Thus far I have tried to show that the fully developed legend of Cadmus the Phoenician does not appear before the fifth century. This of course leads to no certain conclusion. Apart from the possibility (which I think an unlikely one) that the fragmentary state of our knowledge of the earlier writers forbids our coming to any conclusion, however tentative, on a subject like the present, it is still possible that the fifth century writers represent an older and better tradition than the poets before them. There is no more unproductive idea than that which assumes that every story bears the date of the writer who preserves it. We find Pausanias especially citing legends which are manifestly older and truer than many told by earlier writers, and Asius the Samian—to take a parallel case—giving a better version of a Boeotian myth than the local Pindar. But if it can be shown that writers of the fifth century, Herodotus and the logographi, were less interested in local tradition than in learned theory, especially when the latter was based on researches in foreign countries, we do then get some probability for the view that a statement found in them, but in no earlier writer, may be theory and not tradition. To do this we must get some idea of their methods.

Pausanias, in a number of familiar passages, has given us the names of certain ancient monuments associated with Tantalus and Pelops, and visible in his own day on Mt. Sipylus; he speaks as a native of the district. In the problem of identifying these with the various monuments known today in the Smyrna-Magnesia region, there is still no agreement; opinion, after much discussion, has divided itself into two main camps, one of which finds them in the immediate vicinity of Magnesia (Manisa), while the other locates them in the hills north of Smyrna, near the old ‘Aeolic’ acropolis of that city.

Professor I. Noshy, in a paper read to the 1968 conference of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Libya and published in its proceedings, has re-formulated Chamoux's view of the chronology of the reign of Arkesilas III, to which I proposed an alternative in JHS lxxxvi (1966) 99–103. Noshy upholds Chamoux's view that Arkesilas' appeal to Samos (Hdt. iv 162–3) was made to Polykrates before 525 (when he medized during Cambyses' Egyptian expedition (Hdt. iii 13 and iv 165), after which, according to Noshy (p. 73) he could only have appealed to his Persian patrons). He attempts to reduce the awkwardly long interval between these events and Arkesilas' murder by updating Aryandes' Libyan expedition, which followed the murder, to 519. Like Chamoux, he connects Aryandes' rebellion against Darius and his execution with the visit of Darius to Egypt, recorded by Polyainos (vii 11) and fixed to 518 by the date of the death of the Apis bull which Darius mourned. In Noshy's view, Aryandes' Libyan expedition was not authorised by Darius, whose impending visit caused him to recall it before the wider purpose of subduing the Libyan tribes was accomplished (pp. 64–5). He suggests further, that, contrary to the testimony of Herodotus (iv 164.4–5.1), Arkesilas' sojourn at Barka, which he places between 525 and 519, was by his own choice, with the object of subduing aristocratic revolt in western Cyrenaica, and that he never had to take refuge there, but was able to return to Cyrene between expeditions, only handing over the government to Pheretima while he was away on campaigns (p. 69). During this period, Noshy supposes that he founded Euhesperides to serve as an outpost in western Cyrenaica (pp. 70–1).

The full publication, after long and expert study, of the remnant of the Vatican Palimpsest of Strabo (W. Aly and F. Sbordone, de Strabonis Codice Rescripto) redeems this unique early MS. of the Geographica from the oblivion to which Kramer and Cobet consigned it, and justifies all Aly's travail upon it. Aly dates the script about A.D. 500; and while recognising numerous errors and great carelessness on the part of scribe and corrector, he finds support for many of the readings of the palimpsest where they differ from the established text of the Byzantine MSS. of Strabo. He maintains that in the early sixth century there were two distinct traditions of the text current in Constantinople:

(i) That of the Vatican Palimpsest (V). Some of its variant readings seem to be echoed in marginal or interlinear corrections in the Byzantine MSS., and Aly therefore believes that V is the source from which such corrections were transmitted. If this is true, they may be freely drawn upon for the establishment of this very early tradition of the text.

(ii) The tradition of the text preserved in our Byzantine MSS. of Strabo (L). Aly seeks to identify the archetype of L as the text of Strabo used by Stephanus Byzantius in the early years of Justinian's reign.

This paper does not profess to give anything more than a brief account of the important results obtained by the German and Austrian excavators up to the time of my visit to these sites in June. I should like in particular to direct the attention of English archaeologists to Western Asia Minor as a field of research that is practically untouched, especially as regards remains of the Hellenistic period. Brilliant results await the scientific explorer of important sites such as Sardis, Tralies, Laodicea, and Apamea, and all these are extremely easy of access. The English traveller cannot help feeling ashamed of English archaeology when he sees the unintelligible mass of ruins and brushwood that covers the site of the Artemisium at Ephesus.

