| Permalink | https://gdrg.ugent.be/guilddocuments/1871 |
| Document name | fabri tignarii Romae CIL 06, 01220 |
| Name variant (this document) | |
| Standard name of the group | fabri tignuarii Romae |
| English standard name | |
| Standard reference | CIL 06, 01220 |
| References to other standard editions | CIL 06, 01220 (p 3071, 3503, 3778, 3896, 4336, 4345, 4351) = CIL 06, 10300 = CIL 06, 31394a = CIL 06, 33857 = CIL 06, 36891 = D 07226 = AE 2002, +00148 |
| Source type | inscription |
| Type of inscription | membership list |
| Type of monument | basis |
| Main location | Roma |
| Main province | Roma |
| Main admininistrative district | Roma |
| Post quem | 138 AD |
| Exact date | |
| Ante quem | 161 AD |
| Notes on dating | Originally set up during the reign of Antoninus Pius, the basis was reused in the early fourth century. |
| Corporate designation | |
| Internal institutions | decuriones |
| Protectors | |
| Collective action | |
| Collective assets | |
| Collective entitlements | |
| Public recognition and privileges | |
| Private duties and liabilities | |
| Receive | |
| Donate | |
| Notes |
The original inscription probably belonged to an honorary monument, such as CIL 06, 01060. It contained a list of decurionesof the collegium fabrum tignuariorum of Rome. The names indicate that it was set up during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE).
The statue base was reused for a statue to emperor Maxentius in the early fourth century.
The heading decuriones a consulibus is hard to interpret. Waltzing (1895-1900: II, 356) connects it with the quinq(uennalis) perp(etuus) datus ab / Imp(eratore) Hadriano Aug(usto) collegio fabr(um) tign(uariorum) at Praeneste (CIL 14, 03003) and the ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) dendrophori creati at Puteoli (CIL 10, 03699). But it seems odd that the consuls rather than the emperor or the praefectus urbi would nominated the decuriones. Hirschfeld (1884: 251, 255) suggested decuriones a co(n)s(ulibus) [ad aerarium delati], relating it to the collegium fabrum et centonariorum in Milan. But this is purely speculative. The most plausible interpretation remains that of Mommsen (ad CIL 06, 10300), who thought it referred to a consular date above which would have been erased. It would then have been the equivalent of the expression ex lustro which we find in CIL 14, 02630.
|
| Standard text of source |
A
〈:in una linea〉 Decuriónes a có(n)s(ulibus)
〈:columna I〉
[XXX]V T(itus) Manlius Ennianus / [---] P(ublius) Aelius Persicus / [---] C(aius) Pautina Lamyrianus / [---] L(ucius) Orcivius Maritalis [---] / Q(uintus) Lurius Narcissianus [---] / Ti(berius) Iulius Faustinus / [--- T]i(berius) Iunius Iunianus / [--- Co]rnelius Iulianus / [---]us Anatello / [---]tus / [---]anus / ------
〈:columna II〉
VII D(ecimus) Iulius Musaeu[s] / XXXIX P(ublius) Pomponius Papianu[s] / IIII C(aius) Apuleius Philumenu[s] / III C(aius) Thoranius Honoratu[s] / XXII Q(uintus) Annaeus Philetu[s] / XLVI M(arcus) Gellius Secundinu[s] / XL Ti(berius) Claudius Anthi[o] / LX L(ucius) Pontius Zoticu[s] / XXXVI T(itus) Flavius Faustin[us] / XLIIX P(ublius) Ulvienus Zosimian[us] / XXXIII Ti(berius) Claudius Cre[sce]n[s] / [---]X L(ucius) Tannonius [---] / [---] T(itus) Cornelius [---] / [---] Hoeni[us Xenophon] / ------
B
Censurae veteris / pietatisque singularis / domino nostro / [Max]ẹṇṭịọ P̣(io) [F(elici]
------
------
[---]NO.
|
| Translation | |
| Notes on the source |