CONTENTS
[Preface]
[Introduction]
[Latin Inscriptions]
[Greek Inscriptions]
[English Descriptions]
[Supplement]
[Chronological Table]
[Bibliography]
[Notes]
Vol. V.
No. 1.
Translations and Reprints
FROM THE
Original Sources of European History
MONUMENTUM ANCYRANUM
THE DEEDS OF AUGUSTUS
Edited by William Fairley, Ph.D.
PUBLISHED BY
The Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, Pa., 1898.
English Agency: P. S. KING & SON, 12-14 King Street, London, S. W.
Copyright, 1898,
William Fairley.
PHILADELPHIA
Anvil Printing Company
1898
PREFACE
The method employed in this edition of the Monumentum Ancyranum is suggested by the purpose for which it is intended. That purpose is primarily to adapt it as one of the series of Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, published by the Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania. The English version is the core of the work. At the same time the opportunity has been seized to present the original texts in such form as to be of real philological service. That there is room for such an edition of the Monumentum Ancyranum there can be no doubt. The critical edition published by Mommsen in 1883, Res Gestæ Divi Augusti, must long remain for scholars the sufficient hand-book for the study of the greatest of inscriptions. But that edition, with its Latin notes, is not adapted for ordinary school or college use, or for historical study by those who do not readily use Latin. And although Roman histories constantly refer to this great source for the life and times of Augustus, there has been no accessible English translation. It is true that the English translation of Duruy’s History of Rome contains a version of the Monumentum, but it is not in full accord with the latest text as set forth by Mommsen, and is hidden away in the ponderous volumes of that expensive work.
Aside from Mommsen’s edition of 1883, the only recent edition is a French one of 1886 by C. Peltier. But this is simply a condensation of Mommsen. While the present edition depends very largely on Mommsen’s work, it is more than a condensation. Not only is the English version given, but all the known studies of the text published since 1883, and in criticism of Mommsen, have been collated. The emendations thus suggested have been placed as footnotes to the Latin and Greek texts. Moreover, the notes have been carefully revised. For the most part they are much reduced in compass, but in many cases they are added to; and a large number of typographical errors in Mommsen’s edition have been corrected. Most of these errors were reproduced in the French edition above mentioned. In a work with such a multitude of references it is too much to hope that all errors have been avoided, and the editor will be greatly indebted if users of the book will report them to him.
W. Fairley.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
INTRODUCTION
I. History of the Inscription.
Suetonius in his Life of Augustus tells us that that Emperor had placed in charge of the Vestal virgins his will and three other sealed documents; and the four papers were produced and read in the senate immediately after his death. One of these additional documents gave directions as to his funeral; another gave a concise account of the state of the empire; the third contained a list of “his achievements which he desired should be inscribed on brazen tablets and placed before his mausoleum.” These tablets perished in the decline of Rome. Centuries passed; men had ceased to ask about them, and there was no idea that they would ever be brought to light. Nor were the original tablets ever found. But in 1555 Buysbecche, a Dutch scholar, was sent on an embassy from the Emperor Ferdinand II. to the Sultan Soliman at Amasia in Asia Minor; and a letter of his, published among others at Frankfort in 1595, tells the story of the discovery of a copy of this epitaph of Augustus. He writes: “On our nineteenth day from Constantinople we reached Ancyra. Here we found a most beautiful inscription, and a copy of those tablets on which Augustus had placed the story of his achievements.” From this situation of the copy comes the common title, Monumentum Ancyranum. Buysbecche made some attempt to copy the Latin inscription, but his work was very hasty and incomplete. What he had discovered was of extreme importance, and his report stimulated such interest that European scholars never rested till as complete a copy as possible was finally made in our own time. The temple on whose walls the inscription was found was one dedicated to Augustus and Rome, as was a common custom during the lifetime of that Emperor. It was a hexastyle of white marble, with joints of such exquisite workmanship that even in this century it was difficult to trace some of them. This temple had served as a Christian church till the fifteenth century, and from that time has been part of a Turkish mosque, some sections of its enclosure being used as a cemetery. The great inscription was cut on the two side walls of the pronaos, or vestibule. It was in six pages, three on the left as one entered, and three on the right. Each page contained from forty-two to fifty-four lines, and each line an average of sixty letters. The pages cover six courses of the masonry in height, about 2.70 metres, and the length of the inscription on each wall is about 4 metres. On one of the outer walls of the temple was a Greek translation of the Latin. This measures 1.38 metres in height by 21 metres in length. Several Turkish houses had been built against the wall containing this Greek version, and this made the reading of it, and still more the copying, an extremely difficult task. The priceless value of the Greek version lies in the fact that it supplements in many cases the breaks in the Latin. For it is needless to say that an inscription so old and so exposed has suffered much from time and violence. Various travelers have described the temple and its treasure: Tournefort in his Voyage du Levant, Lyons, 1717; Kinneir, Journey Through Asia Minor, 1818; Texier, Description de l’Asie mineure, Paris, 1839; William Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, London, 1842; and most completely, Guillaume, Perrot and Delbet, in their Exploration archéologique de la Galatie, etc., in 1861, Paris, 1872.
