THE 
 
 LATIN INSCRIPTION, 
 
 O N T H E 
 
 COPPER TABLE, 
 
 Difcovered in the Year 1732, 
 
 NEAR 
 
 HERACLEA, in the Bay of TARENTUM, 
 in MAGNA GRAECIA, 
 
 And published, by MAZOCHIUS, at Naples, in the year 1758. 
 
 More particularly Considered and Illustrated. 
 
 By JOHN PETTINGAL, D. D. 
 
 Read at a Meeting of the Society of ANTIQUARIES of London, 
 the 1 ft of May 1760 ; and ordered to be printed. 
 
 LONDON, PRINTED MDCCLX. 
 
C 3 3 
 
 Lord Willoughby, of Parham , 
 
 N Account of a Copper Table, containing two Infcriptions, one 
 
 Greek, the other Latin, difcovered in 1732, near Heraclea, in 
 the Bay of Tarentum, publifhed by our learned Member Mr. Webb, 
 falling into my hands, I was in hopes to have found in it, among the 
 other circumftances, relating to the materials, weight, dimenfions, 
 &c. of the Table itfelf, a critical and hiftorical explication of the In- 
 fcriptions, either by Mazochius or Mr. Webb. 
 
 But, as there are only fome general words, relative to this purpofe, 
 mentioned out of Mazochius, I would, with the favour of your 
 Lordfhip, and the indulgence of the Society, enter into a more parti- 
 cular confideration of the Latin Infcription only, endeavour to fhew 
 the occafion and import of the law therein contained, and illuftrate 
 it by a paflage in Cicero ; with an obfervation or two on the date 
 and Stile of it, and on the character of a remarkable figle made ufe 
 of in it, rarely, if ever, to be found elfewhere. Upon each of thefe 
 articles, I fhall be very fhort. 
 
 The words of the Infcription are to be read thus. 
 
 Quern hac Lege ad Confulem profited oportebit, fi is quum 
 eum profited oportebit, Romae non erit, turn qui ejus negotia 
 curabit, is eadem omnia, quae eum, cujus negotia curabit, fi 
 Romae eflet, hac Lege profited oportebit, item iifdemque diebus 
 ad Confulem profitemino. 
 
 Quern hac Lege ad Confulem profited oportebit, fi is pu- 
 pillus five ea Vq [pupilla] erit, turn qui ejus pupiili VQve 
 [pupillaeve] tutor erit, item eademque omnia in iifdem diebus 
 ad Confulem profitemino ita uti ea quae quibufque diebus eum 
 eamve fi pupillus V'dve [pupillave] non eft, hac lege profited 
 oporteret. 
 
 This 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 This is a fragment of a Law, ena&ed by Sylvanus and Carbo, Tri- 
 bunes of the People, U. C. 663, or the beginning of 64, ordaining 
 that Str anger s, not of Italy, if they were admitted into the freedom of 
 either of the confederate cities before, or had a dwelling in Italy at the 
 time of making this Law, or had regiftred their names with the Con- 
 ful or Praetor, within fixty days, fhould be free of Rome. 
 
 The occafion of this law was this. After the Social war, L. 
 
 Jul. Caefar palled a law, to give the freedom of Rome to all thofe 
 States, that had kept their fidelity to the Romans, at that critical 
 juncture of the Social war. This we learn from Appian lib. 1. tpQvX* 
 IraXiuJuv Je rag ev (rvfjifjLc&xeta nra^y[A,svov]ug etptjpttrstjo etvcu •zs-oXijas' At 
 the fame time, or very loon after, the Tribunes Sylvanus and Carbo 
 palled a law, that Strangers alfo fhould be admitted to the freedom of 
 Rome upon the conditions above mentioned. “ Quo eodem anno 
 « peregrinis etiam aditum quendam ad civitatem Romanam lege Sylv. et 
 “ Carb. trib. plebis video efife factum j Peregrinos nunc appello om- 
 “ nes praeter Italos.” So fays Sigonius, De antiquo fire Italiae , lib. 
 
 iii. c. 1. And as the law of the Conful gave the freedom of 
 
 Rome to the Confederate States of Italy , to keep them Heady to their 
 engagements by this favour ; fo the Tribunes, extended it to Foreign- 
 ers, in order to bind them to the Roman intereft, as we may fuppofe, 
 in cafe there fhould be any neceffity for their affiftance in times future. 
 
