^{page 179 note 1} Roulez, J., ‘Lycurgue furieux’ in Ann. dell'Inst. 1845, p. 114Google Scholar, n. 7(signed ‘J. (de) W(itte)’). Nothing is known of its history before that date.

^{page 179 note 2} Michaelis, A., in Ann. dell'Inst. 1872, pp. 250, 257 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 179 note 3} Catal. of a Special Exhibition of Works of Art of the Mediaeval, Renaissance, and more recent periods, on loan at the South Kensington Museum, June 1862 (ed. Robinson, J. C., F.S.A.), no. 4957Google Scholar, where a description of the vase is given, with no illustration, but with a reference to the engraving of it in Motte's, De laChoice Examples of Art Workmanship (London, 1852), pl. 32Google Scholar (with short description). The lender was Baron Lionel de Rothschild.

^{page 179 note 4} Kisa, A., Das Glas im Altertume (1908), p. 612Google Scholar, n. 3: he says-wrongly it would appear from present records in the Victoria and Albert Museum-that the glass was exhibited for a long time at South Kensington.

^{page 179 note 5} These photographs, and a short description of the vase, based in the main on our present text, were issued privately by Lord Rothschild in a beautifully printed and finely bound brochure at Christmas 1954 (, Anon., The Lycurgus Cup, Cambridge, privately printed, 1954).Google ScholarPubMed We are very much indebted to Lord Rothschild for all his kindnesses during our prolonged work on this paper, and most particularly for agreeing to lend the six blocks of Mr. Leigh's photographs made originally for his own brochure.

Besides Lord Rothschild we also owe much to Professor W. E. S. Turner, F.S.A., and Dr. G. F. Claringbull of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) for their help in technical matters (p. 180); to Mr. Ray W. Smith of Arlington, Va., who read the whole of Parts I-III in tvpe-script and made many helpful comments; and to Mrs. M. E. Cox of the Ashmolean Museum for her painstaking and detailed drawings from which figs. 1, 2, and 4 are taken. Many other friends and colleagues have generously assisted us with advice and counsel, or have provided us with information about objects in their care. Some are mentioned in the appropriate places in the text: we hope that the others will accept a general word of thanks here and forgive us for not giving each and all of them specific mention.

^{page 180 note 1} Before this paper went to press, but after it had been read before the Society in December 1954 and after the issue of Lord Rothschild's brochure, Mr. E. Coche de la Ferté, whose interest in this vase had arisen before he knew of our work, published an article upon it, principally from the iconographical point of view, entitled ‘Le verre de Lycurgue’, in Monuments Piot (Fondation Eugène Piot: Monuments et Mémoires publiés par l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres), xlviii, fasc. 2(1956), 131–62Google Scholar.

All publications previous to Coche de la Ferte's were inherently fragmentary in the information they provided, and even taken together they gave but a meagre account of the piece. The most important (omitting all which merely mention it casually as an example of open-work relief cutting) are:

Roulez, J., op. cit. (in note 1, p. 179)Google Scholar.

Motte, De la, op. cit. (in note 3, p. 179)Google Scholar.

Robinson, (ed.), op. cit. (in note 3, p. 179), no. 4957Google Scholar.

Michaelis, A., op. cit. (in note 2, p. 179)Google Scholar.

Nesbitt, A., A descriptive Cat. of the Glass Vessels in the South Kensington Museum (London, 1878), p. 33Google Scholar.

Kisa, A., Das Glas im Altertume (1908), pp. 612Google Scholar ff., 629 f., fig. 233.

Dillon, E., Glass (1907), p. 73, pl. viiiGoogle Scholar.

Froehner, W., La Verrerie antique: descr. de la coll. Charvet (1879), p. 90 f.Google Scholar, in a chapter entitled ‘verres soudés’, for F. thought the cage-cups were made by fusing the inner and outer portions together.

Eiseri, G., Glass (1927), pp. 455 ff., fig. 111, c.Google ScholarFremersdorf, F., ‘Die Herstellung der Diatreta’, Schumacher Festschrift (Mainz, 1930), pp. 295 ffGoogle Scholar.

