Some years ago M. Miller began an article in this Journal with the statement, ‘Classical Greek kinship terminology, as it is used for example by Isaios, offers few difficulties of meaning in its terms.’ She then constructed a chart to show the ‘principal usages’. A review of the evidence indicates that this chart was probably based on Pollux’ discussion of kinship terms; at any rate it simply does not reflect the actual usage of Attic prose writers (the ten orators, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato). For example the chart shows that the terms for uncle are μήτρως (maternal uncle) and πάτρως (paternal uncle). Neither of these terms is used in Attic prose at all, and there is only one occurrence in Attic poetry: μήτρωσιν (dative plural) in Euripides, referring to a maternal grandfather (plural for the singular) or maternal ancestors in general. The Attic term for uncle (either paternal or maternal) is simply θϵῖος. By way of comparison we may note that Herodotus always uses μήτρως and πάτρως, never θϵῖος. Again in the case of terms for one's male affines Miss Miller lists words which do not occur in Attic prose, πϵνθϵρός, πϵνθϵριδοῦς, and δαήρ, as well as γαμβρός, which occurs but once.

The present bibliography, relating to the years 1950 and 1951, follows the same lines as those of former years. Books and articles which I know only at second hand are marked by an asterisk. My cordial thanks are due to those scholars who have lightened my burden by sending me copies of their works.

Death has inflicted severe losses on epigraphical studies. Adolf Wilhelm, who for more than half a century stood in the foremost rank of Greek epigraphists and maintained his tireless activity, despite increasing infirmity, until nearing his eighty-seventh year, died in Vienna on August 10, 1950. Quis desiderio sit pudor aut modus tam cari capitis? J. J. E. Hondius, founder and editor of SEG and Secretary of the Epigraphical Congress which met at Amsterdam in 1938, died suddenly at the Hague on November 5, 1950, in his fifty-fourth year; in him ‘epigraphy has lost one of its most devoted and tireless servants, and all scholars in his field will mourn his passing’. Among others who have recently died are G. M. Bersanetti, E. Capps, E. Hermann, M. Launey, G. P. Oikonomos, A. Olivieri, A. Passerini, A. Stein, and N. Vulič. Further tributes have been paid to the work of P. Jouguet, A. Rehm, and P. Roussel.

When I wrote my paper on this coinage which was published in this Journal (1911, pp. 151–160) I was unaware that a find of coins had then recently taken place at Vourla (Clazomenae), which at once added to our knowledge of the coins of the Revolt, and confirmed my attribution of them. This find has been published in the Revue Numismatique (1911, p. 60), by M. R. Jameson, who being unacquainted with my previous paper published in the Proceedings of the British Academy for 1908 (vol. iii. pp. 119–122) came independently to the same conclusions as myself and gave the find to the time of the Ionian Revolt. Such support as that of M. Jameson greatly strengthens my position.

Technicians at the J. Paul Getty Museum have kindly informed me that the ring turns out not to be of solid gold but rather a substantial gold-plate. Analysis has not yet been done, but the metal underneath is most probably bronze.

At Iliad xxiii 192—211, Iris carries Achilles' prayer to the banqueting winds, in a passage whose humour offers relief after the funeral of Patroclus. At the same time, both in its immediate context and in its relation to Iris' two missions in Book xxiv, the scene contributes to Homer's presentation of the relation between gods and men.

The passage describes divine aid testifying to that concern of the gods for men which is to be so important in Book xxiv; and it immediately follows the account of another manifestation of divine concern, one which looks forward more directly to the next book—the description, at 184—91, of the protection of Hector's body by Aphrodite and Apollo. The fact that Homer anticipated here the description at xxiv 18—21 of Apollo's protection of the body points to the importance of the concern thus emphasised. In its position preceding the episode of the winds—rather than, for instance, following Achilles' earlier threats of maltreatment at xxiii 21–5—the description seems designed also to underline the fact that the parallel between Hector and Patroclus, most obvious in their deaths, is maintained here: both are the objects of divine aid, which in both cases takes the same form, the warding off of a threat to the hero's corpse, whether it is that of maltreatment by Achilles or the lesser threat of the pyre's failure to burn.

In a paper read at the R. Accademia dei Lincei in Rome I communicated the result of my studies upon three of the bronze inscriptions (Nos. 362, 56, 363) found at Olympia, and published in the Archäologische Zeitung. Amongst other inscriptions from the same place recently published in the last number of the same periodical there are two (Nos. 382, 383) deserving the same attention, and demanding it all the more since Professor Kirchhoff in giving them to the public has declared himself unable to divine their meaning. Here I submit to the judgment of the readers of this journal my contribution to the question. My studies are only founded on the facsimile taken from a rubbing and published in the Archäologische Zeitung, together with Dr. Purgold's account of the material condition of the two monuments. I have thought it necessary to give my readers a phototypic copy of the facsimile itself, reduced to smaller proportions. Further particulars will be found in the Archäologische Zeitung, 1881, pp. 78 seq.

