Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:29:35.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reconsideration of some Fourth-Century British Mosaics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Reinhard Stupperich
Reinhard Stupperich
Affiliation:
Archäologisches Seminar der Universität Munster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Roman Britain in late antiquity is an area of special interest to the archaeologist, because life was flourishing peacefully there at a time when we hear about disorder and destruction afflicting the nearby provinces on the continent. Nevertheless — and this perhaps increases the interest we know very little about cultural life, about the state of education and knowledge in the British provinces at this time. The Channel, which protected Britain from the majority of the invaders, might seem to have had its effect also on the cultural influx from Gaul. The literary sources, which very seldom mention Britain after the Severi, provide scarcely any useful information. There is virtually no one prominent in literary or even political life known to have come from Britain. Nor do we know anything about the cultural effect of the court of the British usurpers or of the presence of Constantius Chlorus and his son Constantine.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 11 , November 1980 , pp. 289 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Reinhard Stupperich 1980. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The following abbreviations are used:

ASR Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs. Ed. Robert, C., Rodenwaldt, G., Matz, F. (Berlin 1890 ff.).Google Scholar

Curtius Curtius, L., Die Wandmalerei Pompejis (Leipzig 1929).Google Scholar

Dunbabin Dunbabin, K., The Mosaics of Roman North Africa. Studies in Iconography and Patronage (Oxford 1978).Google Scholar

Kraus Kraus, Th. and Matt, L. von, Pompeji und Herculaneum. Antlitz und Schicksal zweier antiker Städte (Köln 1977).Google Scholar

Levi Levi, D., Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Princeton 1947).Google Scholar

Rainey Rainey, A., Mosaics in Roman Britain. A Gazetteer (Newton Abbot 1973).Google Scholar

Reinach Reinach, S., Répertoire de Peintures Grecques et Romaines (Paris 1922).Google Scholar

Smith 1969 Smith, D. J., ‘The Mosaic Pavements.’ In: Rivet, A. L. F. (Ed.), The Roman Villa in Britain (London 1969), 71–125.Google Scholar

Smith 1977 Smith, D. J., ‘Mythological Figures and Scenes in Romano-British Mosaics.’ In: Munby, J. and Henig, M. (Eds.), Roman Life and Art in Britain. A Celebration in Honour of the Eightieth Birthday of J. Toynbee (Oxford 1977: BAR. 41), 105–58, pl. I–XXXIII.Google Scholar

Toynbee 1962 Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Roman Britain (London 1962).Google Scholar

Toynbee 1964 Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Britain under the Romans (Oxford 1964).Google Scholar

VCH Victoria County History.

I would like to thank M. Masopust and Professor S. S. Frere for reading a draft of this paper and correcting my English.

No illustrations have been included, as all mosaics discussed are illustrated in Smith 1977, whose respective figures are referred to in the notes.

2 ‘The Literary Classics in Roman Britain’, Britannia ix (1978), 307–13.Google Scholar

3 Smith 1977, 119 f. No. 48. fig. 1. p. I.

4 Collingwood, R. G., The Archaeology of Roman Britain (London 1930), 177Google Scholar; Collingwood, R. G. and Myres, J. N. L., Roman Britain and the English Settlements 3 (Oxford 1937), 182 f.Google Scholar; Liversidge, J., Britain in the Roman Empire (London 1968), 317 f.Google Scholar

5 Brendel, O., ‘The Corbridge Lanx’, JRS xxxi (1941), 100–27Google Scholar; Painter, K. S., The Mildenhall Treasure (London 1977)Google Scholar; Toynbee 1962, Nos. 106 and 198.

