have been received into collections as ancient.
Among the sepulcral inscriptions arising out of the relations of life, those of husbands and wives are naturally the most common. The celebrated speech of Metellus Numidicus the Censor, when exhorting the Romans to marriage, does not indicate a high appreciation of the female sex. “If,” said he, “O Quirites, we could do without wives, we should all like to be free from the annoyance; but since nature has so arranged things that we can neither live comfortably with them nor at all without them, we should put up with a temporary inconvenience for the sake of a permanent benefit.” Gellius, who reports the speech, naturally remarks that this was no very powerful recommendation of matrimony, and that he should rather have said that in general marriage had no troubles; that if they sometimes seem to occur, they were few and light and easy to be borne, and were thrown into the shade by greater pleasures and advantages; and that the troubles which did arise did not happen to all, nor by the fault of nature, but from the fault and injustice of husbands. Castricius, on the other hand, vindicated Metellus, and maintained that asCensor he was bound to tell the whole truth, known to himself and admitted by every one else.[91]On such a subject it is not fair to take the evidence of books, in which, in ancient times at least, only one side is heard; or of satirists, who are, one and all, caricaturists, and very generally ill-tempered men; or of poets, whose own lives were flagrantly licentious; nor to draw conclusions respecting the character of Roman women generally from a few notorious examples of vice in elevated stations. I believe that we may obtain a truer as well as a more favourable conception of the conjugal relation in the imperial times, from the sepulcral inscriptions. They proceed from the middle classes, who give its moral character to a community; they are very numerous, and I cannot but believe the testimony which they bear to the general happiness of the married state.
The few inscriptions on women which have come down to us from the times of the republic, show what were the practical, unostentatious, and home-keeping qualities which were prized in the Roman matron, yet not without those gifts of pleasant speech and graceful carriage which set off the more solid virtues of female character.
Hospes quod deico paullum est: asta ac pellige.Heic est sepulcrum pulcrum pulcrai feminæ.Nomen parentes nominarunt Claudiam.Suom mareitom corde dilexit souo.Gnatos duo creavit: horunc alterumIn terra linquit, alium sub terra locat.Sermone lepido, tum autem incessu commodo,Domum servavit, lanam fecit. Dixi. Abei.[92]
The same qualities are predominant in an inscription of later date.HIC SITA EST AMYMONE MARCI OPTIMA ET PULCHERRIMA, LANIFICA, PIA, PUDICA, FRUGI, CASTA, DOMISEDA.[93]Intellectual accomplishments, however, were not overlooked.JULIÆ LUC. FILIÆ TYRANNIÆ VIXIT ANN. XX.M.VIII. QUÆ MORIBUS PARITER ET DISCIPLINA CŒTERIS FEMINIS EXEMPLO FUIT, AUTARCIUS NURUI. LAURENTIUS UCSORI.[94]The married life of the Romans appears to have been remarkably free from those domestic differences which Paley, according to a well-known anecdote, considered to be a useful corrective of its dulness.CONJUX INCOMPARABILIS, CUM QUA VIXI XXX ANNOS SINE QUERELA; SINE JURGIO; SINE DISSIDIO; SINE ÆMULATIONE; SINE ULLA ANIMI LÆSIONE, are testimonies constantly occurring on the part of husbands to their wives. The collection of Fabretti contains several inscriptions, declaring that this harmony had continued during half a century of married life.[95]The monuments erected by wives to their husbands are less numerous, but they bear the sametestimony to conjugal harmony.D.M. D. JUNI PRIMIGENIO QUI VIXIT ANNIS XXXV JUNIA PALLAS FECIT, CONJUGI KARISSIMO ET PIENTISSIMO DE SE BENEMERENTI, CUM QUO VIXIT ANNIS XV MENSES VI DULCITER SINE QUERELA.[96]We find a husband recording on the tomb of his wife his vow never to contract a second marriage.TEMPIUS HERMEROS CONJUGI CARISSIMÆ FECIT CON(sic)QUA VIXIT ANNOS XVIII SINE QUERELA. CUJUS DESIDERIO JURATUS EST SE POST EAM UXOREM NON HABITURUM.[97]It is not an unfrequent sentiment, that the death of the wife was the very first cause of sorrow that she had given to her husband, as in the following example at Rome.T. FL. CAPITO CONJUGI CASTISSIMÆ PIISSIMÆ ET DE SE OPTIME MERITÆ, DE QUA NULLUM DOLOREM NISI ACERBISSIMÆ MORTIS EJUS ACCEPERAT.[98]
One inscription might seem to indicate a different feeling, a husband saying of his wife on her monument,CUJUS IN DIE MORTIS GRATIAS MAXIMAS EGI APUD DEOS ET APUD HOMINES; and the editor, Orelli, remarks upon it “mirum dicterium!”—a strange sarcasm. It would, indeed, be not only strange, but brutal, in the sense which he attributes to it, but it surely admits the more candid construction that the husband had seen his wifesuffering long and was grateful for her release. It may be illustrated by another.OMIDIA BASILISSA VIXIT ANNOS XXV. QUÆ POST LONGAS ET VARIAS INFIRMITATES HOMINIBUS EXEMPTA EST. MISERA VALE. MACEDO MARITUS.[99]Such too, was the import of the consolation which C. Publicius addresses to his parents.
