{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39894/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39894","id":"gutenberg_39894","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39894","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Language & Communication","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Epitaphs -- Rome","Inscriptions, Latin"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was\nproduced from scanned images of public domain material\nfrom the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nROMAN SEPULCRAL INSCRIPTIONS.\n\n\n  LONDON: PRINTED BY WOODFALL AND KINDER,\n  ANGEL COURT, SKINNER STREET.\n\n\n\n\n  ROMAN SEPULCRAL INSCRIPTIONS:\n\n  THEIR RELATION TO\n  ARCH\u00c6OLOGY, LANGUAGE, AND RELIGION.\n\n  +============================+\n  | DM SIMPLICIAE FLORENTINE   |\n  |   ANIME INNOCENTISSIME     |\n  |  QVE VIXIT MENSES DECEM    |\n  |FELICIVS SIMPLEX PATER FECIT|\n  |        LEC VI V            |\n  +============================+\n  FROM A SARCOPHAGUS IN THE YORK MUSEUM.\n\n\n  BY JOHN KENRICK, M.A., F.S.A.\n\n\n  LONDON.\n  JOHN RUSSELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUARE.\n  YORK:\n  R. SUNTER, STONEGATE; H. SOTHERAN, CONEY STREET.\n  M.DCCC.LVIII.\n\n\n\n\nThis little work originated in two papers, read before the Yorkshire\nPhilosophical Society. They were designed to direct the attention of the\nmembers to the monuments preserved in their own Museum, and at the same\ntime to show how the labours of the antiquary connect themselves with the\nhistory of manners, institutions, and opinions. The subject, I believe,\nhas not been specially treated of in this country before, and as the\nremains of antiquity are now studied with more enlarged views than in a\nformer age, it may have an interest for a wider circle than that to which\nthe original papers were addressed.\n\nJ. K.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n  IMPORTANCE OF SEPULCRAL MONUMENTS AS MATERIALS OF HISTORY            1\n\n  GREEK SEPULCRAL INSCRIPTIONS                                         2\n\n  ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS IN BRITAIN, GAUL, SPAIN, AND AFRICA               3\n\n  ROMAN SEPULCRES EXTRAMURAL                                           5\n\n  THE USTRINUM                                                         7\n\n  ADDRESSES TO TRAVELLERS                                              8\n\n  WARNINGS TO VIOLATORS                                                9\n\n  RIGHT OF INTERMENT                                                  11\n\n  PROTESTS AGAINST ALIENATION BY HEIRS                                12\n\n  APPENDAGES TO SEPULCRES                                             14\n\n  COMMEMORATIVE RITES                                                 15\n\n  MENTION OF CAUSES OF DEATH                                          18\n\n  COMPLAINTS OF THE INEFFICACY OF MEDICINE                            19\n\n  OLD FORMS OF LANGUAGE                                               20\n\n  APPROXIMATION OF LATIN TO ITALIAN                                   23\n\n  RECORD OF TRADES AND PROFESSIONS                                    24\n\n  THEATRICAL PERFORMERS                                               26\n\n  IMPLEMENTS REPRESENTED ON TOMBS                                     28\n\n  AVERAGE LENGTH OF LIFE                                              30\n\n  SIMPLICITY OF ROMAN LAPIDARY STYLE                                  32\n\n  TOPICS OF PRAISE                                                    35\n\n  PARENTAL REGRETS                                                    36\n\n  FILIAL AFFECTION                                                    38\n\n  CONJUGAL AFFECTION                                                  40\n\n  LAW OF DIVORCE                                                      45\n\n  INSCRIPTIONS ON FAVOURITE ANIMALS                                   47\n\n  RELIGIOUS FAITH AND SENTIMENT                                       48\n\n  TOPICS OF CONSOLATION                                               50\n\n  MORAL REFLEXIONS                                                    51\n\n  BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY                                               52\n\n  EPICUREAN SENTIMENTS                                                54\n\n  DOUBTFUL HOPES                                                      55\n\n  SUPERSTITION AND SCEPTICISM                                         56\n\n  THE OLD RELIGIONS OBSOLETE                                          57\n\n  WORSHIP OF STRANGE GODS                                             58\n\n  CONTRAST OF PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS                           59\n\n  WORKS ON INSCRIPTIONS                                               60\n\n  FORGERIES                                                           61\n\n  ROMAN BURIAL CLUBS                                                  65\n\n\n\n\nROMAN SEPULCRAL INSCRIPTIONS.\n\n\nThe memorials of the dead hold a remarkable place among the materials of\nhistory. The very existence of nations is in many cases attested only by\ntheir sepulcral monuments, which serve to trace the course of their\nmigrations, and yield us a scanty knowledge of their usages, and of the\nstate of civilization among them. Where the art of writing has been\nunknown, this knowledge must, indeed, be vague and inferential; we may\ngather the race from the form of the skull, the rank or occupation from\nthe contents of the grave; but we learn nothing of the individual\ncharacter or social relations of its tenant; he is only one of the\ncountless multitude who\n\n  illacrimabiles\n  Urguentur ignotique longa\n  Nocte.\n\nEven among nations who have possessed the art of writing, and used it\nprofusely for sepulcral purposes, we may be disappointed in the hope of\ngaining any idea of individual character from inscriptions on the dead.\nFrom the hieroglyphics with which the Egyptian mummies and funeral tablets\nare covered we seldom learn more than the state and function of the\ndeceased. The Greek inscriptions are more communicative, but their [Greek:\nepigrammata epitymbia], of which so large a number are preserved in the\nAnthology, are rather poetical exercises than the expression of genuine,\npersonal sentiment; and those which have come down to us in brass or\nmarble are brief and meagre.\n\nRoman sepulcral monuments of the republican times are rare; but those of\nthe family of Scipio,[1] the earliest with which we are acquainted,\nexhibit a character entirely different from the Greek. They at once\ndisplay the genius of the people, and give a picture of strong\nindividuality. The following Saturnian verses are inscribed on the tomb of\nPublius Scipio, the son of the great Africanus.\n\n  Quei apicem, insigne Dialis Flaminis, gesistei\n  Mors perfecit tua ut tibi essent omnia brevia,\n  Honos, fama virtusque, gloria atque ingenium.\n  Quibus sei in longa licuisset tibi utier vita\n  Facile facteis superasses gloriam majorum.\n  Quare lubens te in gremium, Scipio, recipit\n  Terra, Publi, prognatum Publio, Corneli.\n\nIn the imperial times sepulcral inscriptions became very numerous,\nespecially as cremation fell into disuse, and the sarcophagus took the\nplace of the urn, which rarely exhibits any designation of the person\nwhose ashes it contains. They have furnished the philologer, the\narch\u00e6ologist, and the historian, with a multitude of materials for their\nrespective branches of study. The site of Eburacum has supplied a\nconsiderable number of them, some of which have perished or been\nremoved,[2] while others are contained in the Museum of the Yorkshire\nPhilosophical Society. With the exception of one, they are formal and\njejune; yet the fact that the Society possesses so many may lead its\nmembers to take an interest in an attempt to illustrate the whole subject\nfrom the more ample treasures of other collections.\n\nWhat has been said of the general brevity and dryness of our own\ninscriptions is true of those found in England generally. There are very\nfew in the collections of Horsley and his successors, which are\ndistinguished either by their execution or their style. For the most part\nthey are a simple record of the age and status of the deceased, a large\nproportion being the tombs of military men. The number and character of\nsepulcral monuments are an index of the population and wealth of a\ndistrict or country; their language, of the prevalence of the Roman\ndominion. Rome, of course, has furnished the largest number. The north of\nItaly, when it ceased to be Gallic, became entirely Roman; and its chief\ncities, Verona, Milan, Brescia, Padua, have proved more productive of\nLatin inscriptions than the south, where the Greek language was\nextensively used. The southern parts of Gaul early became a Roman\nprovince; and its cities are full of Roman antiquities, among which\ninscriptions bear a conspicuous part. Several classics of the Silver\nage--Seneca, Martial, Quinctilian, Silius Italicus--were born in the\nsouthern cities of Spain, and the Spanish inscriptions, though less\nimportant than might have been expected from this circumstance, bear\ntestimony to the wide diffusion of the Latin language in that country.\nNorthern Africa was occupied by the Romans, with a temporary interruption\nduring the conquest of the Vandals, for eight centuries. Though the\ncountry people retained the old Punic language,[3] the Latin must have\nbeen in general use in the cities, for African bishops and writers were\nthe founders of Latin eloquence in the Christian Church. Since the French\npossession of Algeria the ancient sites of Roman colonies have been\nexplored, and already a copious harvest of Latin inscriptions has been the\nresult. But Britain was remote and poor, late occupied by the Romans and\nearly abandoned. Even during its occupation they were rather garrisoned in\nthe towns, which they built and fortified, than mingled with the conquered\npeople. We need not wonder, therefore, that our inscriptions are chiefly\nmilitary, or that when the Romans withdrew they left few traces of their\noccupancy in the language of Britain.\n\nIt was the all but universal practice in the ancient world to inter the\nbodies or ashes of the dead beyond the limits of the cities. Even in\nEgypt, where the practice of embalmment might have rendered it safe to\nretain them in the vicinity of the living, the cemeteries of the great\ncities were placed on the opposite side of the Nile. Lycurgus, indeed, is\nsaid to have ordered interments to be made within the limits of Sparta,\nwith the view of producing familiarity with the aspect of death. The\nAthenians, on the contrary, devoted the most beautiful suburb of their\ncity, the Ceramicus without the walls, to the interment of their dead, and\nthe space beyond the walls of the Pir\u00e6us appears to have been occupied\nwith tombs.[4] If the Romans ever buried within their houses, it must\nhave been at a time when their territory did not extend beyond the walls\nof the city, for the prohibition of the Twelve Tables is precise; HOMINEM\nMORTUUM IN URBE NE SEPELITO, NEVE URITO. The principal roads at Rome seem\nto have been lined with sepulcres for a considerable distance, especially\nthe Appian, the \"Regina Viarum,\" as it is termed by Statius.[5] Atticus\nwas buried at the fifth milestone from the city on this road, Gallienus at\nthe ninth.[6] No urn or sarcophagus has been found within the walls of\nRoman York, but the traces of interment begin immediately beyond the\ngates. On the southern side, which was not included in the fortifications\nof Eburacum, the ground near the river was occupied by suburban villas,\nwhose site is indicated by the elaborate pavements which have been dug up;\nbut at the Mount, half a mile from the river one of the principal\ncemeteries of the city began, extending along the road which led to\nCalcaria. Sepulcral remains have also been found near the other outlets\nfrom the city. While we acknowledge that in thus banishing the remains of\nthe dead from the precincts of the living the ancients showed more wisdom\nthan modern nations, we cannot but wonder that they should have allowed\nthe disagreeable process of _burning_ the dead to be carried on so near\ntheir habitations. The site of the _ustrinum_ at York has not been\nclearly ascertained; if at Clifton, where many urns have been found, it\nwas at a moderate distance from the gate; but at Pompeii it was only about\na furlong from the gate on the principal road, and at Aldborough close to\nthe wall.[7] The Romans had, even in their smaller municipia, Boards of\nHealth--such, at least, I take to be the meaning of _Novemvir_ and\n_Triumvir Valetudinarius_;[8] and it may seem extraordinary that they did\nnot remove the ustrinum to a greater distance. Its effect could scarcely\nbe neutralized, even by the profusion of odoriferous gums and oils which\nwere employed at funerals.