(1) In only knowing the original monuments from your chromoliths and engravings, which cuts off all the important evidence derivable from the technical method in which the designs are executed and finished; (2) in not having had time or opportunity to consult any of the authorities to which De Rossi refers, nor, indeed, any of the ordinary books on ancient art which I should make use of if I were in London, but which are not now within 100 miles of my reach; and (3) in having never yet seen your paper, but gathering your opinions only from your letters.

I. Notwithstanding all you justly say of the uncertainties of good and bad art in all periods, I still cannot believe that either the Hylas or the tigress could have been genuine productions of Constantine's time. As regards the Hylas, I find, curiously enough, that Minutoli referred it, like me, to Hadrian's reign, though the idea of connecting the myth with Antinous seems not to have occurred to any one till now. I do not insist on the suggestion of Antinous, nor on the limit of Hadrian's reign; but I agree with De Rossi that the style of design belongs to the second rather than the fourth century, so that we are driven to assume some abnormal circumstance to explain its being found in Junius Bassus' building. I feel the same quite as strongly as to the tigress. In its own line it has greater merit and power, as I think, than the Hylas. The energy and passion of the tigress' face, the firm and truthful grasp of her forepaws, the undulating lines of her body, in which every muscle is at work, the helpless drop of the poor victim on its hind legs, all indicate the hand of a master. One part only is a failure, the near hind leg of the tigress. Assuming that the fault is not in the engraving, nor due to a bad restoration, but in the original work, then the nature of this defect, and its possible cause, seem to me worthy of consideration. What the limb requires. is merely fore-shortening, a thing only to be attained by delicate modelling, nice gradations of tint, and especially of light and shade. Some of the mosaics of Pompeii, and most of all the so-called "Battle of Issus," exhibit the boldest foreshortening in the limbs of animals, expressed without a flaw. But these are in tessellated or vermiculated work; opus sectile, or marble tarsia (unless hatched, and inlaid with composition like niello, as in the pavements at Siena), does not admit of modelling, so that, if the leg of the tigress were formed of a single plaque of marble (to put an extreme hypothesis, for illustration's sake), the outline might be perfectly correct, yet, the inner surface being necessarily false, the whole would be a failure. You will see presently why I dwell on these details.

II. As to the consul, all seem to agree that it is so inferior to the Hylas (and,

as I should add, to the tigress also) that the designs could not have been contemporary, or anything near it. De Rossi, who believes the consul to be of Constantine's time, solves the difficulty by assuming that the Hylas was cut from the walls of some older building. You, who seem inclined to attribute the Hylas to Junius Bassus' artists, suggest that the consul might have been interpolated in the fifth century, about Valila's time. I see no objection to this suggestion as regards the consul. It is just one of those semi-barbarous works to which your views as to uncertainty in date may fairly apply. Regarding it in an artistic light alone, it might be referred indifferently to the beginning of the fourth or middle of the fifth century. But observe, that though (as I think I have before written to you) bad art is of all periods, yet good art is not; and this is why I cannot admit that by carrying the consul down to the fifth you become entitled to assign the Hylas to the fourth century, merely because this allows an interval of 150 years or so between the two. From its own intrinsic evidence, quite irrespective of any date you may determine for the consul, the Hylas must, in my opinion, have been from a design of not later, and perhaps earlier, than the second century, though whether its discovery in the same building with the consul is to be explained by De Rossi's suggestion still remains to be considered.

III. As to all the other decorations, which we only know from Sangallo's drawing, I quite agree with you that their artistic style resembles the Hylas rather than the consul, and that his overlooking this circumstance is a great flaw in De Rossi's argument. It is right, no doubt, to bear in mind that the older artists, before archæology became a science, never copied faithfully, but represented everything in the best possible (that is, their own) style. Still, the general composition of groups, and the selection of subjects, may be pretty well relied on. At any rate, as we have no other and more trustworthy evidence remaining, we must perforce accept Sangallo's rendering; and on this authority I conclude that some theory must be found whereby all the designs except the consul may be grouped together with the Hylas as belonging to an earlier parentage, and the consul alone to a later.

IV. If this view be correct, and if the Hylas be, as De Rossi himself supposes, of the second century, then, as you have pointed out in your letter, his explanation of the other subjects, as composed in honour of Constantine, falls to the ground. But even if we are wrong in this view, and if the Sangallo subjects may be judged of independently of their artistic style, I fail to see the force of the arguments for the Maxentian interpretation.