Tempera jam genitor lacrimis, tuque, O optima mater,Desine jam flere: pœnam non sentio mortis.Pœna fuit vita; requies mihi morte parata est.[100]
Death sometimes came speedily to blight the prospects of happiness.D. M. L. ARULENUS SOSIMUS FECIT CLODIÆ CHARIDI SUÆ CONJUGI DULCISSIMÆ, QUÆ SI AD VITÆ METAM PERVENISSET, NON HOMINIBUS NEQUE DIS INVIDISSET; SET VIX SECUM VIXIT DIES XV.[101]The following inscription beautifully expresses the wish that the harmony in which P. Manlius Surus and his wife had lived might be prolonged in the joint resting-place of their remains;UT CONCORS VIVORUM ANIMUS STETIT, ITA CONCORS MORTUORUM CINIS HIC JACEAT.[102]It is sometimes recorded on the tombs of mothers by their husbands or their children, that they had fulfilled the duty which thephilosopher Favorinus urged on the Roman matrons,[103]and Tansillo and Roscoe on the women of Italy and England, that of being nurse as well as mother.GRATIÆ ALEXANDRIÆ, INSIGNIS EXEMPLI AC PUDICITIÆ, QUÆ ETIAM FILIOS SUOS PROPRIIS UBERIBUS EDUCAVIT, PUDENS MARITUS. LICINIÆ PROCESSÆ, MATRI PIÆ NUTRICI DULCISSIMÆ, CRESCENS FECIT.[104]
We find traces, however, of the effects of the facility of divorce. Northern superstition has represented a mother as disquieted in her grave by the ill-usage of her children, and coming in nightly visions to terrify their stepmother into better treatment of them; but a Roman mother lived to record on the tomb of her son that he had been poisoned by his stepmother.D. M. L. HOSTILI TER SILVANI ANN. XXIV. M. II. D. XV. MATER FILIO PIISSIMO. MISERA ET IN LUCTU ÆTERNALI BENEFICIO (VENEFICIO) NOVERCÆ.[105]Another conjugal tribute discloses a singular result of the same state of the law. T. Sentius Januarius and L. Terentius Trophimus jointly raise a memorial to Hostilia Capriola.[106]She must have beenmarried to the one after having been divorced from the other; and as they agree in calling herCONJUGI BENE MERENTI, we must suppose the first marriage to have been dissolved without criminality on her part. Such an association would seem strange, even in those continental countries, where a divorced wife may sit at table between her first and second husband.
I will conclude this subject of the “affectus conjugum” by the quotation of a beautiful inscription, said to have been found on a monument at Rome, which is figured in Gruter.[107]It purports to be a dialogue between Atimetus, a freedman of Tiberius Cæsar, and his deceased wife (collibertæ et contubernali) Claudia Homonœa, the husband professing his desire to die and rejoin his wife; the wife expressing her hope, that what had been taken from her own life might be added to his. It has not escaped suspicion, though the majority of critics admit its genuineness. If genuine, it proceeds from the golden age of Latin literature; if the work of a scholar of the sixteenth century, it will still have an interest for the reader of taste.
Tu qui secura procedis mente parumperSiste gradum quæso, verbaque pauca lege.HOMONŒA.Illa ego quæ claris fueram prælata puellisHoc Homonœa brevi condita sum tumulo.Cui formam Paphie, Charites tribuere decorem;Quam Pallas cunctis artibus erudiit.Nondum bis denos ætas mea viderat annos:Injecere manus invida fata mihi.Nec pro me queror hoc, morte est mihi tristior ipsaMœror Atimeti conjugis ille mei.ATIMETUS.Si pensare animas sinerent crudelia fataEt posset redimi morte aliena salus,Quantulacumque meæ debentur tempora vitæPensarem pro te, cara Homonœa libens.At nunc, quod possum, fugiam lucemque deosqueUt te matura per Styga morte sequar.HOMONŒA.Parce tuam conjux, fletu quassare juventam,Fataque mœrendo sollicitare mea.Nil prosunt lacrimæ, nec possunt fata moveri:Viximus: hic omnes exitus unus habet.Parce: ita non unquam similem experiare dolorem,Et faveant votis numina cuncta tuis.Quodque mihi eripuit more immatura juventæId tibi victuro proroget ulterius.
We know from the Latin poets that favourite animals were honoured by a monument (“Lusciniæ tumulum si Thelesina dedit,” Martial, 7, 86). The following inscription on a pet greyhound is found in the “Anthologia:”—
Docta per incertas audax discurrere silvasCollibus hirsutas atque agitare feras;Non gravibus vinclis unquam consueta teneri,Verbera nec niveo corpore sæva pati.Molli namque sinu domini dominæque jacebam,Et noram in strato lassa cubare toro.Et plus quam licuit muto canis ore loquebar;Nulli latratus pertimuere meos.[108]
D. M. is even prefixed to the epitaph on a Barbary mare (equa Gætulica), named Speudusa (σπευδούσα), who is declared to be fleet as the wind, “flabris compar.” After the example of the Greeks, the Romans gave significant names to their race and chariot horses, several of which are preserved on the monument of Diodes, the driver of the Red Faction.[109]
There still remains the most interesting of all the subjects of inquiry which the Roman sepulcral inscriptions suggest, what was the state of religious feeling and belief among the people with whom they originated? The natural affections, springing from sources which exist in every human breast, will express themselves with a certain similarity in all ages and countries. But there is a wide difference in the religious faith and sentiment with which the bereavements of life are met, and which find their record on the funeral monument. One remarkable contrast strikes us on comparing ancient with modern, Heathen with Christian inscriptions—the entire absence in the former of anything like resignation to the will of a superior Power, or any acknowledgment of a benevolent purpose in a painful dispensation. If the gods are alluded to itis in the way of complaint.MANUS LEBO(levo)CONTRA DEUM QUI ME INNOCENTEM SUSTULIT,[110]is a bold defiance of Providence. Cornelius Victor, who died at the age of thirty-one, complains that his virtues had not secured him a longer life.VIXI SEMPER BENE UT VOLUI. NEMINEM LÆSI. CUR MORTUUS SIM NESCIO;[111]while Marsilia Stabilis regrets that her eminent piety could not purchase exemption from the common destiny.
Si pietate aliquam redimi fatale fuisset,Marsilia Stabilis prima redemta forem.[112]
If such a feeling of impatience and complaint could be allowed, we might sympathize with T. Claudius Hermes, who inscribes a monument,MERULÆ UXORI BENE DE SE MERENTI ET CAMPILIO ALBUNO INFANTI DULCISSIMO QUOS DII IRATI UNO DIE ÆTERNO SOMNO DEDERUNT.[113]Antinous and Panthea, who placed on the tomb of their infant daughter Isiatis the sentiment,QUAM DI AMAVERUNT HAC MORITUR INFAS, appear from their names to have been Greeks, and to have copied the Greek poet Menander.[114]
Nor does the deceased speak from the tomb withany words of consolation to those who are left behind, except that cold comfort, the “solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris.” C. Gavius Primigenius, who died at the age of seven, thus addresses his mother:—
Desine jam mater lacrimis renovare querelasNamque dolor talis non tibi contigit uni.[115]
The possibility that longer life might have been vicious or unhappy is urged as a motive to abstain from grief, as in the inscription on Lucia Toreuma, who died at the age of nineteen:—
Exiguo, vitæ spacio feliciter actoEffugi crimen longa senecta tuum.[116]
There would be no difficulty in deciding between the two following inscriptions, in each of which a deceased mother addresses her surviving husband and children, which of them proceeded from a Heathen and which from a Christian source:—
Care marite mihi, dulcissima nata valete,Et memores nostris semper date justa sepulcris.[117]Parcite vos lacrimis dulces cum conjuge natæViventemque Deo credits flere nefas.[118]
Nor are inscriptions wanting which declare thevanity of human wishes, and the fallaciousness of human hopes;—
Decipimur votis et tempore fallimur, et morsDeridet curas; anxia vita nihil,
is a distich which frequently occurs.[119]VIVE LÆTUS QUIQUE(quicunque)VIVIS. VITA PARVUM MUNUS EST MOX EXORTA EST SENSIM VIGESCIT DEINDE SENSIM DEFICIT, expresses a similar sentiment. The sentiment on the tomb of Vettius Hermes,MATER GENUIT ME, MATER RECEPIT, is not very different from that of Scripture, “Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return.” The inscription,C. POMPEIUS EUPHROSYNUS ET JUNIA GEMELLA UXOR EJUS EX OMNIBUS BONIS SUIS HOC SIBI SUMPSERUNT, that the grave in which they lay was all they had retained of their possessions, reminds us of the passage, “We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain that we can take nothing out.”
