Two of the Herculaneum Tablets, though fragmentary and obscure, furnish evidence that justifies a re-examination of the role played in Roman law and society by the institution which is the subject of this paper:

Tab. Herc. LXXXIII:

L. V[e]nidius En[ny]chus testand[i ca]usa dixs[i]t

[L.] An[n]io Rufo se honoris ius emerere [ut]

si vellet ex numero decurionum aut au[gus]-

talium nominatis a se decem de petition[ibus]

nostris discep[t]atorem dicas ra[t]ione posc[

[…]e H[S] M[‐]me sibi debere s[t]i[puletur] …

LXXXIV:

…] quem et superius nom[i]-

n[a]s[ti…] Fes[ti]nium Proculum

disc[e]ptatorem paratus sum ire,

si minus necessario c[oa]ctus a te spo(n)-

sionem tecum faciam. VAC.

One of the most remarkable buildings to have been discovered in the area of the Tetrarchic palace at Thessaloniki is the Octagon. Although known since 1950, it has not really been granted the attention that it warrants. The following pages are an attempt to remedy this situation.

I. A Description of the Remains

First, a brief description of the surviving remains which were found on the site of the Akçe Mecidiye mosque about 50 m west of the Hippodrome. The mosque was demolished many years ago, but even when it was standing, part of the Octagon was visible: O. Tafrali's plan of 1913 mentions ‘mines byzantines’ on the site. The following account is based on the reports of Ch. Makaronas, first excavator of the building, and of those who subsequently cleared the site, as well as on personal observation.

More than thirty years — a generation of man — have passed since the chance discovery in 1968 of what has been referred to since as the collegium of the Augustales at Misenum. In addition to statuary and architectural elements of exceptional interest, the excavations, which presented formidable technical problems, have yielded a rich epigraphical dossier pertaining to the local Augustales, and to political, social, economic, religious, and administrative aspects of their organization from the Julio-Claudian and late Flavian periods to the end of the Antonine age. One of these inscriptions has at last received appropriate scholarly attention; it both whets the appetite for more and reveals the inadequacies of the cursory accounts of the dossier published previously. Now that all the material recovered from the site has been transported to the Castello Aragonese di Baia, and is attractively displayed in the new Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei, one dares to hope that the entire complex and its contents will soon receive the comprehensive archaeological and historical treatment that they so richly deserve.

Certificates of sacrifice (libelli) were produced during the so-called persecution of Decius (a.d. 250), which is documented through the testimony of Christian authors and through original certificates preserved on papyrus. The aim of this article is to offer a more detailed perspective on some specific points in the procedure as regards the production of the papyri. Although Decius’ edict did not produce an instant and decisive change in the religious balance of the Empire, the procedure that was put in place nonetheless testifies to the effectiveness of the existing structure, and also to the capacity of the officials to adapt this structure so as to obtain maximum compliance from the population.

On 15 February, two days after the Ides, there took place at Rome the mysterious ritual called Lupercalia, which began when the Luperci sacrificed a goat at the Lupercal. There was evidently a close conceptual and etymological connection between the name of the festival, the title of the celebrants, and the name of the sacred place: as our best-informed literary source on Roman religion, M. Terentius Varro, succinctly put it, ‘the Luperci [are so called] because at the Lupercalia they sacrifice at the Lupercal … the Lupercalia are so called because [that is when] the Luperci sacrifice at the Lupercal’.

What is missing in that elegantly circular definition is the name of the divinity to whom the sacrifice was made. Even the sex of the goat is unclear — Ovid and Plutarch refer to a she-goat, other sources make it male — which might perhaps imply a similar ambiguity in the gender of the recipient. Varro does indeed refer to a goddess Luperca, whom he identifies with the she-wolf of the foundation legend; he explains the name as lupa pepercit, ‘the she-wolf spared them’ (referring to the infant twins), so I think we can take this as an elaboration on the myth, and not much help for the ritual.

There has been much argument and little agreement about the date of the foundation of Florentia, about the purpose of its foundation with regard to Faesulae, and about the relation of the city's site and orientation to the Consular road which joined Arretium and Luca, the Via Cassia, and to the crossing of the River Arnus by the Roman equivalent of Ponte Vecchio. Although the Via Cassia is agreed to belong to the second century B.C., its precise date is uncertain, and for the stretch from Arretium to Faesulae and Florentia two different routes are recorded, one on the north bank (after the first few miles out of Arretium) and the other on the south as far as Ponte Vecchio. It is agreed that the southern route is later, but not whether it and the crossing of the Arno is a cause or a consequence of the foundation of Florentia.

