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 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.

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).

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 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 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.

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.