We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
The inscription here published was communicated to me in 1956 by Mr. L. Benaki of Alexandria who saw some of the fragments in early summer of that year in a dealer's shop in Alexandria and was subsequently able, by dint of considerable perseverance, to recover a few more pieces. Mr. Benaki assembled the pieces himself and had them photographed, and the excellent photograph (fig. 10) is the source of the text given below. He has also put me in his debt by verifying a few points and sending me paper rubbings of individual fragments where the photograph left the reading in doubt. The stone itself is now, thanks to Mr. Benaki, in Alexandria Museum.
1 The angular punctuation-mark, 7, appears to be due to the influence of Latin epigraphical forms. Such marks occur in both the Latin and Greek versions of the Mon. Anc.: see, in general, Hübner, Exempla, p. lxxvii.
2 We recall no exact parallel to this extravagant form.
3 There is a good selection of these in Mitteis, Chrest. 79–99. More recently published examples of importance are JEA 18, 1932, pp. 69 ff. = SB 7558; Exempla 21, 935, pp. 224 ff. = SB 7696; PMert. 26; BIFAO 41, 1942, pp. 43 ff. One may also compare the Acta Alexandrinorum.
4 Jahreshefte 21–22, 1922, Beibl. cols. 1271 ff. = SEG 11, 848 = SB 8757.
5 JRS 46, 1956, 46–56 (previously published with mistakes as SEG XIII, 625), the record of proceedings held before three procurators in the early third century A.D., to settle a dispute between two Phrygian villages in regard to aggareiai.
6 Syria 23, 1942–3, 171–200, the record of proceedings held before Caracalla in Antioch to settle a dispute between the Goharieni and Avidius Hadrianus, Manceps.
7 Thus ἀνειέρωεν has Greek parallels in the formulae of Hellenistic foundations, for example Herzog, Koische Forsch. p. 109, cf. Laum, , Stiftungen I, 116Google Scholar, but it more probably reflects Roman usage, if not a Latin formula. For its use on Imperial tombstones see Stemler, , Die griech. Grabinschr. Kleinasien. (Diss. Strasb. 1909) 59 ff.Google Scholar; note especially IGLSyrs I, 455 (bilingual Greek and Latin): Τ. Φλαούιος Ἰουλιανὸς οὐετρανὸς λεγεῶνος η Σεβαστῆς ἀφιέρωσεν μνημεῖον αὑτοῦ διηνεκὲς θεοῖς καταχθονίοις καὶ δαίμοσι αὑτοῦ, κ.τ.λ. At the same time our text does not strictly translate Roman formulae as is the case with some funerary inscriptions of the Greek East, for example τοῦτο τὸ μνημεῖον κληρονόμοις οὐκ ἀκολουθήσει, which is found (particularly in Lydia) as a translation of the Latin ‘hoc monumentum heredem ne sequatur’: cf. Buresch, Aus Lydien 58; Keil and von Premerstein, Dritte Reise in Lydien 59; L'An. Ép. 1939, 132 (FIRA 2 III, 83 z), where [ἒΨε]ται apparently stands for ἀικολουθήσει (for the uncertainty of the date see Lepper, Trajan's Parthian War 180 ff.); and in general Keil, Hermes 43, 1908, 562.
8 Breccia, Iscriz. 40 and pl. B; SB 364 is an improved text with new readings (some uncertain) by B. Keil, from Breccia's photograph. In the text as quoted above no attempt is made to ‘correct’ the various illiteracies, and thus destroy the true appearance of the inscription.
9 SEG VIII, 533 = SB 7687, with the discussion of Jouguet, Ann. Inst. de Phil. et d'Hist. or. 3, 1935, 227 ff.
10 For these formulae the two standard works of B. Keil, Hermes 43, 1908, 522–577, ‘Über kleinasiatische Grabinschriften,’ and H. Stemler, o.c., have not been superseded.
11 See Keil, o.c., 546, note 1, 553; Laum, , Stiftungen I, 81Google Scholar, note 1; for Roman funerary horti see Laum, ibid., Wamser, De iure sep. Roman. 14 ff. There is an interesting example of a κηπόταφος in Italy which in many ways resembles our inscription, Bull. Comm. 61, 1934, 211.
12 795 C.
13 BGU 1120. This is one of a group of papyri of disputed cases presented to the magistrate Protarchus: see Schubart, Archiv 5, 57 ff.
