Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity 2004
[Close Print-Friendly Version]
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 235 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35
III.1 We have no evidence from any other sources for the history of Aphrodisias at this period; and the epigraphic evidence tells us remarkably little about the activity of the city and its citizens. Nos. 19, 20, 235, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 all record the activity of imperial officials. In no. 22 the Council and People honour a governor, in no. 23 they honour an empress. These are the latest examples from the site in which the authorities are described, in the formula used over several centuries, as the Council and the People; all later references to the civic authorities are to the Council, or simply to the City. In nos. 24 and 31 the Council honours imperial officials (one a local citizen). The only texts which appear to honour, or to record activity by, private citizens are no. 30, and, perhaps, 34 and 35, and all of these are very insecurely dated.
III.2 At the same time, governors of the province seem to have undertaken substantial building works, constructing, in particular, the Tetrastoon east of the Theatre, the West Gate, and the Walls (nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 235). I have argued that these projects may have been directed towards clearing debris in the city, whether left by earthquake damage, or inadequate maintenance, or — most probably — a combination of the two.
III.3 The apparent need for such major works in this period, combined with the dominance — in the epigraphic sources — of activity by imperial government officials, suggest that the city, and its citizens, may have been in financial difficulties, and unable — or perhaps unwilling — to maintain the city buildings in good repair. The pattern is repeated elsewhere: compare, for example, the evidence from fourth century Italy, suggesting that all recorded public works in the cities was undertaken by imperial officials.1 That this was a widespread problem at this time is also suggested by the legislation of this period — so, in particular, the rescript of Valens, discussed at III.20. During the later fourth and the early fifth centuries there seems to have been a consistent effort by the imperial government to restore the financial condition of the cities.2 This policy will have had varying success; but at Aphrodisias the evidence from the later fifth and the sixth centuries, recording a variety of building activities undertaken both by the city and by private citizens offers a remarkable contrast with the material presented here from the later fourth century.
III.4 The earliest dateable text referring to building activity in this period is the inscription over the West Gate, no. 19, which can be dated with certainty to the 350s, although the precise date has been much discussed since the first publication of this text. It hinges on the identity of the Caesar who was honoured in l.5 and whose name was subsequently erased. Robert listed the various opinions as to whether the erased name is that of Fl. Cl. Constantius (Gallus, Caesar 351-4) or of Fl. Cl. Iulianus (Julian, Caesar 355-February 360), both of whom suffered damnatio memoriae. 3 Bailie preferred Julian; Francke and Cormack considered that, since the mention of a Caesar was not obligatory, Gallus was rather more likely to be honoured in an inscription in the eastern part of the empire. Unfortunately the erasure was too efficient to leave significant traces. Francke noted that the lacuna appeared too short for the name Constantius; the copies available to him made the space seem even shorter than it is, and he conjectured Φλ. Κλ. (Κωνσταντίου understood) τοῦ, which Boeckh rightly rejected. Examination of the stone, however, suggests that the nine letters of Julian's name would be a great deal easier to accommodate than the eleven letters of Constantius, and the final traces of the name may be read as ΝΟΥ. I have restored accordingly. Julian's name was also erased at Aphrodisias in 20.
III.5 This reading is perhaps supported by the suggestion of the editors of PLRE I that Fl. Quintilius Eros Monaxius, named here as governor, should be identified with Eros, the addressee of a letter of Libanius. The letter, which bears the same number (πβ) as that preceding it in the MS, was treated as an addition to that letter by Forster in his edition;4 but PLRE I follows O. Seeck5 in considering it as a separate letter.6 The letter is apparently addressed to a man who has recently been made a provincial governor, and sets out his fortunate career: ἐκ μὲν μουσείων ἐπὶ τὸ βουλεύειν ἐλθὼν ἐκράτεις καὶ ἐδείκνυς τὸν ῥήτορα, ἐκ δὲ τοᾤ βουλεύειν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρχειν ἧκεις, καὶ πάρεδρος ἡ Δίκη, from your studies you came to local office, where you ruled and showed yourself a rhetor; from local office you have come to govern, and Justice shares your throne.7 Eros therefore rose, by his rhetorical skills, first to local office (βουλεύειν) and then to a governorship (ἄρχειν). In his capacity as governor, Libanius advises him τοῦ προγόνου μεμνῆσθαι τοῦ Μίνω to recall his ancestor Minos, the legendary dispenser of justice; the description of Minos as an ancestor of Eros implies that Eros came from Crete. Since Eros Monaxius describes his previous career in terms of local office held in Crete, the identification is very tempting; and Seeck's date of 359 for this letter would agree with our restoration of the name of Julian as Caesar.
III.6 There is, however, a serious objection to this identification: all that we know of the use of names at this time suggests that Eros Monaxius should properly be referred to by his last name, Monaxius, rather than the penultimate, Eros. Alan Cameron has shown in analysing the use of the multiple names which became common from the third century, that it was standard practice in the later Empire for a man to be known and addressed by the last of his names.8 If that is the case here, then Eros and Eros Monaxius must be different individuals, although perhaps from the same Cretan family. But the closeness of the parallels, and the economy of the situation may indicate that this is one of the rare occasions when the penultimate name was used;9 in this case, and in literary circles, it might well be argued that the name Eros was chosen for the charm of its associations.
III.7 Eros Monaxius' highest previous office had apparently been as Cretarch, that is, president of the provincial assembly of Crete. While the term itself survives elsewhere only in a text of the Roman republican period,10 there is a good deal of evidence for the activity of the Cretan assembly throughout the fourth century.11 The fact that from this office Eros Monaxius was promoted to a governorship further indicates the importance of the provincial assemblies at this period; see discussion at II.37.