6 cf. e.g. Richmond, I. A., Roman Britain2 (Harmondsworth 1963), 121 ff.Google Scholar, Smith 1969, 90 ff.; J. Liversidge, op. cit. (note 4), 317–22; Frere, S. S., Britannia. A History of Roman Britain (London 1974), 352 f.Google Scholar; cf. Irwin, R., The Origins of the English Library (London 1958), 54–70.Google Scholar

7 Smith 1969; cf. Johnston, D., in Munby, J. and Henig, M. (Eds.), Roman Life and Art in Britain. A Celebration in Honour of the Eightieth Birthday of J. Toynbee (Oxford 1977), 195 f.Google Scholar On the earlier period cf. Smith, D. J., in La mosaique Gréco-Romaine ii (Paris 1975), 269 ff.Google Scholar

8 Smith 1977.

9 Drawing in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: VCH Somerset i (1906), 303Google Scholar, fig. 88; Smith 1969, 91, fig. 3.3; Smith 1977, 136, No. 109; 146, No. 131, pl. xna. The description in Gentleman's Magazine (1753), 293 is cited by Rainey 68 and Smith 1977, 146.

10 For instance Toynbee 1964, 240; Rainey, 68; cf. Frampton: Smith 1977 Nos. 107 ff. especially No. 109 pl. XIIIb. (Such busts of Mercury actually do appear in mosaics in Britain, for instance at Rudston (Smith 1977, pl. xxixa) but of course not four times.)

11 An hour-glass in a related scene (Mars—Rhea Silvia): Robert, ASR iii 2, No. 190 pl. LXI.

12 Richmond, I. A., Roman Britain2 (Harmondsworth 1963), 123Google Scholar; cited also by Toynbee 1964, Smith 1969 and 1977 and Rainey, 68; cf. Barrett, A. A., Britannia ix (1978), 312.Google Scholar Semele giving birth to Dionysus seldom appears in Roman art, for instance on Dionysiac sarcophagi. Details such as the child Dionysus, the Ilithyiae and Mercury are necessarily present. Cf. Greifenhagen, A., Röm. Mitt, xlvi (1931), 27–30, pl. 1 f.Google Scholar; Hanfmann, G., Am. Journ. Arch, xliii (1939), 239 ff.Google Scholar; Matz, F., ASR iv 3, 343 ff.Google Scholar, Nos. 195–198; 196 f. A rather strange painting, once in the collection of Prince Galitzin, was already suspect to Reinach (16, 5); cf. also an ivory pyxis of the fifth century A.D. in Bologna, Museo Civico.

13 cf. e.g. Reinach, III ff.; 112, 6; 113, 1–15; Curtius, 308 ff. figs. 176–79; Philostratus the Elder, Imagines 1, 15. Levi, pl. xxviia, xxviib; Gonzenbach, V. von, Die römischen Mosaiken der Schweiz (Basel 1961), pl. 78Google Scholar; Borda, M., La pittura Romana (Milano 1958), fig. on p. 365Google Scholar; Stern, H., Recueil général des Mosaiques de la Gaule (Gallia Suppl. 10). i 1 (Paris 1957), pl. 39Google Scholar; Freijeiro, A. Blanco, Mosaicos Romanos de Merida (Madrid 1978), pl. 26a.Google ScholarMatz, F., ASR iv 3, Nos. 207–29.Google Scholar

14 See below. Cf. for instance Curtius, figs. 176–77; Levi pl. 1a.

15 Goodburn, R., The Roman Villa of Chedworth (London 1972), 25 pl. 6Google Scholar; R.C.H.M., Iron Age and Romano-British Monuments in the Gloucestershire Cotswolds (1976), pls. 4-5; Smith 1977, 130 No. 85, 139 f. No. 120, pl. ixe.

16 Satyrs and maenads: Toynbee 1964, 267; Goodburn, Ioc. cit. (note 15) 25; Rainey, 40 f.; Smith 1977, 139. Bacchus in the centre: Goodburn, Ioc. cit.

17 Curtius, 354 ff. fig. 193; 369 fig. 201; Maiuri, A., La Villa dei Misteri (Roma 1931), fig. 58, pl. 8 and 10Google Scholar; Schefold, K., Pompejanische Materei (Basel 1952), pl. 2Google Scholar; Reinach, 114, 4 and 6; Balty, J., Mosaiques antiques de Syrie (Bruxelles 1977), 50 Nos. 20 ff.Google Scholar; Yacoub, M., Le Musée du Bardo (Tunis 1970), 184 fig. 101Google Scholar; Kraus, Th., Propyläen Kunstgeschichte ii (Berlin 1967), pl. 343bGoogle Scholar; Bellido, A. Garciay, Arte Romano2 (Madrid 1972), 525 fig. 920Google Scholar. Matz, F., ASR iv 1, Nos. 36–41Google Scholar, No. 75 f. Rhyton from Plovdiv: Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antiqua iii, 116 fig. 146.

