Studies in Early Christian Epigraphy

W. M. Calder

doi:10.2307/295787

Studies in Early Christian Epigraphy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012

W. M. Calder

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The publication of a second fourth-century epitaph from Laodicea Combusta, engraved on the tomb of two of its bishops, Severus and Eugenius, calls for fresh study, from a new angle, of the epitaph of the persecuted bishop Julius Eugenius of the same city, which was first published (with a provisional text) in the Expositor in 1908, and has already become the subject of a considerable literature. An opportunity therefore offers itself to present English readers with a complete and (I hope) final text of the bishop's epitaph. This is all the more necessary that an English version, inaccurate in almost every detail, has been incorporated in a text-book issued by the Cambridge University Press.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 10 , November 1920 , pp. 42 - 59

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/295787 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Professor W. M. Calder 1920. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 42 note 1} This and succeeding papers were originally prepared for discussion in a seminar conducted in connection with the Lectureship in Christian Epigraphy in the University of Manchester. In their present form they are part of a belated report presented to the Principal and Fellows of Brasenose College, Oxford, and to the Wilson Trustees in Aberdeen University, who financed the exploration carried out by me in Asia Minor from 1908 to 1913.

^{page 42 note 2} Calder, Expositor, 1908 p. 385 ff., 1909 p. 307 ff. (where a private criticism by Dessau is discussed); Ramsay, ibid. 1908 p. 409 ff.., 1910 p. 51 ff., Luke the Physician, p. 339 ff.; Harnack, Theol. Ltz. 1909, p. 165; Franchi de' Cavalieri, Note agiografiche (Studi e testi, 1909), p. 59 ff.; Preuschen, Analecta, Kürzere Texte, etc. p. 149 f.; Calder, Klio, 1910, p. 232; Wilhelm, ibid. 1911, p. 388 ff.; Jalabert, art. Epigraphie in D'Alès Dict. Apologet.; Battifol, Bull. Soc. Ant. 1911, p. 10 ff. and Bull. de Lit. et Arch. chrét. 1911, p. 25 ff. May I ask some foreign colleague to bring the list up to date, an impossible task in the libraries to which I have access?

^{page 42 note 3} Marucchi, Christian Epigraphy (English translation), p. 322. Eugenius's reference to the persecution in lines 7–8 of his epitaph appears as: ‘And having suffered many annoyances from the General Diogenes.’ I have not seen the original Italian, but find it hard to believe that the translator is responsible for this curious rendering.

^{page 43 note 1} I ought to add that in 1912, when I paid a hurried visit to Ladik with the Vali of Konia to identify the sarcophagus of Eugenius, which he had been instructed to transport to Konia or to Constantinople, I took the opportunity of making a few notes on the inscription. I find in my 1912 notebook ….ΑΞΑΠΛωC.… I am loth to belive that the final C escaped us in 1909, and the 1912 notes were made very hurriedly. Should my 1912 copy be subsequently confirmed, it only involves the removal of the circular in l.17. The photograph (pl. 1) is indecisive. On the same occasion I observed that the broken edge of the stone comes close to the last word in l. 19, and that there is room for five letters in the gap after MOϒ. I do not suggest, or believe, that any letters were engraved here.

^{page 43 note 2} έκδοχῆς in Luke the Physician. Ramsay suggested έκ[λογῆς ἀπ]ὸ after seeing the stone. But the letter to the r. of the gap is Є or C, not O.

^{page 43 note 3} Klio, 1911, p. 388 ff.

^{page 44 note 1} Luke the Physician, p. 341.

^{page 44 note 2} This fills the space better than λιΨόμε]νος.

^{page 44 note 3} Franchi de' Cavalieri (Note agiogr. p. 61) maintains that ό τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίος means ‘human life’, not ‘the life of the world’ (la vita del secolo). He suggests λογισάμε]νος or λογιζόμε|νος, comparing Herodotus, vii, 46: λογισάμενος ὡς βραχὺς είη ὁ πᾶς ἀνθρώπινος βιος. This is attractive; but can λογισάμενος τὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίον, without the addition ὡς βραχύς ἑστι, convey the same meaning? The point requries further investigation. Of the suggested restorations, λογισάμενος implies that ὁ τ ἀ. βίος means (I) ‘human life’ as opposed to the life of θεοί or θηρία; ἀρνούμενος implies the meaning (2) ‘the life of the world’ as opposed to the life a hermit; λειψόμενος and διερχόμενος both imply the meaning (3) ‘this life’ as opposed to the furture life. Basil's use of ὀ τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίος or ὁ ἀνθρώπινος (as Mr. T. M. Gribbin informs me) supports (I). So also Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. i, 2, 17 (W. H. Buckler). Until I am convinced that ὁ τ. ἀ. βίος cannot mean ‘this life,’ I shall prefer λειψόμενος or διερχόμενος τὸν τ. ἀ. βίον, either of which express the same idea as the customary ζῶν (see below, P. 46, 50 f).

^{page 45 note 1} See the literature quoted on p. 42. M. Grégoire, in a private communcation, pointed out the meaning of κεντήσεις. In l. 17. I now prefer πᾶ[σι to πά]ντ' as providing a simpler construction and as probably being echoed in the πασῶν άπαξαπλῶς καταστάσεων of the eighteenth-century summary (printed in Expositor, 1908, p. 386, from Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, part ii, p. 543). The expression λιθοξοϊκοῖς ἕργοις (1. 17) inculdes sculptured details as well as masonry. Perhaps τὸν περὶ αὐτὴν κὁσμον (ll. 14, 15) should be rendered ‘the adornment in and about it’—the ζωγραΦίαι and κεντὴσεις are certainly not confined to the constructions surrounding the church proper.

