Lucian's Timon accuses Zeus of negligence: even his statue at Olympia has not punished the temple-robbers who despoiled it, although it had a δεκάπηχυν κεραυνὸν ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ(Tim. 4). But according to Lucian’s contemporary Pausanias (v 11.1), the Zeus at Olympia possessed no such weapon; it held a Nike in the right hand, a sceptre in the left. A. M. Harmon (LCL Lucian ii 331) notes that since Pausanias’ testimony is confirmed by numismatic evidence, Lucian must be wrong and ‘the error is odd in so good an observer’. In fact Lucian could be rather careless over such details; but in this case we can hope to account for his mistake. While he must have seen the Zeus at Olympia at some stage, the statue was also an obvious subject for rhetorical ecphrasis and literary elaboration: one thinks of Dio Chrysostom’s Olympicus (Or. xii); and Lucian may well have been as bookish in his approach to works of art as he was in so many ‘cultural’ subjects. In this case the error would easily have arisen if he had read, misread, or misrecollected an accusative of σκηπτός (‘thunderbolt’) for σκῆπτρον (‘sceptre’) in a previous written source; he would then only have had to supply a synonym κεραυνός for the wrong object. The fact that the thunderbolt is in the wrong hand would then have followed easily from the initial error: one does not hurl thunderbolts with the left hand! The obvious risk of confusion between σκηπτόν and σκῆπτρονσκῆπτρον is illustrated by the problem at Plutarch, de Alex. fort.ii (Mor. 338b), where Clearchus becomes tyrant of Heraclea, takes to carrying a σκῆπτρον and calls his son Κεραυνός. The Teubner editor rightly adopts Valckenaer’s σκηπτόν for MSS σκῆπτρον: a tyrant sufficiently uninhibited to call his son Thunder would also be uninhibited enough to carry a replica of a bolt.

Representations of Helios in his chariot rising above the sea begin toward the end of the sixth century B.C., with a small series of black-figure vases, mostly lekythoi. Five of them have been interpreted as illustrations of the myth of Herakles and the Golden Bowl of the Sun. In Pherekydes' version of the story, Herakles, vexed by the burning rays, threatened Helios with his arrows, and obtained the god's golden vessel to sail the Ocean to the land of Geryon. Although the correspondence of the picture to the story is not literal, in fact largely limited to the cast of characters, such an interpretation is plausible for four vases.

On the lekythos in Athens by the Daybreak Painter, Herakles is crouching on a spur of ground which seems to emerge from the waves; he looks at the Sun in apparent awe. The scenes on the skyphos by the Theseus Painter in Taranto are akin to the Athenian piece: on one side Herakles rushes up the steep ground, on the other he sits on the rocky outline, his right hand gesturing toward the Sun. On a third vase, a lekythos in Cambridge, and on a fourth in Oxford, both Herakles and Athena are depicted on either side of Helios; on the Cambridge lekythos Herakles is actually striding toward the Sun, lifting the bow in his right hand. Only in this case can Herakles' attitude be taken as a threat; on all four vessels, however, the hero and the Sun look at each other, as if an exchange were to take place soon, and so are shown as the actors of the scene.

I continue the catalogue of the vases recently acquired by the Ashmolean Museum, the first part of which catalogue appeared in this Journal, vol. xxiv. pp. 293–316. As before, the numbers given to the vases are those which they bear in the slip catalogue of the Museum.

527. R.-f. Krater: the handles joining the body to the mouth. H. 14¼ in.

Decoration on neck, leaves (black) with stalks interlaced.

Obverse. Hermes to r. bearded, wearing chlamys and hat (behind neck), with drawn sword rushing on Argos, also bearded, naked, whose arms and legs are covered with eyes, and who kneels to r. Wreaths of both figures in red.

The evidence considered under D makes it, I think, impossible that the accepted theory can be true as regards the larger polyereis of the first three centuries B.C., which clearly were galleys a scaloccio of some sort. If what is put forward under A be true, the reason why the accepted theory was invented and has been so largely believed disappears. Nevertheless, there is still room for evidence that will support the accepted theory as to triremes generally, the quadriremes and quinqueremes of the fourth century, and the biremes of the first; and the theory may be true, even if the words thranite, zugite, and thalamite do refer to another arrangement.

