1966-21

Review [Untitled]

Reviewed Work(s)The Roman Inscriptions of Britain I Inscriptions on Stone by R G Collingwood R P Wright

Eric Birley

The Journal of Roman Studies Vol 56 Parts 1 and 2 (1966) pp 226-231

Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0075-435828196629563C2263ATRIOBI3E20CO3B2-L

The Journal of Roman Studies is currently published by Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use available athttpwwwjstororgabouttermshtml JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides in part that unless you have obtainedprior permission you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal non-commercial use

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work Publisher contact information may be obtained athttpwwwjstororgjournalssprshtml

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world The Archive is supported by libraries scholarly societies publishersand foundations It is an initiative of JSTOR a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology For more information regarding JSTOR please contact supportjstororg

httpwwwjstororgTue Mar 4 092854 2008

REVIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS

R G COLLINGWOOD and R P WRIGHT THE ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS OF BRITAIN I INSCRIPTIONS ON STONE Oxford Clarendon Press 1965 Pp XXXIV 4- 790 r g plates and numerous text-figures pound12 12s

Horsleys Britannia Romana (1732) included as one of its most valuable sections a conscientious and thorough publication of all the inscriptions of Roman Britain known to him with scale drawings of all which he himself had been able to examine or to get friends to examine and draw for him I t was not until 1873 that Horsleys work was superseded (to a large extent) by the publication of CIL VII edited by Emil Huebner with the help of various British friends and correspondents notably John Collingwood Bruce who was already well forward with the production of his Lapidarium Septentrionaledevoted only to the Roman inscriptions of the four northern counties of England but following Horsleys example in including careful scale drawings of as many surviving stones as possible as against the use of letterpress only (as in CIL) Huebners volume had many shortcomings for all its great value and a succession of British scholars devoted time and energy to supplying its omissions or recording later discoveries-notably in the first instance W Thompson Watkin and then with outstanding scholarship and success Francis Haverfield Haverfields supplements in EE VII and IX marked him out as the one man who could possibly be looked to for an adequate new collection to supersede CIL VII and its supplements but the war of 1914-18 brought to an end all chance of that He had hoped to have the help of G L Cheesman whose intense and informed interest in the great mass of comparative material from other parts of the Roman empire was second only to his own there is no question but that Cheesmans death in action in 1915 was a major contributing factor towards Haverfields too early demise in 1919 But R G Collingwood was still living and approaching his prime-another former pupil of Haverfields who had already been selected to provide an improved equivalent to the scale drawings which were the superior feature of Horsleys or Bruces approach and were to be a basic ingredient of the new Roman Inscriptions of Britain The Administrators of Haverfields Bequest therefore commissioned Collingwood to undertake the whole task and by 1930 he had made such progress that he felt able to give me RIB numbers for the Chesterholm inscriptions which I wished to discuss in my introduction to the excavation of that site (AA ~ I I I 190 ff) but he was already becoming involved in so many other projects that despite his unequalled energy he began to get more and more behindhand in his work on RIB and when his health and strength were beginning to fail he enlisted Mr R P Wright as his assistant and successor designate charged with completing the work Now ninety-two years after the publication of CIL VII forty-six years after I-Iaverfields death and twenty-two after that of Collingwood the first and major instalment of the work which I-Iaverfield planned has been published with Collingwood and V7right justly sharing the honours on its title-page The present volume is splendid testimony to the sureness of Collingwoods judgment in selecting Mr Wright to undertake the labour of completing the series of drawings Whatever he might be deemed to lack (by comparison with Collingwood) in artistic gifts he more than makes up for by an even greater skill in the deciphering and recording of weathered stones and there are many inscriptions in the present volume for which new and convincing readings have been supplied by IIPTV including some for which an improved but less satisfactory reading had been arrived at by RGC

Epigraphy may conveniently be subdivided into two branches pure and applied Pure epigraphy consists in the deciphering of inscriptions and the accurate recording of their texts in so far as they have been preserved applied epigraphy involves the reasoned completion of missing portions and the fullest possible interpretation of the significance of inscriptions Some epigraphists are equally competent in both branches but the very high standard which Mr Wright has set as a pure epigraphist is not matched in many of the restorations translations or commentaries in RIB Yet despite the deficiencies in its applied epigraphy it gives us an invaluable conspectus of evidence for Roman Britain and the Roman way of life collecting into a single volume the bulk of the most important inscriptions found in Britain up to 1954 and in its superb drawings it provides its own built-in evidence for the epigraphic points on which a candid reviewer must offer criticisms

