ISic001313: Epitaph for Markia Loukilia

I.Sicily with the permission of the Assessorato Regionale dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana - Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana
ID
ISic001313
Language
Ancient Greek
Text type
funerary
Object type
plaque
Status
No data
Links
View in current site

Edition

Loading...

Apparatus criticus

  • Text based on photographs;
  • line.4: Torremuzza, Ferrara, Bertucci, Franz, Kaibel, Collitz-Bechtel: αἴζως (i.e. ἔζης); Korhonen: αἴζωσ(εν)
  • line.5: Torremuzza, Ferrara, Bertucci, Franz ἔτι α εἴκοσι; Kaibel, Collitz-Bechtel, Korhonen: ἔτια

Physical description

Support

Description
Three joining fragments of marble plaque, set in plaster in modern times.
Object type
plaque
Material
marble
Condition
fragments, contiguous
Dimensions
height: 20.5 cm, width: 25 cm, depth: 0.5-6 cm

Inscription

Layout
No data
Text condition
No data
Lettering

Letter heights
Lines 1-5: 15-30mm
Interlinear heights
Interlineation line 1 to 2: not recordedmm

Provenance

Place of origin
Catina
Provenance found
Original discovery not recorded. Registered in the anonymous codex Marucellianus A 77 f. 142v: the inscription was “fortasse non Catanensis tamen Siculus” according to Kaibel due to the Doric expression χρηστά. From a linguistic and palaeographic point of view, the inscription is considered from Catania by Korhonen (cf. CIL 10.7056).

Current location

Place
Catania, Italy
Repository
Museo Civico di Catania , 301
Autopsy
Observed by Torremuzza and Kaibel in Museo del Monastero di San Nicolò l’Arena, later by Korhonen in magazzino del Cortile, Collezione dei Benedettini, formerly sala VI, 109.
Map

Date

1st century CE or first half of 2nd century CE (AD 1 – AD 150)
Evidence
No data

Text type

funerary

commentary

The epitaph has the traditional structure with the name of the deceased, the epithets χρηστὰ καὶ ἄμεμπτος (for which, see Korhonen 2004: 84) and the indication of the age, with the verb ζάω in the aorist form. Following Korhonen, the phonetic reading αἴζως for ἔζης seems to be less probable than αἴζωσ’ or αἴζωσ(εν) (from ζώω): for a similar form, see Libertini NSA 1931: 391-392 (ἔσζω[σ-]). Also the reading ἔτι α εἴκοσι seems to be less probable (despite ἔτι of the Christian epitaph Libertini 1931: 45 nr. 10) than the phonetic reading ἔτια (i.g. ἔτεα): see IC IV 168*. The Doricism at l. 3 and the hypercorrection at l. 4 denote the stonecutter’s quest for refinement or poor knowledge of Greek (as also revealed by ἔτια of l. 5).

Bibliography

Digital editions
Printed editions

Citation and editorial status

Editor
Jonathan Prag
Principal contributor
Jonathan Prag
Contributors
Last revision
9/22/2022