Thanks for the reply, and for posting the full inscription in question:
Chris Gwinn:
>None of my sources (which are normally quite comprehensive) list
>Calaedicus as a divinity, so I wasn't aware that this name existed
>(which is why I thought Cas or his source had confused the name)- I
>have done a search and found the inscription, though:
>
>ERRioja 052 = AE 1976, 00331.
>Silvano / Titullus /
>Calaedico(n) / Viam(i)
>f(ilius) / v(otum) s(olvit)
>l(ibens) m(erito)
>
>It seems to me that there is good reason for not considering
>Calaedico to be a divine name - if it was a theonym (and native
>byname of Silvanus), we should expect it to be written as Silvano
>_Calaedico_ Titullus Viam[i] f. v.s.l.m., while it makes perfect
>grammatical sense for Calaedico to be a nominative (like Titullus) n-
>stem (making our inscription read "To Silvanus, Titullus Calaedico,
>son of Viamus, willingly and deservedly fulfilling the vow".
Chris is almost certainly correct, of course. The inscription is a Latin
inscription, and there is nothing in it to suggest any Celtic connection,
particularly religiously. The book in which I found the entry for "Silvanus
Calaedicus", again, is a book cataloguing deities in the Roman Empire,
written by a pair of Romanists. I find it of value primarily as a resource
for Celtic religion in the Roman period, as it lists many Celtic deities,
though almost always in their synchretized forms. As far as anything Celtic
goes, Chris is certainly a superior authority to the Adkins pair... :)
I am confused as to why Romanists would fail to see what Chris explained
above... it seems to be, at best, wishful thinking based on an
interpretation of the meaning of "Calaedicus".
A question... is "f.v.s.l.m." a standard abbreviation in Roman religious
inscriptions?
Thanks!
~Mark
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp