Neoplatonismo Latino: Pretestato e Macrobio

[=DADOUKOS=]

PRAETEXTATUS’ TREATISE ON THE SUN

Solar theology

In Macr. Sat. 1.17.1 Avienus asks Praetextatus why the sun is worshipped as Apollo, Liber and many different deities. It is Praetextatus who is addressed on religious issues because, as Avienus asserts, he is the leading authority on all matters that have to do with religion, sacrorum omnium praesulem esse te, Vetti Praetextate, divina voluerunt. Consequently, he gives a long speech on solar theology, that is, he is the mouthpiece for Macrobius’ theology according to which all divinities were manifestations of One Supreme Being.

Praetextatus shares his unique knowledge of mysteries, explaining that all the divinities can be interpreted as one god, the Sun, nam quod omnes paene deos, dumtaxat qui sub caelo sunt, ad solem referunt, non vana superstitio sed ratio divina commendat.[1] The numerous divinities of Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythology constitute aspects of the Sun’s activity and arguments for this are drawn from the etymologies of their names, their role in myths and the character of their visual representations.[2] This late antique natural science describes the solar system or the cosmic theory of the origins of religion and offers ‘natural explanations’ for myths and rites. The different aspects of the Sun give gods their names, et hinc sunt natae appellationes deorum ceterorum qui ad solem certa et arcana ratione referuntur.[3]

The birth of Apollo and Diana, for example, is interpreted as the birth of the sun and the moon. Minerva as well as Hercules is the power, virtus, of the Sun while Apollo is regarded as the mythical manifestation of the Sun’s three virtus, iactus radiorum, claritudo and ortus solis and Mercury is represented with winged sandals because his wings are a symbol of the swift movement of the sun.[4] Praetextatus asserts that the various activities of a single supreme deity should be regarded as equivalent to as many various deities, thus the diverse powers of the Sun have given names to as many gods.[5]

Praetextatus’ treatise in Macrobius’ Saturnalia is a good example of the solar monotheistic and syncretistic tendencies in late pagan religiosity which – as Liebeschuetz points out – is much closer to Christian ideas than many views of the so-called classical paganism.[6] The Sun had been the symbol of the supreme deity in ancient philosophy for centuries before Praetextatus as well as Macrobius.[7] Plato had already described the Sun as the image of the Good, eikòn toû agathoû and Plotinus had compared the radiation of the One with the light of the Sun.[8] In his solar theology Macrobius places the Sun above other deities who are manifestations of the supreme divinity and whose powers represent the multiple power of the Sun.[9] Furthermore, the Sun is called the Intellect of the Universe, mens mundi.[10] As we have seen in ch. 2.5, the conception of the universal divinity appears also in Praetextatus’ funerary poem (CIL VI 1779) as numen multiplex.

[=DADOUKOS=]

The ideas that Macrobius attributes to Praetextatus probably represent his opinions only very approximately. However, Bloch, for instance, believed that the discourse assigned to Praetextatus in the Saturnalia 1.17-1.23 represents Praetextatus’ real religious views. Alan Cameron is sceptical, arguing that Macrobius has used Porphyry’s treatise Perì theíon onomáton.[11]

Previous research assumed that Macrobius used one of either Porphyry’s or Iamblichus’ writings as his principal source for the treatise on solar theology, e.g. Iamblichus’ Perì theôn, Porphyry’s Perì agalmáton, Perì theíon onomáton or Perì Helíou.[12] Porphyry’s treatise on the Sun, Perì Helíou, has been detected as the common source used by both Macrobius and the Vergil commentator Servius which is verified by the numerous parallels between Macrobius and Servius.[13] Various intermediary sources have also been suggested, e.g. Marius Victorinus and Cornelius Labeo.[14]

The German Quellenforschung regarded Macrobius merely as a plagiarist of one source but later his originality in the use of his varied and numerous sources has been recognized. Consequently, he is a creative compiler rather than a plagiarist and it seems that Praetextatus’ speech in the Saturnalia is a compilation of the thoughts of several authors, both Greek and Roman. It is evident that Macrobius exploited many sources, not any single main source.[15]