[9] Augustus forbade the burning of bodies\nwithin fifteen stadia of the city. The only one whose site has been\nascertained in the neighbourhood of Rome is near the fifth milestone on\nthe Appian Way.[10] The ustrinum at Litlington,[11] the only one of its\nkind, I believe, whose site has been ascertained in England, was a\nrectangular space enclosed by walls, and not in the vicinity of any large\ntown. Both here and at Aldborough the ustrinum was also a cemetery. The\ncemetery of Roman London was in Spital-fields. (Arch. 36, 206.)\n\nThe position of the Roman sepulcres along the great thoroughfares explains\nthe frequent apostrophe from the tenant of the tomb to the traveller:\nSISTE VIATOR; TU QUI VIA FLAMINIA TRANSIS RESTA AC RELEGE; VIATORES\nSALVETE ET VALETE; forms which have sometimes been copied, not very\nappropriately, in churchyards and cemeteries. The traveller is frequently\naddressed with some moral reflexion; VIXI UT VIVIS, MORIERIS UT SUM\nMORTUUS; occasionally of rather an Epicurean character, as that of Prima\nPompeia; FORTUNA SPONDET MULTA MULTIS, PR\u00c6STAT NEMINI, VIVE IN DIES ET\nHORAS, NAM PROPRIUM EST NIHIL[12]. The tenant of the tomb sometimes\ninvites the passer-by to offer for him the customary prayer, SIT TIBI\nTERRA LEVIS (S.T.T.L.).\n\n  Pr\u00e6venere diem vit\u00e6 crudelia fata\n    Et raptam inferna me posuere rate.\n  Hoc lecto elogio juvenis miserere jacentis,\n    Et dic discedens, Sit tibi terra levis[13].\n\nThe traveller is called upon from the interior of the tomb to halt and\nrefresh himself, and give a portion to the deceased in the form of a\nfuneral libation; MISCE, BIBE, DA MIHI. Being placed beside public roads,\nmonuments were liable to pollutions of various kinds, which the Manes\ndeprecate, sometimes threatening vengeance on the offenders. One of the\nmost frequent of these violators was the writer on the wall, to whom the\nside of a sepulcral monument offered a tempting field for the exercise of\nhis vocation. SCRIPTOR PARCE HOC OPUS is not the address of an author to\nhis critic, but of a husband to the wall-scribbler, entreating him not to\ndisfigure the monument of his wife.[14] As a frequent purpose of these\nplacards was to recommend candidates for office, success is promised, on\ncondition that the monument should not be written upon. ITA CANDIDATUS\nFIAT HONORATUS TUUS, ET TU FELIX SCRIPTOR, SI HIC NON SCRIPSERIS.\nINSCRIPTOR ROGO TE UT TRANSEAS HOC MONUMENTUM. QOIUS CANDIDATI NOMEN\nINSCRIPTUM FUERIT, REPULSAM FERAT, NEQUE HONOREM ULLUM GERAT.[15]\n\nIn an early state of society there would be little danger that the site on\nwhich interments had taken place should be converted to ordinary purposes.\nThe violation of a sepulcre was severely punished by the Roman law, and is\ndeprecated on grounds of humanity in some inscriptions, threatened with\ndivine vengeance in others. Fabius Augurinus offers this wish for him who\nshould spare the tomb of his wife and child;[16] SIC NUNQUAM DOLEAS ATQUE\nTRISTE SUSPIRES QUANTUM DOLORIS TITULUS ISTE TESTATUR. Another pleads,[17]\n\n  Sacratam cunctis sedem ne l\u00e6de viator.\n    Hanc tibi nascenti fata dedere domum.\n\nAnother[18] utters the awful imprecation, QUISQUIS HOC SUSTULERIT AUT\nL\u00c6SERIT, ULTIMUS SUORUM MORIATUR. The act of dedication is often recorded\non the tomb with the addition \"Sub ascia,\" and the figure of an adze or\nhatchet[19]. But Roman burial places had no legal sanctity, like that\nwhich our churchyards enjoy; they were taken from out the fields and\ngardens which bordered the highway, and the temptation was great on the\npart of the heir to re-annex the ground to his property. The inscriptions\non Roman sepulcres indicate the care which those who caused them to be\nerected took, to prevent their being either alienated to other purposes,\nor taken possession of by others than those for whom they were designed.\nThe area which the tomb and its appurtenances should occupy, is carefully\ndefined; HIC LOCUS PATET IN FRONTEM PEDES XX.; IN AGRUM PEDES XXV.;\noccasionally we meet with much larger dimensions. If the ground had been\ngranted by another for this purpose, the words of the grant were sometimes\ninscribed on the monument. The right of using the sepulcre for placing\nsarcophagi, or urns, is defined commonly by the words, SIBI SUISQUE FECIT;\nfrequently permission is given for the interment of freedmen and\nfreedwomen with their master. Sometimes leave is given to introduce into\nthe columbarium a limited number of _oll\u00e6_, or funeral urns,[20] or, on\nthe other hand, an individual is prohibited by name from sharing or even\napproaching the sepulcre; EXCEPTO HERMETE LIBERTO QUEM VOLO PROPTER\nDELICTA SUA ADITUM, AMBITUM NEC ULLUM ACCESSUM HABEAT IN HOC MONUMENTO. In\nanother inscription, SECUNDINA LIBERTA, IMPIA IN PATRONUM SUUM, is\nforbidden to be interred in his tomb.[21] The churlish declaration, IN HOC\nMONUMENTO SOCIUM HABEO NULLUM is a rare exception, and in general the\nsepulcral inscriptions give a pleasing idea of the relation between\nmasters and their households. The collection of Gruter contains many pages\nof inscriptions expressive of the reciprocal feelings of masters and\npatrons, slaves and freedmen; and an equally copious and pleasing record\nof the feelings of slaves and freedmen towards their fellows.\n\nThe heir was the object of especial jealousy; HOC MONUMENTUM H\u00c6REDEM NON\nSEQUITUR (H.M.H.N.S.) is a regular formula; the contrary stipulation, that\nthe monument should go to the heir is most uncommon.[22] The prohibition\nto alienate is expressed with all the fulness of legal phraseology; HOC\nMONUMENTUM, CUM \u00c6DIFICIO SUPERPOSITO NEQUE MUTABITUR, NEQUE V\u00c6NIET, NEQUE\nDONABITUR, NEQUE PIGNORI OBLIGABITUR, NEQUE ULLO MODO ABALIENABITUR, NE DE\nNOMINE EXEAT FAMILI\u00c6 SU\u00c6,[23] and is sometimes enforced by a fine to the\nmunicipality, to the Roman people or the vestal virgins and the\nPontifices, to secure the exaction of which one-fourth is to go to the\ninformer. Legal chicanery was greatly dreaded as the means of defeating\nthe purpose of the builder of the monument: hence we often find the\nprotestation, HUIC MONUMENTO DOLUS MALUS ABESTO; sometimes with the\naddition ET JURISCONSULTUS, a combination which, in countries where the\ncivil law is practised, is a standing jest against the jurisconsults.[24]\nTo preclude one source of cavil we find a man protesting on his tomb, in\nan inscription by which he directs a statue to be erected to him, that\nwhen he made his will, he had \"a sound and disposing mind;\" SANUS, SANA\nQUOQUE MENTE INTEGROQUE CONSILIO, MEMOR CONDITIONIS HUMAN\u00c6, TESTAMENTUM\nFECI.[25] It is recorded on the pyramid of C. Cestius that the monument\nhad been erected in 330 days, \"arbitratu Pontii Cl. Mel\u00e6 heredis et Pothi\nliberti,\" the heir not having been trusted alone with the execution. So in\nHorace (Sat. 2, 5, 105),\n\n                  ----Sepulcrum\n  Permissum arbitrio sine sordibus extrue.\n\nIn one inscription, it is made the condition of inheritance, that the\nmonument should be begun in three days after the testator's death, and its\nmodel is prescribed. A son apologizes to his father for having erected a\nhumble monument to him on the ground of the smallness of the inheritance;\n\"Si major auctoritas patrimoni mei fuisset, ampliori titulo te prosecutus\nfuissem, piissime pater.\"[26] With this distrust of posterity, it was\nnatural that men should erect their monuments in their own lifetime,\nleaving to their heirs only the duty of inserting the years of their age;\nfor the year of the decease, which the Romans marked by the Consuls, is\nrarely given. SIBI VIVUS FECIT (sometimes _se vivo, se vivis_ even _me\nvivus, se vivus_) is often found, as on the sarcophagus of M. Diogenes\nVerecundus, formerly in York. Mindus Zosimus Senior tells us plainly on\nhis tomb his reason for not leaving the choice to his heir; he was afraid\nof his discharging the duty in a shabby way.\n\n  Vivus mi feci, ne post me lentius heres\n    Conderet exiguo busta suprema rogo.[27]\n\nA body once placed in a tomb could not be transferred to another without\nthe permission of the pontiffs, nor could the tomb even be repaired, if\nthe reparation involved the moving of the remains, without the sanction of\nthe authorities. We find on the tomb of a freedman a copy of the petition\nwhich he had presented to be allowed to remove the bodies of his wife and\nson, which he had temporarily placed in an _obruendarium_, or sarcophagus\nof clay, to a monument of marble, \"ut quando ego esse desiero, pariter cum\niis ponar.\"[28]\n\nBesides the monument itself, various appendages to it are mentioned in the\nRoman sepulcral inscriptions. The area was occupied by buildings designed\nto be used in the annual commemorations of the deceased for which his will\nprovided. We read of a _di\u00e6ta_, or summer-house; a _solarium_, or open\nbalcony; an _accumbitorium_, or entertaining room; an _apparitorium_, in\nwhich the tables and benches used by the guests were kept. The ground\nannexed to the monument frequently contained a well, a cistern or a\n_piscina_, whence water for the funeral rites might be drawn, and a grove,\nwhence wood might be cut for a sacrifice. If situated in a garden, the\nmonument was called _cepotaphium_. A building was erected, sometimes a\npermanent _\u00e6dificium_, sometimes a simple _nubilare_ or shed, to receive\nthe person who guarded the tomb (locus habitationis tutel\u00e6 causa), and\nthis office was generally entrusted to a freedman, who was called\n_\u00e6dituus_[29]. The inscriptions often record the sum which the deceased\nhas bequeathed for an annual celebration at his tomb, commonly on his\nbirthday. This was variously performed; sometimes by libations of wine and\nmilk (profusiones), or by the scattering of roses on the tomb (rosalia),\naccompanied by a feast. L. OGIUS PATROCLUS, HORTOS CUM \u00c6DIFICIO HUIC\nSEPULCRO JUNCTO VIVUS DONAVIT, UT EX REDITU EORUM LARGIUS ROS\u00c6 ET ESC\u00c6\nPATRONO SUO ET QUANDOQUE SIBI PONERENTUR.[30] We find a testator directing\nthat an annual feast, for which he leaves 125 denarii, should be held by\nthe pagani, or rural inhabitants of the district, on his birthday, or, if\nthis condition were neglected, that the building and the legacy should go\nto the College of Physicians, and to his freedmen, that they might feast\non that day. QUOD SI FACTUM NON ERIT, TUM HIC LOCUS, UT SUPRA SCRIPTUM EST\nCUM ANNUIS CXXV. (denariis) IN PERPETUUM AD COLLEGIUM MEDICORUM ET AD\nLIBERTOS MEOS PERTINEAT, UT DIE NATALE MEO EPULENTUR.[31] We must not\nattach ideas of too great dignity to the \"College of Physicians.\" Every\nlegal incorporation among the Romans was a college, and the medical body\nincluded practitioners of every grade, even to the veterinary surgeon and\nthe midwife.[32]\n\nAnother tribute of honour for which we find testators making provision is\nthe lighting a lamp in the monument, or feeding it with oil. All who have\nexplored the remains of Roman antiquities are aware how frequently lamps\nare found in connection with sepulcral monuments. The following\ninscription invites passers-by to perform this service:[33]--\n\n  Quisquis huic tumulo posuit ardente lucernam\n    Illius cineres aurea terra tegat.\n\nIn order that these rites might be duly performed, the monument carefully\nsecures the right \"_puteum adeundi, hauriendi, coronandi, sacrificandi,\nligna sumendi, mortuos mortuasve inferendi_;\" as well as of \"_itus, actus,\naditus, introitus, ambitus_.\" Law delighted then, as now, in exhaustive\nenumerations. To secure the perpetual celebration of these funeral honours\nwas one object for which the alienation of the ground was so strictly\nforbidden. Titus \u00c6lius, a freedman of Augustus, leaves the monument which\nhe and his wife had erected, to his freedmen, freedwomen, and their\ndescendants, ITA UT NE DE NOMINE SUO AUT FAMILIA EXEAT; UT POSSIT MEMORI\u00c6\nSU\u00c6 QUAM DIUTISSIME SACRIFICARI.[34] To these annual commemorative\nofferings allusion is made in a poetical inscription by a husband to his\nwife, snatched away in youth.[35]\n\n  Lac tibi sit Cybeles, sint et rosa grata Diones,\n  Et flores grati Nymphis et lilia serta.\n  Sintque precor, merit\u00e6 qui nostra parent tibi dona\n  Annua, et hic manes placida tibi nocte quiescant,\n  Et super in nido Marathonia cantet a\u00ebdon.\n\nIt is not common to find in Roman sepulcral inscriptions specific mention\nof the cause of death. A father thus records his son's early death by the\nfalling in of a well:[36]--\n\n  Parva sub hoc titulo Festi sunt ossa Papiri\n    Qu\u00e6 moerens fato condidit ipse pater.\n  Qui si vixisset domini jam nomina ferret.\n    Hunc casus putei detulit ad cineres.[37]\n\nThe following inscription records the death of a male and female slave,\ncrushed by a crowd in the Capitol, who had, perhaps, come together to see\nBritish captives led in chains, in a triumphal procession:[38]--\n\n  Ummidi\u00e6 Manes tumulus tegit iste simulque\n    Primigeni vern\u00e6, quos tulit una dies.