Towards a Study of Eleventh Century's Carmina Latina Epigraphica: the Renewal of an Ancient Tradition

J. Gómez Pallarès
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Joan.Gomez@uab.es

Introduction(1)

I wish to explain that I focuse this “electronic” paper upon the evolution of the medieval epigraphic poetry, and this means to study and to follow dated metrical inscriptions between the sixth and the eleventh centuries. I have tried to work only with latin metrical inscriptions containing an almost sure, or even a sure datation. Why this chronological frame? The eleventh century is obvious: this is the reason why the IIIrd International Medieval Congress was organized (to specifically study that century). The sixth century directly connects with my other paper concerning this topic, presented to the previous congress held in Florence in 1993, and published several months ago(2). In that paper I tried to show and demonstrate (I hope so!) that the latin metrical inscriptions written between the first century BC and the fourth/fifth centuries AD and devoted to women and men, both in non christian and in christian contexts, belonged to a same (let me tell you that) literary genre, wich we could call “epic-biographic-funerary-hagiographic”, and so..., without significative breaking zones in the topics or the style’s domains.

My goal now is to analyze the texts wich are, by nature, the chronological and cultural successors of the material presented five years ago, in 1993 (but published in 1998!); and my hypothesis still remains the same as it was five years ago: I’ll try to demonstrate that, within the frame of the CLE written in latin in the european roman domain (and I pray to the readers to understand that “european” signifies in my work “spanish”, but that I guess that the same hypothesis could be demonstrated with the material collected from other countries) there’s no breaking time or zone between the classic-postclassic texts and the late and medieval latin texts. Certainly, we have always to look to and be aware of the peculiarities that both time and cultural space give to each CLE, but at the same time I guess we can draw a line of basic continuity, detectable mainly in the topics and in the style we find in the CLE (I mean the “what” we read and the “how” we read in the CLE), between the classic and late CLE and the texts we can date from the seventh to the eleventh century. In my paper it will be more difficult to find comments upon a strictly linguistic approach, or even a metrical one, because these two features have been extremely well studied in previous times by distinguished scholars, and, thus, I think its comment could be less productive to us today.

Looking at the inscriptions here presented, I have decided to divide my material all along the centuries inquired through three main labels (when the epigraphic remains allow me to do that) concerning “private epitaphs,” “public epitaphs” and inscriptions with “building references,” trying to present, within each of these labels, inscriptions devoted to “men” and “women.” I think this division shows the closest respect to the material I have collected from “my territory” and, at the same time, offers a first comprehensive conclusion about our inscriptions’ contents.

Finally, it is important to me to say that I have worked only with a comprehensive selection of the dated inscriptions available to me, and that my first criterium in the way of choosing my material has been the chronological one. I mean, I have preferred a poorer inscription (from the literary point of view), but accurately dated, than another one richier but dated without precision. And two final remarks: 1. It is not the goal of this paper to present new editions of the epigraphs discussed today. I wish to deal only with previous published texts, and only in the cases in wich my discrepancy with these previous editions could be really serious, I shall offer a temptative, different and new edition. 2. I don’t want to present exhaustive paralells, both epigraphic and literary, of the most important parts of these inscriptions. I’ll try to offer only concise, but significant parallels in order to clearly show the continous literary line wich, following my hypothesis, beginns with the classical texts, follows along the late latin texts and ends in the vast sea of our medieval literary world.

Inscriptions Collected, with Commentary

Sixth Century

1. * Annis 529-534: in ICERV, n.356. I give my own edition of the text, based on autopsy. I have to say that ICERV’s supplements are not sure and this is because I prefer to offer my own edition, wich does not have supplements:

• Building inscription
• vv.1-2: what has been built up
• v.4: who has been the building’s promoter
• v. 5: when the building has been built
• v.6: some of the promoter’s qualities (?)
• v.10: how and in what conditions has been the building finished
• epigraphic parallels: we have to look only to the usual CLE’s epigraphic concordances (Colafrancesco 1986 and Fele 1988, s.v. fastigium and culmen), to find some interesting parallels (as, for instance, in CLE 312, CLE 1808, CLE 914, CLE 1354, etc.). Particularly, CLE 312, proceeding from Santa Sabina in Rome, and dated in the middle of the fifth century A.D., represents one of the best parallels of our christian metric building inscriptions: culmen apostolicum... primus fulgeret episcopus orbe...haec fundavit presbyter, ... Illyrica de gente Petrus... nutritus in aula... pauperibus locuples...
• vv.9-10: love for the anastrophe
• dactylic hexameters but without control of the phonological distinction between long and short vowels: probably stressed, accentuated hexameters.

2. * Anno 543, 22 ianuarii: in ICERV, n.291. Evora (Pacensis). CLE 718, ILCV 1521.

+ dum simul d(u)lcem cum viro carpere vitam /
ilico me fortuna tulit semper noxsea cuntis
vita dum vix(i), Venantia nomen in seculo gesi.
Ter deciens quater in pace quietos pert<uli> annos.
Ultimum iam solvi devitum comunem omnibus unum.
Hoc loco erga meos elegi quiescere proles,
[nondum quos Dominus [vo]cavit purgatos un[da l]abacri
requi[ev]it in pace d.XI kal. Februar. er. DLXXXI

• Private female inscription.
• v.1, lit. topic: a whole and sweet life passed in the husband’s company. Note the epigraphic and literary use of the verb carpere: cf., v.g., CLE 1165, 6, carpebat vitae tempora dum tenerae; CLE 706, 10, aeternam fisus Christo cum carpere vitam; Stat., Silv., 5, 1, 228-9, nil longior aetas / carpere, nil aevi poterunt vitiare labores; Amb., Med. (dubium), Hymni, 9, 4, 12-3, Christoque adhaerentem reum / vitam beatam carpere. The topic begins with the metaphor of the life as a flower and the death as the plough wich cuts that flower: cf. Hernández 1998, p.36 and note 44, and Cic., Top., 32; Cat., 68, 16 f.; Tib., 1, 8, 47 f., and Verg., Aen., 7, 162.
• v.2: Fortuna as the worst enemy: Fortuna is a bad friend, following the idea of Death as Unjustice. This is an epigraphic and literary topic: cf., for instance, CLE 68, 11, Fortuna iniqua or CLE 110, 2 fortuna improba; CLE 404, 4, dura fortuna; CLE 980, 3, saeva parentibus eripuit fortuna mea me; cf. Stat., Theb., 8, 503, congressum fortuna tulit? and Hernández 1998, pp.86, note 181 and ff., “criminationes against Fortuna,” with references to texts, as for instance his number 14, 9, 5 (s.I A.D.) coming from Vinebre (Tarragona), et Fortuna nimis saevas exercuit eiras, / quam sic ut torrens ante diem rapuit. I have not found nor in PHI neither in CLCLT the iunctura fortuna...noxia, but cf. Luc., 9, 733, noxia fata.
• v.3: vita dum vixi. Figura etymologica and the way of introducing words’ games (by amphibology or not) in the funerary CLE. Cf., for instance, CLE 1551 A, 4, pro cuius vita vitam pensare precanti; or CLE 1835, 2, post vota viventem, or CLE 186, 4, qui qua vita viximus una. Cf., for instance, Theodericus Trudonensis, Quid suum virtutis, col.91, 894-95, non est cur vivam nisi te merear mihi vivam, / propter te vixi quod modo vita mihi. Note too in this third verse, the habit of alliteration in connection with the dead’s name.
• v.4: this is the way, in classic and non classic times, of introducing the dead’s age into a CLE: telling us the age with periphrasis and multiplicatives (as ter deciens quater, for instance). I think it is not necessary to quote references, because from Mart., 5, 34, 5-6 and all along the whole CLE’s corpus, we find a great number of similar examples. I guess this is not a question of style, but just a “technical” way of introducing concrete numbers into the verses’ rigid scheme.
• v.5: ultimum iam solvi devitum. A literary and epigraphic topic, wich is the idea that we have achieved, with our death, our last objective. Note too the final anthitesis in this verse, omnibus unum, wich is a very common feature in classical and non classical CLE: cf., for instance, CLE 500, 10, fortunam metuant omnes, dices tamen unum.
• v.6: the idea that it is a benefit (like a balsamic medicine) to the dead’s tranquillity (evidently while living) to be buried in the same grave wich contains the relatives’remains, and in our case, with her children. Cf. Hernández 1998, pp.236 ff., note 566 and ff., with parallels as, for instance, CLE in ILER 5789, hic raptam matri consociavit humus or Mart., 1, 93, 1, Fabricio iunctus fido requiescit Aquinus, or 1, 116, 3-4, hoc tegitur cito rapta suis Antulla sepulchro, / hoc erit Antullae mixtus uterque parens.

3. * Anno 549: in ICERV, n.289. Mérida. IHC 34a (de Moreno y Vargas); CLE 1380; ILCV 4362.

Lux mihi Siricia divin<o> rapta flagello,

te matremq(ue) tuam tempus enorme tulit.
necdum ter binos crescens attigeras annos,
liquisti moesto vulnera dira patri.
fletibus ecce tuis renovasti funus opertum,
quod, atris tumulo iungeris ipsa cito.

Aera DLXXXVII.

