The first subject of the present communication is a truly royal treasure of gold rings and of bead-seals in the same metal found in a Mycenaean rock tomb near the site of Thisbê in Boeotia. The find was made in 1915, at a time when war conditions diverted the course of discovery from official channels, and a fortunate chain of circumstances now enables me not only to describe but to exhibit to the Society the whole hoard. Under the circumstances it is impossible without a breach of confidence to give all the details, but, from what I have been able to ascertain, the discovery was made by a peasant in a chamber-tomb excavated in the rock, by the village of Dombrena. Near this spot, about a quarter of an hour N.W. of Kakosi, on the Akropolis height of Thisbê, Mr. W. A. Heurtley, of the British School at Athens, kindly informs me that he was shown, in an olive grove, three chamber-tombs with dromoi. He adds, ‘The old man who showed me had dug one completely and found a dagger and vases and some sherds, all of which he had lost.’ Mr. Heurtley adds, however, that, from a drawing that the old man made of one of the vases, it is clear that it was a stirrup-vase of late type.

Other objects that I myself was able either to see or secure, found in the same group of tombs, but not authenticated as coming from the chamber containing the treasure, were bronze spear-heads and a short sword with the flange running round the extremity of the hilt, belonging to a very late Mycenaean type. A bronze razor also occurred of an advanced form and, of still later date presumably, a small perforated double-axe head of iron. There were also found a whole set of perforated glass-paste objects with holes below for the attachment of pendant gold disks which Mr. Wace has now conclusively shown to belong to necklaces. The particular type found, as well as certain paste pendants with reliefs covered with gold foil, belongs to the date of the Dimini jewels, or early L.M. III. b, in Minoan terms. There is no difficulty in ascribing the radiated glazed clay beads (Fig. 1, a) and the bugle bead of kyanos blue paste (Fig. 1, d), as well as the plated faience plaques with groups of palms in relief (Fig. 1, k), to the same epoch.

The diagram now given reproduces in a more logical form the vocal and instrumental schemes; it shows their underlying unity, and points to the use of the vocal scheme as an enharmonic and chromatic exercise for the trained singer. It will be observed that, with two exceptions, the intervals used are the just semitone and simple quartertone.

The instrumental signs which go to the notes of the ditonal Hypolydian scale from eb to eb to which, as I have pointed out, the kithara must have been tuned, are all in their normal upright left to right position. They are Ν, ⊏ (digamma), < (an old Corinthian form of γ), ┐, κ, C, F, ٢. The last may be a mutilated form of Ω. Ν and ┐ are extraneous signs. Γ is known to be an old form of π, but π was never written ┐ in writing from left to right. I think it is a reasonable inference that Ν and ┐ were used to mark respectively the nete and mese. One may deduce the theoretical structure of the Hypolydian as two conjunct tetrachords with an additional tone below.

In the Journal of Hellenic Studies, xli. (1921), pp. 70–85, Mr. Webb has written a merry paper, dealing with a paper on Cleostratus which I contributed to the same Journal, xxxix. (1919), pp. 164–184. After reading Mr. Webb's paper, I saw at once that my theory as to the meaning of the word ‘prima’ in Pliny, Nat. Hist., ii. 8(6), 30, and the word πρῶτα in the phrase πρῶτα σημεῖα in Cleostratus was no longer tenable. But, while withdrawing my own views on the subject, I am unfortunately unable to adopt Mr. Webb's. On all other points of importance I adhere to the opinions expressed in my paper.

The question of widest interest on which we differ is that of the source from which Cleostratus derived the zodiacal signs and the octaeteris. In my opinion Babylon was the source in both cases. Mr. Webb differs from me on both points.

That our signs of the zodiac were in common use in Babylon long before the time of Cleostratus is beyond question. Dr. Langdon has drawn my attention to several Babylonian and Assyrian lists of these signs. Of these, the one that corresponds most closely with our list is certainly not later than the eighth century before Christ. It is found on an Ashur text, and, although the extant copy belongs to the Persian period, an imperfect duplicate which belonged to the library of Ashur-bani-pal proves its antiquity. The list runs as follows:—Bull of heaven, Twins, Crab, Lion, Ear of Corn, Scales, Scorpion, Archer, Goat-fish, Waterman, Canal, Hireling. Pisces, here represented as a Canal, is in many other texts the Fish constellation.

We may regard Imperial religion as having two main elements, the piety of public life or of the family on the one hand, the more intense piety of the small group or of the devout individual on the other. These two, though differing, are not to be regarded as opposites; they rest on the basis of common conceptual forms and of common beliefs, deepened and enlarged in the second case. In both we find μυστήρια, in both also the intimate association of the well-being of city or Empire with the ritual. Even in its individualism this religion is not consciously individualist; the possessor of religious experience may regard what has been manifested to him as a revelation of truth that all men share. Religion in either form is distinct from magic, if we mean by that term the individual's attempt to put supernatural forces in harness for his own ends. Such magic is different from religion and can be quite divorced therefrom. Nevertheless, such isolation is not characteristic of the Empire. The religious practised magic, and it could hardly be said that in their belief they were free from magical conceptions; the later Neoplatonists, in their attempt to spiritualise and revive paganism, took magic under their protection.

