1996.12.03, Neapolitana. A Study of Population and Language in Graeco-Roman Naples. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 102 (1994)

This monograph is an analytical study of the speech-community of Naples through a close investigation of the usage of nomenclature and formulaic practises employed in the Greek and Latin inscriptions of the city. The study is firmly rooted in the Finnish tradition of the study of onomastics, exemplified by Iiro Kajanto and Heikki Solin, while the author has also been able to draw on the most recent epigraphical studies of the Neapolitan area carried out by Elena Miranda ( Inscrizioni greche d’Italia. Napoli I-II, Rome, 1990 and forthcoming). In many cases the inscriptions discussed have been destroyed or are now inaccessible, while on several occasions the original locations are unknown. Mommsen followed an unsatisfactory system of classification in CIL X, allocating inscriptions of uncertain provenance to the neighbouring city of Puteoli, some of which probably belong to Naples. L. has identified 310 inscriptions as almost certainly originating from Naples (p. 50), of which he numbers 139 in his own series in the course of his monograph, although his analysis is by no means confined to these 139. L. seeks explicitly to follow the methodology of socio-linguistics in studying the inscriptions (pp.50-7), but this impinges only intermittently on his central discussions.

The book is divided into five chapters of uneven length: ch. 1 “Introduction” (pp. 8-12), ch.2 “Historical background” (pp. 13-32), ch. 3 “Cultural life during the empire” (pp. 33-48), ch. 4 “The speech community in the light of epigraphy” (pp. 49-164), and ch. 5 “Conclusions” (pp. 165-72), supplemented by a long appendix (“Onomasticum Neapolitanorum”, pp. 173-211), bibliography (pp. 212-21), indices (pp. 222-36), and two maps.

Chapter 2 provides a concise historical outline of the history of Naples from the foundation to the time of the early empire (pp. 13-32). The city was founded in the 460s from Cumae, which had in turn been founded by Chalcis. The original population and their descendants were supplemented by Samnites, a development which should be seen within the context of generally good relations between the city and its Samnite neighbours. This friendship was particularly manifest in the war against Rome, 327-6 B.C., although some groups within the city seem to have supported the Romans. The relation of Naples to her Samnite neighbours should also be set against the context of the wider spread of Greek culture throughout southern Italy (p. 19). Immigration, however, brought Samnite influences which are manifest in the funerary ornamentation and grave finds. The conflict between Rome and Naples consisted principally of a year-long siege of the city by Q. Publius Philo: it fell, however, not to the siege, but to an act of treachery orchestrated by Philo.

Naples supported Rome throughout the war with Hannibal, resisting Carthaginian sieges in 216 and 214. In the second century, the city continued to grow and prosper, becoming one of the major traders present on Delos, an involvement which was in turn reflected in Cycladic influence on Neapolitan artistic techniques. L. rejects the arguments of Lepore for the existence of a distinct Syrian community within the city at this time (pp. 24-5). The city also served the Roman fleet in the third and second centuries. The history of Naples is closely paralleled by that of Velia, except that here, unlike in Naples, Greek ceased to be used in the first century A.D. While the inscriptions of Naples in the Republican period are all in Greek, it is possible that Latin was spoken to some extent among the upper classes of the city, although this is not reflected in the epigraphical record.

After the Social War of 90-89, the citizens of Naples were now Roman citizens. The city was ransacked by Sulla’s troops in 82, although L. suggests that the objects of their destruction may have been somewhat more discriminating, namely the supporters of Marius, than the generalised claim made by Appian, BC 1.89 (pp. 25-6). In the years of the late Republic, the city ceased to be a major trading power, and became instead a recreational centre for weary Romans, a change probably to be linked with the development of nearby Puteoli as a centre of commerce and trade (p. 27). This is reflected in the construction of Roman villas in the bay area. In the Civil War, Naples sided with Pompey against Caesar, and with Octavian against Sextus Pompeius (pp. 28-9). The chapter ends with some comments on Naples in the time of the Empire. L. identifies two main understandings of the imperial city (pp. 30-2). While Beloch minimalised the significance of the Greek language for imperial Naples, and Lepore identified a shift in usage from Greek to Latin in the early second century A.D., D’Arms and others have emphasised the Greek character of Neapolitan language and culture.