• Private female inscription
• all the inscription is dominated by the topic of the mors immatura (v.2: she was near to be six years old)
• v.1: the metaphor, literary and epigraphic, of the dead as the light who gave life to the relatives and, thus, “illuminated” them. Lux mihi as the dead’s metaphor means that without this light the living people surviving the dead have to live in the darkness and, in this case, the best they can do is to die in order to quickier join the dead (v.6, another topic, both literary and epigraphic).
• v.1: note the epigraphic use of the verb rapio, absolutely present in the whole corpus of epigraphic texts, from the preclassical to the medieval times. We have to say that this use has strongly dominated too the literary non epigraphic world, as for instance in Ov., Tr., 1, 7, 38; or Luc., 9, 1058; or Mart., 1, 116, 3, etc. Cf. too CLE 555, 2, rapta de luce serena; or CLE 466, 3, rapta est mihi lux gratissima vitae; Hernández 1998, pp.53-56, and note 88: the use of this verb is mainly related with the mors immatura’s inscriptions (pp.55 and note 93, with more than ten parallels).
• v.2: alliteration of -t- and -r- in this verse.
• v.3: the usual way of telling us the death’s age
• vv.4-5: this is not the first wound to be suffered by the father. Siricia’s death makes that the father’s wound remains open, renovated, and appears to our eyes more cruel and making him more sad and expressing the desire of (v.6) quickly dying in order to join his daughter in her tomb. All this constitues a literary and epigraphic topic: Hernández 1998, pp.236 ff., with the same parallels as the parallels quoted before (CLE in ILER 5789, hic raptam matri consociavit humus or Mart., 1, 93, 1, Fabricio iunctus fido requiescit Aquinus, or 1, 116, 3-4, hoc tegitur cito rapta suis Antulla sepulchro, / hoc erit Antullae mixtus uterque parens). The idea of the daughter’s burial as an opened wound is an old one too: CLE 2180, 2, funus, qui nunc attigit mihi, e(st) renovatus o dolor; CLE 554, 4, quem fusis lacr[i]mis memoret renovato dolore; or Hernández 1998, pp.134 ff., with references to the literary background of this expression: cf. Verg., Aen., 2, 3, infandum, regina, iubes renovare dolorem; or Ov., Tr., 2, 209, nam non sum tanti, renovem ut tua vulnera, Caesar.

4. * Annis 589-590: in ICERV, n.362. Cartagena (Cartagin.). IHC 176; CLE 299; ILCV 792.

(Crux) quis quis ardua turrium miraris culmina
vestibulumq(ue) urbis duplici porta firmatum,
dextra levaq(ue) binos porticos arcos,
quibus superum ponitur camera curva convexaq(ue):
Commenciolus sic haec iussit patricius
missus a Mauricio Aug. contra hostes barbaros,
magnus virtute magister mil. (hedera) Spaniae.
sic semper Hispania tali rectore laetetur,
dum poli rotantur dumq. (Hedera) sol circuit orbem.

Ann.VIII Aug, ind. VIII

• Public building inscription
• v.1: note the habit of the “Du-Rede” and the mention of the addressee as an anonimous reader, because of the dead person’s need of speaking to the widest public possible (Valette-Cagnac 1997, p.76: “on touche là à l’un des paradoxes de l’écriture funéraire antique: s’adressant personellement à un individu ou à un groupe pour lui révéler, sur le ton de la confidence, des détails biographiques souvent très personels, l’épitaphe romaine cherche toujours, en même temps, à gommer ce qui pourrait individualiser le lecteur auquel elle s’adresse pour en faire un être anonyme interchangeable.”) I think this idea remains always the same, in the classical, late and medieval times.
• vv.1 and 3: anaphoric and cataphoric homoioteleuta: quisquis...miraris // binos porticos arcos (cf. Wills 1996, pp.363 ff., “multiple anaphora in the same line”).
• vv. 1 to 4: detailed building’s description: the ecphrasis’ technique in the duty of describing a physical and well known architectural subject is absolutely integrated in the writing of poetry from the classical times: see, among others, the global point of view of D.P.Fowler, “Narrate and describe: the problem of ekphrasis,” JRS 81 1991 25-35; and C.Edwards, Writing Rome. Textual approaches to the city, Cambridge, 1996; and the more precise analysis of K.S.Rothwell, “Propertius on the site of Rome,” Latomus 55.4 1996 829-54. Among the diachronical approaches, I reccommend G.Böhm-H.Pfotenhauer (Hrsg.), Beschreibungskunst-Kunstbeschreibung. Ekphrasis von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1995. I think this is one of the interesting analysis we can still do in medieval latin poetry, epigraphic or not: the relationship between poetry and artistic and architectural environment and the way how these concrete objects can be introduced into poetry and, then, become motives of inspiration: see too Ch.Frugoni, “Le immagini come fonte storica,” Lo spazio letterario del medioevo.1. Il medioevo latino, vol.II, La circolazione del testo, Roma, 1994, pp.721-37.
• vv.5-7: detailed identification of the inscription and building’s payer, Commenciolus, and some information about his “Lebenslauf,” followed by an eulogy (magnus virture magister).
• v.8: votive desires in the inscriptions are really common, in funerary texts as well as in public building inscriptions.
• v.9: this is the kind of, let me say that, “lapidary” and gnomic sentence wich has really increased the popularity of the epigraphic literary genre. Cf. too Aug. Hip., Soliloquiorum libri duo, col.871, lin.33, cuius (sc. Deus) legibus rotantur poli, cursus suos sidera peragunt, sol exercet diem...per magnos orbes...; and Herigerus Lobiensis, Vita tertia Ursmari Lobiensis, v.597, interea certum sol circumvolvitur orbem. See too my paper “Aspectos epigráficos de la poesía latina,” Epigraphica 55 1993, pp.129-58, pp.151-2, “gnomic literature,” with parallel texts as, for instance, those comimg from Apius Claudius Caecus’ Sententiae, or M.Porcius Cato’s carmen de moribus, in comparison with, for instance, the Sortes Patavinae seu Praenestinae (CIL I, 1438-1454 = CLE 331). I think this kind of sentences are the best example of the “Kreuzung der Gattungen,” between the epigraphic material and the more cultivated and renowned, literary one.

Seventh Century

5. * Anno 630: in ICERV, n.285. León (Cluniense). IHC 142' con facs. de Risco; CLE 720; ILCV1645.

(crux) haec tenet urna tu(u)m venerand(um) corpus, Vincenti abb(a),
set tua sacra tenet anima caeleste, sacerdos,
regnum, mutasti in melius cum gaudia vite. (hedera)
martiris exempla signat, cuod membra sacrata (hedera)
demonstrante D(omin)o vatis hic repperit index. (hedera)
cuater decies cuinos et duos vixerat annos,
misterium Xr(ist)i mente sincera minister. (hedera)
raptus aetereas subito sic venit ad auras,
sic simul officium finis vitamque removit,
sp(iritu)s adveniens D(omin)i cuo tempore s(an)c(tu)s
in regionem piam vixit animamque locabit.
Omnibus hi’s (sic!) mox est de flammis tollere flammas. (palma)
obiit (hedera) in p(ace) D(omini) V id(ibus) Mart(ii) era DCLXVIII.

• Public male inscription
• v.1: it is always important to indicate, with deictic adjectives and pronouns, who has been buried and where. It belongs to the all times’ epigraphic style to precisely indicate such things: cf. the really usual hoc iacet in tumulo (CLE 2261, 1; 1947, 1; 555, 1; 2261, 1; 1758, 1; 766, 1; etc.) with a very large number of parallels, as in our inscription, in the same very first inscription’s position.
• v.3: it depends upon the socio-cultural context the way that the inscriptions emphasize the very precise moment of the death, but this moment is always relevant, both in a non christian and in a christian environment: in a non christian one, the dead usually travel to a worse world and position and, then, the inscription’s duty consists of offering good arguments to the relatives and friends for the consolatio; in a christian context, the dead change the earthly benefits for aetherial and spiritual ones, and this means a real change into a better world: the consolatio, then, changes too, but the crucial moment has always to be marked and is important in the writing of the epitaph. I think that this very christian argument comes from and finds its roots in the non christian topic usually expressed by the sentence mors mala solvit (Hernández 1998, pp.180 ff., and notes 422 and 423 for the rethoric origin of this consolatory topic): cf., for instance, CLE 1498, evasi, effugi. Spes et fortuna, valete, / nil mihi voviscum est, ludificate alios. Or another way of expressing the same concept, in CLE number 4, 9, 12 in Hernández 1998, p.191, hic ego sepultus iaceo placisdusque quiesco.
• v.4: rhyme of -a in the second word of the two hexameter’s hemistiques.
• v.6: the way of expressing the dead’s age.
• v.8: subito means, and this is an universal topic, that death comes always in the worst, untimely and unconvenient moment and (this is another topic) without previous warnings: cf, for instance, CLE 1620, 3, genitoribus subito miseris rapta es e flore iubente; 1440, 3, clausisti subito crudeli funere vitam, etc: cf. Hernández 1998, pp.53-56. Note in this verse the alliteration of liquid and vibrant consonants to graphically indicate the moment, and, for parallels, Juv., Sat., 13, 169, ...raptusque per aera curvis.
• v.9: this is a kind of eulogy. A church’s man ends his duties at the same time as his life. This is a way, I guess very normal in this context, of following the epigraphic habit of the laudatio a professionibus (Hernández 1998, pp.353 and ff.), a rhetorical strategy in wich the dead’s praised facta, his res gestae, come from his job and duties’ world: cf. Prisc., 7, 21 ff., laudabis a professionibus, id est quod officium professus est...in omnibus autem est exquissitimum de gestis dicere.

6. * Anno 642, mortuus 12 septembrii; sepultus 10 octobris. “Villafranca de Córdoba. IHC 123; CLE 721; ILCV 274.”

