Roman Sepulchral Inscriptions Part 1

Roman Sepulchral Inscriptions.

by John Kenrick.

The memorials of the dead hold a remarkable place among the materials of history. The very existence of nations is in many cases attested only by their sepulcral monuments, which serve to trace the course of their migrations, and yield us a scanty knowledge of their usages, and of the state of civilization among them. Where the art of writing has been unknown, this knowledge must, indeed, be vague and inferential; we may gather the race from the form of the skull, the rank or occupation from the contents of the grave; but we learn nothing of the individual character or social relations of its tenant; he is only one of the countless mult.i.tude who

illacrimabiles Urguentur ignotique longa Nocte.

Even among nations who have possessed the art of writing, and used it profusely for sepulcral purposes, we may be disappointed in the hope of gaining any idea of individual character from inscriptions on the dead.

From the hieroglyphics with which the Egyptian mummies and funeral tablets are covered we seldom learn more than the state and function of the deceased. The Greek inscriptions are more communicative, but their [Greek: epigrammata epitymbia], of which so large a number are preserved in the Anthology, are rather poetical exercises than the expression of genuine, personal sentiment; and those which have come down to us in bra.s.s or marble are brief and meagre.

Roman sepulcral monuments of the republican times are rare; but those of the family of Scipio,[1] the earliest with which we are acquainted, exhibit a character entirely different from the Greek. They at once display the genius of the people, and give a picture of strong individuality. The following Saturnian verses are inscribed on the tomb of Publius Scipio, the son of the great Africa.n.u.s.

Quei apicem, insigne Dialis Flaminis, gesistei Mors perfecit tua ut tibi essent omnia brevia, Honos, fama virtusque, gloria atque ingenium.

Quibus sei in longa licuisset tibi utier vita Facile facteis supera.s.ses gloriam majorum.

Quare lubens te in gremium, Scipio, recipit Terra, Publi, prognatum Publio, Corneli.

In the imperial times sepulcral inscriptions became very numerous, especially as cremation fell into disuse, and the sarcophagus took the place of the urn, which rarely exhibits any designation of the person whose ashes it contains. They have furnished the philologer, the archaeologist, and the historian, with a mult.i.tude of materials for their respective branches of study. The site of Eburac.u.m has supplied a considerable number of them, some of which have perished or been removed,[2] while others are contained in the Museum of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society. With the exception of one, they are formal and jejune; yet the fact that the Society possesses so many may lead its members to take an interest in an attempt to ill.u.s.trate the whole subject from the more ample treasures of other collections.

What has been said of the general brevity and dryness of our own inscriptions is true of those found in England generally. There are very few in the collections of Horsley and his successors, which are distinguished either by their execution or their style. For the most part they are a simple record of the age and status of the deceased, a large proportion being the tombs of military men. The number and character of sepulcral monuments are an index of the population and wealth of a district or country; their language, of the prevalence of the Roman dominion. Rome, of course, has furnished the largest number. The north of Italy, when it ceased to be Gallic, became entirely Roman; and its chief cities, Verona, Milan, Brescia, Padua, have proved more productive of Latin inscriptions than the south, where the Greek language was extensively used. The southern parts of Gaul early became a Roman province; and its cities are full of Roman antiquities, among which inscriptions bear a conspicuous part. Several cla.s.sics of the Silver age--Seneca, Martial, Quinctilian, Silius Italicus--were born in the southern cities of Spain, and the Spanish inscriptions, though less important than might have been expected from this circ.u.mstance, bear testimony to the wide diffusion of the Latin language in that country.

Northern Africa was occupied by the Romans, with a temporary interruption during the conquest of the Vandals, for eight centuries. Though the country people retained the old Punic language,[3] the Latin must have been in general use in the cities, for African bishops and writers were the founders of Latin eloquence in the Christian Church. Since the French possession of Algeria the ancient sites of Roman colonies have been explored, and already a copious harvest of Latin inscriptions has been the result. But Britain was remote and poor, late occupied by the Romans and early abandoned. Even during its occupation they were rather garrisoned in the towns, which they built and fortified, than mingled with the conquered people. We need not wonder, therefore, that our inscriptions are chiefly military, or that when the Romans withdrew they left few traces of their occupancy in the language of Britain.

