Support: Плитка.
Matériau: Проконесский мрамор.
Description et état du monument : Плитка отшлифована с обеих сторон. Разбита на части, сохранилось 2 фрагмента.
Both the front and the back of the panel are polished. Broken, two fragments survive.
Dimensions: 13,012,0/9,511,5/2,02,0
Lieu d'origine: Tamatarcha
Lieu de découverte: Krasnodar region.
Contexte local: Unknown.
Conditions de découverte: Before 1896.
Lieu de conservation: Moscow, Russia
Institution de conservation: State Historical MuseumState Historical Museum
N° inventaire: 7740
Autopsie: January 2005
Observations: Moscow, Russia
Fragment 1:
Fragment 2:
Champs épigraphique 1: On the front
Style écriture: Lapidary; letters with serifs, carved between guiding lines. Alpha with pointy loop, delta with extended horizontal, almond-shaped epsilon, theta, omicron and sigma, mu with slanting outer hastae and short central hastae, У-shaped upsilon. Abbreviation marks
Champs épigraphique 2:
Style écriture: Graffito, minuscule letters. Ligature omicron-upsilon
Texte 1:
Type de texte :
Epitaph.
Datation du texte :912 C.E. (?)
Justificatif datation: указание_надписи
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: указание_надписи
Texte 2:
Type de texte :
Invocative inscription.
Datation du texte :IX–XIth centuries C.E.
Justificatif datation: палеография
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: палеография
Éditions: L1. Latyshev 1896 ,114, № 105; 2. Vinogradov 2006 , 95–96, № 5; L1. Latyshev 1896 , 95–96, № 95.1; 2. Vinogradov 2006 , 295–96, № 6;
Texte 1
01 ΕΝΘΑΔΕ[ΚΑΤΑΚΕΙΤΑΙ]ΟΔΟΥ 02 ΛΟΣΤΟΥΘΥ̣͂[ΟΔΕΙΝΑΤΟΥΙ] 03 ΒΑΝΤΖΟΥ̣[ΟΤΟΥΝΑΟΥΤΟΥ] 4 ΤΟΥΔΕΚΑ[ΝΟΣ---] 05 ΔΕΓΕΝΑΜ[ΕΝΟΣΙΩΤΟΥΘΕΟ] 06 ΛΟΓΟΥΕΤ[ΕΛΕΙΩΘΗΜΗΝΙ] 07 [ΙΟΥΛΙΟ]ΚΕΙΜΕΡΑΣΑ[ΒΒΑΤΩ] 8 ΩΡ[ . ΙΝ]ΔΗΙΕΑΠΟ[ΚΤΙΣΕ] 09 [ΩΣΚΟ]ΣΜΟΥΣΥ[Κ]ΕΤΟΥΣ |
01 Ἐνθάδε [κατάκειται] ὁ δοῦ- 02 λος τοῦ θ(εο)ῦ̣ [ὁ] [δεῖνα] [τοῦ] [Ἰ]- 03 βάντζου̣, [ὁ τοῦ ναοῦ (e.g.) τού]- 4 του δεκα[νός,] [---] 05 δὲ γενάμ[ενος] [Ἰω(άννου)] [τοῦ θεο]- 06 λόγου . Ἐτ[ελειώθη μηνὶ ] 07 [Ἰουλίο] κε, ἱμέρᾳ σα[ββάτῳ], 8 ὥρ(ᾳ) [ . ], [ἰν]δη(κτιῶνι) ιε, ἀπὸ [κτίσε]- 09 [ως] [κό]σμου ςυ[κ] ἔτους . |
Traduction :
Здесь лежит раб Божий …, сын …ванца, … декан этого [храма?]… ставший … Иоанна Богослова. Скончался 25 июля (?), в субботу, в 15 индикт, в 6420 (?) году
от сотворения мира.
Here lies a servant of God..., son of ... Ibantz-, decanus of this [church?]... having become... [of John Theo]logian.
He died on the 25th of July (?), Saturday, in the 15th indiction, in the year 6420 (?) since the creation of the world.
