¹ Frey, J. B., Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum I: Europe (Città del Vaticano, 1936)Google Scholar. References to the inscriptions from this Corpus will be cited as CII followed by the number of the inscription.

² A full account of Porto from ancient to modern times is given in Lugli, G. and Filibeck, G., Il Porto di Roma Imperiale e l’Agro Portuense (Rome 1935)Google Scholar. For the earlier excavations see Carlo Fea, Relazione di un viaggio ad Ostia, etc. (Rome 1802), especially pp. 43–56.

³ Bull. Arch. Crist. 4 (1866), 37–41.

⁴ Bull. Arch. Crist. 4 (1866), 40. There is actually little or no evidence that the Jews of ancient times had a particular leaning toward commerce.

⁵ “Ricerche topografiche sulla città di Porto,” Ann. 1st. Corr. Arch. 40 (1868), 144–195. For the Jewish inscriptions see p. 191.

⁶ CRAI 14 (1886), 194–196. The date 1822 is that recorded on the plaque set up in the cortile by the Cardinal and still there.

⁷ Mélanges Renier (Paris, 1887), 437–441Google Scholar. See infra n. 27.

⁸ Die altchristlichen Bildwerke im christlichen Museum des Laterans (Leipzig, 1890), 36Google Scholar. De Rossi had alluded to this inscription in 1866, op. cit. (supra, n. 3), 40.

⁹ Ficker op. cit. (supra, n. 8), 29.

¹⁰ De Rossi op. dt. (supra, n. 3), 50; Lugli and Filibeck op. cit. (supra, n. 2), 148.

¹¹ Ficker op. cit. (supra, n. 8), 31. The drawing in Pl. I, no. 73 does not adequately reproduce the crudeness of the shape of the Menorah.

¹² This is, for example, the view of Frey, Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 86. The contrary view, that there was at least a Synagogue of the Calcaresians at Porto, is expressed by Juster, Les juifs dans l’empire romain (Paris, 1914) I, 415Google Scholar and La Piana in HThR 20 (1927), 370Google Scholar. Leclercq in DACL 14 (Paris, 1948), 1542Google Scholar states that Porto had at least two Jewish congregations.

¹³ The two inscriptions of known provenience which mention the Synagogue of the Hebrews (CII 291, 317) were found in this catacomb, as were also four mentioning the Synagogue of the Calcaresians (CII 304, 316, 384, 433). In the last of these only the first two letters of the name of the synagogue are preserved, but it is most probable that the restoration Κα[λκαρησίων] is correct rather than Frey’s alternative Κα[μπησίων], since the only inscription of certain provenience mentioning the Synagogue of the Campesians (CII 88) was found in the catacomb of Via Appia.

¹⁴ Krauss in Jew. Enc. III, 614; De Ricci ibid. IX, 471; Radin in JQR 7 (1917), 282.

¹⁵ Bull. Arch. Crist. 5 (1866), 44; cf. Frey in Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 90.

¹⁶ Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 89.

¹⁷ CII 542, 544, 546–551e.

¹⁸ CII 546, 549, 550, 551a, d, e.

¹⁹ CII 535–540, 543, 545.

²⁰ Frey, Riv. Arch. Crist. 7 (1930), 244.

²¹ According to Frey, the father’s name was Gadia Toskara (earlier, in Riv. Arch. Crist. 8. 85, he had called it Gadia Kara), but Γαδίατoς is surely a genitive of Γαδíας. Cf. Ἰoύδατoς from Ἰoύδας (CII 12). In CII 510, where apparently the same Father of the Hebrews is mentioned, we find the genitive form Γαδία, which is analogical to Toυβία in CII 497. The grammatical forms in the Jewish sepulchral inscriptions, as in others of the time, are far from consistent. It will be observed that both of the inscriptions involving daughters of Gadias display errors of spelling or grammar and that they differ even in their spelling of the same words:

CII 535: κιτε, τυγατερες, Εβρεων, ιρηνη

CII 510: κειτε, θυγατηρ, Aιβρεων, ειρηνη

²² CII 291, 317, 510, of which the first two were found in the catacomb, in 1904 and 1906, respectively; cf. N. Mueller and N. A. Bees, Die Inschriften der juedischen Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom (Leipzig, 1919), 22, 57.

²³ The shallowness of the cutting would indicate that this inscription was incised after the slab had already been affixed to the closure of the grave of the daughters of Gadias, possibly for a loculus just above. There are indications also that the cutter’s tool slipped, presumably because of the awkward position.

²⁴ Riv. Arch. Crist. 7 (1930), 245.

²⁵ Derenbourg op. cit. (supra, n. 7), 440.

