In an article published in the last volume of this Journal I endeavoured to show (1) that the extant fragments of the ‘chrestomathy’ of Proclus represent the Trojan part of the ‘Epic Cycle’ more completely than has been maintained by eminent scholars; and (2) that, on the other hand, they are less trustworthy than they appear to be as a source of knowledge of the so-called ‘Cyclic’ poems. That is to say, the notion of a considerable lacuna in Proclus' abstract is not borne out by a more thorough examination of the only extant manuscript. But that abstract does not always give a full or accurate account of the several poems from which the Epic Cycle was made up. And this incompleteness is found (1) when two of the poems dealt with the same part of the story—in which case the abstract leaves out one of the two versions altogether;—and also (2) when the incidents of a poem are not in harmony with the accepted mythological narrative. In the latter case the abstract gives the version which was recognised as historically true. We have, in short, an account, not of the original poems, but of so much of their contents as served for a continuous and complete history of the world.

About a year ago I paid a hurried visit to the Cyclades, with the purpose of ascertaining how far they would repay a more lengthened sojourn; and having satisfied myself that no part of Greece offered a better field for examination than the islands of the Aegaean sea, this last winter I undertook to visit the Cyclades one by one—no trifling matter when we consider that there are twenty-two of them, and only two of them have anything like hotel accommodation.

The objects of interest there to be studied may be conveniently classed under four distinct heads, and every one of these interests is essentially due to the position of the islands, as the stepping-stones used in all ages before the invention of steam between Europe and Asia.

I have been favoured with a letter from M. Haussoullier, Professor of Greek Antiquities at Bordeaux, respecting the Prienian decree which I published in the last number of this Journal from the MS. copy of Mr. Murray. M. Haussoullier, whose valuable contributions to Greek epigraphy are well-known, especially to readers of the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, tells me that he visited Prienè in 1879 and took an impression and copy of this same inscription. He has very kindly communicated to me the readings in which his impression differs from Mr. Murray's MS. The comparison proves the general accuracy of Mr. Murray's copy.

Line 9.—Murray τὸν χρόνον: Haussoullier τὸγ χρόνον.

Line 19.—Murray ὅπως δαμη, from which I restored ὅπως δ[ε]μή: Haussoullier ὅπως δ'ἀ… only.

When Mr. Newton, in 1874, was writing about Greek art in the Kimmerian Bosporos, he was obliged to refer his readers for a sight of the objects he was describing to the Ermitage at St. Petersburg, and to the two magnificent Russian publications in which are reproduced some of the recent acquisitions of that museum. If any are desirous of learning what is the place in the history of Greek art which is filled by the discoveries in the Crimea, and of gaining a general view of the history and results of the excavations carried on in that region by the Russian government, it is needless to say that Mr. Newton's article will still meet their requirements; but for a view of some specimens of the objects therein referred to it is no longer necessary for an Englishman to travel to St. Petersburg, for there is now in the New Museum at Oxford a collection of gold and other ornaments, vases and weapons, which, though of course comparatively insignificant both as to numbers and the magnificence of individual articles, yet offers samples of most of the principal classes of objects discovered in the neighbourhood of the Crimea. The objects of which it consists were all found near Kertch, the ancient Pantikapaion, which has now for some time been famous as the chief centre of the Russian excavations; they were presented to the University of Oxford by Dr. C. W. Siemens.

The bell, as is well known, plays in Hellenic life a very limited part. From prose authors, describing the actual facts of life, οἷς χρώμεθ', οἷς ξύνεσμεν—to use a phrase of Aristophanes closely connected with this topic—we hear of κώδωνες or bells, in two functionsonly, I think. They are the attribute of the crier, and of the sentinel on the wall. The first use of them was familiar enough to create a proverb διαπράσσεσθαί τι ὡς κώδωνα ἐξαψάμενος, ‘to do a thing like a crier with a bell tied to him,’ i.e. ostentatiously, a proverb roughly corresponding to our ‘be one's own trumpeter,’ which the lexicon cites with it. Of the second use, which, we may observe, was confined, for anything that appears to the contrary, to times of special apprehension, we have a well-known example in the last chapter of the fourth book of Thucydides. Brasidas, in the course of his brilliant campaign ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης, made a daring though unsuccessful attempt to convert the instrument of precaution into an occasion of surprise by scaling part of the wall of Potidaea at the very moment when a sentinel watching it had gone to the end of his beat ‘to pass the bell’ to the next man.