In the following pages I present a brief survey of those works in the field of Greek epigraphy which have come to my notice, directly or through reviews or bibliographies, between September 1945 and the close of 1947, marking by an asterisk those which I have been unable personally to consult. Among them are some books and articles published previously, but omitted from my last bibliography because still unknown to me when that was compiled. Even now I fear that many inevitable gaps remain, for the libraries to which I have access are still far from possessing all the relevant books and periodicals issued during and since the War. To all authors who, by sending me offprints of their works, have greatly lightened my task I express my cordial gratitude.

Greek epigraphical studies have suffered severe losses in the period under review. The death, on 10th December 1944, of the eminent Director of the Inscriptiones Graecae, U. Wilcken, was followed, on 25th October 1947, by that of the veteran epigraphist and indefatigable worker F. Hiller von Gaertringen, who had celebrated his eightieth birthday on 3rd August 1944. Other serious losses are those of A. S. Arvanitopoulos, L. Bizard, P. Collart, F. Cumont, E. Groag, J. Hatzfeld, A. E. Kondoleon, G. Lafaye, N. Pappadakis, and P. Roussel. The report of the deaths of M. Feyel and M. Segre has unhappily been confirmed. Appreciations of the characters and achievements of J. Kirchner, P. Foucart, M. Holleaux, W. Otto, and T. Wiegand have appeared from the pens of F. Hiller von Gaertringen, P. Mazon, M. Roques, H. Bengtson, and C. Watzinger respectively. The astonishing volume and quality of the work recently published, despite almost insuperable obstacles, by A. Wilhelm, now in his eighty-fourth year, evokes the admiration and delight of his many pupils and friends.

When I published my book on the Ancient Marbles in Great Britain (Cambridge, University Press, 1882), I was fully convinced that the catalogue there given would be susceptible of many corrections and supplements. But the hope I expressed in the preface, that I should be informed of marbles existing in private collections which might have escaped my notice by their owners or other competent persons, has completely failed; nor have I become aware of publications concerning this matter. Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that there must be in Great Britain a good deal of hidden treasure of the kind, which would perhaps easier come to light if there were a place expressly destined to receive such communications. Now, there can be no doubt that no place would be more appropriate to the purpose than the Journal of Hellenic Studies. I have therefore ventured to propose to the Editors to open in this Journal a corner for storing up such supplements and corrections. As a first instalment, I here offer some notes which may begin the series, and which can be continued. May other lovers and students of classic art, especially in Great Britain, follow my example.

In this paper I propose to concentrate on some few features in the style of Aeschylus. A clear and very readable account of his style in general has already been given by Prof. Stanford in the book published recently, but in that he deals lightly with the things with which I propose to deal now, the variations of style between the plays and the reasons of them.

But before we come to them, a word about the reasons for the character of his style in general. That, as all readers know, is full of ‘grandiloquence,’ or as the Greeks called it, ὄγκος, of various kinds, mouth-filling words and bold mixed metaphors, and so on. Prof. Stanford suggests incidentally that this may be due to convention, but that is hardly likely. There is little ὄγκος in the very scanty fragments of his predecessors in Tragedy, and it is probable that Aeschylus elevated the style, as, according to tradition, he elevated the staging of the plays.

Archaeological work was carried out by the Italians in the Dodecanese up to September, 1943, and excavations were then still in progress both on Rhodes and Cos. On the Italian surrender at that date the Germans occupied the islands, and their restrictions on movement made all archaeological work impossible. During the British Military Administration numerous finds were made, but work was concentrated on preservation, and excavation was only undertaken when it was clearly essential to do so. In the Walled City of Rhodes the clearance of several large bombdamaged areas presents a golden opportunity to excavate into the levels of the Greek and Roman cities which have hitherto been all too well hidden by the medieval and Turkish buildings. It is to be hoped that something may be done to this end before the areas are covered over again by new buildings. I am indebted for most of the information contained in this article to Professor Morricone of the Instituto Storico-Archeologico di Rodi who also supplied Fig. 2.

On the basis of Labarbe's new arguments in favour of July 21st rather than August 19th as the date of the full moon occurring about the time of the Thermopylae campaign, which involves our acceptance of a gap of something like five weeks between the Persian arrival in Attica and the battle of Salamis, R. Sealey has recently revived (Hermes xci (1963) 376–7) Munro's view that the Greeks had placed a regular garrison on the Acropolis in 480, so enabling it to hold out against the Persian assault for a considerable period and delaying any further military or naval operations. The validity of Labarbe's arguments has now been challenged by C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, 449–51 (cf. A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks, 403–5), who also meets, 212 f., most of the arguments originally put forward in support of the same thesis by Bury (CR × 1896). Hignett himself explains the delay before Salamis, on his view a delay of some three weeks, in terms of the unwillingness of the Persians to enter the Salamis strait, coupled with their recognition that it was impossible to by-pass it. The Acropolis is held to have resisted, rightly I believe, for only a few days, a resistance to be explained by its natural strength rather than because of any garrison placed upon it. The dismay attributed to the Greeks by Herodotus (viii 56) upon the news of the fall of the Acropolis, however, still appears to Hignett a difficulty needing explanation and he suggests that Herodotus' emphasis upon it may be no more than a transitional device leading up to the next act of the drama (203).