The era of the city begins in the autumn of 47 B.C. Hence this coin, which is struck in high relief, dates from the second year of the reign of Trajan (autumn 98–99 A.D.). The head is not a likeness. The inscription on the reverse identifies the goddess represented with the Ἐκκλησία of the Aigeaians, a personification which has not hitherto, as far as I know, occurred on coins.

2. 26. Bust of the Caesar, laureate, to right, wearing cuirass and draped.

Rev. 1. in the field. Tyche seated to left, wearing a turreted crown and veil. In her right, a small temple represented in profile, with a statue under the arch of the façade and an eagle on the pediment. At the feet of the goddess a goat lying to left, its head reverted.

One of the best Greek vases we possess is the amphora No. 2160 in the Berlin Museum (Fig. 1 and Pll. XV.–XVI). There is something specially charming about these graceful woodland people, the dreaming Silens and their instruments of music, young Hermes with winged head and feet, the gentle fawn. The question, however, who painted the piece, has been variously answered. Furtwängler, in his catalogue, thought of Brygos, but some years later he attributed the vase to the painter called Kleophrades; and Winter said it was by Euphronios. A year ago, the present writer indicated five other vases by the same hand; and he now proposes to examine the work of this anonymous painter, who may be called the Master of the Berlin amphora; for although we possess a fair number of his paintings, none is quite so elaborate as this, though some of them are rightly admired.

Sillyon. Note on an inscription already published

CIG iii. 4324c = SGDI 1268. This inscription is carved in a panel on a rock to the west of the city, near the modern village. Height ·16 m., breadth ·175, letter and space down ·026, letter and space across ·019

Perhaps [Όλυμ]πιακοῦ, since ἱαρός can be used in connexion with the Games, as in Lanckoroński, Städte Pämphyliens und Pisidiens, i, p. 66; but the meaning is uncertain; ἱερά generally means ‘a dead-heat’ (LSJ ἱερός iv. 7).

Sillyon. New inscriptions

(1) A statue-base, near the Byzantine wall. Grey stone, the top and the lower part of the left side are preserved. The bottom is buried and the back is very rough, but may be original. Height over ·7, breadth c. ·65, thickness ·33+, letter height c. ·058, letter and space across ·056. Roman date.

Ten years ago an article in these pages stressed the importance of detailed analysis of the traditions involving the Carians, and archaeological evidence was used to check the assertions of the literary record. In that instance the extremer version of the tradition in question was shown to be largely inexact, while the less extreme preserved the probable truth of the Carians' habitual use of certain military devices. That the ghost of pan-Carianism should be well and truly laid is all to the good; yet I hope to show here that the literary record, such as it is, of the presence of Carians in the Lydian capital is reasonably substantiated by the archaeological and epigraphic material.

Herodotos' Carian source pointed to an old relationship between the Lydians and Carians, symbolised by the temple of Carian Zeus at Mylasa and by the kinship of the eponymous heroes Car and Lydus. According to this source linguistic affinities existed between Lydians and Carians. In Strabo's time Lydians and Carians together inhabited the plain of the Maeander, though the Carians evidently exercised sole possession of the land to the south of the river. In the late seventh and sixth centuries, however, Lydians and Carians lived cheek by jowl in Aphrodisias, and there is good archaeological and epigraphic evidence for a Lydian community in the city. Whether this means that we must attempt to redraw the boundary between Lydian- and Carian-speakers (if such a boundary is logically acceptable) or whether the Lydians represented a trading community in a foreign (if friendly) city, remains to be seen. There is some evidence to suggest that Carians were present in archaic Smyrna, and epigraphic documentation for their presence, if not in Ephesos, at any rate at Belevi. They had a natural interest in their northern neighbours.

We should like to make the following additions and modifications to our article ‘The Cycle of Agathias’ in JHS lxxxvi (1966) 6–25:

p. 7: We might have added that AP xiii, xiv, xv and probably iv as well are non-Cephalan.

p. 7, n. 11: We would now retract the view that Planudes used the Palatinus direct. Cf. Gow, Sources and ascriptions 51, and F. Lenzinger, Zur griechischen Anthologie (Diss. Zürich, 1965) 31–55. But our argument at, e.g., p. 12, para. 4, is unaffected, since it is clear that Planudes used a MS closely allied to the Palatinus (more closely, indeed, than Lenzinger, op. cit. 55, supposed).

p. 8, n. 18: We should now place Eutolmius in the Cycle rather than in Palladas' Sylloge, and probably admit Diogenes as well. Possibly also, on the strength of their titles, Thomas Scholasticus (xvi 315) who may be the Thomas mentioned by Agathias in xvi 80. This latter Thomas is probably not, as Beckby (index nom. s.v.) supposed, a painter, but the man who commissioned the painting in question or wrote the epigram for it (cf. G. Mathew, Byzantine Aesthetics [1963] 74). Mathew assumes that he is the Thomas Curator of xvi 41: this is certainly possible, but no more.

p. 10: i 34 was written before Agathias' fourth year of legal studies. It was in 551 or 552 that he began them (see ch. i of Averil Cameron's forthcoming monograph on Agathias), and so the poem can be dated to 554 or 555. For the question of the inclusion of this poem in the Cycle see below on p. 22.

