bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
The Structure of the Iliad, Illustrated by the Speeches
Authors: Myres J. L. 
Published: May 2006

In a recent paper (JHS LXXII 1 ff.) is set out the distribution of speeches in the Odyssey, and the principles of their arrangement within its principal episodes. It is an obvious and necessary counterpart, to apply the same method of study to the Iliad. Though much has been done by Sir John Sheppard in The Pattern of the Iliad (1932), he has not made express use of the grouping of the speeches; and the present paper is designed to supplement his analysis of their contents by the special examination of their positions in the general design. I am still acutely aware of my debt to The Pattern of the Iliad; and it seems to me only possible to set out my own suggestions in full, at the cost of some repetition from a work so closely linked in its general theme.Speeches in the Iliad (over 670) are more numerous than in the Odyssey (629 + 8 in Demodocus' second lay), but their distribution is similar:The largest number, fifty, is in Odyssey XVII; forty-five are in Iliad XXIV.
ΟΙΚΗΙΟΙ ΠΕΡΙΝΘΙΟΙ
Authors: Graham A. J. 
Published: May 2006

The archaic inscription from Samos recording a dedication to Hera by two Perinthians (SEG xii 391) is a most interesting document from many points of view. But in this paper I shall confine myself to a single topic, the crux of 11. 3–4.Klaffenbach, the first editor, frankly admitted that he could not master the problems presented by the letters on the stone (3 f.) Ο.ΙΚΗΙΟΙ. He was naturally reluctant to postulate dittography. The text is short and well inscribed, but that is not all. For when one has assumed the engraver's error one is still left with a phrase qualifying the names of the two dedicators, οἰκήιοι Περίνθιοι, for which Klaffenbach could see no satisfactory explanation. He therefore inclined to the possibility that there is a word for some form of craftsman concealed in these letters, and the dedication is comparable to the tithe dedications by potters from the Athenian acropolis. The lack of any word for a craft at all similar to the letters on the stone gives this suggestion the appearance of a last resort.Robert thought that dittography should be assumed and οἰκήιοι explained as referring to the relationship as kinsmen which existed between the two dedicators but which was not evident from their names and patronymics. This explanation did not convince Klaffenbach, nor is it supported by other examples. And, as Guarducci rightly objected, clearer ways of expressing their relationship, if this is what the dedicators intended, could surely have been found.
Origins of Greek Sculpture
Authors: Cook R. M. 
Published: May 2006

These notes on the beginnings of Greek sculpture contain little that has not been said before, but aim at applying a severer logic to the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it. The problems may be defined as what models were used by early Greek sculptors, why they chose those models, where the choice was made, and what the impulse was that induced them to take up this new art.The earliest surviving Greek sculpture worth the name is of the Daedalic style, which Jenkins has analysed neatly in his Dedalica. This style began in the second quarter of the seventh century and continued into the last quarter. So much is fairly generally accepted.The artistic influence of Egypt on Greece has been propounded since the eighteenth century, and there are still many students who see its effects in sculpture. Usually their arguments are very general, asserting similarity of types and technical methods rather than of style. Of the Archaic Greek types the kouros is most apparently comparable to Egyptian—an upright, four-square figure with arms held to its sides and one foot in front of the other. Except for the stance this is the most obvious pose for a standing figure, and there are essential specific differences, well defined by Schrader. The stock Egyptian male has a support behind the forward leg, tilts backwards, and wears a kilt; the Greek kouros stands free, has a more mobile poise and is naked (except in the Daedalic style for a belt). As for resemblances in detail, Richter and Carpenter single out the roll of stone clenched in the hand of some Greek kouroi; this does not seem a regular or very early feature, and it may be a technical coincidence to avoid hollowing the inside of the closed fist. The ‘layer wig’ of course, though of Egyptian origin, is not so common in Egyptian sculpture and was already naturalised in Phoenician and Syrian art.
The Earliest Preserved Greek Map: A New Ionian Coin Type
Authors: Johnston A. E. M. 
Published: May 2006

