I must ask the readers of the Hellenic Journal to take the somewhat disjointed notes that follow strictly for what they are, namely, addenda to my paper in last year's Journal (vol. xxiii. 1903) on the ‘Mystica Vannus Iacchi.’

My object in writing that paper was to elucidate the mysticism of the ‘fan’ and thereby, I hoped, to throw some light on an obscure chapter in the history of Greek religion, namely the shift from the worship of Demeter to that of Dionysos. Incidentally it became necessary to examine the various forms of winnowing ‘fans.’ My personal interest in this necessary step in my argument was slight and my statement of evidence, I fear, inadequate and superficial. Since the appearance of the article many friendly critics have supplied me with material to fill the gaps left by my ignorance, and the examination of this material has not been without its use to me in clearing up some obscurities as to the mysticism of the fan.

This interesting type, of which six replicas are known, has received comparatively little attention at the hands of archaeologists. One authority (see Roscher, Lexikon, pp. 1117–8) treats it as an example of a Hellenistic statue of the bearded Dionysos, adducing numismatic evidence for purposes of comparison. There is, however, no evidence of the erection of cultus statues of the Bearded Dionysos either during the later fourth century or the Hellenistic age, and this work alone is quoted as at once the justification and the example of the assertion. Nor can the coins be considered copies of contemporary statues: they are mere types, possibly reminiscences of existing works, certainly nothing more. No better instance of the use made by fourth century die-cutters of a cultus statue could be given than the Olympian Zeus as he appears on the coinage of Alexander compared with the representation on the famous Elean coin of the time of Hadrian.

The following paper is due entirely to the suggestion, advice, and guidance of my father. But he wishes me to say that he has given me simply the same help that he has already given to many and is anxious to give to others still.

The aim of this paper is to show by examples that there is a native and indigenous art peculiar to a certain part of Asia Minor, the only part I have yet seen, namely, the district around the city of Nova Isaura. It has already been observed both by Prof. Ramsay and by others, that certain artistic forms are characteristic of certain districts of Asia Minor. In many places these forms have persisted from ancient times down almost to the present day. Thus all the carpets and embroideries woven at the village of Ladik (the ancient Laodicea Katakekaumene), nine hours north of Iconium, until the middle of last century, when the old manufacture ceased, show a vase of particular shape, while another vase of a different form is peculiar to the carpets made at Mudjur in Cappadocia.

I have already published in the pages of this Journal some of the vases acquired by the Ashmolean Museum since the catalogue of Ashmolean vases appeared in 1893.

In vol. xviii, p. 136 is published a late Attic vase with a representation of the carrying off of Oreithyia by Boreas. In vol. xxi, p. 1 is published a red-figured vase representing Pandora rising out of the ground. In vol. xv, p. 325 two sepulchral lekythi are published. Two other papers (xiii. 70 and 137) comment upon vases already included in the Ashmolean catalogue, Nos. 211, 275, one concerned with the myth of Cacus, one with that of Tithonus and Eos.

The progress of excavations in Crete has made it possible to distinguish with some degree of certainty the native from the imported objects found on Mycenaean sites in Greece. The purpose of this paper is to make known some fine examples of ‘Late Minoan’ art found at Vaphio in Laconia, Phylakopi in Melos, and Mycenae itself, and to show on what grounds they are to be regarded as of Cretan workmanship.

Mr. A. M. Daniel's article on the above subject (pp. 41 seq.) is so thorough and convincing that it hardly requires further support. But in view of the widespread acceptance of the attribution of the Lycosura statues to a late Roman date, I think a few words in further confirmation of his contention are not out of place.

In spite of the almost unanimous volte-face in the opinion of archaeologists since Dr. Doerpfeld expressed his doubts as to the Greek character of the buildings at Lycosura, my own view (expressed in the Athenaeum, March 22nd, 1890, and at a public meeting of the American School at Athens, January 6th, 1891) that Damophon's work belongs to the first half of the fourth century B.C. has not been shaken. Of course we must all remember that we have here to deal with the question of probability and not of certainty. Yet within these limits it appears to me that the balance of evidence strongly inclines towards the fourth century B.C.

Among the silver rings in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum are seven which have a stud or nail of gold driven through the bezel. The intaglio designs on these rings are as follows:—

(1) Two sphinxes confronted. (2) Ox-head and bird placed opposite one another on oblong bezel. (3) Recumbent lion to r. looking back over its shoulder. Cf. Furtwängler, Besehreibung der geschn. Steine im Antiq., No. 152. These three designs are archaic in style. (4) Woman seated to r., holding out dove on 1. hand. Cf. a coin of Eryx (Gardner, Types of Greek Coins, PI. VI. 3). On the ring a wreath takes the place of the standing Eros. (5) Design similar to last, but in reverse direction; no wreath.

The last two rings are of good style, but poor execution (4th—3rd cent. B.C.). (6) Very much worn; a female figure can be made out. (7) A very curious design, which I am unable to explain. A jackal's head surmounts a vaselike object. Before the head is a curved, behind, a straight handle (?).

Dr. Charles Waldstein, in his article entitled ‘The Bronze Statue from Cerigotto and the Study of Style,’ which appeared in vol. xxiv, pp. 129–134 of this Journal, published a protest against the methods and results of my research.

If I reply to Dr. Waldstein's statements by a counter-protest, I do so only in deference to the high scientific position occupied by this Journal, the organ of a Society which has conferred on me the distinction of honorary membership. As to the general question of Dr. Waldstein's scientific work, on which the value of his criticism depends, I have already expressed my opinion in my notice of his ‘Argive Heraeum’ written for the Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, July 1904.

The inscription of which a facsimile is given below is incised on the base of a bronze statuette which has lately been acquired by the Cairo Museum: The statuette itself represents Isis seated on a throne suckling the child Horus. It is an ordinary Egyptian type and there is nothing Greek about the work except the inscription. Its provenance unfortunately is unknown.

The letters run round the four sides of the plinth (as shown in the facsimile), those in front being bordered by two horizontal strokes. In the second line the surface is injured between the Τ and the O, but nothing appears to be lost. What ἐλύσατο means is not clear: one would naturally take the inscription to be a dedication, in which case the verb might be interpreted as ‘offered in fulfilment of a vow’ possibly, however, the words refer to some particular incident, such as the rescue of the sacred image from an enemy. The alphabet is Ionian: so too are the proper names and the genitive-ending Ἔσιος. The best known Pythermos of whom there is any record is the Phocaean ambassador who figures in a characteristic episode in Herodotus (i. 152). A Graeco-Egyptian inscription in the Alexandria Museum (Botti, Cat. p. 253) mentions another Neilon, the father of a certain Pythogeiton: in this case the family came from Samos.