P.Oxy. 4711 (from a papyrus codex of the sixth century AD) contains elegiacs with at least three metamorphosis myths (Adonis, Asterie, Narcisssus). In this article I argue against the suggestion by (among others) the first editor of this papyrus that the verses might be by Parthenius. I do so by examining the evidence for Parthenian authorship (especially the presumed imitations by Ovid and Gregory of Nazianzus) and by comparing the style of the new piece with what we actually possess of Parthenian poetry (especially with fr. 28 Lightfoot, which might come from the Metamorphoseis). Instead I suggest a late date of composition and would regard the fragments as a collection of the-matically arranged διηέματα in verse which are related to the production of progymnasmata in schools.

Ancient authorities agree in placing the division of the people into tribes, phratries and gene among the most primitive institutions of Athens. The question presents itself, Were all the citizens enrolled in all of these organisations, or were some sections of the people excluded from any or all of them? On the answer given to this question depends to some extent the view to be taken of the origin of this triple classification.

The prevailing opinion is that, whereas tribes and phratries embraced the whole citizen-body, the gene were the exclusive organisation of the nobles. M. Cary adduces a fragment of early Attic law to prove that the phratries contained others besides gennetai (I shall deal later with this text) and asserts, in the face of the explicit testimony of Aristotle and the lexicographers, that the genos was not a subdivision of the phratry. I can find absolutely no support in the texts for this view. Most modern authorities are so completely convinced of the aristocratic nature of the genos that they do not even try to prove it. Francotte says simply: ‘D'abord, les genê sont des institutions aristocratiques. Je ne crois pas qu'il soit nécessaire d'insister.’

The questions involved in this passage continue to be matter of debate. At this point in the dialogue the Forms are not yet regarded as causes, or as ‘in’ particulars; they are here introduced as in each case the perfect type, which particulars so named imperfectly resemble. Thus, equal things are described as being ‘like’ αὐτὸ τὸ ἴσον How far can this statement be reconciled with the case of the other Forms, which are presently instanced as on a par with ‘the Equal’ (75 c–d, οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ ἴσου νῦν ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν μᾶλλόν τι ἤ καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ δικαίου καὶ ὁσίου). Further, what is the point and significance of the plural phrase αὐτὰ τὰ ἴσα?

(I) αὐτὸ τὸ ἴσον Plato does not at any point in his argument indicate that he finds any difference in status between αὐτὸ τὸ ἴσον and the other perfect types. He refers to it in terms which become familiar in relation to the Forms of being. Thus, 74c, ἐκ τούτων . . .τῶν ἴσων, ἑτέρων ὄντων ἐκείνου τοῦ ἴσου 74d, ὅταν τίς τι ἰδὼν ἐννοήσῃ ὅτι βούλεται μὲν τοῦτο . . . εἶναι οἶον ἄλλο τι τῶν ὄντων, ἐνδεῖ δέ, κτλ 75a, ἰδόντες τὰ ἴσα ἐνενοήσαμεν, ὅτι ὀρέγεται μὲν πάντα ταῦτα εἶναι οἶον τὸ ἴσον, ἔχει δέ ἐνδεεστέρως . . . ἐκείνου τε ὀρέγεται τοῦ ἔστιν ἴσον, καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐνδεέστερά έστιν 75b, εἰληφότας ἐπιστήμην αὐτοῦ ἴσου ὅτι ἔστιν It is after this passage of exercise, so to speak, in the concept of αὐτὸ τὸ ἴσον that he explicitly (75c–d, already quoted) places this Form on a level with αὐτὸ τὸ καλόν and the rest.

When discussing the monetary reform of Solon, I adopted the view that he obtained his supplies of silver for his new coinage from Corinth: it was obviously necessary for the success of his scheme that he should get silver from some market other than Aegina, and Corinth appeared to be the only place that would ‘ fill the bill’: she had a coinage on a standard independent of Aegina, with the same unit of weight for the stater as that adopted by Solon, and it seemed probable that the stations established by Periander on the Illyrian coast would enable her to procure silver from the mines in the interior. But recent research by Mr. John May has shown that these mines were situated much further from the Adriatic than had been inferred from Strabo's account : the centre of the mining region was Damastium, and the site of Damastium, on the evidence of coin-finds, was clearly near Scupi (Skoplje) and the upper valley of the Axius.

In this study we have compared an Arabic translation with a well-edited Greek text, in the preparation of which, moreover, the editors have found no evidence of any major lacunae in their MSS, and which we may suppose to correspond closely with Galen's original composition. It was, consequently, from the first improbable that we should make any very striking discoveries: nothing was to be expected at all comparable with the indubitable evidence for the inversion of a leaf in the codex from which are derived our Greek manuscripts of Galen's An in arteriis natura sanguis contineatur (Furley and Wilkie, CR xxii [1972] 164–7).

For anyone interested in the Arabic translations of Galen's works there was, however, a compensatory advantage in the possibility thus presented of assessing the quality of the Arabic version. The reputation of the translator, Hunain ibn Isḥāq, has, indeed, already been long established; and we were prepared to find his translation at the least respectable; it is safe to say, however, that we have found it uniformly excellent.

