bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Archaeology in Greece, 1934–1935
Authors: Payne H. G. G. 
Published: May 2006

Some remarkable discoveries were made in Greece in the year ending at midsummer 1935; not all of them, by any means, from official excavations, for, as often, ‘chance finds’ produced much of the most interesting material. In the following account, much of the information as to the results of official excavations is taken from Karo's forthcoming report in the Archaeologischer Anzeiger, proofs of which, thanks to the author's generosity, I have been able to use. I would here express my thanks also to others who have provided me with information or photographs.Athens And AtticaThe fifth campaign of the American excavators in the Athenian Agora has again led to important topographical discoveries. The first results are described by Shear in AJA 1935, 173 ff.; and a general idea of the lie of the land may be obtained from the plan, loc. cit. 175, which embodies the identifications made possible last season by the discovery of the Tholos and of the Altar of the Twelve Gods.
Perseus and Chemmis (Herodotus II 91)
Authors: Lloyd A. B. 
Published: May 2006

Few sections in the whole of Book ii of Herodotus' History present such difficulties as Chapter 91. The problems posed are: first, what and where was Neapolis? Second, who was the Perseus mentioned by Herodotus? Third, how could the Χεμμîται, Egyptians by Herodotus' own admission, have retailed to Herodotus so thoroughly Greek a story as the tale of the sandal of Perseus? Fourth, how could Egyptians have set up gymnastic contests in the Greek fashion as Herodotus claims that they did? The present article is intended to offer a solution to all of these problems.Where uncertainty is so rife it is perhaps reassuring to find some data which can be regarded as beyond dispute. The geographical position of the city of Chemmis at least is certain. It was the capital of the Ninth Nome of Upper Egypt, usually called Πανὸς πόλις or Πανῶν πόλις by later writers, and stood, as the survival of the name proves, on the site of the modern town of Akhmîm.
Some Agiad Dates: Pausanias and His Sons
Authors: White Mary E. 
Published: May 2006

Thucydides' digression (i 126–38) on the later careers of Pausanias and Themistokles is deservedly famous for the lucidity of its style and the interest of its subject matter, but the chronological difficulties of the apparently perspicuous narrative are notorious. A. W. Gomme singles out the date of Themistokles' flight to Asia Minor as the major difficulty of the first half of the Pentekontaetia, ‘a difficulty which, if it could be solved, would lead to the solution of most of the others’. He concludes his discussion by saying: ‘The question remains unsolved.’ However, some simple facts (for which Thucydides is himself the authority) about the number and ages of Pausanias' sons have a direct bearing on the time of Pausanias' death and so on the date of Themistokles' flight; curiously enough their importance has not been noticed.After the deaths of his uncle Leonidas and his father Kleombrotos in 480, Pausanias became regent for his nephew Pleistarchos, the son of Leonidas and Gorgo, who died in 459/8 or 458/7 and before the battle of Tanagra. Pausanias' eldest son Pleistoanax then succeeded as the king of the Agiad royal house. Thucydides (i 107.2) says that he was still a minor and that his uncle Nikomedes, the younger brother of Pausanias, commanded for him at Tanagra in 458 or 457. Pleistoanax did, however, command the Peloponnesian forces which invaded Attica in 446, just after the revolt of Euboia (Thuc. i 114.2).
The Seal of Posidippus: A Postscript
Authors: Lloyd-Jones Hugh 
Published: May 2006

Professor C. A. Trypanis has kindly pointed out to me that in my article in JHS lxxxiii (1963) 75 f. I have confused two different inscriptions. The decree of the Aetolian League from Thermum recording a grant of proxeny Ποσειδίππῶι τῶι ἐπιγραμματοποιῶι Πελλαίωι and mentioned by me on p. 76 contains no mention of an Asclepiades. Both an Asclepiades and a Posidippus are mentioned in a mutilated Delphian psephisma of about 276–5 B.C. published in Fouilles de Delphes iii.3 (Epigraphie, 1943) no. 192, granting proxeny and other privileges to a number of persons of different nationalities.This Delphian decree, and not, as I say on p. 87, that from Thermum, is the one which Professor Trypanis suggested might explain the reference in ll. 9–11 of the poem discussed in my article. Luckily this error makes not the slightest difference to my argument. In saying to Apollo, ‘If ever in time past you showed me favour’, Posidippus is almost certainly referring to his past poetry.
Ostraka and the Law of Ostracism—Some Possibilities and Assumptions
Authors: Hands A. R. 
Published: May 2006

