Support: Экран.
Matériau: Белый мрамор.
Description et état du monument : Плита обработана со всех сторон, на лицевой стороне внутри рамки изображен Христос в виде безбородого юноши с нимбом в технике сграффито, подающего руку тонущему Петру, справа корабль, от которого сохранился только парус; на тыльной стороне рельефная рамка и остатки рельефного креста. Обломана справа и снизу.
The panel is worked on all sides. On the front is a rectangular frame along the perimeter; inside the frame there is an image, in sgraffito technique, of a young (beardless) Christ, his head surrounded by a halo, offering his hand to the drowning Peter; the sail of a boat is on the right. On the back is a frame in relief and the remains of a cross in relief. Broken off on the right and bottom.
Dimensions: 34,5/31,5/3,5
Lieu d'origine: Cherson
Lieu de découverte: Sevastopol (Chersonesos).
Contexte local: Necropolis by the Quarantine Bay, Burial vault 784, earth infill in front of the entrance.
Conditions de découverte: 1896, excavations of K.K. Kostsyushko-Valyuzhinich.
Lieu de conservation: Saint Petersburg, Russia
Institution de conservation: State Hermitage
N° inventaire: Х.237
Autopsie: September 2004
Observations: Saint Petersburg, Russia
Fragment 1:
Fragment 2:
Champs épigraphique 1: On the top frame (which has been horizontally cut leaving only the bottoms of letters)
Style écriture: Lapidary. Lunate epsilon and sigma; kappa with extended vertical
Champs épigraphique 2: Inside the frame, just below the top framing line
Style écriture: Lapidary. Lunate epsilon and sigma; kappa with extended vertical
Texte 1:
Type de texte :
Image-related inscription.
Datation du texte :late IV–Vth centuries C.E.
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения шрифт
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения шрифт
Texte 2:
Type de texte :
Image-related inscription.
Datation du texte :late IV–Vth centuries C.E.
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения шрифт
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения шрифт
Éditions: L1. Vinogradov 2010 , 111–114, № a1; L1. Latyshev 1899 , 26–27, № 40; 1.1. Latyshev 1891 , 337–369; 1.2. Latyshev 1901a (=); 2. Vinogradov 2005b , 91-93; 2.1. Vinogradov 2010 , 111–114, № a1; 2.2. Yashaeva, Denisova 2011 , 425, № 7, илл. 7;
Texte 1
Type de texte: Image-related inscription
Datation du texte:
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения шрифт.
01 [Ο]Κ̣Σ̣Ἰ̣Ε̣Σ̣Δ̣[ΙΔΟΥΣΧΕΙΡΑΠΕΤΡΩΚΑΤΑΠΟΝΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΩ] |
01 [Ὁ] κ̣(ύριο)ς̣ Ἰ̣ε̣(σοῦ)ς̣ δ̣[ιδοὺς] [χεῖρα Πέτρῳ καταποντιζομένῳ ]. |
Traduction :
Господь Иисус, подающий руку тонущему Петру.
Jesus Christ offering his hand to the drowning Peter.
Commentaires :
О находке камня см. Косцюшко-Валюжинич 1896b, 77–78, 194, рис. 327; Косцюшко-Валюжинич 1898, 187.
Плита оказалась в засыпи некрополя, по всей вероятности, в виде мусора. Ее обработанная тыльная сторона указывает на то, что она была предназначена для обозрения. Остатки креста, служившего осью симметрии на тыльной стороне плиты, позволяют восстановить ее приблизительную ширину — ок. 75 см (эта работа была проделана для Латышева Н.И. Сусловым).
Если на парижской и херсонесской плитах (V 57, V 58) на верхней рамке располагалось начало подписи к изображению, то на петербургской остатки букв должны принадлежать какой-то другой надписи, так как подпись начинается ниже. Возможно, конечно, предположить, что это была ктиторская надпись. Однако здесь вызывают смущение два элемента в надписи 2: во-первых, после имени Иисус зачем-то поставлен крест; во-вторых, оно сокращено иначе, чем на двух других фрагментах: Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς вм. Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. Причем похоже, что на верхней рамке слева читаются как раз остатки слов κ(ύριο)ς Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. Таким образом, оригинальная подпись к изображению, идентичная по орфографии и стилю двум остальным, располагалась именно на верхней рамке. Впрочем, схожий шрифт двух надписей на петербургской плите говорит о том, что надпись 2 была выполнена весьма скоро после надписи 1. Причиной для этого могло послужить, конечно, и повреждение надписи 1, однако ровная теска верхнего края свидетельствует скорее в пользу того, что плита из-за неверных размеров не поместилась в предназначенное ей обрамление, и тогда мастера были принуждены подтесать ее сверху (об этом говорит и меньшая ширина верхней рамки на тыльной стороне по сравнению с боковой).