III.8 The reference (19.8) to the city's kinship with Crete would also be wholly appropriate in an inscription put up by a man with rhetorical training, from the circle of Libanius; it was a traditional function of rhetors to establish such connections of συγγενεία,12 and Libanius regularly refers to them.13 The links between Crete and Caria were ancient and well established; the historical evidence of Herodotus14 was reinforced by mythology (thus Kar, eponymous ancestor of the Carians, is the child of Zeus and the nymph Krete),15 and religious practice — in particular the cult of Zeus Kretagenes at Mylasa.16 We know of no specific Cretan link with Aphrodisias, except for the tradition that Ninus fled to Crete;17 but there may be a hint in the appearance of the name Gortynios on the site.18 The connection may simply have been with Aphrodisias as metropolis of Caria, which might suggest the restoration μητροπόλει τῶν Κάρων or τῆς Καρίας in 19.8 (not otherwise epigraphically attested, but cf. 23). But our ignorance of a specific link with Aphrodisias by no means rules out its existence and I prefer to restore μητροπόλει τῶν Ἀφροδεισιέων, as in 64.
III.9 It is not clear what Eros constructed; κατεσκεύασεν the same verb as in 20; πυλῶνα, the conjecture of Francke and Waddington, would fit with the traces visible to us and the space available. We know that a gate stood here in the Roman period, when there is no reason to believe that the city was walled, from CIG 2837, which refers to the Antioch gate, and a copy of which was found (seriously defaced) at the West Gate; the significance of this inscription was first pointed out by L. Robert.19 Eros' reconstruction of the gate need, therefore, have no direct connection with the building of the city walls; but the style of construction of the gate and of the walls, with abundant re-use of earlier materials, is very similar.20 Such re-use might be explained if the materials had been dislodged by an earthquake, and a major earthquake is recorded for 358;21 but such débris might also result from a long period of neglect of the city fabric, combined with a regular pattern of small earthquakes.
III.10 Eros Monaxius, the perfectissimus praeses responsible for text 19, was therefore governor at some time between 355 and 360. The next governor at present known to us is Antonius Tatianus, governor of Caria under Julian (effectively November 361-June 363) and Valens (after March 364), who is styled clarissimus praeses, perhaps the first governor of senatorial rank: see List of Governors. He may well have been appointed under Julian, and it is not surprising that in 364 he should have been eager to assert his loyalty to the new dynasty by erecting a statue of Valens (21) next to the one with which he had honoured Julian (20). He presumably erased Julian's name in 20 at the same time, if not before, but left the base, with his own name and achievements, in a prominent position, where it was later re-used to honour Theodosius I or II. Similarly, Ael. Cl. Dulcitius, who was probably appointed proconsul of Asia by Julian, is known to have honoured Julian (I. Eph. 313A and 3021) and then Jovian (CIL III, 14405). That Tatianus was in a hurry to honour Valens is suggested by the fact that he re-used an existing base, and got Valens' name wrong, giving him the nomina Flavius Claudius used by the preceding dynasty.22
III.11 While on present evidence Antonius Tatianus appears to provide one of the earlier examples of the appointment of a clarissimus to replace a perfectissimus praeses, chance discoveries often produce new examples;23 I would argue, also, that the terms in which he is praised at Miletus (see below, III.14) may well reflect his standing as the first governor of a higher rank. In a large number of provinces (Dacia, Macedonia, Pisidia, Cilicia, Palestina Salutaris, Phoenice, Thebais: see PLRE I Fasti) the earliest clarissimus praeses is attested in the 360s or the early 370s. This development must be seen as the inevitable result of the enormous enlargement of the senatorial class first under Constantine, but even more during the last years of Constantius' reign.24 As with the employment of senators under Constantine, so to a much greater extent the appointment of senators after 355 should be seen, at least in the east, not as the deployment of a new group of people, but as the relabelling of a class of people who were already in service.25
III.12 Since Tatianus was in office long enough to start (as implied by ἐκ θεμελίων in 20) his building work and finish it during Julian's reign, he was presumably already in office by autumn 362; he must, therefore, have been the recipient of Julian's letter τῷ ἡγεμόνι Καρίας, written after the burning of the temple at Daphne (22 October 362), ordering the destruction, in reprisal, of church buildings adjacent to the temple of Apollo at Didyma.26 Julian also wrote probably in late 362 to an anonymous recipient, clearly a provincial governor, whom he rebuked for having ordered a priest of Apollo to be flogged, and accused of consorting with Christians.27 Julian refers twice to Didymaean Apollo in this letter, which has therefore been taken to concern Didyma, which would make this man a governor of Caria.28 But the first reference is a quotation from Didymean Apollo, which Julian uses again in Ep. 89a, a long treatise on the general theme of the sanctity and immunity of priests. In the second reference, he claims ἔλαχον δὲ νῦν καὶ τοῦ Διδυμαίου προφητεύειν, I have taken the post of prophet of Didymaean (Apollo); this seems to refer back to his quotation of the god in support of his general argument, rather than to be a claim to defend the interests of Didymaean Apollo. It is not, therefore, at all certain that this letter is concerned with events at Didyma; this may free us from having to assume that Tatianus, a man probably appointed under Julian, and almost certainly charged with the demolition of Christian buildings, turned out almost simultaneously to be a Christian sympathizer.
III.13 As John Martindale pointed out, Antonius Tatianus is probably also mentioned in two epigrams at Miletus, although these present some problems.29 A Tatianus is honoured in a late Roman epigram, which apparently accompanied a statue, as ὑπέρτερος ἰθυντήρων; 30 in a second epigram he is described as δικάσπολος.31 The easiest interpretation of such terminology is that he was a governor.32 The difficulties arise from the fact that the latter epigram is the third of a group of four inscribed together in the Baths of Faustina; all four praise the renovation of the baths by a certain Macarius, but the third records that, while Macarius renewed the baths founded by Faustina, Τατιανὸς δὲ πόνοιο εὕρατο τέρμα, Tatianus completed the work, providing a hot water supply.33 The association of Macarius and Tatianus in one group of epigrams led to the proposal that Tatianus was the architect employed by Macarius, and this was the interpretation favoured by the first editors.34 The two men, however, are not necessarily contemporary. Macarius' title of Asiarch (339a and b) must indicate that he was active while Miletus formed part of the province of Asia; but on the evidence of the Nicene lists the city was in Caria by 325. If the damage which Macarius repaired is rightly taken to be the result of Gothic attacks in the 260s (the enemies referred to in 339a), this also suggests a late third or early fourth century date for his activities.
