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.

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.

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).

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.

This article re-examines a passage in the first book of Propertius which has generally been interpreted as establishing that the collection was published after Actium. In fact, these lines do not necessarily allude to Antony's defeat, but fit even better with the situation in the years leading up to the battle. Once that has been established, the balance of evidence supports a considerably earlier date for Propertius’ first book. This prompts a re-evaluation of the direction of influence between it and Virgil's Georgics. Contrary to traditional assumptions, Virgil can be seen to have reacted strongly to the elegist's brilliant debut.

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.

Aphrodisias in Caria had already yielded a number of fragments of the Latin text of Diocletian's Edict on Prices by the early years of this century, and others, some of them very important, came to light during the brief Italian investigations conducted by G. Jacopi in 1937. The excavations initiated in 1961 by New York University under the direction of K. T. Erim have yielded in the course of their annual campaigns a considerable number of new pieces. Although more fragments will undoubtedly come to light in future seasons as work proceeds, it seems appropriate that the group so far discovered should be published. All of these pieces have been made available to Professor S. Lauffer for use in his consolidated edition of the text of the Edict as known at present; nevertheless, we consider it our duty to publish the new material from Aphrodisias separately and in full; we do so here and offer such comments on it as we can.

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.

There has been a tendency among some modern scholars to regard the constitutional position of Augustus as of negligible importance. This is a natural reaction from the excessive legalism of Mommsen and his school, and has had valuable results in elucidating extra-constitutional elements in the position of the first Princeps, such as his outstanding auctoritas and his huge clientela. I do not think however that we can lightly brush aside the constitutional basis of his power. I do not wish to suggest that the restored Republic was intended to be genuine, or even that Augustus meant to share his power with the Senate and People: never for one moment did he part with his control over the great bulk of the legions. But I would suggest he would not have created the elaborate facade of Republican legitimacy, and moreover have subjected his original scheme to at least one radical revision, unless there had been some important element in the State to which the constitution mattered, and mattered so profoundly that its dissatisfaction would endanger the stability of the régime.

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.

Of several scenes of the Orpheus myth which had been depicted by earlier artists, only one found its way into the repertory of Roman mosaicists; Orpheus sitting in the wilderness, holding the wild animals spellbound to the music of his lyre. H. Stern has recently compiled a catalogue of forty-seven of these mosaics, and to this number must now be added at least eight more, namely at Edessa, Tarsus, Trento, Trier, Thysdrus, Lepcis Magna, Ptolemais (the subject of this paper), and Tobruk (see below, p. 17), making a grand total of fifty-five, of which forty-five are in the Western Provinces; Roman Britain alone accounts for nine.

This article examines Seneca's theory of monarchy in De clementia. It focuses in particular on Seneca's appropriation and redefinition of some key terms within Roman political thought in order to present his theory as an account of the restitution of liberty to the res publica under the government of the virtuous princeps. By relocating the Roman body politic to a Stoic moral universe, Seneca is able to draw upon parts of his philosophical inheritance in order to substantiate his claim in some depth.

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.

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.

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.

This article reconsiders the possible statuary of the Pantheon in Rome, both in its original Augustan form and in its later phases. It argues that the so-called ‘Algiers Relief’ has wrongly been connected with the Temple of Mars Ultor and is in fact evidence of the association of the Divus Julius with Mars and Venus in the Pantheon of Agrippa, a juxtaposition which reflects the direction of Augustan ideology in the 20s b.c. and the building's celestial purpose. This triple statue group became the focus of the later Pantheon, and its importance is highlighted by the hierarchized system of architectural ornament of the present building.