For a trireme, said Cartault, the evidence is overwhelming. Unfortunately he omitted to mention what it was, and with the best will in the world I have been unable to discover it. Assmann (1610) relied solely on the monuments. Luebeck however gives Schol, on Aelian's Tactica, Schol. on Frogs 1074) (see under A), Arr. Anab. 6, 5, 2 (see under B), Pollux 1, 87 (see under A), and Frogs 1074. Let me add Livy 33, 30, Aesch. Agam. 1617, Luc. Phars. 3, 529 seq.

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.

Reviewing the recent archaeological discoveries in the areas where the ancient Greek colonies of Italy flourished, I shall divide them, so as to facilitate the finding of the places on the modern map, according to the present Italian regions. These correspond more or less to the old Roman divisions, excepting Lucania, the western part of which (Paestum, Velia) now belongs to Campania.

Sicily

Sicily suffered a great loss last year in the death of Paolo Orsi, to whom we owe the revelation of Siculan civilisation and an incalculable number of discoveries in the Greek centres of the island and of Magna Graecia. After his death lack of funds interrupted the work he had so happily initiated of liberating the temple of Apollo in Ortygia. Of this old Sicilian temple (seventh century B.C.) there was brought to light during 1933–34, by the demolition of the sixteenth-century Spanish barracks, the southern wall of the cella, still 6 and 7 m. high, and built with orthostates.

That Rome's victory at the Aegates insulae in 241 B.C. put a definite end to the sea power of Carthage has long since been recognized, for subsequently the Italian fleets sailed unmolested wherever they pleased in the Western Mediterranean. It has not, I think, been realized with equal clearness that thereafter Rome was the only first-rate naval state in the entire world of ancient politics, for the more complex relation of the eastern powers has obscured the fact that after 241 B.C. Egypt, hitherto the Carthage of the Orient, followed the example of her African neighbour and rival in the West, neglected her fleet, and left it to her garrisons and money to maintain the empire and protect the commercial interests which the navy and diplomacy of the first two Ptolemies had won. The fall of Egypt, moreover, as I shall try to show, was the result of a coalition of Rhodes and Macedon, which left the control of the eastern Mediterranean in the possession of a group of second-rate naval states. This condition Philip V. sought to end in the year 201 B.C., but Rome at once interfered and prevented him from carrying out his plans; nor did she allow Antiochus III. and Hannibal time to reopen the question of maritime supremacy. The sea-fights won at Side and Myonnesus in 190 B.C. with the aid of Rhodes and Pergamum over the extemporized and disunited fleets of Asia settled it once and for all that no new first-class naval power was to arise in the East. The events of 241 B.C. were thus decisive for the unification of the ancient world into a single state. I shall try in this paper to establish with some precision what they and what their antecedents were.

The Fifteenth Idyll of Theocritus has probably been more admired, and has certainly received more attention from scholars, than any other Alexandrian poem; and for obvious reasons. ‘It is a page,’ said Matthew Arnold, ‘torn fresh out of the book of human life. What freedom! what animation! what gaiety! what naturalness!’ The picture of contemporary manners which it presents has a charm far beyond the compass of T.'s nearest rival in this genre, Herodas, and, if some reservations be made on the score of language, it is convincingly lifelike. Nevertheless, in spite of the attention it has received, it has not, I think, been viewed as clearly as it may be either in details or as a whole. Of the five sections of which this paper is composed, the first four are an attempt to bring the picture into rather sharper focus; the fifth is a briefer note upon a point of detail.

The literature dealing with the so-called ‘Cyrenaic’ vases is comparatively so huge that some excuse is needed for a fresh approach to the subject. That excuse is to be found in the new light shed on these vases through the recent excavations at Sparta by the British School at Athens, of which one result has been the discovery that Laconia was the home of the school which produced them.

At Sparta this distinctive Laconian style is presented in good chronological sequence, and its course can be traced from its rise in the early seventh century, through its development and decline in the sixth and fifth centuries, to its end in the latter part of the fourth.

It is true that the finds of pottery at the shrine of Artemis Orthia at Sparta consist of fragments of dedicated vases, the refuse, in fact, thrown out from time to time from the temple, so that what is presented by the stratification of the site is the chronological sequence not of the manufacture of the vases but of their destruction. Yet the development of the style as a whole, even when judged by the stratification, is so regular that it may be assumed that in most cases the order of destruction corresponded with that of manufacture. In any case the destruction of the older temple at the close of the seventh century gives at least one point where such correspondence is certain. Vases thrown out from the new temple must have been dedicated after the destruction of the older building. To divide the style with much certainty into six chronological periods called, and approximately dated