Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions, Part II, Text: Rome and the Neighborhood, A. D. 100-199

By Arthur E. Gordon

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1964.
This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived

• Language: English
• Publisher: University of California Press
• Release date: Dec 22, 2023
• ISBN: 9780520344891

Arthur E. Gordon

Arthur E. Gordon (1902 - 1989) was Professor Emeritus, Classics, University of California, Berkeley. 

Book preview

ALBUM OF DATED LATIN INSCRIPTIONS

II

ALBUM OF

DATED LATIN

INSCRIPTIONS

ROME AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, A.D. 100-199

TEXT

ARTHUR E. GORDON

IN COLLABORATION WITH JOYCE S. GORDON

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS • BERKELEY • LOS ANGELES • MCMLXIV

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES

CALIFORNIA

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON, ENGLAND

©I964, BY

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 57-10497

PUBLISHED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A GRANT

FROM THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

This book is belatedly dedicated to the memory of JOHN C. ROLFE (formerly of the University of Pennsylvania), who while Professor in Charge of the School of Classical Studies of the American Academy in Rome, 1923-24, gave me my first instruction in Latin epigraphy.

PREFACE

We must again record our thanks to all those who have assisted us: in Rome, the authorities of the American Academy in Rome, the Antiquario Comunale on the Caelian, the Palazzo Barberini, the Capitoline Museum, the Palazzo dei Conservatori, the Lateran, the Museo Nazionale Romano, and the Vatican, and in particular Dr. C. Caprino, Dr. Carlo Pietrangeli, and Dr. Hermine Speier; Professor Herbert Bloch (while Professor in Charge, School of Classical Studies, American Academy in Rome), our friend Mr. Ernest Nash, as Director of the Fototeca di Architettura e Topografia dell’Italia Antica, and Sig. G. Mecco of the Musei Comunali; elsewhere in Italy, Dr. G. Annibaldi, Soprintendente alle Antichità delle Marche, Ancona, Professor S. Mazzarino, and our friend Dr. Giancarlo Susini of Bologna; here in Berkeley, our friends and colleagues D. A. Amyx, W. G. Rabinowitz, and (while he was here as Sather Professor of Classical Literature) Sir Ronald Syme; Mr. Victor G. Duran and his assistants for photographing the squeezes, Miss Martha S. Webb for typing most of the final draft, and Mrs. Nancy Pearce Helmbold for some of the typing; the Committee on Research of the Academic Senate of this University, for the funds needed for typing and supplies; and finally the reviewers of Part I, who—so far as I know of them—are listed below, in the Corrections to Part I.

Special thanks are due to the friends who have kindly aided us in securing a grant from the American Council of Learned Societies toward publication of Part II: Professor Attilio Degrassi of Rome, Miss Lucie E. N. Dobbie of Berkeley (who has also edited the manuscript of the entire Album) y Professor Sterling Dow of Cambridge, and Professor James H. Oliver of Baltimore (who has also read, in manuscript, all of Part II, as well as Part I).

My own debt still remains greatest to my wife, who besides typing all the first draft and much of the second (including nearly all the epigraphical texts) has made herself responsible for all the palaeographical statements and opinions expressed (letter heights to arrangement, etc.), read the whole manuscript, and corrected or clarified many of my own statements.

A.E.G.

Berkeley, Christmas, ig6i and June, ig6j

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CORRECTIONS TO PART I

LIST OF INSCRIPTIONS

EXPLANATION OF SIGNS USED IN TRANSCRIPTIONS OF TEXTS

DESCRIPTIONS

LIST OF PLATES

INDEX OF INSCRIPTIONS

SELECTED INDEX

INTRODUCTION

The second part of the Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions from Rome and the Neighborhood carries the work from A.D. 100 to 199, more intensively than Part I. That presented 159 texts for about 181 years, whereas this Part presents for a hundred years 102 texts chosen from 179 for which we have squeezes. Part III (which also is finished and has been accepted for publication) will complete the work; it will present 105 texts for the period A.D. 200-525. It was first planned to publish Parts II and III together as Part II, but in order to ease the financing and to avoid overstuffing the portfolio of plates it was decided to break the work at the end of the second century.

We intend as soon as possible to go back and do a study of the development of Republican inscriptions (for which we have most of the material needed and which, like our Contributions, will be mostly my wife’s work), but in view of the fact that our esteemed Italian colleague Attilio Degrassi has ready for publication an album of photographs of Republican inscriptions (including laws), originally commissioned by the Berlin Academy of Sciences, our own work in that period will take the form of further contributions to epigraphical palaeography rather than of another album.

