Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
Among the earliest buildings to be excavated at Pompeii, the large property known as the Villa of Julia Felix, regio II insula 4 no. 3, suffered particularly badly from the depredations of the pioneer explorers of the site. It was subsequently abandoned and re-buried, then excavated again and restored between 1936 and 1953. A complex and interesting structure, it still awaits definitive publication, though the garden triclinium whose painted decoration forms the subject of this article has been examined in detail by Dr. Friedrich Rakob in the Römische Mitteilungen.
The house is situated on the right-hand side of the Via dell'Abbondanza leading eastwards out of the city to the Porta di Sarno, and behind it is the amphitheatre. Along the street front is a group of rooms including private living apartments and a large bath, and behind these a long and elaborately laid out garden (see plan, Pl. XVII); on the long right (western) side of this a row of rectangular pillars forms a portico shading a set of rooms backed by a corridor, which communicates with the side-street at the west, and with a further complex of small rooms at the bottom right-hand corner of the garden.
1 Rakob, F., ‘Ein Grottentriklinium in Pompeji’, RM 71 (1964), 182–94Google Scholar. (Periodical title abbreviations used in this article are those of the Archäologische Bibliographie of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.) For a brief description of the house in general, see la Rocca, E., de Vos, M. & de Vos, A., Coarelli, F., Guida archeologica di Pompei (Verona 1976), 244–46Google Scholar.
2 Rakob, op. cit., Taf. 50, 1 & 2.
3 For other examples and a discussion of the date, see Rakob, op. cit.; also Neuerburg, N., L'Architettura delle Fontane e dei Ninfei nell'Italia antica (Naples 1965)Google Scholar, where the Julia Felix fountain is described on p. 120, no. 21. Two further instances from Pompeii are cited below, p. 63.
4 In this case, limestone fragments embedded in plaster and painted yellow: Rakob, op. cit., 189.
5 The plain fragments are as follows: right of the entrance, top, small fragment of red strip; back wall, top left, a patch of plain blue with red strip above (0·712 × 1·35 m.); left above fountain-steps, patch of blue with red strip along edge of opening; back wall, top right, piece of cornice; north (right-hand) wall, top left, patch of plain blue (maximum width 1·10 m.).
6 For the section on the north wall, see the plan in Rakob, op. cit., Abb. 4.
7 CIL IV, 1136Google Scholar.
8 The policy of destruction was halted in 1763 by Ferdinand IV's chief minister, Tanucci.
9 Murray, 's Handbook for Travellers in Southern Italy, ed. Blewitt, Octavian (London 1853), 360–61Google Scholar.
10 In a letter to Dr. William Robertson of Edinburgh: National Library of Scotland MS 3942, folios 58–61.
11 On display in rooms 96 and 77 respectively.
12 Helbig, W., Wandgemälde der vom Vesuv verschütteten Städte Campaniens (Leipzig 1868), 381Google Scholar (no. 1538) and 393 (no. 1566).
13 Accademia Ercolanese, Le antichità di Ercolano esposte (Naples 1757–)Google Scholar, VII, (1779), Pitture V, pl. LXVI and p. 295.
14 It cannot, I think, be equated with Helbig's no. 1538, as Schefold, K. suggests tentatively in Die Wände Pompejis (Berlin 1957), 319Google Scholar, and thereby with the centre panel of the Pitture d'Ercolano plate; the fish in 8608 is undoubtedly a fish and part of the original painting, and the artist cannot have made a mistake.
15 Helbig, op. cit., 383, referring to the passage quoted in part below, p. 57.
16 Fiorelli, G., Pompeianarum Antiquitatum Historia, I, (Naples 1860)Google Scholar, Pars prima, hereafter referred to as PAH I, 1Google Scholar.
17 In Annali dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica II (1830), 42–51Google Scholar (‘Pianta di una porzione degli edificii e strade della Pompeana’), with a plan published in Monumenti Inediti pubblicati dall'Instituto Archeologico I, pl. XVIGoogle Scholar. The plan is reproduced in PAH I, Tab. I, and Weber's account in PAH I, 2Google Scholar, Addenda, 95–102.
