bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Zeus in the Prometheia
Authors: Knight W. F. J. 
Published: May 2006

The controversy about Zeus in the Prometheus Vinctus started by the late Dr. L. R. Farnell (JHS liii, 40 ff.) is not settled. Answers are wanted to three sharp-sighted questions asked by Dr. R. H. Maiden (ibid. liv, 201). The first is whether any one has considered the relation of the Prometheus Vinctus to the Semitic (Babylonian) myth of the fall of man. Later Dr. Maiden writes: ‘In Genesis the myth is used as the vehicle of a mediation on the origin and nature of sin. … But what was the original form [of the myth] before it had undergone the moralising process? … It is not impossible that … the moral character of God was not beyond criticism … the idea of a deity hostile to mankind presented no difficulty to the Semitic mind.’ Thirdly, he questions the assumption made, in his answer to Dr. Farnell, by Mr. H. D. F. Kitto (ibid. liv, 14 ff.), that the High God must be all-powerful and immortal.Lately M. Dmitri Merezhkovsky has compared the myth of Prometheus with Babylonian myths (The Secret of the West, translated by J. Cournos, London, 1933, 57 ff., citing Bab. Tab. B.M. VI. 5, Beros. Babyl. ap. Damascen. de prim. princ. 125, Cuneiform Texts, I. c). Similar comparisons had been made before, for example by the late Professor A. H. Sayce in 1884 (The Ancient Empires of the East, 157. Cf. my forthcoming remarks in TAPA, lxvii; and now E. O. Forrer, Mélanges Cumont, 686 ff.) In the Babylonian myths a god must be slain to create man.
A Byzantine Carol in Honour of St. Basil
Authors: Dawkins R. M. 
Published: May 2006

In Chapter II of his Folklore Studies, ancient and modern, Sir William Halliday gave a translation of a Byzantine carol in honour of St. Basil the Great, and with this a full discussion of the legend celebrated in the carol. This is a story of a contact between the emperor Julian the Apostate in his last campaign against Persia and St. Basil, and how Julian's death was brought about by the agency of St. Mercurius, a soldier who was martyred in the Decian persecutions. The legend is recorded in the life of St. Basil attributed to St. Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and in this life it appears we may see the start of the whole story. The supposed author was a contemporary of St. Basil, but the document is rejected as apocryphal, and appears to be of the eighth or ninth century, a date which allows plenty of time for the accumulation of legend about a name so well known in Asia Minor as that of the great bishop of Caesarea. Sir William Halliday has translated the relevant passages: for convenience I here give a very brief summary of the parts of the story which most closely touch the carol.The emperor Julian on his way to his campaign in Persia met Basil somewhere in the neighbourhood of Caesarea. Basil offered the emperor three loaves; angry at the smallness of the gift, the emperor sent him some hay in return; further angered by the fact that this gift gave the saint the right of pasturage on a certain meadow, he threatened on his return to destroy the city. Basil gathered his flock together, and they went to pray in the church of the Virgin on ‘Mount Didymus.’ The Virgin appeared, and called for the warrior Mercurius, who should go to Persia and slay Julian. Basil then went to the shrine of St. Mercurius, and found that the body was not there. This he announced to the people, and in seven days came the news of the death of Julian. Such very briefly is the legend as recorded in the Amphilochian life.
Greek and Latin Names in Russian Dress
Authors: Minns Ellis H. 
Published: May 2006

The treatment of Greek and Latin names in modern languages differs with the language; it may be worth while to seek reasons for the difference, it may bring out something of the history of classical learning in each nation.In Italian and French the names, being really part of the language, have behaved much like other words and fall like them into the two classes, those which have changed their form in the mouths of the people in obedience to unconscious phonetic processes, and those which have been given convenient shape by the conscious action of the learned. Actually the distinction coincides almost exactly with the distinction between names made familiar by their Christian associations, and names occurring in profane history and literature. The literary names merely suffer simple changes, especially of termination, to bring them into line with the modern language. The Greek names are first Latinised and then if necessary assimilated. But if a historical person anticipates the name, e.g., of a saint, he may be treated familiarly. It is rather a shock to recognise in a Denys the tyrant of Syracuse, on the analogy perhaps of the Areopagite; St. Denis the first bishop of Paris has even lost, his y, but we keep it at St. Denys near Southampton.
Archaeology in Greece, 1936–37
Authors: Young Gerard M. 
Published: May 2006

