Nota Bene - University of Chicago

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.