Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions: Part 1 Rome and the Neighborhood, Augustus to Nerva. Text [Reprint 2020 ed.] 9780520350649

Citation preview

A L B U M OF D A T E D L A T I N

INSCRIPTIONS

I ALBUM OF DATED LATIN INSCRIPTIONS ROME AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AUGUSTUS TO NERVA

TEXT ARTHUR E. GORDON IN COLLABORATION WITH JOYCE S. GORDON

UNIVERSITY

OF

CALIFORNIA

PRESS

•

BERKELEY

•

LOS

ANGELES

•

MCMLVIII

U N I V E R S I T Y OF CALIFORNIA PRESS B E R K E L E Y AND LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA CAMBRIDGE U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S LONDON, ENGLAND © 1958, BY T H E REGENTS OF T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF CALIFORNIA L I B R A R Y OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD N U M B E R :

57-10497

PRINTED IN T H E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA B Y T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING DEPARTMENT DESIGNED B Y JOHN B . GOETZ

PREFACE I t is both a pleasure and a duty again to record m y thanks to the authorities of the American Academy in Rome and the University of California who made it possible for my wife and me to spend the year 1948-49 in Rome and do the research upon which is based nearly all our work since then, including the present publication. Our thanks again also to the authorities and personnel of the public and pontifical museums in Rome, not only for fully assisting us in 1948-49 but for answering questions since, giving us information, and allowing us to publish hitherto unpublished material: Salvatore Aurigemma and Miss C. Caprino of the Museo Nazionale Romano; the late Bartolomeo Nogara, Filippo Magi, Hermine Speier, and Leonardo Frenguelli of the Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie; and Carlo Pietrangeli and G. Mecco of the Musei Comunali. I should mention also Gioacchino D e Angelis d'Ossat for giving us (through Carlo Pietrangeli) his expert opinion of the stone of no. 18; Attilio Degrassi for constant interest and frequent advice; Marcel Durry for assistance in dating the Laudatio Turiae (no. 28); Sig. Calza-Bini and his daughter Simonetta of Foto Studio Daisy (Via Veneto, Rome) for their devoted skill in photographic developing and printing and in taking a few important photographs (including no. 13). Several American scholars have been consulted and have kindly given assistance in connection with particular inscriptions: the late Freeman W . Adams (no. 90), D . A . A m y x (no. 94), Charles L . Babcock (nos. 9 , 1 0 , 1 4 ) , Colin N . Edmonson (nos. 70, 76), W . C. Helmbold (no. 36), Ernestine F .

Leon and Clyde Pharr (no. 6), and Lily Ross T a y l o r (nos. 9-10). Special thanks are due to Sterling Dow for preliminary advice, in Cambridge, on our project of 1948-49, to Frank E. Brown for showing us in Rome how to make squeezes, to Paul L . MacKendrick for encouragement and suggestions, to Victor G. Duran for his great expertness in photographing our squeezes (all but seventeen of the photographs reproduced here are his work), and to Miss N a n c y Pearce for her typing of nearly the whole manuscript and for a large part of the indexing. Our debt is greatest, however, to James H. Oliver, who has read the whole typescript critically and given us several pages of expert comment and suggestions, particularly on nos. 90-91. T o the Committee on Research of the Academic Senate of the University of California I am indebted for the funds needed for supplies and services. For 1951-52 I was given a grant-in-aid of $350 from the Pacific Coast Committee for the Humanities (American Council of Learned Societies), for which my wife and I are grateful. W e are grateful also to the editors who have accepted our work since 1949 for publication, to those who have found time to review it, and to the other scholars who have mentioned it in their own publications or in letters. I, myself, must finally acknowledge the greatest debt to my wife, without whose assistance at every stage this work would hardly have been possible. A.E.G.

Berkeley, March and July, 1955

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION i ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA 9

LIST OF INSCRIPTIONS ii EXPLANATION OF SIGNS USED IN TRANSCRIPTIONS OF TEXTS H DESCRIPTIONS 15 LIST OF PLATES 151 INDEX OF INSCRIPTIONS 155

SELECTED INDEX 157 PLATES (IN PORTFOLIO)

ABBREVIATIONS

AE

L'Année épigraphique ... (cited by year and no. of inscr.) AEMOU Archaeologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn AICA Annali dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJP American Journal of Philology Altmann Walter Altmann, Die Römischen Grabaltäre der Kaiserzeit (Berlin, 1905) APARA AttidellaPontificiaAccademiaRomana di Archeologia, ser. 3 Ashby Thomas Ashby, The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, ed. by I. A. Richmond (Oxford, 1935) Babcock Charles L. Babcock, Erasure of the Antonii Names and the Dating of the Capitoline Fasti (unpubl. diss., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 1953) BC Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma BICA Bullettino dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica BPJV Berliner philologische Wochenschrift Broughton T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2 vols. (Vol. i with the collaboration of Marcia L. Patterson) (New York, 1951— 52 [Phil. Mon. 15:1-2]) Bruns Fontes iuris Romani antiqui ed. Carolus Georgius Bruns . . ., septimum ed. Otto Gradenwitz, 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1909) plus Additamentum, a vol. of plates for Vol. i (1912) Cagnat René Cagnat, Cours d'épigraphie latine4 (Paris, 1914) CAH

CIL

The Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge, England, and New York). Cited are Vols. 10-11 (1934-36); plates, Vol. 4 (1934) Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum ... Cited are Vols, i 1 (1863), I2:I (1893), I2:2:I (1918), 3:1 (1873), 4 Suppl. i (1898), 5:1-2(1872-77),6:1 (1876),6:2(1882), 6:3 (1886), 6:4:1 (1894), 6 : 4 : 2 C^ 0 2 ).

6:4:3 (1933), 6:6:1 (1926), 9 (1883), 10:1 (1883), 11 :i (1888), 13:1 :i (1899), 14 (1887), 16 (1936) CP Classical Philology CR The Classical Review Degrassi Attilio Degrassi (ed.), Fasti consulares et triumphales (Rome, 1947 [Inscr. Ital. 13 :i]). (Cited sometimes asFCT.) Degrassi, I fasti cons. idem, I fasti consolari dell'Impero Romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al613 dopo Cristo (Rome,1952) De Laet Siegfried J. De Laet, De samenstelling van den Romeinschen Senaatgedurende de eerste eeuw van het Principaat. . . (Antwerp and The Hague, 1941) De Ruggiero Ettore De Ruggiero et al., Dizionario epigrafico di antichità romane Dessau Inscriptiones Latinae selectae, ed. Hermannus Dessau, 3 vols, in 5 (Berlin, 1892-1916, and recently reprinted). (Cited occasionally as ILS.) Diehl Inscriptiones Latinae, collegit Ernestus Diehl (Bonn, 1912). (Cited once as IL.) DP ARA

Dissertazioni della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia EE Ephemeris epigraphica . . . Cited are Vols. 1 (1872), 2:2 (1874),4:1-2 (1879-81), 8:2 (1892), and 9:3 (1910); references are to pages unless otherwise indicated Encicl. ital. Enciclopedia italiana ... Cited are Vols. 3 (1929), 23 (1934), 26 (1935), and 35 (1937) Fabretti Raphaelis Fabretti . . . Inscriptionum antiquarum quae in aedibus paternis asservantur explicatio . . . (Rome, 1702) Forma urbis Forma urbis Romae imperatorum aetate, delineaverunt Iosephus Lugli et Italus Gismondi, 2 sheets (Novara, 1949) Frank Tenney Frank, Roman Buildings of the Republic . . . (Rome, 1924 [Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, 3])

Friedlaender

Ludwig Friedlaender, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms . . . Cited are ed. 6, Vol. i (Leipzig, 1889) ; ed. 10, Vol. 2 (by Georg Wissowa, 1922); ed. 9-10, Vol. 4 (by Wissowa, 1921) Gab. Fotogr. Naz. Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale (Rome, Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione) Gordon, Veranìus Arthur E. Gordon, Quintus Veranius, Consul A.D. 49 .. • (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1952 [Univ. Calif. Pubi. Class. Arch. 2:5]) Henzen, Acta Acta fratrum Arvalium . . . ed. Guil. Henzen . . . (Berlin, 1874) Henzen, Scavi Scavi nel bosco sacro dei fratelli Arvali..., relazione pubbl. da Guglielmo Henzen (Rome, 1868) Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften Otto Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1913) Hübner Exempla scripturae epigraphicae Latinae a Caesaris dictatoris morte ad aetatem Iustiniani. . . , ed. Aemilius Hübner (Berlin, 1885) IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Cited is Vol. 14, ed. G. Kaibel (Berlin, 1890) IGRR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Cited are Vol. i :i (ed. R. Cagnat,with J.Toutain [Paris, 1901]) and Vol. 4:5 (ed. Cagnat, with G. Lafaye [1914]) Inscr. Ital. Inscriptiones Italiae (Rome, 1931 —) J RS The Journal of Roman Studies Le Gall Joël Le Gall, Le Tibre fleuve de Rome dans l'antiquité (Paris, 1953 [Pubi, de l'Institut d'Art et d'Archéologie de l'Univ. de Paris, 1]) Liebenam Willy Liebenam, Fasti consulares imperii Romani von jo u. Chr. bis 565 n. Chr.... (Bonn, 1910) Lübker Friedrich Lübkers Reallexikon des klassischen Altertums8 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1914) Lugli MAAR Magie

Giuseppe Lugli, I monumenti antichi di Roma e Suburbio. Cited are Vols. 2-3 (Rome, 1934-38) Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Cited are Vols. 9 (1931), 15 (1938), and 19 (1949) David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor ... ,2 vols. (Princeton, 1950)

Mommsen, Ges. Sehr. Theodor Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften. Cited are Vols. 1, 4, 8 (Berlin, 1905,1906,1913) Mus. Naz. Rom. Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome Newton Homer Curtis Newton, The Epigraphical Evidence for the Reigns of Vespasian and Titus (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, 16 [1901]) NS Notizie degli scavi di antichità (Atti dell' Accademia dei Lincei) OCD The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. by M. Cary et al. (Oxford, 1949, and reprinted) Orelli Inscriptionum Latinarum selectarum amplissima collectio . . . , ed. Io. Casp. Orellius, 3 vols. (Vol. 3 ed. G. Henzen) (Zürich, 1828; Vol. 3,1856) Pal. dei Cons. Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome Paribeni Roberto Paribeni, Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano, ed. 1 (Rome, 1928), ed. 2 (1932) PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome. Cited are Vols. 3: 1 and 4 (1905-07) Phil. Mon. Philological Monographs pubi, by the American Philological Association PIR1 Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III, edd. E. Klebs (Vol. 1, Berlin, 1897), H. Dessau (Vol. 2, 1897), P. von Rohden and H. Dessau (Vol. 3,1898) PIR2 Same work, ed. 2, Vols. 1-4: 1 to date (A-G), edd. Edmund Groag and Arthur Stein (Berlin [and Leipzig, Vols. 1-2], 1933-52) Piranesi Giambatista Piranesi, Le antichità romane (Rome, 1756) Platner-Ashby A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome by Samuel Ball Platner, completed and revised by Thomas Ashby (Oxford and London, 1929) RE Paulys Real-Enzyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Bearbeitung 1 RE Ed. 1 of the foregoing. Cited is Vol. 6: 2 (Stuttgart, 1852) REL Revue des Etudes latines Ritschl Priscae Latinitatis monumenta epigraphica . . . ed. Fridericus Ritschelius (Berlin, 1862 [CIL vol. primi tabulae lithographae])

RM

Mitteilungen des k. deutschen archaeologischen Instituts, Roemische Abteilung Roma e dintorni Guida d'Italia del Touring Club Italiano: Roma e dintorni, ed. 4 (Milan, 1938, repr. 1947) Sandys-Campbell Latin Epigraphy . . . by Sir John Edwin Sandys, ed. 2, rev. by S. G. Campbell (Cambridge, England, 1927)

Sommer

Ferdinand Sommer, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre.. .2"3 (Heidelberg, 1914) Syme Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939) TPAP A Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Arch. University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology

INTRODUCTION This is Part I of a palaeographical study of dated ancient Latin inscriptions, which aims to continue the work of Ritschl and Hiibner. The basis of it is a collection of squeezes and photographs made by my wife and me in the museums of Rome in 1948-49, which was directed at securing such copies of all the Latin inscriptions that were then in Rome, on stone, and dated or datable down to A.D. 500. Although this collection contains some Republican examples, we have included here in Part I only a few, and these all of the first century, for comparison and contrast with the writing of the subsequent period. Our study begins properly with Augustus, for two reasons: (1) our conviction that there is a new style in stone lettering which begins, in Rome at least, about the middle of the first century and is fully developed in the Augustan period; and (2) the relatively small number of dated or sufficiently datable Republican inscriptions, which makes it desirable and perhaps feasible for any new palaeographical study of these to embrace the whole Roman world and to include at least bronze (if not all the other durable materials) as well as stone. We hope to be able to devote next year (1955-56) to covering the Republican period by extending our work beyond the city of Rome to wherever else in Europe or the Mediterranean (mostly Italy and Greece, we suppose) the datable inscriptions of CIL 1 may still be found. (See the Addenda and Corrigenda.) This first part of the album stops at A.D. 98, with the end of the reign of Nerva: some sort of installment process seemed both possible and necessary, and the end of the first century marks an obvious break. A long chapter on Contributions to the Palaeography of Latin Inscriptions, which at one time we

planned to include in this part of the present work, I have decided (as the result of conversation with Paul L. MacKendrick) to submit for separate publication in the University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology. It will be another collaborative work by my wife and me, but mostly by her. It is largely done already and will contain sections on Arrangement, Common Script, Punctuation, Letter Heights, Word Division at Line Ends, Ligatures, Tall and Small Letters, Apices (the acuteaccent-like marks used mostly, but inconsistently, over long vowels), Numerals, Guidelines, Abbreviations, Signs and Symbols, Shading (contrast of thick and thin strokes in the same letter), Module (size of letters, i.e., both height and proportion of breadth to height), Serifs (embellishments of the ends of most strokes, not needed to identify the letters), Letter Forms, and Chronological Criteria. (This is now in press, October, 1956, and in fact may precede the present work in being published.) The aims of a study of the palaeography of Latin inscriptions should be at least twofold: to contribute to our further knowledge of the Roman chapter in the history of writing (palaeography proper) and to offer aids to the dating of undated inscriptions (epigraphy). Ever since the late seventeenth century, when palaeography is reckoned as having begun with the publication of Mabillon's De re diplomatica (ed. 1, Paris, 1681), much the greatest part of the study has been given to manuscripts and (for the last sixty-five to seventy years) papyri. In recent years two French scholars, Jean Mallon and Robert Marichal, have given a new direction to palaeography by showing that it should embrace not only manuscripts and papyri, but also inscriptions, and that it should be not purely Roman or

1

purely Greek in character, but Greco-Roman. In this view we concur (so far as we understand the general subject) as being most fruitful for further study (especially in relation to the problems of beginnings, changes, and development in the long history of Latin writing) in the belief that the writing of Latin, whatever medium it uses—whether stone or metal, parchment or papyrus, wax or wall surface—is a single phenomenon and that, as in the field of culture and the arts generally, so also in writing in particular we should study Greek and Roman together. Oar own central aim, however, is the more properly epigraphical one of helping to date undated Latin inscriptions, a problem that has teased epigraphists from the beginning. 1 Historical documents gain greatly in our eyes if they bear a date, and, if they do not, we commonly feel that we must somehow hazard a guess at one. But sometimes we forget to make clear that we are only guessing, and we simply declare the date, closely or roughly, as the spirit moves. T h e pages of CIL, for example, contain many conjectured dates based on the writing itself, without reference to contents. These datings often, but by no means always, are labeled as conjectures, but they seldom, if ever, give the precise points in the argument and must therefore be the result of general impressions, of comparisons with other (unstated and very possibly not individualized) inscriptions of known or presumed date. When these conj ectures come from men widely experienced in studying hundreds of inscriptions at first hand, no doubt they are well founded and therefore of some value. But there is no methodology here—no one can learn from such bare conjectures how to date other undated texts, especially since so few of the texts in CIL are properly illustrated, there or elsewhere. I can see three possible criteria for dating undated Latin inscriptions without the aid of prosopographical or historical evidence: (i) the character of the whole monument to which the inscription belongs, if it is available for study—its material, art, technique, and the like; (2) the precise place where the inscription and its monument have been found; and (3) the features of the writing itself. The use of the first criterion is indicated when the monument or T h i s and the following seven paragraphs on the dating of undated Latin inscriptions are based on a paper on the D a t i n g of Inscriptions in the Absence of Prosopographical Evidence, read in Boston, D e cember 29, 1954, as part of a session on Epigraphical Methods arranged by James H . Oliver for the annual meeting of the American Philological Association. 1

2

any one of its parts is of a sort that yields to a reliable typology, as for example ancient lamps in the hands of Oscar Broneer. But otherwise the temptation is to use inadequate studies 2 and to draw conclusions that are at best highly tentative and yet to state them as facts. T h e use of the second criterion obviously depends on the availability of such information, whereas in fact it is generally not available, especially for monuments found in the past, that is most of them. Even those found currently may, of course, be no longer in situ—for example, a Tiber boundary stone found in the bed of the river. This criterion therefore is seldom of use in dating an inscribed monument with any precision. A s an example of how much can be done in this direction I would mention Thylander's recent handling of the inscriptions of Portus, the port of Ostia. 3 A s for the third criterion, the features of the writing itself, my wife and I agree with the view recently expressed by Degrassi {Gnomon 26 [1954] 106) that "an archaic inscription can safely be distinguished from one of the Empire, and one of the Augustan age has characteristics quite different from one of the third or fourth century." Or, to put it another way, we can distinguish between early, middle, and late periods. This is a pretty wide classification, of little use for dating any given text, but when we try to narrow the limits and pick a particular century or part of a century (as has often been, and is still, done), we run into trouble. N o reliable criteria have yet been established for distinguishing one century from another, beyond the wide limits just indicated. W h a t then of our own present work and its results for the palaeography of Latin inscriptions? Our detailed acquaintance with the features of Latin writing is limited at present to the inscriptions presented in this volume, together with the more numerous ones of the second (Christian) century that we have in our collection. Those of the present volume, which we know best of all, number about 160 dated, datable, or approximately datable texts ranging in date from probably about 83 B.C. to A.D. 98 (but only six pre-Augustan) and, so far as we know (a few are of unknown provenience), from Rome or the neighborhood (the farthest known 2 See m y review (AJP 76 [1955] 331-333) o f a recent edition of a group of L a t i n inscriptions now in Poland. 3 Hilding T h y l a n d e r , Étude sur l'épigraphie latine (Lund, 1952 [Skri/ter utgivna ac Svenska Institutet i Rom, Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, 8° vol. j]) 15-38, with reference to his preceding work, Inscriptions du port d'Ostie, 2 vols. (Lund, 1951-52 [same series, vol. 4 : 1 - 2 ] ) . C f . m y review, AJA 58 (1954) 65 f.