Acknowledgements are due to all those who have kindly supplied information and photographs: particularly to Dr. Riemann, of the German Archaeological Institute, who generously gave me a copy of his forthcoming report in Archaeologischer Anzeiger, and allowed me to make free use of it; to Professor G. Oikonomos, the Director of the Greek Archaeological Department; to Professors Shear and Morgan, and others of the American School; to M. Paul Lemerle, the Secretary-General of the French School; to Drs. Hampe and Kübler of the German Institute; and to Dr. Säflund of the Swedish excavations. They are in no way responsible for errors in this account.Athens and AtticaIn August 1937 the National Museum received an acquisition of the first importance. It had been known for some time that a marble kouros had been dug up at Anavysos in Attica by a gang of tomb-robbers in 1932, and smuggled out of the country.
The Progress of Greek Epigraphy, 1935–1936
Authors: Tod Marcus N. 
Published: May 2006

Once again I attempt, not without some trepidation, the task of surveying briefly the work done during the past two years in the field of Greek epigraphy, following the same order and observing the same principles as in my previous bibliographies. I include some specially valuable reviews published in 1937 of books issued in 1935 or 1936; on the other hand, I omit certain works which, though bearing the date 1936, were not actually issued, or at least did not become accessible to me, until 1937 was well advanced. As before, I mark with an asterisk books or articles of which I have only a second-hand knowledge. Once more I express my heartiest thanks to all scholars who have facilitated my task by sending me copies of their works.Death has taken a sadly heavy toll in the ranks of Greek epigraphists during the two years under review; among the more serious losses are those of A. von Premerstein, E. Preuner, G. Glotz, J. Geffcken, H. Collitz, E. Pridik, P. Orsi, R. Heberdey, A. B. West, T. Wiegand and P. Wolters. Happily, some of the veterans are left to us with undiminished vigour and ever accumulating experience, such as A. Wilhelm and F. Hiller von Gaertringen, whose impress will remain indelibly printed on epigraphical studies: both of these attained their doctoral jubilees in 1936, and the latter has added to the history of those studies an autobiographical chapter which is as valuable as it is modest.
The Paradox of the Prometheus Vinctus
Authors: Farnell Lewis R. 
Published: May 2006

The student of Greek religion has no more difficult problem to face than that of the Prometheus Vinctus. In previous writings I had always evaded it, because I had not found any solution and I hoped that there might be one. Failing to find anything satisfactory myself or in the writings of others, I have spoken of it in the title of this paper as a paradox rather than a problem. And I am only now setting down my thoughts on it in outline, because I do not find that the religious difficulties of that play are appreciated in their full gravity either by the commentators or by the writers on Greek religion.The play is unique among (a) the dramas of the Attic stage, (b) the literature of Greece, (c) the religious literature of the world. The truth of the first two statements can be proved by a rapid glance through the existing and recorded literature of Greece, especially through the products of the Attic drama.
Groups of Apulian Red-Figured Vases Decorated With Heads of Women or of Nike
Authors: Cambitoglou A. 
Published: May 2006