^{page 46 note 1} See my paper in Revue de Philologie, xxxvi (1912), p. 50 ff.

^{page 46 note 2} Ramsay quotes C.I.L. iii, 6807, 13661. On his title see my note in Journal of Roman Studies, 1912, p. 87.

^{page 47 note 1} Reproduced in Klio, vol. x, p. 232. The panel and accompanying design is similar to that on the sarcophagus published by Miss Ramsay in Studies in the E. Rom. Prov. (Ramsay), p. 16, fig. 5 b; cf. ibid. p. 46, fig. 24.

^{page 48 note 1} Lefebvre, Inscr. gr. chrét. d'Egypte, no. 227.

^{page 48 note 2} See Cumont's explanation in Studia Pontica (Anderson, Cumont, Grégoire), vol. iii, p. 124. Cf. also Col. iii, 16.

^{page 49 note 1} I quote Whitley, art. Sects in Hasting's E.R.E. (But even Justin wrote: πνεῦμά τε τὸ προΦητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν, Apol. i, 6.) With ὴνίοχος Φωνῆς compare ἡνίοχος κιθάρας (Steph.Byz. s.v. Μίλητος If the idea underlying ὴνίοχος Φωνῆς were that of a harpist, the metaphor itself might belong to the language of Montanism; cf. Epiphaius, Panar. p. 405 (Oeheler) εὐθὺς γὰρ ὁ Μοντανός ϕησιν, Ίδού, ἄνθρωπος ὡσϵὶ λύρα, κἀγὼ ἵπταμαι ὡσεὶ πλῆκτρον

^{page 49 note 2} Hence the expressions ἀποζώννυμι ‘cashier,’ ἀπόζωστος ‘dischared.’ Cf. e.g. Cod. Just. xii, 17, 3; xii, 50, 3. Anna Comnena, i, 16. (These references I owe to Mr. Buckler.)

^{page 50 note 1} The shape of the letters is discussed below, p.51 f.

^{page 50 note 2} Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics, pp. 118, 545, 709, 722.

^{page 50 note 3} Miss Ramsay in Studies in the E. Rom. Prov. p. 22.

^{page 50 note 4} Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 360.

^{page 50 note 5} For the benefit of foreign readers, I add the reference: 2 sam. ii, 3.

^{page 52 note 1} The lintel was often engraved with the dedicatory inscription, but the Severus tablet is not a Jintel.

^{page 52 note 2} See Franchi de' Cavalieri, op. cit. p. 68.

^{page 52 note 3} Ramsay and Bell, The Thousand and One Churches, passim.

^{page 52 note 4} Θεὸς γενέτης: Studia Pontica (Anderson Cumont, Grégoire), iii, p. 34.

^{page 53 note 1} p. 48.

^{page 53 note 2} This inscription mentions the Emperor Anastasius I (A.D. 491–518).

^{page 53 note 3} Franchi de' Cavalieri, loc. cit. See also the inscription of the martyr Socrates of Zenonopolis in Isauria, dated A.D. 488, discussed by Wiegand in Ath. Mitth. 1911, p. 296.

^{page 53 note 4} τὸ αἶμα ΣτεΦάνου τοῠ μάρτυρός σου, Acts xxii, 20; cf. Rev. ii, 13 (Antipas of Pergamos).

^{page 53 note 5} For an admirable discussion of this subject, see de Labriolle in Bulletin de Lit. et d'Arch. Chrét. 1911, p. 50 ff.

^{page 54 note 1} This fact emerges from Wilhelm's restoration. The earlier discussions of the epitaph were all at fault on this important point. The separate burial of martyrs was of course universal.

^{page 54 note 2} See Miss Ramsay in Studies in the E. Rom. Prov. p. 65, and the references there quoted. It is interesting to find the θύρα mentioned as a feature of a μαρτύριον by Gregory of Nyssa (Migne 46, 752A, Quoted by Franchi de' Cavalieri).

^{page 55 note 1} Manuel d'Epigraphie chrétienne, ch. i.

^{page 55 note 2} In particular, mention of the date of death is rare in Anatolia.

^{page 55 note 3} This is the general tendency. There are many exceptions in Anatolia, where the primitive religion of the country has tended to modify and even to absorb all imported religions—Greek, Christian and Moslem alike.

^{page 55 note 4} Kaibel, Epigr. Graec. no. 394.

^{page 56 note 1} See especially Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics, p. 488 ff. and Luke the Physician, concluding chapter; Mendel, BCH., 1902, 225 ff., and Catalogue du Musée de Brousse; Crowfoot, ABSA., 1897–8, 79 ff.

^{page 56 note 2} They are enumerated in Citics and Bishoprics, p. 489, note 3.

^{page 56 note 3} Recent Discovery, etc. p. 417.

^{page 56 note 4} They will be published in a later paper in this series. I refer to the carving of X in MNHMHCXAPIN in the form of a cross +.

^{page 57 note 1} Two poetical inscriptions of Khavsa in Pontus, belonging to the same monument, and probably contemporary with the Emperor Julian, are exactly alike in style and lettering: Studia Pontica, iii, p. 40.

^{page 57 note 2} Perhaps some expert in martyrology can identify him.

^{page 57 note 3} According to my copy Νῦν τ' fills the space better than Ἔν τ', which alos suggested itself; or perhaps: ‘Αγνῶς τ’]ἀσκητὸν μνῆ[μα θανόντας ἒχει.

^{page 58 note 1} Codex Just, i, tit. 5; cf. Basil, vol. iv (Migne), §296.

Article contents

Studies in Early Christian Epigraphy

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests