We have all been accustomed to associate the familiar form of the trident with a marine deity, whether the Greek Poseidon or the Roman Neptune, but it may not have occurred to many to enquire what is the particular appropriateness of such an emblem to the ruler of the sea, or in what way it was adopted as his emblem. It is my purpose to offer some suggestions which may throw light on the subject, and may further tend to show that, in artistic representations at least, the trident is merely an evolution of a somewhat different form, that it is in fact the development of an originally purely decorative ornament.

Such developments of simple decorative motives into definite mythological representations are by no means uncommon in Greek art. In a former number of this Journal Miss Harrison has traced the ‘Odysseus and Sirens’ type to a purely decorative origin. The same writer, in her Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, pp. cxiv., cxxv., suggests that the tortoise of the robber Skiron slain by Theseus, and the clue which guided that hero through the labyrinth of the Minotaur, found their way into mythology from vase-paintings in which they were merely decorative. These may be only suggestions, but I am of opinion that difficult points in many myths may be cleared up in this way.

Several attempts have been made to reconstruct the camp of Attila on the basis of the evidence supplied to us by the narrative of Priscus Panites, who describes in great detail what he saw during his visit to the camp in A.D. 448. Stephani has argued that the camp was of Germanic construction and that it was built by a Gothic war-prisoner from Sirmium. It may be said at once that this latter point is unlikely, for Priscus turns aside to mention that the stone baths of Onegesius were built by this war-prisoner; he would scarcely have specified this one building if in fact the whole camp had been constructed by him. Also, there is no indication in his text that the prisoner was a Goth. J. Strzygowski suggested that the camp was the work of Slavs, a conjecture which has, I think, won no acceptance. Most recently, Ferenc Vamos, in a very full discussion of the camp and its buildings, rejected both these views and suggested that the influence of two cultures can be detected in the camp: the culture of the nomads of central Asia and that of the sedentary Iranians—the Huns were introduced to the work of the latter by the intermediacy of the Alans. But before a decision can be reached on the origins of Hun architecture, we must be clear as to what it is precisely that Priscus tells us about the camp and the buildings in it.

The pretty vase figured at the head of this paper passed from Prince Louis Napoleon's possession into the hands of the late Auguste Dutuit, who bequeathed it along with his other treasures to the city of Paris. The same subject, a winged woman holding bow and arrow and bending to touch a fawn, is repeated with very slight variations on an unpublished lekythos in Syracuse. To judge from her weapons, the woman must be the winged Artemis who is familiar to us from primitive Greek art: but small, brisk, and dainty, she is greatly changed from the strong-armed Potnia Theron. Although it may often be observed that hunters love in a curious sort the fleet or violent people of the woodland whom they pursue and destroy; yet no one could think that this little lady ever used the weapons she carries to hurt or kill: borne on wings, she overtakes the swift feet, but the chase is not in earnest and ends not in death but in a caress: she is kindly to the rough young of fiery lions, and delightful to tender forest creatures that love the breast.

There is in the British Museum a colossal marble lion which was found near Cnidos by Sir Charles Newton (Cat. of Sculpt., ii. p. 214, No. 1350). It is recumbent and sculptured out of one block, the underside being hollowed out to diminish the weight. Its length is 9 feet 7 inches. (Fig. 1.) In the Guide to Greek and Roman Antiquities (1908) the sculpture is thus described and discussed:—

‘A colossal lion which was found lying overturned on a lofty promontory. about three miles to the east of Cnidos. On the site where it was lying were the remains of a great tomb, which consisted of a square basement surrounded by engaged columns of the Doric order and surmounted by a pyramid.

These notes are offered to E. R. Dodds in gratitude for much kindness and for much instruction on Greek drama and religion.

I. Heros

The main lines of the story are clear from the summary, the list of characters, the two papyrus passages and the fragments. But the second papyrus passage can, I think, be made a little clearer and something can be said about the Heros. For understanding these the beginning and the end of the summary are useful: ‘An unmarried girl (Myrrhine) bore twins (Plangon and Gorgias) and gave them to a guardian (Tibeios) to bring up. Then later she married her raper (Laches)…. When things became clear, the Old man (Laches) discovered his children (Plangon and Gorgias), and the violator (Pheidias) took the girl (Plangon) willingly.’

The second of the two papyrus pages begins with the last two lines of an Act; then the new Act (the fourth because it has the main recognition scene) starts with a short agitated soliloquy of Laches (55–63). He has returned home and found that the girl Plangon whom he had promised to his slave Daos has borne a child to an unknown father (I assume that Daos' claim has been rejected): this, I think, is what he comments on in his fragmentary soliloquy. Then Myrrhine comes out.

Among all the tantalising questions relating to Lycian pillar tombs, the one that has never been touched is that concerning the top openings which are usually called doors. Yet an enquiry into their meaning may, I think, prove a crucial test. These apertures measure in width 0.20 m. (Isinda Tomb), 0.30 m. (Lion Tomb), 0.41 m. (Harpy Tomb), and 0.45 m. (Trysa Tomb). They give access to a sort of cavity the floor-level of which, however, is a good deal below the bottom of the opening, and from within they must have looked rather like windows. All these openings are high (4-6 m.) above the ground and were filled with stone slabs. No coffin could have passed through them, for their size is exceedingly small. Yet they are called doors. What was their real purpose? Were they for offerings, or for cremation urns, or for sacrifices? Is this tower-like tomb to be compared with Persian cremation towers, or with primitive granaries, or is it a survival of some legendary burial in trees?

As the point of departure I take that controversial passage in Thucydides i. 13.2—

Now the controversy turns on the type of ship that Ameinocles built. Thucydides uses the general word ναῦς, which in Herodotus certainly and, according to Liddell and Scott, in Greek literature generally does seem to be a synonym for τριέρεις, and after Thucydides' use of the word τριήρεις in the previous sentence it would be natural to take ναῦς in the same sense. The Corinthians built the first triremes in Greece and Ameinocles built four of them for the Samians at the end of the eighth century, and there would be at least a reliable terminus ante quem for the introduction of the trireme into Greece. Here the matter would have rested, had not this date conflicted not only with the other literary records, including Thucydides himself, but also with the archaeological evidence, such as it is, which both seem to preclude such an early date.

The marshalling of the literary evidence against the supposition that triremes were built in Greece at the end of the eighth century has been admirably done by Professor Davison in the Classical Quarterly of 1947. He rightly comes to the conclusion that triremes could not have been introduced into Greece before the third quarter of the sixth century, and that in the disputed passage Thucydides was using ναῦς of ships generally and refraining from specifying the class; but in this case how flat the second part of the sentence sounds—the Corinthians were the first in Greece to use triremes, and Ameinocles the Corinthian built four ships of some sort or other for the Samians—nor does it seem to warrant the luxury of a precise date; and why four ships?