There are few sites in the Hellenic World that in recent years have been so prolific of discoveries as that of Tarentum. The scheme so earnestly taken up by the Italian Government for converting the half-forgotten nest of fishermen and olive proprietors into a great Mediterranean arsenal, bids fair to restore Taranto to some measure at least of the importance which her unique position secured to her in ancient days. The mediæval citys hut up within the limits of its peninsular site, the Akropolis of the ancient Tarentum, blocking the passage from the inner to the outer sea, is again enlarging its borders, and a new quarter—the Borgo Nuovo—is rising on the mainland to the east where lay the Agora of the great Doric city. The inner sea—the Mar Piccolo—the Limên of Tarentum, at present laid out in gardens for the ‘sea-fruit’ which supplies the Naples market, is already being deepened in its south-eastern bay to form a secure and unassailable harbour, and the leviathans of the new Italian navy will henceforth anchor in the same historic port whence Hannibal transferred the Tarentine galleys adry to the outer sea.

The two painted vases reproduced on Pl. LXII. are part of a collection of antiquities found in some twenty tombs, which were excavated in 1879 in the island of Lipara, not far from the present town of that name. The precise locality is known as the Contrada Diana and is the property of Signor Scolarici. A road leading to it is called the Via Diana, and this name seems to have originated in the ruins of three small shrines which popular opinion has attributed to that goddess. The presence of these shrines in close proximity to the tombs has led to the conviction that this particular spot was the ancient cemetery of Lipara.

The history of Lipara is briefly this. Known originally as the island Meligounis, but having no population, probably owing to its volcanic nature, it was first taken possession of by settlers from the adjoining coast of Italy, then under the legendary rule of Auson, and named after him Ausonia. The descendants of Auson continued to govern the newly-acquired island until about 580 B.C., when a colony of Rhodians and Knidians made its appearance. These colonists had started from their homes for Sicily, and had there with much disaster to themselves taken part in the war raging between the towns of Selinus and Egesta.

In the present paper we continue the commentary begun in last year's Journal, and set forth the numismatic facts which ran parallel to those books of Pausanias which deal with the remainder of Peloponnesus; Laconia, Messenia, Elis, Achaia, and Arcadia. Athens, Phocis, and Boeotia still remain for future treatment.

In spite of our efforts to be complete, we have already discovered a number of coins of Corinth and Argos and the neighbouring cities which had escaped us, and which present new types, or important varieties of the types which appear in our plates. This will necessitate the publication of a supplement to our first paper. While this is in preparation numismatists will be doing the greatest service if they will let us have casts of any types in their possession which are omitted in the descriptions or the plates of this paper or the last. Casts of unusual coins of imperial times of Phocis or Boeotia will also be most welcome.

Of one of the greatest masters of the great age of Greek sculpture nothing certain or satisfactory was known until three fragments found at Piali were proved in 1880 to belong to the sculpture that filled the pediment of the temple of Athene Alea at Tegea. These fragments—the helmed head of a youthful warrior much defaced, another youthful head with nearly all the features preserved, and the head of a boar—can be as directly traced to the hand of Scopas as the figures of the Parthenon pediment to the hand of Pheidias. The recent handbooks and histories of Greek sculpture have not taken them sufficiently into account; and yet they are our sole material for an immediate study of Scopas, and having been brought to the Central Museum of Athens are now fairly accessible, and have been minutely examined and scientifically estimated by Dr. Treu, who has endeavoured to affix their place in the development of style, and has shown their relations to other works. But his employment of them as criteria has chiefly a negative result. He finds in them certain characteristics which speak against the claims sometimes advanced of the Niobid figures, of the Ephesian Alcestis relief, of the Vatican Apollo Citharoedus, and of the Munich relief of Amphitrite's marriage, to represent the style of Scopas and his school. The main object of this paper is to notice a few works in which a more or less close resemblance to the Tegean heads is discernible. For this purpose it is necessary to briefly examine the account given by Dr. Treu, an account to which—as he admits—he is assisted chiefly by drawings, and not by the immediate observation of the originals.