For indexes other than that of places the reader is enjoined to await the publication of Volume 11 in active preparation but for those of us who have devoted long attention to the Roman inscriptions of Britain there is a sufficient and welcome interim offering in the form of concordances pp 75 1-779 with RIBS numbering for CIL VII EE III IV ~ I Iand IX Haverfields Roman B~itain in 1913 1914 JRS and ILS But it could have been wished that a fuller list of contents had been provided comparable to the Conspectlls opevis in CIL ~ I I as it is no explanation is offered for the geographical order adopted from London to Scotland which when plotted on a map involves a remarkable series of zigzags and convolutions nor are the principles revealed on which some sites receive separate headings and others do not-for example three items from Greenwich and one from near Gravesend

In this review I use the abbreviations standardized in RIB

REVIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS 227

are given under LONDON although Collingwood in RCHM London 111 151 kept the Greenwich items carefully away from his appendix of Inscriptions of Roman London ibid 170 ff A map too would have been of great help not only to foreign scholars and grid references might have been hoped for in 1965 rather than miles and points of the compass 3 miles north-west of the Cathedral at Bristol to mention only one instance (p 42) seems an odd way of locating Sea Mills (Glos) not all of us have the local knowledge or a map on which Bristol cathedral is marked

In the follosving criticisms it has been necessary for me to be selective leaving out many points which I should be glad to make available for the list of addenda et corrigenda which Volume 11 must surely include and most of the items which are of primary interest to students of Hadrians Wall and its neighbourhood best reserved for special studies in A~chueologia Aeliuna or Cuwzberlnnd and Westmorland T~ansactions

Though this first volume has the subtitle Inscriptions on Stone it includes fifty-two not on stone (3 gold 8 silver 26 bronze I copper 11lead I wood and 2 pottery) and though the dust-jacket claims that Every extant inscription is illustrated by a line-block reproduced in scale by R G Collingwoods method there are fourteen illustrated only by half-tones (RIB I 102 201 562 567 682 688 699 911 944 980 1093 1227 1394) one has been traced from a plate in JRS (726) one has had to make do with an old drawing from Bruce LS (1338) and one is not illustrated at all (945 in the Carlisle Museum) According to the introduction p XVII Inscriptions which have weathered away or been destroyed before any version has been recorded have been omitted which ought to have eliminated eleven items (795 1058 1090 1201 1520 1722 1866 1928-920882207) these might all with profit have been included in a section on ghost inscriptions for which one might offer Brand iVewcastle I 605 (near hlilecastle I ) and various other items and even perhaps the altar to Mars Cocidius which Robert Blair by a slip of the pen recorded in PSAN211 238 as found at Burgh-by-Sands (really 2344 to Mars Belatucadrus)

The basic lay-out calls under every number for a description and the dimensions of the object when and where it was found and where (if extant) it is now by whom it was drawn and when then come the basic bibliographicnl references a transcription of the text a translation into English and a commentary wherever one has been judged necessary

The bibliographical references are seldom to be faulted but they have evidently not all been studied with suecient care Thus a misprint in Hodgson LIJortFunzberland11 iii 142 has been taken (RIB 1822-3 1825 1827) to show that Hutchinson visited Carvoran in 1766 whereas Hodgsons main reference ibid 136 gives 1776-the date of publication of Hutchinsons Excursion to the Lakes etc 2nd ed in which some Carvoran texts are given with woodcuts including a fuller version of RIB 1825 than that taken by RIB from his Nolthumberland (1778) Hutchinsons own writings show that his first visit to Carvoran was in 1774 Again on RIB 1747 (Greatchesters) Pennant wrongly assigns this to Hoddorn Castle betrays neglect to read Pennants text which cites the Greatchesters stone evidently as giving another example of the name Pervica at Hoddom manifestly distinguishing between the two cf my analysis of Pennants list in Duwf and Gall IVfIAST3 XXXVIII140 ff which also calls for revision of RIBS treatment of Birrens p 640 ff Further cases of this kind and there are a good many must be reserved for mention elsewhere in the journals of the appropriate local societies

