The subject is a large one, and in the treatment of it, from considerations of space, it is necessary to omit some of the less important aspects. The main purpose of this article is to show reason for thinking that the estimate generally prevalent of Tacitus as a historian is unreasonably high, and that the brilliance of his style dazzles the eyes of his readers and blurs them to imperfect consciousness of his many great defects. There are three great Roman writers, born within a space of twenty years, who strongly resemble each other in their general outlook upon the Roman state, and whose power of emitting epigrams of a biting, penetrating and even savage character is much the same. These are Lucan, Tacitus and Juvenal. All of them deal with history. There is the same ‘saeva indignatio’ gnawing at the hearts of all the trio. They write as though they were living in the worst of all possible worlds. All three look back with longing eyes on the great glories of the old Republic. All have a feud with the gods, who take so little care for mankind as to impose upon them the inexorable dominance of the imperial system. All three again feel that the Romans of their day are degenerate and corrupt. It may be reasonably said that the combination of pessimism with a capacity for savage epigram is not a promising equipment for the historian. Tacitus was saner than Swift, but if Swift had written the history of our great rebellion and of the reign of Charles the Second we should doubtless have found many points of comparison between him and the great Roman. Napoleon showed a sound instinct when he described Tacitus as ‘the detractor of humanity.’

It is well known that in the second century B.C. the Roman Senate was frequently called upon to compose disputes between Greek states, but of its procedure in such cases there has hitherto been little to say. It is therefore a matter of some interest that fresh light is thrown on this question by a new inscription from Crete. The dispute which is here described arose between the towns of Hierapytna and Itanus, both of which claimed possession of an inland territory adjoining the sanctuary of Zeus Dictaeus, and of certain adjacent islands. The history of this quarrel was already known to us in part from an older inscription containing an arbitral award by the city of Magnesia-on-Maeander; but from the few stray references which that document made to the Romans it was impossible to reconstruct the account of their intervention. In future I propose to call the old inscription A, the new one B.

At rex sollicitus monstris oracula Fauni,

fatidici genitoris, adit lucosque sub alta

consulit Albunea, nemorum quae maxima sacro

fonte sonat saevamque exhalat opaca mephitim.

hinc Italae gentes omnisque Oenotria tellus

in dubiis responsa petunt.

The traditional view from the time of Servius onwards has been that this passage refers to a shrine in the neighbourhood of Tibur, and that the waters described are those of the sulphur lakes of Albula, white and strong-smelling, which lie two miles away in the open country. This view was first challenged by Bonstetten in 1805, and his theory has been further developed by Carcopino. The main objections to the old view are, firstly, that Albula lies about thirty miles north in the Sabine region, well away both from the district in which is set the action of the last six books of the Aeneid, and from the home of Latinus, whether the latter was at Laurentum (the existence of which is now doubted by some scholars) or at Lavinium; secondly, the difference in name, for that the springs near Tibur were called ‘Albula’ is well attested by ancient notices; and thirdly, the difficulty of access. Both Bonstetten and Carcopino are in agreement in locating the oracle at the sulphur springs near Pratica di Mare, the ancient Lavinium : neither, however, seems to have investigated the site as fully as was desirable, and it may be of interest to give the results of a further exploration.

In 214 b.c., the army of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus defeated Hannibal's Carthaginian forces near the town of Beneventum. Gracchus, proconsul with imperium in Apulia, had led his troops from Luceria in the North-East, while Hanno, Hannibal's lieutenant, arrived with his forces from Bruttium in the South, and a pitched battle was fought by the river Calor. The Romans were victorious. According to Livy, the Carthaginian force of more than 18,000 was routed, less than 2,000 survived, and 38 standards were taken; but the truly striking fact about Gracchus' victory is that his army was largely comprised of slaves. This had been necessary, in contradiction of Roman law and custom, following the tragic and massive casualties suffered in the previous years' battles, most famously at Cannae. Exceptional circumstances called for exceptional measures: pueri donned men's armour; libertini were called to serve; criminals, too; then slaves, who were purchased to fight for the state. The status of such troops posed a significant problem, both legally as well as socially, a problem that was to have a long history.