\n  Nam Capitolin\u00e6 compressi examine turb\u00e6\n    Supremum fati competiere diem.\n\n\u00c6lius Proculinus, on the tomb of his wife, bestows an imprecation on those\nwho had shortened her life by magic incantations. CARMINIBUS DEFIXA JACUIT\nPER TEMPORA MUTA, UT EJUS SPIRITUS, VI EXTORQUERETUR QUAM NATUR\u00c6\nREDDERETUR. CUJUS ADMISSI VEL MANES VEL DI COELESTES ERUNT SCELERIS\nVINDICES.[39]\n\nThe wounded affections had their victims. P. L. Modestus raises a monument\nto Telesinia Crispinilla, CONJUGI SANCTISSIM\u00c6, QU\u00c6 OB DESIDERIUM FILI SUI\nPIISSIMI VIVERE ABOMINAVIT ET POST DIES XV FATI EJUS ANIMO DESPONDIT.[40]\nOf a similar excess of maternal grief, causing the death of his wife,\nCerialius Calistio gently complains; DUM NIMIS PIA FUIT FACTA EST\nIMPIA.[41] Communis and Casia inscribe a monument to the memory of a\ndaughter who died at the age of fifteen, and of a son, QUI POST DESIDERIUM\nSORORIS SU\u00c6 UNA DIE SUPERVIXIT.[42] The following distich records the\ndeath of Antonia Maura from her attendance on her sick husband:--\n\n  Itala me rapuit crudeli funere tellus,\n    Dum foveo nimia sedulitate virum.\n\nThe complaint that \"physicians were in vain\" is of ancient date.[43]\n\n  Ussere ardentes intus mea viscera morbi,\n    Vincere quos medic\u00e6 non potuere manus.\n\nPliny has not preserved the name of the unhappy man whose monument\ndeclared TURBA MEDICORUM SE PERIISSE,[44] that he had died of a multitude\nof doctors. Nor do the surgeons escape reproach for their want of skill.\nMEDICI MALE MEMBRA SECARUNT; CORPORI QUOD SUPER EST TUMULUM TIBI FECI\nappears to be the address of a master to his gladiator, who, though\nmangled, had gained the victory, but lost his life from unskilful\ntreatment of his wounds.[45]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nInscriptions are curious to the scholar, as a record of the changes which\nthe Latin language underwent in successive ages. Manuscripts imperfectly\nanswer this purpose, because transcribers were very apt, either from habit\nor a desire to render their labours more saleable, to change old forms for\nnew, especially in orthography. Sepulcral inscriptions, being commonly the\nwork of private individuals, represent more exactly the language of common\nlife than public monuments. They serve the same purpose to the philologer,\nas provincial dialects, in which the old language of a country is often\npreserved, when obliterated in correct and fashionable speech. From the\ninscriptions in the tomb of the Scipios in the beginning of the third\ncentury, B.C., down to the establishment of Christianity, after which a\ncessation of Pagan formul\u00e6 gradually takes place, we have a succession of\nabout six centuries. I will mention a few instances, collected from\nfuneral inscriptions, which either throw light on the history of the Latin\nlanguage, or illustrate that vulgar idiom and pronunciation, which has\ninfluenced the formation of the modern Italian.\n\nThe analogy of the Greek, and the form _paterfamilias_, would lead to the\nconclusion that the genitive of the first declension had been originally\nformed in _s_, next deprived of its final letter and becoming _a\u00ef_, and\nfinally contracted into _\u00e6_.[46] I have not observed in the sepulcral\ninscriptions any genitives of common nouns of this declension formed in\n_s_, but we find Faustines, Bellones, Midaes, as genitives of proper\nnames, which, according to grammatical rule, would be formed in _\u00e6_. The\ndative feminine in _abus_ is allowed by grammarians in cases where\nambiguity of sex would arise from the use of _is_, as in deabus, filiabus,\nlibertabus; but we find it used in inscriptions where no such ambiguity\nexists, as in nymphabus, fatabus, and even horabus. What is more\nremarkable is the extension of this formation of the dative to the second\ndeclension, in such words as diibus and amicibus. Some departures from\nordinary usage may, no doubt, be accounted for by the circumstance that in\nItaly, as in England, the Muse of the cemetery was an \"unlettered Muse.\"\n\"Hic ja_cit_\"[47] in a Latin inscription no more proves that there was no\ndistinction between the neuter and the active verb, than \"here lays\" in an\nEnglish churchyard. Nor can we argue from such constructions as \"cum\n_quam_ bene vixi,\" \"ab \u00e6d_em_,\" that _cum_ and _ab_ governed the\naccusative; or from such a concord as _hunc_ collegium, that nouns in _um_\nwere once masculine. But in many instances what seem at first only vulgar\nsolecisms will be found to have a warrant in analogy. _Dua_ as a neuter\nfor duo[48] is called a barbarism by Quinctilian (1, 5, 15); yet he\nacknowledges that every one said _duapondo_, and that Messala maintained\nit to be correct. Evento for eventui, spirito for spiritui, show that the\ndouble mode of declension was not confined to domus. Solo for soli has the\nauthority of Cato, who used soli for solius, and of Terence, who used sol\u00e6\nfor the same case.[49] \"Fatus suus\" on a monument might seem a blunder,\nbut malus fatus occurs in Petronius Arbiter (p. 270). We find in an\ninscription[50]\n\n  Diva, precor, Tellus alvo complectere sancta\n    Ossua quorum in hoc nomina sunt lapide.\n\nand ossuarium, the vase which received the burnt bones, shows that _ossua_\nwas a legitimate form. The use of _carere_ with an accusative[51] (\"Filios\nduos caruit:\" \"Dulcem carui lucem, cum te amisi ego conjunx\") has a\nparallel in Plautus. The usual construction of _compos_ is with a\ngenitive, but it is not a solecism, when L. Statius Diodorus inscribes a\ntablet to God, \"Quod se precibus compotem fecisset;\" for Livy (3, 35)\nuses it with an ablative. The use of susum for sursum explains the Latin\n_sus_ (in susque deque) and the Italian _su_. Meses for menses, senu for\nsinu, laguna for lacuna, longitia (lunghezza) for longitudo, _so_ for sum,\nall occurring in sepulcral inscriptions, show the inclination of the Latin\nlanguage towards the Italian.\n\nThe Italian prefixes an _i_ to a word which begins with _s_ and a\nconsonant, when it follows one ending with a consonant, as iscambio,\niscoglio, ispirito; and we find in inscriptions iscribit, ispiritus.[52]\n\"Poor letter H\" was treated with the same barbarous caprice of old as now,\nbeing omitted where it should stand, and interpolated where it should not.\nThus we meet with ora, ortulus, omo, ospitium, onestus; and on the other\nhand, h\u00e6diculus, helephantus, horiundus, hordini, Hosiris, and post\nhobitum. Those who omit the aspirate, however, are always more numerous\nthan those who insert it; in Italy they ultimately gained the ascendancy,\nand it is banished in pronunciation from modern Italian, which follows in\nthis respect the usage of the old Romans, who said \u00e6dos and ircos.[53] The\nfrequent substitution of _b_ for _v_ on later monuments, bibi for vivi,\nbixit for vixit, lebo for levo, habe for ave, was caused by _b_ being\npronounced both in Greek and Latin with a slight aspiration,[54] whence\nwe find Greek writers representing Varro by [Greek: Barrh\u00f4n], and Flavius\nby [Greek: Phlabios].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe record of the trades and professions of the deceased, which the Roman\nsepulcral inscriptions contain, often afford a curious insight into the\ndifferences of manners and customs between the ancient and the modern\nworld. They supply the deficiencies of the notices in books, or explain\nobscure and solitary passages in the classics. One difference is obvious.\nThere was no false shame in acknowledging the humble station which the\ndeceased had filled in life. The dealer in pigs is recorded as a\n\"negotiator suarius;\" the female greengrocer as a \"negotiatrix frumentaria\net leguminaria,\" who kept a stall beside one of the flights of steps\ndescending to the Tiber.[55] It would not be mentioned now on the tomb of\na medical practitioner, that he had begun by practising his art in many\nmarket-places \"fora multa secutus.\"[56] Perhaps the most remarkable\ninstance of the difference between ancient and modern ideas in this\nrespect is furnished by the tomb of \u00c6milia Irene, whose husband calls\nhimself \"stupidus gregis urbani,\" the clown of the city company of\nmountebanks.[57] The profession still finds candidates, but their vocation\nwould hardly be recorded on their funeral monuments. The difference of\nfeeling in ancient times may, perhaps, be accounted for from the\ncircumstance, that these mountebanks exhibited at festivals in honour of\nthe gods, and so acquired a certain respectability. The Christian writer,\nArnobius, reproaches the Pagans with this practice. \"Mimis dei delectantur\nstupidorum capitibus rasis, factis et dictis turpibus, fascinorum\ningentium rubore.\"[58] L. Cornelius Januarius is recorded on his monument\nto have been the _fanaticus_ of the temples of Isis, Serapis, and Bellona,\nthat is, one of those who were hired by the priests to stimulate the zeal\nof votaries by wild and frantic gestures, supposed to indicate the\ninspiration of the divinity.[59] The Grex Romanus inscribe a monument to\nthe actor of pantomimes, Pylades, who first brought the Ion and Troades of\nEuripides on the Roman stage, and for his admirable acting had received\nthe compliment of decurional ornaments from the most considerable cities\nof Italy.[60] The sepulcral inscriptions bear testimony to the minute\nsubdivisions of the arts of public amusement. We owe to one of them the\nknowledge, that when Greek mimes (farces) were performed to the populace\nat Rome, a _viv\u00e2 voce_ explanation in the Latin language answered the\npurpose of a translated libretto.[61] Ursus Togatus glorifies himself in\nhis inscription, as the first who had exhibited feats of graceful\ndexterity with a ball of glass, for the amusement of those who frequented\nthe baths of Trajan, Agrippa, Titus, and Nero.[62] The ancient\nsleight-of-hand men appear to have at least rivalled the Indian jugglers.\nOne of them has even been thought worthy of commemoration by the Byzantine\nhistorian, Nicephorus Gregoras.[63] He could throw up a glass-ball into\nthe air and catch it as it fell on the point of his finger-nail, the end\nof his elbow, and other parts of his body. Another inscription boasts that\nthe subject of it could transfix an arrow in its flight with another\narrow. Instances are recorded of early proficiency in theatrical arts.\nEucharis, who died at the age of fourteen, declares herself on her tomb to\nhave been\n\n  Docta, erodita p\u00e6ne Musarum manu;\n  Qu\u00e6 modo nobilium ludos decoravi choro\n  Et Gr\u00e6ca in scena prima populo apparui.\n\nA still more remarkable instance of precocity is that of L. Valerius, who\nin his thirteenth year was crowned in the Capitol in a contest of Latin\npoetry.[64] The theatrical inscriptions, which generally relate to Greeks,\nare of a boastful character, foreign to the genius of the Romans. The\ndeath of Vitalis, an actor and mimic, must have been a public calamity,\n\"eclipsing the gaiety of nations,\" if we believe his epitaph.\n\n  Me viso rabidi subito cecidere furores;\n    Ridebat summus me veniente dolor.\n  Non licuit quenquam mordacibus urere curis,\n    Nec rerum incerta mobilitate trahi.\n  Vincebat cunctos pr\u00e6sentia nostra timores,\n    Et mecum felix qu\u00e6libet hora fuit.\n  Fingebam vultus, habitus ac verba loquentum\n    Ut plures uno crederes ore loqui.\n  Ipse etiam, quem nostra oculis geminabat imago,\n    Horruit in vultu se magis esse meo.\n\n_i. e._ the person imitated was startled to find the imitation look more\nlike him than himself![65] One instance, however, of a different kind we\nmay quote, which for its expressive simplicity might be placed on the\nmonument of a Macready. INGENUUM COMOEDUM, PROPTER SINGULAREM ARTIS\nPRUDENTIAM ET MORUM PROBITATEM. The latter quality appears to have been\nrare among theatrical performers, and we can forgive the fierce zeal of\nthe Christian Fathers against the stage, when we read on the tomb of a\ngirl who was training for pantomime,--\n\n  Cujus in octava lascivia surgere messe\n    Coeperat, et dulces fingere nequitias.[66]\n\nBefore leaving what may be called the external peculiarities of Roman\nsepulcral inscriptions, we may notice the custom of placing on the tomb\nrepresentations of the implements employed by the deceased in his\noccupation. The tomb of a baker, discovered a few years since near the\nPorta Maggiore at Rome, was constructed in the form of an oven, and\nsculptured on it were the loaves, the kneading trough, and the mill worked\nby an ass.