JOHN BODEL

GraveyardsandGroves
A Study of the Lex Lucerina

Cambridge, Mass. 1994

 AMERICAN JOURNAL

OF

ANCIENT HISTORY

Volume 11 1986 [1994]

 In memoriam

John Knox Bodel

 CONTENTS

List of figuresandplates................................................................... vi
Preface ............................................................................................... vii

Introduction ....................................................................................... 1
The text ........................................................................................ 2

II. In hoce loucarid ................................................................................ 6

lucar ............................................................................................. 6
luci Libitinae ................................................................................ 13
lucar Libitinae ............................................................................. 18

III. The Romanlaw of sacredgroves...................................................... 24

IV. stircusne [qu]isfundatidnevecadaverproiecitad........................... 30

Romancivic regulations:stercusandcadavera......................... 32
The Esquilineburialgroundin Rome .......................................... 38
The publiccemeteryat Luceria ................................................... 54

V. neveparentatid.................................................................................. 60

VI. Conclusion: The lexLucerina .......................................................... 64

Appendix1: Productiveluci? .......................................................... 69

Appendix2: The lex libitinaria from Puteoli(AE 1971,88) ........... 72
Appendix3: Municipalpotter'sfields ............................................. 81

Notes ................................................................................................. 85

Index locorurn ................................................................................... 119

 FIGURES

Figure 1. The CampusEsquilinusbetweenthe Viminal and Esquiline

gates(After R. Lanciani,Forma UrbisRomae) ...................... 43

Figure 2. Schematic section showing archaeologicalstrata of the

Esquilineburial ground
(Reproducedwith permissionfrom L'archaeologiain Roma
capitale tra sterro e scavo (1983) 143, after R. Lanciani,
BCAR 3 (1875) Tav. XX) ........................................................ 46

Figure3. The CampusEsquilinussouthof the Esquilinegate

(Reproducedwith the kind permissionof Dr. Ruth Christine
Hiiuber of the Museum Ludwig and Prof. Dr. Hansgeorg
Hellenkemper of the R6misch-Germanisches Museum in
Cologne:seen. 163) ................................................................ 53

PLATES

1. LexluciSpoletina
(CIL 12366)
Drawingreproduced in CIL 12fromH. Jordan,Quaestiones
Umbricae
(1882) 17
(CourtesyWalter de Gruyter & Co.)

2. Edictof L. Sentius(CIL 12839)

A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae liberae rei publicae (Imagines)
(1965) 206a
(CourtesyWalter de Gruyter & Co.)

3. Senatus
consultum
depagoMontano(CIL 12591)
R. Lanciani, BCAR 3 (1875) Tav. XIX
(CourtesyComunedi Roma,RipartizioneX)

4. Fragmentof the lex libitinaria from Puteoli (AE 1971, 88), Museo
Nazionaledi Napoli photoneg. no. 2663
(Courtesy SoprintendenzaArcheologica per le province di Napoli e
Caserta)

All platesare betweenpp. 72 and 73.

 PREFACE

Unusualdelaysin productionhave held up until now publicationof this

essay,which was originally scheduledto appearin the springof 1991 as
volume 10.1 of the AmericanJournal of AncientHistory. The manuscript
was completedin the summerof 1989, and I hope not to have missed
muchof significancein the scholarlyliteraturepublishedup to late 1990.
Regrettably,I have not beenable to take accountof work that hascome to
my attentionsincethen,exceptto add a brief bibliographicalcitationhere
and there and to supply page referencesto the importantstudy of the
topographyof the Esquilinehill in Rome by Ruth ChristineH•iubercited
in note 163 and subsequently, which has now appearedin K6lner Jahr-
buchfiir Vor- und Friihgeschichte23 (1990) 11-107. My thanksto Dr.
H•iuber,who allowedme to seea copyof her work in advanceof publica-
tion, and to otherswhose assistanceinstrumentallyshapedthis studyinto
its presentform are recordedat the beginningof the notes,wherea list of
the workscited by abbreviatedtitle will alsobe found. If the delay in pub-
lication has broughtany gain, it is to have made me more fully conscious
of my debt,directand indirect,to JerzyLinderski,whoseexemplaryscho-
larship, sage advice, and unstintingencouragementhave guided my
explorationsinto the tangledundergrowthof Roman sacredlaw in more
ways than can here be mentioned. Needlessto say, neither he nor the
othergenerousscholarsacknowledgedat the beginningof the notescan be
heldresponsible for whateverdeficienciesor inaccuracies remain.

Providence J.B.
March 1993

vii
 I. Introduction *

In 1873 Mommsen set out from Berlin for Lucera (ancient Luceria) in
Apulia in order to examine a remarkable inscription that had been
published
someyearspreviously
in a localhistory.1Thetext,thoughshort
and virtually complete,presentedseveralpeculiaritiesof morphologyand
syntaxthatMommsenhopedto verify by autopsy,especiallysincethe first
editor, whosecompetencehe had reasonto doubt,had seenonly a tran-
scriptionof the text and had moreoverfailed in his edition to distinguish
illegiblelettersfrompointsbetween
words.
2 WhenMommsen
arrivedat
Lucera, he found the stone-•or what he believed to be the stone--
embeddedin the restoredfoundationsof a sixteenth-century palazzo with
the inscribedface hiddenfrom view. After rebukinghis local guidesfor
allowing such a valuable piece of their heritage to be so disgracefully
abused("erubueruntet tacuerunt",Mommsenreports),Mommsen set to
work to have the block removedfor inspection,enlistingin supportof the
cause the considerable influence of his Italian friends, G. Fiorelli and A.
De Gubematis.Two years later, however, when Mommsen publishedhis
own versionof the text, the stoneremainedin place; nor had Mommsen
beenable to examinethe handwrittencopyof the inscriptionmadeat the
timeof itsdiscovery:
theoriginalhadbeenlost.3
Renewed efforts to have the suspectstone brought to light were
mounted in 1903, shortly after Mommsen's death, and again in 1937,
whenthedilapidated
PalazzoBrunoin whichit waslodged,threatened
to
fall into ruins.Both attemptsfounderedin the face of bureaucraticfrugal-
ity and a persistentreluctanceon the part of the municipalauthoritiesto
discounta local tradition accordingto which the inscribedstonehad been
maliciouslyshatteredon the night following its discoveryin 1847. Since
1937, apparently,no new attemptsto extractthe ancientblock from the
foundations of the Palazzo Bruno have been undertaken, nor has new
information
regardingthe fate of the inscription
accrued.
4 We thus
dependfor our text uponthe versionof the first editor, G.B. D'Amelj, an
unhappysituationthat Mommsenaptly summarizedin his commentary:
"pendemusin egregio titulo ab editoris hominis parum accurati fide
typothetaqueprovinciali."

¸ 1993by E. Badian. All rightsreserved.

2 JOHN BODEL

The text

Below is a reproductionof the editioprinceps,followedby a transcription

of thetextanda basiccriticalapparatus.
5

IN' HOCE' LOVCARID ßSTIRCVS

NE'" IS- FVNDATID ßNEVE- CADAVER
PROIECITAD ßNEVE' PARENTATID
SEI- QVIS- ARVORSV ßHAC' FAXIT- ßßIVM
QVIS- VOLET ßPRO. IOVDICATOD ßNI
MANVM' INIECTO ßESTOD ßSEIVE
MAC"- STERATVS' VOLET- MOLTARE
..... CETOD ....

in hoce loucarid stircus

ne [qu]isfundatid nevecadaver
proiecitad neveparentatid.
sei quisarvorsuhacfaxit, [in] ium
quis voletpro ioudicatodn(umum)
manum iniect<i>o estod, seive
mac[ i]steratus volet moltare,
[li]cetod.

1 stercus Arangio-Ruiz, ex mendo typographico,ut vid. 2 ne[quis]

Degrassi,Prat. 2-3 funditod ... proiecitod ... parentatod scribendum
fuisse
opinatus
estBiicheler
apudCIL12401,Warmington.
3 proieciri'ad
Grienberger : proiecita<ti>d Ribezzo : proiecatid Hermann, Pisani,
Wallace. 4 arvorsu(m) Degrassi : arvorsu(s?) cf. Porzio Gemia /
[ceiv]iumtemptavitMommsenad CIL IX 782 (1883), sedad priussupple-
mentumreversusest in Strafr. (1899) 177 n. 2 et 811 n. 5: hoc postea
merito defenditInstinsky.5 NI acceptuma Grienbergeret Bruns,ZRG 12
(1875) 143 in sensu"n(ummum) (mille)", sed cf. Heurgon: L Ribezzo.
7 ma•g'[i]steratus Mommsen,ut vid.: mag[i]steratusDessau,Ribezzo,
Degrassi: mac[i]steratusBruns et reliqui, rectius,ut opinor, sive c pro g
stat ex usu antiquosive ex sermonisOscorumconsuetudine.8 [l]icetod
Ernout.

Despite the obvious orthographicalpeculiarities,the contentsof the

inscriptionare essentiallyclear, and Mommsen was able to provide a
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES

paraphraseof the text in classicalLatin: "In hoc luco stercusne quis

fundito, neve cadaver proicito, neve parentato. Si quis adversushoc
fecerit, in eum ei qui volet pro iudicatonummum(quinquaginta)manus
iniectio esto. Sive magistratusvolet multare, liceto." The inscription
recordsa local ordinanceprohibitingthree activities•umping dung (or
refuse), abandoningcorpses,and performing sacrificesin honor of the
dead--and prescribesa statutoryfine to be exactedfrom transgressors,
either by a privateparty on behalf of the populusor at a magistrate'sdis-
cretion.6
It needsto be saidat the outsetthat we have no very suremeansof dat-
ing the inscriptionother than the obvious indication provided by the
languagein which it is written, which presupposes an establishedRoman
presencein the area and thereforepointsto a period not earlier than the
foundingof the Latin colonyat Luceriain 314.7 The most widely
accepteddate, shortlyafter the Roman settlement,is possiblebut by no
meanscertain, sinceneitherthe linguisticcriteria on which it is (usually
tacitly) based nor the readingsto which they are regularly applied are
secure.
8 Nor doesthe contentof the text providea reliablebasisfor
assigninga date. The abbreviation"N" for n(ummi) (line 5), normally
taken to mean "sesterces",did not without further specificationcome to
designatethat denominationuntil the time of the Gracchi and here prob-
ablystands
instead
for thelocalbronzecoinage?Evenso,theestablish-
ment of a Roman mint at Luceria shortlyafter ca. 214 cannotbe taken as a
terminusante quem for the publicationof the Lucerian ordinance,since
the Romanmint flourishedonly briefly duringthe SecondPunicWar and
probably did not outlast the duration of the conflict; indeed, the local
Roman issues,which enjoyedonly limited circulation,seemto have been
specifically
adapted
to conformto thelocaldecimalsystem.
10
In short, the ordinancemight belong to any period after the formal
deductioof the colonydown to the Gracchanage, when Romaninterestin
the region as a sourceof land for veteransintensifiedand an ambitious
systemof centuriationwas imposedon the plainsof the Tavoliere around
Luceria.
11 Any datelaterthanthe endof the secondcenturywouldbe
difficult to sustain,sincecertainphoneticand morphologicalfeaturesof
the text, whether interpretedas dialectal or archaic, are seldom found
locallyin official inscriptions
datingfrom after the Gracchanperiod,when
an influxof new settlershastened
thefinalRomanization
of theregion.12
On balance,a date sometime in the third centuryseemsmostlikely, but in
the presentstateof our knowledgecertaintyis impossibleand dogmatic
assertionsare out of place.
4 JOHN BODEL

Interpretationof the text hinges on the word loucarid, which after

Mommsenhas been universallyunderstoodas a dialectalvariant of luco.
As is well known,in strictusageluci were by definitionsacredand there-
foreprotectedby sacrallaw againstprofanation
of anykind.13Mommsen
adduceda passage of thepraetor'sedictenunciating
thegeneralprinciple:
"in loco sacrofacere inve eum immitterequid veto" (Dig. 43.6.1.pr.
(Ulp. 68 ad ed.)), and this has generally been taken to confirm his
interpretation
of theLucerian
lawasalex sacra.•4
Theinscription
thushas
seemedto belongin the companyof the relatively few epigraphically
attestedRomanlegessacraeandhasbeenwidelyregardedas oneof only
two lawsin theLatinlanguageconcerning
theprotectionof sacredgroves
to have come down to us from antiquity.
•5 Indeed, Mommsen's
identificationseemsnever to have been questioned;discussionof the
inscriptionsincehis day hasinsteadcenteredon the languageof the text
and on the legal issuesraisedby the provisionfor privateactionrecorded
in thepenultimate
clause.
16Linguists
andlegalscholars
haveunderstand-
ably pursuedtheir specializedinterests,and the termsof the debatehave
thereforeinevitablybeenrathernarrowlydefined.As a resultcertainfun-
damentaldifficultieswith Mommsen'sinterpretation--lexical,legal, and
logical--have never been adequatelyaddressedfrom a broaderhistorical
perspective.In whatfollowsI shalltry to settheLucerianinscriptionmore
accuratelyin its historicalcontextby comparingits contentswith thoseof
similartextspreservedfrom antiquityandby drawingthe necessary con-
clusionsfor thelaw's originalpurpose.
I will arguethat the ordinancepertainsto civil ratherthanto sacredlaw;
thatit waspostedin a graveyardratherthana sacredgrovein theproper
sense;and thatits purposewasnot to protecta sacredareafrom pollution
but to markoff a publicareain the middleof a cemetery(possiblyfor use
by thelocalundertakers asa headquarters)andto prohibitfurtheruseof the
site as a burial ground--in short,that the concernof the lawmakerswas
urbanmanagementand the profitableexploitationof public land, not reli-
gion. The Lucerianlaw will be shownto includenoneof the regulations
normallyassociatedwith the protectionof sacredgroves(ChapterIII);
instead,the prohibitions againstdumpingrefuseand abandoning corpses
findparallelsin an entirelydifferentsphere:policingregulations enactedin
conjunctionwith the closingof a sectionof the Esquilineburialgroundat
Rome (Chapter IV). The archaeologicalcontext in which the Lucerian
stone was found confirmsthat the inscriptionwas indeed erectedin a
cemetery,andthefinalinjunctionagainstperformingpropitiatorysacrifices
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 5

to deceasedancestorsshowsthat the lawmakers'intentionin part was to

prohibitreligiousobservances to the deadat a placewherethey had previ-
ously been permitted(ChapterV). Such activitieshad never been sanc-
tionedor, as far as we know, ever performedin Romanluci sacri. If the
Lucerianlaw was intendedto protecta sacredgrove,it was a groveunlike
anyotherin the Romanworldandthe measures takento safeguardits san-
city were singularlydefective.Our discussionmustbegin with the term
loucarid, which constitutesthe sole basis of Mommsen's original
identificationof the law as alex sacra; for if the generallyacceptedequa-
tion loucarid= luco (in the sense"sacredgrove")shouldproveto be less
simpleand direct than it has seemed,then we shall be obligedto recon-
siderthe remainingcontentsof the inscriptionin a new light.
 II. In hoce loucarid

A third-declension neuter i-stem noun *loucar (whether Oscan or Latin)

derived from Italic *loukos (=lucus, old Latin loucos; cf. Oscan loc.
l•vkei (Vetter 81)) and appearinghere with the Oscan(or perhaps,on the
analogyof the terminations-od and -ad, old Latin) ablativeending-id has
been plausiblypositedon the basisof similar Oscan/Latinpairs and the
existencein classicalLatin of a neuternounlucar, which later grammari-
ansassociated
withlucus.
17A hybridOsco-Latin
formwouldnotbeoutof
place in the Lucerian ordinance,which containsa number of dialectal
peculiarities attributable to the influence of the native Oscan-speaking
population, nor does the presumed equation loucar = lucus present
morphological
difficulties.
28
What complicatesmattersconsiderably,however,is the usagein classi-
cal Latin of the neuternoun lucar, a term of quite different meaning,or
perhapsmeanings:revenueallocatedfor public entertainmentsand reve-
nue associatedwith the goddessLibitina. Whether thesetwo definitions
canbe relatedto eachotheris a questionthat will be consideredpresently;
for the momentwe need ask only what bearing,if any, either has on lucar
in the presumedsense"sacredgrove". The possibilitythat two entirely
different words are involved, one related to lucus, the other of obscure
origin (so OLD, s.v.), cannot be excluded; but homonyms of such
divergentapplicationare rare in Latin, and historicalas well as linguistic
probabilityarguesin favor of a commonderivationof the two terms. A
chronological review of the evidencefor Latin lucar will help to elucidate
the original meaningof the word.

lucar

If for the moment we ignore the form loucarid preservedin the Lucerian
text, which is generallyregardedas the earliestattestationof the term, the
firstoccurrence of lucar (conjecturalbut almostcertain)is in a fragmentary
inscriptionfound near Beneventumand datableto shortlyafter the Social
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES '7

War. Mommsen restoredthe text as follows: L. Septum[iusL. f.] / L.

Coceiu[s
L. f] / 1111vi[r(i) i(ure)d(icundo)]
/ [l]ucarr[elluri ?] /5 d(e)
s(enatus)s(ententia)[--- ].19Mommsen's plausiblerestoration [l]ucar
in the fourthline is explicitlybasedon the form loucaridin the Lucerian
text; hence his tentative suggestionfor completingthe end of the line,
T[elluri?], entirelydependsuponhis interpretationof the latter as a dialec-
tal variantof luco. In fact,no other"groveof Tellus"is attestedanywhere
in the Romanworld, nor (perhapsnot surprisingly)is a cult of Tellus oth-
erwise known at Beneventum. In view of the later association of lucar
with moneys spent on public entertainments(see below), the line might
betterbe restored[l]ucar t[heatro],"moneyfor an auditorium".Beneven-
rum is not knownto havehad a permanentstonetheaterbeforethe time of
Hadrian, and the temporarywooden structuresemployedfor seatingat
public spectaclesbefore that time must have been replacedperiodically,
no doubtat publicexpense.
2ø Certainlynothingin the Beneventan
text
provides the slightestindication what businessinvolving the lucar two
municipalmagistrateswere undertakingin accordancewith a decree of
the local senate? The most that can be surmised from the context is that
lucar, whateverits sense,camewithin the purviewof the local ordo decu-
riohum.
It is uncertainwhichof the remainingtwo documentaryoccurrencesof
lucar precedesthe other. A well-known honoraryinscriptiondiscovered
at Portus but no doubt erected at Ostia to commemorate the munificence
of P. Lucilius Gamala, a local magistratewho flourished (probably)
between ca. 95/90 and 65/60, records that "when he had officially
receivedthe lucar for games,he remitted it and made the outlay from his
own funds": ... in ludos cum accepissetpublic(e) / lucar, remisit et de
suoerogati/onem
fecit .... 22 Theoriginalinscription
honoring
Gamala's
servicesmust have been set up some time during the final years of the
Republic, but our text seemsto derive from a later copy carved, and
perhaps
slightlyaltered,duringtheearlyImperialperiod.
23 Whetherthe
phraseconcerningthe lucar, andthe useof the term itself,belongsto the
Republicanor to the Imperialversion,or to somecombinationof both,we
cannotsay. It is at any rate clear from this text, whateverits date, that
lucarwasa sumof moneyprovidedby the state(or local governingbody)
to magistrates
(or otherofficials)?andit wasintended
for theirusein
sponsoring public games.
Both pointsare consistentwith the appearanceof the term in a decreeof
the senatepartiallypreservedon a fragmentof a marbleinscriptionrecord-
ing the acta of the SecularGamescelebratedby Augustusin 17. Momm-
senheld, and almostall subsequent scholarsagreed,that the decreeof the
8 JOHN BODEL

senate in which lucar was discussed,though immediately preceding a

senatusconsulturnof 17 in the acta, in fact pertainedto the SecularGames
of Claudius (AD 47) or Domitian (AD 88), the earlier documenthaving
been invoked as a precedentand subsequentlyincorporatedwholesale.A
decadeago, however,M.A. Cavallaroadvanceda strongcasefor assign-
ing bothdecreesto the celebrationin 17, and now two new fragmentsfirst
publishedin 1984, one nearly contiguouswith the earlier fragment,estab-
lish beyonddoubt that the text recordstwo senatusconsultaconcerning
the gamesof Augustus,one of 18 regardingthe amountof lucar to be
authorized,the otherof 17 February17 regardingthe locatioof the games
themselves. Here are the relevant sections of the combined text of the ear-
lier decree,with the mostrecenteditor's supplements;passagespreserved
in thenewfragment
areprintedin boldface:
25

ß../[quod P. Lentulus,Cn. Lentulus]co(n)s(ules)v(erba)f(ecerunt)

de lucari ludorum sa[ec]ularium de quibus proxime decretum
esset, / [uti sequentianno] fierent, q(uid) d(e) e(a) r(e) f(ieri)
p(laceret), d(e) e(a) r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt): uti, quoniam <in>
ant[i]queis libreis non invenitur qua summa soliti /
[simus ludos locare] saeculares, XV vir(is) sacr(is) faciund(is) in
summaconstitu[a]tur quae saeerdotum eonlegis et quae
nuper / [aug(uribus)pro ludis] quospro salute Caesarisfecerunt
lucarisnominecons[ti]tuta est, uti eo(n)s(ules) praetoribus
quei aerario / [praesu]ntinperentuti earnpecuniamdandam
adtribuendam [cu]rent ....

In deliberatingthe amountof the lucar to be expendedon the Augustan

Secular Games, the senate in 18 was unable to find in the ancient records
(antiqueilibrei) whatsumshadbeenallocatedfor SecularGameson earlier
occasions(that is, accordingto the Augustanreckoning,in 456, 346, 236,
and 126 BC) and thereforedecidedto allot to the XVviri for the Augustan
celebrationas muchas had beengranted[when?]to the collegesof priests
(the quattuoramplissimasacerdotia)andrecently(nuper)to the sponsors
of the ludipro valetudine
Caesaris,lastheldin 20.26 It is perhaps
not
surprisingthatresearchin thesenatorialarchives(whatevertheircharacter)
failed to disclosethe amountsexpendedon previousSecularGames,espe-
cially if the inquiry wasrestrictedto the yearsordainedby the new Augus-
tan calculations,which missedthe true datesof the two precedingcelebra-
tionsby morethana decadein eachcase? To speakof the moneys
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 9

disbursedon any of theseoccasionsas lucar is perhapsanachronistic--the

new text tells us nothingon this point one way or the other--but the use of
the term in the preambleof the sc of 18 de lucari ludorumsa[ec]ularium
and the formal phraselucaris nominecons[ti]tuta(sc. summa)in reference
to the ludi pro salute Caesaris in 20 show that by the early years of
Augustusthe word had acquiredthe value of a technicalterm and was
thusused in official documentsto describethe allotmentsestablishedby
the senateto financepublic games.
It is sometimessupposed,mistakenly,that Tacitus employs the term
lucar in a more restrictedsenseto mean "actors' wages". In the first book
of his Annalsthe historianrelatesthat in the year followingthe deathof
Augustus the senate passed several measuresdesignedto curb violent
disordersassociatedwith the stage, among which de modo lucaris et
adversuslasciviamfautorum multa decernuntur(Ann. 1.77.5). Lucar here
is regularlyelucidatedby comparisonwith a passagein Suetonius'Life of
Tiberius (34.1) in which it is said that Tiberius reducedthe expenseon
public entertainments(ludorum ac munerum impensascorripuit) by
lowering the actors' pay (mercedibusscaenicorumrecisis); hence, it is
inferred,lucar in Tacitusrefersspecificallyto the wagespaid to perform-
ers.28ButSuetonius
goesontoaddthata limitalsowassetonthenumber
of gladiatorialpairs allowed at any one exhibition (paribusquegladia-
torurnad certumhumerumredactis).In this casetherecan be no question
of a reductionin pay to the performers;at issueis the total outlay--private
outlay, it may be noted,rather than public expenditure,sincegladiatorial
showshad not been sponsoredby the statesinceAD 6, when Augustus
abolishedthe traditional subsidiesgranted to praetorsserving as edi-
tores.29
In fact, the contextsof the two passages
are quitedifferent:in Tacitusthe
issue is theatri licentia (Ann. 1.77.1) and social control (1.77.5); in
Suetonius,the topicis Tiberius'notoriousfrugality,bothprivateand pub-
lic. Moral legislationand cost-cuttingmeasuresoften went hand in hand
duringtheJulio-Claudian
period,especially
underTiberius,
3øbutthatdoes
not mean that their objectiveswere identical. Public grantsto supportthe
performingartswere not regardedasequivalentto the performers'salaries
in antiquityany more thantoday,althoughthen, as now, a substantialpor-
tion of the moneysdisbursedmay well have goneto that purpose.The two
conceptsare relatedbut not synonymous.If the passagein Suetoniushas
any bearingon the usageof lucar in Tacitus,surelyit is not to suggestthat
the term is there applied exclusivelyto actors' wages,but to indicatea
logical connection between the reduction of public expenditure
lO JOHN BODEL

on entertainments
and a corresponding
loweringof the performers'pay.
Not until the turn of the second and third centuries AD do we find clear
evidence of lucar used loosely (and metaphorically) in reference to a
performer'swages.Tertullianin the Scorpiacewritesthat Johnthe Baptist
was insultinglybeheadedin payment(lucar) to the dancerSalome:con-
tumeliosa caede truncatur in puellae salticae lucar (adv. Gnost. 8.3; cf.
Matth. 14.6-11, Mark 6.22-28). A specific associationof lucar with
theatricalperformancesemergesonly from late glossaries,where the more
generalsenseof the term also is attestedand where the word is remark-
ablywellrepresented.
31
Thus far the financialprovenance(statecoffers)andpurpose(to finance
public shows--particularly,perhaps,theatrical performances)of lucar.
From what sourcedid the moneysderive? Ancient etymologistsassoci-
ated the term with lucus--naturally, in view of their methods,since no
other Latin word providesa suitableroot. Plutarch,in his Roman Ques-
tions 88 (= Mor. 285D), gives the most explicit (and thereforemost tran-
sparent)explanation:"Why do they call the moneyexpendeduponpublic
spectacleslucar? Is it becauseroundaboutthe city thereare, consecrated
to gods,many groveswhich they call luci, and they usedto spendthe
revenuefrom theseon the publicspectacles?".
32 As Mommsenwryly
observed,thisis not evidencebut a speciousetymologydesignedto justify
the accepted
meaningof the term.33 The samecanbe saidof the tes-
timony of PompeiusFestus,the only other sourcethat directly associates
lucar with lucus. Accordingto Festus,lucar is the name given to money
obtainedfrom groves: lucar appellaturaes quodex luciscaptatur. Festus
also recordsan adjectival form, lucaris, in the phrase lucaris pecunia,
which, he says,means"moneygiven in a grove" (or "the" grove): lucaris
pecunia,quae in luco erat data (Paul. exc. Fest. 106 L.).
The popularetymologyof lucar handeddown by Plutarchand Festus
probablyderivesfrom VerriusFlaccus,whoseencyclopaedic De verborum
significatuwas mined no lessthoroughlyby the Greek polymaththan by
theRomanepitomizer.
34 Needless
to say,nothingguarantees
thecorrect-
nessof the explanation;the mostthat can be said is that the derivationof
lucar in the sense"moneysexpendedon public games"had apparently
become obscurealready by the Augustanage. The change of tense in
Plutarch'sexplanation(•(o•tv ... •ctx•x)•ot... &vfiX.to,cov)
in any event
showsthat, whateverhad beenthe caseearlier, in his day the Romansdid
not spendrevenuefrom sacredgroveson spectacles.Did they at any time?
We may reasonably inquire whether, semantic difficulties aside, the
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 11

essentialpremise--that the moneysspenton public gamesderived from

the income from sacredgroves--is plausible.In what way, it may be
asked, did luci furnish revenue to the state?
Two theorieshave been proposed,each of which will be considered
presently,but first it will be necessaryto disposeof a view originally
espousedby Marquardtand subsequentlyadoptedby Wissowa and others,
accordingto which Roman luci can be categoricallydivided into two
types:income-producing
publicwoodlands(Staatswaldungen) and groves
thatweretrulysacred(lucisacri)andtherefore
sacrosanct.
35 In fact,such
a distinctionis neitherplausiblenor necessary.As far as we can tell, no
authorbeforeVirgil usesthe term lucusof anythingbut a sacredgrovein
the strict sense--indeed,lucus seemsto have acquiredthe value of a
technicalterm meaning"sacredgrove" alreadyby the time of Cato and
was used predominantlyin that senseby prose authorsthroughoutthe
classical
period.
36 Furthermore,
as a passage
of Frontinus'
treatiseDe
controversiisagrorum informs us, the soil in which sacredgrovesgrew
legally belongedto the state:... lucossacros... quorumsolurnindubi-
tate p(opuli) R(omani) est (p. 56 La. = Corp. Agr. p. 48 Th.; see below,
n. 227). This accordswith the Roman conceptof the sacrumas being
closelyattachedto the earth,so muchso that the earthunderlyingsacred
placesremainedsacrosanct even after the destructionor removalof any
res sacraelocateduponit and couldonly be renderedprofaneby the for-
mal rite of profanatio.In contrastto the innatesanctityof the soil, how-
ever, revenue generatedby productivepropertiesbelongingto sacred
placesor by sacredplacesthemselveswas consideredprofaneand could
be alienated,providedit was usedfor the improvementof the placefrom
which it derived? The theoreticaldistinctionbetween res sacrae and res
publicaedid not extendto the legal administration of public and sacred
properties,which was conductedby the same authorities(magistrates
ratherthanpriests)
andaccording
to thesamebasicprecepts.
38 In princi-
ple, at least,a groveneednot havebeensecularin orderto yield income
for the state.The dichotomypositedby MarquardtandWissowathusfinds
no supportin the ancientevidenceand no religiousor legal necessity
requiresit.
On theotherhand,the legitimatedifficultyof reconcilingtheapparently
conflictingtestimonyof our sourcesis not adequatelymet by the popular
theorythat sacredgrovesprovidedrevenuefrom the saleof the wood that
wastheirmainnatural
asset.
39Whileit isnodoubttruethat,beginning
in
thelateRepublic,thevalueof timberat Romerosesteadilyin response
to
thedemandsof a growingpopulationandevermoreambitiouspublicand
12 JOHN BODEL

private buildingprojects,centralItaly was well-forested,and the public

timberlandsaccessiblevia the waterwaysof the Tiber basin were evi-
dentlysufficientto meetthe needsof thecapitaluntil well into the Empire:
it is difficult to believe that the Romans systematicallydepletedthe
resourcesof their sacredgroveswhile secularwoodlandswere still abun-
dant.
4ø More important,the literaryand documentary
sourcesare in
agreementthat any useof the woodgrown in a sacredgroveotherthanfor
sacralpurposeswas a violationof the grove'ssanctityand thereforepun-
ishableunderbothhumanand divine law (seebelow, pp. 25 f.). We may
readily grant that wood fallen or prunedin a sacredgrove in the natural
courseof upkeepmay occasionallyhave been soldin orderto help defray
cult expenses,
4• but the modestprofitsrealizedby thatpracticecannot
accountfor the vast expendituresof lucar on public games;for that we
need to imagine systematiclogging on a scalethat would quickly have
resultedin the eliminationof many sacredwoodlands.That the Romans
thusexploitedtheir luci economicallyin a mannercontraryto the princi-
ples of their own professedreligiousbeliefsis inherentlyunlikely; in the
absenceof any explicit evidencethat they in fact did so, we may safely
assumethat they did not.
Less easy to assessis an alternateview accordingto which lucar was
the incomeaccruingto the statefrom donations
madein groves.
42 We
need not doubtthat objectsof value were from time to time dedicatedin
sacredgroves,just as they were in othersacredareas,or that any proceeds
resultingfrom their saleor leasebelongedto the state.
43 But whether
incomefrom that sourcewouldhavebeensufficient,andsufficientlyregu-
lar, to financeannualgamesthat after the SecondPunic War constituted
an increasinglyheavy financialburdenuponthe stateis considerablyless
certain.
44 Thatwe knowof no stipsor othermechanism
by whichcontri-
butionsin sacredgrovesmighthavebeenencouragedon a regularbasisis
perhaps
notsurprising.
45 But it is remarkable,
if theincomefromsacred
groveswas as substantialas it is regularly assumedto have been, that the
literary and documentarysourcesprovideno clear indicationof the means
by which this incomewasprocured.
A corruptversefrom Lucilius' earliestbookcommonlyemendedto read
lucorumexactoremAlbanumetfulguritarum arborum (644 M. = 719 W. =
678 K. = 26.22 Ch.; codd.:luporumexauctoremmalvanumetfulguritatem
[fulguritarum: corr.] arborum) was taken by Marx (who retained exauc-
torem) to refer to somebusinessactivity of the publicani;Cichoriuscon-
curred and assignedthe fragmentto a putative Geleitsatireintroducing
Lucilius' first collection(Books26-30).46 More recentopinionhas
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 13

inclinedtowardcautionconcerningboth the placementand the interpreta-

tion of the fragment--the latesteditor,F. Charpin,printsBticheler'splau-
sibleconjecture
sanctorum
fortheproblematic
exauctorem47--but
evenif
we acceptthat Luciliusattestsa publicanexactor"of the Alban groves",
we are no closer to explainingthe nature of his employment. He may
have been a tax-collectorprofiting from the collection of an otherwise
unattestedpayment(vectigal)requiredof thoseenteringsacredgroves,or
he may have been an overseerhiring out his custodialservicesand thus
undertakinga chargemoreakin to that of thosewho contractedto provide
other sacredservicesto the state (part of the so-called ultro tributa) than
of those who farmed the public revenues:the normal use of the genitive
withexactorsuggests
thelatter,
48butin thepresent
stateof theevidence,
certaintyis impossible.Apart from this one enigmaticfragmentof Luci-
lius, the sourceshave left no trace of the meansby which sacredgroves
couldhaveproducedrevenuefor the state.
Indeed, with one importantexceptionto be consideredpresently,there
is no firm evidencethat they did: the literary passagesthat have been
adducedto show that luci were productiveof revenue turn out upon
inspection
to indicatenothingof the kind? What is more,evenif we
grantthat sacredgrovesprovideda regularsourceof incomein a manner
that we are no longerable to recover,andthat the proceedswere known as
lucar, it may be askedhow the expenditureof this lucar on publicgames
can be reconciledwith the well-established principleaccordingto which
surplusrevenuefrom sacredplaceswas to be spentonly on activitiesor
materialimprovementsassociatedwith the placesfrom which the revenue
derivedri
ø The relationship
betweenluci andthe publicspectacles
is not
immediately obvious, and Mommsen's suggestionthat in strict usage
lucar perhapsapplied only to the moneys spent on sacerdotalgames,
though
possibly
true,doesnotsufficeto explaintheconnectionil
1

luci Libitinae

In fact, we know of only one grovein the Roman world that returnedreve-
nue on a regularbasis,and it seemsto have been unusualin a numberof
ways. Accordingto Dionysiusof Halicarnassus(4.15.5) the annalistL.
CalpurniusPiso recordedthat, prior to institutingthe censusfor which he
waslaterrenowned,King ServiusTullius,wishingto know the population
of the city andthe numberof thosewho werebornor passedinto manhood
14 JOHN BODEL

or died every year, prescribeda coin to be paid by relatives for each

transition--into the treasuryof Ilithyia (i.e. Juno Lucina) for births, into
that of Juventasfor the comingof age of youths,and for deaths,"into the
treasuryof Venusin theGrove,whomtheycall Libitina"(etq•51; zbvzfiq
'Aq)po•J{'rq•
('rfi•)•:v 6•oet •c0t0t•Jpt)l,t•vq•,
•lV •poo0t¾ope6ot)ot
At[•t'r•-
vqv). We neednot concernourselveswith the origin of this hybridVenus
Libitina,muchlessof Libitinaherself?
2 for the presentpurposeit is
enough to recognize that by Varro's day the two entities were related
through
thepresence
in thelucusLibitinaeat Romeof a treasury
(0qo0tt)-
p6q) of Venus, and that the originalreasonfor the association,
by then
obscure,
hadbecome
a matterfor learnedspeculation.
53
That an actual death-registerexisted in historical times seemsto be
confirmed by Suetonius,who reports that during one plague-ridden
autumn under the emperor Nero, "thirty thousand deaths came into
Libitina's account":trigintafunerurnrnilia in rationernLibitinae venerunt
(Nero 39.1; cf. Oros. 7.7.11). Suetoniuswas not prone to metaphorical
expression,and we have every reasonto believe that his referenceto an
"account"of Libitina was basedon fact. Scatteredliterary testimonypur-
porting to recordthe mortality rate per day at Rome in times of pestilence
showsthat Romanauthoritiesof the early Empire attemptedto keep track
of the numberof deaths?anda passing
reference
in Livy to annales
funesti perhapsprovides an indication of what the records may have
looked like. In lamentingthe dismal silenceof his sourcesregardingthe
controversialdate of the consulshipof A. CorneliusCossus,Livy remarks
that a three-yearperiod without war encompassing the crucial year 426
providedso little material worthy of inclusionin the public recordsthat
"certain annals,like deathregisters,supplynothingbut the namesof the
consuls":quidam annales velut funesti nihil praeter nornina consulurn
suggerant (4.20.9). The salient point of comparisonseems to be the
recordingof bare namesin lists with little, if any, other informationsup-
plied.
Plutarch,who explicitly identifiesLibitina as the goddessof funerals
(Nurn. 12.1-2), suppliesthe rather vague information that "things for
burial"(•& •pb• •&• •atpti•)weresoldin herprecinct?andLatinauthors
of the early Empireemphasizethe closeassociation
of Libitina andher ser-
vants,the undertakers,
with revenueandprofits.
56 For obviousreasons
archaeologists
placeher grovein the vicinityof thepublicburialgroundon
theEsquiline
outside
theServianagger,
57butnoneof oursources
provides
a firm topographicalindication.Three funeraryinscriptionsof late Repub-
lican date mentionthe area of the grove of Libitina as an origo of the
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 15

dedicants--fromwhich we may infer that the site was a recognizedland-

mark,capableof lendingits nameto an entireneighborhood--butnoneof
theepitaphs
givesa clueastothegrove'slocation.
58
Until 1966 little more was known aboutthe lucusLibitinae or the pro-
fessional undertakers, libitinarii, whose name reflects their association
withthedeity? In thatyearLucioBovepublished
a pairof remarkable
inscriptionsdiscoveredat Pozzuoliand Cuma recordingpartsof two simi-
lar municipallegeslibitinariae that inform us in considerabledetail about
the arrangementscontractedlocally for conductingburialsand executions,
publicandprivate,withintheterritoryof thecolony.
© Amongotherpro-
visions regulating the businesspractices of the contractor,the texts
prescribefixed feesfor specificservicesand establishstringentguidelines
concerningthe maintenanceand conductof the workers in his employ.
The mostimportantof thesefor our purposesis the clausepreservedin the
text from Puteolirestrictingtheirplaceof residence:oper(ae)quaeat earn
r(em) praeparat(ae) er(unt) ne intra turfera ubi hodielucusestLibit(inae)
habitent.
6• Bovedulynotedthe existence
of a lucusLibitinaeat Rome,
but M. Frederiksenwas the first to point out that the Puteolangrove, like
severalotherlocal institutionsand topographicaldesignations reminiscent
of thoseat the capital,was no doubtdirectlymodeledon its Romancoun-
terpartand,like them,wasthereforeprobablyan innovationof the Augus-
tanageassociated
withthefounding
of theJuliancolony.
62 Manyindica-
tions show that by the early Empire the urbantopographyof Puteoli had
acquiredthe aspectof a parva Roma, and we can feel confidentthat the
local grove of Libitina originatedin what is by now a well-documented
patternof institutionalimitationof the capital;but whetherPuteoli'slucus
Libitinae, like its Forum Augusturnand Temple of Mars Ultor, emerged
only in the wake of Augustan colonization is considerablyless certain.
Nothing we know about the institution itself suggestsany particular
relevanceto the motivesunderlyingAugustus'administrativereorganiza-
tion of the capitalor his specificattentionsto the Campanianregion,and
thereis furthermoresomereasonto believethatthe Puteolaninscriptionin
which the local grove of Libitina is attestedwas carvedat a date closerto
the Sullanperiod(seeAppendix2).
Be that as it may, the institutionalparallelismthat links Rome to Puteoli
makesit possible,once allowanceis made for the inevitablevariationsdue
to thedifferentadministrative systemsof thetwo cities,to extrapolatefrom
the circumstances attestedat one what mostlikely were the similarcondi-
tions prevailing at the other. Of course we cannot be certain that our
16 JOHN BODEL

inferenceswill in every casebe correct,but if a comparisonof what is

known independentlyabout the two luci Libitinae should produce a
coherentpictureof the undertakingprofessionat Rome and Puteoli,then
thereis no reasona priori to doubtits basicvalidity.
Two clausesin the text from Puteoli,when consideredtogetherin the
light of the literary evidenceconcerningthe grove of Libitina at Rome,
enableus to see how the lucusLibitinae alone of all grovescould have
producedsubstantialregularincomefor the state. First, accordingto the
termsof the contractfor the funeraryconcessionat Puteoli,residentsof
the town were apparentlyforbiddeneitherto leavea corpseunburiedor to
contractwith anotherparty than the mancepsto seeto its disposal,pro-
videdthat the mancepshad not beenderelictin his duty.63 In another,
more grisly passagespecifyingthe instrumentsand servicesthat the con-
tractor is requiredto provide to the colony free of charge,the task of
ceremoniouslydraggingthe corpsesof malefactorsubi plura cadavera
erunt is mentionedexplicitly (P. II 13-14). We may safely assumethat
one of the clausesnow lost similarlyrequiredthe mancepsto removeany
otherunclaimedcorpses(e.g., thoseof unknownor unaffiliatedstrangers,
indigents,and perhapsservi publici), possiblywith someform of reim-
bursement
stipulated
undercertaincircumstances.
64Takentogether,
these
provisionsnot only ensurethe contractora virtualmonopolyin the funeral
trade, they also provide the governingbody with an effective de facto
mechanism
for monitoring
thenumberof deathswithintheterritory.
65
Secondand more important,the Puteolanlaw twice refers specifically,
if imprecisely,to the locationwherethe undertakeris requiredto conduct
his business:prospectiveclientsare advisedto registerformally (denun-
tiare) their requestsfor serviceseither in personwith the mancepsor his
surrogate,or s(i) is praesensnon erit, ad eum loc(um) / quem libitinae
exsercend(ae)gratia conduct(um)constituturm TM
habeb(it) (P. II 16-17;
constitutuelapis: constitut(um)ve Bove). For his part, the mancepsis
requiredto postthe text of the undertakingcontracteo loco quemeius r[ei
exsercend(ae)] / gr[atia cond]uct(um) constitutum babebit u(nde) d(e)
p(lano)r(ecte)l(egi)p(ossit)(P. III 20-21).66 Bovesuggested
thata cen-
tral location,perhapsin the forum,wouldhavebeenset aside? but it
seemsmore likely that the area at Puteolireservedfor negotiatingburial
contracts,at which the mancepswas obliged to publish his rates,
correspondsto that in Rome where funeral equipmentand serviceswere
hired and deathswere officially registered--thatis, the lucusLibitinae.
If a late (and admittedlynot always reliable) sourceis to be believed,
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 17

funeraldirectors(dissignatores)
are explicitlyattestedtransacting
business
at thegroveof Libitinain Rome.
68 The phraselibitinamexercerein the
Puteolanlaw shouldin any caserefer to the entireenterpriseof undertak-
ing, as it evidentlydoesin the only passagein Latin literaturein which it
occurs,
69ratherthansimplyto thenegotiating
of contracts;
indeed,
a clear
distinctionis drawnelsewherein the Puteolanlaw betweenarrangingto
conducta funeral,for which the standardlanguageof locatio/ conductio
contractsis employed,and actuallyperformingthe servicesof undertaker,
whereprecisely
theverbexercere
is used.
TMThereis no needto posita
multiplicityof undertakingofficesat Puteoli;what little evidencewe have
points to the conclusionthat the lucus Libitinae and the locus libitinae
exercendaegratia conductusconstitutuswere one andthe same.
That the groveof Libitinais not mentionedby namein the passages of
the Puteolanlaw in questiondespiteits havingbeen specifiedearlier in
referenceto the residentialrestrictionsimposedon the undertaker'swork-
men presentsno obstacleto this view: in the latter case the lawmakers
were concernedto identify a recognizablelandmarkand naturallyreferred
to an existingstructure(ubi hodielucusestLibitinae;seeabove,p. 15 and
n. 62); in the formercasetheiraim wasto projecta generalsituation;con-
sequently,they left openthe possibilitythat the undertaker'sheadquarters
would not always be situatedin the same location (loc(um) quem ...
conduct(um)constitutumhabebit). For the same reasonthe area where the
corpsesof condemnedcriminalswere to be disposedof is identifiedonly
vaguelyas a place ubi plura cadaveraerunt (P. II 13-14); as we shall see
(below,pp.51-54), the archaeological and literaryevidenceconcerning
the Esquilineburialgroundat Romesuggests thatsuchplaceswere moved
periodically,no doubtof necessity.
We do not knowwhetherRomans(or Puteolans)in fact paid a deathtax
at the grove of Libitina, as the passageof Dionysiusof Halicarnassus
quotedabovehasbeentakentOindicate,but the regulationsoutlinedin the
text from Puteoli establish an administrative framework within which col-
lectionof sucha dutycouldhavebeeneasilymanaged.
TMWhatthenew
documentmakescertainis that the funeraryconcession at Puteoliwas let
by publiccontractandthat a designatedlocationwas rentedto the contrac-
tor for the purposeof negotiatinghis serviceswith clients. Sincewe know
thatthe businessof undertakingwas conductedat Rome in the lucusLibi-
tinaeandthat a placeof the samenameexistedon Puteoli,wherea number
of institutionslink the Augustancolonyto the capital,it is reasonableto
supposethat the two grovesservedthe samefunctionin the two cities. If
18 JOHN BODEL

that is so, then in Puteoli,as at Rome, burial serviceswere arrangedat the

lucusLibitinae, where an official death-registerwas kept. Conversely,we
may infer that at Rome, as at Puteoli,the funeraryconcession was let by
public contract(or contracts,since there must have been more than one
corporationof undertakersservingthe capital) in sucha way as to create
an effectivemechanismfor monitoringthe death-rateof the urbanpopula-
tion. In this respect,whetherdirectly in the form of a death tax paid by
individualcitizensor indirectlyin the form of revenueaccruingfrom the
saleof a lucrativepubliccontract,the lucusLibitinae couldhaveproduced
substantialand regular revenuefor the state. The samecannotbe said of
any othergrove in the Roman world.