source is about forty-three miles away, but most are reported as found in Rome itself)- In addition, we have some acquaintance with other Republican texts now in Rome or near by (both at first hand and from Ritschl's lithographs and other reproductions), as well as with many other Imperial texts down to A.D. 500 and a few later (again at both first and second hand) .What have we learned in palaeography? If asked to answer categorically, Y e s or No, the question " C a n you actually date Latin inscriptions palaeographically?", we should have to answer, " I n our opinion, no." If allowed to add qualifications, we could reiterate the ability to distinguish among archaic or early inscriptions, those of a middle period from about Augustus to about the end of the second century, and those of a later date. And yet it is not always easy to distinguish between those of the late Republic and those of the Augustan age, nor between those of the middle and later periods, especially when one deals with texts of different areas. T h e upshot of our palaeographical study to date m a y be stated as follows: the only safe procedure, in trying to date a Latin inscription of unknown date and without the benefit of historical or prosopographical evidence contained in the text itself, is to compare it carefully and in full detail with other Latin inscriptions of known date and of the same area. I say "of the same area" because we have good reason to believe that the area is significant, at least for inscriptions on stone: features of writing already in full swing in Rome itself may take a number of years to reach, let us say, Augusta Praetoria or Tergeste 4 several hundred miles north. B y "full detail" I mean as many as possible of the points listed above in the topics treated in our Contributions to the Palaeography of Latin Inscriptions. It must be a study of many details, the dates of the stones compared must be reasonably secure and not based on palaeography alone, and this comparison must be made either by firsthand study of the stones themselves or through reliable reproductions, whether squeezes, rubs, or good photographs, these last not spoiled by the presence of paint or other extraneous matter on the stones; drawings are seldom reliable for this purpose. Even when this has been well done and all the points of comparison and contrast set forth, the 1 With our plates 4, a, and 5, a, cf. Inter. Ital. 11 : 1 {Augusta Praetoria, ed. P. Barocelli [Rome, 1932]), photo of no. 6, p. 3 ( = Dessau 6753), apparently of 23-22 B.C., and 10 : 4 (Tergeste, ed. P. Sticotti [1951], photo of no. 20, top of p. 9 ( = CIL 5.52s with correction p. 1022, Dessau 77), apparently of 33 or 32 B.C.

results should be stated—and accepted—with caution. Only when all the separate conclusions reached point to a single pattern of agreement or disagreement should an opinion be ventured, and it is only an opinion, a conjecture, which may still be wrong: there is always the possibility of individual exception, reversal, or divergence. One should listen only to an expert and not believe him beyond the extent of opinion. It should be noted particularly that beauty and ugliness, good and bad workmanship are no criteria for dating: both can be found in all periods, certainly throughout the Augustan age and the next century, which are not infrequently stated to have produced the handsomest Latin inscriptions. Quite different styles can be found of exactly the same date, even on two sides of the same monument (e.g., the Lares Augusti altar of 2 B.C., no. 33, pi. 20, a-b). Nor is the distinction between official and other inscriptions valid in dating: the main reason w h y official inscriptions are easier to date is to be found, not in their purely inscriptional qualities, but in their historical and prosopographical details—a rich freedman or slave could purchase quite as good workmanship for an inscribed monument as any official or even the emperor (cf. pis. 26, a-b; 27, a\ 36, 51, b; 66, b). I do not mean by all this to deny that there were trends, fashions, changes, developments. There certainly were, but these I leave for the separate publication mentioned above y Contributions to the Palaeography of Latin Inscriptions. Our effort, then, as stated at the beginning of this introduction, has been to continue the great pioneer work of Ritschl and especially (given the paucity of our pre-Augustan examples) of Hiibner and, where possible, to improve upon it. T h e facsimiles of both men suffer from one serious weakness, in not being mechanical reproductions, but based on drawings, that is, interpretations of what was seen. Ritschl's are lithographs based on squeezes, plasterof-Paris copies, tin-foil molds, and drawings (p. iv, par. 2, lines 1 - 3 : "titulorum, quos . . . ectypis sive chartaceis sive stanneis sive gypseis deformatos, vel saltern perita manu delineates"). Though he seems to have been more interested in the language of the inscriptions than in the inscriptions themselves (see p. iii), from our own comparatively little use of his work thus far we think rather better of its results than of Hiibner's, whose facsimiles consist of photographs of tracings ("delineationes" factae "charta dilucida" p. xx, col. 1, par. 2, med.) made from

3

squeezes or plaster-of-Paris copies rather than of photographs of the latter directly (or of the inscriptions themselves); that is, they add to the photograph a second, and highly subjective, intermediate process interposed between inscription and reader. A s noted below, in the apparatus criticus of our own choice of inscriptions, Hiibner sometimes omits letters or parts of letters, rarely whole words; he often gives only specimen lines in place of whole inscriptions and thus fails to show changes of style and even of hand within single inscriptions. His order and direction of strokes—their ductus, if we understand the term correctly—are by no means faithful, the proportions of width to height of stroke not always right, the letters usually too fat in appearance, and there is no attempt to reveal depth. In short, his tracings, like Ritschl's lithographs, betray the fact that they are the work of draftsmen who could not reproduce all details in a different medium; they are therefore not a reliable guide to a study of writing. 6 I t may be noted also that since Ritschl's and Hiibner's times the methods of photography and perhaps also the quality of squeeze paper available have improved, so that now a good, honest, well-reproduced photograph of a squeeze, though no photograph reveals everything and any photograph may distort, is far superior to facsimiles that involve drawings. T h a t accurate drawings are valuable adjuncts as showing the artist's interpretation is proved by the splendid results obtained by Degrassi's use of drawings along with photographs and transcriptions—a perhaps ideal combination. Our own study began with the "squeezing" and photographing of all the ancient Latin lapidary inscriptions in Rome that were accessible and dated (or seemed at least approximately datable) from the origins to as late as A.D. 500. In a few instances, we were unable to make squeezes of inaccessible or too public inscriptions (the T o m b of Caecilia Metella, no. 13, and that of Bibulus, no. 2). In one instance we were strictly forbidden either to make a squeeze or to take a photograph (the Villa Albani fragments of the Laudatio Turiae: cf. AJA 54 [1950] 223). The squeezes of six (nos. 39, 65, 103, 105 f., 147) of these 161 inscriptions of Part I (159 plus the two duplicates of no. 3) are the work of Sig. G. Mecco of the Office of Antichità e Belle Arti of the Commune of Rome. T h e photograph of the Caecilia Metella inscription (no. 13) was taken for 6 Cf. Marichal's criticisms of tracings in general and of Hiibner's in particular: Actes du deuxième Congrès internationald'êpigraphie grecque et latine, Paris IÇ52 (Paris, 1953), 183, 190 (his word for "tracing" is caique).

4

us by Signorina Simonetta Calza-Bini; all but one of the other photographs of the stones themselves that appear here, as well as those of nearly all the other inscriptions that we collected, were taken by m y wife. Squeezes and photographs were the morning's work; the afternoon I spent in the library of the American Academy doing research on the inscriptions being collected. M y procedure was from the stones in the museums to the publications, not vice versa; this seemed the only feasible way, but it meant that for the most part I had to judge a stone's being datable on the spot and thus run the risk of missing some. (For the Republican ones that we hope to add to the collection, we expect to proceed in the opposite direction, from CIL i to the stones.) W e purposely restricted our study to stone, the material of most of the extant inscriptions, though we realize that a proper palaeography should include all the other durable materials—bronze, lead, etc. More serious is our restriction of texts to those now in Rome (mostly in public and pontifical collections), which all (as noted above), except for a few of (to us) unknown origin, seem to be from Rome itself or near by. These proved to be enough for a year's work, but should undoubtedly be supplemented by several volumes devoted to "provincial" writing. From 1949 until now we have worked on the material thus gathered, but it was not until the summer of 1953 that we decided just what form the major work should take, namely an album, the core of which should be photographs of the inscriptions, accompanied by as much explanation as seemed desirable. In the meantime, and even in the course of the present writing, we have completed a number of "minor works," offshoots of the larger, a list of which is given in the preface to my paper on Potitus Valerius Messalla, published in the University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology, vol. 3, no. 2 (November, 1954). One of these, it may be noted—that on The Palaeography of Latin Inscriptions, An Interim Report of Work in Progress—had to be written much more rapidly than expected, in order to be sent to Paris well in advance of the Second International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, for which it was designed: its by-line should read " b y Joyce S. Gordon and Arthur E . Gordon." T h e decision to make our major work an album was much influenced by the format and plan of Jean Mallon, Robert Marichal, and Charles Per-

rat's L'Écriture latine de la capitule romaine a la minuscule, 54 planches reproduisant 85 documents originaux (Paris, 1939), which we think excellent in these respects (though Mallon himself has since expressed himself as disapproving of its implication that Roman capital is "the source of the various Latin scripts")- 6 T h e inscriptions here presented are a selection from those we have from the period AugustusNerva. A s might be expected, they will be found to include some that are datable only approximately or even only within fairly wide limits, which we present as "conversation pieces," subjects for discussion. There are twenty-five examples from the records of the Arval Brethren, representing many different hands and many dates. Our selection perhaps suffers somewhat in the second half of the (first Christian) century in having very few other examples of such writing (small and relatively freehand). This is largely the result of chance: we simply found no other such examples on stone, dated in this period, in the museums where we worked. W e have refrained from including fasti for which the date of cutting cannot be fairly well established, and some stones we have omitted because their present condition leaves too uncertain just what the writing was like. Our division of labor has been as follows: in general, the palaeography is m y wife's, the epigraphy mine. I have done all the editing and nearly all the writing, but we have helped each other with our respective tasks, she especially in the writing of this introduction; and the descriptions of letter heights, punctuation, paragraphing, and such matters, which precede the texts of the inscriptions, as well as the restorations of incomplete texts (so far as these differ from those of previous editors), are mostly hers, the result of many hours of patient labor. Something remains to be said of certain parts of our descriptions of each piece. With respect to the kind of stone, we made written note of our opinion about each piece on the spot (except for the T o m b of Bibulus [no. 2], for which we made only a mental note, and the epitaph of Caecilia Metella [no. 13], which was too high above us for more than a conjecture). These opinions I later checked with the statements in the previous publications and found them to agree in all but two instances, nos. 18 (for 6 Jean Mallon, Paléographie romaine (Madrid, 1952 [Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Antonio de N e b r i j a de Filología: Scripturae Monumento et Studia, iii]), last page of preface, par. 2.

which we have fortunately secured the testimony of a specialist) and 74 (for which our opinion has been confirmed by competent authority in the museum); for the four previously (as it seems) unpublished stones (nos. 25 f., 51, 113) we give only our own opinion. T h e fourth column in the List of Inscriptions makes clear how few are the kinds of stone included: one tufa (no. 26), one leucitite (no. 18), thirty-three (plus two—no. 3) travertines, and one hundred and twenty-four marbles. For the marbles I have seldom indicated the color or kind, since this was not a part of our purpose nor were we competent observers and wrong information is worse than none. I t is well known that the early publications, including the early volumes of CIL, are deficient in reporting material accurately. I t would be valuable, therefore, to have a new description of the extant stones. Before that is done, however, the new method described and advocated for A t t i c marbles by Norman Herz and W . K . Pritchett {AJ A 57 [1953] 71-83) should be studied for possible application to Roman epigraphy, though some scholars consider the method unnecessarily complicated and quite impractical. In listing the publications no pretense to completeness is made; I have given references to CIL and Dessau where possible, but to previous or subsequent publications only partially. T h e plates, it will be noted, give photographs of squeezes much more often than of the stones themselves, as being generally superior in showing details of the writing: photographs of the stones often suffer from poor lighting (no artificial light was available to us, our simple flashlight equipment being of no use, since what was needed was light from the side, not from the front), as well as from paint and other foreign matter adhering to the stones, which it was not always possible to remove entirely before photographing. T h e letter heights and other measurements given must always be considered only approximate, whether " c a . " is added or not; the same person measuring twice would probably not get precisely the same results, it being always uncertain just where the cuttings begin, especially of the serifs. T h z punctuation also, because of the worn or broken condition of many of the stones' surfaces, is often uncertain with respect to location and type. It is often doubtful, also, whether certain letters are intended to be tall, that is, taller than the other letters in the line, for whatever reason (e.g., to mark a long I or any initial letter); the greater the variation in letter heights within a line, of course,

5

the greater the doubt about such letters. All such uncertainties I have tried to indicate without being too prolix; the interested reader will compare the plates and judge for himself. In the transcriptions of the texts, all the numerous abbreviations are filled out within parentheses except that run-overs are avoided so far as possible; where not filled out, they are explained, as a rule, in the following apparatus criticus. Letters in italics are those damaged or worn significantly, but still recognizable. Those underdotted are damaged, worn, or lost to such an extent as not to be recognizable with certainty except perhaps in their context. The squeezes have been read at least twice and, where necessary, checked with photographs of the stones and of themselves. Needless to say, there will be found to be errors and faults; one of the difficulties has been to decide when to italicize and when to underdot letters—in cases of doubt, recourse has often been had to our plates to see what the reader will see and to decide accordingly. The only letters printed tall are tall I's. Punctuation, of whatever type—triangular, comma-like, or of any other shape—and at whatever height (it is never on the line), has been printed as a point or period (except that twice a leafy form is indicated) at midheight (which is its usual position). Because of the many expanded abbreviations, not to mention the differences in the original lettersizes within inscriptions, it has not been possible to reproduce the arrangement of the texts with any exactness. Except for the Arval inscriptions (which are paragraphed and to some extent have headings), calendars, and fasti (both of which have special arrangements of their own) we have noted just before each text the type of arrangement (e.g. centering, paragraphing) that seems to have been used (for a discussion of the whole matter cf. the chapter on arrangement—Part II, Chapter 2—in our Contributions to the Palaeography of Latin Inscriptions). Normally no extra space is left within a line, unless it seems to be significant as indicating a break in thought; but co(n)s(ulibus) we have left in its place at the right when it occurs there. In centered inscriptions we have used a straight left margin and simply noted the centering. For paragraphed inscriptions we have tried to set up a standard indentation of one or two ems, but occasionally we have found complications and had to use a more varied indentation (not wholly according to the original, but standardized). Where paragraphing and centering are found combined, we have indented for

6

paragraphing and usually brought the centered lines to the left edge, but occasionally in the long Arvals and in calendars we have felt it necessary to center some of the dates for the sake of clarity. Where centered lines are not printed centered, we have tried to indicate this. Where the left edge of an inscription is broken, we have not tried to reproduce the shape of the break. Normally we have used three hyphens in square brackets here, but sometimes for the sake of appearances—particularly when we have filled out some line-beginnings in order to complete words at the end of preceding lines—we have used a combination of six and three hyphens. (At the right only three hyphens, in square brackets, are used in similar circumstances.) Such inscriptions having a broken left edge we have usually printed with a straight margin, but sometimes, in order to contribute to a clearer understanding of a text, we have set it up according to our notion of the original paragraphing. Some of the exceptions mentioned above are illustrated by nos. 21, 28 b, 61, 64, 78, 79, 82, 119, 125, 128, 146, 150, and 1 5 1 ; of these no. 21 is one centered inscription that we have set up as we think it was originally. It goes without saying that the interested reader will refer to the plates. Angular brackets are used to restore letters or a word (entire or abbreviated) presumably omitted by oversight. Square brackets are used for words or letters presumed lost; but here the usual punctuation between words is not restored. Abbreviations within square brackets are, of course, conjectural. Words and letters within a solid line on all sides, as in a box, we judge to have been cut over an erasure, as, for example, men's names first erased through damnatio memoriae (e.g., nos. 20, 53: C. Asinius Gallus) but later restored with a change of regime; more often, however, the cause of erasure does not appear, but sometimes at least must be correction of an error. Our three uses of a broken box are described below, in the Explanation of Signs. It might be thought that the plates would make unnecessary the details of italics, underdotting, square brackets, and the like, shown in the transcriptions, but I found that, once we had decided to present transcriptions (as is commonly done with reproductions of pages in manuscripts), I could not stop short of complete accuracy (so far as attainable) as to the present condition of the stones. Mere photographs, however good, often leave questions unanswered. The apparatus criticus following the transcrip-

tions is intended to point out not so much errors in previous editions as differences of testimony and opinion as to the readings of each text, including usually even the punctuation. For the longer texts, however, the comparison is often confined to the most important of previous editions, usually CIL. Following the apparatus criticus comes the dating, upon which—since chronology is at the heart of the whole study—much care and effort have been expended. I may say that it has been done con amove, as well as I could do it. None of it is based upon palaeography at all, except when there is a question of more than one hand and palaeography may therefore assist in dating the various parts.7 In many cases, fortunately, a consular date has simplified the matter, but in others much study has been required. I have tried to check everything pertinent and not to be satisfied with merely secondary sources. The dates assigned are of various degrees of exactness; exact dates given (e.g., April 4, 20 B.C.) are probably in all instances termini post quos, but the actual dates of cutting the inscriptions are presumably only a little later, probably within the calendar year, except that the Arval records for each year seem to have been cut in the spring of the next year (see no. 1 5 1 , below, introduction and text, col. 2, lines 36-39). This leads me finally to list what seem to be the epigraphical contributions of the present study, as distinguished from the palaeographical ones on which we are now working. They include: the dating of the inscription of the Tomb of Bibulus (no. 2) the dating of Scribonia Caesaris of no. 6 (with the help of Ernestine F. Leon and Clyde Pharr) the dating of the Augustan calendar of the Arval Brethren (no. 7), and much textual and chronological work on the many other Arval documents presented (see List of Inscriptions), which we hope will be of some use to Herbert Bloch, who has promised a new edition of all the Acta Arvalia (see the OCT), s.v. Fratres Arvales) the dating (with the help of Charles L. Babcock) and a few readings of the Capitoline Consular and Triumphal Fasti (nos. 9,11) the bibliography and a few readings of the Ludi Saeculares inscription of 17 B.C. (no. 12) the identity of Caecilia Metella and her husband Crassus, and the dating of her tomb (no. 13) 7 This points to another weakness of Hiibner's method—that he often dates his examples by palaeography alone and then these conjectural dates are often accepted as fact by those using his book.

