ISic000714: Bilingual (?) epitaph

Apparatus criticus

• Text based on photographs and drawing;
• a.1: Ferrua: dep(osita) [illo die]; Manganaro: d.[posita in pace?]
  
• a.2: Ferrua: cons(ulatu) d. [n. Valentiniani Aug. VIII]; Manganaro: Const.[ntia] ---
  
• a.3: Ferrua: fecit i[n coniugio ann. VIII addicti uni]; Manganaro: fecit .[erenti] --- [con
  
• a.4: Ferrua: sorti man[ifesta animorum consensione]; Manganaro: sorti Mani[lius] ---
  
• b.1: Ferrua: ΚΛ(αυδία); Λ (i.e. 30) Manganaro
  
• b.2-3: Ferrua: [γυν]|ὴ; (name)|ὴ Feissel, Manganaro
  
• b.3: Ferrua: [ἐλλ]oγωτάτη; Feissel, Manganaro: [ἀξιολο]γωτάτη
  
• b.3-4: Ferrua: [ἔζησεν ἔ|τη]; Manganaro: [ἔζησε | ἔτη]
  
• b.4-5: Ferrua: [τῇ πρὸ | (a certain amount) εἰδῶ]; Manganaro [τῇ | πρ(ὸ) εἰδῶ]
  
• b.6: Ferrua: Ἀγούστου; Manganaro Α(ὐ)γούστου
  
• b.6-7: Ferrua: ἔζ[η|σεν αὐτ]ὴ; [ἔζησε | (name)]ὴ. Another possibility could be ἔζ[η|σεν ἡ γυν]ὴ
  
• b.7: Ferrua: μετ’ ἐμοῦ; Manganaro μετ’ ἐμοῦ τοῦ
  
• b.7-8: Ferrua, Manganaro: Ἀξ(ίου) Προσ[ή|νους]; Feissel ἀξ(ίως) προσ|ηγορίας
  
• b.8: Ferrua ἐν νομοζυγίᾳ; Feissel, Manganaro ἐν ὀμοζυγία

Physical description

Support

Description

Three joining marble fragments of a marble plaque, partially intact on the upper left and on the lower right side. Ferrua speculates that the plaque as a whole was c.55 cm wide, giving dimensions firstly for Fragment (a) (H=20, W=21, D=3.8 cm) and secondly for Fragments (b) and (c) combined (H=27.5, W=33.5, D=3.8 cm); Manganaro gives dimensions for fragment (b) separately (H=26, W=12, D=3 cm).

Object type

plaque

Material

marble

Condition

fragments, contiguous

Dimensions

height: greater than 30 cm, width: 55 cm, depth: 3.8 cm

Inscription

Layout

No data

Text condition

incomplete

Lettering

Letter heights

Lines 1-12: 15-25mm

Interlinear heights

Interlineation line 1 to 2: not recordedmm

Provenance

Place of origin

Catina

Provenance found

Original discovery not recorded, but Ferrua states that it was found in via Dott. Consoli, and suggests that it was originally in a pavement.

Current location

Place

Catania, Italy

Repository

Museo Civico di Catania

Autopsy

Observed by Ferrua in 1967 in the courtyard of Castello Ursino; Manganaro subsequently saw and photographed the left two fragments only; not seen subsequently.

Map

Date

Evidence

No data

Text type

funerary

commentary

The inscription is bilingual and composed of three fragments (Ferrua observed the third fragment, not seen by Manganaro, who publishes only the photograph of the first and the second together with Ferrua's drawing of the third). According to Ferrua, the two epitaphs are the same epitaph in a Latin and Greek version; therefore, the integrations suggested by him for the less preserved Latin part is a translation of the Greek version. However, Manganaro distinguishes the epitaphs, which are contemporary and from the same workshop, the first one of Constantia (?) by her husband Manilius (?), the second one of an unknown woman by her husband Axios Prosenes. Assuming they are the same epitaph in a Latin and Greek version, it is worth noting that the Latin version is shorter than the Greek one.

Among the similarities between the two epitaphs are the usual opening formula of funerary inscriptions at l. 1 dep̣[osita in pace] and l. 6 ἐν[θάδ]ε κῖτε ἐν ἰ[ρήνῃ], as well as the reference to the bride’s dignity (ll. 3-4 ḅ[ene merenti con]|sorti, l. 7 ἡ [ἀξιολο]γωτάτη). At l. 1 the indication of the day (introduced by die or sub die) could follow after dep(osita) in pace, as in another Latin Christian epitaph from Acium, CIL 10, no.7116 = ISic000397 (see Korhonen 2004: 113-115). At l. 3 recurs the bene merenti formula to express the merits of the deceased in life. At l. 5 Ferrua reads a Κ before Λ and interprets the two letters as the name of the deceased woman, Κλ(αυδία), who should have had a very short cognomen (e.g. Pia), whereas Manganaro interpreted Λ as a numeral (30) indicating the number of the tomb, with the name of the deceased probably expressed at l. 6 in the lacuna. According to Feissel, the name of the husband, Axios Prosenes, is an arbitrary reconstruction; at ll. 11-12, he suggests to read ἀξ(ίως) προς[ηγορίας?], even if the space too short. However, also the interpretation of Ἀξ Προσ̣[ as a proper name is problematic: Ἄξιος is not attested in Sicily and Προσηνής is rare. The union between the bride and groom is pointed out at l. 12 with the expression ἐ]ν ὁμοζυγίᾳ: as Feissel observes, ὁμόζυγος usually designates the husband in patristic literature.

Bibliography

Digital editions

• TM: 644829
• EDR: -
• EDH: -
• EDCS: -
• PHI: 331951

Printed editions

• Association pour l’encouragement des études greques, « Bulletin épigraphique », Revue des études grecques, 1888, http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/797735566, at 1987.0553
• ‘Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum’, Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, 1923, http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1607583, at 39.1004
• ‘Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum’, Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, 1923, http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1607583, at 36.0843
• Antonio Ferrua, «Le iscrizioni datate della Sicilia paleocristiana», Kokalos 28–29 (1983 1982): 3–29, at 21 no. 73 fig.2b
• Giacomo Manganaro, «Iscrizioni Latine nuove e vecchie della Sicilia», Epigraphica 51 (1989): 161–96, at 174 no. 47 fig. 51-51a
• Giacomo Manganaro, «Greco nei pagi e latino nelle città della Sicilia romana tra I e VI sec. d.C.», in l’epigrafia del villaggio, a c. di A. Calbi, A. Donati, e G. Poma (Faenza, 1993), 543–94, at 579

Discussion

• Kalle Korhonen, Le iscrizioni del Museo civico di Catania : storia delle collezioni, cultura epigrafica, edizione (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 2004), at pp. 113-115

Citation and editorial status

Editor

Jonathan Prag

Principal contributor

Jonathan Prag

Contributors

• Jonathan Prag
• James Cummings
• James Chartrand
• Valeria Vitale
• Michael Metcalfe
• Simona Stoyanova
• system
• Marta Fogagnolo

Last revision

9/24/2024