bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Alexander's Plans
Authors: Tarn W. W.
Published: May 2006

I return to this subject, on which I wrote in 1921, because there is a good deal to be said which is new and which should, I think, be pretty conclusive. I have recently been compelled to write once again on Alexander's universalism, and the two matters are interconnected; also Professor Wilcken has put forward a new view of the principal plan, that for the conquest of the Mediterranean basin, which I think is untenable. The importance of the question of this plan for our ideas of Alexander needs no emphasising.

The document which contains the plans is given in Diodorus xviii, 4, 2–5, and Wilcken, like every German scholar to-day, believes that that document comes from Hieronymus and is therefore true. I have traced this belief back as far as I can, and cannot find that anyone has ever attempted to prove it; it arises from the unquestioned fact that (Agathocles apart) the basis and much of the detail of Diodorus' books xviii–xx are from Hieronymus. But the question of xviii, 4, 2–5 stands thus, xviii, 5 is certainly from Hieronymus.
The Hermes of Praxiteles
Authors: Law H. W.
Published: May 2006

To the discussion conducted during 1931, in the pages of The American Journal of Archaeology, regarding the authenticity of this work Prof. W. B. Dinsmoor made an important contribution, in which he pointed out marked technical differences between the style of the pedestal in front of which the statue was found and that of pedestals of the second century A.D., to which some would assign the work. In his opinion the pedestal dates from the second century B.C., a period hardly possible as the date of the statue itself; the inference being that during that century the statue had been transferred from its original position to the place in the Heraeum where it was found. I suggest that the occasion of the transfer was the receipt, in 146 B.C., at Olympia of intelligence of Mummius' proceedings at Corinth. He in fact treated Olympia well, dedicating gilded shields on the temple of Zeus and images of Zeus from the spoils of Achaea, in addition to other gifts. But the authorities may reasonably not have anticipated such treatment from him, and have decided that removal to the Heraeum, the oldest temple at Olympia, offered the best chance of preserving the statue.
A forgotten factor of Greek naval strategy
Authors: Gomme A. W.
Published: May 2006

It is a common-place of most scholars, followed enthusiastically by writers of text-books, that Greek sailors did not like the sea; they went from island to island, or crept along the coast. Rarely did they leave the sight of land, and then only the most venturesome; and they did not sail by night. I don't know that I have seen it stated in so many words, but it is implied that the close relations between Miletus and Sybaris were maintained by voyages across the Aegean to Corinth (e.g.: ‘Corinth becomes the centre of exchange with Italy: it pays better to break cargo at the isthmus than to sail round the stormy coasts of the Peloponnese’), thence (but in Milesian or foreign ships?) through the gulf, up the north-west coast to Corcyra, hurriedly and anxiously across to Otranto, then, following every curve of the coast, past Tarentum and Metapontum, to their goal. If goods must go further, as so many did to Etruria, they took another isthmus-route overland to Laus or Scidrus, thence along the coast again, even as far as Massalia and Emporiae.
‘A Book to Keep’
Authors: Murray Gilbert
Published: May 2006

If what I am giving you this afternoon is little more than a series of rather conjectural reflections about well-known matters, my excuse is that I was tempted by an invitation from an old and highly valued pupil to speak in memory of an intimate companion of the distant days when I was young, a companion from whom I learnt much. Marett, like Frazer and Jane Harrison and others, used his knowledge of Greek as a bridge towards the study of anthropology in general. It is a specially helpful bridge, because the Greeks, with their extraordinary command of literary expression, have left articulate evidence about their thought and feelings and customs at a stage of development when other peoples had no literature. One is always surprised at the coexistence in Greece of the highly developed and the utterly primitive. Dr. Galton in a speculative guess at the intelligence quota of different human groups put the fifth-century Athenian about twice as high as the nineteenth-century Londoner; yet an Athenian army was reduced to terror by an eclipse of the moon, contemporaries of Thucydides worshipped at the Diasia an imaginary enormous snake, and while Aristotle was writing his treatise on dramatic poetry some of his contemporaries were introducing Ludi Scenici to Rome as a medicine against a pestilence.
The Gymnasium of Bromius—A Note on Dionysius Chalcus, Fr.3
Authors: Borthwick E. K.
Published: May 2006

‘Thirdly we love-sick youths introduce also a cottabus to take its stand for you here in the gymnasium of Bromius, as a punch-ball. All you who are present entwine your fingers in the thongs of the cups (i.e. the cup-handles which serve as thongs); and (?) before fixing your eyes on it (the target), you should measure by pacing with your eyes the air high above the couch, and estimate the area over which the wine-drops are to extend.’

