j.linderski, updating the cil for italy, part 2, jra 11, 1998; with addenda rq ii, 2007

30UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY: PART 2*

SUPPLEMENTA ITALICA. NUOVA SERIE, VOL. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (Edizioni Quasar,Rome 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1991). Pp. 343, 261, 228, 313, 237.

The first three volumes of Supplementa Italica were reviewed in JRA 3 (1990)313–20 {= RQ 407–14, and 665}; I present here, regretfully magno temporis inter-vallo, an analysis of volumes 4, 5, 6, 7 (containing extensive indices to vols. 1–6)and 8. But I am happy to observe that, despite early clouds, the series is well andhealthy: so far fifteen volumes have appeared. For a reviewer they are exciting anddemanding companions; I take leave of them with regret and relief: beginning withvol. 9 they will be analyzed in this Journal by J. Bodel (see JRA 11 [1998] 485–98).{And also see the retractatio in JRA 13 (2000) 562; reprinted below, No. 31.}

I follow the format adopted in the first installment. First it behooves to providea few addenda to vols. 1–3.

Vol. 1. Pisaurum. For Christian inscriptions, see G. Binazzi, ICI 6 (1989)199–207 (nos. 133–35).

Falerii Novi. A most interesting new find: I. Di Stefano Manzella, “Il bollodell’officina falisca di Tito Veltureno in un inedito frammento di patera a vernicenera”, in Epigrafia della produzione e distribuzione (Roma 1994) 241–55, to bedated to the end of the third century (cf. AE 1994 [1997], 622; cf. 621).

Vol. 2. Velitrae. No. 71. On the expression certis calendis, see now a detailedstudy by J. Linderski, “Certis Calendis”, Epigraphica 52 (1990) 85–96 = RomanQuestions (Stuttgart 1995) 396–406, and 665 (addenda).

* Journal of Roman Archaeology 11 (1998) 458–484 {with minor addenda and corrections}.Abbreviations: Broughton, MRR = T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1–2 (NewYork

1951–52), 3 (Atlanta 1986).Epigrafia = Epigrafia. Actes du colloque en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi (Rome 1991).ICI = Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae septimo saeculo antiquiores (Bari).{L’Abruzzo = M. Buonocore, L’Abruzzo e il Molise in età romana tra storia ed epigrafia 1–2

(paginated consecutively) (L’Aquila 2002).}Solin-Salomies, Repertorium = H. Solin – O. Salomies, Repertorium Nominum gentilium et

cognominum Latinorum, editio nova (or rather reprint of ed. 1, 1988) with addenda, pp.475–508 (Hildesheim 1994).

Van Wonterghem, Forma = F. Van Wonterghem, Forma Italiae, regio IV: Superaequum-Corfinium–Sulmo (Firenze 1984).

Waltzing, Corporations = J. P. Waltzing, Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelleschez les Romains 1–4 (Louvain 1895, 1896, 1899, 1900).

Zimmer, Berufsdarstellungen = G. Zimmer, Römische Berufsdarstellungen (Berlin 1982).

Linderski RQ 30-35 7W25W07 4:43 PM Page 369

370 Historia et Epigraphia

Vada Sabatia. For Christian inscriptions, see now G. Mennella and G.Coccoluto, ICI 9 (1995) 72–85 (nos. 33–39).

Vol. 3. Locri. Christian texts now in M. Buonocore, ICI 5 (1987) 9–11 (nos.5–6).

Tegianum. Cf. AE 1992 [1995], 313–14. Corfinium. Christian inscriptions in G. Pani, ICI 3 (1986) 10 (nos. 5–6). No.

9. This avidly disputed text has now been again reviewed by M. Buonocore,“Problemi di amministrazione paganico-vicana nell’Italia repubblicana del I secoloA.C”, in Epigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 49–59 at 50, n. 5. In lines 5–6 he nowreads utei pecuniam (followed by a triangular punctuation) a / populo pageis ret-ribueret, and not, as originally, retribueren\[t]. Cf. also C. Letta, ibid. 46, n. 61; AE1990 [1993], 231; 1993 [1996], 569. No. 17. This was a bothersome text. H. Solin,Arctos 24 (1990) 121–24 {= Analecta Epigraphica (Roma 1998) 335–37}, ingen-iously reads in lines 11–12 impensa facta{m} <a> coniuge utroque meo (in placeof Paci’s and Buonocore’s [p]ro\que n\a\to). With nato gone, gone is also the pre-sumptive son of the deceased (C. Lucilius Ichimenus), and we acquire the twocompanions of Lucilia Calybe. Now linguistic clarity rules, though Solin tries toprevent a happy ménage à trois, and opts for a succession of happy amores ofLucilia, first with a contubernalis (the very Lucilius Ichimenus), and then with ahusband (T. Petiedius Stephanio), both of whom, however, contributed after thedeath of Calybe the impensa for the monument. New inscriptions: AE 1992 [1995],328–32; M. Buonocore, Epigraphica 59 (1997) 241–50 (5 texts).

Genua; Ora a Luna ad Genuam. A full collection of Christian inscriptions inICI 9 (1995) 55–71 (nos. 25–32).

And now, dis iuvantibus, onward to Vols. 4–8.

SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 4 (1988)

Vol. 4, pp. 11–106: SULMO (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by Mario Buonocore.{See now a new supplement by Buonocore in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 95–105; andalso his handy aggiornamento of inscriptiones falsae vel alienae in G.Angeli–Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 98–99}.The inscriptions from Sulmo (Sulmona in the province of L’Aquila), the patria ofOvid, in the land of Paeligni, were published in CIL 9 (1883) by T. Mommsen (71texts and 7 falsae), and a supplement (7 texts) in Eph. Ep. 8 (1891). There is alsoa Greek inscription, IG 14.2408,6. Of these texts 46, more than fifty percent, arenow irretrievable. Buonocore, who had already published a number of contribu-tions dealing with the Paelignian area, traces this epigraphical and archaeologicalprogress (and loss) vividly and with a sure hand. In his historical introduction(17–24) it is interesting to note that the city was urbanistically completely restruc-tured after it became a municipium in 89. It was inscribed in the tribus Sergia, andwas governed by a board of quattuorviri. Buonocore proposes important correc-tions to the delimitation of the territory of Sulmo with respect to Corfinium. As aresult CIL 9.3227a should belong to Sulmo; on the other hand 9.3121a and Eph.Ep. 8.141, 145 are to be attributed to Corfinium. In addition to Latin inscriptions

459


Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 371

Sulmo produced also a crop of 19 Paelignian texts. “Dialectical” texts are excludedfrom Suppl. Ital., but fortunately it is the editorial policy to “signal” them; see thelist on pp. 22–23. Only one Christian inscription: G. Pani, ICI 3 (1986) 8–9 (no. 4).

As usual, Buonocore provides for the “old” texts ample bibliography, a mar-vellous discussion of the onomastics, and occasional improved readings to thestones still extant.

The loss of CIL 9.3082 will be bemoaned by all students of Ovid who areaware of stones. It is a funerary inscription of L. Ovidius L. f. Ser(gia) Ventrio whowas tr(ibunus) mil(itum) and praef(ectus) fabrum, hence an eques (like Ovid andhis father), and almost certainly a relative of the poet. It was found in the localityof Introdacqua, and it is in this area that we have to search for Ovid’s rura paterna(Am. 2.16.38).

CIL 9.3113 is an epitaph set up by M. Arruntius Issus and Arruntia Asia to theirson Matinus; the same parents bury another son, Asiaticus, in Canusium (Le epi-grafi romane di Canosa 1 [Bari 1990] 112, no. 78, dated to the second century). Asboth Buonocore and V. Morizio (the editor of the stone from Canosa), and manyothers, observe, these two epitaphs are eloquent testimonies to the contactsbetween the land of the Paeligni and Apulia (Daunia), very likely due to the prac-tice of transhumance in which the gens Arruntia will have been (through theirfreedmen) directly involved (to the bibliography add now F. Grelle, Canosaromana [Roma 1993] 97–100). Another reference to transhumance may hide in9.3128 = I2.1776 = CLE 184 = ILLRP 975, with a relief showing a shepherd withhis flock, leaning upon a curved stick (identified as pedum by H. Devijver and F.Van Wonterghem, Ancient Society 19 [1988] 99–100; it was used to corral recalci-trant or stray animals), a loaded cart with a carter, and a woman. This woman willnot be, as Rostovtzeff (see below) kindly supposes, the carter’s wife, but rather oneof those female companions of whom Varro writes at de re rust. 2.10.6–7: thebreeding of herdsmen is an easy matter in the case of those who stay all year on thefarm since the Venus pastoralis has to look no farther than the female fellow–slaves(conservae), but with respect to those pastores who in saltibus sunt et silvestribuslocis pascunt et non villa, sed casis repentinis imbres vitant, iis mulieres adiungere,quae sequantur greges ac cibaria pastoribus expediant eosque adsiduiores faciant,utile arbitrati multi. Sed eas mulieres esse oportet firmas, non turpes. The inscrip-tion itself reads [––– ho]mines ego moneo nequei diffidat [–––]. Buonocoreadduces the opinion of Van Wonterghem, Forma 229, according to whom theinscription “sembra contenere un divieto”, and who finds this “prohibition” analo-gous to the one expressed in CIL 9.471 = I2.1831 = ILLRP 489: Via inferior / pri-vatast / T. Umbreni C. f. / Precario itur. / Pecus, plostru(m) / niquis agat. This isbad understanding of Latin driven by obsessive preoccupation with economy andtranshumance. Diffidere does not equal agere (not to speak of pecus agere!). Theold supplement is diffidat [sibi]; Mommsen was diffident (he considered suis ordeo), but sibi was accepted by Buecheler and Degrassi. Buecheler (in CLE) aptlycompares the last line (82) in the prologue to Plautus’ Rudens: valete, ut hostesvestri diffidant sibi, “May you fare so well that your enemies distrust themselves”.Our inscription yields a pleasing sense, for instance: “I warn men; do not distrust

Linderski RQ 30-35 7W25W07 4:43 PM 71


yourselves”, that is “work willingly, and you will be rich and happy”. This transla-tion (and interpretation) is from the pen of M. Rostovtzeff in his classic The Socialand Economic History of the Roman Empire 12 (Oxford 1957) 20. The relief, hewrote, “perhaps represents the yearly migration from mountain to plain (or thereverse)”, but he also understood the appropriateness of a gnomic utterance on astone that appears to have been part of a funerary monument.

NUOVI TESTI: 102 pieces, so far only 17 lost. But it is well to observe thatmany (some thirty) of these texts are extremely fragmentary as are also 10 out of13 inedita. Only 26 had previously found their way to AE; and now 24 have beenadmitted from the publication of Buonocore (AE 1989 [1992], 237–60). Sulmo wasa center of the cult of Hercules with the surname Curinus (also spelled Corinus,Qu(e)irinus). See now the survey by F. Van Wonterghem, “Il culto di Ercole fra ipopoli osco–sabellici”, in C. Bonnet and C. Jourdain–Annequin (eds.), Héraclès(Bruxelles 1992) 319–51, and the new contribution by M. Buonocore, “Il santuariodi Ercole a Corfinium (loc. S. Ippolito): prime acquisizioni epigrafiche”, XeniaAntiqua 4 (1995) 179–98 {= L’Abruzzo 601–26}. The Supplement reproduces sev-eral dedications to the god (nos. 2, 3, 4, 39), but of special importance are the graf-fiti (nos. 5–35) discovered in the sanctuary (to be dated to the period of onehundred years spanning the two eras).

No. 5. Despite valiant efforts of the editor princeps M. Guarducci (in Scritti sulmondo antico in memoria di Fulvio Grosso [Roma 1981] 229–34), of H. Solin(Arctos 17 [1983] 102–3 {= Analecta Epigraphica (Roma 1998, 188–89}), and ofBuonocore {cf. now also L’Abruzzo 178, no. 24}, much remains unclear in thisremarkable text, both with respect to grammar and content. In lines 2–3: spectat /nam debita solvere vota, Buonocore follows the reading of Guarducci, but heshould not have disregarded Solin’s objection: spectat does not mean “it is proper”,and the verb spectare does not take the infinitive. Lines 4–5 describe the epiphanyof the god: numenque sacratum / ecce venit felixque pat[et]. Here Guarducci offersa particularly sensitive elucidation: the verse combines Vergilian fervor (Aen. 6.46:deus ecce deus!) with Ovidian diction (Met. 10.488–89: numen confessis aliquodpatet: ultima certe / vota suos habuere deos). But she also attributes to HerculesCurinus an oracular character. This is possible but not necessary; for althoughHercules was indeed known in Italy (in Tibur, where he was surnamed Victor [cf.below], and in Ostia) also as a god of sortes (see now J. Champeaux, “Sors orac-uli”, MEFRA 102 [1990] 273–76, 280–82), in our text he appears as God–Saviour.In times of need or danger people had offered vows to him; with his help they hadsucceeded, and now they humbly come to discharge their obligation (vota solvere).In line 8 the god is called H(ercules) C(urinus) V. – undoubtedly V(ictor). He is alsofelix, “blessed”, and he extends those blessings (felixque patet) to the faithful. Thisis the mystic or numinous conjunction of felicitas and victoria, of divine blessingand success, a conjunction that has in Roman life been so many times replayed ongreat battlefields and in pious hearts (on this ideology and belief, see most recently,with further literature, J. Linderski, “Q. Scipio Imperator”, in: Imperium Sine Fine:T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic [Stuttgart 1996] 167–72{reprinted in this volume, No. 10}).

460



No. 7. A possessor of such a pious heart was C. Nonius from Sulmo, a miles.He (lines 2–6) p[romisit] / miles Herc[u]li Curino sei salv\[us e] / castris redisetvot[a –––] / verem et vitulu[m] / et votis dam[natus] / [a]d\est. He survived, and thushas contracted the obligation to repay the vow. He is just present (adest), ready tooffer the sacrifice. Votum solvit is a standard expression in inscriptions (cf. nos. 2,39), but this is perhaps a unique text in which we see a damnatus in the very act ofrepaying the god.

No. 36 (edited by L. Gasperini). A number of graffiti, by different hands, on acolumn, also from the sanctuary of Hercules Curinus. A group of twelve hexame-ters stands out; unfortunately only a few words can be more easily read, but thereis a promise (or illusion) of a literary sensation. For above the hexameters, in largerletters and by a different hand, we have an inscription: Nasonis. At the end of thefirst hexameter two lone deciphered words jump into avid eyes: osque gigantum. Ifthis is a poem by Ovid, where did he utter these words? The phrase is not on dis-play in any of the extant works. Caution is in place. Gasperini promises an exten-sive study; {so far it does not seem to have appeared; and see now Buonocore,L’Abruzzo 178, no. 25, with a more extensive text, and his observation in Suppl.Ital. 22 (2004) 99, no. 36: the poem is not by Ovid, but merely “attribuito dal-l’anonimo estensore ad Ovidio”}.

No. 47 (= CIL I2.3216): A(ula) Tetia. For the praenomen, see now M. Kajava,Roman Female Praenomina (Rome 1994) 35. Only one other example of thepraenomen Aula appears to be known.

No. 49. Line 3: [glad]iario. This supplement is justified by the circumstancethat below the inscription “è scolpita un’arma che ha forma di pugnale a puntarotonda”. In Zimmer, Berufsdarstellungen, there is no representation of asword–maker, but see a very similar representation of a cultrarius (p. 195, no. 137),with images of two broad knives (cultri) engraved below the inscription (CIL10.3984).

No. 50. A most interesting document: a fragment (the stone is broken; only theright edge remains) of a testamentum. The testator provides, inter alia, forcir]c\enses and pecuniam in annonam f]rumentariam. The inscription (still extant)was published in a local publication in 1899, but was for the first time discussed indetail by Buonocore in 1986 (in Decima Miscellanea Greca e Romana, 353–59 {=L’Abruzzo 593–99, and addendum 600}). It is to be added to the list of testamentain E. Champlin, Final Judgments. Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills 200B.C.E.–C.E. 250 (Berkeley 1991) 198–99, and to his discussion of philanthropytoward the communities (155–68).

No. 55, a funerary inscription with laudes of a deceased wife (although origi-nally published in Epigraphica 20 [1958] it was not recorded in AE). The rightedge is broken off; not all supplements proposed by Buonocore are convincing orlikely (as he himself confesses, “alcune integrazioni siano ex ingenio”). In lines2–3 he reads: consuet\[ae vivere vel manere] / circa se solam. Now the phrase viverein se appears in inscriptions, and referring to two spouses it means “live together,with each other” (cf. E. Courtney, Musa Lapidaria [Atlanta 1995] 290), but viverecirca se does not seem to be attested. Lines 3–5: erga adfe[ctum torum] / mari-



talem, rarissimi e\[xempli femi] / nae. To justify the supplement torum Buonocoreadduces CIL 6.1779 = CLE 111 (lines 45–47: munus deorum qui maritalem torum/ nectunt amicis et pudicis nexibus), and 6.12853 [Buonocore 12583 per errorem]= 34060 = CLE 548 (line 3, of a wife: semper toru(m) maritale(m) dilexit), and heremarks that this locution appears “nel nostro caso con l’aggiunta di adfectum”. AE1989, 245 reproduced this supplement, with a query: “torum maritalem (=mariage)?” Now torus, with or without maritalis, is indeed often used as a desig-nation for marriage: cf. various literary examples in Lewis–Short s.v. “torus” IV. B(p. 1881); OLD (p. 1952); torus and adfectus appear juxtaposed at Plin., NH 35.87:nec torum tantum suum, sed etiam adfectum donavit artifici (of Alexander theGreat who conceded his paelex to Apelles), but adfectus referring directly to toruswould be unusual. On the other hand the expression affectio maritalis is a standardjuristic locution, a technical term denoting the feeling which was legally con-stituent of a Roman marriage (cf. S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage [Oxford 1991]54–56). In literature and inscriptions affectio and affectus maritalis are used inter-changeably, on stones (almost) exclusively with the spelling adfectio, adfectus.This is the palmary solution to our lacuna: erga adfe[ctum or -ctionem eius] / mar-italem (or perhaps: adfe[ctionem eximiam]); cf. TLL s.v. “affectio”, coll. 1179–80.The marital bed disappears. The preposition erga we have to take in its Silver Latinmeaning “with respect to”, “on account of”. The comma after maritalem is to beremoved. The text now renders the following sense: “with respect to her affectus(affectio) maritalis the deceased was a rarissimi exempli femina”. In line 5 she isdescribed as astuta. Now astutus in the sense of sapiens, prudens is rare and late;cf. TLL s.v., col. 987, lines 71–84, with all epigraphical examples dated to the sev-enth century. The inscription may thus be later than the end of the third or begin-ning of the fourth century (as suggested by Buonocore).