²⁶ Cf. supra, n. 13. The inscription of Julianus, gerusiarch of the Calcaresians (CII 504), was one of the first inscriptions to be discovered at Rome, since it was known as early as 1685, when it was published by Spon. See the data in Frey ad loc. Since most of the Jewish inscriptions found in Rome before the discovery of the catacomb of Vigna Randanini on the Via Appia in 1859 came from the Monteverde catacomb, it is virtually certain, in view of the name of the synagogue, that this one also is from there.

²⁷ Derenbourg op. cit. (supra, n. 7), 438, mistaking the regular nominative form Ἰωσῆς for a genitive, mistranslates “Claudius, son of Joses.” Berliner, Gesch. d. Juden in Rom (Frankfurt, 1893), Ch. VI, no. 72, perhaps following Derenbourg, has the same error. De Rossi op. cit. (supra, n. 3), 40, Vogelstein in Vogelstein and Rieger, Gesch. d. Juden in Rom I (Berlin, 1895), 462, no. 21, and Bees op. cit. (supra, n. 22), 83, 163, assume from the name that the inscription belongs to the middle of the first century, that is, the time of the Emperor Claudius, but the names Claudius and Claudia were fairly common among the Jews of ancient Rome and they are found on inscriptions which certainly belong to a later century than the first. Bees op. cit., 163 carelessly cites this inscription for an example of the use of the genitive ἐτῶν with ἔζησεν, whereas the stone clearly reads ἔτη.

²⁸ Frey ad loc. identifies it as a mandragora. Elsewhere (e.g. CII 374) he calls it an ethrog. Lietzmann in Beyer and Lietzmann, Die jued. Katak. d. Villa Torlonia in Rom (Berlin, 1930), 20, calls it a ruebenartige Frucht without identifying it more precisely. For the use of symbols in the Jewish inscriptions see Leon, H. J., “Symbolic Representations in the Jewish Catacombs of Rome” JAOS 69 (1949), 87–90Google Scholar.

²⁹ Frey, Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 91–94, thinks that the presence of each of these epithets at least twice in the Jewish inscriptions of Rome makes it certain that this is a Jewish inscription.

³⁰ E.g. De Rossi (supra, n. 3), 40, Ficker (supra, n. 8) 36, Mueller (supra, n. 22), 4, and repeatedly by Frey.

³¹ Mueller loc. cit. (supra, n. 30), thinks it means “former archon.” It is not impossible that the letters represent the preposition πρó followed by a proper name, such as Ἀρχωνίδης.

³² He cites one example, CII 45. He could have added CII 461.

³³ Also possible is νεπιoς or νεπια (for νήπιoς, etc.), “infant.” The spelling νεπιoς is found in CII 97 and 138.

³⁴ Among the lesser fragments, one (CII 542) shows the letters ϒNA, possibly part of the word συναγωγή; two (544, 551c) have a portion of the common formula oὐδεìς ἀθάνατoς; two (547, 551b) show part of the concluding formula of numerous Jewish inscriptions, ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἡ κoίμησις; one (548) has NAΓΩΓΩ, probably part of the title ἀρχισυναγωγóς.

³⁵ CIL XIV, p. 3: Sed valde dolendum est quod eis (i.e. the inscriptions found at Porto) miscuit (sc. Pacca) alias ex urbe Roma petitas, in his falsas nonnullas…. Nam ita factum est, ut quamquam inscriptionum episcopii Portuensis magnam partem constat esse effossam in Portu, tamen plerasque non sine dubitatione aliqua pro Portuensibus habere possimus.

³⁶ Ibid., n. 3. He is not positive, however, for after citing a group of inscriptions which are probably from Porto, he adds: Idem fere cadit in inscriptiones Iudaeorum Graecas in episcopio Portuensi adservatas.

³⁷ Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 84.

³⁸ Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 85.

³⁹ Supra, p. 169.

⁴⁰ Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 87. Frey’s explanation is accepted by Leclercq loc. cit. (supra, n. 12).

⁴¹ Supra, p. 170.

⁴² Leon, H. J., “A Jewish Inscription at Columbia University,” AJA 28 (1924), 251–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ CII 312, 327, 368, 372, 380, 416, 460, 480, 482. It is far from certain, despite Frey, that all of these originated from the Monteverde catacomb, but several of them (CII 327, 368, 372, 416, 460) are certainly from Monteverde.

⁴⁴ Webster, T. B. L. in JRS 19 (1929), 150–154Google Scholar; cf. Robert, L. in REJ 102 (1937), 121Google Scholar and Hellenica 3 (1946) 97.

⁴⁵ It is known that he secured eight inscriptions for his Porto collection from the Collegio Clementino at Rome by reason of his connection with that institution; cf. Dessau in CIL XIV, p. 3, n. 3 and Frey in Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 84–85.

⁴⁶ Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 89Google Scholar; cf. supra, p. 168.

⁴⁷ Supra, pp. 166–67.

⁴⁸ Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 84Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Riv. Arch. Crist. 8 (1931), 89, n. IGoogle Scholar.