The ancient evidence for the wars and conquests of Augustus is not only fragmentary: the fragments themselves are capricious and misleading. Chance and design have conspired to produce a like result; and the interested partiality of contemporary authorities has been nobly seconded by the ignorance or the indifference of subsequent compilers. The successes of the Princeps and of his stepsons received ample commemoration and overshadowed the achievements of his lieutenants. The existence of a relatively full narrative in Florus and Orosius of the ‘Bellum Cantabricum’ of 26 B.C, the only Spanish campaign directed by Augustus in person, serves to illustrate by contrast how meagre is the record of that part of the long and arduous task of subduing Spain which was prosecuted and consummated in his absence. Similarly the spectacular conquest of the Alps by Tiberius and Drusus in 15 B.C. is more fully recorded and more widely known than the campaigns of P. Silius Nerva which preceded it and which made it possible.

In the establishing of Vespasian on the imperial throne an important part was played by Ti. Iulius Alexander, the prefect of Egypt. Before any decisive step was taken by Vespasian, the Egyptian prefect had deliberated with either Mucianus or Vespasian, or with both, and had pledged his support. The prefect was, moreover, the first to have his soldiers take the oath of allegiance to Vespasian, on July 1st, 69. The die was cast by Vespasian at the conclusion of a conference held with Mucianus at Mt. Carmel, and it is only reasonable to suppose that Ti. Iulius Alexander had a representative at this all-important meeting. I suggest that there was such a representative, a certain Basilides, concerning whom we have considerable information.

The reign of Hadrian marks the beginning of a new epoch in Roman administration and in the history of Roman Law. Hadrian's visit to Britain is immortalised by the Wall which he built from Tyne to Solway. Its construction is characteristic of the Emperor's willingness to renounce further conquests and even to abandon land which had been Roman. The Wall marked the limit of the districts which he was prepared to retain and administer. It followed, not the shortest and easiest route, but a line beyond the fortified area whence a look-out could be kept over the barbarians outside, and its object was the completion and definition of the fortified frontier region whereby it became easier to civilise and to pacify the country which lay to the south. Hadrian's aim was to bring order and peace to the land bounded by the new frontiers of the Roman world. Thus Hadrian may be sharply contrasted with his predecessor Trajan, the soldier on the throne, who owed his elevation to his successful wars in the Rhine region, and who as Emperor extended the frontiers of the Empire on the lower Danube and in the East. On Hadrian's accession the Empire was more powerful than ever before or afterwards, but its financial and military resources were strained to the utmost, and indeed frequently had been overstrained. The small peasant owners and small towns, sources of Roman culture and prosperity, had begun to suffer and disappear.

‘Art in Rome and Roman art are two notions not necessarily identical.’ Some years ago, I began a paper on the chronology of Roman sculpture under the Republic with these words, and since then Mrs. Strong has published her book Art in Ancient Rome, which by its title seems to express the same view—a view corroborated by the materials studied in the first chapters. Therefore, notwithstanding some recent objections, in matters of plastic art at Rome, I persist in distinguishing a Latin and a Roman period, meeting about 90 B.C., the epoch of the Social War.

This important war has recently been the subject of several studies. None the less, opinions are still divided about the central problem—did Octavian occupy only a small portion of Roman Dalmatia, or did he conquer almost the whole of that region? That is the question, and there is as yet no final solution. The following pages are written in an attempt to make a solution easier.

Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri greci e latini in Egitto. Estratto dal volume undecimo.—No. 1182: Frammenti di Gaio a cura di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz.—Firenze: Stab. tipogr. E. Ariani, 1933: 52 pp. with 4 plates. (Referred to below as A.-R.)

The data which Beloch has collected for the population of Syria are very scanty, and his calculations are highly insecure. It is perhaps possible to reach a more certain result by a closer study of the most important piece of evidence on the topic that we possess. The census conducted by Sulpicius Quirinius as legatus of Syria in A.D. 6–7, which, owing to its mention in the Gospel of St. Luke (ii, I), has evoked endless controversy among commentators, is also referred to in an inscription, probably found at Beyrout and preserved since the eighteenth century at Venice, which supplies information of a precision unique of its kind. We read, in fact, in the epitaph of an officer, Q. Aemilius Secundus:—Iussu Quirini censum egi Apamenae civitatis millium hominum civium CXVII. To estimate the value of the figure 117,000, it is important to decide what the author of the inscription meant by homines cives.

Dr. W. W. Tarn in his article in JRS xxii, 135 ff., has convincingly argued that in 37 B.C. Antony re-named his two children by Cleopatra, with the intention of using the name Alexander Helios in particular to attract the sentiment and religious enthusiasm of the East. His article is not concerned with the result of this propaganda, and the present note is an attempt to consider the literary evidence for its success or failure.

In the first place we should expect that, if Antony wished to give prominence to Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene, he would be forced to minimise to some extent the claims of other children of himself or of Cleopatra. Of these children Caesarion is by far the most important. As early as 42 Cleopatra had been given permission by the Triumvirs to proclaim him King of Egypt, in return for the help she had sent to Dolabella (Dio xlvii, 31, 5). He continued to retain the title until his death, and there seems to have been no attempt to subordinate him to the other children : if anything, his position becomes more important as he grows older.