Of the rivers of the Roman Campagna the Numicus, perhaps, attracts especial interest, not only because of several ancient cults connected with it and its resultant peculiar sanctity for the Romans, but also because of three references to it in the Aeneid. In the seventh book, after the Trojans land on the left bank of the Tiber, they prospect the newly-discovered land, and bring back word to Aeneas

This seems to imply that the Numicus is second in importance only to the Tiber in that locality. Then an envoy is sent to Latinus, and to his questions Ilioneus, the herald, replies

Thirdly, in the Gathering of the Clans, the coastal district of Latium is summarised in the lines

Apart from the fact that in these passages the Numicus is coupled with the Tiber, and that in the last two its sanctity is manifest, little evidence can be gained from Vergil in regard to the location of the river.

Between Ostia and Antium some half-dozen streams flow over the Roman Campagna and debouch on to the shore of Latium (p. 3, fig. 1), four of which have severally been recognised by various authorities as the Numicus. About two kilometres south of the Tiber is the Canale dello Stagno, a sluggish stream which serves as a drainage canal for the tract of land, now reclaimed for tillage and pasture, which once was the Ostian lake and the site of ancient salt beds. It appears originally to have been natural but at some period to have been canalised ; for, though the course is not quite straight, the banks are trim and regular. It is wide enough to admit of a bridge with three arches (pi. iii, 1).

Italicus es an provincialis? The question has remained unanswered to this day. A majestic silence conceals from us the origins of Tacitus. It is sometimes assumed that he was ‘by birth a noble,’ because he has the great manner and writes contemptuously of upstarts. But this might be in part explained from the nature of his subject and of his sources. The maiestas populi Romani likewise pervades the public odes of Horace, the freedman's son, and the Roman tragedies of Shakespeare; while the sources of Tacitus were imbued with the gravitas and even the superbia of the senatorial aristocracy.

The Grand Cameo of Paris has generally been supposed to depict either Tiberius' reception of Germanicus on his return from Germany in A.D. 17 or the dispatch of Germanicus by Tiberius to the East in the same year. The scene is surveyed by Augustus and others from the heavens above; below is depicted the humiliation which Germanicus is diplomatically supposed, on the one hypothesis, to have inflicted on Germany, on the other hypothesis, to be about to inflict on the East. These interpretations have now been challenged and Dr. Ludwig Curtius 1 offers in their room a novel interpretation of which M. Gagé writes, ‘elle peut ouvrir (aux historiens) d'apercus neufs et saisissants’ 2 and Professor H. M. Last, ‘if he (Curtius) is right in dating the work to the principate of Gaius, the results are serious, both for the plans about the succession to Tiberius and for other matters… This theory needs much examination.’ 3 I wish to show, as briefly as possible, that, however great its merits may be in respect of iconography, the theory so seriously violates established historical facts as to be in large part untenable.

The cycle of market days, or Nundinae, recurring at an interval of eight days, which was observed by the city of Rome and some other, at least, of the Italian cities—notably those of Campania—has been known to the modern world through two types of evidence—that of written sources and that of epigraphical documents. The written sources, except when they make only passing reference to this institution, as in the case of Cicero's Letters to Atticus and Cassius Dio's Roman History, are interested primarily in the origin and essential nature of the custom. Also, we hear from these written sources primarily of the Nundinae as observed at Rome itself. For the practice of other Italian cities in holding markets at eight-day intervals we are almost entirely dependent upon the evidence of calendars on stone, but to a less extent, and more recently, we have been fortunate in having added to this the evidence of graffiti.

The date when the Parthian king Phraates surrendered his four sons and their wives and children to the Romans has been fixed by the statement of Strabo (xvi, 748) that they were consigned to the Syrian legate Titius (τὸν ἐπιστατοῦντα τότε τῆς Συρίας). The only means of determining when Titius was in Syria is provided by Josephus, who says (Ant. xvi, 270) that, through the good offices of Herod, Titius was reconciled with Archelaus of Cappadocia, from whom he had previously been estranged. This reconciliation must be placed between 12 or possibly 13 B.C. and 8 B.C. and modern scholars have been practically unanimous in accepting the view of Mommsen that it was during this period, perhaps because of some fresh difficulty with the Parthians, that Phraates surrendered his sons.