In order not to make Part II too large or postpone its publication longer, we include in it only the same indexes as in Part I—an index of inscriptions and a selected index—, reserving for separate publication additional indexes for the whole Album-. words, numerals, symbols, names of persons (three lists), names of horses, abbreviations, and words abbreviated. These are all finished and have been accepted for publication, in the same format as the Album.

In planning the form of Parts II and III we have taken into account not only our own experience in using Part I but also the criticisms of its reviewers. Its chief fault seems to be the failure to make clear the relation between the inscriptional texts and the accompanying annotation, a weakness that I was not aware of until it was too late to correct it. A minor fault was the use of italic capitals for all letters in the texts that were damaged but still identifiable without a context: these we have eliminated as both ugly and unnecessary, keeping only the underdot for letters too badly damaged for certain identification. What to do with the plates has been hard to decide—chiefly, whether to leave them loose, as in Part I, or to bind them together. We have decided to keep them loose (though we realize that in time they tend to get out of order or even lost), but to have the envelope containing them open from the left rather than from the top. The fault of prolixity noted by some reviewers— the presentation of too many details—I am afraid is still present, and our treatment of such matters as lettering and arrangement is even larger, but it is a calculated risk for which I alone am responsible: call it excess of zeal. But I hope that this will be compensated for by the improved arrangement of the Descriptions: a double system of numbering the inscriptions, and a discontinuance of the two columns.

As in Part I, for a variety of reasons it has not been possible to reproduce the exact arrangement of the texts. Just before each text we have noted the type of arrangement (e.g. centering, paragraphing) that seems to have been used (for a discussion of the matter, mostly for the period Augustus- Nerva but with some views forward to the end of the second century, see pages 149-156 of our Contributions), Normally no extra space is left within a line unless it seems to be significant for some reason. In centered inscriptions we have used a straight left margin and simply noted the centering. For paragraphed inscriptions or those whose arrangement resembles paragraphing we have tried to set up a standard indentation of one or two ems, but occasionally we have found complications and had to use a more varied indentation (not wholly according to the original, but standardized). Where centering is found combined with paragraphing or a straight left margin, we have usually brought the centered lines to the left edge, but occasionally, as in the long Arvais, we have centered the appropriate lines. In the inscriptions containing lists, we have indicated the original arrangement so far as feasible. Where the left edge of an inscription is broken, we have not tried to reproduce the shape of the break but have normally used three hyphens in square brackets (similarly at the right) and have printed the texts with a straight left margin. Obviously, reference to the plates is necessary to establish a true impression of the spatial relationships.

Of these 102 texts all but 25 are certainly or probably from Rome itself or the immediate environs, eleven are from Ostia or Portus, ten more from elsewhere in Latium (Bovillae, Capocotta, Fidenae, Gabii, Lanuvium, Praeneste, Tibur), one each from near Cures Sabini and Tarracina, and two (nos. 179, 251) of unknown provenience: all are now in one of the museums or collections of Rome. A somewhat wider territory is thus represented than in Part I, but fewer kinds of stone—all marble now except three travertines and one tufa (see the List of Inscriptions, with the note following).

Epigraphical and palaeographical conclusions that may be drawn from Part II, especially with regard to dating, we reserve for a special study that we hope may appear in the Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Studies. But it may be well to set down, as in Part I, a list of the texts that seem to be of major interest or importance for one reason or another.

First of all, the single inscription that, so far as I know, is here published for the first time: no. 179, which gives us the name of a man who appears as a praetor not previously known, in the year 121. Secondly, the eight additional Arvai texts (nos. 161, 169, 177, 208, 218, 226, 237, 242), which now total 33 in the Album and offer many problems to the solution of which we hope to have contributed; note in particular nos. 218 and 237, and the question raised by M. Jean Mar cille t-Jaubert of whether these Arvai texts are all later copies (see Corrections to Part I, on no. 151). The other inscriptions that should perhaps be mentioned are:

no. 171 (the identity of Pollio, trib. pleb.)

no. 172 (four phases of writing straightened out)

nos. 183, 194 (metrical)

no. 196 (the Cultores Dianae et Antinoi of Lanuvium, A.D. 136—bibliography, etc.)

no. 233 (chronology of the career of M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex)

no. 236 (likewise of T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius Pollio, cos. II ord. in 176)

no. 240 (a new sign for 6.4%?)

no. 245 (the name of L. Iulius Vehilius [?] Gamus [?] lulianus, praetorian prefect under Commodus) no. 253 (a nice problem of several hands at work)

no. 255 (two pieces referring to the building of a dwelling for the caretaker of the column of Marcus Aurelius in Rome—many interesting points)

no. 260 (a correct reading and interpretation for the first time, we believe, of the lateral inscription, concerning two pantomimes).