To major suggestions have been advanced about the text of SB 10295. First, that the letter is not complete; the text now extant constitutes the end of a letter written in a single column containing not more than two or three lines above the present remains. Second, that the addressee, Apolinarios, is identical with the addressee of P. Oxy. 933, who was a bouleutes of Antinoopolis and a and that the title should be restored in SB 10295. Possibly he is also identical with a known president of the boule of Antinoopolis in the later second century. It has been suggested that Apolinarios went on an embassy to Alexandria in the spring of an unspecified year in connection with the accession of a new emperor. As a corollary to these hypotheses, it has been argued that the emperor concerned is in fact Avidius Cassius. Nothing in the text precludes this, and three references support it very strongly: namely, the distinction between ‘election’ and ‘accession to the close ties with Alexandria and the fact that Avidius Cassius' father was a prefect of Egypt, and finally the date. Objections which have been raised against previous theories do not hold for this one, and there is no reason (palaeographical or other) why SB 10295 should not date to A.D. 175.

In the absence of a full and satisfactory record in literature of the reign of Hadrian, we turn with more than ordinary expectation to his large and varied coinage. We are at once confronted with a formidable difficulty: most of Hadrian's coins bear no other sign of date than COS · III—that is to say, they can only be dated to the long period from A.D. 119 to 138. This problem, then, must be faced at the outset. To save space, we will at once set out the system of dating we shall follow, adding only the few notes absolutely required to justify it:

A.D. 117. Coins dated COS.

A.D. 118. Coins dated COS · II

A.D. 119–138. Coins dated COS · III

The following monument was seen in the course of a visit to the upper Tembris Valley by W. M. Calder and C. W. M. Cox in July 1924. The MS. of this paper was completed in March 1926; in the revision of the proof-sheets we have been privileged to use the notes, impressions, and photographs made by C. W. M. Cox and A. Cameron in the course of an exhaustive survey of the Tembris Valley monuments in May 1926. The notes on no. 230 have been written by Calder.

The term Galatia is here used in the widest sense, equivalent to of Γαλατιϰὴ ἐπαρχεία C.I.G. 3991.

It is a remarkable feature that there is hardly any allusion in the inscriptions of Galatia to πραγματευόμενοι ʽΡωμαῖοι or ὁ δῆμος ϰαὶ οί ϰατοιϰοῦντες Ρωμϰῖοι. I do not remember one; but they may occur rarely and have escaped my notice or memory. In the province of Asia these cives qui ibi negotiantur occur very frequently.

The solitary allusion of any approximate character that I know in Galatia is ὁ δῆμος οἵ τε συμπολιτευόμενοι Ρωμαῖοι, which indicates a closer connexion and more equal rights between natives and cives Romani than was the case in Asia. Paul was a Cilician, and the same rule seems to have held there as in Galatia.

The excavation described below was undertaken by the writer on behalf of the Ministry of Works and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, but the present article is his own sole responsibility.

The defences of the Legionary Fortress at York were first scientifically examined by the late S. N. Miller in 1925–8 and the report on the work in 1925–7 appeared in this Journal. As a result of his work we have a satisfactory framework into which to fit subsequent and previous discoveries. The structural sequence arrived at by Miller can be briefly summarized as follows:—

Period 1. A campaigning base deduced by Miller from occupation earth in what he considered to be part of the clay rampart of Period 2 and dated by him to the beginning of the governorship of Petillius Cerialis (A.D. 71–4).

Period 2. The first defences of which Miller recognized structural evidence consisted of a massive rampart of clay, dated by him to the close of the governorship of Cerialis.

Period 3. In the early part of the second century stone gates and towers were built and linked by a stone wall. The south-east gate was built in A.D. 108–9, but some work was still being done in Hadrian's reign. The clay bank of Period 2 remained behind the stone wall.

Period 4. At the end of the second century there was an extensive restoration under Severus. A new stone wall was built, at any rate on the south-east side, immediately behind the wall of Period 2 which was completely removed except for the foundations.

Period 5. At the turn of the third and fourth centuries the south-west and north-west sides and part of the north-east side were reconstructed, with projecting multangular corner and interval towers on the river front (fig. 9).

The aspiration to fame being open, avowed, and honourable, it was no scandal if a Roman of consular rank insisted on a mention in books of history written by a friend and destined (it was clear) to undying renown. Pliny saw his chance (Epp. VII, 33). There was another way and device. By publishing his own correspondence, Pliny was able to put in circulation a kind of autobiography, subtle and unimpeachable. The collection carries no fewer than eleven letters to the address of Cornelius Tacitus, and he is referred to in four others. Pliny quietly established a claim to parity in the field of eloquence.