^{page 204 note 1} The literature of the Shield is considerable and much of it difficult to procure. I give a select bibliography.

Texts:

Rzach, A., Hesiodi Carmina (Teubner 1902 and 1908)Google Scholar.

Mazon, P., Hésiode (Budé 1928)Google Scholar.

Evelyn-White, H. G., Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica (Loeb 1914)Google Scholar.

Commentaries:

Studniczka, F., Ueberden Schild des Herakles, Harteliana, 50–83 (1896)Google Scholar. Mainly archaeological.

Wilamowitz, U. v., Hermes xl (1905), 116–24Google Scholar. Mainly textual.

Mazon, P., op. cit., 119–29Google Scholar.

For suggestions and criticism I should like to thank Professor D. S. Robertson, Professor T. B. L. Webster and Mr. J. M. Cook.

^{page 204 note 2} Op. cit., 119.

^{page 204 note 3} Wilamowitz on line 472 suggests a Totenfest.

^{page 204 note 4} Op. cit., 124.

^{page 204 note 5} Possibly then the behaviour and fate of Kyknos is meant to recall that of the Crisaeans.

^{page 204 note 6} Op. cit., 122. Nor is the date of S. certain.

^{page 204 note 7} It is the reasoning, not the conclusions, of which I have doubts.

^{page 204 note 8} For example the quantity of painted Protocorinthian and Corinthian pottery of the seventh and sixth centuries that is available to student is enormous, and must reach the tens of thousands.

^{page 204 note 9} About 525, the sculptures of the Siphnian treasury at Delphi, , which is supposed to have been put up shortly before the Spartan expedition. to Samos (Hdt. iii, 57–8Google Scholar; but Herodotus does not specify the interval). About 560, the Panathenaic amphorae in the British Museum (B130) and in Halle, the earliest of our long series: it is assumed that Pisistratus introduced athletic contests into the Panathenaic festival in 566, that Panathenaic amphorae immediately became prizes, and that the Halle amphora is from one of the very earliest meetings. See E. Langlotz, Zur Zeitbestimmung der streng-r.f. Vasenmalerei.

^{page 205 note 1} If there were similar passages in lost works, we have no record of them; and I do not see any sign or need of such extra sources for the compilation of this piece. The imitation even of Homer is confined to two passages, the arms of Agamemnon in and the shield of Achilles in σ.

^{page 205 note 2} Compare the emphasis on the divine manufacture of the shield in 219, 244, 297, 313.

^{page 205 note 3} Op. cit., 58–67.

^{page 206 note 1} Op.cit., 119–20. He agrees largely with Studniczka, in his outlook towards the Shield. See below, pp. 213–14Google Scholar.

^{page 206 note 2} The best criticism is by Wilamowitz, (op. cit., 116–24)Google Scholar, but it is partly vitiated by his wholehogging belief in the reality of the shield. The limit of reasonable criticism of the text of the Shield, where the MSS agree, is the cautious removal of doublets.

^{page 206 note 3} An elaborately convoluted snake as a shield sign on an Attic Bauchamphora of the second quarter of the sixth century, Halle 590. Much later Epaminondas was honoured with a δρ⋯κων (Paus. viii, 11, 8). Cf. Pind., P. viii, 45–7.

^{page 206 note 4} Studniczka, (op. cit., 61–2)Google Scholar argues that the spectator looks at the Gorgon's head and the Gorgon's head looks back, hence ἔμπαλιν, at him. This is thin.

^{page 206 note 5} Homer repeats similarly: he gives Agamemnon six δρ⋯κοντες on his breastplate and a single δρ⋯κων on his τελαμών (& 26–8, 38–40).

^{page 206 note 6} R.A. 1924, I, 267–79Google Scholar: an admirable article, which firmly disposes of Weizsäcker's claims (Roscher, Lexihon iii, 2934, 11)Google Scholar. Hampe, R., in an illuminating excursus (Frühegriechische Sagenbilder, 58–67)Google Scholar, argues that there are three sources of the Gorgon legend and type:(1) the apotropaic masks with monstrous human features (such as those from Tiryns, , e.g. his pi. 42)Google Scholar; (2) the episode of Perseus and Medusa (Medusa is vaguely a δει7nu;⋯ν π⋯λωρον and not more exactly defined); (3) the two immortal Gorgons. To Homer the Gorgon is still a vague monster, notable only for its look: he makes four mentions, in E 741–2, & 36–7, θ 349, λ 633–5. The mythological synthetizers of the Hesiodic period combined (2) and (3) (e.g. Theog., 270–81). In the first half of the seventh century artists brought in (1) as the type of the Gorgons, though apotropaic antefixes continued independently. The pursuit of Perseus was a slightly later novelty, borrowed probably from the Harpies. Compare the gradual identification of the manhorse hybrid of art with the Centaurs of literature (see Buschor, E., A.J.A. 1934, 128–32Google Scholar; early seventh century); and of human-headed birds with the Sirens (no certain instance in art or literature till the early sixth century): whereas in Homer both Centaurs and Sirens were of human form. The author of the Shield describes both Gorgons and Centaurs in their developed archaic style.

