In the Quarterly Review for July, 1916, Professor J. B. Bury writes as follows:—

‘The Trojans were doubtless early immigrants from the Balkan peninsula. How comes it that their rulers have Greek names? The name of Priam himself is not indeed obviously Greek, but in its Aeolic form Perramos it may well be so; and Priam's father was Laomedon. Hector is Greek as Nestor, and was in later time the name of a prince of Chios. Paris has the second name of Alexandros; and the natural assumption is that “Paris” was a Phrygian name given him by his Phrygian mother, Hecuba. The names of the other children of Priam who come into the story—Cassandra, Helenus, Deiphobus, etc.—are Greek. We have to choose between two inferences. Either the bards deliberately substituted Greek for foreign names, or the rulers of the Troad were Greek. The second alternative, startling as it may appear, seems to us to accord with other evidence and to afford the most satisfactory explanation of the data of the Iliad.

Two related passages in the discussion of mimesis in this part of The Republic are in question here:

Commentators and translators generally agree that Socrates is referring to the effect of imitations of such sounds in performances of drama or dithyramb, and that the mimesis in question is the result of ‘identification’ on the part of spectators. As Adam puts it: ‘In good acting the spectator identifies himself with the actor through sympathy; and as the actor “imitates” so does he.’ Since several of the sounds mentioned would be difficult to imitate effectively by the human voice, Adam and others suggest that the imitative sounds were produced by musical effects and stage-machines (such as the βροντϵȋον). They note that the later ‘degenerate’ dithyrambic performances aimed at mimetic effects of this kind; and so too, of course, did Old Comedy. The three main points in this generally accepted interpretation are:

(a) the mimesis mentioned here is largely a matter of musical reproduction of the sounds listed;

(b) the mimesis consists of direct mimicry of these sounds;

(c) Socrates is referring to dramatic and dithyrambic performances.

There are objections to all of these points. First, against the notion that musical mimesis is primarily or mainly intended: up to this point in the discussion Socrates has confined his remarks to literature. He concludes his literary discussion quite specifically in 398b: ‘Now it looks as if we have completed our survey of the words and myths of μουσική.’ Then he explicitly goes on to consider ‘after this’ the remaining matter, namely, the right kind of ᾠδή and μέλος for the education of the Guardians.

The construction of Pythagorean musical theory rests philosophically on the foundation provided by Sectio Canonis. Indeed, the treatise may have performed this role historically too. Andrew Barker has recently contributed to this journal a discussion of the methods and aims of the Sectio—JHS ci (1981) 1—16. In so doing he has pinpointed lapses in the theoretical reckoning of the treatise, especially in the case of proposition 11 (P11). I should like to reply to Barker's article. My remarks concern the authorship and date of the treatise, the introduction, a few propositions, and ultimately the historical and philosophical settings for the Sectio.

The casts of Greek and Roman sculpture in the Museum of Classical Archaeology at Cambridge were treated and repaired recently by M. B. Laymann, now of Heidelberg. During his final visit, in 1975, he also restored a cast of the Peplos kore (Fig. I ), supplying the missing parts by analogy, colouring it according to published indications and adding a meniskos, which is conjectural in form, size and height. As for its height, the meniskos cannot have been much lower, to judge by what remains of the spike of other korai (Acropolis 670, 673, 682); and if it had been much higher, it would have given less protection against bird droppings and from experiment my impression is that the effect, particularly of the longer spike, is more disturbing. The size decided on was that just large enough to protect the head; though Aristophanes (Birds, 1114–7) may imply that it protected the whole of a statue, such an extension seems to me awkward visually and in practice would have made the contraption liable to damage in a high wind.

Since the first publication by Robert of the magnificent krater from Orvieto, which is one of the proudest possessions of the Louvre, its style has been brought in connexion with Mikon, more on account of the figures half disappearing behind the rocks, than on the rather problematic assumption that Mikon's Argonauts might have inspired the artist in the more extensive picture on the side of the vase opposite to the death of the Niobids. This last scene (Fig. 1) is perfectly clear, and would not be in need of any new commentary if Robert had not committed the error of taking the arrow, near the handle, as fallen (freccia caduta per terra), holding this to be a piece of thoughtlessness, rather uncommon with Attic ceramists, and if Hauser had not gone even further, blaming the painter for so absurdly making an unerring god shoot an arrow and lose it. Both of course are wrong, and it is the more surprising that he who understands what escaped Robert— namely that Apollo shooting and Artemis taking a new arrow suggest to our mind the presence, though unseen, behind the hills of the missing sons and daughters of Niobe—fails to understand that the painting is not a poor extract from a larger composition, but that it was precisely the perhaps somewhat extravagant intention of the artist to suggest more than he shows.

