September: for Caecilius September see 252
introduction and line 1 note.
For the mark after salutem see above, p.57.
For the sense in which we take quod uis, see perhaps
Petronius, Sat. 137.9, quod uis nummis praesentibus
opta, et ueniet.
iii: abrasion and dirt make the numeral very
difficult to discern. We suggest what we think is the most probable reading.
ending -bres in line 5 requires one of the last four months of the
year and only October and December are palaeographically plausible. The first
letter shows no sign of the hasta of d and is
much better read as o; the descender which can be seen must belong
to the r of cras in line
merc..: the reading of the first four letters is secure and a reference
to the purchase of some item is appropriate. Although mercar is
possible, it is very difficult to read i after this; other
possibilities are mercem (the final m of mercem is not
easy but it compares quite well with the last letter of salutem in line
2), mercaret or mercare (but the
non-deponent form is very rare, see TLL VIII 799.46).
reading of pa presents no difficulty and thereafter we have the tops
of two letters either of which might be read as a or r. We
suggest the restoration mercem para[bo and the
interpretation that Cerialis is intending to supply September with some goods
or with some money (if mercem is to be taken in
the sense of mercedem, see LS, s.v., TLL VIII,
852) so that he can purchase something and send it back to Cerialis (for
exchange between these two officers see 252). For the verb paro cf.
perhaps the metaphorical use of merces ... parata in Lucan,
We probably have the instrumental use of qui here, see Adams
the abrasion of the writing, this reading is probable and allows space for the
reading of tem in the very indistinct traces at the end of
the line; palaeographically this can only be regarded as a guess but the
beginning of line 2 allows no other plausible reading.
pestates: the first letter in the line is clearly p. The
reading of tempestates is supported by the
erasure [[et hiem]] which indicates that the scribe began to
write et hiemes. TLL VI 2774.12-20 notes
that grammarians and glossaries equate hiems and tempestas and gives
the meaning uentus fortis (s.v.IA); the only citation with the words
used together is Rufinus, Hist.mon.epil. 7, p.462a. The
supralinear substitution of etiam strongly suggests
that this was a phonetic dictation error (for which see Milne and Skeat (1938),
52, 55, and cf. Turner (1987), p.17).
For molestus used in relation to weather see e.g. Cicero, Att. 5.12.1.