed. Welding, cutting and beating are the
three processes principally employed.
It is thus abundantly clear that the earliest bronze figures exhibit none
of the characteristics of the fine and elaborate works of art of the Cretan
bronze-casters. The Tylissos bronzes,4 the praying figure in the British Museum
of the Tylissos type,5 and the magnificent bull and athlete recently acquired
by Captain E. G. Spencer-Churchill 6 are the products of an age which had
mastered the art of solid bronze-casting. The Tylissos and similar figures have
the appearance of having been cast from clay models ; the fine bull and athlete
group is, according to Sir Arthur Evans, in all probability cast from a finer
model which may have been of wax. In any case welding and beating and
such simpler and cruder processes are not part of the stock-in-trade of the
Cretan bronze-worker. It is remarkable that we have, as yet, no examples
of earlier Cretan bronze craft in which these Geometric processes occur.
Throughout the history of Cretan art bronzes were made, as far as we know,
by the one process of casting. With the cruder Geometric figures, on the other
hand, welding and beating is the earliest stage; there comes next an inter-
mediate stage in which the figure is first cast and then treated with the hammer
and chisel. Thus the body of a Zeus from Dodona (Fig. 4, b) is composed from
the original bar cut and subdivided into limbs. But its hair and features are
rendered with the chisel. Two later figures from Arcadia of the same type
(Fig. 4, a, c) are, on the other hand, cast and then finished with the finer
2 The examples I have chosen for discus- at Olympia, Argos and the Acropolis,
sion are nearly all at Athens, where is by far 3 See De Ridder, Cat. des Bronzes trouv^s
the largest and finest collection of Geo- sur VAcrop., Nos. 692-694, 697, etc.
metric bronzes in existence. The larger * J. Hazzidakis, Tylissos d Vepoque mino-
European and American museums have but enne, 1921, PI. VI., and F. N. Pryce, J.H.S.
few bronzes of this period; their style and 41, 1921, p. 86 ff., and Fig. 2.
workmanship is not such as to appeal to 6 Pryce, op. cit.
collectors by whose agency most of the large * Sir Arthur Evans, J.H.S. 41, 1921,
museums outside Greece are stocked. The p. 247 ff. A single and not a double mould
bulk of the Geometric bronzes at Athens was probably used for this figure,
are the result of excavations such as those
BRONZE WORK OF THE GEOMETRIC,' PERIOD !'•.!•
tin •!>;. the features, in particular, being simply chiselled in. A
warrior of the ' Promachos ' type from Dodona (Fig. 7, c) is similarly
finished after casting, though it retains, more than most bronzes, the
appearance of the older ' bar technique.'
The final stage is not properly reached until the sixth century, when the
figure is, as with the Cretan bronzes, cast complete in every detail in one
process. Even then finishing touches are often added with the chisel (see
Fig. 6, a, b, two fine bronzes from Olympia).
Thus not until the sixth century, strictly speaking, did the art of making
small bronze figures attain once more the level reached by the Cretan bronze-
workers of Middle Minoan times.
Fid. 1. — BRONZE HORSE FIG. 2. — BRONZE GROUP OF MAN
FROM OLYMPIA. AND CENTAUR: NEW YORK.
Development of types. — I have chosen four principal type-groups as being
most clearly illustrative of the development of traditional types from the earliest
Geometric times to the period of full Hellenic art. None of these types is to
be found in pre-Geometric art in a clear and unequivocal way.
The Horse. — The first is the standing or walking horse made to be seen
en profile. One of the most finely finished examples comes from Olympia
(Fig. 1). Similar bronze figures of horses are found on almost all the Geometric
sites of the mainland of Greece, from Laconia to the Vardar valley on the
east and from Olympia to Leukas on the west.7 Horses of the same type,
sometimes with minor variations of treatment, are found farther north in
Central Europe at Hallstatt and other Iron Age sites,8 and the type is found
again more to the east in the Iron Age cemeteries of the southern Caucasus.9
The extreme popularity of this particular type of ornament in Greece is remark -
7 See my paper in the Antiquaries' PI. XV., and von Sacken, Grabfeld von Hall-
Journal, I. No. .'{. |>. \W. Kxamples are stall, IM. XV.
there i-olli rtrd from a large number of sites ^* Chant rr. /,'• <•!,, relies nntltropologique*
in thr imtinlimil. '/"»* /• C'l'trase, II p. 149 (Georgia).
8 See Hoernes, Urgetch. </. /<•'///. Kunst,
210
S. CASSON
able. Variations of an interesting type are seen at Olympia,10 and approxi-
mately the same type appears in ivory work at Sparta.11 It is finally seen in a
fully developed form in the magnificent cavalry frieze of Prinias in Crete,12
where all the essential characteristics of the bronze Geometric horses
are retained — the narrow barrel-shaped body, the long tail reaching almost
to the ground, the hogged mane and the large, clearly-marked hooves. The
mounted warrior is himself a variant of the ' Promachos' type of spearman of the
crude Geometric bronzes dealt with below. The horse is essentially the large,
long-legged Northern horse, like the modern Hungarian type, which bears
affinities to the type of horse of the Hallstatt culture, which was large-limbed
and tall.13 The same type of horse is seen in later classical art in the coins of
Tarentum 14 and of Alexander I. of Macedon,15 and is very different from the
small horse of Ionic art of the sixth century or of the Parthenon frieze.
These early bronze figures of horses, then, appear to be derived from a
Northern source and to belong to a tradition which is essentially that of the
Geometric culture of Greece. It survived in classical art most clearly in the
sculptures of the temple of Prinias in Crete, where, as in the Dictaean cave
many of the elements of Geometric art remained less influenced by the Orient
than was usually the case.
FIG. 3 (a, 6, c). — BRONZE CENTAURS (a) FROM OLYMPIA, (6) AND (c) FROM
THE ACROPOLIS AT ATHENS.
The Centaur. — The second type that originates for later plastic art in the
bronzes of the Geometric period is the Centaur. I give here four examples 16
(Figs. 2 and 3, o, 6, c) that show adequately the development from the crudest
Geometric figure of the ' bar technique ' through the medium of what might
be termed a ' sub-Geometric ' type to the fully-developed archaic art of the
10 Olympia, Bronzes, PI. XIV. Nos. 216- 14 B.M.C. Italy, p. 184, etc.
218. " B.M.C. Macedon, p. 156.
11 B.S.A. XIII. p. 78, Fig. 17, a. 16 Fig. 2 is of unknown provenance, now
12 Annuario delta Sc. Ital. in Atene, in New York. Fig. 3a is from Olympia, and
I. p. 52. the other two (b and c) from the Acropolis
13 See Pumpelly, Explorations in Turkes- at Athens.
tan, 1908, II. PI. 88, Fig. 1.
BRONZE WORK OF THE GEOMETRIC PERIOD 211
sixth century. In each case the Centaur seems to have carried on a shoulder
the Centaur's traditional weapon — the branch of a tree. To the earliest period
of crude bronze work belongs the most interesting group in New York of a
Centaur wrestling with a man ; 17 but it is of fine finish and indicates a con-
siderable originality of composition, which, in the Geometric period is, of
course, exceptional. The long tail that joins the base, the large flanks and
narrow barrel of the Centaur, the incised pattern on the base and the shape of
the base itself show that it belongs to the same period as the horses.
That these four examples of Centaurs represent the types of three distinct
periods of growth and not merely three unequal attempts more or less con-
temporary is susceptible of proof. Thus the horse body and the base of the
first two (Figs. 2 and 3, a) are identical in style and convention with those of
the horses of the earliest period of bronze work described above. The narrow
barrel and long legs are those of the usual bronze horses. That such horses
belong to the earliest period of bronze work in Geometric times is evident from
the stratification at Sparta, which is our only scientifically established criterion.
The period when these bronzes were first produced seems to have been when
Geometric culture was already firmly established and bronze first began to be
used for pure ornament and not simply for objects of use.18 The crudest
Centaur, therefore (Fig. 3, a), can be attributed to the earliest period of bronze
art on sound stratigraphical evidence.
The third Centaur (Fig. 3, 6) can, on stylistic grounds, be associated with
a large group of bronzes, terra-cottas and sculpture that exhibit the first
attempt of Greek art to escape from the purely Geometric conventions. In
this figure the Geometric stiffness is overcome to a certain extent and the
features are clearly evolved and carefully worked. But there is still a clumsi-
ness of execution and a rigidity of composition ; gestures are there without
expression, movement without life — but this, at any rate, is an advance upon
the almost symbolic schematism of the earlier figure. The same characteristics
are seen in the famous archaic sculpture group of Kitylos and Dirmys at
Athens. In detail the features of the face and the neatly arranged hair associate
this bronze with bronzes such as the beautiful figure from Delphi 19 or the
cruder and probably earlier figure from the Acropolis at Athens,20 both of
which must belong to the seventh century.
In the fourth example the real living spirit of Greek art has burst its
bonds. All the freshness and delicacy of Ionian art of the late sixth century
has transformed the dry bones of the old Geometric style into a vital and
living conception ; but without the old Geometric idea the final achievement
would hardly have been possible.
Zeus. — A third and equally instructive example is seen in a type that has
persisted through all the phases of plastic Greek art with singularly little
variation. It represents Zeus hurling a thunderbolt. A crude example of
this type of the Geometric period comes from Dodona 21 (Fig. 4, 6). It exempli-
17 Richter, Handbook to the Met. Museum, »• Bronze*, PI. III.
1>. 44, Fig. 23. «° De Ridder, Catalogue, p. 244, No. 697.
18 See B.S.A. XIII. p. 111. They were >l Carapanos, Dodone et «es ruinet, PL
not found in the lowest strata. XIII. 4.
212
S. CASSON
fies most clearly what I have called the ' bar technique.' The limbs are literally
hewn apart from the body and beaten into rounded bars. By the separation
of the arms from the sides a pronounced waist is formed, but the whole figure
Fio. 4 (a, b, c). — BRONZE FIGURES OF ZEUS ; (a) AND (c)
FROM ARCADIA, (6) FROM DODONA.
is hardly more than a heavy silhouette. The features, as in all similar Geometric
features, are sketchy and vague.
Two later examples from Arcadia (Fig. 4, a, c) show a more successful
development from the cruder prototype, but cast, and not worked in the
' bar technique.'
Fio. 5. — BRONZE
FIGURE OF ZEUS.
FIG. G (a, b). — BRONZE FIGURES OF
ZEUS FROM OLYMPIA.
A fourth example (Fig. 5) seems to belong to a transitional period between
' bar technique ' and casting. The figure is cast but the shapes and outline
of the ' bar technique ' are retained. The features are crude but not so sketchy
as in the Dodona example.
Fig. 6, a, 6, shows the final development of the type in full fifth-century
art. Both come from Olympia.22
23 Bronzes, PI. VII. 43, 45.
BRONZE WORK OF THE GEOMETRIC PERIOD
213
Warrior. — In the bronze figures of warriors brandishing spears, which are
so common in the Geometric period, the ' bar technique ' is seen most clearly.
Here, in nearly every case, the sides of the bar are cut away and bent round
to form arms, while the lower part of the bar is divided into two parts for
legs. This being the simplest form of the technique, it was found that the
warrior brandishing a spear lent itself most readily to the method. For this
Fio. 7 (a, 6. c). — BRONZE FIGURES OF WARRIORS; (a)
FROM CORINTH, (6) FROM DELPHI, (c) FROM DODONA.
reason more instances of this type are found than of any other and the type
became the more easily perpetuated. Three examples are here given ^
(Fig. 7, a, b, c), of which the first two clearly belong to the earliest period of
Geometric bronze art, while the third, which is cast, again exhibits the transi-
tion from ' bar technique ' to casting.
Attic features. — Finally, I propose to examine the continuity of Geometric
and classical art from a slightly different point of view that concerns rather
Ki... s. UKADS «u MIE<»NZK FIGURES FROM THE ACROPOLIS AT ATHENS.
the latest than the earliest phase of Geometric and sub-Geometric bronze work.
Here, in my opinion, it is possible to trace, at least in Attic art, the gradual
development from the earliest period of plastic art the features characteristic
of the Attic face, which reaches its final and developed perfection in the poros
n From Corinth, Delphi and Dodona nsp, rtiv.lv. (National Museum, New. 7729, 7415,
and Carapanos, 33.)
J.H.S. — VOL. XL1I. P
214
S. CASSON
sculptures of the Acropolis. All my examples come from Attica— the majority
from the Acropolis itself. I am not concerned in this series with the technique
of the body.
It may be more convenient to tabulate the examples with which I shall deal.
1. From the Acropolis. Now in the National Museum, No. 6627. De
Bidder, Catalogue des bronzes, No. 697, p. 244, Fig. 214. Head and flattened
body to the waist of a bronze human figure (Fig. 8).
2. From the Acropolis. Now in the National Museum, No. 6628. De
Bidder, No. 50, p. 20, Fig. 1. Bronze figure of a warrior in a helmet (Fig. 8).
FIG. 9. — HEAD OF BRONZE FIGURE FROM THE ACROPOLIS AT ATHENS.
5 7
FIG. 10. — HEADS or BRONZE FIGURES FROM THE ACROPOLIS AT ATHENS.
3. From the Acropolis. Now in the National Museum, No. 6613. De
Ridder, No. 702, p. 248. Fig. 219. Bronze figure of a man wearing a conical
cap of an oriental type (Fig. 8).
4. From the Acropolis. Now in the National Museum, No. 6494. De
Ridder, No. 819, p. 330, Fig. 323. Bronze female head surmounted by a cushion
and a concave disc (Fig. 9).
5. From the Acropolis. Now in the National Museum, No. 6612. De
Ridder, No. 701, p. 247. Fig. 218. Bronze male figure wearing a conical helmet
or cap (Fig. 10).
6 (a). Silver tetradrachm of Athens. Formerly in the possession of
M. Feuardent, Paris. Weight 17-70 grammes (Fig. 11).
BRONZE WORK OF THE GK< »MK TRIC PERIOD
(6) Silver tetradrachm of Athens. From the Philippsen collection.
Weight 16-93 grammes (Fig. 11).
7. From the Acropolis. Now in the National Museum, No. 6618. De
Ridder, No. 699, p. 246, Fig. 216. Bronze male figure (Fig. 10).
8. From the Acropolis. Now in the National Museum, No. 6617. De
Ridder, No. 698, p. 245, Fig. 215. Bronze figure almost identical with No. 7
above (Fig. 10).
Fio. 11. — SILVER TETRADRACHMS OF ATHENS OF THE EARLIEST TYPE.
9 (a). Silver tetradrachm of Athens. Now in the British Museum (B.M.
C. Attica, PL I. 6) (Fig. 12).
(6). Silver tetradrachm of Athens. Now in the Fitzwilliam Museum,
Cambridge (Fig. 12).
10. Painted clay plaque from Olympos in Attica. Now in the Metro-
politan Museum, New York. Richter, Handbook, p. 56, Fig. 32. The scene
represents four mourners at a bier upon which lies a corpse (Fig. 13).
Fio. 12. — SILVER TETRADRACHMS OF ATHENS OF THE EARLIEST TYPE.
11. Fragments of a Proto- Attic vase from the Kynosarges cemetery,
Athens. Some of the fragments are now in the National Museum, Athens,
and some in the possession of the British School at Athens. See J.H.S. 1902,
Pis. II.-IV. and p. 29, and J.H.S. 1912, p. 383. The decoration shows a bearded
man standing in a two-horsed chariot and a charioteer holding the reins. A
third figure stands behind the chariot (Fig. 14).
1 _'. Figure in poros limestone of a maiden from the so-called " Erechtheion
Pediment." Now in the Acropolis Museum. See Dickins, Acropolis Museum
Catalogue, I. p. 68, and Heberdey, Altattische Porosskulptur, PL II. (Fig. 15).
13. Silver tetradrachm of Athens now in the collection of M. Empedocles,
Athens (Fig. 16).
All the examples in this series are derived directly from the original fount
of Attic art. Whatever alien or external influences may appear in them are
incidental and do not hide the esssentially Attic characteristics which appear
PL'
216 S. CASSON
in each of the series after the first two. Thus, according to De Bidder, No. 4
shows ' Egypto-Phoenician ' influence, whatever this term may mean. The
hair above the brow in this instance he further compares to that of a well-
known Mycenaean ivory head.24 De Bidder further considers the conical caps
worn by the figures Nos. 3 and 5 to be of an Assyrian or Cypriote type.
What is important, however, is that the features of the faces and the
general type of the figures is neither Assyrian, Mycenaean nor ' Egypto-
Phoenician.' That they were all made in Athens seems most probable in view
of the fact that in Nos. 7 and 8 we have two figures that differ slightly and are
clearly from the same workshop. Nos. 2, 3, and 5 exhibit the same technique
and style and it seems unnecessary to assume that such figures are importations.
No. 1, although from Attica, shows not so much an Attic work of art as
one which belongs to the end of the full Geometric period. It belongs to a
type and a school of art which are found in a known and limited area. The
Argolid, Laconia, Arcadia, Attica and Phocis have afforded numerous
examples of this very rigid but clearly-cut art. One might say that the
eastern half of the Corinthian gulf and the whole of the Saronic formed the
centre round which the artists of this school grouped themselves. The rigid
style of the hair and the flat, ugly treatment of the face is all that Geometric
art could effect in its first essay at features and detail. Hitherto the body
alone had been successfully achieved and the features were barely indicated.
The same artistic traditions appear in the earliest sculpture of the seventh
century of the Argolid,25 Arcadia,26 Laconia 27 and Delphi,28 but not in Attica.
In Crete, especially at Prinias,29 it survives much later into the sixth century.
This widespread style formed the nucleus from which subsequently the more
brilliantly developed local schools of Greece broke away upon courses of their
own. It forms the firm basis of subsequent Greek art and is evolved in and
by the mainland of Greece itself.
No. 2 shows a considerable advance upon this uniform style and has
elements of what later develops into the Attic style.
In Nos. 3, 4, and 5 appear the first traces of one of the many oriental
elements that, by the offer of new ideas and new types, were to stimulate
the uninspired repetition of Geometric art into life and style. Already, with
the appearance of these external alien influences the true Attic features are form-
ing. The thick lips, broad, square face, large eyes and prominent nose which
persist in Attic art down to the middle of the sixth century are already definite,
at least in Nos. 4 and 5, which, nevertheless, retain the strong rigid technique
of the last Geometric works.
In Nos. 6 (a) and 6 (6) we see the same features on coins of Attica itself.
Precisely the same type of face is seen on the tetradrachms of the Acropolis
hoard,30 but these are, for the most part, so damaged by the fire of the
24 Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de Vart, 27 Wace and Tod, Sparta Mu«. Cat.
VI. p. 811, Fig. 380. p. 120.
25 The Apollo of Tenea, and cf. Delphi, 28 Delphi, Bronzes, PL III.
Sculpt. PL I. 2» Annuario, I.e.
24 Stais, Cat. Nat. Mus. Athena, Nos. 6, 30 Journ. Internal. Nwniamat. I. PL I. A.
57,
BRONZE WORK OF THE GEOMETRIC PERIOD 217
FIG. 13. — TERRA-COTTA RELIEF : FUNERAL SCENE. FROM OLYMPOS IN ATTICA.
Fio. 14. — FKAI;MKNTS OF A PROTO-ATTIC VASE FROM THE KYNOSAROES CEMETERY,
NOW AT ATHENS.
218 S. CASSON
Persian destruction that they do not illustrate my point so clearly as better
preserved coins of the same type. It has long been held by many numismatists
that the coins of this crude type are barbaric imitations of finer types.
Professor P. Gardner considers them to be the coins struck for the troops of
Xerxes while they were in Greece, and sees confirmation of his view in the
discovery of the Acropolis hoard and in the similar hoard found on the Xerxes
canal in Chalcidice.31 Imhoof-Blumer and J. P. Six similarly held them
to be barbaric, but the former attributed them to the time of Cleisthenes and
the latter to that of Hippias.32
But from the stylistic evidence of the series of monuments here given
it is clear that the type of head on these so-called ' barbaric ' coins falls into
its place in the development of the characteristic Attic face; its position,
moreover, is by no means late in the series. This seems effectually to dispose
of the theory that these coins are barbaric imitations and supports the view of
Head,33 who considered them to be the earliest coins of any land bearing the
type of the human head. The features of the head of Athena on the coins
Nos. 6 (a) and (6) and 9 (a) and (6) are almost identical with the features of the
two bronzes Nos. 7 and 8. The large ears, level eyes, prominent heavy nose
and square chin are common to all, and are precisely the features character-
istic of faces on proto- Attic pottery, as in the case of the vase No. 11 or the
splendid plaque No. 10. But whether, chronologically, the bronzes precede
the proto-Attic pottery by any very great length of time it is impossible to
say. The coins, in any case, can hardly be as early as the Kynosarges vase,
which falls in date between the Aegina vase of Perseus and the Harpies 34 and
the fine vase in New York 35 — approximately to a date about 650 B.C.
The final development in early Attic art of this Attic type of face is seen
in No. 12, the beautiful maiden of the ' Erechtheion Pediment,' which dates
to about 550 B.C. Here the harsher features of the earlier faces are softened.
Another Athenian tetradrachm, No. 13, shows this finally perfected face in all
its purity before it had become radically changed by the refined and rather
over-delicate features of the Ionic art that flooded Attica after 540 B.C.36
From all these examples, then, of the Attic face it is possible to trace a
steady development from the harsher and more widespread mainland Geometric
and sub-Geometric types to the purest Attic. The general type has become
specialised. So, too, in Aegina, in Argos and elsewhere, other local types and
styles were differentiated and the local schools of art grew up from the one
common stem. Even as far down in the line of development as the Olympos
plaque the composition is taken ultimately from the funeral scenes depicted
on the earliest Geometric vases of the Dipylon.
11 History of Ancient Coinage, p. 154. for instance, there ia no adequate reason
!2 Gardner, op. cit. p. 153. why either the democracy of Cleisthenes,
ls Historia Numorum 2, p. 369. Hippias, or the army of Xerxes should
14 A. Z. 1882, Pis. IX, X. strike such rude coins. The two former
Richter, J.H.S. 1912, p. 370. had admirable Attic artists available, while
There are, of course, other arguments lonians in the Persian army would almost
to support this view, which do not properly certainly have been employed. After all,
belong to the subject of this paper. Thus, the Persians were hardly barbarians in art.
BRONZE WORK OF THE GEOMETRIC PERIOD
The examples of the Geometric horse, the Centaurs, spearmen and the
Zeus figures are important in that they show the preservation of type from the
earliest phases of pure Geometric plastic art. From the bronze horses of
< Mympia to the frieze of Prinias, from the crude bronze Centaurs to the metopes
of the Parthenon, from the spearmen to the Athena Promachos, and from the
Dodona Zeus to the perfected statuettes of Olympia there is a course of develop-
ment which makes it possible to reconstruct, however provisionally, the
obscurer phases of early Greek art. These strange and unattractive bronze
FIG. 16. — SILVER TETRADRACHM OF
ATHENS OF MORE DEVELOPED TYPE.
FIG. 15. — LIMESTONE HEAD
OF MAIDEN FROM AN ARCHAIC
PEDIMENTAL SCULPTURE ON
THE ACROPOLIS AT ATHENS.
toys of the earliest Geometric time, uninspiring though they be, must be
considered in the light of the development of Greek art from the Geometric
to the Classic. So, too, the crude bronzes of the Acropolis all fall into line in
the detailed development of Attic art itself.
The break in tradition of technique that is evident between the Cretan
and Geometric bronzes indicates that, in bronze working at least, the new
stock of Iron Age Greece had carried on none of the customs of the preceding
Bronze Age. The gap between the two cultures remains unbridged, and Cretan
bronzes had been long forgotten when the bronze-craftsmen of Geometric times
first started to work.
S. CASSON.
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE
AN ESSAY ON THE USE OF RECURRENT SIMILES IN THE Iliad
' I was not about to dispute the point, Tim,' said young Cheeryble, laughing. . . .
' All I was going to say was, that I hold myself under an obligation to the coincidence,
that's all.'
' Oh ! if you don't dispute it, that's another thing. I'll tell you what, though — I
wish you had. I wish you or anybody would. I would so put down that man,' said
Tim . . . ' so put down that man by argument .' — Nicholas Nickleby.
WE know roughly, says Prof. Murray,1 how a rhapsode set to work. He
would be tempted to introduce bright patches. . . . lie would abhor the
subordination of parts to the whole.
This tendency, he suggests, explains the occurrence both in ® (555 ff.) and
in II (297 ff.) of the well-known description of a cloudless sky : ' Such lovely
lines, once heard, were a temptation to any rhapsode, and likely to recur where-
ever a good chance offered. The same explanation applies to the multiplied
similes of B 455 ff. They are not meant to be taken all together; they are
alternatives for the reciter to choose from.'
I quote this pronouncement, not because I want to quarrel with the most
generous of scholars, but because it hits on particularly instructive passages.
The constellation of similes at B 455 ff. marks, I suggest, a provisional climax
in the movement of the poem, and the images here chosen are poetically
relevant, not only to the immediate context but to the whole design.
Similarly, the image of <*) 555 ff. is not isolated, but provides a climax and a
consummation to the whole series of images which decorates the movement
F-®. The kindred, though more impressive, image of II 297 ff, marks the
beginning of yet another series. Finally, these examples illustrate a principle
of Homer's art, which has not, I think, been realised by critics. His similes
are rarely isolated and detachable decorations, relevant only to their
immediate context. More often they are so related to each other, and so
arranged, like the incidents, in formal patterns, that they become an
important element in the organic structure of the poem. The cunning
repetition, heightening and combination of images within his formal pattern
is a device not only characteristic of Homer, but also of supreme importance
for the appreciation of his art. It provides us also, I shall submit, with a
valid argument for the unity of the Iliad.
1 History of Greek Literature, 20-21.
220
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE 221
Sing, goddess, the wrath of Achilles, and the evils that it wrought ... in the
accomplishment of the will of Zeus . . . beginning when the son of Atreus quarrelled
with the glorious Achilles. The son of Zeus and Leto was angry because of Chryses. . . .
Chryses had prayed, but it did not please Agamemnon ... so Chryses prayed . . . and
Apollo, in his anger, came, ' like the night ' . . . and shot his arrows, and the pyres of
the dead were burning.
Achilles .summoned an Assembly. Calchas spoke. Agamemnon's heart grew black
with wrath, and his eyes were like a shining fire. He threatened to take away Briseis.
Athene intervened to check Achilles. The Assembly continued, Achilles swore that he
would leave the fighting, and Nestor tried in vain to restore peace.
Then Agamemnon's second blunder, the taking of Briseis, corresponding in the pattern
to the first, the refusal to give up Chryseis.
That is the first group of incidents in the Iliad. The second is different,
and has its own shape :
Achilles prayed to Thetis. She heard him, as she sat with her old father in the
depths of the sea, and she came up from the sea, ' like a mist,' and promised to help her
son.
Odysseus and his crew restored Briseis, Chryses prayed, and sacrifice was made to
Apollo. The day ended with feast and music and sleep.
Thetis prayed to Zeus in Olympus, and the Thunderer promised his aid. He nodded,
and, at the nod of his immortal head, Olympus trembled.
Then the scherzo, the comedy of the Olympian Quarrel, in which Hephaestus was a
more successful peacemaker than Nestor. The day ended in feast and song and sleep.
The third group repeats the pattern of the first :
Agamemnon's Dream and the Council ; Nestor's Comment.
The Second Assembly, divided, like the first, by an intervention of Athene.
Nestor's advice, Agamemnon's prayer and sacrifice. The army mustered.
The similes are concentrated in this third part. In A we had only the
three brief comparisons, ' Apollo came, like the night . . . the pyres were
burning ' ; ' Agamemnon's heart grew black with anger, and his eyes were like
shining fire ' ; and ' Thetis heard, and came, like a mist from the sea.' But
the nod of the immortal head of Zeus is also relevant to our inquiry.
In B we have the following similes :
The people, crowding to Assembly, were like bees pouring from a cleft in a rock,
clustering on spring flowers. Gossip blazed among them. The earth groaned beneath
than.
After Agamemnon's speech, the Assembly was moved like the waves of the Ikarian
sea stirred by the east wind or the south ; like a cornfield bowing under the west wind.
\\ IH-II Odysseus and Athene drove them back, they returned to the Assembly with
the noise of a wave dashing on a great beach.
After Agamemnon's second speech, they shouted for battle with the noise of a wave
dashed by the south wind on a jutting headland.
Finally, when the army mustered, Athene, not Gossip, was with them. The flashing
of their armour was like a fire in a mountain-forest. Throng after throng they came
(imperfect), like flights of birds, geese, cranes or swans, over a meadow in Asia, and they
came to a stand (aorist) in the flowery meadow of Scamander, as numerous as leaves or
flowers : they were as greedy and persistent as flies about pails of milk in spring. Their
captains marshalled them as easily as goatherds divide their flocks. Agamemnon him-
M-lf \\a-s like Zeus (as to his eyes and head), like Poseidon, like Ares. As a bull in a herd
of cows was Agamemnon made eminent by Zeus that day (aorist).
222 J. T. SHEPPARD
That is all. I submit that the similes are not thrown in at random. The
three wave-images form a group, denning clearly the lines of the assembly
episode : each repetition adds to the effect. Nor can we miss the connexion
between the bees and spring flowers of the first simile and the leaves and flowers
and flies round pails of milk in spring of the last paragraph. If Mr. Murray's
reciter keeps the bees, he will have to keep the flies and leaves and flowers ; and
if so, he will have to keep the birds, or spoil his rhapsody. And if we look at
the whole movement, we shall recognise, I think, a fitness in the other images.
If Apollo came like night, and shot, and the pyres were burning, the army, when
it musters, is like a raging forest-fire. If Agamemnon's eyes in his anger were
like shining fire, his eyes and head in this moment of his glory are like the eyes
and head of Zeus. The movement, which begins ' Achilles . . . Zeus . . .
Achilles,' ends, ' So eminent Zeus made Agamemnon on that day.'
There remain isolated images, I admit ; Thetis ' like a mist,' the goatherds
with their flocks, the bull in the herd of cows. These will be developed in the
sequel.
The Catalogue is an Interlude, but between the Greek list and the Trojan
there is an instructive simile :
The army of the Greeks was like a fire raging over the whole land. Earth groaned,
as beneath the anger of Zeus the Thunderer, when he lashes the earth because of
Typhoeus. . . .
It is a heightening of the fire-image, with a hint of coming trouble for the
Achaeans. It links theimagery of B with the Catalogue. Let us see what happens
after the Trojan list is ended.
The Trojans advanced with a noise like that of birds, cranes, who have left the storm
and rain behind, and wing their way through the sky, bringing death for Pygmies. They
make ready their battle in the mists of morning. The Greeks were silent.
The dust of the armies was like a mist on the mountains, not dear to shepherds, but
better than night for a thief. You can only see as far as a stone's throw.
