Notes for TVII Introductory Chapters |
TVII Chapter 1 - The Archaeolgical Context1 See VRR I. The period shortly after AD 90, from which the earliest of the writing-tablets appear to derive, may be crucial in the establishment of the pre-Hadrianic, Stanegate frontier. G.D.B.Jones (1990) argues that the enlargement of the fort at Vindolanda probably fits into a pattern which is repeated elsewhere at important sites in the frontier region and it suggests that this phase of construction was the central feature of a new direction in Roman policy. This will have been initiated shortly after the decision was taken, late in the 80s, to abandon the greater part of the territory in Scotland which Agricola's last campaigns covered.
2 See VRR II, 10-15 and Figs. 1-5. It should be noted that we have used Roman numerals to designate the rooms since we believe that this is how they are marked on the archaeological site plans (see VRR I). As a consequence, in order to avoid confusion, we use arabic numerals to refer to the periods of occupation. At the time of going to press, the site plans were not available for reproduction in the present volume.
3 See Glasbergen and Groenman-van Waateringe (1974), 11, 25.
4 See Tab.Vindol.I (Vol. I Ch. 1).
5 See now VRR III, 116. There is no indication of such conditions at Carlisle, the only other place where significant quantities of leaf-tablets written in ink have been found, see Caruana (1992), 68-70, Tomlin (1992).
6 Note that some tablets were found at Carlisle in a silted hollow in cobbles overlying a ditch, Tomlin (1992), 147, note 32. In Bowman and Thomas (1991) we accepted the attribution of 154 to Period 1 and discussed the possible connection between the earliest fort and the First Cohort of Tungrians. These remarks should now be discounted.
7 Cf. VRR II, 10-11.
8 See especially VRR I. Our concordance (below, pp.367-77) gives the essential information for each of the published texts. For a complete list of tablets see VRR II, 109-22.
9 VRR III, 120-4.
10 VRR II, 18-72.
11 Cf. above, note 6. R.E.Birley has informed us that the excavations of 1992 have yielded a number of fragmentary and decomposed ink tablets from a Period 6 context (c. AD 180), including one with an address to Flavius Cerialis. For an equally telling example from a different area and period see Franklin (1985), 6, note 17.
12 Doc.Masada, pp. 18-20.
13 O.Claud., pp.20-1.
14 O.Bu Njem, pp.5-10, P.Dura, pp.3-4.
15 We note that at Bu Njem 4 official reports which originated in the principia were found in the praetorium, O.Bu Njem, p.5.
16 Cf. Tomlin (1992), 148, note 34.
17 Caruana (1992), 68-70 notes that at Carlisle legal documents were found inside the fort whereas the majority of texts found outside it were letters.
18 Caruana (1992), 68-70, Tomlin (1992). It may be noted that despite the large quantities of leather found at Vindolanda (VRR III, 1-75) there is no report of an example of a pouch for writing-tablets, for which see Baatz (1983). For possible references to writing-tablets in the texts see 217.ii.1, 283.6.
19 For conservation and photography see VRR II, 15-6, 103-6.
20 We are grateful to Dr.W.J.Fitzgerald, Mr. A.C.Kokaram and Mr.J.A.Stark of the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, for their efforts in this area.
21 On the photography of the stilus tablets see VRR II, 107-8.
TVII Chapter 2 - The Roman Army
1 See Vol. II, Ch. 1.
2 Tab.Vindol.I, Vol. I Ch. 3.
3 On the Ninth Cohort of Batavians see further, below. Our caution in Bowman and Thomas (1987), 134 (cf. A.R.Birley (1990a), 19) has not been justified by subsequent evidence. It should be noted that the citation there of a cohors vii (in 137 = Inv.no.85.199.a) is unfortunately a misprint for viii. We had envisaged the possible presence of an Eighth Cohort, as well as the Ninth, but there is no evidence for this; but since there clearly was a series of Batavian cohorts it is not impossible that an Eighth Cohort of Batavians existed at this time.