lucar Libitinae

There is one final attestationof lucar to consider. In someways it is the

mostproblematic,but it will enableus to draw togetherthe variousargu-
mentspresentedthusfar concerningthe relation betweenlucar and lucus
and it will suggestan answerto the questionposedat the beginningof this
chapter:what relevance,if any, doeslucar in the sense"revenuespenton
public entertainments"have for the form loucarid preserved in the
Lucerian inscription?At this point it will surpriseno one to learn that the
threadwhich ties lucar to lucusrunsthroughthe grove of Libitina.
The dedicatoryinscriptionaccompanyinga portrait statue(effigies) of
early Imperial (probably second-century)date erected at Bergomumin
honor of a certain P. Marius Lupercianus,a Roman knight equopublico,
recordsthat "his exceptionalgenerosityshoneout to the point that he rem-
itted for all his fellow citizensin perpetuitythe lucar Libitinae purchased
from his city": ... cuius eximia liberalitas . . . hucusque/ enituit, ut lucar
Libitinae / redemptuma re p(ublica) sua universis/ civibus suis in per-
petuum/ remitteret.... 72 Mommseninterpreted
theclauseto meanthat
Lupercianushad donateda perpetualfund, the interestfrom which was
intendedto replacethe incomenormally derived from the proceedsof a
burial tax paid by thoseholdingfunerals,from which local citizenswould
henceforthbe absolved;lucar Libitinae, as he saw it, was money paid for
funerals,
eithertothegoddess
ortothestate.
73
Mommsenwas clearly thinkingof a funerarytax (intributiofuneraria),
but his explanationhas sometimesbeen taken to imply that Lupercianus
procured
freefunerals
forhisfellowcitizens
in perpetuity.
TMThisishighly
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 19

unlikely, as a consideration
of the necessaryfinancialoutlay involvedmay
indicate. Even a modest burial was expensiveduring the early Empire,
costingperhapsHS 250 (the amountof the burial allowanceinstitutedfor
members
of theRomanplebsby theemperorNerva).75 If we assume,
for
the sakeof argument,a mortalityrate in RomanItaly roughlycomparable
to that of other pre-industrialEuropeansocieties,of approximatelyforty
per thousand
per year? andif we furtherpostulate
a population
at Ber-
gomumduring the first two centuriesAD of perhaps15,000 municipes(a
conservativeestimate,I think), then we must imagine an annualyield of
roughlyHS 150,000on Lupercianus'capitalto coverthe costof some600
burials per year. Since perpetualfoundationsof HS 100,000 or more in
Italy seemneverto haveearnedinterestat a higherrate than6% per year,
we must concludethat Lupercianus'original investmentamountedto not
lessthanHS 2,500,000•a staggeringsum,nearlya quarterasmuchagain
(probably)as the largestknown foundationfrom Roman Italy, an alimen-
tary fund sponsoredby the youngerMatidia, a member of the Imperial
family,duringthereignof MarcusAurelius?
Any of thesefigures--guesses,all of them, it must be admitted-•could
be disputed,and severalfactorsthatmight skewthe picture(e.g., the pos-
sibility that infant and child burials--a high proportion, on any
reckoning--were lessexpensivethan thoseof adults)have not been taken
into account;but even if we supposethat Lupercianus'original contribu-
tion was half the amountestimated,that is more than we might expecta
Roman knight to be able, or willing, to donateto his communityin the
bestof times. If, as Mommsensupposed, lucar Libitinaewasmoneypaid
for funerals,it can only have been as a burial tax levied in additionto the
amountspenton the actualfuneraland representing at mosta fractionof
its cost. The notion that Lupercianussecuredfree funeralsfor his towns-
men is implausibleandmustbe rejected.
Against Mommsen's view it has, however, been objected that lucar
nowhere else has anything to do with burial paymentsof any sort.
G. GarofaloZappa suggeststhat the usageof lucar in the Bergomenetext
can be reconciled with the sense of the term attested elsewhere if lucar
Libitinae refersto revenuederivedfrom the leaseof a local groveof Libi-
tina.78Between
herinterpretation
andMommsen's
thereisperhaps
littleto
choose,especiallyif we bear in mind G. Thaniel's observationthat in
extantliterarytextsLibitina is neverassociated
with any locationotherthan
her grove at Rome; as far as we know, she had no temple,no cult, no
worshippers.From this Thaniel concludesthat Libitina was in origin
20 JOHN BODEL

merelya toponym,or perhapsthe nameof a nymphor divinity associated

with the grovethat came to bear her name,but that sheneverattainedthe
rankof a full deityin theRomanpantheon.
TM
If that is so, the mentionof Libitina in the Bergomenetext practically
guaranteesthe existenceat Bergomumof a lucusLibitinae modelled,like
its Puteolancounterpart,on the lucusLibitinae at Rome. Since, as we have
seen,the groveof Libitina aloneof all grovesproducedincomeon a regu-
lar basis,and that income was directly related to the funerary trade, then
the conclusionseemsinescapablethat lucar Libitinae in the inscription
from Bergomumrefers to revenue derived from a local lucus Libitinae
where funeral equipmentwas hired and burial servicesarranged. Whether
the money so describedwas, strictly, the purchaseprice of a lucrative
undertakingconcessionor rent owed on the lease of the undertaker's
designatedheadquarters is impossibleto say;nor, for our purposes,doesit
muchmatter. The Bergomenetext showsthat the fundsdisbursedto pub-
lic officials fi•r staginggamesand known as lucar derived from revenue
associated with funerals.It remainsto explainhow moneypaidat a grove
of Libitina cameto be calledlucar and why it was usedto financepublic
games.
We havenoted(above,pp. 10-13) thatthe derivationof lucar from lucus
is nowhereevidentin the passages in which the term is usedbut originates
with the grammarians,whoseetymologiesrest on the ill-foundedassump-
tion that luci in generalwere productive. What has not previouslybeen
observedis the distinctionbetweenthe definitionsof the nounlucar given
by Festus and Plutarch, who improbably speak of income derived from
groves(aes... ex lucis;no3,3,b...t•3,orl... •co•i.
'c•v dtnb'co6'ctov
npdo-
o/Soy),andFestus'glossof an adjectivalform, lucaris,whichrefersto a
singlegrove in which money was "given": lucarispecunia,quae in luco
erat data (Paul. exc. Fest. p. 106 L.). The discrepancyin numbermay be
accidental,but Festus'explanationof the adjectivedoesnotrun afoul of the
sameimplausibilitiesas encumberthe etymologyof the noun lucar pro-
posedby him andPlutarch.Festusspeaksof moneythatis given(data). He
doesnot saythat the moneyis dedicated(consecrata),althoughthat seems
to be how the phraseis usuallyunderstood;nor did the Romansnormally
propitiatethe gods,much lessthe nonanthropomorphic numinaof nature,
with offeringsof money:Romandeitieswereavid of honorandrespect,not
cash. Perhapsthe phraserefersto proceedsresultingfrom the saleof items
donatedin sacredgroves;but the specification in luco,unlessit is entirely
otiose,shouldbe centralto the derivationof the adjectivein question,and
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 21

the only financial transactionsattestedin any grove in the Roman world

are thosediscussed abovepertainingto the lucusLibitinae.
It is reasonableto supposethat money paid in the grove of Libitina at
Rome in connectionwith funerals came to be known as petunia lucaris,
just as, for example,money associatedwith fana was known as petunia
fanatica.8ø In timethenounperhapswasdroppedandtheadjective
used
alonein a substantivized
neuterformwiththesamesense.
8• Thedevelop-
ment in usageof the adjectivefanaticus is suggestivein thisregard:origi-
nally, perhaps,a technicalterm meaning"belongingto a temple" (as in
the expressionpetunia fanatica), the word came to be usedsubstantivally
to mean "temple-servant"or "devotee"and was eventuallyemployedin
the moregeneralsense"fanatic".
82 The proposed
progression
lucus-•
lucaris -• lucar, moreover,is easily paralleled:compare,for example,
puteus -• putealis -• puteal, where the derivative noun was established
alreadyby themiddleyearsof theRepublic.
83 Semantics
andmorphology
thereforepresentno obstacleto seeinga link betweenlucusand lucar in
the adjectivelucaris. But thereis a more compellingreasonto recognize
a derivationof lucar along the lines suggested:once the connectionof
lucar with death and burial is acknowledged,the problem of reconciling
the expenditureof money from sacredgroveson public spectaclesvan-
ishes.

,Whatevertheir socialfunctionunderthe Empire, gladiatorialcombats

and theatrical shows were in origin associatedprimarily with funerary
games.
84TheLudiSaeculares
in particular
werelinkedwiththeideaof
deathand the underworldthroughtheir confiationwith the Ludi Tarentini
andtheLudi Tauriidedicated
to Dis PaterandPersephone.
85 We have
every reason to supposethat money paid to the state for burials might
have been spent on games that could be broadly perceived as com-
memorativeof the dead:an expensivepublicentertainmentwould thereby
have been regularly subsidizedand at the same time religious scruple
would havebeenfully satisfied.
The nexusof associations of !ucar with groves,death,and public cele-
brationsappearsmost clearly in Festus' aetiologicalexplanationof the
Lucaria festival observedannually on 19 and 21 July. According to
Festus,the Romanscelebratedthe Lucaria in a very large grovebetween
the Via Salariaand the Tiber pro eo, quodvicti a Gallisfugientese proe-
lio ibi se occultaverint(Paul. exc. Fest.p. 106 L.). There is no reasonto
doubtFestus'locationof the ceremonies,but his legendaryexplanationof
their origin, as haslong beenrecognized,probablyderivesfrom the tradi-
tional dating of the famousbattle betweenthe Gauls and Romansat the
22 JOHN BODEL

confluenceof the Allia and the Tiber to the precedingday, 18 July, in

390.86 As withmostRomanfestivals,
theoriginsof theceremonies
cele-
bratedin historicaltimesare cloudedin obscurity,but the mostplausible
modem theoryholdsthat the Lucaria beganas an agriculturalrite associ-
ated with the clearingof woodlandsfor cultivation,a taskbestundertaken,
accordingto the agriculturalwriters Columella and Palladius,during the
secondhalf of July.87 The presumed
association
of theLucariafestival
with the diesAlliensisimmediatelyprecedingit must,however,have been
basedon morethanproximityin the calendar.
Oncethe originalmeaningof theLucaria festivalhadbeenlost,popular
etymologists aimingto elucidatethe Romancalendarnaturallyfastenedon
the noun lucar, whoseassociations with deathand burial no doubtsug-
gesteda logicalrelationshipbetweenthe religiouscelebrationandthe dies
ater it followed: 18 July, a date infamousalreadyfor the slaughterof the
Fabii at the Cremerain 479, was the blackestday in the Roman year, a
diesreligiosus
associated
with lossof life on a catastrophic
scale.
88 A
two-day memorialto the Roman dead following a day of suchdisastrous
memorieswould not have seemedout of placeto later generations,andthe
connection of the dies Alliensis with the Lucaria festival would have
gained a speciouscredibility from the contemporaryusageof lucar in
referenceto burial payments.
A note in the Fasti Polemii Silvi on 13 February,the first day of the
Parentalia festival devoted to propitiatingthe spirits of dead relatives,
apparentlyattestsa similardevelopment.Accordingto Silvius,the formal
observancesat tombs(parentatio tumulorum)beganannuallyon the day
Romewasliberatedfrom the Gallic siege.
89 Sincethe Parentaliarites
almostcertainlypredatetheGallicinvasion,
9øthe aetiology
proposed by
Silvius, like that preservedin Festusconcerningthe Lucaria festival,must
be a later accretion.The sackof the city by the Gaulsseemsto haveexer-
ciseda particularfascinationon ancientstudentsof the Romancalendar,
who no doubt found in the event an episodeof unquestioned national
importanceand yet one sufficientlyremote to accommodateplausible
speculationsconcerningthe originsof rites whosesignificanceotherwise
remained obscure. The notion that the Lucaria festival was concerned in
someway with observances to the deadmay havebeenfurtherfosteredby
the observationthat the only other Roman festival celebratedon succes-
sive odd-numbereddayswas the Lemuria (on 9, 11, and 13 May), devoted
toappeasing
therestless
spirits
of thedead.
9•
If the derivation of lucar in the sense"revenue expendedon public
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 23

games"from lucarispecunia and the grove of Libitina is accepted,then

we may easilyimaginethat the substantivecouldhave beenappliedto the
place whencethe moneyderivedas well as to the money itself: the ambi-
guous usage of terms such as riscus and oraculum demonstratesthe
Romans'toleranceof suchsemanticflexibility, and the couplingof lucar
with the epithetLibitinae would have easedthe transitionfrom one sense
to the other. In fact, severallate glossesgenerallydiscrediteddefinelucar
as a place in Rome, usually, but not always, without further
specification.
92 Thepossibility
thattheglosses
areuniformlybasedupon
a misapprehension(or misapprehensions) is not negligible, and in their
presentform many, indeed, are nonsensical;but unlesseach is indepen-
dently due to a corruptionof locar (a non-classicalform of dubious
authenticity,
alsofoundin glosses93),
it is difficultto seehowtheconcept
of lucar as a placecouldhavefoundits way into the glossographical tradi-
tion if it were not, howeverremotely,groundedin fact. Be that as it may,
it is at leastpossible,in view of the directassociation(as arguedabove)of
the classical Latin noun lucar with the lucus Libitinae at Rome, that the
form loucarid in the Lucerianinscriptionrefersnot just to any grove but
to a grove of Libitina in particular,where burialswere contractedand fun-
eral servicesarranged.
In order to test that hypothesis,we shall need to set the three prohibi-
tionsrecordedin the Lucerianordinanceinto their appropriatecontextby
comparingthem with similar municipalregulationsattestedin antiquity;
but first it will be useful to see to what extent the Lucerian law resembles
otherextantlaws concerningthe protectionof sacredgrovesin the Roman
world.
 III. The Roman law of sacredgroves

There is, of course,no single authoritativeRoman law of sacredgroves.

Instead, we have discretepiecesof literary and epigraphicevidencethat,
taken together,enable us to identify certain principlesconcerningthe
preservationof sacredgrovesthat were widely, if not universally,fol-
lowed throughoutthe Romanworld. The mostimportantby far is a muni-
cipal decreepreservedin a pair of inscriptionsfoundnearSpaletium,both
datableto sometime after the foundingof the Latin colonyin 241.94
BelowI givethetextof themorecomplete copy(A = CIL 12366;see
Plate1);variants
foundin thesecond
copy(B = CIL 122872)arerecorded
in an apparatus,but no accountis taken of its different line division,nor
have the lacunae in its text invariably been indicated. The mark//shows
the division between the two inscribed faces of the stone.

honceloucom/ ne qu<i>s violatod/ nequeexvehitoneque/ exferto

quodlouci/5 sietnequecedito,/ neseiquodieresdeina/ anuafiet;
eoddie/ quodrei dinaecau<s>a/ [f]iat, sinedoloced<e>re/lO
[l]icetod, seiquis// violasit, love bovid /piaclum datod; / seiquis
scies/ violasitdolomalo,/15 Ioveibovidpiaclum/ datodet a(sses)
CCC/ moltaisuntod; / eiuspiacli/ moltaique
dicator[ei]
/ 20exactio
est[od].

2 nequisviolato B 5 caiditodB 6 [dei]na B (Pietrangeli): [devi]na

B (Wachter) 7 died B 8 dinai B 9 [d]olo malo B 10 [li]ceto.
sequisB 11 advorsumead postsequisB, am. A I Iovei B 12 dato B
15 et Io[vei] B: et am. A 19-20 E[ B: e[xactio / dicatori esto]
(am. moltaique)Pietrangeli: e[t moltai/ dicatoreiexactioesto]Wachter.

The decreeexplicitly prohibitstwo activities:1) removingby can (exve-

hito) or by hand (exferto)anythingbelongingto the groveand 2) cutting
its wood, with the exception that on the day of an annual festival the
latterwaspermitted.Any infractionis to be expiatedby a sacrificeto Jove
and any willful violationof the grovefurtheratonedfor by paymentof a
fine. The businessof performingthe expiatorysacrificeand, if necessary

24
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 25

exacting the fine is charged to a dicator whose precise identity, though

muchdiscussed,
is of no consequence
for the presentinquiry.
95 What
concernsushereare the activitiesenvisagedas threatsto the grove'ssanc-
tity and the measurestaken to forestalltheir potentiallydamagingconse-
quences.
The prohibitionagainstremovinganythingfrom the grovebelongsto a
well-attestedtraditionof regulationsrestrictingthe transportof objects
from sacredprecincts
and callsfor no specialcomment.
96 Of greater
interest is the injunction against damaging the trees. As might be
expected,cuttingwoodfrom the groveis strictlyforbidden.In thisrespect
the Spoletinelaw conformsto the vast majority of our ancientevidence
concerningthe protectionof sacredwoodlands;indeed,the nearunanimity
of our sourceson this point suggeststhat regulationsagainstcuttingand
removing wood were virtually the sine qua non of sacredgrovesin the
Greco-Roman
world.
97 Exceptions
to the basicrule againstexploiting
sacred woodlands for timber or tirewood are limited to the Greek world,
wherewe find occasional
mentionof woodfrom sacredplacesbeingused
for profanepurposes.
98 The systematic
loggingand wood-collecting
allowed under certain circumstancesin the Greek East, however, must be
clearly distinguished
from the minimal pruningand clearingrequiredto
maintainany grovein goodcondition. The recordsof the Arval Brethren
preservedin the grove of the Dea Dia outsideRome provide clear evi-
dence of the latter: thinning of the grove was evidently permitted
throughoutthe year whenevernecessary, andpruningis explicitlyattested
whentreesor branches
hadbeendamaged
by weather.
99 Thereis noindi-
cation, however, that the wood felled during theseprocedureswas ever
put to use outsidethe grove, nor do we have evidencefrom elsewherein
theRomanworld of woodbeingremovedfrom a sacredprecinct.
The Arval Acta are an especiallyvaluable sourceof informationin this
regard:not only do they constitutethe fullest and most detailedrecord of
the religiousactivitiesassociatedwith any sacredgrove in antiquity,they
alsoillustratethe principaldifferencebetweenGreekandRomanpractice
in observingthe sanctityof sacredplaces. WhereasGreek law tendedto
treat violationsof sacredgrovesas offensesagainstpropertyratherthan
religious
crimes,
•øøRomancustom
calledfor theritualexpiation
of any
conceivableinfringementof a grove'ssanctity.Piaculawereperformedat
thegroveof the Dea Dia wheneveriron toolswere introducedinto thepre-
cinct and when they were taken out, wheneverdead branchesfell, when
new trees were planted,and when foliage was thinned. These may be
26 JOHN BODEL

consideredalmostregular occurrences,but the Acta also attestpiacula

under more unusual circumstances, such as when individual trees were
struckby lightningand burnedor when, as in AD 183, a fig tree took root
in theroofof thetempleof theprincipaldeity.101
An exceptionaldecisionof AD 14 at the groveof the Dea Dia may shed
light on the provisionin the text from Spoletiumpermittingthe cuttingof
wood from the grove on the day of an annualfestival. In that year the
Arval Brethrenvoted that a tree fallen within the grove becauseof age
should be consumed in sacrifice and none of its wood removed. 102 This is
the only such incident recordedin the Acta for which no piaculum is
reported, probably, as Henzen suggested,becausethe wood was used
exclusively
for sacredpurposeswithinthegrove.Iø3A similarreasoning
perhapsunderliesthe exceptionrecordedin the Spoletinelaw:1ø4 in
effect, the burningof woodfrom the grovein sacrificeto the grove'sdeity
(or numen)may not have beenconsidereda violationof the grove'ssanc-
tity sincethe religiousobservancewas consistentwith the preservationof
the grove's purity. If no violation was perceivedto have occurred,no
expiation was required. True, the decisionat the grove of the Dea Dia
involved wood fallen naturally,whereasthe Spoletinelaw projectsinten-
tional cutting:perhapsthe trimming of wood to be usedin sacrificewas
consideredan integral part of the ceremony itself and was therefore
exculpableon religiousgrounds.We do not know, and in the absenceof
reliable information further speculationseemspointless. The different
situationsattestedin Spoletiumand at the groveof the Dea Dia are at any
rate consistentwith the principle discussedabove (p. 13), accordingto
which revenuederivedfrom sacredplaceswas to be usedonly on activi-
ties resultingin improvementto the placesthemselves.
Literary sourcessupportthe view that any violation of a sacredgrove,
and in particularthe cuttingof its wood,calledfor an expiatorysacrifice.
The ritual prayerhandeddown by Cato for openinga clearingin a grove
is perhapsthe best-knowntestimony,but the fate of one D. Turullius,put
to deathby Octavianfor cuttingtimberfor the fleetfrom the sacredgrove
of Aesculapiusat Cos while prefectthereunderMark Antony in 32-31, is
a strikingillustration
of thesameprincipleoperating
at a laterperiod.
1ø5
Inscriptionaland literary evidenceconformsto indicatethat the Romans,
unlike the Greeks, regarded violations of sacred groves as religious
crimes,breachesof the sacredorderrequiringritual expiation. The nature
of the religiouspollutionresultingfrom suchinfractionsis bestelucidated
by consideration of the dualpenaltiesprescribed,as in the ordinancefrom
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 27

Spoletium, in the case of transgressions committed knowingly, with

malice aforethought(sciensdolo malo).
Mommsen and Wissowa believed that the willful transgressorwas
liable to both the fine (multa) and the expiatorysacrifice(piaculum)and
that the doublesanctionreflecteda retreatfrom the rigor of archaicpro-
ceduresagainstimpiety, which calledfor an accusationbeforethe people,
in that a civil monetaryfine had been substituted for the trial to comple-
mentthereligiouspenalty.
w6 Notingthatthedistinction
impliedin such
casesis not simply between sacred and secular law but also between
voluntaryandinvoluntarycrime,S. Tromp,however,arguedpersuasively
that the two sanctions arose from different sources and concerned
different parties. Beginningwith a thoroughdiscussionof the Roman
conceptof inexpiabilitasand drawinguponsimilar textsin which fines
and piacula are mentioned together, Tromp showed that in cases of
religious
crimes
committed
knowingly
theguiltypartywassubject'to
a
fine for havingbrokencivil law, but, beingimpius,he remainedinexpiable
in religiousterms. The obligationto performa piaculumfell ratherto the
magistrateor chief priest,whoseresponsibilityit was, regardlessof the
natureof the infraction,to expiatethe religiouspollutionon behalf of the
community.
107
Tromp's views have now beenendorsedwith slightmodificationsby
J. Scheid,who makesthe importantobservationthat the obligatorypiacu-
lure derives neither from the infraction itself as a breach of sacred contract
(so Wissowa)nor from a violationof written sacredlaw (so Tromp) but
from the fact that for the Romans, even in historicaltimes, the nature of the
pax deorumremainedmysteriousand unpredictable.Whetheror not any
particularactcausedpollutioncouldbejudgedonly by its perceivedsubse-
quenteffectson the welfare of the community;piacula operisfaciundiare
thusexplicableascautionaryprocedures aimedat forestailinganypossibly
damaging
consequences
of theworkundertaken.
lø8For ourpurpose
the
importantpointis thatthe Romanswerescrupulously systematic in apply-
ing their religiousprinciples,which in this case,failing explicitdispensa-
tion to the contrary,mandatedthe expiationof any possiblepollutionof a
sacred
area.to9Lucisacriwereamong
themostvenerable
sacred
places
in
the Romanworld,andtheirsanctitywasstrictlyandexplicitlyenforced--
more so, it seems, than that of other numinous natural resources such as
streams
andrivers.tlOA law for theprotection
of a sacred
grovedetailing
possibletypesof infractionbutprovidingno guidanceconcerning thereli-
gious pollution potentially resulting from any violation goes entirely
28 JOHN BODEL

againstwhat is known aboutRomanreligiouspracticeanddefieshistorical

probability.
The evidencesurveyedabovethusinvitestwo observationsconcerning
the law from Luceria. First, the absenceof any mention in its text of
piacular obligationsimplies that transgressions againstthe regulations
postedinvolvedno religiouspollution. If that is so, then the loucar being
protectedcannot have been a sacred grove in the proper sense. The
strictly secular character of the Lucerian text has seldom been noted,
despite (or perhapsbecauseof) the clear implicationsfor Mommsen's
classification
of the inscription
as alex sacra.• Second,theabsence
of
any restrictionon cuttingor removingwood may further suggestthat the
ordinancewas not designedto protect a woodlandof any sort, whether
sacredor profane.
Both conclusionsrest on the assumption,which I think justified, that
our text preservesthe entire lex loci and that no otherregulationsor sanc-
tions concerningthe loucar were posted at the time when our law was
enacted.What evidencewe have suggests that inscriptionsrecordinglocal
ordinancesconcerningthe useof loca publica or loca sacra normallycon-
tained, in substance,the full contentsof the regulationsenacted. When
more than one inscriptionpreservingsucha decreehasbeenpreserved,as
in the caseof the law from Spoletium,the textsdiffer only in minor partic-
ularsof orthographyor ordinationbut otherwisereproducethe samecon-
tents.
•2 Only with verycomplexdocuments,
suchas the lex libitinaria
from Puteoli, did the length of the text necessitatepublicationon more
thanone cippusor tablet. We haveno reasonto suspectthat the Lucerian
lawmakers were unable to have inscribed on the one stone whose text has
come down to us all the regulationsconcerningthe loucar they saw fit to
enact; indeed, the structureof the survivingtext, which begins with an
identificationof the site concerned,proceedsto enumeratespecificregula-
tions for its protection,and concludeswith a considerationof alternative
penaltiesin the event of infractions,suggeststhat the documentis self-
contained and that we have the entire contents of the ordinance.
The nature of the proof advancedabove likewise requiresbrief com-
ment. Argumentsex silentioareneverabovesuspicion, andin thisinstance
the risk of circularityis apparent,sincethe identificationof an ancientstat-
uteaspertainingto a sacredgrove,particularlyin theGreekworld,is often
basedpreciselyuponthe presenceof suchrestrictionsas are heretaken,by
their absence,to indicatethat the placein questionwas not a groveat all.
To this reservationit may be replied that the Roman (as opposedto the
Greek) evidence is unequivocal,especially in the matter of religious
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 29

pollution,and leaveslittle doubtthat, whatevertheir true convictionsand

regardlessof the behavior of some (see below, n. 227), the Romans
observedstrict protocolin seekingto maintainthe pax deorum. Until it
can be shown that Roman lawmakers were indifferent even to the formali-
ties of securingthe sanctityof their sacredplaces,it is safeto assumethat
the Lucerianordinancehasnothingto do with a sacredgrove.
If not a sacredgrove,then what? Any attemptto identifythe Lucerian
loucar musttake into accountthe natureof the activitiesprohibitedwithin
its confines. In the past this has scarcelyseemednecessary,since the
authorityof Mommsen'sattribution,whichbeggaredcriticism,effectively
precludedseriousdiscussion of alternativepossibilities.In light of the
precedingarguments, however,a renewedattemptto classifythe Lucerian
ordinanceaccordingto its affinitieswith otherRomandocumentsmay not
seem misguided. The first two prohibitionsmay convenientlybe con-
sideredtogether,since the comparativeevidencewill suggestthat their
collocation in the Lucerian text is of greater significancethan has
previouslybeenrecognized.
 IV. stircus ne [qu]is fundatid neve cadaver proiecitad

It will be useful at the outsetto make clear preciselywhat the phrases

stircusfundatidand cadaverproiecitad imply. We have no way of know-
ing whetherstircus(=stercus)here hasits primary sense,"excrement",or
whetherit is usedmore looselyto mean refusein general,as Arena main-
tains;113
nor,for ourpurposes,
doesit muchmatter:thecollocation
of the
term with fundatid showsthat stircushere, as in most other contexts,was
an undesirableproductto be discarded.The verb formfundatid, evidently
a deverbativederived from Latin fundere (rather thanfundare), is most
plausiblyexplainedon the analogyof firstconjugationOscanperfectsub-
junctivesin -tt-i- and thusrepresentsa blendingof Latin vocabularyand
Oscan morphologyof a sort commonly found in areas where the two
populations
cameintocontact.
•14Apartfromitsmorphological
peculiari-
ties, the expressionstircusfundatid has seemedsemanticallyodd, and
much ingenuityhas been devotedto justifying the supposedlyanomalous
usageof funderein this context.
•15 Needlessly.A recentlypublished
inscriptionfrom Cingoli and an overlookedPompeiangraffito show that
the expressionstercusfundere (or effundere) was perfectly good collo-
quialLatin.116
The new inscriptionfrom Cingoli, a municipalordinanceinscribedon a
cippusof local limestoneanddatableto the firsthalf of the yearAD 6, pro-
videsa sufficientlycloseparallel to the Luceriantext to warrantquotation
in full: M. Lepido, L. Arrunti(o) / co(n)s(ulibus),d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)
posit(us[sc.hic cippusvel terminus?]). / qui intra stercus/ fuderit, multae
a(sses)IIII d(abit). As at Luceria, so later at Cingoli the local governing
body imposeda fine on thosewho depositedstercuswithin a restricted
area(not specifiedin the text but presumablydefinedby theterm intra and
the placementof the survivingcippusand perhapsotherslike it). Most
remarkableaboutthe inscriptionis its brevity. Some of what the highly
abbreviatedtext leavesunsaidcan be surmisedfrom the context(e.g., an
injunctionexplicitly prohibitingthe dumping of stercus)but much else
cannot. Above all, we should like to know what sort of area the ordinance
was designedto protect.
The first editor arguedon the basisof the discoveryin the presumed

30
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 31

vicinity of the cippus(the stonewas not found in situ) of two terracotta

female busts no longer extant (here interpretedas votive offerings,
althoughthey havebeenotherwiseexplained),the remainsof a bath com-
plex excavatedin the middle of the last centuryand sincereburied,and a
fragmentaryinscription(CIL IX 6379) restoredby Mommsento read in
part [salu]tiAug. that the text was alex sacra intendedto protecta local
sanctuarybuilt up arounda nearbystreamwith reputedtherapeuticquali-
ties. Needlessto say, none of these argumentsis conclusive. For that
matter,noneis particularlyconvincing,sincethe editorlimits his inquiry
unnecessarilyat the outsetby assumingthat a regulationprohibitingthe
dumpingof stercusmustbelongto one of two specificreligiouscontexts:
the cult of the deador the cult of somedivinity (for whichnotionthe only
supposedevidenceis the lex Lucerina). In fact, as we shall see, similar
prohibitionswere far from uncommonin a variety of secularsettingsin
the Roman world. There is thereforeno good reasonto believe that the
text from Cingoli pertainsto a locussacer; indeed,as with the Lucerian
ordinance,the absenceof any provisionfor ritual purificationin the event
of violationsto the areain questionseemsto pointto the oppositeconclu-
sion. 117
The appearanceof the phrasestercusfuderit in a local ordinancepro-
tectinga definedlocationfrom contamination in any casevindicatesthe
expressionstircusfundatid in the Lucerianlaw and furthermoresuggests
thatthe significance of the phrasein thattext mustbe established
againsta
backgroundof Latin semanticsand usage. The senseof the verbfundere
in all threeinscriptionscan thusbe elucidatedby Arena's observationthat
fundere,whennot appliedto liquids,originallyimpliedthe oppositeof the
ideain in acervoponere.
1•8 In viewof thewell-documentedRomanprac-
tice of depositing
dungandrubbishin heaps, ll9 the expression
stercus
funderecanthereforebe understood to describethe kind of randomdump-
ing that might createa public nuisance. Any notionthat stercusin these
textsrefersto fertilizer and wasconsidereda desirablecommodityis to be
rejected.
120
The phrasecadaverproiecitadin the Luceriantext likewise impliesa
casualandirresponsible mannerof disposal.The formproiecitadhasthus
far defied morphologicalexplanationand is perhapsbest regardedas a
mistakentranscription--whether by the carveror the modemcopyist(Del
Buono) or the first editor (D'Amelj) we cannot say•f *proiecatid, a
formplausiblygenerated
fromproicere,asfundatidfromfundere.
TM A
derivationfrom proicere has in any casenever been doubted,and on the
32 JOHN BODEL

significanceof that term the evidenceis clear. Literary and documentary

sourcesshowthat by the end of the Republicproicere, when usedin con-
junctionwith wordsfor corpses,hadacquiredalmostthe value of a techni-
caltermmeaning
"toabandon"
or "toleaveunburied".
122Theprohibition
againstdiscardingcorpsesthus complementsthat againstindiscriminate
dumping;togetherthey suggestthat the perceivedthreat to the Lucerian
loucar was more one of thoughtless
contaminationthanof willful damage
or destruction. This is in marked contrast to the situation attested at the
Spoletinegrove, where the only explicit prohibitionsrelate to cuttingand
removingwoodfrom the precinctand the dangerof pollutionfrom illegal
dumpingwas evidentlyconsiderednegligible. Once again,the contentsof
the Lucerian ordinanceare at odds with the evidenceconcerningthe
preservationof sacredgroves in the Roman world and raise legitimate
doubts about the character of the loucar placed under protection. If
furtherprogressis to be made,we needto know where the Romansposted
explicitprohibitionsagainstthe abandonment of refuse(or excrement)and
corpses,and why.

Roman civic regulations:stercusand cadavera

The removal of humanand animal waste from urban centerswas a per-

sistent
problem
throughout
antiquity,
asa varietyof sources
attests.
•23At
Rome plostra stercoris exportandeicaussa were permitted in the city
during daylight hours,when most other vehiculartraffic was prohibited,
andsewagewagonswereprobablycommonelsewhere
as well.•24 The
stercorarii whosebusinessit was to clean domesticcesspitsmay have sold
excrement
to farmersat city outskirts
to be usedasfertilizer,
•25butthe
marketfor humanmanureevidentlydid not exhaustthe supply,sinceilli-
cit dumpingof fecal waste(andgarbage)seemsto havebeena widespread
nuisancein Romantowns. At the cornerof an insulain the northernquar-
ter of Pompeii (regio V) a notice was posted advising stercorarii to
proceedto the town wall, and in neighboringHerculaneuman edict of a
local aedileprescribedpenaltiesagainstany who contaminatedthe water
supplyby dumpingstercusintoa publicdistribution
tank(castellum).
•26
At Rome a concernedresidentaddeda personalplea to an official injunc-
tion prohibitingdumpingoutsidethe Esquilinegate:stercuslonge/ aufer /
ne malumhabeas.
•27Thata shortage
of communal
latrinesexacerbated
theproblem
hardlyrequires
demonstration.
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 33

Clearly the Lucerian prohibitionagainstdumpingstercusaddresseda

common problem in Roman towns. The comparative evidence thus
allowsfew inferencesaboutthe natureof the loucar beingprotectedfrom
that source of defilement alone: streets, public reservoirs,doorways,
statues,even public and private buildings, not to mention tombs--
virtually any outdoorplace accessibleto the public seemsto have been
liable to the dangerof beingfouled with ordure,and many were explicitly
protected
againstit.129It is therefore
curiousthatno officialregulation
againstdumpingdungor defecatinghas yet beenpositivelyidentifiedin a
Romansacred
placeor shrine.
130Perhaps
suchactivities
wereunthinkable
in a sacredcontext:todayone findsprohibitionsagainstlitteringin public
parks and city streets,but not in placesof worship;or perhapshuman
interventionwas felt to be unnecessary: deorurniniuriae dis curae. The
importantpoint is that Romanrestrictionsagainstdumpingstercusbelong
to a broad traditionof civic regulationrelatingto the cura urbis and did
not, as far as we can tell, fall within the narrowercompassof the sacral
law.

