The scene in Iliad 11 where Nestor's slave Hekamede prepares a restorative κυκεών for his guests in his great cup, which only he can lift when it is full, has often been cited in connection with the skyphos from Ischia, dated to c.735–720 BC, with its verse inscription that alludes to Nestor's εὔποτον ποτήριον. Now that scholarly opinion is increasingly swinging towards a seventh-century dating for the Iliad, it seems more prudent than ever to see the Ischia inscription as a reflex not of our Iliad but of a similar Nestorian drinking episode in earlier epic tradition. His cup, as described, has features of a Bronze Age vessel; and the motif of the mighty goblet is paralleled in the Ugaritic Baal epic, current not later than the fourteenth century.

Here I want to consider another element in the scene, namely the grated cheese which Hekamede adds to her posset. I hope to show, by a combination of metrics and archaeology, that this too, even though it cannot be traced back to the Bronze Age, belongs to a traditional account that is many generations older than our Iliad.

There are few things in history more illusive and at the same time more persistent than the tradition that the Hellenistic language and culture did not cease to be part of the life of Southern Italy when Magna Graecia ceased to be anything but the shadow of a great name. It is a fact that the Hellenism of South Italy has a habit of being lost sight of. It hides itself, as it were, from the end of the Punic wars till the time of Justinian. After the end of the Byzantine domination it again burrows into the earth, and it is only now when it is indeed disappearing that we begin to realise that it has been there all the time. There have always been signs of its presence for those who will look for them.

The six graves catalogued below were excavated in 1907 and 1908, at the same time as those already published by Professor Burrows and myself in B.S.A. xiv. and J.H.S. xxix. Their position in the cemetery is indicated on the Plan, B.S.A. xiv. p. 230, Fig. 1. Their contents consist almost entirely of Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian vases. None contained any vases of what we have called Boeotian Kylix ware, and only Graves 4 and 14, the latest of the six, show any direct connexion with graves that did contain it.

This connexion is worth noting in detail for its bearings on the view, put forward B.S.A. xiv., that the Boeotian Kylix style was, in part at least, the result of Corinthian influence. Indeed the chief importance of the graves here published lies perhaps in the confirmation they afford this view.

Among the many thousands of terracottas recently recovered from the soil at Tarentum, there is one large group which has not yet received much mention in print. I refer to a series of some hundreds of female statuettes which have been identified by Duemmler and Winter as Artemis figures. The majority of these figures are at present in the Museo Nazionale at Taranto, though some few have found their way into museums elsewhere.

In the main type of the figures there is little variation. They usually range from eight to twelve inches in height, and are standing, female, draped figures each with one or more attributes. They all wear either a lion-skin head-dress, or a lion-skin apron; some, indeed, show both the head-dress and the apron. Most of the examples are single-moulded statuettes with unmodelled back, but there are a few which are almost reliefs. The figurines are for the most part rough and not retouched after moulding, though there are some finely modelled exceptions to this rule.

Many eminent foreign scholars have investigated the principles on which Athens conducted her Public Finance during the ascendancy of Pericles, but the subject has been strangely neglected in England, and no apology is perhaps required for drawing attention to its importance and for suggesting certain considerations which appear to the writer fatal to some views which have been widely accepted. Competent writers have come to such different conclusions that certainty is probably unattainable, but it is hoped that the theory propounded in this paper may be regarded as consistent with the admittedly scanty evidence. Finance did not interest Thucydides, who omits such important facts as the transference to Athens of the treasury of the League and the increase of the φόρος during the Archidamian War. The inscriptions, though invaluable, are frequently so badly mutilated that they lend themselves to very different interpretations. Under these conditions dogmatism is obviously inadmissible.

