and we often see these on monuments which represent scenes from a woman’s life. A statue of Penelope, the prototype of an industrious woman, of which several replicas have come down to us, represents a spinning-basket under her chair. The spinning-wheel was unknown to antiquity, but the distaff and spindle were used exactly as they still are in the south. (Compare the representation from a vase painting in Fig. 80.) The woman here represented is seated

(sometimes we find women walking or standing as they spin); she holds up the distaff in her left hand; in front of her is a stand, on which wool or flax seems to be fastened ready to fill the distaff afresh. For weaving they used an upright loom of tolerably simple construction, but yet suited for weaving heavy materials and elaborate patterns. Such an one is represented on Fig. 81, from a vase picture of Penelope at the loom. We can recognise on the already finished material, an ornamental border and various figured patterns interwoven. The construction of the loom is only superficially indicated, and has therefore been explained in many different ways, into which we cannot at present enter. Fig. 82, taken from a vase painting, represents a number of women, of whom some are occupied with feminine work and others with their toilet. On the left we see a woman holding a spinning-basket in her left hand; further to the right a second woman is seated on an easy chair (καθέδρα), holding an embroidery frame, on which a piece of material is stretched, while a third woman stands near, watching her. Further to the right is a fourth, who is drawing up the folds of her dress, and probably about to fasten her girdle. The woman sitting next her on the easy chair holds an object in front of her which is not quite distinct—possibly a mirror, represented in profile, in which she is looking at herself; near her stands a maid, holding in her right hand a pot of ointment, in the left some undetermined object, perhaps a pin-cushion.

The fulling of the woven materials was not undertaken at home, since it was a difficult operation and required special arrangements; it was done by the fuller, to whom any soiled cloth garments were also sent. Simple woollen clothes, as well as linen garments, were, of course, washed at home.

The charming description in the “Odyssey” of Nausicaa, who goes with her companions to the sea-shore to wash the clothes, is well known; doubtless similar scenes might be seen in later times, even though no king’s daughter took part in them, and no god-like hero alarmed the maidens by his unexpected appearance. Fig. 83 represents a vase picture, showing how an artist of the fifth century imagined that scene in Phaeacia, according to the analogy of his own time. On the left side of the picture, not represented here, stand Odysseus and Athene, and several articles of clothing are hanging up to dry on the branches of a tree; on the right, which is here represented, some girls are engaged in hanging out the clothes. The finished, or newly-washed, clothes were then carefully folded and laid in chests, since wardrobes for hanging up dresses, such as we have, seem to have been unknown.

The vase picture represented in Fig. 84 shows us two women occupied in folding some kind of embroidered garment; on the left another woman is turning round to look at them; on the floor stand a chair and a chest, on the wall hang a mirror and a garment.

Notwithstanding these numerous domestic occupations, the women seem to have had sufficient time to devote to their toilet. In spite of the few opportunities they had of appearing elegantly dressed before strange men, or their own friends, Greek women seem to have been no exception to their sex

in their fondness for dress and fine clothes. Considerable attention was devoted to the care of the body. Washing and bathing were, of course, very common. Scenes from the bath are often represented on monuments; especially we often find in sculpture or painting representations of Aphrodite, or some beautiful mortal, stooping down while a maid pours water over her back from a jar. In the vase picture represented in Fig. 85, next to which a scene from the toilet is depicted, one woman is pouring water into a basin, while another has disrobed, and is arranging her hair before a mirror. We must suppose the locality of these scenes to have been a special bathroom, which was always found in the better class of houses on the lower storey.

