The enemies of classics sometimes say that it is a dead subject. They depict the classical scholar as spending his time in re-reading, re-editing, or re-annotating texts which have been read, edited, and annotated for generations or centuries; and they contrast him with the student of science, before whom the inexhaustible riches of nature are displayed as his quarry. It were strange, if this were true, that classical study should possess—as by the common experience of public schools it does possess—a capacity unsurpassed by any other subject for turning out men of practical ability and aptitude for the affairs of the world. But it is not true. The enemies of classics, in this as in other instances, have erected a dummy in order to knock it over. They may be reproducing traditions of their fathers, or of their own boyhood; but they are showing that they have not kept abreast of their own times, and that they are not competent to criticise a study of which they know so little. Even natural science, with all its wonderful discoveries, has not been a more living subject during the last half century than the study of classical antiquity. Literature and archaeology—which mean the record of the thoughts of man as expressed in words and in art, during a period when that expression was at its highest pitch of perfection—have gone from discovery to discovery, from development to development, at a rate unequalled even at the Renaissance. These years have given fresh life to the study of the heroic age of human intellectual progress; they have shown that the treasures of antiquity are not only to be enjoyed but are to be increased.

IONE Mylonas Shear claims in her article in JHS 2002 that two Mycenaean animal figurines from Ugarit, only one of which has been previously published, represent Mycenaean centaurs and are thus predecessors of centaurs of the historical period. It is quite clear, however, that both belong to the so-called ‘abbreviated group’ figurines, which consist of driven oxen – ‘plough’ (PLATE 8a) – or single chariots, as identified by E.B. French and further defined by me in my work on the terracottas from the Sanctuary of Aphaia on Aigina. In an abbreviated group there is only one animal instead of two, with one human, sometimes two, standing at the rear of the animal, in or behind a small or almost non-existent box or balustrade. According to what animal head is at the front of the figurine, either horse or bovine, it is an abbreviated chariot or, much more commonly, a driven ox. In the fully preserved pieces the head of the driver always faces towards the animal head.

The document which is the subject of the following paper has the interest of being the only copy of the only direct record of a whole period of Greek literature—the period, namely, of the poets who carried on the traditions of Homeric art in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. It is a fragment in a double sense: first because it is a mere extract, and secondly because the pages on which it is preserved are themselves in a fragmentary condition. It professes to be derived from a certain χρηστομάθεια γραμματική—a kind of primer or résumé of Greek literature—the work of a grammarian named Proclus; and contains, with other matter, part of his account of the so-called ‘Epic Cycle.”

Regarding Proclus himself nothing is certain, except that he is not Proclus Diadochus, the Platonic philosopher of the fifth century. According to Welcker's probable conjecture, he is to be identified with Eutychius Proclus of Sicca, instructor of the emperor M. Antoninus

In his valuable Contributions to the History of Southern Aeolis, Mr. Ramsay remarks (Journ. Hell. Stud. II. 2, p. 278): ‘In the plain of the Kodja we might expect more than one Aeolic settlement, if it be fully explored.’ This prediction was verified a few months only after it was written by discoveries made in this district in the spring of 1881, by Mr. George Dennis, M. Salomon Reinach, M. Baltazzi, and myself. I published a brief account of them in the Academy of April 9th, 1881, and M. Reinach has alluded to them, in the history of his excavations on the site of Myrina, in the Bulletin de Correspondence hellénique April 1882; but do details in regard to them have yet appeared. These details I now propose to give, throwing the account of them, for the sake of convenience, into narrative form.

Mr. Ramsay has already explained the topography of the coast from Myrina to Kymê. Midway between the two, about two and a half miles from Kyniê and three from Myrina, stands the little Greek village of Ali Aghá, while the Koja Chai, or ‘Big River,’ flows into the sea just below the ancient acropolis of Myrina, now known as Kalabassary. The Koja runs in an easterly direction, turning slightly to the north about eight miles from its mouth, towards the ruins of Namrût Kalessi, already described by both Mr. Ramsay and M. Reinach. Before entering the sea it is joined by a stream which runs past the village of Güzel Hissár.