The clauseprohibitingthe dumpingof corpsesbelongsin the samegen-

eral categoryof urbanmaintenance.In view of the predominantlyethical
biasof our literary sources,it needsto be emphasizedthat religiousdread
was not the only motive that inspired Roman regulationsconcerningthe
disposal of human remains: legal texts leave no doubt that the final
dispositionof the dead was as much a matter of the public interestas of
personalpiety. A law of the Twelve Tablesforbiddingburial or cremation
within the city probablyreflectsreligiousscrupleas much as civic con-
cern,but by the end of the Republicthe latterhad evidentlybecomea pri-
mary consideration.Cicero believed that cremationhad been prohibited
in the early city becauseof the dangerof fire, a view thatno doubtreflects
the reality of his own day. A chapter of the Caesarianlex coloniae
Genetivaeforbidding the constructionof new ustrinae within half a mile
of the town and a senatusconsulturnof 38 prohibitingthe burningof dead
bodies within two miles of Rome show that Roman authorities were as
much concernedwith public safety as with religiouspropriety:not only
the areas circumscribedby the sacredporneriurnbut also the outlying
suburbs
weretobeprotected.
131
But the risk of fires was not the only potentialhazardarisingfrom the
disposalof the deadto be recognizedby Romantown planners. A passage
in Papinian'smonographon the care of cities,enjoiningthe overseersof a
town(&o•vvo•tt•co•)
to prohibitanyonefromdumpingdungor abandoning
corpsesin city streets,shows that the proper maintenanceof public
thoroughfares
alsowasa matterof concern.
•32 The samepassage
of
34 JOHN BODEL

Papinianalso forbadepublic brawling and the discardingof animal skins

in city streetsand is thereforeinstructivein revealingthe contextin which
Roman authoritiestook cognizanceof the problem of the disposalof
humanand animal wastes:irresponsibledumpingof stercusand cadavera
was treatedon a par with public rowdinessand otherforms of littering as
a generalproblemof publicorderratherthana matterof religioustaboo.
Naturally the interests of religion and the public welfare often
coincided,as another passageof Papinian clearly demonstrates.After
indicatingthat under certain circumstances it was permissibleto bury a
body on land that was not wholly unencumbered,Papiniangoes on to
explainthat in suchcases,as often in doubtfulquestionsof religion,the
strict rule was ignored "for the public good, so that corpseswould not
lie unburied" (propter publicam utilitatern, ne insepulta cadavera
iacerent).
•33Thephrase
neinsepulta
cadavera
iacerent
recursin Ulpian's
discussionof a clauseof the praetor'sedict concerningthe recoveryof
funeral expenses;there the jurist refersto burial as negotiurnhurnanitatis
and acknowledgesthe natural feelings of compassion(rnisericordia)or
dutiful respect(pietas) that moved individualsto bury corpsesfor which
theywerenotlegallyresponsible.
TMUlpian'scomments
pointtothecom-
mon aim servedby personalpiety and public obligationand illuminatethe
rationaleunderlyingmany of the Romanjurists' pronouncements on fun-
erary and inheritancelaw. At Puteoli, as we have seen(above, p. 16),
personswho abandonedcadaverswere fined, and the undertakerwas
explicitly requiredto disposeof the corpsesof executedcriminals,sui-
cides, and slaves. That it was not only immoral but illegal to leave
corpsesunburiedneednot be doubted.
On the other hand, the propertyrights of individualsand the common
interestof the peoplehad to be protected.The praetorgrantedan action
againstanyonewho introduceda deadbodyintoan areaintendedfor public
use,andprivatecitizens
enjoyed
a similarrighttoprotect
theirland.•35The
wealthy and moderately well-to-do at Rome had always possessedthe
meansto purchaseplots of land beyond city limits where family tombs
couldbe erected,and underthe Empire burial clubsenabledthoseof mod-
est meansto securea legitimatefinal restingplace. Slavesand freedmen
were often providedfor, at leastfrom the Augustanperiodon, in sepulcra
farniliariareserved
for thosewhoborethefamilyname.
136Buttherehad
alwaysexistedat Romea sectionof the population-•howbroada sectionat
any onetime we cannotsay--to whom the opportunityto purchasea grave
siteor to be includedin a communaltomb was deniedbecauseof impover-
ishmentanda lackof tiesto a patron.
137Not surprisingly,
therefore,
dead
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 35

bodies-•orpartsof them--sometimes
turnedupin inconvenient
places.
138
As the urban population grew, there thus arose a need for public
cemeterieswhere the indigentcould be laid to rest in conformitywith the
requirementsof privatereligion and the public good. The bestknown of
these,the potter's field outsidethe Esquilinegate, will prove instructive
for our interpretationof the Lucerianloucar and will be discussed
in detail
below; first, however,it will be useful to ask what concernsmay have
inspired Roman regulations regarding the disposal of stercus and
cadavera.
That it was unpleasantto have garbage,excrement,and rotting flesh
aroundareasof humanhabitationis obvious,and it couldbe arguedthat
the regulationssurveyedabove reflect nothingmore than an understand-
able desire on the part of the Romans to avoid an offensive public
nuisance.Despitetheir widespread(and justified)reputationfor healthy
bathinghabits,the Romanswere not so fastidiousin othermattersof per-
sonaland publichygienethat we can unquestioningly assumethey recog-
nized the sanitarydangersposedby the inadequatedisposalof human
wastes.
•39Roman
juristswerenotgiventojustifying
theirlegaldecisions
with broad theoreticaldiscussion,nor were the upper-classauthorswho
constituteour primary literary sourcesmuch interestedin the problems
that concern us here. There is, however, some reason to believe that edu-
catedRomanswere aware of the sanitaryhazardsinvolved in allowing
excrement(or garbage)and corpsesto accumulatein public areas. What
little explicit testimony we have, not surprisingly,comes from the
Imperial period,but a certainamountof circumstantialevidence,someof
whichhasbeensurveyedabove,suggests that Romansof the late Repub-
lic, and perhapsearlier,may haveregardedthe sanitarydisposalof human
wastesas an issueof publichealthasmuchasof convenience.
In defendingthe praetor'sdecisionto permitthe repairandcleaningof
private sewers,Ulpian offers the observationthat suchmaintenanceper-
tainedto the healthand protectionof communities(et ad salubritatemcivi-
tatiumet ad rutelam);the careof the publicsewers,he goeson to add,was
properly
thebusiness
of thestate.
•40We knowthatCatoin hiscensorship
(in 184) and Agrippain his aedileship(in 33) undertookpreciselysucha
charge,purgingandperhaps
repairingthemainsewersystemof Rome;•4•
but whethereither initiative was motivatedspecificallyby sanitarycon-
siderationsis uncertain.By the end of the first centuryAD a former water
commissionercouldperceivethe hygienicbenefitsderivedfrom a healthy
watersupply,andan Imperialedictof uncertainandperhapsearlierdateon
the use of surpluswater from the aqueductsshowsthat the flushingof
36 JOHN BODEL

public sewersand the healthof the city were consideredto be relatedcon-

cems. 142
An exchangeof lettersbetweenthe emperorTrajan and his governorof
Bithynia illustratesnicely one emperor'sopinion of the relative merits of
amoenitas and salubritas when it came to undertakingpublic works.
Pliny wrote from Bithynia that the otherwiselovely city of Amastriswas
marred by a polluted stream,virtually an open sewer, that ran besideits
main street and requestedpermissionto have it covered, ex causisnon
minussalubritatisquam decoris. In reply Trajan agreedthere was need
for constructionif the streampresenteda danger to public health and
ordered Pliny to procure funds for the work; about the concomitant
enhancement
of Amastris'
beautyhe saidnota word.143Anotheremperor
might havehad differentpriorities,but Pliny's correspondence showsthat
educatedmen of his day recognizedthe health hazardsposed to urban
centersby an accumulationof sewageand were preparedto take stepsto
forestall,or remedy, that situation. The archaeologicalremainsof Roman
Imperial army camps,which includeelaboratesewagesystemsflushedby
runningwater and debouchingwell away from camp sitesor, where that
was not possible,makeshift septic tanks, likewise suggestthat military
plannersregardedthe disposalof humanwasteas a problemof sanitation
asmuchasof amenity.
TM
Awarenessof the sanitaryriskscausedby the exposureof decomposing
human flesh in areas of human activity does not seem to be explicitly
attestedbefore the last quarterof the secondcenturyAD, but there is some
reasonto believe that Romansof an earlier day, whatever their under-
standingof the mechanicsof transmission,recognizedan association
between rotting corpsesand poor health. In a compendiouschapteron
gravesIsidore of Seville assertsthat originally people were buried in their
homesbut that later the practicewas forbidden,"so that the bodiesof the
living wouldnot be infectedby contactwith the stench".
•45 This state-
ment conformsto a widespreadancientconceptof contagion(see below),
but is not muchhelp in demonstrating
a specificallyRomanunderstanding
of sanitation, since we do not know whether Isidore himself deduced the
purposeof early funerary legislationor whether he got his information
from a classical source and, if so, whether it was one to be trusted.
Galen is both more reliable and more explicit. In the first book of his
treatiseOn the differenttypesoffever Galen arguedthatplaguescouldbe
contractedby inhalingair infectedwith a "putrid exhalation",amongthe
principal sourcesof which were quantitiesof unburntcorpses,as often
resultedafter battles,and vaporsemanatingfrom marshesand swampsin
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 37

summer.
146Galen'sexemplaare cited to illustratehis hypothesis
of
invisible"seedsof disease",a theorywhich he never fully developednor
wholly reconciledwith his ideasof humoralbalanceand the complexities
of which neednot concernus here. For our purposeit is enoughto recog-
nize Galen's conceptof a "putridexhalation"as simplya refinementof a
morewidespread
ancientnotionof "badair" asa vehicleof contagion.147
Pliny's odor taeterrimus,Ulpian's caelumpestilens,and Isidore'sfoetor
all fall within the scopeof this broadconceptionof putrid air as a source
of disease.But sucha view of contagionis not confinedto the Imperial
period. EducatedRomansof the late Republic, Lucretiusand Varro (to
name two), were demonstrablyfamiliar with this theory of "bad air",
which was reputedto go back to Hippocratesand which may have been
popularized in Italy in the late second century by Asclepiades of
Bithynia.
148
Varro in particular,in a famouspassageof his manual on fanning,
described the invisible air-borne animalia minuta that emanated from
swampsand that,wheninhaled,causeddisease.
149It is strikingthat
Varro's clearestexpositionof his notion of "bad air" centerson one of the
two principal sourcesof the "seeds of disease"identified by Galen:
swamps.In singlingout swampsas a causeof an unhealthyatmosphere
and advising his readers to situate their farms elsewhere, Varro was
followed by his great successorin the Roman agronomictradition,
Columella (1.5.6). Whether either author also believed that pernicious
airs emanated from unburied cadavers is uncertain, but we cannot take
their silencein this regardas proof that they did not, sincethe narrowly
didacticcontextin which they wrote,offeringadviceto wealthyRomans
on locatingsizeablefarmsteads,cannotbe supposedto have calledfor the
explicit recommendation not to build near piles of corpses. Lucretius,
who had much to say about corpsesin the final lines of his poem in
describingthe great plagueat Athens(6.1138-1286), and who certainly
subscribed to a theoryof "seedsof disease",did not specificallylink the
spreadingof the pestilenceto the putrefactionof the bodiesof victims;but
it is perhapssignificantthat he characterizesthe epidemicas the sort
caused by "deathly air" (morbidus aer, 6.1097; cf. 6.1128-1140) and
includesin his descriptionof the pathologyof the diseasethe detail (not
found in his model, Thucydides) that the breath of an infected man
smelledlike thestench
of corpses
left to rot(6.1154-1155).150
On balancethe literary testimonyis suggestivebut inconclusiveevi-
dencethat Romansof the late Republicrecognizedthe sanitarydangers
posedby an accumulationof corpsesandrefuse.By theearlythirdcentury
38 JOHN BODEL

AD, on the other hand, such hygienic concernsare explicitly attestedin

medical,literary, and legal sources,where they are linked with the notion
of contagionasa productof "badair". The principalreasonfor suspecting
thatRomansof an earlierday may haveentertainedsimilarconcernsis that
the theoreticalunderpinnings of the regulationsandactivitiesrecordedat a
later date were well establishedalreadyby the end of the Republicand in
somecaseshad alreadymanifestedthemselvesin the samepracticalpre-
cepts (e.g., avoid swamps). We do not know what considerations lay
behindthe decisionto clean the sewersystemat Rome in Agrippa's day--
or Cato's--but it is not impossiblethat sanitationwas amongthem. It is at
any rate clear that by the end of the Republic irresponsibledumpingof
stercusandcadaverawasregardedasan issuefor publicconcern. The best
evidencethat it was also considereda matterof public healthnot surpris-
ingly comesfrom the area where the problemseemsto have been most
acute--the publicburial groundoutsidethe Servianwall on the Esquiline
hill in Rome.

The Esquilineburial groundin Rome

The areaoutsidethe Esquilinegatesetasidefor the disposalof the corpses

of paupersand criminalsduring the late Republic is well known from
literarysources.Horacepaintsa lurid pictureof the conditionsprevailing
at the site shortlybefore Maecenasabateda public nuisanceby covering
the entireregion,a third of a squaremile in area, with the suburbanestate
that bearshis name: nunclicet Esquiliishabitaresalubribusatque! aggere
in aprico spatiari, qui modo tristes/ albis informemspectabantossibus
agrum(Hor.Serm.1.8.14-16).
TMTheepithetsaluber
applied
byHoraceto
the "new" Esquilinecreatedby Maecenasgoesa long way towarddemon-
stratingRoman awarenessof the sanitarydangersposedby an accumula-
tion of unburiedcorpsesalreadyduring the Republicanperiod, sinceit
inevitablyimplies(nunc ... modo)that previously,when the groundwas
strewnwithwhitening
bones,
theareahadbeenpestilens.
•52According
to
Horace the rectangularpotter'sfield measuredone thousandby threehun-
dredfeet, thoughthe figurescanhardlybe intendedto be exact. Porphyrio
addsthat public ustrinaewere locatedin the region,and we know from
varioussources
thatpublicexecutions
wereperformed
nearby.
153Varro
informsus thatthe pits into whichthe bodiesof the poorwere thrownpell-
mell were knownasputiculi, eitherafter the Romanword for wells (putei)
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 39

or becausethe corpsesleft there used to rot (putescebant). In the same

passagehe impliesthat other communitiesfollowed the samecustomand
statesthat the paupers' graveyardat Rome was officially designateda
locuspublicus,that is, a parcel of land owned by the populusRomanus
andintended
forthepublicuseof all.154
The importanceof this last point for establishingthe legal statusof the
Roman puticuli cannot be overemphasized. In the secondbook of his
Laws Cicero relates an anecdoteconcerningthe dedicationof the oldest
templeof Honosat Rome that leavesno doubtaboutthe positiontakenby
the pontiffs in casesinvolving a conflictbetweenpublic law and private
religion:when a metal tabletbearingthe inscription"Honoris"was found
outsidethe Colline gate,it was decidedto consecratea templeon the spot;
as a result, many graveslocatedin the vicinity were dug up, because,
Cicero explains, statuit ... collegium locum publicurn non potuisse
privatareligioneobligari.•55Thisprinciple,whichis fullyconsistent
with
extant legislationconcerningthe rights of individualsto render a place
locus religiosusby interring human remains, seemsnever to have been
superseded.
156
The implicationfor the legal statusof the puticuli at Rome and else-
where, thoughstartling,is clear: notwithstandingHorace's referenceto a
communesepulcrumlocated outside the Esquiline gate (Serra. 1.8.10),
thesemass-grave
siteswere not regardedin law as loca religiosa.
•57
Whetheror not it thereforefollowsthat the depositionof corpsesin com-
munalpits wasnot recognizedas legalburial is uncertain;but it is perhaps
worthnotingthat the essentialelementof a Romanburial was inhumation,
even if only symbolicin the form of an iniectioglebae or the intermentof
an imagoof the deceased,andthereis no evidencethat the Esquilineputi-
cull werecoveredin anyway.158Indeed,if Afranius'paronomastic
jest,
"putiluci" (... quodinde suspiciuntper puteoslumen,ap. Varro, LL 5.25 =
CRF 430 Ribbeck),is to have had any point, theputiculi in his day must
have been open to the skies. Whatever the official religious statusof the
Romanputiculi, popularbelief seemsto haveheld that any locationwhere
a body was consignedto its final restingplace was boundby privata reli-
gio, regardlessof the state'sclaim to jurisdictionover public land. Of the
areasknownascula or culinaesetasidefor the disposalof the indigentout-
sideRoman towns,AgenniusUrbicusobservedthat private personswere
accustomed to encroachon the publicland, annexingplotsadjacentto their
suburbanestates"without any respectfor religion" (sine ulla religionis
reverentia).
•59 Similarly,in thecaseof Romanburialsin theprovinces,
40 JOHN BODEL

most authorities,accordingto Gaius, maintainedthat the land could not be

madereligiosus,becauseit was ownedby the emperoror the state;but, he
adds,it was nonetheless treatedasif it were.t60
If the places set aside in the outskirtsof Roman towns for the mass
disposalof the corpsesof the poor were technicallyloca publica, infrac-
tionsagainstcivil law within their confinesdid not entail the necessityof a
publicpiaculum. Religiousdreadmay well have inspiredin individualsa
moral obligationto performthe traditionalobservances owedto the dead,
but legally thesepublic areaswere not accordedthe samestatusas other
burial sitesand were not regardedby the stateas loca religiosa. If we are
to understandRoman attitudestoward the disposalof the bodiesof the
poorandoutcast,we mustacknowledgethisdistinctionbetweenpublic lex
and private mos. Recognizingthe peculiarlyambivalentcharacterof the
paupers'cemeteryoutsidethe Esquilinegate at Rome may then help to
explain why the Romansactedas they apparentlydid when, towardthe
end of the Republic,indiscriminatedumpingin the area had createdan
intolerablenuisance;it alsoenablesus to placein contextthe only surviv-
ing document that furnishes a close parallel to the dual prohibition
recordedin the Lucerianordinanceagainstdumpingstercusand abandon-
ingcorpses.•6•
In the course of excavations carried on between 1874 and 1885 in con-
junctionwith the developmentof the new quarterof the city in the region
of the Esquilinecemetery,Rodolfo Lancianiunearthedsomeseventy-five
pits averaging(perhaps)five by four metersin diameterand ten metersin
depth,eachlined with blocksof sperone(or cappellaccio)tufa; the series
of pits, which sharedwalls in common,seemsto have beencircumscribed
and set off from the rest of the cemeteryby a travertinechannel,a section
of which Lanciani discoveredunder the Via NapoleoneIII. In many of
the vaults Lanciani found the contents "reduced to a uniform mass of
black, viscid,pestilent,unctuousmatter",but in othershe was able to dis-
tinguishanimal and humanbonesamidstthe organicdetritus. Lanciani
concludedthat he had uncoveredsomeof theputiculi describedby Varro,
where Romansof the late Republic had indiscriminatelyheapedhuman
andanimalcarcasses
together
withcommon
garbage.
•62
Lanciani'sreportsof thesefindsare not alwaysconsistent,nor doesthe
surviving documentationof the excavations(much of it unpublished)
enable us to resolve many of the problems of interpretationthat the
archaeological
recordof theregionpresents.
•63 G. Pinzain 1912ques-
tioned whetherany of the burialsunearthedby Lanciani correspondedto
Varro'sputiculi,and morerecentlyF. Coarellihassuggested that the term
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 41

"puticuli"originallydescribed
a verydifferenttypeof grave:he compares
thefunerarywellsformedof superimposed terracottacylinderscommonly
foundat Fregellae,of whichseveralexampleshavebeendiscovered else-
whereon the Esquilinein Rome. These"pozzo"-graves, whichin Rome
are found insidethe Servianwall and mustthereforebelongto the period
beforeits constructionin the fourth century,may well be takento substan-
tiate Varro's etymologicalexplanationof the name "puticuli" (a puteis
puticuli, quod ibi in puteis obruebanturhotnines:note the imperfect
tense);but the elaboratelyconstructedchambersat Fregellaeand Rome,
mostof whichcontainedonly individualburials(if any) andone of which
(from the Esquiline)was cappedby an inscribedterracottadisc, are not
easilyreconciledwith Varro's descriptionof a placewherecorpseswere
casuallyabandonedand left to rot (cadaveraproiecta... putescebant)or
with Horace's evocativeallusionto an expanseof groundstrewn with
whitening
bones(Sertn.1.8.16).
•64
The relativelylimited capacityof thesefunerarywells, which seemto
haveaveragedbetweentwo andthreemetersin depthandlessthana meter
in diameter,likewisetells againsttheir identificationwith the puticuli of
Varro's day. If we postulatea populationat Romeduringthe firstcentury
Bc of perhapshalf a million (a conservative estimate)andan annualmor-
tality rate of approximatelyforty per thousand(see n. 76), then we must
imaginethatsome20,000residents diedin thecity eachyear,or morethan
fifty a day. Let usassume,for the sakeof argument,thateveryurbanslave
andex-slavehadthe final dispositionof his remainscaredfor by his master
or patron(an unlikelysituation,I think) andthatvirtuallyeveryinhabitant
whocouldaffordto do somadeprovisionfor a privateburial(a moreplau-
sibleassumption).Even so,it is not unreasonable to suppose thatperhaps
one of everytwentycity residentswouldhavelackedthe meansto ensure
for himselfandhis dependents evena modestburial.(This is pureguess-
work, but in my opiniona figure of 5% is unlikely to overrepresent the
numberof the urbanplebswho lived in abjectpoverty.) On thatpremise,
the city of Rome during the late Republic would have requiredpublic
disposalfacilitiescapableof accommodating at leasta thousandcorpses
per year. If we take into accountthe chancedeathsof visitorsto the city
(someof whom may have beendeprivedof a privateburial for practical
reasons,regardlessof their financialmeans)and an increasedrate of mor-
tality duringpestilentialseasons(not to mentiontimesof plague:seen. 54),
thenwe mustsupposethat the averagenumberof corpsesto be disposedof
at publicexpenseeachyearwasevengreater.As always,anyof thefigures
42 JOHN BODEL

could be disputed, but even if the annual number of indigent or

anonymousdeaths at Rome amounted to only half the total I have
estimated,it is neverthelessdifficult to believe that funerary wells of the
sort discoveredat Fregellae and on the Esquilinecould have provideda
satisfactorysolutionto the problemof disposingof the humanremainsleft
by a growingurbanpopulation.By the middle yearsof the first century
BC,we mustimagine,the public burial facilitiesat Rome were more capa-
cious and more efficient.
Preciselywhat architecturalform (or forms) Varro's puticuli may have
had and whetherany of Lanciani'sdiscoveriesanswerto their description
is impossibleto say, but there can be no doubtthat the area outsidethe
Esquilinegate where the remainsidentifiedby Lanciani as puticuli were
found was at sometime duringthe Republicthe site of massdisposalsof
human carcassesin the most informal fashion. In 1876 a private building
project nearby at the comer of Via Carlo Alberto and Via Ratazzi laid
bare a sectionof the trenchoutsidethe Servianagger that had apparently
been filled to the top with corpses;accordingto Lanciani, who examined
the site, the "massof humanremains"measuredapproximately160 x 100
x 30 feetandoncecomprised
some24,000bodies.
•65Lanciani's
figureis
perhapsexaggerated,but we have no reasonto doubt that a quantityof
human and animal carcasseshad at somepoint been dumpedindiscrim-
inatelyinto part of thefossajust northof the Esquilinegate,perhapswhen
whateverpublic disposalfacilitieswere locatedin the vicinity had been
filled to capacity.
A few years later in the same region Lanciani discoveredin situ two
massivetravertinecippi bearingthe text of a praetor'sedict belongingto
the lastperiodof the Republic;a third pillar inscribedwith the sametext
cameto light in 1942 duringconstruction work on the new StazioneTer-
mini.•66Thethirdstonewasnotfoundin situ,butis unlikelyto havebeen
far removedfrom its originallocation,sinceits weighthasbeenestimated
at nearlya ton.167Thefind-spots
of thethreecippi,whoseinscribed
sides
faced the city, delineatean irregularborderthat follows the contourof the
Servian agger approximately175-225 meters beyond it and extending
almostdue north from a point 275 meterseast and slightlynorth of the
Esquilinegate some375 metersto near the Aqua Marcia Iovia and then
roughlynorthby northwestanother330 metersto a point 185 meterseastof
the Viminal gate (seefigure 1). Below I give the text of the secondstone
discovered(B; seeplate 2); orthographicalvariationsin the othercopies
(A, C) are notedin an apparatus,but paleographicdifferences(including
 STAZIONE
• TERMINI

•'-- MAGGIORE

(Via di Sa

(Arcus
Gallieni)
•- - •

0 50 100
I I I

Figure 1

The CampusEsquilinusbetweentheViminal andEsquilinegates

1 Lanciani's
puticuli 3 ThescdepagoMontano
(CIL12591)
2 The edict of L. Sentius 4 The inscriptionof the collegium
2a= CIL 12838 tibicinum
(CIL 12989)
2b= CIL 12839 5 Boundary markersof theHorti
2c= CIL 122981 CalyclanietTauriani(CILVI 29771)
44 JOHN BODEL

tall letters) have not been indicated;all three inscriptionsshow the same
division of lines.

L. SentiusC. f. pr(aetor)
de sen(atus)sent(entia) loca
terminanda coer(avit).
b(onum)f(actum). neiquisintra
terminospropius
urbem ustrinam
fecissevelit neive
stercus, cadaver
iniecisse velit.

7 nive A, C 9 iniecise A

The dateof the inscriptions dependsuponthat of the praetorship

of L.
Senflus,whosetenureas monetalisis placedby Crawford in 101 and who
is normally identifiedas the youngerbrotherof C. Sentius,urbanpraetor
in 94.168Symetentativelyassigned
Lucius'praetorship
to sometime
betweenthe years93 and 89, but asE. Badianhaspointedout, thatis little
morethana guess.
169For thepresent
purpose
it is enoughto recognize
Sentius' edict as a productof the early first century and to addresstwo
fundamentaldifficulties that arise from the dating and distributionof the
Esquilinecippi.
In the first place, it is clear that the region put under protectionby
Sentius'edict was far more extensivethan that occupiedby the puticuli
excavatedby Lanciani(about60 meterssquare)or even that suggested by
Horace as the area of the paupers' graveyardobliteratedby Maecenas
(about 295 by 88 meters). In other words, contrary to the opinion of
Mommsen (at CIL VI 31577) and most subsequentcommentators,the
edict of Sentiuswas intendedto mark off not only the sectionof the
campus Esquilinus destined for pauper burials and the disposal of
unclaimedcorpses,but alsothe surroundingareas,especiallyto the north,
where more prominent and wealthy Romans, including even some
membersof the nobility, continuedto be buriedin individualtombsdown
to thefinalyearsof theRepublic.
•7øIt wasnot,then,simplya question
of
prohibitingcertain activities(building crematoria,dumpingstercus,and
abandoningcorpses)within a limited area wherepreviouslythey had been
permitted,but of protectingan entireregionwheresuchactivities,though
never sanctioned,had evidentlybecomea perniciousnuisance.
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 45

More difficult to reconcile is the apparentcontradictionbetween the

obviousintent of Sentius' edict to restrictdumpingof corpsesand refuse
within ca. 200 metersof the Servian wall and Lanciani's discoveryjust
outsidethe Esquilinegate of pits at one time filled with preciselythose
wastes. Indeed, Lanciani found the southernmostcippus barely 120
metersfrom the opencryptsburiedfor the firsttime, accordingto him, by
Maecenas'landscapingproject, somefifty years after the edict had been
posted. What is more, Horace speaksof strollingon the sunnyagger,
where recently (modo) one could see the ground strewn with whitening
bones(Serm. 1.8.14-16): the impressionhe givesis of a pestilentialregion
lying immediatelybeneaththe rampart,not some200 metersbeyondit.
When all due allowance is granted to poetic license and the uncertain
datingof Sentius'edict,significantdiscrepancies remainfor whicha satis-
factoryexplanationhas yet to be found. Lancianiassumedthat the edict
simplywas not enforced,but his own stratigraphicalrecordsindicateoth-
erwise (see below). Bruns supposedthat the edict may have been issued
not by L. Sentiusbut by an otherwiseunknownson;but the hypothetical
son would have been "L.f." rather than "C.f.", and a homonymous
nephew,say,had he lived to reacha praetorship,is unlikelyto haveleft no
other trace in the relatively well-documentedprosopographicalrecord of
the late Republic. ScottRyberg suggested that the edict may have applied
to only a part of the district,but there is no hint of this in the surviving
texts,andthedisposition
of thethreecippiargues
strongly
against
it.•7•
A partial solutionto the dilemmais providedby G. Pinza'sreassessment
of Lanciani's recordsand by M. Taloni's more recent survey of all the
available
archaeological
evidence.
172According
to Lanciani's
reports,
the
regionof the remainsidentifiedby him as puticuli outsidethe Esquiline
gate was, in conformity with Horace's description,strewn thick with
humanbones,to an averagedepthof nearly a foot; but this grisly ground
cover was itself buried under a layer of rubble and building materials
destroyedby fire. Lanciani supposedthat a layer of calcinatedbrick and
stonemixed with charcoaland pottery sherdshad been depositedduring
the first stagesof the Augustanworks, but Pinza has shownfrom Lan-
ciani's own stratigraphicalsections(especiallythat reproducedin figure2)
that this layer of debrisbelongedto a separate,pre-Augustanlevelling of
the areaassociatedwith the constructionof a new "via consolare"emerging,
it seems,from the contemporaryEsquilinegate, tracesof which Lanciani
foundunderthemodemVia di S. Vito.173In otherwords,thegravepits
and the surroundingarea were effectively coveredover sometime during
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 47

the late Republic,beforethe reclamationprojectundertakenby Maecenas.

Furthermore,in the soil overlyingthe layer of charredrubble Lanciani
found no trace of the human remains one would expect him to have
encountered if the site had continuedto be usedfor the informaldisposal
of corpsesdown to the time of Maecenas'works.
The dateof the pre-Augustanlevel is uncertain,but it seemsreasonable
to associatethe coveringover of the openputiculi with the publicationof
Sentius' edict prohibiting the abandonmentof corpseswithin ca. 600
Romanfeet of the Servianwall betweenthe Esquilineand Viminal gates.
Sucha view is at any rate consistentwith the discoveryin situ in the pre-
Augustan layer just outside the Esquiline gate of a travertine block
inscribedon both sideswith the text of a senatusconsulturnconcerning
the protectionof an area belongingto the pagus Montanus. Below I give
thefragmentary
textwithMommsen's
tentative
restorations:
TM

ß.. eisquecurarent tu[erenturque/ ar]bitratu aed[i]lium pleibeium/

[quei]comqueessent;neive ustrinae in / eis locis recionibusvenive
foci ustri/Snae{ve
} caussa
tier re'nt; nivestercusterra[m]/veintra
rea' loca fecisse coniecisseveveli[t] / quei haec loca ab paaco
Montano // [redemptahabebit; quod si stercusin eis loceisfecerit
terramve/ 10in ea] locaiecerit,in... [utiHS . . . / ma]nusiniectio
pignorisq(ue)ca[pio siet.]

5fierlnt lapis 11 man]urntemptavi

Most commentators follow Mommsenin linking the senatusconsulturn

de pago Montano with the edict of Sentius(promulgatedde sen(atus)
sent(entia))on the groundsthat magistratesoften issueddecreesin direct
responseto senatusconsultadealing with the same issues. Certainly the
two texts,postedin roughlythe sameregion,addresssimilarconcerns,and
sincethe relative stratigraphicallevels at which the three cippi of Sentius
werediscovered
is notknown,175it is possible
to arguethatthetwomeas-
ures were postedmore or less contemporaneously.Lanciani tentatively
datedthe scdepagoMontanoto the Sullanage,but othershaveassignedit
an earlierdate,in the secondhalf of the secondcentury(presumably
judg-
ing its languageand spellingto be more "archaic"than that of Sentius'
decree),andhaveassumed thatthepraetor'sedictmerelyextendedthepro-
visions
of thesenatus
consultum
to a widerarea.176Butthediscrepancies
no less than the similarities between the two notices deserve to be
48 JOHN BODEL

recognized,and the contentsof each, insofar as is possible,must be con-

sideredin the contextof the archaeological recordof theregion.
That the sc mentionsboth ustrinae (permanentcrematoria) and foci
ustrinaecausa(temporarypyresfor burningcorpses),whereasthe edict of
Sentiusrefersonly to ustrinae,perhapssuggestsa greaterurgencyin the
effort to reducethe risk of fires in the region,but the specificityof the
pagusMontanusdocumentis probablydue to the abundantiathat charac-
terizes senatorialdecreesin generaland this specimenin particular(cf.
curarenttu[erenturque]... Ioceisrecionibusve)and is thereforeof little
consequence.Similarly, not much can be made of the fact that the sc
prohibitscastingearth(terrainconicere)--ifthatis whatis meant
177-
whereas Sentius' edict does not. Of the several activities mentioned in the
two texts, discardingdirt is perhapsthe least perniciousand thereforethe
least likely to have concerneda praetorchargedby the senatewith what
was in any casean extraordinaryduty. On the otherhand,the aedilesat
whose discretionthe specifiedareas of the pagus Montanus were to be
maintainedwere normallyresponsiblefor keepingpublicplacescleanand
unobstructed.
178 The differentjurisdictionof the two magistracies
accountsfor the different emphasisof the two decreesand the silenceof
the praetorianedict on a matterof mere housekeeping.
On the otherhand,the apparentlack in the pagusMontanusinscription
of any prohibitionagainstabandoningcorpsesis puzzling in view of its
proximity
totheputicuIiexcavated
byLanciani.
179Areweto suppose
that
in an area in which crematingbodiesanddiscardingrefusewas forbidden
and in which, at one time, corpseshad been indiscriminatelythrown into
publicpits,no mentionis madeof depositingcadaversbecauseburialthere
wasin fact permitted?That seemsto havebeenthe view of Lanciani,who
thoughtthat the sc was meantto safeguardthe publicburial groundin the
vicinity.
18øMommsen
rightlyobjected
thattheprohibition
against
pyres
andcrematoriathen madelittle sense,but his own suggestion(basedon no
firm evidence)that the decreepertainedto locusaIiquis sacer renderseven
more extraordinarythe failure of the senateto protecta sacredsitelocated
in the middle of a graveyard from the possibility of pollution from
corpses.
•8• A moreplausiblesolutionis to suppose
thatthe sc de pago
Montano includesno provisionagainstdepositingcorpsesbecausethe
immediatearea was no longerbeingusedfor the informaldisposalof the
deadin grave-pits.We haveseenthattheregionof Lanciani'sputicuIiwas
coveredoverby a layer of charreddebrissometime duringthe late Repub-
lic and that the pagus Montanus inscription was discovered in situ
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 49

embeddedin this layer. Lanciani's reportsconfirm that columbariaand

above-groundtombsintendedfor ashesare found at the samelevel as the
pagus Montanusstone,but evidenceof inhumationssurvivesonly at the
lower, earlier levels.
What sort of area, then, was the sc designedto protect? Mommsen
plausiblyinferred that the personschargedwith guardingthe regionsof
the pagusMontanuswere redemptores,but why their stewardshipof the
area fell specificallyunderthe jurisdictionof the plebeianaedileshe was
hesitantto say, althoughhe speculatedthat the answerperhapslay in the
administrativedefinitionof pagus as a unit of state-ownedland located
within the urbanzone but outsidethe ancientSeptimontiumand inhabited
primarilyby members
of theplebs.
182Perhaps,
however,it wasnotthe
statusof the districtbut the characterof the redemptores,or the nature of
their occupation,that relegatedsupervisionof the contractto the plebeian
rather than the curule aediles. M. Reinhold long ago advancedthe attrac-
tive hypothesisthat the area put underprotectionby the sc was precisely
the lucus Libitinae, and althoughthe wording of the text (locis recioni-
busve... intra ea loca) suggeststhat the scopeof the decreeshouldnot be
interpretedthis narrowly,it is temptingto supposethat the redemptoresto
whom the care of the specified regions of the pagus Montanus was
entrusted
werenoneotherthanthelibitinarii.•83We mayreadilyimagine
that the undertakers'obligationsto the stateincludedthe upkeepnot only
of the groveof Libitina but alsoof whateverlandsin the vicinity had been
set aside for public executionsand the disposalof unclaimedcorpses;
perhaps,then,theseare the loca andregionesreferredto in the decree. In
any case,the supervisionof thosechargedwith the task of ensuringthe
timely burial of eventhe humblestmemberof the Romanplebsmay have
beenseenas a taskespeciallyappropriateto the competenceof the plebe-
ian aediles. We do not know, and in the final analysisthe evidencedoes
not permit us to draw any valid inferencesaboutthe natureof the regions
of the pagus Montanus in questionfrom the fact that their maintenance
came under the jurisdiction of the plebeian rather than the curule
aediles. 184
If, however,the scdepago Montano doesindeedconcernissuesrelevant
to the conductof the libitinarii, then it is reasonableto supposethat the
inscriptionwas postedat their headquarters.The fact that the grove of
Libitina at Rome lent its nameto a residentialneighborhoodsometime dur-
ing thelateRepublic(seen. 58) impliesthatat thattime it wassituatednear
an inhabitedarea. A location close outsidethe Esquiline gate meets that
requirementand would moreoverhave been advantageous to contractor
50 JOHN BODEL

and clientalike in providingeasyaccessto the city anda convenientplace

for doing business;furthermore, if the undertakerswere in fact made
responsiblefor the upkeep of the public areas put at their disposal,it
would have made sensefor practical reasonsto situatethem at the front
(with respectto personsleaving the city) of the territory in their domain.
In fact, the establishmentof undertakersoutsidecity gatesseemsto have
beencommonin the Romanworld, somuchsothatby the middleandlate
Empiretheterm•ron•mt, "dwellersoutsidethegates",wasregularly
usedto describeworkersin the funerarytradewho had takenup residence
in a necropolis.
Material evidencemay supportthe view that the undertakersat Rome
were headquartered just outsidethe Esquilinegate. Not 15 metersfrom
the site where the pagusMontanusstonewas set up Lanciani discovered
piecesof two peperinostatuesof flute-playersand a fragmentof an archi-
trave inscribedwith the names of three men under the heading [...
con]legiei
tibicinu[m
... ].186Lanciani
thought
thatthematerial
belonged
to a nearby tomb (the so-calledtomb of Q. Fabius), but the architectural
form and epigraphiccontentof the inscriptionsuggestan altogetherdif-
ferent sortof monument:similarlistsof members(or leadingmembers)of
professionalorganizationsare most often found inscribedon the groups'
public meetingplaces. In view of the prominentrole playedby pipersin
Romanfuneralceremonies,
•87it is reasonable
to suppose
thata headquar-
tersof the associationof flute-playersmay have been establishednear the
lucusLibitinae, where otherfuneraryequipmentand serviceswere hired.
Be thatas it may, inscriptionalandarchaeological
evidenceconformsto
suggesta roughchronologyof the regionof the publicburial groundout-
sidethe Esquilinegate. During the third and secondcenturiesthe corpses
of paupers,criminals,and some slaves were unceremoniously heaped
along with otherrefusein pits similaror identicalto thoseexcavatedby
Lanciani. As the urbanpopulationgrew, the area originally set asidefor
the disposalof the dead in mass graves no longer sufficed to meet the
demandsof increasedcrowdingwithin the city andconsistently high mor-
tality. As a result,garbageandhumanremainsbeganto spill over into the
surroundingareas,particularly,perhaps,to the north toward the Viminal
gate, where an earlier cemeteryhad preservedthe area intactfrom human
habitation;at somepoint even thefossa outsidethe Servianwall near the
Esquilinegate waspressedinto serviceand becamefilled to the brim with
corpses.
By the early yearsof the first centurythe situationhad grown intolerable,
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 51

and a concertedeffort was made to prohibit further use of the region

betweenthe Esquilineand Viminal gatesas a dumpingground. The prae-
tor L. Sentiusissueda forceful edict and took the extraordinarystep of
overseeingthe terminatio of the pestilentialzone; at the same time, the
risk of firesin the areawasreducedby the impositionof restrictionson the
constructionof new crematoria. Evidenceof the potentiallydamaging
effects of the latter may have been all too apparent,as the quantityof
charred debris found by Lanciani in the area just outside the Esquiline
gate suggests.It was probablyat this time that Lanciani'sputiculi were
buried under a layer of rubble, effectively preventingtheir further use.
Some years later, but before Maecenascoveredthe area to the southwith
his estate,a renewedattemptwasmadeto restrictburninganddumpingin
the regionsbelongingto the pagusMontanusoutsidethe Esquilinegate,
but the immediatevicinity wasno longerbeingusedfor massburials,and
sotherewasno needexplicitlyto prohibitthe abandoning of corpses.
Thisreconstruction satisfactorily
accounts
for the survivinginscriptional
and material evidence,but it leavesunansweredthe questionhow, if the
puticuli identifiedby Lanciani were coveredover alreadybefore Maece-
nas' works, Horace could speakof an albis informis ossibusager visible
from the Servian rampart. As is well known, Maecenas' horti were
situatedprimarily southof the Esquilinegate,in the neighborhood of the
so-called Auditorium of Maecenas. To the north, near the zone later occu-
piedby themacellumLiviae (dedicatedby Tiberiusin 7), lay theHorti Tau-
riani, the southernborderof whichwasmarkedat a later dateby a seriesof
boundarystones,two of which Lancianidiscoveredin situ nearthe church
of S.Eusebio
andVia Principe
Umberto
(seefigure1).188It hassometimes
been supposed,on the assumptionthat Lanciani's puticuli are identical
with Horace's communesepulcrumthat Maecenas' estate originally
coveredthisentirearea;but,aswe haveseen,theregionof Lanciani'sputi-
culi north and east of the Esquilinegate had been coveredover already
sometime beforethe Augustanlandscaping, andthereis no goodreasonto
believe that Maecenas' horti extended farther north than the natural boun-
dary formedby the nexusof major thoroughfares (the Viae Tiburtinaand
Labicana-Praenestinaand the extensionof the Clivus Suburanus)that met
just outsidethe Esquilinegate.189The pseudo-Acro
scholiaon Horace
seem to associatethe sepulchrapublica buried by Maecenaswith the
regionlater occupiedby the Bathsof Trajan, andalthoughthe topographi-
cal specification
is patentlyincorrect(theareaof theBathsof Trajancannot
havebeenthe siteof a graveyardin Horace'sday, sinceit is locatedinside
52 JOHN BODEL

the pomerium), the notice perhapspreservesa germ of truth in placing

Horace'spotter'sfieldin theareasouthof theEsquiline
gate.•9ø
The disposalof unclaimedcorpsesdid not ceaseto be a problem at
Rome when the puticuli outsidethe Esquilinegate were shutdown some
time duringthe last centuryof the Republic. Unlesswe are preparedto
attribute to poetic fancy Horace's vivid descriptionof an expanseof
ground strewn with bones,then we must concludethat another site was
found where the bodiesof the poor were informally (and inadequately)
laid to rest. The mostplausiblesolutionis to supposethat Horace's com-
mune sepulcrumoccupieda zone southof the Esquilinegate boundedon
the north, perhaps,by the extra-muralextensionof the Clivus Suburanus
and on the westby the Servianwall; if we acceptthosetermini,a roughly
rectangulararea conformingto Horace's mille pedes in fronte, trecentos
... in agrum can without difficulty be accommodatedwithin the zone
definedby the ancient (but probably later) Via Merulana on the east and
the conjunctionof Via Buonarroti and the modem Via Merulana on the
south (see figure 3). The concinnityof literary and topographicalevi-
dence is suggestive,but falls shortof proof, and there remainsthe matter
of the apricusagger.
Without a doubt,the sectionof the Servianrampartthat gaveits namein
antiquityto the streetidentifiedin the regionarycataloguesas subager
whichran parallelto the wall betweenthe Viminal andEsquilinegatescon-
stituted
the"Agger"par excellence;
•9•butthatdoesnotmeanthatHorace
must be referring specificallyto this sectionof the fortificationswhen he
speaksof strollingon the sunnyrampart. Traces of the agger have been
foundelsewherealongthe circuit,mostsignificantlyfor our purposesat the
intersectionof Via Leopardiand the modem Via Merulana, near the south-
ern comer of the excavated "Auditorium" of Maecenas. •92 Lanciani's
Forma urbis Romae (XXIII) showsthe rampart extendingsouthfrom the
Esquiline gate to slightly beyond its intersectionwith the modem Via
Merulana, and although the topographydepicted on his plan does not
alwaysfully agreewith Lanciani'sown written records,we have no reason
to doubttheplausibility
of hisrepresentation
in grossdetails.193
Plinythe
Elder employsthe term agger in a generalsenseto describethe eastern
fortificationsof the city (NH 3.67), and Horace's contemporaryreaders
wouldhaveknownwhat sectionof theramparthe had in mind. There is no
difficulty in believingthat new puticuli installedin the region southof the
Esquilinegateafter the SocialWar couldhave been filled to capacityand
thushavebecome
a publicnuisance
by halfa centurylater.194Theliterary
and archaeologicalsourcesare reconciled if Horace's albis informis
 CAMPVS
ESOV[LINVS

V•gna P•ghln•

0
i•O I00 150 ZOOm

Figure3

The CampusEsquilinussouthof theEsquilinegate

54 JOHN BODEL

ossibusager lay outsidethe Servianrampartsouthof the Esquilinegatein

the neighborhoodof the "Auditorium"of Maecenas.
The edict of L. Sentiusand the senatusconsultumconcerningthepagus
Montanusare thereforebestunderstoodas reflectingthe slightlydifferent
conditionsprevailing at different times in the areasin which they were
posted. When set in the contextof the archaeologicalrecord,the inscrip-
tional evidencefrom the publicburial groundon the Esquilinethusallows
us to formulate an important hypothesisregarding Roman policing
measures:Romanlawmakersdid not postregulationsprohibitingspecific
activities except in areas where those activities were likely to occur;
put simply,theydid not troubleto inscribein stonedirectivesthat were not
to the point. It is perhapsnot surprisingthat the only extantepigraphic
parallelto theLucerianrestrictionagainstabandoningcorpsescomesfrom
the largestknown burial groundin the Roman word; but the corollary
that follows from that observation,when applied as a critical principle,
acquiresconsiderablesignificancefor our interpretationof the Lucerian
text. The dual prohibition recorded there against dumping dung and
discardingcorpsesimplies that the Lucerianloucar had been the site of
preciselythoseactivities. If the comparativeevidencefrom Rome hasany
value, thenwe shouldexpectthe Lucerianordinanceto have beenpostedin
a graveyard.