To put forward ideas on the name and nature of Helen may seem hazardous. As to her name, Chantraine's ‘il est vain de chercher une étymologic’ is fair warning, and as to her nature, the views of Wilamowitz and Martin Nilsson, diametrically opposed as they are, reveal the uncertainty of the evidence. Nevertheless an attempt to outline the problems shall be made, and if any solutions are proposed, it must be understood that they are meant to be tentative.

The speeches of Critias and Theramenes form the central tableau of Xenophon's account of the reign of terror of the Thirty at Athens in 404–3 B.C. The purpose of the present paper is to examine the style and content of these speeches, in order to discover to what extent they may have been based on the texts of the original speeches. The vividness and pathos of the narrative of the siege of Athens, her surrender, the establishment of the Thirty and their expulsion have seemed to some commentators to have the quality of personal reminiscence. Recently the case for Xenophon's having been a witness of some of the events of this period has been argued anew, and in the present writer's view convincingly, by E. Delebecque, who refers to several passages which seem to convey personal impressions of events. Delebecque also argues, to the satisfaction of Sir Frank Adcock, that Xenophon composed this part of the Hellenica before setting out on the Cyreian Expedition. The acceptance of both these theses would add some weight to the present argument; but the possibilities here envisaged do not depend upon their support.

According to Xenophon's account, both speeches were delivered before the βουλή. The members of this body had been chosen by the Thirty, so that it seems certain that they were men who were known to favour the oligarchy. But whatever were Xenophon's political views at the time, it is unlikely that he was old enough to be a member in 404 B.C. Hence it is improbable that he heard either speech. Four possibilities may therefore be considered:

(1) That the substance of the speeches was reported to him from memory by a member, who perhaps took special pains to remember some of the purple passages.

(2) That his informant took the speeches down in shorthand.

(3) That Xenophon obtained complete copies of the speeches, and condensed them. (Both speeches as they stand are too short to be historical.)

(4) That the speeches in the Hellenica are entirely the product of his imagination.

In four of the last five numbers of the JHS, Doctors D. R. Dicks and D. O'Brien have disputed about Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff. (DK 12A19), which runs (in part, 471.2–6): καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῑ [i.e. ἐκ τῶν περὶ ἀστρολογίαν] περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν πλανωμένων καὶ περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἀποδέδεικται Ἀναξιμάνδρου πρώτου τὸν περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων λόγον εὑρηκότος, ὡς Εὔδημος ἱστορεῖ τὴν τῆς θέσεως τάξιν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους πρώτους ἀναψέρων. In his History of Greek philosophy (i 93), Professor Guthrie translates the latter part of this as follows: ‘(…speaking of the planets) “Anaximander was the first to discuss their sizes and distances, according to Eudemus, who attributes the first determination of their order to the Pythagoreans.”’ Guthrie, Dicks and O'Brien all agree that πλανωμένων is accurately translated as ‘planets’; they also evidently agree that Anaximander would not have distinguished the planets from the fixed stars, at least in this matter; and consequently Guthrie (op. cit. i 95) finds Simplicius' statement about Anaximander ‘confusing’; Dicks finds it ‘nonsensical’; and O'Brien speaks of Simplicius' ‘rather ragged context’, and supposes that Eudemus was actually speaking, not of planets, but of sun, moon and stars, i.e. that Simplicius has quite misrepresented his source.

The debate over the chronology of the history of Athens in the fifth century BC has entered a new phase recently with the publication by Mortimer Chambers and his colleagues of physical evidence that seems to confirm Harold Mattingly's view that a crucial inscription bearing three-bar sigmas and tailed rhos (IG i 11) was cut during the archonship of Antiphon in 418/7, and not during that of Habron in 458/7 as was generally thought.

In the present paper we continue the commentary begun in last year's Journal, and set forth the numismatic facts which ran parallel to those books of Pausanias which deal with the remainder of Peloponnesus; Laconia, Messenia, Elis, Achaia, and Arcadia. Athens, Phocis, and Boeotia still remain for future treatment.