These and similar sentiments express truths forced everywhere on man’s notice, and which may be looked for in many countries, and under many religions. The inquiry, to which we might especially expect that the sepulcral inscriptions would furnish a full reply, is, what was the belief of the Romans, in the ages to which these memorials belong, respecting the condition of man after death.The almost universal commencement of epitaphs with Diis Manibus, or the abbreviationD. M., might seem to indicate an universal belief in the continued existence of the spiritual part of his nature. For “the divine Manes” were the disembodied spirits of men, waiting, according to those who believed in the transmigration of souls, for reunion with another body; or, according to a more popular conception, lingering around the tomb, acutely sensitive to any violation or neglect, and gratified by the tokens of remembrance and affection; or in a still different view, the presiding deities of the world of spirits exercising a control over its inhabitants. Such must have been the conception of Furia Spes, when in the inscription upon her husband’s tomb she addresses a prayer to the Manes, that she might be permitted to see him in her nightly dreams.PETO VOS MANES SANCTISSIMÆ, COMMENDATUM HABEATIS MEUM CONJUGEM ET VELITIS HUIC INDULGENTISSIMI ESSE, HORIS NOCTURNIS UT EUM VIDEAM. ET ETIAM ME FATO SUO ADDERE VELIT, UT ET EGO DULCIUS ET CELERIUS APUD EUM PERVENIRE POSSIM.[120]How far the formulary mention of the Dii Manes on sepulcres may be taken as a proof of the continued existence of the belief in which it undoubtedly originated is a question very difficult to decide. Pliny, while heridicules the superstition, acknowledges the existence of the belief.[121]Juvenal, on the contrary, declares that the belief in the Manes did not extend beyond the nursery:—
Esse aliquid Manes et subterranea regna——Nec pueri credunt nisi qui nondum ære lavantur.Sat. 2, 149.
I should receive with caution the testimony of a poetical censor of his age, who naturally fixes his eye on those circumstances only which justify his fierce indignation. Nor do I draw any inference unfavourable to the belief in a future existence from such expressions as “domus æterna,” “quies æterna,” and others of the same kind. They are found on Christian sepulcres, and may have a reference to the body, which it was hoped might never be disturbed in its peaceful resting-place. It is natural also to regard the grave as a place of repose from the toils, the pains, and the troubles of life, without believing it to be the “be-all and the end-all” of man’s history. Even the inscription,D. M. ET SOMNO ÆTERNALI. SECURITATI MEMORIÆQUEPERPETUÆ ÆLIÆ FLAVIÆ MELITANÆ,[122]may not involve that disbelief which the words “eternal sleep” seem to us to imply. From the list of doubters, at all events, must be excluded T. Claudius Panoptes, who erects a monument to his two daughters, in obedience to a vision (ex viso), and placed this challenge to sceptics on their tomb.TU QUI LEGES ET DUBITAS MANES ESSE, SPONSIONE FACTA INVOCA NOS ET INTELLIGES.[123]On the other hand, it is not to be denied that many inscriptions breathe a very Epicurean spirit.AMICI DUM VIVIMUS VIVAMUS, was an exhortation rather to the enjoyment than the improvement of life. The inscription on the tomb of Publius Clodius,QUOD COMEDI ET EBIBI TANTUM MEUM EST, seems copied from that of Sardanapalus.[124]Such sentiments, openly professed, revolt our moral taste. The most determined modern votary of luxury and pleasure would not imitate Claudius Secundus, in declaring,HIC SECUM HABET OMNIA. BALNEA VINA VENUS CORRUMPUNT CORPORA NOSTRA. SED VITAM FACIUNT BALNEA VINA VENUS.[125]Public opinion, and, indeed, public authority, now impose restraints on the profession of irreligious or immoral sentiments, which wereunknown to the more free-spoken Romans. In truth, at the time to which our inscriptions belong, though there was a nationalcultus, there cannot be said to have been a national religion.
Even when their epitaphs imply a hope of a future existence, it is of that doubtful and hypothetical kind, with the expression of which Tacitus closes his life of Agricola. “Siquis piorum Manibus locus; si, ut sapientibus placet, non cum corpore extinguuntur magnæ animæ, placide quiescas.”
Suscipe nunc conjunx, si quis post funera sensus,Debita sacratis Manibus officia.[126]
The expression of a more confident hope, as in the two following inscriptions, does not exclude the suspicion that there it may be rather poetical imagery than religious faith. Atilia Marcella thus speaks in the name of her deceased husband Fabatus:—
Terrenum corpus, cœlestis spiritus in me;Quo repetente sedem suam nunc vivimus illic,Et fruitur superis æterna in luce Fabatus.[127]
The mother of Theodote thus consoles herself for the loss of her daughter, who was hardly five years old.
