Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
It is the aim of the following pages to study the evidence for the condition and economy of Capua in the period of the Roman Republic, and to suggest some fresh conclusions on its role in the more general evolution of Roman commerce and influence. For two centuries or more after the Second Punic War, until other more favoured and more extensive regions of the empire began to compete with Italian agriculture and industry, the cities of Campania maintained a certain degree of primacy over others in the peninsula. Among these, Capua had for long held the chief political power, and even after its defeat by the Romans in 211 B.C., retained some degree of prestige throughout antiquity. Before her defection to Hannibal, Capua might be ranked with Carthage or Corinth in wealth and power; and even at the other end of antiquity, in the fourth century A.D., Capua was the third city of Italy, next only to Rome and Aquileia, a position substantially retained in the Dark Ages and in later history.
1 The importance of personal inspection of material in what follows makes it the more agree-able to thank those who have made this possible: Prof. A. Maiuri, Superintendent of Antiquities in Campania, for his generous permission; Dott. M. Napoli and Dott. G. O. Onorato for help in various practical ways; Prof. A. De Franciscis for valuable information; and Ing. Garofano, curator of the Museo Campano, for his kind and courteous assistance. Further, thanks are due to Mr. Russell Meiggs and Miss Joyce Reynolds for salutary criticisms; and to Mr. J. B. Ward-Perkins, to whom directly and indirectly, this study owes a great deal.
2 Cic., leg. agr. ii, 86–87Google Scholar; Phil. xii, 7. Plut., Fab. 17, 4Google Scholar. Florus, 2, 18.
3 Ausonius, , Ordo urb. nob. viiiGoogle Scholar.
4 Nissen, H., Italische Landeskunde, ii, pp. 696–717Google Scholar. Frank, T., Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, i, pp. 181–183Google Scholar; v, pp. 129–135. M. Rostovtzeff, Soc. and Econ. History of the Roman Empire (2nd. edn.), pp. 67–71.
5 For an excellent comprehensive treatment, Heurgon, J., Capoue préromaine des origines à la deuxième guerre punique (Bibl. des écoles françaises: Paris 1942Google Scholar). Henceforth cited as ‘Heurgon.’
6 The short-lived independence of Calatia and Casilinum is not important for the present purpose: see CIL X, p. 369.
7 See Beloch, Campanien, p. 125. C. Dubois, Pouzzoles antique, pp. 226–228.
8 Excluding Pompeii, Herculaneum and Minturnae, some numerical samples are revealing. From Surrentum, CIL X produced 89 inscriptions; since then 49 more have been found. From Stabiae, CIL X listed 31; a further 24 are known. Under Puteoli, CIL X gave 1828 inscriptions, to which some 207 must now be added, while many must be assigned elsewhere. (These figures omit Greek texts and Instrumentum Domesticum.)
9 I note 88, as against 801 in CIL X.
10 The most important are Ephemeris Epigraphica, VIII, pp. 120–134; Egbert, , Suppl. Papers of the Amer. Acad. in Rome, ii, 1908, pp. 279–290Google Scholar (here-after cited as ‘Egbert’); Garroni, A., Rend. Acc. Linc., xxiv, 1915, pp. 138–144Google Scholar.
11 Two sections of the work, of ‘inscriptiones sacrae’ and ‘publicae,’ must be reckoned as lost; another appeared in EE VIII. The most recent (hereafter cited as ‘Mazocchi’ with a number) was published by Gamurrini, G. F. in Mem. Acc. Linc., ix, 1903, pp. 75–111Google Scholar.
12 Care is needed: the work was unfinished, some stones were not checked, and on a few the author himself expressed doubts. A few strays from Rome have also crept in, unnoticed by the editor.
13 Livy, 26, 33, 12. Cf. CIL X, p. 369; Heurgon, p. 190.
14 Livy, 26, 16, 7–8; urbs servata est ut esset aliqua aratorum sedes. Urbi frequentandae multitudo incolarum libertinorumque et institorum opificumque retenta; ager omnis et tecta publica populi Romani facta. Cf. De Sanctis, , Storia dei Romani, iii, 2, pp. 342–347Google Scholar.
15 Cic., leg. agr. ii, 88Google Scholar; Sest. 9; Att. 15, 3, 1. Caes., Bell. civ. 1, 14, 3Google Scholar; 3, 21, 5.
16 Texts in Heurgon, pp. 11–16.
17 Cf. del Treppo, M., Arch. Stor. Prov. Nap., xxxv, 1955, p. 93Google Scholar. In ancient sources shipping on the Volturnus is attested doubtfully in Stat., Silv. 4, 3, 77Google Scholar and Livy, 26, 7, 9. Early medieval evidence is clearer: cf. Erchemperti (M.G.H. SS rerr. lang.) 42, 44 and 61; Chron. Sicardi (Capasso, , Mon. Neap. Duc. ii, 2, 153Google Scholar). See also Cilento, N., Riv. Stor. Ital. lxi, 1951, pp. 457–59Google Scholar.
