Support: Плитка.
Matériau: Известняк.
Description et état du monument : Плитка в форме зеркала (круг с ножкой снизу); на отшлифованной лицевой стороне рельефные изображения одного большого и двух маленьких (в углах) апицированных крестов во врезанном квадратном поле с тремя прямоугольными вершинами наверху; на отшлифованной тыльной стороне другой рукой вырезано изображение круглой шестилепестковой розетки. Разбита на несколько частей.
Small panel in the shape of a mirror (circle with a handle); on the polished front is an inset rectangle crowned with a row of three triangles, with one large relief cross potent in the centre, and two smaller relief crosses potent on either side of the top arm of the large cross; the back is polished and bears a six-petal relief rosette surrounded by three circular relief bands, carved by a different hand than the image on the front.
Dimensions: 25.0/21.0/4.0
Lieu d'origine: Herakleian peninsula (Berman's Gully)
Lieu de découverte: Herakleian peninsula.
Contexte local: Berman Gully, settlement, Room 8.
Conditions de découverte: 1928, excavations of K.E. Grinevich.
Lieu de conservation: Sevastopol, Crimea
Institution de conservation: National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos
N° inventaire: 30578
Autopsie: May 1999, August 2001, September 2002, September 2003, September 2004, September 2005, September 2006, September 2007
Observations: Sevastopol, Crimea
Fragment 1:
Fragment 2:
Champ épigraphique 1: Left and right of the inset rectangle
Style écriture: Lapidary; on the right side, the letters lean to the right; imitation of uncial script of manuscript titles; letters are elongated. Alpha with a loop, kappa’s diagonals do not touch the vertical, mu with sagging cross-loop, angular rho, cross-shaped psi. Ligature eta-nu
Champ épigraphique 2: On the reverse of the handle, under the rosette
Style écriture: See Epigraphic field 1
Texte 1:
Type de texte :
Dedication.
Datation du texte :XIVth century C.E.
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения язык
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения язык
Texte 2:
Type de texte :
Unknown.
Datation du texte :XIVth century C.E.
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения язык
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения язык
Éditions: L1. Shangin 1938 , 85–87, № 14;
Texte 1
Traduction :
О молитве, спасении и оставлении грехов раба Твоего Ио[анна ?],
настоятеля монастыря Святого
Стефана. Это сделавшему, равно как и написавшему, во оставление грехов его и его
родителей (?) да будет всем нам, аминь.
For the prayer, salvation and redemption of sins of your servant Io[annes ?], abbot of the monastery of St. Stephen.
On behalf of the one who made this and equally of the one who wrote this, for the redemption of their sins and those of his
parents (?), may it be so for all of us, amen.
Commentaires :
После находки для Гриневича надпись прочел И.И. Новосотский, увидевший здесь формулу «Об упокоении раба Божьего Гурия (?), сына Стефана» и
датировавший ее VIII–IX веками. Археологический материал из пом. № 8 автором раскопок не датирован (Гриневич 1928).
Плитка предназначалась для вставки в паз или для закрепления в стене. Первоначально, вероятно, была выполнена розетка на тыльной стороне, которую вырезал умелый мастер, пользовавшийся, в частности, циркулем. Писец начал выполнять надпись под розеткой, на нижнем выступе, о чем свидетельствует начальный ипсилон (как и в надписи на лицевой стороне), но остановился сразу после первой буквы из-за того, что эта часть должна была вставляться в паз, или, что вероятней, из-за недостатка места. После этого другим, менее искушенным мастером был вырезан квадрат с тремя крестами на лицевой стороне, по бокам от которого и была выполнена надпись.
Для исполнения надписи был приглашен какой-то писец, не имевший, вероятно, опыта работы с камнем (это доказывает неумелое исполнение букв без опоры для руки на правом поле, на что нам любезно указал Д.Ю. Коробков). То, что это был книжный писец, подтверждается подражанием в шрифте унциалу рукописных заголовков (отсюда некоторые законсервировавшиеся средневизантийские формы букв, которые ввели в заблуждение Шангина). Язык надписи производит двоякое впечатление: наряду с высоко литературными формами (ἅμα τε καί) встречается много орфографических ошибок и сбивок в управлении.
1–7. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.B.g. Относительно сбивки в формуле (τοῦ δούλου σου вм. τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ) см. IV.3.E.b.
8–11. Имя в 8-й строке состояло из 2 букв: это было, вероятнее всего, имя Иоанн в типичном сокращении йота-омега. Слова «игумен святого Стефана» указывают на монастырь, носивший имя св. Стефана, вероятней всего, первомученика. Не исключено, что он находился на Гераклейском полуострове. Все остальные реалии (имя Юлиан, император Фока, поп Геннадий), «найденные» Шангиным, не подтверждаются при внимательном прочтении текста надписи.