the tentative restoration of Potitus Valerius Messalla's epitaph (no. 14), as already presented in my separate study of 1954 the ascertainment of the kind of stone of nos. 18 and 74 (with the help of Carlo Pietrangeli, Gioacchino De Angelis d'Ossat, Filippo Magi, and Hermine Speier) reporting Charles Babcock's "first definite connection between a suspected traitor and erasure from the fasti" (no. 20) the restoration of lines 4-5 of an official commemorative cippus (or altar) of 8 B.C. (no. 21) publication of a few hitherto unpublished inscriptions in the Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome (nos. 25 f., 5 1 , 1 1 3 ) , with permission of Dr. C. Caprino, acting for the [then] director of the museum, Salvatore Aurigemma the dating, a few readings, the paragraphing, and the bibliography of the Laudatio Turiae (no. 28) the dating of the last ten lines of consular names of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (no. 32) the restoration of, and the dating of the additions to, a votive inscription of A.D. I (no. 35) details concerning the Fasti Praenestini (no. 36) the identification of "Nero" in a slave's epitaph (no. 47) the ascertainment that C. Norbanus Flaccus must have been in office as consul (with Drusus the Younger) beyond July 1, probably until August 1, A.D. 15 (no. 52) noting further evidence that A. Caecina Largus, consul A.D. 13, was a different person from C. Silius (no. 56) the restoration and dating of an inscription honoring Drusus the Younger (no. 59) the dating of the register of entries of a tomb belonging apparently to some burial society, with discussion of the consular date of Q. Iunius Blaesus and L. Antistius Vetus (no. 64) the dating of the Fasti Vaticani (no. 66) the restoration of a dedicatory inscription from Veii (no.67) the reading and dating of the epitaph of the charioteer Fuscus (no. 68) the bibliography on the acephalous inscription in the Lateran attributed to various public officials of the Augustan age, most often to P. Sulpicius Quirinius, consul 12 B.C. (no. 70) the emperor Claudius' nomenclature, in reference to dating the epitaph of a cook of his (no. 76) the reading of the epitaph of Agrippina the Elder (no. 79) reporting the late Freeman W. Adams' finding that domnicis in a dedicatory inscription of probably A.D. 45 "must be the earliest occurrence of the spelling domnicus" for dominicus (no. 90) bibliography on M. Licinius Crassus Frugi, consul A.D. 27, and the reading of his epitaph (no. 92)

7

the original location of the inscribed record of an ex-voto dedication to Claudius and determination of the original reading under the erasure of the name of Messallina (no. 94) the date of Claudius' censorship (no. 98) determining that "Ti. Caesaris Germ." in a slave's epitaph refers to Claudius after his accession, not to Tiberius (no. 99) showing that in A.D. 70 Vespasian and Titus were the consuls as late as May 24 (no. 128) (but see Degrassi's note of caution)

8

discussion of the origin, date, and authenticity of a somewhat mysterious text, which used to be considered one of the earliest Christian inscriptions (no. 130) the dates of several imperial acclamations of Vespasian and Titus (nos. 132, 1 3 5 - 1 3 7 , H3) conjecturing a ripa Nomentana of the Tiber, to fit the reading of one line of a boundary stone (imperfectly preserved) set up by the Tiber commissioner (no. 134) the date of the death of Statilia Messallina, third and last wife of Nero (no. 157).

ADDENDA

AND

Thanks to a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Fulbright Research Scholarship, as well as a year's leave of absence granted on generous terms by the Regents of the University of California, I was able to spend 1955-56 with my wife in Italy, where, in addition to working on all the datable Republican Latin inscriptions on stone still to be found there, we checked the present whereabouts and some other details of all the inscriptions of this volume. With the exceptions here noted, they were all in the places indicated below. Nos. 1, 3 (inv. nos. 844, 848; see also next sentence), 20,22, 26, 27, 53, 54, 55, 89, 133, 134, and 135, described below as being in the Chiostro of the Museo Nazionale Romano, should rather be located in th & garden of the Chiostro, and this Chiostro should be understood as being the Chiostro grande or di Michelangelo, to distinguish it from the smaller one. No. 3 : all three cippi are now in the garden of the Chiostro. In the Vatican a new inventory is in process of being made, so that all the Vatican stones described in this volume now have inventory numbers. A t the same time the section numbers of the Galleria lapidaria are being (or have been) removed; those given below are therefore obsolete. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 , 1 2 (frag, a) now have the inv. nos. 1140,9297, 5708,6971,6957, respectively. No. 9: to the Degrassi references on the dating add his own Paravia edition of the Fasti Capitolini (Turin, etc. [1954]) 13 f. No. 11 : Degrassi now dates the inscription of the triumphal fasti between March 27,19, and June 25, 17 B.C.: op. cit. 16. Babcock in a letter of April 22, 1956, still believes that " 2 B.C. is a likely date," though he adds that he has "done none of the probing into that idea" which he hopes " t o do in time." No. 14: to H . G. Pflaum's review of my paper on Potitus Valerius Messalla should be added Ronald Syme's discussion in JRS 45 (1955) 155-160, reviews by T . Robert S. Broughton (The Phoenix 10 [1956] 88 f.) and J. M . Reynolds (CR 70, n.s. 6 [1956] 181 f.), and a summary in AE 1955, 236 f., no. 240.

CORRIGENDA

No. 18: photograph, Musei Capitolini, negative Cap. B/80. No. 22: there definitely is writing on the rear: R • R P R O X • C I P P • P E D • C L X V I (it is cipp., not cippus, despite NS and CIL). No. 23 now has the inv. no. 9286. No. 25 is now in the Magazzino epigrafico of the museum. No. 28: both pieces are now in the Antiquario of the museum; the inv. no. of frag, a is 30515, of b 115582. No. 33 is now in Sala no. vii (Museo Nuovo) of the palace. No. 35 is now provisionally in Casetta A of the museum. No. 38 now has the inv. no. 2308. Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 now have the inv. nos. 2307, 6956, 7538, 7599,7580, respectively. No. 47 is now in the Mag. epigr. of the museum. Nos. 48-49 now have the inv. nos. 5678, 6873, respectively. No. 56 now has the inv. no. 5682. No. 57 is now in the Antiquario of the museum; the fragment (now in two or three pieces joined together) measures: maximum width, ca. 40.5 cm.; maximum height of face, 19 cm.; of whole stone, ca. 20 cm.; thickness, ca. 4 cm. No. 60 now has the inv. no. 9100. No. 61 should be described as being attached to the wall of the passage between the first (farthest east) and second (middle) of the Sale terrene to the right. Nos. 66-67 n o w have the inv. nos. 6866, 6829, respectively. No. 68 is now in the Antiquario of the museum. Nos. 72 (see also next sentence), 74,75 now have the inv. nos. 6930,6879,7581, respectively. No. 72: the width of both writing field and entire stone, as now visible, is ca. 47.9 cm. (Mancini's "32 c m . " must be in error), the maximum height of the writing field ca. 13.4 cm.; there is a little border along the top, and apparently at least ca. 2 cm. under plaster along the top, but none under plaster at the bottom. No. 76 is now in the Mag. epigr. of the museum.

9

Nos. 77, 78, 80, 81, 84 now have the inv. nos. 5455, 8480, 2303 (also marked no. 2), 5443, 2305 (also marked no. 4), respectively. No. 86: its location should rather be described as Aula no. viii in the museum. Nos. 87-88 now have the inv. nos. 8460, 6922, respectively. Nos. 90-91 (left-hand fragments) being still where we saw them in 1949, Giglioli's location of them, given below on no. 90, must be simply another way of saying the same thing. The right-hand fragments of no. 91, joined together, are now set in the left side of the wall going downstairs in the Galleria sotterranea of the Capitoline (undoubtedly the same place as Giglioli's "Antiquarium Capitolino"). A photograph of nos. 90-91 (left-hand fragments) may be obtained from the Archivio Fotografico of the Vatican Galleries and Museums, negative no. iii-3-17. Nos. 95 (see also next sentence), 97, 99 now have the inv. nos. 9268, 6890, 7569, respectively. No. 95: neither side, we have ascertained ourselves, is inscribed. This stone is listed in Orazio Marucchi's Guida speciale della Galleria Lapidaria del Museo Faticano (Rome, 1912 [Musei e Gallerie Pontificie, ii]) 65 f., no. 173, where he says that "it was found near Porta Salaria and was given to the museum by Sig. Tavazzi in 1903." This, I am told, constitutes the only information about the stone possessed by the Vatican authorities. It clearly allows the stone to be identified with CIL 6.1231, c ( = 31537, c), but quite as clearly is insufficient to prove the identity. No. 100: the thickness of both pieces is about 30.5 cm., much greater than their height. No. 109: to the reviews of my Veranius may be added those of Ernst Hohl, Deutsche Literaturzeitung 75 (1954) 326 f., H. W. Parke, Hermathena 83 (1954) 99-101, and J. H. Thiel, Museum, Maandblad voor Philol. en Gesch. 59 (1954) 124 f. No. 112 stands free on the floor on the east side of the Chiostro. No. 114 is now in the Chiostro. No. 115 now has the inv. no. 9197. No. xi8: by "farthest Sala terrena to the right" is meant the one farthest east, the first that one enters.

10

No. 120: the stone itself has these dimensions: writing field, width 57.1-57.7 cm.; height 73.2-73.6 cm.; over-all width at about center, ca. 80 cm.; maximum height above ground, ca. m. 1.53; thickness, ca. 30.5-33 cm. No. 124 now has the inv. no. 6933. No. 126: the stone itself has these dimensions: writing field, width 78.5-79.5 cm.; height 83.2-83.5 cm.; over-all width at center, ca. 92.5 cm.; at cornice, m. 1.123, maximum; at base, m. 1.134; maximum height, including cover, ca. m. 1.76; thickness at center, 78.5-79 cm.; at base, ca. 88.5-90 cm. No. 128 looks as if line 3 were cut over an erasure, the original letters taller than at present; hence the cutting visible across the middle of line 2, left end. No. 137 is still in the Antiquarium comunale on the Celian. Nos. 138, 139, 140, 142 (see also next sentence), 1 4 3 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 2 , 154,158 now have the inv. nos. 9466, 6983,6967,7466,6912,212,6948,9112,6872, respectively. No. 142: photograph, Archivio Fotografico of the Vatican Galleries and Museums, negative no. xxviii-io-579; the Capitoline mate of this, which is set in the west wall of the Sala del Fauno, has a writing field, within cornice and base moldings, 34 cm. wide at the top, 34.5 cm. wide at the bottom, and 60.5 cm. high, has letters that decrease from 4.6/4.8 cm. (line 1) to 1.6/1.8 cm. high (line 18), and has guidelines still visible; though its arrangement is pretty much the same as that of our no. 142, its paragraph style is less obvious and it is a more imposing inscription; despite these differences and other differences of detail (shorter or longer forms of words, ligatures, points, tall letters, number and arrangement of lines) the two inscriptions seem to be cut by the same hand. If CIL is right in saying that the Capitoline one was cut off from the Vatican piece, the presence of real moldings in the former (the latter is all in the same plane, the moldings only marked by lines) and its more imposing appearance would indicate that it comes from the front of the monument. No. 159 has been in the Capitoline since 1952, at the left (west) end of the Atrio, on the floor (inv. no. 2905). A.E.G.

Berkeley, November 1,1956

LIST OF INSCRIPTIONS No. I

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II

12 13 14 15 16

Plate I, a 1,*

*C. 83 B.C.

2-3 4. J, a - i 6,c 6, a-b

*54 c. 44

•100-50

5, a C 14.3613 D918 C 6.5197 D1514 C 14.3598 D947 C 6.904 C 6.1253^ = 3^65, C c 6.4345 D1723 AE 1921, 70 C 6.8740 C 6.4119 C 6.886 D180 C 6.892 D172 C 6.8927 D2823 C 6.2028, a D5032 C 6.32346, e C 6.891 D188 C 6.31772 (ab alt. p.) Degrassi, no. 2, vi C 6.14642 D8414 C 14.2097 D6194 C 6.31559, e D5745 APARA, Rend. 25-26 (1949-51) 67 ibid. 4- BC 1940, 177, no. 6 C 6.31721 D954 C 6.31722 D955 C 6.918 D210 ? C 6.1231, c = 31537,' ? ap. NS 1913, 68; BC 1913, 67 C 6.1231, b = 37022,0 C 6.31545 D5926 C 6.4353 C 6.924 + 31205 C 6.8843 C 6.2034 + 32348 C 6.921 D222, nos. 2-4 C 6.32357 C 6.845 C 6.268 C 6.2039 C 6.7303 D7863 AE 1953, 251

Plate

No. 110 III 112 "3 114 "5 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 I24 125 126 127 128 129 I30 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 I40 I4I I42 143 I44 145 I46 147 148 I49 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

48, a 48 ,b 49, « 48 ,c 49, Jo, 50, 50, 50, 51,

b

a-b e i c a

Sh* $0., a

Si,b

52 ,c-d 52, e 53, 0 53, S3, i 54, « 54, i 54, d 54, c 55, « 55, t 56,0 56 ,b

c

SI, " 51, > 58 ,b 58,« 58, i 59, " 59, i 60, b 60, a 61, a 61, b 61, c 62, b 62, c 62, a 63 64, 64, 65, 6S,b 65, 66, 66, 67,

a b a c a b a-b

Date 59 59/60 *c. 39-62 sem. 1 , 60 sem. 1 , 60 evidently 62 63 (Apr. 1 1 — ) •41-65 or later 64/66 »66 54-68 54-68 *55~68 68 (latish) 54-68 or later Jan. 3 - 1 0 , 69 69 and later May/June, 69 May 24, 70 70? early 71 Apr./May, 72 72-73, *73 sem. 2, 73 sem. 2, 74 sem. 1 , 75 sem. 1, 75 sem. i , 75 75 (—Sept. 7) sem. 2, 75 Vesp., '70-77 Jan., 78 69-79 sem. 2, 79 80/81 June 29, 81 Jan., 86 Jan., 86 Feb., M a y , 87 Jan., 89 Jan., 90 91/92 Jan.-Apr., 94 *94 or later Domit., '83-96 Domit., '83-96 Domit., '83-96 66 (*68)-8I/96? 97 ('Sept.—) May 28, 98

Stone M M M T M M M M M M T M M M M M M M M M M M M T T T T T M M M M M T M M M M M M M M M M M M M M T M

Museum MNR MNR MNR MNR MNR Vat. MNR MNR Cap. MNR MNR MNR Lat. Cap. Vat. MNR MNR MNR MNR MNR Lat. MNR Lat. MNR MNR MNR Cap. AC? Vat. Vat. Vat. MNR Vat. Vat. MNR Cap. MNR Cap. MNR MNR MNR Vat. Vat. Con. Vat. MNR Cap. MNR Vat. MNR

Type Arval Arval epitaph relig. ded. relig. ded. epitaphs Arval epitaph priestly fasti Arval epitaph relig. ded. epitaph ap. relig. ded. epitaph Arval epitaphs Arval relig. ded. Arval honor., votive? Arval ded. to Titus Tiber boundary Tiber boundary pomerium boundary property rest. pomerium bound. relig. ded. ap. ded. to emp. epitaph Arval epitaph bldg. by emp. Arval relig. ded. Arval relig. ded. Arval Arval Arval Arval repairs, paving epitaph epitaph epitaph epitaph epitaph bldg. by emp. relig. ded.