Numerous attempts were made at transcribing the inscription, and a number of editions were published. Buysbecche’s fragments found several editors in the century of their discovery. About a hundred years after him Daniel Cosson, a merchant from Leyden, who had lived many years at Smyrna, dying there in 1689, caused an attempt to be made to secure a copy, and with somewhat better results. His copy was edited at Leyden in 1695. In 1701 Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, under direction of Louis XIV, visited Ancyra, and attempted to secure a facsimile of the text. In 1705 Paul Lucas, also sent by Louis XIV, spent twenty days in copying the Latin, and his work was the last of its kind till the present century. While these early copies are far from being as perfect as more recent ones, they have this value: that in a number of cases they show parts of the inscription which progressive disintegration has now rendered illegible.
The Greek text, owing to the buildings reared against it, was much harder to transcribe. In 1745 Richard Pococke published a few fragments, and in 1832 Hamilton copied pages 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the nineteen into which the Greek is divided.
Within recent years all has been done that can possibly be done to secure perfect copies of both Greek and Latin. In 1859 the Royal Academy of Berlin commissioned a scholar named Mordtmann to secure a papier maché cast of the Latin, and to transcribe the Greek. He failed in both attempts, and declared that the casts would ruin the original.
Napoleon III. commissioned George Perrot and Edmund Guillaume to explore Asia Minor. In their work above mentioned they give a facsimile copy of the whole of the Latin, and of as much of the Greek as they could get at. Their plates were the basis of an edition of the text by Mommsen in 1865, and another by Bergk in 1873, and of the text given in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
But Mommsen and the Berlin Academy were not satisfied. Carl Humann had distinguished himself by his researches at Pergamos, and to him they committed the task of securing casts of the whole of both texts. The story of his achievement is extremely interesting. Difficulty after difficulty was met and surmounted. And finally he succeeded in his plan. With materials dug near-by he made plaster casts. The owners of the Turkish houses he succeeded in inducing to allow their walls to be so far torn away as to permit him to get at the entire Greek text. And finally twenty great cases containing the whole series of casts were sent away on pack mules to the coast and thence to Berlin. The Royal Academy now counts these casts among its chief treasures. This was in 1882. In 1883 Mommsen published his great critical edition of the text, on which this edition is based. His work is almost final on the subject, but especially in the matter of conjectural fillings of the lacunæ is subject to revision. But an inspection of the text as given in this volume will show that we have the words of Augustus almost in their entirety.
At Apollonia, on the borders of Phrygia and Pisidia, has been found another ruined temple, with remnants of the Greek version of this inscription. At Apollonia the inscription originally covered seven pages. Of these there are still legible the upper portions of pages two, three, four and five. The correspondence between the text at Ancyra and that at Apollonia is almost exact, and where there is a divergence, it has been indicated.
II. Character and Purpose of the Inscription.
German scholars have waged a fierce warfare over the question of the literary character of the Res Gestæ, as Mommsen commonly calls it. He himself refrains from assigning it decidedly to any class of composition. Is it epitaph, or a “statement of account,” or “political statement”? Otto Hirschfeld contends strongly it is not an epitaph because it contains no dates of birth or death, and is in the first person. Wölfflin calls it a statement of account. Geppert sides with Hirschfeld. Bormann, Schmidt and Nissen all hold it to be an epitaph. And this appears to be the final agreement. The latest word is the discussion by Bormann, in 1895, in which he still maintains the epitaph view. For these discussions, cf. the bibliography at the end of this volume.
