Garas Klára szerk.: A Szépművészeti Múzeum közleményei 62-63. (Budapest, 1984)

SZILÁGYI, J. GY.: VIVAS IN DEO

or a Dalmatian — North Italian workshop;

20 a western origin appears to be less plausible, even though it cannot be entirely ruled out. Perhaps this problem should not be raised too emphatically since glass vessels of new shapes — similarly to their clay variants — reached the various areas of the Roman world fairly quickly, where they were soon adopted by local workshops; moreover, a non-typical, individual specimen, such as the Budapest jug, could have been made practically almost anywhere. The other unique feature of this vessel is its inscription, unparalleled among the known Early Christian inscriptions. We have seen that the IN DEO VIVAS formula was fairly widespread; however, it was never accompanied by the ACCIPE acclamation.

27 Undoubtedly, this supplement also determines to a certain degree the accompanying formula: it restricts the otherwise fairly general meaning. In the lack of parallels, only the possible tendency of this restriction can be outlined. It can be taken to suggest that the vessel (or its contents) was a gift, in which case it can be considered a present of everyday life, but it could equally well have been specially made as a funerary gift for a deceased person. The technique with which the inscription was applied to the vessel makes it unlikely that it was intended for everyday use;

28 accordingly, the majority of vessels decorated with a similar technique were, insofar as their provenance could be established, recovered from burials. This does not, however, imply that they were all originally intended for deposition within burials, as indicated by the glass beaker from Cologne: the text of its inscription which has likewise almost entirely disappeared does not in the least suggest that it was specifically made for the deceased.

29 That the in deo vivas formula occurs frequently also on funerary monuments can be neglected in this respect. In the lack of further parallels and a deeper personal expertise, another possibility can be but tentatively suggested, namely that ACCIPE perhaps points to a distinct liturgical-ritual role, rather than a funerary destination of the vessel. The almost complete disappearance of the inscription does not necessarily imply that the vessel was found in a burial, even though its fate between its discovery and the time it reached the Museum is unkown; on the testimony of the above-mentioned Cologne beaker, vessels with a faded inscription could have been placed in burials even if they were not originally intended for graves. Another well-known bowl from Cologne which, judging from the portraits on it, was made for the jubilee of Constantine I in 326, also indicates that the find circumstances of glass vessels decorated with a similar technique as the Budapest specimen do not directly prove that they were intended primarily for burials.

30 The Cologne bowl represents a pagan case of the applica2(J For a detailed discussion see B a r k ó c z i : op. cit. 27 Two glass vessels, dated c. 330—370 A. D., have the inscription escipe (= excipe); however, their representation has no Christian connections (Harden, D. B., Journ. Glass Studies 2, 1960, 44ff, nos. 4 and 11). Cp. Carm. epigr. (ed. F. Buecheler) 338,4. [See now the inscription of a glass goblet found in a 4th century tomb near Svilos

: ACCIPE CALICE(m) PIE ZE(se)S (Manojlovic, M. — Brukner, O.: RAD Voivodinscih Muzeja, Novi Sad, 28, 1982—83, 41] 28 Also suggested by Guntram Koch in his letter which also contained other valuable information. 29 Fremersdorf, F.: Die Denkmäler des römischen Köln VIII. Köln, 1967. v 207 and pl. 294. 30 Recently Schulze, M., in: Gallien in der Spätantike (supra, note 4) 74—75, ad no. 67 (with earlier literature).