The birds, the mist and the herdsmen. If F was made by a later hand
than A, and if B was made by yet another artist, anyhow it was a cunning
craftsman who contrived the joinery.2
II
Herodotus 3 quotes Z 289-292 as part of Diomed's Aristeia. He and his
audience wanted a name for the whole strip of narrative, F-H, and they
naturally called it after the hero whose exploits form the main part of its story.
Diomed's own adventures have a unity and relevance of their own within
i
2 A 47, 104, 359, B 87, 142, 206, 394, an important modification, I am very much
455 fi., 780 ff., r.lff. I am indebted to indebted.
H. Frankel, Homerische Gleichnisae, for 3 Hdt. I. 116. Drerup's ingenious ex-
a few references which I had overlooked. planation (Fiinfte Buck 47, Homeriache
To Jf rofessor Bury, who was good enough Poetik I. 438) is unnecessary.
o read this article in proof and to suggest
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE
tliis larger group of incidents.4 But the larger group has also unity and
relevance. The cause of the whole war, as of the present trouble, is a quarrel
for a woman. So the poet, sketching in his background, shows us Menelaus,
Paris, Helen and Aphrodite, symbol of that source of human sorrow. And he
makes Aphrodite Diomed's first Olympian victim. He makes the meeting of
Sarpedon and Tlepolemus the central scene of a symmetrical pattern. Then
he puts Ares, god of the worse plague, war, to balance Aphrodite. AVith
Hecuba for Priam, Ajax for Menelaus, Hector for Paris and Andromache for
Helen, he rounds off his pattern, and prepares us for the sequel.
But he subordinates this pattern also to a larger scheme. F is linked with
B by the images at the beginning, H with 0 both by the prominence of Diomed,
now turned back by the thunderbolt of Zeus, and by the pattern of the images,
which cuts across the sharp division of the narrative, and is completed only
with the watchfires at the end of 0. ft again is linked with I by the balancing
of a Greek and a Trojan assembly.5 That is as it should be. We are brought
back to the tone of A, with its assemblies and supplications, its long speeches,
and its lack of similes. The movement which began when Agamemnon
spurned the suppliant Chryseis ends with the rejection by the tragic hero of
the Achaean prayers.
The contents of F-0 may be tabulated thus :
First Battle.
Paris challenges. Helen and Priam. The Oath-Taking. Paris r. Menelaus.
Pandarus breaks the truce.
Agamemnon's review, and the insult to Diomed.
Death of Pandarus.
Diomed v. Aphrodite.
Sarpedon v. Tlepolemus.
Diomed v. Ares.
Hector withdraws to Troy.
Diomed talks with Glaucus, and the two men make friends.
Hector and Hecuba. The Supplication. Hector and Andromache. Hector r. Ajax
Night. Assemblies, truce, the wall and burial of the dead.
Second Battle.
Divine Assembly. Hera and Athene in their chariot.
Greek defeat. Diomed turned back by thunderbolt.
Hera tries to rouse Poseidon.
Greek defeat. Teucer's archery.
Hera and Athene in their chariot, turned back.
Night. Trojan Assembly. Watchfires. Greek Assembly.
THE EMBASSY TO ACHILLES.
The armies advanced, the Trojans like cranes. The dust was like a
mountain mist, not dear to shepherds. The similes link T with B, but that,
we shall find, does not exhaust their significance.
4 I have discussed this matter in J.H.S. condemns the separation of e 524 ff. from
1920, 49ff.,and in my book, The Pattern of I 53 ff., but himself puts asunder what
tin Iliad, 34 ff. the Muse has joined together, by making a
5 \\ilamowitz (Homer tmd die 7/iVw, 35) sharp division at the end of E (ib. 297).
224 J. T. SHEPPARD
The first episode, the duel of Menelaus and Paris, begins thus :
Paris challenged and Menelaus rejoiced like a lion who has found his prey. Paris
recoiled like a man who has met a snake. Hector rebuked him. ' Hector,' he answered,
* you have a heart as hard as a woodcutter's axe, with which he cuts a ship's timber.'
It ends with Menelaus, cheated by Aphrodite, going up and down the field,
and looking for his prey like a wild beast.
These are the only images of immediate structural importance. In the
oath-taking there are none at all. In the Teichoscopia there is a group of three,
the old men chirping like cicadas, Odysseus like a ram (Agamemnon in B was
a bull), and the words of Odysseus ' like snow.' I shall try to mention all
developed similes as they occur. The reader will judge for himself how far I
do justice to their relative importance in the poem.6
The second incident begins with a divine colloquy and the intervention of
Athene, who incites Pandarus to break the truce. She came like a star, hurled
by Zeus as a portent to sailors or to a host ; it flashes ; many sparks fly from it.
When Menelaus was wounded, she saved him from serious hurt, brushing away
the arrow which had touched him as a mother brushes a fly from her sleeping
child. Still, the blood flowed and stained his flesh as a Maeonian or Carian
woman stains ivory with crimson. Machaon tended him.
Agamemnon, indignant, mustered his men again for battle. He chid the
laggards. ' Why do you stand terrified, like fawns ? ' He found Idomeneus
with his Cretans, bold as a boar. The cloud of footmen with the Ajaxes was
like a cloud seen by a goatherd from his look-out on the mountains, as it is
driven towards him by the west wind over the sea. He shivers and withdraws
his flock into a cave.7
That development of the ' mist on the mountains, not dear to shepherds '
is the only full simile in the episode of the Review.
Agamemnon passes on. He has his interviews with Nestor and Odysseus.
When he reaches Diomed, his patience is exhausted, and he insults him. Diomed
answers with the modesty of a good soldier.
The battle is resumed, and once more we have a group of similes :
The Greeks are like a great wave driven by the west wind on a beach; the Trojans
like sheep bleating as they are milked, and answering the lambs. Ares and Athene are
with them, and Strife, the sister of Ares, is in the midst. Like the wave, she is tiny at
first, then rears her head until it touches the sky. Finally the armies meet, and the noise
is like the sound of two torrents in a mountain-chasm heard by the shepherd from above.8
Structurally, this group resumes the effect of F 1 ff. The waves here,
like the cranes there, link this movement with B. But the shepherd who at
F 10 ff. was wrapt in mist, and at A 275 ff. descried a cloud approaching and
withdrew his flock, now hears the noise of the torrents meeting in the chasm
below. For the moment, that is all.
The fight ensued. Echepolos fell ' like a tower.' The armies fought
'like wolves.' Then Simoeisios fell. This was a young man, cut off in his
• r 2, 10, 23, 30, 60 (151, 196, 222), 449. ' A 75, 130, 141, 243, 253, 275.
For Hector's heart of iron cf. X 357, fl 521. « A 422, 433, 442, 452.
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE i>i>r>
prime, the son of Anthemion, the ' Flower-Man,' named after the river on
whose bank he was born. Homer invented him, I think, in order to remind
us, without undue emphasis, of Achilles. Hit in the breast by Ajax, he fell,
and lay like a black poplar in a meadow-pasture, a smooth trunk with branches
growing at the top. A carpenter has cut it down with the bright iron, to bend
it into a felloe for a car, and it lies there drying by the river. Such was
Simoeisios Anthemides, when he was killed by Zeus-born Ajax. Immediately
afterwards, Antiphos killed Leukos, friend of Odysseus, and Odysseus, very
angry, strode through the ranks of the first fighters, aimed his javelin, and hit
a son of Priam, in his anger for the friend who had been killed. And Apollo
shouted from the citadel, ' Up, Trojans ! The son of Thetis is not fighting.'
That is the development of the theme, so simply introduced by Homer,
when Paris said to Hector, ' Your heart is like a woodcutter's axe.' 9 We shall
meet the theme again.
We pass to the first exploits of Diomed.
Athene made him glorious. He shone like an autumnal star. He raged in battle
like a torrent, swollen by the rains of Zeus, breaking down dykes and fences, ruining the
cultivated fields. Wounded by Pandarus, he was like a lion wounded by shepherds but
still valiant. He leapt on two sons of Priam, like a lion killing a cow and her calf. He
killed Pandarus, but Aeneas defended the body, like a lion. Aphrodite intervened,
but Diomed wounded her, and after she had gone he still attacked Aeneas, though Apollo
now protected him. Thrice he attacked, and was foiled, but when for the fourth time
he rushed on like a daimon, Apollo shouted, and he yielded in his awe of that great god.
Sarpedon upbraided Hector. The Trojans, he said, were shrinking from this Greek as
hounds shrink from a lion. Hector rallied them, and the dust on the Achaeans in the fight
was like the chaff in a great winnowing. Ares put night on the battle. Ares and Strife
together stirred up the fighting. Diomed and the Ajaxes and Odysseus fought stubbornly,
like clouds which Zeus has set on the mountains, and which will not leave them, whatever
winds may blow. Aeneas still fought well. He killed two victims, who were like lions
reared by their mother in the mountain-thickets to prey on farmsteads and at last to be
killed by men. They fell and were like tall pinetrees. Finally, Aeneas was put to flight,
and Ares came himself against Diomed. The hero yielded to the god. He recoiled, like
a man who is daunted when he meets — not a snake, this time — a river in flood.10
That completes, for the moment, the pattern. The noise of battle was like
two torrents meeting ; Diomed was like a torrent ; Diomed recoils, like a
man daunted by a river in flood. We have also reached the central incident
of the series, the encounter of Tlepolemus and Sarpedon. They boast of their
origin, and fight. The son of Heracles is killed, and the son of Zeus lies wounded
under a tree, the fresh wind blowing to revive him.11
The second part of the movement (which, it is important to remember,
includes, for our present purpose, B), begins quietly. After a b'ttle comedy
in heaven, Hera and Athene, with the permission of Zeus, drive down between
heaven and earth in a marvellous car. The divine steeds carry them at one
bound ' as far as a man can see into the misty distance from the watch-point
where he sits and looks over the wine-dark sea.' They leave their horses,
• r 60, A 482. 522, 554, 560, 597.
10 E 5, 87, 136, 101, 305, 436, 476, 499, " E 627-698.
226 J. T. SHEPPARD
in much mist, where two rivers meet (geographically odd, we are told; but
poetically not without value, in view of the two torrents). And they step out
to the field ' like doves.'
At the corresponding moment in the first part, the dust of the moving
armies was like a mist so thick that you could only see a stone's throw. The
Trojans were like noisy cranes flying to battle. The Trojans like fighting
cranes, Athene and Hera like doves. Is it possible that Homer smiled as he
devised his pattern ? He knew what he was about. Presently Athene and
Apollo will perch like vultures on the oak of Zeus to watch the duel between
Ajax and the Trojan hero. And, in the sequel, Zeus will send his eagle as a
sign that he has not abandoned the unhappy Greeks for ever.12
Throughout this second part of the movement, the similes are less frequent,
but the effect is heightened. The matter is more impressive. Hector is more
to us than Paris, Andromache than Helen. Also the poet has elaborated the
divine machinery. When the wounded Ares goes up to heaven, he looks to
the watching Diomed like a thundercloud, and it is the thunderbolt of Zeus
himself, not a mere shout from Apollo, that turns Diomed back at last.13
Thirdly, many images of the first part are echoed in the facts of the sequel.
Thus, the crimson of the Maeonian or Carian women, staining the royal ivory,
finds its echo not in a simile, but in the rich embroidery of the robe of Hecuba's
vain offering, the work of Sidonian women.14
The lions reappear, but in company always with boars. After the arrival
of the dovelike goddesses, Odysseus, Diomed and the Ajaxes fought stubbornly,
like lions or boars. Ajax and Hector were like lions or boars in their duel, and
Hector, in the rout, advanced victorious, like a hound that worries a lion
or a boar.15
When Pandarus shot his arrow, Athene brushed it from Menelaus, as a
mother brushes a stinging fly from her sleeping child. Now, when Teucer, a
more honest archer, shoots, he takes refuge with Ajax like a child running to
its mother.16 Athene came like a star, and Diomed was like an autumnal star.
Now Athene and Hera drive down in their glorious chariot, and Diomed, in
a chariot too, is turned back by the thunderbolt of Zeus. But the stars contrive
to shine in less conspicuous place, with greater lustre, as decoration for the robe
of Hecuba's offering, and for the exquisite child of Hector and Andromache.17
The tree-simile finds for the moment its consummation in the famous speech of
Glaucus, relating the Diomedeia to the spirit of the whole epic, ' We mortals,
for all our pride, are like the leaves that come and go in their generations in
the forest,' and its quality is recalled with a hint of new, more tender develop-
ments, when Gorgythion bows his head beneath his helmet as a poppy, heavy
with fruit and with the rains of spring.18
Finally, our shepherd, once wrapped in mist on the mountain, once shivering
as he watched the cloud approaching — the cloud which would not leave the
« E 768 ff. (cf. r 1 ff.), 778, H 59, 0 247. " A 130, e 271.
" E 864, 0 169. 17 Z 295, 401.
14 A, 141, Z 289. « Z 146 ff., e 306.
14 E 782, Z256, e 357.
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE L'i'7
iiHMiutains \\hcn it reached theip — once listening to the roar of the two torrents
iiitM-ting in the chasm below, looks out again and rejoices, when the watchfires
of the Trojans are as numerous as the stars about the bright moon in a windless
sky, when all the stars are seen, and all the peaks and glens and promontories ;
and above the sky the infinite heaven breaks open.
So much for the first occurrence of this famous simile. Here, at any rate, it
completes a pattern, which a ' rhapsode ' might have spoilt, but only a con-
st! active poet can have made.19
Ill
The first movement of the Iliad begins with the rejection of Chryses and
ends with the rejection of the Achaean embassy. Within this movement,
after the introductory group of episodes, the Catalogue is an interlude.
The second movement begins at A (after the Doloneia),20 with the arming
of Agamemnon and the shout of Strife at the ships. It develops, first slowly,
then with increasing rapidity, through the second battle-series, the firing of
the ships, the exploits of Patroclus and the struggle over his body, to a pro-
visional conclusion with the rousing of Achilles and his shout from the trench.
The Shield is, again, an interlude. But it is linked with the main movement
by its position between two balancing Assemblies, the meeting in which Hector
finally rejects the counsel of Polydamas, and the meeting in which Agamemnon
and Achilles are reconciled. With the arming of Achilles, we begin the third
and final movement. Thus the first movement begins with the rejection of
the suppliant Chryses by Agamemnon, and ends with the rejection by Achilles
of the suppliant Achaeans. The second movement brings tragedy for
Achilles, and ends with the rejection of good advice by Hector. The third
begins with the reconciliation of Achilles and Agamemnon, and ends with the
acceptance of the suppliant Priam.
We shall be concerned here with the second movement, from A to the
rousing of Achilles. This stretch of narrative contains the most disputed
passages in Homer, and I do not deny that parts of it are inferior to the work of
Homer at his best. Even so, much criticism has been based on ignorance of
the main lines of composition. We must learn the technique before we judge
the artist.
We shall begin by analysing the narrative from A 1 to O 219. Attempts
to cut this stretch of poetry into rhapsodies of equal length obscure the structure.
Nor will the scheme which fitted F-H prove useful. The poet here employs
a new device, simple and easy to remember, once you see it, but often missed
by critics — I confess I have been of the number — because they are looking for
something else, or not looking for anything worth while at all. This is the
» r 10, A 274, 452, E 522, e 655. The (323 ff.).
only similes in I are the two at the to K is an Interlude, linked by its similes
I >«-u'i lining (4, 14) and the comparison of with the main structure (5, 154, 183, 297,
Achilles to a bird foraging for its young 360, 485, 547).
228 J. T. SHEPPARD
plan. The narrative is composed of alternating scenes of battle and of talk.
The wounding of the Greeks is followed by the Exhortations of Nestor to
Patroclus, and these in turn by the Trojan successes at the wall. But the
alternating scenes are so arranged, in triads, that the pattern has the massive
form aba bab (not ababab), bab. In the second triad, Poseidon exhorts the
Greeks; then come the exploits of Idomeneus; then, as the third panel, the
return and mutual exhortations of the wounded Greeks. This pattern is
repeated in the next triad, where two scenes of divine comedy and persuasion
frame the Greek victory. After that, we shall have two Trojan successes,
framing the paragraph about the rousing of Patroclus. But, for the present,
we shall consider only the three sections, A-M, N-5 152, 5 153-O 219.
The second movement of the Iliad begins, as I have said, with A.21 Its
Introduction nobly recalls the opening paragraphs of the poem. For the form,
Achilles, Zeus, Achilles : Apollo, Agamemnon, Apollo, we now have the form,
Zeus, Agamemnon, Zeus, Hector and Zeus.
Zeus sent Strife to the ships, to shout, with the portent of battle. Agamemnon armed.
On his breastplate were snakes, like rainbows, on his shield a Gorgon, on his belt a snake.
Athene and Hera thundered in his honour, but Zeus rained blood, because he meant to
hurl to Hades many strong heads. Hector, marshalling his men, was like a baneful star,
now brilliant, now obscured by clouds. He gleamed in armour like the lightning of
Zeus.
The battle opens with two pictures :
The armies met like lines of reapers facing one another as they cut a swathe of barley
or of wheat in the field of a rich man. The sheaves fall thick on the ground. So the
Greeks and Trojans leapt on one another, and kept cutting. . . .
While it was morning and the strong day was growing, they hurled their weapons
and the people were falling; but at the time when a woodcutter prepares his dinner in
the mountain-glade, because his arms are tired of felling the tall trees : he has had enough,
and longing takes him for sweet food : at that hour the Danaans broke the enemy. . . ,22
These reapers are working in the field of death, and the felled trees, as the
first part of the Iliad has taught us, are an image of the bodies of dead men.
Images from the life of field and forest are to play a greater part in the second
movement than in the first. And the boars and lions, the fire and wave and
torrent, we shall find, are worked into a new pattern.
Agamemnon raged like a lion, like a fire in which a forest collapses. Hector with-
drew. Agamemnon still fought like a lion, but was wounded and retired. His pain was
like that of a woman in travail.
Hector, attacking Diomed and Odysseus, was like a hunter setting dogs at a boar.
He was like a wind falling on the waves. The two Greeks were like boars falling on the
dogs. But Paris wounded Diomed, who cried, ' Your arrows only scratch ; my spear
makes widows of men's wives and orphans of their children.'
Odysseus, alone, was like a boar at bay against dogs and hunters. He was wounded,
but rescued by the Ajaxes. Ajax was like a lion scattering jackals who are worrying a
11 12 ff. Here I disagree with Prof. Bury in agreement.
(J.H.S. 1922, p. 1), but with his general « A 67 ff., 84 ff.
view and his criticism of Mr. Drerup, I am
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE 229
wounded stag. He was like a river in high flood, a torrent full of the rains of Zeus,
sweeping with it many dry oaks, many pines, much rubble, to the sea.
Elsewhere Paris wounded Machaon. Hector came against Ajax, in whom Zeus put
terror. He stood helpless, then retired, unwillingly, like a lion slowly driven from a farm,
like an ass driven from a field by boys, but not until he has eaten his fill. Then Paris
wounded Eurypylos.*3
That completes this group of incidents. It began with the picture of the
reapers, and ends with the ass in the field. It began with the woodcutter and
ends with the torrent sweeping the dry oaks and pines to the sea. These trees
were left to dry by a woodcutter in the summer by a peaceful river. With the
autumn rains the river has become a torrent, which carries them away. Thus
the second movement gives new value to the images of the first, when Hector's
heart was like an axe, and Simoeisios lay like a poplar left to dry, and Diomed
was like a torrent.
After the peaceful interview of Nestor and Patroclus, in which there are
no similes, the battle-story is resumed in M. We ended with Ajax, like a lion
scattering jackals, like a torrent carrying dry trees and rubble to the sea, like
a lion driven slowly from a farm, and like an ass driven out of a field.
We begin again with the description of a flood in which the gods shall
some day sweep away to sea the wall, with the logs and stones on which the
Achaeans spent their labour. For the present the fire of battle is round it.
Hector, raging like a whirlwind, is eager to attack, but the Trojan horses shy
at the trench. He is like a boar or lion, attacking dogs and huntsmen who are
massed against him like a tower.24
Polydamas advised him, and he prudently agreed, that the chariots should
be left behind. It is the first hint of the coming tragedy, when Hector shall
fatally refuse to follow this man's advice. The Trojans now prepare to attack
on foot in five divisions. The list is important, and is easy to remember because
the names of the chief leaders are arranged in one of the author's favourite
patterns. Hector is at one end, and Sarpedon at the other ; in the middle is
Asios, the fool ; in the second and the fourth divisions, respectively, we find
Paris, favourite of Aphrodite, and Aeneas, her son.
Asios, a foil and warning for Hector, disregarded Polydamas, and drove in
his horses, which were magnificent, through a gate held open for Greek fugitives.
Two champions awaited him :
Polypoites and Leonteus stood as firm as oaks, high-foliaged, deep-rooted, with-
standing wind and rain on the mountains. They were like boars who wait on the mountain
for the men and dogs, then suddenly break on them sideways, crashing through the bushes.
The defenders above hurled their weapons, in a storm like snow, shaken from the clouds
by wind. The fool protested to Zeus, ' These Greeks are like wasps or bees : they protect
their hive.'
Then Zeus sent a portent, a snake, biting an eagle which has seized it. We
remember Agamemnon's blazon. This is no good sign for Hector. Polydamas
warns him, but Hector, as a tragic hero must, goes on.
«» A 113, 129, 155, 172, 239, 269; 292, " M 18 ff., 35, 40; 132, 146, 156, 168;
!"•:. 305, 324, 383, 391 ; 414, 474, 492; 547, 278 ff. ; 293, 299, 375, 385; 421, 435.
558.
J.H.S.— VOL. XLII. Q
230 J- T. SHEPPARD
Zeus sent a wind and a cloud of dust which covered the Achaeans. The Trojans
were encouraged. But the defenders poured down their missiles like the sheets of snow
that fall on a day when Zeus shows forth his marvels. He stops the wind, and the fields
and promontories and shore are covered : even the wave of the sea, as it washes to the
land, is checked.
That brings us to the famous conversation of Sarpedon and his friend,
the introduction to Sarpedon's exploit. Sarpedon, roused by Zeus, was like
a lion attacking cattle, or a lion, very hungry, who will have a sheep from the
farm, though he die for it. He talked with Glaucus, and the Lycians attacked
like a black whirlwind. Glaucus was wounded, and fell back, like a tumbler.
But Sarpedon tore away part of the battlements.
The fight became equal again. It was like two men, with measures in
their hands, disputing about boundaries in a field. It was as nicely poised as
the scales of a widow weighing her wool.
I suggest that the flood, the pattern of boars and lions, the trees in the
Asios incident, the men in the field, the widow- woman at the end, help to make
this episode the structural complement of A 1-595. And that is what the
content of the story also makes it.
Finally, Hector was given even greater glory than Sarpedon. He seized
a mighty boulder, carried it in his arms, as a shepherd carries a lamb, broke
down a gate, and rushed in, like the night. His eyes were blazing with fire.
The second triad (N-E 152, exhortations of Poseidon, exploits of
Idomeneus, return of the Greek leaders) contains the most disputed episodes of
the Iliad. Its structural value has not, I think, been understood.
Poseidon came, in a marvellous sea-journey.
He exhorted the Ajaxes, and went off ' like a hawk.' 25
He exhorted the younger men, Meriones, Teucer, etc.
Two phalanxes were formed about the Ajaxes.
The Trojans came on. Hector was like a boulder smashed from a mountain by a
torrent. It leaps through the wood, but is stopped when it reaches the plain. So Hector
was stopped. Meriones broke his spear, leaving the head of it in the shield of Deiphobus.
one of the three chief leaders of the third Asios division. Teucer killed Imbrios, who fell
like an ash, cut down by the bronze on a mountain-top. In the fight for the spoils and
body, Hector killed Amphimachus, a grandson of Poseidon. But the Ajaxes snatched
the body away, like two lions snatching a goat from the hounds, and the head was hurled
at Hector's feet.26
Poseidon exhorted Idomeneus.
Idomeneus talked with Meriones.
The battle raged like a whirlwind on a very dusty day. So Zeus and Poseidon pulled
both ways.27
Then the central scene :
Idomeneus killed three victims, Othryoneus, who had been promised Cassandra in
marriage, Asios, who fell like an oak or a white poplar or a pine, etc., and Alkathoos, son-
*s N 62 (cf. 829). At 39 the Trojans 27 N 334. Between 205 and this climax,
fight like a flame or wind (cf. 53, 334, 795, I notice only (242) Idomeneus ' like light-
H 16). The simile of 102 ff. is isolated and ning,' Meriones (296 ff.) like Ares, going
unimportant. out with his son Phobos to war.
" N 136-205.
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE 231
in-law of Anchises. Alkathoos was spell-bound, and stood ' like a pillar of stone or a tree.'
Idomeneus declared himself a son of Zeus.
Deiphobus called on Aeneas for help (3rd and 4th divisions combined), and two
phalanxes formed about Idomeneus and Aeneas. Idomeneus was like a boar awaiting
the huntsmen, and the Trojans followed Aeneas, as sheep follow the ram when they are.
going to drink : the shepherd rejoices.
In the fight over the body of Alkathoos, Idomeneus killed Oenomaus and Askalaphos
a son of Ares. In the fight for the spoils, Meriones wounded Deiphobus.
Aeneas killed Aphareus, Antilochus killed Thoon, and Meriones (who was like a vulture)
stuck his spear so firmly into the body of Adamas that the man was dragged after it panting,
as an ox dragged unwillingly by the ropes of herdsmen on the mountains.
Helenus, the third leader of the Asios division, shot an arrow at Menelaus, but it
glanced off from his breastplate as beans jump from a winnowing-fan. Menelaus wounded
Helenus, and killed Peisander. He was attacked by a third Trojan, who was killed by
Meriones, and lay on the ground like a worm. Finally Paris killed the rich and good
Euchenor with an arrow.*8
Paris was leader of the 2nd division. The mention of his exploit is important.
Three divisions of the Trojans are concentrated against Idomeneus and Meriones,
whose work is thus accomplished. We return to the Ajaxes and Hector, who
are struggling elsewhere, Hector like a flame, the two Ajaxes like two oxen
ploughing together, sweating at the work.
The last part of the triad reverses the pattern of the first :
Hector talked with Polydamas, whose advice he took, and with Paris. The fresh
Trojan concentration made the battle like a tempest of winds loosed by Zeus over land
and sea. Hector, like Ares, led them. Ajax cried, ' It is the lash of Zeus. But Hector
shall soon pray for his horses to be swifter than hawks.' Zeus sent the sign of an eagle,
but Hector pressed on.
Nestor heard the shouting. He went out, his mind troubled as a sea before the wind
is certain. Nestor, Odysseus, Diomed, exhorted Agamemnon, and Poseidon joined
them. Poseidon shouted louder than nine thousand or ten thousand men in battle.2*
It is surely very ingenious. In the first triad we had the form : Strife shouted.
Agamemnon, Odysseus, Diomed were wounded. Nestor. In the second we
have : Nestor, Odysseus, Diomed, encouraged Agamemnon. Poseidon shouted.
In the first, we had the interview of Glaucus and Sarpedon, followed by the
exploits of Sarpedon ; in the second, we have the interview of Idomeneus and
Meriones, followed by the exploits. In the first, we had Hector accepting the
advice of Polydamas, but rejecting his warning, when he bade him yield to an
omen ; in the second, he accepts this man's advice, then ignores an omen.
Yet the material is so disposed that the main scheme has the form : Trojan
success ; Oratory of Nestor ; Trojan success. Oratory of Poseidon ; exploits
of Idomeneus ; Oratory of the Greek chieftains.
As for the similes, I need say no more at present.
There are no similes in the delightful tale of Hera's trickery. To what
indeed should one compare the son of Cronos, with his consort, asleep in a golden
cloud on the mountain-top among the lush grass and the dewy lotus and the
soft thick hyacinth ?
" N 389, 437, 471, 493, 531, 571, 588 «• N 703, 795, 819, B 16. Poseidon shouta
(cf. the pulling away of Pandarus' arrow). at 5 148.
Q2
232 J. T. SHEPPARD
But in the central panel of this triad, the Victory of the Greeks, the incident*
and similes combine to make so fine a climax that one fears to spoil it by analysis.
Odysseus, Diomed, and Agamemnon, with Poseidon, re-armed the Greeks. The
sword of Poseidon was like lightning. The sea washed up to the ships and huts of the
Argives, and the armies met again with a great shout. The noise of a wave upon the
land, when it is raised and gathered by the cruel blast of Boreas; the roar of a flaming
fire in the mountain glades, when it arises to consume the forest; the voice of the wind
upon high oaks, when it roars loudest and most angrily, is not so great as was the noise
of the Achaeans and the Trojans, shouting terribly, when they leapt on one another.
Hector aimed at Ajax, but missed him. Ajax seized a mighty boulder — one of many
used for propping the ships — lifted it, and spun it, like a top, and sent it hurtling against
Hector. And the Trojan champion fell, as an oak falls headlong, smitten by the stroke
of Zeus. The sulphurous smell of it makes men afraid. There is none that is bold when
he sees it near at hand. The Thunderbolt of great Zeus is terrible.30
And, after that, no more similes, unless indeed we count the passing reference
to a man's head held up like a poppy.
Consider how the whole series of battle-scenes has been developed. There
have been decorative images of lions and boars in all, arranged in a formal
pattern. From this climax all these have been cut away ; but see what images
the lions and boars have framed :
In A, Agamemnon armed, and Hector's armour shone like lightning. Agamemnon
was like a lion, like a forest fire, like a lion. Diomed and Odysseus were like a boar or
lion, like a wind, upon the sea, or scattering the clouds,, like boars and lions. Ajax was like
a boar at bay, like a lion, like a torrent carrying dried trees and rubble from the mountains
to the sea.
In M, Hector was like a wind, a boar, a lion ; Polypoites and Leonteus were like oak*
withstanding wind and rain, like wild-boars in the mountain-thicket. At the end of the
episode, Hector seized a mighty boulder, carried it as a shepherd carries a lamb, and burst
through the gate.
In N, Hector was like a boulder smashed from a cliff and leaping down the wooded
mountain to the plain. He was stopped by the Achaean phalanx, and Imbrios fell like
an ash cut down by the bronze. Finally, Asios, cut down by Idomeneus, crashed to the
ground like an oak or a white poplar or a pine, Alkathoos stood helpless, like a stone or a
tree, and Idomeneus proclaimed himself a son of Zeus.
I have not cheated, but have reported all these things in the order in which
Homer has recorded them. If the combination here in E, of the arming and
the lightning, the fire, the wind, the oaks withstanding wind, the boulder, and
the fallen tree, now blasted by lightning, be fortuitous — well, with young
Cheeryble, I hold myself under an obligation to the coincidence, that's all.
