As regards Aristotle's Περὶ φυτῶν ᾱβ mentioned in Diog. Laert.'s list (nr. 108), Alexander's Statement is decisive: … ἔστι περὶ φυτῶν Θεοφράστῳ πραγματεία γεγραμμένη ᾿Αριστοτέλους γὰροὐ φέρεται and though Simplicius and others occasionally refer to a πραγματεία περὶ φυτῶν there is no indication that they ever saw the book with their own eyes. Aristotle's treatise On Plants, therefore, seems to have disappearedat an early date, and since the quotations in Antigonus, Athenaeus and others are concerned with insignificant details, they cannot give any hint as to its contents.

It has often been asked whether there exists any relation between this lost treatise and the two books Περὶ φυτῶν which are incorporated into all editions of the Corpus Aristotelicum (pp. 814–830 Bk.), but the question has never received a definite answer. There are good reasons for this reticence, for though these books were identified more than a century ago as a work of Nicolaus of Damascus, the text is in such a deplorable condition that it seemed to resist every attempt at interpretation. However, since in 1841 E. H. F. Meyer published the Arabic-Latin translation made by Alfred of Sareshel (the exemplar of the clumsy Greek rendering whichwas already known), the material has considerably increased.

The Turkish conquest of Greece produced four Greek historians—Laonikos Chalkokondyles, Doukas, Phrantzes and the Turkophil Imbrian, Kritoboulos. I have already dealt with the first; the present paper treats of the second and third of the four. Doukas' history has been preserved not only in the Greek text but also in an old Italian version, which in some places supplies materials lacking in our Greek original. Doukas is an author worthy of study; for he was truthful and in several instances an eye-witness—qualities which, in the opinion of historians, far outweigh the barbarism of his style, which so much offended his supercilious editor in the defective Bonn edition.

My remarks about the Mithraeum at Capua in J.H.S. 1925, p. 100, require correction in view of Professor Minto's excellent publication of his discovery in Notizie degli scavi, 1924, p. 353 ff. It is not true that ‘the initiate … appears to be represented as a child, not as a man.’ In the stucco decorations of the podia the initiate is in fact represented as smaller than the mystagogue and the officiating priest (see figures 10–15 in Minto's article). It is possible that the officiants were supposed to act the parts of divine personages and were therefore represented as larger than human in accordance with a common artistic convention. In any case there is in the stuccos no additional evidence for Mithraic belief in the rebirth of the initiate as a child.

The writers who discuss in detail the history of Macedonia during the years of ‘The Kings,’ Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV (323–317 B.C.), state or assume that Roxane, the widow of Alexander the Great, fled to Queen Olympias in Epirus with her little son, after the death of Antipater, or else that she was sent or taken there by Polyperchon at the time when Queen Eurydice was putting Cassander in Polyperchon's place as her husband's prime minister. The stay of the mother and son in Epirus and their return with Olympias when she entered Macedonia to fight at Evia with Eurydice and Philip Arrhidaeus for the kingdom are mentioned by such authorities as Grote, Niese, Beloch, Kaerst, Staehelin (Berve, also, refers to Kaerst and Staehelin for this part of Roxane's history), Klotzsch, and Tarn.

In past numbers of the Annual of the British School at Athens and elsewhere I have tried to deal with some of the questions connected with Byzantine Music, and, having brought to a close my studies of the Round or Later Mediaeval System, I am unwilling to leave the subject without giving my views on the abstruse and difficult problem of the older notation.

The later forms of the Linear or Neume System have a visible likeness to the earlier forms of the Round System already familiar, and hence all investigators seem to have started with the idea that the general principles of decipherment could be transferred from the later to the earlier stage, or, in other words, that the task simply consisted in the interpretation of certain interval-signs possessing fixed value. But of the two scholars who have published their researches in this field, Gastoué and Riemann, neither has been able to carry this principle through, and their proposed solutions fail to give us such a chain of interval-signs as we are tempted to expect.

In his article on the Colossus of Rhodes in JHS lxxvi, Mr. Herbert Maryon argues that the statue was not cast as is usually assumed, but formed of hammered bronze plates. He bases his argument on the figure of 500 talents given by Philo Byz. (iv. 6) for the weight of bronze used in the statue. A statue 120 feet high using this quantity of metal would, he calculates, have walls rather less than one-fifteenth of an inch thick, which would be impossibly thin for a large casting.

In the following Bibliography, which continues that of J.H.S. xli. 50 ff., I attempt to deal with the publications of 1921 and 1922, though a few books and articles are noticed which, though they appeared in previous years, only came under my notice in the period in question. It must be borne in mind that periodicals sometimes fall into arrears, and thus the actual year of publication may be later than the nominal year as indicated in the title. I have seriously modified the geographical order hitherto followed in my Bibliographies so as to bring it into strict accord, so far as the inscriptions of Europe are concerned, with that of the Inscriptiones Graecae; for those of Asia and Africa I follow the order adopted in the C.I.G.