There is some dispute regarding the relationship between the city officially founded in the 460s by settlers from Cumae and the pre-existing settlement on the site (pp. 13-4). L. suggests that the hill of Pizzofalcone was continuously occupied from the 7th century, but Frederiksen, Campania, (Rome, 1984), p. 86, suggests a break in occupation, based on a break in finds from the cemetery located there. L. also suggests that Pizzofalcone was unwalled, but cf. again Frederiksen, p. 85, who suggests otherwise. Frederiksen does not suggest, as claimed by L. (pp. 16-7), that Strabo made direct use of Timaios, but rather that he had only indirect access to his writings, probably through the works of Artemidoros and Poseidonios (p. 100). L.’s suggestions regarding the constituency of the groups supporting respectively the Romans and the Samnites in the war of 327 are asserted rather than argued (“It seems obvious that . . .” (p.20)); the presence of a magistrate supporting Philo with an Italic name (Nymphius) suggests that the divisions were less clear cut than is claimed here. The reference to D’Arms (1981) 72-96 should be to 73-90, cf. also pp. 126-33. Strabo 5.4.7 is mistranslated (p.29): ἡσυχίας χάριν does not govern the whole clause down to ζῆν, but only the first sub-clause to ἐργασαμένων. Strabo has constructed a pair of alternatives: those who have worked in education for the sake of rest or others too, who, because of old age or sickness, long to live in relaxation. L. suggests re. ἄλλων that “These people were not Romans”, in contrast to the following τῶν ῤωμαίων ἔνιοι. It is rather the case that the latter picks up on the previous οἱ ἐκ τῆς ῤώμης ἀναχωροῦντες, and defines a sub-section within this wider group of Roman migrants to the Bay of Naples. Strabo distinguishes a specific group of Romans who enjoy Neapolitan life so much that they decide to reside there permanently (implicitly contrasting with the rest who do not sojourn permanently, but are merely transient). The broad group of Roman visitors is initially divided into the professionals seeking rest from their labours, and others seeking to live in quiet, who are in turn divided between the old (διὰ γῆρας) and the sick ([sc. διὰ] ἀσθένειαν). Strabo does not distinguish between Greeks and Latins from Rome, as L. thinks (p.30). L.’s account of the history of Naples does not extend beyond the early imperial period. A discussion of the reforms of Diocletian would certainly have contributed to the argument, for these reforms are mentioned later (pp. 133, 149, 170), but their character and purpose are never explained.

In chapter 3, L. discusses some references to Naples in Roman poets and prose writers of the late Republic and the early empire, including Virgil ( Georgics 4.560-6), Horace ( Epodes 5.41-6), Statius ( Silvae 3.5.78-94, and 5.3.136-58), Tacitus ( Annals 15.33), and the correspondence between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto. It is his contention that “The poets of the Augustan era do not stress the Greek nature of Naples in those few passages in which they mention the city” (p. 33). Finally in this chapter, L. also summarises the evidence for agonistic competition in Naples, which he sees as having an important influence in bringing Greek-speaking competitors and artisans to the city (pp. 45-8).

The reference to Ausonius 26.1.15 BTeub. (p. 34), is actually to the first of Ausonius’Epigrammata, which form the 26th section of the Teubner edition of Ausonius. L. is critical of the monograph on Statius by Alex Hardie ( Statius and the Silvae. Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in the Graeco-Roman World, Liverpool, 1983), focussing on two of Hardie’s arguments. According to L., H. argues that “a tradesman from Ischia seems to be Statius’ forefather”, on the basis of an unpublished stamp of the 2nd century B.C., bearing the name STAT (p. 37, n. 25). This, however, misrepresents H.’s argument, who uses the stamp as evidence for the presence of people with this name on the coast, in support of his suggestion that Statius’ ancestors were Samnites who may have migrated to the coastal area in search of trade, without asserting an identification with Statius’ direct line (p. 6). Secondly, L. argues that H. over-emphasises the influence of the city of Naples on Statius’ cultural formation, stressing the direct influence of his father, who taught in Naples before moving to Rome, but surely this is not an either-or situation, and the father was an integrated part of the Neapolitan community subsequent to his migration from Velia, and prior to his migration to Rome. The text of Statius, Silvae 3.5.78-9 (Nostra quoque et propriis tenuis nec rara colonis | Parthenope) has been found problematic: L. favours the emendation of A. Otto (nostraque nec propriis tenuis nec rara colonis), which makes Statius say that the city is short neither of native residents nor of colonists from outside (pp. 38-9). If the manuscript reading is retained, then Statius, it is argued, contradicts other evidence for the large population of the city in the 1st century A.D. Therefore, the emendation accords with this other evidence. This emendation is, however, unnecessary and misconceived, as it assumes that Statius is intending to provide his audience with reliable information. This is poetry, not the Guide Bleu, and the poetic turn of phrase should be retained. Statius argues that the city has few native residents, but many coloni. Whether the coloni are here meant to be the Greeks, as opposed to the Samnites, or Roman and Samnite settlers as opposed to the original Greek founders is not clear. Statius’ poetic text should not be needlessly emended in favour of a misplaced desire for consistency. L.’s discussion of the interest shown by the emperor Nero in Naples attested in Tacitus, Annals (pp. 42-3) omits reference to M.T. Griffin, Nero. The End of a Dynasty (London, 1984), who considers this emperor’s involvement in Naples at some length (General Index, s.v. Naples). In the following discussion of the letters between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto (pp. 43-5), the four references to the edition of van den Hout are all wrong.