A bas-relief of Pentelic marble found about twelve years ago in Argolis portrays with much beauty the family of the God of Medicine awaiting, in the presence of their father, the approach of male and female suppliants. In the two youths who form part of the group immediately behind Asklepios, it is easy to recognise his sons Machaon and Podaleirios; while the three maidens near them must be his daughters Hygieia, laso and Panakeia. One other female figure, who wears a veil and Stephane, and is of more stately aspect, would seem to be Epione, the wife of Asklepios. Aegle and Akeso, who are also sometimes named as daughters of the god, are here omitted. Epione, in spite of her intimate relations with Asklepios, appears to have been chiefly honoured locally—at Epidaurus, and it is her eldest daughter Hygieia who is really the most important member of the Aesculapian family. The almost constant association of Hygieia with her father brought her into the fullest prominence as a medical divinity, though at the same time it, to a great extent, prevented her from attaining to an independent exercise of power. Most modern writers on Greek mythology and religion have generally suffered her to be absorbed in the greater and more interesting personality of her associate, and have often had but little to tell of Hygieia, except that she was represented ‘as a virgin dressed in a long robe, feeding a serpent from a cup.’

The vase of which I here publish representations is barrel-shaped with round ends, and has at each end protuberances in the form of nipples. There is a small raised ring round the neck. The mouth is funnel-shaped, with edges slightly overlapping. The dimensions are as follows:—Circumference over nipples 2 ft. 7⅝ in. Circumference of barrel 2 ft. 1 in. Height of neck 3½ in. Total height of jar 1 ft. ⅛ in. The vase was bought at Larnaca, and probably found near that place.

The vessel is of a purely Phoenician model, though not necessarily of pre-Hellenic times, of a kind occurring not only in earlier and later specimens made by the Phoenician race in Cyprus, but also in pottery manufactured by other races in places in the island where their influence predominated. The clay used in the composition of the jar is of a darkish cream colour, and has evidently been very carefully washed and prepared.

The tablet which is the primary subject of the present paper, and which is depicted on the accompanying plate, has been for forty years in the British Museum, having been presented in 1845 by Mr. W. R. Hamilton, the secretary of Lord Elgin. It consists of a slab of close-grained white marble of oblong form 2 feet 9 inches in length and 1 foot 10½ inches in height in the middle where it is broadest. The right upper corner is restored. The tablet was evidently made to let into a wall; the back is rough-hewn, and at the top is a small oblong hole for a peg.

The inscription beneath the relief is obviously modern. It reads Aesculapio Tarentino Salenius Arcas, in letters which seem to date from the early part of the present century; apparently it was inserted by some person who considered the relief to represent Aesculapius, wrongly, beyond a doubt. But it is yet of some value as suggesting that the monument was found at Tarentum, and this is on all accounts probable.

When I published my book on the Ancient Marbles in Great Britain (Cambridge, University Press, 1882), I was fully convinced that the catalogue there given would be susceptible of many corrections and supplements. But the hope I expressed in the preface, that I should be informed of marbles existing in private collections which might have escaped my notice by their owners or other competent persons, has completely failed; nor have I become aware of publications concerning this matter. Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that there must be in Great Britain a good deal of hidden treasure of the kind, which would perhaps easier come to light if there were a place expressly destined to receive such communications. Now, there can be no doubt that no place would be more appropriate to the purpose than the Journal of Hellenic Studies. I have therefore ventured to propose to the Editors to open in this Journal a corner for storing up such supplements and corrections. As a first instalment, I here offer some notes which may begin the series, and which can be continued. May other lovers and students of classic art, especially in Great Britain, follow my example.

There are two difficult passages in the Eumenides of Aeschylus to which it may be well to invite the attention of Greek students in general and of archaeologists in particular. It seems probable that the solution in each case is to be sought from archaeology as much as from linguistic and textual criticism.

It will be remembered that in the Eumenides, Athena, having undertaken the consideration of the suit between Orestes and his pursuers, the divine Avengeresses, pronounces the case to be improper for decision either by herself or by a single mortal arbitrator, and accordingly assembles and constitutes a court, the first court on the hill of Ares, for the purpose of the trial (Eum. 470–489). The court assembles accordingly, and Athena opens the proceedings by causing solemn silence to be proclaimed. There can be no doubt that the formalities and accompaniments of this legendary institution are imitated from those actually used in the historical tribunal. It is with this proclamation that the present question is concerned.

