¹

² Poll., Onom. x. 33 Google Scholar, Photius s.v. has a statement to the same effect. Suidas is probably wrong in saying that the cart was called On a krater in the Central Museum at Athens (No. 1388) whose subject is a wedding procession, Eros and ‘Nike’ are represented placing three large cushions in the quadriga which is to convey the happy pair away. Cushions could be of no use in a quadriga: but a scene like this shows that putting them into the carriage was a regular part of the preparations for the bride's departure.

³ Published by Schreiber, Hellen. Reliefbilder, lix.

⁴ Published in the B. M. Catalogue of Bronzes, Pl. XII.

⁵ Figured Cesnola, , Salaminia, Pl. VI. 1c 1dGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Pub. Baumeister, , Denkm., Pl. I. 13aGoogle Scholar.

⁷ The reproductions of the two Cabeiric vases are taken from proofs of plates belonging to the forthcoming publication of the German Institute. I am indebted for permission to use them to the great kindness of Dr. Wolters.

⁸ This vase has as yet been only briefly noticed by Furtwängler, in the Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift for 1888, p. 1483 Google Scholar, and by Winnefeld in the Athenische Mittheilungen of the same year. Neither takes the subject to be a wedding procession: the one describes it as a man and his wife, the other as the Cabeiric goddess herself, driving to the sanctuary. These interpretations leave the figure of the πάροχος unexplained, and it is unnecessary to suppose that the subject of every vase dedicated in the Cabeirion was connected with the sanctuary.

⁹ Published J.H.S., Vol. v. Pl. VII.

¹⁰ B 17.

¹¹ This terracotta formed part of the collection of the late M. Philemon, Greek Consul in Cyprus, and was certainly acquired there, though the exact provenance is unknown.

¹² Quaest. Graec. lix.

¹³ Vit. Them. 26.

¹⁴ xi. 56.

¹⁵ l. 70.

¹⁶ Xen., Cyrop, vi. 4. 11Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Pub. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Cyprus, the Bible, and Homer, Pl. 196.

¹⁸ Published by Mr.Hill, G. F., J.H.S. xvii. p. 88 Google Scholar.

¹⁹ In the case of Rhegium there is a definite s atement to this effect. See Head, B. V., Hist. Num. pp. 92, 93Google Scholar, and the passage from Aristotle, quoted Pollux v. 75, there referred to.

²⁰ On all the coins mentioned the driver sits on a raised seat.

²¹ See Brit. Mus. Catal. of Coins, Macedon, p. 150, and Head, B. V., Coins of the Ancients, Pl. v. 7 Google Scholar.

²² One of the Messana types has a female charioteer, representing Messana herself.

²³ Pub. Gerhard, , A. V. 41 Google Scholar.

²⁴ B. Gastaldi, Lake Habitations and Prehistoric Remains, etc. Figs. 36 and 37; Montelius, , La Civilisation Primitive en Italic, Pl. B. 1 Google Scholar.

²⁵ Olympia, Die Bronzen, Pl. xxv.

²⁶ Boehlau, , Ausion. u. it. Nekr. Pl. xv. 7 Google Scholar.

²⁷ Series B, Pl. VIII. 5.

²⁸ B 252, 254, and 499.

²⁹ E 154.

³⁰ A small bronze model of a cart, found in the cave of Psychro in Crete, has a fixed axle and four-spoked wheels. It is drawn by a pair of oxen, and is of archaic workmanship. The passage on the cart in Hesiod (Op. 424–7) unfortunately throws no light on the construction of the wheel. It simply recommends the farmer to ‘cut a three-span felloe (or wheel) for a ten-palm cart,’ or, to adopt the explanation of Proclus and the scholiasts who follow him ‘cut a three-span are for a ten-palm wheel.’ Proclus assumes that the wheel is spoked, but his assertion is of no value on a point of archaeology. He may he right in saying that the felloe consisted of four arcs, and in thus getting a circumference approximately equal to three times the ten which he takes to be the measure of the diameter. But this has nothing to do with the question of the construction, for the felloe of the cross-bar wheel could equally well consist of four arcs. The whole passage is obscure, for the extraordinary length of seven feet recommended for the axle has never been explained, though Tzetzes calls attention to the difficulty.

The curious scholion by the hand m¹ in the Medicean MS. of Aeschylus, written to explain the word in line 188 of the Septem seems to refer to a more primitive form of crossbar wheel, in which the cross-bars were more numerous. This is pointed out by Dr. Verrall in his article ‘On the Syrinx in the Ancient Chariot,’ J.H.S. vi. The passage, which is not there quoted in full, runs as follows:—

and cannot refer to the two bars of the ordinary cross-bar wheel, which of course are always of the same size. The evidence of the monuments does not favour the supposition that such a wheel was ever characteristic of the chariot.

³¹ I have to thank M. Stais for kindly giving me permission to publish it.

³² For literature on this subject see Robert, , Arch. Zeit. 1882 Google Scholar: Hartwig, , Ephem. Arch. 1897 Google Scholar; Wolters, , ‘Vasen aus Menidi’ ii. Jahrb. 1898 Google Scholar. The last named article demonstrates the great antiquity of the type, and its connection with funeral as well as with marriage rites, two further points of resemblance with the loutrophoros.

³³ The flowers, which on the original are clearly given in white and purple paint, are omitted in the reproduction.

³⁴ See Deubner, , ‘Die Epaulia.’ Jahrb. 1900 Google Scholar.

³⁵ On a vase-painting pub. Annali, 1840 N, representing the libation of Oenomaus, Hippodameia is led by an attendant who fans her with a similar fan.

³⁶ Hesychius.

³⁷ See Mau, , Ausgr. v. Pompeii, Röm. Mitth., xvi. p. 342 Google Scholar.