Work continues in Rome with the same energy as before, and a fresh impulse may be said to have been given to it by the publication of the new ‘Piano Regolatore’ for Rome, which is providing for the growth of the city to double its present size so that it will have a population of two millions. There is no doubt at all that numerous demolitions are necessary, if the scheme is really to be carried into effect.

That the necessity is regrettable, few will deny; but it cannot be too often repeated that the fundamental mistake was made long ago, when modern Rome was allowed to grow upon every side of the old city, instead of being put on the high ground to the east of it, as Quintino Sella and Haussmann had suggested. The old city must, therefore, inevitably be traversed by important arteries of traffic (pls. I, II); and we can only hope that as little as possible of beauty and interest will be removed, as we are assured will be the case. And critics of the scheme, whether benevolent or not, must do their best neither to minimise nor to exaggerate the importance of what must inevitably disappear.

A papyrus dated to the year 8 B.C. attests the existence of the legion XXII Deiotariana and, indirectly, that of the other legions as well in the series with numbers running from XIII to XXII. It is therefore no longer necessary to say anything about the theory of Mommsen, that eight of them were raised all at once at the time of the Pannonian Revolt, and the other two after the disaster of Varus, or about the milder form in which Hardy served it up. Nobody could now wish to depart very far from the estimate of Emil Ritterling, that Augustus began his Principate with twenty-six or twenty-seven legions, or from that of Mr. Parker, that in 15 B.C. he had twenty-eight. But a general acquiescence does not preclude debate about details which, if they appear small, are never to be despised when they cast light upon imperial principle, or at least practice, and add coherence to a narrative or harmony to a picture.

The bronze head of the Emperor Tiberius, here reproduced (pl. vl) from new photographs, was found in 1759 near Mahon, in the island of Minorca. The exact spot is not recorded; but as the Duc de Crillon damaged the megalithic buildings at Trapuco, two kilometers from Mahon, while erecting a defensive wall round his guns, that may have been the finding-place. The head was acquired by the Marquis de Lannion, the Governor of the island; after his death it was bought by the Comte de Caylus, who gave it to the French king. It is now in the Cabinet des Médailles of the Bibliothèque Nationale.

The bronze is covered with a black patina, and is well preserved. The eyes are made of sheet-silver. The head is life-size, 38 cms. high.

Some apology may seem to be required for re-opening a question that has already been discussed by so many first-rate scholars. If so, it must be found in the hope that an examination of the points I propose to raise may possibly throw fresh light on the problem as a whole, and so bring about a greater measure of agreement as to the true date of the so-called evacuation of Britain.

To begin with, I should like to make it clear that, in my opinion, there must have been in fact something like a ‘departure of the Romans.’ It is difficult to see what justification there is for Haverfield's view that this departure did not mean any great departure of persons, Roman or other, from the island. If that had been so, we should have to suppose that all the Romans who were left, whether private individuals or military and government officials, were absorbed into the new régime, out of which there gradually developed a state that became England. Everything, however, indicates that there was a distinct break between Britain as a Roman province and Britain as it was under its Saxon rulers. It is almost a contradictio in adiecto to say : ‘No one went. Some persons failed to come.’ Why did they fail to come ? Obviously because nothing remained for them to go to. Thus the only point to be determined is exactly when this severance of the far northern province from the official western government took place. Was it in 407 or 410, as has usually been supposed, or was it at some later time ?

Few mythological names are more familiar than that of Vulcan; and few cults present more puzzling difficulties than his. I propose to review the chief points connected with this god and one or two of the main theories concerning him, ending by putting forward the view which seems to me the most likely.

What may be called the orthodox theory concerning him is to be found in the works of the late Professor Wissowa, and is as follows. He was a genuinely Roman god, a deus indiges. His department was fire, considered, not as the flame of the hearth or of the smith's forge, but as the destroying element, pure and simple. Hence, he was regularly worshipped outside the city walls, or at all events outside the pomerium. For this reason the Volcanal at Rome was at one end of the Forum, outside the original Palatine settlement and the ‘Servian’ city ; the later temple of the god, of date about 540/214, was in the Circus Flaminius ; perhaps also at Perusia he was worshipped outside the walls ; at all events, the fire of 714/40, which destroyed all the rest of the city, spared his temple and, according to Cassius Dio, that of Juno likewise.