18 See above; cf. note 14.

19 cf. note 17, especially Curtius 356 ff.; Maiuri, op. cit (note 17). 148-51; Schefold, op. cit. (note 17), 55 ff., 196.

20 Thiasus with Bacchus on a circular frieze around an independent central picture for instance on the Oceanus Cup of the Mildenhall Treasure: Toynbee 1962, No. 106 pl. 117; K. S. Painter, op. cit. (note 5), figs. 1 and 4.

21 Bulleid, A.Home, D. E., Archaeologia lxxv (1926), 109–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 125 ff., pl. 16–18 (plan of the villa: III fig. I, of room W: 127, fig. 6); Toynbee 1964, 240 f., pl. 57; Rainey, 101; Smith 1977, 141 No. 123; 149 f. Nos. 137–8, pl. xix, b-d. Only the pictured fields are now in the museum of a chocolate factory (CadburySchweppes) at Somerdale.

22 Reinach, 13, 1 and 5; Curtius, pl. iv;Peters, W. J. T., Landscape in Romano-Campanian Mural Painting (Assen 1963), 96 pl. xxi, 80.Google Scholar

23 Toynbee 1964, 240; Rainey, 101 and 77f.; contrary Smith 1977, 149. A similar scheme for Juplter-Danae: Blanco-Freijeiro, A., Mosaicos Romanos de Italica (Madrid 1978), pl. 7a.Google Scholar For Leda in Roman art see e.g.: Reinach, 16, 7–17; Robert, , ASR ii, No. 2–9 pl. 2–3.Google Scholar

24 Mentioned by Smith 1977, 149; for the theme cf. Reinach 166,2–167, 1; Curtius fig. 124, pl. II; Dunbabin pl. VI, 12; Robert, ASR ii, No. 20 ff., pl. 6 ff.; Guerrini, L., Archaeologia Classica xxiv (1972), 27 ff.Google Scholar; Brommer, F., Denkmälerlisten zur griechischen Heldensage ii (Marburg 1974), 80 ff.Google Scholar; Strocka, V. M., Die Wandmalerei der Hang-Häuser in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos viii/i: Wien 1977), 108 f.Google Scholar with a list in note 380. Cf. especially the mosaic at Sainte-Colombe: Inventaire des Mosaiques de la Gaule i (1909), No. 198Google Scholar; Reinach 167, 1; Monuments Plot lvi (1969), 41, fig. 37.Google Scholar

25 The frightened girl running off is a frequent type in representations of several different stories apart from Achilles on Scyros; to cite just sarcophagus reliefs for instance with Proserpina (ASR iii 3, Nos. 358 ff. pl. 119 ff.), the Dioscuri carrying off the Leucippidae (ASR iii 2, Nos. 180–85 pl. 67 ff.), Orestes killing Clytaemnestra and Aegistheus (ASR ii, No. 154 pl. 54, cf. the following) or among the dying Niobids (ASR iii 3, Nos. 312 ff. pl. 99 ff.).

26 Toynbee 1964, 241; Rainey, 101; contrary: Smith 1977, 149 f.

27 Bulleid-Horne, loc. cit. (note 21) 128; Smith 1977, 149 f.

28 Curtius, fig. 26; Kraus, fig. 49.

29 Ovid, , Metamorphoses iii, 339 ff.Google Scholar; Philostratus the Elder, Imagines i, 23; cf. Reinach, 196–7; Kraus, fig. 257; V. von Gonzenbach op. cit. (note 13) pl. 63 and 85; Kraus, Th., Propyläen Kunstgeschichte ii (Berlin 1967), Pl 347.Google Scholar

