A generation ago (1922) in The Pattern of the ‘Iliad’, Dr. J. T. Sheppard proposed a fresh analysis of the contents of the poem, as a sequence of problems, rather moral than political, resulting from the Quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles, (1) from the seizure of Briseis to the failure of the Embassy; (2) from Achilles' consent to the intervention of Patroclus, leading to the death of Patroclus and the loss of the divine armour; (3) from the vengeance of Achilles, the death of Hector, and eventually the demand for the surrender of his body to Priam. These major problems are separated by loosely connected episodes, the killing of Dolon and Rhesus, and the making of new armour for Achilles. Within them the course of events is presented in a series of connected episodes, the more important of which are supplemented by the lesser incidents, preceding and following in order of narration, as the side panels of a triptych or side groups of a pediment supplement and enhance the centrepiece.

Following these clues, I attempted a further analysis of the Iliad (JHS LII, 265–96) and proposed some comparisons between its rhythms and those of Greek ‘geometrical’ art.

This feature of epic composition was appreciated in antiquity; Aristotle lays stress on it; the structure of Attic tragedies, and of great works of material art—the ‘Chest of Kypselos’ and the pediments of Aegina, Olympia, and the Parthenon, is founded on it; and it seems to be the clue to the originality and effectiveness of the prose composition of Herodotus.

The present bibliography, which relates to the years 1948 and 1949, follows the same general lines as its predecessors. Books and articles not accessible to me are marked by an asterisk. Once again I ask all scholars who have facilitated my task by sending me copies of their works to accept this expression of my heartfelt thanks.

Death has deprived Greek epigraphical studies in recent years of some of their outstanding exponents. Among these I name K. M. Apostolides, C. Blinkenberg, G. F. Hill, P. Jouguet, E. Kalinka, O. Kern, A. Körte, A. Rehm and J. Zingerle. G. Klaffenbach pays a warm tribute to the character and work of F. Hiller von Gaertringen, and H. Bengtson to that of E. Ziebarth.

What was the number of the ξυγγραφεῖς who were appointedat Athens in 411 B.C. to introduce modifications into the democratic constitution? Thucydides says ten, and Aristotle thirty (Thuc. VIII. 67. 1; Ἀθηνάιων πολιτεία 29 § 2). It is now generally assumed that the only way to resolve this discrepancy is to reject one of the two conflicting numbers as a mere mistake, and that the error is on the part of Thucydides.

Another solution has recently been put forward by Miss Mabel Lang, who concludes that Thucydides' ten ξυγγραφεῖς and Aristotle's thirty ξυγγραφεῖς were two distinct bodies, and that both authors after all were in the right. She points out that the Ten and the Thirty differed not only in their numbers, but in their attributes and achievements, and that they probably functioned on different occasions. Whereas the Ten were αὐτοκράτορες (i.e. had authority to by-pass the Council and present their report direct to the Popular Assembly), the Thirty lacked ‘autocratic’ power. Whereas the Thirty in due course submitted a scheme of reforms which was duly ratified by the Assembly (Ἀθ. Πολ. 29 § 5–30 § 1), the Ten never produced their programme (Thuc. VIII. 67. 2).

This paper is an amplification of that much quoted passage of Thucydides ἐπορεύθησαν δὲ πεƷῇ ἐς Ἀπολλωνίαν. Of this land route, which enabled the Corinthians to get troops up to Epidamnus in despite of Corcyra, we know something andcan guess more, and in view of the undoubted importance of this part of the Greek world to Corinth, it may be worth while to try to fit the isolated facts together and reconstruct a picture of a short phase of Epirote and Acarnanian history in the latter half of the fifth century. It is certain that the north-west ranked as one of Corinth's vital interests. There is no need to quote other evidence when there is the specific statement of the Corinthian ambassador before the Athenian demos that it was a necessity for Corinth to sail to Corcyra. It is beyond the scope of this paper to enquire why this was so; all that is here attempted is a correlation of the facts about the land route, how Corinth and Apollonia contrived to open it, how Corinth and Ambracia tried to keep it open, and how by the end of the Archidamian War Athens had succeeded in closing it. The evidence is not copious, but of good quality; Thucydides is contemporary, Pausanias quotes contemporary sources, and the mountains, rivers, and valleys of the north-west are silent witnesses.

The route falls naturally into three parts, the Acarnanian, the Epirote, and the Illyrian. It will be convenient to consider the Acarnanian section first, and the other two sections in the order mentioned.

