bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Alexander's Macedonian Cavalry
Authors: Brunt P. A.
Published: May 2006

Sir William Tarn devoted some of the best pages in his Alexander the Great to Alexander's Macedonian troops. He has made many improvements on the account given by H. Berve. Yet doubts may be voiced or amendments suggested.

I. Prodromoi

It is known that the Companion cavalry at Gaugamela were formed in eight squadrons or ilai (Arr. iii 11.8), of which one was the royal squadron par excellence or the ‘agema of the Companions’. It is unlikely that the number of ilai had been reduced since 334, as reinforcements had probably more than compensated for losses (section V). Plutarch, however, says in his life of Alexander (16.2) that at the Granicus Alexander plunged into the stream with 13 ilai. His account of the battle closely resembles Arrian's, and he cites Aristobulus on the number of Macedonian casualties. The statement quoted probably then corresponds to Arrian's (i 14.6) that Alexander ordered the prodromoi and Paeonians under Amyntas, son of Arrhabaeus, into the river, together with one foot regiment which was preceded by Socrates' cavalry squadron, and that he himself followed with the whole right wing. Plutarch's 13 squadrons may thus be identified with the 8 squadrons of the Companions plus 5 of prodromoi and Paeonians. The Paeonians themselves can be classified, perhaps by error, as prodromoi (Arr. iii 8.1) or distinguished from them (i 14.1 and 6; ii 9.2; iii 12.3); they could have formed only a single squadron, distinct from 4 squadrons of prodromoi under command of the same Amyntas (Arr. i 12.7) or sarissophoroi (iv 4.6) of whom we hear elsewhere.
A Teucrian at Salamis in Cyprus
Authors: Wainwright G. A.
Published: May 2006

It is well known that in his eighth year, 1162 B.C., Ramesses III repulsed onslaughts by the Peoples of the Sea or Sea Raiders as they are often called. The migrating horde was composed essentially of a group of closely related tribes, the Philistines, Tjekker and Dene. They were dressed identically alike in the Sea Raider kilt which was divided into panels and fell to a point in front, and they wore a headdress of feathers, as it is supposed to be, Fig. 1. This, it will be noted, is the very dress of the follower of the chariot on the ivory gaming box from Enkomi, Fig. 2. The panelled kilt falling to a point in front is there, as is the headdress on which even the row of circles or rings so often decorating the head band is shown, as well as the neck guard fitting to the back of the head. Another detail on the Enkomi box allies the scene to the Philistines and therefore to their relatives the Tjekker. It is that like those of the Philistines the charioteer leans forward over his horses. This is a very rare attitude to be adopted, though significantly enough it can be found occasionally among the Hittites at the Battle of Kadesh. It is also to be seen on one of the Megiddo ivories of a date not later than c. 1150 B.C. It does not occur in the Mycenaean paintings. The point to which the kilt falls is not quite like that of the Sea Peoples for it is broader. On the other hand, the Egyptian paintings show it on a man coming from ‘the ends of Asia’, that is to say the extremest north of Syria. Quite other evidence proves it to be a north Syrian or perhaps Hurrian detail, for it is shown much later on the Loftus ivories from Nimrud which are under this influence. Besides this, one of these ivories shows a kilt which is just that of the Sea Raiders, but without the tassels.
Did Arethas read Athenaeus?
Authors: Wilson N. G.
Published: May 2006

I begin this note by announcing a palaeographical discovery of some interest concerning the famous Venetian manuscript of Athenaeus (MS. Marcianus gr. 447), which is our only source for most of the text of that author. Examination of the handwriting has convinced me that folios 3–348, nearly the whole manuscript, were written by John the Calligraphier, the scribe who was commissioned by Arethas of Caesarea to produce well-known and important copies of Plato (MS. E. D. Clarke 39) and Aristides (MS. Laurentianus Plut. 60.3 and Parisinus gr. 2951). The accompanying illustration should make the identity clear (see plates xi). It is worth noting that owing to a special circumstance the two previously published facsimiles did not permit the identification of the hand. They were both selected from a part of the book where John wrote in a rather larger hand than usual; for in this manuscript, unlike the others that he copied, his writing gradually became larger as he progressed. This, however, was a habit common to many scribes and does not cast any doubt on the validity of identifying his hand here.

The first consequence of identifying the hand is that it becomes possible to date the manuscript fairly precisely. The other books written by John are dated to A.D. 895 and c. A.D. 917–28, and as the span of thirty-five years is at least as long as a calligrapher can be assumed to have exercised his profession, it seems reasonable to place the Athenaeus between the two other books.
A Latin Commentary (? Translated by Boethius) on the Prior Analytics, and its Greek Sources
Authors: Minio-Paluello L.
Published: May 2006

Cod. Florence Bibl. Nazion. Centr. Conv. Soppr. J.VI.34—formerly in Niccolò Niccoli's and St. Mark's libraries—written in a beautiful French hand of c. A.D. 1150–1200—contains the second edition of Boethius's translation of Pr. An. Many scholia, written on the margins and between the lines by the same calligraphic hand which wrote the Aristotelian text or by a hand very similar to and contemporary with it, accompany the translation in this MS. They are mainly concentrated in about one-half of the work, viz. in book i.23–30 (4ob–46a) and book ii (52a–70b); quite a few accompany i. 1, 5–6, 30–45 (24a, 27b–28a, 46a–50a); almost none is to be found in i. 10–14, 17–22 (30b7–33b25, 37a25–40b10). Arrangement and writing suggest that the scribe intended to give the reader Aristotle's text together with what was available to him of an authoritative commentary.