The evidence on which any attempt to fix the site of the battle of Ilipa must be based is briefly as follows. Polybius records that Hasdrubal and Scipio advanced to contest the final mastery of Spain in 206 B.C. (or less probably 207). ‘Hasdrubal encamped not far from a town called Ilipa, entrenching himself just under the hills (πρὸς ταĩς ὑπωρείαις) with a plain in front well suited for a contest and battle’ (xi, 20, 1). ‘When Scipio got near the Carthaginians and was in full sight of them he encamped on some low hills (περί τινας γεωλόφονς) opposite the enemy“ (§9). When the Carthaginian cavalry attempted to take Scipio off his guard, the Roman cavalry, which had been stationed under a hill (ὑπό τινα βουνόν), charged the enemy so suddenly that many of the Carthaginians were unhorsed and the attack was repulsed. After several days of waiting the final battle was fought on the plain, the Carthaginian infantry being ‘at no great distance from the foot of the hill’ (οὐ πολύ τῆς παρωρείας xi, 22, 8), i.e. the hill on which their camp was placed (cf. xi, 24, 7). Polybius' account breaks off after the description of Scipio's victory, but Livy, who followed it very closely, adds two facts of importance :—(1) that after the battle the Carthaginians strengthened their rampart with large stones (xxviii, 15 ; which suggests that their original camp was an earthwork), and (2) that Hasdrubal did not have to cross the Baetis (Guadalquivir) on his retreat to the Atlantic, i.e. the battle was fought on the right bank of the river. Appian adds little of value : his statement that the two camps were ten stades apart is clearly false, since the space (less than 2 km.) is too small to permit the free deployment of two armies as large as these must have been.

One of the most interesting problems in the political history of the last three decades of the third century B.C. is the appearance of the Romans east of the Adriatic. Whether Rome in the First and Second Illyrian Wars was inaugurating a definite imperialistic policy with the conscious aim of gaining control in the Balkan peninsula, or whether at this time she was acting purely on the defensive against Illyrian piracy, are questions with which I am not concerned at present. The fact of primary importance is that, by establishing herself in Illyria, Rome came into contact with Macedon, and this contact was bound to lead to hostilities; for the Antigonids could not fail to resent the intrusion of a stranger in what they considered their own sphere of influence. In this paper I propose to consider the attitude of Philip V to the Roman protectorate in Illyria at the beginning of his reign. Since his whole life was one long struggle with Rome, the importance of understanding his policy in regard to this question is obvious. Before entering upon the subject, however, it will be necessary to try to determine how far westward Macedonian authority extended. A knowledge of this western frontier will not only inform us on the proximity of Macedonian possessions to the Roman protectorate, but will also reveal some of the problems which the barbaric Illyrian and Dardanian tribes presented to Philip in this quarter. Once we have these matters clearly in mind, we shall be in a much better position to form an unbiased estimate of Philip's attitude to what may be called his Illyrian problem.

Previous articles have discussed the critical significance of the new text, PSI 1182, and the new information on consortium. The text has now begun to affect general treatises, such as those of E. Betti, R. Monier, and W. Kunkel. The following special literature may be added to what has been previously cited :—

V. Arangio-Ruiz, Cours de dr. rom. (Les actions), Naples 1935, and ‘Il nuovo Gaio,’ Bull. Ist. Dir. Rom. (BIDR), xlii, 571–624. F. Lanfranchi, ‘Appunti sul “consortium” familiare nei retori romani,’ Stud, et Doc. hist, et iuris, fasc. 2, 1935, 373–8. A. E. Giffard, ‘Iudicis postulatio et actio ex sponsione,’. Rev. hist. dr., xiii. 514–6, and ‘Varron, De L.L., vi, 64–5,’ Rev. de philol., ix, 82–3. F. de Zulueta, Supplements to the Institutes of Gaius, Oxford 1935 (separate; also incorporated in Poste's Gaius). C. W. Westrup, Family property and patria potestas, Oxford 1936. G. I. Luzzatto, Sulle origini e la natura delle obbligazioni romane, Milan 1934. P. Meylan, Acceptilation et paiement, Lausanne 1934. Cf. H. F. Jolowicz, JEA xxii, 1936, 81, 86.