Publication C 6.2042, a C 6.2042, e AE 1 9 1 3 , 194 unpublished? C 6.396 D3671 C 6.16521 C 6.2043 C 6.2329 D4992 Degrassi, no. 29, ii C 6.2044, c-d, + 32355 AE 1952, 148 C 6.927 D236 DPARA 1921, 285 C 6.8680 + 33743 D239 C 6.1572 C 6.2051, tab. i, no. 2 C 6.31723 D240 C 6.2051, tab. ii, nos. 1 , 3 AE 1915, 100 C 6.2052 De R , no. 1 C 6.2053 C 6.941 C 6.31547 D5928 C 6.31548, a 05929!" NS 1933, 241 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

6-933 D249 6.1232 = 31538, b D248 6.235 D3663 14.86 6.1348 D1003 6.2056 6.3580, a D2641 6.942, 11.3734 D262 6.2059 D5033, 5049 6.328 D3434 6.2064 6.398 D3673 6.2065 D5037 6.2066 6.2067 6.2068 6.25527 D7869

c 6.33976 D5177 C 6.15368 C 6.33470 C 6.8921 D1804 C 6.6619 C 6.952, a "Dill AE 1936, 95

Notes. The kinds of stone represented are: L (leucitite—one example, no. 18), M (marble—124 exx.),T (travertine—33 exx.), Tu (tufa—one ex., no. 26).—The museums are: A A R (American Academy in Rome—one ex., no. 52), A C (Antiquarium Capitolino—one [no. 137]? plus part of no. 91), Cap. (Capitoline—15 exx.), Con. (Palazzo dei Conservator!—9 exx.), Lat. (Lateran—9 exx., plus part of no. 91), M F A (Museo del Foro di Augusto—one ex., no. 3 1 ) , M N R (Museo Nazionale Romano—78 exx., plus part of no. 12), Vat. (Vatican—41 exx., plus part of no. 12); two in situ (nos. 2, 13): total 159.—The asterisk (*) means "probably" or "undoubtedly" and c. "approximately." The other abbreviations are: a p p a r ently), aqu(educt), Aug(ust) or Aug(ustan), bef(ore), bound(ary), b(ui)ld(in)g, C(IL = Corpus inscr. Lat. [C 1 = vol. I, ed. 2]), Capit(oline), Claud(ian), columb(arium) acc(oun)ts, comm(ission), cons(ular), co(n)s(ul)s, ded(ication) to emp(eror), De R(ossi, Inscr. Christ, urbis Romae...), D(essau), Domit(ianic), exc(ept), Fasti fer(iarum) Lat(inarum), German(icus), honor(ary), the names of the months, portr(ait) inscr(iption)s, Praen(estini), pub(lic) mon(ument) rest(ored), relig(ious) ded(ication), rest(ored), sem(ester), Tib(erian), Vesp(asianic), y(ea)rs. The other abbreviations in the last (column are the same as those used in the rest of this study ; the references here are confined, so far as possible, to CIL and Dessau. It will be noted that in several cases photographs of both the stone itself and a squeeze are included in the plates, for various reasons: the stone is so badly worn that both photographs seem desirable; to show the effect of modern rubrication; or to show palaeographical details together with a full view of a particularly interesting stone. T

3

EXPLANATION OF SIGNS USED IN TRANSCRIPTIONS OF TEXTS (see the Introduction) L(ucius): parenthesis and lower-case roman, to fill out an abbreviation (L.): angular brackets, to restore letters or a word (entire or abbreviated) presumably omitted by oversight (or else through a change of fashion in spelling) POPL[ICIO]: square brackets and roman capitals, to indicate a loss restored by conjecture -STENTIVS: italic, for a letter damaged but identifiable SERYEILIVS: underdotting, for a letter damaged enough not to be identifiable with certainty E ( f o r F) or N T (in lig.): lower-case italic within parenthesis, for explanations in English C. ASINIVS C. F. GALLVS : a solid box, for writing cut over an erasure ¡ ASINIVSJ: roman capitals within a broken box, for writing erased imperfectly, so at least partly legible ! • • • j: periods within a broken box, for writing erased without leaving traces, the number of periods indicating the conjectured number of letters erased |M_. Iulio Vestino Atticoj: lower case (with initial capitals) within a broken box, for writing erased but conjecturally restored [ — ] or (to save space) [—]: hyphens within square brackets, for losses not restored by us (for their use here, see above, page 6, column i) IVLIO: an acute accent, to indicate an apex / : the diagonal, used occasionally as indicated in the apparatus criticus P S E R V I L I V S : a point at mid-height, to indicate original punctuation of all kinds except (twice) a leaf I M P . CAESAR: a low point, or period, to indicate an abbreviation unexpanded for lack of space.

DESCRIPTIONS * i . Plate I, a.—Probably ca. 83 B.C.—Inscribed top of the front of a travertine cippus (m. 3.10 tall, 0.57 broad, 0.24 thick: NS), seen in December, 1948, in the Chiostro of the Mus. Naz. Rom. (inv. no. 121977).—-Found in Rome in 1942, near Via Marsala.—Photo of a squeeze (the writing ca. 49 cm. wide, ca. 44.5 cm. high).—Terminal pillar inscribed with an edict of the praetor L. Sentius (the third copy thus far discovered).—Published by C. Caprino, NS 1943, 26-28, with photo of stone; mentioned by Attilio Degrassi, Doxa 2 (1949) 84; described and annotated by A . E. Gordon, Greece and Rome 20 (1951) 77-79, 95, and pi. cv, i a (photo of inscr.).—Letter heights: 3 to 4.5 cm. (line 1, 3 . 5 4.5 cm.; the rest, 3-4 cm., mostly 3-3.5).—Punct.: triangular, between all words (except Nei quis) as well as at three line-ends.—Tall letters: two I's (one long, one initial short), but the irregularity of the lettering and the fact that all three copies are different in respect to tall I's (the one found in 1884 has tall the third I of iniecisse, line 9, though CIL i 2 and 6 do not print it so: cf. photo S. P. Q. R., Mus. Capit., ser. B, no. 90) make us wonder whether the tallness here is more than accidental.—No small letters, apices, or ligatures.—Paragraphing. L(ucius) - i E N T I / ^ S - C ( a i ) -F(ilius) -PR(aetor) • D E - S E N ( a t u s ) -SENT(entia) L O C A TERM/yVANDA • CO££(avit) B(onum) -F(actum) N E I Q V I S • I N T R A • s TEtfMINOS • PROPIVS VRBEM •VSTRINAM • FECIJSE • VELIT • N l V E STERCVS • C A D A V E R I N I E C I S S E • VELIT Line 4. For neiquis (= ne + quis) cf. nequod (no. * On numbers marked by an asterisk, see the Addenda and Corrigenda, pp. 9 f.

61, line 14) and siqua (no. 69, col. 2, line 21).-—Line 6. NS has no point at the end.—For the other two copies of this edict cf. CIL i 2 : 2.838 f., 6: 4: 2. 31614 f. (cf. p. 3799); Dessau 8208; Bruns, 1.189 no. 44 B . — T h e dating depends on identifying the praetor with a moneyer of 89 B.C.: cf. F. Münzer, RE 2A: 2 (1923) 1511, no. 6. 2. Plate 1, b.—Probably the first half of the first century B.C.—Fragments of travertine blocks on the southeast side (not the front, where the complete inscr. is preserved) of the tomb of C. Publicius (Poplicius) Bibulus, in situ in front, left, of the Victor Emanuel monument, Piazza Venezia, Rome. — P h o t o of the inscribed blocks.—Record of the senate's and people's honoring the deceased (a plebeian aedile) by granting a burial place to himself and his descendants (on public land?).—Publ. by Piranesi, 1, pis. iv-v (engravings of only the front); Luigi Canina, L'architettura romana, pi. ccxii, figs. 2> 5 (engraving also of the front only), cf. vol. 3 (Rome, 1842 [vol. 9 of his Uarch.it. antica]) 506 f.; Ritschl, pi. lxxxiii, B (lithograph); Mommsen, CIL i 1 .635; Henzen, CIL 6: 1.1319 {in latere) (both these with reff. to earlier lit.); Dessau 862 (only the frontal inscr.); Huelsen, CIL 6 : 4 : 2.31599 (further early lit.); G. Boni, NS 1907, 411 (a 1905 drawing); Richard Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium 2 (Strassburg, 1912) 37-41 and pi. xxi (drawing); Diehl, IL 7, a (photo of frontal inscr. only); E. Lommatzsch, CIL i 2 : 2.834 (* n lat.); Sandys-Campbell, 105, fig. 32 (front of the tomb, after Canina); Diehl, Altlateinische Inschriften3 (Berlin, 1930 [Kleine Texte für Vorles, u. Ub. 38/40]) 580 (frontal inscr. only).—Letter heights: ?—Punct.: apparently triangular, in the usual places (we have no squeeze).—No tall or small letters, apices, or ligatures evident.—Paragraphing.

15

(NO. 2)

C(aio) P O P L [ I C I O L(uci) F(ilio) B I B V L O AED(ili) PL(ebis) H O N O R I S ] VI[RTVTISQVE CAVSSA SENATVS] CCW$[VLTO P O P V L I Q Y E IVSSV LOCVS] M O N V M E N T O QVO IPSE POSTEREIQVE] s EIVS I N F E [ R R E N T V R P V B L I C E D A T V S EST]

Lines 1-3. Previous editors saw a few more letters extant at the right end, where the monument must have suffered further damage since the drawing publ. by Boni.—Line 5. Only Boni's drawing shows what is extant of the last letter.—The restorations are made from the frontal (southwest) inscription. On the dating cf. (in addition to the editions listed above) Ritschl, col. 72; R . Bergau, Philologus 26 (1867) 85 f.; H. Jordan, Topographic der Stadt Rom im Alterthum, 1 : 1 (Berlin, 1878) 207; Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht 2: i 3 (Leipzig, 1887) 625, n. 1; Joseph Seidel, Fasti aedilicii . . . (Breslau, 1908, Diss.) 80; Samuel Ball Platner, The Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome2 (Boston, 1911) 482 f.; Tenney Frank, CP 19 (1924) 78 and Roman Buildings 144; Platner-Ashby, 477, s.v. Sep. Bibuli; Giovanni Niccolini, I fasti dei tribuni della plebe (Milan, 1934) 99 f.; Lugli, 3.264; Broughton, 1.286,289 n. 4. T h e date of this aedile is not known. Though Mommsen and apparently most scholars since have inclined to identify him with the only other C. Publicius Bibulus who seems to be known — t h e trib. pi. of 209 B.C. (Livy 27.20.11-21.4, Plut. Marcellus 27; a "Publicius tribunus plebi," Macrob. Sat. 1.7.33)—> Seidel raised serious objections, accepted by Niccolini and now by Broughton. T h e inscription itself has been variously dated, from ca. 150 B.C. (Diehl, Altlat. Inschr.) to Tiberius and even later (so Bergau, referring to Hirt, Reber, and Canina), but the most competent opinion favors ca. 100-50 B.C. and with this we would agree: perhaps, more closely, the period from Sulla on, though we ourselves still lack sufficient documents of this period for comparison. T h e spelling "Poplicio," which some have taken as indicating that the inscription as we have it must be a restoration of a period later than Bibulus himself, may be no more than a conservative retention, a personal or family whim, like the absence of the cognomen (as in Q. Veranius, cos. A.D. 49) long after it had become customary among males. *3. Plates 2-3.—Undoubtedly 54 B.C.—Inscribed fronts of three travertine cippi, seen in December, 1948, in the Chiostro (844, 848) and between this

16

and the garden (124562) of the Mus. Naz. Rom' (inv. nos. 844, 848,124562).—Dimensions (all from NS): m. 2.30 tall, 0.65 broad, 0.34 thick; 2.42,0.62, 0.55; 1.10,0.66,0.36, respectively.—Found in Rome at different places near the Tiber, in 1896,1897,1892. — P h o t o s of stone and squeeze (844—pi. 2), stone (848—pi. 3, a), and stone (124562—pi. 3, b); photos include only the upper (inscribed) parts.—Dimensions of squeezes: 844, max. width 62.5 cm., max. height from bottom of last line to top of writing surface 51.5 cm.; 848, max. width 60 cm., max. height (as for no. 844) 57 cm.; 124562, max. width 66 cm., max. height (as for no. 844) 46 cm. (these last figures perhaps slightly distorted by the fact that this squeeze was exposed to the rain).—Three of the 21 copies thus far discovered of the same Tiber boundary-stone, half of which name one official first, the rest the other man (the latest one found, according to L e Gall, has one face inscribed with one name first, the other face with the other name first).—Publ., no. 844: G. Gatti, NS 1896, 524; idem, BC 1897, 62; Lommatzsch, CIL i 2 : 2.766, q\ M . Bang, CIL 6: 4: 3.37026; no. 848, G. Patroni, NS 1897, 9 f.; Gatti, BC 1897, 63; Lommatzsch, op. cit. 766, r; Bang, op. cit. 37027; no. 124562: D . Marchetti, NS 1892, 233 f.; Gatti, BC 1892, 369; Lommatzsch, op. cit. 766, h; Huelsen, CIL 6: 4: 2.31540, h; cf. Dessau 5922"-b. Cf. L e Gall, 149-152.—Letter heights: no. 844, 6.8-8.0 cm.; no. 848,7.0-8.7 cm.; no. 124562, 5.9-8.0 c m . — Punct.: triangular (once—after S in last line of no. 124562—a square), in most of the usual places, as indicated; sometimes within a C instead of to the right.—The letters of no. 844 were reported rubricate when it was found.—No apices, tall or small letters, or ligatures.—Nos. 844 and 124562 apparently centered. No. 844 reads fyi(arcus) • ^ A L E R I V S M(arci) E (for F(ilius)) M'(ani) -N(epos) - M E S S A L ( l a ) P(ublius) - S E R Y E I L I V S -C(ai) E ( f o r F(ilius)) / S A V # I C ( u s ) -CENS(ores) s EX-S(enatus) -C(onsulto) -TEi?MIN(averunt) Lines 1 and 3, last letter: NS, BC, CIL i 2 and 6 all read F . — L i n e s 2 and 4 may be indented.—Line

i,fin. NS, BC, CIL i 2 and 6 all have a point after Messal. No. 848 reads P • S E R V I L I V S C F. ISAVRICVS • M • V A L E R I V S M E. M ' - N . MESS CENS. EXSCT££MINAR. 5 Line i. CIL i 2 reads SERVEILIVS.—Line 2. There may be no point at the end.—Line 3, last letter. NS, BC, CIL i 2 and 6 all read F.—Line 4. We see no point after N{epos). No. 124562 reads

5

P SERVEILIVS C-F. /SAVRICVS M • V A L E R I VS M E . M ' . N - M E S S A L CENS. EX SC-TERMIN.

Lines i and 5. The point is within the C.—Line 2 is distinctly indented, line 4 slightly.—Line 3, last letter. BC reads F.—Line 4. There may be a point after M\—Line 5. The space left in the middle was apparently caused by the poor surface of the stone. On the date cf. CIL i 2 : 2 : 1, p. 543 ; Broughton, 2.215 (censors of 55 B.C.) ; Le Gall, 29. *4. Plate 4, a—b.—About 44 B.C.—Inscribed front of a marble base, found at Otricoli (ca. 43 miles from Rome, on the Via Flaminia: Ashby, JRS 11 [1921] 163) before 1781 (Pietrangeli) ; seen in April, 1949, in the Vestibolo rotondo of the Vatican.— Photos of both the stone (¿) and a squeeze (a) (dimensions of writing field: width, 53.6 cm.; height, probably ca. 35 cm. [23.1 cm. from top of field to bottom of last line of writing]).—Presumably intended as a base to support a statue of Caesar.— Publ. by Ritschl, col. 74 and pl. lxxxv, D ; Mommsen, CIL i 1 .626; Henzen, CIL 6:1.872 (with Huelsen's note, 6: 4: 2.31188); Mommsen on CIL 9.5136 (which looks like a mate of this, but is fragmentary and inset in a pavement) ; Hübner 1 (with drawing); Dessau 73; Lommatzsch, CIL i 2 : 2.797; Lily Ross Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, Conn., 1931 [Phil. Mon. 1]) 268 f., cf. 69. Cf. Carlo Pietrangeli, Epigraphica 3 (1941) 155 f. and APARA, Rend. 19 (1942-43) 79, no. 60; Degrassi, Doxa 2 (1949) 77.—Letter heights: (NO. 5 )

Hiibner gives 4.2 cm. for line 1, 3.8 cm. for line 2; our measurements are: line 1, 3.75-5 cm. (the O's 3.75, tall I 5.0, the rest 4.0 cm.); line 2, 3.25-3.5 cm. (first O 3.25, the rest 3.5 cm.); lines 3-4, ca. 3.5 cm.—Punct.: uniformly triangular, between words.—One tall long I, one hook-shaped apex over long U.—Paragraphing (but the last line is centered). , T D I V O I V L I O I V S S V

POPVLI • R O M A N I •ST^TVTVM • E S T • L E G E RVFRENA On the date: Mommsen (on CIL i 1 .626), followed by Lommatzsch (on CIL I 2 : 2.797), inclined to put it after Caesar's death—an interpretation of dim natural to those who know its meaning "deified" as applied to the emperors—, but Miss Taylor (locc. citt.), with reference to Dessau, Gesch. d. rom. Kaiserzeit 1 (Berlin, 1924) 354, n. 2, inclines to put it before his death.—Because of the modern paint applied to the letters, photos of the stone itself are untrustworthy for the lettering. *5> Plate 5, a-b.—Presumably 43 B.C.—Inscribed front of a travertine slab (m. 1.25 wide, 0.65 high: BC, NS), seen in March, 1949, attached to (but not embedded in) the wall of the Gall. lap. (sect, xxxv) of the Vatican.—Found in Rome in 1899, being used as building material (not in situ, therefore, though apparently near it) at the corner of the Corso Vittorio Emanuele and vicolo Savelli.—Photos of both the slab (b) and of a squeeze (a) (which suffers from being patched of several pieces; dimensions of writing field, framed by a deep double molding: 1.02 m. wide, 43 cm. high).—Referred by Huelsen (RM18 [1903] 52 and n. 1) to the tomb of Hirtius and Pansa (coss. 43 B.C.) in the Campus Martius, where Livy (Per. 119) has them buried; Dessau, CIL, and Platner-Ashby accept this but restrict it to Pansa's tomb only.—Publ. by G. Tomassetti, BC 1899, 280-284; G. Gatti, NS 1899, 435 f.; Dessau 8890; Bang, CIL 6: 4: 3.37077; cf. Platner-Ashby, 482, s.v. Sep. Pansae.—Letter heights: see below; Tomassetti and Huelsen give simply 9.5 cm.—Punct.: uniformly triangular, between words.—Tall letters: the long I.—No small letters, apices, or ligatures.—Paragraphing (but line 1 is centered).

E X • S(enatus) • C(onsulto) C(aio) V l B I O C(ai) -F(ilio) -PA(n)SAE CAETRONIAN(o) -CO(n)S(uli)

cm. 9-10 8.7-9.2 (tall I 9.5) 8.2-9.0

17

Line i . NS puts a point at the end.—Line 2. T h e tall I is not noted in the publications listed above. — L i n e 3. Gatti held the word cos. to be a later addition; we see nothing in cos. itself that prevents it from having been cut at the very same time as the rest, and we are inclined to think the crowding here and the imperfect arrangement the result of poor planning rather than of a later change. *6. Plate 6, c.—40 or 39 B.C. (?)—Small marble tablet, seen in April, 1949, in the Gall. lap. (sect, viii, no. 48) of the Vatican.—One of nearly 100 inscriptions discovered in 1820-1822 in the excavations of columbaria in the Vigna Ammendola, near

5

D I P I R V S • A N T I G O N I • VICAR(ius) 5ENIFICI0 •HELICOMS (sic) SCRI50NIAF-CAESARIS (sic) VESTIFICIS yfiV(norum) X I X

Line 2. CIL and Dessau read bene-.—Line 3, likewise Scriboniae.—Line 5 is omitted by Dessau without comment, apparently by oversight.—Our tentative dating is based on the supposition that Scribonia would properly be called Caesaris only while she was married to Octavian (40-39 B . C . ) , not after they were divorced. If (as seems certain) she is the Scribonia, gravis femina, amita Drusi Libonis who tried to restrain the latter from committing suicide, she must still have been alive in A.D. 16 (Max Fluss, RE 2A: 1 [1921] 892, no. 32, with ref. to Sen. Ep. 70.10; Ernestine F. Leon, TPAPA 82 [1951] 168-175, w h ° a l s o ftn a letter of June 26, 1952] agrees that " i t seems improbable that Scribonia was referred to as (uxor) Caesaris after Octavian's marriage to L i v i a " and in a letter of July 17, 1954, confirms her opinion ["I think it highly improbable"] by references to the Digest of Justinian and to the opinion of Clyde Pharr, who kindly allows me to quote him as agreeing). 7. Plate 6, a-b.—Augustan, probably 29-21 B.C. (with later Augustan additions).—Fragmentary marble slab, in one piece when found (m. 0.89 in length, 0.45 in height: Henzen, Scavi); seen in January, 1949, in two pieces in the Antiquario of the Mus. Naz. Rom. (inv. no. 371 + 3 7 1 bis).— Among fragments found in 1867-1869 in excavations of the sacred grove of the Arval Brethren, in what was then the Vigna Ceccarelli (CIL 1 and 6, etc.), five miles from Rome on the Via Campana 18

the Appian W a y , a short distance from R o m e . — Photo of a squeeze (writing field, within borders: 14.8-14.85 cm. wide, 7.6—7.8 high; the whole stone: ca. 20.7 cm. wide, 9.2 cm. high).—Epitaph of Dipirus, a slave of another slave, Antigonus, who died aged 19; provided by the kindness of Helico, a tailor of Scribonia Caesaris.—Publ. in CIL 6: 2.7467 (with refF. to earlier lit.), Dessau 7429.— Letter heights: see below.—Punct.: apparently intended as triangular, but not uniform in direction; in the usual places (very faint in line 3 ) . — T a l l letters: one T in middle of word, apparently to save space.—No small letters, no apices or ligatures.— Modified paragraphing. cm. 1.3-1.5 (T 1.7) 0.9-1.35 0.95-1.15 0.8-0.95 0.6-0.9

outside the Porta Portuensis (now Magliana on the Rome-Pisa railway, near the station) (Herbert Bloch, OCD 370, s.v. Fratres Arvales).—Photos of both the marble itself (b) and a squeeze (a) (ca. 88 cm. wide; ca. 43.3 cm. high, at right, 1044.3 cm. at left).—Part of a calendar of the Arval Brethren.— Publ. by Henzen, Scavi 83-93 (with drawing of the Aug.-Sept. portion, pi. iii, C); Mommsen, EE 1.3340; Henzen, Acta, pp. ccxxxiii-ccxl; idem, CIL 6: 1.2295; Hiibner 970 (with drawing of most of this fragment); Mommsen, CIL i ? : 1, pp. 214 f. (with notes by Huelsen); Henzen, CIL 6 : 4 : 2.32482 (with the same and additional notes by Huelsen).—Letter heights: heading, 7.9-8.6 cm. (Hiibner gives 8.2 cm.); line 1 of calendar proper (larger letters), 3 . 7 4.0 (Hiibner, 4.0 cm.), K 4.3-4.4; lines 2-4 (2-5 in Oct.) of larger letters (remaining parts of calendar proper), 3.5-4.0; larger of the small letters (the notes of the calendar), ca. 1.0 cm. (initials taller) (Hiibner, 1.1 cm.); smaller of these, ca. 0.6-0.8 (Hiibner, 0.6) cm.—Punct.: line 1, a comma; line 2, larger letters (line 1 of calendar proper), a triangle or comma; remainder (small letters), the same variation, and the triangle tends to be long rather than broad; apparently, as usual, between words, but omitted after the preposition in; after ad it occurs once, is omitted once.—Tall letters: K(alendae)-, the first letters of lines or notes are often, but not always, taller; tall also are the first I in devicit (August, last line) and the first I of Acili (October, last line).—No small letters or apices.—

Ligatures: once NP, three times NP or possibly NFP (see notes on Aug. 1), whatever this represents (cf. Georg Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der

Römer2 [Munich, 1912] 438; Oscar Leuze, in Bursian's Jahresbericht 227 [1930] 122 f.; H. J . Rose, OCD 280, s.v. Dies).

Heading [{ca. 29-32 letters) IJMP(erator) -MAG(ister) -FRAT(rum) ARVAL[IVM] or -(¡um) August [E K(alendae) AVG(ustae)]

{in lig.) ? or i§F[p] {in lig.) ?

[- ? - SPEI] IN FORO HOLIT(orio) -F(eriae)-EX-S(enatus) C(onsulto)

5

[Q. E. D. IMP. CAESAR R E M PV]lBLIC(am)-TRISTISSCimo) PIRICVLO]| {sic) [LIBERA][7rf] {erasure) [F NP F E R I A E E X S. C. CAESA]RIS-H(onoris)-C(ausa)-HISP(ania) [CITERIORJE • DEVICTA [ET QVOD IN P]ONTO R E G E M fPHARNACE]]VI • DEVlCIT September D K(alendae) • SEPT(embres) • F(astus) IOVI TONANTI IN CAPITOLIO IOVI • LIBERO • IVNONI • REGINAE • IN AVENTINO

E I£P| (? see Aug. 1) E X • S(enatus) • C(onsulto) F E R I A E • IMP(eratoris) • CAESARIS -H(onoris) • C(ausa) QVOD • EO • DIE • VICIT • (apud) ACTIVM F I[JP] (? see Aug. /) F E R I A E • ET• SVPPLICATIONES AD • OMNIA • PVLVINARIA Q(uod)• E(o)• D(ie)• CAESAR• AVGVST(us)-IN S I C I L I A V I C I T 10 G C(omitialis) October B K(alendae) -OCT(obres) - NP {in ligature) FID(e)I C F(astus) IN CAPITOLIO TIGILLO • SOROR(io) AD COMPITVM • AClLI D C(omitialis) s E C(omitialis) {erasure, apparently one line) F C(omitialis) G £(omitialis) November A K(alendae) -NOV(embres) -F(astus) L(udi)-IN CIR(co) {or CIR[CO]?) B F(astus) {2 or j lines erased) C C(omitialis) D C(omitialis) Heading. Our estimate of 29 letters ¡s based on [Vienna, 1898] 284 f.) estimated about 30 letters in the possibility that Arval. was abbreviated at the all, but his basis of calculation was 3 ^ months right end; 32, if it was written in full (it seems im(Aug.-Nov.), whereas we really have only about possible to determine—see below). What preceded as a look at line 1 of the calendar proper will imp. is not known. Mommsen {EE, p. 33) estishow. mated a loss of about 37 letters, including the I of The imp., being without a qualifying numeral imp., but perhaps like us, in our first estimate, he and at the end of the name, first led Henzen {Scavi forgot that of the total amount missing one month, 83 f.) to reject Augustus and Tiberius in favor of December,' is on the right, not on the left. Eugen "some famous military leader, adorned with the Bormann (in Festschrift fiir Otto Benndorf . . . title of imperator," whom he did not try to identify. !9

Mommsen {EE, 33 f.) followed Henzen in his rejection but conjectured the name of Germanicus. Henzen then {Acta, pp. ccxxxiii f.) agreed with Mommsen, as did also Hübner {loc. cit.). But later Mommsen {CIL i 2 : 1 , p. 214) rejected Germanicus as too late for what he then considered the date of this calendar (before 2 B.C.) and left the field open for any one of the "plures viri insignes imperatoris honore ornati (v. Staatsrecht I 3 p. 125 seq.)." Finally Bormann {op. cit. 283-286) argued persuasively for the reading [Cn. Domitius M.f. Calvinus pontifex i\mp., which is approved by F. Münzer ( R E 5 [1905] 1424, no. 43), P . Groebe (W. Drumann's Geschichte Roms . . .2, 3.11, n. 8), Degrassi (p. 296), and by implication Broughton, 2.314, 560 (by dating Calvinus' pontificate from "ca. 45 to after 20" B.C. [once with a question mark]), and quoted without objection by Groag, PIR2 3.4.3, no. 139. Our own calculations, based not (as Bormann's were) on average letter-size (14 letters extant divided by 3x/2 months = ca. 4 letters per month, which, multiplied by 7 ^ [the no. of months lost to the left], = 30 letters), but on the actual size of the extant letters measured singly and in combination, indicate that, assuming Arvalium written in full (a problem apparently not faced by Bormann), his restoration is possible spatially, but not ideal; it seems hardly long enough to be perfectly satisfactory: even spaced more generously than the extant letters, it still leaves a margin at the left more than twice as wide as that on the right, our basis of calculation being the width of the September and October columns, 26 to 27 cm. each. But the addition of {Marci) n{epos) to Domitius' pedigree would fill the space nicely. If, however, we assume Arval. abbreviated and followed by nothing else (the squeeze does not allow us to decide whether it was abbreviated or not) and a left margin equal to the right, then Bormann's own reading (with no M. n.) would also fit nicely. August. Line 1. T h e c {littera nundinalis) of CIL 6.32482 must be a typographical error.—The precise area of the erasure we cannot determine from squeeze or photograph; only the stone itself would indicate. Tentatively, except for the last letter in line 2 (C), we follow most editors in putting the entire note in erasure.—At first sight it looks as though Mommsen {CIL i 2 ) and Henzen {CIL 6: 4: 2) had been right in holding that the mark denoting the legal character of the Kalends was changed from F to the N P ligature (we think by the second hand), and this seems the more likely

20

solution. But the failure to erase part of both the lower and the upper horizontal of the F at all three places here, as well as the strange way in which the diagonal of the N is joined to the assumed original F , reminds us of W . Soltau's conjecture (Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 34. Jahrg. = Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 137 [Leipzig, 1888] 836)—which was considered very probable by Wissowa {op. cit. 438, n. 1), tentatively approved by J. S. Reid {A Companion to Latin Studies3 [Cambridge, 1921] 97), called probable by H. J. Rose {loc. cit.), but disapproved by Leuze {op. cit. 123)—that the mark N P was originally N F P (for nefas, feriae publicae), and it makes us wonder whether possibly what the corrector here tried to do was to change F to N F P , rather than F to N P . On the other hand is the fact that the kalends of October, where there is no erasure, are marked N P (in ligature) with no trace of an F. Line 2. Henzen's restoration [Nat{alis) Ti. Claudi Germ{anici)] {Scavi 86) or his more tentative [Natalis Claudi Germ{anici)\ {Acta, p. ccxxxv; CIL 6:1), followed by Hübner but not by Mommsen or by Henzen himself in CIL 6 : 4 : 2, would be satisfactory spatially to the left of Spei (even with Germanici written in full) and gains some probability from the fact that such a reference to Claudius' birthday is made at August 1 in both the Fasti Vallenses {CIL i 2 : 1, p. 240: "postea adiecta sunt litteris rudioribus," p. 241) and the Fasti Antiates {op. cit. p. 248, CIL 10:1.6638, p. 664). Four of the editions listed above include the whole line in the erasure, but Henzen's first two exclude the s. c. at the end. CIL 6 : 1 , by oversight, omits the F{eriae). — L i n e 3. All seven editions read periculo, with the correct spelling.—Line 4. Hübner neglected to draw the -vit. All seven editions except CIL 6: 4: 2 (which supplies nothing, apparently by oversight) supply libera-. Line 5 (Aug. 2). In the restoration at the left, Henzen {Acta) included a C{aius) before Caesa-, from the Fasti Amiternini, August 2 {CIL i 2 : 1, p. 244). We agree with Huelsen {CIL i 2 : 1 and 6: 4: 2) that the same second hand (or hands) that changed the F to N P (or F to N F P ) at August 1, September 2 and 3 (certainly these last two) also added this line and the next, as well as the four lines of notes in larger writing at September 2 and 3.—Lines 7-8. Huelsen {locc. citt.) believed these to be additions later than those indicated in our note on line J; we go farther and incline to believe that these lines are by a hand different from all the

others.—Line 8. N o t only the interpunct (as in three of the editions), but also the final stroke of the M appear in the squeeze. September. Line 3 (Sept. 1). EE omitted Libero. — L i n e 4, ex s. c. the editors note as a later addition, to follow feriae of line 5; we think it may be by the same hand as our line 9, q. e. d. ... vicit.— Lines 4-8 (Sept. 2-3). See above (note on Aug. 2) and below (note on Oct.).—Line 6. Henzen and Mommsen note the omission of apud.—Line 7. On N P , see above, the note on August, line 1.—Line 9. See above, note on Sept. 2, line 4; Huelsen considered this line one of those by a third hand, like lines 7-8 of August (see note above). October. Lines 1 - 3 (Fidi... Acili). Though we incline to agree with Huelsen that this note, while of the same size, is by a different hand from that of the notes in larger writing on Sept. 2-3 (his second hand), we see no reason to consider it later. November. Line 1 ,fin. T h e squeeze favors an abbreviated rather than a broken circo, but the fact that the last letter extant is a longtailed R makes it uncertain. Date. From 1868 (Henzen, Scavi) till 1892 it was customary to date this fragment between 12 B.C. and A.D. 14 (so Henzen and Mommsen; Hiibner's "inter a. 746 et 769 [c. a. 14]" is exceptional, is unexplained, and seems a slip)—the earlier date from the fact that in the note on Sept. 23 (in a smaller fragment not included in the present study) Augustus is titled pont. max., the later from his not appearing as divus anywhere. But in 1880 there was found in Rome, in the bed of the Tiber, a small fragment of marble assigned from the beginning to the Arval Brethren (CIL 6.32338, with reff. to the earlier lit. [but add Bormann, op. cit. 283]), which includes the incomplete line ... 0 P. Silio (our squeeze shows that nothing is lost to the right) at such a point as to indicate the names of two consuls, who, though at first identified by Henzen (BICA 1882, 202) with C. Appius Iunius Silanus and P . Silius Nerva, the consuls of A.D. 28, were more convincingly shown by E. Hula ( A E M O U 15 [1892] 23-28) to be M . Appuleius and P . Silius Nerva, the consuls of 20 B.C. Mommsen (EE 8: 2.303-306) noted the weaknesses of either dating, found no objection to the fact that the earlier dating would mean that the collegium must have been restored by Augustus before he became pont. max., and quoted Huelsen's opinion that the lettering itself was such as to favor the earlier

rather than the later date: Mommsen's arguments seem to favor Hula. Then Huelsen himself, arguing from both the lettering and the brevity of style of the new fragment, supported Hula's dating in EE 8: 2.316-318, CIL i 2 : 1, p. 341 (note on pp. 70 f.), and a note on CIL 6: 4: 2.32338. Since then, scholars have all, so far as I know, followed Hula and Huelsen in dating the Augustan restoration by 21 B.C. : Wissowa,RE 2 (1896) 1468, J.Ü. Arvales fratres, and Rel. u. Kultus der Römer1561; Bormann (Joe. cit.) (who answers [p. 284, n. 1] one of Mommsen's two objections [raised also by Huelsen, on CIL 6.32338, and repeated by Groag, op. cit. 43 f.] to the restoration Cn. Dom[itius Calvinus] in the 1880 fragment); A. D . Nock, CAH 10.475; Degrassi, 296; Herbert Bloch, loc. cit. Three points should be added. (1) T h z p o n t . max. in Augustus' title as given in the note on Sept. 23 in one of the smaller fragments of the present calendar (see above) is presumably to be explained as a later addition, of 12 B.C. or soon after. The whole note on this day (see CIL 6.32482, p. 3313, with Hudson's notes) is written over an erasure—one of the many inexplicable erasures of this calendar—, but there is no attempt to add pont. max. to the three other extant mentions of Augustus. (2) Mommsen's second objection to the name of Cn. Domitius Calvinus in the 1880 fragment—that a man "born before 94 B.C. can scarcely have been a member of the Arval Brethren in the year 21 B.C."—has not proved difficult to meet: if born in 95, for example, he would have been only 74 then. Though Dessau ( P I R 1 2.20 no. 120) doubted that Domitius had lived to the battle of Actium, he seems not to have known any of this Arval evidence. Münzer (op. cit. 1423 f.), Groebe in his edition of Drumann's Geschichte Roms (loc. cit.), and Broughton (locc. citt.) are clearly disposed to accept the new evidence and allow Calvinus to live on, while Groag (loc. cit.) seems to accept Calvinus' being master of the Arvals in our present calendar-fragment (which he dates, both too precisely and inexactly, in 20 B.C.), but follows Huelsen (and Mommsen) in not liking to see the veteran ex-consul named after a younger and perhaps unknown ex-praetor. We agree with Bormann in finding no difficulty in this: the Arval records seem to offer no demonstrable pattern in the order of names, whether by seniority or otherwise. (3) Our preference for the date 29-21 over 36-21 B.C. (July 17, 36, being the date of Calvinus' triumph and therefore the terminus ante quem of his

21

being acclaimed imperator) is based upon our belief that, until Augustus returned from the East in 29, he can hardly have had time to plan and carry out the reorganization of the Arval Brethren. Wissowa had noted (RE, 2.1468, 27-39) that dating the 1880

fragment in 21/20 B.C. (it is agreed that there are remains of two years) meant that the reorganization must have come in the first decade of Augustus' rule and that this was not at all improbable in view of his known religious restorations of 29 and 28. Furthermore, A. D. Nock (loc. cit.), though he dates the Arval reorganization "between 36 and 21," makes it a part of the Augustan restoration that followed Actium. *8. Plates 5, c; 6, d.—April 4, 20 B.C.—Inscribed front of a marble (caeruleum, CIL and Hiibner) tablet (or front of a larger piece?), seen in March,

1949, embedded in the wall (sect, xxxv, no. 6) of the Gall. lap. of the Vatican, where it was reported by 1829 (Pistolesi).—No evidence is known to me of its place and date of finding.—Photos of the stone itself (5, c) and a squeeze (6, d) (its dimensions: ca. 35 cm. wide, 17 cm. high).—CIL and Hiibner thought it part of a religious dedication of some sort, perhaps correctly.—Publ. by Erasmo Pistolesi, IIVaticano descritto ed illustrate, 3 (Rome, 1829), pi. lvi, no. xxxviii; Henzen, CIL 6: 1.849;

Hiibner 51 (with drawing); cf. Huelsen, CIL 6: 4: 2, p. 3007, no. 849 (reff. to Pistolesi and Hiibner).— Punct.: comma-like, sometimes straight, sometimes inclined up to the right; between words, as usual.—Letter heights: Hiibner gives 3.0 cm. for line 1, 2.5 cm. for line 2; for our measurements, see below.—Tall letters: two long I's, one L.— Small letter: O in cos.—No apices or ligatures.

PRlD(ie) -NON(as) APRlL(es) M (arco) -APPVLEIO-P(ublio) -SILIO-CO(n)S(ulibus) Line 1. CIL puts a point after April.—Line 2. Pistolesi has CoC at the end.—Dated by the names of the consuls. *9. Plate 7, a.—Augustan

(30? or 1 8 - 1 7 ? B.C.).—

Left side (in two pieces) of the inscribed front of a marble block (54.9 cm. high [Degrassi], ca. 41.3 cm. wide [estimated from Degrassi's figure for the width of the whole block]), still (June, 1949) forming a small part (between the first and second pilasters) of the wall in the Sala dei Fasti, of the Pal. dei Cons., designed by Tommaso Cavalieri (probably assisted by Michelangelo) to exhibit all the fragments of the Capitoline Fasti that had been discovered by ca. 1548 (Degrassi, 2; L. R. Taylor, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 94: 6 [1950] 513 and nn. 5 f.).—Found in Rome by 1488.—Photo of a squeeze (54.5 cm. high, 40.6 cm. wide to the C D X L of the next column to the right). —Part (for the years 369 [last line only]-358 B.C.) of the official Consular Fasti, which it is now agreed were originally placed, not on the Regia, but on the Arch of Augustus in the Roman Forum (its ancient name, whether Actiacus or Parthicus, or first Acti-

cm. 2.9-3.1 (tall I s 3.45, 3.9) 2.6-2.8 (tall L 3.4, small O 1.1)

acus, then—after reconstruction—Parthicus, is a matter of dispute, settlement of which awaits the reports of recent excavation).—For publication see CIL i 2 : 1, pp. 20 (no. x a, years 385 [last line]-396 a.u.c.), 32 (notes), and especially Degrassi, pp. 32-35 (no. 1, xi s., years 369 [last line]-358), 103105 (notes), and pl. xxxii (cf. p. 5, xi [x]); the Gab. Fotogr. Naz. has available and for sale a photograph: ser. E , no. 5079.—Letter heights: 9 to 13 mm., the average being 11 cm.; tall I goes up to 16 mm.—Punct.: triangular, with the point down (but not always perfectly) ; generally between words, but omitted ca. 23 times (mostly where the space is wider than usual); once or twice (lines 8, 19) present within words, by oversight; omitted after the preposition in (twice); once omitted, once present, after the preposition e.—Tall letters: besides an occasional initial (esp. in praenomina), only long I seems planned to be tall; there are 30 tall long I's (if both I's in Cicurinus are properly long—cf. the Thesaurus linguae Latinae, s.vv. ci cur, Cicurinus), but one short I also seems tall (Maluginensis, line 3) and eight long I's are not tall.—No small letters, no ligatures,one apex ( Visolus,line36).

[ — ] N(epos) ÇQ.MV$ M-¥A.B\VS• K • F - M • N• AM£V§[TV]$ IIII (corr.from II?) [--C]APITOLlN(us) SP• SERVILIVS• C• F • C• N. STRVCTVS [-- - M]ALVGlN(ensis) • VII L P A P l R I V S S P F C N C R [ A ] § S V S TR(ibuni) -MlL(itum) [ — PRAETjEXTAT(us) IIII L • VETVRIVS • L • F • SP • N • CRAÇSVS • C l C V R l N V S s [ — CAMI]LLVS• IIII DICT(ator)

22

R E l • GERVADAE • CAVSSA - MJAMERClNVS MAG(ister)-EQ(uitum) POST EDICTV]M • IN MlLI -TES • EX-S • C • ABDICARVNT- IN EORYM• LOCVM • FACTI • SVNT -- CA]PITOLlNVS DICT(ator) SEDITIOMS • SEDANDAE • ET • R • G • C. - - PRI]MVS • E PLEBE MAG(ister) • EQ(uitum) _ -CJQSSVSII _ L • VETVRIVS • L • F • SP - N • CRAS§ FS • C IC VR IN VS-11 - M]ALVGINENS(is) -II PVALERIVS-L-F-L-N. POTlTVS POP[L]JCOLA VI TR MlL. - - M]^CERlNVS P • MANLI VS • A • F • A • N. CAPITOLlNVS II - C]AMILLVS V DICT(ator) R E l • GERVNDAE CAVSSA - CINCINJNATVS-CAPITOLlNVS MAG(ister)-EQ(uitum) - - PL]EBE PRlMVM • CREARl • COEPTl - M]AMERClNVS L SEXTIVS SEX F-N. N. SEX-TlN. LATERAN. PRlMVS -E • PLEBE CBXL — ]/?EGILLENSIS • ALBlNVS • C • S YWICIVS • M • F • Q • N. PETICVS — - - AVE]NTIN ENSIS Q • SERVILI V§ • Q • F • Q • N. AHALA — ]PETICVS _ C - L I C I N I F S - C F - P - N . CALWS — - - MA]MERClNVS - II CN • GENYCIVS • M • F • M • N. AVENTIN ENSIS — ] IMPERIOSSVS DICT(ator) CLAVl • FlG(endi) • CAVSSA - - ] NATTA MAG(ister) -EQ(uitum) — - - 1ÄMBVSTVS • L • FVRIVS • SP • F • L • NEPOS • MEDVLLINVS • L(ustrum) • FCecerunt^ XX - - - jAHALA II L• GENVCIVS M-F-CN. N-AVENTIN ENS(is) II — CR]ASSVS INREGILLENSIS DICT(ator) REI GERVNDAE CAVSSA — ] §CA[-]V[.M MAG(ister) -EQ(uitum) _ — - - ST]OLQ C • SVLPICIVS • M • F • Q • N • PETICVS II — PENN] YS-CAPITOLlNVS-CRISPlNVS DICT(ator) REI GERVND(ae) CAVSSA — ] M-N-MALVGLVENSIS MAG(ister)-EQ(uitum) — - - ]^MB VSTVS C • POETELI VS C F Q N - L I B O • VISÓLVS — ] AHALA DICT(ator) REI -GERVND(ae) - CAVSSA — ] CAPITOLIN(us)-CRISPlNVS MAG(ister)-EQ(uitum) — ]LAENA§ CN-MANLIVS L • F • A • N • C|APITOLlN (us) IMPERIOSS (us) - - - AMB]FST^S C PLAVTIVS-P-F-P-N. PROCVLVS For lack of space we do not supply at the left more than the rest of the first word extant (except in line 8) and throughout leave abbreviated the praenomina (including K(aesonis), line i, and N{umeri), line 19), as well as /(ilius) and n (epos), once s{enatus) c{onsulto), r{ei) g{erundae) c(aussa), tr(ibuni) mil(itum), and Sextin{us) Lateran (us); for the same reason we have not attempted to restore the left margin, for which the reader should consult Degrassi.—There may be confusions between E and F, I and L, which we have not noted in the transcription.—Note the separation of Aventinensis each time into two parts, whereas Inregillensis, Maluginensis, and Regillensis are not broken: the sepa-

ration looks like an unsuccessful attempt to line up the ends of the cognomina.—Line 1, Jin. CIL i 2 reads only II, Degrassi II[—], but—to judge from his footnote, p. 32 ("litterae duae extremae"), and his explanation of symbols used in transcribing, p. [vi]—he means rather II[- •], i.e., the numeral II plus two letters which cannot be read, not a "numerus incertus." Degrassi (p. 103, year 369, "De M. Fabio") does not understand what was intended here. Our own tentative suggestion is that it is a poor job of trying to change an original II to IIII by the addition of two lighter strokes in front of the. original two and lower, but how much historical support this may have is doubtful. We have no 23

knowledge that M . Fabius Ambustus was four times trib. mil. or that this was the fourth time, but know only that he had been trib. mil. in 3 8 1 . The lists of military tribunes with consular power given by Diodorus, L i v y , and these Capitoline Fasti for the years 3 9 1 - 3 7 6 (to go back no earlier) and 3 7 0 367 (there were none for 3 7 5 - 3 7 1 ) contain no such name except for 381 and 369. On the other hand, the Capitoline Fasti are by no means complete for these years, and it seems uncertain how complete (or interpolated) the other sources are: the numbers of military tribunes attested vary from four to nine each year, in addition to eight questionable examples that include a " F a b i u s " given for 387 by a M S of Diodorus. Furthermore, there are a number of men in this period who held the office four times or more. Cf. Mûnzer, RE 6 (1909) 1753, no. 43; Degrassi, 386-398; Broughton, 1 . 9 3 - 1 1 3 . — Line 8. Neither CIL nor Degrassi has a point in milites, perhaps correctly: it may be accidental or not original.—Line 9. Both CIL and Degrassi show some of the A of Capitolinus.—Line 1 1 . CIL and Degrassi's text (but not his photo nor Gatti's drawing nor the Gab. Fot. photo) show the I of primus.—Line 3 1 . CIL reads Scapula, but we agree with Degrassi (as Broughton does also: 1 . 1 1 8 ) in leaving two letters undetermined, though the name of an otherwise unattested Mucius Scaevula (or Scaevola), suggested by J . Suolahti, Eranos 51 (1953) 1 4 3 - 1 4 6 , seems an excellent conjecture. Dating. This is still sub iudice, Degrassi favoring 30 B.C., Lily Ross Taylor a date within Augustus' sixth tribunician power, 1 8 / 1 7 B.C. (which she dates more closely as June 26/June 25, rather than J u l y 1 /June 30 [CP 45 (1950) 94], as does also, and especially, Degrassi, p. 157, on the year 23; cf. Mason Hammond, MAAR 15.24). While awaiting the results of recent excavation of the Arch of Augustus by Dr. Riccardo Gamberini Mongenet, we incline to agree with Miss Taylor. The pertinent bibliography is as follows: Degrassi, APARA, Rend. 21 (1945-46) 57-104, especially 88 ff.; idem, FCT 19 f., 5 7 1 ; idem, Doxa 2 (1949) 51 f.; idem,

Actes du deuxième Congrès international d'épigraphie grecque et latine, Paris 1952 (Paris, 1953) 97-99

(confirming a letter to us of J u l y 2 1 , 1 9 5 1 ) ; L . R . T a y l o r , CP 4 1 (1946) 1 - 1 1 , 45 (1950) 9 1 - 9 5 , 46

( ^ i 1 ) 73-8o, 47 (1952) 137 and 141 n. 1 (with Louise Adams Holland); eadem, Proceedings of the

American Philosophical Society 9 4 :

6 ( 1 9 5 0 ) 511—

5 1 4 ; Leicester B. Holland, AJA 50 (1946) 52-59, 57 (1953) 1-45 A. E . and J . S. Gordon, AJA 55 (1951) 279 f.; J . S. Gordon, as quoted by Miss T a y l o r , C P 45 (1950) 95 n. 4 3 , 4 6 ( 1 9 5 1 ) 77 and 80

n. 3 2 ; Babcock, chapters ii-iii (carefully argued in agreement with Miss Taylor). 10. Plate 7, b.—Augustan (30? or 1 8 - 1 7 ? B.C.).— Inscribed front of a marble block (estimated, from Degrassi's figures for the whole fragment, as ca. 58.3 cm. high and ca. 50.4 cm. wide) forming the upper-right corner of Degrassi's fragment no. xxi (CIL's no. xviii) of the Fasti Capitolini Consulares, now in the Pal. dei Cons., embedded in the same wall as our no. 9 (see above).—Reported found in the Roman Forum, in 1546, in front of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina ( C I L , Degrassi).— Photo of a squeeze (48.5 cm. wide, 58.5 cm. high). — T h e right-hand column and the right half of the left-hand column of the part of the official Consular Fasti that covers the years 2 0 1 - 1 7 6 (first line only) B.C. (On these Fasti see above, on no. 9.)— For publication see CIL I 2 : 1 , pp. 25 (no. xviii b, years 553-578, first line), 34 (notes), and especially Degrassi, pp. 48 f. (no. 1 , xxi d., years 2 0 1 - 1 7 6 ) , 1 2 1 f. (notes), and pi. xxxv (cf. p. 6, xxi [xviii]); Gab. Fotogr. Naz. photographs, ser. E , nos. 5070, 5092.—Letter heights: 1 1 . 5 - 1 5 mm., usually 13 mm. Tall I is usually not much taller than the rest, but once reaches 17 mm.—Punct.: triangular,usually rather long, with the point usually straight down; between words except sometimes where there is considerable space. The change of hands that may be seen in the last four lines seems reflected in the shape of the punctuation, though the change here is very slight.—Tall letters: twelve long I's, plus two doubtful ones (but two other long I's are not tall), other letters sometimes when initial.—No small letters, apices, or ligatures.—Note the sign for 50, line 33, fin.

[.. .]/L. N . L £ N [ T ] V L Y § P A L L t I V S Q. F . P. N . P A I T V S ] ÇELLVM-ÏW/LIPPICVM . . . / N • G A L B A • M A X I M ( u s ) • I I C • A V R E L I V S • C • F • C • N. C O T T A . . . / L • N. L E N T V L V S P • V I L L I V S • T I • F • T I • N. T A P P V L V S s . . ./P. F • L • N • S C I P I O • A F R I C A N ( u s ) P A L L I V S Q F P N P A I T V S - L ( u s t r u m ) -F(ecerunt) • XXXXVI .. ./FLAMINlNVS S E X ALLIVS Q F P N PAITVS CATVS 24

. ,/M-N, CETHEGVS Q-MINVCIVS-C-F-C-N. RVFVS . ./PVRPVREO M• CLAVDIVS -M-F-M-N-MARCELLVS . . /CATO _ L • VALERIVS • P • F • L • N. FLACCVS . ./[SCI]PJOAFRICAN(us)-II TI SEMPRONIVS TI F C N LONGVS . ./[F.P.N.]PAITVS • CATVS • C • CORNELIVS • L • F • M • N • CETHEGVS • L(ustrum) F(ecerunt) • XXXXVII ../[- N.J MERVLA Q • MINVCIVS • Q • F • L • N. THERMVS . ,/[N.].FLAMINlN(us) CN • DOMITI VS • L • F • L • N • AHENOBARBVS [BE]LLVM • ANTIOCHlNVM . ./GLABRIO P • CORNELIVS • CN • F • L • N • SCIPIO • NASICA . ,S/[C]JPIO QVI POSTEA C LAELIVS C F . C NEPOS . ./APPELLATVS • EST . ./ F L N W L S O M • FVLVIVS • M • F • SER • N • NOBILIOR . .QVINCTIV/S T F L N-FLAMINlN(us) • M• CLAVDIVS M F - M N - M A R C E L L ( u s ) • L(ustrum) -F(ecerunt) - X X X X V I I I ./N-SALlNATOR M • VALERI VS-M-F-M'-N-MESS ALLA . ./M-N. LEPIDVS C• FLAMINIVS C F C - N E P O S . ,/A N ALBlNVS Q MARCIVS L F Q N. PHILIPPVS . ,/F • P • N • PVLCHER M • SEMPRONIVS • M • F • C • N • TVDITANVS . . / • N • PVLCHER L • PORCIVS • L • F • M • N. LICINVS . ,/ P F L-N-FLACCVS• M• PORCIVS-M-F-M. N-CATO• L(ustrum) • F(ecerunt) • X X X X V I I I I . ,/N • LABEO M • CLAVDIVS M F - M N - MARCELLVS . ,/M-N-PAVLLVS CN• BAEBIVS• Q• F• CN• N• TAMPHILVS . ./P-N-CETHEGVS M• BAEBIVS• Q• F• CN N• TAMPHILVS . ./A • N • ALBlNVS C • CALPVRNIVS - C -F • C -N • PlSO • IN • M(agistratu) • M(ortuus) • E(st) -IN-E(ius) -L(ocum) -F(actus) -E(st) Q • FVLVIVS • CN • F • M • N. FLACCVS . .A/CIDlNVS• FVLVIAN(us) Q-FVLVIVS -Q-F-M-N. FLACCVS HEI • FRA/TRES • GERMANI • FVERVNT . ./M-F-M-N-LEPIDVS• M• FVLVIVS-M-F-SER• N• NOBILIOR• LVSTR(um) • F(ecerunt) • i ../BRVTVS A • MANLI VS • CN • F • L • N. VVLSO . ./P-N-PVLCHER TI• SEMPRONIVS• P• F• TI N• GRACCHVS ..[C/N.] F-L-N-SClPIOHISPALLVS Q• PETILLIVS C-F-Q-N-SPVRlNVS• IN• MAG(istratu) The diagonal at or near the left edge of most of the lines of the text indicates the division between this stone and the one to the left, the consular list for the years 201-176 (first line) being divided between the two stones (as may be best seen in Degrassi's pi. xxxv). Where no diagonal appears, the line in the present text is complete and nothing appears to the left. In the lines where the present text begins a new word, we have put merely three dots to indicate that the rest of these lines appears on the stone to the left. Where the division comes anywhere except between two words, we have added the rest of the divided word. To save space, we have generally not filled out the abbreviations. Line 1, fin. CIL reads NLlius, Degrassi Ail\ius\ but with a note (p. 121, on year 202) which implies that ALL- is actually written here (as well as in ALLIVS in lines 5 and 6) but that this is merely

one of the rather frequent examples of the stonecutter's making what looks like an L for an I. Not only here in the Capitoline Fasti did Mommsen (CIL i l p. 446, col. 1, fn.; i 2 p. 34, on 552-554) note the spelling Allius, but also in the years 199, 198, 194, and 167 B.C., whereas he found Ailius (Paetus) only in 172; from which he concluded that there had existed another family, the Allii (Paeti), which had died out, and that the Aelii had thereupon taken over the Paeti, as it were, in order to raise their own standing. This is therefore a matter of some importance. We agree with Degrassi, however, that Mommsen was wrong about the year 194 (Gatti's drawing, as well as the photograph [Degrassi, p. 48 and pi. xxxv], shows Ail-), and furthermore that this Capitoline Fasti evidence cannot outweigh the literary evidence—the fact that the ancient authors know only Aelii Paeti and asso2

5

ciate them with the Aelii Tuberones—, especially since we have found that among the "typographical" mistakes in Latin inscriptions this interchange of I and L is one of the commonest. We nevertheless agree with CIL i in printing All- here, as well as in lines 5 and 6, as being what was actually cut by the engraver, whatever his intentions.—On the date see on no. 9, above. * n . Plate 8, a.—Augustan (after March 27, 19 B.C.; perhaps as late as 2 B.C.).—Part (cm. 58.7 high, 42 wide: Degrassi) of an inscribed marble pilaster (parastata secundus in Degrassi's restoration, but the third "ut nunc est"), forming Degrassi's fragment no. xxi {CIL's no. xx) of the Fasti Capitolini Triumphales, now in the Pal. dei Cons., embedded in the same wall as our nos. 9 and 10.— Found in the Roman Forum, in 1546 or 1547, in front of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina (Degrassi).—Photo of a squeeze (58.5 cm. high, 41.2 cm. wide).—The part of the official Triumphal

Fasti that covers the years 260-241 (first line only) B.C. (On these Fasti see above, on no. 9. What is said there about the original site of the Consular Fasti applies also to the Triumphal.)—For publication see CIL i 2 : 1 , pp. 47 (no. xx, years 494-513), 52 (notes), and especially Degrassi, pp. 10 (no. 1, xxi [xx]), 76 f. (drawing and text), 548 f. (notes), pi. i (cf. pis. xiv, xx); a Gab. Fotogr. Naz. photograph, ser. E, no. 5110.—Letter heights: lines 1-21, predominantly 1.7 cm., the rest (apparently by a different hand) 1.5 cm.; the usual variation within the lines is 1-2 mm. (apart from the tall letters).— Punct.: a triangle, usually down-pointed and not equilateral, between apparently all the words except sometimes when there is extra space.—Tall letters: all long I's (14, including one or two doubtful) except in the ablative ending -is (which is written -eis), plus the initial letter of each paragraph and the letter K.—No small letters, though O in cos. tends to be slightly shorter.-—No apices or ligatures.

