Headlam wrote: ‘ἔτι ἄγχϵι in conjunction with 1.18 n. suggests amatory capabilities[1] … [Battaros'] powers of “wrestling” being compared with Mennes' old victories at boxing. Either this or Blass' supposition that he is a street rowdy will suit τοῦ ἡλίου δύντος: the former hypothesis suits better the character of Battaros…’ I have no doubt that the word ἄγχϵι, like the πύξ which it matches in 1. 11, is a double-meaning one, and contains the sense: ἔτι οἴός τε ἐστὶ γυναικὶ συγγίγνεσθαι. That, as a buffoon's method of raising a laugh, the punning use of ἅγχω and a congener in their agonistic and erotic senses would not be alien to the proceedings of even a real court, let alone the fictional court of a literary genre having affinities with Old Comedy, is shown by Dem. liv 20 (Contra. Con. 1263.5), where it is assumed that defendants on a charge of assault will try τὸ πρᾶγμα ‥ εἰς γέλωτα καὶ σκώμματ᾽ ἐμβαλεῖν (liv 13 = 1261.13).

In proffering this attempt at providing a new principle for the interpretation of the Eastern Pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, founded upon the recognition of the general principles of pedimental compositions as they manifest themselves after a careful study of the extant monuments of this class, and, more especially, upon a comparison between this Olympian pediment and the western pediment of the Parthenon, the writer fears that he may meet with prejudice on the part of those who have already fixed in their minds an essentially different mode of approaching the subject. He fears this the more as it is entirely beyond his power on this occasion to give a full account of these general principles, or rather of the traditional forms of rendering mythological scenes in compositions of this class, as they have manifested themselves to him in studying a considerable number of ancient representations of mythological scenes for the purpose of elucidating the composition of the pediments of the Parthenon.

The subject of the exploits of Theseus as seen on Greek vase-paintings has recently been treated by Professor Milani in a long and interesting paper in the Museo Italiano di antichità classica (iii. 1, p. 236). I propose therefore to set aside all general consideration of the myth and its typography, and to confine myself to the discussion and elucidation of two hitherto unpublished vases (plates I., II.), one of them included in Professor Milani's list, one entirely unknown to him, and both, as I hope to show, having strong claims on the attention of archaeologists. They are (1) a red-figured vase, which for convenience sake I shall call from its owner the Tricoupi cylix; (2) the fragments of a red-figured cylix from the De Luynes collection in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

1. The Tricoupi cylix, plate I. When I was in Athens in the spring of 1888, Miss Tricoupi with her accustomed kindness, so familiar to all visitors to Athens, allowed me to examine at my leisure her brother's collection of antiquities. I found to my surprise that it contained a vase which I have reason to believe is from the hand of Duris, and of which, so far as I am aware, no mention has been made in the numerous discussions of vases dealing with the exploits of Theseus, and which therefore, I suppose to be entirely unknown. I record here my grateful thanks to Miss Tricoupi for her kind permission to publish the vase, and for her goodness in facilitating its exact reproduction. The drawing from which plate I. is facsimiled was made for me by M. Gilliéron under my own personal supervision, and I can therefore vouch for its perfect accuracy. I was specially anxious to secure its.immediate publication as, though the vase is at present in such safe hands, the security of antiquities in private collections is always precarious.

Letters Slight apices. Date about 200 B.C.; not earlier. Line 1: iota adscriptum possibly omitted in Line 21: for see I.B.M. 925 (Branchidae). In line 12 there is a space after indicating a stop, but Mr. Paton cannot find any trace of after

Telmissos is described by Polemo (apud Suidam s.v.) as a town in Caria at a distance of sixty stadia from Halicarnassos [which answers very nearly to the distance between Budrum and the site above Ghiöl (J. L. M.)]. It has been frequently confused with its namesake, an important city in the west of Lycia. But we may take it for granted now that it was the little Carian town that was so famous in ancient times for its augury. Cicero is quite explicit on the point (De Divin. i. 41): Telmessus in Caria est, qua in urbe excellit haruspicum disciplina; and again in ch. 42: Turn Caria tota, praecipueque Telmesses, quos ante dixi, quod agros uberrimos maximeque fertiles incolunt, in quibus multa propter fecunditatem fingi gignique possunt, in ostentis animadvertendis diligentes fuerunt.

