In this note it is assumed that the bibliographical remarks in the Works and Days are true or anyhow true enough.

Hesiod's father started at Cyme in Aeolis. For a time he tried the sea—for trade, to judge by 631–4, where trade is regarded as the only object of seafaring. After that, to flee from poverty, he migrated to Ascra in Boeotia, where he came into possession of a farm, prosperous enough when divided between his sons to allow each of them a reasonable livelihood (37 for division; 298–307 for implication that Perses' share too was in land).

Hesiod does not say how his father obtained his farm at Ascra. The most popular explanation is that he reclaimed waste land, but there are objections. First, Hesiod does not mention reclamation as a way in which a landless man could become landed or a landed man enlarge his property, though he approved enlargement, but by purchase (341).

Mr. Albert Biliotti, the British Pro-Consul at Rhodes, who in conjunction with his brother has been carrying on excavations in that island for some years, has sent me the following eight inscriptions which he has noted from time to time and which, so far as I know, are unpublished. He has very kindly placed at my disposal his copies and, where they could be procured, paper impressions.

1. On a fragment of marble, 5 inches high by 7½ inches broad, discovered in the course of excavations on the Akropolis of Kamiros: complete on the upper and left-hand sides: from a paper impression.

Letters Slight apices. Date about 200 B.C.; not earlier. Line 1: iota adscriptum possibly omitted in Line 21: for see I.B.M. 925 (Branchidae). In line 12 there is a space after indicating a stop, but Mr. Paton cannot find any trace of after

Telmissos is described by Polemo (apud Suidam s.v.) as a town in Caria at a distance of sixty stadia from Halicarnassos [which answers very nearly to the distance between Budrum and the site above Ghiöl (J. L. M.)]. It has been frequently confused with its namesake, an important city in the west of Lycia. But we may take it for granted now that it was the little Carian town that was so famous in ancient times for its augury. Cicero is quite explicit on the point (De Divin. i. 41): Telmessus in Caria est, qua in urbe excellit haruspicum disciplina; and again in ch. 42: Turn Caria tota, praecipueque Telmesses, quos ante dixi, quod agros uberrimos maximeque fertiles incolunt, in quibus multa propter fecunditatem fingi gignique possunt, in ostentis animadvertendis diligentes fuerunt.

In the Compte rendu of the Russian Imperial Archaeological Commission for 1877, which has just made its appearance, Dr. Stephani, one of the most learned and experienced of archaeologists, has boldly attacked the antiquity of the graves discovered by Dr. Schliemann at Mycenae. The circumstances of that discovery will be fresh in the memory of our readers. As soon as English archaeologists had an opportunity of examining the various objects discovered by Dr. Schliemann in the graves, they at once gave their verdict, all but unanimously, that what was found belonged to the pre-historic times of Greece. And in this country it is now commonly assumed that the antiquities of Mycenae must form the subject of the first chapter of any account of Greek artistic production. But the reputation of Dr. Stephani is deservedly so great that his entry into the controversy compels us to a reconsideration of the whole problem, and a careful examination of the new light which he has to offer.

This task I have undertaken, not without reluctance. And whatever may be my inferiority to M. Stephani in the matter of learning and experience, I have over him the great advantage that whereas he judges of the Mycenaean treasures from engravings and photographs, I have seen them not once, but many times, have examined them with utmost care, and have for years been seeking in all quarters for anything to throw light on their date and origin.

II ne saurait ici être question de rencontrer, point par point, toutes les observations de M. Lloyd: ceci exigerait un nouveau tour d'horizon allant du fusil de Ferguson au pantheon adoré à Prw-Nfr et nous éloignerait sensiblement de ce qui me paraît être l‘essentiel de la controverse; l‘essentiel, à mon sens, est ceci.

Dans le JHS de 1975, M. Lloyd soutenait les quatre propositions suivantes:

(1) La trière phénicienne ne différait guère de la trière grecque: e‘était ‘essentially (souligné par moi) a Greek hull’, avec adjonction d‘un pont continu et de superstructures perfectionnées.

