In the winter of 1905–6 Mr. C. T. Currelly and I acquired a large number of ostraka from the dealers of Luxor and Karnak, amongst which were several examples of school exercises. A few ostraka of this class, and tablets of a similar kind, have already been published; and, by comparison of these with our collection, it is possible to gather some facts in connexion with the methods of instruction pursued in the Greek schools of Egypt.

The ostraka purchased were said by the dealers to have come mainly from the neighbourhood of Karnak, and to have been found at different times during the preceding five years. The majority of those here published—all those from our collection except numbers II, IV, VI, IX, X, XVI, and XVII —appear, however, to belong to one group: they are written on pottery which is discoloured in a rather unusual way, and are very distinct in this respect from any other of those bought with them; while from the general character of the writing the texts upon them may with reasonable probability be regarded as contemporary. It seems in accordance with the facts to suppose that the finder of these ostraka had chanced on a spot where a schoolmaster of Thebes had taught his classes in the open air near a rubbish heap, on which material for writing exercises might be obtained in plenty, to be thrown away again as soon as used: or possibly, if it is more in accordance with educational dignity to imagine the school as held among more savoury surroundings, we may have here the contents of the waste-ostrakon-basket which were deposited on the dust-tip after a day's work.

Mr. Milne's article in the last volume of the Journal (xxviii. 121 ff.) calls attention to an interesting class of documents, the tablets or ostraka which served as school-books in Graeco-Roman Egypt. The British Museum has recently acquired two unusually good and complete specimens of this class. As they are, to the best of my belief, the most perfect that have yet come to light, it seems worth while to publish them in extenso.

The first (now Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 37516) is a single wooden tablet, 1 ft. 4½ in. in length, 5¼ in. high at the left-hand end, and 4¾ in. at the right-hand end. Projecting from the left-hand end is a small knob, nearly an inch in diameter, through which a hole is bored, by which means the tablet could be suspended from a nail in the wall of the school, as in the well-known kylix of Douris at Berlin. The corners at both ends are rounded.

The history of ancient decorative wall-painting has yet to be written. The attention of the whole world was attracted by the wonderful discoveries made in Pompeii, and indeed for many years Pompeii stood for ancient decorative wall-painting in general.

That Pompeii so completely overshadowed modern ideas on the evolution of this art is due in great measure to the fact that at Pompeii it had found a wonderful exponent and explorer in the late Professor August Mau. His book dealing with the Pompeian decorative mural painting at once became a classic and influenced profoundly text-books and popular works on the history of ancient art and customs.

Two facts, however, should be borne in mind. First, that the decoration of Pompeian houses illustrates the art of one epoch. only—the Hellenistic and the earlier Roman Empire, except for a few examples from a still earlier age, and those not before the third century B.C. Also it should be remembered that this art at Pompeii can be taken as characteristic only of Italy and indeed only of Southern Italy; it does not follow that it developed on the same lines in other regions of the ancient world.

Doubts about the reliability of Aristotle's accounts of his predecessors have been current for some time, at least since Heidel's 1906 paper in which he aimed to show that the presocratics did not, pace Aristotle, have Aristotle's conception of ἀλλοίωσις, involving as it does the notions of unchanging substance or essence, and attribute. Such doubts were given massive substantiation in Cherniss' famous book. More recently McDiarmid has shown that Theophrastus' Physical Opinions, the main source for the subsequent doxographical tradition, while it may quote extensively from the writings of the presocratics, is heavily dependent (in wording, selection of quotations from the presocratics, and organisation of material) on Aristotle's account. I only mention McDiarmid's work here because some of what he says provides the point of departure for Guthrie's defence of Aristotle, which I want chiefly to examine. My thesis is that there are some misunderstandings and pseudo-issues which crop up among what may be referred to as the three parties (Cherniss, McDiarmid, and Guthrie) to the dispute over the trustworthiness of Aristotle's accounts of the presocratics; but that once these are cleared away there remains a genuine disagreement over the reliability of Aristotle's interpretations; and that in this disagreement Guthrie has not given arguments sufficient to prove his point.