The statements of date and circumstances of discovery or first record are often inaccurate partly because of an apparent reluctance to quote the exact words of the primary source here too it will be sufficient to cite two or three instances First RIB 1512 found in 1873 in Black Carts turret 29a EE 111 IOI has Ad turrim vallareln and Claytons report on the excavation makes no mention of the stone (AA2VII 259 f) so that near turret 29a would have been better and 1873 is less than certain by contrast RIB 1513 was found during the excavation of the turret and L S 923 should have been cited as the primary publication in English Then there is the Corbridge stone RIB I 162 found in 1856 400 yards east of site XI at the junction of Stagshaw Bank and Cow Lane this is nonsense as it stands (Stagshaw Bank begins a full mile north of Corbridge) but note I-Iaverfields quotation from an unspecified source iVCH x 501 at the angle of Stagshaw Bank road and Cowlane And on present locations Cumbrians will all hope that Netherhall Museum cited passim RIB 800 f may come into existence one day to replace the sad conditions in which the Senhouse collection most of it from Maryport has been lying for far too long

It is interesting to compare hr Wrights section on London with RGCs treatment in RCHM London 111 (1928) 170 ff RIB I 4 8 24 and 34 are additions due to the Mithraeum excavations of 1954 RIB 6 and 7 are leaden deJixionesfound in 1928 and 1934 respectively while RIB 36 has been disinterred from the British Museums accession-book for 1856 four items that were in RGCs main list have been relegated among the Aliena or the Falsa (2329) 2318 2320 ~ 3 2 2 ~ RCHIII= 20 29-31) in six cases new drawings have been made by Mr Wright (3 14 20 29 30 32) In general there is little difference except in the wording of translations or the form of commentary

228 REVIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS

but it is not in every case that RIB inspires greater confidence In RCHiM 15 = RIB 17 RGC shrewdly hinted that the elaborate leaf-stop after the mans name might be a blundered centurial mark and the relief portrays him holding the characteristic vine-stick which makes that interpretation inescapable RIB assumes that the man was an other rank and that the fact of his having been married indicates a Severan date at earliest-but it is clear that legionary centurions as commissioned officers required no concession to be married A late date is also claimed for RIB 19 =RCHM 14 where Mr Wright has restored the title Antoninian(a)e for leg 11Aug on a tombstone which gives the mans name in the nominative with filiation and tribe and is taken to have added his origo there is surely something amiss here for such full details are characteristic mainly of the first century it will be easier to accept RGCs view that An[to]n(ius) was the nomen of the first heir ( I hope to discuss this and three or four other London texts elsewhere in more detail than could be allowed here) I t is not easy to accept the suggestion under RIB 3 = RCHM 2 that factus Arausione should be interpreted as meaning that the dedicator of that Mithraic relief enlisted at Orange- I t seems best to regard the action here recorded as the original recruitment of Ulpius Silvanus which may well have occurred at Arausio the Second Legion colony Reference to A2 1952 44 would have shown that the legion settled there was 11Gallica and in any case it is difficult to suppose that in the third century (to which the relief surely belongs) recruits for the British legion would have been sought at Arausio RGCs tentative suggestion that factus means initiated into some Mithraic grade is surely less improbable

Comparison with RCH-M Eburacum (1962) too is instructive Mr Wright had no part in its epigraphic chapter and it is no surprise to find that in at least seventeen cases RIB offers manifestly better readings but Eburacum had the advantage of Sir Ian Richmonds scrutiny of its text at every editorial stage and its commentaries in a dozen cases are superior or its readings more acceptable than those of RIB In 643 for instance RIB repeats from Huebner the solecism of reading P(ub1ius) Nikomedes Augg nn libertus where Ehuracum rightly reads p(osuit) 660 produces the fantasy of Primulus Vol(usianus) m(erito) instead of vo(vit) l(ibens) m(erito) 664 offers no comment on Q Antonius Isauricus leg Aug 658 cites PIR2 but refers to PIR1 on C1 Hieronymianus Eburacum dealing well with both men and some epigraphists will prefer Eburacums faciendunz] curj[avit to RIBS unexplained cur(ator) in 700 Incidentally Eburacum omits RIB 702 and misses the text of 655 but RIB does not include Eburacum 94 and 111 and by listing the fragments which it gives under 13 I as 642 and 703 RIB conceals the fact that they were found together and seem to belong to the same inscription By contrast the beautiful reconstruction drawing which forms the frontispiece to Eburacums epigraphic chapter credits Trajan with imp V whereas RIB 665 rightly gives imp V[I proper in conjunction with trib pot In 640 and 641 RIB oifers no comment at all on deus Arciaco and Arimanes it omits to draw or notice the centurial sign in 690 (contrast Ebz~racum 108) and fails to consider the possibility that the letters on 664 (Eburacum 41) are modern cutting In one case neither work has hit on an acceptable text the earliest recorded reading of RIB 678 = Eburacum I I O is capable of a straightforward interpretation Dr J C Mann points out that in M Verec Diogenes sevir col Ebor idemq morit cives Biturux Cubus haec sibi vivus fecit moritex is the evident expansion and shipper is perhaps the most appropriate translation (cf CIL XIII 8164a = I L S 7522 and Dottin sv) Lastly both RIB and Eburacum (662-3 = 142) assume by implication that York was the capital of Roman Britain in Agricolas day which to many readers may seem less than probable

