This survey is intended primarily to assess the impact on Roman studies in general of recent work in Roman epigraphy — whether newly published inscriptions, revised editions, or texts that have been reconsidered or newly analysed in the light of specific themes. We mean to draw attention to those epigraphic studies that make a significant contribution, in particular, to Roman history. Hence the considerable space we devote below to the newly published Senatus Consultum on Cnaeus Piso, of which any future study of the reign of Tiberius (or of the relations between senate and emperor in the early Principate) will have to take account. Other highlights include a centurion's own reflections (in verse) on his unit's building works at Bu-Njem in Tripolitania; a major revision of the inscribed texts of Roman laws; the first known letter of Lucullus; and a new text from Messene orchestrating the city's responses to the death of Augustus. At the same time, in this introduction, we note one or two developments in recent epigraphic practice. Though these aspects are necessarily more technical, we include them in order to help readers to find the epigraphic data they might need (publication is increasingly diverse, and in an ever wider range of media); and then to assess the texts, the dates, and the conclusions the epigraphists are offering. ‘What you get’ in epigraphy is not necessarily ‘what you see’.

When we consider the information concerning the history of the earliest days of Rome which ancient authors have handed down to us, we have to ask ourselves : which parts of it are acceptable and which are not ? What, after all, do we really know about early Roman history ?

Modern scholars view these problems from very different psychological standpoints. Some of them ask why we should refuse credence to a venerable tradition which has been given an artistic form of great beauty by writers of genius, and which is full of lessons of political and moral importance. Others, however, seized with the full frenzy of the critic, and with uncompromising devotion to logic, discard all, or practically all, the tradition. Whatever the cost, they intend to reach the truth. These two conflicting tendencies prevail turn and turn about in accordance with the views dominating in different periods or with the different temperaments or ages of individual scholars.

In a paper on Justus Lipsius and the text of Tacitus's Annals, published in the last issue of this Journal, the present writer did not touch upon the difficult question of interpolations. It has been asserted that ‘there are not many glosses in Tacitus’. This can hardly hold for the Histories and Annals XI–XVI, that is, for the works contained in the Second Mediceus. In fact, the two codices unici differ in this as in other respects. As for the Med. no. II, that is, for Histories and Annals XI–XVI, I still feel convinced by W. Heraeus's and C. D. Fisher's arguments. Arguments are indeed hardly needed in a case like Hist. II, 98, where a snatch of verse has been thrust into the text, cutting one Tacitean word in two. There are not a few cases where interpolation of glosses can be proved, and the whole subject might usefully be gone over again in its own context.

Among the monuments erected by Augustus at Rome were two obelisks, about which the elder Pliny gives fairly full information. They had originally been erected in Egypt by two different monarchs, and, when Augustus had them transported to Rome, the one was placed in the Circus Maximus, the other in the Campus Martius. Moreover, the latter was put to practical use by being an essential part of the large solarium erected by the Emperor. Somewhat earlier in the same book Pliny attributes the setting up of the first obelisk to Mespheres at Heliopolis. The king had been warned to do this in a dream. In his chapter on obelisks Isidore also attributes the institution of this form of monument to this king, whom he calls Mesfres. He further gives more precise reasons for the dedication, and then passes on to the obelisk in the middle of the Circus; though his description is somewhat obscure, it is implied that the obelisk was used for a sun-dial. This passage from Isidore is reproduced in the Liber Glossarum, together with a sentence which is not in the MSS. of Isidore, and which occurs between sections 1 and 2 of the chapter in question:– ‘unum quippe fecit pedibus septuaginta quinque, alterum septuaginta sex quos Augustus ab ultima Aegypto deportatos alterum ex his Circo, alterum in Campo Martio posuit.’

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.