^{page 211 note 2} Botti, Musée Gréco-Romain d'Alexandrie, Salle 2, No. 9.

^{page 213 note 1} Miss Welsh, who has been kind enough to re-examine this relief for me, writes that the ‘worshippers’ from their size must be gods. ‘Apollo’ is certainly bearded: and the provenance points to the Asklepieion: the omphalos is possibly a rock. Other deities besides Apollo sit on the omphalos; probably the deity here is Asklepios: and the relief may date from the late fifth century. Reisch, v., Festschrift f. Bennaorf, p. 140Google Scholar; Furtwängler, , Ath. Mitt. 1878, p. 186, 1Google Scholar; Duhn, , Arch. Zeit. 1877, p. 162.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} Overbeck, , Kunstmyth., 3, p. 284Google Scholar, calls it a sceptre, v. Museum Marbles, ii. 5, where it is also suggested that it is a sceptre or a torch.

^{page 214 note 1} Cavedoni, v., Marmi Modenesi, p. 192Google Scholar, Pl. I. Von Sacken, , Die Antiken Skulpturen in Wien, Pl. 18, p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} Comptes Rendus, 1870–71, ii. 3, p. 164.

^{page 214 note 3} Clarac, Pl. 486 B, 737 a.

^{page 214 note 4} Clarac, Pl. 485 and 486 A, 937.

^{page 214 note 5} Heydemann, , Naples Vase Cat., No. 1984. Baumeister, p. 1110, Fig. 1307.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 6} Now in Lyons, , Journ. Int. Arch. Num., 1901, Pl. 13, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 1} Bevan, v., House of Seleucus i. 121, 265.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 2} His elder brother and rival, Seleucus II., never used this type, but Apollo standing by a tripod. It seems remarkable that the rightful king should never have used the great Seleucid type.

^{page 215 note 3} B. M. Cat. Seleucids, iii. 3 and 6.

^{page 216 note 1} It was probably a coin similar to one of these that influenced the Parthian type of Arsaces on the Omphalos who holds a bow only (v. Babélon, , Rois de Syrie, Pl. LXIII.Google Scholar). The type however was not used till the time of Mithradates II. 123–88 B.C., v. Wroth, , B. M. Cat. Parthia, Pl. LXVIIGoogle Scholar, seqq.

^{page 216 note 2} Macdonald, , J.H.S., 1903, p. 105, Pl. I., 4 and 5.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 3} v. the Plates in the B. M. Cat. or in Babélon, op. cit.

^{page 216 note 4} Γῆς ὀμφαλὸς ἡ Πάφος καὶ Δελφοί Hesych. s.v. This explains the type as regards Paphos. Müller, C. O., Antiquitates Antiochenae, p. 58 (Göttingen, 1839).Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 5} Plato, Rep. iv., 427.

^{page 216 note 6} On the coins of this king, however, there is less softness.

^{page 217 note 1} I have already referred to this in discussing the deification of the Philetaerus type. v. Journ. Int. Arch. Num., 1903, p. 146. I have since had an opportunity of examining the British Museum gem there discussed: unfortunately there is no doubt that it is a forgery.

^{page 217 note 2} For exceptions see the two coins of Antiochus II., B.M.C. v., 1 and 2.

^{page 217 note 3} Bevan, , House of Selenous, i. 121. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 4} Bevan, op. cit. ii. 275.

^{page 218 note 1} C.I.G. 4458. Bevan, , J.H.S. 1900, p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} Müller, , Antiq. Antioch. p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 3} See the passages in Overbeck, , S.Q., 1321seqq.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 4} Nonnus, , Narr. ad Greg. Inv. ii. 14, p. 165Google Scholarπερὶ Κασταλίας. Πηγὴ ἦν ἐν Δἀφιῃ τῇ κατὰ ᾿Αντιόχειαν ἐν ἦ λέγεται τὸν ᾿Απόλλωνα παρεδρεύειν καὶ μαντείας καὶ χρησμοὺς τοῖς ἐρχομένοις περὶ τὸ ὔδωρ λέγεσθαι

