All Greek religion is haunted by an anxiety, or a hope, which is generally summed up, since the great work of Mannhardt and Frazer, as the yearly worship of vegetation gods. The name is, admittedly, a little too narrow. No doubt in a simple agricultural community the chief anxiety is about next year's harvest. I am told that in Jerusalem the High Priest went out to see how the barley was getting on, and lengthened or shortened the official year accordingly. Of course there is also anxiety about the young of the flocks and herds, about the weather for sailing and the like; but I think we shall find that it extended much further. The phrase ‘Year Spirit’ is perhaps better than ‘Vegetation God’. Jane Harrison was much criticised for preferring the phrase Ἐνιαυτὸς δαίμων; but I think she was right, and perhaps more profoundly right than any of us saw at the time.

Ἐνιαυός is a curious word. The new Liddell and Scott gives its root meaning as ‘anniversary’. It seems to be formed like ἓνιοι, ἐνί-οτε, ‘there are who …’ ‘there are times when …’, and to mean ‘There is (or ‘there is present,’ the same’, ἔνι-αὐτός; or, more analytically still, ‘there is present-again-this’, ἔνι-αὖ-τός. From meaning ‘anniversary’ it comes to mean a recurrent vital day, or the period, however long, between the recurrent vital days. All kinds of events were due to occur περιπλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν, as in Od. A 16, which seems to mean ‘as the anniversaries recur’, but easily becomes ‘with the passing years’. Children are born (Theog. 493, Asp. 87) meaning, I think, ‘when the regular vital time comes on’, not ‘as the months pass’.

Mr. Fotheringham's paper, if I understand it rightly, divides itself into three parts. He corrects certain errors in my tabular statement of the evidence, and in my commentary on it; he criticizes my suggestion that the ‘List of Thalassocracies’ may represent a fifth-century document; and he reconstructs from materials comprised wholly in the existing texts of Eusebius' work an outline of the Eusebian view of the ‘List,’ as he understands it; the gist of which is that he thinks that Eusebius not merely incorporated in his Canones the names of all the states contained in the ‘List,’ but also intended to space the thalassocracies according to the numerals contained in the Excerpt. From this he infers that, where the numerals in the Excerpt are lost, they may safely be restored from the intervals indicated in the Canones; and from this, finally, (1) that the Excerpt was not mutilated when Eusebius incorporated it in his Chronographia, and (2) that it represented, in its missing section at all events, the same chronological scheme as underlies the rest of Eusebius' work, and not, as I had been led to suggest, a different, earlier, and more accurate system.

The vases published here are part of the collection belonging to Lt.-Col. W. H. Bromley-Davenport, of Capesthorne Hall, Macclesfield, Cheshire. As far as is known, they all come from Lucien Bonaparte's estates at Canino near Vulci, and were brought to Capesthorne by Edward Davies Davenport (1778–1847), the great-grandfather, and Walter Davenport Bromley (1787–1862), the great-uncle of the present owner.

A black-figure neck-amphora (Plate VII (a), (b)) is by the Antimenes Painter. It is complete with lid, has no restoration and measures 38½ cm. to the mouth; the handles are triple. On one side Herakles is about to slay the Nemean lion; on the other Dionysos stands between two capering satyrs. The added red and white is clear from the photographs. The attribution is of course certain; note the vertical lines on the outside of the legs, the arc describing the calf on the inside of the legs, the knees and elbows, the lines on arms, and the long mouths. But dating is less certain. The drawing is careful and appears at first sight to be rather late. The large strong figures and the feeling for space, the folds of Dionysos' chiton compared with the lack of chiton folds on a neck amphora in London and on one of similar period in Munich, and the elaboration of Herakles' foldless chiton compared with that on the Villa Giulia, Northwick Park, and Naples neck-amphorae, all suggest a late date. But there is no trace of double curve on terminal fold or knee, nor of wavy lines on drapery, as on the late neck-amphora in London.

The Iberian archaeological record is particularly rich in asynchronous (i.e. chronologically mixed) assemblages including Athenian pots that predate the other items by a couple of decades or even a few centuries. Recent scholarship on keimëlia, or ‘curated objects’ in modern parlance, has shown the potential of such objects to investigate questions of identity, agency and history-making among the receiving communities, but also to shed light on the role of Athenian pottery among them. This article analyses this phenomenon within the Iberian peninsula, focusing on drinking cups, both black-gloss with inset lip (Cástulo cups) and red-figure type B cups. Using case studies from necropoleis and settlements of the southeast and east of the peninsula, the article explores the reasons and meaning of this consumption practice. It is argued that the occurrence of ‘heirloom’ vases in Iberian tombs and their extraordinary survival in some settlements is the result of a conscious and deliberate choice indicating the existence of mechanisms of social distinction based on a diacritical use of material culture. It is further argued that different motivations might lie behind their delayed deposition: when the chronological gap between production and disposal dates is small, one or two human generations, curated Athenian vases worked similarly to non-curated ones, being emblematic of economic success, social affiliations and political rank. But when the interval is longer, Athenian pots became symbols of ancestry and elite status, possibly acquiring the same legitimizing role earlier bestowed upon Orientalizing artefacts. Supplementary material is available online (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075426921000094) and comprises a catalogue of case-study objects.