Thucydides' full description of the harbor at Pylos is part of his discussion of the Spartan strategy for thecampaign (iv 8).

. . . and the Lacedaimonians . . . expected the Attic fleet from Zacynthos to come to the rescue and intended, if they had not captured Pylos by that time, to block up the entrances to the harbor, so that the Athenians could not sail in and use it as an anchorage. (The island called Sphacteria extends alongside the harbor, and lies close to it: hence the anchorage is safe and the entrances narrow–the entrance by Pylos and the Athenian fortifications giving a passage for two ships through the channel, and the entrance by the mainland on the other side a passage for eight or nine . . . ) These entrances then, they intended to block up tightly with ships lying parallel to each other, prows to the enemy: and since they were frightened that the Athenians might use Sphacteria as a military base, they ferried hoplites across to it, and stationed others along the mainland. By this plan, they thought, the Athenians would find both the island to be enemy-occupied and the mainland, which gave them no chance of landing (for the coast of Pylos itself, outside the entrance and towards the open sea, is harborless, and would give them no base of operations to help their troops): and equally they themselves would probably be able to capture the place by siege, without a sea-battle or any unnecessary danger–there was no food in it, and it had not been properly prepared for a siege. This, then, was their agreed plan . . .

Although one would think this a clear and detailed geographic description, historians have not yet found a location at Pylos for the harbor which satisfactorily matches it.

Diodoros makes a notorious mistake in his dates for the Eurypontids at Sparta during the fifth century. Under the archonship of Phaidon, 476/5, he records (xi 48.2) the death of Leotychidas, after a reign of 22 years, and the accession of Archidamos, who went on to rule for 42 years. Accordingly, after these 42 years have passed, we find the death of Archidamos and the accession of Agis recorded in 434/3 (xii 35.4). In three subsequent passages, however (xii 42.6; 47.1; 52.1), Diodoros mentions activity of Archidamos during the early years of the Peloponnesian War. Three passages in Thucydides (iii 1.1; 26.2; 89.1) lead us to suppose that Archidamos died sometime in 427, probably in 427/6 (cf. Gomme, Commentary i 405). Thus, given that Diodoros is correct in the length of the reign, 42 years, then his accession date is seven years too high—476/5 instead of the correct 469/8. In consequence, his dates for Leotychidas and Agis are also seven years too high.

In Book xii of the Greek Anthology many of the old motifs of erotic poetry are applied to the love of boys. Among these motifs a form of the carpe diem calls our attention. Youth and the beloved's charms are there granted a very short span: the growth of hair marks the end of a boy's attraction. Of this basic idea we find numerous variations in over thirty epigrams, Hellenistic and late, not unlike those on the more general motif of fleeting youth. We shall group the poems and interpret them according to the variations of this motif.

The boy is now willing to love when it is too late: the hairs have come. The lover, whether by threats, warnings, or vaunts that it has happened, implicitly rejects the advances of the young man.

Ia. Our first epigram (Asclep. 46 = A.P. xii 36) is headed Ἀσκληπιάδου Ἀδραμυττήνου. If by Asclepiades of Samos it would be chronologically the first in our list. Yet the ascription is far from certain, and the choice of the epigram as our starting point is, therefore, arbitrary.

Some of the most important inscriptions in Central Anatolia, copied by old travellers with fair accuracy, are concealed in the great collections, such as C.I.G., with false or defective transcription in which their value is lost. The object of this article is to illustrate by examples the importance and the right method of re-studying them. In order to show the facts, as the basis for a new restoration (which will in every case be found closer to the original copy than the published transcriptions), brevity is best served in several cases by quoting former transcriptions fully.

