References to the apobates have been collected by Reisch, Gardiner, Patrucco, Kyle and others, but the exact nature of this specialized event remains obscure. Patrucco in particular laments the scarcity of literary sources which he suggests provide little information. Yet the fullest account of the apobates appears in a lengthy passage in the corpus of Demosthenes (lxi 23-29, the Erotikos or Erotic essay) which strangely is not mentioned by any of the above scholars. I propose to update our knowledge of this contest, particularly as it relates to the fourth century B.C., in the light of this ‘new’ evidence. Because of the romantic nature of the essay, the reader should perhaps observe caution and allow for exaggeration on the part of Demosthenes, but even so several important observations can be made.

When a Persian came into the presence of the great king he greeted his lord by a form of salutation which the Greeks denoted by the verb προσκυνεῖν and the noun προσκύνησις. The verb, a compound of κυνεῖν, to kiss, means ‘to send a kiss toward.’ It is the word used to describe the commonest Greek act of devotion to a god—the custom of bringing the hand to the mouth and wafting a kiss toward the image of a god. This act, represented on a number of Attic vase paintings, was commonly performed by the Greeks and Romans when they passed the numerous images and shrines of the gods along their streets. Under the guise of performing the proskynesis to Poseidon, Demosthenes is said to have deceived the emissaries of Antipater and to have brought the poison to his lips. The idea of the kiss as a concrete sign of worship is originally strong in the word and usually persists in it, though sometimes the meaning seems to be little more than to worship. The use of the word to describe the Persian greeting indicates that the Greek saw in the salutation of the king a kind of cult kiss. By a custom familiar in the East from very ancient times until to-day, the subject threw himself on the ground to perform the salutation.

In a former article on the Tekmoreian Guest-Friends many difficult problems were stated relating to (1) the organization of the Imperial estates which originally were the property of the God Mê at Antioch-towards-Pisidia, and (2) the constitution and character of the Association of Tekmoreioi; and a partial solution of them was proposed. That Saghir was likely to be the best point for excavation and discovery of additional documents was pointed out on p. 350. In 1911 we camped at Kökuler for three nights, as this was the nearest point to Saghir to which waggons could reach. We spent the two intervening days in visits to Saghir; but, as nearly three hours were needed in going and two hours in returning on each day, the actual time in Saghir was very inadequate. On the third day we visited Gondane, and went on towards Oinan-Ova across the mountains. In Saghir we found a score of inscriptions, mostly small fragments, and revised one or two of those already published: this was certainly the chief centre of the Tekmoreian Association. In Gondane we found one new inscription. The need for longer study is as great as ever. That Gondane should be a sort of secondary centre for the Association is probably due to the fact that it lay on the great road from Apollonia and the west to Antioch and the east, whereas Saghir was remote and high on the slopes of Sultan-Dagh.

ἀναψηφίƷειν is to put to the vote for the second time an issue on which a decision has already been taken. Until recently known only from Thuc. vi 14 in pre-Aristotelian prose, the word is now shown by SEG X 38B 11–14 (v. infra) to have been not a literary coinage but a recognised procedural term. The noun *ἀναψήφισις is not yet recorded; but since a convenient way of referring to this rather complex conception is needed, I suggest that ‘anapsephisis’ should be used. I include in this conception the putting of the issue either in exactly the same terms as on the first occasion or in the form λῦσαι τὸ ψήφισμα ὃ εἶπε … περὶ …

The definitive history of incipient vanishing point perspective in the antique world has yet to be written. It may be that the fixation on the fully developed centralized ‘Renaissance perspective’ has led scholars to neglect signs of early, still tentative explorations of the principle in Late Classical/Early Hellenistic art. It is my thesis that the evidence is there but has been overlooked in the search for more accomplished manifestations than the nature of the sources would indicate.

By kind permission of Sir Arthur Evans and of the British School at Athens, I am allowed to publish a marble relief found in 1903 at the Villa Ariadne, near Knossos (pl. III). Height ·69 m., width ·72 m., depth of relief ·05 m. It was discovered face downwards on a Roman drain, west of the tennis court. The drain carried a road, also of Roman date. The marble is so badly weathered that I cannot determine its origin. Both top corners missing and a break right across. The surface of Herakles is destroyed below the crack, except at the sides. Above the crack, the surface is worn. The boar's hind feet were not on the relief, its fore feet, ear, and snout are broken. Its head hangs sideways. Part of the lion skin in front of Herakles, and an object between it and the boar, probably the club, are also broken.