Об изображении см. Michon 1900; Латышев 1906b, 55–56; Izmailova 1970. Pl. LXXX. Fig. 23; Византийское искусство 1977, 51. Сюжет изображения восходит к Мф 14, 31 и известен в христианском искусстве. Стилистически (прорезанные линии и сграффито на волосах) данная плита близка египетскому рельефу из Берлина IV–V вв. (Török 2005, 272, fig. 110).
См. также комм. к V 58.
Плита оказалась в засыпи некрополя, по всей вероятности, в виде мусора. Ее обработанная тыльная сторона указывает на то, что она была предназначена для обозрения. Остатки креста, служившего осью симметрии на тыльной стороне плиты, позволяют восстановить ее приблизительную ширину — ок. 75 см (эта работа была проделана для Латышева Н.И. Сусловым).
Если на парижской и херсонесской плитах (V 57, V 58) на верхней рамке располагалось начало подписи к изображению, то на петербургской остатки букв должны принадлежать какой-то другой надписи, так как подпись начинается ниже. Возможно, конечно, предположить, что это была ктиторская надпись. Однако здесь вызывают смущение два элемента в надписи 2: во-первых, после имени Иисус зачем-то поставлен крест; во-вторых, оно сокращено иначе, чем на двух других фрагментах: Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς вм. Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. Причем похоже, что на верхней рамке слева читаются как раз остатки слов κ(ύριο)ς Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. Таким образом, оригинальная подпись к изображению, идентичная по орфографии и стилю двум остальным, располагалась именно на верхней рамке. Впрочем, схожий шрифт двух надписей на петербургской плите говорит о том, что надпись 2 была выполнена весьма скоро после надписи 1. Причиной для этого могло послужить, конечно, и повреждение надписи 1, однако ровная теска верхнего края свидетельствует скорее в пользу того, что плита из-за неверных размеров не поместилась в предназначенное ей обрамление, и тогда мастера были принуждены подтесать ее сверху (об этом говорит и меньшая ширина верхней рамки на тыльной стороне по сравнению с боковой).
Об изображении см. Michon 1900; Латышев 1906b, 55–56; Izmailova 1970. Pl. LXXX. Fig. 23; Византийское искусство 1977, 51. Сюжет изображения восходит к Мф 14, 31 и известен в христианском искусстве. Стилистически (прорезанные линии и сграффито на волосах) данная плита близка египетскому рельефу из Берлина IV–V вв. (Török 2005, 272, fig. 110).
См. также комм. к V 58.
On the circumstances of discovery, see Kostsyushko-Valyuzhinich 1896b, 77–78, 194, drawing 327; Kostsyushko-Valyuzhinich 1898, 187.
The panel was found in the fill of the necropolis, apparently, among rubbish. Its prepared front surface indicates that the panel was meant to be viewed. The remains of a cross, which must have served as the vertical centre on the back side, allow us to restore the overall width of the panel at ca. 0.75m (this calculation was undertaken for Latyshev by N.I. Suslov)
While on the Parisian and Chersonessian panels (V 57 and V 58), the image-related inscription began on the top section of the frame, on this panel, the remains of letters would seem to suggest a different type of inscription, since the image-related text begins lower. We could consider the possibility of a ktitor's inscription, but two details in the inscription 2 militate against that: firstly, for some reason, there is a cross after the name of Christ; secondly, the name of Christ is abbreviated differently than on V 57 and V 58: Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς instead of Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. At the same time, the traces of letters on the frame (on the left) seem to read precisely κ(ύριο)ς Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. Thus it would appear that the original image-related inscription, identical in style and orthography to V 57 and V 58, was actually written on the frame. Yet the similarity of style in inscriptions 1 and 2 on this stele suggests that Inscription 2 was carved shortly after Inscription 1. It is, of course, possible that some damage to Inscription 1 could have necessitated Inscription 2, but a more plausible scenario explaining the doubling of inscriptions on this stele might have been something like this: the panel was cut too big for its intended placement, and the top of it was carefully sliced off to reduce the size, thus damaging the inscription and necessitating its recutting below the framing line. The narrow width of the frame on the top compared to the lefthand side of the panel supports this hypothesis.
