Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity 2004
[Close Print-Friendly Version]
53 | 54 | 251 | 249 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 250 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 238 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 245 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80
V.1 The last decades of the fifth century are unusual in the history of Aphrodisias, since this is one of the rare moments when the city appears in the literary sources, and not only in one text, but in two: the pagan Life of Isidore by Damascius, and the Christian Life of Severus by Zacharias. Moreover, as Robert showed, these sources relate to inscriptions found at Aphrodisias (53, 54, and now 55, 56, 57, 58).1
V.2 Damascius, a Neo-Platonist philosopher from Damascus, wrote the Life of his friend and fellow-philosopher Isidore at some time between 517 and 526 (PLRE II, Damascius 2). The full text of the Life is lost, but it can be partially reconstructed from an epitome by Photius (cited here as Epit.) and from fragments quoted by Photius and in the Suda (cited here as Frag.).2 Damascius' original work seems to have used Isidore's life as a framework for digressions describing several members of the pagan philosophical circles of the late fifth century. Among the philosophers whom he described was a certain Asclepiodotus of Alexandria, who spent several years teaching at Aphrodisias.
V.3 Zacharias Scholasticus (PLRE II, Zacharias 4) wrote his life of the monophysite leader Severus at Constantinople, probably not long after Severus became patriarch of Antioch in 512; the work survives only in Syriac.3 Zacharias' Life of Severus is in fact a memoir of their student days together in Alexandria and subsequently in Beirut, with abundant references to their fellow-students. Zacharias, from Gaza, and Severus, from Sozopolis in Pisidia, met as students when they went to Alexandria in the 480s to study grammar and rhetoric.4 While in Alexandria, they came to know two brothers of a prominent pagan family from Aphrodisias. The elder brother, Athanasius, had gone to Beirut to study law, and then to Alexandria, presumably also to study. In Alexandria he met a sophist, Stephanus, with whom he was converted to Christianity, and became a monk at the monastery of Enaton (Zacharias 14). Subsequently, at a date after the revolt of Illus and Leontius in 484, but before Zacharias left Alexandria in c. 490, Athanasius' younger brother Paralius went to Alexandria to study γραμματική; he arrived fortified by advice from two further brothers who had remained at Aphrodisias, Demochares, σχολαστικός of the area and Proclus, σοφίστης of the city (Zacharias 39); he was not to make contact with Athanasius and risk being lured into Christianity (Zacharias 15).
V.4 Paralius began his studies with the pagan teacher Horapollon (PLRE II, Horapollon 2), but after a time (χρόνῳ) he did get in touch with Athanasius, and after some debate, was eventually converted to Christianity.5 He took part in the Christians' destruction and burning of the shrine of Isis at Menouthis before 489; after the death of Zeno in 491 he was still in Alexandria, writing to his brothers (Zacharias 40). Having become a monk, he eventually returned with Athanasius to Aphrodisias where they founded a monastery, with Athanasius as abbot. Paralius died shortly afterwards, but Athanasius outlived him and before he died baptised many pagans in Caria (Zacharias 43). The two brothers were of course monophysites, and appear to have established a monophysite tradition at Aphrodisias: see further discussion at VI.37.
V.5 From these two sources a picture emerges of a society at Aphrodisias in which both Christians and pagans occupied prominent positions. The account in the Life of Isidore also shows Aphrodisias functioning as a centre of intellectual activity: see also discussion at V.13. It is possible that this was only a temporary phenomenon, based on the presence in Aphrodisias of the philosopher Asclepiodotus of Alexandria; but it is easier to understand Asclepiodotus' decision to settle at Aphrodisias if there was already some kind of teaching there. There had probably been a tradition of philosophical activity at Aphrodisias for several centuries. In the second century A.D. Adrastus of Aphrodisias wrote commentaries on the ethical works of Theophrastus and Aristotle (Athenaeus 15.653e): in the early third century Alexander of Aphrodisias, also an Aristotelian, wrote several important treatises. It may be that Eupeithius was honoured (33) for intellectual activities, perhaps in the late fourth century; we know that a fifth-century sophist, Eustephius, came from Aphrodisias (PLRE II, Eustephius); and Paralius' brother Proclus is described as a sophist of the city, which may imply a formal position. There is some evidence that the Bouleuterion/Odeon at Aphrodisias was used for educational purposes in the fifth century (see discussion at IV.34), and a substantial private house may also have been used for teaching at this period (see V.14).
V.6 The continued intellectual activity at Aphrodisias at this date is of intrinsic interest, but it also suggests that there was still a fairly prosperous élite to act as patrons and consumers of such activities. This accords with the general evidence of the inscriptions. While many cannot be closely dated (so numbers 66-80), a substantial number record benefactions, apparently by private citizens, while only four (62, 63, 64, 65) honour governors. The overall impression is of a resurgence, from the middle of the fifth century, of benefactions to the community by private citizens. It is particularly striking that these benefactors apparently included men who would have been exempted by their rank from curial obligations: for example, Asclepiodotus (53, 54), who was probably a patricius, Pytheas (55, 56, 57, 58, 250), who was certainly an illustris, and the member of the governor's staff responsible for 70.6 Although it may be tempting to see this activity as fuelled by Christian and pagan rivalry, we must remember that the unusual feature of late Roman Aphrodisias is the survival of so much inscribed material; the activity it records need not itself be unusual. During the same period, there were clearly also benefactions to ecclesiastical establishments (so 60, and section VII), most impressive of which was the conversion of the Temple-Church, a major feat of engineering (see VII.4).
V.7 Aphrodisias' prosperity is further reflected in a literary commission either from the Council or a prosperous local citizen: the poet Christodorus of Coptus, active under Anastasius (PLRE II, Christodorus) composed Patria, poems recording the historical and mythological origins of cities, for Aphrodisias, as well as for Constantinople, Thessalonica, Nacle, Miletus and Tralles (Suda s.v.). It is also of interest that it is from this period that at least three epigrams apparently from Aphrodisias are found in the Anthologia Palatina: 250 and 63 have not been found again, but seem very probably to be from Aphrodisias; 53 has been found inscribed at the site. What is not clear is whether we should see these texts as having been copied at the site before the ninth century compilation of Cephalas, or whether — as is perhaps more likely — they circulated in literary form from the time of their composition.
V.8 Texts 53 and 54 apparently both honour the same man, Asclepiodotus; 54 is definitely an epitaph, and 53 could also be posthumous. The latter is made up of two epigrams: lines 1 — 4 are concerned with an image, τόνδε . . . τύπον, probably a statue, put up by the city; lines 5 — 8, separated from the preceding epigram by a mark in the margin, record the construction of a vaulted chamber, tholos. It is this latter epigram which appears in the Anthology, with a variant in the fourth line. That variant might be explained away (see the apparatus); but an easier explanation both of the variant and of the selection of only one epigram for the Anthology, is that this is not the inscription which was copied. It has been suggested above that this epigram may have been circulated in literary form by its author, as well as being used for an inscription (V.7); that could explain the survival of the variant form, but not necessarily its origin. One possibility is that these lines were inscribed twice: once, on their own, in the tholos, with the word κοῖλον, hollow; and a second time, on the base of a statue of Asclepiodotus, as an adjunct to the epigram describing that statue. The substitution of ξυνὸν for κοῖλον could have been made to indicate that the statue stood near the tholos. Such reinscription is not unparalleled; four inscriptions honouring Macarius, at Miletus, appear to have been reinscribed with a reference added to a later governor, Tatianus (see III.13—14).
V.9 Robert commented that the sense of line 8 was unclear, but suggested that tholos might refer to a circular bath-chamber.7 This meaning is also found in two inscriptions using the term tholos to describe structures repaired in Late Antiquity in the baths at Gadara.8 The current excavations at Aphrodisias have revealed a large circular vaulted hall in the Theatre Baths, which adjoin the south-east corner of the Theatre.9 The original structure is earlier, but we know that these baths were repaired (at least the revetment was renewed) in the middle or late fifth century by Ampelius (44) and Pytheas (57). It seems, then, that Asclepiodotus too was responsible for work in the baths, to which this epigram refers. The tholos epigram, the second stanza of 53, could easily have been composed in Asclepiodotus' lifetime, but the first stanza probably describes a statue put up after Asclepiodotus' death (compare 33, of which the same may be true). 54 is clearly funerary; the pyramid monument on which it is inscribed is unparalleled at Aphrodisias, but may well have been intended to recall Asclepiodotus' connections with Egypt (see below).