The high degree of interest possessed by the subject-matter of the design upon the two fragments numbered 2351 in the National Museum at Palermo, and here published for the first time, has induced me to bring them to public notice earlier than I intended, and apart from the wider subject with which they are connected by their style. I am indebted to the kindness of M. Salinas of Palermo for the drawing of the fragments which was executed there by Signor Carmelo Giarizzo. They have been noticed already on several occasions by Klein, Euphronios, pp. 53–4, by Koepp, Arch. Ztg., 1884, p. 42, note 21, and recently by Hirsch, De Animarum apud Antiquos Imaginibus, p. 10, No. 19, and are described in greater detail by Klein, Meistersignaturen, p. 113, No. 11. Klein has classed these fragments on which ἐποίησεν twice repeated is still preserved with the group of red-figured vases signed ἐποίησεν only. Certainly the master who painted them belongs to the earlier group of painters of red-figured vases, the so-called ‘Epiktetic school.’ To this point, however, further reference will be made at a later point.

This paper publishes a gold ring until recently in private hands in the United States. The former owners, private persons with no scholarly background, brought the ring to the present writer's attention upon learning that he had some knowledge of Greek inscriptions. The one deplorable fact is that this ring was removed from its context, so that much of its scientific value is forever lost to us. Nonetheless, the damage was done by others years ago, and its owners deserve praise for making the ring available for study. The dedicatory inscription on it is an invaluable example of early Argive script. The details of acquisition are unclear. I have been able to ascertain only that the ring was acquired in ancient Mycenae from some Greeks who claimed to have dug it up in the area. As will be seen, in all probability it comes from the Argive Heraion.

This war, in which Antigonus was faced by the triple alliance of Egypt, Athens, and Sparta with her allies, started with the decree moved by Chremonides in August–September of the year of the archon Peithidemos at Athens; the actual military operations began in the following spring. Peithidemos' year used to be put in 266/5; I gave my reasons in 1920 for putting it in 267/6, as had already been done by Professor A. C. Johnson. Recently Professor Dinsmoor has put Peithidemos in 270/69; the archon himself is a mere name and the tribe of his secretary unknown. Dinsmoor was trying to keep the tribal rotation undisturbed, and to effect this he shifted the archons Menekles and Nikias of Otryne (Nikias II) forward to 269/8 and 268/7; and as their years were war years he took these years to be part of the Chremonidean war and therefore put Peithidemos in 270/69. Subsequently Professor Ferguson followed Dinsmoor as to this; but he now puts Peithidemos in 267/6, for reasons different from mine, though he still retains Menekles and Nikias II in 269/8 and 268/7. Dinsmoor's proposal to antedate the beginning of the Chremonidean war by three years is so drastic that it needs careful examination; and before considering the archons in question I may briefly indicate some of the historical difficulties of the new view.

We were at Khatyn Serai for four days, arriving on the fourth day of July, 1901, and leaving on the seventh. Our road from Konia lay through Baiyat, where we copied the following inscription.

The length of our stay at Khatyn Serai enabled us to become acquainted with a good number of inscriptions. Besides verifying almost all the inscriptions already published from Professor Sterrett's copies, or from Professor Ramsay's earlier ones (cf. W.E. pp. 242 ff.; C.I.L. vol. iii. pp. 1239 and 2061), we heard of and copied twenty-four new inscriptions, ten of which are in Latin and one bilingual. We were also able to make some examination of Zoldera, the site of the ancient city, which lies rather more than a mile N.W. of the village.

The inscriptions are most conveniently considered according to the language in which they are written; for if they were found on the site of the modern village, they were in all probability carried thither from Zoldera.

