There has been much argument and little agreement about the date of the foundation of Florentia, about the purpose of its foundation with regard to Faesulae, and about the relation of the city's site and orientation to the Consular road which joined Arretium and Luca, the Via Cassia, and to the crossing of the River Arnus by the Roman equivalent of Ponte Vecchio. Although the Via Cassia is agreed to belong to the second century B.C., its precise date is uncertain, and for the stretch from Arretium to Faesulae and Florentia two different routes are recorded, one on the north bank (after the first few miles out of Arretium) and the other on the south as far as Ponte Vecchio. It is agreed that the southern route is later, but not whether it and the crossing of the Arno is a cause or a consequence of the foundation of Florentia.

Since Mommsen's magisterial publication, no one has seriously attempted to rearrange those fragments of a Roman bronze tablet that were once in the collection of Cardinal Bembo. There can be no doubt but that Mommsen placed most of the fragments correctly, both in relation to each other and to the preserved top and left side of the tablet. Only three variables remain: the extent of the gaps between the A and B fragments, the width of the tablet and its original height. Mommsen's arrangement leaves awkward discrepancies between lacuna lengths in lines 12–15 and 16–18 of the extortion law, where whole clauses are repeated virtually verbatim. Tibiletti boldly proposed to remedy this by shifting the B fragments some 14 letter-spaces towards A, whilst making no change in Mommsen's estimate of the tablet's width. This is, at first sight, a very attractive solution. But Tibiletti did not probe its consequences for the agrarian law on the reverse—and Badian has rightly insisted that this simply must be done. Rigorous study of both laws will, indeed, show that Tibiletti was not radical enough. Yet he must be honoured as a pioneer, and I am glad to acknowledge that my present paper owes much to his example.

In writing a book on Epirus which is in the press I omitted a full description of the battle of the Aoi Stena and of the campaigns in which it is set partly because it involves areas outside Epirus and partly because I had not space for such a description. My travels in Albania included the traversing of the higher ground just east of the Myzeqija plain (see Map II) and the crossing by ferry of the three great rivers, the Genusus (Shkumbi), the Apsus (Semeni) and the Aous (Vijosë), in late March and early April 1931. At that time these rivers were in spate, and the upper parts of the plain were full of sheep, enjoying the spring pastures before moving up to the summer pastures of the mountains. I went from Durazzo (Dyrrachium) up the Shkumbi valley to Elbasan, inspected some sites on the south side of the valley, walked through the low sink which separates the Shkumbi from the Devoli SSW. of Elbasan, and then visited Berat (Antipatrea). On other occasions I walked through the hill country southwards of Berat to Byllis and to Han Qesarat (Map I) in the middle Vijosë valley. In other years I explored the lower Vijosë valley as far as Apollonia, walked through the Aoi Stena and traversed the Vijosë valley from Kelcyrë to Konitsa and the whole length of the Drin valley. The course of these and other travels I have made is shown on Map I. Acquaintance with this terrain has enabled me, I think, to present a new interpretation of parts of Philip's campaigns and of the battle of the Aoi Stena; new in the sense that it is different from those of Kromayer and De Sanctis, who did not visit this area. The paper falls into the following parts: A, a geographical description; B, the campaigns of 200 and 199 B.C. in as far as they concern this area; C, the campaign of 198 B.C. An appendix, dealing with some topographical points, is added.

Two years ago when McDonald (JRS LVII (1967), 1–8) discussed the strategic aspects of the treaty of Apamea in its ‘territorial clause’ (Polyb. XXI, 43, 5–6; Livy XXXVIII, 38, 4–5) he was concerned to define the ‘Taurus line’, in its general significance with relation to Antiochus' position in Cilicia. This involved the text of the clause as well as topographical study of central and southern Asia Minor. He did not go on to treat how Antiochus might use naval transport and ‘combined operations’ at coastal landing points to turn the ‘Taurus line’ against Rhodes and Pergamum, and return to the Aegean.

The ‘naval clauses’ of the treaty represent Rome's decision to block any such move, however unlikely, by reducing Antiochus' strength at sea and imposing geographical limits on where the craft permitted to him might sail (Polyb. XXI, 43, 13–14 ; Livy XXXVIII, 38, 8–9).

There are two formidable arguments against the authenticity of the Commentariolum Petitionis. In the first place its purpose is not clear. It is too rhetorical to be a private letter (and the last sentence actually invites suggestions for improvements); but equally it is too cynical to have been published during an election campaign (cf. especially §§ 5, 19, 35, 42, 45–7, 52). Secondly, in several passages the commentariolum bears a close resemblance to the in toga Candida, which on the face of it was written later; and there are conspicuous objections to the view that M. Cicero borrowed from his younger brother. Other suspicious circumstances can also be mentioned, notably the silence of Asconius and the transmission side by side with the undoubtedly spurious epistula ad Octavianum.