V.10 Asclepiodotus was clearly a citizen of Aphrodisias — so πάτρης (53, v. 1), πατρίδι (53. v. 7) and τιθήνηι (54, v. 3; cf. 38); for the motif of making a return for upbringing to one's homeland, compare 24. But there is no further indication of Asclepiodotus' exact status. He was responsible for building work in the tholos, and 54 also refers to buildings, δώμησε; but, as Robert pointed out, the title of οἰκίστης (53, v. 4) and its equivalents usually indicate someone who has provided not merely buildings, but significant privileges for a community. The γέρα of 53. v. 7 are most easily taken as benefits of this kind, obtained from the imperial government by Asclepiodotus' influence.
V.11 In his edition of the Anthology (1794 — 1814) Jacobs identified the Asclepiodotus honoured in 53 with Asclepiodotus of Alexandria, the Neo-Platonist philosopher, who was known from the Life of Isidore to have lived and worked at Aphrodisias (see V.2); in editing the inscription Boeckh, after consultation with Dindorf, followed Jacobs. It was Robert, in his re-edition of 53, who first pointed out that this inscription refers to a local citizen, and further showed that Zacharias' Life of Severus (see V.3) used in conjunction with the Life of Isidore, could explain who this second, Aphrodisian, Asclepiodotus was. Asclepiodotus of Alexandria (PLRE II, Asclepiodotus 3) went from Alexandria to study with Proclus at Athens.10 He seems to have shared the taste of the philosophers of the period for travel;11 after finishing his studies at Athens he went to Syria (Damascius, Frag. 221, Ath. 90.D) and eventually came to Aphrodisias. At Aphrodisias, according to Zacharias, he met a second Asclepiodotus (PLRE II, Asclepiodotus 2), a prominent citizen of Aphrodisias: his namesake, who at that time took pride in the honours and dignities with which the emperor was loading him, and was a leader (τὰ πρωτεῖα εἶχε) in the βουλή of Aphrodisias (Zacharias 17). Asclepiodotus of Alexandria married Damiane, the daughter of the Aphrodisian Asclepiodotus, who is described as ὑψηλόφρων καὶ ἀνδρόβουλος (Damascius, Epit. 130, Ath. 86.G); she is apparently the wife praised for her virtues (Damascius, Frag. 229, 230, Ath. 95.A, B).
V.12 Texts 53 and 54 must refer not to the Alexandrian but to the local citizen, Asclepiodotus of Aphrodisias. This second Asclepiodotus is apparently described by Damascius as ὁ ἐπὶ θυγατρὶ γαμβρὸς τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀσκληπιοδότου Ἀσκληπιόδοτος, where γαμβρὸς is used in its later Greek sense of 'father-in-law'. Damascius writes of him in unfavourable terms, as having put himself forward as a rival to Damascius' hero, Isidore; his claim was based on his connection by marriage with the great Asclepiodotus, and his worldly prosperity — ἐκοσμεῖτο πᾶσι τοῖς τοῦ βίου λαμπροῖς — rather than on true philosophy (Epit. 160, a confused passage; for a different interpretation see Ath. 103.B). The two Asclepiodoti are probably compared by Damascius (Epit. 119 with Frag. 185, as interpreted at Ath. 83.A), again indicating that both were philosophically inclined, although the junior was the superior. This indicates that Asclepiodotus of Aphrodisias, as well as being prominent in public life, also had philosophical pretensions; Asmus therefore suggested that he should also be identified with a certain Πατρίκιος who is described as going beyond the proper activities of a philosopher into magic practices.12 Robert, accepting this as possible but not proven, pointed out that πατρίκιος/patricius would then be the title of Asclepiodotus, one of the dignities with which the emperor was loading him referred to by Zacharias.13 The fact that he held imperial honours (Zacharias 17) accords with the references in 53 to the privileges which he was able to obtain for his city. Furthermore, although the wording of 53 is banal,14 the description of Asclepiodotus' immortality in 54 is very appropriate to a pagan philosopher.15 The unusual form of the monument itself may also reflect Asclepiodotus' philosophical pretensions if the pyramid was indeed intended to evoke Egypt.
V.13 If Asclepiodotus of Aphrodisias considered himself a philosopher, then he and the Alexandrian Asclepiodotus are probably the men referred to by Damascius as the two philosophers in Caria, τοὺς ἐν Καρίᾳ δύο φιλοσόφους (Frag. 233, Ath. 122.C; so Asmus). Asclepiodotus of Alexandria lived at Aphrodisias for a long time (Zacharias 17), and at least as long as he was there, Aphrodisias was often visited by philosophers on their travels. It was from Aphrodisias that Damascius himself and Dorus, another philosopher, visited Hierapolis; when they did so, Asclepiodotus referred to a visit that he himself had made as a younger man, νεώτερος, implying that he had then been at Aphrodisias for some time (Epit. 131, Ath. 87.A). Isidore, Asclepiodotus' former pupil, accompanied Asclepiodotus on an excursion from Aphrodisias to the shrine of Apollo at Aulae, near Magnesia.16 When Hilarius of Antioch was converted to the pursuit of philosophy he went first to Caria and Lydia: μετεσκευάσατο τὸν βίον πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους, εἰς Καρίαν τε καὶ Λυδίαν μεταναστάς (Damascius Frag. 222, Ath. 91). Caria is cited with Athens, apparently as a centre of philosophy (Damascius Epit. 207, Ath. 141.B). Damascius also states that pagan religious activity flourished and even increased at Aphrodisias during Asclepiodotus' stay there: τοιγαροῦν ἀνέθηλεν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ ἡ πόλις τῆς Ἀφροδίτης εἰς τὸ ἱερώτερον. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἐς τὰς ὑπερορίους ἀπῴκισε τὴν ἀπόρρητον θέμιν, ἔς τε Ἀλεξάνδρειαν τὴν ὀσιρ<ι>άζουσαν καὶ τῆς ἕω πολλαχῇ τὴν μαγεύουσαν (Frag. 204, Ath. 86.B). The description of the city as one that exported ἀπῴκισε, literally sent as colonists, pagan religious practices suggests that students from other cities were coming to study these mysteries, and that Asclepiodotus of Alexandria was not the only teacher there, since he is known to have been unskilled in Egyptian and Chaldean wisdom, which are specifically referred to in this passage (Damascius Epit. 126, Ath. 85.A, Frag. 197). All this reinforces the picture given by Zacharias; Paralius described how he had attended pagan sacrifices made at Aphrodisias to invoke divine support for the success of the revolt of Illus, Leontius and Pamprepius against the emperor Zeno in 484 (Zacharias 40).17 Paralius refers to sacrificers and magicians, including an Asclepiodotus, as present at these sacrifices; this is perhaps best taken as the Aphrodisian, since Asclepiodotus of Alexandria is described by Damascius as not taking part in sacrifices: εὐλαβὴς οὕτως σφόδρα ᾥστε μήτε θύειν ἀνέχεσθαι (Frag. 202, Ath. 86.A).
V.14 This literary evidence for the teaching of philosophy at Aphrodisias in the late fifth century has been reinforced by the excavation of a house in a central area of the city, which was decorated with a series of portrait busts. As Bert Smith has shown in an important study, these sculptures present a series of philosophers and their pupils, and can be dated on stylistic grounds to the fifth century.18 Some are inscribed (for the texts see 251), others left to be recognised by the viewers. The philosophers are Pindar, Socrates, Aristotle, Apollonius, Pythagoras, and another older man, who remains unnamed presumably because he was so clearly recognisable; Smith has suggested that he might be a contemporary philosopher. The pupils are Alcibiades, Alexander, and an anonymous young man. Two further busts represented perhaps another philosopher and a sophist. The portraits originally decorated the apse of a large town house which was expanded in the fourth or fifth century; at some time in the sixth century they were removed, and dumped in the space behind the apse, where they were covered with debris.19 It seems very likely that this building should be associated with the circle of the two Asclepiodoti.