18 Below, pp. 126–130. Reference to the lists of magistri is hereafter made by the numbers there given.
19 CIL X, p. 367.
20 Löfstedt, , Syntactica, i, p. 163Google Scholar.
21 See above, n. 15.
22 Another [p]ag. magis[ter] may be mentioned in no. 21. Cf. R. M. Peterson, The Cults of Campania, p. 351, n. 1.
23 Ann. Ist., xviii, 1846, p. 91, n. 2Google Scholar; CIL X, p. 367. Cf. also Garrucci, , Bull. Nap., i, 1852, pp. 13–15Google Scholar.
24 EE II, pp. 128–130.
25 De conventibus civium Romanorum, pp. 71–77.
26 Bull. Corr. Hell., xxxvi, 1912, pp. 184–189Google Scholar; Les Trafiquants italiens dans l'Orient hellénique, pp. 267–273.
27 Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, pp. 13–14.
28 Heurgon, , ‘Les Magistri des collèges et le relèvement de Capoue,’ in Mél. d'Arch. et d'Hist., lvi, 1939, pp. 5–27Google Scholar.
29 Bull. Comm. Arch., lxx, 1942, App. pp. 17–27Google Scholar.
30 Johnson, J., Excavations at Minturnae, vol. ii, pp. 18 ffGoogle Scholar.
31 See Johnson, cited above. Staedtler, E., Hermes, lxxvii, 1942, pp. 149–196Google Scholar, has attempted to controvert the dates assigned by the excavators; but his arguments for an Augustan date rest on several misconceptions and ignorance of the powerful evidence assembled by Münzer, F., Röm. Mitt. 1, 1935, pp. 321–330Google Scholar. Further objections will be found in Bömer, F., Abh. Akad. Wiss., Geistes- und sozialwiss. Klasse, 1957, 7, pp. 101–105Google Scholar.
32 It may be noted that in this case, the only one which may be compitalicial, there are fourteen names. Cf. a similar dedication of a later date, CIL X, 3790.
33 Hal., Dion.Ant. 4, 14, 3–4Google Scholar.
34 See Heurgon, article cited n. 28 above, pp. 12–15. Especially abundant also in Praeneste: Gullini, G. and Fasolo, , Il Santuario della Fortuna Primigenia, vol. i, pp. 275–282Google Scholar.
35 Heurgon, art. cit. p. 14, n. 1.
36 See further below, p. 114.
37 Cf. G. E. Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul, p. 59.
38 Other possibilities are: Ser. Sueti Ser. 1. bal(neator) in list 8; in the same, C. Lucretius C.1. is followed by a ligature which may be Apul(us) or aur(ifex); in list 11,. …natius P.f.gla(diarius). Other abbreviations are more readily resolved as common cognomina.
39 A comparable, and roughly contemporary, college of retiarii at Puteoli, CIL I2, 1618.
40 CIL X, 3918, 3924.
41 Twelve ministri, mostly slaves, in CIL X, 3790 (26 B.C.); a board of six magistri dedicate to Jupiter, , CIL X, 3786Google Scholar (15 A.D.); another board of six, CIL X, 3787.
42 The magistrates ‘laconicum et destrictarium faciunda et porticus et palaestram reficiunda locarunt ex d. d. ex ea pecunia quod (sic) eos e lege in ludos aut in monumento (sic) consumere oportuit, faciundum coerarunt eidemque probarunt.’ CIL X, 829 = ILS 5706.
43 On the temple, cf. S. Weinstock, P–W, s.v. Tifatina; and now especially De Franciscis, A., Arch. Stor. Terra di Lavoro, i, 1956, pp. 301–358Google Scholar.
44 A. De Franciscis, Not. Scav. 1952, pp. 306–308; Studi Calderini e Paribeni, iii, pp. 356–358.
45 The Capitolium of Capua, restored by Tiberius (Tac., ann. 4, 57Google Scholar; Suet. Tib. 40), stood in the same area and may have adopted the same temple. Italicus, Silius (Pun. xi, 265Google Scholar) speaks of ‘Capitolia celsa’ in Hannibal's time, but this is a Vergilian echo and probably mere anachronism, The Capitoline triad was evidently introduced with the founding of the colony, as occurred regularly elsewhere: see in general Bianchi, U., Mem. Acc. Linc., ii, Ser. 8, pp. 349–414Google Scholar.
46 Peterson, Cults of Campania, pp. 338–342; Heurgon, pp. 365–370.
47 Aedis Fortunae, Livy, 27, 11, 2; 23, 2. This weighs against Wissowa'xss suggestion (Rel. und Kultus, p. 260) that she was worshipped in the Fondo Patturelli.