IV
31 When Zeus wakes, and sends his consort on an errand, she darts as
swiftly as the mind of a much-travelled man, who says, ' I was there and I was
there.' Homer, as it seems to me, having completed this massive scheme of
triads, does not mean to let his story languish. So he changes suddenly his
80 H 386, 394, 413, 499. Olympian scene. At O 237 Apollo sent.
31 O 80, 170 are the only similes in the by Zeus to Hector, darts like a hawk.
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE 233
pattern, but leaves no pause between the old pattern and the new. The
transition is effected thus :
Hera prevails on Aphrodite, Sleep and Zeus.
Greek Victory.
Zeus wakes. Hera coaxes Ares. Iris makes Poseidon withdraw.
Apollo with Hector. Overthrow of the Wall.
Patroclus roused.
Hector at the ships.
Patroclus with Achilles.
Fire at the ships.
Patroclus arms. . . .
The exploits of Patroclus follow, with a pattern of their own. My point is, that
after the massive triads aba bab bab, the pace is quickened by the arrangement
of the alternate scenes of battle and persuasion in the form ababab. There is
no great pause after the waking of Zeus until Achilles prays, and the Myrmidons
take the field. Homer is like a musician, and musicians will understand what
he does here, just as musicians have understood, and scholars ignored, Walter
Headlam's teaching about metrical overlapping in Greek lyric. The pace
quickens ; the pattern changes ; and, with the change of pattern, the decorative
scheme takes on new colours. Not that the old are forgotten. The lions
and the boars reappear, but, with the rousing of the Myrmidons, ravening
wolyes are added. The fight is still like fire and tempest. But the waves have
a ship at their mercy, and the fire roars over a burning city. It is the de-
velopment of a symphony, which begins quietly, and grows more and more
exciting as the simple themes are repeated, developed and combined.32
Hector, revived by Apollo, led the attack. Paris was never more gay and
beautiful and reckless, Ajax never more bold and terrifying. That is the prose
translation of the two comparisons here transferred from Ajax and from Paris
to Hector.33 The Greeks, before Hector and Apollo, were like cattle in a farm
at night, terrified by two beasts, when their shepherd is away. They resisted,
but Apollo had his aegis, and a great stretch of the wall collapsed, like a child's
castle on the sands. Nestor cried to Zeus, who thundered his answer, but the
Trojans leapt on the Greeks even more violently, like a wave that leaps over a
ship's wall.34
Patroclus heard the noise, and left Eurypylos. The Greeks reformed their
lines, and the fight became equal again. It was as even as the line in the hand
of a clever carpenter, making straight a timber for a ship.35
Ajax and Teucer were now fighting actually for the first ship. ' Get your
bow and arrows, Apollo's own gift,' cried Ajax. Teucer obeyed, and shot one
hero, but when he aimed at Hector, Zeus broke his bowstring. ' Get a good
spear,' said Ajax.
Antilochus leapt on Melanippus as a hound leaps on a wounded lion. But Hector
came, and Antilochus went back, like a wild beast that has done wrong. The Trojans
•• n 156, O 381, 623, P 737. « O 323, 362, 381.
» O 2G3 ff. (c-f. Z 5UO, A 48 ff.). 3i O 41<>.
234 J. T. SHEPPARD
now were like lions. Hector raged like Ares; like a fire on the mountains. But the
Greeks stood, like a rock resisting wind and wave. Hector, aglow with fire, leapt on
them as a wave leaps on a ship ; the wind roars in the sails ; the sailors are terrified. Hector
was like a lion coming with evil purpose on a herd of cows grazing innumerable in a meadow-
pasture. He is able to seize one of them, because the herdsman is unskilful. Ajax was
like a trick-rider on four horses. Hector leapt on him like an eagle swooping on a flight
of birds, geese, cranes, or long-necked swans that are feeding by a river. Men fought
with axes, staves, swords, spears; many black-bound swords fell from their hands or
from their shoulders as they struggled; the black earth ran with blood. Hector cried,
' Bring fire ! ' and Ajax shouted. But he had to give way, still fighting, still wounding
his men. . . . Twelve he wounded. . . .
And Patroclus stood by Achilles, weeping, like a fountain of black water. ' Why do
you weep ? ' asked Achilles, ' like a little girl running behind her mother, plucking at her
skirts, and looking up at her in tears, until she stops and picks her up.'
There are no more similes in the talk between Achilles and Patroclus, and
there are no similes when the spear of Ajax breaks, and the ships are fired.
The fire at the ships is itself the consummation of many similes. Notice, if
you have patience, how the geese and cranes and swans of our first pattern
have returned.36 We shall have other instances of such revival, but we shall
not stop to mention them. The arming of Patroclus is a sequel to the arming
of Agamemnon : the Myrmidons in their five divisions recall the five divisions
of the Trojans. The Myrmidons are like ravening wolves, gorged, but thirsty.
That is new. Achilles prays to Zeus, and the Myrmidons go out to battle, like
wasps that have been irritated by mischievous boys and have become a danger
even to the harmless passer-by.37
Then, with the beginning of the exploits of Patroclus, we begin a magnificent
series of comparisons. This is the first :
Patroclus killed Pyraechmes, and the Achaeans were relieved. It was as when the
clouds are driven from a mountain by the lightning-flash of Zeus. The high peaks and
the promontories and the glens are seen, and the infinite heaven above breaks open.38
It is our questionable repetition, the unscrupulous rhapsode's work.
At the end of the first movement, the rejoicing of the shepherd when
he saw the clouds rolled from the mountain and the innumerable stars
revealed in the windless sky, was a climax and a consummation. The mountain
had once been wrapped in mist, so thick that you could only see a stone's throw.
He had watched the clouds approaching over the sea, and shivered. He had
heard the noise of torrents in the valley. The clouds had clung to the
mountain, in spite of winds. And at last the air was clear again, the stars
shone, and the valleys were revealed, and the shepherd rejoiced. To the effect
of the first movement, anyhow, this simile was indispensable. Here, at the
beginning of the last fight of Patroclus, the same simile is used again. And here
it is not the end, but the beginning, of a more magnificent development :
Patroclus and the Greeks did great deeds, fighting like wolves. The Trojans at
length were routed, and a shout went up as suddenly as a cloud that sweeps into the sky
out of a clear heaven when Zeus intends to make a storm. There was confusion at the
J« O 690 ff. (cf. B 459). ™ n 296 if., cf. 364, 386.
87 n259ff. (cf. M 167).
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE
trench. Patroclus himself passed over. The fight was like a great day of storm, when
Zeus destroys the works of men, wreaking vengeance on men whose deeds are evil.
We have had many storm-similes before, but never one like this, in which
the men who suffer find their place as victims of the anger of the gods. It is
like the addition of the ship and sailors to the wave-simile a little while ago.
Patroclus killed many victims, and at last he met Sarpedon. They were like
vultures.
Zeus talked with Hera, and resigned his son to death. Even the son of
Zeus must die. Only, in death he shall be honoured. His brothers in Lycia
shall make a funeral mound for him, and raise a pillar of stone : that is the
prize of honour of the dead.
They fought, and Sarpedon fell.39 He lay, like an oak or a white poplar
or high pine, felled by the carpenters in the mountain, to be a ship's timber.
As a great-hearted brown bull is picked out from a herd of cows and killed by
a lion, and bellows angrily as he dies, so Sarpedon was angry, and called to
Glaucus to avenge him. Glaucus was wounded, but he prayed to Apollo, who
healed him. He appealed to Hector, and Patroclus called to the Ajaxes, and
Zeus put darkness on the field.
Patroclus, angry for a fallen friend, darted on the Trojans, like a hawk
pursuing smaller birds. They gave ground, as far as a man can throw a javelin.
Aeneas taunted Meriones, ' My spear would have finished you, had I hit —
though you are a dancer.' Meriones replied, ' Even you are a mortal,' but
Patroclus called for deeds, not words. The noise of battle was like the noise
of woodcutters in the forest. They fought about the body of Sarpedon, like
flies round milk in spring.40
Zeus sent Apollo to snatch the shining body from among their weapons,
and to wash it in river-water and anoint it with ambrosia and clothe it in
immortal raiment ; then to give it to the brothers, Sleep and Death, for safe
carriage to Sarpedon's home in Lycia.
Patroclus fell into great folly. He forgot the word of Achilles, and attacked
the wall of Troy. Thrice he attacked, and three times Apollo foiled him. And
when, for the fourth time, he leapt on, like a daimon, Apollo shouted and he
gave way.
Apollo roused Hector. Patroclus killed Kebriones, and taunted him,
' Oyster-diver, Tumbler ! ' Patroclus was like a lion ; Hector and Patroclus
were like two lions fighting for a body. They were like two winds fighting in
the forest : there is a noise of the breaking of branches. But Kebriones lay
still. He had forgotten his feats of horsemanship.
So long as the sun was in the midst of the heaven, they fought. But when
the sun turned to the hour of the loosing of oxen, Patroclus had to die. Thrice
he leapt on the enemy, like Ares. And when, for the fourth time, he leapt on,
like a daimon, Apollo met him in the battle, and he did not know the god.
Apollo stunned him, Euphorbus wounded him, and Hector killed him. He
was like a boar killed by a lion on the mountain in a fight for a small spring
of water.
»• n 482 ff. «° n 633 ff.
236 J. T. SHEPPARD
Menelaus fought for the body, like a cow defending her first calf. He killed Euphorbus,
in his beauty, as the wind uproots a cherished olive-plant once nurtured by the breezes.
He was like a lion killing a cow, while dogs and huntsmen dare not approach him. But
Hector came, like Ares, like a flame, and Menelaus had to yield. He left the body un-
willingly, turning back like a noble lion driven from a farm. Ajax came to the rescue,
and defended the body as a lion defends his young.41
We are back again to the imagery of the first panel of the whole movement,
when Agamemnon and then Ajax fought so well. But this time the develop-
ment will be different.
First, an interlude, in which Hector puts on the armour of Achilles, without
similes. Then this, for the resumption cf the pattern.42
The meeting of the armies was like the meeting of a torrent with the sea. There
was darkness on the helmets of the fighters. Ajax was like a wild-boar scattering the dogs
and the young men on the mountain. They fought like fire, but you would have said
the sun and moon had been put out, so dark it was about the body. Elsewhere on the
field the sun shone, and there was no cloud on plain or mountain. And Antilochus did
not know. They fought, and dragged the body, as men stretch an oxhide, sweating
at their work. And Achilles did not know. They encouraged one another.
Then a second, more elaborate interlude, the fight for the horses of Achilles.
The horses stood, like a pillar of stone on a tomb, and Zeus pitied them, and pitied
men. He gave them spirit, and they flew, and Automedon, driving., was like a hawk
pursuing geese. But he could not fight, for he was alone. Alkimedon relieved him :
Aeneas and Aretos made a bid for this great booty. Aretos, felled like an ox by a young
man's axe, was left dead, and Automedon took his armour, and drove off with bloody
arms and legs, like a lion that has eaten a bull.43
Then the body again.
Athene came, like a rainbow, a sign of war or tempest, stopping the work of the field
and frightening the cattle ; and she gave Menelaus the persistence of a fly that still comes
back to bite, though it is driven off : so dainty is the blood of a man.44 Zeus, with his
aegis, watched, and still gave victory to the Trojans, until Ajax prayed : ' If thou wilt
destroy us, destroy us in the light ! ' 45 And Zeus sent light, and Menelaus went to find
Antilochus. He went unwillingly, like a lion kept away from a farm throughout a hungry
night. He glared like an eagle, and he found Antilochus, and sent him to Achilles.
This darkness, and its dispersal is, if I mistake not, the sequel to the
moment when Achilles prayed to Zeus, and the Myrmidons went out, and the
Achaeans were relieved, as when the clouds are driven from the mountain by
the lightning-flash of Zeus.
Menelaus went back to the body. Meriones and Menelaus lifted it, while
the two Ajaxes fought on. The Trojans attached the bearers, as dogs attack
a wounded boar, but fell back, when the Ajaxes turned on them. The fight
behind them blazed like a fire that suddenly attacks a city : the houses collapse
in the glare ; the wind roars over it. Like mules, which put out their strength,
and drag a log or a ship's timber down the mountain-side along a craggy path :
their spirit is afflicted by the labour and the sweat; so were they zealous,
41 P 4, 53, 61, 109, 133. «« p 570 (of. B 469, r 189, n 641).
42 P 281, 366, 389. 4S P 647.
41 P 436, 480, 520, 542.
TRACES OF THE RHAPSODE 237
carrying the body. And behind them the two Ajaxes held back the Trojans,
as a wooded headland, running sharp into the plain, stops the strong mountain-
torrents, and turns their waters back.46
So, at last, Antilochus told Achilles. Thetis heard the cry, and the Nereids
lamented, and Thetis came to her son. But still they struggled. As a shepherd
cannot drive a lion from a body, so Ajax could not drive Hector off. But Iris
came to Achilles, and bade him shout at the trench. Athene put her aegis
about him, and set a golden cloud and a flame about his head. The sight of
him was like the flame of beacons from a beleaguered city. The sound of his
voice was like a trumpet-call from a city besieged.47 Thrice he shouted.
Thrice the Trojans fell back. And the body was brought home.
The Iliad is not a string of little poems. Its materials are grouped in
cycles, not straight lines. Many of the incidents are arranged like Chinese
boxes. Such a method has advantages for a story-teller like Demodocus, or
Homer. It makes the poems easy to remember. Also, this disposition of his
matter gives the poet a repertoire of stories, long or short, for use as occasion
demands. All of them, as by a miracle of inspiration, will possess artistic form.
But on great days, when your audience is yours, not for an hour, but for a
long-drawn festival, you can recite your Achilleis — no, your Iliad — and still,
if you are Homer, it will be one poem, with one splendid pattern. Because,
thirdly, the recurrent themes and images have cumulative value. They affect
the audience like repeated themes of music.
It is in this honourable sense, I think, that the Iliad is made up of many
' rhapsodies,' and that Homer can be fitly called a ' stitcher ' of poetry. Lyric
is woven. There are no clear seams between the parts of the design. Epic
is like a series of tapestries, not woven in one piece, but made of strips placed
side by side, stitched, as it were, not woven, into their places.48 The prelude
to the Theogony, the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, and many other poems, are
constructed on this principle, and, of course, the fact that the Iliad is so con-
structed proves nothing, by itself, about the unity of authorship. But when,
across the divisions of the formal pattern, we observe the strands of another
pattern, subtly interwoven, our theory of the authorship must be affected.
The recurrent images of Homer — who, in this matter, as in many, was a fore-
runner of Aeschylus — do, I submit, afford an argument for the existence of
one great constructive poet. For the tests by which stitched epic must be
judged are these : the splendour of the main design, the texture of the com-
ponent strips or panels, their imaginative value, their relation to each other,
and their relevance — imaginative, not merely logical — to the main them*-.
J. T. SHEPPARD.
«• P 72,'), 7.57. 7»-> ff. read to the Cambridge Philological Society,
47 2 207 ff. and summarised in the Catnbridge University
48 I have discussed this point in a paper I\'<(>orter, May '2'.l. 1922.
NOTES ON THE SCULPTURES OF THE PALAZZO DEI
CONSERVATORI.
[PLATES VIII-X.]
THE following notes, made during my work for the British School at Rome
on the sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, are here published by
permission of Prof. H. Stuart Jones, General Editor of the forthcoming
FIG. 1. — STANDING DISCOBOLUS, ANTIQUARIUM, ROME. (From a cast.)
catalogue, and at the suggestion of Mrs. Arthur Strong, for whose constant
help and criticism I wish to take this opportunity of recording my thanks.
The summary descriptions are not intended in any sense to supplant, but
rather to supplement the catalogue; and their appearance here is due to the
238
SCULPTURES OF THE PALAZZO DEI CONSERVATORI 239
FIG. 2. — CONSERVATORI ATHLETE.
ANTIQUARIUM DISCOBOLUS.
(From a cast.)
FIG. 3. — CONSERVATORI ATHLETE.
ANTIQUARIUM DISCOBOLUS.
(From a cast.)
240
B. ASHMOLE
belief that new theories are best published separately before being embodied,
if only because the conclusions reached can in this way be substantiated by
arguments, especially in the form of photographs, which would there be out
of place. The note which had its beginnings in the Esquiline stele has grown
to the dimensions of a separate article, and in view of its possible interest has
been so printed.
1. Athlete. (Catalogue, Galleria, No. 49.) (Plate VIII.)
Restored (in plaster) : 1. ankle, foot and support beneath it : most of
plinth. Head broken off and rightly re-set.
We have here to deal with a dull copy, interesting only because the original
can be ascribed almost with certainty to a known master. Its resemblance
Fio. 4. — EIRENE, MUNICH.
(From a cast.)
FRAGMENT, CONSERVATOR!.
SAUROKTONOS, DRESDEN.
to the statue of the standing Discobolus, now in the Antiquarium l (Fig. 1),
the discovery of which solved the stylistic problem connected with that type,
is sufficiently close to justify an attribution of the originals to the same hand
(Fig. 2). That the sculptor was Naucydes of Argos is a conclusion which
does not conflict either with literary evidence or with the evidence of the
style, which shows a logical development of Polycleitan tendencies, with a
suggestion of movement in the hair foreign to the style of Polycleitus himself.
The lack of fullness in the cheeks and body of our statue compared with the
plumpness of the Antiquarium Discobolus 2 is paralleled by the dryness and
flatness of relief in the hair of the one, and its fullness and softness in the
other (Figs. 2 and 3). The difference is, in short, partly due to the copyist,
partly perhaps to an attempt at differentiation of athletic types by the original
sculptor. The expanded chest and narrow waist of the Conservatori athlete
1 Helbig* lo::<>.
2 Tliis feature is common to all the
known copies, even to those in which one
might well have been excused for not
recognising the head as a replica.
SCULPTURES OF THE PALAZZO DEI CONSERVATORI 241
^V
Fio. 5. — FRAGMENT OF FEMALE FIGURE, PALAZZO DEI CONSERVATORI.
FIG. 6. — HERM IN THE PALAZZO DEI CONSERVATORI.
242 B. ASHMOLE
seem to indicate a runner, while the build of the Discobolus, like that of the
modern weight-putter, would naturally incline to heaviness.
2. Upper part of draped female figure. (Catalogue, Orti Lamiani, No. 17.)
(Plate IX.)
Restored (in plaster) : tip of nose ; small patches on eyelids, lower lip
and chin; large patch behind crown of head on r. Head broken from body
at base of neck and split diagonally on a line from r. of forehead to below 1.
ear and through knot of hair at back ; 1. side of body broken away close to
neck : the irregular joins in all cases made up with plaster.
Finer by far than the replica of the head in Venice,3 this fragment falls
at once into a position in the artistic history of the fourth century. The
Praxitelean original, nearly contemporary with the Apollo Sauroktonos,
belonged to that period of the sculptor's activity which may be said to begin
at about the date of the Eirene of Cephisodotus 4 (Fig. 4). With our copies
of that statue the present work has many points in common, and the drapery
shows but a slight advance. Connexion with the Sauroktonos is emphasised
by a similar variation (only reproduced in better copies of the Apollo) in the
shape of the loose lock on each cheek (Fig. 5).
3. H erm of the so-called Scopaic Heracles. (Catalogue, Galleria, No. 28). (Fig. 6.)
Restored (in plaster) : tip of nose, small patch on each lip.
The head is unbroken from its terminal bust, and though much weathered
is of excellent workmanship. It may be accepted, so far as a single copy can
ever be accepted on internal evidence, as a faithful replica of a work of the
fourth century B.C. Illustrated by Graf in a widely-cited article 5 as one of
the finest examples of the class, it corresponds neither in measurements nor
style with the numerous others which formed his group and were supposed
to derive from an Heracles by Scopas. Several of these, including the full-
length Lansdowne Heracles, are certainly derived from a common original,
with the attribution of which we are not here concerned. But a detailed com-
parison of the Conservatori head with the Hermes of Praxiteles on the one
hand (Fig. 7), and the Tegean heads on the other, shows that its closest
relationship is with the Attic work. Compare the head-shape, structure of
face, modelling of forehead and cheeks : treatment of the hair : position,
3 Pellegrini, Quida^ No. 177. The Sauroktonos head illustrated (by kind
1 Prof. Arndt has .kindly shown me notes permission of Prof. Herrmann) is the some-
made by him some/years ago, in which the what inferior Dresden replica, which has
same conclusion isy reached : it is, I think, at least the merit of being, unlike the
in any case ha;dJy to be disputed. But better known Vatican copy, only slightly
the statue ifc'so little known and of such restored. Verzeichnis, No. 110. Restored:
importance/ that the present publication, nose,
with photographs, may not be out of place. * Rom. Mitt. iv. 1889, p. 189 sqq.
SCULPTURES OF THE PALAZZO DEI CONSERVATORI 243
l-K.. 7. — THE CONSERVATORI HKRM (a, d, g), THK HKRMES OF PRAXITELES (6, c, f),
THE PETWORTH APHRODITE (e, h) COMPARED.
244 B. ASHMOLE
shape and horizontal axis of the eyes 6 : the mouth, ear, and dimpled chin.
Differences are to be noted in the bridge of the nose, the outer corners of the
eyebrows, which are brought down lower over the lids than in the Hermes
(though less low than in the Tegean heads), and in the jaw, which, though
more fleshy than in the Hermes, finds an analogy in the Petworth Aphrodite.
That Praxiteles, not necessarily under the influence of Scopas, but with the
licence of a fourth-century sculptor, varied considerably the shadowing of
the eye and the curves of the mouth in differentiating his subjects, is shown
by a comparison in respect of these details between the Hermes, the Aberdeen
head, and the Petworth Aphrodite, all almost certainly originals by him
(Figs. 7 and 8). It is indeed to the Petworth Aphrodite that the character of
the present head most nearly approaches (Fig. 9), and Dionysos, not Heracles,
is the deity to whom the parted, drooping lips and air of sensuous melancholy
would alone be suitable. The wreath, too, is of vine, and we must think of
a grape-cluster as filling the space chamfered away from the back of the
shoulder. If this is not the copy of a work by Praxiteles it is at least the
copy of a work of his school, showing the closest dependence on Praxitelean
tradition, and we can dismiss it entirely from any discussion of the Scopaic
Heracles. There are extant many torsoes, though I know of no heads, which
may well have belonged to other copies of the same original.
. 4. Sleeping Eros. (Catalogue, Sola degli Arazzi, No. 2.) Unrestored.
(Plate X.)
One of the finest replicas of a common type. The easy pose of the flexible
body is adapted to an unusually skilful composition which lends itself to
several points of view. Knowledge of anatomy and flesh treatment are alike
admirable. The subject reminds us of the sleeping Hermaphrodite, the best
copy of which is in the Terme Museum.7 But there is a still closer relationship
between the two. Apart from the parallel effects attempted in the rendering
of flesh and drapery, the head-shape, though not identical, is closely allied,
while the attenuation of the hair roots, the feeling for the texture of the hair,
the position and shape of the curls before and behind the ear, the arrangement
of the hair above them, the impressionism of the curl on the cheek, with which
we may contrast the faint relief used by earlier sculptors (cf. No. 2) ; further,
the heavy lower jaw and sharply dimpled chin, the receding lower, and sharp
projecting upper lip, to mention some only of the similarities in style, demon-
strate with an approach to certainty that the originals were the work of
the same hand 8 (Fig. 10).
In an artist of this period we must look, not for identity of every detail,
but for a careful study of the peculiarities of the model, and that is, as a fact,
what we do find. The difficulty with regard to the original material need not
' Sloping down towards the inner corner 8 In Fig. 10 the photograph of the Her-
in the Tegean heads, up in the Hermes maphrodite is not an exact profile : this
and in the head under discussion. should be remembered when comparing
7 Helbig* 1362. Head unrestored, ear the two heads,
broken.
SCULPTURES OF THE PALAZZO DEI CONSERVATOHI 245
CONSERVATORI HERM.
ABERDEEN HEAD. (From a cast.)
ABERDEEN HEAD. (From a cast.)
HERMES OP PRAXITELES. (From a cast.)
CONSERVATORI HERM.
Fio. 8. — DETAIL OF EYES AND BROWS COMPARED.
J.H.S. — VOL. XI.II.
240
B. ASHMOLE
FlG. 9. — CONSERVATORI PETWORTH APHRODITE.
HERM. (From a cast.)
FIG. 10. — SLEEPING EROS,
CONSERVATORI.
SLEEPING HERMAPHRODITE, .
MUSEO DELLE TfiRME.
SCULPTURES OF THE PALAZZO DEI I'ONSERVATORI _'17
be exaggerated.9 The marble of the Terme copy of the Hermaphrodite is
\\vll suited to the technique; but only in the body; and we have to face the
question whether an ancient sculptor working in bronze would have attained
the present effect by any different treatment of the modelling, or indeed
whether that particular effect is so attainable. A bronzed cast proves that
the figure loses no more than it gains in the translation from one material
i<> the other. It exchanges approximately realistic for conventional colouring,
but the technique of both hair and drapery is displayed to greater advantage,
and we can see that the sharp lines of the nose and brows had some purpose.
Similarly, the original of the Eros may have been either of marble or bronze :
there is indeed a bronze copy, reversed and otherwise modified, at New
York.10
BERNARD ASHMOLE.
• Dickins, Hellen. Sculpt, p. 57.- 10 Richter, Greek Etruscan and Roman
Bronzes, No. 132, p. 90.
K'2
LOCRI EPIZEPHYRII AND THE LUDOVISI THRONE
[PLATE XL]
THE starting-point for the following discussion is the stele from the Esquiline l
(Plate XL). We remark first its stylistic relationship with a series of terra-
cottas from Locri Epizephyrii, many of which have been published by Quagliati
in Ausonia, iii. 1908, p. 136 sqq. and by Orsi in Bollettino d'Arte, iii. 1909,
p. 406 sqq. and p. 463 sqq., while there are other examples in various museums.
For style, we may compare particularly Aus. I.e. Figs. 9, 33, 44 ; Boll. I.e. Fig. 16,
and Fig. 1 (=B.M. Terracottas, B488, PI. XXI.) : for subject Am. I.e. Fig. 1.
If this connexion can be established, the consequences are of importance, for
the stele from the Esquiline has often been compared in style with the Ludovisi
Throne, and the Ludovisi Throne involves the Boston reliefs. Before examin-
ing this comparison we must mention yet another work which has been
brought into relation with these monuments, the so-called Ino-Leucothea
relief of the Villa Albani.2 Its connexion with the Esquiline stele and with
some of the terra-cottas is, in fact, equally striking. With the stele it has in
common, in the seated figure the emphatically linear treatment of the himation.
that is to say, a tendency to draw rather than to model; and the identical
device for rendering the softer material in the standing figure (a device also
used in the terra-cottas,3 while the line of the front of the thigh is indicated
through the drapery in the same way. In short, it is fair to say that if a
reduced copy of the Albani relief had been unearthed among such terra-cottas
as Aus. I.e. Figs. 4, 15, 44, 45, 46, 58, and Boll. I.e. Fig. 43, to mention only
a few examples, we should not notice any incongruity of style, and the subject
in some cases is curiously similar.4
Turning now to the Ludovisi Throne, we find that it appears to be later
than most, if not all, of the terra-cottas, and probably later than the stele
and the Albani relief; but there is no serious divergence of style, the head-
shape is notably the same,5 and in all, to note a single important resemblance,
1 Conservatori Catalogue, Monumenti
Arcaici, No. 5. Greyish island marble.
Restored (in plaster) : patches on edge of
moulding, and a thin horizontal strip under
right arm of figure where relief has been
broken in two.
* Helbig9 1863.
1 Aus. I.e. Fig. 83. Here possibly
imitated from metal technique like the
granulated treatment in certain other of
the terra-cottas (Aua. I.e. Fig. 74, etc.).
Compare the silver rhyton from Tarentum
at Trieste (Jahrenh. v. 1902, p. 112). That
Locri abounded in metal treasures we know
both from the terra-cottas and from literary
evidence.
4 The resemblance between the Ludovisi
Throne and the terra-cottas has been noted
both by Amelung (Helbig3 1286) and by
Ducati (L'Arte Classica, p. 293).
* Aus. I.e. Figs. 44, 54, 55.
248
LOCRI KPIZEPHYRII AND THE LUDOVISI THRONE 249
the female chest is unusually firm and prominent. Further, one of the few
pieces of sculpture found at Locri itself, the west pedimental group or acroteria,6
shows in the drapery of the Tritons a flattening of the surfaces and a rounding
of the edges of the folds which comes close to the drapery treatment of the
attendants in the main scene of the Ludovisi Throne ; while the male form is
not distant from that of the Boston reliefs. On stylistic grounds, then, we
might suppose some connexion between all these monuments and Locri. Nor
is it irrelevant, when we remember that the one influence admittedly apparent
in them is the Ionic, that the
temple at Locri, alone among those
in South Italy, was of the Ionic
order; and that the material em-
ployed is island marble, though not
in all cases of identical grain and
quality.7
But in subject the Ludovisi
Throne furnishes us with a still
more important point of contact.
The main front scene has for one of
its leading motives a sacred cloth or
garment. In the Locrian terra-
cottas, at least four sets show scenes
of ritual concerned also with some
kind of sacred garment. In the
first it is being carried unfolded by
four maidens accompanied by an
older woman 8 ; and we may notice
the fact, perhaps not unconnected
with the toilet scene, and with the
dedication of mirrors in some sanc-
tuary,9 that in one example these
maidens, preceded by the woman,
wear their hair loose, in another,
, ,, , „ j , i ., Fro. 1. — TERRA-COTTA RELIEF FROM LOCRI.
where they are followed by her, it (British Museum).
is confined,10 and, more important
still, in Boll. I.e. Figs. 25 and 26, there is between the two pairs of maidens a
difference of drapery corresponding to (though not identical with) that in the
attendants of the rising goddess on the Ludovisi Throne. In the second set the
• Ant. Denkm. v. 1890, Pll. LI. and LIT.
Rom. Mitt. v. 1890, pp. 161-227, PI. IX.
These articles deal also with other remains
at Locri. Now at Naples (Outdo, No. 125,
p. 39).
7 I am aware that, speaking broadly,
all these monuments can be classed simply
as Ionian. But that classification does not
seem to account for all their peculiarities.
though the style of the Albani relief is, I feel,
not quite so characteristically South Italian
as that of the Ksquiline stele and the two
thrones.
• BoU. I.e. Figs. 25, 26; Au*. I.e.
Fip. 50.
» K.rj. Ans. I.e. Fig. 57; Boll. I.e. Fig. 16.
10 See in this connexion Revue Hist.
Relig. 80, (1919), xiv. p. 30.