[67] From the tomb of Cossutius, a carpenter, we learn the form\nof the square, plumb-line, compasses, callipers, and chisel, the last\nbeing exactly in the form of the _celt_, about which antiquaries have\nlearnedly written. The ornatrix, or tirewoman, announces her vocation in\nlife by a mirror, with a phial of perfume; the tabellarius, or postman, by\na theca graphiaria, or pen-and-ink case; the mensor \u00e6dificiorum, by a\ndecempeda, or ten-foot rule; the cultrarius, or cutler, by knives. The\noccurrence of these emblems on Christian tombs is said to have given rise\nto the reputation of unauthorized martyrdoms, the cutler being supposed to\nhave been flayed alive, the wool-carder to have been torn to pieces with\niron combs, the blacksmith to have been tortured with the forceps, the\ncarpenter to have been sawn in two.[68] This custom continued in the\nmiddle ages. A tombstone in the museum of the Yorkshire Philosophical\nSociety has a bell and a melting-pot engraved upon it, indicating that it\ncovered the tomb of a bell-founder, and similar emblems have been found in\nBakewell Church and elsewhere.[69] At the present day military and naval\nmonuments alone display professional emblems.\n\nIt does not appear possible from the inscriptions on tomb-stones to deduce\nany inference respecting the average length of human life in the centuries\nwhich they embrace. They usually record with exactness the age of the\ndeceased; often with the mention of the months, days, and hours; but they\nare only fragments of the record of mortality as it originally existed,\nand that record was itself very imperfect. Vast numbers were, of course,\nburnt or buried, to whom no monument was raised. There were pits without\nthe Esquiline Gate, in which the common people were buried promiscuously.\nAccording to the statement of Ulpian, who wrote in the reign of Alexander\nSeverus, registers of population, age, sex, disease and death had been\nkept with exactness by the censors for ten centuries, and from\nobservations grounded on these, according to Dr. Bissett Hawkins's Medical\nStatistics,[70] from which I quote, the expectation or mean term of human\nlife among the Romans was thirty years; while that of England, according\nto Mr. Finlaison, is fifty for the easy classes of society, and forty-five\nfor the whole population. I do not put much faith in bills of mortality of\nthe time of Servius Tullius, considering the rarity even of historical\ndocuments in the early ages of Rome. The monuments, too, are, in a large\nproportion of cases, to military men, who appear to have been cut off at\nvery early ages. But many reasons may be given why the average of life\nshould be shorter than in England. There was no provision for the poor\namong them, unless the irregular profusion of _congiaria_ can be called\nso; there were no public hospitals; the city was in many parts unhealthy;\ntheir clothing not favourable to cleanliness, though remedied, in some\nmeasure, by the bath; and life was often shortened by suicide, which was\nregarded as venial if not meritorious. The average yielded by the\ninscriptions would certainly be low; I have noticed one death at 102\nyears,[71] 90 of which were passed without disease, and one at 100,[72]\none at 92,[73] but these are rare. Valerius Julianus inscribes a monument\nto his son, who was three years old, and his mother (mammul\u00e6), who was 80.\n\n  Dispara damna lege Parcarum et stamina dispara;\n    H\u00e6c ridenda mihi est, hic lacrymandus erit.\n  H\u00e6c namque emeritos bis quadraginta per annos\n    Vixit; at hic tertio Consule natus obit.\n  Cur modo tam pr\u00e6ceps, iterum tam sera fuisti\n    Funeris amborum dic rea Persephone.\n  Vix lucem vidisse satis qui vivere posset;\n    Vivere qu\u00e6 nollet vix potuisse mori.[74]\n\nWe now approach a more interesting inquiry. What light do the Roman\nsepulcral inscriptions throw upon the social relations, the domestic\naffections, the religious belief of the people from whom they originate?\nThe voice of nature speaks more truly from the tomb than anywhere else;\nand if monumental phrases at last become formulary and unmeaning, in their\norigin at least they carry with them a deep significance, and express a\ngenuine sentiment. We feel curious to know how a people so different from\nourselves in manners and religion expressed themselves, in reference to\nthe most solemn event of human existence. For what qualities did they\npraise their departed friends? Whether true or false, in reference to the\nindividual, the monumental panegyric will, at all events, teach us what\nwas the standard of virtue in the conceptions of the times. In what\nlanguage did they express their affection or regret? With what hopes\nrespecting the future did they bid them farewell?\n\nThe Roman lapidary style was well adapted to express feeling or describe\ncharacter with energetic conciseness, and in this respect stands in\nstriking contrast with the diffuse and overloaded epitaphs in which the\nmoderns delight. A loquacious or boastful epitaph in Latin excites the\nsuspicion of the critic of inscriptions, unless it is evidently of the\nlatest age of heathenism.[75] The use of the Latin language has been of no\navail in checking the prolixity of modern composers; the Italians alone\nhave caught the true spirit of classical antiquity, and can compress much\nmeaning into a few words. The language of genuine sorrow is simple and\nconcise. What could convey to the heart the feeling of a mother's grief\nand affection more forcibly, than the apostrophe, AVE LUCI, PR\u00c6REPTE\nMATRI! or FILI BENE QUIESCAS! MATER TUA ROGAT TE UT ME AD TE RECIPIAS. The\ninscription of the sarcophagus in our Museum, D. M. SIMPLICI\u00c6 FLORENTIN\u00c6,\nANIM\u00c6 INNOCENTISSIM\u00c6, QU\u00c6 VIXIT MENSES X., SIMPLICIUS PATER FECIT, would\nhave gained nothing in pathos by the elaborate description of a father's\nsorrow. Neither would the inscription placed by her parents on Cornelia\nAnniana, who died just when her prattle was beginning to delight their\nears. FILI\u00c6 DULCISSIM\u00c6, JAM GARRUL\u00c6, BIMUL\u00c6 NONDUM.[76] The great majority\nof records of the dead content themselves with the mention of the name,\nstation, and age, or with such a brief and modest encomium as is expressed\nin the words HOMINI OPTIMO ET SINGULARIS EXEMPLI.\n\nWe sometimes, indeed, find in epitaphs a play upon a name, hardly\nconsistent with our notions of the true style of such compositions. Yet a\ngenuine sorrow might be struck with the relation between the name and the\ncharacter, such as the second of these inscriptions notices, or find\nrelief in the playful allusion in the third. On the tomb of Aper[77] was\ninscribed this distich:--\n\n  Innocuus Aper ecce jaces, non Virginis ira\n    Nec Meleager atrox perfodit viscera ferro.\n\nAnd on the tomb of Glyconis,[78]--\n\n  Hoc jacet in tumulo secura Glyconis honesto.\n    _Dulcis_ nomine erat, anima quoque dulcior usque.\n\nOn that of Floridus, inscribed, it should seem, with a flower,[79]--\n\n  Quod vixi, flos est. Servat lapis hoc mihi nomen.\n    Noli Deos Manes; flos satis est titulo.\n\nWhat our writers on heraldry call _canting_ and the French, _armes\nparlantes_, _i. e._ figures allusive to family names, was not unknown to\nthe Romans; it is found on their coins; as a steer (vitulus) on the\ndenarius of Q. Voconius _Vitulus_; a murex, on that of Furius _Purpureo_;\na foot, on that of Crassi_pes_, and a flower on that of Aquillius\n_Florus_.[80]\n\nIn those inscriptions which enter into a fuller enumeration of public\nservices, one difference is striking to a person accustomed to modern\nones, namely, the absence in the former of all mention of acts of social\nbenevolence. It is true that the erection of a fountain, the construction\nof a road, the dedication of a temple, the exhibition of gladiatorial and\nfloral games, the bequest of a legacy for an annual feast, and similar\nacts of popular munificence, are often commemorated, as titles of honour;\nbut I do not remember to have met with a record, originating in pagan\ntimes, of a life devoted to the alleviation of misery, to the relief of\nindigence, to the removal of ignorance and vice. Such virtues belong\nespecially to the school of Christianity. The following inscription would\nbe proved by its tenor to relate to a Christian woman, even if the date\ndid not fix it to the middle of the fifth century of our \u00e6ra. DEO FIDELIS,\nDULCIS MARITO, NUTRIX FAMILL\u00c6, CUNCTIS HUMILIS, PLACATO PURO CORDE,\nAMATRIX PAUPERUM.[81]\n\nWhen parents erect a funeral monument to their children, the inscription\nvery frequently embodies the sentiment of Cato the elder, in Cicero de\nSenectute (c. 23), the inversion of the order of nature which the\nperformance of such a duty by the parent involves. \"Catonem, cujus a me\ncorpus crematum est; quod contra decuit ab illo meum.\" Thus in an\ninscription at Naples by Calvidius to his son, who had died at the age of\n20; QUOD FILIUS PATRI FACERE DEBUIT PATER FECIT FILIO; and in another;\nQUOD FILIA PATRI FACERE DEBUERAT MORS IMMATURA FECIT UT FACERET PATER. The\nsentiment is concisely expressed in the following distich:--\n\n  Quod decuit natam patri pr\u00e6stare sepulto\n    Hoc contra nat\u00e6 pr\u00e6stitit ipse pater.[82]\n\nA mother, burying her son, who died at the age of 35, complains, HUNC\nLEGES LETI PR\u00c6POSTER\u00c6 ERIPUERE MATRI, QU\u00c6 UT ANNIS MORTE QUOQUE ESSET\nPRIOR. Parents not only call themselves _infelicissimi_, for the loss of\ntheir children, but _impii_ and _crudeles_, because they survive them.\n\nChildren from their premature grave endeavour to moderate their parents'\ngrief, by laying the blame upon the Fates.\n\n  Nec tibi nec nobis \u00e6ternum vivere cessit:\n    Quod pueri occipimus Fata querenda putes.[83]\n\nA father justifies himself to his daughter, for not having died and\nmingled his ashes with hers, by his duty to his surviving children.\n\n  Qu\u00e6 tibi cunque mei potuerunt pignora amoris\n    Nata, dari, populo sunt lacrumante data.\n  Et volui majora nimis; sed cura meorum\n    Fida tui prohibet me cinerem esse rogi.[84]\n\nMothers regret, under the loss of their children, that they had ever\nbecome mothers.\n\n  Cernis ut orba meis, hospes monumenta locavi,\n  Et tristis senior natos miseranda requiro.\n  Exemplis referenda mea est deserta senectus,\n  Ut steriles vere possint gaudere marit\u00e6.[85]\n\n    H\u00e6c qu\u00e6cunque legis, devoto pectore, mater\n      Da lacrimas, et me sic peperisse dole.\n    Hic jacet, extinctus crudeli funere, natus\n      Ultima vivendi qui mihi causa fuit.[86]\n\nThe sentiment of the following inscription frequently occurs on monuments,\nand has been imitated in modern times. MATER MONUMENTUM FECIT MOERENS\nFILIO, EX QUO NIHIL UNQUAM DOLUIT, NISI CUM IS NON FUIT.[87]\n\nWe learn from the sepulcral inscriptions that the Romans had the same\nfamiliar substitutes as ourselves for the formal appellations of father\nand mother, _mamma_ and _tata_. The following inscription is found at\nRome: D.M. ZETHO CORINTHUS TATA EJUS ET NICE MAMMA. VIXIT. ANN. I. D.\nVI.[88] These again had their affectionate diminutives, _mammula_ and\n_tatula_. It is probable, however, that the use of them was confined to\nfreedmen, and to that class of society. In one instance[89] a man erects a\nmonument to his aged _bonne_, NONN\u00c6 SU\u00c6. The word is not found in\nclassical Latinity; but it is the undoubted original of _nun_, and may\nsuggest that conventual vows were originally taken chiefly by aged\nfemales. In Italy at the present day it is the familiar name for\ngrandmother.\n\nThe inscriptions of children on the tombs of their parents, as might be\nexpected, are more brief and general, expressive of gratitude and filial\npiety: MATRI DULCISSIM\u00c6, PIENTISSIM\u00c6, or PIISSIM\u00c6, CARISSIM\u00c6, OPTIM\u00c6;\nPATRI AMABILI, OPTIMO; or conjointly PARENTIBUS OPTIMIS, is the usual\nstyle of these inscriptions. The monument of Meia records that she was\nthe mother of seven sons who had joined in raising a monument of Parian\nmarble to her memory.\n\n  Meia fui, felix septem circumdata natis;\n    Dum vixi adstabat turba tenella mihi.\n  Ut mihi grata vicem natorum turba referret\n    Hoc mihi de Pario marmore struxit opus.[90]\n\nI must observe here, by way of caution, that the authors of fictitious\ninscriptions have been nowhere more active than in producing _sentimental_\ninscriptions. That on Julia Alpinula was received as genuine by Johannes\nM\u00fcller, the historian of Switzerland and pronounced by Lord Byron to be\nthe most pathetic of human compositions. JULIA ALPINULA HIC JACEO.\nINFELICIS PATRIS INFELIX PROLES DE\u00c6 AVENTIC\u00c6 SACERDOS. EXORARE PATRIS\nNECEM NON POTUI. MALE MORI IN FATIS ILLI ERAT. VIXI ANN. XXIII. The hint\nwas taken from Tacitus (Hist. 1, 68), where C\u00e6cina is said to have put\nJulius Alpinus, the chief man of Aventicum, to death. It was sent by\nPaulus Gulielmus, a notorious literary impostor, to Lipsius, but the\noriginal has never been seen, and it is now universally admitted to be a\nforgery. Not a few of the poetical inscriptions in Burmann's \"Anthologia\"\nare of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was certainly,\nhowever, by no fraud of the author that the beautiful lines in Jortin's\n\"Lusus Poetici\" beginning,--\n\n  Qu\u00e6 te tam tenera rapuerunt Poeta juventa,\n\nhave been received into collections as ancient.