Herakles carries the boar on his left shoulder, on the folded lion skin. The mask and the mane hang in front, while folds appear before and behind Herakles and between his legs. His right hand grasps the boar's shoulder. His left hand does not appear, but it holds the club, the end of which shows below the boar's crest: so the hand is fairly low down, balancing the boar before dumping it on Eurystheus.

The stele from the harbour (‘la stèle du port’) of Thasos, SEG xlii.785, has been so named because it was dredged up from the small fishing harbour on 13 June, 1984. The inscription is of the greatest importance for Thasian epigraphy and dialect as well as for its contents, and has been amply published by H. Duchêne. While the stele of Thasian marble is preserved complete, the inscribed surface has suffered much from the effects of its immersion in the sea. The lower part is well preserved, and from line 42 to the end (49) there is no problem in reading the letters on the stone. Above that, it is a very different matter; some parts seem irretrievably lost, and much of the preserved lettering consists of faint traces only. My own examination of the stone confirmed that we can have complete confidence in Duchêne's facsimile. He and those who helped him have achieved wonders of skilful decipherment on this difficult text. Unless fancy new technology may one day offer better ways of recovering the letters on the stone, it seems unlikely that the readings published by Duchêne could be improved.

This article discusses the rationale of adeia (immunity) in the fifth-century Athenian legal system. It argues that adeia was designed to grant a temporary suspension of the effect of a law in exceptional circumstances without allowing for any permanent legal change. This article explores the origin of adeia and the relevant ideology underpinning the legal procedure. It provides a comprehensive reconstruction of the legal procedure and analyses the extensive use of adeia for collecting information during the investigation of the profanation of the Mysteries and the mutilation of the herms in 415 BC. This article also discusses the implications of the use of adeia for public investigation and emergency powers in Classical Athens.

A. K. Grayson's valuable volume, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, contains not only a rich collection of historiographic writing from the period before the Macedonian conquest, but has also added several new fragments to the Babylonian Chronicles series for the early hellenistic period, in addition to a useful re-edition of the Chronicle of the Diadochoi. These fragments constitute what survives (or is known at present to survive) from the apparently last chronicles of the corpus which began in the reign of Nabonassar (747–34 bc) and continued down to and into the early Seleucid period. When precisely (and why) the corpus came to an end is at present unknown. The new post-Alexander fragments are probably all from the third century bc, nos 11 and 12 from the early third century, while nos 13 and 13b are of later third century date.

‘Then the son of Peleus took an unwrought metal mass which anciently the mighty Eetion was wont to hurl.’ This σόλος αὐτοχόωνος, which was at once the weight to be thrown and the prize in the Homeric competition, was apparently a mass of pig iron just as it came from the furnace; probably, as Mr. J. L. Myres suggests to me, ‘the contents of one of the old open-hearth furnaces of the Mediterranean world, the natural unit quantity for the purveyor and buyer of the metal, the classical analogy to which is the mass of iron (μύδρος σιδήρεος) which the Phocaeans threw into the sea before their voyage westwards.

Buschor, by his Crocodile, has brought order into the study of Attic plastic vases, but even after Buschor much remains to be done. I propose to examine and classify the Attic vases in the form of human heads. I shall not discuss, or not fully, either the vases in the form of complete human figures —the Dionysos in London, the satyrs in Saraievo and Taranto; or the sphinxes; or the groups—mounted Amazon, blackamoor and cayman, pygmy and dead crane; or the small and usually petty plastic adjuncts to hydriai, oinochoai, kyathoi, epinetra; or the head-vases and bust-vases of the fourth century, which are best studied in connexion with the other plastic vases of the same period.

Some head-vases are oil- or perfume-pots, others drinking-vessels, others jugs. The perfume-pots have the same mouth, neck, and handles as a round aryballos: fourth-century vases borrow this part from the squat lekythos, but with these we are not concerned. The drinking-vessels, whether two-handled or single-handled, have a kantharos mouth: I shall keep the word kantharos for the two-handled sort; the single-handled kantharos I shall call a mug. The jugs nearly always have the same mouth as the kind of vase which I have called oinochoe shape I: but three other kinds of mouth occur as exceptions, and will be noted each in its place.

In an article in the Annual of the British School at Athens. I have endeavoured to show that the geography of Boeotia lends no support to the theory that the Cadmeans were Phoenicians. Yet from the fifth century onwards at least, there was a firmly established and, as far as we know, universally accepted tradition that they were—a tradition indeed lightly put aside by most modern scholars as unimportant. If the arguments from geography are sound, then this tradition must be learned theory, and theory only. That this is so cannot of course be proved; for the authors by whom it was established, if it was established, are lost to us. We cannot even show, for this theory itself, that it is probable; for the methods even of Herodotus, and his reasons for his theories, are often obscure. But if we can show that it is a possibility—and not a bare possibility, but a very natural one—then the arguments brought forward in the Annual can be allowed their full weight.

The marvellous jump recorded in this epigram has naturally given rise to much controversy. Intimately connected with it is the equally disputed question of the meaning of the terms σκάμμα, τὰ ἐσκαμμένα, and Βατήρ as applied to the long jump.

Most of the discussion on this point might have been avoided if scholars had considered the whole of the evidence and not confined their attention to one or two passages. The discussion has mostly turned upon the words of Pindar (Nem. v. 19, 20) μακρά μοι δὴ αὐτόθεεν ἅλμαθ´ ὑποσκάπτοι τις, and upon the scholiast's note on this passage. In J.H.S. vol. i. 213 Prof. Percy Gardner gave the following explanation: ‘After every leap a fork was drawn across to mark the length, so that he who leaps beyond all marks distances his rivals.’ In J.H.S. vol. ii. p. 218 Mr. Myres suggested that ‘the σκάμμα might be a line drawn for the jumper to jump at like the handkerchief or piece of paper sometimes used in the present day.’ He further suggested that the three lines seen on the B.M. vase B 48 represented the ἐσκαμμένα. Both these gentlemen have I believe since altered their views, but as statements bearing the authority of their names are always liable to be repeated without further investigation, the errors still persist.

There is still considerable disagreement about the date of Euripides' Cyclops. The most common view seems to be that it was written in the last ten years of Euripides' career. And yet in the only recent detailed study D. F. Sutton argues that it was produced in 424 BC. And so the Cyclops is perhaps the only extant Euripidean play about whose date there is still serious disagreement. This is largely because it is the only one to which the metrical dating criteria formulated by Zieliński and others have never been properly applied. This I now propose to do, as part of a case for about 408 BC as the date of the play.

The principle that the frequency and nature of resolution in the iambic trimeter can be an indication of the date of a Euripidean play is generally accepted. Taking the plays of known date, in Alcestis (produced in 438 BC) the number of resolved feet expressed as a percentage of the number of spoken trimeters is 6.2, in Medea (431 BC) 6.6, Hippolytus (428) 4.3, Hecuba (c. 12.7, Troades (415) 21.2, Helen (412) 27.5, Phoenissae (411–09) 25.8, Orestes (408) 39.4, Bacchae (posthumous) 37.6, Iphigeneia in Aulis (posthumous) 34.7. In Cyclops it is 35.0, which would entitle us to place the play after 412 BC, were it not that the figure may express no more than the greater metrical freedom that satyric drama has over tragedy. After all, Cyclops has 17 anapaests (not involving proper names) outside the first foot, and three irredeemable violations of Porson's Law—a degree of licence impossible in tragedy.

In the Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1923–4, pp. 125–6, Pl. XLI, c Mr. H. Hargreaves published an ‘unidentified relief from Gandhara’ the subject of which has not yet been explained. The relief (fig. 1), which is believed to have come from one of the numerous mounds in the Mardan subdivision of the Peshawar district, was the property of Mr. F. V. Wylie, I.C.S. (now Sir Francis Wylie, K.C.S.I., C.I.E.) then stationed at Mardan. The scene represents on the left a woman rushing out of a gateway in an attitude combining horror with warning; her arms are uplifted; she is naked to the waist and wears anklets and necklets. Mr. Hargreaves suggested she wore a crenellated crown and might be a city goddess. She seems, however, only to wear her hair in the usual Indian fashion in a top knot. She is obviously expressing hosror at the scene on the right and imploring the participants to desist. The main figure on the right is a tall, fully robed man thrusting a spear into the chest of a horse which is mounted on wheels. Behind the horse is another similarly clothed male figure—young or at least unbearded—with his hands resting on the flanks of the horse and apparently thrusting it forward. Between these two figures is another, an elderly bearded man standing on the other side of the horse. The dress of the male figure is classical, indeed one might say Roman; certainly their footwear appears to be Roman. The lady, however, is depicted in regular Indian fashion. On the extreme right is a standing soldier holding a spear, much damaged. The faces of the male figures are all more or less damaged, but they are certainly laymen and not any of the familiar figures of the usual Buddhist sculptures of Gandhara.

