The subject of this paper is the relations between Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, that long-protracted racial animosity which forms one of the most interesting chapters in the history of what is commonly, if loosely, known as anti-semitism; but before coming to my subject proper it will be necessary to say something about the position of the Alexandrian Jews.

In a garden, stated to have been formerly a Turkish cemetery, belonging to Ἰωάννης Ὑφαντίδης, situated on a hill to the SW of Beroea, part of a grey stone column, broken away at the bottom (fig. I); found with a considerable number of ancient marbles and grey (granite ?) stone columns, many of which were subsequently buried in a spot said to be to the left of the walk leading to the back-door of the house.

In a clearing outside a newly built church in the village of μττραΪνάταις, near Beroea, lies a large marble grave-stele, in the upper portion of which is a relief with a moulding above and below: beneath the relief is the inscribed surface with mouldings on all sides (fig. 3). Relief: 1. centre, standing full-face, Roman soldier, probably bearded, clad in short military tunic and cloak, holding in r. hand long indeterminable object (pilum ?); 1. hand rests on hilt of sword with folds of cloak draped over 1. forearm. In lower r. corner, shield on base; above shield, a helmet.

The doctrine that dominium in provincial soil was vested in the Roman people or in Caesar has been taken far more seriously in modern, than it ever was in ancient, times. There is no evidence, as the late Professor Tenney Frank argued in volume xvii of this Journal, that the doctrine had any effect on the policy of the Roman government under the Republic or in the early years of the Principate. It may be added that there is equally little evidence that it was put to any practical use at any later period. At no time did the Roman government treat provincial landholders as tenants at will, or assume the right of arbitrarily dispossessing them: confiscation always remained a penal measure. Julius Frontinus, writing under Domitian, does, it is true, use the doctrine to explain why provincial landholders pay tribute: ‘possidere enim illis quasi fructus tollendi causa et praestandi tributi condicione concessum est.’ But it may be questioned how seriously Frontinus intended these words to be taken: the ‘quasi’ suggests that he is speaking figuratively. And in any case the theory had no effect on administrative practice. A tenant could be evicted for failing to pay his rent: a landowner who did not pay his tribute remained, despite the theory, liable only for the amount of his debt to the State.

Now that my excavation of Margidunum (Castle Hill, Nottinghamshire) has come to an end and the site has been filled in, it may be opportune to give a detailed account of the last three buildings I explored; for they not only furnished results throwing light on the entire history of the camp but exhibit many unusual features of general importance. They form a material addition to the plan of one of the earliest forts of the Claudian conquest situated on the eastern edge of the Trent Valley, some 25 miles SW of Lindum (Lincoln) on the Fosse Way, the first strategic frontier across Britain; and the pottery found in excavating these buildings adds materially to the chronology of Romano-British pottery over a period of 350 years.

More than ten years ago—in vol. iii of the Studi in onore di Pietro Bonfante (Milan, 1930)—Angelo Segrè published four pages of a papyrus-codex of the fifth or sixth century A.D. which are of considerable importance for all scholars interested in the study of Roman Law during the fifth century. As far as I can see, however, no one has dealt with the text during the last ten years. The reason for this lack of interest probably lies in the somewhat unattractive form of the editio princeps. Segrè's edition is obviously of a temporary nature. It contains an apographum of the much mutilated text and a few explanatory notes. Segrè neither gave a transcription of the text, nor did he attempt to fill in the gaps. He believed—wrongly, as we shall see—the missing part of the text columns to be very much greater than that in our possession, and therefore thought it wise to refrain from any reconstruction. In fact his edition gives us not a single complete line of the text. It is also regrettable that Segrè did not include a photograph of at least a small part of the papyrus. In the following brief notes I wish to make some suggestions to a future editor; for a new and revised edition is indispensable. Further, I wish to show that even the text of the present edition deserves the attention of students of Roman Law, who should not postpone its study till the publication of a better edition.

