Fragmentary Greek funerary inscription (ISic001377)

Apparatus criticus

Text after Amico and Kaibel ;
line.1: ἐνθάδ[ε Amico 1741, 277, IG XIV 558; ΕΝΘΑΚ Amico 1741, 274; ἔνθα κ[ῖτε --- CIG IV 9500
line.2: ζησας Amico, ΙG XIV 558; ζήσας [ἄμεμπτος καὶ ἄλυπος CIG IV 9500
lines.3-4: ἔτη ν´ [---] | [---] ΥΤΟ Amico 1741, 277; ἔτη ν´ [---] | [---] ΚΤΩ Amico 1741, 274; ἔτη ν´. [τελευτᾷ τῇ πρὸ --- Ὀ]|κτω[βρίων CIG IV 9500, IG XIV 558; ἔτη ν´. [ὑπατίᾳ] | [---o]υ ΤΟ Ferrua

Physical description

Support

Description: No details of physical form are recorded, assumed to be part of a stone plaque, broken on the right.
Object type: plaque
Object condition: No data
Dimensions: height: cm, width: cm, depth: cm

Material

Description: stone
Type > subtype: stone.unspecified > unverified

Inscription

Layout: four lines of Greek, incomplete on the right.
Text condition: No data
Technique: chiselled
Pigment: No data
Lettering: lunate sigma and the use of a supraline on numeral recorded by Amico
Letter heights: Line 1: mm
Interlinear heights: Interlineation line 1 to 2: mm

Provenance

Place of origin: Catina
Provenance found: Recorded by Amico 1741 as previously (according to Carrera) 'penes Blascum Romanum Columnam', but subsequently in the museum of S. Nicolai.

Current location

Lost.

Date

404 CE, a conjecture by Ferrua of the consular date (CE 404 - CE 404)

Evidence: internal-date

Text type

funerary

commentary

The funerary inscription is highly fragmentary. Amico copied it twice, with only a minor variation in line 4, failing to recognize that the two copies represented the same text. The restorations proposed by Kirchhoff (ap. CIG IV 9500) and Kaibel (ap. IG XIV 558) are based on one of the variants (Amico 1741, 274), whereas Ferrua's restoration (1983, 27 no. 91) relies on the other (Amico 1741, 277). Kirchhoff and Kaibel interpreted the last two lines as containing the formula recording the date of death, including the specification of the month (ll. 3–4: τῇ πρὸ --- Ὀ]|κτω[βρίων), whereas Ferrua interpreted them as preserving a consular dating formula (ὑπατίᾳ --- ο]|υ), suggesting that the reference was to the consulship of the emperor Honorius (404 CE).

Bibliography

Digital editions

Printed editions

Citation and editorial status

Editor

Jonathan Prag

Principal contributor