For those interested in matters of language—new words or meanings, mixed syntax, wrong constructions, and the like—there are too many inscriptions to list here: tallite y legite.

CORRECTIONS TO PART I

The following reviews of Part I have come to our attention, some of them concerned also with our Contributions: Gilbert Bagnani, The Phoenix, 13 (1959) 13-22; Frank E. Brown, The Classical Worlds 51 (1958) 242; Mortimer Chambers, CP 54 (1959) 190-193; Attilio Degrassi, Riv. di fil., n.s. 37 (1959) 206-213; Alvaro d’Ors, AJA 63 (1959) 313 f.; Jean Mallon, Revue des Études Anciennes, 62 (1960) 529-531; Jean Marcillet-Jaubert, Gnomon, 31 (1959) 137-141; Marichal, REL 36 (1958) 292-296; Russell Meiggs, The Oxford Magazine, February 5, 1959 (page numbers uncertain), and JRS (1960) 265; A. Merlin, Journal des Savants, April-June 1958, pp. 94 f.; Revilo P. Oliver, AJP 81 (1960) 189-197; Marcel Renard, Latomus, 18 (1959) 814 f.; and J. M. Reynolds, CR n.s. 10 (1960) 64-66 (cf. also JRS 50 [1960] 205, init.). (In the following notes on specific inscriptions, Bag- nani, Chambers, Degrassi, M.-J., Meiggs, and Oliver refer to these reviews, M.-J. being for Marcillet-Jaubert and Meiggs referring to his JRS review.)

No. i is translated in Ancient Roman Statutes, A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary y and Index, by A. C. Johnson, P. R. Coleman-Norton, F. C. Bourne (Univ, of Texas Press, Austin, 1961 [The Corpus of Roman Law (Corpus Juris Romani), General Editor Clyde Pharr, vol. 2]), p. 68, no. 70. Loca terminanda coeravit is translated has provided that places must be marked by boundaries (I should prefer has attended to the placing of boundary stones), Bonum factum Good Deed or Well Done (I should prefer May it prove good!), and intra términos propius urbem within the boundaries nearer the city (I should prefer within the boundaries, (i.e.) nearer the city, the latter phrase serving to clarify the former, not modifying términos adjectivally as it sounds if read without interruption).

No. 3 (pp. 16 f.): I agree with Chambers that the three stones would better be labeled A, B, C, and that in inv. no. 848, line F should be read instead of E for f(ilius)y as in line 1.

No. 7 (p. 19), August, line 1, and September, lines 4 and 7: Degrassi (p. 209) convinces me that Mommsen and Henzen were right in holding that the mark denoting the legal character of the three days (Aug. 1, Sept. 2 and 3) was changed from F to the NP ligature in cutting the present calendar, as against the conjecture that F was changed to NFP (cf. our p. 20, col. 1, fin.-coX. 2, init.). Degrassi argues also against the possibility (mentioned by me with some approval, p. 20, col. 2, on line 2) that in line 2 of the calendar for August there is to be restored, to the left of Speiy a reference to the birthday of Claudius; instead of this he favors a text like that of the Fasti Antiates (Speiy Fictor(iis) II) or of the F. Praenestini (Victoriae, Victoriae Virgini in Palatio, Spei in Foro Holitorio). (For the F. Ant. cf. NS 1921, p. 104 and tav. i [= AE 1922, no. 88, p. 23, fin.], for the F. Praen. cf. NS 1897, p. 421 [= EE 9.740 = AE 1898, no. 14].) In line the right square-bracket after piriculo should be deleted. In September, line 6, Chambers points out that, in view of Ennius, Ann. 375 V.³, vicit Olympia, the addition of apud is not absolutely necessary, and he refers to Kühner-Stegmann, Grammatik i.TJJ. The parallel seems to me not close enough to carry conviction.