4 To a maximum size of 7 acres or 2.7 ha., see VRR II, 3. On this unit see also Smeesters (1977), VRR II, 5-7.
5 CIL 16.48 = RIB II 2401.1.
6 See Maxfield (1986), 59, Frere and Wilkes (1989), 120-1, Jones (1990), cf. Hassall (1983). VRR II, 6-7 suggests that the members of the First Cohort of Tungrians who were at Coria were new recruits undergoing intensive training.
7 RMD II 97 = RIB II 2401.9. For evidence of its presence at Carrawburgh and Castelcary see Tab.Vindol.I 30.i.4 note(295).
8 There is a possible reference to a Tungrian unit in 315, perhaps cohors i or cohors ii, but it seems unlikely that the unit there mentioned was stationed at Vindolanda. VRR II, 23 quotes ]cho Tung in the address on a stilus tablet (Inv.no.87.787) but the reading is far from secure.
9 Tacitus, Agr. 36. See VRR II, 7-9, Strobel (1987). Holder (1980), 110-1 appears to envisage two separate series of Batavian units, the first consisting of nine milliary units and the second of nine other (presumably quingenary) cohorts.
10 E.g. 127, 135, 137, 271, 281, 282, 284. See also the inscriptions CIXB on the leather offcuts, VRR II, 92, nos.1-2.
11 The argument, reviewed and accepted in VRR II, 7, that the Batavian cohorts had been raised to milliary strength by the closing years of Domitian's reign seems to us very hypothetical. RMD I 46 shows that it was milliary by AD 153.
12 See Strobel (1987).
13 311 back, 263. In view of the pattern of deposit of letters received by people elsewhere (Vol. II Ch. 3 ), and the fragmentation and movement of units attested by 154, the Third Cohort might not have been stationed there at all. The recipient of 311 might have spent only a short time at Vindolanda, cf. 311.back 1 note.
14 CIL 16.55.
15 CIL 16.43, 69, cf. VRR II, 5.
16 Cf. VRR II, 4. It should be noted that even if it could be understood as referring to the ala, or members of it, it does not however imply a presence at Vindolanda.
17 For a survey of the personnel period by period see VRR II, 18-72, but there are some differences in the readings of personal names (see appendix). By "substantial implicit evidence" we mean, for example, applications for leave (166-177), which could only have been submitted by soldiers.
18 Tacitus, Hist. 4.12, cf. A.R. Birley (1991), 97, VRR II, 7-9. That the practice of appointing local élites continued is not necessarily incompatible with the notion of "detribalisation" after the Batavian revolt, for which see Brandt and Slofstra (1983), Roymans (1990), 268-70.
19 Strobel (1987), 289-90 , VRR II, 8.
20 E.Birley (1988), 147-64.
21 The application to Flavianus: 172. Hostilius Flavianus is a correspondent of Flavius Cerialis in 261 and, as such, is very likely to be somewhere other than Vindolanda.
22 Genialis is suggested as a possible predecessor for Cerialis, VRR II, 9, 30. For Cassius Saecularis see Vol. II, Ch. 2. Of the other people identified or suggested as prefects in VRR II, 41, 45-6, Flavius Similis (235, 254, 286) was certainly elsewhere; Pacatus (Inv.no.88.923, stilus tablet) does not seem to have a title surviving or at any rate legible; Vindex (260) is entirely speculative; Paternus is probably a "ghost-name" (283 may be addressed to Cerialis and Tab.Vindol.I 61 = 531 is completely uncertain); [Perp]etuus relies on traces in 177 which are far too exiguous to suggest a restoration with any confidence; Vocusius Africanus (315) was probably not at Vindolanda (Vol. II, Ch. 2) -this name cannot be read in 300 and the reading in Inv.no.87.725 (stilus tablet) is very uncertain.
23 Schallmayer et al. (1990), 1-22; for role and activities see Rankov (1986).
24 Davies (1989), 209-36, Dixon and Southern (1992), 223-9, VRR II, 34, but note that the same medicus is probably not attested in 207.11 (see note).