Commentaires :
Согласно Латышеву, фр. 1 происходит из коллекции Е.Е. Люценко, а согласно описи ГИМ
(оп. 305/IV) — из коллекции А.М. Подшивалова. Надпись демонстрировалась на выставке
«Из варяг в греки» (21.05.1996; в каталоге выставки воспроизведено с ошибками чтение Латышева для
фрагмента 2). Поскольку фрагменты 1 и 2 представляют собой части одной
надписи (на это указывает тождество палеографии и, прежде всего, уникальной формы мю,
толщина плиток, высота букв и др.), то, возможно, это разногласие связано с 2 фрагментами.
Происхождение фрагмента 1 неизвестно: он попал в частную коллекцию и оттуда в ГИМ;
фрагмент 2 найден на Кубани и сразу поступил в Исторический музей. Латышев пришел к идее
объединения фрагментов, но его от нее отговорили А.Н. Щукарев и А.В. Орешников.
Примечательна маленькая толщина камня: это была вставка в стену над могилой (см. комм. к V 319). После разрушения стены она была вторично использована для инвокативного граффито: сохранились две части камня, а значит, можно предположить, что надпись 2 была выполнена еще на целой плите.
1–2. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.F.d.
2–3. После слов «раб Божий» шло, естественно, имя покойного. Однако лакуна во 2-й строке слишком большая для того, чтобы к нему относилось βαντζου в начале 3-й строки — следовательно, эти буквы, не могущие быть ничем иным кроме части имени, относятся к родовому имени или патронимику. Первое, впрочем, встречается в средневизантийской эпиграфике Северного Причерноморья лишь однажды (V 66, 915 г.); вероятность второго подтверждает форма окончания — возможно, отца покойного звали Иванец (это имя зафиксировано, например, в московской берестяной грамоте № 2 XIV в.).
3–6. Идущее перед формулой «скончался» λόγου является, видимо, частью какого-то эпитета: из обозначений святых самый частый — θεολόγος, а лакуна в 4-й строке не позволяет реконструировать никого другого, кроме Иоанна Богослова (все это восстановление, конечно, крайне гипотетично). Предшествующее ему «ставший» означает, по всей видимости, что усопший (менее вероятно, его отец) стал каким-то клириком храма или монастыря св. Иоанна Богослова, находившегося где-то на Кубани. В этом случае его прежний статус декана (согласно PHI7 Database, в христианских надписях деканы упоминаются 18 раз) должен обозначать, скорее всего, должность ответственного за погребения (Lampe, s.v., 2), видимо, при том храме, где он и был похоронен. Судя по развитой церковной терминологии, это должен быть епископский центр, т.е. Таматарха.
6. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.F.f.
7–9. По подробности датировки данная надпись близка к другим средневизантийским надгробиям (V 316, 767 г.; V 315, 819 г.; V 243, 906 г.); к последнему она также крайне близка по палеографии. Это сходство покажется неслучайным, если принять во внимание, что автором и, вероятно, резчиком партенитской эпитафии был «Николай, монах и пресвитер из Воспора». Возможные годы кончины (15 индикт) в промежутке между 891 и 992 гг. — 896–897, 911–912, 926–927, 941–942, 956–957, 971–972 и 986–987 гг. (о соотношении годов от сотворения мира и от Р.Х. в средневизантийское время см. комм. к IV. 4. D) В них 25 число месяца приходилось на субботу в следующие дни: 25 декабря 896 г., 25 июня 897 г., 25 апреля и 25 июля 912 г., 25 ноября 926 г., 25 августа 927 г., 25 сентября и 25 декабря 941 г., 25 июня 942 г., 25 октября 956 г., 25 апреля и 25 июля 957 г., 25 ноября 971 г., 25 мая 972 г., 25 декабря 986 г. и 25 июня 987 г. В лакуне для названия месяца остается ок. 5 букв. Если здесь стояло Μαΐῳ, то 25 мая приходилось на субботу только в 972 г. Если же — Ἰουνίο или Ἰουλίο, то тогда возможны такие даты: 25 июня 897 г., 25 июля 912 г., 25 июня 942 г., 25 июля 957 г. и 25 июня 987 г. В силу близости данной надписи к V 243 (906 г.) следует предпочесть первые две, а учитывая размер лакуны в обозначении года, вариант ςυκ´, т.е. 912 г. Отметим уникальную в Северном Причерноморье датировку «от сотворения мира», а не «от Адама» (см. комм. к V 243 и Виноградов 2008).
