The matter of this paper has been a subject of consideration with me for some time past, and I venture to put forward the conclusion I have arrived at, not because I consider it to be a certain one, but as possibly affording a working hypothesis providing an explanation of what has been to me, and may have been to others, an obscure and difficult point. That the subject demands the earnest attention of those who study Thukydides will, I think, be generally admitted, and this, together with the fact that I have formed the conclusion on a certain amount of first-hand experience, may afford some excuse for the publication of my views.

The vast majority of the incidents in the Peloponnesian War are treated by Thukydides with great brevity, in some cases with a brevity disproportionate to their importance. There are, however, according to the ordinary acceptation, three incidents into which he enters with a peculiar and striking amount of detail.

In the last number of the Hellenic Journal Professor Burrows has once more attacked Pylos and Sphakteria, this time with the aid of certain allies from the Peloponnese and a whole battery of photographs. I am, I confess, loth to dye this ink-stained field a deeper hue, and I have certainly no intention of sending friends of mine to Pylos with a view to reviving a controversy which has gone far enough. At the same time I do not wish to appear to undervalue the evidence of Messrs. Carr Bosanquet, Crowfoot, and Lindsay, though it is not of a very decisive character. I should therefore like to point out, as briefly as possible, its true bearing, and in doing so I have the satisfaction of not having to treat it as hostile, though brought into court by the other side.

Mr. Mahaffy in his preface to The Empire of the Ptolemies states among other problems raised by Ptolemaic history the following: ‘How far does the observation, that we only know of one crown-prince with a wife (Soter II.) account for the divorce of that wife after his accession, and for the other apparent heartlessnesses in Ptolemaic history? Is the hereditary title recognised in the princesses, which no doubt led to their marriages with their reigning brothers, a relic of Pharaonic ideas, or a mere imitation of the successful experiment of Philadelphus?’ This article is an attempt to show that the former hypothesis is the true one, and that the marriages of the Ptolemies were dictated by their policy of conciliation, and were based on deeply rooted native prejudices.

The Editors of this Journal have reason to think that a considerable body of its readers will be glad to be furnished with reproductions of the monuments, mainly vase paintings, that are discussed in connexion with Bacchylides. Even those to whom the published illustrations are readily accessible will probably find it convenient to have them brought together for reference, in a collection made from this point of view.

III. The story of Croesus.—In the story as told by Bacchylides, Croesus voluntarily ascends his pyre, with wife and daughters; he invokes the gods, and more especially Apollo; he orders the pyre to be kindled; Zeus extinguishes the flames, and Apollo takes Croesus and his children to the land of the Hyperboreans. According to Herodotus, Croesus with his companions is placed on the pyre by order of Cyrus. After Cyrus has changed his mind, and his servants have made ineffectual attempts to extinguish the pyre, Croesus invokes Apollo, who extinguishes the flames. Fig. 1 shows the well-known vase in the Louvre, representing the subject. It had already been interpreted, before the discovery of Bacchylides, as evidence of an alternative version of the story, in which the sacrifice was voluntary. Croesus sits enthroned, and makes a solemn libation, while an attendant Euthymos is busy with the pyre. Some of the commentators interpret the objects that he holds as torches, but they are quite unlike torches, as usually represented (cf. J.H.S. xi. Pl. 6), and resemble more nearly the whisks for sprinkling lustral water. If this is the correct interpretation their use further emphasises the ceremonial character of the scene.

Since the publication of the official catalogue (Volume II.) in 1893 the British Museum has been enriched by several black-figured vases of considerable interest and importance, which I propose to describe and discuss in this paper. Excluding the Odysseus and Kirke vase which I published in vol. xiii of this Journal, the total number amounts to eight, one of which bears an artist's signature, while another is a unique example of a very interesting class. Three others again are interesting from a typological point of view. I will take the vases in a roughly chronological order.

Corinthian oinochoe, 8 in. high, from Aegina (Fig. 1). It has a trefoil mouth and squat neck round which is a moulded ring. The handle does not rise above the mouth of the vase, and is quite plain, with cylindrical section. The vase is in good condition, except that the foot is somewhat chipped, and the black varnish is dull and frayed on the lip. It has been imperfectly fired, and the varnish has turned to red in some places. The clay ground is of a buff colour, and the clay itself appears to be rather gritty in texture.

