INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

                                   ON

                              ARCHÆOLOGY.






------------------------------------------------------------------------






                              _Cambridge_:
                      PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.
                        AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.






------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                   AN


                          INTRODUCTORY LECTURE


                                   ON


                               ARCHÆOLOGY




            _Delivered before the University of Cambridge._




                                   BY


                   CHURCHILL BABINGTON, B.D., F.L.S.

  DISNEY PROFESSOR OF ARCHÆOLOGY, SENIOR FELLOW OF ST JOHN’S COLLEGE,
      MEMBER OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE, OF THE NUMISMATIC
          AND SYRO-EGYPTIAN SOCIETIES, HONORARY MEMBER OF THE
            HISTORICO-THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LEIPSIC, AND OF
                  THE ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF ROME.






                               CAMBRIDGE:
                        DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.
                        LONDON: BELL AND DALDY.
                                 1865.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                PREFACE.


                                -------


The following Lecture was divided in the delivery into two parts;
illustrative specimens being exhibited after the conclusion of the
delivery of each portion. It has been suggested that I should add in the
form of notes a few books which may prove useful to the students of
particular branches of Archæology; my best thanks are due to the Rev. T.
G. Bonney and the Rev. W. G. Searle for their kind and valuable
assistance in drawing up certain of the lists. For ancient art and
archæology K. O. Müller’s Manual, so often referred to, will in general
sufficiently indicate the bibliography, and it is only in a few
departments, in numismatics more especially, that it has been deemed
necessary to add anything to his references. M. Labarte’s Handbook, from
which a great part of the concluding portion of this lecture is derived,
will do the same thing, though in a far less complete manner, for
medieval art.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CONTENTS.


                                -------


PLAN of the Lecture, pp. 1-3.

Archæology defined, and the principal kinds of archæological monuments
    specified, pp. 3-6.

Nature of the Disney Professorship of Archæology explained; its
    comprehensive character; the advantages of this, pp. 6-13.

Sketch of the existing remains of Antiquity among different nations,
    beginning with primeval man, pp. 13-21. The Egyptians, pp. 21-26.
    The Babylonians, pp. 26, 27. The Assyrians, pp. 27, 28. The
    Persians, pp. 28, 29. The Jews, pp. 29-31. The Phœnicians, pp. 31,
    32. The Lycians, pp. 32, 33. The Greeks, pp. 33-41. The Etruscans,
    p. 41. The Romans, pp. 42-46. The Celts, pp. 43, 44. The Byzantine
    empire and the European nations during the middle ages, pp. 46-61.
    Recapitulation, pp. 61, 62.

Qualifications necessary for an archæologist. He must be a collector of
    facts and objects, and be able to reason on them. He must also be a
    man of learning. Exact scholarship, an appreciation of art, and a
    knowledge of natural history often useful or necessary for the
    archæologist, pp. 63-68.

Pleasures and advantages which result from archæology. It illustrates
    and is illustrated by ancient literature. Modern art aided by
    archæology. Archæology deserving of cultivation for its own sake, as
    an ennobling and delightful pursuit, pp. 68-74.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

                                   ON

                              ARCHÆOLOGY.


    FOLLOWING the example of my distinguished predecessor in the Disney
    Professorship of Archæology, I open my first Course of Lectures with
    an introductory Lecture on Archæology itself, so far as the very
    limited time for preparation has allowed me to attempt one.

    I cannot indeed conceal from myself, and still less can I conceal
    from you, that no introductory Lecture which I could give, even if I
    were to take my own time in writing it, would bear any comparison
    with the compositions of his elegant and learned pen. It certainly
    does not proceed from flattery, and I hope not from an undue
    partiality of friendship to say of him, that in his power of
    grasping a complicated subject, of presenting it in a clear light,
    of illustrating it with varied learning, and of expressing himself
    in relation thereto in appropriate language, I have rarely seen his
    equal. To how great a disadvantage then must I necessarily appear,
    when I have had only six weeks’ time in which to get ready this as
    well as five other Lectures, and have been moreover compelled to
    devote a considerable part even of that short time to other and not
    less important duties. A great unwillingness however that the
    Academical year should pass over without any Archæological Lectures
    being delivered by the Disney Professor, has induced me to make the
    attempt more quickly than would under other circumstances have been
    desirable or even justifiable; and I venture to hope that when
    allowance is made for the exigency of the case, I shall find in you,
    who have honoured this Lecture by your presence, a clement and even
    an indulgent audience.

    In an introductory Lecture which deals with generalities, it is
    hardly to be expected that I either can say or ought to try to say
    much which is absolutely new to any of my hearers; and I shall not
    affect to say anything peculiarly striking, but shall rather attempt
    to bring before you in a plain way a view of the subject, which aims
    at being concise and comprehensive; and in connexion therewith
    respectfully to submit a few observations which have relation to
    other Academical studies, as well as to the character of this
    particular Professorship.

    What I propose then to do is this, first to explain what Archæology
    is; next to put in a clear light what the character of this
    Professorship is; after that to attempt a general sketch of the
    existing remains of Antiquity; then to point out the qualifications
    necessary or desirable for an archæologist; and in conclusion, to
    indicate the pleasure and advantage which flow from his pursuits.

    The field of Archæology is vast, and almost boundless; the eye, even
    the most experienced eye, can hardly take in the whole prospect; and
    those who have most assiduously laboured in its exploration will be
    most ready to admit, that there are portions, and those large
    portions, which are to them either almost or altogether unknown.

    For what is Archæology? It is, I conceive, the science of teaching
    history by its monuments[1], of whatever character those monuments
    may be. When I say history, I use the word not in the limited sense
    of the history of dynasties or of governments. Archæology does
    indeed concern itself with these, and splendidly does it illustrate
    and illuminate them; but it also concerns itself with every kind of
    monument of man which the ravages of time have spared.

Footnote 1:

      Perhaps it would be more correct to say ‘by its _contemporary
      sensible_ monuments,’ so as to exclude later copies of ancient
      writings, or the _monumenta litterarum_, which fall more
      especially to the province of the scholar. A MS. of Aristotle of
      the thirteenth century is an archæological monument of that
      century only; it is a literary monument of the fourth century B.C.
      But a Greek epigram or epitaph which occurs on a sepulchral
      monument of the same or any other century B.C. is an archæological
      as well as a literary monument of that century.

    Archæology concerns itself with the domestic and the social, as well
    as with the religious, the commercial, and the political life of all
    nations and of all tribes in the ages that have passed away. All
    that men in ancient times have made, and left behind them, is the
    farrago of our study.

    The archæologist will consequently make observations and
    speculations on the sites of ancient cities where men have dwelt; on
    their walls and buildings, sacred and profane; on their altars and
    their market-places; on their subterranean constructions, whether
    sepulchres, treasuries, or drains. He will trace the roads and the
    fosses along which men of the old world moved, and on which men
    often still move; he will explore the routes of armies and the camps
    where they have pitched, and will prowl about the barrows in which
    they sleep;

               Exesa inveniet scabra robigine pila,
               Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris.

    He will also collect and classify every kind of object, which man
    has made for use or for ornament in his own home, or in the city; in
    the fields, or on the water. He will arrange the weapons of offence
    and defence according to their material and age; whether of stone,
    of bronze, of iron, or of steel; among which some are so rude that a
    practised eye alone distinguishes them from the broken flint stones
    lying in the field, others again so elaborate as to rank among the
    most beautiful productions both of classical and medieval art; he
    will not disdain to preserve the bricks and the tiles, which have
    once formed parts of Asiatic cities or of Roman farms; he will
    excavate the villas of the ancients; unearth their mosaic pavements;
    clean their lamps and candelabra; he will mend or restore their
    broken crockery, and glass; he will even penetrate into the lady’s
    chamber, turn over her toilet, admire her brooches and her
    bracelets, examine her mirrors and her pins; and all this he will do
    in addition to studying the nobler works of ancient art, such as
    engraved gems and medallions; works chased, carved and embossed in
    the precious metals and in ivory; frescoes and vase-paintings;
    bronzes and statues. He will, likewise, familiarise himself with the
    alphabets of the ancient nations, and exercise his ingenuity in
    deciphering their written records, both public and private; whether
    these be contained in inscriptions on stones or metal plates, or in
    papyrus-rolls, or parchment books; or be scratched on walls or on
    statues; or be painted on vases; or, in fine, surround the device of
    a coin.

    I have now mentioned some of the principal objects of archæology,
    which, as I have said, embraces within its range all the monuments
    of the history and life of man in times past. And this it does,
    beginning with the remains of primeval man, which stretch far beyond
    the records of all literary history, and descending along the stream
    of time till it approaches, but does not quite reach time actually
    present. No sharp line of demarcation separates the past from the
    present; you may say that classical archæology terminates with the
    overthrow of the Western Empire; you may conceive that medieval
    archæology ceases with the reign of Henry the Seventh; but, be this
    as it may, in a very few generations the objects of use or of
    ornament to us will become the objects of research to the
    archæologist; and, I may add, may be the subjects of lectures to my
    successors.

    For the founder of this Professorship, whose memory is never to be
    named without honour, and the University which accepted it, together
    with his valuable collection of ancient sculptures, undoubtedly
    intended that any kind or class of antiquities whatever might fitly
    form the theme of the Professor’s discourse. I say this, because a
    misconception has undoubtedly prevailed on this subject, from which
    even my learned predecessor himself was not free. “Every nation of
    course,” says he, “has its own peculiar archæology. Whether
    civilized or uncivilized, whether of historic fame or of obscure
    barbarism, Judæa, Assyria, and Egypt; Greece and Rome; India, China,
    and Mexico; Denmark, Germany, Britain, and the other nations of
    modern Europe, all have their archæology. The field of inquiry,” he
    continues, “is boundless, and in the multitude of objects presenting
    themselves the enquirer is bewildered. It has been wisely provided
    therefore by the founder of this Professorship, that we shall direct
    our attention more immediately to one particular class of
    Antiquities, and that the noblest and most important of them all, I
    mean the Antiquities of Greece and Rome[2].” Very probably such may
    have been Mr Disney’s original intention; and if so, this will
    easily explain and abundantly pardon the error of my accomplished
    friend; but the actual words of the declaration and agreement
    between Mr Disney and the University, which is of course the only
    document of binding force, are as follows: “That it shall be the
    duty of the Professor to deliver in the course of each academical
    year, at such days and hours as the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint,
    six lectures at least on the subject of Classical, Mediæval and
    other Antiquities, the Fine Arts and all matters and things
    connected therewith.” Whether he would have acted wisely or not
    wisely in limiting the field to classical archæology, he has in
    point of fact not thus limited it. And, upon the whole, I must
    confess, I am glad that he has imposed no limitation. For while
    there are but few who would deny that many of the very choicest
    relics of ancient art and of ancient history are to be sought for in
    the Greek and Roman saloons and cabinets of the museums of Europe,
    yet it must at the same time be admitted that there are other
    branches of archæology, which are far too important to be neglected,
    and which have an interest, and often a very high interest, of their
    own.

Footnote 2:

      Marsden’s _Introd. Lect._ p. 5. Cambr. 1852.

    Let it be confessed, that the archæology of Greece has in many
    respects the pre-eminence over every other. “It is to Greece that
    the whole civilized world looks up,” says Canon Marsden, “as its
    teacher in literature and in art; and it is to her productions that
    we refer as the standard of all that is beautiful, noble, and
    excellent. Greece excelled in all that she put her hand to. Her sons
    were poets and orators and historians; they were architects and
    sculptors and painters. The scantiest gleanings of her soil are
    superior to that which constitutes the pride and boast of others.
    Scarcely a fragment is picked up from the majestic ruin, which does
    not induce a train of thought upon the marvellous grace and beauty
    which must have characterized the whole!

                                Quale te dicat tamen
                 Antehac fuisse, tales cum sint relliquiæ.”

    These eloquent and fervid words proceed from a passionate admirer of
    Hellenic art, and a most successful cultivator of its archæology.
    Nor do I dare to say that the praise is exaggerated. But at the same
    time, viewed in other aspects, the archæology of our own country has
    even greater interest and importance for us. What man is there, in
    whose breast glows a spark of patriotism, who does not view the
    monuments of his country which are everywhere spread around him, (in
    this place above most places,) which connect the present with the
    remote past, and with many and diverse ages of that past by a
    thousand reminiscences, with feelings deeper and nobler than any
    exotic remains of antiquity, how charming soever, could either
    foment or engender? This love of national antiquities, seated in a
    healthy patriotic feeling, has place in the speech of an apostle
    himself: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the
    patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried; and his sepulchre
    is with us unto this day.” The same feeling prompted Wordsworth thus
    to express himself in reference to our ancient colleges and their
    former occupants:

                               I could not always lightly pass
           Through the same gateways, sleep where they had slept,
           Wake where they waked; I could not always print
           Ground where the grass had yielded to the steps
           Of generations of illustrious men,
           Unmoved....
                   Their several memories here
           Put on a lowly and a touching grace
           Of more distinct humanity.

    And not only the buildings, but the other archæological monuments of
    the University (for so I think I may be permitted to call the
    pictures and the busts, and the statues, and the tombs, which are
    the glories of our chapels, our libraries and our halls) teach the
    same great lessons. They raise up again our own worthies before our
    very eyes, calling on us to strive to walk as they walked, dead
    though they be and buried; for their effigies and their sepulchres
    are ‘with us to this day.’ I must repeat, then, that I am glad that
    the Disney Professor is not obliged to confine himself to classical
    archæology, sorry as I should be if he were wholly unable to give
    lectures on one or more branches of that most interesting
    department, which has moreover a special connexion with the
    classical studies of the University. It is manifest that the
    University intended the Professor to consider no kind of human
    antiquities as alien from him; and I think this in itself a very
    great gain. For, if the truth must be confessed, antiquaries above
    most others have been guilty of the error of despising those
    branches of study which are not precisely their own. I forbear to
    adduce proofs of this, though I am not unprovided with them; and
    even although you would certainly be amused if I were to read them;
    classicists against gothicists; gothicists against classicists.