III.14 The script of the inscription, however, appears more appropriate to a later date. Furthermore, the terms in which Tatianus is praised suggest that he undertook his work after Macarius. The evidence of an inscription published below (53) suggests that epigrams of this sort could sometimes be re-inscribed (presumably when a monument on which they were inscribed had to be repaired or removed). The four epigrams at Miletus (recorded together as no. 339), may originally have been separate, and subsequently inscribed together. Further, Peter Herrmann suggested that the Macarius epigrams may have been re-inscribed, and two lines about Tatianus inserted into the third epigram — which is six lines long, whereas the other three are each of four lines. This seems a most elegant explanation. It is therefore not essential to assume that Macarius and Tatianus were contemporaries; Tatianus can be taken as a governor of Caria who continued work on the baths already restored by Macarius. We know of two Tatiani who governed Caria; as well as Antonius Tatianus, a second was governor in the first half of the fifth century: see List of Governors. But since Hesychius of Miletus, who restored the baths again in the late fifth or sixth century, could refer to them as having been out of use for a hundred years (Milet VI.1, 341), it is perhaps easier to associate their earlier improvement with Antonius Tatianus in the early 360s. There may be another indication. In the Miletus inscription honouring Tatianus alone, he is described as προτέρων . . . ὑπέρτερος ἰθυντήρων surpassing previous governors. Such comparison is not particularly common, since it might so easily give offence; perhaps, therefore, this is a poetic reference to the fact that Tatianus was the first governor of a higher rank, clarissimus rather than perfectissimus (see above, III.10).
III.15 At Aphrodisias, Antonius Tatianus apparently built or rebuilt the Tetrastoon which lies immediately east of the Theatre, in substantially the form in which we see it now (see plan), but apparently at a higher ground-level than what it replaced; the builders of the stoa built round, but did not move, an altar (later re-used as a sundial) which stood at a lower level, but projected above the new floor-level (see 249). Respect for such a feature might be appropriate to the reign of Julian. In earlier discussion I attributed this change of level to the presence of débris left by an earthquake: but it is not necessary to assume an earthquake to explain the rise of levels over time.35 It is not easy to determine the exact relationship of the Tetrastoon to the east end of the Theatre, because of the construction in the early seventh century of a defence wall running between them, in which the two bases erected by Tatianus (20 and 21) were re-used; but apparently as part of this fourth century development the east end of the Archive Wall, in the north parodos of the Theatre, which would originally have projected into the area of the Tetrastoon, was remodelled. Blocks fell, or in some cases were levered out, and the east end of the wall was patched up; subsequently some, but not all, of these blocks were used in the city wall, while others remained in a room behind the north side of the stage.36 It appears, then, that the dismantling of part of the Archive Wall was not done with the immediate aim of providing material for the city wall; it appears to be associated with a redesign of this part of the city plan, which led to the rebuilding of the east end of the parodos, and the building of the tetrastoon. The building of the city walls, with the material thus made available, may have followed soon after.
III.16 The next governor of Caria known to us may be Flavius Constantius, clarissimus praeses, but he cannot be securely dated: see List of Governors. He is named in an inscription on the North East gate (text 22) and in another on a mosaic in the Basilica (text 235). In text 22, as Christopher Ratté has pointed out, although the inscription runs along the architrave of the gate, Constantius is honoured in the accusative, rather than naming himself as builder; the text may therefore have been accompanied by an image of the governor. In text 235 he appears in the nominative, in a standard formula, but this is only the second example of the verb ἐποίησεν used at Aphrodisias by a donor, rather than a sculptor (the other is 10); see discussion at II.24. Constantius could conceivably have been a governor of the joint province of Caria and Phrygia between 250 and 301; but the lettering of his inscriptions bears little resemblance to those of the later third century (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 234), and would, on present evidence, be most easily dated to the middle of the fourth century. If Constantius is, therefore, clarissimus praeses of Caria, he should be dated after Antonius Tatianus, who was probably the first senatorial governor of the province (see above III.10). The very elegant lettering of 22 most closely resembles that of 21, which is one reason for suggesting that Fl. Constantius held office not long after Tatianus; another is the reference in 22 to the Council and the People. This is the last example of this traditional formula found at Aphrodisias; at Ephesus the Council and the People honoured Aelia Flaccilla in about 383, the latest datable example of the phrase known to me.37 There is, however, no other internal evidence for dating Constantius more closely than to about the third quarter of the fourth century.
III.17 This uncertainty is particularly frustrating since Constantius' inscription is the only direct epigraphic evidence for the building of the city walls; it is not necessary to suppose that Eros Monaxius (above III.9) built anything more than the West Gate itself. That gate, however, appears quite homogeneous with the walls, and does not differ in the basic style of its construction from the other gates in the circuit; the design most closely resembles that of the east gate, but is more elaborate. The west gate, and the entire circuit of the walls include much re-used material from buildings and monuments inside the city, and from tombs outside; they are built carefully, and with a consistent style of coursing. The quality of the work does not suggest excessive haste in construction, and this makes it difficult to accept that the re-used materials came from monuments that had been deliberately destroyed under some sudden threat. It is easier to assume that these materials were already lying available, as a result of the decay or destruction of buildings no longer in use.38
III.18 The other evidence for dating the walls is provided by the re-used material itself. This includes several inscriptions of the 250s (3, 5 and 6) and one inscription to be dated during or shortly after the reign of Diocletian, text 9, which shows signs of having broken before it was re-used. The evidence of the other late antique inscriptions found in the walls, 112, 209, 210, and 211, is equivocal, since the texts may have been inscribed when the stones were in place. The walls also contain material from a variety of tombs, and incorporate one large tomb in the south-east as a bastion. All this suggests a date for their construction after c. 311 at the earliest (9); the extensive use of material from tombs may suggest a disregard by Christians for pagan tombs, or perhaps the reduced importance of various local families. The circuit, however, apparently follows that of the ancient city boundary. No evidence has been found for the existence of any earlier walls,39 and at one point the walls appear to have encroached on a private house; but that the walls followed the city boundary is indicated by the fact that, at several points, burial grounds of the Roman period are found immediately outside. The city which built them, therefore, did not consider any area dispensable, which is another reason against assuming that the citizens would have pillaged public buildings in good repair to find building materials.