(Crux) haec cava saxa Oppilani continet membra,
g[lorios]o ort[u] natalium, gestu abituq. co[nspi]c[u]m.
Opibus quippe pollens et artuum viribus cluens
iacula vehi precipitus predoq. Bacceis destinatur.
In procinctum belli necatur opitulatione sodaliu(m) desolatus
naviter cede perculsum clintes rapiunt peremtum.
Exanimis domu reducitur, suis a vernulis humatur.
Lugit coniux cum liberis, fletibus familia prestrepit.
Decies ut ternos ad quater quaternos vixit per annos,
pridie Septemb(r)ium idus morte a Vasconibus multatus
era sescentesima et octagensima id gestum memento.
Sepultus sub d. quiescit VI id. Octubres.

• Private male inscription
• I want very briefly to focus your attention to this insciption because of the combination of anaphoric and rhyme strategies of its author. In the verses 1 to 7 we have a leonine rhyme wich has its origin, I think, in the usual parallel half-lines of the classical poetry: cf. Wills 1996, pp.414 ff., and, for instance, the example from Prop., 2, 3a, 43-44, sive illam Hesperiis, sive illam ostendet Eois / uret et Eroos, uret et Hesperios; or Ov., Am., 1, 15, 29, Gallus et Hesperiis et Gallus notus Eois. Specially interesting is the pair formed by the verses 4-5, in wich we find the same technique but built in a chiastic way: precipitus with desolatus, and destinatur with necatur: A B B A, with an origin (cf. Wills 1996, p.413, “enclosure”) in texts as Lucr., 2, 266-68, omnis enim totum per corpus materiai / copia conciri debet, concita per artus / omnis ut studium mentis conixa sequatur: Wills 1996, p.413, “not unusual (especially among the elegists) is line-internal repetition within an anaphoric frame, as this sampling shows.”
• v.8: note in the construction of this verse the framing pattern, in this case not through the same word but thanks to the repetition of the same verbal idea at the beginning and at the end, lugit ... prestrepit (cf. Wills 1996, pp.426 ff.), and with addition of the couplet of ablatives at the middle of the verse. The effect is then really virgilian (A b b A) and a powerful one. Note in this verse that the pain’s expression with allusion to the tears is another literary and epigraphic topic: cf. Hernández 1998, pp.121 ff., with the origin of the expression, a kind of metaphor of the libation in the funerary ceremonies, I mean, the tears are like the wine offered in the libatio: Ov., Pont., 1, 9, 41, iure igitur lacrimas Celso libamus adempto; and CLE 1185, 2-3, utque suis manibus flores mihi vinaque saepe / funderet et lacrimam, quod mihi pluris erit.
• v.9: the way of introducing the dead’s age.

7. * Anno 661: in Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctorum Antiquissimorum Tomus XIV. ...Eugenii Toletani Episcopi Carmina, Berolini, 1905, p.280.

XLVIII. VERSUS DE ECCLESIA SANCTI IOHANNIS

Praecursor domini martyr baptista Iohannes,
posside constructam in aeterno munere sedem,
quam devotus ego rex Reccesvinthus amator
nominis ipse tui proprio de iure dicavi
tertio post decimum regni comes inclitus anno,
sexcentum decies aera nonagesima nona.

The commentary on bottom of the edition’s page says: “Ex Morale IHC, IHC, 143, inde CLE, carm.epigr., 322. Morales testatur se legisse in ecclesia S.Iohannis in Gallaeciae regione Baños. Díaz y Díaz 1959, n.376, says “lapis exstat suo loco positus.”

Apparatus criticus:
Versi in titulo M
2 constructum (corr. in -am) M
era L+ a kind of inverted B VIIIIa sic M
novem Morales

• Building inscription, with all the specific data that “must” be specified in order to make the reader sure about the building’s destination, its payer and the date of the dedication. This is a long and very well preserved tradition in the postclasical and medieval world, coming from the Roman Empire: cf. C.Klodt, “Platzanlagen der Kaiser in der Beschreibung der Dichter,” Gymnasium 105 1998 1-39.
• v.1: the specification to whom the church is devoted
• v.2: what is dedicated: the reference to the building written in the wall’s building itself
• v.3: the building’s payer
• v.5: the date in which the building was constructed

8. * saeculis VI-VII dubium: in ICERV, n.292. Vives wrote “Oviedo (Asturum). IHC 144; CLE 1397; ILCV 3700; Carriazo en AEArq 1 1925 7, foto parcial....sarcófago que CLE atribuye al s.V; IHC al IX y Carriazo, que lo ha estudiado recientemente, al VI-VII; muy probablemente es de estos dos últimos siglos.”

(Hedera) inclusi tenerum praetioso marmore corpus (hedera)
aeternam in sedem nominis Ithacii.

• Private male inscription
• v.1: the distic deals with the mors immatura’ s topic (tenerum corpus), and shows us, I think in a synecdochic way (pars pro toto: what is said about the grave’s material is thought about the young dead), that the topic about the grave as a consolation’s motive and theme is still alive: cf. Hernández 1998, pp.223 ff., with precedents as, v.g, CLE 1604, 2-4, haec sunt enim mortis solacia, ubi continentur nominis vel generis aeterna memoria (and ibidem, note 536) or ILER 5780, 10, ponimus hunc titulum luctus et solacia nostri. The idea always remains the same: the inscription and the grave, its quality, poetic features and so ...provides in a certain sense some kind of consolation to the relatives. In our inscription, I propose that the material (marmore pretioso), with the adjective pretiosus referred to the young dead person, speaks to us in a metaphorical way about the qualities of the dead: cf., for instance, CLE 1988, v.1, hic Perusina sita est, qua non pretiosior ulla, or CLE 1996, 3, auro nil aliut pretiosius adque cylindro.
• v.2: note the anastrophe and the mention of the dead’s name

Eighth Century

9. * Anno 737: in ICERV, n.315. Vives wrote: “Cangas de Onís (Asturum). IHC 384 y 149 (de Vigil).”

Resurgit ex preceptis divinis hec macina sacra,
opere exiguo comtum fidelibus votis
perspicue clareat oc templum obtutibus sacris
demonstrans figuraliter signaculum alme crucis.
Sit Chr(ist)o placens ec aula sub crucis tropheo sacrata,
quam famulus Faffila sic condidit fide promta
cum Froiliuba coniuge ac suorum prolium pignora nata,
quibus, Chr(ist)e, tuis muneribus pro hoc sit gratia plena
ac post uius vite decursum preveniat misericordia larga.
Hic vate Asterio sacrata sunt altaria Cristo
diei revoluti temporis anni CCC,
seculi etate porrecta per hordinem sexta,
currente era septingentesima septagesima quintaque.

The most important discussion concerning this inscription affects its dating. I think the arguments written by Vives are convincing, and thus I include this text in the eigth century. Vives said: “la interpretación del texto ha dado lugar a fantásticas suposiciones. Según Hernández Guerra seguido por Vigil se trataría de un templo construido por Faffila en el año 737 en el lugar mismo donde en el siglo III, o trescientos años antes, en 437, el obispo Asterio habría levantado un altar. IHC, que no entendió el razonamiento de Fernández Guerra, cree verosímil esta hipótesis. Tales fantasías para explicar el v.11...Por el contexto se ve clarísimamente que el obispo Asterio consagró el altar en la basílica construída por Faffila, es decir, en 737. En el v.11, decimos nosotros, ha de ir marcado el día de la consagración, como de costumbre. El versificador lo notó en forma cabalística (sic!) siguiendo la moda de su tiempo; hay que leer: die revoluti temporis anni CCC, esto es, el día trecentésimo del año, o sea el 27 de octubre, que en el año 737 cayó precisamente en domingo, coincidencia ésta suficiente para asegurar nuestra interpretación.”

• Building inscription
• vv.1-3: this inscription follows the classical tradition of important words in the poem’s very first positions. Resurgit, as a verb and as the first word tells us the most important think about our text. This is that we are looking (perspicue clareat) to a reconstruction, not to a new building. I think this is really important in an ecphrastic textual context in wich the reader is seeing both the text and, at the same time, the building wich is beeing referred to. The verb and the two first words of the second and the third verses place us exactly in the right position to see and understand the building in the modest and humble way that the payer (vv.6-7) desires because this is the way he wanted to reconstruct the church: opere exiguo...perspicue clareat
• vv.3-4: note the “semantic” evidences of the ecphrastic method: perspicue...demonstrans figuraliter.
• vv.1-3: what is beeing dedicated
• v.4: what is the idea under the reconstruction’s planes: to physically show Jesus Christ’s cross through the church’s ground plan.
• v.5: the way how the building has been dedicated
• vv.6-7: who are the payers of this reconstruction
• v.9: we are dealing with a votive inscription too, because the payers express in this verse the wish, the goal they want to achieve paying this restoration: genereous mercy and indulgence given by God.
• v.10: who was the ceremony’s officer
• vv.11-13: when the reconstruction was dedicated and the text written

10. * Anno 743: in ICERV, n.293. “Guarrazar (Cartagin.). IHC 724; ILCV 3483. Estaba en un oratorio.”

(Crux en círculo)

crux quisquis hunc tabule [lege]ris titulum huius
[...]e locum respice situm [cerne] vicinum.
Malui abere [locum sacr]um [......]
Annis sexsa[ginta p]eregi tempora [vite].
[fune]re perfunctum s(an)c(t)is [com]mendo tuendum,
[ut cu]m flamma vorax ve[n]iet conburere terras,
ce[ti]bus s(an)c(t)orum. merito sociatus resurgam.
Hic vite curso anno finito Crispinus pr(e)sb(i)t(er) peccator
in Chr(ist)i pace quiesco. Era DCCLXXXI.

From Vives’ commentary, we extract the following data: “vv.5-7. Estos versos están separados de los anteriores por un espacio en blanco, lo que ya da a entender (sic!) que están tomados de otro epitafio, del dedicado a Reciberga, la mujer de Chindasvinto (MGH, AA XIV, 251), por este rey, que es quien habla; por esto, en v.5 no se halla el pronombre me, que encuentra a faltar IHC, pues en el de Reciberga el pronombre te está en el verso anterior (hinc ego te, coniux), no copiado en el de Crispín. Vv.8-9. Estos dos versos procederían de un sólo que diría: hic vite curso finito in Christi pace quiesco, sin el Crispinus peccator, como ya supone CLE, 9-10. Incierto el numeral en el facsímil de IHC, lo cual ha dado lugar a cavilaciones. En la piedra se lee, como asegura Gómez Moreno (Iglesias Mozárabes, p.11): DCCLXXXI, a.743.”

10 bis. * Anno 693 aut anno 748 (vid. comment.): in IHC, n.158. “In parietis oratorii christiani in valle Gadamur prope Guarrazar rep. a.1859; tabula marmorea grandis, servata in bibliotheca publica Matritensi.” CLE 724 adds “rep. in otarorio christiano regionis carthaginiensis tabula marmorea grandis.”

Quisquis hunc tabule / [lustra]ris titulum huis, /
[Ecce] locum respice, situm / [perquire v]icinum.
Malui abere / [sacrum loc]um /sacer ipse minister].
Annis sexsa/[ginta p]eregi tempora / [vite].
[Fune]re perfunctum s(an)c(t)is / [com]mendo tuendum, /
[Ut cu]m flamma vorax ve/[n]iet comburere terras, /
Ce[ti]bus s(an)c(t)orum merito / sociatus resurgam.
Hic vite curso anno finito / Crispinus
Pr(e)sb(y)t(er) peccator / in Chr(ist)i pace quiesco.
Era DCC cu[m] / XXXI

IHC prefers to read Era DCC cu[m] / XXXI (i.e.anno 693), but while seeing the facsimile he presents (p.50), we can read too (and both CLE and IHC regard that possibility, and both reject it) era DCCLVXXXI (i.e. anno 748). Considering this, I have decided to include this inscription in my study, because the two possible dates deal with a text belonging to the eight century, to the very early beginning or to the middle of the century.

These two last inscriptions are the same text. I think IHC’s edition is the best one and I prefer to follow it.

• Private male inscription
• v.1: indefinition because of the “Du-Rede,” and the need for a non positive identification of the reader, in the very first position of the inscription and with a lot of previous epigraphic parallels, with quisque and quisquis: CLE 528; 673; 674; 443; 1785, 1457; etc., always in the first text’s position.
• vv.1-2, and v.5: the topic of the metaepigraphy, I mean the reference to the inscription’s reading precisely in the moment when the reader is acting, following the text’s instructions. Cf., for instance, CLE 1037, 1, quicumque legis titulum; 108, 11, titulum merentis oro perlegas; 1085, 1, si quis forte legat titulum, etc. It is not very usual, but in the classical and postclassical times this habit is followed by the deictic admonition of the monument’s seeing, as, for instance, in CLE 2207, 3, Ego Maurentia in hunc monumentum titulum posui Lupo virginio meo. Furthermore, what makes our inscription an outstanding piece in its chronological frame, is the third metaepigraphic reference, in v.5, wich follows the ancient tradition of recommending to the Gods the monument and inscription’s protection, as for instance, in CLE 1021, 3, sacratam cunctis sedem ne laede viator: / hanc tibi nascenti fata dedere. Cf. too Hernández 1998, pp.462 ff., “grave’s and inscription’s protection,” with parallels as, v.g., CIL II2, 7, 569, vos rogo per superos, per sanctum lumen adoro, / parcatis tumulo, manes quod contegit alte.
• v.6: flamma vorax comburere terras. Certainly in this chronology we can’t speak about incineration and ashes, but I guess this image is a metaphor of the ancient expressions refering to that habit in texts and inscriptions, as for instance, CLE 2288, 3, corpus habet tellus et data sunt flammis quod superest; or the parallels coming from that semantic world, with the words favilla (e.g., CLE 1135, 2, inseditque super flava favilla rogo) or rogus (e.g., CLE 972, 4, fida tuei prohibet me cinerem esse rogi). For flamma vorax, cf. Sil. It., Pun., 4, 685, flamma vorax imo penitus de gurgite tractos, or Paulinus Petricordiae, De vita sancti Martini, 6, 473, flamma vorax, vires augens per pabula igni.
• v.7: I guess that the writing on the stone of the dead’s last hopes, even if they belong to a very christian and natural world (as we read here), comes from the crossing of two classical topics: the first one, from the lamentatio, says (I mean in the inscriptions), that the fathers and relatives lamment the breaking of the hopes placed in a child prematurely dead (a topic coming from the mors immatura texts) (with examples as, for instance, CLE 1232, 4, spes erat in puero, nunc cinis et gemitus: cf. Hernández 1998, pp.30-36); the second one, a consolatio’s theme, says that the tomb and the messages written in the inscription give some kind of consolation to the relatives (in this case, with the statement resurgam, said by the dead to the readers and, then, to the relatives too) (Hernández 1998, pp.223-36, with parallels as, for instance, CLE 654, 9-10, quae (sc. uxor) tamen extremum munus, solacia luctus, / omnibus obsequiis ornat decoratque sepulcrum). A third way to explain the writing of these hopes, a way wich is not evidently this case, is a will’s problem: I mean, the dead or the successors (it depends upon the last will’s problems) want to publically establish and spread a testament because of the problems its resolution can produce (cf., for instance, ILER 5763, vv.6-7, reliquit (i.e. the dead person) suboles suae posteros stationis futuros, / per quos ut statio Statutique nomen habebit.
• vv.2 and 5: note the rhyme with locum...vicinum and perfunctum... tuendum.
• v.8: it is important, too, the dead’s positive identification.
• v.9: when the inscription has been placed.

11. * Ca. anno 785: in CLE 727. ICUR, II 295, 7 ex anthologia codicis Parisinis Hispanica.

Te moderante regor, deus. sit mihi vita beatA
Vt merear abitare locis tuus incola s(anct)iS
Spem capio fore quod egi veniabile. Ob hoC
Exaudi libens et sit fatenti venia largA
Reor, malum merui, set tu bonus arviter aufeR
Heu ne cernam tetrum quem vultu et voce minacI
Eden in regione locatus sim floribus ad hoC
Deboret ne animam mersam fornacibus astV
Occurrat set tua mihi gratia longa perenniS

CLE’s commentary says that “carmen acrostrichum et telestichum Tuserhedo Ascaricus, epistula Ascarici episcopi Asturum ad Tusaredum et huius responsio leguntur in PL Migne 99, p.1231, Ascarici episcopi Hispani meminit Hadrianus a.785, epistularum et epigrammatis rudis stilus saeculo octavo convenit.” In fact these are Rossi’s words, not CLE’s. CLE only comments that “poema genere proxumu sepulcralibus.”

• Private male inscription
• I have selected this inscription because of the “game” the author presents to us through the acrostic and telestic positions of the letters. The epigraphic style seems to me specially appropiated for the word playing, and the lusus nominis has two main types of expression in the latin inscriptions of all times, even the medieval ones: amphibology, wich is obviously not the case (in any case, see M.T.Sblendorio Cugusi, “Un spediente epigrammatico ricorrente nei CLE: l’uso anfibologico del nome proprio. Con cenni alla tradizione letteraria,” AFMC 4 1980 275-81 and Hernández 1998, pp.103-7), and acrostic, mesestic and telestic games, wich is obviously the case (see J.W.Zarker, “Acrostic Carmina Latina Epigraphica”, Orpheus 13 1966 125-51). Our inscription has one peculiarity: through the acrostic game, the poet makes explicit its poem’s dedication, I mean to whom the poem is dedicated. Through the telestic game he signs his work: TVSERHEDO and ASCARICVS, and this is more usual in the previous epigraphic and epigrammatic tradition (see P.Cugusi, La tradizione letteraria dei Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Bologna, 1996 -2nd edition-, pp.21-82 and 303-18).

Ninth Century

12. * Anno 866: in IHC, n.251 and suppl., p.97. IHC says: “Oviedo, in ecclesia regis casti, in sarcophago. Aliud eiusdem tituli exemplum Legione extabat in ecclesia cathedrali (Morales, coron., 3, f.208 v.).”

ORDONIVS ILLE PRINCEPS QVEM FAMA LOQVETVR
CVIQVE REOR SIMILEM SECVLA NVLLA FERENT
INGENS CONSILIIS ET DEXTERAE BELLIGER ACTIS
OMNIPOTENSQVE TVIS NON REDDAT DEBITA CVLPIS

OBIIT SEXTO KAL. IVNII ERA DCCCCIIII

• Public male inscription
• v.1: the inscriptions’ beginning bears a great resemblance to one of the popular beginnings of the latin funerary inscriptions: ille ego qui, with paralles as, for instance (with some variant readings) in CLE 1186, 1; 1222, 1; 427, 1; 892, 1.
• vv.1-2: the theme is one of the leading problems wich people with fame and glory while living faces while “preparing” its death and, in the most important part of the cases, when preparing its funerary inscription: the possibility of avoiding the fall into the oblivition given by the death and the physical disappearance thanks to the facts (res gestae) made by the dead person when living and his/her character (psycological nature), all described and remembered in the inscription’s text. This is the secunda mors ‘ topic, the death given by the forgetness, here expressed through the quem fama loquetur of the first verse, and the allusion of the survival to the future times (similem secula nulla ferent), in the second verse. This is an ancient literary topic mostly related with the survival of literary works and its’ author’s names: we have only to remember the preface of the Lucretius’ DRN, or Cat.1, or the series of poems in Horatius, carm., 1, 1; 2, 20 and 3, 30. Facing the physical death, mankind is really concerned about oblivition and forgetness.
• vv-3-4: following the scheme begunn in the first distic, we find in the second one, one of the usual laudatio’s systems: to remember, in this case very briefly, one crutial psycological key of Ordonius’ character (ingens consiliis) and another one concerning his res gestae (belliger actis). This enchomiastic description is one of the main components of the ancient laudatio funebris (cf. Laudatio Turiae, Laudatio Murdiae, etc: Hernández 1998, pp.280-87) wich, by its nature itself, can be followed by the funerary inscriptions of all times. The fourth verse remarks the votive character of these christian inscriptions, because we find here the expression of a hope (reddat) not the security that it will be achieved.
• the last line tells us when Ordonius died.

13. * Anno 894, in IHC, n.242. IHC says “Legione in ecclesia cathedrali, in sarcophago regis Ordonii, iuxta altare maximum.”

OMNIBVS EXEMPLVM -SIT QVOD VENERABILE TEMPLVM
REX DEDIT ORDONIVS - QVI IACET IPSE PIVS
HANC FECIT SEDEM - QVAM PRIMO FECERAT AEDEM
VIRGINIS HORTATV - QVAE FVLGET IN PONTIFICATV
PAVIT EAM DONNIS - PER EAM NITET VRBS LEGIONIS
QVAESVMVS ERGO DEI - GRATIA PARCAT EI AMEN

We include this inscription in our study because of the era we have at the end of the prosastic part (subscripta), wich is era DCCCCXXXII (i.e. anno 894). IHC’s commentary says that “apparet enim alteram certe tituli partem non esse saeculi noni; sed multo recentiorem; sed cum prior pars posset sane antiqua esse, titulum loco suo non movi.”

• Building inscription
• this is another inscription in the ambiance of Ordonius Rex, then related with the previous text
• v.1: the reason why a building inscription is written: it serves as public and general exemplum and reminder of the royal munificentia, a new, medieval paradigm of the alexandrian and roman munificientia principis (cf. M.Corbier, Munificentia Principis [CITE TO BE COMPLETED). Obviously, the inscription has been dressed after Ordonius’ death (v.2), but its goal always remains the same: to remember one of the king’s res gestae, and to do that precisely where the munificentia has taken place, the church itself.
• v.2: it is always necessary not to forget the payer’s name
• v.3: what has been built up
• v.5: where the church has been built
• v.6: the other reason of the writing of the inscription: to votively express the hope that Ordonius’ munificentia could be rewarded.
• the whole inscription is dominated by the ancient system of the anaphora pattern in the middle and at the end of the verse, repeating a mininum of two/three letters, the same, at the end of the first and second hemistiches of these accentuative (stressed) hexameters.
• relating this inscription with the previous one, it seems clear that the author has in his mind the figure of Aeneas: Ordonius is belliger, but at the same time he’s pius (cf., in the same verse’s position, Sil. It., Pun., 17, 490; Stat., Silv., 3, 2, 117 or 4, 4, 72; cf., too, Aldhelmus Scireburnensis, Aenigmata, 56, 1, belliger armis). I think these two inscriptions are a good example of some of the classical features and topics coming from the classical times, and offered to the medieval readers in, certainly, a medieval way but, in any case, without forgiven the sources (roots) from where they come.

Tenth Century

14. * Anno 906: in R.Fernández Pousa, San Valerio. Obras, Madrid, 1944, p.xxii, nota 50 et tab.iv (imm.photo.). Speaking about the church of San Pedro de Montes, he says “fue la segunda fundación de San Fructuoso, en lo alto de la Sierra Aquiliana, donde se retiró buscando soledad e hizo un oratorio pequeño dedicado a San Pedro. Unos treinta años después, otro desengañado del mundo, Valerio, siguiendo las huellas del primero, fue allá y recogióse en la celda del santo...hasta que al fin, y por esfuerzo de un sobrino suyo llamado Juan, logró hacer habitable aquello, construyendo un monasterio, amplió la iglesia y fue ya célebre en todo el Bierzo: dicen que murió en 695...Genadio y doce compañeros, para restaurar la vida eremítica en 895. ...promovió entonces el reedificar la iglesia ...Genadio y tres obispos la consagraron en 919. Se conserva una inscripción que llena una losa de mármol blanco, de 46 cm de alto por 1,01 m de ancho, con orla relevada y caracteres poco elegantes del siglo X; su línea quinta es visiblemente más alta que las demás, como dando valor al contexto. Su texto, hechas algunas pequeñas rectificaciones a Gómez Moreno, es el siguiente:”

Insigne meritis beatus Fructuosus. postquam. complutense condidit /
cenobium: et ne sci. Petri brebi opere in hoc loco fecit oratorium/:
post quem non inpar meritis Valerius scs opus aeclesie dilatabit/:
nobissime Gennadius, prsbtr cum XII fribs restaurabit:[era DCCCCXXX IIIa /]
pontifex effectus a fundamentis mirifice ut cernitur denuo erexit/
in oppressione vvlgi. sed largitate pretii et sudore frum huis. monasterii/
consecratum. [e hoc templu ab epis IIIIor: Gennadio astoricense: Sabarico dumiense: Frunimio legionense: et Dulcidio. salamanticense: sub era /
nobies centena: decies quina: terna: et quaterna: VIIIIo kldrm: nbmbrm/.]

• Building inscription
• this is a monastery’s restoration and the first thing the autor remarks is the first constructor’s name (Fructuosus) and what he did (condidit). Note too that in this inscription all the technical verbs are placed at the end of the verse: condidit; dilatabit; restaurabit; erexit.
• v.5: another technical building’s expression: a fundamentis erigere, wich is usual in inscriptions and texts without poetic taste (cf ECIMH, CU 1, pp.89-90, with other parallels and previous literature). Note too the ecphrastic allusion with the expression ut cernitur (“as it can be seen”).
• in the prosastic part of the inscription we find the data about the bishops who consecrated the “new” monastery and when they did it.

15. * Anno 925: in IHC, n.239. IHC says “in monasterio S.Stephani de Riba de Sil. Lapis antiquus periit, extat exemplum a.1463 denuo insculptum.”

EN QVEM CAVEA SAXA - TEGET COMPAGO SACRA
PRESVL ISAVRI - PER OMNIA INLVSTRISSIMI VIRI
AFFATIM FVIT DOGMA SANCTA - ET VITA MILITAVIT CLARA
NON EXTITIT ANCEPS DE DOMINI VITA - QVI SIC PRORSVS FALERAVIT CONFESSIO PIA]
SINENS CATHEDRA PREDICTA -CONGLUTINANS SE NORMA MONASTICA
IBIQVE EGIT CVNCTA QVI DOMINO CONGRVIT - SVBSEQVENS DOMINI VOCE REQVIEVIT]
IN PACE IN PVNCTO -NEMPE SACRI CORPORIS SIMVL DEPOSITIO
SVB DIE VII KAL FEBRVARII ERA DCCCCLXIII ETATE SECVLI PORRECTA PER ORDINE SEXTA]

Morales Coron. 3, f.212v., literis minoribus (inde Velazquez ms.Matrit., vol.13); Riobóo misit Academiae Matritensi a.1749 ms.Est., 18, 54 descriptam ex exemplo novicio.

• Private male inscription
• The inscription’s beginning is really an epigraphic one, with a significant number of parallels related with the “Du-Rede” in the first verse, the presence of cerno, referring to the fact of reading the text and looking at the monument and the relative pronoun related to the verb as the object wich have to be seen: examples, for instance, in CLE 426, 4, hic sum quem cernis; or CLE 1135, 5, munera quae cernis; or CLE 315, 2, munera quae cernis. The only element we don’t have here is the verb cerno, wich, epigraphically speaking, is replaced by the reference to the cavea saxa as a metaphor of the tomb and the presence of another special epigraphic verb, tego, with the meaning of “to cover, to protect the body:” for instance, CLE 1622, 6, sum tecta hic saxea cava; or 1175, 12, quam nunc sub parvo marmore terra tegit.
• v.2: who’s the dead person. It has to be noted here that he achieved his fame when living, because he is qualified as inlustrissimus vir: this is another important topic coming from the classical times, belonging to the consolatio’s atmosphere, and preceding the idea that the tombstone will be the guarantee of the dead’s fame (fame’s eternity: Hernández 1998, pp.212 ff., with parallels as, for instance, Luc., 10, 544, Scaevam perpetuae meritum iam nomina famae or Verg., Ecl., 5, 78, semper honos nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt; or CLE 525, 7, nec minus et luci frueris , cum fama supersit, and note 498 in Hernández 1998, with a lot of epigraphic parallels): the topic here is that the fame comes not with the death (we are not dealing here with the topic de mortuis nil nisi bene) but when the dead person was alive: a classical paper written by Paolo Cugusi defines very well the idea, “Un tema presente nei CLE: la gloria raggiunta in vita,” AFMC 5.1 1981 5-20.
• v.3: a man carrying on such a fame must have a brilliant curriculum, in this case in the army of the Lord (et vita militavit clara: note the military metaphor).
• Note all along the poetry the anaphoric rhyme in the middle and at the end of the verses: saxa...sacra/ Isauri...viri/ sancta...clara/ vita...pia/ predicta...monastica/ congruit...requievit.
• v.6: the man has died following the rules he respected when living: the topic that in the army of the Lord, the soldiers live and die under the same divine rules, from the beginning to the very end.
• Last line: when Isaurus died.

16. * aetas incerta sed saeculo decimo adsignata: in IHC, n.130 et suppl., p.59 (CLE 1622). IHC said that “Cordubae rep. a.1586, servata primum apud Hieronymum Moralem, deinde apud Antonium de Lara presbyterum, postremo apud Bernardum Gamiz de Cabrera. Videtur periisse.”

