The statement of L. Wickert that the numbers of the tribuniciae potestates of Gallienus (and of Valerian) are contradictory and also in part evidently wrong can also be applied to the numbering of the consulates of those rulers. There are, however, two kinds of discrepancy in the reckoning of imperial years in this period, caused respectively by ordinary blunders and by abnormal methods of numbering. As the latter kind of discrepancy does not alter the relative exactness of the chronology, abnormal reckoning has, rightly interpreted, the same documentary value as the strictly correct system. Inscriptions, of course, do not offer opportunities of discriminating between occasional mistakes and incorrect systems as the cause of error, but the character of erroneous reckonings can be discerned on coins through continuity of reckoning in successive years in any given mint.

By the death of Sir George Macdonald on 9th August, 1940, the Roman Society and its Journal have lost a pillar of strength. As a Vice-President of the Society since its foundation, and as President for five years after the last war, when a fresh impetus was needed, he rendered very valuable service, and as a member of the Editorial Committee from the outset he worked silently but untiringly to ensure the maintenance of the high standard of scholarship which the Journal has consistently displayed. Among his qualifications for editorial work was a notable gift for proof-reading, which made it for him a sort of diversion: typographical errors, bad punctuation, oversights, omissions, obscurity of language or of thought on the author's part—nothing escaped his vigilance. A personal notice of him is not contemplated here; he would not have thought it in place, nor could it be limited to what primarily concerns members of the Society, his contributions to our knowledge of antiquity, which were but a by-product of a busy life of which the later stage was spent in the public service. But it will be generally recognised as appropriate to complete the bibliography of his writings which was prefixed to the papers dedicated to him in 1932, in celebration of his seventieth birthday (JRS xxii, 1). All that he wrote exhibited the qualities of a great scholar, mastery of the evidence, a sure touch, sound judgment, and fine historical insight. Such work is of lasting value, and the author's attractive style makes it pleasant to read.

In two papers published in 1933, ‘The Philippus in the West and the Belgic invasion of Gaul’ (Num. Chron. 1933, 88) and ‘The distribution of Gaulish and British coins in Britain’ (Antiquity 1933, 268), Dr. G. C. Brooke put forward, in explanation of the imitation in Gaul of the gold staters of Philip II of Macedon two centuries after their original issue, the theory that these coins were introduced into Central Gaul by the Romans about 120 B.C. when they came into contact with the tribes in that region, and that the Philippus had been ‘brought into normal currency in Rome’ in the second century B.C. after the arrival of great numbers of Philippi in the spoils of war from Greece and Asia Minor in the first half of that century. As Dr. Pink has pointed out, Dr. Brooke's date is several years too late to suit the literary evidence; but it need not be questioned that the gold stater of the type of Philip did not reach Gaul till long after the first issue in Macedon. That it came through Rome, however, does not seem to be supported by any archaeological facts, and involves a serious misconception of Roman monetary economics.

The city state was the most characteristic expression of the Hellenic way of life; and it is appropriate that the most Philhellenic of Roman emperors should have been distinguished as a founder of cities and an encourager of civic institutions. We are ill informed about the constitution and history of most of his foundations, but concerning one, which was in Egypt, a country whose soil preserves so perfectly the antiquities which it covers, we have a considerable amount of evidence. Antinoopolis is thus of interest not only to the historian of Roman and Byzantine Egypt, but also for the light it may throw on Hadrian's aims and ideals as a founder of cities.

The objects published here with the kind permission of Dr. Jacob Hirsch are said to have been found at ‘Seki Bazar between Makli and Elmali’: the place is probably to be identified with the village Sekia, shown on the map in O. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien i, four miles north of the site of Oinoanda. Sekia lies about half-way along the road between Makri (Makli is unknown and is probably a mispronunciation of Makri) and Elmali. The internal evidence of the inscriptions confirms that the find must come from somewhere in SW Asia Minor. The find consists of two inscribed plaques with busts and fragments of a wreath. We first describe the objects, then comment on the inscriptions, and finally discuss the problems which arise from a study of them.