25 Cf. Tab.Vindol.I 65.2 = 535. For auxiliary uexillarii, Breeze (1974), 282-6.
26 See Speidel (1984), 40-2.
27 See O.Flor., p.24.
28 See Bishop (1985), 11.
29 See TLL II 1703-4. For duties connected with military baths see e.g. RMR 9, 52.b.8, O.Bu Njem, Index 5, s.v. balneum. For baths at Vindolanda see 155.3 and 322.2 note.
30 For civilians see our remarks in the introduction to 180, Casey (1982), Jones (1984), and cf. Peacock (1992), 17. Diploma: RMD II 97 = RIB II 2401.9.
31 VRR II, 18-72.
32 Valerius Niger rather than Oppius Niger may be the co-author of 248 (see introduction and cf. 465).
33 VRR II, 9 notes that in general one does not not expect to find Flavii holding equestrian commands before the reign of Trajan.
34 We prefer to read the gentilicium as Vittius, not Vettius as suggested by A.R.Birley (1990b), see 214, introduction.
35 We cannot accept the suggestions about the relationships between the people and their units made at VRR II, 36-7 since these are based on the supposition that the letter was written at London and sent to Vindolanda (Vol. II, Ch. 3).
36 We do not agree with the reading of the cognomen as Morin[o, suggested by A.R.Birley (1991), 92, cf. VRR II, 37.
37 For archaeological evidence for the presence of women see VRR III, 44-6.
38 For some comparable evidence for women see Allason-Jones (1989), ch.4. We do not believe that the term pueri which is used in 255.i.7 and 260.7 refers to children (see notes ad locc.).
39 On this topic see Speidel (1989).
40 Middleton (1979), Casey (1982), Breeze (1984).
41 Cf. Tomlin (1992), 150, note 50 on the term sesplasiarius.
42 If so, we are left with the need to explain the presence of such documents inside the fort; perhaps compare Caruana (1992).
43 VRR II, 59 seems to suggest that the complainant is regarded as a soldier.
44 A.R.Birley (1990a), (1991), VRR II, 18-72.
45 We have therefore relied very heavily on the evidence assembled in NPEL in our attempts to read, interpret and explain the personal names in the tablets. Also useful for this region are LAN and Weisgerber (1968) and (1969).
46 For the alleged "Morinian" of 312 see above, note 36. The name Rhenus (a slave, 347) is too vague to be very helpful.
47 Tomlin (1992), 151.
48 E.g. Vocusius (316), Frontinius (343.iv.38-9), see A.R.Birley (1991), 91.
49 Some statistics may be found in the lists in VRR II, 18-72.
50 The classification of such names presents serious difficulty and the standard works are frequently unsure whether they are Celtic or Germanic. We rely largely on AS (which is now very old), LAN, Evans (1967), Weisgerber (1968) and (1969). See also Tomlin's remarks in Tab.Sulis, passim.
51 AS, LAN. On Buccus see however André (1991), 37.
52 For a general reference to Britons see 164 and cf. 344, introduction. We see no reason to regard Lucco (180.27, 30) as a British recruit (VRR II, 64).
53 Hermes, for example, is attested 8 times in Gallia Belgica according to NPEL. For the imperial bodyguard see e.g. Alkimachus, Phoebus, Pothus, in Bellen (1981).
54 O.Bu Njem 1-62.
55 See 164, introduction. We do not regard the writer of 344 as a locally recruited Briton, but as a civilian.
56 Ferris and Jones (1991), 103.
57 RMR 74-81, O.Claud., passim and cf. O.Bu Njem. For a survey of the subject for northern England see most recently Higham (1991) and cf. Dickson (1989).
58 VRR III, 1-75, Burnham and Wacher (1990), 111-7.
59 Higham (1991), 95-6.
60 Tomlin (1992).
62 For the role of the beneficiarius see Rankov (1986).
TVII Chapter 3 - The Format of the Tablets
1 Tab.Vindol.I (Vol. I Ch. 1); cf. VRR II, 10.
2 Caerleon: Tomlin (1986). Carlisle: Tomlin (1992), 146, note 30, 150-3. For leaf tablets from Lechlade see Tab.Vindol.I (Vol. I Ch. 2).