No. 58, a riveting text, forty-eight lines long, found in 1926, printed by G.Mancini in 1935 in a local publication, and admitted to AE (1989, 247) only fromBuonocore’s re-edition (on the basis of autopsy). {The text now also in L’Abruzzo178–79, no. 26}. A father and a mother decry their fate: they have buried their sixchildren, and only a nepotulus remained. He is exhorted to take care of the grave,et hoc sephul/crum (sic) tuorum tutaris (lines 29–30), and if anybody should haveinquired qui hoc comporta(ve)rit (line 31), he should answer: “Avus meusMurranus; nam ipsa / miseria docet etiam barbaros / scribere misericordias” (lines31–34). The surprising barbaros is immediately explained: Murranus, now speak-ing in propria persona, makes a request: Et nunc rogo vos omn/es natos nascen-tesque, ut si quid l\a<p>sus / me praeterit hominem barbarum natu\ / Pannunium(sic), multis ulceri<bu>s et malis / perturbatum, ignoscatis rogo (lines 34–38).Buonocore translates qui hoc comporta(ve)rit as “chi a fatto questo”; AE is evenmore explicit: “qui l’a fait construire”, taking the verb to refer to the grave monu-ment. But scribere misericordias and Murranus’ plea should alert us: comport-a(ve)rit certainly does not concern the mere sepulcrum but the inscription on thecippus (another rare example of a similar usage is Cic. de or. 3.92 where com-portare refers to oratorical style). Murranus was both proud of his composition, andanxious as to its Latinity. Here resides the extraordinary interest of this document:

461



a native of Pannonia, living in Sulmo and married to a local woman of servileextraction (Decria Se [––– S]e\cundae l(iberta) Melusa = Mellusa; as Buonocorepoints out, Decrii are known in the area) himself composes a long epitaph and doesnot entrust it to a professional scribbler. His dirge is genuinely moving, althoughlinguistic flaws (catalogued by Buonocore) indeed abound. A few words andphrases may profit from further comment. Lines 1 and 32: the cognomen Murranusmay be Celtic (as suggested by Buonocore’s reference to A. Holder, Alt-celtischerSprachschatz 2.658 [Leipzig 1899]), which would not be surprising in Pannonia,but there also existed a Latin cognomen Murranus, cf. Solin-Salomies,Repertorium 366, from W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte der lateinischen Eigennamen(Berlin 1904) 335. It is worth observing that in the neighboring Noricum the nameMurranus is not attested (cf. Inscriptionum Latinarum Provinciae Norici Indices[CIL Auctarium] 2.387). Lines 5–8: iniquitate Orchi, qui perperavit s\a\e\cula, / quoddebuerant facere filii patri et / matri, fecerunt miseri{s} pater et mater / filis dul-cissimis suis. An unusual and poetic beginning, a trite and formulaic ending. In line5 perperavit is printed as if it were fully assured, but in his commentary Buonocorenotes that this reading was suggested to him by A. Mazzarino. Hence a conjecture,and a bold one for perperare is a hapax, though the meaning is clear enough: “scon-volgere l’ordine naturale” (accepted without any qualms in AE). But before we adda new word to our dictionaries, it is well to see whether a less exciting solution isavailable. There are two photographs appended: one of 1935, and the other of 1982.On both photographs one can clearly read only PER–––AVIT. In the partially oblit-erated middle part the earlier photograph seems to display the beginning of an Mor N; on the later photograph there is perhaps a flicker of a P, but if it is a P, it isquite different from the first P. I propose permutavit (although the phrase itself per-mutare saecula does not seem to be attested nor, for that matter, is attested pertur-bare saecula. {But cf. Sen., Ep. 108.32: ea quae consuetudo saeculi mutavit,referring to changes in the meaning of words and locutions. See now the discussionby M. Buonocore, “Reminiscenze poetiche in un Pannone d’Abruzzo”, Bullettinodella Deputazione Abruzzese di Storia Patria 80 (1990 [1992] 57–76}.

No. 62. A funerary stone: Statori Apri (scil. servus) / Insequens; / Quartio /fr(ater) p(osuit). In his earlier study, PP 39 [1984] 437, Buonocore rightly consid-ered also fr(atri)] p(osuit). In this text we would thus have a slave Insequens andhis owner Statorius Aper. But below the text of the inscription there is on the stonea representation of “una theca calamaria, un sigilllo su cui è inciso il nomenInseq[uens], e un dittico”. If so it would be odd not to recognize here the imple-ments representing a stator, and interpret Statori (or rather statori) in line 1 asreferring to that function. OLD defines stator as “an official servant of provincialgovernors acting as a messenger, later attached to the Emperor, army commanders,etc”. This is a definition much too rigid; at Cic. Fam. 2.17.1 stator tuus is a mes-senger from a provincial (pro)quaestor (and not a governor). Lewis-Short describethe stator more generally, and more correctly, as “a magistrate’s attendant, servant,messenger”. Still we can easily imagine that statores existed also in private house-holds. In two epistles of Cicero (Fam. 2.19.2; 17.1) statores appear (once in thecompany of lictors) as trusted carriers of letters; but apparently they not only car-

462



ried messages, but also committed them to writing: the calami, the seal-stamp, andthe note-book provide eloquent illustration. Van Wonterghem, Forma 289, thoughtthat the stone was dedicated by Insequens and Quartio to their father Aper who per-formed the function of a stator. His idea was accepted in AE 1984, 328, includingthe expansion of the last line f(ilii) r(everentissimi) p(osuerunt). He was on theright track, but this reconstruction will not do. The cases of statori (dat.) and Apri(gen.) are awry – unless we suppose that Apri stands for Apro, and that its termina-tion resulted from the attraction to statori. But this will not do either. The name ofour stator will surely be Insequens: it figures on the seal–stamp (although this can-not be verified on the much too small photograph reproduced by Buonocore), andthus points to the person who used the seal. But the precise arrangement of the textremains unclear; a small stone, a big puzzle {For the representations on stones ofthecae calamariae and codices, see now Buonocore, L’Abruzzo 117–20}.

No. 65: Lollia C. f. f. po(suit). Buonocore argues that we here have to do witha “double filiation”: C(ai) f(ilii) f(ilia). He accepts the explanation of S. Priuli (Not.Scavi 33 [1979] 340–41) that in filiations of that sort reference is made to thepraenomen of the grandfather (but only if it was identical with the praenomen ofthe father), and so, e.g., C. f. f. would be equivalent to C(ai) f(ilius) C. n(epos).Recently O. Salomies (Arctos 17 [1993] 95–101) has subjected this interpretationto a most erudite critique. He returns (p. 98) to the older view that an additional f.or filius (whether abbreviated or spelled out in full) indicates that the man so char-acterized “is the son (and not e.g. the brother or cousin or nephew) of the man men-tioned in the same inscription or in one set up in the vicinity” (p. 98). This isundoubtedly the correct explanation in most cases, but perhaps not in all. Forinstance, in the case of our Lollia we would have to read Lollia C(ai) f(ilia) f(ilia),and postulate that close by another stone was set up by or for her mother who alsohappened to be named Lollia and was also C(ai) f(ilia). This stretches credulity. Butwhat would be the reason behind the abbreviation C(ai) f(ilii) (f)ilius or (f)ilia? InRoman families the praenomina were limited and often rigidly distributed; forinstance C. reserved for the oldest son, L. for the second, and M. for the third. Inthis system the abbreviation C. f. f. indicated at a glance the descent through themain or elder family line.

No. 95, a plaque. Above, on the left, an inscription: [––– i]n\ferius si place\b\it ;below representations of the instruments of a mason: libella (not regula), rutrumand perpendiculum. On the right two phallic symbols, “con evidente significatoapotropaico”. Zimmer, Berufsdarstellungen, p. 215, gives only a drawing, and hefailed to recognize the fascinus. The meaning of the inscription is enigmatic (“unafrase rivolta al viandante” or “una disposizione relativa al sepolcro”), but the verbplaceo in conjunction with the phallic representations brings to mind a line from apriapic poem (CIL 14.3565 = CLE 1504, lines 2–3): “da mihi ut pueris et ut puel-lis / fascino placeam bonis procaci”.

Vol. 4, pp. 117–240: TREBULA SUFFENAS (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) byMaria Grazia Granino Cecere. The inscriptions from Trebula were published by H.Dessau in 1887 in CIL XIV (38 texts, and 6 falsae); also one text in CIL VI, 4, 1



(1894), and one in Eph. Ep. 9 (1903). Of these documents 31 (and a falsa) are nowlost; a veritable carnage of stones. But it is encouraging to report that out of 135new texts only four very fragmentary stones have disappeared. Trebula itselfremains somewhat of a mystery. It lay somewhere between Praeneste and Carseoli;Dessau assigned it to the modern locality of Ciciliano and, as Granino Cecerepoints out in her most instructive introduction (119–25), subsequent studies anddiscoveries have tended to corroborate his intuition. As to the name of the city,Pliny, NH 3.107, mentions in regio quarta “Trebulani qui cognominantur Mutuesciet qui Suffenates”; and in CIL 14.3492 = ILS 1938 (known already to Dessau onlyfrom an apograph of Diego De Revillas, the first collector of Trebulan inscriptionsin the early eighteenth century) the reading Tebulae sue was corrected by Dessauinto Trebulae Suf(fenatium). Pliny assigns both Trebulae to the Sabini, but this istrue only of Trebula Mutuesca (localized today at Monteleone Sabino); TrebulaSuffenas (or correctly Suffenatium) was rather a city of the Aequi. In the historicalrecord it is often difficult to distinguish between the two Trebulae. Livy (10.9.14)reports that in 303 Roman citizenship (probably sine suffragio) was given toTrebulani and Arpinates. Granino Cecere (and many others) opt for TrebulaSuffenas, but certainty is impossible. The city was inscribed in the tribus Aniensis,and in epigraphical documents it appears as a municipium administered byduumviri. It was the home of Plautii Silvani and (perhaps: so cautiously GraninoCecere) of Nonii Sufenates, both families of some note in Roman history.

To the inscriptions published in CIL 14 Granino Cecere provides exemplarybibliography. A few addenda.

First 3516: contacts between Baetica and the area of Tibur, and the families ofMessii Rustici, Cutii and Aemilii. On Aemilius Papus, ingeniously identified byH.–G. Pflaum (in 1963, following Groag) with Papus, a friend of Hadrian men-tioned in Hist. Aug., Hadr. 4.2, see also a more detailed study by Pflaum in Klio 46(1966) 331–37 = Scripta Varia 2 (Paris 1981) 366–72, and E. Champlin, CP 79(1984) 79, in his erudite and deservedly critical review of H. W. Benario, ACommentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta (Chico 1980).

Next 3522: the rare name Forbeius. For the other occurrence of the nameGranino Cecere adduces GIBM 4.1 (1893) 924 C; the inscription is now reproducedin IK 28.2 (1985), Inschr. von Iasos 280 (line 19); the same man (C. ForbeiusPacatus) also in Iasos 278, line 17. Cf. Solin-Salomies, Repertorium 81.

NUOVI TESTI. Of 135 texts (134, and one marked bis) some 60 are mere frag-ments, displaying often only a letter or two. Many of these texts were publishedoriginally by L. Berni Brizio in Atti. Centro Studi e Documentazione sull’ItaliaRomana 2 (1969–70) 137–216; Granino Cecere offers very numerous corrections.She presents also 40 inedita (27 extremely fragmentary). Only 23 texts were suotempore recorded in AE; from the publication or re-publication by Granino Cecere16 new and longer documents are now reproduced in AE 1990 [1993], 272–87.{Further texts in AE 1995 [1998], 422–26; 1996 [1999], 515}. To comment:

No. 8bis, a lamella of thin gold with a magical inscription and a representationof a deity entwined with a snake. See now R. Kotansky, Greek Magical Amulets 1(Opladen 1994) 118–20. He says that it was “misplaced” by the Museo Nazionale

463



Romano. For once the Museum has to be exonerated. Granino Cecere reports thatthe plaque was found in Ciciliano on the property of signor Manni (as also numer-ous other inscriptions), and later was stolen from his oreficeria at via Frattina inRome.

No. 20 (AE 1990, 276; 1991, 603), an ineditum, an Augustan cippus of AquaMarcia with the number 991; it rejoins other cippi of the series. Granino Cecereprovides also other addenda to the list in T. Ashby, The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome(Oxford 1935) 93; for further and full addenda, see Z. Mari, “Nuovi cippi degliacquedotti Aniensi. Considerazioni sull’uso dei cippi acquari”, PBSR 59 (1991)151–171, esp. 160, 164–71. The new cippus confirms Ashby’s reconstruction ofthis part of the course of the aqueduct (but Ashby’s calculations of the total lengthof the Marcia are invalid; cf. Mari 171). H. B. Evans, Water Distribution of AncientRome (Ann Arbor 1994) 89, omits the evidence of the cippi in his short discussionof Augustus’ restoration of the Marcia. C. Bruun, The Water Supply of AncientRome. A Study of Roman Imperial Administration (Helsinki 1991) 149, n. 44, men-tions “the numerous cippi which were erected along the courses of the Anio, Iulia,Tepula and Marcia”, but does not pursue this subject; a pity for the consecutivenumbering of the cippi may have a bearing on the problem of “the geographicalextension of the cura aquarum”. It is quite likely that the cura did not pertain solelyto the city itself and its close surroundings, but extended to the whole course ofeach aqueduct.

Nos. 21–26 (cf. 27 and 42) record various members of the influential family ofPlautii Silvani of the early imperial age. The comments of Granino Cecere and herearlier article “Iscrizioni senatorie di Roma e dintorni. Trebula Suffenas”, inEpigrafia e ordine senatorio 1 (= Tituli 4 [Roma 1982]) 671–77, are indispensablesupplements to the classic study by L. R. Taylor, “Trebula Suffenas and the PlautiiSilvani”, MAAR 24 (1956) 9–30. In no. 22 (cf. 23) there appears M. Plautius A. f.Silvanus described as praetor, septemvir epulonum, and patronus – probably ofTrebula: the stone was set up ex d(ecurionum) d(ecreto), apparently (so rightlyGranino Cecere following U. Vogel-Weidemann, “M. Plautius M. f. M. n. Silvanus,praetor a.D. 24: A Note on Inscription AE, 1972, 162”, Acta Classica 19 [1976]135–38) a younger son of A. Plautius, pr. 51 B.C.E.; he was the husband of thenotorious Urgulania (cf. no. 27: [––– Urg]ulan[i –––]), and the father of M.Plautius M. f. Silvanus, cos. 2 B.C.E. (cf. CIL 14.3509, and Taylor, pp. 13, 26). Heis to be added to the list of the septemviri epulones in M. W. Hoffman Lewis, TheOfficial Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians (Rome 1955) 58. GraninoCecere argues that this priesthood became hereditary in the family; we know thatalso the consul of 2 B.C.E. administered it. He is also to be added to the (oddlyarranged) list of senatorial municipal patrons in Italy in L. Harmand, Le Patronatsur les collectivités publiques des origines au Bas-Empire (Paris 1957) 222–33. R.Duthoy, “Le profil social des patrons municipaux en Italie”, Anc. Soc. 15–17(1984–86) 148, duly lists him, but hesitates as to his identity.

No. 28 (AE 1990, 278), a dedication: [– Mae]cio L. f. / Luciliano, equitiRomano, / salio, II viro, / quaest(ori) pro alim(entis). The supplement Mae]cio iscertain: in no. 33 we read (line 2) II[vi]ratu Maeci Luciliani; the consular date



assigns this inscription to 215. As he was eques Romanus, he may have been a sal-ius in Rome and not in Trebula (cf. below, no. 35). The expression quaestor pro ali-mentis is new; the normal locution is quaestor alimentorum (cf. M. F. PetracciaLucernoni, I questori municipali dell’Italia antica [Roma 1988] 369–70, index). AsGranino Cecere points out, this is the first and only attestation of alimenta forTrebula.

No. 29, the funerary inscription of L. Vibius Apronianus, tr(ibunus) mil(itum)and adiutor albei (sic) Tiberis et cloacarum; on the latter function Granino Cecereprovides essential bibliography. Among his heredes there appears L. BiesiusAttalus, a rare name: the editor princeps D. Faccenna, Not. Scavi 1951, p. 76 (cf.AE 1952, 156) and H.-G. Pflaum, Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres 1 (Paris1960) 387, regarded Biesius as an error and were inclined to correct it to Blesius.Unnecessarily: Granino Cecere notes that Biesius is attested in CIL 6.13585 andprobably 13586; it is also attested in Athens, Thessalonica and Pergamon: see nowO. Salomies, “Contacts between Italy, Macedonia and Asia Minor during thePrincipate”, in C. E. Rizakis (ed.), Roman Onomastics in the Greek East. Socialand Political Aspects (= Meletemata 21 [Athens 1996]) 125 and n. 86.

No. 35, with the consular (and duumviral) date of 193 (3 August): the seviriaugustales erect a statue for A. Sempronius Verus, IIvir quinquennalis, salius andquaestor pec(uniae) publ(icae). The last expression is quite common; cf. PetracciaLucernoni, loc. cit. (above, no. 28). Verus is also described as sevir, quinq(ennalis)eiusdem ordinis: he thus combined municipal offices and an (honorific) office inthe corporation of the seviri augustales. The comma after sevir (no punctuation inAE 1972, 163) Granino Cecere justifies by the reference to the phrase seviroaugustalium, q(uin)q(ennali) eiusdem ordinis in CIL 14.2809 and 4140. Sheremarks that also two other duumviri from Trebula were salii, C. Metilius Rufus(CIL 14.3500) and C. [Mae]cius Lucilianus (above, no. 28), but does not discussthe character of the priesthood. Now municipal salii are attested only in relativelyfew cities (cf. D. Ladage, Städtische Priester- und Kultämter im lateinischenWesten des Imperium Romanum zur Kaiserzeit [Köln 1971] 8), but to that list wecertainly must add Trebula Suffenas; if the eques Lucilianus could conceivablyhave been a salius in Rome, this is hardly likely for Verus or Rufus. A reference toa salius may also hide in the fragmentary inscription no. 41: sal \[–––] / qui eoa[nno –––] / sacr[–––], where in view of sacr[ it may be preferable to read sal[iusand not (as suggested by Granino Cecere), e.g., Sal[vius].