Примечательна маленькая толщина камня: это была вставка в стену над могилой (см. комм. к V 319). После разрушения стены она была вторично использована для инвокативного граффито: сохранились две части камня, а значит, можно предположить, что надпись 2 была выполнена еще на целой плите.
1–2. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.F.d.
2–3. После слов «раб Божий» шло, естественно, имя покойного. Однако лакуна во 2-й строке слишком большая для того, чтобы к нему относилось βαντζου в начале 3-й строки — следовательно, эти буквы, не могущие быть ничем иным кроме части имени, относятся к родовому имени или патронимику. Первое, впрочем, встречается в средневизантийской эпиграфике Северного Причерноморья лишь однажды (V 66, 915 г.); вероятность второго подтверждает форма окончания — возможно, отца покойного звали Иванец (это имя зафиксировано, например, в московской берестяной грамоте № 2 XIV в.).
3–6. Идущее перед формулой «скончался» λόγου является, видимо, частью какого-то эпитета: из обозначений святых самый частый — θεολόγος, а лакуна в 4-й строке не позволяет реконструировать никого другого, кроме Иоанна Богослова (все это восстановление, конечно, крайне гипотетично). Предшествующее ему «ставший» означает, по всей видимости, что усопший (менее вероятно, его отец) стал каким-то клириком храма или монастыря св. Иоанна Богослова, находившегося где-то на Кубани. В этом случае его прежний статус декана (согласно PHI7 Database, в христианских надписях деканы упоминаются 18 раз) должен обозначать, скорее всего, должность ответственного за погребения (Lampe, s.v., 2), видимо, при том храме, где он и был похоронен. Судя по развитой церковной терминологии, это должен быть епископский центр, т.е. Таматарха.
6. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.F.f.
7–9. По подробности датировки данная надпись близка к другим средневизантийским надгробиям (V 316, 767 г.; V 315, 819 г.; V 243, 906 г.); к последнему она также крайне близка по палеографии. Это сходство покажется неслучайным, если принять во внимание, что автором и, вероятно, резчиком партенитской эпитафии был «Николай, монах и пресвитер из Воспора». Возможные годы кончины (15 индикт) в промежутке между 891 и 992 гг. — 896–897, 911–912, 926–927, 941–942, 956–957, 971–972 и 986–987 гг. (о соотношении годов от сотворения мира и от Р.Х. в средневизантийское время см. комм. к IV. 4. D) В них 25 число месяца приходилось на субботу в следующие дни: 25 декабря 896 г., 25 июня 897 г., 25 апреля и 25 июля 912 г., 25 ноября 926 г., 25 августа 927 г., 25 сентября и 25 декабря 941 г., 25 июня 942 г., 25 октября 956 г., 25 апреля и 25 июля 957 г., 25 ноября 971 г., 25 мая 972 г., 25 декабря 986 г. и 25 июня 987 г. В лакуне для названия месяца остается ок. 5 букв. Если здесь стояло Μαΐῳ, то 25 мая приходилось на субботу только в 972 г. Если же — Ἰουνίο или Ἰουλίο, то тогда возможны такие даты: 25 июня 897 г., 25 июля 912 г., 25 июня 942 г., 25 июля 957 г. и 25 июня 987 г. В силу близости данной надписи к V 243 (906 г.) следует предпочесть первые две, а учитывая размер лакуны в обозначении года, вариант ςυκ´, т.е. 912 г. Отметим уникальную в Северном Причерноморье датировку «от сотворения мира», а не «от Адама» (см. комм. к V 243 и Виноградов 2008).
According to Latyshev, Fragment 1 came from the collection of E.E. Lyutsenko, and according to the inventory of the State Historical Museum
(op. 305/IV) — it comes from the collection of A.M. Podshivalov. The monument was part of the exhibition "From [the land of] Varangians to
[the land of] the Greeks" (21.05.1996; the catalogue published, with errors, Latyshev's edition of Fragment 2). Since Fragments 1 and 2 belong to the same inscription (this is supported by the palaeography, and in particular,
the characteristic shape of mu, the thickness of the panel, letter height, etc.), perhaps the discrepancy between attributions to different private
collections has to do with the existence of and mix-up between two fragments. The origin of Fragment 1 is unknown: it had been in a private collection and
then entered the collection of the State Historical Museum; Fragment 2 was found in the Kuban region and directly transferred to the Historical Museum. Latyshev already
considered the idea of joining the fragments, but was dissuaded by A.N. Tschukarev and A.V. Oreshnikov.