V.15 We have no clear date for when Asclepiodotus of Alexandria arrived at Aphrodisias but it was perhaps in the late 470s. His marriage to Damiane, however, initially proved childless, and after some time he decided to go with her to Egypt to seek a remedy at the shrine of Isis, which was maintained in a private house (the former temple having been destroyed by the Christians) at Menouthis, outside Alexandria. After visiting the shrine Damiane produced a child, either by normal processes, with the aid of the god (so Damascius Frag. 232, Ath. 95.C) or, as the Christians alleged, by buying a baby from a priestess (Zacharias 18). This was a cause célèbre in Alexandria when Paralius, who had left Aphrodisias in or after 484, had been there for some time and was considering conversion to Christianity (V.4). The Christians used Paralius, who presumably knew Asclepiodotus from his time at Aphrodisias, as a go-between, and suggested that Damiane be examined to see whether she was producing milk (Zacharias 19). The scandal was used by the Christians as a pretext for attacking and destroying the shrine at Menouthis (Zacharias 26-35).20 Since Zacharias was still in Alexandria, and Peter Mongus (482-9) was still Patriarch of Alexandria, this cannot have been later than 489 (cf. V.4). Asclepiodotus therefore probably left Aphrodisias in the mid-480s; his decision may have been connected with the failure of the revolt of Illus and Leontius and their pagan supporters in 484. He apparently did not return to Aphrodisias; he is said to have deceived his father-in-law in saying that he would return (Zacharias 17), and the subsequent events at Aphrodisias do not involve him.21 Damascius refers to someone, very probably Asclepiodotus, not returning to Aphrodisias when called upon: οὐδ' εἰς Ἀφροδισιάδα μετεχώρησε παράκλητος (Frag. 220, Ath. 90.C). It was perhaps at this time that he inherited his father's estate, presumably in or near Alexandria, which was encumbered with debts; he discharged these, and fulfilled his civic obligations, πολιτικὴ φιλοτιμία (Damascius Frag. 189, Ath. 83.B), and may well have spent the rest of his life in Alexandria. On the other hand, Martindale and Athanassiadi consider that Asclepiodotus returned to Aphrodisias, with Damiane pregnant ? perhaps with a second child (Damascius Epit. 137, Ath. 95.D).
V.16 There may be other traces of the presence of Asclepiodotus of Alexandria at Aphrodisias. When the Tetrastoon behind the Theatre was built or rebuilt in the fourth century (20), the ground level was raised; but for some reason a large circular altar, standing at the original ground level, was left in place, projecting about one metre above the new paving. The upper surface of the altar then became easily visible, and was subsequently inscribed as a sundial (249). In the publication of that sundial, it was demonstrated that the grid used is that appropriate to latitude 31°, the latitude of northern Egypt and Alexandria.22 One explanation is that the grid was copied from a portable dial calibrated for Alexandria, which was brought to Aphrodisias by Asclepiodotus or one of his companions. A remarkable bronze portable sundial from about this period was also found at Aphrodisias.23 Excavation of a residential complex of the late Roman period in the north-eastern area of the city uncovered a small statuette of an Egyptian goddess and an Egyptian faience ushabti.24
V.17 Asclepiodotus of Aphrodisias may have been responsible for summoning Asclepiodotus of Alexandria after he had left (Damascius Frag. 220, cited above); but there is no further explicit mention of him in our sources, although Zacharias goes on to describe events at Aphrodisias after the destruction of the shrine at Menouthis. Peter Mongus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, drew up an official letter, συνοδική, addressed to Nonnus, the bishop of Aphrodisias, giving the Christian version of the birth of Asclepiodotus' child; but the messenger conveying the letter was bribed not to deliver it. The pagans of Aphrodisias therefore believed the pagan version until the judge Adrastus concerned himself with the matter: he was a Christian — ἀνὴρ φιλόχριστος — who was the scholasticus — σχολαστικός — of the region; Adrastus obtained an official document proving the truth of the Christian account from the prefect of Egypt (Zacharias 35-7). Adrastus' position is not clear. The name is a common one in the area and he may have been a prominent local citizen, with the qualification scholasticus, like Paralius' brother Demochares.25 But the term judge may mean that he was a governor of Caria, who happened also to be qualified as a scholasticus, as was Vitianus, another governor who was also a local citizen, 65.
V.18 These events suggest that there were influential groups of both pagans and Christians at Aphrodisias, and that there was some tension between them; this may be the cause of the strife referred to in 64. One other tradition may be relevant. The original temple of Isis at Menouthis had been destroyed in the early fifth century, and a church built there; in it Cyril of Alexandria placed the relics of two martyrs of the Diocletianic persecution, Cyrus and John, who proceeded to produce a series of miraculous cures by methods very similar to those formerly used by Isis.26 These miracles were recorded in the early seventh century by Sophronius of Jerusalem.27 One story (Thaumata 10) concerns a certain Stephanus from Aphrodisias; he lent some money to friends who, to avoid paying him back, poisoned him and caused him to have haemorrhages. Stephanus travelled to Menouthis, where Cyrus and John cured him. There is no indication of the date of this story; but there may have been some particular link of piety between the Christians of Aphrodisias and the shrine of Cyrus and John after an important Aphrodisian Christian, Paralius, had helped to purge the last traces of paganism from Menouthis.
V.19 Texts 55, 56, 57, 58 and 250 all concern someone called Pytheas; 59 is concerned with the supporters of a Pytheas. Although the name is fairly common in this area, and is attested at Aphrodisias in the Roman period, it is sufficiently unusual to allow the conclusion that these inscriptions all concern one man.28 The striking variation in script so noticeable among the inscriptions of the fifth and sixth centuries (see Introduction.8) renders the style of script an unreliable guide to dating; but Pytheas' titles in 55 suggest that these inscriptions should be dated between the mid-fifth and mid-sixth centuries. Pytheas is the only vir illustris so far attested at Aphrodisias; from the mid-fifth century this denotes a member of the highest rank of senators.29 Between c. 460 and 550 all illustres appear to have had the right to assume the title μεγαλοπρεπέστατος, magnificentissimus.30 Because the stone is broken, it is impossible to say whether Pytheas was described simply as illustris, or whether this was by virtue of an office. While it was expected that such persons would live at Constantinople, laws of Zeno (CJ 3. 24. 3 of 485/6) and Anastasius (CJ 12. 1. 18) take account of the fact that some illustres were normally resident in the provinces.31 It appears from 56, v. 1 that Pytheas was a citizen of Aphrodisias; it is apparently as such, and not as a representative of imperial government, that he performed his constant works (56, v. 3). These seem to have included revetment work in the Theatre Baths (57: for other works here in this period compare 44 and 53) and work on a colonnade in the east court of the Hadrianic Baths (58). Pytheas can probably be identified more specifically. While Asclepiodotus of Alexandria was living at Aphrodisias (so before the mid-480s) the head of a dragon fell from the sky into a field belonging to Pytheas the Carian, and was brought to him: κεφαλὴν γοῦν ποτὲ δρακοντείαν ἐν Καρίᾳ εἰς ἀγρὸν πεσοῦσαν Πυθέου τοῦ Καρός, ἐνεχθεῖσαν δὲ αὐτῷ τῷ Πυθέᾳ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔφη θεάσασθαι . . . Asclepiodotus (who is apparently the αὐτός) then went on to describe the dragon which he had seen.32 The Pytheas of the story is likely to have been a landowner, since the head was brought to him from his field, rather than a humble peasant; the manner in which he is named may even suggest that he was already familiar to the readers. He was clearly in touch with Asclepiodotus, and so probably resident in or near Aphrodisias; the fact that he is described as a Carian, not an Aphrodisian, may reflect the increasing tendency to consider the metropolis as the focus of the province (see discussion at II.37). It is probable that the Pytheas known to Asclepiodotus should be identified with the subject of these inscriptions.
V.20 This hypothesis is perhaps confirmed by the texts. 55 is an acclamation: for the role of acclamations at this period see V.54, and for αὔξι see VI.15. The re-use of the stone makes it difficult to determine the form of the monument on which it was inscribed. 57 is almost certainly metrical, probably in iambics — the first occurrence of this metre at Aphrodisias. 56 and 58 are apparently both in elegiac couplets. The extant wording of 56 is striking in its pagan assertion; the description of Aphrodisias as the city of the Paphian and of Pytheas (v. 1) appears more than a mere antiquarian reference, especially since the poem seems then to describe what the goddess and Pytheas, respectively, have done for the city. The phrasing would be appropriate to someone in the circle of Asclepiodotus; thus, the city is described as ἡ πόλις τῆς Ἀφροδίτης by Damascius (Frag. 204). Similarly, ἀπαρχόμενος (v. 4) is a word with strong religious overtones, meaning dedicate or offer to a god. The fragments of 58 appear largely conventional (for καμνοῦσαν in the sense of a building requiring repair, cf. 40), but the use of ἀνάγκη, apparently of an evil destiny, recalls usages in Damascius: ἡ πάντα τὰ ἀρχαῖα καθελοῦσα ἀνάγκη (Epit. 118), τῆς πρὸς τὸ κάλλιον ἀντιπνεούσης ἀναγκης (Frag. 295).