In his treatise on the Sun Praetextatus explains the various epithets of the gods and shows their fundamental unity in the same allegorical way as Porphyry, Proclus and other Neoplatonic writers have interpreted deities.[16] In fact, Macrobius refers a couple of times to the authority of Plotinus (probably through Porphyry) and of Porphyry in Praetextatus’ speech.[17] However, it must be noted that the allegorical interpretation was also used by other philosophers, for example, by Stoics, who regarded the gods as natural forces. In Macrobius’ commentary on Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis, the most important authority is the Neoplatonic Porphyry, whose cosmology, philosophy and beliefs Macrobius connects with Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis and Vergil.[18] However, in the Saturnalia and in Praetextatus’ treatise on the Sun, Macrobius does not use manifestly Neoplatonic metaphysics (e.g. the hierarchy of the hypostaseis) in his argumentation. Liebeschuetz suggests quite convincingly that Macrobius’ Saturnalia and commentary on Somnium Scipionis probably were meant to be complementary antiquarian works, one dealing with Roman antiquities and the other with the soul and the universe. Consequently, the author wanted to avoid discussing the same themes twice which would explain why the Neoplatonic aspects are missing in the Saturnalia.[19]

Macrobius cites Cornelius Labeo several times, either directly or indirectly; moreover, in his speech Praetextatus refers to Labeo’s book De oraculo Apollinis Clarii. Varro has influenced either directly or indirectly Macrobius’ treatises on the origin of Roman deities and Roman festivals; in fact, much of his material is Roman. He may also have used Plutarch, Apuleius and Aulus Gellius but he does not always refer to his Greek and Latin sources explicitly.[20]

Furthermore, there are conspicuous similarities between Julian’s oration to Helios and Praetextatus’ oration in Macrobius’ Saturnalia since they have similar tendencies to regard other deities as subordinated to the Sun. Julian’s speech to Helios reveals his Neoplatonic doctrine in which the Sun is the visible form of King Helios, noûs in the thinkable world, but above the thinkable world there is still noetòs kósmos, the higher world of ideas where Helios has its supreme form as the idea of the Good, the highest principle, King of All, tòn pánton basilèa. In the intermediary thinkable world Helios is the king over all other gods, like the sun is the king over all other visible gods, stars. Other gods, Apollo, Dionysus, Hermes, Asclepius, Hercules, Attis, Osiris and Sarapis join the substance of Helios.[21] The similarities have made many scholars to surmise that the writers might have used the same or similar sources, for example, Porphyry’s lost treatise on the Sun, Perì Helíou and/or Iamblichus’ lost work Perì theôn. Julian himself mentions that he has used Iamblichus.[22] Nevertheless, there are also several differences between the speeches; Julian’s oration to Helios is fundamentally based on Neoplatonic metaphysics.[23] Both speeches are based on a widely accepted heliolatric doctrine but there does not have to be any textual dependence between them. There was a special genre of tractates on solar theology, as Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ works show, and both Julian and Macrobius may have gathered material from the genre.[24] In fact, this genre continued in the fifth century in a hymn to Helios written by the Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus, in a passage addressed to the Sun in Martianus Capella’s De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii as well as in a passage of Dionysiaca composed by Nonnus of Panopolis.[25]

[=DADOUKOS=]

Macrobius translated, adapted and simplified Greek Platonism for the Latin West though his philosophy was by no means original or individual. S. Gersh calls him “a Neoplatonist in the fullest sense of the word”. As a synthesis of Roman Stoic and Greek Platonic traditions his Neoplatonism was Western in character; therefore, his antiquarian interests in Roman history, gods and festivals had a practical aspect that would have been strange to Eastern Neoplatonism.[26] The works of Vergil and Cicero were also interpreted in a Platonic way in the West during the third and fourth centuries (e.g. by Macrobius and Servius). Vergil had been honoured as an expert on religious issues for centuries, and also during the fourth and fifth centuries by Western Neoplatonists.

Macrobius devotes most of the discussions in his Saturnalia to Vergil and since his interest in Vergil is antiquarian, the interlocutors – Praetextatus and Symmachus among them – discuss Vergil’s views of the old Roman religion. Vergil also appears as an important figure in Macrobius’ other treatise, Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, and the grammarian Servius also wrote a commentary on Vergil.

In his Saturnalia Macrobius calls Vergil pontifex maximus: Vergilius noster pontifex maximus.[27] Some scholars have regarded Vergil’s works as a sort of pagan bible and interpreted the adoration of Vergil as pontifex maximus in Macrobius’ Saturnalia as a protest against Gratian’s repudiation of the title of pontifex maximus in 383, one year before the dramatic date of the work.[28] The figure of Vergil has a certain religious aura but he should still not be considered an anti-Christian symbol because his works were highly esteemed by pagans and Christians alike.[29]

[=DADOUKOS=]

As I have shown above, most of the views Macrobius attributes to Praetextatus derive from various Greek and Latin sources; therefore, at best, the speech probably conveys Praetextatus’ real views only very roughly.