The marble head (Pl. XLV. 2) in the Museum of Madrid has elicited considerable notice, especially because of its peculiar style; and its attempted classification in this respect has produced much difference of opinion. Hübner, who first supposed it to be the head of Athene and then of an Aphrodite, thought that it must be a marble copy of a bronze original belonging to the age of Pheidias. Friedrichs considered it to belong to the type of Aphrodite heads, but did not feel in a position to assign to it a definite date. He says: ‘It decidedly gives the impression of an Hellenic work, but for the more exact dating we have no sound ground to go upon. We should only like to remark that it does not appear to us to be older than the fourth century, because it no longer contains traces of the severer style.’

The vase which is the subject of the present memoir is a pyxis or small round box of a light yellow clay with a smooth surface, decorated with designs in a blackish brown, which is here and there varied with a patch of purple laid upon the black, or with a detail occasionally incised. It was acquired by the British Museum in 1865, and forms one of a set of eighteen which were ‘guaranteed’ as having been found at Phaleron near Athens.

The lid is decorated with a circular frieze of animals, representing five lions or panthers; the most important representation, however, is that upon the body of the vase, which is encircled with a single frieze of figures, consisting of four lions, a bull (recognisable by the shape of its hoof and its horn), and a group which is obviously a rendering of the well-known myth of Herakles and Geryon—beside Geryon is a further group of three bulls.

The object of the present paper is not to give a full account of the Homeric chariot, but merely to call attention to a somewhat minute point, in which, as it seems to me, light may be thrown upon the words of Homer from the representations given us in the painted vases.

By way of preface it may be mentioned that the war-chariot was hardly known in Greece proper, at all events after the heroic age. The only occasion in Greek history when it played an important part was on the half-oriental soil of Cyprus. In the battle so picturesquely described by Herodotos (v. 113), the fortune of the day was finally decided by the treachery of the war-chariots of Salamis, whose desertion threw the island into the hands of the Persians (498 B.C.). On the rugged and broken mountains of the mainland, such an arm could hardly ever have been of practical service, and we may assume that the type familiar to the vase-painters of the fifth century B.C. must have been derived from Asia Minor.

In proffering this attempt at providing a new principle for the interpretation of the Eastern Pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, founded upon the recognition of the general principles of pedimental compositions as they manifest themselves after a careful study of the extant monuments of this class, and, more especially, upon a comparison between this Olympian pediment and the western pediment of the Parthenon, the writer fears that he may meet with prejudice on the part of those who have already fixed in their minds an essentially different mode of approaching the subject. He fears this the more as it is entirely beyond his power on this occasion to give a full account of these general principles, or rather of the traditional forms of rendering mythological scenes in compositions of this class, as they have manifested themselves to him in studying a considerable number of ancient representations of mythological scenes for the purpose of elucidating the composition of the pediments of the Parthenon.

Visiting last year the house of Mons. des Tombes, an accomplished amateur and collector of pictures at the Hague, I observed over a chimney-piece a small sculptured relief in marble, of which the Grecian lineaments contrasted forcibly enough with the taste of the Dutch paintings that surrounded it. In answer to my inquiries, the owner informed me that he had seen this piece of antiquity one day in the hands of a countryman, covered with paint and about to be broken up, and that he had rescued it from destruction, and after cleaning the surface caused it to be placed where I then saw it. How it originally came into the hands in which he found it, or into Holland at all, he had been unable to learn. At my suggestion M. des Tombes had a cast of the work made, a copy of which he has been so good as to present to the new Museum of Classical Archaeology at Cambridge. From that cast the present illustration (Pl. XXXIX) is taken.

This was a raft, and not a boat, or even a rude imitation of a boat. Many of the difficulties connected with the well-known description of its construction in the fifth book of the Odyssey have been increased by the confusion of these ideas.

Homer, ‘qui nil molitur inepte,’ is evidently well acquainted with ships, and with a seafaring life, and all its technicalities. In this respect he differs from Hesiod, who (possibly glancing at the manifest σοφία about ships displayed by the older bard) expressly tells us that, unlike his father, he is

Εργ. 647.

The so-called ‘Chalcidian’ class of vases, in spite of their great technical and historical interest, have as yet received less of the close attention which has been applied to other better known classes, chiefly on account of the lack of definite material and definite information regarding them. No one has as yet treated of them comprehensively as a class, if we except the cursory survey of Klein, although a fair number have been separately published: pending therefore the maturing of the more complete study which seems desirable, the introduction of four new specimens of vase painting which we may call Chalcidian will not be without interest to archaeology; especially as the two at least which are figured on Plates XL.—XLIII. have each a further intrinsic value as contributions to the study of mythography.