In using the copies of older travellers the chief principle is to emend as little as possible. Certain letters, however, are liable to be confused by any copyist in a difficult text, and correction in such cases is needed within limits. Also, there is a personal equation which can be established in respect of each. Copyists vary in excellence, some being much more trustworthy than others, and there are certain errors to which some are more prone than others.

The Greeks of the polis, most of them with hands dirty from the earth and animals they worked with and struggled against every day, knew that there was a thin line that separated their own humanity from the life of the beast. Hesiod provides the first explicit testimony to the difference between the two worlds:

But you, Perses, deliberate on this in your heart (φρεσί) and listen now to right (δίκη), forgetting violence (βίη) altogether. For the son of Cronus drew up this law for men, that fish and beasts and flying birds eat one another, since right (δίκη) is not in them. But to mankind he gave right (δίκη) which is by far the best. For if anyone knows the right (τὰ δί καια) and is willing to speak it (ἀγορεῦσαι) to him far-seeing Zeus gives prosperity. (WD 274-81)

The monument represented on the accompanying plate (No. XLIV.), is situated near the village of Liyen, and is familiar to the natives of the surrounding district underthe name Arslan Kaya, Lion Rock. It is about seven miles west-north-west of the cluster of monuments at Ayazeen, described in this Journal, 1882, p. 1 ff, and several less important archaic tombs exist at Bei Keui and other places between Liyen and Ayazeen, so that this whole series may be grouped together and distinguished from the other series which surrounds the tomb of Midas. It is probable that the two groups belong to two distinct Phrygian cities of great antiquity—two of those cities whose former existence was known to Strabo (p. 567), but which had ceased to exist long before his time. It will be convenient, in want of the ancient names, to distinguish these two ancient cities by reference to the Roman towns which stood near them—Meros at Kumbet, near the Midas-tomb, and Metropolis south of Ayazeen.

At present there appears to be general agreement that Cyprus entered the Persian Empire some time between c. 545 and 539. It will be argued here that this event did not occur until 526 or 525. The point involves other, much broader issues. Any power wishing to control Cyprus must possess a substantial navy. When, then, did Persia acquire sufficient naval strength to control the eastern Mediterranean? This last problem in turn raises the question of when the Persians annexed the countries of the Levant and Asia Minor from which they drew the whole of their fleet. Finally, because elaborate theories concerning the development of sixth century Cypriote sculpture have been built upon the conclusion that Cyprus submitted to Persia c. 545, a revision of that date will have important repercussions upon the history of Cypriote art.

In his paper ‘The Athenian Coinage Decree’, in Historia x (1961) 148–88, Mattingly proposes to date this decree (Tod 67: ATL ii D14: the ‘Decree of Klearchos’) to 425/4. This involves two important principles, historical and epigraphic. Historically, he contends that a measure of this coercive sort is out of place in the middle of the century (it is dated in ATL to 449/8) and finds its proper context in the time of Kleon's ascendancy, in the latter part of the Archidamian War. Epigraphically, since one copy in which this decree is preserved (the only copy which uses the Attic alphabet) writes sigma always with three bars Mattingly is led to challenge the current epigraphic doctrine, namely, that in Attic inscriptions this form of sigma is not used (at least in the ‘chancery style’, for a public decree) later than 446.

The epigraphic doctrine about three-bar sigma is not self-evidently true, and it is fair and right that it should be called in question. We believe it is true in fact, and that the use of three-bar sigma in the Kos copy of D14 creates a strong presumption that Mattingly's date is too low. We deal with the documents alleged by Mattingly to run counter to this doctrine, and hope to show (in each case) that they do not. We deal with these and other documents under three heads: first, the two from which Mattingly starts, the decree of Klearchos about coinage and the decree of Kleinias about the collection of tribute; next, some other decrees concerning Athens' allies; last, those which are concerned with building projects.