Bloch regarded Praetextatus’ speech as “at least ideally true of the man”, suggesting that Macrobius could have used some lost work of Praetextatus himself, a work inspired by Porphyry and that the imaginary speech represents Praetextatus’ and his followers’ theology. (Who were Praetextatus’ followers?)[30] Praetextatus’ words ego autem quod mihi magistra lectione compertum est publicabo in Macr. Sat. 3.11.5 certainly refer to the conversation in the Saturnalia but I wonder if the words could also refer to a writing or writings published by Praetextatus himself. Unfortunately, as far as we know, none of Praetextatus’ works are extant.

It is true that the manifold power of the Sun in Praetextatus’ imaginary speech has certain resemblances with the numen multiplex in Praetextatus’ funerary poem and that Praetextatus’ many high priesthoods and initiations in various cults have something to do with the syncretistic solar theology of Macrobius’ Praetextatus. However, we do not know if Macrobius had really studied Praetextatus’ theological views. It seems to me that it was not so important to attribute ‘real’ views to an historical person in the symposium genre. It is possible that there was a treatise or treatises written by Praetextatus that Macrobius may have used. Furthermore, he may have interviewed persons who had known or listened to Praetextatus, or he may have read what others had written of Praetextatus but since there is not enough evidence, these suggestions remain highly hypothetical.

Flamant suggests that Macrobius let Praetextatus expound Neoplatonic theology because Macrobius himself belonged to the Orientalist pagans; nevertheless, his view is based on the old division according to which the Roman pagan aristocrats were divided into two competing sections at the end of the fourth century, Orientalists and Traditionalists.[31] This hypothesis has several flaws: first, this simplifying division has been seriously challenged by Matthews (already discussed in ch. 2.3); second, in Macrobius’ time, in the 430s, the religious situation differed completely from the atmosphere in Praetextatus’ time, at the end of the fourth century. The religious disputes among the Roman pagans in the fourth century, if there were any, were not relevant in Macrobius’ time. Finally, as we have seen above, Macrobius did not represent Praetextatus as explaining his solar theology in terms of Neoplatonic metaphysics.

Why, then, did Macrobius choose Praetextatus as his spokesman? We know something of Praetextatus’ religious activities, priesthoods, initiations into cults and restoration policy but we know virtually nothing of his religious thought. As I have suggested in ch. 2.5, his religious views probably followed the general monotheistic tendencies of the third and fourth centuries rather than particularly represented Neoplatonic theology or any other philosophical doctrine. Monotheistic and syncretistic views were part of the theological koine of the period. In my opinion, Macrobius depicts Praetextatus expounding solar theology simply because Praetextatus was well-known for his practical cultic activities and still remembered for his religious ideas in Macrobius’ time. Moreover, he was a figure authoritative and influential enough to be used to manifest solar theology.

————————————

[1] Macr. Sat. 1.17.2.

[2] Etymological arguments: Macr. Sat. 1.18.15: The name of Dionysus is interpreted as the intellect of Jupiter, i.e. the intellect of the world or the heaven. Physici , quia solem mundi mentem esse dixerunt. Mundus autem vocatur caelum, quod appellant Iovem. Macr. Sat. 1.22.2-6: The god is called Pan because he is the ruler of all material substance, universae substantiae materialis dominator. Mythological arguments: Macr. Sat. 1.17.54: the interpretation of the myth of Juno’s hostility to Latona. Visual representations: Macr. Sat. 1.17.70: the explanation of Minerva’s Gorgonea vestis; Macr. Sat. 1.19.7-9: Mercury’s winged sandals.

[3] Macr. Sat. 1.17.6.

[4] Macr. Sat. 1.17.52-56: Apollo and Diana; Macr. Sat. 1.17.70: Minerva; Macr. Sat. 1.20.6: Hercules; Macr. Sat. 1.17.9-30: Apollo iactus radiorum; Macr. Sat. 1.17.31-1.17.49: Apollo claritudo; Macr. Sat. 1.17.50-1.17.63 Apollo ortus solis; Macr. Sat. 1.19.7-11: Mercury.

[5] Macr. Sat. 1.17.4: unius dei effectus varios pro variis censendos esse numinibus, ita diversae virtutes solis nomina dis dederunt.

