The appended inscriptions are the outcome of a short visit to Salonica in April of this year: the object that I had in view in going there was rather to hear and see on the spot the situation of ancient remains, the possibility and prospects of research, the attitude of the authorities and the general ‘lie’ and state of the country, than to investigate the actual antiquities of Salonica itself: however I copied or impressed as many Greek inscriptions as came to my notice in my short stay, the great majority being sepulchral of a commonplace order found in the foundations of houses in the Jewish quarter, and too frequently relegated to the stonemasons' yards to be cut up for modern gravestones. I have ranged first the three non-sepulchral inscriptions, the first being a mere fragment containing apparently part of an Imperial letter to the Thessalonians; the second a dedication by the city to the Emperor Claudius, and containing the titles and names of the chief magistrates; and the third, again a fragment, being a public document of the time of Antoninus Pius relative to certain κυνηγία, apparently left by will to the city or some religious foundation therein. If any of these have been previously published, I must apologise for my ignorance: but I cannot discover among the various records accessible here in Athens any trace of them; and indeed Salonica has been spared the archaeologist to a surprising degree. Where the stelae were sculptured I have briefly indicated the nature of the reliefs: there are a few others without inscriptions, but, as none of the sculptures are early or of merit, I have not thought it necessary to detail them.

Plate V represents a small Attic bell-krater in the collection of Mr. Edward Armytage, who has kindly permitted its publication. The subject is novel: it appears to be the arrival in Attica of Theseus, and shews in detail a close correspondence with our main literary source, the seventeenth ode of Bacchylides. The two youths on the left are the two companions of Theseus, Peirithoos and Phorbas—δύο (F)οι φῶτε μόνους ὰμαρτεῖν λέγει (l.c. line 45). They arein travelling costume, booted and cloaked, wearing ephebic fillets and bearing pairs ofspears—ξεστοὺς δὲ δύ᾿ ἐν χέρεσς᾿ ἀκοντας (1. 49, though said of Theseus himself, not of his comrades).

Recent literature on this Hymn is almost limited to the notes of R. Peppmüller, Philologus, 1884, p. 196 sq., 1894, p. 253 sq., and H. Pomtow, Neue Jahrb. f. Phil., 1886, p. 176, and the articles of A. Kirchhoff, Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad. xlii. 1893, and A. W. Verrall in this Journal vol. xiv. pp. 1 sqq. (1894). For Apollo we have the account by Roscher in his Lexicon; Mr. Farnell (Cults of Greek States) has not yet treated him.

Want of illustration and of positive information upon the topics with which the Hymn deals, is the chief stumbling block to its interpretation. We are practically entirely ignorant, so far as other sources are concerned, at these places: the geographical names 32, 35, 40, 217, 422, 423; the nature of Eilithyia's necklace 103; the recitations at the Delian festival 156 sq., Apollo's ‘brides’ 208 sq., the observances connected with chariots at Onchestus 230 sq., the epithets of Apollo 373, 496; the part taken by Cretans in the Delphic worship 393 sq.

When Pandaros treacherously shoots at Menelaos (Δ 132 sq.), the arrow lights—

ὅθι ζωστῆρος ὀχῆες
χρύσειοι σύνεχον καὶ διπλόος ἤντετο θώρνξ·
ἐν δ᾿ ἔπεσε ζωστῆρι ἀρηρότι πικρὸς ὀιστός·
διὰ μὲν ἂρ ζωστῆρος ἐλήλατο δαιδαλέοιο,
καὶ διὰ θώρηκος πολυδαιδάλου ἠρήρειστο
μίτρης θ᾿ ἣν ἐφόρει ἔρυμα χροός, ἕρκος ἀκόντων,
ἥ οἱ πλεῖστον ἕρυτο· διαπρὸ δὲ εἴσατο καὶ τῆς.

A little later, Menelaos says of the same wound (Δ 185-187):

οὐκ ἐν καιρίῳ ὀξὺ πάγη βέλος, ἀλλὰ πάροιθεν
εἰρύσατο ζωστήρ τε παναίολος, ἠδ᾿ ὑπένερθεν
ζῶμά τε καὶ μίτρη τὴν χαλκῆες κάμον ἄνδρες

And Machaon, after drawing the arrow out (Δ 215-6),

λῦσε δέ οἱ ζωστῆρα παναίολον, ἠδ᾿ ὑπένερθεν
ζῶμά τε καὶ μίτρην τὴν χαλκῆες κάμον ἄνδρες.

The word ζῶμα occurs again only in ξ 482, a passage which we will postpone for the moment, and in Ψ 683 of the boxer's girdle, which does not require further consideration.

