The achievement of Timoleon in the field of reconstructive statesmanship received far less attention from ancient writers than the exploits of his crusade which liberated Greek Sicily from tyranny and from Carthage. Timaeus, who was largely responsible for the literary tradition, had no experience of practical politics and was therefore considered by Polybius to be unqualified to deal with political issues. The Timoleon of Plutarch is a brilliant work, in which some aspects of his career receive detailed treatment, but except in two digressions it is wholly dependent on the tradition established by Timaeus. Moreover, to a biographer who was primarily a moralist constitutional and social reform could scarcely be an attractive theme, and it is not surprising that he sketches the reconstructive accomplishments of his hero in terms of vague eulogy without fully appreciating their significance. Diodorus, on the other hand, was profoundly interested in the political and economic development of Syracuse. The parts of Book xvi devoted to the career of Timoleon reproduce his customary faults: the narrative is ill-arranged and highly compressed, degenerating here and there into a string of disconnected notes, and in its later chapters it depends upon the tradition of Timaeus. Yet it constitutes the chief source of information on the reforms of Timoleon. The contribution of a third-rate historian is in this sphere more valuable than that of a first-rate biographer.

One of the most interesting features of modern historical work on the Anglo-Saxon settlements in recent years has been the tendency to admit a possible connexion between the Jutes and the Franks; or even to stress the possible associations, either of race or culture, between the Germanic conquerors of Kent and the mixed Germanic races of the middle Rhine and northern Gaul. That the language of the Cantware, or whatever they called themselves, was not very different from that of the subjects of the kings of Paris is suggested by the sending of Frankish interpreters along with the Italians of Augustine's mission. Linguists admit this, and they have been delighted to find remnants of the Frankish gau embedded in Kentish placenames. Archaeologists tell us that the early Kentish kings minted no coins of their own, but used Frankish ones, or else used their own rings and bracelets for money; when they did begin to have mints of their own, they copied Merovingian coins in weight, though not in design. Frankish coins, for that matter, were used farther afield than Kent: the coins found at Sutton Hoo were all Merovingian. It is in this pleasantly pro-Frankish context that the subject of the court officers of king Æthelberht of Kent is here offered for consideration. Someone may say: Æthelberht I know, and queen Bertha I know, and Augustine I know, and, in fact, all that Bede tells us about Æthelberht I know: but who are these officers of the court of Æthelberht that you are speaking of? We know, they say, that Æthelberht's law speaks of eorlcund men who had a wergeld of 300 shillings, and ceorls, who had a wergeld of 100 shillings: but we cannot remember that the individual officers of Æthelberht's court are mentioned by anybody; or at least, by any source that is reliable.

On 2 December 1854 a treaty was signed between Britain, France and Austria. By this treaty, Britain and France hoped to draw Austria into the Crimean War—Austria, on the contrary, hoped that Russia would be frightened into concessions, and that peace would thus be made without Austrian intervention in the war. There was a powerful pro-Russian party at Vienna; the young Emperor Franz Josef was for a long time unable to make up his mind; and it was only after toilsome negotiations that the tripartite treaty was signed. A decisive factor in Franz Josef's ultimate decision was the Austrian fear of revolutionary intrigue in Italy, backed up by the French. Napoleon III had been the ‘man of order’ since the coup d'état; but this was Only three years ago, and the Austrians feared that Napoleon might not have shed all his Carbonarist leanings. It might therefore be good policy for Austria to risk the growing antagonism of Russia, and enter into treaty engagements with France and Britain, if, in return, France would promise good behaviour in Italy.