It remains to consider the new evidence on iudicis postulatio and condictio (PSI 1182, 178–220). We begin by recalling the augmented text (Gaius 4, 17a–20).

Five different princesses named Iotape are mentioned by Plutarch, Cassius Dio, and Josephus, and the name and title of one of them appear on coins of Commagene. The princesses belong to the kingdoms of Media, Emesa, Commagene, and Judaea. The first of them in point of time is Iotape of Media, who was betrothed as a child to Alexander Helios. In the next century an Iotape Philadelphus appears on coins as the sister-wife of Antiochus IV of Commagene, and a contemporary Iotape, daughter of Sampsigeramus of Emesa, is mentioned by Josephus. Both of these contemporary Iotapes had daughters named Iotape. I suggest in this paper that the Median Iotape was the grandmother both of Iotape, daughter of Sampsigeramus, who married the Jewish prince Aristobulus, brother of Julius Agrippa I and of Herod, king of Chalcis, and also of Iotape, sister-wife of Antiochus IV of Commagene, ‘vetustis opibus ingens et seruientium regum ditissimus.’

A remark on p. 117 of this Journal for 1936, made by Mr. A. H. M. Jones in a review of The Bucheum has reminded me that I have never given my reasons for the view taken by me in CAH x, 36, regarding stela no. 13 from the Bucheum, reasons which could not of course be given in CAH itself; and, as readers of my chapter will find no reference there to any of the other stelae, I am glad of the opportunity of stating why that is so. Sometime before 1932 Professor Glanville brought stela no. 13 to my notice (I think it was exhibited somewhere) and with it a translation, which I used in writing my chapter. Late in 1932 I had some correspondence with Mr. Fairman, who was about to return to Egypt; he told me there was a whole series of stelae and kindly lent me his notes.

The mosaic pavement illustrated on plates VII VIII and IX was found in a Roman villa at Newton-St.-Loe, near Bath, in 1837–38. It was taken up and relaid at Keynsham Railway Station; in 1851 it was taken up again for the Bristol Museum, but when the Bristol Institution moved into a new museum in 1871 the pavement remained stored away, and was never shown again. Several removals and neglect reduced it to a mere pile of fragments, so that the late Professor F. J. Haverfield, writing about 1906, said that it had perished. In 1930–32 it was, however, brought to light. Plates VIII and IX show pieces assembled on a floor awaiting restoration. The site of the villa, which is of an ordinary corridor type (fig. 4), is just outside, and to the west of, Bath, within a few yards to the east of the bridge carrying the main road to Bristol across the Great Western Railway. Most of it was cut away by the railway, but the site of the outbuilding is said to be marked by the broken surface of the south slope of the railway cutting. There are as yet no modern structures at the place. The pavement has frequently been wrongly called after Keynsham or Saltford.

The second edition of Sir George Macdonald's Roman Wall in Scotland has provoked a new interest in the problems presented by that limes; and no contribution to the discussion is likely to be more stimulating than that propounded above (p. 80 ff.) by Professor Collingwood. The bold thesis there developed is that the Antonine Wall was the slightest of barriers, a toy frontier manned by a garrison whose energies were divided and wasted between patrolling and the legitimate work of defence. So curious a design resulted from the fact that the Lowlands between the Walls had been largely depopulated before the new frontier was established. This interesting view, coherent enough in itself, is put forward in order to supply a lack in Sir George's book, which studies the frontier objectively, without attempting to explain why it was erected; and it is freely admitted that the archaeological facts upon which such a view might be based are insufficient to justify an authoritative statement of a case. Thus, we are in the happy position of being able to admire both author and critics. Sir George's caution is ranged against Professor Collingwood's temerity ; the one avoiding treacherous ground, the other treading nimbly across it, getting a foothold where he can.

