2         

QVAENM: the tail of Q is unusually long and might belong to a lost L; there is a possible space after N, but no sign of any lost letter; the final M is damaged. Otherwise the reading is certain, but it makes no sense, nor does the easiest restoration, quaen(a)m. The context demands a patronymic (cf. Tab. Sulis 10.2) or a verb like queritur, but neither can be discerned here. In any case, the syntax is faulty, there being no main verb of which Varianus (etc.) would be the subjects.

3-4         

Three common Latin cognomina.

4         

pecori: with its elaborate serif, P superficially resembles B. The ‘beast’ might be sheep, goat, pig, or bovine. Unpublished tablets refer to the theft of wool and cows.

5-6         

dolum malum intulerunt: the phrase has not occurred previously on a curse tablet, but enough survives of the dotted letters not to doubt the reading, and dolus malus is a common legal phrase (see Vocabularium Iurisprudentiae Romanae (1933), s.v. dolus). It is thus in keeping with the quasi-legal language of British curse tablets (see Tab. Sulis, pp.70-71). This tablet, however, is unusual in not being inspired by theft. The ‘harm’ done is not specified (unless in 6-7), but was presumably an ailment blamed on persons known to bear Docilinus a grudge, whether it was thought to be due to poison or to witchcraft. (The word venenum, ‘poison’, covers both senses, and reminds us that the distinction was not necessarily made.)

6-7         

INT.RR[.] prolocuntur: this phrase surely amplifies or explains the ‘harm’ done, which makes its obscurity unfortunate. The first word(s) is damaged by corrosion. PRO is to be taken with LOCVNTVR, since a passive locuntur (‘are placed’) is inappropriate to a complaint of the villainy of Varianus (etc.); instead, this is easily taken as a ‘Vulgar’ spelling of proloquuntur (‘are pronouncing’), cf. com[o] (quomodo) and cus (quis) (Tab. Sulis, p. 76). The preceding word(s) is most easily restored as in t[e]rr[a] (‘on earth’ or ‘in earth’), but the phrase in terra proloqui seems to be unparalleled. Possibly it was a technical term, used of casting a magic spell.

8         

max[i]mo [le]to adigas: this formula is otherwise found only in Tab. Sulis 10.10-12, where the text must now be restored as ut [e]um dea Sulis maximo letum (an error for leto) [a]digat.

8-10         

For the interdiction of health and sleep until restitution is made, see Tab. Sulis, pp. 65-6.

11ff         

The formula(?) has not occurred before, but the idea of ‘buying back’ with one’s blood a ‘gift’ (of thief, or object stolen) is common: see Tab. Sulis, p. 66, s.v. redemat. 11 and 12 are both damaged by corrosion, but the traces are sufficient for the restoration proposed. The tenses could be future perfect or perfect subjunctive; see Tab. Sulis, pp. 69-70.