Arciaco and Arimanes are not the only deities passed over in silence by RIB-there are also Hercules Saegon[- (67) Mars Olludius (131) and Mars Corotiacus (213)~ deus Tridam (304) and a dozen others the goddesses Latis and Ratis only receive cross-references (1897 2043 and 1454 1903) and Apollo Grannus (2132) whose worship centred in Raetia and who even numbered Caracalla among his votaries has to be content with a bare reference to CdL XIII 5315 (ILS 4649) on which alone he carries the additional epithet Mogounos Incidentally the value of a good drawing is nowhere perhaps more apparent than in the case of a Risingham inscription RIB 1225 which every publication from Camden in 1607 to RIB has given as dedicated deo Mogonti Cad-but an undergraduate pupil of mine Mr R W Harris points out that the deitys name reads Mogonito as indeed proves to be clear in the collotype plate given by Richmond in NCH XV facing p 64

Arbitrariness is far too apparent in the treatment of the names of people as well as deities Some- times they attract detailed comment not always of the most helpful kind (as when instead of a single page-reference to Schulze LE the inscriptions in two or three different volumes of CIL cited by him are listed) at other times they are passed over completely as though calling for no comment at all sometimes the comment betrays patent lack of research (eg 648 there seems to be no parallel for a nomen Perpetuius --of which half a dozen examples can be cited from the Rhineland) or lack of adequate reflection Some instances may be cited (a) 162 (Bath) d m Merc Magnil alumna vixit an I m VI (1 XII is rendered as Mercatilla freedwoman and foster-daughter of Magnius as though an infant could become a freedwoman and when the straightforward reading indicated by the drawing is Merc( ) Magnil(la) the nomen necessarily left unexpanded because of the wide


range of possibilities (b) 760 (Kirkby Thore) Antonia Stratonis becomes Antonia daughter (or slave) of Strato though Stratonis is a predictable feminine name and the lady was evidently a Roman citizen (c) 1226 (Risingham) deo Mouno Cad Inventus do v s is the confident record of a lost inscription supported by a convincing drawing in a Bodleian MS it receives the comment Since a single cognomen is most unlikely INVENTVS must conceal a nomen yet Inventus is a perfectly respectable personal name (cf eg AE 1956 123 and ILAfr 13j) and most British altars to minor local deities have in fact been dedicated by people who only record a single name (d) 2043 (Foldsteads near Kirkbampton listed under BURGH-BY-SANDS) Lucius Ursei(us) with praenomen written out in full and lacking a cognomen seems less probable than Lucius Ursei (filius) for the site and the altar cf CW2 LXI 42-46 (e) 2056 (from Kirkbride which ought to have had a heading of its own cf CW2 LXIII 127 f instead of coming under BOWNESS-ON- SOLCTAY) Peisius M(arcus) is harder to stomach than Peisius m(iles) cf 2109 (Birrens) Frumentius mil(es) and 2141 (Mumrills) Cassius sign(ifer) (f) 355 (Caerleon) Primus tes(s)era(rius) is rendered as The senior tesserarius without comment as though that were a known grade presumably because the stone is taken to record building yet 796 (Haile Cumberland) rightly interprets Prinzus CU a7 as Primus custos arnzorum and it ought to have been asked whether the Caerleon stone was not originally set in just such a columbariurn as is postulated for 261 (Lincoln) (g) 452 (Chester) RGCs guess that the dedicators nomen on this badly weathered stone was Bruttius accords ill with the MS reading ELVPIVS Elupius is a nomen which might well have been predicted but if it cannot be accepted surely the known Elutrius with T R ligatured would have been a more prudent emendation (h)913 (Cardewless Cumb) C Carinius Aurelianus is given without comment as the name of the dedicator though the surviving text reads - - ]arizi Aurelij [- - and on a mid-third- century inscription there is no need to assume that the praenonzen would be recorded there is a variety of possible nonzina (Arinius Carinius Garinius Larinius Marinius Sarinius Varinius) and Aurelianus proves to be assumed from a reading in the genitive 4ureli(ani) (i) 1377 (from the Wall-mile 9-10) on Horsleys reading 7 Muci en As Mucienus is unmatched in Dessau I L S and Schulze is no justification for rejecting that predictable nomm the same inadequate reason might have been adduced for rejecting Desidienus (1589 where it is interpreted as Desidienius) which is attested in Dalmatia and now in PIRGlso Schulzes index is far from exhaustive and though he was particularly interested in nomina ending in -enus I have noted over IOO examples not to be found in LE Incidentally Schulze drew particular attention to cases in which childrens nonzina had been formed from their fathers cognomi~za taking that to be a characteristic practice of the Germanies only knowing of one instance from Britain now 690 (York) Felicius Simplex and his daughter Simplicia Florentina Mr Wrights improved reading of another York stone 685 allows us to add C Aeresius Saenus and his son Saenius Augustinus and as Anthony Birley has pointed out (Life in Roman B r i t a i ~68) Silchester gives us in RIB 67 Saenius Tammonus as the father of T Tammonius Vitalis though RIB misses the point