The first and by far the largest group of inscriptions subject to scrutiny consist of the funerary inscriptions (nos. 1-117, pp. 58-132). L. subdivides these between Greek and Latin inscriptions (pp. 58-103), supplemented by inscriptions of unknown provenance (both Greek and Latin (pp. 104-115), “inscribed grave reliefs of unknown context” (pp. 116-20) and epigrams (pp. 121-32). The discussion of the provenanced Greek and Latin inscriptions follows no discernible pattern, either geographical, or chronological, or thematic, despite the identification of four distinct find areas mentioned at the start of the discussion (p. 58). It might have been clearer if the inscriptions in each language had in turn been discussed in their entirety.

Nos. 1-37, the provenanced Greek funerary inscriptions of Naples, excluding three Latin texts (10 and 14, found in the same tomb as nos. 11-13 (Tomb A, Via dei Cristallini), and 25, found in the same tomb as nos. 26-30 (Tomb D, Via dei Cristallini)), nos. 58-78, the unprovenanced Greek funerary inscriptions, and nos. 95-105, the “inscribed grave reliefs of unknown context”, date from the 4th century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D. The formulae of these inscriptions mostly adhere closely to common Hellenistic onomastic and funerary conventions. The style and ornamentation of the early tombs reflect common decorative conventions found in tombs from Macedonia, Caria, and elsewhere (pp. 59-60, 61, 77). The Naples museum possesses a series of marble funerary reliefs, dating from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D. In general terms, their style may be described as Cycladic. Their differing levels of sophistication reflect the different social class of the dedicators. Some portray Roman features, especially the solium, but the predominant feature depicted is the dexiosis, the reason for which is not obviously apparent (pp. 116-7). The most elaborate of this group is no. 104, which depicts three figures, a standing female, between a standing male and a seated male. Her clothing has been carefully carved, and her face is veiled.

The inscriptions consist of lists of names of the deceased (e.g. no. 1, five dead from one family; nos. 2-6, thirteen from the same family, the Epilutos clan; no. 23, seven names; nos. 99, 105), occasionally supplemented by the characteristic Hellenistic formulae χαῖρε (nos. 20, 24, 26-32, 58, 98, 100, 104) or XRHSTE χαῖρε (nos. 11, 15, 17, 21, 62, 97, 101-3). There are some exceptions to this. No. 7 is a one line verse inscription, asserting Epichares’ ownership of the tomb. The early no. 8 comprises a warning to passers-by not to violate the tomb. No. 22 asserts the wrong in placing another corpse in the tomb. No. 76 also prohibits this practise. No. 13 employs a metaphorical usage of the verb ἀγοράζω, “inhabit” (neither listed in LSJ, nor commented on by L.). No. 19 records the dedication by Numphios, brother of the deceased, Mamos. Several of the unprovenanced Greek inscriptions also show the influence of Roman epigraphical formulae (p. 105): nos. 63-72. Nos. 64, 66, and 69 contain the abbreviation θκ dis manibus). The names of deceased in nos. 63-6, 68, 69, and 72 are in the dative, in nos. 65-7, 69, and 72 accompanied by the name of the dedicator in the nominative (in 68, the dedicator’s profession, ὁ διδάσκαλος, but no name). In nos. 67-72, the age of the deceased at death is also stated.

Most of the titles consist of personal name and patronymic or simply personal name: no. 1, two with patronymic, three without; nos. 2-6, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26-32, 58-61, 97-8, 100-1, 104, with patronymic; no. 7, Epichares, without patronymic; no. 9, definite article between name and patronymic; nos. 71-2, 74, 103, names alone—Successus, Helenion, Tyche, Auge(s), Maron. There are some exceptions to this. No. 13 names the patronus rather than the father (Sosotos, freedman of Seia). One member of the clan of Epilutos is described as a priest of Caesar Augustus (no. 5, 1). Aristagore, daughter of Chaireas, is a priestess of Leukathea (no. 22). In several instances, the names show the influence of Roman nominal formation. Thus, the following have a name and cognomen: Survia Secunda (no. 16), Porcia Paula (no. 62), Fabia Zosime (no. 75), Grania Phelikla (no. 99), Pakkios Herakleon (no. 105), while in nos. 11, 12, 15 and 102, there appear to be a praenomen and nomen: Gaius Valerius, Monime Artoria, Salvia Manlia and Leukios Larthos (the latter may, in fact, be a nomen and cognomen).