The publiccemeteryat Luceria

D'Amelj's report of the archaeologicalcontext in which the Lucerian

inscriptioncame to light confirms that the stone was indeed found in a
cemetery. In a letter to G. Fiorelli written in April 1877 and subsequently
publishedby Mommsenin the additamentato CIL IX D'Amelj described
the circumstancesof the stone'sdiscovery:

"Nell'anno 1847 si costru•unastradarotabilecheda Lucera,in quasi

linea retta, conduceal vicino paesechiamatoTroja .... Prendeprin-
cipio questastradadalla cosi detta Porta di Troja .... ai tempi di
Roma, e prima ancora, una delle principali porte della citth ....
perch6 metteva capo al pubblico sepolcreto,che era sulla via, che
andava a congiungersicon la ben nora stradaAegnatia che costeg-
giava l'antica Aecana. Nei lavori di maneggio di terra ed
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 55

altro, che si praticarononel detto anno 1847, a diverseprofondith,

eda diversistrati,si rinvenneuna gran quantithdi sepolcridi forme
varie, ed appartenentiad epoche diverse. Molte di queste ume
sepolcralisullaloro facciaestemaavevanoiscrizionidei tempicivili
di Roma,e nella facciaintemapoi dei tempi moltopiti remoti,come
si rilevava dalla lingua e dai caratteripiti rozzi ed antiquati. Circa
200 metri distantedalla ripetutaPortadi Troja fu ritrovatala monca
lapide.... ,,195
We shouldhaveliked D'Amelj to be more precise,but it seemsthat the
Lucerian ordinanceemergedfrom an extensivegraveyardthat contained
both Roman and pre-Romanburials. D'Amelj reportsa great quantityof
graves"of variousforms" found in different strataat differentdepthsand
belongingto variousperiods;he thengoeson to speakexclusivelyof "urne
sepolcrali",many with Latin inscriptionsvisibleon the "exterior"face and
older inscriptionswritten in antiquatedcharactersand language(perhaps
Oscan) on the "interior", suggestingthat of the varioustypes of graves
mentionedin the precedingsentence,all were of this basictype ("molte di
questeume sepolcrali..." (my emphasis)). If we assumethat D'Amelj
usesthe term "urna sepolcrale"in its acceptedsenseto mean a container
for ashes,
196thentheimplication
thatall themonuments
foundin thissec-
tion of the cemetery belonged to that class does not fit well with his
descriptionof gravesof variousforms belongingto different eras. Crema-
tion only beganto be practicedin the region after Roman influencehad
becomewell established,probablynot beforethe Imperial period,and the
customof depositingcrematedremainsin urnsremainedin vogueonly dur-
ingthefirsttwocenturies
AD.197
Indeed,Romancineraryurnsof Republi-
can date have thus far been found in Italy only in Latium and
Etruria.
198If theinference
thatall thegravesunearthed
in thevicinityof
the Lucerianordinancewere"urnesepolcrali"is correct,thenwe mustcon-
clude that the area was used as a burial ground only during the early
Imperial period--a view entirely at oddswith D'Amelj's referenceto "a
great quantityof gravesof variousforms" belongingto differentperiods.
Thereare, however,goodreasonsfor regardingD'Amelj's blanketdescrip-
tion of the gravesfoundin the regionas"urne sepolcrali"as suspect.
In the firstplace,it is not at all easyto discernpreciselywhatform these
Lucerian"ume sepolcrali"may havehad. D'Amelj's referenceto inscrip-
tions of different dates on the internal and external faces implies that the
"urns" were made, at least in part, with reusedmaterials,and the natural
senseof the adjectiveswould imply that the interior and exterior surfaces
of the vessels themselves are meant. If that is so, then these "urns", unlike
other ossuaries in the Roman word, were not monolithic but were instead
56 JOHN BODEL

constructedof separatepieces. We may perhapsimagine that the older

inscriptionsin "antiquated letters and language" were found on the
interiorsof the lids and it was only thesethat had beenappropriatedfrom
earlier monuments,but sinceD'Amelj saysnothingabouteither the con-
tentsof the originaltextsor the materialin whichthey were inscribed,we
can only guesswhat thesehypotheticalreconstructed "urns" may have
looked like.
A better solution,perhaps,suggestedto me by ProfessorBadian, is to
supposethat D'Amelj usesthe terms"estema"and "intema" in reference
to the orientation rather than the construction of the "urns": the "external"
face was that turnedtoward the road, from which a passerbywould view
the monument;the "internal" side faced away. Such an interpretationat
least allows us to visualize a type of funerary monumentof which
numerousspecimensin different forms have survivedfrom elsewherein
the Roman world. But even so we are no closer to understandingthe
chronologicalsignificanceof the findsreportedby D'Amelj, sincereused
grave-markersmight belongto any period after the practiceof recording
written texts in durable materials had been introduced and in which
inscribedepitaphswere used to commemoratethe dead. In the case of
ancient Luceria, that means any time after the founding of the Latin
colony,a datealreadyestablishedasa terminuspostquemfor the Lucerian
ordinanceby thelanguagein which it is composed(seeabove,p. 3).
Elsewherein enumeratingthe typesof tombsfound in and aroundthe
town D'Amelj describescineraryurnscarvedout of stonein the shapeof
vasesand clay urns"of variousshapes"containinggrave goods,but none
of theseseemsto correspond to the type reportedlyfoundin the neighbor-
hoodof theLucerianordinance.
199Nor doesthe surviving
inscriptional
evidence from Luceria provide a clue as to what sort of monument
D'Amelj hadin mind. I havebeenunableto identify amongthe published
inscriptionsfrom the town any that answerto D'Amelj's generaldescrip-
tion; of the survivinggravestonesknown to have been discoveredoutside
the Portadi Troia (CIL IX 795,797, 825,893), noneare opisthographand
all belongto the Imperial period, as does the only opisthographgrave-
markerfrom the townthusfar identified(CIL IX 836 and862; the precise
provenance
is unknown).
2øøIn short,we havenoideawhatsortof objects
D'Amelj's phrase"ume sepolcrali"was intendedto describe,nor, it seems,
do we haveanymeansof checkingD'Amelj's reportof the archaeological
zone in which the Lucerian ordinance was discovered. Since the construc-
tion of the modemroadto Troia duringthe middleyearsof the lastcentury,
no new explorationsof the ancientcemeterysouthof the town have been
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 57

undertaken,and no new informationconcemingthe discoveriesmade at

thattimehascometolight.TM
Faced with the apparently irreconcilable inconcinnity between
D'Amelj's reportof tombsof variousforms belongingto differenteras
and his collectivedescriptionof theseas "ume sepolcrali",we are forced
to conclude that one of the indications is, if not mistaken, at least mislead-
ing. When it comesto decidingwhich informationis more likely to be
accurate,the balancemust tilt in favor of D'Amelj's elaborate,almost
tautologicalreference to different types of graves of different periods
found at differentlevelsratherthan his imprecisedescriptionof a seem-
inglyunparalleled
typeof funerarymonument.
2ø2In characterizing
the
Portadi Troia as one of the principalgatesof the city in Romantimes,and
even before,becauseit markedthe headof the public cemetery,D'Amelj
implies that the graveyardsouthof the town includednot only Roman
burialsbut also gravesdatingfrom beforethe Roman conquest.If that is
so,the natureof the nativeSamniteburialcustomsmay explainD'Amelj's
silenceregardingthe existenceof any inhumationgravesthat may have
beenfoundin the vicinity of the Lucerianordinance.
It was the practiceof the Samnitesto bury their dead in simpletrench-
graveswhich were occasionallydistinguishedat groundlevel by a spear
(for a man)or a spindle(for a woman)but werenormallyunmarkedby any
monument.Sometimesthe graveswere lined with woodenplanks,or
stones,or tiles,but inscribedfunerarystelaewereentirelyaliento Sabellian
culture and are found only in areas where Samnites came under the
influence
of otherItalicpeoples.
2ø3In hismonograph
on thehistoryof
LuceriaD'Amelj mentionsunmarkedgravesof this sort,at a deepstrati-
graphicallevel andformedof simpleroof-tiles,whichsoundvery similarto
the type of Samniteburialsfound at Aufidenabeginning(perhaps)in the
fourthcentury.
2ø4D'Amelj doesnot sayin whatpartof the townthese
unmarkedgraveswerediscovered, but it is reasonable
to suppose
thatsome
were found in the cemeteryoutsidethe Porta di Troia, which D'Amelj
describes
as theprincipalnecropolis
in ancienttimes.
TM Sincenoneof
theseburialsprovidedinscriptionalevidence,D'Amelj, in his letter to
Fiorelli, in which he seemsat pains primarily to establish,however
vaguely,the strictly epigraphic(rather than the broadly archaeological)
contextfrom which the Lucerianordinanceemerged,would perhapsnot
havefelt obligedto mentionany that had beenfound. Indeed,apartfrom
his enigmaticreferenceto "ume", D'Amelj doesnot give any indication
what sort of humanremainswere found, as somesurelymust have been
58 JOHN BODEL

found,duringconstructionof the new road to Troia in 1847.

When we bear in mind the natureof Sabellianburial practicesand the
restriction recorded in the Lucerian law against depositing corpses,
D'Amelj's reportof the circumstances of the stone'sdiscovery,for all its
uncertainties,enablesus to reconstructa plausiblehistoricalcontextfor
the postingof the Lucerianordinance. The existence,at one time, in the
region in which the inscriptionwas found, of an extensive cemetery
makesit easierto understandwhy the loucarhad explicitly to be protected
againstthe dangerof being contaminatedwith dead bodies;at the same
time, the prohibitionrecordedin the Lucerian text againstdiscarding
corpsessuggeststhat the cemeterywas in use at the time the law was
posted. It is not the case,nor is it claimed,that one point confirmsthe
other; rather, they combineto create a coherentpicture of the Lucerian
loucar as a site locatedin the middle of an activeburial ground. Further-
more, the almosttotal absenceof cremationrites in Samniumand Apulia
beforethe Imperial periodexplainsthe silenceof the Lucerianordinance
regardingustrinaeandpyres:no prohibitionis recordedbecausenonewas
necessary.The corroborativevalue of the evidence from the Esquiline
burial groundfor Roman regulationsagainstdumpingcorpsesand refuse
is thus borne out by the archaeologicalrecord of the zone in which the
Lucerian law was found.
A further corollary suggestedby the history of the Esquilineburial
groundhas potentiallyeven greatersignificance for our interpretation
of
the Lucerian ordinance. When Roman authoritiesenactedregulations
designedto improvetheconditionof pestilentialareas,theysupported their
decisions,whereverpossible,with more substantivemeasures:so, it has
been argued,the edict of L. Sentiuswas enforcedby the closingdown of
the puticuli that had contributedin no small part to the problemsit
addressed.Conversely,whenbeneficialprojectswere undertakenindepen-
dently, the senatehelped to ensuretheir effectivenessby enactingcor-
roborative legislation. When Maecenasdecided to bury the paupers'
graveyardoutsidetheEsquilinegateunderseveralmetersof virgin soil,the
senatein 38 passeda law prohibitingthe burningof bodieswithin two
milesof thecity.2ø6Unfortunately,
D'Amelj'svagueandpartiallycontra-
dictory reportsregardingthe necropolisoutsidethe Porta di Troia do not
permit us to draw any firm conclusionsaboutthe circumstances in which
the Lucerianordinancewas posted. I have arguedon the basisof the com-
parativeevidenceof the Esquilineburial groundthat, like the sc de pago
Montano, the Lucerianlaw was designedto reservean areain the middle of
a graveyardfor purposesother than the disposalof the dead. The final
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 59

prohibitionrecordedin its text will suggestthat, like the edict of Sentius,

the inscriptionrecordingthe terminatioof the Lucerianloucar signalleda
changein the way thesitewashenceforthto be used.
 V. neve parentatid

No one has remarked the significanceof the final prohibition of the

Lucerian law for establishingthe lawmakers' intent in postingthe ordi-
nance. Ribezzoconfusedthe referenceto parentatiowith the passageof
the Twelve Tablesforbiddingburial or cremationwithinthe city.2ø7
Arena assumedthat the Roman rite was equivalent to the Oscan Iuvilas
ceremonyand saw in the Lucerian prohibitionan instanceof Roman
repressionof local religiouscustoms.
2ø8 Grienbergerinferredfrom
Mommsen'scomment,"agi apparetde luco sacronon polluendoimmun-
ditiebussepulcrisve",that by mentioningsepulcraMommsenmeant to
indicatethat a prohibitionagainstparentatio assumeda prohibitionalso
against human burial. He then went on to reject that view, citing
Wissowa's generaldiscussionof Roman festivalsto the dead, from which
it emergesthat not all cult actsconcerningthe deadwere performedat the
gravesite.•ø9It is notat all clear,however,
thatMommsen's
sepulcra
was
not meant to refer to the clauseneve cadaver proiecitad rather than that
concerningparentatio,sincehe nowherein his discussionof the Lucerian
law acknowledgesthe distinction between the casual abandonmentof
corpsesand the formal interment of human remains that constituteda
properburial (sepultura)(seeabove,pp. 39 f.). SinceMommsendoesnot
refer to either clauseexplicitly, we cannotknow what his preciseinten-
tions were in conflating the three distinct prohibitionsrecorded in the
Lucerian ordinanceinto two generalcategories(immunditiesand sepul-
cra). Fortunately,we are in a better position to assessthe validity of
Grienberger'srefutationof the view he presumedMommsento haveheld.
While it is true that certainrites of the deadwere performedat locations
otherthanthe grave,as,for instanceduringtheLemuria,thatobservationis
hardly relevantto the Luceriantext, which refersnot to the cult of the dead
in generalbutto the specificritualofparentatio. Regardingthatceremony,
the ancientevidenceis unequivocal.Studentsof Romanreligionhavelong
recognizedthattheritesofparentatiowereobservedat the grave,thatdur-
ing the Parentalia festival Romansappeasedthe spiritsof deadkinsfolk at
the final restingplace of their earthlyremains,and that the verbparentare

60
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 61

and its cognates,when not usedmetaphorically,invariablyimply activity

at thegravesite?ø Sincetheobservance
of propitiatory
ritesat ancestral
tombs seems to have been standard in Osco-Samnitic as well as Roman
culture,it is safe to assumethat the prohibitionagainstparentatioin the
Lucerian loucar effectively precludedfurther burialson the site. In this
sense, Mommsen's interpretation (as understoodby Grienberger) is
correct. More to the point, the Lucerian prohibition againstparentatio
showsthat the areaof the loucarhad previouslybeenthe siteof precisely
that activity. A prohibitionagainstparentatio makessenseonly at a loca-
tion where the rite was traditionallyperformed,that is, the grave; there
would have been no point in restrictingthe activity anywhereelse. Not
only was the loucar located in the region of a public cemetery, as
D'Amelj's report of the stone'sdiscoveryconfirms,but human burials
were actuallysituatedwithin its confines.
The associationof tombs and groves is not unknown in the Roman
world (althoughmost of the relevant inscriptionalevidencecomesfrom
theGreekEast),
TMbutthepractice,
occasionally
attested
throughout
the
empire, of surroundinga private funerary monumentwith a garden
orchardasan amenityfor visitorsandin orderto providerevenuefrom the
sale of produceto defray the cost of celebratingfestivalsof the dead is
fundamentallyat oddswith the explicit prohibitionin the Lucerianordi-
nanceagainstperformingpropitiatoryritesto thoseburiedon the site. It is
inconceivable thatany ancientauthority,publicor private,wouldattempt
to protectan areaby forbiddingwithin it preciselythe activityfor which it
was intended. Rather, the prohibitionagainstparentatio confirmsand
amplifies what has been argued above on the basis of the restrictions
against dumping refuse and abandoningcorpses:the purpose of the
Lucerian law was to preventfurther use of the site of the loucar as a
dumpinggroundand to render it locuspurus by forbiddingthe perfor-
mancethereof sacraprivata in honorof the dead. In this respectthe text
providesa concreteillustrationof the principleenunciatedby the Roman
pontiffsconcerningthe templeof Honosoutsidethe Collinegateat Rome:
locuspublicus
nonpotestprivatareligioneobligari.
212
It remainsto considerArena's suggestionthat the Lucerianprohibition
againstparentatioreveals"un espressovalorepolemicorispettoa costumi
oschi", inasmuchas the Parentalia festival is regardedas the Roman
equivalentof an Oscanceremonyattestedin the so-calledIuvilas inscrip-
tionsdiscoverednearCapuaanddatingfrom thefourthandthirdcenturies.
The supposedcorrespondence betweenthe two rites derivesfrom the fact
62 JOHN BODEL

that bothare primarily concernedwith the commemorationof deadfamily

members; Arena finds a further connection with the Lucerian law in the
locationof the OscanIuvilasstelaein a grove?3 The existence
of an
Oscanrite of ancestorworshipcelebratedin a groveis indeedsuggestive,
but closerinspectionof theIuvilas textsshowsthat the pointsof similarity
betweenthe Oscanritual andthe Romanparentatioare not nearlyas strik-
ing astheir differences.
Unlike the Roman parentatio, a purely private ceremony,the Oscan
Iuvilas rite was semi-publicin character,the luvilas invariablybeingcon-
secratedin the presenceof a town magistrate(meddix). Furthermore,
unlike the Parentalia festival, observedannually between the 13th and
21st of February,the Iuvilas ceremonieswere celebratedat differenttimes
of the year, on no fixed date. Perhapsmost important,the Iuvilas dedica-
tions, though clearly connectedwith the worship of the dead, were not
themselvesconsecratedat the tombs of the dereased,but rather in a
separategrove complex in which specific places were set aside for
individualfamilies; the inscriptionsrecordingthe dedicationsmay subse-
quentlyhave beentransferredto the tombs,or copiesof the originaltexts
may have been setup there,but cult activity seemsto have beenconfined
to thegrovecomplex
in whichtheIuvilasstelaewereerected.
TM Finally,
as E.T. Salmon has observed,the Iuvilas texts, whatevertheir precise
significance,tell us only about Capua, sincethey are attestedonly there
andnothinglikethemhasbeenfoundelsewhere.
2•5
It thus seemsimpossibleto equatethe Oscanluvilas rite, celebratedat
varioustimesof the year at a locationotherthanthe tomb andknown only
from Capua,with the RomanParentaliafestivalobservedthroughoutItaly
annuallyon fixed datesand invariablyperformedat the grave site. The
phrasescadaverproiecitadandstircusfundatidin the Luceriantext show
that the authorsof the law were conversantwith Latin idiom and usage
(seepp. 30-32); the final five linesof the inscriptionattesttheir familiarity
with Romanlegalformulae?6 Is it likely thatthe samedraftersof the
Lucerianlaw would apply a technicalRoman term with precisereligious
connotationsto a fundamentallydifferent Oscan rite? Better to assume
that the text meanswhat it saysand to draw the necessaryconclusionsfor
the lawmakers'intent. The aim of the ordinancewasnot to protecta locus
sacerfrom pollution,but to rendera locusreligiosus"pure" by preventing
the observancethere of sacra privata and thus implicitly forbidding
further burials on the site.
The Lucerianlaw differsfundamentallyfrom other laws concerningthe
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 63

protectionof sacredplacesin that the latter inevitablyaim to preservethe

statusquo;they aredesignedto safeguardthe sanctityof theplacein ques-
tion by preventingdisturbancesto the establishedorder. The purposeof
the Lucerian ordinance,on the other hand, was to change the way in
which the loucar was used. In this it resembles the edict of Sentius from
the Esquiline burial ground and standsin marked contrastto the sacred
law from Spoletium,the only law for the protectionof a sacredgroveto
havecomedownto usfrom Romanantiquity. Bothtypesof ordinanceare
designedto regulateuse of the delimited area,but they addressthe issue
from oppositeperspectives: one seeksto preventan offensiveactivity
from ever occurring,the otherto prohibitonethathashabituallyoccurred.
 VI. Conclusion: The lex Lucerina

Seventy-five
yearsagoBticheler,
in hiscomment
at CIL 12401,observed
of the Lucerian inscription,"primos versus ita vitiatos esse eo magis
mireris quod posterioresquinqueprope nihil vitii contraxerunt."What-
ever their place in the history of Roman legal science,the penalties
prescribedin the final five lines belongto a well-known storeof Roman
legal formulae and proceduresthat eventually came to be applied to a
variety of offenses;consequentlythey tell us little about the characterof
the regulations
enumerated
in the precedinglines?7 The Lucerian
lawmakerswere not so fortunatein having precisemodelsto follow in
formulatingthe prohibitionsto which the penaltiespertained--hencethe
peculiaritiesof orthographyand morphologyso prominentin the clauses
discussed above. But the idiomaticphrasescadaverproiecitadandstircus
fundatid establishthe Lucerianordinancesecurelywithin the framework
of Roman civic regulations,and the technical term parentatid removes
any doubtthat the Lucerianordinancemustbe evaluatedagainstthe back-
groundof Romanlegal, religious,andculturalinstitutions.
Within that context, the Lucerian law exhibits none of the features that
characterizeother surviving inscriptionsconcerningthe protection of
sacredgroves.In particular,the absenceof any restrictionagainstcutting
or removingwoodandthe silenceof thetext regardingpiacularobligations
in theeventof violationsto the loucarprecludethepossibilitythattheordi-
nancewas designedto protecta sacredgrovefrom religiouspollution(see
ChapterIII). The prohibitionsrecordedin the Luceriantext againstdis-
carding refuse and abandoningcorpsespoint insteadto a very different
type of physicalenvironment:similar regulationsare otherwiseattested
only at theEsquilineburialgroundin Rome,whereindiscriminate dumping
of garbageand corpseshad grown so intolerableby the final periodof the
Republic that the public disposalpits (puticuli) locatedin the area were
shutdown and the praetorcalleduponto ensurethe sanitarymaintenance
of the regionoutsidethe Servianagger betweenthe EsquilineandViminal
gates.Someyearslater a senatusconsultumenjoinedthe overseersof cer-
tain areasoutsidethe Esquilinegate to keep the territory free of pyres,

64
 CRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 65

crematoria,refuse,anddirt, butno prohibitionagainstabandoning corpses

wasrecorded,apparentlybecausebodieswereno longerbeingdumpedin
the vicinity.
D'Amelj's report of the circumstancesunder which the Lucerian
ordinancecame to light confirmsthat the inscriptionemergedfrom an
extensivegraveyard,but his seeminglycontradictorydescriptionof the
archaeologicalzone and the materialsfoundthereindoesnot allow us to
draw any firm conclusions aboutthe conditionsprevailingat the site when
the ordinancewas posted. In attemptingto establishthe lawmakers'
intent,I have tried to exploit the comparativeinscriptionaland archaeo-
logicalevidencefrom the Esquilineburial groundto showthat in matters
of policing the Romans did not post explicit regulationsforbidding
specific activities except in areas where those activities were likely to
occur (see Chapter IV). If the argumentis sound,then the prohibition
againstabandoningcorpsesrecordedin the Lucerianlaw presupposes that
bodieswere beingdumpedin the area at the time the inscriptionwas set
up. This doesnot meanthat the Lucerianloucarwas locatedpreciselyon
the siteof formerputiculi (althoughit may havebeen):the distributionof
the Esquilinecippi preservingthe edict of Senflusshowsthat in places
wherethe bodiesof the poor were heapedin mass-gravepits,not only the
areassetasidefor the publicdisposalof the deadbut alsothe surrounding
regionswere liable to contaminationfrom corpses. It does, however,
imply that the Luceriangraveyardwas in activeuse whenthe local ordi-
nancewas posted.
The final prohibitionagainstpatenratiopointsto the sameconclusion,
for the samereason. A restrictionagainstperformingrites to dead ances-
torsmakessenseonly in a placewheresuchobservances were apt to be
held, that is, in the caseof patenratio,at the grave. The restrictionagainst
parentatio furthermoreshowsthat the intentionof the lawmakerswas to
changethe way in which the site of the loucar was used:an activityonce
conductedwithin its confineswas no longerto be permitted(seeChapter
V). The only authoritycompetentto prohibitthe performanceof private
religiousritesin suchan arbitraryfashionwasthe state;it thereforefollows
that the Lucerianloucar was locatedon publicland, as indeedthe provi-
sionsfor manusiniectiopro iudicatoanda fine leviedat a magistrate'sdis-
cretionsuggest.Whetherthe areahad previouslybeenreservedfor public
burialsandwasnow beingconvertedto a new useor whetherthe terrnina-
rio of the loucar involvedthe confiscationof privategravesiteswe cannot
say,butthelatteris at leasta possibility.An inscriptionof comparabledate
from Venusia recording a decision of the local senate to declare an
66 JOHN BODEL

unspecifiedarea of land either sacredor public propertyshowsthat the

religiousstatusof real estateacquiredfrom privatepartiescouldbe ambi-
guous.
218Suchconfiscations
of privatepropertyinevitablyattended
the
establishmentof Latin colonistsin conqueredterritory, as at Venusia in
291 and at Luceria in 314. Since the Romansdid not regardthe gravesof
enemiesas loca religiosa (see n. 160), if the confiscatedland included
graves, any religious value they may have held for the native peoples
countedfor nothingwith the victors. Perhapsthen, as Arena suggests,the
restrictionagainstparentatioin the Lucerianordinancereflectsan instance
of Roman disrespectfor the gravesof enemiesandrepresentsthe punitive
repressionof nativereligiousworship.
It needsto be asked,however,what purposethe local authoritiesmay
have had in markingout a tract of public land in a regionwhere dumping
of corpsesand refuse clearly presenteda threat to the requisitemainte-
nance of the site. Hostility to the defeated Lucerians following their
betrayalof the town to the Samnitescan accountfor only one of the three
prohibitions recorded in the ordinance; the obvious intention of the
Lucerianlawmakersto preservethe area of the loucar free from corpses
and rubbishcannothavebeeninspiredby the samemotive. Becauseof its
locationin the middleof a graveyardthe loucar would have beenunsuit-
able for many public activities,and the area where the stonewas found,
roughly 200 metersoutsidethe town walls, does not seem particularly
advantageousfrom either an administrativeor a strategicstandpoint.Ear-
lier it was suggestedthat the classicalLatin nounlucar owesits derivation
to the paymentof a burial tax in the lucusLibitinae at Rome, or perhapsto
the proceedsaccruingfrom the sale of a lucrativepublic contractto under-
takerswho operatedout of the grove of Libitina (see ChapterII). In the
light of the interpretationof the sc de pago Montano proposedabove
(pp. 49 f.) and the parallelsdrawn betweenits contentsand thoseof the
Lucerian text, the suggestionthat loucarid in the Lucerian law perhaps
refersto a similar undertakers'headquartersat Luceria (see p. 23) may be
seento acquirea certaincircumstantialplausibility.
We have seenthat the lucusLibitinae at Rome was unusualin servingas
the venue for funerarytransactionsand in housingburial equipment(see
pp.13-15). The phrase ubi hodie lucus est Libitinae in the lex libiti-
naria from Puteolisuggeststhat the grove of Libitina there,unlike other
Romanluci, wasestablished by the local governmentandcould,if the need
arose, be relocated(see p. 15 and n.62). Such a grove cannot have been
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 67

sacred in the traditional manner of the numinous woodlands venerated in

Romanmyth, whosereligiouspropertieswere inherentlytied to their phy-
sical location; indeed, to the Roman mind the religious power of nature
residedin the placeand couldnot be alienatedor transferred.Luci sacri,
moreover,couldnot normallybe createdby governmental mandate,as the
groveof Libitina at Puteoliapparentlywas. The evidencefrom Rome and
Puteolileadsus to concludethat grovesof Libitina were not possessed of
the samereligiousqualitiesasothersacredgrovesin theRomanworld and
were not subjectto the samerules of maintenance.They were placesof
businessestablishedby the statefor the useof private contractorsunder-
taking funeraryconcessions; as suchtheir jurisdictionbelongedto civil
rather than to sacral law. Certain activitiesnormally conductedwithin
their confines,such as the rental and removal of funerary equipment,
would not have been permittedin other sacredgroves;conversely,no
effort seemsto havebeenmadeto protectthemfrom religiouspollutionor
to preventthe removalof wood from their precincts.In short,luci Libi-
tinae seem to have been treated more like loca publica than loca sacra.
Since what little evidence we have seems to indicate that workers in the
Roman funerary trade normally resided near their principal place of
business--theburial groundssituatedoutsideRomantowns(seep. 50 and
n. 185)--it is a plausible inference that luci Libitinae likewise were
located in cemeteries.
Livy's reportof the circumstances
attendingthe foundingof the Roman
settlementat Luceriain 314 suggests
thatthe new colonymay havebeenin
needof suchan undertakers'headquarters earlyin itshistory. Accordingto
Livy, after the RomangarrisonwasbetrayedandLuceriafell intothe hands
of the Samnites, the Roman army, upon retaking the town, reacted
violently, annihilatingeveryone:Lucerini ac $amnitesad internecionem
caesi;subsequently,
2,500colonists
weresent(9.26.1-5).219In theafter-
math of the massacre,whateverburial resourcesthe town possessed must
havebeensorelytaxedby the suddeninflux of a massof corpses.It would
not be surprisingif soonthereaftera sectionof the public cemeterywas
closeddown and setasidefor thosewho conductedthe businessof dispos-
ing of the dead. The peculiarcombinationof prohibitionsrecordedin the
Lucerianlaw, the failure of the text explicitlyto mentionthe necessityof a
piaculumin the eventof infractionsagainstthe ordinance,andthe posting
of the inscriptionin the middleof a graveyard--all make senseif the !ex
Lucerina was enacted in conjunction with the establishment of a
68 JOHN BODEL

headquartersfor the local undertakersand was designedto ensure the

requisitemaintenanceof an areadesignatedfor their use. No otherrecon-
struction suits the evidence so well.

It is at any rate clear that the Lucerianordinancehas nothingin com-

mon with other laws concerningthe protectionof sacred groves and
cannot have been intended for that purpose. Of the foundation of
Mommsen'soriginalattributionnothingremainsbut the ambiguous,enig-
matic loucarid,which may or may not standfor luco. I hope at leastto
have shown that in the Lucerian law the term cannot have been used in the
classicalsense,"sacredgrove":in popularetymology,perhaps,but not in
history,canonethusderivea lucusa non lucendo.
 APPENDIX 1

Productive luci ?

Mommsen adducedtwo passagesto show that sacred groves produced

revenue for the state.22ø The first is taken from Siculus Flaccus' work De
condicionibusagrorum (Grom. Vet. pp. 162-163 La. = Corp. Agr. p. 127
Th.):

collegia sacerdotumitemque virgines habent agros et territoria

quaedam etiam determinata et quaedam aliquibus sacris dedicata,
in eis etiam lucos,in quibusdametiam aedestemplaque.

Nothing in the passageindicatesthat the groves,or, for that matter,any

of the other propertieslisted, producedincome:whetherthey did or did
not is irrelevant to the author's purpose, which in this section of his
treatise is to advise prospective surveyors on how to recognize and
classifycertainproblematic
typesof land.TM ThattheVestalVirginsand
pontificesowned agri that returnedrevenue in the form of rent is well
known,222but to concludefrom the mention of luci in the same sentence
that the latter were similarly productiveis as misguidedas to concludethat
the aedes templaque with which they are associatedcould be farmed
out--a view entirely at odds with the fundamentalRoman distinction
between property belongingto the gods and property belongingto the
statebutreserved
forreligious
purposes.
TM
The secondpassagecited by Mommsenis drawn from Livy's descrip-
tion of the famoustempleto LacinianJunoat Croton(24.3.4-6):

lucusibifrequenti silva et proceris abietisarboribussaeptuslaeta in

medio pascua habuit, ubi omnis generis sacrum deae pecus pas-
cebatur sine ullo pastore, separatimquegregessui cuiusquegeneris
nocte remeabantad stabula, nunquaminsidiisferarum, nonfraude
violati hominum.magni igitur fructus ex eo pecore capti colum-
naque inde aurea solidafacta et sacrata est.

69
70 JOHN BODEL

In the first place, Livy goeson to explainthat the wealth of the temple
was exceptional:inclitumqueternplumdivitiis etiam, non tanturnsanctitate
fuit (24.3.6). What is more, the templecomplexevidentlyowed its pros-
perity to the lushpasturage(laeta pascua)on which the cattle grazed;the
trees themselvesservedmainly to enclosethe area (lucus ... frequenti
silva et proceris abietis arboribussaeptus). Finally, concerningboth the
directsourceof incomeand the specificusemadeof it, the text is explicit:
profitsderivedfrom the livestockwent towardthe manufactureof a solid
gold columndedicatedto the goddess.Nothing suggests that the groveof
Lacinian Juno was typical in any of this; on the contrary,Livy's entire
descriptionof the shrine,includingthe obligatorynoticeof miraculaasso-
ciatedwith it (24.3.7), pointsto the oppositeconclusion.
A famouspassageof Juvenal'sthird satire (3.13-16) has sometimes
been taken to illustrate the lease of a sacred grove outside the Porta
Capena
to mendicant
Jews:
TM

nuncsacrifontis nemuset delubra locantur

ludaeis, quorumcophinusfenumquesupellex;
omnisenimpopulo mercedempendere iussaest
arbor et eiectis mendicat silva Camenis.

Whateverhistoricalreality underliesthe phrasemendicatsilva, it is clear

that little, if anything,in the passagecanbe takenat face value. The most
recent commentatoron the last two lines, E. Courtney,arguesthat mer-
cedemalludesto theriscusludaicus,in which case,"the descriptionof this
tax as rent is satirical,not literal, intendedto suggestomnia Romae cum
pretio(183)".TM Be thatas it may,since(asCourtney
notes)we know
that templesand shrinescouldnot themselvesbe let out, thereis no reason
to believe, when Juvenal declares nemus et delubra locantur, that he is not
speaking
metaphorically
of theformeraswellasthelatter.
226According
to Frontinus,the multitudeand rapacityof landholdersin Italy of his day
was suchthat private estatesencroachedon sacredgrovesin contravention
of bothlaw andreligion.
227Wherethatwaspossible,
we neednotdoubt
that, then as now, lessfortunatepersonslacking shelterfound unattended
public parks safer havensthan private propertiesand frequentlymade
theirhomesin them. In all likelihoodthe Jewsat the PortaCapenabelong
in thiscategory:they were squatters,not renters.
Finally, Pasqualiniadducesa fragmentaryinscriptionfrom Carsioli(CIL
IX 4072= 121826),thelastlineof whichhe completes
[ex?]pec(unia)
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 71

lucei.228Therestoration
ispossible
butby nomeanscertain,andlittlecan
be made of it in isolation. Certainly this one ambiguoustext cannotbear
the weight of the interpretationadvancedby Mommsenand subsequently
adoptedby many, accordingto which sacredgrovesprovidedsubstantial
regular income to the state. Until better evidencefor that view is pro-
duced,we are entitledto rejectit.
 APPENDIX 2

The lex libitinaria from Puteoli (AE 1971, 88)

Presentedbelow are excerptsfrom the Puteolanfunerarylaw publishedby

L. Bove in RAAN 41 (1966) 207-239 and Labeo 13 (1967) 22-48, with
Bove's supplements.Placeswhere I differ from Bove's interpretationare
notedin a brief apparatusfollowing eachexcerpt,and in severalpassages
I have incorporatedalternative suggestions(some of which I owe to
E. Badian) into the text; theseare offered exempligratia and are merely
intendedto indicatewhat I believeto be the requiredsenseof thepassage.
The interpretationof problematicpassagesrelevant to the presentinvesti-
gation is discussedin the text and notesat the appropriateplace, but I have
not attemptedto defend systematicallymy many departuresfrom the edi-
tio princeps,sincethe primary aim of this appendixis simply to provide
an intelligible text; detailedconsiderationof the many obscuritiesthat the
transmittedversionotherwisepresentsmust await a new edition and com-
mentary on the Campanian funerary laws, which I hope to produce in
anotherplace.
Originally inscribedin severalcolumnsdisposedover one or more large
marble slabs,the text surviveson three contiguousfragmentsof a single
slab (combinedmeasurements:137 by 80 by 9 centimeters)preserving
parts of three columnsof 32, 34, and 25 lines respectively.The top and
bottomof eachcolumnare preserved;to judge from a small area of unin-
scribedsurfacevisibleon the smallestsurvivingfragmentbeneaththe third
columnof text,thelastextantcolumncomprised
theendof thedocument.
If we assumethat the columnswere of approximatelyequalwidth, thenwe
are missingroughly the first three-quartersof each line in the first column
and roughly a quarterto a half at the end of each line in the third column.
The secondcolumn, which containsmost of the passagesrelevant to the
presentinquiry, is preservedin its entirety for the first 25 lines and lacks
more thana few lettersat the end of the line in only threeof the remaining
lines. Inscribedin large, well-carvedcapitallettersacrossthe topsof the
columns was a title, partially preserved, identifying the document

72
Plate 2
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 73

(evidently,as its contentsshow,alex locationis)as pertainingto the fun-

erary trade:two lettersandthe crucialword (or part of a word) LIBITINA
survive,the entire phraseto be completed,perhaps,as Bove (210) sug-
gests,[de munerepubli]colibitina[rio]. Sincethe interpretation of certain
passagesof the law dependsupona considerationof their positionwithin
the broadercontextof the document,a brief summaryof the contentsof
the extantportionsof the text (insofaras they can be discerned)may use-
fully supplementthe selectionsquotedbelow.
The missingportionsof the first columnmake reconstruction difficult,
but our text seemsto begin with the end of a list of servicesthat the con-
tracting undertaker (manceps) is obliged to provide free of charge
(gratuita) under certain unknown circumstances(I 1-2). The remainder
of the first survivingparagraphand the next four paragraphs(I 3-28)
apparentlylaid down fixed prices for the employmentof certain of the
undertaker'spersonnelaccordingto the distancethey were required to
travel (from the town walls?) (an ustor and a mercen(narius) are men-
tionedin lines 6-7; ratesper mile and a standarddistanceof 5 miles are
specifiedin lines5, 23, and 14 respectively)andfor the useof certainpub-
lic facilities(the phrasespro ara (line 12) andpro chalc/[idico](line 19)
survive), with fixed deductionsgranted under certain (unknown) cir-
cumstances(lines 20-23). The next paragraph(I 29-II 2) imposesa fine,
payableto the contractor,on anyonefoundto have abandoned corpses,at
the rate of HS 60 per corpse,and establishes a judicial procedure(reci-
peratoriumiudicium)for exactingthe fine.
The first completeparagraphof the secondcolumn(II 3-7) enjoinsthe
contractingundertakerto maintaina staffof not fewer than32 workmenof
soundbody,free of anydisfiguringmarks(nevestigmat(ibus)inscript(us)),
betweenthe agesof 20 and 50 and establishes strictrulesregardingtheir
place of residence(outsidetown, no closerthan a certainlandmark:see
n. 61) andaccessto thecity (on business only) andpublicbathingfacilities
(not after the first hour of the night); wheneverworkmenenterthe town,
they are requiredto wear a coloredcap (pilleus),presumablyso that they
may be easilyrecognized(and, we may suppose,avoided). The next two
paragraphslist equipmentand personnelthat the contractoris obligedto
provideat fixed ratesto privatecitizenswishingto punishtheir slaves(II
8-10) and free of chargeto municipalmagistrates administering public
punishments(II 11-14). There follow four paragraphsof regulations
designedto ensurethattheundertakercarriesout his chargesin an orderly
and timely fashion; the first two lay down guidelines,the secondtwo
74 JOHN BODEL

concernproceduresto be followed in the eventthe contractorfails fully to

comply. Requestsfor servicesfiled by private citizensare to be honored
in the order in which they are registered,with the exceptionthat funerals
of decurionsandfunera acerba (that is, of thosewho died prematurely)
are accordedabsolutepriority(II 15-21). The bodiesof suicidesby hang-
ing are to be removedfrom public view within an hour of beingreported
and the corpsesof slaveswithin two hoursof daylight (II 22-23). If the
contractorfails to supply the requisite serviceson time, private citizens
are authorized to make alternative arrangements,and the contractor,in
additionto payingotherdamages,is madeliable for reimbursementof the
additional expense incurred (II 24-30); if the contractor'snegligence
inconveniencesan official acting in a public capacity,a fine levied by the
magistrateis to be depositedin the treasuryof the colony(II 31-34).
The first paragraphof the third column imposesstiff fines (HS 100) on
those who without just cause hire any of the servicesoutlined in the
precedingparagraphsfrom a party other than the authorizedcontractor
and on thosewho undertaketo provide suchservices(III 1-4) (see n. 63).
The following paragraphis largely obscure,but seemsto concernlegal
proceduresto be followed in the event of a disputearising(perhaps)over
the allegedfailure of the contractorto fulfill his obligationsor to perform
his servicessatisfactorily(III 5-10). In the next paragraphthe business
partnershipsof the contractorare limited to a certainnumberand provi-
sion is made for prosecutionbefore a judge (iudex) or assessor(recipera-
tor) in the event of noncompliance(III 11-16). The following paragraph
apparentlyspecifiesappurtenances of the funerary trade providedto the
contractor(by the colony?)(III 17-19). In the final two paragraphsthe
contractoris enjoinedto posta copy of the law at his establishedplace of
businesswhere it can be easily read (III 20-21), and he is made liable to
the colonyfor a fine of HS 100 for any infractionagainstthe termsof the
contract (III 22-25).
The inscriptionhas been variously assignedon the basis of its letter
formsto the late Republicanor Augustanperiod(Bove 210, citing also"la
lingua") and to the Julio-Claudianera (J. Reynolds,JRS 61 (1971) 148).
As we have seen(above,p. 15 and n. 62), M. Frederiksenbelievedthat the
establishment of a lucusLibitinae at Puteolipresupposed the foundingof
the Julian colony underAugustus. But paleographicfeaturesare a notori-
ously unreliableguide to dating,and the institutionalparallelismthat links
Puteoli, a city with old and strongties to the capital, to Rome need not in
every case have originatedwith Augustus:if the interpretationgiven
above(pp. 18 f.) of the phraselucar Libitinae in the inscriptionof Marius
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 75

Lupercianusof Bergomum is accepted,then Puteoli was not the only

Italian city to boasta local grove of Libitina; and if we can assume,as I
think we can, that other Italian municipalitieslikewise followed Rome in
establishingheadquarters for their local undertakersat suburbanluci Libi-
tinae (note the pagusLibitinusat Ligures Baebiani:CIL IX 1455.III.54),
then the casefor viewing Puteoli's grove of Libitina as a productof the
specialattentionsdevotedto the town by Augustusbecomesless compel-
ling.
In fact certain linguistic featuresof the text seem to point to a date
closer to the time of Sulla. Ablative forms such as ead and horad (II
22-23), with the archaic final d retained, are seldom found in Latin
inscriptionsafter the middleof the secondcenturyBC(Porzio-Gernia(cit.
n. 5) 175-179), and the latest datable instanceof a final d in any official
document
seems
tobelong
to theLatinTabulaBantinaof ca.125(CIL12
582.21: sedfor se (acc.)). On the otherhand,geminationof internalcon-
sonantsis standardthroughoutthe Puteolantext (su/pliciumat II 11-12 is
probablydue to a carver'serror:cf. supplic() at II 4, 8 (bis), 10, 11), and
the morphologyand syntax--where it is not patently corrupt--generally
conform to the norms of the classicalperiod (compare,e.g., mancipi at I
32 and III 17, instead of the earlier form in -u-, as found still in Varro, LL
5.40 (mancupis),with mancipe(dat.) in the lex coloniae GenetivaeIuliae
of 44: CIL 12594.93.22;further,TLL VIII 251.29-33).
It may be significantthat the olderforms (ablativesin -d, accusativesin
-ore) are concentratedin a single passage,the chapter concerningthe
timely removalof suicidesanddeadslaves(II 22-23; ead (bis), horad, ser-
vore;but note aceryorefor acerbumat II 20): perhapsthis paragraph,the
onlyonein thesurvivingportionsof thelaw to establishprecisetime-limits
for the performanceof the contractor'sservices(a featurenotablyabsent
from the followingchapter,II 24-30, concerningprocedures to be followed
in the event of a delay on the contractor'spart), is tralaticious,takenover
from an earlier funerary law and preserving some, though not all (cf.
suspendiosum, tollend(urn)(bis), and die in the sameparagraph),of its ori-
ginal orthography.Pronouncedshadingof the sort clearly visible in the
well-carvedcapitallettersof the title line is not generallyfoundin lapidary
inscriptionsat the capitalbeforethe middle of the firstcenturyBCand only
cameto be widely employedin monumentaltextsat Romebeginningin the
Augustanera (seeplate 4; cf. J.S. Gordon and A.E. Gordon, Contributions
to the paleography of Latin inscriptions(1957) 208-209). Certain other
featuresof the lettering(e.g., R with the third strokebeginningfrom the
loop rather than the vertical, A with the secondstrokelonger and more
 76 JOHN BODEL

slantedthan the first) likewise seemmore compatiblewith the letter forms

of the Caesarianand later periodsthan with the paleographicstyle of the
first half of the first centuryBC (Gordon and Gordon, Contributions209,
211), but chronologicalterrnini for these developmentsare not to be
pressed.Officialtextscarvedin columnsandon marblearenotunusualin
Italy after the beginningof the first centuryBC (cf. A.E. Gordon, Univer-
sity of California Publications in Classical Archaeology 1.5 (1936)
159-167, esp. 164), and if the so-calledlex de parietifaciendoof Puteoli,
consular-dated in 105BC,is indeedpreservedfor us in the originalinscrip-
tionratherthanan imperialcopy(cf. CIL 12698 withtheremarks
of
A. Degrassion p. 936 ad loc.), then we have a preciseparallel for the use
of both featureslocally in a comparabledocumentat a slightly earlier
date.

