The Info List - Duenos Inscription

--- Advertisement ---

(i) (i)

The DUENOS INSCRIPTION is one of the earliest known Old Latin texts, variously dated from the 7th to the 5th century BC. It is inscribed on the sides of a _kernos _, in this case a trio of small globular vases adjoined by three clay struts. It was found by Heinrich Dressel in 1880 on the Quirinal Hill in Rome
. The _kernos_ belongs to the Staatliche Museen in Berlin
(inventory no. 30894,3).

The inscription is written right to left in three units, without spaces to separate words. It is difficult to translate, as some letters are hard to distinguish, particularly since they cannot always be deduced by context. The absence of spaces causes additional difficulty in assigning the letters to the respective words.


* 1 Text and translations * 2 Notes * 3 Epigraphic note * 4 Site of the find

* 5 Overview of the linguistic research

* 5.1 First section * 5.2 Juridical note on the matrimonial sponsio * 5.3 The second section * 5.4 Cosmis

* 6 References * 7 Further reading


There have been many proposed translations advanced by scholars since the discovery of the _kernos_; by 1983, more than fifty different explanations of the meaning had been put forward. Due to the lack of a large body of archaic Latin, and the method by which Romans abbreviated their inscriptions, scholars have not been able to produce a singular translation that has been accepted by historians as accurate. However thanks to Gordon's work the reading of the text can be now considered certain.

Below is the transcription and one of many possible interpretations: a. the direct transcription b. direct transcription with possible macrons and word breaks c. a speculative interpretation and translation into Classical Latin d. an English translation of that transcription, interpretation and translation.

LINE 1: a. IOVESATDEIVOSQOIMEDMITATNEITEDENDOCOSMISVIRCOSIED b. iouesāt deivos qoi mēd mitāt, nei tēd endō cosmis vircō siēd c. Iurat deos qui me _mittit_, ni in te (= _erga te_) comis virgo sit d. _The person who sends me prays to the gods, lest the girl be not kind towards thee_

LINE 2: a. ASTEDNOISIOPETOITESIAIPAKARIVOIS b. as(t) tēd noisi o(p)petoit esiāi pākā riuois c. at te (...) paca rivis d. _without thee (...) calm with rivers_

LINE 3: a. DVENOSMEDFECEDENMANOMEINOMDVENOINEMEDMALOSTATOD b. duenos mēd fēced en mānōm einom duenōi nē mēd malo(s) statōd c. Bonus me fecit in manum _einom_ bono, ne me malus (tollito, clepito) d. _A good man made me in his own?? hands for a good man, in case an evil man take me._

An interpretation set out by Warmington and Eichner, renders the complete translation as follows, though not with certainty: 1. _It is sworn with the gods, whence I'm issued:_ _If a maiden does not smile at you,_ 2. _nor is strongly attracted to you,_ _then soothe her with this fragrance!_ 3. _Someone good has filled me for someone good and well-mannered,_ _and not shall I be obtained by someone bad._


_Duenos_ is an older form of the Latin
word _bonus_, meaning "good", just as _bellum_ ("war") is from Old Latin _duellum_. Some scholars posit Duenos as a proper name, instead of merely an adjective.

The Praenestine fibula is thought by some to be the earliest surviving evidence of the Latin
language dating to the 7th century BC, but has been alleged by Margherita Guarducci to have been a well-informed hoax; however, the evidence is only circumstantial and there are no clear indications pointing to a forgery. Although these claims have been disproven, as a new analysis performed in 2011 declared it to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt".


The inscription (CIL I 2nd 2, 4) is scratched along the side of the body of three vases made of dark brown _bucchero_, connected with each other by short cylindric arms. It is written from right to left spiralling downwards about 1 and 1/2 times. The letters are written upside down for a reader who looks at the inscription from a level position: this has been explained by Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi as due to the fact that the inscription was meant to be read from an above, not a sideways position. Some letters are written in an archaic fashion that appears influenced by Greek. There are signs of corrections in the two C or K of 'PAKARI' and 'FECED' and in the L of 'MALOS'. Three distinct sections are individuated by spaces after 'SIED' and 'VOIS'. There are neither spaces delimiting words nor signs of interpunction. The earliest interpunction to appear was syllabic. As it appeared only in the 7th century, the inscription should be more ancient.

The inscription is made up by two distinct parts or sections, the second one beginning with the word 'DUENOS'. It was found in a votive deposit (_favissa_). It belongs to the kind known as _speaking inscriptions_, widely in use in archaic times. Some scholars consider the object to be of good quality and reflecting the high social status of the owner. Other consider it common.