The usual morning wash was performed in large basins standing on high feet, or sometimes at the well itself, which was situated in the courtyard of a house; women of the lower classes probably washed at one of the public wells. On a picture representing the Judgment of Paris, of which some figures are represented in Fig. 86, a vase painter naïvely represents Athene thus performing her toilet before presenting herself to the judge; she is holding both hands under the water flowing from the fountain, evidently intending to wash her face; she has carefully drawn her dress between her knees in order to keep the water from it. There were also large public baths for women, but ancient authorities tell us very little about their construction and use; still, notices here and there in writing, or on monuments, enable us with certainty to assert their existence. The vase painting, Fig. 87, gives a wonderfully vivid picture of one of these public baths for women. It is a hall, supported by Doric columns, covered to the height of

about a foot with water, which is always flowing fresh from the heads of animals below the capitals of the pillars; probably the water was led through the pipes passing from column to column, on which the women have hung their clothes. The women, with their hair plaited in single braids to prevent it getting wet, are standing under the douches and letting the water pour over their head, back, arms, and legs, while they rub themselves with their hands. We cannot tell whether women of the better classes also went to these public baths; in any case, the middle classes, who probably had no bathrooms of their own, formed the greater part of the attendance.

Bathing was accompanied by anointing and rubbing with oils or other fragrant essences; this, too, we often find represented on monuments, where a lady herself makes use of a little oil-flask (λήκυθος), or an attendant rubs her body with it. In fact, rich women always had a slave who acted as lady’s-maid to help them at their toilet, and on the many toilet scenes depicted on the Greek vases we seldom see women dressing without assistance. Thus, in Fig. 88 (Frontis.), two women are helping a third to dress; the mistress stands in the middle, and is about to fasten her girdle, and, in order not to be hindered by the falling folds of her chiton, she is holding the tip in her mouth; in front of her stands an attendant holding a mirror; another woman standing behind her, apparently rather a friend than a slave, holds a jewel casket in the left hand, and with the right hands a pearl necklace taken from it to the lady. On Attic Stelai we very commonly find a lady represented with her lady’s-maid and jewel casket. The use of the mirror is also a favourite subject in works of art, especially connected with the arrangement of the hair and veil Thus, in

Fig. 86, we find that even Hera, before showing herself to Paris, finds it necessary, with the help of her hand-mirror, to make some slight alteration in her veil. A similar scene is depicted by the pretty terra-cotta from Tanagra (Fig. 89). Fig. 90 represents

a lady fully dressed, perhaps a bride, attended by two lady’s-maids, one of whom holds an open jewel casket before her, in order that she may choose something more out of it, in spite of the fact that she is so carefully veiled that all ornament seems superfluous. Besides these toilet scenes, Fig. 91 represents a vase picture giving other scenes from the life of women, which, however, have not yet been clearly interpreted. The woman represented here is seated on a chair, her right leg is uncovered, and the foot is placed on a curious rest; in her hand she holds a bandage, as though she intended to fasten it round her foot. Another woman stands and looks on; a spinning-basket and a stool are also included in the picture. It is impossible to say whether this should also be regarded as a toilet scene.

Greek women made use of many cosmetics for their toilet. They not only anointed their bodies with fragrant essences and their hair with sweet-scented oils and pomades, but the practice of rougeing was also a very common one. The Spartan women, whose healthy complexions were celebrated, probably made little use of it; but the ancient writers supply sufficient testimony to its commonness at Athens. This practice probably originated in the East, and its great popularity among the women of the Ionic-Attic race is probably due to the fact that want of fresh air and exercise gave them a pale, sickly complexion, and they therefore considered it necessary to improve it artificially, though it were only to please their own husbands. They supplied the tender colouring of forehead and chin with white lead, the redness of their cheeks with cinnabar, fucus, and bugloss, or other (usually vegetable) dyes; there was a special flesh tint used for painting below the eyes. The eyebrows were dyed with black paint, which was made of pine blacking or pulverised antimony, and dyeing the hair was quite common as early as the fifth century B.C., and by no means unusual even among men. The rouge was put on either with the finger or a little brush. In vain the poets, especially the comic writers, aimed the sharpest arrows of their wit at this evil practice; in vain they described in drastic colours how, in the heat of summer, two little black streams poured down from the eyes over the face, while the red colour from the cheeks ran down to the neck; and the hair falling over the forehead was dyed green by the white lead. The best cure would doubtless have been found, if every man had been as sensible as the young husband described in Xenophon’s story alluded to above (p. 130), who cured his wife of rougeing by representing to her the absurdity of this practice, showing her how impossible it was for a woman to deceive her own husband in this way, since the truth might come to light at any moment. He also advised his wife not to spend the whole day in her room, but to move about the house, superintend the servants’ work, help the housekeeper, and herself lend a hand in kneading the dough, and other such occupations, while supplying exercise for herself by shaking out and folding up the clothes. Then she would have a better appetite for her meals, be in better health, and naturally have a better complexion. But such sensible husbands were rare, and probably all the women were not so obedient as the wife of Ischomachus.