Because our knowledge of ancient cartography is extremely limited, owing to the lack of surviving examples, the discovery of an accurate and competent map as the reverse type of a rare series of coins dating from the fourth century B.C. is of enormous significance. For this is the earliest Greek map to come down to us in any form and the first physical relief map known. Hitherto we have had to rely on the descriptions of maps in the ancient authors as our sole source of information about early Ionian cartography, whereas now we have an actual example. One would not normally expect to find a map as a coin type; most ancient maps were presumably drawn on vellum or papyrus. Even today, with much more sophisticated techniques of engraving, maps are very rarely found on coins, although they are common on postage stamps. Babelon, Head and Imhoof-Blumer were consequently not likely to consider this solution in trying to decipher the reverse type in their discussion of this series around the turn of the century; the map has so far remained unrecognised.Appropriately the coins are from Ionia, the home of Thales and Anaximander, the early geographers. Only 35 examples of this series of Rhodian-weight tetradrachms and 6 of the bronze of the same type have been traced (plates X–XI). The obverse type is the figure of the Persian king, running or kneeling right, wearing the kidaris and candys, and holding a bow in his left hand and a spear in his right. The reverse is a rectangular incuse with irregular raised areas and is usually heavily stippled. The style of the reverse changes considerably, but the type is recognisable throughout as a map depicting the physical relief of the hinterland of Ephesus, an area of approximately 90 square miles (plate IX). It is unique both as a coin type and as a map.
A Note on IG i2 114
Authors: Lewis D. M. 
Published: May 2006

The battered stone which bears the bouleutic oath and a decree of the demos about the boule has the same width as and is universally agreed to be a companion piece to IG i2 115. That text begins with a decree of 409–8 ordering the anagrapheis to obtain Draco's law on homicide (from the basileus, as R. S. Stroud will show) and write it on the stone. On the face of it, they are merely to make a copy, and, though the stray voice has been raised to suggest that they altered the text, most discussion has been about the age of the text before them and the changes that it might have undergone before 409.The bouleutic stone is unprotected by a decree, as it stands, and encouragement for those who might wish to suppose that it represents a revised text comes from Philochorus F 140, which suggests a change in legislation about the boule in 410–9. There has not, to my knowledge, been any very great enthusiasm for massive revision or new formulation. To put it at a minimum, (1. 34) and (l. 41) do not sound like consitutional procedure or even formal language of 410, and there has been at least one attempt to carry the whole document back beyond the Persian War. The archaisms convinced even Hignett ‘that it was to some extent a copy of an earlier law’, but he found it ‘incredible that in 410, when the full democracy had just been restored after an oligarchic interlude, a law on this subject should have been no more than a faithful copy of a previous law; some additional safeguards suggested by previous experience must have been inserted.’
A Revised Itinerary of the Route Followed by Cyrus the Younger through Syria, 401 B.C.
Authors: Farrell †W. J. 
Published: May 2006

The traditional route followed by the Army of Cyrus the Younger as shown in Map I of Vol. VI of the Cambridge Ancient History and in Bury's History of Greece take an almost straight line from the sea at Myriandros to the great bend in the R. Euphrates where it turns to the south-east. Thapsacus, where Cyrus crossed the river, is shown at the bend, approximately where the modern Meskeneh now stands, in the Cambridge Ancient History, while Bury places it farther east at or near the modern Raqqa. Both identify the R. Araxes with the modern Khabour.As a result of a close examination of parts of Chapters iv and v of the Anabasis, wide reading of the works of ancient and modern travellers in those parts, coupled with some researches in the parasang and a knowledge of the terrain gained during some war-time journeys in that area, I find myself unable to accept these identifications, as they fit neither the length of marches itemised by Xenophon, nor the physical features of the terrain. Both entirely ignore the existence of a considerable river known today as the R. Belekh.
Miltiades
Authors: Wade-Gery H. T. 
Published: May 2006