30 Reinach, 206, 1–4; 207, 1–2; cf. Brading: Smith 1977, 139 No. 119, pl. vi. b.

31 Philostratus the Elder, Imagines, i, 21 (pointed outtome by W. Hölscher).

32 Ovid, , Fasti vi, 697–710Google Scholar, especially 699–702; cf. ibid, vi, 701 with Ovid, , Ars iii, 505 f.Google Scholar, Ovid, , Metamorphoses vi, 386Google Scholar; ‘tibias ad fontem’ proverbial: Lactantius iii, 14, 1; cf. Bomer, F., Kommentar zu den Fasten (Heidelberg 1958), 382. See for instance Apollodorus, Bibliotheca i, 42; Hyginus, Fabulae 165Google Scholar; Athenaeus, , Deipnosophistae xiv, 616 (Kaibel p. 360).Google Scholar

33 Reinach 21, 2; W. J. T. Peters, op. cit. (note 22), 83, pl. xix, 69. (Further figures cited by Schefold, K., Die Wände Pompejis (Berlin 1957), 72).Google Scholar

34 Reinach, 21, 1. The destroyed painting at Pompeii vi, 16, 28 remains obscure: ‘Marsyas (?) lernt von Nymphe das Floten? Rechts oben Priap?’ (Schefold, loc. cit. (note 33) 159).

35 Robert, C., ASR iii 2, 242 ff.Google Scholar, especially No. 196 pl. 63; cf. Nos. 205 and 207 pl. 67, No. 208 pl. 68; Sichtermann, H.Koch, G., Griechische Mythen auf römischen Sarkophagen (Tübingen 1975), No. 35 pl. 85Google Scholar; No. 36 pl. 89 (when playing the tibiae Minerva never wears her aegis). Hartlaub, G. F., Zauber des Splegels. Ceschkhte und Bedeutnng des Splegels in der Kunst (München 1951)Google Scholar (pointed out to me by W. Hölscher) mentions the theme (p. 77) only shortly, citing an unpublished Heidelberg doctoral dissertation: L. Dreger, Das Bild im Splegel (1939).

36 For instance Woodchester, Glos.: Smith 1977, pl. XXXIIb; a similar fountain jet filling a sea which reflects the bathing Artemis: Germain, S., Les mosaiques de Timgad (Paris 1969), pl. 7.Google Scholar Dunbabin pl. vi 13.

37 As Prof. Metzler informs me, another example of this scene appears on a mosaic at Utica, Tunisia, still unpublished.

38 VCH Somerset i (1906), 327 fig. 84Google Scholar; Toynbee 1964, 248 f.; Smith 1969, pl. 3.3; Rainey, 129; Smith 1977, 120 f. No. 50, 124 No. 60, 136 No. 96, 150 f. Nos. 140–44, pl. XXVII; Smith 1978, 129 fig. 39 (after a coloured lithograph of 1828 by Samuel Hassel).

39 Toynbee, loc. cit. (note 38).

40 Toynbee 1964: Amphitrite. For Neptune and Amymone see Philostratus the Elder, Imagines I, 8; Reinach 34, 5 and 7; Berti, F., AS Atene l–li (1972–1973), 451–465, especially 459 ff.Google Scholar Cf. also Balty, J., Mosaiques Antiques de Syrie (Bruxelles 1977), 82 No. 36–38.Google Scholar

41 Toynbee 1964, 249. Cf. Schauenburg, dtv-Lexikon der Antike, Rel. i, 313; Philostratus, Imagines 2, 4; cf. Reinach, 209–10; Levi, 71–5 with fig. 29, pl. xib.

42 Thus also Toynbee 1964, 249; Rainey 129; contrary, Smith 1977, 151 No. 141. For the figure-type of the Perseus Andromeda scene cf. e.g. a mosaic at Bulla Regia: Dunbabin pl. v 9. Mercury and Venus as parents of Hermaphroditus: Ovid, , Metamorphoses iv, 288, 383–7Google Scholar; Christodorus of Coptus, Anth. Pal. ii, 102–7. (Mercury and Herse: Apollodorus, Bibliotheca iii, 14, 3 and 6; Hyginus, Fabulae 166Google Scholar; Ovid, , Metamorphoses ii, 708–832Google Scholar; Mercury, and Chione, : Ovid, , Metamorphoses xi, 303–15)Google Scholar. Mercury and Venus: Reinach, 97, 3 and 7; Catalogue Antik mosaikole (Budapest 1974) No. 10Google Scholar; Furtwängler, A., Antike Gemmen (Berlin 1900), pl. 43, 58.Google Scholar Cf. Reinach 97, 5 (Mercury carrying off a woman). For Venus cf. e.g. Robert, , ASK ii, No. 10, pl. 4 (before Paris)Google Scholar.