The thinness of the panel is of note: it must have been a revetment panel for insertion into a wall above the grave (see commentary to V 319). After the demolition of the wall, it was reused for an invocative graffito: two parts of the stone remain, and therefore it means that Text 2 had been inscribed while the whole panel was still intact.
1–2. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.F.d.
2–3. After the words "servant of God" stood the name of the deceased. A lacuna in line 2 is too big, however, to take βαντζου at the start of line 3 together with it; rather, these letters must be part of a name, either of a family name or of a patronymic. The former is attested in the epigraphy of the Northern Black Sea region once (V 66, 915 C.E.); the likelihood of the second is supported by the ending - the father's name might have been Ivanets (this name is recorded in a birch bark letter № 2 from Moscow, of the XIVth century).
3–6. The sequence of letters λόγου appearing before the formula "He died" probably belongs to some epithet: among those that characterize saints the most frequent is θεολόγος, and the lacuna in line 4 allows no other restoration but St. John the Theologian (all restorations are of course highly hypothetical). The preceding γενάμ[ενος most likely indicates that the deceased (or perhaps his father, although this is less likely) had become a cleric of some church or monastery dedicated to John the Theologian and located somewhere in the Kuban region. In that case, his former status of decanus (according to the PHI7 Database, decani are mentioned in Christian inscriptions 18 times) probably indicates his responsibility for burials (Lampe, s.v., 2), apparently in connection with the church where he himself was eventually buried. The developed church terminology evident in the inscription suggests that the monument originated in a bishopric's centre, that is, Tamatarcha.
6. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.F.f.
7–9. The detailed dating formula is similar to those found on other Middle Byzantine tombstones (V 316, 767 C.E; V 315, 819 C.E.; V 243, 906 C.E.); the last example is also very close to the one under consideration in terms of palaeography. This similarity is probably not accidental, especially if we take into consideration the fact that the author, and possibly the letter cutter, of the epitaph from Partenit was "Nikolaos, a monk and presbyter from Bosporus." The possible year dates of death (15th indiction) between 891 and 992 C.E. are 896–897, 911–912, 926–927, 941–942, 956–957, 971–972 and 986–987 C.E. (on the correspondence of years 'since Creation' and 'since the Birth of Christ' in the Middle Byzantine period, see Introduction IV. 4. D). Of these years, the 25th of a month fell on a Saturday in the following years: December 25, 896 C.E., June 25, 897 C.E., April and July 25, 912 C.E., November 25, 926 C.E., August 25, 927 C.E., September and December 25, 941 C.E., June 25, 942 C.E., October 25, 956 C.E., April and July 25, 957 C.E., November 25, 971 C.E., May 25, 972 C.E., December 25, 986 C.E. and June 25, 987 C.E. In the lacuna, there is space for about 5 letters for the month name. If it was Μαΐῳ, then May, 25th fell on a Saturday only in 972 C.E. If it was Ἰουνίο or Ἰουλίο, then the possible dates are: June 25, 897 C.E., July 25, 912 C.E., June 25, 942 C.E., July 25, 957 C.E., and June 25, 987 C.E. Considering the similarity of our inscription to V 243 (906 C.E.) we should probably prefer the first two possibilities, and the size of the lacuna for the year date suggests ςυκ´, that is, 912 C.E. We should note the special for the Northern Black Sea region dating formula 'since Creation' rather than 'since Adam' (see commentary to V 243 and Vinogradov 2008).
The thinness of the panel is of note: it must have been a revetment panel for insertion into a wall above the grave (see commentary to V 319). After the demolition of the wall, it was reused for an invocative graffito: two parts of the stone remain, and therefore it means that Text 2 had been inscribed while the whole panel was still intact.
1–2. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.F.d.