The only photographic illustration is that in Dillon's book. Kisa's drawing, which Eisen copies, is a poor one ma de from De la Motte's engraving. Some further references will be found in Ferté, Coche de la, op. cit., p. 131, note 1Google Scholar.

^{page 180 note 2} It wa s only later that Mr. R. J. Charleston kindly pointed out to us the fragment of cut glass in the Victoria and Albert Museum from Oxyrhynchus (Behnesa) in Egypt (pl. LXIX, b), and one of us (D. B. H.) found the cagecup fragment in the British Museum (pl. LXIX, a; Appendix B. 7), both of which exhibit a similar change, though to a clear brown (p. 188).

^{page 180 note 3} But see p. 188, note 5.

^{page 181 note 1} , Kisa, op. cit. (in note 4, p. 179), p. 619Google ScholarPubMed, note 1. Mr. Ray Smith informs us that he recently saw in Venice an imitation of the lost Strasbourg cup (p. 210, B. 10), but made by moulding, not cutting.

^{page 181 note 2} Ferté, Coche de la, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 154, note 4Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 3} Without removing the metal mounts-an action which Lord Rothschild, understandably, was unwilling to agree to-it is not possible to be more specific about how the stem was affixed, or about the shape of the extant edges of the glass now hidden by the mounts.

^{page 181 note 4} Though many modern writers have used the term diatreta for these vases exclusively, that term really belongs, as Kisa recognized (op. cit. (in note 4, p. 179), pp. 624 ff.)) to all cut glass. In ancient writers glass-cutters are called diatretarii and their products diatreta. It is better therefore to choose another term, and we readily adopt W. A. Thorpe's ‘cage-cups’ for this family of openwork cut glasses (see his ‘The prelude to European cut glass’ in Trans. Soc. Glass Technology, xxii (1938), 17 ff.Google Scholar, for a full account of glass-cutting and diatretarii in Roman times).

The literature on diatreta and diatretarii is extensive; see, e.g. Kisa, pp. 606 ff. and footnotes; Lenel, O. and Zahn, R. in Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. xliii (1928)Google Scholar, Arch. Anz. 563 ff. and reff. ad. loc.; , Fremersdorf, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), pp. 295 ff.Google Scholar, etc. Cf. also Kurz, O. in Hackin, J. and others, Nouvelles recherches arch, à Begratn (Mém. délég. arch, franç, en Afghanistan, xi), pp. 99 f.Google Scholar for discussion and criticism of some of Thorpe's views.

^{page 182 note 1} , Fremersdorf, op. cit. (in note i, p. 180), pp. 295 ff.Google Scholar Yet the old view was so often repeated that it dies hard, and is still at times reproduced, e.g. by J. Hackin in publishing the Begram piece (Appendix, A8 and ref.).

Recently a German glass technician in Geislingen, , Wiedmann, Karl, has described (‘Das römische Diatret’ in Glastechnische Berichte, xxvii (1954), 33–40Google Scholar-an article reprinted in enlarged form as ‘Die Herstellung römischer Diatretgläser’ in Trierer Zeitschrift, xxii (1953), 64–84)Google Scholar-how he has made imitations of ancient cage-cups by blowing a double-walled blank, adding blobs of glass which were afterwards pushed in to form the bridges, and then proceeding by the normal cutting process. This might work with network cages, but it is difficult to see how it would do for the figured scenes. Wiedmann claims that if Fremersdorf's system were adopted far more signs of polishing and grinding than actually exist should still be visible all over the vessels. Yet Fremersdorf's method is the most natural and obvious one and Wiedmann's case against it must be taken as non-proven, in our view, even for the network cages (see further ‘Postscript’, p. 212).

^{page 182 note 2} See note 3 on p. 181.

^{page 184 note 1} It is now wrongly restored (pl. LXVIII, a, b) with a ring-base for which there is no evidence (see p. 206 below), Coche de la Ferte, in fact, states quite wrongly that this piece, the Venice situla, and the Cagnola cup all have ‘une assise solide’ (op. cit. (in note i, p. 180), p. 156). However much the faulty restoration of Begram and the unrevealing illustrations of Venice might mislead him, there is no doubt, even from Kisa's illustration (Kisa, fig. 228), that the Cagnola base was an open-work one.

