Post by Ed CryerPost by Jeff HillGentlepeople, in the inscription
T01 D . M
T02 AVR . DIONYSIVS . AVG . LIB . MAE
T03 STRIA . AELIA . COIVX . A . SOLO . SVMP
T04 TIBVS . SVIS . SE . VIBI . FECERVNT . ET . CON
T05 SVMMAVERVNT . HVNC . IROVM . SIVE
T06 MONOMENTVM . SIBI . ET . FILIS . SVIS
T07 ITEM . LIBERTIS . LIBERTABVSQVE . POS
T08 TERISQVE . EORVM . ITEM . AVR . NICO
T09 NI . FRATRI . MEO . LOCVM . VNVM . SIBI
T10 CONCESSI . HEROVM . DECENTIANVM
which concerns the delusions of grandeur of one AVRELIVS DIONYSIVS and
his wish to be memorialised as a Hero, what do you suppose VIBI to be?
VIBI may possibly not be a plural Latin substantive (noun or
adjective), but, rather, a preposition, either VBI or far more likely
IBI. Please upload your thoughts.
Another proud freedman; or rather a family of freedmen and women!
I wonder what the Heroes Decentiani were. Maybe soldiers serving under
General Decentius, who did something valiant.
Is there an online picture of the stone? Or information about where it
was found?
I'd guess at "ubi fecerunt et consummaverunt hunc iroum (??? tropaeum)
sive monumentum". Our proud freedman has added his own personal stone to
an existing monument.
Ed
EDO SALVTEM QVAM PLVRIMAM DICIT GAVFRIDVS (and DICI too),
Sharp response. Thankyou.
Do you dismiss the possibility that DECENTIANVM might refer to the
town Desenzano-del-Garda on the south shore of Lake Garda? It is
likely that the ancient composer of the inscription is the last person
who knew what the hell he was referring to.
Possibly the best edition of the inscription, of a typically very bad
lot, is Theodor Mommsen's CORPVS INSCRIPTIONVM LATINARVM one, volume
10, page 68, 563 [=2988], which differs from Fabretti's version, which
differs from Muratori's version, which differs from Accursius's
version, AD ABSVRDVM. Scholars who rely on something they saw in a
manuscript (one of the CODICES MARVCELLIANI gives it as DERENTIANVM --
the anonymous Italian author of that scribble must have spent less
than one quarter of a millisecond looking at the inscription, writing
it down, and checking his work!) or in a printed book, without an
autopsy, are asking for trouble, and just begging to please be
deceived.
I have the feeling that the stone is "not extant" anymore, but, trying
to follow the trail, I have written to the Church Of San Benedetto, in
Salerno, and boldly asked the local antiquarian for a photograph. A
photograph is occasionally as good as an autopsy. I would expect to
find that the text has been oblitterated by the scuffing of thousands
of years' of clogs and sandals, and to have been rendered illegible,
thus explaining the unsatisfactory misreadings.
line 5 -- IROVM is apparently EROVM (guesses and prints Mommsen).
Line 4 -- As for VIBI: no one comments on it. No one drops a hint at
how they might be interpreting it. Does no one see the slightest of
difficulties in VIBI? What are, or is, VIBI? In the dictionaries,
neither VBI nor IBI are given such an alternative form. Your
interpretation is apparently the actual EDITIO PRINCEPS, and I reckon
that it is on the money.
Line 9 -- However, our authorities fall over themselves to criticise
SIBI -- Mommsen: hey, it's IBI (not in his CIL edition, in his other
work, INSCRIPTIONES REGNI NEAPOLITANI LATINAE, number 2988); someone
else says: naw, dat's EI.
I hope to receive a photograph -- I cannot find one on the 'net.
Do you know that Herr Paul Weaver, before he died, amassed an
impressively large REPERTORIVM of these AVGVSTI LIBERTI, many many
many thousands of 'em. What a boring workload!
Ettore de Ruggiero, in his pan-and-all-encompassing Dizionario
epigrafico di antichità romane, makes no mention of DECENTIANVM.