These lines are quoted by Athenaeus (668e) in his celebrated account of the Sicilian and Athenian after-dinner game of cottabus, a pastime which has long been a matter of academic controversy. In several points text and interpretation are not clear. In general, it is an elaborate jest in which a cottabus party is described in vocabulary appropriate to the gymnasium and its pursuits, the dining-room itself being called the γυμνάσιον Βρομίον.
On the Possibility of Reconstructing Marathon and Other Ancient Battles
Authors: Whatley N.
Published: May 2006

I must begin with an explanation of my reasons for writing this paper. I have for some years been interested in modern attempts to reconstruct ancient campaigns and battles—especially those between Greece and Persia—in fact, most of the arguments I am using tonight were first written down in a rather different form in 1913. But I should not have thought it worth while to read them to this Society had not Admiral Custance's book, his lectures, his address to this Society and the discussion which followed it made me feel that this subject is still one of fairly general interest, that we are still far from arriving at certainty with regard to the history of ancient fights, and that it may be worth while to raise some general questions such as, ‘How far it really is possible to reconstruct ancient battles with any finality’ and ‘how far the methods of attempting to do so usually followed by modern writers really are the soundest methods to employ’.
The Origins and the Nature of the Athenian Alliance of 478/7 B.C.
Authors: Hammond N. G. L.
Published: May 2006

This article is concerned with the antecedents to the formation of the group known as οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ οἱ σύμμαχοι, and correctly styled the (First) Athenian Alliance (in distinction from the Second Athenian Alliance) and with the problems of its constitutional arrangements. So much has been written in the knowledge of subsequent events—by Herodotus, Thucydides and modern scholars—that it is particularly difficult for us to see this topic in its historical perspective, that is to see how the Athenian Alliance grew out of what went before. For example, the hegemony enjoyed by Athens in the Alliance has been described by many as the means by which she was later to fulfil her imperialistic ambitions, but few have studied its powers in relation to earlier examples of hegemony; yet it must have been these earlier examples of hegemony which were active in men's minds in 478/7 B.C. After a section, A, on the nature of the evidence, I therefore keep to the historical order and discuss in section B the campaign of Mycale down to the capture of Sestus; in section C the operations under Pausanias and the change of hegemony; in section D the creation of the Athenian Alliance; and in section E the relationship between Athens and the Allies.
Double Representation in the Strategia
Authors: Lewis D. M.
Published: May 2006

With the simultaneous recognition by Jameson and Westlake of the importance o. Plutarch, Nikias 15.2 in the tangled problems of election to the strategia, the discussion has entered a new phase, and the problems are clarified by Professor Dover's article. It is now clear that the formulae which have been thought to indicate ‘chairmanship’ are not reliable guides, but there remains some force in Jameson's contention that double representation of tribes in the strategia arises rather from electing one general ἐξ ἁπάντων to provide a chairman than from any desire to ensure fairness to candidates in a tribe where the post was monopolised over a long period by one candidate. After Dover's article, cases of double representation are left as our sole material for looking at the problem, and my only aim here is to examine some other years where double representation seems possible. I include some negative results and start with one.
Thucydides in Book I
Authors: Adcock F. E.
Published: May 2006

Work on Thucydides published in the last thirty years has mostly shown two tendencies, the one, to regard Thucydides as having two successive attitudes towards history; the other to revert to Eduard Meyer's view that the work as we have it, in all important points of interpretation at least, was written at one time and that time after the Fall of Athens. I should say at once that I am sceptical about both these views and also—to go rather farther back in the discussion—I would agree with Pohlenz in doubting the far-reaching activity of an ‘editor’ who left the end of the eighth book as we have it. Such unity of outlook as the whole work presents—such unity as Prof. Finley has stressed in his Thucydides—seems to me due, not to the work being written or finally shaped all at one time, but to its being written all by one man who from the first had strong and definite ideas and a clear notion of what he was trying to do. The tendencies which I have mentioned naturally lead to the conclusion that the first book has been, if not written, yet reshaped or largely added to at a later stage in Thucydides' career and may reflect a change of view about the causes or antecedents of the war. It seems worth while to examine those parts of the book in which these effects would show themselves if they exist, i.e. chiefly in the speeches and the excursus on the Pentekontaetia and its setting.

The archaeologia proper, chapters 1–19, gives reasons for Thucydides' expectation that the war would be a great one and more notable than any of its predecessors, judging this from the fact that both sides entered it at the height of their preparedness and that the whole Greek world was on one side or the other or contemplating joining one side or the other (1, 1). The Western Greeks got no further than this contemplation when the war began and it would be natural to suppose that Thucydides wrote these words when he did not yet know that they would go no further. The main argument of the archaeologia seems to show how this height of preparedness and tendency to fall into two camps was reached, and the last sentence of 19 underlines the conclusion.
The generals in The Hellespont, 410–407 B.C.
Authors: Andrewes A.
Published: May 2006

The course of Athenian military operations after the battle of Kyzikos is not to be explained by considerations of strategy alone. Immediately after their victory the Athenian commanders acted briskly enough, building a fort and instituting a tithe at Chrysopolis, but instead of following up the annihilation of Mindaros' fleet by the capture of Sparta's bases on land, they then lapsed into an inactivity hard to excuse in generals who had just shown such capacity in action, and apparently alien to the temperament of Alkibiades. The whole history of Greek naval warfare shows that no power can maintain control of the sea while the nearby seaboard remains in the hands of the enemy, and by thus neglecting the coastal towns Athens allowed Sparta bases in the Hellespont for the ships which Pasippidas and Klearchos collected from the allies (Xen. Hell. I 1. 32, 36, 3. 17) and even opportunity for new construction (ibid. 1. 25–6, 3. 17). The Hellespont was in any case vital to Athens, the area in which a defeat could lose the whole war for her, yet though Thrasyllos had gone home months before the battle to get reinforcements for the Hellespont, nothing was sent there, and when Thrasyllos did collect a force he took it to Ionia.
Greek Astronomical Calendars and their Relation to the Athenian Civil Calendar
Authors: van der Waerden B. L.
Published: May 2006

