Nota Bene - University of Chicago

“Looking for Abercius:
Re-Imagining Contexts of Interpretation of the Earliest Christian Inscription”
Margaret M. Mitchell
University of Chicago
The epitaph of a man named Abercius, which may be the earliest datable Christian
inscription (pre 216 CE), 1 has been termed “the queen of Christian inscriptions.” 2 Abercius’
story, like mine in search of him, begins and ends with travel, centrally to and from Rome. I
pursued him once in Asia Minor, but my itinerary unfortunately included the wrong Hierapolis
(not Hieropolis), 3 missed his epigone in Istanbul (the Istanbul Archaeological Museum was
closed as I walked back from Topkapi Palace), 4 and found him in Rome (treading over a freshly
varnished floor and breathing polyurethene fumes in order to do so). The moment of actual
encounter was furtive, photographically-focused and brief; also memorable and impressive. But
it was at the same time (and in memory since then) visually confusing, especially from the
effect produced by the reconstructed stone standing to the right of the original fragments, far
more arresting, in terms of sheer real-estate, than the two nubs remaining from Abercius’actual,
in its day rather resplendent effort to defy death. Having made my way to Abercius through row
upon row of early Christian sarcophagi, in which third and fourth century Christians chose to go
------------------------------------
1 The most recent publication of the inscription puts the date as 170/180 CE (Reinhold Merkelbach and
Josef Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Band 3: Der “Ferne Osten” und das Landesinnere bis
zum Tauros [Munich and Leipzig: Saur, 2001] 182-185, a listing which largely replicates Merkelbach’s article in
Epigraphica anatolia 28 (1997) 125-39.
2 ”epitaphium christianarum inscriptionum dicitur regina” (Ferrua and Balboni, “Epitaphium Abercii,” 157;
Guarducci: “la più insigne delle iscrizioni greche cristiane” [ Epigrafia greca IV, 377]).
3 In this I was replicating a difficulty in the whole history of interpretation. Because of the famous hot springs
at Hierapolis on the Lycus (present day Pammukale, famous as the home of Papias in the second century), Abercius
was often placed here, because he performed a famous miracle involving spontaneous eruption of hot fountains.
After his famous finds, Ramsay in the late 19th century argued, convincingly to most, that this reflected common
confusion between the names Hierapolis and Hieropolis, and that Abercius came from the latter (which also had hot
springs, as he discovered). Since the vita itself places Abercius’ hometown near Synnada in “little Phrygia,” this
should not have confused (vita Abercii 71 [50]). For discussion see, e.g., Duchesne, ”Saint Abercius,” 15-21. See
map (Fig. XX).
4 Alexander, the son of Antonius, apparently reused part of Abercius ’ famous inscription (lines 1-3 and 20-
22) for himself. This funerary altar, found by Ramsay in 1881, dates to 216 CE and is now housed in Istanbul (see
Gustave Mendel, Musées impériaux ottomans, Catalogues des sculptures grecques , vol. 2 [Contantinople: Musée
impérial, 1914] #778, p. 569-70).

to death’s sleep wrapped in intricately detailed carvings of their sacred scriptures, Abercius’
tomb monument was an austere, lettered front virtually devoid of ornament, figure or image.
And where was Abercius? How could this stark monolith stand sentry over a body? It was
such a contrast with the morning I had spent in the Vatican carpark necropolis that even in
modern restoration smelled of mold and death, decay and dirt, and brought me face to face with
the uncompromisable reality of what we were doing on our scholarly tour of Roman and
Christian burials when I almost stepped on a 2 tiles propped up like playing cards, with the ulna
of a departed human sticking vulnerably out beyond the shelter of its humble tent. Not so with
Abercius; here death was boneless, clean, marked with sharp lines, a neat stone, and
stunningly important verbal content. ΕΙΣ ΡΩΜΗΝ, “to Rome,” the first two words of the first
fragment of the original inscription still proudly proclaimed into the space in the Pio Cristiano
under a natural skylight. A double entendre, indeed!
Abercius devoted the majority of attention in his epitaph to his trip to Rome and the
marvelous things he had seen there: “a gold-stoled, gold-sandaled queen,” “a people having a
resplendent seal.” The story of the discovery of fragments of this inscription is the stuff of
Indiana Jones, 5 even as the history of interpretation of the inscription was long mired in
Protestant-Catholic apologetics. The Christian archaeologist William Ramsay found an
epigram of one Alexander the son of Antonius, dated to 216 CE, in May of 1881 in Kelendres,
and recognized immediately that its inscription incorporated part of the funerary inscription of
Abercius as found in the later vita Abercii. A scant two years later he and his companion, the
American J.R.S. Sterrett, found two fragments of Abercius’ own epitaph in the ruins of a bath
house in the site they identified as ancient Hieropolis, in Phrygia Salutaris (so-called “minor
Phrygia”). 6 Early research divided quickly between Protestant authors who questioned the
Christian identity of the inscription (famously Ficker, Harnack and later Dieterich, though
------------------------------------
Page 2
5 See Ramsay’s own account in “The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 4 (1883)
370-?, idem, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1, part II, 709-746; the lively retelling in Frend, The Archaeology of
Early Christianity, 95-98.
6 Φρυψγι�α μικρα� in vita Aberc. 71 [50].

differently Dölger, von Campenhausen, Th. Zahn 7 ), and Catholic scholars who championed its
Christian nature, seeing it further as a witness to the centrality of Rome-based Christian
orthodoxy and orthopraxy as widespread already by the late second century (de Rossi, Ferrua,
Abel, later Guarducci). 8 Today virtually no scholars of any stripe dispute that the inscription is
Christian, 9 though exactly what that meant in the late second century remains disputed. As for
the fate of the original stone, Ramsay initially gave one fragment to the Sultan Abdul-Hamid
and kept custody of the other, but eventually in 1888 arranged for both fragments to make their
way, like their honoree had earlier, to Rome, as gifts to Pope Leo XIII (“provvidamente riuniti,”
as Margherita Guarducci puts it). 10 They have been housed since then in the Vatican’s Lateran
Museum (now the Pio Cristiano), where I saw them for a fleeting few minutes on the afternoon
of June 17, 2004. The fragments are now encased in cement which fixes them upright atop
one another, the whole of which is placed on a modern pedestal. They stand a scant foot from
the wall in a small cul de sac at the end of a hall filled with sarcophagi (see Fig. 1). Next to
them is a reconstruction of a large, simple, unadorned stone rectangular block in approximate,
if rather stark, cippus form (see Fig. 2). The impression given by that reconstruction is that
Abercius’ inscription is to be understood as text, words, which are of paramount, even sole
importance. Aniconic, blunt and virtually two-dimensional in impact, the stone is a mere vehicle
of the letter (the positioning does not encourage or even much allow the viewer to peruse the
sides and back of the inscription). Decontextualized in the gallery, the inscription is far from
tomb or body, hardly evocative of a decomposing human body crying out in living language,
though dead, to be left undisturbed. I had taught my students to hang on every word of his
------------------------------------
Page 3
7 See Wischmeyer, “Die Aberkiosinschrift als Grabepigramm, ” 22 n. 4 for references.
8 The modern inscription identifying the Abercius fragments when first placed in the Lateran makes this
explicit: FRAGMENTUM TITULI SEPULCRALIS EX ASIA ADVECTUM IN QUO ABERCIUS HIEROPOL EPISC
SAEC II UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE CONSENSUM IN UNAM FIDEM TESTATUR (Dólger, Der heilige Fisch in den
Antiken Religionen und im Christentum [Münster: Aschendorff, 1922] 454). I did not notice if this is still with the
original, now in the Pio Christiano.
9 In addition to the Merkelbach listing (note 1) see New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 6, ed.
S.R. Llewlyn and R.A. Kearsley (1992) 177-81. The tide among Protestant scholars can be seen to have definitively
turned in such works as Th. Klauser, “Aberkios,” RAC 1 (1950) 12-18 may be taken as representative (“Die Inschrift
is vielmehr christlich” [16]), and Wolfgang Wischmeyer, “Die Aberkios-Inschrift als Grabepigramm,” JbAC 23, 1980,
22-47.
10 Epigrafia greca, vol: epigrafi sacre pagane e cristiane (Rome: Libreria dello stato, 1978) 380.

epitaph, seeking to extract the marrow of facts about Christianity in the late second century
from it. 11 But whatever it was, in its original context (and, as this paper seeks to emphasize, it
has had many recontextualizations!) the epitaph of Abercius was part of a complex and grand
monument that was more than words, and more than message -- it was also the tomb, the
repository of the body of the man who speaks in first person in the epitaph he say he wrote
while alive, not just to tell of his trip to Rome, but also to guarantee the inviolability of the buried
body which the stone marks. My purpose in this essay is to give expression to some of my
attempts to ask about and fill in the blankness of my own iconographic imagination in multiple
ways, as informed by our encounter with Roman and Christian burials in Rome and Tunisia last
summer.
The historical Abercius pursued a journey from his Asian homeland to Rome, and after
his return to Asia Minor composed for himself a tomb monument so impressive that it was
talked about centuries later, and was incorporated into legend in the fourth or fifth century vita
Abercii, 12 from which it found its way into the Menologia (from the anonymous compiler, and
also Simeon Metaphrastes) and Acta Sanctorum traditions. 13 The tradition-historical
relationship between the literary life and the documentary inscription have been the subject of
lively debate, largely because the reconstruction of the epigram depends upon a critical
assessment and cautious alignment of these traditions and recensions, together with the
Alexander inscription. 14 In order to contextualize the Abercius inscription, we shall first look at
how the ancient literary traditions have done so, and how they wish us to view the object before
us.
Page 4
According to legend Abercius lived in Hieropolis of Phrygia Salutaris. Written much in
------------------------------------
11
This is replicated in scholarship continually, in which the inscription is interpreted as though simply a
given text (in such a standard resource as H. Strathmann and Th. Klauser, “Aberkios,” RAC 1 [1950] 12-17).
12
ed. Th. Nissen, S. Abercii Vita (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912); hereafter cited by chapter number, with Nissen’s
page in parentheses. In terms of dating, the work mentions �Ιουλιανο� ς ο� παραβα� της in §66 [47], hence it post-dates
361-363. J.B. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, part II, vol. 1 [London: Macmillan, 1889] 500) puts it at ca. 380 CE.
13
ed. G. Lüdtke and Th. Nissen, Teubner, 1910.
14
There has also been debate about whether this Abercius is the same as the Averkios Marcellus
mentioned by Eusebius in HE 5.16.3 as the person to whom Apolinarius dedicated a treatise against the Montanists.
The inscription does not appear to have any anti-Montanist elements, in my judgment.

the tones and diction of such earlier texts as the martyrium Polycarpi (including constant biblical
allusions and parallels), 15 the vita has a typical hagiographical feel, but, as the tale of the finding
of the actual inscription shows, it may have historically reliable nuggets within it. The vita
Abercii 16 begins with the announcement of imperial mandates to sacrifice to the gods imposed
by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (ca. 161-164). 17 The requirement is resisted by the
bishop of Hieropolis, Abercius, a man noted for his life of constant prayer, teaching, evangelistic
fervor and zealous activity against the shrines of pagan gods. This included a nighttime
counter-assault on the temple of Apollo, in which Abercius attacked that god’s statue, and those
of Heracles, Artemis, and Aphrodite (vita Aberc. 4 [7]). Having established the saint’s pedigree
as an idol-slayer, the author presents stories of his exploits as an evangelist and miracle
worker, who healed the blind, including the mother of Euxeinianos son of Pollion, the chief
magistrate of the city (vita Aberc. 20-23 [16-19]). Such activities aroused the attention of the
devil (ο� δια� βολος), who retaliated by assuming the form of a young woman seeking a blessing
from the saint, but the demon was immediately recognized and struck by Abercius (vita Aberc.
41 [31]). The devil then resumed his own shape and taunted Abercius, crowing that he was
ε� κατο� νταρχος τω� ν δαιμονι�ων (“the centurion of demons”), 18 and hence not to be fooled with like
one of those other petty demons of illness. Next leaping into a νεανι�σκος in the crowd, he
made the boy thrash about. Abercius performed the exorcism and prevailed, but at the moment
of his exit the devil spoke a curse on Abercius that he would soon cause him to make a
unwilling journey: ““Soon, oh Abercius, I shall cause you to tread your way -- unwillingly and
Page 5
involuntarily -- to the city of the Romans” (Ταχυ� , �Αβε�ρκιε, ποιη� σω σε α�κοντα και� μη� βουλο� μενον
και� τη� ν �Ρωμαι�ων πο� λιν πατη�σαι [42 (32)]). After hurling this threat (ταυ�τα α� πειλη� σας), the devil
------------------------------------
15
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part II, vol. 1, p. 500 appeals also to the similarity of the late fourth century
Life of Polycarp.
16
The key passages on the burial monument and the inscription are given, in Greek text and my translation,
as Appendices. I shall argue below that while the text of the inscription has been pored over letter by letter, in the
last century scholarship has paid too little attention to the literary context of the tomb monument within the vita
Abercii. This may be because the vita remains untranslated.
17
This dating is assumed, because the marriage of Verus to Lucilla, which took place in Ephesus in 164,
had not yet occurred.
18
Surely a play on the λε�γιων of Mark 5:9 and pars., made explicit in the “show-down” between the two at
§62 (44). See below.

disappeared. In this case the devil’s words were indeed prophetic, and, lest it appear that the
devil really were in control of history, the Lord appeared to Abercius in a dream that very night
to confirm it as being his own willed plan [οι�κονομι�α]. 19
Abercius was soon summoned through imperial post by no less than the emperor
Marcus Aurelius himself, and his wife Faustina, to come to Rome. They wished him to come
and drive out that very same demon, which had gone off to Rome and taken up residence in
their sixteen year old daughter, Lucilla (vita Aberc. 44 [33]), stubbornly declaring over and over
again that he would not leave that comfortable abode unless Abercius were to come from
Phrygia. 20 Letters from the emperor to the provincial administrators conveyed this request, to
which Abercius acceded. After a forty-day journey over land and sea he arrived, as he had
forecast, in Portus, despite the wintry conditions that slowed other ships (vita Aberc. 54 [39]).
From there (surely seeing tombs along the road that goes from Portus to Ostia, and perhaps
even the considerable funerary remains at Isola Sacra), 21 Abercius was conducted by the
imperial messengers to Rome itself. 22
Once in Rome the queen immediately led Abercius to her daughter, who, writhing from
the demon inside her, triumphantly declared: �Ιδου� , �Αβε�ρκιε, ω� ς ε� πηγγειλα� μην και� �Ρω� μην
ε� ποι�ησα� σε πατη�σαι (vita Aberc. 61 [43]). At this our saint confidently replies, Ναι� ... α� λλ’ ου
χαρη� ση� του� του ε� νεκεν (ibid.). Then Abercius instructs them to take the girl to an open-air place.
An uncovered hippodrome (referred to in the Russion translation as “the Palatine,” an
unmistakable allusion to the circus maximus) 23 is selected for the contest between himself and
the demon. The saint adjures the devil by the name of Jesus to come out of the girl without
harming her; the demon in rejoinder offers his own imprecation in the name of Jesus, and asks
that he not be sent out to some “wild mountain” or place unknown to him (hence enacting the
------------------------------------
Page 6
19
This accords, of course, with the text of the inscription, line 7: ει�ς �Ρω� μην ο� ε�πεμψεν ε� με�ν.
20
Ει� μη� ε�λθη� �Αβε�ρκιος ο� ε� πι�σκοπος τω� ν Χριστιανω� ν τη�ς �Ιεραπολιτω� ν πο� λεως τη�ς Φρυγι�ας τη�ς καλουμε�νης
μικρα�ς, ου� κ α�ν ε� ξε�λθω ποτε� α� πο� του� του του� πλα� σματος (vita Aberc. 46 [35]).
21
The text does not mention this per se, but the proximity makes it a tantalizing possibility.
22
ο� δε� α� γιος ... ε� βα� διζεν μετ’ αυ� τω� ν ει�ς τη� ν �Ρω� μην (vita Aberc. 58 [41-42]).
23
§63 [Nissen, 45, apparatus: το� παλα� τιον λεγο� μενον].

typology with Jesus’ encounter with the legion and the pigs of Mark 5 and parallels). Abercius
consented to this request by substituting another: he commands the demon to return to the
place from which he had come, i.e., Hieropolis. But that is not all. “I, too, command you, in the
name of Jesus, to carry this altar [bomos], pointing out to him a marble altar standing hear him,
to bear it as a keep-safe to my city, Hierapolis,’ he said, ‘and to set it up near the south gate.’” 24
The demon does as bidden, slips into (υ� πεισε�ρχεσθαι) the altar and, after taking a (consolation
rather than victory) lap around the circus, groaning all the while under the weight of the stone,
he brings the altar to Abercius’ hometown and sets it up at “the previously designated place.”
It is there when Abercius finally returns home after all his travels, shortly after which the
Lord appears to him in a dream and announces his imminent death and well-earned rest from
all his labors. At this point we are told that “he constructed a square tomb for himself
[κατεσκευ� σεν ε� αυτω�� τυ� μβον ι�σοτετρα� γωνον], and the altar which at his command the daimon
had brought from Rome he placed above the tomb [και� το� ν βωμο� ν, ο�ν κατα� προ� σταξιν αυ� του�
η�γαγεν ο� δαι�μων α� πο� τη�ς �Ρω� μης, ε�στησεν ε� πα� νω του� τυ� μβου], after engraving on it a divinely
inspired epigram [ε� γχαρα� ξας ει�ς αυ� το� ν θεο� πνευστον ε� πι�γραμμα].” 25 The literary life provides a
transcription of the text of the inscription at this point (αυ� ται�ς λε�ξεσιν ου� τως) and then tells how,
after providing for the election of his successor as bishop, with a prayer Abercius handed over
his spirit to the attending angels (i.e., he died). “Those who were present, after caring for his
body to the degree possible, buried it in the tomb which he had constructed for himself.” 26
The narrator of the vita Abercii makes an implicit claim that he has seen Abercius’
Page 7
funerary monument. Hence his work provides us with something we too rarely get in the study
of ancient inscriptions -- a kind of history of reception even in antiquity. In this case, the literary
work contains a transcription of the epigraphic text near the end of the work, but the relationship
------------------------------------
24
vita Aberc. 63 (45): ’κα� γω� ε� πιτα� ττω σοι ε� ν τω�� ο� νο� ματι �Ιησου� βαστα� σαι το� ν βωμο� ν του�τον,’ υ� ποδει�ξας
αυ� τω�� βωμο� ν μαρμα� ρου πλησι�ον αυ� του� ι�στα� μενον ‘του α� ποσω� σαι ει�ς τη� ν πο� λιν μου’ φησιν ‘Ι � ερα� πολιν και� του�τον
στη�σαι πλησι�ον τη�ς νοτινη�ς πο� ρτης.’
25
§76 [53].
26
ε� πιμελησα� μενοι ου�ν οι� παρο� ντες του� σω� ματος ω� ς η�ν δυνατο� ν ε�θαψαν ει�ς το� ν τυ� μβον, ο�ν ω� ς προει�ρηται
κατεσεκευ� ασεν ε� αυτω�� (§79 [55]).

etween the narrative and the epigram is much more integral and complex than that. At the
least it seems to me likely that the epitaph has had an influential role in generating the order
and substance of the legendary account, 27 with Augusta Faustina coming to life as the elusive
βασι�λισσσα 28 of the epitaph (the author was apparently, unlike modern scholars, more
interested in having his hero meet her than he was in recounting the church at Rome at the
period!), and the travelogue of the inscription (Rome, Syria, Nisibis, Euphrates) 29 forming the
center of the narrative. Yet what is most curious to me is that, even among scholars who find
the discovery of the epitaph itself to provide striking confirmation of the historical reliability of
the vita Abercii, 30 the major narrative element in that literary work as we have traced it -- the
role of the demon in both instigating Abercius’ journey to Rome and in procuring for him the
stone for his funerary monument -- is not even mentioned. 31 At the very least this part of the
tale should capture our interest because it is one way in which the literary author “saw” and
interpreted the stone as well as the words upon it. Indeed, the author himself states that the
Page 8
monument was ambiguous depending upon the viewer: the sentence continues to describe the
epigram τοι�ς με�ν α� ξι�οις του� Χριστου� νοου� μενον και� ω� φε�λιμον, τοι�ς δε� α� πι�στοις μη� γινωσκο� μενον
ε�χον (“for those worthy of Christ it was understood and beneficial, but for the unbelievers it was
------------------------------------
27 Ramsay regarded the fashioning of the legends as inherently syncretistic: “In the Acta the historical
Avircius Marcellus is transformed into the legendary St. Abercius ... He has become a centre round which has
collected a religious myth, embodying both the popular conception of the early history of Christianity in Phrygia, and
several local legends connected with natural features of the district ... The local legend may have contained some
historical facts ... Any communication with M. Aurelius seems wholly improbable; and the incident of the Princess
Lucilla is a threadbare tale that has done duty time after time, and was worked up by the author. This part of the
Acta is probably to a considerable extent a free invention of the author, who has taken some trouble to fit his
invention into the historical facts, though not always successfully. There was a strong inclination, shown in some
other tales, to make the good Emperor Aurelius into a semi-Chr[istian] ” (Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1/2, pp.
713-25). In general this assessment seems right, but it surprisingly gives the epitaph itself too small a role in the
invention of the author.
28 Merkelbach thinks the vita interprets this as the princess Lucilla ( “Grabepigramm,” 127).
29 The trip to Rome receives proportionally more attention in both narrative and inscription ( §41-68), Syria
(§69, with city-names Antioch, Apamea and Seleucia added), Nisibis across the Ephrates ( §70), with the discussion
of how he was voted ι�σαπο� στολος there likely constituting an exegesis of the movement from v. 11a to 11b and 12a
of the inscription (if not for the security of the omicron, on the basis of the narrative one would think the missing word
at the end of line 11 would be συναποστο� λον [sc. Παυ�λον on next line])?
30 Most recently Merkelbach, in several publications (see notes).
31 Neither Merkelbach, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten , NewDocs 6, nor the earlier account
by H. LeClerq in DACL, for instance, even mention the exorcistic episodes. Contrast the earlier insight of Lightfoot:
“The legend however grew up about the literal interpretation; and, if we abandon the latter, the story of the interview
with Lucilla and Faustina, which is the pivot of the narrative, falls to the ground” (Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, pt. 2, p.
498, italics added). It is the pivot, however, because of the exorcistic narrative that occasions both the journey and
the funerary stone.