V.21 It also seems highly likely that AP 7.690, presented here as 250, is a funerary epigram for Pytheas — and so was presumably once inscribed at Aphrodisias. The emphasis here again seems to be pagan: thus the Island of the Blest is a normal pagan phrase, although Christian derivatives exist (cf. 154, 157, and discussion, IX.19). There are also similarities with the two posthumous inscriptions of Asclepiodotus of Aphrodisias discussed above: with v.1, compare τὸ κλέος ἀθάνατον (53, v. 6) and οὐ θάνεν (the opening of 54, with a similar emphasis on a pagan after-life). These are clichés, and such resemblances should not be overvalued; moreover this epigram, unlike those honouring Asclepiodotus, makes no mention of Pytheas' role as a benefactor. On the other hand, Pytheas, a member of this philosophical circle, may have wished here to emphasize his learning rather than his benefactions. There could even be a deliberate contrast between his ψυχῆς ἀγλαὰ and the ἀγλαὰ πολλὰ, benefactions, for which Asclepiodotus is praised (54, v. 3).
V.22 At least one of the texts presented as 59 appears to concern Pytheas. They are inscribed on a sculpted 'gameboard', for which see discussion at V.44. It is not clear how these two texts — one the slogan of an individual, and one that of a group — relate to one another. It is possible that Mardaetus was a member of the Pytheanitae, and wrote both his own slogan and theirs; but there are slight variations in the script, and the slogan of the Pytheanitae is not terminated with a cross, as is that of Mardaetus (perhaps only for reasons of space). It is more likely that the two texts were inscribed separately, the sight of one provoking the inscribing of the other. I could find no parallel for the name Mardaetus; Feissel pointed out that it may well explain the origin of the Mardaitai used as troops by the Byzantine emperors in the seventh century.33 The term Pytheanitae is not otherwise known; it must be an epithet from Pytheas, meaning men or supporters, of Pytheas. Although he might be some semi-mythical figure to whom a club was dedicated, it is most economical to associate him with the Pytheas prominent at Aphrodisias in the late fifth century (above, V.18). The other gameboards inscribed in stone found at the site (68, 69, 70 and 71, 238 ) appear to date to the late fifth or early sixth centuries, that is, to the period when Pytheas appears to have been active.
V.23 The Pytheanitae, therefore, are most easily understood as supporters of a local magnate, Pytheas, with a name derived, as so often in the ancient world, from that of the man they supported (as Caesariani, Christiani). If so, this is the first evidence for such a political grouping in a provincial city at so late a date. Athanassiadi suggests that the texts could reflect a tension between the Christian Mardaetus, and the pagan supporters of Pytheas.34 It is only possible to identify this group because we happen to know of Pytheas: other texts at other sites may conceal similar groups. Thus, for example, a text from Xanthos, Νικᾷ ἡ τύχη το͂ν Μαριανο͂ν,35 may refer to a similar association in support of a man, Marius, whose name is not otherwise known. The existence of such a group may help us to understand a fragmentary inscription (below, 64) referring to civil strife at Aphrodisias, and a reference, in the acclamations of the sixth-century benefactor Albinus, to his enemies (83.xi). All this evidence, suggesting real competition for power at Aphrodisias between prominent citizens in the late fifth and sixth centuries, would help to explain the numerous public works by private citizens attested in the inscriptions; again, the impression is very different from the standard view of late antique civic life (see further discussion at V.6).
V.24 Text 60 is apparently a building inscription, dating the work to which it refers (but which was apparently not described in the inscription) ἐπί, under, the man responsible for it — a typical formula. The surviving letters ΟΣ impose the restoration ὁσιώτατος, a standard epithet for bishops.36 It is impossible to assess how much of the title is lost; but the last letters are clearly from the end of the bishop's name, which can most easily be restored as Euphemius. (I have restored ἐπισκόπου, which occurs again in 90 and 165, 166, but ἀρχεπισκόπου is equally possible.)
V.25 In 518 Justin I sent a large number of monophysite leaders into exile, including the metropolitan bishop of Aphrodisias, Euphemius, who died in exile.37 Monophysite beliefs were apparently fairly widespread in Caria and Asia, but Ernst Honigmann pointed out that they must have received particular stimulus at Aphrodisias when the brothers Athanasius and Paralius, converted to monophysite Christianity in Alexandria, returned to Aphrodisias and founded a monastery there, probably in the 490s: see V.4.38 A passage in Theophanes even suggests that the great monophysite theologian, Julian of Halicarnassus, had been bishop of Caria, i.e. Aphrodisias, before he went to Halicarnassus, also a metropolitan see, from which he was deposed in 518; but Honigmann considered that this passage was based on the chronographer's misinterpretation of his sources.39 While it cannot be proved, it appears likely that Euphemius, the monophysite bishop of Aphrodisias in the first decades of the sixth century, is the subject of this inscription. This would suggest that he was responsible for work in the 'Bishop's Palace' complex. The re-use of the stones indicates further work in this complex at a subsequent date, and coincides with the archaeological evidence that these buildings continued in use well into the Byzantine period.
V.26 The painted inscriptions, 61.i-iv, which are perhaps part of a longer series, include acclamations of a sole emperor and his empress (text i; for δέσποινα of an empress, cf. 23). The emperor's name is lost; there are traces of a proper name in text ii, line 1, but not necessarily that of the emperor. The texts cannot, therefore, be dated with certainty, but some conclusions can be drawn from the acclamatory expressions, several of which are paralleled elsewhere. The first text acclaims a new Theodosius. Since such a title would be redundant if applied to any member of the Theodosian family, these texts must be dated after 450. In my previous publication of these texts, I read this as a term of praise. Such expressions, associating a prominent citizen with a benefactor or founder, κτίστης, of the community, by calling him new so-and-so, were already well established in the Roman period. L. Robert examined the use of such expressions to honour literary men, and benefactors and pointed out that such formulae have their origins in laudatory acclamations.40
V.27 Following in this tradition, the earliest attested example of such an expression used of an emperor comes from the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where Marcian was acclaimed as new Constantine, in a reference to the κτίστης of the Christian empire (ACO ii, 1, 2, 139 and 155). Thereafter, the appellation new Constantine occurs fairly regularly; it is used, for example, of Justin I at his accession (Const. Porph., De Cer. 430), and at a gathering in Hagia Sophia (ACO iii, 72), and of later emperors.41 The conciliar acclamations include a similar use of biblical names; Marcian was also acclaimed as new Paul and new David (ACO ii, I, 2, 155). It is, however, less common to find such expressions using the names of emperors other than Constantine. At the Council of 680, Constantine IV was acclaimed as New Constantine, New Theodosius, New Marcian and New Justinian (Mansi xi, 346), and the same acclamations were used of Basil I at the Council of 869 (PL 129.170c). This terminology is unlikely to have been coined in 680; instead, the acclamations of Constantine IV probably took up phrases already in circulation. Thus, the idea that Marcian was an emperor whose example should be followed is already implicit in the acclamation recorded at the accession of Anastasius — ὡς Μαρκιανὸς, οὕτως βασίλευσον (De Cer. 425).
V.28 Another established phrase is νικᾷ ἡ πίστις τῶν Χριστιανῶν (text ii). This was shouted by the pro-Chalcedonian council of 536,42 and also by a monophysite crowd in Constantinople in 533 (Chron. Pasch. i, 629); the phrase has been found inscribed at Resafa in Syria (SEG 20.314; cf. IGLS 2204 and ?2168). It cannot therefore be used to prove the orthodoxy or otherwise of a gathering, but it may be associated with doctrinal disagreement. It is also associated with victory over (heathen) enemies: a similar phrase, αὔξει ἡ πίστις τῶν Χριστιανῶν, is listed in the De Ceremoniis (373) as an acclamation to be used at the celebration of an imperial victory, together with another — ὑιὲ θεοῦ ζωὴν αὐτῶν (?probably a misprint for αὐτῷ) — which is also found here (text ii). Similar phrases are recorded at the accession of Anastasius for Ariadne, κύριε, ζωὴν αὐτῇ (De Cer. 418, 419 and 424), and for Anastasius, υἱὲ θεοῦ, σὺ αὐτὸν ἐλέησον (ibid. 424; also of Justin, 430).