2–3. After the words "servant of God" stood the name of the deceased. A lacuna in line 2 is too big, however, to take βαντζου at the start of line 3 together with it; rather, these letters must be part of a name, either of a family name or of a patronymic. The former is attested in the epigraphy of the Northern Black Sea region once (V 66, 915 C.E.); the likelihood of the second is supported by the ending - the father's name might have been Ivanets (this name is recorded in a birch bark letter № 2 from Moscow, of the XIVth century).
3–6. The sequence of letters λόγου appearing before the formula "He died" probably belongs to some epithet: among those that characterize saints the most frequent is θεολόγος, and the lacuna in line 4 allows no other restoration but St. John the Theologian (all restorations are of course highly hypothetical). The preceding γενάμ[ενος most likely indicates that the deceased (or perhaps his father, although this is less likely) had become a cleric of some church or monastery dedicated to John the Theologian and located somewhere in the Kuban region. In that case, his former status of decanus (according to the PHI7 Database, decani are mentioned in Christian inscriptions 18 times) probably indicates his responsibility for burials (Lampe, s.v., 2), apparently in connection with the church where he himself was eventually buried. The developed church terminology evident in the inscription suggests that the monument originated in a bishopric's centre, that is, Tamatarcha.
6. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.F.f.
7–9. The detailed dating formula is similar to those found on other Middle Byzantine tombstones (V 316, 767 C.E; V 315, 819 C.E.; V 243, 906 C.E.); the last example is also very close to the one under consideration in terms of palaeography. This similarity is probably not accidental, especially if we take into consideration the fact that the author, and possibly the letter cutter, of the epitaph from Partenit was "Nikolaos, a monk and presbyter from Bosporus." The possible year dates of death (15th indiction) between 891 and 992 C.E. are 896–897, 911–912, 926–927, 941–942, 956–957, 971–972 and 986–987 C.E. (on the correspondence of years 'since Creation' and 'since the Birth of Christ' in the Middle Byzantine period, see Introduction IV. 4. D). Of these years, the 25th of a month fell on a Saturday in the following years: December 25, 896 C.E., June 25, 897 C.E., April and July 25, 912 C.E., November 25, 926 C.E., August 25, 927 C.E., September and December 25, 941 C.E., June 25, 942 C.E., October 25, 956 C.E., April and July 25, 957 C.E., November 25, 971 C.E., May 25, 972 C.E., December 25, 986 C.E. and June 25, 987 C.E. In the lacuna, there is space for about 5 letters for the month name. If it was Μαΐῳ, then May, 25th fell on a Saturday only in 972 C.E. If it was Ἰουνίο or Ἰουλίο, then the possible dates are: June 25, 897 C.E., July 25, 912 C.E., June 25, 942 C.E., July 25, 957 C.E., and June 25, 987 C.E. Considering the similarity of our inscription to V 243 (906 C.E.) we should probably prefer the first two possibilities, and the size of the lacuna for the year date suggests ςυκ´, that is, 912 C.E. We should note the special for the Northern Black Sea region dating formula 'since Creation' rather than 'since Adam' (see commentary to V 243 and Vinogradov 2008).
Texte 2
01 ΣΟ͂ΣΕΣΩΤΗΡΤ 02 ΔΟΥΛΟΝΣΟΥΔΙΜΙΤΡ |
01 Σο͂σε, σωτήρ, τ(ὸν) 02 δοῦλόν σου Διμίτρ(ιον) . |
Traduction :
Спаси, Спасе, раба Твоего Димитрия.
Save, o Saviour, your servant Demetrios.
Commentaires :
Надпись 2 представляет собой типичное прошение. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.E.c,
относительно имени Димитрий — комм. к V 82. Минускульные формы букв в ней еще не проявляют
признаков шрифта XII–XIII вв.
The inscription is a typical invocation. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.E.c, on the name Demetrios (here Dimitros), see commentary to
V 82. Minuscule letter forms do not yet show typical features of the XII-XIIIth century script.
Traduction : 1
Here lies a servant of God..., son of ... Ibantz-, decanus of this [church?]... having become... [of John Theo]logian.
He died on the 25th of July (?), Saturday, in the 15th indiction, in the year 6420 (?) since the creation of the world.
Traduction : 2
Save, o Saviour, your servant Demetrios.