Where suchimprecise--andpartiallycontradictory-•datingcriteriaare
concerned,more than usual cautionis necessary;consideredtogether,the
linguisticandpaleographicfeaturesof the Puteolantext may nevertheless
be taken tentativelyto suggestthat the law was inscribedsometime dur-
ing the first half of the first centuryBC. Nothingin the characterof the
languageor letteringis intolerablyat oddswith that approximatedate,and
no argumentconcerningthe contentsof the documentavailsto disproveit.
Under the circumstances,however, dogmaticassertionsare out of place,
and a datein the final yearsof the Republicor evenpossiblyearly in the
Augustan era cannot be excluded, although neither period suits the
linguisticevidencesowell.
The passagestranscribedbelow are identifiedby column (I, II, or III)
and line numberin accordancewith Bove's notation;paragraphsmarked
in the original by initial letters a quarter again taller than the others and
protrudingca. 1 centimeterfrom the left marginof the columnare dis-
tinguishedaccordingto modern convention. For further details of the
state of preservationof the fragments,the circumstancesof their dis-
covery, and interpretationof the text, see Bove's publicationin RAAN,
whichincludesa photographof all the fragments.

1 29-II 2
1 29, 30 [---q]uanturn in ipsius/ [---] r(atio) c(ura) e(sto) idernprae-
31, 32 st(are) d(ebeto) / [---f]erend(urn) curato et / I---It turn is
II 1 rnancipi/ socioveeius quotienscurnq(ue) proiecer(it) in sing(ula)
cadavera HS LX n(ummum) d(amnas) e(sto) d(are) deq(ue)
earurn (sic) rnagistrat(us) recipe/ratoriurn iudiciurn e lege
colon(iae) cogito.
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 77

II 1 earurnlapis: pro ea re Bove.

II 3-7
oper(ae)quaeat eamr(em) praeparat(ae)
er(unt) ne intra turrem ubi
4 hodie lucus est Libit(inae) habitent laventurveab h(ora) I / noctis
neve veniant in oppid(um)nisi mortui tollend(i) conlocand(i)veaut
5 supplic(i)sumend(i)c(ausa);dum ita / quis eor(um) veniatquotiens
oppid(um) intrab(it) in oppid(o)ve erit ut pilleum color(atum) in
6 capit(e) habea{n}t et / dum ne quis eor(um) maior ann(orum) L
minorve ann(orum) XX sit, neve u[lcer(osus)] neve luscus neve
7 manc(us) neve clodus / neve cae[cus] neve stigmat(ibus)
inscript(us) sit et ne pauciores mancepsoper(as) habeat quam
XXXII.

5 habea{ n }t emendavi.

II 11-14
quot(iens) supplic(ium)magistrat(us)public(e) sumet,ita impera-
12 <bi>t, quotienscumq(ue) imperat(um)er(it), praestuessesu/plicium
sumer(e) crucesstatuereclavospecem ceram candel(as)quaeq(ue)
13 ad eas res opuserunt reo / gratis praest(are) d(ebeto);item si unco
extrahere iussuserit, oper(a) russat(a) id cadaver ubi plura /
14 cadavera erunt cum tintinnabulo extrahere debebit.

11 quot supplic(ia)Bove: quot(iens)supplic(ium)scripsiI impera<bi>t

correxi.

II 15-21
quot rq]ui<s>q(ue) ex is rebus quras• h(ac) l(ege) utiq(ue)
16 praeber(i) o(portebit) praeberi volet denuntiat(o)denuntiat(um)ve
cura/to manc(ipi) eius public(i) socioveeius eive ad q(uem) e(a)
r(es) q(ua) d(e) a(gitur) p(ertinet) aut s(i) is praesensnon erit ad
17 eum loc(um) / quem libitinae exsercend(ae)gratia conduct(um)
18 constitutu[m]habeb(it), quo die quoq(ue) loc(o) quam/que{m}
rei (sic) praeberi volet; et <cum> ita denuntiat(um) erit tum is
manc(eps) sociusveeius isve ad q(uem) e(a) r(es) q(ua) d(e)
19 <a(gitur)> / p(ertinet) ei qui primum denuntiaver(it) et deinceps
20 reliquis ut quisq(ue) denuntiaver(it)--nisi si funus / decurion(is)
funusveacefrom denuntiat(um)erit cui (sic) prima curand(a) erint,
78 JOHN BODEL

21 reliquor(um) autemfu/nerum ordo servand(us)--omnes{q(ue)}res

quae ex h(ac) l(ege) praestand(ae) erunt mitter(e) prae-
ber(e)<q>(ue)quaepraeb(endaeerunt)<d(ebeto)>.

15 cuiq lapis: cuiq(ue)Bove: rq•ui<s>q(ue) temptaviI qui lapis, Bove:

qu rasTMcorrexipraeber(e) Bove: praeber(i) supplevi16 public(o) Bove:
public(i) malui,cf. OLD s.v."publicum"4 17 constituelapis:
constitut(um)ve Bove: constitutu•mTMmalui, v. n. 66 18 quam/que{m }
emendaviI rei lapis: r(em) ei Bove;sibi expectares: re •mTM temptavil cum
addidi20 cui per synesemproquaeei ? 21 omnesq(ue)Bove: q(ue) super-
vacuumdelevi Ipraeber(e)<q>(ue)copulamsupplevild(ebeto)addidi.

I122-23
suspendiosumcum denuntiat(um) erit ead horad is solvend(um)
23 tollend(um) curato, item servom / servamve si ante h(oram) X diei
denuntiat(um)erit ead die tollend(um)curato, si post X poster(a)
d(ie) a(nte) h(oram) II.

I124-30
si per manc(ipem)sociumveeius eumvead q(uem) e(a) r(es) q(ua)
d(e) a(gitur) p(ertinet) morafuerit quomin(us)oper(as) aliasveres/
25 quas h(ac) l(ege) eum mittere utiq(ue)praeber(e) oporteb(it)mittat
26 praebeatve,tum is qui funusfaciet cu/rabitveeas res praebend(as)
sin(e) d(olo) m(alo) locato; quot ira praebend(um) locaver(it)
27 <aut> i<p>s(e) conduxer(it)ususq(ue)er[it], / ob earn r(em) eri TM
qui id public(urn) exsecerb(it) (sic) neque dare neq(ue) <quic-
28 q(uam)> praestar(e) debet(o); quantoplur(is) locatum [con]/duc-
tumvefuerit manc(eps)sociusveeiusisvead q(uem) e(a) r(es) q(ua)
d(e) a(gitur) p(ertinet) ei alter(urn) tanturn [q(uanto) p(luris) is
29 locaver(it) aut] /conduxer(it)praestar(e) debetodamnasq(ue)e(sto)
30 dar(e) deq(ue)ea re magistrat(us)reci[peratoriumiu]/diciume lege
colon(iae)cogito.

26 aut suppleviI is lapis, Bove: i<p>s(e) temptavi27 et lapis, Bove: e ri TM

scripsiI public(e) Bove: public(um)malui, v. ad II 16 I quicquamvel sim.
desideratur 28 [quantois locaver(it)] Bove: [q(uanto)p(luris) is
locaver(it)aut] supplevi,cf. 14.
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 79

III 1-4
siquisaliuspraetermanceps soci[usve eiusisveadq(uem)e(a)r(es)
q(ua) d(e) a(gitur)p(ertinet)eas res de quibush(ac) l(ege)]/
2 comprehensum est ante denunti[at(ionem) praebend(as)
condux-
3 er(it), is qui locaver(it)mancipi]/ HS C n(ummum) d(amnas)e(sto)
d(are); item qui conduxeriteid(em) [manc(ipi)socioveeius eive
ad q(uem)e(a) r(es) q(ua)d(e) a(gitur)p(ertinet)HS . n(ummum)
4 d(amnas)e(sto)d(are)]/deq(ue)is multismagistratus iudicia[reci-
peratoriae legecolon(iae)cogito].

1-2 soci[usveeiusisvead q(uem)e(a) r(es) q(ua)d(e) a(gitur)p(ertinet)

locaver(it)eas respraebend(as) de quibussupra]/... denunti[ationem
---] supplcvitBov½;scdis quiofficiummancipis usurpatlocator½ss½non
dcbct;immopartesconductoris agit:soci[usveeiusisvead q(uem)e(a)
r(es) q(ua)d(e) a(gitur)p(ertinet)easres de quibush(ac) l(ege)]/ ...
denunti[at(ionem)praebend(as) conduxer(it)is qui locaver(it)mancipi]
tcmptavi3 eid(em)[manc(ipi)sociove
eiuseiveadq(uem)e(a)r(es)q(ua)
d(e)a(gitur)p(ertinet)
HS. n(ummum)d(amnas) e(sto)d(are)]supplcvi.
III 5-10
6 si controversia
erit colonusqui sit a [---] / libertaveaut concubina
7 eorumvecui [---] /pertineantquodex h(ac) l(ege)petituris qui
8 fu[nusfaciet
--- ] / re etomnibus
iustispermittimagistra[tus
--- ] /
9 ea causaessequaeh(ac) l(ege)except(a)estduplumeum[---] /
10 iisvefacereiubetoeiusq(ue)
multaepignusca[pereliceto].

III 17-19
mancipis[oci]oveeius re'ive ad q(uem)e(a) r(es) q(ua) d(e)
a(gitur)
18 p(ertinet)haecgratuit(a)praesta[ntur
--- ] / et cell[amfu]neream:
19 sunt item lignaria quae ante hunc die[m qui] / libit[inae
e]xsercendaeprae(e)rat.

17 sivelapis:sive<ei> Bove: re'ive malui,cf. II 16 18fu]ner[<.>]eam

Bove;quidsignificetnescio.

III 20-21
man[cepshan]c legempropositamhabetoeo loco quemeius r[ei
21 exsercend(ae)] / gr[atia cond]uct(um)
constitutum
habebitu(nde)
d(e)p(lano) r(ecte)l(egi)p(ossit).
80 JOHN BODEL

20 eiusr[ei libitinae]Bove' eiusr[ei exsercend(ae)]

supplevi,cf. II 17, 27,
III 19 21 u(t) Bove' u(nde) malui, v. n. 66.
 APPENDIX 3

Municipal potter's fields

And he [Judas]cast down the piecesof silver in the temple, and

departed,and went and hangedhimself. And the chief prieststook
the silverpieces,and said,"It is not lawful for to put theminto the
treasury,becauseit is the price of blood." And they took counsel,
andboughtwith themthe potter'sfield, to bury strangersin. Where-
fore thatfieldwascalled"The fieldof blood"untothisday.
(Matthew 27.5-8)

habent et res p(ublicae) loca suburbanainopumfuneribus destinata,

quae loca ?cula, culinas? appellant. habent et loca noxiorum
poenisdestinata.
(AgenniusUrbicus,in Grom. Vet. p. 86 La. = Corp. Agr. p. 47 Th.)

Accordingto Varro, the placesoutsideRomantownswherethe bodiesof

the indigentwere disposedof were known asputiculi, becausemen used
to be buriedtherein pits (putei) (LL 5.25, seen. 154). AgenniusUrbicus
in his treatiseon land-surveyingrefersto them as cula or culinae--the text
is corrupt--and we know them as "potter'sfields", after the plot pur-
chasedoutsideJerusalemwith Judas'blood money. The historyof the
publicburial facilitiesoutsidethe Esquilinegate at Rome has been dis-
cussedabove (pp. 40-54) and need not be summarizedhere; there it was
suggested that a changein publicpracticemay have occurredduringthe
first centuryAD, with masscremationreplacingmassinhumationas the
standardmeansof disposal(seen. 194). What was the practiceoutside
Roman towns?
The clausein the funerarylaw from Puteolirequiringthe undertakerto
dragthecorpses of malefactorswith a hookubiplura cadaveraeruntseems
to implythatat PuteoliduringthelateRepublicthebodiesof thosedeprived
of a properburialweredeposited
in a specified
areaandleft to rot.229
Whetherthe samefate awaitedthosetoo poorto afford a privateburial
we cannotsay,but thereis no evidence,archaeological
or documentary,
for public cremationat Puteoli. At nearby Pompeii, where several

81
82 JOHN BODEL

necropoleishavebeen identifiedoutsidethe town gates,the only evidence

for the final dispositionof the poor is a seriesof simple cineraryurns
interredin the narrowstripof publiclandoutsidethe city wall southeast
of
the Nola gate,of whichat leastthirty-sixhavethusfar beenfound.
23ø
Many of these were marked with the name of the deceased,carved in
crude letters into the outside of the town wall, and thus the series is more
reminiscentof the amphoracremationgraves scatteredamong the tombs
at Isola Sacra,and of other simply markedburialsfound elsewherein the
Romanworld, than of the anonymousmassdisposalareasthat musthave
existed
outside
manyItalianandprovincial
towns.
TM
The only evidenceI know for generalpracticesoutsideRome is the
passageof AgenniusUrbicusquotedabove,in which the text fails us at a
crucial point. Of the two forms preservedin the manuscripts,cula and
culinas,modem editorsinvariablyprefer the latter. Accordingto Paulus,
the epitomatorof Festus,the placeswhere funerarybanquetswere con-
sumedwere called culinae, and sincesomewell-appointedRoman tombs
includedactual kitchensfor the preparationof such feasts,it has been
assumedthat the name culinae was transferredby a kind of metonymy
fromthemto theplaceswherepaupers
werelaidto rest.232The connec-
tion seemsforced,especiallysincethosereducedto a pauper'sfuneralare
unlikelyto havebeensentoff with the customaryfestivities.For the same
mason,A.D. Nock's suggestion that culinae in the passageof Agennius
refers to public "kitchens"provided for the use in preparingfunerary
meals of those who lacked their own structures fails to convince.TM More
plausibleis the opinion of A.S. Pease,who thoughtthat culinae might
standfor ustrina.
TM We may readilyimaginehow the samesortof
euphemisticgallows humorthat led the baker M. Vergilius Eurysacesto
refer on his tomb to his wife's cinerary um as a "bread basket"
(panarium)couldhavegivenrise to an irreverentnicknamefor the public
crematoria as "kitchens".TM
On the otherhand,C. Pascaldefendsthe readingcula as lectiodifficilior
andmakesa strongcasefor regardingthe form culinaasa laterformation,
the suffix -ina havingbeenaddedto a word of foreignorigin to createa
Latinateterm.236Accordingto Pascal,cula derivesfrom •corkain the
sense"undergroundcavities"andrefersto grave-pitsof the sortdescribed
by Varro. If Pascal'setymologyis correct,then we might be temptedto
datethe institutionof Romancula to a very early period,beforethe oi > oe
> u development
in Latinphonology;
237butwe cannotbe certainthatthe
dissimilation
occurredin a Latin context:the form •c6ka,meaning"hol-
lowsunderthe eyes",is foundin the Hippocraticcorpusin two treatisesof
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 83

uncertain
dateaswellasin latermedicalwritersandgrammarians.
238
In the final analysis,it is difficult to decide which explanationof the
corruptpassageof Agenniusis correct--whetherthe publicdisposalsites
to whichhe referswere crematoriaor mass-gravepits. Perhapsthe search
for a single solutionto the problem is delusive. No doubtpublic policy
varied over time and place, just as private mortuary practicesdid. It
would be rash,however,to assumethat the two necessarilyfollowed the
same course, even in the same location: at a time when most Romans who
could choosethe mannerof their burial preferredcremationto inhuma-
tion, the bodiesof the poorat Rome werepromiscuously dumpedin com-
munaltrench-graves.The pauper'scemeteryoutsidethe Romancolonyat
Sitirisprovidesan instructiveillustrationof how public graveyardscould
be exploitedin differentways over time; there,within the courseof a cen-
tury, the prevailingmeansof disposalchangedfrom simpleinhumationsin
pit-gravesto bustae,in which the body of the deceasedwas bumedand
buried in situ, to the more familiar type of cremationrite in which the
bodies were bumed and the bones and ashes collected in ums and buried
elsewhere. These developmentsbelongto the secondcenturyAD; during
the thirdcentury,the orderly,if simple,burialsthathadpreviouslycharac-
terized the zone gave way to randominhumationsof the most informal
kind: bodies were depositedcasually in mass graves, usually without
gravegoodsand (in contrastto the practiceduringearlier periods)without
regardfortheorientation
of thecorpse.
239
A changein publicburial practicesoutsideItalian townssimilarto that
posited for Rome, with public crematoria replacing mass-gravepits
perhaps,as at Rome, duringthe first century^D, might explainhow areas
originallyknownas cula cameto be informallyreferredto as culinae:the
relevanceof a term meaning"hollows"(if its meaningwas understood at
all) would not havebeenobviousif the bodiesof the poor were routinely
burnedin masscrematoria;the grim appropriateness of the termculinaein
reference to such places, on the other hand, would have been all too
apparent.Be that as it may, literary and archaeologicalsourcesconfirm
what demographicalconsiderationsin any case lead us to expect: at a
period when mortality was high and the distributionof wealth uneven,
widespreadpovertyand a consistentlyhigh death-rateinevitablyled to the
establishmentoutsideRoman towns of public potter's fields where the
bodiesof the leastfortunatewere disposedof in whatevermannerseemed
most convenient.
 NOTES

* An earlyversionof thisstudywaspresented in October1986at Harvardat a

seminaron Romanlawsanddocumentsdirectedby E. Badian;I am gratefulto Pro-
fessorBadianandthe otherparticipantsin the seminarfor helpfulcommentson that
occasion.For subsequent criticismandadviceI am indebtedto JohnScarborough,
RussellT. Scott,Calvert Watkins and the Editor and anonymousrefereesfor this
Journal.Among otherswho generouslyrespondedto my requestsfor assistance of
various sorts in preparing the manuscript,I must mention and thank Christine
H•iuberof the MuseumLudwig in Cologne,WendyLurie, Assistantto theEditorof
AJAH,MarinaMazzeiof theSoprintendenza Archeologica per la Puglia,andEliza-
bethWahle,whodrewthemapreproduced in figure1.
All ancientdatesareBCexceptwhereotherwiseindicated.The followingworks
mentionedfrequentlyin the notesare citedby author'ssurnameand,whereneces-
sary,shorttitle:

L'archeologia in Roma capitale = L'archeologia in Roma capitale tra sterro e

scavoRomacapitale1870-1911, 7 (1983)
Arena= R. Arena,"Attomoall'iscrizione
di Luceria(CIL 122, 401)", GIF n.s. 1
(1970) 46-59
Bove = L. Bove, "Due nuove iscrizioni di Pozzuoli e Cuma", RAAN 41 (1966)
207-239
Cavallaro= M.A. Cavallaro,Spesee spettacoli.Aspettieconomici-struturali degli
spettacolinella Romagiulio-claudia(1984)
D'Amelj = G.B. D'Amelj, Storiadella cittadi Lucera(1861)
Fabbrini= F. Fabbrini,"Res divini iuris", in NovissimoDigestoItaliano 15 (1968)
510-565
Marquardt-- J. Marquardt,R6mischeStaatsverwaltung
(1873-1878)
Mommsen(1875) = Th. Mommsen,"Additamentaad corporisvolumenI", Ephem-
erisEpigraphica2 (1875) 205-208 no. 298
Mommsen,Staatsr.= Th. Mommsen,R6misches
Staatsrecht,
vols. 13,II 3, III 1
(1887); III 2 (1888)
Pasqualini= A. Pasqualini,"Lucus",in Dizionarioepigrafico4 (1975) 1969-2004
Ribezzo = F. Ribezzo, in RIGI 6 (1922) 309-311
Vetter = E. Vetter, Handbuchder italischenDialekte I (1953)
Veyne = P. Veyne, Le pain et le cirque(1976)
Wissowa
= G. Wissowa,
ReligionundKultusderR6mer2(1912)

1. D'Amelj, no. 80 in the collectionof inscriptions

appendedat the end of the
book(unnumbered page435).
2. D'Amelj obtaineda copyof the text from a localantiquarian,Francesco Del
Buono, who had transcribedit on the day the stone was unearthedin 1847:

85
86 JOHN BODEL

D'Amelj 119 n. 1; cf. CIL IX p. 667. For D'Amelj's carelessness in reproducing

even transcriptionsof epigraphicaltexts, cf. CIL IX 785, 812, 895, etc. and note
Mommsen'sremarksat the top of p. 75.
3. Mommsen (1875).
4. G. De Petra, who accompaniedMommsen to Lucera in 1873, was inclined
to disbelievethe storyof the Lucerianguidesbecausehe saw otherancientblocks
in the foundationsof the PalazzoBrunowith theirinscribedsidesfacingout (cf. F.
Branca, "L'antica Luceria. Notizie e monumenti", Rivista di Scienze e Lettere di
Napoli 8-9 (1909) 47-49). On the otherhand,the formercuratorof the municipal
museumat Lucera,G.B. Gifuni, who in 1937 spearheaded the secondattemptto
have the stoneremovedand who subsequently collectedall that had beenwritten
aboutthe enterprisein a small volume, Per il recuperodella "lex Lucerina" sui
boschisacri (1942), which I have not seen,is said (by Arena 46 n. l) in that work
to advancestrongargumentsagainstthe "speciosa storiella"of the stone'sdestruc-
tion, a versionthatevidentlyoriginatedwith D'Amelj (cf. CIL IX p. 667): cf. G.B.
Gifuni, in L'arma di Lucera, ed. C. Catapano(1973) 9-22. For a footnoteto the
episode,seeG. Petraglione,lapigia 13 (1942) 126-127. I am gratefulto dott.ssa
Marina Mazzei of the Soprintendenza Archeologicaper la Pugliafor supplyingme
with photocopiesof much of the material cited aboveand for confirmingthat no
new effortsto retrievethe stonehavebeeninitiatedsinceGifuni's day. Vetter 228
i (followedby L.C. Prat,Morphosyntaxede l'ablatifen latin archa•lue (1975) 26)
is mistakenin statingthattheinscriptionwasrecoveredin 1939.
5. The inscriptionhasbeenfrequentlyreproduced; a basicbibliographycanbe
assembled
by followingthereferences
givenby H. Krummrey
in CIL 12ii.iv.3.1,
Textus(1986), p. 883 at no. 401. In additionto severalof the standardeditions--
CIL IX 782 (Mommsen),CIL 12401 (Lommatzsch), ILS 4912 (Dessau),ILLRP
504(Degrassi),
Bruns
7 104a,FIRA2 III 7lb (Arangio-Ruiz)--the
following
publi-
cationsare mentionedin the apparatus:Th. v. Grienberger,"Die altlateinische
Inschrift yon Lucera", IF 33 (1914) 285-294; E. Hermann, "1. Lateinisch-oskisch
proiecitad",KuhnsZeitschr.48 (1917) 119-120; Ribezzo311; H. Instinsky,Klio
30 (1937) 120 n. 1; P.F. Girard,Textesde droit romain6, rev. F. Senn(1937) 25
no. 1; E.H. Warmington,Remainsof old Latin IV (1940) 154 no. 18; V. Pisani,
Testilatiniarcaicie volgari2 (1960)19-20 no.A 25; A. Ernout,Recueilde textes
latinsarchaiklues
3 (1967)47-48 no.91; J. Heurgon, "Lesnummide l'inscription
du bois sacr6 de Luc6rie", BSFN 1963, 278-279; M.L. Porzio Gernia, Contributi
metodologiciallo studio del latino arcaico. La sorte di M e D finali. MAL 17.4
(1974) 138; Prat (above, n. 4) 26-27; R. Wallace, "Dialectal Latin fundarid,
proiecitad,parentatid",Glotta 66 (1988) 211-220. For the criticalsignsI follow
the conventionsoutlinedby H. Krummrey and S. Pancierain Tituli 2 (1980)
205-215.
6. G. Bruns,ZRG 12 (1875) 127-143 (=KI. Schr. 2.305-319) arguedthat the
provisionfor manusiniectiopro iudicatopertainedto Romanratherthan to local
law, but, as Mommsen(1875) 207 rightly observed,Luceriawas a Latin colony
when the statute was enacted and was therefore sui iuris: see below in the text and
the authoritiescitedat FIRA2 III 7lb (whereread at the end of the note"P. F.
Girard, ZSS 14 (1893) 41 n. 4"). In many caseslocal regulationsno doubt were
modelledon the civil law of Rome-•hence their potentialvalue as indicatorsof
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 87

Romanization (cf. Mommsen (1875) 208; P.A. Brunt, JRS 55 (1965) 101)--but
even in the so-calledmunicipalchartersof the late Republic a considerabledegree
of local adaptationwas possible:seeM.W. Frederiksen,JRS 55 (1965) 183-198
and (now) H. Galsterer,RHD 65 (1987) 181-203.
7. Livy 9.26.5 datesthe foundingof the Latin colony in 314; Diod. 19.72.8
recordsthe captureof the town in 315 and mentionsits subsequent colonization;
the date given by Vell. 1.14.4 (probably326 ratherthan 323; cf. J. Hellegouarc'h
in his Bud6 edition40 n. 13) is incorrect,pace M. Sordi,Helikon 6 (1966) 634: cf.
E.T. Salmon, CP 58 (1963) 235-238. Roman influencein Apulia was virtually
non-existent before Luceria was taken: see E.T. Salmon, Samnium and the Sam-
nites (1967) 223-238.
8. One illustration will suffice. The use of C for G in mac[i]steratus has been
consideredsignificant(e.g. by Pisani (above, n. 5) and Prat (above, n. 4) 26)
becausePlutarch,Quaest.Rom. 54 ( = Mot. 277D), informsus that the letter G was
introducedinto the Romanalphabetlate (6W•) by a certainSp. Carvilius. But 1)
we cannotbe surethat the transmittedreadingis correct(seethe apparatus);2) the
useof C for G mightinsteadbe dueto the influenceof the localOscandialect(see
below, n. 18); and 3) sincewe do not know to which Sp. CarviliusPlutarchrefers,
the date of the allegedinnovationis itself uncertain(cf. A.E. Gordon,The letter
namesof the Latin alphabet(1973) 58 n. 76). Ribezzo'sargument(311) for asso-
ciating the terminatio of the Lucerian loucar with the constructionof the town
wall, a task supervisedby threepraefecti sometime before the Social War (ILLRP
623= CIL IX 800= 121710),is basedona misunderstanding
of a famous
passage
of the Twelve Tables, hominemmortuumin urbe ne sepelitoneve urito (X. 1): cf.
Arena 58 n. 68. D'Amelj's observation,"I caratterie le parole sonodei primi
tempidi Roma" (119), cannotcountfor much.
9. Cf. Heurgon(above,n. 5), who comparesthe bronzecoinsof TeanumApu-
lum and Venusia struckat the end of the secondcenturyand showingon the
reversethe legends"N", "N I", "NII" (R. Thomsen,Early Roman coinage 1
(1957) 194, 203). For the earliestattestedusesof "nummus"to mean "sestertius",
see M.H. Crawford, Coinage and money under the Roman Republic (1985)
147-148; cf. id., RomanRepublicancoin hoards (1969) 5, 81 no. 154: before the
time of the Gracchithe standardRoman unit of reckoningwas the as. In Oscan
texts the abbreviation "N" for n(ummi) is found in the Tabula Bantina (Vetter
2.12, 26) and,possibly,the new fragment(line 7); but cf. M. Torelli, ArchClass21
(1969) 6; P. Poccetti,Nuovi documentiitalici a complementodel Manuale di E.
Vetter (1979) no. 185 ad loc. There heavy Roman influencecannotbe doubted
and the denominationmeant is undoubtedlysesterces.A very fragmentaryand
obscureinscriptionin Greek charactersfrom Rossanodi Vaglio (Potenza),
]•H•HA[/ ]e.•5•[,
hasbeententatively
interpreted
tomeaninpart]n(ummos)
... /
... d]edi[t ... (cf. Poccettino. 178 and p. 207 s.v. "N."), but this is sheerguess-
work. In Umbrian, we have only Vetter 233 (at Tab. Ig. ( = Vetter 239) Va 17, 19,
21, numer for nummis). For the early use of "nummus"as the standardunit of
reckoningin Oscanand Umbrianareas,seefurtherCrawford,Coinageand money
14-15.
10. Cf. Crawford, Coinage and money 45, 65-66 and Roman Republican
coinage(1974) 19-20, 153 f. no. 43, 183-190 nos.97-99.
88 JOHN BODEL

11. Gracchan land commissioners are now known to have been active in the
area (cf. M. Pani, R1L 111 (1977) 389-400, on AE 1973, 222), and recentaerial
photographs of the Tavolierein the regionaroundLuceriahave shownthat the
small farm allotmentsfirst occupiedat that time were designedto producecash
crops,vines and olives, as well as wheat and pasturage:cf. G.D.B. Jones,
ArchClass32 (1980) 92-96; P.D.A. Garnsey,PCPhS 25 (1979) 10-12; generally
on developmentof the region,A.M. Small,JRA 2 (1989) 215-217.
12. Note ar- for ad- before labials in arvorsu for adversum: cf. arvorsario
besideadvorsarium
in the lex repetundarum
of 123/122(C1L 12583.20,25);
further F. Sommer and R. Pfister, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formen-
lehre4 (1977) 195;vo-beforers (arvorsu),whichbeganto bereplaced
by re- after
the time of ScipioAemilianus,to whom traditioncreditedthe innovation:cf.
Quint.1.7.25;M. Leumann, Lateinische Laut-undFormenlehre 5 (1928)61;final
d after a long vowel in ioudicatodand [li]cetod:cf. PorzioGernia (above,n. 5)
312. The arguments of R. Wachter,AltlateinischeInschriften(1987)423, for plac-
ing the Lucerianordinance no earlierthanthe so-calledsc de Bacchanalibus of
186 (C1L 12581) on the basisof the appearance
of u for o in arvorsuandium
(hoce(besidehac) is considered an archaism)are vitiatedby the appearance of the
form arvorsumin the latter text (line 24) and do not take sufficientaccountof the
different circumstancesin which the two documentswere composed--and
inscribed(cf. 290): the bronzetablet concerningBacchanalianrites seemsto have
beenengraved,andmay havebeen(at leastin part) composed, locallyin Bruttian
territory,as the phrasein agro Teuranowrittenin largeletters(perhapsin a dif-
ferenthand)at theendof thedocumenthasbeentakento suggest:cf. Mommsenin
C1L ad loc. and the discussionsof E. Fraenkel, Hermes 67 (1932) 369-396 (= Kl.
Beitr. z. klass.Phil. (1964) 2.447-475), esp.391 if. (=469 if.) andJ. Keil, Hermes
68 (1933) 306-312.
13. Cf. Serv. Auct. at Aen. 1.310, lucus enim est arborurn multitudo cure reli-
gione,nemusvero compositamultitudoarborurn,silva diffusaet inculta;and at
Aen. 1.446,hic ergoet sacrumternplumquodin luco, id estin locosacro,condi-
tur; Quint. 10.1.88,Enniumsicutsacrosvetustatelucosadoremus,in quibusgran-
dia et antiqua robora iam non tantam habent speciemquantamreligionera;
further, TLL VII 1751.52-1752.70; Fabbrini 532-533; and note M.L. Gernia,
"Rapportitrail lessicosacraleoscoe latino",AG146 (1961) 129-132for thecom-
mon Italic reverenceof luci. For the basicprinciplesgoverningthe protectionof
Romansacredplaces,seeF. Schulz,History of Romanlegal science(1946) 15,
30-31.
14. Mommsen(1875) 207; C. Busacca,"'Ne quidin locosacroreligiososancto
fiat'", SDH1 43 (1977) 265-292, notes that the injunctionagainstinjury to res
sacrae was later extendedto include res sanctaebut never, apparently,res reli-
giosae(for the distinctionsee Fabbrini518-524). The praetor'sedict likewise
protectedlocapublica,in similarlanguage (Dig. 43.8.2pr. (Ulp. 68 ad ed.));cf.
O. Lenel,DasEdicturn perpetuum 3 (1927)458-459.
15. The principalLatin legessacraeare collectedin ILS 4906-4916; Bruns,
Fontes
7, pp. 282-288;F1RA
2 III pp. 221 ff.; F. Richter,Lateinische
Sakral-
inschriften(1911); cf. alsoE. de Ruggieroand G. Tibiletti, in Diz. Ep. 4 (1957)
s.v. "Lex" 780-783. For the other Latin law on sacredgroves,from Spoletium,
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 89

seebelow, pp. 24 f. The argumentsof R.E.A. Palmer,The king and the comitium.
A study of Rome's oldestpublic document,Historia Einzelschr. 11 (1969), for
regardingthe archaicinscriptioncarvedon the cippusfoundbeneaththe Lapis
Nigerin theRomanforum(CIL 12 1) as a law concerning
theprotection
of a
sacredgrove are basedupon an improbablereadingof the last word (louquiod
ratherthanthe commonlyacceptedloiuquiod)andultimatelyfail to carryconvic-
tion: cf. G. Dumfizil, Latomus 29 (1970) 1038-1045; J.-C. Richard, Gnomon 43
(1971) 364-369; A. Drummond, JRS 62 (1972) 177-178; and otherscited at CIL
12(4.3),pp. 853-854. F. Coarelli,II Foro romano.
I. Periodoarcaico(1983)
161-188, makesa strongcasefor identifyingthe altarbeneaththeblackstonewith
the Volcanal.
16. For the language,seeW.M. Lindsay,Handbookof Latin inscriptionsillus-
trating the historyof the language(1897) 56-57; A. De Rosalia,Iscrizioni latine
arcaiche (1972) 66---68no. 4; Vetter 228 i; and the authoritiescited above, n. 5.
For legal matters,seeM. De Domenicis,RIDA 3 (1956) 188-196 and above,n. 6,
with further references.
17. Cf. A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire •tymologique de la langue
latine4 (1959)368;Prat(above,n. 4) 27; PorzioGemia(above,n. 5) 313 (on-id).
Other views: Arena 48-49; Pisani (above, n. 5) 19; Grienberger (above, n. 5)
290-292. For lucar, seepp. 6-13.
18. Cf., e.g.,Oscancasnarfor Latincanusin CIL 12 3230 (=Vetter 214).
Oscan influence has been detected in the forms stircus for stercus and, if the res-
torationis correct,ium for eum (raising of e to i before r or a vowel; cf. Sommer-
Pfister (above, n. 12) 54-55); in mac[i]steratus(epenthesisbefore a liquid and,
perhaps,if it is not heresimplya featureof old Latin (seeabove,n. 8), c for g: cf.
acum (=agere) in the OscanTabula Bantina (Vetter 2.24)); and in the verb forms
fundatid,proiecitad,andparentatid,which are bestexplainedon the analogyof
"weak" Oscan perfect subjunctivesin -tt-i (see below, nn. 114, 121). Most
significantly,M.L. PorzioGernia, "Aspettidell'influssolatino sul lessicoe sulla
sintassiosca",AGI 55 (1970) 130-132, notesthat the use of ne with the perfect
subjunctive to expressa prohibition--thestandardsyntaxof negativecommands in
Oscan (cf. C.D. Buck, A grammar of Oscan and Urnbrian (1928) 214-215)--is
otherwiseunparalleledin Latin inscriptions of the Republicanperiod(cf. Wallace
(above, n. 5) 213, 215-216). This retentionof Oscansyntaxin a Latin text is far
lesscommonthan the reverse(Porzio Gernia 143) and here suggeststhat a native
Oscan-speaker helpedto framethe ordinance.
19. CIL IX 2117= 12 1730= ILLRP556. Thethirdlineshould probably be
restored
IIII vi[r. aed.],asDegrassi
suggests
in CIL 12p. 1030at 1730:cf. CIL 12
1727, 1728. The date of the inscriptionis fixed by the mentionof quattuorviri,a
designationnot foundat Beneventumuntil after the SocialWar, andby the lack of
geminationin Coceiu[s],whichpointsto a periodnot longafter.
20. For the surviving stone theaterat Beneventum,see R. Pane, NSA 1924,
516-521 and, for the date, S. De Caro and A. Greco, Campania (Guide archeo-
logiche Laterza 10) (1981) 188. Even if a permanenttheaterhad existed at
Beneventumin Republicantimes, that need not mean that temporarystructures
were not still erected; cf. E. Rawson, PBSR 53 n.s. 40 (1985) 100 n. 18. The
woodencaveaeconstructed for seatingat showsin Rome and elsewhereduringthe
90 JOHN BODEL