The scholia range, in nature and extent, from short glosses on single words or phrases and short summaries of sections of Aristotle's work to detailed explanations and doctrinal developments of important or difficult passages. Here and there carefully drawn diagrams illustrate logical rules and geometrical examples. The following scholia are mainly chosen from book i; others, from both books, will be given farther on.
Plato, Phaedo 74 A–B
Authors: Tarrant Dorothy
Published: May 2006

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.
Al-Fārābī's Theory of Prophecy and Divination
Authors: Walzer R.
Published: May 2006

It is the purpose of this paper to draw the attention of classical scholars to an Arabic theory of prophecy and divination which, though known for a long time in the original text and in modern translation, has quite escaped the notice of those interested in the history of late Greek philosophy and its continuation in mediæval Islam. I mean here by prophecy and divination, like the Arabic author I am going to deal with, all kinds of apparently supernatural knowledge, concerned with the realm of the transcendent as well as with particular events in the future and special happenings at the present time. The possessors of this knowledge are characterised as individuals of a peculiar excitability and a range of imagination which exceeds the normal. Attempts at explaining phenomena of this kind in rational terms were not uncommon in Greek philosophy from Plato's days down to late Neoplatonism. I propose to show that the Arabic theory continues these Greek discussions and to suggest that it represents, at the same time, a facet of Greek thought which has not survived in its original context.

Al-Fārābῑ (c. A.D. 870–950), a well-known Muslim Neoplatonist and Aristotelian of outstanding importance in the history of Islamic philosophy, deals at some length with prophecy in his workThe Views of the People of the Best State. Since, in accordance with the Greek tradition, he connects divination and prophecy with an innate faculty of the soul itself, and does not describe it as a state of possession by supernatural powers, his explanation of these phenomena is linked up with his analysis of man and his Neoplatonic-Aristotelian metaphysics. Prophecy is auxiliary to the rational faculty and as such an indispensable ingredient in man's perfection; divine inspiration (wahy) can be understood as the union of the highest philosophical knowledge with the highest form of prophecy; but the primacy of reason and philosophy is maintained, prophecy being confined to the faculty of imagination, which is given a less humble position than in Aristotle'sDe anima, but still ranked as inferior to philosophy.
The Casting-Technique of Certain Greek Bronzes
Authors: Raven-Hart R.
Published: May 2006

It is here suggested that the carved effect of many Greek bronzes, or of parts of them, is due rather to their having been cast from carved originals than to extensive tooling of the metal cast as is frequently assumed.

Many of the early small Greek bronzes (Geometric and Archaic: especially at Olympia) present this appearance, looking as if they had been carved rather than modelled. This could be explained in one of two ways: (1) by assuming very extensive tooling of the bronze after casting from a modelled original; or (2) by assuming that this original was carved and not modelled.

The first seems to be tacitly accepted by many writers, and is explicitly stated by some. It is of course entirely possible; but after all the Greek craftsmen were practical men, and extensive tooling is not only laborious and therefore expensive, but is also dangerous in that any slip of the tool may ruin not only the cast but the whole work of the artist if this was originally in wax, lost by cire perdue casting. If it were possible to do the carving on the original, of some material softer than bronze, and above all if it were possible to replace and re-carve a mis-carved portion of that original, any sculptor would be inclined to prefer such a process to cold work on the bronze.

The second assumes that the original was carved. Seltman definitely adopts it: ‘from about 800 B.C. for more than three centuries the Greeks generally made their small bronzes from carved wooden models’, by means of ‘wet clay moulds, which, after being sun-dried, would be taken from the wooden figures and fired’. Against this is the fact that it would not be possible to remove those ‘clay moulds’ except in many separate parts, owing to the under-cutting of many of the examples he figures; and this for originals only a few inches high, so that these parts would be so minute as almost to demand tweezers and a watchmaker's glass to handle them.
Alexander's March from Miletus to Phrygia
Authors: Stark Freya
Published: May 2006

The march of Alexander from the Granicus to Issus is given by Arrian in less than a dozen pages scattered among various sieges that are more fully described; Plutarch, Diodorus and Quintus Curtius do less, and no more than a page or two apiece has come down to us on the whole of these movements.

Although his first meeting with Asia was probably the most important experience in Alexander's adult life, and though the Anatolian campaigns lasted a year and a half, or even a little more, out of the short total of eleven years that were left him, the poverty of the sources has imposed its brevity on modern historians also. Professor Tarn—who is as much a bedside book to modern devotees as the Iliad was to their hero—describes the marches and countermarches of Asia Minor in little more than three pages; and there is a great gap left us from classical times between Xanthus and Phaselis in Lycia. It would be absurd to think of filling it. But after sailing down the coast, I believed that some evidence might be gathered by comparing the written scraps left us with the nature of the places recorded, provided this were done before the road-building policy of modern Turkey succeeds in changing the pace of living in these mountains. Hitherto their ruins have scarcely been altered except by a natural decay; and the methods of travel being as slow as ever they were before, except along a very few roads, the flavour of their past is preserved.