Proceeding along the terrace of the treasuries, Pausanias devotes the nineteenth chapter of his second book on Elis to passing in review the whole row of them, naming each according to the Hellenic community by which it was built and dedicated. First he notes the Sicyonians' treasury, then the ‘Carthaginians'’ (Syracusans'). At this point begins a confusion in his text which culminates in the startling declaration that the third and fourth treasuries are a dedication of the Epidamnians, a notable fact which he immediately denies by speaking of one and only one Epidamnians' treasury. After this he remarks that the Sybarites also built a treasury next to that of the Byzantines. This is disconcerting as he mentions the Byzantines' treasury nowhere else either before or afterwards. Next to the Sybarites' treasury, he then says, was that of the Libyans of Cyrene, in which he saw statues of Roman emperors.

The march of Alexander from the Granicus to Issus is given by Arrian in less than a dozen pages scattered among various sieges that are more fully described; Plutarch, Diodorus and Quintus Curtius do less, and no more than a page or two apiece has come down to us on the whole of these movements.

Although his first meeting with Asia was probably the most important experience in Alexander's adult life, and though the Anatolian campaigns lasted a year and a half, or even a little more, out of the short total of eleven years that were left him, the poverty of the sources has imposed its brevity on modern historians also. Professor Tarn—who is as much a bedside book to modern devotees as the Iliad was to their hero—describes the marches and countermarches of Asia Minor in little more than three pages; and there is a great gap left us from classical times between Xanthus and Phaselis in Lycia. It would be absurd to think of filling it. But after sailing down the coast, I believed that some evidence might be gathered by comparing the written scraps left us with the nature of the places recorded, provided this were done before the road-building policy of modern Turkey succeeds in changing the pace of living in these mountains. Hitherto their ruins have scarcely been altered except by a natural decay; and the methods of travel being as slow as ever they were before, except along a very few roads, the flavour of their past is preserved.

In this essay the geography is attempted, with the problems and such answers to them as my rather intermittent journeys seemed able to provide. Someone better equipped than I am may find the outline useful and venture more profitably, before too much time goes by; for the interest is not one of geography merely. By visualising the routes which were chosen, the motives and processes by which that choice was made become clearer; and behind these motives and processes is the most dynamic being that the world has perhaps ever known.

The American excavators in the south-west area of the Forum at Corinth have revealed an intriguing architectural complex, which they have called the ‘Punic Amphora Building’. Evidently it housed a thriving import business with a speciality in fish and wine, whose trade extended in one direction to Sicily and perhaps Spain and in the other to Chalkidike and Chios. Masses of fragments of Punic and Chian amphoras were found crushed and pounded in the make-up of successive floor-levels in the courtyard, together with numerous pieces from Mende and elsewhere. Many others emerged from the single floors of most of the rooms or were discovered in the littered debris from the final phase of occupation. The life of this business house was somewhat short, but a domestic building on the same site had earlier been partly devoted to the same trade. All this activity ceased with dramatic suddenness; the emporium went out of use and in the late fifth century it was overlaid in one area by a new road. The end seems to be securely dated c. 430 B.C. by Attic black-glaze pottery in the final floor-level or in the debris covering the last floor. Professor Williams plausibly links the collapse of business with the interruption of Corinth's trade caused by the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: one of Athens' first war measures was to blockade both the Saronic and the Corinthian Gulfs. This new material evidence for Corinthian commerce is most welcome in itself and, as I hope to show in this paper, it may help clarify other problems.

I am delighted to agree that the Soros as it stands (though now suffering terribly from the feet of tourists and from rain-wash where they have destroyed the grass cover), with its evidence of fifth-century offerings, etc., marks a spot where convenience as well as honour (Hammond 18) caused the Athenians to bury their dead. But it does not necessarily show where the centres of the two armies first clashed. The chief Athenian loss mentioned by Herodotos, in some detail (vi 114), took place in the fighting at the ships. Nevertheless, as it happens, and pace Hammond, my sketch-plan of the battle as I imagine it (PG 244) does not differ from his(ig); except that I think the Persian line is more likely to have been ‘orientated’ to face the Greeks, up the Vrana valley, than exactly parallel to the shore in rear.

