Amati's positive assertion that they indicate loculorum ordines be received, for this is contrary to the experience of those who have personally examined the Catacombs. To me it seems evident that there is no sufficient reason for believing either that these numerals indicate the number of bodies buried within, or that the deceased were Martyrs. I can offer no satisfactory solution: it has seemed to me, however, not improbable that the numbers were the marks of workmen -the fossores or their assistants-who may have been paid according to the number of loculi excavated or of slabs put up. I have observed a similar notation in a Pagan epitaph, given by Orelli, n. 5008 :N. III. Id. Nov. Diis Manibus Didiæ Q. F. Quintinæ Luetina Priscus uxori optimæ V. A. XXVII. Labus remarks:-" Numero tertio, Idibus Novembribus: cioè la pietra, il cippo, il monumento ecc. era posto nel terren sacro al No. 3."

(c) Specimen of Palæography :

(See Plate III, 1.)

91.

(E coemet. Cyriaca, De Rossi, n. 21.) Decesit (decessit) Serotina pride (pridie) Kal. Martias m (ensium) X, dier(um) XX, Diocletiano) G (VI) [consule.]

"Serotina departed on the day before the Calends of March, (aged) ten months, twenty days, in the sixth Consulship of Diocletian," i. e. February 29th,

Diis Manibus. Publio Liberio, vixit annos numero V, menses numero III, dies numero VIII. Recessit Anicio Fausto et Virio Gallo (Consulibus).

"To the Gods the Manes. To Publius Liberius. He lived years in number five, months in number three, days in number eight. He retired (from this world) in the Consulship of Faustus and Virius Gallus, i. e. 298 a.d."

We have here an example of the use of the heathen formula D. M., Diis Manibus, in an epitaph that De Rossi and other scholars regard as Christian. I have noticed this anomaly in Part XI of my "Notes on Latin Inscriptions found in Britain" (Canadian Journal, X. p. 95),

and ascribed it either to thoughtless use of the form, produced by familiarity with it as the ordinary commencement of a sepulchral inscription, or to the fact, that grave-stones were kept for sale with these letters cut on them, and were purchased by Christians without consideration of their appropriateness. Fabretti insists that these letters when they occur in a Christian epitaph, stand for Deo Magno, or Deo Maximo; but there is no doubt that his opinion is erroneous, for the form is found, in at least one such inscription, in extenso, i. e. Diïs Manibus. See Orelli, n. 4458-4723, and compare Maitland, "Church in the Catacombs," pp. 59, 60, 61, who regards this inscription to Liberius as almost certainly Pagan.' The same view of it is taken by Roestel. I incline, however, to the belief that it is Christian. My reasons are that it was found in one of the Catacombs, that the stone was not broken, and that we find in the inscription the letter R used for recessit, requiescit, or reddidit. See Epitaph, n. 1. Maitland's version of this inscription is liable to just censure. In his text, he gives R before ANICIO, but takes no notice of it either in his translation or in his remarks. Again, the date is given by him as A. D. 98; and although one would be disposed to explain this error by supposing that 2 was accidentally omitted before 98, by a typographical mistake, it is impossible to accept this solution, for, in pp. 58, 59, he notices this inscription as of earlier date than two others, one of A.D. 102, and the other of A. D. 111. In Westropp's "Handbook of Archæology," p. 400, we have the same inscription, with the same neglect of R in translation, and with the date A. D. 102. The same author assigns A.D. 130 for the inscription relative to Marius, and A. D. 160 for that relative to Alexander, without sufficient ground for assigning either year.

The most remarkable of the Christian epitaphs, that have the heathen formula in the commencement, is a well known one to Leopardus, discussed by Fabretti, p. 574, and by Raoul Rochette, in a "Memoire sur les antiquités chrétiennes des catacombes," in Mem. de l'Académ. des inscript. et belles lettres, XIII.

The inscription, as given by Fabretti, stands thus:

DMA SACRVM XL

LEOPARDVM IN PACEM

CVM SPIRITA SANTA · ACCEP

TVM EVMTE ABEATIS INNOCINEM

POSVER PAR QAN· N · VII · MEN · VI1 ·

FE

In Raoul Rochette's *copy, we have evinte for eumte in the fourth line, and G for Q in the fifth. Mabillon discovered in this inscription a manifest reference to the rite of confirmation. Fabretti gravely corrects this interpretation, as he found in it a manifest reference to the rite of baptism! Raoul Rochette judiciously maintained that fneither was right. He remarks-"Il n'est question, dans ces expressions d'une latinitè barbare, d'aucun de ces sacrements de l'Eglise; ou reconnait une foule d' exemples de ces mots; cum spirito, ispirito, hispirito sancto, cum spirita sancta, altérés d'une manière plus ou moins vicieuse, et qui ne peuvent s'entendre que de l'ame même du chrétien, admise après la mort dans le séjour des bienheureux, en vertu de la synonymie connu des mots anima et spiritus, dans le Vocabulaire de la basse latinité." He closes his observations on the inscription by proposing the following expansion :

"Divis martyribus sacrum quadraginta
Leopardum in pace

cum Spiritu sancto accep

tum eumdem habeatis. Innocentem

posuerunt parentes. qui [vixit] annis VII, mensibus VII." It is very difficult to infer from the two copies that I have before me-viz., Fabretti's and Raoul Rochette's-the true reading of the inscription; but I entertain no doubt that both Mabillon's and Fabretti's interpretations should be rejected, and that Raoul Rochette's view as to cum spirita santa is correct. At the same time, his expansion-Divis Martyribus sacrum quadraginta—is clearly inadmissible. There is no authority in any epitaph for this rendering. Nor is there any reasonable doubt that the letters DMA stand for Diis Manibus,

* As given in Dictionnaire d' Épigraphie Chrétienne, ii. p. 758.