11–15. Схожая формула κύριε, βοήθει τῷ γράψαντι встречается в Bandy 1970, № 73B и TAM II 735 (Комба в Ликии). Характерный для надписи пропуск ню в сочетании αντ в том же γράψαντι засвидетельствован в IGLS 371 (Антиохена, 496 г.); ср. также SEG 27.848. В нашем случае этот пропуск n перед t (также в 13-й и 25-й строках) может быть диалектной чертой (см. IV.5.A).
20–23. Прошение о дедиканте и его родителях встречается в Piccirillo 1981, № 8A (Рихаб в Аравии, 533 г.) и, что ближе, Feissel, Philippidis-Braat 1985, № 88 (Гераки, XV в.).
Плитка предназначалась для вставки в паз или для закрепления в стене. Первоначально, вероятно, была выполнена розетка на тыльной стороне, которую вырезал умелый мастер, пользовавшийся, в частности, циркулем. Писец начал выполнять надпись под розеткой, на нижнем выступе, о чем свидетельствует начальный ипсилон (как и в надписи на лицевой стороне), но остановился сразу после первой буквы из-за того, что эта часть должна была вставляться в паз, или, что вероятней, из-за недостатка места. После этого другим, менее искушенным мастером был вырезан квадрат с тремя крестами на лицевой стороне, по бокам от которого и была выполнена надпись.
Для исполнения надписи был приглашен какой-то писец, не имевший, вероятно, опыта работы с камнем (это доказывает неумелое исполнение букв без опоры для руки на правом поле, на что нам любезно указал Д.Ю. Коробков). То, что это был книжный писец, подтверждается подражанием в шрифте унциалу рукописных заголовков (отсюда некоторые законсервировавшиеся средневизантийские формы букв, которые ввели в заблуждение Шангина). Язык надписи производит двоякое впечатление: наряду с высоко литературными формами (ἅμα τε καί) встречается много орфографических ошибок и сбивок в управлении.
1–7. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.B.g. Относительно сбивки в формуле (τοῦ δούλου σου вм. τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ) см. IV.3.E.b.
8–11. Имя в 8-й строке состояло из 2 букв: это было, вероятнее всего, имя Иоанн в типичном сокращении йота-омега. Слова «игумен святого Стефана» указывают на монастырь, носивший имя св. Стефана, вероятней всего, первомученика. Не исключено, что он находился на Гераклейском полуострове. Все остальные реалии (имя Юлиан, император Фока, поп Геннадий), «найденные» Шангиным, не подтверждаются при внимательном прочтении текста надписи.
11–15. Схожая формула κύριε, βοήθει τῷ γράψαντι встречается в Bandy 1970, № 73B и TAM II 735 (Комба в Ликии). Характерный для надписи пропуск ню в сочетании αντ в том же γράψαντι засвидетельствован в IGLS 371 (Антиохена, 496 г.); ср. также SEG 27.848. В нашем случае этот пропуск n перед t (также в 13-й и 25-й строках) может быть диалектной чертой (см. IV.5.A).
20–23. Прошение о дедиканте и его родителях встречается в Piccirillo 1981, № 8A (Рихаб в Аравии, 533 г.) и, что ближе, Feissel, Philippidis-Braat 1985, № 88 (Гераки, XV в.).
After Grinevich’s discovery of the inscription, it was read by I.I. Novosotsky who saw the formula “For the resting [in God] of God’s servant Gurias(?), the son of
Stephen” and dated it to the VIII-IXth centuries C.E. Grinevich (1928) does not provide a date for the archaeological remains in room 8.
The panel was designed to be fitted into a slot, or into a wall. The rosette was probably carved first, and by a skilled master who was using a compass. A scribe began the carving of the inscription under the rosette, on a handle-like extension, which is testified by an initial upsilon (the same letter that begins the inscription on the obverse side of the panel). The scribe stopped, however, after the first letter, either because he realized that the extension was meant to be fitted into a slot and would hide the letters, or more likely, due to a lack of space. Later, a less skilled person carved out a rectangular depression with three crosses in relief on the opposite side of the panel, and the inscription was added to the left and right of the carving.
The craftsman commissioned to cut the inscription apparently did not have much experience in working on stone (this is suggested by a clumsy execution of letters due to the fact that he was not using a support for his right hand, as D.Yu. Korobkov has kindly pointed out to us). That the inscription was made by a book scribe is also evident from his imitation of the uncial script of manuscript titles, wherefrom he took some conventional Middle Byzantine letterforms, which misled Shangin. The language of the inscription reveals a mixture of high literary forms (ἅμα τε καί) alongside many orthographic and syntactic mistakes.
