Of all Latin writers whose works have come down to us there is none so live as Plautus, and none more calculated to give a modern reader the real ‘feel’ of Latin. He is worth reading for this alone, apart from the fun to be got out of his comedy, and there is much to be said for using him judiciously in the elementary stages of Latin teaching. But unfortunately not all his plays are of equal merit, and for most people selection is desirable. For that reason attention in this article will be confined to five plays—Rudens, Mostellaria, Aulularia, Miles Gloriosus, and Menaechmi—which in themselves are worth reading for sheer entertainment, and which also incidentally illustrate the influence of Plautus on modern drama. Any reader who masters these may be sure that he has got nearly all that is best and most characteristic in Plautus, and will have enjoyed himself into the bargain.

The First Punic War is a record of a dismal wastage of human life and of strategic ineptitude. Briefly the Roman mistakes may be summed up as follows. First, the popular assembly which accepted the alliance with Messana seems to have failed to realize that the Carthaginians were bound to try to eject them from Sicily; to fight Carthage Rome needed a navy; she had none of her own and even in the treaty with Hiero asked for no naval assistance. Secondly, Rome made her struggle in Sicily much harder because she alienated all the Greeks by her ungenerous treaty with Hiero and by the massacre of non-combatants at Agrigentum. Thirdly, she was very slow to realize that the only way to get the Carthaginians out of Sicily was to strike at Africa; Agathocles in 310 had already pointed the way. Fourthly, Regulus failed to enlist willing Numidians in his cavalry, although a strong cavalry was essential on the plains of Africa. Fifthly, Regulus was left with far too small a force. Lastly, Rome continued to change the command and appoint inexperienced men, though few were quite so incompetent as Regulus who, when faced by the elephants and phalanx of Xanthippus, massed his legionaries, thus making them an easy prey to the Carthaginian battering ram.

Callias, son of Hipponicus, inherited the greatest fortune of his day, lived throughout the latter half of the fifth century and the first thirty years of the fourth century, spent his money lavishly, and died poor, or at least a good deal poorer. He must have been a prominent personage in Athens, yet owing to his lack of interest in politics and war, one hears little of him in history books. He presents a small problem to the biographer: there are two sources of information about him, one friendly, one hostile, and the fitting together of the two into a portrait is an entertaining occupation.

Only a few years ago Professor Carcopino of the Sorbonne published a book entitled Ce que Rome et l'Empire remain doit à la Gaule. For the classical scholar brought up under the Victorian régime this was turning the tables with a vengeance: from time immemorial, people, and classical historians in particular, had looked to Rome and Greece as the origin of all that was worth mentioning in the inheritance of western European culture from the ancient world. And now a famous scholar, and a classical one at that, unexpectedly wrote a book on what Rome owed to Gaul, and put up such a very good case for Gallic civilization that it is no longer possible to ignore it. Since then further researches have shown that the Gallic contribution to Gallo-Roman culture and through it to our heritage down the ages was considerable. While it is still too early to give a reasoned and detailed account of this Gallic contribution, we can at any rate state that Professor Carcopino's book and the work of other historians both before and after him have forced us to reorientate our ideas about the early influences which combined to form what we call modern western European culture. To-day we hear all kinds of fancy theories put forward to suit the national consciousness of various peoples, which all attempt to show that one or the other people has contributed most to the building up of our modern world. I do not think it will ever be possible to divide up and allot the various component parts of our culture to the different formative elements; but it is true that there are certain historical facts which will not admit of negation and simply cannot be ignored, however much this or that national consciousness might like to ignore them.

Polybius was born at Megalopolis in Arcadia, which was one of the staunchest members of the Achaean League in its last desperate stand for freedom in the second century b.c. The Hellenistic civilization had been unable to achieve permanent unity in Hellas, and in the second century petty quarrels between neighbouring states seemed likely to overshadow the real danger from without. The dynasties of Ptolemies, Seleucids, and Antigonids were becoming divided amongst themselves; Rome was growing and inevitably meeting opposition from Carthage; Greece was liable to become the battleground, or else fall a prey to the victors. Credit for being the pioneer in the policy of arousing the dormant Achaean League to a realization of its ideals of Greek union and freedom belongs to Aratus of Sikyon: for the accomplishment of the task of uniting the Peloponnese against the danger which threatened, three men are chiefly responsible, Philopoemen who became head of the League after the death of Aratus (213 b.c.), Lycortas, and his son Polybius. All three were natives of Megalopolis, a city which was itself originally an experiment in unity.