Several investigations have been devoted to the Athenian calendar and to the cycles of Meton and Kallippos. However, most authors have not clearly distinguished between true and mean lunar months, nor between astronomical calendars and the Athenian calendar. In investigating the Athenian calendar, many authors have made use of the regular successions of full and hollow months described by Geminos in hisIsagoge, without first making sure that these months were in actual use at Athens. Discussion as to whether ‘the month’ began with the astronomical New Moon or with the visibility of the crescent might have been avoided if the authors had realised that the word ‘month’ has several meanings and that in every particular case the meaning has to be inferred from the context. Peasants or soldiers, far away from civilisation, would start their month with the visible crescent, astronomers would make it begin at the day of true or mean New Moon, and cities would adapt their festival calendar to the needs of the moment, intercalating or omitting days in such a way that the festivals can be held at the days prescribed by law or tradition. Of course, it may happen any time that a civil month coincides with the astronomical or with the observed lunar month, but in absence of definite evidence we never have the right to identify a civil month with an astronomical month.
Cyrenaican Expeditions: Note
Authors: Healy J. F.
Published: May 2006

The reviewer of A. Rowe, ‘Cyrenaican Expeditions’ (JHS lxxxii 199–200), in commenting on the catalogue of the coins from the excavations, criticises, without grounds for so doing, the absence of illustrations and the fact that the short descriptions in the text closely follow Robinson, British Museum Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyrenaica (CGC) and Svoronos, Νομίσματα τοῦ κράτους τῶν Πτολεμαίων (SN).

The reviewer appears not to have read the footnotes (especially n. 4, p. 29) in which I clearly discuss the whole problem of recording the coins in question:

‘Many of the coins bearing these types are, as the present example, heavily corroded. Weights and sizes have therefore been omitted and the detail recorded comes from the composite evidence of other less damaged specimens (from CGC and SN). The same practice has been followed throughout wherever expedient. In view of the condition of the coins generally, references to standard catalogues are given instead of illustrations.’

The practice of referring to identical issues recorded in standard catalogues seemed to me preferable to the inclusion of a set of illustrations which no printer would have been eager to accept in view of the worn or damaged condition of many of the coins represented.
Aristotle as a Historian of Philosophy: Some Preliminaries
Authors: Guthrie W. K. C.
Published: May 2006

The work of Cherniss on Aristotle's criticism of the Presocratics may be compared with that of Jaeger on the development of Aristotle's own thought as contained in his Aristoteles of 1923. Jaeger modestly described that epoch-making work as a Grundlegung or foundation for the history of the philosopher's development, and as such it has been of value not only for itself but in the stimulus it has given to further study, in the course of which the balance of its conclusions has been to some extent altered. Cherniss's own study is of the same pioneer kind, and if I confess to a feeling that it goes rather too far, the comparison with the now classic work of Jaeger will, I hope, make clear my general admiration and appreciation of the fact that it is a permanent contribution with which all future scholarship will have to reckon.

I cannot at this stage even begin to discuss in detail the mass of erudition on which Cherniss's case is built up. Nevertheless, the very widespread acceptance of his strictures on Aristotle's historical sense suggest that anyone to whom they seem extreme should lose no time in giving voice to his misgivings, even in general terms, before they become irrevocably canonical. This thought has been prompted by the recent monograph of Mr. J. B. McDiarmid, Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes, at the beginning of which we read simply that ‘the question of Aristotle's bias has been dealt with exhaustively by H. Cherniss’, whose views then become, without further remark, the starting-point of the younger scholar's own inquiry into the reliability of Theophrastus. Since in what follows I may speak critically of McDiarmid on several points, let me say that his main thesis, the dependence of Theophrastus on Aristotle in much of his φυσικων δόξαι and the consequent danger of regarding him as a separate authority for Presocratic thought, seems true enough. The derivation of Theophrastus's judgments from those of his master was already beginning to be recognised with fruitful results, and the time was ripe for a general review of the evidence.
Aristotle and the Consequentia Mirabilis
Authors: Kneale William
Published: May 2006

In a passage of his Protrepticus mentioned by several ancient authors Aristotle wrote: εἰ μὲνφιλοσοφητέον φιλοσοφητέον, καὶ εἰ μὴ φιλοσοφητέον φιλοσοφητέον πάντως ἄρα φιλοσοφητέον (V. Rose, Aristotelis Fragmenta, 51. Cf. R. Walzer, Aristotelis Dialogorum Fragmenta, p. 22; W. D. Ross, Select Fragments of Aristotle, p. 27). That is to say, ‘If we ought to philosophise, then we ought to philosophise; and if we ought not to philosophise, then we ought to philosophise (i.e. in order to justify this view); in any case, therefore, we ought to philosophise’. So far as I know, this is the first appearance in philosophical literature of a pattern of argument that became popular among the Jesuits of the seventeenth century under the name of the consequentia mirabilis and inspired Saccheri's work Euclides ab Omni Naevo Vindicatus, in which theorems of non-Euclidean geometry were proved for the first time. The later history has been told by G. Vailati (in his article on Saccheri's Logica Demonstrativa, ‘Di un’ opera dimenticata del P. Gerolamo Saccheri’, reprinted in his Scritti, 1911, pp. 477–84), G. B. Halsted (in the preface to his 1920 edition of Saccheri's Euclides), and J. -Łukasiewicz (in his ‘Philosophische Bemerkungen zu mehrwertigen Systemen des Aussagenkalküls’, Comptes Rendus des séances de la société des sciences et des lettres de Varsovie, Classe III, Vol. xxiii, 1930, p. 67). In this note I wish to consider only the early history of the argument and in particular a curious criticism of it which appears in Aristotle's Prior Analytics.
An Athletic ἅπαξ λεγόμενον
Authors: Harris H. A.
Published: May 2006