In the last volume of the Journal of Hellenic Studies (vi. pp. 378–380) Prof. Newton has commented at length on some remarks made by me in the same volume (vi. pp. 199—201) on the torso of an imperial statue found at Cyrene and now in the British Museum. Before considering Mr. Newton's paper in detail I may be permitted to say a few words on the subject of cuirass-ornamentation in general.

In his Winckelmanns-fest-program for 1868, Dr. Hübner referred to the want of a classified list of ornamented cuirasses of emperors. No one has, at present, attempted to compile such a list, which would, practically, have to take the form of a complete monograph on statuae thoracatae, in which the restorations, style, material, pose, and attribution of each figure would have to be carefully studied. To carry out this work it would be necessary to make a personal examination of a large number of statues which have not hitherto been critically described, and which have suffered greatly at the hands of restorers. A difficulty which specially complicates the study of this class of monuments would also have to be borne in mind— namely, that in many cases the body of imperial statues appears to have been originally made apart from the head.

English enterprise in excavation has been considerably checked of late years by the impossibility of obtaining anything like fair terms from the Greek or Turkish governments. Greece will grant concessions on an agreement being duly signed that everything found shall belong to the Greek government and that the works shall be superintended by a Greek ἔφορος who has been educated in Germany. Turkey whose relations with the English Government have of late been rather strained will come to no arrangement whatsoever. So we chose Samos last winter as a likely field owing to its having an independent government, but this government in every way follows the lines of Greece, and though I tried hard to obtain a concession for taking away one half or one third of the things found I was eventually obliged to sign the same agreement which the French excavator M. Clerk had signed two years before, and which stipulated that everything found should belong to Samos. Consequently if English archaeologists wish to prosecute researches on the actual soil of Hellas, it remains for them to decide whether they are sufficiently remunerated for their trouble and outlay by the bare honour of discovering statues, inscriptions, and other treasures to be placed in the museum of Athens, or, as is the case in Turkey, for the inhabitants to make chalk of, or build into their houses.

The chief fruit of Mr. Theodore Bent's recent visit to Samos is the discovery of an important agonistic inscription, which gives a list of victors in some games at Samos, probably the Heraea. The limits of date are given on the one hand by the mention of Apameia, founded by Seleucus Nicator, on the other hand by the absence of all Roman names. The forms of the letters with their squareness and strongly marked extremities seem to indicate the second century B.C.

The Heraea were celebrated at Samos from early times. Plutarch tells us that after the battle of Aegospotami the Samians renamed the festival after Lysander. But it soon resumed the older name. In one inscription of imperial times it is called in an inscription of the Antonine age the festival is termed The festival was doubtless a great Ionic πανηγυρίς, attended by all the pleasure-loving people of the coast and worthy of the language in which the Homeric hymn speaks of the Delian festival.

Through the kindness of the Rev. C. G. Curtis, of Constantinople, we are enabled to publish the following inscription. The stone on which it is cut is now in his possession, and was found at Chalcedon (the modern Kadikevi).

For the form and substance of the inscription cf. C. I. G. 3794, also from Chalcedon: our decree however appears from the forms of the letters to be older than the one in the Corpus, which uses the forms ΑΘΣ.

For the functions of the αἰσυμνῆται at Chalcedon, see Boeckh, ad loc. They seem to have corresponded to the Prytanes at Athens, and the ἁγεμὼν βουλᾶς was their president. It is singular that only one of the seven names of tribes found attached to the names of the αἰσυμνῆται in Boeckh's inscription recurs in this one; as at least six new ones are here found, it follows that there must have been more than either ten or twelve tribes at Chalcedon. In this inscription, again, there are ten αἰσυμνῆται beside the president; in C. I. G. 3797 he and the scribe have to be included to make up the same number.

The strange word ἶυγξ is familiar to all classical scholars from the first refrain in the Φαρμακεύτριαι of Theokritos, from two passages in Pindar, and a line in the Persai of Aischylos.

Aristotle in his ‘History of Animals’ gives a description of the bird and uses τρίζειν of its cry.

Anthol. Pal. 5, 205 may also be referred to; and the word occurs, naturally, in the Scriptores Erotici.