18 Taking a Neapolitan palm as O·2513 m.
19 PAH I, 1, 13 ffGoogle Scholar.
20 PAH I, 1, 14Google Scholar. ‘Il rapillo’ was the name of the west-facing slope of the hill in which the city lay buried, and the ‘taverna del rapillo’ was an osteria at the foot of the hill, near the main road to Salerno (Fiorelli, , Giornale degli Scavi di Pompei [Naples 1850], xiii)Google Scholar. The site was subsequently occupied by a hotel, probably that which appears in nineteenth-century plans not far from the Pompei Scavi railway station, and thus midway between the Porta Marina and the Porta di Stabia. Alcubierre's topographical reference here seems to be of the most general kind, and he uses the expression ‘el rapillo’ passim in describing work in the area of the amphitheatre; he probably applied it to the whole of the site, which was after all a tract of agricultural land with no particular distinguishing features. The specific location of the taverna del rapillo cannot therefore be taken as the findspot of the six inscribed herms, which are equally unlikely to have anything to do with the Julia Felix garden and must have come from some area with funerary monuments, such as that outside the Herculaneum Gate, where other examples were found. Alcubierre may have been working here in 1754 (PAH I, 1, 11–12)Google Scholar and earlier, though complete clearance of this part, the ‘Street of the Tombs’, did not take place until 1811–1814; he may still have had workmen digging there contemporaneously with the larger-scale operation on the Julia Felix site, since he usually worked in at least two spots at any one time. The reference to the herms in the same report as the paintings may, however, have brought about the erroneous entry in the Naples records, the herms being linked with the Herculaneum Gate and taking the paintings with them.
21 ‘En la misma excavacion al rapillo se han descubierto tambien las 4 siguientes pinturas, cuyas medidas y demostracion, segun el raporte que he tenido, son estas. La primera de 6 palmos y ½ por 3 palmos y ¼ representa un serpiente, otro animal que pareze acomete à un muchacho bestido que se tira ò hace el cavello, una anade, otro animal como un dragon que come un muchacho, otro muchacho que pareze de ayudar el primero, y contiene tambien architectura, un baston, ramos y flores. La segunda de 2 pal. en quadro representa otro dragon, ramos y flores. La tercera de 3 pal. y ½ por 2 pal. y ¼ es semejante à la antecedente. Y la quarta, que aun no se havia podida tomar la medida, demuestra un navio ò otra embarcacion cargada de lanchelones.’ (PAH I, 1, 14)Google Scholar
22 ‘Se han descubierto y se han cortado ya siete pinturas, y la primera de 4 pal. y ½ por 2 pal. representa dos anades, un dragon y algunas flores. La segunda de 5 palmos y 9 on. por 4 pal. y ½ representa un portal, una torre, un cupido, un asno, un personaje, y algunos bastones, cestillos y flores. La 3 de 4 pal. por 3 pal. y ½ representa una persona sentada sobre un animal con los brazos abiertos y dos bastones en las manos, una anade, otro animal con la boca abierta, y algunos ramos y flores. La 4 de 4 pal. por 2 pal. representa una anade, un animal con la boca abierta, y algunos ramos y flores. La 5 de 4 pal. y ½ por 2 pal. y ¼ representa una portal con dos ventanas, una torre, 2 muchachos y una muchacha, con algunos pescados, que tiene pendientes de la mano uno de los muchachos que està pescando: però esta pintura està lesionada de los antiguos con quatro golpes de pico. La 6 de 10 onzas en quadro representa un grifo. Y la 7 representa un ave, y es de la misma medida de la antecedente.’ (PAH I, 1, 15)Google Scholar.
23 PAH I, 1, 16Google Scholar.
24 No. 24 on Weber's plan (Pl. XVII here); the paintings are Naples MN 9059, 9061, 9064, 9066–9070.
25 PAH I, 1, 21Google Scholar; for the Isiac sacellum, see Tran tam Tinh, V., Essai sur le culte d'Isis à Pompei (Paris 1964), 55–6, 125–6Google Scholar, Cat. nos. 6–8.
26 Weber, op. cit., 48; the version reprinted in PAH I, 2Google Scholar (see above, p. 56, n. 17) has revised spelling and punctuation, and in one case a variant reading (below, n. 27). An addition to the first scene as described here is the gatto selvadico, not found in Alcubierre's description; the latter also seems to have conflated two figures, one being swallowed by an animal probably to be identified as a hippopotamus, another tearing his hair.