III.19 The available evidence, therefore, suggests that the walls were constructed in the mid fourth century from débris already available. In my earlier publication of the material I attempted to associate this with earthquake damage, and perhaps that caused by the substantial earthquake of 358 (Amm. Marc. 11. 7. 1). But Clive Foss had put forward some careful arguments for caution in the interpretation of such evidence;40 and the theatre at nearby Hierapolis, for example, was extensively repaired in the 350s but before 358 (information kindly supplied by Dr Ritti-Adamou). It looks as if the west gate was rebuilt with re-used materials in the late 350s (19), while the Tetrastoon behind the theatre was constructed in its present form in 361/3 (20), involving the remodelling of the Archive Wall of the Theatre; the walls were then constructed — or perhaps completed? — by Fl. Constantius probably in the mid or even late 360s. The picture, therefore, is of a gradual building programme, conducted at quite a leisurely pace, if the circuit of walls was already conceived when the west gate was built. Moreover we now know that Constantius was also active in providing at least a mosaic floor in the Basilica (235); work in the North Agora may also belong to this period (29).
III.20 If the walls of Aphrodisias were indeed built in this way, as part of a larger programme of maintenance and redevelopment, this would fit other evidence from the period. The rescript of Valens to the proconsul of Asia, Eutropius, refers to an imperial policy of assisting cities to undertake building works — ad instaurandam moenium faciem.41 The rescript apparently dates from 370, and refers to abuses of this programme, suggesting that it had been initiated some time earlier in the decade. As a result of this policy, some cities were claimed to have been greatly improved — a foedo priorum squalore ruinarum in antiquam sui faciem nova reparatione consurgere. Moenia can refer to a range of public constructions, including walls; and other legislation suggests that the imperial government was particularly keen at this period to see walls built or rebuilt.42 It is important to remember that what was undertaken was the complete construction of a circuit of walls for a city which, unusually, had been unwalled in Hellenistic and Roman times. In the absence of any obvious military threat, this must be seen as a project undertaken in order to adorn the city, in the context of all the other building projects.
III.21 After Valens (21) the next member of the imperial house to be honoured at Aphrodisias was the empress Aelia Flaccilla, who was already the wife of Theodosius I when he became emperor (January 379) and died in 386 (PLRE I. s.v. Flaccilla). We know that she had a statue in the Senate at Constantinople,43 and she was also honoured with two statues at Ephesus, one with a lavish accompaniment of statues of Victory. The Ephesus texts — both put up by the Council and the People — describe her in terms very similar to those used here, as εὐσεβεστάτην Αὐγοῦστν, τὴν δέσποιναν τῆς οἰκουμένης. It is therefore very likely that all these statues were put up when Flaccilla was declared Augusta, most probably in 383 when her son Arcadius was declared Augustus.44 At Aphrodisias Flaccilla was honoured by the provincial assembly (see discussion at II.37), describing themselves simply as The Carians. The phrasing seems to emphasize the importance of Aphrodisias' position as provincial metropolis.
III.22 The man honoured in text 24 is a native Aphrodisian, Menander — a name extremely common at Aphrodisias throughout the Roman period; he is said to have decreased Aphrodisias' burden of taxation (δασμοὺς πρηΰνας); that he was able to do so must indicate that he was a fairly high official. His affability (πᾶσι προσηνέα) is a virtue particularly appropriate to men in authority.45 Robert suggested that to be able to exercise such power, he must have been higher than a provincial praeses, and proposed to identify him with Menander, vicar of Asiana in May 385 but no longer in office by 388.46 The same man is apparently attested as Flavius Menander, vicar of Asiana, in a boundary inscription from Sanaos in Phrygia.47
III.23 While the identification of the subject of this inscription with the vicar of Asia cannot be proved, it appears highly likely. Such a date is supported by the script, which in layout and overall appearance is quite similar to 21 and 22 (from the 360s) but incorporates some new features; note particularly kappa and mu, and the tendency to stress the serifs of letters. Robert discussed the language very fully. The theme of the citizen repaying the price of his rearing — θρεπτήρια — to his birthplace is standard;48 the phrase appears again in 73, and as Robert has pointed out, 54 expresses the same idea in different words.49 In l.5, μεγάλῃ πόλι refers to Aphrodisias' position as metropolis of Caria, providing further evidence of the importance of this position (see discussion at II.37). There may also be an antiquarian echo of Aphrodisias' supposed early name of Μεγαλόπολις (Steph. Byz., s.v. Νινόη); such a reference would reflect the continuing interest in lore of this kind as shown in 19 (see discussions at III.8) and frequently elsewhere.50
III.24 The next group of honours for the imperial house is formed by three statue bases, 25, 26, 27 set up, like that of Aelia Flaccilla, in the area of the East Court of the Hadrianic Baths (see plan 3); 25, for Honorius, was apparently placed in the court, near to the statue of his mother, while those of Arcadius (26) and Valentinian II (27) flanked the eastern entrance to the court. The inscription for Honorius was found in 1904 by Gaudin, working in the east court of the Baths. The bases for Arcadius and Honorius were excavated in September 1905, and with them was found the statue of a young emperor which is now in the Istanbul Museum,51 usually referred to as of Valentinian II.52 A photograph of this statue was taken by Gaudin shortly after its discovery, and published by K. T. Erim.53 The background in that photograph suggests that the statue was standing — and so had perhaps been found — nearer to 26 (honouring Arcadius) than to 27 (honouring Valentinian II). The current expedition undertook further clearing work in this area, and in 1975 discovered fragments of a second similar imperial statue (now in the Aphrodisias Museum), but without the head. These fragments were found at about the central point of the portico, and nearer to the present position of 27 than of 26. While the state of disarray in which the entire area was left after the 1913 excavations makes it difficult to draw any definite conclusions about findspots, the evidence suggests that the statue in the Istanbul Museum is more probably that of Arcadius, while the statue in the Aphrodisias Museum is more likely to be that of Valentinian II.54