§ 1. Pindar is a classic of whom the study may be expected to grow with the growth of an interest in Greek archæology. Not, indeed, because it is indebted to him, so largely as to many other authors, for direct illustration. Rather because his ‘Odes of Victory’ are lit up in a new way by a fuller knowledge of the places with which they are concerned, of the contests which they celebrate, of the art and religion by which they were inspired. To take a single instance—the discoveries at Olympia, which have restored for us the main features of the altis, have given a new meaning for every modern reader to the beautiful, but hitherto indistinct, picture suggested by Pindar's description of ‘all the holy place resounding with festal joy,’ when ‘the lovely light of the fair-faced moon shone forth’ after a day of contests. Pindar's odes are poems of occasion, magnificent expressions of Hellenic life in its most distinctively Hellenic phases. Hitherto the real drawback to his popularity has not been obscurity of language, but the strain which he was felt to place on the modern imagination.

Recent research is making us daily better acquainted with Byzantine religious buildings. Saint Sophia is a byword in architectural history and the Byzantine style has been drawn on in the West perhaps more than any other. But of the secular buildings of Byzantium, of the great palaces so famous in history, few examples have been spared. Accounts tell us of the great palace at Constantinople, but of this vast collection of buildings little more than a single stair remains above ground. Of the palace of the Hebdomon, situated on the Sea of Marmora to the south of the capital, even less is to be seen, though further excavations would probably prove fruitful, and of the mediaeval palace of the Blachernae on the Golden Horn, which served as the Imperial residence after the eleventh or twelfth century, only a single building, the Tekfour Serai, survives.

The following report has been compiled at the request of the Editors of the Journal of Hellenic Studies and has been made as complete as the short notice given has allowed. I have to thank my colleagues of the Greek Archaeological Service and of the other foreign schools in Athens for the information, which they have so courteously placed at my disposal. Thanks are also due to the Managing Committee of the British School for permission to give a brief account of its latest work.

The philosophical treatise of Melissus of Samos is often maintained to have a strictly deductive argumentative structure. This article attempts to confirm this thesis by establishing that such a structure is instituted beginning from its title and introductory sphragis. Extant paraphrases of Melissus’ treatise are examined and are argued (in line with some previous treatments) to provide a highly illuminating indication that the work began from the hypothesis that something is. Next, an account of how the first verbatim fragment (DK30B1) takes up this prefatory material is given along with a reconstructed text and translation of the title, preface and argument for the sempiternity of what-is.

The inscription with which this article is concerned was first published by S. Ferri. It has been commented on by Ferri, by Wilamowitz, by Heichelheim, and by De Sanctis. The text reproduced below closely follows that of Ferri, but incorporates a few corrections suggested by Wilamowitz and accepted by De Sanctis.

The main content of the inscription is a series of constitutional regulations. By whom, for whom, and at what date were these issued? Ferri, observing a point of contact between the new constitution and that of the Arcadian Federation as described by Xenophon, and finding evidence in several passages of an overriding control by ‘Ptolemy,’ concludes that the document was drafted c. 250 B.C. by the Arcadian reformers Ecdemus and Demophanes, on behalf of the short-lived Κοινὸν τῶν Κυρηναίων of that period, and subsequently confirmed and amended by Ptoemy III Euergetes. In this opinion he has been followed by Beloch and De Sanctis. But he has been effectively criticised by Heichelheim, who points out (i) that the ‘Alexandrian minae’ mentioned in 11. 9–10 of the text went out of circulation under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and (ii) that the ‘Ptolemy’of our inscription, not being styled ‘king,’ can be none other than Ptolemy I Soter, who did not assume the royal title till 305–304 B.C.

The uncritical excesses of those theorists, chiefly German and some English following them blindly, who discerned ‘faded gods or goddesses’ in most of the leading figures of Greek mythology, has produced a reaction which may be equally uncritical. We ought not to believe in the original divinity of an Agamemnon, an Achilles, or a Diomed. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a small group of personages, who may be called hero-gods or heroine-goddesses, whose godhead is the primary fact and whose humanity is secondary. The usual mark of these is that their legend is hieratic wholly, that they have little or no secular character, not to say ‘epic’ or ‘heroic.’ Of these the most prominent and important is Ino-Leukothea; and the interpretation of her character and personality and the problem of her origin are among the difficult tasks of the historian of Greek religion. What has been written hitherto on her cult and legend cannot be regarded as satisfying.

The contention of this paper is that the Macedonians had their own names for the offices in their state; that Hieronymus, who spent a long life in the Macedonian administrative service, used those names in his history; and that some of the names have come through to us—not always consistently—in the accounts which were derived from the history of Hieronymus. Those accounts are in Diodorus, Justin and Photius' epitomes of Arrian and Dexippus. The account in Curtius is not inspired by Hieronymus; it is therefore not discussed here.

In a second campaign at Sotíra P. Dikaios, working for the Kourion expedition, has carried forward the excavation of the hill-top Neolithic settlement. In several of the houses the original floors were uncovered; they yielded pottery of the same types as were found on the two floors above (combed, red lustrous, and red-on-white). In most of the rectangular houses a line of three post holes was found, one in the centre and the others against the shorter walls, indicating a central roof-beam along the long axis. On the northern edge of the plateau a great mass of stone intersected by rough walls was uncovered; it seems best explained as the result of stacking the stone cleared from the site after the destruction of the settlement at the stage of the second floor, when the site was cleared and the houses rebuilt for the last time. A preliminary report on the 1951 season has appeared.