Posts: 1,216
Threads: 42
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
1
Quote:However ???????? may show a genitive form
It could. This is why my first hunch was that she was the commissioner of the stele.
This epitaph (IMT LApollon/Milet 2219) also resembles the one we are talking about in terms of logic and grammar.
??????? ??????? ??? ??????????
? ???????????? ???? ?? ???? ??????????
??? ?????????? ?????? ?????.
gen + nom
(the omission of the "?" in "??????(?)? is a mistake on the stele)
Translation more probably points at "Piloridi" being the deseased. My only problem is the prominence of the name of Nikeforos on the stele.
A more detailed image of the stele as well as information on whether its lower part also survived and what it depicted (if anything) would be great help...
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Posts: 223
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
I beg to differ. That is a different formula: "???????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ..."
There are lots of epitaphs with similar texts and using dative: ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????. In this particular example I'm not sure whether Hoplidi is the name of the spouse (dative) or the patronym of the dedicant (genitive) ?
Drago?
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 42
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
1
There are thousands of epitaphs using dative, genitive, accusative, even nominative only. I am not saying that dative was not used so I don't quite understand where you beg to differ. You yourself suggested that ???????? (dative) could be a form of genitive.
??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????. (IG X,2 1 413)
could read
Eutyxos (commissioned this) in memory of his wife Oplida.
Eutyxos is nominative, oplidi and ti gynaiki are dative. I guess it could be :
?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????.
which also resembles the text of this epitaph very much, albeit with an article that would clearly show us if ?????? was dative (which most probably is).
This is exactly the translation I gave above :
(For) Peloridi, the sister,
Nikeforos (commissioned) in her memory.
Peloridi and adelphi in dative and Nikeforos in nominative.
Yet, why, in your opinion, if (as most possibly is the case) Pilorida is the diseased, does the name of Nikeforos stand in such prominence? Don't you too find that strange?
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Posts: 1,028
Threads: 20
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
I'm pretty sure that the name is third declension in the dative, so that the translation is "Nikephoros (if that is the name in the lower left, but I'm taking that on faith based on the other posts in this thread, since it actually looks like "Doruphoros" to my eyes...) [set this up] for his sister Peloris, for the sake of her memory." The iota subscript could be omitted by the Roman period, but a third declension noun still had to be declined to show that it was in the dative. In that epitaph you quote George, the name of the deceased is in the genitive because it is governed by hupomnema, but that word is absent here.
It's certainly not uncommon to find monuments erected for wives or female family members which seem to feature their living male relations more prominently (either in relief or in inscription) than the deceased themselves, but in this case the formula is pretty basic, and the deceased's name comes first, as might be expected. I would agree that it is 2nd-4th c. AD eastern Roman (and presumably from somewhere in Turkey).
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Posts: 58
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation:
0
friends,
stele from Turkey.
I'm from Turkey participated.
Thank you for your comments.
sebastia
Posts: 223
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
George, the name of the deceased (or any other nouns refering to him/her) can be articulated in any case as long as it makes sense in the sentence. However in a dedication like the one on this epitaph that case is dative, not genitive as in your other example.
Nikephoros certainly is not the name of the deceased because it stands out in nominative. Why it is so proeminent on inscription is beyond me. I guess is up to each individual (and culture) how they write the epitaphs.
Ruben, thanks for your clarifications. I guess that is the best reading after all.
Drago?
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 42
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
1
Ruben, I agree with your translation. As the Greek text reads, this is how it should be translated, as we did above. The male name c?uld be ????????C, I guess, the first letters are not easy to make out.
[attachment=0:2t4zuqdt]<!-- ia0 stele.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:2t4zuqdt]
I can't recall examples of an ?????????? ?????, which would have the name of the commissioner in higher prominence of that of the deceased. Can you give some, so that all my doubts can be lifted?
See also how the C in ???????C seems to have been retouched? Maybe to a Y? Or maybe it is just a dent...
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Posts: 1,028
Threads: 20
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Ruben, I agree with your translation. As the Greek text reads, this is how it should be translated, as we did above. The male name c?uld be ????????C, I guess, the first letter are not easy to make out.
[attachment=0:3bzzjtz5]<!-- ia0 stele.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:3bzzjtz5]
I definitely don't see a kappa or an eta in there, but the last two letter before the phi definitely look like a rho and an upsilon.
Quote:What do you think regarding the prominence of the XXXforos name? It is the only thing that makes me wonder whether there is a grammatical mistake that would make it the name of the deceased. I can't recall examples of an ?????????? ?????, which would have the name of the commissioner in higher prominence of that of the deceased.
Roman funerary stelae aren't a subject I'm all that familiar with, to be honest, but I know from eastern Greek examples from the Hellenistic period that sometimes the men who commissioned a stele could have themselves feature more prominently than the deceased. A few examples I know of, for instance, feature the name of a deceased woman and the name of her husband, but feature a representation of the husband in full combat equipment. I have a strong hunch that the prominence of the man's name may have to do with the items represented below. The one on the left may be a wreath, which is a generic symbol for virtue on such stelae, but I have no idea what the object on the right is. Nonetheless, it's likely something associated with Peloris' brother's employment or achievements, and so this stele should perhaps not be viewed so much as a monument erected exclusively for Peloris, but rather for Peloris as a member of her family, which is best represented by [-]phoros (as the head of the family? Or simply as her dearest male relative?) and symbols which represent him.
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
|