14 Fresh Light on Roman Bureaucracy (Inaugural Lecture, Oxford, 1920) 57Google Scholar.
15 The reading [κη]π̣[οταφῖα] was due to Schubart, the original editor, who added the note ‘π̣ oder ν̣ entsprechen der Spur noch am ehesten’. Lenel and Partsch, SB Heid. Akad. 1920 (1), 9, preferred [τὰ δὲ πε]π̣[οιημένα περὶ] αὐτά, on account of Dig. II, 7, 37, 1 (quoted ibid.), and they were followed by Seckel and Meyer, SB Berl. Akad. 1928 (26), 5 (426). In his edition in Jur. Pap. 93, Meyer contented himself with retaining [κη]π̣[οταφῖα ἤ τοι]αῦτα and observed ‘Die Ergänzung ist unsicher’. Riccobono, FIRA 2 1, p. 471, has the best of both worlds, retaining [κη]π̣[οταφῖα] in the text and reproducing Lenel and Partsch's translation of [τὰ δὲ πε]π̣[οιημένα—], ‘quae autem circa ea facta erant.’ In any case, the reference is clearly to a tomb in private grounds and whether the word [κη]π̣[οταφῖα] was actually used is of secondary importance.
15a See the list of sale-prices of similar properties in Roman Egypt in Econ. Survey, ii, 257 ffGoogle Scholar.
16 Gaius, Inst. 11, 4. 6. No legal rights could exist in a res religiosa: see the texts collected by Scherillo, , Lezioni, Le cose I, 1945, 48 ffGoogle Scholar. For practical purposes, however, they were in the control and enjoyment of individuals. This conflict between theory and practice was eventually rationalised by distinguishing between the sepulcrum, in which no rights could exist, and the ius sepulcri. The distinction is, however, hardly more than verbal (cf. Biondi, , Studi Riccobono IV, 22 ff.Google Scholar; de Visscher, Stud. et Doc. 13–14, 1947–8, 281 ff.). Gaius also says, ibid. 7, that, according to the prevailing view provincial land could not be made ‘religious’ because such land belonged to the Roman people or to the Emperor. He adds, however, that ‘pro religioso habetur’, and the distinction appears to have had no practical consequence. For the sake of simplicity it is ignored here. For general discussions of the Roman law governing sepulcra see Mommsen, , GS III, 198 ff.Google Scholar; Scialoia, , Teoria della proprietà nel d. r. I, 158ff.Google Scholar; Bonfante, , Corso di d. r. II, 120 ffGoogle Scholar. In addition to the article already mentioned de Visscher has made a number of other important contributions in recent years: see especially, RIDA 1, 1948, 199 ff.Google Scholar; Festschrift H. Lewald 175 ff.; RIDA III, 1, 1954, 283 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Düll, , Festschrift Schulz I, 191 ff.Google Scholar; id. Atti cong. inter, di dir. rom. (Verona) III, 161 ff.
17 i.e. in which the right of burial was restricted to members of an agnatic familia (or several such familiae), including the freedmen and their descendants. The right vested in such agnatic descendants whether they were heredes or not (even indeed if they were expressly disinherited). Sepulcra familiaria are thus distinguished from sepulcra hereditaria, in which the right of burial passed to the testamentary heres or heredes (Wamser, De iure sep. Rom. 22 ff.; Mommsen, o.c., 20 ff.; Ferrini, , Opere IV, 26 ff.Google Scholar). The distinction is stated by Gaius, (Dig. II, 7Google Scholar, 5, ‘familiaria sepulchra dicuntur quae quis sibi familiaeque suae constituit, hereditaria autem quae quis sibi heredibusque suis constituit’) but elsewhere in the Digest it has been blurred by interpolations, the existence of which was first clearly established by E. Albertario in Filangieri 1910, 492 ff. (= id. Studi di dir. rom. 11, 1 ff.); see also Bonfante, l.c., 36 ff.; Visscher, de, RIDA III, 1, 1954, 283 ffGoogle Scholar.
18 See, for example, lines 5 and 11 of the Syrian inscription quoted above, p. 119, n. 7. Instances could be multiplied. Contrast posterisque suis in, for example, CIL VI, 16809.
