Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus - Epitaph

Epitaph

His sarcophagus was discovered in the Tomb of the Scipios (the only one to survive complete there), and is now in the Vatican Museums. It preserves his epitaph, written in Old Latin Saturnian meter:

CORNELIVS·LVCIVS·SCIPIO·BARBATVS·GNAIVOD·PATRE

PROGNATVS·FORTIS·VIR·SAPIENSQVE—QVOIVS·FORMA·VIRTVTEI·PARISVMA

FVIT—CONSOL CENSOR·AIDILIS·QVEI·FVIT·APVD·VOS—TAVRASIA·CISAVNA

SAMNIO·CEPIT—SVBIGIT·OMNE·LOVCANA·OPSIDESQVE·ABDOVCIT

which has been stated in modern upper- and lower-case script as the verse:

Cornelius Lucius Scipio Barbatus Gnaivod Patre Prognatus

Fortis Vir Sapiensque

Quoius Forma Virtutei Parisuma Fuit

Consol Censor Aidilis Quei Fuit Apud Vos

Taurasia Cisauna Samnio Cepit

Subigit Omne Loucana Opsidesque Abdoucit.

and also transcribed in classical Latin as:

Cornelius Lucius Scipio Barbatus, Gnaeo patre

prognatus, fortis vir sapiensque, cuius forma virtuti parissima

fuit, Consul, Censor, Aedilis, qui fuit apud vos; Taurasiam, Cisaunam,

Samnium cepit, subigit omnem Lucaniam, obsidesque abducit.

A translation is:

Cornelius Lucius Scipio Barbatus, sprung from Gnaeus his father, a man strong and wise, whose appearance was most in keeping with his virtue, who was consul, censor, and aedile among you - He captured Taurasia, Cisauna, Samnium - he subdued all Lucania and led off hostages.

There is a rough-hewn area above the epitaph, where it appears that some text has been erased. This has traditionally been interpreted as evidence of an earlier, shorter epitaph, which was replaced by the surviving text at a later date. More recently, however, a detailed analysis of the epitaph has suggested that the surviving text is the original inscription, but that the first part of the epitaph has been deleted. A summary of this analysis states:

The most compelling arguments that suggest the removal of part of the same verse text we now have relate to the shape and character of the erasure itself. In effect, a fine sarcophagus, which was inscribed with a long and carefully executed text, is marred by a rough erasure. If the erasure was made before the new text was cut, why was more trouble not taken to smooth and prepare the stone? Moreover, why does our text start at a distance of a third of a line from the margin? It would have been easy for the mason to produce a better surface so that he could have started at the margin. The whole execution of the inscription itself is very fine and clearly not the work of an amateur. The overall impression is that no expense was spared in the layout of a large tomb and the manufacture of a magnificent sarcophagus for its first occupant.

If a short, earlier text had indeed been inscribed, there would have been no reason to write it in small letters at the very top of the ample space available on the front of the sarcophagus. It would surely have been placed more in the middle and in larger letters... Barbatus’ erasure suggests that the letters were the same size and the lines the same length as the extant text. The erasure comprises exactly the length of two of the Saturnian verses below. All these considerations strongly suggest that part of this same text was erased.
The question remains as to what was erased by a later family member... Whatever was rubbed out must have been controversial or unsatisfactory from the family’s point of view

Since the tomb was closed in the late Republic, the erasure must date to the middle Republic, and since the tombs were private, the erasure must have been done at the request of an authoritative male family member. In her review of the epitaph, Harriet Flower notes that "The Scipios are also known for their continued search for earlier ancestors. This was done partly by invention and partly by substitution of the cognomen Scipio for earlier ones of branches that later died out... It is possible, therefore, that Barbatus'......became an obstacle to later family members who were eager to find earlier ancestors and other founders, who could compete with the claims of rival families. Such a reconstruction, while it can not be proved, is at least plausible and in accord with the other available evidence."