It was the all but universal practice in the ancient world to inter the bodies or ashes of the dead beyond the limits of the cities. Even in Egypt, where the practice of embalmment might have rendered it safe to retain them in the vicinity of the living, the cemeteries of the great cities were placed on the opposite side of the Nile. Lycurgus, indeed, is said to have ordered interments to be made within the limits of Sparta, with the view of producing familiarity with the aspect of death. The Athenians, on the contrary, devoted the most beautiful suburb of their city, the Ceramicus without the walls, to the interment of their dead, and the s.p.a.ce beyond the walls of the Piraeus appears to have been occupied with tombs.[4] If the Romans ever buried within their houses, it must have been at a time when their territory did not extend beyond the walls of the city, for the prohibition of the Twelve Tables is precise; HOMINEM MORTUUM IN URBE NE SEPELITO, NEVE URITO. The princ.i.p.al roads at Rome seem to have been lined with sepulcres for a considerable distance, especially the Appian, the "Regina Viarum," as it is termed by Statius.[5] Atticus was buried at the fifth milestone from the city on this road, Gallienus at the ninth.[6] No urn or sarcophagus has been found within the walls of Roman York, but the traces of interment begin immediately beyond the gates. On the southern side, which was not included in the fortifications of Eburac.u.m, the ground near the river was occupied by suburban villas, whose site is indicated by the elaborate pavements which have been dug up; but at the Mount, half a mile from the river one of the princ.i.p.al cemeteries of the city began, extending along the road which led to Calcaria. Sepulcral remains have also been found near the other outlets from the city. While we acknowledge that in thus banishing the remains of the dead from the precincts of the living the ancients showed more wisdom than modern nations, we cannot but wonder that they should have allowed the disagreeable process of _burning_ the dead to be carried on so near their habitations. The site of the _ustrinum_ at York has not been clearly ascertained; if at Clifton, where many urns have been found, it was at a moderate distance from the gate; but at Pompeii it was only about a furlong from the gate on the princ.i.p.al road, and at Aldborough close to the wall.[7] The Romans had, even in their smaller municipia, Boards of Health--such, at least, I take to be the meaning of _Novemvir_ and _Triumvir Valetudinarius_;[8] and it may seem extraordinary that they did not remove the ustrinum to a greater distance. Its effect could scarcely be neutralized, even by the profusion of odoriferous gums and oils which were employed at funerals.[9] Augustus forbade the burning of bodies within fifteen stadia of the city. The only one whose site has been ascertained in the neighbourhood of Rome is near the fifth milestone on the Appian Way.[10] The ustrinum at Litlington,[11] the only one of its kind, I believe, whose site has been ascertained in England, was a rectangular s.p.a.ce enclosed by walls, and not in the vicinity of any large town. Both here and at Aldborough the ustrinum was also a cemetery. The cemetery of Roman London was in Spital-fields. (Arch. 36, 206.)

The position of the Roman sepulcres along the great thoroughfares explains the frequent apostrophe from the tenant of the tomb to the traveller: SISTE VIATOR; TU QUI VIA FLAMINIA TRANSIS RESTA AC RELEGE; VIATORES SALVETE ET VALETE; forms which have sometimes been copied, not very appropriately, in churchyards and cemeteries. The traveller is frequently addressed with some moral reflexion; VIXI UT VIVIS, MORIERIS UT SUM MORTUUS; occasionally of rather an Epicurean character, as that of Prima Pompeia; FORTUNA SPONDET MULTA MULTIS, PRaeSTAT NEMINI, VIVE IN DIES ET HORAS, NAM PROPRIUM EST NIHIL[12]. The tenant of the tomb sometimes invites the pa.s.ser-by to offer for him the customary prayer, SIT TIBI TERRA LEVIS (S.T.T.L.).

Praevenere diem vitae crudelia fata Et raptam inferna me posuere rate.

Hoc lecto elogio juvenis miserere jacentis, Et dic discedens, Sit tibi terra levis[13].