43 Toynbee 1964, 249: Paris; Rainey 129: ‘Orpheus?’ That his clothing immediately evokes Paris, is shown by Apuleius, , Metamorphoses x, 30, 2.Google Scholar Paris and Oenone: Ovid, , Heroides v, 12–30 and 139Google Scholar; cf. Apollodorus, , Bibliotheca iii, 12, 6Google Scholar; Christodorus of Coptus, Anth. Pal. ii, 215–21 and others. Cf. Reinach 163, 4; 164, 3; 165, 1 (?); Levi, 210 f. pl. 46a. (That the syrinx, just as on the Ludovisi Relief cited ibid, and here in Pitney, is held by the woman, argues against the alternative explanation favoured by Levi as Argus and 10) Cf. also Paris and the nymphs on a Roman sarcophagus: Robert, , ASR ii, No. 10. pl. 4.Google Scholar

44 VCH Hampshire i (1900), 314 fig. 23Google Scholar; Toynbee 1962, No. 196 pl. 233; Toynbee 1964, 257; Rainey, 28; Smith 1977, 108 No. 4, 138 f. Nos. 115–18 pl. v.

45 Explanation as Ambrosia and Triptolemos by Toynbee, Rainey and Smith, loc. cit. (note 44).

46 Neptune and Amymone or Amphitrite: Reinach 34, 5 cf. 34, 6 and 7. Juplter and Antiope: Freijeiro, A. Blanco, Mosaicos Romanos de Italica i (Madrid 1978), 27Google Scholar pl. 4b (the context leads to this interpretation there); Germain, S., Les mosaiques de Timgad (Paris 1969), 78 f.Google Scholar No. 96, pl. 33 f. Apollo and Daphne: Reinach, 26, 1–7; Levi, 211 ff.; 212 No. 96, pl. XLViib; Schefold, K., Pompejanische Malerei (Basel 1952), pl. 40Google Scholar; Elia, O., Plttura di Stabia (Napoli 1957), pl. II.Google Scholar

47 See Parlasca, K., Römische Mosaiken in Deutschland (Berlin 1959), 29 with n. 2, pl. 28, 2.Google Scholar

48 Published by Lysons, S. in : Reliquiae Britannico-Romanae iii, (1813), 2–4Google Scholar, pl. v. T. D. Kendrick, Anglo Saxon Art to A.D. 900 (1938), pl. 21; Toynbee 1962, No. 199 pl. 234; Toynbe e 1964, 250 f.; ead. in : M. W. Barley, R. P. C. Hanson, Christianity in Britain 300–700 (1968), 183 pl. 2; Smith 1969, 109 pl. 3. 27; K. S. Painter in : Sieveking, G. de G. (Ed.), Prehistoric and Roman Studies (London 1971), 164 f. pl. 71Google Scholar; Rainey, 78; Smith 1977, III f. No. 17 (lit.), 140 No. 121, 148 f. Nos. 134 f.; id. in : Todd, M. (Ed.), Studies in the Romano-British Villa (Leicester 1978), 129 fig. 41.Google Scholar

49 Toynbee 1964, 250 f.

50 In the architecture of a fourth-style wall-painting: Plcard, G., Die Kunst der Römer (Stuttgart 1968), 74 f. fig. 48Google Scholar; Kraus, fig. 251. Why not Paris?

51 Reinach, 53, 4–54; especially 54, 1 and 3 (with torch, but not a turned-down one); 54, 2 and 4 (Endymion without arm over the head); Calza, G., La necropoli del porto di Roma nell'isola sacra (Roma 1940), 171 fig. 84Google Scholar; Dunbabin pl. v 10; Yacoub, M., Le Musée du Bardo (Tunis 1970), fig. 76Google Scholar; Robert, , ASR iii 1, 53–111Google Scholar Nos. 39–92, pls. 12–25 (with torch: No. 72 pl. 18).

52 The epigram, for the most part taken as heptametres, might better be interpreted as versus paroemiaci as by Bücheler, F., Anthologia Latina ii (1897)Google Scholar, No. 1524. His conjectures for the missing parts at the end of line 3 and the beginning of line 7 and 8, made without knowledge of the drawing, seem too long but necessary. Either the fourth-century mosaicist or Lysons must have been somewhat inexact here.

53 Smith, C. Roach, Collectanea Antigua ii (1852), 54–64, pl. 21Google Scholar; VCH Hampshire i (1900), fig. 19Google Scholar; Toynbee 1964, 258; Rainey, 28 f, pl. 2 A; Smith 1977, 144 No. 129 pl. VII b.

54 Smith ibid.

55 Toynbee and Rainey, loc. cit. (note 53).

56 For instance a painting in the tomb of the Nasonii at Rome: Andreae, B., Studien zur römischen Grabkunst (Römische Mitteilungen, 9. Ergh.: Heidelberg, 1963), pl. 55Google Scholar; relief from Steinheim: Espérandieu, E., Recueil Général des Bas-Reliefs…de la Germanie Römaine (Paris, Bruxelles 1931), No. 696Google Scholar; sarcophagus Rome, Museo Naz. delie Terme: Robert, C., ASR iii 1, No. 138 pl. 138Google Scholar; relief from Capua: ibid. fig. on p. 162. Cf. the list on this theme by Brommer, F., Denkmälerlisten zur griechischen Heldensage i (Marburg 1971), 24–8.Google Scholar

57 K. J. Beecham, History of Cirencester (1886), 257, pl. opposite p. 226; Toynbee 1964, 268 f.; Smith 1965, 107 f. fig. 12; Rainey, 48; Smith 1977, 126 No. 70 pl. xib.

58 For the magical figures in vogue in late antiquity cf. Procopé-Walter, A., ‘Iao und Set. (Zu den Figurae Magicae in den Zauberpapyri)’. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft xxx (1933), 34–69, especially 40 ff.Google Scholar; Bonner, C., Studies in Magical Amulets. Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor 1950)Google Scholar; K. Preisendanz, Abrasax, in : Der KleinePauly i, 17 f. Comparison with Triton: Rainey, 48.

59 Toynbee 1962, 202 No. 197 pl. 231; Toynbee 1964, 255; Smith 1977, 106 No. 1 pl. iv b.

60 Cf. Stern, H., Gallia xiii (1955), 55 fig. 14 No. 31Google Scholar; Balty, J., Mosaiques Antiques de Syrie (Bruxelles 1977), 44Google Scholar ff. Nos. 17–19; in Britain: Smith 1977, 126 No. 69 pl. xb (Cirencester, Barton Farm); 127 No. 75 pl. xxxb (Whatley, Som.; rather odd); 128 No. 78 (Woodchester, Glos.; better picture: D. J. Smith, The Great Pavements and Roman Villa at Woodchester, Glos. (1973), fig. 5.)

61 For instance, the mosaic with a boy, a snake and a fallen bucket at Pitney. Because of the bucket none of the interpretations offered (see Smith 1977, 151 f., No. 145, pl. xxvi b) seems acceptable, except for that as ‘Cadmus and the dragon’, though Cadmus would be rather young. For ‘Opheltes-Archemorus left at the fountain Nemea’ (cf. E. Simon, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1979, 31–45) on the other hand, the boy might seem to be already too big.

62 Smith 1969, 88 ff.

63 The difference of conventional decorative mythological iconography and such new elements of deeper religious meaning has been stressed especially by Brandenburg, H., ‘Bellerophon christianus? Zur Deutung des Mosaiks von Hinton St. Mary und zum Problem der Mythendarstellungen in der kaiserzeitlichen dekorativen Kunst’, Römische Quartalschrift lxiii (1968), 49–86Google Scholar, perhaps too restrictively.

64 Wheeler, R. E. M., Wheeler, T. V., Report on the Excavations in Lydney Park, Gloucestershire (Oxford 1932).Google Scholar Cf. Brendel, O., JRS xxxi (1941), 100–127Google Scholar on the Corbridge lanx.