The red-figure plate in the Ashmolean Museum bearing the inscription Μιλτιαδες καλος (Fig. 1) has been ascribed, by the scholar to whom these pages are dedicated, to the Cerberus Painter; and dated to 520–510 B.C.We ask ourselves inevitably: is this the great Miltiades? and he who tries to answer is unusually incurious if he does not ask the second question: is the beardless mounted archer, here depicted, Miltiades himself? He looks to be under twenty, Marathon was fought twenty to thirty years later. What age was Miltiades at Marathon in 490? what age was he between 520 and 510 B.C.?
From Religion to Philosophy
Authors: Thomson George 
Published: May 2006

The starting-point of this article was Cornford's essay, ‘A Ritual Basis for Hesiod's Theogony’, recently published in The Unwritten Philosophy. He showed it to me soon after he had written it in 1942. It is only a sketch, but it struck me at once as important, because it opens a new approach to the conclusion he had reached many years before in From Religion to Philosophy. I told him this and begged him to pursue the subject, but he smiled and said, ‘I leave that to you’. Hence the title of this article, which is a tribute to his memory.His From Religion to Philosophy appeared in 1913. In the same year Eduard Norden published his Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. In this study, starting from the Sermon on the Areopagus, Norden shows that the Greek and Latin authors employ, in poetry and prose, certain forms of speech, liturgical in origin, which can be traced independently in the Old Testament. The two streams, the Hellenic and the Hebrew, drawn from Babylonia and Egypt, were reunited in Christianity, notably by St. Paul, who, in virtue of his birth and upbringing, was equally well versed in both. Later, in the Byzantine liturgy, they were reinforced by a third stream, the Syrian, of the same ultimate origin.
Herodotus II, 28 on the Sources of the Nile
Authors: Wainwright G. A. 
Published: May 2006

The story of the sources of the Nile which Herodotus says the Scribe of the Sacred Treasures of Athene told him at Sais has been discussed many times, and nearly everything which can be said about it has been said. But the following points do not seem to have been made as yet.The story that the sources or springs of the Nile are at Elephantine is absurd as it stands, as indeed Herodotus himself realised. Many suggestions have been put forward in explanation, primarily that the story is something theological or that it represents a very ancient tradition dating from the earliest times when the First Cataract was the Ultima Thule of Egypt. The flaw in such an explanation is that ‘from the earliest times’ the Nile's course south of the Cataract had been well known to the Egyptians. Cemeteries have been found in Nubia of the Egyptian predynastic and early dynastic times, and certainly from the Old Kingdom onwards armies and trading expeditions were commonly accustomed to go far up to the south. It was, therefore, well known to the Egyptians throughout history that the Nile did not rise at the First Cataract, but came from much farther south.
The Archaic Acropolis: Some Problems
Authors: Plommer Hugh 
Published: May 2006

The literature on the Acropolis seems to me as untidy as the site itself. Every discovery that could, on the present evidence, be made about its history, every truth that could be pertinently stated has already appeared, I should imagine, in one or other of the books or articles devoted to it since the Greek excavations of the eighties. I am merely attempting the humble but, I think, necessary task of sifting out what seem to me the more interesting discoveries, the more significant conclusions. Before we form any more theories, we must try to discover what under present circumstances we can reasonably know.In this paper I shall have space only to consider the history of the main buildings, one or perhaps two large temples and perhaps a large propylon, up to the Persian destruction of the archaic Acropolis in 480 and 479. The minor buildings of poros, with triglyphs barely 1 foot or 15 inches wide, and walls or columns consequently less than 15 feet high, will interest me only incidentally. I have found no clear evidence for the sites of any of these, not even Wiegand's ‘Building B’, considered by J. A. Bundgaard (pp. 55 ff.) to be the precursor of the north-west wing in the Periclean Propylaea. Moreover I can isolate the problem of the large buildings more conveniently and with a clearer conscience, because it has already been isolated by C. J. Herington in his stimulating book,Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias(Manchester, 1955). His thesis is an interesting one, that from far back in the archaic period two important temples stood on the Acropolis. The more southerly, dedicated to Athena the Warrior Maiden (Parthenos), occupied a site somewhere within the limits of the present Parthenon. The more northerly and the more important in state ritual was dedicated to Athena as the City Goddess, and occupied the site between the present Parthenon and Erechtheum, generally known as the ‘Doerpfeld Foundation’. Every visitor to Athens will know this series of old broken walls just south of the Caryatid Porch. Wiegand's is still, I think, the most workmanlike plan of it (Wiegand, figs. 72 and 117—my Fig. 1). Herington's thesis, then, enables me to arrange my questions as follows. How many successive temples occupied the Doerpfeld Foundation, what did they look like and how were they related to one another? And again, was there any important temple on the site of the present Parthenon before the decade 490–480, generally considered the date when a marble Parthenon was first attempted ? Because of its possible scale, I shall also have to consider the date and form of the archaic Propylon. If it were a large building, it could be the source of various large fragments hitherto assigned to temples; and Heberdey, the latest American books, and now Bundgaard all make it rather large, between 15 and 20 metres square. (For the actual dimensions they give, see below, pp. 146 ff.)
Euboean Lekanai
Authors: Ure A. D. 
Published: May 2006