On the image, see Michon 1900; Latyshev 1906b, 55–56; Izmailova 1970. Pl. LXXX. Fig. 23; Bank 1977, 51. The subject of the image derives from Matthew 14:31 and is known in Christian art. Stylistically (incised lines and sgraffito technique in the treatment of hair), the image is close to the Egyptian relief in Berlin, IV-Vth centuries (Török 2005, 272, fig. 110).
See also commentary to V 58.
The panel was found in the fill of the necropolis, apparently, among rubbish. Its prepared front surface indicates that the panel was meant to be viewed. The remains of a cross, which must have served as the vertical centre on the back side, allow us to restore the overall width of the panel at ca. 0.75m (this calculation was undertaken for Latyshev by N.I. Suslov)
While on the Parisian and Chersonessian panels (V 57 and V 58), the image-related inscription began on the top section of the frame, on this panel, the remains of letters would seem to suggest a different type of inscription, since the image-related text begins lower. We could consider the possibility of a ktitor's inscription, but two details in the inscription 2 militate against that: firstly, for some reason, there is a cross after the name of Christ; secondly, the name of Christ is abbreviated differently than on V 57 and V 58: Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς instead of Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. At the same time, the traces of letters on the frame (on the left) seem to read precisely κ(ύριο)ς Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. Thus it would appear that the original image-related inscription, identical in style and orthography to V 57 and V 58, was actually written on the frame. Yet the similarity of style in inscriptions 1 and 2 on this stele suggests that Inscription 2 was carved shortly after Inscription 1. It is, of course, possible that some damage to Inscription 1 could have necessitated Inscription 2, but a more plausible scenario explaining the doubling of inscriptions on this stele might have been something like this: the panel was cut too big for its intended placement, and the top of it was carefully sliced off to reduce the size, thus damaging the inscription and necessitating its recutting below the framing line. The narrow width of the frame on the top compared to the lefthand side of the panel supports this hypothesis.
On the image, see Michon 1900; Latyshev 1906b, 55–56; Izmailova 1970. Pl. LXXX. Fig. 23; Bank 1977, 51. The subject of the image derives from Matthew 14:31 and is known in Christian art. Stylistically (incised lines and sgraffito technique in the treatment of hair), the image is close to the Egyptian relief in Berlin, IV-Vth centuries (Török 2005, 272, fig. 110).
See also commentary to V 58.
Texte 2
Type de texte: Image-related inscription
Datation du texte:
Justificatif datation: тип_изображения шрифт.
01 ΟΚΣΙΣΔΙΔΟΥΣΧΕ[ΙΡΑΠΕΤΡΩΚΑΤΑΠΟΝΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΩ] |
01 Ὁ κ(ύριο)ς Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς διδοὺς χε[ῖρα] [Πέτρῳ καταποντιζομένῳ ]. |
Traduction :
Господь Иисус, подающий руку тонущему Петру.
Jesus Christ offering his hand to the drowning Peter.
Commentaires :
См. комм. к V 56.1
Последняя буква на обломе надписи 2 — это, несомненно, лунарный эпсилон, у которого хорошо видна средняя гаста. В первоиздании Латышев этого не заметил, и исправил свою ошибку при републикации. Восстановление «святому Петру» кажется, согласно Латышеву, менее предпочтительным, т.к. Петр, в отличие от Христа, изображен без нимба.
Последняя буква на обломе надписи 2 — это, несомненно, лунарный эпсилон, у которого хорошо видна средняя гаста. В первоиздании Латышев этого не заметил, и исправил свою ошибку при републикации. Восстановление «святому Петру» кажется, согласно Латышеву, менее предпочтительным, т.к. Петр, в отличие от Христа, изображен без нимба.
See commentary to V 56.1.
The last letter before the break is certainly a lunate epsilon: its middle stroke is clearly visible. In the editio princeps, Latyshev had failed to observe this, but in the republication he fixed his original reading. Latyshev's restoration "to Saint Peter" is not as attractive, since Peter, unlike Christ, is represented without a halo.
The last letter before the break is certainly a lunate epsilon: its middle stroke is clearly visible. In the editio princeps, Latyshev had failed to observe this, but in the republication he fixed his original reading. Latyshev's restoration "to Saint Peter" is not as attractive, since Peter, unlike Christ, is represented without a halo.
Traduction : 1
Jesus Christ offering his hand to the drowning Peter.
Traduction : 2
Jesus Christ offering his hand to the drowning Peter.
Apparat critique : 2
: χ[ορηγίαν τῷ ἁγίῳ Πέτρῳ] Latyshev
Commentaires: 1
On the circumstances of discovery, see Kostsyushko-Valyuzhinich 1896b, 77–78, 194, drawing 327; Kostsyushko-Valyuzhinich 1898, 187.
