‘Some writers have recorded the measurements of the image (of Zeus at Olympia), and Callimachus has made them known in one of his iambi.’ The words of Strab were the only evidence for a Callimachean poem on this subject. There is also some possibility that Pausanias, in his hit at the men who described the measurements, alludes to the same poem. Recently, considerable fragments of this iambus have emerged, bit by bit, in the course of a few years. It became evident that we had always been so fortunate as to possess at least the beginning of the first line (quoted by the Scholia to Pindar), and it is a little depressing that nobody had been clever enough to combine the words Ἀλεῖος ὁ Ζεύς, expressly attributed to Callimachus, with the iambus on the Olympian Zeus mentioned by Strabo. The complete first line and a summary of the whole poem came to light in 1934 (Pap. Milan 18, col. VII, 25–29); then scanty scraps of the first twenty-one lines turned up in 1935 (P.S.I. 1216, col. II, 79–99); and, finally, better-preserved pieces of the main part, containing the measurements and a few words from the end of the poem were published last Christmas (P. Oxy., 2171, fr. 2–5). P.S.I. 1216, excavated in Oxyrhynchus by the Italians in 1933, now in Florence (if not returned to Egypt), and P. Oxy. 21·71, found long ago by Grenfell and Hunt in Oxyrhynchus, now in Oxford, are parts of the same papyrus, probably second century A.D. This is not the only example in Callimachus of scattered pieces being assembled and taking shape; but in this, as in other cases, they are still far from forming a continuous whole.

Some years ago at a London sale of antiquities I acquired three marbles described as ‘Graeco-Roman heads.’ Sale Catalogues are sometimes (not often) unduly modest. One of these heads is in fact an Aphrodite of the Petworth type in close-grained lychnítes, and might be assigned to the closing years of the fourth century, though I should prefer to call it shop-work of a somewhat later period. A second head is a fragment broken from a small portrait statue in crystalline island marble presumably from the quarries of Naxos: it once wore a metal diadem pegged into a single drill-hole on the nape of the neck and perhaps represented some Hellenistic prince. But the third head (Pl. I), which forms the main subject of this paper, is of greater moment, for it is—as all who have seen it agree—an Attic original of the mid fifth century, and as such merits the most careful and circumspect investigation.

Of its provenance and history little can be said. It came, like other items sold with it, from a collection formed about 1830 by the grandfather of its late owner. The collector was a wealthy man who had certainly visited Egypt and probably made purchases in Rome. In short, we have the usual story of a well-to-do traveller returning from the Grand Tour with a trunk or two full of Levantine spoils.

In letters written to me during February, March, and April, 1941, Prof. A. J. B. Wace has briefly described and illustrated with small photographs important fresh evidence for the reconstruction of the façade of the Treasury of Atreus, derived from fragments which came to light when the Mycenaean storeroom in the National Museum at Athens was recently cleared and rearranged. The examination and interpretation of these fragments were the joint work of Prof. Wace and the Director of the Museum, Dr. Sp. Marinatos, with whose permission the following account is published. It is closely based upon Prof. Wace's own words, but neither manuscript nor proofs could be submitted to either scholar, and I am responsible for any misunderstandings that it may contain. The phrase ‘B.M. Cat.’ means ‘Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum, Vol. i, Part i, Prehistoric and Early Greek, by F. N. Pryce, 1928.’

What follows is an attempt to interpret the Hesiodic Shield of Herakles by the same method as I have used elsewhere for the ‘Shield of Achilles.’ Long ago Brunn attributed obscurities to interpolation, mixed the zones, and allegorized; but nevertheless perceived that a real composition was in the poet's mind. Studniczka endeavoured to prove that the shield which Hesiod described was a real shield. But to support his theory he had to manipulate the text; his positive evidence was weak; it was, indeed, too soon for such an enterprise, and perhaps it is too soon still; and what was known then about archaic Greek art led in another direction. Recently, Mr. R. M. Cook has argued that while parts of the description of Herakles' shield were based, in subject and in phrasing, on the Homeric ‘Shield of Achilles,’ most of the other parts had parallels, sometimes very close, in archaic Greek art; and at a meeting of the Hellenic Society on 3rd May, 1938, he supplemented this argument with illustrations. Assuming, not unreasonably, that the vase-paintings are fairly representative, he showed that all the required models are to be found within the decade 580–570 B.C., and within the Attic and Corinthian schools. He found no evidence of the influence of Ionia, nor of Chalcis. He noted that these results agree with the view, based on historical and literary arguments ‘perhaps inadequate’ (I follow the summary circulated at the meeting of 3rd May, 1938) that the poem was written about 575 B.C. by a Boeotian or a Thessalian.

Among the papers of the late Sir Arthur Evans was found a note-book, measuring 5¾ X 3⅝ X ⅝ in., bound in red leather and with a metal clasp, comprising 122 pages, inclusive of the inner sides of the cover. Sixteen of these are blank, eight contain notes on Greek coinage and numerals, a list of the Attic tribes, bibliographical references and some mathematical problems, and the remainder bear copies, in Evans' characteristically microscopic handwriting, of a large number of Greek inscriptions, with brief notes added in many cases. All are written in pencil save the mathematical section, which is in ink and appears to be in a different hand. At the request of Mr. E. Thurlow Leeds, Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, I have examined the copies of inscriptions and find that, with very few exceptions, the originals are in the British Museum. These exceptions are IG i2. 929, 11. 1-5 (in Paris), IG iii. 1418, IG ii.2 3765 and CIG 3333 (all three in the Ashmolean Museum). Of the rest 105 appear in the Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum; 91 of them are Attic, three (Nos. 159, 160, 162) Boeotian, three (Nos. 373, 375, 376) Tenian, five (Nos. 1003, 1012, 1022-4) Anatolian, one (No. 1398) Italian, and two (Nos. 1107,1123 a) of uncertain provenance.

Oresteia.—In Mr. Kitto's considerate notice of my Oresteia (JHS. LX. 110) there are a few points at which Headlam's views are, I think, not quite fairly presented.

A marble relief from Adrianople, measuring 9½˝ X 7˝. A man reclines on a couch, and a suit of armour is suspended on the wall above him. Opposite him sits a woman performing rites in honour of the dead, and a diminutive boy, probably the child of the deceased, stands at the extreme right. Two attendants look on from the left.