11-07-2007, 10:26 PM
It's apparently CIL 06, 01318 = CIL 01, p 192 = CIL 11, *00156,04, which means it was considered false by the editor of CIL 11, and it certainly seems strange to me on first glance.
Bello Samnitium / cum auspicii repe/tendi caussa Romam / redisset atque inte/rim Q(uintus) Fabius Amb[ust(i) f(ilius)] / Maximus mag[ister] / equitum iniu[ssu] / [eiu]s proelio c[onflixisset
as per http://www.yorku.ca/uhistory/courses/41 ... aput_i.htm
I can't think of any parallels for filiation by cognomen rather than praenomen; the Q. Fabius Maximus (Rullianus) who was Master of Horse in the Samnite war was the son of Marcus Fabius Ambustus, so it ought to read "M(arci) F(ilius) [...]/"
Anyhow, the orthography makes it impossible that the inscription is contemporary with the man.
Bello Samnitium / cum auspicii repe/tendi caussa Romam / redisset atque inte/rim Q(uintus) Fabius Amb[ust(i) f(ilius)] / Maximus mag[ister] / equitum iniu[ssu] / [eiu]s proelio c[onflixisset
as per http://www.yorku.ca/uhistory/courses/41 ... aput_i.htm
I can't think of any parallels for filiation by cognomen rather than praenomen; the Q. Fabius Maximus (Rullianus) who was Master of Horse in the Samnite war was the son of Marcus Fabius Ambustus, so it ought to read "M(arci) F(ilius) [...]/"
Anyhow, the orthography makes it impossible that the inscription is contemporary with the man.
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