3 Cf. Locher and Rottländer (1985). Much of the material in this section is also discussed by Bowman (1994b).(II3wp2) 4 There are similar notches in Inv.no.87.809 (no legible writing).(II3wp2) 5 See Tab.Vindol.I, (Vol. I Ch. 2). It should be noted that we are now cautious about the application of the term "official" to the documents, see cross-reference, Vol. II (XREF-2MDWP1).
6 We have no example of a letter written across the grain; we think that 495 is more likely to be a document than a letter (cf. VRR II, 28). For some scale drawings indicating the dimensions see VRR II, 14.
7 This use of the whole leaf for letters appears to be so nearly universal that we feel justified in assuming it in the case of an individual example even when we have only one half, or part of one half of the leaf. Thus, in the introductions to the letters, a fragment is often described as belonging to the left-hand or the right-hand half of a diptych. Where the content gives no clue, the position of notches and/or tie-holes may make it clear which half of the diptych we have.
8 Columns, P.Oxy. XVIII 2192, P.Wisc. II 84 (3 columns of which the first is almost wholly lost). Latin letters, ChLA V 300, X 452, 457, XI 487; but X 452 is written in three columns and the same could be true of all the others.
9 For a comparable example on papyrus see P.Oxy.I 32 = ChLA IV 267.
10 214 is incomplete. Note that in 310 -mam salutem in line 3 is right justified as it also is in 311.i.2.
11 See Parkes (1992), 10, who discusses this feature, for which he uses the term littera notabilior, in inscriptions and literary papyri.
12 In many instances we have insufficient evidence to know whether it is the left-hand or right-hand side of a tablet which is preserved. In all cases we have assumed that if there is an address on the back it is the right-hand side of the letter on the front which survives, cf. note 7, above.
13 For a general discussion of the formulae of addresses used in Latin letters see Cugusi (1983), 64-7. For illustrations of comparable examples on papyrus see P.Dura, Plate XXXIII.1-6, P.Oxy.I 32 = ChLA IV 267, a Latin letter to a tribune from a beneficiarius. On the texts from Vindolanda cf. also R.E.Birley (1990), 10-11.
14 Only a handful of the addresses in CEL give the name of the sender, though there is at least one example from each of the three major areas, Vindonissa, Egypt (note particularly CEL 169 = P.Oxy.I 32 = ChLA IV 267) and Dura; see further Cugusi (1983), 66-7 and his comments on CEL 16 verso.
15 collega is also used in CEL 177 = P.Hib. II 276, from Egypt.
16 This is unequivocal in the case of Londini (310), which was the first text with a place-name to be published (Bowman, Thomas and Adams, 1990); in fact, as we shall see, all examples are to be understood as locatives.
17 VRR II, 61 and Plate XV.
18 For the last two see fig.6 in VRR II, 26. On the readings see Appendix, pp.364-5.
19 Notwithstanding Cugusi's contrary view (e.g. in his notes on CEL 14.1 and 87 verso).
20 VRR II, 61.
21 The Vindonissa tablets are now most conveniently accessible as CEL 16-71. On tablets where the address begins dabis (often dabes at Vindonissa), see CEL II, p.41. We do not think it likely that 445 has an address in this form.
22 Britannia 19 (1988) 498 no.33 and fig.8 = RIB II 2443.3. Tab.Vindol.I 107.
23 Future for imperative. Note that the imperative da is used in one tablet from Vindonissa (CEL 38); CEL 142.68 (= P.Mich.VIII 468) is alleged to read tr]ad[e, and CEL 243 (= P.Oxy.XVIII 2193), from a later period, reads redde.
24 Britannia 19 (1988), 496 no.32 and fig.7 = RIB II 2443.4; the drawing suggests the possibility that the preceding word may be abbreviated (bra..car) and that we actually have Luguualio. We wonder whether the first word in Britannia 19 (1988), 498 no.34 = RIB II 2443.6, transcribed by Tomlin as kimio, is also a place-name. For the position of the place-name after the name of the recipient cf. also 311.back 1 note.
25 Britannia 19 (1988), 496 no.31 and fig.6 = RIB II 2443.10. This is Tomlin's reading; here Lugu[u]/alio is perhaps possible.