“Und jenen Sängern zu Smyrna, Phokäa, Kyme, Neonteichos, Larissa lag immer der majestätische Sipylos vor Augen mit seinen Felsenhöhen und Abgründen, mit seinen Quellen und kleinen Seen, mit der Erinnerung und Mahnung grosser Erdrevolutionen und Zerstörung reichen irdischen Segens und menschlichen Glückes. So ist denn hier das Bild eines Himmels auf Erden, eines zum Himmel strebenden Menschenglückes, aber auch das Bild eines überkühnen Hochmuthes und göttlichen Strafgerichtes vor allen lokal befestigt worden.” These words of Stark (Niobe, p. 409) well describe the peculiar fascination that the splendid mountain still exercises on one that lives under its shadow, and the ever-growing interest with which one returns to its past history. The least satisfactory part of Stark's excellent work is precisely that which treats of Niobe in Sipylos (98–109 and 403–46). It suffersfrom the lack of trustworthy information about the district. Even after he had himself had the opportunity of seeing for a few hours the socalled “Niobe,” and had recognised in it ein Gebilde alter heimischer, in den phrygischen Bildwerken der Göttermutter vielfach sich später aussprechenden Kunst und eines tiefen Naturgefühls, his rationalising treatment of the myth (Nach d. Gr. Orient, pp. 231–54) is very unsatisfactory. We are to believe that a powerful empire under a king Tantalus existed here, that his capital was destroyed by an earthquake, and his empire ruined by an Assyrian invasion (Stark's account seems to waver between the two and finally to adopt both explanations), that his son went down to the seaport of the empire and sailed away to find an empire and a bride ready for him in Greece. Though a poetic and fervid imagination, stimulated by the charm of the wonderful Sipylos, has made Stark's account a seductive picture, yet it requires only a statement of the theory in its bare outlines to show how uncritical it is.

In JHS LXXIV 36-43, under the above heading, M. White argues from Hdt. Ill 47-9 that the offences cited as provoking the Sparto-Korinthian expedition against Samos ought to have been committed either by Polykrates himself or by a predecessor of similar policy ‘whose sins could justly be visited upon his head’. These offences were: (1) the interception of the Kerkyraian boys sent by Periandros to Alyattes; (2) the seizure of the corslet sent by Amasis to Sparta; and (3) the seizure of the bowl sent by the Spartans to Kroisos. Of the boys, Miss White says (p. 37) that they must have been sent ‘at latest before the death of Alyattes ca. 560-555 B.C.’. The corslet was seized a year before the bowl, which ‘was a gift on the occasion of the alliance made between Sparta and Kroisos shortly before the latter's fall’. As to the date of this event, Miss White is not prepared to adjudicate as between the various years proposed, from 547 to 541/0: ‘even at the latest it is well before the time of Polykrates’ (n. 10). Eusebios' date for the accession of Polykrates is c. 532; and, even if this tradition is set aside, a date much earlier than 540 is impossible, because Peisistratos' establishment of Lygdamis as tyrant of Naxos, some time after his own final establishment at Athens (547/6), must come first. Therefore Polykrates himself cannot have been responsible for the seizure of either the corslet or the bowl —much less the interception of the boys. Miss White suggests that these and other considerations favour the view that the tyranny began in the sixties, and that Aiakes, Polykrates' father, was the first tyrant.

No apology should be needed for treating afresh these much-discussed battles, if only because the last two years have produced new and important evidence from Delos; though in fact the literary allusions, scanty as they are, have hardly even yet been sufficiently elucidated. I hope in this paper to fix the dates of Andros and Cos by the Delian archon-list, and to consider what that means in terms of B.C. In a subsequent paper, to be published in the next number of this Journal, I hope, by working out the history of the ship which Antigonus Gonatas dedicated to Apollo, to confirm the date assigned to Cos in this paper. If these two dates could really be fixed, they would be invaluable for our understanding of Aegean history in the middle of the third century.

To ask a question about ‘patronage’ is to view the issue from a top-down, broadly-conceived theoretical perspective. To understand Athenian political thought, we need to take an emic approach, to consider the perspective of the Athenian citizenry, which was concerned with present realities rather than complex, abstract models. The Athenian system's protection of individual citizens incidentally put broad restrictions on elite patronage, but, despite these limitations, relationships of patronage persisted throughout the Classical period albeit in non-threatening forms. Measures that ensured financial independence for the poor came only ad hoc and gradually. This article pursues three theses: (1) Athenians cared more about securing the freedoms of individual citizens than abolishing patronage, (2) patronage (as we would call it) existed in Athens but only in forms not threatening to civic freedoms and (3) in Athenian thinking political freedom was prior to financial independence. This article also explores the possibility of patronage systems existing in Greek poleis outside Athens, arguing that patronage-limiting practices were typical of democratic regimes but unusual for oligarchies.