_The following sections are mainly based on Osvaldo Sacchi's article "Il trivaso del Quirinale" appeared in_ Revue Interantionale de Droit de l'Antiquité _2001 pp. 277-344_.

The vase was bought from an antiquarian by Heinrich Dressel shortly after its find. It was discovered in 1880 by workers who were digging to lay the foundation of a building near the newly opened Via Nazionale, in the valley between the Quirinal and the Viminal hills, precisely on the South slope of the Quirinal near the church of S. Vitale. Dressel was told the place was supposed to have been a burial site.

Archeologist Filippo Coarelli has advanced the hypothesis that the object might have been placed in the votive deposit of one of the temples of goddess Fortuna dedicated by king Servius Tullius , perhaps the one known as _ Fortuna Publica_ or _Citerior_, i.e. located on the side of the Quirinal near to Rome. Her festival recurred on the _nonae_ of April (April 5). However June 11, the festival day of the Matralia , which was originally devoted to _Mater Matuta_, was also the day of the _ Fortuna Virgo_, ritually associated with the passage of girls from adolescence into adulthood and married life.


The antiquity of the document is generally acknowledged. The language shows archaic characters in morphology, phonetics and syntax. The absence of _u_ after _q_ would testify to its greater antiquity comparatively to the inscription of the _cippus_ of the Forum , also known as Lapis Niger (CIL I 1).


For the sake of convenience of interpretation, the text is usually divided into two sections, the first one containing the first two units and ending with 'PAKARIVOIS'. The two sections show a relative syntactic and semantic independence.

Many attempts have been made at deciphering the text.

In the 1950s the inscription had been interpreted mainly on the basis of (and in relation to) the supposed function of the vases, considered either as containers for a love philter or of beauty products: the text would then mockingly threaten the owner about his behaviour towards the vase itself or try to attract a potential buyer. This is the so-called erotic line of interpretation which found supporters until the eighties.

During the 1960s Georges Dumézil proposed a new line of thought in the interpreting of the text. He remarked the inconsistency of the previous interpretations both with the solemnity of the opening formula ("_Iovesat deivos qoi med mitat_": "He swears for the gods who sends /delivers me") and with the site of the find. Dumezil's interpretation was: "If it happens that the girl is not nice to you/ has no easy relationship with you ("_nei ted endo cosmis virco sied_"="_ne in te (=erga te) cosmis virgo sit_"), we shall have the obligation of bringing her and you into good harmony, accord, agreement ("_asted noisi...pakari vois_"="_at sit nobis...pacari vobis_"). The transmission of the object would be expressed by the words _qoi med mitat_. The story mirrored in the text would thus depict a custom deeply rooted in Roman society that is described by Plautus in the scene of the Menaechmi in which the _tutor_ of the _virgo_ or his representatives formally give a suretyship about her attitude towards a man.

Dumézil's interpretation though was fraught with linguistic problems. Apart from the value of the 'I' before 'OPE', which he considered meaningless or an error of the incisor, the only possible meaning of _ope_ in Latin
is _by the power or force of_ and it governs a word in the genitive case. Thence the only governing word could be the group 'TOITESIAI': this would then be an exception to the rule of the genitive of the themes in '-a', which does not end in '-as' as expected, an archaism perhaps in Dumezil's view. 'TOITEISIAI' would then denote the means by which the 'nois(i)', we, would have the authority of establishing peace between the 'vois' you (the couple) of the main relationship justifying the delivery of the vase. Dumezil thinks of the involvement of more than one _tutor_ for each party in order to explain the two plurals 'nois(i)' and 'vois'. Lastly the ending 'ESIAI' presents difficulties. It might derive from an archaic '-e-s-la' as proposed by H. Osthoff in the formation of Latin
abstract names with an assimilation of the liquid into an 'i'. Another possibility would be to interpret the suffix '-ela' as '-e-la', i.e. as a female derivation of an ancient neuter '-el' attested in Hittite. This would entail admitting the incisor made two errors.

Antonino Pagliaro understood the word 'TOITESIAI' as an adjective from noun _tutela_, _ope tuteria_, i.e. _ope tutoria_ in classical Latin: the word would thence be an attribute in the ablative.

Dumézil's contribution and the location of the find gave researchers grounds to pursue their work of interpretation in the same direction, i.e. of its significance as a token of legal obligation. The efforts have centred on deciphering of the last segment of the first section, 'ASTED...PAKARIVOIS'.