We do not intend to penetrate any further into the toilet mysteries of Greek ladies, but, instead, will give our readers a representation of a vase picture equally remarkable for fineness of drawing and variety in the scenes represented. (Fig. 92.) It is the decoration of a lid of some terra-cotta jar or box, and was probably used for cosmetic purposes. Here we see a large number of girls, most of whom are occupied with their toilet. In spite of the modesty of their dress and behaviour, it does not seem probable that we are here obtaining an insight into a family dwelling; the numerous little Cupids represented, and also the presence of a young man, lead us to suppose that we see hetaerae before us. The young man is leaning against the seat of a richly-clad lady, who appears somewhat more matronly than the others; she holds an open jewel casket in her hand, from which she is about to take some object. The young man is leaning on a stick, at the end of which a Cupid is climbing up in play. If we follow the view of L. Stephani, in regarding this woman as the superintendent of the girls, he is probably right in his further interpretation, that the youth has given the casket to this lady in order to win her favour and access to the girls. To the left of this group we find a girl holding a hand mirror before her, apparently about to arrange her hair, as she is holding one hand up, but this might also be interpreted as a gesture of pleased surprise at her

appearance. Next to her is an attendant helping a girl arrange her head-dress; both her hands are occupied with it, while the girl bends her head a little forward, and in her hands already holds the necklace which she is going to put on. Two Cupids stand beside her, one carrying some indistinct object, perhaps a tympanum, the other apparently holding two bracelets. On an easy-chair, under which appears a bird, perhaps a duck, a girl is sitting holding an open casket, out of which a woman, standing in front of her, has taken some fine material, or a veil, which she is now unfolding. Between the two, on the ground stands an incense-burner (θυμιατήριον), next a Cupid holding an oil-flask in his hands. A richly-dressed woman leans against a terminal figure of the bearded Dionysus, bending a branch into a wreath with both hands; in front stands a dog, looking up at her. Further to the left a girl is sitting on a stool, while an attendant is arranging her hair; she has placed both hands on her knees, and is sitting quite quietly while the other, to judge from the posture of her left hand, appears to be saying something to her; the Cupid, kneeling on the ground, is fastening the sandals of the seated girl; an incense-burner stands beside them. Next them stands a woman with richly-dressed hair; her right hand hangs down and holds a mirror; at her feet is some object whose meaning is not clear. Still further we see a little table on three goat-shaped feet, at which two girls are sitting opposite one another, one on an easy-chair, the other on a simpler seat; under the easy-chair is a cage with a little bird. We cannot determine the occupation of the girls who have placed their hands on the table, while one of them holds some indistinct object in her left hand—probably they are playing some game; above them hovers a Cupid with a wreath of leaves; near him we observe a beautifully ornamented little chest. The last of these female figures stands in front of a washing basin, in which she has placed both hands, probably to wash them, rather than, as Stephani supposes, in order to wash some object in the basin; for a domestic occupation such as the washing of any garment would not be appropriate to the rest of the scenes. On the ground stands a beautifully-shaped water-jar.