The following list of the colonies planted in this period can be made (a name in italics indicates that the colony was of the Latin type):

194 Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum, Liternum, Volturnum, Sipontum, Tempsa, Croton (Livy xxxiv, 45; cf. xxxii, 29, 3). ca. 194 Pyrgi (see below, p. 28).

193 Copia (Livy xxxv, 9, 7; cf. xxxiv, 53, 1).

192 Vibo Valentia (Livy xxxv, 40, 5; cf. xxxiv, 53, 1).

189 Bononia (Livy xxxvii, 57, 7; cf. 47, 2).

184 Pisaurum, Potentia (Livy xxxix, 44, 10).

183 Mutina, Parma, Saturnia (Livy xxxix, 55).

181 Gravisca (Livy xl, 29, 1), Aquileia (Livy xl, 34, 2; cf. xxxix 55, 4).

177 Luna (Livy xli, 13, 4).

The campaigns of Caesar and Augustus gave Italian merchants an opportunity of establishing relations with the free Germans. Intercourse was maintained after the withdrawal of the legions to the west of the Rhine, and literary references to the trade which grew up, though few in number, testify to its continuance throughout the time here to be considered. The conception of an illimitable forest primeval stretching unbroken from the borders of the empire into the furthest recesses of barbarism is very far from the truth. Great as were the forests, there existed open or lightly-wooded areas suitable for the settlements of primitive man, and communication between such inhabited regions can be traced from very early times.

The English Magister Gregorius, and the Spanish Jew, Benjamin ben Jonah of Tudela, lived towards the end of the twelfth century Our knowledge of the former's description of Rome is due to G. McN. Rushforth, who attempts to date his visit to Rome more precisely but has to admit that this is not possible. He can only say that it took place in the latter part of the twelfth or the earlier part of the thirteenth century. The visit of Rabbi Benjamin can be fixed more exactly. He mentions Alexander III as Pope : he made his entry into Rome on the 23rd of November, 1165, and was driven out again in 1167 but returned in 1177. On passing through Bari he mentions that the city had been destroyed by King William of Sicily (1156) It was rebuilt by William the Good in 1169, so that his visit to Rome must have been before this. When he travels to Lesser Armenia, he names as its ruler Thoros, who died in December 1167 or February 1168. As by this time he had travelled through Greece and Constantinople, and along the coast of Asia Minor to Lesser Armenia we may reasonably date his visit to Rome in the year 1166.

Much has been written on the ‘Constitutio Antoniniana,’ especially since the publication of Papyrus Giessen 40, but very little in English. It may therefore be useful if, before I state my own views on the subject, I briefly summarise the main stages of the controversy up to the point which it has hitherto reached.

Romano-British archaeologists are now generally agreed in supposing that the final abandonment of Hadrian's Wall occurred about the time of the usurpation of Maximus in 383. This theory was first put forward by Dr. H. H. E. Craster in 1914, and it is supported by the results of the Birdoswald Excavations of 1929. It rests mainly on negative evidence, but it is evidence which was formidable in 1914 and is still more formidable to-day, since no coin later than 383 has ever been reported from the Wall—except the one which is the subject of this paper. Moreover it becomes evident that the reason for the cessation is historical and not numismatic, when it is realised that at other sites, some quite close to the Wall, the coin-series extends beyond 383. Romano-British archaeologists, therefore, impressed by the weight of the evidence, have assumed that the one exception to Dr. Craster's rule, the coin of Arcadius from Heddon-on-the-Wall, is a stray, the presence of which does not imply a garrison on the Wall at the time of its issue. Dr. Schultz, however, writing in this Journal, seems to imply that it is not a stray, but a testimony to the maintenance of a garrison on the Wall down to the fifth century.