MEMBRA FVLGENT HIC VRNA
ANUS RELIGIOSE
RITE CARNE DEVICTA
IN SOBRIA FAMA CASTA
ARCE CELESTI ET AVLA
SVM TECTA HIC CAVEA SAXA

Morales, Coron., 3, f.207 v....qui saeculo decimo medio adscribit, fortasse recte. initia versuuum Maria nomen efficere perspexit iam Morales. Fortasse eiusdem temporis ut n.129 (saeculi aut noni aut recentioris).

• Private female inscription
• This is the sober and temperate inscription of a sober and quiet sister, named Maria (note the acrostic game, wich gives us the dead’s name).
• v.1: membra fulgent hic urna is another really epigraphic beginning with a great number of previous parallels, with references to the body (membra), and the deictic denoting the grave’s place (urna). Note the variatio introduced by the author, because the verb fulgere is an specialized one but in building contexts (tecta fulgent and so) or speaking about great church men (for instance, CLE 312, 2, et in toto fulgeret episcopus orbe). Cf., for instance, CLE 682, 2, continet hic tumulus membra qui; or 1376, 5, hic sunt membra quidem, sed famam non tenet urna.
• line 4: the merits by wich our sister will gain the heaven: a kind of sober curriculum too.
• line 6 (3rd verse): a very epigraphic end too (look above), with the references to tego and cavea saxa, the tombstone.

17. * Anno 966: in IHC, n.222. “Cordubae in ecclesia S.Andreae (Morales said), postea in museo Zevallos.

Hic Speciosa condita - / simul cubat cum filia
Tra(n)quilla, sacra virgine,
Quae novies centessima - / quintaq(ue) sexagesima
Iera subivit funera;
Postq(uam) mater millessima - / quarta recessit ultima.

Descripsi et ectypum sumpsi.

• Private female inscription
• v.1: who’s the first dead person, the mother, with a very epigraphic beginning, hic...condita, with parallels as CLE 223, 1, Hic Teufredi condita membra, or 1167, 4, condita secura iam requiescit humo, followed by a non less epigraphic verb, cubat (cf., v.g., CLE 1286, 4; 1327, 14; 2127, 8 or 2221, 3, with the same formule, molliter ossa cubent).
• v.2: the name of the second dead woman, the daughter.

18. * Ca. anno 1000: in Flórez, vol.16, pp.61-62 (the p.61, containing a facsimile of the inscription; the p.62, a transcription). P.61: “por conclusión de tantas iglesias referidas, ha parecido conveniente hacer memoria de un Artífice de Templos” (this is an allusion to the inscription’s protagonist) “que perpetuó su nombre con el título de fabricador de Iglesias en la Inscripción sig.” (Facsimile). P.62: “Existe en el Monasterio de San Pedro de Montes” (he speaks about “Bierzo y sus monasterios”) “en una piedra quadrada, con los caracteres propuestos, pero mas que al doble mayores, en quatro renglones, de este modo.

(Crux) Quem tegit hic paries dictus fuit hic Vivianus.
Sic Deus huic requies, Angeliceque manus.
Iste Magister erat, conditor Ecclesiarum.
Nunc in eis sperat, qui preces poscit earum.

And a note on the text, concerning poscit: “el original pone pocis por poscit.” The facsimile confirms that. Flórez ends his commentary saying that “la idea del poeta fue poner consonantes los medios y fines del primer verso, con los medios y fines del segundo”.

Paries Vivianus
requies manus
erat Ecclesiarum
sperat earum”

• Private male inscription
• v.1: quem tegit hic, with parallels as, for instance, CLE 1017, 2, ante suos annos quos tegit atra cinis; or 1239, 5, hic populus, terra tegit felix. The dead’ s name
• v.3: who was the dead person.
• v.4: we are dealing with a votive inscription, and in the last verse the author expresses the wish asked for (nunc in eis sperat) and the reason why he has been praying during his whole life (qui preces poscit earum). This is one of the two details of this inscription wich connect it with the classical times and wich makes that the epigraphic tradition remains, in its basic features, always the same. I mean the votive inscription has always the same goal, to ask about something the divinity, and the only things that change are what the people is praying and to whom is the people applying for.
• the other detail, very sofisticated in this text, is the word playing, wich, although in its essence always remains the same. We are dealing with an anaphoric pattern, wich makes possible that an attentive reader could construct, through a careful reading, the cross drawn at the very first text’s beginning. The anaphora in the middle and at the end of the verses offers us two pairs of words wich are different in the first and in the second couplet of verses, and wich, in its relationship, draw a cross, playing (I propose) in a certain sense with the words’ position and meaning (paries and requies being related with ecclesiarum and earum; and Vivianus and manus with erat and sperat):

paries Vivianus
requies manus
erat ecclesiarum
sperat earum
Eleventh Century

19. * Anno 1000: in IHC, n.213, “Badajoz, rep. a.1520 iuxta ecclesiam cathedralem in fundamentis domus, quae erat Alvaris Perez Dosma canonici, deinde seminarii.”

DESERIT FVNERA DANIEL ORRIDA
ATLETIS IVNGITVR RITE CELESTIBVS
NEXVS MILITIBVS QVI FVIT OPTIMVS
INMVNIS POPVLIS AC VENERABILIS
EN IACENT PRAESVLIS MEMBRA PVRIFICI
LISIMATHI ECCE TECTAQ CESPITE
EXCEPTVS SPIRITVS ARCE DOMINICA
PISCATOR OBIIT PRILVLA FERITVS
CORVSCO FRVITVR CAELITVS GAVDIO
OBTVTV DOMINI MENSE IANVARIO
PRECEPS DVCITVR AERAE MILLESSIMO
IN ET TRICESIMO BIS QUATER ADDITO

aera 1030, p.C. 1000. Acrostichon est DANIELIS EPISCOPI. Ad piscatoris, v.8 titulum cf. Math., 4, 10; Marc., 1, 17.

• Private male inscription
• Acrostic word game, wich gives us the name and the dead person’s job, Danielis episcopi
• v.1: funera orrida is a iunctura wich makes me remember other previous and very popular iuncturae with the word funera, as, for instance, pia funera in CLE 376, 3; or funera tristia in CLE 556, 4, or the more popular funere acerbo in a lot of classical inscriptions, all of them coming from one of the most popular vergilian verses within the epigraphic world, that of the Aen., 6, 429, repeated in 11, 28, abstulit atra dies et funere mersit acerbo (cf. R.P.Hoogma, Der Einfluss Vergils auf die Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Amsterdam, 1959, pp.285-87 and 329).
• v.3: “la gloria raggiunta in vita” topic (qui fuit optimus).
• v.5: en iacent...membra sounds really epigraphic and, furthermore, uses the very specialized word membra. Cf. for instance, CLE 1354, 3-4, membra quiescunt: / ista iacent tumulo, or CLE 691, 1, Ceragi ossa iacent, or the membra quiescunt syntagm, with a lot of previous parallels (see the concordances ad loca).
• v.6: ecce tectaque cespite: cf., for instance, CLE 1622, 6, sum tecta hic saxea cava; CLE 497, 4, tute tecta Tiburtino Lunense lesbio lapillo (tego is a very epigraphic verb); or, if we understand that cespite means “earth,” this expression bears a great resemblance to other expressions as terra tegit or terra tegat, in, v.g., CLE 1308, 3, illius cineres aurea terra tegat, or CLE 400, 6, at quanvis te terra tegat, miserabilis, ima.
• v.8: how the bishop died: this is an unusual information in the funerary inscriptions, when we usually find who died, when and where died, and so..., but not the way he died. This is, as far as I know, only usual in the description of the physically violent deaths. Cf., for instance, CLE 979, 5, caeditu?]r infesto concursu forte latronum and CLE 618, 8, damnatus, periit deceptus fraude latronum; or Hor., Ep., 1, 2, 32; Epod., 4, 19 and Sat., 1, 4, 67 and 2, 1, 42. This descriptions seems to me to follow that ancient tradition.
• vv.10-12: when he died.

20. * Anno 1002: in F.Fita, “Epitafios poéticos de Badajoz, Granada y Málaga,” BRAH 70 1917 85-91 (90-91). Fita wrote “ los dos (fragmentos) pueden verse juntos ahora en el Museo prov. de Granada. IHC (IHC, n.456) adquirió la impronta, que fotografiada exhibe en el n.456... Consta la inscripción de ocho versos hexámetros rimados y acrósticos, cuyas iniciales dan a leer CIPRIANI, grabados en un cuadro de mármol de medio metro por cada lado, y letras altas de 4 cm. Desgraciadamente le faltan dos fragmentillos.”

[Claru]s Ciprianus in celestibus almis
Is nobilis mundoque purus et natus Elianis,
Pacificus, dulcis, genitus parentibus altis,
Rore celi tinctus Christi laticibus amnis;
Iovis namque die hic sivit corpora arvis
A ter quinque Iani diebus quoque mense dic[atis].
Nam quadrageni in milleni temporis era
Is mundo vixit ter denis bis quater annis.

• Private male inscription
• This is an stressed (accentuative) hexameter’s poem, in wich the point has been put over the final anaphora of the first verses (in -is), in combination with the acrostic letter’s game, wich gives us the dead person’s name (Cipriani). This anaphoric pattern comes from the graeco-roman poetry: Wills 1996, pp.418 ff., “Line-final repetition,” with a lot of examples from Homer to Ovid ...
• v.2: the beginning, with a deictic is used as hic, and featuring the dead’s name, is very common in the previous latin epigraphy (with dozens and dozens of examples to be read in the Concordances ad locum).
• vv-2-3: this initial part of the poem seems to me very close to the ancient CLE (I mean the Scipions’ inscriptions, wich, through an asyndetic composition, offer to the reader a concise but careful psycological dead’s description
• v.7: when Ciprianus died
• v.8: how old was Ciprianus when he died, with the same old way of introducing numbers in the CLE, wich we have marked and explained above.