^{page 206 note 7} So Rzach, Mazon, Evelyn-White.

^{page 207 note 1} Op. cit., 64–6. His comparison to the Idaean shields I do not admit: the connection of the figures he cites is accidental.

^{page 207 note 2} Rzach and Mazon here use a small initial.

^{page 207 note 3} Lippold, So, Griechische Schilde; Münchener Arch. Stud., 486 (1909).Google ScholarThe ”Eρις α⋯σχ⋯στη τ⋯ εἷδος of the chest of Cypselus (Paus., v, 19, 2) cannot properly be compared; for there she attends a duel of Ajax and Hector, and is of full size.

^{page 207 note 4} Wilamowitz, (op. cit., 119–20)Google Scholar deletes 157–9 and makes the eight Scheusäler of 154–6 join Eris on the head of a central Phobos. This is intolerable artistically; and Wilamowitz's criterion seems to be generally for the Shield ‘das Echte erkannt man wieder daran, dass es darstellbar ist’ (118). Anyhow the use of the introductory ⋯ν δ⋯ in this piece is to mark the transition to another group of figures.

^{page 207 note 5} Satyr heads in low relief appear occasionally on Attic vases of this time: e.g. the Vatican amphora of Exekias (referred to below, p. 213, n. 7). A bull's head on the lip-cup by Phrynos, British Museum B424 (Beazley, J. D., A.B.S., pl. 1, 2)Google Scholar.

^{page 207 note 6} Studniczka, after bracketing 151–9, made the twelve snake heads a halo for his Gorgoneion,—an excellent archaic composition, but achieved at the cost of nine lines, one emendation and some slippery exegesis. Wilamowitz, (op. cit., 119–20)Google Scholar agrees. But ⋯ν δ⋯, as used elsewhere in the Shield, seems to introduce a new and separate composition, certainly not organically connected with what goes before.

^{page 207 note 7} Judging by early usage χλο⋯νης is an epithet of a boar and not of a sow. It is not likely that ‘Hesiod ’ understood it as ‘castrated’, the meaning familiar to Aristotle: few animals were more consistently or better sexed by archaic artists than the pig, male or female. Incidentally the sow did not come into her own till the middle of the sixth century. Wilamowiti, (Aischylos; Interpretationen, 217–9)Google Scholar supposes that the early meaning should be from ‘dangerous’ to ‘strong’.

^{page 208 note 1} Giving this composition,—Swine, dear Boar, dead Lion, dead Boar, Lions. Probably each of the slaughtered boars is being torn by a pair of lions, and perhaps lying on its back, with its snout touching the ground—αὐχ⋯νας ξεριπ⋯ντες.

^{page 208 note 2} List based on A 263–5.

^{page 208 note 3} First common in Attic Late Geometric of the last quarter of the eighth century. But the type had apparently not yet been particularized and inglorious. as the Centaur of mythology. Buschor, (A.J.A. 1934, 128–32)Google Scholar argues that in the early seventh century the man-horse monster could represent Typhon and Medusa; and that it was about 675 that the identification was made with Homer's presumably human Centaurs (A 268, B 743, φ 295). This is very reasonable, and agrees with the general tendencies of Greek mythology in the eighth and seventh centuries. Certainly the earlier ‘Centaurs’ of Greek art are often winged and show no attachment to the Centaur legends. Cf. above, p. 206, n. 6.

^{page 208 note 4} F.R. i, pls. 1–3, 11–13. About 575–0.

^{page 208 note 5} Fragment of a middle Protoattic amphora in Berlin with the legend Mεν⋯λας (Karo, G., 26 Hall. W. Pr., 14Google Scholar ff.: Hampe, , op. cit., fig. 30)Google Scholar; but the companions of Menelaos are nameless and inglorious.

^{page 208 note 6} British Museum A749 (Schaal, H., Bilderhefte III. I, pl. 5. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 208 note 7} Studniczka's, real objection seems to be that the other figures on the shield are not named (op. cit., 76Google Scholar, n.3): but, as he assumed that ‘Hesiod’ was describing faithfully a single original, he required strict uniformity between the parts.

^{page 209 note 1} On Agamemnon's shield περ⋯ δ⋯ Δεῖμ⋯ς τεΦοβος τε (& 37): here παρ⋯ for περ⋯.

^{page 209 note 2} Op. cit., 77·9. A fuller discussion of Studniczka's general theory later.

^{page 209 note 3} Σ 590; 603.

^{page 209 note 4} Cf. 201–3 with Σ 569–70; 205–6 with Σ 604–6 for the reuse of words and phrases.

^{page 209 note 5} Φ 22–3 may have influenced the choice of words, hardly the scene.

^{page 209 note 6} Very occasionally in the sixth century hunters are provided with nets.

^{page 209 note 7} Buschor, , Greek Vase-Painting, pl., 23Google Scholar, fig. 48.

^{page 209 note 8} I give the earliest examples that I know. Corinthian: (1) Berlin. Pinax. Posidon riding on a sea-monster; dolphin plunging into sea, represented by a band of varnish with a wavy upper edge. A.D. i, pl. 7, 26. About end of first quarter of sixth century. (2) Berlin F. 1652. Amphora. A, Perseus, Andromeda and the monster, which is emerging from a scalloped varnish sea; Perseus is throwing stones, instead of petrifying his opponent with the Gorgoneion. Neugebauer, , Führer, pl. 13Google Scholar (references in text). Early second quarter of sixth century. Attic: (I) Florence 4209. Krater (the ‘François vase’). On lip, B, the return of Theseus; in the varnish sea a man swimming ashore. F.R., pl. 13: Buschor, , Greek Vase-Painting, pl. 48Google Scholar, fig. 90. About 575–0. Laconian: (I) Kassel. Lip-cup. Nymphs bathing; in the background a varnish pool with incised wavy lines. Boehlau, , Nekropolen, pl. 11Google Scholar. Lane, E. A. (B.S.A. xxxiv, 137)Google Scholar dates it to the first quarter of the sixth century, but if so it must be late in the quarter.

^{page 210 note 1} Compare the Laconian bowl in Taranto of the early sixth century (Lane, , op. cit., pl. 30 top)Google Scholar.

^{page 210 note 2} Op. cit., 69–76, esp. 75–6. Mazon, (op. cit., 140Google Scholar, n. 2) seems to favour this connection.

^{page 210 note 3} This mistake would imply that ‘Hesiod’ was not very familiar with the original he was here describing. If so, it can hardly have been the great votive shield that Studniczka claimed (see below, pp. 213–14).

^{page 210 note 4} Some scholars suppose that Perseus is a free figure, fastened to the shield by a nail,—an intolerable effect in a real work of art; and here ‘Hesiod’ seems certainly to be describing, and with some exactness, a real work of art. Other supernatural details appear in 164 and 299. This is a shield made by a god, and so something unusual is to be expected.

^{page 210 note 5} In Attic first in the works of the Nessos painter, who is dated about 625. He seems of late Protoattic painters to have been the most interested in mythology. On at least five of his surviving pieces this scene is represented, though not always in full. Many of the attributes mentioned in the Shield are missing from the types of the Nessos painter; they are established in Attic by the beginning of the sixth century. Corinth, however, was in advance of Athens. The Thermon metopes (A.D. ii, pl. 50), which provide us with our earliest representation of the story, show substantially the same types as ours; these metopes belong to Payne's Transitional period, that is they are contemporary with or slightly earlier than the works of the Nessos painter. Payne, with some reason, wrote of the Shield that the Perseus episode is ‘a description which clearly goes back to a Corinthian painting of the kind which is partially preserved for us in the Thermon metopes’ (NC., 86).

For further remarks on the Gorgons see above, p. 206, n. 6.

^{page 211 note 1} Wilamowitz, (op. cit., 119)Google Scholar rejects 258–60; Mazon follows him. Rzach and Evelyn-White keep the lines.

^{page 211 note 2} Payne, , op.cit., 118Google Scholar. A. Greifenhagen, Bineattische s.f. Vasengattung.

^{page 211 note 3} Wilamowitz, (op. cit., 117)Google Scholar further brackets 299 as a doublet of the (spurious) 295, wrongly: see Mazon, , op. cit., 144Google Scholar, D. 2.

^{page 211 note 4} Op. cit., 82.

^{page 212 note 1} For 161–7 I favour Homer; for 207–15 archaic art.

^{page 212 note 2} Further, apart from the tags which are numerous, only two passages of Homer are used for the Shield, rather obviously Σ on the shield of Achilles and & on the arms and arming of Agamemnon. This latter passage is also used for the arming of Herakles (122 ff).

^{page 212 note 3} As does the representation of waves, if 207–15 are based on artistic models.

^{page 213 note 1} Mazon, (op. cit., 127)Google Scholar refers to ‘une œuvre de style ionien sortie des ateliers d'armes de Chalcis’. Similarly Studniczka and Wilamowitz. But first some of the artistic motives never occur in Ionian art, and others not till the middle of the sixth century and then borrowed from Attic: secondly the style of Chalcis is quite unknown, anyhow for this period. It is time that the Panionian heresy was forgotten.

^{page 213 note 2} Cf. Mazon, (op. cit., 125)Google Scholar: Payne, (op. cit., 86)Google Scholar: Hampe, R. (op. cit., 62, n. 4)Google Scholar, who mentions the Shield as ‘die erste archäologische Beschrei bung’.

^{page 213 note 3} The literature on this subject is considerable and much of it I could not obtain. The chief of the fundamentalists was Studniczka, F. (SertaHarteliana, 1896, 50–83)Google Scholar, whose reconstruction superseded those of his predecessors: he has a bibliography of the earlier literature on p. 50, n. 1. Wilamowitz, U. v. (Hermes xl, 116–24)Google Scholar in 1905 generally followed Studniczka. Friedländer, P., Herakles, 108–20Google Scholar(Phil. Untersuch. xix. 1907)Google Scholar, believed in an original pruned of Homeric imitations: cf. Johannes von Gaza (1912), 8–11. Lippold, G. (Münchener Arch. Stud., 1909, 483–8)Google Scholar reasserted the eclectic theory: he brings Studniczka's bibliography up to date (p. 483, n. 4). Since then interest has waned. Mazon, P. (Hésiode, 1928)Google Scholar makes much use of Studniczka, but is eclectic, as was Payne, H. G. (Necrocorinthia, 1931, 86)Google Scholar. Many scholars avoid the question.

^{page 213 note 4} op. cit., 55–8. I think that this is a fair digest.

^{page 213 note 5} Two in Argolis, one at the temple of Pallas, ascribed to Diomede (Callim, , Hymus 5Google Scholar, 35); the other at the Heraion, supposedly of Euphorbos (Paus. ii, 17, 3).

^{page 213 note 6} See above, p. 210. Mazon's, argument (op. cit., 127)Google Scholar that archaic art would not have combined on the same object such different classes of motives is quite untenable: nor is the decoration of this shield ‘l'art plastique’.

^{page 213 note 7} I know of no shield of purely Hellenic style taht has elaborate concentric decoration. The favourite archaic type, to judge by the numerous representations on archaic vases, was a single figure or object or a simple composition: at most the field was divided into three horizontal registers. Yet archaic vase-painters did not jib at the most painstaking minuteness of detail. The magnificent amphora of Exekias in the Vatican (F.R., pls. 131–2; photo Alinari no. 35768), with the scene of Achilles and Ajax at dice, gives full due to the details of the heroes' cloaks. Their shields stand behind them. Achilles sports the head of a satyr in low relief; above is a snake and below a panther. Ajax, whose smith is human, has a flush Gorgoneion, and a snake above and below. Compare also the detailed design of the nymph's chiton on the sherd of Sophilos in Stamboul (Blinkenberg, , Units, pl. 126)Google Scholar dated about 580–70 and. I suppose, roughly contemporary with the Shield.

^{page 214 note 1} See Payne, , op. cit., 94–7Google Scholar. The exceptions are few and inconsiderable. The arguments for inlay work in metal are: (1) that the chest of Cypselus was inlaid (Paus., v, 17, 5); but this is in wood: (2) that the Protocorinthian polychrome style is based on metalwork; Payne much more convincingly derives it from free painting: (3) that certain details on terracotta vases, e.g. polychrome tongues round the base of the handle, are in imitation of inlay on metal; but even so, the colours of such details, red and white, would suggest a filling of some soft paste rather than metal inlay: (4) that the devices on shields on archaic pots represent inlay on metal; but these devices could as well be incised or painted. The lack of any actual examples of elaborate inlay on metal is, to my mind, decisive against its existence. Further the inlay of this shield is far too elaborate. The shield itself is of bronze (415), and the inlaid substances are then τ⋯γανος (apparently a white paste), ⋯λ⋯φας,ἤλεκτρον, χρυσ⋯ς, κὐανος, ἄργυρος, κασσ⋯τερος, ⋯δ⋯μας: and a red also is required. ‘Hesiod’ has borrowed his technique from Homer and tried to go one or two better.

^{page 214 note 2} Friedländer, P. (op. cit., 108–20)Google Scholar believed that ‘Hesiod’ was describing an actual shield. The Homeric imitations, however, he felt could not be represented in archaic art. His original shield is, then, achieved by eliminating the Homeric imitations, which ‘Hesiod’ added for padding. This is very slippery reasoning.