As already mentioned above, the cult of _ Fortuna Virgo_, celebrated on the day of the Matralia , was related to the role of girls who became married women. The passage saw girls as completely passive subjects both during the archaic period and great part of the republican: the matrimonial exchange was conducted, as far as legally relevant profiles were concerned, by the subjects who had _potestas_ on the woman and by the future husband (or he/those who had _potestas_ over him). This is testified by the fact the _virgo_ had no right of pronouncing the _nupta verba_.

The passage which presents the greatest difficulties is the central group of letters 'IOPETOITESIAI' in the string 'ASTED...VOIS'. Proposed interpretations include: _iubet_ orders for IOPET; _futuitioni_ sexual intercourse for IOPETOI, the cut TOI/TESIAI or OITES/IAI so that 'OPE' be the only recognisable Latin

Dumézil attributes a peculiar semantic value to the syllabic group 'TOITESIAI': a moral instrument that is nothing else than a form of the power the males of a family group (father, tutors) exercised on a girl, i.e. a variant or alteration of the word _tutelae_, similar to _tu(i)tela_. Since this interpretation has been proposed no critic has been able to disprove it. Authoritative scholars on the grounds of the lexeme _toitesiai_ have proposed a theonym (Coarelli), a feminine proper name Tuteria (Peruzzi, Bolelli), or even a _gentilicium_, the gens Titur(n)ia (Simon and Elboj) mentioned by Cicero.

In the nineties, two further contributions have discussed once again the interpretation of the second part of the first grapheme, particularly morpheme _toitesiai_. Even though doubts have been cast over its correspondence with the technical Roman legal word _tutela_, Dumezil's intuition of recognising in the destination of the vase a juridical function, namely a matrimonial _sponsio_, was accepted and taken on.

G. Pennisi reconstructs the text as follows: "_Iovesat deivos qoi med mitat: nei ted cosmis virgo sied ast ednoisi opetoi pakari vois. Duenos med feced en manom einom duenoi ne med malos tatod_". Segment 'EDNOISI' is deciphered recurring to Homeric έεδνα in the meaning of nuptial gifts and the speaking token would be a marriage compact or promise by a young man in love to a girl to whom the vase is presented as a gift. The inscription would thence exhibit an oath structure consisting in an archaic form of _coemptio _: "Swears for the gods he who buys me": _mitat = *emitat_ (the future bridegroom would be speaking in the third person). Then passing to the second person the compact would be set out in the second line by the offering of the nuptial gifts as a guarantee. The third line would complete the legal formula of the compact (_Duenos / ne med malos tatod_). Leo Peppe has proposed to interpret the inscription as a primitive form of matrimonial _coemptio_ different from that presented in Gaius
, consisting in a cumulative acceptance that included both the legal aspects concerning the transmission of the dotal assets and the religious ones inherent in the matrimonial cults and rites.

F. Marco Simon and G. Fontana Elboj (autopsy) confirmed the interpretation of the previous proposals that see in the vase the symbol of a marriage compact. The authors ground their interpretation on the segment 'OITESIAI' instead of 'TOITESIAI'. They therefore identified a root *o-it (composed by prefix *o and lexem *i-, cf. Latin
_eo_) related to classic Latin
_utor_, and suffix -esios/a (cf. _Valesios_ of the Lapis Satricanus and _Leucesie_ of the carmen Saliare ). The substantive _oitesiai_ would be thus related to the semantic field of _utor_ i.e. the concept of _utilitas_. Therefore, the text should be divided as: _asted noisi; opet otesiai pakari vois_. _Opet_ would be an articulatory fusion between the dative _opi_ and conjunction _et_. The whole text should thus be understood as: _Ni erga te virgo comis sit, asted nobis; (iurat) opi et utilitati pangi vois_, "if the girl is not to your taste/agreeable to you, let her go back to us; (he swears) to give you guarantee about your disturb and your interest". The segment _oitesiai_ could be also understood as _utensilium_ referred to the vase itself as a token of suretiship or _usus _ in the technical legal sense of Roman marriage as a way of providing a guarantee. The last two hypotheses are however considered unacceptable by the authors on the grounds that no genitive marker is to be found in the segment _oitesiai_. The proposed interpretation would find support in its strict analogy with a passage of Terentius 's Hecyra (vv. 136–151), in which a story similar to that supposedly recorded on the vase is described. The text would thus be the undertaking of an obligation concerning the eventuality that the girl go back to her family of origin, should she be not liked by the bridegroom (_asted endo cosmis virco sied, asted noisi_).

Even after the last two contributions related above, Sacchi acknowledges that all attempts at interpreting the segment 'AST...VOIS' remain conjectural.

