THE FIRST SIX CENTURIES. 19 



for recesstt, requiescit, or reddidit. See Epitaph, n. 1. Maitland's 

 version of this inscription is liable to just censure. In his text, he 

 gives H before ANICIO, but takes no notice of it either in his trans- 

 lation or in his remarks. Again, the date is given by him as A. D. 98; 

 and although one would be disposed to explain this error by supposing 

 that 2 was accidentally omitted before 98, by a typographical mistake, 

 it is impossible to accept this solution, for, in pp. 58, 59, he notices 

 this inscription as of earlier date than two others, one of A.D. 102, and 

 the other of A.D. 111. In Westropp's "Handbook of Archaeology,'' 

 p. 400, we have the same inscription, with the same neglect of K in 

 translation, and with the date A. D. 102. The same author assigns 

 A.D. 130 for the inscription relative to Marius, and a.d. 160 for that 

 relative to Alexander, without sufficient ground for assigning either 

 year. 



The most remarkable of the Christian epitaphs, that have the 

 heathen formula in the commencement, is a well known one to 

 Leopardus, discussed by Fabretti, p. 574, and by Raoul Rochette, in a 

 '' Memoire sur les antiquit^s chr^tiennes des catacombes," in 3Iem. de 

 V Academ. des mscript. et belles lettres, XIII. 



The inscription, as given by Fabretti, stands thus : 

 DMA SACRVM XL 

 LEOPARDVM IN PACEM 

 CVM SPIRITA SANTA • ACCEP 

 TVM EYMTE ABEATIS INNOCINEM 

 POSTER • PAR ■ Q • AN • N • VII • MEN • YIl • 

 In Raoul Rochette's *copy, we have evinte for eumte in the fourth 

 line, and Gr for Q in the fifth. Mabillon discovered in this inscription 

 a manifest reference to the rite of confirmation. Fabretti gravely 

 corrects this interpretation, as he found in it a manifest reference to 

 the rite of laptism ! Raoul Rochette judiciously maintained that 

 -{■neither was right. He remarks — " II n' est question, dans ces expres- 



* As given in Dictionnaire d' EpigrapMe Chretienne, ii. p. 758. 



•j- Lupi held tlie same opinion, viz., that there was no reference to either 

 baptism or confirmation. He explains the 2d, 3d, and 4th lines thus : Leopar- 

 dnm in pacem (pace) cum Spirita Sancta (Spiritus Sanetos, Spiritibus Sanctis) 

 acceptum eumte (eumdem) abeatis hinocinem (habeatis innocentem). Corsini, 

 Not. Grcec. Diss. ii. p. xxxvi, rejects this view, and proposes the following as 

 preferable: — Leopardum in pace ami Spiritu Sancto (the Holy Spirit). Acceptum 

 eundem a Beatis (the Blessed) innocentem posuerunt Parentes. 