Of course it is an epitaph of unique character. It has certain striking peculiarities, and specially of omission. There is no mention of domestic affairs. The wife of the Emperor is unnamed. Although in enumerating his honors and offices it was necessary to date events by the names of consuls, yet aside from this he mentions no person outside the imperial household, not even such favorites as Mæcenas and Agrippa. His foes, Brutus, Cassius and Antony, are several times alluded to, but never named. The same is true of Lepidus and Sextus Pompeius. Unfortunate events are not noticed. His omission of the disaster to the Roman arms under Varus has been severely criticised as an attempt to deceive; but if the inscription is really an epitaph one cannot wonder at such silence. The omission of the dates of birth and death has been variously explained. Some have thought that he meant his heirs to fill in any such gaps after his death, and to recast the whole into the third person. Or, it has been suggested that it was the desire of Augustus to be counted a divinity, and that therefore he wished to pose as one “without beginning of years, or end of days.” It certainly would be incongruous to record the death of a god. With regard to his general purpose Mommsen says: “No one would look for the arcana of empire in such a document, but for such things as an imperator of mind shrewd rather than lofty, and who skillfully bore the character of a great man while he himself was not great, wished the whole people, and especially the rabble, to believe about him.” Two purposes are manifest throughout the document. One is to pose as a saviour of the state from its foes, and not at all as a seeker after personal aggrandizement; another is to represent his whole authority as having been exercised under constitutional forms. These two ideas appear again and again.
III. Divisions of the Text.
The text may be roughly divided into three sections. Chapters one to fourteen give the various offices held by Augustus, and the honors bestowed upon him; chapters fifteen to twenty-four recount his expenditures for the good of the state and the people; and the remaining chapters, twenty-five to thirty-five, give the statement of his various achievements in war, and his works of a more peaceful character. This classification will not hold rigorously, but is true in the main.
The division into chapters or paragraphs is marked in the Latin text by making the first line of each chapter project a little to the left of the remaining lines. Each such paragraph is relatively complete. And the use of such a topical method marks a new manner of composition quite different from the old annalistic style of Roman historiography.
IV. The Greek Version.
George Kaibel has made a special study of the Greek version, and is led to the opinion that it was made by a Roman rather than by a Greek. It is a grammar and dictionary rendering, rather than the idiomatic work of one quite at home in the use of Greek. This conclusion is based upon linguistic grounds. A further question remains as to where this translation was made, whether at Rome or in the provinces. The fact of the identity of the two copies at Apollonia and at Ancyra would seem to indicate a common Roman source.
V. The Supplement.
This is poorly written both in the Latin and in the Greek; and it is also a very imperfect summary of the document, summing up only what was spent upon games, donations and buildings. The fact that it is in the third person also proves that it is not the work of Augustus. The reckoning by denarii rather than by sesterces points to a Greek origin, and the mention of favors shown by Augustus to provincial towns (cf. c. 4 and notes) would indicate one outside of Rome.
VI. Trustworthiness of the Inscription.
The corroborations of the inscription by other inscriptions, coins and later historians, as well as by allusions in contemporary literature, form an interesting study. And the trustworthiness of the record becomes more manifest the more one compares its statements with those of other writers. Only one point has been found where Augustus makes what might be challenged as a perversion of fact. (Cf. c. 2, note [16].)
VII. Masons’ Blunders.
A number of apparent errors in the text are to be attributed in all probability to the stone-cutters at Ancyra. Such are the superfluous et of Latin ii, 2; aede for aedem, iv, 22; quinquens for quinquiens, iv, 31; ducenti for ducentos, iv, 45; provicias for provincias, v, 11; Tigrane for Tigranem, v, 31. εὔξησα for ἠύξησα, Gr. iv, 8; Ῥωμάοις for Ῥωμαίοις, vii, 6; ὑπατον for ὑπάτων, vii, 15; ἄνδρας μυριάδων for ἀνδρῶν μυριάδας, viii, 8; omission of τρὶς before χειλίας, ix, 13; ἐπεσκευσα for ἐπεσκευάσα, x, 18; omission of ναὸν before ἀγοράν, xi, 10; επεύξησα for ἐπηύξησα, xiv, 4; omission of Ἀρτάξου, xv, 3; μείσζονος for μείζονος, xv, 15; προκατηλειμένας for κατειλημένας, xv, 17; ἐπειταδε for ἐπίταδε, xvi, 11; βασιλεες for βασιλεῖς, xvi, 22; βασιλεις for βασιλεὺς, xvii, 4; ἐπείκειαν for ἐπιείκειαν, xviii, 5; ἀγορᾷ Σεβαστῇ for ἀγορὰ Σεβαστή, xix, 1.
