Early imperial arrangements must have been to some extent based on late Republican practice. I will therefore first set out the financial machinery of the last half-century of the Republic, as revealed in Cicero's speeches and correspondence, supplemented by secondary sources. The Aerarium at Rome was the central repository of the moneys of the Roman People. It was managed by the two urban quaestors, or rather by a body of scribae quaestorii under their nominal direction. Normally the Polybian rule that no payment might be made save under the authority of a senatusconsultum seems to have held: it does not appear that the old right of a consul to draw of his own initiative still survived. Magistrates proceeding to a province were voted a block grant to cover their estimated expenses: ornare provinciam is the technical term. On leaving his province a magistrate was obliged to account to the Aerarium for this sum. These accounts seem to have been somewhat summary. Those which Verres sent in on laying down his quaestorship were no doubt unusually brief, but if it was possible for a proconsul to distribute the unexpended balance of his grant among his staff—and Cicero's refusal to follow this practice was resented by his subordinates —auditing cannot have been very exact.

The author of the Vita Constantini (traditionally and persistently identified with Eusebius, despite the silence of St. Jerome), tells us that Constantine ‘at a banquet he was giving to the bishops declared that he too was a bishop. He added these words which I heard with my own ears: ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖϛ μὲν τῶν εἴσω τῆϛ ἐκτὸϛ ὑπὸ θεοῦ καθεσταμένοϛ ἐπίσκοπϛ ἂν εἴην ’.

In attempts to define the relations between the first Christian emperor and the Church, no phrase is more frequently quoted than this obiter dictum. In the sixteenth century the French scholar Henri de Valois rendered τῶν ἐκτόϛ as if it were the genitive of τὰ ἐκτόϛ, and since then it has been the practice to regard Constantine as an ‘évèque du dehors’: the Emperor either exercised episcopal functions though not consecrated, or supervised mundane affairs (that is, the State), after the fashion of a bishop, or else held from God a temporal commission for ecclesiastical government, the bishops retaining control of dogma, ethics and discipline. Each of these three distinct interpretations is equally admissible.

In a justly famous paper published in 1961, Peter Brown set out a model for understanding the historical process whereby the formerly pagan aristocracy of imperial Rome became overwhelmingly Christian during the course of the fourth and fifth centuries. Brown's paper has deeply influenced all who have subsequently studied this historical phenomenon, at least in the English-speaking world. Since this article argues that the Roman aristocracy became Christian significantly earlier than Brown and most recent writers have assumed, it must begin by drawing an important distinction. Brown's paper marked a major advance in modern understanding because it redirected the focus of scholarly research away from conflict and confrontation, away from the political manifestations of paganism culminating in the ‘last great pagan revival in the West’ between 392 and 394, away from episodes which pitted pagan aristocrats of Rome against Christian emperors, away from ‘the public crises in relations between Roman paganism and a Christian court’, towards the less sensational but more fundamental processes of cultural and religious change which gradually transformed the landowning aristocracy of Italy after the conversion of Constantine. This change of emphasis was extremely salutary in 1961, it has permanently changed our perception of the period, and it entails a method of approaching the subject which remains completely valid. Unfortunately, however, Brown also adopted prevailing assumptions about the chronology of these changes which are mistaken, on the basis of which he asserted that the ‘drift into a respectable Christianity’ began no earlier than the reign of Constantius. The evidence and arguments set out here indicate that the process began much earlier and proceeded more rapidly than Brown assumed, but they in no way challenge the validity of his approach to understanding the nature of the process.

In JRS xiii, 1923 (pp. 1–55), Dr. E. Nischer published a paper on ‘The Army Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine,’ in which, in opposition to the opinions of other scholars, including Mommsen, Seeck and Grosse, he attempted to prove that a proper appreciation of the reforms of the two Emperors could only be attained if a sharp distinction were drawn between their respective policies. According to this theory, Diocletian is the augmenter, Constantine the reformer, of the Roman military system, in the sense that the former doubled the number of existing legions, while the latter created the field-army of palatini and comitatenses by disbanding some of the frontier-legions and withdrawing detachments from others to form independent units in his new mobile army. In a note in JRS xv, 1925, Professor Norman Baynes suggested some general grounds for caution in the acceptance of Nischer's opinions, and it is the purpose of this paper to examine more closely the latter's arguments and, while rejecting part of his conclusions, to consider what inferences may safely be drawn from the evidence which we possess for the work of Diocletian and Constantine.

Lists of provinces and cities of the Roman Empire were compiled and used for administrative or juridical purposes from as early as the time of Augustus, whose survey of Italy and the provinces formed the basis of the Elder Pliny's description of the Empire. The late Roman period is especially rich in such survivals, the proliferation of which can be ascribed to two tendencies prevalent in the fourth century. The first was the increasing bureaucratization of the Empire, reflected in the most famous and comprehensive of all official lists, the Notitia Dignitatum. The second was the urge to store information on a wide variety of topics in an economical and accessible form. Many lists, which may originally have had an official purpose, survive in literary forms alien to their inception, and which are the work of private individuals.

Among the individual objects of antiquity that have been seen and copied by the artists of later generations, few have had a stranger history than the columns that once formed a screen in old St. Peter's, around the site of the tomb of the apostle. Their singular and distinctive form was in itself enough to attract attention; and the fact that, since the later Middle Ages, they were universally believed to have come from the Temple of Solomon, secured them an important place in the art and iconography of the Renaissance. Their character and early history, however, have never been adequately discussed; and now that the publication of a part of the results of the excavations undertaken since 1940 underneath St. Peter's has cleared up several important points that were previously obscure, the time seems to be ripe for such a discussion. It is the purpose of this article to try to determine their place in the history of classical art, and to say something of their significance in the history of the art of later times.

The early Principate tends to be interpreted in terms of the constitutional forms in which it was clothed and the administrative innovations which it brought, to the neglect of those, largely unchanged, social and economic factors which shaped the actual working of Roman politics. In no area has this tendency been more obvious than in works dealing with the Fiscus, which has thus been seen as an alternative ‘state treasury’ created at a given moment, by Augustus, perhaps in 21 or 20 B.C., by Tiberius, or by Claudius, which absorbed the revenues of the imperial provinces, and some indirect taxes. It is also seen as an administrative unit (like a Treasury, or a University Chest) concerned with the handling of an area of public finance.

The first commercial contact of the Greeks with Etruria is certainly earlier than the foundation of the Greek colony at Cumae. Vulci, Chiusi, Terni, Bisenzio, Vetralla, Capodimonte, Leprignano, Veii, Falerii, Tarquinia, Cerveteri, have produced evidence of the importation of Greek pottery of a style considerably earlier than that of the contents of the earliest Greek graves of that colony.

The general conclusions which can be derived from this evidence for the history of Greek commerce with the Western Mediterranean have been discussed elsewhere; it is the particular significance of it as evidence for the earliest Hellenization of Italy that I wish to consider here.

What the Roman tradition, literary and artistic, has to tell us of the heavenly spheres is of Greek and Oriental origin, and it would be futile to go behind hellenized Rome: early Roman religion, though it had an extensive worship of heavenly gods, ignored the universe entirely. An examination of the Etruscan tradition leads to different conclusions. It offers, roughly speaking, three larger complexes to such an examination. One is the bronze model of a liver from Piacenza, used for extispicy and divided into many sections. The second is the doctrine about lightning, mainly to be found in Pliny and Seneca. The third is a list of gods, distributed among the sixteen regions of the heavens, in Martianus Capella (fourth-fifth century A.D.). The aim of this paper in its first part is to analyse this third complex (with occasional reference to the other two).

According to tradition Rome was founded by Romulus in 753 B.C. and was ruled by seven kings until the expulsion of Tarquin the Proud in 509. Later writers, particularly Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch, attribute a considerable volume of legislation to these kings, especially to Romulus, Numa Pompilius and Servius Tullius.

The story of this legislation is doubted by modern scholars in two ways. First it is maintained that at such an early time law would not be created by legislation. Secondly it is claimed that law such as is described for the period could not then have existed, but is either an invention of the history writers or is the law of a later period which has been pushed back in time. The doubts are so profound that it has been said we know as good as nothing about law before the decemviri.

La plupart des historiens modernes considèrent qu'il n'existait pas à Rome, sous la République, de qualification censitaire légalement obligatoire pour l'accès aux magistratures, et, par conséquent, pour l'entrée dans le Sénat. La grande lutte de la plèbe pour l'obtention de ce qu'on pourrait appeler le ius honorum, dont la tradition retrace les étapes (avec une chronologie sans doute exacte), ne porte pas en effet sur des questions censitaires, mais se situe, ce qui est tout différent, au niveau de l'appartenance au patriciat. Une fois les plebéiens légalement qualifiés pour l'accès aux magistratures ‘patriciennes’, plus rien ne serait venu limiter (sauf les difficultés pratiques bien entendu) le droit de tout citoyen, même le plus humble, à être candidat aux plus hautes charges.

A wide variety of objects may function as money in the different uses which this possesses—for payment, for storing wealth, for measuring value and as a means of exchange. In the Roman world coined money was clearly dominant over other forms of money in the first three uses, and I want here to explore the extent to which it served as a means of exchange, partly because this is the most distinctive function of money and one for which coined money or a token substitute is essential to achieve any great versatility, partly because the problems involved seem particularly complex. It is not sufficient simply to discuss how coined money was used as a means of exchange. Attitudes to the process are equally relevant. Nor should the absence of ancient discussions of monetary theory mislead us into minimizing the practical importance of coined money in the ancient world.

The four inscriptions from Roman Cyrene published below, illustrate aspects of the city's life in the first, the later second and the early fifth centuries A.D. Taken together they suggest that there may be a case for modification of theories that Cyrene was declining throughout the Roman period, whether gently from the Augustan period or sharply after the Jewish Revolt of 115, to be moribund by the end of the fourth century.

The Augustan conquest of the Asturias was resisted with all the tenacity native to that region, but under the combined pressure of no less than three legions, this wild and mountainous area of North-Western Spain finally capitulated in c. 25 B.C. On the Roman side the prospect of mineral exploitation was a major motive that demanded at times the presence of both Augustus and Agrippa. The literary references to the Spanish mining-projects that followed the conquest do not specify particular sites, but indicate instead general areas where mining was initiated. Fortunately, however, the gold-rushes of the last century in California and elsewhere reawakened interest in other areas of the world, and particularly this region of Spain, partly as a result of the legendary stories of Roman successes. The prospectors found many traces of those efforts, although in the main unsuccessful themselves. Part at least of what they saw was recorded in the current mining papers and journals of that period, and we are indebted to the work of O. Davies for abstracting and summarizing much of this information, which would otherwise be difficult to assimilate, the sources now being unobtainable or very inaccessible. We may be sure that the twenty or so mines that he noted are an underestimate, and that many more await discovery. Although Davies' list was made over thirty years ago, none of the sites have since been surveyed in any detail and no photographic record exists.

The purpose of this paper is to review discoveries made by air reconnaissance during the five summers 1945-9 in the Roman military districts of Northern Britain. Most of the sites described were revealed by differences in the colour or growth of vegetation above them, and during this period the exceptional drought of 1949 gave unusually clear definition, covering much of the material now under review. The cereal crops in particular responded so sensitively to buried features as to reveal not merely the outline of buildings, but finer details such as buttresses to a wall, or floors in stone or concrete. Even in pasture, the Military Way behind Hadrian's Wall could be seen for miles together as a ribbon of parched grass (pl. v); and, most remarkable of all, the foundation-trenches of timber buildings in the legionary fortress at Inchtuthill appeared as thin green lines in the parched surface (pl. viii, 2). Such conditions occur rarely; but even in a wet summer carefully planned air reconnaissance will afford plenty of information.

In the accounts of contemporaries imperial Rome looms as the largest and most magnificent capital of its age, and it is only natural, therefore, that modern scholars have attempted to determine with some precision both the size of the city's population and the way in which that population was housed. The evidence relating to the two closely connected problems is both archaeological and written : the ruins of ancient houses which still exist in Rome and the literary works which deal in part with the number of inhabitants or the buildings in the capital.

