In Volume LVI of this Journal I published a series of. Attic stemless kylikes with red-figure painting outside and stamped or incised patterns inside. These run from about the middle to the end of the fifth century. Characteristic of the early part of the fourth century, though the earliest examples are to be dated before the end of the fifth, is a series of cup-kotylai with similar decoration which forms the subject of this paper.

The cups range in size from a height of 0·09 m. with a diameter of 0·165 m. to a height of 0·06 m. with a diameter of 0·12 m. Their deep and comparatively narrow bowls presented more difficulties to the stamper than the shallow kylikes and restricted his designs to smaller and simpler patterns.

The earliest group consists of a pair of cups from the same hand. The stamped pattern shows five or six separate palmettes set closely round a small incised central circle and surrounded by a pair of incised circles.

In the collection of the terra-cottas at the Polytechnic in Athens many of the figures have points of interest bearing on the development of art, or on the science of comparative mythology or religion. One small figure (No. 943) is, on the other hand, of especial interest to the medical mind, affording as it does a good specimen of the typical leper physiognomy. It is a pitiful glimpse into the olden time which this figure gives, and, no less than a living imported leper I saw last spring at the Evangelismus Hospital, does it strike a discord with the beauty of Athens and its surroundings.

This little figure is in the midst of a number of small, thick-set figures in rough terra-cotta, of uncertain origin. They were bought at a sale, and their history cannot now be traced ; but from their general character they are classed with others of about the third century B.C. They were evidently intended to be caricatures of contemporary life. Jolly, rollicking men suggest noisy Bacchic carousings; a portly, elderly woman bends with somewhat comical, grandmotherly solicitude over her nursling; and other well-executed, but more or less coarsely imagined, figures are so obviously designed to provoke laughter, that one pulls up with a start, and almost with a shudder, before the poor leper No. 943.

At the sale of the Forman collection, a hydria with figures of Troilos and Polyxena was purchased for the British Museum. Cecil Smith, in the sale catalogue, described it as in the style of ‘Euthymides?’; but I cannot agree with him. Eight other vases by the same hand are known to me; and I beg leave to call this anonymous painter ‘the master of the Troiloshydria in the British Museum.’ He is no genius; but one of his vases, the krater in Copenhagen, is a respectable performance; and others are not without animation.

There are few places in Greece which possess the combined charms of natural beauty and of historic association to the same extent as Monemvasia, The great rock which rises out of the sea near the ancient Epidauros Limera is not only one of the most picturesque sites of the Peloponnese, but has a splendid record of heroic independence, which entitles it to a high place in the list of the world's fortresses (Figs. 1, 2). Monemvasia's importance is, however, wholly mediaeval; and its history has hitherto never been written; for the painstaking brochure of the patriotic Monemvasiote deputy and ex-Minister K. Papamichalópoulos, was composed before modern research rendered it possible to draw upon the original authorities at Venice and elsewhere. In the present paper I have endeavoured to state briefly what, in the present state of Greek mediaeval studies, is known about this interesting city during the Frankish period.

The excavations of the French School at Delphi are now in full activity. They have been looked forward to for years with the keenest interest, but hitherto there has been nothing to record but negotiations and preparations. Now that the work has actually begun, it has proved that even the most sanguine anticipations were not unfounded. The find in inscriptions and in sculpture is of extraordinary richness and interest, and will form an epoch in the history of archaeological discovery no less important than those marked by the excavations of Olympia and of the Athenian Acropolis. In comparison with Delphi, other discoveries must seem of inferior importance. But much valuable work has been done during the season, especially by the various foreign Schools in Athens.

In Athens itself, the excavations in the neighbourhood of the Pnyx and the Areopagus, begun by Professor Dörpfeld last season, have been continued. It will be remembered from last year's report that the chief object of these excavations was to solve some disputed questions of Athenian topography, especially the position of the spring Enneacrounos. A primitive system of waterworks was discovered in the hill of the Pnyx above the modern road; and these had been superseded later by an aqueduct and cistern, which there seemed to be good reason for attributing to the sixth century. There were also some traces of a building for the distribution of the water. Thus considerable probability was gained for the theory of Professor Dörpfeld, that the Enneacrounos was in this part of the town, although at the same time there was no evidence certain enough to convince those who were committed to a contrary view.

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.