^{page 184 note 2} This view of ours was adopted by Lord Rothschild in his short account of the vase, op. cit. (in note 5, p. 179), p. 3, and was elaborated in a drawing by Coche de la Ferte (op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 134).

^{page 184 note 3} The boring in the panther is not straight, but slightly curved, following the curvature of the vessel, and so is the undercutting beneath the head on the ‘tragic-mask’ fragment. This point deserves mention, though it does not, we think, affect our argument in this paragraph. It is a pity that Coche de la Ferté (op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 156), despite all that Fremersdorf and others have written and the good lead they have given, should have returned quite unnecessarily to the mistaken idea-prevalent in the nineteenth century-that parts or all of the Lycurgus design were moulded separately and joined to the vase by fusion. We cannot too strongly discountenance any such theory.

^{page 186 note 1} , Fremersdorf, op. cit. (in note i, p. 180), pp. 295 f.Google Scholar and fig. on p. 296 (from which our fig. 3 is copied).

^{page 186 note 2} , Thorpe, op. cit. (in note 4, p. 181), pp. 17 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 187 note 1} This action would be very risky, and seems an inherently unlikely one for a diatretarius, who presumably would have no furnace near by, to adopt; yet we feel that the possibility exists.

^{page 188 note 1} No. 691-1905-date uncertain but probably Arabic rather than Roman; the mounds of Behnesa have produced written documents in Arabic, as well as in Greek and Coptic. We are much obliged to the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum for kindly supplying the photograph of this fragment through Mr. R. J. Charleston.

^{page 188 note 2} , Nesbitt, op. tit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 33Google Scholar.

^{page 188 note 2} , Kisa, op. tit. (in note 4, p. 179), p. 613Google Scholar.

^{page 188 note 4} See Loeb ed. (trans. D. Magie), iii (1932), 400.

^{page 188 note 5} Mr. Ray Smith, however, who was good enough to read and comment upon this paper in manuscript, tells us that he thought he saw some pitting of the surface in some of the cut grooves. It should be added that weathering exists on both the Behnesa piece (pl. LXIX, b) and the unprovenienced British Museum fragment (Appendix, B7; pl. LXIX, a).

^{page 189 note 1} But see now , Kurz, loc. cit. (in note 4, p. 181)Google Scholar, for the possibly false basis on which Thorpe's claim partially rested.

^{page 191 note 1} Harden, D. B., Roman Glassfrom Karanis (Ann Arbor, 1936), pp. 22, 321.Google Scholar The best colourless cut ware belonged to fabric 2, which was predominantly a second-century ware, though it lasted into the third century. Fourth-century cut glass was poorer and of the ‘scratched’ variety (ibid. p. 20, variety (c)).

^{page 191 note 2} , Kurz, op. cit. (in note 4, p. 181), p. 108Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 1} Remains of Pagan Saxondom (London, 1855), p. 28Google Scholar, pl. xiii.

^{page 192 note 2} Harden, D. B., ‘Glass Vessels in Anglo-Saxon Britain‘, Arch. News Letter, July 1950, p. 24Google Scholar; id. ‘Glass Vessels in Britain and Ireland, A.D. 400-1000’, in Dark-Age Britain: Studies presented to E. T. Leeds (1956), pp. 141 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 192 note 3} Leeds, E. T., Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology (1936), p. 77Google Scholar: Werner, J. ‘Italisches und koptisches Bronzegeschirr des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts nordwärts der Alpen’, in Mnemosynon Theodor Wiegand (Munich, 1938), pp. 74 ff., espec. p. 79Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 4} Wulff, O., Altchristliche Bildwerke (Berlin, 1909), no. 1022Google Scholar, pl. liv. Another is depicted on the Projecta casket (late fourth-early fifth century), Dalton, O. M., Cat. Early Christian Antiqs. in B.M. (1901), pl. xviGoogle Scholar.

^{page 192 note 5} Curie, A. O., The Treasure of Traprain (Glasgow, 1923),pp. 73 f.Google Scholar, figs. 56-57, pl. xxviii; Drexel, F., ‘Der Silber-schatz von Traprain’ in Germania, xi (1925), 128Google Scholar, fig. 6.