It would not be easy to pass judgment on Greek women in general, as differences of race have considerable influence. Nor can we place much confidence in our literary authorities, least of all in Aristophanes, who says in the Thesmophoriazusae that the men could place no trust whatever in their wives, and were obliged to keep them under lock and key, and keep Molossian hounds on purpose to frighten away their lovers, while they deprived them even of the keys of the storeroom. This is, of course, exaggerated invention, as is also the statement that all the suspicion of the women is due to the calumnies of Euripides. The poets of the Old Comedy directed the arrows of their wit only at women of ill fame; and the Newer Attic Comedy chooses most of its heroines from among the hetaerae (though a favourite dénoûment was the discovery that these were really long-lost legitimate daughters of citizens); and consequently the women are generally treated from their worst side, and the men represented as poor victims. The aim of comedy, which is to provoke laughter, is more easily attained by the representation of characters whose morality is not unimpeachable; and it would be equally unfair in our own time to form a picture of modern morals based on the representations of the stage. Undoubtedly, the Athenian women were far inferior to the Spartan in morality, and in some towns—especially Corinth and Byzantium—female morality seems to have been at a very low ebb; but we must not on that account condemn all Greek women indiscriminately. One reproach is too often heard, and too clearly proved to be discredited, and that is inclination to drink. This vice was so common that in some places women were actually forbidden to drink wine, and it was this that sometimes compelled husbands to take the keys from their wives.

We cannot close this section without a word on that class of women who sold their favours to any who would pay the price for them. The Greeks euphemistically called these hetaerae (ἑταῖραι), female companions. They seem to have been unknown in the heroic age, but in historic times they were found almost everywhere, and association with them was so common that it was hardly a cause of reproach even to married men. The law regarded their existence as not only a matter of course, but even as necessary, and the State promoted the establishment of houses for them. There were many such at all the ports, and many large manufacturing or trading cities, such as Corinth, obtained a distinct reputation on this account; though at the same time it was often said that a stay there was both dangerous and expensive. Besides these public establishments, the visitors to which paid a fixed entrance fee, the amount of which varied according to the elegance of the house, there were also private establishments of a somewhat different character. These were kept by a man or woman, sometimes an old hetaera, whose property the girls in the house became, by being bought direct as slaves or obtained in some other way. Many of these poor girls had been exposed in their infancy, and brought up by the owners of these houses, who repaid themselves for the cost of nurture by the income thus brought in. Such girls were often the heroines of comedies, and in the end were happily united to their lovers. The flute-girls, who played at the symposia, were also often kept in such houses, and their owners not only provided rich and elegant clothing, but also spent much money on their education, and especially on the training of their musical talents, which enabled them to earn higher pay.

But far the greater part of the hetaerae lived alone, and every large town possessed a number of these women, who were classed in different grades according to their education. Some of them were rich women, owning large numbers of slaves; their fame spread through the whole of Greece, and their rooms were crowded by men of the first rank in politics, literature, and art; great artists vied in representing them in bronze and marble, and their fame has descended even to our own times. Among all these, the most celebrated was the older Aspasia, the friend of Pericles, a woman of the highest intellectual endowments and most cultivated taste, who attracted men rather by the power of her intellect than of her charms. Other celebrated hetaerae, such as Laïs and Phryne, owe their renown, which has descended even to the present day, chiefly to their extraordinary beauty and the numerous anecdotes current about their life and also about their greed for money, and shameless character. These hetaerae, who thus lived by themselves, were either freed women or foreigners; some of them are not unattractive characters, whose wit and grace may easily have attracted even men of note, while others were mere courtesans, covetous, superficial, and dress-loving.

In order to understand the possibility of their social intercourse with men of unblemished reputation, and the fact that these girls played a part in Greek literature almost more important than that of honest women, we must bear in mind the slight education and retired life of the Greek women. Even this can hardly account for the permission granted to a hetaera like Phryne to dedicate her statue by Praxiteles at Delphi, or her venturing to bathe in the sea, completely naked, like an Aphrodite Anadyomene, in the presence of numerous admiring spectators. We can only explain this by remembering the intense Hellenic love of beauty, apart from the considerations of morality, which looked on a beautiful human body as a divine work demanding adoration, which made it possible to forget the moral weaknesses inherent in it. At Corinth, in the temple of Aphrodite, more than a thousand temple slaves (ίερόδουλοι) were maintained, who were regarded as in the service of the goddess, and this conception of love as worship was very common throughout the East. But although much was openly done in ancient times which would be concealed at the present day, it would be a mistake to suppose that the position occupied by these women was a really honourable one.

