# Tomb inscription  - sibi quae moriture deinceps posuit



## decineris

Salvete!
I am a graduate student working on Renaissance sculpture. While I have studies Italian for years, I have never had a formal Latin course, and I am trying to slog my way through Latin tomb inscriptions with a beginner's vocabulary of Latin. I have begun to translate a tomb inscription for a project, which I am working through here. Can somebody help me understand so I can try to make more sense of the intent of the message - does this inscription relate that Magadelena set up the monument? or that Stefano did?

This is the entire inscription. 

"Stephano civi romano conjugi carissimo basilice huius instauratori eiusdem quae bonorum fructuum quae donatori ac Johanni Baptiste utriusquae filio dulcissimo olim vita functis Magdalena Dearloctis uxor pientissima vivens sibi quae moriture deinceps posuit"

Many thanks!
Amy


----------



## Scholiast

Salve tu quoque!

_Stephan*o* civ*i* roman*o *conjug*i *carissim*o*...instaurator*i*_: this is all dative: "For (/in honour of) Stephanus, Roman citizen, dearest spouse, restorer [of this basilica]"; 

_Magdalen*a* Dearloctis *uxor*  pientissim*a* viv*ens*_: this is nominative, together with the verb _posuit_ this means that "Magdalena, his most faithful wife, set up the monument in her lifetime".

Are you sure that the transcription is entirely accurate? _moritur*e *_should be _moritur*a*_, and in the light of the (perfectly acceptable) late Latin genitive form _basilic_*e* (for classical _basilic*ae*_), and the dative _Baptist*e*_, _quae_  (3x in the following nine words) looks odd, and I suspect a confusion  between the relative pronoun and the enclitic conjunction _-que_ (meaning "and", or, in _uterque_,  "each [of two]", hence "both"), since the general sense seems to be that  Magdalena had the tombstone erected for her husband, for their son (_filio dulcissimo_), and, in anticipation of her own eventual death, herself (_vivens sibi_), but I cannot yet make sense of _quae bonorum fructuum quae donatori ac Johanni Baptiste_ - except that _bonorum fructuum_ is genitive plural, and _donatori...Johanni Baptiste_ are dative.

Σ


----------



## wandle

I agree with Scholiast that there seem to be problems with the accuracy or consistency of the text. 
However, if we can read the text as equivalent to the following:

*Stephano civi romano conjugi carissimo basilicae huius instauratori eiusdemque bonorum fructuum quae donatori ac Johanni Baptistae utriusque filio dulcissimo olim vita functis Magdalena Dearloctis uxor pientissima vivens sibique moriturae deinceps posuit
*
then I would hazard the following construction of it:

_To Stephanus, Roman citizen, dearest spouse, restorer of this basilica and [author] of the good fruits of the same, [are dedicated] what things formerly Magdalena Dearloctis his most dutiful wife [placed] during her life in honour of the giver and of John the Baptist, and of their most sweet son, [husband and son] being [then] deceased, and [what things] she placed subsequently for herself when about to die._

The identity of the giver (*donatori*) is a puzzle. Is it another reference to the husband as restorer of the basilica, or does it refer to someone else who gave Magdalena financial support after the husband's death?
The form of the name Dearloctis also seems at least unusual. Could this be a misreading of the inscription?

The 'good fruits' of the basilica apparently means the benefits it conferred on the community.
It is presumably the basilica of St John the Baptist.
The 'things she placed' would presumably mean offerings placed on or at the grave, apparently in or near the basilica.

The lack of clarity and awkwardness of word order may indicate the text was composed personally by the good lady herself, whose Latin may not have been of the highest level.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete iterum!

wandle has it of course right, as far as _sibi moriture_ is concerned - this would indeed be dative feminine singular ("for herself, as one who will eventually die").

_Dearloctis_ puzzled me too, as it does not look even remotely like a name that would crop up in an Italian context in the Renaissance period. Could it have been originally a place name, as in _Pierluigi *da* Palestrina_?

Is there any more available information about the people involved, their family origins? This is interesting.

Σ


----------



## decineris

Thank you Scholiast and Wandle for your expert help! This helps to give much nuance to my reading of Maddalena's involvement with the project! I have copied the inscription from the source, and also double checked it with Vincenzo Forcella's Latin Inscriptions in Rome, as well as another article which transcribes the inscription, so I am fairly sure this is the correct transcription, but I'll have a look at these sources again to to be sure. 

I've connected Maddalena here to Maddelena degli Ariotti (who married Stefano Satri).  Stefano helped to restore the church of Saint John the Baptist (trying to decipher whether this means he was involved at the Lateran, or another church dedicated to the Baptist). 

Little is published on Maddalena or the Satri family, but the monument includes busts of all the family members, in all'antica style, mimicking an Augustan tomb. Like other Renaissance Romans, they put a high premium on forging a sense of "Romanitas" and lineage. 
It would be interesting indeed to speculate that Maddalena composed the inscription herself, which would be rather rare – but not unheard of – in Renaissance Italy!


----------



## wandle

I have found some information online, which sheds further light, but the text still seems in need of some reconstruction.

