Tablet 601

description

Inv.no.93.1316. 49 x 90 mm. Plate 7.
Archaeological data. Location: SG/NE (intervallum road). Period: 3.
The tablet consists of a single leaf which has one notch and one tie hole in the top edge. The leaf is complete at top and left; it is impossible to be sure how much is missing at the right, but it must be a significant amount. The preserved text consists of twelve lines of an account, with dates, headed ratio Flori, and written across the grain of the wood. It is uncertain whether the text continued below on another matching half of a diptych, but if our reading of line 12 is correct it is likely that it did, despite the fact that the penultimate line of the preserved text contains a total (summa). Several entries have Florus' name in the dative and one has per Florum (line 7); it may be that the heading ratio Flori should be taken to indicate an account of various transactions in which Florus was involved, or that the Florus in the heading is the person to whom these goods or sums were credited and is a different person from the Florus in line 7 (see note). For this common cognomen see 643, which contains two letters from a writer called Florus. The only commodities preserved in this account are nails and pork-fat. The back is blank.
The hand is a routine cursive, noteworthy for the remarkable form of e in item (line 2); this is unparalleled elsewhere in the cursive hands on the tablets (118 is in a different type of hand) and in other entries in this text, where the normal form appears, even in item (e.g. line 10). It is made with two short strokes or ticks, as is common in texts on stilus tablets.

edition


ratio Flori uacat [
vii K(alendas) Ian(uarias) Fḷ[oro] n
item m...s.i . [ n
v K(alendas) Ian(uarias) Floro clạ [u-] n
5 pr(idie) K(alendas) Ian(uarias) Floro [..] .. [
p̣uḷ… .raeṭị .. [.] .. [ n
iṭẹm per Florum [ n
ḷarium axungia [ n
iiii Nonas Ịạṇ(uarias) Floro [
10 item Floro clau. [ n
uacat of 1 line
summa () xi ṣ(emis) . [ n
item .ịtaḷ .ṇ .. [ n
. . . . . . . .

translation

'Account of Florus.
26 December to Florus (?)
Likewise, to Modestinus (?)
28 December. To Florus, nails (?)
31 December. To Florus

Likewise, through Florus
pork-fat
2 January. To Florus
Likewise, to Florus, nails
Total, denarii 11 1/2 + (?)
Likewise, to Vitalis (?) '

commentary

2. The end of the line is obscured by dirt and nothing is clear; fḷ[oro looks persuasive on one of the scans.

3. For the unique form of e in item see introduction. If this form is repeated further to the right in this line we might read Mọḍẹsṭiṇ[o, although there is a noticeable gap after sṭi; mọḍẹsṭi n[ does not convince since we do not expect a genitive.

4. Presumably clạ[uos (or some other case) should be restored here in view of the clear reading clau.[ at the end of line 10. For nails in footwear see 603-605, introduction.

6. The reading of this line is very problematical. If it contains a date, there is only one possibility which will fit the sequence between 31 December (line 5) and 2 January (line 9). The analogy of 186.11-14 suggests that we should look for the names of the new ordinary consuls. The line is abraded and obscured by dirt and the only letters of which the reading is certain are rae in the middle of the line; ra suggests the name of L. Licinius Sura, cos. II in 102 with Julius Servianus and cos. III in 107 with Sosius Senecio (Sura's first consulship was suffect and can therefore be discounted). The traces are indecisive but the only possible restoration of the names would be Ṣụra eṭ Ṣẹṇẹ[cione (Ṣụra eṭ Ṣẹṛụ[iano being ruled out by the fact that Servianus was the consul prior in 102); the archaeological attribution to Period 3 or 4 does not afford any firm guidance for or against AD 107. In the blurred traces before this we might just be able to read ḳ ịạṇ, though we should expect it to follow the names of the consuls, but there is a major difficulty is that there are clear traces of 2 (or 3) letters before what could be read as k, apparently or followed by u. We are therefore unable to suggest a reading of a consular date, or anything else which makes sense. It is perhaps worth noting that 580.1, a fragment in a similar hand and perhaps identical but not otherwise related to this account, reads l licinio, which surely ought to be a reference to the consulship of Licinius Sura in AD 107. For consular dates of AD 103 and 104 see 581.9, 20.

7-8. If this Florus is a different person from the Florus whose account this is (line 1), there might be some additional identification to distinguish him, e.g. per Florum [ cornicu/larium or uexil/larium (cf. introduction). For axungia see cf. 182.16 (where the form is exungia), 190.c.29.

10. Presumably clauọ[rum or clauọ[s, cf. 186.7, 603, 604.

11. The traces after summa are obscured by dirt.

12. item looks clear. After it, Ṿịtaḷi is compatible with the traces if we read the first of the apparent medial dots before and after n as the final letter of the name. For other occurrences of this common name in the tablets see 586.i.7 note.

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