When Alexander turned back at the Hyphasis (Beas), how much did he know about what lay before him? And why, in the vulgate tradition, does he know of the distant Ganges and the distant kingdom of Magadha, but not of the next great river to the Beas, the Sutlej (a question often asked), or of anything else between the Beas and the Ganges? The answer is not difficult, once the elements of our tradition are sorted out chronologically; that, as in so many questions, is the real problem.

We possess one contemporary document bearing on the matter which has escaped notice, a satrapy-list or gazetteer of ‘Asia,’ i. e. Alexander's empire, dating from the last year of his life; very possibly Hieronymus used it by way of introduction to his history of the Successors, and it now forms the basis of Diodorus 18, 5 and 6. We can date this document with certainty. It includes the Indian provinces, and so is later than Alexander's return from India. The ‘Hyrcanian sea’ (not Caspian) is still a lake, so it is earlier than Patrocles. Chandragupta is unknown, so it is certainly earlier than Megasthenes and probably earlier than circ. 302. Porus is still alive, so it is earlier than 317.

In the huge mediaeval storehouse of miscellaneous fragments, compiled not later than the eighth century and now known by the title Liber Glossarum, there are not a few items dealing with the names of the months in various parts of the ancient world. Some of them (such as Helul in Macchabaeorum libro Augustus, qui apud nos mensis sextus, vocatur) come from the second book of the Instructiones of Eucherius (p. 153, ed. Wotke); some (such as Februarius nuncupatur a Februo, id est Plutone, cui eo mense sacrificabatur) are excerpts from Isidore's Etymologiae (v. 33); while a few (such as Aprilem vero, nullo deorum suorum nomine, sed de re propria, quasi Aperilem nominaverunt eo quod tunc plurimum germinis aperiatur in florem) can be traced to Isidore's De Natura Rerum (cap. 4). Among the remainder, however, which cannot be found in any of the definitely recognisable sources of the Liber Glossarum, there are 116 forming by themselves a distinct group. In these items a curt formula gives us the names by which the months were known in eleven different parts of the world, e. g.:—

At all times arms, tactics and strategy must be in one sense or another interdependent. But in modern warfare I imagine it would be generally agreed that strategy was less mutable and more important than tactics or armament. Even here there are obvious and notable exceptions to the general rule. In the Austro-Prussian War, it was the superiority of the Prussian breech-loading needle-gun to the Austrian muzzle-loader which won the battle of Königgratz, and so justified the bold strategy of Moltke. In the late war, the heavy German and Austrian howitzers broke down with unexpected rapidity the resistance of the elaborate Belgian fortresses, and thus compelled the retreat from Mons; again, the use of tanks, both heavy and light, on a large scale was a decisive factor in more than one of the great struggles that led up to the final defeat of the Germans. Nevertheless in modern warfare such differences are in the main temporary and accidental; if, for instance, the Germans began the war with superior heavy artillery, before its close they were surpassed by the Allies; if they secured an initial advantage by the use of poison gas, here too the Allies in the end showed themselves superior to the inventors of this deadly instrument of war. The advantage gained by inventors is mainly that of surprise, and is therefore evanescent, not permanent. In the main the fleets and armies on either side are equipped in the same way, and (if we leave out of account the morale, numbers and resources of the nations engaged) victories are gained and wars decided most of all by strategy, the massing of troops at the right time and place, and secondarily by tactics, the best use of them in actual battle.

By the courtesy of the Hon. Marshall Brooks I am able to publish here a red-figure kylix now in his possession at Portal, Tarporley.

Of the provenance of the vase nothing is known. The present owner has kindly supplied me with the following particulars, which are all that is known of its history since its discovery. It formed part of the collection of Greek vases and Greek and Etruscan antiquities belonging to Miss Caroline Augusta Tulk, of Failand House, Bristol, which in 1864, after her death, was sold by auction by Messrs. Fargus Brothers of Bristol. At this sale it was acquired by Mr. Edward Preston, from whose collection it passed by purchase into that of the present owner, a few years ago. In the Sale catalogue of 1864 the number of the kylix was 270. This is the only printed record of the vase which I have been able to trace. This fact is the more remarkable since the foot bears the name of the potter Pamphaios, already well known and associated with some of the most notable of Greek vase-paintings; and apart from this, the quality of the draughtsmanship on side A of the exterior is such as to claim attention on its own account. Fortunately, this side is the least damaged part of the vase; the rest has suffered a good deal from breakage and from restoration not too well carried out.

