Reading a Damaged Inscription: The Fragmentary Dedication of a Roman Benefactor
A student is analysing a fragmentary Latin inscription from a provincial town, dated by letter forms to roughly the early second century CE. Three lines survive. Line 1 reads '...]o · patrono · [', line 2 reads '...] qui · thermas · de · sua · pec[', and line 3 reads '...] HS · CCL · et · epulum · ded[', with the remainder broken away. The student's draft essay claims the inscription proves the man paid 250,000 sesterces to build the baths and gave a public banquet. The teacher notes that the abbreviation 'HS' can denote sesterces but the numeral is partly reconstructed, that 'de sua pecunia' means 'from his own money' without specifying an amount, and that the subject of the verbs is inferred from a lost nominative. A second, near-identical inscription from the same town records a different man with the same phrase and a numeral of 'HS · CCL' followed by 'ob honorem'.
1. Using the surviving text and the comparandum, evaluate whether the student's claim about the amount and the purpose is justified.
Read the worked answer
The claim is only partly justified and needs qualification.
What the text supports. 'patrono' indicates the man was a patron, and 'de sua pecunia' plainly states the spending was from his own funds, so private benefaction is secure. 'thermas' confirms baths were the object, and 'epulum ded[it]' supports a banquet.
What it does not support. The numeral sits in a broken line, so 'HS · CCL' is at best a reconstruction; the figure cannot be asserted as fact. More importantly, 'de sua pecunia' does not attach a sum to the baths, and the placement of the numeral after the banquet phrase in the comparandum suggests the money may relate to the honour or banquet rather than construction costs.
Reasoning move. The examiner rewards distinguishing what is read from what is restored. The student should say the inscription attests patronage and euergetism, probably records a sum, and cannot fix the amount to the baths without the lost lines.
2. The comparandum uses 'ob honorem'. Explain how this phrase changes the interpretation of the benefaction and what further evidence you would seek.
Read the worked answer
'ob honorem' means 'on account of the honour', normally an office or priesthood. In civic inscriptions this phrase usually marks a summa honoraria - a payment made on entering a magistracy or priesthood - or a voluntary gift offered in gratitude for the honour rather than a straightforward construction contract.
If the comparandum's 'HS · CCL' follows 'ob honorem', the money is likely tied to the honour, not to building baths. The student's inscription may therefore record a man who funded baths and separately paid a sum connected with an honour, or who paid the honour-sum and gave a banquet. The two are not the same act.
Further evidence: the lost nominative and any 'IIvir' or 'flamen' title in the missing lines; the full numeral; the findspot (public forum or tomb) since funerary inscriptions use different formulae; and the town's epigraphic habit, because local conventions govern whether sums are stated for buildings. Without these, the safest reading is that the man was a patron who spent his own money on baths and a banquet, with the sum unresolved.