In modern books on Greek Athletics the Greek word τριαστής is often used of a triple victor at a meeting, but it is not to be found in LSJ. An enquiry into its authenticity proved interesting. The authors of this century who use it are strangely coy about giving any authority for it. Jüthner simply calk the three victories of Phanas of Pellene in one day at Olympia ‘Eine Leistung, die den Ehrentitel “τριαστής” eintrug’. Moretti, usually meticulous in giving references, writes, ‘E noto che chi conseguiva questo risultato era chiamato τριαστής’. In his later Olympionikai he applies the title to Phanas, to Astylus of Croton and Syracuse, to Leonidas of Rhodes and to Hecatomnus of Mitylene, but it is not made clear to which of the many authorities for these athletes whom he cites he owes the word. E. N. Gardiner seems to have been the first modern author to use the Greek word. In his Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals (1910) we read of ‘Phanas of Pellene, who, by winning three races at Olympia in one day, won the tide of triple victor (τριαστής)’. Later in the same book he states, ‘A still finer record is that of Leonidas of Rhodes, who won all four foot races in three successive Olympiads, 164–156 B.C., thus three times earning the title of τριαστής or triple victor, given to those who won the stade race, diaulos and dolichos'. [Gardiner has slipped up in his facts here. Leonidas did not win four events at three Olympiads but three events at four Olympiads.
Greek Mosaics
Authors: Robertson Martin
Published: May 2006

The curious art of mosaic had one period of splendour: the Byzantine empire; and that art was assuredly Greek. The Greek mosaics of my title, however, are the much more humdrum productions of an earlier age. In mosaic, even more than in other arts, it is hard to draw the line between Greek and Roman, but this provisional survey of early development hardly reaches a point where that comes in question. I am not concerned with Pompeii, and little with Delos, Pergamon or even Sicily; a trifle more with Alexandria; but primarily with the pebble-mosaics of the fourth century, though looking forward as well as back. The earliest pebble-mosaics are of a simple, decorative character; later they become much more pictorial and sophisticated. The later pieces are of the greatest interest to the art-historian, but may trouble the art-critic. Mosaic by its nature is essentially an art of decoration, and can only achieve real greatness in an aesthetic ambience where purely decorative values are dominant, as they were in Byzantium; not in the Greco-Roman world, where, as in the Renaissance, half the artist's excitement comes from wrestling with the representation of nature.

Technically the pebble-mosaics of which I shall be speaking are all set in approximately the same way: a layer of coarse cement or plaster as a foundation, and above that one of finer quality into which the pebbles are pressed. Presumably the mosaicist, like the fresco-painter with his top coat of plaster, laid only so much of the fine layer at a time as he could adorn before it hardened; and as the fresco-painter normally worked down the wall, the mosaicist, I suppose, worked from one edge, moving backwards across the already hard surface of the coarse cement, laying the fine and setting the pebbles in it. In Renaissance fresco-painting the artist often drew asinopiaor outline of the composition on the under-plaster, to guide him as he painted the wet plaster with which he gradually covered it. Traces of such guides have been observed by the excavators under mosaic-floors at Pella. One would guess that it was normal practice, and that the mosaicist working on any but the very simplest pattern-design must also have followed a cartoon, but of what nature we have no idea.
Aristotle's Account of Bees' ‘Dances’
Authors: Haldane J. B. S.
Published: May 2006

Von Frisch has shown that hive bees communicate with one another by ‘dancing’, a discovery comparable with that of Ventris. Both the direction of food found and its distance are indicated with considerable precision. Aristotle (or perhaps pseudo-Aristotle) described this dance in Hist. Animal. IX, 624b. After noting that an individual bee visits a number of flowers of the same species in succession, which Darwin, von Frisch, and others have shown to be generally, but not universally, true, he continued:

ὅταν δ' εἰς τὸ σμῆνος ἀφίκωνται, ἀποσείονται, και παρακολουθοῦσιν ἑκάστῃ τρεῑς ἢ τέτταρες. τὸ δὲ λαμβανόμενον οὐ ῥᾴδιόν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν̇ οὐδὲ τὴν ἐργασίαν ὅντινα τρόπον ποιοῦνται, οὐκ ὦπται.