250 B. ASHMOLE
folded garment is seen carried by a maiden with or without an older woman.11
In the third, again folded, it lies on a table in front of some goddess.12 In
yet another it is being placed in a chest ; 13 while finally it is seen held in
front of what appears to be an already draped girl.14 Naturally one thinks
at once of the Arrephoric maidens of the Parthenos. of the Despoina at
Lykosura, and, amongst many others, of the Hera of Tiryns in the terra-cottas
at Nauplia.15 The robing scenes in other examples must also be connected
with this aspect of the ritual.16
As for the connexion of subject with the Boston reliefs, the most obvious
link is that provided by the appearance of the pomegranate, which to us, as
to both Greeks and Romans, is almost invariably the symbol of the under-
world; so that, whether we connect the Boston relief with Locri or not, we
must connect it with some under-world cult. At Locri itself, on the entablature
of a shrine at some distance from that mentioned below, single pomegranates
are carved in the round midway between the groups of guttae.
As far as the fishes are concerned, they appear frequently on the coins
of South Italy and of Sicily, seldom on those of Greece proper. The whole
scene of the Boston Throne I would bring into relation with the somewhat
baroque west pediment or acroteria from Locri. The present symmetrical
restoration is conjectural, but in any case the largest fragment represents a
youth (usually believed to be one of the Dioscuri) leaping from a horse borne
by a Triton. When we remember that the Dioscuri were, according to some
legends, translated to heaven as morning and evening star, it surely follows
that this part of the scene directly corresponds to the scenes of simple
astronomical symbolism in the Parthenon pediment, on the basis of the
Parthenos, and elsewhere, and shows one of the Dioscuri, who, at the hour
of his setting, leaves the horse on which he has ridden the sky to plunge into
the sea.17 Similarly the boys in the scales of the Boston relief, recalling in
form the young stars of the Blacas vase, may be morning and evening star,
or some stars whose respective appearance and disappearance, like the evening
rising of Arcturus, was the sign for the beginning of certain agricultural
operations and of the corresponding religious rites.18 There could be no
simpler or more satisfying way of indicating the interdependent movement
of the two stars than the exact, inevitable movement of a balance. One
star rises from behind the land-horizon (the under-world, indicated by the
11 Boll. I.e. Fig. 17; Aus. I.e. Fig. 53. bath and raiment formed part of the ritual
12 Boll. I.e. Fig. 6; Aus. I.e. Figs. 47, 48. of many, perhaps originally of most
18 Aus. I.e. Fig. 63. goddesses.
14 Aus. I.e. Figs. 60, 61 and 62. Her " E.g. Aus. I.e. Fig. 62; Boll. I.e. Fig. 45.
companion on the placque has the left breast l7 The metaphor is common (see Hesiod,
bare. That is to say we are looking at a Op. i. 620). Compare the Orion legend,
religious ceremony of robing and disrobing, Pseudo-Eratosthenes, Catast. fr. xxxii. It
analogous to, if not identical with that sug'- is hardly necessary to remark the analogy
gested by the three subjects of the Ludovisi of the general conception with such myths
Throne. as those of the Theseus cycle. In the
18 Casson's theory (J.H.S. xl. 1920, p. Naples group the other horseman was
137), plausible enough in itself, lacks what possibly mounting,
the present argument would if the question 18 Hesiod, Op. i. 565? 598, 610, etc.
of style were entirely omitted. Mystic
LOCRI EPIZEPHYRII AND THE LUDOVISI THRONE 251
[ininrgranate) and looks back to Persephone whom he leaves mourning or
slrrpuiL'; while his brother sinks into the ocean (suggested by its denizen
the fish) to the joyful or awakening Aphrodite. According to some traditions
one of the Dioscuri was young and immortal, while the other was subject
to the power of age and death, and each was allowed to spend one day on
earth and one day in the under-world,
1 Si fralrem Pollux alterna morte redemit,
Itque reditque viam totiens. . . .' 10
That form of the legend would possibly prove suitable to this inter-
pretation of the monuments, but at present the application of these details
can only be tentative, as must also be any attempt to interpret the scenes as
illustrating the doctrines of Pythagoras with regard to the movement and
harmony of the spheres, though these are known to have spread to Locri
from Croton.20 Mr. E. S. G. Robinson has shown me a Locrian bronze coin
of the third century on which Persephone is seated, with a star on either side
of her head ; others on which the Dioscuri appear in their star-crested hats.21
On the terra-cottas from Tarentum the Dioscuri seldom appear unaccompanied
by their starry paterae : the care with which these are introduced, even when
not in use, makes one suspect, even if one cannot prove, some ulterior signifi-
cance : I suggest an astronomical one.22 These paterae, embossed, as often
there, with a single star, occur also on the Locrian terra-cottas.
The connexion between Locri and the Ludovisi and Boston reliefs extends
even to resemblances in the detail of ritual, which may be fortuitous but have
a certain cumulative value. We have a boy playing the lyre, and a girl play-
ing the double flute.23 Of frequent occurrence is a candelabrum or standing
censer, which in some cases at least, with its conical lid, comes near to that
on the Ludovisi Throne ; but it is so common an instrument of ritual elsewhere
that no emphasis can be laid upon it.24 Neither is there any lack of youthful
winged figures such as have caused the parallel between the Boston reliefs
and Attic vases to be remarked.25 It seems strange that archaeologists, in
looking for the place where these two sets of reliefs were originally set up,
should have passed over the claims of Locri and given preference to such places
as Eryx (Lanciani and Petersen), Cyprus (Studniczka), and Kanathos (Casson),
on the ground of certain religious analogies, but with little or no stylistic
" Vergil, Af.n. vi. 1. 121-2. Clement of " Rom. Mitt. xv. 1900, p. 3 sqq. Again
Alexandria, Protrcpt. ii. 30. 5; Find. Nem. there is the relief in the Louvre where the
x. fin. ; Pyth. xi. 60 sqq. De Quincey's Dioscuri descend to the Theoxenia as the
n tVreiice (Opium Eater, p. 78, ed. Macmillan) sun with his chariot rises above them,
to the Dioscuri, as morning and evening Reinach, Reliefs, ii. p. 256, No. 4. We can
.star, Koing up and down like alternate hardly suppose that in all these cases the
buckets (possibly an imaginative re-creation Dioscuri exercise the same functions, or
of the passage of Vergil cited above) is an that they are always identified with the
interesting modern parallel to the simile same stars.
employed by the sculptor of the Boston M Aus. I.e. Fig. 82; cf. Boll. I.e. Fig. 13.
relief.' " Boll. I.e. Figs. 8, 12, 16, 17; Aus. I.e.
-° Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. 56. Figs. 15, 52.
" B.M.C. Italy, p. 368, Nos. 35, 36; " Boll. I.e. Figs. 12, 38; Au«. I.e. Figs,
id. p. 369, No. 40. 41, 42.
252
B. ASHMOLE
support. Locri supplies both. Our information from various sources on its
history and religion shows that it was celebrated for its works of art, and that
it possessed a famous shrine of Persephone, whose cult, much favoured in
Magna Graecia, had another important centre at Syracuse. The Locrian
sanctuary was first desecrated by Pyrrhus, when, if we may believe the legend,
most of the treasure was brought back to the shrine.26 But in 205 B.C.
Scipio's legatus, Q. Pleminius, thoroughly plundered it.27 On the evidence of
the terra-cottas the cult of Persephone, combined with that of other under-
world deities, and possibly with that of Aphrodite,28 was celebrated with
magical rites.
The hypothesis, which cannot be pressed on points of detail without
further research, may be stated as follows : the Ludovisi Throne and its Boston
counterpart, together with the stele from the Esquiline and possibly also the
Albani relief, were all set up, though perhaps not made, at Locri. The stele from
the Esquiline represents a votary of Persephone with the dove sacred to her.
The Albani relief shows Perse-
phone or Demeter enthroned
(with attendant worshippers on
a smaller scale), holding a child,
the identity of whom may be
settled by further discoveries at
Locri or by further study of the
present material.29 Finally, the
Ludovisi Throne and the Boston
reliefs are the product (for
which Orsi was looking) of that
period of Locrian or late Ionic
art analogous to the early period
of Pheidias at Athens, and they
represent scenes of ritual con-
nected with an under- world god-
dess, probably Persephone, whose ceremonial robing was one of the principal
rites.30 That the Ludovisi and Boston reliefs were carried off in Roman
times is clear already from their having been found near each other in Rome
itself, and history gives us the names of Roman connoisseurs whose enthu-
siasm may well have been responsible for their removal31; while if we are
seeking for the actual spot where one or both were originally set up, there
FIG. 2. — SACRED PIT AT LOCRI.
*• Appian Samn. iii. 12; Livy xxix. 18,
etc.
27 Livy xxix. 8, 16-22; Diodorus xxvii.
4, etc.
" Aus. I.e. Fig. 41.
19 It seems doubtful whether we are
right in assuming, as Studniczka inclines
to do, that the small figure who appears
in the basket is Adonis, since in most cases
it has long hair, and in one (Boll. I.e.
Fig. 41), like the child on the Albani relief,
is certainly female.
80 Doubtless the rites must have had a
special application to the fate of the
individual soul : compare Homeric Hymn
to Demeter, 1. 480 sqq.
31 By certain of her officers Rome must
have been filled with works of Greek art
from Sicily and South Italy, few of which
have been identified in modern museums.
LOCRI EPIZEPHYRII AND THE LUDOVISI THRONE 253
are few places more likely than the pit described on page 412 and illustrated
on page 411 of Bollettino d'Arte I.e. (our Fig. 2), which, like the structure
shown on one of the terra-cottas,32 appears to have been the centre of an
important shrine. This last question complete excavation of the site alone
can settle, for although the Ludovisi Throne in its internal measurements is
only -035 m. too small, and the Boston throne -02 m. too large, for the two
opposite sides of this pit (a discrepancy which seems less serious when we
remember, not only the differing measurements of the Ludovisi and Boston
thrones, but the individual irregularities of each), there are difficulties con-
nected with the recessed frame which surrounds the pit, and with the different
slope of the panels which would be adjacent to each other if both monuments
were set up round it. The theory can be tested in no better way than in
the light of all available evidence, notably that collected in the articles which
summarise the results of excavation at Locri. Prof. Orsi's complete publica-
tion is unfortunately not to be expected for some time. To his great kindness
I am indebted for permission to work on unpublished material, to visit his
unfinished excavations, and to study his valuable notes.
BERNARD ASHMOLE.
" Boll. I.e. Fig. 16.
THE EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE
[PLATE XII.]
THE second neolithic period in Eastern Thessaly is sharply severed from
the first by the intrusion of a new culture which appears as something foreign
and alien on the shores of the Pagasean Gulf.1 The pottery, for example,
seems utterly different from that of the first period. The forms belong to a
distinct series and are typologically older. The absence of feet and strap
handles, so well developed in the A wares, precludes us from deriving Dimini
ware from any of the latter.2 The characteristic designs, too, based on the
spiral and the meander, are entirely foreign to the earlier series. Moreover, the
use of fortifications beginning with this pottery (the traces of an earlier wall
at Sesklo are exceedingly problematical3), and restricted to its area, heightens
this impression of foreignness. So too do the ' megaron ' houses of Dimini
and Sesklo, which do not seem to find their explanation in the curvilinear or
square huts of the first period.4
As to the provenance of this culture, the recent declaration of Sir Arthur
Evans, that the origin of the spiral motive in Minoan ceramics is not to be
sought in Crete itself,5 should dispose of the only reason for deriving it from
the south ; for there seems no ground for supposing that the Cycladic spirals
antedate those of Dimini. Indeed I have argued in a previous paper,6 and
my conclusion has been supported by more recent investigations,7 that Thes-
saly II. must be dated well back in the Early Cycladic Period. On the other
hand, the theory of a northern origin has been strengthened by the discovery
of Dimini ware in the Strymon valley.8 Indeed the general analogies between
Dimini ware and the widespread group of painted and incised spiral-meander
pottery north of the Balkans have been long recognised, and elaborate theories
of an invasion, not only of Thessaly, but even of Crete itself, have been built
up thereon.9
1 Wace and Thompson, Prehistoric Thes- 6 J.H.S. xxxv. p. 201.
saly, p. 243. 7 B.S.A. xxii. p. 187. Blegen, Korakou,
2 A progressive degeneration of ceramic p. 123, reports the occurrence of wares of
technique not associated with any breach Thessaly II. below as well as in company
in the tradition is, of course, a common with the oldest Early Helladic sherds at
phenomenon. But this is to be distin- Gonia.
guished from a reversion to a more primitive 8 B.S.A. xxiii. p. 45.
type. • Wilke, Spiral-Maander Keramik und
3 Wace and Thompson, Prehistoric Thes- Gefass-Malerei Hellenen und Thraker ; Ha-
«ahj, p. G4. daczek, La Colonie Industrielle de Koszy-
* Oval near Sesklo, ibid. p. 74 ; square at lowce ; and to some extent Schmidt,
Tsangli, ibid. p. 115. Zeitschr. fur Ethnologic, xliii. p. 601.
6 Palace of Minos, p. 114.
254
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 255
But general analogies between remotely separated ceramic groups as a
basis for invasion hypotheses have become rather discredited of late. How
many pretty theories would fall to the ground, for instance, if we agreed that
the well-known high-footed bowl (Pilzegefass) might well have developed
separately from the fusion of the primitive baseless spheroid bowl with the
originally independent ring support in the widely separated localities where
it is met.10 Indeed by discounting the possibilities of such parallel develop-
ment and taking a few liberties with chronology, it would be possible to derive
almost any ceramic group from any other ; for, in being shaped to meet common
human needs, clay must often take on similar forms. But if we are to establish
a generic relationship between disconnected groups, we must not rely on
casual and isolated resemblances — a foot here and a lug-handle there — and
mere coincidences in ornamental designs. Such a procedure would resemble
that of the pre-scientific philologists who collated individual words instead of
their root forms. Secure inferences to an invasion or cultural movement can
only be based upon a close similarity in technique, parallels between root forms
and correspondence in the ideals and aims of the potters and painters.
On the other hand, Wace and Thompson n seem inclined to minimise
unduly the coincidences between Dimini and what I may call the East European
painted group. What is really surprising is not the differences but the resem-
blances between sherds from Dimini and places so remote as Szipenitz in
Bukowina, Kostowce near Lemburg (Lwow) and Priesterhiigel on the Alt.
No doubt sherds from these respective sites are easily distinguishable — so for
that matter are sherds of red on white ware (A 3 p) from Chaeronea and
Tsangli, for example. But it is not and cannot be here a question of one
ware manufactured at one of the numerous centres of this neolithic culture
and exported to all the rest. Nevertheless, even applying the rigid principles
laid down above, I hope to be able to show that we are justified in speaking
of one ware — or group of wares — as being common to Thessaly and the East
European stations in the same sense as A 3 p is common to Thessaly and
Phocis, or ' primitive glaze-ware ' to the Aegean islands, Tiryns and Orchoraenos,
despite local differences.
Let us take the typical Dimini wares and compare them from the point
of view of technique, form, and ornament with those from the East European
group. For convenience I will group the typical East Thessalian pottery
(B 3 a and B 3 (3) in four categories and trace the affinities of each north of the
Balkans.
(1) Black on red Ware (B 3 a, Style 2). — ' The paint varies from chocolate
to black, and the colour of the polished biscuit to which it is directly applied
from red to yellow-buff.' 12 The same ware is found in the Strymon valley
in Macedonia. This technique certainly recurs in South Russia. Von Stern,
describing the first style of painted ware from Petreny in Bessarabia, says that
' the surface is carefully polished and designs in one colour — black, or violet
10 Cf. Hoernes, Die Formentwicklung der Knnst (2nd ed.), pp. 262 f.
prah. Tongefdsse, Jahrb. f. Alteriiimekunde, ll Prehistoric Thessaly, pp. 2.->7-8.
1911. pp. 2ff. Urgeschichte der bildenden " Ibid. p. 16.
256 V. GORDON CHILDE
brown — applied directly to the surface.13 The latter is generally represented
as orange red in the excellent plates which accompany his report.
Chwoiko does not state whether the vases he discovered in stations of
the Kiev Government are slipped or not. But I have seen unslipped orange-
red ware with designs in black paint from stations of his Culture B. u
At Szipenitz in Bukowina about half the painted sherds are unslipped.
The clay is generally reddish and the surface which is normally highly
polished, varies in colour from deep red to light buff just like Dimini ware.
The designs are in black — generally a warm tone — but are sometimes
enhanced by very thin red lines.
The same technique is met in Transylvania. From Erosd we have a
sherd ornamented with black meanders on a polished red ground.15 But
more usually the interspaces are painted in matt white.
It is not always easy to distinguish this technique from the next category.
(2) Slipped Ware. — ' The white ground is formed by a slip of varying
thickness. The black paint sometimes inclines to a brownish shade. This
category is not always polished.' 16 Actually the surface is rarely dead white.
Usually it is a pale yellow, sometimes greenish and sometimes brownish.
The typical pottery of Petreny exhibits the same technique, which von
Stern thus describes : ' The clay, hard-burnt and varying from red to yellow,
is covered with a slip white, yellow, brown, or reddish. The darker slips are
generally polished, the lighter ones are matt.' 17 The black or violet-brown
paint is in this supplemented, though only rarely, with a few stripes of
thin red.
Again in Chwoiko's Culture B some of the sherds are slipped. In the
examples that I have seen, the slip is buff. The paint is warm black and
the whole is polished.
The pottery from Cucuteni B corresponds remarkably well to the above
quoted description of Dimini ware. The biscuit is pink, but is covered with
a good creamy white slip on which the designs are executed in warm black,
occasionally with auxiliary lines in thin red. The surface is usually polished.
A common ware from Szipenitz on the Pruth also falls within this
category. The biscuit is light red to orange-buff and is covered with a
pale slip. On this surface, which has generally a darkish yellow, almost buff
tint, the designs are painted in black to which a few stripes of thin brownish-
red are occasionally added, and the whole is highly polished. Though the tint
of this pottery is rather darker than the average Dimini sherds and its polish
somewhat higher, the resemblances in texture and technique are surprising.
From Galicia too some examples from the Bernstein collection in the
Ashmolean Museum exhibit a similar technique, but burnish is less common.
As red paint is generally used in addition to black, this material properly
13 Die prdmykeniache Kultur in Sudruss- 1S Mitt. prdh. Comm. Wien, I.e. p. 390,
land, p. 58. fig. 134.
14 Trudy, XI. archeol. S'ezda, p. 769; 16 Wace and Thompson, op. cit.
Izvestia. Imp. Archeol. Kommiasia, xii. 17 L.c.
1904, p. 99.
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 257
belongs to our fourth category. It will be noted that the samples of these
wares from Bessarabia, Bukowina, and Galicia on which red is used as an
auxiliary colour present an almost complete analogy to the Thessalian 687,
which, judging by the shape of the jug figured by Tsountas (Plate XL), belongs
to the eastern group.18
The Thessalian polychrome ware (B 3 (3) also falls into two classes (corre-
sponding to the two classes of monochrome ware) according as the colours are
applied direct to the biscuit or over a light slip.
(3) Two-colour Ware. — The designs are in black and white on a polished
red ground. The black is used mainly to outline the white.
The typical Transylvanian wares are decorated on this principle. On
some sherds from Erosd the design is in white on a red ground and is outlined
in black.19 At Priesterhiigel the designs are in black, the interspaces being
filled up with white so as to give the effect of designs in red outlined with
black on a white ground. Here the red
ground and the black shine with polish, but
the white remains matt and dusty in appear-
ance. Teutch says that the white is also
polished on the sherds from Erosd, but that
the black remains dull. (Fig. 1.)
The same technique is found in Galicia,
where the white is applied sometimes in bands
outlined in black and even used as the ground
for further designs in red or black, or more
rarely it covers the greater part of the sur-
faces, red bands outlined in black being left
reserved. The red surfaces always show a REMINISCENT OF MAEANDER.
good burnish and their rich colour may be
due to a red slip or wash.20 The white is sometimes dull. In these wares
the black is not absolutely restricted to mere outlining, but acquires a certain
independence. At the same time the white is sometimes applied without
an outline of black, as in the rude white spirals .on a jar in the Ashmolean.
Nevertheless, when looked at side by side, sherds of this ware are seen to bear
an extraordinary likeness to sherds of B 3 p.
At Szipenitz a somewhat similar use of polychromy was also found with
spirals in black bordered with white.21
Such polychromy is not found at Petreny.
(4) Three-colour Ware. — The designs are painted in red and outlined with
black on a whitish slip.
This applies also to the polychrome ware described by Chwoiko as coming
from Tripolje and other stations of his ' Culture A ' in the Kiev Government
" Cf. Tuountas, D. and S., PI. LXXVII., M Cf. Hadaozek, op. ci/.. Figs. 59, 74,
with W. and T., PI. I. and 128, and description.
'• Mitt. <l<r jiniltiHt. Comm. d. k. Akad. fl Jahrb. d. k. k. Zrntml-Konimitaion zur
Wien, 1903, p. 390, Fig. 135 and text. Krhaltung u»w.t 1904, p. 22.
258 V. GORDON CHILDE
and to the oldest pottery of Cucuteni. The designs are in reddish-brown on
a light ground and their contours are outlined in black.22
In Galicia too we have examples in which the whole vase-surface is painted
with a heavy white or cream slip on which are drawn bands of red and black.
Though the black is commonly used to outline the red surfaces, this practice
is by no means invariable. In the large vase of Plate XII.6 there is no out-
lining, and the black spirals are applied independently over the red. In
another case (Plate XII.c) we have an unaccompanied white spiral on the red
painted surface. The general effect of this ware is extraordinarily similar to
that of the previous category, and it is only by the closest scrutiny possible to
distinguish whether the characteristic red bands are painted on a light slip
or merely reserved. And both styles may occur on the same vase (Plate Xll.a).
In Thessaly the designs, consisting of spirals, meanders, chequers, and
other combinations of rectilinear and curvilinear figures, cover the whole
surface of the vase thickly. Blocks of painting are preferred to simple lines.
In the East European group the motives are less closely packed, and in the
monochrome wares simple black lines are the rule. In the wares of Culture B
on the Dniepre, of Petreny, Cucuteni II., Szipenitz, and several Galician sites
the ornament is restricted to the upper half of the big vases and the exposed
side of the dishes. Moreover, the motives are rather different from the Thes-
salian. Concentric circles, tangential circles, stars, arcs, branching lines and
simple bands are predominant (Figs. 2 and 7). In fact the true spiral is rare,
and it is only possible to cite a very few good examples among all the sherds
known to me from these numerous sites.23 On the other hand, apart from
the purely linear designs, chiefly on the small cups, the typical motives are
reminiscent of the spiral and presuppose it as their basic principle. In fact
they often give the impression of being the work of artists who are acquainted
with that pattern and are trying to reproduce it, or who have the tradition
of the design but are losing the skill to execute it. The ground principle of
all this decoration is therefore the same as that of Dimini ware — the use of
geometrical designs based on the spiral, and in Transylvania on the meander.
On the other hand, it is interesting to note the recurrence of naturalistic
motives — human and animal figures — at Petreny,24 Rzhishchev near Kiev
(Culture B),25 and Koszylowce in Galicia.26 And at Petreny, just as in the
pottery of Susa,27 we can trace in some cases quite clearly the transformation
of such naturalistic motives into geometrical figures — the jumping dog, for
22 Trudy, XI. arch. S'ezda, p. 805, esp. 2« Von Stern, op. cit., PI. II. 3, IX. 4
par. (4) and Tabl. XXVIII. 1, 2, and 11 and 6 (men), IX. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 (animals),
in colours; cf. Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 25 Zapiski Imp. Arch. Obshchestva Russ.-
p. 139 and Fig. 30. Slav. Otdel., 1904, Tabl. III. 2 and 5.
23 Cf., e. g., for Petreny von Stern, op. 2S Koszylowce, Hadaczek, op. cit. PI.
cit., PI. X. 2 ; Kiev area, Trudy, PI. XXIII. XVIII. 154, XIX. 162, XXI. 188 ft.
1 ; for Galicia, Hoernes, N.K.O. Fig. 255, 27 For a convenient study of analogous
and Hadaczek, No. 115; for Bukowina, transformations in the pottery of Susa, cf.
Jahrb. I.e., Figs. 7 and 10; for Erosd, Spearing, The Childhood of A rt, pp. 258 f.
Mitt. I.e., Fig. 135. etc.
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 259
FIG. 2. — ORNAMENTED DISHES FROM PETRENY. (Scale a, 2 : 3; 6, 1 : 6.)
FIG. 3. — STYLISATION OF ANIMAL MOTIVES AT PETRENY. (Scale 1:3.)
i TYUC AI. DIMINI HOWL, AFTER TSOUNTAS.
260 V. GORDON CHILDE
instance, into an irregular triangle28 (Fig. 3). So the 'signs' occupying
vacant fields on the black painted vases of Culture B which Chwoiko took for
hieroglyphics are almost certainly remnants of such animal designs.29
From Thessaly we know unfortunately only three or four certain shapes in
Dimini ware — the deep bowl (Fig. 4), a jug with a conical neck,30 the fruit-stand,31
and a small cup.32 On the other hand, the East European wares, while pre-
senting a remarkable wealth of shapes, are closely bound together by the
recurrence at every site of certain highly characteristic types. These are the
' binocular vase ' or stand,33 bulging jars with angular profiles and small
bases,34 saucers or bowls with small bases,35 and small cups narrowing to a
conical base 36 (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8). It is important to note that at Koszylowce in
Galicia these last develop genuine handles and assume a shape showing close
analogies with the ' Nordic ' ceramic of Bohemia. In one case we even find
the ansa lunata characteristic of the latter group.37 Except for the dishes none
of these forms can be directly paralleled in Dimini ware, and even these exhibit
considerable divergences. At Petreny, for instance, they are normally only
ornamented on the inside. Here we find, however, another hemispherical
type provided with pierced knobs on the outer surface, and hence evidently
intended for suspension, on which the decoration is applied to the outer surface.38
In Galicia both sides are painted.
Now, without ignoring the differences, it is essential to realise that the
architectonic type of this whole series of dishes — the inverted cone — is the
same as that of the Dimini bowl. It is not, therefore, surprising that in
individual cases their form almost coincides with that of the latter — e. g. in the
example from Cucuteni, the last quoted form from Szipenitz, etc. (Fig. 9). More-
over, the big bulging vases which are so characteristic for the East European
group, have, in common with the dishes and bowls, the inverted cone as their
structural principle. Cut them off at the shoulder and you have the cone-
shaped dish left as the base. An examination of some of the intermediate
types from Bessarabia or Galicia 39 will show how very close this relation is
(Fig. 10). Hence we are justified in saying that the typical forms in Dimini
ware and in the East European painted wares go back to the same ground type.
28 E.g. von Stern, op. cit. Plate XII. 4 (Szipenitz), ibid. 1905, p. 114, Figs. 253
and 5. and 254 (Bilcze Zlota); Hadaczek, xv.
2» Zapiaki Imp. Odeaak. Obahcheatva 123, 124, and 128 (Kosz.), Zeitachr. /. Eth.
Istor. i Drevnos. xxiii. p. 199. The second xliii. Fig. 3, No. 2 (Cucuteni).
sign in the middle row on the plate there is 3S Von Stern, PI. VI., 10, 11, etc., Jahrb.
plainly the same as some of von Stern's 1903, p. 103, Figs. 101 and 103; Hadaczek,
animals. viii. 51, ix. 59, etc., Zeitechr. I.e. Fig. 3,
30 W. and T., PL I. No. 2, etc.
ai Tsountas, D. and S., PI. X. »• Von Stern, PI. IV. 8, etc., Jahrb.
38 Ibid. PI. XXI. No. 3. 1904, I.e. Figs. 46 and 47; Hadaczek,
83 Trudy.l.c. Tabl. XXVIII. 9 and 11, xiii. 105, etc.
XXVI. 21, Jahrb. k. k. Zentral-Komm., 37 Hadaczek, xiii. 116 and 119. The
1903, Figs. 106 ff., 1904, p. 26, Fig. 22 'Nordic' ware is in the National Museum
(Szipenitz); Hadaczek, I.e. xix. 168. at Prague.
14 Trudy, I.e. Tabl. XXVIII (Kiev A); " Von Stern, PI. VI., 9.
von Stern, op. cit., Pis. X. 8, XII. 3, etc. s» E.g. Hadaczek, x. 74; Von Stern,
(Petreny), Jahrb. 1904, p. 43, Fig. 45 ibid. ; cf. his remarks on p. 68.
EAST EUROPEAN HKLAIIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 261
FIG. §, — CUPS WITH CONICAL BASES KKOM PETRENY. (Scale 1:2.)
FIG. 6. — CUP WITH CONICAL BASE FROM KOSTOWCE.
ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. (Scale 3 : 10.)
I'n . 7. — LARGE URN WITH CONICAL li\-,: . I«-M I'KTKCNY. (Scale 1 : 8.)
J.II.s. — VOL. XLTI. S
262 V. GORDON CHILDE
Wace and Thompson have already pointed out the similarity between
the ' fmit-stands ' of Cucuteni and those of Thessaly,40 and the so-called
' Binocular vases ' have long been regarded as a peculiar development of the
same series.41
In the light of such fundamental analogies, a comparison between the
small shoulder-handles occasionally met in Dimini ware and similar handles
from Petreny, Koszylowce, etc. (Fig. II),42 and between the modelled human
and animal heads on the rims of bowls from Dimini and Sesklo and similar
modelling on vessels from the Kiev Government becomes significant.43
The foregoing comparison of Dimini ware and the East European painted
pottery has revealed that the same technique is common to both groups, that
their characteristic ornaments go back to a common range of stylistic motives,
and that the typical shapes in each are based upon a common ground type.
When we proceed to compare other aspects of the cultures associated with
this pottery, we discover a still further range of correspondences. But before
developing this point, attention must be drawn to a very serious difficulty
that confronts the student of the East European culture.
All the evidence indicates that it had a very long duration, and accordingly
the variations which it presents may be due not only to local causes, but also
to temporal differences. Yet we have so far in the whole range of this culture
only one stratigraphical record — that of Cucuteni — to guide us. Szipenitz
seems to have been a deep deposit, but the stratification is not recorded. At
Koszylowce, Hadaczek expressly states 44 that the material was ' monoform '
throughout. On the Dniepr, however, Chwoiko has divided his sites into
two groups which he calls Cultures A and B. From the former come the
polychrome vases, the jars with incised spirals and the binocular stands. In
this group the ornament generally is applied to the whole surface of the vase,
but in Culture B it is confined to the upper part. Moreover, in the latter only
black is used, the designs are linear instead of block, and the patterns on
incised ware are much poorer. On the other hand, the best figurines, the
painted men and animals, and the vases with modelled heads belong to Culture
B. Now no objects of metal and no bored celts have been found in association
with Culture B, while sites of Culture A have yielded celts and axes of pure
copper and bored celts. Chwoiko accordingly considers that Culture A comes
later in time than Culture 'B, the area of the two being almost identical.45
And it is just here that the crux of the problem comes. At Cucuteni the
polychrome vases which we should naturally correlate with those of Chwoiko' s
Culture A, come from the lower, purely neolithic stratum. Objects of copper
occur only in the upper levels associated with monochrome pottery in which
the linear designs in black are restricted to the upper parts of the vessel.46
40 Op. cit. p. 257. « Cf. esp. Tsountas, PI. XXIII. 3, and
41 Hoernes, N.K.O. p. 120. A com- Trudy, Tabl. XXIV. 10.
parison between Chwoiko's double and 44 Op. cit. p. 4.
single stands, Trudy, Tabl. XXVI. 20 and 4& Chwoiko in Trudy, I.e. pp. 805 ff. ; c/.