In a footnote in J.H.S. 1918, p. 144, I stated the view that the battle (319 B.C.) in which Antigonus defeated Alketas and the associated generals took place in the αὐλὼν which leads from the N.E. corner of the Limnai towards Pisidian Antioch, carrying the southern or Pisidian road across Asia Minor eastward. This important route, regarded as a highway from the west coast to the Cilician Gates, is a recent discovery, though parts of it have been often described and traversed. In J.H.S. 1920, p. 89 f., I have argued that it was the road by which Xerxes' great army marched from Kritalla to Kelainai.

There are two authorities on whom we depend for details of the battle of 319 B.C., Polyaenus Strat. 4, 6, 7 and Diodorus 18, 44; but both of these gather all their information from that excellent military writer Hieronymus of Cardia, the friend and historian of Eumenes. Polyaenus tells the story with soldierly brevity, relating only the chief military features: Diodorus diffusely and at great length; but so that we can recognise Hieronymus behind and beneath, and restore the full account as given by that writer.

There is probably no sculptor as to whose work our notions have been more completely revolutionised in recent times than Myron. This change is due partly to new discoveries, but more to the identification of statues already known and exhibited. It is above all Myron's treatment of the head that has been hitherto inadequately realised, and for this the Massimi head, widely known through casts and photographs, is to a great degree responsible. The somewhat dull and heavy expression of this head does indeed remind us of Pliny's words, ‘ipse tarnen corporum tamen studiosus animi sensus non expressisse (videtur).” And the copyist who made this statue may very probably have been influenced by some such commonplace of artistic criticism. But the recent identification of two more extant works of Myron, the Perseus of the Antiquarium at Rome (Plate V) and the Athena in Frankfort, together with the replicas of the head of this last statue in Dresden and in the Vatican cellars, have completely changed our impressions as to his style, and are likely to have far-reaching results. Another statue that has recently come to be attributed generally to Myron is the well-known Cassel Apollo and its numerous replicas in various museums—notably a head in Vienna (Fig. 1) and another in the National Museum at Athens. All of these show the simplicity and severity of the art of the earlier part of the fifth century, together with a certain dignity and richness of effect which lead up to the work of Phidias. Above all, there is a fullness of intellectual and even spiritual life about them which contrasts strangely with the Massimi head. Correct inferences as to the style of Myron had already been drawn by Furtwängler and others. And it is particularly interesting to note in this connexion how Furtwängler traced the influence of Myron upon Cresilas. The expression which that sculptor gave to statues like the Diomed and the Amazon was especially admired by ancient critics in his wounded figures.

In the following Bibliography, which continues that of J.H.S. xli. 50 ff., I attempt to deal with the publications of 1921 and 1922, though a few books and articles are noticed which, though they appeared in previous years, only came under my notice in the period in question. It must be borne in mind that periodicals sometimes fall into arrears, and thus the actual year of publication may be later than the nominal year as indicated in the title. I have seriously modified the geographical order hitherto followed in my Bibliographies so as to bring it into strict accord, so far as the inscriptions of Europe are concerned, with that of the Inscriptiones Graecae; for those of Asia and Africa I follow the order adopted in the C.I.G.

The mass of the relevant material has rendered necessary the utmost compression, and, while I have aimed at introducing some reference to every contribution to Greek epigraphical studies, I have found it impossible to summarise or to indicate the value of each. No mention is normally made of reviews, but I have occasionally added references to them for special reasons, e. g. because of the value of their positive contribution to the study, or because they afford a ready means of surveying the contents of the books to which they relate.

Some further light has been thrown on one of the educational problems suggested by the ostraka published in this Journal in 1908 (Vol. XXVIII. p. 121) from another ostrakon acquired at Luxor by Dr. Alan Gardiner shortly after that date and given by him to me. This, if we may judge by the peculiar staining of the surface, is another relic from the same scholastic rubbish heap as most of the ostraka previously described; and it bears a second copy of one of the exercises found on them. A comparison of the two copies is interesting.

In the first place, the new ostrakon shows that Nos. XV. and VIII. of the old series belong together. The sherd appears to have been broken in two anciently, as the edges of the break are rubbed and dirty, and the two pieces are stained differently, as if they had lain in separate parts of the rubbish heap; but, though these circumstances helped to prevent their relationship being noticed previously, there can be no doubt that the two belong together. Their union makes a revision of the transcript, especially along the fracture, possible, and also explains some obscure points in the arrangement.