A few suggestions may be offered on other personal names 95 Catia Censorina seems the simplest reading 139 surely Torianus from the well-known nonzen Torius 1936 Carius is acceptable and Cari(sius) not required 1079 Caur(us) rather than C Aur(e1ius) without cognomen 1416 Turrianius is a known variant (cf CIL VI 26096) and not a blundered spelling 748 the MS justifies the reading Aurel Romulianus 1826 the excellent drawing shows that the cognomen is Iullus not Tullus 447 Aurelian(i) seems more likely than A(ureli) Verin(i) 1045 V[e]robnus seems recoverable and in any case preferable to V(a2erius) [P]rob[i]anus the names of three centurions can be completed with some confidence-1478 Locubletis 1656 Marit[imi and 1660 Secu[ndi JRS XLIX 136 allows us to read 1943 as 7 fMar(d) Rzf(i) in 1974 Bassi S[imi]lis seems justifiable In 486 (Chester) drawing and text give Sebdius with filiation tribe and origo but no praenonzen but autopsy has shown me that the correct reading is SEpidizu thus SERDIVS The nomen - -1esis on another Chester stone 482 deserved discussion the only discoverable Latin name with this termination seems to be Voltimesis (LE 40 citing CIL V 461 and 46 j) if we disregard the fabricated Castyesis of an African text Lastly in this context 902 (Old Carlisle) is taken to give us Ate(ius) Coc(ceianus) Azg(usti servus) a highly questionable conjecture Ateco c(ivis) Aug( ) with a choice of places for his origo would seem recoverable

When it comes to the translation of technical terms RIB is neither consistent with itself nor invariably literal That is particularly noticeable in the case of military terms British as well as Roman Initial doubts are raised by p 783 Translations of military terms (extracted from Index 6) where custos atmominz appears as keeper of the armament store (read armoury ) the emeritus is claimed to have voluntarily re-enlisted for a further term the evocatus to have been requested after completion of 16 years in the praetorian guard to undertake provincial military service at higher rank the optio to be awaiting promotion (evidently the optio ad spem was in Mr Wrights mind) while the speculator becomes a military policeman of the General Staff Mr R W Davies points out to me that actarius deserves a special caution on p 783 he is called a record-keeper

z3deg REVIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS

he is rendered as record-clerk in 507 and given untranslated in 327 and in italics in 429 and 1101 but as second-in-command in the tabularizlnz he deserves at least an indication of higher rank eg staff-sergeant In 203 (Colchester) centurion with one promotion for 7 leg his begs a question besides failing to translate the Latin and in two other cases the translation adopted without comment is not adequate staff-clerk for cornicularius (659 989 1742) where adjutant would have been more appropriate and the unduly specific accounts-clerk for librarizls (1134) The translations make no distinction between pvirnus pilus and pvimipilaris the difference between commander and officer in charge of a unit is too frequently ignored though sometimes recognised thus cz~i attendit or qzmxrn curam agit or the like is rendered as commander in 1216--7 1299 and 1724 as acting commander in 1876 1880 2117 and 2144 and commandant is used in translation or in annotation (316 320 445 583 587 1075 1879) where British military usage calls for commander RIB 2149 attracts the comment It is rare for a milliary cohort to be commanded by a prefect and this in the case of one of the two Tungrian cohorts which were invariably commanded by prefects as on so many altars from Housesteads and Castlesteads there given tvithout comment As for ala normally translated correctly as cavalry regiment it becomes on four occasions (405 730 1172 1178) squadron as does decwin (1453) though the Roman army had no equivalent to the British squadron larger than a troop tzlrma and smaller than a cavalry regiment and nunzerzLs usually rendered correctly by unit in three cases (583 587 601) becomes contingent The Roman czcnezhs was presumably a type of cavalry unit which operated in wedge-formation but formation will not do as a translation for that in the British army means a combination of units a brigade or division or corps

Turning to the civilian sector we find that ciuitas like respublica (114) or the ttvo together (311)~ is usually rendered as canton (so 288 Cornovii 1672-3 Durotriges Lendinienses 2022

Brigantes 2222 Belgae 2250 Dobunni) but sometimes as tribe (1843-4 Duinnonii 1962 Catuvellauni) yet the individual civis on fourteen occasions is termed tribesman or tribeswoman (108-9 149 159 163 192 621 639 678 I593-4 as against six when citizen 1713 2046 ~ I O O ) is employed (103 158 188 262 955 1743) and three where the translation plays for safety (110 a Sequanian 140 a Treveran 984 a Raetian ) natione too is usuaily rendered as tribesman or by tribe (136 156 490 523 1064 106j 2142 2151) only once by race (251) though it should be a commonplace that there was an increasing tendency to use zatione (eg even natione Italzu) to record geographical origin thus the son of a prirnipilaris buried at Chesterholin (1713) might better have been described as coming from Pannonia rather than as here a Pannonian tribesman The phrase pro se ef suis or the like is referred indifferently to kindred (146) family (153 627 742 1339 1599) own (588 609 1225) and household (661 649 1022 1030 1045) And no translation at all IS offered for the admittedly obscure Greek text of the gold amulet from Caernarvon (436) despite elaborate critical notes provided by Professor EI C youtie and others

The names styles and titles of emperors should usually be relatively easy to restore on a fragmentary inscription apart from the problem of coming at the correct amount of abbreviation and for the most part RIB has dealt very well with texts of this kind but there are some where it falls down (a) 331 (Caerleon) interpreted probably correctly as a dedication in honour of Caracalla deduces a gratuitous [Itzujicto)] at the end of his names and filiation but the drawing is enough to show that there was no room for that epithet even if a parallel to it could be adduced Incidentally comparison with the ampash-Williams Catalogue (1935) of Caerleon inscriptions shows that three of its i t e m ( I 5 66 78) all mere fragments have been omitted by RIB (b) 465 (Chester) restored as referring to Severus alone and specifically in AD 194-6 when surely Albinus should have been mentioned as well (c) 1202 (Whitley Castle) Mr Wright is in doubt whether to restore GERM or BRIT MAY on an inscription of AD 213 when Britannicz~s inaainzus was already established in the titulature of Caracalla (d) 1237 (Risingham) the emperor in whose honour the tribune Messorius Diligens dedicated described as M] Aur Anton[i]ni 1 Ang ought surely to be Marcus (as Horsley saw) rather than Caracalla (e) 2228 (Bitterne) assigned to either Severus in 210 or Caracalla in 215 cannot be Severan for on his milestones there should be mention of his two sons as well (cf 2266) so that 215 becomes a firm date (f) 2266 (North IITales) read L(ucius) Sep(tirriius) Seuerzls I-(izls) P(evtinax) not p(ater) p(atriae) (g) 23 13 (Ingliston) this has been restored as a milestone of Severus Caracalla and Geta but the position of the ansae makes so long a text before the first surviving line highly unlikely and that line n[i]no Azrg Pio followed by p p cos [41I calls unequivocally for attribution to Antoninus Pius and the date becomes AD 140-4 not 208 or 209-1 I as assumed in RIB (h) 598 (Ribchester) this fragment of a pillar surely comes from a milestone of Decius-cf 2271 from near Lancaster on which also Quinto is written out in full-and ought to have been placed in the section on milestones 2219 ff