The material here discussed is far from being exhaustive, since it seems to me that a careful study would yield further groups of vases of this class. I use the word ‘groups’ for safety; I am not sure that some of the pieces which I put together were not produced by a single painter.Some of the vases are attributed according to the style of only a part of their decoration. Thus London F285 is attributed to the Stoke-on-Trent group because of the reverse, which has no stylistic connexion with the obverse and the head of Nike on the neck.When I mention proveniences I rely on second-hand information, but I notice that vases which I put under the same heading because of their common style are often cited as having been found in the same area. In my classification of the vases according to shapes, when possible I follow Beazley in ARV.I do not find it easy to decide on the date of these groups in the absence of external evidence or any information on the conditions in which they were found. Stylistically none of them could be earlier than 350 B.C., and as the extensive use of white-gold colour and the clumsiness of the drawing could hardly have appeared earlier than the Darius painter, I should be inclined to place them late in the fourth century.For a few general remarks on the representation of human heads by themselves in the last phase of Attic, Campanian, Apulian, and Etruscan red-figured vases see Beazley, EVP, p. 10.
Trojan Leap and Pyrrhic Dance in Euripides' Andromache 1129–41
Authors: Borthwick E. K. 
Published: May 2006

Neoptolemus, after defensive action with his shield against the missiles of the Delphians, decides to break away from the altar and try to escape—making in so doing ‘the well-known Trojan leap’, as Euripides says. This phrase plainly implies knowledge of a notorious incident of such a sort, associated, one might presume, with Neoptolemus himself. The schol, ad loc. however refers to a leap made by Achilles from the invasion ship on to Trojan soil, when a fountain of water shot up at the place he landed with his prodigious jump. This incident may be alluded to in El. 439, where the invasion fleet is said to have brought In later literature the legend is confirmed by Lycophron Alex. 245 (with schol.) and Antimachus fr. 59, where The fact that Antimachus uses a simile which resembles of the Delphians in the Andromache might also be thought to connect the two passages, but the image is a common one and Antimachus seems to borrow more directly from Achilles' leap on Hector in Il. xxii 138–9 But although this explanation of ‘the Trojan leap’ is plausible enough, and Norwood in his edition observes ‘obviously Neoptolemus leaping down from the altar suggests Achilles leaping down from the ship’, there is also evidence for a Trojan leap of Neoptolemus himself, and if this story (like the leap to shore of Achilles) came from a familiar Epic Cycle account of the war at Troy, it would be reasonable to suppose that Euripides had in mind an incident involving Neoptolemus rather than his father.
Aeschylus in Sicily
Authors: Herington C. J. 
Published: May 2006

Time has done almost its worst with the cultural and social history of Western Greece in the period from Hieron's succession in 478 to the death of Aeschylus in 456. It has left us no complete work by any Western Greek author; and for a chronicler of the period it has been able to do nothing better than a Diodorus Siculus. As a result, most of those details in the picture that are not missing are obscure. Close observation is fruitless, except only at one or two points where there still falls the brilliant but fugitive light of a Pindaric ode. Even so, if we step far enough back, a general composition emerges about which, I believe, there will not be much disagreement.This was a precocious culture, largely called into being by artificial means, and hence short-lived. But while it lived it anticipated in many ways the culture and the problems of Old Greece a generation and more later. Here already was at least one city-state swollen to outsize proportions, with a fluid population for which the moral and social patterns of the close-knit archaic community must inevitably have been losing their meaning. Here already was that violent confrontation of old and new, tradition and free inquiry, which is more familiar to us from the Athens of the late fifth century, from the time of Euripides, Socrates and Aristophanes. There is a religious background of essentially rather primitive mortuary beliefs—that whole region, of course, is the demesne of the Two Goddesses—though these beliefs themselves are taking on new and far from primitive shapes in the minds of the Pythagoreans and their associates. In abrupt contrast to them stand the utterly modern and sophisticated minds of the native Epicharmus and the immigrant Xenophanes; and half-way between there is a Sicilian who embodies in one man the contradictions of the epoch: Empedocles, poet and scientist, author (to the consternation of the learned in modern times) both of the Περὶ Φύσεως and of the Καθαρμοί. The same time, in Syracuse, sees the beginnings of a school of rhetoric—rhetoric, carrying in itself all those fearsome questions as to the relation between the word and the thing, between beauty and truth, which were to perplex Plato well into the fourth century.
Greek Mosaics: A Postscript
Authors: Robertson Martin 
Published: May 2006