The names themselves are predominantly Hellenistic and Oscan, often juxtaposed, with Latin and Etruscan elements interspersed. No. 1 (the 4th/3rd century B.C. tomb of a Hellenized Oscan family) includes both the common Oscan name, Trebius, and the common Hellenistic name, Zoilus (Trebius the son of Zoilus). Most of the names in nos. 2-7 are Italic, including an Etruscan, τάρχιος, but there are also two Greek names, Aristole, feminine variant of Aristolaos, and Epilutos. No. 9 has a Greek onomastic formula (name and patronymic), but the father has a Roman/Oscan name, Gaius. No. 11 has a Roman nomen and praenomen, without cognomen, in a Hellenistic greeting. No. 12 has a Greek name Monime, and Latin gentilicium, Artoria.. No. 15 combines a Hellenistic greeting with Latin praenomen and gentilicium, Salvia Manlia (1st century B.C.). Also Latin is the problematic Survia Secunda (no. 16). The father of the Greek Apollodorus (no. 17) is named Mamos, also known in 3rd century B.C. Sicily, and Pompeii, and originally an Oscan name. The name Mamos is also found in no. 19, with a brother, Numphios, a Hellenised version of the Oscan praenomen Nium(p)sis. The relief of no. 19 depicts two men wearing long togas, one seated on a Roman chair. The relief and inscription attest a local aristocracy that used traditional Oscan names but employed the Greek language in their inscriptions (p.76). The series 20-4 combine Roman nomina, Iunia, Ponteia, and Pompeia, with πέβιος, a variant of the Oscan Vibius, λουκρίων the common slave’s name, Lucrio), and the otherwise unattested Greek names, δικαέτη (20) (although the simple forms δίκα and δίκη are found), and κρευμένων, or probably χρευμένων . suggests a possible instance of a diviner, or deliverer of oracles, based on the usage of χράομαι , but this seems unduly speculative), within the context of the usage of the Greek language and greetings formulae. In the series 25-30, all the names consist of name and patronymic, but except for ἄρχιππος, none of the names is Greek: μάμαρχοξ, a Hellenised version of the Oscan Mamereks, τίνθωρ, linked with Etruscan Tintur, βίβιος, the Oscan Vibius, and the Italic names στατία and μόνιξ. L. suggests that this is evidence for a “mixed marriage” (p. 84). Nos. 31-2 mention Leukia and Herenne, the daughters of Numphios. Herenne is not otherwise attested, although Herennus is a Roman praenomen; Numphios is of Oscan origin; Leukia may be connected with the adjective λευκός, but is more likely to be a Hellenized version of Lucia. No. 62 refers to a woman with common Roman names, Porcia Paula. No. 67 combines an Italic name, Larcius and a Greek cognomen, Epiktetos, as does no. 75 (Flabia Zosime). Roman names are chiefly to be found in the inscriptions which contain Roman formulae, and date from after the Social War (nos. 63-72). The nomenclature of the Greek inscriptions thus demonstrates a deep interpenetration of Greek and Oscan within the community of Naples, but placed within the context of the usage of the Greek language and formulae in the inscriptions. The inscriptions also attest to the usage of Latin formulae in Greek, after the incorporation of the population of Naples into the Roman citizen body. The funerary inscriptions also attest at least two immigrants from Asia Minor (Catillia Glauriana from Nicaea, 67, and Sarapia Ammia from Laodicea, 69). Nos. 77-8 are two Christian inscriptions, which use Latin formulae in Greek, as well as the standard Christian phrase ἀνεπαύσατο.

The unprovenanced inscriptions contain some interesting names. ἀστός is common only in Naples (61). δαίλοκος (63) is usually spelt with a chi. Sarapias (69) possesses the supernomen, Ammia. Larthos (102) is a Hellenised derivation from the Etruscan Lars (p. 119). Some interesting orthography is also apparent. In no. 8, epsilon-iota has been substituted for eta-iota. The dialect variation is Euboean (implied in L. p. 66, n. 39, but left unstated), cf. C. Buck, The Greek Dialects (Chicago, 1955), p. 36, section 39a, who refers to this inscription. The inscriber of no. 71 was scarcely literate, and spelt phonetically. In no. 77, two epsilons are written for etas, and two etas for epsilons (ἠν εἰρήνηι ἤτη δ’ με).

No. 8: L. overlooks three other instances of οἴγειν (p. 66, n. 40): Euripides, Heracles Furens 332, Scholia in Theocritum 10.1-3, and Scholia in Iliadem 18.546. No. 9: the son’s name, Eudromus, is rare: to the examples in n. 52, p. 68, may be added Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 4.5.2-6.1, 4.9.2, and 4.18.1, ed. M.D. Reeve (Leipzig, 2nd edition, 1986). The description of a typical Neapolitan funerary stele (p. 70) would have benefitted from an illustration. The intermittent discussion of the orthography and origins of the name Loukios/Leukios and its feminine equivalents (pp. 67, 85, 119, 144, 152) is confusingly lacking in cross-references (except p. 144 which refers back to p. 67).

There are thirty-eight Latin inscriptions in L.’s series (10, 14, 38-57, 79-94). Nos. 56-7, “found in a tomb at Naples”, are quoted in full, but are not discussed. They date from the Augustan period or earlier (nos. 46-7) to the third century (no. 79). The provenanced Latin inscriptions (pp. 88-103) have been found at seven locations in the city.