In his History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford, 1952, pp. 159 ff.) Mr. Hignett rejected Aristotle's attribution of the law of ostracism to Kleisthenes and this rejection met with approval from R. J. Hopper in a review of his book in JHS lxxvi (1956) 141. In preferring a later date for the law, Androtion's date—or what is supposed to be Androtion's date, for without the full context of Harpokration's quotation we cannot be sure that the τότε πρῶτον of that passage is so precise in its reference as to imply a date significantly later than Aristotle's—Mr. Hignett relies mainly on the well-established argument (which he imagines may well have been Androtion's also) that ‘the authors of such a law cannot have intended to let it remain a dead letter … it must have been passed not long before its first application’ (p. 164). Indeed, this must be regarded as his only decisive (so intended) argument, for, as far as sources are concerned, he states ‘the Atthidographers … had no documentary evidence for the date of the law’ and ‘the different dates given by different writers are all due to conjecture’ (p. 160). Here he has the agreement of Jacoby, who says in FGH iii(b) (1954) 121 ‘there was as little documentary evidence for the introduction of ostracism as for the Seisachtheia’ (i.e. none at all), but the latter's conclusion is more cautious—‘our tradition does not allow of making a final decision between the dates of Androtion and Aristotle’ (p. 124).Our purpose in this paper is, first, to re-examine the historical (and even merely logical) possibilities in this question and to suggest that the more cautious conclusion is the proper one in the light of these possibilities; and, secondly, to review certain other conclusions, based on archaeological as well as literary evidence, arrived at by recent writers regarding the actual history of the institution, in order to see whether some of these too would not need to be more cautiously stated if all the possibilities were taken into account.
Kassandra
Authors: Mason P. G. 
Published: May 2006

Three reasons in particular have suggested the choice of Kassandra as the subject of this paper; though they may well be excuses rather than reasons, for I confess that she intrigues me. Firstly, her story is an interesting example of the development of a ‘character’ of Greek literature whose name has become a by-word in later times. Secondly, she affords an excellent chance of studying two very differently gifted dramatic artists at work on the same material; and thirdly, she illustratesvery prettily the difficulties and dangers, as well as the advantages, of a very useful modern technique of literary criticism, a sort of mythical ‘Formgeschichte’, the study of the developing theme.Few artists indeed are free of indebtedness either to contemporary artistic influences or to their predecessors in the same field, and this is especially true where the ‘classical concept’ is active—that is, where the subject of art tends to be a traditional one endlessly varied and developed by succeeding generations; any theme of renaissance painting will serve as illustration. So it is that the study of the development of the theme of Hamlet, for example, enables the critic to estimate more justly than before the originality of Shakespeare and the true intention of his play. But this kind of criticism is still an art and not a science, if I may use the conventional but really inaccurate distinction to which we are accustomed; for it is inevitably to some extent subjective and even ‘viciously circular’ in method. Too much should not be claimed for it, not only because the artist is subject to many influences which are not likely to be preserved in a literary tradition, however copious, but also because caprice, personal likings or animosities and the chances of daily life, to say nothing of genius itself, disturb the processes of logical analysis and scholarly evaluation of detail. Moreover, in the study of drama, it is fatally easy to argue in a circle and to prove from an author's treatment of his theme that he has in fact been subject to influences which have determined the treatment from which the influences have been deduced; almost as fatally easy as to decide that this or that speech is what the author really believes or wants to say, the poet speaking through the character. Euripides in particular has suffered from this kind of treatment, and it is hard to see how to avoid the pitfall—but all the same, there is something to be learnt from a study of his use of myth, particularly if he is credited with being what he really is—a playwright.
Two Inscriptions found in Dunbartonshire
Authors: Burn A. R. 
Published: May 2006

