Tablet 171

description, Tab.Vindol.I 35, Plate VII, 3. CEL 103.
The pattern of applications for leave suggests that this text, tentatively assigned to the correspondence of Genialis in the ed. pr., is another such, despite the difficulties inherent in reading and interpreting the two lines on fragment (b). The three fragments were found together, however, and there is every reason to think that they belong to the same tablet. It is notable that the lines are widely spaced and we think that the fragment (b), which we identified as containing part of column ii, perhaps fits below the major fragment (a), thus giving a text written on a half leaf (but there may be something missing in between). The two small fragments, of which the larger contains two letters (ut?), the smaller only one unidentifiable trace, cannot be placed with any confidence. The centurial symbol in a.1 has an unusually long tail.


]ḍịtus ( centuriae) Vern ..[..]. n
[rog]ọ domine Cerialis
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
]....ḅẹ....[ n
]..s.erḷer.[ n
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .


'I, Expeditus (?) of the century of Vern.., ask, my lord Cerialis ... '


a.1. Expe]ditus seems the most promising restoration. For the name see 161.5. Vern..[..].: the initial V is somewhat odd but uern- is a common Celtic prefix, see AS III 223-8. The completion of the name depends on the number of following letters of which traces survive. There seems to be too much ink for Verni which is the commonest name with this element. We now suppose that the faint marks after s which we interpreted as uo in the ed. pr. are not ink. We could read Vernia[..]r[, suggesting a genitive of Verniator or Verniatorius, but have not been able to find these names attested. Alternatively, Vernio[ni]s might suit (a rare name, normally held by freedmen, see LC 314, but note CIL 2.2361 [Baetica]); Verno[ni]s does not seem so plausible.

b.1-2. The placement of this fragment is uncertain but we think that it perhaps fits below (a). In the middle of the surviving traces of line 1 e is virtually certain and b very probable before it. In view of this we have tried to follow the normal pattern and we think it just possible to read dignum] me habeas cui [. It is difficult to read the end of des commeatum plus a place-name in the line below. Perhaps we should restore des com- in line 1, with meatum followed by a long place-name or a place-name and indication of purpose in line 2. An alternative possibility is that fragment (c) is to be placed at the left of b.1, giving ut [dignum] me habeas etc., although ut does not occur in the other applications which are preserved at this point. If that were correct it might then be possible to restore des at the end of b.1 and the whole of commeatum at the beginning of b.2, with a long place-name following; -erlero (or -erbero) could certainly be a locative ending.

Download EpiDoc version using the CC license Creative Commons License and EpiDoc Schema v.5