Bekker's translation, due to J. C. Sealiger, revised by J. C. Schneider, is as follows:

eo cum sunt ingressae, excutiunt et deponunt onus, semper etiam singulis ternae quaternaeque administrant, quid accipiunt non facile videre est; neque visum quo operantur modo.
Origins of the Berlin Painter
Authors: Robertson Martin
Published: May 2006

The vase illustrated in pll. Vl–IX(a) and figs, 1 and 2 is a red-figure volute-krater belonging to the Museum of Ethnology and Archaeology at Cambridge, and now deposited on loan at the Fitzwilliam Museum. It came to the Museum of Ethnology and Archaeology in 1886 with the Barrett Collection, but nothing further is known of its history. It was attributed to the Berlin Painter by Professor J. D. Beazley in Attische Vasenmaler, and in his Berliner Maler he classed it among the half-dozen earliest works of the master. Until recently it was severely repainted, but has now been cleaned. Much is missing; the surface is rubbed, and the restorer had not hesitated to plane away the edges of fragments where he could not arrange a clean fit; but it remains a fine and interesting piece.

Modern are: foot, with much of the lower part, including most of the rayed area and lower part of reverse figure; volute of one handle; rim, upper register and most of lower register of neck on obverse; patches on body and reverse neck (evident in photographs). The foot has been restored on the model of a complete volute-krater decorated by the same artist some years later. In the body pictures relief-contour is used rather sparingly, as usual in this artist's work; the small figures on the neck, like those on the London volute-krater, show a much fuller use of it. Thinned glaze is used for the usual inner body-markings; on the youth on B, however, they have all been obliterated, except for the end of one line on the back and of one on the upper arm. On this figure it is also used for drapery folds running from the righthand contour, both in the area about the waist and across the leg.
The Battle of Tanagra
Authors: Reece D. W.
Published: May 2006

The account given by Thucydides (I. 107. 2–108. 2) of the Spartan expedition to Central Greece that culminated in the battle of Tanagra is not entirely satisfactory. The main problem that arises out of it may be put in the form of a question: why did the Spartans need such a large force, namely 1,500 hoplites ‘ἑαυτῶν’ with 10,000 more ‘ τῶν συμμάχων ’, merely for the purpose of coercing the Phocians? It is not, I think, an unreasonable criticism to say that the aim and strength of the expedition, as given by Thucydides, seem quite out of proportion, and most modern historians have found it difficult to accept his account in full. The problem has usually been solved by assuming that the Spartans had an ulterior motive, namely the re-establishment of a strong Thebes as a check to Athens. But a careful reading of Thucydides should make it quite clear that he at any rate knew nothing of any ulterior motive. For at the beginning of his account he gives the Spartans' desire to protect the people of Doris as the sole motive for the expedition. Then, he goes on, after dealing with the Phocians the Spartans started out on the homeward journey (‘ άττεχώρουν πάλιν ’). But finding that they were cut off by the arrival of an Athenian squadron in the gulf of Corinth, while the land route was already blocked because of the Athenians' control of the Megarid, ‘ they decided to remain in Boeotia and consider what was the safest way for them to get home ’. The Athenians thereupon marched into Boeotian territory to oppose them, and the result was the battle at Tanagra. This account, I think, makes it sufficiently plain that in Thucydides' opinion the battle of Tanagra was entirely the result of an Athenian attempt to trap the Spartan expeditionary force, and that if left to themselves the Spartans would have gone straight home after dealing with the Phocians. Thus the usual answer to the problem involves a serious departure from Thucydides' account of the affair. But in addition this theory of an ulterior move directed by Sparta against Athens does not fit in at all well with what is known of Spartan policy during this period. For it is remarkable that throughout the fifteen years of the First Peloponnesian War Spartan activity against Athens was almost nil, in spite of many attacks on members of her confederacy, the complete subjugation of at least one of them, Aegina, and several raids oh her own territory: apart from the Tanagra campaign, the only positive action taken by the Spartans themselves was the rather half-hearted invasion of Attica led by Pleistoanax in 446. It is beyond the scope of this note to consider the reasons for this inactivity on the part of Sparta, but the fact that they were so little active at this time gives very good grounds for believing Thucydides' account of the original cause of the campaign under consideration.
Nereids and two Attic pyxides
Authors: Benton Sylvia
Published: May 2006

In my quest for Aurai in Greek art, I have been surprised by the haste of commentators to label each and every running woman as a Nereid. Surely it should depend on the evidence. I begin with two Attic pyxides in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. The first GR 1. 1933 was given and published by Miss Lamb in CVA Cambridge ii pl. 26. In Beazley, ARV 297, this vase was said to be in the Manner of Douris. In ARV 451 this vase has lost its own reference and acquired that of GR 10. 1934 (Friends of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Reports xxvi [1934] 3, fig. 4; see the correction in Paralipomena p. 521 [Addenda II, to p. 376]).‘Nereids’ is an inadequate description of either vase; for both include different sexes.

The pyxis 1. 1933 is not in good condition. The central figure is surely not the male, as Miss Lamb says, but a running woman taking up twice as much room as anyone else. She holds one dolphin and has lost another, so she must be the heroine Thetis. On one side of her stands a man with a dark beard, but he holds an old man's crooked stick, so he must be Nereus in spite of his dark beard: and a frightened Nereid rushes by him to the left: on a third side a stationary woman has just frightened a woman with a sceptre off her chair; the sceptre holder must be Doris. Here then we have a Peleus and Thetis scene, but there is no room for Peleus.
A Note on a Rattling Attic Black Glaze Cup in Dublin
Authors: Vickers Michael
Published: May 2006

In the Classical Museum of University College, Dublin, there is a small black glaze Attic cup (inv. no. V3020; provenance unknown) belonging to the Vienna-Cup group (Plate IV, 1–4). It is 7·7 cm high and 13·8 cm in diameter (20 cm at the handles). It has been broken and repaired at some time and parts of the handles are modern, and some of the lip is restored (apparent on Plate IV, 3 and 4). It might be as well to point out that the foot is whole and has never been broken. The cup is almost wholly black, except for the insides of the handles, the outside edge and resting surface of the foot, and the centre of the foot which are all reserved (Plate IV, 1 and 2). It looks quite normal, but if one picks it up and tilts it, one hears a rattling, almost a ringing, sound from the foot which is not only hollow, but contains three small clay pellets, as revealed by an X-ray examination (Plate IV, 3 and 4). There is no vent hole.