In the following Bibliography an attempt is made briefly to summarise the progress made during the years 1923 and 1924 in our knowledge of Greek inscriptions, alike by the addition of new epigraphical texts to those already known and by the more adequate restoration or interpretation of documents previously discovered. I follow once again the order adopted in my last Bibliography, namely, that of the Inscriptiones Graecae so far as Europe is concerned and, beyond its boundaries, that of the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.

I. General

The ever-increasing number of epigraphical books and articles calls for, and gives additional value to, the various bibliographies which aim at rendering them more generally useful to students. In addition to my own summary for 1921–1922 in this Journal and that which dealt separately for the same period with the Greek inscriptions found in Egypt, I may specially mention the ‘Bulletin Bibliographique’ of M. Lacroix for 1919–1922 and the very full and valuable survey by P. Roussel of the epigraphical contents of the periodicals bearing the date 1921. The pertinent sections of the ‘Revue des Revues’ appended to the Revue de Philologie should also be noted, as well as P. Kretschmer's ‘Literaturbericht’ for 1919 and 1920, which is restricted to questions of philological interest.

In the play of Aeschylus the problem before the first jury of the Areopagus was this. A man kills his mother at the order of a god, because she killed his father. Can he be held guilty for an act which racial custom demanded and a god sanctioned? And yet, shall matricide go unpunished, or can that man claim to escape from the Erinyes, whose right and duty to avenge a mother is no less certain than a son's right and duty to avenge his father? The jury could not make up their minds: their votes were equally divided. It is hardly easier for us to give a clear answer to the problem which puzzled those Athenians; and we have a further problem which they were spared—what did Aeschylus think? on what grounds did he acquit Orestes? what did he mean by his solution?

Editors and critics have answered these questions differently. Sidgwick holds that in the Eumenides ‘the stage is lifted from earth to heaven: it is the powers of light, Apollo and Athena, who are active to protect the morally innocent against the powers of darkness, the Erinyes and the shade of Clytaemnestra, who persecute the technically guilty. The lower view, that guilt lies in the deed, is embodied in the pursuing Furies, and here conflicts with the higher view that the innocent heart must be saved…. The gods of light fight with the gods of darkness, and overcome.’ Verrall's explanation is allied to this but more refined. He sees in the play the conflict of two Rights—of justice absolute and inexorable with the relative justice of a civic community—of the lex talionis with equity; and he sees in the reconcilement of the Eumenides a mysterious identification of Vengeance and Grace.

Mr. Norman Gardiner, in his Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals, pp. 369–370, comes to the following conclusions as to the method of deciding the pentathlon:—

1. From a passage in Xenophon, Hellenica, vii. 4. 29, he concludes that some sort of elimination took place and that only those were allowed to compete in wrestling who had qualified in the first four events. ‘As to the qualification, speculation is useless. We must be content to accept the words of Xenophon and hope that the discovery of some inscription or papyrus may enlighten us.’

2. From the account given by Philostratus of the mythical invention of the pentathlon by Jason, he concludes that victory in three events was sufficient but not necessary. Peleus, we are told, was victorious in wrestling and second in the four other events, and ‘ Jason wishing to please Peleus, combined the five events and thus secured to him the victory in the whole competition.’ ‘Only two explanations are possible. Either wrestling counted more than the other events, a quite unwarranted assumption, or, in case of a tie at least, account was taken of places, i.e. the result was determined by a system of marks.’ As to details, ‘ speculation is useless.’

Dr. Forrer's discovery of the Achaeans in the Hittite cuneiform tablets of Boghaz Keui is now well known to classical scholars. His identification of them with the Hittite Akhkhiyawas is beyond question, and I am inclined to think that Dr. Cowley has made a happy suggestion in further identifying them with the Hivites (Ha-Khiwwî) of the Old Testament. On the other hand, the identification of the Akhkhiyan chieftain Attarassiyas (also written Attarsiyas) with the Homeric Atreus is phonetically impossible; nor would the date of Attarsiyas agree with that usually assigned by tradition to Atreus.

About 1250 B.C. Attarsiyas the kuirwanas or κοίρανος of the Akhkhiyawa came from the western side of Asia Minor with a fleet of 100 ships to the Pamphylian coast (hardly the Karian, as Forrer proposes). He had previously driven a tributary of the Hittite king, by name Madduwattas, from his dominions in the south-western part of Asia Minor; Dudkhaliyas III, however, the Hittite monarch, had restored the latter, but on the death of Dudkhaliyas, and in the first year of the reign of his successor, Arnuwandas, Attarsiyas made another attack, this time by sea, and again compelled Madduwattas to solicit help from his suzerain.