No. 42 (= CIL 6.29681, but belonging, as shown by L. R. Taylor [cf. above,nos. 21–26], to Trebula Suffenas) was published in 1787 by E. Q. Visconti (andrepublished in his Opere varie in 1827), but soon a substantial part of the stone waslost; now only the first fifteen lines (with the right edge broken off) are extant.Unfortunately Granino Cecere does not give a full lemma that would show all thesupplements so far proposed. The stone has now been edited (with a short commen-tary) also by M. Buonocore, Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente Romano III.Regiones Italiae II–V Sicilia, Sardinia et Corsica (= Vetera 6 [Roma 1992]) 46–47(no. 23). The document contains remnants of the once very extensive fasti of a col-legium, each entry displaying both a consular and a duumviral date. As the stone

464



was originally seen, it was divided into two columns. In column 1 there wereinscribed the fasti of the years 22, 23 and (opening the lower ledger) the first line(displaying the consular dating) of the entry for 108; in column 2, approximatelyat the height of the sixth line of the entry for 22 (in col. 1) there were three last linesof the entry for 29 followed by the entry of 30. Column 2 thus started with the fastifor 24, and consequently each column contained in its upper ledger, depending onthe length of each entry, the fasti of seven or eight years. Granino Cecere calculates(allowing eight or nine years for each column in the upper ledger) that the wholetext ought to have contained some 10 or 11 columns. Rather 12 or 13; column 1(which seems to have been also the first column of the original document; cf. J. H.Oliver, “Gerusiae and Augustales”, Historia 7 [1958] 485) will have thus begunwith the fasti for 16 or 17, and this would be the approximate date for the founda-tion of the collegium (cf. below, no. 43). The identity of that body has been vigor-ously disputed. Taylor (p. 21) thought (hesitatingly) of magistri Augustales (cf.already G. Henzen in Orelli-Henzen, ILSAC 7165); Granino Cerere despairs of any“sicura interpretazione”. This did not scare off A. Abramenko (he does not cite hercontribution), “CIL VI 29.681 aus Trebula Suffenas und die innere Organisationder *Augustalität”, Athenaeum 79 (1991) 589–96: he pronounces himself deci-sively in favor of attributing the document to the seviri Augustales. At the end ofline 3 the traditional supplement had been VIvi[ri et] / [h]o\nore functi. Abramenkoproposes to read VIvi[ri Aug. et]. At first sight a fatal objection to that reading isthe circumstance that in no year for which the fasti are extant are there recorded sixofficials: in 22 there are four, in 23 five, and in 30 four. To deflect this objectionAbramenko produced a remarkable shield of an argument: the stone does not con-tain any veritable full fasti; it lists only those officials who could show off someparticular achievements, Leistungen (p. 593; this idea was already at least partiallyanticipated by Oliver, p. 487). It will be a list of those seviri who organized eachyear various public celebrations, esp. on the kalends of August, the date of theirentry upon office. Under C.E. 22 (lines 10–11) we read: honor. p. d. ludos in foro /per IIII [i.e., quadriduum] fecerunt. Taylor (p. 17) was cautiously inclined to solvethe abbreviations as honor(e) p(ublice) d(ato); so also but without any queryAbramenko, p. 595. Oliver (p. 487) proposed honor(aria) p(ecunia) d(ata).Granino Cecere embraced the expansion of G. Ville, La gladiature en Occident desorigines à la mort de Domitien (Rome 1982) 191: honor(em) p(ublice [p(ublico) onher p. 178 is only a misprint] d(ederunt). An attractive solution for it is based onthe phrase written out in full in line 19 (C.E. 23): honorem edederunt. But thisexpression is a puzzle. Taylor (p. 18) points to the late phrase, consulatum edere,“where the emphasis is on the performance of games”, in Hist. Aug., Aurelianus15.4: vidimus proxime consulatum Furii Placidi tanto ambitu in circo editum (cf.the commentary by F. Paschoud in his Budé edition [1996] 104–6). To scrutinizethese attempts it will be well to have before our eyes the text of the lines in ques-tion. In lines 14–18 we have the names of five officials, the last one, T. Traebulanus(sic) Felix (cf. below, no. 43), qualified as praec(o). Lines 19–24 read (not to pre-judge any solution the text is given without any punctuation): k(alendis) Aug(ustis)honorem edederunt lud[os in foro] / per IIII fecerunt IIII primi / natale Iuliae

465



August(ae) in pu[blico] / cenam decurion(ibus) et augus[tal(ibus)] / dederunteorum sevir[–––] / familia gladiat(oria) [–––]. The question arises whether ludosfecerunt stands in apposition to honorem edederunt or denotes an entirely separateactivity. Taylor’s reference presumes the ludi forming part of the editio honoris. Itis therefore rather surprising that in her reproduction of the inscription (p. 17) sheputs two periods, one after edederunt and the other after IIII primi. Thus in hervision the editio honoris belonged to all five men, but the ludi were arranged onlyby the first four (so also Oliver, p. 484). Ville (p. 191, n. 36) understands under hon-orem a religious ceremony, e.g., sacrifice, procession (cf. TLL s.v. “honos”, coll.2924–25), and thus separates this activity from the ludi, but at the same time heassigns both honorem edere and the ludi to all five officials. He puts a comma afteredederunt, but semicolon in line 10 after d(ederunt); Granino Cecere in both casesplaces a semicolon. Now honorem edere clearly denoted all the customary celebra-tions connected with the assumption of the office and the performance of the impe-rial cult, with the games apparently forming an integral part (cf. R. Duthoy, “Les*Augustales”, ANRW 2.16.2 [1978] 1303–4). The expression IIII primi (line 20)does not denote an office (as postulated by Taylor, p. 18: “the IIII primi refers tothe four regular officers, excluding the praeco”; cf. Oliver, p. 487, and nowBuonocore, p. 47; Ville, p. 191, assumes that the college was presided over by fourannual magistri), but simply indicates that the special and unusual celebrationsdescribed in the following lines were given by the first four officials on the list withthe exclusion of the fifth, the praeco (see Granino Cecere, p. 177; Ville, p. 191, n.37; and esp. Abramenko, pp. 592–94). Thus it was the IIII primi who on the birth-day (natale = natali) of Livia (30 January) gave a public repast for the decurions(of Trebula) and for the augustales. The associations of these two groups is remark-able, but the mention of augustales causes perplexity. For in the intricate world of“augustality” there existed separate organizations of augustales, seviri augustales(not to be confused with other groups of seviri) and magistri augustales (see nowabove all Duthoy, “Les *Augustales”, 1254–1309, esp. 1260–65). Taylor (p. 22)believed that the VIviri (mentioned in lines 3 and 23) formed an executive board ofaugustales, but such an arrangement would have been quite unparalleled (see thecritique by R. Duthoy, “Recherches sur la répartition géographique etchronologique des termes sevir Augustalis, Augustalis et sevir dans l’Empireromaine”, in Epigraphische Studien 11 [1976] 204, n. 94; Abramenko, pp. 589–90;Buonocore speaks of a unified collegium of seviri and seviri augustales whichagain would have been an unprecedented arrangement). Rather we have to assumewith Abramenko, p. 594, that augustales stands here as an abbreviated expressionfor seviri augustales (cf. also Granino Cerere, p. 177, who comments on the notinfrequent usage of sevir, “in particolare al plurale, per seviri augustales”). The col-legium was composed of the actual seviri (augustales) and the former seviri whoin line 4 are described as [h]onore functi.

Lines 22 and 23 offer further puzzles. Taylor (and also Oliver) read cenam ... /dederunt eorum sevir[i], a risky proposition for seviri would have to refer at thesame time both to the decurions and the augustales. If we put a period (or bettersemicolon) after dederunt the words eorum sevir[–––] would begin a new sen-


tence. Huelsen in CIL 6.29681 supplied sevir[atu], a supplement Granino Cecereprints with a query, but Abramenko (p. 594, n. 29, and p. 595) with full conviction.Buonocore suggests eorum sevir[atu munus cum ?] / familia gladiat[oria dederunt?], and Ville (pp. 191–92, and n. 38) following Henzen (in Henzen-Orelli) eorumsevir[i munus ?] / familia gladia[toria dederunt ?], where familia would be “l’ab-latif de moyen”, an odd conceit. The restored phrases appear forced; in particularseviratu in the sense of “during their term as seviri” does not seem to be attested.We should rather follow Taylor (p. 18; Abramenko misconstrues her supplements).She produced two solutions: a) (taking eorum seviri as the subject of dederunt):dederunt eorum sevir[i. pugnavit] / familia gladiat[(oria)] with the name of theowner in the genitive; b) (taking IIII primi as the subject): dederunt. eorumsevir[orum] / familia gladiat[(oria) pugnavit]. The latter solution is preferable (seeabove), but not in the shape proposed by Taylor. Taylor’s reconstruction presup-poses that the IIII primi owned the familia, an unlikely scenario. We should ratherconsider a slightly different expansion: eorum sevir[orum impensis (cf. CIL11.5062) or pecunia (cf. CIL 10.4760)] / familia gladiat[(oria) (name of theowner?) pugn(avit)]. Abramenko develops line 23 exempli gratia as familia glad-iat[oria data est –––], an impossible supplement (familiam gladiatoriam dare isnot the same expression as the frequent gladiatores dare). On the other handTaylor’s idea is grounded in real Latin: the phrase familia gladiatoria pugnabitrecurs frequently in the Pompeian announcements of gladiatorial games, see P.Sabbatini Tumolesi, Gladiatorum Paria (= Tituli 1 [Roma 1980] 51–53, 55–57,67–69 (nos. 21, 22, 25, 30, 31). Thus eorum sevir[orum] will refer to the IIII primi;they gave the banquet and provided for the gladiatorial entertainment. This enter-tainment may have been conjoined with the cena (on combats inter epulas, seeVille, p. 387); if it was given separately we would probably need a further supple-ment indicating the date or the occasion.

We can now return to the beginning of our inscription where another host ofunsolved problems still awaits us. In line 2 (damaged at the left edge) we have therest of the duumviral dating: [–––] Sestuleio I[I vir(is)]. Lines 3–5 read as follows:[––– C]a \pito; hunc VIvi[ri Aug. (accepting the expansion of Abramenko) et] /[h]o\nore functi rogarunt ut eo / honore fungeretur. Thus the seviri of the year 22and the former seviri asked Capito ut eo honore fungeretur. What honor is heremeant by the pronoun eo? Taylor (p. 21) decided that Capito was a duumvir and –an amazing flight of fantasy – that he died in office. She restored the lacuna in line2 as [in m. (or mag.) m(ortuus) e(st) C.? C]apito, “assuming that the nomen wasfound in the previous line” (i.e., in the lacuna before Sestuleio). Furthermore sherecognized in Capito the famous jurisconsult C. Ateius Capito (cos. suff. in 5 C.E.)whose father (tr. pl. in 55) belonged to the tribe of Trebula Suffenas, the Aniensis(Cic., Fam. 8.8.5,6). Under the consular year C.E. 23 (line 13) there are listed asduumviri L. Manlius and M. Plautius. In the latter Taylor (p. 20) again discovereda member of a prominent family: the eldest son of the consul of 2 B.C.E; he waspraetor in C.E. 24. If Taylor is right, he may also have been a patronus: patronswere often called upon to serve as duumvirs (cf. Taylor, p. 20, n. 31), and thus thisfunction would have become hereditary in the family of Plautii (cf. above, nos.


466


21–26, in fine). But Taylor is hardly right. A. Abramenko, Die munizipaleMittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Zu einem neuen Verständnis von Seviratund Augustalität (Frankfurt am Main 1992) 216, n. 99, points out that the cog-nomen Silvanus is missing. Indeed it is most unlikely that this characteristic cog-nomen should have been omitted. The duumvir M. Plautius is not the aristocraticM. Plautius Silvanus. Abramenko followed Taylor in accepting Capito as Ateiusthe jurisconsult. Others remained unconvinced. First of all Attilio Degrassi (per lit-teras; see L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic [Rome 1960]194) and Oliver (see below). Granino Cecere (p. 178) writes that Oliver and Ville“pensano piuttosto, e probabilmente a ragione, ad un’eccezionale ammissione nelgruppo del quattuor primi”. This is a surprising statement, for a few lines below sheassumes that the expression IV primi (at least with reference to C.E. 23) is not tobe taken as a description of the office (cf. Ville, p. 191, n. 37). Now Oliver (p. 486)did not, in fact, consider at all any “exceptional admission into the quattuor primi”.He writes explicitly: “Some students have thought that the phrase eo honorereferred to the sevirate. Miss Taylor rightly rejected this interpretation”. Olivergoes on to say that the office “must have been mentioned specificallly ... and musthave been one within the power of the Augustales to offer”. He settles on “some-thing like” [Q(uin)Q(uennalis) L. Albius C]apito (the name is attested in TrebulaSuffenas, see Granino Cecere, no. 53 = Not. Scavi 1948, pp. 304–5; Oliver’s indi-cation, Not. Scavi 1932, p. 132, is inaccurate). The appearance of a quinquennalisin 22 would square well with the presumed foundation date of the collegium in 17(this position was soon to become, strangely enough, an annual office both in theprofessional collegia and in the associations of the augustales; see Duthoy, “Les*Augustales”, p. 1275–76; cf. in Trebula no. 35, dated to 193: sevir, quinq. eiusdemordinis). But [patr(onus)] is also a possible solution (for the abbreviation, cf. ILS6175, 6176); and in this case we may indeed assign this honor (on patronatus ashonor, see Waltzing 1.445–46; 4.415–16) to Ateius Capito, and thus, at least par-tially, vindicate Taylor.

No. 43 (AE 1972, 154): the stone (in two pieces; both fragments broken off atthe right and left edge) contains (a substantial) part of the album of a collegiumcomposed exclusively of freedmen. Line a7 displays the consular date; it has beenunanimously restored as [Sex. Appuleio] Sex. Pompeio [cos. or coss.], but let usobserve that Sex. Pompeio is engraved almost in the middle of the line, and (judg-ing from the photograph) nothing seems to be obliterated either on the left or on theright side. Thus a mystery, for both consuls remained in office for the whole year(cf. Fasti Antiates minores, in Degrassi, Inscr. It. 13.1, p. 303). Still the date is cer-tain: 14 C.E. (8 C.E. in AE is an aberration). This is of importance for at the headof the album (disposed in two columns), in col. 1, line 9 there appears [–––]lixpraeco. Granino Cecere ingeniously supplied [T. Treb(u)lanus Fe]lix praeco (bothspellings, Trebulanus and Treblanus, appear in the album), and recognized in himT. Traebulanus Felix praec(o), one of the magistrates of 23 in the collegium of (wehave argued) the seviri augustales (above, no. 42). This raises again the questionof the identity of the two collegia. At the beginning of the inscription we have thenames of three persons, engraved in larger letters; they are identified (in still larger



letters) as cu\[r(atores). One of them was [–––] M. l. Eros, tub(icen); perhaps it isnot unjustifiable to espy him again on the inscription of the collegium of the seviri(col.1, line 8; anno 22) in the person of M. Etrilius Eros (although this Eros appearswithout the denomination tibicen). Lines a4–6 Granino Cecere reads and restoresas follows: [––– Cae]sarum. Imagines Caesarum et scholam ex pecuni[a collata]/ [–––]nt idemque dedicaverunt et populo crustulum et mul\[sum dederunt] / Xk(alendas) Aug(ustas). This is, as pointed out by N. Criniti (Aevum 47 [1973]498–99), the fourth oldest attestation of the distribution of crustulum and mulsum.AE 1972, 154 presents a restoration fuller and bolder: [in honorem ... Cae]sarum,and at the end of the line, ex pecuni[a sua / feceru]nt. As to pecunia (collata notsua) we should probably follow Granino Cecere, but AE’s feceru]nt is on the mark:the expressions imagines facere (CIL 8.2586) or scholam facere (CIL 3.1174;14.285) recur in inscriptions of the collegia (cf. on scholae, Waltzing 1.211–31;4.437–39). In line 8 (immediately after the consular date and before the beginningof the album proper) we read: [–––]es in ordinem redegerunt. Should we supply[augustal]es or cultor[es]? Granino Cecere believes that this is the list of the mem-bers of the college at the moment of its establishment, probably of augustales. Theinitial date of the association of the (seviri) augustales can perhaps (though withdifficulty) be lowered to 14 (see above, no. 42), but it is unlikely that we deal withone and the same collegium. The collegium of seviri augustales would start small,with six members only, appointed by the duumvirs (see Duthoy, ANRW 2.16.2, pp.1266–71), and not by curators (on curatores in the collegia, cf. Waltzing1.406–13). In our inscription, on the other hand, we have a long enumeration of atleast 23 names; hence not an association of seviri augustales but rather simply ofaugustales. The two associations may have shared some of the personnel, but theywill have formed separate entities.

No. 80. An inscription on a cippus: aditum. For accusatives in such construc-tions, see (in addition to her earlier article) A. Helttula, Studies on the LatinAccusative Absolute (Helsinki 1987), esp. 93–6.

Vol. 4, pp. 243–304: ALBINGAUNUM (Regio IX, Liguria) by GiovanniMennella. The inscriptions from Albingaunum (Albenga), the coastal and main cityof the Liguri Ingauni, were published in CIL 5 (1877) by T. Mommsen, altogether18 texts (and 2 falsae). So far 6 inscriptions are lost; for the remaining Mennellaprovides detailed descriptions and occasional corrections; 5 are re-edited amongthe Nuovi testi. We note the complaint (p. 250) that “rimane tutt’oggi insoddis-facente la sistemazione del patrimonio epigrafico”, p. 250). Albingaunum wassince 201 an ally of Rome, mostly against the Liguri Montani (see below, vol. 6,Vallis Tanari Superior); it probably received Roman citizenship under Caesar(inscribed into tribus Publilia). It was administered by IVviri (attested in nos. 11,12 {cf. AE 2001 [2004], 989}). A major problem is the extension of its territory;starting with the notice of Pliny, NH 3.46: Ingaunis agro tricies dato, Mommsenand many others argued that it may have extended far north, and included thewhole valley of Tanarus. Still Mommsen was cautious and devoted to the UpperValley a separate section, and in this he is followed by the Editors of Suppl. Ital. In


467


later antiquity Albingaunum was an important Christian center, and it produced asurprisingly large number of Christian texts. Toward the end of the fourth centurythe city attracted the attention of the compiler of the Historia Augusta (29.12) whomakes it a home town of the bogus usurper Proculus (under Probus). Cf. R. Syme,Emperors and Biography (Oxford 1971), 17, 26, 268–69.