In this essay the geography is attempted, with the problems and such answers to them as my rather intermittent journeys seemed able to provide. Someone better equipped than I am may find the outline useful and venture more profitably, before too much time goes by; for the interest is not one of geography merely. By visualising the routes which were chosen, the motives and processes by which that choice was made become clearer; and behind these motives and processes is the most dynamic being that the world has perhaps ever known.
Law-Making at Athens at the end of the Fifth Century B.C.
Authors: Harrison A. R. W.
Published: May 2006

For students of Athenian private and public law it is a painful, but undeniable fact that there is still grave uncertainty as to the precise methods by which statutes, one of the most important sources of law, were made at the most formative period of the history of the system from the middle of the fifth century B.C. onwards. There have been two fairly recent and conflicting attempts to clear up some of the main points, those of Kahrstedt and of Mrs. Atkinson. Neither treatment seems wholly satisfactory, and in particular neither seems to take any account of J. H. Oliver's publication of additions to the code or of Ferguson's paper on these same additions. It may therefore be worthwhile re-examining the evidence for one chapter at least of the story, the chapter covering roughly the twenty years beginning in 411 B.C.

I cannot avoid a word on sources, in the historical not the legal sense. In the literary field historians and political theorists are very unhelpful. The problem does not seem to have interested them. Here therefore we have to rely mainly on two other classes of authority, firstly, grammarians and lexicographers, who were interested in the archaisms of the laws of Drakon and Solon, secondly, and most fruitful of all, the orators. In the orators we must distinguish between the documents cited in the texts and the orators' own words. I do not discuss the validity of the cited documents, but must content myself with saying that with regard to the more important documents which are here relevant there is now fairly general agreement among scholars that they are genuine. Statements of the orators themselves must always be examined under the microscope and allowance made for possible distortions due to the speaker's desire to support the particular point which he is making.
The Danaid Tetralogy of Aeschylus
Authors: Diamantopoulos A.
Published: May 2006

The humour of the passage in the Frogs (1419 ff.), in which the tragic poets reply with riddles on burning political issues, is explicable: research on the Eumenides shows that in this play Aeschylus projected political notions in much the way that he is presented by Aristophanes speaking in the Frogs: concentrating the attention of the spectator on the past of the Areopagus and on the circumstance of its foundation, he touches directly on the question which arose in 462–1 through the abolition of the political competence of this body, but he replies to it through a parable which is enigmatic for us. It is obviously such an expression as this that Aristophanes had in mind. It rests with philological and historical criticism to show whether in surviving tragedies other than Eumenides themes of an immediate public interest are put forward under the cover of myth, themes which, through ignorance of the date or of the exact conditions of the composition of the plays, have so far not been revealed. This essay examines from this point of view the Danaid tetralogy of Aeschylus.

The subject of the Danaid tetralogy is taken from the story of Danaos and his daughters. For this, Aeschylus could draw on both a literary source, the Danais, and probably also on Argive traditions.

Very little is known about the Danais. It did, however, include an account of the events which took place in Egypt between the houses of Danaos and Aigyptos, and it is likely, therefore, that it traced the course of this quarrel from the beginning.
The Battle of Salamis–a Correction
Authors: Hammond N. G. L.
Published: May 2006

In Map I of my article on the Battle in JHS lxxvi, p. 32, the position of the Greek fleet's front line c. 8 a.m. was incorrectly shown. It should be as shown here by the dotted line, in accordance with the text of the article on pp. 46 and 50.
A Lost Fragment by Douris Found Again
Authors: Richter Gisela M. A.
Published: May 2006

In JHS LXVI, 123 f., fig. 2, Mr. Martin Robertson described and illustrated a lost cup fragment by Douris formerly in the collection of Josef von Kopf in Rome (Hartwig, ‘Ein Schalenfragment in Stile des Duris’ in Festschrift für Otto Benndorf (1898) 86 ff.; Pollak, Professor Joseph von Kopf als Sammler, 98, pi. 5; Beazley, AV (1925), 204, no. 53, and ARV (1942), 286, no. 86). I am glad to be able to report that I came across the fragment in the summer of 1948 in a private collection in Paris. The present owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, has generously given me permission to publish the photograph that he had specially taken for me (Fig. 1). As one might expect, it is greatly superior to the careful drawing made by Count Ludwig von Thurn-Valsassina for Hartwig and reproduced by Pollak and Robertson. A comparison between the two makes one realise the sensitivity of Greek draftsmanship. (The comparison is best made with the drawing in Hartwig's article, which is about the same size as that of the photograph here reproduced.)
Two Epigraphical Notes from Pamphylia
Authors: Bean G. E.
Published: May 2006

I.—A. Wilhelm has recently republished the inscriptions on an altar at Side in Painphylia, originally published by Van Buren in JHS 1908, 190 sqq. Wilhelm's restorations and commentary, based solely on the photographs printed, without comment, by B. Pace in Annuario III , 33, have very greatly advanced the interpretation of these interesting inscriptions; but the disadvantage of working without seeing either the stone itself or a squeeze of it has led in several cases to readings which are not in fact on the stone. While assisting at the Turkish excavations at Side in September 1948, I had an opportunity of examining the stone in question, and with the kind permission of Prof. Arif Miifid Mansel, director of the excavations, I am able to offer the present note. My purpose is not so much to engage in the controversy concerning the altar and the significance of its inscriptions, as to help to establish the true text.
Alexander the Great and the decline of Macedon
Authors: Bosworth A. B.
Published: May 2006

The figure of Alexander inevitably dominates the history of his reign. Our extant sources are centrally focussed upon the king himself. Accordingly it is his own military actions which receive the fullest documentation. Appointments to satrapies and satrapal armies are carefully noted because he made them, but the achievements of the appointees are passed over in silence. The great victories of Antigonus which secured Asia Minor in 323 BC are only known from two casual references in Curtius Rufus, and in general all the multifarious activities in the empire disappear from recorded history except in so far as they impinge upon court life in the shape of reports to Alexander and administrative decisions made by him. Moreover, the sources we possess originate either from high officers of Alexander's court, such as Ptolemy and Nearchus, or from Greek historians like Callisthenes and Cleitarchus, whose aims were literary or propagandist and whose interests were firmly anchored in court life. Inevitably Alexander bestrides that narrow world like a colossus and monopolises the historical picture. But even the figure of Alexander is far from fully fleshed. No contemporary history survives, and for continuous narratives of the reign we are dependent upon late derivative writers who saw Alexander through the filter of centuries of rhetoric and philosophy. The king had long been a stock example of many contradictory traits; he was at once the conqueror and the civiliser, the tyrant and the enlightened king. Cicero and Seneca saw him as the type of unbridled license, Arrian as the paradigm of moderation. The result is that the sources present a series of irreconcilable caricatures of Alexander but no uniform or coherent picture.
The origins of the classical style in sculpture
Authors: Hallett C. H.
Published: May 2006

The first part of this paper briefly reviews current theories as to the origins of the Classical style, and proposes an alternative approach. The second part, making use of some rather neglected pieces of literary evidence, attempts to reconstruct the circumstances in which this distinctive sculptural style was created, and presents it in a new light: as the ingenious solution to a specific artistic problem which confronted fifth-century Greek sculptors as a result of their final rejection of archaic stylization.
Two Scenes of Combat in Euripides
Authors: Borthwick E. K.
Published: May 2006

The lines come from the messenger's speech describing the attack of the Delphians on Neoptolemus, a passage which I have discussed elsewhere in connexion with the tradition of Neoptolemus as inventor of the armed Pyrrhic dance. LSJ seem to be in several minds about the meaning and connexion of some of the words describing the missiles used by the Delphians. S.v. ‘σφαγεύς’, they give ‘sacrificial knife, spit’ uniquely of a word elsewhere meaning ‘slayer, murderer’, etc. (elsewhere Euripides uses σφαγ-ίς, -ίδος in this sense). S.v. ‘βουπόρος’, they cite ἀμφωβόλοι σφαγῆς … βουπόροι ‘spitst fit to pierce an ox's throat’—i.e. taking σφαγῆς as gen. sing., rather oddly dependent on βουπόροι. S.v. ‘ἔκλυτος’, they quote this passage, again uniquely, in the sense ‘easy to let go, light, buoyant, of missiles’. This last seems even less likely than Wecklein's ohne Riemen or the Budé's doubles dards sans poignée, which presumably invoke a rather frigid contrast of the true javelins fitted with thongs (μεσάγκυλα) and the spits, sharp at both ends, which were pressed into service of a similar sort, but of course had to be thrown without this attachment: but these implements could hardly be described as ἔκλυτοι of thongs which they never had at all in the first place!

With Murray's punctuation (a comma after ἀμφώβολοι), since a combination of a, b, c τε, d is scarcely credible, σφαγῆς βουπόροι is presumably not to be taken as the description of a separate type of weapon, but as an explanatory appositional phrase with ἀμφώβολοι. This interpretation is found in the schol, ὀβελίσκοι σφάττειν δυνάμενοι and followed by Hermann and Paley (‘These same spits might be called exegetically “beef-piercing cutters”’).
The Criticism of an Oral Homer
Authors: Hainsworth J. B.
Published: May 2006

Homer is universally praised for the clarity of his style. Yet even to sympathetic or perceptive readers, if their critical remarks really express their judgments, his poetical intention has been singularly opaque: invited to leave town by Plato, as if he were a bad ethical philosopher; lauded by Aristotle for his dramatic unity, as if he were a pupil of Sophocles; criticised by Longinus for composing an Odyssey without Iliadic sublimity; abused in more recent times by Scaliger as indecorous, irrational, improper and undisciplined, as if he were seeking (like Virgil) to portray the perfect exemplar of a renaissance prince; defended by Dacier as a sublime primitive, innocent of taste and art, who achieved perfection ‘par la seule force de son genie’. Some of these judgments are no more than the stock responses of their age to epic poetry. The critic regards the poems from his own point of view; he discovers what he expects to find; and he passes a judgment that illuminates the workings of his own mind but sheds nothing but darkness upon Homer's. The announcement, therefore, of a new criticism by Notopoulos and Lord, a criticism based on the results of comparative study and free from the old prejudices of Analysts and Unitarians, is an event of importance. It may even be the case that the despised anachronistic ‘singer’, that unwashed, mendicant figure lurking in the coffee houses of the Balkans, has something to say. But whatever he says, it will be applicable to Homer only by analogy, and will require verification.
The Introduction of Ostracism and Alcmeonid Propaganda
Authors: Stanton G. R.
Published: May 2006