The cup is to be dated to some time within the period 475–450 B.C. I do not know of any parallels among the Vienna-Cup group, but there is another black glaze cup in Leningrad (Hermitage B 721; Plate V, 1) which belongs to the Kalliades-Brygos group and which has a hollow foot and rattling pellets just like those on the Dublin cup. The Kalliades-Brygos group is generally dated to between 500 and 470 B.C. This would mean that the Leningrad cup is probably earlier than the Dublin example, but they both still belong to the first half of the fifth century. The relevance to the discussion of a fragmentary foot in Toronto (Royal Ontario Museum 923.13.11) from a cup of Cup-Type C painted by Skythes c. 500 B.C., is debatable. In the case of this foot there is a hollow channel around the edge as in the Dublin and Leningrad examples, but it differs from them in that there was originally a small rectangular hole in it, the left side of which is preserved (Plate V, 2, far left). The hole was apparently never closed, so that it is unlikely that the hollow held pellets as did the others, or if it did, there might have been a temporary stopper of, say, unbaked clay. The hole is a puzzle, for it seems too big to be merely a vent hole.
A Lost Peisistratid Name
Authors: Forrest W. G.
Published: May 2006

The family of Peisistratos did not indulge in strikingly uncommon names but it is noteworthy that all but one of them also appear in Chios. Neleus or Neileus (e.g. c. 150a, SEG xvii 381 A 1.2), Hippokrates (c. 420a, RE s.n. 14), Hipparchos {s. Ia, BSA lxi [1966] 199 no. 3.15), Heges[istratos?] (e.g. s. IVa, NC xv [1915] 430), Peisistratos, Hippias and Thessalos (see below): only Iophon is certainly missing. Their occurrences cover many centuries and no long filiations can be established, nor is there any positive argument that they all belonged to the same family, but for the late fourth and third centuries there is a hint. Chian social units had a family-based molecular structure. A catalogue of one of them gives us about 70 names c. 300a with an average of two additions p.a. thereafter (BSA lv [i960] 181–7 = SEG xix 580). On it there is a Hippias of the later fourth (father of the named member) and a Thessalos of the later third century. At least one Hippias appears on coins of the later fourth (NC xv [ 1915] 430) and another (or the same) on a subscription list of the mid third as father of the subscriber (SEG xix 578.12). A Chian Peisistratos dedicated in Rhodes in the second century (IG xii.i 113), a Peisistratos son of Peisistratos made a patriotic subscription in the later third (BCH xxxvii [1913] no. 27. 18—19), a Chian Peisistratos, grandson of Peisistratos, is given proxenia at Delos in the mid third or a little earlier (IG xi.4 598), a Peisistratos put his name on coins belonging to the same chronological group as those of Hippias (NC xv[i9i5]430). That the Hippias-group and the Peisistratos-group were somehow related is put beyond doubt by the name which one fourth-century Hippias and one fourth-century Peisistratos gave to their sons.
Homeric Gods and the Values of Homeric Society
Authors: Adkins A. W. H.
Published: May 2006

A recent article has observed, with particular reference to the Homeric poems, that ‘divine intervention  be simply removed from the poems to leave a kernel of sociological truths’. I agree; though I should interpret the words in a manner different from their author. I shall endeavour to show in this article that not merely divine intervention, but divine behaviour as a whole in the Homeric poems, is governed by the same values as human behaviour in the poems; so that the ‘sociological truths’—or whatever they should be termed—can encompass divine as well as human behaviour in Homer. Nor, it seems to me, is this even prima facie surprising. True, the conversations on Olympus recorded in Homer are in one sense entirely free composition, since no bard in the tradition had ever met an Olympian or attended an assembly of the gods. But the bards lived in a society which—like later Greek societies that we are better able to observe—believed itself able to discern the hand of gods in the events which befell it or its several members; which, not surprisingly, attributed pleasant events to the favour of its gods, unpleasant events to the anger of its gods; enquired why the god or gods concerned was pleased or angry; and ascribed reasons for divine pleasure or anger analogous to those for which a powerful human being in the society might have been expected to become pleased or angry.
The Five Thousand in the Athenian Revolutions of 411 B.C.
Authors: Rhodes P.J.
Published: May 2006