Apparat critique : 1
2-6 : θ[εοῦ ...] βαντζο[...] τοῦ δεκα[...] δε γεναμ[...] λόγου Latyshev
8 : ὥρ(ᾳ) ., ἰνδ. Latyshev , Vinogradov
9 : ςυ[... Latyshev , Vinogradov
Commentaires: 1
According to Latyshev, Fragment 1 came from the collection of E.E. Lyutsenko, and according to the inventory of the State Historical Museum
(op. 305/IV) — it comes from the collection of A.M. Podshivalov. The monument was part of the exhibition "From [the land of] Varangians to
[the land of] the Greeks" (21.05.1996; the catalogue published, with errors, Latyshev's edition of Fragment 2). Since Fragments 1 and 2 belong to the same inscription (this is supported by the palaeography, and in particular,
the characteristic shape of mu, the thickness of the panel, letter height, etc.), perhaps the discrepancy between attributions to different private
collections has to do with the existence of and mix-up between two fragments. The origin of Fragment 1 is unknown: it had been in a private collection and
then entered the collection of the State Historical Museum; Fragment 2 was found in the Kuban region and directly transferred to the Historical Museum. Latyshev already
considered the idea of joining the fragments, but was dissuaded by A.N. Tschukarev and A.V. Oreshnikov.
The thinness of the panel is of note: it must have been a revetment panel for insertion into a wall above the grave (see commentary to V 319). After the demolition of the wall, it was reused for an invocative graffito: two parts of the stone remain, and therefore it means that Text 2 had been inscribed while the whole panel was still intact.
1–2. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.F.d.
2–3. After the words "servant of God" stood the name of the deceased. A lacuna in line 2 is too big, however, to take βαντζου at the start of line 3 together with it; rather, these letters must be part of a name, either of a family name or of a patronymic. The former is attested in the epigraphy of the Northern Black Sea region once (V 66, 915 C.E.); the likelihood of the second is supported by the ending - the father's name might have been Ivanets (this name is recorded in a birch bark letter № 2 from Moscow, of the XIVth century).
3–6. The sequence of letters λόγου appearing before the formula "He died" probably belongs to some epithet: among those that characterize saints the most frequent is θεολόγος, and the lacuna in line 4 allows no other restoration but St. John the Theologian (all restorations are of course highly hypothetical). The preceding γενάμ[ενος most likely indicates that the deceased (or perhaps his father, although this is less likely) had become a cleric of some church or monastery dedicated to John the Theologian and located somewhere in the Kuban region. In that case, his former status of decanus (according to the PHI7 Database, decani are mentioned in Christian inscriptions 18 times) probably indicates his responsibility for burials (Lampe, s.v., 2), apparently in connection with the church where he himself was eventually buried. The developed church terminology evident in the inscription suggests that the monument originated in a bishopric's centre, that is, Tamatarcha.
6. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.F.f.
7–9. The detailed dating formula is similar to those found on other Middle Byzantine tombstones (V 316, 767 C.E; V 315, 819 C.E.; V 243, 906 C.E.); the last example is also very close to the one under consideration in terms of palaeography. This similarity is probably not accidental, especially if we take into consideration the fact that the author, and possibly the letter cutter, of the epitaph from Partenit was "Nikolaos, a monk and presbyter from Bosporus." The possible year dates of death (15th indiction) between 891 and 992 C.E. are 896–897, 911–912, 926–927, 941–942, 956–957, 971–972 and 986–987 C.E. (on the correspondence of years 'since Creation' and 'since the Birth of Christ' in the Middle Byzantine period, see Introduction IV. 4. D). Of these years, the 25th of a month fell on a Saturday in the following years: December 25, 896 C.E., June 25, 897 C.E., April and July 25, 912 C.E., November 25, 926 C.E., August 25, 927 C.E., September and December 25, 941 C.E., June 25, 942 C.E., October 25, 956 C.E., April and July 25, 957 C.E., November 25, 971 C.E., May 25, 972 C.E., December 25, 986 C.E. and June 25, 987 C.E. In the lacuna, there is space for about 5 letters for the month name. If it was Μαΐῳ, then May, 25th fell on a Saturday only in 972 C.E. If it was Ἰουνίο or Ἰουλίο, then the possible dates are: June 25, 897 C.E., July 25, 912 C.E., June 25, 942 C.E., July 25, 957 C.E., and June 25, 987 C.E. Considering the similarity of our inscription to V 243 (906 C.E.) we should probably prefer the first two possibilities, and the size of the lacuna for the year date suggests ςυκ´, that is, 912 C.E. We should note the special for the Northern Black Sea region dating formula 'since Creation' rather than 'since Adam' (see commentary to V 243 and Vinogradov 2008).