27 ‘coda’ in PAH I, 2Google Scholar: this reading makes more sense than ‘collo d'asino’, for the motif of a peasant hauling a donkey or other animal by the tail to prevent its being swallowed by a crocodile recurs sporadically throughout the history of Roman Nilotica, from its appearance in a wall-painting from Herculaneum (Naples MN 8512; Pitture d'Ercolano I, Tav. XLVIII, lower panel) to a late variation in Libyan church mosaics, where the beast being tugged from the crocodile's jaws is a steer or cow (Cyrene [two examples] and Qasr el-Lebia; Ward-Perkins, J. B., ‘A new group of sixth-century mosaics from Cyrenaica’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 34 (1958), 186–7Google Scholar and figs. 3–5). If such was the scene depicted in the present case, the crocodile must be assumed to have been shown in an area of the painting which had disappeared by the time the rest was excavated. For the possible relation of the iconography of this scene to Pliny's description of Nealkes' painting of a Nile battle between the Egyptians and the Persians, (NH XXXV, 142Google Scholar) see, for example, Leclant, J. in RA 36 (1950)Google Scholar, II, 147–9, discussing the use of the same motif in a funerary context, on a relief from Aquincum.
28 Weber, op. cit., 48–9; his description of the figure carrying baskets on a yoke (cf. below, p. 62) makes sense of Alcubierre's ‘algunos bastones, cestillos’. Alcubierre's painting [ix] is, however, missing from his list.
29 PAH I, 1, 24–26Google Scholar.
30 For MN 8598, see Schefold, K., RM 60/61 (1953/1954)Google Scholar, Taf. 47 and p. 115 n. 37. Surviving still life panels from the fragmentary wall are MN 8611: Beyen, H. G., JdI 42 (1927), 42, 56Google Scholar and Taf. I & II. By some process of reversal of Weber's information, the still lifes etc. are listed in Schefold, K., Die Wände Pompejis, 53–4Google Scholar as the paintings from the garden triclinium; so too Maiuri, A., Pompeii7 (Guidebooks to the Museums and Monuments of Italy, 3, Rome 1955), 82Google Scholar.
31 It seems most unlikely that there is more than one Nilotic frieze involved.
32 A further Julia Felix fragment may perhaps be identified in Naples: Alcubierre's description of no. [x] is reminiscent of MN 8573 (1·10 × 0·49 m.; cf. the dimensions of [x], 1·13 × 0·56 m.), an oblong panel recorded in the Naples inventory as coming from the same location as 8575. The latter, however, is a large landscape panel from the ekklesiasterion of the Temple of Isis (O. Elia, Monumenti della Pittura Antica Scoperti in Italia, Pompei fasc. 3–4. Le pitture del Tempio di Iside [Rome 1942], 30–31 and Tavv. 1 & 4, left-hand), and is one of a series of sacro-idyllic landscapes to which 8573 is clearly not related. Nor does it belong to the series of small rectangular panels with Nilotic or marine landscapes from the porticus of the temple, so the Naples provenance seems to be incorrect. The panel shows a prostyle building on a podium with windows in the side wall at the left; it is flanked by low walls, that at the right with two openings and enclosing a tree. Behind the building is a pylon-like tower with windows and in front stands a pygmy woman holding out a plate to receive some fish from the pygmy standing to the right with the fish in his right hand and a fishing rod in his left. Below them the ground gives way to murky green water, a brown patch on which seems to indicate another figure. Since Alcubierre states that the panel was removed piecemeal it would be necessary to assume that 8573 was repaired.
33 Frieze from VIII, 2, 17–20: unpublished.
34 The first panel is illustrated in Maiuri, A., Roman Painting (Geneva 1953)Google Scholar, pl. on p. 111; the second in Marcadé, J., Roma Amor. Essai sur les représentations erotiques dans l'art étrusque et romain (Geneva/Paris 1961)Google Scholar, colour pl. on p. 36; Schefold, K., Gymnasium 67 (1960), 98Google Scholar, pl. Ib; id., Vergessnes Pompeji (Bern 1962), pl. 144, 2.