The object of this note is to call attention to a passage in Professor A. Momigliano's Claudius: the Emperor and his Achievement (Oxford, 1934), which appears to stand in need of correction. This duty is all the more necessary because the book—a model of scholarly and concise writing, not easily to be emulated—has rightly won so highly authoritative and influential a place among students. The passage in question is to be found in p. 40 f., as follows: ‘In his monetary policy Claudius showed throughout a desire to recognise in full measure the rights of the Senate. Augustus, after making various experiments, ended by restricting the Senate's share of minting to the copper coinage for Italy, and kept the coinage of gold and silver and the remainder of the copper coinage in his own hands, with the principal mint at Lyons. Tiberius continued Augustus' policy in the main, though he tended to restrict provincial minting. In Gaius' reign this tendency was carried to its logical extreme; a fundamental change was made, the Lyons mint being transferred to Rome. The pretence that it was meant only for the coinage of the provinces was finally abandoned; and soon afterwards nearly all the other western provincial mints were closed even for the coinage of copper. Now one feature that differentiates Claudius' reign from that which preceded it is the reappearance in large quantities of a provincial copper coinage, easily recognisable by its coarse manufacture; and this coinage always bears the mark of the Senate (S.C.).’

The small and compact series of aes coins on which appear the names of C · BAEBIVS · P · F ·, L · RVSTICELIVS · BASTERNA ·, and L·RVSTICELIVS· CORDVS as duoviri quinquennales has always presented difficulties, chief among them being the question of the mint at which they were struck. Of the early numismatists, Sestini was the first to give these coins serious consideration: ninety years later Imhoof-Blumer described the series at length, and (influenced by Sestini) proposed its attribution to the mint of Dium (Pieriae) in Macedonia, his views being tentatively accepted afterwards in the Berlin Catalogue and more recently incorporated in the studies of H. Gaebler. For reasons which will appear below, I shall pay no great attention in this paper to the question of mint-attribution. Attention will be directed rather to the date at which the coins were struck, and to the identity of the duoviri quinquennales—Baebius in particular.

Fifty years separated the Declaration of Corinth in 196 and the destruction of Corinth in 146, two milestones in the history of Graeco-Roman relations. Exactly midway between these two events comes the embassy of Q. Marcius Philippus, notorious for a piece of sharp practice which aroused the compunction of a section of the Roman Senate itself, and as the prelude to a war regarded by many in Greece as the first step in a policy which was to end in the ruin of two of the greatest cities of the Mediterranean world. The object of the following note is to examine in some detail the date and purpose of this embassy.

Ancient authorities agree that C. Blossius of Cumae played an important part in Tiberius Gracchus's plans for reform. But the evidence they afford is only fragmentary, and it is no easy matter to arrive at a fair estimate of Blossius. In Cicero, Valerius Maximus, and Plutarch he is the adviser, almost the evil genius, of Tiberius—no doubt one of those ‘learned men who stirred up Tiberius against Scipio’. Last regards him as one of the teachers from whom the Gracchi ‘received the undoubtedly Hellenic ideas which appear in their public life at Rome’, and who can thus claim their place in history.

The Corbridge lanx, a silver dish of excellent workmanship, unusually well preserved, is one of the most interesting relics of Roman antiquity as yet discovered on English soil (pl. viii). Its admirers, however, after more than two centuries, are faced with the problem, still unsolved, of satisfactorily understanding and explaining its puzzling decoration. Of the two lines of research hitherto adopted the first is mystical or allegorical, and is attracted particularly by the mysterious objects close to the undoubted figure of Apollo, though it exaggerates their mysterious character in every respect; and the explanation of them as illustrating a systematic cosmological antithesis between heaven and earth, in the style of Neo-platonism or of the Emperor Julian, has not so far proved likely to lead anywhere. The simpler and more definite interpretation of the second group is based on classical legend, an interpretation well justified by the undoubted presence of at least three Olympian deities. Yet the attempt to deduce a Judgment of Paris from no more than the joint presence of Artemis, Apollo, and Athena was from the first a difficult line to pursue; for of the normal characters in the scene only Athena is shown, while the presence of Apollo and Artemis is a positive drawback. Cogent proof is absent here also. Despite the light meanwhile thrown on numerous details, there is nothing to change in the statement made by Roger Gale in 1735, that a gathering of deities is represented, while their relation to any given legend, if such exists, is certainly still to seek.