The literary fame of Albingaunum would have been assured by the sojourn ofRutilius Namatianus, but his poem De reditu suo breaks off at the beginning ofBook II, and it has been hotly debated whether after passing Luna he continued hisjourney from Rome to Gaul along the Ligurian coast or travelled by an inlandroute. In 1973 two new fragments, badly mutilated, from Book II came to light(published by M. Ferrari, “Spigolature bobbiesi”, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica16 [1973] 15–30; see also Maia 17 [1975] 3–26, where several Italian philologiansoffer improved readings, conjectures, and restitutions, many of them, abominationto epigraphers, exempli gratia). Although the name of the city itself is not men-tioned, frg. B has generally been taken (also by Mennella) to refer to Albingaunum.The poet heaps fulsome praise on the consul Constantius: he has built (or rebuilt)the ramparts (propugnacula) and the fortress (arces) of a city, surpassing the laborsof all previous builders of fortifications, including those of Troy. The Constantiusin question is the future emperor (for a short time in 421) Flavius Constantius III;he was consul iterum in 417 (cf. PLRM 2 [1980, but this compendium still does notknow the new Rutilius] 321–25). The series of Suppl. Ital. is concerned with stones,and not parchments and poets, and so are we: but the fragment of Rutilius leads toa stone of note, a carmen epigraphicum (CIL 5.7781 = ILS 735 = CLE 893) extantin Albingaunum. Mennella gives its description, but he says nothing of its histori-cal importance, and the discussion it evoked in connection with the new Rutilius.For the poem on stone praises in a fulsome way a certain Constantius for therebuilding of a city, of its moenia, tecta, forum, portus, portas (line 1). ThisConstantius Mommsen (in CIL ad loc.) identified as Constantius II (emperor337–361), and dated the reconstruction of Albingaunum to 354. He expressly crit-icized the earlier attempts of F. Ughelli (1595–1670, in his Italia sacra) and S.Lenain de Tillemont (1637–1698, in his Histoire des empereurs) to connect theinscription with Constantius III. Mommsen’s idea naturally gained universalacceptance, but with the discovery of the Rutilian fragments we have returned fullcircle to Tillemont. For it was all too natural to combine the parchment and thestone, and F. Della Corte (in a contribution listed by Mennella in his bibliography,but not adduced ad loc.) went so far as to ascribe the epigraphical poem to Rutiliushimself. It is possible to think, he wrote, that “durante il suo scalo ad Albingaunum,Rutilio sia stato invitato dai cives a dettare un’epigrafe da incidere ... sotto la statuadi Costanzo” (“Rutilio Namaziano ad Albingaunum”, Romanobarbarica 5 [1980]89–103 at 101). Doubts subsist. H. S. Sivan, “Rutilius Namatianus, Constantius IIIand the Return to Gaul in Light of New Evidence”, Mediaeval Studies 48 (1986)522–32, rejects the Rutilian authorship of the epigraphic poem and argues that thenew verses of Rutilius (frg. B) refer to Arelate. We should go one step further andtake away the inscription from Constantius III and bring it back to Constantius II.


468


Furthermore, this stone, even if coming from Albenga, need not necessarily havebelonged originally to that city. In line 7 we read: Dumque refert orbem, me pri-mam protulit urbem. Should we believe that even a most patriotic local poet wouldventure to call Albingaunum prima urbs of orbis? In line 2 we read: recipit Gallosconstituit Ligures. In 353 Constantius II defeated Magnentius and recovered Gaul,and late in 354 arrived in Mediolanum where he stayed also for a few months in355 (see O. Seeck, RE 4 [1900] 1044–94 at 1071–75, still the best source of infor-mation on Constantius. The book by C. Vogler, Constance II et l’administrationimpériale [Strasbourg 1979] does not discuss chronology and has no reference toour inscription). Now in later antiquity Mediolanum was the capital of Liguria (cf.R. Thomsen, The Italic Regions from Augustus to the Lombard Invasion[Copenhagen 1947] 237–40), and Constantius must have in some way re-organizedthat province. Thus the city that in the figure of personificatio speaks of Constantivirtus studium victoria nomen (line 1) and of its own glory as prima urbs (line 7)may well be Mediolanum, at that era often the true capital of the Empire.{Albingaunum, Rutilius Namatianus, and the carmen epigraphicum continue togenerate excitement and controversy. W. Lütkenhaus, Constantius III. Studien zuseiner Tätigkeit und Stellung im Westreich 411–421 (Bonn 1998) 198–206, offers adetailed and erudite commentary of the carmen: it refers to Constantius III. Itsauthor may have been a poet from the circle of Rutilius; he strove to imitate theRutilian diction}.

NUOVI TESTI: 68 texts (but about a half of them mere fragments), 2 inedita(meagre fragments); only one longer text is lost; 20 or so are Christian; 12 werereported suo tempore in AE, and now from the publication of Mennella ten moreare reprinted in AE 1990 [1993], 369–78. See now new texts and new correctionsin AE 1991 [1994], 738–39 (but cf. below, vol. 6, Vallis Tanari Superior, no. 2), anda new text AE 1994 [1997], 650, after the most instructive publication by G.Mennella and G. Spadea Noviero, “Il Campus di Albingaunum”, MEFRA 106(1994) 119–37. {See further AE 1995 [1998], 535–37; 1997 [2000], 563; 2001[2004], 989; 2002 [2005], 506}.

No. 2. An arula with a dedication: Matronis. On these deities, see now the(amply illustrated) volume Matronen und verwandte Gottheiten (Bonn 1987), esp.1–30, the contribution by C. B. Rüger, “Beobachtungen zu den epigraphischenBelegen der Muttergottheiten in den lateinischen Provinzen des ImperiumRomanum”. Most instructive are his maps (pp. 6–7) showing the spread of the cultof Matronae with epithets (mostly in Germania) and without epithets (mostly inLiguria and Cisalpine Gaul). Our inscription reflects the pattern.

No. 26. An inscription in a paleochristian baptistery in Albenga, with a list ofsaints; “irremediabilmente danneggiata” during the works of restoration at the endof the previous century. Additional literature in AE 1990, 369, and esp. ICI 9 (1995)no. 40.

No. 30 (AE 1975, 406; ICI 9.41), a grave stone (of 515) with a formula ofimprecation against the profanation of the sepulture (lines 4–7): Coiuro / per CXµM(= Christum) ne apereas l\[o]/cum istu[m]. Mennella points out that formulas of thatkind are frequent in Liguria in the funerary inscriptions from the Byzantine period.



No. 32 (AE 1937, 219; ICI 9.45). A Christian epitaph dated to the fifteenth yearof the emperor Mauritius, the year 597. This is the last document recording theByzantine rule in Albingaunum before the Lombard invasion. It may here beobserved that all Christian inscriptions from Albingaunum are now collected andupdated by G. Mennella and G. Coccoluto, ICI IX. Regio IX. Liguria reliqua transet cis Appenninum (Bari 1995) 86–141 (nos. 40–73).

Vol. 4, pp. 307–43: BELLUNUM (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by LucianoLazzaro. {And see the new supplement by M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004)208–40}. An old settlement of the Veneti, on the river Silis (modern Piave of tragicmemory), Bellunum (Belluno) became a Roman municipium after 49, and wasascribed to the tribus Papiria. Documents from Bellunum were collected in CIL 5(1872, 1877) by T. Mommsen, and later in 1888 by E. Pais in his SupplementaItalica (there is also one Greek inscription, 5.2044 = IG 14.2381), altogether 43texts (16 lost), and 14 falsae. With respect to Mommsen’s reconstruction, Lazzaroslightly curtails the extension of the ager of Bellunum, and as a result he attributesthree texts to Opitergium (Oderzo), and two further, erroneously classified byMommsen as found in Bellunum, are returned to the neighboring Feltria (cf. belowin the discussion of vol. 5). For the Venetic inscriptions from Bellunum, not men-tioned by Lazzaro, see G. B. Pellegrini and A. L. Prosdocimi, La lingua venetica 1(Padova 1967) 451–53, with an instructive note on local toponomastics (447–49).

Of the “old” monuments worthy of special attention is a magnificent sarcoph-agus (dated to the third century) that until 1980 had been corroding sub Iove. Itsreliefs with the scenes of hunting and its enigmatic inscription (5.2044 = IG14.2381) have been a frequent subject of investigation and disagreement. Lazzarointroduces us into the midst of the polemic: is the word GREGORI to be interpretedas a signum (so Mommsen, Rodenwaldt, Brusin, Egger and Kajanto) or as theimperative of the verb grhgor°v (watch!)? (so N. Degrassi, Moretti, Vidman,Malaise). If it is a signum, is it connected with the cult of Isis? (Egger). And if it isan exclamation, is it directed to the cultores of some mystic sect (Moretti) or is itto be associated with the cult of Diana and the hunt? (N. Degrassi, Vidman,Malaise). Lazzaro opts for this last understanding, but it is safer to say thatalthough the monument may not any longer be sub Iove, it is still sub iudice (cf. AE1991 [1994], 795). {Cf. M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 218–19}.

NUOVI TESTI: 24 documents, all edited previously, 3 republished from CIL, 7recorded in AE (and now an additional nine in AE 1990 [1993], 401–9; {cf. also2002 [2005], 542–46}, none lost (this seems to be due to the very active MuseoCivico in Belluno).

No. 1 (AE 1939, 22). Three rock inscriptions demarcating for a stretch of somefive km. the fin(es) (in is a ligature) / Bel(lunatorum) Iul(iensium), the border linebetween Bellunum and Iulium Carnicum. This nicely illustrates the report of thegromaticus Hyginus (p. 161, 21–24 Thulin; p. 198, 24 Lachmann) concerning suchmarks. See now E. Buchi, “Le iscrizioni confinarie del Monte Civetta nelBellunese”, in Rupes loquentes. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio sulle‘Iscrizioni rupestri di età romana in Italia’ (Roma 1992) 117–49: the inscription


469


can be solved also as f(inis) Bel(lunensium) Iul(iensium). Cf. AE 1992 [1995], 730.The singular f(inis) is, however, rather unlikely: cf. the fetial formula in Livy1.32.6: audite, fines, and Livy’s explanation: cuiuscumque gentis sunt, nominat. Itis true that in another text (see below, Vol. 6, Tridentum no. 1) we read: Finis inter/ Trid(entinos) et Feltr(inos), but the two texts have different syntactic structure.{Cf. M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 229.}

No. 3 (AE 1976, 253). A most interesting dedication: Iuentuti (sic) / divinae /gens sacra / Iuentutis (sic) / posuit. This find allowed M. S. Bassignano (in 1977,unfortunately in a not easily available regional journal) to rehabilitate CIL 5.78*(condemned by Mommsen, and re-edited by Lazzaro as no. 4). The new stone con-tains an identical text (at least of the first four lines). As a denomination of a groupof iuvenes the expression gens sacra Iuventutis is new (but cf. CIL 3.4779 = ILS7305 from Virunum in Noricum: iuventutis Manliensium gentiles qui consistunt inManlia); new is also the epithet Iuventus divina, which Bassignano ingeniouslyassociates with the imperial cult and the prominence of the dea Iuventus on thecoinage of Marcus Aurelius. To the bibliography assembled by Lazzaro, add P.Ginestet, Les organisations de la jeunesse dans l’Occident romain (Bruxelles1991), with a reference (p. 173) to our inscription.

Nos. 8 and 9 (AE 1888, 12; 1976, 252). The honorandus (in both inscriptions),M. Carminius Pudens, was also, inter alia, a patron colleg(i) dendrophor(um) etfabr(orum). The close contacts between those colleges, and also the collegia cen-tonariorum, have been much discussed, and normally explained as due to theircommon employment in Roman cities as fire-fighting brigades. See now J.-M.Salamito, “Les collèges de fabri, centonarii et dendrophori dans les villes de laregio X à l’époque impériale”, in: La città nell’Italia settentrionale in età romana(Trieste-Roma 1990) 163–77. He believes that only fabri and centonarii partici-pated in fire-fighting; as to the circumstance that the three collegia often have thesame patron, “ce phénomène s’expliquerait aussi bien par la tendence des notablesà rassembler sous leur patronage les associations les plus prestigieuses de leur cité”(p. 164, n. 7). Perhaps. Our inscriptions do not offer enlightenment for (dependingon our presuppositions) we can well supply either patrono colleg(i) or patrono col-leg(iorum), and have a unified college or two separate groups. {Cf. R. Lafer,Omnes collegiati, ‘concurrite’! Brandbekämpfung im Imperium Romanum (=Grazer Altertumskundliche Studien 7 [Frankfurt am Main 2001]), with a list of allepigraphically attested Feuerwehrvereine (pp. 241–66); M. S. Bassignano, Suppl.Ital. 22 (2004) 230–31}.

No. 14 (CIL 5.2065; AE 1976, 249). A cinerary urn, with a dedication, and arepresentation of ascia. Lazzaro very wisely refuses to enter into any discussion ofthe possible significance of that symbol. In a more recent monograph, B. Mattsson,The Ascia Symbol on Latin Epitaphs (Göteborg 1990), collected 1194 references toascia (he missed our urn). His effort shows that without full reproduction of allsources, and photographic documentation, such collections are of scant use. Heconcludes that most inscriptions give no clue as to the meaning of the symbol, butperhaps (an old suggestion, and not very likely) the ascia indicated that the monu-ment was dedicated before it was completed. Also if it was only an urn? {Cf. M.



G. Arrigoni Bertini, “L’Ascia in Cisalpina. Considerazioni”, in XI CongressoInternazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina. Atti I (Roma 1999) 629–37.}

No. 18. A funerary urn. The main inscription on its base is destroyed, but onthe acroterio sinistro we read a riveting injunction, probably an afterthought: filiaenos/tre excluse sint (sic). This brings to mind the most famous exclusion of adaughter (and granddaughter) in Roman history, that of Julia and Julia the Youngerby Augustus from his Mausoleum (Suet., Aug. 101.3; Cass. Dio 56.32.4). Cf. M.Capozza, C. Pavan, “Ricerche sulla società della Venetia: le donne di Bellunum”,Atti Ist. Veneto 152 (1993–94) 519–64, a very useful complete prosopography ofthe women of Bellunum (see esp. 530–31 on CIL 5.2044; 535–37 on nos. 7–8; 546on no. 14; 549 on no. 18).


Vol. 5, pp. 11–26: RUBI (Regio II, Apulia et Calabria) by Marcella Chelotti. A cityof the Peucetii (Poediculi), Rubi (modern Ruvo) probably became a Romanmunicipium only after the Social War. The extension of its territory is difficult todefine; in the north it bordered on Canusium (unfortunately Chelotti does notappend any map. The Editors of the Series should see to it that cartographical illus-tration form an integral part of every contribution). The inscriptions from Rubi werecollected by Mommsen in CIL 9 (1883): only 9 texts (and 2 falsae) ; and 4 in Eph.Ep. 8 (1899); 4 are lost. Chelotti removes one text (9.315) to Canusium, but restoresto Rubi two inscriptions (9.653, 656) ascribed by Mommsen to Melfi in Lucania(they were found in the locality Molfetta, not far from Rubi). The inscriptions fromRubi, old and new, Chelotti had already treated previously, and in greater detail, inher study “Epigrafi monumentali di Ruvo”, in Epigrafia e territorio. Politica e so-cietà. Temi di antichità romane II (Bari 1987) 17–94. She does not indicate whetherany pre–Latin inscriptions were found in Rubi, but O. Pietrangèli, Studi Messapici(Milano 1960) 40, 43, 45, identifies at least three texts as coming from Ruvo. Noadditional texts in C. Santoro, Nuovi Studi Messapici 1 (Mesagne 1982).

NUOVI TESTI contain 6 inscriptions; two are lost, only one previously printedin AE, and two already in CIL are republished from autopsy. (5 texts now fromChelotti in AE 1990 [1993], 206–10).

No. 1 (AE 1973, 22; CIL 12.3176). An important source for local history for itattests for Rubi the tribus Claudia, to be added to the list in L. R. Taylor, The VotingDistricts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) 161.

Vol. 5, pp. 29–84: REGIUM IULIUM (Regio III, Lucania et Bruttii) by MarcoBuonocore. Before becoming a Roman municipium in 89, Regium (ReggioCalabria) had a long and eventful history as a Greek city, ÑRÆgion (cf. G. Vallet,Rhegion et Zancle [Paris 1958]). Even before the war with Pyrrhus it was alreadya civitas foederata; in 42 Regium acquired the surname Iulium. At this timeOctavian spared the city and did not impose on it a veteran settlement, but in 36 itreceived a settlement of veterani classiarii. Nevertheless during the early Empirethe city retained its Greek character as evidenced by numerous Greek inscriptions


470


and by the circumstance that the municipal magistrates bore Greek titles (e.g. prÊ-taniw, égoranÒmow).

Inscriptions from Regium were collected, once again, by Mommsen, CIL 10(1883): 24 texts (and some 20 pieces of inscribed instrumentum); 1 falsa; 6 furthertexts (published by M. Ihm) in Eph. Ep. 8 (1891). Greek inscriptions assembled byKaibel in IG 14 (1890): 13 texts (and 2 pieces of instrumentum). Two texts (CIL10.13 and IG 14.625) Buonocore transfers from Regium to Locri. To all those texts,preserved and lost (12), Buonocore provides, as usual, an exemplary bibliography,incisive comments and corrections. He is splendidly qualified to do so for he hadin the past devoted many important studies to the epigraphy of Southern Italy, espe-cially a volume (vol. 5) of Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae (Bari 1987), amongother localities comprising also the inscriptions from Regium Iulium (nos. 1–4),and a most informative piece on “L’Epigrafia latina dei Bruttii dopo Mommsen edIhm”, Rivista Storica Calabrese, n.s. 6 (1985 [= Studi storici e ricerche archeo-logiche sulla Calabria antica e medioevale in memoria di Paolo Orsi]) 327–55 (fora photocopy of this article I am grateful to Umberto Laffi).