48 Peterson, pp. 343–344; Heurgon, p. 123.
49 For pre-Roman cemeteries and their distribution, cf. Heurgon, p. 414, n. 5; and pp. 115–118. Roman remains come from many small sites in the vicinity, such as Macerata di Marcianise, S. Prisco, S. Nicola in Strada, etc.
50 See below, p. 91.
51 Text no. 12, found apparently in situ in an enclosure wall of Diana's sanctuary, refers to works undertaken in the sanctuary itself. The meaning is not clear at all points. Since statues of the Dioscuri would have no place in the sanctuary, Cast. et Pol. is to be construed as a dative of the deities whom the mag(istreis) served, as in no. 18, where the two terms are similarly separated. The sentence, describing the works of the magistri Castori et Polluci throughout, has suffered dislocation by the clumsy insertion of ‘loca privata de stipe emendum.’ See further below, n. 59. (Mommsen's conjecture that the wall in texts 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, was one and the same wall is unnecessary.)
52 Text no. 17 was found, possibly in its original position, some way from Capua at the modern Recale (near Caserta); being a building inscription it is not evidence for the site of the Pagus Herculaneus, but only of the porticus that was built. For such theophoric names, cf. the remarks of Veyne, P., Mél. d'arch. et d'hist., lxix, 1957, p. 92Google Scholar.
53 Tac., ann. 14, 20Google Scholar. Perhaps part of the theatre were the walls and mysterious ‘plutei,’ 5 built in 106 and 104 B.C.
54 CIL X, 3907. Not. Scav. 1943, pp. 149–54; 1952, pp. 306–308.
55 A. De Franciscis, cited n. 43 above.
56 Cf. Lex Coloniae Genetivae, 70–71. Mommsen, , CIL X, p. 1160Google Scholar. W. Liebenam, Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche, pp. 54–57.
57 Athen., xi, 466e; 489b. Pausan., 5, 12, 3.
58 Vell. Pat. 2, 25, 4; CIL X, 3828. Not. Scav. 1893, p. 165.
59 Cf. n. 51. Since the words ‘de stipe Dianae’ seem to refer only to the purchase of land, the other works mentioned will have been paid by the pagus.
60 Lex. Col. Gen. 72; cf. Mommsen, , Ges. Schr., i, 257–258Google Scholar. Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus, pp. 429–430.
61 Livy, 31, 29, 11.
62 Cic. Sest. 9; Pis. 25.
63 Cic. Sest. 9: conventus ille Capuae. The use of ‘conventus’ to refer to the Campanian region (e.g. Cic., Att. 15, 3, 1Google Scholar) is commoner but derivative.
64 Conway 42, 43, and 52: kúmbennieís tanginud (‘de conventus sententia’). Of the two assemblies known in Oscan Pompeii, this must be the primary one; cf. A. Sogliano, Pompeii preromana, pp. 156–157. G. Devoto, Gli antichi italici, p. 266.
65 Compare the octoviri fanorum at Trebula Mutuesca (ILS 6553), and the VIIIIviri valetudinis at Mevania (CIL XI, p. 733).
66 See especially Nock, A. D., Mélanges Bidez, ii, pp. 627–638Google Scholar.
67 Cic. Sest. 9.
68 E.g. CIL X, 4435.
69 E.g. CIL X, 4431.
70 Nissen, H., Hermes, i, 1866, p. 147Google Scholar. R. Altmann, Römische Grabaltäre, p. 138.
71 Forti, L., ‘Un gruppo di stele del Museo Campano,’ Mem. Acc. Arch. Nap., vi, 1941, pp. 45–76Google Scholar; and ‘Stele Capuane,’ ib., vi, 1942, pp. 301–330. Hereafter referred to as ‘Forti I’ and ‘Forti II’ respectively.
72 EE VIII, 539, 549, 551, 552, 555, 557.
73 Forti II, nos. 3, 7, 17, 22, 23, 32. For painted stelae of the Hellenistic period, cf. A. Rumpf, Malerei und Zeichnung, pp. 156–157.
74 For the cemetery at Teano, see Gabrici, E., Mon. Ant., xx, 1910, pp. 10–15Google Scholar.
75 E.g. CIL X, 4052, 4351, 4358.
76 R. Pagenstecher, Unteritalische Grabdenkmäler, pp. 79–117.
77 For examples, Amelung, , Vatikankatalog, I, Taf. 32, 13aGoogle Scholar; 36, 60e.
78 Rare instances, e.g. Bull. Comm. Arch., liv, 1926, 177Google Scholar; Not. Scav. 1955, p. 206.
79 See the illuminating discussions by Mansuelli, G. A. in Studi Simeoni (Atti della Dep. di Storia Patria per la Romagna, n.s. iv, 1953) vol. ii, pp. 237–279Google Scholar. Studi Calderini e Paribeni, iii, pp. 365–384Google Scholar.