No. 10, line 25 (p. 25): M.N. should have been marked as erased.

No. II (p. 27, col. 1). On the date cf. Degrassi (208 f.), who is sceptical of Babcock’s argument (as stated by me) in favor of a date possibly later than 11 B.C. Degrassi’s way of stating part of this argument—Drusus’ ovation of 11 B.C. excluded from the triumphal list just because he was Augustus’ stepson—I find unanswerable and would therefore go back to Degrassi’s 19-18 (or 19-17) dating.

No. 21 (p. 37), line 2: the R should be underdotted; line 3, D, O, S, V, O should have been italicized as damaged. (Chambers)

No. 24, line 10 (p. 38): the A in Antistio has no bar. (Chambers) In Contributions, p. 97, we list nos. 24 and 29 among the inscriptions containing one or more examples of crossbar omitted, but fail to list those in no. 68, one of which we note in the Album (though our usual practice there is not to note them—such details we give more fully in Part II), and in nos. 103 (?) and 157. Chambers has not noted the omission of the A bar in (e.g.) nos. 32, 37, 57, 58.

No. 25 (p. 39), line 1: Degrassi (p. 207) suggests magister) q(uinquennalis) or even Mag(iae) 2(uartae) or a similar woman’s name. Of these three I like the first best, better than my own tentative suggestion.

No. 28, p. 40, col. 2, end of first paragraph: correct historic to historical. No. 28 line 3: M.-J. notes our failure to note and print the superfluous point after the M of margaritaque. which he seems right in thinking a case of dittography following the preceding M plus point. In the photo of the squeeze (pl. 17, a) the unwanted point is much clearer than in the squeeze itself, where it is obscured by damage, which hardly appears in the photo. No. 28 by line 7: Oliver notes (p. 191) that the V of casus has an apex over it.

No. 29, line 2 (p. 42): the A in flam(eri) has no bar. (Chambers)

No. 33, a (p. 47), line 4: M.-J. and Oliver note that the O of Florus has an apex over it. Oliver also very plausibly conjectures (p. 197, fn. 14) the reason for the omission of Florus’ name from, and the addition of the names of the two Savonii to, the text of side b\ Florus had failed to pay his share of the cost of the altar, hence the peculiar position of L. et N. Savoni and the space left after the next line (not indicated in our text).

No. 35 (p. 49, col. 2). Chambers and Oliver point out that Husum does not mean Groothusen, but a town in Schleswig-Holstein.

No. 36, b (p. 52) line 1: the D should be underdotted (Chambers). In line 3 probably no more is lost than the final s of Augustus (so CIL). In line 12, afterponebatur, read [— ante or prius?], to complete the following quam. In line 15 Degrassi (p. 208) does not believe Ti. Caesa[r —] can be "in mistaken anticipation for the Ti. Caesarem of line 20" (our p. 53, col. 1, init.). Inline 27 Degrassi is certain of the reading queried) instead of my quemad)*. looking again at the way the cutting curves at the break, I agree.

No. 39 (p. 55), line 7, annos. On the ablative as being much commoner in the inscriptions than the accusative in such expressions of duration of time, Chambers refers to Konjetzny, 331, and Löfstedt, 2.447. In StatiliOy line 10, Oliver notes that the A is not short, as implied above, in the note on the apices, but long, and he refers to Schulze’s Zur Gesch. lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin, 1904 [see below, on Part II, no. 235]) 444,166 (fn. 4), 236, and J. Reichmuth, Die lateinischen Gentilicia … (Schwyz, 1956) ui, 117.

No. 42 (p. 56), commentary. For line 3 read line 1. In line 3 the nominative of Phoebenis is only Phoebe, not Phoebena (which would surely not give a genitive in -is): for such names Chambers refers to Neue-Wagener, Formenlehre, 1.102, 4.271, L. R. Palmer, The Latin Language, 161, second paragraph (Psyche, Psychenis)y and Dessau, ILS 3: 2, p. 853. (Oliver, however, claims the nominative to be Phoebis (i.e. @oßís, -ßíôos), of which PHOEBENIS is the regular genitive singular according to the bizarre special declension of such names that we find very frequently in inscriptions, although not, so far as I know, in literature. His footnote 5 promises a study of the anomalous declensions, but gives no evidence.) In the same line l(ibertd) should of course be l(ibertae), to agree with Titiae Phoebenis.