Although there was no official control kept over them, yet they were not left absolutely free; in most towns they had to pay a tax to the State. Later writers have maintained, but with what accuracy is uncertain, that a special dress was prescribed for them; probably they were only distinguished from other women by conspicuous bright clothing and more elaborate dress. The legal protection generally accorded to women in case of wrongful treatment, could naturally not be claimed by them, and a hetaera who had a child could not claim from its father money for its support. In fact, the lot of the majority was at best but gilded misery, and many ended their days in extreme poverty.

Greek art is very rich in scenes from the life of hetaerae; many have been already represented here (compare Figs. 17 and 17), and others will follow. We must face the fact that the very period which is renowned in Greek literature and art as that of the greatest splendour, was a time, also, of moral rottenness. Where there is much light we must expect much shade; and in modern art, too, the highest development of painting and sculpture was contemporaneous with the religious and moral degeneracy of the Middle ages; indeed, the Rome of Alexander VI. and Leo X. was probably far more immoral than the Athens of Pericles.

CHAPTER V.

DAILY LIFE WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE HOUSE.

There is very little to say about the heroic period, and we cannot form any complete picture of it. Homer describes only the life of the nobles, but he does not tell us how they spent their time when they were not fighting, though this was a very common occupation, owing to the numerous feuds and predatory expeditions against their neighbours. It is not likely that the princes and nobles spent all their time at festive banquets, delighting in plentiful food and drink, and listening to the songs of the bard, though there are many passages in Homer which might lead us to suppose so. No doubt the pleasures of the feast and of wine were held in very high estimation in the heroic period, yet serious and respectable citizens can hardly have spent their whole day in luxurious idleness, like the wooers of Penelope, who daily feasted at the expense of others. Laertes, who, even in his old age, worked in his garden, was far more typical of the Homeric noble, who was in reality only a landed proprietor on a large scale, and devoted the greater part of his time to agricultural pursuits, himself often taking active part in them. He was also occupied with gymnastic exercises, and occasionally by political duties, such as attendance at the popular assemblies which concerned the interests of the country. But the great mass of the people, as opposed to the few members of the nobility, occupied themselves chiefly with agriculture and cattle rearing, and, to a small extent, with handicrafts which were but slightly developed at this time, when many things were imported from other countries, and others chiefly made at home. Of course they all had to attend their Prince as vassals in case of war, and in consequence there must have been military training for the lower classes, even in time of peace. Apart, however, from military details, we learn nothing from Homer about the life of these classes of society, and very little about that of the nobility, for his description of the life of the Phaeacians bears only a very partial analogy to Greek circumstances at that time, since the poet desires to represent this people as specially fortunate beyond others. We may, therefore, forsake the misty domain of legend and turn to those ages which are enlightened for us by writers, though even there we shall find many gaps unfilled.

It is a natural consequence of the nature of our authorities that, even in historic times, the descriptions of authors present us principally with a reflection of life in towns, and especially large towns or capitals. At the present day life in large towns differs in many essential respects from that in small ones, and even more from that in the country; and doubtless, even in antiquity, there were strong contrasts, though, perhaps, less clearly marked than in modern times. In large towns, too, there were many differences due to the character of the race and the nature of the town itself; the life of a citizen in a large trading city must have been very different from that at a place where there was very little trade, and the interest of the inhabitants was centred in agriculture. But of all this in reality we know very little.