VIII. Signs and Abbreviations.
The Latin and Greek texts are printed in such a way as to give the best idea practicable of their actual condition. Roman numerals denote the pages of the inscription, and the Arabic figures the lines. These numerals and the chapter headings are no part of the inscription. The projection of the first line of each chapter in the Latin is the only method of marking the divisions in the original.
Parts of the Greek and Latin text included within brackets, [], are conjectural restorations of the portions of the inscription which have perished. The Greek generally is a guide to the Latin and vice versa, for the instances are rare where both versions have been lost. The textual notes show that not all scholars have reckoned the same number of missing letters. These variations are quite allowable, for it is impossible to say that just so many letters are missing in any given case, owing to the various sizes of different letters, and varying degrees of closeness of writing.
Where dots (...) occur, it signifies that Mommsen reckons as many letters unrestored as there are dots.
The sign § indicates a mark in the original resembling a figure 7, or a very open 3.
The same sign in brackets [§] indicates an unfilled interval in the stone.
The apices over vowels in the Latin indicate similar marks in the original in the case of a, e, o and u, and in the case of i a prolongation of that letter above the line.
Where certain letters of the Latin text are italicized it indicates that while they do not appear in the plaster casts, yet they were traced by Alfred Domaszewski (a fellow-worker with Humann) on the stone itself, by means of certain discolorations from paint, or gilding, or weather, which marked the bottom of the incisions of the letters in several cases where the surface of the stone had been worn away.
In the textual notes, B. stands for Bormann, G. for Geppert, S. for J. Schmidt, Sk. for Seeck, W. for Wölfflin, Apoll. for the inscription at Apollonia, and Anc. for that at Ancyra.
The abbreviations of the names of authors and their works in the historical notes are indicated in the bibliography at the close of the book.
MONUMENTUM ANCYRANUM.
Rérum gestárum díví Augusti, quibus orbem terra[rum] imperio populi Rom. subiécit, § et inpensarum, quas in rem publicam populumque Ro[ma]num fecit, incísarum in duabus aheneís pílís, quae su[n]t Romae positae, exemplar subectum.
I.
c. 1.
1 Annós undéviginti natus exercitum priváto consilio et privatá impensá
2 comparávi, [§] per quem rem publicam [do]minatione factionis oppressam
3 in libertátem vindicá[vi. Ob quae sen]atus decretis honor[ifi]cis in
4 ordinem suum m[e adlegit C. Pansa A. Hirti]o consulibu[s, c]on[sula]—
5 rem locum s[imul dans sententiae ferendae, et im]perium mihi dedit [§].
6 Rés publica n[e quid detrimenti caperet, me] pro praetore simul cum
7 consulibus pro[videre iussit. Populus] autem eódem anno mé
8 consulem, cum [cos. uterque bello ceci]disset, et trium virum reí publi-
9 cae constituend[ae creavit].
c. 2.
10 Qui parentem meum [interfecer]un[t, eó]s in exilium expulí iudiciís legi-
11 timís ultus eórum [fa]cin[us, e]t posteá bellum inferentis reí publicae
12 víci b[is a]cie.
c. 3.
13 [B]ella terra et mari c[ivilia exter]naque tóto in orbe terrarum s[uscepi]
14 victorque omnibus [superstitib]us cívibus pepercí. § Exte[rnas]
15 gentés, quibus túto [ignosci pot]ui[t, co]nserváre quam excídere m[alui].
16 Míllia civium Róma[norum adacta] sacrámento meo fuerunt circiter [quingen]-
17 ta. § Ex quibus dedú[xi in coloni]ás aut remísi in municipia sua stipen[dis emeri]-
18 tis millia aliquant[um plura qu]am trecenta et iís omnibus agrós a [me emptos]
19 aut pecuniam pró p[raediis a] me dedí. § Naves cépi sescen[tas praeter]
20 eás, si quae minóre[s quam trir]emes fuerunt. §
c. 4.