80 For the ‘heroizing’ style, cf. Altmann, Röm. Grabaltäre, p. 219, figs. 179–180. Military style, Amelung, , Vatikankatalog, i, Taf. 28, 137 pGoogle Scholar; Taf. 30, 163.
81 So Gummerus, H., Klio, xii, 1912, pp. 500–503Google Scholar. Laum, B., Germania, ii, 1918, pp. 108–112Google Scholar; Forti I, no. 20.
82 Soc. and Econ. Hist., 2nd edn., pl. xii, 2.
83 A. Sogliano, Not. Scav. 1883, pp. 515–519.
84 G. Carettoni, Not. Scav. 1943, pp. 140–143.
85 Sieveking, J., Gnomon, viii, 1932, pp. 420–421Google Scholar. O. Vessberg, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik, Taf. 13, 7–8. The facts are clearly stated by B. Felleti Maj, Museo Nazionale Romano: i Ritratti, pp. 51–52.
86 On the problem of the toga, Sieveking, pp. 417–419; Vessberg, pp. 177–179. Curtius, L., Röm. Mitt., xlvii, 1932, p. 246, n. 2Google Scholar.
87 Vessberg, p. 205.
88 EE VIII, 557; Vessberg, Taf. xlv, 2; Forti I, tav., viii, 24.
89 CIL X, 3969; Vessberg, Taf. xlv, 1; Forti II, tav., ii.
90 Studien, p. 241.
91 See Goethert, F., Röm. Mitt., liv, 1939, p. 179 (Taf. 38, 2)Google Scholar.
92 Forti I, pp. 69–72.
93 Stray examples from Rome, , CIL VI, 9289Google Scholar, 23532; the latter are probably of Campanian origin.
94 Not. Scav. 1883, p. 516; 1943, pp. 140–143.
95 The small terracotta aedicola found among the dedications in the Fondo Patturelli was held by Altmann (Röm. Grab., p. 138) to show a ritual origin; but the aedicola shows traces of plaster which is probably late, and hardly explains the form of sepulchral monuments. Cf. Koch, , Röm Mitt., xxii, 1907, p. 389Google Scholar.
96 A. Adriani, Il Museo Campano: Sculture in tufo. Compare the head published by A. De Franciscis, Not. Scav. 1956, pp. 54–5; and the late-second-century head from Palestrina in B. Schweitzer, Die Bildniskunst der römischen Republik, p. 57.
97 Gabrici, , Mon. Ant., xx, 1910, pp. 10–15Google Scholar; Vetter, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, no. 123.
98 Ribezzo, F., Riv. indo-greco-italica, viii, 1924, pp. 85–86Google Scholar. Vetter, no. 184.
99 Conway, 88, 89, 90; Vetter, 109, 110, 111, 112; Not. Scav. 1913, p. 408; Maiuri, , Neapolis, i, 1914, pp. 404–408Google Scholar.
100 Two Oscan gravestones in the Museo Campano, published only by Vetter, Handbuch, no. 73, are there described as ‘tischartig’; but the upper part of the stone is clearly meant to show a pediment and acroteria, and they are thus rudimentary stelae. The material, a compact grey tufa, points to an origin in Cales.
101 Pagenstecher, Unteritalische Grabdenkmäler, pp. 79–117. Compare the painted aedicolae from Lilybaeum; Pace, B., Arte e civiltà della Sicilia antica, ii, p. 279Google Scholar; Gabrici, E., Mon. Ant., xxxiii, 1929, pp. 44–47Google Scholar. From Massilia, Espérandieu, Bas reliefs de la Gaule romaine, i, p. 48Google Scholar.
102 Mansuelli, Studi Calderini e Paribeni, p. 377.
103 Gordon, A. E., California Publications in Class. Arch., i, pp. 159–168Google Scholar.
104 As Mommsen, realised too late: see the last-minute note in CIL X, p. 967Google Scholar.
105 Tenney Frank, Roman Buildings of the Republic, p. 34; M. E. Blake, Ancient Roman Construction in Italy, pp. 50–60.
106 Strab. 5, 2, 5. Cf. Ward-Perkins, J. B., JRS, xli, 1951, pp. 89–104Google Scholar.
107 Noack and Lehmann-Hartleben, Baugeschichtliche Untersuchungen, p. 177.
108 In general, Degrassi, A., Riv. Fil., lxiv, 1936, p. 279Google Scholar. The fifteen earlier examples adduced by A. E. Gordon are in fact on travertine or limestone where they survive; cf. Degrassi, Inscriptions Liberae Reipublicae (1956) for more accurate data.
