The two vases reproduced on Pl. 13 and Pl. 14. 2 are the earliest redfigured lekythoi on which a grave-stele is represented. Shape and patterns and composition are the same in both; and if we compare the drawing of legs, arms, heads, and feet in the two vases, we shall find the closest resemblances. Now put the legs of the youth on a third lekythos (Fig. 2) beside the male legs on the two stele-vases: and the woman on Pl. 13 beside the standing women on a fourth lekythos, Pl. 14. 1, and a fifth, Fig. 3. Then let us turn to the Nolan amphora on p. 183, Fig. 4; surely the youth on A is strangely like the two youths and the man on our lekythoi: and now look at the figure on the reverse of the vase (Fig. 5(l)): have we not seen that himation before? and where if not in Pl. 14. 1 and Fig. 3? But no fewer than fifteen such himatia are collected in Fig. 5: each of the fifteen figures who wear them is the ‘mantle-figure’ drawn on the back of a vase. Would it not be interesting to know what the figures on the front of these vases were like?

It was in 1900 that Dr. Dörpfeld first proclaimed, to the German Institute at Athens, that Leukas and not Thiaki was the Ithaka of Homer. In 1902 he read to the Archäologische Gesellschaft of Berlin a paper on the subject, which in 1903 was published in Mélanges Perrot. To this paper Wilamowitz gave a scathing and even contemptuous reply in 1903, and Dörpfeld rejoined in his Leukas, 1905, which also contains his original essay. Since then the controversy has raged without intermission, but it has been almost confined to Germany. This country has not so far contributed any comprehensive paper on the subject, and it would not be easy, so many are the matters that the dispute embraces, and so warm and minute has the discussion become, to prepare a statement with less than a considerable volume at one's disposal. I therefore propose to confine myself here to one of the points in the controversy, and I select that which the Leukadists, as they are called for short, regard as supplying the best evidence in their favour, and which is consequently noticed in nearly all papers and treatises on the subject. This includes the incident of the return voyage of Telemachus from Pylos to Ithaka, his escape from the ambush laid for him by the Wooers at the island Homer calls Asteris, and the identification of that island on the modern map.

According to the view which has long held the field and is still the most widely accepted, the Long Walls which the Athenians constructed in the fifth century to connect their town and harbour were three in number, viz., two outer walls extending respectively to the northern and southern sections of the harbour fortifications, and an intermediate wall running longitudinally in the gap between the outer pair.

This theory rests on evidence which prima facie appears very strong. Harpocration distinctly enumerates three walls, known respectively as the Northern, the Southern or Middle, and the Phaleric one, and in support of his statement he quotes a passage from Aristophanes, in which three walls are likewise mentioned. The same number of walls also seems to be implied in a passage of Thucydides, where mention is made, firstly, of a Phaleric wall, and secondly, of ‘Long Walls,’ which should presumably be identified with the Northern and Southern walls of Harpocration, so as to make three walls in all.

The construction and the development of the plough in Greece and Italy in ancient times is not a subject of general interest either to scholars or to archaeologists. It is, however, one which presents itself from time to time to students of Hesiod and of Virgil, and, since the obvious works of reference give but meagre aid to the enquirer, I have attempted to supply here a fuller account than is to be found elsewhere both of the literary and of the monumental evidence, in the hope that a more detailed discussion may not be without its uses.

I propose in the first part of this paper to discuss and give a rough classification of the types of ancient plough which are represented on the monuments. In the second and third parts of the paper I shall attempt to sift the considerable number of ancient authorities who deal with the subject and to supply some comments suggested by the monumental evidence. The authorities, even when not directly concerned with Hesiod and Virgil, fall conveniently into line with the ancient commentators on those poets, and I shall deal first with Hesiod and then, more briefly, with Virgil.

The following notes and queries have been mainly suggested by Professor Percy Gardner's recent article on the Coinage of the Athenian Empire. They do not claim to do more than elucidate one or two small points with the aid of rather fuller use of epigraphical evidence than is to be found in his article, and at the same time raise other questions of secondary importance in the same connexion. If no solution is offered here to some of these queries I see no cause for regret, for it may be found convenient by others to have here collected references to such inscriptions as seem to deserve further investigation from the standpoint of the numismatist. The inscriptions here mentioned belong both to the 5th and 4th centuries and so are not confined within the chronological limits of the Athenian Empire.

In the first place it may be as well to distinguish roughly the classes of Attic inscriptions in which numismatic evidence is found, in particular that for the circulation of non-Athenian coins in the Athenian Empire. ‘Treasure-lists,’ which record the receipt and transmission of sacred objects of value by their successive boards of curators, frequently, especially in the fourth century, make mention of coins, giving their denomination and number.

1. Ptolemy Soter, the general of Alexander and founder of the Egyptian dynasty, is as well known to us numismatically as any figure in ancient history. His head appears not only on the coins of all his successors up to the time of the Roman conquest, but also on his own later issues, and therefore we have every reason to suppose that the portraits is a faithful one. On this question of verisimilitude in ancient portraits there are of course great distinctions to be drawn not only between periods but also between personages of ancient history.

Hellenistic portraits are, as a class, faithful renderings of nature, but we have still to make some reservations in comparing them with modern or with Roman likenesses. Idealism never died out of Greek art, and especially in the case of monarchs an official likeness is not always faithful in detail. This applies as much to coins as to statues or busts. Provided the coin shewed an easily recognised type, there was no need to reproduce accidental details. There is a tendency in all coin-portraits to over-emphasise the distinguishing personal features and to omit the unnecessary accidentals. One might take as an instance Alexander Balas of Syria. The length of his nose and the size of his chin were the most marked features of his face, and they are reproduced on all his coins. But the exact contour of his nose was not remarkable, and it appears as aquiline on some coins and retroussè on others.