Two inscriptions of the Roman Empire have been found in 1957 in the Roseneath Peninsula, north of the Firth of Clyde. They do not appear to have been published, so far as has hitherto been discovered, either locally or in any corpus; nor has an account of them published in the Glasgow Herald resulted in any light being thrown upon their provenance. They were noticed by a resident of Kilcreggan, Mr. A. H. Turner, in the grounds of Roseneath Castle, a nineteenth-century building now standing derelict; the present tenant, a farmer engaged in keeping poultry in the great dining-hall (a suggestively sub-Roman situation), had given Mr. Turner permission to remove stone from the grounds for his rockery, and presented him with the inscriptions when they were discovered. They are now in Mr. Turner's possession. Mr. Turner writes:(The house) ‘was built by a Mr. Richardson who was a sugar-merchant at Greenock and owned a vessel called Hound, in which he made considerable voyages. The family appears to be no longer in existence.’
The Danaid Trilogy of Aeschylus
Authors: Winnington-Ingram R. P. 
Published: May 2006

The Supplices was the first play of a trilogy. It was followed by the Aegyptii and the Danaides, and the satyr-play was the Amymone. Single plays that formed part of trilogies are at once tantalising and challenging, and it is natural that scholars should use their ingenuity in the attempt to recover at least the general trend of the lost plays. But their speculations often diverge widely. The most prudent course is doubtless to refrain from speculation altogether. Yet, in the case of the Danaid trilogy, one is haunted by a feeling that the necessary evidence is at our disposal, if only we could use it rightly. In what does the evidence consist?There are the fragments attributable to the missing plays. With one important exception, these do not amount to much. But fr. 44 N from the Danaides gives us seven famous lines on the universal power of love in nature, and we know that they were spoken by Aphrodite herself. There is the mythographical tradition—Apollodorus and Hyginus; Pausanias; certain scholia. The constant feature—that the Danaids killed their bridegrooms—is known to us already from the Prometheus Vinctus. Apart from this, it is clear that both before and after Aeschylus there were different versions of the story in circulation. We must have independent reasons for saying that any particular late account depends upon him; and it is only Aeschylus himself who can give us these reasons. It is Aeschylus who provides the primary evidence.
Gordion Cups from Naucratis
Authors: Robertson Martin 
Published: May 2006

In JHS XLIX, 265 ff. Beazley and Payne, in their important publication of Attic b.f. fragments from Naucratis, put together a number of pieces from Little Master cups of the same special form as that in Berlin from Gordion, with the names of Ergotimos and Kleitias as potter and painter. In JHS LII, 186, Beazley included these fragments in his list of ‘Gordion Cups’. Working over the pottery from Naucratis in the British Museum and the Fitzwilliam I have identified other fragments of the same class. Altogether there are now over thirty separate fragments, which I have tentatively grouped as belonging to fourteen cups. Not all the associations are certain, but all are I think probable. Some of those suggested by Beazley and Payne appear to me impossible, and I have noted where I differ from them; but this paper is only an elaboration of a theme from their larger work—τέμαχος τῶν Ὁμήρου μεγάλων δείπνων.I have divided the material into three groups:I. Cups of exceptionally small and delicate make, some bearing the names of Ergotimos and Kleitias.II. Slightly sturdier cups, some bearing the name of Sondros.III. Miscellaneous fragments which cannot be closely associated with either of the other groups.
The Song of Thyrsis
Authors: Ogilvie R. M. 
Published: May 2006

How and why did Daphnis meet his end? The story of Daphnis was in origin Sicilian and its most popular and consistent form goes back at least to the Sicilian writers, Timaeus and Stesichorus (Aelian, Vera Hist. 10.18). It occurs also in Diodorus Siculus (4.84) and the scholia on Vergil (Servius, ad Ecl. 5.20, 8.68; Philarg. ad Ecl. 5.20). According to this version Daphnis, who was the son of a Nymph and had been exposed under a laurel bush from which he took his name, was a herdsman. He was loved by a Nymph and plighted his troth to her, promising γυναικὶ μὴ πλησιάζειν. He was, however, seduced by a beautiful princess and, as a punishment, was blinded and, in some accounts, fell to his death from a cliff.Opinion has long been divided whether in his treatment of Daphnis Theocritus follows the popular version or elaborated an original story of his own (or, it may be, followed a version otherwise unknown to us). We know of other such original versions, by Hermesianax and Sositheus so that a striking departure from the old tradition would not be unprecedented. His casual allusions to Daphnis are all ambiguous or uninformative (5.20, 81; Epigr. 2, 3, 5) while Idyll 8 must be discounted since it is certainly not from his pen. We are left, therefore, with Idyll 7.73–5 and Idyll 1.64–142. Thyrsis' song is, however, far from being a straightforward narrative. It is throughout allusive, seeming to assume from the listener familiarity with the story. The salient points of it may be summarised: Daphnis is languishing with love (66, 78). The gods visit him. Hermes comes first from a hill, which is a feature of the landscape (77, πράτιστος ἀπ' ὤρεος), and asks with whom Daphnis is in love. He receives no reply. Then Priapus, who also is unanswered, teases Daphnis with his love and reveals that the maiden wanders the countryside looking for him. Finally Aphrodite comes and Daphnis at last breaks out into a tirade against the miseries brought on mankind by Love. He ends by taking leave of his surroundings and, despite an attempt by Aphrodite to revive him, dies.
Timaeus 38A8–B5
Authors: Cherniss Harold 
Published: May 2006

In a recent article written by Mr. G. E. L. Owen to prove that contrary to the general current opinion the composition of theTimaeusmust have antedated that of theParmenidesand its dialectical successors, it is contended that when theTimaeuswas written the analysis of negation given in theSophistcould not yet have been worked out. ‘For’, Mr. Owen writes, ‘the tenet on which the whole new account of negation is based, namely thatτὸ μὴ ὄν ἔστιν ὄντως μὴ ὄν(Soph.254D1), is contradicted unreservedly by Timaeus' assertion that it is illegitimate to sayτὸ μὴ ὄν ἔστι μὴ ὄν(38B2–3); and thereby theTimaeusat once ranks itself with theRepublicandEuthydemus.'After brushing aside Cornford's attempt to reconcile this passage of theTimaeuswith theSophist, Mr. Owen concludes his treatment of it with the words: ‘So theTimaeusdoes not tally with even a fragment of the argument in theSophist.That argument is successful against exactly the Eleatic error which, for lack of the later challenge to Father Parmenides, persists in theTimaeus.’An examination of the other arguments put forward by Mr. Owen in support of his thesis concerning the relative chronology of theTimaeusI reserve for another place. Here I propose to consider only the meaning of this one passage and whether it really does imply that theTimaeusmust have been written before Plato had conceived the doctrine enunciated in theSophist.It is a question not now raised for the first time. More than half a century ago Otto Apelt asserted that this passage of theTimaeusis enough to prove that work earlier than theSophists.His assertion did not go unchallenged; and Apelt himself appears to have lost his original confidence in it, for in his later writings on the relative chronology of the two dialogues he did not again refer to it.
The Relation of Anaxagoras and Empedocles
Authors: O'Brien D. 
Published: May 2006

In the earlier years of the nineteenth century a few scholars questioned whether there was any direct relation between Anaxagoras and Empedocles. Since then these doubts have been voiced but rarely. Instead, opinion has been divided principally on which thinker was dependent on the other. Most scholars, following Zeller and Burnet, have thought that Anaxagoras was dependent on Empedocles. A minority, including Tannery, has held the opposite view.It is essential to distinguish two questions. Who wrote first? Did he, whichever of the two it was, influence the other? Both questions are answered by a piece of external evidence, which since Zeller's second edition has been largely neglected: Alcidamas is reported by Diogenes to have said that Empedocles ‘heard’ Anaxagoras. This should imply both that Anaxagoras wrote earlier than Empedocles, and that he influenced him. Examination of passages in Aristotle and in some later writers, notably Plutarch, confirms the priority. Internal evidence may be applied to the question of influence. I shall seek to argue in particular that Anaxagoras' and Empedocles' theories of vision are such that they imply the influence of whichever is the earlier philosopher on the later.
Cleon's Orders at Amphipolis
Authors: Anderson J. K. 
Published: May 2006