In the Archaeological Institute of the University of Tübingen there is a lekane that was acquired by the late Professor Watzinger too late for inclusion in hisGriechische Vasen in TübingenIt has recently been published in an article ‘Zu einigen böotischen Vasen des sechsten Jahrhunderts’ in theJahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainziv by Dr Konrad Schauenburg, who regards it as Boeotian. This lekane (plate IX 1–5; Schauenburg, pl. 8) and one in Munich which goes with it (plate X 1–3, XI 1, 2;CViii pl. 146.3, 5–7) are similar in many respects to Boeotian lekanai, but I hope to show that they are in fact of the same fabric as the three great grave amphorae from Eretria. The most recent discussion of these amphorae and full bibliographies are to be found in Mr John Boardman's article ‘Pottery from Eretria’,BSAxlvii (1952) 30 ff., to which I shall frequently refer.In shape the two vases are near to Boeotian lekanai of the orientalising class except that the flat ribbon handles are ‘continuous’, that is, they are formed from a continuous strip of clay which is applied to the rim externally in such a way as to leave a rather pinched loop in the centre and a centimetre or so of the ribbon projecting at each end. The ribbony strip keeps its identity all along and nowhere does it merge into the rim; see plate X 2, 3, XI 1. By contrast, in orientalising lekanai (the largest single Boeotian class) there is no connexion between the projections and the handle, from which they are separated by about a centimetre of normal rim. For a typical example seeCVHeidelberg i pl. 27.5. Both the Tübingen and the Munich lekanai have on the rim a row of reversed zeds similar to those which decorate the lip of the Wedding amphora and the Herakles amphora. Immediately above the foot there is a broad black band edged at the top with a red line painted over the black. The base within the foot-ring is decorated with a large black spot inside a small circle. The interior has a tondo framed by a red ring superimposed on the edge of the surrounding black, and two red circles are painted over the black a short distance below the rim. The surface of the Munich lekane has been coloured a deep red, well preserved under the foot. The black glaze on both vases is thinly applied and streaky.
A Note on the Hipparchies of Alexander
Authors: Griffith G. T. 
Published: May 2006

By the courtesy of Mr P. A. Brunt whose admirable paper now published (p. 27 ff.) I had the pleasure of reading at an early stage, and of the Editor in allowing me at Mr Brunt's suggestion to add a short note here, I am enabled to write about a point on which I was unable to follow Mr Brunt in his interpretation. It concerns the date at which Oriental cavalry was first introduced by Alexander into the hipparchies of Companion Cavalry, which (following Mr Brunt) I now believe to have become eight in number by a reorganisation of the year 328.About the Oriental cavalry actually named by Arrian (at the Hydaspes battle) as participating in the invasion of India there is no disagreement between Mr Brunt and myself: the Arachosians and the Parapamisadae horse, the Bactrians, Sogdians, Scythians and Dahae are mentioned by Arrian in terms that show clearly that they were not included in the hipparchies at this time but were serving as separate units (A. v 11.3, 12.2: Brunt, 43 f.). These people, however, represent only a part of the Oriental cavalry forces available to Alexander, if he chose to use them, at any time after (say) early 330 B.C. for the central satrapies of the Persian Empire (Susiana, Persis and Media), and after the end of 330 for the satrapies occupied with little resistance during that year (‘Parthia’, Tapuria with Hyrcania, Areia and Drangiane). These Western or Central Iranians are never named by our sources as having participated in any of Alexander's campaigns, though the Far Eastern Iranians (Bactrians, Sogdians, etc.) are so mentioned by Arrian at the Hydaspes battle, and indeed as early as the year 328 (A. iv 17.3, Bactrians and Sogdians only).
Plato and the Copula: Sophist 251–259
Authors: Ackrill J. L. 
Published: May 2006