The thinness of the panel is of note: it must have been a revetment panel for insertion into a wall above the grave (see commentary to V 319). After the demolition of the wall, it was reused for an invocative graffito: two parts of the stone remain, and therefore it means that Text 2 had been inscribed while the whole panel was still intact.
1–2. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.F.d.
2–3. After the words "servant of God" stood the name of the deceased. A lacuna in line 2 is too big, however, to take βαντζου at the start of line 3 together with it; rather, these letters must be part of a name, either of a family name or of a patronymic. The former is attested in the epigraphy of the Northern Black Sea region once (V 66, 915 C.E.); the likelihood of the second is supported by the ending - the father's name might have been Ivanets (this name is recorded in a birch bark letter № 2 from Moscow, of the XIVth century).
3–6. The sequence of letters λόγου appearing before the formula "He died" probably belongs to some epithet: among those that characterize saints the most frequent is θεολόγος, and the lacuna in line 4 allows no other restoration but St. John the Theologian (all restorations are of course highly hypothetical). The preceding γενάμ[ενος most likely indicates that the deceased (or perhaps his father, although this is less likely) had become a cleric of some church or monastery dedicated to John the Theologian and located somewhere in the Kuban region. In that case, his former status of decanus (according to the PHI7 Database, decani are mentioned in Christian inscriptions 18 times) probably indicates his responsibility for burials (Lampe, s.v., 2), apparently in connection with the church where he himself was eventually buried. The developed church terminology evident in the inscription suggests that the monument originated in a bishopric's centre, that is, Tamatarcha.
6. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.F.f.
7–9. The detailed dating formula is similar to those found on other Middle Byzantine tombstones (V 316, 767 C.E; V 315, 819 C.E.; V 243, 906 C.E.); the last example is also very close to the one under consideration in terms of palaeography. This similarity is probably not accidental, especially if we take into consideration the fact that the author, and possibly the letter cutter, of the epitaph from Partenit was "Nikolaos, a monk and presbyter from Bosporus." The possible year dates of death (15th indiction) between 891 and 992 C.E. are 896–897, 911–912, 926–927, 941–942, 956–957, 971–972 and 986–987 C.E. (on the correspondence of years 'since Creation' and 'since the Birth of Christ' in the Middle Byzantine period, see Introduction IV. 4. D). Of these years, the 25th of a month fell on a Saturday in the following years: December 25, 896 C.E., June 25, 897 C.E., April and July 25, 912 C.E., November 25, 926 C.E., August 25, 927 C.E., September and December 25, 941 C.E., June 25, 942 C.E., October 25, 956 C.E., April and July 25, 957 C.E., November 25, 971 C.E., May 25, 972 C.E., December 25, 986 C.E. and June 25, 987 C.E. In the lacuna, there is space for about 5 letters for the month name. If it was Μαΐῳ, then May, 25th fell on a Saturday only in 972 C.E. If it was Ἰουνίο or Ἰουλίο, then the possible dates are: June 25, 897 C.E., July 25, 912 C.E., June 25, 942 C.E., July 25, 957 C.E., and June 25, 987 C.E. Considering the similarity of our inscription to V 243 (906 C.E.) we should probably prefer the first two possibilities, and the size of the lacuna for the year date suggests ςυκ´, that is, 912 C.E. We should note the special for the Northern Black Sea region dating formula 'since Creation' rather than 'since Adam' (see commentary to V 243 and Vinogradov 2008).
Commentaires: 2
The inscription is a typical invocation. On the formula, see Introduction IV.3.E.c, on the name Demetrios (here Dimitros), see commentary to
V 82. Minuscule letter forms do not yet show typical features of the XII-XIIIth century script.
XML EpiDoc
URI:https://petrae.huma-num.fr/5.336
© A.Yu. Vinogradov, Irene Polinskaya