Some of the Latin inscriptions consist only of the name of the deceased, thus nos. 39 (Murdia Urbana), and 40 (L. Murdi). The majority contain the regular formulae in Latin funeral inscriptions (dis manibus, name of the deceased, age at death, name of the dedicator). In some instances, there is only a simple nomen: Primilla (no. 86), Hermes (no. 87), Severa (no. 89). There are many instances of nomen and cognomen, primarily women (as to be expected), e.g. Antonia Sabina (no. 49), Cassia Felicissima (no. 54), Amatia Adaucta (no. 79), Iulia Rodope (no. 87), Sentia Hesperis (no. 91). However, several males also lack a praenomen: Iulius Primitibus (no. 49), Iulius Parthenopaeus (no. 49), Clodius Fructuosus (no. 57), Aurelius Diligens (no. 80), Cornelius Agatho, Cornelius Epigonus (no. 85), Lysius Severus (no. 89), Marcius Felix (CIL X 1495). The majority of the males in the Latin funerary inscriptions possess the tria nomina, e.g. T. Plotidius Silo (no. 41), P. Plotius Sabinus (no. 45), Ti. Iulius Verecundus (no. 51), L. Ceionius Fructuosus (no. 56), L. Vettius Sabinus (no. 81), and M. Tullius Dionysius (no. 94).

The rich and varied nomenclature of the Latin funerary inscriptions of Naples reveals a series of different backgrounds to the people named therein. A Roman connection is apparent in the case of Murdia Urbana and L. Murdius (nos. 39-40), who may possibly be linked with the Roman gens Murdia, with which the Pompeian Murtii may also possibly be connected; they may have been Latin immigrants to Naples (pp. 93-4). The gens Ancharia attested in no. 42, have a common Campanian name, found also in Pompeii, Minturnae, and Capua (p. 96). The Brinnii (no. 50) possibly originated in Puteoli (p. 100). M. Caninius Botryo came from Herculaneum (CIL X 1501). Greek origins are possible for Lysius Severus (no. 89, p. 114). The gens Plotidia mentioned in no. 41 are otherwise unattested, for a link with the Etruscan L. Plotidius (CIL XI 3128) is deemed unlikely. T. Plotidius may have been an immigrant to Naples, where he then married a local woman, Mevia Pac. f. (p. 94).

The occupations of the persons on the Latin inscriptions are rarely mentioned: an unguentarius (perfumerer) (10), arcarius reipublicae Neapolitanorum (secretary to the Council, probably a slave) (CIL X 1495) appear. Many of the persons in the Latin inscriptions seem to have been freedmen: L. Licinius Mario (no. 10), a freedman of L. Licinius Lucullus, cos. 74; L. Licinius Pius, descendant of freedman of the same (no. 55); Q. Ancharius Primus (no. 42), a freedman of Q. Ancharius; four freedmen of gens Fuficia, three with Greek cognomina (nos. 46-7)—Metra, Zopyra, Athenais—were possibly freedmen of the Fuficii of Puteoli; Iulius Parthenopaeus (no. 49); Ti. Iulius Verecundus (no. 51), a descendant of a freedman of Tiberius; Ti. Claudius Celer (no. 82), a possible freedman of Tiberius, Claudius or Nero; Ti. Flavius Demosthenes (no. 53), a descendant of a freedman of the emperor Titus; Sextus Pompeius Genialis (no. 54), freedman of gens Pompeia (common in Campania); the Caninii attested in CIL X 1501-2 may be freedmen; M. Tullius Dionysius (no. 94), a possible descendant of a freedman of Cicero; Cornelius Epigonus (no. 85), freedman of Cornelius Agatho. L. thinks it unlikely that L. Orbius Primitivus (no. 44) was also a libertus, although Primitivus was a common slave’s name, while a L. Orbius was active on Delos in the early first century B.C. (pp. 96-7).

The Latin of the funerary inscriptions is generally of a high quality, an exception being nos. 48-9: irregular dative ending, que for quae, anis for annis, and Primitibus for Primitivus. No. 14 is a Latin inscription mentioning Maxuma, the son of Seius, where the genitive takes a Greek form (Seiu). L. suggests a possible connection with the Seii active in Delian trade in the second century B.C. (p. 73). In no. 91, fecerunti appears, which may reflect the influence of the Greek third person plural. The other notable irregular case ending is Demosthene (no. 53). Apart from these instances, L. concludes that there is very little that is Greek about the Latin inscriptions: “normal Campanian Latin-speaking families lived in Naples at least from the 2nd century onwards” (p. 115).