Virginis hic teneræ, lector miserere sepultæ;Unius huic lustri vix fuit acta dies.O quam longinquæ fuerat dignissima vitæHeu! cujus vivit nunc sine fine dolor—Sola tamen tanti restant solatia luctusQuod tales animæ protinus astra petunt.[128]
Upon the whole the evidence, negative even more than positive, of the Roman sepulcral inscriptions, abundantly confirms the testimony of heathen as well as Christian writers, to the absence of any definite and practical belief in a future state, in the three or four first centuries after the Christian æra. Yet few would be able tranquilly to acquiesce in the doctrine of annihilation. They sought in other sources for that assurance which neither religion nor philosophy could afford them. Never was the practice of magic, incantations, necromancy, and mysteries more prevalent than during the period in which Christianity was slowly supplanting the ancient superstitions. It was evident that the fulness of the times was come, and that if the world were not to be divided between the victims of religious imposture and the disciples of Epicurus, light from on high must visit the earth.
Other inscriptions, not properly sepulcral, afford the same proof of the loss of all vital power in the old religion. Among all the religious monuments which the Museum of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society contains, there is not one to Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or any of the great gods of the popular creed. There is one to Hercules—a hero, not agod; one to Fortune—a deified personification; one to the Genius of the place—an elegant creation of poetry; one to the fictitious deity of the Emperor. The gods of the barbarians have evidently dethroned those of Greece and Rome. The legate of a Roman Legion records that he has rebuilt from the foundation a temple of the Egyptian Serapis. A Roman commander must have constructed the cave in which the mystic rites of the Asiatic Mithras were performed. We have an altar to the tutelary goddess of Brigantia; to Viterineus, a local deity of the neighbourhood of Hadrian’s Wall; and, lastly, to the god Arciacon, wholly unknown but from this unique inscription. It is evident that the popular religion was altogether “a creed outworn.” Art had familiarized men with the human representations of their deities; and even by the perfection of its visible and material works had destroyed the belief in their spiritual existence and invisible power. Philosophy had exposed the folly of an anthropomorphic polytheism; poetry and the stage had made the gods contemptible. Nothing was left which could awaken reverence or love: instead of aiding, the popular religion checked the impulse of the mind to connect the ideas of infinitude and deity. But in the gods of the barbarous nations, who had remained without art, and without a mythology converting gods into men, there was something obscure,mysterious, and indefinite; something on which imagination could fasten, and which it could readily invest with supernatural attributes. He who looked on the Apollo of the Belvedere with no other feeling than that he beheld the triumph of the sculptor’s art in action and expression, was overcome with a religious awe when he gazed on the unmeaning faces and half-bestial forms of Egyptian deities. The genius of Rome was tolerant of all religions but the true; a hearty belief in the gods of his own Pantheon would not have prevented a Roman soldier from doing homage to those of the country in which he was quartered, and seeking thus to gain their favour or avert their displeasure. But this will not account for the extensive diffusion of the worship of Phrygia and Thrace, Persia and Egypt, throughout the Roman empire. It was certainly an indication of a restless longing for something that could supply nourishment to the craving for religious faith which exists in the heart of man, and feeds itself on superstition when it can find no purer aliment.
Among the sights of modern Rome there is none more interesting than that long gallery of the Vatican calledDelle Lapidi. On the right-hand wall are encased the sepulcral and other monuments of emperors, consuls and commanders of legions, with their numerous and pompous titles;inscriptions to the gods and their priests. The elaborate and tasteful ornaments, the finely-cut letters, the classical Latinity—all indicate the rank and station of those by whom or in whose honour they were raised. On the left are the Christian monuments, chiefly supplied by the Catacombs, which, during the ages of the obscurity and persecution of the Church, served the Christians for sanctuary and cemetery, and even for a temporary dwelling-place. The slabs from their tombs are of coarse material—not Parian, or Carrara marble, or Egyptian porphyry; the letters are rudely made, the spelling and the syntax betray the humble rank and imperfect literary attainments of those who supplied them. No mention is made of ample space allotted to the tomb, no anxious care is expressed to perpetuate the inheritance or provide for a long succession of occupants. The Christian perhaps fell asleep in the expectation that the second coming of his Lord, to call the tenants of the tomb to judgment, would not be delayed beyond a few years. The Roman of family had three names; the Christian had nogenswith which to claim affinity; he was a proletarian, a mere unit amidst the millions. One simple name served to identify him; his sepulcre might even be nameless—a circumstance of most rare occurrence in regardto Pagan tombs.[129]How strikingly does the contrast confirm the declaration of the Apostle, that “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble were called.”[130]But to this contrast there is another side. The heathen monuments represent a decayed and dying superstition; the Christian, a living and triumphant faith—“the weak things of the world chosen to confound the strong.” Their inscriptions speak of resignation, peace, and confidence; their emblems, the Good Shepherd, the Dove, the Anchor, the Ark of Noah, all breathe the same peaceful, humble, and yet hopeful spirit.
The literature of what the Germans callEpigraphik, that branch of archæology which treats of inscriptions, is uncommonly rich—so rich, indeed, as to be embarrassing. The scholars of Italy, with Muratori and Maffei at their head, have been pre-eminent in their labours, which alone would form a library. The inscriptions of Gaul and Helvetia, and of the Roman settlements on the Rhine and Danube, have been illustrated in special works. Those of our country may be found in Horsley’s “Britannia Illustrata,” in the later work of Lysons,in Dr. Bruce’s “Roman Wall,” and Stuart’s “Caledonia Illustrata.” The great repository, in which all that was known at the commencement of the eighteenth century has been collected, is the “Inscriptiones Antiquæ totius orbis Romani,” four volumes, folio, begun by Joseph Scaliger, and enlarged by the successive labours of Gruter and Grævius. These, with the folios of Fabretti and Reinesius, are indispensable in the library of an archæologist, who devotes himself to the study of inscriptions. The general scholar will find an admirable selection in the work of Orelli, to which a supplemental volume has been lately added by Henzen.[131]The monuments are carefully classified; they are illustrated, without being overwhelmed with notes, and more care is taken than in any previous collection, to separate the spurious from the genuine inscriptions. Nowhere has mischievous ingenuity been more actively at work than in the forgery of Latin inscriptions, especially in the sixteenth century, when the revival of classical studies gave value to every relic of antiquity, and the infancy of archæological science rendered imposture easy. Among those who have deserved the reprobation of scholars by their forgeries, Pyrrhus Ligorius standspre-eminent. Ligorio was a Neapolitan by birth, a skilful artist and architect, who, with considerable taste for antiquities, but little knowledge, employed himself in making collections of drawings of ancient buildings, and copies of inscriptions and medals, which, when bound in volumes, he sold at high prices to the munificent patrons of learning who then abounded in Italy. Thirty-five of these volumes, in imperial folio, are in the Royal Library of Turin, and others are, or were, in the Library of the Vatican, and of the princely families of Rome. The temptation of gain was too strong for his honesty, and finding invention easier than research and discovery, he began to forge inscriptions in order to make up his volumes. He is said to have been ignorant of the Latin language, but either this must be a mistake, or he was aided by some one of superior attainments to his own: for many of his forgeries prove the skill with which they were made, by the currency which they have obtained. He has frequently combined fragments of different inscriptions; or taken names from the “Consular Fasti,” and inserted them so as to give his patchwork an air of genuineness. There can be no doubt that he really copied many inscriptions; but his bad faith has cast a shade over everything which rests on his sole authority. He is by no means the only one who has brought on himself the malison ofantiquaries and historians, by thus corrupting the sources of historical evidence. The greatest caution is necessary in citing an inscription, of which the alleged original no longer exists, if it be not vouched by unexceptionable authority. On the other hand, some reputations which had been tarnished by the suspicion of the forgery of ancient inscriptions, have been vindicated by Time. The name of Cyriac of Ancona was once a bye-word among scholars for a shameless impostor, who had passed his own inventions on the world as genuine remains of antiquity. Yet he is now admitted to have acted with good faith,[132]although through haste and ignorance he may have copied inaccurately and been imposed upon by others. It is ascertained that the collection of Spanish inscriptions which has passed under his name, and which has given rise to the heaviest imputations against him, was fraudulently put forth and attributed to him.