The use of the suffect consulship began to change with Caesar in 45 b.c., after a number of decades in which no suffect consul had been elected. The office altered dramatically during the triumviral period. The triumvirs openly made use of the suffect consulship as a means of rewarding loyalty. Many of the suffect consuls, who were no longer elected by the people, but designated in advance by the triumvirs, were homines novi who belonged to previously unknown and insignificant Roman or Italian families. Increasing the number of consuls each year eliminated de facto the traditional annuality of the office and reduced its authority. The implicit consequence of these actions was a gradual devaluation of the consulship. The suffect consulship was therefore a powerful tool in the hands of the triumvirs for strengthening their political position, weakening the old aristocracy and giving birth to a new elite based more firmly on personal loyalties.

For many years now scholars have considered the date of dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum of Augustus as a matter beyond dispute. This date, 1 August 2 B.C., is based principally on the evidence supplied by Augustus, Velleius Paterculus and Dio, and has been accepted as an established historical fact at least from the time of Th.Mommsen's discussion in 1893. Nevertheless, certain problems arise from an acceptance of this date; problems, that is, which have a direct bearing on the use of the Res Gestae of Augustus and the Fasti of Ovid as valid historical sources.

The year in which the temple was dedicated in the Forum of Augustus has been established beyond all doubt. Velleius Paterculus (11, 100, 2) states that the temple was dedicated during the consulship of Augustus and L. Caninius Gallus, who, as we know from other sources, was suffect consul in 2 B.C. Also Augustus assigns to this year—his thirteenth consulship—the first celebration of Ludi Martiales at Rome. Furthermore, it may be accepted that Ludi Martiales were produced in subsequent years on the anniversary of the dedication of this temple.

In the Pro Archia Cicero writes that Alexander, looking upon the tomb of Achilles, cried out, ‘O happy youth, who found a Homer to sing your praises!’; words truly spoken, adds Cicero, since without Homer Achilles' tomb would have buried the great man's fame along with his body. And in the Tusculan Disputations he writes that the Athenian Themistocles, when asked why he spent his nights wandering about the city, replied that the trophies of Miltiades kept him awake. Juxtaposing one great man and the reminder of another, both anecdotes present vivid and memorable images of rivalry between the ambitious among the living and the high-achievers among the dead. A competition of this kind can be direct, between the man commemorated by a monument and the man viewing it, as are the rivalries of Alexander and Achilles, Themistocles and Miltiades, or it can be indirect, as in the Pro Archia, where with a sleight of hand Cicero replaces the rivalry between Achilles and Alexander with the competition between the Iliad and Achilles' physical monument. A great mound bears witness to Achilles' death at Troy, but the outburst of the competitive Alexander testifies that a poem is a better memorial than a tomb.

For offering Dr. Last observations on a topic which over thirty years ago he reasonably described as ‘trite’ I have little excuse save that our own generation has given the Four Emperors less attention than did the two generations which preceded it. Perhaps the most valuable contribution has come from the numismatists, who have left the believers in provincial ‘nationalism’ with the need for a radical restatement of their case. Epigraphical studies, moreover, have told us more, but not nearly enough, about the origins of the chief actors in the drama, the soldiers and their commanders. Above all, the flood of writing on the thought of Tacitus has continued unchecked. A bibliography here would be tedious but one example will illustrate the theme of this paper. In 1939 Paola Zancan, later reviewed by Dr. Last in this Journal, sought to analyse each of the ancient literary versions of the year 69, and to show how each author's interpretation sprang from his personality, from his position in society, or from the time at which he wrote.

The Latin text of the final sentence of chapter 34 of the Res Gestae is now beyond any serious doubt. It runs ‘Post idtempus auctoritate omnibus praestiti potestatis autem nihiloamplius habui quam ceteri qui mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae fuerunt’.(The Greek version, as preserved in the Monumentum Ancyranum is quoted later.) The purpose of this note is to determine as precisely as possible what these Latin words mean and to discuss their significance.

This year the Italians celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of Rome as capital of United Italy. Apt as usual to seize the appropriate idea, they decided to mark the occasion in Rome herself by an exhibition that should not merely display the growth of present Italian art and industries, or afford hospitality to the art of other nations, but should set forth besides in visible monuments the former glory of Rome, the wide range of empire uled by the Eternal City, which, again a capital, is again the centre of a strong national life. Thus arose that unique feature of Rome's 1911 Exhibition, the Mostra Archeologica in the baths of Diocletian. The scheme of this section, as originally unfolded by Professor Lanciani at a meeting of the British School of Rome in the spring of this year, was limited to the life of the Roman provinces, whose chief monuments, whether in situ or in museums, were to be represented by casts and models, drawings and photographs. This programme has been adhered to in the main, in spite of certain later additions and accretions.

Two years ago when McDonald (JRS LVII (1967), 1–8) discussed the strategic aspects of the treaty of Apamea in its ‘territorial clause’ (Polyb. XXI, 43, 5–6; Livy XXXVIII, 38, 4–5) he was concerned to define the ‘Taurus line’, in its general significance with relation to Antiochus' position in Cilicia. This involved the text of the clause as well as topographical study of central and southern Asia Minor. He did not go on to treat how Antiochus might use naval transport and ‘combined operations’ at coastal landing points to turn the ‘Taurus line’ against Rhodes and Pergamum, and return to the Aegean.

The ‘naval clauses’ of the treaty represent Rome's decision to block any such move, however unlikely, by reducing Antiochus' strength at sea and imposing geographical limits on where the craft permitted to him might sail (Polyb. XXI, 43, 13–14 ; Livy XXXVIII, 38, 8–9).

Since Mommsen's magisterial publication, no one has seriously attempted to rearrange those fragments of a Roman bronze tablet that were once in the collection of Cardinal Bembo. There can be no doubt but that Mommsen placed most of the fragments correctly, both in relation to each other and to the preserved top and left side of the tablet. Only three variables remain: the extent of the gaps between the A and B fragments, the width of the tablet and its original height. Mommsen's arrangement leaves awkward discrepancies between lacuna lengths in lines 12–15 and 16–18 of the extortion law, where whole clauses are repeated virtually verbatim. Tibiletti boldly proposed to remedy this by shifting the B fragments some 14 letter-spaces towards A, whilst making no change in Mommsen's estimate of the tablet's width. This is, at first sight, a very attractive solution. But Tibiletti did not probe its consequences for the agrarian law on the reverse—and Badian has rightly insisted that this simply must be done. Rigorous study of both laws will, indeed, show that Tibiletti was not radical enough. Yet he must be honoured as a pioneer, and I am glad to acknowledge that my present paper owes much to his example.

Rome's decisive defeat of Carthage in the Hannibalic War led inevitably to an immense expansion of the area of Roman activity, both diplomatic and military. The numbers of men under arms for the period down to 167 B.C. obtained from Livy's history show hardly any decline, and this alone is a clear reflection of the new role that Rome had assumed as the major military power of the Mediterranean region. One immediate result of her changed situation was a commensurate expansion in the opportunities of Roman magistrates for military commands, and a more widespread expectation of that reward for military success which the republic valued above all others, the triumph.

There are two formidable arguments against the authenticity of the Commentariolum Petitionis. In the first place its purpose is not clear. It is too rhetorical to be a private letter (and the last sentence actually invites suggestions for improvements); but equally it is too cynical to have been published during an election campaign (cf. especially §§ 5, 19, 35, 42, 45–7, 52). Secondly, in several passages the commentariolum bears a close resemblance to the in toga Candida, which on the face of it was written later; and there are conspicuous objections to the view that M. Cicero borrowed from his younger brother. Other suspicious circumstances can also be mentioned, notably the silence of Asconius and the transmission side by side with the undoubtedly spurious epistula ad Octavianum.

In writing a book on Epirus which is in the press I omitted a full description of the battle of the Aoi Stena and of the campaigns in which it is set partly because it involves areas outside Epirus and partly because I had not space for such a description. My travels in Albania included the traversing of the higher ground just east of the Myzeqija plain (see Map II) and the crossing by ferry of the three great rivers, the Genusus (Shkumbi), the Apsus (Semeni) and the Aous (Vijosë), in late March and early April 1931. At that time these rivers were in spate, and the upper parts of the plain were full of sheep, enjoying the spring pastures before moving up to the summer pastures of the mountains. I went from Durazzo (Dyrrachium) up the Shkumbi valley to Elbasan, inspected some sites on the south side of the valley, walked through the low sink which separates the Shkumbi from the Devoli SSW. of Elbasan, and then visited Berat (Antipatrea). On other occasions I walked through the hill country southwards of Berat to Byllis and to Han Qesarat (Map I) in the middle Vijosë valley. In other years I explored the lower Vijosë valley as far as Apollonia, walked through the Aoi Stena and traversed the Vijosë valley from Kelcyrë to Konitsa and the whole length of the Drin valley. The course of these and other travels I have made is shown on Map I. Acquaintance with this terrain has enabled me, I think, to present a new interpretation of parts of Philip's campaigns and of the battle of the Aoi Stena; new in the sense that it is different from those of Kromayer and De Sanctis, who did not visit this area. The paper falls into the following parts: A, a geographical description; B, the campaigns of 200 and 199 B.C. in as far as they concern this area; C, the campaign of 198 B.C. An appendix, dealing with some topographical points, is added.

The a.d. 362/3 crisis in Antioch is usually interpreted as an economic or ideological crisis, and Julian's Misopogon as a ‘festive satire’ or ‘edict of chastisement’. This article situates the root of the problem in a crisis of communication: Julian's failure to communicate publicly as expected in a situation that was tense because of the food shortage led to a short-circuit between emperor and subjects. Whilst the Misopogon is Julian's extraordinary post-factum attempt to explain away this failure of ritualized communication on his part, Libanius’ speeches on the topic seek to give a positive twist to the extraordinary nature of Julian's reply, which posed serious problems for emperor, city, and sophist alike.