CIL 10.8337.A.a–c is a joy for military historians: slingshots. It is also a treas-ure trove for prosopographers as those glandes plumbeae attest the title of impera-tor for Q. Salvidienus Rufus. The entry in Broughton, MRR 2.366, is confusing:Cass. Dio 48.18.1–2 records that in 42 Salvidienus Rufus drove Sex. Pompeius outof Regium, but he does not report that Salvidienus was acclaimed imperator.Mommsen re-published three glandes found at the promontory of Leucopetra(Lazzáro-Capo D’Armi, 20 km. to the south of Reggio), and four others (nos. d–g)found in Vibo Valentia, Catania (2 exemplars) and one of unknown provenience.All of them display (with slight variations) the formula Q(uintus) Sal(vidienus)im(perator). Mommsen remarked that another exemplar from Leucopetra was pre-served in the (National) Museum in Reggio, but he did not see it and did not repro-duce it. A pity. It has now been published (with an extensive commentary) by F.Costabile in Rivista Storica Calabrese 6 (1985) 357–75, a periodical not easilyavailable even in Italy (non vidi {in the meantime I have succeeded in obtaining acopy}). It is a sensation, and it ought to have been included among the Nuovi testi,and not merely as an appendix to the discussion of CIL 8337. It reads: SA(lvidi-enus) // L(egio) X. In his classic monograph “Legio”, RE 12 (1925) 1671, E.Ritterling points out that the old legio decima of Caesar must have served asStammtruppe for the two legions known from the Empire, the X Fretensis and XGemina. It was, as so often, T. Mommsen who explained, quite in passing (in hiscommentary to the Res Gestae Divi Augusti2 [Berlin 1883] 69) the name of the for-mer: it fought in the war against Sex. Pompeius, and it took its name from the fre-tum Siculum. This explanation has been generally accepted, also by Ritterling, buthe rightly observed that although the sources mention the re–enlistment of theTenth legion, they are silent about its further participation in civil war. E. Da∫browa,Legio X Fretensis (Stuttgart 1993) 11, still maintains that “there are no documentsconcerning leg. X Fretensis at the very beginning of its existence” {an assertion herepeats in “Legio X Fretensis”, in Y. Le Bohec (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous lehaut-empire 1 (Lyon 2000) 317–18}. Military historians should read their sling-


471


shots. The glans offers definitive proof that Legio X was indeed involved in thecampaign against Sex. Pompeius. On this plumbum Salvidienus is not yet termedimperator, and Legio X is not yet Fretensis. But it is undoubtedly the soldiers ofthis legion that were soon to acclaim him imperator. A thought occurs: perhaps itwas Salvidienus as imperator who addressed the legion with its honorific nameFretensis? This thought is to be discarded. Two years later, in 40, Salvidienus wasdisgraced and dead; it is most unlikely that the legion would have been allowed toperpetuate the memory of his exploit. We should rather suppose that the legion con-tinued to be stationed around Regium, that it participated in the final campaignagainst Sex Pompeius, the bellum piraticum in 37–36, and that it received its sur-name from the victorious Agrippa and Octavian.

There are 38 NUOVI TESTI: 2 unpublished, 2 mere fragments, only one lost,18 recorded suo tempore in AE, and four admitted to AE 1990 (1993), 213–16, fromthe publication of Buonocore; 10 are Greek (4 recorded in SEG).

No. 11 (SEG 1.418). A Greek inscription honoring C. Norbanus C. f.Buonocore regards this man as governor of Sicily and the future consul in 83. Herejects the idea of F. Münzer (Hermes 67 [1932] 233–35) that the honorandus wasthe homonymous son of the consul, monetalis in 83. But Münzer has a strong pointin his favor: the man is amtlos. If the dedication belonged to the elder Norbanus itis unlikely that his title would be omitted. Broughton, MRR 2.41 tacitly ascribes theinscription to Norbanus pater. Concerning his governorship of Sicily one shouldnot omit the remarks of E. Badian in his Studies in Greek and Roman History(Oxford 1964) 84–86. He dates Norbanus’ assignment to the period from 89 to atleast 87, and although he comments on Diodor’s report (37.2.13–14) aboutNorbanus’ success in saving Regium from an attack by the Italic forces, he does notmention the inscription. On the younger C. Norbanus, and his coinage, see M. H.Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974) 79, 372.

Nos. 15 and 16. The inscriptions record a freedman of Scribonia and two freed-men of Julia the daughter of Augustus. To my earlier article “Julia in Regium”, ZPE72 (1988), 181–200, see now Addenda and corrigenda in Roman Questions(Stuttgart 1995) 663–64 {and also in this volume, RQ, Addenda altera, No. 39}.

No. 37. A lead defixio (dated to the second century) interestingly directedagainst a [- S]k\reib≈niw = Scribonius, and thus attesting to the continuing presenceof Scribonii (descended from the freedmen of Scribonia?) in Regium.

Vol. 5, pp. 87–144: SUPERAEQUUM (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by MarcoBuonocore. Another excellent contribution by this indefatigable scholar {see nowhis further supplement in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 135–46, and aggiornamento ofinscriptiones falsae vel alienae in G. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Variaepigraphica (Faenza 2001) 100–101}. Superaequum (with the ethniconSuperaequani) in the land of the Paeligni (Castelvecchio Subequo in the provincel’Aquila) offers a puzzle in its very name: those who live super aequum, “above theplain”, or those who live super Aequos, “above the land of the Aequi”? Buonocoreadduces also other explanations, but ultimately settles upon the first one: superaequum. Superaequum seems to have been constituted as a municipium only after



49: originally the chief magistrates were the duumviri, and this arrangement wascharacteristic of the municipal reforms of Caesar. In the third century, the chiefmagistrates were, however, the IVviri. The tribe of the city was Sergia. The limitsof the Superaequan territory were, by and large, already established by Mommsen;Buonocore (mostly following F. Van Wonterghem) proposes small adjustments: asa result two inscriptions move from Corfinium to Superaequum (CIL 9.3181,3245), and one from Superaequum to the Marsian territory (9.3324).

The inscriptions from Superaequum were published by Mommsen in CIL 9(1883): 38 texts, and one republished in Eph.Ep. 8 (1891); 15 are now lost. Thereare also three texts in Paelignian very laudably reproduced by Buonocore (p. 96).Buonocore’s comments and bibliographical aggiornamenti are again exemplary.He had already produced outstanding work on the Paelignian territory: not onlycontributions in Suppl. Ital. (Corfinium and Sulmo), but also a spate of articles anda full corpus of inscriptions from Superaequum: L’Epigrafia latina diSuperaequum (Castelvecchio Subequo 1985), a collection which retains its useful-ness even after the publication of this Supplement: it reproduces all texts printed inCIL and provides those that are extant with photographic documentation. There aresurprisingly numerous Christian texts: G. Pani, ICI 3 (1986) 11–24 (nos. 7–21).

NUOVI TESTI: 57 inscriptions (two only mentioned, but not reproduced, 10 orso mere fragments); 14 lost; 5 already printed in CIL I2, and 1 in ILS; 15 in AE, and14 in AE 1990 [1993] from this Suppl. Two additional texts AE 1992 [1995],333–34.

No. 1 (CIL I2.2486; ILLRP 143), a dedication to Hercules Victor and no. 2 (CILI2.3253; AE 1984, 283): a dedication to Hercules. Hercules Victor is also mentionedin no. 3 (CIL I2.3254; AE 1984, 292). The cult of Hercules was thus thriving in thePaelignian area: in particular the neighboring Sulmo possessed an important shrineof this god (see vol. 4, Sulmo, nos. 2–35). This cult went back to pre-Roman timesas attested in Superaequum by an inscription in the Paelignian dialect (p. 95). Cf.F. Van Wonterghem, “Le culte d’Hercule chez les Paeligni”, Ant. Class. 42 (1973)36–48 (and 9 plates).

No. 4: Lucus S(ilvani) A(ugusti). The Columbia dissertation of P. F. Dorceyadduced by Buonocore has now been published: The Cult of Silvanus. A Study inRoman Folk Religion (Leiden 1992). He does not record this text.

No. 7 (ILS 9007). A well known inscription (of the Augustan period) listing thecursus honorum of Q. Octavius Sagitta. Among his various functions was also thatof trib(unus) mil(itum) a populo. On this office, see the fundamental paper by C.Nicolet, “Tribuni militum a populo”, MEFRA 79 (1967) 29–76, esp. 65–76. Heobserves (p. 48) that the inscription of Sagitta is one of the three texts showing con-clusively that tribuni militum a populo belonged to the equestrian order. We hap-pen to know from Superaequum also another holder of this office: T. PompulliusLappa (CIL 9.3307 = ILS 5599; Nicolet, p. 37).

No. 8 (AE 1898, 79; 1984, 282), another inscription mentioning OctaviusSagitta. He is honored for various works of construction and restoration. Lines 4–5read: viam\[que ad templum] / Romae et Augusti Ca\[es(aris) sternendam cur(avit)].Romae was seen on the stone by the editor princeps A. De Nino; today this edge is


472


broken off. So restored (by De Nino whose proposals Buonocore accepts) the textis most interesting for it would attest the existence in Superaequum during the life-time of Augustus of a temple of Roma and Augustus. F. Van Wonterghem (Forma83, and after him AE 1984, 282) was more cautious and read: viam\[–––] / Romaeet Augusti Ca \[esaris –––]. In his short monograph Superaequum nel periodoromano (Castelvecchio Subequo 1984) he doubts (p. 23) “che vada cercato qui ...un tempio del culto imperiale” (as accepted by C. Fayer, Il culto della dea Roma[Pescara 1976] 252), and thinks (n. 77) that the text may have referred to an altaror a priesthood connected with the cult of Roma and Augustus. Cassius Dio51.20.6–8 (cf. Suet., Aug. 52) indeed maintains that in Rome and in Italy noemperor allowed the establishment of his personal cult, yet Dio’s statement appearsto be refuted by the growing epigraphic evidence. In her most careful investigationH. Henlein–Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des erstenrömischen Kaisers (Rome 1985) 17–18, 133–42, 144–45, 148–52, lists in Italy inaddition to Superaequum five other centers of the cult of Augustus that are to bedated to his lifetime. It is difficult to agree with M. Reinhold, From Republic toPrincipate. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio Books 49–52 (Atlanta1988) 154, when he writes that “Dio deals here only with the officially authorizedcult centres of Augustus. There was, indeed, no bar anywhere to private worship ofhim as god or hero, even publicly by cities and peoples of the empire”. But Diodoes not say that Augustus had himself established his cult, but rather that he gavepermission (a crucial distinction!) to consecrate (in the provinces of Asia andBithynia) sacred precincts to himself. Surely also the cities in Italy will haveneeded official permission to build a shrine dedicated to Augustus. L. R. Taylor inher classic work, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown 1931) 214–22,argued that technically this was not the cult of Augustus but rather the cult of hisGenius (as explicitly attested for Pompei, CIL 10.816). Her argument has attracteda large and influential following, and despite recent peremptory remarks (cf., e.g.,Henlein-Schäfer 17) it has never been directly (or theologically) disproved. Yetdespite all doctrinal nuances the living emperor – beginning with Augustus himself– was commonly worshipped as a god, and not only by provincials but also by cives(cf. M. Clauss, “Deus praesens. Der römische Kaiser als Gott”, Klio 70 [1996]400–33, esp. 411–21; {Idem, Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im römischen Reich(Stuttgart-Leipzig 1999) esp. 54–75 (to be read with the review by J. Scheid,Gnomon 75 [2003] 707–11); I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion(Oxford 2002) 73–84 (to be read with the devastating review by P. Herz, JRA 18.2[2005] 641–48); C. Rodriguez, “The Puluinar at the Circus Maximus: Worship ofAugustus in Rome?”, Latomus 64 (2005) 619–25}). To conclude: we should nothesitate to assign to Superaequum a temple of Roma and Augustus and to restoreit in our inscription.

No. 10. The text mentions Gallia Coma[ta –––]. As Buonocore notes, this isthe second epigraphic attestation of this expression (cf. CIL 11.7553 = ILS 916).

No. 11 (AE 1990 [1993], 234). In line 5 Buonocore reads mag(istri) p(agi),who will thus be the dedicants together (lines 2–3) with the aediles: aed(iles)ded(erunt) / pag(i) decre[to ––– {in erasure}]. But C. Letta, “L’epigrafia pubblica



di vici e pagi nella regio IV: imitazione del modello urbano e peculiarità del villa-gio”, in L’Epigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 33–48 at 40–41, proposes to expandmag(istris) p(agi): in an imitation of the “modello urbano” the magistri appear aseponyms. An attractive solution that persuaded Buonocore himself, ibid. 51 and n.9. Cf. AE 1993 [1996], 571.

No. 12 (AE 1914, 270; CIL I2.3255). The inscription offers puzzles and novel-ties. In lines 4–6 the first editor (N. Persichetti in 1914) read as follows: mag(istri)pag(i) iter / Paganicam fac(iundum) /ex p(agi) s(ententia) c(uraverunt) eidemq(ue)p(robaverunt). He thus imagined a road (iter) leading to a locality called Paganica:(versus) Paganicam. Buonocore strongly disagrees and reconstructs: mag(istri)pag(i) iter(um) / paganicam fac(iundam). He takes paganica in the (unattested)sense of aedes or aedicula. He may be right: the noun paganicum appears threetimes in inscriptions from Africa in the sense of a building (TLL s.v. “paganicus”{Cf. M. Mayer and I. Pagàn, “ A propósito de los paganica de Africa”, L’AfricaRomana 8.1 (1991) 421–28}). More recently C. Letta, pp. 36–37 (see above, no.11) boldly cuts this Gordian knot, and assumes that paganicam is a mistake of thestone cutter to be corrected into paganicum. The iter paganicum would be a road“che attraversava tutto il territorio del pagus, collegando i vari vici tra loro e colsantuario comune” (cf. AE 1993 [1996] 570). But if so, one would rather expect viapaganica, not iter (cf. below, no. 13 {In Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 138–39, Buonocoreagain, and rightly, rejects the attempts to correct paganicam into paganicum}). Ofthe three magistri one is called Crisplius: this is the first and only attestation of thename (cf. Solin-Salomies, Repertorium 64); another displays the filiation Sex.Apicius V. f. Buonocore offers no expansion; O. Salomies, Die römischenVornamen (Helsinki 1987) 96, proposes V(ibii) f., the praenomen Vibius being sev-eral times attested in the Paelignian area.

No. 13 (AE 1984, 295). A college of five freedmen termed viocuri. It is the firstappearance of this term outside the framework of senatorial careers.

Vol. 5, pp. 145–238: FORUM NOVUM (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by GiorgioFilippi. The very name of Forum Novum (Vescovìo) betrays the Roman (and notnative) origin of this city in the northern part of the Sabine territory. This area wasprobably assigned viritim to Roman citizens still in the the first part of the third cen-tury (p. 148). The territory of Forum Novum was delimited toward west and south-west by the course of the Tiber; in the north-west and west it bordered on the agerof Ocriculum, Narnia and Interamna, in the east and south-east on the ager of Reateand Trebula Mutuesca; and finally toward the south the precise position of its bor-der with Cures is still uncertain. The municipium was governed by IIviri, and wasinscribed into tribus Clustumina. Its inhabitants were called Foronovani. Verysparse literary sources were already fully utilized by Mommsen in CIL; Filippi sup-plies additional information especially on the late antique and early medieval historyof the city. {See now V. Gaffney, H. Patterson, P. Roberts, “Forum Novum-Vescovio: Studying urbanism in the Tiber valley”, JRA 14 (2001) 59–79}.

The patrimonio epigrafico was collected in CIL 9 (1883) again by Mommsen(and in Eph. Ep. 8 [1891]), altogether 89 inscriptions (including the instrumentum)


472


of which 40 have disappeared. There are also 10 falsae. Filippi removes 9 texts asnot belonging to Forum Novum. {For falsae and alienae, see addenda and correc-tions by M. Buonocore, in G. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Varia epi-graphica (Faenza 2001) 122–25}. As usual, the “old” texts are revised, andprovided with bibliography.

NUOVI TESTI: 95 texts; 20 published previously (7 recorded in AE); 75inedita (so far a record for all Supplementa, but some 40 merely meagre frag-ments); 25 now admitted to AE 1990 [1993], 247–71. {See also 1998 [2001],411–12}. This crop substantially enriches the onomastics of Forum Novum, includ-ing such rare gentilicia as Fesinius (no. 41), Marullius (no. 49), the first attestationsof Herbuleius (no. 44; cf. Solin-Salomies, Repertorium, Suppl. 483) and perhaps ofMacretius (no. 48, but the reading is uncertain), and another hapax (no. 40), thecognomen Curin(us), attested as a surname only with respect to Hercules (seeabove, vol. 4, Sulmo). Still there are only few texts of a more general interest:

No. 18. A mosaic inscription: C. Vibius C. f. Clu(stumina) Celer Státór / exdecretó C

–virum s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit). The first attestation in Forum Novum of the

local senate of centumviri; this is of some interest for the municipal history: theinscription can archaeologically be dated as far back as the time of Caesar. Filippitakes Státór (note the apices) as a second cognomen which according to him “con-ferma il rango elevato dell’individuo”. It is more natural to interpret the word asindicating the office of stator, in this case an attendant or messenger of the cen-tumviri (cf. above, vol. 4, Sulmo, no. 62).

No. 49: C. Maruleius T. Flavius Aug(usti) l(ibertus) Primigenius. As Filippipoints out this name-form finds a close counterpart in the name of M. AntoniusM(arci) f(ilius) Pap(iria), Flacci libertus, Felix. It appears on an urban stone pub-lished with an extensive commentary by S. Panciera (Not. Scavi 1975, 224–29).Panciera discovers there a case of arrogatio libertini, mentioned by jurists but sofar not recorded epigraphically. Filippi adopts this interpretation also for our text.Neither case seems to have been discussed by O. Salomies, Adoptive andPolyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (Helsinki 1992); at least neithername appears in his index.

Vol. 5, pp. 241–61: FELTRIA (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by Luciano Lazzaro.{See now also the new supplement by M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004)240–54}. Feltre (Feltria), originally a settlement of the Raeti, controlled a ratherextensive ager, bordering on Bellunum and Tridentum (the map on p. 311 is insuf-ficient). It became a municipium after 49, was inscribed into tribus Menenia, andwas governed by IVviri.

The inscriptions from Feltria were assembled in CIL 5 (1872, 1877) by T.Mommsen (23 texts, and a large number of falsae: 27), and in the old series ofSupplementa Italica (1888) by E. Pais (2 texts); only 2 stones are lost. Two stonesLazzaro transfers to Feltria from Bellunum (cf. above, vol. 4, Bellunum), andremoves one inscription as extranea, and suspects foreign origin also of five “frus-tuli di tituli”. Pais (nos. 447 and 1233) and Lazzaro rehabilitate one of the falsae(no. 106), but Lazzaro bans it from Feltria; never mind: the name this inscription


474


records, Caupius Albicius, does not inspire confidence. From Feltria come also“due lapidi etruscoidi”: see G. B. Pellegrini and A. L. Prosdocimi, La lingua vene-tica 1 (Padova 1967) 445–46.

There are 8 Nuovi Testi, only 1 lost, and only 1 recorded in AE; from Lazzaro5 texts now in AE 1990 [1993], 396–400. {See further 2002 [2005], 547–49}.

Of interest is no. 1 (AE 1925, 82) recording the cult of Anna Perenna, but thepride of place goes to no. 3, published in 1907 (and promptly reprinted in ILS9420), recording a legatum of five hundred thousand denarii given to the coll(egia)fab(rum) and cc (i.e., centonariorum) with the stipulation that the interest (usura)from that sum should be used to celebrate the natalis of the donor. This text of 12lines (with a number of uncertain readings and supplements) has been frequentlydiscussed by students of economy and numismatics. But it is of interest also foranother reason: it opens with the indication of the consular date of 323, and closeswith the notation N

–CCCLXII (such notations are known also from Patavium).