This paper focuses on two problems connected with our sources for Athenian politics between 510/09 and 488/7 B.C.:

(i) In the Athenaion Politeia attributed to Aristotle (henceforth Ath.), ostracism is included in the laws of Cleisthenes (22.1). But later (22.3) the author of the Ath. dates the first ostracism (that of Hipparchus, son of Charmus) to the year 488/7. Depending on the date of Cleisthenes' laws, this leaves a gap of thirteen to twenty years between the institution of ostracism and its first use. Yet the very nature of the law suggests that it was passed for immediate use.

(ii) Cleisthenes' rival, Isagoras, is described in Ath. 20.1 as φίλος τῶν τυράννων. This label conflicts with two details in the political struggle. It involves Cleomenes, who had recently expelled the tyrants from Athens, in an astounding volte-face in supporting one who is known as φίλος τῶν τνράννων. Secondly, Isagoras had had the opportunity of imposing by force the kind of government he wanted—but it was an oligarchy (Hdt. v 72.1, Ath. 20.3: a council of three hundred), not a tyranny. How did the inappropriate label originate?

The reaction of most scholars to the first problem has been to reject the ascription of ostracism to Cleisthenes in Ath. 22.1 and 22.4 and date the institution of ostracism to shortly before the first recorded ostracism.
A Mycenaean Hegemony? A Reconsideration
Authors: Thomas C. G.
Published: May 2006

There are two possible positions with regard to the Mycenaean hegemony: that it existed or that it did not. Modern scholars who accept its existence appear to be more vocal in arguing their position than are those who question the existence of Mycenaean unity. Desborough, for example, states forcibly:

I am firmly convinced that there was one ruler over the whole Mycenaean territory, with his capital at Mycenae, although the tablets are of no assistance one way or the other in this matter, and although the overlordship of Agamemnon clearly envisaged by Homer can perhaps be explained simply as a military leadership for the purpose of waging war against Troy. The burden of proof must therefore depend on other evidence, the archaeological material taken in conjunction with the fairly frequent mention by the Hittites, in the fourteenth and much of the thirteenth centuries, of the king of a land called Ahhiyawa, which I believe to represent the entire Mycenaean orbit.

The opposite position is represented largely through hints given in a larger context. Stubbings, for example, writes of ‘the Mycenaean Greeks of the mainland and the Mycenaean rulers of Cnossus’ and of ‘the mainland kingdoms’ (italics mine). Catling speaks of ‘metropolitan Greeks grown jealous of the wealth and power which their Knossian relatives had built up’. This emphasis on plurality, it seems to me, is the best way not only to view the events of the Mycenaean Greek world but also to understand the nature and degree of change in Greece during the Dark Age period.
A Lydian Inscription from Aphrodisias in Caria
Authors: Carruba Onofrio
Published: May 2006

Through the kindness of Professor K. T. Erim of New York University I have the opportunity to offer the following note on a fragment of a Lydian inscription found recently during his excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria. The description and details of the archaeological context I owe to Professor Erim and to Miss Joyce Reynolds.

The fragment (inv. no. 68.357) came to light in July 1968, re-used in one of the ruined modern houses on the northern slope of the so-called acropolis when they were being demolished in preparation for the full-scale excavation of the Theatre there. It is of medium- to coarse-grained marble, greyish in colour, probably from the Aphrodisias quarries themselves, and measures 0·11 × 0·75 × 0·165 m.; no original edges survive, but it is likely that the original left edge was very close to the surviving left edge.

What remains of the inscribed surface is approximately trapezoidal in shape and carries traces of three lines of text; in the first only the lower tips of the letters survive and these cannot be securely interpreted, but in the second five complete letters (ave. 0·025 m. high) can be read, although they have suffered from slight surface chipping, and in the third the upper two-thirds of five letters survives and these also can be read perfectly well. The inscription was firmly and deftly, if lightly, cut, with trenches c. 0·001 deep, very slightly triangular in profile and showing some tendency to broaden a little on the base line. Judging from the position of the last letters in Il. 2, 3, it seems probable that each line ended with a completed word.
The singing of Homer and the modes of early Greek music
Authors: West M. L.
Published: May 2006