The final sub-section examines nine Greek, one Latin, and two bilingual epigrams (nos. 106-17, pp. 121-32). They date from the first century B.C. to the third century A.D. No. 106 utilises the epic genitive σέο for σοῦ. There are no equivalents to the phrase in line 2. No. 108 is a dialogue between Hermes Psychopompos, the messenger of Persephone, and a passer-by, and has no known Hellenistic model. προπονπεῖς (line 1) is a hapax legomenon, possibly derived from προπομπός, an epithet of Hermes, while δακρυχαρὴς (line 5) appears otherwise only in Anthologia Graeca 5.166 (Meleager). No. 109 is very similar to an epigram from Puteoli. The language of no. 110 is most unusual: ὠνάμενος is unparalleled, although there are two cases of ἀπωνάμενος, and is derived from either ὄνομαι or ὀνίνημι. The dedicator of no. 111 is probably to be identified with a praetor, Opsius Navius Fannianus (p. 124). The language is heavily influenced by epic. ἄνχις is not otherwise attested (line 4): the final sigma has been added to avoid hiatus with the following word. A loan word πάτρων is also present (line 7). No. 112 repeats the request mentioned earlier that the passers-by defend the inviolacy of the tomb. οὕτως unusually appears before a consonant, while ἄθραυστος is otherwise attested only in Anthologia Graeca 9.228.5 (a request that a boat be left inviolate). The first two lines (not just the second, as L. suggests) of no. 114 reproduce the funerary epigram of Homer (Pseudo-Plutarch, De Vita Homeri 1.3, ed. T.W. Allen (Oxford, 1912)), with the substitution of Alkibiades for Homer. I)DI/WI πάτρωνI (line 4) is a borrowing from the Latin patrono suo. The two bilingual inscriptions (nos. 115-6) consist of Greek epigrams, accompanied by brief Latin prose dedications. No. 115 is full of epic language: Sicily is described as τρεινακρία γαία; κουρίδιος δὲ πόσις (line 3) echoes Odyssey 11.430. However, the active use of the νοσφίζω and the phrase ἄφευκτος ἀνάγκη are un-Homeric. No. 16 is dedicated to Decimus Servilius, from Paphos on Cyprus, who died aged 93. The middle vowel of his praenomen has been syncopated (δέκμος), a characteristic of Greeks and lower class Romans. Apollonius, the dedicatee of the Latin text was both a freedman and a patron (of Ambrosia, the dedicator). πολυκτέανος (line 2) is very rare. No. 117 is the sole Latin epigram: the deceased, Gaius Stallius, may possibly be connected with an Athenian family of the mid-first century B.C., who honoured Ariobarzanes, the king of Cappadocia. He bears the ethnic title Hauranus, which appears here uniquely as a name, and suggests that he originated in the Hauran (somewhat inaccurately described as “a Palaestinian area” (p. 131)). L. suggests that a model for the writer lay in Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 3.149-50, but the link seems tenuous. Gaudivigente (line 2) is not otherwise attested.

L. makes many interesting observations regarding the language and style of these Neapolitan epigrams. However, his argumentation would have benefited from a much fuller series of cross-references to the epic poems, and to other Greek epigrams, in order to explain precisely how these epigrams reflect the language of epic, and the style of other epigrams. L. concludes that while Greek epigrams are to be found in all Campanian cities and in Rome, their presence in Naples is perhaps more prevalent than elsewhere (p. 131). There is here only the one Latin philosophical epigram. Greek was clearly the preferred choice for this genre of text, with many echoes of the epic. There are a number of seeming neologisms, and some of the rules of prosody are not always closely observed (p. 132).

The third section discusses “Decrees and honorary inscriptions” (nos. 118-22, pp. 133-49), which are divided between consolation decrees (no numbers, pp. 134-42), other honorary inscriptions (nos. 118-9, pp. 142-6), inscriptions set up for emperors or members of imperial families (pp. 120-1, pp. 146-8), and inscriptions set up by emperors (no. 122, pp. 148-9).

The consolation decrees are a series of official public decrees, common in the cities of Asia Minor, in which the dead person is praised, and a public burial is announced, while the deceased’s early death and unjust departure are lamented, and comfort is offered to the bereaved. While firmly evidenced in Asia Minor, they are much less common in the cities of Greece and the western Mediterranean, being found only in Epidauros (IG IV 934-40), Puteoli and Naples. Influence from Asia Minor would have come through visitors to the city for the quinquennial games (pp. 137-8). L. suggests that the consolation decrees from Naples, although composed in Greek, are more influenced by Roman traditions, seen in the introductory and concluding formulae, and in the language of consolation employed (p. 134). He detects here the influence of the rhetorical tradition of the consolatio, noting that Dio Chrysostom delivered two funerary orations in the city for a dead boxer (pp. 134, 137). This argument needs more elaboration than is here given, with a clearer discussion of the decrees from Asia Minor and of the Roman consolatio tradition.

L. analyses in particular Miranda, nos. 81-5, and CIL X 1784 (a consolation decree from Puteoli). L. focuses attention on a number of unusual linguistic aspects to these decrees (pp. 138-42). γραφομένων παρῆσαν has usually seen as an error for masc. dat. sing, but Miranda suggests that it is a standard variation: a genitive absolute with noun expressed. L. observes, however, that it is unusual for a participle to stand without another governing word, and suggests that it might be a genitive dependent on the verb. The Boule of Naples is referred to as οἱ ἐν προσκλήτῳ, while elsewhere it is called ὁ σύγκλητος and ἡ βουλή. Either there was no exact term, or these terms refer to different institutions, or else the name changed with time. The reading ἀναγεγραφ), from a hypothetical unique verb, ἀναγραφεύω “be a scribe” (the text of Kaibel) is defended against Miranda’s preferred ἀναστραφ), from ἀναστρέφομαι “conduct oneself” (the text of Vallambert), by derivation from the noun ἀναγραφεύς.