In spite of our efforts to be complete, we have already discovered a number of coins of Corinth and Argos and the neighbouring cities which had escaped us, and which present new types, or important varieties of the types which appear in our plates. This will necessitate the publication of a supplement to our first paper. While this is in preparation numismatists will be doing the greatest service if they will let us have casts of any types in their possession which are omitted in the descriptions or the plates of this paper or the last. Casts of unusual coins of imperial times of Phocis or Boeotia will also be most welcome.

‘Thirdly we love-sick youths introduce also a cottabus to take its stand for you here in the gymnasium of Bromius, as a punch-ball. All you who are present entwine your fingers in the thongs of the cups (i.e. the cup-handles which serve as thongs); and (?) before fixing your eyes on it (the target), you should measure by pacing with your eyes the air high above the couch, and estimate the area over which the wine-drops are to extend.’

These lines are quoted by Athenaeus (668e) in his celebrated account of the Sicilian and Athenian after-dinner game of cottabus, a pastime which has long been a matter of academic controversy. In several points text and interpretation are not clear. In general, it is an elaborate jest in which a cottabus party is described in vocabulary appropriate to the gymnasium and its pursuits, the dining-room itself being called the γυμνάσιον Βρομίον.

In writing on Plutarch as a literary artist there is a tendency to confuse Plutarch's personality, which appears from his writings as ingenuous and somewhat naïve, with his style, which has all the sophistication of the classical renaissance of which his writings form a part. Actually, extensive acquaintance with many aspects of literary craftsmanship is visible in his work. His careful avoidance of hiatus was noticed as long ago as 1841 by Benseler. More recently it has been discovered that Plutarch writes rhythmical prose, with a great preference for certain definite forms. He is thoroughly versed in the various schemata for the presentation of material. Boissonade termed his style a mosaic because it is so well adapted for dealing with the various themes occurring in the Lives; Plutarch has in fact perfect command over matter and form as a result of a thorough acquaintance with a rich literary tradition.

The metaphors and similes which appear in this Life seem on a first reading in ill accord with the sophistication of its general craftsmanship. They are stereotyped into the thought-content, and even the diction, traditional for the symbolism they express. Their infrequency and the elaboration of the metaphors in particular makes them stand out starkly. This conspicuousness and careful articulation is significant. The metaphors and similes are in fact strikingly put so that they emphasise the passages in which they occur, and recall one another vividly to mind. Analysis reveals that they are used in two ways: as points of reference and emphasis (they occur only at important junctures) and to indicate the unity of lengthy passages. Long and elaborate metaphors occur at 11.1, 35.1, and 46.4, marking respectively the Germanic war, the civil war, and Marius' fate and death. A metaphor and simile grouped together, at 23.1 and at 32.1, 3 respectively, tell of Catulus' reverse and the Social War; two similes commence the developments which are to lead to Marius' death at 45.1–2. Less striking metaphors anticipate the civil war (10.5) and the Marian massacre (43.4).

The orthodox date for Solon's archonship, 594/3, was undisputed until the discovery of the Athenaion Politeia; then two passages in this treatise cast doubt upon this date and introduced further problems. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider these two passages and to show that the Ath. Pol. in fact gives the date of Solon's archonship, during which the Seisachtheia was enacted, as 594/3, and gives the date of a second commission, during which the Nomothesia was passed, as 592/1; and I shall then consider how far the narratives of Plutarch and Aristotle imply that Solon held two separate commissions. My paper accordingly falls into two sections: the chronological data, and the Seisachtheia and the Nomothesia.

We would gladly give the mediocre textiles preserved in South Russian graves, if Fate had spared a masterpiece of Greek tapestry which we know only from description. It leads a shadowy existence in handbooks, and one can hardly say that recent papers mark any advance towards its precise interpretation.

(i) Aristotle, de miris auscult. 96, 838a.

.

In the course of examining Roman imperial medallions and coins in connexion with a study of Roman cult images, representations of Herakles Crowning Himself, a figure which appears on the reverses of medallions of Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus (Plate I, 2), and Commodus (Plate I, 3), merit further comment. These reverses, whether with or without legend, exhibit identical compositions. In the centre a young, beardless Herakles stands facing, his right hand raised in the act of placing a crown on his head; his left hand, close to his left hip, holds the club upwards in the crook of the elbow. Between club and elbow, the lion's skin hangs down over the forearm to a point midway along the left leg. The head, both forepaws, and tail are clearly visible dangling below. On all the medallions the die designer has made very clear the, important point that Herakles rests his weight on the left foot, with left hip thrown out and the right foot slightly back and out, giving a pronounced bow curve to the right side of the body from foot to shoulder. To Herakles' right and slightly behind him appears an apple tree on one branch of which hang the hero's quiver and bow; to his left rear is seen a square altar, festooned with garlands and with an offering burning on the top, and in her comprehensive monograph on Roman medallions J. M. C. Toynbee suggests that ‘the picture as a whole had been inspired by some bas-relief or painting now lost to us’. The question of relating the central figure to the whole composition will be taken up in Part II, in reappraising the general problem of famous statue types in medallion compositions. For the moment we may see what further progress may be made in identifying the statue type of the young Herakles Crowning Himself.

