DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45609#0042
202
Division III Section A Part 4
«
NHKAN/A'
ΗεΝθΑΔί teen, Ai/
CUJ Μ uu [\] KAI φ I
ANApexe KIN K
HZxeveeicΑΤέΚ N
ω ΝΤε ΚΑΙ Αν Δ f>J
00XHCA CΑ ε T Μ
εΐ·ΔωΝΑλ XAI feu ®
I Fi ΐΠ Α —Υ/.Νν
Αύρ^λία [’Ασχό-]
>7? Καναυ[θϊ7υ-]
ί ενΘα'δ'ε κείται,
σωφρων καί φίλ-
5 αν^ρος, χερσίν κ-
ηόευΘε/σα τέκν¬
ων τε καί α’νίρ-
ό(ς), ζκσασα έτ>7
/
μ·
ι ο Πρώ δ' ειδών .... Χαίρων εύ . .. . .
Here lies Aurelia Aschone of Kan at ha, chaste and devoted (wife}, interred by the
hands loth of (her} children and her husband, having lived 40 years. On (the) fourth
(day} before (the} ides of.
Line I: AVPHAIAACXO, Merrill (Allen).
Line 2: NHKANAV0HN, Merrill (Allen); N Η K A N A, Savignac and Abel.
Line 3: KETTA I, Merrill (Allen); KI TA I, Savignac and Abel.
Line 4: 01 A, Merrill (Allen).
Line 8: OC ZHCACA κ.τ.λ., Savignac and Abel.
Line g: ElAWNMXAIPLU, Merrill (Allen), Savignac and Abel.
Line 10: TT |> UU Δ 'EV, Merrill (Allen); ΦΙΠΛΕΝ, Savignac and Abel.
The stone was intact when Merrill saw it and the restorations in 11. 1—2 are taken
from, his copy. Clermont-Ganneau loc. cit. overlooked Allen’s publication of the inscrip-
tion, and hence endeavored to restore by conjecture the copy of PP. Savignac and
Abel, who likewise were unaware that the text had been previously edited.
In the last two lines the words at the right and left of f were apparently added
as an afterthought, when the numeral had already been inscribed in the center of 1. 9.
It . would seem that the stone-cutter began the date in 1. 10, then finding it impossible
or undesirable to follow the normal order of the words, inserted είό'ών in the line above.
Space for perhaps five letters was thus left uninscribed in 1. 10. The ends of 11. 9-10
Allen proposed to restore either as [φ]ευ(ρ)α(ρί)ω[ν] or as χαφ(ε) [φ]ευ. However, in our
copy, after χαίρω there is an indubitable vertical stroke which it is plausible to regard
as the first line of a N. We assume that the letters at the ends of 11. 9—10 should be
combined and restored as a valedictory utterance of some sort and that the date was
relegated to the space at the left of the numeral f, the name of the month forming
the first part of a line now lost. According to this theory a symmetrical, hence natural,
arrangement is secured for the additions in these last lines.
Savignac and Abel, leaving the letters in 1. 10 unexplained, proposed in 1. 9
χαϊρ(ε) ω . . . . It is unnecessary to assume omission of an E and elision (χα./ρ’ ώ) would
be likely only in a metrical epitaph. The valediction may well have read χαίρων
εύψνχεί, εύτνχει or the like, spoken, as is frequently the case in tomb-inscriptions, by the
dead person to some survivor, a wayfarer, or, in this instance, the husband.
Division III Section A Part 4
«
NHKAN/A'
ΗεΝθΑΔί teen, Ai/
CUJ Μ uu [\] KAI φ I
ANApexe KIN K
HZxeveeicΑΤέΚ N
ω ΝΤε ΚΑΙ Αν Δ f>J
00XHCA CΑ ε T Μ
εΐ·ΔωΝΑλ XAI feu ®
I Fi ΐΠ Α —Υ/.Νν
Αύρ^λία [’Ασχό-]
>7? Καναυ[θϊ7υ-]
ί ενΘα'δ'ε κείται,
σωφρων καί φίλ-
5 αν^ρος, χερσίν κ-
ηόευΘε/σα τέκν¬
ων τε καί α’νίρ-
ό(ς), ζκσασα έτ>7
/
μ·
ι ο Πρώ δ' ειδών .... Χαίρων εύ . .. . .
Here lies Aurelia Aschone of Kan at ha, chaste and devoted (wife}, interred by the
hands loth of (her} children and her husband, having lived 40 years. On (the) fourth
(day} before (the} ides of.
Line I: AVPHAIAACXO, Merrill (Allen).
Line 2: NHKANAV0HN, Merrill (Allen); N Η K A N A, Savignac and Abel.
Line 3: KETTA I, Merrill (Allen); KI TA I, Savignac and Abel.
Line 4: 01 A, Merrill (Allen).
Line 8: OC ZHCACA κ.τ.λ., Savignac and Abel.
Line g: ElAWNMXAIPLU, Merrill (Allen), Savignac and Abel.
Line 10: TT |> UU Δ 'EV, Merrill (Allen); ΦΙΠΛΕΝ, Savignac and Abel.
The stone was intact when Merrill saw it and the restorations in 11. 1—2 are taken
from, his copy. Clermont-Ganneau loc. cit. overlooked Allen’s publication of the inscrip-
tion, and hence endeavored to restore by conjecture the copy of PP. Savignac and
Abel, who likewise were unaware that the text had been previously edited.
In the last two lines the words at the right and left of f were apparently added
as an afterthought, when the numeral had already been inscribed in the center of 1. 9.
It . would seem that the stone-cutter began the date in 1. 10, then finding it impossible
or undesirable to follow the normal order of the words, inserted είό'ών in the line above.
Space for perhaps five letters was thus left uninscribed in 1. 10. The ends of 11. 9-10
Allen proposed to restore either as [φ]ευ(ρ)α(ρί)ω[ν] or as χαφ(ε) [φ]ευ. However, in our
copy, after χαίρω there is an indubitable vertical stroke which it is plausible to regard
as the first line of a N. We assume that the letters at the ends of 11. 9—10 should be
combined and restored as a valedictory utterance of some sort and that the date was
relegated to the space at the left of the numeral f, the name of the month forming
the first part of a line now lost. According to this theory a symmetrical, hence natural,
arrangement is secured for the additions in these last lines.
Savignac and Abel, leaving the letters in 1. 10 unexplained, proposed in 1. 9
χαϊρ(ε) ω . . . . It is unnecessary to assume omission of an E and elision (χα./ρ’ ώ) would
be likely only in a metrical epitaph. The valediction may well have read χαίρων
εύψνχεί, εύτνχει or the like, spoken, as is frequently the case in tomb-inscriptions, by the
dead person to some survivor, a wayfarer, or, in this instance, the husband.