The traveller is called upon from the interior of the tomb to halt and refresh himself, and give a portion to the deceased in the form of a funeral libation; MISCE, BIBE, DA MIHI. Being placed beside public roads, monuments were liable to pollutions of various kinds, which the Manes deprecate, sometimes threatening vengeance on the offenders. One of the most frequent of these violators was the writer on the wall, to whom the side of a sepulcral monument offered a tempting field for the exercise of his vocation. SCRIPTOR PARCE HOC OPUS is not the address of an author to his critic, but of a husband to the wall-scribbler, entreating him not to disfigure the monument of his wife.[14] As a frequent purpose of these placards was to recommend candidates for office, success is promised, on condition that the monument should not be written upon. ITA CANDIDATUS FIAT HONORATUS TUUS, ET TU FELIX SCRIPTOR, SI HIC NON SCRIPSERIS.

INSCRIPTOR ROGO TE UT TRANSEAS HOC MONUMENTUM. QOIUS CANDIDATI NOMEN INSCRIPTUM FUERIT, REPULSAM FERAT, NEQUE HONOREM ULLUM GERAT.[15]

In an early state of society there would be little danger that the site on which interments had taken place should be converted to ordinary purposes.

The violation of a sepulcre was severely punished by the Roman law, and is deprecated on grounds of humanity in some inscriptions, threatened with divine vengeance in others. Fabius Augurinus offers this wish for him who should spare the tomb of his wife and child;[16] SIC NUNQUAM DOLEAS ATQUE TRISTE SUSPIRES QUANTUM DOLORIS t.i.tULUS ISTE TESTATUR. Another pleads,[17]

Sacratam cunctis sedem ne laede viator.

Hanc tibi nascenti fata dedere domum.

Another[18] utters the awful imprecation, QUISQUIS HOC SUSTULERIT AUT LaeSERIT, ULTIMUS SUORUM MORIATUR. The act of dedication is often recorded on the tomb with the addition "Sub ascia," and the figure of an adze or hatchet[19]. But Roman burial places had no legal sanct.i.ty, like that which our churchyards enjoy; they were taken from out the fields and gardens which bordered the highway, and the temptation was great on the part of the heir to re-annex the ground to his property. The inscriptions on Roman sepulcres indicate the care which those who caused them to be erected took, to prevent their being either alienated to other purposes, or taken possession of by others than those for whom they were designed.

The area which the tomb and its appurtenances should occupy, is carefully defined; HIC LOCUS PATET IN FRONTEM PEDES XX.; IN AGRUM PEDES XXV.; occasionally we meet with much larger dimensions. If the ground had been granted by another for this purpose, the words of the grant were sometimes inscribed on the monument. The right of using the sepulcre for placing sarcophagi, or urns, is defined commonly by the words, SIBI SUISQUE FECIT; frequently permission is given for the interment of freedmen and freedwomen with their master. Sometimes leave is given to introduce into the columbarium a limited number of _ollae_, or funeral urns,[20] or, on the other hand, an individual is prohibited by name from sharing or even approaching the sepulcre; EXCEPTO HERMETE LIBERTO QUEM VOLO PROPTER DELICTA SUA ADITUM, AMBITUM NEC ULLUM ACCESSUM HABEAT IN HOC MONUMENTO. In another inscription, SECUNDINA LIBERTA, IMPIA IN PATRONUM SUUM, is forbidden to be interred in his tomb.[21] The churlish declaration, IN HOC MONUMENTO SOCIUM HABEO NULLUM is a rare exception, and in general the sepulcral inscriptions give a pleasing idea of the relation between masters and their households. The collection of Gruter contains many pages of inscriptions expressive of the reciprocal feelings of masters and patrons, slaves and freedmen; and an equally copious and pleasing record of the feelings of slaves and freedmen towards their fellows.