    I could wish that the learned and meritorious writers on both sides
    had profited by the judicious remarks of Mr Willson, prefixed to Mr
    Pugin’s _Specimens of Gothic Architecture in England_. “The
    respective beauties and conveniences proper to the Grecian orders in
    their pure state or as modified by the Romans and their successors
    in the Palladian school may be fully allowed, without a bigoted
    exclusion of the style we are accustomed to term Gothic. Nor ought
    its merits to be asserted to the disadvantage of the classic style.
    Each has its beauties, each has its proportions[3].” One of the most
    eminent Gothic architects, Mr George Gilbert Scott, expresses
    himself in a very similar spirit. “It may be asked, what influence
    do we expect that the present so-called classic styles will exercise
    upon the result we are imagining, (_i.e._ the developement of the
    architecture of the future). Is the work of three centuries to be
    unfelt in the future developements, and are its monuments to remain
    among us in a state of isolation, exercising no influence upon
    future art? It would, I am convinced, be as unphilosophical to wish,
    as it would be unreasonable to expect this[4].” To turn from them to
    the classicists. “See how much Athens gains,” says Prof. T. L.
    Donaldson, “upon the affections of every people, of every age, by
    her Architectural ruins. Not a traveller visits Greece whose chief
    purpose is not centred in the Acropolis of Minerva.... But in thus
    rendering the homage due to ancient Art it were unjust to pass
    without notice those sublime edifices due to the Genius of our
    Fathers. It is now unnecessary to enter upon the question, whether
    the first ideas of Gothic Architecture were the result of a casual
    combination of lines or a felicitous adaptation of form derived
    immediately from Nature: But graceful proportion, solemnity of
    effect, variety of plan, playfulness of outline and the profoundest
    elements of knowledge of construction place these edifices on a par
    with any of ancient times. Less pure in conception and detail, they
    excel in extent of plan and of disposition, and yield not in the
    mysterious effect produced on the feelings of the worshipper. The
    sculptured presence of the frowning Jove or the chryselephantine
    statue of Minerva were necessary to awe the Heathen into devotion.
    But the presence of the Godhead appears, not materially but
    spiritually, to pervade the whole atmosphere of one of our Gothic
    Cathedrals[5].” The Editor of _The Museum of Classical Antiquities_,
    well says, “As antiquity embraces all knowledge, so investigations
    into it must be distinct and various. Each antiquary labours for his
    own particular object, and each severally assists the other[6].” It
    should be borne in mind moreover that archæological remains of every
    kind and sort are really a part of human history; and if all parts
    of history deserve to be studied, as they most assuredly do, being
    parts, though not equally important parts, of the Epic unity of our
    race, it will follow even with mathematical precision that all
    monuments relating to all parts of that history must be worthy of
    study also.

Footnote 3:

      P. xix. London, 1821.

Footnote 4:

      Scott’s _Remarks on Secular and Domestic Architecture, present and
      future_, p. 272. London, 1857.

Footnote 5:

      _Preliminary Discourse_ pronounced before the University College
      of London, upon the commencement of a series of Lectures on
      Architecture, pp. 17-24. London, 1842.

Footnote 6:

      _Museum of Classical Antiquities_, Vol. I. p. 1. London, 1851.

    I desire therefore to express in language as strong as may be
    consistent with propriety, my entire disapproval of pitting one
    branch of archæology against another, or indeed any study against
    another study. And on this very account I rejoice that the Disney
    Professor’s field of choice is as wide as the world itself, so far
    as concerns its archæology. There is no country, there is no period
    about which he may not occupy himself, or on which he may not
    lecture, if he feel himself qualified to do so. He is in a manner
    bound by the tenure of his office to treat every branch of
    archæology with honourable respect; and this in itself may not be
    without a wholesome influence both upon his words and sentiments. I
    have been somewhat longer over this matter than I could have wished;
    but I thought it desirable that the position of the Disney Professor
    should be rightly understood; and I have also endeavoured to shew
    the real advantage of that position.

    His field then is the world itself; but as this is so (and as I
    think rightly so) there is a very true and real danger lest he and
    his hearers should be mazed and bewildered at the contemplation of
    its magnitude. Yet in spite of that danger I will venture to invite
    you to follow the outlines of the great entirety of the relics of
    the ages that have for ever passed away. I say the outlines, and
    even this is almost too much, for I am compelled to shade some parts
    of the picture so obscurely, and to throw so much of other parts
    into the background, that even of the outlines I can distinctly
    present to you but a portion. Thus I will say little more of the
    archæology of the New World, than that there is one which reaches
    far beyond the period of Spanish conquest, comprising among many
    other things ruins of Mexican cities, exquisite monuments of
    bas-reliefs and other carvings in stone; I will not invite you into
    the far East of the Old World, to explore the long walls and
    Buddhist temples of the ancient and stationary civilisation of
    China, or to dwell upon the objects of its fictile and other arts;
    but leaving both this and all the adjacent countries of Thibet,
    Japan and even India without further notice, or with only passing
    allusions, _spatiis conclusus iniquis_, I will endeavour, so far as
    my very limited knowledge permits, the delineation of the most
    salient peculiarities of the various remains of the old world till
    the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and then attempt to trace
    briefly the remains of successive medieval classes of antiquities,
    until we arrive at almost modern times. I can name but few objects
    under each division of the vast subject; but these will be selected
    so as to suggest as much as possible others of a kindred kind. In
    addressing myself to such an audience, I may, if anywhere, act upon
    the assumption, _Verbum sapienti sat est_: a single word may suggest
    a train of thought. If I cannot wholly escape the charge of
    tediousness, I must still be content: for I am firmly convinced
    after the most careful consideration that I can pursue no course
    which is equally profitable, though I might take many others which
    might be more amusing.

    It would now appear probable that the earliest extant remains of
    human handicraft or skill have as yet been found, not on the banks
    of the Nile or the Euphrates, but in the drift and in the caverns of
    Western Europe. Only yesterday, as I may say, it has been found out
    that in a geological period when the reindeer was the denizen of
    Southern France, and when the climate was possibly arctic, there
    dwelt in the caverns of the Périgord a race of men, who were
    unacquainted with the use of metals, but who made flint and bone
    weapons and instruments; who lived by fishing and the chase, eating
    the flesh of the reindeer, the aurochs, the wild goat and the
    chamois; using their skins for clothes which they stitched with bone
    needles, and their bones for weapon handles, on which they have
    etched representations of the animals themselves. Specimens of these
    things were placed last year in the British Museum; and a full
    account of the discoveries in 1862 and 1863 may be seen in the
    _Revue Archéologique_. Some distinguished antiquaries consider that
    they are the earliest human remains in Western Europe. Various other
    discoveries in the same regions of late years have tended towards
    shewing that the time during which man has lived upon the earth is
    much greater than we had commonly supposed. The geological and
    archæological circumstances under which the flint implements were
    found at Abbeville, and St Acheul, near Amiens, in the valley of the
    Somme, left no doubt that they were anterior by many ages to the
    Roman Empire. They have a few points of similarity to those found in
    the caverns of the Périgord, and as they occur along with the
    remains of the _Elephas Antiquus_ and the hippopotamus, Sir Charles
    Lyell infers that both these animals coexisted with man; and perhaps
    on the whole we may consider them rather than those of the Périgord
    to be the earliest European remains of man, or of man at all.
    Similar weapons have been found in the drift in this country, in
    Suffolk, Bedfordshire, and elsewhere. At Brixham, near Torquay, a
    cavern was examined in 1858, covered with a floor of stalagmite, in
    which were imbedded bones of the reindeer and also an entire hind
    leg of the extinct cave-bear, every bone of which was in its proper
    place; the leg must consequently have been deposited there when the
    separate bones were held together by their ligaments. Below this
    floor was a mass of loam or bone-earth, varying from one to fifteen
    feet in thickness, and amongst it, and the gravel lying below it,
    were discovered about fifteen flint knives, recognised by practised
    archæologists as artificially formed, and among them one very
    perfect tool close to the leg of the bear. It thus becomes manifest
    that the extinct bear lived after the flint tools were made, or at
    any rate not earlier; so that man in this district was either the
    contemporary of the cave-bear, or (as would seem more probable) his
    predecessor. But shortness of time forbids me to do more than to
    indicate that in western Europe generally, as well as in Britain, we
    have an archæology beginning with the age of the extinct animals or
    quaternary geological epoch and connecting itself with the age of
    the Roman Empire, when the first literary notices of those
    countries, with slight exceptions, commence. The antiquaries and
    naturalists of Denmark conjointly (these indeed should always be
    united, having much in common; and I am happy in being able to say
    that a love of archæology has often been united with a love of
    natural science by members of this University, among whom the late
    and the present Professor of Botany may be quoted as examples)—these
    Danish archæologists and naturalists I say, have made out three
    distinct periods during this interval: the age of stone contemporary
    with the pine forests; the age of bronze commencing with the oak
    forests which lie over the pine in the peat; and the age of iron
    co-extensive with the beech forests which succeeded the oak, and
    which covered the country in the Roman times as they cover it now.
    The skulls belonging to the oldest or stone age resemble those of
    the modern Laplanders; those of the second and third are of a more
    elongated type.

    The refuse-heaps along the shores of the islands of the Baltic,
    consisting of the remains of mollusks and vertebrated animals,
    mingled with stone weapons, prove the great antiquity of the age of
    stone; the oyster then flourished in places where, by reason of the
    exclusion of the ocean from the brackish Baltic, it does not now
    exist. None of the animals now extinct, however, occur in these
    Kjökkenmödding, as they are called, except the wild bull, the _Bos
    primigenius_, which was alive in Roman times; but the bones of the
    auk, now, in all probability, extinct in Europe, are frequent; also
    those of the capercailzie, now very rare in the southern districts
    of Scandinavia, though abundant in Norway, which would find abundant
    food in the buds of the pines growing in pre-historic times in the
    peat bogs. Similar refuse-heaps, left in Massachusetts and in
    Georgia by the North American Indians, are considered by Sir C.
    Lyell, who has seen them, to have been there for centuries before
    the white man arrived. They have also been found, I understand, very
    recently in Scotland in Caithness. The stone weapons have now been
    sharpened by rubbing, and are less rude and probably more recent
    than those of the drift of the Somme valley, or of the caverns of
    the Périgord. The only domestic animal belonging to the stone age,
    yet found in Scandinavia, is the dog; and even this appears to have
    been wanting in France. In the ages of bronze and iron various
    domestic animals existed; but no cereal grains, as it would seem, in
    the whole of Scandinavia. Weapons and tools belonging to these three
    periods, as well as fragments of pottery and other articles, are
    very widely diffused over Europe, and have been met with in great
    abundance in our own country (in Ireland more especially), as well
    as near the Swiss-lake habitations, built on piles, to which
    attention has only been called since 1853. It is strange that all
    the Lake settlements of the bronze period are confined to West and
    Central Switzerland: in the more Eastern Lakes those of the stone
    period alone have been discovered.

    Similar habitations of a Pæonian tribe dwelling in Lake Prasias, in
    modern Roumelia, are mentioned by Herodotus, and they may be
    compared, in some degree, with the Irish Lake-dwellings or
    Crannoges, _i.e._ artificial islands, and more especially with the
    stockaded islands, occurring in various parts of the country: and
    which are accompanied by the weapons and instruments and pottery of
    the three aforesaid periods. Even in England slight traces of
    similar dwellings have been found near Thetford, not accompanied by
    any antiquities, but by the bones of various animals, the goat, the
    pig, the red deer, and the extinct ox, the _Bos longifrons_, the
    skulls of which last were in almost all instances fractured by the
    butcher.

    As to the chronology and duration of the three periods I shall say
    nothing, though not ignorant that some attempts have been made to
    determine them. They must have comprehended several thousand years,
    but how many seems at present extremely uncertain. I should perhaps
    say that Greek coins of Marseilles, which would probably be of the
    age of the Roman Republic, have been found in Switzerland in some
    few aquatic stations, and in tumuli among bronze and iron implements
    mixed. The cereals wanting in Scandinavia appear in Switzerland from
    the most remote period; and domestic animals, the ox, sheep, and
    goat, as well as the dog, even in the earliest stone-settlements.
    Among the ancient mounds of the valley of the Ohio, in North
    America, have been found (besides pottery and sculpture and various
    articles in silver and copper) stone weapons much resembling those
    discovered in France and other places in Europe. Before passing from
    these pre-historic remains, as they are badly called, to the
    historic, let me beg you to observe a striking illustration of the
    relation of archæology to history. Archæology is not the handmaid of
    history; she occupies a far higher position than that: archæology
    is, as I said at the outset, the science of teaching history by its
    monuments. Now for all western and northern Europe nearly the whole
    of its early history must be deduced, so far as it can be deduced at
    all, from the monuments themselves; for the so-called monuments of
    literature afford scanty aid, and for that reason our knowledge of
    these early ages is necessarily very incomplete. Doubtless, many a
    brave Hector and many a brave Agamemnon lived, fought, and died in
    the ages of stone and of bronze; but they are oppressed in eternal
    night, unwept and unknown, because no Scandinavian Homer has
    recorded their illustrious deeds. Still, we must be thankful for
    what we can get; and if archæological remains (on which not a letter
    of an alphabet is inscribed) cannot tell us everything, yet, at
    least, everything that we do know about these ages, or very nearly
    so, is deduced by archæology alone.