19 For the references see Preisigke, Wörterbuch, under the various words. It will be observed that κοινὸν καὶ ἀδιαίρετον commonly forms one group and ἀνεξαλλοτρίωτον καὶ ἀκαταχρημάτιστον another. There does not seem to be another instance in which they are all combined: see further below, note 22.
20 BGU 1147 (Mitteis, Chrest. 103; Meyer, Juristische Pap. 45) and ibid. 1151, both of 13 B.C.
21 See Kreller, Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen 78 ff., for the evidence from Egypt.
22 Of the instances in Wöterbuch s. vv. out of total of eleven instances ἀνεξαλοτρίωτος occurs with ἀκαταχρημάτιστος on nine occasions, while ἀκαταχρημάτιστος, of which there are eight instances, always occurs with ἀνεξαλοτρίωτος.
23 See Visscher, de, RIDA 1, 1948, 199 ff.Google Scholar, and the literature there cited.
24 This was noted by Lenel and Partsch, SB Heid. Akad. 1920 (1), p. 10, who offered no exact translation and said (note 1) ‘wir glauben dass dieses der ägyptischen Amtssprache vertraute Wort auch in lateinischen Texte stand’. Seckel, l.c. (see above, note 15), p. 5, §2 renders it ‘unbelastet, für den fiscus nicht fassbar’, while LS 9 translates it as ‘unencumbered with debt’.
25 CIL VI, 29909; cf. ibid. 8456, 13203 (Bruns7, 172, 8 and 2; FIRA 2 in, 81h and c), 11446.
26 It is nowhere indeed stated that a lease of a res religiosa was void: see the texts collected by Scherillo, l.c. (see above, note 16), which deal only with alienations or the creation of burdens of the nature of iura in re aliena.
27 The notion is common in the sepulchral formulae of Asia Minor: Wamser, o.c., 6, 12–13 (examples of μηδενὶ ἐξέστω μηδενὶ ἀπαλλοτριῶσαι and ἐξαλλοτριῶσαι); Stemler, o.c. (see above, p. 119, n. 7), p. 55; cf. also IGLSyr. 1, 455 (see above, note 7).
28 Against the view of Valdecasas, La Formula H.M.H.N.S. en las fuentes epigraficas romanas (1929) (non vidimus), that only if the formula includes ‘exterum’ is the sepulcrum in question familiare, the omission of this word indicating a tomb confined to the person(s) dedicating it, see de Visscher, Stud. et Doc. 13–14, 1947–8, 284, note 3.
28a The nomen is very difficult to read. The rubbing of the broken edges here shows that mu is certain, followed by a vertical stroke, which is in turn followed by what must be a delta, since it contains an angle, thus >, although it appears singularly misshapen in its present form. Of the letter before mu only the right-hand bottom corner survives: it could be alpha, labda or mu. Of the few names which qualify Οủμμίδιος, the Latin Ummidius, seems the most likely. For Ummidii in the East see e.g. CIG 2637 (Cyprus), containing a reference to a Cyprian family of this name. On the consular and other Ummidii, to one of whom our Rufus probably owes his nomen, see now Syme, , Tacitus (1958) II, 478–9Google Scholar.
29 For προσέρχεσθαι in the sense of approaching a magistrate see Wörterbuch, s.v. προσέρχεσθαι (4). It seems evident that the context is Alexandrian and there is no reason to suppose that the Prefect was on his conventual tour. διερχομένῳ indicates that the complainant did not appear before the Prefect in court, ἀναφόριον is the normal word for petitions in the Roman period, having largely superseded ἓντευξις in this sense.
30 OGIS 685. The earliest of the dated inscriptions on the Colossi is of A.D. 65, the latest of A.D. 195, and of course the greatest number are associated with, or arise from, the visit of Hadrian in A.D. 130: see Bataille, Les Memnonia (1952), 155–6. There is a possibility of a further identification with Κλαύδιος Δίδυμος ὁ Γέμεινος, the strategos of the Ἡρακλείδου μερίς in A.D. 124 (PAmh. 66, an account of an action heard before the strategos).
31 See, e.g. SB 5761, contemporary with our inscription (prefecture of Mettius Rufus) where the rank of the delegated judge, Claudius Sarapion, is not recorded. Since almost any official might be appointed iudex pedaneus (see Mitteis, Grdzge 42 ff.), it is useless to conjecture what rank Geminus may have held.