109 Conway, , Italic Dialects, i, p. 60Google Scholar. Conway no. 45, from the Porta di Nola, is called marble in error; it is in fact on a fine local limestone (with thanks to Mr. D. E. Strong, of the British Museum, for the information).
110 The titulus of Sullan, date, CIL I 2, 1627Google Scholar, often said to be of marble, is evidently also of compact limestone. For an early use of marble CIL I2, 1638 may be cited.
111 The quarries of Alvignano, the ancient Cubulteria, in the upper Volturnus valley, were exploited under Trajan, but the specific mention of the fact suggests that it was exceptional (CIL X, 4574). That the marble-like limestone of Vitulano was used at Pompei i (T.C.I. Guide, Campania, p. 181) is not likely. Likewise, the export of marble claimed for Salernum by Panebianco, V. (Rass. Stor. Salern., vi, 1945, p. 29Google Scholar) rests solely upon CIL X, 542, surely a stray from Ostia. On Sicilian marbles, Pace, B., Arte e civiltà, ii, p. 523Google Scholar.
112 For examples, De Franciscis, A., Il Ritratto Romano a Pompei (Naples, 1951), p. 20Google Scholar. Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, p. 418, fig. 240. Not. Scav. 1916 pp. 296–304, figs. 10–14.
113 CIL X, 999 ff. Nissen, Pompeianische Studien, p. 394.
114 CIL X, 1008 (cf. 817). On the date, Maiuri, A., Le Arti, i, 1938, pp. 72–74Google Scholar.
115 CIL X, 1023.
116 Apart from those in CIL, others have been found outside the Porta Nocera (Mau, A., Röm. Mitt., iii, 1888, pp. 120–149Google Scholar); near the Porta Stabiana (ib., ix, 1894, pp. 62-65; x, 1895, pp. 156-159); and those published in Not. Scav. 1916, pp. 296-304. Examples from Surrentum record freedmen of the early Julio-Claudian period, Not. Scav. 1928, pp. 205-213.
117 Specimens have been found at Surrentum (see note above); Stabiae (di Capua, F., Rend. Ace. Nap., xix, 1938, pp. 93, 99, 102Google Scholar); and Nuceria (Not. Scav. 1932, p. 318). Mau (Pompeii, p. 412) is in error in saying they occur in Capua. Similar, apparently unrelated, cippi from Hadria are known, Tamaro, B. Forlati, Epigraphica, xviii, 1956, pp. 56–69Google Scholar.
118 Nissen, Pomp. Stud., p. 245.
119 As in the cemetery of the Via Laurentina at Ostia: Scavi di Ostia, vol. iii: Le Necropoli, p. 63. Cf. Marquardt-Mau, Privatleben, pp. 360-373. P-W, s.v. ‘Bestattung.’ G. Rohde, P-W, s.v. ‘os resectum.’
120 Nissen, Pomp. Stud., pp. 394–397. Mau-Kelsey, pp. 421-426. De Franciscis, A. and Pane, R., Mausolei Romani in Campania (Naples, 1957)Google Scholar.
121 De Franciscis and Pane, ib., pp. 87–102. Cf. FA VI, 4582.
122 Of the later style, examples in Altmann Röm. Grabaltäre, fig. 172 (CIL X, 3675); fig. 175 (CIL X, 4220). Compare fig. 177 (CIL X, 1872, from Puteoli.) Others are to be seen in the main collections: thus CIL X, 3893 (now in the Museo Nazionale) and 4212 (now in the Museo Campano).
123 A ‘Campanian’ style has been identified in the sculptures of the amphitheatre at Capua, built under Hadrian. G. Pesce, I rilievi dell'anfittatro campano.
124 Livy, 26, 16, 8. Cf. Cic., leg. agr. 2, 84Google Scholar.
125 Heurgon, pp. 337-50; ch. xvi.
126 Diod. 5, 13; cf. P-W, xxiii, 2039.
127 C. Gracchus, ORF frg. 59; also Polybius, if correctly reported in Athen. 12, 528a.
128 Livy, 24, 19, 2; 26, 4, 1.
129 Cato agr. 135; Plin., n.h. 34, 95Google Scholar.
130 Heurgon, pp. 403–413.
131 In general, H. Willers, Neue Untersuckungen über die römische Bronzeindustrie; for the names of makers, pp. 85–86. See further A. Radnóti, Die römischen Bronzgefässe von Pannonien (Diss. Pann. 1938), pp. 44–56. The activity of the Cipii cannot be so late as Flavian (Radnóti, p. 53); their products were found in the destruction layer at Colchester (Hawkes and Hull, Camelodunum, p. 334) as at Hofheìm (E. Ritterling, Das frührömische Lager bei Hofheim, p. 181), and in earlier near Locarno (c. 20 A.D. Lamboglia, N., Riv. Stud. Lig., ix, 1943, p. 166Google Scholar).