Lazzaro inclines to accept the theory advanced by W. Harris (ZPE 27 [1977]283–93) and the present writer (ZPE 50 [1983] 227–32 {= RQ 369–74, 663; seealso in this volume, RQ, Addenda altera, No. 38}) that this notation indicates thedate according to the local era. That N

–stands for n(atali die), see now further

remarks by J. Linderski, “Games in Patavium”, Ktema 17 (1993 [1996]) 55–76 at60–62 {reprinted in this volume, No. 34. See also M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22(2004) 251–53}.


Vol. 6, pp. 11–33: SETIA (Regio I, Latium et Campania) by Rita Volpe. Setia(Sezze) was established in the Monti Lepini, in the part of Latium occupied by theVolsci, as a Latin colony in 382, and it retained that status until after the Social War,when it became a Roman municipium. Its territory extended from via Latina to viaAppia.

CIL 10 (1883) displays 23 inscriptions from Setia (published by Mommsen); 3additional texts are in Eph. Ep. 7 (1888); 15 are now lost, and one belongs to thecity of Rome. There are also 21 falsae. Two remarks on “old” inscriptions:

CIL 10.6462 (= 12.811 = ILS 5529 = ILLRP 393) reads: –––] Scauruspr(aetor) pro co(n)s(ule) bas[ilicam –––]. This person is generally identified withM. Aemilius Scaurus, praetor in 56, and governor of Sardinia in 55 (cf. Broughton,MRR 1.208, 217–18). Volpe argues (p. 17) that the inscription is to be dated “tra55, anno del proconsolato, e il 52, anno in cui Scauro fu costretto all’esilio dopo unennesimo processo per corruzione”. In another place (p. 23) Volpe very confusinglydescribes the stone as attesting a dedication “da parte di un praetor urbano”.According to a widespread belief Scaurus was twice prosecuted de ambitu: first in54 under the lex Tullia, and then in 52 he was convicted under the lex Pompeia. Asecond trial hardly qualifies as “ennesimo”. In fact, it disappears altogether. Thebelief in a second trial of Scaurus de ambitu is entirely based on Appian’s account(BC 2.24.89) but, as G. S. Bucher has recently demonstrated in a brilliant investi-gation, this account is badly confused (“Appian BC 2.24 and the Trial De Ambitu



of M. Aemilius Scaurus”, Historia 44 [1995] 396–421). The trial began in 54 andwas concluded in 53; it resulted in Scaurus’ conviction and exile. Another problemis this: it is not immediately clear how to interpret the indication pr. pro cos (whichoccurs also in a number of other texts). T. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht 23

(Leipzig 1887) 650, n. 2, cf. 648, nn. 1–2 (and CIL 1, p. 188), argued that thisdenoted “ein Amt”, praetor proconsule. T. R. S. Broughton, “Notes on RomanMagistrates”, TAPA 77 (1946) 38–39, expressed doubt: perhaps we should put acomma between the two titles (H. Kloft, Prorogation und ausserordentlicheImperien 326–81 v. Chr. [Meisenhaim am Glan 1977; to be read with E. Badian’sreview in Gnomon 51 (1979) 792–94] esp. 64, oddly enough does not discuss thisparticular question). Broughton did not persuade Degrassi (ILLRP 393, and 342,402 ad locc.), but as far as Scaurus was concerned he was undoubtedly right(although actually he does not adduce the case of Scaurus). We have to look notonly at the title(s) but at the whole text. Scaurus either built or restored a basilicain Setia; he will hardly have done this when he was away as governor of Sardinia.On the other hand his generosity in Setia fits chronologically very well into theperiod of his electoral campaign for the consulship in 54 and 53, but at that time hewas neither pr. nor pro cos. The inscription thus indicates his two highest previousfunctions. Upon his return from Sardinia to Rome Scaurus was immediatelyaccused of extortion but ultimately acquitted. His building activity illustrates wellthe comment of Asconius (19 Clark) that the prosecutors rushed the trial becausethey were afraid “ne Scaurus ea pecunia quam a sociis abstulisset emeret consula-tum, et ... ante quam de eo iudicari posset, consulatum iniret”. Thanks to ourinscription we know where part of Scaurus’ spoils ended up: in the basilica at Setia.

CIL 10.6465. For the history of Setia this stone is an important document, andcontroversial. On its lato sinistro, imperfectly read by Mommsen, H. Solin hasrecently discovered a consular pair of 263 (Tituli 4 [1982] 527–28). One wouldwish he had also ascertained the reading of line 1 of the main text, but even hissguardo linceo was of no avail (cf. his Zu den lukanischen Inschriften [Helsinki1981] 51, n. 24). This line, as Volpe observes, is “in pessimo stato di conser-vazione”. Mommsen printed C. Oppio C. F. PONI POM / IUS, but he despaired asto the meaning of the last two words. Now the tribe of Setia is not attested, but thecity was situated in the ager Pomptinus, and thus its ascription to the Pomptinamay seem reasonable. W. Kubitschek, Imperium romanum tributim discriptum(Vindobonae 1889) 30, indeed suggested that we have in this line the mention ofthe tribe: Pon[t(ina)]. He failed to persuade Volpe (“lettura estremamente dubiosa”)or earlier L. R. Taylor who found his evidence “weak” (The Voting Districts of theRoman Republic [Rome 1960] 111, n. 25). The normal order being nomen, tribus,cognomen, the incriminated letters must conceal either solely a cognomen or a tribeand a cognomen. The perusal of Kubitschek’s own material shows that regularabbreviations were Pom. and Pompt. Pon[t(ina)] may thus appear a desperatereconstruction, but it is not entirely unfounded. CIL 10.310 (= Inscr. It. 3.1.248, ed.V. Bracco) from Tegianum reads: C. Buculeio [Mommsen read Puculeio, butBracco’s text has been verified by Solin) C. f. Pont / oro. Kubitschek (p. 47) hesi-tatingly comments: “Pontorus nescio an cognomen potius sit quam Pont(ina)


475


Orus”. As Tegianum belonged to the Pomptina (see CIL 10.291, 8095),Kubitschek’s proposal deserves serious consideration. Solin (pp. 50–52) embracesit (he quotes the earlier study of Kubitschek, De Romanarum tribuum origine etpropagatione [Vindobonae 1882] 45), and reads C. Buculeio C. f. Pont(ina) F\oro(or perhaps Oro = Horo). He states (p. 51): “Die Graphie Pont- ist auch sonstbekannt”, but as support he adduces (n. 24) – a surprise! – solely the inscriptionfrom Setia, which he ultimately ventures to read C. Oppio C. f. Pont(ina)Pom/pus[iano]. All this despite the information from G. Forni that no other textswith the reading Pont(ina) are known. Thus a classic case of a reconstruction sup-porting another reconstruction and in turn supported by it. Nos valde dubitantesrem in medio relinquimus.

In line 7 there appears the abbreviation PCS, solved by Mommsen as p(atrono)c(oloniae) S(etinae). Volpe (p. 14) points out that p(atrono) c(ivitatis) S(etinae) isalso possible. Undoubtedly; but Mommsen (CIL 10, p. 637) buttressed his expan-sion by the reference to the neighboring Privernum which is described in twoinscriptions of the fourth century (10.6440, 6441) as colonia Privernatium. Heregarded, however, our inscription as being “infimae aetatis”. In view of Solin’sredating of the stone to the third century, Mommsen’s argument is now less cogent.S(etinae) is generally accepted, but perhaps we should read S(etinorum).

NUOVI TESTI: 17 inscriptions, one already in CIL I2, only 2 in AE, and 6 nowin AE 1990 [1993], 132–37; 5 lost.

No. 3. {Cf. also R. Volpe, Epigrafia 381–83}. A republican monumentalinscription: [– Post]umiu[s Albi]nus consol f[ecit ––– ?], to be dated {according toVolpe} to the consulship of one of the seven Postumii Albini {of the third or thefirst part of the second century} (the earliest 254, the last 151). {R. Haensch,Gnomon 68 (1996) 532, adduces Liv. 39.23.3 and attributes the inscription to Sp.Postumius Albinus, cos. 186, the dating accepted by the editors of AE 1996 [1999],398 (p. 135). L. Gasperini, “Lazio tardo-repubblicano. Note epigrafiche”, MGR 21(1997) 271–74, on the basis of architecture and lettering assigns the text to the con-sul of 110 (cf. AE 1997 [2000], 282)}.

No. 4a (AE 1991 [1994], 426). Another republican inscription: [––– us]pr(aetor) de s(enatus) s(ententia) refec(it) de m[anubiis ? –––]. Volpe points outthat local praetors are attested in Setia (CIL 10.6466), but if the supplement m[anu-biis is correct, we would deal with a Roman praetor and acquire a most interestingdocument. The verb refecit (as opposed to fecit) would, however, seem to argueagainst this supplement. But above all no senatus sententia (or consultum) was nec-essary for manubial dedications (see A. Zió¬kowski, The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context [Rome 1992]201–58, 307–17; M. Aberson, Temples votifs et butin de guerre dans la Romerepublicaine [Rome 1994], though not without some merit, is much less cogent andfails to provide clear legal distinction between various categories of dedicationsand dedicants. The same complaint applies also to E. M. Orlin, Temples, Religionand Politics in the Roman Republic [Leiden 1997]). We may read de m[ultaticiapecunia, and refer the inscription to the local senate and a local praetor. {L.Gasperini, op. cit. (above, no. 3) 274–78, also refers the text to a local praetor; he



combines frg. (a) with frgs. (b): [–––] E D [–––], and (c): [–––]GUN[–––], andhe further connects with the inscription three minute frustula bearing the letters L(only traces; now illegible), LF, and LIRU (so read by the excavators; now lost, butwhere we should read the patronymicon LF, and RU, the first letters of a cog-nomen). This yields an ingenious restoration: L. [Var]gun[teius] L. f. Ru[fus]pr(aetor) de s(enatus) s(ententia) refecit [i]dem[q(ue) probavit dedicavitq(ue). Cf.AE 1997 [2000], 283. Gasperini and AE print Ru[f]us, but do not indicate where theletters us are attested. Gasperini seems to have rather imagined the readingRu[f(us)]}.

No. 10 (AE 1961, 242), a funerary stone of C. Barbius Cleon, medicus andsevir Augustalis. This is a third medicus attested in Setia. The two other are [L. ?]Quinctius Theoxenus, also a sevir Augustalis (CIL 10.6469), and L. LiciniusAsclepia[de]s (10.6471; cf. AE 1992 [1995], 261), all of Greek and ultimatelyservile extraction, and all missed by J. Korpela, Das Medizinalpersonal im antikenRom (Helsinki 1987).

Vol. 6, pp. 37–53: CINGULUM (Regio V, Picenum) by Gianfranco Paci {See nowPaci’s new supplement, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 147–51}.We begin, joining Paci,with a tribute to L. R. Taylor: Her two page article, “Labienus and the Picene Townof Cingulum”, CR 35 (1921) 158–59, changed the history of Cingulum. Tayloradduced the passage of Cicero (Rab. perd. 22) which had been curiously over-looked by Mommsen (CIL 9, p. 541) and by other scholars. In his defense ofRabirius (in 63) Cicero addresses T. Labienus, then a tribune of the plebs, and laterCaesar’s trusted general in Gaul and his bitter opponent in the civil war, and in aseries of pointed rhetorical questions forcefully reminds Labienus that his ownfather and propinqui vestri, equites Romani, furthermore omnis praefectura, regio,vicinitas vestra, ager Picenus universus, had stood firm against the tribuniciusfuror of Saturninus and supported the consularis auctoritas. Another passage, alsoconcerning Labienus, had long been utilized for the history of Cingulum. Caesar,BC 1.15.1–2 relates that, when he entered the ager Picenus, “cunctae earumregionum praefecturae libentissimis animis eum recipiunt”, and that “etiamCingulo quod oppidum Labienus constituerat suaque pecunia exaedificaverat adeum legati veniunt quaeque imperavit se cupidissime facturos pollicentur”. On thebasis of this passage it was possible to suspect that originally Cingulum was one ofthe Picentine praefecturae; Taylor and the utterances of Cicero turned this suppo-sition into certainty. It was also possible to suspect that Cingulum was the hometown of the gens Labiena; also for this supposition Taylor and Cicero offeredresounding corroboration. As municipium Cingulum (ascribed to tribus Velina) wasgoverned by duoviri (and not by quattuorviri), and as U. Laffi points out in hismost instructive survey (“Sull’organizzazione amministrativa dell’Italia dopo laguerra sociale”, in Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische undLateinische Epigraphik [München 1973] 37–53 at 47–48 {= U. Laffi, Studi di sto-ria romana e di diritto (Roma 2001) 113–35 at 125–26}) this administrative struc-ture was typical of those municipia that were organized ex novo (on the other handthe former allied cities that after the Social War were transformed into Roman


476


municipia were administered by quattuorviri). When did Cingulum become amunicipium and what was the role of Labienus in this process? No legal role at all:so Paci, invoking Emilio Gabba (p. 41). Cingulum may have well been organizedas a municipium after 49, and Labienus simply made this transformation possiblethrough his earlier building activity. On the other hand H. Galsterer, Herrschaft undVerwaltung im republikanischen Italien (München 1976) 36 (and various scholarsbefore him) searched for a legal basis of Labienus’ intervention; he suggests hesi-tatingly the lex Iulia agraria of 59 or a senatorial decree. The latter we can safelyexclude, the former is a reasonable suggestion but perhaps not in the way imaginedby Galsterer, at least if we follow a novel and powerful argument of M. H.Crawford (see “The Lex Iulia Agraria”, Athenaeum 77 [1989] 179–90; RomanStatutes [London 1996] 2.763–67 {now accepted by B. Campbell, The Writings ofthe Roman Land Surveyors (London 2000) 321–22}). This scholar is of the opin-ion that the three chapters, preserved in the Corpus Gromaticorum, of the lexMamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia belonged in fact to the lex Iulia agraria.In chapter 5 (vulgo, et fortasse recte 55) we read: “Qui hac lege coloniamdeduxerit, municipium praefecturam forum conciliabulum constituerit”. Labienusoppidum constituerat; perhaps he indeed acted on the basis of the lex Iulia agraria.Not so: “Unfortunately, there is no particular reason to relate the constitution ofCingulum by T. Labienus to the framework established by our statute” (Crawford,Athenaeum, p. 184). Why not? Perhaps because Caesar uses the term oppidum andnot municipium? Now in the first Book of BC (see chapters 12, 15–16, 18–19,21–22, 27) Caesar employs the term oppidum with reference to towns that weretechnically municipia or coloniae: Iguvium, Auximum (in both places he also men-tions municipes), Asculum, Corfinium, Sulmo (he also mentions oppidani asopposed to milites), Brundisium. Thus Caesar’s terminology is no obstacle.Furthermore Caesar appears to juxtapose the praefecturae and Cingulum, now anoppidum. We can accept that it was Labienus who transformed Cingulum from apraefectura into a municipium, apparently at a time when he had collected enoughGallic loot to carry out the exaedificatio. But did he act on the basis of the lex Iulia?If this were the case not solely Labienus but Caesar too would have had a claim tobeing a direct benefactor of Cingulum, and the support he received from that citywould not have been so extraordinary. Thus perhaps Labienus was appointed toconstitute Cingulum as municipium in pursuance of another statute, precisely thelex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia, distinct from the lex Iulia, and to bedated to 55 (as some scholars had supposed; see the bibliography in Crawford,Athenaeum, p. 179). No certain solution is at hand.

The inscriptions from Cingulum (Cingolo) Mommsen collected in CIL 9(1883): 20 texts (and 2 falsae); 5 lost, 1 damaged.

There are only 7 NUOVI TESTI: 1 belonging to Rome, 1 re–edited, 3 minutefragments; 1 recorded in AE, and now 5 from Paci (4 from his earlier publication)in AE 1990 (1993), 312–16.

No. 3, a funerary inscription of P. Statius Q. f. Ani(ensis) Optatus / scríbaaed(ilium) cur(ulium) / sexs prímus (observe the apices). The inscription was foundon the territory of Cingulum, but the tribe of Statius, Aniensis, shows that he was


477


not a native of that city. Paci suggests that after his career as scriba at Rome heretired to Cingulum. As the inscription may belong to the “età protoimperiale” weshould perhaps add Statius to the list of late republican clerks in E. Badian, “Thescribae of the Roman Republic”, Klio 71 (1989) 582–603. In passing we mayobserve that S. Panciera’s reconstruction of the organization of scribae in the LateRepublic (in Epigrafia 273–78) differs very substantially from that of Badian (esp.595–98). {Cf. now the comments of A. Cristofori, Non arma virumque. Le occu-pazioni nell’ epigrafia di Piceno (Bologna 2004) 250–54, and the comprehensivestudy by N. Purcell, “The ordo scribarum: a study in the loss of memory”, MEFRA113.2 (2001) 633–74.}

Vol. 6, pp. 57–79: CAMERINUM (Regio VI, Umbria) by Silvia Maria Marengo.{See now her new supplement, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 161–71}. The early historyof Camerinum (Camerino) and its foedus with Rome does not interest us here; afterthe Social War it was a municipium inscribed into the Cornelian tribe. The inscrip-tions from Camerinum were published in CIL 11 (1901 and 1926) by E. Bormann:17 texts (and 14 falsae), of which 4 are now lost, and several are damaged. To the“old” texts Marengo provides corrections and rudimentary bibliography. Of theseinscriptions perhaps the most famous is 5631 (= ILS 432) recording the renewalunder Septimius Severus (in 210) of the ancient treaty between Rome and theCamertes (iure aequo foederis sibi confirmato), a marvellous display of antiquari-anism and local pride (the best study is that of S. Panciera, “Ficolenses foederati”,RSA 6–7 [1976–77] 195–213, esp. 210–11).

NUOVI TESTI: 11 inscriptions (but 2 of them only small fragments); only 2previously admitted into AE (and now 5 texts after Marengo in AE 1990 [1993],322–26); and one inscription assigned in CIL 11.7884 to Spoletium but belongingto Camerinum.

No. 2. The editio princeps (Epigraphica 46 [1984] 176–77, and AE 1985, 369)read in the first four lines T. Vetilio T. f. Cor. / Sinoni / praet(ori) quinquennali /Camerini. Marengo proposes praef(ectus) quinquennalis. The photograph rendersthe reading quinquennalis (in the nominative) indubitable; it is more difficult todecide whether there is an F or a T in the previous title, but in the light of the evi-dence assembled by M. S. Bassignano (in Epigrafia 515–37) on the praefecti iuredicundo, Marengo is certainly right in discarding praetor and opting for praefec-tus. As to the cognomen, Marengo observes that it is “di origine greca” and “assairaro”. That much is obvious; but in view of the Vergilian notoriety of the perfidi-ous Sinon one wonders how Vetilius, an ingenuus, did come by this name. In theinscription AE 1958, 313 (from Iesolo in the province of Venezia) adduced byMarengo, Sinon is, appropriately, a slave. The original editor of that inscription, F.Sartori (Atti Ist. Veneto 116 [1957] 244–55, reprinted in F. Sartori, Dall’Italíaall’Italia [Padova 1993] 93–104, esp. 96) notes as the only other example a personfrom the Athenian ephebic catalogue of 169/70 (ÉIoÊl[iow] S¤nvn, IG II2, 2097,line 95). There is an earlier attestation, from the second century B.C.E. (ibid. 11314a, p. 887; cf. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 2 [1994] 399), but these Greekexamples do not carry the weight of the Roman connotation of the name.