V.29 The dating by a pater civitatis (iii) indicates a date in the late fifth century or later; the only more specific indication must be the identification of the emperor honoured as New Theodosius. I took this term to be an honorific epithet, which would make the choice of Theodosius significant. The use of such historical references is exemplified by the account of the acclamations at a pro-Chalcedonian demonstration in Constantinople in July 518 preserved in the Acts of the Council of 536. The crowd called for the removal of the praepositus Amantius, considered to be a supporter of monophysite interests, with the acclamation, τὸν νέον Τζουμᾶν ἔξω βάλε: ὁ νέος Τζουμᾶς Ἀμάντις ἐστί, Throw out the new Tzoumas; Amantis is the new Tzoumas (ACO iii, 74.33). Tzoumas was the other name of the eunuch Chrysaphius, minister in the last years of Theodosius II, who was well known as a monophysite and as the prime sponsor of the latrocinium council at Ephesus in 449. The acclamation new Theodosius perhaps had a similarly partisan significance. The death of Theodosius II and his succession by Marcian were seen by the monophysites as a great disaster. Thus the Plerophoria — a collection of monophysite sayings and portents in response to the Council of Chalcedon, edited by John Rufus shortly after 512 — includes an account of a vision of Theodosius II in glory and Marcian in hell, and another of a vision which announced the death of the great and orthodox Theodosius.43 The crowd at Constantinople who adjured Anastasius on his accession to rule like Marcian (De Cer. 425, cited above) were almost certainly demanding a pro-Chalcedonian policy. It may be, therefore, that in using the acclamation new Theodosius the citizens of monophysite Aphrodisias were honouring an emperor whom they believed, or hoped, had monophysite sympathies. If the emperor honoured here was acclaimed by an official gathering for his monophysite sympathies, this probably took place before Justin's purge of monophysites in 518, when the monophysite bishop of Aphrodisias was exiled (see V.25); thereafter monophysite sentiments would hardly have been expressed by a public gathering and officially recorded. If Honigmann is right in assuming that the monophysite tradition at Aphrodisias was established by Athanasius and Paralius in the 490s (see V.4), it follows that the emperor acclaimed here would be Anastasius — precisely the emperor who had been urged to reign like Marcian, but whose first minister by the end of his reign was to be reviled as new Tzoumas.
V.30 This explanation was based on the assumption that the term New Theodosius is used here as a term of praise — like New Constantine — for an emperor whose name was something quite different. Gilbert Dagron, however, has reconsidered the text, in the context of the naming of children born to a reigning emperor.44 The name Theodosius recalls both two orthodox emperors, but also an emperor born in the purple (Theodosius II). The next heir to be born in the purple was the son of the emperor Maurice, born in 583. The child was called Theodosius, a choice demanded in acclamations by the Blues in Constantinople. The structure of our text i, acclaiming first the Emperor, then the Empress, and then the new/young Theodosius, would be very appropriate to the acclamation of a new heir.
V.31 Such an interpretation of the texts may help to explain their function. They were found painted on the wall of a chamber in the Hadrianic Baths. The third surviving text provides a date by indiction and by the pater civitatis, whose name is lost — ἐπὶ τοῦ δεῖνος, πατρός. The only other inscribed acclamations known to me dated in this way are in a text from Mopsuestia (IdC no. 89). An acclamation of Justinian, εἰς αἰῶνας ἡ βασιλεία, is inscribed within a cartouche, flanked on either side by wreaths containing acclamations, εἰς αἰῶνας ἡ μνήμη, of the local bishop and military commander. Above is the indiction and the date in the local era, equivalent to 559-60; below is the phrase ἐπὶ Εὐτυχοῦς σχολαστικοῦ καὶ πατρός. The original position of the stone is not known. All other inscriptions with the phrase ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρός appear to indicate not simply a date, but the achievement of some work of construction or renewal, for which the pater civitatis, using public funds, had been responsible.45 In my previous publication I therefore assumed that these acclamations had been recorded at the inauguration or dedication of a new or restored building.46 But the new interpretation would suggest that they record the acclamation of the new-born imperial heir. The date would be the date of the occasion — very probably a response to the arrival of an image of the new emperor.47 The acclamations were recorded and painted on the wall of a public building; they will also have been despatched to Constantinople as a proof of Aphrodisian loyalty. Dagron made the attractive suggestion that text i may have been headed with the word Acta, Ἄκτα, reflecting this function; frustratingly, the surviving traces of the last letter make this difficult. On the whole, therefore, I am more convinced by Professor Dagron's interpretation than by my previous explanation; see further VI.47.
V.32 The current excavations have produced the names of at least two new governors of Caria in the late fifth or early sixth century: Fl. Palmatus (62, 63, see List of Governors) and Vitianus (65, see List of Governors). A third governor was probably honoured in 64, see List of Governors. I have associated him with the other two because the statue base stands in the Tetrastoon next to that of Flavius Palmatus (see plan), and is of a similarly makeshift quality — a columnar base, standing on a plinth which has been cut down from a fluted column of different dimensions. This may not be a significant relationship, but I suspect that the two bases are not too far apart in date. I also believe that the anonymous governor is earlier than Palmatus: it is tempting to identify him with the governor Tatianus, responsible for 37, since both seem to have had to deal with serious problems: List of Governors. We also know of one other governor at this period, Fl. Ioannes, attested as consularis under Anastasius (491-518): see List of Governors. Like him, Flavius Palmatus and Vitianus have the title consularis/ὑπατικός and can therefore be dated after the governorship of Caria was upgraded from that of a praeses to that of a consularis, in the mid or late fifth century : see the discussion at IV.16 ff). Flavius Palmatus (62 and 63) held office before the office of Vicar of Asiana was abolished in 536 (see VI.33). There is no similarly clear-cut terminus ante quem for Vitianus (65) before the end of the sixth century, when the Theatre, where he was honoured, fell out of use. These inscriptions are the latest so far found on the site to mention governors.
V.33 Flavius Palmatus (PLRE II, Palmatus 2), honoured in 62 and 63, is not otherwise known. It was L. Robert who first pointed out that the text published here as 63 presumably came from an inscription set up by the provincial assembly of Caria in honour of a late Roman governor of the province;48 the discovery of 62, clearly honouring the same man, confirmed that hypothesis. His title of consularis indicates a date not before the late fifth century: see discussion at IV.16. Since he was also acting Vicar of Asiana, this inscription must date from before the abolition of that vicariate under Justinian in 535 (Just. Nov. 8) . Denis Feissel has recently clarified the situation of the vicariate and its administration.49 He has demonstrated that, in the early fifth century, several proconsuls of Asia were also vicars of Asiana. We do not know about the situation in the mid-fifth century; but Feissel has drawn attention to the wording of Justinianic legislation which shows that, for some time before 535, the vicar of Asiana normally also held the office of governor of Phrygia Pacatiana. The office of vicar, therefore, was one that was on several occasions held together with another governorship, and the tenure of the office by Palmatus does not hint at the imminent suppression of the office (as I assumed in my earlier publication). It is more likely that he really was functioning as a locum tenens, in the absence — for whatever reason — of a vicar.
V.34 Palmatus has the rank of μεγαλοπρεπέστατος/magnificentissimus, as are other governors of Caria at this period: Flavius Ioannes under Anastasius (List of Governors) and Nonnus in 538 (List of Governors). His other rank of περίβλεπτος/spectabilismay be relevant as an indication of date. J. R. Martindale pointed out that spectabilis is a rank normally held by provincial governors only by virtue of some other title and I was inclined to associate the rank with Palmatus' position as acting vicar;50 but another governor of Caria, Procopius, is now attested with the rank under Justin I (see List of Governors). It may be, therefore, that the two are close in date.
V.35 The other indication of a date in the late fifth or early sixth century may be the continuing activity of the provincial assembly, attested here for the last time. Evidence from Africa and elsewhere indicates the survival of the councils and their officials into the early decades of the sixth century;51 but it is striking that almost all references to the councils in the Theodosian Code are omitted from the Justinianic Code. This might imply that they were no longer significant organizations; but Justin II clearly assumed their continuing existence and reasonable functioning in 569 when he assigned the selection of governors to provincial assemblies.52 If the role of provincial metropolis was indeed an important element in assuring the continuing prosperity of Aphrodisias in the late Roman period, then the fate of the city will have been closely linked to the fate of the assembly.