^{page 218 note 5} Malal. p. 233, Lib. xi. 340, 4 and 14. There is a topographical difficulty as regards the omphalos. It is argued that there could have been no omphalos till Antiochus IV. built Epiphania, and added the fourth portion to the city, for it is certain that Antioch was a tetrapolis. Förster says the omphalos mentioned was that of Epiphania. Babélon, (Rois de Syrie, p. lxvi.)Google Scholar assumes an omphalos in the centre of the tetrapolis, each city being separately walled. Erdmann (Kunde d. hell. Städtegrund, p. 23) imagines that the later additions merely completed the original plan of Seleucus I. Müller assumes from the coin-type that there was originally a spot called ὁ ὀμφαλός. The whole topography of the city is unknown. Conjectures from the texts are unprofitable: excavation is the only remedy. For references, etc., see Förster, , Jahrbuch, 1897Google Scholar, and Pauly-Wissowa, s.v.

^{page 218 note 6} Antiq. Antioch. pp. 49, 57, 58, 60. Dict. Gk. and Rom. Geog. p. 143.

^{page 218 note 7} Op. cit., p. 43. The Tyche in the Vatican (Helbig. 382) is also a reduced copy of a bronze. v. B. M. Cat. Seleucids, Pl. 27, 5–8 and Babélon, , Les rois de Syrie, 29, 8–12.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} B. M. Cat., iii. 3.

^{page 219 note 2} For a good suggestion as to the meaning of the bow and arrows see Müller, op. cit. p. 43, where however in a note he says he believes the arrow pointed to the ground indicates that the god's anger is appeased.

^{page 219 note 3} The fillet-net might have been rendered by painting.

^{page 219 note 4} Loc. cit. of course the difficulty of the omphalos must not be forgotten.

^{page 219 note 5} Besides the cult statue at Daphne he set up a bronze Athena φοβερά in appearance (Mal. p. 201 ), which was taken to the Capitol at Rome in Pompey's time with another bronze he set up, a Zeus Ceraunius (Mal. p. 212). Malalas (p. 202) also mentions as dedications of Seleucus I. a marble statue of the horse that saved his life when he fled from the jealousy of Antigonus (cf. the horsehead on Seleucid coins (B.M.C. i. 6), and the story of Alexander and Bucephalus) and one of a priest, Amphion, also of marble.

^{page 220 note 1} B. M. Cat. iii. 3, Cf. also the coin of Nikokles.

^{page 220 note 2} Journ. Int. Arch. Num., loc. cit.

^{page 220 note 3} Förster, , Jahrb., 1898, p. 177Google Scholar, describes a bronze group of wrestlers from Antioch now in Constantinople. Schreiber, , Arch. Anz., 1899, p. 134Google Scholar, referring to wrestler groups found in the Delta, claims the type as Alexandrian; cf. Perdrizet, , Rev. Arch. 1903, p. 392.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 4} For the history and extant remains of Antioch see Müller, De Antiq. Antioch. and Förster's, excellent article Jahrb. 1897, p. 103seqq.Google Scholar where many other references are given.

^{page 221 note 1} Arch. Anz., 1894, p. 29, Fig. 12, 0·46 m. high. Dr Herrmann says it may possibly have come from Alexandria; even if this is correct, it proves nothing as regards its real origin. It may quite well be a modern importation into Egypt. See below. Schreiber, , Gallierkopf, p. 16Google Scholar, compares it with an Aphrodite at Cairo which is much restored including the base and dolphin. There are similar statuettes at Alexandria, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and elsewhere: the provenance in most cases where known is Syrian or Egyptian, but the style seems generally to be of Roman date. Furtwängler, v., Helbing's Monatsb. ü. Kunst u. Kunstwissenschaft, Heft 4.Google ScholarSchreiber, , Phil. Woch. 1903, p. 301.Google ScholarReinach, , Rev. Arch. 1903, p. 231, 388.Google Scholar Botti, op. cit. i. 1155–1165.

^{page 222 note 1} Ant. Skulp. Berlin, No. 286. From the Museo Grimani, 1·29 m. high. It is described as work of the Hellenistic period. It is of ‘Parian’ marble: the Dresden group is of marble like ‘Parian.’ The two Tritons in the Vatican seem to be different both in style and type. Helbig, v., Führer 191.Google ScholarAmelung, , Sculp. Vat. Mus. Gall. Lap. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Brunn. Denk. 260, Collignon, ii. p. 589, Fig. 308.

^{page 223 note 1} Overbeck, , S.Q. 1316seqq.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} Löwy, , I.G.B. 187.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} Inschrift. v. Pergamon, 49, 75, 132, 133, 136, 138. Many other similar instances could be quoted.

^{page 223 note 4} Pausanias, ii. 27, 6, apparently refers to an Egyptian Apollo at Epidaurus.

^{page 223 note 5} The necessary references will be found in Pauly-Wissowa, Apollon.

^{page 223 note 6} v. Bevan, op. cit. Mahaffy, Emp. of Ptolemies, p. 306.

^{page 223 note 7} v. Bevan, op cit. i. 179.

^{page 224 note 1} As will be seen from what is said below, it is rightly applied to the history of the period.

^{page 224 note 2} Compare also the statues of the tomb of Antiochus of Commagene at Dagh, Nemrûd, Mitchell, , Ancient Sculpture, p. 608.Google Scholar The coinage of Bactria is at first Hellenic, but soon degenerates into the Hellenistic. The Ptolemaic coinage also degenerates into the Hellenistic: and so does the Seleucid, but only during the civil wars of the last Seleucids.

^{page 224 note 3} History of Greece, iv., p. 5–8.

^{page 225 note 1} The Realism of a work of art depends on the influence exercised by the model: the ‘Realism’ of the period under discussion is a close observation and accurate reproduction of natural objects, scenes, and passions. It is practically a romantic effect, but is entirely unacademic. Cf. the Barberini Faun, the Laocoon, the Marsyas group, the ‘Vénus Accroupie’ and the Alexandrian Grave-Reliefs (Pfuhl, , Ath. Mitt., 1901, p. 258Google Scholar).

^{page 225 note 2} Le Bas-relief Romain, p. 251.

^{page 225 note 3} Some of them may of course be modern importations. Several of these are mentioned below, or by Schreiber (Gallierkopf. d. Mus. b. Gizeh) and Amelung, (Bull. Com. xxv. p. 110).Google Scholar A brief description of others is to be found in Botti, Musée Gréco-Rom. d'Alexandrie; what Botti there calls the ‘Alexandrine’ style is that soft ideal style determined by Amelung and Schreiber. I would especially call attention to the female heads—Botti, Nos. i. 23, 30, 31, 33, 34, and 36–39, xiv. 9, 12, and 14.

^{page 226 note 1} These numbers refer to Collignon, , Histoire de la Sculpt. Grecque, vol. ii., chap. iv.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 2} Cf. Mus. Chi. iii. Pl. 44. Infant Harpocrates in arms of aged woman. Torso, much broken. Judging from the other works found with it, it is possibly Hadrianic. Dr Pfuhl has been kind enough to call my attention to this torso and give me notes upon it.

^{page 226 note 3} Schreiber, , Alt. Mitt., 1885, p. 395Google Scholar, seems to have been misinformed; cf. Anc. Marb. Brit. Mus. x., xxvii.

^{page 226 note 4} Figs. 288 and 292, the female head at Naples with the hair dressed in the Egyptian style and the bronze head of a Nubian from Cyrene in the British Museum are no evidence for the grotesque. One is a Graeco-Egyptian portrait, and the other is apparently an idealist study of the racial type. The other bronze statuettes referred to, p. 569, 2, are Egyptian works, but of Roman date.

^{page 227 note 1} This and the three preceding are published by him in Ath. mitt. 1885, Pls. X., XI., XII. M. Collignon just refers to them, op. cit. p. 567.

^{page 227 note 2} Ath. mitt. 1885, p. 392, 2.

^{page 227 note 3} Op. cit. p. 393.

^{page 227 note 4} Op. cit. p. 393.

^{page 227 note 5} A catalogue by him of the Graf collection in Leipzig gives several bronzes, etc., from Egypt; practically all seem to me of Roman date. Arch. Anz. 1890, p. 155.

^{page 227 note 6} Arch. Anz., 1894, p. 173. Dr Herrmann compares with it 4 and 18, and a figure at Naples, Phot. Brogi, No. 5668. Cf. Peasant, in Vatican, , Gall. d. Cand. 265.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 7} Arch. Anz. 1889, p. 99. Found in Rome; Roman work; Carrara marble.

^{page 227 note 8} Arch. Anz. 1890, p. 97. It is there compared with No. 9.

^{page 227 note 9} Anc. Marb. Brit. Mus. x., xxix.

^{page 227 note 10} Michaelis, , Jahrb. 1897, p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 11} Reinach, , Rép. 563, 6Google Scholar; cf. ibid. 561, 1, 7, 8, 10, and 562, 2, 6; Arch. Anz. 1903, p. 149, 31.

^{page 227 note 12} Helbig, , Führer, 378Google Scholar, Brunn, , Denk. 164.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 13} v. Arch. Anz. 1889, p. 98. Complete restored replicas in the Capitol and at Munich. I include this because it seems to me to possess nearly all the characteristics of the others. But see Helbig, Führer, No. 439.

^{page 227 note 14} H. de Villefosse, Cat. Somm. d. Marbres Ant., No. 517.

^{page 228 note 1} Ath. Mitt. 1885, p. 392. Michaelis (loc. cit.) calls attention to the treatment of the penis. For an account of Canopus see Strabo, 17, 800. The Cabeiric vases from Thebes might be compared.

^{page 228 note 2} Amelung, , Sculpt. d. Vat. Mus. i. p. 124.Google ScholarHelbig, , Untersuch. Camp. Wandmal. p. 101.Google Scholar It is interesting to remark that painting flourished in Egypt, v. Helbig, op. cit. p. 136.

^{page 229 note 1} It is indicated by drill-holes over the surface which make it appear sponge-like.

^{page 229 note 2} A careful study of the extant Greek terracottas found in Egypt and scattered amongst many Museums might possibly assign some grotesques to the Ptolemaic period, but only, I think, a small proportion.

^{page 229 note 3} Philippi, Ueber die Röm. Triumphalreliefs; Wörmann, Landschaft in d. Kunst d. alten Völker.

^{page 229 note 4} The Grimani reliefs are almost certainly Augustan both in style and technique which can be compared to the Ara Pacis and other Imperial monuments. Schreiber makes them Alexandrian ‘più indovinando che dimostrando.’ v. Wickhoff, Roman Art, Chap. ii. Altmann, , Architect. u. Ornament. d. ant. Sarcophage, pp. 73, 77.Google Scholar Amelung, op. cit. p. 110.

^{page 230 note 1} ‘Alttagsleben;’ Prof. Schreiber's views are expressed in the following publications: Die Wiener Brunnenreliefs; Die Hellenistische Reliefbilder (Plates only as yet); Arch. Zeit. 1880, p. 145; Barockelemente in d. hell. Kunst (All. Zeit. 1891, 25th May); Die hell. Reliefbilder und d. Aug. Kunst (Jahrb. d. Inst., 1896); Die Alexandrinische Toreutik., and a paper in the Arch. Anz. 1889, p. 113 seq.

^{page 230 note 2} Handbook of Greek Sculpture, p. 441. Other writers who follow Schreiber are Collignon (op. cit.) and Conze, (Arch. Anz. 1900, p. 18).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 3} Röm. Mitth. 1894, p. 66, and 1901, p. 258.

^{page 230 note 4} Furtwängler, Beschreib. No. 206.

^{page 230 note 5} Roman Art (English translation of the Wiener-Genesis, introduction), chapter ii. especially. Mrs. Strong, the editress, by her championship of Dr Wickhoff's views clearly implies disbelief in those of Prof. Schreiber.

^{page 231 note 1} Schreiber compares South Italian vases with some of the ‘Hellenistic Reliefs’: Jahrb. 1896, p. 100, 61.

^{page 231 note 2} Le Bas-relief Romain, Book 3, chap. 2.

^{page 231 note 3} Op. cit. p. 266, 4.

^{page 231 note 4} Op. cit. p. 292, 1, p. 290, 6, p. 287, 1.

^{page 231 note 5} Jahrb. 1896, p. 82, notes 15 and 18. Amelung, , Bull. Arch. Com. xxv., p. 125, 1Google Scholar, believes the Grimani reliefs, if of Carrara marble, to be Roman copies or imitations.

^{page 231 note 6} Petersen, , Ara Pacis August, p. 169seqq.Google Scholar, refers to this controversy and seems to support Schreiber by proving the Tellus slab later than the Carthage relief in the Louvre. But the Carthage relief has still to be proved Alexandrian, v. Dragendorff, Bonner Jahrbücher, 103, p. 87. Further, both the Carthage relief and the Tellus slab seem to be extracts from a larger composition, probably a painting. In the rendering of the flowers etc., the Grimani reliefs are totally different, and in style and technique are closely connected with the sacrificial scene of the Ara Pacis.

^{page 232 note 1} History of Greece, iv. p. 456 seqq.

^{page 232 note 2} Hist. of Egypt, Ptolemaic Dynasty, p. 9 seqq.

^{page 232 note 3} Brunnenreliefs, p. 48.

^{page 232 note 4} Brunnenreliefs, p. 13.

^{page 233 note 1} Jahrbuch, loc. cit.

^{page 233 note 2} Arch. Anz. 1899, p. 133; Ath. Mitt. 1900, p. 215.

^{page 233 note 3} Oest. Jahreshefte, i., Beib. p. 71.

^{page 233 note 4} Plin. 36, 47; Vitr. 2, 8, 10.

^{page 233 note 5} Holm, loc. cit.

^{page 233 note 6} von Gärtringen, v. Hiller, Thera. i. Pl. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 7} E.g. Philometor, at Athens, , Six, Ath. Mitt. 1887, p. 212.Google ScholarBerenice, , Naples, , Arndt, , Grund Röm. Porträts, 99, 100.Google ScholarVienna, , Schneider, v., Album der. Ant. Sammlung, 6, xiii. 1.Google Scholar Epiphanes, Alexandria, Botti, 5. k. etc.

^{page 233 note 8} Mahaffy, op. cit. pp. 264, 382.

^{page 234 note 1} Cf. Poole, B. M. Cat., p. xxxiv.

^{page 234 note 2} Loc. cit., cf. Helbig, , Camp. Wandmal., Pl. 7, 8Google Scholar; Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, Figs. 267, 271.

^{page 234 note 3} Preuss. Jahrb., vol. 85, p. 55. Cf. Dragendorff, op. cit. p. 107.

^{page 234 note 4} Op. cit., p. 106.

^{page 234 note 5} Ath. Mith. 1901, p. 258; see the excellent illustrations there.

^{page 234 note 6} No marble is found in Egypt north of Assouan. Consequently it would be expensive, and just as easy to import from the islands and Attica.

^{page 235 note 1} Contrast the Grave-reliefs from Smyrna and Ephesus at Berlin, , Ant. Skulpt. Nos. 809, 810, 830.Google Scholar

^{psge 235 note 2} Schreiber, Der Gallierkopf d. Museums bei Gizeh.

^{page 235 note 3} For this information I am indebted to Mr Edgar of the Cairo Museum.

^{page 235 note 4} A close examination reveals a good deal of superficiality in the Great Frieze, but then there is all the difference between relief work on a high podium, and a free statue.

^{page 235 note 5} Op. cit. p. 15 sq.

^{page 235 note 6} Gardner, E., J.H.S., 1885, p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 7} Op. cit. p. 18.

^{page 235 note 8} Bull. Arch. Com. xxv. p. 110, 1897.

^{page 235 note 9} I entirely fail to see however any morbidezza in the head at Vienna referred to already above.

^{page 236 note 1} See the plates in Imhoof-Blumer, Die Münzen d. Dvn. v. Perg.

^{page 237 note 1} Wickhoff's claim that naturalism is purely Augustan is as extreme as Schreiber's view that it is specially Alexandrian; v. Dragendorff, op. cit. pp. 102, 104.

^{page 237 note 2} Arch. Anz. 1896, p. 92, Fig. 1.

^{page 237 note 3} Pfuhl, op. cit. Pl. 18, 1 and 2.

^{page 238 note 1} Arch. Anz. 1896, p. 92, Fig 3.

^{page 238 note 2} Collignon, Perg. p. 204; cf. the Dionysus, , Farnell, in J.H.S. 1890, p. 187Google Scholar and the bronze Apollo from Egypt in the British Museum, Furtwängler, , Masterpieces, p. 353, Fig. 151.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 3} At Constantinople, , Arch. Auz. 1902, p. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 4} Anth. Pal. III; Farnell, loc. cit. p. 194.

