The collection of elegiac poems which bears the name of Theognis offers one of the most interesting problems in the literary history of Greece, and, in spite of many tentative solutions, it must be admitted that the origin and composition of this anthology still remain a mystery. We know that the Theognidea include poems composed by Tyrtaeus, Mimnermus, and Solon, and it is therefore by no means unlikely that they also include a great number of other elegies that can no longer be traced to their proper sources. As the object of the following article is to discuss a few points connected with the poet's life and political surroundings, we must first of all discover some test which will enable usto distinguish the genuine poems of Theognis from those of other poets represented in the collection. We can safely assume that Theognis is the author of all the elegies in Book I. which contain the name of Cyrnus, the young noble to whom the poet addressed so many of his didactic and political poems. For the name of Cyrnus is the σφρηγίς referred to by the poet in elegy 19–26, as something which will lead to the detection of the theft, if the poems are stolen. The σφρηγίςcannot, as some suppose, be the name of the poet himself: the mere insertion of the name of Theognis at the beginning or end of a collection of disconnected poems would afford no protection against plagiarism. What was wanted was a mark attached to each poem, and it is to serve this purpose that the vocative Κύρνε is so frequently introduced.

Neither literature nor coins bear any witness to the cult of Aphrodite at Olbia, but we have an inscription which is of the highest interest.

[᾿Αφρο]δίτηι Εὐπλοίαι

[Ποσ]ιδεος Ποσιδείου

χαριστήριον

This inscription is of the first century after Christ; Posideos the son of Posideos is no doubt the same individual who dedicated offerings at Neapolis to Zeus Atabyrios, Athene Lindia, and ᾿ Αχιλλεῖ νήσου [μεδέοντι] Boeckh conjectures him to have been a Rhodian, no doubt because of the dedications to Athene Lindia and Zeus Atabyrios, and also because Aphrodite Euploia was worshipped at Cnidus.

The difficulty of this question is due to the scanty and unsatisfactory character of the literary evidence. Such evidence as we do possess consists of a few allusions in early classical authors, mostly poetical and metaphorical, and of the explanations of these passages given by scholiasts and lexicographers of uncertain date and authority. The question can only be solved by framing hypotheses which will explain as far as possible these scanty allusions. But in such a case it is not sufficient for a hypothesis to satisfy the literary evidence; it must also conform to common sense and probability. We may take it for granted—and the more one studies the subject, the more certain one feels—that the Greeks possessed a knowledge of athletics little, if at all, inferior to our own. Now there are two conditions which are essential to the success of an athletic meeting—Fairness and Order. The arrangements must ensure absolute fairness for all competitors, and they must ensure the comfort of spectators and competitors alike by avoiding useless waste of time, frequent shifting of the scene, unnecessary repetitions, or tedious complications.

Greek music is the one branch of Greek art which makes no emotional appeal to us at the present day. The specimens which have come down to us are few in number, and with one exception belong to the post-classical period; yet these should be sufficient in quantity for us to form a judgment upon them. There are technical treatises, and the literature of the subject is by no means small. But the fact remains, that though musicians may have some idea of the position of Greek music in the historical development of musical technique, they are utterly unable to assign any aesthetic value to it. Mediaeval music, if it does not stir us profoundly, is to us at least as intelligible as the painting and sculpture of the same period. But to compare the sculptures of the Parthenon with what we know of Greek music seems ridiculous.

1.—Funeral banquet stele (one sitting and four reclining figures) found by Mr. de Rustafell near the eastern walls; height 0·61, breadth 0·74, height of letters ̇01 metre.

2.—Broken funeral banquet stele found at Yeni Keui; height 0·54, breadth 0·46, letters ·01.

3.—Broken stele with bust of man, debased style: at Yeni Keui.

4.—Broken slab of rough marble, at Yeni Keui; height 0·60, breadth 0·46, letters of late form and irregular.