No. 9 (AE 1990, 324): Q. Titulenus Q. f. / Maior Vibia / hoc m(onumentum)p(osuit). An interesting onomastic puzzle: is Maior the cognomen of Titulenus orthe praenomen of Vibia? Marengo, following the opinion of S. Panciera, opts forthe latter solution. M. Kajava, Roman Female Praenomina (Rome 1994) does notdiscuss this case, but his evidence supports the idea of combining Maior and Vibia(whether Maior was felt as a true praenomen or a reversed cognomen). {M. Kajavakindly adverts me that he has in fact discussed this inscription but s.v. MAIO(S), p.44. He regards Maior Vibia as the dedicant, and Q. Titulenus as the dedicatee}.

Vol. 6, pp. 83–108: VALLIS TANARI SUPERIOR (Regio IX, Liguria) byGiovanella Cresci Marrone. {See now a further supplement by G. Mennella inSuppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 189–95}.The Upper Valley of Tanarus was a territory of theLiguri Montani; since their subjection by the Romans at the beginning of the sec-ond century B.C.E. their territory was in some way attached (through the processof adtributio) to the city of Albingaunum (cf. above, vol. 4), and it achieved fullmunicipal status only in the second century of the Empire (but continued to shareits tribe, Publilia, with Albingaunum). Cresci Marrone delineates this complicatedstory very well; an excellent map helps the reader to follow in detail her proposi-tions concerning the delimitation of the territory (pp. 86–91).

The inscriptions were collected in CIL 5 (1877) by Mommsen: 13 texts (and 4falsae, but one of them [915*] perhaps genuine); the inscription added by Pais inhis Suppl. Ital. (no. 978) was in fact already published by Mommsen (7801). Twoadditional inscriptions (7671, 7730) Cresci Marrone transfers to Vallis Tanari fromAugusta Bagiennorum and from the area designated by Mommsen as Ora a Lunaad Genuam. Today 8 texts are lost, and one is almost completely damaged.

NUOVI TESTI: 20 items (3 meagre fragments), 1 ineditum, 2 republished (no.1 = CIL 5.7804; no. 17 = 7803), none recorded in AE (now 9 texts in AE 1990[1993], 360–68; a new reading and a new text in AE 1991 [1994], 738–39).

No. 2: AE 1990, 360 reproduces the cognomen (in gen.) as Tessalae, but thephotograph vindicates Cresci Marrone’s reading T\e\ssellae (although the initial T ishardly visible), a name so far not otherwise attested and not listed in Repertoriumof Solin and Salomies. This inscription was published again by A. De Pasquale inBolletino storico-bibliografico subalpino 89 (1991) 184–87 (non vidi), and againreproduced in AE 1991 [1994], 739 (without any indication of the previous publi-cation). This time the reading is +essellae (with the sign + indicating that the traceson the stone do not permit the identification of the missing letter). The text isassigned to the environs of Albingaunum.

Vol. 6, pp. 111–82: TRIDENTUM (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by AlfredoBuonopane. A marvellous edition and commentary. The history of the city (todayTrento) Buonopane paints with clarity and erudition (pp. 115–27). Although thename Tridentum may ultimately be of Celtic origin, the city itself was a Romanfoundation, to be dated perhaps as late as the proconsulate of Caesar. By 46 C.E.the city was a municipium (CIL 5.5050), belonging to the tribus Papiria. In the sec-ond century it acquired the rank of a titulary colonia. Probably the most important


478


recent find for the history of Tridentum comes from Passau in Germany: an inscrip-tion (AE 1984, 707; ca II/III c.) mentioning a negotians vinarius whose origin isdescribed as domo Iulia Tridentum. Buonopane (p. 119) is inclined to interpret thename Iulia as deriving from one of the emperors or members of the imperial houseof the late second or the first part of the third century.

The inscriptions from Tridentum were published by Mommsen in CIL 5 (1872,1877), 38 texts, and by Pais (Suppl. Ital. 1888), 3 texts (9 are now lost). All thesestones Buonopane describes with meticulous attention; he also provides an exten-sive bibliography, and often a detailed discussion.

CIL 5.5016, a dedication to Minerva. On the right side of the stone there is arepresentation of urceus, lituus, and patella; on the left side of simpulum, culter,securilla, patella, lancea and scutum. It is worth observing that here we deal withrepresentations of three distinct sorts of emblems: on the right side the auguralemblems, and on the left first the pontifical emblems, and then the attributes ofMinerva (lance and shield; cf. E. Simon, Die Götter der Römer [Darmstadt 1990]170). On the juxtaposition of pontifical and augural symbols, see W. Altmann, Dierömischen Grabaltare der Kaiserzeit (Berlin 1905) 181 (Fig. 145a, simpulum andjug); J. Linderski, “Q. Scipio Imperator”, in idem (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine: T.Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (Stuttgart 1996) 175–77, and n. 21{reprinted in this volume. No. 10}.

NUOVI TESTI: 41 items (10 extremely fragmentary), 2 inedita, 2 republishedfrom CIL and Pais, 24 already in AE (and now 7 in AE 1990 [1993], 421–27); 5 (or6) lost. {Also 1995 [1998], 606; 1999 [2002], 741–44; 2000 [2003], 627; 2001[2004], 1073–83}.

No. 1 (AE 1964, 197; 1992 [1995], 753), an inscription carved high (2019 m.)on Monte Pèrgol: Finis inter / Trid(entinos) et Feltr(inos) / Lim(es) lat(us) p(edes)IIII. See now an extensive discussion by E. Cavada, “L’iscrizione confinaria delMonte Pèrgol in Val Cadino nel Trentino orientale”, in Rupes loquentes (1992)99–115 (and cf. above, vol. 4, Bellunum, no. 1). For a very useful aggiornamentoof rock inscriptions, see L. Gasperini, “Iscrizioni rupestri di età romana in Italia”,in A. Rodríguez Colmenero / L. Gasperini (eds.), Saxa scripta. Actas del SimposioInternacional Ibero-Itálico sobre epigrafía rupestre (La Coruña 1995) 297–331.

Nos. 4, 9, 16, 26, 27 (and cf. p. 125): these texts share common but uncommonvicissitudes. They were copied by the Bavarian Renaissance erudite JohannTurmair, called Aventinus (1477–1534; cf. W. Pökel, Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon [Leipzig 1882] 279), but were published only in 1914 by A. Vollmer(Hermes 49, 311–14). Four of them were next admitted to AE 1914, 255–58, withthe erroneous attribution of the publication to A. Rehm; and finally in the Tablesgénérales 1911–1920 (p. 3) their provenience was mistakenly given as Tarente(instead of Trente). Thus fortunately copied, soon forgotten, after four hundredyears rediscovered, they again almost disappeared from the history of Tridentumuntil recalled by G. Tibiletti (Epigraphica 35 [1973] 156–75 at 173–74). Theyattest, inter alia, to the local cult of Fortuna and Sol [Invictus ?]. But perhaps themost eloquent is no. 26: all persons involved have fine epichoric names: the hus-band [–––] Tauci f(ilius) prepares a grave monument for himself and for Luppa, his



uxor carissima, a daughter of Biumus son of Bursacus; the name of the son isTurus, and he figures prominently and unpleasantly in the concluding injunction:huic monumento Turus, filius meus, exheres esto. How quickly did the nativesacquire Roman phrases and legalities!

No. 11 (AE 1990, 422). Unpublished; a new attestation of the local grandee [C.Vale]rius [Mari]anus [patro]n(us) colon(iae), who appears to have flourished in thesecond half of the second century or at the beginning of the third century (cf.Buonopane’s comments on CIL 5.5036, pp. 137–38).

No. 19 (AE 1977, 293). A funerary stone of a fistulator (only the second epi-graphical attestation, cf. CIL 6.4444). Opinions vary: either a piper or (less likely)a producer of water pipes.

No. 20 (AE 1990, 424). A late (4th or 5th century) epitaph, abounding in lin-guistic peculiarities and oddities. We note the usage (first attested in Silver Latin)of the plural fratres to denote brother and sister, Amaros et Matrona, also describedas puer and puella, and fr(ater) et soror.

Vol. 6, pp. 183–228: ANAUNI (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by AlfredoBuonopane. Anaunia (later also Anagnia) is the ancient name of Val di Non to thenorth of Trento. The area was inhabited by the tribes of Anauni, Tulliasses andSinduni. It was probably subdued by the Romans at the beginning of the first cen-tury, although some scholars prefer to assign the conquest to the period of Augustus(16 and 15 B.C.E.). The most important historical document is the famous tabulaClesiana (found in 1869 in the village of Cles) containing the edict of Claudius of15 March 46 (CIL 5.5050). We learn that part of the territory of the Anauni and ofthe other tribes had been for a long time attached to the municipium Tridentum. Theadtributi appear to have legally remained at the level of peregrini, but ultimatelyand de facto they formed genus hominum permixtum cum Tridentinis, and werearrogating for themselves the rights of Roman citizens. In an act of great politicalrealism (so very appropriately characterized by Buonopane) Claudius ratified theexisting situation (quaecumque tamquam cives Romani gesserunt egeruntque) andformally extended the ius civitatis to the Anauni, Tulliasses and Sinduni, irrespec-tive of whether they were formally attached to Tridentum. Buonopane (pp. 194–95)provides an extensive bibliography (two full dense pages!), and in his discussion(pp. 188–90) he largely follows U. Laffi, Adtributio e Contributio (Pisa 1966) esp.29–36, 181–91, still the best treatment of the document and of the phenomenon ofadtributio.

The Edict of Claudius was published by Mommsen (Hermes 4 [1870] 99–120)and he also collected in CIL 5 (1872, 1877) the inscriptions from Anaunia, the col-lection continued by Pais (Suppl. Ital., 1888), altogether 36 inscriptions (and 2 fal-sae); 13 are lost.

NUOVI TESTI: 16 inscriptions (2 lost), 3 minute fragments, 6 in AE (and now4 in AE 1990 [1993], 429–32). {Also 1998 [2001], 597; 2002 [2005], 578–79}. Ishould wish to stress again the exemplary presentation of old and new texts byBuonopane, and his equally exemplary bibliography.


479



Vol. 7, pp. 11–313: INDICI DEI VOLUMI 1–6 by Ivan Di Stefano Manzella andClaudia Lega. See the remarks at the close of this paper. Here let it only beobserved that pp. 17–20 contain corrections to vols.1–6.


Vol. 8, pp. 9–21: “STRUTTURA DEI SUPPLEMENTI E SEGNI DIACRI-TICI. DIECI ANNI DOPO”, by Silvio Panciera. In Suppl. Ital. 1 (1981) 13–19,Panciera presented the system of segni diacritici which he and H. Krummrey hadfully elaborated in the preceding year (Tituli 2 [1980] 205–15). In the present vol-ume Panciera reviews the (recent) history of epigraphic notations (before and afterthe Leiden system), defends his own system against critics, and notes subsequentexperiments in inscriptional notation. Tables of comparison make all those minutedetails easy to appreciate. If anything can be perfect, the new slightly altered sys-tem of Panciera is a study in perfection. All the nuances, foibles and tragedies (likeerasures of names upon the damnatio memoriae) of epigraphical production and allthe sagacities of editorial intervention are accounted for, and provided with a par-ticular symbol. Altogether there are forty different notations the description ofwhich consumes almost three full pages. But perfection is for gods, heroes, andscribes of epigraphy; mere mortals are overwhelmed. Our previous supreme deity,Theodor Mommsen, flourished in a much simpler heaven. L’Année Épigraphiquemakes do with only nineteen notations. A line (or two, or three) of description ismore eloquent than the most ingenious bracket. And there are photographs; in thefuture brave world of cyberspace high resolution photographs will accompanyevery textual discussion of an epigraph. We should also not underestimate the tech-nical difficulties of the notations; sublinear dots, raised half-brackets and barsabove letters (all of them important!) are difficult or impossible to achieve with anystandard computer program. But plunge into that varietas notarum we will (if notmust); hence a modest proposal: perhaps the office of the Suppl. Ital. and thePublisher of the series, or perhaps the Association Internationale d’ÉpigraphieGrecque et Latine, will produce a comprehensive {unicode} computer program forepigraphy and make it commercially available? {so far a cry in the wilderness ...}.

In his contribution Panciera also announces two changes in the organization ofthe supplements: 1) two parts of bibliography (Bibliografia epigrafica and Altrabibliografia essenziale) will now be (very sensibly) amalgamated into one alpha-betically arranged list; the specifically epigraphical publications will be markedwith the plus sign (+), and other publications with the minus sign (–). This latternotation may seem redundant, but it sets out the titles very neatly. 2) The Nuovitesti will now be called, much more appropriately, Monumenti epigrafici reediti onuovi (for the sake of brevity I will refer to them as Monumenti nuovi).

Vol. 8, pp. 25–44: BARIUM (Regio IV, Apulia et Calabria) by Marcella Chelotti.Barium (Bari), originally a city of the Peucetii, became in the third century a


480


Roman ally, and ultimately after the Social War was organized as a municipiumascribed to tribus Claudia. The inscriptions were published again by Mommsen,CIL 9 (1883), 26 texts of which 23 (!) are lost. A good city for St. Nicholas (cf. C.W. Jones, Saint Nicholas of Myra, Bari, and Manhattan [Chicago 1978], and V. A.Melchiorre, Bari & San Nicola [Bari 1986]), but not a good city for inscriptions.There is also a Greek text in IG 14. Chelotti gives a description of scarce remnants,and a rudimentary bibliography.

MONUMENTI NUOVI: 10 texts (3 lost, 2 re-edited). AE 1988 [1991],360–68, recorded 8 of these inscriptions from an earlier publication, inaccuratelyquoted as M. Chelotti, V. Morizio et M. Silvestrini, La città in età romana (1988),pp. 439–456 (so also in the list of Ouvrages, p. 323). The actual title of the book inquestion is Archeologia di una città. Bari dalle origini al X secolo (Bari 1988,edited by G. Andreassi and F. Radina), and the title of the section elaborated by thethree scholars mentioned in AE is “La documentazione epigrafica” (within abroader section entitled indeed La città in età romana). We may observe that AE1988, 367, a municipal cursus honorum of C. Baebius, is missing from Suppl. Ital.;the inscription was found between Barium and the neighboring Caelia, and Chelottihas apparently now decided to attribute it to the latter. AE 1990 [1993], 201 (orig-inal publication in 1988) oddly enough is not in Chelotti. See now also AE 1991[1994], 504–7 (from Suppl. Ital.), and M. Chelotti, “Un nuovo ‘cursus’ municipaledi Bari”, Epigrafia e territorio, politica e società 4 (Bari 1996) 157–62, a stonerecording the career of Q. [H]erennius C. f. Clau(dia) Aequos who was aed(ilis),IIIIvir iterum and IIIIvir quinq(uennalis), {now in AE 1996 [1999], 427; furthertexts in 1990 [1993] 201; 2000 [2003], 358}.

No. 2 (CIL I2.2978; AE 1991, 504). Perhaps the most important new find, dulydestroyed by construction workers (they believed that the cippus because of itstubular shape contained a treasure), a miliarium of L. Gellius L. f. / pr(aetor) d(e)s(enatus) s(ententia) / LII (scil. milia passuum). The most detailed study is still thatof the editor princeps L. Moretti, RFIC 100 (1972) 172–80, now reprinted in L.Moretti, Tra epigrafia e storia (Roma 1990) 317–25. The via (Gellia) will have ledfrom Canusium to Barium; it was probably later subsumed by the via Minucia (cf.now G. Camodeca, “M. Aemilius Lepidus, cos. 126 a.C., le assegnazioni graccanee la via Aemilia in Hirpinia”, ZPE 115 [1997] 263–70, esp. 264, 270, n. 48). Thisis the first (and so far the only) attestation of an assignment to build a road givento a praetor de senatus sententia. The person in question may have been (as Morettihesitatingly considers) L. Gellius Poplicola, praetor peregrinus in 94, and consulin 72 (MRR 1.12,116). In any case this inscription and the considerations it evokedought to have been included in MRR 3 (1986) 99. {Duly recorded by T. C. Brennan,The Praetorship in the Roman Republic (Oxford / New York 2000) 453.}

No. 3 (AE 1988, 361). A mention of a patronus and curator kal(endarii)Barinor(um). Along with curatores rei publicae also the supervisors of municipalaccount (or interest) books, curatores kalendarii, become ubiquitous in the secondand third century. They appear to have been appointed by the emperor, and nor-mally belonged to the municipal aristocracy, as was also the case with our man, C.Licinius, who himself was not an equestrian, but whose seventeen year old son was



exornatus equo publico. On curatores kalendarii, see W. Eck, Die staatlicheOrganisation Italiens in der hohem Kaiserzeit (München 1979) 228–30, and oncuratores rei publicae, M. Sartori, “Osservazioni sul ruolo del curator rei publi-cae”, Athenaeum 67 (1989) 5–20.

No. 5 (AE 1991 [1994], 506). Chelotti now reads M. Caesius (?) Cosmus (herearlier reading was Cal[vi]sius; cf. AE 1988, 366).

No. 9. A funerary stone (lines 2–4): Cn. Herrius Se/verus, hort(ator), v(ixit)a(nnis) / XVII. AE 1988, 363, believes it would be preferable to read hort(icola) orhort(illo), “un jardinier ou gardien de jardin”. Certainly not; Chelotti’s hortator, theperson who beats the drum for the rowers (= pausarius), is the right solution: onthe stone there is a representation of a boat. This is the first epigraphical attestationof the term that hitherto was known only from literary sources (we may in passingobserve that the entries in Lewis-Short and OLD are very deficient).

Vol. 8, pp. 47–69: AUFIDENA (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by MarcoBuonocore. {See now a new supplement in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 67–73}. Aufidena(Castel di Sangro), a city of the Samnites Pentri, was captured by the Romans in298. We may safely assume that it became a municipium only after 49: it was gov-erned by duoviri, and this structure of administration was typical for the municipiaorganized after Caesar’s reform. Its tribe was Voltinia. Aufidena produced ratherfew texts in Oscan (Buonocore refers the reader to the collections of Vetter andPoccetti); Latin inscriptions were collected by Mommsen, CIL 9 (1883): 37 texts(including instrumentum domesticum), and 1 inscription in Eph. Ep. 8 (1891); 12are lost. Once again Buonocore gives an excellent assessment of these texts.

