^{page 33 note 1} I have seen no discussion of the documents. Oliverio's commentary is confined to the details of the texts. The remarks of F. Ebrard in Phil. Wochenschrift, October 1, do not seem to me to be very helpful, and his translation appears to me to be wrong in some points. I have to thank Mr. H. M. Last for reading my address as it was delivered and giving me the benefit of his views on certain matters, and Mr. R. McKenzie for assistance on some linguistic points.

^{page 33 note 2} I have collated Oliverio's text with the photographic facsimile and made a few small corrections (1. 24, ἕληται; 1. 57, πολειτήαι τετείμηνταϛ l. 101, σύγ[κλ]ητον).

^{page 34 note 1} For τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατον probably by mere the interchange of vowels on the engraver's part (in l. 108 he has engraved τέσσαρϵϛ for τέσσαραϛ). In the LXX τέσσαραϛ for τέσσαρϵϛ occurs twice in the B text of 2 Esdras, while τέσσαρϵϛ is common for τέσσαραϛ (H. St. J. Thackeray, Grammar of tbe O.T. in Greek, 1909, pp. 73–4).

^{page 35 note 1} δὲ (δ) ἐν Oliverio.

^{page 35 note 2} (τον ῆ) Oliverio.

^{page 36 note 1} διάγνωσιν Oliverio.

^{page 36 note 2} 4 B.C.

^{page 36 note 3} ξϵ τη repeated from the previous line and then erased.

^{page 36 note 4} νόμοϛ (διὰ τὸ ἐκ) τῶν Oliverio.

^{page 37 note 1} ἐπιϕέρωσιν ὅπωϛ ἀκονσθῶσιν, ὁ ἄρΧων Oliverio.

^{page 37 note 2} ἐξομοσάμϵνον καὶ δόντα Oliverio.

^{page 38 note 1} αϛ Oliverio.

^{page 38 note 2} relative ( = οὗ) Oliverio.

^{page 38 note 3} τῆ(ς) συνκλήτ(ου) Oliverio.

^{page 38 note 4} (δόγματος τῆς συνκλήτου) Oliverio.

^{page 39 note 1} Ἐπίκριμα (1. 59, also in 1. 69 below), a decision, decretum in the wider sense, occurs at an earlier date in the letter of Antony to Aphrodisias (Dittenberger, Or. Gr. Inscr. Sel. 453, Bruns Fontes, no. 43, l. 23). Cp. also Preisigke, Wörterbuch, s.v.

^{page 40 note 1} Σηκωθοισῶν τῶν σφαιρῶν (1. 24) is explained by Asconius, in Milonianam, § 34 (ed. Clark) : secundum legem quae … iubebat ut … quarta die adesse omnes iuberentur ac coram accusatore ac reo pilae in quibus nomina iudicum inscripta essent aequarentur (quoted by Oliverio).

^{page 40 note 2} Συνβούλιον κριτῶν (1.66) = consilium iudicum, a bench of jurymen, as in Lex Acilia, ll. 57, 60, and Cic., pro Sex. Roscio, 151: boc quod maiores consilium publicum vocari voluerunt.

^{page 41 note 3} Strafrecht, p. 239.

^{page 42 note 1} Strafrecht, pp. 238, 240.

^{page 43 note 1} Class. Pbilol. xvi (1921), pp. 34–50Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 2} Πρόγραμμα is an official announcement of a king, emperor, governor, etc., posted up for public information, an edict. Cp. Preisigke, Wörterbuch a.v.

^{page 43 note 3} This would mean that he was one of those who γραφομένῳ παρῆσαν, scribundo adfuerunt. Συνεπιγράφεσθαι is ordinarily used of signing on name together with others in token of agreement, and hence of ‘assenting to.’ Preisigke Wörterbuch : ‘zusammen dazuschreiben, eintragen.’ If taken passively, we might interpret it as ‘named jointly’ (with the consuls) in the decree as its auctor, the reference being to 1. 85 ff.

^{page 43 note 4} Suet. Aug. 35 : ‘sibique instituit consilia sortiri semenstria, cum quibus de negotiis ad frequentem senatum referendis ante tractaret.’ The composition of the council is described by Dio 53. 21, 4.