Nos. 118-9 are two honorary decrees erected by the city council. No. 118 honours Cominia Plutogeneia, a priestess of Demeter Thesmophoros (middle second century A.D.). Unusually for a Neapolitan inscription, the decree records the family through five generations to Cominia’s great grandson, Ti. Castricius Caledianus. The inscription is of interest for the references it contains to the municipal offices of Naples, the archontikos, the agoranomos, and the demarkhos, and for the composite nomenclature of the family. Leukios, Cominia’s father, has an Italic name. Cominia is a name of Oscan origin, but the cognomen Plutogeneia is Greek. Other Cominii are attested in two further Neapolitan inscriptions (CIL X 1504 and 1437). Her husband, Paccius Caledus, has an Oscan cognomen, from which the cognomen Caledianus of his son and great grandson is derived. Cominia’s grandson (possibly through her daughter rather than her son, Paccius Caledianus), Castricius Pollio, has a Campanian gentilicium. Castricii are found in Puteoli and as traders on Delos, but not otherwise in Naples. Only the most recent family member has the full tria nomina (Ti. Castricius Caledianus).

Further light is thrown on the municipal offices of Naples by no. 119, an honorific inscription to Seleukos, the son of Seleukos, who held a series of positions, including gymnasiarch and quattuorvir. The common name is not otherwise known in Naples; it is worthy of note that a civic official was without Roman nomina (p. 146).

L. then discusses four inscriptions in which emperors were honoured by Neapolitans (nos. 120-1, and CIL X 1483-4—the text of these latter two is unfortunately not printed). In no. 120, Antoninus Pius is honoured by his freedman, Fortunatus, through a bequest of HS 300,000. The empress, Helena, was honoured by the council after 325 with a statue (CIL X 1484), and another dedication (1485). A further inscription (no. 121) has also been linked with Helena, but L. prefers a connection with the earlier Faustina, on the basis of palaeography. Unlike the other three, this decree is composed in Greek. L. also considers three inscriptions from Naples erected by emperors in connection with building work in the city (Miranda, no. 20 (no text printed), NSc 1892, 480 (again no text), and nos. 122). Miranda, no. 20 records restoration work after the eruption of Vesuvius by Titus in A.D. 81. The decree is bilingual, with the Greek first. In A.D. 202, Septimius Severus and Caracalla rebuilt the mole to protect the coastal road. The inscription recording this event was composed in Latin. The emperor Valentinian III was also responsible for work on the towers and walls of the city (no. 122). His work is again recorded in Latin. L. mentions briefly, but without adequate discussion, civic decrees in honour of the victors in the quinquennial games (p. 149), which continued to be composed in Greek. L. concludes that Latin became the official conciliar language as a result of the reforms of Diocletian (p. 149), but since no explanation is given of these reforms (as mentioned earlier), and since the agonistic decrees are left undated, it is difficult to justify the precision of this argument.

The fourth section is an analysis of inscriptions which mention phratries and magistrates (pp.150-6). There are 12 known phratries in Naples, whose origins lay in the foundation of the city. The names of the phratries were often linked with the places of origin of the first settlers, or with old established families within the colony (p. 150). Inscriptions which mention the phratries primarily concern matters of religion. They furnish evidence for the structure of the phratry institutions in Naples, and for their religious and social functions (p. 151). The most important people mentioned in this group of texts are the consuls, L. Crepereius Proclus and L. Claudius Arrianus, who were honoured by two phratries as their benefactors, although neither is likely to have been natives of the city (Miranda, nos. 31-2, no text printed). Lucius Herennius Aristos (Miranda, no.30), benefactor of a phratry, had held the offices of demarkhos, laukelarkhes, and arkhon pentaeterikos. L. does not note the connection between the last two offices and the offices held by Seleukos, the son of Seleukos (no. 119, cf. no. 132, where another holder of the laukelarkhia is mentioned). While Herennius possessed the tria nomina, his father had the Greek name, Python. No. 123 and Miranda, no. 9 record dedications by individuals to the gods of their phratry, while No. 124 and Miranda, no. 42 record individual contributions to the phratry buildings. The benefactor in no. 124, C. Herbacius Maecia Romanus, had held several offices, including the demarkhia, which is recorded in a direct transliteration, demarchisanti. Miranda, no. 44 (again not quoted in full) concerns honours paid by a phratry to L. Munatius Hilarianus. The decree is bilingual, and records Munatius’ building work on behalf of the phratry. L. follows other scholars in arguing that the Greek, which appears first, was a translation from the Latin original: “The Greek version has clearly been improved compared to the colloquial Latin original” (p. 155). This argument is far from convincing, and it may be suggested with equal plausibility that the Greek was the original, and that the Latin represents an admittedly colloquial translation on behalf of the phratry-members who could not read Greek. L. also considers some other attestations of the Munatii. No. 126 is a funerary inscription set up by Munatius Hilarianus, who may be the same Hilarianus as in Miranda, no. 44. A late text, ILS 6459, records a L. Munatius Concessianus, vir perfectissimus, demarchus, and patronus coloniae, who is omitted from Jones-Martindale, PLRE. He was given a statue by the regio Herculanensium, possibly created after the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