32 See PMasp. 57, 1, line 11, which is the only reference given in Wörterbuch, s.v. The reading is very far from clear there.
33 See, for instance, the list of strategoi of Roman date in P-W, s.v. Strategos, in which double-names are very common.
34 The fullest list of Egyptian double names is that compiled by Calderini, R., Aegyptus 21, 1941, 221–260Google Scholar, in which all the different formulae are listed and analysed. Less full, but more accessible, is that of Lambertz, , Glotta 5, 1914, 99 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also Mayser, , Grammatik II, 1, 60–1Google Scholar.
35 For πρᾶγμα as ‘case’ see e.g. Mitteis, Chrest. 84, line 24; 85, line 5; 87, line 2. It is also so used in the Caracalla-inscription noted above, note 6. For ἀποφαίνω or ἀποφαίνομαι of magisterial decisions see ibid. 82, line 5; 83, line 4; 96 (all middle); ibid. 88, II, line 15 (active). For the very frequent μεθ᾿ ἕτερα τὰ ὑπογεγραμμένα see Wörterbuch, s.v. ἓτερος (5).
36 The absence of verbs of speaking, answering, etc., is common in such documents, e.g. Mitteis, Chrest. 79, 80, 83, etc. In other instances such verbs are used (ibid. 90, 91, 93), sometimes in abbreviated form (e.g. SB 7696, where ἀπεκρ(ίνετο) is used throughout); in the two inscriptions noted above, notes 5 and 6, in which the lemmata are in Latin, Δʹ is used for dixit.
37 See above, p. 119.
38 Advocates often occur in records of legal proceedings (see e.g. Mitteis, Chrest. 79, lines 4–5; 80, line 14; 86, line 5, etc.: the word used is ῤήτωρ), but this seems too informal an occasion for an advocate. More probably Dionysius is a witness (μάρτυς) produced by the complainant.
39 However, the dialogue is very abrupt in such proceedings (as can be seen by reading through the selection, Mitteis, Chrest. 79–99), and inelegant phrases with anticipated subordinate clauses are not infrequent.
40 The last visible letter before the final lacuna in line 18 is not certain, but it is probably nu. Unfortunately, as is evident from the surrounding joins, the fit of the two fragments is not perfect at this point on the photograph; in true alignment the lower fragment would be further to the right. Mr. Benaki's rubbing shows what appears to be half a nu, with the left-hand stroke vertical, and this we regard as very probably correct, though mu is not wholly impossible (for mu with the upright stroke vertical see, e.g. line 17, init.). At the end of the lacuna the letter before the omicron, though only partially preserved, is apparently phi, since the rubbing shows the end of the wavy tails on the left and the distance between it and the previous letter is too wide for, e.g. a rho. Evidently the lapicide found that he had not room enough to make corresponding wavy lines on the right and so made an ordinary loop, αν………φος thus represents the condition of this part of the lines. If we understand the sense correctly the phrase should contain some notion of partnership or association, or else be the description of the individual in question, but we have not hit upon a suitable supplement. —φος at the end tempts one to think of τά]φος but we doubt this very much, since the subject here must be the antecedent of ὁ αὐτός in line 19. ἀν[τισύγγρα]φος would fit the lacuna very well, but the word would need to have a hitherto unattested meaning. The working translation which we have adopted above corresponds to ἑνὸ[ς τῶν λαβό]ντων τὰς τετρακισχε[ιλίας δράχμας—]μος (e.g. Πρῖ]μός) ἐστιν ὁ ἀν …… φος. Other supplements might be envisaged in line 7 (e.g. ἐνό[μισα, ἐν ὅ[σῳ, ἔνο[χος), but in any case the sense cannot be different.
41 The conqueror of Corinth, L. Mummius, occurs in contemporary documents as Monpios (Syll. 3 676 and 683) and the same spelling is found in Roman Egypt (IGRR 1, 1244 and 1250) alongside the more common later form Μούμμιος. Μούμμειος does not seem to be attested elsewhere and the nomen Mummeius itself is rare. It seems more likely, then, that the name represents a chance etacism of Μούμμιος rather than Mummeius.
42 See above, p. 118.
43 CIL IX, 136 (Bruns7 172, 10), apparently envisages such a collusive transaction: ‘[neque ul]li liquebit locationis [causa in] annis centum quan[do(que) tr]ansvendere.’