26 Cf. R.E.Birley (1990), 10-11 and VRR II, 19-20.
27 Nevertheless, this seems to be the view taken by Cugusi; see his comments referred to in note 19 above, and his note to CEL 37 (cf. also his note to CEL 87). This text reads dabis Vindoinsa[ where, despite Cugusi, we must surely adopt Marichal's reading Vindoinsa[e], i.e. the letter was to be delivered at Vindonissa (a meaning which Cugusi also accepts). Cf. CEL 35, which reads dabis Atico Luciano qui est in Girece Vindoinsa.
28 E.g. BGU IV 1079 (= SP I 107), SP I 111, BGU II 423 (= SP I 112); it is perhaps particularly relevant that the last item is a letter from a sailor in the fleet at Misenum.
29 See Cugusi (1983), 43-145.
30 Suetonius, Iul. 56.6, cf. Turner (1978), 32.
31 The phrase is taken from Parkes (1991), 2. The question of layout is considered by Bischoff (1990), 27-30 but only with reference to books. The very small amount of literary evidence is cited by Cugusi (1983), 30. Since there is virtually no literary evidence for the appearance of letters, examples written on tablets and papyri are of the utmost importance. On the whole topic see further Bowman (1994b).
32 On this see Tjäder (1986), 301.
33 Vindolanda, VRR II, 12-5. Tab.Vindol.I (Vol. I Ch. 2). British examples collected in RIB II 2443. Survey: Marichal in Lalou (ed. 1992), discussing the format of multi-leaved sets of tablets; cf. also Pintaudi and Sijpesteijn (1989), Caruana (1992). Stilus tablets from Carlisle: Britannia 22 (1991), 299-300, nos.24-5, cf. Britannia 23 (1992), 323; Tomlin (1992), 146-50; Caruana (1992), 68-70. Egypt: a stilus tablet with an ink text, Devijver, Harrauer and Worp (1984/5). Vindonissa: M.A.Speidel (1987), (1991), (1992), and cf. Tomlin (1992), 148 note 33, no.2.
TVII Chapter 4 - Palaeography
1 Various labels have been used for the script we call ORC: Capital Cursive, Ancient Roman Cursive, etc. Mallon (1952) preferred the expression "l'écriture commune classique"; Cencetti (1950) and Tjäder (1979) similarly prefer to speak of "scrittura usuale". Since many examples of ORC (in our tablets and elsewhere) show few cursive features, there is a certain logic in this. However, we have decided to retain the terminology we used previously. In any case there is no doubt as to the type of script to which all these studies refer.
2 In part this hypothesis was already put forward by Cencetti (1950); Tjäder develops it further, especially by introducing the concept of a "popular" script, an idea he derives from studies by Petrucci (cf. Tab.Vindol.I (Vol. I Ch. 4)). He repeats his views in a more summary fashion in Tjäder (1986), his important review of Tab.Vindol.I. Here he argues that the most important letters are a, b, d, n, p, q and u, "of which a, b, n and to some extent p are particularly crucial" (p.299). The letters he considers important should be compared with those analysed in Casamassima and Starez (1977). For a description of their views see Tab.Vindol.I(Vol. I Ch. 4), and Tjäder (1977), 139-41.
3 Bischoff (1986), 76-89 = Bischoff (1990), 54-63.
4 E.g. a few ostraca in Latin are to be found in O.Claud.
5 Doc.Masada 721-38, 750-71. On the palaeography see Thomas, ibid. 27-31.
6 Ostraca from Bu Njem: O.Bu Njem, pp.16-45; Bath curse tablets: Tab.Sulis, pp.84-94.
7 See Stylow and Mayer Olivé (1987).
8 There is some similarity with painted inscriptions from Pompeii; cf. also those painted on wine jars found at Masada, Doc.Masada, pp.133-77.
9 For the normal letter forms see Bischoff (1986), fig.1 on p.79 = Bischoff (1990), 56, where there is a brief discussion of the script (for which Bischoff prefers the term Capitalis).
10 Notably Marichal; in ChLA VI-IX where he re-edits all the papyri from Dura, he classifies the scripts used in them into four broad categories (see IX, pp.15-8). See also his classification of the scripts in the Bu Njem ostraca, loc.cit. in note 6. On Tjäder's classification of ORC scripts into "private" and "official" see his article cited above.