    We must now take a few rapid glances at the remains of the great
    civilised nations of the ancient world. Mr Kenrick observes that the
    seats of its earliest civilisation extend across southern Asia in a
    chain, of which China forms the Eastern, and Egypt the Western
    extremity; Syria, Mesopotamia, Assyria, and India, are the
    intermediate links. In all these countries, when they become known
    to us, we find the people cultivating the soil, dwelling in cities,
    and practising the mechanical arts, while their neighbours lie in
    barbarism and ignorance. We cannot, he thinks, fix by direct
    historical evidence the transmission of this earliest civilisation
    from one country to another. But we may determine with which of them
    ancient history and archæology must begin. The monuments of Egypt
    surpass those of all the rest, as it would appear, by many
    centuries. None of the others exercised much influence on European
    civilisation till a later period, some exception being made for the
    Phœnician commerce; but the connection of European with Egyptian
    civilisation is both direct and important. “From Egypt,” he remarks,
    “it came to Greece, from Greece to Rome, from Rome to the remoter
    nations of the West, by whom it has been carried throughout the
    globe[7].” As regards its archæology, which is very peculiar and
    indeed in some respects unique, I must now say a few words. The
    present remains of Memphis, the earliest capital, said to have been
    founded by Athothis, the son of Menes, the first king of the first
    dynasty, are not great; but so late as the fourteenth century they
    were very considerable. Temples and gateways, colossal statues and
    colossal lions then existed, which are now no more. Whether any of
    them approached the date of the foundation it is useless to enquire.
    Now, the most remarkable relic is a colossal statue of Rameses II.,
    which, when perfect, must have been about forty-three feet high.
    This monarch is of the XVIIIth dynasty, which embraces the most
    splendid and flourishing period of Egyptian history; and though much
    uncertainty still prevails for the early Egyptian chronology, it
    appears to be well made out and agreed that this dynasty began to
    reign about fifteen centuries before the Christian era. But the
    pyramids and tombs of Ghizeh, and of several other places at no
    great distance from Memphis, are of a much earlier date; and the
    great pyramid is securely referred to a king of the fourth dynasty.
    “Probably at no place in the entire history of Egypt,” says Mr
    Osburn, “do the lists and the Greek authors harmonize better with
    the historical notices on the monuments than at the commencement of
    this dynasty[8].” The system of hieroglyphic writing was the same
    (according to Mr Kenrick) in all its leading peculiarities, as it
    continued to the end of the monarchy. I regret to say that some
    eminent men have tried to throw discredit, and even ridicule, on the
    attempts which, I think, have been most laudably made with great
    patience, great acuteness, and great learning, to decipher and
    interpret the Egyptian and other ancient languages. Many of us,
    doubtless, have seen a piece of pleasantry in which
    _Heigh-diddle-diddle, The cat and the fiddle_ is treated as an
    unknown language; the letters are divided into words—all wrongly, of
    course—these words are analysed with a great show of erudition, and
    a literal Latin version accompanies the whole. If I remember (for I
    have mislaid the amusing production) it proves to be an invocation
    of the gods, to be used at a sacrifice. Now, a joke is a good thing
    in its place; only do not let it be made too much of. Every
    archæologist, beginning with Jonathan Oldbuck, must sometimes fall
    into blunders, when he takes inscriptions in hand, even if the
    language be a known one; and, of course, _à fortiori_, when but
    little known. My own opinion on hieroglyphics would be of no value
    whatever, as I know nothing beyond what I have read in a few modern
    authors, and have never studied the subject; but, allow me to
    observe, that I had a conversation very lately with my learned and
    excellent friend, Dr Birch, of the British Museum, who is now
    engaged in making a dictionary of hieroglyphics, and he assured me
    that a real progress has been made in the study of them, that a
    great deal of certainty has been attained to; while there is still
    much that requires further elucidation. To the judgment of such a
    man, who has spent a great part of his life in the study of Egyptian
    antiquities, though he has splendidly illustrated other antiquities
    also, I must think that greater weight should be attached than to
    the judgment of others, eminent as they may be in some branches of
    learning, who have never studied this as a specialty.

Footnote 7:

      _Ancient Egypt_, Vol. I. p. 3. London, 1850.

Footnote 8:

      _Monumental History of Egypt_, Vol. I. p. 262. London, 1854.

    The relation of archæology to Egyptian history deserves especial
    notice. We have not here, as in pre-historic Europe, a mere
    multitude of uninscribed and inconsiderable remains; but we have
    colossal monuments of all kinds—temples, gateways, obelisks,
    statues, rock sculptures—more or less over-written with
    hieroglyphics; also sepulchral-chambers, in many instances covered
    with paintings, in addition to a variety of smaller works, mummy
    cases, jewelry, scarabæi, pottery, &c., upon many of which are
    inscriptions. By aid of these monuments mostly, but by no means
    exclusively, the history of the Pharaohs and the manners and customs
    of their people are recovered. The _monumenta litterarum_ themselves
    are frequently preserved on the monuments of stone and other
    materials.

    For the pyramids of Ghizeh and the adjoining districts, for the
    glorious temples of Dendera, of Karnak, the grandest of all the
    remains of the Pharaohs, as well as for those of Luxor, with its now
    one obelisk, of Thebes, of Edfou, of Philæ, likewise for the
    grottoes of Benihassan, I must leave you to your own imagination or
    recollection, which may be aided in some degree by a few of the
    beautiful photographs by Bedford, which are now before your eyes.
    They extend along the banks and region of the Nile—for this is
    Egypt—from the earliest times down to the age of the Ptolemies and
    of Cleopatra herself, and even of the Roman empire, in the case of
    Dendera, where the portico was added by Tiberius to Cleopatra’s
    temple. Before quitting these regions I would remark, that the
    extraordinary rock-hewn temple of Aboo-Simbel in Nubia, which
    includes the most beautiful colossal statues yet found—their height
    as they sit is more than fifty feet—bears some similarity to certain
    Indian temples, especially to the temple of Siva at Tinnevelly, and
    the Kylas at Ellora, which last has excited the astonishment of all
    travellers. “Undoubtedly,” says Mr Fergusson, “there are many very
    striking points of resemblance ... but, on the other hand, the two
    styles differ so widely in details and in purpose, that we cannot
    positively assert the actual connexion between them, which at first
    sight seems unquestionable[9].”

Footnote 9:

      _Handbook of Architecture_, p. 101. London, 1859.

    The archæology of the Babylonian empire need only occupy a few
    moments. The antiquity of Babylon is proved to be as remote as the
    fifteenth century B.C., by the occurrence of the name on a monument
    of Thothmes III., an Egyptian monarch of the XVIIIth dynasty. It may
    be much older than that; but the archæological remains of the Birs
    Nimroud (which was long imagined to be the tower of Babel) hitherto
    found are not older than the age of Nebuchadnezzar. This palatial
    structure consisted, in Mr Layard’s opinion, of successive
    horizontal terraces, rising one above another like steps in a
    staircase. Every inscribed brick taken from it,—and there are
    thousands and tens of thousands of these,—bears the name of
    Nebuchadnezzar. It is indeed possible that he may have added to an
    older structure, or rebuilt it; and if so we may one day find more
    ancient relics in the Birs. But at a place called Mujelibé (the
    Overturned) are remains of a Babylonian palace not covered by soil,
    also abounding with Nebuchadnezzar’s bricks, where Mr Layard found
    one solitary fragment of a sculptured slab, having representations
    of gods in head-dresses of the Assyrian fashion, and indicating that
    the Babylonian palaces were probably similarly ornamented. A very
    curious tablet was also brought from Bagdad of the age of
    Nebuchadnezzar, giving, according to Dr Hincks, an account of the
    temples which he built. Besides these, “a few inscribed tablets of
    stone and baked clay, figures in bronze and terra cotta, metal
    objects of various kinds, and many engraved cylinders and gems are
    almost the only undoubted Babylonian antiquities hitherto brought to
    Europe.” Babylonia abounds in remains, but they are so
    mixed—Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Arsacian, Sassanian, and
    Christian—that it is hard to separate them. Scarcely more than one
    or two stone figures or slabs have been dug out of the vast mass of
    débris; and, as Isaiah has said, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and
    all the graven images of her gods hath Jehovah broken unto the
    ground[10].”

Footnote 10:

      See Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_, chapters xxii, xxiii.,
      especially pp. 504, 528, 532. London, 1853.

    The most splendid archæological discovery of our age is the
    disinterment of the various palaces and other monuments of the
    Assyrian Empire. The labours of Mr Layard and M. Botta have made
    ancient Assyria rise before our eyes in all its grandeur and in all
    its atrocity. In visiting the British Museum we seem to live again
    in ancient Nineveh. We behold the sculptured slabs of its palaces,
    on which the history of the nation is both represented and written;
    we wonder at its strange compound divinities, its obelisks, its
    elegant productions in metal, in ivory, and in terra cotta. By
    patient and laborious attention to the cuneiform inscriptions, aided
    by the notices in ancient authors, sacred and profane, men like Sir
    H. Rawlinson and Dr Hincks have recovered something like a
    succession of Assyrian kings, ranging from about 1250 B.C. to about
    600 B.C., and many particulars of their reigns, some of which bring
    out in a distinct manner the accurate knowledge of the writers of
    the Old Testament.

    The remains of ancient Persia are too considerable to be passed
    over. Among other monuments at Pasargadæ, a city of the early
    Persians, is a great monolith, on which is a bas-relief, and a
    cuneiform inscription above, “I am Cyrus the king, the Achæmenian.”
    Here is the tomb of the founder of the empire.

    At Susa, the winter seat of the Persian kings from the time of
    Cyrus, Mr Loftus and Sir W. F. Williams have found noble marble
    structures raised by Darius, the son of Hystaspes (424—405 B.C.),
    whose great palace was here: commenced by himself and completed by
    Artaxerxes II. or Mnemon (405—359 B.C.). Both here and at
    Persepolis, the richest city after Susa (destroyed, as we all
    remember from Dryden’s ode, by Alexander), are ruins of magnificent
    columns of the most elaborate ornamentation, and many cuneiform
    inscriptions, deciphered by Lassen and Rawlinson. Mr Loftus remarks
    on the great similarity of the buildings of Persepolis and Susa,
    which form a distinct style of architecture. This is the salient
    feature of Persian archæology, and to him I refer you upon it[11]. I
    cannot dwell upon other ruins in these regions, or on the minor
    objects, coins, cylinders, and vases of the ancient Persian empire;
    and still less on the very numerous coins of the Arsacidæ, and
    Sassanidæ, who afterwards succeeded to it.

Footnote 11:

      See his _Travels and Researches in Chaldæa and Susiana_, ch.
      xxviii. London, 1857; also Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Roman
      Geography_, s. v. Pasargadæ, Persepolis, Susa; and Vaux’s _Nineveh
      and Persepolis_, London, 1850.

    Of ancient Judæa we possess as yet very scanty archæological
    monuments indeed before the fall of the monarchy. The so-called
    Tombs of the Kings are now, I believe, generally considered to
    belong to the Herodian period. Of the Temple of Jerusalem, the holy
    place of the Tabernacle of the Most Highest, not one stone is left
    upon another. And we may well conceive that nothing less than its
    destruction would effectually convince the world of the great truth
    that an hour had arrived in which neither that holy mountain on
    which it was built, nor any other in the whole world, was to be the
    scene of the exclusive worship of the Father. The sites of the Holy
    Places, however, have naturally excited much attention, and have
    been well illustrated by several distinguished resident members of
    our University, and also by a foreign gentleman who for some time
    resided among us. Dr Pierotti had the singular good fortune to
    discover the subterranean drains by which the blood of the victims,
    slaughtered in the Temple, was carried off; and this discovery
    afforded valuable aid in determining various previously disputed
    matters in connexion with the Temple. He likewise came upon some
    masonry in the form of bevelled stones below the surface, which was
    not unreasonably supposed to belong to Solomon’s Temple; but it now
    appears that this opinion is doubtful. Besides these, we have the
    sepulchres of the patriarchs at Hebron, guarded with scrupulous
    jealousy; and tanks at the same place, which may be as old as the
    time of David, and perhaps one or two things more of a similar kind.
    We may well hope that the explorations which are now being set on
    foot for bringing to light the antiquities of Palestine may add to
    their number.

    In the relation of Jewish archæology to Jewish history we have a
    case quite different to all those that have gone before it: there
    the native archæology was more or less extensive, the independent
    native literature scanty or non-existent; here, where the archæology
    is almost blotted out, is it precisely the reverse. We have in the
    sacred books of the Old Testament an ample literary history: we have
    scarcely any monumental remains of regal Judæa at all. With regard
    to the New Testament the matter is otherwise; archæological
    illustrations, as well as literary, exist in abundance, and some
    very striking proofs from archæology have been adduced of the
    veracity and trustworthiness of its authors. My predecessor bestowed
    great attention on the numismatic and other monumental illustrations
    of Scripture, and herein set a good example to all that should come
    after him. Archæology is worthily employed in illustrating every
    kind of ancient literature; most worthily of all does she occupy
    herself in the illustration and explanation and confirmation of the
    sacred writings, of the Book of books.

    The antiquities of Phœnicia need not detain us long. Opposite to
    Aradus is an open quadrangular enclosure, excavated in rock, with a
    throne in the centre for the worship of Astarte and Melkarth; this
    is the only Phœnician temple discovered in Phœnicia, except a small
    monolithal temple at Ornithopolis, about nine miles from Tyre, of
    high antiquity, dedicated apparently to Astarte. I wish however to
    direct your attention to the characteristic feature of Phœnician
    architecture, its enormous blocks of stone bevelled at the joints.
    You have them in the walls of Aradus and in other places in
    Phœnicia. They are also found in the temple of the Sun at Baalbec,
    and may with great probability, I conceive, be regarded as
    Phœnician; though the rest of the beautiful architectural remains
    there are Greco-Roman of the Imperial period, and perhaps the best
    specimens of their kind in existence. Among other Phœnician
    antiquities we have sarcophagi, and sepulchral chambers for
    receiving them, also very beautiful variegated glass found over a
    good part of Europe and Asia, commonly called Greek, but perhaps
    more reasonably presumed to be Phœnician. Most of the remains found
    on the sites of the Phœnician settlements are either so late
    Phœnician, or so little Phœnician at all, as at Carthage, that I
    shall make no apology for passing over both them, and the few
    exceptions also, just alluding however to the existence of a
    remarkable hypæthral temple in Malta, which I myself saw nearly
    twenty years ago, not long, I believe, after it was uncovered. With
    regard to the strange vaulted towers of Sardinia, called Nuraggis,
    they may be Phœnician or Carthaginian, but their origin is
    uncertain. “All Phœnician monuments,” says Mr Kenrick, “in countries
    unquestionably occupied by the Phœnicians are recent[12].” He makes
    the remark in reference to the Lycian archæology. Whether the
    Lycians were of Phœnician origin or not, their rock-temples and
    rock-tombs, abounding in sculptures (illustrative both of their
    mythology and military history), shew that they were not much behind
    the Greeks in the arts. With the general appearance of their
    Gothic-like architecture, and of their strange bilingual
    inscriptions, Greek and Lycian, we are of course familiarised by the
    Lycian Room in the British Museum. With regard to the relation of
    Phœnician and Lycian archæology to the history of the peoples
    themselves, it must be sufficient to say, that their history, both
    literary and monumental, is quite fragmentary; in the case of
    Phœnicia the literary notices perhaps preserve more to us than the
    monumental; in regard to Lycia the remark must rather be reversed.

Footnote 12:

      _Phœnicia_, p. 88. London, 1855. See also Smith’s _Dict. of Greek
      and Roman Geography_, s. v. Phœnicia and Lycia.

    From Phœnicia, which first carried letters to Greece, let us also
    pass to Greece. But Greece, in the sense in which I shall use it,
    includes not only Greece Proper, but many parts of Asia Minor, as
    well as Sicily and the Great Greece of Italy. And here I must
    unwillingly be brief, and make the splendid extract from Canon
    Marsden, quoted before, in some degree do duty for me. But think for
    a minute first on its architecture, I do not mean its earliest
    remains, such as the Cyclopian walls and the lion-gate at Mycenæ,
    and the so-called treasury of Atreus, which ascend to the heroic
    ages or farther back, but its temple architecture. Before I can name
    them, images of the Parthenon, the Erectheum, the temple of Jupiter
    Panhellenius at Ægina, the temple of Apollo Epicurius at Phigalia or
    Bassæ, that of Concord (so-called) at Agrigentum, the most perfect
    in Sicily, the three glorious Doric temples of Pæstum, the Ionic
    ruins of Branchidæ, will, I am confident, have arisen before your
    eyes. Many of us perhaps have seen some of them; if not, we all feel
    as though we had. Think of its sepulchral monuments, which are in
    the form of temples; and first of Queen Artemisia’s Mausoleum, the
    most splendid architectural expression of conjugal affection that
    has ever existed, the wonder of the world, with its colossal statue
    of her husband and its bas-reliefs by Bryaxis and Scopas and other
    principal sculptors; and remember that we have these in our national
    museum. Various fine rock-tombs, likewise in the form of temples,
    occur in Asia Minor, _e.g._ that of Midas at Nacoleia, the Lion-tomb
    at Cnidus, the necropolis at Telmessus.

    The transition from temples and tombs to statuary is easy, as these
    were more or less decorated with its aid. Although we still possess
    the great compositions of some of the first sculptors and
    brass-casters, for example, the Quoit-thrower of Myron, the
    Diadumenos of Polycleitus, (_i.e._ a youth binding his head with a
    fillet in token of an athletic victory,) and perhaps several of the
    Venuses of Praxiteles; yet it is needless for me to remind you that
    these with few exceptions are considered to be copies, not
    originals. But yet there are exceptions. “The extant relics of Greek
    sculpture,” says Mr Bunbury, “few and fragmentary as they
    undoubtedly are, are yet in some degree sufficient to enable us to
    judge of the works of the ancient masters in this branch of art. The
    metopes of Selinus, the Æginetan, the Elgin, and the Phigaleian
    marbles, to which we now add the noble fragments recently brought to
    this country from Halicarnassus, not only serve to give us a clear
    and definite idea of the progress of the art of sculpture, but
    enable us to estimate for ourselves the mighty works which were so
    celebrated in antiquity[13].” Of bronzes of the genuine Greek
    period, which we may call their metal statuary, the most beautiful
    that occur to my remembrance are those of Siris, now in the British
    Museum. They are considered by Brönsted to agree in the most
    remarkable and striking manner with the distinctive character of the
    school of Lysippus. But most of the extant bronzes are, I believe,
    of the Roman period, executed however, like their other best works,
    by Greco-Roman artists.

Footnote 13:

      _Edinburgh Review_ for 1858, Vol. CVIII. p. 382. I follow common
      fame in assigning this article to Mr Bunbury; few others indeed
      were capable of writing it. Besides the sculptures named by him we
      have in the British Museum a bas-relief by Scopas, as it is
      thought, who may also be the author of the Niobid group at
      Florence; likewise the Ceres (so-called) from Eleusis, and the
      statue of Pan from Athens, now in our Fitzwilliam Museum. For
      other antique statues and bronzes and for the later copies see
      Müller’s _Ancient Art_, passim.

    With the Greek schools of painting, Attic, Asiatic, and Sicyonian,
    no less celebrated than their sculpture, it has fared far worse.
    There is not one of their works surviving; no, not one. Of these
    schools and their paintings I need not here say anything, as I am
    concerned only with the archæological monuments which are now in
    existence. But the loss is compensated in some degree by the
    paintings on vases, in which we may one day recognise the
    compositions of the various great masters of the different schools,
    just as in the majolica and other wares of the 16th and following
    centuries we have the compositions of Raffaelle, Giulio Romano, and
    other painters. “The glorious art of the Greek painters,” says K. O.
    Müller, the greatest authority for ancient art generally, “as far as
    regards light, tone, and local colours, is wholly lost to us; and we
    know nothing of it except from obscure notices and later
    imitations;” (referring, I suppose, to the frescoes of Herculaneum
    and of Pompeii more especially;) “on the contrary, the pictures on
    vases with thinly scattered bright figures give us the most exalted
    idea of the progress and achievements of the art of design, if we
    venture, from the workmanship of common handicraftsmen, to draw
    conclusions as to the works of the first artists[14].” But of this
    matter and of the vases themselves, which rank among the most
    graceful remains of Greek antiquity, and are found over the whole
    Greek world, I shall say no more now, as they will form the subject
    of my following lectures. We have also many terra cottas of delicate
    Greek workmanship, mostly plain, but some gilded, others painted,
    from Athens, as well as from a great variety of other places, of
    which the finest are now at Munich. Relief ornaments, sometimes of
    great beauty, in the same material, were impressed with moulds, and
    Cicero, in a letter to Atticus, wishes for such _typi_ from Athens,
    in order to fix them on the plaster of an atrium. Most of those
    which now remain seem to be of Greco-Roman times.

Footnote 14:

      _Ancient Art and its Remains_, p. 119. Translated (with additions
      from Welcker) by Leitch. London, 1852. This invaluable work is a
      perfect thesaurus for the student, and will conduct him to the
      most trustworthy authorities on every branch of the subject.

    Of the art of coinage invented by the Greeks and carried by them to
    the highest perfection which it has ever attained, a few words must
    now be said. The history of a nation, said the first Napoleon, is
    its coinage: and the art which the Greeks invented became soon
    afterwards, and now is, the history of the world. Numismatics are
    the epitome of all archæological knowledge, and any one who is
    versed in this study must by necessity be more or less acquainted
    with many others also. Architecture, sculpture, iconography,
    topography, palæography, the public and private life of the ancients
    and their mythology, are all illustrated by numismatics, and
    reciprocally illustrate them.

    Numismatics give us also the succession of kings and tyrants over
    the whole Greek world. In the case of Bactria or Bactriana, whose
    capital Bactra is the modern Balk, this value of numismatics is
    perhaps most conspicuous. From coins, and from coins almost alone,
    we obtain the succession of kings, beginning with the Greek series
    in the third century B.C., and going on with various dynasties of
    Indian language and religion, till we come down to the Mohammedan
    conquest. “Extending through a period of more than fifteen
    centuries,” says Professor H. H. Wilson, “they furnish a distinct
    outline of the great political and religious vicissitudes of an
    important division of India, respecting which written records are
    imperfect or deficient[15].”

Footnote 15:

      _Ariana Antiqua_, p. 439. London, 1841. For the more recent views
      of English and German numismatists on these coins, see Mr Thomas’s
      _Catalogue of Bactrian Coins_ in the Numismatic Chronicle for
      1857, Vol. XIX. p. 13 sqq.

    Coins are so much more durable than most other monuments, that they
    frequently survive, when the rest have perished. This is well put by
    Pope in his Epistle to Addison, on his Discourse on Medals:

           Ambition sighed, she saw it vain to trust
           The faithless column and the crumbling bust,
           Huge moles whose shadows stretched from shore to shore,
           Their ruins perished and their place no more.
           Convinced she now contracts her vast design,
           And all her triumphs shrink into a coin.
           A narrow orb each crowded conquest keeps,
           Beneath her palm here sad Judæa weeps;
           Now scantier limits the proud arch confine;
           And scarce are seen the prostrate Nile or Rhine;
           A small Euphrates thro’ the piece is rolled,
           And little eagles wave their wings in gold.
           The Medal, faithful to its charge of fame,
           Through climes and ages bears each form and name;
           In one short view subjected to our eye,
           Gods, emperors, heroes, sages, beauties, lie.

    Regarded simply as works of art the coins of Magna Græcia and
    Sicily, more especially those of Syracuse and its tyrants, as well
    as those of Thasos, Opus, and Elis, also the regal coins of Philip,
    Alexander, Mithridates, and some of the Seleucidæ, are amongst the
    most exquisite productions of antiquity. Not even in gem-engraving,
    an art derived by Greece from Egypt and Assyria, but carried by her
    to the highest conceivable perfection, do we find anything superior
    to these. I must, before quitting the subject of numismatics,
    congratulate the University on the acquisition of one of the largest
    and most carefully selected private collections of Greek coins ever
    formed, viz. the cabinet of the late Col. Leake, which is now one of
    the principal treasures of the Fitzwilliam Museum.

    Inferior as gems are to coins in most archæological respects,
    especially in respect of their connection with literary history, and
    though not superior to the best of them artistically, gems have
    nevertheless one advantage over coins, that they are commonly quite
    uninjured by time. Occasionally (it is true) this is the case with
    coins; but with gems it is the rule. Of course, to speak generally,
    the art of gems, whose material is always more or less precious, is
    superior to that of coins, which were often carelessly executed, as
    being merely designed for a medium of commercial exchange. High art
    would not usually spend itself upon small copper money, but be
    reserved for the more valuable pieces, especially those of gold and
    silver[16]. The subjects of gems are mostly mythological, or are
    connected with the heroic cycle; a smaller, but more interesting
    number, presents us with portraits, which however are in general
    uninscribed. At the same time, by comparing these with
    portrait-statues and coins we are able to identify Socrates, Plato,
    Aristotle, Demosthenes, Alexander the Great, several of the
    Ptolemies, and a few others; most of which may have been engraved by
    Greco-Roman artists. But the catalogue of authentic portraits
    preserved to us, both Greek and Roman, is, as K. O. Müller observes,
    now very much to be thinned.

Footnote 16:

      This remark however must not be pressed too closely. Certain small
      Greek copper coins of Italy, Sicily, &c., are exceedingly
      beautiful.

    With regard to ancient iconography in general, coins, without doubt,
    afford the greatest aid; but no certain coin-portraits are, I
    believe, earlier than Alexander[17]. The oldest Greek
    portrait-statue known to me is that of Mausolus, now in the British
    Museum; but the majority of the statues of Greek philosophers and
    others are probably to be referred to the Roman times, when the
    formation of portrait-galleries became a favourite pursuit. With the
    Greeks it was otherwise; the ideal was ever uppermost in their mind:
    they executed busts of Homer indeed and placed his head on many of
    their coins; but of course these were no more portraits than the
    statues of Jupiter and Pallas are portraits. With regard to the
    relation of Greek archæology to the history of Greece, both the
    monuments and the literature are abundant, and they mutually
    illustrate one another; and the same remark is more or less true for
    the histories of the nations afterwards to be mentioned, upon which
    I shall therefore not comment in this respect.

Footnote 17:

      I am aware that there are reasons for believing that a Persian
      coin preserves a portrait of Artaxerxes Mnemon, who reigned a
      little earlier.

    From Greece, who taught Rome most or all that she ever knew of the
    arts, we pass to the contemplation of the mistress of the world
    herself. She found indeed in her own vicinity an earlier
    civilisation, the Etruscan, whose archæological remains and history
    generally are amongst the most obscure and perplexing matters in all
    the world of fore-time. The sepulchral and other monuments of
    Etruria are often inscribed, but no ingenuity has yet interpreted
    them. The words of the Etruscan and other Italian languages have
    been recently collected by Fabretti. There is some story about a
    learned antiquary after many years’ research coming to the
    conclusion that two Etruscan words were equivalent to _vixit annos_,
    but which was _vixit_, and which _annos_, he was as yet uncertain.
    We have also Etruscan wall-paintings, and various miscellaneous
    antiquities in bronze, and among them the most salient peculiarity
    of Etruscan archæology not easily to be conjectured, its
    elegantly-formed bronze mirrors. These, which are incised with
    mythological subjects, and often inscribed, have attracted the
    especial attention of modern scholars and antiquaries, who have
    gazed upon them indeed almost as wistfully as the Tuscan ladies
    themselves.

    But Greece had far more influence over Roman life and art than
    Etruria.

                 Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes
                 Intulit agresti Latio.

    Accordingly, Greek architecture (mostly of the later Corinthian
    style, which was badly elaborated into the Composite) was imported
    into Rome itself, and continued to flourish in the Greek provinces
    of the empire. Temples and theatres continued much as before; but
    the triumphal arch and column, the amphitheatre, the bath and the
    basilica, are peculiarly Roman.

    The genius of Rome however was essentially military, and the stamp
    which she has left on the world is military also. Her camps, her
    walls, and her roads, _strata viaram_, which, like arteries,
    connected her towns one with another and with the capital, are the
    real peculiarities of her archæology. The treatise on Roman roads,
    by Bergier, occupies above 800 pages in the _Thesaurus_ of Grævius.
    Instead of bootlessly wandering over the width of the world on
    these, let us rather walk a little over those in our own country,
    and as we travel survey the general character of the Roman British
    remains, which may serve as a type of all. In the early part of this
    lecture, I observed that we, in common with the rest of Western
    Europe, find in our islands weapons which belong to the stone,
    bronze, and iron periods; and here also, as in other places, the
    last-named period doubtless connects itself with the Roman. But
    besides these, we have other remains, many of which may be referred
    to the Celtic population which Cæsar had to encounter, when he
    invaded our shores. These remains may in great part perhaps (for I
    am compelled to speak hesitatingly on a subject which I have studied
    but little, and of which no one, however learned, knows very much)
    be anterior to Roman times. Of this kind are the cromlechs at
    Dufferin in South Wales, in Anglesey, and in Penzance, of which
    there are models in the British Museum; of this kind also are, most
    probably, the gigantic structures at Stonehenge, about which so much
    has been written and disputed. The British barrows of various forms
    and other sepulchral remains may also be referred, I should
    conceive, in part at least, to the pre-Roman Celtic period. The
    earlier mounds contain weapons and ornaments of stone, bronze and
    ivory, and rude pottery; the later ones, called Roman British
    barrows, appear mostly not to contain stone implements, but various
    articles of bronze and iron and pottery; also gold ornaments and
    amber and bead necklaces. Other sepulchral monuments consist merely
    of heaps of stones covering the body which has been laid in the
    earth. Many researches into this class of remains have of late years
    been made, and by none perhaps more patiently and more successfully
    than by the late Mr Bateman, in Derbyshire. The archæology of Wales
    has also been made the special object of study by a society formed
    for the purpose. Some tribes of the ancient Britons were certainly
    acquainted with the art of die-sinking, and a great many coins,
    principally gold, are extant, some of which may probably be as early
    as the second century before Christ. They are, to speak generally,
    barbarous copies of the beautiful gold staters of Philip of Macedon,
    which circulated over the Greek world, and so might become known to
    our forefathers by the route of Marseilles.

    With these remarks I leave the Celtic remains in Britain; all
    attempts to connect together the literary notices and the
    antiquities of the Celts and Druids, so as to make out a history
    from them, have been compared to attempts to “trace pictures in the
    clouds[18].” Still we may say to the Celtic archæologist,

            Θαρσεῖν χρὴ, φίλε Βύττε, τάχ’ αὔριον ἔσσετ’ ἄμεινον.

Footnote 18:

      _Pict. Hist. of England_, Vol. I. p. 59. London, 1837.

    One day matters may become clearer by the help of an extended and
    scientific archæology.

    But of the Romano-British remains it may be necessary to say
    something. When we look at the map in Petrie’s _Monumenta Historica
    Britannica_, in which the Roman roads are laid down by their actual
    remains, we see the principal Roman towns and stations connected
    together by straight lines, which are but little broken. So numerous
    are they that we might almost fancy that we were looking at a map in
    an early edition of a _Railway Guide_. In this county they abound
    and have been very carefully traced, and both here and in other
    counties are still used as actual roads. In a few instances
    mile-stones have also been found. In our own country, cut off, as
    Virgil says, from the whole world, we do not expect the splendid
    monuments of Roman greatness, yet even here the temple, the
    amphitheatre and the bath are not unknown; and in our little Pompeii
    at Wroxeter we have, if my memory deceive me not, some vestiges of
    fresco-painting, an art of which we have such beautiful Roman
    examples elsewhere. But everywhere we stumble upon camps and villas;
    everywhere

                    The tesselated pavements shew
                    Where Roman lamps were wont to glow.

    And of these lamps themselves we have an infinite number and
    variety, and on many of them representations of the games of the
    circus and of various other things, formed in relief; a remark which
    may also be made of their fine and valuable red Samian ware;
    fragments of which are commonly met with, but the vases are rarely
    entire. Of their other pottery, and of their glass and personal
    ornaments, and miscellaneous objects, I must hardly say any thing;
    but only observe that the Romans have left us a very interesting
    series of coins relating to Britain; Claudius records in gold the
    arch he raised in triumphant victory over us: in the same way
    Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Septimius Severus, besides building their
    great walls against us, have, as well as Caracalla and Geta, struck
    many pieces in silver and copper to commemorate our tardy
    subjugation. The British emperors or usurpers, Carausius and
    Allectus, have also left us very ample series of coins, and indeed
    it is by these, much more than by the monuments of letters, that
    their histories are known. In the fourth and fifth centuries the
    monetary art declined greatly in the Western Empire, and was on the
    whole at a very low ebb in the Eastern or Byzantine Empire, and in
    the middle ages, generally, throughout Europe.

    At Constantinople a new school of Roman art arose, which exercised a
    powerful influence on medieval art in general. Soon after the
    foundation of Constantinople, Roman artists worked there in several
    departments with a skill by no means contemptible, though of a
    strangely conventional and grotesque character; and from them, as it
    would seem, the medieval artists of Central and Western Europe
    caught the love of the same crafts, and carried them to much higher
    excellence. I would allude in the first place, as being among the
    earliest, to ivory carvings, principally consular diptychs. From the
    time of the emperors it was the custom for consuls and other curule
    magistrates to make presents both to officials and their friends of
    ivory diptychs, which folded together like a pair of book-covers, on
    which sculptures in low relief were carved, as a mode of announcing
    their elevation. From the fourth and fifth centuries down to the
    fourteenth we find them, some of the earliest with classical
    subjects, as the triumph of Bacchus, probably of the fourth century;
    but mostly with Scriptural ones, or with representations of consuls.
    Some of these are enriched with jewellery. The inscriptions
    accompanying them are either in Greek or in Latin. In Germany they
    occur in the Carlovingian period, though rarely, and in France and
    Italy later still. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the ivory
    episcopal chair of St Maximian at Ravenna, a work of the sixth
    century, is the finest example extant of this class of antiques, and
    is doubly interesting as being one of the very few extant specimens
    of furniture during the first three centuries of the middle ages.
    Various casts of medieval ivories, it may be added, have been
    executed and circulated by the Arundel Society.

    Another art learnt from Rome in her decline, or from Constantinople,
    is the illumination of MSS., which the calligraphers of the middle
    ages in all countries throughout Europe carried to a very high
    perfection. Perhaps the earliest example to be named is the Greek
    MS. of Genesis in the LXX, now preserved in the Imperial Library at
    Vienna, probably of the fourth century. The vellum is stained
    purple, and the MS. is decorated with pictures executed in a quaint,
    but vigorous style. In these, we find (as M. Labarte[19], a great
    authority for medieval art, assures us) all the characters of Roman
    art in its decline, such as it was imported to Constantinople by the
    artists whom Constantine called to his new capital; and “they have
    served,” as he adds, “for a point of departure” in the examination
    which he has made of the tendencies and destinies of Byzantine art.
    Compare the Vatican MSS. of Terence and Virgil. I cannot be expected
    to enter into details about illuminations; they occur in MSS. of all
    sorts, more or less, in Europe, down to the sixteenth century, but
    especially in sacred books, such as were used in Divine service. I
    need only call to your remembrance the beautiful assemblage
    exhibited in the Fitzwilliam Museum and in the University Library,
    to say nothing of the treasures possessed by our different colleges.

Footnote 19:

      _Histoire des Arts au moyen âge._ Album. Vol. II. pl. lxxvii.
      Paris, 1864.

    There are many other objects of medieval art not unworthy of being
    enlarged upon, which I intentionally pass over lightly, lest their
    multiplicity should distract us; thus I will say little of its
    pottery, its coins, or of its sculptures and bas-reliefs in stone.
    With regard to the first of them, M. Labarte observes: “It is not
    until the beginning of the fifteenth century that we find among the
    European nations any pottery, but such as has been designed for the
    commonest domestic use, and none that art has been pleased to
    decorate.” These are objects which the middle ages have in common
    with others; and they are objects in which a comparison will not be
    favourable to medieval art. Still, we must take care that a love of
    art does not blind us to the real value of such things; they are
    always interesting for the _history_ of art, whatever their rudeness
    or whatever their ugliness; and, moreover, they are often, as the
    coins of various nations, of high historical interest. For examine,
    on our own series of barbarous Saxon coins we have not only the
    successions of kings handed down to us, in the several kingdoms of
    the so-called Heptarchy and in the united kingdom, but also on the
    reverses of the same coins we have mention made of a very large
    number of cities and towns at which they were respectively struck.
    For example, to take Cambridge, we find that coins were struck here
    by King Edward the Martyr, Ethelred the Second, Canute, Harold the
    First, and Edward the Confessor; also after the Conquest by William
    the First and William the Second. We are thus furnished with very
    early notices, and so in some measure able to estimate the
    importance of the cities and towns of our island in medieval times;
    though great caution is necessary here in making deductions; for no
    coins appear to have been struck in Cambridge after the reign of
    William Rufus. And this seems at first sight so much the more
    surprising when we bear in mind that money was struck in some of our
    cities, as York, Durham, Canterbury, and Bristol, quite commonly, as
    late as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. But, in truth, from
    the twelfth century downwards, the number of cities and towns in
    which lawful money was struck became comparatively small.

    But I must not wander too far into numismatics. The art of
    enamelling, peculiarly characteristic of the later periods of the
    middle ages, is very fully treated of by M. Labarte, from whom I
    derive the following facts. The most ancient writer that mentions it
    is the elder Philostratus, a Greek writer of the third century, who
    emigrated from Athens to Rome. In his _Icones_, or _Treatise on
    Images_, the following passage occurs. After speaking of a harness
    enriched with gold, precious stones, and various colours, he adds:
    “It is said that the barbarians living near the ocean pour colours
    upon heated brass, so that these adhere and become like stone, and
    preserve the design represented.” It may, therefore, be considered
    as established that the art of enamelling upon metals had no
    existence in either Greece or Italy at the beginning of the third
    century; and, moreover, that this art was practised at least as
    early in the cities of Western Gaul. During the invasions and wars
    which desolated Europe from the fourth to the eleventh century
    almost all the arts languished, and some may have been entirely
    lost. Enamelling was all but lost; for between the third and the
    eleventh centuries the only two works which occur as landmarks are
    the ring of King Ethelwulf in the British Museum, and the ring of
    Alhstan, probably the bishop of Sherburne, who lived at the same
    time. These two little pieces, however, only serve to establish the
    bare existence of enamelling in the West in the ninth century. But
    in this same century the art was in all its splendour at
    Constantinople, and we possess specimens of Byzantine workmanship of
    even an earlier date. I cannot enter into the various modes of
    enamelling, which are fully described by M. Labarte; but merely
    mention, without comment, a few of the principal specimens,
    independently of the Limoges manufacture, which constituted the
    chief glory of that city from the eleventh century to the end of the
    medieval period. “This became the focus whence emanated nearly all
    the beautiful specimens of enamelled copper, which are so much
    admired and so eagerly sought after for museums and collections.”
    The principal earlier examples then are these; the crown and the
    sword of Charlemagne, of the ninth century, now in the Imperial
    Treasury at Vienna; the chalice of St Remigius, of the twelfth
    century, in the Imperial Library at Paris; the shrine of the Magi in
    Cologne, and the great shrine of Nôtre Dame at Aix-la-Chapelle,
    presented by the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in the latter part of
    the same twelfth century. Also the full-length portrait (25 inches
    by 13) of Geoffrey Plantagenet, father of our Henry II., which
    formerly ornamented his tomb in the cathedral, but is now in the
    Museum at Le Mans. The British Museum likewise contains two or three
    fine examples; and among them an enamelled plate representing Henry
    of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, and brother of King Stephen.

    Very fine also are the extant products of the goldsmith’s art in the
    middle ages; which date principally from the eleventh century, when
    the art received a new impulse in the West; those of earlier date,
    with very few exceptions, now cease to exist. They are principally
    chalices, reliquaries, censers, candlesticks, croziers and
    statuettes.

    Nor can I pass over in absolute silence the armour of the middle
    ages. Until the middle of the ninth century it would appear to have
    resembled the Roman fashion, of which it is needless to say
    anything; but in Carlovingian times the hilts and scabbards of
    dress-swords were very highly decorated; and about this period, or
    rather later, the description of armour used by the ancients was
    exchanged for the hauberk or coat of mail, which was the most usual
    defensive armour during the period of the Crusades. The first
    authentic monument where this mail-armour is represented is on the
    Bayeux tapestry of Queen Matilda, representing the invasion of
    England by William Duke of Normandy in 1066; the most famous example
    of medieval tapestry in existence, though other specimens are to be
    seen at Berne, Nancy, La Chaise Dieu, and Coventry. The art of the
    _tapissier_, however, in the eleventh century, when the Bayeux
    tapestry was made, would appear to have been on the decline. In the
    beginning of the fourteenth century plate-armour began to come into
    use; and by and by this was decorated with Damascene work, a style
    of art applied to the gate of a basilica in Rome, which was sent
    from Constantinople, as early as the eleventh century, but which did
    not become general in the West till the fifteenth. To this I may
    just add, that sepulchral brasses, on which figures in armour are
    often elaborately represented by incised lines, are a purely
    medieval invention of the thirteenth century. Sir Roger de
    Trumpington’s brass at Trumpington is one of the very earliest
    examples. But time forbids me to say more of sepulchral brasses, a
    class of antiquities almost confined to our own country, of which we
    have some few specimens as late as the seventeenth century, or to do
    more than allude to the beautiful sepulchral monuments in stone of
    the medieval period, with which we are all more or less familiar.

    The most remarkable art to which the middle age gave birth was
    oil-painting, the very queen of all the fine arts, though it was to
    the age of the Medici that its immense development was due.
    Previously painting had been subordinated to architecture; but now,
    while mosaics, frescoes, and painted glass remained still
    subservient to her, the art of painting occupies a distinct and
    prominent rank of its own. It used commonly to be said that the
    invention of painting on prepared panel was due to Margaritone of
    Arezzo, who died about 1290, and in like manner that John van Eyck
    invented oil-painting in 1410. Both these errors have been
    propagated by the authority of Vasari. But it is now well known, and
    has been conclusively proved, both by M. Labarte and by Sir C.
    Eastlake, that these modes of painting are mentioned by authors who
    lived more than a century before Margaritone, in particular by the
    monk Theophilus, who in the twelfth century composed a work entitled
    _Diversarum artium schedula_. Paintings in oil either are or lately
    were in existence anterior to John van Eyck; for example one at
    Naples, executed by Filippo Tesauro, and dated 1309. We must ascend
    to much earlier times to discover the true origin of portable
    paintings, and we shall find it in the Byzantine Empire. The Greeks,
    about the time that the controversy respecting images was rife,
    multiplied little pictures of saints; these were afterwards brought
    over in abundance by the priests and monks who followed the
    crusades, and from the study of them, schools of painting in tempera
    arose in Italy, in the twelfth century, at Pisa, Florence and other
    places. The Byzantine school, M. Labarte tells us, reigned paramount
    in Italy until the time of Giotto, _i.e._ the beginning of the
    fourteenth century, and also in the schools of Bohemia and Cologne,
    the most ancient in northern Europe, until towards the end of the
    fourteenth century. In this country we have two very early
    paintings, one of the beginning and the other of the end of the same
    fourteenth century, in Westminster Abbey. The former, probably a
    decoration of the high altar, is on wood; it represents the
    Adoration of the Magi and other Scriptural subjects, and is declared
    by Sir C. Eastlake to be worthy of a good Italian artist of the
    fourteenth century, though he thinks that it was executed in
    England. The latter is the canopy of the tomb of Richard II. and
    Anne, his first wife, representing the Saviour and the Virgin and
    other figures. The action and expression are declared by Sir C.
    Eastlake to indicate the hand of a skilful painter. In 1396, £20 was
    paid by the sacrist for the execution of the work. These remarks
    must suffice for a notice of medieval painting; the glorious period
    of its history belongs rather to the Renaissance, or post-medieval
    age.

    The only archæological monuments of great importance which remain to
    be mentioned are those of architecture, in connection with the
    accessories of mosaics, frescoes, and painted glass. The two former
    descended from classical times, the last is the creation of the
    middle age. Mosaics having been originally used only in pavements,
    at length were employed as embellishments for the walls of
    basilicas, and, by a natural transition, of churches. Constantine
    and his successors decorated many churches in this manner, and in
    the East a ground of gold or silver was introduced below the glass
    cubes of the mosaics, and a lustre was by this means spread over the
    work which in earlier times was altogether unknown. Thus the
    tympanum above the principal door of the narthex of the Church of St
    Sophia, built by the Emperor Justinian at Constantinople, is adorned
    with a mosaic picture of the Saviour seated, the cubes of the
    mosaics being of silvered glass; it is accompanied by Greek texts.
    This and other later mosaics are figured by M. Labarte, in his last
    and most splendid work, entitled _Histoire des Arts au moyen âge_;
    among the rest a Transfiguration of the tenth century. The Byzantine
    art, with its stiff conventionality, prevailed every where till
    Cimabue, G. Gaddi, and Giotto imparted to its rudeness a grace and
    nobleness which marked a new era. In the vestibule of St Peter is a
    noble mosaic, partly after the design of Giotto, representing Christ
    walking on the water, and the apostles in the ship. But the very
    masters who raised the art to its perfection brought about its
    destruction. Painting, restored by these same great men, was too
    powerful a rival; and after the sixteenth century, when it still
    flourished in Venice under the encouragement of Titian, we hear
    little more of mosaics on any great scale.

    Passing over frescoes, which were much encouraged by Charlemagne,
    and by various sovereigns and popes during the middle ages, because
    the ravages of time have either destroyed them altogether or left
    them in a deplorable condition, as for example in some
    parish-churches in England, I will make a few remarks on painted
    glass, so extensively used in the decoration of the later churches.

    The art of painting glass was unknown to the ancients, and also to
    the early periods of the middle ages. “It is a fact,” says M.
    Labarte, “acknowledged by all archæologists, that we do not now know
    any painted glass to which an earlier date than the eleventh century
    can be assigned with certainty.” Two specimens, and no more, of this
    century, are figured by _M. Lasteyrie_. The painted windows of the
    twelfth and thirteenth centuries are nearly of the same character.
    They consist of little historical medallions, distributed over
    mosaic grounds composed of coloured (not painted) glass, borrowed
    from preceding centuries. Fine examples from the church of St Denys
    and La Sainte Chapelle at Paris, of the twelfth and thirteenth
    centuries, are figured by M. Lasteyrie, and also by M. Labarte, who
    has many beautiful remarks on their harmony with the buildings to
    which they belong, on the elegance of their form, the richness of
    their details, and the brilliancy of their colours. In the
    fourteenth century, when examples become common, the glass-painters
    copied nature with more fidelity, and exchanged the violet-tinted
    masses, by which the flesh-tints had been rendered, for a reddish
    gray colour, painted upon white glass, which approached more nearly
    to nature. Large single figures now often occupy an entire window.
    The improvement in drawing and colouring is a compensation for the
    more striking effects of the brilliant yet mysterious examples of
    the preceding centuries; and the end of the fourteenth century is
    one of the finest epochs in the history of painted glass. Painting
    on glass followed the progress of painting in oils in the age which
    followed; and artists more and more aimed at producing individual
    works; and in the latter half of the fifteenth century buildings and
    landscapes in perspective were first introduced. The decorations
    which surround the figures being borrowed from the architecture of
    the time have often a very beautiful effect. But the large
    introduction of _grisailles_ deprives the windows of this period of
    the transparent brilliancy of the coloured mosaics of the earlier
    glass-painting. In the sixteenth century, however, glass was nothing
    more than the material subservient to the glass-painter, like canvas
    to the oil-painter. Small pictures very highly finished were
    executed after the designs of Michael Angelo, Raffaelle, and the
    other great painters of the Renaissance. “But,” as M. Labarte truly
    says, “the era of glass-painting was at an end. From the moment that
    it was attempted to transform an art of purely monumental decoration
    into an art of expression, its intention was perverted, and this led
    of necessity to its ruin. The resources of glass-painting were more
    limited than those of oil, with which it was unable to compete. From
    the end of the sixteenth century the art was in its decline, and
    towards the middle of the seventeenth was” almost “entirely given
    up.” Our own age has seen its revival, and though the success has
    been indeed great, we may hope that the zenith has not yet been
    reached. “It is,” says Mr Winston, “a distinct and complete branch
    of art, which, like many other medieval inventions, is of universal
    applicability, and susceptible of great improvement.” I have been a
    little more diffuse on glass-painting than on some other subjects,
    as it is a purely medieval art, and one which has now acquired a
    living interest. Various examples of the different styles will
    easily suggest themselves to many, or, if not, they may be studied
    in the splendid work of M. Lasteyrie, entitled _Histoire de la
    Peinture sur Verre d’après ses monuments en France_, and on a
    smaller scale in Mr Winston’s valuable _Hints on Glass-painting_.

    With regard to the architectural monuments of the medieval world, I
    may, in addressing such an audience, consider them to be
    sufficiently well known for my present purpose, which is to give an
    indication, and little more, of the archæological remains which have
    come down to our own days. Medieval architecture is in itself a
    boundless subject; and as I have not specially studied it, I could
    not, if I would, successfully attempt an epitome of its various
    forms of Byzantine, Saracenic, Romanesque, Lombardic, and of
    infinitely diversified Gothic. For a succinct yet comprehensive view
    of all these and more, I must refer you to Mr Fergusson’s _Handbook
    of Architecture_. Yet when we let our imagination idly roam over
    Europe, and the adjoining regions of Asia and Africa, what a host of
    architectural objects flits before it in endless successions of
    variety and beauty! Think of Justinian’s Church of St Sophia, which
    he boasted had vanquished Solomon’s temple, and again of St Mark’s
    at Venice, as Byzantine examples. Think next of the mosque of the
    Sultan Hassan, and of the tombs of the Memlooks mingled with lovely
    minarets and domes at Cairo; of the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem;
    of the Alhambra in Spain, with all the witchery of its gold and
    azure decorations. Float, if you will, along the banks of the Rhine
    or the Danube (as many of us have actually done), and conjure up the
    majestic cathedrals, the spacious monasteries and the ruined
    castles, telling of other days, with which they are fringed. Let the
    bare mention of the names of Milan, Venice, Rome; again of Paris,
    Rheims, Chartres, Amiens, Troyes, Rouen, Avignon; and in fine those
    of Antwerp, Louvain, and Brussels, suggest their own stories. Yet
    the magnificent structures, secular and ecclesiastical, which I have
    either named or hinted at, need not make us ashamed of our own
    country. We are surrounded on all sides by an archæology which is
    emphatically an archæology of progress, and we may justly be proud
    of it as Englishmen. In this University and its immediate
    neighbourhood we have fine specimens of Saxon, Norman, Early
    English, Decorated, and Perpendicular styles of Gothic architecture;
    and as regards the last of them, one of the most splendid examples
    in the world. In the opinion of competent judges the English
    cathedrals, while surpassed in size by many on the Continent, are in
    excellence of art superior to those of France or of any country in
    Europe. “Nothing can exceed the beauty of the crosses which Edward
    I. erected on the spots where the body of Queen Eleanor rested on
    its way to London.” Some of these, Waltham for example, are quite
    equal to anything of their class found on the Continent. “The vault
    of Westminster Abbey” (says Mr Fergusson, on whose authority I make
    almost every statement relating to medieval architecture) “is richer
    and more beautiful in form than any ever constructed in France;” the
    triforium is as beautiful as any in existence; and its
    appropriateness of detail and sobriety of design render it one of
    the most beautiful Gothic edifices in Europe.

    I thus conclude my sketch, such as it is, of the archæology of the
    world. Its aim has been to bring under review the rude implements
    and weapons of primeval man; the colossal structures of civilised
    man in Egypt and India; the strangely-compounded palace-sculptures
    of Assyria and Babylonia; the exquisitely ornamented columns of
    Persian halls; the massive architecture of Phœnicia; the Gothic-like
    rock-tombs of Lycia; the lovely temples, and incomparable works of
    art of every kind, great and small, of Greece; the military impress
    of Roman conquest; the medieval works of art in ivory, in enamel, in
    glass-painting, as well as its glorious architectural remains,
    connecting the middle ages with our own times. It has been drawn, as
    I observed at the outset, under very adverse circumstances, and must
    on that account venture to sue for much indulgence. It is open, no
    doubt, to many criticisms: I expect to be charged with grievous sins
    of omission, and perhaps of commission also: nor do I suppose that I
    could entirely vindicate myself from such charges. Worse than all
    perhaps, I have exposed myself to the unanswerable sarcasm that I
    have talked about many subjects of which I know but little. If,
    however, I have been able to compile from trustworthy sources or
    manuals so much respecting those particular branches of archæology
    which I have not studied, as to bring before you their salient
    features in an intelligible manner, that is enough for my purpose. I
    want no more, and I pretend to no more; and I am conscious enough
    that even this purpose has been but feebly accomplished.
    Tediousness, indeed, in dealing with numerous details could hardly
    be altogether avoided; but this is so much lighter a fault than an
    indulgence in mere platitudes, running smoothly and amusingly, but
    emptily withal, that I shall hear your verdict of _guilty_ with
    composure.

    It now only remains that I should very briefly point out what
    qualifications are necessary for an archæologist, and also the
    pleasure and advantage which result from his pursuits.

    With regard to the first of these matters, the qualifications
    necessary for an archæologist, they are to some considerable extent
    the same as are necessary for a naturalist.

    Like the naturalist, the antiquary must in the first place bring
    together a large number of facts and objects. This is, no doubt, a
    matter of great labour, but believe me, ‘_labor ipse voluptas_.’ The
    labour is its own ample reward. The hunting out, the securing, and
    the amassing facts and objects of antiquity, or of natural history,
    are the field-sports of the learned or scientific Nimrod. In a
    certain sense every archæologist _must_ be a collector; he must be
    mentally in possession of a mass of facts and objects, brought
    together either by himself or by others. It is not absolutely
    necessary that he should be a collector, in the sense of being owner
    of a collection of his objects of study; in some departments indeed
    of archæology to amass the objects themselves is impossible: who,
    for instance, can collect Roman roads or Gothic cathedrals? models,
    plans, and drawings, are the only substitutes possible. But, with
    the facts relating to his favourite objects, and also as much as
    possible with the objects themselves, he must be familiar.

    Yet this familiarity will not be enough to make him an archæologist.
    Such knowledge may be possessed, and very often is possessed, by a
    mere dealer in antiquities. The true antiquary must not only be well
    acquainted with his facts, but he must also, when there are
    sufficient data, proceed to reason upon them. He puts them together,
    and considers what story they have to render up. We saw a beautiful
    illustration of this in the joint labours of the Scandinavian
    antiquaries and naturalists. The order and sequence of the stone,
    bronze, and iron ages, were distinctly made out; and even their
    chronology may one day be discovered. The antiquary is enabled to
    form some judgment of the civilisation, the arts, and the religion
    of the nations whose remains he studies. Very often, as in the Roman
    series of coins, he makes out political events in their history, and
    assigns their dates. He determines the place of things in the
    historical series, much as the naturalist does in the natural
    series.

    Like the naturalist also he must be a man of learning, _i.e._ he
    must be acquainted with what has been written by his
    fellow-labourers in the same branch of study. Few know, prior to
    experience, what a serious business this is. The bibliography of
    every department of archæology, as well as of natural history, is
    now becoming immense.

    But besides a knowledge of facts, and objects, and books, there are
    one or two other qualifications necessary for many departments of
    archæology, the want of which has been very prejudicial to some
    distinguished writers. Exact scholarship is one of these
    qualifications. I do not merely mean that if a man be engaged in
    Greek archæology, he must be aware of the passages of Greek authors,
    in which the vases or the coins he is talking about are alluded to,
    though he must certainly be acquainted with these, and possess
    sufficient scholarship to construe them correctly; but he must also
    be able to interpret his written archæological monuments, such as
    his inscriptions and the legends of his coins. This is oftentimes no
    easy matter, and it requires a knowledge of strange words and
    dialects. Moreover, if an inscription or a legend be mutilated (and
    this is very frequently the case), unless the archæologist has an
    accurate knowledge of the language in which it is written, whatever
    that may be, Greek, Latin, Norman-French, or any other, what hope is
    there that he will ordinarily be able to restore it, and having so
    done interpret it with security or satisfaction? As one illustration
    of many, I will cite Prof. Ramsay’s remark on Nibby’s dissertation
    _Delle vie degli Antichi_: “In the first part of this article (on
    Roman roads) his essay has been closely followed. _Considerable
    caution, however, is necessary in using the works of this author_,
    who, although a profound local antiquary is by no means an accurate
    scholar[20].” Mr Bunbury, while pointing out the advantages which
    scholars would derive from some acquaintance with archæology, points
    out by implication the advantage which archæologists would derive
    from scholarship. “In this country,” says he, “the study of
    archæology is but too much neglected; it forms no part of the
    ordinary training of our classical scholars at the Universities, and
    is rarely taken up by them in after life. It is generally considered
    as the exclusive province of the professed antiquarian, who has
    seldom undergone that early training in accurate scholarship, which
    is regarded, and we think with perfect justice, by the student from
    Oxford or Cambridge, as the indispensable foundation of sound
    classical knowledge[21].” I think he is a little over-severe on us;
    living men like Mr C. T. Newton, Mr Waddington, Mr Vaux, Mr C. W.
    King, Mr C. K. Watson, and, last, but not least, like himself, to
    whom others might be added, prove that his assertions must be taken
    _cum grano_; even if it be true that this country has produced no
    work connected with ancient art which can be compared with the
    writings of Gerhard, or Welcker; of Thiersch, or Karl Otfried
    Müller[22].

Footnote 20:

      See Smith’s _Dict. Gr. and Rom. Antiq._ s. v. Viæ.

Footnote 21:

      _Edinburgh Review_, u. s.

Footnote 22:

      I feel a little inclined to dispute this: Stuart, one of the
      authors of the _Antiquities of Athens_, which have been continued
      by other very able hands, and have also been translated into
      German, may, perhaps, take rank with the authors named in the
      text. K. O. Müller himself calls Millingen’s _Ancient Unedited
      Monuments_ (London, 1822) “a model of a work;” and though without
      doubt Millingen is inferior to Müller in scholarship and in
      acquaintance with books, he is probably at least his equal as a
      practical archæologist. Colonel Leake’s _Numismata Hellenica_
      (London, 1856) may also be cited as an admirable combination of
      learning with practical archæology.

    Another thing very desirable for the successful prosecution of some
    branches of archæology is an appreciation of art. Without it we
    cannot judge of the value of many antiques, or enter into their
    spirit or feeling; we neither discern their excellencies nor their
    deficiencies. Mr King, who has made the province of ancient gems
    peculiarly his own, justly calls them “little monuments of perfect
    taste, ... only to be appreciated by the educated and practised
    eye[23].” Moreover, this is the very knowledge often so requisite
    for distinguishing genuine antiquities from modern counterfeits. The
    modern forgers, who fabricate Greek coins from false dies, do not
    often reach the freedom and beauty of the originals; though it must
    be confessed that some of them, as Becker, have carried their
    execrable art to a very high perfection. It is but rarely that these
    men meet with the punishment they deserve; yet it is satisfactory to
    know that Charles Patin, great scholar and great antiquary as he
    was, was banished by Lewis XIV. from his court for ever, for selling
    him a false coin of Otho; and that a manufacturer of antiques in the
    East, near Bagdad I believe, lately received by order of the Turkish
    governor a sound bastinado on the soles of his feet for reproducing
    the idols of misbelievers of old time.

Footnote 23:

      _Antique Gems_, Introd. p. xxiii. London, 1860.

    A knowledge of natural history in fine is occasionally very useful
    to an antiquary. I will give two instances, not at all generally
    known, one taken from zoology, one from botany. On the reverse of
    the splendid Greek coins of Agrigentum a crab is commonly
    represented. To an ignorant eye the crab looks much like the crab in
    our shops here in Cambridge; the zoologist recognises in it the
    fresh-water crab of the regions of the Mediterranean; the
    numismatist, profiting by this knowledge, sees at once that the type
    of the coin symbolizes not the harbour of Agrigentum, as he had
    supposed, but its river. Again, on the reverse of the beautiful
    Greek coins of Rhodes occurs a flower, about which numismatists have
    disputed since the time of Spanheim, whether it was the flower of
    the rose or of the pomegranate. Even Col. Leake has here taken the
    wrong side, and decided in favour of the pomegranate; the divided
    calyx at once shews every botanist that the representation is
    intended for the rose, conventional as that representation may be,
    from which flower the island derives its name.

    These are, I think, the principal qualifications which are necessary
    or desirable for the archæologist. It only remains that I should
    point out briefly some of the pleasures and advantages that result
    from his pursuits. For I shall not so insult any one of you, who are
    here present, as to suppose that this question is lurking secretly
    in your mind, “Is there any good in archæology at all? To what
    practical end do your researches tend?” My learned predecessor well
    says that “this question is sometimes put to the lover of science or
    letters by those from whom nature has withheld the faculty of
    deriving pleasure from the exercise of the intellect, and he feels
    for the moment degraded to the level of such.” It is not so clear
    however that the fault must be put to the account of nature. Rather,
    we may say,

                Homine _imperito_ nunquam quidquam injustius,
                Qui nisi quod ipse facit, nihil rectum putat.

    “No one,” says a Swedish scholar of the seventeenth century, “blames
    the study of antiquity without evidencing his own ignorance; as they
    that esteem it do credit to their own judgment; so that to sum up
    its advantages we may assert, there is nothing useful in literature,
    if the knowledge of antiquity be judged unprofitable[24].” It is
    doubtless one of the many charms of archæology that it illustrates
    and is illustrated by literature; indeed, some knowledge of
    antiquity is little less than necessary for every man of letters.
    Unless we have some knowledge of the objects whose names occur in
    ancient literature, we lose half the pleasure of reading it. In
    reading the New Testament, I can certainly say for myself, that I
    derive more pleasure from the narrative of the woman who poured the
    contents of the alabaster box over the head of Jesus, now that I
    know what an _alabastron_ is, and how its contents would be
    extracted; and in the same way I appreciate the remark made by the
    silversmith in the Acts, that all Asia and the world worshipped the
    Ephesian Diana, now that I know her image to be stamped not on the
    coins of Ephesus only, but on many other cities throughout Asia
    also. Here, I think, we have pleasure and profit combined in one.
    Instances are abundant where monuments illustrate profane authors.
    The reader of Aristophanes will be pleased to recognise among the
    earliest figures on vases that of the ἱππαλεκτρυών, the cock-horse,
    or horse-cock, which cost Bacchus a sleepless night to conceive what
    manner of fowl it might be. “The Homeric scholar again,” it has been
    said, “must contemplate with interest the ancient pictures of Trojan
    scenes on the vases, and can hardly fail to derive some assistance
    in picturing them to his own imagination, by seeing how they were
    reproduced in that of the Greeks themselves in the days of Æschylus
    and Pindar[25].”

Footnote 24:

      Figrelius, quoted in the _Museum of Classical Antiquities_, Vol.
      I. p. 4.

Footnote 25:

      _Edinburgh Review_, u. s.

    Further, not only is ancient literature, but also modern art, aided
    by archæology. It is well known how, in the early part of the
    thirteenth century, Niccola Pisano was so attracted by a bas-relief
    of Meleager, which had been lying in Pisa for ages unheeded, “that
    it became the basis of his studies and the germ of true taste in
    Italy.” In the Academy of St Luke at Rome, and in the schools
    established shortly afterwards at Florence by Lorenzo de’ Medici,
    the professors were required to point out to the students the beauty
    and excellence of the works of ancient art, before they were allowed
    to exercise their own skill and imagination. Under the fostering
    patronage of this illustrious man and of his not less illustrious
    son a galaxy of great artists lighted up all Europe with their
    splendour. Leon Batista Alberti, one of the greatest men of his age,
    and especially great in architecture, was most influential in
    bringing back his countrymen to the study of the monuments of
    antiquity. He travelled to explore such as were then known, and
    tells us that he shed tears on beholding the state of desolation in
    which many of them lay. The prince of painters, Raffaelle,

                                timuit quo sospite vinci
                    Rerum magna parens et moriente mori,

    and the prince of sculptors, Michael Angelo, both drew their
    inspiration from the contemplation of the art-works of antiquity.
    The former was led to improve the art of painting by the frescoes of
    the baths of Titus, the latter by the sight of a mere torso imbibed
    the principles of proportion and effect which were so admirably
    developed in that fragment[26]. And not only the arts of sculpture
    and painting, but those which enter into our daily life, are
    furthered by the wise consideration of the past. Who can have
    witnessed the noble exhibitions in Hyde Park or at Kensington
    without feeling how much the objects displayed were indebted to
    Hellenic art? In reference to the former of these Mr Wornum says:
    “Repudiate the idea of copying as we will, all our vagaries end in a
    recurrence to Greek shapes; all the most beautiful forms in the
    Exhibition, (whether in silver, in bronze, in earthenware, or in
    glass,) are Greek shapes; it is true often disfigured by the
    accessory decorations of the modern styles, but still Greek in their
    essential form[27].”

Footnote 26:

      For this and the preceding facts see the _Museum of Classical
      Antiquities_, Vol. I. pp. 13-15. The frescoes of the baths of
      Titus have subsequently lost their brilliancy. See Quatremère de
      Quincy’s _Life of Raphael_, p. 263. Hazlitt’s Translation.
      (Bogue’s European Library).

Footnote 27:

      _The Exhibition as a Lesson in Taste_, p. xvii.*** (Printed at the
      end of the _Art-Journal Illustrated Catalogue_, 1851).

    And yet I must, in concluding this Introductory Lecture, most
    strongly recommend to you the study of archæology, not only for its
    illustration of ancient literature, not only for its furtherance of
    modern art, but also, and even principally, for its own sake. “Hæc
    studia adolescentiam alunt, senectutem oblectant, secundas res
    ornant, adversis perfugium ac solatium præbent; delectant domi, non
    impediunt foris, pernoctant nobiscum, peregrinantur,
    rusticantur[28].” Every one who follows a pursuit in addition to the
    routine duties of life has, by so doing, a happiness and an
    advantage of which others know little. The more elevated the
    pursuit, the more exquisite the happiness and the more solid the
    advantage. Now if

                     The proper study of mankind is man,

    then most assuredly archæology is one of the most proper pursuits
    which man can follow. For she is the interpreter of the remains
    which man in former ages has left behind him. By her we read his
    history, his arts, his civilisation; by her magical charms the past
    rises up again and becomes a present; the tide of time flows back
    with us in imagination; the power of association transports us from
    place to place, from age to age, suddenly and in a moment. Again the
    glories of the nations of the old world shine forth;

                  Again their godlike heroes rise to view,
                  And all their faded garlands bloom anew.

Footnote 28:

      Cicero _pro Archia poeta_, c. vii.

    To adopt and adapt the words of one who is both a learned
    archæologist and a learned astronomer of this University, I feel
    that I may, under any and all circumstances, impress upon your minds
    the utility and pleasure of “every species and every degree of
    archæological enquiry.” For “history must be looked upon as the
    great instructive school in the philosophical regulation of human
    conduct,” as well as the teacher “of moral precepts” for all ages to
    come; and no “better aid can be appealed to for” the discovery, for
    “the confirmation, and for the demonstration of the facts of
    history, than the energetic pursuit of archæology”[29].

Footnote 29:

      See an address delivered at an Archæological meeting at Leicester,
      by John Lee, Esq., LL.D. (_Journal of Archæol. Association_ for
      1863, p. 37).




                                -------


                                 NOTES.


    Pp. 15-20. Nearly everything contained in the text relating to
    pre-historic Europe will be found in the _Revue Archéologique_ for
    1864, and in Sir C. Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, London, 1863; see
    also for Thetford, _Antiq. Commun._ Vol. I. pp. 339-341, (Cambr.
    Antiq. Soc. 1859); but the following recent works (as I learn from
    Mr Bonney, who is very familiar with this class of antiquities) will
    also be found useful to the student:

    _Prehistoric Times._ By John Lubbock, F.R.S. London, 1865. 8vo.

    _The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark._ By Prof. Worsäe. London,
    1849. 8vo. (Engl. Transl.).

    _Les Habitations Lacustres._ Par F. Troyon. Lausanne, 1860.

    _Les Constructions Lacustres du Lac de Neufchâtel._ Par E. Desor.
    Neufchâtel, 1864.

    _Antiquités Celtiques et Antédiluviennes._ Par Boucher de Perthes.
    Paris, 1847.

    _Die Pfahlbauten._ Von Dr Ferd. Keller. Ber. I-V. (_Mittheilungen
    der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zurich_). 1854, sqq. 4to.