21 [Bis] ováns triumpha[vi, tris egi c]urulis triumphós et appellá[tus sum viciens
22 se]mel imperátor. [Cum deinde plú]ris triumphos mihi se[natus decrevisset,
23 eis su]persedi [§]. I[tem saepe laur]us deposuí, § in Capi[tolio votis, quae]
24 quóque bello nuncu[paveram, solu]tís. § Ob res á [me aut per legatos]
25 meós auspicís meis terra m[ariqu]e pr[o]spere gestás qu[inquagiens et quin]-
26 quiens decrevit senátus supp[lica]ndum esse dís immo[rtalibus. Dies autem
27 pe]r quós ex senátús consulto upplicátum est, fuere DC[CCLXXXX. In triumphis
28 meis] ducti sunt ante currum m[e]um regés aut r[eg]um lib[eri novem. Consul
29 fuer]am terdeciens, cm [scribeb]a[m] haec, [et agebam se]p[timum et trigensimum annum
30 tribu]niciae potestatis.
c. 5.
31 [Dictatura]m et apsent[i et praesenti mihi datam . . . . . . . a populo et senatu
32 M. Marce]llo e[t] L. Ar[runtio consulibus non accepi. Non recusavi in summa
33 frumenti p]enuri 34 paucis diebu]s metu et perc[lo quo erat populu]m univ[ersum meis impen- 35 sis liberarem]. § Con[sulatum tum dat]um annuum e[t perpetuum non 36 accepi. c. 6. 37 Consulibus M. Vinucio et Q. Lucretio et postea P.] et Cn. L[entulis et tertium 38 Paullo Fabio Maximo et Q. Tuberone senatu populoq]u[e Romano consen- 39 tientibus]. . . . . . . . . . . 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . c. 7. 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 . . . . . [Princeps senatus fui usque ad e eum diem, quo scrips]eram [haec, 45 per annos quadraginta. Pontifex maximus, augur, quindecimviru]m sacris [faciundis, 46 septemvirum epulonum, frater arvalis, sodalis Titius, fetiali]s fui. II. c. 8. 1 Patriciórum numerum auxí consul quintum iussú populi et senátús. § Sena- 2 tum ter légi. et In consulátú sexto cénsum populi conlegá M. Agrippá égí. § 3 Lústrum post annum alterum et quadragensimum féc. § Quó lústro cívi- 4 um Románórum censa sunt capita quadragiens centum millia et sexa- 5 gnta tria millia. [§] [Iteru]m consulari cum imperio lústrum 6 7 cívium Romanóru[m capita] quadragiens centum millia et ducen- 8 ta triginta tria m[illia. Tertiu]m consulári cum imperio lústrum 9 conlegá Tib. Cae[sare filio feci] § Sex. Pompeio et Sex. Appuleio cos. 10 Quó lústro ce[nsa sunt civium Ro]mánórum capitum quadragiens 11 centum mill[ia et nongenta tr]iginta et septem millia. § 12 Legibus noví[s latis complura e]xempla maiorum exolescentia 13 iam ex nost[ro usu reduxi et ipse] multárum rér[um exem]pla imi- 14 tanda pos[teris tradidi. c. 9. 15 Vota pro valetudine mea suscipi per cons]ulés et sacerdotes qu[into] 16 qu[oque anno senatus decrevit. Ex iis] votís s[ae]pe fecerunt vívo 17 me [ludos aliquotiens sacerdotu]m quattuor amplissima collé- 18 [gia, aliquotiens consules. Privat]im etiam et múnicipatim úniversi 19 [cives sacrificaverunt sempe]r apud omnia pulvínária pró vale- 20 [tudine mea. c. 10. 21 Nomen meum senatus consulto inc]lusum est in saliáre carmen et sacrosan- 22 [ctus ut essem ....... et ut q]uoa[d] víverem, tribúnicia potestás mihi 23 [esset, lege sanctum est. Pontif]ex maximus ne fierem in víví [c]onle- 24 [gae locum, populo id sace]rdotium deferente mihi, quod pater meu[s 25 habuit, recusavi. Cepi id] sacerdotium aliquod post annós eó mor- 26 [tuo qui civilis motus o]ccasione occupaverat [§], cuncta ex Italia 27 [ad comitia mea .... tanta mu]ltitudine, quanta Romae nun[q]uam 28 [antea fuisse fertur, coeunte] P. Sulpicio C. Valgio consulibu c. 11. 