11 We already drew attention to the script of this tablet in Tab.Vindol.I, p.53 (cf. Tjäder (1986), 298, who describes it as "clearly a book hand"). It is astonishing that it should now turn out to be no more than a routine military report.
12 References in what follows are to fig.1 on p.53. In addition, for the letter-forms used in ORC and NRC, see Bischoff (1986), 88, fig.5 = Bischoff (1990), 64; cf. Tab.Vindol.I, p.54, fig.10.
13 This type of a is found at Bu Njem, O Bu Njem, p.22.
14 Note also 348, where the loop appears to come at the right of the hasta (though again the basic form of the letter is not altered). On the occurrence of b in the NRC form as early as the first century AD see Petrucci, cited in Tab.Vindol.I, p.51, note 3.
15 See further the introduction to 263 and ii.1 note.
16 Our remark in Tab.Vindol.I, p.64 that there was no good example of this feature, no longer holds true; see, e.g., 261 and 265.
17 This form may well be significant for the development of the letter into its NRC form as Tjäder (1979), 53-6 and (1986), 299 argues (in the former article, but not the latter, he couples it with the form of m illustrated in col.2). He regards it as the private form, which is supported by its occurrence in closing greetings in our tablets.
18 Tjäder (1979), 51-2 and (1986), 299 regards this as an example of the "popular" form; it is noteworthy therefore that in our tablets it is found in one of the military documents (151).
19 To some extent therefore the tablets may support Tjäder (1986), 300, where he suggests that the form in col.1 is the official form and that in col.2 the private form ["As a counterpart to d the g will be of interest" is a misprint for "As a counterpart to d the q will be of interest"].
20 Tjäder (1986), 299 regards the form in col.1 as the private form. Again there is probably a tendency for writers of the documents to prefer the form in col.3 and for the form in col.1 to be commoner in the letters. However, a more striking tendency, we think, is for the more elegant writers to avoid the form in col.1.
21 In Tab.Vindol.I, p.67 we commented that the ligature us was likely to have been derived from the way these letters are often written as a conjoint letter in inscriptions. Tjäder (1986), 300 rightly points out that it is at least as likely that the influence was the other way.
22 See the papyri cited on p.42, note 13.
23 Cf. ChLA IX, p.16.
24 For a full list of abbreviations see Index V.
25 Contrast the ostraca from Bu Njem, where it is normal to abbreviate the more common gentilicia (O.Bu Njem, p.39).
26 Consistently in 182 and 493, also in 179 and 343.ii.22. Manzella (1987), 157, note 394 quotes examples of the symbol without the bar.
27 Something close to this is recognised by Cagnat (1914), 34, cf. also Castrén and Lilius (1970), 157-9, 164, 168, 174. A cursive a is used as an abbreviation in P.Oxy.IV 737 and elsewhere.
28 E.g. RMR 68-73.
29 Cf. ChLA V 304.a.28. See also RMR 73.i.17 (= ChLA III 208), with Fink's note ad loc., Marichal (1988), 47.
30 Cf. CIL III2, p.953 no.XV, pag. posterior, line 25.
31 Cagnat (1914), 33, Manzella (1987), 158 and fig. 202, Marichal (1988), 47. Cagnat lists the notations for the fractions of the as. We note the remark of Fink, RMR 556: "it is obvious that, aside from standard abbreviations ..., most of the following [sc. abbreviations and conventional symbols] were devised by the clerk on the spur of the moment to suit his own convenience"; this is perhaps an overstatement of the degree of anarchy but there seems to us to be some truth in it.
32 See Gordon (1958-65) IV, p.61.
33 See Manzella (1987), 151 and figs.181-3.
34 Gordon (1958-65) IV, p.61 cites a sickle-shaped symbol, open-facing to the right with a dot underneath it.
35 A similar practice was followed in writing numerals at Bu Njem, see O.Bu Njem, pp.38-9.
36 See Marichal (1988), 41-6.
37 Contrast VRR II, 92, nos.1-2.
38 On punctuation in the classical period see esp. Müller (1964); cf. Wingo (1972) and Habinek (1985), 42-88. For a recent brief discussion see Parkes (1992), 9-19, esp. 10.