III.25 The group can be fairly closely dated after the appointment of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus as Praetorian Prefect in June 388, and before the death of Valentinian II in May 392. It was Grégoire who first proposed the restoration of the name of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus in the erasure on 25. He pointed out the similar phraseology in another dedication by Tatianus of a group of statues of Theodosius I, Arcadius, Valentinian II and Honorius from Antinoopolis in Egypt.55 Grégoire did not realize, however, that the two bases from Aphrodisias (which he also published, but from Mendel's copies) honouring Arcadius and Valentinian bore similar erasures (26 and 27). It was Louis Robert who noted this, and suggested that all three bases belonged to a group of statues of the imperial family, similar to that at Antinoopolis, of which the base at Aphrodisias honouring Theodosius I has not been recovered;56 it is on this identification that the restoration of the erased lines is based. He also demonstrated that an inscription at Side (I.Side52) should be emended to read as the dedicatory inscription accompanying another such group erected by Tatianus.57
III.26 The career of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus is known in some detail, partly because it is set out in an epigram inscribed in his honour at his home town of Sidyma in Lycia.58 He was praeses Thebaidos in the 360s, prefect of Egypt 367-70, comes Orientis 370-4 and comes sacrarum largitionum 374-80; he then appears to have lived in retirement until June 388 when he was appointed praefectus praetorio per Orientem. At the same time his son Proculus was made prefect of Constantinople.59 Theodosius departed almost immediately after making these appointments for the west, where he remained until his return to Constantinople in autumn 391. Tatianus and Proculus fell dramatically from power in September 392, largely as a result of the endeavours of Fl. Rufinus, who succeeded Tatianus as PPO.60 Tatianus was relegated to Lycia, Proculus was executed, and the names of both were erased from public monuments, as here at Aphrodisias. Extraordinarily, measures were even passed excluding Lycians from public office; these were repealed only after the death of Rufinus in 395.61
III.27 The abrupt and violent fall of Tatianus and Proculus has attracted conjecture. E. Stein saw the significant feature as their paganism.62 He pointed out that Tatianus was chosen as PPO in 388 after pagan sensibilities had been ruffled by the activities of the Christian Cynegius;63 his downfall was brought about by another energetic Christian, Rufinus, and was followed almost immediately by the issue of a law banning all pagan practice.64 G. Dagron preferred une cause institutionelle, suggesting that Theodosius was disturbed by the power accumulated by the alliance of Praetorian Prefect and Urban Prefect.65 Dagron then has to explain the action against the Lycians simply as evidence of la grande peur du souverain. Rebenich stresses that there was a cluster of circumstances which led to the disaster.66
III.28 Each of these explanations carries some weight. Tatianus and his son were exceptions, as men of the eastern empire who reached high office in a reign otherwise dominated by men of western origin.67 Between 388 and 391 they exercised undisputed power over the eastern empire, and this institutional imbalance may have given increasing cause for concern, if it was seen to be reinforced by a cultural sympathy between the two men and certain elements of the population of the eastern empire. The action against the Lycians suggests that Tatianus and Proculus were seen to be developing a specific, geographically located, influence; indeed, by this date one of the most important aspects of paganism may have been its support of local identity over the empire-wide uniformity which Christianity appeared to require. There seems to have been some attempt to reinstate the two men after the fall of Rufinus — the name of Proculus, which had been erased from the inscription on the base of the obelisk in the Hippodrome at Constantinople was re-inscribed;68 while this was perhaps the work of their family (as with the restoration of Tatianus' statue at Aphrodisias, for which see text 37), it may suggest that they were seen as representatives of something more than just their own power.
III.29 It is therefore worth considering the evidence from the imperial dedications for Tatianus' activity as Praetorian Prefect. Those which have survived comes from Egypt, where he had spent a long period of his career; from Side, which was the home of at least one apparently pagan sophist in the late fourth century, Troilus;69 and from Aphrodisias, where we know pagans held prominent positions a century later. At Aphrodisias Tatianus himself was also honoured with a statue (text 37). The evidence of such chance discoveries cannot be pressed too far, but it may indicate the places where Tatianus wished his influence to be felt. The closely similar wording of the inscriptions at Antinoopolis, Side and Aphrodisias is striking. Perhaps all three groups were erected simultaneously, that is in 388-90, since the governor responsible for the Antinoopolis group is attested in this period. In all three texts, the unusual phrase τῇ συνήθει καθοσιώσει is used of the dedication of the statues. A few years previously the governor of Crete, Oecumenius Dositheus Asclepiodotus had set up two bases in honour of Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius (I.Cret. IV, 284a and b, dated 379/83), in which he described himself as καθοσιούμενος τῇ αὐτῶν εὐσεβείᾳ. Another base honouring the same emperors has lost the name of the dedicator, probably also Asclepiodotus (I.Cret. IV.285); he claims ταῖς τε ἱεραῖς καὶ θείαις προτομαῖς . . . καθιέρωσεν τὴν στήλην ταύτην, μνήμην ἀθάνατον τῆς βασιλείας. In my earlier discussion of these texts, I was inclined to see this wording as evidence of pagan, conservative, proclivities, basing my argument in part on the discussion by Louis Robert. Robert argued, among other things, from the use of the concept of dedication of statues, which he saw as declining in Late Antiquity; but we now have examples for the late fifth or early sixth centuries at Aphrodisias (53, 62, 65). As Denis Feissel observes, the phraseology of καθοσιούμενος and similar terms should probably be understood as reflecting the Latin usage of devotio and related words. Moreover, the dedication to Victory associated with Asclepiodotus can now be seen in a wider context.70 I would now prefer to see this language as evidence of ostentatious traditionalism, part of a wider search for new formulae which characterises the statue dedications of Late Antiquity. Tatianus can therefore be seen to have asserted his presence — and his loyalty — at several places in the East; but it is hard to detect evidence of any religious commitment.