Aphrodisias in Caria had already yielded a number of fragments of the Latin text of Diocletian's Edict on Prices by the early years of this century, and others, some of them very important, came to light during the brief Italian investigations conducted by G. Jacopi in 1937. The excavations initiated in 1961 by New York University under the direction of K. T. Erim have yielded in the course of their annual campaigns a considerable number of new pieces. Although more fragments will undoubtedly come to light in future seasons as work proceeds, it seems appropriate that the group so far discovered should be published. All of these pieces have been made available to Professor S. Lauffer for use in his consolidated edition of the text of the Edict as known at present; nevertheless, we consider it our duty to publish the new material from Aphrodisias separately and in full; we do so here and offer such comments on it as we can.

This article re-examines a passage in the first book of Propertius which has generally been interpreted as establishing that the collection was published after Actium. In fact, these lines do not necessarily allude to Antony's defeat, but fit even better with the situation in the years leading up to the battle. Once that has been established, the balance of evidence supports a considerably earlier date for Propertius’ first book. This prompts a re-evaluation of the direction of influence between it and Virgil's Georgics. Contrary to traditional assumptions, Virgil can be seen to have reacted strongly to the elegist's brilliant debut.

This article examines Seneca's theory of monarchy in De clementia. It focuses in particular on Seneca's appropriation and redefinition of some key terms within Roman political thought in order to present his theory as an account of the restitution of liberty to the res publica under the government of the virtuous princeps. By relocating the Roman body politic to a Stoic moral universe, Seneca is able to draw upon parts of his philosophical inheritance in order to substantiate his claim in some depth.

Of several scenes of the Orpheus myth which had been depicted by earlier artists, only one found its way into the repertory of Roman mosaicists; Orpheus sitting in the wilderness, holding the wild animals spellbound to the music of his lyre. H. Stern has recently compiled a catalogue of forty-seven of these mosaics, and to this number must now be added at least eight more, namely at Edessa, Tarsus, Trento, Trier, Thysdrus, Lepcis Magna, Ptolemais (the subject of this paper), and Tobruk (see below, p. 17), making a grand total of fifty-five, of which forty-five are in the Western Provinces; Roman Britain alone accounts for nine.

The use of the suffect consulship began to change with Caesar in 45 b.c., after a number of decades in which no suffect consul had been elected. The office altered dramatically during the triumviral period. The triumvirs openly made use of the suffect consulship as a means of rewarding loyalty. Many of the suffect consuls, who were no longer elected by the people, but designated in advance by the triumvirs, were homines novi who belonged to previously unknown and insignificant Roman or Italian families. Increasing the number of consuls each year eliminated de facto the traditional annuality of the office and reduced its authority. The implicit consequence of these actions was a gradual devaluation of the consulship. The suffect consulship was therefore a powerful tool in the hands of the triumvirs for strengthening their political position, weakening the old aristocracy and giving birth to a new elite based more firmly on personal loyalties.

This paper revisits the political history of the Roman Republic in the third decade of the first century b.c. Its central contention is that the dominant feature of the period was neither a reshuffle of alliances within the ‘Sullan’ senatorial nobility nor the swift demise of Sulla's legacy. Attention should be focused instead on some crucial policy issues which attracted debate and controversy in that period: the powers of the tribunes, the corn supply of Rome, the rôle of the Senate, the revival of the census, and the full inclusion of the Allies into the citizen body. The political strategy of M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 78 b.c.) and its medium-term repercussions also deserve close scrutiny in this connection.

In the Pro Archia Cicero writes that Alexander, looking upon the tomb of Achilles, cried out, ‘O happy youth, who found a Homer to sing your praises!’; words truly spoken, adds Cicero, since without Homer Achilles' tomb would have buried the great man's fame along with his body. And in the Tusculan Disputations he writes that the Athenian Themistocles, when asked why he spent his nights wandering about the city, replied that the trophies of Miltiades kept him awake. Juxtaposing one great man and the reminder of another, both anecdotes present vivid and memorable images of rivalry between the ambitious among the living and the high-achievers among the dead. A competition of this kind can be direct, between the man commemorated by a monument and the man viewing it, as are the rivalries of Alexander and Achilles, Themistocles and Miltiades, or it can be indirect, as in the Pro Archia, where with a sleight of hand Cicero replaces the rivalry between Achilles and Alexander with the competition between the Iliad and Achilles' physical monument. A great mound bears witness to Achilles' death at Troy, but the outburst of the competitive Alexander testifies that a poem is a better memorial than a tomb.