We see from these passages (1) Ἴυγξ that was the name of a bird, the wryneck, which stretched on a wheel was used in magic rites, cf. especially Pindar Pyth. IV. 213, the scholion on Lykophron, and ἕλκω αὐτήν in the passage of Xenophon: (2) that ἴυγξ was used in the sense of charm, cf. the passages of Aelian, Aristophanes, Diogenes and Pindar Nem.: (3) that ἴυγξ meant love or desire, cf. Lykophron, schol., and Aischylos Pers.

In his very minute and accurate description of the Tirynthian Palace, Dr. Dörpfeld has almost wholly confined himself to the discussion of what actually exists or can with certainty be inferred from existing evidence, and has not committed himself to a conjectural restoration of any part of this most interesting building.

I venture therefore to offer to the Hellenic Society a proposed restoration of the Great Hall—the Homeric Megaron as Dr. Dörpfeld and other able archaeologists hold it to be.

This restoration is based partly on the evidence of the existing remains, partly on what may be called structural necessity, and partly on the analogy of other buildings or ancient sculptured reliefs.

Fig. 1 shows the front of the Hall, the αἴθουσα δόμου opening from the Great Court. The conjectural parts are the exact heights of the structure, including the pillars, antae and doors, and the form of the roof. The clearest proofs exist of the diameters of the antae and pillars, the width of the doorways with their double doors on revolving pivots. The steps are in perfect preservation, and so is part of the very carefully formed concrete floor with its incised and coloured pattern in red squares separated by blue bands.

Every discussion relating to Tiryns may fitly commence with a tribute to the energy and enthusiasm which, there as elsewhere, have characterised the excavations of Dr. Schliemann; a tribute which has at all times been ungrudgingly rendered by his critics, even when they have been least able to accept the theories which have been founded on those results by the distinguished excavator. It will not be the purpose of the present paper to discuss the questions which have been raised concerning the origin and age of the remains at Tiryns; whether, as Dr. Dörpfeld holds, they represent a prehistoric palace, built by Phoenicians about 1100 B.C.; or, as others believe after seeing them, belong to buildings of post-classical date and of rude construction, in which partial use was made of archaic or classical material found on the spot. The question with which alone this paper deals is the following. Given the plan of the house at Tiryns, as Dr. Dörpfeld traces it, can this plan be reconciled with that of the typical Homeric house, as indicated in the Homeric poems? By ‘reconciled’ is not meant, harmonised in every detail, but brought into an intelligible agreement as regards features essential to the Homeric story. The position maintained in Dr. Schliemann's work is that, with reasonable allowance for variations between one house and another of the same period, such a general reconciliation is possible. This is a very important issue, not only for Homeric archaeology, but for all study of Homer.

Of the bronze fragment which forms the subject of Pl. LXIX., and which has been recently acquired for the British Museum, this only is certain: that it is the right leg of an armed figure in motion. With a few fragments of drapery it is, unfortunately, all that remains of a statue of heroic size: there is therefore ample room for speculation as to its subject and action. The leg is armed in a greave, and the pieces of drapery bordered with one of the forms of the Greek fret incised and originally inlaid with silver, must, from the character of the folds, have belonged to the skirt of a short chiton, such as was worn under armour. The figure was therefore that of a hero in full armour, and that it was in motion is sufficiently indicated by the fluttering movement of the pieces of drapery.

It will be well to introduce here some notes which Mr. Murray was kind enough to send to me, and which were a most valuable assistance to me in the preparation of this paper:—

I will offer one or two observations regarding the bronze leg recently acquired for the British Museum from M. Piot in Paris.

My object in the following paper is two-fold; first, to comment on two hitherto unpublished vases relating to the myth of the Judgment of Paris; secondly, to discuss the typography of the myth generally, and in particular to offer some suggestions as to the origin of its early art form.

First as to the unpublished vases. Both the amphora and the pinax are now in the Graeco-Etruscan Museum at Florence. The drawings and photographs were executed under the kind supervision of the Director of the Museum, Sig. Milani; he was however unable to tell me where the vases were found: they are manifestly both of Attic work. It is fortunate that they both are now in the same Museum, as they present certain well-marked analogies in treatment, evident at the most cursory glance.

