Nota Bene - University of Chicago

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,”