44 Dig. 11, 7, 2, 5. ‘Sepulchrum est, ubi corpus ossave hominis condita sunt. Celsus autem ait: non totus qui sepulturae destinatus est locus religiosus fit, sed quatenus corpus humatum est.’ Cf. Mommsen, Ges. Schr. III, 189 f.; de Visscher, Stud. et Doc. 13–4, 1947–8, 279 ff.; Düll, , Festschrift Schulz 1, 198 fGoogle Scholar.
45 
.
46 Ulpian does not say that Celsus originated the rule and Trajan may have been applying an existing rule of Roman law to Greco-Egyptian tombs.
47 Dig. 12, 6, 1, 1; 18, 1, 34, 1. 2.
48 See CGL II, 339: ‘καρπισμός: vindicta adsertio’; ‘καρπιστής: adsertor, vindex’; ‘καρπιστία: adsertio’; ‘καρπιστία: haec vindiciae, singularia non habet.’
49 Adsertor: Gaius, Inst. IV, 14Google Scholar; Paul. Sent. V, 1, 5Google Scholar, Cod. Iust. 7, 17, 2; vindex: Gaius, Inst. IV, 21. 25. 46Google Scholar.
50 Arr. Epict. III, 24, 76Google Scholar, addressing a slave, ποῖον αὐτῷ (sc. τὸν δουλαγωγοῦτά σε) καρπιστὴν διδώς; ibid. IV, 1, 113: καἱ λέγε γυμναζόμενος καθ᾿ ἡμέραν, ὡς ἐκεῖ, μὴ ὅτι φιλοσοφεῖς (ἔστω φορτικὸν τὸ ὄνομα), ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι καρπιστὴν διδώς. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ταῖς ἀληθείαις ἐλευθερία. LS 9 translates καρπιστής in these two passages as ‘emancipator’ (and καρπίξομαι as ‘I emancipate’), but this seems to be a misunderstanding of the glosses quoted in the preceding note. ‘Adsertor’ does not mean an emancipator, but one claiming a specific status for a third party: see Heumann and Seckel, Handlexikon röm. Recht., s.v. It may be noted that καρπιστής also occurs as a gnostic epithet for Όρος: Iren. adv. Haer. 1, 2 (10): τὸν δὲ Ὅρον τοῦτον Σταυρὸν καὶ Λυτρωτὴν καὶ Καρπιστὴν καὶ Ὁροθέτην καὶ Μεταγωγέα καλοῦσιν. Various translations of the word have been offered here, mostly deriving from the ‘vindexadsertor’ gloss. The suggestion that the word is equivalent to θεριστής was made by Neander, Genetische Entwicklung des vornehmst. gnost. Systems (1818), III, and this seems quite a likely explanation: see below, p. 127, n. 59.
51 Biondi, o.c., p. 22 f.: Düll, , Festschrift Schulz I, p. 193 fGoogle Scholar. Visscher, de, RIDA III, 1, 1954, pp. 289 ffGoogle Scholar.
52 Of the two possible exceptions the more important is the actio in factum mentioned in Dig. II, 7, 8, 1; ‘si locus religiosus pro puro venisse dicetur, praetor in factum actionem in eum dat ei ad quem ea res pertinet: quae actio et in heredem competit, cum quasi ex empto actionem contineat. ‘In the absence of any other reference to this action, the text has been the subject of conjecture through the centuries (Biondi, o.c., 35 ff.; Morel, Le Sepulchrum (Ann. Univ. Grenoble, 1928) 43 ff.). Granted that the last clause, ‘cum quasi …’, is interpolated (see Index Interp.) there is nothing to show either the nature of the action or by whom it was brought. Beseler ZSS 43, 1922, 543, did indeed throw out the conjecture that the action was penal, the text having originally ended ‘quae actio in heredem non competit, cum poenam contineat’. It is possible to read our inscription as confirming this guess, but the grounds for doing so are slender. The other possible exception is the application of the actio sepulcri violati mentioned in Dig. 47, 12, 3, 3; ‘si quis in hereditarium sepulchrum inferat, quamvis heres, tamen potest sepulchri violati teneri, si forte contra voluntatem testatoris intulit.’ On the view (see next note) that alienations not involving a change in the ‘religious’ character of the tomb were valid at law, this text provides a sanction against such alienations if made in contravention of the wishes of the founder of the tomb. It is, however, expressly confined to sepulcra hereditaria and there is no reason to extend it to sepulcra familiaria (Visscher, de, RIDA III, 1, 1954, 287, 293Google Scholar, against Albertario, o.c., 65 ff.; see also de Visscher, Festschrift Lewald 175 ff.). In any case there is no trace of this application of the action in the words of the Edict as they are preserved to us and it is therefore presumably later than Julian's revision and therefore than the proceedings dealt with in our inscription.