C(aius) • DVlLIVS• M(arci) -F(ilius) -M(arci) -N(epos) -CO(n)S(ul) -PRlMVS-AN(no) C B X C I I I NAVALEM • DE • SICVL(eis) • ET • CLASSE POENICA • EGIT K(alendis) • INTERKALAR(ibus) L(ucius) • CORNELIVS -L(uci) -F(ilius) -CN(aei) -N(epos) - SCIPIO-CO(n)S(ul) -AN(no) CBXCIV s DE• POENEIS• ET• SARDIN(ia) CORSICA-V-lD(us) MART(ias) C(aius) • AQVILLIVS • M(arci) • F(ilius) • C(ai) • N(epos) • FLORVS AN(no) • C B X C V PRO• CO(n)S(ule) • DE • POENEIS • IIII • NON(as) -OCT(obres) C(aius) -SVLPICIVS -Q(uinti) -F(ilius) -Q(uinti) -N(epos) PATERCVLVS-AN(no) CBX[CV] CO(n)S(ul) • DE POENEIS • ET • SARDEIS • III • Ar[ON(as) OCT(obres)] .0 A(ulus) -ATlLIVS-A(uli) -F(ilius) -C(ai) -N(epos) CAIATlNVSPR(aetor) -AyV[(no) CBXCVI] E X • SICILIA • DE -POENEIS -XII • II • K(alendas) • F[EBR(uarias)] C(aius) • ATlLIVS• M(arci) • F(ilius) -M(arci) -N(epos) REGVLVSCO(n)S(ul) -A(nno) [CBXCVI] DE• POENEIS • NAVALEM • EGIT• V i l i • K(alendas) (or J[dus]) [ — ] L(ucius) -MANLIVS -A(uli) -F(ilius) -P(ubli) -N(epos) WLSOLONG(us) -AM(no) CBXCVII] •s CO(n)S(ul) • DE-POENEIS NAVALEM - E G I T - V m [ — ] SER(vius) • FVLVIVS• M(arci) -F(ilius) -M(arci) -N(epos) -PAETlNVS-A(nno) CBX[CIX] NOBILIOR • PRO • CO(n) S(ule) • DE • COSSVRENSIB E T • POENEIS • NAVALEM • EGIT • X I I I • K(alendas) • FEBR(uarias) M(arcus) -AIMILIVS-M(arci) -F(ilius) -L(uci) -N(epos) -PAVLLVS-AN(no) C B X C I X PRO• CO(n)S(ule) D E C O S S V R E N S I B V S E T - P O E N E I S i0 NAVALEM • EGIT X I I • K(alendas) • FEBR(uarias) CN(aeus) -CORNELIVS-L(uci) -F(ilius) -CN(aei) -N(epos) -SClPIO-ASINA-AN(no) - B PRO • CO(n)S(ule) • DE • POENEIS • X • X(alendas) APRlL(es) C(aius) • SEMPRONIVS • TI (beri) • F(ilius) -TI(beri) -N(epos) -BLAESVS-CO(n)S(ul) -AN(no) - B DE POENEIS K(alendis)-APRlL(ibus) 25 C(aius) • AVRELIVS • L(uci) -F(ilius) -C(ai) • N(epos) • COTTA • CO(n)S(ul) -AN(no) -BI DE • POENEIS • ET • SICVLEIS IDIBVS • APRlL(ibus) ^(ucius) -CAECILIVS-L(uci) -F(ilius) -C(ai) • N(epos) • METELLVS • PRO • CO(n) S(ule) • A(nno) • BII[I] DE POENEIS VII • IDVS • SEPTEMB(res) 30 [C(aius)] LVTATIVS • C(ai) -F(ilius) -C(ai) -N(epos) -CATVLY^ PRQ A(nno) B X / I

26

Line i. CIL and Degrassi show a tall I in Duilius, though the worn condition here makes it not certain.—Line 2. CIL has no point after classe; it is just at the end of the middle crossbar of the E . — Line 3. CIL begins interkalar. with a tall I.—Line 11. Degrassi's (Gatti's) drawing has no point in the middle of the XIIII.—Line 12. The first I in Atilius is slightly taller than t h e T and the L. CIL, in effect, has A[N.CDXCVI] at the end, though the space after the A makes A alone almost certainly the abbreviation.—Line 13, fin. After the VIII CIL has a K , which Degrassi considers "probable though uncertain"; we can see nothing to make either K{alendas) or Id(us) more certain.— Line 15, fin. CIL and Degrassi read V I I I [ — ] , which is probably correct, but V I I K or I seems possible if we allow crowding. On the date: Borghesi had dated both consular and triumphal lists before 30 B.C. Hirschfeld, noting that the latest triumph mentioned is that of L. Cornelius Balbus in 19 B.C. and that neither the ovation of Drusus in 11 B.C. nor any later triumphs are mentioned, conjectured 12 B.C., when Augustus became pontifex maximus, as the date of the triumphal list (as well as of the consular list), and was followed by Mommsen, Henzen, and Huelsen. (For the references to Borghesi, Hirschfeld, etc., cf. Degrassi, 20, col. 2.) After the discovery that the fasti had had no connection with the Regia, but were placed on the Arch of Augustus (see above, on no. 9), Degrassi widened the dates of the triumphal list to 19-11 B.C. (loc. cit., fin.\ so also L. R. Taylor, CP 45 [1950] 92 col. 2,46 [1951] 77 col. 2), but later, as a result of Gamberini Mongenet's excavation and study (still unpublished) of the Arch of Augustus, concluded that they were inscribed when the Parthian Arch was built, i.e. in 19 B.C., after Balbus' triumph of March 27, or in the next year {Actes [cited above, no. 9] 98 f.). Babcock, after noting (pp. 63, 76 f., fn. 64) that Degrassi should perhaps have widened his 19-18 date to 19-17 "since there seems to be no reason to change his dating of the dedication of the [Parthian] Arch in the sixth tribunician power of Augustus, 26 June 18-25 June 17 ( A P A R A , Rend. 21 [1945-1946] 100)," goes on to suggest (pp. 164-166,188 fn. 131) that Balbus' triumph of 19 may have been "chosen as the last non-imperial celebration of the ceremony" (i.e. by a person who did not belong to the imperial family: on the only later exception to this rule, see A. E. Gordon, Veranius 308, the ovation of A. Plautius, A.D. 47), that therefore Drusus' ova-

tion of 11 B.C. is not necessarily the terminal date of the triumphal list, and that in fact this date may be as late as 2 B.C., when the temple of Mars Ultor was dedicated in the new forum of Augustus. *i2. Plates 8, b; 9, b.—17 B.C.—One fragment (a, pi. 8, b) and contiguous parts of three other fragments (b, pi. 9, b) of marble blocks (those of b, at least, reportedly 16-20 cm. in thickness [Mon. Ant. 1.606]; the thickness of block a is unrecorded) that formed one side—presumably the front—of a large (somewhat more than m. 3.02 high x m. 1.12 wide \loc. cit.]) monument (for a drawing of a proposed reconstruction see op. cit. 607; for another see Lanciani, p. 73 of op. cit. below), all the fragments of which (except one) are set up, in restored form, in the Chiostro of the Mus. Naz. Rom. (inv. no. 1023), the other one (our a) being embedded in a wall of the Gall. lap. (sect, xxxvii, no. 35) of the Vatican.— The three fragments of our part b are among the eight (plus 105 small fragments belonging to a Severan monument of the same character) found in Rome, in 1890, on the left bank of the Tiber near the church of S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini. Our part a had been found in the fifteenth (Mow. Ant. 1.606) or sixteenth ( C I L 6, p. 3237) century, in a spot that seems to have been near where those of 1890 were unearthed ( C I L 6, loc. cit.).—Photos of squeezes. The squeeze of a is 45.4 cm. (max. width) x 26.4 cm. (max. height), that of b 42.8 cm. (max. width) x 15.9 (max. height). The photo of b shows the left edge of the inscription, not the right edge (the marble fragment itself does include the right edge, but our squeeze does not include it—at the moment we were interested only in the reference to Horace and used the first piece of squeeze paper available, hence the ragged right edge). Two portions (part a = lines 51-66, right-hand fragm.; part b = lines 147-155, left-hand fragments plus left part of right-hand fragm.) of the inscribed record of the Ludi Saeculares of 17 B.C., of which 168 lines (or parts of lines) have been recovered. Called a "cippus," "pila," "pillar," "pilastro" by editors, it is undoubtedly to be identified with the columna marmorea which is mentioned in two of the extant fragments, along with one ahenea, both of which—marble and bronze— the senate decreed should be inscribed as a memorial (see our part b, lines 8-10). Published by Henzen, CIL 6: 1.877, ^ (only our part a); Hiibner 1037 (drawing of 4 words of our part a, which he dated as probably Claudian); 27

Huelsen et al., CIL 6: 4: 2.32323 (our part a = right-hand part of lines 51-66, our b = left-hand part of lines 147-155); Bang, CIL 6: 4: 3, p. 3824, no. 32323 (reff, to Dessau and Diehl); Mommsen, Monumenti Antichi (R. Accademia dei Lincei) i : 3 (1891) 617-672, pis. A , A ' , A " ; idem, EE 8: 2.225-

274 = Ges. Sehr. 8.567-622; idem, in Rodolfo Lanciani's Pagan and Christian Rome (Boston & New York, 1893), seven pages inserted between pp. 362 and 363; W. M. Lindsay, Handbook of Latin Inscriptions . . . (Boston & Chicago, 1897) 102-104 (only lines 100-125, I 47 _ I 49); Dessau 5050 (lines 90-168); Diehl 9 f. (good photos of lines 85-168); R. H. Barrow, A Selection of Latin Inscriptions (Oxford, 1934, repr. 1950) 63 f. (lines 90-99, 139149); Ioannes Baptista Pighi, De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Qtiiritium libri sex (Milan, 1941 [Pubbl. delF Univ. Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ser. 5 (sc. filol.) vol. 35]) 107-130 (the whole inscr.), esp. H I f. (our part a), 117 f. (our part b) ; Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus & Tiberius, collected by Victor Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, ed. 2 (Oxford, 1955) 61, no. 32 (only lines 147-149). Cf. Monumenti Antichi i (1889/1892) 603-610, pis. B H (F. Barnabei), 611-616, pis. i-ii (D. Marchetti); Gaston Boissier, Revue des Deux Mondes n o (Paris, 1892) 75-95; Lanciani, op. cit. 73-82; Carlo Pascal, BC 1893, 195-204; Georg Wissowa, Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur römischen Religions- und Stadtgeschichte (Munich, 1904) 192-210 (Akad. Festrede, 1894) ; J.-A. Hild, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines . . . (edd. Daremberg, Saglio, Pottier, Lafaye) 4: 2, fase. 42 (Paris, 1909 ?) 990996, s.o. Saeculares Ludi, Saeculum; Guglielmo Ferrerò, The Greatness and Decline of Rome, transl. by H. J. Chaytor, 5 (New York, 1910) 82-94; W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People ... (London, 1911) 438-447; M. P.

Nilsson, RE iA: 2 (1920) 1707-1717, s.v. Saeculares ludi; Pietro Romanelli, NS1931,313-345, pi. x (the new fragments of the Acta of the Ludi Saeculares of A.D. 204 [for further literature cf. L. R. Taylor, AJP 55 (1934) 101, n. 1], but having some points of interest for the Augustan celebration as well); A. D. Nock, CAH 10.477-479; J. Gagé, Recherches sur les jeux séculaires (Paris, 1934). Part a, pl. 8, b (Vatican fragment).—Letter heights: 1.1-1.4 cm., predominantly 1.2-1.25 cm. (a trifle larger than those of part b, perhaps because the latter fragments are lower down, near the end of the inscr.).—Punct.: small and triangular, at mid-height, between most words (the many omissions seem to follow no pattern).—Tall letters: four tall long I's.—No small letters, no apices (unless the mark over the first E of lege in line 7 [line 57 of the whole inscr.] is not an accidental cut, but intended to distinguish this word from the verb lege—a proper usage of the apex, according to Quintilian 1.7.2-3 and Terentius Scaurus ed. Keil, Gramm. Lat. 7 [Leipzig, 1880] 33, 5), and no ligatures. Part b, pi. 9, b (Mus. Naz. Rom. fragments).— Letter heights : 1.0-1.3 5 cm. (predominantly 1.1 -1.2 cm.), but with tall letters from ca. 1.5-1.6 (predominantly) to 2.0 cm.—Punct. : small and triangular (where one can see the shape), generally at midheight; between most words (in the whole width, six omissions noted, without pattern), at two lineends, and once in the middle of xv • vir(i) ; note also the double punctuation in line 6.—Tall letters: in the whole width, 18 to 23 tall I's, all but one being long; but (as usual) many long I's are not tall. Note also the tall initial letters at the beginning of some of the lines that are not indented.-—No small letters, ligatures, or apices.—Note the paragraphing.

Part a

(CIL)

LEP/[ID]VSL(ucius) CESTI VS L(ucius) • P E T R O N I O R F F Y 5 [ . . . [CO(n)]/§(ul) V(erba) F(ecit) LVDOSSAECVLARlS POST • COMPLVR[ES . . . A[GRIP]/PA TRIBVNIC(ia) POTESTATE FVTVROS QVOÌ [ . . . REL[IGION]/EM ATQVI ETIAM QVOD TALI SPECTACVLQ [ . . . [DIEBJ/YS QVI NÒN DVM SVNT• MARITATI• SIN[E . . . S (55) IN]/STITVTI NEQVE • VLTRA • QVAM • SEMEL • VLLI • MQRTA[LI VM . . . [ED]/ENT • S • F • S • SPECTARE • LICEAT • IEIS • QVI • LEGE • DE • MARlTy/[NDIS . . . [ID]/EM• ADFVER(unt) E T SENATVS• CONSVLTVM• FACTVM• ES[T . . . PE[RTI]/NERE • AD • CONSERVANOAM • MEMORIAM - T A N I C E • B[ENEVOLENTIAE • • • IO (60) ••• COLVM[N]/^M• AHENEAM E T MARMOREAM• INSCRlBI• ¿T[ATVIQVE ••• . . . S]/INT Q - D E. R. F. P. D. E. R. I C VTI-COS A-A VE AD FYfTVRAM . . . (51)

28

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

is (65)

... ... ... ... ...

[M]/ARMOREAM IN QVIBVS • COMMENTARI[VM . . . P(raesunt) • I N P E R E N T • VTI • REDEMPTORIVBS • EA[M . . . EDIC[T]/VM PROPOSITVM E S T X V VJR[I . . . HOMIN[E]/i" EXISTVMAVIMVS • VT QMNES L I B E [ R I . . . [SE]/MEL • C O X I V G E S ^ E [ . . .