Although Plassart, when publishing for the first time the inscription referred to as Text A in this article, mentioned that he had seen it ‘assez rapidement’ and that it ‘mériterait révision’, Crönert did not realise in SEG ii, 398, that he was restoring a text which had not been published in its entirety. I was able, during a visit to Beroea in the autumn of 1936 in the company of Mr. C. F. Edson of Harvard University, to examine the inscription carefully and, in addition to correcting some inaccuracies in Plassart's copy, removed, with the permission of the Δεσπότης of Beroea, a wooden bench which covered a portion of the inscription, and thus was able to read all the extant text. The accompanying photograph (fig. 5) shows clearly the part of the text hitherto unread.

A certain number of extant inscriptions and oral traditions which still linger in remote places, as in the Djebel Nefouca, to the south of Leptis Magna and Oea, indicate that there was a time when the cult of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul existed in Roman Africa; but the distribution of evidence, which is largely derived from the fringes of the Roman province, in Mauretania and in southern Numidia, invites the question why places so far removed from the Latin influence of the proconsular province should show such interest in the see of Rome and its founders.

M. Jean Schérer, the editor of P Fouad 21, suggested that the question about the πολιτεία of the missicii was decided the same day as the question of the legionaries in P Yale inv. 1528, and that the space before εἶπον in 1. 11 contained very probably the name of the prefect Tuscus.

In Fouad 21, lines 11–14, Tuscus seems to repeat what he said in P Yale inv. 1528, lines 17 ff.

Comparing P Yale 1528 with P Fouad 21, I would suggest that ἀγωγή does not mean ‘discipline’ but the actio, i.e., the claim of the soldiers, and I assume also that the legionaries in P Yale 1528 are veterans of the legions and not legionaries, because in both documents the prefect spoke to the same people repeating the same things.

The Nerva Inscription in Beroea still lies, where Delacoulonche first reported it, on the right hand of the entrance to the Orta Cami. During a visit to Beroea in 1936, in the company of Mr. C. F. Edson of Harvard University, I was enabled to gather some fresh information about this dedication.

The slab of marble which bears the inscription is embedded in the ground on its side, so that the left half of the inscription has not been seen since the building of the Mosque, the raising of the heavy marble flags of the entrance being a formidable task without some mechanical aid. A rough-surfaced margin surrounds the smooth inscribed field. The lettering is elaborate Imperial, with many ligatures. H. 116 m. Exposed W. at top 0.53 m. Exposed W. at bottom 0.50 m.

Caecina and Aebutius both laid claim to the same piece of land. When Caecina attempted to enter on it, he was driven away by the threats of Aebutius and his followers, all armed. Cicero, counsel for Caecina, obtained from the praetor an injunction, such as had often been given in similar cases, ordering Aebutius to restore Caecina to the land in dispute, ‘if indeed it was true that he had ejected him by force, with the help of armed men.’ It was, however, not true, according to Piso who pleaded the cause of Aebutius. Piso admitted most of the facts alleged by Cicero. But he maintained that, strictly speaking, his client had not ejected Caecina ‘by force’ nor, for that matter, ‘ejected’ him at all. No ‘force’ had been used, said Piso: Caecina had taken to his heels long before he was hurt.

The creation of curatores rei publicae is a very important factor in the history of local government in the Roman Empire. For it cuts across the division of administration into the central and professional on the one hand and the local and amateur on the other. It brought an imperial official into the heart of that local governing body which presided over the affairs of its community, and gave to him the supervision of its property and financial arrangements. That this interference was caused not by a doctrinaire desire on the part of an emperor for the enlargement of the sphere of the central service, but by the needs of the communities themselves, is indicated by the varying times at which curatores appear in the various provinces. The first known curator in Africa belongs to A.D. 196—nearly a century after the office was initiated.