V.36 Palmatus is praised on the statue base in a series of conventional epithets, as ἀνανεωτής and κτίστης of the city and εὐεργέτης of Caria, recalling the reference to his εὐεργεσίαι in the epigram put up by the Carians. The Carians also give him the epithet ἰθυδίκης, again part of the standard terminology.53 There also seems to be some deliberate archaizing in the style of this inscription, and perhaps of others from this period. The old-fashioned formula of dedication, ἀνέθηκεν seems to persist at Aphrodisias; it appears in the late fourth century (25, 26, 27,28), and then again in the late fifth in the epigram honouring Asclepiodotus (53, v. 4), here, and in 65.54 The dedication to or with Good Fortune, Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ also continues; this is the latest of the texts from the site where it is written with an iota adscript, which seems to be another antiquarian flourish.55 The juxtaposition of Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ and the crosses in line 1 is striking, and a salutary reminder of how intertwined the strands of pagan and Christian culture could become at this period. 62 and the accompanying statue were set up by Flavius Atheneus (a name otherwise unattested at Aphrodisias), the pater civitatis: see List of Local Officials, and discussion at IV.23. Presumably he was acting in his official capacity as the magistrate responsible for the city's finances, and paid for this imposing monument from city funds.
V.37 The man in text 64, who was in a position to drive out civil strife was probably at least a governor. ἔρνος suggests that v.1 contained a reference to his origin (compare e.g. Ἑλλαδος ἀγλαὸν ἔρνος I.Cret. iv.323), and probably that this was not Aphrodisias. The epigram therefore is most likely to honour a governor of Caria: see List of Governors. There is little evidence for the date. The immediately adjacent statue was that of Palmatus, governor in the late fifth or early sixth century (62), but the same portico had been used in the fourth century for statues of Julian and Valens (20 and 21). The style of the script and perhaps the large ivy leaf below, as in 62 and 65, suggest to me a fifth-century date. The failure in the one complete hexameter to conform to Nonnus' rules, ending as it does in a proparoxytone, perhaps indicates a date before the end of the fifth century. The epithet ὀλεσίπτολις is only otherwise attested, used by Tryphiodorus (third or fourth century). The phrase δῆριν . . . ἐξελάσαντα recalls ἀπήλασε λοίγιον ἄτην in 37, first half of the fifth century, but is also paralleled by λοιμὸν καὶ λιμὸν ἀπελάσαντα in 86, probably mid-sixth century. The terminology of such inscriptions remains so consistent over such a long period that it seldom provides any indication of date. This is particularly frustrating here, in view of the specific reference to civil strife, presumably at Aphrodisias. Whether one should associate this with the tension between pagans and Christians, which undoubtedly existed in the later fifth century (see V.18) or with the ἄτη which the younger Tatianus drove from Caria in the early decades of the fifth century (37), it is probably safe only to say that this fragment provides evidence of internal tension at Aphrodisias at some time in the fifth century. Given the state of the text, it is impossible to assess the significance of the reference to Aphrodite in v. 3; it could be a specifically pagan reference, as in the epigram of Pytheas (56), or a piece of standard antiquarian embellishment.
V.38 The governor Vitianus, honoured in 65, was also honoured at Miletus in an epigram (see List of Governors); there it appears that he had repaired a dyke — also described as a bridge, so presumably with a road on it — which held back the winter floods.56 That epigram gives no indication of date. From the Aphrodisias inscription we know that Vitianus was consularis of Caria, and so must have held office after it had become a consular one in the mid or late fifth century (see discussion at IV.16). The only other indications of date are tenuous. First, the city is described as λαμπρά (as in 17, 19, 42 and 43; apparently λαμπροτάτη in 62) and περιφανής; I found no parallel for this latter epithet, but Feissel has pointed out that it is used of Sardis, in 459 (I.Sardis 7.18) and in the sixth century of Tyre, Beirut and Melitene, as well as Thessalonica.57 Secondly, Vitianus has the simple rank clarissimus whereas Palmatus is spectabilis, and another consularis of Caria known to us, Fl. Ioannes, is described as magnificentissimus comes et consularis (List of Governors). I now feel that this may indicate that Vitianus held office before these two men; but I am still very uncertain about the reliability of such indications for dating. Thirdly, the apparent erasure of a cross preceding the text of the inscription may be associated with the tension between pagans and Christians in the late fifth century (see V.18); but such erasure could date from the mediaeval period.
V.39 Finally, the general appearance of the inscription is similar to that of 62, and both texts use the old-fashioned formula ἀνέθηκεν (see on 62); but there is no definite terminus ante quem for this text, which could therefore date from later in the sixth century. The use of the term agonothete here might also be deliberately old-fashioned; but since it was also used, apparently in the mid-fifth century, of the governor Dulcitius (in 40; see IV.24) the word probably has a fairly specific sense, and refers to the governor's provision of money, presumably from imperial funds, for some kind of competition or spectacle. The fact that this inscription was found in the Theatre suggests that the ἀγών to which Vitianus contributed took place there; the abundant factional inscriptions also found there show that it was being used for performances and competitions at this date.58
V.40 Vitianus is described as σχολαστικὸς καὶ ὑπατικός. The title scholasticus (discussed at IV.22) denotes a man qualified, by having passed through all the normal stages of higher education, to work as an advocate. The term is found in the titulature of only two other governors, both of Arabia: Flavius Arcadius Alexander, λαμπρότατος σχολαστικὸς καὶ ἡγεμών in 487, and Hesychius, μεγαλοπρεπέστατος κόμης σχολαστικὸς ἡγεμὼν καὶ σχολαστικος in 490;59 cf. also Adrastus, discussed at V.17. The appearance of the term only in the titulature of these men does not, of course, mean that they were the only scholastici to become governors. It is a commonplace of late Roman society that practice as an advocate often led to a career in the imperial service;60 that this was the ultimate objective for a scholasticus is assumed by Makarios/Symeon: εἶτα ὅταν γένηται σχολαστικός, ὅλων τῶν δικολόγων ἐστὶν ἀρχάριος. πάλιν ἐκεῖ ὅταν γένηται πρῶτος, τότε γίνεται ἡγεμῶν (Makarios/Symeon 45. 4. 2). What is striking is that in the late fifth century men with high posts in the imperial administration chose also to mention their qualification as scholastici; this is more surprising than the increasingly widespread use of the title by men of municipal eminence during the fifth and sixth centuries (IV.22). It is tempting to associate this insistence on qualifications with a tendency, apparent in the later fifth century, to insist on specific legal qualifications for certain legal posts.61 It has been convincingly argued, however, that it is misleading to see imperial encouragement of higher education in the late Roman period as an official policy, consciously intended to produce administrators, and the ruling that certain lawyers should be able to demonstrate their qualifications was fairly limited in scope.62 But this ruling and the increasingly widespread use of the term scholasticus, perhaps suggest that by the later fifth century higher education was indeed seen as a valuable qualification, which a wide range of municipal officials, and even men in the imperial service, were eager to claim.
V.41 The following inscriptions (66—74) all honour private citizens who have acted as benefactors. While none of them can be dated with precision, they all seem to me, for a variety of reasons set out in the discussion, to belong to the second half of the fifth century or to the sixth, perhaps the earlier sixth, century.
V.42 Philip, the son of Herodian, in text 66 is clearly a local citizen — τῇ οἰκίᾳ πατρίδι — but his father's name is not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias, and Philip is found only in some graffiti. The chief indication of date is provided by his rank of θαυμασιώτατος/admirandissimus, which is not particularly widespread. Introduced in the fourth century, it steadily sank in value, as so many late Roman ranks tended to do; its decline can be traced from use by the PPO in 368 to its application to a δημόσιος ζυγοστάτης in 609.63 It seems to have been most widespread from the mid-fifth century: it is used of a πρωτεύων in 430/I (IGLS 2831), of an agens in rebus et defensor civitatis in 459 (IGC 322), and of imperial officials in the acts of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.64 It is likely that Philip, who did not consider his office worth mentioning, was either a minor imperial official or an eminent local citizen, and that this inscription should be dated to the later fifth century or sixth century. Διάχωρον is a term found in Christian buildings — for example the fifth-century church at Eresos on Lesbos, and in Jewish ones, particularly the synagogue at Sardis.65 The term is probably a variant on διάστυλον, in the sense of distance between two columns (see 10): at Eresos it refers to an area of floor mosaic, at Sardis to an area of wall revetment. It is not clear exactly what Philip provided ; but the verb is used of another stoa in an inscription of the imperial period from Labraunda: τὴν στοὰν ἐσκέπασεν τῇ οἰκοδομῇ, I.Labraunda 21.The easiest interpretation seems to be that Philip provided the roof for two intercolumniations of the portico (cf. σκεπαστός, in the sense roofed, LSJ s.v.); but it may mean that Philip paid for the entire construction of that section, including the roof.
