The word θυμέλη has attracted much attention from scholars owing to its importance in connexion with the Greek theatre. Discussion, however, has not led to any agreement as to the meaning of the word. Drs. Doerpfeld and Reisch held that it meant an altar or its foundation: Dr. Doerpfeld now expresses the opinion that it was a pavement round the altar which served to connect the altar with the temple of the god to whom it belonged, and was at the same time convenient for the slaughtering of the victims. This platform was called at Olympia the πρόθυσις. On the other hand, Prof. C. Robert believes the real meaning of the word to be ‘foundation,’ and that it might be used in this sense of any structure, whether house, altar, or temple. Mr. A. B. Cook holds that the word might be applied to either form of the Dionysiac altar, whether it was a βωμός or merely a τράπεζα for the reception of offerings. This view is followed by Haigh.

The Philoktetes is a play of singular interest and importance, on account of the light which it throws upon dramatic representation in the Athenian theatre of the fifth century B.C. I am not aware, however, that any consistent and intelligible interpretation of it from that point of view has yet been given. In Jebb's edition and translation spasmodic stage directions and obiter dicta on the scenic arrangements and action are to be found, but no coherent or complete exposition. I propose, therefore, to analyse the play so far as may be necessary in order to exhibit the apparatus of the drama, and its bearings upon the action. It is evident that the result of this examination must finally be brought into connexion with certain fundamental problems relating to the theatre of the Greeks and their methods of dramatic representation; but throughout this investigation at any rate those issues remain entirely in the background. The aim is not to support a thesis. Orchestra, Stage, Parodoi—we will for the nonce allow ourselves to forget that these ever existed; the problem for us is simply this—What can we infer from the bare text of the Philoktetes as to the mise en scène of that drama?

I shall not do injustice to the learning of my readers if I imagine that the lives of Homer are not their usual reading, their livre de chevet. They are seldom opened nowadays, unless some wandering folklorist plunders them for an Εἰρεσιώνη or a Κάμινος. Once they were part of the arsenal of learning. The editors of Homer from Chalcondylas to Ernesti printed them at the head of the poet, and herein only followed the Byzantine use. The Eastern Empire had the habit of amassing a considerable quantity of erudition—grammatical, metrical, exegetical, and also biographical—believed necessary for the comprehension of Homer, and arranging it at the beginning of a copy of the poems. Whether the later classical ages also had this habit we cannot tell, for no papyrus has been found to present the beginning of the Iliad or the Odyssey. It was in any case the latest period of classicism which so consulted the ease of a reader as to include his commentary with his author. The handbook existed, in post-Augustan days, but separately. Scholia of any compass have so far not been found in MSS. earlier than the minuscule era, and their origin appears to coincide very nearly with the act which marked the world's second childhood, the closing of the schools by Justinian.

In two papers published within the last year, one in the Classical Quarterly of October, 1911, and the other in the last number of this Journal, Mr. Dickins has put forward certain views with regard to the main lines of the policy of Sparta in the latter half of the sixth and in the fifth century B.C.

Inasmuch as his two articles aim at refuting certain views put forward by myself and others in this Journal and elsewhere, I should like to reply to his arguments.

In the first place Mr. Dickins, who has had and has used special opportunities for acquiring information with regard to the antiquities of Sparta, adduces a large number of new facts. For this part of his work every student of Greek History must be grateful to him. It is in the conclusions which he draws from the new evidence, and the scant courtesy with which he treats some of the old, that the main defects of his arguments lie. He uses some of the evidence of Herodotus, and ignores the rest. That of Thucydides he treats in the same way. As for that of Aristotle, he appears to regard it as wholly misleading, with regard to both Sparta in early times and Sparta in the fifth century. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to assume that Aristotle in the fourth century before Christ had access to better evidence in support of his statements with regard to the Spartan state of the fifth century than we in the twentieth century after Christ either possess or are ever likely to possess.

The inscription here published was discovered on the site found by Mr. E. S. G. Robinson and myself beside the deserted village of Indjik, some six hours to the N.E. of Adalia (Attaleia in Pamphylia). The stone stood towards the N.W. corner of the site, near the ruins of a large apsidal building, which was probably a Byzantine church. Most of the site was covered with thick brushwood, and in a fire which is said to have taken place some ten years ago the stone suffered severely. The lower part, which was covered with earth, is better preserved, but a square capital which, when found, lay beside the pillar, had suffered so badly from the effects of the fire that although it seems to have been inscribed on the four sides it was not possible to make out more than occasional letters, either from the stone itself or from the impressions. The stone was found on a second visit to the site early in June, 1911. The paper which I then had, having previously fallen into the Xanthos marshes, prevented me from making reliable impressions, and I only succeeded in copying most of the western face and a part of the southern, before a slight sunstroke compelled me to return to Adalia. It was not until the end of July that I was able to re-visit the site with a fresh supply of paper. In the meantime my former activities had attracted the attention of the treasure-hunter. The stone, already much damaged, had now been split in two, and the surface further destroyed, while many fragments that I had previously collected were not to be found. The departure of the Yuruks with whom I had stayed on my former visit prevented me from remaining more than one night on the site, during which time I copied as much more as possible of the southern face and made new impressions of the whole. The parts that I publish from the eastern and northern faces, in each case from the lower part of the stone, have been read from the impressions made on the last visit. A new examination of the stone would probably clear up many doubtful points, and add to what I have been able to read from the impressions.