not able to be understood”). 32
But was the possible misunderstanding only related to the words on the inscription?
Would it not also apply to the full monument? For I would like to offer the possibility that the
saga about the demon was an attempt from centuries later -- post-Julian (the “apostate”) --
when Christian material culture had more firmly distinguished itself from “pagan,” and its
spokesmen were firmly patrolling its newly articulated boundaries, to account for why such a
famous Christian as Abercius had a funerary monument that was a βωμο� ς, and likely a
conspicuously “pagan-looking” one, at that -- one that could be imagined to have come from a
hippodrome in Rome. By a deft tale that combines features of the Acts of the Apostles and
Apocryphal Acts, with their love of travel lore, with Gospel narratives about Jesus’ exorcisms
(especially the combination in Mark 5 of the Gerasene daimoniac 33 followed soon after by
Jairus’ 12 year old daughter who parallels Lucilla) the author has transformed a known and
venerable (if already weathered and worn) local artifact from what he may have perceived as an
uncomfortably pagan monument into a testimony to the power of Jesus Christ. Taking the
legend seriously as reflecting the history of reception of the burial monument, what could it
mean that the author fashioned a literary depiction of Abercius’ gravestone as a reused Roman
altar? Was the legend of its reuse be meant to account for features of the actual stone as seen
by the later hagiographer, who sought to explain that Abercius’ funerary cippus was to be
interpreted as an ironic trophy of his exorcistic power? This impressive monument, according
to the etiological legend, 34 is Abercius’ souvenir -- both textual and monumental -- of his famous
trip to the capital city, Rome. And it is a monument to the power of the one God over
------------------------------------
Page 9
32 §76 [53].
33 Could the inscription have suggested this connection, with the verbal plays on the “flock”
(α� γε�λη),”mountain” (ο�ρος), and “pasturing” (βο� σκειν) (line 4; cf. Mk 5:11, 13, 14; further discussion of the language in
particular in Wischmeyer, “Die Aberkiosinschrift als Grabepigramm,” 31)?
34 It bears noting that this episode contains a second etiological narrative of the baths near that south gate
in Hierapolis, said to have been built by Roman engineers in fulfillment of the sole payment Abercius would allow
from the queen for his labors on behalf of her daughter. The story has several layers. First, the warm water itself is
said to have spontaneously arisen from the ground at the prayer request of the saint, but then Abercius as citybenefactor
provided for its management via modern plumbing through the commissioning of a Roman master builder
(known to be the best). The etiological story is completed by a name change: these baths are now called “Argos of
the warm waters, where formerly they had been known as Argos by the river” (§65-66 [46-47]; cf. another such
legend of a spring of pure drinking water at Γονυκλισι�α [“bent knee”] in §75 [52]).

“paganism,” symbolized by the subjugated demon. 35 That is what the author of the vita wishes
us to “see.”
What did Abercius himself wish his own audience to “see” in his monument, and how
might we seek to recapture into our imaginations a full sense of its original proportions and
visual impact? The sources -- including the inscription itself -- are unanimous in reporting that
Abercius had planned and constructed his memorial himself. Previous scholarship has been
mostly preoccupied with such questions as whether the epigram is Christian or pagan, if the
former, whether overtly or crypto-Christian, and, if so, was it “orthodox” or “anti-Montanist” 36 or
otherwise involved in inner-Christian disputes. However, these questions cannot be answered
in the abstract, on the basis of the reconstructed epitaph alone, but can only be examined in
relation to our imaginative reconstruction of the entire monument complex, which, like all
inscriptions, constituted a “complex semiological message.” 37 I shall investigate that larger
question -- what might the cumulative communicative force of the original funerary monument
might have been? -- by breaking it down into of a constellation of the different elements of
which Abercius’ tomb monument was composed. It is at this point that two questions
serendipitously meet -- how might Abercius have been influenced in the construction of his
------------------------------------
Page 10
35 This is characteristic of Constantinian and post-Constantinian Christian literature, such as Eusebius ’
monumental historia ecclesiastica and, later in the century (roughly contemporary with the vita Abercii), John
Chrysostom’s writings celebrating the victory of the Christian imperium over demonic forces, as, e.g, his
panegyricum in Babylam martyrem et contra Julianum et gentes. Uncoincidentally, both works celebrate the
destruction of an Apollo shrine. Abercius demolishes pagan rites ( τα� δρω� μενα) and smashed idol statues, including
the α� γα� λματα of Apollo, Herakles, Artemis and Aphrodite ( vita Aberc. 1-6 [1-6]).
36 Such “dogmatic” interests seem to have led to a disproportionate reading of the vita Abercii, which places
undue emphasis on the few chapters (§69-72) which recount his travels, saying mostly vaguely that he sowed
ο� μο� νοια among οι� στασια� ζοντες (in Syria, as in Rome), which is likely part of the portrait that leads up to his being
called ι�σαπο� στολος, for this is the picture of Paul in the early church (from 1 Clem 5 forward, an interpretation based
on 1 Corinthians, and the later text, Ephesians). He does combat Marcionites (no mention of Montanists!), and has
a favorable encounter with Barchsanes=Bardaisanes? Contrast with this Merkelbach’s description, which also
incorporates some questionable assumptions about Abercius’ role as emissary of the Roman church, and “catholic”:
“Er ist dort [Rome] auch mit den Leitern der römischen Kirche bekannt geworden und ist, wahrscheinlich in ihrem
Auftrag [evidence?!], von Rom nach Syrien gereist, um die dogmatischen Differenzen der syrischen Christen
beizulegen; es hat sich dabei vor allem um die Differenzen zwischen der ‘katholischen’ [no such word in the vita]
(allgemeinen, weltumfassenden) Kirche und den Markioniten gehandelt” (Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen
Osten, 3.182).
37 John Bodel, “Epigraphy and the ancient historian,” in idem, ed., Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History
from Inscriptions (Approaching the Ancient World; New York: Routledge, 2001) 1-56, 25: “Other than their power to
activate speech or to represent writing symbolically, inscriptions conveyed their meaning visually, in a variety of
ways. As integral elements of the monuments they accompanied, inscribed texts from an early date contributed to a
complex semiological message of which their contents constituted only a part. ”

funerary monument by what he saw in Rome, and how might I have been influenced on my part
by what I have seen in my effort now from a distance to reconceive mentally this vitally
important inscription? The overall answer to this question has been suggested above: my trip
to Rome and Tunisia has pulled me out of my textual two-dimensional mentality and led me to
question much more rigorously than I had before (and, surprisingly to me, than previous
scholarship has), the physical, three-dimensional and artistic aspects of this epitaph. The first
step was to learn to stop speaking and thinking of “the Abercius inscription” as though it were
an isolated entity unto itself, but instead of “the Abercius funerary monument,” of which the
inscription was a key part, but nonetheless not (and not meant to be) encountered in isolation.
1. What was the composition, shape and form of the original stone and complete stone
monument?
The 11th century manuscript of the vita Abercii (Paris 1540) describes a two-part
monument, consisting of a base tomb of rock in a square shape (τυ� μβος 38 ι�σοτετρα� γωνος) and
a βωμο� ς with the θεο� πνευστον ε� πι�γραμμα inscribed upon it resting on top of the tomb. One
manuscript (Coislin 110) with partial confirmation from an Armenian tradition, has Abercius put
the βωμο� ς on top of the τυ� μβος, but it is the latter that bears the ε� πιγραφη� . 39 In Simeon
Metaphrastes a λι�θος τις τετρα� γωνος (somewhat redundantly said to be identical in height and
width) is what Abercius prepared for his own τα� φος, and the βωμο� ς brought by the demon from
Rome he put on top of that λι�θος, 40 inscribing on it (αυ� τω�� , which could be either!) the
ε� πι�γραμμα. 41 Despite the discrepancy, all the literary sources agree that Abercius’ funerary
Page 11
monument was made up of two discrete stone entities. The material evidence per se cannot
confirm this, for all we have are two adjoining fragments of a single marble stone, with a partial
------------------------------------
38 The Greek term can refer either to the sepulchral mound, the grave, or the tombstone (LSJ, s.v.). In this
case it seems to be the grave, as the βωμο� ς is the grave marker.
39 The anonymous Metaphrast, vita Aberc. § 76 [81]: ε� γχαρα� ξας τω�� τυ� μβω� τη� ν ε� πιγραφη� ν ταυ� την
(discussion of the discrepancies at Lütke-Nissen, 35-36; cf. p. 50).
40 According to that version, §63 [78] μαρμα� ρου ου�τος η�ν βα� ρος α�μαχον, “incontestably heavy, made of
marble.” 41Lütke-Nissen, 36.