MONUMENTI NUOVI: 15 texts; 12 new (2 lost); 3 re-edited from CIL (2lost); 5 recorded in AE (and now 14 in AE 1991 [1994], 539–52).

No. 5 (AE 1933, 152; 1991, 543). A text in many respects both interesting andinstructive: C. Acellius Clemens portic(um) / et saept \a pro ludis Augustalibus /faciend(a) curavit. The ludi Augustales were celebrated in Rome and in the citiesof the Empire at the beginning of October in memory of Augustus. Cf. W. D.Lebek, “Augustalspiele und Landestrauer”, ZPE 75 (1988) 59–71. Buonocore ishere less accurate: the ludi (scaenici) were established only in 14 C.E. after thedeath of Augustus and not already in 19 B.C.E.; in that year was established thefeast of Augustalia (including the circenses) and of Fortuna Redux commemorat-ing the return of Augustus from the East. Buonocore adduces other epigraphicalattestations of various constructions realized pro ludis (or pro impensa ludorum).In our text the porticus and saepta attract attention. For this juxtapositionBuonocore was not able to find any epigraphical parallels; the literary texts headduces concern the porticus and saepta in Rome. These structures were con-nected, at least originally, with the voting arrangements in the popular assemblies,but the enclosures (saepta) served also as a place for gladiatorial shows and otherexhibitions. This will also have been their function in Aufidena.

Vol. 8, pp. 73–88: S. VITTORE DI CINGOLI (Regio V, Picenum) by GianfrancoPaci. {And see now the new supplement in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 153–59}. In this


481


locality existed a Roman settlement; it may have belonged to Cingulum (see above,vol. 6). If it was a municipium in its own right, its Roman name is unknown. Forthe inscriptions from S. Vittore (and the surrounding area) Mommsen decided toreserve in CIL 9 (1883) a separate section, and Paci concurs {That we here dealwith a separate municipium is now firmly established: the inscription CIL 9.5688recording the IIviri comes from S. Vittore and not from Cingolo; see Paci Suppl.Ital. 22 (2004) 156–57}. There are in CIL 14 texts; 10 lost. Christian texts now inG. Binazzi, ICI 10, Picenum (1995) 48–51 (nos. 24–6).

MONUMENTI NUOVI: 14 texts (7 extremely fragmentary); only 1 lost; andonly 1 in AE (but now 4 in AE 1990 [1993], 313–16, and 4 in 1991 [1994],616–19).

No. 1 (AE 1985, 358; 1987, 344). A lex prohibiting contamination of an area,dated to the consulship of M. Lepidus and L. Arruntius (6 C.E.), and posted d(ecreto)d(ecurionum): Qui intra stercus / fuderit multae a(sses) III d(abit). Paci refers to hisdetailed discussion in Miscellanea Greca e Romana 12 (1987) 115–36. He thinks wehere deal with a lex sacra intended to protect a local sanctuary and a healing stream.This need not be so: see the excellent investigation of similar prohibitions by J.Bodel, Graveyards and Groves. A Study of the Lex Lucerina (Cambridge, MA, 1994= AJAH 11 (1986 [1994]), esp. 30–31, 102 (n. 110). He points out that the text doesnot contain “any provision for ritual purification in the event of violations to thearea”, and thus the area in question need not have been a locus sacer.

Vol. 8, pp. 91–109: CAESENA (Regio VIII, Aemilia) by Francesca Cenerini. Sheprovides an erudite introduction; for further detail the reader has to turn to one ofthose marvellous Italian local and scholarly histories, Storia di Cesena, I: L’Evoantico (Rimini 1982). The Roman occupation of the territory of Caesena (Cesena)is to be dated to the mid-third century, but the settlement became a municipiumprobably only in the Sullan era. Bormann suggested (in CIL XI,2,2 [1926], p. 1235)that the tribe of Caesena was Pollia; his argument is, however, faulty, and the tribalassignation of Caesena is still unknown (p. 94).

The inscriptions from Caesena were collected by Bormann in CIL 11 (1888 and1901): 18 texts of which all save three are no more extant. Cenerini’s comments (aswas the case also with respect to most other contributions to Suppl. Ital.) will bethe starting point for any further study of these texts. CIL 11.556 concerns the bal-neum Aurelianum and, referring to an emperor, perhaps Probus, mentions servataindulgentia pecuniae eius quam deus Aurelianus concesserat. On the concept ofindulgentia, cf. M. Corbier, “Indulgentia principis: l’image e le mot”, in M. Mayer(ed.), Religio Deorum (Barcelona 1992) 95–123, esp. 112–13 (indulgentia and thefiscal remittances).

MONUMENTI NUOVI: 9 texts (3 lost; 2 of them lost after being transferredto the Museo di Cesena); 2 re-edited, 2 already in AE, and now 8 texts in AE 1991[1994], 693–701; {2002 [2005] 477}.

Vol. 8, pp. 113–38: CARREUM POTENTIA (Regio IX, Liguria) by GiovanellaCresci Marrone. This strange collocation of place names derives from Pliny the


482

Linderski RQ 30-35 7W25W07 4:43 PM 8

Elder, who as the only ancient author mentions (in the ablative) Carrea (var. lect.Correa, Carreo) quod Potentia cognominatur (NH 3.49). Carrea is the readingMayhoff adopted in his text; Cresci Marrone opts for Carreo, hence the nominativeCarreum. As she points out we deal with a combination of the original Celtic namefrom the root *Karr(o) and the Roman name of good omen Potentia. We do nothave any epigraphical document that would spell out the official name of the city,but the two denominations must have in some way coexisted. It is very character-istic that in two (but cf. below) inscriptions in which the city is mentioned, it is theindigenous name that is employed, and this phenomenon explains well its contin-uation to the present day in the form of the Italian Chieri. In CIL 5.7496 (fromChieri) an augustalis indicates that he performed that office Karrei et Industriae,but it is well to note that the stone was known already to Mommsen only from man-uscript tradition, and the reading Karrei (which Cresci Marrone adduces as estab-lished) is in fact uncertain; it is true that Mommsen himself inclined to this reading,but he also added rightly and cautiously “sed certum quod sit, non habemus”. ButCIL 6.37202 leaves no doubt: here a praetorian describes his city of origin, in abl.,as Carrio. The same man indicates as his tribe Pol(lia), and this will be the tribe ofCarreum-Potentia. Its territory bordered on Augusta Taurinorum, Hasta, and twoother felicitously named cities, Industria and Pollentia. Of its municipal adminis-tration we have no direct account.

This rather insignificant place produced rather a good number of inscriptions,some of them not without interest. There are 13 texts in CIL 5 (1877) assembled byMommsen (7 lost); Cresci Marrone transports to Carreum one (lost) stone fromTaurinum (on the strength of the tribal registration, Pollia; but Pollia was the tribealso of several other neighboring communities), and three others which Mommsenclassified as Pedemontana incerta. For Christian texts from Carreum Potentia, seenow ICI 9 (1995) 1–10 (nos. 1–3).

MONUMENTI NUOVI. Of these texts 4 figure in CIL, and here are re–edited:see esp. no. 1 (5.7493), where in line 1 Cresci Marrone reads [Fon]t \i \, whereasMommsen thought of [For]tu[nae]; no. 6 (7497) where Mommsen proposedse[xvir] / [Taurin]is, Cresci Marrone more likely [Augustal]is. Next there are 9 newtexts (3 lost), none recorded suo tempore in AE (11 texts now in AE 1991 [1994],715–25). Two texts warrant further observations:

No. 1 (CIL 5.7493). A dedication to Fons (cf. above), perhaps to [Dia]na, andto Victoria. The dedicant (lines 7–8) solo suo inter quattuor terminos / v(otum)s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). No. 2 (5.7494, now lost) was apparently another copy ofthe same dedication, affixed, as Cresci Marrone plausibly suggests, at the otherside of the edicola, which was probably placed in the middle of the area. This doc-ument is to be considered together with another more recent and fortunate find,the following inscription on a funerary urn (no. 12): quattuor sepulcrum / terminisclusi meum / in fronte pedibus duo / decem / et in agrum s \e \p \tem / ne lis se[pulcr]ofiat / et cineri meo {cf. AE 1998 [2001], 523}. Cresci Marrone comments:“L’urnetta era presubilmente posta in un’area sepolcrale di dodici piedi per sette,delimitata da quattro cippi, che recavano con ogni verosimilianza il nome deldefunto, oggi perduto”. That the full name of the deceased was incised on each of



the four terminal stones is doubtful; we should rather think of a small sarcopha-gus in the middle of the delimited area containing the urn and bearing an inscribedplate indicating the name of the deceased. The main interest lies, however, in themention, in both texts, of quattuor termini. This calls to mind the Varronian defi-nition adduced by Servius, ad Aen. 2.512: Varro locum quattuor angulis con-clusum aedem docet appellari debere. The broader context of Varro’s enunciationis lacking, and Servius clearly abbreviates. Varro may have talked of precincts; cf.Festus 146 L. who writes that templum est locus ita effatus aut ita s(a)eptus, ut exuna parte pateat, angulosque (corrected by Valeton to angulosque IIII) adfixoshabeat ad terram. But above all the closest parallel is provided by the famousbilingual inscription, Celtic and Latin, found in Vercelli (see the original publica-tion by M. G. Tibiletti Bruno, Rend. Lincei 31 [1976] 375–76, and the excellentdiscussion of the Latin text by P. Baldacci, ibid. 33 [1977] 335–48), where weread: fines campo quem dedit Acisius ... comunem [sic] deis et hominibus ita utilapides IIII statuti sunt. In Vercelli the four stones mark the limits of a sanctuary(a nemeton); in no. 1 the limits of a private locus sacer; and in no. 10 the limits ofa locus religiosus. For the various problems connected with terminatio, cf. G.Piccaluga, Terminus. I segni di confine nella religione romana (Roma 1974), esp.97–140; J. Linderski, “The Augural Law”, ANRW 2.16.2 (1986) 2156–58,2274–79; A. Valvo, “Lapides profaneis intus sacrum. Alcune osservazioni intornoa CIL I2 1486”, Aevum 61 (1987) 113–22. The termini were implanted (statuti, atechnical term) openly and officially, and this act was accompanied by religiousceremonies. They were important exhibits in any legal suit concerning propertyrights (cf. Piccaluga 110–18). And indeed in our funerary inscription the deceasedexpresses a hope that the very presence of terminal stones may avert any future lisfrom his sepulcrum and cineres.

Vol. 8, pp. 141–237: BRIXIA, BENACENSES, VALLES SUPRA BENACUM,SABINI, TRUMPLINI, CAMUNNI (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by AlbinoGarzetti. The inscriptions from Brixia (Brescia) and the neighboring tribal areaswere collected by Mommsen in CIL 5 (1872, 1877), and by Pais in his Suppl. Ital.(1888). The whole corpus has been recently reviewed and republished in a trulygreat edition, with numerous addenda, in the Inscriptiones Italiae, vol. X, regio X,fasc. V, Brixia, partes I, II, III (Roma 1984, 1985, 1986) by A. Garzetti, the authorof the present supplement. This supplement is thus a supplement not to CIL but toInscr. It. It is to this publication that the reader is referred for all information on theinscriptional and institutional history of Brixia and the surrounding areas. Part Icontains inscriptions found in Brixia “et in suburbio ad III lapidem”, part II mostlythe stones from ager Brixianus, part III inscriptions found “in agro adtributo et inCamunnis”, altogether 1281 texts (and 120 falsae, 88 alienae, 4 incertae). To manyof these texts Garzetti provides further corrections and new ample literature (pp.161–187), and (exceptionally; cf. S. Panciera, p. 10) even new photographic illus-tration. If I had to choose a complaint I would complain that amidst various indicesGarzetti did not find place either in Inscr. It. or in Suppl. Ital. to indicate how manynew inscriptions his collections contain in comparison to CIL and Pais; how many


483


inscriptions seen by Mommsen have now disappeared, and how many are knownonly from manuscript tradition.

No. 1. On Aequitas as a goddess of honest measure connected with the mar-ket place, see also A. Wallace-Hadrill, “Galba’s Aequitas”, NC 141 (1981) 20–39,esp. 29.

No. 75. Cf. now a linguistic study of the term aedituus: F. Cavazza, “Il signi-ficato di aeditu(m)us, e dei suoi presunti sinonimi e le relative mansioni”, Latomus54 (1995) 58–61; “Gli aggettivi in -î-tîmus e il rapporto fra aedituus ed aeditumus”,ibid. 784–92.

Nos. 95–100, the famous imperial fasti that once were displayed on theCapitolium of Brixia. Garzetti provides an important re-evaluation of the disposi-tion of these documents, by and large following the reconstruction by G. DiVita–Evrard, “Les ‘fastes imperiaux’ de Brescia”, in Epigrafia 93–117.

No. 160. On the cognomen Tappo, see C. F. Konrad, “Quaestiones Tappulae”,ZPE 48 (1982) 219–34 at 224–27.

No. 276: a decurion of Brixia, Verona, Tridentum, also [Nic]omediae. ThisAsiatic city in the company of the three communities from North Italy is a surpriseand anomaly. We need another city from Padania. Surely we have to postulate[Ep]orediae (correcting the m on the stone to r).

In the six years since the publication of Inscr. It. there have accrued surprisinglynumerous MONUMENTI NUOVI: 44 texts (although many of them small frag-ments or rock incisions); some 20 inedita; none, it might seem, recorded in AE (butactually no. 22 = AE 1986, 251–52, not indicated by Garzetti); now 26 texts are inAE 1991 [1994], 818–30, 834–35, 837–40, 843–45, 847–48, 853–54; this volumeof AE displays also 10 further texts published after the conclusion of Garzetti’s sup-plement, nos. 831–33, 836, 841–42, 846, 850–52. Further texts in AE 1992 [1995],744 (recording a re-edition, with commentary, of no. 8 ), 745–52 (a new examina-tion of a number of rock inscriptions, mostly from Val Camonica); {1995 [1998],603–5; 1997 [2000], 721; 1998 [2001], 594–95; 1999 [2002], 728–40; 2000[2003], 625; 2001 [2004], 1065–71; 2002 [2005], 570}. See also the monograph byG. L. Gregori, Brescia Romana. Ricerche di prosopografia e storia locale. I. I do-cumenti. {II: Analisi dei documenti} (Roma 1990, {1999} [= Vetera 7, {13}]), andhis articles “Tra epigrafia e filologia: un gladiatore di nome Rutumanna”, Arctos 25(1991) 45–50 (from Val Camonica); “L’epigrafia del territorio bresciano”, inEpigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 333–54. {Also S. Mollo, L’Augustalità aBrescia (= MAL IX,8,3 [1997]); “Gli augustali bresciani e le connessioni con l’élitedirigente di Brescia”, in M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les élites municipales del’Italie péninsulaire de la mort de César à la mort de Domitien entre continuité etrupture (Rome 2000) 347–71; La mobilità sociale a Brescia Romana (Milano2000); J. Zaja∫c, Wyzwolenåcy w antycznej Brixii: studium prozopograficzne [withGerman summary: Freigelassene in der antiken Brixia: prosopographischeStudien] (Torunå 2000)}.

No. 3 (AE 1991, 821). A baffling text. A dedication to C. Bellicius Primus, v(ir)e(gregius). Lines 5–6 read: proc(uratori) sacr(ae) annon(ae) / civitat(e) Veronen-


484


sium. As Garzetti points out, new is the epithet sacra with respect to annona; newis also the denomination of Verona as civitas. But particularly perplexing is thepresence of the office of imperial procurator annonae in Verona, a city that doesnot seem to have played any particular role in the food chain of the Empire.

No. 4 (AE 1991, 823). Coll(egium) aen(eatorum), of trumpeters. Other colle-gia aenatorum are known from Rome (CIL 6.10220–21), Casinum and Aquinum(CIL 10.5173; 5415). Cf. Waltzing, Corporations 1.519; 4.4–5.

It is time to conclude, and what better theme offers itself than indices? For withoutdetailed indices all texts but particularly inscriptions are half mute. In the first sixvolumes of Suppl. Ital. 1181 inscriptions were published. They came from 32 dif-ferent areas of Italy. Each contribution was provided with its own ample index, butthat is not enough. Now in the Indici of Manzella and Lega (see above, vol. 7) wehave a useful and usable tool based on an electronic elaboration of the material.First and foremost we have “parole in contesto”, a ‘Key Word In Context’ concor-dance to all vocabula, with an elaborate system of notation employing more thanhalf a century of various sigla, informative and unwieldy.

For instance the line *Honori. / Patrone vivas felicem et venerabilem seculo(with the asterisk denoting the beginning of the inscription) receives the followingnotation:

1 2HIS 003 REa384E5p where “1” signifies the line of the inscription; “2” thevolume of the collection; “HIS” is the abbreviation for Histonium; “003” the num-ber of the inscription; in the second part of the notation the first letter (capital orminuscule) indicates “la classe cui appartiene il supporto scrittorio” (there are 52various categories so distinguished, half with capital and half with minuscule let-ters; “R” = “lastra”); the next letter pertains to “la materia di cui è fatto il supporto”(sixteen categories; “E” = “bronzo”); the following minuscule letter describes “latecnica di scrittura” (fourteen categories; “a” = “a solchi”, i.e., “engraved”); “384”is the date; “E” denotes the month of May; “5” the day; and “p” stands for “postChristum”. The volume also comprises the indexes of numerals, of “supporti”,“materiali”, “tecniche di scrittura”, of dates, and finally extensive concordanceswith other publications.

All in all a splendid instrument for the previous century, but not adequate forthe twenty-first century. We need not only an electronically prepared concordancebut also and above all a concordance electronically searchable. And we should beable to search not only the inscriptions themselves but also all the accompanyinglemmata and commentaries with all the accumulated erudition they contain. Henceit is rather disappointing not to find in the newest Index to Suppl. Ital. (Vol. 14[1997], covering Vols. 8–13) even the slightest mention of the electronic future.Still I would not wish to abandon altogether the paper (“hard-copy”) editions; theyoffer visual and tactile delight, and are a joy to use. I also hope that from time totime there will be published traditional volumes of supplements to supplements:new inscriptional finds accrue and new interpretations to old texts pile up, and it isdifficult to find one’s way through this unkempt forest {See now Suppl. Ital. 22(2004) 61–264: “Supplementorum supplementa”}. But it is especially in that area




that the cyber-realm should lend a helpful pulse. We need electronic editions (ondisks and on Internet) not only for a full freedom of search, but also for the useful-ness and simplicity of keeping the collection alive, current and growing. And thusanimo grato the toast: Ad multos annos chartaceos electronicosque!