III.30 The term ἀνέθηκεν , found in 25, 26 and 27, is also used in 28, which was set up by Antonius Priscus, praeses of Caria at the time that Tatianus made his dedications, and so at some time between 388 and 392 (see List of Governors). What he dedicated may have been described in l. 4 or on the plinth of the statue, or may have been self-explanatory; compare 11, 12, 13 and 252. The restoration in the metropolis (rather than a dedication to the metropolis) is based on 23.
III.31 The following group of texts, 29—35, offer no certain criteria for dating (although the governors in 29 and 31 must be earlier than the late fifth century). I am inclined to believe, for reasons set out below, that they are all of the fourth century, or perhaps the early fifth; but this cannot be proved, and may be disproved by further discoveries.
III.32 Texts 29 and 30 were found on adjacent columns of the southern colonnade of the North Agora. Both give the a name and a title in the genitive. 30, the inscription of Menander, a local citizen and councillor, could be taken as a 'place' inscription (see XI.2); but this could not explain the presence of the governor's name in 29. It is therefore easiest to interpret these two texts as naming the donors of the columns or contributors to work on the portico. The naming of donors on columns is not unusual;71 a good example is provided by three columns in the adjacent north portico of the South Agora, each inscribed with the name Claudia Antonia.72 Those texts use the nominative, which is more usual; but for the genitive compare e.g. I.Stratonikeia 1224. Although the scripts of these two texts are not very similar, their phrasing and position suggest that they should be taken together. In 29, Flavius Pelagius Ioannes, as a clarissimus praeses of Caria, can be dated only after 360 (see above, III.11) and before the later fifth century (see IV.16); he was perhaps a relative of Flavius Pelagius Antipater, attested as dux Arabiae in 411.73 The crisp, square script of 30, however, and in particular the ligature of l.1, seem more suited to a fourth- than a fifth-century date. Robert pointed out that the abbreviation after Menander's name stood for πολιτεύομενος, a term which became common in the fourth century to describe members of the curial class — that is, those eligible to be members of the local council.74 Its use here, therefore, suggests that Menander is acting as a private citizen, and it is interesting to find his benefaction apparently undertaken in co-operation with an imperial official (compare 38—40 below).
III.33 Text 31 is on a base found with its statue; the head was found in 2001 and the whole monument discussed by Smith (2002). Oecumenius is shown wearing a chlamys and bearing a scroll. The language of the epigram was analysed very fully by Sevcenko (1969);ἡγεμονῆα (l.7) shows that Oecumenius was praeses of Caria, and so must be dated before the later fifth century, when the governor of Caria was a consularis (see IV.16); the content perhaps allows a closer dating to the late fourth century. The themes of a governor's justice (νόμων πλήθοντα)and incorruptibility (καθαρῶι φρένα καὶ χέρα) are standard in epigrams of this kind.75 The praise for Oecumenius' skill in both Latin and Greek is more unusual; but although there are no epigraphic parallels, Sevcenko showed that the topic is found in literary sources, chiefly of the later fourth century.76
III.34 The name Oecumenius is not particularly common (only twice in PLRE I and II), and it is therefore tempting to associate this Oecumenius with Oecumenius Dositheus Asclepiodotus, consularis of Crete in the early 380s.77 The latter, whose names indicate a Greek-speaking origin, was responsible for a series of inscriptions honouring prominent figures in the Roman Senate, and so (as Sevcenko pointed out) was probably bilingual.78 Sevcenko proposed the identification, but he also drew attention to its difficulties. Oecumenius Asclepiodotus should have held the lower, praesidial, governorship of Caria before the consular governorship of Crete, where he is attested in and around 382-3; but the script of the Aphrodisias inscription suggested to Sevcenko a date later than the 370s. The script is certainly closer to that of 36 (from the very last years of the fourth century, or the early years of the fifth) than to that of the inscriptions of the 360s (20, 21) or of 24, probably put up around 385. We should, then, accept perhaps that this is another, later, Oecumenius — possibly a son of the governor of Crete.
III.35 Text 32 honours Alexander for his justice and god-like rule; this terminology suggests overwhelmingly that he was in a position of official authority.79 He is also praised for his εὐφροσύνη, good cheer; although this might seem a surprising attribute for an imperial official, it recurs in an epigram at Ephesus in praise of a proconsul of Asia, Stephanus.80 As well as the general sense of delight, εὐφροσύνη has a specific sense of banquet and the joy of a festive occasion, a meaning which continues into the late empire.81 This suggests that the εὐφροσύνη of Stephanus and Alexander was manifested in their generous and hospitable entertainment, which must have formed an important part of a governor's duties. A similar sense of hospitable entertainment is probably conveyed in the late antique epigram at Philippopolis, praising a certain Ammonius;82 the εὐσεβίης τόπος which he built is more likely to have been a house where he entertained, than pietatis sacellum, as Kaibel suggested.83
III.36 Alexander is therefore honoured as a man in authority; but he is honoured by the mother — that is, as Robert pointed out, the metropolis — of Phrygia, who has sent his statue to Aphrodisias, the metropolis of Caria. The body of the statue, which was found beside the base, probably dates from the second century; it had a separately sculpted head which is now lost, and it seems quite likely that what was sent was simply the head. The same expression, mother of Phrygia, is also used in a fourth-century inscription of Hierapolis which had the formal rank of metropolis; but that inscription was set up at Hierapolis itself (honouring Magnus, vicar of Asiana in 354) and reflects the city's own claim for itself.84 The metropolis here is more probably an administrative metropolis — that is, either Laodicea, capital of Phrygia Pacatiana, or Synnada, capital of Phrygia Salutaris. The former is perhaps suggested by its proximity; but the latter, as the home of a marble industry, might well undertake to send a sculpture (as Robert suggested). At Aphrodisias, however, a reference to the metropolis of Phrygia, without further explanation, would probably be taken as meaning Laodicea.
