140 G E Alexander given in P1. I., fig. 16, is not likely to represent ' the ai't of this time, but more probably belongs to the age of Augustus who used this design as a seal. On the other hand the ancient pastes (figs. 20-22) will convey a notion of the gem engraving of the time of Alexander. Still it should be observed that one of the special difficulties of the subject is to account for the scarcity of gems from this period of wealth, luxury, and artistic activity in all direc- tions. Possibly not a few belong to it which it is thought safer to class as Roman. This much at least is certain, that Roman art altogether was a prolongation, hardly a development, of the Macedonian art. Those Roman en- gravers may have been conscious of this who boldly placed on their productions the names of celebrated Greek artists, as for instance on a garnet in the British Museum, having a figure perhaps of Jason and inscribed with the name of Phidias (CDEIAIAE EIIOEI); others elsewhere profess to be the work of Polyeletus or of Scopas. The same effrontery was seen in sculpture, and unfortunately has revived again in the gem engraving of comparatively recent times, as may be seen in a calcedony intaglio of the head of Alexander the Great in the British Museum, which, though clearly modern, claims to be the work of Pyrgoteles. From literary sources are known the engravers Apolloni- des, Chronius, Tryphon, Satyreius, and Dioscurides, but the date of the last—mentioned only is certain. He lived in the time of Augustus, whose portrait he executed, and did not, it may be supposed, inscribe his own name on it in full. On the other hand, if, as Pliny states, it became a custom afterwards to seal with this portrait of Augustus, it would be natural enough to place on the copies of it made for that purpose the name of Dioscurides. With this view of the case may be reconciled two gems bearing his signature in the British Museum—-the one a jacinth, the other a sard—and both obviously portraits which, though more resembling Julius Caesar than Augustus, might yet be re- garded as unsuccessful portraits of the latter. Of the two the jacinth, which is -from the Blacas collection, is doubted by Brunn ; the other is a higher class of work, and yet even it presents some difficulties that require the theory of an imitator, most probably a Roman one. The obtrusive display of the wreath and the fringe of drapery round the bust are details which, apart from the style of workmanship, are objectionable. That the name of this engraver has been often added to modern gems is true enough, and in some cases also it may have been in modern times inscribed on perfectly ancient gems. Even among those which appear t) be in all respects antique there are differences in the spelling and form of the letters not to be accounted for if they had come from his hand, but intel- ligible if they had been made by ancient copyists. Abbre- viations such as. AIOEK for Dioscurides, or EIIIT for Epitynchanus, are always suspicious. EIIITYFXA, on a beautiful cameo of the young Marcellus, might seem to have been abbreviated by the accident which broke off the lower part of the gem, but the inscription does not bear examina- tion except as the work of a modern hand. Not necessarily modem is the inscription AIOEKOYPIA, on a fragmentary amethyst, with a head which may perhaps have been meant for Alexander the Great, whose portrait, as has been said, was used as a seal by Augustus, and may have been exe- cuted for him by Dioscurides. It is possibly an ancient copy of this seal, with the addition of the name of the original artist to show that it is so. With regard to the question whether a name standing in the genitive case may indicate the engraver, the evidence is afiirmative, if for no other reason than that the names are most frequently Greek, while the owners or collectors of gems in Italy were tomrms. Collecting was a passion with wealthy Romans, but their names have not survived on gems. Names like MS Aulus or (inzeus, written in Greek letters, cannot indicate a Roman of position, but on the contrary show that it was to the naturalized Greeks that the Romans looked for their engravers. When, for instance, one gem reads }'.OAS2I'OS. and another .‘I.OAQN EJ101151, it is fair to conclude that we have to do in both with an engraver named Solon, if the inscriptions are genuine. The former occurs on a gem found withjewellery at Pompeii (lhzllct. d’Inst. Arch, 1863, p. 91), so that if the other examples of it, e.//., on the Strozzi Medusa in the British Museum, and on the so-called head of Maecenas, be inventions of the 16th or 17th centuries, they are at least correct in reproducing a name which is now seen on one undoubtedly ancient intaglio. Obviously one or more gems so inscribed must have existed in the 16th or 17th centuries, and this fact alone of the existence of several gems with the same name would suggest if not actually prove that it was the name of an engraver. The other inscription, EOAQN EIIOIEI, on an intaglio of Diomedes carrying off the Palladium, though known since the year 1660, has not always passed unchallenged. The Medusa just mentioned is a gem of extraordinary pre- tensions, but very unsatisfactory when compared with good Greek work. In the matter of names the evidence as to the Greek usage, though very slight, is not at variance with what may be gathered from the coins where the names of the die-sinkers appear either in the nominative or genitive case. In the discussions as to what is or is not proper in the way of engr-avers’ signatures, frequent reference is made to the inscription EYTYXH.‘.l AIOEKOYPI.-2OY A1I‘l£A10}l EH, which occurs twiee—~on a pale amethyst said last century to belong to the prince of Avella, a11d on an amethyst in the Marlborough collection. The design on the two is identical, consisting of a helmeted bust of Minerva in full face. Unless what was formerly the Avella gem is now the gem belonging to the Marchese Strozzi of Florence, then this again must be a third example. Professor M-asl~:elyne in his C'a!al0_r/ue quotes Mr King as agreeing with him that the Marlborough gem (N o. 81) is not a copy as Brunn supposed, but may be regarded as an original work of liutyches till the Avella gem be proved to exist elsewhere. But Stephani insists on the inscription being a modern pro- duction, especially on account of the contraction ]iIl for EIIOIEI, which he says had arisen through the last letters OIEI being hidden from the modern copyist, either owing to the setting, or from some other cause. The gem which Uyriacus of Ancona and a contemporary of his saw and described in the early part of the 15th century had the full inscription, and possibly it was from an inexact impression of it that the Marlborough gem was made (( 'om1:[('-)'e)mI(, 1861, p. 157). Another celebrated Marlborough gem with the head of the dog-star Sirius, inscribed TAIOS. l£1lOIl’.I, is condemned by Professor Maskelyne in his Cutulqr/ue (N o. 270), as it deserves to be. Apparently meant for the same engraver, though written difl'erently, is the TNAIOE on the beryl in the British Museum with the head of Hercules, as to which Ki3hler’s adverse judgment appears to be entirely just. EKYAAE, which is found on an amethyst head of Pan in the British Museum executed with wonderful exact- ness of detail, is not disputed, except as to whether it is the name of the engraver or the, owner. Among the other names which have been more or less the subject of discus- sion are those of Hyllns, who also claims to be a son of Dioscurides, F. iitynch-anus, Agatliopus, Euodus, Felix, Mycon, Allion, ; dmon, Onesas, Protarchus, and Alexas. The habit of gem collecting is rccordcd fir:~:t in the instance of Ismenias, a musician of Cyprus, who appears to have lived in the 4th century n.c. But though individual collectors are not again mentionr-d till the time of llithrzulates, whose cabinet was c.'_1rri( d off to Home by l’ompc_v, still it is to be inferred that they Oxlstfll,
, if not pretty gcncmlly, yet in such places as Cyrcnc, where the