Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity 2004
[Close Print-Friendly Version]
36 | 37 | 38 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52
IV.1 Only two inscriptions (36 and 37) can be assigned with absolute certainty to this long period, although it is possible that the name Theodosius, inserted in place of the erased name of Julian in 20, refers to Theodosius II. There are, however, some historical testimonia for the city's history in this period. In 443 Theodosius II undertook a journey into Asia because of a vow, voti causa; he left Constantinople after 9 March, and returned on 27 August ex Asiana expeditione, ἀπὸ ἐξπεδίτου τῆς Ἀσίας (Chron. Min. 2.81). During that expedition, he issued a novel on 22 May at Aphrodisias, directing the return to the cities of civic lands which had been usurped; the law was in response to appeals made to him when he was passing through Heraclea (Nov. 23). This is more easily taken as a reference to Heraclea Salbake, a few miles from Aphrodisias, than to Heraclea Pontica, as some commentators have assumed. Theodosius is known to have visited Heraclea Pontica, with the intention of helping and restoring the city: ἰδεῖν καὶ ἐγείραι τῷ χρόνῳ κάμνουσαν (Sozomen, HE, Praef. 13). This could not, however, be properly described as a visit to Asia, and there seem to be no firm grounds for associating that journey with the expeditio Asiana of 443; that date can therefore not serve as a terminus post quem for the completion of Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History, in which the journey to Heraclea Pontica is described.1
IV.2 The novel issued at Aphrodisias reflects a continuing imperial policy during this period of securing a reliable income for the cities, after the confiscation of their income in the fourth century. While we have reason to believe that Aphrodisias asked for a decrease in taxation in the 380s (24), and there are references to difficulties of some sort affecting Caria in the early fifth century (36 and 37) the policy of restoring civic finances seems eventually to have borne fruit, in the apparently increased prosperity of the city in the later fifth and early sixth centuries.2 We also know that during this period the right to raise local taxes was under discussion at Mylasa in Caria; tantalizing fragments survive from documents issued by Fl. Eudoxius, comes sacrarum largitionum between 427 and 429.3 This gives us the name of the governor of Caria, ὁ λαμπρὸς ἄρχων, Fl. Baralach; if the copy by Cyriac of Ancona is reliable, the name (otherwise unattested) should probably be seen as Semitic in origin (See List of Governors).
IV.3 Cyrus, bishop of Aphrodisias, attended the Council of Ephesus in 431. On 22 or 23 June he was among the signatories of a letter addressed by Nestorius to Theodosius II, complaining of the manner in which the Council was being conducted.4 But he did subsequently approve the conclusions of the Council, since he signed the Acta.5 It is possible that his shift in loyalties was rewarded. In 435 Nestorius' views were declared heretical and his supporters outlawed (CTh XVI. 5. 66). In a law of 28 August 436, Cyrus is mentioned by name; he is specifically exempted — the only person so treated — from the requirements of the legislation, which regulates the payment of tribute in gold, because his merits are so great that he should not be prevented from the enjoyment of a special privilege even by a general ruling: tanta sunt merita ut etiam contra generalem huiusmodi sanctionem speciali beneficio perfrui non vetetur (CTh II. 1. 37). It may well be that Cyrus had earned this treatment by supporting government policy against the Nestorians. His loyalty to the anti-Nestorian party is apparently confirmed by his attendance at the extreme anti-Nestorian council held at Ephesus in 449, the so-called 'Robber synod' which laid the foundations for the subsequent heresy of monophysitism: see List of Bishops. By the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which rejected the monophysite position. Cyrus had been replaced as bishop by Critonianus (see List of Bishops); but since Cyrus had been bishop for some twenty years, this change can reasonably be attributed to natural causes, and need not imply that he was deposed after the Robber Synod.6 It is however worth noting that there seems to have been a strong monophysite tendency at Aphrodisias later in the fifth century and in the sixth (see discussion at VI.38), which might have had its origins in the episcopacy of Cyrus.
IV.4 The importance of the role of Aphrodisias in the province of Caria is clear from 36, the base of a statue set up in honour of Anthemius, a prefect, hyparchos;7 he must be identified with the Praetorian Prefect of 405-414 (PLRE II, Anthemius 1). Anthemius' son has now been shown to have served as vicar of Asiana, and was honoured in verse at Ephesus as hyparchos;8 he also served briefly as PPO of Oriens in 435-6.9 But the son, Fl. Anthemius Isidorus, seems normally to have been referred to as Isidorus; it therefore seems easier to take this inscription as referring to the father. The theme of a small return for great benefits (line 2) is a commonplace.10 For the idea of the PPO saving his subjects compare 37 on Tatianus, πτολιέθρα σαώσας; the comes honoured in 14 was also a saviour of the provinces, σωτῆρα τῶν ἐθνῶν (see II.33).11 The distinction here between δήμους and πόλεις is interesting; the δῆμοι are perhaps peoples as assembled in the provincial assemblies, and so an equivalent to ἔθνη.
IV.5 Anthemius' statue was set up by a group of Carians — φάλαγξ l.1, τάξις Καρῶν 1. 4. τάξις can be used of the ordo of a city, the local decurions (as perhaps in text 88), and I argued in my first edition of this text that the term has here apparently been extended to mean the ordo of the province; this seems a reasonable extension, given that the provincial assembly was now made up of all the curiales of the province (see above II.37). Φάλαγξ (for which I know no parallel in this sense) would then be a variation on τάξις. But, while it was the Carians who set up the statue, it was the governor, Beronicianus, who instructed them to do so (ἤνωγεν). The procedure presents some difficulties, since the governor should not have been in a position to give orders to the provincial council. For this reason Feissel suggested (1991), 372 that the body erecting the statue was the officium of the governor, and that the same was probably the case in 88, honours set up by the τάξις. Similarly, no. 41 is an inscription honouring a governor, set up by the head of his officium. This argument is strengthened by the military flavour of φάλαγξ, reflecting the concept of civil and military public service as parallel, as in 41, where the word used is στρατεία. This explanation however presents some difficulties; I am extremely grateful to Dr. Marietta Horster and Dr. Bernhard Palme with whom as well as Dr. Feissel, I have discussed this point. Firstly, it is hard to see the circumstances in which the officium might be being destroyed; while such language might well be used by the upper class of Caria, feeling under pressure from taxation, it seems unlikely that government servants would use it of themselves. Secondly, the officium was normally perceived as being the officium of the governor — rather than of the province. If a governor ordered his officium to erect a statue, therefore, this would presumably be equivalent to erecting it himself.
IV.6 I am therefore inclined to retain my previous explanation for the wording, as reflecting the increasing restraints on the erection of honorific statues during the later fourth and early fifth centuries. These are set out in legislation and several times mentioned in contemporary inscriptions.12 In one such inscription at Athens the same verb appears.13 The dedicator honoured Theodore (proconsul of Achaea under Theodosius I, so editors and PLRE I, Theodorus 16, or Theodosius II) εἰκονι λαινέῃ, τὼς γὰρ ἄνωγε πόλις — with a marble statue, for thus the city instructed. The same idea is paraphrased as νεύματι Κεκροπίης, and balanced with the obtaining of imperial permission for a bronze statue, νεύματι Θευδοσίου. ἤνωγε in our inscription may well have the same sense as ἄνωγε in the text from Athens, where it appears to mean authorise. As the legislation on the erection of statues became more restrictive, the Carians may have needed the governor's authority to put up a marble statue of Anthemius. If this interpretation is correct, then it may also explain the traces at the beginning of line 1 as a variation on the commonplace of what honours are allowable, θέμις (as at IV.28); but the precise phrase is not obvious.
IV.7 The epigram praises Anthemius, in conventional and general terms, for saving peoples and cities; but he is also praised specifically for his help to the Carians, who were being destroyed, ἀπολλυμένην. It is not clear to what this refers, but it is not the only mention in the inscriptions of serious problems at Aphrodisias in the fifth century (compare the λοίγιον ἄτην of 37, and the ἐνφύλιον δῆριν of 64). It might refer to the lsaurian raids, which in 404-7 reached as far as Caria: μέχρι Καρῶν καὶ Φοινίκων τὰς ἐν μέσῳ πόλεις καὶ κώμας ἐκακούργουν, Sozomen 8. 25. 1. Anthemius could reasonably have been credited with their suppression: but, in that case, one might expect some specific reference to war or bravery. The other pressure which might have affected the curial class of Caria was the burden of taxation. We know that in the 380s Aphrodisias asked and obtained some lessening of tax, explicitly mentioned in 24; Anthemius may have responded to some further request by the assembly of Caria. One specific benefit, for which he was presumably responsible, was the remission in 414 of arrears of tax for the years 368-408 (CTh IX. 28. 9). Even if this was no more than a routine measure (so Jones, LRE 206, with 467 on remissions in general), it was the first remission of tax arrears in the east for some forty years. This perhaps inspired our epigram, which could then be dated to 414; but it may equally refer to some benefit of which we know nothing.
IV.8 Text 37, honouring Tatianus, opens with a convention, typical of such verse -a question which is asked by the monument itself.14 The man honoured is Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus (PLRE I, Tatianus 5), from Sidyma, in Lycia, who held a series of offices, culminating in that of Praetorian Prefect of the East from 388-392; as PPO he was responsible for putting up statues of the imperial family at Aphrodisias (25—27, with discussion at III.25). His early career is described as holding the highest offices, ἀριστεύσασ δ' ἐνὶ θώκοις;15 it was probably as PPO that he was considered to have saved cities by just laws (v. 2): for the PPO saving cities see above, IV.8. All-conquering time, πανδαμάτωρ χρόνος is a conventional phrase which dates back to the Hellenistic period; it recurs in an epigram at Ephesus, honouring the proconsul Messalinus perhaps of the late fourth century.16 The implication is that Tatianus' memory was simply being erased by the passage of time; but in fact we know that he suffered damnatio memoriae after his fall from power in 392. His name was erased from the imperial dedications which he had put up at Aphrodisias (25, 26, 27), and the name of his son, Proculus, was erased from the obelisk in the Hippodrome at Constantinople (ILS 821).
IV.9 Tatianus himself had been honoured with a statue at Aphrodisias — presumably erected by either the city, or the provincial assembly, or, possibly, the governor — which must have suffered in that damnatio; this inscription records the restoration of the monument. The base itself seems to be a new one, made for the purpose, and it may well be that the statue on it was also a new one. If so, the reference to lifting up from the ground — ἐκ δαπέδων ἀνελὼν — must be taken figuratively; but it is a very vivid phrase. We know that the destruction of statues and erasure of inscriptions required for a damnatio did not always entail the removal of a monument — thus, the statue of Julian which accompanied 20 may have remained in place with his name erased.17 It may be that the statue of Tatianus had been thrown to the ground, perhaps with its head damage or destroyed, and that the younger Tatianus did repair it and place it on a new base (the στήλης of verse 5). Another statue restored at about this period at Ephesus was also accompanied by an epigram which addresses the viewer, and describes how Isidorus (the governor, son of Anthemius; see IV.4) had lifted it up: μ'ἀνάειρε πεσόντα.18
IV.10 The man who restored the monument was another Tatianus, a descendant of the PPO : he describes himself as an imperial envoy, who dispensed justice, so, most probably, a governor of Caria (see List of Governors). Robert suggested that he should be identified with a Tatianus, known to us from a letter of Libanius of 388 (Ep. 899) as a son of the Prefect's daughter, who was sent to stay with his grandfather, newly appointed as PPO. It is not obvious where he was coming from — it need not be Antioch — or whether his purpose was simply to visit his grandfather or to go and live with him for his education; the language of the letter suggests the latter. But the phrase here, ἐξ ἐμέθεν τρίτατος — third from me — reflects a standard formula used in inscriptions of the imperial period: Zeno, third from Hypsicles, expressed as Ζήνων γ τοῦ Ὑψικλέους. That formula indicates that the men in the intervening generations bore the same name. It may be that we should assume an otherwise unknown son of the prefect, Tatianus, who called his own son Tatianus.
IV.11 In 450 Marcian, on his succession as emperor, summoned from Sidyma in Lycia (the home town of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus: cf. TAM II, 186, 187) two brothers, Tatianus and Julius, who, probably in the early 420s were said to have prophesied Marcian's future reign.19 He appointed Tatianus Prefect of Constantinople, and his brother Julius governor of his native Lycia. The mention of Sidyma makes a connection with the former PPO highly likely; and O. Seeck pointed out the probable identity of this Tatianus with the grandson of the PPO mentioned by Libanius.20 This identification of these two Tatiani was accepted as possible by Ensslin.21 He, however, went on to assume that the city prefect (who is attested in office between December 450 and July 452 — see PLRE II, Tatianus 1) was the same man as the patricius Tatianus who was sent on an embassy to the Vandals in 464 (Prisc.31-2) and was consul in 466; this identification was accepted in PLRE II.22 At this stage, however, the identification with the boy — described as νέος by Libanius — who went to live with his grandfather in 388 becomes difficult, since he cannot have been born later than 380 at the latest. This would seem to rule out his serving on an embassy at the age of at least 84; it may perhaps create problems for his appointment to the post of city prefect at the age of at least 70. It seems necessary to assume either that the city prefect was not the grandson of the PPO, but a younger man of the same family, who continued active in the 460s, or that, if the city prefect was the grandson of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus, the patricius Tatianus was a different and younger man — very probably his son. Priscus says only of this Tatianus that he was a patricius, while he summarises the previous career of Constantinus (PLRE II, Constantinus 22) who was sent, at the same time, on an embassy to the Persians (Prisc. loc.cit.).
IV.12 It remains to consider, therefore, with which Tatianus the governor of Caria in this inscription should be identified. In my previous edition of this text I argued that he was the great-grandson of the PPO, and the grandson of his daughter. The city prefect of 450 would be identified with the grandson of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus, and the son of the city prefect would then be the governor of Caria. If he held his office while his father was city prefect, it might then be that his restoration of his great-grandfather's statue coincided with the restoration of the name of Proculus, the son of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus, on the obelisk at Constantinople.23 Feissel, however, felt strongly the man here was a grandson of the prefect;24 and I now feel that my interpretation of the term third from me was wrong. While in an inscription of the imperial period, as mentioned above, this would mean the third person called y descended from x, I do not think that that usage is reflected here; but I do think that the term third needs to imply another Tatianus between grandfather and grandson. I therefore think that it may be better, rather than trying to force the information which we have to fit the attested members of the family, to assume that the PPO had another, younger son, who stayed quietly in Lycia, and was probably not exterminated in 392 — merely banned from public office with the other Lycians. This man's son, also Tatianus, need not have been born as early as 380. He could have served as governor of Caria under Theodosius II, and restored his grandfather's statue; he could therefore also be the man called into service by Marcian in 450, and he perhaps completed his work of restoring his family's reputation by restoring the name of Proculus when he held office in Constantinople.
IV.13 Livrea has recently argued that the exceptionally elegant language and style of the epigram at Aphrodisias reflects a man of considerable literary ability; he suggests that the governor of Caria was the later Prefect of Constantinople, and should also be identified with the Tatianus to whom the Empress Eudocia refers as a poet, ὑμνοπόλοιο, in the preface to the Homerocentra (ll. 19-21). The argument is very attractive, and further reinforces our understanding of the importance of literary skill in political circles in this period.25 But it is not clear that it is sufficient to argue, from the excellence of the verse, that the author could only be a man known to us as a poet; and it looks as if we may have several Tatiani active in the first half of the fourth century.
IV.14 These proposals are largely speculative; but, however the evidence is interpreted, one striking element remains clear. In 450 the descendants of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus were of sufficient importance for the new emperor to wish to assert his relationship with them; it seems likely that they had the same kind of prestige as the family of another former PPO, Anthemius, to whose grandson Marcian married his daughter. This suggests that the severe measures taken by Rufinus after the fall of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus (see III.26) had not been sufficient to eradicate the family and its influence. Moreover, the connection of that family with Lycia continues to be a significant aspect of its authority — Julius, the brother of the city prefect, is made governor of Lycia in 450, and the epigram at Aphrodisias opens with an assertion of the Lycian origin of the PPO. The importance of this connection perhaps helps to explain Rufinus' decision to penalise Lycians in general (see III.26). All this gives a context for the family pride which, at some time in the first half of the fifth century led the younger Tatianus to restore the statue of the PPO at Aphrodisias.
IV.15 The last three verses describe the achievements of the younger Tatianus. He gave justice to men — a commonplace in describing a governor,26 and is described as ἀρωγός (for which see 87, describing a local benefactor). More unusually, he is said to have driven deadly ruin — λοίγιος ἄτη — from the land of the Carians (v.7). The phrasing recurs in 64 and 86 ; but the reference to ἄτη seems specific, and not easy to explain. There are references to difficulties of some kind affecting Caria, which were removed by Anthemius, at the beginning of the fifth century (36); and to strife, at some uncertain date in the fifth century, in 64; but it is a measure of how little we know that we can only conjecture what these problems may have been.
IV.16 The dating of texts 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 raises wider issues about the evolution of the province of Caria. The texts appear on general stylistic grounds to be fifth century; the benefactor Ampelius, in 38, 42, 43 and 44, has (in 42 and 43) the epithet ἐλλογιμώτατος, first found in the mid-fifth century; the use of indiction dating in 42 and 43 is also characteristic of the mid fifth century. The principal terminus ante quem is provided by the description, in 40 and 45, of the governor of Caria as ἡγέμων (a tentative reading in 45). It is uncertain how much weight to place on this use, since 40 (certainly) and 45 (probably) are in verse; but it probably indicates that the governors concerned were praesides (ἡγέμονες) rather than consulares (ὑπατικοί). We know that at some point in the fifth century the governor of Caria was upgraded from praeses to consularis; it seems likely that, for some time at least thereafter, an effort would have been made to use the more prestigious title, even when metrical considerations made it difficult to do so. The terminus post quem for the upgrading of the office is the composition of the Notitia Dignitatum between 395 and 413, probably in 401;27 in that document, Caria is described as being governed by a praeses — so Beronicianus, (36). The terminus ante quem is either the composition of the Synecdemus of Hierocles, describing Caria as under a consularis, or the reign of Anastasius, during which a consularis, Fl. Ioannes, is attested as governor of Caria (see List of Governors), whichever is the earlier.
IV.17 Unfortunately the Synecdemus of Hierocles offers no clear evidence of authorship or date. The most substantial indications are the attribution of imperial dynastic names to various cities; the list includes a large number of city names derived from members of the Theodosian house, but only a few referring to the families of later emperors. A. H. M. Jones deduced from this that the document which we have is based largely on a record drawn up before the end of the reign of Theodosius II, and this view has generally prevailed.28 It is clear, however, that some later additions were made, at least up to the first year of the reign of Justinian.29 The Synecdemus also gives the rank of the governor of each province, but this is not necessarily of the same date as the main body of the material; there is evidence to suggest that this list is one of the later elements in the document, and dates from not earlier than 490.30 If this is so, then the use of ἡγέμων in 40 and 45 indicates only that they date from before the reign of Anastasius, 491-518.
IV.18 The three epigrams 38, 39 and 40 were cut on the façade of a monumental structure at the east side of the South Agora. The building itself appears originally to have been constructed in the late first century AD, an elaborate Asiatic columnar arrangement featuring niches and aedicula. It is still the subject of excavation, and its original function cannot yet be determined; for the time being, the excavators refer to it as the 'Agora Gate'. At a later date it was remodelled; a brick-paved pool was built in front (the west side), and pipes were inserted in the masonry to create a monumental fountain. The retaining wall of the pool included 7 and 36; it was decorated with a variety of panels and relief sculpture taken from earlier monuments.31 What is not clear is what the relationship was between this basin and the long pool which ran the length of the South Agora.32 The positioning of the texts suggests, that they are contemporary with the building work, put up to honour the people responsible for the restoration of the Agora Gate (40) and its adaptation as a fountain (38). There are two indications of date: a terminus post quem is perhaps provided if 36 (originally put up between 405 and 414) was re-used in the retaining wall of the pool (but the account of its excavation leaves this unclear); a terminus ante quem is certainly provided by the description of Dulcitius in 40 as ἡγέμων, suggesting a date before 490 at the latest (see IV.16).
IV.19 As Erim pointed out, there is a striking parallel at Ephesus for the remodelling of a major public building as a fountain or Nymphaeum;33 there, in the late Roman period, the façade of the Library of Celsus was filled in to serve as a backdrop for a collecting pool whose retaining wall was decorated with re-used relief sculpture, just as at Aphrodisias.34 The only evidence for the dating of that conversion is an inscription ascribing the work to a Stephanus, whose rank is not given, but who is very probably the proconsul of the early fifth century.35 The strong similarities between the conversions at Ephesus and at Aphrodisias suggest that one was influenced by the other, and that they were fairly closely contemporary. The Library of Celsus had apparently been in ruins before its conversion;36 the same was probably true of the Agora Gate at Aphrodisias, and this would explain the reference in 40 to Dulcitius' restoration after unnumbered years. Both adaptations perhaps arose from an increase in public building activities, which can be detected in the middle and later fifth century (see further V.6).
IV.20 Mentions of the Nymphs are conventional in describing any undertaking involving water;37 in 38 they thank Ampelius for giving beauty and wonder — another standard theme explored by L. Robert.38 More interesting is the description of the place itself: χώρῳ φυνικόεντι (i.e. φοινικόεντι). Although the adjective is normally associated with φοῖνιξ red, crimson (so, frequently, in Homer), it is better here to connect it with the noun's other meaning, palm-tree; the place of palms gives a more obvious sense than the red place. The adjective φοινικόεις is not otherwise attested with this meaning, but other derivatives of the two meanings of φοῖνιξ are not differentiated in form. Moreover, a palm-grove is attested at Aphrodisias. Probably in the first century AD., Artemidorus Pedisas set up a statue of Hermes, and a gilded Aphrodite, with Erotes holding lamps on either side and a marble Eros in front, as he promised when the palm-grove was being made, during his term as strategos.39 Robert drew attention to another such palm-grove at Smyrna, which seems to have been an elaborately decorated park.40 The grove at Aphrodisias was probably another such park, and the statues dedicated by Artemidorus Pedisas part of the decoration. There is no indication of where the grove was; but it may have lain at the east side of the South Agora, and have been embellished by the creation in the fifth century of a fountain at the Agora Gate. This supposition may be supported by Artemidorus Pedisas' choice of statues. Aphrodite is an obvious choice, and Erotes are her companions; but Hermes, worshipped at Aphrodisias as Hermes Agoraios, would be particularly appropriately placed in an area adjoining the Agora.41 Erotes would also be well suited to such a location -examples of dedications of Erotes in an agora, or by agora officials, were set out by Robert.42 I would therefore conjecture that the creation of a fountain by Ampelius and his colleagues was an addition to the decorations of a palm-grove which already existed beside the Agora.
IV.21 Ampelius is honoured in verse in 38 and perhaps in 44; he is also named in two other inscriptions, 42 and 43 as responsible for building works. In those two he is described as a scholasticus, and as a father of the city, πατὴρ τῆς πόλεως. Those titles are rendered poetically here as ἴδμονι θεσμοσύνης, learned in law and γενετῆρι τιθήνη, father of his motherland. The terminology is typical of the epigrams of this period: ἴδμων is apparently attested only in an epigram by Leontius Scholasticus, also about a lawyer: εὐνομίης ἴδμονα AP 7. 575, and in poems by Gregory Nazianzen and Nonnus. θεσμοσύνη is only found in an epigram by Agathias (AP 7. 593). C. P. Jones has pointed out a similar circumlocution in a late Roman epigram at Sardis. where a father of the city is described as πάτρης γενέτηρ.43 Ampelius' praises in 38 are elegantly expressed in one of the few hexameter epigrams from the site, in which, unusually, the author names himself as Pythiodorus of Tralles — not otherwise known. His occupation, expressed as ῥητήρ, may have been as a professional poet, or equally well as a lawyer.44 His 'signature' here encourages speculation about how, and by whom, the abundant corpus of late Roman epigrams was composed. L. Robert suggested that they were often composed by cultivated local decurions.45 Perhaps it was a particular compliment to Ampelius that Pythiodorus was called in to compose these verses, and this was why his name was incorporated in the epigram.