My purpose is not to give a full interpretation of this difficult and important passage, but to discuss one particular problem, taking up some remarks made by F. M. Cornford (in Plato's Theory of Knowledge) and by Mr. R. Robinson (in his paper on Plato's Parmenides, Classical Philology, 1942). First it may be useful to give a very brief and unargued outline of the passage. Plato seeks to prove that concepts are related in certain definite ways, that there is a συμπλοκὴ εἰδῶν (251d–252e). Next (253) he assigns to philosophy the task of discovering what these relations are: the philosopher must try to get a clear view of the whole range of concepts and of how they are interconnected, whether in genus-species pyramids or in other ways. Plato now gives a sample of such philosophising. Choosing some concepts highly relevant to problems already broached in the Sophist he first (254–5) establishes that they are all different one from the other, and then (255e–258) elicits the relationships in which they stand to one another. The attempt to discover and state these relationships throws light on the puzzling notions ὄν and μὴ ὄν and enables Plato to set aside with contempt certain puzzles and paradoxes propounded by superficial thinkers (259). He refers finally (259e) to the absolute necessity there is for concepts to be in definite relations to one another if there is to be discourse at all: διὰ γὰρ τήν ἀλλήλων τῶν εἰδῶν συμπλοκὴν ὁ λόγος γέγονεν ἡμῖν So the section ends with a reassertion of the point with which it began (251d–252e): that there is and must be a συμπλοκὴ εἰδῶν.The question I wish to discuss is this. Is it true to say that one of Plato's achievements in this passage is ‘the discovery of the copula’ or ‘the recognition of the ambiguity of ἔστιν’ as used on the one hand in statements of identity and on the other hand in attributive statements? The question is whether Plato made a philosophical advance which we might describe in such phrases as those just quoted, but no great stress is to be laid on these particular phrases. Thus it is no doubt odd to say that Plato (or anyone else) discovered the copula. But did he draw attention to it? Did he expound or expose the various roles of the verb ἔστιν? Many of his predecessors and contemporaries reached bizarre conclusions by confusing different usesof the word; did Plato respond by elucidating these different uses? These are the real questions.
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, and the Law of Athens
Authors: Harrison A. R. W. 
Published: May 2006

The publication posthumously in 1951 of Professor Joachim's commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics has raised again in an acute form the question of Aristotle's use of Athenian law as the basis of his discussion of justice in Book V. We are told that Joachim In his interpretation of this book made much use of an unpublished essay of Professor J. A. Smith. It is particularly unfortunate that it has not been found possible to trace the manuscript of this essay among Professor Smith's papers since there is a good deal that is new and unorthodox in the resulting interpretation. It is also unfortunate that, because Joachim's publication was posthumous, there could be no reciprocity as between his and some other relatively recent and important discussions of the subject, especially those of H. D. P. Lee and of L. Gernet, while these last two, publishing in the same year, were ignorant of each other's work. I have felt drawn to a brief re-examination of the question because I am sceptical of the general lines of Joachim's treatment, rash though it be to differ from both him and J. A. Smith on the interpretation of Aristotle.The specific question I propose to ask is whether in N.E. V Aristotle is basing himself at all closely on the substantive law of Athens, and my main conclusion is negative. I think that there is a tendency, particularly in Joachim, to read too much law into what Aristotle says, to force his discussion into a juristic mould into which it simply does not fit. Aristotle after all is attempting to describe a ἔζις, a tendency to feel and act in a certain way; and, close as may be in his thought the connection between the man and the citizen, we perhaps ought not tolook for too exact a mirror of the character of the good citizen in the external institutions of the city.