(2) La trière grecque a été inventée à Corinthe au je s., alors que les Phéniciens ne connaissaient pas encore ce type de navire.

(3) La construction des premières trières phéniciennes est due à une influence grecque.

(4) Parallèlement à l‘influence exercée, dans le domaine de l‘architecture des trières, de la Grèce vers la Phénicie, une mêne influence s‘est exercée sur l’Egypte qui, sous le règne de Nechao, a construit des trières de type grec.

While piecing together information on some of the copies of the Athena Parthenos for the recent congress in Basle, I looked again with slightly wiser and perhaps sadder eyes at a small terracotta from the collections of the Manchester Museum that I had published in this journal some eleven years ago (plate XIIb). I found her interesting because apart from such features as the triple-crested helmet, the snake lurking within her shield, and the Nike poised upon her right hand, which identified her beyond doubt as a copy of the Parthenos, she rested her right hand on a plain column with torus mouldings. There is another figurine from the same mould in the museum in Geneva, and a third from a parallel mould in Exeter, and I concluded that they were Romano-Gallic ‘souvenirs’ of the second century ad. I was convinced of the authenticity of the type, not least because of the pedigree of the Geneva figurine. However, several scholars have had their reservations, right back to the first appearance of the Geneva example, and so at the initiative of Dr R. A. Higgins the Manchester figure was tested for thermoluminescence at the Research Laboratory of the British Museum.

Les thèmes de folklore ont la vie dure. Chacun connaît les miracles d'Epidaure (v.gr. R. Herzog, Die Wunderbarheilungen von Epidauros, Leipzig, 1931). Or quelques uns de ces types de miracles se retrouvent dans la Vie, écrite quelque dix siècles plus tard, de Syméon Stylite le Jeune (521–592), éditée par Paul Van den Ven (Subsidia Hagiographica des Bollandistes, n° 32, 2 vol. Bruxelles, 1962 et 1970).

Ch. 41 (A). En tête de la première suite de miracles, accomplis par Syméon alors qu'il est encore sur sa colonne de 40 pieds dans le ‘monastère du bas’ (entre 533 et 541, Syméon ayant de 12 à 20 ans), vient une première liste du Trois anges, qui s'étaient mis à inscrire les noms des malades guéris par Syméon (40.16 ss.), lui annoncent qu' ils vont cesser de le faire: 41.7 ss. (parce que désormais toutes choses s'accompliront, grâce à toi, par la vertu de ta parole et de ta puissance)

Olbia, I. ed. S. A. ZHEBELËV, 4to, 304 pp., L. Plans and Plates, 108 figs., French résumés throughout, Acad. of Sc. of Ukrainian SSR., Kiev, 1940.

It was not my original intention to devote a special study to the Helenos who governed Cyprus for the Ptolemies (as I believe) during the last two decades of the second century B.C. I stated my views about him briefly in 1937, 1940 and again in 1953; and, although these views have not been well received, I was content to let the matter rest at that. However, no sooner had I made this last pronouncement than we found on the site of the Aphrodite temple at Old Paphos two new dedications of Helenos himself (our nos. 1 and 4 below); while in 1954 yet another inscription in his honour came to light at Salamis (no. 6). These compel me not merely to ascribe to Helenos both a text which I have wrongly restored (no. 3) and one, likewise from Old Paphos, by which for many years I have been baffled (no. 2), but in general to modify the opinions which I held about him. It seems proper, therefore, that I should assemble all the evidence that I know, and on my analysis of this venture what I trust may be my final reconstruction of the career of Helenos. Some fresh light will be thrown in the process upon the institutions and the history of Cyprus for the eight years which precede and the twelve which follow the death of Euergetes II in 116 B.C. But I freely admit that much of the new evidence is difficult and ambiguous; and for this present study my chief claim is that it sets out facts which others also may interpret.