In their invocations of the Muses the early epic poets use indifferently verbs meaning ‘tell’, ‘speak of’ (ἔννεπε, ἔσπετε, εἰπέ, εἴπατε)and the verb which we normally translate as ‘sing’ (ἄειδε, ἀείδεο, ἀείσατε)When they refer directly to their own performance they may use the non-committalμνήσομαι, or ἐρέω, ἐνισπεῖνbut more often it isάείδω, ἄρχομ ἀείδεινor something of the sort; and they will pray for goodἀοιδήor hope for reward from it. We cannot make a distinction between two styles of performance, one characterized asἀείδειν the other as ἐνέπεινthe Iliad beginsμῆνιν ἄειδε θεάbut later hasἔσπετε νῦν μοι Μοῦσαι;Hesiod moves straight fromχαίρετε τέκνα Διός , δότε δ᾿ ἱμερόεσσαν ἀοιδήνtoεἴπατε δ᾿ ὡς . . . ταῦτά μοι ἔσπετε Μοῦσαι . . . καὶ εἴπατε(Th. 104–15); the author of the Hymn to Pan beginsἔννεπε Μοῦσαand endsἴλαμαι δέ σ᾿ ἀοιδῇ . . . καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ᾿ ἀοιδῆς.
The Nature of Premeditation in Athenian Homicide Law
Authors: Loomis W. T.
Published: May 2006

An inscription (IG i2 115) consisting of a prelude and then of Drakon's law of homicide has long been known. The prelude dates it 409/8 B.C.; it was evidently part of the recodification of Athenian law carried out by Nikomakhos and a board of anagrapheis in most of the years 411/0–400/399 B.C. Drakon's law was on a separate stele, of which the upper part, probably about half, survives. In some period since Antiquity the marble was used as pavement, and the resulting wear has deterred study of it since the edition of 1867. Recently, however, R. S. Stroud has published a new edition of the code inscription and this has stimulated renewed interest in the Athenian law of homicide. Stroud has provided not only a new and much expanded text of the code but also some persuasive solutions to problems that have long perplexed scholars. The code deals with unpremeditated (μὴ ἐκ προνοίας) homicide. This very aspect—the precise scope of the code—receives, oddly, scant treatment. I propose to look into it.

By scope I mean what sorts of homicide were covered by the extant portion of the code. Another, and I think inevitable, way of looking at this problem is to ask, Where did the missing portion of the code, dealing with premeditated homicide, stop, and where did the surviving portion start, i.e. where was the line drawn in Athens between premeditated and unpremeditated homicide? Thus stated, the question makes it clear that one cannot deal with the problem of premeditation in vacuo; it must be examined in the context of Athenian homicide as a whole.
Bowie on Elegy: A footnote
Authors: Lewis D. M.
Published: May 2006

It may be desirable to draw attention to an item of some interest for the history of literary genres which has just appeared in a Greek periodical which is not, as yet, widely accessible.

Angelos Matthaiou (ΗΟΡΟΣ iv [1986] 31–4) publishes two grave stelai from Nikaia, between Athens and Piraeus. The script is unusual, in that the texts are written retrograde and from the bottom to the top of the stele. The obvious parallel for this is a funerary text discussed by Missjeffery in BSA lvii (1962) 136 no. 42 and dated by her around 540; one of her last scholarly observations was to confirm that the new texts appeared to be in the same hand.
P. Gr. Vindob. 29788C: hexameter encomium on an un-named emperor
Authors: McCail Ronald C.
Published: May 2006

It is now fifty years since Hans Gerstinger published the editio princeps of a Vienna papyrus containing hexameter poems by, as he believed, Pamprepius of Panopolis. Out of seven fragments Gerstinger, working with H. Ibscher, was able to restore one binion of a codex (P. Gr. 29788A-B). A separate leaf (P. Gr. 29788C) was presumed by the restorers to come from the same codex as the binion. The binion contains (1) a hexameter idyll evoking the successive moods of Nature on a day in spring or autumn, (2) a hexameter encomium on the patrician Theagenes of Athens, (3) letters nos. 80 and 90 by St. Gregory Nazianzen. Lines from another hexameter poem are partly legible on two fragments which together constitute the top of the first page of the binion. The only trace of an author's name in the binion is the genitive-ending ο]ụ in the title of the encomium on Theagenes. The separate leaf (P. Gr. 29788C) preserves some fifty lines from a second hexameter encomium, but has been torn in such a way that the line-beginnings are missing from the Verso and the line-endings from the Recto; the names of the author and the addressee have not survived. Gerstinger's opinion that the hand is the same throughout and the writing of a style current in the fifth and sixth centuries has not been challenged. It has seemed to me unnecessary to reproduce in fuller detail the description of the papyrus given in the editio princeps. Should this not be available to the reader, ample information may be found in the reviews by Maas, Körte and Keydell. Gerstinger's attribution of the poems to Pamprepius was greeted by these and other critics with reactions varying from reserve to trenchant scepticism. There is reason to connect the encomium on Theagenes with Pamprepius, since the two were in Athens at the same time, Theagenes as archon, Pamprepius as a grammaticus. But even if we accept that Pamprepius wrote the encomium, the idyll is of higher quality, as Keydell and Maas noted, and might well be the work of a different poet. Doubt concerning the attribution has persisted, and Gerstinger's title-page remains virtually the only place where the poems are ascribed without qualification to Pamprepius.
New Evidence on a Lost Work by Exekias
Authors: Mackay E. Anne
Published: May 2006

Until the Second World War, the antiquities collection held by the university in Leipzig included a set of four fragments attributed to Exekias, and long recognised by scholars as deriving from an amphora which in the subject of both obverse and reverse scenes was close to the type A amphora signed by Exekias in the Vatican Museum. Unfortunately the fragments were lost during the war; W. Herrmann has recently published them as war losses, listing all the information available on their history— the provenience is unknown. Three of the fragments bear a clear resemblance to side A of the Vatican amphora, which shows Achilles and Ajax intent on a board game, but the Dioskouroi scene on side B was identified only on the very slender evidence of T. 391 (Plate IVa), a small fragment bearing the head of a white dog.

