In the collection of ancient sculpture at Pawlowsk, near Leningrad, there is a Roman sarcophagus which has never been published (plate I, a-c), though long known to students of ancient sarcophagi. A certain amount of information as to its history is supplied to us from the following sources. Stephani appends to his description of the sarcophagus in Die Antiken-Sammlung zu Pawlowsk, 1872, p. 24, no. 42, a short notice of its previous career. ‘Der Sarkophag ist in Rom im Mausoleum des Augustus, worin bekanntlich. nähere und fernere Verwandte der kaiserlichen Familie bis gegen die Zeit Hadrians beigesetzt wurden (Becker, Handb. der röm. Alterth. Th. I, s. 639), gefunden und gelangte zunächst in die Sammlung Lyde Brown—Cat. L. Br. 1779, sarcofaghi, no. I, “un bellissimo e ben conservato sarcofago, largo quattro piedi e mezzo, ornato con sei maschere di Fauni e Satiri e con festoni e putti di ottimo gusto; fu trovato nel Mausoleo d'Augusto.”’ On the negative side we can trace the history of the sarcophagus still further.

So far as the author knows, no other recension of this much-quoted text has appeared since the original publication by Hunt, reprinted with only slight changes by the New Palaeographical Society. Yet it is a document of the highest importance both palaeo graphically and historically. As some sort of pridianum, that is, an annual report of a military unit's condition in respect to personnel, it is valuable for Roman military organization. It is unique in being the report of a unit stationed in Lower Moesia; and its value is further enhanced by its date early in Trajan's reign, during his preparations for his first Dacian war. The papyrus is therefore worthy of every effort to establish an accurate text, the more because Hunt himself conscientiously emphasized the provisional nature of his own transcription. The present paper, then, though unsolved difficulties still remain, is intended to make available the numerous improvements in reading and interpretation which result from a new study of the original which the author was able to undertake in the winter of 1956–1957.

The publication 1 of the fragment at first missing from the upper left-hand corner of the tabula Hebana (AE 1949, 215) so far confirms some conjectures which I made in a talk at Cambridge in 1951 that I am moved to print the briefest note about a point which does not seem so far to have been mentioned elsewhere.

The inscription of Iconium published on p. 37, no. 19, gives us our first certain example of an east-Phrygian variety of the early Christian formula against violation of the tomb, which Professor Callander and I had already restored in a small group of inscriptions.

That the lex Clodia of 58 B.C. repealed either in whole or in part the lex Aelia Fufia of c. 153 B.C. is adequately attested by our ancient authorities and universally admitted by modern scholars. The crux of the question is: was the lex Aelia Fufia wholly abrogated by the lex Clodia, and, if not, precisely what part of the former law was repealed by the legislation of Clodius? Despite the statement of Cicero—‘mitto eam legem, quae omnia iura religionum, auspiciorum, potestatum, omnes leges quae sunt de iure et de tempore legum rogandarum, una rogatione delevit’—which is obviously rhetorical and biased, no one, so far, as the writer knows, holds the view that all clauses of the lex Aelia Fufia were repealed by the lex Clodia. This inquiry, therefore, is an attempt to determine how much of the lex Aelia Fufia the lex Clodia repealed.