How Cleon issued his fatal order to retreat from before Amphipolis does not seem to have been discussed by the commentators. But it would appear that he violated correct military procedure, and that this violation was in itself the cause of much of the subsequent confusion in the Athenian ranks. Thucydides says that both a signal and a verbal command were given—the signal conveying the definite meaning ‘Retire’, while the verbal command explained how it was to be done; and signal and command were issued together.Signals are divided by Arrian into three groups. Verbal orders, being most readily intelligible, are preferable when they can be heard above the din of battle. Visual signals may be obscured in the dust and confusion. Finally, the trumpet is useful in overcoming ‘atmospheric disturbances’ (τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος ἐμπόδια).Visual signals are found in Greek warfare from at least the fifth century B.C. onwards, but they are generally prearranged, either to convey the news that some foreseeable event has actually occurred or to coordinate the operations of two bodies of troops who are widely separated but in sight of each other. Everybody concerned must be instructed in advance that after certain developments a certain signal will be displayed, upon which certain movements will be carried out. In this way Croesus in theCyropaediadirects the evolutions of his vast army, Antigonus plans to coordinate the separate attacks at Sellasia, and Gorgidas ends the feigned retreat of the Sacred Band. But the signals used—the display of a red cloak or a white; the raising of a helmet on a spear—are all obviously arranged for the occasion. There does not seem to have been any code by which the commander of a Greek army, at any rate in the classical period, could convey orders to his men on the spur of the moment by visual signals. In the army described by Arrian each battalion (σύνταξις) had its own standard bearer, and the rank and file could at least have conformed to the movements of the standard.
The Bromley-Davenport Vases
Authors: Charlton J. M. T. 
Published: May 2006

The vases published here are part of the collection belonging to Lt.-Col. W. H. Bromley-Davenport, of Capesthorne Hall, Macclesfield, Cheshire. As far as is known, they all come from Lucien Bonaparte's estates at Canino near Vulci, and were brought to Capesthorne by Edward Davies Davenport (1778–1847), the great-grandfather, and Walter Davenport Bromley (1787–1862), the great-uncle of the present owner.A black-figure neck-amphora (Plate VII (a), (b)) is by the Antimenes Painter. It is complete with lid, has no restoration and measures 38½ cm. to the mouth; the handles are triple. On one side Herakles is about to slay the Nemean lion; on the other Dionysos stands between two capering satyrs. The added red and white is clear from the photographs. The attribution is of course certain; note the vertical lines on the outside of the legs, the arc describing the calf on the inside of the legs, the knees and elbows, the lines on arms, and the long mouths. But dating is less certain. The drawing is careful and appears at first sight to be rather late. The large strong figures and the feeling for space, the folds of Dionysos' chiton compared with the lack of chiton folds on a neck amphora in London and on one of similar period in Munich, and the elaboration of Herakles' foldless chiton compared with that on the Villa Giulia, Northwick Park, and Naples neck-amphorae, all suggest a late date. But there is no trace of double curve on terminal fold or knee, nor of wavy lines on drapery, as on the late neck-amphora in London.
Inscriptions from Pamphylia and Isauria
Authors: Hereward Daphne 
Published: May 2006

Sillyon. Note on an inscription already publishedCIG iii. 4324c = SGDI 1268. This inscription is carved in a panel on a rock to the west of the city, near the modern village. Height ·16 m., breadth ·175, letter and space down ·026, letter and space across ·019Perhaps [Όλυμ]πιακοῦ, since ἱαρός can be used in connexion with the Games, as in Lanckoroński, Städte Pämphyliens und Pisidiens, i, p. 66; but the meaning is uncertain; ἱερά generally means ‘a dead-heat’ (LSJ ἱερός iv. 7).Sillyon. New inscriptions(1) A statue-base, near the Byzantine wall. Grey stone, the top and the lower part of the left side are preserved. The bottom is buried and the back is very rough, but may be original. Height over ·7, breadth c. ·65, thickness ·33+, letter height c. ·058, letter and space across ·056. Roman date.