The showcases of the antique-dealers in Odos Pandrosou are full of little lekythoi which were painted for the tombs of humble men of the people, and which to-day are destined for modest purchasers or for the Inspectors of the Archaeological Section of the Ministry of Education, while for more important purchasers there are hidden away somewhere else works of much greater value. It is seldom that we are stopped by the art or the subject of one of these lekythoi.

In 1943 when I was making an inventory of the stock of one antique-dealer—that which was on show—I picked out one lekythos which the owner gladly presented to the National Museum (Plate IVa, Figs, 1 and 2). From the funeral pyre the surface of the vase has taken a brown-grey colour, and the many joins show that it had been thrown to be broken and burnt with the dead body.

A curious male figure wrapped in a himation up to the top of the head, so that only the -eye and the upper part of the head remain free, walks rapidly to the left, raising one leg vigorously. He lifts his himation with his hand to help him move. High boots cover his legs to a point just below the knee. The hanging wreath does not appear to be related to the interpretation of the picture, but is taken from the commonplaces of funeral lekythoi, especially white ones.

I have been called upon to take the chair at this first meeting of the Society which professes to have for its object the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. Now by Hellenic Studies we do not mean merely the study of Greek texts, grammars, and lexicons. It is generally acknowledged that, besides the printed texts of the ancient Greek authors, and the commentaries of the scholiasts on these texts, many other sources of Hellenic Study are opening up every day. The monuments of the Greeks, their architecture, sculpture, and other material remains, deserve our study not less than the texts of the classics, and we must bear in mind that the history of the Hellenic language itself may be traced for at least twenty-five centuries, and that between the Greek speech of the present day, and the first utterances of the early Greek poets, there is a connection which, though not obvious to the common observer, may be as clearly demonstrated by science as the connection between the flora of the geologist and the living flora of the botanist of to-day. In order to trace out this connection, we must not regard the language of the ancient Greeks alone; we must study the Byzantine literature, as well as the Greek language still current in the mouths of the peasants, and we must also study their existing manners and customs. The space of time, therefore, over which our Hellenic Studies may range, may be computed as about twenty-five centuries, or perhaps something more. The province of this Society has next to be limited geographically. After much consideration I have come to the conclusion that our proper geographical limitation is that which has been followed in the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum of Böckh. In that great work he includes Greek inscriptions, wherever they may be found, not only in Hellas itself, but outside the Mediterranean, and beyond the Pillars of Hercules. And therefore I think that as we study Greek inscriptions wherever they are found, whether in Greece, Italy, Sicily, or elsewhere, so we may study the Greek monuments and language wherever these are to be met with. Now as to the chronological range of our subject, I have already said that it extends over at least twenty-five centuries. It will be convenient to consider this space of time as divided into three periods. There will be first the Ancient period, terminating with the downfall of paganism; then the Byzantine period down to the taking of Constantinople in 1453; and then what I will call the Neo-Hellenic period.

Messer Giannozzo Manetti—if we may give credit to his enthusiastic biographer—was accustomed to say that there were three books which he had got by heart from long handling—Saint Paul's Epistles, Augustine's De civitate Dei, and (among the heathen) Aristotle's Ethics. There may be some exaggeration here; but there is no doubt that Manetti, from the beginning to the end of his long literary career, was deeply interested in the moral writings of Aristotle. Vespasiano tells a story of him in the early period of his studies. He used to give a Latin Ethics to somebody, and taking the original himself, would reel it off so fast in Latin that his hearer was unable to follow him.

H. van Thiel demonstrated only 16 years ago that the text of Longus's novel rests on two manuscripts, Laur. conv. sopp. 627 (s. xiii2) and Vat. gr. 1348 (s. xvi1). The descripti nevertheless yield historical information, and so it is as well to establish their relationships. Three scholars who knew them at first hand have tried: A. Kairis in his edition (Athens 1932), H. Dörrie in De Longi Achillis Tatii Heliodori memoria (Göttingen 1935), and E. Vilborg in his edition of Achilles Tatius (Gothenburg 1955). None of them arrived at the truth. Perhaps the same applies to me, because I have contented myself with collating at most book i and checking a few passages elsewhere; but I can give reasons for my disagreement.