The mass of the relevant material has rendered necessary the utmost compression, and, while I have aimed at introducing some reference to every contribution to Greek epigraphical studies, I have found it impossible to summarise or to indicate the value of each. No mention is normally made of reviews, but I have occasionally added references to them for special reasons, e. g. because of the value of their positive contribution to the study, or because they afford a ready means of surveying the contents of the books to which they relate.

The question when, and by whom, our constellations were invented, will probably never lose its fascination, because it is never likely to find its solution. For those who have allowed themselves to be brought under its spell the name of Cleostratus has a special interest. If we could by any means learn more about the man who is said to have been in some sort the deviser of our zodiac, we might obtain a light upon the history of the celestial globe which at present seems likely to be for ever withheld, unless some Egyptian papyrus should reveal some part of the lost History of Astronomy by Eudemus.

By his careful collection—in the December number of this Journal, 1919—of all the notices that we have of Cleostratus, Dr. W. K. Fotheringham therefore deserves a gratitude which I am the more anxious to express because I cannot at all agree with the theory of Babylonian influence which he deduces from them, nor with the interpretation of Greek and Latin passages which he puts forward in support of that theory. The latter point I could willingly leave to the criticism of scholars abler than myself, whom I cannot think likely to be convinced by Dr. Fotheringham that the passages bear the sense which he has endeavoured to extract from them.

House-Pits or ‘bothroi’ have been uncovered on various sites of the Early Bronze Age in Greece, notably at Korakou, Gonia, and Zygouries in the Korinthia, at Asine in the Argolis, and at Eutresis and Orchomenos in Boiotia. They vary considerably in size and shape and the explanations of their purposes advanced by archaeologists are scarcely more uniform. They have been interpreted as common or as sacrificial rubbish pits, as hearths or slow ovens or as ‘silos’ (that is, cupboards for the storage of grain or other food).

The theory that such bothroi were underground ovens has recently been championed by Dr. Mylonas, who found one in a neolithic deposit at Olynthos in Macedonia, and who gives an illuminating account of the construction of such an oven at the present day in the neighbouring village of Myriophyto, inhabited by refugees from Asia Minor. The modern oven, or ‘ταντοῦρι,’ was prepared in the following manner.

Furtwängler's reconstructions of the pediments of the temple of Aphaia, though in the main right, can be improved in certain details. The object of these notes is to criticise certain suggested improvements. I take the West pediment first. Schrader has recently advocated a return to something like the Cockerill scheme. His chief objections to Furtwängler are that the blocks of the Geison as arranged by Furtwängler do not agree with the footprints of the figures which they are meant to carry, that Furtwängler's assumption of a fourth prostrate figure is based on a fragmentary arm which may well belong to the East pediment, that the combatants should be divided into friends on one side of Athena and foes on the other, and that it is impossible for the archers to shoot out into space. I take these points in order. Furtwängler, as far as possible, put the Geison blocks in positions corresponding to those in which they were found; Schrader's chief objection is to Block 5, in which, he says, the space is not the right shape for the plinth of the Athena, but there is no doubt that there is room enough, and as no ancient edge of this plinth is preserved, how can we tell what was its shape? Secondly, the only evidence (fr. 62) which Schrader adduces for a piece of one pediment being found among the remains of the other rests, as Pfuhl has shown, on a misprint. The desire to have friends on one side of the pediment and foes on the other is purely modern; the Gigantomachies of the Megarian treasury and the Hekatompedon and the Centauromachy of the West pediment at Olympia all take no account of the sides of the pediment in dividing the combatants. Schrader quotes no parallels for his own reconstruction (Fig. 2) because there are none; it involves far too much overlapping, which Greek sculptors of the archaic period avoided when working in the round; Schrader has to assume that a piece was cut out of the shield of the figure which lies in front of Athena to make room for her legs. Furtwängler, however, can adduce numerous parallels from Greek vases for his reconstruction (Fig. 1): the Geryon cup of Euphronios has just such a battle over a fallen foe with Athena helping one of the combatants. The reason for this similarity of composition is not that both were borrowing from Samian models, as Furtwängler suggests: the West was ahead of the East in such things: there is no cross-influence, but the compositional problem of the pediment is the same as that of the outside of the cup. Studniczka also suggested that the archers should be turned inwards, but this transposition spoils the central groups and puts the caesura too near the outside: the Furtwängler group would naturally be completed by a friend of the fallen man, but this is precluded by the raking cornice. Another transposition is more likely. Wolters wanted to transpose nos. 1 and 13, and correspondingly 33 and 24. There is some evidence for this, because in Cockerell's first drawing, when he was most influenced by the position in which the figures were actually found, no. 13 is placed in the corner. Nos. 1 and 33 are more weathered than no. 13, which would be curious if they had been in the corners protected by the slanting Geison. Nos. 1 and 33, if placed in the middle, obscure the legs of the combatants less than would no. 13 and its fellow. Nos. 1 and 33 are nearer death than no. 13, therefore it is natural to fight over their bodies and to fight with no. 13.