ISic001277: Fragmentary funerary inscription

No image available

ID
ISic001277
Status
draft
Language
Ancient Greek
Object type
plaque
Text type
funerary

Edition

Loading...

Apparatus criticus

line.1: θήκη Franz (ap. CIG III 5572), Sandberg, IGMusPalermo 6; Ferrua; ΘΗ Torremuzza; ΘΜ Schiavo; Θε(οῖς πᾶσι) Kaibel (ap. IG XIV 452)
line.2: Ἀρτεμ[- - ? - -] IGMusPalermo 6 (fortasse Ἀρτέμ[ονος, Ferrua); Ἀρτέμ[ωνος Franz (ap. CIG III 5572), SEG 14.597; Ἀρτεμ[ισίου Sandberg
lines.3-4: καὶ τοῦ[- - ? - -]-|ου IGMusPalermo 6 (fortasse καὶ τοῦ [υἱων|οῦ); καὶ τοῦ [υἱ|οῦ Franz (ap. CIG III 5572); καὶ τοῦ [ἀδελφ|οῦ ? Sandberg; καῖ τοῦ [υεἵ|ου Ferrua
line.4: αὐτο[ῦ Franz (ap. CIG III 5572), Sandberg; αὐτο[ῦ οὐκ IGMusPalermo 6
line.5: εὐπλ[- - ? - -] IGMusPalermo 6 (fortasse εὐπλ[όων); Εὐπλ[--- Franz (ap. CIG III 5572); εὐπλοίας ἔνεκα Kaibel (ap. IG XIV 452); εὔπλ[οει vel εὐπλ[οεῖτε Sandberg; Εὔπλ[ους vel Εὐπλ[ία Alföldi; Εὔπλ[ου Ferrua

Physical description

Support

Description
Fragment of a limestone slab, fragmentary on the right.
Object type
plaque
Object condition
No data
Dimensions
height: 18 cmwidth: 14.5 cmdepth: 2.5 cm

Material

Description
limestone
Type > subtype
inorganic.stone > unverified

Inscription

Layout
No data
Text condition
No data
Technique
chiselled
Pigment
No data
Lettering
No data
Letter heights
Line 1: 15-30mm
Interlinear heights
Interlineation line 1 to 2: mm

Provenance

Place of origin
Catina
Provenance found
First recorded by Gualtherus 1624 as being in the 'foro Trissini', in the possession of Fancisca Caruso.

Current location

Place
Palermo, Sicilia
Repository
Museo Archeologico Regionale Antonino Salinas
8725
Autopsy
None
Map

Date

Late 2nd century CE or early 3rd century CE (CE 151 - CE 250)
Evidence
No data

Text type

funerary

commentary

This inscription is highly fragmentary: most editors have interpreted it as a funerary inscription. Torremuzza’s reading (1784 cl. XVIII no. 33) of l. 1 ΘΗ, together with the presence of two genitives in ll. 3–4, leaves no room for alternative interpretations: θήκη is also used in other funerary inscriptions in the sense of “tomb” (e.g. IG XIV 633, 783). Ferrua (1989, 113–114 no. 428) identifies this term as a Christian word and integrates a christogram at the end of the inscription. Kaibel’s reading (ap. IG XIV 452) of l. 1 Θε[οῖς πᾶσι, besides being erroneous, is at the root of an incorrect interpretation of the document’s typology, which the scholar considered to be a dedicatory epigraph; this interpretation, however, conflicts with the genitives at ll. 3–4. It is therefore preferable to understand the text as an epitaph, for a deceased individual whose name is only partially preserved and which scholars have variously restored as Ἀρτέμων (Franz ap. CIG III 5572; Manni Piraino ap. IGMusPalermo 6) or Ἀρτεμίσιος (Sandberg 1954, 41), and for one of his relatives (the son according to Franz ap. CIG III 5572; the brother according to Sandberg 1954, 41; or the grandson according to Manni Piraino ap. IGMusPalermo 6). The last line has received several readings: Kaibel (ap. IG XIV 452), assuming it to be a dedication, read εὐπλοίας ἔνεκα, the expression used to thank the gods for a safe voyage, whereas Alföldi (1976, 511), although agreeing on the funerary destination of the text, was perhaps influenced by Kaibel’s interpretation and read a proper name (Εὔπλους or Εὐπλία), understood as the dedicant. For Ferrua (1989, 113–114 no. 428), this was the proper name of the deceased’s son, Εὔπλου. Sandberg (1954, 41–42), supported by Manni Piraino (ap. IGMusPalermo 6), read the imperative εὔπλοει or εὐπλοεῖτε as a wish addressed to the passer-by, similar to εὐτύχει or εὐτυχεῖτε: the plural form is also found in IG XIV 933 l. 11 (Portus, 1st–2nd century AD), while in the singular the contracted form εὐπλόι is more common (IG XIV 2409, 8; SEG 42.942 l. 2; IG XIV 2472 l. 9 = CIL XII 758).

Bibliography

Digital editions
Printed editions
Discussion

Citation and editorial status

Editor
Jonathan Prag
Principal contributor
Jonathan Prag
Contributors
Last revision
8/3/2026