    _Die Pfahlbauten in den Schweizer-Seeen._ Von I. Staub. Zurich,
    1864. 8vo.

    Besides these there are several valuable papers in the _Transactions
    of the Royal, Geological, and Antiquarian Societies_ (by Messrs John
    Evans, Prestwich, and others), the _Natural History Review_, and
    other Periodicals.

    p. 26. For the literature relating to ancient Egypt see Mr R. S.
    Poole’s article on Egypt, in Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, Vol.
    I. p. 512.

    pp. 29-31. Besides the works of Robinson, De Saulcy, Lewin, Thrupp,
    and others, the following books may be mentioned as more especially
    devoted to the archæology of Jerusalem:

    _The Holy City._ By George Williams, B.D. (Second edition, including
    an architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the
    Rev. Robert Willis, M.A., F.R.S. 1849.)

    _Jerusalem Explored._ By Ermete Pierotti. Translated by T. G.
    Bonney, M.A. 1864.

    _Le Temple de Jérusalem._ Par le Comte Melchior de Vogüé, 1865. The
    Count considers none of the present remains of the Temple to be
    earlier than the time of Herod.

    To these I should add Mr Williams’ and Mr Bonney’s tracts, directed
    against the views of Mr Fergusson, in justification of those of Dr
    Pierotti.

    p. 31, l. 20. From some remarks made to me by my learned friend,
    Count de Vogüé, I fear that this is not so certain a characteristic
    of Phœnician architecture as has been commonly supposed. He assigns
    some of the bevelled stones which occur in Phœnicia to the age of
    the Crusades.

    p. 31, last line. For the very remarkable Phœnician sarcophagus
    discovered in 1855, and for various references to authorities on
    Phœnician antiquities, see Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_, Vol. II. p.
    868, and Vol. III. p. 1850.

    p. 36. As a general work on Greek and Roman Coins Eckhel’s _Doctrina
    Numorum Veterum_ (Vindobonæ, 1792-1828, with Steinbuchel’s
    _Addenda_, 8 Vols. 4to.) still remains the standard, though now
    getting a little out of date.

    The same remark must be made of Mionnet’s great work, _Description
    de Médailles Antiques, Grecques et Romaines_, Paris, 1806-1813 (7
    Vols.), with a supplement of 9 Vols. Paris, 1818-1837, giving a very
    useful _Bibliothèque Numismatique_ at the end; to which must be
    added his _Poids des Médailles Grecques_, Paris, 1839. These
    seventeen volumes comprise the Greek coins: the other part of his
    work, _De la Rareté et du Prix des Médailles Romaines_, Paris, 1827,
    in two volumes, is now superseded.

    Since Mionnet’s time certain departments of Greek and other ancient
    numismatics have been much more fully worked out, especially by the
    following authors:

    De Luynes (coins of Satraps; also of Cyprus); L. Müller (coins of
    Philip and Alexander; of Lysimachus; also of Ancient Africa); Pinder
    (Cistophori); Beulé (Athenian coins); Lindsay (Parthian coins);
    Longpérier, and more recently Mordtmann (coins of the Sassanidæ);
    Carelli’s plates described by Cavedoni (coins of Magna Græcia, &c.);
    other works of Cavedoni (Various coins); Friedländer (Oscan coins);
    Sambon (coins of South Italy); De Saulcy, Levy, Madden (Jewish
    coins); V. Langlois (Armenian, also early Arabian coins); J. L.
    Warren (Greek Federal coins; also more recently, copper coins of
    Achæan League); R. S. Poole (coins of the Ptolemies); Waddington
    (Unedited coins of Asia Minor).

    For Roman and Byzantine coins (including Æs grave and Contorniates)
    see the works of Marchi and Tessieri, Cohen, Sabatier, and De
    Saulcy.

    Others, as Prokesch-Osten, Leake, Smyth, Hobler, and Fox, have
    published their collections or the unedited coins of them; and all
    the numismatic periodicals contain various previously unedited Greek
    and Roman and other ancient coins.

    p. 40. Fabretti’s work is entitled, _Glossarium Italicum in quo
    omnia vocabula continentur ex Umbricis, Sabinis, Oscis, Volscis,
    Etruscis, cæterisque monumentis collecta, et cum interpretationibus
    variorum explicantur_ (Turin, 1858-1864). Many figures of the
    antiquities, on which the words occur, are given in their places.

    p. 43. Cromlechs in some, if not in all cases, appear to be the
    skeletons of barrows.

    p. 44. The following works will be found useful for the student of
    early British antiquities:

    _Pictorial History of England_, Vol. I. Lond. 1838.

    _Archæological Index to remains of Antiquity of the Celtic,
    Romano-British, and Anglo-Saxon periods._ By J. Y. Akerman, F.S.A.
    London, 1847 (with a classified index of the Papers in the
    _Archæologia_, Vols. I-XXXI.).

    _Ten years’ diggings in Celtic and Saxon Grave Hills in the Counties
    of Derby, Stafford, and York, from 1848-1858._ By Thomas Bateman.
    London, 1861. A most useful work, which will indicate the existence
    of many others. In connection with this see Dr Thurnam’s paper on
    British and Gaulish skulls in _Memoirs of Anthropological Soc._ Vol.
    I. p. 120.

    _The Land’s End District, its Antiquities, Natural History_, &c. By
    Richard Edmonds. London, 1862.

    _Catalogue of the Antiquities of Stone, Earthen, and Vegetable
    Materials, in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy._ By W. B.
    Wilde, M.R.I.A. Dublin, 1857.

    _The Coins of the Ancient Britons._ By John Evans, F.S.A. The plates
    by F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A. London, 1864. By far the best and most
    complete work hitherto published on the subject.

    Also, the _Transactions_ of various learned Societies in Great
    Britain and Ireland, among which the _Archæologia Cambrensis_ is
    deserving of special mention.

    For the Romano-British Antiquities may be added Horsley’s _Britannia
    Romana_, 1732; Roy’s _Military Antiquities of the Romans in
    Britain_, 1793; Lysons’ _Relliquiæ Britannico-Romanæ_. London, 1813,
    4 Vols. fol.

    Monographs on York, by Mr Wellbeloved; on Richborough and other
    towns, by Mr C. R. Smith; on Aldborough, by Mr H. E. Smith; on
    Wroxeter, by Mr Wright; on Caerleon, by Mr Lee; on Cirencester, by
    Messrs Buckman and Newmarch; on Hadrian’s wall, by Dr Bruce; on
    various excavations in Cambridgeshire, by the Hon. R. C. Neville.

    p. 45. For the Roman Roads, &c. in Cambridgeshire, see Prof. Charles
    C. Babington’s _Ancient Cambridgeshire_, Cambr. 1853 (Cambr. Ant.
    Soc).

    — No doubt need have been expressed about Wroxeter, which should
    hardly have been called ‘our little Pompeii’; the area of Wroxeter
    being greater, however less considerable the remains. See Wright’s
    _Guide to Uriconium_, p. 88. Shrewsbury, 1860. For various examples
    of Roman wall-painting in Britain see _Reliq. Isur._ by H. E. Smith,
    p. 18, 1852.

    p. 46. For Romano-British coins see

    _Coins of the Romans relating to Britain, described and
    illustrated._ By J. Y. Akerman, F.S.A. London, 1844.

    Petrie’s _Monumenta Historica Britannica_, Pl. I-XVII. London, 1848
    (for beautiful figures).

    Others, published by Mr C. R. Smith in his valuable _Collectanea
    Antiqua_; also by Mr Hobler, in his _Records of Roman History,
    exhibited on Coins_. London, 1860. Others in the _Numismatic
    Chronicle_, in the _Transactions of the Cambridge Antiquarian
    Society_, and perhaps elsewhere.

    For medieval and modern numismatics in general we may soon, I trust,
    have a valuable manual (the MS. of which I have seen) from the pen
    of my learned friend, the Rev. W. G. Searle. He has favoured me with
    the following notes:

    On medieval and modern coins generally we have

    Appel, _Repertorium zur Münzkunde des Mittelalters und der neuern
    Zeit_, 6 Vols. 8vo. Pesth, 1820-1829.

    Barthélémy, _Manuel de Numismatique du moyen âge et moderne_. Paris,
    1851. 12mo.

    The bibliography up to 1840 we get in

    Lipsius, _Biblioth. Numaria_, Leipz. 1801 (2 Vols.) 8vo., and in

    Leitzmann, _Verzeichniss aller seit 1800 erschienenen Numism.
    Werke_, Weissensee, 1841, 8vo.

    On medieval coins, their types and geography, we have

    J. Lelewel, _La Numismatique du Moyen-âge, considérée sous le
    rapport du type_. Paris, 1835, 2 vols. 8vo. Atlas 4to.

    Then there are the great Numismatic Periodicals:

    _Revue Numism._ 8vo. Paris, 1836.

    _Revue de la Num. Belge_, 8vo. Brussels, 1841.

    Leitzmann, _Numismatische Zeitung_, 4to. Weissensee, 1834.

    On Bracteates:

    Mader, _Versuch über die Bracteaten_. Prague, 1797, 4to.

    And the great Coin Catalogues of

    Welzl v. Wellenheim. 3 vols. 8vo. Vienna, 1844 ff. (c. 40,000
    coins).

    v. Reichel at St Petersburgh, in at least 9 parts.

    On current coins we have

    Lud. Fort, _Neueste Münzkunde_, engravings and descr. 8vo. Leipzig,
    1851 ff.

    p. 45. For almost everything relating to ivories and for a great
    deal on the subjects which follow, see _Handbook of the Arts of the
    Middle Ages and Renaissance_, Translated from the French of M. Jules
    Labarte, with notes, and copiously illustrated, London, 1855, which
    will lead the student to the great authorities for medieval art, as
    Du Sommerard, &c. I have also examined and freely used _Histoire des
    Arts industriels au moyen âge et à l’époque de la Renaissance_, Par
    Jules Labarte. Paris, 1864, 8vo. 2 volumes; accompanied by an album
    in quarto with descriptions of the plates, also in two volumes.

    p. 47. For examples of medieval calligraphy and illuminations see Mr
    Westwood’s _Palæographia Sacra Pictoria_, (Lond. 1845), and his
    _Illuminated Illustrations of the Bible_, (London, 1846).

    p. 48. A good deal of information about Celtic, Romano-British, and
    medieval pottery will be found in Mr Jewitt’s _Life of Wedgwood_,
    London, 1865. For ancient pottery in general (excluding however the
    medieval) see Dr Birch’s _Ancient Pottery and Porcelain_, London,
    1858, which will conduct the student to the most authentic sources
    of information. In connection with this should be studied Mr
    Bunbury’s article in the _Edinburgh Review_ for 1858, to which Mr
    Oldfield’s paper on Sir W. Temple’s vases in the _Transactions of
    the Royal Soc. of Lit._ Vol. VI. pp. 130-149 (1859), may be added.

    —— For medieval sculpture see Flaxman’s _Lectures_. The ‘horrible
    and burlesque’ style of the earlier ages was discarded in the
    thirteenth century, when the art revived in Italy. Italian artists
    executed various sepulchral statues in this country, which possess
    considerable merit, as do others by native artists, but the great
    beauty of our sepulchral monuments consists in their architectural
    decorations.

    p. 49. For the coinage of the British Islands see the works of
    Ruding, Hawkins, and Lindsay, also for the Saxon coins found in
    great numbers in Scandinavia, Hildebrand and Schröder. Humphreys’
    popular work on the coinage of the British Empire, so far as the
    plates are concerned, is useful, but the author is deficient in
    scholarship.

    p. 52. For the statements here made on oil-painting see Bryan’s
    _Dict. of Painters and Engravers_, by Stanley, (London, 1849), under
    Van Eyck, and Sir C. L. Eastlake’s _Materials for a History of
    Oil-painting_. (London 1847.)

    p. 53. For medieval brasses, see

    Bowtell, _Monumental Brasses and Slabs_. London, 1847, 8vo.

    ——— _Monumental Brasses of England, a Series of engravings in wood_.
    London, 1849.

    Haines, _Manual of Monumental Brasses_. 2 parts. London, 1861, 8vo.
    This contains also a list of all the brasses known to him as
    existing in the British Isles. Mr Way has given an account of
    foreign sepulchral brasses in _Archæol. Journ._, Vol. VII.

    p. 56. Several English frescoes are described and figured in the
    _Journal of the Archæological Association_, passim.

    p. 62, l. 13. The omission of ancient costume has been pointed out
    to me. The _actually existing_ specimens however are mostly very
    late; with the exception of a few articles of dress found in Danish
    sepulchres of the bronze period, or in Irish peat bogs of uncertain
    date, the episcopal vestments of Becket now preserved at Sens are
    the earliest which occur to my recollection; and there are few
    articles of dress, I believe, so early as these. However both
    ancient and medieval costume is well known from the
    _representations_ on monuments of various kinds. See _inter alia_
    Hope’s _Costume of the Ancients_; Becker’s _Gallus_ and _Charicles_;
    Strutt’s _Dress of the English People_, edited by Planché, (Lond.
    1842); Shaw’s _Dresses and Decorations of the Middle Ages_.

    p. 67. The statement about Patin is made on the authority of a note
    in Warton’s edition of Pope’s Works, Vol. III. p. 306. (London
    1797.)

    p. 68. The remark about the crab was made to me by the late Mr
    Burgon, and I do not know whether it has ever been printed; its
    truth seems pretty certain. For the Rhodian symbol see my paper in
    the _Numismatic Chronicle_ for 1864, pp. 1-6.


                             --------------


                        _PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION_,

    An Introduction to the Study of Greek Fictile Vases; their
        Classification, Subjects, and Nomenclature. Being the substance
        of the Disney Professor’s Lectures for 1865, and of those which
        he purposes to deliver in 1866.



                         ---------------------

                  CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




        ● Transcriber’s Notes:
           ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
           ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
           ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent
             only when a predominant form was found in this book.
           ○ Text that:
             was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).