Nota Bene - University of Chicago

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