There has been a tendency among some modern scholars to regard the constitutional position of Augustus as of negligible importance. This is a natural reaction from the excessive legalism of Mommsen and his school, and has had valuable results in elucidating extra-constitutional elements in the position of the first Princeps, such as his outstanding auctoritas and his huge clientela. I do not think however that we can lightly brush aside the constitutional basis of his power. I do not wish to suggest that the restored Republic was intended to be genuine, or even that Augustus meant to share his power with the Senate and People: never for one moment did he part with his control over the great bulk of the legions. But I would suggest he would not have created the elaborate facade of Republican legitimacy, and moreover have subjected his original scheme to at least one radical revision, unless there had been some important element in the State to which the constitution mattered, and mattered so profoundly that its dissatisfaction would endanger the stability of the régime.

The a.d. 362/3 crisis in Antioch is usually interpreted as an economic or ideological crisis, and Julian's Misopogon as a ‘festive satire’ or ‘edict of chastisement’. This article situates the root of the problem in a crisis of communication: Julian's failure to communicate publicly as expected in a situation that was tense because of the food shortage led to a short-circuit between emperor and subjects. Whilst the Misopogon is Julian's extraordinary post-factum attempt to explain away this failure of ritualized communication on his part, Libanius’ speeches on the topic seek to give a positive twist to the extraordinary nature of Julian's reply, which posed serious problems for emperor, city, and sophist alike.

This article reconsiders the possible statuary of the Pantheon in Rome, both in its original Augustan form and in its later phases. It argues that the so-called ‘Algiers Relief’ has wrongly been connected with the Temple of Mars Ultor and is in fact evidence of the association of the Divus Julius with Mars and Venus in the Pantheon of Agrippa, a juxtaposition which reflects the direction of Augustan ideology in the 20s b.c. and the building's celestial purpose. This triple statue group became the focus of the later Pantheon, and its importance is highlighted by the hierarchized system of architectural ornament of the present building.

Scholars over the last few decades have been unable to find a convincing explanation for the widespread practice of brother-sister marriage among the common people in Roman Egypt, a social practice seemingly disregarding one of the most fundamental taboos. This paper now argues that these ‘incestuous’ marriages were in fact marriages between a biological child and an adopted one, a practice documented also for other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean. Due to the severe mortality regime before the demographic transition, up to 30 per cent of all fathers did not have a male heir, and therefore adopting the son-in-law was a common succession and inheritance strategy in many pre-modern societies.

Although Cyrenaica ranked, under the earlier Empire, as a senatorial province, it was too exposed to barbarian attack to be left undefended; and there is ample evidence that it had its own garrison—probably a small one—from the first century A.D. onwards. This garrison was evidently inadequate to prevent the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 115, and may consequently have been strengthened; but it was the crisis of the mid-third century that showed all too clearly the insecurity of the isolated Cyrenaican plateau. The Marmaric tribes invaded the province, and Cyrene itself seems to have been overwhelmed. The Diocletianic reforms resulted in the creation of a new ‘middle-eastern’ command under the Dux Aegypti Thebaidos utrarumque Libyarum, but the loss of the chapter of the Notitia Dignitatum enumerating the units stationed in the two Libyas makes it difficult to reconstruct the military organization of these provinces at the end of the fourth century. The works of Synesius help to fill the lacuna and at the same time provide a vivid picture of life in an invaded area.

This paper seeks to locate Seneca's treatment of earthquakes in Natural Questions 6 in the broader ancient seismological tradition; and, more particularly, to examine the initiatives which potentially transform his treatment into a highly original mode of literary-philosophical investigation not just into the cause of earthquakes, but also of how a ‘scientific’ understanding of them can at least partially quell the intimidating effect of such wonders of nature. On this approach Natural Questions 6 is perhaps concerned not so much with earthquakes per se but with shaping attitudes towards the natural world as a whole, inculcating in us a vision of such phenomena as but ‘normal’ aspects of cosmic functioning. By this method the book promotes within us a different, engagingly Senecan appreciation of cosmic integrity.

It seems to be generally accepted that electoral bribery, together with various other forms of munificence aimed at securing electoral advantage, was widespread in the late Republic. The sources repeatedly describe how the magistracies of the Republic were sought and won by providing feasts, entertainment, and often money, to the urban plebs. At the same time, the centuriate assembly, which elected the higher magistrates, is generally thought to have been dominated by the rich. The urban plebs, according to the prevailing view, was ‘practically disfranchised’ in this assembly.