21, will illustrate this point. Minns, op. cit. pp. 139 &.
42 Cf. W. and T., PI. I., with von Stern, ii. 4« Schmidt, Zeitachr. Jiir Ethnol., xliii.
1. xii. 11, etc. ; and Hadaczek, xvii. 147, etc. pp. 594 f.
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 263
Fio. 8. — LARGE UKN WITH CONICAL BASE : CULTURE A ON THE DNIEPR.
FIG. 9. — DIAGRAMS SHOWING DEVELOPMENT OF CONICAL BOWLS FROM SZIPENITZ.
(a) (6)
FIG. 10. — CONICAL BOWL AND INTERMEDIATE FORM FROM PETRENY. (Scale 1 : 2.)
Fio. 11. — HANDLE-BUILDING ON AN URN FROM PETRENY. (Scale 1 : 3.)
S2
264 V. GORDON CHILDE
And it is this later ware which Wace and Thompson assert 47 shows the closest
resemblances to the ceramic of Petreny. The latter in its turn obviously
connects on with Chwoiko's Culture B both in pottery and in being purely
Stone Age. So the attempt to find a chronological arrangement for the East
European culture lands us at once in a contradiction.
But with the reservation that the Eastern European culture must not be
regarded as a point in time, that culture presents a tolerably homogeneous
aspect which agrees in essential points with that of Eastern Thessaly in the
Second Period.
In all the East European stations, as at Dimini and Sesklo, nude female
figurines occur. This is a phenomenon that they share with the wider area of
the so-called Bandkeramik48 pottery further west, and with the earlier epoch
in Thessaly, not to mention any further distribution of such objects. But in
contrast to the figurines of Butmir,49 Jablonitza,50 Znaim (Znojmo),51 etc.,
and Thessaly I.,52 those we are now considering are relatively flat. In par-
ticular the careful modelling of the head distinctive of the Servian, Bosnian,
and Moravian idols as of the earlier class in Thessaly is never found. On the
other hand, steatopygy is generally indicated though not very pronounced.53
In East Europe the arms are either folded on the breast or represented as
extended by rude stumps which, in extreme cases, give rise to a shapeless
cruciform object. The East European figures are generally pierced with
string-holes for suspension, a practice which is paralleled in Thessaly.54 In
some cases the body is covered with incised 55 or painted patterns. In decora-
tion, some of the painted figurines from Rzhishchev near Kiev (Culture B)
(Fig. 12, a, 6) present a surprising likeness to the seated idol from Sesklo 56 — •
note especially the spiroidal pattern over the genitals — while two sitting women
with arms folded on the breasts from the same culture recall the Sesklo form 57
(Fig. 13).
In addition to the human figurines, we possess a remarkable series of
47 Op. cit. p. 257. which is convenient and familiar and which
48 The original contrast between orna- has at least a precise denotation,
mentation with solid running designs or 49 Die neolith. Station von Butmir, PI.
ribbons and simple single lines such as the II.
impress of a string which formed the original 50 Hoernes, N.K.O. Fig. 83.
basis of the division into Bandkeramik, &1 Palliardi in Mitt. d. prdh. Comm.
Schnurkeramik, etc., is regarded by Hoernes, Wien, 1897, PL IV.
whom I am in general following, as less 52 Tsountas, op. cit. PL XXXII. 1.
significant than that between designs 53 E. g. Hoernes, Lea premieres Cera-
which run continuously round the vase tniques en Europe central, Figs. 18 f.
surface — constituting a sort of band — and 54 With Tsountas, PL XXXV. 2, c/. von
those which divide up the surface as it Stern, PL VI. 16, Jahrb. der k. k. Z. Kom.
were into metopes. Actually the two 1904, p. 23, ibid. 1905; Hoernes, Fig. 269,
classifications largely coincide, but there Trudy, Tabl. XXII. 1, etc.
is naturally a tendency to modify the 5S Hoernes, P.C. I.e.
meaning of Band under the influence of 5B Zapiaki Imp. Buss. Arch. Obahchestva,
the newer division. In his latest work 1904, Tabl. I. 3 and 5; c/. Tsountas, PL
Hoernes therefore occasionally uses the XXXI. 2.
word quite in the\ sense of the English 6? Trudy, Tabl. XXII. 3 and 7 ; c/.
' band.' With thiJ proviso I feel justi- Minns, Fig. 33.
fied in retaining' Bandkeramik — a term
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 265
models of domestic animals — principally cattle — from Petreny,88 Szipenitz,
Koszylowce,69 Priesterhiigel M and other stations which we may compare
with the animal figures from Dimini and Sesklo.81
Fio. 12. — EAST EUROPEAN FIGURINES :
a, b, d FROM RZHISHCHEV, C FROM PfiTRENY.
Fio. 13. — SEATED KOUSOTROPBOS MODEL FROM SESKLO.
Stone implements are very rare in the East European group and generally
very roughly fashioned. This circumstance is to be explained, as far as South
•• Von Stern, PI. VI. 13, 14, 18. p. 370.
" Hadaczek, Pis. XXXI and XXXII. " Tsountas, op. cit. Pis. XXXIV. Nos.
M Mitt, der prdh. Comm. 1903 Fig. 16, 10 and 11, XXXVI. No. 8.
266 V. GORDON CHILDE
Russia is concerned at any rate, by the lack of suitable materials in the alluvial
area. As far as can be judged, a flat celt resembling Tsountas' type B was
the rule. The occurrence of obsidian at Petreny and Priesterhiigel is note-
worthy. This was probably derived from the Tokay region in Hungary, and
the extension of the culture across the Carpathians along the valley of the
Alt is probably to be explained by the obsidian traffic. The general paucity
in stone implements is counterbalanced by the exceptional superabundance
of artifacts — needles, borers, fish-hooks, hammers, axes, etc. — in horn and
bone which astonishes us in all the sites of the East European culture. The
same peculiarity is noticeable at Dimini and Sesklo. Finally, as has been
remarked, axes and celts of copper have been found in stations of Culture A
along the Dniepre and in the upper stratum at Cucuteni, while a borer and
ring of the same material was found by a hearth at Priesterhiigel,62 and metal
objects also occur in Galicia.63 This indicates that the East European painted
pottery lasts on into the transitional period. The presence of moulds in the
stations of the Kiev Government proves that metal working was practised
locally there. The similarity between the very curious copper axes from Tri-
polje and some in stone from Hissarlik M suggests that the knowledge of
metallurgy came from Troy. But the copper celts are mostly of a quite early
form, following closely stone prototypes.65 Thus they recall the two copper
celts found by Tsountas 66 at Sesklo by the walls of a neolithic house, and
make us wonder whether the latter do not, in fact, belong to the context in
which they were actually found. In that case they would constitute a further
and strong link in the chain that unites the latter culture with that of East
Europe.
The importance of the fortifications of Dimini in distinguishing the charac-
teristic culture of that site from the earlier civilisation of North Greece has
already been remarked. Hence it is all the more significant that Cucuteni
was also defended by a wall even in the first period. Traces of a wall have also
been observed at Erosd.67 The other sites of this culture too are generally
on hills, though walls have not been distinguished.
Turning to architecture, we have evidence in some cases at least of rectan-
gular oblong huts froofed with wattle-and-daub. The so-called ' areas '-
ploshchadki — of von Stem and Chwoiko were built on this plan. But both
these investigators assert 68 that these constructions were not designed as
habitations for the living but as repositories for the ashes of the dead. They
seem to base their contention chiefly on the followinglpoints : the absence of
kitchen refuse and hearths, the occurrence of what Chwoiko calls pyramids
of stone and pedestals of clay, often painted, the'arrangement of the areas in
rough circles with larger areas at their centres, the polishing and painting with
42 Mitt, der yprah. Comm. 1903, p. 366. 68 Tsountas, op. cit. p. 352 and Figs. 292
63 Hadaczek, p. 4. and 293.
64 Cf. Trudy, I.e. PL XXI. 11 and «7 Mitt. prdh. Comm. 1903, p. 387.
Schliemann'e Sammlunf(, No. 7196. «8 Chwoiko, Trudy, pp. 808 f., Zap. Imp.
65 Trudy, Tabl. XXI. :> and 10, and Russ. Arch. Obahchestva, 1904, p. Iff.;
Schmidt, I.e. Fig. 14. von Stern, op. cit., esp. pp. 54 f. and 71 ff.
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE 1)1 MINI CULTURE 267
ochre of the hut walls, and the careful arrangement of the vases within the
structures.
No human bone remains were found at Petreny, but Chwoiko records the
discovery at Veremje, Tripolje, and Shcherbanevka of bits of human bones.
Twice these remains are stated to have been in vases,69 but in other cases they
lay outside the areas. The complete skeletons, buried in the contracted
position, found near Veremje and Chalepje, like those discovered later near
Kanontsa over hut dwellings,70 are definitely said to be due to later interments
which had disturbed the original culture stratum. These burials belong to
the series of ' coloured skeletons ' which are met with from the Caucasus to
the Dniepr,71 and which are accordingly dated to a period subsequent to that
of the painted pottery.72 It is impossible within the limits of this article to
review this whole question. Minns accepts the theory of von Stern and
Chwoiko as to the cremation burials in the areas, but a careful study of the
evidence adduced by these authors in the Trudy has not convinced me of the
existence of the unparalleled practice of depositing cinerary urns in such
elaborate houses.73 Hadaczek, too, absolutely rejects the cremation hypo-
thesis.74 On that point I recommend a suspension of judgment. But whether
the areas were actually designed as habitations of the dead or of the living,
all analogies would justify the assumption that they preserved in their
rectangular form the house-type of the living.
This inference of a rectangular house-type is confirmed by the huts of
admitted settlements at Rzhishchev and elsewhere. These habitations were
also oblong rectangles scooped out of the ground to a depth of, on an average,
less than half a metre, and roofed over with a structure of wattle and daub.
Within the rectangle and sometimes extending outside it was a deeper excava-
tion or bothros — often 1-50 m. deep. The latter, which were rectangular or
oval in outline, invariably contained an ' oven ' or a ' hearth,' sometimes two,
and were filled with a deep layer of shells, fish and animal bones, and other
kitchen refuse mixed up with the debris of the roof, showing traces of the
original supporting poles in the burnt mud-plaster. The area of the hut
proper varied from 3-20 m. by 2-70 m. to 6-30 m. by 3-40 m., and of the bothros
from 1-90 m. by 1-30 m. in the first case to 2-70 m. by 2-20 m. in the larger,
in which the greater part of the bothros projected at right angles to the long side
of the hut. ' The first and much higher part ' of these structures, writes
•• Trudy, pp. 779 and 794. \\cll as remains of various grains. On the
70 Zap. I. R. A. Obstich. I.e., pp. 20-3. other hand, the areas do seem in some OMM
71 Ibid., Trudy, 776 and 786. too large for ordinary houses, varying in
'•- Minns, op. cit. p. 142. size from 5J m. by 4 m. (Tripolje) to 18 m.
7* One of the so-called pyramids may by 12 m. (Zhukovtsy, area 2). Minns,
be seen in Minns, Fig. 28, top row, and a however, mentions later and more con-
pcdcstal in Fig. 31, top. Plenty of bones elusive evidence not yet published. Still
of horses and other animals were, in fact, Ailio's recently published criticism should
found in the areas (Trudy, pp. 754-6, finally dispose of the cremation theory
T^o-4, 794 f., etc., von Stern, p. 52) some- (Fraqen der ruts. Steinzeit, pp. 91/.).
times partially burnt — von Stern explains 74 Op. cit. p. 7.
them as burnt-offerings to the ghost — aa
268 V. GORDON CHILDE
Chwoiko,76 ' served as the living-room; the lower part was destined for the
preparation of food.' Szombathy clearly detected the rectangular plan of
similar wattle-and-daub huts, sometimes also provided with bothroi, at Szi-
penitz,76 and a similar type may be inferred for Erosd.77 Hence, without
prejudice to the cremation question, we may say that an oblong house some-
what elaborately built of wattle-and-daub, was the prevailing type in the
East European area, and compare it to the oblong rectangular ' megara '
of Dimini and Sesklo.
Finally, the neolithic inhabitants of Eastern Europe were not only agri-
culturists but also cultivated the domestic animals. The importance of cattle
is indicated by the figurines already mentioned. The bones from Petreny
and a complete skull from Szipenitz point to the bos primigenius.18 Other
bones include the sheep, probably the moufflon,79 the goat, the pig (sus scrofa) 80
and the dog. At all sites in the Kiev Government horse bones were very
common, and Hadaczek recognises the same animal among the figurines from
Koszylowce.81
On the whole, then, the general level of material culture revealed by the
excavations in East Europe agrees with the pottery evidence, and coincides
remarkably with that brought to light in Eastern Thessaly.
Now with the painted wares at Dimini, Sesklo, Rakhmani, and perhaps
Phthiotic Thebes, goes a certain amount of incised ware decorated with the
same designs of spirals and meanders. This material shows considerable
resemblance to the wide group of the incised spiral-meander pottery found in
Servia, Bosnia, Italy and elsewhere. Hence the question of the origin of
Dimini ware is complicated by the intrusion of a rival to the East European
group in the claim to its parentage. This at once opens the whole question of
the relation of the Thessalian wares on the one hand, and the East European
pottery on the other, to the widespread series of the Bandkeramik of which
Butmir is generally regarded as typical.
And we must at once admit that in design the wares from Butmir show
the most striking analogies to the characteristic Dimini patterns. In fact it
is there rather than in any station with painted pottery that the most exact
parallels to those designs occur. It is here, for example, that we meet just
those solid spirals and meanders, those chess-board patterns, and that alterna-
tion of geometrical designs,82 that are most distinctive of Dimini ware. It is,
moreover, also possible to parallel the Dimini forms with individual instances
at Butmir,83 and the poor statuettes from Thessaly are comparable to isolated
examples from the Bosnian site.84
75 Zapiski, I.e. p. 24. In construction 80 Ibid.
the neolithic huts of Grossgartach provide 81 Hadaczek, p. 7.
a close parallel. Cf. Dechelette, Manuel 82 E. g., Die neol. Station von Butmir,
d'Archtologie, Vol. I. p. 360. PI. VIII. 12 and 15 (solid designs), XII.
78 Jahrb. der. k. k. Z. Komm. 1903, 15 (chequers), XII. 15 and 16, and Hoernes,
P- 102. N.K.O. Figs. 11 and 13 (alternation of
7 Mitt. prah. Comm. Wien, 1903, p. 387. designs).
78 Von Stern, op. cit. p. 78. 83 Butmir, PI. VII. 9 (dish).
7» Ibid. p. 77, Mitt., I.e., etc. 8« Ibid. PI. III. 8, 1, and 13.
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIM I XI CULTURE 269
But these parallels are not based on root-forms and do violence to the
stratigraphical sequence of the Butmir material. The basic shape for the
Bandkeramik at Butmir and elsewhere is the spheroid bowl (Bombentopf).8*
This sometimes developed a foot 8* or even feet,87 but it did not flatten its
base and take on the angular conical outline which is fundamental in the
Dirnini bowl, save in isolated and probably late — because unornamented —
instances.88 Similarly, as noted above, the typical figurines from Servia 89
and Butmir *° are marked by very excellent modelling, and it is these which
come from the lower strata where the ornamented pottery is found. The
figurines of Thessaly II. are crudely executed, and the isolated parallels from
Butmir presumably come from a horizon later than that of the good wares
that are comparable with Dimini.91 Furthermore, though red sherds do
occur, the Butmir and allied wares seem to aim at what Myres calls a black-
faced technique,92 those of Thessaly as well as the whole East European series
at a red. Again, the careful study by Wace and Thompson of the stratification
at Rakhmani reveals that the incised ware begins after and not before the
painted ware.93 That would suggest that the incised patterns of B 2 imitate
the designs of B 3 a, not vice versa. The designs do, in fact, create rather
this impression, and some of the forms seem typologically later than those of
the painted variety.94
Finally, tracing Dimini ware northward, it is in the east of Macedonia, not
on the route to Serbia, that it recurs.95 And further north and east we meet
connexions in the chalcolithic stations of Eastern Bulgaria whose characteristic
pottery shows affinities rather with Dimini on the one hand and South Russia
on the other than with more western sites such as Vinfca or Butmir. Certainly
the early culture of Eastern Bulgaria is highly specialised, so that an adequate
discussion of it would be out of place here. I may, however, mention that,
among the sherds from the excavations of MM. Seure and Degrand 96 at Tell
Ratcheff on the Toundja and Tell Metchkur on the Maritza near Philippopolis,
which I have been enabled to examine by the courtesy of the conservators of
the Museum of St. Germain-en-Laye, is a considerable quantity of red ware,
derived apparently from the lower strata, ornamented with curvilinear motives,
spirals,97 and rudimentary meanders 98 in dull white paint, closely resembling
in technique as in design the first category of Dimini ware. Moreover, a close
examination of the sherds seems to prove that, according to the firing, this
•* Hoernes, N.K.O. pp. 9 f. t'f. Butmir, •* J.A.I, xxxiii. pp. 367 f.
PI. II. 21, etc. M Op. cit. p. 37.
•• E. g., Butmir, VI. 3. •« Ibid. Fig. 9, p. 30.
«7 Ibid. VII. 7. »s B.S.A. xxiii. p. 45. I can find no
M Ibid. VII. 9. evidence for the statement there made
•• B.S.A. xiv. p. 3 and Fig. 3. that similar wares were found further west.
•° Butmir, I. 1, 3 and 5, II. 1 and 2. The sherds from the Vardar all seem utterly
•l Hoernes, N.K.O. , calls attention to the different from the black-on-red Dimini
progressive degeneration of the ceramics ware from Bereketli now in the Ashmolean.
of Butmir, p. 12. The analogies quoted •* B.C.H. 1906, pp. 365 ff., and Revue.
by Tsountas, op. cit. pp. 371 ff., are between Archdologique, 1901, pp. 328 ff.
his third period and the rougher Butmir »7 B.C.H. I.e. Fig. 36.
wares. •• Ibid. Fig. 64, wrongly described as grvy.
270 V. GORDON CHILDE
style passes over into a black-on-brown style which in turn may give place
to a silver-grey-on-black like the second style distinguished by Welch and
Blegen from East Macedonia " ; for on one badly burnt fragment all three
styles occur together, and the appearance of two on the same sherd is common.
A glance at the most frequently recurring Bulgarian forms 10° will suffice
to show their derivation from the inverted cone type characteristic of the
East European series, while typological affinities with more specialised shapes
both in Eastern Thessaly and South Russia are not lacking.101 Equally striking
is the complete absence of the distinguishing marks of the Butmir series.
Thus there are no sherds with pointille ribbon spirals or pedestalled cups such
as characterise the bothros stratum of VinSa,102 and figurines with well-modelled
heads are likewise missing.
So, without here going deeper into the details of the East Bulgarian
documents, or in any way minimising their marked peculiarities — peculiarities
which betoken an individual and probably later local development of civilisation
in this area — the above summary will, I hope, justify the assertion that the
link between the Pagasean Gulf and the interior of our continent lies to the
east of the Balkans and quite outside the province of the Butmir series. That
is, Eastern Thessaly belongs to a cultural province which lies definitely east
of the Balkans as of the Carpathians.
But that does not absolve us from a consideration of the relations between
the painted pottery group as a whole — and including Eastern Thessaly — with
the wider group of the Bandkeramik ; for it is customary to treat the painted
wares as a mere subdivision of the latter. Now a series of wares with incised
bands of spirals and allied motives is found over a wide area of Central Europe
with a somewhat indefinite extension westward and northward. For example,
apparently typical sherds are shown from a Bronze Age context in the Vibrata
Valley of Italy.103 The characteristic spheroid bowls with incised spiral motives
occur in the lowest strata in Moravia,104 Bohemia,10^ and West Germany.106
Similar designs constantly recur in Hungary, and the neolithic wares of
Lengyel are generally assigned to this group.107
Now at several sites within the ambit of these wares, painted pottery
sometimes with spirals does occur — i. e. at Tordos, Lengyel, Znaim (Znojmo)
and several other points in Moravia and Lower Austria.108 At the first-named
site we do meet a ware, polished and, sometimes at least, slipped, painted with
spirals and other designs in a dull black or red which, judging from Schmidt's
description,109 must belong to our East European group. But the quantity
' " B.S.A. xxiii. p. 44. Steinzeit in Mahren, Wiener prdhist.
100 Rev. Arch. I.e. Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 7. Zeitachrijt, 1914, p. 10, Figs. 8 and 9.
101 Cf., e.g., Rev. Arch. Fig. 18 with 105 Hoernes, N.K.O. Figs. 189-91.
Tsountas, op. cit. PI. XXX. and ibid. 10« Ibid. Fig. 216.
Fig. 4 with Trudy, I.e. PI. XXVIII. 77. 107 Ibid. p. 13.
102 B.S.A. xiv. pp. 319 ff. and Fig. 8. 108 It is convenient to use the words in
103 Peet, Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy, the sense which they had prior to 1919.
p. 401, and Fig. 209. Cf. also Hoernes, 10» Zeitsch. fur Ethnol. 1903, p. 448, and
Urgeschichte, p. 399. Figs. 26-30. (There is one sherd in the
101 Palliardi, Die rel. Chronologic der Jung. Ashmolean Museum.)
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 271
picked up was small, only the profiles are recognisable, and the position of
the sherds in a deeply stratified site is not recorded. Hence while we may
be sure of some sort of extension of the East European culture as far as the
valley of the Maros,110 it throws no light on the relation of that culture to that
of the more western area.
At Lengyel, again, the painted sherds are in a minority, and their technique
— red or brown on red and red, yellow, or grey on black nl — is very far removed
from the standard among the East European wares. However, the form of
the fruit-stand and its spiral ornamentation are reminiscent of that group.112
Moreover, the position of Lengyel within the Bandkeramik is somewhat dubious.
Incised bands are entirely absent, but several of the vase forms connect on
with Butmir on the one hand 113 and Znaim on the other.114 Since pearls of
copper were found in one grave, this station would seem to belong to a relatively
late stage in th'is series. Moreover, the fortifications, presenting interesting
analogies to Erosd, Cucuteni, and Dimini, would point to the late neolithic
epoch.115
Fortunately we are better informed about the painted pottery of Moravia
and Lower Austria. Palliardi rie has grouped this material into three chrono-
logically consecutive classes. The oldest group, which occurs in connexion
with the later style of the incised Bandkeramik called Stichbandkeramik, is
characterised by designs in red or red and yellow on a black, grey, or dark
brown ground, generally polished. The colours are easily washed off and the
yellow in shade and texture resembles a slip. Spirals and meanders occur
among the patterns.117 This was the characteristic ware of the settlement at
Znaim Neustift, and the sherds were in the private collection of the discoverer ;
their fate since his lamented death is dubious. But from the full account of
the material given by the excavator it seems clear that here we have to do with
a technique fundamentally different from that prevailing in Eastern Europe.
In the second class we meet a white-on-red style, and also red paint on
a light ground. The'designs in the former are mainly simple lines, always,
however, strongly reminiscent of wicker-work. The sherds from Raigern in
the Natural History Museum at Vienna exhibit designs in red made by covering
the original red surface with a dusty white paint and then scratching a linear
pattern thereon so that the red ground shows through.118 In the alternative
category we sometimes meet patterns reminiscent of the meander, as on some
fragments from Gross Weikersdorf,119 but the red is very dull and matt and
110 Geographically the passage from the 11S Hoernes, I.e. p. 14.
valley of the Alt to that of the Maros would 114 Ibid. p. 81 ; the comparison between
offer no obstacles, and the traffic in Hun- the ladles pierced horizontally, Fig. 208,
garian obsidian may have followed this and the square vases with four holes, Figs,
route like the railways from Buda-Pest to 22 and 212, are . striking.
Kronstadt (Brasso). 11S Vide Hoernes, I.e. p. 33.
111 Wosinski, Die prdhiatorische Scftanz- llt Relative C'hronologie, pp. 9 f.
ii-irk von Lengyel, Vol. III. and von Stern, 117 Mitt, prdli. Conun. H'ien, 1897, 243,
op. cit. p. 7.">. and PI. IV., esp. No. 11.
u» The most accessible illustration is in ll* Ibid. p. 248 and PI. V. 7.
Hoernes, 2V./C.O. Fig. 18, but Wosinsky gives "• Ibid. PI. V. 6. The sherds are at
twocolour pliiir- in Tulnnvarmegye Tortenete, Vienna.
I. p. 134, Pis. \\XIV. and XXX \
272
V. GORDON CHILDE
the ware is unslipped. Neither of these techniques belong to East Europe,
though they show analogies with Lengyel.
In the latest class of painted fabrics we find only bands, arcs, and meanders
in thin white on a dark clay ground sometimes polished with graphite. The
discovery of a copper ring in association with this pottery at Strelice II.120
links it on to the borders of the ' late neolithic ' or chalcolithic epoch, in which
pottery resembling the lake-dwelling types, Hoernes' ' tectonic style,' comes in.
Possibly the Bohemian painted pottery belongs here. There are found vessels
with incised designs of spirals and ribbons of points (Stichbande) which have
been subsequently adorned with painted spirals, apparently in grey and black.
The biscuit is a dark ash colour. The usual form is the spheroidal bowl
belonging to the earlier phases of the peripherally ornamented pottery,121 and
would indicate an early date.
(a) (6)
FIG. 14. — INCISED POTTERY FROM THE DNIEPR REGION : a, CULTURE B ; b, CULTURE A.
Now it is clear that none of these wares belong to the East European
series ; but we have not dealt with them at such length simply to reject them ;
for there are, in fact, many points of resemblance between the Moravian finds
in particular and those of Priesterhiigel. There, for instance, beside the
typical polychrome ware, we find sherds with designs in black and yellowish-
white on a grey clay, and more simple white lines on a polished black or grey
surface.122 Again, both at Znaim and Priesterhiigel, we find peculiar steato-
pygeous figurines, modelled separately in two longitudinal sections which are
subsequently put together.123 All this points unmistakably to some sort of
contact between Transylvania and Moravia. But Priesterhiigel was a deeply
10 Palliardi, Rel. Chronologic, p. 11.
m Cf. Jira, Mannua, iii. pp. 238 ff. and
plates. This excavator mentions the
presence of a red colour on the sherds, but
other Czech archaeologists deny this, and
I certainly could detect no trace of it on
the examples in the National Museum at
Prague.
122 Mitt. Anthrop. Gesett. Wien, xxx
PI. VI. 13, and Mitt. prah. Comm. Wien,
1903, Figs. 80-4.
128 Hoernes, N.K.O. p. 81.
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 273
stratified site, and the only indication of sequence is the statement of Teutch,
that the painted wares and the best figurines came from the lower layers, the
pottery subsequently showing a progressive degeneration as at Butmir.124 Such
a site, therefore, does not provide reliable data for fixing the relations between
the eastern and western painted groups. Though it occupies in more senses
than one an eccentric position in the East European group, the inspiration of
its red pottery seems so strongly to derive from the latter that it is hardly
likely that we shall find here or in this district a centre where that pottery
was differentiated from the western and from which the new style radiated.
On the other hand, the quite primitive context of the Moravian and Bohemian
painted fabrics make the converse yet more improbable.
Turning now to the East European culture, it is equally difficult there to
find any fixed and secure points of contact with the west. A good deal of
incised pottery more or less reminiscent of the Butmir material, but without
the typical poinlille ribbons, has been found with the painted wares. In the
Kiev Government this was actually in the majority. Some of the big bowls
Fio. 15. — SINGLE AND DOUBLE STANDS FROM CULTURE A ON THE DNIEPR.
from Chwoiko's Culture A do resemble rather closely similar pear-shaped jars
from Butmir.125 But Culture A is to be regarded as a later development of
Culture B, and in the,latter the resemblances are much fainter (Fig. 14). The
incised decoration shows no relation to that of Butmir,126 but its simple patterns
preserve reminiscences of naturalism. On the contrary, as Hoernes has himself
forecasted,127 the East European pottery as a whole shows closer affinities with
his tectonic style (Rahmenstil), which in Central Europe succeeds the peripheral
style of Butmir, Bohemia, and Germany, and is associated with the cultural
modifications accompanying the beginning of the chalcolithic stage. Thus
in the wares of Petreny and Priesterhiigel, we have, as already remarked,
traces of that dissolution of the spiral into concentric circles, circles united by
tangential bands, those stars, crosses in circles, and toothed lines which this
eminent authority has described as distinctive of the tectonic style.128 The
progress in handle-building, especially in the extreme case cited from Galicia,
points in the same direction.129 So, too, do the pastoral habits of the East
Europeans and their preference for hill sites sometimes walled ; for the users
"« Mitt. I.e. »" Vrgeachichte, p. 306.
»• Cf. Trudy, I.e. Tabl. XXVI. 31, with "• N.K.O. pp. 25 and 32.
Hoernes, Prim. Ceram. Fig. 4. m Ibid., Vide supra, p. 260.
"• Supra, p. 269, and note 92.
274 V. GORDON CHILDE
of Bandkeramik and other peripheral styles were merely hunters and agricul-
turists, and generally occupied caves or unprotected settlements in the plains.130
To this extent the East European culture looks late in comparison with that
of the Central European Bandkeramik, but does not mean much more than
saying that of two points in two distinct but parallel series, one is later than
the other.
If then we must account for the analogies between the East European
pottery and that of the Butmir series, I would suggest a common origin,
possibly in a pre-ceramic stage of culture.131 The typical forms of each series
may be referred to a single ground type — a spheroid or hemispherical bowl —
made or certainly deriving from the gourd 132 or plaited fabric.133 This evolved
differently in each area. In the east it acquired a base by flattening and took
on a conical form, to which I have attached the manifold shapes of this ceramic
group. In the west the main line of development was due to the ring support,
originally distinct. The latter, fusing into the original spheroid bowl, becomes
a foot, giving us the vases of Butmir, Plate VI., and ultimately the famous
pedestalled cups of Butmir, Lengyel, Znaim, Troppau, etc.134 In the east the
ring support developed independently, growing into the fruit-stand and the
binocular vase,135 and only occasionally coalescing with the vessel it was
designed to support 136 (Fig. 15). But the separation must have been early, and
the divergent character of the subsequent progress is marked by the contrast
between the black -faced technique of Central Europe and the red-faced pottery
of the east. The latter, on the principles laid down by Myres, requires the
sort of dry climate only to be found east of the Carpathians.137 And it was
here, too, doubtless that the adoption of a partially pastoral regime to supple-
ment the simple economy of hunting, fishing, and agriculture, that was exclu-
sively practised in Central Europe till the last sub-neolithic phase of the Stone
Age, took place.