35 Reinach, S., Répertoire des Peintures Grecques et Romaines (Paris 1922), 161Google Scholar, 1.
36 Spano, G. ‘Paesaggio nilotico con pigmei diffendentisi magicamente dai coccodrilli’. MemAcc-Linc ser. 8, VI (1955), 335–68Google Scholar.
37 Spano, op. cit., fig. 1.
38 ibid.
39 Presuhn, E.Pompei, die neueste Ausgrabungen von 1874 bis 1881, Ergänzungsband Lief. I, Abt. IX, Reg. IX, Ins. VIII, das Patrizierhaus von 1879, 11Google Scholar.
40 Schefold, K.Vergessnes Pompeji, pl. 146Google Scholar.
41 The size of both these examples is untypical of Pompeian Nilotica in general: only one other comparably large-scale piece survives, on the west wall of the viridarium of the Casa dei Ceii, I, 6, 15 (Spinazzola, V., Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di Via dell'Abbondanza [Rome 1953] IGoogle Scholar, fig. 305); it displays the same mixture of genre, comic, and picturesque-architectural elements but is stylistically rather different from the two examples discussed here.
42 At Pompeii, fourteen examples of painting and one mosaic in gardens or rooms associated with them; and three in bathrooms.
43 Mau, A., RM 3 (1888), 186–7Google Scholar.
44 Sogliano, A., NSc 1888, 512Google Scholar.
45 A. Maiuri, Monumenti della Pittura Antica Scoperti in Italia, Sez. III, Pompei, Fasc. II, Le pitture delle case di M. Fabius Amandio, del Sacerdos Amandus, di Cornelius Teges (Rome 1938). See also Soprano, P., ‘I triclini all'aperto di Pompei’, Pompeiana (Naples 1950), 289–310Google Scholar, especially 295, 309–10.
46 See Westermann, W. L., ‘The Castanet Dancers of Arsinoe’, JEA 10 (1924), 134–44Google Scholar.
47 V. Tran tam Tinh, op. cit., 50; see also della Corte, M., ‘Una famiglia di sacerdoti Isiaci’, Atti del II Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani (Rome 1931), I, 19–30Google Scholar, especially 26–7.
48 See above, p. 58; two silver beakers with Isiac cult scenes found in the Palaestra might perhaps have come from here or from II, 2, 2: AA 46 (1941), 591–601Google Scholar and Abb. 108–115; Tran tam Tinh, op. cit., 173, cat. no. 138.
49 M. della Corte, op. cit., passim. See also van Aken, A. R. A., ‘Some aspects of nymphaea in Pompeii, Herculaneum and Ostia’, Studia Archeologica Gerardo van Hoorn oblata (Leiden 1951), 80–92Google Scholar, particularly 85 ff.
An interesting example of a garden with Nilotica in a form other than painting or mosaic is that of the Casa delle Nozze d'Argento, V, 2, i, which also had an open-air triclinium with fountain under the portico surrounding the garden: in the middle of the latter, on a slight elevation, were found the figures of two crocodiles, a toad and a frog, all of faience and presumably of Egyptian manufacture (Mau, A., Pompeji in Leben und Kunst2 [Leipzig 1908], 320–21)Google Scholar. A small house in reg. VIII, 4 had in its garden not only a frieze along the peristyle showing pygmies and crocodiles, but also a crocodile ‘scolpito in nero di paragone’ (perhaps black basalt: Real Museo Borbonico IX, Relazione degli Scavi 2–3).
50 For the religious view, see, for example. Schefold, K., Vergessnes Pompeji, 29 ff.Google Scholar; Dobrovits, A., Budapest Regisegei 1943, 495Google Scholar; and the ‘Chinoiserie’ view, Nock, A. D., Conversion (Oxford 1933), 124Google Scholar; Squarciapino, M. F., I Culti Orientali ad Ostia (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales 3, Leiden 1962), 34Google Scholar n. 1.
51 In the letter quoted above, p. 54, n. 10.
The paintings in the Julia Felix triclinium were first brought to my notice by Dr. T. S. Brown, and much of the work on this paper was carried out as part of a larger study of Nilotic landscapes made possible by a Rome Scholarship awarded by the Faculty of Archaeology, History and Letters of the British School at Rome: it is a pleasure to record my thanks to both. The paper has greatly benefited from the helpful comments of Professor J. R. Harris, to whom my thanks are also due.