IV.22 Ampelius was a scholasticus, that is, a man qualified by having passed through all the stages of a general education to practice law.46 The title comes into widespread use in the papyri of the fourth century, and starts to appear in inscriptions during the fifth century.47 The epithet ἐλλογιμώτατος, most eloquent, is regularly applied to scholastici, and first appears in the mid-fifth century.48 The use of the title scholasticus is interesting, in that it records a professional qualification, rather than an officially awarded honour or office; it must have served the same function as the modern 'Dr' or 'MA.'. It is a characteristic aspect of the later Roman period that higher education could offer a route to success as much as wealth and inherited position; thus, in the Acta of the Council of Serdica of 347, probable aspirants to the position of a bishop are considered to be a rich man or a scholasticus, sive dives, sive scholasticus, neither of whom can be exempted from the normal procedures.49 Scholasticus is frequently used by municipal officials;50 and the imperial officials had scholastici on their staff.51 The title is even used by governors (so in 65 a governor of Caria), and it is implicit in the passage of Makarios/Symeon cited above that a governorship or similar post was the aim of a scholasticus. The use of the title, even by holders of apparently more distinguished offices, presumably reflects an increasing value placed on the qualification which it describes.
IV.23 Ampelius' official position is father of the city, πατὴρ τῆς πόλεως, pater civitatis. This municipal appointment seems to have come into existence in the middle decades of the fifth century: for a discussion of the financial background see IV.32. It was apparently held by the local official responsible for undertaking building works for the city with the city's own funds, but may not have existed in every city.52 It seems to be in this capacity that Ampelius was responsible for work on the North East gate (42) and the Bouleuterion/Odeon (43), as well as the Agora Gate (38); if 44 also refers to him, he well have been responsible for work on the Theatre Baths, either in a public or a private capacity. See further IV.31.
IV.24 The governor Dulcitius is honoured in the other two epigrams on the Agora Gate (39 and 40), implying that he was also responsible for its restoration; he was also honoured with a statue by the head of his staff (41). The same verb ἐγείρω, appears in 39, line 1, and 40, line 4; and κτίστης, founder used in 40, line 1, seems a likely restoration in 39, line 2.53 The sense of the last two lines seems to be that he was unsparing of his wealth for the sake of good reputation (for the sentiment, cf. 83. xvi), which is the best, or only permanent, memorial for mankind (a commonplace at all periods). In 40 Dulcitius is described as praeses Cariae, and he is praised in terms characteristic of a governor in 41. That gives no indication of date; for the implications for the date of his rank of praeses, see IV.17. Neither of his two epigrams on the Agora Gate is as elegantly composed as that for Ampelius. 40 opens with a string of epithets. Φιλότιμος is a traditional epithet for a benefactor at all periods; κτίστης is also standard. Ἀγωνοθέτην is a far more unusual epithet to find at so late a date, but it recurs at Aphrodisias in the inscription honouring a later governor, the consularis Vitianus (65). Alan Cameron suggested that, at least by the sixth century, the old sense of the word, as indicating that the man concerned had paid for games or public performances, had been lost, and that the term simply indicated the man who presided.54 While this may make sense in the context of Constantinople, the emphasis on the function of agonothete in the two inscriptions at Aphrodisias suggests more active involvement. It is easiest to assume that these governors paid (from government funds) some or all of the expenses of some games, perhaps as part of a permanent transfer of agonistic funding to the governor, as in Syria (CJ I. 36. 1 of 465); but it seems more likely that those governors specifically praised as agonothetes had made particular contributions towards the expenses of municipal or even provincial games.
IV.25 The first verse of 40 ends with φιλότιμον; to this were added the words καὶ Μαιουμάρχην, inscribed at the same time as the rest of the text. This suggests that the phrase was added after the epigram had been composed, but before it was inscribed. If such texts were, as is probable, approved by the city council, it may have been added at that stage. What is clear is that the office or function of Maioumarch was considered important. This is a new term, presumably indicating one who presides over — and probably pays for — a Maiouma. The Maiouma was a Syrian festival, which Malalas describes as a theatrical festival held at night, σκηνικὴ ἑορτὴ νυκτερινὴ, in a passage where he describes how the funds for this, among other festivals at Antioch, were reorganized on a firm footing under Commodus.55 In a very useful recent overview of the evidence, it has been pointed out that the word is found in several senses, including that of a building appropriate to the celebration of the festival;56 but the epithet here suggest a concern with the celebration of the festival. While it most probably had religious origins, by at least the fourth century its appeal was as a festivity without serious religious implications, as is implied by Julian's criticism of the Antiochenes for spending εἰς τὰ δείπνα τοῦ Μαιουμᾶ, on Maiouma dinners, instead of on sacrifices.57 It is apparently as a form of entertainment that it spread into Asia Minor,58 and as far west as Ostia;59 it seems to have increased in popularity in the late Roman period. It is possible that this is the night-time festival, with performances by a pantomime dancer, which Joshua the Stylite describes as taking place at Edessa in 495/6 — a procedure without precedent in the city.60 By the fourth century it was sufficiently widespread to have been forbidden; a law of 396 removed the restriction: placuit ut maiumae provincialibus laetitia reddatur (CTh XV.16.1). In 399, however, the same emperors ruled that, while ludicras artes were permissible, the maiouma could not be allowed: illud vero, quod sibi nomen procax licentia vindicavit, maioumam, foedum atque indecorum spectaculum, denegamus (CTh XV.16.2.61 . According to Malalas, however, the praetorian prefect Antiochus Chuzon gave money to Antioch in 430-1 for the Maioumas;62 and the Justinianic Code retained only the Theodosian ruling permitting the Maiouma (CJ XI.45).
IV.26 What remains unclear is exactly what was involved. Malalas assumed that the name meant that the festival was celebrated in May; in fact, the derivation is probably from the Semitic mai, water. On this basis it has been argued that John Chrysostom was describing a Maiouma when he criticized his congregation for going to see naked mimes swimming.63 While this is only an assumption, there are other indications that water played some part in the celebrations, and the discovery of a large pool in the South Agora further suggests aquatic spectacles. But the passage of Malalas suggests that it was largely a festival of mime and pantomime performances, put on at night. It is also clear that it was accompanied by smaller, private celebrations and dinner-parties, at which entertainers may have performed; and it may be that eventually these private entertainments were all that survived of what had been a public festival. The word was to linger on in Byzantium in the sense of a donative or generous hospitality. Dulcitius' title of Maioumarch, therefore, may indicate that he presided over the celebration of a Maiouma, and that he contributed funds towards its celebration — there would be a parallel with the governor Vitianus, who is also described as agonothete (65).
IV.27 Dulcitius was also honoured with a statue, of which no. 41 is the base. While Dulcitius' position is not described in this text, he is praised in terminology regularly used of governors, for his εὐνομία and his labours.64 The opening formula, a variation on the theme 'I would have provided a gold statue', is a convention in such texts. As gold statues, never common, became increasingly rare, there grew up a literary tradition, in honorific epigrams, of apologising for not using more valuable materials for a statue. The implication, made explicit here, is that the only restraint was a legal one, εἰ θέμις ἦν (v. I); the reference is to the legislation restricting the kinds of statues that could be erected (see discussion at IV.6), although, by the fourth century this legislation did not even include a mention of gold statues, as being already too unusual to require restraint.65
IV.28 The man who put up the statue, Valerianus, describes himself as πρῶτοσ στρατίης (v. 3). This must be a poetic rendering of princeps officii, chief of the governor's bureau of civil servants.66 The officium is regularly conceived in military terms.67 Since this base records one of the rare occurrences in the late Roman period at Aphrodisias of a statue being erected by an individual, it provides a remarkable indication of the prosperity of the imperial bureaucracy in the provinces, and this is borne out by other inscriptions put up by local civil servants (70, 116); it would remain true even if we assume that Valerianus was acting on behalf of the entire officium (which is not indicated, but cannot be ruled out). Evidence that service in the provincial administration was considered a burden should probably not be pressed too far, since it appears that, at Aphrodisias at least, some of the provincial civil servants found themselves very comfortably off.68
IV.29 Dulcitius' statue was put up as a witness to his labours, a standard cliché;69 it apparently stood in front of the baths. Since the base was found re-used in the fortification wall at the east of the Theatre, this must refer to the baths which adjoin the Theatre at the south-east.70 It appears that they were restored at precisely this period (so 44); and the phrasing of the epigram may imply that here too Ampelius and Dulcitius were both involved in the work. The complex appears to have received further restoration or embellishment in the late fifth century from Asclepiodotus (53) and Pytheas (57).
IV.30 The close similarity in phrasing between 42 and 43 supports the conjecture (originally made by K. T. Erim) that Flavius Ampelius' name should be restored in 43. If the man responsible was not Ampelius, he held identical titles and offices at about the same period. The fragments from the Theatre Baths (44), although very insubstantial, are most easily interpreted as a further reference to Ampelius. These texts therefore suggest that a civic official was concerned with several building projects in the later fifth century, presumably reflecting the prosperity of the city.
IV.31 The financial arrangements of the cities of the later Roman empire are not entirely clear to us. Most of the evidence is provided by the legislation, but this is evidently full of lacunae; thus we know that in the early fourth century city properties and civic taxes had been taken over by the imperial government, because Julian restored them. After Julian's death the estates and the taxes were re-appropriated by the imperial government; but during the second half of the fourth century it became clear that the cities needed at least some of these revenues for public works. The outcome is far from certain, but by the end of the fourth century the cities seem to have been receiving one-third of the income from their estates, and one-third of the civic tax income, for the maintenance and restoration of public buildings. While the cities administered their own estates, the tax income went directly to the imperial government, who then returned one third to the cities; but in 431 the administration of this third was entrusted directly to the cities (CJ 4. 61. 13). The general trend of all this legislation between the mid-fourth and the mid-fifth centuries was towards securing a steady income for the cities, to enable them to meet their responsibilities. This was the spirit of the novel issued by Theodosius II in 443 at Aphrodisias (Nov. 23; see discussion at IV.1), restating the rights of cities to their own properties; followed by Marcian in 451 (Nov. 3), he restored usurped possessions to the cities.71 The law of 431, giving direct administration of their own third of the civic taxes to the cities, probably meant that the cities, or at least those for whom a substantial sum was involved, needed to appoint new officials. The first appearance of the pater civitatis in the middle years of the fifth century suggests that he was this official.
IV.32 If imperial policy was intended to secure civic incomes in order to encourage spending on building works, it appears to have been quite successful. At Aphrodisias, the major public building works in the fourth century were undertaken by governors (so 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 235); but in the middle and later fifth century we find the city undertaking building and restoration through the pater civitatis (see List of Local Officials). This may, however, be only partly the result of the legislation; it also coincides with a resurgence of private beneficence, which suggests a general increase in prosperity (see V.6).
IV.33 The result of the imperial policy of restoring civic finances is exemplified in 42, which records the restoration by the pater civitatis, Ampelius, presumably with civic funds, of a gate, the North East, which had been built by a governor, probably in the 360s ( 22). The legislation specifically mentions, as the chief object for which such income was required, the restauratioo or reparatio moenium publicorum.72 There is no evidence of the extent of Ampelius' restoration, although it may have been at this time that 112 (which cannot be dated much before the fifth century) was inserted in a bastion in the east wall and that the inscription (MAMA 8, 448) recording the establishment of the palm-grove was re-used in a north-east bastion of the wall (see above at III.18). This is speculation; but it might suggest that Ampelius was responsible for adding or reinforcing bastions, at least along the eastern circuit of the walls. At a later date, probably in the seventh century, and certainly between 553 and 680, the name of the Aphrodisians was erased, and the new term Stauropolitans was inserted (see further discussion at VI.47).
IV.34 Ampelius was certainly responsible for work on the adaptation of the Agora Gate as a fountain (38), and probably for work in the Bouleuterion (43) and the Theatre Baths (44). The work in the Bouleuterion was apparently carried out in a tenth indiction, two years later than the restoration of the North East gate. It seems to have involved the adaptation of the building (ἐγένετο, regularly used of building works, seems to imply a new function rather than a restoration) as a palaestra; the normal meaning, wrestling-school, or wrestling-ground, makes no sense here, but there are two possible derivations that might apply. One is simply that of place for competitions. The gymnasia — which had included the true palaestrae — had largely disappeared from civic life over a century before;73 the word palaestra may only have retained vague connotations of competition, not even necessarily wrestling.74 Such a sense is not specifically attested; but the presence of factional inscriptions on the seats of the Bouleuterion/Odeon suggests that the building was used at this period for some kind of competitive displays.75 An alternative interpretation is that the use here derives from the sense of place of training, school which palaestra can have.76 It seems that the Odeon at Athens, originally built as a concert-hall, was adapted in the second century as a lecture-hall; its façade was appropriately decorated with two statues of seated 'philosophers'.77 The Bouleuterion at Aphrodisias may have had meetings of the Council as its primary function; that this continued to be its function into late antiquity is suggested by the findspot of 73 (see discussion at V.52). But the presence of two large statues of seated 'philosophers', of the imperial period, suggests that the building also served as a lecture-hall.78 We know that philosophy was taught at Aphrodisias in the later fifth century (see V.5); it may be that the Bouleuterion/Odeon continued to be used for lectures and teaching. This sense of palaestra fails to explain the presence of the factional inscriptions; it is entirely possible, however, that the Odeon was used in the fifth century both for lectures and for performances. If this is so, it seems slightly more probable that palaestra refers to its educational functions. The importance of the Bouleuterion/Odeon at this period is also indicated by the presence of the statue of Pytheas, an eminent citizen of the late fifth century (56 and discussion at V.18).
IV.35 Despite some variations in the letter forms of 45 it is likely that all these fragments come from the same monument; recent work suggests that this was the monumental hall at the south end of the Basilica at the south side of the Agora.79 L. Robert, restoring a on the basis of Cormack's description, suggested that it might refer to a governor, Helladius Ioannes. the man honoured as Helladius in 16—18 (see List of Governors); but the further examination of the stone makes this less likely. The letter Α and the vertical line after Δῖος are probably the remaining traces of a previous, erased text. The distinctive form of the alpha suggests that the erased text was itself not earlier than the fourth century. The terminology suggests that this is a metrical inscription. For Ἰωάννης in this position in the line compare the opening of AP 7, 712: Αὐτὸν Ἰωάννην ὁ γέρων κτλ.. The first α in Καρία is normally long, but it is treated as short for metrical purposes in 32, v. 2. The reference to marble (in c) suggests building works; for χῶρον in such a context compare 38. Fragment d should probably be read as ἡγεμόνα or ἡγεμόνας — perhaps a reference to surpassing former governors? — which suggests that this is an epigram in honour of a praeses Cariae, Ioannes; for the implications for the date, see discussion at IV.16.
IV.36 Eustochius appears in the nominative in both 46 and 47, which presumably described his activities, probably in building or repairing work in the North Temenos complex.80 The surviving traces of 47 do not recall any of the standard formulae for such inscriptions, and suggest strongly that the original text was in verse. The restoration Παφίην in b is far from certain, but a similar reference to Aphrodite is found in the epigram honouring Pytheas (56). The name Eustochius appears as an alternative name in a funerary inscription of the early third century.81
IV.37 Texts 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 are all fragments of revetment panelling with traces of inscriptions; they were all found in the Hadrianic Baths, and three of the five had been re-used. While none of these fragments is very informative in itself, they come from five different inscriptions, each apparently from the late Roman period; fragments of four further revetment inscriptions from this period, of even less significance, have also been found in the Hadrianic baths. Text 233, although fragmentary, appears to come from a building inscription in the Aleipterion of the baths; the text was perhaps in verse, and the power referred to might be divine. All this suggests that the baths were the subject of much building and repair work throughout the late Roman period; the re-use of some of the material is evidence of a further phase of repairs.
|1||C. Roueché, JTS 37 (1986), 130-2.|
|2||See Liebeschuetz (2001), 175-8, and discussion at IV.32, V.6.|
|3||IGC 241 and 242, with the observations of Jones, LRE, 1303 n. 49.|
|4||F. Loofs, Nestoriana (Halle, 1905), Letter 8; ACO i, 4, 30-1.|
|5||On the signatures see A. Crabbe, JTS 32 (1981), 369-400, especially 373 no. 28, 383 no. 30.|
|6||cf. E. Honigmann, Byzantion 16 (1940), 40-1 and List of Bishops.|
|7||On this term see most recently Feissel (1998), 92.|
|8||I. Eph. 1305, with Feissel (1998), 100-101.|
|9||PLRE II, Fl. Anthemius Isidorus 9.|
|10||Alan Cameron, Porphyrius, 92; on γέρας, reward, see D. Feissel, BCH l08 (1984), 547-8.|
|11||cf. Hellenica 4, 22-3.|
|12||A. von Premerstein, OJh 15 (1912). 215-17; D. Feissel, BCH 108 (1984), 548-558; Horster (1998), 44-45.|
|13||IG II2, 4223, cited by von Premerstein, op.cit., and discussed by Robert, Hellenica 4, 22-3.|
|14||Hellenica 4, 47, n.8.|
|15||Hellenica 4, 42-3.|
|16||IGC 1007; most recently republished as I.Eph 2043; for the date B. Malcus, Opuscula Atheniensia 7 (1967), 130-1.|
|17||Smith (2001), 135; see, on the whole question, H. Blanck, Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern (Rome, 1969).|
|18||D. Knibbe, H. Engelmann, B. Iplikcioglu, Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII, OJh 62 (1993), 113-50, 146, no. 74, whence SEG 1994.795.|
|19||See PLRE II, Marcian 8.|
|20||O. Seeck, Die Briefe des Libanius (Leipzig, 1906), 288.|
|21||RE IV, 1932, art.Tatianus 4, 2467-8.|
|22||PLRE II, Tatianus I, where see references; see also Dagron, Naissance, 272.|
|23||ILS 821, and with Hellenica 4, 50|
|24||Feissel (1991), 372.|
|25||E. Livrea, I due Taziani in un'iscrizione di Afrodisia, ZPapEpig 119 (1997), 43-49, with the comments of D. Feissel, BE 1998.646.|
|26||Hellenica 4, 18 ff.|
|27||For the general date, see Jones, LRE, 1417-21; for the specific year see C. Zuckermann, Comtes et ducs en Egypte autour de l'an 400, et la date de la Notitia Dignitatum Orientis, Antiquité Tardive 6 (1998), 137-147.|
|28||A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the East Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), 502-3, 5l4-l5; cf. E. Honigmann, Le Synekdémos d'Hiérokles (Brussels, 1939), 5-6.|
|29||Honigmann, op.cit., 2.|
|30||See C. Roueché, Provincial governors and their titulature in the sixth century, Antiquité Tardive 6 (1998), 83-9, 83-4.|
|31||Ratté (2001), 136.|
|32||K. T. Erim, Aphrodisias Papers I, 20-3.|
|33||AnatSt 31 (1981), 181.|
|34||Foss, Ephesus, 65; Ephesos V. 1, 42, 79-80, and in particular, pl.1.|
|35||I. Eph. 5115 with Feissel (1998), 99.|
|36||Foss, Ephesus, 65.|
|37||Hellenica 4, 74-8.|
|38||Hellenica 4, 66-8. Laodicée du Lycos, 343-4.|
|39||MAMA 8, 448; the stone was re-used in the city wall.|
|40||Études Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), 526 and n. 5, on IGR IV. 1431.|
|41||MAMA 8, 406, 445 and 446, CIG 2770.|
|42||Laodicée du Lycos, 259-60.|
|43||Foss, Sardis, source 16; for the dating of the building work concerned to the later fifth century see G. Hanfmann (ed), Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times (Harvard, 1983), 160.|
|44||See A. and A. Cameron, JHS 86 (1966), 15-16.|
|45||Hellenica 4, 109.|
|46||So Macarios/Symeon, ed. H. Berthold (Berlin, 1973), 45. 4, 2; the suggestion in Lampe, s.v. that the term here means no more than one with a general education, as distinct from a lawyer, misses the point that a man so qualified is already a lawyer, albeit only a beginner.|
|47||The list given by A. Claus, Ὁ Σχολαστικός (Diss. Koln, 1965), 20-42, although useful, is not entirely reliable|
|48||Rangprädikate, 7-8 gives the first dated instance as 438; cf. Claus, op. cit., 84.|
|49||Mansi III, 14c cf. 27b|
|50||For examples at Aphrodisias see List of Local officials; also Roueché (1979), 177, Attalia I and Tarsus 1, with BE 1979.595, ad fin., for examples of scholastici serving as patres civitatis at other cities.|
|51||Palme (1999), 103.|
|52||See IdC no. 24 and the useful Appendix I, 215-20, for a list of examples; for further examples from the papyri see P. J. Sijpesteijn, Tyche 2 (1987), 1714, and ZPapEpig 75 (1988), 267-71, cited by Feissel (1991), 373 n. 37.|
|53||For this standard term of praise for a benefactor involved in building activities see Index s.v., with Hellenica 4, 116, BE 1956, 317.|
|54||Cameron, Porphyrius 139 n. 1.|
|55||See Malalas 284-5, discussed by L. Robert, Epigraphica: XI, REG (1936), 9-14, 11 (= OMS II, 947-52, 949).|
|56||See the very well-documented article by K. Mentzu-Meimare, Der ΧΑΡΙΕΣΤΑΤΟΣ ΜΑΙΟΥΜΑΣ, BZ 89 (1996), 58-73.|
|57||Julian, Misopogon 362D.|
|58||op.cit. above; the text most recently republished as I.Nikomedeia 63.|
|59||De Mens. IV.52, from which the Suda, s.v.|
|60||Josh. Styl. 27, translation by F. Trombley and J. W. Watt, The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite (Liverpool, 2000) with discussion at pp. xvi-ii; see also G. B. Greatrex and J. W. Watt, One, two or three feasts? The Brytae, the Maiuma and the May Festival at Edessa, OC 83 (1999).|
|61||J. Caimi, Annali della facoltà di giurisprudenza di Genova 20 (1984-5), 49-84, associates the forbidding of the Maiouma in 399 with John Chrysostom's Contra ludos et theatra (PG 56.263-70).|
|63||Hom. in Matt. 7.6: the connection was first made by Godefroy, in his commentary on the Theodosian Code, and has tended to be taken for granted since then, but see the cautious note of Robert, op.cit. above, 13, n.6.|
|64||For εὐνομία see Hellenica 4, 23-4, 37; for labours, Hellenica 4, 21 n. 3, BE 1961. 536.|
|65||See most recently Horster (1998), 44-5 and references there.|
|66||Palme (1999), 108-9.|
|67||Palme (1999), 101.|
|68||Palme (1999), 117 ff.|
|69||cf. Cameron, Porphyrius, 91, and e.g. Sardis VII, 83 at Hellenica 4, 35: εἰκόνα . . . εὐνομίης μάρτυρα.|
|70||K. T. Erim in TürkArkDerg 22. 2 (1975), 75-6, and 23. 1 (1976), 27-8.|
|71||On all this see now Liebeschuetz (2001), Chapter 5.|
|72||e.g. CTh V. 14. 35, XV. 1. 32, 33, 41; moenia probably has a wider sense than just walls, cf. Schulten in OJh 9 (1906), 52.|
|73||Alan Cameron, Circus Factions, 215; Roueché, PPA, 137.|
|74||See Lampe, s.v. παλαιστήριον, παλαίω for the metaphorical use of this vocabulary in Christian literature.|
|75||Roueché, PPA, no. 48.|
|76||See LSJ, s.v. and the Latin usages and particularly Choricius of Gaza 368. 17 (32. 103).|
|77||H. A. Thompson, Hesperia 19 (1950), 31-141, esp. 132.|
|78||See K. T. Erim, Aphrodisias: A guide to the site and its Museum (Istanbul, 1990), 88-89, plates 121 and 122.|
|79||For the area see Smith and Ratté (1995), 51-2.|
|80||See Ratté (2001), 134.|
|81||Reynolds (2003), no. 175.|
(c) Creative Commons Copyright by-nc-nd-2.0
[Close Print-Friendly Version]