A recent discovery on the island of Aegina by Professor H. Walter (University of Salzburg) throws a new light on the origins of the so-called Aegina Treasure in the British Museum.

In 1982 the Austrians were excavating the Bronze Age settlement on Cape Kolonna, to the north-west of Aegina town. Immediately to the east of the ruined Temple of Apollo, and close to the South Gate of the prehistoric Lower Town, they found an unrobbed shaft grave containing the burial of a warrior. The gravegoods (now exhibited in the splendid new Museum on the Kolonna site) included a bronze sword with a gold and ivory hilt, three bronze daggers, one with gold fittings, a bronze spear-head, arrowheads of obsidian, boar's tusks from a helmet, and fragments of a gold diadem (plate Va). The grave also contained Middle Minoan, Middle Cycladic, and Middle Helladic (Mattpainted) pottery. The pottery and the location of the grave in association with the ‘Ninth City’ combine to give a date for the burial of about 1700 BC; and the richness of the grave-goods would suggest that the dead man was a king.

John Boardman has pointed to the squat bronze jugs with lotus handles from early Iron Age contexts in Crete and at Lefkandi on Euboia as Egyptian imports ‘certainly straight from Egypt itself with no eastern intermediaries’. On close inspection, however, the Egyptian antecedents of these jugs pose a chronological, and even a philosophical, puzzle; whatever the solution, the jugs found in Crete and at Lefkandi surely do not furnish convincing evidence for early direct connections between Egypt and the Aegean.

II ne saurait ici être question de rencontrer, point par point, toutes les observations de M. Lloyd: ceci exigerait un nouveau tour d'horizon allant du fusil de Ferguson au pantheon adoré à Prw-Nfr et nous éloignerait sensiblement de ce qui me paraît être l‘essentiel de la controverse; l‘essentiel, à mon sens, est ceci.

Dans le JHS de 1975, M. Lloyd soutenait les quatre propositions suivantes:

(1) La trière phénicienne ne différait guère de la trière grecque: e‘était ‘essentially (souligné par moi) a Greek hull’, avec adjonction d‘un pont continu et de superstructures perfectionnées.

(2) La trière grecque a été inventée à Corinthe au je s., alors que les Phéniciens ne connaissaient pas encore ce type de navire.

(3) La construction des premières trières phéniciennes est due à une influence grecque.

(4) Parallèlement à l‘influence exercée, dans le domaine de l‘architecture des trières, de la Grèce vers la Phénicie, une mêne influence s‘est exercée sur l’Egypte qui, sous le règne de Nechao, a construit des trières de type grec.

In this paper, I explore the literary aesthetics of Attalid Pergamon, one of the Ptolemies’ fiercest cultural rivals in the Hellenistic period. Traditionally, scholars have reconstructed Pergamene poetry from the city’s grand and monumental sculptural programme, hypothesizing an underlying aesthetic dichotomy between the two kingdoms: Alexandrian ‘refinement’ versus the Pergamene ‘baroque’. In this paper, I critically reassess this view by exploring surviving scraps of Pergamene poetry: an inscribed encomiastic epigram celebrating the Olympic victory of a certain Attalus (IvP I.10) and an inscribed dedicatory epigram featuring a speaking Satyr (SGO I.06/02/05). By examining these poems’ sophisticated engagements with the literary past and contemporary scholarship, I challenge the idea of a simple opposition between the two kingdoms. In reality, the art and literature of both political centres display a similar capacity to embrace both the refined and the baroque. In conclusion, I ask how this analysis affects our interpretation of the broader aesthetic landscape of the Hellenistic era and suggest that the literature of both capitals belongs to a larger system of elite poetry which stretched far and wide across the Hellenistic world.