In his concluding Address to this Society our late President remarked that he cared more for the products of the full maturity of the Greek spirit than for its immature struggles, and this preference for fruits over roots is likely to be shared by most classical scholars. The prehistoric civilization of the land which afterwards became Hellas might indeed seem far removed from the central interests of Greek culture, and it was only with considerable hesitation that I accepted, even for a while, the position in which the Society has placed me. Yet I imagine that my presence in this Chair is due to a feeling on its part that what may be called the embryological department has its place among our studies.

In dealing with any ideal portrait it is well to remember a remark of Pliny's concerning the portraits of the poet Alcman, not that Alcman is represented on any coin we know of, but because the phrase throws light on the whole question: Alcman poeta nullius est nobilior [Calamidis] there is no nobler portrait of the poet Alcman than that by Calamis. This passage implies that Pliny knew portraits of Alcman by various sculptors and preferred that of Calamis; nor is this surprising, if we consider the number of portraits of Homer and Sappho for example recorded by ancient writers. The obvious but often forgotten deduction to be drawn from the fact that different artists represented the same subject differently is, that it is not legitimate to assume that the identification of one type of portrait necessarily puts all other identifications out of court. When, for instance, the Ny-Carlsberg Anacreon was identified, all other types were discarded; as Bernoulli puts it, “Mit der Auffindung der capitolinischen Herme sind natürlich die früher aufgestellten Anakreondeutungen sämtlich in Wegfall gekommen.” (Gr. Ikon. i. p. 83.) Yet later representations of Anacreon existed, as the epigrams of Leonidas of Tarentum, Eugenes, and Theocritus show, and coins of Teos represent him not only in the attitude of the famous Athenian statue, but seated in flowing drapery, playing or holding the lyre.

Nearly every important excavation carried out in recent years on Greek soil has added to our knowledge of the proto-Corinthian fabric. Thera and Sparta have appeared as importers of the ware in its earliest days; Delphi, the Argive Heraion, and Aegina have illuminated its later stages, with the result that many fresh varieties are now included under this general heading. The provisional publication by Professor Gabrici of valuable material from Cuma has enriched our knowledge of the style in its early phases. None the less, the magnificent tomb-series of Syracuse and other Sicilian sites still afford the best, indeed, the only evidence other than that of style by which to establish the sequence and duration of the fabrics which pass under this name. Hence, though the Sicilian material affords but a partial view, it will be given the chief place in the following discussion, supplementary evidence being sought from other sources.

Two years ago Hauser published a remarkable bell-krater then in private possession and now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. (FRH. Pl. 115). On the one side we see a picture of Artemis shooting Actaeon, on the other a young shepherd is hotly pursued by a goat-headed Pan, while a small god-stick, or phallic herm, views the scene from a neighbouring eminence. The drawing is a marvel of elaborate elegance, the subjects uncommon, the forms and attitudes strangely and finely stylized. Who is the author of this fascinating work? In the text which accompanies the plate Hauser mentioned and reproduced a small pelike in Vienna, which he saw was closely related to the Boston krater, though he did not feel certain it was by the same artist: on the front of this vase, a man squats on a rock fishing with a rod and a youth with a basket stands beside him; on the reverse, a second youth carrying two baskets on a pole across his shoulder is speeding past a phallic herm (ibid. 2 pp. 293 and 295). In the opinion of the present writer, krater and pelike are undoubtedly by one master; and forty other vases are to be attributed to the same ingenious hand. A list of these vases will first be given, arranged according to shape; and a description of the master's style will follow. Cunning composition; rapid motion; quick deft draughtsmanship; strong and peculiar stylization; a deliberate archaism, retaining old forms, but refining, refreshing, and galvanizing them; nothing noble or majestic, but grace, humour, vivacity, originality, and dramatic force: these are the qualities which mark the Boston krater, and which characterize the anonymous artist who, for the sake of convenience, may be called ‘the master of the Boston Pan-vase,’ or, more briefly,‘the Pan-master.’

At a time when the history of Greek vase-painting is only gradually being reconstructed as one discovery after another supplies the necessary clues, it is difficult to assign to the various classes of pottery names which will be permanently satisfactory. This difficulty is the excuse for the many misleading terms which have crept into our study of Greek vases. Names assigned purely provisionally soon became generally accepted, and when once part of the common nomenclature, it becomes a matter of convenience that they should be retained. In many cases this retention is necessary; otherwise, in the present uncertainty of the origin of so many of the early styles, we should continually be changing names according as one theory or another appeared more plausible. In other cases, however, where our knowledge rests on firmer foundations, and where a term has become a confusing anomaly, it is time that we should revise our loose use of language. Such a case is that of the ‘Proto-Attic’ vases. These vases, connecting as they do the Attic Dipylon with the Attic black-figured style, show the continuity of Athenian ceramic art. To call a vase ‘Proto-Attic’ when it is posterior to another Attic fabric is therefore a contradiction in terms.