Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The number of dated Roman epitaphs of the first six centuries, including fragments, is 1374. Of these only 34 are older than 312 A.D., the year in which Maxentius was defeated by Constantine. There is but one of the first century, two are of the second, and twenty-four of the third.

*Cut on the stone by mistake IАIППОY.

INTRODUCTION.

Of the travellers, who have visited the Vatican, there are but few who have failed to notice the contrast between the Christian and Pagan inscriptions ranged on either side of the Lapidarian Gallery. Some of them have, doubtless, inferred that there are marked differences which uniformly distinguish the two classes, and that the peculiar characteristics of the Christian are simplicity and humility. For these inferences there are, undoubtedly, some grounds, but they are far from being universally true. Investigation will show that there are epitaphs, regarding which it is extremely difficult to decide to which of the two classes they belong; and that there are Pagan inscriptions, which are as little liable to the charges of ostentation or pride as any Christian titulus. In both classes we have examples of the omission of the names of the deceased, or of the simple mention of the names, with or without the age, and with or without the date (see p. xxi.) — many of the characteristics that are stated are identical (see p. xv.)-the epithets that are applied indicate equal tenderness of affection (see p. xv.)— there are similar evidences of domestic happiness (see p. 15)-in both, distinguished rank or position in life is occasionally mentioned (see pp. xv. 30, 31, 33)-in both are found extravagant laudations (see p. xvii.) -in both we have examples of that conciseness, which omits details, such as the cause of death, a particular rarely noticed in Pagan epitaphs, and still more *rarely in Christian-in both, we meet with uncouth prose and verse (see pp. 25, 30), disfigured by solecisms and inelegancies (as

* This is especially remarkable with reference to martyrdom, the notices of which-in original-not commemorative epitaphs, may be regarded as about the proportion of 1 in 2000. This peculiarity did not escape the observation of Muratori, who remarks on the epitaph of a girl of the age of two years and twenty days, 1958, 8:—“ Ibi Vasculum Martyrii Signum. In sacris iis Coemeteriis duo potissimum mireris, Nempe quum tot Vasa vitrea aut figulina occurrant nullam tamen in ipsis inscriptionibus mortis pro Christo toleratæ mentionem haberi, et præterea Infantes ob Fidem Christi morti datos fuisse."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

compared with classical usage), that may be attributed to the ignorance of the authors or of the masons, or, rather, to the declining Latinity of the age, especially marked in colloquial forms. And yet, with all these points of resemblance - and others might be added to those that I have noticed there are strongly marked differences, that must attract the attention of any careful reader. In the Christian epitaphs we find no fretful impatience under visitation, or angry questioning of the propriety of the bereavement, but, on the contrary, submission and resignation-no giving way to despair, but the calmness of hope-*no uncertain speculations or dim anticipations of future existence, but a confident belief in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. But let us examine the subject more minutely, and with this view consider it under the heads, Language, Names and Dates; not that this is an exhaustive division, but that it seems well adapted to the wants of those entering on the study of Christian epigraphy.

I. LANGUAGE.

A student, who is accustomed merely to classical Greek and Latin, as they were written by authors melioris notæ, will find many startling novelties in Christian epitaphs, some peculiar to them and some common to them and Heathen inscriptions. The novelties that will first attract his attention are probably those in grammar. Here we find, in orthography, such forms as filie for filiæ, que or qae for quæ, hac for ac, ic for hic, pride for pridie, mesis for mensis, michi for mihi, exibit for exivit, opsequia for obsequia, vicxit, visit, bissit, or visse for vixit, adque for atque, quesquenti for quiescenti, depossio for depositio, &c. The lapse of Latin into Italian is marked by such changes as prefixing i, as ispirito for spiritui, or affixing e, as posuete for posuit.

* This is not universally true, for some Christians retained some Pagan superstitions. See p. 63. The latest example of the use of D. M. in a Christian dated epitaph, of which I am aware, is in Steiner's Cod. Inscrip. Rom. Rhen. i. p. 289, 609, of the date, according to his restoration, 440 a. D. I have strong doubts of the authenticity of this inscription, and cannot recognize Steiner's authority as sufficient for accepting it.

† A similar remark may be made relative to my division into eight classes iu the Selection of epitaphs.

The student should beware of regarding what may be new to him in Christian epitaphs as peculiar to them. Very many of the variations from classical usage are to be found in Pagan inscriptions, and some of them in authors that are not commonly read.

སྙ

There are also varieties in inflexion, such as spirita sancta for spiritu sancto, pauperorum for pauperum, Agapeni for Agapæ, Ireneti for Irenæ, Victoriaes for Victoriæ, vocitus for vocatus, requiescent for requiescunt, &c.

Of the ordinary rules of syntax we have such violations, as in sæculum for in sæculo, cum maritum for cum marito, pro sobolem for pro sobole, hoc tumulum for hunc tumulum; time "how long," commonly expressed by the ablative instead of the accusative, even annus for annos, &c.

There are also new or unusual terms, or familiar words in new or unusual meanings, such as pausavit, åveñaúσaro, rested, bisomus, trisomus, quadrisomus, holding two, three, four bodies, compar and conpar, husband or wife, *costa, rib wife, jugalis, yoke-fellow, † virginia, wife married when a maiden, †fecit for egit, passed, titulus, parochial church, percepit, received scil. baptism, as also consecutus est in the same sense, &c.

=

Sometimes Latin is written in Greek characters, of which there are examples in Epitaphs 18 and 42. See Plates II. 4, I. 1. Sometimes Greek in Latin, as zeses=(ýons=vivas. Neither of these usages is peculiar to Christian inscriptions.

The phraseology, also, deserves attentive consideration. The terms and expressions for our "Here lies" are hic jacet (not often), évláde Keiraι (often), hic situs est, hic positus, depositus, dormit,

* In Epitaph n. 35. Can there have been here some omission by mistake? and is costa by error for casta? See Orelli, n. 4648.

+ Thus also virginius maritus. See p. 14. There is a surprising mistake relative to this use in "6 Die Römischen Inschriften in Dacien von Michael I. Ackner and Friedrich Müller," Wien, 1865. In n. 715, we have the following epitaph:-D. M. Valerius Locinus Vet. N. Campestror vix. ann. XXXXVIII Aurel. Pirusi Virginio b. m. p. m. This is expanded as follows:-“ Diis Manibus, Valerius Locinus Veteranus Numero Cambestrorum, vixit annis XXXXVIII Aurelius Pirusius Virginio (!) bene merenti posuit monunentum." It is plain that Aurel. Pirusi are the names of the wife of Valerius Locinus and that Virginio is = Marito.

In n. 856 of the same work the sense of fecit is mistaken. The words are fecit in Dacia an. v., which are expanded :—feliciter in Dacia annos V, as if fecit was given by mistake. The meaning is-" she passed five years in Dacia."

In "Fabiola; or the Church of the Catacombs," p. 145, Cardinal Wiseman states his views relative to the terms depositus and depositio. "This lying in wait for the resurrection," he remarks, "was the second thought that guided the formation of these cemeteries. Every expression connected with them

« PredošláPokračovať »