Support: Стела.
Matériau: Мрамор.
Description et état du monument : Трапециевидная стела (во вторичном использовании) с позднеантичным рельефным изображением загробной трапезы, между фигурами которой вырезан один крест с Т-образными рукавами, а на нижнем поле рамки — 3 креста.
Trapezoidal stele with Totenmahl relief, in secondary use: a cross is cut between the original figures on the relief, and three more crosses of the same shape (T-shaped arms' ends) are cut on the frame below the relief.
Dimensions: 43,0/41,5/?
Lieu d'origine: Cherson
Lieu de découverte: Sevastopol (Chersonesos).
Contexte local: Church No 23 ("Uvarov basilica"), near the southern wall.
Conditions de découverte: 1853, excavations of A.S. Uvarov.
Lieu de conservation: Saint Petersburg, Russia
Institution de conservation: State Hermitage
N° inventaire: Х–1039
Autopsie: October 2001
Observations: Saint Petersburg, Russia
Fragment 1:
Fragment 2:
Champ épigraphique 1: Between the figures on the relief
Style écriture: Lapidary. Letters are of varying heights. Alpha with broken crossbar; beta with bottom underline; kappa with extended vertical; У-shaped upsilon
Champ épigraphique 2: On the frame below the relief
Style écriture: See field 1
Texte 1:
Type de texte :
Demonstrative.
Datation du texte :IX–Xth centuries C.E.
Justificatif datation: палеография орфография
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: палеография орфография
Texte 2:
Type de texte :
Invocative inscription.
Datation du texte :IX–Xth centuries C.E.
Justificatif datation: палеография орфография
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: палеография орфография
Éditions: L1. Latyshev 1896 , 23–26, № 12; 1.1. Kieseritzky, Watzinger 1909 , 134, № 734; L1. Latyshev 1896 , 23–26, № 12; 1.1. Kieseritzky, Watzinger 1909 , 134, № 734;
Texte 1
01 ΦΟ͂Σ 02 ΖΟΗ |
01 Φο͂ς, 02 ζοή . |
Traduction :
Свет, жизнь.
Light, life.
Commentaires :
Относительно формулы см. IV.3.C.b.
On the formula, seeIV.3.C.b.
Texte 2
Type de texte: Invocative inscription
Datation du texte:
Justificatif datation: палеография орфография.
01 ΚΥΡΙΕΒΟΗΘΗ 02 ΤΟΝΥΚΟΝΤΟΥΤΟΝΑΜΗΝ |
01 Κύριε, βοήθη 02 τὸν ὖκον τοῦτον, ἀμήν . |
Traduction :
Господи, помоги этому дому.
O Lord, help this house.
Commentaires :
Античный рельеф и надпись на нем часто упоминались в литературе XIX в. (Уваров 1855, 168–170; Толстой, Кондаков 1889, 115; Кулаковский 1896, 49;
Латышев 1897, 150).
1. Тета в конце строки видна на камне целиком, а не наполовину, как считал Латышев.
1–2. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.E.a. Византийские параллели данного ее варианта (IGLS 1450, 2635; ср. также Reynolds 1960, 286, № 5 lf; Кирена, 365 (?) г.) происходят, впрочем, не из храмов, а из жилых домов, поэтому не исключено, что рельеф был первоначально реутилизован и снабжен надписями в стене жилого дома и лишь затем вставлен в стену храма № 23 (хотя камень найден не в стене храма, а рядом). О практике вставки античных рельефов в стены церквей см. Saradi 1997.
Датировка Латышева — 1 пол. Х в., происходящая из ошибочной датировки базилики Стефани, на самом деле, не столь неверна, как это часто представляется (Сорочан 2005, 784, прим. 404). Характерная форма беты с нижним подчеркиванием, а также смешение дифтонга οι и ипсилона, невозможное в Византии до VIII в., заставляет датировать надпись не раньше этого времени. С другой стороны, альфа с ломаной перекладиной, известная в Херсоне еще в нач. Х в. (см. V 66, 915 г.), в сер. XI в. уже не употреблялась (ср. V 11). Кроме того, бета с нижним штрихом характерна именно для IX–Х вв. Таким образом, надпись следует датировать IX–X вв.
1. Тета в конце строки видна на камне целиком, а не наполовину, как считал Латышев.
1–2. Относительно формулы см. IV.3.E.a. Византийские параллели данного ее варианта (IGLS 1450, 2635; ср. также Reynolds 1960, 286, № 5 lf; Кирена, 365 (?) г.) происходят, впрочем, не из храмов, а из жилых домов, поэтому не исключено, что рельеф был первоначально реутилизован и снабжен надписями в стене жилого дома и лишь затем вставлен в стену храма № 23 (хотя камень найден не в стене храма, а рядом). О практике вставки античных рельефов в стены церквей см. Saradi 1997.
Датировка Латышева — 1 пол. Х в., происходящая из ошибочной датировки базилики Стефани, на самом деле, не столь неверна, как это часто представляется (Сорочан 2005, 784, прим. 404). Характерная форма беты с нижним подчеркиванием, а также смешение дифтонга οι и ипсилона, невозможное в Византии до VIII в., заставляет датировать надпись не раньше этого времени. С другой стороны, альфа с ломаной перекладиной, известная в Херсоне еще в нач. Х в. (см. V 66, 915 г.), в сер. XI в. уже не употреблялась (ср. V 11). Кроме того, бета с нижним штрихом характерна именно для IX–Х вв. Таким образом, надпись следует датировать IX–X вв.
This ancient relief and its inscription were often discussed in publications of the XIXth century (Uvarov 1855, 168-170; Tolstoy, Kondakov 1889, 115;
Kulakovsky1896, 49; Latyshev 1897, 150).