In Pollux, VIII. 20 (ed. Bethe, Leipzig, 1900–37) in the section on σκεύη δικαστικά—κιγκλίς, δρύφακτος κτλ.—we read περισχοινίσαντας (περισκηνήσαντας A) δέ τι τῆς ἀγορᾶς μέρος ἔδει φέρειν εἰς τὸν περιορισθέντα τόπον Ἀθηναίων τὸν βουλόμενον ὄστρακον ἐγγεγραμμένον τοὔνομα τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐξοστρακίƷεσθαι. Dindorf described περισκηνήσαντας, ‘quod hactenus vulgatum est’, as ‘ineptissimum’, and it has been given short shrift. Bearing in mind that good authorities speak of a more solid and substantial barrier than a σχοῖνος on occasions of ostracism, he suggested that περισχοινίƷειν could mean simply ‘circumsepire, cingere, circumdare septo, vel cancellis’. But surely the σχοῖνος element of the word is inescapable; περισχοινίƷειν means ‘;place a rope around’; and if he used this word Pollux is in conflict with other writers, notably Philochorus, and is probably wrong. Carcopino, who quotes περισχοινίσαντας without question, thinks that Pollux has simply made a mistake, misled by recollection of the σχοινίον μεμιλτωμένον with which stragglers were shepherded into the assembly. But there would be little risk of confusion with the red rope; the error is due rather to recollection of the roped enclosures mentioned below.

Diomedes, king of the Bistones, a war-like people of Thrace, owned man-eating horses, which Herakles had to subdue: according to Apollodoros (ii 5.8) this was his eighth labour. Neither the number nor the order of Herakles' labours is certain; our earliest evidence for a canonical twelve is the metopal decoration of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (470–457 B.C.). The second metope from the south corner of the eastern end of the temple is badly preserved, but enough remains to make it clear that Herakles was here represented standing in front of a single horse, subduing it in much the same manner as he does the Cretan Bull on the west end of the Temple. Earlier, in the sixth century, Bathykles had represented Herakles ‘subduing Diomedes’ on the ‘throne’ at Amyklae (Pausanias iii 8.12), but of this nothing remains.

Until the publication in 1961 of a papyrus with more than fifty new verses of a poem by Pindar, our earliest literary evidence for Herakles' encounter with Diomedes was the Alcestis of Euripides (438 B.C.): Herakles comes to the palace of Thessalian Admetus, on his way to the Bistones (ll. 482 ff.). The new poem, which probably antedates the Alcestis by several decades, begins, as preserved, with a brief mention of Herakles' theft of Geryon's cattle and the moral implications of his deed.

The copious discussion which has been raised in recent years on the subject of the Four Hundred at Athens has brought out at any rate one certain conclusion. Of our two main authorities for the revolution of 411 B.C. neither Thucydides nor Aristotle can be pronounced entirely right or wrong, and it is no longer admissible to settle the differences between them by canonising the one and ruling the other out of order. Both our authorities can be convicted of some palpable mistakes, but again both can be proved right by collateral evidence on many points of detail. In reconstructing the history of the movement our choice between these two sources must therefore not be made on the ground of any a priori preference accorded to the one or the other. The only safe procedure is to adjudicate each question outstanding between them on the special merits of the case. It is not to be expected that even by this method finality can be attained. But a review of recent controversy will show that only by a pragmatic method of treatment is there much chance of collecting a nucleus of agreed truth.

In their accounts of the return of Orestes, the three great tragedians show respect for the ancient tradition and the greatness of it by their several interpretations. Each preserves the general tenor of the legend. Electra awaits the return of her brother to avenge her father's death. The secrecy of his return delays recognition, but once Orestes is made known to his sister the punishment of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus becomes inevitable. Of the differences in action and character in each play, the most significant is the means whereby the recognition of Orestes takes place. This affects not only the mood of each tragedy, but its construction.

The recognition scene placed early in the Choephori (224) presents an almost rustic simplicity (lines 228, 231, 232). This matches the lament and slow movement of the invocation by Orestes, Electra and the chorus that follow. The audience are spectators of a simple action from which the drama as simply proceeds. Such simplicity rightly receives an archaic treatment derived from a great religious tradition. The Euripidean version, psychologically more complicated, shows the interplay of personal relationships largely dependent upon memory. This complexity, expressed in the intricate nature of prologue, delays the recognition of Orestes by Electra. Yet in Euripides (Electra 577) the scene still occurs comparatively early—perhaps in deference to tradition, or perhaps that the movement of vengeance can be more fully displayed. In Sophocles (Electra 1224), however, the recognition scene is placed towards the end of the play.

This article is intended not only to record additions and corrections to Island Gems (published by the Hellenic Society in 1963 as its tenth Supplementary Volume; here abbreviated IGems), but also to discuss a class of engraved stones which was not properly distinguished in that book. The main series of Island Gems belongs to the seventh and early sixth centuries B.C. Most of the stones and a few of their devices copy Bronze Age forms, and the material is generally a distinctive, often translucent, green serpentine (‘steatite’). This series ends in the first half of the sixth century, but it was possible to identify, by their material and technique, some later gems from Island workshops which correspond in style and shape with the contemporary Greek scarabs in harder materials. The comparatively soft material had meant that the intaglio devices on Island gems could be cut without recourse to the drill or cutting wheel, and this technique was retained for the later scarabs. It is evident, however, that for a while already in the sixth century Island artists had experimented with the harder materials then being employed for engraved seals in Greece; and with some shapes which seem to compromise between the old and the new. These stones seem to belong to the middle and second half of the sixth century. A list follows:

(i) Oxford 1925.129. plate I. Green steatite tapered scaraboid with convex face. L. 20 (mm.). A lion. IGems no. 349, fig. 6, pl. 13.

(ii) Athens, from Sunium. plate I. Green steatite. Shape as the last. L. 20. Contorted bull-headed man. IGems no. 350, pl. 13.

(iii) Paris, Bibl. Nat., ex Louvre C 8514. Rock crystal plump lentoid. W. 18. Summary representation of a winged horse.

(iv) Boston 27.678 (once Bruschi, Warren), plate I. Chalcedony lentoid with domed back and shallow convex face. W. 21. Facing head of a satyr with fillet ends behind the ears and an arrow marking at the centre of the forehead.