III.37 Alexander's authority, praised by the Phrygians, presumably extended over Phrygia; he was honoured at Aphrodisias apparently because it was his home town.85 While Alexander might have had authority over both cities as vicar of Asiana, this would not of itself explain why the Phrygians honoured him at Aphrodisias, since the seat of the vicar was probably at Laodicea.86 It would be very attractive to date this inscription to the earliest years of the fourth century, and identify Alexander as a governor of the joint province of Phrygia and Caria; but the script seems to rule out such an early date. This dedication, with its emphasis on the equal status of Aphrodisias and the Phrygian capital, may have been intended partly to draw attention to that equality at a time when Aphrodisias' period as capital of the joint province had not yet been forgotten; this would be a further reason for identifying the dedicator as Laodicea (see discussion at I.5). Beyond this slight hint of a mid-fourth century date, the only other indications of date are tenuous: the script does not resemble very closely any other on the site; its overall appearance is perhaps fourth century, and shows some similarity to that of 19 (c. 359).
III.38 Text 33 is another verse inscription which must have accompanied a statue; it honours Eupeithius in particularly uninformative terms. The only indication of date is provided by the script. Sevcenko felt that it should be earlier than 31, the inscription for Oecumenius. The form of omega used here is not found in any later inscriptions; it may, of course, be an example of deliberate archaizing, but together with the general style of the script, it probably indicates a mid to late fourth-century date. Eupeithius' position is unclear. He is praised as wise, which is regular in praise of governors at this period, even using the same opening τὸν σοφόν;87 but there is no other term in this epigram suggesting that Eupeithius exercised authority. Furthermore, his statue was apparently erected after his death, μετὰ πότμον.88 It seems unlikely that this would be done for a governor; nor should a governor have been troubled by envy, βασκανία (see discussion at VI.21).
III.39 Eupeithius, therefore, may have been a private citizen, not necessarily of Aphrodisian origin; ἥδε πόλις might indicate that Aphrodisias was only one of the cities likely to honour him (cf. 14), but it is used of Aphrodisias itself in 53 below, which honours a local citizen. Eupeithius appears to be praised for his wisdom, and whatever benefits are vaguely referred to by εἵνεκα πάντων; perhaps, therefore, his excellence was in intellectual activities. Slight parallels to this inscription are provided by a pair of epigrams of the late fourth or early fifth century on a monument from Athens honouring a prominent sophist, Iamblichus (PLRE I, Iamblichus 2);89 these were inscribed after his death (καὶ μετὰ πότμον) in gratitude for his help in rebuilding the city walls, and for his σοφία. It may also be significant that the only Eupeithius of any distinction in the ancient world was an Athenian sophist of the later fifth century (PLRE II s.v.); we know that in the intellectual circles of the late Roman period particular names were favoured, and recurred in several generations. We also know that in the later fifth century there was a school of philosophy at Aphrodisias (see discussion at V.5, V.13); at that period there is a reference to a certain Proclus as σοφίστης of the city (Zacharias 39, and V.3), implying some kind of institutionalized intellectual activity. Eupeithius may, then, have practised as a sophist or a teacher at Aphrodisias in the middle or late fourth century. A funerary epigram for a Eupeithius has been found at Aphrodisias, but there the script probably suggests an earlier date.90
III.40 Text 34 runs along the rim of the theatre stage, and was probably in verse (for εὐεργεσία in verse compare 36, 63, 88); it records a benefaction, presumably towards the maintenance or restoration of the Theatre. Androcles is a name not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias; it is impossible to say whether he was an imperial official or a local citizen. The surviving letters do not provide any firm basis for attempting to establish a date, beyond suggesting that the fourth century seems most likely.
III.41 Another benefactor about whom we know very little is Flavius ?Septimius in text 35; he might be an imperial official or a local citizen. We do not even know whether he was responsible for this inscription, or whether it was put up in his honour, since we do not know whether his name appeared in the nominative or the accusative. There are various possible phrases with the term 'metropolis'.
|1||B.Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1984), 23ff.|
|2||Ward-Perkins, op.cit., 22, and discussion at IV.31.|
|3||Hellenica 13, 158 n. 1.|
|4||Leipzig, (1921), no. 95. 8.|
|5||Die Briefe des Libanius (Leipzig, 1906), 128 and 359.|
|6||As did Wolf in his edition of 1738.|
|7||For this cliché see Hellenica 4, 26.|
|8||Alan Cameron, JRS 75 (1985). 164-82.|
|9||Cameron, loc. cit., 173.|
|10||I. Cret. IV, 250; cf. J. Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1965), 12 and 84.|
|11||I.Cret. IV, 312-15, 317, 319-20.|
|12||See the fascinating example published by L. Robert, BCH 101 (1977), 120 ff., esp, 128-9.|
|13||So. e.g. Ep. 223.|
|15||Aelian, NA. 12. 30.|
|16||LBW 338, 394, 406, 5; I.Labraunda II, 40; for Hellenistic decrees at Mylasa referring to this relationship, LBW 380-4.|