Lupi held the same opinion, viz., that there was no reference to either baptism or confirmation. He explains the 2d, 3d, and 4th lines thus: Leopardum in pacem (pace) cum Spirita Sancta (Spiritus Sanctos, Spiritibus Sanctis) acceptum eumte (eumdem) abeatis innocinem (habeatis innocentem). Corsini, Not. Græc. Diss. ii. p. xxxvi, rejects this view, and proposes the following as preferable:-Leopardum in pace cum Spiritu Sancto (the Holy Spirit). Acceptum eundem a Beatis (the Blessed) innocentem posuerunt Parentes.

I have given this whole expansion, as it appears in Dictionnaire d'Épigraphie Chrétienne, for I am unable to refer to the original article in the Mem. de l'Académie. I am not satisfied, however, that either the presence or the absence of the points is as Raoul Rochette intended: the authority of the Dictionnaire is not worth considering.

as Mabillon understood them; whilst the signification of XL, as I have observed in my note on Epitaph, n. 90, remains to be discovered. The rest of his expansion is probable, except the omission of numero after annis, which should be introduced, if Fabretti's punctuation be correct. But another, and a very remarkable, peculiarity of the inscription, hitherto unnoticed, remains to be considered—i. e. the use of the expression acceptum habeatis with the dedication Dis Manibus in a Christian epitaph. If we compare this with the words-Manes sanctissima [sic] commendatum habeatis meum conjugem in Orelli's n. 4775, a Pagan epitaph, and Sanctique tui Manes nobis petentibus adsint in Gruter's, 1061, 7, a Christian epitaph, there can, I think, be but little doubt that some Christians of the early ages retained some of the Pagan superstitions. See Mabillon, p. 75, and Morcelli, Stil. ii. 71, 72. To me it is plain, that whatever difference of opinion may arise as to the exact reading of this inscription to Leopardus, there can be no question that in it his parents asked the Di Manes, the Pagan deities of the unseen world after death, to receive with favor their innocent son. Nor can there be any doubt that the inscription is Christian, for this is proved by the use of the termsin pacem, cum spirita santa. On the latter see Epitaph, n. 42; and on the use of Christian terms in Pagan inscriptions, see notes on Epitaphs 49, 88.

(e) Specimen of Paleography:

(See Plate IV, 1.)

93.

(In Mus. Capitolin.; De Rossi, n. 50.

Anime (Anime) innocenti Gaudentiæ, que (quæ) vixit annos V, menses VII, dies XXII, in pace. Mercurius pater filiae d (epositæ) q idus Novemb. Urso et Polemio coss.

"To an innocent spirit Gaudentia, who lived five years, seven months, twentytwo days, in peace. Her father Mercurius for his daughter buried on the sixth day before the Ides of November, in the Consulship of Ursus and Polemius," i. e. November 8th, 338 A. D.

(f) Use of puer as applied to persons of mature age :—

VRSO ET POLEMIO CONSS NATVS PVER
NOMINE MERCVRIVS D IIII KAL APRILI
DEPOSITVS VII KAL SEPT· QVI VIXIT

ANN XXIIII · M · VII· DXV BENEM. INP

94.

(Pisauri; e coem. Urbis; De Rossi, n. 49.)

Urso et Polemio Consulibus, natus puer, nomine Mercurius, die IV Kalendas Apriles, depositus VII Kalendas Septembres, qui vixit, annos XXIV, menses VII, dies XV, benemerenti in pace.

"In the Consulship of Ursus and Polemius (i. e. 338 A.D.) a boy was born by name Mercurius, on the fourth day before the Calends of April (i. e. March 29th). Buried on the seventh day before the Calends of September (i. e. August 26th), who lived twenty-four years, seven months, fifteen days; to him well deserving in peace."

On first sight of this inscription, it seems strange that a person of twenty-four years of age should be called puer, and that he should be said to have been born and buried in the same year. The explanation is that natus is used with reference to birth by baptism, estimated by which Mercurius was but puer at the time of his death. See De Rossi's nn. 178, and 193.

(g) Mention of time of sickness before death :

menses

95.

PERPETVO BENEMERENTI IN PACE
QVI VIXIT AN NOS PLM XXX MEnses ...
DEPOSITVS IDVS APRILIS DEFVNctus ne
OFITVS PERIT IN DIES · V ·

Perpetuo bene merenti in pace, qui vixit annos plus minus XXX, Depositus Idus Aprilis (Idibus Aprilibus), defunctus neofitus (neophytus), perit in dies V, post Consulatu (Consulatum) Victoris et Valentiniani, Nobilissimi Pueri.

"To Perpetuus, well deserving, in peace, who lived thirty years more or less, months. Buried on the Ides of April (April 13th), died a neophyte, was sick for five days, in the year after the Consulship of Victor, and Valentinian, the most noble boy," i. e. 370 a. D.

rare.

1. 4. Perit in dies V. This notice of the period of sickness is very We have another example in De Rossi's n. 8:-vóonσev ýμépas B. 1. 5. Post consulatum Victoris et Valentiniani. It is strange that this form should be used to denote the year, instead of the ordinary form-Valentiniano III et Valente III-especially as we have examples of the use of this latter in Christian epitaphs of January and March. No satisfactory reason can be assigned for this variation, which is also used in other cases apparently capriciously.