This paper is an amplification of that much quoted passage of Thucydides ἐπορεύθησαν δὲ πεƷῇ ἐς Ἀπολλωνίαν. Of this land route, which enabled the Corinthians to get troops up to Epidamnus in despite of Corcyra, we know something andcan guess more, and in view of the undoubted importance of this part of the Greek world to Corinth, it may be worth while to try to fit the isolated facts together and reconstruct a picture of a short phase of Epirote and Acarnanian history in the latter half of the fifth century. It is certain that the north-west ranked as one of Corinth's vital interests. There is no need to quote other evidence when there is the specific statement of the Corinthian ambassador before the Athenian demos that it was a necessity for Corinth to sail to Corcyra. It is beyond the scope of this paper to enquire why this was so; all that is here attempted is a correlation of the facts about the land route, how Corinth and Apollonia contrived to open it, how Corinth and Ambracia tried to keep it open, and how by the end of the Archidamian War Athens had succeeded in closing it. The evidence is not copious, but of good quality; Thucydides is contemporary, Pausanias quotes contemporary sources, and the mountains, rivers, and valleys of the north-west are silent witnesses.

The route falls naturally into three parts, the Acarnanian, the Epirote, and the Illyrian. It will be convenient to consider the Acarnanian section first, and the other two sections in the order mentioned.

During a visit to Constantinople in July 1905 I spent some little time in studying the base of the obelisk of Theodosius in the Hippodrome (Fig. 1). An examination of the construction of the base and its sculpture led to the view that it was composed of material older than the reign of Theodosius. I subsequently read a paper on the subject at an open meeting of the British School at Rome. In the summer of 1906, Mr. Traquair, architectural student of the British School at Athens, made a detailed study of the construction of the base. His conclusions confirm the view which I had previously expressed. The present paper, which merely claims to put forward the reasons for assigning an earlier date to the base as briefly and clearly as possible, consists of two parts, Mr. Traquair's architectural report, and my own archaeological discussion of the questions raised. Both Mr. Traquair and myself owe much to the kind assistance of Dr. Van Millingen, for but for his aid this paper would never have been written.

The question as to the sources of metals in ancient Greece, as also in the whole of Europe, in the bronze age, has for some time exercised archaeologists. Apart from certain regions, little exploration has been carried out with regard to ancient mines, and there has especially been a tendency to take a long view in archaeology, and to connect across considerable distances regions where metal is known to have been worked in early times with regions where there is no information on the subject. But early mines are often hard to detect, as either the ore was completely exhausted, or the early workings have been obliterated by later peoples. There is, however, room for much careful investigation in this field, and metal being one of the most important objects of early commerce, the discovery of the sources used should throw a considerable light on this extremely complicated subject.

Fire-festivals are widespread throughout the world. They occur in Europe to the present day. Bonfires are kindled at certain times of the year, especially in Lent and on St. John's Day. Sometimes the fire is kindled on a hill or a mountain-top, sometimes in the plain or in the village; often a figure with varying names is burnt, and in some countries living beasts were once burnt in the flames of the pyre.

The fire-festivals of ancient Greece have not attracted much attention among scholars. The custom is not very common, it varies considerably in details and has been appropriated by different deities in different localities, so that the identity of the rite has been obscured. The best known cases are from Central Greece. In the cult of Artemis Laphria at Patrae, formerly at Calydon, living beasts—birds, boars, stags, wolves, bears, and their young—were thrown into the flames of a great pyre. In the cult of the same goddess at Hyampolis in Phocis human images and other paraphernalia were laid on the pyre. On the top of Mount Cithaeron a pyre was built with great care, a wooden image, called Hera, was brought thither in grand procession from the town of Plataeae, and sometimes other images from other Boeotian towns were added. On the spot each town offered an ox to Zeus and a cow to Hera; these were filled with incense, and together with the images were burnt on the pyre. Private people also made their offerings. It seems that a similar festival at Tithorea in Phocis was transferred to Isis.

Alkaios refers to Pittakos as one who has ‘acquired an Atreid wife’ in fragment 70 Voigt. This paper looks at the connotations of that statement in the text of the Lesbian poet, and its significance for the history of the Greek idea of ancestral fault.