Comparing the second and third of the passages quoted with the first, it seems perfectly clear that the ζῶμα was a part of the θώρηξ, and not an appendage to it. The word, in fact, stands as a passive to the active correlative ζωστήρ, and means the part of the θώρηξ which was fastened down by the girdle. It is quite clear from the oldest vase paintings that the lower part of the θώρηξ was bent outwards into a sort of ridge all round, in order to make a hollow which should be capable of holding the ζωστηρ in its place. This is very well shown in the woodcut, which is taken from Conze's Melische Thongefässe, Leipzig, 1877. The is expressed by the parallel lines at the bottom of the thorax; this is clear from the Kameiros pinax, where the lines are diagonal, and therefore do not indicate anything in the nature of such a πτερύγιον as we shall presently have to discuss.

The strong point of D. Mirhady's work (hereafter ‘M.’) lies in his interpretation of the rhetorical handbooks (technai). I agree in general with Part III, though admitting my lack of specialist knowledge in this field. To a large extent Part III confirms my observations on procedural law published in 1977 (Beweisführung, quoted supra n. 4). I approve of the opinion that, despite the use of written rather than oral testimony, the formulas, by which the evidence was used, did not change (M. after n. 62, see my recent article in: Die athenische Demokratie, ed. W. Eder [Stuttgart 1995], p. 329 f.). M. states an appealing hypothesis, that the introduction of written testimony did not so much change the procedure as provide the cause for a new handbook on rhetoric to be written, which he suggests was the common precursor to Aristotle and Anaximenes.

Pausanias began the ninth book of his Periegesis with a brief topographical observation on the contiguity of Boeotia and Attica and specifically of the Plataiis and Eleutherai, followed by two digressions, the first legendary and toponymic, the second historical; together they occupy the remainder of the first chapter. The only topographical facts to be gathered from these digressions are: (1) that there was a direct road from Thebes to Plataia, and (2) that there was a road from Thebes leading to Hysiai in the direction of Eleutherai and Attica (cf. Thuc. iii 24; Arrian, Anab. i 7), which gave indirect access to Plataia (ix 1.6). The topographical thread is resumed at ix 2.1: Hysiai with its unfinished temple of Apollo and oracular well, Erythrai, and—closer to Plataia—the so-called Tomb of Mardonios were all located to the right of the road from Eleutherai to Plataia.

Miss W. Lamb has kindly asked me to publish the terracotta sarcophagus in Cambridge, which comes from Rhodes. Fig. 1 explains the system of reference to the various parts of the face of the typical Clazomenian sarophagus. Unless it is otherwise stated, figures and heads of men and animals face towards the centre of the sarcophagus.

The sarcophagi listed below consist of five found in Rhodes and presumed to be of local manufacture, and of three probably from Clazomenae which are loosely related.

Interpretations of metal graters and pottery tripod bowls as Leitfossils of a trans-Mediterranean ‘orientalizing’ culture of spiced-wine consumption have of late become a staple of scholarship on sympotic banqueting, shaping our perception of ancient wine-drinking and its role in cross-cultural interaction in the first half of the first millennium BC. Yet a closer look at the evidence for spiced wine and the use of graters casts serious doubt on assumptions of a widespread practice of adding ‘spices’ to wine during the Greek symposion and of the use of graters or tripod grinding bowls for such a purpose in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. A more plausible scenario, it is argued, arises from the well-attested association of graters with cheese and other primarily culinary commodities. It sees the grater’s prime function and symbolic significance shift from a use in Early Iron Age ‘Homeric’ hospitality to becoming a tool in the increasingly complex cuisines associated with the Archaic and Classical banquet – an indicator of evolving Mediterranean commensality with no less of an international horizon, but a commensality that involved interaction and shared consumption beyond the narrowly sympotic.

This inscription, which affords no external indications of its origin, was published by Böckh among the Attic decrees on very slender grounds, which he himself practically recalls in the Appendix, C. I. G. vol. i. p. 900. With reason, therefore, Köhler in vol. ii. of new Berlin Corpus has not included it among the Attic decrees. In December 1880, I re-read this inscription, together with most of the other marbles in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. I verified the reading of the first line given by Dobree (Appendix to Rose's Inscriptiones Graecae), and adopted by Bockh, Appendix l. c. To the text of the decree there is therefore nothing to add, and it will suffice to append a copy of it in cursive. But I hope to show that the decree is from Halikarnassos, and to identify the revolution of Troezen to which it alludes.

Unanimous recognition has justly been accorded to the rare energy and devotion by which Dr. Schliemann has achieved his enterprise of excavating the mound of Hissarlik, once the acropolis of the historic Greek Ilium. Whatever views may be held as to the origin of the older remains, or their significance in relation to the epic of Troy, there is only one opinion as to the interesting and valuable nature of the service which the sustained enthusiasm of the explorer has rendered to the study of antiquity.

The problem of Hissarlik involves two separate issues. It is the omission to distinguish these which, more than anything else, has impeded a clear view. The first issue is:—What are the ruins that have been found at Hissarlik?