Alexander's battle against the Indian king, Porus, at the R. Hydaspes is in many respects the most interesting of all his set engagements. There he had to cope with a new weapon, the elephant, and few things show his military genius more clearly than the resource which he displayed in solving this difficult problem. The main outlines of the battle are clear, but, despite all that has been written, there is little agreement amongst historians regarding Alexander's tactics in the cavalry engagement which led up to the main action. The most recent treatment of the problem is that by Sir William Tarn, and it is this which has led me to examine the question more closely. Although, as will become clear, I find myself at variance with Tarn's interpretation on numerous points he has, I believe, shown that it is only by a detailed study of Arrian's text that we can arrive at a satisfactory understanding of the orders to Coenus—the hub of the matter. I intend, therefore, to re-examine Arrian's narrative and to attempt to substantiate a view of the overall strategy—particularly the part played by Coenus—radically different from that put forward by Tarn. Moreover, Tarn has subjected Arrian's account of the battle and its preliminaries to such severe criticism that it is not, I think, unfair to say that, if Tarn's interpretation of the operations is accepted, Arrian must be held to have misunderstood his source on several important points and to have failed to make Alexander's tactics intelligible. This article has, therefore, a second purpose—to demonstrate that the undoubted difficulties in Arrian's narrative, due in part to the complicated manoeuvres involved in part to the ambiguity of military terminology, do not indicate any fundamental misunderstanding of the situation by the historian.

At the commencement of our cruise along the south coast of Asia Minor we first touched at Capo Krio and examined closely the tombs in the neighbourhood of Cnidos, which were constructed on rising ground about two miles to the east of the ancient town. Most of them were about 20 ft. square; some built entirely of polygonal masonry, others with the sides in polygonal masonry and the fronts in square-cut stones. Along this front ran a narrow line of square-cut stones on which in most cases traces of inscriptions appeared, but owing to the nature of the stone almost all the letters were defaced with the exception of the following:

…. ΤΑΣΣΑΣΕΡΜ. ΑΣ. …

In the upper chambers were many grave altars and memorial tablets; in two graves we found altars with snakes represented as coiled around them, and in another an altar with the ordinary bull's head and garland decoration, bearing the inscription ΟΔΑΜΟΣ (ἀνέθηκεν).

Proceeding along Capo Krio to the point where the land contracts into a narrow isthmus we found traces of other tombs which have lately been exposed to view by the washing away of the soil by a winter's flood. In these tombs have been found many small marble figures similar to those I found at Antiparos and described in this Journal (vol. v. p. 50). One represents a figure seated in a chair playing a harp similar to that in the Museum at Athens, which was found at Amorgos, another is of a female figure with a crescent on her head similar to one which I have seen, and which was discovered in the island of Tenos.

Of late years a good deal of discussion has been devoted to the Road-System of Cappadocia and the Tauros region in ancient times, and it might seem at first sight superfluous to discuss the subject over again. But conclusions already reached must always be tested in the light of new facts; and in the case before us several new facts have come to hand, which illuminate our subject and enable us to introduce into it a considerable amount of simplification. I propose, therefore, in the following paper to describe the roads which traversed this part of the country and then to prove their direction as well as their importance from the evidence of Byzantine campaigns. This is the simplest order to follow, because one campaign generally covers several routes and it would involve a sacrifice of clearness to break up the campaigns into a series of disjecta membra.

At every period in the history of Asia Minor the most important roads from the west converged towards Caesareia-Mazaka (Kaisariye), which in later times became the metropolis of Cappadocia, and radiated thence towards east and south. Sebasteia-Sivas forms another centre only second in importance to Caesareia; and the entire road-system of Eastern Asia Minor is most easily described and most clearly understood by taking these two cities as the starting-points. I shall therefore begin with the roads leading East and South from Caesareia and afterwards go on to those radiating from Sebasteia-Sivas.