A detailed description of the two vases is superfluous, as accurate reproductions lie before the reader, but I would call attention to one or two points. The amphora (Plate LXX. and Fig. 1) I should class as belonging to very early black-figured manner—before the regular B. F. Attic style is fully established—with reminiscences of the so-called ‘Chalcidian’ and of the ‘Corinthian’ styles. We note especially the curiously cut cloaks of the women, which appear frequently on Corinthian vases, of which there are numerous examples in the Louvre; and we note also the rosettes on the animal frieze and the very ‘Chalcidian’ horror vacui, e.g. the little owl between the feet of Hermes.

Mr. Petrie's excavations at Naucratis, in the first season (1884–5), threw new light on many branches of classical archaeology: and a full share has fallen upon epigraphy. That science, indeed, has acquired new facts which not only form an important addition where additional evidence was most needed, but also necessitate a modification of certain theories which have hitherto been regarded as certain and fundamental. It is difficult, though not impossible, to reconstruct a portion of the foundations without injuring the edifice built thereon. But this attempt must be made, if we would neither ignore newly discovered material, nor allow its discovery to shake our confidence in the whole complicated structure of facts and theories that constitutes the science of epigraphy.

In the chapter on the inscriptions which was incorporated with Mr. Petrie's Memoir, the present writer endeavoured to give to the earliest records of dedication their true interpretation, and to assign to them what seemed their due place in the history of the Greek alphabet. But, with another season's work in prospect, it appeared premature to do more than this, or to draw general conclusions which further discoveries might again modify.

I have been asked to add a few notes on the collection of ancient monuments of which specimens are published on Plates LXXI. and C. These marbles were formerly in the possession of Mr. George McLeay, who, while residing in India, deposited them in the South Kensington Museum, where Professor Michaelis saw them. Most of them have already been described by Michaelis in his Ancient Marbles in Great Britain pp. 481 seq. Mr. McLeay had a house at Smyrna, and it was in Asia Minor, chiefly at Smyrna and in its neighbourhood, that he collected his antiquities. They have since been presented by him to Sir Charles Nicholson, who has placed them in his house, The Grange, Totteridge, Hertfordshire.

Most of these monuments belong to the Roman period of Greek art in Asia Minor. There can be no doubt that the interest attaching to such works will grow with the development and systematisation of the study of archaeology. For we may reasonably hope that, as our power to fix in time and to distinguish with accuracy the broader characteristic points of distinction between Greek and Graeco-Roman art grows, we shall not halt at this stage, but shall advance still further in successful endeavours to establish more detailed distinctions of time and even locality within these broader divisions.

The questions concerning the art of Pergamon, its characteristics and later influence, depend partly for their solution on the reconstruction and explanation of the fragments in Berlin. Much progress has been made in the work during the last year. The discovery which decided what was the breadth of the staircase, and what were the figures which adorned the left wing and the left staircase wall, has been already mentioned in the Hellenic Journal. It is now officially stated that the staircase was on the west side of the altar, although Bohn, in his survey of the site, at first conceived that this was impossible. Assuming that this point is now settled, we may note what is certain, or probable, or what is merely conjectural, in the placing of the groups. We know that the wing on the left of the staircase, and the left staircase-wall, were occupied by the deities of the sea and their antagonists: by Triton, Amphitrite, Nereus, and others which we cannot name. Among them, also, we may perhaps discern the figure of Hephaestos, and in their vicinity we must suppose Poseidon. On the right wing of the staircase, and around the south-west corner, we have good reason for placing Dionysos, with Cybele and her attendant goddesses, although the order of the slabs on which these latter are found is not the same as was formerly supposed.

The group of Nikè βουθυτοῦσα is one which is already so well known among works of ancient art, that in adducing further instances of this type we cannot hope to bring forward much that adds to our previous knowledge of the subject. It is, however, just one of those cases which, from the very frequency of its recurrence in ancient art, has a special claim upon our attention; a motive which, starting as it doubtless does, from a great Greek original, continues favourite down to late Roman times, is worthy of study in the phases of development which different material and different periods bring about, and therefore I think no apology is needed for introducing the fresh examples of it now before us.

The starting point, the Haupttypus so far as we know, of this motive, is of course the small fragment which remains to prove that it existed in the reliefs on the balustrade of the temple of Athena Nikè at Athens. In his admirable monograph on these sculptures, published in 1869, Kekulé contented himself with a brief description of this fragment, without being able to identify the original motive of the group from which it came, or its position on the frieze.