The coin of Sicyon, of the obverse of which a drawing by Mr. F. Anderson (made over a photograph) is given here, has been twice published both times by Professor Percy Gardner.

The inscription on the obverse, which lends special interest to this piece, is unique among adscititious inscriptions upon Greek coins, not only in its elaborate character, but in the manner of its execution. Such inscriptions are in other cases graffiti, scratched with a point; this is pricked into the metal with a pointed instrument.

The following inscriptions are some of the epigraphical results of three journeys in Eastern Asia Minor. The first two of these, in which Prof. W. M. Ramsay, Mr. D. G. Hogarth, the Rev. A. C. Headlam, and Mr. J. A. R. Munro took part, were made in the summers of 1890 and 1891, the third, which was organised by Mr. Hogarth and in which I took part myself, was made in the summer of 1894. The geographical results of these expeditions have been published in the Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society in the form of a paper by Messrs. Hogarth and Munro, entitled ‘Modern and Ancient Roads in Eastern Asia Minor’ (R.G.S. Suppl. Papers, iii. pp. 643–739) and a paper by myself ‘A Journey in the valley of the Upper Euphrates’ (Geographical Journal, viii. pp. 318–335 and 453–474).

The past year has not been one of startling discoveries. The effect of the disastrous war has been a paralysing one and the difficulties in the way of archaeological work have been great. While the political situation was so complicated, new undertakings were almost out of the question: it is to be hoped, however, that the report on 1898–9 will be able to speak of Crete as having been thrown open to the scientific world. The most interesting archaeological event has been the foundation of a new Austrian Institute, under the guidance of Prof. Benndorf in Vienna. Dr. A. Wilhelm, the wellknown epigraphist, and Dr. W. Reichel, whose brilliant essay on Homeric Armour has won for him a prominent place among archaeologists, are permanently stationed at Athens, and a building is contemplated in the near future. Dr. R. Heberdey will be stationed at Smyrna and Dr. Kalinka at Constantinople, so that the new Austrian Institute will be a powerful agency for the discovery and preservation of Hellenic antiquities. The old publication ‘Archäologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich’ is now brought to a conclusion, and is replaced by the ‘Jahreshefte des österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes,’ of which vol. i. has appeared. The contemplated international congress of archaeologists at Athens, which the war of 1897 rendered out of the question, was announced for Easter 1898 to synchronize with the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the French School, but this year as before practical difficulties caused its postponement. The adjourned festivities at the French School took place as arranged. If the congress is to assemble at a future date, it will be necessary that arrangements should be made for it long enough beforehand to ensure its success.

In my second article on Phrygia, Vol. xviii., pp. 101 and 109, mention is made of some Latin inscriptions which were reserved until the stones should be re-examined. I had the opportunity of seeing them again this summer, and I now publish them, together with a few corrections and additions to both papers.

Vol. xvii., p. 401, l. 18. Read ‘the small river nearest but one to Saraï Keui on the east’; see the inset map, Pl. IV.

P. 418 ff. This inscription is discussed by A. Schulten in a paper entitled Libello dei coloni d'un demanio imperiale in Asia in Mitth. des Instituts, Röm. Abtheil., 1898, pp. 231–247. My restorations, which had to be made very hurriedly and with an inadequate knowledge of the special literature of the subject (e.g. of the important inscription of Skaptoparene, which throws so much light on our document), were merely tentative suggestions; but it seemed better to publish the inscription at once for the benefit of scholars than to hoard it up until an exhaustive commentary could be written on it.

It is with personal reluctance that I, like Mr. Grundy, again take up the argument. It is probably, however, better for the reader if the two sides thrash it out. The main reason why so many of the full-dress debates of archæology, on the λογєῖον for instance, or the ‘Old Temple,’ are still obscure for the non-combatant, is because the protagonists seem to get bored with each other's arguments, and pass them over in silence as self-evident fallacies. The result is endless, indecisive summarizing by those not immediately concerned.

In the present number of the Journal, p. 234, Mr. Grundy expresses his astonishment that the walls on Pylos and Sphacteria, as photographed in Plates VII., IX. and X., of the preceding number present no more definite marks of date. This is surely a failure to recognize the conditions of the problem.