20-21

The best work of this period concerned with inscriptions alone is the sylloge made by the Dutch epigrapher Martin Smet, when he was in Italy between 1545 and 1551 working for | [S. 21] Cardinal Pio da Carpi. His collection was edited for publication by Justus Lipsius in 1588, about ten years after Smet's death. Smet had rejected Mazochi's classification system, explaining in his preface (written in 1565) that an index could easily show where the texts were found and that he preferred an order by subject matter or theme. [FN 11: Smet Inscriptionum, sig. 1*v: 'Omissa igitur locorum serie, quae per indicem aliquem monstrari posset, rerum atque argumentorum ordinem quendam sequi potius malui: et ut similia similibus, quatenus fieri commode posste iungerentur, curavi.'] The sylloge is divided into four main groups: inscriptions relating to public works, those relating to gods, and those of great men, and lesser men. [FN 12: See Mandowsky/Mitchell 1963, pp. 25–7; Calabi Limentani 1987, pp. 81–5.]

The atmosphere in which these scholars worked seems generally to have been co-operative, with ideas being widely circulated. However, two factors should be borne in mind when using the information provided by their texts: the element of competition between antiquaries for sponsorship of patrons, combined with the renown they gained from producing written material, and that, in general, their standards of reporting were not predicated on the same insistence on accuracy as those employed by archaeologists today. Many antiquaries were prone to elaborate and reconstruct fragmentary material when drawing it, [FN 13: See Mandowsky/Mitchell 1963, pp. 23–8: while Smet and Pighius claimed not to restore material, Boissard did.] thereby displaying their skills and knowledge of classical remains, and at the same time making fragmentary pieces more attractive.