^{page 121 note *} Cf. Ath. Mitth. 1895, p. 233, architectural remains, including unfluted drums of columns 1·50 m. high by I m. in circumference; Ath. Mitth. p. 376, an ancient well 6 m. deep.

^{page 123 note *} Of this figure Mr. Clark succeeded in making a full-sized coloured rubbing.

^{page 123 note †} For this figure cf. the paintings from Cyrene, published in Pacho, Voyage dans Cyr., PH. XLIX, and L., which offers, perhaps, the best parallel to the composition of the Patras mosaic.

^{page 124 note *} Probably be was anxious to detach, with the head, the whole of the hair and the crest of the helmet, and therefore began his tooling below the point where the end of the crest and the hair met. There is no trace left of either.

^{page 126 note *} The same system is shown also in the folds of the chest of the Demeter (F) of the East Pediment.

^{page 126 note †} Cf. the torso of Nyx in the East Pediment.

^{page 127 note *} Cf. also the standing figure in the Metope of the North Side, Br. Mus. Cat., 322.

^{page 128 note *} Lange, , in Ath. Mitth. vi., p. 86Google Scholar, notices what is wanting in the Varvakeion, but seems to regard the Pediment figure as a later stage. “Zwar ist noch nicht der Schritt zur rein decorativen schärpenartigen Aegis geschehen, den Phidias selbst an der Athena des westl. Parthenongiebels nachmals gethan hat.”

^{page 130 note *} The simple arrangement of the Doric chiton, open down the entire right side, andwithout the addition of under chiton or himation, would doubtless greatly facilitate the task of detaching the drapery from the figure.

^{page 130 note †} Probably these would be the ἦλοι χρυσοί of the inscriptions, e.g. C. I. A. ii., 660, 9.

^{page 131 note *} N. H. xxxvi., 19. We are not told in what material the snake was wrought. Since, whoever, Pliny specially mentions the Sphinx as the solitary exception (in bronze), we may presume that the snake was in the chryselephantine technique; a fact which would further enhance the difficult of its construction.

^{page 132 note *} Originally by Urlichs, Chrestom. Plin.; cf. Robert, Arch. Märch., p. 24, and Furtwängler-Sellers, p. 45.

^{page 132 note †} In Wochenschrift für kl. Phil. 1895, p. 548; he is followed by Sellers and Jex-Blake, The Elder Pliny's chapters, p. 99 note.

^{page 133 note *} Sec the instances quoted in Furtwängler-Sellers, p. 45, note 4.

^{page 136 note *} It is evident, from the existing copies, that the scene of the Amazonomachia on the exterior of the shield was laid on a mountain-side (the slope of the Acropolis), and thus the necessary balance would be struck between the two sides.

^{page 136 note †} Cf. Furtwängler-Sellers, pp. 44, 45, where the Pheidian character of this relief is justly pointed out.

^{page 137 note *} Arch. Zeit., 1865, p. 33, Pl. 196–7.

^{page 137 note †} I hope to be able shortly to publish a coloured fac-simile.

^{page 139 note *} The Vatican and Capitoline fragments do not include this part of the design.

^{page 140 note *} In both cases, the measurements are those of the actual field of the reliefs, that is, the shield minus its rim.

^{page 140 note †} Furtwängler-Sellers, p. 44, Fig. 70. It is also almost exactly repeated in the fine Vienna sarcophagus, Robert, II., xxvii, 68A.

^{page 141 note *} This figure appears to wear the usual high boots, but the condition of the surface does not leave this quite clear. Probably such details were largely here, as in the Strangford shield, indicated in colour.

^{page 142 note *} In the Louvre gigantomachie vase (Mon. Grecs, 1875, Pll. 1–2), which is generally admitted to show marked Pheidian influences, it occurs twice; in each case here it is a deity who seizes a giant by the hair: it had not yet become stereotyped for Greek and Amazon. The same vase offers an interesting parallel in the position of the legs of the wounded Amazon.

^{page 142 note †} The Vatican and Capitoline fragments do not include the lower portion; the Strangford shield has probably had the same support, but the entire rim seems to have been tooled away in order to leave a symmetrical edge, which is so mounted that the character of the fracture cannot be seen.

^{page 142 note ‡} Cf. for instance, the r.f. krater in the British Museum (Cat. iii., E. 498), where an Athena of the Pheidian type stands with shield resting on its edge on the plinth of the tripod.

^{page 143 note *} Bull, dell' Inst., 1867, p. 142.

^{page 143 note †} Ath. Mitth. vi., p. 88, note I.

^{page 144 note *} The reading which seems tobe required is sub ipsa cassidis crista, but the MSS. of course forbid this. Is it possible Pliny could have misread λόγχη for λόφος in his original source?

^{page 144 note †} Figured in Bull. Munic, i., Pl. 1, late in style. In the passage of Themistios, or. 25, p. 309 D (Michaelis, Parthenon, p. 269, No. 41), ὁυδε εἰς τὴν κρηπϊδα τῆς θεοῦ μόνην ὀλίγου χρόνου καὶ πόνου προσδεηθῆναι the word κρηπίς probably implies the base of the statue: hence its use in the singular.

^{page 145 note *} Ed. Müller, p. 301. Possibly Pliny was misled by the double meaning of which the word κρηπίς in his original text is susceptible. If he was not familiar with its sense as = ἄνθεμον, he would naturally translate it as = soleae.

^{page 147 note *} Frazer, , Pausanias iv., p. 143.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note *} Found in the course of some drainage works by a French Company. See Rayet, Mon. de l' Art, text to Pl. 34.