The panel was found in the fill of the necropolis, apparently, among rubbish. Its prepared front surface indicates that the panel was meant to be viewed. The remains of a cross, which must have served as the vertical centre on the back side, allow us to restore the overall width of the panel at ca. 0.75m (this calculation was undertaken for Latyshev by N.I. Suslov)
While on the Parisian and Chersonessian panels (V 57 and V 58), the image-related inscription began on the top section of the frame, on this panel, the remains of letters would seem to suggest a different type of inscription, since the image-related text begins lower. We could consider the possibility of a ktitor's inscription, but two details in the inscription 2 militate against that: firstly, for some reason, there is a cross after the name of Christ; secondly, the name of Christ is abbreviated differently than on V 57 and V 58: Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς instead of Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. At the same time, the traces of letters on the frame (on the left) seem to read precisely κ(ύριο)ς Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. Thus it would appear that the original image-related inscription, identical in style and orthography to V 57 and V 58, was actually written on the frame. Yet the similarity of style in inscriptions 1 and 2 on this stele suggests that Inscription 2 was carved shortly after Inscription 1. It is, of course, possible that some damage to Inscription 1 could have necessitated Inscription 2, but a more plausible scenario explaining the doubling of inscriptions on this stele might have been something like this: the panel was cut too big for its intended placement, and the top of it was carefully sliced off to reduce the size, thus damaging the inscription and necessitating its recutting below the framing line. The narrow width of the frame on the top compared to the lefthand side of the panel supports this hypothesis.
On the image, see Michon 1900; Latyshev 1906b, 55–56; Izmailova 1970. Pl. LXXX. Fig. 23; Bank 1977, 51. The subject of the image derives from Matthew 14:31 and is known in Christian art. Stylistically (incised lines and sgraffito technique in the treatment of hair), the image is close to the Egyptian relief in Berlin, IV-Vth centuries (Török 2005, 272, fig. 110).
See also commentary to V 58.
The panel was found in the fill of the necropolis, apparently, among rubbish. Its prepared front surface indicates that the panel was meant to be viewed. The remains of a cross, which must have served as the vertical centre on the back side, allow us to restore the overall width of the panel at ca. 0.75m (this calculation was undertaken for Latyshev by N.I. Suslov)
While on the Parisian and Chersonessian panels (V 57 and V 58), the image-related inscription began on the top section of the frame, on this panel, the remains of letters would seem to suggest a different type of inscription, since the image-related text begins lower. We could consider the possibility of a ktitor's inscription, but two details in the inscription 2 militate against that: firstly, for some reason, there is a cross after the name of Christ; secondly, the name of Christ is abbreviated differently than on V 57 and V 58: Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς instead of Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. At the same time, the traces of letters on the frame (on the left) seem to read precisely κ(ύριο)ς Ἰε(σοῦ)ς. Thus it would appear that the original image-related inscription, identical in style and orthography to V 57 and V 58, was actually written on the frame. Yet the similarity of style in inscriptions 1 and 2 on this stele suggests that Inscription 2 was carved shortly after Inscription 1. It is, of course, possible that some damage to Inscription 1 could have necessitated Inscription 2, but a more plausible scenario explaining the doubling of inscriptions on this stele might have been something like this: the panel was cut too big for its intended placement, and the top of it was carefully sliced off to reduce the size, thus damaging the inscription and necessitating its recutting below the framing line. The narrow width of the frame on the top compared to the lefthand side of the panel supports this hypothesis.
On the image, see Michon 1900; Latyshev 1906b, 55–56; Izmailova 1970. Pl. LXXX. Fig. 23; Bank 1977, 51. The subject of the image derives from Matthew 14:31 and is known in Christian art. Stylistically (incised lines and sgraffito technique in the treatment of hair), the image is close to the Egyptian relief in Berlin, IV-Vth centuries (Török 2005, 272, fig. 110).
See also commentary to V 58.
Commentaires: 2
See commentary to V 56.1.
The last letter before the break is certainly a lunate epsilon: its middle stroke is clearly visible. In the editio princeps, Latyshev had failed to observe this, but in the republication he fixed his original reading. Latyshev's restoration "to Saint Peter" is not as attractive, since Peter, unlike Christ, is represented without a halo.
The last letter before the break is certainly a lunate epsilon: its middle stroke is clearly visible. In the editio princeps, Latyshev had failed to observe this, but in the republication he fixed his original reading. Latyshev's restoration "to Saint Peter" is not as attractive, since Peter, unlike Christ, is represented without a halo.
XML EpiDoc
URI:https://petrae.huma-num.fr/5.56
© Irene Polinskaya