Extract from:
Renascence: The Sculptured Tombs of the Fifteenth Century in Rome 
by Gerald Davies, Master of Charterhouse. 
p 313


> S. Omobuono (Via della Consolazione). — Stefano Satri dei Baronii and his son, Giovanni Battista Satri; erected in her own lifetime to her husband and son and herself by Maddalena degli Ariotti.^ Late fifteenth century. The tomb is of secondary value, and is chiefly noticeable for its deliberate and not unsuccessful endeavour in the bas-relief of the three members of the family to imitate a late Roman relief of Imperial times.
> ...
> ^ The inscription describes Stefano as 'hujus Basilicae instauratori,' and S. Omobuono was never a basilica. It is evident that the tomb was moved hither from another place, probably S. Giorgio in Velabro, at its restoration.


The concluding comment is contradicted by the following on the website of the Sovrintendenza Capitolina:


> La chiesa è stata ricostruita nelle forme attuali a partire dal 1482, a seguito di un lascito di Stefano Satri de Baronilis (guardiano del vicino ospedale di S.Maria in Portico), il cui monumento sepolcrale è conservato al suo interno.


That website includes this image, where the inscription is mostly too indistinct to make out.

The Bibliotheca Herziana attributes the sculpture to the school of Mino da Fiesole:	


> Mino da Fiesole (Umkreis) als Bildhauer
> Rom Sant'Omobono Linke Wand, 4. Nische
> Grabmal Skulptur
> Datierung: nach 1483
> Grabmal des Stefano Satri de Baronilis.


Given that Giovanni Battista was the son's name,  the phrase *Johanni Baptiste utriusquae filio dulcissimo *all refers to the son and the entire preceding phrase, including *donatori*, must be descriptive of Stefano: in other words, he is the donor.

To make sense of Stefano's description, the best I can suggest from the given text is to read it now as: 

*Stephano civi romano conjugi carissimo basilicae huius instauratori eiusdemque bonorum fructuumque donatori ac Johanni Baptistae utriusque filio dulcissimo olim vita functis Magdalena Dearloctis uxor pientissima vivens sibique moriturae deinceps posuit. 
*
Textual emendations as before in red. This way the Latin reads more easily. The statement that Maddalena erected the tomb indicates that _*posuit*_ refers to that act: put [this monument] in place.

On that basis, I would construe as follows:

_Magdalena Dearloctis most dutiful wife during her life set up [this monument] to Stephanus, Roman citizen, her most dear spouse, the restorer of this basilica and donor of its goods and fruits, and to their most sweet son John Baptist, [both] formerly deceased, and then to herself [also] when about to die._


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete!

Wow. Full marks to wandle there (# 6), for the research and for teasing out the sense. Just a couple of _addenda_ here:

1.  _Dearloctis_ is a clearly the surname, "Latinised" from _degli Ariotti_, and should be read _de Arloctis_.

2.  _deinceps_ does not imply "about to die" in any sense of imminence - it's rather, "eventually", "sooner or later".

Σ


----------



## wandle

Further thoughts.

Among changes that take place in the derivation of Italian from Latin, we know that *l* can be replaced by *i* (e.g _fiore_ from *flos, floris*) and *c* can be replaced by *t* (e.g. _Ettore_ from *Hector*, _fatto_ from *factum*). 

This would suggest that Ariotti may be derived from Latin *Arlocti*, and as a matter of fact that name is known from medieval Italy.This reference shows the existence of the name Arlotti, Latin *Arlocti*, in 14th century Rome.

This leads me to suggest another emendation to the text. The other names in the inscription are Latin versions of Italian names. It looks as if the name degli Ariotti had been represented in two words as *de Arloctis* (lit. 'from the Arlocti'), since the preposition de takes the ablative, and *Arloctis* is the ablative form of the plural *Arlocti*.

On this basis and subject to any further evidence, I would propose to read the text as:

_*Stephano civi romano conjugi carissimo basilicae huius instauratori eiusdemque bonorum fructuumque donatori ac Johanni Baptistae utriusque filio dulcissimo olim vita functis Magdalena de Arloctis uxor pientissima vivens sibique moriturae deinceps posuit. 
*_
And translate it as:

Maddalena degli Ariotti most dutiful wife during her life set up this monument to Stefano, Roman citizen, her most dear spouse, the restorer of this basilica and donor of its goods and fruits, and to their most sweet son Giovanni Battista, both formerly deceased, and subsequently to herself also when about to die.

Edit: cross-posted with Scholiast. 
Actually I render *deinceps* as 'subsequently', meaning in succession to her husband and son, and *moriturae* as 'when about to die'.


----------



## decineris

Thank you both! The Davies source initially got me onto this tomb; it is curiously the only source to mention it being a work sponsored by a female patron and later articles keep saying that the monument was erected by Stefano, hence my hesitation about its patronage. The Gregorovious reference is a great help too. Little is know of the Satri, although I have located a eponymous piazza in Rome where they seem to have had a parcel of land. No mention of a palazzo though. 
Gratias vobis ago!
Amy


----------



## 221BBaker

Thank you Scholast, Wandle and Decineris for what could probably be the most interesting thread I have read lately. Not bad, considering I do not know any Latin…

Thanks again


----------



## decineris

It's been really great having expert help here! I am sure to be flummoxed again. I hope to have more discussions on this topic with you all as my project progresses!


----------

