If we are seeking an authoritative solution of the outstanding problems of ancient Greek music, it would seem that the most valuable assistance could be got from a consideration of the αὐλός, inasmuch as specimens more or less complete are to be found in plenty, scattered through the museums of different countries: in practice, this study has been found the most puzzling of all. Though many of the bodies of such flutes have been found, the mechanism of the mouthpiece, at once the most important and the most perishable portion of the instrument, has naturally disappeared, and all hope of extraneous aid from vase-pictures seems to vanish when we notice that in all the later pictures the mouth of the player, and consequently the mouthpiece of the instrument, is hidden by the ϕορβεία, a band passing across the mouth, and encircling the head of the player.

Still I hope to show that not all these difficulties are insuperable: for example, much of the mystery of the ϕορβεία disappears when we see two terracotta figures of dancers wearing the ϕορβεία without the flutes. It is then clear that this band held the flutes rigidly in place, and we are able to form some conclusion as to the shape of the mouthpieces; but this will be discussed later.

It is a misfortune almost necessarily incidental to the excavation of any site so rich in ancient remains as the Acropolis at Athens, that smaller objects and such as have a less obvious archaeological value, are sadly neglected: and the fate of the bronze fragments excavated during the seasons 1885—9 affords the strongest proof of this fact. At the time of the excavation the Greek authorities selected those objects in bronze which had any obvious archaeological interest, and placed these in the larger Museum on the Acropolis. All the other bronze remains were indiscriminately and somewhat carelessly packed in several large boxes and stored in the small Museum. The evil results of this are twofold: in the first place, owing to careless storing and the piling of heavy objects on the top of light, a large number of fragments have been further broken up; and secondly, there is absolutely no record of the place or depth at which any of these were found. How important such a record would have been, will be well realized by any student of Dr. Furtwängler's great work on the Olympia bronzes, though this same also does much to lessen the gravity of our loss.

Plotinus is, up to a point, a classical intellectualist in the manner of Aristotle, and, he would himself have certainly thought, of Plato. He professes, that is, to give an account of everything that is in any degree real in the universe (and even a kind of account of the unreal) which is certainly and unchangingly true and can be demonstrated to be so by rational processes. This account culminates in the description of an eternal realm of intelligible intellect which can be (and indeed really always is) our own, certainly and imperturbably possessed. This systematic account of reality, as is well known, breaks down, and we have to break out of it, in a very startling way at the top. Beyond the Platonic-Aristotelian Intellect-Intelligible, the world of real being which is Νοῦς and νοητά, lies the One or Good beyond being, which is neither intelligent nor intelligible. When we have completed our understanding of reality, we have to leave it all behind in order to find what turns out to be the only thing we want, the source of all values and the goal of all desire, which alone makes it worth the effort to attain to Νοῦς on the way, as it is the only reason why Νοῦς is there at all.

The Thersilion, or assembly hall, built in close connexion with the theatre at Megalopolis, has now been completely cleared. Several plans of the building, including a conjectural restoration, have already appeared in the special Supplement to the Journal of Hellenic Studies, published this year. The latter was based on the small tentative diggings already made. The plan (Pl. XXI.) in this number shows the whole area, and includes many additions and corrections from the earlier plan.

The chief point of interest has been the arrangement of the columns behind the centre. It was evident at once, as soon as the clearing began, that the plan did not in all respects bear out Mr. Schultz's conjectural restoration (Supplementary paper, J.H.S., p. 19). This was due partly to the fact that in the previous small diggings on the site two columns in the outer row next the south wall had been missed, partly because it was found on remeasurement that the centre was incorrectly marked.

For the sake of convenience we propose to call the outer row of columns a, the second row b, and so on to the central scheme of four columns which we call e. The columns are further indicated by numbers; thus the southwest column in row a is a 1, the next following the line is a 2, up to a 17: the south-west column of b is b 1, and so with the other rows.

Iron is mentioned in the following passages of Homer (ὅστις ποτ᾿ ἐστίν, εἰ τόδ᾿ αὐτῷ φίλον κεκλημένῳ, τοῦτό νιν προσεννέπω), and in these passages only:—

Δ 123, 485, 510; Ε 723; Ζ 48; Η 141, 144, 473; Θ 15; Ι 366; Κ 379; Λ 133; Ρ 424; Σ 34; Υ 372; Χ 357; Ψ 30, 177, 261, 834, 851; Ω 205, 521; a 184, 204; δ 293; ε 191; ι 393; μ 280; ξ 324; ο 329; π 294; ρ 565; τ 13, 211, 494, 587; φ 3, 10, 61, 81, 97, 114, 127, 328; ψ 172; ω 168, 177.

These passages form a basis for discussing two interesting and important points in the Homeric question: (1) whether Homer's acquaintance with iron differs so much in different books that we must believe those books to belong to different ages; and (2) whether iron plays such different parts in Homer and in Mycenae that we cannot believe the Homeric age to be coincident with the Mycenaean period.