V.43 There is no obvious indication of date in the style or the content of text 67; but it seems to record building work in the same portico as that restored by Pytheas, text 58. It is likely that this inscription is roughly contemporary with that of Pytheas, and should therefore be dated to the later fifth or early sixth century. Dionysius is a name commonly attested at Aphrodisias throughout the Roman period: but this is the only occurrence of Photeinus on the site. Dionysius, a doctor, was clearly a man of means, and was proud to proclaim his profession; a doctor at Ephesus — Christian, as is Dionysius — was honoured with a statue by the Council and People.66 It is not clear exactly what work Dionysius paid for; the description as far as the tiled roof might suggest revetment work (for the late renewal of revetment work in the Hadrianic Baths see texts 48-52, and IV.37). The work was apparently expected to provide ἀνάπαυσις, rest, relaxation, appropriately enough for public baths.67
V.44 Texts 68, 69, 238, 70, 71 were each cut on the moulding of rectangular blocks, which had the design of a gameboard carefully inscribed on a central, recessed panel. The board is composed of three parallel rows of twelve small circles, with the central point in each row marked by a rosette, described with calipers.68 The blocks apparently lay on the ground, presenting the inscribed face horizontally; in 68 a hole was pierced in the moulding at one corner of the face, presumably to drain off rainwater. The inscriptions were cut on the upper face of the moulding, parallel with the board. 68, 69, 238, 70 were all found in the area of the Hadrianic Baths; 71 was a stray find. 59 is another such board, not so carefully made, found in the area of the Theatre, but perhaps from the Theatre Baths. 68 and 238 were certainly made from re-used statue base shafts, and this may be true of 69, 70, and 71.
V.45 Gameboards of the type described here have been found widely at Aphrodisias, and are being published separately.69 Similar, formally inscribed gameboards can be observed at Miletus, Ephesus, Perge and Side; two examples from Ephesus have been published, I.Eph. 556, 556a. In the West, and particularly in Rome, many examples have been found, including a large number with letters in the place of the dots or circles, arranged to spell out some appropriate phrase; it is usually these examples which have been published, with a passing reference to others without letters.70 The name and nature of the game for which these boards were used is debated. Lamer, in his exhaustive study of Greek and Roman games, indicated that this type of gameboard was the one most commonly found, but believed that it could not be identified with any of the games known to us through literary sources; he described it as the 36-Felderspiel.71 Ihm on the other hand considered that these boards were used for a well-attested game, the ludus duodecim scriptorum, and this is also the conclusion of R. G. Austin in a brief but lucid article,72 and of H. J. R. Murray.73 R. Merkelbach suggested that the game played here was the ludus latrunculorum.74 It is easier to believe that the most commonly found board belongs to a game whose name we know, rather than the unknown game posited by Lamer; as for the name, I tend to prefer the ludus duodecim scriptorum, but it must be said that the surviving descriptions of these games are not easy to interpret.
V.46 Several of the surviving boards were probably public, rather than private; Lamer cites mosaic examples in baths at Ostia and Tebessa. At least one epigram by Agathias refers to a stone gameboard — ἑζόμενος μὲν τῇδε παρἈ εὐλαίγγι τραπέζῃ — perhaps similar to ours, and may even have been inscribed on one (AP 9.767, cf. 768-9). But I have found no parallel for the inscribing of a donor's name on a board, as is the case here; ἐπί, under, with a name in the genitive is standard at this period for indicating a donor. Four of these boards (68, 69, 238 and 70) were apparently sited, very appropriately, in the area of the Hadrianic Baths, as a public amenity to be used by those at leisure in the baths; another (59) may well have come from the Theatre Baths.
V.47 The donor of 68, 69 and 238, Flavius Photius — a name not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias — is described in 68 simply as scholasticus (see discussion at IV.22); but Henri Grégoire, with his characteristic flair, suggested that Photius was in fact pater civitatis, as was subsequently demonstrated by the full titulature on 69 and 238. 68 and 69 seem to have been found in the same area at the north entrance to the baths, which may explain why it was not thought necessary to write out Photius' full titles on each stone. If our interpretation of the role of the pater civitatis (above, IV.23) is correct, Photius may have paid for the inscribing and erection of the three boards from the civic funds which he administered. If they could be employed for such a relatively inessential purpose these funds must have been fairly abundant (see further discussion at V.6).
V.48 The donor of 70, whose name unfortunately cannot be determined, was an exceptor, that is, a clerk in the imperial bureaucracy, and so almost certainly in the officium of the governor of Caria. The term is used of a fairly low level of clerk in the officium; but it can also be used of free-lance scribes working for the governor's office.75 It is quite remarkable that someone of such a relatively lowly rank could make a donation of this kind. He presumably paid for this himself; if he had used official funds, it is inconceivable that the governor would not have been named. This therefore suggest again that those working for the officium were relatively prosperous: see discussion at IV.29. The donor was probably a citizen of Aphrodisias, despite the legislation intended to exclude local curiales from evading their civic duties by serving in the officia, and we should probably see him as exemplifying the process by which officiales and local notables became interwoven.76
V.49 71 is apparently a fragment from a inscription similar to 68, 68 and 70, recording the donor of a gameboard, who almost certainly had the title magnificentissimus; this perhaps suggests a sixth-century date (see below, VI.26).
V.50 The fragments which make up text 72 are not easy to interpret. They appear to describe an action by several people: ΙΣΑΝ (l. 5) is probably an aorist third person plural, perhaps from a verb of building or repairing. The work was perhaps on the house mentioned in the first line — perhaps described either as this house, τοῦ οἴκου τούτου, or as the house of the . . ., τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ; οἶκος can be used of various structures, including churches. Some of the people concerned are described as those around, οἱ περί, a phrase commonly used to describe a collegiate body (compare 5). Because we cannot determine how much is lost on the left, it is not clear whether these people are associated with one person — Flavius Epiphanius Hermias — or with more. It is equally unclear whether they are to be identified with the group described as the οἰκεῖοι, household or entourage of Victor, or whether Victor is the same person as the eparch apparently mentioned in the next line (although the possibility of a reference to the eparchia, or province, cannot be excluded). The word eparch is preceded by traces of an upright, and an abbreviation mark. This was presumably an indication of rank, but it is not certain what rank we should supply — perhaps λαμπρότατος or θαυμασιώτατος. If the rank could be determined, it might enable us to establish the date of this text. Both the ranks mentioned above, if applied to a PPO (if that is what eparch means here), would probably be fourth century or early fifth.77 But the restorations are too uncertain to be used as evidence. I would be inclined, however, to see the unusual and ornate script as later than the fourth century, and more in keeping with the scripts of the later fifth and sixth centuries. 245 was found in the same area, and seems to be from a similar monument; but it is difficult to see how they could have joined. The cutting of the letters in 245 also resembles that of 72; but the upsilon in 245 is markedly different from that in 72. The reference to a house is tantalising; but this new discovery does not make text 72 any easier to interpret.
V.51 Texts 73 and 74 both honour local citizens, John and Hermias; their lettering and layout resemble one another. Neither text includes any clear indication of date, but both are written in hexameters which conform to Nonnan metrical practice. The structure of 73, v.1 is not dissimilar to that of a line of Nonnus' Paraphrase: γερόντων εἰς ἑ͂ν ἀγειρομένων πρωτόθρονος ἕζετο βουλή (Par. Jo. 30. 189-90). Another inscription which contains some echoes of Nonnus' Paraphrase is discussed below (100). Nonnus' influence on other writers can probably first be observed in the last decades of the fifth century. In short verses such resemblances cannot be considered conclusive, but I would favour a sixth-century date for both these texts. John and, apparently, Hermias, local benefactors, were honoured with statues by the city, presumably from its own funds; other local citizens so honoured at this period were Pytheas (55 and 56), Asclepiodotus (53), Albinus 82, Rhodopaeus (85, 86, 87) and Theopompus (89). This provides a further indication that civic funds were in good supply until well into the sixth century.