No. 52 (pp. 60 f.). Chambers notes that several of the R’s (esp. in the last two lines) are like A’s without bar (cf. Contributions p. 75 with fig. 2, and p. 114, next to last paragraph, where we say the same), and on the use of the names of the consuls ordinary beyond the time when one of them had undoubtedly been replaced by a suffect he notes no. 40 as a parallel and refers to my citation of Degrassi on p. 122, col. iyfin.

No. 55, p. 63, col. i, end of first paragraph: add Groag, RE 17:1 (1936) 869,47 ff., s.v. Nonius no. 16.

No. 58, line 20 (p. 65, fin.)*, the restoration Kal. should probably be shortened to K., since our work in the later period shows K. as the only abbreviation until the late second century, our first example of Kal. not appearing until A.D. 181 (no. 238), after which it is the usual form.

No. 60, p. 67. In lines 3 and 16 of the Latin, quadr. should presumably have been completed as quadr(igis), plural.

No. 63 (p. 70), line 5. Chambers very plausibly suggests fla[men\ which had occurred to us also.

No. 64 (p. 71), lines 5, 9, and 15: Meiggs points out that col(umnd) should be col(umbaria), which, however, I would think should rather be colombario) \ in wall no. 4, hole no. 2, the numerals being ordinals. For this meaning of columbarium (which is not given in Lewis and Short, whose definition, B. 4, "A subterranean sepulchre in the walls of which were niches for urns of ashes f is of doubtful correctness) cf. TLL 3.1734, 5 f.: caverna in pariete aedis, in quo ollae cinerum reponuntur, ollarium, with ref. to CIL 6.23400 [= Dessau 7933a], in hoc pariete quae sunt columbaria totius parietis sive oilaria … comparavi. In line 6 read L(ucio). (Oliver) Chambers claims that the fact that Blaesus and Vetus became consuls suffect by Aug. 1 proves nothing here; but, taken together with the fact, admitted by him, that the consuls’ names and the indication of month and day precede the listing of each burial, it does prove what is stated, pp. 72 f.

No. 66 (pp. 73 f.). Degrassi (p. 210) argues against taking the omission of Caligula’s birthday as indicating the year 31 as a terminus ante quem\ this he would move ahead to 37, on the grounds that there is no evidence that the birthday was celebrated before 37 (when the celebration is attested by Dio) or that it had to be listed in every calendar.

No. 68 (p. 75). Chambers notes that besides the one in qua, line 6, there are three A’s without bar in line 8. (See above, on no. 24.)

No. 69 (p. 76), col. 2, line 9: the A of ad- should be underdotted; line 14, the first A of Arva[lium) has no bar. (Chambers) Cf. Contributions, 97, fourth paragraph, where we would now delete possibly in line 4.

No. 70 (p. 78), line 3. In prospere the first E should perhaps not be bracketed, but underdotted. (Chambers)

No. 71 (p. 79), line 7. Chambers notes that the Greek name would normally be Epaphras, and he gives references.

No. 72, p. 79, col. 2, on the character of the inscription: the nominative case of Mimisius’ name makes epitaph more likely than dedication. Chambers claims that Mimisius, though probably praef. frum. dandi under Tiberius, could have lived well beyond 37. I wrote probably Tiberian because of the absence, in what seems to be an epitaph, of any later post, but of course there may have been some other reason for this, such as ill health. The lack of divus in Tiberius’ name is no indication (see p. 79, col. on the date of no. 71).

No. 76 (p. 82), line 4: M.-J. misses a commentary, either philological or epigraphical, on the form contabernali.

No. 77 (p. 82), line 2: the second A has no bar. (Chambers) Cf. Contributions, 97.

No. 78, p. 83, col. 2, top: on Julia cf. Fitzler, RE 10: 1 (1917) 908 f., s.v. Iulius no. 552.