I will first set out my stemma. As everyone's symbols conflict, I will use none except F for the Laurentianus and V for the Vaticanus, but in my discussion I will abbreviate the shelfmarks. Relationships that I do not discuss are adequately treated by Kairis, Dörrie, or Vilborg.

The Italian occupation of Valona has drawn attention to what has been called one of the two keys of the Adriatic. It may, therefore, be of interest to trace the history of this important strategic position, which has been held by no less than twelve different masters.

The name αὐλών ‘a hollow between hills,’ was applied to various places in antiquity, and from the accusative of this word comes the Italian form ‘Valona,’ or, as the Venetians often wrote it, ‘Avalona.’

984 ἐπεὶ F: ἐπί Tr ξυνεμβόλοις FTr: corr. Casaubon 985 ψαμμίας FTr: corr. Wecklein ἀκάτα F: ἀκάτας Tr: corr. Wilamowitz παρήβησ' Tr.

The above is the text of Wilamowitz and Fraenkel, which I believe correct, requiring only interpretation. Wilamowitz translated (Gr. Trag. ii 85), ‘Die Zeit ist grau geworden, seit der Sand von Aulis aufflog, da zur Troiafahrt das Heer die Taue löste’; Fraenkel similarly but more literally, ‘Time has grown old since with the throwing-in of the mooring-cables the sand flew up, when the naval host set forth to Ilion’. Denniston-Page make the linguistically correct objection me ‘sand does not “fly up” when mooring-cables are “thrown in”’. But this misses the real point, viz. that no one ever throws in a cable when a ship is leaving—it is pulled in: throwing occurs only when a ship is coming in to land.

It is usually taken for granted that throughout the first part of the fifth century B.C. until her defeat by Athens in or about 457 Aigina was a member of the Peloponnesian League and was consistently hostile to Athens and to the formation and growth of the Confederacy of Delos. I believe that the evidence for this view is weak, and that Aigina was never a member of the Peloponnesian League but probably was a voluntary member of the Delian League from its formation.

About 494 King Kleomenes of Sparta invaded the Argolid and defeated the Argives at Sepeia. For this invasion he used some ships belonging to Aigina, which he had taken by force. This implies that some kind of fight must have taken place recently between Aigina and the Spartans, or their allies. How could the Spartans, who were a land and not a sea power, capture ships from the Aiginetans, who had one of the largest fleets in Greece at that time? Only with the help of an ally whose naval power was stronger than Sparta's. Obviously this ally must have been Corinth. Corinth was always a naval power, and at this period she was hostile to Aigina, and she was undoubtedly a member of the Peloponnesian League. So the forces of the Peloponnesian League fought and defeated Aigina shortly before they defeated Argos in the middle 490s. There were, of course, traditional connexions between Argos and Aigina. Argos had assisted Aigina in a war against Epidauros and Athens long before; while after her defeat at Sepeia Argos demanded a fine of 500 talents from Aigina as an atonement for her treachery, and she could not have made this demand if she had not had, or claimed to have, some kind of alliance with her. It is therefore not surprising that the Peloponnesians should attack both Argos and Aigina at the same period.

Every large museum contains some portraits, which can with certainty be assigned to the Flavian period: a layman indeed can recognize the ladies of this age by the high and ugly coiffure then fashionable, but the majority of these are quite second-rate works. Not even the glamour of an imperial name will awaken much interest in such. But there are a few others really of superlative excellence which are consequently, as the commoner chronological sign-posts are wanting, assigned in most catalogues to whatever period the individual writer regards as the ‘best period’ of Roman art. Three or four of them I have ventured to select and I have added notes upon one or two others, which help to explain the group and justify further the date to which I assign them. No doubt the list could be extended considerably, but a few will perhaps suffice as a beginning, if they are typical of the best which the age could produce.

In a former paper in this Journal (Vol. viii.) it was maintained that the Greeks had a weight standard long before the introduction of coined money from Asia, the unit of which was the same as the Attic-Euboic system (130—135 grains Troy) of historical times, and that in the Homeric poems the gold Talanton and cow represented the same value, the unit of metal being adjusted to the more primitive unit of barter. The evidence then adduced was of a purely literary nature, as it was not in my power to appeal to any actually existing weights. I have since obtained some data of a concrete kind which, I think, lends some support to my former contention.

Dr. Schliemann (Mycenae and Tiryns, p. 354) found (in the tomb south of the Agora at Mycenae) ‘four spirals of thick quadrangular, and seven spirals of thick round gold wire, five plain gold rings, and a similar one of silver, of which a selection is represented under No. 529. ‘I remind (adds Dr. Schliemann) the reader that similar spirals and rings of thick gold wire occur in the wall paintings of the Egyptian tombs. They are supposed to have served as presents, or perhaps as a medium of exchange.’ These rings are now at Athens, and my friend Mr. E. A. Gardner of Gonville and Caius College, the Director of the British School at Athens, has kindly procured for me their weights. Before going further I wish it to be clearly understood that I do not assume the rings to be what is called ring-money, but I think that I am justified in assuming that they are ornaments probably made on a given weight.

In JHS lxviii (1948), p. 148, Mr. R. M. Cook drew attention to a problem concerning the name of the potter or painter Amasis and the chronology of Attic black-figure vase painting. So far as I know it has remained unanswered and discreetly ignored. Mme. Karouzou's fine study of the Amasis Painter prompts a further discussion of the problem which seems a very real one. It may be briefly restated as follows. Amasis, potter or painter, was named after the philhellene Egyptian king Amasis (A-ahmes) whose reign began in 569–568 B.C. As a citizen of Athens he would have received his name at his birth, which cannot therefore be earlier than 569–568. Cook thought it could hardly be before 565, and certainly the nationalist A-ahmes would not have made much of a mark as a philhellene early in his reign, as he had to seize the throne from Apries who was supported by Greek mercenaries. Yet by the current chronology of Attic black-figure the Amasis Painter had begun to work by about 555. If the signature Αμασιςμεποιεσεν means that Amasis was the potter, not the painter, we have to face the fact that his work too may go back at least as early because he made vases for the painter Lydos. If it means that he was the pottery-owner, the terminus is given by the earliest vase bearing his signature, and this is still around 550. The last explanation is the least satisfactory both for the interpretation of the signature and for the fact that it is easier to believe in a child artist than in a child industrialist. Unless Amasis was a prodigy, something is wrong somewhere in the argument. The fault must lie either in the accepted chronology for Attic black-figure or in the arguments about the name Amasis.

At the start of the play Prometheus is brought on stage by two agents of Zeus, Kratos and Bia. He is to be fastened up against the side of a rock and exposed to the elements. Hephaestus, who enters with the others, is to provide the tackle and the skills to do the job. Hephaestus shows extreme reluctance to perform his duties, both in his initial utterances (17-21, 39-54) and during the actual process of fastening, particularly when dealing with the chest (66) and legs (78); Kratos, however, browbeats him brutally, at which Hephaestus acknowledges that he has no choice and obeys.

Sir George Hill, in his History of Cyprus, refers to a group of early churches in the Island in the following passage: ‘It seems improbable that any important buildings can have been put up during the periods of the Arab raids, that is, from the middle of the eighth century to 965. Churches, for instance, like those at Aphendrika, which have been attributed on the one hand to the sixth or seventh century, on the other to the “Romanesque,” would not have been built at a time when the population of places like Ayios Philon and Lambousa was moving inland to escape the raiders. Whether the earlier or the later date is to be preferred must be left to the specialists.' In a footnote, he recorded my own opinion that the vaulted basilicas of the Aphendrika type should be dated after the Byzantine reconquest. The purpose of this article is to present some evidence in support of that opinion. It concerns three ruined churches, all in the village lands of Rizokarpaso: the Panayia and Asomatos churches at Aphendrika, the site, which Hogarth identified as Urania, near the north coast 5 miles north-east of the village, and the Panayia at Sykha, some 6 miles south-west of the village, on the south side of the Karpas peninsula.

Discussion of Aphrodite’s epithet philommeidês/philommêdês in Hesiod Theogony 200. Hesiod’s aetiological account of this name suggests the meaning ‘wiles-loving’ as well as ‘genitals-loving’. This interpretation is supported by a number of episodes from Archaic poetry in which literary or mythical figures make use of a ruse to permit the fulfilment of their erotic longing, or conversely exploit someone else’s desire as a means to achieve supremacy in a power struggle.

SGO I 01/01/07 is a highly refined 20-line elegiac epitaph from Cnidus which probably dates to the first century BC. Despite the poem's striking formal features and poetic qualities it has received almost no attention since its first publication by Sir Charles Newton in 1863. The first four sections of this article demonstrate that the inscription represents an important witness to certain epigraphic practices and epitaphic traditions, including those of inscribed dialogue and lament. The final section then presents a reading of the poem which centres on the competing poetics of consolation, memory and forgetfulness proposed by the epitaph's two speaking voices.