order visible. Nor do the fragments themselves indicate securely whether they were part of
the tetragonal tomb or the altar, though the better manuscript evidence suggests the latter. The
text of the inscription itself is vague at first reference (του�τ’ ε� ποι�ησα, which, generically neuter,
is clearly meant to refer to the whole as a θε�σις for his body [lines 1-2]), and then it is more
specific in the imprecation formula (line 20) that no one else is to place a body in his tomb
(τυ� μβω� ε� μω�� ). At the least we can say that the inscription either was on the tomb rock or, as is
usually assumed, that it was on the βωμο� ς when it stood in direct relation to the τυ� μβος. 42
Combinations of tomb and βωμο� ς are found among other Anatolian inscriptions (e.g., CIG
3902: το� ν ε� π’ αυ� του� βωμο� ν κατεσκευ� σεν), 43 so this composite tomb monument is not
unparalleled.
From this line of thought the answer to my earlier query -- where was Abercius’ body? --
appears to be that it was likely encased in a stone which never did find its way back to Rome.
What did this stone tomb look like? Assuming from the phrasing σω� ματος θε�σις that Abercius
was interred, not incinerated, we must assume either a shaft or chamber cut into the τυ� μβος or
conclude that the stone was set on top of the earth into which the body has been buried (the
literary life uses the term θα� πτειν which may, but need not, mean interment specifically (§78
[55]). 44 The former is perhaps more likely given the terms θε�σις and τι�θημι used for the
deposition of the body. A body chamber is found, for instance, in the base of the funerary
monument of A. Umbricius Scaurus, the garum merchant, at the Vesuvian Gate in Pompeii
Page 12
(Fig. ). 45 The tomb of Titus Flavius Zeuxis in the necropolis at Hierapolis (the other), which also
has a square base, provides a good depiction of what Abercius’ final resting place may have
looked like (Fig. XX). A larger version can be seen in the base of the Kasserine monument in
------------------------------------
42 Unless I have misunderstood something, Ramsay, “Cities and Bishoprics,” 425, seems to conflate the two
pieces: “he ordered his epitaph to be engraved on an altar brought from the hippodrome in Rome by the devil whom
he cast out of the daughter of M. Aurelius. The stone on which the epitaph was engraved was a block of marble
nearly square.”
43 Cited from Johnson, Early Christian Epitaphs from Anatolia, p. 36 (his no. 1.24).
44 This term can mean bury or perform burial rituals (LSJ, s.v.); the anonmyous Metaphrast says ε� κηδευ� θη
μεγαλοπρεπω� ς ε� ν ω�� αυ� το� ς ε� αυτω�� κατεσκευ� σε τυ� μβω� .
45 Kleiner, Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits, 27.

Tunisa, though presumably Abercius’ would have been much smaller, perhaps for a single
person. 46 (see Fig. XX). It is worth noting that this question of the placement of the body is not
just my own scholarly curiosity about grave details, but it would have been of major import to
later Christians, and to the author of the vita Abercii, because of the luminous power
increasingly attending the bodies of saints, as with the Greco-Roman heroes, in the third and
fourth centuries. 47 The exact placement of the body (the θε�σις of which the voice of Abercius
speaks) hence matters a great deal in the “complex semiological message” of the tomb.
The fragments we do have are assumed to be from the upper part of the funerary
monument, which was cast in the shape of an altar. The βωμο� ς became a particularly
prominent form of burial marker in the Roman imperial period. Losing, perhaps, some of its
earlier cultic functions as a site of sacrificial offering, funerary altars “served as markers rather
than as places for sacrifice, although the sacrifice that took place at the laying out of the
gravesite is implied. In this way, the altar was an appropriate form for a burial stone.” 48 The
form of the βωμο� ς itself was used as an argument by Adolf von Harnack early on against the
Christian provenance of the Abercius inscription. 49 This argument has been decisively
overturned, since, in addition to his having laid down an impossible burden of proof on those
who had to show that it was commonly used by Christians ca. 200 CE (given that we have
almost no other Christian inscriptions of any sort this early), there are in fact some Christian
βωμοι�/cippi in Rome and its environs in the early period. 50 But from that evidence it is perhaps
overly hasty to go to the other extreme and assume that the cippus-form was entirely
unproblematic for Christians to use, either at the turn of the third century, or perhaps most
------------------------------------
Page 13
46 It remains an open question whether Abercius ’ stated fear of another being placed in his tomb is directed
toward more occupants than himself in the space, or displacing and replacing him.
47 Compare the 3rd century work by Philostratus, the Heroikos; on increasing attention to the burial cites of
the saints in the 3rd and 4th centuries, see Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints.
48 Kleiner, Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits, 21.
49 “Zur Abercius-Inschrift,” 5: ”Die Form des Steines (βωμο� ς), auf dem die Inschrift angebracht ist, ist der
Annahme, sie sei christlich, nicht eben günstig ... Giebt es Beispiele, dass christliche Inschriften um 200 auf Altären
oder altarartigen Steinen angebracht wurden? ”
50 See especially Duchesne, “L’Epitaphe d’Abercius,” 166. Most of all, however, the content of the
inscription seems unquestionably resonant with particular Christian themes, language and topics, as virtually all
scholars agree today.

especially, in later Christian history. Abercius’ use of the traditional βωμο� ς physical form would
fit completely with the combination of traditional epigrammatic topoi with emergent
Christianizing diction (especially biblicisms) that Wischmeyer has cogently demonstrated was
characteristic of the text of his funerary inscription. But a later day would not find such
“accommodation” as easy to understand or defend, as Christian culture -- material as well as
religious and intellectual -- developed a more fine-tuned and aggressively patroled sense of its
unique identity. A gravestone in the form of a “pagan” altar would increasingly prove
problematic. The sacrificial connotations of the βωμο� ς could certainly still adhere to the artifact,
as even the exact term βωμο� ς could never be completely assimiliated by Christians, because
the word was used in their sacred scriptures (the Septuagint) of altars dedicated to (“false”)
idols such the Tophet we encountered in North Africa. 51
This suspicion about the dubious form of the βωμο� ς perhaps receives support from the
legend itself, which (fantastically, to be sure) places the original provenance of Abercius’
funerary βωμο� ς in the ι�ππο� δρομος in Rome. If the circus maximus is implied, as seems likely
(and is certainly the view of the Russian recension of the hagiography), then what sort of altar
would actually have been there (or, more accurately, thought to have been there as a piece of
local color employed by our author to explain the Roman and demonological associations with
the stone)? I do not know of any funerary altars in the circus, though that may be possible for
charioteers killed in a race, for instance (does anyone know about this?). But, after all, this is a
story about re-use of a stone; hence it need not have originally been imagined to be funerary at
all. There were plenty of religious shrines set on the spina in the circus, 52 any of which might
have been a candidate for Abercius’ punishment against the demon in the narrative imagination
of the biographer (see Figs. XX and XX reconstruction models of the circus maximus). Posed
in this way, perhaps the most relevant answer is to be found in Tertullian’s stereotypical
Christian picture from North Africa near the end of the second century (think of all those
------------------------------------
ι�στα� μενον).
Page 14
51 E.g., Jer 7:32 (of the Tophet); Is 15:2; Ezek 34:13., and often.
52 The text presents this as self-evidently common (υ�ποδει�ξας αυ� τω�� βωμο� ν μαρμα� ρου πλησι�ον αυ� του�

mosaics of charioteers and gladiatorial combat we saw in the Bardo and elsewhere!) of the
infamous “idolatry” associated with the circus maximus. In de spectaculis 8 he names the
breadth of the problem: Quot igitur in habitu loci illius idolatrias recognoscis? Singula
ornamenta circi singula templa sunt. He then gives a catalogue that includes the associations
of the egg and dolphins with Castor and Pollux, and Neptune, respectively, the three altars for
the triple gods” (tres arae trinis deis parent, Magnis, Potentibus, Valentibus), the obelisk for the
sun, as, indeed, circus Soli principaliter consecratur. Then there is also the famous
subterranean altar of Consus, and the Murcian goals themselves at either end of the spina, with
a temple dedicated to her as dea amoris. Tertullian’s summary judgment would find no quarrel
with Abercius’ biographer: Animadverte, Christiane, quot nomina inmunda possederint circum.
Aliena est tibi religio, quam tot diaboli spiritus occupaverunt. The Abercius legend may, as
stated above, be an attempt to overturn any doubt in the post-Contantinian Christian empire
that the sainted bishop of Hierapolis had a burial monument that despite all appearances was
suited to a Christian.
This forces the question: what was it that would have led the fourth-century author to
apply the term βωμο� ς to part of Abercius’ funerary monument, when it was not included in the
inscription itself? The answer must be in the shape (generally speaking, broader than a στη� λη
or column) and possible ornamentation of the stone, as well as its placement on a base. 53
Could the original βωμο� ς have a pedimentary shaped top, with acroteria and rosettes, like the
Roman stele of Publius Cordius Cissus, 54 of an extremely common type? Or did it have angular
acroteria, like many cippi, from small to large, such as the small cippus for the boy Barbarianos
(a Greek inscription) I photographed outside the tomb of Cecilia Metella in Rome? Would such
“horns,” as well as the shape, still carry associations of sacrificial altars, such as the altar in the
Temple of Vespasian at Pompeii (which contains a relief of a bull led to sacrifice)? (Fig. XX)?
Did Abercius’ βωμο� ς have a relief inside a pediment on the top with an portrait, such as the
------------------------------------
Page 15
53 For examples of cippi, especially large ones, being situated on bases in and around Rome, see Kleiner,
Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits, 25-26.
54 Kleiner, Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits, no. 4.

cippus dedicated to “our sweet Secundus” by his parents (Fig. XX), or another ornament, like a
wreath, such as the elaborate Roman funerary monument of Q. Sulpicius Maximus, from the
first century (which, like Abercius, has a poem in Greek inscribed) (Fig. XX). Was it as ornate
on top and elevated above street level as that of C. Etuvius Capreolous in Aquilei? (Fig. XX)
What else would have marked Abercius’ monument as a βωμο� ς, and what associations would it
evoke? We shall return to these questions below.
2. How many inscriptions are there in “the Abercius inscription,” and where were they
placed on the stone(s)?
One of the most important interpretive issues is whether Abercius’ monument was
originally composed of one or more inscriptions, 55 and how the inscription(s) were arranged on
the original cippus and/or base. Earlier scholarship emphasized a variety of theories for the
disposition of the words known from the literary traditions, as confirmed by the various parts
preserved on the two inscriptions. 56 A champion of the unity of the 22 line inscription and its
placement on a single face, Antonio Ferrua, nonetheless acknowledged in 1943 that “E per
farla breve, e� opinione corrente che su tre facce fosse distribuita l’iscrizione.” 57 In that same
publication he argued, as the Vatican Museum reconstruction brings to plastic life, that vv. 1-6
were arranged on the top of the stone in the lintel, the poetic section of vv. 7-18 neatly set
within the framed text-panel, and the final prose section on the base. That viewpoint was
reiterated in a 1999 publication. 58 Ferrua and the Vatican Museum curators thereafter have
------------------------------------
Page 16
55
We should also acknowledge the possibility that we do not have a record of the full inscriptional material
that was on the “original” Abercius monument. This is empirically possible, i.e., that the hagiographer either missed
or on purpose did not record as part of the inscription some of what he had seen. This is most likely in the case of a
date marker, for instance, as the day of the saint’s death is recorded in the vita Abercii 80 [55] as 22 October, but not
presented as part of the inscription. We should also note the possibility that by the time of the literary author not all
of the original inscription was still legible. This is in fact stated in the version by Simeon Metaphrastes, which states
after the inscription is given: τα� με�ν δη� του� ε� πιγρα� μματος ω� δε� πως ε� πι� λε�ξεως ει�χεν, ο� τι μη� ο� χρο� νος υ� φει�λε κατ’
ο� λι�γον τη�ς α� κριβει�ας και� η� μαρτημε�νως ε�χειν τη� ν γραφη� ν παρεσκευ� σεν (“now the words of the inscription are given
here pretty much word for word, except that time has taken away a bit from the accuracy of reading, and has
rendered the inscription in a faulty manner ” [77 (122)]).
56
See the summary of late 19th and early 20th century scholarship in Ferrua, “Nuove osservazione
sull’epitaphio die Abercio,” 281-186.
57
“Nuove osservazioni sull’ epitaffio de Abercio,” 286.
58
“A. epitaphium in una facie inscriptum esse arbitramur contra omnes qui in tribus seu quattuor faciebus
inscriptum esse putaveruntis” (A. Ferrua and D. Balboni, “Epitaphium Abercii,” Latinitas 47 [1999] 153-57, 156; see