The final section briefly considers five Latin and seven Greek inscriptions which mention cults and religion (nos. 127-39, pp. 157-64). The inscriptions record dedications to a wide range of deities: Heracles (no. 128), Sebethos (a local river, no. 129), Venus (no. 130), Mithras (no. 131), Hebon (nos. 132-3), the Tyche of Naples (no. 134), phratry gods (nos. 135, 138, cf. Miranda, no. 45), the Dioskouroi (no. 136), and Isis (no. 137). No. 128 records the dedication of an aedicula to Hercules by P. Vergilius Restitutus, who may be (a descendant of) a freedman of the poet. Vergilius had been a demarchus ( honore demarchiae perfunctus). No. 137 concerns the dedication to Isis of a statue of Apollo-Horus-Harpokrates. For the identification of these three deities, see the recent study of W. Fauth, Helios Megistos: zur synkretistischen Theologie der Spätantike (Leiden, 1995). The dedicator of no. 138, Caedicia M. F. Victrix, may possibly be identified with the Caedicia mentioned in Tacitus, Annals 15.71. No. 139 is an inscription from the base of a statue of an ox, belonging to Nympsius and Tertius, but to whom the ox was dedicated is not clear. The dedications show no preference for one language over the other.

The final chapter “Conclusions” (pp. 165-72) summarises the main events in the history of Naples from the foundation to the time of the early empire, and recapitulates the chief literary references to the city (pp. 165-7). The decrees of the council were composed in Greek at least until the late third century A.D. However, the agonistic inscriptions were always composed in Greek. Greek also predominated in phratry inscriptions until the time of the late empire, although one instance of a Latin inscription exists (p. 168). Nearly all the surviving funerary epigrams were composed in Greek (pp. 168-9). Religious dedications, however, demonstrate more flexibility (p. 169). Imperial inscriptions also reflect the predominance of Greek as the official language of the city (pp. 169-70). Of the funerary inscriptions, where Greek and Latin texts are contemporaneous, the Greek tend to follow Latin funerary formulae. Where the tombs with Greek inscriptions are discrete, Greek formulae predominate (p. 170). Latin gradually replaced Greek as the preferred language of funerary texts. The transition never occurred in the case of agonistic and phratry inscriptions, for the institutions to which they related ceased to exist in the late empire. The Greek texts of Naples attest many names and words not otherwise known, “evidence for the creative and living usage of Greek” (p. 171). L. concludes that the population “changed radically in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D.” (p. 171). Before then, the majority of the names were Italic, with a number of seeming-Greek names which were in fact Italic inventions (a conclusion not drawn in the main discussion). From the second century A.D., Latin names come to dominate, partly as a result of migration by the survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum (again scarcely argued for in the main discussion). Many Neapolitans of the empire had Greek cognomina, but this is no proof of Greek ethnicity, for these names were popular throughout Italy (p. 171).

The strength of this monograph lies in the author’s close attention to changes in onomastics, and the use of distinct Greek and Latin formulae. L. has helped to clarify from the point of view of these two categories precisely in what sense Naples could be considered a Greek city under the early empire, and how these Greek traditions gradually died out in late antiquity. The most serious deficiency in the present study is the absence, as mentioned earlier, of a sustained explanation of the Diocletianic reforms. As a result, references to their impact on the city are hard to justify. The other significant omission is the absence of a sustained discussion of the agonistic decrees of the city, which form a distinct genre within the corpus. The provision of photographs and illustrations would certainly have helped to clarify a number of L.’s arguments, such as his discussion of funerary stelae (pp. 70-1). The full title of A. Otto’s monograph of 1890 was Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer and not as recorded here (p. 218); it was reprinted in 1962, not 1964. The first of the two maps (“The old centre of modern Naples”) is of limited use, while the second (“The main streets, churches, and monuments of the old centre”) does not include all the sites mentioned in the text (Chapel of S. Maria delle Grazie, Via Carlo Poerio, is not marked despite the injunction “see map” (p. 97)). There is no overall map of Campania, that includes Pizzofalcone and Puteoli. The study would also have benefitted from the work of a more careful proof-reader, for there are a number of glaring errors, which are scarcely excusable in a monograph published by an eminent institution such as the Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.