The life of the Spartan citizens was the most regular and uniform, and this in consequence of the fixed and severe demands made on them by the State. Their dwellings, though large and roomy, were of the simplest description, and in other respects, too, the life of the Dorians was distinguished by simplicity, yet even here refinements of life gradually gained ground, and in the Dorian colonies often went so far as to produce effeminacy. Life at Sparta itself adhered longest to its primitive simplicity. Here, too, the old Dorian custom of common meals, called Syssitia or Pheiditia, prevailed longest; a Spartan took his meals, not with his family, but with other companions, usually connected by relationship. They were small parties of about fifteen men, who clubbed together for this purpose; each contributed his appointed share to the expenses of the meal, partly in kind (especially barley, wine, cheese, figs, or dates), partly in money for the purchase of meat. This last was, however, supplied in part by the frequent sacrifices, and also by hunting, for the custom prevailed of contributing additional gifts now and then, apart from the legal contribution: sometimes some game or wheaten bread, instead of the usual barley bread, or poultry, young cattle, fruits, etc., according to opportunity or season. The notorious “black broth,” which played a great part at these meals, was not so much soup as a solid meat dish with broth, and though simple and easily prepared, was probably not as bad as it seemed to the dainty palates of the other Greeks. These common meals, though by no means luxurious, were not in any sense meagre; and though plentiful drinking after the meal was not as customary at Sparta as in other places, yet every guest had his cup beside him filled with mixed wine, and as soon as it was empty it was filled up again by the cup-bearer. The intercourse among these men was cheerful and free; they discussed political and military matters, and also found time for merriment and even singing. Women dined alone at home with the smaller children and the daughters; the boys, as soon as they had outgrown their mother’s care, were taken by their fathers to the mess, and sat beside them there on low stools, receiving little portions of the dishes which were considered suitable for youth. When they grew older they dined together with their own mess.

No Greek race despised handicrafts when pursued for the sake of money as much as the Dorians; no Spartan would pursue a craft or trade. Still the life of the Laconian must not be imagined as one of pure idleness; there were sufficient opportunities for other occupations. In the first place there were the gymnastic and military exercises, which occupied a great part of the day, then there was the study of music, which was continued even after their education had ended; hunting, too, was a very favourite occupation among the Dorians, and was valued on account of its tendency to harden the body. Some time, too, was occupied by State matters, and also by the exercise of religious duties, such as sacrifices, choruses, etc. Moreover, there was a great deal of social life among the men. In most Dorian cities there were special meeting-halls, or club-rooms (λέσχαι), which existed at Athens also and other places. The older citizens used to assemble there and discuss various matters of interest.

We must now turn to Athens, where, in consequence of the more numerous literary authorities, we can form a clearer idea of the conditions, and attempt also to form a picture of the town itself, such as it appeared in its most flourishing period under Pericles, and after his time. It would be a great mistake to form an idea of the appearance of the whole city from the splendid buildings on the Acropolis, the temples which are partly standing at the present day, and the other public buildings which were constructed and decorated without regard to expense. Most private houses were quite plain outside; the ground-floor generally had no windows; there were no splendid porticoes, or elaborate façades, and they were low, seldom having more than two storeys. There was no regular arrangement of streets in the older period, any more than there was in our cities in the middle ages; and even after the burning of the city by the Persians, when dwellings had to be constructed for the returning population, the town was quickly rebuilt without any regular plan. It was not till later that streets were methodically laid out, and this was largely due to the influence of Hippodamus of Miletus, who flourished about the middle of the fifth century, and reformed the ancient style of building cities. Athens itself could not profit by his system, which adopted a uniform artistic plan for the construction of a whole town; but he was able to carry out his scheme in the building of the lower city, near the Peiraeus, which took place under Pericles. Here Hippodamus constructed a network of straight broad streets, cutting each other at right angles, and in the middle he placed a large market, evidently in the form of a square, called the “Market of Hippodamus.” The land belonging to this suburb had probably been very little built on; we do not know whether the State had any right of ownership over these new buildings. The flourishing suburbs, the numerous public squares planted with trees and laid out in the manner of parks, did much to improve the appearance of the city, but a great deal must still have been wanting to make it appear really comfortable to us moderns, or even to the Romans of the Empire. In the first place, the streets were unpaved, and there were no sidewalks; these improvements were not introduced until the Roman period, and Greek antiquity was content with ordinary high roads; it is natural, therefore, that in dry weather the dust, and in rainy weather the mud, should have been disagreeable. Very little attention was paid to the cleanliness of public roads; all kitchen refuse, bath water, etc., was simply poured out of doors; at night it was even thrown straight from the windows on to the street, and though it was usual to call, “Out of the way,” yet careless people might sometimes be besprinkled on their way home at night. There was no public cleansing of the streets; it was left to beneficent rains to wash away all uncleanness, although the street and market police (ἀστυνόμοι) and (ἀγορανόμοι), whose duty it was to maintain order in the streets and market places, were supposed to see that they were kept in proper condition, and could compel proprietors who threw out ashes or other refuse to clear this away; yet they probably confined themselves to keeping the streets in fairly good building condition, and seeing that all was in order when processions had to pass along certain roads. Generally speaking, Nissen[D] is probably right when he maintains that, to form an idea of the life at Athens by any modern counterpart, we must not think of Florence or Munich, but rather of Cairo or Tunis.