[6] Liebeschuetz 185.

[7] Praetextatus’ priesthood of Sol and the cult of Sol is discussed in ch. 2.3. For the history of solar theology in Graeco-Roman antiquity, see Liebeschuetz 187-192.

[8] Plat. rep. 6.508A-509B; also 7.516-517; Plot. Enn. 5.1.6.

[9] Macr. Sat. 1.22.1: solis multiplicem potestatem; 1.17.7: multiplici interpretatione ad solem refertur. For Macrobius’ theological and philosophical system, see Syska 210-218 and Gersh 531-540.

[10] Macr. Sat. 1.19.9: Sol mundi mens est; 1.18.17: mundi autem mentem solem esse opinantur auctores; also 1.18.15: mens mundi; 1.17.4: diversae eius virtutes nomina dis dederunt; 1.17.66: omnes solis effectus atque virtutes ad unius simulacri speciem redigunt; 1.17.2.

[11] Bloch 1945, 207; Alan Cameron 1966, 32.

[12] F. Altheim, ‘Porphyrios’ Schrift über den Sonnengott’, Aus Spätantike und Christentum, Tübingen 1951, 1-25, 139-152 (referred to by Flamant 657-661) reconstructed Porphyry’s treatise on the Sun, on the basis of Praetextatus’ speech. Previous research is surveyed in Courcelle 1943, 18-32 and Flamant 655-668; e.g. Whittaker 18-19, 41; Bloch 1945, 207-208.

[13] Macr. Sat. 1.18.8; 1.17.9; 1.17.70; cf. Serv. in Buc. 5.66; Serv. in Aen. 4.201. Flamant 298-299 n.197. Courcelle 1943, 18-20 believes that the work is identical with the µ mentioned by Suidas in the list of Porphyry’s works.

[14] Syska 233; Alan Cameron 1966, 32 n.56; Courcelle 1943, 17-20; Fauth 163; Flamant 281. According to Mastandrea 38, 172-177, 202 Macrobius used Porphyry through Cornelius Labeo.

[15] Macrobius’ originality and wide reading emphasized e.g. by Syska 214-218 and Liebeschuetz 197-199; Liebeschuetz 199 surmises that the outline of Praetextatus’ speech might be Macrobius’ own.

[16] E.g. Hephaestus is explained as the power of fire and : Porph. in Tim. fr. 16 (Procl. in Tim. 1.45D). Athena is interpreted as the mind of god, and as the moon: Porph. antr. nymph. 32; Porph. in Tim. fr. 22 (Procl. in Tim. 1.51B).

[17] Macr. Sat. 1.17.3: ut Plotino constat placuisse; 1.17.70: sicut et Porphyrius testatur.

[18] Gersh 495-496, 508-509, 519-520. In his Somnium Scipionis Macrobius used Porphyry’s commentaries on Plato’s Republic and Timaeus.

[19] Liebeschuetz 192, 198, 200-201.

[20] Macr. Sat. 1.18.21; Labeo cited elsewhere in Macr. Sat. 1.12.20-21; 1.16.29; 3.4.6. Flamant 295-296; Courcelle 1943, 18; Gersh 513-515; Syska 233.

[21] Iul. or. 4. While staying in Antioch Julian composed an oration to Helios for the festivities of Sol in Rome, Dec. 25, 362. For the syncretistic elements in Julian’s speech, see Raeder 209-210 and Fauth 147-162.

[22] Iul. or. 4.146A; 150D; 157D-158A. Courcelle 1943, 18; Whittaker 18-19, 41.

[23] Liebeschuetz 197-198.

[24] Bouffartique 332-337, 357; DesPlaces 329-330; O’Daly 1994, 1257-1258; Mastandrea 174; Liebeschuetz 192. Bouffartique 358 argues that Julian had not necessarily read Iamblichus but his writings were based on general Neoplatonic teaching of the period.

[25] Procl. hymn. 1; Mart. Cap. 2.185-193; Nonn. Dion. 40.369-410.

[26] Gersh 493; Moreschini 94, 106-107; Mastandrea 38, 172-177, 202.

[27] Macr. Sat. 1.24.16.

[28] Döpp 632; Thrams 156.

[29] Alan Cameron 1977, 23-24. For the discussion on Vergil as a pagan Bible, see DePaolis 1987, 293-294 and Sinclair 261-263.