No. 79 (p. 83,fin.), line i. Chambers notes that all the letters should have been italicized as damaged. True, but only the A is damaged to any extent (this is seen best in the photo of the stone itself published as plate 8 in my Veranius). At the end of line 2 Oliver argues that we should restore f(iliae) as lost, as CIL and Dessau do (see p. 84, col. 1). His argument is based on (1) a comparison with our nos. 38, 41, 80, and 84, which are also epitaphs from the Mausoleum of Augustus, all have a centered arrangement, and also have a second line ending in F, and (2) the irksome character of a description of Agrippina as M. Agrippae Divi Augusti neptis. We agree with what he says about nos. 38, 41, 80, and 84 (though in no. 84 the F must be restored), to which might be added the epitaphs (on marble) of Marcellus and Octavia (CRAI 1927, 313 = AE 1928, 88; photo, Lugli, Monumenti, 3.207, fig. 45); nor do we dispute his second point (though the break after Agrippae provided by the end of the line may mitigate the irksomeness). But neither point is pertinent to the difficulty of the lack of space at the end of line 2. One must assume one of three things: (1) that F was never cut, whether by intention or by error, or (2) that E-F were in ligature or badly crowded (the first seems impossible, while the position and breadth of what remains of the E argue against the second, even though the line is more compressed at the end than at the beginning, or (3) that the stone was originally wider at the right and thus allowed ample room for a good EFat the end. I have argued previously (Veranius, 267 f., with plate 8) that (1) is possible, but we do not exclude (3) although no testimony supports such a supposition. If (3) should be correct, we would of course describe the arrangement as centering: the right margin at lines 3-6 is almost as straight as the left and would make no difficulty. But if the stone has not been cut down at the right, our description—line I centered, the rest in paragraph form—still stands, and the fact that in this respect the stone is different from the other five monuments from the Mausoleum is no more significant than the fact that it is of different material from four of them (marble vs. travertine) and carries a different style of epitaph. Nos. 38 and 41 seem probably by the same hand (i.e. the same hand did both), and they may all be from the same shop, but my wife thinks nos. 79, 80, and 84 each by a separate hand, the difference of material of no. 79, however, making the comparison difficult and certainty perhaps impossible. On nos. 38 and 41 cf. Contributionsy 145, last paragraph.

No. 82 (p. 85), line 2: the first I of lufpiter should be printed tall; line 4, the first A of Arvalium should perhaps be underdotted rather than bracketed (the bottom tips are perhaps visible); line 8, there is no point between bove and aurata. (Chambers)

No. 83, p. 86, col. 2, under Tall letters, correct not to note (Chambers); p. 87, col. 2, line 4, correct 13 to 11.

No. 85 (p. 88), line 3: the M should have been italicized as damaged. (Chambers)

No. 86 (p. 88), line 3: Q. Pomponio Secundo, as writing erased but conjecturally restored, should have been printed in lower case (with initial capitals) within a broken box, as indicated on p. 14. (Oliver)

No. 90 (p. 90), line i, the first M of maxim(p) and, line 2, the R of maiori should have been italicized as damaged. (Chambers)

No. 91 (p. 92), line 4,yfin.: the last two letters, as well as the H, should have been italicized as damaged. (Chambers)

No. 92 (pp. 92 f.). Degrassi (p. 213) notes that from the same shop as this, and very probably from the same hand, must be the inscription on the sepulchral altar published by P. E. Arias in 1942 (BC 70.112 f., with tav. ii). We had already noted this in our Contributions and showed photos of the two stones (p. 145, med.y and plate 16, a-b\ but failed to note it in the Alburn, Part I. For line 8 see now Bengt E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis DiocletianuSy vol. 2 (Lund, 1960) 241 f., who leaves the restoration of the name of the province still very uncertain; he had not seen our slight testimony.

No. 94 (p. 94), line 3: eorum should have been printed like the preceding erasure, as conjecturally restored. (M.-J.)

No. 96 (p. 95, col. 2, fin.): delete the asterisk before 96, there being no addendum on pp. 9 f. (Chambers)

No. 98 (p. 97), line 6: the E of curatores should be underdotted, not bracketed, the upper-left corner being visible. (Chambers)

No. 99 (p. 98), line 2: Bagnani (pp. 18 f.) argues against my conclusion that Germ, represents Germanici rather than Germanicianus, and after restudying the matter I now incline to agree with him (and Orelli, Mommsen, Henzen, and J. H. Oliver) that Germanicianus was intended and to conclude that poor planning of the inscription resulted in space for no more than Germ. Ti. Caesar would then be Tiberius, not Claudius, and the date sometime after Germanicus’ death in 19, probably soon after. (Mommsen, as quoted in CIL 6: 2, p. 899,fin., dated all the inscrs. from this columbarium as probably early in Tiberius’ reign.)