Dumezil's hypothesis of a protoform of tutela, though attractive and plausible, remains as yet unconfirmed.


Although there are still obscure points in the interpretation of line two, it is generally accepted that the text contains the formula of an oath. On the archaic oath and its juridical value there is large agreement among scholars. It looks also probable that the object should have a religious implication: an instrument permeated by religious ritualism as the oath could well be employed in legal practice at the time of the object, as seems supported by linguistic analysis. The usage of the oath in archaic times as an instrument of private civil law could have been widespread, even though the issue has not yet been thoroughly analysed. Even though in the inscription there is no segment directly reminiscent of the dialogic formula of the _sponsio_, i.e. "_spondes tu...?_", "_spondeo!_", internal and external evidence allow the assumption of the enactment of a matrimonial _sponsio_. Such a usage of oaths is attested in later literary sources.

Besides the trace of a _sponsio_ as the legal function of the object, Dumézil would also see that of providing a piece evidence, i.e. a probatory attitude. Servius in his commentary to the _Aeneid_ writes that, before the introduction of the matrimonial tablets, in Latium the parties used to exchange tokens of pledge (_symbola_) on which they stated as a promise that they agreed to the marriage and nominated guarantors (_sponsores_). To the same time of the regal period is ascribed the introduction of the Greek use of double scriptures, _tesserae_.

The sponsio is one of the most ancient forms of verbal undertaking of obligation and its religious nature is acknowledged, as well as its connection with betrothal. The ancient sources are in agreement that the archaic _sponsalia_ had a religious nature.

Brent Vine's study which focuses on the linguistic analysis of the word _MITAT_ of the first sentence and of the segment 'EN()MANOMEINOM' of the third lends support to such an interpretation: he argues that _mitat_ would be a form of a frequentative verb _mitare_ based on a past participle in -_to_ of an IE root _*meɨ̯_, with the meaning of 'exchange'. Semantically this frequentative should be considered factitive, thence arriving at a verb that would mean 'to cause to be given in exchange', hence 'to give (in exchange)'. Vine's analysis of the segment 'EN()MANOMEINOM' fits the hypothesis of an exchange of _symbola_ equally well. He argues that a word (M)EINOM could be isolated on the grounds of the single spelling of geminates which is considered normal by linguists for the archaic period. This he proposes to understand as reflecting a substantivised _*méi̯-no-_, meaning 'something given in exchange, gift' from the same root _*mei̯_ as in 'MITAT'. This form would be a -_no_ substantive, a widely attested formation and may be presupposed by Latin
_mūnus -eris_ 'duty, service, office, offering' from immediate antecedent _*mói̯-n-es-_. The appearance of _mitat_ and _(m)einom_ show a semantic contiguity and may constitute a figura etymologica . This allitterative form would be analogous to the Old Latin phrase _donum do_, _donum_ being formed exactly in the same way as supposed for _(m)einom_ (_*déh3-no-_). _*Meinom mito_ would have existed beside _donum do_ both referring to similar but culturally distinct behaviours, the first one perhaps "specifically involving exchange/reciprocity".

The document raises also the question of the kind of the marriage in question, and specifically of whether it was with or without _manus _. Dumézil supported the thesis of a marriage without loss the independent status of the woman (_sine capitis deminutio_). In the last case it should be admitted that in archaic times a form of marriage existed in which the _sponsio_ was directly linked to the _nuptiae_, independently from the initial constitution of the _manus_. The _sponsalia_ would then be the occasion upon which the legal subjects defined the compacts concerning the juridical and economic aspects of the marriage: the dowry, the future legal status of the woman who could be put under the _potestas/tutela_ of one or more persons, the compensations for a passage of status of the woman and the guarantees for breach of promise. Two strata were perhaps present as testified by the expression _more atque iure_ of Gellius.

Then the object in question could well have been deposited in a temple upon the occasion of a marriage ritual as a probatory document of an engagement undertaken not by the girl but by her _sponsor_. The compact would be also a legal guarantee of the rights of the future bridegroom.


The most relevant issue for the interpretation of the document in Sacchi's view is the meaning the lexical couple 'DUENOS/DUENOI'. The meaning of _Duenos_ has been often considered to be the name of the craftsman who made the object. Such an interpretation meets with the difficulty of how to explain the second occurrence of the word and with the problem of how to interpret 'MANOM', since if _Duenos_ is a name identifying a person and qualifying him as 'good' then it would difficult to understand the use of 'manom' in the same sense of good. It should be easier to understand 'manom' as hand 'manum', i.e. reading: "Duenos made me with his own hands".