 I have been a little more particular in the hiftory of the occafion, 
 authors, and defign, of this Law, becaufe Conrad us, who has wrote 
 a long commentary on this fragment, expreflly aflerts, “ de autore 
 « et anno quo lex lata eft, nihil certi affirmare liceat.” And in- 
 
 deed it is no wonder, that he has miftaken the main drift of this 
 Law, (as will be fhewn hereafter) when he had not the clue of the 
 age and authors of it, to guide him in this enquiry. 
 
 However, of this Law our Infcription is a fragment, which re- 
 lates only to that part of it, which required regiftring their names, 
 in order to take the benefit of it, before the Conful or Praetor, within 
 60 days, after the promulgation of the Law. 
 
 The 
 
[ 5 3 
 
 The firft claufe, in our Infcription, provides, that if he that was 
 required to regifter his name, in order to take the benefit of the Law, 
 fhould not happen to be at Rome, at that time, his agent fhould be 
 admitted to do it for him j provided that he did it within the fixty 
 days prefcribed, which are here expreffed by iifdem diebus , plainly re- 
 fering to the number of the days fpecified in a former part of the 
 Law. 
 
 The next claufe of the fragment provides, that if the perfon, en- 
 titled to regifter his or her name, fhould happen to be a Minor , then 
 the guardian or tutor fhould be allowed to do it for them ; provided 
 he did it in the fame manner, as was required from thofe, who were 
 not Minors . — Such was the general Law, and fuch were the Provifos 
 in the two claufes of our Infcription. — I fhall now endeavour to il- 
 luftrate them, by a pafiage in Cicero, in a cafe that related to Hera- 
 clea, the very place where this Table was difcovered. 
 
 Archias, a native of Greece, and a man of learning, had been ad- 
 mitted to the freedom of Heraclea, a confederate city ; notwithftand- 
 ing which, he had been refufed the freedom of Rome , Cicero de- 
 fends his caufe, and cites the Law, under which Archias claimed — 
 
 Data eft Civitas Sylvani Lege et Carbonis — 
 
 SI QVT FOEDERATIS CIVITATIBVS ADSCRIPTI FVISSENT, 
 SI TVM, CVM LEX FEREBATVR, IN ITALIAM DOMiCILIVlVI 
 HABVISSENT, ET SI SEXAGINTA DIEBVS APVD PRAETOREM 
 ESSENT PROFESSI. 
 
 Orat . pro Archia Poet a. 
 
 r All thefe requifites, the Orator fays, met in his Client. 
 
 Our fragment therefore feems to be the following part of the 
 Law, proceeding where Cicero flopped : — -for as he ends — Si fexa- 
 ginta diebus apud Praetorem effent profefli — our fragment goes on : 
 
 Quern hac Lege apud Confulem profited oportebit, &c 
 
 . in iifdem diebus apud Confulem profitemino — From whence 
 
 it plainly appears, that the Conditions mentioned by Cicero, and the 
 claufes in our fragment, are parts of the fame Law, and that in iif- 
 
 aem 
 
[6 ] 
 
 dem diebus , in our fragment, undoubtedly related to thofe fexaginta 
 diebus , contained in the condition of the Law, mentioned by Cicero; 
 which perhaps is a part, of that reft of the Law , to which our Claufes 
 belong. , that Mr. Webb laments is not yet difcovered. 
 
 It appears hence, that Francifcus Carolus Conrad us, who publilhed 
 a long commentary on this Infcription, at Helmftad, 1 73 8, is en- 
 tirely miftaken at his firft fetting out, for he fays, cc primum caput 
 <c legis eft de recenfu populi, frumentationis caufa, agendo;” that this 
 firft article, in our fragment, related to a cenle of fuch of the people, 
 as were entitled to receive the Public Corn. — But, according to Cice- 
 ro, and the Law itfelf, quoted by him, it feems, that the claufes, in 
 our Fragment, are only lo many provilions relating to the due re- 
 giftring their names, within fixty days, as the general Law required. 
 