132 Magistri-list 10 (twice); stele, CIL X, 4076.
133 CIL X, 4013.
134 List 23; stele X, 4173 = Forti I, 4; cf. X, 3998.
135 List 19; stele X, 4435.
136 cf. List 24; stele X, 4047.
137 CIL X, 4155, litteris vetustis.
138 Lists 6 and 7.
139 Lists 10, 11. A later aerarius, CIL X, 3988.
140 CIL X, 3971; Gummerus, H., Jahrb. Arch. Inst., xxviii, 1913, p. 84, fig. 12Google Scholar.
141 CIL X, 3970; Loeschke, S., Bonn. Jahrb., cxviii, 1909, p. 391Google Scholar, fig. 10; Gummerus, op. cit., p. 76.
142 CIL I2, 1604; Gummerus, op. cit., p. 83, fig. 11. A cultrarius of imperial date, CIL X, 3987.
143 H. Willers, op. cit., Taf. v, no. 4. H. Gummerus, op. cit., p. 73, fig. 4.
144 Cato, agr. 135; Plaut. Pseud. 146; Plin., n.h. 19, 10–11Google Scholar; Grat. Cyneg. 35.
145 CIL X, 3973. Two vestiarii of imperial date, CIL X, 3959–60. A sandaliarius, X 3981.
146 Fest. 458 L: Seplasia forum Capuae, in quo plurimi unguentarii erant. Ascon. in Pis. 24. Pomponius, frg. 160 Ribbeck.
147 Varro, , Sat. Men., vii, 3Google Scholar. Cic. Pis. 24.
148 CIL I2, 1594; cf. X 3968, 3974, 3979, 3982 with Mazocchi no. 360.
149 Plin., n.h. 34, 108Google Scholar; 16, 40. Plaut. Rud. 629.
150 CIL X, 3955 (stele); cf. 3980 and EE VIII, 486. An obstetrix X 3972 (stele). Note the doctor Minatus on Delos c. 160 B.C.
151 CIL IV, 2826; cf. Galen, xii, 753. Remark, P., De ampkorarum inscriptionibus Latinis, Diss. Bonn 1912, p. 33Google Scholar.
152 CIL I2, 1594; Hatzfeld, p. 55.
153 CIL X, 4291; Hatzfeld, p. 68. Cf. CIL X, 2935 (Puteoli).
154 For two Faenii at Puteoli, both thurarii, CIL X, 1902; cf. 6802 and Am. Journ. Arch. 1898, p. 380, no. 17. At Rome, two others of the same gens, CIL VI, 5680, 9932. Note also Faenjus, L. Telesphorus, unguentarius Lugdunensis (CIL VI, 9998Google Scholar).
155 Plin., n.h. 33, 164Google Scholar. Tac., ann. 13, 51Google Scholar.
156 Plin., n.h. 16, 225Google Scholar. CIL X, 3965, litteris magnis et satis antiquis; 3957; cf. VI, 9258.
157 CIL X, 3978 = Forti II, 6; 3976. Gummerus, , Klio, xiv, 1915, pp. 148 and 182Google Scholar.
158 CIL X, 3793, 3877.
159 Cf. A. Maiuri, La Casa del Menandro (1933), pp. 241–243. For Rome, H. Loane, Industry and Commerce ofthe City of Rome, pp. 90–92. Tarentum, P. Wuillemier, Le Tresor de Tarente, pp. 67–68.
160 Lists 8, 11, 20. CIL X, 3954.
161 CIL X, 4011, Forti I, no. 12, tav. v, 14. Cf. the suarius shown in Rostovtzeff, Soc. and Econ. Hist., pl. iii, 1.
162 CIL X, 4370 = Forti I, 2; tav. ii, fig. 5.
163 Forti II, p. 315.
164 CIL VI, 33887.
165 Not. Scav. 1943, pp. 140–143.
166 Among an extensive literature, see especially the studies of Lamboglia, N. and Benoit, F. in Riu. Stud. Lig., vols. xviii and xxiGoogle Scholar, and in Gallia, xii. For the East, Hatzfeld, Bull. Coir. Hell., xxxvi, 158–159Google Scholar.
167 For texts, Heurgon, pp. 12–14.
168 Pol. 34, 11, 1. CIL IV, 2833 καπυανός cf. 2826, 5555.
169 Johnson, , Excavations at Minturnae, Vol. ii, pp. 49–113Google Scholar.
170 Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsr., iii, pp. 425–426Google Scholar. Gordon, A. E., California Publ. in Class. Arch., 935, pp. 151–158Google Scholar.
