It is of course universally recognised that Roman architects differed from their Greek or Hellenistic predecessors largely in the practice of spanning considerable spaces with arches, vaults or domes, whereas the Greeks limited themselves usually to stone architraves or wooden beams, with exceptional instances of the use of arches and probably simple trusses, of moderate dimensions. I am not certain, however, that it has occurred to investigators to discuss the possible cause for this radical difference between the two “classical” schools of architecture, except perhaps by generalisations as to racial qualities, merely another form of stating the same fact, rather than an explanation of it, or by reflections on the reckless waste of material and labour generated under a despotism, a form of explanation that will not carry conviction to the judicious. The matter is however of sufficient interest to justify the enquiry as to whether a more definite and convincing cause cannot be assigned.

The names of the potters who produced the black varnished vases decorated with reliefs commonly known as Calene phialae, have been adequately recorded by Pagenstecker; but there have not been published the marks of any of the manufactures of the undecorated black ware from the same site, nor, to the best of my belief, have marked specimens of certain origin been known. While on a visit to Cales, the modern Calio, during the spring of 1910, I was fortunate enough to secure a number of them.

The unique statue of a togatus holding in either hand the portrait of a deceased ancestor (plates XXVIII-XXX) is fairly well known. It is mentioned by Zoega and by Matz-Duhn; it is discussed by Benndorf-Schöne, and has been recently for the first time adequately published by Dr. Arndt.

Three articles of the highest importance have already been devoted to this subject, Dr. Helbig's epoch-making paper in Sitzungsberichte der Münchner Akademie, that in Marquardt's Staatsverwaltung and that of M. Jullian in Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionary, s.v. Flamen, which is really exhaustive. To these, as to the other works mentioned in this paper, every subsequent writer must record his debt; but room may still be found, especially in an English periodical, for a fresh consideration of the subject from its artistic as well as its historical aspect. It may also be useful to bring together in greater detail the monumental evidence for the priestly cap already existing in scattered publications; and welcome the opportunity now given me by the authorities of the British Museum and by Mr. C. Newton Robinson of adding several examples, one of high artistic importance, to those already known.