 What led Francifcus Carol. Conradus into the miftake of thinking 
 it a Law de recenfu populi frumentationis caufa, that refpe&ed the dif- 
 tribution of the Public Corn, is a Provifo, in the latter part of it, by 
 which thefe Strangers to be made free of Rome, were not to be admitted 
 to the privilege of receiving the Public Corn; the Law runs thus .. 
 
 Quicunque frumentum populo dabunt, dandumve curabit, ne cui 
 eorum quorum nomina hac lege ab Confule, Praetore, Tribuno 
 plebis, in Tabula in Albo propofita erant, frumentum dato, neve 
 ,dari jubeto, neve finito — Qui adverfus ea, eorum cui frumen- 
 tum dederit, is intra menfem unum, Seftertios quingentos populo 
 dare damnas efto. 
 
 The reafon for this Exception, that the foreign Freemen fhould 
 not have a fhare of the public Corn, I fuppofe, was to prevent any 
 jealoufy or commotion of the people, which would probably have hap- 
 pened, if they had feen ftrangers introduced to eat that bread, that be- 
 longed of right only to natural born citizens. — So that the mention of 
 corn in this law, we fee, is only an accidental circumftance, and not the 
 primary intention of it, which was for the admitting of grangers to the 
 freedom of Rome, under ftated qualifications. 
 
 The 
 
[ 7 ] 
 
 The Age of this Infcription feems to be that of the Law itfelf, 
 U. C. 663 or 64 ; and the flyleand manner of writing is agreeable to 
 that period, fei for fi, quei for qui, quojus for cujus, &c. But above 
 all, there is a Sigle remarkable for its Angularity in the claufe about 
 
 pupils or orphans ; pupillus five ea vq erit — which Sigle I read Pu 
 
 for as the Roman C flands for Caius, but when it is reverfed D fignifies 
 Caia, fo the firfl letters pu being reverfed, they may be fuppofed to 
 fland for pupilla. And indeed the fenfe diredts us to this interpretation 
 of it, for pupillus five ea pupilla erit is a natural reading, which is con- 
 firmed by the following words eum eamve 
 
 But there is a difficulty that flicks with me, which is, how the Greek 
 and Latin Infcriptions, which are on each fide of the fame plate, can 
 be fuppofed to be of fuch different dates, as the Greek to be 300 years 
 before Chrifl, the other 80. It would be more natural to fuppofe, 
 that they were of the fame date, and that the Greek was of the fame 
 age with the Latin, that is, not before U. C. 663, 33 years before 
 Ciceros fpeech for Archias. — And indeed I fufpedt the Greek Infcrip- 
 tion to be an Italian produdlion from the two Sigles or new letters (as 
 they are called in Mr. Webb’s alphabet) which are found in it. 
 
 The P, which is called an afpirate, and the c , which Mazochius 
 with reafon calls a V, are both Sigles of Italian Original. The b is no 
 more than half the Roman H, which is to be feen in 500 Latin In- 
 fcriptions, in Fabretti, and others, fometimes one half, fometimes the 
 other, according to the fancy of the workman, thus P or d.-But I 
 never remember to have feen it on any genuine Greek Monument, 
 in this fignification, and only in thefe mongril Infcriptions, belonging 
 to the Magna Graecia colonies. 
 
 As to the other C, which Mazochius fufficiently proves to be V, though 
 I think he derives it wrongly from the Beth of the Hebrews, that alfo is 
 of Italian growth, being the true Etrufcan V, every where found in the 
 Eugubine Tables ; with this difference only, that, as the Etrufcan cha- 
 racter was wrote from right to left, after the manner of the Orientals, 
 this, in our Greek Infcription, is from left to right, according to the 
 Weflern way of writing. I cannot let this opportunity pafs without 
 
 * After I had wrote this, I found the fame obfervation had been made by Conradus. 
 
 obferving, 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 observing, that the Etrufcan V 3 is the original of the Digamma Aeo- 
 licum q, for by removing the lower ftroke of the 3 up a little higher 
 towards the middle of the Letter, what was at firft 3, will take the 
 form of q, which is that of the Digamma, which was of the fame 
 power with the V of the Etrufcans. — The progrefs of this corruption 
 is very difcernible, in fome antient Etrufcan Infcriptions ; particularly 
 on the Paterae Tab. vi, v, ii, iv, in the 1ft Vol. of Dempfter Etruria 
 Regal, publifhed by the late Earl of Leicefter, in the word minerva.— 
 In which, Tab. vi, the V is thus formed 3. Tab. v, Tab. ii, zj. 
 Tab. iv,^. So that here we fee, at one view, the feveral Reps, by 
 which the Aeolic Digamma q grew out of the Etrufcan 3, in the 
 manner following, ^ -~7 ^7* 
 