The heir was the object of especial jealousy; HOC MONUMENTUM HaeREDEM NON SEQUITUR (H.M.H.N.S.) is a regular formula; the contrary stipulation, that the monument should go to the heir is most uncommon.[22] The prohibition to alienate is expressed with all the fulness of legal phraseology; HOC MONUMENTUM, c.u.m aeDIFICIO SUPERPOSITO NEQUE MUTABITUR, NEQUE VaeNIET, NEQUE DONABITUR, NEQUE PIGNORI OBLIGABITUR, NEQUE ULLO MODO ABALIENABITUR, NE DE NOMINE EXEAT FAMILIae SUae,[23] and is sometimes enforced by a fine to the munic.i.p.ality, to the Roman people or the vestal virgins and the Pontifices, to secure the exaction of which one-fourth is to go to the informer. Legal chicanery was greatly dreaded as the means of defeating the purpose of the builder of the monument: hence we often find the protestation, HUIC MONUMENTO DOLUS MALUS ABESTO; sometimes with the addition ET JURISCONSULTUS, a combination which, in countries where the civil law is practised, is a standing jest against the jurisconsults.[24]

To preclude one source of cavil we find a man protesting on his tomb, in an inscription by which he directs a statue to be erected to him, that when he made his will, he had "a sound and disposing mind;" Sa.n.u.s, SANA QUOQUE MENTE INTEGROQUE CONSILIO, MEMOR CONDITIONIS HUMANae, TESTAMENTUM FECI.[25] It is recorded on the pyramid of C. Cestius that the monument had been erected in 330 days, "arbitratu Pontii Cl. Melae heredis et Pothi liberti," the heir not having been trusted alone with the execution. So in Horace (Sat. 2, 5, 105),

----Sepulcrum Permissum arbitrio sine sordibus extrue.

In one inscription, it is made the condition of inheritance, that the monument should be begun in three days after the testator's death, and its model is prescribed. A son apologizes to his father for having erected a humble monument to him on the ground of the smallness of the inheritance; "Si major auctoritas patrimoni mei fuisset, ampliori t.i.tulo te prosecutus fuissem, piissime pater."[26] With this distrust of posterity, it was natural that men should erect their monuments in their own lifetime, leaving to their heirs only the duty of inserting the years of their age; for the year of the decease, which the Romans marked by the Consuls, is rarely given. SIBI VIVUS FECIT (sometimes _se vivo, se vivis_ even _me vivus, se vivus_) is often found, as on the sarcophagus of M. Diogenes Verecundus, formerly in York. Mindus Zosimus Senior tells us plainly on his tomb his reason for not leaving the choice to his heir; he was afraid of his discharging the duty in a shabby way.

Vivus mi feci, ne post me lentius heres Conderet exiguo busta suprema rogo.[27]

A body once placed in a tomb could not be transferred to another without the permission of the pontiffs, nor could the tomb even be repaired, if the reparation involved the moving of the remains, without the sanction of the authorities. We find on the tomb of a freedman a copy of the pet.i.tion which he had presented to be allowed to remove the bodies of his wife and son, which he had temporarily placed in an _obruendarium_, or sarcophagus of clay, to a monument of marble, "ut quando ego esse desiero, pariter c.u.m iis ponar."[28]