Inscriptions have also been rejected on grounds of taste by critics, who did not sufficiently reflect, that in an age when all other style had been corrupted by affectation and bombast, the lapidary style could hardly have retained its original character of modesty, conciseness, and simplicity.
Many sepulcral inscriptions, some of which havebeen quoted in the preceding pages, are preserved in MS. collections, and have been introduced into the “Anthologia Latina,” which was begun by Scaliger, and continued by Pithœus; and attained its most complete form in the hands of Peter Burmann.[133]About 400 sepulcral inscriptions are included in it, extending from the time of the Scipios, even down to the twelfth century after the birth of Christ, and including of course many which are the production of Christian authors. Some of more recent composition have found their way into these collections; but the majority attest their own genuineness by their unrefined phraseology, and their violation of the laws of prosody—faults which no modern scholar would have allowed himself to commit.
ADDENDUM TO PAGE 7, NOTE 2.
As I have not seen the existence of burial clubs among the Romans noticed in any work on Roman antiquities, I will give some extracts from the monument referred to. It was found at Lanuvium, a town of ancient fame for the worship of Juno Sospita, about nineteen miles from Rome on the Via Appia. The inhabitants of this town appear, out of flattery towards the Emperor Hadrian, in whose reign the marble was erected, to have formed themselves into a college for paying divine honours to Diana and Antinous; a singular combination, which shows at once the degraded condition of the people, and the heartless formality of the established religion, which could be prostituted to such a purpose. The privilege of forming a college—or as we should say a body corporate—was most sparingly conceded, and most jealously restricted under the Emperors, who dreaded all secret associations as nurseries of treason. With this primary object offorming a college of the “Cultores Dianæ et Antinoi” they combined that of a burial club, not forgetting the festivities which formed so important a part of all acts of religion among the Romans. To prevent disputes, the laws of the association were inscribed on marble, and probably set up in the temple of the two deities.
An amphora of good wine was to be presented to the club by a new member; the sum of one hundred sesterces to be paid as entrance-money, and fiveassesper month as subscription. Their meetings were not to take place oftener than once a month. If any one omitted payment for ... months (the marble is here mutilated) no claim could be made, even though he had directed it by will. In case of the death of one who had paid his subscription regularly, three hundred sesterces were allotted for his funeral expenses, out of which, however, fifty were to be set apart for distribution at the cremation of the body. The funeral was to be a walking one. If any one died more than twenty miles from Lanuvium, and his death was announced, three delegates from the college were to repair to the place where he had died to perform his funeral, and render an account to the people. Fraud was to be punished by a fourfold fine. Twenty sesterces each were to be allowed the delegates for travelling expenses, goingand returning. If the death had taken place more than twenty miles from Lanuvium, and no notice had been sent, the person who had performed the funeral was to send a sealed certificate, attested by seven Roman citizens, on the production of which the usual sum for the expenses was to be granted. If a member of the college had left a will, only the heir named in it could claim anything. If he died intestate, thequinquennales, or magistrates of the municipium, and the people generally, were to direct how the funeral should take place. If any member of the college in the condition of a slave should die, and his body, through the unjust conduct of his master or mistress, should not be given up for burial, his funeral should be celebrated by his bust being carried in procession. No funeral of a suicide was to take place. There are many other rules tending to preserve order and promote good fellowship, but these are all which relate to the burial club. I subjoin extracts from the original. The purpose of the incorporation of the college is thus declared:—
