Permalink | https://gdrg.ugent.be/guilddocuments/3124 |
Document name | fabri Salerni CIL 10, *00125 (dubius) |
Name variant (this document) | patron(us) / corpor(um) fabr(um) dendrophor(um) / |
Standard name of the group | fabri Salerni |
English standard name | craftsmen |
Standard reference | CIL 10, *00125 (dubius) |
References to other standard editions | CIL 10, *00125 = InscrIt-01-01, *00003 |
Source type | inscription |
Type of inscription | honorary |
Type of monument | |
Main location | Salernum |
Main province | Italia: Regio 01, Latium et Campania |
Main admininistrative district | Latium et Campania (Regio I) |
Post quem | 41 AD |
Exact date | |
Ante quem | 250 AD |
Notes on dating | No firm dating criteria are available. The full name (including praenomen, filiatio and tribus would suggest a date not too far in the third century, but the high status of the dedicants and their prominence weaken that argument. The post quem date is determined by the 'dendrophori' being mentioned, who were established under Claudius. |
Corporate designation | corpus |
Internal institutions | |
Protectors | patroni |
Collective action | |
Collective assets | |
Collective entitlements | |
Public recognition and privileges | |
Private duties and liabilities | |
Receive | |
Donate | |
Notes | |
Standard text of source |
Libero patri / Sex(tus) Messius Sex(ti) f(ilius) Stel(latina) Titi/anus VIIvir epul(onum) IIIIvir / munic(ipii) / patron(us) / corpor(um) fabr(um) dendrophor(um) / et centonarior(um) / et M(arcus) Gavius M(arci) f(ilius) Stel(latina) Flac/cus IIIIvir{ir} curator q(uinquennalis) q() / d() d l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)
|
Translation |
To Liber Pater. Sextus Messius Titianus, son of Sextus, of the Stellatina tribe, septemvir epulonum, quattuorvir of the municipium, patron of the corporations of craftsmen, dendrophori and clothmen, and Marcus Gavius Flaccus, son of Marcus, of the Stellatina tribe, quattuorvir, curator quinquennalis … place given by decree of the decuriones.
|
Notes on the source |
Known only from a manuscript by Ligorius and considered a forgery in CIL out of a general distrust against Ligorius. This may, however, be uncalled for in this case. Nothing in the text seems suspicious, apart from the IIIIvir curator qq perhaps. (cf. Cooley 2012: 393-394).
Mistakenly referred to in Liu 2009 as CIL 10, *00124 instead of CIL 10, *00125. The text here is from CIL 10, *00125.
|