52 See above, p. 61, n. 34, first panel.
53 Now in Tripoli Museum: Romanelli, P., RendPont Acc VI (1930), 90–92Google Scholar, fig. 4 and La mosaique gréco-romaine (Colloque internationale du centre nat. de la recherche, Paris 1965), 139 ffGoogle Scholar. and fig. 22.
54 See McDaniel, W. B., AJA 36 (1932), 260–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The occasion of the Tentyrites' appearance at Rome was perhaps the games of 2 B.C. (Dio Cassius LV, 10, 8). The nineteenth-century explorer Charles Waterton participated in a similar method of crocodile-catching in British Guyana: Guggisberg, C. A. W., Crocodiles, their natural history, folklore and conservation (Newton Abbot 1972), 165–6Google Scholar.
55 Lamps:— from Carthage (Carthage Museum inv. 896: 13: 111): Deneauve, J., Lampes de Carthage (Paris 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 616; in the Musée de Lectoure, Gers: Gavelle, R. in Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire offerts à André Piganiol (Paris 1966) I, 498Google Scholar n. 1 and 506 n. 5; in the Musée Alaoui, Tunis: Merlin, A., Revue Tunisienne 1915, 327Google Scholar no. 88. The British Museum statuette: Smith, A. H., Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (London 1892–1904) IIIGoogle Scholar, no. 1768; see also Buschor, E. ‘Das Krokodil des Sotades’, Münchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst XI, 1/2 (1919–1921), 1–43Google Scholar, fig. 60.
56 See Goldman, H.'s discussion in AJA 47 (1943), 22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; against the percussion view, Levi, D., Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Princeton 1947) I, 32 ff.Google Scholar; more recently, Binsfeld, W., Grylloi, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Antiken Karikatur (Köln 1956), 45 ffGoogle Scholar. For pygmies using them apotropaically, cf. the article by Spano cited above, p. 61, n. 36.
57 For the clinical condition and examples of its portrayal in Egyptian art, see, e.g., Ruffer, M. A., ‘On dwarfs and other deformed persons’, BSAA 13 (1910), 162–75Google Scholar; Dawson, W. R., ‘Pygmies, dwarfs and hunchbacks in Ancient Egypt’, Annals of Medical History 9 (1927), 315–24Google Scholar; id., ‘Pygmies and dwarfs in Ancient Egypt’, JEA 24 (1938), 185–89. For the role of dwarfs in Egyptian society, see Rupp, A., ‘Der Zwerg in der ägyptischen Gemeinschaft’, Chronique d'Égypte 40 (1965), 260–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and for their religious connotations, Wolff, H. F., ‘Die Kultische Rolle des Zwerges im alten Ägypten’, Anthropos 33 (1938), 445–514Google Scholar.
58 Herodotus III, 37. For this form of Ptah, see in general: Bonnet, H.Reallexikon der Ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte (Berlin 1952), s.v. ‘Patäke’, 584–5Google Scholar. Holmberg, M. Sandman discusses Herodotus's account in The God Ptah (Lund 1946), 182–5Google Scholar; see also Morenz, S., ‘Ptah-Hephaistos, der Zwerg’, in Festschrift für Friedrich Zucker (Berlin 1954), 279–90Google Scholar. The pathology of the Pataikos figures is discussed by Hückel, R., ZAS 70 (1934), 103–7Google Scholar.
59 A good selection of examples may be found in Steindorff, G., Catalogue of the Egyptian Scultpure in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore 1946)Google Scholar, nos. 734–44, and a discussion of their use, with references, 163 ff.; cf. ibid., nos. 626, 632, figures of Ptah Pataikos on two crocodiles holding a knife in either hand; and a similar figure, Berlin 11018, Hückel, op. cit., Abb. 3. Further Horus-stelae: Daressy, G., Textes et dessins magiques (Cairo Catalogue General 9401–9449, 1903)Google Scholar, nos. 9401 ff.; and in general, Bonnet, op. cit., s.v. ‘Horusstele’, 317–18; Seele, K. C., ‘Horus on the crocodiles’, JNES 6 (1947), 43–52Google Scholar; Lacau, P., ‘Les statues guerisseuses dans l'ancienne Égypte’, Monuments et Memoires Fondation Piot XXV (1921–1922), 189 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Their use extends from the Ptolemaic period to the early Christian: see Parlasca, K., ‘“Herakles-Harpokrates” und “Horos auf den Krokodilen””, Akten des Vierundzwanzigsten Internationalen Orientalisten-Kongress (Wiesbaden 1959), 71–4Google Scholar. See also Barb, A. A., ‘Der Heilige und die Schlangen’, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 82 (1953), 1–21Google Scholar, particularly 16–17.