Republicmay not have been disassembled after each production,as the stage
buildingsevidentlywere, but from time to time they musthave beenrepaired,if
not actuallyrebuilt;cf., e.g., Livy 40.51.3, Tac. Ann. 14.20.3, Tert. Spect. 10 and
noteTab.Her. (CIL 12593)77-79;further,M. Bieber,Thehistoryof theGreek
andRomantheater 2 (1961) 167-168. Not all temporary
theaters
werebuiltof
wood:cf. CIL 122944= ILLRP708(foundnearCapua, consular-dated
in 108)...
heisce magistrei Iovei Optumo Maxsumo ... teatrum terra exaggerandum
locavere.... plausiblyinterpretedby the first editor (A. de Franciscis,Epigra-
phica 12 (1950) 126-130) to meanthat a caveawasto be formedfrom a moundof
earth.
21. Nothingwarrantsthe inferencemadein TLL VII 1691.75thatthe quattuor-
viri consecrated(dedicaverunt;cf. Cato, Orig. 58 P.) the lucar.
22. CIL XIV 375 = 12 3031a -- ILS 6147, lines 11-13. F. Grosso,RAL 14
(1959)288n. 1 andR. Meiggs,
RomanOstia2 (1973)558no.1 prefertherestora-
tionpublic(urn),but lucar is notelsewherequalifiedby an adjectivalmodifier,and
if it were here, we should rather expect the adjective to follow the noun: cf.
pecuniaepublicae(line 10),funerepu/[b]lico(lines44-45) in the sametext.
23. For thedateof the inscription(nowlost),whichhasbeenvariouslyassigned
to the Republican,Augustan,Flavian,Trajanic,andAntonineperiods,and for the
careerof the honorand,seeF. Zevi, MEFRA 85 (1973) 555-581 and H. Krummrey
at CIL I 2 3031a.Krummrey
suggests
thattheoriginalinscription
of P. Lucilius
Gamala,whichevidentlyservedasthe modelfor an honorarydedicationerectedto
his homonymousdescendant sometime in the secondhalf of the secondcentury
AD(CIL XIV 376), may at thattime havebeenrecarvedand"slightlychanged".
24. Veyne's contention(389) that the lucar at Rome was disburseddirectly
fromthe treasuryto the performers or to an impresario(locatorscaenicorum) is at
oddswith the situationattestedin the Ostian inscriptionof Gamala (accepisset)
and is explicitly refutedby the new fragmentof the acta of the Ludi Saecularesof
17 (seetext,p. 8) andby Dio 54.17.4(underthe year 18):xo•g•o•,o•t•votg
OXp•Xq•V Xpt•.•OtOVXO••p& XO••iq•tOOiO. O9;OtV•g X•g•Vqy•pœtg•it•50-

25. Cf. M. Adele Cavallaro,"Economiae religio nei ludi secolariAugustei. Per

una nuovainterpretazionedi CIL VI 32324; 32323, 59", RhM 122 (1979) 49-87,
esp. 62-68; ead., Spesee spettacoli150-160, refutingthe view of Mommsen,
EphemerisEpigraphica8 (1899) 245-246. For the combinedtext of the sc of 18,
cf. CIL VI 877a -- 32324 with L. Moretti, "Frammenti vecchi e nuovi del commen-
tario dei ludi secolari del 17 a.C.", RPAA 55-56 (1982-84) 361-379, esp.
362-367. Thesuggestion
of G.B.Pighi,De ludissaecularibus
2 (1965)133,that
Claudiusmay have been the first to apply the term lucar to the fundsestablished
for religiousfestivalsneedsto be revisedin view of the (now certain)attributionof
the commentaryon theLudi Saecularesto the celebrationof 17.
26. Moretti 366-367 identifiesthe antiquei libri with the commentariesof the
XVviri (cf. Censor.17.9-11; CIL VI 2312 -• ILS 4983) or the AnnalesMaximi; but
the Annalesare almostcertainto have been uselessas a sourceof enlightenment
on the point at issuein 18 (seeB.W. Frier, Libri annalespontiffcuremaximorum.
Theoriginsof theannalistictradition(1979)), andthe senateis perhapsunlikelyto
have turnedto the recordsof the XVviri when an undoubtedlymore informative
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 91

sourcewas to hand: Cicero, Att. 13.33.3 (309 SB) refers to a book of the senatus
consultaof 146 in sucha way as to imply that it was one of many suchvolumes
(... reperietex eo libro in quo suntsenatusconsultaCn. CornelioL. <Mummio>
consulibus).The senatein 18 no doubtconsultedthe relevantvolume(perhapsthe
very oneto whichCicerorefers: seethe followingnote)of their own earlierenact-
ments: cf. P. Culham, CP 84 (1989) 113-114. The supplement"[aug(uribus)
... ]" in line 5 in basedon the notion of a rotating sponsorshipof the ludi pro
valetudineCaesarisamong(in hierarchicalorder)the pontiffs,augurs,XVviri, and
epulones,as reportedby Dio 53.1.5, who reversesthe orderof the epulonesand
XVviri: cf. L. Polverini,"La prima manifestazioneagonisticadi carattereperiodico
a Roma", in Scritti storico-epigraficiin memoria di Marcello Zambelli, ed. L.
Gasperini(1978) 327-328. But the firstgames(in 28) werecelebratedby the con-
suls,Octavianand M. Agrippa,who were at the sametime XVviri, andthe subse-
quent"rotation"may not haveproceededexactlyas Dio supposed: seeCavallaro
154-157.
27. Seculargameshad previouslybeen celebratedin 148 and 249 and perhaps
in 348 •3c; cf. P. Brind'Amour, "L'origine des Jeux S6:ulaires",ANRW II 16.2
(1978) 1334-1417, with his secondthoughts:Le calendrierromain. Recherches
chronologiques (1983) 341.
28. Cf., e.g., E. Koestermann in his commentary,vol. 1 (1963) 250 ad loc.:
"Schauspielergehalt (metonym)",and note TLL VII 1691.39: merceshistrionum,
49-50. F.R.D. Goodyear,The Annalsof Tacitus,vol. 2 (1981) 175 ad loc., leaves
the questionopen:"'On thelevelof actors'pay' or 'on thelevelof grantfor public
entertainments'."The latter is preferable(so OLD s.v. 2); as Veyne 497 n. 43
correctlynotes,the sense"pay for performers"derivesonly from glosses.The first
two yearsof Tiberius'reignwitnessedseveraldiscussions in the senaterelatingto
expenditureon publicentertainments, for which seeCavallaro126-129, disentan-
gling the chronology.
29. Cf. Cass. Dio 55.31.4 with Cavallaro 34-35, 166-167. For that matter, we
haveno evidencethatthe publicmoneysexpendedon muneraever werereferred
to as lucar, perhapsbecausemunera,unlike ludi, had no formal connectionwith
religion(cf. Wissowa465-466).
30. Cf. Cavallaro 36-37 and passim; for Suetonius'implied disapprovalof
Tiberius' stinginess(and stodginess)
in the matterof public spectacles,
see K.R.
Bradley,RSA 11 (1981) 133.
31. CGL 2.371.66gto06g0•et•ptrdg;2.328.140œ(fipt•cov;
2.124.33t0•et•pt-
rcov¾e3•tetv•-
gt(506q&/t6q•{(srov'cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr.II 1070-1072,further,
TLL VII 1691.44-47; comparealsoNot. Tir. 42.16, lucar, following42.15, vecti-
gal.
32. fit&•{ •6 •e3•o•gevov
e{q0•otq3•o•,cotp
,cot•mv; q 6•t •to3,X,&
•{cmv•3x•rl

•todoofiov
e{qz&q0•otq&vq3,m,cov'
Thetranslation
isbyF.C.Babbitt
(Loeb).
33. "Ein Zeugnissist dies allerdingsnicht, sondernnur eine etymologische
Combination,um die Bezeichnungder dem Spielgeberaus der Gemeindekasse
gewiihrtenSummeals lucar zu rechtfertigen"(Mommsen,Staatsr.I161 n. 1).
34. SeeH.J. Rose,The RomanQuestionsof Plutarch(1924) 35-44, esp.42.
35. Marquardt III 151-152; Wissowa 469; cf. 451, 407 n. 3; recently, e.g.,
92 JOHN BODEL

Fabbrini548,551; G. BodeiGiglioni, RS189 (1977) 40 n. 34.

36. The testimonia are assembled at TLL VII 1750-1754. The looser sense in
which the term is usedas a synonymfor nemusis virtually confinedto poetswrit-
ing under the Empire, cf. 1751.29-30, 1752.72-1753.21; more properlya lucusis
regardedas part of a nemusor silva (1751.30-51). For lucusas a technicalterm,
cf. Cato, Orig. 58 P., lucum Dianium in nemore Aricino ... dedicavit dictator
Latinus; further,F. Castagnoli,"I1 tempioromano:Questionidi terminologiae di
tipologia",PBSR 52 n.s. 39 (1984) 6; C. de Meo, Lingue tecnichedel Latino
(1983) 153-154; Pasqualini1969-1970.
37. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. II 59-61 and further on the Roman conceptof
sacrum,Fabbrini544; R. Schilling,"Sacrumet Profanum:Essaid'interpr6tation",
Latomus 30 (1971) 953-969 (= id., Rites, cultes, dieux de Rome (1979) 54--70);
J.W. Tellegen,"Religiooccupavitsolum",RHD 54 (1986) 73-83. The principal
evidencefor the legal statusof goodsassociated with shrinesand sacredplacesis
theso-called
lexaedisFurfensis
of 58 (CIL IX 3513= 12756= ILS4906= ILLRP
508), on which seeU. Laffi in La culturaitalica. Orientamentilinguistici5 (1978)
121-144; and cf. below, n. 50.
38. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. II 47-50.
39. So, e.g., H. Th6denat,in Dar.-Sag.s.v. "Lucus" 1355-1356. G. Dum6zil,
F•tes romainesd'dtd et d'automne(1975) 43 (cf. 53), imaginesthat the censorslet
publicluci to loggersfor commercialexploitation.
40. SeeR. Meiggs,Treesand timberin the ancientMediterraneanworld (1982)
218-259, esp.243-248; cf. Frontinus,in Grom. Vet. pp. 20-21 La. (=Corp. Agr.
p. 8 Th.): de locis publicis ... quae neque adsignata neque vendita fuerint
<um>quam . . .; aut silvas,quasad populumRomanurnmultis1ocispertinere ex
veteribusinstrumentiscognoscimus, ut ex proximo in Sabinisin monteMutela.
Hor. Epist. 1.6.31-32 makesrhetoricalcapitalof the inherentdistinctionbetween
sacredgrovesandproductivewoodlands: virtutemverbaputaset / lucumligna?
41. So Pasqualini1970, who envisages"una rendirache potessesostenerein
partele spesedelle cerimoniecultuali". This leavesunanswered the questionhow
moneyderivedfrom sacredgrovescouldbe spenton publicgames.
42. Palmer (above, n. 15) 27.
43. See above,n. 37; for dedicationsin sacredgroves,cf., e.g., CIL VI 2232
(=ILS 4181); 610 (=ILS 5429). The dedicationof valuableobjectswithinsacred
grovesmust be clearly distinguished from the donationof a sacredgrove with
income-producing propertyannexedto (or perhapsincludedwithin) it, suchas we
find attestedin a remarkableinscriptionof Imperial date from NarboneseGaul
(Aix-les-Bains): [decemlectiposse]sso[r]um Aq[uen]siumdonaver(unt)lucum cum
sua vinea vicanis Aquens(ibus)ad ludos celebrand(os)pro salute lmp(eratoris)
Aug(usti).... (AE 1934, 165), on which see P. Wuilleumier, REA 36 (1934)
199-205 (cf. CIL XII 2462). Pasqualini(1986) supposesthat the purposeof the
donationwas to providea sourceof incomethroughthe sale of wood from the
grove, but Wuilleumier (201-202) argues convincingly that the grove was
intendedonly to provide a venue for the games, the cost of which was to be
defrayedby revenuefrom thevineyard. CIL VIII 16532(=ILS 5432).... lucuma
solo cum signiset ornamentis/ suisfecerunt et dedicaver(unt),evidentlyrefersto
one of the artificial"groves"erectedto serveas boundarymarkers,aboutwhichwe
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 93

have scatteredliterarytestimony;cf. Pasqualini1989. There is no goodreasonto

believethat the cult locationnearPisaummwherefourteenvotivecippi dedicated
to variousdeities and dating (probably)from shortlyafter the foundingof the
citizen colony in 184 BC were found was a lucus of any sort, despitea long-
standing
assumption
to the contrary(cf. CIL 12 368-381andpp.878f. with,
recently,G. Cresci Marrone and G. Mennella, PisaurumI. Le iscrizionidella
colonia (1984) 42-60).
44. On the outlayfor publicgames,seeMarquardtII 82-84, III 488; Cavallaro
126 n. 7. Veyne 387-393 (esp. 390-392) outlinesthe developmentsduring the
middleand late Republicthat led magistratesto expendfar more on gamesthan
the fixedamounts(certapecunia)allottedthemby the senate.
45. For stips,cf., e.g., lex coloniaeGenetivae
luliae (CIL 12 594) 72,
quotcumque pecuniaestipisriominein aedissacrasdatuminlatumerit. . .; Varro,
LL 5.182, diis cumthesaurisassesdant stipemdicunt;Livy 25.12.14; Dessau,ILS
III 2 p. 954 s.v. "stipis";K. Latte,RiimischeReligionsgeschichte
(1960) 252, 294
n. 4.
46. F. Marx in his edition (1904) ad loc.; C. Cichorius, Untersuchungenzu
Lucilius (1908) 103-104.
47. Cf. F. Charpinin his Bud6edition(1979) vol. 2, 136 (at fr. 26.22) and 276,
citing Varro, LL 5.150 and Festusp. 82 L. (fulguritum)for the sacrednatureof
placesstruckby lightning;note also Pers. 2.27, triste iaces lucis evitandumque
bidentaland C.O. Brink's commentat Hor. Ars 471. E.H. Warmington,Remains
of old Latin 3 (1938) 231 considersthe fragment"unplaced";cf. J. Christes,Der
friihe Lucilius(1971) 36, 100 n. 127. W. Krenkel's interpretationof exactoremin
the sense"(literary)critic" (cf. his editionof 1970,2.387) is unconvincing.
48. Cf. TLL V 1136.56-1137.11, esp. 1136.80-1137.7; and in general on
Republicancontracts,E. Badian,Publicansand sinnersrev. ed. (1983), esp.20,
23-25.
49. SeeAppendix1.
50. Mommsen,Staatsr.II 61 n. 2 seemedto recognizethis difficulty:"Dassdas
lucar den Spielgebemvom Aerarium gezahlt wird ... macht es femer
wahrscheinlich, dassdas Haingeldin die Staatskassefloss,alsopecuniapublica
war, allerdingsunterdemVorbehalt,dasses zum BestendesTempeIs,yon demes
herkam,verwendetwerdenmusste";but he did not attemptto resolveit (see the
following note). For the basic principlesgoverningthe use of incomederived
fromtemples
andshrines,
cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr.II 62; lexcol.Gert.lul. (CIL 12
594) 72.
Occasionallysacerdotalpropertieswere reclaimedby the state, cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr. II 68 n. 1.
51. Mommsen,Staatsr.II 66 n. 1. Mommsen'sclaim (66) that the expenditure
of lucar on gamesdemonstrates the restricteduseof revenuesfrom sacredproper-
ties for religiouspurposesrestson his assumption that lucar was appliedonly to
sacerdotalgamesand burkesthe more importantquestionof how luci could be
regardedas connectedwith the publicspectacles.
52. Both questionsare vexed: for an overview of more and less probable
theories,ancient and modem, see E. Manni in Diz. Ep. 4 (1958) s.v. "Libitina"
949-950; G. Thaniel,LEC 41 (1973) 46-49; G. Radke,Die G6tterAltitaliens2
94 JOHN BODEL

(1979) 183-184.
53. Cf. H. Wagenvoort,"De deae Venerisorigine",Mnemosyne17 (1964) 59
(= Pietas.Selectedstudiesin Romanreligion (1980) 178). For Venusin the grove
of Libitina, cf. Festus,p. 322 L., eodemautemdie [sc.xiv Kal. Sept.] Veneri tem-
pla sunt consecrata,alterum ad Circum Maximum, alterum in luco Libitinensi,
with M. Torelli, Lavinio e Roma. Riti iniziatici e matrimoniotra archeologiae
storia (1984) 131-132, 166, 168, 209. We neednot follow Pisoin believingthat
the cult of Libitina at Rome datedfrom the time of ServiusTullius (so Radke 184),
but her groveis securelyattestedas early as 166 (Obseq.12) and no doubtgoes
back to an earlier period. F. Coarelli, II Foro Boario dalle origini alla fine della
Repubblica(1988) 283-284, speculatively assignstwo seriesof terracottaarchitec-
tural fragmentsof late sixth- and early fifth-centurydate discoveredoutsidethe
Esquilinegate(cf. E. Gjerstad,Early RomeIII (1960) 139-144) to a putativeTem-
ple of Libitina locatedin the vicinity and dating from the late regal period. The
attributionis possiblebut by no means compelling:the fragmentswere found
reusedin tombsof considerably later date,and even if we couldbe surethat they
originallyderivedfrom the immediateneighborhood, it is by no meanscertainthat
Libitina was the only deity to whom a temple could have been dedicatedin the
vicinity in archaictimes.
54. The figure 30,000 reportedby Suetoniuswas probablynot intendedto be
precise(cf. R. Duncan-Jones,
Theeconomy
of theRomanEmpire2 (1982)241 on
Petronius'repeateduseof the figureHS 30,000,000 to indicatea proverbialfor-
tune), but we have no reasonto doubt the essentialaccuracyof his information.
K.R. Bradley, Suetonius'Life of Nero. An historical commentary. Collection
Latomus 157 (1978) 236 ad loc., comparesJerome'sstatementat Chron. 2096i
(p. 188 h Helm) that nearly 10,000 deathsa day at Rome were reportedin AD 77
duringa plaguethat extendedover severalweeks. The samerate of mortalityis
recordedat ConstantinopleunderJustinian(Procop.Bell. Pers. 2.23.2), and 5,000
are saidto have died eachday vel Romaevel in Achaicisurbibusduringa plague
underGallienus(SHA, Gall. 5.5). More credible,perhaps,is CassiusDio's esti-
matethatin Romealmost2,000 peoplea day succumbed to the plagueduringthe
outbreakof^D 189 (73.114).
55.
vog{•ov'•tq
'A(ppo[{'•lv
t{vm '•hvAt[•t'•v•lv;(Quaest.
Rom.23 (=Mor. 269A-
B)). Thephrase'•&np6q'•&q'mtp&q
is usuallytakento mean"equipment
for fun-
erals",but it mightinsteadreferto the undertakers'services,or, mostprobably,to
both: when the funeralsof Hirtius and Pansawere let on the senate'sorders,qui
tunc libitinam exercebantcum rerum suarum usumtum ministeriumsuumgratui-
tumpolliciti sunt (Val. Max. 5.2.10). Accordingto Asconius(In Milon. 34), dur-
ing the riotingfollowingthe deathof Clodiushis supporters snatched fascesfrom
the lucusLibitinaeand cardedthemto the housesof the men whomPompeysup-
ported for the consulshipand thenceto the suburbanestateof Pompeyhimself,
clamitanseum modo consulem,modo dictatorem(for seizingof the fasces as a
meansof transferringpower,cf. A.J. Marshall,Phoenix38 (1984) 138-139). The
passagehasbeen taken to showthat thefasceswere storedat the lucusLibitinae
duringtimesof interregnum,when imperiumand auspiciarevertedto thepatres
(so, e.g., H. Siber, R6mischesVerfassungsrecht in geschichtlicherEntwicklung
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 95

(1952) 91), but why the lucusLibitinae shouldhavebeenselectedfor this purpose

is by no meansclear. Mommsen,Staatsr.I 447 n. 1 (cf. 440 f. n. 2) more plausi-
bly referred the presenceof fasces in the grove of Libitina to the practice of
displayingthe badgesof office at the funeralsof prominentstatesmen, where the
rods were bome at the head of the cortege by "lictors" who were probably
appointedad hocfrom the deceased's clients,or perhapssuppliedby the dissigna-
tor, rather than drawn from the official magistrates'attendants:cf. Polyb. 6.53.8
and,for lictors,Hor. Epist. 1.7.6; Cic. Leg. 2.61. Fasces,then,may havebeenpart
of the equipmentavailablefor rent at the lucusLibitinae,but the lack of corrobora-
tive evidenceprecludescertainty(cf. B. Gladigow,ANRW 1 2 (1972) 306 n. 72).
56. Cf. Hor. Serm. 2.6.19, autumnusque gravis, Libitinae quaestusacerbae;
Phaedr.4.21.25-26, qui circumcidisomneminpensam funeris,/Libitina ne quid de
tuofaciat lucri. Regardingthe undertakers' generosityin the matterof thefunerals
of Hirtius and Pansa(above,n. 55), Valerius Maximus (5.2.10) observes:quorum
laudem . . . condicioauget magis quam extenuat,quoniamquidemquaestumcon-
tempseruntnulli alii rei quam quaestuiviventes.
57. Cf. G. Stara-Tedde, "I boschi sacri dell'antica Roma", BCAR 33 (1905)
207-208; Castagnoli(above,n. 36) 19 plausiblysuggests
that cultsof underworld
deitieswere normallylocatedoutsidethepomerium.
58. Cf. CIL 12 1268(= VI 9974= ILS 7574= ILLRP 822),vestiar(ius)
ab luco
Lubitina(e);CIL 12 1292(= VI 10022= ILLRP 941), laniusab lucoLibitina(e),
bothof unknown
urbanprovenance.
CIL 12 1411(=VI 33870= 37775a= ILS
7471 = ILLRP 794), [aliquis] ab luco Lubent(inae) was found in the Via Labicana
betweenthe Piazzaledi Porta Maggiore and the Via Conte Verde, not far from the
Esquilineburial ground. Comparea pagusLibitinusmentionedin the alimentary
tablefrom LiguresBaebiani(CIL IX 1455 = ILS 6509 add. (III 54)). The formula
ab luco is attestedonly onceelsewherein a similar sense,in CIL VI 9897 (= ILS
7551), alsofrom Rome: solatarioab luco Semeles.CIL VI 37422, oper(is)exac-
tori ab Luco Feroniae, incorrectlycited at TLL VII 1754.29, refersto the Augustan
colony of Lucus Feroniae:Castagnoli(above, n. 36) 6 n. 26. For other Roman
neighborhoods thusidentifiedby associationwith sacredplaces,seeJ.-P. Morel, in
L' Urbs. Espaceurbainet histoire(]er si•cle av. J.-C.•H e si•cle ap. J.-C.) (1987)
144;P. Mingazzini,RAL 25 (1970) 426-427 (on thefiglinae ab Isis).
59. Cf. L. Wickert,RE 25 (1926) s.v. "Libitinarii" 114 and E. Cuq, Dar.-Sag.
2.2 (1896) s.v. "funus" 1398.
60. Bove, whenceAE 1971, 88-89; cf. id., Labeo 13 (1967) 22-48. The texts
are cited after Bove's edition in RAAN accordingto the following notation: P.
(= Puteoli), column (I-III) and line number, or C. (= Cumae), face (A or B: the
stoneis opisthograph), column(I-II) andline number. For the sakeof simplicityI
shallthroughoutrefer simplyto the manceps,or contractingundertaker,although
thePuteolantext regularly(but not always,cf. P. I 11, II 7, III 11, 20) employsthe
formula mancepssociusveeius isve ad q(uem) e(a) r(es) q(ua) d(e) a(gitur)
p(ertinet); seefurtherAppendix2.
61. P. II 3. Bove 218 implausiblyinterpretsthe phraseintra turrem to mean
that the workmen are prohibitedfrom living inside the tower itself. More prob-
ably, the turris was an easily recognizablelandmark(cf. ILS 2267, area inter duos
turres)andwith intra we are to supplysomesuchnotionaspropiusurbem,usque
96 JOHN BODEL

ad muros, or the like. In other words, the clause forbids the workmen involved
with burialsand suppliciato live within a certaindistanceof the town ratherthan
to resideinsidea particular
building:
cf. CIL 12838,839,2981(below,n. 166),
intra terminospropius urbem. A recently publishedinscriptionfrom Cingoli,
consular-datedin ^D 6, presentsan even more stark brachylogy;... qui intra
stercusfuderit, multae a(sses)IIII d(abit): G. Paci, Picus 3 (1983) 224-226 and
MGR 12 (1987) 115-136, q.v. at 123 n. 20 for furtherparallels. For the use of
intra in theseand similar contextsto mean "up to and including",cf. Gellius
12.13.25, commentingon the phraseintra montemTaurum at Cic. Sest.58. That
the tower and hence also the lucus Libitinae were located outside the town walls
can be inferred from the fact that the undertaker's workmen were forbidden to
enterthe townexceptfor thepurposeof conductingofficialbusiness (P. II 4).
62. M. Frederiksen,JRS 65 (1975) 192; cf. S. Panciera,in I Campi Flegrei
nell'archeologiae nella storia. Atti dei ConvegniLincei 33 (1977) 195-197; and
N. Purcell in M. Frederiksen,Campania, ed. N. Purcell (1984) 331-332. Frederik-
sensuggests
thatthe peculiarspecification
hodiein thephraseubi hodielucusest
Libitinae marks the introduction of Libitina into Puteoli as "a recent event", but the
term need not be taken this way: hodiemight insteadimply that the lucusLibi-
tinaehad recentlybeenmovedor thatits currentlocationwasnot regardedasper-
manent. Pasqualini1983 imaginesthe lucusLibitinaeat Puteolias "nonun veroe
proprioboscodi ampledimensioni,ma un'areasacra,circondataprobabilmenteda
vegetazione,destinataal cultodella deasoloin un secondomomento";Purcell346
n. 136 seemsto envisiona building,perhapsthe towermentionedabove(n. 61).
63. Fine for leavingcorpsesunburied:P. I 32-II 1. At P. III 1-4 neitherthe
penaltyfor hiringanyonebut the manceps(or his surrogate)to conductburialsnor
the fine imposedon freelancecontractorsfor the unauthorizedperformanceof
undertakingservicesis explicitlyrecorded,butbothcanbe plausiblydeducedfrom
the context. The paragraphbeginswith the hypothesisthat someoneotherthanthe
mancepsdoessomethingantedenunti[ationem] (that is, beforethe formalapplica-
tionto theundertaker for his services),for whichhe is madeliablefor a penaltyof
HS 100 (P. III 1-3). The passagegoeson to saythat likewise(item) one who hires
(qui conduxerit),to the sameman (eid(em))(evidentlythe manceps)--andthenthe
text breaksoff; herethecontextclearlycallsfor theprescriptionof anotherfine (P.
III 3). Finally, the paragraphconcludesby establishinga judicial procedurefor the
recoveryof thesefines(plural) (deq(ue)is multis)(P. III 4) (for the completetext
seeAppendix2). Bove's supplements are not alwaysconvincingin detail,but his
generalinterpretationof the passage(231 and n. 19) is undoubtedlycorrect:the
chapter concernsunauthorizedlocatio/conductioof undertakingservices,for
whichboththe hirer andthe contractorare to be fined. Allowancesweregranted
to thoserequiringthe servicesof the mancepsin the eventof unduedelayon his
part (P. II 24-30), a likely occurrence in timesof epidemic(cf. K. Hopkins,Death
and renewal (1983) 209): in describingthe effectsof the not infrequentoutbreaks
of theplagueLivy twice (40.19.4,41.21.6) employsvariationsof a phrasethathas
a proverbialring:Libitinafuneribusnonsufficit.
64. C. AII 10-21 seemsto providefor thepossibilityof strangers withoutlocal
connections dyingwithin Baian(andthusCumaean)territory:conductorpontema
[--- pu]/blica gratis praestare [--- pere]/grinusperegrinave [---] / Bais
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 97

finibusterritori[---] / decesserit... (cf. B II 3). P. II 22-23 establishes precise

guidelinesfor the timely removal of suicidesand dead slaves;cf. Bove 230. In
late Imperial Antioch a formal mechanismexisted for informing the governor
about bodies found in the city: see J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz,Antioch. City and
Imperial administrationin the later RomanEmpire (1972) 123. At Athensthe
demarchoiwere responsible for havingcorpsesburiedand for purifyingthe deme
([Demosth.]43.57-58; cf. Arist. Ath. pol. 50.2). See furthertext pp. 33 f. and nn.
132-134.
65. Monopolies on municipal concessionsseem to have been the norm at the
heavily regulatedimperial mining communityof Vipasca(cf. CIL II 5181 = ILS
6891.32-35 (shoemaking),37-42 (barbering),43-45 (fulling)) and are sporadi-
cally attestedthroughoutthe empire: cf. CIL XIV 4328 (fowling);and (probably)
CIL XIII 8830 = ILS 1461, with A. Biscardi,in Diz. Ep. 4 (1964) s.v. "locatio"
1431-1432; further, M.I. Rostovtzeff,Social and economichistoryof the Roman
Empire,2nded., rev. P.M. Fraser(1957) vol. 2, Index s.v."Monopolies".
66. If the readingconstitutveat P. II 17 is correct,the carver'serror (E for M) is
probablydue to his having inscribedthe form denuntiat(um)ve two lines previ-
ouslyand the enclitic-ve twice againin the precedingline (cf. P. II 1 earum for ea
re; for anotherpossiblecase of superfluous-ve due to dittography,see below,
n. 177onCIL 12591). Bove'sinterpretation
constitut(um)ve
(230n. 16)contrad-
icts the senserequiredat P. III 21, wherethe samephraserecursand the full form
constitutumis clearly legible; there it is not a questionof alternativesbut of two
necessaryconditions: the lex locationismust be displayedat the locationthat is
bothrentedfor the purposeof undertakingand setup for business.
The formula u. d. p. r. 1.p. at P. III 21, the first word of which Bove restores
u(t), is found in several Roman statutesof the last two centuries}•c and the first
two AD, usually,as here, in abbreviatedform. The earliestexample,in the lex
repetundarum,
readsubeideplanorectele[g]ipossitur( CIL 12583 line 66; cf.
line 65 and the variantversionin the epistulaconsulumde Bacchanalibusof 186,
CIL 12581 line 27: ubeifacilumed
gnoscier
potisit).Thefragmentum
Tarenti-
num,on theotherhand,givesundein placeof ubei(CIL 122924 line 14;cf. the
lex deprovinciispraetoriisfrom Delphi,FIRA I no. 9, B 25-26: 60œv8•vr•/•ov-
'rat •:,'r[•l]•c6'rœg
&vcr7tvd•[•cœtv]),
andthisseemsto havebeenthenormalunder-
standingof the phraseduringthe early Empire: cf. Dig. 14.3.11.3(Ulp. 28 ad ed.)
and CIL XIV 2795 = ILS 272, line 15 (AD 140) (both with the archaicpossitur
"regularized"
to possit);Josephus,
AJ 19.291' 60œv• •trttrdfio••cct)•&•
&vcqrvc0-
,0qvcrtfi6vcr'rm.In viewof thepresumedlateRepublican dateof thePuteolan
lex libitinaria (see Appendix2 pp. 74-76), the formula there is perhapsbest
expandedu(nde) d(e) p(lano) r(ecte) l(egi) p(ossit) [or possiblyp(ossitur)]. For
furtherreferencesand discussionseeF.F. yon Schwind,Zur Frage der Publikation
im riimischenRechte(1940) 38-40 andC. Williamson,CA 6 (1987) 163 n. 10, 172
n. 49.
67. Cf. Bove230 andn. 16. For whatit is worth,the Cumaeanfunerarylaw is
reportedto have been discoveredoutsidethe town near one of the gates(Bove
207), a locationsimilarto that positedfor the lucusLibitinae at Rome (cf. above,
n. 57; and text pp. 49 f. on the sc depago Montano).
68. Ps.-Acroat Hor. Epist. 1.7.6, dissignatores dicunturqui ad lucum[locum:
98 JOHN BODEL

codd.]Libitinaefunebria praestandaconducuntur,ut defuncticumhonoreefferan-

tur; the confusion of lucus and locus in our MSS. is common (cfi TLL VII
1575.44if., 1751.19-21)andin thiscasethe emendationis obvious.Cf. alsops.-
Acro at Hor. Serra.2.6.19, est autemLibitina locusin urbe, quo constituunturqui
efferendacorpora conducuntet praebent necessariafuneribus.
69. For the expressionlibitinamexercere,cf. Val. Max. 5.2.10 (above,n. 55).
Libitinamfacere is usedin the samesensein the TabulaHeracleensis
(CIL 12
593.94, 104, cf. p. 916). The phraselibitinamhabereattestedin the senatuscon-
sultum of ^D 19 from Larinum (AE 1978, 145.15) must mean "have burial" rather
than"be an undertaker"(pace A. Lintott,ap. B. Levick,JRS73 (1983) 103), since
the phraseappearsin the sectionof thedocumentconcerning penaltiesratherthan
violations.
70. P. II 24-29 (seeAppendix2); cfi alsoP. III 18-19, concerningequipment
usedby the undertakerin the performanceof his duty: suntautemlignaria quae
ante huncdie[m --- qui] / libit[inae e|xsercendaeprae(e)rat.
71. C. Nicolet, The world of the citizen in RepublicanRome, transl.P.S. Falla
(1980) 184-185, seemsto excludethe possibilityof a deathtax duringthe Repub-
lic, butDig. 11.7.37pt. [Macer1 ad leg. vicens.hered.],on funeralexpenses to be
excluded from the vicesimahereditatum,perhapsrefers to a burial tax in the
phraseet si qua vectigaliasunt (cf. Mommsen'snote ad loc.). For deathtaxesin
Egypt, see W.E.H. Cockle, JEA 70 (1984) 120; P. Mertens,Les servicesde l'•tat
civil et le contr•le de la population • Oxyrhynchusau III e si?cle de notre
(1958) 76-77.
72. CIL V 5128 = ILS 6726;cf. I. CalabiLimentani,Epigrafialatina3 (1973)
245-246 no. 47, with a poorbut legiblephotograph.
73. Mommsenat CIL V 5128; cf. W. Liebenam,Zur Geschichteund Organisa-
tion des riimischen Vereinswesens(1890) 251; B. Laum, Stiftungen in der
griechischen undriimischenAntike(1914) 114;OLD s.v. "lucar"2b, "(app.) a sum
levied from thoseholdingfunerals".
74. Veyne 497 n. 43 (e.g.) speaksof "fun(•raillesgratuites"and believesthat
lucar must have been the wages owed to the professionalmourners and
undertaker'smutes("croque-morts").
75. See Duncan-Jones(above, n. 54) 131; and cf. below, n. 137.
76. This is one figurecommonlyacceptedby studentsof ancientdemography,
in the absenceof any reliableancientevidence: cfi, e.g., D. Engels,CP 75 (1980)
118-119; W.V. Harris, CQ 32 (1982) 115.
77. On perpetual foundations in Italy, see Duncan-Jones(above, n. 54)
132-138, esp. 134 on the interest-rates
of the largerfunds;171 no. 637, 228, 379
for the alimentaryfoundationof the youngerMatidia; further,J. Andreau,Ktema2
(1977) 157-209, esp. 203 n. 107. For Bergomum,see,e.g., Rostovtzeff(above,
n. 65) 232.
78. G. GarofaloZappa,in Diz. Ep. 4 (1973) s.v. "lucar" 1949, followed(tenta-
tively) by TLL VII 1691.53-56. Garofalo Zappa makesno mentionof the Cam-
panianfunerarylaws.
79. Thaniel (above,n. 52) 48-49; cf. R.E.A. Palmer,The archaic communityof
the Romans (1970) 106 n. 2.
80. Cf. CIL V 3924 = ILS 6704 with Marquardt II 82 n. 4; Plaut. Aul. 615.
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 99

Formationof an adjectivelucarisfrom the nounlucusis entirelyplausible,as the

form lucularis (from the diminutive luculus) in the title of a priesthoodattestedat
a muchlater (third-century^D) date at Fulginiumshows;cf. CIL XI 5215 = ILS
2650 (flamenlucularisLauren(tium)Lavina(tium)),with Pasqualini1985.
81. Loucaridin the Lucerianinscriptionwas interpretedasneutersubstantiveof
an adjective*loucari- alreadyby K. Brugmann,"Zum Haingesetzvon Luceria,
CIL. IX 782", in Miscellanea linguisticain onore di G. Ascoli (1901) 3 n. 2, who
believed that the term meant "nicht 'der Hain', sonder etwa 'das Hainterrain, Hain-
gebiet'". Lucus, of course,originally meant "clearing in a grove" (cfi Emout-
Meillet (above, n. 17) 368; A. Walde and J.B. Hofmann, Lateinisches ety-
mologisches
Wiirterbuch
3 (1938) 1.828) and is understood
in that senseby
Dum6zil (above, n. 39) 49 in Cato's famous phrase,lucum conlucareRomano
more sic oportet(Agr. 139.1).
82. Cf. TLL VII 270.16-80.
83. Cf. F. Coarelli, II Foro romanoII. Periodo repubblicanoe augusteo(1985)
28-36 and 166-170 on the puteal of Attus Navius, establishedin the Roman
Forum before (probablywell before) 161 (cf. Macr. 3.16.14-17), and the puteal
Scribonianum,which was perhapserected in 147. For similar morphological
developments(apparentlyat a later date), cf., e.g.,pugillus -->pugillaris -->pugil-
lar, vectigalis--> vectigal; on neuternounsin -al and -ar, see furlher Leumann
(above, n. 12) 89, 239.
84. Cfi M. Clavel-L6v&lue, "L'espace des jeux dans le monde romain:
h•g•monie, symboliqueet pratiquesociale",ANRW II 16.3 (1986) 2426-2428; L.
Polverini, in Diz. Ep. 4 (1978-79) s.v. "Ludi", 2020-2021, and s.v. "Ludi scaen-
ici", 2127; G. Ville, La gladiature en occidentdes originesd la mort de Domitien
(1981) 9-19, arguing, perhapstoo rigidly (cfi J. Linderski, CP 80 (1985)
191-192), thatfunerarymunerawereinvariablyagonisticratherthansacrificial.
85. Cf. L. Polverini, in Diz. Ep. 4 (1979) s.v. "Ludi Tarentini", 2134-2136, and
s.v. "Ludi Taurii" 2136-2137; Brind'Amour,"Origine"(above,n. 27) 1417.
86. The supposedretreatof Roman troopsto a grove outsideRome following
their defeaton that occasion,attestedin no othersource,is apparentlycontradicted
by Livy 5.38.5, who recordsthat the great majority of the vanquishedforces
soughtrefuge at Veii; cfi R.M. Ogilvie, A commentaryon Livy Books1-5, repr.
with addenda(1970) 717-718.
87. See Dum6zil (above,n. 39) 45-50. The original meaningof the Lucaria
festival seems to have been lost already to the Romans of Varro's day: cfi
W. Warde Fowler, The Romanfestivalsof theperiod of the Republic(1899) 183.
88. Cf. Cic. Art. 9.5.2 (= 171 SB), maiores nostri funestiorem diem esse
volueruntAlliensis pugnae quam urbis captae, quod hoc malum ex illo (itaque
alter religiosusetiam nunc dies, alter in vulgusignotus);Livy 6.1.11 calls it diem
... duplici clade insignem;cf. Tac. Hist. 2.91. 18 July was the only day in the
Roman year that was both dies ater and dies religiosus (for the distinction see
Brind'Amour, Calendrier (above, n. 27) 230-231).
89. Cf. A. Degrassi,InscriptionesItaliae XIII 2: Fasti Anni Numaniet luliani
(1963) 265. Both days of the Lucaria festival, like the first day of the Parentalia
(andotherIdes), are designatedin the calendars"NP", probablyn(efasti)p(ublici):
cf. A.K. Michels, The calendar of the Roman Republic'(1967) 68-81 (contra A.
lOO JOHN BODEL

Degrassi,Latomus28 (1969) 464, 467).