In his generally admirable account of the poets of early Byzantine Egypt, Alan Cameron reconstructs some of their (in his words) journalistic warfare on the basis of a supposed distinction between the use of εἰς and πρός in the titles of books and poems: εἰς denotes a work written in someone's honour, πρός something by way of discredit or refutation.

I have already published in the pages of this Journal some of the vases acquired by the Ashmolean Museum since the catalogue of Ashmolean vases appeared in 1893.

In vol. xviii, p. 136 is published a late Attic vase with a representation of the carrying off of Oreithyia by Boreas. In vol. xxi, p. 1 is published a red-figured vase representing Pandora rising out of the ground. In vol. xv, p. 325 two sepulchral lekythi are published. Two other papers (xiii. 70 and 137) comment upon vases already included in the Ashmolean catalogue, Nos. 211, 275, one concerned with the myth of Cacus, one with that of Tithonus and Eos.

The evidence considered under D makes it, I think, impossible that the accepted theory can be true as regards the larger polyereis of the first three centuries B.C., which clearly were galleys a scaloccio of some sort. If what is put forward under A be true, the reason why the accepted theory was invented and has been so largely believed disappears. Nevertheless, there is still room for evidence that will support the accepted theory as to triremes generally, the quadriremes and quinqueremes of the fourth century, and the biremes of the first; and the theory may be true, even if the words thranite, zugite, and thalamite do refer to another arrangement.

For a trireme, said Cartault, the evidence is overwhelming. Unfortunately he omitted to mention what it was, and with the best will in the world I have been unable to discover it. Assmann (1610) relied solely on the monuments. Luebeck however gives Schol, on Aelian's Tactica, Schol. on Frogs 1074) (see under A), Arr. Anab. 6, 5, 2 (see under B), Pollux 1, 87 (see under A), and Frogs 1074. Let me add Livy 33, 30, Aesch. Agam. 1617, Luc. Phars. 3, 529 seq.

We were at Khatyn Serai for four days, arriving on the fourth day of July, 1901, and leaving on the seventh. Our road from Konia lay through Baiyat, where we copied the following inscription.

The length of our stay at Khatyn Serai enabled us to become acquainted with a good number of inscriptions. Besides verifying almost all the inscriptions already published from Professor Sterrett's copies, or from Professor Ramsay's earlier ones (cf. W.E. pp. 242 ff.; C.I.L. vol. iii. pp. 1239 and 2061), we heard of and copied twenty-four new inscriptions, ten of which are in Latin and one bilingual. We were also able to make some examination of Zoldera, the site of the ancient city, which lies rather more than a mile N.W. of the village.

The inscriptions are most conveniently considered according to the language in which they are written; for if they were found on the site of the modern village, they were in all probability carried thither from Zoldera.

But the attributes named seem to belong even to the majority of men, poor creatures though they may be. Are we to say then that in so far as they are satisfied with themselves and think they are good, they share in these attributes? Certainly no one who is thoroughly bad and impious has these attributes, or even seems to do so. They hardly belong even to inferior people; for they are at variance with themselves, and have appetites for some things and rational desires for others.

In the Hellenic Journal for 1903, while publishing some heads of Apollo, I took occasion to express my doubts as to the expediency of hereafter taking the Apoxyomenos as the norm of the works of Lysippus. These views, however, were not expressed in any detail, and occurring at the end of a paper devoted to other matters, have not attracted much attention from archaeologists. The subject is of great importance, since if my contention be justified, much of the history of Greek sculpture in the fourth century will have to be reconsidered. Being still convinced of the justice of the view which I took two years ago, I feel bound to bring it forward in more detail and with a fuller statement of reasons.

Our knowledge of many of the sculptors of the fourth century, Praxiteles, Scopas, Bryaxis, Timotheus, and others, has been enormously enlarged during the last thirty years through our discovery of works proved by documentary evidence to have been either actually executed by them, or at least made under their direction. But in the case of Lysippus no such discovery was made until the very important identification of the Agias at Delphi as a copy of a statue by this master.