Sacchi, following Palmer and Colonna, proposes to interpret the couple as conveying a specifically technical religious and legal meaning as is testified in ancient sources. _Duenos_ has given classic Latin
_bonus_, good, but originally the adjective had certainly religious and sacral implications: in the oldest sacral formulae it had a more technical acception and the repetition had other implications than just eurhythmy. Colonna refers to the formula _optumus duonorum_ of the mid republic which was a qualificative formula with sacral implication reserved to the upper classes. Correspondences are the opposition of the epithets _Optimus_ and _Maximus_ of Capitoline Jupiter, the early Faliscan _Titia_ inscription _Eco quton euotenosio titias duenom duenas. Salu(...)voltene_ interpreted as 'good among the good', the epitaph of Lucius Cornelius Scipio , the consul of 259 BC, _duonoro(m) optumo(m)... viro(m)_ in which clearly the adjective 'duonus' is not the synonym of _optumus_, that as derived from _ops_, plenty, has different semantic connotations. Colonna also reminds that "in the carmen Saliare (similarly to the Duenos vase) _bonus (duonus)_ and _manus_ occur together, both referred to the same character, the god _Cerus_, fact that makes their synonymity implausible". In order to further clarify the use of the adjective in the text, Sacchi makes reference also to a well-known passage of Cicero's _De Legibus_ II 9, 22: _Deorum Manium iura sancta sunto. (B)onos leto datos divos habento..._. Here too as in the above two instances "one can remark the opposition between _Manium_, that, as shown in Paulus exc. Festi, originally meant 'the good ones' and the qualificative (B)onos = Duenos as referred to the deified dead (= _divos_). Cicero here relates a pontifical prescription of high antiquity consciously preserving the original wise of expression and lexic". In other words one could argue that it is not meant that the _dii Manes _ become 'good' in the ethic sense, but rather that the dead consecrated to death according to the pontifical prescriptions (_leto datos_) do become gods (= _divos_). The epithet _duenos_ would then design that which has been given in homage, consecrated correctly according to the pontifical ritual.

Sacchi opines that in the case of the Duenos inscription the speaker is acting according to the religious legal ritual, presumably enacting a private consecratio : the formula of the dedication is then a case of private _dedicatio dis_, dedication to the gods. The epithet _duenos_ should therefore be interpreted as used in its original technical sense. The restitution of the text should thus be: "A party acting in the way sanctioned by religious law made/consecrated me for a good end. That no harm/fraud be done to me and to one who is a party (equally) religiously sanctioned by the gods". The vase is a speaking token that after the celebration of the ritual consecrates the content of the action, of which it is "the form in its probatory function and the matter as a constituent element".

Vine quotes German authors who still follow the erotic thread of interpretation. They think of the vase as a container for beauty products and interpret the last phrase NEMEDMALOSTATOD as: "let no evil person steal me". "STATOD would be a form of a Latin
verb *_stare_ that failed to survive for its " _homonymie fâcheuse_ with the ordinary verb for 'stand' ", as found in Hittite _tāyezzi_ steals, Vedic _stená-stāyú_ thief.

Both Sacchi and Vine remark the striking parallelism between the formula of the Duenos inscription: QOIMED MITAT and the inscription on a pedestal (probably of a votive statue) from Tibur : HOI()MED()MITAT...DNOM()PRO()FILEOD. Vine finds in it support for his interpreting of (M)EINOM as meaning _munus_.


Sacchi rejects the interpretation of _cosmis_ as _agreeable_ in the first section that is traditionally accepted in the scholarly literature, on the grounds of considerations of history of the language and semantics. He proposes to interpret the term as referring to the peculiar style of hairdressing of brides, known as _seni crines_ which would find support in Festus: "Comptus id est ornatus...qui apud nos comis: et comae dicuntur capilli cum aliqua cura compositi", "Comptus i. e. adorned... what we call _comis_; and _comae_ is named the hair dressed with a certain care". In the inscription the use of this word would be an explicit allusion to the fact that the girl shall be ready to marry. Festus gives it as a most ancient custom for marriage ceremonies. An analogous usage of the word _comis_ is to be found in Gellius while relating the custom of _flaminica dialis_ on the occasion of the Argei .