This identification is now supported by the discovery that T. 391 joins cleanly with a hitherto unpublished fragment in Cambridge as may be seen in Plate IVc. The join is substantiated by the portion of the hand of ‘Polydeukes’ appearing on both fragments, by the leash held in that hand, and by the dog's paw, all of which bridge the break.
Euripides, Bakchai 877–81 = 897–901
Authors: Leinieks Valdis
Published: May 2006

The correct interpretation of these lines significantly affects our understanding of the attitude of Dionysiac worshippers towards violence. If the chorus is here saying that power over one's enemies is the best possible gift from the gods and furthermore that this statement constitutes wisdom, violence and vindictiveness are essential ingredients of Dionysiac religion. If, on the other hand, they are renouncing power over their enemies, Dionysiac religion is essentially peaceful and non-aggressive. The first interpretation, that triumph over one's enemies is the greatest gift and that knowing this constitutes wisdom, is the popular view at the present time. It is the interpretation which is found in all current English translations of the play, including those of Arrowsmith and Kirk. It is also the view of several scholars who have undertaken a detailed study of the passage. These include Dodds, Winnington-Ingram, and Arthur. Others who have studied the passage have reached the opposite conclusion, that the greatest gift consists of caution and respect, which in turn lead to restraint and avoidance of violence. These include Blake, Festugière, and Roux. The aim of this paper is to reach a greater degree of certainty concerning the meaning of the passage by a close examination of the grammatical constructions.
The fifth-centuryhoroiof Aigina
Authors: Barron John P.
Published: May 2006

The fifth-centuryhoroiof sacred lands, found in Aigina, marked the property of two named cults, of Athena and of Apollo and Poseidon. They are inscribed (for the most part) in the Attic dialect and script, surprising features one or both of which they share with similar stones from Samos, from Chalkis and from Kos. The accepted view is that they were set up following Athens' seizure of Aigina during the summer of 431 BC, when the Athenians expelled the islanders and installed a colony of their own people who remained until 404. For the setting aside oftemenefor the gods would naturally accompany such a foundation in confiscated territory, as it did in Mytilene four years later. Yet some of the inscriptions bear such early letter-forms as angular tailedrhoand three-barredsigma, forms long regarded as confined in Attic texts to the period before 446/5. There is thus a clear contradiction between the accepted view of the context of these inscriptions and the tenets of ‘orthodox’ epigraphical doctrine. In editing the inscriptions forIGiv (see on nos 33–8), Fraenkel acknowledged the contradiction but was unshaken by it, though he did concede that the placing of thehoroicould have been no later than the very outset of the colony: ‘Tantum vero rationi palaeographicae erit tribuendum, ut statim post occupatam insulam instituisse terminationem sacrorum Athenienses sumamus.’
The Erinyes in theOresteia: Real Life, the Supernatural, and the Stage
Authors: Brown A. L.
Published: May 2006

With these robust words Müller sought to argue that the Furies were actually visible to the audience at the end ofChoephori. More recent scholars, while generally agreed that this is not so, have still held a variety of views on the relation between the invisible Furies ofCho. and the visible ones ofEumenides, and the kind of existence that they should be conceived to possess. Thus Wilamowitz, who believed strongly in the subjectivity of Orestes' visions inCho., was prepared on occasion to carry this over intoEum., and a similar thesis has been elaborated in detail by H. J. Dirksen. Conversely F. Solmsen uses the objective reality of the Furies inEum.to argue against Wilamowitz's conception of the end ofCho.(‘it is after all impossible to regard theμητρὸς ἔγκοτοι κύνεςin one play as “Gewissensqualen” and in the other as real deities’), and others have taken up a similar position. Finally John Jones claims that the image of ‘a line extending from pure subjective fantasy to pure objective fact … provides a false frame of reference’, or else that we must ‘place the Furies at both ends of the line simultaneously’.
Theophrastus on fungi: inaccurate citations in Athenaeus
Authors: Sharples R. W. , Minter D. W.
Published: May 2006

Ancient authors often cited each other inaccurately through misunderstanding or carelessness; and this can cause problems in the collecting of fragments of authors of whose works some, but not all, survive. For a distinction has to be made between inexact citations of extant works and citations which, although resembling such works, do in fact seem to derive from material now lost. Such problems occur repeatedly in connection with the botanical writings of Theophrastus; and one particular group of problems stems from a section in the epitome of Bk ii of Athenaeus.
Polyphemos and his near eastern relations
Authors: Knox Mary
Published: May 2006

A number of studies of the Cyclops episode of Odyssey ix have described modern folktales which resemble it to a varying degree. Most writers have concluded that few of the tales actually derive from the Odyssey; rather they are related to it as independent variations of the same tale. Hitherto there has been no basis for conjecture about the origin of the tale, and speculation has ranged widely but inconclusively.