These notes supplement and correct my article ‘Greek Mosaics’ in JHS lxxxv (1965) 72–89 (hereafter GM).I. Additions:Miss Elizabeth Ramsden, who is making a corpus of Roman mosaics in Greece, has drawn my attention to three important pebble-mosaics omitted from my survey. I am most grateful to her for this, and for permission to use her descriptions and photographs, reproduced in plates XXIII and XXIV. I am also very grateful to Professor Orlandos for permission to publish the photographs of the mosaic in Sicyon, no. 1; and to the late Dr. N. Verdelis for permission to publish those of the fragment in Athens, no 3. I know these two floors only from photographs and descriptions; nos. 2 and 4 only from the publications.1. Sicyon Museum, from Sicyon (Kiaton). Found by Professor Orlandos in 1940 and published by him in Praktika 1941, fig. 6 (see also BCH 1940/1 241, fig. 7). Here, plate XXIV. 2.80 × 2.80 m (without entry-panel); blue-black and white pebbles, with a few red.
The Date of the Ephesian Foundation-Deposit
Authors: Jacobsthal Paul 
Published: May 2006

Nearly fifty years have passed since Hogarth wrote, and it would be useful and pleasing to comment afresh on the votive offerings from the Artemisium, this treasure of gold and silver, of ivory and amber, with a touch of the gynaikonitis and the East. My purpose is narrower: a study of the objects from the Basis, and narrower still, their chronological implications for the date of the coins found with them. These coins are the only ones from the excavation found in what might be called a closed context. They can in principle be later than their latest co-finds; they can be earlier than the earliest, but it is reasonable to assume that they are contemporary with the majority of the objects associated with them.A few objects were found outside the Basis under stratigraphical conditions which make their inferior limit of time almost as certain as that of the objects from the Basis, and many pieces from outside resemble Basis types so closely that they can with certainty be dated to the same period (Hogarth p. 235): I think it, however, prudent and safe to leave these, where possible, on one side and to keep to the specimens from the Basis.The objects from the Basis are almost all of them of the seventh century B.C., a very few are later, and one piece only is possibly of the eighth century, pl. 4. 34. It is silver, gold-plated, ‘most probably detached from a hilt’ (Hogarth p. 114). The description gives no clear idea of technique and purpose: it is too small fora hilt. The decoration consists of engraved zigzags and compass-drawn ‘wheels’: these are no indication of an early date, as they still occur as border-decoration of the chiton of an acroterion figure from the Acropolis, but the whole somehow recalls those aimless designs on Late Geometric bronze sheets from Argos (Waldstein pls. 103, 104).
Plato as a Natural Scientist
Authors: Lloyd G. E. R. 
Published: May 2006

Widely differing opinions have been expressed on Plato's place in the history of Greek science, as on many other features of his work. The view that Plato's attitude and influence were nothing short of disastrous for science has been widespread. Platt, for instance, put it that ‘Plato, being first and foremost a metaphysician with a sort of religious system, would not have us study anything but metaphysics and a kind of mystic religion’. Dampier-Whetham believed that ‘Plato was a great philosopher, but in the history of experimental science he must be counted a disaster’. In hisHistory of Ancient GeographyJ. O. Thomson spoke of Plato's ‘positive contempt for observation, upon which natural science rests’, and in his influential book onGreek ScienceFarrington put it that ‘from the scientific point of view theTimaeusis an aberration’.On the other side Plato has found almost as many defenders from among those who were primarily philosophers, or philosophers of science, or even practising physicists, as from among the specialist Greek scholars themselves. In such books asScience and the Modern World(1926) andAdventures of Ideas(1933) Whitehead granted that Plato was responsible for diverting interest from the observation of particular facts in physical science, but suggested that ‘Plato had another message … An intense belief that a knowledge of mathematical relations would prove the key to unlock the mysteries of the relatedness within Nature was ever at the back of Plato's cosmological speculations’. There is a sense, then, in which ‘Plato and Pythagoras stand nearer to modern physical science than does Aristotle’. In 1927 Shorey quoted Whitehead and substantially developed this line of interpretation in his paper ‘Platonism and the History of Science’, still probably the most outspoken vindication of Plato's reputation as a scientist.
Derived Light and Eclipses in the Fifth Century
Authors: O'Brien D. 
Published: May 2006