21. * Anno 1008: in Fita, art. supra cit., p.91 (IHC, n.216). “Corriendo el año 1838, este epitafio de Albaro que fue ocho años obispo mozárabe de Málaga se halló dentro del distrito municipal de esta ciudad, en el partido de Jotrón, en la hacienda de D.Juan Barreros nombrada de las Aves Marías, cercana a las ruinas del monasterio...estaba recortada (la lápida) en su parte superior y fechada en sábado, 7 de enero del año 1008. Su metro trocaico no difiere del de la inscripción de Amansvindo”:

[Alb]ar d(e) Altissimi [sacerdos et militi]
Judexque et pontifici et dibino nes[tidi]
Conclusit vite terminum, suum percepit debitum
Medio die sabbati, diebus septem Januarii
Hoc et in era centies decem et (quattu)or decies
Et octabo in serie conflatos et in ordine

• Private/public male inscription
• middle and final anaphora: terminum...debitum; sabbati...Januarii; centies...decies; serie...ordine.
• v.1: the dead’s identity
• v.2: the curriculum: iudex and pontifex
• v.3: one of the prefered CLE topics of all times: the dead receive, when they die, exactly the same things (in quantity and quality) they did when living. This topic deals with the sine crimine life topic: if you have passed your whole life beloved by all people and without damaging nobody (the formulae, for instance, in CLE 1004, 1-3, qui vixit ann.XXV d.XXV sine crimine vitae or CLE 211, hic situs est quoius pietas laesit neminem), then you can “conclude your live, receiving the prize you are worthy of.” (Cf. Hernández 1998, pp.265-68).
• v.5: when he died.

22. * Anno 1028: in F. De Berganza, Antigüedades de España, vol.1, Madrid, 1719, p.314. Speaking Berganza about the count Don Garcia, he says “Fue sepultado el conde en el monasterio de San Juan Bautista y sobre su sepulcro se gravó este epitafio” (in prose) “...Pocos años despues, el Rey Don Sancho dispuso, que fuessen trasladados los huesos del Conde Don Garcia al Monasterio de Oña; y puestos en una arca de piedra, à la puerta de la Iglesia con este Epitafio, que hallè en el mismo libro, donde estaba el de su Padre, el Conde Don Sancho:”

HIC AETATE PUER GARSIAS ABSALON ALTER, FIT FINIS:
ILLUD ERIT, QUI GAUDIA MUNDI QUAERIT.
MARS ALTER, DURUS BELLIS, ERAT IPSE FUTURUS;
SED FATIS SERIE TUNC PRIUS OCCUBUIT.

• Pseudoprivate male inscription (I mean he was the son of a comes, and this means something in mediaeval times)
• This is an inscription devoted to a puer, then, we are dealing with a text belonging to the mors immatura corpus. This means the presence of a variety of topics coming from the ancient times and devoted to this dead: for instance, v.1, the word aetate in the first verse, in relationship with puer, usually appears in these kind of inscriptions (for instance, cf. CLE 1534 b, 1, florente aetate or CLE 362, 3, cum te decuit florere aetate iventa, etc.), I mean as a specialized word; the topic, wich occurs twice in these text (vv.1 and 3), of what the young dead could have been and, in consequence, what the death has broken (erit qui gaudia mundi quaerit; and mars alter...erat ipse futurus): the topic comes from the lamentatio’s world, with references as, for instance (cf. Hernández 1998, pp.30 ff.), in CLE 1232, 4, spes erat in puero, nunc cinis et gemitus, or CLE 649, 8-9, de cuius spe promittens sibi plurima mater / immeritos potius suscepit casta dolores. We find the other literary and epigraphic topic in the last verse, the fourth, in wich we read the expression that death (the fates) comes always untimely, and specially when we are dealing with a young man. This is another topic coming from the lamentationes and is a kind of criminatio against the fates: cf. Hernández 1998, pp.71(see note 147) ff., with previous examples as, for instance, the text of CLE 1212, 5-8, wich makes me understand the criminatio in relationship with a youngs’ death: crudeles divi, Stygias quicumque paludes / incolitis, nulli qua datur ire retro, / quid vos immatura iuvat, quae vestra futura est / post modo consumpto tempore, turba, tuo?
• v.1: a kind of pseudofigura etymologica: fit finis.
• v.2: anaphora of erit...quaerit.
• v.3: asyndeton.

“Siguese esta prosa: Hic filius fuit Danctij ipsius Comitis, qui interfectus est proditione à Gundisalvo Munione, à Munione Gustios, à Munione Rodriz, a multis alijs apud Legionem Civitatem, era M.L.XVI. Dize en romanze...Los anales de Santiago estan conformes con dicho Epitafio.”

23. * Anno 1039: in IHC, n.258. Oviedo in monasterio S. Pelagii.

EN QVEM CERNIS SAXA CAVEA TEGET COMPAGO SACRA
HIC DILECTA DEO RECUBANS TARSIA CHRISTO DICATA
PROLES VEREMVNDI REGIS ET GELOYRAE REGINAE
GENERI ORTA CLARA PARENTATV CLARIOR ET MERITO
VITAM DVXIT PRAECLARAM VT CONTINET NORMA
HANC IMITARE VELIS - SI BONVS ESSE CVPIS
VEL SI OBIIT SVB DIE VII KAL MAGII FERIA IIII
HORA MEDIAE NOCTIS ERA MLXXVII POST PERACTA
AETATE SAECVLI PORRECTA PER ORDINE(M) MVNDI SEXTA
DA CHRISTE QVAESO VENIAM PARCE PRECOR AMEN

Morales Coron., 3, f.328 v (inde Velazquez ms. Matrit., vol.13).

• Private female inscription
• The inscription’s beginning is really an epigraphic one, with a significant number of parallels (see supra with two more examples, from the tenth century, with an almost exactly first verse: IHC 239) related with the “Du-Rede” in the first verse. The presence of cerno, referring to the fact of reading the text and looking at the monument, and the relative pronoun related to the verb as the object wich has to be seen, are other relevant epigraphic features: examples, for instance, in CLE 426, 4, hic sum quem cernis; or CLE 1135, 5, munera quae cernis; or CLE 315, 2, munera quae cernis. We have the reference too to the cavea saxa as a metaphor of the tomb and the presence of another special epigraphic verb, tego, with the meaning of “to cover, to protect the body:” for instance, CLE 641, 1, rupe cava mane feci nunc coniugi Paulle; or 1622, 6, sum tecta hic saxea cava; or 1175, 12, quam nunc sub parvo marmore terra tegit.
• vv.2-4: the dead’s identification, genealogy included, wich gave splendour to the dead
• v.5: the allusion to the curriculum wich was irreproachable: this belongs to the laudationes’ topics (cf.Hernández 1998, pp.265-68) in the sphere of the above alluded sine crimine vita topic.
• v.6: this is another topic. She was so a good woman and her life was so fair, that she becomes, in her death’s moment, a great exemplum to the others, precisely because her life was absolutely aproved by all the relatives and known people (Hernández 1998, pp.268-72, “the dead person, because of his/her irreproachable life, merits everybody’s aproval,” with the technical/rethorical allusion of Quint., Inst., 3, 7, 22, sed in viventibus quoque iudicia hominum velut argumenta sunt morum, and parallels such as, for instance, the number 13, 22 in Hernández 1998, vixit probus probis probatus (cf. Ov., Pont., 1, 2, 140, quarum iudicio siqua probata, proba est), or CLE 363, Hic situs est ille probatus / iudicieis multeis cognatis atque propinqueis.
• vv.7-9: when Tarsia died
• v.10: in its specific context, this verse shows us how deep the votive reason for the writing of funerary inscriptions is.

24. * Anno 1084: in Flórez, vol.17, pp.76-77, speaking about bishop Ederonius (about 1071 to 1088, in Orense) he says “pues sabemos que quatro años despues” (he speaks about 1080, then we are in 1084) “vivia el mismo Ederonio, en virtud de su mas ilustre memoria, que fue la de fabricar la Iglesia, (que hoy llaman de Santa Maria la Madre) o bien porque el tiempo de su ancianidad obligaba a renovarla, o porque Almanzor la huviese derrivado. Esta noticia ha quedado perpetuada en una Inscripción, que persevera hoy sobre la puerta que cae al Claustro antiguo, la qual anda mal publicada, y no ha salido à luz en su propria forma de letra, que es como se sigue...(facsimile). Esto es:”

(Crux) Panditur hen (sic!) cuntis sacrati ianua Templi:
Ante fores Domini fundite corda viri.
Hic mesta facies lacrimis rorescat obortis
qui tristis veniet, laetus obinde reddit.
Omnia humana Christus delet errata fatenti,
si se cum gemitu dixerit esse reum.
Ederonius aepiscopus incoabit opus sub Era
Milesima centesima vigesima secunda.

“Acerca de los caracteres se ve que prosiguen la L sin linea intermedia que a veces ponen encima. Usan de la a que hay: y el Cincelador permuto el rasgo de la Q poniendole inverso. La Orthografia usa de la H y del diptongo quando no corresponden, como hen, y Aepiscopus; y no pone diptongos, ni aspiracion donde debia. Usa tambien B por V. El año de la era fue el 1084. Entonces empezo Ederonio la fabrica de esta Iglesia, que segun refiere Gil Gonzalez, duro cinco años pues dice se concluyo enel 1089. Esta servia de Cathedral en aquel tiempo...no consiguió el Prelado ver la obra concluida.”