The following enquiry has been undertaken in the hope that it may assist in clearing away some of the difficulties that surround the identification of the royal portraits occurring on silver coins that bear the simple inscription ‘Incerta omnia et ambigua’ was the verdict with which Eckhel dismissed his discussion of the question. Since that judgement was pronounced, not a little light has been thrown on the dark places of the Seleucid series. This particular problem, however, still awaits a final solution. Under present conditions, most numismatists will be ready to admit that their own opinions are not undeserving of the description applied by Eckhel to those of Vaillant—‘vaga, fluctuantia, et saepe secum ipsis pugnantia.’ My experience in connection with the Hunter Cabinet has convinced me that what I may call the method of general attack is not likely to carry us far beyond the point that has been already reached. If there is to be further progress, there must be a change of tactics.

The beautiful marble head of Apollo, which is represented on Pl. III was bequeathed by the late Edmund Oldfield, F.S.A., to the Ashmolean Museum. According to a note sent me by Mrs. Oldfield, it was successively in the Poniatowski and Brett collections. When it was in the former gallery, it was seen by Martin Wagner, and is mentioned by him in the Kunstblatt of 1830 (p. 238) as closely similar to the Pourtales head, but differing in the treatment of the hair. See also Julius in Ann. d. Inst. 1875, p. 33.

The vase painting reproduced in Fig. 1 is taken from a large red figured pyxis in the National Museum at Athens. Both lid and body are decorated with wedding scenes, which will be described in detail below (see p. 150); we are here more particularly concerned with the group on the body, in which the bridal pair are represented as driving to their new home. They are seated in a low cart drawn by two horses; the bride appears to be sitting in front of her husband, but is probably meant to be by his side. The horses are led by a young man, whose exomis and pointed cap mark him as a servant. The attempt to render the cart in a realistic manner has involved the artist in great difficulties. The two wheels, which are of the ordinary four-spoked type, are supposed to be seen in perspective, but they are drawn as if they were both on the same side of the cart, the one over-lapping the other.

In February, 1901, M. Kabbadias very courteously sent to the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, of which he is an honorary member, some photographs and a brief description of the remarkable series of bronze and marble statues found in the sea off the north coast of Cerigotto. In view of the great interest that had been excited by this discovery, M. Kabbadias' communications were at once laid before the Society at an open meeting, and were also published in this Journal. But the fragmentary state of the figures and the corrosion of their surface prevented the possibility of any final judgment as to their general effect or the details of their modelling. If this was the feeling even of those who had seen the originals, it was far more so with those who could only judge from somewhat unsatisfactory photographs of them; and such opinions on them as were expressed at the time would be admitted by the authors to be subject to revision in the light of a more complete and careful study. A certain amount of misunderstanding was due to the general interest taken in the discovery, and the consequent demand for some authoritative and generally intelligible information about it; for example, the claim put forward by M. Kabbadias for the Cerigotto statue ‘to rank as high among statues of bronze as does the Hermes of Praxiteles among those of marble’ probably led to its comparison with that masterpiece, to which its resemblance is only superficial.

In the first provisional reports of the Excavations in the Palace at Knossos, published by Mr. Evans after each season's work, the general accounts of the distribution and stratification of the pottery play a part in accordance with the importance of this kind of evidence in its bearing on the history of the site. From these accounts it will be seen that there exist on the Palace Site of Knossos and its neighbourhood three distinct strata of deposit.

I. A prehistoric, neolithic stratum, first of all verified in the preliminary pits on the E. slope of the Knossos Hill and successively afterwards in the W. and N.E. regions of the site, then in test-pits sunk within the palace boundaries in the region N. of the S. Propylaea in the Central Court, in the Third Magazine and in the West Court. These test-pits all reached a depth of from seven to eight metres before virgin soil was reached. This gives a thickness of neolithic deposit starting from the virgin soil and extending upwards to the beginnings of the painted series averaging about six metres. This formidable depth of pure neolithic deposit is very much greater than any yet verified in the Aegean region, and in its gradual formation is in itself evidence both of the extreme longevity and of the unbroken continuity of development of the civilization represented by it.