Two postwar studies have given a new direction to discussions of the oligarchic revolutions in Athens. In 1956 Mr G. E. M. de Ste Croix attacked the accepted doctrine that the régime which succeeded that of the Four Hundred, in the autumn of 411 (which I shall refer to as the intermediate régime), was one in which all political rights were restricted to men of hoplite status: instead he suggested that the basic rights (membership of the assembly andδικαστήρια) were restored to all who had enjoyed them before the democracy was overthrown, and that the privilege reserved for men of hoplite status was that of holding office. Professor B. R. I. Sealey has advanced a stage further on this line of reasoning, and argues that this form of modified democracy is what was wanted also by those who campaigned in the spring of 411 for rule by the Five Thousand: then, as in the autumn, all citizens were to retain their basic rights, and the Five Thousand were to be the body of men eligible to hold office. This allows Sealey to play down dislike of democracy, as such, and to attach more importance in the agitation for reform to other motives, such as the desire to save public money by excluding from office men who could not afford to serve unless they were paid a salary. My object here is to suggest that this new interpretation is mistaken. Much will have to be taken for granted on other issues, but it may be helpful if I first reveal my presuppositions in a brief note on the sources and the kind of narrative I would reconstruct from them.
The cypriote surrender to Persia
Authors: Watkin Henry Jay
Published: May 2006

At present there appears to be general agreement that Cyprus entered the Persian Empire some time betweenc.545 and 539. It will be argued here that this event did not occur until 526 or 525. The point involves other, much broader issues. Any power wishing to control Cyprus must possess a substantial navy. When, then, did Persia acquire sufficient naval strength to control the eastern Mediterranean? This last problem in turn raises the question of when the Persians annexed the countries of the Levant and Asia Minor from which they drew the whole of their fleet. Finally, because elaborate theories concerning the development of sixth century Cypriote sculpture have been built upon the conclusion that Cyprus submitted to Persiac.545, a revision of that date will have important repercussions upon the history of Cypriote art.
Etruscan graffiti on Oxford 213
Authors: Cristofani Mauro
Published: May 2006

The very full recent publication of the Athenian black figure amphora, Ashmolean Museum 213, invites reflection on the graffiti beneath its foot which might offer information about the find place of the vase. It was formerly in the Castellani Collection and taken by Beazley as the name piece of his Painter of Oxford 213.

Of the four inscriptions (see Fig. 1) three are obviously interrelated: the most complete (1) reads cravnas; 2 is probably an incorrect version of the same name with a mistake over the first nu (cranna), while 3 has simply the first two letters cr followed by an incomplete a. Despite the hesitant script it is clear that the writer made three attempts to write the name and succeeded only with the last which is correctly written. The fact that in each case the rho is written in the reverse direction to the rest of the name shows that the three inscriptions are by one hand. This is the first evidence for the name cravnas. The suffix -s suggests Cravna as the owner of the object, this usage being normal for south Etruria. The variant cranna, intended for cra(v)nna (cra(u)nna), may be compared with the occasional doubling of nu met in seventh-century Cerveteri, perhaps a peculiarity of pronunciation.
Phocylides
Authors: West M. L.
Published: May 2006

Phocylides was famous as a poet of admonitory or gnomic verse. Isocrates names him together with Hesiod and Theognis, saying that they are praised as the best counsellors for human life, though their advice is seldom followed (ii 43). He is again bracketed with Theognis by Dio of Prusa (ii 5), Athenaeus (632d), and Cyril (c. Iul., Patrol. lxxvi 841d). Theophrastus quoted a line of Theognis (147) in different works as ‘Theognis’ and as ‘Phocylides’: we should not infer that it occurred in both poets, but simply that people tended to muddle them. And when Phocylides is dated as σύγχρονος Θϵόγνιδος, we must suspect that this was a guess based on nothing more than the similar tendency of their work, for certainly neither named the other.
A Further Note on Sea-Birds
Authors: Buxton John
Published: May 2006

In a ‘Note on Sea-birds’ [JHS xcii (1972) 172–3] Miss Sylvia Benton comments on Mr J. K. Anderson's preceding Note, Θρᾷξ, Δυτῖνος, Καταρράκτης. But if we are to identify the species to which ancient names refer we must limit ourselves to those species which are now, or can be shown to have once been, present in Greece, and for this both accuracy of observation and a knowledge of the literature on the ornithology of Greece seem desirable. Miss Benton says: ‘A ship on which I was sailing was dive-bombed by Gannets just east of the harbour of Tinos: no doubt they were defending their nests on the cliffs’. But the Gannet (Sula bassana) is a bird of the North Atlantic which does not now nest, if it ever did, in the Mediterranean nor indeed south of 51° N. on the eastern coasts of the Atlantic, so that these dive-bombers, whatever they were, could hardly have been Gannets. There are only two authentic records of Gannets in Greece at all, in May 1853 and in April 1965 (A. Kanellis: Catalogus Faunae Graeciae; pars II Aves ed. W. Bauer, O. v. Helversen, M. Hodge, J. Martens. Thessaloniki, 1969).
Empedocles' Fertile Fish
Authors: Longrigg James
Published: May 2006

In a recent article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies Dr O'Brien rejects a suggestion I made some time ago in an attempt to explain the apparent contradiction in our evidence for Empedocles' distribution of living-creatures among the elements. Whereas Aëtius tells us that this distribution took place on the principle of ‘like to like’, Aristotle informs us that Empedocles held that certain aquatic creatures are very fiery and take to the water to cool themselves. It was suggested then that these aquatic creatures mark an exception to the general rule of ‘like to like’ and took to the water to cool themselves, because they have an excessive endowment of the element fire and, therefore, require a rather more powerful cooling-system; in their case, the inspiration of air is inadequate to cool their internal heat.