\n\nAmong the sepulcral inscriptions arising out of the relations of life,\nthose of husbands and wives are naturally the most common. The celebrated\nspeech of Metellus Numidicus the Censor, when exhorting the Romans to\nmarriage, does not indicate a high appreciation of the female sex. \"If,\"\nsaid he, \"O Quirites, we could do without wives, we should all like to be\nfree from the annoyance; but since nature has so arranged things that we\ncan neither live comfortably with them nor at all without them, we should\nput up with a temporary inconvenience for the sake of a permanent\nbenefit.\" Gellius, who reports the speech, naturally remarks that this was\nno very powerful recommendation of matrimony, and that he should rather\nhave said that in general marriage had no troubles; that if they sometimes\nseem to occur, they were few and light and easy to be borne, and were\nthrown into the shade by greater pleasures and advantages; and that the\ntroubles which did arise did not happen to all, nor by the fault of\nnature, but from the fault and injustice of husbands. Castricius, on the\nother hand, vindicated Metellus, and maintained that as Censor he was\nbound to tell the whole truth, known to himself and admitted by every one\nelse.[91] On such a subject it is not fair to take the evidence of books,\nin which, in ancient times at least, only one side is heard; or of\nsatirists, who are, one and all, caricaturists, and very generally\nill-tempered men; or of poets, whose own lives were flagrantly licentious;\nnor to draw conclusions respecting the character of Roman women generally\nfrom a few notorious examples of vice in elevated stations. I believe that\nwe may obtain a truer as well as a more favourable conception of the\nconjugal relation in the imperial times, from the sepulcral inscriptions.\nThey proceed from the middle classes, who give its moral character to a\ncommunity; they are very numerous, and I cannot but believe the testimony\nwhich they bear to the general happiness of the married state.\n\nThe few inscriptions on women which have come down to us from the times of\nthe republic, show what were the practical, unostentatious, and\nhome-keeping qualities which were prized in the Roman matron, yet not\nwithout those gifts of pleasant speech and graceful carriage which set off\nthe more solid virtues of female character.\n\n  Hospes quod deico paullum est: asta ac pellige.\n  Heic est sepulcrum pulcrum pulcrai femin\u00e6.\n  Nomen parentes nominarunt Claudiam.\n  Suom mareitom corde dilexit souo.\n  Gnatos duo creavit: horunc alterum\n  In terra linquit, alium sub terra locat.\n  Sermone lepido, tum autem incessu commodo,\n  Domum servavit, lanam fecit. Dixi. Abei.[92]\n\nThe same qualities are predominant in an inscription of later date. HIC\nSITA EST AMYMONE MARCI OPTIMA ET PULCHERRIMA, LANIFICA, PIA, PUDICA,\nFRUGI, CASTA, DOMISEDA.[93] Intellectual accomplishments, however, were\nnot overlooked. JULI\u00c6 LUC. FILI\u00c6 TYRANNI\u00c6 VIXIT ANN. XX.M.VIII. QU\u00c6\nMORIBUS PARITER ET DISCIPLINA COETERIS FEMINIS EXEMPLO FUIT, AUTARCIUS\nNURUI. LAURENTIUS UCSORI.[94] The married life of the Romans appears to\nhave been remarkably free from those domestic differences which Paley,\naccording to a well-known anecdote, considered to be a useful corrective\nof its dulness. CONJUX INCOMPARABILIS, CUM QUA VIXI XXX ANNOS SINE\nQUERELA; SINE JURGIO; SINE DISSIDIO; SINE \u00c6MULATIONE; SINE ULLA ANIMI\nL\u00c6SIONE, are testimonies constantly occurring on the part of husbands to\ntheir wives. The collection of Fabretti contains several inscriptions,\ndeclaring that this harmony had continued during half a century of married\nlife.[95] The monuments erected by wives to their husbands are less\nnumerous, but they bear the same testimony to conjugal harmony. D.M. D.\nJUNI PRIMIGENIO QUI VIXIT ANNIS XXXV JUNIA PALLAS FECIT, CONJUGI KARISSIMO\nET PIENTISSIMO DE SE BENEMERENTI, CUM QUO VIXIT ANNIS XV MENSES VI\nDULCITER SINE QUERELA.[96] We find a husband recording on the tomb of his\nwife his vow never to contract a second marriage. TEMPIUS HERMEROS CONJUGI\nCARISSIM\u00c6 FECIT CON (sic) QUA VIXIT ANNOS XVIII SINE QUERELA. CUJUS\nDESIDERIO JURATUS EST SE POST EAM UXOREM NON HABITURUM.[97] It is not an\nunfrequent sentiment, that the death of the wife was the very first cause\nof sorrow that she had given to her husband, as in the following example\nat Rome. T. FL. CAPITO CONJUGI CASTISSIM\u00c6 PIISSIM\u00c6 ET DE SE OPTIME MERIT\u00c6,\nDE QUA NULLUM DOLOREM NISI ACERBISSIM\u00c6 MORTIS EJUS ACCEPERAT.[98]\n\nOne inscription might seem to indicate a different feeling, a husband\nsaying of his wife on her monument, CUJUS IN DIE MORTIS GRATIAS MAXIMAS\nEGI APUD DEOS ET APUD HOMINES; and the editor, Orelli, remarks upon it\n\"mirum dicterium!\"--a strange sarcasm. It would, indeed, be not only\nstrange, but brutal, in the sense which he attributes to it, but it surely\nadmits the more candid construction that the husband had seen his wife\nsuffering long and was grateful for her release. It may be illustrated by\nanother. OMIDIA BASILISSA VIXIT ANNOS XXV. QU\u00c6 POST LONGAS ET VARIAS\nINFIRMITATES HOMINIBUS EXEMPTA EST. MISERA VALE. MACEDO MARITUS.[99] Such\ntoo, was the import of the consolation which C. Publicius addresses to his\nparents.\n\n  Tempera jam genitor lacrimis, tuque, O optima mater,\n  Desine jam flere: poenam non sentio mortis.\n  Poena fuit vita; requies mihi morte parata est.[100]\n\nDeath sometimes came speedily to blight the prospects of happiness. D. M.\nL. ARULENUS SOSIMUS FECIT CLODI\u00c6 CHARIDI SU\u00c6 CONJUGI DULCISSIM\u00c6, QU\u00c6 SI AD\nVIT\u00c6 METAM PERVENISSET, NON HOMINIBUS NEQUE DIS INVIDISSET; SET VIX SECUM\nVIXIT DIES XV.[101] The following inscription beautifully expresses the\nwish that the harmony in which P. Manlius Surus and his wife had lived\nmight be prolonged in the joint resting-place of their remains; UT CONCORS\nVIVORUM ANIMUS STETIT, ITA CONCORS MORTUORUM CINIS HIC JACEAT.[102] It is\nsometimes recorded on the tombs of mothers by their husbands or their\nchildren, that they had fulfilled the duty which the philosopher\nFavorinus urged on the Roman matrons,[103] and Tansillo and Roscoe on the\nwomen of Italy and England, that of being nurse as well as mother. GRATI\u00c6\nALEXANDRI\u00c6, INSIGNIS EXEMPLI AC PUDICITI\u00c6, QU\u00c6 ETIAM FILIOS SUOS PROPRIIS\nUBERIBUS EDUCAVIT, PUDENS MARITUS. LICINI\u00c6 PROCESS\u00c6, MATRI PI\u00c6 NUTRICI\nDULCISSIM\u00c6, CRESCENS FECIT.[104]\n\nWe find traces, however, of the effects of the facility of divorce.\nNorthern superstition has represented a mother as disquieted in her grave\nby the ill-usage of her children, and coming in nightly visions to terrify\ntheir stepmother into better treatment of them; but a Roman mother lived\nto record on the tomb of her son that he had been poisoned by his\nstepmother. D. M. L. HOSTILI TER SILVANI ANN. XXIV. M. II. D. XV. MATER\nFILIO PIISSIMO. MISERA ET IN LUCTU \u00c6TERNALI BENEFICIO (VENEFICIO)\nNOVERC\u00c6.[105] Another conjugal tribute discloses a singular result of the\nsame state of the law. T. Sentius Januarius and L. Terentius Trophimus\njointly raise a memorial to Hostilia Capriola.[106] She must have been\nmarried to the one after having been divorced from the other; and as they\nagree in calling her CONJUGI BENE MERENTI, we must suppose the first\nmarriage to have been dissolved without criminality on her part. Such an\nassociation would seem strange, even in those continental countries, where\na divorced wife may sit at table between her first and second husband.\n\nI will conclude this subject of the \"affectus conjugum\" by the quotation\nof a beautiful inscription, said to have been found on a monument at Rome,\nwhich is figured in Gruter.[107] It purports to be a dialogue between\nAtimetus, a freedman of Tiberius C\u00e6sar, and his deceased wife (collibert\u00e6\net contubernali) Claudia Homonoea, the husband professing his desire to\ndie and rejoin his wife; the wife expressing her hope, that what had been\ntaken from her own life might be added to his. It has not escaped\nsuspicion, though the majority of critics admit its genuineness. If\ngenuine, it proceeds from the golden age of Latin literature; if the work\nof a scholar of the sixteenth century, it will still have an interest for\nthe reader of taste.\n\n  Tu qui secura procedis mente parumper\n    Siste gradum qu\u00e6so, verbaque pauca lege.\n\n  HOMONOEA.\n\n  Illa ego qu\u00e6 claris fueram pr\u00e6lata puellis\n    Hoc Homonoea brevi condita sum tumulo.\n  Cui formam Paphie, Charites tribuere decorem;\n    Quam Pallas cunctis artibus erudiit.\n  Nondum bis denos \u00e6tas mea viderat annos:\n    Injecere manus invida fata mihi.\n  Nec pro me queror hoc, morte est mihi tristior ipsa\n    Moeror Atimeti conjugis ille mei.\n\n  ATIMETUS.\n\n  Si pensare animas sinerent crudelia fata\n    Et posset redimi morte aliena salus,\n  Quantulacumque me\u00e6 debentur tempora vit\u00e6\n    Pensarem pro te, cara Homonoea libens.\n  At nunc, quod possum, fugiam lucemque deosque\n    Ut te matura per Styga morte sequar.\n\n  HOMONOEA.\n\n  Parce tuam conjux, fletu quassare juventam,\n    Fataque moerendo sollicitare mea.\n  Nil prosunt lacrim\u00e6, nec possunt fata moveri:\n    Viximus: hic omnes exitus unus habet.\n  Parce: ita non unquam similem experiare dolorem,\n    Et faveant votis numina cuncta tuis.\n  Quodque mihi eripuit more immatura juvent\u00e6\n    Id tibi victuro proroget ulterius.\n\nWe know from the Latin poets that favourite animals were honoured by a\nmonument (\"Luscini\u00e6 tumulum si Thelesina dedit,\" Martial, 7, 86). The\nfollowing inscription on a pet greyhound is found in the \"Anthologia:\"--\n\n  Docta per incertas audax discurrere silvas\n    Collibus hirsutas atque agitare feras;\n  Non gravibus vinclis unquam consueta teneri,\n    Verbera nec niveo corpore s\u00e6va pati.\n  Molli namque sinu domini domin\u00e6que jacebam,\n    Et noram in strato lassa cubare toro.\n  Et plus quam licuit muto canis ore loquebar;\n    Nulli latratus pertimuere meos.[108]\n\nD. M. is even prefixed to the epitaph on a Barbary mare (equa G\u00e6tulica),\nnamed Speudusa ([Greek: speudousa]), who is declared to be fleet as the\nwind, \"flabris compar.\" After the example of the Greeks, the Romans gave\nsignificant names to their race and chariot horses, several of which are\npreserved on the monument of Diodes, the driver of the Red Faction.[109]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere still remains the most interesting of all the subjects of inquiry\nwhich the Roman sepulcral inscriptions suggest, what was the state of\nreligious feeling and belief among the people with whom they originated?\nThe natural affections, springing from sources which exist in every human\nbreast, will express themselves with a certain similarity in all ages and\ncountries. But there is a wide difference in the religious faith and\nsentiment with which the bereavements of life are met, and which find\ntheir record on the funeral monument. One remarkable contrast strikes us\non comparing ancient with modern, Heathen with Christian inscriptions--the\nentire absence in the former of anything like resignation to the will of a\nsuperior Power, or any acknowledgment of a benevolent purpose in a painful\ndispensation. If the gods are alluded to it is in the way of complaint.\nMANUS LEBO (levo) CONTRA DEUM QUI ME INNOCENTEM SUSTULIT,[110] is a bold\ndefiance of Providence. Cornelius Victor, who died at the age of\nthirty-one, complains that his virtues had not secured him a longer life.\nVIXI SEMPER BENE UT VOLUI. NEMINEM L\u00c6SI. CUR MORTUUS SIM NESCIO;[111]\nwhile Marsilia Stabilis regrets that her eminent piety could not purchase\nexemption from the common destiny.\n\n  Si pietate aliquam redimi fatale fuisset,\n    Marsilia Stabilis prima redemta forem.[112]\n\nIf such a feeling of impatience and complaint could be allowed, we might\nsympathize with T. Claudius Hermes, who inscribes a monument, MERUL\u00c6 UXORI\nBENE DE SE MERENTI ET CAMPILIO ALBUNO INFANTI DULCISSIMO QUOS DII IRATI\nUNO DIE \u00c6TERNO SOMNO DEDERUNT.[113] Antinous and Panthea, who placed on\nthe tomb of their infant daughter Isiatis the sentiment, QUAM DI AMAVERUNT\nHAC MORITUR INFAS, appear from their names to have been Greeks, and to\nhave copied the Greek poet Menander.[114]\n\nNor does the deceased speak from the tomb with any words of consolation\nto those who are left behind, except that cold comfort, the \"solamen\nmiseris socios habuisse doloris.\" C. Gavius Primigenius, who died at the\nage of seven, thus addresses his mother:--\n\n  Desine jam mater lacrimis renovare querelas\n    Namque dolor talis non tibi contigit uni.