53 The clauses forbidding alienations, which are frequently found in Roman sepulchral inscriptions, often without the imposition of any penalty, have given rise to much debate, in view of the many legal texts which state that res religiosae are in any case inalienable. De Visscher has, however, shown (Stud. et Doc. 13–4, 1947–8, 278 ff.; Festschrift Lewald 175 ff.; RIDA III, 1, 283 ff.) that such prohibitions occur in the dedications only of sepulcra familiaria and has argued that one must therefore distinguish two degrees of inalienability: all sepulcra are inalienable in the sense that they may not be diverted from religious uses; sepulcra familiaria are inalienable in the further sense that the right of putting them even to ‘religious’ uses may not be given to anyone outside the family.
54 Wamser, o.c., 38 ff.; Scialoia, o.c., 180 ff.
55 Scialoia, o.c., 183 ff., provides a convenient summary of the older views; see also de Visscher, Festschrift Lewald 175 ff.; G. Wesenberg, Verträge zugunsten Dritter (1949) 75 ff.
56 Bonfante, o.c., 40; Kaser, , Das röm. Privatrecht I, 320 f.Google Scholar; Düll, , Atti Cong. int. dir. Rom. (Verona) III, 170 ffGoogle Scholar.
57 Schulz, Principles of Roman Law 26; id., Roman Legal Science 138.
58 CIL VI, 10238. Wamser, o.c., 7, found only this one example and we know of no other.
59 See, however, the suggestion noted above (note 50) that the gnostic epithet καρπιστής bears the meaning of θεριστής.
60 Dig. 19, 2, 15 pr. 1. 8.
61 See Pringsheim, Greek Law of Sale pp. 305 ff.
62 We should perhaps mention here the possibility, slight though it is, that καρπιστής is a second cognomen. This would fit well with the absence of the article, though the use of the article with titles, ranks and so on, is at this date so fluctuating that no positive argument can be founded upon it (cf. Mayser, , Grammatik II, 2, 22 ff.Google Scholar, §2; Radermacher, NTGram.2 114 ff.). However, although some καρπ-names are common, particularly Κἀρπος itself and Καρποφὁρος, Καρπιστής itself does not seem to occur and analogous names, deriving from a status or profession, are rare (cf. Bechtel, Hist. Personennamen, 518 f.).
63 We speak of ‘title’, of course, only subject to what is said in n. 16, p. 120, above.
64 The period was 20 years if the parties were not in the same district. In general see Partsch, Die Longi Temporis Praescriptio (1906).
65 The praescriptio is laid down in a rescript of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, which exists in two exemplars, BGU 267 and PStrass. 22, verso col. I(the latter not available to Partsch, o.c.). They are republished as Mitteis, Chrest. 374, and Meyer, Jurist. Pap. 54.
66 Partsch, o.c., 112; cf. Mitteis, Grdzge 287 (and FIRA 2 1, ad 84).
67 Dig. II, 8, 4; Partsch, o.c., 30. On the apparently contradictory statement in Cod. Iust. 3, 44, 6, see Partsch, 94 f.; Scialoia, o.c., 169; Bonfante, o.c., 33 f.
68 Partsch, o.c., 7 ff.
69 ibid., pp. 26 ff.
70 ibid., pp. 30 ff.
71 ZSS 26, 1905, 486.
72 CIL X, 3334 (Bruns7 187; FIRA 2 III, 86). See the references in note 67 above.
73 e.g. CIL VI, 12133, 38585; X, 3163; cf. VI, 8861, 8862 (Brans7 141, 4; FIRA 2 III, 106c), 10525.
74 C. 3, 44, 6.
75 Dig. 11, 7, 6 pr. in fin.
76 CIL VI, 10243. We have not come across any discussion of this interesting inscription.
