Edition:
| | |
|
n
|
|
1
|
Biccus
dat M-
|
n
|
|
2
|
ercurio
quidquid
|
n
|
|
3
|
pe(r)d(id)it
si vir si m-
|
|
|
4
|
ascel
ne meiat
|
|
|
5
|
ne
cacet ne loqua-
tur ne dormiat
|
|
|
6
|
n[e]
vigilet nec s[a]-
|
|
|
7
|
[l]utem
nec sa-
|
|
|
8
|
nitatem
ne-
|
|
|
9
|
ss[i]
in templo
|
|
|
10
|
Mercurii
per-
tulerit
ne co(n)-
|
|
|
11
|
scientiam
de
|
|
|
12
|
perferat
ness[i]
|
n
|
|
13
|
me
interceden-
|
|
|
14
|
te
|
Diplomatic:
| | |
|
|
|
1
|
biccus
datm
|
|
|
2
|
ercurio
quidquid
|
|
|
3
|
pedit
siuirsi m
|
|
|
4
|
ascelnemaiet
|
|
|
5
|
necacet
neloqua
turnedormiat
|
|
|
6
|
n.uigiletnecs.
|
|
|
7
|
.uteninecsa
|
|
|
8
|
nitatemne
|
|
|
9
|
ssa
intemplo
|
|
|
10
|
mercurii
per
tulerit neco
|
|
|
11
|
scientiamde
|
|
|
12
|
perferat
ness.
|
|
|
13
|
meinterceden
|
|
|
14
|
te
|
Commentary:
View the line notes
|
Biccus
gives Mercury whatever he has lost (that the thief), whether man or male (sic),
may not urinate nor defecate nor speak nor sleep nor stay awake nor [have]
well-being or health, unless he bring (it) in the temple of Mercury; nor gain
consciousness (sic) of (it) unless with my intervention.
|
Author: Biccus
Authority: Roger Tomlin
Publications: Britannia 19 (1988) 485-6, no 2
Keywords:
Description:
Rounded oblong cut from sheet lead, measuring 66 x 124mm, folded. Published in Britannia 19 (1988) 485-6, no 2. Inscribed short-axis with sixteen lines of ‘rustic capitals’, lines 1-12 with a blunt point (W profile), lines 12-16 (from ne) with a sharp point (V profile), by the same hand throughout. There are patches of corrosion, especially at the edges, but the text is well preserved.
The text is full of half-understood formulas (noted below), as might be expected from all the evidence of faulty transcription. There are three copying mistakes, pe(r)d(id)it (line 3), maiet (line 4), nessa (lines 9-10); and the use of quidquid (line 2) may be due to mechanical copying of a formulary. Ne taceat may have been omitted after ne loquatur; there is certainly an omission after de (line 13), and probably of habeat in line 9 and of a subject (the thief) for the string of verbs. The formula si vir si mascel (lines 3-4) is confused, and like the malapropism co(n)scientia (lines 12-13) raises the question of whether the scribe understood what he was writing. Yet his hand is practised and implies a good standard of literacy. His language also contains traces of the Vulgar, spoken Latin, in nessi (lines 9-10, 14), co(n)scientia (lines 12-13), and in the inept use of in (line 10) and de (line 13). By implication, therefore, he was familiar with Latin both written and spoken; but he was handling formulas he only half understood, or which perhaps were too familiar to retain much meaning.