39 Marichal, ChLA XI 493, introduction, quotes ChLA V 278 = P.Mich.VII 433 of AD 110 as the latest dated example. Cugusi, CEL I, p.7, quotes CEL 152 (= ChLA IX 397) of AD 140 for the use of interpunct, but we do not think it occurs in this text.
40 Seider (1983), 139 states that interpunct never occurs in military papyri.
41 For this purpose we do not regard requests for leave as military documents nor, necessarily, any of the accounts; interpunct is found in some texts in both these categories
42 The best survey of the evidence is by Parsons in Anderson, Parsons and Nisbet (1979), 131, note 43.
43 We exclude the use of medial point to indicate abbreviation or a figure.
44 The use of oblique marks and other marks to indicate sense breaks, i.e "true" punctuation (as distinct from word interpunct), in papyri and inscriptions from the period of the early empire is discussed by Müller (1964), 46-50 and Habinek (1985), 68-81. The most interesting papyrus is P.Iand. V 90 = PLP II.i 1 (Cicero, 1st cent. BC/AD), on which see also Parkes (1992), 12 (these marks are sometimes called virgulae); see also the works cited in note 38, above. There is an apparent example in ChLA X 442.9.
45 For the apparent mark at the end of line i.3 in 291 see note 48, below.
46 Cf. above(Vol. II, Ch. 4), on punctuation
47 We have reckoned all cases of final o in the first person singular verb as long but it should be noted that this vowel was sometimes shortened in Latin of the imperial period, see Leumann (1977), 110, 514.
48 This text also has an oblique stroke after diem in i.3, like an apex or the mark found after salutem in some texts (see Vol. II, Ch. 4). Here it cannot be an apex or serve as punctuation. In some texts a final m has its last stroke raised so as to be horizontal or even to slope upwards, but this is hardly a convincing explanation in the present instance and we should perhaps just suppose that we have an accidental stroke without significance.
49 Cf. Vol. II, Ch. 4, on the use of interpunct (and for the definition of "military document" for this purpose).
50 Kramer (1991), Flobert (1990); see also Marichal ChLA XI 493, introduction (p.37). For inscriptions see also A.E.Gordon and J.S.Gordon (1957), 148-9. In addition to papyri and inscriptions apices can occur on ostraca; see e.g. O.Claud. 2 and 135.
51 One problem is that Quintilian's "rule" (1.7.2) that apices should only be used to avoid confusion, seems never to have been observed in practice: see Kramer (pp.142-3), "Wenn Apices verwendet werden, dann sind einige Langvokale mit ihnen versehen, die meisten aber nicht, ohne dass es einen erkennbaren sprachlichen Grund für die Verteilung gäbe" (142-3).
52 We are most grateful to Professor Adams for the detailed observations which follow.
53 Flobert (1990), 103, 104, 105.
54 See Consentius, GL V, p.392, line 3.
55 See Kramer (1991), 142, and Marichal, loc.cit. in note 50. Kramer describes this use as having a "Reliktcharakter" comparable to the survival of iota adscript in addresses of Greek papyrus letters long after the use of iota adscript elsewhere had ceased.
56 Flobert (1990), esp. pp.106-7. See also J.S.Gordon and A.E.Gordon (1957), 148-9, mentioning "eight to twelve examples" occurring in Gordon (1958-65).
57 Kramer (1991) does not mention this phenomenon
58 epistolám; see the editor's note for an explanation of why this is unlikely to be the ablative epistola m[ea.
59 The edition prints VAR?US, on which the editors offer no comment. The accompanying plate (Plate XVIII) shows only ]´IUS which might easily represent Várius; but even so the apex mark, if that is what it is, would be over a short vowel.
60 Cf. the comments by Petersmann (1992), 287, on the ed.pr. of 291, that the use there of apices over short vowels suggests "dass allgemein das Gefühl für Quantitäten bereits im Schwinden begriffen war".
|