there being a single Lar to each holding. This conflicts with the opinions of De Marchi, and has been strongly criticised by E. Samter in his Familienfeste der Griechen und Römer. To this criticism Wissowa replied in the Archiv für Religionswissenschaft for 1904, and has gone far towards proving his point. Lastly, mention may be made of the learned paper by Professor Rhys on the Celtic calendar found some years ago at Coligny, near Lyons (Transactions of the British Academy for 1905), in which he inclines to see traces of Roman influence. The present writer thinks this extremely doubtful, and is supported in this view by a private communication from Professor Wissowa, to whom he sent the paper. W. WARDE FOWLER. IX PRIVATE ANTIQUITIES THE older archaeologists did not draw any hard-and-fast line between public and private antiquities. The division now generally recognised has grown up during the last century, and is one of convenience which is often disregarded, and must be disregarded whenever a general view of a custom or usage is taken. It is, in fact, impossible to deal with the public and private life of either an individual or a race as things apart. Hence one finds that subjects, such as education, including gymnastics, marriage, and the ritual of the house are generally placed under the head of private antiquities. Some editors deal with medicine and social questions, such as the position of women, in this class; others deal with the former as a branch of science, and the latter as part of legal antiquities. The distinction may be taken to be one of point of view: private antiquities are concerned with the various acts and objects of everyday life as seen by the householder in his home, in the workshop, and in the market; while public antiquities deal with machinery of the body politic as viewed by the law-giver or philosopher and manifested in its laws, institutions, public works, etc. The most recent survey of the whole field of private antiquities is that of a veteran in their study, Professor Hugo Blümner of Zurich. He is known by his edition of K. F. Hermann's Griechische Privataltertümer, 1882; by his great work, Terminologie und Technologie der Gewerbe und Künste, 1875-87; and by a popular handbook on the private life of the Greeks. Last year he published in the supplement to Bursian's Jahresbericht a summary of the work done on private antiquities in the quarter-century ending 1900, which is invaluable to any one who desires to get a general idea of the present position of the studies thus grouped. His verdict is that during the years 1875 to 1900 very little that was new or important was brought to light, compared with the revolutionary discoveries in other departments of classical archaeology, notably in that of art. The same is probably true of the following five years, and the reason is not far to seek. The material to be studied has grown enormously, and new methods of study have been forced on investigators which do not admit of the rapid publication of results. The fact is that the work accomplished has been largely that of classification and cataloguing, and is to be seen in museums rather than in books. The student who desires to gather new evidence from among the spoils of recent excavations must, unless he takes part in the excavating or is curator of the museum where the objects found are housed, wait many long years before he can get at his material, and even then as a rule finds that only further discoveries can solve the problems raised. In the larger museums and in the more important publications the department of private antiquities is the Cinderella of studies, and must wait until the claims of sculpture and painting are satisfied. The great national collections naturally display their treasures first, and unless pieces of domestic furniture can be classed as works of art, they find but little space either in cases or in catalogues. The smaller local museums have done the best work in exhibiting the humbler objects in a clear and helpful way. The museum at Reading, with its excellent exhibition of objects found at Silchester, is a good example in our own country, and in Germany the collection from the Saalburg in the Homburg Museum is typical. In fact, the museums in German towns, such as Trier, Mainz, and Nuremberg, if taken together probably give a better idea of Roman private and military life than any of the great collections except that of Naples. The introduction of cheap illustrated catalogues has done much to make such collections intelligible. The late Dr. Hettner's guides to the museum at Trier may be mentioned as models of cheapness and accuracy. The Guide at 1m. 60 (=18. 7d.) of 1903 has excellent photographic blocks (143 in all) of the Neumagen sculptures, mosaics, bronzes, glass, and pottery, a large number of which present new illustrations of the life on the Moselle in the second and third centuries A.D. As a supplement to the current illustrations, nothing could be fresher or more interesting. No publisher has yet seen his way clear to bring out a collection of illustrations to supplement those in Baumeister's Denkmaler, or Schreiber's Atlas, although the material is ample. Those who cannot visit museums and have not access to large libraries must for the present content themselves with the illustrations which each new part of the Daremberg-Saglio dictionary adds to the old stock. The last two parts (Olympia-Paries, 1905; Paries-Pistor, 1906) contain a large number of articles on private life, and many new illustrations. Pauly-Wissowa's Real-Encyclopädie advances slowly and is without illustrations. Its bibliography is invaluable to the serious student, but its summaries of what is known can by no stretch of imagination be called interesting. The difficulty of getting access to new material is, however, less perplexing than the choice of methods of dealing with it when found. The older scholars took literary evidence as their starting-point, and then proceeded to illustrate their conclusions by any work of art or object that they chanced to light on. During the last two decades this has become all but impossible. The development of the natural sciences and the adoption of scientific methods of research by scholars have entirely changed the treatment of evidence. The new science of anthropology has brought classical learning into touch with new ideas and given it a new organon. It is no longer possible to treat Roman life from the destruction of the city by the Gauls to the age of Theodosius as practically one and the same, or to illustrate the manners and customs of Hellenistic Greece by vase-paintings of the sixth century B.C. The scholar is forced to date his objects and to assign them to various stages of civilisation, and to take account of unsuspected peculiarities of local usage and fabric. The field of study has consequently been enlarged out of all recognition, and the life of individuals and races, of cities and hamlets unknown to literature, is brought before us and demands its place in the record of man's work in Greece and Italy. The bewildered investigator scarcely knows where to begin. The excavator has now brought the monumental evidence back to the Stone Age, and the anthropologist, undismayed by the lack of literary evidence, is at hand to suggest that they may be woven into an intelligible and connected whole displaying the life of the people who made and used the tools and wore the ornaments. As yet, however, the methodology of such research has never been formulated, and many theorists rush in before the material has been reduced to proper shape. The plan of a prehistoric house may, for instance, be used as evidence for matriarchy, or as throwing light on the problems of primitive kingship. Most puzzling of all is the constant effort to identify diverse, and possibly successive, stages of civilisation with the traditional aborigines of the land-e.g. Pelasgians, Minyans, Sikels, and Libyans. The labelling of household gear by the names of their supposed owners is often a sin against the well-established methods of ethnology. Pottery, stone or metal implements, household gear, and domestic architecture cannot in them |