• Building inscription
• v.1: ecphrasis? Could it be that this crux wich panditur in this temple’s ianua, should be real? In any case, the suggestion to the reader (v.2), with the usual “Du-Rede,” when he/she crosses the church’s door, is real.
• 3: rorescat: this is a verb formed over the word ros, roris, wich is not found in CLCLT. I really don’t know if this is a semel dictum or not, but I have been unable to find this verbal form on another mediaeval text. What we have is (A.Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs du moyen-âge, Turnhout, 1975, s.v.) the verb rorifico (roscido), with related adjectives as rorificus, rorifluus or rorigena, with a similar meaning, comparing with our text, “mouiller de rosée.” I think both roresco and rorifico come from the classical form roro (cf. OLD, s.v.), “to shed moisture,” or (perhaps our case), “to sprinkle, shower down,”, with parallels as, for instance, Ov., Fast., 4, 728, roratas laurea misit aquas or Apul., Met., 2, 8, Venus...balsama rorans. Our verb should be a frequentative form, thanks to the presence of the -sc- infix, from the classical roro.
• vv.7-8: who has constructed the church and when did he his job.

Some Conclusions

I guess that the most interesting thing I can do in order to conclude this paper is to summarize the features I have found in the mediaeval epigraphic poems I have discussed and wich are common to all times, from the first century BC to the medieval, 11th century’s times, with specification of the inscription’s number and, within it, the verse where the feature has been marked. This is the easier way I have if I try to demonstrate that my hypothesis is not completely wrong :

About Topics:

* n.2, v.1: the topic of a whole and sweet life passed in the husband’s company, suddenly cut and the expression of these feelings through the verb carpo.

* n.2, v.2: Fortuna as the worst enemy. Death as Unjustice and coming always untimely.

* n.2, v.5: the idea that it is a benefit to the dead’s tranquillity (obviously before dying), to be buried in a good company, for instance, in the same grave wich contains the relative’s remains.

* n.3, v.1: the metaphor of the dead person as the Light who, when living, “illuminated” his/her relatives and gave them “life” i.e.”light” (in connection with the use of the verb rapio, because it is dealt with the mors immatura topics: cf.n.22 too).

* n.3, vv.4-5: the topic that a death added to another recent one can be expressed through the metaphor of the “reopened wound.”

* n.4, vv.1-4: the ecphrasis’ technique in the job of describing a physical and well known architectural object, mainly a church or a monastery.

* n.4, v.8: votive desires in the inscriptions are common to building and funerary contexts of every time and condition (n.18, v.4; n.23, v.10, and so).

* n.5, v.9: the continuity, in late antiquity and the middle ages, of the laudatio a professionibus topic.

* n.6, v.8: continuity of the metaphor of the tears as the pain’s expression, with metaphor’s origin in the classical times’ libations ceremonies.

* n.7: it is always important to make sure the building inscriptions’ readers about the payer’s identity, the building’s destination and the dedication’s date. The tradition of this kind of messages comes from the imperial devotion to the public buildings and from the advertising and political role of the alexandrian and roman munificentia principis and of the inscriptions as secondary (the first are always the buildings themselves) reminders of this munificentia (cf. n.13).

* n.8, v.1: the topic that the inscription and the grave’s seeing produce a kind of consolation to the relatives.

* n.10bis, vv.1-2 and 5: the topic of the metaepigraphy of the inscription’s reading, precisely when the reader is acting, following the text’s instructions.

* n.10bis, v.7: the writing in the stone of the dead’s last hopes means a crossing point between a lamentatio’s topic (that of the relatives lammenting the breaking of the hopes placed in a child prematurely dead); a consolatio’s one (that of the tomb and the messages there written giving some kind of consolation to the relatives); and, in some cases, a juridical one (to divulge the dead’s will because of the problems its resolution can produce).

* n.12, vv.1-2: the possibility of avoiding the fall into oblivition given by death thanks to the res gestae and to the dead’s character, described and remembered in the text’s inscription.

* n.15, v.2: the maintainance of the “gloria raggiunta in vita” topic (cf.n.19 too).

* n.21, v.3: the sine crimine life topic as a laudatio’s motive (cf. n.23, v.5).

* n.22: the whole complex of topics concerning the mors immatura theme: for instance, the presence of the emblematic word aetas; the hopes placed in the dead and now broken by death; death coming always untimely, but specially when young people is concerned.

About Style:

* n.1, vv.9-10: love for the anastrophic patterns.

* n.1: absolute supremacy of the dactylic hexameters, but without control of the phonological distinction between long and shorts: stressed, accentuated hexameters.

* n.2, v.3: presence of the figura etymologica’s pattern.

* n.2, v.3: words’ games, by way of amphibology or not, sometimes in addition (n.11) of the lusus nominis’s patterns, acrostica, telestica and so (cf., too, nn.18 and 19).

* n.2, v.4: the way of introducing into the verses the numbers wich compound the dead’s age.

* n.4, v.1: the habit of the “Du-Rede” and the mention of the addressee as an anonimous reader, because of the dead person’s “need” of speaking to the widest public possible.

* n.4, vv.1 and 3: anaphoric and cataphoric homoioteleuta.

* n.4, v.9: love for the “lapidary sentences,”, the “gnomic literature.”

* n.6, vv.1-7 (cf. too the commentary in n.1, and in n.4, vv.1 and 3): the anaphoric system, combined in classical times with the metric short-long quantitative pattern, produces in late antiquity and the middle age a new system based upon qualitative, stressed times in each verse, but maintaining the same structure within the verse, that of the anaphora combined with the rhyme patterns, in the middle and at the end of the verse.

* n.9, vv.1-3: key position of important words in the poem’s beginning.

* n.12, v.1 (here and elsewhere): the late and medieval inscriptions tend to repeat the same classical formulae in similar positions of the verse and the poem (cf. n.15, v.1; n.16, line 6; n.17, v.1; n.19, v.5; n.23, v.1) as we find in previous times’ texts.

* n.16: sometimes, the inscriptions’ rhythm tries to show the dead’s character.

* n.20, vv.2-3: the descriptions made through asyndetic compositions.

To sum up: the basic conditions, the frame of references of what a carmen latinum epigraphicum says, of how it says it and to whom it communicates it are, from the point of view I have tried to defend, always the same, and it is worth noting that these features not depend upon the texts’ chronology, or the place where the inscriptions were written or the typology of boths text and inscription.

Each time and place has its specific literary background and its own social and cultural and religious atmosphere, wich obviously confers some peculiarities to the related CLE. But, at the same time, common features and habilities in the developing of topics and style can be traced from the Allia Potestas’ old times to the Ciprianus’ and Garcia’s “new times.” In conclusion, I think we can assume one of the important ideas that Valette-Cagnac wrote in her 1997 Phd, p.75 and note 7, in the sense that “on constate une étonnante permanence des thèmes et des formes de l’épitaphe latine, jusque dans l’antiquité tardive.” I hope that, thanks to the “evidences” here collected, I can propose to the reader to enrich this point of view and to critically and carefuly extend it to “our” medieval times.

Abbreviated Bibliography

* CLCLT = Cetedoc Libabry of Christian Latin Texts. CD-Rom, 3rd edition, Louvain-La-Neuve, 1996.

* CLE = Carmina latina epigraphica in CLEi-Lommaztschi collectione collecta, cuius nomen Anthologia Latina est, Stuttgart, 1898-1926.

* Colafrancesco 1986 = P.Colafrancesco-M.Masrao-M.L.Ricci, Concordanze dei Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Bari, 1986.

* Díaz y Díaz 1959 = M.C.Díaz y Díaz, Index Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi Hispanorum, Madrid, 1959.

* ECIMH = J.Gómez Pallarès, Edición y comentario de las inscripciones sobre mosaico de Hispania. Inscripciones no cristianas, Roma, 1997.

* Fele 1988 = M.L.Fele et alii, Concordantiae in Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York, 1988.

* Flórez = H.Flórez, España Sagrada. Theatro geographico-historico de la Iglesia de España, vol.16, Madrid, 1787; vol.17, Madrid, 1789.

* Hernández 1998 = R.Hernández, Aspectos literarios de los carmina sepulcralia de Hispania romana, Diss. València, 1998.

* ICERV = J.Vives, Inscripciones cristianas de la España romana y visigoda, Barcelona, 1969.

* ICUR = Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae.

* IHC = E.Hübner, Inscriptiones Hispaniae Christianae cum supplemento, Berlin, 1871 and 1900 (= Hildesheim-NewYork, 1975).

* ILCV = E.Diehl, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, Berolini, 1925-1967.

* ILER = J.Vives, Inscripciones latinas de la España romana, Barcelona-Madrid, 1971.

* MGH = Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

* OLD = Oxford Latin Dictionary.

* PHI = CD-Rom de textos latinos del Packard Humanities Instituye, versión 5.3.

* PL = Patrologia Latina.

* Valette-Cagnac 1997 = E.Valette-Cagnac, La lecture à Rome, Paris, 1997.

* Wills 1996 = J.Wills, Repetition in Latin Poetry. Figures of Allusion, Oxford, 1996.

Nota bene: the abbreviations of classical journals here cited follow those used by the Année Philologique.

(1) This paper (23-X-1998) has been written thanks to a PB 96-1188 of the Spanish Research Ministry’s DGICYT. An abbreviated and reduced version of this paper was presented to the IIIrd International Medieval Congress, held in Cambridge in September 1998.

(2) “La tradición medieval de los Carmina Latina Epigraphica”, in C.Leonardi (ed.), Gli Umanesimi Medievali, Firenze, 1998, pp.171-190.