Besides the monument itself, various appendages to it are mentioned in the Roman sepulcral inscriptions. The area was occupied by buildings designed to be used in the annual commemorations of the deceased for which his will provided. We read of a _diaeta_, or summer-house; a _solarium_, or open balcony; an _acc.u.mbitorium_, or entertaining room; an _apparitorium_, in which the tables and benches used by the guests were kept. The ground annexed to the monument frequently contained a well, a cistern or a _piscina_, whence water for the funeral rites might be drawn, and a grove, whence wood might be cut for a sacrifice. If situated in a garden, the monument was called _cepotaphium_. A building was erected, sometimes a permanent _aedificium_, sometimes a simple _nubilare_ or shed, to receive the person who guarded the tomb (locus habitationis tutelae causa), and this office was generally entrusted to a freedman, who was called _aedituus_[29]. The inscriptions often record the sum which the deceased has bequeathed for an annual celebration at his tomb, commonly on his birthday. This was variously performed; sometimes by libations of wine and milk (profusiones), or by the scattering of roses on the tomb (rosalia), accompanied by a feast. L. OGIUS PATROCLUS, HORTOS c.u.m aeDIFICIO HUIC SEPULCRO JUNCTO VIVUS DONAVIT, UT EX REDITU EORUM LARGIUS ROSae ET ESCae PATRONO SUO ET QUANDOQUE SIBI PONERENTUR.[30] We find a testator directing that an annual feast, for which he leaves 125 denarii, should be held by the pagani, or rural inhabitants of the district, on his birthday, or, if this condition were neglected, that the building and the legacy should go to the College of Physicians, and to his freedmen, that they might feast on that day. QUOD SI FACTUM NON ERIT, TUM HIC LOCUS, UT SUPRA SCRIPTUM EST c.u.m ANNUIS CXXV. (denariis) IN PERPETUUM AD COLLEGIUM MEDICORUM ET AD LIBERTOS MEOS PERTINEAT, UT DIE NATALE MEO EPULENTUR.[31] We must not attach ideas of too great dignity to the "College of Physicians." Every legal incorporation among the Romans was a college, and the medical body included pract.i.tioners of every grade, even to the veterinary surgeon and the midwife.[32]

Another tribute of honour for which we find testators making provision is the lighting a lamp in the monument, or feeding it with oil. All who have explored the remains of Roman antiquities are aware how frequently lamps are found in connection with sepulcral monuments. The following inscription invites pa.s.sers-by to perform this service:[33]--

Quisquis huic tumulo posuit ardente lucernam Illius cineres aurea terra tegat.

In order that these rites might be duly performed, the monument carefully secures the right "_puteum adeundi, hauriendi, coronandi, sacrificandi, ligna sumendi, mortuos mortuasve inferendi_;" as well as of "_itus, actus, aditus, introitus, ambitus_." Law delighted then, as now, in exhaustive enumerations. To secure the perpetual celebration of these funeral honours was one object for which the alienation of the ground was so strictly forbidden. t.i.tus aelius, a freedman of Augustus, leaves the monument which he and his wife had erected, to his freedmen, freedwomen, and their descendants, ITA UT NE DE NOMINE SUO AUT FAMILIA EXEAT; UT POSSIT MEMORIae SUae QUAM DIUTISSIME SACRIFICARI.[34] To these annual commemorative offerings allusion is made in a poetical inscription by a husband to his wife, s.n.a.t.c.hed away in youth.[35]

Lac tibi sit Cybeles, sint et rosa grata Diones, Et flores grati Nymphis et lilia serta.

Sintque precor, meritae qui nostra parent tibi dona Annua, et hic manes placida tibi nocte quiescant, Et super in nido Marathonia cantet aedon.

It is not common to find in Roman sepulcral inscriptions specific mention of the cause of death. A father thus records his son's early death by the falling in of a well:[36]--

Parva sub hoc t.i.tulo Festi sunt ossa Papiri Quae moerens fato condidit ipse pater.

Qui si vixisset domini jam nomina ferret.

Hunc casus putei detulit ad cineres.[37]

The following inscription records the death of a male and female slave, crushed by a crowd in the Capitol, who had, perhaps, come together to see British captives led in chains, in a triumphal procession:[38]--

Ummidiae Manes tumulus tegit iste simulque Primigeni vernae, quos tulit una dies.

Nam Capitolinae compressi examine turbae Supremum fati competiere diem.

aelius Proculinus, on the tomb of his wife, bestows an imprecation on those who had shortened her life by magic incantations. CARMINIBUS DEFIXA JACUIT PER TEMPORA MUTA, UT EJUS SPIRITUS, VI EXTORQUERETUR QUAM NATURae REDDERETUR. CUJUS ADMISSI VEL MANES VEL DI COELESTES ERUNT SCELERIS VINDICES.[39]

The wounded affections had their victims. P. L. Modestus raises a monument to Telesinia Crispinilla, CONJUGI SANCTISSIMae, QUae OB DESIDERIUM FILI SUI PIISSIMI VIVERE ABOMINAVIT ET POST DIES XV FATI EJUS ANIMO DESPONDIT.[40]

Of a similar excess of maternal grief, causing the death of his wife, Cerialius Calistio gently complains; DUM NIMIS PIA FUIT FACTA EST IMPIA.[41] Communis and Casia inscribe a monument to the memory of a daughter who died at the age of fifteen, and of a son, QUI POST DESIDERIUM SORORIS SUae UNA DIE SUPERVIXIT.[42] The following distich records the death of Antonia Maura from her attendance on her sick husband:--

Itala me rapuit crudeli funere tellus, Dum foveo nimia sedulitate virum.