171 CIL X, 3970 (cf. above, p. 110); 4149.
172 Oxe, A., Rhein. Mus., lix, 1904, p. 114, 128Google Scholar.
173 Eight times among the stelae known to CIL; abo Forti I, 22 (= Egbert, p. 287, no. 8); Forti II, 21 (= Mazocchi, 4).
174 CIL X, 4053, 4411 (= Forti I, 21; II, 9), etc.
175 Probably the earliest appearance of this cognomen; on Dacian slaves, see Mateescu, G., Eph. Dacoromana, i, 1923, pp. 74–76Google Scholar.
176 Johnson, op. cit., pp. 110–112. Spartacus's forces were mainly Gauls and Germans.
177 Pl. XXI, a. Cf. Rostovtzeff, Soc. and Earn. Hist., Pl. ii, 2; Gummerus, H., Klio, xii, 1912 p. 500Google Scholar; Laum, B., Germanic, ii, 1918, p. 108Google Scholar; Forti I, 20.
178 Cic., leg. agr. 2, 92Google Scholar and Sest. 9: eidem nomine commutato coloni decurionesque.
179 A convenient list will be found in Heurgon, p. 107; the Arrii must now be added, see E. Vetter, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, no. 73.
180 Numerius, Decius, even Ovius still survive as praenomina; Gnaeus, though not Oscan, appear early, as in the poet, Cn. Naevius.
181 W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte der lateinischen Eigennamen, passim. For various reservations in detail, which would modify certain historical applications of his views, see Last, H., CAH, vii, p. 382Google Scholar. Recently, G. Bonfante, Mél. Marouzcau, 1948, pp. 43–59. Vetter, E., Oest. Jahresh., xxxvii, 1948, Beibl. 56–112Google Scholar.
182 Heurgon, pp. 101–102.
183 CIL X, 3886 and 3884. Other Brittii, , CIL X, 4047–9Google Scholar, and Egbert, p. 287, no. 8 (all stelae).
194 On the formation of this name, Schulze op. cit., p. 108. A connection with M. Sacrativir, a Capuan knight (Caes., bell. civ. 3, 71Google Scholar) seems irresistible; Münzer's suspicions (P-W IA, 1674) are gratuitous, for the stone survives.
185 Livy, 32, 29; 34, 42 and 45.
186 Lists 1, 3, 9; Hatzfeld, p. 69.
187 Livy, 26, 16, 6–12; 33, 10–34, 12.
188 Veil. Pat. 2, 16, 2; P-W VIIA, 638.
189 IG 2 IV, 1, 28, 1.104.
190 Livy, 23, 7, 8; 27, 3, 4. Cic., leg. agr. 2, 93Google Scholar. Conway, no. 109.
191 Dudley, D. R., JRS, xxxi, 1941, pp. 94–96Google Scholar.
192 CIL X, 1781 = ILS 5317. Lists 17, 23.
193 Hatzfeld, p. 80.
194 CIL I 2, 1595, X 4249. At Puteoli, , CIL X, 1935–1940Google Scholar. Cf. also Cic., Q. fr. 2, 2, 1Google Scholar. CIL X 1443, 1446 (Herculaneum).
195 Livy, 26, 33, 8 and cf. Heurgon, p. 110; for the references to Cicero's letters, P-W IV 120–121; for N. Cluvius M'.f., IV vir of Capua, , CIL I 2, 1620Google Scholar.
196 A navigator in CIL X, 3804 (6 B.C.); a nameles sea-captain in X, 3813: ‘votum in Siculo fretu susceptum solvit.’
197 Livy, 26, 6, 13; cf. Dessau, , Hermes, xvii, pp. 153–156Google Scholar.
198 Lists 9, 23; CIL X, 4294; Hatzfeld, p. 64.
199 Plin., n.h. 7, 181Google Scholar. List 17; CIL X, 4028, and frequently elsewhere.
200 Possibly Paconius, as Munzer P-W XII, 2071, adducing ILS 5779; the name otherwise leaves little trace in the area.
201 Cic., fam. 9, 13Google Scholar. For Planii, , EE VIII, 551Google Scholar (stele from Cales); CIL X, 4289, from Capua.
202 Cic., Q.fr. 2, 13, 3Google Scholar; Conway, 133. In CIL I2, 1597, M. Orfius M.f. Fal. is doubtless Cicero's friend.
203 Cic. Cael. 23; Q. fr. 2, 8, 2. Tac. dial. 21. List 10.
204 Cic., Att. 13, 37, 4Google Scholar; cf. 45 and 50. On Cluvius, cf. Att. 6, 2, 3. On Plotius, above p. 111.
205 Hatzfeld, p. 44; Lists 2, 8, 11, 17; frequently among the stelae, CIL X, 4059, 4173–4175.
206 Conway, 102, 113, 135; list 22; CIL X, 4095, 4260 (stelae). Cf. Hatzfeld, p. 58; W. Kunkel, Herkunft und soziale Stellung, pp. 29–30.