[30] Bloch 1945, 207-208 n.26; also Courcelle 1943, 16 believes that Praetextatus could really have given the speech composed by Marcobius whereas Alan Cameron 1966, 32 n.56 and Flamant 35-36 reject the hypothesis. O’Donnell 1979, 66-67 points out that Macrobius at least presents the views that Praetextatus was believed to stand for by the succeeding generation; Liebeschuetz 199 also regards Praetextatus’ writings as a possible source for Macrobius.

[31] Flamant 36, 44.

[=DADOUKOS=]

tratto da:

Maijastina Kahlos
Vettius Agorius Praetextatus - A Senatorial Life in Between. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae no. 26, Roma 2002.

L'intero testo è fruibile attraverso il sito:

http://www.maijastinakahlos.net/b/ki.../praetextatus/

[Chaos88 (POL)]

Molto interessante: grazie Dadoukos. Riguardo a Prestestato, Macrobio e l'approccio dell'aristocrazia romana alla religione a cavallo del quarto-quinto secolo c'è un bellissimo libro che s'intitola Silence and History: Purge and Reabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity di C.W. Hedrick (Austin, 2000).

Aggiungo qui sotto due epitaffi di Pretestato. Il primo è uno onorifico (CIL VI 1778) che lo commemora con i suoi vari titoli:

VETTIO AGORIO PRAETEXTATO Viro Consulari PONTIFICI VESTAE, QVAESTORI, PONTIFICI SOLI, CANDIDATO, AVGVRI, CORRECTORI TVSCIAE ET VMBRIAE, TAVROBOLIATO, CVRIALI, CONSVLARI LVSITANIAE, NEOCORO, HIEROFANTAE, PROCONSVLI ACHAIAE, PATRI SACRORVM, PRAEFECTO VRBI, PRAEFecto PRAETorio II ITALIAE ET ILLYRICI, CONSVLI DESIGNATO

[Chaos88 (POL)]

Il secondo epitaffio viene dall'ara funebre (a Roma) di Prestestato e della moglie Aconia Fabia Paolina, eretto nel 384.

Si tratta del poema funebre (CIL VI 1779) che Paolina rivolge in lode al defunto marito:

SPLENDOR parentum nil mihi maius dedit,
quam quod marito digna iam tum uisa sum.
sed lumen omne uel decus nomen uiri,
Agori, superbo qui creatus germine patriam,
senatum coniugemque inluminasprobitate mentis, moribus, studiis simul,
uirtutis apicem quis supremum nanctus es.
tu namque quidquid lingua utraque est proditum
cura soforum, porta quis caeli patet,
uel quae periti condidere carminauel quae solutis uocibus sunt edita,
meliora reddis quam legendo sumpseras.
sed ista parua: tu pius mystes sacris
teletis reperta mentis arcano premis
diuumque numen multiplex doctus colis,sociam benigne coniugem nectens sacris
hominum deumque consciam ac fidam tibi.
quid nunc honores aut potestates loquar
hominumque uotis adpetita gaudia?
quae tu caduca ac parua semper autumansdiuum sacerdos infulis celsus clues.
tu me, marite, disciplinarum bono
puram ac pudicam sorte mortis eximens
in templa ducis ac famulam diuis dicas.
te teste cunctis imbuor mysteriis,tu Dindymenes Atteosque antistitem
teletis honoras taureis consors pius.
Hecates ministram trina secreta edoces
Cererisque Graiae tu sacris dignam paras.
te propter omnes me beatam, me piamcelebrant, quod ipse me bonam disseminas,
totum per orbem ignota noscor omnibus.
nam te marito cur placere non queam?
exempla de me Romulae matres petunt
subolemque pulcram, si tuae similis, putant.optant probantque nunc uiri nunc feminae
quae tu magister indidisti insignia.
his nunc ademptis maesta coniunx maceror,
felix, maritum si superstitem mihi
diui dedissent, sed tamen felix, tuaquia sum fuique postque mortem mox ero.
‘Paulina nostri pectoris consortio,
fomes pudoris, castitatis uinculum
amorque purus et fides caelo sata,
arcana mentis cui reclusa credidi,munus deorum qui maritalem torum
nectunt amicis et pudicis nexibus,
pietate matris, coniugali gratia,
nexu sororis, filiae modestia
et quanta amicis iungimur fiducia,aetatis usu, consecrandi foedere,
iugi fideli simplici concordia
iuuans maritum, diligens ornans colens; Paulina ueri et castitatis conscia,
dicata templis atque amica numinum,sibi maritum praeferens, Romam uiro,
pudens fidelis pura mente et corpore,
benigna cunctis, utilis penatibus…’