The diagonal near the left end of all but one line indicates the beginning of the extant text of this fragment; left of the diagonal is printed only enough to fill out the first word in each line, whether the rest of it is extant in a fragment to the left or lost, or partly extant and partly lost. The three dots at both ends of all lines are meant to suggest only that this fragment contains neither the beginning nor the end of any line. Except at the beginning of the last line, the additions to the left of the diagonal and those to the right of the square bracket are taken from CIL 6: 4: 2 or from Mommsen (Mon. Ant. 1)—they are nearly always identical. Line 1 (51), init. The point after the first S is not certain;^»., the space between what is left of the bottoms of the V and S is so much larger than normal that one must assume either a wide-spreading V (as in ultra, line 6, or senatus, line 8) or a mistaken punctuation-mark, or perhaps both, but what is visible of the angle of the V seems to favor the first hypothesis.—Line 2 (52), init. CIL 6: 1 has nothing of the first S.—Line 4 (54), init. CIL 6: 1 shows the remains of the first letter as an I, Mommsen (op. cit. 637, n. 1, and pi. A") and CIL6:4: 2 as a V in error for an E, but what is visible can easily be the top of an E (cf. the first E in line 7, which also has too short a top bar); Pighi reads re[ligione]m. Atqui seems a mistake for atque. The point after it is not certain.—Line 5 (55), init. Only CIL 6: 1

reads the V and has a point in nondum. Neither CIL nor Mommsen has a tall I in maritati. The I in sine, which at first sight seems no I, is confirmed by the ungainly breadth of the lower serif of I, P, and T, as here exemplified.—Line 6 (56),fin. CIL 6: 1 and Pighi read only MOR, 6 : 4 : 2 only MO, Mommsen MO in his typographical reproduction and MOR in his transcription; we can see the bottom of the T and even the very bottom of the left diagonal of the A.—Line 7 (57), J?». CIL 6: 1 has no tall I. The abbreviations are: s(ine) f(raude) s(ua).—Line 11 (61), init. CIL 6: 1 reads S]VNT; fin., only CIL 6: 1 has anything of the V. The abbreviations are: q(uid) d(e) e(a) r(e) /(ieri) p(laceret) d(e) e(a) r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt), co(n)s(uI) a(lter) aimbo).—Line 12 (62), init. Pighi has nothing missing in marmoream. CIL 6: 1 misses the point after quibus, but has some of the V in the last word.—Line 13 (63), init. Only CIL 6: 1 has the point after the P.—Line 14 (64), fin. CIL 6: 4: 2 transcribes VIR[...] and treats it as an abbreviation (wV[.]), which seems doubtful.—Line 15 (65),fin. Only CIL 6:1 has anything of the E.—Line 16 (66), init. The first letter is certainly an M (the top of the third stroke, where it joins the fourth, is clear even in our photo of the squeeze, pi. 8, b), hence the proper reading is neither^//«' (CIL 6 : 1 ) nor [seme\l iei (Mommsen, CIL 6:4: 2, and Pighi), but simply [se]mel.

(CIL)

5

Part b S A C R I F I C I O Q V E P E R F E C T O P V E R l [X]XVII• QVIBVS• DENVN/TIATVM ••• (H7) CARMEAT- C E C I N E R V N T • EO[DEM]QVE'- MODO • IN • CAP/ITOLIO CARMEN • COMPOSVIT • Q(uintus) • HO£[AT] IVS • FLACCVS • (150) XV-VIR(i) • A D F V F J i F A T • IMP(erator) • CA[E]§AR • M(arcus) AGRIPPAQ(uintus) • . . . C(aius) NORBANVS• M(arcus) -COCCEIVSM(arcus) LOLLIVS C(aius) SENTIV/S • • • Q(uintus) TVBERO C(aius) R E B I L V S ) ME§§ALLA • MESSALLlN/VS L V D l S • SCAENIClS • D l M I S S l S • H[(ora) 1 to 3 letters] IVXTA EVM LOCV/M • • • THEAT.RVM • POSITVM • ET- SCA[E]NA • M E T A E • POSITAE . . . EDICTVMQVE • PROPOSITVM E S T • IN • HAEC • V E R B A . . . (155)

The diagonal near the right end of most of the lines indicates where our squeeze ends in the middle of a word (see above). The three dots indicate that there is more of the text extant.—In the restored form of these fragments on the Museum wall, a little too much space has been left between the two

on the left on the one hand and the one on the right on the other—at least when our squeeze was made, in 1948—, so that our photo (pi. 9, b) shows more letters lost than there really are.—Line 1 (147), pueri. We agree with Mommsen's first reading (except that we make the I tall: we seem to see the

29

left-hand part of the top serif); in EE he wrote puer.—i.e. puer(t)—, as do also CIL (which adds a point after R) and Dessau; Pighi reads puer. \XX\VII. T h e space between R and I is excessive, certainly, but can be paralleled here and elsewhere (it is a common fault in the spacing of R A and R I , due to the length and curve of the tail of the R) : cf. Diehl, 9, line 106, first word, Quiritibus, and line 107, Agrippa (the present inscr.) and our photos of two fragments of the Laudatio Turiae ( A J A 54 [1950], pis. 26 f., between pages 224 f. [several examples]; see below, no. 28).—Line 3 (149). Pighi readsHor[ati]us.—Line4 (150). Pighi reads Ca[es]ar. — L i n e 5 (151), init. Neither Mommsen (Mow. Ant. 1, pi. A " , line 151) nor CIL 6 has the point after initial C. Pighi reads [M.] Lollius.—Line 6 (152). T h e point after Tubero is doubtful; if present, it is unusually high. T h e mark to the right of the point after Rebilus (not shown by Mommsen, CIL, or Dessau) appears made by the stonecutter, whether intentionally or by mistake, rather than a later, accidental cutting. I t looks like a major punctuation-mark, intended to make clear that Messalla is not Rebilus' cognomen. Mommsen transcribes Messalla in three different ways, CIL shows something of the E but brackets E S , Dessau and Pighi bracket SS, and Dessau (by a mere slip) prints only one L . — L i n e 7 (153). T h e hora number best indicated by the space left seems to be I I I , V I , or X I , but II, V , or X would seem possible. Pighi allows space for two letters.—Line 8 (154). Mommsen, CIL, Dessau, and Pighi bracket A E in scaena.—Line 9 (155). Pighi reads [e\st. T h e date of this celebration of the Ludi Saeculares is indicated in the ipsissima verba of Augustus himself: [Pr]o conlegio XVvirorum magis\ter con]legii, collega M. Agrippa, lud[os s]aeclares, C. Furnio C. Silano cos. (17 B . C . ) , [feci] (Res Gestae, ch. 22, Lat., iv 36 {., p. 46 of the text of Salvatore Riccobono, Acta Divi Augusti, pars prior [Rome, 1945, Regia Academia Italica]; similarly the Greek, p. 47; cf. Jean Gagé's edition, with commentary [Strasbourg and Paris, ed. 2, 1950] pp. 118-120). W e hardly therefore need the testimony of the Capitoline Fasti—where the mention of the Ludi saeculares quinct{i) comes opposite what must have been the data for the year 17, though these are not extant (Degrassi, p. 20, col. 2; pp. 62 f., no. xlviii; pis. xix, xxvi, xliii; cf. Lily Ross Taylor, CP 41 [1946] 2, 7; 46 [1951] 77)—or of Dio (54.18.2). Moreover, since the ludi were celebrated from M a y 31 to June 3 (plus a week of ludi honorarii, line 156)

30

and since one of the senate's pertinent decrees was to the effect that as a memorial tantae b[enevolentiae deorum] a record of the ludi should be inscribed on two columnae and set up (reading statuique, etc., with Mommsen), it is reasonable to suppose that the actual cutting of this inscription took place before the end of the same year. Hübner's dating of the Vatican fragment (our part a)—which was the only fragment he knew when he published his Exempla scripturae—, as "perhaps of A.D. 4 7 " (p. 362, on no. 1037), may be explained as due to its appearing in CIL 6 : 1 beside the lost fragment (877, a-b), which he had no doubt was of Claudian date (to which he thought the lettering of the Vatican fragment also pointed), though the editors of CIL 6 : 1 (or rather Henzen) only suggested the Claudian date and both Mommsen (Mon. Ant. 1.634, E E 8.245) and Huelsen in re-editing the lost fragment ( C I L 6: 4: 2, p. 3244, fin.) left the date undecided—quite properly—as between Claudian and Domitianic. 13. Plate 9, a . — P r o b a b l y Augustan (and early rather than later).—Marble slab or plaque (dimensions ? we estimate ca. 1.63 m. wide, from Canina's pi. ccxviii, fig. 2), still in situ on the side of the tomb of the deceased ("questo nobilissimo sepolcrale monumento," as Piranesi calls i t ) . — A photo of the stone itself (made for us by Signorina Simonetta Calza-Bini) showing also some of the travertine wall-facing and of the core of the wall.—Sepulchral inscription of "Caecilia Metella, daughter of Q. Creticus and (wife) of Crassus," who is now generally identified with the daughter of Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus (consul in 69 B.C.) and the wife of M . Licinius Crassus (elder son of the triumvir) and is otherwise unknown except for being named (Caecilia Crassi) in the epitaphs of two of her household—a freedman medicus and a slave argentarius—discovered in 1905 in the remains of a columbarium (G. Gatti, NS 1905, 82, and BC1905, 168 f.; Dessau 9424, 9433; CIL 6:4:3.373 80 f.). Publ. by Piranesi, 3, pi. L (engraving, reproduced by Azzurri and Huelsen); Canina, op. cit. (above, no. 2), pi. ccxviii, fig. 7 (cf. fig. 2 and vol. 9) PP- 3 T 7 f.); Orelli 577; Ritsehl, pi. lxxxiv, D (lithograph; cf. fig. d and col. 73); Henzen, CIL 6: 1.1274; Hübner 61 (drawing, from a photo; reproduced by Sandys-Campbell, 42, fig. 7); Dessau 881. Cf. F. Azzurri, BC 1895, 14-25 (esp. 20 and n. 1) and pi. i (foil. p. 80 in our copy); Huelsen, Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher b (1896) 50-58; F. Münzer,

RE 3 (1899) 1235, no. 136; Henzen and Huelsen, CIL 6: 4: 2.31584 (reff, to other lit.); DrumannGroebe, Geschichte Roms...1 2 (Leipzig, 1902) 45, no. 29; Giuseppe Tomassetti, La campagna romana..., 2 (Rome, 1910) 60-63; Esther B. Van Deman, AJA 1912, 395, 396; Antonio Muñoz, BC 1913, 4-11 ; Frank, 144 f.; Münzer, RE 13:1 (1926) 269, no. 56; Eugénie Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, 1 (New York, 1928) 136; Encicl. ital. 3, pi. clxiii, s.v. Appia, Via (2 photos); 23.65, s.v. Metella, Cecilia; Frederick W. Shipley, MAAR 9.58; Bang, CIL 6: 4 : 3> P- 3799> n o - i 2 7 4 (reff, to Dessau, NS and BC 1905); Syme, 22 n. 1, 36 n. 3, 43, 64; D. S. Robertson, A Handbook of Greek & Roman Architecture2 (Cambridge, England, 1945) 266, 340. Letter heights: Hübner gives 9, 8, and 6 cm. from Canina, Gli edifizi di Roma antica ..., i (Rome, 1848) pi. cclxii (Ritsehl says 272) (which I have not seen).—Punct.: apparently triangular and uppointed (as Piranesi, Canina, and Hübner also indicate), in the three places between words.—No tall or small letters, no apices or ligatures.—Centered. CAECILIAE Q(uinti) • C.RETICI • F(iliae) METELLAE-CRASSI On the d a t e : until 1835 it was generally held that the Crassus here named was the triumvir. In that year Drumann showed (Geschichte Roms ... [Koenigsberg] 2.55 f., on no. 30) that, so far as known, Crassus had been married only once, to Tertulia, who was still alive when he was killed; that the present Caecilia Metella would have been too young to be a former wife (it being generally assumed that she was the daughter of the Caecilius Metellus Creticus, cos. in 69) ; that, in short, the present Crassus must be either the triumvir's elder son, Marcus (a certain Cornelia having been the only known wife of the younger son, Publius), ór a Crassus of a quite different family from the Licinii. Ritschl accepted Metella's paternity (which no one, in fact, seems to question) but wrote "parum liquet" on the identity of her husband. Henzen, on CIL 6:1.1274, accepted son Marcus as the probable husband. Hübner also accepted this as a fact, but noted that the inscription seemed to belong to the first part of the Augustan age (Sandys-Campbell state all three points as facts) and that the year of Metella's death was not known. Dessau (on 881) accepted her paternity, but declared her husband unknown. Azzurri, an architect rather than a classicist, started on a new track by being the first to publish

correct drawings of the two sculptured shields that form part of the marble frieze above, and a little to the left of, the inscription (see his pi. i and cf. figs. A - B with C, which reproduces Piranesi's engraving), but having already (p. 20, esp. n. 1) "preferred to adhere to the more common view" that Crassus was the triumvir, not his elder son, he interpreted (pp. 24 f.) shield A as referring to Metella's father's conquest of Crete and shield B as referring to Crassus' own defeat of Spartacus, both references for political purposes. Huelsen (who has the best treatment of the matter down to 1896, and even to date) accepted Azzurri's new drawings, but interpreted the shields differently: shield B as untypical, not significant, but shield A as Gallic and marine in its ornamentation and therefore referring to a Roman officer who had served against the Gauls and had had some service at sea. This (since Huelsen considered the monument to belong to " t h e first century B.C. beyond a d o u b t " and had concluded that the Crassus in question must be a Licinius) pointed to one of the triumvir's sons, both of whom served under Caesar in Gaul. The younger, Publius, seemed better indicated, since his record was known to include service against the maritime civitates of the northwest coast, but this being out of the question, for the reason given by Drumann and because his early death in 53 seemed to preclude a second marriage, there remained only Marcus. Huelsen then examined all the possibly pertinent Caecilii Metelli and Licinii Crassi, found no less than four of the former—whom he reduced to three by eliminating Creticus Silanus, consul A.D. 7—in whose generation there was a Crassus who might have been Metella's husband. But the only Crassi who were known to have fought against the Gauls were the triumvir's two sons, and the simple phrase Q. Creticifilia being "most naturally" referable to the consul of 69 (the first and most famous "Creticus"), Drumann's supposition was still the most probable. As for the possible objection that the lettering of the present inscription is more suitable to the Augustan period than to the end of the Republic, Metella, if born shortly before 85 and married before 65 to the somewhat older Marcus Crassus, may very well have lived on into the earlier years of Augustus. Miinzer (1899) accepted Metella as daughter of the consul of 69 and wife of the triumvir's son Marcus (whom, however, he terms his second son). Huelsen ( C I L 6: 4: 2.31584) reaffirmed his dating

31

of our inscription as early Augustan. Groebe in his edition of Drumann (loc. cit. and vol. 4 [1908] 127 no. 35, 128 no. 36) confirmed the choice of son Marcus as the probable husband. Tomassetti, however {loc. cit.), while accepting Metella's paternity, accepted neither of the triumvir's sons as her husband, but argued for his grandson, the consul of 30 B.C. ("son of the triumvir's son Marcus"). This he deduced from the style of decoration of Metella's tomb, "which, as Huelsen observed (Neue Heidelb. Jahrb., loc. cit.) belongs certainly to the first century of the Empire," and which he thought would fit very well the military career of the consul of 30. (This is not quite Huelsen's manner of dating: his four phrases are "without doubt the first cent. B . C . , " "the period of Augustus" rather than "the last years of the Republic" (implied), "the earlier years of Augustus," and "the beginning of Augustus' rule.") Miss Van Deman and Shipley (locc. citt.) dated the tomb simply as Augustan, the former noting (396, n. 5) that the data were not complete. Dessau (on 9433) noncommittally reported Huelsen's 1896 effort " t o prove that Metella's husband had been the triumvir's elder son Marcus." Tenney Frank broke new ground by pointing out "the liberal use of bricktile, of marble, and of travertine" in the monument, and since he accepted Huelsen's interpretation of the shields (or rather one shield) of the frieze and his identification of "Crassus" as the young Marcus, he concluded that either "Caecilia Metella lived to a very old age" or "some chance postponed the building of the tomb," which he dated " t o the middle of Augustus' reign," "hardly before 10 B.C." Munzer in 192.6 wrote as he had in 1899, still using Huelsen's 1896 work as proof of the connection with the young Marcus Crassus (whom he now has the elder son) and adding the testimony of the new (1905) inscriptions of Caecilia's freedman and slave. Mrs. Strong (loc. cit.) dates the tomb "from about the same period" as the Augustan Mausoleum, which she dates in 29 B.C. T h e unsigned article (by Giuseppe Cardin a l ?) on Caecilia Metella in the Italian encyclopedia identifies her as "daughter of Metellus Creticus [cos. 69 B.C.] and wife of Crassus, son of the triumvir." T h e Touring Club Italiano guide to Roma e dintorni (p. 547) calls her "daughter of Q. Metellus Creticus and wife of Crassus, son of the triumvir and Caesar's general in G a u l " and dates the monument in the Augustan age (the one responsible for this statement is apparently Giuseppe Lugli: cf. p. 5). Syme follows the Drumann-Huelsen

32

identification and dates the Crassus-Caecilia marriage as "presumably in the period 68-63 B.C." (p. 22, n. 1). D . S. Robertson (op. cit.) dates the monument as Augustan, of ca. 20 B.C. T h e unsigned article on Caecilia in the OCD (p. 151) follows the accepted identification, but wisely adds a qualifying "probably" (which, however, is not put in the right place). Augustan dating—generally in conjunction with the Mausoleum of Augustus—is also given by all the historians of Roman art and architecture not mentioned above, whom I have consulted (Rivoira, Bendinelli, Pijoân, Rumpf-Mingazzini, Ducati, Mustilli, and Charbonneaux), except that Bendinelli says "the last years of the Republic, if not the first years of Augustus" (Compendio di storia dell' arte etrusca e romana ... [Milan, etc., 1931] 276). T h e present writers agree on the Augustan date as probable—not pre-Augustan, we feel sure from the lettering, but early-Augustan rather than later. A s for the identity of Metella's husband, we agree that he must have been one of the triumvir's sons, and since Publius is known to have been married to Cornelia (who survived him) whereas no wife of Marcus seems to be known (if it was not Metella), it seems reasonable to choose Marcus. It may be added, however, that the only evidence for thinking Marcus the elder son seems to be his praenomen's being the same as his father's; actually, his brother's career seems to begin several years before his own (cf. Broughton, 2.579 f-> s - v • Licinius, nos. 56 and 63), and it was Publius who accompanied his father against the Parthians. We therefore would conclude that Metella was probably the daughter of the Creticus who was consul in 69 B.C. and probably the wife of one of the triumvir's sons, more probably Marcus than Publius, though the evidence for seniority between the two seems very slight. (Apropos of sons' praenomina, Hilding T h y lander in his recent Étude sur l'épigraphie latine [see above, Introduction, note 3], 64 f., says only that "in the first century B.C the elder, or eldest, son generally received the father's praenomen, while the other sons bore other praenomina . . . " ; his reference to Cagnat should read " p . 67.") *i4. Plate 10, a-b.—Augustan (not before June, 17 B.C., and more probably towards the end of the period, perhaps by A.D. 10-12).—Fragmentary marble block (m. 1.11 x 0.89 x 0.30 [iV