250 Journal of Philology. to the description in the text. Again I ask, was this a copy of Artemons picture ? I should imagine that in the " Laomedontis memoriam" Pliny must have lumped together two paintings; unless indeed, as in some rare cases that might be mentioned, two kindred legends were placed in juxtaposition. I now come to the last name on the list of artist authors, viz. Antigonus. I shall begin by quoting all the passages in Pliny where he is spoken of. That he was one of Pliny's autho- rities appears in limine from the Indd. to Books xxxm. and xxxiv. where we find : " Antigonus, qui de Toreutice." Then in xxxv. 19. 84, we read: "Plures artifices fecere Attali et Eume- nis adversus Gallos praelia, Isigonus, Pyromachus, Stratonicus, Antigonus qui volumina condidit de sua arte :" and lastly, in xxxv. 10. 68, it is stated of Parrhasius: "Hanc ei gloriam concessere Antigonus et Xenocrates qui de pictura scripsere, et seqq." I am not prepared to maintain that this Antigonus who wrote on painting, and who is also referred to by Diogenes Laertius, Vit. Chrysipp. is the same as the writer on Toreutics already men- tioned. The same I have no doubt he is as the Antigonus named in the title of a work by Polemon (of whom more anon) : for it is along with Polemon that Diogenes introduces him. This however is a point of no material importance. My chief concern at present is with the passage in Pliny commencing " Plures artifices." And first I would observe that, from the extreme vagueness of Pliny's language, we are not justified in pressing the question of the material of which the groups made by these " artists many" of the school of Pergamus may have consisted. If we should find occasion to assign to one or other of these artists any marble group or statue now extant in the museums of Europe, we must not be deterred by the consideration that with works of brass Pliny is in this part of the 35th book more especially engaged. Not to beat about the bush any longer, I put the question : what if Antigonus be the author, not merely of a book on Toreutics, but of the more famous and better known statue, which does not represent a dying gladiator ? That a Kelt is here pourtrayed, no one can for a moment doubt who stands before the statue, and carefully compares it with the accounts, in Diodorus and Pausanias, of the distinguishing characteristics of those whom the Greeks called TdKarat, French archaeology is too often a kind of Hotel des Invalides for ex-
