The current view of the Agricolan occupation of Scotland is conveniently summed up in Furneaux's declaration that ‘it is impossible to suppose that the conquest had been as thorough as is suggested [by Tacitus].’ York is sometimes alleged to have been the farthest point that was permanently secured, and a German historian has solemnly rebuked the Roman general for the fundamental fault of pushing forward without consolidating the ground that he had won. This scepticism as to Agricola's military capacity and achievements was justifiable enough so long as the historical notices stood alone. Moreover it appeared to be perfectly consistent with the ‘perdomita Britannia et statim missa’ of Tacitus himself. And, when archaeology made its first contribution to the discussion, the new evidence promised to be merely corroborative. The little Agricolan fort on the Bar Hill, discovered by a happy accident in 1903, was garrisoned for only a brief period, and had been abandoned fifty or sixty years before Lollius Urbicus built the wall from Forth to Clyde.

In the heart of the Sierra Morena, and at some twelve kilometres as the crow flies to the north-west of the modern town of La Carolina, in the province of Jaen, a silver-lead mine is at present being successfully worked by an English company. But the English company would not be working it to-day, nor would they be doing so successfully, were it not for the fact that the Romans had been there before them and that the Roman miners had left indications on the surface that pointed to extensive workings below, and had not exhausted the riches which kindly Nature had stored in the vein which they exploited. That the Romans must have worked the mine which is known in our times as “el Centenillo” during a long period is principally evidenced by the extent of their underground operations, which attained the astonishing depth of 210 metres (690 feet) from surface, while in length they exceeded a thousand metres (3,280 feet) and gradually narrowed down in depth until, for some reason that will never be known and which it would be imprudent to guess at, the “old men” abandoned the mine. They worked on the best part of the lode which, in all probability, resembled other lodes in the district in being richer in silver near the surface. The Romans must, however, have been principally working the mine for lead when they determined to leave it, as their lowest workings were in a highly mineralised zone which was very good for galena but relatively poor in silver; although, as a matter of fact, the mineral, even at the depth of 325 metres (1,066 feet) which has been attained to-day, carries more silver than the other silver-lead mines of the district. (The galena contains about 82 per cent, of lead and yields about 20 ounces of silver to the ton.)

While Gibbon's Roman History and his Memoirs are established as classic works in any canon of English or historical literature, the first of his three books, the youthful Essai sur l'Étude de la Littérature (1758–61), remains the victim of comparative neglect. There has been no edition of this work since 1814, but we can ill afford to ignore a text which is at once the first fruit of Gibbon's intellectual ‘creation’ at Lausanne in the 1750s, and also serves as an indispensable general and methodological introduction to his History. One symptom of our casual attitude lies in the fact that, although the Essai is the only one of Gibbon's works which can be traced from its manuscript conception through to final publication, no attempt has been made to explore his compositional and intellectual processes by this route. Furthermore, in an age where every scrap of new text by the great historian has become a precious relic worthy of immediate publication, we have overlooked thereby the last really significant cache of his unpublished writing. Given its subject matter, one may say that the omission is not merely significant but spectacular. In a series of cancelled passages from the Essai's first draft of 1758, Gibbon dealt with topics such as the need for philosophic detachment, rather than sentimental alignment, in discussing Roman history; the role of ‘general’ or profound causes in explaining Rome's rise and fall; and the significance of Pagan corruption for the rise of Christianity.

When Ovid was relegated in A.D. 8, he left a notorious problem for scholarship. Some attribute his downfall to the Ars Amatoria, whose second edition appeared about 1 B.C., but that raises questions about the time-lag as well as about the misunderstanding of literature. Others emphasize the disgrace of Augustus' grand-daughter Julia, banished for adultery in the same year as Ovid, but doubts remain about the degree of complicity needed to explain the poet's punishment. Again it has been supposed that the domestic scandal masks a political plot, a possibility that has also been canvassed over the disgrace of the elder Julia in 2 B.C. Unfortunately the evidence for the various theories is so scattered that it may distract attention from the tone of particular poems, yet in this psychological drama over-all impressions ought to count as well as fragments of fact. Here I shall try to interpret a single elegy, Tristia 4. 3, looking at it in sections as it comes; though the debate about the exile will not be repeated in detail, a view will emerge at the end about what happened.

It is very remarkable, though quite intelligible that, while the province of Britain belonged for centuries to the Roman empire, its inhabitants took practically no share in the administration of the empire. No evidence suggests that a native of one of the municipalities, whether colonia or municipium, of Britain ever made his way into the Roman senate or the higher ranks of the equestrian order, and yet, if that had happened, inscriptions would exist among the monuments of Britain recording such honours won by Britons. The literary life of the empire was equally strange to the Britons; as Mr. J. R. Green says, “none of the poets or rhetoricians of the time is of British origin.” So too the lower military commands are never held by Britons. No cohort or ala is known to have been commanded by a man born in the island. Even the lower officers, the centurions, were rarely taken from the province, either for the legions quartered in the island or for those in other parts of the empire. Baehr and I had actually denied the existence of any legionary centurion of British origin, but Mr. Haverfield has pointed out to me a centurion of the XXIIth Legion stationed at Mainz, who appears to have been born in Lincoln (Lindum); and my attention has now been called to a legionary centurion whose British origin is not, indeed, absolutely certain, but who belongs in one way or another to Britain, and deserves to be introduced to the Britons of to-day.

Asconius, in Pison. 5 (p. 5, 13 Kiessling). ‘Haec consuetudo’ (of using round rather than exact numbers) ‘in ipsis orationibus est: itaque idem Cicero in ea quoque quam habuit in Catilinam in senatu, ait cum octavus decimus dies esset postea quaro factum est senatus consultum ut viderent consules ne quid res publica detrimenti caperet, dixit vicesimum [? iam] diem habere <se> S. C. tamquam <in vagina reconditum>.' In the passage referred to by the commentator (in Cat. i, 2, 4) Cicero, after showing how promptly effect had been given to the senatus consultum ultimum, by Opimius and Marius, goes on: ‘At vero nos vicesimum iam diem patimur hebescere aciem horum auctoritatis. Habemus enim eius modi senatus consultum, verum inclusum in tabulis, tamquam in vagina reconditum.’

The two hoards of fourth-century Roman bronze coins here described were obtained in Egypt by Professor Petrie: and, as they cover a period on which not much work has been done, a detailed account of their contents may be of value.

The classification adopted is by means of reverse types and mints. It does not seem necessary to refer at length to the obverse types, which exhibit little variation in most reigns concerned: any points of interest are mentioned in the notes prefixed to each list. The types are arranged in what appears to be their chronological order: the earlier issues, mainly of Constantinus I and his sons, which are represented only by stray specimens, are grouped together.

It is to be feared that the greater part of the Histories of Tacitus is lost beyond recall: Latin literature appears but rarely among the treasures of the sands of Egypt. The consequent gap in our knowledge is very imperfectly filled by the records that do remain. It is certain that many events of importance have been wholly passed over in them, while many others are referred to in such an incidental and cursory way that varying interpretations seem possible, and conjecture becomes permissible and even necessary.

We know in general that Vespasian was an energetic reformer and reorganiser: it may be possible, even with our fragmentary evidence, to trace his reorganisation of the two wealthiest provinces, Asia and Africa, somewhat more fully than has hitherto been done. With regard to Asia, the conjecture seems justifiable that Eprius Marcellus was Vespasian's agent for reform, and that his prolonged tenure of the proconsulship of Asia is to be so explained. And in Africa, there may be some reason for supposing that Q. Vibius Crispus performed a similar service, and that his proconsulship there was similarly extended.