[115]\n\nThe possibility that longer life might have been vicious or unhappy is\nurged as a motive to abstain from grief, as in the inscription on Lucia\nToreuma, who died at the age of nineteen:--\n\n  Exiguo, vit\u00e6 spacio feliciter acto\n    Effugi crimen longa senecta tuum.[116]\n\nThere would be no difficulty in deciding between the two following\ninscriptions, in each of which a deceased mother addresses her surviving\nhusband and children, which of them proceeded from a Heathen and which\nfrom a Christian source:--\n\n  Care marite mihi, dulcissima nata valete,\n    Et memores nostris semper date justa sepulcris.[117]\n\n  Parcite vos lacrimis dulces cum conjuge nat\u00e6\n    Viventemque Deo credits flere nefas.[118]\n\nNor are inscriptions wanting which declare the vanity of human wishes,\nand the fallaciousness of human hopes;--\n\n  Decipimur votis et tempore fallimur, et mors\n    Deridet curas; anxia vita nihil,\n\nis a distich which frequently occurs.[119] VIVE L\u00c6TUS QUIQUE (quicunque)\nVIVIS. VITA PARVUM MUNUS EST MOX EXORTA EST SENSIM VIGESCIT DEINDE SENSIM\nDEFICIT, expresses a similar sentiment. The sentiment on the tomb of\nVettius Hermes, MATER GENUIT ME, MATER RECEPIT, is not very different from\nthat of Scripture, \"Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return.\" The\ninscription, C. POMPEIUS EUPHROSYNUS ET JUNIA GEMELLA UXOR EJUS EX OMNIBUS\nBONIS SUIS HOC SIBI SUMPSERUNT, that the grave in which they lay was all\nthey had retained of their possessions, reminds us of the passage, \"We\nbrought nothing into this world, and it is certain that we can take\nnothing out.\"\n\nThese and similar sentiments express truths forced everywhere on man's\nnotice, and which may be looked for in many countries, and under many\nreligions. The inquiry, to which we might especially expect that the\nsepulcral inscriptions would furnish a full reply, is, what was the belief\nof the Romans, in the ages to which these memorials belong, respecting the\ncondition of man after death. The almost universal commencement of\nepitaphs with Diis Manibus, or the abbreviation D. M., might seem to\nindicate an universal belief in the continued existence of the spiritual\npart of his nature. For \"the divine Manes\" were the disembodied spirits of\nmen, waiting, according to those who believed in the transmigration of\nsouls, for reunion with another body; or, according to a more popular\nconception, lingering around the tomb, acutely sensitive to any violation\nor neglect, and gratified by the tokens of remembrance and affection; or\nin a still different view, the presiding deities of the world of spirits\nexercising a control over its inhabitants. Such must have been the\nconception of Furia Spes, when in the inscription upon her husband's tomb\nshe addresses a prayer to the Manes, that she might be permitted to see\nhim in her nightly dreams. PETO VOS MANES SANCTISSIM\u00c6, COMMENDATUM\nHABEATIS MEUM CONJUGEM ET VELITIS HUIC INDULGENTISSIMI ESSE, HORIS\nNOCTURNIS UT EUM VIDEAM. ET ETIAM ME FATO SUO ADDERE VELIT, UT ET EGO\nDULCIUS ET CELERIUS APUD EUM PERVENIRE POSSIM.[120] How far the formulary\nmention of the Dii Manes on sepulcres may be taken as a proof of the\ncontinued existence of the belief in which it undoubtedly originated is a\nquestion very difficult to decide. Pliny, while he ridicules the\nsuperstition, acknowledges the existence of the belief.[121] Juvenal, on\nthe contrary, declares that the belief in the Manes did not extend beyond\nthe nursery:--\n\n  Esse aliquid Manes et subterranea regna----\n  Nec pueri credunt nisi qui nondum \u00e6re lavantur.\n                                            Sat. 2, 149.\n\nI should receive with caution the testimony of a poetical censor of his\nage, who naturally fixes his eye on those circumstances only which justify\nhis fierce indignation. Nor do I draw any inference unfavourable to the\nbelief in a future existence from such expressions as \"domus \u00e6terna,\"\n\"quies \u00e6terna,\" and others of the same kind. They are found on Christian\nsepulcres, and may have a reference to the body, which it was hoped might\nnever be disturbed in its peaceful resting-place. It is natural also to\nregard the grave as a place of repose from the toils, the pains, and the\ntroubles of life, without believing it to be the \"be-all and the end-all\"\nof man's history. Even the inscription, D. M. ET SOMNO \u00c6TERNALI.\nSECURITATI MEMORI\u00c6QUE PERPETU\u00c6 \u00c6LI\u00c6 FLAVI\u00c6 MELITAN\u00c6,[122] may not involve\nthat disbelief which the words \"eternal sleep\" seem to us to imply. From\nthe list of doubters, at all events, must be excluded T. Claudius\nPanoptes, who erects a monument to his two daughters, in obedience to a\nvision (ex viso), and placed this challenge to sceptics on their tomb. TU\nQUI LEGES ET DUBITAS MANES ESSE, SPONSIONE FACTA INVOCA NOS ET\nINTELLIGES.[123] On the other hand, it is not to be denied that many\ninscriptions breathe a very Epicurean spirit. AMICI DUM VIVIMUS VIVAMUS,\nwas an exhortation rather to the enjoyment than the improvement of life.\nThe inscription on the tomb of Publius Clodius, QUOD COMEDI ET EBIBI\nTANTUM MEUM EST, seems copied from that of Sardanapalus.[124] Such\nsentiments, openly professed, revolt our moral taste. The most determined\nmodern votary of luxury and pleasure would not imitate Claudius Secundus,\nin declaring, HIC SECUM HABET OMNIA. BALNEA VINA VENUS CORRUMPUNT CORPORA\nNOSTRA. SED VITAM FACIUNT BALNEA VINA VENUS.[125] Public opinion, and,\nindeed, public authority, now impose restraints on the profession of\nirreligious or immoral sentiments, which were unknown to the more\nfree-spoken Romans. In truth, at the time to which our inscriptions\nbelong, though there was a national _cultus_, there cannot be said to have\nbeen a national religion.\n\nEven when their epitaphs imply a hope of a future existence, it is of that\ndoubtful and hypothetical kind, with the expression of which Tacitus\ncloses his life of Agricola. \"_Si_ quis piorum Manibus locus; si, ut\nsapientibus placet, non cum corpore extinguuntur magn\u00e6 anim\u00e6, placide\nquiescas.\"\n\n  Suscipe nunc conjunx, si quis post funera sensus,\n    Debita sacratis Manibus officia.[126]\n\nThe expression of a more confident hope, as in the two following\ninscriptions, does not exclude the suspicion that there it may be rather\npoetical imagery than religious faith. Atilia Marcella thus speaks in the\nname of her deceased husband Fabatus:--\n\n  Terrenum corpus, coelestis spiritus in me;\n  Quo repetente sedem suam nunc vivimus illic,\n  Et fruitur superis \u00e6terna in luce Fabatus.[127]\n\nThe mother of Theodote thus consoles herself for the loss of her daughter,\nwho was hardly five years old.\n\n  Virginis hic tener\u00e6, lector miserere sepult\u00e6;\n    Unius huic lustri vix fuit acta dies.\n  O quam longinqu\u00e6 fuerat dignissima vit\u00e6\n    Heu! cujus vivit nunc sine fine dolor--\n  Sola tamen tanti restant solatia luctus\n    Quod tales anim\u00e6 protinus astra petunt.[128]\n\nUpon the whole the evidence, negative even more than positive, of the\nRoman sepulcral inscriptions, abundantly confirms the testimony of heathen\nas well as Christian writers, to the absence of any definite and practical\nbelief in a future state, in the three or four first centuries after the\nChristian \u00e6ra. Yet few would be able tranquilly to acquiesce in the\ndoctrine of annihilation. They sought in other sources for that assurance\nwhich neither religion nor philosophy could afford them. Never was the\npractice of magic, incantations, necromancy, and mysteries more prevalent\nthan during the period in which Christianity was slowly supplanting the\nancient superstitions. It was evident that the fulness of the times was\ncome, and that if the world were not to be divided between the victims of\nreligious imposture and the disciples of Epicurus, light from on high must\nvisit the earth.\n\nOther inscriptions, not properly sepulcral, afford the same proof of the\nloss of all vital power in the old religion. Among all the religious\nmonuments which the Museum of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society\ncontains, there is not one to Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or any of the great\ngods of the popular creed. There is one to Hercules--a hero, not a god;\none to Fortune--a deified personification; one to the Genius of the\nplace--an elegant creation of poetry; one to the fictitious deity of the\nEmperor. The gods of the barbarians have evidently dethroned those of\nGreece and Rome. The legate of a Roman Legion records that he has rebuilt\nfrom the foundation a temple of the Egyptian Serapis. A Roman commander\nmust have constructed the cave in which the mystic rites of the Asiatic\nMithras were performed. We have an altar to the tutelary goddess of\nBrigantia; to Viterineus, a local deity of the neighbourhood of Hadrian's\nWall; and, lastly, to the god Arciacon, wholly unknown but from this\nunique inscription. It is evident that the popular religion was altogether\n\"a creed outworn.\" Art had familiarized men with the human representations\nof their deities; and even by the perfection of its visible and material\nworks had destroyed the belief in their spiritual existence and invisible\npower. Philosophy had exposed the folly of an anthropomorphic polytheism;\npoetry and the stage had made the gods contemptible. Nothing was left\nwhich could awaken reverence or love: instead of aiding, the popular\nreligion checked the impulse of the mind to connect the ideas of\ninfinitude and deity. But in the gods of the barbarous nations, who had\nremained without art, and without a mythology converting gods into men,\nthere was something obscure, mysterious, and indefinite; something on\nwhich imagination could fasten, and which it could readily invest with\nsupernatural attributes. He who looked on the Apollo of the Belvedere with\nno other feeling than that he beheld the triumph of the sculptor's art in\naction and expression, was overcome with a religious awe when he gazed on\nthe unmeaning faces and half-bestial forms of Egyptian deities. The genius\nof Rome was tolerant of all religions but the true; a hearty belief in the\ngods of his own Pantheon would not have prevented a Roman soldier from\ndoing homage to those of the country in which he was quartered, and\nseeking thus to gain their favour or avert their displeasure. But this\nwill not account for the extensive diffusion of the worship of Phrygia and\nThrace, Persia and Egypt, throughout the Roman empire. It was certainly an\nindication of a restless longing for something that could supply\nnourishment to the craving for religious faith which exists in the heart\nof man, and feeds itself on superstition when it can find no purer\naliment.\n\nAmong the sights of modern Rome there is none more interesting than that\nlong gallery of the Vatican called _Delle Lapidi_. On the right-hand wall\nare encased the sepulcral and other monuments of emperors, consuls and\ncommanders of legions, with their numerous and pompous titles;\ninscriptions to the gods and their priests. The elaborate and tasteful\nornaments, the finely-cut letters, the classical Latinity--all indicate\nthe rank and station of those by whom or in whose honour they were raised.\nOn the left are the Christian monuments, chiefly supplied by the\nCatacombs, which, during the ages of the obscurity and persecution of the\nChurch, served the Christians for sanctuary and cemetery, and even for a\ntemporary dwelling-place. The slabs from their tombs are of coarse\nmaterial--not Parian, or Carrara marble, or Egyptian porphyry; the letters\nare rudely made, the spelling and the syntax betray the humble rank and\nimperfect literary attainments of those who supplied them. No mention is\nmade of ample space allotted to the tomb, no anxious care is expressed to\nperpetuate the inheritance or provide for a long succession of occupants.\nThe Christian perhaps fell asleep in the expectation that the second\ncoming of his Lord, to call the tenants of the tomb to judgment, would not\nbe delayed beyond a few years. The Roman of family had three names; the\nChristian had no _gens_ with which to claim affinity; he was a\nproletarian, a mere unit amidst the millions. One simple name served to\nidentify him; his sepulcre might even be nameless--a circumstance of most\nrare occurrence in regard to Pagan tombs.[129] How strikingly does the\ncontrast confirm the declaration of the Apostle, that \"not many wise men\nafter the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble were called.\"[130] But to\nthis contrast there is another side. The heathen monuments represent a\ndecayed and dying superstition; the Christian, a living and triumphant\nfaith--\"the weak things of the world chosen to confound the strong.\" Their\ninscriptions speak of resignation, peace, and confidence; their emblems,\nthe Good Shepherd, the Dove, the Anchor, the Ark of Noah, all breathe the\nsame peaceful, humble, and yet hopeful spirit.