DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.15099#0168
129
PLATE XXX.
SEPULCHRAL STELE.
Fig. 1. Ornament, Height 1 f. 7. in. Width 1 f. 5$. in. Old No. 226. New No. 290.
This slab is inscribed XABPIA2 SAAYIIPIANOS. Osann1
seems to have received from some one the inscription as if
written 2AAYIIPIAE02, and conjectures that it might have been
2AAYIIPIAN02, in which case A would have been substituted
for II, and M omitted before II. I and E he deemed uncertain.
According to this interpretation, we should have had 2HAYM-
IIPIANOS. Boeckh2 considers all the letters after 2A to be
uncertain, and suggests the probability that the correct reading-
is 2AAYBPIAN02. An accurate examination of this monu-
ment after dark, by the aid of a candle held towards the end
of the inscription, so as to cast well defined shadows over any
inequalities in the stone, leaves no doubt whatever that the word
was, what Osann had conjectured it might be, SAAYIIPIAN02.
The inscription after the A has suffered some damage, and the
carver, finding he had more space than he had calculated on,
has spread out the latter letters, making them rather broad, and
leaving wide spaces between them. There can be but little
doubt that the word indicates the native place of the deceased
Chabrias, and that this place was Selybria in Thrace ; the inter-
vention of the M was an introduction of a late period. Ptolemy
and Strabo read 2HAYBPIA, and Herodotus SHAYBPIH, thus
differing from the reading of the monument only in the substitu-
tion of H for A and B for II, both of which changes might be
safely accounted for by the accustomed variation of one dialect
1 SyU. p. 135. 5 Corp. vol. i. p. 526. No. 888.
PLATE XXX.
SEPULCHRAL STELE.
Fig. 1. Ornament, Height 1 f. 7. in. Width 1 f. 5$. in. Old No. 226. New No. 290.
This slab is inscribed XABPIA2 SAAYIIPIANOS. Osann1
seems to have received from some one the inscription as if
written 2AAYIIPIAE02, and conjectures that it might have been
2AAYIIPIAN02, in which case A would have been substituted
for II, and M omitted before II. I and E he deemed uncertain.
According to this interpretation, we should have had 2HAYM-
IIPIANOS. Boeckh2 considers all the letters after 2A to be
uncertain, and suggests the probability that the correct reading-
is 2AAYBPIAN02. An accurate examination of this monu-
ment after dark, by the aid of a candle held towards the end
of the inscription, so as to cast well defined shadows over any
inequalities in the stone, leaves no doubt whatever that the word
was, what Osann had conjectured it might be, SAAYIIPIAN02.
The inscription after the A has suffered some damage, and the
carver, finding he had more space than he had calculated on,
has spread out the latter letters, making them rather broad, and
leaving wide spaces between them. There can be but little
doubt that the word indicates the native place of the deceased
Chabrias, and that this place was Selybria in Thrace ; the inter-
vention of the M was an introduction of a late period. Ptolemy
and Strabo read 2HAYBPIA, and Herodotus SHAYBPIH, thus
differing from the reading of the monument only in the substitu-
tion of H for A and B for II, both of which changes might be
safely accounted for by the accustomed variation of one dialect
1 SyU. p. 135. 5 Corp. vol. i. p. 526. No. 888.