As regards the interior of the houses, we know very little about the arrangement and appointment of the rooms. Naturally these were liable to variations, since a small family might inhabit a modest little dwelling, or there might be larger houses, containing numerous apartments. The front door, which opened (sometimes outwards) into the street, at which those who desired entrance knocked with their fingers or the knocker, was opened by a slave, acting as porter, and generally led to a hall, through which, either direct or through a second door, an open hall surrounded with a colonnade (Peristylium) was reached, which in the dwelling-houses of the historic period corresponded to the open courtyard of the Homeric palace, and bears an analogy to the Atrium of the Roman house. This space, which was uncovered in the middle, and surrounded by colonnades, was the usual dwelling-place of the family; sometimes they took their meals there, and the altar to Zeus Herkeios generally stood there. Round about were apartments whose doors, and probably windows, too, opened into the central hall; for it was not customary to have ground-floor windows opening on the street, and the sides of the houses usually touched the walls of the neighbouring buildings, so that the rooms on the ground-floor could, as a rule, only obtain their light from the central hall. Some of these apartments were destined for the men, and others for the women, but there was no general room. If the house was built on a considerable space, and had only one storey, the men’s rooms generally opened direct on the central hall, while the women’s were placed behind these, and were separate from them, having a special door, and doubtless, too, a special corridor, through which the women could reach the street without passing through the men’s apartments. If the house was small it was built in two storeys, and the women’s apartments were then situated in the upper storey. This latter arrangement appears to have been the more frequent. We often find allusions to women looking down on to the street from the windows of the upper storeys, and we also often find women represented on vase pictures sitting at upper-storey windows. These window openings were closed either by bars or wooden shutters, since glass panes were unknown in the Greek period. Where there were a good many slaves, it seems that the male slaves slept in the men’s apartments, and the female in the women’s apartments, except in those cases where the master allowed certain couples to live together. In larger houses, which contained a great number of rooms, we must imagine not only special sleeping and dining apartments, along with guest-chambers, rooms for the slaves, store-rooms, work-rooms, library, bathroom, etc., but also a second hall in the centre of the women’s apartments, and gardens connected with this; though flower gardens seem to have been a late introduction at Athens—it is said, indeed, that they date from the time of Epicurus. We must not assume that everyone had his own house in ancient Athens. It is true that a house could be acquired for a very low price, as is proved by the example of Socrates, whose whole wealth was taxed as five minae (something under twenty pounds), and yet included a house; but still there were a great number of poorer citizens who hired their dwellings. The upper storey, which no doubt had a special entrance, and which occasionally projected beyond the ground-floor, was let to lodgers, while the owner lived on the ground-floor. Large lodging-houses, many storeys high, such as existed at Rome, were probably not found at Athens in the classical period.

We have no certain information about the place of the kitchen. It was probably always on the ground-floor, and was certainly the only room in the house which had a chimney, since there was no heating apparatus in the dwelling rooms. There appears to have been a complete absence of all sanitary conveniences.