^{page 44 note 1} The meaning of δημοσίαι ἢ ἰδίαι here, as in ll. 131, 14.0–1, seems perfectly clear. The Latin would be publice vel privatim, and a glance at the Lexicon to Cicero will satisfy the reader as to the correct interpretation. The explanation of F. Ebrard in Phil. Woch., 1 October, 1927, col. 1230 (who takes δημοσίαι as referring to the Roman State, so that the claim is against any Roman who has practised extortion, whether as a public official or as a private man) seems to me plainly wrong.

^{page 44 note 2} Reading ὧν ἂν…αἰτίας ἐπιφέρωσιν, ὅπως ἀκουσθῶσιν, ὁ ἄρχων κτλ. But ὧν is strange : it can hardly be other than masc., and we should expect οἷς. Αἰτίας ἐπιφέρειν should mean crimina inferre, but quorum crimina inferant would be intolerable Latin.

^{page 44 note 3} Ἐπ᾿αὐτῆς τῆς Ῥώμης. The use of ἐπὶ in ll. 107, 109, 111 and l. 139 (ἐπὶ τῆς Ἰταλίας) confirms Wilcken's interpretation of P. Lond. 1912 (letter of Claudius), l. 37, ἐπεὶ Ῥώμης ἀνατεθήσεται (Archiv f. Papyr., vii, p. 308–9).

^{page 44 note 4} The phrase ἐπιμελητὴς σειτομετρίας reminds us of Suetonius’ expression curam frumenti populo dividundi (Aug. c. 37). The ordinary designation of the officials was praefecti frumenti dandi, replacing the earlier curatores frumenti (cp. Dio 54, 4).

^{page 44 note 5} Lege (Iulia) iudiciorum publicorum contra adfines et cognatos testimonium inviti dicere non cogimur, says Paulus (Dig. 38. 10, 10 pr.): who also quotes the clause of the law in Dig. 22. 5, 4. This law is the lex Iulia iudiciaria of our decree (quoted by the same title in Dig. 48. 14. 1, 4) : it laid down general regulations for the constitution and procedure of the quaestiones perpetuae. The parallel lex iudiciorum privatorum, also called lex Iulia iudiciaria by Gaius (4. 104), regulated the procedure of the civil courts. Both laws were passed in 17 B.C. See the admirable discussion by P. F. Girard in Zft. d. Savigny-Stiftung (Rom. Abt.), 1913, pp. 295–372.

^{page 44 note 6} παρίσθωσαν (l. 137) = παρείσθωσαν, Perf. imper. pass. of παρίημι.

^{page 44 note 7} τῶν ὑπάτων τόν τε προηγοροῦντα (where τϵ is otiose) is obscure. Does it mean the consul who had the fasces at the time and so would have priority in speaking? The emendation ὑπατ(ικ)ῶν is easy, but a magistrate as president would perhaps be preferable.

^{page 44 note 8} Ten was the number usually allowed in iudicia recuperatoria where the action was a public one (popularis, publica) claiming the exaction of a fine for damage done to the public interest, as in the Venafran edict of Augustus, 1. 66 (Bruns⁷, no. 77; Dessau, I.L.S., 5743), and the Lex Mamilia (Iul. Agraria), c. 5 (Brans⁷, no. 15).

^{page 45 note 1} I find it hard to accept the suggestion thrown out by Ebrard (l.c. col. 1231) that the only novelty in the S.C. may have been the limitations in respect of the witnesses allowed to be cited (ll. 139–141)—all the rest being a re-publication of existing rules of procedure—although that inference might no doubt be drawn from the preamble of the decree (ll. 93–96).

^{page 45 note 2} Livy xliii, 2, 3.

^{page 46 note 1} Strafrecht, p. 713.

^{page 46 note 2} Strafrecht, pp. 730, 907 f.; Strachan-Davidson, Problems of the Rom. Crim. Law, ii, p. 14.

^{page 47 note 1} Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i, p. 140 f.; ii, p. 49 ff.

^{page 48 note 1} Op. cit. ii, p. 24.

^{page 48 note 2} E.g. Pliny, Epp., ii, 11, 2; iv, 9, 16 and 19.