|17||From Kephalion in Moses Chosroensis, FHG III, 627. For the association of Ninus with Aphrodisias see the representation of Ninus and Semiramis on the frieze in the Basilica: see K.T. Erim, AJA 82 (1978), 324-5, Aphrodisias, 100-1.|
|18||MAMA 8, 409; first pointed out by Reinach, p. 97.|
|19||Hellenica 13, 164-5.|
|20||The gate was dismounted in 1990, studied and restored in 1998; see Smith and Ratté (2000), 238-240.|
|21||Amm. Marc. 17.7.1.|
|22||Valens' normal style is Flavius Valens (PLRE I, Valens 8); for a similar confusion over the nomina of Valens see C. Vatin, BCH 86 (1962), 238.|
|23||For example, publication of a text showing a clarissimus praeses in Lycia in 363, by C. Naour, Ancient Society 9 (1978), 177 no. 4, suggests that the clarissimus Fl. Nemesius Olympius, attested in Myra under Constantius II (PLRE I Olympius 16) should be taken to be a governor.|
|24||Dagron, Naissance, 129ff; C. Lepelley, art.cit., 636.|
|25||See Peter Heather, New men for New Constantines?, P. Magdalino ed., New Constantines (Aldershot, 1994), 11-33.|
|26||Sozomen 5. 20. 7, whence J. Bidez and F. Cumont, Iuliani imperatoris epistulae et leges (Paris, 1922), no. 124.|
|27||Julian, Ep. 88 (Bidez and Cumont).|
|28||So PLRE I, Anonymus 118.|
|29||Historia 29 (1980), 494.|
|31||Milet VI.1, 339c.|
|32||For δικάσπολος, Hellenica 4, 39; for ἰθυντήρ, ibid., 86 f.|
|33||Milet VI.1, 339.|
|34||von Gerkan and Krischen, Milet I.9, followed, with some reservations, by Robert, Hellenica 4, 86 n. 3.|
|35||On the Tetrastoon see Ratté (2001), 126.|
|36||A&R, pp. xv-xvii.|
|37||I.Eph. 314, 315, of 383-386.|
|38||On the walls see the discussion of Ratté (2001), 125-6; study of the walls is continuing.|
|39||See K. T. Erim in TurkArkDerg, 25 (1980), 15-16.|
|40||Foss, Ephesus, 188- 91.|
|41||Discovered at Ephesus, and most recently published as I.Eph. 42; but a more useful edition is that of A. Schulten, ÖJh 9 (1906), 40-61, and cf. also F. Abbott and A. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), 500-2.|
|42||For a series of laws to this effect see Abbott and Johnson, loc. cit.|
|43||Them., Or. 19. 228B.|
|44||I.Eph. 314, 315; on the honours paid to Flaccilla see now C. Roueché, The image of Victory: new evidence from Ephesus, in D. Feissel, C. Morrisson, C. Zuckermann edd., Mélanges Gilbert Dagron, TM 14 (Paris, 2002), 527-546.|
|45||Hellenica 4, 15 ff.|
|46||CTh IX. 39. 2a, PLRE I, Menander 7 and Fasti.|
|47||T. Drew-Bear, Nouvelles Inscriptions de Phrygie (Zutphen, 1978), 27-8. no. 15; see Feissel (1998), 97, no.4.|
|48||Robert, Hellenica 4, 133 n. 3; RPh (1976), 188 n. 31.|
|49||BCH 1978, 540 n. 12.|
|50||Hellenica 4, 92 f.|
|51||Inan-Rosenbaum, Portrait Sculpture, 89 no. 66.|
|52||Following Mendel, Catal. Sculpt. Const, 199-202, who was however very cautious about the attribution.|
|53||AJA 71 (1967), p1. 72, fig. 26.|
|54||So Smith (1999).|
|55||ILS 8809, put up under Fl. Septimius Eutropius, who was governor of the Thebaid after June 388 and before September 390, and specifically attested in December 389 — see PLRE I.|
|56||Hellenica 4, 49 ff.|
|57||Hellenica 4 4, 51- 2.|
|58||IGC 293 bis|
|59||PLRE I Proculus 6.|
|60||PLRE I Rufinus 18.|
|61||CTh IX. 38. 9.|
|63||E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire (Brussels, 1949-59), I, 206.|
|64||CTh XVI. 10. 12, of 8 November 392; Stein, (op.cit.), I, 212|
|65||Dagron, Naissance, 257 and 289.|
|66||On all these events see most recently S. Rebenich, Beobachtungen zum Sturz des Tatianus und des Proculus, ZPapEpig 76 (1989), 153-165.|
|67||J. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court (Oxford, 1975), 114.|
|68||ILS 821 and Hellenica 4, 50 n. 2.|
|69||PLRE II Troilus 1.|
|70||On devotio see D. Feissel, BE 2002.624; on victory see C. Roueché, op. cit. above, esp. 544-5.|
|71||See, in general, Robert, NIS, n. 1, with the references cited there.|
|72||Two columns copied by Kubitschek, whence Cormack (1964), no. 24; one found by the Italian expedition of 1937, Jacopi (1939), 154 no. 7; all three discovered by the current expedition in 1985.|
|73||PLRE I Antipater 3.|
|74||H. Geremek, Anagennesis I (1981), 231-47, argues that the term can be used of all curiales, while an actual council member is properly described as a βουλευτής.|
|75||Hellenica 4, 13ff. and 38f.; Sevcenko (1969), 31, 33, 35.|
|76||Sevcenko (1969), 32 f.|
|77||PLRE I Asclepiodotus 2.|
|78||I. Cret. IV, 314-20; Sevcenko (1969), 39-40.|
|79||For praises of the justice of imperial officials, see Hellenica 4, 13 ff.|
|80||For Stephanus see now Feissel (1998).|
|81||Hellenica 10, 199, n.7; I. Eph. 555 with the comments at BE 1973.380 and 1974.517. and also the discussion by G. Manganaro in ArchCl. 12 (1960), 189-207|
|82||Kaibel EG, 1055.|
|83||For εὐσεβεία in such a context, cf. AP 9. 649|
|84||T. Ritti-Adamou, AnnPisa 16 (1986), 691-716, whence SEG 46 (1986),1198.|
|85||For praises to a governor sent, apparently, to his city of origin, compare the statue set up at Ancyra by the concilium of Cyprus, honouring a governor of the island who presumably came from Ancyra: S. Mitchell, AnatSt 27 (1977), 70 ff. no. 5, with BE 1978.488, SEG 1977.845.|
|86||Foss, Ephesus, Appendix a, l8l-2.|
|87||Robert in Hellenica 4, 107 n. 1, and Laodicée du Lycos, 340; for the phrase Corinth 8.3, no. 18. with Robert in REG 79 (1966), 740 ff.|
|88||For this standard formula, Cameron, Porphyrius, 137 and 259, citing this text among others.|
|89||Published most recently by E. Sironen, The Late Roman and Early Byzantine inscriptions of Athens and Attica (Helsinki, 1997), no. 15.|
|90||Published by R.R.R. Smith, Aphrodisias 1992, KST XV-2 (1994), 355, whence mentioned BE 1996.385; also in Steinepigramme 02/09/12.|
(c) Creative Commons Copyright by-nc-nd-2.0
[Close Print-Friendly Version]