The complaint that "physicians were in vain" is of ancient date.[43]

Ussere ardentes intus mea viscera morbi, Vincere quos medicae non potuere ma.n.u.s.

Pliny has not preserved the name of the unhappy man whose monument declared TURBA MEDICORUM SE PERIISSE,[44] that he had died of a mult.i.tude of doctors. Nor do the surgeons escape reproach for their want of skill.

MEDICI MALE MEMBRA SECARUNT; CORPORI QUOD SUPER EST TUMULUM TIBI FECI appears to be the address of a master to his gladiator, who, though mangled, had gained the victory, but lost his life from unskilful treatment of his wounds.[45]

Inscriptions are curious to the scholar, as a record of the changes which the Latin language underwent in successive ages. Ma.n.u.scripts imperfectly answer this purpose, because transcribers were very apt, either from habit or a desire to render their labours more saleable, to change old forms for new, especially in orthography. Sepulcral inscriptions, being commonly the work of private individuals, represent more exactly the language of common life than public monuments. They serve the same purpose to the philologer, as provincial dialects, in which the old language of a country is often preserved, when obliterated in correct and fashionable speech. From the inscriptions in the tomb of the Scipios in the beginning of the third century, B.C., down to the establishment of Christianity, after which a cessation of Pagan formulae gradually takes place, we have a succession of about six centuries. I will mention a few instances, collected from funeral inscriptions, which either throw light on the history of the Latin language, or ill.u.s.trate that vulgar idiom and p.r.o.nunciation, which has influenced the formation of the modern Italian.

The a.n.a.logy of the Greek, and the form _paterfamilias_, would lead to the conclusion that the genitive of the first declension had been originally formed in _s_, next deprived of its final letter and becoming _a_, and finally contracted into _ae_.[46] I have not observed in the sepulcral inscriptions any genitives of common nouns of this declension formed in _s_, but we find Faustines, Bellones, Midaes, as genitives of proper names, which, according to grammatical rule, would be formed in _ae_. The dative feminine in _abus_ is allowed by grammarians in cases where ambiguity of s.e.x would arise from the use of _is_, as in deabus, filiabus, libertabus; but we find it used in inscriptions where no such ambiguity exists, as in nymphabus, fatabus, and even horabus. What is more remarkable is the extension of this formation of the dative to the second declension, in such words as diibus and amicibus. Some departures from ordinary usage may, no doubt, be accounted for by the circ.u.mstance that in Italy, as in England, the Muse of the cemetery was an "unlettered Muse."

"Hic ja_cit_"[47] in a Latin inscription no more proves that there was no distinction between the neuter and the active verb, than "here lays" in an English churchyard. Nor can we argue from such constructions as "c.u.m _quam_ bene vixi," "ab aed_em_," that _c.u.m_ and _ab_ governed the accusative; or from such a concord as _hunc_ collegium, that nouns in _um_ were once masculine. But in many instances what seem at first only vulgar solecisms will be found to have a warrant in a.n.a.logy. _Dua_ as a neuter for duo[48] is called a barbarism by Quinctilian (1, 5, 15); yet he acknowledges that every one said _duapondo_, and that Messala maintained it to be correct. Evento for eventui, spirito for spiritui, show that the double mode of declension was not confined to domus. Solo for soli has the authority of Cato, who used soli for solius, and of Terence, who used solae for the same case.[49] "Fatus suus" on a monument might seem a blunder, but malus fatus occurs in Petronius Arbiter (p. 270). We find in an inscription[50]

Diva, precor, Tellus alvo complectere sancta Ossua quorum in hoc nomina sunt lapide.