Perhaps speculation is all we can ever hope for in such questions. But it may help if we can find possible references to a version of the tale earlier than Homer, and the purpose of this note is to draw attention to such a possibility.

One-eyed but otherwise human figures are found, though not often, on cylinder seals from Mesopotamia. Edith Porada describes and illustrates three examples. The earliest of these (Plate VIIIb) dates from around 3000 B.C., and shows the one-eyed figure nude, curly-haired and bearded, holding up two lions by the hind legs. The rest of the scene includes an enclosure of some sort, a grotesque man(?) apparently bending a stick(?), two creatures that look like sheep, and two lion-headed birds (the personified storm-cloud?).
AP ix 272 (Bianor) and the meaning of φθάνω
Authors: O'Sullivan James N.
Published: May 2006

In verse 6 Professor Giangrande (JHS xcv [1975] 36–7) would read λαοτίταντον, saying that it means ‘expanded by the stones’. But τιταίνω does not mean ‘expand’ in volume; it ordinarily means ‘extend’, ‘stretch’ in length, and -τίταντον has no real claim to be regarded as suitable here. Besides, Giangrande's whole approach is based on the assumption that we have in this epigram exactly the same version of the story as is found in e.g. Pliny NH × 125, where the bird uniformly raises the level of the water by dropping stones into the vessel and can then drink at leisure. But some of the wording here suggests snatching haste; in particular ἔφθανє suggests that the bird ‘caught’ water splashed by the dropped stone(s) ‘before it got away’, i.e. before it fell back to the bottom of the vessel (cf. Gow—Page, The Garland of Philip ii 203 ad loc.).
Eisangelia in Athens: a reply
Authors: Hansen Mogens Herman
Published: May 2006

In JHS xcix (1979) 103–14 Dr Rhodes published an article, ‘Eisangelia in Athens’, which is primarily a detailed and profound criticism of some conclusions in my Eisangelia. The Sovereignty of the People's Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians (Odense 1975). His objections have forced me to reconsider the subject. In ‘Demos, Ecclesia and Dicasterion in Classical Athens’, GRBS xix (1978) 127–46, I have already dealt with the part of Rhodes' article based on the assumption that the Solonian Heliaia was a judicial session of the ekklesia. Here I discuss the eisangelia itself.
Were Necho's triremes Phoenician?
Authors: Lloyd Alan B.
Published: May 2006

Most academic disciplines are bedevilled with perennial cruces which seem destined to sprout up generation after generation to vex the ingenuity of their practitioners. The science of nautical archaeology is no exception. It is, however, doubtful whether any of its problems can vie in this respect with that of the ancient trireme. The arrangement of the oars, date of introduction, inventor and many other difficulties have been for decades—sometimes for centuries—the subjects of bitterest controversy. In these discussions the evidence of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, the earliest surviving Greek historian, has played an all-important role, in particular an extremely interesting passage which occurs in his account of Ancient Egypt in Book ii.

When he had desisted from the canal Necho turned his attention to military campaigns and triremes were constructed, some for the Mediterranean and others in the Red Sea for operations in the Erythrian Ocean. The slipways of the latter are still to be seen. And these ships he put to use when the need arose, (ii 159, 1–2)
Marathon to Phaleron
Authors: Hodge A. Trevor
Published: May 2006

In his reconstruction of the campaign of Marathon, Prof. N. G. L. Hammond postulates that the Persian fleet accomplished its hurried voyage from Marathon to Phaleron after the battle in a time of 9 hours, and in theory could perhaps have done it in 8 (JHS 1968, p. 43). This very fast time (9 hours for 58 sea miles = 6½ knots; 8 hours = 7), necessary if the fleet is to arrive in Phaleron in time to confront the Athenians on the same day as the battle (sic Plut. Aristeides, v, 5; but cf. Mor. 350 E), is justified by two arguments: (1) the wind blowing at the time was a north-easter, providing ‘the fastest conditions for sailing’; and (2), the Phoenician galleys in the Persian fleet were faster than Greeks, making figures based on Greek performance irrelevant.

(1) A strong north-easter is indeed very probable. During the summer and until mid-September (i.e., there is a strong probability that Marathon is covered, whichever date one prefers for it) the etesian winds (nowadays known as the meltemi) are blowing in the Aegean. These winds are of great strength and regularity, blowing only by daytime, and more or less from the North (Dem. iv 31; viii 14; Arist. Meteo, ii 361–2; A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks, p. 388). But the conditions they offer are not favourable for fast sailing from Marathon to Phaleron. Off the east coast of Attica a very choppy sea builds up. The seas come rolling down from the North, and in the funnel-shaped Thorikos Channel, between Makronissi and the mainland, build up to some really heavy weather between Lavrion and Sounion, particularly in the afternoon. This would delay the war galleys. Little is known about Phoenician war vessels, but they appear to have been triremes of some sort—light craft that can make good speed only in calm water. Far from a ‘following sea’ being favourable, a trireme would not give of its best in a sea of any kind, coming from any direction.