 As therefore thefe Sigles, or new Letters, as they have been called, 
 appear to be of the growth of Italy, we may conclude, that the Greek 
 Infcription, in which they are met with, was a production of fome 
 of the Settlements in Magna Graecia, mixed with fome few Cha- 
 racters in ufe then among the Latins, and not older than the Law of 
 Sylvanus and Carbo, in Latin, on the other fide of the Plate for 
 indeed it is hardly conceivable, how two Infcriptions, of fuch feeming 
 importance, in two different Languages, without any relation to each 
 other, fhould happen to meet, at the diftance of 220 years, on the 
 different lides of the fame Plate. 
 
 Whatever might have been done, in fepulchral cafes, by poor peo- 
 ple, in writing one Infcription on the back of another, to fave ex- 
 pence, yet it can never be fuppofed, that the great and rich city of 
 Heraclea could be driven to the fame expedient, in fo important a cafe, 
 as preferring a terrar and furvey of their facred Lands, or copying a 
 Law of fuch confequence, as gave the Freedom of Rome to fuch of its 
 Inhabitants, as were Foreigners by birth. — Frugality could have no 
 room under thefe weighty confiderations. — And therefore, as thefe 
 Plates appear to be public Monuments, we may fuppole them to 
 
 * Maffei conjectures that the Latin was prior to the Greek. Obfervazzim litter arh 
 ie Majfei , tom iii, art. 10. 
 
 be 
 
[9 ] 
 
 be the diptycs or leaves of the Regifter, in which thefe Ads, that re- 
 lated to the community, were copied progreffively according to their 
 date. Perhaps this may be better comprehended, by the Reader, from 
 the fketch on the Copper Plate ; where Plate I, and its reverfe, as low 
 as the fradure, reprefents the Greek and Latin Infcription on the En- 
 glifh fragment j the lower part of which reprefents the Greek and La- 
 tin of the Neapolitan fragment. Plate II, reprefents a Greek Infcrip- 
 tion, without any on the reverfe, relating to the Lands of the Temple 
 of Minerva, as the Greek Infcription, on Plate I, fpecifies the Lands 
 belonging to the Temple of Dionyfius. 
 
 Now as the Latin Infcription, on the Englifh fragment, be- 
 gins, Quem hac lege, &c. it muft be fuppofed, that the faid Law re- 
 ferred to what went before,* and, as our Infcription is on the very top 
 of the reverfe of the Plate, may we not fuppofe, that the former 
 part of the Law was written on the lower part of the other fide of the 
 Plate, which has been broken off, and is not yet difcovered ?j 
 
 This will account for one of the Infcriptions following the 
 other on the oppofite fide of the fame Plate ; which nearnefs 
 of fituation may be confidered as an argument for the nearnefs of 
 their date. — But this, as every other part of this Differtation, is, with 
 great Deference, fubmitted to the better Judgment of this learned 
 Society. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 N. B. That part of the Law, "which is explained p. 6. is here fub- 
 joined, according to the original, from whence the Reader, if he thinks 
 it neceffary, may corred ad Confulem , for ab Confule , &c. and may makd 
 fuch other alterations, as he may judge proper. 
 
 QyEIQVOMQyE. FRVMENTVM. POPVLO. DABVNT. DANDVMVE. 
 CVRABIT. NEIQVE. EORVM. QVORVM. NOMINA. H. L. AD. COS. 
 PR. TR. PL. INTABVLA. IN. ALBO. PROPOSITA. ERVNT. FRVMEN- 
 TVM. DATO. NEVE. DARE. IVBETO. NEVE. SINITO. QVET. AD- 
 VERSVS. EA. EORVM. QVEI. FRVMENTVM. DEDERIT. IS. IN. TR. 
 M. I. HS.b. POPVLO. DARE. DAMNAS. ESTO. 
 
WtClAl. fc-b 
 255 ^ 
 
 
 GETTY CENTER LIBRARY