Upon the discovery of any great monument of ancient art, a series of objects of minor importance which had hitherto been awaiting identification are immediately seen to connect themselves more or less closely with the newly discovered work. Whence it comes that the course of historical development of ancient art is continually being exhibited with a nearer approach to completeness. The present article is an attempt to add another minor work to the list of statues and reliefs which group themselves round the frieze of the Great Altar of Pergamon.

The plate represents a somewhat mutilated work, No. 679 in the gallery of bronzes in the Museo Kircheriano at Rome. The subject is Athene engaged in no uncertain combat with her constant antagonist the giant Enceladus. The goddess has drawn back a little from herenemy: and whilst herself protected by the shield with its gorgoneion which she carries on her left arm, she is on the point of delivering the final thrust with the weapon she holds in her right hand. Enceladus, on his part, is at the same time recoiling somewhat from Athene, and collecting all his force for a blow.

My difference with Professor Morrison can, I think, be best expressed as follows. (1) In Herodotos' debate there is no compromise between democracy and monarchy (any more than between either of these and oligarchy), no comfortable Polybian mixture of good elements. Otanes especially is quite uncompromising: ἐμοὶ δοκέει ἔνα μὲν ήμέων μούναρχον μηκέτι γενέσθαι οὔτε γάρ ἡδύ οὔτε ἀγαθόν . . . πλῆθος δὲ ἄρχον . . . τούτων τῶν ὁ μούναρχος ποιέει ούδέν, and so throughout. The μούναρχος is autocrat or nothing. And the remarks of Megabyxos and Dareios on democracy remind one of the Old Oligarch, no friend to Perikles. (2) Although I agree of course that it is Greek thought and not Persian that informs the debate, it is not for nothing that it is Dareios, the best of μούναρχοι, who defends μουναρχίη; that is, at this stage Herodotos has the Persian monarchy in mind. And (3), in as much as it is Greek experience, not Persian, that is behind Dareios' description of the failures of oligarchy and democracy that lead inevitably to μουναρχίη, it is Greek experience of the rise of tyranny—ἐ ςἔχθε αμεγάλ αἀλλήλοισ ιἀπικνέοται, ἐξ ὧν στάσιες ἐγγίγνονται, ἐκ δὲ τῶν στασίων φόνος, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ φόνου ἀπέβη ἐς μουναρχίην; and from democracy, τοῦτο ςὲ τοιοῦτο γίνεται ἐς ὃ ἂν προστάς τις τοῦ δήμου τοὺς τοιούτους παύσῃ ἐκ δὲ αὐτῶν θωμάзεται οὗτος δὴ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου, θωμαзόμεος δὲ ἀν' ὧν ἐφάνη μούναρχος ἐών. The enemies of Perikles likened him to Peisistratos and his power, to a tyranny; but was Herodotos among these enemies ? (Alkibiades might have read the last sentence quoted above as his justification for ‘aiming at a tyranny’). And not Peisistratos, but other Herodotean tyrants are in some measure like the oriental μούναρχος, Kleisthenes of Sikyon (compare him with Croesus) and Polykrates: does Herodotos wish to suggest that Perikles was like either of these? More particularly since he was a wise man and knew that Xerxes-was as much a μούναρχος-type as Dareios.

The following list of coins bought on our journey may be of interest as showing what the currency of the districts must have been. Only Greek coins are here treated; of Roman coins it was noticed that denarii rarely occur earlier than Trajan, after whom they become increasingly common, while the copper hardly appears till the second quarter of the third century.

The periodic festival known as the Χρυσάνθινα celebrated at Sardis in the late Imperial period is known already from numerous inscriptions, noted below. This note concerns an unpublished letter of the year 1838, which contains a brief allusion to an inscription, apparently now lost, in which the festival is mentioned.

In 1838 Henry Wentworth Acland, aged at the time 23, and an undergraduate of Christ Church, visited the Troad from H.M.S. Pembroke, in which he was cruising in the eastern Mediterranean for the sake of his health, to study the topography of that region.

The name vase of the Painter of the Oxford Brygos, a fragmentary red-figure cup from Caere of the late archaic period, is well known (Plates I, IIa). Since it came to Oxford in 1911 it has been augmented from time to time by new fragments; the latest addition is a fragment formerly in New York, now on indefinite loan to the Ashmolean Museum, which was seen by Dr Dietrich von Bothmer to belong to the Oxford Brygos cup. This fragment has now been incorporated in the cup and several other pieces have been rearranged, on both sides, to good advantage. There seems to be no reason to question the identity of the artist as originally defined by Beazley. The cup is signed under the handle by Brygos as potter, but the style is quite different from that of Brygos' most frequent collaborator, the Brygos Painter. If A. Cambitoglou is correct in identifying the Brygos Painter and Potter as one and the same, we must assume that on this occasion Brygos potted for a second artist. The purpose of this article is primarily to draw attention to the restoration of the Oxford cup and to attempt a re-interpretation of the vase as a whole; it also, however, has a secondary purpose, to publish for the first time the only other vase securely assigned by Beazley to the same artist. The latter is a cup formerly on the Roman market and preserved in drawings in the German Archaeological Institute in Rome. While we do not suggest that the two cups are necessarily a pair, they do have some interesting features in common. First, the Rome cup (Plate IIb—d).

The contents of the famous ‘Grotta of Isis’ discovered on the Polle-drara estates at Vulci in 1839 have been generally known to archaeologists ever since the publication in 1844 of Micali's Monumenti Inediti, where a selection of them is given on Pll. iv.—viii., pp. 37—71. The quality however of the drawings there given is very far from answering the present requirements of study: and an adequate publication of these important remains has long been badly wanted. In the course of last year Professor Victor Horsley had a series of elaborate drawings made of some of the principal objects in the tomb, as a present to Professor Montelius. As the latter did not intend to publish the drawings in their elaborate form, Professor Horsley most kindly arranged with Mr. Murray that some of the more important should be presented to the Hellenic Society; it is thus owing to him that the Society is enabled to put this valuable series of drawings within the reach of scholars.

The questions concerning the art of Pergamon, its characteristics and later influence, depend partly for their solution on the reconstruction and explanation of the fragments in Berlin. Much progress has been made in the work during the last year. The discovery which decided what was the breadth of the staircase, and what were the figures which adorned the left wing and the left staircase wall, has been already mentioned in the Hellenic Journal. It is now officially stated that the staircase was on the west side of the altar, although Bohn, in his survey of the site, at first conceived that this was impossible. Assuming that this point is now settled, we may note what is certain, or probable, or what is merely conjectural, in the placing of the groups. We know that the wing on the left of the staircase, and the left staircase-wall, were occupied by the deities of the sea and their antagonists: by Triton, Amphitrite, Nereus, and others which we cannot name. Among them, also, we may perhaps discern the figure of Hephaestos, and in their vicinity we must suppose Poseidon. On the right wing of the staircase, and around the south-west corner, we have good reason for placing Dionysos, with Cybele and her attendant goddesses, although the order of the slabs on which these latter are found is not the same as was formerly supposed.