We have, then, established the independence of the East European
neolithic culture and its painted pottery from that of Central Europe. So,
having eliminated possible rivals, we may confidently assert, on the strength
of the chain of evidence adduced above, that the intrusive culture of Dimini
130 Ibid., cf. also Prim. Ceram., pp. 23-5. tumskunde, 1911, pp. 2 ff., gives many
The further consequences to be arrived at examples.
from a development of this dissociation of 13& In South Russia these vessels are
the whole painted series from the realm open at each end. The examples in Trudy,
of the peripheral style would lead to most PI. XXVI. Nos. 20 and 21, show the
interesting ethnological results. relation of the double stand to the simple
m /. e. venturing on ethnological terms form.
that both were branches of the Mediter- "« This occurs with the binocular vases
ranean race. That would retain the con- at Szipenitz and with the already specialised
nection with the still more widely distributed bowl at Dimini and Sesklo.
range of female figurines. 1S7 J.A.I, xxxiii. Note especially the
132 Schuchhardt, Die technichischen Ele- map on p. 370; but our red-faced wares
mente in dem Anfang der Kunst, Prdhist. occur still in an area of fairly heavy rainfall,
Zeitschr. I. and, as von Stern points out, the South
133 Wilke, op. cit., makes out a strong case Russian plains must have been more
for this alternative. heavily wooded in neolithic times than
134 Hoernes, Die Formentwicklung der to-day.
prdhistor. Tongefdsae, Jahrbuch fur Alter-
EAST EUROPEAN RELATIONS OF THE DIMINI CULTURE 275
and Sesklo is derived from the former area. In fact it marks an invasion by
the peoples of that region. But unfortunately we cannot trace the invaders
to any particular point within that area, nor can we equate the date of the
movement with any fixed point in the evolution of the East European culture.
Certainly we have as yet no data for assigning to the invaders ethnological
or linguistic appellations, but otherwise we must accept Schmidt's invasion
theory as far as Thessaly is concerned.138 But when he seeks to bring his invaders
to Crete we must halt. Far from constituting a ' bridge between Crete and
the Danube-Balkan region,' 139 Eastern Thessaly seems to be a cul-de-sac
where the southward movement terminated abruptly, surrounded with quite
alien cultures which it never, on the pottery evidence, broke through or
overcame.140 V. GORDON CHILDE.
ADDENDUM
Since the above was sent to the press, I have had the opportunity of
examining personally the Moravian material in the Palliardi Collection at
Mahrisch Budwitz (Moravsko Budejowiee) and the pottery from Lengyel
at Szekszard. I can now state definitely that the technique of painting in
both these groups is entirely different from that which ruled in Eastern Europe.
In Moravia the paint appears as a thick matt crust and was probably applied
after the burning and polishing of the vase. Though the paint is not so
thick at Lengyel and, on one or two sherds, shows traces of polishing,
it is likely that the same process was adopted there. In the oldest painted
ware of Moravia and in the majority of the Lengyel material, the biscuit is
grey-black with a polished black surface to which the colour was applied.
Some of the older Moravian red painted pottery is scarcely distinguishable
from sherds of the " matt painted " ware from the middle strata at Vinca in
Serbia (R.S.A., xiv. pp. 319 ff.) which in turn is identified with the " crusted
ware " of Thessaly III. (Prdh. Zeitschr., iii. p. 127). Moreover, both in
Moravia and Lengyel, we meet large open bowls recalling, both in shape and
decoration, the Viy vases from Rakhmani III. (Wace and Thompson. Pis.
IV. 4 and VI.). Further, in Moravia and Hungary as in Serbia obsidian appears
for the first time in association with this crusted ware. All this suggests that
the Znaim-Lengyel group connects through Serbia with Thessaly III. and is
therefore to be assigned to a later context than Dimini ware. Similarly the
stratification at Vinca would make it later than the floruit of Butmir and
more or less contemporary with the Bulgarian finds of Seure and Degrand
and Popov. The latter themselves cannot well be older than the latest phases
of the East European painted pottery. Hence the independence of the
latter would be confirmed by chronological considerations. V. G. C.
1M The material from East Bulgaria 14° But if it is really East Thessalian
must bo ascribed to a section of the in- polychrome ware (B 3 /3) that has been
vaders left behind in this movement, and found below the lowest Early Helladic
would for the most part represent a later stage sherds at Gonia, as Blegen states (Korakou,
in their development than Thessaly II. p. 123), it will be necessary entirely to
m Zeitschr. f. Ethnol. I.e. p. 601. revise our views on this question.
NOTICES OF BOOKS
Sardis. Vol. I. — The Excavations. Part 1, 1910-1914. By HOWARD CROSBY BUTLER.
Pp. 213, 5 plates, 3 maps. Leyden : E. J. Brill, 1922.
A handsome and finely illustrated large quarto is this volume, in which the process of
uncovering the great Sardian Artemision is narrated season by season from 1910 to
1914. It is prefaced by a sketch of the history of Sardes (in which a Hattic occupation of
the site is, perhaps, taken too much for granted) ; an excursus on the actual topography ;
an account of previous explorations, which contains interesting information about the
" raids " made in the 'eighties by Dennis and Spiegelthal on both the Artemision and the Bin
Tepe necropolis ; a catalogue of the few objects known or supposed to be Lydian before the
American search ; and a general description of Sardis and its neighbourhood. Incidentally*
we are told that, in the course of occasional delving in the Pactolus bed, the Americans
found alluvial gold to the amount of about an ounce.
Apart from its introductory matter, Professor Butler's volume is, in the main.
a reissue of his preliminary reports, which appeared regularly after the close of
each successive season in the American Journal of Archaeology; but they have been
revised in the light of one another, and the knowledge of 1914 now supplements the
account of the tentative efforts made in 1910. Such a narrative of progressive revela-
tion is, of course, of most interest to the excavators themselves and to their
patrons, but it will be found not uninstructive by all excavators. The work was
evidently done with the maximum of method and with the utmost patience and care ;
and fortunately both funds and time were adequate to the application and maintenance
of thoroughly scientific methods upon a site of great depth and difficulty. The volume
ends with short chapters about the great sarcophagus of ' Sidamara ' type found out in the
northern plain, about a late painted tomb chamber in the same region, about an attempt
made to explore further the Bin Tepe necropolis (valuable, as illustrating and confirming the
reports of Dennis and Spiegelthal), and about the geology of the Sardis district. It does not
modify the scheme fcr publication in a series of specialist volumes, which has long been
advertised and indeed already has appeared in part : in fact, this volume is just an intro-
duction to that series. It gives us, in each category of discoveries, a forecast of the final
publication, and we must still wait for the succeeding volumes in order to learn the full
data and the definite conclusions drawn from these by the excavating staff and their
specialist referees. Unfortunately, we are warned that the War and certain untoward
events since have led to the disappearance of some of the material available in 1914, and
consequently, that two at least of the promised specialist parts will not be able to be issued
until further excavation has been made and fresh evidence collected. The chief losses
have been in ceramics — losses much to be regretted; for the revelation of Lydian pot-
fabrics, made by the American exploration of the Sardian cemeteries of the eighth to the
fourth centuries, was as important as any that resulted from this very fruitful exploration.
Such losses, however, can readily be replaced in another season or so. Not so one loss
which Professor Butler has to record, that of the splendid horse's head found in the last
hours of the season of 1914, and since stolen from the Expedition House. Even this may
turn up in some collection on one side of the Atlantic or the other. In any case, losses
will not be all loss, if the desire to repair them adds cogency to Professor Butler's insistence
upon the necessity of resuming work at Sardis at the first possible moment ; for not only
has he to find that shrine of Zeus, which appears to have stood in the same Precinct as the
Artemision (since perhaps it was buried the earlier and the more completely, it may contain
less disturbed strata), but also somehow somewhere the antecedents of the eighth-century
276
NOTICKS OF !',()( )KS 277
•
Lydian culture have to be investigated. The rich furniture of the earliest Lydian tombs,
opened by the Americans — furniture which fully justifies the Greek idea of JSardis as the
home of opulence and luxury — implies a pedigree of culture going back a long way to
its source in barbarism.
Since there has been a long interruption of the American excavations, and their
resumption is still in doubt, a summary catalogue of their chief results may not be out
of place at the present moment. (1) They have recovered all that survived in the ground
of the best preserved of the greater pre- Hellenistic Ionic temples; from the architectural
remains can be deduced the constructional history of the building, and from the epigraphic
remains a fair idea of its cult practice, especially in the Roman age. (2) They have estab-
lished that in the near neighbourhood of this temple of the Mother Goddess, called by the
Lydians Artemis, there is to be found a temple of the Father, the Zeus of Greeks, and
probably the Tausas Hudans of a local Lydian inscription. (3) From tombs and remains
of houses with painted balustrades, as well as from specimens of Lydian epigraphy, they
show us for the first time what Lydian culture of the Mermnad and the Persian
periods amounted to, and they open new fields of inquiry into its relation to the Ionian
and the Etruscan cultures on the one hand, and to the inland Asiatic on the other. (4) They
have put at the disposal of linguists a corpus of complete and legible texts in the Lydian
language, two of these being bilingual, and thus have brought that language at last out of
the neglect and obscurity in which it has lain since Hellenistic times. (5) They have
exposed one of the longest and most important epigraphic documents of Hellenistic com-
mercial law which has come down -to us, and a number of notable inscriptions of the
Imperial age. (6) They have supplied evidence of a Lydian style in sculpture, and added
to our plastic treasures some fine Greek work, and, among many notable Graeco- Roman
things, one piece of singular importance, the great ' Sidamara ' sarcophagus already men-
tioned (it has been seriously damaged since discovery). (7) A very early church in good
preservation and a painted tomb of much the same age has to be reckoned to their credit.
Other gains to knowledge in the fields of numismatics, of glyptics, of metallurgies might
be added; but the catalogue is already long enough to show that Professor Butler has
reaped already a harvest of the first quality, and that the sooner he and his helpers can
put their sickles into that cornfield again, the better for science.
******
Since the above notice was written, the untimely death of Professor Butler on his
way home from a visit to Sardis, has thrown upon others the completion of his great
enterprise. May they follow his example in applying that method and care which made
his success ! They can raise no better monument to his memory.
D. G. H.
The Greek Theater of the Fifth Century before Christ. By JAMES TURNEY
ALLEN. Pp. vi + 119. University of California Publications in Classical Philology,
Vol. VII. Berkeley : University of California, 1919.
This book falls into eight chapters. The introductory chapter explains the scheme of the
book, which is to begin with a brief account of the fourth-century theatre ; then to turn
back to the fifth-century theatre and to show that the remains of the fourth-century
theatre afford a key for the reconstruction of certain features of the earlier ; next to examine
the literary evidence and to criticise various theories which have been proposed; lastly,
to discuss the origin of the proskenion — which the author considers ' a problem of basic
importance' (p. 107) — and to 'propose as a reasonable hypothesis that the proskenion
was in point of origin ilw skene itself of the Aeschylean theater' (p. 7).
With regard to the account of the fourth-century theatre which occupies chapter ii,
we need only note that the author will have nothing to do with a stage. ' The assumption
of a stage in the fourth century, as also in the fifth, is supported only by a series of
unconvincing hypotheses, and will not, I believe, be able much longer to weather the
storm of criticism which it has provoked ' (p. 13). His own view of the proskenion is
J.H.S. — VOL. XLII. T
278 NOTICES OF BOOKS
that ' it was a simple colonnade with a flat, or nearly flat, roof, and the spaces between
its columns would be closed by means of wooden panels (TriVaKcs) or left open in accord-
ance with the varying scenic requirements. But the material of the entire structure
was wood ' (p. 15).
Chapter iii, on ' The Theater of the Fifth Century,' introduces what is the central
theory of the book. Dorpfeld in the winter of 1885-86 discovered beneath the inner
end of the eastern parodos of the fourth-century, or Lycurgean theatre, a curvilinear cutting
in the bedrock, and underneath the ruins of the scene- building two portions of an ancient
retaining wall. From the larger of these portions, which forms a circular arc, Dorpfeld
calculated that it belonged to a circle of about 78 feet 9 inches diameter. When the
circle thus indicated was described, it was found not only to include the second piece
of wall, but also to pass over the cutting in the rock. Hence Dorpfeld inferred that there
had anciently existed here a wall enclosing a circular space, in which he proposed to
recognise the orchestra of the early fifth-century theatre. Now the orchestra of the
Lycurgean theatre had a diameter of only 64 feet 4 inches. Mr. Allen proposes to account
for this decrease in size by supposing that the Aeschylean scene- building (as required,
e. g. by the Orestean trilogy of 458 B.C.) was erected not immediately behind the orchestra,
as Dorpfeld supposed, but on it, and that the reduced measurement thus caused was
copied in the Lycurgean theatre. As Mr. Allen puts it, ' if the front portion of the
Lycurgean scene- building together with the orchestra-circle, the diameter of which is
determined by the inner boundary of the gutter, be superimposed upon a circle of the
exact size of the orchestra-terrace in such a manner that the corners of the paraskenia
nearest the orchestra coincide exactly with the inner edge of the retaining wall, then the
wall at the rear of the paraskenia and connecting them rests upon the retaining wall of the
terrace at its southernmost point ; and furthermore, the circle of the fourth-century orchestra
falls just within the inner periphery of the larger circle at its northernmost point. Again,
if a line be drawn between the paraskenia and at the same distance back from their front
line as the Hellenistic proskenion stood back of the Hellenistic paraskenia, . . . this line
is an exact chord of the outermost circle of the old terrace- wall ' (p. 31).
The remaining chapters of the book develop the author's views on the nature of the
scene- building which thus occupied part of the orchestra-terrace in the fifth century.
Chapter iv is a judicious discussion of the evidence afforded by the extant dramas.
Chapter v discusses ' Changes of Setting,' and chapter vi various theories as to how those
changes were effected. Chapter vii considers and rejects the arguments in favour of the
hypothesis that a projecting prolhyron or columned porch sometimes formed a feature
of the scene- building. Finally, in chapter viii the author presents his own theory of the
origin of the proskenion. As we have seen, the author does not believe in any sort of stage,
high or low, for the fifth-century theatre. And considerations of space among other things
make him reject the theory that the proskenion was a decorative screen placed in front
of the skene. He concludes, then, that the proskenion was, in fact, in origin the scene-
building itself. And it was called proskenion, he believes, not because it was placed ' before
the skcne,' but because it constituted the front portion, when the scene- building had
become an imposing edifice, the rearward portion being two-storied and the roof of the
original skene being used as a platform.
It is impossible in our space either to do justice to Mr. Allen's arguments or to
discuss them in any detail. Criticisms, of course, occur to one. Thus we are not at all
convinced that the anti-stage party have successfully demolished the arguments in favour
of a stage drawn from the use of dva/JcuVw, Kara(3aiva), fTra.vaf3a.ivto in Aristophanes, still
less that they have accounted for what must have been an extraordinary perversity of
conservatism on the part of the Athenians if they did not at quite an early date avail
themselves of the obvious advantages of a stage. But the book constitutes an acute and
vigorous piece of argument, and can be heartily commended to the notice of all who are
interested in the Greek theatre. An admirable feature of the work is the series of brief
bibliographies prefixed to individual chapters.
A. W. M.
• NOTICES OF BOOKS 279
Das Christentum im Kampf und Ausgleich mit der gnechisch-romischen
Welt. Studien und Charakteristiken aus seiner Werdezeit. By JOHANNES
GEFFCKEN. Dritte vollig umgearbeitete Auflage. (= Aus Natur und Geisteswelt,
54 Bandchen.) Pp. 130. Leipzig : Teubner, 1920.
In Germany of recent years there has been produced a number of excellent little books
on early Christianity and the culture of the Greco- Roman world during the first centuries
of our era. We need in English such books as A. Bauer's Vom Griechentum zum Christentum
(Leipzig : Quelle and Meyer. 1910), and Vom Judenium zum Christentum (ibid. 1917), or von
Soden's Die Entstehung der christlichen Kirche, and Vom Urchristentum zum Katholizismus
(Teubner, 1919).1 Recently Johannes Geffcken by the side of his admirable work Der
Ausgang des griechisch-romischen Heidentums (= Religionsunssenschaftliche Bibliothek
herausgegeben von Wilhdm Streitberg : Bd. VI. Heidelberg : Winter, 1920) has published
a third edition of his Aus der Werdezeit des Christentums (2nd ed., 1909) under the title
quoted above. The little book has been recast and largely rewritten. Some idea of its
scope may perhaps best be given by transcribing the headings of its four main sections :
I. Die rtligios-philosophische KuUur der griechisch-romischen Welt beim Eintrilt des Christen-
tums.2 II. Die Stettung des alien Christentums zu den anderen Religionen. III. Die
literarischen Kdmpfe mit den Griechen und Bd'mern. IV. Die ausseren Verfolgungen. Those
who are familiar with Geffcken' s many studies on early Christian literature and the
criticisms of those studies by such scholars as Harnack and Delehaye 3 will realise that
the book is not without its controversial side, but it is written in no polemical spirit, and
Geffcken, as he himself says, has sought to avoid anything which might injure the feelings
of members of other branches of the Church. This is not the place for any detailed review
of Geffcken's conclusions, but it is of importance to accentuate the significance of books
like this, written for the general public, but based upon a first-hand acquaintance with the
literature not only of early Christianity, but also of contemporary pagan philosophy. The
S.P.C.K. is doing admirable service by its series of translations of Christian classics, but
these translations must be supplemented by studies of the thought-world of the early
Church, and these must be written by our best scholars : only the best scholarship is good
enough for this work of popularisation. Who will give us the text-book on Origen that
we need,4 or a study of the influence of pagan cult upon Christian worship ? 5
NORMAN H. BAYNES.
Bibliotheca philologica classica. Beilage zum Jahresbericht iiber die Fortschritte
der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Bd. XLV. 1918. Gesammelt und heraus-
gegeben von FRANZ Xi MM HUMAN N . Pp. 208 + Inhaltsverzeichnis. Leipzig :
Reisland, 1921. In-.
It is a matter for sincere congratulation that publication of this Bibliography has been
resumed; to it all classical scholars naturally resort. The present volume includes the
whole of the year 1918. The parts issued during the war, in which the art of bibliography
sank to its lowest level, can now be buried in oblivion. Herr Zimmermann has once more
restored the standard for which we look in the Bursian bibliographies. I have worked
carefully through the whole of this volume, and its accuracy of citation is exemplary;
faults are extremely few : thus Pickard on p. 17 should be Pickard-Cambridge, on pp. 35
1 Cf. also Ernst Lohmeyer : Chrittuskult und Kaiserkult (Tubingen: Mohr, 1919);
and J. Geffcken : Der Ausgang der Antike (Berlin : Mittler, 1921); in France, Charles
Guignebert : Le Christianisme antique (Paris : Flammarion, 1921).
1 This section carries on the development sketched in J. Greficken : Qriechinche
Menschen (Quelle and Meyer, 1919).
* Cf. e.g. H. Delehaye : Les Positions des Martyrs (Bruxelles, 1921), pp. 156 sqq.
4 Cf. Guido de Ruggiero : Storia della Filosofia ; Parte Seconda. La Filosofia del
•••inmimo (Ban : Laterza e Figli, 1920, 3 yols.).
• For the kind of work of which I am thinking cf. Shirley Jackson Case : The Evolution
of Early Christianity ; a Genetic Study of First-Century Christianity in relation to its Religious
Environment (University of Chicago Press, 1917).
T2
280 NOTICES OF BOOKS
and 93 there is a confusion between Procopius of Caesarea and Procopius of Gaza. It can
only be hoped that the bibliography of the intervening years 1919-1921 will appear shortly.
We owe a very real debt of gratitude to Herr Zimmermann.
N. H. B.
Ancient Greece. A study by STANLEY CASSON. Pp. 96, 12 illustrations. Oxford :
The University Press, 1922. 2s. 6d.
Mr. Casson's little book is an " oeuvre de vulgarisation," a sketch of the salient points of
Greek culture that will be interesting and useful to older schoolboys and to undergraduates
as well as to those of riper years who are more or less uninstructed in classical lore and desire
to know more of the ancient civilization that is held up to them as still worthy of study and
imitation even by the self-sufficient and self -satisfied modern world. Such readers will not be
too critical, and will not demand from Mr. Casson too many reasons for the faith that is in him.
We hasten to add that we are at one with Mr. Casson in his aim, which is a highly laudable one ;
we sympathise wholly with him in his desire to break a lance for the cause of Greek studies.
But we feel that he makes out too favourable a case for Greece except at the end of his book,
when he discusses the reasons for the lamentable collapse and failure of the fourth century.
He stresses the good side and slurs over the bad. His Greeks of the sixth and fifth centuries
are too much like those Greeks of the Commencement orator, who ' lived beautifully
in the proud consciousness of existing in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.' They are too
much the conventional Greeks of the schoolmaster and the sculptor. We get no hint of
the real Mediterranean character of the race. Mr. Casson's hero is Achilles rather than
Odysseus. To me Odysseus is the real Greek : Achilles might be a Goth.
The preference for the Nordic rather than the Mediterranean characteristics of the race
which Mr. Casson's book shows is reactionary in that it marks a return to the older view of the
Greeks as the only really civilized people of their time, in a world of foolish Scyths and gib-
bering black men. It is true that we can understand them, because we are bone of their bone
and flesh of their flesh, because, in spite of Semitic religion, we are their heirs, our civilization
is Greek in spite of ourselves. Egypt and Chaldaea are alien to us, Greece is not. Perhaps
this is all that Mr. Casson desires to emphasize, but it makes him unjust to what he calls
the ' static ' civilizations, and also to the culture-ancestors of the Greeks and ourselves,
the ' Mediterranean ' Aegeans and Minoans. To relegate Minoan art and culture to the same
category as that of Egypt or of Babylonia, as Mr. Casson does, seems to me an error. We
know nothing of the prehistoric polity of Greece beyond the intimations of Greek tradition,
and in them we see nothing un- Greek. The heroic king was Greek enough. And if Mr.
Casson can see nothing Greek in Minoan art he has not eyes to see. Probably it needs some
familiarity with Egyptian or other ancient oriental art to perceive the Greek element in
Minoan art, to see the subtle difference between it and the arts of the ' static ' cultures, to
discern in it the first stirrings of Greek truth and freedom. I do not believe in the over-
emphasis of the ' Dark Age ' between the culture of the Bronze Age and that of the Iron Age
in Greece, any more than I believe in the over-emphasis of the Dark Age between Roman
civilization and our own. In both cases continuity existed ; in the case of Greece probably
in Ionia. To say, as Mr. Casson does, that Minoan civilization ' had nothing in common
with that of the Greece of the thousand years after 1000 B.C.,' or that in it we do not find
fully developed art in the sense of ' free art,' is not true. ' Highly developed craftsman-
ship,' he says, ' is there, and a capacity for design and form, but artistic creations untram-
melled by convention, such as were conceived by Classical Greece within a century of the
commencement of artistic production, we do not find.' We join issue : what a difference
there is to be seen between the really highly developed craftsmanship of the Egyptian
and the free artistic creations, untrammelled by convention (though often marred by
crudity of technique and execution, at any rate in the case of the wall-paintings), of the
Minoan ! Can Mr. Casson look at the ivory leaper of Knossos or the tramping peasants of
the Harvester- Vase and hold to his contention ? And in his next paragraph he confesses
that Minoan art ' laid the foundations of an artistic tradition which the invasions and
disturbances of subsequent times could not eradicate.' He allows that ' the new art of
NOTICES OF BOOKS 281
Classical Greece found itself active in a region where the elements of art were not unknown,*
but then adds, ' though we are hardly entitled to infer from this a continuity of artistic
tradition.' Are we not ? Is not the technique and art of the Greek vase-painters the same
as that of the Mycenaean ? And what can be more Greek in feeling than the figures of the
king and the warrior on the ' Chieftain Vase ? '
Whether we forgive him for his injustice to the Minoans or not, we must, we suppose,
find excuses for his injustices to the ftdpftapoi. The Greek scholar usually either has
not the time or will not take the trouble to try and understand them. But the well-
worn depreciatory references to the ' static ' civilizations merely beg the question. It
is true that mentally the Greek of the fifth century was enormously superior to the
Egyptian or Asiatic : as superior as we are to them now. But they had and have their
virtues, and it is not necessary to butcher them anew to make a Philhellenic holiday.
Still, Mr. Casson has his thesis, which is to exalt the Greek, and we who love the ancient
Greek as much as he does, and believe that everything should be done by all to prevent the
danger of the knowledge and appreciation of Greek culture dying down in the world, must
allow him to have his fling at the barbarians.
Perhaps Mr. Casson is happier in dealing with history and politics than with Minoan
archaeology and art or with Greek ethics. Of the latter he gives us a conventional white-
washing view. On political matters, however, he is interesting, and, we think, will interest
his audience. The possible reasons for the collapse of Greek civilization in the fourth and
later centuries B.C. are set forth with effect. Malaria hardly seems possible till Roman
days. The desiccation theory seems to attract Mr. Casson ; but we do not think that Prof.
Ellsworth Huntington's interesting theory commands universal adherence among oriental
students, and it should not be taken as proved. The stupidity of the Greeks in killing off
all their best stock in their petty inter-tribal wars, and the resulting admixture with
foreigners, seems, as Mr. Casson perhaps thinks, to be the most satisfactory explanation.
We must be permitted a word of objection to the chart at the end of the book repre-
senting ' Cultural Areas of the Greek World and its Neighbours.' To what precise moment
of time is this chart supposed to refer ? The line bounding the Egyptian sphere of influence is
extended towards Crete, but not towards Cyprus, which in Minoan days was closely connected
with Egypt, as we know from the discoveries at Enkomi, and at the Herodotean ' moment
of time ' was directly subject to Egyptian political as well as artistic domination. Nor does
it include Phoenicia, which we know was from early days almost an outlying province of
Egypt : the subjection of Phoenicia and the Shephelah to the Thothmosids has been a
commonplace of ancient history for decades, quite apart from the recent discoveries of
M. Montet at By bios, which have shown us that that city was practically an Egyptian
colony even in the time of the Old Kingdom. Then the Hellenic line of demarcation does
not include the oversea colonies except in Italy and Sicily, and does not extend far enough
north in Italy so as to overlap the Etruscan line, which it should do : Etruscan art was merely
a copy of Greek. And in Asia Minor we have the following list of names, " Lydia,
Hittite Empire, Persia, Assyria," in this order, which is certainly not the historical
order. To include Assyria at all is doubtful procedure, since it is very uncertain, in spite
of some recent theories, if the Assyrians ever got further west than Cilicia, and there only for
a moment. If Mr. Casson is referring to cultural influence only, he should surely speak of
Babylonia, not Assyria, and Persian influence in Asia Minor was purely political and had
no effect on culture. It is to be hoped that this chart, which is very misleading, will
be revised, and dates inserted, in a second edition.
H. H.
Der Pries des Megarons von Mykenai. By GERHART RODENWALDT. Pp. 72,
30 illustrations in text, 5 plates. Halle : Max Niemeyer, 1922.
Round the walls of the Megaron at Mycenae, probably covering a length of forty-six metres,
ran a frieze of painted plaster, the remains of which are the most notable outside Crete.
A considerable number of pieces, representing a fight and preparations for a fight, were
discovered by Tsoundas in 1886, later discussed by Rodenwaldt and others. But fragments
282 NOTICES OF BOOKS
such as these, often burnt out of recognition, have a habit of eluding the archaeologist,
for besides those which came to light during the German investigations in 1914, others
were discovered during the excavations of the British School in 1921 (Times Lit. Sup.,
Oct. 1921). The fragments found in 1914 introduced an entirely new element, a com-
plicated piece of architecture with ladies at the windows, and, above, part of the fight. It
is their publication which occasions this book.
Combining, as far as is possible, the old pieces with the new, and taking into account
the relation in which they were found, Dr. Rodenwaldt is able to trace the frieze round the
west and north walls : the camp, the fight, and the besieged castle. This part of the work
is admirable.
The old pieces, some of which appeared in the 'E^r^/xept? 'Ap^aioAoyiKT/, others in
the Athenische Mitteilungen, are here for the first time collected and published together, but
only with a view to their reconstruction. We have still to refer back to these two papers
for adequate description and illustration, and this when the title of the book leads us to
expect what we so greatly need, a complete publication of the frieze. It would have been
a comparatively easy matter to provide serviceable illustrations, since these are already in
existence, and briefly to give the necessary particulars concerning each fragment. Not
only was the opportunity, but also the space at hand, for the chapter dealing with the
actual frieze takes only one-third of the book, about twenty-five pages.
Of the remaining two-thirds, twenty pages are occupied with an essay on Cretan
civilisation and fresco painting. We have long wished to hear Dr. Rodenwaldt's ideas
on Cretan fresco, but this is hardly the place. Another fifteen deal with the mainland
culture in relation to our frieze, but more with the former than with the latter ; for besides
the date and style of the fresco, they touch on questions of race and religion, architecture,
the Homeric poems, and certain aspects of Egyptian art. To quote one example of the
tendency to digression : on the strength of a resemblance between the Abu Simbel relief
of the Battle at Kadesh and the Mycenae fragments, three pages are devoted to discussing
whether this form of Egyptian art was influenced by Crete : in the end, the author is
inclined to think it was not.
So much for the general form and contents of the book. With regard to particular
points :
The controversial question is the date of the Mycenae frescoes. Dr. Rodenwaldt, on
grounds of style, assigns them to L.M. I., whereas the excavations of the British School
have practically proved that the Megaron was not yet built in that period. Can stylistic
evidence be considered conclusive ? The elements Dr. Rodenwaldt considers early are :
(i) Fineness of technique. How fine, the burnt condition of the pieces prevents us
judging; the only certain inference is that they are distinctly earlier than the second period
at Tiryns (later half of L.M. III.).
(ii) Composition, i. e., the free and pictorial arrangement of figures similar to that of
the Cretan frescoes of L.M. I. Here, however, we are faced with the difficulty that we
do not know how long this manner lasted. It may well have been still in use at the
beginning of L.M. III., though we know it had ceased to be by the time of the second
period at Tiryns. The resemblance of the Megaron fragments to Cretan art of the L.M. I.
period is certainly overrated.
On p. 69, among the notes, will be found a list of all the more important bits of fresco
found at Mycenae before 1920. This is invaluable, both as a record and as a foundation
for future work : we would gladly see it expanded at the expense of some of the other
notes. For purposes of identification, it would have been a help if the author had stated
which fragments came from Tsoundas' excavations and which from Schliemann's.