Although O'Brien is willing to accept that it is ‘very possible’ that Empedocles subscribed to the doctrine of innate heat, he nevertheless does not find this suggestion persuasive. It is not my intention directly to defend my standpoint here. Let it suffice for me to stress again that there are exceptions to the general rule of ‘like to like’ and that Empedocles himself points them out, namely that in the case of such creatures as shellfish and turtles, which manifestly do exist at our present stage of the world's evolution (i.e. when Strife is gaining predominance), it is the earthy part which is uppermost.
Two notes on Heliodorus
Authors: Anderson Graham
Published: May 2006

At Πєρὶ φυγῆς 20.2 Favorinus introduces an unusual exemplum: if an Ethiopian king wishes to honour one of his subjects he takes off one of his own belts (ζώματα) and gives it to him: αὔτη γὰρ Αἰθιόπων στολή. As long as the recipient wears this, the king's subjects will show him respect; the moment he is deprived of it, he loses his authority. Barigazzi ad loc. notes that the anecdote is otherwise unknown. But this royal belt of the Ethiopians does emerge elsewhere in a slightly different guise. Charicleia, the heroine of Heliodorus' Aethiopica, has a silk ταινία exposed with her, embroidered with an inscription which explains her royal birth and the circumstances of her exposure (ii 31.3, cf. iv 8.6). On her return to Ethiopia she deliberately wears the belt. When about to be sacrificed, she presents it to her mother Queen Persinna, and her royal birth is conveniently established at the eleventh hour. The parallel in Favorinus is a new illustration of one of Heliodorus' characteristic techniques: he is fond of investing an obscure piece of paradoxography with a key role in the plot. A portrait of the white Andromeda determines Charicleia's skin colour at conception (iv 8.5), and makes her exposure necessary in the first place; and among her other birth-tokens is no less a stone than the Pantarbe itself (v 14). Thanks to the papyrus of Favorinus we can conclude that the most important of her inevitable γνωρίσματα is in fact an unusual but attested ‘Ethiopian’ detail of the same order.
Datis the Mede
Authors: Lewis D. M.
Published: May 2006

Professor R. T. Hallock generously allows me to publish here his text and translation of the hitherto unpublished Persepolis Fortification Tablet Q-1809, to which he has referred in Cahiers de la delegation francaise en Iran viii (1978) 115.
A Greek painting at Persepolis
Authors: Roaf Michael , Boardman John
Published: May 2006

In his magnificent report on the American excavations at Persepolis E. F. Schmidt published a fragment of a stone plaque found in the Treasury (frag. 2 on FIG. 2). This plaque bore a sketch of a human torso, which G. M. A. Richter considered to be Greek work of about 500 B.C. : she identified the figure as ‘Heracles wearing a chiton with a lion's skin over it which is knotted on the chest’. This fragment was lost when the ship in which the finds from Persepolis were being transported to America was sunk by submarine action during the Second World War. But recently Giuseppe Tilia discovered further fragments in a storeroom at Persepolis, which he recognised as probably belonging to the same plaque; and from these Prof. Boardman has been able to determine that the original scene was of a contest between Herakles and Apollo.(FIG. 1).
The Title of Prometheus Desmotes
Authors: Taplin O.
Published: May 2006

All I hope to do in this note is to reinforce Lesky's protest against ‘the attitude of mind shown by many modern scholars, who refuse to admit that there is a Prometheus problem at all, and pass over in silence so many arguments which deserve the most careful attention’. One reason why the majority of scholars are so sanguine about the peculiarities of Prometheus Desmotes is that they take it for granted that the surviving play was the first of a trilogy, and that the remainder of the trilogy would somehow or other have resolved some or most or all of the problems of the surviving part. It is assumed that the second play was, as the titles apparently proclaim, Prometheus Luomenos: the chief exception to this view is W. Schmid, the much reviled but scarcely refuted champion of the bastardy of Prom. Desm., who argued that the surviving play was written in the third quarter of the fifth century by an imitator of Aeschylus. Next it is usually supposed that Prometheus Purphoros (a title in the catalogue in M, twice cited elsewhere) was the third play—though there have been more respectable exceptions to that step. The fourth Prometheus title (twice cited by Pollux), Prometheus Purkaeus, is very plausibly taken to be the satyr play of 472 B.C., called simply Προυηθεύς in the hypothesis to Pers. Despite this, no-one seems to have questioned the easy assumption that the other three Prometheus titles are evidence for the connected trilogy. I shall offer here a neglected reason for thinking that, on the contrary, the titles are evidence that the Prometheus plays were not produced together. The argument is pedantic, even irritating, but it is nonetheless coherent and hard to contradict.
An unpublished arula in the Ashmolean Museum: a minor contribution to Hellenistic chronology
Authors: Vafopoulou-Richardson C. E.
Published: May 2006

In 1899 E. Oldfield, Librarian and Fellow of Worcester College, gave a small altar to the Ashmolean Museum, where it joined an already growing collection of fine terracottas. Little is known about its history and how it came into the possession of the donor. Taranto, where such small altars occur most frequently, was thought to be their place of origin, though they have also been found in Greece and Asia Minor, mainly in Hellenistic contexts.