^{page 192 note 6} Germania, xiii (1929), 196Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 7} Antiq. Journ. xxvi (1946), 17 f.Google Scholar; , Harden, in Dark-Age Britain, pp. 143, 165Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 8} , Fremersdorf, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 299, note 5Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 9} Rademacher, F., Bonner Jahrb. cxlvii (1942), 305Google Scholar, discusses the type and says that it is only known from France and Belgium so far. He was unaware of the Westbere piece, which was not published till 1946.

^{page 193 note 1} For bibliographical and other details of examples cited in this section see Appendix, pp. 203 ff.

^{page 193 note 2} See , Kurz, op. cit. (in note 4, p. 181), pp. 101 f.Google Scholar, after Seyrig, H. in Syria, xxii (1941), 202Google Scholar and Ch. Picard in Bull, corresp. hellenique, lxxvi (1952), 61 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 193 note 3} See note 3, p. 206 for alternative identifications of the figure which stood on the Alexandrian pharos.

^{page 194 note 1} From originals in the Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum, kindly chosen for us by Dr. C. M. Kraay.

^{page 194 note 2} For other (mainly fragmentary) examples of openwork diatreta with pictorial designs see Appendix, Group A, 4-7, 9-15.

^{page 195 note 1} ‘And the wild man, caught in the green bonds, immovable, imprisoned by the fetters of the leaves he could not rend, roared defiance at Dionysus. He had no strength to escape; and in vain he shook his throat, choked perforce by tiny tendrils. His voice could ferry no passage through his gullet, throttled with wreathing foliage. The Bacchant women closed in a circle around him, whose neck was wound round with stifling clusters.’

^{page 196 note 1} The pedum surely rules out the suggestion of Ferté, E. Coche de la (op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 137)Google Scholar that this figure represents Melicertes. Satyrs are occasionally partly draped.

^{page 196 note 2} Lists, discussions, and illustrations of other representations of the story of Lycurgus in ancient arts are to be found in:

Roulez, J., ‘Lycurgue furieux’, Ann. dell'Inst. xvii (1845), 111 ff.Google Scholar and Mon. dell'Inst. iv, pl. 16; Michaelis, A., ‘Licurgo furente sopra un'anfora di marmo’, Ann. dell'Inst. xliv (1872), 248 ff.Google Scholar and Mon. dell'Inst. ix, pl. 45; Roscher, W. H., Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, ii (1890–1891), coll. 2191 ff.Google Scholar; Marbach, s.v. ‘Lykurgus’ in , Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, xiii (1927), coll. 2439 ff.Google Scholar; Ferte, E. Coche de la, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), pp. 139–50.Google Scholar(We are by no means certain that C.'s identification as Lycurgus of the axe-bearing figure on the Boston cornelian (op. cit. p. 144, fig. 14) is correct: it might, in that context, be Vulcan returning to Olympus, the vine-stock representing Dionysus. Nor are we wholly convinced by Ch. Picard's interpretation of two scenes on the frieze of the temple of Bacchus at Baalbek as depicting the story of , Lycurgus and , Ambrosia (Melanges R. Dussaud, i (1939), 319–43))Google Scholar.

For further references see Levi, D., Antioch Mosaic Pavements (1947), i, 178 ff.Google Scholar, Levi (op. cit. p. 181)Google Scholar mentions our vase, but does not realize that it is now in Lord Rothschild's possession; and he erroneously (see references in note 1, p. 180, above) describes it as ‘never reproduced’.

^{page 197 note 1} , Levi, op. cit. ii, pl. 58aGoogle Scholar.

^{page 197 note 2} This is a detail which seems to have escaped Levi's notice.

^{page 197 note 3} Journ. internat. d'arch. num. 1898, p. 233Google Scholar, figs. 1, 2; Milne, J. G., ‘Pictorial coin-types of the Roman Mint of Alexandria’, in Journ. Egypt. Arch, xxix (1943), 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 4, no. 10. 18th year of Pius. Two examples of this type were acquired by the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, after the publication of Milne's, J. G.Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins in the Ashmolean Museum (1933).Google ScholarCf. Ferté, E. Coche de la, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 147Google Scholar, fig. 18, b-d.