207 Local, as the cognomen shows, CIL X, 3903; and the stele X, 4381. The words ‘deductus in coloniam’ are formulaic. Cf. Kunkel, pp. 32–33.
208 Livy 23, 2, 6, and Heurgon, chs. xii and xiii.
209 Cf. above, n. 184.
210 Cic., ad Brut. 1.16Google Scholar. Conway, 112; list 23; CIL X, 3998, 4173.
211 P-W, s.v. ‘Magius.’
212 Cic., Q. fr. 2, 3, 5Google Scholar. Lists 3, 10, 24. A suffect consul of that name in 36 B.C. has been exploded.
213 Dio, 38, 14. Cic., Att. 3, 23, 4Google Scholar; 10, 16, 4 ‘Ninnius noster.’ In Capua, Conway, 123; Livy, 23, 8, 1. In Pompeii, texts in M. Delia Corte, Case ed abitanti, p. 126.
214 Cic., Att. 8, 11b, 2Google Scholar; Fam. 2, 16, 3, CIL X, 4005 (a stele ?); the name appears also on Delos. Cf. Pais, E., Ricerche, iii, p. 20Google Scholar.
215 Scipio Africanus, Sen., epist. 86, 11Google Scholar; Cornelia, Plut. C. Gracch. 19, 2Google Scholar, etc.
216 On Hortensius' holdings, Cic., Att. 7, 3, 9Google Scholar. On Selicius, Q., fam. 9, 16, 10Google Scholar; 1, 5, 3. On the ‘domus Sullana,’ fam. 9, 15, 5.
217 On Precianus, , fam. 7, 8, 2Google Scholar; Att. 6, 9, 2; ILS 946. For Brinnius, , Att. 13, 50, 2Google Scholar, cf. 13, 12, 4, etc. The name is rare but recurrent in Puteoli, , CIL X, 1987, 2174–2176Google Scholar.
218 E.g. Hor., epod. 4, 13Google Scholar. Rostovtzeff, Soc. and Econ. Hist., p. 22.
219 Cic., leg. agr. 2, 78Google Scholar: ‘neque istorum pecuniis quicquam aliud deesse video nisi eius modi fundos quorum subsidio familiarum magnitudines et Cumanorum ac Puteolanorum praediorum sumptus sustentare possint.’
220 Diod. 36, 2, 2a.
221 Plut. Crass. 8; cf. Cic., Q. Jr. 2, 3, 5Google Scholar.
222 Heurgon, pp. 285–294.
223 ‘Q. Fulvius Fulviae 1.’ in list 9, with two more in list 10. CIL X, 3968. Constructions in the temple of Diana by Ser. Fulvius Flaccus, cos. 135 B.C, CIL I2, 635. Probably therefore also a Flaccus is the ‘Q. Folvius Q.f.M.n.’ of CIL I2, 825 (Caiatia). Cp. Livy 26, 33, 4. Val. Max. 2, 7, 15. A persistent connection with the Atilii will be noted.
224 At Naples in 44 B.C., Papirius Paetus feared confiscation and a fall in land values, Cic., fam. 9, 16Google Scholar; cf. 17, 1 and 20, 1.
225 Delia Corte, Case ed abitanti, p. 190.
226 Above, n. 217.
227 CIL X, 3854. Suet. Caes. 81.
228 All twelve names are cancelled in list 12, for reasons unknown; while the date of list 19 (74 B.C.) makes a damnatio memoriae unlikely—the names were perhaps obliterated in the later rebuildings of Diana's temple.
229 For some texts, Gabba, E., Athen., xxvii, 1954, pp. 58–59Google Scholar. For Pompeii, see H. Nissen, Pompeianische Studien; A. Sogliano, Pompei preromana.
230 The texts are listed in CIL X, p. 1142.
231 Examples: Bull. Arch. Nap., iv, 1885, p. 50Google Scholar; Not. Scav. 1952, pp. 301–307; 1956, pp. 65–79.
232 Livy, 31, 31, 15; Cic., leg. agr. 2, 96Google Scholar.
233 Livy, 9, 40, 17; Cic., Att. 7, 14Google Scholar; Aug., Hist.Did. lul., 8, 3Google Scholar.
234 Cf. Statius' lines on Felix, Pollius, Silv. 2, 2, 151–155Google Scholar.
235 Tac., ann. 13, 31, 2Google Scholar.
236 Cf. above, n. 7.
237 Dio, 67, 14; Stat., Silv. 4, 3Google Scholar. Not. Scav. 1928, pp. 181–186.