At the present day an indispensable factor in our daily occupations is some apparatus for measuring the time. This was not of so much consequence in Greek antiquity, and, in fact, the means for exact division were wanting. They had no exact arrangement of days extending from midnight to midnight, with twenty-four hours of equal length, but instead they distinguished between day-time and night-time, calculating from sunrise to sunset, and naturally the length of these periods differed according to the time of year. These two chief divisions were again subdivided; first came early morning (from about 6 till 9, if we take the equinoctial periods), the forenoon, when the market-place began to fill (9 to 12), the mid-day heat (12 to 3), and the late afternoon (3 to 6); in the night there was, first, the time when the lamps were lit (6 to 10), next the dead hours of the night (10 to 2), last the dawn (2 to 6). Besides this, they divided the day into twelve equal divisions, the length of which naturally varied according to the length of the day. For this purpose they made use of the sun, which was, of course, only available on cloudless days, though these are by no means infrequent in the south. All these arrangements for measuring the time were probably invented by the Babylonians in very ancient times, and introduced among the Greeks by Anaximander about 500 B.C. The most primitive is the “shadow-pointer,” which is only a pointed stick fixed in the earth, or a column, or anything else of the kind; the length of the shadow, which varies with the position of the sun, supplied the standard for calculating the hours. The length of the shadow, which changed from morning to evening, made a superficial division of time possible, but it could not fix the time once for all, for all days of the year, but had to be specially calculated according to the changes of the seasons. Twelve divisions of the day, to be determined by the shadow, corresponded with ours only at the equinox; these hours, if we may use the expression, were longer in summer and shorter in winter than our equinoctial hours. This explains why the time of the chief meal, which was usually taken at about five or six in the afternoon, was indicated sometimes by a 7-foot, sometimes by a 10-or 12-foot, or even a 20-foot shadow; for though at midsummer the shadow would be quite small at this time, it would have a considerable length at the equinox, and at the time of the winter solstice it is probable that they did not dine until after sunset. Unfortunately, we have not sufficient information to determine exactly the length of this shadow-pointer, which was doubtless always the same, in order to prevent confusion. The assumption that the pointer was about the average height of a human being, and that people even used their own shadows for measuring time, is very improbable. Such shadow-pointers probably stood in public places, where everyone could make use of them with help of the lines drawn on the ground; they could only be set up in private dwellings when these had large open spaces (which was not often the case) to which the sun could have access all day long. In later times inventions were made which supplied what was wanting in this mode of reckoning time; lines were graven on the stone floor on which the shadow-pointer stood, which gave, at any rate, some indication of the change in the length of the hours according to the months; a network of lines of this description belonged to the obelisk which Augustus set up on the Campus Martius, and also used as a shadow-pointer.

The sun-dials, invented later than the shadow-pointers, probably by Aristarchus, about 270 B.C., were different; here the shadow of a stick placed in a semicircle, on which the hours were marked by lines, indicated the time of day. There were three kinds: first, those that were calculated at the place on which they were set up, and could not be moved, and which indicated the hours of the day according as they changed in the course of the year; second, those which were arranged for moving, and could be set up at different places; and, third, those used by mathematicians, which showed the equinoctial hours such as we use to-day. It is impossible, however, to determine whether the Greeks were acquainted with all the three kinds which we find in use in the Roman period.

Besides this, water clocks were used, and here again we must distinguish two kinds. The common water clock, which, like our hour-glass, marked a definite period of time by the flowing away of a certain quantity of water, is certainly a very ancient invention. This clock consisted of a vessel of clay or glass, in the shape of a jar or a basin, which was filled with water by an opening above, and a second cup-shaped vessel, on the top of which the former was arranged in such a way that the water poured out slowly through little sieve-like openings into the lower vessel. Water clocks of this kind probably existed in most households, but were not real clocks, since they did not indicate the hour of the day, but were only used for calculating some particular period of time. They were chiefly used in the law courts to mark the time allowed to each speaker, and when a speech was interrupted in order to hear witnesses, or to read out documents, or for any other purpose, the flow of the water was stopped, and it was set going again when the orator continued his speech. These water clocks were also used on other occasions wherever certain periods of time had to be calculated, and this might take place in any household. The same principle underlay the water clocks which were supposed to have been invented by Plato, and perfected by the Alexandrine Ctesibius, by means of which a long period of time could be subdivided into equal parts, and thus the hours of the night could be calculated, which was of great importance. These water clocks could only be constructed when it was possible to make transparent glass vessels large enough to hold a quantity of water sufficient to last for twelve hours and longer; on the glass there was a scale graven, which gave the relation of the hours to the height of the water. But as the length of the night decreases and increases in the course of the