The remains of several relatively well-preserved antique structures in Rome lend substance to Guido Calza's assertion that the apartment-house was the most common form of domestic architecture in the imperial capital. The ruins of one such dwelling (Plate VI, 1) are embedded in the city walls built by the Emperor Aurelian in the third century A.D. Located just south of the Porta Tiburtina, the remains comprise the garden facade of a four-storey brick building which originally contained apartments whose plans varied from floor to floor. This variation in the layout of flats within the building may be traced today in the placement of windows on each level.

The composition of the Roman Senate from the death of Nero in A.D. 68 to that of Alexander Severus in A.D. 235 changed in respect to both the social classes and the geographical areas from which new members were drawn. Detailed studies have been, and continue to be, made of the membership of the Senate during different reigns within these limits and it is the purpose of this paper to draw together into a general picture the results of the following such studies: —

At the age of sixty the emperor Hadrian cast about for a successor. His first choice was L. Ceionius Commodus, his second T. Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus. Both being adopted in turn by the ailing emperor, the former died before Hadrian while the latter survived to succeed him. Modern scholarship has indulged in long speculations about the motives of Hadrian and the political intrigues of his final years. This paper will not attempt to add to such speculations but will examine the precise details of the dynastic settlements of 136 and 138 upon which they are based. For due weight has not been given to certain relevant and important statements in the Historia Augusta, and as a result the facts have been misrepresented. Moreover, since some of these statements occur in the Vita Veri, the excellent worth of which has too often been denigrated, an analysis of that will be necessary. The partial interdependence of the historical and the literary problems dictates the separate yet combined treatment adopted here. The first part of this paper will discuss the biography of Lucius Verus in the Historia Augusta, the second the dynastic plans of Hadrian. The evidence and arguments employed in each part will, it is hoped, both confirm and be confirmed by the thesis advanced in the other.

Inscriptions found at Pisidian Antioch disclose the careers of several senators. They afford various instruction, the prime specimen being ‘] P.f. Stel. Sospes’. The stone was discovered by Hamilton, and it will be a suitable tribute to epigraphists if one reproduces the copy made by the careful and exemplary Sterrett.

P·F·STEL·SOS

TI·FETIALI·LEG·AVG

PRO·PR·PROVINC·GAL

PISID·PHRYG·LVC·ISAVR·

PAPHLAG·PONTI·GALA

PONTI·POLEMONIANI

ARM·LEG·LEG·XIII·GEM

DONAT·DON·MILITARIB

EXPEDIT·SVEBIC·ET·SARM

COR·MVR·COR·VALL·COR

AVR·HAST·PVR·TRIB·VE

XILL·TRIB·CVRAT·COLO

NIOR·ET·MVNICIPIOR·PRAE

FRVM·DAND·EX·S·C·PRAETOR

AED·CVRVL·Q·CRET·ET·C

TRIB·LEG·XXIII·PRIMIGEN

IIIVIR·A·A·A·FF·

THIASVS·LIB

The document touches large fields of imperial history, not mere dates and detail in the record of a single senator. Hence abundant debate, and it goes on. Economy and clarity counsel a direct approach to the text. The last two posts held by Sospes offer some prospect of precision.

In dealing with so wide-ranging a subject, a remark of an American scholar, Mr. Hoey, on the intimate connection between the titles pius, felix, and invictus provides a convenient starting-point.

The first observation I would make is to call your attention to the consecutive (and almost causal) connection of these adjectives : because the Emperor is pius the gods will render him felix (for felicitas is their gift to their favourites) and his felicitas is best demonstrated in his being invictus. Nearly every nation of antiquity believed and hoped that its gods would bring it success : the Roman People, with seven centuries of expansion and increasing power to look back on, were convinced that their scrupulous attention to the due performance of the proper rites had won them this success, that their pietas had secured to them victoria; if the Emperor could be termed pius felix invictus, it was because he summed up and incarnated there the Roman People.