COLLEGIUM SALUTARE DIANÆ ET ANTINOI CONSTITUTUM EX SENATUS POPULIQUE ROMANI DECRETO QUIBUS COIRE CONVENIRE COLLEGIUMQUE HABERE LICEAT. QUI STIPEM MENSTRUAM CONFERRE VOLEAT IN FUNERA, IN ID COLLEGIUM COEANT, NEQUE SUB SPECIE EJUS COLLEGII NISI SEMEL INMENSE COEANT, CONFERENDI CAUSA UNDE DEFUNCTI SEPELIANTUR.TU QUI NOVOS (NOVUS) IN HOC COLLEGIO INTRARE VOLES, PRIUS LEGEM PERLEGE ET SIC INTRA, NE POSTMODUM QUERARIS, AUT HEREDI TUO CONTROVERSIAM RELINQUAS.LEX COLLEGIPLACUIT UNIVERSIS, UT QUISQUIS IN HOC COLLEGIUM INTRARE VOLUERIT, DABIT KAPITULARINOMINE H̅.S̅. (SESTERTIOS) C. NUMMOS, ET VINI BONI AMPHORAM, ITEM IN MENSES SING. ASSES V.ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS MENSIBUS CONTINUISNON PARIAVERIT, ET EI HUMANITUS ACCIDERIT, EJUS RATIO FUNERIS NON HABEBITUR, ETIAM SI TESTAMENTUM FACTUM HABUERIT.ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS EX HOC CORPORE NUMMOS PARIATUS DECESSERIT EUM SEQUENTUR EX ARCA H̅.S̅. CCC NUMMI, EX QUA SUMMA DECEDENT EXEQUIARINOMINE H̅.S̅. L. NUMMI, QUI AD ROGUS (ROGOS) DIVIDENTUR, EXEQUIÆ AUTEM PEDIBUS FUNGENTUR.ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS A MUNICIPIO ULTRA MILLIARIA XX DECESSERIT, ET NUNTIATUM FUERIT, EO EXIRE DEBEBUNT ELECTI EX CORPORE NOSTRO HOMINES TRES, QUI FUNERIS EJUS CURAM AGANT ET RATIONEM POPULO REDDERE DEBEBUNT SINE DOLO MALO, ET SI QUIT (QUID) IN EIS FRAUDIS CAUSA INVENTUM FUERIT EIS MULTA ESTOQUADRUPLUM QUIBUS (FUNERATICIUM) EJUS DABITUR. HOC AMPLIUS VIATICI NOMINE, ULTRO CITRO, SINGULIS H̅.S̅. XX NUMMI.QUOD SI LONGIUS A MUNICIPIO SUPRA MILLIARIA XX DECESSERIT ET NUNTIARI NON POTUERIT, TUM IS QUI EUM FUNERAVERIT TESTATOR REM TABULIS SIGNATIS SIGILLIS CIVIUM ROMANORUM VII ET PROBATA CAUSA FUNERATICIUM EJUS SATISDATO.NEQUE PATRONO NEQUE PATRONÆ NEQUE DOMINO NEQUE DOMINÆ NEQUE CREDITORI EX HOC COLLEGIO ULLA PETITIO ESTO NISI SI QUIS TESTAMENTO HERES NOMINATUS ERIT. SI QUIS INTESTATUS DECESSERIT IS ARBITRIO QUINQUENNALIUM ET POPULI FUNERABITUR.ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS EX HOC COLLEGIO SERVUS DEFUNCTUS FUERIT, ET CORPUS EJUS A DOMINO DOMINAVE INIQUITATE SEPULTURÆ DATUM NON FUERIT, NEQUE TABELLAS FECERIT, EI FUNUS IMAGINARIUM FIET.ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS EX QUACUMQUE CAUSA MORTEM SIBI ADSCIVERIT EJUS RATIO FUNERIS NON HABEBITUR.ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS SERVUS EX HOC COLLEGIO LIBER FACTUS FUERIT, IS DARE DEBEBIT VINI BONI AMPHORAM.
COLLEGIUM SALUTARE DIANÆ ET ANTINOI CONSTITUTUM EX SENATUS POPULIQUE ROMANI DECRETO QUIBUS COIRE CONVENIRE COLLEGIUMQUE HABERE LICEAT. QUI STIPEM MENSTRUAM CONFERRE VOLEAT IN FUNERA, IN ID COLLEGIUM COEANT, NEQUE SUB SPECIE EJUS COLLEGII NISI SEMEL INMENSE COEANT, CONFERENDI CAUSA UNDE DEFUNCTI SEPELIANTUR.
TU QUI NOVOS (NOVUS) IN HOC COLLEGIO INTRARE VOLES, PRIUS LEGEM PERLEGE ET SIC INTRA, NE POSTMODUM QUERARIS, AUT HEREDI TUO CONTROVERSIAM RELINQUAS.
LEX COLLEGIPLACUIT UNIVERSIS, UT QUISQUIS IN HOC COLLEGIUM INTRARE VOLUERIT, DABIT KAPITULARINOMINE H̅.S̅. (SESTERTIOS) C. NUMMOS, ET VINI BONI AMPHORAM, ITEM IN MENSES SING. ASSES V.
ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS MENSIBUS CONTINUISNON PARIAVERIT, ET EI HUMANITUS ACCIDERIT, EJUS RATIO FUNERIS NON HABEBITUR, ETIAM SI TESTAMENTUM FACTUM HABUERIT.
ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS EX HOC CORPORE NUMMOS PARIATUS DECESSERIT EUM SEQUENTUR EX ARCA H̅.S̅. CCC NUMMI, EX QUA SUMMA DECEDENT EXEQUIARINOMINE H̅.S̅. L. NUMMI, QUI AD ROGUS (ROGOS) DIVIDENTUR, EXEQUIÆ AUTEM PEDIBUS FUNGENTUR.
ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS A MUNICIPIO ULTRA MILLIARIA XX DECESSERIT, ET NUNTIATUM FUERIT, EO EXIRE DEBEBUNT ELECTI EX CORPORE NOSTRO HOMINES TRES, QUI FUNERIS EJUS CURAM AGANT ET RATIONEM POPULO REDDERE DEBEBUNT SINE DOLO MALO, ET SI QUIT (QUID) IN EIS FRAUDIS CAUSA INVENTUM FUERIT EIS MULTA ESTOQUADRUPLUM QUIBUS (FUNERATICIUM) EJUS DABITUR. HOC AMPLIUS VIATICI NOMINE, ULTRO CITRO, SINGULIS H̅.S̅. XX NUMMI.
QUOD SI LONGIUS A MUNICIPIO SUPRA MILLIARIA XX DECESSERIT ET NUNTIARI NON POTUERIT, TUM IS QUI EUM FUNERAVERIT TESTATOR REM TABULIS SIGNATIS SIGILLIS CIVIUM ROMANORUM VII ET PROBATA CAUSA FUNERATICIUM EJUS SATISDATO.
NEQUE PATRONO NEQUE PATRONÆ NEQUE DOMINO NEQUE DOMINÆ NEQUE CREDITORI EX HOC COLLEGIO ULLA PETITIO ESTO NISI SI QUIS TESTAMENTO HERES NOMINATUS ERIT. SI QUIS INTESTATUS DECESSERIT IS ARBITRIO QUINQUENNALIUM ET POPULI FUNERABITUR.
ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS EX HOC COLLEGIO SERVUS DEFUNCTUS FUERIT, ET CORPUS EJUS A DOMINO DOMINAVE INIQUITATE SEPULTURÆ DATUM NON FUERIT, NEQUE TABELLAS FECERIT, EI FUNUS IMAGINARIUM FIET.
ITEM PLACUIT QUISQUIS EX QUACUMQUE CAUSA MORTEM SIBI ADSCIVERIT EJUS RATIO FUNERIS NON HABEBITUR.
ITEM PLACUIT UT QUISQUIS SERVUS EX HOC COLLEGIO LIBER FACTUS FUERIT, IS DARE DEBEBIT VINI BONI AMPHORAM.