* ^ Osvaldo Sacchi "Il trivaso del Quirinale" in _RIDA_ 2001 p. 277 citing Attilio Degrassi _ Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae _ 1 1957, Arthur Gordon, "Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin", _California Studies in Classical Antiquity_, Vol. 8, 1975, pp. 53–72, Giovanni Colonna "Duenos " in _Studi Etruschi_ 47 1979 pp. 163-172; Brent Vine - A Note on the Duenos Inscription
Duenos Inscription
University of California at Los Angeles linguistica Archived December 19, 2013, at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 2012-02-01 * ^ Arthur E. Gordon, _Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy_, 1983, p. 77. * ^ Arthur E. Gordon "Note on the Duenos Vase inscription in Berlin" in _California Studies in Classical Antiquity_ 8, 1976, pp. 53 ff. * ^ Warmington S. 54 ff.; and H. Eichner, in: Die Sprache 34, 1988-1990, 207 ff. * ^ Maras, Daniele F. (Winter 2012). "Scientists declare the Fibula Praenestina and its inscription to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt" (PDF). _Etruscan News_. 14. * ^ Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi "Studi sul latino arcaico" in _Studi Etruschi_ 47 1979, pp.173-221. * ^ J. E. Sandys, S. G. campbell _ Latin
Epigraphy: an Introduction to the study of Latin
Inscriptions_ 1974, p. 40-41. * ^ Giuliano and Larissa Bonfante _Lingua e cultura degli Etruschi_ Torino, 1985, p. 63. * ^ E. Dressel "Di una antichissima iscrizione latina graffita sopra un vaso votivo rinvenuta a Roma" in _Annali dell' Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica_ 52, 1880, p. 180. * ^ Bréal; Gordon. * ^ Filippo Coarelli _Il Foro Boario_ p. 289 ff.; Plutarch _Quaest. Romanae_ 74 and _De Fortuna Romana_ 10 * ^ Arnobius _Adversus Nationes_ II 67; Aurelius Augustinus _De Civitate Dei_ IV 11; Ovid _Fasti_ VI 221; Mario Torelli _Lavinio e Roma. Riti iniziatici tra archeologia e storia_ 1984, p. 53 ff. and 117 ff.; Giovanni Colonna "Duenos" in _Studi Etruschi_ 47 (1979) p. 168; Robert E. A. Palmer "Roman shrines of female chastity from the struggle of chastity to the papacy of Innocent I" in RSA 4 (1974) p. 129 ff. who thinks the sanctuary of the votive deposit should be that of a Fortuna Bona Dea much more ancient than the Εύελπις and of purely Roman tradition. Kurt Latte _Römische Religionsgeschichte_ Munich, 1960, p. 228 ff. excludes the name of Bona Dea as a translation of a Greek theonym. * ^ G. Pennisi "Il tri-vaso di Duenos" in _Studi Latini e Italiani_ 1992 p. 14. * ^ Emilio Peruzzi "L'iscrizione di Duenos " in _La Parola del Passato_ 13 (1958) p. 328 ff.: the author supposes the object is a love toy and the inscription would be a playful warning to the owner not turn down the object itself, i.e. "he who turns me upside down (_mitat_) prays the gods that the girl should not give you her favours lest you want to be satisfied through the workings of _Tuteria_": Tuteria would then be a proper name and the object the work of an enchantress that exercised her magic art to get the lost lover back for a female customer of hers; E. Gjerstad "The Duenos vase" in _Kung. Vitt. och Antikvitets Akademiens Handlingen_ (1959) pp. 133–143 supposed the object were a container for beauty products and interpreted the text as: "_Iurat deos qui me mittit: 'Ne in te comis virgo sit asted, nisi ope utens ei pacari vis'. Bonus me fecit in bonum atque bono, ne me malus dato!