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe literature of what the Germans call _Epigraphik_, that branch of\narch\u00e6ology which treats of inscriptions, is uncommonly rich--so rich,\nindeed, as to be embarrassing. The scholars of Italy, with Muratori and\nMaffei at their head, have been pre-eminent in their labours, which alone\nwould form a library. The inscriptions of Gaul and Helvetia, and of the\nRoman settlements on the Rhine and Danube, have been illustrated in\nspecial works. Those of our country may be found in Horsley's \"Britannia\nIllustrata,\" in the later work of Lysons, in Dr. Bruce's \"Roman Wall,\"\nand Stuart's \"Caledonia Illustrata.\" The great repository, in which all\nthat was known at the commencement of the eighteenth century has been\ncollected, is the \"Inscriptiones Antiqu\u00e6 totius orbis Romani,\" four\nvolumes, folio, begun by Joseph Scaliger, and enlarged by the successive\nlabours of Gruter and Gr\u00e6vius. These, with the folios of Fabretti and\nReinesius, are indispensable in the library of an arch\u00e6ologist, who\ndevotes himself to the study of inscriptions. The general scholar will\nfind an admirable selection in the work of Orelli, to which a supplemental\nvolume has been lately added by Henzen.[131] The monuments are carefully\nclassified; they are illustrated, without being overwhelmed with notes,\nand more care is taken than in any previous collection, to separate the\nspurious from the genuine inscriptions. Nowhere has mischievous ingenuity\nbeen more actively at work than in the forgery of Latin inscriptions,\nespecially in the sixteenth century, when the revival of classical studies\ngave value to every relic of antiquity, and the infancy of arch\u00e6ological\nscience rendered imposture easy. Among those who have deserved the\nreprobation of scholars by their forgeries, Pyrrhus Ligorius stands\npre-eminent. Ligorio was a Neapolitan by birth, a skilful artist and\narchitect, who, with considerable taste for antiquities, but little\nknowledge, employed himself in making collections of drawings of ancient\nbuildings, and copies of inscriptions and medals, which, when bound in\nvolumes, he sold at high prices to the munificent patrons of learning who\nthen abounded in Italy. Thirty-five of these volumes, in imperial folio,\nare in the Royal Library of Turin, and others are, or were, in the Library\nof the Vatican, and of the princely families of Rome. The temptation of\ngain was too strong for his honesty, and finding invention easier than\nresearch and discovery, he began to forge inscriptions in order to make up\nhis volumes. He is said to have been ignorant of the Latin language, but\neither this must be a mistake, or he was aided by some one of superior\nattainments to his own: for many of his forgeries prove the skill with\nwhich they were made, by the currency which they have obtained. He has\nfrequently combined fragments of different inscriptions; or taken names\nfrom the \"Consular Fasti,\" and inserted them so as to give his patchwork\nan air of genuineness. There can be no doubt that he really copied many\ninscriptions; but his bad faith has cast a shade over everything which\nrests on his sole authority. He is by no means the only one who has\nbrought on himself the malison of antiquaries and historians, by thus\ncorrupting the sources of historical evidence. The greatest caution is\nnecessary in citing an inscription, of which the alleged original no\nlonger exists, if it be not vouched by unexceptionable authority. On the\nother hand, some reputations which had been tarnished by the suspicion of\nthe forgery of ancient inscriptions, have been vindicated by Time. The\nname of Cyriac of Ancona was once a bye-word among scholars for a\nshameless impostor, who had passed his own inventions on the world as\ngenuine remains of antiquity. Yet he is now admitted to have acted with\ngood faith,[132] although through haste and ignorance he may have copied\ninaccurately and been imposed upon by others. It is ascertained that the\ncollection of Spanish inscriptions which has passed under his name, and\nwhich has given rise to the heaviest imputations against him, was\nfraudulently put forth and attributed to him.\n\nInscriptions have also been rejected on grounds of taste by critics, who\ndid not sufficiently reflect, that in an age when all other style had been\ncorrupted by affectation and bombast, the lapidary style could hardly have\nretained its original character of modesty, conciseness, and simplicity.\n\nMany sepulcral inscriptions, some of which have been quoted in the\npreceding pages, are preserved in MS. collections, and have been\nintroduced into the \"Anthologia Latina,\" which was begun by Scaliger, and\ncontinued by Pithoeus; and attained its most complete form in the hands of\nPeter Burmann.[133] About 400 sepulcral inscriptions are included in it,\nextending from the time of the Scipios, even down to the twelfth century\nafter the birth of Christ, and including of course many which are the\nproduction of Christian authors. Some of more recent composition have\nfound their way into these collections; but the majority attest their own\ngenuineness by their unrefined phraseology, and their violation of the\nlaws of prosody--faults which no modern scholar would have allowed himself\nto commit.\n\n\n\n\nADDENDUM TO PAGE 7, NOTE 2.\n\n\nAs I have not seen the existence of burial clubs among the Romans noticed\nin any work on Roman antiquities, I will give some extracts from the\nmonument referred to. It was found at Lanuvium, a town of ancient fame for\nthe worship of Juno Sospita, about nineteen miles from Rome on the Via\nAppia. The inhabitants of this town appear, out of flattery towards the\nEmperor Hadrian, in whose reign the marble was erected, to have formed\nthemselves into a college for paying divine honours to Diana and Antinous;\na singular combination, which shows at once the degraded condition of the\npeople, and the heartless formality of the established religion, which\ncould be prostituted to such a purpose. The privilege of forming a\ncollege--or as we should say a body corporate--was most sparingly\nconceded, and most jealously restricted under the Emperors, who dreaded\nall secret associations as nurseries of treason. With this primary object\nof forming a college of the \"Cultores Dian\u00e6 et Antinoi\" they combined\nthat of a burial club, not forgetting the festivities which formed so\nimportant a part of all acts of religion among the Romans. To prevent\ndisputes, the laws of the association were inscribed on marble, and\nprobably set up in the temple of the two deities.\n\nAn amphora of good wine was to be presented to the club by a new member;\nthe sum of one hundred sesterces to be paid as entrance-money, and five\n_asses_ per month as subscription. Their meetings were not to take place\noftener than once a month. If any one omitted payment for ... months (the\nmarble is here mutilated) no claim could be made, even though he had\ndirected it by will. In case of the death of one who had paid his\nsubscription regularly, three hundred sesterces were allotted for his\nfuneral expenses, out of which, however, fifty were to be set apart for\ndistribution at the cremation of the body. The funeral was to be a walking\none. If any one died more than twenty miles from Lanuvium, and his death\nwas announced, three delegates from the college were to repair to the\nplace where he had died to perform his funeral, and render an account to\nthe people. Fraud was to be punished by a fourfold fine. Twenty sesterces\neach were to be allowed the delegates for travelling expenses, going and\nreturning. If the death had taken place more than twenty miles from\nLanuvium, and no notice had been sent, the person who had performed the\nfuneral was to send a sealed certificate, attested by seven Roman\ncitizens, on the production of which the usual sum for the expenses was to\nbe granted. If a member of the college had left a will, only the heir\nnamed in it could claim anything. If he died intestate, the\n_quinquennales_, or magistrates of the municipium, and the people\ngenerally, were to direct how the funeral should take place. If any member\nof the college in the condition of a slave should die, and his body,\nthrough the unjust conduct of his master or mistress, should not be given\nup for burial, his funeral should be celebrated by his bust being carried\nin procession. No funeral of a suicide was to take place. There are many\nother rules tending to preserve order and promote good fellowship, but\nthese are all which relate to the burial club. I subjoin extracts from the\noriginal. The purpose of the incorporation of the college is thus\ndeclared:--\n\n    COLLEGIUM SALUTARE DIAN\u00c6 ET ANTINOI CONSTITUTUM EX SENATUS POPULIQUE\n    ROMANI DECRETO QUIBUS COIRE CONVENIRE COLLEGIUMQUE HABERE LICEAT. QUI\n    STIPEM MENSTRUAM CONFERRE VOLEAT IN FUNERA, IN ID COLLEGIUM COEANT,\n    NEQUE SUB SPECIE EJUS COLLEGII NISI SEMEL IN MENSE COEANT, CONFERENDI\n    CAUSA UNDE DEFUNCTI SEPELIANTUR.\n\n    TU QUI NOVOS (_NOVUS_) IN HOC COLLEGIO INTRARE VOLES, PRIUS LEGEM\n    PERLEGE ET SIC INTRA, NE POSTMODUM QUERARIS, AUT HEREDI TUO\n    CONTROVERSIAM RELINQUAS.\n\n    LEX COLLEGI PLACUIT UNIVERSIS, UT QUISQUIS IN HOC COLLEGIUM INTRARE\n    VOLUERIT, DABIT KAPITULARI NOMINE H.S. (_SESTERTIOS_) C. NUMMOS, ET\n    VINI BONI AMPHORAM, ITEM IN MENSES SING. ASSES V.\n\n    ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS MENSIBUS CONTINUIS ________ NON PARIAVERIT,\n    ET EI HUMANITUS ACCIDERIT, EJUS RATIO FUNERIS NON HABEBITUR, ETIAM SI\n    TESTAMENTUM FACTUM HABUERIT.\n\n    ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS EX HOC CORPORE NUMMOS PARIATUS DECESSERIT EUM\n    SEQUENTUR EX ARCA H.S. CCC NUMMI, EX QUA SUMMA DECEDENT EXEQUIARI\n    NOMINE H.S. L. NUMMI, QUI AD ROGUS (_ROGOS_) DIVIDENTUR, EXEQUI\u00c6 AUTEM\n    PEDIBUS FUNGENTUR.\n\n    ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS A MUNICIPIO ULTRA MILLIARIA XX DECESSERIT, ET\n    NUNTIATUM FUERIT, EO EXIRE DEBEBUNT ELECTI EX CORPORE NOSTRO HOMINES\n    TRES, QUI FUNERIS EJUS CURAM AGANT ET RATIONEM POPULO REDDERE DEBEBUNT\n    SINE DOLO MALO, ET SI QUIT (_QUID_) IN EIS FRAUDIS CAUSA INVENTUM\n    FUERIT EIS MULTA ESTO QUADRUPLUM QUIBUS (_FUNERATICIUM_) EJUS\n    DABITUR. HOC AMPLIUS VIATICI NOMINE, ULTRO CITRO, SINGULIS H.S. XX\n    NUMMI.\n\n    QUOD SI LONGIUS A MUNICIPIO SUPRA MILLIARIA XX DECESSERIT ET NUNTIARI\n    NON POTUERIT, TUM IS QUI EUM FUNERAVERIT TESTATOR REM TABULIS SIGNATIS\n    SIGILLIS CIVIUM ROMANORUM VII ET PROBATA CAUSA FUNERATICIUM EJUS\n    SATISDATO.\n\n    NEQUE PATRONO NEQUE PATRON\u00c6 NEQUE DOMINO NEQUE DOMIN\u00c6 NEQUE CREDITORI\n    EX HOC COLLEGIO ULLA PETITIO ESTO NISI SI QUIS TESTAMENTO HERES\n    NOMINATUS ERIT. SI QUIS INTESTATUS DECESSERIT IS ARBITRIO\n    QUINQUENNALIUM ET POPULI FUNERABITUR.\n\n    ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS EX HOC COLLEGIO SERVUS DEFUNCTUS FUERIT, ET\n    CORPUS EJUS A DOMINO DOMINAVE INIQUITATE SEPULTUR\u00c6 DATUM NON FUERIT,\n    NEQUE TABELLAS FECERIT, EI FUNUS IMAGINARIUM FIET.\n\n    ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS EX QUACUMQUE CAUSA MORTEM SIBI ADSCIVERIT EJUS\n    RATIO FUNERIS NON HABEBITUR.\n\n    ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS SERVUS EX HOC COLLEGIO LIBER FACTUS FUERIT,\n    IS DARE DEBEBIT VINI BONI AMPHORAM.\n\nThis curious document affords an additional proof how much ancient life is\nfound to resemble the modern, when we gain an insight into its interior\nthrough the medium of its monuments. By this means institutions and\ncustoms which have been thought peculiar to recent or medi\u00e6val times may\nbe traced upwards, through Rome and Greece, even to the fountains of\ncivilization in Egypt and the East.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\nWoodfall and Kinder, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London.\n\n\n\n\nThe ground on which the Museum, Library, and Lecture-Theatre, with the\nBotanic Garden and Observatory, of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society\nstand, was originally covered by the monastic buildings of the abbey of\nSt. Mary. In a portion of the same buildings was established the court and\npalace of the Lord President of the Council of the North. The tyrannical\nproceedings of this Council, especially under the presidency of the Earl\nof Strafford, had a great share in bringing about the fate both of the\nEarl himself and his royal master. This remarkable succession of occupancy\nsuggested the following inscription, in which it may be observed that it\nis to monkery, not to the religion of the Middle Ages universally, that\nthe epithet in the ninth line is applied.\n\n  QUO\u00b7 PRIMUM\u00b7 LOCO\n  COENOBIUM\u00b7 BEAT\u00c6\u00b7 VIRGINIS\u00b7 MARI\u00c6\n  DEINDE\u00b7 PROCURATORIS\u00b7 REGII\u00b7 PALATIUM\u00b7 STETIT\n  COMITATUS EBORACENSIS\n  HAS\u00b7 \u00c6DES\u00b7 COLLATA\u00b7 PECUNIA\u00b7 EXSTRUCTAS\n  OMNIUM\u00b7 DISCIPLINARUM\u00b7 STUDIIS\u00b7 DICAVIT.