1. F.-W. no. 1198; pub. in Brunn’s Vorlegeblätter, no. 18, and Baumeister, Denkmäler, ii. p. 1121.
2. Benndorf und Schöne, Die Bildwerke des Lateranensischen Museums. no. 92 = F.-W. no. 1200; pub. in Brunn’s Vorlegeblätter, no. 17.
3. F.-W. no. 1201; pub. in Museo Torlonia, pl. 93, no. 377. This is the youngest of the three, but the original still belongs to the period just after the completion of the Parthenon.
4. Cf. Griechische Weihgeschenke, p. 130 ff.
5. Cf. Isaeus v. 41, and Xen. Hieron, ix. 4.
6. Athen. Mitth. 1878, p. 233; Ἀθήναιον B. vii. p. 93.
7. 1. 20. 1.
8. Cf. C. I. A. ii. 3, 1298, and Anth. Pal. vi. 239.
9. Loc. cit.
10. 1. 21. 1 and 2.
11. Pub. Athen. Mitth. 1882, pl. 14; cf. F.-W. no. 1135.
12. Furtwängler, Sammlung Sabouroff, p. 31.
13. Cf. F.-W. no. 1843, 1844, and Jahn’s Archäologische Beiträge, p. 198 ff.
14. Cf. Overbeck’s Schriftquellen, no. 1128.
15. F.-W. no. 1242.
16. I follow Robert. Cf. Thanatos, p. 37 ff.
17. Cf. Robert in Jahrbuch, 1887, p. 244 ff.
18. F.-W. 1402. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 36, 34.
19. One may distinguish two distinct moments in works of art based upon the Antiope myth. (1) The two sons of Antiope have the unfortunate Dirke all but fastened to the bull, which is being held only with the utmost exertion. (2) The catastrophe ensues. The wild animal is dragging his victim over the ground. It need not be said that the most celebrated representation of (1) is the toro farnese. For (2), cf. a wall painting, pub. Arch. Ztg. 1878, pl. 9, a and b. The myth was wonderfully popular and appears on coins, gems, reliefs, &c., all of which belong to the period when tragic influence predominated in art. Cf. Dilthey, Arch. Ztg. 1878, p. 43 ff. and Jahn, ibid., 1853, p. 65–105.
20. F.-W. no. 1422. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 36, 37.
21. Robert, Bild und Lied, p. 192 ff., contends against the influence of Sophokles.
22. Cic. de opt. gen. orat. 1. 1.
23. Velleius, 1. 17. 1.
24. The favourite subject was the murder of Troïlos.
25. Brunn, op. cit. pl. 1–16; cf. Schlie, Die Darstellungen des troischen Sagenkreises auf etruskischen Aschenkisten, p. 13 ff.
26. Poet. 1453a. 21.
27. Op. cit. pl. 26–34, gives eighteen reliefs.
29. Brunn, op. cit. pl. 69–72; cf. especially nos. 1, 2 and 3. The remaining four are not Sophoklean and betray an admixture of different elements. Odysseus bathes the afflicted foot of Philoktetes on nos. 6 and 7.
30. Op. cit. p. 155; cf. pl. 74–83.
31. Op. cit. pl. 84–85. The attitude of ‘Iphigeneia’ causes some difficulty in this interpretation. Cf. her part on the other monuments.
33. Körte, op. cit. vol. ii. pl. 1. 2.
35. Op. cit. vol. ii. pl. 4. 1, 2 and 3. and pl. 5. 4.
36. Cf. schol. Eur. Phoin. v. 61, and Nauck’s Fragmenta, Eur. no. 541, and op. cit. ii. pl. 7. 1.
37. There are twenty-eight in all representing the fratricide, and nine showing the attack; Körte, I rilievi d. urne etrusche, ii. pl. 8 24.
38. Op. cit. ii. p. 32 ff.
39. Pl. 26–27.
40. Pl. 28–30.
41. Pl. 31–32.
43. Pl. 39–40. Three in all.
44. Pl. 41–56.
45. One may think of Soph. Oinom., called also Hippodameia, and of Eur. Oinom. The latter seems to have been followed by Accius.
46. Pl. 62; cf. also op. cit. ii. p. 150 ff.
47. Pl. 100–104.
48. The monumental publication, which is now appearing under the direction of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute, will, when completed, place within one’s reach all this immense material. The projected plan embraces six volumes of which the second has so far appeared: Die Antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs, ii. 1890, edited by Carl Robert. The third part is to embrace three vols., so that we have in the Antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs, iii. 1897, Carl Robert, only the first vol.
49. Robert, op. cit. iii. part i, pl. 6–7. Nos. 22, 23, 24, 26 are all practically intact and agree closely with each other. Nos. 27–30 are larger or smaller fragments.
50. Pub. Arch. Ztg. 1875, pl. 9 = Robert, op. cit. iii. part i, pl. 7. 32 = Baumeister, Denkmäler, i. p. 46.
52. Robert, op. cit. ii. p. 165.
53. Robert, Die antiken Sark.-Reliefs, ii. pl. 54, no. 154.
57. Robert, op. cit. ii. pl. 60, nos. 183, 184, and p. 191 ff.
58. Robert, op. cit. ii. pl. 51, no. 139.
59. Pub. by Robert, Die Pasiphaë-Sarkophag, 1890, pl. i.; also op. cit. iii. part i, pi. 10. 35, 35a, 35b.
60. Cf. Nauck’s Fragmenta, no. 472.
61. Cf. Baumeister, Denkmäler, ii. p. 917, where the Louvre fragment is published = Clarac, Musée de Sculpture, pl. 201, no. 208. A similar scene is shown in no. 256.
62. Paus. 1. 22. 6.
64. Cf. schol. Eur. Hek. v. 3, and Nauck’s Fragmenta, p. 245 ff.
65. Homerische Becher, p. 75; but on p. 25 f. of the Iliupersis des Polygnot in der Poikile, Robert refers the picture to Polykleitos on the strength of the epigram (Anth. Plan. 3. 30) by Pollianos. The question turns on the reading Πολυκλείτοιο, which has generally been held to be a corruption of Πολυγνώτοιο. But this does not convince me that Polygnotos might not have painted the work in the Propylaia. It is by no means necessary to consider the two paintings identical even if Πολυκλείτοιο must remain.
66. Paus. 10. 25. 2.
67. This was shown by Schneidewin in Philologus, 1849, p. 645 ff.
68. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 35. 71.
70. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 35, 132, and Helbig, Wandgemälde, 1183–1203.
71. Pliny, op. cit. 35, 136, and Helbig, op. cit. nos. 1189, 1262–1264. The latter is from Herculaneum. Cf. Overbeck, Schriftquellen, 2126–2135, for various epigrams touching this painting of Timomachus.
72. Overbeck, op. cit. 1642. Cf. Reisch, Griechische Weihgeschenke, p. 127.
73. Pliny, op. cit. 35, 144; cf. a Pompeian wall painting, pub. Arch. Ztg. 1883, pl. 9. 1.
74. Paus. 1. 20. 3.
75. Vid. Dörpfeld and Reisch, Das griechische Theater, p. 21.