1-7. On the formula, see IV.3.B.g. Concerning the deviation (τοῦ δούλου σου instead τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ), see IV.3.E.b.
8-11. The name in line 8 consisted of two letters: most likely, it was Joannes, typically abbreviated as iota-omega. The words “abbot of St. Stephen” point to a monastery of that name, probably of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr. It is possible that the monastery was located in the Herakleian peninsula. All other references (the name Julian, emperor Phocas, priest Gennadios) “discovered” by Shangin find no support in the text.
11-15. A similar formula κύριε, βοήθει τῷ γράψαντι is attested in Bandy 1970, no. 73B and TAM II 735 (Komba in Lycia). A characteristic omission of nu in the combination of letters αντ, also in the same word γράψαντι, is attested in IGLS 371 (Antiochena, 496 C.E.); cf. SEG 27.848. In our case, the omission of nu before tau (also in lines 13 and 25) might be a dialectal feature (see IV.5.A).
20-23. A request on behalf of a dedicant and his parents is attested in Piccirillo 1981, no. 8A (Rihab in Arabia, 533 C.E.) and in Feissel, Philippidis-Braat 1985, no. 88 (Geraki, XVth cent C.E.).
The panel was designed to be fitted into a slot, or into a wall. The rosette was probably carved first, and by a skilled master who was using a compass. A scribe began the carving of the inscription under the rosette, on a handle-like extension, which is testified by an initial upsilon (the same letter that begins the inscription on the obverse side of the panel). The scribe stopped, however, after the first letter, either because he realized that the extension was meant to be fitted into a slot and would hide the letters, or more likely, due to a lack of space. Later, a less skilled person carved out a rectangular depression with three crosses in relief on the opposite side of the panel, and the inscription was added to the left and right of the carving.
The craftsman commissioned to cut the inscription apparently did not have much experience in working on stone (this is suggested by a clumsy execution of letters due to the fact that he was not using a support for his right hand, as D.Yu. Korobkov has kindly pointed out to us). That the inscription was made by a book scribe is also evident from his imitation of the uncial script of manuscript titles, wherefrom he took some conventional Middle Byzantine letterforms, which misled Shangin. The language of the inscription reveals a mixture of high literary forms (ἅμα τε καί) alongside many orthographic and syntactic mistakes.
1-7. On the formula, see IV.3.B.g. Concerning the deviation (τοῦ δούλου σου instead τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ), see IV.3.E.b.
8-11. The name in line 8 consisted of two letters: most likely, it was Joannes, typically abbreviated as iota-omega. The words “abbot of St. Stephen” point to a monastery of that name, probably of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr. It is possible that the monastery was located in the Herakleian peninsula. All other references (the name Julian, emperor Phocas, priest Gennadios) “discovered” by Shangin find no support in the text.
11-15. A similar formula κύριε, βοήθει τῷ γράψαντι is attested in Bandy 1970, no. 73B and TAM II 735 (Komba in Lycia). A characteristic omission of nu in the combination of letters αντ, also in the same word γράψαντι, is attested in IGLS 371 (Antiochena, 496 C.E.); cf. SEG 27.848. In our case, the omission of nu before tau (also in lines 13 and 25) might be a dialectal feature (see IV.5.A).
20-23. A request on behalf of a dedicant and his parents is attested in Piccirillo 1981, no. 8A (Rihab in Arabia, 533 C.E.) and in Feissel, Philippidis-Braat 1985, no. 88 (Geraki, XVth cent C.E.).
Texte 2
01 Υ |
01 Υ |
Traduction :
...
...
Commentaires :
См. комм. к Тексту 1.
See commentary for Text 1.
Traduction : 1
For the prayer, salvation and redemption of sins of your servant Io[annes ?], abbot of the monastery of St. Stephen.
On behalf of the one who made this and equally of the one who wrote this, for the redemption of their sins and those of his
parents (?), may it be so for all of us, amen.
Traduction : 2
...
Apparat critique : 1
7-8 : Ἰ]ουλιανοῦ Shangin
11-16 : τ[ὰ] ἔτη Θωκᾶ μήτηρ μα τέκε καὶ γιὰ τα(ύ)την] Shangin
20-36 : τέ[κ]τον αὐτοῦ ... τε ... Γενν[άδιος πᾶπας ἡμ(ῶν) Shangin
Commentaires: 1
After Grinevich’s discovery of the inscription, it was read by I.I. Novosotsky who saw the formula “For the resting [in God] of God’s servant Gurias(?), the son of
Stephen” and dated it to the VIII-IXth centuries C.E. Grinevich (1928) does not provide a date for the archaeological remains in room 8.