Among the sepulchral epigrams comprising Book 7 of the Palatine Anthology, these two by Meleager occur in a sequence (189–216) having to do with animals, mainly birds or insects, that appears to derive from Meleager's Garland. The prose translation above will reveal that the interpretation to be proposed differs considerably from previous readings of either poem, specifically in that it runs counter to the following common beliefs or assumptions. 1. That the poems, while having many features in common, are to be read as two discrete works with no integral connection between them. 2. That the two epigrams, being non-sepulchral, are included in this part of the Anthology, perhaps erroneously and only by reason of their affinities with those insect poems that are sepulchral. 3. That the narrator of each epigram is a human being; the poet himself or some persona such as a ‘love-sick swain’. 4. That the addressee of each epigram is a pet, probably kept in a cage as such insects sometimes were, and so the vegetable mentioned in v. 7 of 195 is to be presented, along with the dew drops, by the human master. 5. That the phrase στóμασι σχιʒομένας in the final verse of 195 is difficult or impossible. (All attempts towards an explanation or emendation of the text are premised on points 2 and 3 above.) 6. That the word άντῳδόν in v. 5 of 196 indicates a response to a musical performance by Pan.

Since such works as Beulé's L'Acropole, d'Athènes, the Count De Laborde's Athènes au xv.e, xvi.e, et xvii.eSiècles, and Michaelis's Parthenon have appeared, the history of the Acropolis and its buildings has been made widely known, or at least the ascertainment of exact information has been made easy for all interested in these subjects. The more complete the list of records, the more importance do we attach to any new document referring directly to the Acropolis or the Parthenon. The two drawings in the library of the late Sir Thomas Phillipps at Thirlstane House, Cheltenham, here published, give views of the Acropolis in 1687.

The main points in the history of the Parthenon (for this ever remains the centre of interest on the Acropolis of Athens), are the following: After its completion in 438 B.C. it appears to have remained in its original condition until it was turned into a Christian church about the middle of the fifth century or the middle of the sixth, and by peculiar persistency of its original dedication to the virgin goddess of wisdom, it appears to have been at first converted into a church of St. Sophia and then of the Virgin Mary. The alterations made chiefly affected the interior of the temple.

1.—Funeral banquet stele (one sitting and four reclining figures) found by Mr. de Rustafell near the eastern walls; height 0·61, breadth 0·74, height of letters ̇01 metre.

2.—Broken funeral banquet stele found at Yeni Keui; height 0·54, breadth 0·46, letters ·01.

3.—Broken stele with bust of man, debased style: at Yeni Keui.

4.—Broken slab of rough marble, at Yeni Keui; height 0·60, breadth 0·46, letters of late form and irregular.

Professor Gomme's approach to the study of Sappho and Alcaeus (JHS lvii (1957), 255 sqq.) is so different from mine that a detailed reply to his article would probably not be very profitable, except perhaps at one point which may be of some general interest. He seems to wonder why the lines were excluded from Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta: these are lines which ‘can charm most men's ears’; but ‘Lobel and Page’, being insensitive to poetry, ‘have such a hate’ of it that ‘they have banished it not only from Sappho, but from Lesbian, and leave it lying about, not telling us what, if it is not Lesbian, it is’. Of course I reply for myself only, not for Mr. Lobel: and I say (i) that you ought not to speak of ‘banishing’ a poem from Sappho or from Lesbian if it was not assigned thereto by any ancient authority; (ii) that if I do not tell anybody ‘what, if it is not Lesbian, it is’, the reason is not perversity but ignorance: I do not know, nor does anybody else, who wrote these lines or when. They belong to a large category, the adespota, which we must ‘leave lying about’ simply because we do not know where to put them.

The purpose of this article is to examine the meaning and function of certain expressions used for conveying thanks in Greek. It does not pretend to be an exhaustive survey of all the expressions which are used in this connexion, but is restricted in scope to the Greek of the classical period and to those expressions which were in common use in conversation to convey thanks when an offer, gift, etc., was being accepted or declined. These expressions it will be convenient to call ‘responsive formulae’.

The ordinary expressions for feeling or conveying thanks combine χάριν with a verb such as εἰδέναι or ἔχειν, but as readers of Greek literature will have become aware, if only subconsciously, these combinations are not to be found used responsively in the prose or verse of the classical period. Before this sweeping generalisation provokes outright contradiction, let it be freely admitted that cases of the responsive use do exist.

The repairs of the Parthenon are drawing to a close and visitors coming to Athens next Easter may hope to see the temple freed from its casing of timber. They must be prepared for other changes also. Already the removal of part of the scaffolding and the re-erection of it in July round the Erechtheum have shown that the Greek authorities intend to carry into effect the scheme for rebuilding the North Porch and West Wall which aroused some vigorous protests when it was publicly announced in April. The Parthenon repairs have been works of conservation. The present scheme is one of restoration, and it is natural therefore that it should have aroused a good deal of hostile criticism.