60 See, e.g., British Museum 36250: Budge, E. A. W., The Mummy2 (Cambridge 1925)Google Scholar, pl. XXXIII facing p. 470: a whole host of other divinities carved around the Horus figure in relief grasp snakes, scorpions, etc. in their hands; one at the top right stands on a crocodile.
61 See, for example, Chicago Oriental Institute no. 16881 in K. C. Seele, op. cit., pl. I, where the snakes held by the dwarf look rather like walking sticks; on the Stela, Metternich, Golenischev, V., Die Metternichstele in der Originalgrösse … (Leipzig 1877)Google Scholar, pl. I, bottom row, sixth from right; Scott, N. C. ‘The Metternich Stela’, Bull MMA 9 (1950–1951), 201–17Google Scholar, pl. on p. 206. Cf. the figure in a painter's or sculptor's working sketch on papyrus, Berliner Museen Amtliche Berichte 30, Abb. 120 on 199.
62 Cf. a figure of Harpocrates riding on the back of a crocodile, on a lamp in the British Museum: Walters, H. B., Catalogue of Lamps in the British Museum (London 1914)Google Scholar, no. 533 and fig. 102 (identified as ?Eros, but the baby-ish figure is shown in the distinctive thumb-sucking pose of Harpocrates).
63 Now in Rome, Museo Nazionale 124698, dated variously to the 2nd century A.D. (Blake, M. E., MAAR 13 (1936)Google Scholar, 124 n. 2) and to the 3rd (Parlasca, K. in Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom4, III (Tübingen 1969)Google Scholar, no. 2128. For illustrations, see: Aurigemma, S., Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano6 (Itinerari dei musei, gallerie e monumenti d'Italia, 78, Rome 1970)Google Scholar, Tav. X; Tarchi, U., L'Arte etrusco-romana nell'Umbria e nella Sabina (Milan 1936)Google Scholar, Tavv. 258–9.
64 Now in the Alcazaba, Merida; probably 2nd century A.D.: Bellido, A. Garcia yAEsp 33 (1960), 174 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 15–18 and 24. An example of deformed pygmies with full heads of hair and projecting locks perhaps deriving from side-locks occurs with two figures in a Nilotic mosaic from Rome; one of them (with forked sticks) is standing on the back of a hippopotamus: Museo Nazionale 171, illustrated in Grimal, P., Les Jardins Romains (Paris 1969)Google Scholar, pl. XXII. For dating to 3rd century A.D. and bibliography, see Parlasca, K. in Helbig, , Führer 4 IIIGoogle Scholar, no. 2403. Cf. V. von Gonzenbach's observations on the ‘Hellenized’ version of the side-lock (one longer tuft in a normal head of hair) observable in portraits of children with side-locks: Untersuchungen zu den Knabenweihen im Isiskult der Römischen Kaiserzeit (Antiquitas Reihe I, Band 4, Bonn 1957), 58 ff.Google Scholar
65 NH XXXIII, 12, 41Google Scholar.
For a discussion of a possible Harpocrates/pygmy link in relation to a terracotta figure combining distinctly pygmy anatomy with the attributes of Harpocrates, see Perdrizet, P., Les Terres cuites grecques d'Égypte de la Collection Fouquet (Paris 1921) I, 135–7Google Scholar, and cf. Gavelle, op. cit., who would see a Harpocrates link in the Lectoure lamp (see above). The problem of the deformity of Nilotic ‘pygmies’ is noted in Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica VI, s.v. ‘Pigmei’, 167–9. A Horus-on-the-crocodiles/Pataikos link is suggested by Leila Ibrahim in her discussion of a figure riding a crocodile depicted on one of the glass panels from Kenchreai: Ibrahim, L., Scranton, R. and Brill, R.Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth, II: The Panels of Opus Sectile in Glass (Leiden, 1976), 44Google Scholar.