The panel was designed to be fitted into a slot, or into a wall. The rosette was probably carved first, and by a skilled master who was using a compass. A scribe began the carving of the inscription under the rosette, on a handle-like extension, which is testified by an initial upsilon (the same letter that begins the inscription on the obverse side of the panel). The scribe stopped, however, after the first letter, either because he realized that the extension was meant to be fitted into a slot and would hide the letters, or more likely, due to a lack of space. Later, a less skilled person carved out a rectangular depression with three crosses in relief on the opposite side of the panel, and the inscription was added to the left and right of the carving.
The craftsman commissioned to cut the inscription apparently did not have much experience in working on stone (this is suggested by a clumsy execution of letters due to the fact that he was not using a support for his right hand, as D.Yu. Korobkov has kindly pointed out to us). That the inscription was made by a book scribe is also evident from his imitation of the uncial script of manuscript titles, wherefrom he took some conventional Middle Byzantine letterforms, which misled Shangin. The language of the inscription reveals a mixture of high literary forms (ἅμα τε καί) alongside many orthographic and syntactic mistakes.
1-7. On the formula, see IV.3.B.g. Concerning the deviation (τοῦ δούλου σου instead τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ), see IV.3.E.b.
8-11. The name in line 8 consisted of two letters: most likely, it was Joannes, typically abbreviated as iota-omega. The words “abbot of St. Stephen” point to a monastery of that name, probably of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr. It is possible that the monastery was located in the Herakleian peninsula. All other references (the name Julian, emperor Phocas, priest Gennadios) “discovered” by Shangin find no support in the text.
11-15. A similar formula κύριε, βοήθει τῷ γράψαντι is attested in Bandy 1970, no. 73B and TAM II 735 (Komba in Lycia). A characteristic omission of nu in the combination of letters αντ, also in the same word γράψαντι, is attested in IGLS 371 (Antiochena, 496 C.E.); cf. SEG 27.848. In our case, the omission of nu before tau (also in lines 13 and 25) might be a dialectal feature (see IV.5.A).
20-23. A request on behalf of a dedicant and his parents is attested in Piccirillo 1981, no. 8A (Rihab in Arabia, 533 C.E.) and in Feissel, Philippidis-Braat 1985, no. 88 (Geraki, XVth cent C.E.).
The panel was designed to be fitted into a slot, or into a wall. The rosette was probably carved first, and by a skilled master who was using a compass. A scribe began the carving of the inscription under the rosette, on a handle-like extension, which is testified by an initial upsilon (the same letter that begins the inscription on the obverse side of the panel). The scribe stopped, however, after the first letter, either because he realized that the extension was meant to be fitted into a slot and would hide the letters, or more likely, due to a lack of space. Later, a less skilled person carved out a rectangular depression with three crosses in relief on the opposite side of the panel, and the inscription was added to the left and right of the carving.
The craftsman commissioned to cut the inscription apparently did not have much experience in working on stone (this is suggested by a clumsy execution of letters due to the fact that he was not using a support for his right hand, as D.Yu. Korobkov has kindly pointed out to us). That the inscription was made by a book scribe is also evident from his imitation of the uncial script of manuscript titles, wherefrom he took some conventional Middle Byzantine letterforms, which misled Shangin. The language of the inscription reveals a mixture of high literary forms (ἅμα τε καί) alongside many orthographic and syntactic mistakes.
1-7. On the formula, see IV.3.B.g. Concerning the deviation (τοῦ δούλου σου instead τοῦ δούλου τοῦ Θεοῦ), see IV.3.E.b.
8-11. The name in line 8 consisted of two letters: most likely, it was Joannes, typically abbreviated as iota-omega. The words “abbot of St. Stephen” point to a monastery of that name, probably of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr. It is possible that the monastery was located in the Herakleian peninsula. All other references (the name Julian, emperor Phocas, priest Gennadios) “discovered” by Shangin find no support in the text.
11-15. A similar formula κύριε, βοήθει τῷ γράψαντι is attested in Bandy 1970, no. 73B and TAM II 735 (Komba in Lycia). A characteristic omission of nu in the combination of letters αντ, also in the same word γράψαντι, is attested in IGLS 371 (Antiochena, 496 C.E.); cf. SEG 27.848. In our case, the omission of nu before tau (also in lines 13 and 25) might be a dialectal feature (see IV.5.A).
20-23. A request on behalf of a dedicant and his parents is attested in Piccirillo 1981, no. 8A (Rihab in Arabia, 533 C.E.) and in Feissel, Philippidis-Braat 1985, no. 88 (Geraki, XVth cent C.E.).
Commentaires: 2
See commentary for Text 1.
XML EpiDoc
URI:https://petrae.huma-num.fr/5.108
© Irene Polinskaya