SE13

Type of verse

• Type of verse: Dactílico (dístico elegíaco)
• Verse/line correspondence: No
• Prose/verse distinction: No

Epigraphic edition

Text divided into verses and metric signs

Plangite me cuncti quos terrae continet orbis, lkk|l/l|l/l|ll|lkk|l~

sic vestra propriis <probra> laventur aquis, ll|lkk|l||lkk|lkk|~

sic Christus vobis demit[ta]t debita clem[e]ns, ll|l/l|l/l|ll|lkk|l~

purpura [que]m ego texi, [iam] modo terra [premit], lkk|kkl|l||[l]kk|lkk|~

5       [no]n iuvat [argentum n]on ˹f˺ul[gens adiuv]at aurum. [l]kk|[ll|l]/l|l[l|lk]k|l~

Translation

“Weep for me, all those in the orb of the earth. May your evil actions be cleansed with healing waters. May the merciful Christ forgive your trespasses. He whom I dressed in purple, the earth now [lies upon]; silver gives no pleasure, shining gold gives no pleasure … At the age of approximately ... years and three months, he rested in peace three days before the Kalends.. in the era 700.”

Bibliography

Correa – Pereira 1972, 325–329, n. II (inde AE 1972, 274 et 275 et González Fernández CILA II 1039); Gilsanz 2005, 67–84; Fernández Martínez – Carande, CLEB SE8 et SE9, cum im. phot., quae in linguam Hispanicam verterunt. – Cf. Carande 2010, 219-239.

Comentary

As it was already documented by the first editors, carmen based on a medieval poem by Eugenius of Toledo, the epitaph of Chintasvintus (MGH AA XIV, 250-1) reproducing verses 1 to 3, 18 and 21, though with errors. The distichs quoted are:

1–3: Plangite me cuncti, quos terrae continet orbis,

sic vestra propriis probra laventur aquis,

sic Christus vobis dimittat debita clemens,

18: purpura quem texit, iam modo terra premit.

21: non iuvat argentum, non fulgens adiuvat aurum.

The carmen from Gerena may have been composed for the tomb of a bishop. There are errors in the adaptation of the verses copied, due mainly to carelessness or a lack of education on the part of the cutter.

4. 1-4. Plangite me cun<c>ti quos ter<r>a<e> continet orbis, the -c- of cuncti (Bassols 1976, 223–224) and one of the -r in terrae (Väänänen 1975, 109); and the final -e of terrae have been lost. L. 4-6 si⌐c¬ vestra probri{s}is <probra> labentur aquis: sit x sic (cf. Väänänen 1975, 126) a false interpretation of Visigothic t as c. The verse by Eugenius from which this line comes already had lengthening in arsis of the end of vestra followed by initial muta cum liquida; that reappears in this epigraph; and there is betacism in labentur for laventur (cf. Fernández Martínez 1986, 21–25); but the real problem is in that strange pro brisis x propriis probra, to the detriment of the metric and without being able to find a sense to such a sequence, which is quite rare contaminatio between propriis (maybe it was pronounced probriis) and probra in Eugenius poem, propriis aquis seems to mean “with the appropriate waters” ; Correa – Pereira 1972: A skip of the eye might have caused the omission of probra and propriis may have been pronounced probriis. There is an erroneous epenthetic s. Gilsanz 2005 proposes a different reading (sit uestra probr<a> ist<i>s labentur aquis),  assuming that the penultimate letter of the sequence PROBRISIS was a <T> and not an <I>; however, as the photograph and autopsy tracing show, there is no sign of a horizontal stroke on the stone.

Ll. 6-9 sic Ch(ris)t(u)s vobis demit[ta]t debita clem[e]ns, this is the most correct verse, almost identical to the original (with the exception of demittat for dimittat). L. 7, until the right edge of the base, demi^t would have been recorded plus a double arbitrary interpunction, and in l. 8 it should replace [ta] (missing because of the break) before the last <l>, which can be read completely. Likewise, at the beginning of l. 9 we have replaced the [e], lost after the break, followed by a probable n. Ll. 9-12 purpura [que]m ego texi, [iam] modo terra [premit]:the verse is immeasurable because of the disruption sufferd after changing, partially, the model og Eugenius poem. There is an obvious restitution: [que]m, and probably [iam] y [premit] in ll. 11- 12. Correa – Pereira 1972 pointed out to two hypothesis for their interpretation: by introducing ego as the subject of texi, purpura became an ablative; or else that ego was provisionally recorded in the draft, waiting to put the name of the deceased, which was never included. Ll. 12-14 [no]n iub⌐a¬t [argentum n]on ⌐f¬ul[gens adiuv]at aurum: Adaptation of l. 21, making it possible to reconstruct the text lost through breakage. Gilsanz 2005 directly reads ful[gens], taking the E to be simply an orthographic variant of F with “four strokes, which can only be differentiated from E by the upper horizontal stroke, more curved than this one and that exceeds on the left the vertical stroke with a finishing pointing downwards”. This is based on the fact that Navascués 1947 pointed out the existence of an F with four strokes (that is, with three horizontal strokes). But in these cases case the top stroke is curved or inclined (occasionally going downwards beyond the foot of the letter), although there is one case where the bottom stroke is inclined. However, as can be seen in the tracing and photograph, none of these features can be detected in our inscription, so it is more likely to be another mistake by the cutter. The word iubet instead of iuvat with betacism and a mistake in the second vowel.

Images

Photo author: C. Fernández Martínez.

Link to DB

Author

• Author:J. A. Correa Rodríguez, C. Fernández Martínez
• Last Update2024-02-27 11:36:20
• Autopsy date:2010