LCL 359: 244-245
From the meagre scraps of writing which remain, it appears that the pillar recorded for public information some laws, or one law protecting a sacred piece of ground or a sacred object or building, and served as a boundary-stone for the same. Separate laws or clauses may be distinguished as follows: Lines 1–4 (no apparent points between words); 6–9 (which a passer-by could read without changing his position—Huelsen, Beiträge, II, 231); 10–11?; 12–16? Note the following: Line 1: There is doubtless to be read a space between quoi and hoi, but there is no trace here, or in lines 2 and 3, of separating points. hok[e] von Grienberger. Lines 2–3: esed is probably the later esset rather than sit or erit. I accept Thurneysen’s supplement Sora[no] (Warren, A.J.P., XXVIII, 387), though even the a is doubtful; sorde von Grienberger. Soranus was a Sabine god connected with the lower world. Line 4: [n]oxagias von Grienberger; which suggests ‘damage(s).’ Line 5: recei (regei v. Grienberger) is probably dative of rex. The person meant would be the rex sacrorum (rex sacrificulus), or, if the inscription belongs to the monarchic period, the King of Rome. Line 8: the kalator would be a servant of or attendant on priests. Line 9: I conjecture har[uspex]; hap[ead] = habeat v. Grienberger. Line 10: [q]uod v. Grienberger. iouxmenta is certain; cp. iugum, iungo. Line 11: perhaps the four points ⁞ should have been put after the next letter—kapiad⁞. But I believe that, as occurs elsewhere with other consonants, a d has been dropped before another d, and combine this suggestion with another (Warren, op. cit., 387)—that dota is an error of the inscriber for dato. Read therefore perhaps kapiad datov[e] (dotaq v. Grienberger). Line 12 looks as hopeless as line 4; if this could be read from left to right, and we could assume that are put wrong-side-forward, then perhaps . . . ir et im= . . . ir et eum (‘and him . . .’,
12 — . —
13 whoever this
14 covering neither
15 legitimate (or be . . . to Jupiter)
16 god . . . (or divine . . .)
i.e. the trespasser; cp. Twelve Tables, Remains, III, pp. 482, 502 im for eum); but it is clear that the line must be read from right to left. The reader must not be confused here; in the printed Latin text the words are put as though they did read from left to right. So in all cases where ← is used. The interpunctuation being so vague, I think we might well read iteris, old gen. of iter ‘walk,’ ‘way,’ ‘path.’ Lines 13–14: havelod is probably, however, one word. Line 15: iovestod seems to mean iusto ‘regular,’ ‘permitted,’ ‘legitimate.’ But perhaps there should be a space: Iovei estod. Note Paulus, from Festus, ‘iovistae’ compositum a love et iustae.’ Line 16: If we have the letters right (and this is doubtful), this line reads the same either way, if we ignore the uncertain separating point. But some insist that the letters are loivquiod; von Grienberger read louquiod and thinks it means’ appertaining to a grove’ (lucus). For various studies of this inscription, see Comparetti, Iscrizione arcaica del Foro Romano (1900): C.I.L., I, 2, pp. 367, 717; Rivista di sloria antica, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII. Bursian’s Jahrcsbericht, CXXVII, 257–280; CXLIV, 162 ff.; Ribezzo, R.I.-G.-I., XIV, 89; Stroux, Philologus, LXXXVI, 460 ff. There is also an interesting study by Warren, in A.J.P., XXVIII, 249 ff., 373 ff. He thinks the inscription protects a sacred grove or tree, and fills in the gaps by conjecture. Von Grienberger, Indog. Forsch., XXX, 210; XXXVII, 122, from a rubbing may have discovered a few more letters. Cf. also V. Pisani, Rendiconti dell’ Acc. dei Lincei, Sc. Morali, 1932, 735–744; and C.I.L., I, 2, 2, Fasc. III, 1943, page 831, where further studies are referred to. There are casts of the block in the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, the Mus. of Arch., Cambridge, and at Harvard and Johns Hopkins Universities.