Riporto qui la traduzione (a opera di M.R. Lefkowitz) di questa e delle altre iscrizioni sul monumento funebre:

To the gods of the dead. Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, augur, priest of Vesta, priest of the Sun, quindecemvir, curialis of Hercules, initiate of Liber and the Eleusinian [mysteries], hierophant, neocorus, tauroboliatus, father of fathers. In public office imperial quaestor, praetor of Rome, governor of Tuscia and Umbria, governor of Lusitania, proconsul of Achaia, praefect of Rome, senatorial legate on seven missions, prefect of the praetorian guard twice in Italy and Illyrica, consul ordinarius elect, and Aconia Fabia Paulina, initiate of Ceres and the Eleusinian [mysteries], initiate of Hecate at Aegina, tauroboliata, hierophant. They lived together for 40 years.

On the right side of the tomb

Vettius Agorius Praetextatus to his wife Paulina. (In verse) Paulina, conscious of truth and chastity, devoted to the temples and friend of the divinities, who put her husband before herself, and Rome before her husband, proper, faithful, pure in mind and body, kindly to all, helpful to her family gods….

On the left side

Vettius Agorius Praetextatus to his wife Paulina. (In verse) Paulina, the partnership of our heart is the origin of your propriety; it is the bond of chastity and pure love and fidelity born in heaven. To this partnership I entrusted the hidden secrets of my mind; it was a gift of the gods, who bind our marriage couch with loving and chaste bonds. With a mother’s devotion, with a wife’s charm, with a sister’s bond, with a daughter’s modesty; with the great trust by which we are united with our friends, from the experience of our life together, by the alliance of our marriage, in pure, faithful, simple concord; you helped your husband, loved him, honoured him, cared for him.

On the back of the monument. Paulina is speaking, in verse

My parents’ distinction did nothing greater for me than that I even then seemed worthy of my husband. But all glory and honour is my husband’s name, Agorius. You, descended from noble seed, have at the same time glorified your country, senate, and wife with your mind’s judgment, your character and your industry, with which you have reached the highest pinnacle of excellence. For whatever has been produced in either language by the skill of the sages to whom the gate of heaven is open, whether songs that poets composed or writings in prose, these you make better than when you took them up to read. But these are small matters; you as pious initiate conceal in the secrecy of your mind what was revealed in the sacred mysteries, and you with knowledge worship the manifold divinity of the gods; you kindly include as colleague in the rites your wife, who is respectful of men and gods and is faithful to you. Why should I speak of your honours and powers and the joys sought in men’s prayers? These you always judge transitory and insignificant, since your title to eminence depends on the insignia of your priesthood. My husband, by the gift of your learning you keep me pure and chaste from the fate of death; you take me into the temples and devote me as the servant of the gods. With you as my witness I am introduced to all the mysteries; you, my pious consort, honour me as priestess of Dindymene and Attis with sacrificial rites of the taurobolium; you instruct me as minister of Hecate in the triple secret and you make me worthy of the rites of Greek Ceres. On account of you everyone praises me as pious and blessed, because you yourself have proclaimed me as good through the whole world; though unknown I am known to all. For with you as husband how could I not be pleasing? Roman mothers seek an example from me, and think their offspring handsome if they are like yours. Now men, now women want and approve the insignia that you as teacher have given me. Now that all these have been taken away I your wife waste away in sorrow; I would have been happy, if the gods had given me a husband who had survived me, but still I am happy because I am yours and have been yours and will now be yours after my death.

Another inscription

To Fabia Aconia Paulina, daughter of Aco Catullinus formerly prefect and consul, wife of Vettius Praetextatus prefect and consul elect, initiate at Eleusis to the god Iacchus, Ceres and Cora, initiate at Lerna to the god Liber and Ceres and Cora, initiate at Aegina’ to the two goddesses, tauroboliata, priestess of Isis, hierophant of the goddess Hecate, and initiate in the rites of the Greek Ceres

Inscription on a statue base

In honour of Coelia Concordia, chief Vestal Virgin, Fabia Paulina arranged that a statue be made and set up first on account of her distinguished chastity and celebrated holiness concerning the divine cult, and chiefly because [Coelia Concordia] first had set up a statue to [Paulina’s] husband Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, who was a man in all ways exceptional and deserving of honour even by virgins and by priestesses of this [high] rank.