Different readers will have different instances to select when it comes to noticing improved readings in RIB Among those of interest to me there are a fragment from a Hadrianic building-record at Maryport (851) and one of either Trajan or Hadrian from Melandra Castle (280) a princeps of


c(oh) I 17(angionum) (792 presumably from Brougham) a prefect of coh I Batavorurn and an optio of coh I Frixiav(onunz) (I 535 1523) from Carrawburgh and it proves to be coh I Brez~corum in Raetia and not coh I1Breucorum in Mauretania Caesariensis which had previously been commanded by the tribune of coh I Vardullorum buried at High Rochester (1288) Newly attested deities include den A~nomecta at Brough-on-Noe (281) deus Tridanz in Herefordshire (304)~ dea Iozig[- at York (656) and from some site in Cumberland (1017) a dedication jointly Riocalat(i) [To]utat(i) M[a~(ti)] Cocid(i)o There are several cases in which Mr Wrights keen eyesight and experience have enabled him to im- prove on readings of mine for example in 609 assignable to Burrow in Lonsdale (which R I B still calls by the fabricated antiquarian name of Overborough ) 707 from Brough-on-E-Iumber 804 from Moresby and 927 from Old Penrith I reserve for discussion elsewhere a good many cases in which he rejects or fails to understand reasoning of mine notably in the Corbridge text I 171 on which he is prepared to believe in a peregrine other rank still serving at the age of 68 despite the arguments adduced in Roman Britain and the Rornan -4rrny 81 f Two of the many offerings by Sir Ian Richmond deserve a special welcome namely a better reading than Iiostovtseffs of a remarkable Carlisle text (946) and the dating to AD 278 of a tombstone from Risingham (1255) On social life perhaps the new readingplwsina (factio) on a stone from Chedworth villa (127) is the most welcome attesting an interest in chariot-racing at Rome among the gentry of Roman Britain

Odd statements include The title Gordiani dates the inscription to the reign of Gordian (AD 238-44) or possibly later (p 195 on R I B 583) and Thysdrus in Africa was the birthplace of Gordian 111 (p 298 on 897) and the arrival of leg VI Victrix in Britain was variously in Hadrians reign (1292) about AD 120 (659 GSo) about AD 122 (143) and precisely in AD 122 (1319) I t is not only the punctuation which suggests that a Lancaster altar (601) was dedicated to Mars Sabinus by a praepositus Sabinus hardly to be identified with Octavius Sabinus governor of Britain (RIB 605)

Lastly in a work which aims at illustrating every possible inscription by an accurate drawing it is remarkable that no attempt is made to indicate the extent to which the style of lettering or the use of elaborate ligatures may be accepted as an aid to dating indeed where a direct date is not given on an inscription it is only very rarely that dating is suggested and then usually by repeating the often unacceptable guesses of Huebner or the views of some other writer One might have expected at least some reference to the interesting study by Xr L C Evetts The lettering of Roman-British inscribed stones (AAxvr 153 ff)-which might well have occasioned second thougIlts on the ingenious Richmond-Vright attempt at restoring a text from the two Jarrow fragments (1051) I have expressed my serious doubts about its dating and restoration in Research on Hadrians blall (1961) 159

In preparing this necessarily critical review I have had the advantage of discussing innumerable details of RIBS treatment with my Durham colleagues Dr J C Mann Dr B Dobson and Mr R W Davies who like myself were at no stage involved in the preparation of the book

ERIC BIRLEY

W H C FREXD AIdRTYIltDOM 4A-D PERSECUTION IX TITE E4RLY CEILTIGE-I A S T U D Y OF A CONFLICT FROM THE MACCABEES TO D02VA4TUS Oxford Basil Bisck~vell1965 Pp XX-

Anyone who read The Donatist Clzurch (1952) will know the powerful and original outlook which Frend brings to the study of Church history A real knowledge of the social history of the Roman Empire is combined with a vivid sense of time place and situation and with the power to see individual events in a larger sometimes too large framework Thus the struggle between Donatists and Catholics became part of the struggle between East and West for the possession of North Africa resolved by the lloslem conquest That was made possible by Frends view of Donatisin as the expression of the underlying Berber stratum in North African society which in turn is a major element in his conception of the division between the Graeco-Roman urban society and peasant society with its untouched native cultures and rusticity of outlook throughout the Itoman provinces This view provides the framework for ~Vartyrdola and Pe~secutiorc which traces the conflicts of Christians with the State and the development and fortunes of different Christian reactions to the State with their varying roots in Neo-Platonism or Judaic separatism from their origins in the revolt of the Maccabees to the fourth century These differing elements in early Christianity provide the major theme of the book which is the emergence of fundamentally different attitudes to the State and society at large in the Western and Eastern (ie Greek) Churches In the East in Prends view the combined influences of Neo- Platonism with its emphasis on intellectual self-improvement as the way of access to the Divine and of native ascetic traditions at least in Egypt led to the rejection of deliberately sought martyrdom as

REVIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS

R G COLLINGWOOD and R P WRIGHT THE ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS OF BRITAIN I INSCRIPTIONS ON STONE Oxford Clarendon Press 1965 Pp XXXIV 4- 790 r g plates and numerous text-figures pound12 12s

Horsleys Britannia Romana (1732) included as one of its most valuable sections a conscientious and thorough publication of all the inscriptions of Roman Britain known to him with scale drawings of all which he himself had been able to examine or to get friends to examine and draw for him I t was not until 1873 that Horsleys work was superseded (to a large extent) by the publication of CIL VII edited by Emil Huebner with the help of various British friends and correspondents notably John Collingwood Bruce who was already well forward with the production of his Lapidarium Septentrionaledevoted only to the Roman inscriptions of the four northern counties of England but following Horsleys example in including careful scale drawings of as many surviving stones as possible as against the use of letterpress only (as in CIL) Huebners volume had many shortcomings for all its great value and a succession of British scholars devoted time and energy to supplying its omissions or recording later discoveries-notably in the first instance W Thompson Watkin and then with outstanding scholarship and success Francis Haverfield Haverfields supplements in EE VII and IX marked him out as the one man who could possibly be looked to for an adequate new collection to supersede CIL VII and its supplements but the war of 1914-18 brought to an end all chance of that He had hoped to have the help of G L Cheesman whose intense and informed interest in the great mass of comparative material from other parts of the Roman empire was second only to his own there is no question but that Cheesmans death in action in 1915 was a major contributing factor towards Haverfields too early demise in 1919 But R G Collingwood was still living and approaching his prime-another former pupil of Haverfields who had already been selected to provide an improved equivalent to the scale drawings which were the superior feature of Horsleys or Bruces approach and were to be a basic ingredient of the new Roman Inscriptions of Britain The Administrators of Haverfields Bequest therefore commissioned Collingwood to undertake the whole task and by 1930 he had made such progress that he felt able to give me RIB numbers for the Chesterholm inscriptions which I wished to discuss in my introduction to the excavation of that site (AA ~ I I I 190 ff) but he was already becoming involved in so many other projects that despite his unequalled energy he began to get more and more behindhand in his work on RIB and when his health and strength were beginning to fail he enlisted Mr R P Wright as his assistant and successor designate charged with completing the work Now ninety-two years after the publication of CIL VII forty-six years after I-Iaverfields death and twenty-two after that of Collingwood the first and major instalment of the work which I-Iaverfield planned has been published with Collingwood and V7right justly sharing the honours on its title-page The present volume is splendid testimony to the sureness of Collingwoods judgment in selecting Mr Wright to undertake the labour of completing the series of drawings Whatever he might be deemed to lack (by comparison with Collingwood) in artistic gifts he more than makes up for by an even greater skill in the deciphering and recording of weathered stones and there are many inscriptions in the present volume for which new and convincing readings have been supplied by IIPTV including some for which an improved but less satisfactory reading had been arrived at by RGC

Epigraphy may conveniently be subdivided into two branches pure and applied Pure epigraphy consists in the deciphering of inscriptions and the accurate recording of their texts in so far as they have been preserved applied epigraphy involves the reasoned completion of missing portions and the fullest possible interpretation of the significance of inscriptions Some epigraphists are equally competent in both branches but the very high standard which Mr Wright has set as a pure epigraphist is not matched in many of the restorations translations or commentaries in RIB Yet despite the deficiencies in its applied epigraphy it gives us an invaluable conspectus of evidence for Roman Britain and the Roman way of life collecting into a single volume the bulk of the most important inscriptions found in Britain up to 1954 and in its superb drawings it provides its own built-in evidence for the epigraphic points on which a candid reviewer must offer criticisms

For indexes other than that of places the reader is enjoined to await the publication of Volume 11 in active preparation but for those of us who have devoted long attention to the Roman inscriptions of Britain there is a sufficient and welcome interim offering in the form of concordances pp 75 1-779 with RIBS numbering for CIL VII EE III IV ~ I Iand IX Haverfields Roman B~itain in 1913 1914 JRS and ILS But it could have been wished that a fuller list of contents had been provided comparable to the Conspectlls opevis in CIL ~ I I as it is no explanation is offered for the geographical order adopted from London to Scotland which when plotted on a map involves a remarkable series of zigzags and convolutions nor are the principles revealed on which some sites receive separate headings and others do not-for example three items from Greenwich and one from near Gravesend

In this review I use the abbreviations standardized in RIB





























ERIC BIRLEY































ERIC BIRLEY



1966-21

Documents