^{page 197 note 4} Journ. internat. d'arch. num. 1898, p. 233Google Scholar, fig. 3; , Milne, Journ. Egypt. Arch. xxix. 63.Google Scholar 8th year of Pius. Milne interprets the figure as a ‘vine-dresser’ in an astronomical type, but the movement would seem to be too much agitated for this. According to B.M. Catalogue of Greek Coins of Alexandria (1892), p. 123Google Scholar, no. 1056, pl. 6, the type represents Herakles cutting the vines of Syleus, but against this must be set again the agitated movement and the absence of any of Herakles's distinctive attributes.

^{page 197 note 5} Journ. internat. d'arch. num. 1899, p. 71Google Scholar, fig. 3; , Levi, op. cit. (in note 2, p. 196)Google Scholar, i. 181, fig. 68. Cf. Ferté, E. Coche de la, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 147Google Scholar, fig. 17 and fig. 18a.

^{page 197 note 6} Compt.-rend. acad. inscr. 1932, p. 126Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 7} Mayence, F., Bulletin des musees royaux d'art et d'histoire, v, 3 (1933), 53Google Scholar, figs. 4, 6; Melanges Rene Dussaud, ii (1939), 975–9Google Scholar, pls. i, 2. We prefer the interpretation given in the text of the two figures associated with Lycurgus to that of Mayence, who describes them as Dionysus and Ambrosia.

^{page 197 note 8} Fürtwangler, A., Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium (Berlin, 1896), no. 3098, p. 26Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 9} Reinach, S., Rep. de peint. grec. etrom. (1922), p. 194Google Scholar, fig. 6; Inv. mos. Gaule, i (1909), no. 236Google Scholar; , Levi, op. cit. (in note 2, p. 196)Google Scholar, i, 511, fig. 188; Ferté, E. Coche de la, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 143Google Scholar, fig. 13. A fragment of a relief in the Lateran Museum shows the head and shoulders of Lycurgus wielding the bipennis among vine-tendrils (Garrucci, R., Monumenti del Museo Lateranense (1861), p. 83Google Scholar, pl. 44, fig. 2): there is no means of knowing whether Ambrosia was originally included in this picture.

^{page 198 note 1} , Reinach, op. cit. (in previous note), p. 194Google Scholar, fig. 5; Arch. Zeit. xxvii (1869), pl. 21Google Scholar, fig. 2. fig.

^{page 198 note 2} Mon. Piot, xxxv (1935-1936), 141Google Scholar, fig. 1, p. 163, fig. 6; Leschi, L., Djemila, antique Cuicul (1949), p. 46Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 3} , Reinach, op. cit. (in note 9, p. 197), p. 194Google Scholar, fig. 4; Inv. mos. Gaule, i (1909), no. 361Google Scholar; Ferté, E. Coche de la, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 140Google Scholar, fig. 8.

^{page 198 note 4} , Reinach, op. cit. (in note 9, p. 197), p. 194Google Scholar, fig. 3; Arch. Zeit. xxvii (1869), pl. 21Google Scholar, fig. 3; Jahr. deutsch. arch. Inst. xxxii (1917), 36Google Scholar, fig. 13; Bieber, M., A History of the Greek and Roman Theatre (1939), p. 42Google Scholar, fig. 48; Ferté, E. Coche de la, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 141, fig.9Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 5} This is not a female figure, a Maenad, as Ferté, E. Coche de la (op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 140) holdsGoogle Scholar.

^{page 198 note 6} , Roscher, op. cit. (in note 2, p. 196)Google Scholar, coll. 2201-2, 4; Matz, F. and Duhn, F. von, Antike Bildwerke in Rom, ii (1881), 444Google Scholar, no. 2269.

^{page 198 note 7} From a photograph acquired from Vasari, Rome, through Mrs. F. Bonajuto, formerly of the British School at Rome.

^{page 199 note 1} Bollettino d'Arte, xxxvii (1952), 35–36Google Scholar, figs. 7, 8; Pace, B., I mosaici di Piazza Armerina (1955), p. 48Google Scholar, fig. 8. The Piazza Armerina discovery confirms the identification as Ambrosia and Dionysus of two figures, of which only the lower parts remain, in a painting recently uncovered at Stabiae (Bollettino d'Arte, xxxvi (1951), 44Google Scholar, and 41, fig. 3). The crouching, half-draped woman on the left is Ambrosia, the standing figure on the right is Dionysus, wearing a long robe. As Gentili, G. V. suggests (Bollettino d'Arte, xxxvii (1952), 36)Google Scholar, the two hands emerging from the gap on the left and resting on Ambrosia's body may well be those, not of Lycurgus, but of a rescuing Silenus.