It seems clear from an article by C. H. Kahn in JHS xc (1970) 99–116 that there are still prevalent numerous misconceptions concerning early Greek astronomy. To attempt to correct all these in detail would require a lengthy exposition of elementary points which would be extremely tedious for the discerning reader. There are, however, two matters a lack of understanding of which leads to such erroneous conclusions that one may perhaps be forgiven for a final attempt to clarify the issues.

Marmariani.—In JHS LXX, 18 I attempted to show that there were Late Geometric elements in some of the vases from the tholos tombs, and that therefore the spectacle brooches found with them need not necessarily belong to the Early Iron Age. Since then I have had a demonstration from Mr. Maryon of the use of steel and bronze tools (see AJA LIII, 116), and it is now clear to me that the ‘rocking’ pattern on the bracelets from Marmariani (BSA XXXI, 34, nos. 9 and 10) must have been made with a steel tool, and cannot date from the beginning of theIron Age, as Heurtley supposed. Since bronze is more difficult to work than gold, they are not likely to be earlier than the Elgin brooches, which themselves probably belong to the second half of the eighth century. Tomb 1 at Marmariani contains both a spectacle brooch and one of the bracelets.

In a recent article, J. K. Davies suggested that there were no choral events at the festivals of the Hephaestia and Promethia. He rested his case on the fact that ‘the basic document concerning the festival [sc. the Hephaestia], IG i2 84 of 421/0 refers (probably) to gymnasiarchs (lines 20–21) and nowhere to choregoi or choruses’, and he went on to say that ‘the general heortological tradition [sc. about the Hephaestia]…knew nothing of musical contests’. On this basis, he rejected the contrary evidence of [Xenophon] Ath.Pol. iii 4 which specifically mentions the Hephaestia and Promethia in a list of five festivals to which choregoi were allotted. He suggested that either the author of Ath. Pol. was mistaken, or an emendation of the text proposed by Kirchhoff should be accepted; the emendation inserts seven words into the text, and so switches the reference from choregoi to gymnasiarchs.

Aristophanes of Byzantium is credited with inventing the signs for Greek accents, breathings and vowel lengths, according to a single source: a short text found in two 16th-century Paris manuscripts. The passage has a doubtful history, but the story it tells is of considerable interest. We first provide a new edition of this text, based on a new examination of both manuscripts, and a complete translation. Secondly we argue that the author consulted a source that was in Latin and that dealt at least in part with the Latin accent. We conclude by considering the implications of our proposal for the text’s date and circumstances of composition.

The immediate occasion of these notes on the Alcestis of Euripides was a recent performance of the play at the Little Theatre in London. In this performance, though the programme professed that the interpretation which had been adopted was essentially that proposed by Dr. Verrall in 1895, an innovation seemed to be contemplated which even at first sight, and still more when one went behind the English version to the original, appeared to stray beyond reasonable conjecture, and indeed ran counter in some points to the express indications of Euripides. In particular, the genuine reluctance of Admetus to give the assurance which Alcestis asks, that he will not marry again, was so greatly emphasized, and so markedly enhanced by his behaviour in the last scene, till the identity of the veiled woman was disclosed, as to lead up to a catastrophe which was tragical in every sense, and ‘satyric’ in none; while the behaviour of the restored Alcestis showed only too clearly that in her interval for cool reflection at the tomb she had taken the measure of Admetus; that it was only with reluctance that she had returned to this life at all; and that it was the crowning point of her misery to find that the reason why she was restored was that she might resume her place as his wife. This, at all events, was the manner of her retreat into the palace, and the convulsive writhings of Admetus both before and after it hardly admitted any other interpretation. The one cheerful spot in the gloom was the hilarity of Herakles, who, tactless as ever, bade them fare well and ‘live happy ever afterwards.’