We note that, on p. 9, the ' Saffron Gatherer ' fresco is attributed, owing to the style of
its details, to the same period as the Knossos Miniature fresco and the ' Cat and Bird '
from Hagia Triada. No attempt is, however, made to dispose of the more serious argu-
ments for assigning it to M.M. II., or at latest to M.M. III. Is not this but another
proof of the arbitrary nature of stylistic evidence ?
Of the illustrations, those in the text include two reproductions of the new fragments,
one, part of a chariot and horses, the other, a falling warrior. At the end of the book
is an excellent coloured facsimile of the new architectural fragments by Gillieron (scale
NOTICES OF BOOKS 283
not given); there are also line-drawings giving the reconstruction of both the old and
the new fragments. These are the most unsatisfactory part of the book, not in con-
ception, for they are often both suggestive and convincing, but in execution. Their
effect is so un-Mycenaean as, in some cases, to recall the decadent type of black-figure
vase-painting.
The book will, perhaps, have a wider appeal with its varied contents than if it had kept
to its stated subject. Those specially interested in prehistoric painting may be over-
critical because disappointed in the hope of a complete publication by the greatest authority
on mainland fresco; for the valuable work done, most of all for the discovery and
publication of the new fragments, they are much indebted.
W. L.
Platon : Oeuvres Completes. Tome I : Introduction — Hippias Mineur — Alcibiade
— Apologie de Socrate — Euthyphron — Criton. Texte etabli par MAURICE CBOISET.
Pp. 233. Paris : ' Les Belles Lettres,' 1920. Fr. 12.
The series in which this volume appears is entitled ' Collection des Univereites de France,'
with the additional note that it is published under the patronage of the Association Guillaume,
Bude. We are further informed that, in conformity with the statutes of this Association,
the volume before us was submitted to a technical committee, two members of which
(MM. Louis Bodin and Paul Mazon) exercised editorial supervision over its production. We
mention these facts in order to indicate the scale of the enterprise which this volume
inaugurates and the care with which it is being conducted.
The volume itself is of a type not familiar in this country. There is first a short
general introduction, giving the main facts as to Plato's life and writings and the state
of the text. Then follow the dialogues, each with an introduction of its own, the
plain Greek text without translation, and with a select critical apparatus recording only
the more important variations. In the introductions the main points arising in connexion
with the dialogues are treated fairly fully but without undue technicality. This plan
suggests an aim similar to that of the Loeb Library. The books, we conjecture, are mainly
intended for what it is now fashionable to call the adult student, rather than for the
specialist ; but the Frenchman, it seems, unlike his English and American analogue, can do
without a crib.
We do not gather that M. Croiset had any ambitious designs on the text. He has
been content in the main to rely on Prof. Burnet's work and to agree with his decisions in
disputed passages. He has, probably wisely, departed from the traditional groupings of
the dialogues and rearranged them in what he takes to be their chronological ordvr.
We wish the Collection Bude every success, and welcome warmly (though regrettably
late) its first volume.
J. L. S.
The Religion of Plato. By PAUL ELMER MORE. Pp. xii + 352. Princetown
University Press. London : Humphrey Milford, 1921. 10s. 6rf. net.
Dr. More's account of Plato's religious beliefs is the first volume of four which have for
their joint object the presentation of the Greek tradition as it impinged upon and largely
conquered early Christian thought. To the whole series he gives as general title
' The Greek Tradition from the Death of Socrates to the Council of Chalcedon (399 B.C.
to A.D. 451),' and he asks us to take his Platonism as a general introduction to this com-
prehensive work. From this it will be seen that the present volume is intended as a con-
tribution to what we ordinarily call theology, and in particular to the understanding of
the Greek Fathers and of the doctrines of the early Church ; and it can be guessed that
a final estimate of the value and importance of the present volume ought to be deferred
until such time as its sequel is available.
Religious thought to Dr. More is a compound of three ingredients — philosophy,
theology, and mythology. Philosophy is distinguished from metaphysics (which is, it
Us i NOTICES OF BOOKS
seems, pseudo-philosophy), and is predominantly ethical — the Greek ' way of life.'. The
subjects of study in this Trivium might perhaps be set out as — the life of man, the nature
of God, the dealings of God with man. Dr. More takes each in turn, and prefaces to his
treatment of each the translation of a cardinal passage from Plato's works. For
' philosophy ' his text is the speeches of Glaucon and Adeimantus in Hep. II. ; for ' theology *
nearly the whole of Laws X. ; for ' mythology ' considerable extracts from the Timaeus.
Last comes an account of the Religious Life, prefaced by a translation of sections of
Laws iv and v. The translations occupy more than a quarter of the whole volume, and
some will think that so much space could ill be spared. If Dr. More were writing primarily
for students of Plato, clearly he would not have adopted this method; but to a more
general public, to which Plato is not so easy of access, these extracts will be of great value
and will materially fortify the exposition. To such readers this volume must be warmly
recommended. The impression is too widely spread that the educated Greek was a sceptic
and not in earnest with his religion. Dr. More's sane and discriminating admiration of
the Greek genius and the deft touches by which he premonitorily indicates its contribution
to Christian thought will provide a valuable corrective.
The volume is also to be recommended to students of Plato. Dr. More seeks to set
before us a great tradition, and is able to offer to those whose studies are solely or mainly
occupied with the classical writers much that they too often miss. It is those portions of
Plato's works which had most influence on later writers that are his chief concern, and in
dealing with them he is ready with illuminating quotation from the commentators and
from the Greek Fathers. And Dr. More is surely right in thinking that the Plato of the
' Greek Tradition ' is nearer to the real Plato than the Plato of Hegel or Lotze.
Dr. More has a definite and consistent view of Plato's general philosophical position,
into which it is scarcely possible to enter here ; but there are details which may be questioned.
Speaking of the relation between ideas and phenomena, he says : ' In the Parmenides he
had ended by denying the right of metaphysics to meddle with the matter at all ' (p. 202).
There may be some subtlety hidden in the word ' metaphysics ' ; but is not this a mis-
statement ? Plato seems to us to end by saying that the way out from these perplexities
can be found by StaXocrtKr; alone. On pp. 242-3 Dr. More's own subsequent exposition
seems to show that Plato's acceptance of the dogma ' virtue is knowledge ' is rather seriously
overstated. We observe two misprints — ' amnlsis ' for ' anamnesis ' (p. 157) and
' Simias ' for ' Simmias ' (p. 132). And why should Dr. More soil his usually excellent
English by the ugly and unnecessary neologism ' self-origining ' (pp. 234, 237)?
J. L S.
Der junge Platon. By ERNST HORNEFFER. I. Teil, Sokrates und die Apologie.
Pp. iv + 170. Giessen : A. Topelmann, 1922. M. 27.
Prof. Horneffer's essay on the Apology of Plato is an attempt to show, against most of the
arbiters of German opinion in these matters, that it contains a historically sound and
accurate account of the beliefs and activities of Socrates, and that no valid reason has been
adduced for doubting its general fidelity to the tenor of Socrates' speeches in his own defence
at his trial. The argument is predominantly controversial in character : Prof. Horneffer
starts as a rule from some statement with which he disagrees, and develops his own view
in reply to it. He professes general agreement with H. Maier's view of Socrates except
in regard to the Apology, and much of the argument has reference to Maier's points. He
also engages in controversy with Wilamowitz, Schanz, Pohlenz, Pohlmann, and Ivo
Bruns. He does not seem to be acquainted with English contributions to the subject, or,
if he is, he does not mention them. In view of the close relation of certain of his theses to
points already made in greater detail by Taylor and Burnet, this defect in his equipment,
or in his statement, is regrettable.
The main points of Dr. Horneffer's argument are the following. That the Socratic
movement was a heroic attempt at reconstruction necessitated by sophistic individualism ;
that what Socrates attempted was a religious and moral reform animated by a profound
NOTICES OF BOOKS
and simple re\eience for tradition; that his respect for Delphi and the ancestral religion
generally was genuine and not assumed; that the Daimonion, which was the real ground
of the charge of heresy brought against him, was to him a private oracle, a special means
of communication with the god of Delphi ; that Chaerephon's oracle -is a historical fact,
to be dated just after the publication of the Clouds, and was the beginning of Socrates'
public mission; that this public mission (on which, apart from the Apology, Plato is
practically silent) was essentially a religious activity, a call to repentance, and was hortatory
or edifying in character, as well as elenctic. There is a useful appendix by Prof. Herzog,
which collects and discusses the evidence for Delphic decisions, similar to that elicited by
Chaerephon, as to primacy in piety, virtue, or wisdom.
No doubt many of these theses may be disputed. Some are certainly left rather
vague, e. g. the nature of Socrates' philosophic activities before he began his public mission
and the burden of his religious preaching. The only mention of the Orphics implies that
their influence was on Plato, not on Socrates. The autobiography of the Phaedo is not
mentioned at all. But Prof. Homeffer is always clear, vigorous, and lively, and he brings
out well in more than one passage the paradoxes inherent in the conception of Socrates
now orthodox in Germany. We shall be particularly interested to see how he will deal
with the Phqedo. For the Phaedo is surely the crux in this matter. If he really agrees
with Maier as closely as he says he does, Dr. Horneffer is in danger of wrecking his ship
over this dialogue. We recommend to him a study of Burnet's edition. In the meantime,
we congratulate him on a good start and wish him a good voyage.
J. L. S.
Plotin. Forschungen iiber die plotinische Frage, Plotins Entwicklung und sein System.
By FRITZ HEINEMANN. Pp. xiii -f 318. Leipzig : Felix Meiner, 1921. 10s.
In this important book Heinemann raises the question of the order in which the works
of Plotinus were composed. In his life of Plotinus Porphyry distinguishes three periods
in his master's literary output, and the order in which he enumerates the treatises belonging
to each period has been commonly supposed to be strictly chronological. Heinemann
undertakes to prove that Porphyry's lists are by no means chronological, and further, that
some of the treatises included in them are not by Plotinus at all. Thus he rejects III. 9
as the work of an Eclectic with strong Gnostic leanings, he rules out V. 7 for its triviality
and the un-Plotinian character of its togros-doctrine, he holds I. 8, II. 2 and II. 6 to be
abstracts of discussions in Plotinus' school with editorial additions, and he finds serious
discrepancies between I. 9, II. 8, IV. 1 and the genuine books. After reading Heim-mann's
arguments one at least begins to feel some doubts about Porphyry's trustworthiness as an
editor.
A more interesting question than the authenticity of these tracts, none of which is
of great importance, is that of the order of Plotinus' writings. Heinemann first indicates
various cross-references in the treatises, which seem to contradict the received order.
But his chief results are obtained by a minute examination of the subject matter of the whole
of Plotinus' works. He believes that three very distinct periods, roughly coincident with
those marked out by Porphyry, may be traced in the development of Plotinus's thought,
and in each period he finds two or three sub-stages. His conclusions are, very
briefly, as follows. In his earliest writings Plotinus is ' Platonic ' ; he does not speak of
the One, but of God or the Good,— the One first appears in VI. 9, the seventh treatise
according to Heinemann, — and he deals with ethics in Plato's manner, describing the
ascent of the soul in terms borrowed from the Mysteries. The second period, which begins
with Porphyry's arrival in Rome in A.D. 263, is the Golden Age of Plotinus' teaching.
While the keynote of the first period is transcendence, that of the second is immanence,
or rather a ' will to immanence,' for the transcendentalism inherent in the system can
never conceal itself for long. Matter becomes pure potentiality or pure not-being, into
\\ hit h the logos descends, or (a little later) the mirror which reflects the rays that stream
from the One. ' The Idealism of Plotinus here finds its sharpest expression.' In his third
286 NOTICES OF BOOKS
period (A.D. 268-270), old, ill and lonely, but courageously rising above his own troubles
and those of his time, Plotinus makes indeed no metaphysical advance, but attempts to
justify the ways of God to man. Here Heinemann, perhaps unnecessarily, sees definite
Iranian influence. Matter is regarded as original evil ; the struggle of the logos with it is
parallel to that of Ormuzd with Ahriman. Man is not by nature evil — in this Heinemann
scents an attack upon Christianity ; his soul is good ; it is only matter that makes him
evil. Upon these views of Plotinus' doctrinal evolution Heinemann's chronological arrange-
ment of the treatises largely depends. His arrangement can only be proved or disproved
by very close study of Plotinus' text. Indeed Heinemann looks forward with some com-
placency to a long controversy on the question. The problem of Plato's writings has not
been settled in a hundred years. How long, he wonders, will be required for the settlement
of the Plotinian question ?
The last section of the book is a valuable general account of Plotinus' system, which at
times he criticises vigorously, though not, we think, unfairly. It is not a unitary system,
deriving all from the One, but it sways between two opposite poles, the One and Matter,
or, in other words, it is fundamentally dualistic. The One itself is riddled with contra-
dictions. If abstract, it can be the source of nothing, if concrete, it cannot be merely
one. We feel some sympathy with these and similar complaints. However much one
may admire Plotinus' metaphysical acumen or the amazing eloquence of the mystical
passages in the Enneads, it is sometimes hard not to feel impatience with his answers to
problems that are no answers, his ' deductions ' that really ' deduce ' nothing, and his
continual shiftings of ground, as from transcendence to immanence and back again.
Heinemann's book is, in our judgment, one of the most suggestive and original works
that have appeared on Plotinus, and account will have to be taken of it by all serious
students of the philosopher. It has the additional merit of being beautifully printed. The
author promises another work under the title Plotin und die Gnosis.
J. H. S.
Diogenes Laertius. Ubersetzt und erlautert von OTTO APELT. 2 vols. Pp. xxviii
+ 341, 327. Leipzig : Felix Meiner, 1921.
The book on the Lives and Opinions of Famous Philosophers, which dates from the
first half of the third century A.D. and passes under the name of Diogenes Laertius, has
not been rendered as a whole into a continental language for a century, though there is an
English translation in ' Bohn,' which has apparently escaped German eyes. Dr. Apelt's
version is intended, as he says, for the benefit of philosophically- minded laymen rather than
for that of scholars. It is not, he tells us, a work preparatory to a critical edition, upon
which, we gather from his preface, another scholar is now engaged. Dr. Apelt's introduction
is written in very general terms ; he dwells upon the respect which the Greeks (herein so
unlike Germans !) felt for their philosophers and the consequent demand for popular
histories of their doings and sayings ; he refers briefly to the doxographic and biographical
traditions, and concludes with an appreciation of the indefatigable but uncritical compiler,
whose passion for giving references and taste for verse composition do not add to the
attractiveness of his invaluable work. A discussion of the many interesting, but perhaps
insoluble, literary problems raised by the book, Dr. Apelt purposely avoids, lest he burden
the ears of the laymen for whom he writes. As to the translation, we have found few
places where, granted the correctness of the original text, alteration is desirable. The
English scholar will probably find it easier to read Diogenes' straightforward Greek than
Dr. Apelt's German, and will be more likely to turn for assistance to the notes, which,
though short, are much to the point. They contain a number of textual suggestions and
emendations, e. g. in I. 5 the insertion of ovSe after OVK otoa ; III. 72 8taA.veor#ai, a>s rov
6(6v for oia\vfo~6ai ets TOV 0€ov ; VII. 14 evSiSot's for cvi'ovs ; V. 37 otoaKTr/piov, ' das
Wesen des Unterrichts' ( ?), for 8utatrrr)pfov. In V. 54 Apelt, instead of emending with
others, takes arw€iprfrai as the subjunctive of o-uveipto (OTTWS o~wiipr)Tai is rendered by ut
dictum est in Hiibner's edition) and inserts ra before Trept TO Upov, but the passage does
not seem cured. In II. 15 wv iv ovoevi <£mva for a>i/ cV ovScvt iravra and in V. 15
NOTICES OF BOOKS i's7
( ? KUTOTTTOS) for KO.I OTTOV would, like perhape the majority oi emendations,
have been better imprinted. The book concludes with a good index of proper names and
subjects.
J. H. S.
Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der Christlich-
palastinenischen Texte. Pp. 378. By ANTON BAUMSTABK. Bonn : Marcus
and Weber, 1922. M.150.
The history of Syriac literature is a subject on which Germany has hitherto been behind
Great Britain and France; for, while we have excellent histories by Wright and Duval,
earlier German publications on the subject have been of a semi-popular character, and the
present work is the first complete scientific history of Syriac literature that has appeared
in Germany. As a literary production it is perhaps not equal to its predecessors, but as a
bibliographical handbook it far surpasses them, for Dr. Baumstark gives all the MSS.
which contain any part of a work as well as the editions, and we are amazed to find it
stated in the preface that he only began the work in the summer of 1918. For the readers
of this journal the translations from Greek, especially of lost works, will be the main interest,
and they will, if they search for it, find the most complete information ; but unfortunately
this is a point on which the book is not well arranged, for there is no clear division or
distinction between original works and translations, and in many cases the translations
are given not under the author's name but under the translator's. For instance, the
voluminous works of Severus of Antioch are almost entirely lost in Greek ; but he has no
paragraph to himself in this book, and a reader who wishes to know what works of his are
extant in Syriac, and where they can be found, must turn to the eleven references under
his name in the index, and will eventually find what he wants under Paul of Callinicus,
Paul of Edessa, Athanasius of Nisibis, and James of Edessa. Logically this is perhaps
defensible, but for purposes of reference it would have been jnore convenient to place the
translations in a separate section under the original authors' names. The book is difficult
reading on account of numerous strange abbreviations, which necessitate frequent references
to the list at the beginning ; but this is done to save printing, and under present conditions
the author must not be blamed for it. In spite of these small defects Dr. Baumstark lias
produced a monument of industrious scholarship which will add to his high reputation,
and will be a priceless mine of information for all who are concerned with Syriac literature.
E. W. B.
The Esthetic Basis of Greek Art of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.
By RHYS CARPENTER. Pp. 263. Bryn Mawr College ; New York : Longmans, Green
& Co., 1921. $1.50.
This is No. 1 of ' Bryn Mawr Monographs.' We hope there may be many more of the
same series, though we doubt if they can all be as good as this. For Professor Rhys
Carpenter has done us a great service. Preoccupied, on the one side, with the fascination
of studying origins, and, on the other, with the no less fascinating pursuit of that will-o'-
the-wisp, the nature of beauty, our criticism of the fine arts, especially those of ancient
Greece, has rather lost sight, in the last generation or so, of its most important question,
stated by our author in the words, ' What does the artistic process do ? How does it
behave T ' In this little monograph of just 250 very small pages, Professor Rhys Carpenter
presents, clearly and adequately, the results of a powerful effort of imaginative criticism.
We say imaginative, for imagination, and that of considerable strength, is needed in order
to divest oneself of present-day prejudices and enter into the intellectual consciousness of
a great series of craftsmen whose methods are strange to our ' modern ' age, wherein most
of our everyday surroundings are manufactured by a process of quantity-production to
suit the taste of the shop- walker, and the ' artist,' poor man, professes to rely not at all
upon tradition, but on the unaided strength of individual inspiration.
288 NOTICES OF BOOKS
It is just possible that the amateur of Greek antiquity, who should read and ponder
deeply upon the author's penetrating analysis of the methods of Greek sculptors and
architects, may be ' headed off ' by the introductory section. In it, the author, during an
approach (by the twisting path of analogy) to his treatment of ' the Subject-Matter of
Greek Art,' finds occasion to note that the wizardry of poetry consists largely in an animistic
process of metaphorical personifications and the like ; in the course of which he quotes a
jx>rtion of Shelley's Wild West Wind, putting twenty-two words into italics in the course
of about half as many lines. A mistake, in our opinion ; but ' 'twere pity on my life ' if
this were to prevent anyone from reading the book. Again, right at the end, there is an
interesting passage which appears, nevertheless, a little out of keeping with the rest of the
book. The author, in this passage, makes a quasi-propagandist excursion in which he
attacks the widespread and hard-dying fallacy, of dour and Ruskinian aspect, according
to which architecture, to be beautiful, must ' express its construction ' — a fallacy that is
disproved by some of the greatest works in every period, by Albi Cathedral as much as by
the Salute Church and our own St. Paul's. Our author admits that he is himself a convert
from that fallacy, and he exhibits a convert's zeal in his support of the humanist theory,
whereby the beauty of architecture has nothing to do with construction, but consists
quite simply in a purely visual appeal to ' our susceptibilities of mass, outline, colour and
l>attern, our muscular sense of balance, of strain, of freedom of motion and confinement,
of size and weight and power.' With all this we most heartily agree; but our author
seems to spend himself too much on the refutation of that particular fallacy. (He professes
himself much indebted, for the rest, to the keen and serious dialectic of Geoffrey Scott's
Architecture of Humanism : it is high praise, but not at all too high, to say that Professor
Rhys Carpenter's own book, in its central discussion of the methods of Greek art, is on a
level with that most valuable work.)
Our author sets out from the all-important fact that the Greek artists realised, better
than anyone before or since, that ' art's true province is the representation of animate
things ' — above all, of the human body; which being admitted, he proceeds to lay down
the dogmatic assertion that the real aesthetic quality of art consists (not in the artist's
mode of self-expression, nor, again, in any particular quality in the emotion to be aroused
in the spectator; but) in the perpetual repetition, in each perfect work of art, of the
miraculous fusion of the imitative, representational content or subject-matter of art with
the non-representational excellence of pure form. It is perhaps too much to expect universal
or even general adherence, nowadays, to such a dogma : it does away with so much
individual licence, and makes the artist's task so much harder than is generally admitted.
Many may disagree with the author's indignant attack on ' our friends the Outragists,'
who ask us ' not to think how we should scream if we encountered in the open a woman
with cubical hips and a mouth curling vaguely beneath one ear' ! But, apart from con-
temporary propaganda, this does appear to be a true analysis of the Hellenic method.
For instance, it enables our author to put his finger on the nature of that spiritual decline
which affected the majority (or at least a great part) of the Greek artistic production of
the later fourth century and subsequent periods.
For this perfect fusion of representational and purely formal qualities, our author
holds, was approached (after the excessive formalism of the Archaic Period) in the Period
of the Transition, and was achieved to perfection in the Strong Period (by which he means,
perhaps unexpectedly, the Age of Phidias and Polycletus). After a long moment of perfect
beauty in the Fine Period, it began to be lost again during the Free Period ; and was not
to be achieved (or but rarely, might we suggest ?) in the succeeding Eclectic and Imitative
Period. This exposition — it reminds one rather of Plato's or Polybius' theory of the
Cycle of Constitutions — is illustrated by the author, most convincingly, from familiar
works of various dates. He follows out the implications of his doctrine with an admirably
courageous logic. ' Lysippus,' he holds, ' is already of the decadence.' (One rather
hopes he means the Lysippus of the Apoxyomenus, not of the Agias ; two very distinct
personalities, as different almost as the Beethoven of the early sonatas and of the post-
1_ •'*•*•
humous quartets.) An interesting discussion arises, in regard to the true meaning of the
famous tag ' db illis quales essent homines, a se quales viderentur esse ' — as of some other
famous and controverted passages ; he finds that vhere is here no question of impressionism ;
NOTICES OF BOOKS 289
for ' Pliny's easent is Plato's r<a OVTI ov and Aristotle's TO rt yv tivai, which is not in the
least like artistic realism or representational fidelity to natural appearances; and his
viderenlitr refers to TU ^atvo/xcva, which is the very thing which we nowadays call reality.'
(Of course, to the artist, the appearance is the reality.) Even Praxiteles, on this view,
has already started on the fatal slope of excessive attention to representational detail ;
incidentally, this lends a special contemporary interest and application to Plato's criticism
of art as mere imitation.
Spiritual decadence sets in, inevitably, according to Professor Rhys Carpenter's
theory, at the moment when, and in so far as, the formal content (derived from but in essence
differing from those general mental images of which archaic art supplies the un-realistic
copy) becomes diminished and obscured by too much insistence upon realism in imitating
the actual appearance of objects. (The converse would also be just as possible ; but Greek
artists seldom, if ever, allowed themselves to lose touch with reality, once approached, in
the direction of an artificial and therefore unsatisfactory devotion to ' pure form ' ; and so
the discussion of that possibility does not directly arise.)
But this consideration of the general nature of the methods of the Greek sculptors
(which must be judged in its full extent in the book itself, and not from our bald and
unconvincing summary) does not exhaust Professor Rhys Carpenter's contribution to the
Aesthetics of Greek Art. It would even be true to say that the main object of his book is
to analyse, as he does for architecture as well as for sculpture, the actual working out of
those principles of wise limitation of scope by which the Greeks were able so quickly and
so surely to approach and achieve absolute perfection. The nature and value of the
conventions of one- and two-dimensional design (in the form respectively of pure line and
of ' pattern '), the problems of the relation of line to mass, of chiaroscuro and so forth, are
all most ably dealt with in regard more especially to sculpture; and the special uses of
the Orders, in architecture, as forming a sort of artificial world of recognisable shapes by
the special variation and constructional arrangement of which architectural emotion can
be aroused with the least possible disturbance of the spectator's concentration upon a
purely visual effect : all this and much more, into which we cannot now enter, is given us
with the greatest clarity of language and precision of thought. The argument often
makes a strenuous demand on one's power of concentration ; it is none the worse for that.
There is no detailed index or table of contents to help one out ; but there is a very excellent
marginal summary.
Last, but by no means least, Professor Rhys Carpenter must be praised for evading
throughout that death-trap which has closed over so many art-critics — from Aristotle to
Mr. Berenson — that, namely, of paying more attention to the emotions to be aroused in
the cultured spectator than to what is really the only important matter, the object and
methods of the artist himself.
Greek Papyri in the British Museum. Catalogue, with Texts. Vol. V. By
H. I. BELL. Pp. xvi + 376. London : The Trustees of the British Museum, 1917.
This fine volume, which deserved a more punctual notice here, while not rivalling its
predecessor either in bulk or importance, makes a valuable addition to the papyrus evidence
for the later Byzantine period, concerning which there is still much to be learnt. The
documents are a miscellaneous collection from several sites, — Aphrodito (the source of
the contents of Vol. IV.), Antinoe, Thebes, Syene, Hermopolis, Oxyrhynchus and elsewhere ;
and they exemplify a variety of types, official and private. 1663, a sixth-century ordtr by
a praeses for a payment of corn to a Xuraidian corps stationed at Syene, affords a clear
instance of the use of the Constantinopolitan indiction beginning on September 1 . A sporadic
employment of that mode of computation in preference to the Egyptian indiction, at any
rate in documents relating to taxation, has now to be seriously reckoned with by papyro-
logists, and may account for some of the chronological inconsistencies frequent at this
period. An unusually long and interesting text gives a report (1708) of an arbitration
in a family dispute about an inheritance. The pleadings on both sides are set out I'M
290 NOTICES OF BOOKS
extento, followed by an elaborate award, which occupies eighty lines, of the arbitrator.
On the verso of this is a marriage contract, of which a draft is preserved in the Cairo
Museum. It was drawn up after the consummation of the marriage, a fact which
M. Jean Maspero proposed to connect with the ancient mariage d'essai. That explanation
may not be the true one, but it is hardly to be rejected on the ground that ' a reminiscence
of so primitive an institution ' would not be looked for in Christian times. Something
not very dissimilar is said still to be practised in the north of Great Britain. The ' curious
and interesting undertakings ' of the husband and wife are really of much the same kind
as those found in the earlier contracts of marriage. Another welcome acquisition is 1718,
which contains a series of metrological tables referring to measures of capacity, weight
and length. It provides a number of new data and is an important addition to the sources
for a subject on which much uncertainty prevails, especially with regard to the dry
measures. Among the papyri not printed in full but briefly described on pp. 263 ff. are
to be noted two from Herculaneum presented by King Edward VII. (fragments of Epicurus
ITcpi <£vcr€ws xi and an unopened roll), and some minor literary pieces, both prose and
verse, of the Roman age : these no doubt will be dealt with more fully elsewhere.
Mr. Bell is especially at home in the Byzantine period, and the editorial work is carried
out with all the skill and care that would be anticipated from him. At times, indeed,
the desire for accuracy carries him almost too far. It is hardly necessary, for instance,
to point out, as is repeatedly done, that a reading is uncertain when the fact is already
indicated by the dotted letters of the text, nor is it consistent to suggest doubts about
letters printed as if they were read with certainty (cf. e. g. p. 130). On p. 151 it is stated
that a [T\OV is unexpected, that the space seems too small for anything else, but ' perhaps '
[ve'Jov is possible. Notes of this ultra-cautious kind, which cannot be very helpful in
any case, seem uncalled for in dealing with business documents of no special importance,
and their omission would appreciably have lightened the commentary. In the early
volumes of this Catalogue the explanatory matter was perhaps somewhat jejune; now
the tendency is rather in the opposite direction. It is to be hoped that Mr. Bell will not
allow himself to be influenced by the long-winded method of exegesis favoured in certain
Continental quarters. Or can it be that a protracted immersion in Byzantine Greek is
having an effect upon his style (see e. g. p. 121) ?
No facsimiles were issued with this volume, but reproductions of the more important
papyri in it are intended to accompany Vol. VL, to which we wish a prosperous and
speedy course.
Etruscan Tomb Paintings : their Subjects and Significance. By FREDERIK
POULSEN. Pp. 63, 47 illustrations. Oxford : The Clarendon Press, 1922.
After years of undeserved neglect Etruscan tomb paintings appear to be coming into
their own again. Korte and Weege have led the way in scientific publication; and,
judging from the number of works on the subject recently published on the Continent,
there seems to be a recrudescence of the popular enthusiasm which actuated the generation
of George Dennis. Under such circumstances the English-speaking world will welcome
the present translation of a Museum guide-book from the pen of the learned keeper of
classical antiquities at Copenhagen. The important collection of facsimile reproductions
and drawings formed during the 'nineties by the late Carl Jacobsen makes the Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek a convenient centre for the study of the subject; for while, as Dr. Poulsen
points out, the facsimiles are not always free from error, there is no other place where a
general idea of the development of the art can so easily be obtained.
Accompanied by adequate illustrations from these facsimiles, Dr. Poulsen leads us
briefly through the whole range of Etruscan painting, commencing with the Campana
Tomb at Veil of the seventh century B.C. Then follow the group of sixth-century tombs
in style reminiscent of contemporary Ionic vase paintings, down to the Tomba del Barone
at Corneto, which, as has long been known, was by the hand of a Greek painter. The
influence of Attic art prevails in the fifth century, after which comes the long period of
NOTICES OF BOOKS 291
Etruscan decline, to which the greater part of the extant remains belong. It is interesting
to observe how, as the national fortunes of Etruria grew clouded with disaster, their once
cheerful art turned for inspiration to the morbid horrors of the under-world or to horrible
scenes of bloodshed and massacre. In fact, the book is not only a comprehensive and
modern sketch of Etruscan pictorial art ; it is a penetrating and suggestive study of the
whole field of Etruscan civilisation, and it is surprising how many aspects of that civilisation
Dr. Poulsen contrives to touch upon in a work of such small compass. The translation
by Miss Ingeborg Andersen has been revised by Dr. G. F. Hill ; we have been unable to
compare it with the original, but it reads crisply and pleasantly.