In a study earlier in this volume, ‘The Relation of Anaxagoras and Empedocles’, pp. 93–113, I listed the ancient evidence to the effect that Anaxagoras first gave the correct explanation of an eclipse, and that he was followed in this by Empedocles. A more extensive examination of the evidence raises certain difficulties. For what are, or might appear to be, Anaxagoras' theories are attributed elsewhere to earlier thinkers.There are two principal elements in this contradiction, the one direct and the other indirect.1. There is a direct contradiction when Thales, Anaximenes and some Pythagoreans are said to have given the correct explanation of an eclipse, at least if we suppose the Pythagoreans in question to have been earlier than Anaxagoras.2. There has been thought to be an indirect contradiction when several thinkers before Anaxagoras are said to have derived the moon's light from the sun. For a theory of derived light for the moon has been thought, whether rightly or wrongly, to entail the correct explanation of an eclipse.In what follows I shall attempt to solve these, and some other incidental difficulties.
Homer's Wild She-Mules
Authors: Devereux G. 
Published: May 2006

Hellenists still debate whether the ‘wild she-mules’ (ἡμιόνων γένος ἀγροτεράων) of theIliad(ii 852) are domestic mules or wild equidae.The problem is further complicated by the fact that the ancients did not seem to differentiate adequately between the true wild ass and the wild hemione, although, according to Hančar's authoritative book—which incorporates the findings of modern zoology—the two are definitely distinct. There is, furthermore, a great deal of plausibility in Keller's statement that the ancients did not always differentiate properly even between wild horses and wild hemiones. In fact, the only author who seems to have had more than an inkling that there is a difference between wild asses and hemiones is Aristotle (Historia Animaliumvi 36=580b). Even the distinction between wild species and the domestic mule is sometimes so blurred that only the report that a ‘mule’ had a foal enables one to decide that the animal is a domesticated hemione or wild ass. Under these conditions little help can be derived from nomenclature, though, for the sake of completeness, we will indicate whether the animal is called hemionos, onos agrios, onagros, asinus ferus, or mula.
Personal Freedom and its Limitations in the Oresteia
Authors: Hammond N. G. L. 
Published: May 2006

There has been a tendency in recent studies of Aeschylus to exalt Zeus or Fate into a position of supremacy from which they dictate and determine the actions and the conditions of men. The argument of this paper is that Aeschylus believed men to be free in taking some actions and at the same time recognised the limitations which circumscribe the conditions of men. This argument is developed through a study of the issues which Aeschylus set forth in theOresteia, and it leads on to an analysis of the meaning of Moira and of the extent of human responsibility.I take as a starting point Professor H. Lloyd-Jones' interpretation of the guilt of Agamemnon. It expresses the exaltation of Zeus and the powerlessness of man in a precise and striking manner. In his view Agamemnon had no choice when he was faced with the demand for the sacrifice of his daughter at Aulis; and even if he had had a choice he could not have exercised it, because his power of judgement was taken away by Zeus. As Lloyd-Jones puts it, ‘Zeus is indeed determined that the fleet must sail; Agamemnon has indeed no choice. But how has Zeus chosen to enforce his will?…by sending Ate to take away his judgement so that he cannot do otherwise.’ Lloyd-Jones sees the same thing happen when Agamemnon is asked by Clytemnestra to walk on the purple carpet. ‘Zeus has taken away his wits. But why has Zeus done so? For the same reason as at Aulis; because of the curse.’ Agamemnon is seen as a puppet, of which the strings are pulled by Zeus. But Agamemnon is only one figure in what Lloyd-Jones describes as ‘the grand design of Zeus’.