The subjects themselves are heterogeneous, partly mythological, partly historical, partly spectacular, with some minor parts purely decorative. Had it not been for the inscription which De Rossi has made out from the MS. at Siena, and which he shows to relate to a consul of A.D. 317, there would have been nothing whatever to suggest any connection with Constantine. Assuming his identification of the consul and the date to be correct (on which I do not presume to form any opinion, not having investigated the point), still it by no means appears that the motive of the whole series was to commemorate the reigning Emperor's victories, or that amongst these that of the Pons Milvius was specially selected. To De Rossi, indeed, and in a more or less degree to all Christians, this victory, with the legend of the miracle which preceded it, surpasses all others in interest. But why should it do so to Junius Bassus? If he were a pagan, it would have been pain and grief to him. If a Christian, then surely he would have introduced some symbol allusive to the cross, such as speedily appeared on standards and shields. The only subject in the series which seems to me specially appropriate to the Maxentian victory is that in which soldiers are exhibiting a head on the point of a spear. But throughout the Empire such exhibitions were too common to justify us in appropriating this incident positively to any one person. In like manner, games given by order of the Senate were too frequent events to furnish proof that the S. C. below the charioteer must refer to the games given on the Maxentian triumph. On the whole, the historical arguments which De Rossi has adopted from Böck seem to me too fanciful and ambiguous to stand against the evidence of style which Sangallo's drawings, in accordance with the actual remains of the Hylas and the tigress, furnish in favour of an earlier date.

What theory, then, finally, can I suggest to reconcile all the difficulties? I can only offer a conjectural one, which I shall be quite willing to withdraw if good evidence is produced against it. It is that Junius Bassus erected and dedicated the building, though to whom or for what he has not told us (as he probably would have done, had he wished it to be a compliment to or memorial of the all-powerful Emperor) ;-but that the artists he employed, incompetent to design anything of original merit themselves, copied the mural decorations of an earlier and better age. Their models were not all taken from one building or of one date; but the Hylas taken from one of Hadrian's monuments, the tigress, perhaps, from an earlier work, the two emperors' heads (if we may so far rely on Sangallo) from a building of the first century, and the other subjects from remains the period of which cannot now be exactly fixed. And now my hypo

thesis goes one step further. It supposes that the originals were executed either in fresco or in true mosaic, tessellated or vermiculated. But this latter elaborate art having declined in Constantine's time (as witness the mosaics of S. Costanza), or being perhaps too costly, the easier and cheaper, but less artistic, process of opus sectile was adopted. Or possibly even (if this be not over-refining) the Hylas might, as De Rossi supposes, have been cut from some earlier building, and the other subjects, though copied from true mosaics, have yet been executed in opus sectile, merely for conformity with the Hylas. From whatever motive it was done, the tigress, being executed in a method for which it was not originally designed, presents a correct outline, but faulty surface, and therefore no true foreshortening, in the limb already mentioned.

Thinking, as I do, that De Rossi has failed to establish any monumental motive in the building, I find no difficulty in supposing that Junius Bassus brought together any illustrations of mythology, history, games, or animal life, which suited the purpose (or perhaps merely the available wall-spaces) of his building, whatever it was, whether a secular basilica, an academy, library, or anything else; and in these illustrations no thread of continuity, or even congruity, can now be traced.

Then for the consul-this may be of Junius Bassus' own time, intended to portray himself; in which case its inferiority would be explained by the artist being left to his own skill for a design, whilst in all the other works he had good models to copy. Or, if you prefer it, it may have been substituted in the following century for a panel of Bassus' period, either for the reason you suggest, or any other, such as an accidental dilapidation in some part, which induced the introduction of this "restoration."

Cumloden, Bournemouth, 7th April, 1879.

IX.-On Glass Beads with a Chevron Pattern. By JOHN BRENT, Esq. F.S.A.

Read June 13th, 1872.

I BEG to exhibit three beads belonging to a class which has excited considerable interest among archæologists both in this country and in America, and of which the origin appears to be somewhat uncertain.

Although the specimens exhibited differ in diameter they are all formed of sections of glass rods of the same pattern, and in order to save repetition it may be desirable to give a description which applies to most of the beads under consideration. Around the central tube is generally a small quantity of transparent greenish-white glass; this is surrounded by a narrow zigzag line of opaque white, then comes a band of transparent greenish-white, beyond which a second zigzag line of opaque white, followed by a broad band of opaque red of a deep colour; beyond this a third zigzag line of opaque white; and finally transparent deep blue glass, which forms the outer surface of the cylinder.

The zigzag lines of opaque white present in section twelve-pointed stars, of which the points are sometimes slightly curved. The patterns of the interior are shown by grinding off a portion of the outer coatings at each end, sometimes simply rounded, sometimes in six bevelled facets, the portion immediately round the central tube being left more or less truncated. The appearance of the bead varies according to the angle at which the facets are cut; the result is, that the opaque white lines have the appearance of chevrons. The beads occasionally exhibit small holes parallel to the central tube, which are probably accidentally produced in the process of manufacture.

Of the three specimens exhibited No. 1 is in the Canterbury Museum; it is in. in diameter and in. long, and the ends have been facetted. It was found in 1860, by Mr. James Reid, M.R.C.S. of Canterbury, in soil thrown out in making a pier of the viaduct of the Canterbury and Dover Railway, near Wincheap, where it crosses the St. Mildred meadows. It was found in the marsh itself, in a place which formerly was often inundated by the river Stour. It lay about 3 feet