Archaistische Kunst in Qriechenland und Bom. By EDUAHD SCHMIDT.
Pp. 92 + 24 plates. Munich : B. Heller, 1922.
A collection of essays dealing with various examples of archaistic art, and intended to form
part of a more general treatment of the subject. The writer's aim is mainly chronological,
to define the period at which deliberate imitation of the archaic appears in Greek art, and
to determine what is older than Roman, or Graeco- Roman in the mass of archaistic remains.
The first series to be examined is supplied by the fourth-century Panathenaic Amphorae ;
here the archaistic type of Athena — striding to right, the drapery drawn tight with swinging
tails — first appears between 366 and 363 B.C., in place of the traditional Athena with drapery
hanging naturally and moving to the left. This indicates a date early in the century for
the first appearance of the new style, allowing a few years before the vase-painters adopted
it. Similarly the base in the Acropolis Museum at Athens with four deities in relief,
No. 610, is dated between 390 and 370 B.C. ; to which period, or thereabouts, also belongs the
t IM -ii i • of Pan and the Nymphs, known in many replicas. On the other hand, works of the
late fifth century which have an archaistic look — such as the Pergamene Herm of Alcamenes,
or the type of triple Hecate, probably by the same sculptor — are to be considered belated
survivals rather than conscious imitations of the archaic. The conclusion is that the
archaistic style was the deliberate creation of one artist working in the early decades of the
fourth century, and for this artist the identification of Callimachos is proposed.
A long appendix follows on the dating and development of Panathenaic Vases.
Graef and after him Brauchitsch supposed the existence of a gap of over a century between
the early and late groups of these prize-amphorae, and produced several explanations to
account for the gap. Following Hauser, Schmidt denies the existence of any considerable
gap, and with the aid of new material endeavours to limit it even more closely than Hauser.
The key to the chronology lies in the drawing of the back picture, and the artists, working
in a traditional style, lagged behind the red-figure painters. Thus of the early group some
must be dated well down in the fifth century, and of the later group some must be placed
earlier than 400 B.C. Carefully compiled lists of vases showing the typological variations
complete a work which is compactly written and unusually suggestive.
Beitrage zur Kulturgesehichte der Thraker. By GAWTUL I. KAZABOW. Pp.
122, 38 illustrations. Sarajevo : J. Studnicka and Co., 1916.
This monograph, unltke many of the works of Balkan scholars, has no modern politico-
ethnological thesis to support. It consists mainly of a concise and useful assembly of facts
culled from historical and archaeological sources concerning the habits and nature of the
ancient Thracians. As such it covers much the same ground as the standard articles
of Tomaschek on the Thracians, but is not vitiated, as are the works of that scholar, by
the appeal to dubious and often unacceptable philological views. No new evidence that
has not already been published is here brought forward, but the details of the most recent
discoveries in Thrace up to 1916 are carefully considered.
An attempt is made to see the germs of an indigenous Thracian art in the gold and
silver treasure of Panagyurishte (p. 97). The artistic affinities of this treasure have
292 NOTICES OF BOOKS
already been pointed out by Rostovtzeff : what is not purely Scythian is purely Hellenic.
We have at present no monuments of purely Thracian art, and there is no reason for
believing that the Thracians of the historic period were in any way artistic. In the same
way the author accepts the famous Ezerovo ring with its inscription of sixty-one letters
as a Thracian object of the fifth century B.C. bearing a Thracian inscription. It has been
shown recently by Seure that the inscription, although Thracian, consists of a series of
proper names and belongs to the second or third century A.D. As such its contribution
to the study of the Thracian language is small.
A few small points call for comment. The Derronians on p. 23 are placed near
Pangaeum, while on p. 37 they are placed near Dysoron in the Krusha Balkan. This is,
no doubt, a slip. But in any case neither identification is acceptable. The bulk of the
Derronian octadrachms come from near Shtip, which is far north even of the Krusha
Balkan, and there are other reasons for placing the tribe north of Lake Doiran. The
so-called Hermes on the octadrachms (p. 23) is later (p. 37) called a tribal hero. This
latter, despite the views of Svoronos, is the more probable interpretation.
On p. 19 it is suggested that the Odrysian kingdom began to take shape about 480 B.C.
This seems too early a date by at least twenty-five years.
On p. 42 the figures on the lower part of the relief shown in Fig. 9 are called ' satyrs.'
There is nothing to distinguish them from ordinary human figures.
On p. 3 line 19 ' Dussand ' is a misprint for ' Dussaud.'
The author accepts but does not attempt to explain the remarkable fact that in
prehistoric times the culture of the latest Neolithic or Chalkolithic period comes to an
abrupt end all over Bulgaria and Thrace and is not followed by a Bronze or Early Iron
Age, except in a very few places. This is the outstanding problem of the prehistoric
period. Macedonia, on the other hand, possessed a flourishing Bronze Age which, as
Schmidt has shown, has strong Trojan affinities. This is noted by Kazaroff without
explanation, and he does not seem to appreciate the difference between the Moldavian
painted pottery group and the incised pottery tradition of Serbia and Macedonia.
In his account of Thracian weapons the author does not discuss the apirrj or the ircX-nj.
Except for these minor errors and omissions the monograph is of great use and is packed
with useful material.
s. c.
«
A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B.C. A Study in Economic
History. By MICHAEL ROSTOVTZEFF. Pp. 209, 3 plates. Wisconsin : Madison,
1922. $ 2.
This important work, which forms No. 6 of the University of Wisconsin Studies in the
Social Sciences and History, is an attempt to examine the correspondence of Zenon as a
whole and to appreciate its interest from the historical point of view. No man could be
better qualified for this task than Rostovtzeff, a recognised master in economic history.
The fact that not one half, perhaps not even a quarter, of the correspondence has yet
been published is no doubt a drawback; but we are thankful that this has not deterred
Rostovtzeff from formulating his general conception. His book, besides its permanent
value, will be of immense help to the editors of the remainder of the correspondence. When
that has been published, no doubt Rostovtzeff will have a good deal to add to his exposition,
and not improbably a good many things to correct.
Excellent as the book is, it would have been improved by a mere thorough revision ;
for, apart from those points in which Rostovtzeff's general views are disputable, there are
not a few errors of fact. For instance, on p. 57 Trapayivrji is translated and commented
on as if it were in the third person, TrapayeV^Tai ; the meaning is not that Panakestor
was going to Alexandria, but that Zenon was coming to Philadelphia. On p. 178 is a
curious passage about the production of gum-styrax in Upper Egypt, founded on a mis-
translation ; in the Greek text, P. Mich. Inv. 40, it is quite evident that 2rvpa£ should be
written as a proper name, and in fact Styrax is a well-known figure in the correspondence.
On p. 76, TrpoKoirrfv iroLrj<ra(r6ai is translated ' to pay anything in advance,' whereas it only
means ' to make a step forward.' Kerke (see p. 122) did not lie on the main canal of the
NOTICES OF BOOKS 293
Fayoum, but on the Nile itself. Hut fluch small blemishes do not detract from the value
of the book, whose strength consists in its generalisations and its striking pieturcs of
economic conditions.
The different phases of Zenon's career are put before us with greater clearness and
fullness than had been hitherto attempted. Rostovtzeff explains the title of OIKOKO/AO; as
' steward of the private property of Apollonios.* I doubt, however, whether Rostovtzeff
is right in supposing that during the period when Zenon was in direct contact with Apol-
lonius he dealt exclusively with his master's private interests. Not one only, but several
of the letters preserved by Zenon at this time (including a long text of great importance
which I hope to publish soon) are concerned with questions of public economy. We may
surely infer from this that, apart from high politics, Zenon had a hand in the conduct of
Apollonius' official as well as private correspondence.
But the main subject of the book is the 8<aptd of Apollonius at Philadelphia. Chapter v
contains an admirable sketch of the institution of 8<upecu, estates granted by the king
to courtiers and high officials for their personal use, but not as their absolute property.
Especially interesting and novel is Rostovtzeff' s explanation of Zenon's official activities
as manager of the Swpca. His position according to Rostovtzeff conferred on him the
administrative authority usually exercised by the cTrurrdrr)*: and the other regular officials
of the village ; and thus it was that though he had no definite rank in the official hierarchy,
he yet had administrative powers and responsibilities. RostovtzefFs discussion of the other
8<j>pcd which Apollonius apparently possessed at Memphis or in the Memphite nome, is
not altogether happy (pp. 53-55). It is not true that the contract which Harmais wishes
to make with Apollonius about the dykes at Memphis was subject to the subsequent
approval of the oeconome and engineer; the text (see P.S.I. 488) only means that the work
was to be executed to their satisfaction; in other words, they were to certify that he had
fulfilled his contract. Nor can one endorse RostovtzefFs suggestion that Philadelphus
attempted to degrade or internationalise the city of Memphis ; for the foreign communities
of which he speaks were of ancient standing.
Chapter vi is a very useful and original study of reclamation work on the otopca.
Rostovtzeff has done much to make intelligible the relations to each other of the different
parties mentioned in the papyri, engineers, contractors, Government controllers and
agents of the landlord. That many points still remain obscure is inevitable. I cannot
believe, for instance, in his explanation of P.S.I. 488, in which Apollonius seems to me to
be acting merely as the dioiketes and not as the owner of a 3u>pcu. Rostovtzeff may be
right (pp. 60, 61) in identifying Petechon with the Petechonsis of the Petrie papyri, but
P.P.II.IV. 4 does not bear out his statement that Petechon took the liberty of rebuking
his superior officers ; the rebuke was administered by Clearchus, a very different person.
In Chapter vii Rostovtzeff uses the evidence of an unpublished papyrus in the British
Museum to prove that part of the Scoped was rented collectively to a body of peasants
brought en bloc from another district. Other parts of the land, he says, were rented not
to groups but to individual farmers. I have no wish to dispute this latter statement, but I
doubt whether the instances adduced by Rostovtzeff are quite to the point (pp. 81-83). Zenon,
as. we know from several documents, e.g. P.S.I. 522, was a great exploiter of the xXijpoi of mili-
tary settlers who did not care to work their own land. He took over many such K\rjpoi. paying
rent to the holders and cultivating the land by means of his own farmers. Now the farmers
of whom Rostovtzeff speaks in his argument seem to me to have been, for the most part at
least, Zenon's employees on the K\fjpot. Take in particular P.S.I. 400, where we read that
a piece of land was in danger of being confiscated by the Treasury. How could this apply
to a parcel of the Scupcu ? The 5u>pea might indeed be confiscated, but only as a whole.
Again, in 11. 7-10 the writer undertakes to pay over to Zenon ten drachmae on each arura,
saying that Zenon will be able to pay the rent out of this and make a profit of six drachmae.
Rostovtzeff supposes that the rent mentioned was paid to the Government, but the obvious
explanation is that it was rent paid by Zenon to the cleruchs. In spite of what Rostovtzeff
says in this chapter, I see no reason for thinking that the holder of a 8u>pcd, any more than
tin- holder of a icAi/pos, paid rent (cK</>optov) to Government for his land.
Chapter viii deals with the cultivation and taxation of vineyards. One point on which
.I.II.S. — VOL. M. II. U
294 NOTICES OF BOOKS
I venture to offer a criticism is RostovtzefFs explanation of P.Z. 38 (see p. 100). The
officials, he says, assessed the vineyard of Stratippos for one half of the produce, taking
the average of the produce for the last two years, instead of assessing it for one-third,
taking the average for the last three years. The Greek text does not say so ; and, in fact,
the supposed procedure is essentially absurd. The real point of the complaint is this :
the officials knew that the vineyard had not been long planted and that three years ago
it 'had not begun to yield to any great extent ; so, in order that it should not be assessed
at an unduly low figure, they took its average yield for the last two years only, instead
of taking the average, as they usually did, for the last three years. Hinc illae lacrimae.
On p. 103 Rostovtzeff expresses a confident opinion that Zenon was the general farmer
of the taxes on vine land for three nomes at least. This sweeping statement goes far
beyond the meagre inference which I drew from P.Z. 62, but does the evidence justify it ?
On p. 106 Rostovtzeff refers to P.S.I. 510 without observing that the correct reading is
evidently not £ fjirjvwv, ' seven months,' but fcfirjvwv, ' bee-hives.'
In Chapter ix, which is largely concerned with stock-breeding, there is one important
point on which I doubt whether Rostovtzeff is right ; it is the nature of the <£opos paid for
pigs, sheep, goats, etc. (see pp. 109-110 and p. 114, note 1). Rostovtzeff thinks that a
^>opos in kind was paid to the State by the herdsmen, and that, in the case of the pigs
at least, the collection of this <£opos was farmed to Zenon. I do not see any clear evidence
of this. In P.Z. 53 and 60, verso, the <£opcs seems certainly to be paid by the herdsmen
to the owners of the herds, and I think that this is also so in P.S.I. 379 and 381 and P.Z. 49.
As in the case of land, it seems to me that Rostovtzeff does not distinguish clearty enough
between rent paid to the owner and taxes paid to the State. He keeps his eye so constantly
fixed on the figure of the State in the background that sometimes perhaps he overlooks
what is happening in the foreground.
These are but a few of the points that have struck me in reading this thoughtful
and original study. Perhaps I have criticised it too freely; but one of its attractions
is that it challenges criticism on almost every page ; and a tribute of vague admiration
would be a poor compliment to its stimulating power.
C. C. E.
Observations sur les premiers habitats de la Macedoine. By LEON REY.
Pp. 175, 139 illustrations. Parig : de Boccard, 1921.
This volume (the first of two), originally issued as a war volume of the B.C.H. (vols. xli.-xliii.
in one), contains the report on Macedonia drawn up by M. Rey of the Archaeological
Section attached to the French G.H.Q. of the Armee d Orient. The report contained in
this volume deals principally with the surface remains of the prehistoric period in Mace-
donia. Accurate and detailed maps and surveys of prehistoric and other mounds,
illustrated with excellent photographs and section-plans, form the bulk of the material
here dealt with. There is also a preliminary geographical chapter and reports of two
excavations.
The Macedonia of M. Rey does not correspond in area to the Macedonia of antiquity.
His area includes the Monastir plain but excludes the Struma valley and South Chalcidice.
The Vardar valley is examined as far up as Vardarovtsi, but the whole of the Ardjani plain,
which is in the same latitude and contains many important sites, is omitted. These
omissions should have been noted in the preface, for the work is expressly called an
' inventory of mounds.'
In the geographical chapter M. Rey calls particular attention to the ' uninterrupted
chain of mounds that stretches from Gumuldjina to the Vardar.' No such ' uninterrupted
chain ' exists ; in fact one of the great problems of prehistoric Macedonia is to explain
the remarkable absence of such mounds in the large area between the Angista and the
Maritsa. The coast bordering the Thermaic gulf is really the great mound area.
The classification of mounds (p. 16 ff.) into (1) the ' Toumba ' or conical mound,
(2) the ' Table ' or flat-topped mound, (3) the * Toumba sur table ' or flat-topped mound
NOTICES OF BOOKS •><>:,
with a eonical projection, La quite unsuitable. The 'table' is, as the inventory shows,
almost invariably a town-site of the historic period. The ' Toumba sur table,' on the
other hand, is always a prehistoric site. But the title of the latter suggests that it is a
prehistoric mound of type (1), combined with a classical site of type (2). This is, in fact,
never the case. Type (3) it* always a prehistoric type in which the flat-topped area
ivxi-mhles the classical mounds of type (2) only superficially. A further objection to this
classification is that type (1) must include conical burial mounds of the historic period.
The best classification is surely into (A) conical burial mounds of the historic period,
(B) long ovoid mounds of the prehistoric period, («) with slightly flattened summits and
steep sides, (b) with a conical projection on the flattened summit, (C) mounds of the historic
period of great area and low height with an entirely flat surface.
M. Key on p. 114 ff. and Fig. 92 classes the site of Gnoina as late Roman, doubts
Drimiglava and omits Yenikeuy (near Gnoina). The first has been clearly established
as prehistoric as well as Roman ; the second is the most important prehistoric site in the
Langaza area; the third is, from its position, one of the most interesting. This region
has obviously been examined by M. Rey with too little care.
The method of excavation, by means of narrow pits and trenches, of the mounds at
Gona (p. 141) and Sedes (p. 158) is such as to render the classification of the strata and
pottery and the terminology used for them precarious in the extreme.
s. c.
INDEX TO VOLUME XLII
INDEX TO VOLUME XLII
I.-INDEX OF SUBJECTS
ACCENT in Greek speech, 155
Achaean League, 199 f.
Aeschines, dress, 59 ; Herculaneum statue, 61
Albani Villa, Ino-Leucothea relief, 248
Alexandria, coins, 33; head of Asklepios,
31 ff.
Alypius, music, 142
Amasis, eye-kylikes, 194
Amphorae, 70
Antigonus Doson, League, 199 ff.
Antiquarium, Rome, Discobolus, 238
Arabs in Asia Minor, 99
Arcadia, Geometric bronzes, 212 ; League,
188 ff. ; proxenos, Phylarchus, 188
Archidamus, at Leuctra, 186
Argos, Servile Interregnum, 24 ff.
Aristides QuintUianus, music, 146
Aristotle, on Argive wtplotKot, 28; dress of
orators, 60
Aristoxenos, music, 139
Arsinoe, head of Sarapis, 31
Asclepius, in sculpture, 31 ff.
Athenaeus, music, 151
Athens, archaic marble reliefs, 104 ; facial
type in art, 214; Florentine dukes, 37;
Geometric bronzes, 211 ff.
Athletes, archaic reliefs, 104
Attic pottery, 70, 192, 217
Austria, prehistoric culture, 271
Centaur, Geometric bronzes, 209
Cephisodotus, statue of Eirene, 242; of
orator, 66
Chalcocondyles, Laonicos, 36
Citharoedus on Attic vase, 70
Clement of Alexandria on Eugammon, 4
Conservatori, Palazzo, sculpture, 238 ff.
Constantinople, capture by Turks, 43
Corinth, Geometric bronzes, 213; League
of Demetrius I., 198
Cos, coins, Asclepius, 33
Cyrillic script, 23
D
DANIEL, tomb at Tarsus, 102
Delphi, Geometric bronzes, 213; musical
hymns, 163, 166
Demetrius I., League of Corinth, 198 ff.
Demosthenes, on statue of Solon, 63
Dimini ware, 254
Diodorus, Leuctra, 186
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, music, 154
Dioscuri, Locri, 250
Discobolus on Attic vases, 79 ff . ; Rome,
Antiquarium, statue, 238
Dodona, Geometric bronzes, 212 f.
Dorset Museum, Attic b.-f. pottery, 192 f.
Dresden, Sauroktonos, 240
Dushan, Stephen, 39
B
BALL games, sculpture, 104
Berlin Master, vase-painter, works, 91 ff.
Bogomils, 43
Bosnia, prehistoric culture, 264
Boston, throne reliefs, 248
Brancovanos, Constantine, 19
British Museum, Asclepius, 31 ; bust of
Sophocles, 56
Bronze work, Geometric, 207 ff.
Bryaxis, Asclepius and Sarapis, 31 ff.
Bulgaria, prehistoric culture, 269
CACAVELAS, Jeremias, 18
Calliope, musical hymn, 157
Cantacuzenos, Servan, 19
Cantemirs, of Moldavia, 20
E
EIRENE, statue, Munich, 240
Endoios, signature, 106
Epaminondas, naval campaign, 190
Epidaurus, statuettes of Asclepius, 32
Eros sleeping, statue, 242
Esquiline, marble relief, 248
Eugammon, Tetegonia, 4
Euripides, music, 154 ; chorus from Orestes,
146, 154, 162
F
FARNESE portrait of Sophocles, 55
Figurines, prehistoric, 264
Fish, magic, 99; symbolism, 250
Florence, herm of Solon, 65
Florentine dukes of Athens, 42
Fortifications, prehistoric, 266
300
INDEX TO VOLUME XLII
G
GALATISTA, epitaphs, 180
Galicia, prehistoric pottery, 256
Geminia Oljmpias, 168
Genoese settlements in Greece, 42
Geometric period, bronze work, 207 ff.
H
HELIOS, musical hymn, 158
Hera of Tiryns, cult, 250
Heracles, herm, 242
Heraclides Ponticus, music, 151
Hermaphrodite, sleeping, statue, 244
Hermes of Praxiteles, 242
Herodotus on Servile Interregnum at
Argos, 24 ff.
Homer, Iliad, recurrent similes, 220 ff. ;
Odyssey, 1 ff. ; methods, 9, 220
Horse, (.Geometric bronzes, 209
Hungary, prehistoric pottery, 275
Iliad, structure, 12, 220
Indian music, 139 ff.
Ino-Leucothea relief, 248
Inscriptions, 184 ff. ; Epidaurus, Corin-
thian League, 198; Macedonia, 167 ff. ;
musical, 163ff; Phylarchus, 188 ff.
Isocrates, Leuctra, 187
Italian settlements in Greece, 42
LATERAN, .Sophocles, 50 ff.
Leagues, political, 198 ff.
Leuctra, battle, 184
Locri Epizephyrii, sculpture, 248 ff.
Louvre, r.-f. stamnos, 78
Ludovisi Throne, 248
M
MAC-EDO, T. Aelius Geminius, 169
Macedonia, inscriptions, 167 ff. ; joint
kingship, 202; leagues, 198 ff.
Magic fish, 99
Mann mil. Caliph, 99
Manuscript, Turkish siege of Vienna, 16
Masoudi, on Mamoun, 99
Minoan bronze work, 208
Moldavia, Greek culture, 19
Moravia, prehistoric culture, 264
Munich r.-f. amphora, 79; sculpture, i'4n
Musaeus, Thesprotis, 4
Music, 133 ff. ; in Attic vase-painting, 72,
97
N
NAPLES, Aeschines, statue, 61 ;
amphora, 78
Xaucratis, pottery, 197
r.-f.
Nauplia, terra-cottas, Hera of Tiryns, 250
Nemesis, musical hymn, 160
New York, Hearst Collection, citharoedus
amphora, 70 ff.
O.
OLYMPIA, Geometric bronzes, 209 ff.
Orators, dress, 59
Orestes, music of chorus, 146, 154, 162
Orneatae, 28
Oxford, prehistoric pottery, Galicia, 256
PAINTING on marble basis, 106; Attic
vases, 70, 192, 217
Panhellenic festivals, 203
Panhellenion, 173
Patterns in r.-f. vase-painting, 87
Petrograd r.-f. krater, 79
Petworth, Aphrodite, 242
Phylarchus, inscription, 188 ff.
Plutarch, Argive irepioiKoi, 82
Podandus, 99
Pomegranate, in cult, 250
Pottery : Attic red-figure, 70 ff. ; eye-
kylikes, 192 ff. ; prehistoric, North
Greece and East Europe, 254 ff.
Praxiteles, works, 242
Prehistoric culture, North Greek and East
European, 254 ff.
Psychostasia, in Odyssey, 3 ff.
Ptolemy, music, 140
Pythagoras, music, 133 ff.
R
RAOUSA, 43
Rhapsodies, Homeric, 10, 221 ff.
Robing in Greek ritual, 250
Rome, sculpture, 50, 238 ff.; Attic vases,
76
Roumania, Greek language, 22
Russia, South, prehistoric culture, 255 ff.
S
SALAMIS, statue of Solon, 62
Salonika, inscription to T. Aelius Geminius
Macedo, 169
Sarapis, in sculpture, 31 ff.
Sauroktonos, Dresden, 240
Scopas, Heracles, 242
Sculpture, 31, 104, 238
Seikelos, epitaph, 147, 165
Servia, prehistoric culture, 264
Slaves, revolt at Argos, 24
Solon, portraits and statues, 62, 65
Sophocles, portraits, 50 ff.
Spartans at Leuctra, 184 ff.
Spiral ornament, prehistoric, 254
Stars, Dioscuri, 250
i. prehistoric pottery, 258
INDKX TO VOU'.MK XUI
301
TARSUS, toiuli of Daniel. luj
Teleyonia of Eugammon, 4
Termo Museum, Hermaphrodite, 244
Terra-cottas, Locri, 248
Thebes, ipurrtta, 184 ff.
The»i>roti#, of Musaeus, 4
Thessaly, prehistoric culture, 254 ff.
Timlx-r, building, 174
Tiryns, seized by slaves, 25; Hera, cult,
250
Trallcs. musical inscription, 147, 165
Transylvania, prehistoric pottery, 257
Trebizond, empire, 43
Troy, metallurgy, 26(>
Turks, conquest of Greece, 36; siege of
Vienna, 16; sacred springs, 100
Venetian settlements in Greece, 42
Vienna, prehistoric pottery, Kaigern, 271 ;
Turkish siege, 16
W
WALLACHIA, Greek culture, 19; Turkish
province, 40
Wallachians in Turkish siege of Vienna, 11>
Wiirzburg, r.-f. amphora, 80
XENOPHON, Leuctra, 186
VATICAN, busts of Sophocles 53; r.-f.
amphora, 76
ZEUS, Geometric bronzes, 211
II.-GEEEK INDEX
*, 104 K0ivbs Tro\tfnos, 201
tlKIJTOS, 181
Particbs ay<ai>, 105 \oyia-r-iis, 172
s, 199 noi/eAAij^j, 174
i/M«"><riopx^o, 170 TttploiKoi, 28
yvAU^TM, 26 no\«V«v, 180
*-oAm»pxa'> 170
irphSpoi. 199
irptarapxew, 170
J^f^UH', 201
HpJirueO!, 181 (7^/fATJTOJ, 199
, 181 ffvvttpot, 199
ffiJi/o8os, 199
^JKOs, 180
302
III.-BOOKS NOTICED
All.-ii (J. T.), The Greek Theater of the
Fifth Century before Christ, 277
Allen (T. W.), The Homeric Catalogue of
Ships, 115
Andler (C.), La Pessimisme esthetique de
Nietzsche, 120
A|M It (O.), Diogenes Laertius, 286
Baurnstark (A.), Geschichte der syrischen
I.itemtur mit Ausschluss der Christlich-
paldstinenischen Texte, 287
Bell (H. I.), Catalogue of Greek Papyri in
the British Museum, Vol. V., 289
Bernard (C.), Jules Nicole, 129
Bernardakis (G. N.), A«{»»tJ>i' 'E.pni)vf\rruc6v,
126
Butler (H. C.), Sardis, Vol. I., 276
Carpenter (R.), The Esthetic Basis of Creek
Art of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.,
287
Casson (S.), Ancient Greece, 280
Croiset (M.), Platon, Tome I., 283
Ehrenberg (V.), Die Rechtjidee im friihen
Griechentum, 115
Evans (A. J.), The Palace of Minos at
Knossos, Vol. I, 107
Geffcken (J.), Das Christentum im Kampf
niul A iixijl firli mil der griechisch-romischen
IIV//, 279
Heinemann (F.), Plotin, 285
Heitland (W. E.), Agricola, 121
Hill ((J. F.), Catalogue of the Greek Coins of
Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia in the
British Museum, 130
Horneffer (E.), Der jitnge Platon, 284
Hyde (W. W.), Olympic Victor Monument*
and Grrek Athletic Art, 123
Kampouroglou (D. G.), ' &Qi\va.lic}>v '\pxorro-
\Ayiov, A', 127
Kazarow (G. I.), Beitrdge zur Kultur-
geschichte der Thraker, 291
Lietzmann (H.), Callimachi fragmenta
nuper reperta, 129
Livingstone (R. W.), The Legacy of Greece,
131
Mazon (P.), Eschyle, 112
More (P. E.), The Religion of Plato, 283
Poulsen (F.). Etruscan Tomb Paintings, 290
Powell (J. U.) and Barber (E. A.), New
Chapters in the History of Greek- Literature,
128
Reinhardt (K.), Poseidonios, 120
Rey (L.), Observations gur les premiers
habitats de la Macedoine, 294
Rodenwaldt (G.), Der Fries des Megatons
von Mykenai, 281
liostovtzeflf (M.), A Large Estate in Egypt
in the Third Century B.C., 292
Schmidt (E.), Archaistische Kunst in
Griechenland und Rom, 291
Schweitzer (B.), Herakles, 114
Scott (J. A.), The Unity of Homer, 114
Seltman (C. T.), The Temple Coins of
Olympia, 124
Sheppard (J. T.), The Oedipus Tyrannus of
Sophocles, 109
Ure (P. N.), The Origin of Tyranny, 116
Walters (H. B.), Catalogue of the Silver
Plate (Greek, Etruscan and Roman) in
the British Museum, 126
Kaerst (.1.), (,'i-xrhii-filr des Hellenismus,
Vol. I.. Kd. i'. 117
/immermann (F.), Bibliotheca philologica
classica, Bd. XLV., 279
MADE AND PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN.
KICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITKD,
I'UINTKR.S, BUNOAV, SUFFOLK.
J.H.8. VOL. XLII. (1022). PL. I.
LJ
I
o
h
J.H.8. VOL. XLII. (1022). PL. II.
cc
O
Q-
J.H.S. VOL. XLII. (1929). PL III.
UJ
I
u.
o
J.H.8. VOL. XLII. (1B22). PL IV.
LU
O.
<
I
OB
0
UJ
I
h
u.
O
u
<
tr
C
i:
a
J.H.8. VOL. XLM. (1022). PL. V.
LU
0.
J.H.8. VOL. XLII. (1973). PL. VI
RELIEFS ON MARBLE BASIS
J.H.3. VOL. XLII. (1022). PL VII.
im
s.
RELIEFS ON MARBLE BASIS
ATHENS. NATIONAL MUSEUM
J.H.J. VOL. XLII. (H22). PL. VIM
UJ
I
H
J.M 8 VOL. XLM. (1922) PL IX.
STATUE OF A GIRL (FRAGMENT)
ROME, »«Uk*:0 OKI CONMHVATOm.
J.M.8. VOL XLII. (1922). PL. X.
SLEEPING EROS
ROME, PALAZZO OCI CONtCRVATOfti
J.M.». VOL. XLII. (1922). PL. XI.
MARBLE RELIEF FROM THE ESQUILINE
HOMC, PALAZZO OCI CONStRVATOftl.
J.H.8. VOL. XLll. (1922). PL. XII.
BOWL (SCALE i ;3). RED, BLACK AND WHITE.
LARGE URNS (SCALE 1:7). fc, BLACK OVER RED ox BUFF (LAY. e, RED, BLACK AM> WIIITK.
PREHISTORIC POTTERY FROM KOSTOWCE IN GALICIA
OXFORD. ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM.
DF
10
J8
v./l->
The Journal of Hellenic
studies
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11