The six bronzes which it is convenient to take as our starting point have already attracted a certain amount of attention, partly because of their enigmatic subject and partly because they provide a good illustration of an early type of plough. All six bronzes are substantially identical (Plate I). Each represents a naked ploughman standing with feet apart, his left hand on the plough handle, his right behind his back. All are bearded and give the appearance of being bald, though this may not be intended. The ploughs consist of stock, tail with handle, beam, pole, and double yoke. No joints are shown between stock, tail, and beam, which are perhaps all three to be thought of as formed from a single piece of wood. The joint between beam and pole is carefully indicated by a slanting incision or by making them overlap each other. On all but one plough the yoke joins the pole without any suggestion of how it would be attached in real life. On the exception (no. 2) it is fastened by a rivet which allows a small turning movement checked by a lug on the pole. Like the ploughmen the two oxen of each team are standing still. They are yoked by their horns, one (sometimes the right, sometimes the left) facing forwards, the other reversed to face the ploughman. No satisfactory explanation of the reversed ox has been suggested. As Drachmann points out, it can hardly represent the turning of the plough at the end of the furrow; this is usually done by lifting the plough up by the tail and carrying it round. Possibly the reversed ox symbolises in a more general way the boustrophedon process of ploughing. But ploughing is so often part of fertility cult that an explanation is perhaps more likely to be found in ritual or magic.

The following five notes deal with some neglected or controversial points concerning Alexander's operations in the two decisive years January, 332, to January, 330. Though independent of each other, they have a certain external unity, since all concern the crucial ‘third act’ of Alexander's career. Early in 332, the Persians, in spite of Issos, still hoped to recover Asia Minor, raise trouble in Greece, and transfer the seat of war back to the Aegean. Two years later, after Alexander's dash to Persepolis, Darius was no longer King of Persia; he was left indeed with virtually no forces except his Greek mercenaries and the troops of the Bactrian barons, who had ideas of their own.

I have found myself at certain points in disagreement with the views of Sir William Tarn. Tarn has indeed left little to be said about Alexander, except where one disagrees; and I would not wish to end this prefatory note without an expression of admiration for his great work.

This year, like the last, has been an exceptional one. The Archaeological Society and the Foreign Schools have been engaged in widespread excavation. Among the spectacular discoveries of the season are richly furnished Late Minoan tombs at and near. Knossos, and a new shaft grave—somewhat earlier than those inside the Lion Gate—alongside the Tomb of Clytaemnestra at Mycenae; attention will be focused on Pylos in the coming spring now that the arrangements for the resumption of work there are completed. The German Institute has been re-established with Dr. Kunze as its new director. The reconstitution of the museums is proceeding at a measured pace: but the most manifest achievement this year has been the restoration of monuments in the field, which has been carried out on an unprecedented scale under the direction of Prof. Orlandos with the help of an exceptionally large allocation—unfortunately not to be repeated—from Marshall Aid. The Tomb of Clytaemnestra has been restored, and great improvements have been made at the Temple of Aphaia in Aegina and among the houses of Delos. At Knossos and Phaistos, despite the delay in the transmission to Crete of the sums made available, Mr. de Jong and Dr. Levi, in conjunction with the Ephor, Dr. Platon, have made great progress with the conservation of the two great palaces.

At the Sotíra Neolithic settlement P. Dikaios, working for the Curium Expedition, has followed up his trial of 1947 with the clearance of the greater part of the hill-top. A tightly-packed group of house foundations of light construction was laid bare. In form they ranged from circular to rectangular with rounded angles (Fig. 1); the upper parts of the walls were evidently of mud brick and the roofs of the rectangular houses probably flat. The topmost floors overlay a demolition layer which sealed well-preserved hearths, post-holes, andother features. These lower floors yielded an unusually rich series of implements, of flint, stone and bone, as well as bowls and jugs of the combed ware characteristic of this site.

New Neolithic–Chalcolithic sites have been noted by G. Eliades in the neighbourhood of Paphos, notably a large one of the Erími culture at Kissónerga. A site of the Khirokítia stage has been located near the monastery of Apostolos Andreas, not far from the point of the Karpas peninsula; and one of the Sotira period at Kouphóvounos near Kandou by J. S. Last.

In Hellenica IX, 39–50, J. and L. Robert publish, with a full and admirable commentary, an interesting inscribed altar in the museum at Antalya. Their text and restoration of the main inscription is as follows.