_" , i.e. " 'Thy girl shall not be amiable to thee, unless thou befriend her by using (my) assistance' Good man has made me for a good purpose and for the benefit of a good man; may not a bad man present me!" * ^ Filippo Coarelli _Il Foro Boario_ 1988 p. 289 ff. Tuteria = Tutela would be a theonym, i.e. one of the many personifications of Fortuna, perhaps the Τύχη Εύελπις of the _vicus Longus_: the meaning of the text would be that of a girl forced to be complacent for the effect of the moderating intervention of a deity in whose sanctuary the vase was dedicated; T. Bolelli "De antiquissima inscriptione quae Dueni nuncupatur annotationes" in Cipriano-Di Giovine-Mancini (editors) _Miscellanea di studi linguistici in onore di W. Belardi_ 1 (1984) pp. 207–214: "Swears for the gods he who sells me that, if the girl is not nice towards you, at least she shall remain with you (i.e. you shall not lose her) lest you want make peace (with her) through the workings of Tuteria (an enchantress)." * ^ G. Dumezil "La deuxième ligne de l' "inscription de Duenos" " in _Latomus_ 102 1969, pp. 244-255; Id. _Idées romaines_ Paris 1969, pp. 12-28; It. tr. p. 25. * ^ In fact this line of interpretation, based on the reading of _toiteisai_ as related to _tutela_ (ward, guardianship) either as a noun (_ope tutelae_) or an adjective _tuteria_ (_ope tuteria = ope tutoria_), had already been proposed in 1934 by philologist and literary critic Antonino Pagliaro, who interpreted the segment _astednoisi...pakarivois_ as meaning: "unless (noisi=nisi) you will (_vois_ from _volo_ I want) consider yourself satisfied by the exercise of the marital _potestas_". He though understood _ope tuteria_ as referring to the _potestas_ exercised by the husband through the _manus maritalis_, which would be equated to a sort of ward, _tutela_. Cf. "La cosiddetta iscrizione di Dueno" in _Atene e Roma_ 3. 2, 1934, pp. 162–175. * ^ Cf. Dumezil _Idées romaines_ p. 15. * ^ H. Osthoff "Die Suffixform '-sla-' vornehmlich im Germanischen" in _Paul und Braunes Beitrage_ 3, (1876) pp. 335-347 partic. p. 336. * ^ Cf. Émile Benveniste _Origine de la formation de noms en indoeuropéen_ Paris, 1962–1966, p. 325. * ^ Antonino Pagliaro above, pp. 162 ff.; cf. above note. * ^ Festus s.v. _Nupta verba_ p. 174 L; Paulus exc. Festi s.v. _Nupta verba_ p. 175 L. * ^ G. Colonna _Duenos_ in SE 1979 p. 168; R. E. A. Palmer 1974 p. 129 ff.; K. Latte p. 228 ff. * ^ Vittore Pisani _Manuale storico della lingua latina_ Torino, 1948-1950, p. 9: the tutors would guarantee the sexual disponibility/acquiescence of the girl. * ^ Cicero _Ad Famil._ XIII 39. * ^ G. Pennisi "Il tri-vaso di Duenos" in _Studi Latini e Italiani_ 1992, p. 7-44. * ^ Leo Peppe "Storie di parole, storie di istituti sul diritto matrimoniale arcaico" in _Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris_ 1997, pp. 123 ff. * ^ F. Marco Simon and G. Fontana Elboj "Sponsio matrimonial en la Roma arcaica" in _Revue International de Droit de l'Antiquité_ 43 1996, pp. 232–234. * ^ Emil Benveniste _Le vocabulaire des institutions indoeuropeennes_ It. tr. 1976 vol. II pp. 367-375; Giacomo Devoto "Parole giuridiche" in _Scritti minori_ I, 1958 , p. 100; Osvaldo Sacchi "Il trivaso del Quirinale" in RIDA, 2001, p. 301 * ^ O. Sacchi above p. 302-303; Salvatore Tondo "La semantica di sacramentum nella sfera giudiziale" in _Studia et Documenta Historiae et iuris_ 35, 1969 p. 305 and 337; Francesco Sini _Documenti sacerdotali di Roma antica_ I. _Libri e commentari_ Sassari, 1983, p.164; Antonello Calore _Per Iovem lapidem_ 2000, p.146; Filippo Cancelli _La giuriprudenza unica dei pontefici_ Milano, 1996, p. 36. * ^ _Res sacrae_ were the straight _tunica_ and the yellow network worn by the bride. Festus s. v. _spondere_ p. 440 L derives _sponsio_ from Greek σπονδάς, i. e. the sacred libation the bride and bridegroom dedicated to the gods. * ^ Pliny _Naturalis Historia_ XXVIII 27; Servius _Ad Georgicas_ I 21; Plautus _Cistellaria_ 98; Ovid _Epodes_ XXI 133-144; O. Sacchi above p. 304. * ^ Servius _Aeneis_ X 79: _Legere furari...Gremiis abducere pactas id est sponsas: nam ante usum tabularum matrimonii cautiones sibi invicem emittebant, et fideiussores dabant: unde admissum est ut sponsum dicamus virum a spondendo, et sponsam promissam. Ceterum proprie sponderi puallae est: ergo sponsus non quia promittitur, sed quia spondet et sponsores dat. Sane exaggeratio est nimia in quod ait 'gremiis abducere', tamquam iam uxores._: the allusion to the simulated abduction of the girl