90. Cf. Wissowa 232-235.
91. On the Lemuria,seeWissowa235. For a differentexplanationof the con-
nection between the dies Alliensis and the Lucaria, which assumes that the
Romansdid in fact seekrefugein a grove,seeDum6zil (above,n. 39) 50-51.
92. Cf. G. Goetz, CGL 5.506.52, locusin urbe Roma ubi tributa et vectigalia
ponebantur;4.256.6, locusin urbe Roma et erogatioquae solebatin lucisfieri et
vectigal; 5.219.7 locusaptus.
93. For locar: locusapud urbemRomare,cf. CGL 6.1,656.
94. Both inscriptions are opisthograph,
bothwerecarvedin local limestone,and
both were found embeddedin the walls of modernbuildings;both are currently
housedin the municipalmuseumat Spoleto. For the first, discoveredin 1876, see
CIL XI 4766 = 12 366 = ILS 4911 = ILLRP 505 (Imagines380a-d)= Bruns,
Fontes7 283 no. 104b= FIRA III 2 71a = Ernout,Recueil2 64 = De Rosalia15;for
thesecond,
firstpublished
by C. Pietrangeli
in NSA1937,28-31,seeCIL 122872
= ILLRP 506 (Imagines381a-b);cf. Wachter(above,n. 12) 426-432. Degrassiat
ILLRP 505-506 assignsboth inscriptionsto shortlyafter the foundingof the Latin
colony,G. Susiniin G.B. Pighi, "Storiadella lingualatina",EnciclopediaClassica
2.6 (1968) 9 to severaldecadeslater, but not later than the end of the third century;
Wachter's arguments(432) for a date after the sc de Bacchanalibusare incon-
clusive. As with the lex Lucerina,reliabledatingcriteriaare lacking.
95. In all likelihoodthe dicator was the town's chief magistrate(= dictator),
but he has alsobeenidentified(lessplausibly)as a "dedicator"(of the grove?)(so
OLD, s.v.) or as one who lays informationconcerningthe necessityof a piaculum
(Radke(above,n. 52) 14):seetheliterature
citedin CIL 12,p. 877 at 366 andS.
Mazzarino, Helikon 7 (1967) 426-427.
96. Cf., e.g., CIL VI 576 (=ILS 4915) extra hoc limenaliquid de sacro/ $il-
vani efferrefas non est, with A. von Domaszewski,Abhandlungenzur ri3mischen
Religion (1909) 60-61' further, F. Skutsch,Glotta 3 (1910) 91-94, with many
references.
97. For the Greek inscriptionalevidence,which rangesin date from the fourth
century BC to the first century AD, see F. Sokolowski,Lois sacrdesdes citds
grecques(1969) 72 at no. 37; B. JordanandJ. Perlin,"On the protectionof sacred
groves", in Studiespresentedto Sterling Dow on his eightiethbirthday (1984)
153-159; cf. also A. Wilhelm, JOEAI 28 (1933) 209; BE 1970, 512.74-75 (tes-
tamenturnEpicratis);D.E. Birge, Sacredgrovesin the ancientGreek world (diss.
Berkeley 1982) 176-177 with referencesto the very full collectionof evidencein
her appendixof testimonia(numbering665 items). Evidencefor the Romanworld
is surveyedin the text, p. 26. For parallelsoutsidethe Mediterraneanregion,see
J.G. Frazer's commentson Ovid, Fasti 4.753 (1929) 3.352-358 and note A. Hen-
richs, "'Thou shalt not kill a tree': Greek, Manichaean and Indian tales", BASP 16
(1979) 85-108 (on the storyof Erysichthon,Ov. Met. 8.741-878, etc.).
98. On Cosat the end of the fifth centurytimberfrom the sacredcypresses of
Asclepiuswassometimesusedfor publicworks,but the practicewasdiscontinued
in the fourthcentury: cf. R. Herzog,Heilige GesetzevonKos (Abh. d. preuss.Ak.
d. Wiss., phil.-hist.KI., 1928.6) 32 nos. 11.6-7, 12 (= Sokolowski(above,n. 97)
150 A.6-7, q.v. at p. 251, B); Jordanand Periin(above,n. 97) 155-156. A lease
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 101

contractdatableto the first half of the fourth centuryconcerningland of the Klyti-

dai on Chios (SEG 27.536; cf. 22.508, 17.385) providesfor the removalof thirty
talentsof timberlying in a grove(sideA col. 1.13-17, 2.50-52), but the statusof
the woodland is uncertain:cf. U. Fantasia,ASNP 7 (1977) 27-55, esp. 36-37,
53-55. The catharticlaw from Cyrene (SEG 9.72; late fourth century),anomalous
in many respects,explicitly permitsthe use of "wood grown in a sacredarea"
([•c]&Xx)v
iv {ap&t rc•tpmcdg)--for sacred,profane,anduncleanpurposes, provided
that an appropriatefee is paid to thegod (A.8-10); cf. R. Parker,Miasma. Pollu-
tion and purificationin early Greek religion (1983) 332-351, esp. 335; F. Soko-
lowski,Lois sacr•esdescitesgrecques.Supplement(1962) 191.
99. Cf. W. Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium quae supersunt (1874) 22,
138-142; A. Pasoli, Acta Fratrum Arvalium quae post annum MDCCCLXXIV
reperta sunt. Studi e ricerche7 (1950) 64, 96. The Arval Acta are castin a new
light by M. Beard,"Writing andritual:A studyof diversityandexpansionin the
Arval Acta", PBSR 53 n.s. 40 (1985) 114-162, who makes a strong case for
regardingthe inscribedrecordsas essentially"symbolic"ratherthanutilitarianin
function.
100. Cf. Parker (above, n. 98) 165.
101. Cf. Henzen 127-142 (esp. 141-142 on the singularproblemof ^D 183);
Pasoli95 (a mistakein the ritual ceremony),96; AE 1947, 59; A. Ferrua,BCAR 78
(1961-62 [1964]) 118;J. Scheid,ZPE 43 (1981) 343-352, esp.344-345. The con-
sistencywith whichpiacula wereperformedfor anymishapwithinthegroveis the
more strikingin light of Beard'sdemonstration (esp. 129-131, 133-137) of the
diversityof cult activitiesreportedin the inscribedrecords.
102. CIL VI 2023a (=ILS 5042): ... Cn. Corneliu]s Cn. f. Lentulus augur,
mag(ister) . . . / [factusad]fratres Arvalesrettulit: arborem/ [in lucod]e[ae] Diae
vetustatececidisse,q(uid) d(e) e(a) r(e) f(ieri) p(laceret), d(e) e(a) r(e) i(ta)
c(ensuerunt):/ [cum arbo]r vetustatein luco deae Diae cecidisset,ut / [in luc]o ad
sacrificiumconsumeretur,nevequid/[ligni] exportaretur.
103. Henzen (above, n. 99) 136; cf. Beard (above, n. 99) 138-139.
104. So S.P.C. Tromp,De Romanorumpiaculis(1921) 92.
105. Cato, Agr. 139, lucum conlucareRomanomore sic oportet.porco piaculo
facito, sic verba concipito:... (cf. Pliny, NH 17.267);for Turullius,cf. Val. Max.
1.19 and Cass. Dio 51.8.2 with T.R.S. Broughton,Magistratesof the Roman
Republic3 (1986) 210 and note Paul. exc. Fest., p. 57 L. capitalis lucus,ubi, si
quid violatum est, caput violatoris expiatur. At Aen. 6.153-155, duc nigras
pecudes;ea prima piacula sunto. / sic demumlucosStygiset regna invia vivis /
aspicies,Virgil graftsRomanritual on to his Greek literarymodels:seeNorden's
remarks ad loc. Ovid, Fasti 4.753 includes pruning in the list of inadvertent
offensescatalogued in hisprayer(accompanied by sacrifice)to Pales.
106. Wissowa 392-393; Mommsen,RiimischesStrafrecht (1899) 811.
107. Tromp (above,n. 104) 82-86, 115-119. A.D. Nock, JBL 60 (1941) 92-94
(=Arthur Darby Nock: Essayson religion and the ancient worM, ed. Z. Stewart
(1972) 2.530-532), remarkingthe lack of evidencefor explicit religioussanctions
againstperjurersand other violators of religious law, appositelycites Tacitus'
apophthegm deoruminiuriae dis curae(Ann. 1.73.5).
108. J. Scheid,"Le d•lit religieux dans la Rome tardo-r{Spublicaine", in Le d•lit
102 JOHN BODEL

religieux
dansla cit• antique,
Coll.del'l•colefr. deRome48 (1981)117-171,
esp. 136-138, 148-151 (with the remarks of G. Crif6 in the same volume,
182-183). On p. 137 n. 85 ScheideffectivelycountersWissowa'scriticisms(Phil.
Woch.43 (1923) 82) of Tromp'sinterpretation of the law fromSpoletium,arguing
convincinglythat the responsibility for performingany necessary expiationsno
doubtfell to the dicatorratherthan to an otherwiseunknown(and probablynon-
existent)collegeof priestsof thegrove.
109. See in general, A.D. Nock, "A feature of Roman religion", HThR 32
(1939) 83-96, esp. 92-94 (=Essays (above,n. 107) 1.481-492, 488-490). The
failureof thelexaedisFurfensis
(CIL 12756)toprescribe
apiaculum
in theevent
of theft (lines 14-16) remainspuzzling,but perhapsa piacularobligationis to be
understood,e contrario, from the dispensationrecordedearlier (lines 8-10) con-
cerningthe saleor leaseof templeproperty: venditio/ locatioaedilis esto,quem-
quomqueveicusFurfens(is)fecerint,quodse sentiunteam rem / sine sceleresine
piaculo;alis nepotesto;cf. theremarksof U. Laffi (above,n. 37) 136-138.
110. For the morelax regulationsprotectingstreamsin course,cf., e.g., CIL XII
2426= Bruns,Fontes7 110= FIRA Ill 2 224 no.71c;CIL 122994;further,Fabbrini
529. The sourcesof rivers and streams,unlike their lower waters, were truly
sacred(cf. Servius at Aen. 7.84, nullus enimfons non sacer; Tac. Ann. 14.22.6
with Furneaux'snotead loc.), aswerecertainlakesandpools;but we knowalmost
nothingabouthow their sanctitywas safeguarded.For a recentattempt(uncon-
vincing, to my mind) to connecta specificprohibitionagainstdumpingstercus
with the protectionof a therapeuticspring,seePaci(above,n. 61) 115-136. Some
Italians actually honoredtheir rivers by consecratingsacredgroves to them: Tac.
Ann. 1.79.3.
111. Pasqualini1971 observes"non sembraparticolarmenteaccentuatoil carat-
tere sactale del luogo," but fails to draw the obvious conclusionand accepts
Mommsen's attribution without further comment.
112. Cf., e.g.,CIL 12838,839,2981(theEsquilineburialgroundin Rome:see
text,p. 44 andn. 166);CIL 12402,403 (publiclandat Venusia;seen. 218);CIL
VI 30837a-c= ILS 4914 = Bruns,Fontes7 287 no. 109 (lex arae fromRome,^D
84-96); CIL XII 2493, 2494 (cf. 2495) = ILS 5768 = Bruns,Fontes 7 141.14
(aqueductrightsat Albinum).
113. Arena 51-53. For the meaning "refuse" in other texts, cf., e.g., R.
P6hlmann,
Die [_)berviilkerung
derantiken
Grossstiidte
(1884)131-132;L.A.Hol-
land,Janusand the bridge,Papersand Monographsof the AmericanAcademyin
Rome 21 (1961) 319-321; contra, M.G. Morgan, Athenaeum 52 (1974) 318;
Brind'Amour, Calendrier (above, n. 27) 231-232. Cf. also J.N. Adams, The Latin
sexualvocabulary(1982) 233-241, esp. 236-237 on the distinctionbetweenthe
generictermstercusandits morespecializedcongeners, merda,timus,foria, etc.
114. So, first, H. Buchholtz, "Oskisches Perfecturn in lateinischer Inschrift", in
Festgrussden am 30. Sept. 1878 in Gera versammeltenPhilologen dargebr.
(1878), which I have not seen;cf. O.A. Danielsson,"Zum altitalischent-Perfekt",
Altitalische Studien 4 (1885) 153-155; Brugmann (above, n. 81) 2-3; Wallace
(above,n. 5) 215-216, who givesgood reasonsfor rejectingalternativeexplana-
tions of the desinence -tid (212-215); cf. also Porzio Gemia (above, n. 18)
102-104, 126.
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 103

115. Cf., e.g., Arena 50-51, 53-55, with references.

116. For the new text from Cingoli, see Paci (above,n. 61); for the graffito
scrawledon a wall of the Marine Gate at Pompeii,seeCIL IV 1754. The first line,
printed by Zangemeister in CIL as IIVP + IIMuS seems to be a name
(Euphem[u]s ?: seeTab. XXXII, fig. 13); the remainingtext readsste[r]cusefundo
et / rota[---]. Whetherthe graffitorefersto defecatingor dumpingdung (or
refuse)is uncertain,but the latter is at leastpossible:perhapsste[r]cusefundoet
rota[s frango].
117. For the terminatioof Roman sacredplaces,see now A. Valvo, "Lapides
profaneisintussacrum:Alcuneosservazioni
intornoa CIL 12 1486",Aevum61
(1987) 113-122.
118. Arena 53-56, citing Varro, RR 2.4.20; cf. also [Verg.] Moret. 16, fusus
erat terrafrumenti pauper acervus.
119. Cf. A. Scobie,"Slums,sanitationandmortalityin the Romanworld",Klio
68 (1986) 415, citing evidenceof municipaltrashheapsat Ostia and Pompeii.
Livy 39.44.5 mentionsthelining with stoneof publiccesspits(ratherthanfountain
basins,as commonlysupposed) by Cato duringhis censorship in 184; cf. Scobie
419 n. 150; seefurther,OLD s.v. "sterculinum",esp.Plaut.Pers. 406-407. K.D.
White, Roman farming (1970) 132-133 discussesthe agricultural writers'
specifications
for constructing
a "compostheap"(better,"dungpit": seeP. Brunt,
JRS 62 (1972) 138); whetherthe pile is aboveor belowgroundis irrelevantto the
basicoppositionbetweenfundere andponerein acervo.
120. Vetter's reservationsconcerning a derivation of fundatid from Latin
fundere-•"Ableitungyonfundere ist durchden Zusammenhang ausgeschlossen,
dennder Mist sollja nichtzum Diingendienenundwird keineswegs 'ausgestreut',
denndiesw'arehier geffihrlichundsinnlos"(Vetter 164)--missthepoint.
121. So, e.g., Hermann,Pisani, and Wallace (above, n. 5); cf. esp. Wallace
216-217,219-220 and,for otherviews,RibezzoandGrienberger(above,n. 5); M.
Leumann (above, n. 12) 323.
122. Cf. Arena 49, citing Varro, LL 5.25; Cic. Tusc. 1.104, Div. 1.56, 2.143;
Livy 29.9.10; Sen. Ep. 92.35; Serv. at Aen. 11.43; to which may be addedLucr.
6.1155; Cic. Fam. 4.5.4 (ServiusSulpicius),Leg. 2.57; Ov. Met. 7.602; Lucan
7.565; Festusp. 240 L.; andPorphyrioat Hor. Epode5.100; further,TLL III (1907)
s.v. "cadaver" 14.51-53; OLD s.v. "proicio" 7a. For the clause sociove
quotienscumq(ue) proiecer(it) in sing(ula) cadaveraHS LX n(ummum)d(amnas)
e(sto) d(are) in the lex libitinaria from Puteoli (P. II 1), see Bove 229 n. 11, who,
however,incorrectlymaintainsthatproicerein the Luceriantext meanssepelire.
123. Cf. C. Vatin, "Jardinset servicesde voirie", BCH 100 (1976) 555-564 for
arrangements at Athens,Pergamon,andThasos;further,E.J. Owens,"The kopro-
logoi at Athensin the fifth and fourthcenturiesB.c.",CQ n.s. 33 (1983) •14 50;
lnscr. Cret. 4.73A.7-10 (Gortyn). The Romanevidenceis thoroughlysurveyedby
Scobie (above, n. 119) 407-419.
124. Cf. CIL 12593.66-67("lexJuliamunicipalis").
Dig. 33.7.12.10
(Ulp.20
ad Sab.) includesplaustra quibusstercusevehaturamongother appurtenances
countedas instrumentumof an estate;cf. alsoCic. Div. 1.57 (below, n. 161).
125. So, e.g., J.K. Evans, CQ n.s. 31 (1981) 434. For stercorarii, cf. Scobie
(above,n. 119) 413-414, citingCIL IV 10606(Herculaneum)
exemta/ ste(r)cora/
104 JOHN BODEL

a(ssibus)XI.
126. Pompeii: CIL IV 7038: stercorari,/ ad murum/ progredere.si / presus
fueris, poena / patiare necese/ est. cave. I see no justification for the view
adoptedin the OLD s.v., where "stercorarius"is said to be used here "app. with
humorousref. to defecating" (=cacator?). Herculaneum: CIL IV 10488: M.
[Alf]icius Pa[u]lus / aedil(is). / [si qu]is velit in hunc locum / stercus abicere,
monetur n(on) / •li'•cere. siquisadver[sushoc] / •e'•dic •t'•umfecerit, liberi dent /
[. dena]rium n(ummum),servi verberibus/ [i]n sedibusatmonentur,on which see
K. Schubring,Hermes90 (1962) 241-244.
127. CIL VI 31615 = 12 839, handwrittenin vermilionbeneaththe inscribed
text, for which seep. 44; cf. alsoE. Pals,Suppl.Ital. 1.633 (Verona)= ILS 8207b,
stercusintra cipposquifecerit aut violarit, nei luminibusfruatur.
128. See Scobie (above, n. 119) 417.
129. Cf., e.g., Hor. Serm. 1.8.38-39, Pers. 1.112-114 (below, n. 130), Petr.
71.8, Juv. 1.131, Plut. Mor. 1045, HA, Carac. 5.7; further E. Magaldi, "Le
iscrizioniparietaliPompeiane",RAAN 11.2 (1929-30) 95-98; D. Fehling,Etholo-
gische
Dberlegungen
(1974)34.
130. Seepp. 30 f., on the new inscriptionfrom Cingoli. I am not forgettingthe
(apparently)commonRoman practiceof paintingtwo snakeson a wall to signal
the presenceof a geniusloci andhenceto mark a place(informally)as sacerin an
effort to protect it from being fouled: cf. Pers. 1.112-114, "hic" inquis "veto
quisquam faxit oletum."/pinge duosanguis:PVERI, SACERESTLOCVS,EXTRA
/ MEIITE, with O. Jahn'scommentsin his edition(1843) 110-111 ad loc., citing
the inscriptionnow publishedas CIL VI 29848b; cf. alsoAE 1949, 48 (Algeria);
for a prohibitionagainsturinatingin a stream,seeabove,n. 110. In contrastto the
lack of Roman evidence,severalofficial regulationsrestrictingthe dumping of
dungor calling for its removalare known from Greek sanctuaries: cf. Sokolowski
(above, n. 97) nos. 57.6, 67.28, 78.217, 108 (with the comment), 115.4, 116.4-5,
116.14-17; id. (Suppl.,n. 98) nos.24, 53.
131. Cf. Cic. Leg. 2.58, "hominemmortuum", inquit lex in duodecim,"in urbe
nesepelito
neveurito",credovelpropterignispericulum;
CIL 12594= ILS 6087
(lex coloniae Genetivae) lines 61--63 (=ch. 74); for the sc of 38 (Cass. Dio
48.43.3) see n. 206.
132. Dig. 43.10.5(Papin.de curaurbium):gh •d'ccooo•v
8• grlS•g&Z•o0miv

133. Dig. 11.7.43.2a (Papin. 8 Quaest.): nam propter publicam utilitatem,ne

insepultacadaveraiacerentstrictamrationeminsuperhabemus,quae nonnum-
quam in ambiguis religionum quaestionibusomitti solet: nam summamesse
rationem,quaepro religionefacit.
134. Cf. Dig. 11.7.12.3(Ulp. 25 ad ed.): hocedictumiustaex causapropositum
est, ut quifuneravitpersequaturid quodimpendit: sic enimfieri, ne insepultacor-
pora iacerentnevequisde alienofunereturwith Dig. 11.7.14.7(Ulp. 25 ad ed.):
potesttamendistinguiet misericordiaemodus,ut in hocfuerit misericorsvel pius
qui funeravit, ut eum sepeliret ne insepultusiaceret, non etiam ut suo sumpto
fecerit: quodsi iudici liqueat, non debeteumqui conveniturabsolvere:quisenim
sinepietatisintentionealienumcadaverfunerat? Suchexpressions of humanitas
were perhapsnot the norm: cf. Sen. Ep. 12.3 (of a decrepitslave), undeistunc
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 105

nanctuses? quid te delectavit alienum mortuum tollere? and the expression

alienum mortuumplorare at Petr. 54.1, which seemsto have been proverbialfor
wastingone'stime.
135. Cf. Dig. 11.7.2.1-2, 11.7.8.2 (Ulp. 25 ad ed.); 11.7.7 pr.-1 (Gai. 19 ad ed.
prov.); furtherM. Kaser,"Zum riSmischen Grabrecht",ZRG 108 (1978) 68-82.
136. On all this see,e.g., J.M.C. Toynbee,Death and burial in theRomanworld
(1971) 73-100; K. Hopkins, Death and renewal, Sociologicalstudiesin Roman
history2 (1983) 205-217; F. De Visscher,Le droit des tombeauxromains(1963)
93-102; Kaser28-30, 37-60; andnow, the wide-rangingdiscussion of N. Purcell,
"Tomb and suburb",in H. von Hesbergand P. Zanker, edd., R6mischeGriiber-
strassen: Selbstdarstellung•Status•Standard. ABAW, N.F. Heft 96 (1987)
25-41.
137. Already during the Republic the burial needs of the very poor in the
smallertowns of Italy were sometimesmet by private benefactors,who donated
landfor theirinterment,
asat Sarsina(CIL 122123= XI 6528= ILS 7846 = ILLRP
662) and later at Tolentinum(CIL IX 5570 = ILS 7847). Suchcivic euergetism,
however,can only have provideda partial and temporarysolutionto the problem.
Even so at the capitalunderthe Empire, the emperorNerva's burial subsidy(fun-
eraticium)to the urbanplebsof 300 HS per headwas probablypaid only to those
eligible to receivethe grain dole and in any caseis unlikely to have survivedhis
death: see A. Degrassi,"Nerva funeraticiumplebi urbanaeinstituit",BIDR 63
(1960) 233-238 ( = Scritti vari di antichita 1 (1962) 697-702).
138. Cf., e.g., Suet. Vesp. 5.5 (at the breakfasttable), Oros. 7.4.1-2 (in the
forum) with J. Le Gall, in BSAF (1980-81) 151. Petr. 134.1; Aus. Epigr. 24.1-2
(Otho?) (at crossroads;cf. Mart. 10.5.10-12) with Scobie(above, n. 119) 418-419.
139. In tracingthe Romans'traditionalmaintenance of a freshwater supplyfor
urban needs to a combination of Etruscan antecedents and a cumulated store of
conventionalwisdomconcerninglife on the farm, J. Scarborough, "Romanmedi-
cine and public health",in T. Ogawa, ed., Public health (1981) 33-74, remarks
(33) the absenceof "a uniformandgenerallyaccepted'theory' of why theRomans
did what they did with their water supply". R. Jackson,Doctors and diseasesin
theRomanEmpire (1988) 42-55, esp.46, 51-53 adoptsa morepessimisticview of
Romanpracticesrelatingto the sanitarytreatmentof humanwaste.
140. Dig. 43.23.1.2-3 (Ulp. 71 ad ed.): curavit autempraetor per haec inter-
dicta, ut cloacae purgentur et reficiantur, quorum utrumqueet ad salubritatem
civitatium et ad tutelam pertinet; nam et caelum pestilens et ruinas minantur
immunditiaecloacarum,si non reficiantur. hoc auteminterdictumpropositumest
de cloacisprivatis; publicae enim cloacaepublicam curammerentur.
141. Cf. Livy 39.44.5,ORF4 50 (Cato 126-127),with A.E. Astin,Cato the
Censor(1978) 84 (Cato); andCass.Dio 49.43, Pliny, NH 36.104, and Strabo5.235
with the remarksof R.M. Ogilvie in his commentaryon Livy (above, n. 86),
214-215 at 1.56.2 (Agrippa).
142. Cf. Front.Aq. 88 Krohn, sentithanc cura<m> [sc. copiaeaquarumurbis]
imperatorispiissimi Nervae principis sui regina et domina orbis in dies ... et
magissentietsalubritaseiusdemaeternae urbis aucto castellorum,operum,mun-
erum et lacuum numero .... ne pereuntesquidem aquae otiosae sunt: ablatae
causaegravioris caeli, mundaviarumfacies, purior spiritus,quiqueapud veteres
106 JOHN BODEL

se<mper> urbi infamisaer fuit est remotus. For the imperialedict seeFront.Aq.
111,"caducamneminemrolo ducerenisiqui meobeneficioautpriorurnprincipum
habent. nam necesseest ex castellisaliquampatternaquae effluere,cumhocper-
tineat non solum ad urbis nostrae salubritatem, sed etiam ad utilitatem cloacarum
abluendarum";the disjunctiveexpressionnon solurn... sed etiam showsthat the
benefitsof salubritasand utilitas are here regardedas distinctbut correlative. Cf.
Jackson(above, n. 139) 44-45, 52.
143. Pliny, Ep. 98-99. Jackson(above,n. 139) 52 objectsthat Pliny's solution
"was only to hide the offendingstreamfrom view and smell, not to preventthe
contamination... "• but this is to confusea modem understanding of the sanitary
disposalof solidwastewith an ancientconceptionof the problem: in Pliny's view
preventingnoxiousodorsfrom escapingno doubt sufficedto remove the health
hazard: cf. Dig. 43.8.2.29 (Ulp. 68 ad ed.), idem [sc.Nerva] air si odoresololocus
pestilentiosusfiat...; further,below, nn. 145-148.
144. Cf. R.W. Davies, "The Roman military medical service",SJ 27 (1970) 85
[ = id., Servicein the Roman army, edd. D. Breezeand V.A. Maxfield (1989) 211];
G. Webster,
TheRomanImperialarmy3 (1985)259-260.
145. Isid. Etym. 15.11.1,prius autemquisquein domosua sepeliebatur.postea
vetitum est legibus, ne foetore ipso corpora viventiumcontactainficerentur. Cf.
Serv. at Aen. 11.206.
146. Galen7.289-290 Kiihn: d• x&•o)O•&8• •c xfi• &vot•rvofi•
•pzœ'rott
[sc.6
•l•pœ'rdq]
'ro• •pt• d•poq6;rbc•q;rœ•ovtb•ol•q
&vot0l•tt•tc•œtoq
•t•v0•vxoq. • •
&PZ•x•q •eSdvoq •xot •Odq xt ve•p•v •oxt • •avO•vx•v, •q •v •o•otq
ei•0e ovB•i•etv' • •< xe•Bdx•vxtv&v,• •tBv&v&va0vBtdoetq &P90•povq;
on which seeV. Nutton, "The seedsof disease:An explanationof contagionand
infectionfrom the Greeksto the Renaissance",Medical Histo• 27 (1983) 1-34 at
5•.
147. See Nutton, esp. 1-16.
148. For Hippocrates,the Hippocraticco•us, andearly theoriesof "bad air", cf.
Jackson(above, n. 139) 18-21; Nutton 13. For AsclepiadesseeE. Rawson,Intel-
lectual life in the late Roman Republic (1985) 17•177, and, on Lucretiusand
Vano, 177-179 with Nutton 9-11.
149. Vano, RR 1.12.2, advertendureetiam siqua erunt 1ocapalustria ... quod
crescuntanitaalia quaedamminuta, quae non possuntoculi consequi,et per aera
intusin corpusper os ac narespemeniuntatque e•ciunt d•cilis morbos. Raw-
son 178 n. 44 questionsthe identificationof V•o's anitaalia with Galen's "seeds
of disease"(cf. Nutton 11), but Va•o's belief in "bad air" is evident here and else-
where(e.g.,RR 1.4.•5).
150. Little can be madeof the fact that Lucretiusdescribesbirdsandpredators
being repelledby the smell of the dead bodiesbut dying only if they ate them
(6.121•1222), since here he follows Thucydides2.50.1-2 closely: see the
remarksof C. Bailey in his editionof Lucretius(1947) ad 1oc. In Virgil's plague
in the Georgics birds are killed by the bad air and hll from the sky (G.
3.54•547), as they do in Lucretiuswhen they fly over Avemus (6.741-746): cf.
R.F. Thomasin his editionof the Georgics(1988) ad 1oc.
151. Cf. Hor. Epodes5.99-100, postinsepultamembradifferentlupi / et Esquil-
inae alites with Po•hyfio's commentad 1oc.:et alibi saepeostenditin regione
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 107

aggerisquaeestextraportamEsquilinamsolitafuissepauperumcorporavel com-
buri vel proici. Maecenas'reclamationproject perhapsleft its mark in his own
literaryefforts:
cf. FPL2 102no.8 Morel,nectumulum
curo:sepelitnaturarelic-
tos.

152. For the implicit contrastpestilens/saluber,cf., e.g., Cic. Rep. 2.11, Iocum
... in regione pestilenti salubrem; Div. 1.79, sunt partes agrorum aliae pes-
tilentes,aliae salubres,with A.S. Pease(1920) ad loc. The sanitarybenefitsof
Maecenas'worksdid not go unremarkedby Horace'searlycommentators: cf. ps.-
Acro at Serm. 1.8.14 andPorphyrioat Serm. 1.8.7.
153. Porphyrio at Serm. 1.8.11.... haec regio namquepublicas ustrinas
habebat. The oft-quotedremarksof the so-calledCommentatorCruquianusat
Hor. Serm. 1.8.10, a puteisfossisad sepeliendacadaverapauperumlocusdictus
estputiculi,hic etiamerantpublicaeustrinae,are a conflationof Porphyrio'scom-
mentshere and at v. 14 with thoseof ps.-Acroat Serm. 1.8.10-11 (cf. P. Lejay,
Oeuvresd'Horace.Satires(1911) 215); like all the notesin this collection,they
rest on no ancientauthoritynot known to us: cf. R.G.M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard,
A commentaryon Horace Odes,Book I (1970) li. For public executionsoutside
the Esquilinegate,seeF. Hinard,"Spectacledesex6zutionset espaceurbain",in
L' Urbs. Espaceurbain et histoire(Ier si•cle av. J.-C.-III e si•cle ap. J.-C.): Coll.
de L'Ecole frangaisede Rome 98 (1987) 113-115; note also Cic. Clu. 37, Asuvius
.... quasi in hortulosiret, in harenariasquasdamextra portam Esquilinamper-
ductus occiditur.
154. Varro, LL 5.25: extra oppida a puteis puticuli, quod ibi in puteis
obruebanturhomines,nisi potius,ut Aelius scribit,puticuli quodputescebantibi
cadaveraproiecta,qui locuspublicusultra Esquilias. itaqueeumAfraniusputilu-
cosin togataappellat, quodinde suspiciuntper puteoslumen(cf. Paul. exc. Fest.
p. 241 L.; ps.-Acroat Hor. Serm. 1.8.9). As J. Le Gall, BSAF (1980-81) 151 n. 2
notes,Varro's referenceto his masterAelius Stilo and to the playwrightAfranius
showsthat theputiculiat Rome were in usealreadyduringthe secondcenturyBC;
seefurtherAppendix3. For a definitionof locuspublicus,seeDig. 43.7-9 passim,
esp.43.7.1 (Pomp. 30 ad Sab.), id quod ad usumomniumpertineat,veluti vias
publicas,itinerapublica;43.8.2.5(Ulp. 68 ad ed.),loca ... quaepublicousuides-
tinata sunt; and the more explicit classificationofferedby Labeo (Ulpian concur-
ring): publici loci appellatioquemadmodum accipiatur,Labeo deftnit,ut et ad
areas et ad insulaset ad agros et ad vias publicasitineraquepublicapertineat
(43.8.2.3 (Ulp. 68 ad ed.)).
155. Cic. Leg. 2.58; cf. De Visscher (above, n. 136) 145. The date of the
temple--accordingto S.B. Platnerand T. Ashby,A topographicaldictionaryof
ancient Rome (1929) 258 "probablynot earlier than the third century"--is not
known,but a dedicationto Honosfoundnearbyandnow tentativelyassigned to
thesecond
halfof thesecond
century
probably
belongs
to it: cf. CIL 1231 andp.
862.
156. Cf. De Visscher(above,n. 136) 43-63; Kaser (above,n. 135) 30-37; and
noteDig. 43.8.2.19(Ulp. 68 ad ed.), on thedifferentrestrictions
governingthe use
of locapublica and loca sacra: locorumsacrorumdiversacausaest: in locosacro
non solumfacere vetamur,sed et factum restituereiubemur:hoc propter reli-
gionem.
108 JOHN BODEL

157. So Mommsen, "Zum r6mischen Grabrecht", ZRG 16 (1895) 207-208

(=Ges. $chr. 3.202-203). Mommsen(following ps.-Acro at Hor. Serra. 1.8.13)
likenedHorace'scommunesepulcrumto the suburbanplotssometimescededby
individualsto their communitiesfor use as public cemeteries,as at Sarsinaand
Tolentinum (see above,n. 137; cf. Purcell (above, n. 136) 37, 38 n. 62), and dis-
tinguishedit from the locuspublicusdestinedfor the massdisposalof the indigent.
But the senseof the phraseheredesmonumenturn ne sequeretur,which according
to Mommsenrefersto the individualgravestones of thoseburiedin the communal
area,remainsobscure,and it is not clear that Horace was not speakingironically
throughoutthis passage.Lejay's notion((above,n. 153) 215) that the commune
sepulcrumwasa columbariumfamiliareis untenable.
158. For the minimal requirementsof a Romanburial, seeDe Visscher(above,
n. 136) 32-39. Europeanhistoryof the thirteenthto the eighteenthcenturiespro-
videsnumerousparallelsfor the practiceof leavingmassgravesof the pooropen
until filled: cf., e.g., J. Whaley, in Mirrors of mortality,ed. J. Whaley (1981) 104
(Hamburg);P. Ari•s, The hourof our death,tr. H. Weaver(1981) 56-59 (France);
C. Gittings,Death, burial and theindividualin early modernEngland(1984) 64.
159. Agen. in Grom. Vet. p. 86 La. (=Corp. Agr. p. 47 Th.) (continuingthe
passagequotedp. 81): ex his locis, cum sint suburbana,sine ulla religionis
reverentiasolentprivati aliquidusurpareet hortissuisadplicare. For the senseof
adplicare in this context,cfi OLD s.v. "applicare"5(a); for the conceptsof subur-
bium andhorti, seeE. Champlin,AJAH 7 (1982) 97-99.
160. Gaius,Inst. 2.7: sed in provinciali soloplacet plerisquesolumreligiosum
nonfieri, quia in eo solodominiumpopuliRomaniestvel Caesaris,nosautempos-
sessionemtanturnet usumfructumhabere videmur; utique tamen, etiamsi non sit
religiosus,pro religioso habetur. For the legal statusof provincial land, see
furtherthe passages citedby B. Kueblerin his revisedTeubneredition(1935) ad
loc. Romanpiety towardthe deadevidentlydid not extendto the gravesof enem-
ies: accordingto Paul (27 ad ed. = Dig. 47.12.4), sepulchrahostiumreligiosa
nobisnon sunt; cf. De Visscher(above, n. 136) 53-54.
161. For stercusand cadaveratogethernote alsothe passageof Papiniancited
above, n. 132. Sometimes the two products were disposedof in the same
vehicles--at Cic. Div. 1.57 a certainArcadian dreamsse interfectumin plaustrum
a cauponeesseconiectumet supra stercusiniectum--and could be found in the
same places: cf. Petr. 134.1, quod purgamentumnocte calcasti in trivio aut
cadaver?; note also LXX 4 Ki. 9.37.
162. R. Lanciani, BCAR 2 (1874) 42-53; 3 (1875) 41-56; Ancient Rome in the
light of recentdiscoveries
(1888) 64-65 (q.v. for the quotation).
163. The horizontal dimensionsof the individual cellae, for instance, are vari-
ously given as four by five meters (BCAR 3 (1875) 43), "twelve feet square"
(Ancient Rome, 64), and, in the revised Italian translationof the latter (L'antica
Roma2, tr. E. Staderini
(1981)67), "cinquemetriquadrati".No doubttherewas
somevariation(cf. BCAR 2 (1874) 48: "celle rettangolaridi varia grandezza"),and
the figuregivenin the Englishpublication,whichseemsimprobablysmall,may be
the productof mistranslation,but significantdiscrepancies remain which cannot
easilybe reconciled.Lancianiidentifiedthe stoneblockslining the vaultsasboth
cappellaccio (BCAR2 (1874) 48; id., The ruinsand excavations of ancientRome
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 109

(1897) 33) and sperone(BCAR 3 (1875) 43) tufa. Most perplexing,the few puti-
culi markedon Lanciani'sForma Urbis Romae (1893-1901) plate 23 (see figure
1) do not fully correspondwith his earlier descriptionof the burial pits discovered
in 1874-75 and subsequently (in 1888) said to numbersomeseventy-five;cf. H.
Jordan,Topographie
derStadtRomimAlterthum
3 (1907)1.269n. 38; further,M.
Albenoni, in L'archeologia in Roma capitale 148.
Many obscuritiesconcerningthe topographyof the region southof the Esqui-
line gate are clarifiedby Ruth ChristineH3iuberin her forthcomingmonograph,
Zur Topographieder Horti Maecenatisundder Horti Lamiani auf demEsquilinin
Rom, a draft copy of which Dr. H3iuberkindly put at my disposalshortly before
this work went to press. I shouldlike to expressmy gratitudeto Dr. H3iuberfor
her generosityin allowingme to refer to her work, and to her and her colleague,
Prof. Dr. HansgeorgHellenkemper,of the R6misch-Germanisches Museum in
Cologne,for permittingme to reproducein my figure3 a portionof themapdrawn
by Helga St6cker(alsoof the R6misch-Germanisches Museum),which showsthe
principalresultsof Dr. H•iuber'sresearch.I have not found it necessaryto incor-
poratemany of Dr. H•iuber'simportantnew findingsinto the discussionthat fol-
lows, but, where appropriate,I have referred the reader to her work for detailed
discussion of issueson whichherresearchsupersedes existingscholarship.On the
main point of interestfor the presentinvestigation,the locationof the paupers'
cemeteryobliteratedby Maecenas,Dr. H3iuberand I are in agreementin placing
the areasouthof the Esquilinegate(seethe Preface).
164. G. Pinza,BCAR 40 (1912) 65, 82. For the funerarywells at Fregellae,see
G. Colasanti,1 cercatoridiferro. Elementietruschinella valle del Liri e del Sacco
(1928) 39-43 and the remarksof F. Coarelli and G. Colonnain ArcheologiaLazi-
ale 2 (1979) 202, 230, 232. Accordingto U. Antonielli,NSA 1928, 110-115, the
wells were originally dug for water or drainageand were only convenedinto
improvisedburial chambersin late antiquityor the Middle Ages. H. Dressel,in
Annali dell'lnstituto di CorrispondenzaArcheologica52 (1880) 300-305, likewise
concludedthat the specimenwith the inscribedlid preservedin the Capitoline
Museum,which had been found near the conjunctionof the Servianwall and the
modem Via Merulana in the vicinity of the so-calledAuditorium of Maecenas,
wasnotintended
for burials(for theinscription,
ecoC. Antonios,
seeC1L12462
and p. 893; cf. D. Ricciotti in Roma medio Repubblicana(1973) 233 no. 369).
Similar"pozzo"-graves(somewithoutthe terracottacylinders)havebeenfoundon
the EsquilinebetweenVia dello Statuto(now GiovanniLanza) and the areaof the
"Auditorium" of Maecenas (cf. NSA 1876, 73; 1877, 266; BCAR 5 (1877)
181-182) and on the Viminal and Quirinal hills (NSA 1876, 139; 1877, 9; 1883,
171-172; BCAR24 (1896) 26-27--where the wells are identifiedby L. Mariani as
hydraulicinstallations).Dr. H3iuber,n. 172, cites also an examplepublishedin
Notesfrom Rome by Rodolfo Lanciani, ed. A.L. Cubberley(1988) 44, which I
have not seen,and discusses in her text (p. 64) an unpublishedspecimenrecorded
in Lanciani'snotesas havingbeenfoundin 1882 nearthe comerof Via Merulana
and Via dello Statuto.
165. Lanciani,AncientRome (above,n. 162) 65-66, mistakenlylocatedthe find
at the comer of Via Mazzini (now Via Carlo Cattaneo)--that is, inside the Servian
agger--rather than Via Ratazzi; but his own drawingof the site, dated9 April
110 JOHN BODEL

1877 (and reproducedby G. S'fiflund,Le mura di RomaRepubblicana(1932) Tav.

10 fig. 3), showsthe correctlocation(notethe positionof Via di San ¾ito), as Jor-
dan (above,n. 163) 1.270 n. 39 had alreadysurmised.JordandisputedLanciani's
contentionthat the corpseshad beendepositedduringthe Romanperiod,suggest-
ing that they might insteadbelongto the Middle Ages or even to more modem
times; but Lanciani's cross section (which recordsbones of domestic animals in
the same zone as the human remains) showsthat the trench here was covered over
alreadyin antiquity(accordingto Lanciani,underAugustus)and wasevendeeper
buried at the time of Sixtus ¾.
166. The threecopieswill hereafterbe referredto as A, B, andC accordingto
the followingnotation:A = Lanciani,BCAR 10 (1882) 159-160 = CIL ¾I 31614
= 12 838; B = Lanciani,NSA 1884,237 andBCAR 12 (1884) 58-60 = CIL ¾I
31615= 12839 (Degrassi,
Imagines206a);C = C. Caprino,NSA 1943,26-28 =
CIL 122981(Imagines
206b). ForcopiesA andB, seealsoILS 8208;ILLRP486;
Bruns,Fontes7 189no.44B;FIRA2 I 306-307no.53; andCIL 12,p. 957. The
relevance of Sentius' edict to the Lucerian ordinance was noted already by
Mommsen(CIL IX p. 667), but he neverexploredthe implications.
167. Cf. A.E. Gordon, G&R 20 (1951) 77-78; the dimensionsof the stone are
3.10 by 0.57 by 0.24 meters.
168. Cfi Crawford, RRC (above, n. 10) 327 no. 325; MRR 3.191. That the
inscriptionrecordsa praetor'sedictis shownby the formulab(onum)f(actum)(sc.
sit): cf. Suet.lul. 80.2, Vit. 14.4; Tert. Pudic. 1; further Isid. Orig. 1.23.1;AE 1973,
526 with J.W. Ermatinger,ZPE 79 (1989) 161-162.
169. R. Syme, Historia 13 (1964) 159-160 (=Roman papers, ed. E. Badian
(1979) 2.608-609); E. Badian,JRS 58 (1968) 244. Of the latter date (89) Syme
remarked,"An edict like that of L. Sentiusis appropriateto a year of deathsand
squalor,whenthecity was infestedby refugeesfrom theBe!!umItalicurn",admit-
ting "that is a guess,not proof" (160 (=609)). The year 87 is equally suitable:
accordingto Cicero, Cat. 3.24, in that year of siege,when pestilenceclaimed
17,000 victims (Oros. 5.19.8), omnis hic locus acervis corporum et civium
sanguineredundavit.
170. Cf. Cic. Phil. 9.17.... utique!ocumsepulcroin campoEsquilinoC. Pansa
consul,seu quo in !oco videbitur,pedes triginta quoquoversusadsignetquo Ser.
Sulpicius inferatur; Hor. Serm. 1.8.36, magna ... sepulcra; further, I. Scott
Ryberg,An archaeologicalrecordof Romefrom the seventhto the secondcentury
BC (1940) 82-85.
171. Cfi Lanciani,
AncientRome(above,n. 162)66-67. Bruns,Fontes
7 p. 190:
a L. SentiusSaturninusknown only from inscriptionsof his slavesand freedmen
derivingfrom a columbariumof Augustanor Tiberiandateandplausiblyidentified
by Groag as the youngestson of C. SentiusSatuminus,consulin 19 (cfi RE, 2e
Reihe, 2.1537 f., s.v. "Sentius(Satuminus)"no. 13), seemstoo late to be identified
with the praetor of the Esquiline cippi, where, at his date, we shouldexpect his
cognomento be recorded.ScottRyberg83-84 n. 8.
172. G. Pinza, "Le vicendedella zona Esquilinafino ai tempi di Augusto",
BCAR 42 (1914) 117-175; M. Taloni, "Le necropolidell'Esquilino", in Roma
medioRepubblicana(1973) 188-196, esp. 191-193. For a generaloverview,cf.
also M. Albertoni, "La necropoli Esquilina arcaica e Repubblicana",in
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 111

L'archeologiain Romacapitale140-155.
173. Cf. Lanciani, BCAR 2 (1874) 52; Pinza 165-169. Recent excavations
underthe churchof San Vito have revealedfurther tracesof the late Republican
porta Esquilinaand have shownthat an earlierpassageway on the samesite was
oriented north-south rather than east-west: cf. V. Santa Mafia Scrinafi, Archeolo-
gia Laziale 2 (1979) 58-62; for the complexof ancientroadsin the vicinity, see
H•iuber (above, n. 163) 21.
174. CIL VI 3823= 31577(q.v.)= 12591 (cf. p. 915) = ILS 6082= Bruns,
Fontes7 189 no. 44 = FIRA 12 39. The stone was found behind the tribunal of S.
Vito in the middle of the modem Via Carlo Alberto outsidethe Esquiline gate
roughly20 metersfrom the nearestpoint of the Servianwall: see figure 1 and
Lanciani,BCAR 3 (1875) 194 with Tav. XX. Severallettersreportedby Lanciani
in the editioprincepsandby Chr. Huelsenat CIL VI 3823 are notvisibleeitherin
Lanciani'sdrawing(Tav. XIX ( =plate 3)) or in thephotographof the frontsideof
thestonepublished
in CIL 12fasc.4 part2 (Tabulae)
Tab. 131fig.3. Manyread-
ingsadvancedtentativelyby the early editorshave subsequently beenreproduced
as certain(e.g. ma]nusat the beginningof the last line, which, to judge from the
drawing,doesnot seempossible:perhapsman]um;cf. lex Lucerina6 with Emout
(above, n. 5) 48 and H. Ros6n,Studiesin the syntaxof the verbal noun in early
Latin (1981) 81-91,212). Furthermore,Mommsen'srestorationof the top line of
the secondsideis too long by half for the spaceavailableon the stoneand should
perhapsbe distributedover two lines. Of the variousproposedsupplements to the
first extant line of the secondside, many are basedon the readingin eum after
iecerit, which seemsincompatiblewith the markson the stone. Fortunately,none
of these misrepresentations affects the presentargument;readersinterestedin
reconstituting a wholly reliabletext are advisedto consultLanciani'sdrawingand
the photographin CIL (see plate 3). For discussionof the provisionfor manus
iniectio
andpignoris
capio,seeP.Coilinet,
t•tudesurla saisie
privde(1893)
56-59.
175. The northernmostcippus(A) was found in situ four metersbelow street
level at the Via Magenta(Lanciani,BCAR 10 (1882) 459), the middlestone(C) in
a pile of earthexcavatedat aboutfive metersbelow the modemVia Marsala(C.
Caprino,NSA 1943, 26), but thesefiguresare of little usefor determiningthe date
of the variouslevelsoutsidethe Esquilinegate,sincethe contourof the ancientter-
rain varied significantlyin this region:cf., e.g., Taloni (above,n. 172) 193; G.
PisaniSartorio,in L' archeologiain Romacapitale101.
176. Lanciani,BCAR 3 (1875) 195-196. Cf., e.g., Platner and Ashby (above,
n. 155) 374, "secondcenturyBC"; M. Reinhold, CW 28 (1935) 92, "some time
during the first half of the last centuryof the 'Republic'"; Warmington(above,
n. 5) 253, "c. 150-120 BC".
177. Perhaps we should consider the phrase fecisse coniecisseveanother
instanceof legalisticredundancy--theexpressionterramfacere is nonsensical--
but a restrictionagainstcastingdirt (terram conicere),thoughapparentlyunparal-
leled in a Romancontext,is not out of placein a decreeconcerningthe upkeepof a
public area: both the fourth-centuryagoranomiclaw from Piraeus and the
astynomiclaw from Pergamonforbadethe piling up of earthin city streets,just as
bothalsoaddressed
thedisposal
of sewage
andotherwaste:cf. IG II 2 380.25-28
112 JOHN BODEL

(=SIG 3 313) and OGIS 483.38-4.0,79-84, respectively.

On the otherhand,
perhapswe shouldread terra [e]/{ ve}, locative,"on the ground"(cf. ustri/nae{ve}
at the beginningof the previousline), a usagefirst attestedin Augustanpoetryand
Livy; humi so usedwith verbsof motion occursalreadyin Cicero: cf. R. Kiihner
and C. Stegmann,
Ausfiihrliche
Grammatikder lateinischen
Sprache
3 (1955)
1.484-485 (I owe this suggestion to ProfessorBadian). For the expressionstercus
facere, cf. ILS 8207b (above,n. 127); Cato, Agr. 37.2, where the phrasemeans
"make compost".
178. For the aediles' chargeof cura urbis, cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. II 505-507.
The official interestof a praetorin mattersof policingis apparentlyunparalleled
and perhapssuggests that the problemsof the Esquilineburial groundhad grown
beyondthe aediles'ability to controlthem: in 213 when the aedilesand triumviri
capitaleswere unableto curb the practiceof foreignreligions,the senatecensured
them and assignedthe job to the praetor (probably M. Aemilius (Lepidus),
pr. peregr.: cf. MRR 1.266 n. 2), who promptly issueda forceful edict (Livy
25.1.10-12). Accordingto E. de Ruggiero,in Diz. Ep. 2 (1921) s.v. "Edictum"
2086, the terminatioof the Esquilinegraveyard,a task that normally would have
fallen to the censors,was in this instanceentrustedto a praetorbecausethe censor-
ship had effectively been abolished;he thus implies that the edict of Senflus
belongsto the 70s.
179. As Mommsen noted in his comment at CIL VI 3823 (=31577), the
apparentcontinuitybetweenthe bottomof the first sideand what survivesat the
top of the reversesuggests thatlittle is missingfrom the originaltext--an observa-
tion that Lanciani's descriptionof the reverse of the stone as being largely
unfinishedtendsto support(BCAR3 (1875) 194). Lanciani'sputiculilay notmore
than50 metersfrom the spotwherethe inscriptionwasfound(seefigure1).
180. Lanciani,BCAR 3 (1875) 195.
181. See the commentat CIL VI 3823 (=31577). Mommsen's interpretation
was no doubtinfluencedby his view of the Lucerianlaw (whichhe adduces)as a
lex sacra. As A.D. Nock onceobservedaproposof the interpretationof enigmatic
archaeologicalfinds: omne ignotumpro sacro (cf. JBL 73 (1954) 44 = Essays
(above,n. 107) 963). Mommsenseemshere to have succumbedto this common
fallacy.
182. Mommsen at CIL VI 3823 (=31577), citing Cic. Dom. 74, on which see
the remarksof R.G. Nisbet in his edition (1939) ad loc.; for pagi, seeMommsen,
Staatsr. III 114-119.
183. Reinhold(above,n. 176) 92. The plural forms regionesand loca and the
use of the nonemphaticdemonstrativeis (contrast,e.g., honce loucom in the
Spoletinelaw, in hoceloucaridin the Luceriantext, etc.) suggestthatthe territory
concernedwas more extensiveand perhapsof more varied functionthan we may
expectthe undertakers'headquartersto havebeen.
184. Cf. Mommsen,Staatsr.II 514-521 on the complexproblemof the division
of responsibilities
betweenthecuruleandplebeianaedilesduringthelateRepublio
canand Augustanperiods.
185. Cf. H.C. Youtie, TAPA 71 (1940) 650-657 (=Scriptiunculae I (1973)
90-97 with addenda, 103-104).
186. Lanciani, BCAR 3 (1875) 44-45. For the inscription,see CIL VI 3877
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 113

( = 32448)= 12989(witha photograph)

= ILLRP775;Mommsen
(atCIL VI 3877)
restoredthe headingof the text [magistri quinq(uennales)con]legiei tibicinu[m
Rom(anorum)qui s(acris)p(ublicis)p(raesto) s(unt), after a similar inscription,
CIL VI 3696 = 12988 = ILS 4964, foundin theRomanForum.
187. Cf. Cuq (above,n. 59) 1391;Toynbee(above,n. 136) 45, 47.
188. Cf. Lanciani, BCAR 2 (1874) 57 and Tavv. V, VI n. 13; C.L. Visconti,
BCAR 3 (1875) 153; CIL VI 29771: cippi hi finiunt / hortosCalyclan(os)/ et Tau-
rianos. The Horti Tauriani are to be identifiedwith the propertyof Statilius
Tauruscovetedby the youngerAgrippina(Tac. Ann. 12.59.1-4) and may have
beenownedalreadyby Taurus' paternalgrandfather,the suffectconsulof 37; in
any case, they only becameannexedto the horti of Maecenasin AD 53: cf.
P. Grimal,Les jardins romains
3 (1984) 150-151. For the Statilii Tauri, see
R. Syme, The Roman revolution(1939) 380-381 and The Augustanaristocracy
(1986) 376-377.
189. Cf. H•iuber(above,n. 163) 15-18 and Grimal 145-147, arguingagainstthe
view of those(e.g. Jordan(above,n. 163) 346-348; Platner-Ashby(above,n. 155)
269) who believethat Maecenas'estateincludedthe areajust northof the Esqui-
line gate. The preciseboundariesof the Horti Maecenatis are not known, but
ancientliterary testimonymakesclear that the propertywas locatedmainly in the
regionsouthof the Esquilinegate (sourcescollectedin G. Lugli, Fontesad topo-
graphiam veterisurbis Romaepertinentes4 (1957) 112-115). After a thorough
investigationof theevidence(muchof it unpublished), H•iuberconcludes(98-101)
that Maecenas' estatewas boundedon the west by the Via in Figlinis and that,
contraryto theprevailingview (for whichsee,e.g.,Grimal), thepropertyextended
eastbeyondthe ancientVia Merulana, which seemsnot to have beenbuilt before
the fourthcentury^D, into the zonegenerallythoughtto havebeenoccupiedby the
Horti Lamiani (for which see also the contributionsin M. Cima and E. La Rocca,
edd., Le tranquille dimoredegli d•i (1986), especiallythoseof M. Cima (37-58)
and M. Mattei (153-164)).
190. Ps.-Acroat Hor. Serm. 1.8.7-8:7 vetatquenovis: . . . aut quia ante sepul-
chra erant in hoc loco, in quo modo sunt horti M<a>ecenatis, ubi sunt modo
Traianae. 8 huc: ad illum locum in quo stabat Priapus, id est huc aliquando
cadaveraportabanturplebeiorumsive servorum.nam sepulchraerant publica
antea, modo M<a>ecenatis horti. These scholia seem to have been one of the
sourcesof the so-calledCommentatorCruquianus,whosenote at Hor. Serm. 1.8.8
(huc: ad hunclocumubi Priapus stabatolim servorumcadaveraportari solebant
sepelienda,ubi quondamThermae Traianae et domusCrescentiae),thoughmore
explicit,lacksauthority:seeabove,n. 153, and,for the domusCrescentiae,Lejay
(above,n. 153) 221-222 ad loc. For the locationof the Bathsof Trajan, see E.
Rodriguez-Almeida, BCAR 72 (1970-71) 105-135 and RPAA 48 (1975-76)
263-278, whose repositioningof some fragmentsof the Severanmarble plan of
Rome (nos. 593 and 600) has recentlybeenconfirmedby excavationsconducted
by the Soprintendenza Archeologicadi Roma, the preliminaryresultsof which are
publishedin BCAR 93 (1989-90) 59-71.
191. For the name subager, cf. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, Codice
topograficodella cittd di Roma 1 (1940) 106 (Curiosum), 170 (Notitia); for its
remainsand thoseof its elevatedtwin, the so-calledsuperaggerem,seeLanciani,
114 JOHN BODEL

in Annali dell'lnstitutodi Corrispondenza Archeologica(1871) 60-62.

192. Cf. S'•iflund(above, n. 165) 41-42, 142. Remains of earlier tombs were
discoveredonly 15 metersoutsidethe wall at thispoint,whichshowsthatthissec-
tionof therampartwasnotprotectedby afossa(S'•iflund148).
193. For pertinentadjustmentsto Lanciani's plan, see Santa Maria Scrinari
(above,n. 173) (on the orientationof the Esquilinegate);R. De AngelisBertolotti,
in L'archeologiain Romacapitale127-128 (on the Esquilinegateandtheposition
of the Servian wall south of the "Auditorium" of Maecenas); and H•iuber (above,
n. 163),passim,who notesthatthe precisecourseof the Servianwall betweenthe
Esquilinegateandthe "Auditorium"of Maecenashasyet to be satisfactorily
esta-
blished.
194. See above,p. 41, for an estimateof the numberof corpsesto be disposed
of in publicfacilitieseachyear. The impracticabilityof periodicallyopeningnew
puticuli in areasthat were becomingincreasinglypopulatedmay have led to a
changein publicburial practicesat Rome duringthe firstcenturyAD, with mass
cremation replacing mass inhumation as the standard means of disposal.
Porphyrio'scommentat Hor. Serm. 1.8.14 (nunc licet Esquiliishabitaresalu-
bribus),scilicetquiapromotae1ongius ustrinae,may be no morethana guess(he
saysnothingof newputiculi), but Martial 8.75.9-10, quattuorinscriptiportabant
vile cadaver,/ accipit infelix qualia mille rogusand Lucan 8.736-738, da vilem
Magno plebeifuneris arcam / quae lacerumcorpussiccoseffundatin ignes;/
robora non desintmiseronec sordidusustorsuggestthat by the latter half of the
first centuryAD the bodiesof the poor were routinelydestroyedin publiccrema-
toria. H•iuber (above, n. 163) 15, 65 notes that monumental columbaria such as
thatof the StatiliiTauri beginto appearalongthe Via Labicana-Prenestina(cf. D.
Mancioli, in L'archeologiain Roma capitale 156-162) at approximatelythe same
time as the old Esquilineburial ground was being buried under the suburban
estatesof Maecenasandperhaps(shesuggests) others.
195. CIL IX p. 667; cf. D'Amelj 119. Troia,ancientAecana,liesca. 17 kilome-
ters south of Lucera.
196. Cf. I. Di StefanoManzella, Mestiere di epigrafista(1987) 88-89; F. Sinn,
Stadtr6mischeMarmorurnen(1987) 6-7; cf. 7-9 for a surveyof typesof urnsand
the materials(otherthan marble) of which they were made.
197. Cf. G. Davies,"Burial in Italy up to Augustus",in R. Reece,ed., Burial in
the Roman world, Council for British Archaeology:ResearchReports22 (1977)
13-19, esp.13-14. For thechronological distribution
of RomanImperialashurns,
see Sinn 22-53.
198. Cf. Sinn 7 n. 50, 10 n. 76 and S. Diebner, DArch ser. 3 no. 1 (1983) 65-78
on a seriesof late Republicanand early ImperialurnsproducedaroundAquinum
and Casinum.
199. D'Amelj 114.
200. Accordingto D'Amelj (120), many of the inscriptionsdiscoveredin the
cemeteryoutsidethe Portadi Troia werebuilt intomodemstructures or destroyed.
In 1873 Mommsensaw puticulosquosdamsuburbanos(!) outsideLuceria, in
which ancientstonesdiscoveredby chancewere being storeduntil they could be
usedfor construction(cf. CIL IX p. 75). During the early Empire other tombs
were locatedalong the road leading north from the town to San Severo(cf.
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 115

C. D'Angela, ArchStorPugl39 (1986) 335-344), and a few chambertombscon-

taininggrave goodsdatableto the third centuryhavebeen found in the regionof
the later amphitheatereast of the modem town (N. Degrassi,Fasti archaeologici
12 (1959) no. 2831 and fig. 58), but the cemeterysouthof the Portadi Troia seems
to havebeenthe principalburial groundof the town throughoutthe Romanperiod
(cf. below, n. 205).
201. Again I am grateful to dott.ssaMazzei (see above,n. 4) for confirming
that, to the best of her knowledge,no new evidenceconcerningthe site is avail-
able.
202. Diebner(above,n. 198) 67 remarksthe difficulty of attemptingto classify
Romancineraryurnson the basisof the vagueandofteninconsistent terminology
appliedto them by Mommsen'snineteenth-century informants.
203. See Salmon,Samnium(above,n. 7) 61-64, esp. 61 n. 7, wherethe author
speculatesthat in Samnite culture the bodies of the poor may have been
unceremoniously dumpedin pits, asthey were at Rome.
204. D'Amelj 114. For the graves at Aufidena, see L. Mariani, Monumenti
Antichi 10 (1901) 267-275, esp.269-270.
205. D'Amelj 119.
206.... ;zpooa;z•l¾op•0•l... g•x• x&g•:a6o•tgx&v v•:p&v •vxbg•vx•-
raflS•ra &;z6xqq;z6•togc•mSitovT•Tveo0m.Cass.Dio 48.43.3;cf. Reinhold
(above, n. 176) 91-92.
207. Ribezzo 311; see above, n. 8.
208. Arena 58-59.
209. Grienberger(above,n. 5) 289-290, citing Wissowa,RKR (1902) 187-193
(cf. Wissowa 232-240); cf. Mommsen (1875) 207. For Grienberger (294) the
prohibitionagainstperformingsacrificesto deadancestorsis enoughto prove that
the text was alex sacra.
210. Cf., e.g., J.G. Frazer'scommentsat Ovid, Fasti 2.533 esthonoret tumulis,
etc. (1929 ed., 2.433), citing Cic. Phil. 1.13 and CIL XI 1436 = ILS 7258. Note
also Varro, LL 6.13, and AE 1976, 144, an altar erected at Herculaneum to a town
patron,M. Nonius Balbus,and inscribedwith a decreeof the local senate:... pla-
cere decurionibus ... eo loco, quo cineres eius conlecti sunt aram marmoream
fieri ... exque eo loco parentalibu[s]pompam duci .... For the metaphorical
senseofparentare, "to exact bloody vengeance"(so Frazer 432 n. 6), cf. OLD s.v.
2. Arena 58 n. 67 rightly rejectsthe interpretationgiven at TLL III (1907) 14.31,
s.v. "cadaver",accordingto which cadaver in the Lucerian text is governedby
parentatidaswell asby proiecitad;here,aselsewhere,parentareis intransitive.
211. Cf. Pasqualini1988-89; for cepotaphia(=tomb gardens),cf. J. Kubifiska,
Les monuments fun•raires dans les inscriptionsgrecquesd l'Asie Mineure (1968)
142-147; Toynbee(above,n. 136) 94-100.
212. For anothermunicipalordinancebearingon the sameissue,cf. CIL I 1409
= Brans,Fontes
7 158no.33, a fragmentary
bronzetabletdatedby Mommsen to
theAugustanage(CIL 12p. 498),nowin Florence:
... [i]squelocus,ubi/ quis
adversusea humatussepultusveerit, / purus et religione solutusesto, eumque
s(ine)f(raude) s(ua) qui volet exarato .... with Mommsen'scommentsad loc.
213. Arena 58-59. The locationof the inscriptionsis explicitly attestedin one
text only, Vetter 81 (=Franchi De Bellis (see below in this note) no. 24) ....
116 JOHN BODEL

nessimasstaœet/ veruœshivkeœ(=proximae stant [sc. hae iovilae tres] portis in

luco), but thereare goodgroundsfor believingthat all the stelaewere assembledin
the sameplace,an areacorresponding to the modemfondo Patturelli: cf. A. Fran-
chi De Bellis, Le Iovile Capuane(1981) 40-43; J. Heurgon,REL 59 (1981) 450.
214. Cf. Franchi De Bellis 38-44, 61-62.
215. Salmon, Samnium (above, n. 7) 64.
216. Cf. Arena47.
217. The Lucerianlaw is generallythoughtto providethe earliestexamplesof
severalproceduresfamiliar from later legislation:an alternativebetweenan arbi-
trary fine setby a magistrateand a fixed fine imposedby extra-judicialprocedure
(pro iudicato);a provisionfor actio popularis; and a provisionfor seizureof pro-
perry (manus iniectio): cf. Girard (above, n. 5). The precise nature of these
actionespopulares is vigorouslydebated;for a survey of views see F. Casavola,
"Faddae la dottrinadelle azionipopulad",Labeo 1 (1955) 131-153. The appear-
ancein the sc de pago Montano(above,p. 47) of a provisionfor privateactionby
manusiniectioperhapsbearson the relevanceof theseproceduresin the Lucerian
law.
218. CIL IX 439= 12402 = ILLRP691 (whereseeDegrassi's
comment:
"locus
sacereximenduserat ex possessione privata"):... quaistores,/ senatu(m)d(---)
/ consuluere./ iei[s] censuere/ aut sacrom/ aut poublicom/ ese. Accordingto
R.K. Sherk,The municipaldecreesof theRomanwest(1970) 9, 27, this is our old-
est municipaldecree. A similar inscriptionnow lost, but apparentlypertainingto
the samesenatorialdecree,refersto a locom:CIL IX 439 = 12403. SeefurtherM.
Crawford,"Aut sacromaut poublicom",in P. Birks, ed., New perspectivesin the
Romanlaw ofproperty.Essays for Barry Nicholas(1989) 93-98.
219. The Romanbarbaritymay havebeenunprecedented, or nearlyso (cf. Livy
9.25.9: the Ausones):seeW.V. Harris, War and imperialismin RepublicanRome
327-70 B.C. (1979) 52, 263-264.
220. Mommsen, Staatsr. II 60 n. 3.
221. Note the precedingand following paragraphson subsecivaand the sen-
tence immediately following that quoted in the text, quos agros quasve terri-
toriorumformas aliquotienscomperimusextremisfinibus conprehensas sine ulla
mensuralilinea, modumtameninessescriptum.
222. Cf. MarquardtII 82-84; Fabbrini 548-549; generally,L. Bove, Ricerche
sugli agri vectigales(1960).
223. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. II 59-60.
224. Cf., e.g., the editionsof J.E.B. Mayor (1877), J.D. Duff (1955), and J. Fer-
guson(1979) ad !oc.; H. Th&lenat(above,n. 39) 1356;G. BodeiGiglioni(above,
n. 35) 40.
225. E. Courtney,A commentary on theSatiresof Juvenal(1980) 158.
226. Juvenalspeaksof a nemus,silva, and arbor, but nowhereusesthe technical
term lucus,althoughthe site to which he refersis generallyand no doubtrightly
identifiedwith the lucusCamenarum: cf. Stara-Tedde (above, n. 57) 216.
227. Grom. Vet. 87 (= 56) La. = Corp. Agr. 48 Th.: locorumautem sacrorum
secundumlegempopuli Rom(ani) magna religio et custodiahaberi debet .... hoc
facilius in provinciis servatur; in Italia autem densitaspossessorummultum
improbefacit, et lucossacrosoccupat,quorumsolumindubitatep(opuli) R(omani)
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 117

estetiamsi infinibuscoloniarumaut municipiorum.

228. Pasqualini1970.
229. P. II 13-14; cf. above,p. 16 and n. 60. The useof ubi for quo (to mean"to
where"), like the more commonsubstitutionof quo for ubi, is colloquial:see
V•i'•'•en, Le Latinvulgairedesinscriptions
pompdiennes
3 (1966) 119-120;cf.
Apul. Met. 9.39: ubi ducisasinumistum?
230. Cf. A. Mau andF.W. Kelsey,Pompeii. Its life and art (1899) 429.
231. Cf., e.g., the remarkablecollectionof (originally)somethreehundredpot-
tery vesselsdiscoveredin a vineyard besidethe Via Appia outsideRome (at S.
Cesareo),eachcontainingthe ashesof partof a crematedbodyandbearinga brief
inscriptionscratchedontothe exteriorsurfacerecordingthe nameanddiesdeposi-
tionisor diesmortisof the deceased, the wholeseriesdating(probably)from the
finalperiodof theRepublic
(soVetter,p. 70): CIL 121015-1201(cf.p. 967)= VI
8211-8397; cf. ILLRP 873-894. For Isola Sacra,seeG. Calza,La necropolidel
Porto di Roma nell'Isola Sacra (1940) 44, 53-55, 78-80, 285-286, 314, etc., and,
in general on humble burials in the Roman world, Toynbee (above, n. 136)
101-103.
232. Paul. exc. Fest. 57 L.: culina vocaturlocusin quo epulaein funere com-
buruntur;cf. TLL IV 1288.47-54 for the acceptedinterpretationof culina in the
sense"paupers'graveyard".
233. A.D. Nock, CW 37 (1944) 65-66 n. 10.
234. A.S. Pease,ap. Nock.
235. Forthetombof Eurysaces, seeCIL VI 1958= 121206= ILLRP805a= ILS
7460dandP. GiancioRossetto, ll sepolcrodelfornaioM. VirgilioEurisace(1973)
35 if. The simplecineraryurnsfoundoutsidethe Nola gateat Pompeii(seeabove,
n. 230) are themselvesidentifiedas culinae by A. and M. De Vos, Pompei,
Ercolano,Stabia. Guidearcheologiche Laterza11 (1982)222.
236. C. Pascal,"Culina",Athenaeum1 (1913) 279-281.
237. Cf. Leumann(above,n. 12) 78-79. Livy 31.47.1 preservesthe spelling
coelain transliterating
the namethatlocalinhabitantsgaveto the gulf of Euboea:
estsinusEuboicusquemCoda vocant.
238. Cf. Hp. Nat. Mul. 15, Mul. 1.37; the sameterm appearsin the Sudaas
•co•)•rt;cf. further LSJ s.v.
239. Cf. R. Gu•ry, La n•cropoleorientalede Sitiris(S•tif, Alg•rie). Fouillesde
1966-1967 (1985) 51-307 (summaryat 311-313); cf. 305 fig. 249 for an illustra-
tionof thejumbleof skeletons foundin two of themassgraves.
 INDEXLOCORUM

This index includesmost of the literary and epigraphicalsourcescited or

discussedin the text and notes. Ancient sourcesadducedexempligratia
for basic linguisticor historicalinformationhave for the most part been
excluded, as have the literary witnesses to points of secondary
significance. In view of the diffusenessof the legal and documentary
sourcescited throughout,inscriptionsare registeredmore comprehen-
sively than literary sources,and the excerptsof jurists whoseworks are
preservedin the Digest are collectedunderthat entry. Referencesto pas-
sagesimpliedor referredto obliquelyareenclosedin parentheses.

(a) Literary sources

Acro, pseudo-
at Hor. Serm. 1.8.7-8 (51 f.); n. 190
1.8.9 n. 154
1.8.10-11 n. 153
1.8.14 n. 152
2.6.19 n. 68
Epist. 1.7.6 (16 fi); n. 68
Afranius
CRF 430 Ribbeck (ap. Varro, LL 5.25) 39; (n. 154)

AgenniusUrbicus
De controversiisagrorum,Corp.Agr. 47 Th 40, 81-83; n. 159
Asconius
In Milonem 34 n. 55

Bible
Matthew 27.5-8 81
And seeSeptuagint
Cassius Dio
48.43.3 (33), (58); nn. 131,206
49.43 (35); n. 141
51.8.2 n. 105

119
120 JOHN BODEL

53.1.5 n. 26
54.17.4 n. 24

Cato

De agri cultura 37.2 n. 177

139.1 (26); nn. 81,105
Origines 58 P nn. 21,36
ORF4 126-127 (35); n. 141
Cicero
In Catilinam 3.24 n. 169
Pro Cluentio 37 n. 153
Philippics9.17 n. 170
Epistulae ad Atticum 9.5.2 n. 88
13.33.3 n. 26
De divinatione 1.57 nn. 124,161
De legibus2.58 (33),(39),(61); nn. 131,155
Columella
1.5.6 37

CommentatorCmquianus
at Hor. Serm. 1.8.8 n. 190
1.8.10 n. 153

CorpusGlossariorumLatinorum
s.v. locar
6.1,656 (23); n. 93
s.v. lucar
2.124.33 (10); n. 31
2.328.14 (10); n. 31
2.371.66 (10); n. 31
2.256.6 (23); n. 92
5.219.7 (23); n. 92
5.506.52 (23); n. 92

Digest
11.7.2.1-2 (Ulpian) (34); n. 135
11.7.7.pr.-1 (Gaius) (34); n. 135
11.7.8.2(Ulpian) (34); n. 135
11.7.12.3(Ulpian) (34); n. 134
11.7.14.7(Ulpian) (34); n. 134
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 121

11.7.37.pr.(Macer) n. 71
11.7.43.2a(Papinian) (34); n. 133
14.3.11.3(Ulpian) n. 66
33.7.12.10(Ulpian, Sabinus) n. 124
43.6.1.pr.(Ulpian) 4
43.7.1 (Pomponius,Sabinus) n. 154
43.8.2.pr. (Ulpian) n. 14
43.8.2.3 (Ulpian, Labeo) n. 154
43.8.2.5 (Ulpian) n. 154
43.8.2.19 (Ulpian) n. 156
43.8.2.29 (Ulpian) n. 143
43.10.5 (Papinian) (33 f.); nn. 132, (161)
43.23.1.2-3 (Ulpian) (35), (37); n. 140
47.12.4 (Paulus) n. 160

Diodoms Siculus
19.72.8 n. 7

Dionysiusof Halicarnassus
AntiquitatesRomanae4.15.5 13 f.
Frontinus
De aquis urbis Romae 88 (35); n. 142
111 (35 f.); n. 142
De controversiisagrorum, Corp. Agr. 8 Th n. 40
Corp. Agr. 48 Th 11, (29), (70); n. 227
Gaius
Institutes2.7 (39 f.), (66); n. 160
And seeDigest
Galen
7.289-290 Ktihn (36 f.); n. 146

Historia Augusta
Carac. 5.7 n. 129

Horace
Epodes5.99-100 n. 151
Satires (Sermones) 1.8.10-13 (38), 39, (51 f.); n. 157
1.8.14-16 38, 45, (51 f., 54)
1.8.36 n. 170
122 JOHN BODEL

1.8.38-39 n. 129
2.6.19 n. 56
Epistles1.6.31-32 n. 40

Isidore of Seville
Etymologiae15.11.1 (36 f.); n. 145
Josephus
AntiquitatesJudaicae 19.291 n. 66
Juvenal
1.131 n. 129
3.13-16 70

Labeo SeeDigest
Livy
4.20.9 14
5.38.5 n. 86
6.1.11 n. 88
9.26.1-5 67
9.26.5 n. 7
24.3.4-6 69 f.
25.1.10-12 n. 178
39.44.5 (35); nn. 119, 141
Lucan
8.736-738 n. 194

Lucilius
644 M 12 f.

Lucretius
6.1097 37
6.1138-1286 37
6.1154-1155 37
6.1216-1222 n. 150

Macer SeeDigest
Maecenas
FPL 2 no. 8 M n. 151
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 123

Martial
8.75.9-10 n. 194

Notae Tironianae
42.15, 16 n. 31
Ovid
Fasti 4.753 n. 105

Papinian SeeDigest
Paulus See Digest
Persius
1.112-114 nn. 129, 130

Petronius
54.1 n. 134
71.8 n. 129
134.1 n. 161

Phaedrus
Fabulae 4.21.25-26 n. 56

Pliny the Elder

Naturalis Historia 3.67 52
36.104 (35); n. 141

Pliny the Younger

Epistulae98-99 (36 f.); n. 143
Plutarch
Moralia 269A-B (14); n. 55
277D n. 8
285D 10, (20); (n. 32)
1045 n. 129
Life of Numa 12.1-2 14
PompeiusFestus
Paul. exc. Fest.
57 L capitalislucus n. 105
57 L culina (82); n. 232
106 L lucar, lucarispecunia 10, 20 f.
Lucaria 21 f.
124 JOHN BODEL

241 L puticuli n. 154

322 L rustica vinalia n. 53

Pomponius SeeDigest
Porphyrio
at Hor. Epodes5.99-100 n. 151
Serm. 1.8.7 n. 152
1.8.11 (38); n. 153
1.8.14 nn. 153, 194

Quintilian
Institutio Oratoria 10.1.88 n. 13

Sabinus SeeDigest
Seneca
EpistulaeMorales 12.3 n. 134

Septuagint
4 Kings9.37 n. 161
Servius(Auctus)
atAen. 1.310 n. 13
1.446 n. 13
7.84 n. 110

Siculus Flaccus
De condicionibusagrorum, Corp. Agr. 127 Th 69; (n. 221)
Strabo
5.3.8, C 235 (35); n. 141
Suetonius
Tiberius 34.1 9
Nero 39.1 14

Tacitus
Annals 1.77.1 9
1.77.5 9; (n. 28)
1.79.3 n. 110
14.22.6 n. 110
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 125

Tertullian
Adversus Gnosticos 8.3 10

Twelve Tables
10.1 (ap. Cic. Leg. 2.58) (33), (60); nn. 8, (131)

Ulpian SeeDigest
Valerius Maximus
1.19 (26); n. 105
5.2.10 (14); nn. 55, 56, 69
Varro
De linguaLatina 5.25 (38 f.), (40 f.), 81; n. 154
Res Rusticae 1.12.2 (37); n. 149
Velleius Paterculus
1.14.4 n. 7

Virgil
Aeneid 6.153-155 n. 105

(b) Inscriptions

Acta Fratrum Arvalium 25 f.; nn. 99, 101-103

AE
1934, 165 n. 43
1947, 59 n. 101
1949, 48 n. 130
1971, 88 (lex libitinaria Puteolana) (15-18), (28), (66 fi), 72-80,
(81); nn. 60-64, 66, 67, 70,
122, 229; Plate 4
1971, 89 (lex libitinaria Cumana) (15); nn. 60, 64, (67)
1973, 222 n. 11
1976, 144 n. 210
1978, 145.15 n. 69
1985,358 See MGR 12 (1987) pp.
115-136
1988, 20 See RPAA 55-56 (1982-84)
pp. 361-379
Bove, RAAN41 (1966) 207-239 See AE 1971, 88, 89
126 JOHN BODEL

Brans,Fontes7
33 n. 212
44a (43, fig. 1), (46-51); nn. 174, (177); Plate 3
44b (32), (42-45 with fig. 1), (47 f.); nn. (61), (112),
(127), 166, (175); (Plate 2)
104a passim
104b (24-28); n. 94
109 n. 112
110 n. 110
141.14 n. 112
pp. 282-288 n. 15

Bulletin gpigraphique(in REG)

1970, 512.74-75 n. 97

CIL
I
1409 n. 212

12
1 n. 15
31 n. 155
366 24 f., (26-28); n. 94; Plate 1
368-381 n. 43
4Ol passim
402 (65 f.); nn. 112, 218
403 nn. 112, 218
462 n. 164
581.24,(3o) n. 12
27 n. 66
582.21 75
583.20,25 n. 12
65-66 n. 66
591 43 (fig. 1), 46 (fig. 2), 47-51; nn. 66, 174, (177);
Plate 3
593.66-67 (32); n. 124
77-79 n. 20
94,1o4 n. 69
594 ch. 72 nn. 45, 50
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 127

ch. 74 (33); n. 131

93 75
756 nn. 37, 109
838 (42), 43 (fig. 1), (44 f.), (47 f.); nn. 61, 112, 166,
(175)
839 (32), 42-45 with fig. 1, (47 f.); nn. 61, 112, 127,
166; Plate 2
988 n. 186
989 43 (fig. 1), (50); n. 186
1015-1201 n. 231
1206 (82); n. 235
1268 (14 f.); n. 58
1292 (14 f.); n. 58
1411 (14 f.); n. 58
1710 n. 8
1727, 1728 n. 19
1730 (6 f.); n. 19
1826 70 f.
2123 nn. 137, (157)
2872 24 f., (26-28); n. 94
2924.14 n. 66
2944 n. 20
2981 42-45 with fig. 1, (47 f.); nn. 61, 112, 166,
(167), (175)
2994 n. 110
3031 a (7); nn. 22, (23), (24)
3230 n. 18

p. 498 n. 212

p. 862 n. 155
pp. 878 f. n. 43
p. 893 n. 164
p. 915 n. 174
p. 957 n. 166
p. 967 n. 231
p. 1030 n. 19

5181 n. 65
128 JOHN BODEL

IV
1754 n. 116
7038 (32); n. 126
10488 (32); n. 126
10606 n. 125

V
3924 n. 80
5128 (18-20); n. 72
VI
576 n. 96
610 n. 43
877a (7-9); nn. 25, (26)
1958 (82); n. 235
2023a (26); n. 102
2232 n. 43
2312 n. 26
3696 n. 186
3823 (43, fig. 1), (46-51); nn. 174, (177); (Plate 3)
3877 (43, fig. 1), (50); n. 186
8211-8397 n. 231
9897 n. 58
9974 (14 f.); n. 58
10022 (14 f.); n. 58
29771 43 (fig. 1), (51); n. 188
29848b n. 130
30837a-c n. 112
31577 (43, fig. 1), (46-51); nn. 174, (177); (Plate 3)
31614 (42-45 with fig. 1), (47 f.); nn. (61), (112), 166,
(175)
31615 (32), (42-45 with fig. 1), (47 fi); nn. (61), (112),
127, 166; (Plate 2)
32324 (7-9); nn. 25, (26)
32448 (43, fig. 1), (50); n. 186
33870 (14 f.); n. 58
37422 n. 58
37775a (14 f.); n. 58
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 129

VIII
16532 n. 43

IX
439 (65 f.); n. 218
782 passim
795 56
797 56
8OO n. 8
825 56
836 56
862 56
893 56
1455.III.54 75; n. 58
2117 (6 f.); n. 19
3513 nn. 37, (109)
4072 70 f.
5570 nn. 137, (157)
6379 31
p. 75 n. 200
p. 667 (54-58); nn. 2, 4, 166, 195
XI
1436 n. 210
4766 (24 f.), (26-28); n. 94; (Plate 1)
5215 n. 80
6528 nn. 137, (157)
XII
2426 n. 110
2462 n. 43
2493-2495 n. 112

XIII
8830 n. 65

XIV
375 (7); nn. 22, (23), (24)
376 n. 23
2795.15 n. 66
4328 n. 65
130 JOHN BODEL

FIRA 2
I 9.B25-26 n. 66
39 (43, fig. 1), (46-51); nn. 174, (177); (Plate 3)
53 (32), (42-45 with fig. 1), (47 f.); nn. (61), (112),
(127), 166, (175); (Plate 2)
III 71a (24 f.), (26-28); n. 94
7lb passim
71c n. 110
pp. 221 if. n. 15

FranchiDe Bellis, Le Iovile Capuane

24 (61 f.); n. 213
IG II 2
380.25-28 n. 177

ILLRP

486 (32), (42-45 with fig. 1), (47 f.); nn. (61), (112), (127),
166, (175); (Plate 2)
504 passim
505 (24 f.), (26-28); n. 94; (Plate l)
506 (24 f.), (26-28); n. 94
508 nn. 37, (109)
556 (6 f.); n. 19
623 n. 8
662 nn. 137, (157)
691 (65 f.); n. 218
708 n. 20
775 (43, fig. 1), (50); n. 186
794 (14 f.); n. 58
805a (82); n. 235
822 (14 f.); n. 58
873-894 n. 231
941 (14 f.); n. 58
ILS
272.15 n. 66
1461 n. 65
2267 n. 61
2650 n. 80
4181 n. 43
 GRAVEYARDSAND GROVES 131

4906 nn. 37, (109)

4906-4916 n. 15
4911 (24 f.), (26-28); n. 94; (Plate 1)
4912 passim
4914 n. 112
4915 n. 96
4964 n. 186
4983 n. 26
5042 (26); n. 102
5429 n. 43
5432 n. 43
5768.14 n. 112
6082 (43, fig. 1), (46-51); nn. 174, (177); (Plate 3)
6087 ch. 72 nn. (45), (50)
74 (33); n. 131
93 (75)
6147 (7); nn. 22, (23), (24)
6509 add. n. 58
6704 n. 80
6726 (18-20); n. 72
6891 n. 65
7258 n. 210
7460d (82); n. 235
7471 (14 f.); n. 58
7551 n. 58
7574 (14 f.); n. 58
7846 nn. 137, (157)
7847 nn. 137, (157)
8207b nn. 127, 177
8208 (32), (42-45 with fig. 1), (47 f.); nn. (61), (112),
(127), 166, (175); (Plate 2)

InscriptionesCreticae
4.73A.7-10 n. 123

Inscriptionesltaliae XIII 2
265 (Fasti Polemii Silvi) (22); n. 89

MGR 12 (1987) pp. 115-136 (30 f.); nn. 61, (110), (116)
132 JOHN BODEL

OGIS
483.38-40, 79-84 n. 177

RPAA 55-56 (1982-84) pp. 361-379 (8 f.); nn. (24), 25, (26)
SEG
9.72 n. 98
27.536 n. 98

SIG3
313.25-28 n. 177

Sokolowski
LSCG 37 (25); n. 97
57, 67, 78, 108, 115, 116 n. 130
150.A.6-7 n. 98
Supplement(24), 53 n. 130

Supplementa
ltalica 1 (Pais)
633 nn. 127,(177)
Vetter
2.12,26 n. 9
24 n. 18
81 6;n. 213
214 n. 18
228i nn. 4,16
233 n. 9
239 n. 9
Supplement(Poccetti)
178 n. 9
185 n. 9
p. 207 n. 9

(c) Coins

Crawford, RRC
43 (3); n. 10
97-99 (3); n. 10
325 (44); n. 168
 GRAVEYARDS AND GROVES 133

Thomsen,Early Roman coinage I

194 n. 9
203 n. 9