The past year has not been one of startling discoveries. The effect of the disastrous war has been a paralysing one and the difficulties in the way of archaeological work have been great. While the political situation was so complicated, new undertakings were almost out of the question: it is to be hoped, however, that the report on 1898–9 will be able to speak of Crete as having been thrown open to the scientific world. The most interesting archaeological event has been the foundation of a new Austrian Institute, under the guidance of Prof. Benndorf in Vienna. Dr. A. Wilhelm, the wellknown epigraphist, and Dr. W. Reichel, whose brilliant essay on Homeric Armour has won for him a prominent place among archaeologists, are permanently stationed at Athens, and a building is contemplated in the near future. Dr. R. Heberdey will be stationed at Smyrna and Dr. Kalinka at Constantinople, so that the new Austrian Institute will be a powerful agency for the discovery and preservation of Hellenic antiquities. The old publication ‘Archäologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich’ is now brought to a conclusion, and is replaced by the ‘Jahreshefte des österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes,’ of which vol. i. has appeared. The contemplated international congress of archaeologists at Athens, which the war of 1897 rendered out of the question, was announced for Easter 1898 to synchronize with the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the French School, but this year as before practical difficulties caused its postponement. The adjourned festivities at the French School took place as arranged. If the congress is to assemble at a future date, it will be necessary that arrangements should be made for it long enough beforehand to ensure its success.

At Knossos Mackenzie seems again to have performed the duties that we would now designate as those of the site supervisor. But the exact nature of his responsibilities, the limits of his authority and the personal relationship between him and Evans are something of an enigma. The problem has important scientific implications in view of the controversy that has developed since 1962 about the dependability of some aspects of Evan's publications. The conundrum, in short, concerns the exact roles that the two men played in the gradual evolution of theories from the moment of discovery of crucial evidence until the final arguments and conclusions appeared in definitive publications.

The Diuisio Aristotelea 67M/32DL draws a distinction between two categories of beings, per se and relatives. I defend three main theses. First, that the relation of dependence characterizing the members of the latter category is modal and symmetrical in nature and, accordingly, the per se-relatives contrast cannot be equivalent to the substance-accidents contrast. Second, that the type of relativity relevant to this diuisio is both ontological and semantic in nature (but with different emphases depending on the version of the diuisio considered). Third, I argue, against a widespread opinion, that the last line of the DL version of the diuisio does not concern metaphysical principles. Here I also compare the diuisio to other Early Academic bicategorial schemes and show that they differ from one another significantly, especially as far as the alleged connection between categories and metaphysical principles is concerned.

But the attributes named seem to belong even to the majority of men, poor creatures though they may be. Are we to say then that in so far as they are satisfied with themselves and think they are good, they share in these attributes? Certainly no one who is thoroughly bad and impious has these attributes, or even seems to do so. They hardly belong even to inferior people; for they are at variance with themselves, and have appetites for some things and rational desires for others.

When Mr. Wood in his patient and successful excavation of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus had got down to the natural soil, he observed a number of massive piers underneath the walls of the cella, or rather where the cella walls ought to have been. On the plan in his book he indicates these piers by dotted lines, supposing them to have been made to support the walls of a church built in late times after the temple had been destroyed. It may have been so. But there appears to be no other indication of such a church on the site. This much is certain, that in building these piers a free use had been made of the fragments lying at hand from the older temple which had been destroyed by fire on the night, as we are so often told, when Alexander was born. Fragments of the old frieze and cornice would build in like so many bricks, and give the piers that solidity which Mr. Wood could only break into, as he did reluctantly, by blasting. The result of the blasting was that he obtained a number of archaic fragments of sculpture and architecture which we have now to consider. That happened in 1874. Previously in 1872, he had found some fragments of the same archaic character, not built into piers but apparently loosely mixed with sculpture of a later age.

In the last long trimeter speech of the Prometheus Vinctus Hermes describes to Prometheus the future course of his punishment: he will be swallowed up in the earth, and then after a long interval of time brought back to daylight for laceration by Zeus's eagle. Hermes goes on (1026 ff.):

The only substantial variant is θεός τις F Tri. in 1027.

There is no proof that ancient critics saw any definite allusion here. The Medicean scholium is simply ( Paley) πεισομένου, an obscure note to which I shall return. Matthias Garbitius (1559), the first scholar quoted by S. Butler in his variorum edition of 1809, suggested that the reference was either to Hercules or, more probably, to ‘some other hero’ destined to free the human mind from darkness and doubt, perhaps a Sibylline vision of the Christian redemption. This last fancy was defended anonymously in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1796 and found a belated champion in F. A. Paley, on the eve of his admission to the Church of Rome, in 1846—‘Ceterum venturum esse Messiam et descensurum in inferos antiquitus praedictum quis hic non agnoscit?’ Later Paley silently dropped this theory.