in size. This tendency goes on yet further, till, towards the end of the first century of our era and the beginning of the second, hair-dressing shows signs of extreme elaboration. Hair is rarely left to fall naturally, but each lock is fixed and manipulated to a remarkable degree. The general result is far from pleasing, and the fashion must always have been too intricate for any one of low degree to assume. The duties of the maids to high-born ladies can have been no sinecure, Martial (xi. 66) hints at scoldings, and Juvenal (vi. 492-502, &c.) tells us that, if the hair was not arranged quite to the mistress's liking, the whip even was likely to come down on the maid's shoulders. In the case of one lady who had lost her hair by too assiduous attention to it, Ovid (Amorum, i, 14), thinks it worth while to mention that the maid did not suffer.

“Ornatrix tuto corpore semper erat.

Ante meos saepe est oculos ornata; nec unquam

Brachia derepta saucia fecit acu.”

The general elaboration of a fashionable Roman lady's toilet and the number of cosmetics used are amusingly described by Lucian (De Mercede Conductis, 36, &c.).

Dr. Henry Laver, of Colchester, has recalled to my memory a bas-relief in stone discovered at Neumagen, and now in the Museum at Trier, where I saw it in 1903. A lady seated in a wicker arm-chair is having her hair dressed by a maid, while another holds a mirror for her mistress to look at herself in it. A third person looks on (Arch. Jour., x1vi. p. 218). The whole is a Roman version of the Greek toilet-scenes on “stelae,” of which great numbers are preserved in the Athens Museum.

The full front fringe of hair (the “orbis”) had to be