reflects a practice attested in rural Latium til the time of the social war according to Gellius: cf. Paulus ex Festus s.v. _rapi_ p. 365 L; Simon and Elboj above p. 267; G. Dumézil _Idées romaines_ p. 23; G. Colonna above, p. 168 n. 4; O. Sacchi above, p. 325. * ^ Arangio - Ruiz _Instituciones_ p. 446; W. H. Buckler _Obligation in Roman Law_ New York 1893. * ^ F. Fabbrini _Novissimo Digesto Italiano_ 15, 1968, p.510, s.v. _Res divini iuris_ for a review; Festus s.v. spondere p. 440 L. * ^ _A Note on the Duenos Inscription_ 1997 * ^ Varro _Lingua Latina_ VI 70-71; Aulus Gellius _Noctes Atticae_ IV 4, 1; Ulpian apud _Digesta_ XXIII 1, 2: "_Sponsalia dicta sunt a spondendo: nam moris fuit veteribus stipulari et spondere sibi uxores futuras_". * ^ Cf. Plautus _Curc._ 672. * ^ R. E. A. Palmer above; G. Colonna above. * ^ Paulus ex Festo s. v. Matrem Matutam p. 109 L; Varro LL VI 4; Varro VII 26 "_Ian cusianes duonus ceruses duonus Ianusve_": Macrobius _Saturnalia_ I 3, 13. * ^ To be read as: "_Eco quto*e votenosio titias duenom duenas salved voltene_" according to Bakkum _The Latin
Dialect of the Ager Faliscus: 150 Years of Scholarsahip_ Amsterdam 2009 p. 409. * ^ Cf. Festus s.v. _Matrem Matutam_: "_...et in carmine Saliari Cerus manus intelligitur creator bonus_" p. 109 L; also s. v. mane p. 112 L; Varro _Lingua Latina_ VII 26: "_ian cusianes duonus ceruses du(o)nus ianusve_".Colonna above p. 168. * ^ Cicero _De Legibus_ II 7, 18. * ^ O. Sacchi above, p.333; also citing G. Dumezil _Idées romaines_ pp. 24-25: _dueno-_ from _dúvas_ "cult, offering to a god", "later _bonus_ used alone shall take up all other values"; A. Ernout and A. Meillet _Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine_ Paris, 1967, p. 73: "*dwenos from root *du-, technical religious term, Sanskrit dúvah= 'hommage'... in Latin
religious language _di boni_ " * ^ A better rendering should be: "...That no harm/fraud be done through me to one who is a party sanctioned by the gods". * ^ Taking into account Brent Vine's hypothesis about the interpretation of _(m)einom_ as _munus_ though the rendering of the text should be somewhat altered and interpreted as: " A 'DUENOS' (as above) made me as a good (legal etc.) gift/offering/token, that no evil/harm be done through me to a 'DUENOS'" or "that no evil party lay me to a 'DUENOS'". * ^ H. Rix "Das letzte Wort der Duenos-Inschrif" _MSS_ 46 1985, pp. 193 ff.; H. Eichner "Reklameniamben aus Roms Königszeit" _Die Sprache_ 34, 1988-90, p. 216. * ^ R. Wachter _Altlateinische Inschriften_ Bern, Frankfurt am Mein, New York, Paris, 1987; _La Grande Roma dei Tarquini_ _Catalogue of the Exhibition_, 1990, p. 24. * ^ Festus s.v. _Comptus_ p. 55 L. * ^ Festus s. v. Senis crinibus p. 454 L: "_Senis crinibus nubentes ornantur, quod (h)is ornatus vestustissimus fuit_". * ^ Aulus Gellius _Noct. Att._ X 15, 30: " _...cum it ad Argeos, quod neque comit caput neque capillum depictit_".


* (in German) "Die DUENOS-Inschrift": transcription and interpretation of the Duenos inscription * Larissa Bonfante, "Etruscan Life and Afterlife: A Handbook of Etruscan Studies", Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1986 * Arthur Gordon, "Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin", _California Studies in Classical Antiquity_, Vol. 8, 1975, pp. 53–72 (available online) * Arthur E. Gordon, _Illustrated Introduction to Latin
Epigraphy_. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983 googlebooks preview. * Vine, Brent. "A Note on the Duenos Inscription" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-09-20.


* WorldCat Identities * VIAF : 198982167

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duenos_Inscription additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. , a non-profit organization.

* Privacy policy * About * Disclaimers * Contact * Developers * Cookie statement * Mobile view

* *

Links: ------ /wiki/Old_Latin /#cite_note-1 /wiki/Kernos /wiki/Heinrich_Dressel