Marmariani.—In JHS LXX, 18 I attempted to show that there were Late Geometric elements in some of the vases from the tholos tombs, and that therefore the spectacle brooches found with them need not necessarily belong to the Early Iron Age. Since then I have had a demonstration from Mr. Maryon of the use of steel and bronze tools (see AJA LIII, 116), and it is now clear to me that the ‘rocking’ pattern on the bracelets from Marmariani (BSA XXXI, 34, nos. 9 and 10) must have been made with a steel tool, and cannot date from the beginning of theIron Age, as Heurtley supposed. Since bronze is more difficult to work than gold, they are not likely to be earlier than the Elgin brooches, which themselves probably belong to the second half of the eighth century. Tomb 1 at Marmariani contains both a spectacle brooch and one of the bracelets.

The Accademia dei Lincei in Rome (Palazzo Corsini) is in possession of a considerable quantity of old china, bronzes, terracottas, and other works of art bequeathed to it by Teresa Celli, widow of Dutuit, in the year 1912. I was unable to establish, on the strength of the archives, the Christian name of the donor' husband, but I have ascertained from the Register Office of the city of Rome that his name was Augusto. He can, then, be none other than the owner of the Collection Dutuit, bequeathed by him to the city of Paris in 1902, and now preserved at the Petit Palais. Among the few ancient works of art there are also fourteen small Greek vases: Protocorinthian, Attic B.F. and R.F., South Italian and Gnathia ware. They do not present special interest except three small Attic R.F. vases which do not figure in Prof. Beazley's Attic Red-figured Vase Painters and which can be attributed to definite master.

In the last volume of this Journal (LXXI, 1951, 133–140) Professor D. L. Page disagreed on some points with an article of mine (CQ XXIX, 1935, 85–95) on the text and metre of Simonides fr. 13 Diehl (the ‘Danae’ fragment). For most of his disagreements he made out what I may be allowed to call a convincing case, but on some points his arguments fall short of conviction, and one of these seems to call for immediate comment.

In JHS 1949, 122, Sir John Beazley refers to the column-krater fragments found at Nona in Dalmatia, formerly in the University of Vienna (ARV, p. 392). These were seen and sketched in Split Museum by R. L. Beaumont in 1936, and are apparently referred to by him in JHS 1936, 194 and n. 248.

Our illustration (Fig. 1) shows two bronze rein or belt guides which belong to the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore. There can be no doubt, I believe, that the one at the left is the one published by Richard W. Barnettin JHS LXVIII (1948), 12 and n. 68, and pl. V, a. Mr. Barnett believed the piece to have been in the museum in Berlin, where, it seems, he purchased the photograph. However, that museum was well supplied with photographs of objects which had passed through the market only to end in other museums or in private collections.

In JHS LXIX, 18–24, Mrs. A. D. Ure discusses some interesting vases supposedly of Mykalessian make. I am quite incompetent to criticise her remarks concerning their provenance and date, and wish merely to point out that her interpretation of one of them as alluding to Boiotian ritual is highly doubtful.

The vase in question is described on pp. 19–20. It is a pyxis, decorated with a human or divine figure shown wearing what looks like a fawn-skin and holding in the right hand something which may well be a while in the left there is, according to Mrs. Ure, who of course has examined the object itself, a faint but discernible fork; I cannot find it on her reproduction. The figure sits on a small elevation which the artist has covered withround spots, quite possibly intending it for a heap of threshed corn. This is flanked, on the spectator's left, by a basket of fruit, on his right by a small pig. The figure's head is adorned with horns, apparently those of a goat and growing from, not merely attached to the crown.

Professor Rose is perfectly right in holding that there is no allusion to any Boeotian cult or ceremony in the pyxis figured on p. 21 of JHS LXIX. Vases of the fabric to which this pyxis belongs have for the last fifty years been regarded as Boeotian, and it seemed not unreasonable to search for the meaning of the representations on them in Boeotian life, and in particular in the customs and cults of the district inwhich three of them are reputed to have been found. However, shortly after Boeotian Haloa had been published, I saw in the museum at Corinth a number of sherds of this fabric which had been excavated in the Potters' Quarter there. They are to be published in a forthcoming volume of Corinth by Mrs. Stilwell, who tells me she is convinced that they are all Corinthian, and indeed the place of finding puts that beyond doubt. So all arguments based on the supposed Boeotian origin of the pyxis and its companion vases fall to the ground.