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).