^{page 199 note 2} See , Dillon, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 73Google ScholarPubMed, note 1: ‘The spirited execution would seem to point to a date hardly much later than the beginning of the third century.’ Cf. the silver-gilt patera from Parabiago in the Brera Gallery, Milan, dated at the time of its discovery to the second century A.D. (Levi, A., ‘La patera di Parabiago,’ Opere d'Arte, V (1935), 21)Google Scholar, but now established beyond all doubt as a work of the fourth century (Alföldi, A., Atlantis, 1949, pp. 68 ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 200 note 1} Brett, G., ‘The Mosaic of the Great Palace in Constantinople’, Journ. of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, v (1942), 34 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brett, G., Macaulay, W. J., Stevenson, R. B. K., The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors (1947)Google Scholar; Illustr. Lond. News, 13 Dec. 1952.

^{page 200 note 2} The role of the Rothschild vase as a precursor of Byzantine art is hardly as significant as Ferté, E. Coche de la (op. cit. (in note I, p. 180), p. 160)Google Scholar believes. In the early years of the third-century Severan reliefs in Rome (Papers British School at Rome, xviii (1950), pl. 15)Google Scholar and at Lepcis Magna in Tripolitania (ibid. pls. 24, 25) had already anticipated the lace-like, black-and-white, all-over effect of such early Byzantine works as the two column-fragments at Istanbul (Byz. Zeitschrift, i (1892), pls. i, iiGoogle Scholar; cf. Ferté, E. Coche de la, op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), p. 159Google Scholar, fig. 28).

^{page 201 note 1} Brendel, O., Journ. Rom. Stud, xxxi (1941), 100 ifCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 201 note 2} Dalton, O. M., Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities in the British Museum (1901), pp. 61 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 201 note 3} Gusman, P., L'Art décoratif de Rome, i, pl. 26Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 4} Brailsford, J. W., The Mildenhall Treasure: A Provisional Handbook (1955), pl. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 5} Ibid. pl. 2a.

^{page 201 note 6} Zahn, R., Amtliche Berichte aus der konigl. Kunstsammlungen, 38, no. 11 (Aug. 1917), pp. 296 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 201 note 7} Matzulewitsch, L., Byzantinische Antike (1929), pls. 36–46Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 8} Curie, A. O., The Treasure of Traprain (1923), pp. 25 f.Google Scholar, no. 7, fig. 8, pl. 11.

^{page 201 note 9} Delbrück, R., Die Consulardiptychen (1929), pp. 232 ffGoogle Scholar no. 61. Dated c. 450 (?).

^{page 201 note 10} , Kisa, op. cit. (in note 4, p. 179), pp. 661–2Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 245; , Fremersdorf, Figürliche geschlijfene Gläser (R.-G. Forschungen, vol. xix, 1951), pp. 8, 9Google Scholar, fig. 4, pls. 6, 7, 10, fig. 1: late-third-century. This vessel was found in the same grave as the network cage-cup at Mainz: see Appendix, B4. The photograph here reproduced was kindly provided by the Altertumsmuseum, Mainz.

^{page 201 note 11} , Kisa, op. cit. (in note 4, p. 179), pp. 677, 723Google Scholar, fig.278 (very incorrect, after Deville); Pasini, A., Il tesoro di S. Marco (1885–1886), pp. 100–1Google Scholar, pls. 53, 121; Albizzati, C., ‘Quattro vasi romani nel tesoro di S. Marco’ in Memorie dell' Accad. pontificio Rom. di archeol. i, I (1923), 51–62Google Scholar, pl. 3; Alinari photo, Venezia no. 38547. The photographs here reproduced are by Sig. O. Böhm, by courtesy of the authorities of the Cathedral of St. Mark. For a glass bottle and a glass beaker with mould-blown Dionysiac figures see Eisen, G., Glass, i, pls. 46–49.Google Scholar Eisen dates these to the first century A.D., but they are probably much later.

^{page 201 note 12} The two-coned thyrsus held by Dionysus on the vase appears twice on the dish, and once on one of the platters, from Mildenhall: it also occurs on the Mainz stamnium and elsewhere. The photographs are reproduced here by, courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

^{page 201 note 13} Burlington Fine Arts Club, Ancient Greek Art (1903), pp. 162–3Google Scholar, n0- 88, pls. 106, 107 (exhibited as the Hamilton vase); Ross, M. C., Journ. Walters Art Gallery, vi (1943), 9–39Google Scholar; Cat. Exhib. Early Christian and Byzantine Art, April 25-June 22, 1947, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, p. 112, no. 543, pl. 76; , Anon. The Lycurgus Cup (see note 5, p. 179)Google Scholar, pl. 8. We have to thank the Director of the Walters Art Gallery for kindly supplying photographs of this vase, including the three from which pi. LXXIV is made.

^{page 202 note 1} Read, C. H., The Waddesdon Bequest (1902), p. 32Google Scholar, no. 68, pi. 17; , Ross, op. cit. (in note 13, p. 201)Google Scholar, pp. 31, 33, fig. 17. For the photographs we are much indebted to the Trustees of the British Museum.

^{page 202 note 2} The mask-motif of the Cagnola cup, the hunting-motif of the Venice situla, and the harbour-motif of the Begram beaker are all well-known themes of sepulchral art.

^{page 203 note 1} E. Coche de la Ferté is unlikely to win wide acceptance for his fanciful theory that the transformation of colour in the Rothschild glass, when viewed through transmitted light, from green to purple (see above, p. 188) was intended to produce a Bacchic ‘miracle’ of changing water into wine (op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), pp. 160-2) For such a ‘miracle’ to be effective, the transformation would have had to come about only when the cup was filled with water. He also fails to note that the change of colour is not uniform, an amethystine purple replacing the wine colour where the yellower patch occurs on the vessel (see above, p. 187). In the two other known instances of glasses changing colour from opalescent buff to clear brown (see above, p. 188), such ‘miracles’ were clearly not in question.

^{page 203 note 2} Kisa, A., op. cit. (in note 4, p. 179), pp. 606 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 203 note 3} Thorpe, W. A., op. cit. (in note 4, p. 181)Google Scholar, pp. 5 ff. (especially pp. 33 ff.).

^{page 203 note 4} Fremersdorf, F., op. cit. (in note 1, p. 180), pp. 295–300Google Scholar.

^{page 204 note 1} We are greatly obliged to Sig. Bertolone for his kindness in answering questions and supplying photographs and copies of his paper.

^{page 204 note 2} We have to thank the authorities of the Cathedral for permission to publish the four fine photographs of this situla by Sig. O. Böhm, reproduced in pl. LXV.

^{page 204 note 3} , Albizzati (loc. cit.) describes the foot as a ‘peducio anulare a listello’, and the decoration on the base as ‘unrosone a spicchi terminati ad angolo acuto’. We may compare the rosette on the base of the Rubens vase (see p. 202 and pi. LXXIV, C)Google Scholar.

^{page 204 note 4} We are greatly obliged to Dr. F. Fiilep and Dr. A. Radnoti of the Hungarian Historical Museum for supplying us with the three photographs of this cup from which pl. LXVII, a-c, are reproduced, together with supplementary information about it and about nos. A5 and B8 below.

^{page 205 note 1} Kisa read it in Greek as Π[ιΕ ΖΗ]CEC, but Hampel read it in Latin as given here, and Nagy supports him, saying that the second letter is certainly F and not E, and the third letter shows clearly where the middle stroke, which would make it an E, has been broken off. Nagy says the L is also certain.

^{page 205 note 2} Kisa only numbers the eight complete or nearly complete pieces.

^{page 205 note 3} We are grateful to Mr. Ray Smith for drawing our attention to this fragment, and to Miss C. Alexander for supplying full details of it and the photograph from which pl. LXIX, f, is taken.

^{page 205 note 4} Thanks are due to the Trustees of the British Museum for supplying the drawing by Mr. C. O. Waterhouse reproduced in fig. 5. There is a rim-fragment of a cup in the British Museum (1953.10-22.4), provenience unknown, of colourless glass with an inscribed band of letters in relief..]CΠΑ[.. in deep blue, which might belong to the same vessel. But no other example is known of a cup with a caged body and raised, but not open-work, letters. We have, therefore, not accepted the two fragments as be- longing together, although we feel bound to call attention to the similarity of metal and coloration. The consecutive accession numbers now attached to the two pieces are not significant, as they have both been in the Museum for a long time without receiving accession numbers.

^{page 206 note 1} For a supplementary account of the find and for illustrations of many of the glasses see Hamelin's, P. three articles in Cahiers de Byrsa, ii (1952), 11 ff.Google Scholar; iii (1953), 121 ff.; and iv (1954), 153 ff. We are obliged to Dr. O. Kurz and the Warburg Institute for the loan of photographs from which pl. LXVIII, a, b are taken.

^{page 206 note 2} Some minor fragments were found after Hackin's first publication (, Kurz, op. cit. (in note 4, p. 181), p. 101).Google ScholarPubMed The beaker has been restored in plaster in Kabul Museum and provided with a moulded foot such as it almost certainly never possessed.

^{page 206 note 3} On representations of the pharos of Alexandria this figure has been variously identified as Neptune or Jupiter or a Ptolemy-see , Kurz, op. cit. (in note 4, p. 181), p. 102.Google Scholar Yet we must confess that on this particular vase Neptune seems the most likely identification.

^{page 206 note 4} The photograph here published was kindly provided by the Vatican Librarian, through Mrs. F. Bonajuto formerly of the British School at Rome.

^{page 207 note 1} We are deeply indebted to Dr. W. von Pfeffer of the Altertumsmuseum, who was preparing a publication of both this and A14, for kindly drawing our attention to these fragments (which neither of us has seen), supplying us with full details, photographs and drawings, and most generously ceding to us the privilege of publishing them.

^{page 207 note 2} From a photograph by Mr. G. C. Boon, F.S.A., lately Assistant at the Reading Museum, by permission of the Director, Mr. W. A. Smallcombe.

^{page 208 note 1} We are much indebted to Mr. Coche de la Ferté for sending us full details and a photograph of this fragment.

^{page 208 note 2} See Eiden, H. in Trierer Zeitschr. xix (1950), 34Google Scholar, following Fremersdorf, F. in Köln 1900 Jahre Stadt (1950), p. 24Google Scholar.

^{page 208 note 3} Thanks are due to the Director of the Antiquarium and Dr. H. von Barloewen for supplying the new photographs of this vase that are here reproduced.

^{page 208 note 4} We are grateful to Mr. Ray Smith for drawing our attention to this fragment, and to Dr. C. Kern for supplying full details of it, and the photograph.

^{page 209 note 1} We are informed by the Mainz Museum authorities that they have most unfortunately not been able to find either portion since the war.

^{page 209 note 1} The information given by different writers about the date of its discovery and of its entry into the Vienna Museum is inconsistent. Kisa says it was bought by Chev. Bossi in 1790 in Daruvar, and we may assume that it was then a recent find.

^{page 209 note 2} Photograph kindly supplied through Mr. R. A. Higgins and published here by kind permission of the Trustees.

^{page 210 note 1} So Wieseler, F. in Bonner Jahrb. lix (1876), 69Google Scholar, note 3.

^{page 210 note 2} We are greatly indebted to Mr. A. Blanco, of Madrid, for answering inquiries about this cup and supplying the photograph of it.

^{page 210 note 3} The rim, with its raised bands and nicking, is more akin to the Venice ‘hunt’ situla (A3) than to any in Group B (and cf. also the nicked bands on Group C5 below), The fragmentary excrescence on the rim might be part of an ‘ear’ to hold a swinging handle.

^{page 211 note 1} The convex sides seem to forbid restoring the piece with a bucket-base like that of the Venice ‘hunt’ situla (A3) despite the other similarities that it bears to that vessel.

^{page 211 note 2} There is a family resemblance between these nicked bands and those on the Venice ‘hunt’ situla (A3) and the Soria cup (B11).