In a recently published fragment of an elegiac poem about gods who loved youths mention is made of stories about Apollon and Hyakinthos, Dionysos and Ampelos, and Herakles and Hylas. In the third tale Hylas is called a Thracian–⊝ρἡïκος) Ύλα. However, Hylas was a Dryopian by birth, because his father Theiodamas was a Dryopian of Mount Oita. There is no sign that the Dryopians were of Thracian stock. The difficulty has prompted the comment that the poet either used a version of the Hylas-myth unknown to us or was deficient in knowledge of Greek geography.

Some Dryopians migrated to the Argolid. Their presence near Argos may be recalled by Hyginus in the words Hylas . . . ex Oechalia, alii aiunt ex Argis, but, as the editors of the elegiacs insist, ‘neither location justifies “Thracian”; nor does his disappearance which A <pollonius> R<hodius> places near Cius in Mysia’.

In JHS cv (1985) 162–8, J. L. Moles has given an excellent treatment of the literary influences at work in the ‘second preface– of Arrian's Anabasis (i 12.1–5). I am in agreement with the main points of his work, and the purpose of the present note is to offer some additional evidence and suggestions.

1. Literary influences. Moles sees five major influences at work in the second preface: Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and the prose encomium. Of this last he writes (164), ‘Arrian's work will be biographical in orientation and fundamentally encomiastic’. There is no doubt, of course, that Arrian's work is encomiastic; Arrian does not hesitate to express admiration for Alexander at the outset of the work or in comments throughout the work or in the επιμετρῶν λόγος at the work's conclusion. But Arrian's history is not an encomium, though it may incorporate elements from that genre.

A characteristic phenomenon of the High Empire, though it is found both earlier and later, is the alimentary scheme, whereby foundations established by emperors or private persons provide a kind of family allowance for the children of free-born but not wealthy parents. Though such schemes may well have had Hellenistic antecedents, the earliest known example is from Julio-Claudian Italy, where T. Helvius Basila, a senator from Atina, leaves 400,000 sesterces to his fellow-citizens ‘ut liberis eorum ex reditu, dum in aetatem pervenirent, frumentum et postea sestertia singula milia darentur’.

In the second century, probably beginning with Nerva, alimentary schemes become part of the system of imperial benefactions, and their workings are attested for many cities of Italy by inscriptions and by letters of the younger Pliny.

The Niobid krater in Paris (Louvre G341) is not one of the masterpieces of Greek vase painting. The vase is not even one of the best works of the artist, who receives his name, the Niobid Painter, from the rare depiction of Apollo and Artemis killing the children of Niobe on the reverse. The vase is, however, one of the touchstones of the history of ancient Greek art. The Niobid krater has this distinction because it is the earliest contemporaneous witness to the new developments in mural painting in the Early Classical Period, developments best understood from the descriptions of the traveler Pausanias six centuries later. The actual quality of the Niobid krater is therefore secondary to its documentary value.

Since the krater's discovery in 1881, most discussion has focused on the iconography of the scene on the obverse, showing a group of warriors with Athena (PLATE IIa). The ambiguity of the scene comes from the large number of figures and the lack of action or iconographical evidence to help in their identification. Of the 11 figures, only Herakles (figure 6 on PLATE IIb), with his club and lionskin and Athena (4) in her aegis and helmet are clearly identifiable.

In a recent article in this journal (JHS cvii [1987] 51–57) Garth Fowden has argued that the obelisk from Karnak erected by Constantius II in Rome in 357 had been promised to that city by his father Constantine, as Ammianus Marcellinus states, and was not originally intended, as was claimed in the (lost) inscription on its base, for Constantine's new foundation at Constantinople. The interesting suggestion is made that Constantine might have been in touch with Athenian religious experts over the matter, and the project is seen as an earnest of ‘his desire to conciliate the pagan Establishment of Old Rome’. The point of this piece is to enlarge on the possible significance of the obelisk to contemporary Christians that is hinted at by Dr Fowden.

Constantine paid three visits to Rome as emperor, in 312, after winning the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, in 315 during the celebration of his Decennalia, and in 326 for his Vicennalia; on at least one of these occasions, he gave offence to non-Christian Romans by declining to perform the customary procession to the Capitol to offer sacrifice.

This note discusses some of the images and ideas that led to the depiction of Eros with the attributes of Herakles (PLATE IVa), an iconographical type that was developed and elaborated in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Eros was not, in fact, the first to appropriate for himself the attributes of Herakles. From an early period popular imagination realised that even the mighty Herakles would occasionally be placed in a situation that lesser creatures could take advantage of. Before the Hellenistic period Kerkopes, satyrs and goat-legged Pans made use of whatever opportunities there were to steal Herakles' attributes; thereafter these subhuman thieves appear to have been replaced by a group of Erotes or a single Eros.

The procedures involved in, and duration of, Athenian trials have been the subject of much attention, and it is the communis opinio that a public trial in Athens lasted for one day only. Yet the evidence for this is mostly circumstantial and difficulties arise when one tries to reconcile a lengthy trial, as evidenced by the existence of very long speeches, with a one-day trial period. The purpose of this note is to question the standard view and to put forward the suggestion that certain trials could extend up to two or three days in length. By way of introduction we may summarize what evidence we have.

According to AP 67.1 only one public (as distinct from private) case per day was tried in a court of law and the modern assumption is that the issue had to be resolved by the end of that day. Therefore, the speeches of both prosecution and defence were of a fixed length of time and measured by the κλεψύδρα. This was a large amphora with a plugged hole at the bottom which was filled with water.