held to the view that the entire inscription was set on one side of the monument, which they
designate and present as the front face of the monument (Fig.). Nonetheless, Ferrua himself
acknowledged that vv. 1-6 were, if not another inscription, at least “che furono certo molto alte”
(p. 286) than the rest. However, this not indicated in any way on the reconstruction itself,
which, by regularizing the script size and depth of incision, gives a different impression -- of the
complete contemporaneity of the elements of the inscription. I think scholarship on the
Abercius inscription should revisit this question.
The main argument Ferrua makes for the unified inscription having been inscribed on
only one side of the stone, as had de Rossi back in 1888, was an appeal to the analogy of the
disposition of the inscription on the epitaph of Alexander (now in the Istanbul Archaological
Museum). 59 But there seem to me to be some problems with inferring the form and text-
disposition of the Abercius inscription from that of Alexander, his epigone. (No actual
photograph of this inscription has been published; we do have two different line
drawings/reconstructions of it; see Figs. XX and XX). 60
First, a general objection may be stated in the form of a question. Is it clear that textual
dependence automatically should entail physical imitation? Secondly, isn’t that conjecture --
that Abercius’ cippus was arranged just like that of Alexander -- made even more questionable
when we remember that, famously, the Alexander epitaph only used the opening and closing
prose sections of the Abercius inscription, and not the longest part, the hexametric poem telling
of the trip to Rome? Furthermore, what makes the Alexander-epitaph so useful for historians is
that is has a third inscription or part of the inscription that Abercius’ does not -- a date marker,
now found at the base of the stone (ε� γρα� φη ε�τει τ’ μηνι� ς� ζο� ντος). 61 On this line is an
Page 17
also p. 153).
59 Gustave Mendel, Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines, Musées impériaux
ottomans (Contantinople: Musée impérial, 1914) no. 778 (pp. 569-70). For Ferrua’s argument, see “Nuove
osservazioni,” 286 (“Cosi fu incisa l’iscrizione sul cippo di Alessandro [che imitò Abercio]”) and Ferrua and Balboni,
“Epitaphium Abercii,” 153: “Tota inscriptio in una facie adversa cippi exarata est, versibus aliquot in corona
superiore, aliquot in inferiore scriptis”).
60 See Merkelbach, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 3.186 (no. 16/07/02, who knows only
“Zeichnungen.” Unfortunately, even the ever-resourceful Laurie Brink was unable to find and photograph this
funerary altar on a trip to the Istabul museum in March 2005.
61 We cannot be absolutely certain that the original Abercius inscription did not itself have a date marker.

ornamental leaf (none such appears on the reconstruction of the Abercius inscription), and then
a final blessing has been added, one different from Abercius’ own call to those who understand
to pray for him: 62 ει�ρη� νη παρα� γουσιν και� μνη� σκομε�νοις περι� η� μω� ν (“peace be to those who pass
by and make remembrance of us”). Hence from the start the physical disposition of the
Alexander monument is conspicuously unlike that of Abercius in some important respects. This
led some earlier scholars to argue, for instance, for the Abercius inscription being a composite
of parts placed on various faces of the stone, which could account for the selective retrieval of
portions from only some sides of the Abercius monument onto the Alexander-epitaph.
Whatever one thinks of that argument, it does at least push us to reckon with the differences
between the two in physical format rather than assuming one can simply map the textual
disposition of the Alexander-gravestone onto that of Abercius. Third, the Alexander cippus is
itself has a key anomaly in textual placement, but that is not replicated in the reconstruction of
the Abercius-epitaph: on the Alexander-cippus the actual text overwrites the borders of the text-
panel on both sides (as often happens), suggesting that even on the smaller scale (without the
hexametric inscription) the physical form of the Alexander-stone was actually not a terrific fit for
the inscription. The two Abercius fragments likewise have a border on the left hand and above
line 6, but the text is set neatly inside. Yet we do not know for certain that the stonecutter kept
inside the panel on the right (should one trust more the stonecutter’s practice on the left, or the
epigone’s disposition?!). This observation nonetheless shows that the physical disposition of
the two is just more complex than the simple invocation of “exemplary” form would have it.
Page 18
Fourth, the Alexander cippus differs in physical format from the Vatican reconstruction of the
Abercius monument at the top, which was a fluted plinth forming a crown. 63 This difference is
The literary life does not include one within its transcription of the epitaph, but does provide a death-date soon after
in the vita proper (vita Aberc. 80 [55]: �Ετελευ� τησεν δε� ο� α� γιος �Αβε�ρκιος μηνι� ο� κτωβρι�ω� κβ� κατα� �Ρωμαι�ους, and this
was of course the basis for Abercius’ placement in October within the Menologion traditions. It is also possible that it
was the date marker of which the literary author speaks when he mentions that part of the inscription had already
been worn away in his time (Simeon Metphrases, Aberc. 77 [Nissen, 122]).
62
ταυ�θ’ ο� νοω� ν ευ�χαιτο υ� πε�ρ �Αβε�ρκι�ου πα�ς ο� συνω�� δο� ς (“Let the one who understands these things pray for
Abercius, every fellow-traveller”), line 19.
63
This is not quite reflected in de Rossi’s drawing, which creates a rectangular top for the fluted ornamental
one sketched, and described in detail, by Mendel (p. 569; compare de Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae urbis romae,
vol. 2 [Rome:Cuggiani, 1888] xviii). Compare also the sharply cropped squeeze in Ferrua, “Nuove osservazioni,”

effaced in de Rossi’s drawing, as compared with that of Mendel (see Figs.). Hence we have no
basis -- even on the terms on which the reconstruction was made, in imitation of the Alexander-
inscription, for justifying the regular flat-top of the reconstruction of Abercius’ funerary altar now
standing in the Museo Vaticano. If the analogy was used for other elements, then why vary
this, rather significant feature?
Turning to the placement of the inscriptions, Carl Robert (famous as the editor of Die
antiken Sarkophagreliefs), for example, offered a different theory. In his view the wreath or
crown embedded in an incomplete text box on the left of the written face of the fragments (see
Fig.) holds the key to the disposition of the inscriptions on the stone. He thought the wreath
was the actual front face of the gravestone, and inside that text-box were lines 1-6, “die
eigentliche Grabschrift.” Those lines were he thought inscribed earlier, during the life of
Abercius, as the authorial voice states that he made it while alive (του�τ’ ε� ποι�ησα ζω� ν).
According to Robert, the “Reisebeschreibung” of lines 7-19 was carved on the right lateral face
of the stone later in Abercius’ life (at any date, according to Robert, up until 258 CE). Lines 20-
22 against corruption of the tomb, set in place after Abercius’ death, were located on the back
side (i.e., opposite the crown and named inscription on the front). 64 I am attracted to this theory
as making sense of both the varied literary form of the extant epigram and of its history of use
by Alexander, as well as the way it reflects other grave inscriptions which show cumulative
growth over time, varied sizes and styles of inscription, and employ all sides of the monument in
various ways. 65 I wonder about the pivotal role of line 17 here, and if it might be possible to
adapt Robert’s theory such that the poem ends at line 17, 66 which indicates that Abercius was
alive when these words were inscribed on his tomb monument (ταυ�τα παρεστω� ς ει�πον
Page 19
285. Mendel describes this as follows: “les angles supérieurs étaient ornés d’acrotères qui se détachent en relief sur
un dé rectangulaire; ce dé sert de plinthe à un tambour de colonne, taillé dans le même bloc et creusé de treize
cannelures dont la partie inférieure est remplie par une rudenture et que séparent de larges baguettes plates,
partagées en deux par un sillon vertical.”
64 C. Robert, “Archaeologische Nachlese,” in Hermes 29 (1894) 425-28.
65 See below on the Prosenes sarcophagus.
66 After I had come to this idea I saw that Kearsley in NewDocs 6, 179 (with whose translation of this line,
and others, I have significant disagreements) revised Wischmeyer’s text by placing a full stop at the end of line 17,
rather than a comma; Merkelbach, “Grabepigramm,” 126 has a semi-colon.

�Αβε�ρκιος ω� δε γραφη�ναι), and then take the full extent of lines 18-22 as having been added by
his family (whom, we notice, are never mentioned in the text of the inscriptions we have) 67 or
others after his death at 72 (ε� βδομηκοστο� ν ε�τος και� δευ� τερον η�γον α� ληθω� ς), using his
personified voice to call down a curse against those who might violate “my tomb” (τυ� μβος ε� μου�).
The interpretation of v. 18 as a pivot seems worth further study. At any rate, Robert’s essential
suggestion -- that we likely do not have a single inscription but three, and that we should not
assume they all occupied the single, frontal face of the inscription -- seems well taken. Even if
one theory cannot be proven to the exclusion of others, our examination and interpretation of
the epitaph should proceed to try on various constellations of possibility of meaning and mutual
influence. Even Ramsay, the finder of the stones, thought the text was inscribed on 3 faces of
the stone. In my judgment, for all these considerations, the question deserves to be
reopened. 68
The most striking parallel to the phenomenon of multiple inscriptions is the famous
North African tomb monument of T. Flavius Secundus which we saw in Kasserine, which
contains several inscriptions in variant sizes of lettering, explicitly building upon one another as
living authorial voice passes into death and others “speak” for it. In this case the son adds 20
lines to mark symbolically the age of the original author (now interred within), who had
composed and had inscribed the lengthy Latin poem -- more than 4 times as many lines as our
Abercius -- while alive. 69 Although this monument would have dwarfed Abercius’ in size, it
Page 20
perhaps provides us with the same phenomenon of a monument erected during the life of the
main figure, but then also “growing” along and beyond him. Unlike Secundus père, we do not
------------------------------------
67 Nor in the vita Abercii, where he is presented only in the company of the “brothers and sisters” of the
Christian community. It is οι� παρο� ντες who burried his body in the tomb (§79 [55]).
68 “The stone on which the epitaph was engraved was a block of marble nearly square. One side was plain
except for a circular garland or crown in the middle, and a broad double band of moulding round the edge. The other
three sides were occupied by the inscription , which was engraved in a sunk panel surrounded by a broad band of
moulding” (Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 425; see n. XX below on the confusion involved here between the
bomos and the tymbos); followed by Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 495-966 that “the epitaph was
engraved on three sides of a nearly square block of marble.” See also Abel, “Étude sur l’inscription d’Abercius,” 346
(who disputes Robert’s idea that the wreath side of the stone had engraving, but argues for several different faces
being inscribed).
69 For a description of the monument, and exegesis of it as a good illustration of “symbolic epigraphy,” see
Bodel, “Epigraphy and the ancient historian,” 39-40.

know who “spoke” for Abercius by adding the last lines after his death (if this interpretation of
vv. 18-22 is correct). The literary sources do not know either, and just refer to οι� παρο� ντες who
essentially completed the work of self-burial that Abercius had so premeditatively carried out.
As one of the Menologia traditions puts it, they simply set the final piece in place, the σω� μα
�Αβερκι�ου. 70
3. Where was Abercius’ funerary monument originally set up?
Surely no decision about whether the monument is “crypto-“ or “phanero-“ 71 Christian
can be made without some assumptions about where it was placed, and how visible and to
whom. Ramsay was able to find Abercius’ inscription because he first found the hot springs
that the vita Abercii says spontaneously erupted by the intervention of the saint. 72 The other
geographical feature with which the literary life associates the inscription is the south gate
(referred to as a πορτη� , the Latin loanword, porta). If this datum is reliable (and the finding of
the two parts of the inscription seems to lend weight to this, though the location of the city wall
of Hieropolis is as far as I know not independently confirmed by excavation), then we would
have to agree with Ramsay’s conclusion that “The tombstone stood by the roadside near the
southern gate of the city Hieropolis for centuries, and was naturally greatly respected by the
Chr. [-istians] of the district.” But can we go further and draw conclusions about “the boldness
with which it was placed in a public position”? 73 This placement at the south gate, it seems to
me, would lead one to think that Abercius’ funerary monument inscription was originally set up
in a necropolis, such as we find at the (other) Hierapolis, at which the extensively preserved
Page 21
necropolis begins outside the Frontinus Gate (Fig.’s). There we find a funerary monument of a
certain Titus Flavius Zeuxis, who says in his epitaph that he had made 72 journeys to Rome. 74
------------------------------------
70
Simeon Metaphrastes, Aberc. 79 [123]: : ω� σπερ τινα� κοινο� ν θησαυρο� ν ε� ν τη�� λι�θω� κατε�θεντο.
71
For this term, and discussion of the Abercius inscription in these terms, see Paul McKechnie, “Christian
Grave-Inscriptions from the Familia Caesaris,” JEH 50 (1999) 427-41.
72
Wm. Ramsay, “The Utilisation of Old Epigraphic Copies,” JHS 38 (1918) 190-91 (“We took breakfast,
happy to have discovered the hot springs and proved the historical character of the Saint. Soon we had a joyful
surprise, for that stone was the altar that stood over the Saint’s grave” [191]).
73
Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia 1/2, pp. 712-13.
74
πλευ�σας υ� πε�ρ Μαλε�αν ει�ς �Ιταλι�αν πλοα� ς ε� βδομη� κοντα δυ� ο (Ditt. Syll. 3, no. 1229; Wischmeyer, “Die

This placement of a necropolis just outside the city walls is as bustling a site in an ancient city
as one can imagine, akin to the impressive funerary monument of C. Vestorius Priscus at the
Vesuvian Gate, or the many funerary monuments lining the street from the Herculaneum gate
at Pompeii. Like them, Abercius intended his βωμο� ς to be conspicuously displayed to passers-
by (πα�ς ο� συνω� δο� ς), even while he lived. 75
Although other burials are not in the view of the author of his vita, who gives the
impression of a solitary, prominent monument (like the Kasserine tomb is now), they are,
however, acutely in the mind of its author, who used his precious marble space to call out the
punishments to be levied against anyone who laid another body in his tomb. Recognition of this
strong possibility -- that the Abercius monument originally stood within a necropolis -- is an
insight that once uttered makes us realize how little we really do have access to the most
essential features of its original historical context. What graves stood near it (and when?)?
Could it have been in or near a complex of family tombs (while the literary vita does not mention
Abercius’ family, did the placement of his tomb signal it loud and clear?)? Was it conspicuously
larger than any neighboring tombs? How tall did the βωμο� ς stand on its base? Could one see
all the lettering clearly from ground level? None of these questions can be answered in the
absolute, either, for necropoleis are continually shifting over time. How did the environs of
Abercius’ tomb monument change in the decades and years that became the two centuries or
so between Abercius’ death and the composition of the vita Abercii? Were other burials placed
near that of Abercius, either early or late (as part of the practice of burial ad sanctos which we
saw much evidence of in floor mosaics from basilicas in North Africa)? Did the necropolis
Page 22
change from a predominantly non-Christian to Christian one (as seems likely)? 76 When was
that change noticeable (and to whom)? And was there another inscription on the baths nearby
Aberciosinschrift als Grabepigramm,” 35). See Fig. XX.
75 The formula V F (vivos fecit) is very common in Latin inscriptions, and directly parallels the ζω� ν ε� ποι�ησεν
in many other Greek inscriptions in Asia Minor (see Johnson, Early Christian Epitaphs from Anatolia, nos. 1.7, 8,13,
22, 23, etc.).
76 Given the demographics and the eventual enfranchisement of the Christian cult. The author of the vita
Abercii presumes Hieropolis was predominantly “pagan” in his hero’s day.

that strategically linked the grave and the baths for the viewers who passed by both? Realizing
that we have no answers to these questions must give us pause about attempting to determine
with certainty the doggedly pursued question of whether or not the monument was openly
Christian. In whose eyes, and where fixed?
4. What ornamentation was on βωμο� ς and/or the base of the Abercius monument?
One of the lasting impressions I have received from our emersion in ancient burials is of
the visual impact of these monuments. In particular I have come to think that at the least we
should not by default presume that the Abercius funerary monument did not have visual
adornment that accompanied and mutually interpreted the verbal message. As stated above,
the physical format and placement of the inscription would itself have a bearing on that. And, in
fact, we know that there was at least one ornamental motif, as the extant fragments preserve
parts of a crown or wreath (see Fig. XX). What did the wreath signify, and to whom? 77 Taking
this as our starting point -- that the Abercius inscription was not just an angular block platform
for a text -- what other forms of iconographic expression might have been present on such a
funerary cippus?
The first question this poses for me is whether or not the original contained a portrait of
the deceased -- at some point in his life. Many funerary cippi had such, arranged in various
Page 23
poses and formats on or perched upon the stone (see figs. XX-XX and the extensive study by
Diana Kleiner). They were often erected on major roads, 78 as well as in tomb complexes. The
------------------------------------
77 Wreaths are very common on funerary cippi (see Kleiner, Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits,
p. 320 s.v. “wreath,” with abundant examples; Dietrich Boschung, Antike Grabaltäre aus den Nekropolen Roms (Acta
Bernensia; Bern: Stämpfli & Cie, 1987) 16, 33, plates 931-36 for some examples. The wreath could have many
associations (victory, honor, etc.), but it was a common decorative motif that may or may not be situation specific.
For Christians, the wreath or crown (στε�φανος) early on became associated with eschatological “victory” over death
(see 1 Cor 9:24-27; 2 Tim 4:8). Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art, 18-19 speaks of images that are
“religiously neutral,” among which are garlands. I would prefer to say the wreath is religiously ambiguous -- a kind of
open cipher that can be variously filled with import, or left empty!
78 “Not all of the preserved Roman funerary altars with portraits have known findspots, but most of those of
known provenance were found in or near tombs along the major sepulchral roads leading out of Rome. These
include the Appia, Aurelia, Casilina, Labicana, Latina, Nomentana, Praenestina, Salaria and Tiburtina ” (Kleiner,
Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits, 24). Boschung, Antike Grabaltäre, 117-20 provides maps of
findspots in his catalogue, including the Via Portunense.

eason for stating this is that the vita envisions Abercius travelling from Portus to Rome (and
presumably elsewhere in the city) so his encounter with funerary cippi with portraits on his trip
to Rome would have been unavoidable. We find these in the east, as well, so Abercius would
not have been baffled at seeing the Roman funerary altars containing portraits of the deceased.
Would he have been incited by the ubiquity of these in his day to compose his own when he
returned from travels to the west?
When we seek to move from this general evidence to what we learn from the vita
Abercii the results are, we must admit, inconclusive. The vita does not say the monument had
a portrait, but also does it say it did not. The literary work contains only a very generalized
physical description of Abercius. 79 This, and the work as a whole, portrays Abercius in frozen
form as an old man -- fitting to the 72 years of line 18 of the epitaph, which marks either the
date which either he died, or at which he ordered the poetic epigram inscribed on his
monument. The work is not a vita that traces its subject from birth to death. Unchanging,
Abercius is a wise old man from start to finish. At the least we can say that the literary life gives
no evidence of influence from an extant visual portrait of the saint in younger guise, though it
does emphasize repeatedly the longing of his followers to see his face (this is a topos of
epistolary and travel narratives, of course). This could mean that the monument had none, or
perhaps that it had been effaced or even defaced by the time the vita was composed. 80
Second, is it conceivable that the Abercius stone included he standard urceus (pitcher,
on the left lateral) and patera (libation vessel, on the right)? If the inscription fragments extant
were front-facing, the left seems occupied with the wreath, but if we follow Robert’s suggestion
and take the wreath side as the original front, then we cannot absolutely exclude their
Page 24
presence, but neither could we confirm them. 81 Those would be compatible with its description
------------------------------------
79
α� νη� ρ αι�δε�σιμος δια� γη�ρας και� συ� νεσιν. η�ν γα� ρ τι α� ξι�ωμα περι� αυ� το� ν και� ε� ξ αυ� τη�ς τη�ς θε�ας (vita Aberc. 60
[42]).
80
It perhaps bears noting here that the vita also takes as fact things not confirmed by the monument --
principally that Abercius was an ε� πι�σκοπος, which perhaps surprisingly the epigram does not say.
81
According to Diana Kleiner, Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits (Archaeologica 62; Rome:
Bretschneider, 1987) 21, ca. 75% of Roman funerary altars with portraits have them.

as a βωμο� ς, but again we cannot be certain. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that it included
on the acroteria or below them the Θ Κ?
Third, what artistic ornamentation might the original funerary monument have included?
The Abercius epigram is most striking for its use of an abundance of verbal imagery: Christ as
good shepherd (line 3), shepherding the flock on the plains and hills (line 4), Christ having
large, pure eyes (line 4), holy books or letters (line 6), the resplendant queen with gold robes
and golden sandals he saw in Rome (lines 7-8), the people with shining seal (line 9), the plains
of Syria to the Euphates river (lines 10-11), the apostle Paul (line 11-12, with an obscure
descriptive term), fish from the fountain (line 13), the holy virgin (line 14), the friends eating fish
and bread and drinking wine (lines 13-16). Abundant parallels to these images in early
Page 25
Christian art, especially in Roman catacombs, have been pointed out since de Rossi and others
in the earliest period after its discovery sought to demonstrate that Abercius was a Christian,
and I agree with their arguments. 82 But in the reconstruction and interpretation of the stone, we
should not assume that the imagery is all in the words. 83 However, as noted above, there is a
wreath or crown on one face, and it seems to me that this is an assumption worth questioning, 84
or at least priming our imaginations in a less text-centered, aniconographic direction. This is
especially the case since, if we think it inherently likely that Abercius saw things in Rome that
affected his epitaph -- a point which both his own inscription and the legend seem to confirm,
but from different directions -- it is surely no accident that the major motifs of the inscription are
------------------------------------
82 A view summarized in Ferrua and Balboni, “Epitaphium Abercii,” 157: “aperte in eo manifestantur sicuti in
picturis coemeteriorum Romanorum eiusdem aetatis. ”
83 To cite one example, in his well-argued defense of the Christian identity of the Abercius inscription
against Harnack, Joseph Wilpert invoked Roman catacomb art to demonstrate that the Good Sheperd was a wellattested
Christian symbol, but never asks if the Abercius inscription might originally have contained an image like the
nice examples he offers, or if Abercius himself might have been influenced by having seen such images on his trip to
Rome, both of which seem to me to be valid questions (Fractio panis: die älteste Darstellung des eucharistischen
Opfers in der “capella greca” [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herders, 1895] 107-109). The lack of interest in possible
iconography on the stone in earlier scholarship may also be a reflection of the now largely overturned view of the
earliest Christians as predominantly aniconic, in fidelity to the first commandment (see Charles Murray, “Art and the
Early Church,” JTS n.s. 28 [1977] 304-45; Paul Corbey Finney, The Invisible God: The Earliest Christians on Art
[New York: Oxford University Press, 1994]; Robin Margaret Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art [New York:
Routledge, 2000] esp. 13-15).
84 Note that the vita Abercii does not mention this wreath or crown, which demonstrates that it cannot be
taken as a complete record of the totality of the funerary monument, even as seen in its author ’s day, when the
wreath was clearly there.

also in that period coming to be attested in Roman catacomb art and other iconography -- the
good shepherd, the apostle Paul, the fish, eucharistic imagery. The catacomb of St. Callixtus,
according to tradition the earliest in Rome, dating to the very end of the second, beginning of
the third century (hence roughly contemporary with the erection of Abercius’ monument after his
return from Rome) has three of these four items. See Figs. XX-XX, including one in which the
“good shepherd” could nicely fit Abercius’ (strictly speaking, non-biblical) 85 description of the
shepherd “huge eyes which oversee everything”). Paul is represented prominently in other
catacombs, earliest in the graffiti in San Sebastiano, and later images in the catacombs, such
as Callixtus and Domitilla (fourth century; see Figs. XX-XX). We cannot know if Abercius
visited a catacomb when in Rome (if there were many yet in place), but if it is possible that, as
with the non-Christian hypogea we saw, on the Via Latina (see Fig. XX), and elsewhere,
funerary art replicates terrestrial art, then in the Christian homes and house churches he visited
it is quite likely he saw images not unlike these preserved to us only in the catacombs.
Abercius’ tomb monument might have had any of these symbols depicted upon it, in carved
reliefs, perhaps, like some of those on the square bases of the tomb monuments in the
Yasmina necropolis in Carthage (Figs. XX and XX, of a man on horseback, a man reading a
scroll). 86 Or the stone could have had a simple, inscribed line drawing, the outline of the fish or
bread about which he so fondly reminisces (see Fig. XX, the famous fish from the catacomb of
St. Domitilla), or a boat symbolizing his journey? Or might there have been paintings, if not on
βωμο� ς itself, perhaps on the base? The elaborate paintings inside the tomb of Vestorius
Priscus at Pompeii are an extraordinary example of painted tombs even above ground (Fig.
Page 26
XX). In considering this possibility I am influenced also by the encounter with the painted cube
in the Sfax museum, which contained scenes from a man’s life (and, apparently, death at the
------------------------------------
85 John 10 says nothing about the shepherd’s eyes. Cf. Rev 1:14, οι� ο� φθαλμοι� αυ� του� ω� ς φλο� ξ πυρο� ς (a
description of the son of man, not cast as shepherd, per se).
86 The latter would nicely illustrate Abercius’ Christianized use of educational topoi in his epigram, such that
he is a “disciple of the shepherd” “who taught [him] trustworthy texts” (Wischmeyer, “Die Aberkiosinschrift als
Grabepigram,” 41 also regards “Paul” in the inscription to be a metonymy for the scroll of his letters; the literary and
graphic depiction meet in the characterization of the μουσικο� ς α� νη� ρ [43]).

hands of a wild beast). Fig. XX shows one of the sides, a vibrant painting of the deceased
aboard a ship (others show his apparently fatal encounter with a bear). If, for instance, the
base of Abercius’ tomb monument had been painted, it might have been worn away by the time
the hagiographer saw it, even if it were originally a part of Abercius’ intention (another reminder
that tomb monuments are never static entities).
5. Was Abercius’ funerary monument “crypto-Christian”?
One fascinating testimonial to the inscription is that made by the author of the vita
Abercii, who credits the inscription (termed θεο� πνευστον ε� πι�γραμμα) with having a deliberately
dual hermeneutical effect: τοι�ς με�ν α� ξι�οις του� Χριστου� νοου� μενον και� ω� φε�λιμον, τοι�ς δε� α� πι�στοις
μη� γινωσκο� μενον ε�χον). I think we have to take this seriously as a possible and important
reading of the epitaph as consciously composed with allusive and eliptical language. Yet it is
the inscription itself that may have occasioned this narrative comment by the later literary
author, for line 19 says explicitly ταυ�τα ο� νοω� ν ευ�ξαι υ� πε�ρ �Αβερκι�ου πα�ς ο� συνω� δο� ς. But, as I
have suggested above, that record of reading also may be part of the apologetics of the author
vis à vis the “pagan” look of the stone (as a βωμο� ς) and the possibility that a post-Theodosian
Christian age might find the accommodationist aesthetics of an earlier one more outlandish and
in need of explanation.
In terms of strategic learnings Abercius may have had during his trip to Rome, the
Prosenes sarcophagus -- which may date to within decades, as it is securely put in 217 CE, 87
may have a similar “dual face” or multiple face to the world. The inscription on the front of
Marcus Aurelius Prosenes’ sarcophagus is from his freedmen, who provided their patron, a
freedman of Marcus Aurelius who became an imperial chamberlain (a cubiculo Aug.) under
Commodus (termed divus Commodus!) and procurator of treasuries, inheritances and wine,
withthis sarcophagus (patrono piissimo liberti benemerenti sarcophagam de suo
------------------------------------
35, 439-440.
Page 27
87 For the comparison, see also McKechnie, “Christian Grave-Inscriptions from the Familia Caesaris,” 434-

adornaverunt). 88 On one side panel, inscribed above a griffin, is the inscription Prosenes
receptus ad deum ... scripsit Ampelius lib (“Prosenes was received into God ... Ampelius, his
freedman, wrote this”). The composite nature of this sarcophagus is manifested in that the 2
inscriptions are physically discrete (and discreet, perhaps, in the case of the second) and the
two third person authors (the liberti of the first dedicatory inscription, and the Ampelius of the
second, informative one). The words themselves have a very different physical disposition and
public voice. And the juxtaposition of the words Prosenes receptus ad deum with the elaborate
griffin on the side panel, while it may surprise us from this distance, apparently did not concern
or confuse Ampelius who comfortably added them to honor his patron. Much may have been
true of the full decorative program of the Abercius monument. Between “crypto” and “phanero”
Christian inscriptions lies the complex world of lived realities and cultural embeddedness of
Christians of the early third century. 89
Conclusion
Much more work remains to be done to lift study of this important Christian inscription
out of blank space and back into various reconstructions of the monument of which it was a
part. This paper is only a start on that task. We need better imagistic models to try to
reconceive this monument within its various contexts -- biographical, physical, artistic,
monumental, literary and geographical -- and, we must insist, each of those models must itself
be a time-lapse one rather than a single snap shot. The exercise is invaluable, even if we
cannot reach certainly, or perhaps especially because we cannot reach certainty, and should
not prematurely curtail our imagination of what the “queen of the Christian inscriptions” may
have signified at any point in history.
------------------------------------
Page 28
88 My interpretation of this sarcophagus is dependent upon Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus:
Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. M. Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 330-34.
89 MacKechnie’s essay presumes an either/or which such epigraphicly complex monuments as Prosenes

“Looking for Abercius:
Re-Imagining Contexts of Interpretation of the Earliest Christian Inscription”
Margaret M. Mitchell
Appendix 2 -- Translation of Epigraphic and Literary Sources 90
Abercius Inscription
Translation (of composite critical text from Merkelbach, 1997) 91
1 A citizen of a select city, I made this
2 while living, so that when the time comes I might have a place to set my body
3 Abercius is my name, he being a disciple of a holy shepherd
4 who pastures flocks of sheep on mountains and plains
5 who has huge eyes which oversee everything 92
Page 29
and Abercius seems more to complicate than easily define. I do appreciate his attention to the question of what
Abercius saw when in Rome, despite his justifiable reluctance to attribute a direct connection between any particular
inscription and Abercius’ visit. Perhaps a problem on all sides is that we need constantly to remind ourselves that
what is earliest for us in the preserved record was not necessarily earliest in its own context (we see the problem in a
statement such as the following: “If, therefore, the Aberkios epitaph was really the first openly Christian inscription, or
among the first ...” [p. 435]).
90 The translations given here are mine.
91 R. Merkelbach, “Grabepigramm unt Vita des Bischofs Aberkios von Hierapolis, ” Epigraphica Anatolia 28
(1997) 125-39, 126, in consultation with the critical text of G. Lüdtke and Th. Nissen, Abercii Titulus Sepulcralis
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1919) 36-43.
92 or “continually.”

6 For this one taught me trustworthy texts
7 To Rome he sent me to look upon a kingdom
8 and to see a queen, golden-stoled, golden-sandaled
9 and I saw a people there, having a resplendent seal
10 and I saw the Syrian plain and all the towns, Nisibis
11 and the Euphrates having traversed. Everywhere I had co-? 93
12 having Paul ? 94 ... Faith everywhere was leading the way
13 and served up food everywhere, fish from a fountain
14 utterly huge and pure, which a holy virgin grasped
15 and she freely distributed this to friends to eat at all times
16 having good wine/Christ-wine, 95 giving it mixed, with bread.
------------------------------------
Page 30
93 “συνο[ der Stein, συνομηγυ� ρους die Handschriften, συνο[δι�την Preger (im Kritischen Apparat), συνο[δι�τας
Paton, συνο[μι�λους Lightfoot und die russische Übersetzung, συνο[μαι�μους] Grégoire” (Merkelback,
“Grabepigramm,” 127; he translates the line: “Überall hatte ich als Begleiter (?) den Paulus ---“).
94 The literary traditions read ε�σωθεν, “within.”
95 The word play here on “useful” and “Christ” is an old Christian pun going back at least in literary sources
to Paul’s letter to Philemon 11. The synonymy is confirmed by the spelling in many of the famous “Christians for
Christians” burial inscriptions in Asia Minor, in which the spelling Χρηστιανο� ς is more common than Χριστιανο� ς (see
Gary J. Johnson, Early-Christian Epitaphs from Anatolia [Texts and Translations 35; Early Christian Literature Series
8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995] 46 n.5 and many examples [including the plate on p. xiii).

17 When standing here I, Abercius, said these things should be written here
18 Seventy-two years was I, in truth.
19 Let the one who understands these things pray for Abercius, every fellow-traveller
20 Nevertheless, no one will deposit another in my tomb 96
21 But if anyone does, he will deposit 2000 gold pieces in the Roman treasury
22 And 1000 gold pieces in my good home-city, Hieropolis.
vita Abercii (translation of Nissen text I) 97
------------------------------------
Page 31
96 Interestingly, the literary traditions (vita Aberc. and Menologia) conceive of the curse in some different
ways than the Alexander inscription, which is the text adopted by Lüdtke-Nissen and after him, Merkelbach (this
portion is not included in the Abercius inscription fragments). See the following options: I: ου� με�ντοι τυ� μβον τις ε� μου�
ε� τερον ε� πα� νω θη� σει (“Nevertheless, no one will place another tomb above me”), II: ου� με�ντοι τυ� μβω� τις ε� μω�� ε� τερον
ε� πα� νω θη� σει (“Nevertheless, no one will place another [tomb] above my tomb”); III: ου� με�ντοι τυ� μβον ε� τερον τις ε� π’
ε� μου� ε� πα� νω θη� σει (“Nevertheless, no one will place another tomb above me”) (Lüdtke-Nissen, 42).
97 A critical text on the basis of codex Parisinus gr. 1540 (10th - 11th c.); cod. Hierosolymitanus Sab. 27
(11th - 12th c.), codex Mosquensis 379 (11th c.), and the Russion version (on which see Lüdtke, Abercii titulus
sepulcralis, 5-21).

§41 Then he returned again to his city, and -- behold -- the devil, thinking he would tempt him,
having taken on the form and clothing of a young woman, approached the holy Abercius on
pretext of asking for the favor of being blessed by him. The holy Abercius, after looking into her
face, and wishing to turn aside struck his right fist against a stone and hit also his ankle (or
wrist), and he signified that he was in pain and with his hand grasped the place where he had
been struck. The devil, after howling with laughter and again returning to his own form, said to
the holy Abercius, “don’t consider me as belonging to those pitiful demons whom you set to
flight in such a superior way. For I am the centurion of demons!” And look now -- you have
received also my trial. For despite healing others from their pains -- look! -- you have been
caused pain by me!”
§42 And after saying these things he entered into one of the young men standing near there
and began to try him and pull him apart. The holy Abercius, by praying and adjuring the
demon, dragged him out of the youth. And he again made a sudden appearance, and was
crying out with an an even louder voice, “Soon, oh Abercius, I shall cause you to tread your way
-- unwillingly and involuntarily -- to the city of the Romans.” After casting these threats the
demon disappeared.
§43 For the present time the holy man marveled at the sheer audacity of the demon, and,
returning to his house, remained there for seven days and nights, fasting and praying with the
brothers that the devil not take such power against him. On the seventh night the Lord stood by
him saying, “Abercius, this, too, is part of the plan, so that you might strengthen the brothers of
Rome, also, in faith in me. Therefore be of good courage, for my grace is with you.” The holy
Abercius, after waking up and blessing God, said, “Lord, let your will come to pass.” And he
told his vision to all the brothers -- about how it was necessary that he go away even to Rome,
and he spent the rest of his time continuing to be engaged in teaching, catechizing, and
Page 32

aptizing those who believed in our Lord Jesus Christ.
§44 Now the devil, not shrinking back a bit, immediately went off into Rome and entered into
the daughter of the emperor Antoninus (=Marcus Aurelius); sixteen years old, her name was
Lucilla, and she was superior to all the young women in her glass. The girl immediately began
to act crazily and to act in demonic ways and tear out her hair and chew her hands. As this was
happening to her very frequently, the emperor and Augusta Faustina were afflicted with great
distress and considered the matter to be a great misfortune -- not only on account of their
daughter (although they were greatly grived for her sake that she was suffering), but also
because the girl happened to be close to marriage to Lucius Verus, co-regent with Antonianus,
whom, a short time earlier, Antonianus had sent with armies to the east to make war on the
Parthians and Voulogesus (king of the Parthians).
§61 The young girl, before the saint’s face was visible, began to tear herself apart and cry out
by the demon that was afflicting her: “Look, Abercius, just as I promised, I made you tread here
to Rome!” The saint in reply said, “Yes, but you will not be happy because of it!” And he
commanded the girl to be led into an open-air spot.
§62 After the queen gave her command, and a guard was stationed in an uncovered
Page 33
hippodrome, the young woman was led there, and for many hours the demon was reproving her
and crying out nothing else -- as though declaring a solemn announcement -- than that it was
because of him that the saint had come such a distance on land and sea. And when he was
tearing the girl apart the saint, looking into heaven, prayed, “You, Jesus Christ, are the hope of
all who believe in you. For you destroyed even the legion of demons by commanding them to
go into the pigs (Mark 5:1-20 and parallels). Therefore, by your holy name let this demon be
chased out of the girl, without harming her at all, so that all those who are standing here -- and
this queen -- might know that, apart from you and your blessed father, there is no other god.”

§63 And having said these things and looked sharply at the girl he said, “Jesus says to you,
‘come out from the girl without harming her at all.’” And the demon upon hearing answered, “I,
too, adjure you by Jesus -- don’t send me into a wild mountain or other place apart from where I
have dwelt from the beginning. In that way I shall go away, not harming the girl.” The saint
said to him, “I shall not send you into a wild mountain on account of Jesus, but to the place you
came out from, your ancestral land. Because you dared to lead me to Rome, I, too, command
you in the name of Jesus to carry this altar” -- pointing out to him a marble altar standing near
him -- “to bear it as a keep-safe it to my city, Hierapolis,” he said, “and to set it up near the
south gate. The demon, quickly obeying, went out from the girl without harming her at all, and,
with all looking on, slipped into the altar and carried it, groaning, and, after going around the
hippodrome (R: the so-called Palatine), as he had been commanded by the saint, brought it and
set it up in the previously commanded place.
§76 After Abercius returned to his house, when not many days had passed, he saw the Lord
again saying to him: “ Abercius, the time has drawn near for you to rest from all your labors.”
When he awoke and told the brothers the vision that had appeared to him and, having
understood that the Lord had foretold his death, constructed a square tomb for himself, and the
altar which at his prior command the daimon had brought from Rome he set above the tomb,
after engraving on it a divinely inspired epigram. The epigram was understandable and useful
for those worthy of Christ, but was not able to be recognized by the unbelievers. It was written
in these very words ....
§79 ... looking up to heaven and extending his hands he said, “I give thanks to you, my Lord
Jesus Christ, you who have guarded your servant up until this very day and considered me
worthy of your city, which you commanded me to serve as bishop, to transform it from the life
that is only temporary, and may your name be glorified for the undying ages of ages.” And
Page 34

while all those who were standing there were uttering the “amen,” he handed over his spirit to
the angels who were standing by. Then those who were present, after caring for his body as it
was possible, buried it in the tomb which, as stated before, he had constructed for himself.
Page 35

The Abercius Inscription:
Reimagining Context
and Meaning
Margaret M. Mitchell
University of Chicago
1

Circus maximus reconstruction (vRoma project)
Circus maximus reconstruction -- would there have been altars on the
Central strip near the spina?
7

Alexander
Inscription,
Reconstruction
Mendel
Alexander
Inscription
Reconstruction
deRossi
8

Umbricius Scavrus, Herculaneum Gate, Pompeii; body chamber in base
9

Hierapolis, tomb of Titus Flavius Zeuxis
Burial Chamber in square base
10

Altar of Publius Cordius Cissus
ca CE 25-50
Rome, Via Ostiense
“To the underworld gods”
The child of
Pontianos, Barbarianos,
lies here, whom Potamasiris
nursed, but the daimon
snatched him, when still a
boy”
Statuary Garden at Tomb of Cecilia Metella
1

Roman
Altar,
Pompeii,
Temple of
Vespasian
(relief scene
of bull
sacrifice)
Q. Sulpicius
Maximus
Funerary altar
With Greek
Poem
Inscribed
1st c. Rome
Porta Salaria
2

“To the underworld gods.
For the sweetest Secundus,
who lived 5 years, 3 months,
19 days. (From) his parents
Kalandion and Chresteina,
in memory”
Rome, CA 100-110
Porta S. Giovanni
(Kleiner, no. 64)
Funerary monument
Of Q. Etuvius Capreolous
Aquileia
Photo Laurie Brink, 2005
3

Detail: Portrait of “Sweetest Secundus”
“Christians for
Christians”
NW Phrygia
mid 3rd c.?
4

Good Shepherd
Catacomb of St. Priscilla
3rd c.
5

Good Shepherd
Catacomb of
St. Callixtus,
3rd c.
Bread and Fish, catacomb of St. Callixtus
6

Paul, catacomb of St. Callixtus
Paul, catacomb of
St. Domitilla
7

Via Latina hypogeum
8

Yasmina Nekropolis (Carthage) Relief on Square base of man reading
Fish line
Engraving
Catacomb of
St. Domitilla
Estelle Brettman photo--copyright
International Catacomb Society
9

Painting inside tomb of Vestorius Priscus, Pompeii, Vesuvian Gate
10

Kasserine funerary monument of T. Fl. Secundus
Kasserine, 2 inscriptions (upper right the son’s, introducing the weather cock on top?)
12

Sarcophagus
Of M. Aur.
Prosenes, 217 CE
Side panel with
Secondary
Inscription at top
13