This curious document affords an additional proof how much ancient life is found to resemble themodern, when we gain an insight into its interior through the medium of its monuments. By this means institutions and customs which have been thought peculiar to recent or mediæval times may be traced upwards, through Rome and Greece, even to the fountains of civilization in Egypt and the East.
THE END.
Woodfall and Kinder, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London.
The ground on which the Museum, Library, and Lecture-Theatre, with the Botanic Garden and Observatory, of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society stand, was originally covered by the monastic buildings of the abbey of St. Mary. In a portion of the same buildings was established the court and palace of the Lord President of the Council of the North. The tyrannical proceedings of this Council, especially under the presidency of the Earl of Strafford, had a great share in bringing about the fate both of the Earl himself and his royal master. This remarkable succession of occupancy suggested the following inscription, in which it may be observed that it is to monkery, not to the religion of the Middle Ages universally, that the epithet in the ninth line is applied.
QUO· PRIMUM· LOCOCŒNOBIUM· BEATÆ· VIRGINIS· MARIÆDEINDE· PROCURATORIS· REGII· PALATIUM· STETITCOMITATUS EBORACENSISHAS· ÆDES· COLLATA· PECUNIA· EXSTRUCTASOMNIUM· DISCIPLINARUM· STUDIIS· DICAVIT.TU· QUI· LEGIS· AGNOSCENOSTRI· SÆCULI· FELICITATEMQUO· ANIMIS· HOMINUM· SUPERSTITIONE· LIBERATISTYRANNORUM· VIOLENTIA· LEGIBUS· FRÆNATAHARUM· IPSIS· IN· SEDIBUS· LICUIT· PHILOSOPHIÆDOMICILIUM· SUUM· COLLOCARE.
PUBLICATIONS BY THE REV. JOHN KENRICK.
AN ESSAY ON PRIMÆVAL HISTORY.
Price 5s.
ANCIENT EGYPT UNDER THE PHARAOHS.
2 Vols. 8vo. Price 30s.
PHŒNICIA.
1 Vol. With Maps and Illustrative Plates. Price 16s.
Phœnices, solers hominum genus et ad belli pacisque munia eximium; literas et literarum opera aliasque etiam artes, maria navibus adire, classe confligere, imperitare gentibus commenti.—Pomp. Mela,I.12.
LONDON:
T. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET.
Footnotes:
[1]The tomb of the Scipios on the Appian Way was discovered in the year 1780, and its inscriptions have been illustrated by the two Viscontis. They are now in the Vatican. The oldest of them, that of L. C. Scipio Barbatus, is of the beginning of the third centuryB.C.
[2]See Proceedings of Yorkshire Philos. Society, vol. i. p. 53.
[3]Hieronym. ad Es. 7, 14. Augustin Tract. 15 in Evang. Joann.
[4]Kirchmann de Funer. Rom. c. 20, 21. Dodwell, 1, 428.
[5]Sylv. 2, 2, 13.
[6]C. Nep. Att. 22. Vict. Epit. 60.
[7]H. E. Smith, Reliquiæ Isurianæ.
[8]Morcelli de Stylo Inscr. Lat. p. 363. Orelli, Inscr. 3998, 9. The Romans had also their Burial Clubs. See the regulations of one, Henzen, 6086.
[9]Plin. N. H. 1241. Periti rerum asseverant non ferre Arabiam tantum annuo fœtu, quantum Nero novissimo Poppææ suæ die concremaverit. Juv. Sat. 4, 108. “Matutino sudans Crispinus amomo, Quantum vix redolent duo funera.”
[10]Fabretti, p. 230.
[11]Archæologia, vol. 26, p. 270.
[12]Gruter, p. 898. Orelli, 6237.
[13]Anthol. 4, 271.
[14]Mommsen, Inscr. Neap. 4135.
[15]Henzen, Suppl. ad Orell. 6976, 7.
[16]Fabretti, p. 612.
[17]Orelli, 4859.
[18]Reines, p. 1000.
[19]The various and unsatisfactory conjectures of the learned respecting this phrase may be seen in Facciolati s. v.Ascia.It occurs especially on monuments in Lyons and Southern Gaul.
[20]Reines, p. 763.
[21]Gruter, pp. 844, 862. Augustus forbade his daughter Julia to be interred in his monument.—Sueton. Octavianus, c. 101.
[22]Orelli, 4397. Fabretti p. 91.
[23]Gruter, p. 762, 5.
[24]Orelli, 4390.
[25]Orelli, 4360.
[26]Morcelli, de Stilo Inscr. p. 103.
[27]Meyer, Anthol. Lat. 1178. Singular is the inscription, “Semiramiæ Licinianæ, quam loco filiæ diligo, ob merita ejusvivus vivæ feci.”—Orelli, 4676.
[28]Gruter, p. 607, 1.
[29]Reines, p. 388, 53. We find (Gruter, p. 399, 1) ten jugera of land bequeathed “tutelæ nomine.”
[30]Orelli, 4070.
[31]Fabretti, p. 232.
[32]Medicus jumentarius. Orelli, 4229, 4231. Valeria Verecunda is called on her monument “Iatromeia (physician-midwife) regionis suæ prima.”—Grut. p. 1110.
[33]Gruter, p. 1148, Petron. Arb. p. 388. I have printed these lines as hexameter and pentameter, for which they appear to have been intended, though the author was “ill at these numbers.” Faults of prosody are very common in the poetical inscriptions, and prose and verse are sometimes singularly intermixed.
[34]Fabretti, p. 715.
[35]Anthol. Lat. 4, 155.
[36]Meyer Anthol. 1438.
[37]Orelli, 2990.
[38]Anthol. 4, 101.
[39]From a monument recently discovered at Lambæsa, in Northern Africa. The ellipsis ofmagisbeforequamis found in Latin authors, especially Tacitus.—See Germ. 7. Cedere loco consilii quam formidinis arbitrantur. A similar complaint of death by magic occurs on the grave of a boy of four years old at Verona.—Maffei, Mus. Veron. 170.
[40]Mommsen, Inscr. Neap. 4870.
[41]Gruter, p. 831, 6.
[42]Orelli, 4600.
[43]Gruter, p. 340.
[44]Nat. Hist. 29, 1.
[45]Orelli, 4944.
[46]See Priscian, vi. 1, who quotes from old Latin authors, monetas for monetæ; escas for escæ; and vias for viæ.