1. Theta at the end of the line is fully visible, and not just by half, as was the opinion of Latyshev.
1-2. On the formula, see IV.3.E.a. Byzantine parallels for this particular variant (IGLS 1450, 2635; see also Reynolds 1960, 286, no. 5 lf; Cyrene, 365 (?) C.E.) come from domestic structures rather than churches, and so it is possible that in our case as well the relief was first reused in a house wall and inscribed at that time, and only later built into the wall of Church 23 (although it was found not in the wall, but next to it). On the practice of building ancient stelae with reliefs into the walls of churches, see Saradi 1997.
Latyshev's date - 1st half of the Xth century, which depends on the faulty dating of the Stephani Basilica, is actually not as wrong as it is sometimes made out to be (Sorochan 2005, 784, n. 404). The characteristic beta with bottom underline, as well as the interchange of diphthong οι and upsilon, impossible in Byzantium prior to the VIIIth century, makes any earlier date for our inscription also improbable. At the same time, alpha with broken crossbar, which is still known in Cherson in the early Xth century (see V 66, 915 C.E.), disappears after the middle of the XIth (cf. V 11). Finally, beta with bottom underline is typical specifically for IX-Xth centuries. Thus, we should date this inscription to the IX-Xth centuries.
1. Theta at the end of the line is fully visible, and not just by half, as was the opinion of Latyshev.
1-2. On the formula, see IV.3.E.a. Byzantine parallels for this particular variant (IGLS 1450, 2635; see also Reynolds 1960, 286, no. 5 lf; Cyrene, 365 (?) C.E.) come from domestic structures rather than churches, and so it is possible that in our case as well the relief was first reused in a house wall and inscribed at that time, and only later built into the wall of Church 23 (although it was found not in the wall, but next to it). On the practice of building ancient stelae with reliefs into the walls of churches, see Saradi 1997.
Latyshev's date - 1st half of the Xth century, which depends on the faulty dating of the Stephani Basilica, is actually not as wrong as it is sometimes made out to be (Sorochan 2005, 784, n. 404). The characteristic beta with bottom underline, as well as the interchange of diphthong οι and upsilon, impossible in Byzantium prior to the VIIIth century, makes any earlier date for our inscription also improbable. At the same time, alpha with broken crossbar, which is still known in Cherson in the early Xth century (see V 66, 915 C.E.), disappears after the middle of the XIth (cf. V 11). Finally, beta with bottom underline is typical specifically for IX-Xth centuries. Thus, we should date this inscription to the IX-Xth centuries.
Traduction : 1
Light, life.
Traduction : 2
O Lord, help this house.
Commentaires: 1
On the formula, seeIV.3.C.b.
Commentaires: 2
This ancient relief and its inscription were often discussed in publications of the XIXth century (Uvarov 1855, 168-170; Tolstoy, Kondakov 1889, 115;
Kulakovsky1896, 49; Latyshev 1897, 150).
1. Theta at the end of the line is fully visible, and not just by half, as was the opinion of Latyshev.
1-2. On the formula, see IV.3.E.a. Byzantine parallels for this particular variant (IGLS 1450, 2635; see also Reynolds 1960, 286, no. 5 lf; Cyrene, 365 (?) C.E.) come from domestic structures rather than churches, and so it is possible that in our case as well the relief was first reused in a house wall and inscribed at that time, and only later built into the wall of Church 23 (although it was found not in the wall, but next to it). On the practice of building ancient stelae with reliefs into the walls of churches, see Saradi 1997.
Latyshev's date - 1st half of the Xth century, which depends on the faulty dating of the Stephani Basilica, is actually not as wrong as it is sometimes made out to be (Sorochan 2005, 784, n. 404). The characteristic beta with bottom underline, as well as the interchange of diphthong οι and upsilon, impossible in Byzantium prior to the VIIIth century, makes any earlier date for our inscription also improbable. At the same time, alpha with broken crossbar, which is still known in Cherson in the early Xth century (see V 66, 915 C.E.), disappears after the middle of the XIth (cf. V 11). Finally, beta with bottom underline is typical specifically for IX-Xth centuries. Thus, we should date this inscription to the IX-Xth centuries.
1. Theta at the end of the line is fully visible, and not just by half, as was the opinion of Latyshev.
1-2. On the formula, see IV.3.E.a. Byzantine parallels for this particular variant (IGLS 1450, 2635; see also Reynolds 1960, 286, no. 5 lf; Cyrene, 365 (?) C.E.) come from domestic structures rather than churches, and so it is possible that in our case as well the relief was first reused in a house wall and inscribed at that time, and only later built into the wall of Church 23 (although it was found not in the wall, but next to it). On the practice of building ancient stelae with reliefs into the walls of churches, see Saradi 1997.
Latyshev's date - 1st half of the Xth century, which depends on the faulty dating of the Stephani Basilica, is actually not as wrong as it is sometimes made out to be (Sorochan 2005, 784, n. 404). The characteristic beta with bottom underline, as well as the interchange of diphthong οι and upsilon, impossible in Byzantium prior to the VIIIth century, makes any earlier date for our inscription also improbable. At the same time, alpha with broken crossbar, which is still known in Cherson in the early Xth century (see V 66, 915 C.E.), disappears after the middle of the XIth (cf. V 11). Finally, beta with bottom underline is typical specifically for IX-Xth centuries. Thus, we should date this inscription to the IX-Xth centuries.
XML EpiDoc
URI:https://petrae.huma-num.fr/5.50
© A.Yu. Vinogradov, Irene Polinskaya