29 [Aram Fortunae reduci iuxta? ae]dés Honoris et Virtutis ad portam 30 [Capenam pro reditu meo se]nátus consacravit, in qua ponti- 31 [fices et virgines Vestales anni]versárium sacrificium facere 32 [iussit die, quo consulibus Q. Luc]retio et [M. Vinuci]o in urbem ex 33 [Syria redi, et diem Augustali]a ex [c]o[gnomine nost]ro appellavit. c. 12. 34 [Senatus consulto eodem tempor]e pars [praetorum et tri]bunorum 35 [plebi cum consule Q. Lucret]io et princi[pi]bus [viris ob]viam mihi 36 mis 37 ter [m]e es[t decretus. Cu]m ex H[ispa]niá Gal[liaque, rebus in his p]rovincís prosp[e]- 38 re [gest]i 39 [Pácis A]u[g]ust[ae senatus pro] redi[t]ú meó co[nsacrari censuit] ad cam- 40 [pum Martium, in qua ma]gistratús et sac[erdotes et virgines] V[est]á[les 41 anniversarium sacrific]ium facer[e iussit. c. 13. 42 Ianum] Quirin[um, quem cl]aussum ess[e maiores nostri voluer]unt, 43 [cum p]er totum i[mperium po]puli Roma[ni terra marique es]set parta vic- 44 [torii]s pax, cum pr[ius, quam] náscerer, 45 [f]uisse prodátur m[emori]ae, ter me princi[pe senat]us claudendum esse censui[t. c. 14. 46 Fil]ios meos, quós iuv[enes mi]hi eripuit for[tuna], Gaium et Lucium Caesares III. 1 honoris mei caussá senatus populusque Romanus annum quíntum et deci- 2 mum agentís consulés designávit, ut [e]um magistrátum inírent post quín- 3 quennium. Et ex eó die, quó deducti 4 publicis decrevit sena[t]us. § Equites [a]utem Románi universi principem 5 iuventútis utrumque eórum parm[is] et hastís argenteís donátum ap- 6 pelláverunt. § c. 15. 7 Plebei Románae viritim HS trecenos numeravi ex testámento patris 8 meí, § et nomine meo HS quadringenos ex bellórum manibiís consul 9 quintum dedí, iterum autem in consulátú decimo ex [p]atrimonio 10 meo HS quadringenos congiári viritim pernumer[a]ví, § et consul 11 undecimum duodecim frúmentátiónes frúmento prvatim coémpto 12 emensus sum, [§] et tribuniciá potestáte duodecimum quadringenós 13 nummós tertium viritim dedí. Quae mea congiaria p[e]rvenerunt 14 ad [homi]num millia nunquam minus quinquáginta et ducenta. § 15 Tribu[nic]iae potestátis duodevicensimum consul XII trecentís et 16 vigint millibus plebís urbánae sexagenós denariós viritim dedí. § 17 In colons militum meórum consul quintum ex manibiís viritim 18 millia nummum singula dedi; acceperunt id triumphale congiárium 19 in colo[n]ís hominum circiter centum et viginti millia. § Consul ter- 20 tium decmum sexagenós denáriós plebeí, quae tum frúmentum publicum 21 accipieba[t] dedi; ea millia hominum paullo plúra quam ducenta fuerunt. c. 16. 22 Pecuniam [pro] agrís, quós in consulátú meó quárto et posteá consulibus 23 M. Cr[asso e]t Cn. Lentulo augure adsignávi militibus, solví múnicipís. Ea 24 25 praed[is] numeravi, § et ci[r]citer bis mill[ie]ns et sescentiens, quod pro agrís 26 próvin[c]ialibus solví. § Id primus et 27 colonias militum in Italiá aut in provincís, ad memoram aetátis 28 meae feci. Et postea Ti. Nerone et Cn. Pisone consulibus, [§] item[q]ue C. Antistio 29 et D. Laelio cos., et C. Calvisio et L. Pasieno consulibus, et L. Le[ntulo et] M. Messalla 30 consulibus, § et L. Cánínio [§] et Q. Fabricio co[s.] milit[ibus, qu]ós eme-ólus féci C. Censorin[o et C.] Asinio cos. § Quó lústro censa sunt §.a e[st in Campan]ia[m, qui] honos [ad hoc tempus] nemini prae-, R[omam redi] Ti. Ne[r]one P. Qui[ntilio consulibu]s [§], áramunt in forum, ut interessent consiliisu[mma sest]ertium circiter sexsiens milliens fuit, quam [p]ró Italicísolus omnium, qui [d]edúxerunt