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.

In the Hellenic Journal for 1903, while publishing some heads of Apollo, I took occasion to express my doubts as to the expediency of hereafter taking the Apoxyomenos as the norm of the works of Lysippus. These views, however, were not expressed in any detail, and occurring at the end of a paper devoted to other matters, have not attracted much attention from archaeologists. The subject is of great importance, since if my contention be justified, much of the history of Greek sculpture in the fourth century will have to be reconsidered. Being still convinced of the justice of the view which I took two years ago, I feel bound to bring it forward in more detail and with a fuller statement of reasons.

Our knowledge of many of the sculptors of the fourth century, Praxiteles, Scopas, Bryaxis, Timotheus, and others, has been enormously enlarged during the last thirty years through our discovery of works proved by documentary evidence to have been either actually executed by them, or at least made under their direction. But in the case of Lysippus no such discovery was made until the very important identification of the Agias at Delphi as a copy of a statue by this master.

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.

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.

Apparently there had been sculptured on the missing half of the marble stelè lately acquired by the British Museum from Athens a seated figure with hand upraised (Pl. 1.). There is a trace of the raised arm and also of a footstool. The subject had therefore been one of those scenes of parting or meeting so common on Athenian stelae. But the young man leaning on his staff is not of the usual Athenian type. In several respects he resembles a youthful Heracles on a relief from Mt. Ithome now in Athens, which figure it has been the custom to regard as Polycleitan (Fig. 1). So far as the pose of the head and the Diadumenos-like modelling of the body are concerned that opinion may be right. Only we must remember that the somewhat formal modelling of the thorax both in the Ithome relief and the new stelè is not unfrequent in Greek art, at least from the time of Lysippos onwards. A familiar instance is the Hermes on the sculptured drum of a column from Ephesus in the British Museum. It is a modification of the type of Polycleitos and may have set in much earlier than Lysippos. It may even have extended to Athens.

There are probably no twelve consecutive lines in the Homeric poems which have been obscured by so many explanations as Iliad xviii. 497—508. The interpretation which I propose to give has possibly been anticipated piece-meal, but I have not come across any case in which it has been presented as a whole. Still it is a matter of common courtesy only that one should begin by offering apologies to the unknown previous expositor, if he should after all prove to exist.

For convenience of reference it will be best to begin by setting out the passage at length.

‘The people were gathered in the place of assembly, and there had sprung up a strife; two men were striving about the price of a man slain. The one averred that he had paid in full, and made declaration thereof to the people, but the other refused to accept aught; and both were desirous to take an issue at the hand of a daysman; and the people were shouting for both, taking part for either side. And the heralds were restraining the people, and the elders sate on polished stones in the holy circle, and in their hands they held the clear-voiced heralds' staves. With these they rose up and gave sentence in turn; and in their midst lay two talents of gold to give to him among them that spake the justest doom.’

I have already published in the pages of this Journal some of the vases acquired by the Ashmolean Museum since the catalogue of Ashmolean vases appeared in 1893.

In vol. xviii, p. 136 is published a late Attic vase with a representation of the carrying off of Oreithyia by Boreas. In vol. xxi, p. 1 is published a red-figured vase representing Pandora rising out of the ground. In vol. xv, p. 325 two sepulchral lekythi are published. Two other papers (xiii. 70 and 137) comment upon vases already included in the Ashmolean catalogue, Nos. 211, 275, one concerned with the myth of Cacus, one with that of Tithonus and Eos.

A number of studies of the Cyclops episode of Odyssey ix have described modern folktales which resemble it to a varying degree. Most writers have concluded that few of the tales actually derive from the Odyssey; rather they are related to it as independent variations of the same tale. Hitherto there has been no basis for conjecture about the origin of the tale, and speculation has ranged widely but inconclusively.

Perhaps speculation is all we can ever hope for in such questions. But it may help if we can find possible references to a version of the tale earlier than Homer, and the purpose of this note is to draw attention to such a possibility.

One-eyed but otherwise human figures are found, though not often, on cylinder seals from Mesopotamia. Edith Porada describes and illustrates three examples. The earliest of these (Plate VIIIb) dates from around 3000 B.C., and shows the one-eyed figure nude, curly-haired and bearded, holding up two lions by the hind legs. The rest of the scene includes an enclosure of some sort, a grotesque man(?) apparently bending a stick(?), two creatures that look like sheep, and two lion-headed birds (the personified storm-cloud?).

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.

The excavations of the French School at Delphi are now in full activity. They have been looked forward to for years with the keenest interest, but hitherto there has been nothing to record but negotiations and preparations. Now that the work has actually begun, it has proved that even the most sanguine anticipations were not unfounded. The find in inscriptions and in sculpture is of extraordinary richness and interest, and will form an epoch in the history of archaeological discovery no less important than those marked by the excavations of Olympia and of the Athenian Acropolis. In comparison with Delphi, other discoveries must seem of inferior importance. But much valuable work has been done during the season, especially by the various foreign Schools in Athens.

In Athens itself, the excavations in the neighbourhood of the Pnyx and the Areopagus, begun by Professor Dörpfeld last season, have been continued. It will be remembered from last year's report that the chief object of these excavations was to solve some disputed questions of Athenian topography, especially the position of the spring Enneacrounos. A primitive system of waterworks was discovered in the hill of the Pnyx above the modern road; and these had been superseded later by an aqueduct and cistern, which there seemed to be good reason for attributing to the sixth century. There were also some traces of a building for the distribution of the water. Thus considerable probability was gained for the theory of Professor Dörpfeld, that the Enneacrounos was in this part of the town, although at the same time there was no evidence certain enough to convince those who were committed to a contrary view.

When the Chairman of Council asked me to read a paper at the Jubilee Meeting of the Classical Association, I felt highly honoured by this kind invitation. Twice before I have enjoyed the privilege of reading papers at General Meetings of the Association during the last war, when I had been most hospitably received in this country and had found a new home at Oxford. I confess I still feel quite at home here, and it gives me enormous pleasure to come over from Munich and to speak to you once more; so I am deeply grateful to you for giving me this opportunity.

But I think I owe you at least one word of explanation for the strange title of this lecture. The Chairman of Council said in his letter ‘that although one lecture should be given on the history of the Classical Association, the other papers should look forward rather than backward’. Now, I had been doing some work on a Hellenistic poet myself, especially during the years at Oxford; as far as I am concerned, I have finished with studies in that province of learning.