Epitaph of Lo[ukianos?]
created: Transcription from previous editors.
source date: Probably second century AD
language: ar; en; fr; de; grc; grc-Latn; el; he
availability: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Deed Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain a link back to DOI: https://doi.org/10.60760/unibo/igcyrgvcyr2 and the filename (IGCyr000000 or GVCyr000), as well as the year of consultation. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

[...], pp. 238-239, n. 471 and fig. 54, whence [...], 9.558; [...], n. 398; [...], n. 12; [...] 020.

Ἐνθάδε Λουκιανὸς κεῖται [...] κατὰ γαῖαν
ὃς πᾶν εὐσεβίηι νείκῆσ' ἀρετῆς ἐνί τ' ἔργοις.

Λουκιανὸς[^a1] κεῖται[^a2] [...][^a3] ὃς πᾶν εὐσεβίηι νείκησ'[^a4] ἐνί τ' ἔργοις[^a5]

[^a1: Λουκιανὸς | Ἀθην [...]]

[^a2: κεῖται | [...]]

[^a3: [...] | Λιβύης]

[^a4: ὃς πᾶν εὐσεβίηι νείκησ' | [...]θεπ[...]κῆς | ὑποστὰς ἔργα δικῆς]

[^a5: ἐνί τ' ἔργοις | καὶ εὐεργεσίας]

Ici repose sous la terre Loukianos [...],

qui l'emporta sur chacun par sa piété et en actes de vertu.

Here lays under the earth Loukianos [...],

who prevailed over everyone through piety and in acts of valour.

Qui giace sotto terra Loukianos [...],

che vinse su tutti per la pietà e le azioni virtuose.

Line 1. The name Loukianos, proposed by Peek, is largely restored; however it seems a good guess, meeting the needs of both the rhythm and the two letters preserved at the beginning. As shown by Oliverio's photograph, the stone was already broken off at the time of the first edition so that the line was lost after Λο. Whatever its position, the verb κεῖται is a must. Conversely it seems hazardous to follow Peek's restoration for the word 'Libya' that would normally apply only to a foreigner dead in that region: for such a status we have no clue.

At line 2, πᾶν may be, as Peek supposes, a later form of the accusative masculine (so translated 'over everyone'); alternatively, if the traditional neuter, it might perhaps be understood as 'over everything'.

On the whole, Peek's restorations at lines 1 and 2 exceed the length covered by line 3, which corresponds to the modern condition of the stone. As this has been reused, we may admit that it has been recut and that line 3 was not fully inscribed. Anyway, it seems difficult to fill two hexameters with only the preserved dimensions of the block. The 4th line being fully deleted (perhaps an epsilon about the middle), we cannot even know whether this was the continuation of a metrical text.

An ancient print of the photograph had been sent by J.M. Reynolds to W. Peek and is kept in the archive of Peek Nachlass at Berlin. We thank Kl. Hallof for providing an excellent digitized copy.

Metrical analysis: Peek's restoring two dactylic hexameters seems the best solution, as the remnant segments of verse-line 2 exclude a pentameter.