Among the many intrigues described by Thucydides in Book viii one of the strangest and most obscure is the episode in which Phrynichos, while serving as one of the commanders of the Athenian fleet at Samos, twice sent messages to Astyochos, the Spartan ναύαρχος. Because the intrigue was conducted with the utmost secrecy, detailed information about it cannot have been easily obtainable, and the motives of all the persons involved, who included Alkibiades and Tissaphernes, were perhaps fully known to nobody. The account given by Thucydides (50–1) leaves much unexplained: it gives the impression that he has recorded what he has ascertained from a single informant without adding much comment or interpretation of his own. Had he lived to revise Book viii, he would scarcely have left these chapters as they stand. The object of this paper is to examine these chapters and to suggest that the intrigues of Phrynichos described in them were less exclusively personal in aim, and had somewhat more important consequences, than is generally believed.

The picture of Phrynichos drawn by Thucydides presents him from the outset as a man of exceptional shrewdness who held strong views and did not hesitate to press vigorously for their acceptance even where they were not shared by others. The arguments whereby he dissuaded his colleagues, immediately after their victorious land operations at Miletos, from risking a sea-battle against the newly reinforced Peloponnesian fleet are recorded in some detail (27. 1–4) and with explicit approval (27. 5). Shortly before the episode of his communications with Astyochos he opposed in outspoken terms the plan of the Athenian trierarchs and others who were negotiating with Alkibiades with the intention of overthrowing the democracy and obtaining Persian support. Thucydides devotes a long passage of oratio obliqua to the objections of Phrynichos (48. 4–7). He maintained that Alkibiades was indifferent to the proposed change of constitution and was interested only in securing his own recall; that to Persia the existing alliance with the Peloponnesians was more advantageous than an alliance with Athens could be; that the establishment of an oligarchy would not improve, and might well damage, Athenian relations with the allies. Thucydides expressly concurs with the first of these arguments (48. 4, ὅπερ καὶ ἦν), and his approval of the other two may perhaps be inferred from his subsequent narrative, which confirms their validity.

This contribution reconsiders the question of indications of speakers in ancient Greek dialogue literature and their ‘invention’ by Theodoret of Cyrus by offering a systematic examination of the available (mostly papyrological) evidence. It discusses ancient conventions for marking changes of interlocutors in Greek literary dialogues and compares them with those present in dramatic works and in documentary and paraliterary texts such as reports of court proceedings, the Acta Alexandrinorum and Acta Martyrum, and reports of Church councils. It is hypothesized that the development of indications of speakers in Greek dialogue was influenced by documentary practices of the Imperial period and by paraliterary genres which imitated them.

THE office of Federal Archon was apparently created in the League which was revived and reconstituted by Thebes after her liberation from Sparta in 379. Like the archons of the individual cities, the federal archons seem to have had little power; as Swoboda points out, the fact that their seat was not in Thebes but in Onchestus 4 shows that their functions were chiefly ceremonial. This explains why the Boeotarchs but not the archons of Boeotia are frequently mentioned in literature. The archons are, however, important as being the eponymous magistrates of the Boeotian League. From the revival of the League soon after 379 on into Roman times federal documents are generally, and documents of individual cities often, headed with the names of archons of the League.

It must sometimes have occurred to readers of Byzantine literature, after they have perused a number of the occasionally valuable, but almost always dreary, works of which it is composed —lifeless chronicles, polemical and other theology, inflated panegyrics, and grammatical treatises—to ask the question, whether this was really all; whether a quick-witted and intelligent people, such as we know the inhabitants of Constantinople at certain periods to have been, were contented to subsist entirely on such dry mental food. No doubt, religious controversy often ran high, and this, when it fills men's thoughts, is apt to supply the place of intellectual interests; but such discussions did not last for ever, and could not have occupied the minds of the whole of the educated population. A certain source of relief was provided in the numerous poems, songs, and romances in the popular language—some of native growth and dealing with subjects of local or traditional interest, some imitated from the romances of Western Europe—which have been brought to light by the industry of such men as MM. Sathas and Legrand at Paris, Prof. Lambros of Athens, and the late Dr. W. Wagner of Hamburg. But even these do not furnish that element of liveliness, which we should expect to manifest itself in some shape or other in a great centre of activity.