Ghent Database of Roman Guilds

The inscription was found together with at least four other inscription mentioning the fabri tignuarii (CIL 6, 3678 ; AE (1941), 68-70; (1975) 13), to the south of the Basilia Iulia, near to where according to the Forma Urbis there was a temple. La Rocca, in his introduction to Cecamore 2002 hypothesizes  therefore that this was the temple built and dedicated by Pompey to Minerva, patron goddess of craftsmen and thus of collegia fabrum.  He proposes to consider also the dubious inscriptions recorded by Ligorius (CIL 6, 565*; 570*; 575*; 578*) as genuine and coming from this location.

 

The formulae used in this highly fragmentary inscription show that it contained the text of an imperial rescript (directed no doubt to the praefectus urbi, who was in charge of monitoring the collegia (Dig. 1,12,1,14)), concerning the immunities granted to the fabri at Rome. The text is too mutilated to deduce much from or to translate properly, but it seems to distinguish fabri who practised their trade (artifices) from those who did not, mention sons and slaves (presumably) as members in waiting  or as obligatory (hereditary) members (as D'Ors 1940 believed), and confirm privileges that other guilds lacked.  

 

D’Ors (1940: 138) interprets the add[icti ---] mentioned in line 8 as persons convicted for minor offenses to work with the fabri tignuarii. He cites a constitution from Constantine issued in 319 CE in support, which instructs the praefectus urbi to send minor offenders to work in the pistrina. (Codex Theodosianus 9,40,3) This interpretation might be born out by the following line which seems to remind some persons to stay in the area. But the text is too fragmentary to be sure.

 

Several elements in the text recall the fragment from Callistratus’ De Cognitionibus in Dig. 50,6,6,13 : the distinction between members practising the trade and those who did not (yet/anymore), the conferral of immunitas and privilegia, and the ‘necessary’ nature of  the collegia in question (Callistratus : necessariam operam ; AE 1941, 68: collegiis necessariis).

------ / [---]SCI+ERES CO[---] / [l]ibentissime omnem IA[---] / ṇecessarium posset coṇ[cedi? ---] / fabris arteficibus numẹ[rantur? ---] / ac iucundissime re ipsa A[---]AH[---] / discrepantia separati fu[erunt ---]+ere AQ[---] / vel filios vel servos habere [---] admodum art[ific---] / diversae peritiae in urbe +[--- h]ạbentes semel add[icti ---] / [ad]moniti sunt ut in aṛ[e]ạm permanere, ut magis M[---] /[---]icere secunḍụṃ significatum gravitatis tụ[---] / [---]F̣Ị[---]+atur indulta libentissime beṇ[---] / [---]ṛọg̣[a]ṭo in personam eorum tụet[ur ---] / [---]+um cohorte [+1/2+] ut scientes privilegia [---] / [---]ạntur efficere quo obsequio fideli meri[t---] / et deinceps sicut fecisti ut filios vel servo[s ---] / dumtaxat potuerint invenire idemqu[e ---] / suum ex nostra iussione congreg[at]i f[uerunt ---]/rint perfrui habeant immunitate(m) C[---] / vel ad aliam se ab urbem transfer[ant ---] / obtentu huiusce dum se ad ipsum T[---] / quippe cum id magis velimus ut A[---] / collegiis necessariis dumtaxa[t ---] / perseveret quam patiamur uti [---] / ita ut non ex aliis collegiis hom[ines ---] / libentius in eo numero [---] / putavimus esse praestan[dum ---] / sedule industrieque prob[a---] / ------

The inscription was found together with at least four other inscription mentioning the fabri tignuarii (CIL 6, 3678 ; AE (1941), 68-70; (1975) 13), to the south of the Basilia Iulia, near to where according to the Forma Urbis there was a temple. La Rocca, in his introduction to Cecamore 2002 hypothesizes  therefore that this was the temple built and dedicated by Pompey to Minerva, patron goddess of craftsmen and thus of collegia fabrum.  He proposes to consider also the dubious inscriptions recorded by Ligorius (CIL 6, 565*; 570*; 575*; 578*) as genuine and coming from this location.

 

The formulae used in this highly fragmentary inscription show that it contained the text of an imperial rescript (directed no doubt to the praefectus urbi, who was in charge of monitoring the collegia (Dig. 1,12,1,14)), concerning the immunities granted to the fabri at Rome. The text is too mutilated to deduce much from or to translate properly, but it seems to distinguish fabri who practised their trade (artifices) from those who did not, mention sons and slaves (presumably) as members in waiting  or as obligatory (hereditary) members (as D'Ors 1940 believed), and confirm privileges that other guilds lacked.  

 

D’Ors (1940: 138) interprets the add[icti ---] mentioned in line 8 as persons convicted for minor offenses to work with the fabri tignuarii. He cites a constitution from Constantine issued in 319 CE in support, which instructs the praefectus urbi to send minor offenders to work in the pistrina. (Codex Theodosianus 9,40,3) This interpretation might be born out by the following line which seems to remind some persons to stay in the area. But the text is too fragmentary to be sure.

 

Several elements in the text recall the fragment from Callistratus’ De Cognitionibus in Dig. 50,6,6,13 : the distinction between members practising the trade and those who did not (yet/anymore), the conferral of immunitas , and the ‘necessary’ nature of  the collegia in question (Callistratus : necessariam operam ; AE 1941, 68: collegiis necessariis).