Various traditions about the origin of painting have come down to us from antiquity. Pliny, to whom we owe the most detailed accounts, is surprised that the careful Greeks contradict themselves so much. Yet actual facts underlie these contradictions. The claim of the Egyptians to have invented painting six thousand years before the Greeks is rejected as idle boasting by Pliny, and we agree as far as the number six thousand goes; but we recognise to-day that the Egyptians were painting some thousands of years before the Greeks. Aristotle puts beside the Egyptians as inventor of painting in Greece, Euchir, a relation of Daedalus—that is, the generation of Theseus. To-day we can say that the excavations of the last fifty years in Crete have justified him beyond his wildest fancy by revealing frescoes of the second millennium B.C. If another tradition gives names like Cleanthes, Aridices, or Telephanes as the first painters, this means that the oldest artist-signatures known to Hellenistic scholars gave these names. But these are all primitive beginnings, non-Greek, pre-Greek, and-archaic.

This article has two purposes. First, it proposes a more satisfactory solution to an old problem: the apparently serious inaccuracy of Thucydides' measurements for the length of Sphakteria island and the width of the channels dividing it from the mainland. Second, it offers some more general observations on Thucydides' measures of distance and the light they can shed on an important aspect of his historiographic method.

The solution proposed by R. Bauslaugh (‘The text of Thucydides IV 8.6 and the south channel at Pylos’, JHS 99 (1979) 1-6) to the problem of measurements is rejected. Bauslaugh had emended two of the three figures on the ground that they were so seriously inaccurate as to require assumption of manuscript corruption. It is here contended that his argument is misconceived, and the emendations unnecessary. The counter-argument is based on a close study of Thucydides' idiom and practice in giving measurements of distance, particularly his use of qualifying expressions with numbers of this kind.

The second half of the article uses data compiled in an ongoing study of the use of numbers by Greek historians to make some comparisons between Thucydides' practice and that of several other historians in giving measurements of distance. It is suggested that careful attention to the nuances of Thucydides' practice, especially his use of different qualifying expressions with these numbers, may enable one to draw some interesting inferences about his sources of information and how he used them

The use of preliminary sketch in Attic red-figure is so widespread and so familiar that even in a detailed publication its presence often passes unmentioned, yet illustrations of it are not always easy to find. It may therefore be helpful to bring together some examples on which the sketch-work is of particular interest and at the same time to include instances of what is basically the same procedure, but applied to other techniques of vase-painting.

As is well known, the sketch is composed of shallow grooves made in the surface of the clay before firing; the lines are most obvious in the reserved areas, but it can sometimes be seen that they extend into the black background, and when they do, the shininess of the black in the grooves shows clearly that they were made before the black was applied. The exact nature of the instrument with which the sketch was drawn is not known; the grooves generally look as if they had been made with a small, blunt tool, though whether it was wood or metal or some other material cannot be determined. Each artist no doubt had his own favourite implement, but it is worth noting that occasionally, and above all on Apulian red-figure, the sketch-lines are narrow slits cut into the clay; this kind of line, at least, must have been made with something sharp, presumably a metal graver. The amount of detail in the sketch varies from man to man, and there may even be differences between works that can be attributed to the same hand, or between the two sides of the same pot. Sometimes the artist does no more than block out the general masses and arrangement of the figures; on other vases the preliminary work is very exact and on occasion may be more detailed than the final drawing.

Fragments of pottery are very plentiful upon most of the ancient sites in Galatia, but those who cannot excavate can hardly expect to find anything at all complete. We were very fortunate therefore in obtaining at the village of Sarilar, the ancient Sykeon, an almost perfect pot and a photograph of an ‘Idol.’ Both jug and idol had been found by a peasant in a small mound between the bridge and the village: together with these he discovered a circular macehead of dark green stone and a square piece of copper. In Bey-bazâr we had previously been shown a small saucer-shaped cup, which came from the same village and no doubt from the same excavation: it was hand-made and of the same clay as the pot, (for its shape cf. Dörpfeld, Troja, 1893, Fig. 29).

Herodotus informs us at ii 159 that Pharaoh Necho II (610-595 B.C.) built and employed triremes on the Mediterranean and Red Seas. In a recent study I put the case for the traditional view that these triremes were Greek rather than Phoenician in origin. That case may be summarized as follows:

(1) Thucydides believed (i 13) that the trireme had been invented in Corinth during the Cypselid tyranny (c. 657-583 B.C.) and that it was almost immediately taken over by the Samians.

(2) The standard refutations of Thucydides’ statement are invalid.