No. 102 (p. 100). The A often has no bar. (Chambers) Cf. Contributions, 97: the A’s here almost entirely without bar. In line gyfin.y Chambers suggests reading rellq., though he notes that in this inscr. I often looks like L; if rellq. made sense, I should accept it. In lines 13, 20, and 27 astu = ast tu.

No. 103 (p. 101), col. 2, line 7spatriai. Chambers finds no bar in the second A. We think the omission likely but uncertain, as also in Claudio, col. 3, line 2. In col. 2, line 3, Caisa[ris\ should be Caisa[ri], and in line 5 there should be a bar over vii.

No. 108 (pp. 104 f.). Degrassi (pp. 212 fin.—213 init.) points out that the abbreviation D. M. for dis manibus (line 1) is perhaps the earliest dated example (CIL 6.7303 [not 2703] = Dessau 7863: the date A.D. 58). This will appear more fully in the index of abbreviations.

No. no (p. 107), line iQ,fin.x read Aprillb. for -lib. (Chambers)

No. 112 (p. 109), line 9. Oliver rightly notes that the (incorrect) apex over the second V of Iulius is different in shape from the correct one (over the first V) and from the four other clear apices here, is presumably therefore either accidental or by a later hand. I think accidental and now conjecture that the (incorrect) one over the short A of Iulia (line 8) was mistakenly put there by one who intended it over the final long A of Dalmatiay just above.

No. 116 (p. 112), col. 1, line 11: CIL begins the line with [Titiano], for which—if we judge by the space occupied by Titianus in line 16—there is by no means space enough without going farther left than the beginning of line 14. The Arvai names are not always in the same form even within the same text, this man himself appearing five times as Otho Titianus after many mentions as L. Salvius Otho Titianus (CIL 6.2051, tab. i, lines 62, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, cf. lines 16, 19, 39, 41, 45, 46, 53, 57, 59, 64).

No. 118 (p. 114), line 5 should be in a broken, not a solid, box. (Noted also by Oliver)

No. 120 (p. 117), line the I of Claudi should not be printed tall. (Chambers)

No. 124 (pp. 118 f.). Degrassi (p. 210) is against a date later than Nero, on the grounds that, if the inscription postdated Nero’s death, the unknown official would be called quaestor candidatus Cae saris Augusti or quaestor Augusti or q. Caesaris, without specific mention of Nero. I believe this to be correct.

No. 126 (p. 120). Oliver (p. 191) may be right in noting that no erasures should be indicated, it being clear from the photograph that the stone was defaced either accidentally or by senseless vandalism. Perhaps such losses should be indicated by a special mark.

No. 128 (p. 122). To my quotation from Degrassi on the date he now adds in his review (p. 210) a reference to Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, 23 (1887) 91. He notes also that proof of Vespasian and Titus’ being consuls together in 70 after March 7 and probably until June 30 lies not in our no. 128, but in a tablet from Herculaneum (La Parola del Passato, 33 [1953] 459, no. xliii [= AE 1955, 198]). „

No. 130 (p. 124) Degrassi says (p. 207) was excluded from CIL because considered Christian, and he notes its undoubted authenticity, even if its Christian origin is not sure.

No. 135 (p. 128), line f,fin. Chambers seems right in thinking that no et should be restored; there is space, but et would upset the centering of the line.

No. 140 (p. 131), line 7, init.x the A should be underdotted, not bracketed: a small part is visible. (Chambers)

No. 151, col. i, lines 8, 11, 15, 19 (p. 142): note that astu = ast tu, and in col. 2, line 11 (p. 143), correct Lucius’) to L(ucio\ ablative. In col. 2, line 28, M.-J. misses a commentary on the form vetustu[te\ which he thinks not caused by a dittography of tuy but by a real error, u for a, which seems to him difficult to have been committed at the time of editing the text, A.D. 91-92, and therefore to point to the conclusion that all these 25 Arvai pieces are later copies of the original archives. He compares CIL 8.12535 [= 12.696, cf. p. 726 = Dessau 28], a boundary cippus from Carthage, which he dates from internal evidence in 120 B.C. [cf. T.R.S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951-52, Supplement 1960) 1.522 f., under 121] but which, according to Schulten (as quoted by M.-J.), is a 3rd-cent. (A.D.) copy. We do not find the argument convincing: it puts too much weight on a single wrong letter, the identity of which is uncertain (it appears just at the edge of the fragment and is certainly not a clear V; a re-examination of the squeeze suggests that one letter may have been cut over another, perhaps A over V, with the left side of V still dominant), and