^{page 238 note 5} v. Amelung's views quoted above.

^{page 238 note 6} Collignon, , Pergame, p. 222.Google Scholar Milchhöfer, Befreiung d. Prometheus.

^{page 239 note 1} Müller-Wieseler, No. 848, second edition. Helbig, No. 145.

^{page 239 note 2} Helbig, , No. 727. Bull. Arch. Com. 1887, Pl. XIVGoogle Scholar, now in the Magazzino Archeologico. I refer only to the left hand fragment. It is necessary to observe that the two fragments do not belong to the same frieze. One shows quietly moving figures against an open landscape background; the other figures in violent motion with the background filled up by flying drapery. Further the relief-height and style are not the same.

^{page 239 note 3} Cf. especially 6 and 14 of the Cyzicus reliefs, Apollo and Artemis killing Pytho, and Apollo and Artemis slaying Tityos for offering violence to Leto; cf. also the reliefs from Telmessos and Aphrodisias, Farnell, loc. cit. 202.

^{page 239 note 4} Ant. Denk., l. 17.

^{page 239 note 5} e.g. the first or incrustation style of wall painting at Pompeii.

^{page 239 note 6} Pergame, p. 215.

^{page 239 note 7} loc. cit. pp. 193, 199.

^{page 240 note 1} Führer, Nos. 458, 715. v. Plin. 36, 184.

^{page 240 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 318, 342.

^{page 240 note 3} Der Hildesheimer Silberfund, p. 26, sqq.

^{page 240 note 4} Dr Furtwängler has been kind enough to send me the following information about the Egyptian stucco reliefs in his possession. ‘Die Stuccoreliefs aus Ägypten die ich habe, sind klein und von denen der Farnesina recht verschieden. Das eine reproduciert offenbar das Stück einer kostbaren Metallvase, und stellt eine idyllische ländliche Opferscene dar. Das andere, ebenfalls klein und decorativ, zeigt einen geflügelten Triton und eine Nereide’; v. Altmann, op. cit. 78, 1.

^{page 240 note 5} ᾿Εφημ. ᾿Αρχ 1902, p. 158, Nos. 10 and 12. Svoronos, , Funde v. Antikyth. xi. 1Google Scholar, xvi. 2, xviii. 7.

^{page 240 note 6} The frieze of Hunting Erotes from Ephesus is of Roman date.

^{page 240 note 7} Schreiber, , Wiener-Brunnenrel. p. 50Google Scholar, p. 95, No. 38. Hell. Rel. 58.

^{page 240 note 8} de Villefosse, H., Cat. Somm. d. Marb. Ant. Nos. 1891 and 8.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 1} Le Trésor de Boscoreale, Mon. Piot, p. 177.

^{page 241 note 2} Walters, , B.M. Cat. of Bronzes, p. lvi.Google Scholar In the second Ponipeian style Egyptian motives are comparatively rare, but are common in the third style, v. Wickhoff, op. cit. p. 129. Mau, , Dec. Wandmal. Pomp. p. 108.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 3} Athenaeus (iv. 83) quoting Menekles mentions grammarians, philosophers, geometers, musicians, painters, trainers, physicians, and other artists as driven from Alexandria by Euergetes II. Painting certainly flourished in Egypt (Petronius, , Sat. ii.Google Scholar; Heibig, v., Untersuch. Camp. Wandmal. p. 136Google Scholar); had sculpture also flourished, sculptors would not be included under ‘other artists.’

^{page 241 note 4} Those whose birthplaces are known are Stratonicus and Tauriscus of Cyzicus, Ariston and Eunicus, of Mytilene, Kallikrates of Lacedaemon, Myrmekides of Athens and Poseidonius of Ephesus (see Overbeck, , S.Q. p. 421Google Scholar). Rizzio, , Horn. Mitth. 1897, p. 296Google Scholar, claims Rhodes as the home of Toreutic Art.

^{page 242 note 1} Reinach, , Ant. Bos. Cim. Pl. 30Google Scholar; cf. C.R. 1877, p. 36. It also bears the name of a Rhescuporis, King of Bosporus.