\n\n  TU\u00b7 QUI\u00b7 LEGIS\u00b7 AGNOSCE\n  NOSTRI\u00b7 S\u00c6CULI\u00b7 FELICITATEM\n  QUO\u00b7 ANIMIS\u00b7 HOMINUM\u00b7 SUPERSTITIONE\u00b7 LIBERATIS\n  TYRANNORUM\u00b7 VIOLENTIA\u00b7 LEGIBUS\u00b7 FR\u00c6NATA\n  HARUM\u00b7 IPSIS\u00b7 IN\u00b7 SEDIBUS\u00b7 LICUIT\u00b7 PHILOSOPHI\u00c6\n  DOMICILIUM\u00b7 SUUM\u00b7 COLLOCARE.\n\n\n\n\nPUBLICATIONS BY THE REV. JOHN KENRICK.\n\n\nAN ESSAY ON PRIM\u00c6VAL HISTORY.\n\n_Price 5s._\n\n                  Ambagibus \u00e6vi\n  Obtegitur densa caligine mersa vetustas.\n                                    SILIUS ITALICUS.\n\n\nANCIENT EGYPT UNDER THE PHARAOHS.\n\n_2 Vols. 8vo. Price 30s._\n\n                [Greek: Ariprepe\u00f4n genos andr\u00f4n,\n  Hoi pr\u00f4toi biotoio diest\u00easanto keleuthous,\n  Pr\u00f4toi d' himeroentos epeir\u00easanto arotrou,\n  Pr\u00f4toi de gramm\u00easi polon diemet\u00eanr\u00easanto,\n  Thym\u00f4 phrassamenoi loxon dromon \u00eaelioio.]\n                                    DIONYSII _Periegesis_, 232.\n\n\nPHOENICIA.\n\n_1 Vol. With Maps and Illustrative Plates. Price 16s._\n\nPhoenices, solers hominum genus et ad belli pacisque munia eximium;\nliteras et literarum opera aliasque etiam artes, maria navibus adire,\nclasse confligere, imperitare gentibus commenti.--POMP. MELA, I. 12.\n\n\nLONDON:\n\nT. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The tomb of the Scipios on the Appian Way was discovered in the year\n1780, and its inscriptions have been illustrated by the two Viscontis.\nThey are now in the Vatican. The oldest of them, that of L. C. Scipio\nBarbatus, is of the beginning of the third century B.C.\n\n[2] See Proceedings of Yorkshire Philos. Society, vol. i. p. 53.\n\n[3] Hieronym. ad Es. 7, 14. Augustin Tract. 15 in Evang. Joann.\n\n[4] Kirchmann de Funer. Rom. c. 20, 21. Dodwell, 1, 428.\n\n[5] Sylv. 2, 2, 13.\n\n[6] C. Nep. Att. 22. Vict. Epit. 60.\n\n[7] H. E. Smith, Reliqui\u00e6 Isurian\u00e6.\n\n[8] Morcelli de Stylo Inscr. Lat. p. 363. Orelli, Inscr. 3998, 9. The\nRomans had also their Burial Clubs. See the regulations of one, Henzen,\n6086.\n\n[9] Plin. N. H. 1241. Periti rerum asseverant non ferre Arabiam tantum\nannuo foetu, quantum Nero novissimo Popp\u00e6\u00e6 su\u00e6 die concremaverit. Juv.\nSat. 4, 108. \"Matutino sudans Crispinus amomo, Quantum vix redolent duo\nfunera.\"\n\n[10] Fabretti, p. 230.\n\n[11] Arch\u00e6ologia, vol. 26, p. 270.\n\n[12] Gruter, p. 898. Orelli, 6237.\n\n[13] Anthol. 4, 271.\n\n[14] Mommsen, Inscr. Neap. 4135.\n\n[15] Henzen, Suppl. ad Orell. 6976, 7.\n\n[16] Fabretti, p. 612.\n\n[17] Orelli, 4859.\n\n[18] Reines, p. 1000.\n\n[19] The various and unsatisfactory conjectures of the learned respecting\nthis phrase may be seen in Facciolati s. v. _Ascia._ It occurs especially\non monuments in Lyons and Southern Gaul.\n\n[20] Reines, p. 763.\n\n[21] Gruter, pp. 844, 862. Augustus forbade his daughter Julia to be\ninterred in his monument.--Sueton. Octavianus, c. 101.\n\n[22] Orelli, 4397. Fabretti p. 91.\n\n[23] Gruter, p. 762, 5.\n\n[24] Orelli, 4390.\n\n[25] Orelli, 4360.\n\n[26] Morcelli, de Stilo Inscr. p. 103.\n\n[27] Meyer, Anthol. Lat. 1178. Singular is the inscription, \"Semirami\u00e6\nLicinian\u00e6, quam loco fili\u00e6 diligo, ob merita ejus _vivus viv\u00e6\nfeci_.\"--Orelli, 4676.\n\n[28] Gruter, p. 607, 1.\n\n[29] Reines, p. 388, 53. We find (Gruter, p. 399, 1) ten jugera of land\nbequeathed \"tutel\u00e6 nomine.\"\n\n[30] Orelli, 4070.\n\n[31] Fabretti, p. 232.\n\n[32] Medicus jumentarius. Orelli, 4229, 4231. Valeria Verecunda is called\non her monument \"Iatromeia (physician-midwife) regionis su\u00e6 prima.\"--Grut.\np. 1110.\n\n[33] Gruter, p. 1148, Petron. Arb. p. 388. I have printed these lines as\nhexameter and pentameter, for which they appear to have been intended,\nthough the author was \"ill at these numbers.\" Faults of prosody are very\ncommon in the poetical inscriptions, and prose and verse are sometimes\nsingularly intermixed.\n\n[34] Fabretti, p. 715.\n\n[35] Anthol. Lat. 4, 155.\n\n[36] Meyer Anthol. 1438.\n\n[37] Orelli, 2990.\n\n[38] Anthol. 4, 101.\n\n[39] From a monument recently discovered at Lamb\u00e6sa, in Northern Africa.\nThe ellipsis of _magis_ before _quam_ is found in Latin authors,\nespecially Tacitus.--See Germ. 7. Cedere loco consilii quam formidinis\narbitrantur. A similar complaint of death by magic occurs on the grave of\na boy of four years old at Verona.--Maffei, Mus. Veron. 170.\n\n[40] Mommsen, Inscr. Neap. 4870.\n\n[41] Gruter, p. 831, 6.\n\n[42] Orelli, 4600.\n\n[43] Gruter, p. 340.\n\n[44] Nat. Hist. 29, 1.\n\n[45] Orelli, 4944.\n\n[46] See Priscian, vi. 1, who quotes from old Latin authors, monetas for\nmonet\u00e6; escas for esc\u00e6; and vias for vi\u00e6.\n\n[47] Orelli, 2778. He observes, \"_jacit_ est etiam in aliis Britannicis.\"\n\n[48] Orelli, 4544. Dua obrendaria.\n\n[49] Prisc. vi. 1.\n\n[50] Anthol. Meyer, 1424.\n\n[51] Gruter, p. 572.\n\n[52] Fabretti, pp. 113, 575.\n\n[53] Quinct. 1, 5, 20.\n\n[54] B nec penitus caret aspiratione, nec eam plene possidet. Prisc. 1, 5,\n26.\n\n[55] Ab scala Mediana. Orelli, 3093. The grammarians condemn the use of\nscala in the singular as a solecism. (Quinct. 1, 5, 16). M. Abudius\nLuminaris, who raises this monument, had married his own freedwoman;\n\"Patronus idemque conjux.\" There are inscriptions by freedmen to patron\u00e6,\nwho were also their wives. Such marriages were forbidden by Severus,\nunless under the sanction of a judge; and when the patrona was of such\nhumble rank, \"ut ei honest\u00e6 sint vel liberti sui nupti\u00e6.\" Fabretti, p.\n290. Anicia Glycera (Orell. 4649) records her gratitude to her husband,\n\"qui ex imo ordine ad summum me perduxit honorem,\" as from a slave he had\nmade her his wife. The Greek slave would often be, in manners and culture,\nsuperior to the Roman master.\n\n[56] Spon. Misc. p. 143. There has been a great controversy respecting the\nmedical men of Rome--whether they were slaves; the monuments show them to\nhave been commonly Greek freedmen.\n\n[57] Orelli, 2645.\n\n[58] P. 239. Juv. 5, 170. An imitation of the _caput rasum_ appears to be\nstill the professional costume of the clown.\n\n[59] Grut. p. 312, 7. Juv. 2, 112. Quinct. 11, 3.\n\n[60] See in Smith's Dictionary, s. v. Bathyllus, an account of the\n_furore_ of the Romans for the pantomimic representations and their\nvicissitudes of imperial favour or prohibition.\n\n[61] L. Marius Austus Enuntiator ab sc\u00e6na Gr\u00e6ca. Orelli, 2614.\n\n[62] Grut. p. 637, 1.\n\n[63] Hist. 8, 10.\n\n[64] Grut. p. 332. The contest took place A.D. 110.\n\n[65] Mai Auct. Class 5, p. 414.\n\n[66] Anthol. iv. 357. Lucian, [Greek: peri orch\u00ease\u00f4s--Kath\u00easai\nkatauloumenos th\u00ealudrian anthr\u00f4pon or\u00f4n, esth\u00easi malakais kai asmasin\nakolastois enabrunomenon, kai mimoumenon er\u00f4tika gynaia t\u00f4n palai tas\nmachlotatas Phaidras kai Parthenopas kai 'Podopas tinas.] A truer\nrepresentation, it is to be feared, of what pantomime actually was, than\nthe semi-serious defence of Lucian, who makes the theatre a school of\nself-knowledge and self-control, and the education of the dancer a course\nof mythological and poetical learning.\n\n[67] Bulletino dell Istit. Arch. 1838, p. 165. The inscription is, \"Fuit\nAtistia uxor mihei, femina opituma, quoius corporis reliqui\u00e6 quod superant\nsunt in hoc panario.\"--Henzen, 7268.\n\n[68] Maitland on the Catacombs, p. 138.\n\n[69] Arch\u00e6ol. Journal, 4, 55.\n\n[70] P. 6.\n\n[71] Gruter, p. 926-8.\n\n[72] Gruter, p. 904.\n\n[73] Fabretti, p. 560, who observes, \"In tanto inscriptionum sepulcralium\nnumero rari admodum reperiuntur qui longam senectutem expleverint.\"\n\n[74] Orelli, 4849.\n\n[75] Such is that otherwise elegant epitaph on Fl. Merobaudes, of the year\n435 A.D. \"\u00c6que forti et docto viro, tam facere laudanda quam aliorum facta\nlaudare pr\u00e6cipuo. Castrensi experientia claro, facundia vol otiosorum\nstudia supergresso, cui a crepundiis par virtutis et eloquenti\u00e6 cura.\nIngenium ita fortitudini ut doctrin\u00e6 natum, stilo et gladio pariter\nexercuit, nec in umbra vel latebris mentis vigorem torpere passus. Inter\narma literis militabat et in Alpibus acuebat eloquium. Ideo illi cessit in\nproemium non verbena vilis nec otiosa hedera, honor capitis Heliconius,\nsed imago \u00e6re formata, quo rari exempli viros, seu in castris probatos,\nseu optimos vatum, antiquitas honorabat.\" This inscription was engraved on\nthe base of a statue dug out of the Forum Ulpii at Rome, in the beginning\nof the present century. Fragments of the poetry of Merobaudes, and his\nPanegyric on the consulship of A\u00ebtius have been found by Niebuhr in a MS.\nat St. Gal, and are published in the Corp. Script. Hist. Byzant. vol.\nxxiv. The Christianity of Merobaudes, like that of Boethius, is ambiguous.\n\n[76] Henzen, 7374.\n\n[77] Gruter, p. 624.\n\n[78] Gruter, p. 654.\n\n[79] Anthol. Meyer, 1228.\n\n[80] Eckhel, Doctr. Num. pl. II. vol. v. p. 90.\n\n[81] Orelli, 4657.\n\n[82] Anthol. iv. 231.\n\n[83] Gruter, p. 718.\n\n[84] Gruter, p. 1000. Anthol. iv. 222.\n\n[85] Anthol. iv. 265.\n\n[86] Anthol. ii. 466.\n\n[87] Orelli, 4609.\n\n[88] Orelli, 2813. Several examples may be seen in Gruter, p. 663. _Tata_,\nfor father, is still in use among the lower classes in Rome. See Bunsen,\nPhilosophy of Universal History, vol. i. p. 103.\n\n[89] Orelli, 2815.\n\n[90] Gruter, p. 733, 9. More correctly in Meyer, Anthol. 1403.\n\n[91] Noctes Att. 1, 6.\n\n[92] Gruter, p. 769, 9.\n\n[93] Fabretti, p. 252.\n\n[94] Orelli, 4658.\n\n[95] Fabretti, p. 267.\n\n[96] Gruter, p. 797.\n\n[97] Orelli, 4623.\n\n[98] Fabretti, p. 275, where many similar examples are collected.\n\n[99] Gruter, p. 813, 3.\n\n[100] Gruter, p. 1036, 2. Liberties are taken with prosody in this as in\nother poetical epitaphs.\n\n[101] Gruter, p. 758, 4.\n\n[102] Gruter, p. 435, 2.\n\n[103] See his exhortation in Gellius, Noct. Att. 12, 1.\n\n[104] Fabretti, p. 187. That feeding by hand was also common among the\nRomans is evident from the occurrence of earthen bottles used for this\npurpose. The Museum of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society contains\nseveral specimens of them. See also the Abb\u00e9 Cochet's Normandie\nSouterraine, p. 130.\n\n[105] Orelli, 4604.\n\n[106] Orelli, 2660.\n\n[107] Gruter, p. 607. Meyer, Anthologia, 1274.\n\n[108] Antholog. iv. 402.\n\n[109] Gruter, p. 337. Comp. Gibbon, c. xl. 2.\n\n[110] Gruter, p. 820. The hands uplifted in protest are sculptured on the\nmonument.\n\n[111] Gruter, p. 908.\n\n[112] Reines, p. 709.\n\n[113] Orelli, 4796.\n\n[114] [Greek: On hoi theoi philousin apothn\u00easkei neos.] Menander, [Greek:\nDis Exapat\u00f4ntos]. Gruter, p. 688.\n\n[115] Orelli, 4829.\n\n[116] Ibid., 4852.\n\n[117] Ibid., 5070.\n\n[118] Maitland on the Catacombs. Its date is A.D. 472.\n\n[119] Gruter, p. 677, 12. Orelli, 4845.\n\n[120] Gruter, p. 786, 5.\n\n[121] Post sepulturam vari\u00e6 Manium ambages. Omnibus a suprema die eadem\nqu\u00e6 ante primum, nec magis a morte sensus ullus aut corpori aut anim\u00e6,\nquam ante natalem. Eadem enim vanitas in futurum etiam se propagat et in\nmortis quoque tempora ipsa sibi vitam mentitur, alias immortalitatem\nanim\u00e6, alias transfigurationem, alias sensum inferis dando, et Manes\ncolendo, et Deum faciendo qui jam etiam homo esse desierit, 7, 55.\n\n[122] Gruter, p. 751, 3.\n\n[123] Orelli, 7346.\n\n[124] Cic. Tusc. v. 35. A similar inscription is given by Morcelli, p.\n431. D. M. T. Flavius Martialis H. S. E. Quod edi bibi, mecum habeo; quod\nreliqui perdidi.\n\n[125] Gruter, p. 615, 11.\n\n[126] Fabretti, p. 80.\n\n[127] Gruter, p. 772, 8.\n\n[128] Anthol. iv. 131.\n\n[129] Fabretti, p. 545.\n\n[130] Maitland, Church in the Catacombs, p. 10.\n\n[131] Inscriptionum Latinarum selectarum amplissima collectio. Edidit Jo.\nCasp. Orellius. 2 voll. Turici, 1828. Vol. tertium, edidit Gulielmus\nHenzen. Turici, 1856.\n\n[132] See Orelli, vol. I, p. 35, who quotes Tiraboschi Storia della\nLitteratura Italiana, T. VI. P. I. p. 263. Ed. di Milano.\n\n[133] A useful and critical edition has been published under the following\ntitle:--Anthologia Veterum Latinorum Epigrammatum et Poematum. Editionem\nBurmannianam digessit et auxit Henricus Meyerus, Turicensis. Tom II. 8.\nLipsi\u00e6, 1835.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nThe original text contains letters with diacritical marks that are not\nrepresented in this text version.\n\nThe original text includes Greek characters. For this text version these\nletters have been replaced with transliterations.\n\nThe original text includes an intentional blank space. This is represented\nby ________ in this text version.","title":"Roman Sepulchral Inscriptions: Their Relation to Arch\u00e6ology, Language, and Religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":15825}