In an important paper contributed several years ago to this Journal1 Dr. Tarn presented an interpretation of the Battle of Actium radically different from that which had held the field for the past generation—namely that of the late Professor Kromayer. The paper was brilliantly and authoritatively written, and its chief conclusions appear to have been accepted by some scholars. They were subsequently embodied by Tarn in his section on Actium in the Cambridge Ancient History. Kromayer, however, was unconvinced, and in a reply published in Hermes maintained his original thesis and strongly criticised Tarn's. It seems presumptuous to enter the lists after the veteran scholar has made his own defence; but the question is an important one, and something perhaps remains to be said.

So far as I am aware, no classical scholar has devoted much attention to the interpretation of a lamp-festival assigned to the 12th August in the calendar of Philocalus. Mommsen, Wissowa, Wilcken, Nilsson and Cumont have made some reference to it, but none of them has attempted to identify it with any of the numerous lamp-festivals of Egypt. And so this feast, though suspected by almost all scholars to be an Isiac ceremony, has remained a mystery. The only Egyptologist who tried to solve the riddle, and who all but succeeded, is Brugsch Bey. The fundamental theory of Brugsch is sound, namely that the ‘Lychnapsia Philocaliana’ should be linked with the most important festival of lamps in Egypt, which began with the five epagomenal days added at the end of Mesore, the twelfth and last month of the Egyptian calendar, in order to harmonise with the solar year a calendar of 360 days divided into twelve equal parts. But the question is with what particular rite in this festive period the ‘Lychnapsia Philocaliana’ should be linked.

Perhaps the most remarkable of the various forms of decorated ‘Samian’ vessels is the jug or vase which is the main subject of this paper. Previously, the precise shape of these vessels was a matter of doubt, the recorded fragments being incomplete, generally lacking neck, handle and base. An attempt was made in 1933 to restore fragments existing in London on the lines of the St. Rémy green-glazed form, Déchelette 62, but this restoration has been found to be only approximately correct for the particular fragments which belong to Hermet's decorated form 15, as shown in his work La Graufesenque (Condatomago).

There is little need now to emphasise the importance of the declaration of war against Philip V of Macedon in the history of Roman imperialism, or to formulate the problem of the causes of the Roman decision to intervene in the East. The work of M. Holleaux has defined the problem and indicated its historical implications, and subsequent research has kept the issue clear. We have rather to justify a paper upon this subject which returns to details of reconstruction already fully treated. Yet the reconstruction of events has not received its final exposition, and a better understanding of the details is essential for the historical interpretation of the political situation in 200 B.C.

A corrected version given by Zangemeister, CIL xiii, 7945, of an inscription from Iversheim, near Münstereifel, previously misread (see ILS 2459; cf. Corrigenda, vol. Ill, ii, p. clxxviii), discloses a possible connection with an inscription from the fort of Birrens in Dumfriesshire, CIL vii, 1062 (PSA Scot. xxx, 133, no. 6). The Birrens inscription is a dedication to Brigantia by an Amandus who describes himself as arcitectus. The Iversheim inscription mentions a Val(erius) Amandus who as discens (architectus) carried out structural work there under Iulius Castinus, legate of the Legion 1 Minervia, duobus Augg. cos. A clue to the identity of the Augusti is given by an inscription from Aquincum, CIL iii, 10471, which shows that Castinus was legate of Lower Pannonia in the joint reign of Severus, Caracalla and Geta (cf. Dio, lxxviii, 13, 2).

So little is known of the importation into Britain of carinated bowls (form 29) made by Lezoux potters that the examples illustrated on the accompanying plates may enable their work to be more readily recognised. These specimens (with the exception of fig. 13, nos. 2, 8 and 9, in the St. Germain Museum) were obtained by me some years ago during a visit to Lezoux, when, by the kindness of Madame Plicque, the widow of Dr. A. Plicque, I was able to acquire the remainder of his collection, which was excavated by him about forty years ago, and the bulk of which is now in the St. Germain Museum.

In speeches delivered during the years 57–55 B.C. Cicero frequently mentions the events and transactions immediately preceding his banishment. Clodius, the tribune of the year 58, was the author of all the trouble, and Clodius is the target of his passionate attacks. Here as elsewhere Cicero shows himself a virtuoso in the technique of variation, ever changing the venue of his accusations. Yet one complaint is constantly reiterated—Clodius's abrogation of the Lex Aelia Fufia. The following pages are devoted to an investigation of the fate of that law, for lack of which many of the events of this crowded period remain incomprehensible.