[47]Orelli, 2778. He observes, “jacitest etiam in aliis Britannicis.”
[48]Orelli, 4544. Dua obrendaria.
[49]Prisc. vi. 1.
[50]Anthol. Meyer, 1424.
[51]Gruter, p. 572.
[52]Fabretti, pp. 113, 575.
[53]Quinct. 1, 5, 20.
[54]B nec penitus caret aspiratione, nec eam plene possidet. Prisc. 1, 5, 26.
[55]Ab scala Mediana. Orelli, 3093. The grammarians condemn the use of scala in the singular as a solecism. (Quinct. 1, 5, 16). M. Abudius Luminaris, who raises this monument, had married his own freedwoman; “Patronus idemque conjux.” There are inscriptions by freedmen to patronæ, who were also their wives. Such marriages were forbidden by Severus, unless under the sanction of a judge; and when the patrona was of such humble rank, “ut ei honestæ sint vel liberti sui nuptiæ.” Fabretti, p. 290. Anicia Glycera (Orell. 4649) records her gratitude to her husband, “qui ex imo ordine ad summum me perduxit honorem,” as from a slave he had made her his wife. The Greek slave would often be, in manners and culture, superior to the Roman master.
[56]Spon. Misc. p. 143. There has been a great controversy respecting the medical men of Rome—whether they were slaves; the monuments show them to have been commonly Greek freedmen.
[57]Orelli, 2645.
[58]P. 239. Juv. 5, 170. An imitation of thecaput rasumappears to be still the professional costume of the clown.
[59]Grut. p. 312, 7. Juv. 2, 112. Quinct. 11, 3.
[60]See in Smith’s Dictionary, s. v. Bathyllus, an account of thefuroreof the Romans for the pantomimic representations and their vicissitudes of imperial favour or prohibition.
[61]L. Marius Austus Enuntiator ab scæna Græca. Orelli, 2614.
[62]Grut. p. 637, 1.
[63]Hist. 8, 10.
[64]Grut. p. 332. The contest took placeA.D.110.
[65]Mai Auct. Class 5, p. 414.
[66]Anthol. iv. 357. Lucian, περὶ ὀρχήσεως—Κάθησαι καταυλούμενος θηλυδρίαν ἄνθρωπον ὀρῶν, ἐσθῆσι μαλακᾶις καὶ ἄσμασιν ἀκολάστοις ἐναβρυνόμενον, καὶ μιμούμενον ἐρωτικὰ γύναια τῶν πάλαι τὰς μαχλοτάτας, Φαίδρας καὶ Παρθενόπας καὶ ’Ροδόπας τινάς. A truer representation, it is to be feared, of what pantomime actually was, than the semi-serious defence of Lucian, who makes the theatre a school of self-knowledge and self-control, and the education of the dancer a course of mythological and poetical learning.
[67]Bulletino dell Istit. Arch. 1838, p. 165. The inscription is, “Fuit Atistia uxor mihei, femina opituma, quoius corporis reliquiæ quod superant sunt in hoc panario.”—Henzen, 7268.
[68]Maitland on the Catacombs, p. 138.
[69]Archæol. Journal, 4, 55.
[70]P. 6.
[71]Gruter, p. 926-8.
[72]Gruter, p. 904.
[73]Fabretti, p. 560, who observes, “In tanto inscriptionum sepulcralium numero rari admodum reperiuntur qui longam senectutem expleverint.”
[74]Orelli, 4849.
[75]Such is that otherwise elegant epitaph on Fl. Merobaudes, of the year 435A.D.“Æque forti et docto viro, tam facere laudanda quam aliorum facta laudare præcipuo. Castrensi experientia claro, facundia vol otiosorum studia supergresso, cui a crepundiis par virtutis et eloquentiæ cura. Ingenium ita fortitudini ut doctrinæ natum, stilo et gladio pariter exercuit, nec in umbra vel latebris mentis vigorem torpere passus. Inter arma literis militabat et in Alpibus acuebat eloquium. Ideo illi cessit in prœmium non verbena vilis nec otiosa hedera, honor capitis Heliconius, sed imago ære formata, quo rari exempli viros, seu in castris probatos, seu optimos vatum, antiquitas honorabat.” This inscription was engraved on the base of a statue dug out of the Forum Ulpii at Rome, in the beginning of the present century. Fragments of the poetry of Merobaudes, and his Panegyric on the consulship of Aëtius have been found by Niebuhr in a MS. at St. Gal, and are published in the Corp. Script. Hist. Byzant. vol. xxiv. The Christianity of Merobaudes, like that of Boethius, is ambiguous.
[76]Henzen, 7374.
[77]Gruter, p. 624.
[78]Gruter, p. 654.
[79]Anthol. Meyer, 1228.
[80]Eckhel, Doctr. Num. pl. II. vol. v. p. 90.
[81]Orelli, 4657.
[82]Anthol. iv. 231.
[83]Gruter, p. 718.
[84]Gruter, p. 1000. Anthol. iv. 222.
[85]Anthol. iv. 265.
[86]Anthol. ii. 466.
[87]Orelli, 4609.
[88]Orelli, 2813. Several examples may be seen in Gruter, p. 663.Tata, for father, is still in use among the lower classes in Rome. See Bunsen, Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i. p. 103.
[89]Orelli, 2815.
[90]Gruter, p. 733, 9. More correctly in Meyer, Anthol. 1403.
[91]Noctes Att. 1, 6.
[92]Gruter, p. 769, 9.
[93]Fabretti, p. 252.
[94]Orelli, 4658.
[95]Fabretti, p. 267.
[96]Gruter, p. 797.
[97]Orelli, 4623.
[98]Fabretti, p. 275, where many similar examples are collected.
[99]Gruter, p. 813, 3.
[100]Gruter, p. 1036, 2. Liberties are taken with prosody in this as in other poetical epitaphs.
[101]Gruter, p. 758, 4.
[102]Gruter, p. 435, 2.
[103]See his exhortation in Gellius, Noct. Att. 12, 1.
[104]Fabretti, p. 187. That feeding by hand was also common among the Romans is evident from the occurrence of earthen bottles used for this purpose. The Museum of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society contains several specimens of them. See also the Abbé Cochet’s Normandie Souterraine, p. 130.
[105]Orelli, 4604.
[106]Orelli, 2660.
[107]Gruter, p. 607. Meyer, Anthologia, 1274.