V 46. Cherson.Invocation of Michael, Х–XIth centuries C.E.
Monument
Type
Panel.
Material
Inkerman limestone.
Dimensions (cm)
H.28.0, W.33.0, Th.12.0.
Additional description
On the front is an anathyrosis along the top and right edge; there is incised framing line on the left, decorated with an incised geometric ornament; in the centre of the panel is a roughly chiseled image of a cross with forking ends, on Golgotha; on either side of the top arm of the cross are two small versions of the same type of cross, faintly incised.
Place of Origin
Cherson.
Find place
Sevastopol (Chersonesos).
Find context
Northern shore, in the masonry of the monastery fence.
Find circumstances
1896, survey of M.N. Skubetov.
Modern location
Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Institution and inventory
The State Museum of the History of Religion, no inventory number.
Autopsy
November 2004.
Epigraphic field
Position
In the bottom left corner between the arms of the cross.
Lettering
Lapidary. Letters are angular and uneven. Alpha with a loop; delta with extended horizontal; iota with diaeresis. Ligature: omicron-upsilon.
Letterheights (cm)
1.7–3.0.
Text
Category
Invocative inscription.
Date
Х–XIth centuries C.E.
Dating criteria
Palaeography.
Editions
L1. Latyshev1908, 32, № 27.
<div type="edition" xml:lang="grc">
<ab>
<lb n="1"/><roleName><expan><abbr>Κ</abbr><ex>ύρι</ex><abbr>ε</abbr></expan></roleName>,
βοήθ<lb n="2" break="no"/>η τὸν
<expan><abbr>δοῦ<lb n="3" break="no"/>λό</abbr><ex>ν</ex></expan> σου
Μι<lb n="4" break="no"/>χαήλη.
</ab>
</div>Apparatus criticus
3-4: ΜιχαήλειLatyshev
Translation
O Lord, help your servant Michael.
Commentary
The letters of the inscription appear scratched into the stone rather than carved: their shapes are angular. It is not absolutely clear whether the inscription is contemporary with the carving of the cross or made later, e.g., at the same time with the two small crosses. For this reason, it is not clear whether we should classify this inscription as dedicatory or as a graffito on a pre-existing monument.
The cross with forking ends, also sloppily executed, finds parallels in V 41 and V 72; the geometrically-patterned frame is similar to that on V 37.
1-3. On the formula, see IV.3.E.a.
3-4. The name Μιχαήλ, in the Byzantine period, was also declined according to the noun forms Μιχάηλος or Μιχαήλιος (see, e.g.,Sozomenus. Hist. eccl. 2, 3, 8), from where we get the typically Byzantine form of accusative Μιχαήλιν, with the omicron dropping out. The omission of the final nu in δοῦλον and Μιχαήλην can probably be explained by the process of transition to Modern Greek. Such an explanation seems more probable than the one offered by Latyshev, who suspected a confusion of noun cases, which is indeed common in Byzantine inscriptions using this formula (see IV.3.E.a).
Images
© 2015 Andrey Vinogradov (edition), Irene Polinskaya (translation)
You may download this inscription in EpiDoc XML. (This file should validate to theEpiDoc schema.)