V.52 73 was found re-used in the Temple-Church, with several other inscribed texts referring to the activities of the Council; all these stones were probably brought from the Bouleuterion. John's position — πρωτόθρονον ἀνέρα βουλῆς — recalls that of Asclepiodotus of Aphrodisias, who τὰ πρωτεῖα εἶχε in the βουλή (Zacharias 17, cited at V.11). The apparently exclusive sense of first might lead one to assume some kind of chairmanship of the Council; but it probably only indicates that John was one of the inner, controlling group of Council members, the principales or πρωτεύοντες.78 The term θρεπτήρια is used in exactly the same way in an epigram of the later fourth century honouring Menander (24); this is a salutary reminder of the relative uniformity in the style and language of such honorific epigrams throughout the late Roman period.
V.53 Text 74 honours Hermias, whose rank and position are not indicated; but the absence of terminology commonly used of governors or imperial officials suggests that he is a local citizen of Aphrodisias. This makes his donation to the baths — apparently of 3,000 solidi — strikingly generous. On the evidence presented by Evelyne Patlagean, this is an unusually large donation for a private individual, but there is no comparable evidence from other cities in Asia Minor.79 It is not clear for what purpose this money was intended; Patlagean assumed that it was for building and repair work. But at some time in the reign of Justinian the pater civitatis of Aphrodisias wrote to the emperor about problems created by recent imperial legislation for the management of endowments left to the city, which had provided a substantial income — χρυσίον συχνόν (Nov. 160); the heating of the baths — ἐκπυρώσεις τῶν δημοσίων βαλανείων — is specifically mentioned there as funded from this source (discussed further at VI.3). It is therefore probable that Hermias' gift was one of these endowments, perhaps intended for the running costs of the Hadrianic Baths rather than for building work; this would fit the vague terminology of the epigram. The adjective αἐιζώων is used in a religious sense in Nonnus' Paraphrase; it is also used of water, and is therefore elegantly appropriate in this context.
V.54 Texts 75 to 80 all records acclamations, from different parts of the site, and possibly of widely different dates. 75 and 76 are all fragmentary painted acclamations; very little information can be extracted from them. 77 includes a title appropriate to the fifth or sixth centuries; 78 could perhaps be dated as early as the third or fourth centuries (see commentary). 79 and 80 are inscribed, but offer little indication of date. Our understanding of acclamations has increased greatly in the last decades, not least because of the discovery of the acclamations published here as 83.80 None of the acclamations presented here is as interesting or informative; but as a group they are of considerable interest, indicating how many such texts were put up at locations all over the site. Thus we have acclamations from the Hadrianic Baths (61), the stage wall of the Theatre (76), the Tetrastoon (75) and the Agora (80 and 83) as well as some of uncertain location, such as 55 (honouring Pytheas), 89 (honouring Theopompus), and 79 (honouring Scholasticius). A further group of acclamations are those in support of the factions.81 With 80, the acclamation of an unknown group, we can compare 59, the acclamation of an identifiable party.
V.55 All of these are more or less formal texts, to be distinguished from the acclamatory formulae found in private graffiti. The evidence collected here suggests that such texts were very abundant; in particular the evidence of the painted texts, 75, 77—78. suggests that in certain locations acclamations were painted on top of one another. The overall picture, therefore, is of a good deal of activity; if such texts were often painted, we should assume that many were lost. Moreover, of those which offer any indication of date, a substantial number — 55, 59, 61, 77, 83 and 89 — appear to belong to the later fifth or the sixth centuries, which was probably the high point for the public recording of acclamations; this body of material, therefore, reinforces the impression of considerable civic and 'political' activity at Aphrodisias in this period (see V.23).
V.56 While little remains of the texts published as 75, the traces on several columns suggest that there may have been a long series of acclamations recorded in this portico, just as the acclamations of Albinus were inscribed on the columns of the western portico of the South Agora (below, 83) It is likely that here, as there, the series included the standard acclamation, πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη τῶν ἐπάρχων.
V.57 The plaster fragments of text 76 were all found fallen, but had apparently originally adhered to a brick wall; that must have been the wall built, at a date not yet determined, between the row of half-columns running across the back of the stage of the Theatre, in front of the stage buildings. This wall was plastered on both sides, and painted with a trellis decoration to a height of about one metre; some traces of decoration remain above this. Its construction created a corridor at the back of the stage, with one central opening, and also two cul-de-sac 'rooms' at either end, both of which seem to have been frescoed. The plaster on the eastern, stone wall of the northern 'room' was decorated with at least two painted figures, from which the head of a St Michael, probably painted in the sixth century, survives. The inscribed fragments, and those of the St Michael fresco were found together in the debris filling this room, lying underneath statuary which had fallen from upper storeys of the stage front. There is, however, no evidence that the two frescoed areas were related; the lettering of the painted inscription, Μιχαήλ, which accompanies the image, does not resemble the script of our texts.82 Although only a few words of these fragments are legible, the occurrence of νικᾷ and τύχη strongly suggests that they come from a series of painted acclamations, similar to 71 and 78. These might have been factional acclamations of the sort found elsewhere in the Theatre and the Bouleuterion (and discussed most fully in PPA), or, if εὐσεβοῦς is correctly restored in 76.c, suggesting a fragment of imperial titulature, from a series of formal acclamations of emperors and benefactors (of the kind discussed at VI.14). The texts apparently faced the entrance to Stage Room 1, where a graffito acclamation of the Green faction is preserved (PPA 1.1.iii).
V.58 While the texts presented as 77 and 78 can be sufficiently deciphered to be recognized as acclamations, they remain very frustrating. Those described as 77 must have originated in a colonnade not yet identified: it is possible that 77.i, on a column of a different diameter, comes from a separate structure. That column bears the only possible evidence of date, since 77.i.a is apparently the standard acclamation πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη, many years, for a person or persons who are μεγαλοπρεπέστατοι/magnificentissimi; the use of this epithet suggests a date in the fifth or sixth centuries.83 πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη can be discerned again in 77.ii.a and ii.b, but it is impossible to determine any name, rank or office of the people acclaimed. 77.ii.b contains another established acclamatory formula: ὁ θεὸς καλῶς σε ἤνηγκεν, God has conveyed you well. This is one of the acclamations for the emperors painted at the Golden Gate at Constantinople, perhaps from its inauguration ceremony in 388 or 418; it was also used in honour of the patriarch Epiphanius at the church assembly at Tyre in 518.84 Since, therefore, the phrase is apparently equally appropriate for honouring an emperor or a church dignitary, its use here provides no clue to the people being acclaimed.
V.59 78.i and ii were painted on tall rectangular blocks, perhaps doorposts. Very little can be made of 78.ii; but 78.i apparently includes the standard acclamatory formulae, νικᾷ ἡ τύχη, the fortune (of x) wins and εἰς αἰῶνα (x) for ever. Both are among the most widespread and long established of such formulae. The second part of this text should perhaps be restored to readεἰς αἰῶνα ἡ λαμπρὰ or σεμνὴ γερουσία, followed by a further qualification: The (distinguished) gerousia for ever! This might be the city gerousia — an institution which ceases to be attested during the fourth century — or a smaller unit within the city, such as the gerousiae of various sections of the city of Side which honoured Bryonianus Lollianus and his family in the Tetrarchic period.85 If this is the correct reading, we should perhaps assume a fourth- or even third-century date, rather than fifth to sixth century; but we know so little at present about such organisations in the late Roman period that this must remain uncertain.
V.60 Text 79 is apparently an acclamation for an individual, whose name is most easily restored as Scholast[icius; it therefore falls in the same category as 55 and 89, as a single inscription using an acclamatory formula, and so not necessarily part of a series. Unlike those texts, however, it is inscribed, not on a base, but on an architectural element (for another text similarly placed on a capital, see 109). Scholasticius was perhaps a donor to the building from which this capital came. The use of Latin is very rare at Aphrodisias (apart from the Edicts, see II.16) and the script is therefore not helpful in assigning a date; but a Latin inscription would probably not be later than the mid fifth century, and might well be fourth century.
V.61 Text 80, in contrast to 79, is an acclamation for a group. σελλοφόρος is not otherwise attested, but is probably a synonym for διφροφόρος, given in the glossaries as a translation of the Latin sellarius, bearer of a litter or chair (Corp. Gloss. Lat. ii, 219.21, 593.9). The transliteration of sella was in use in the Greek of the late Roman period (LSJ s.v.). This group, therefore, seems to be the professional association of litter-bearers. It is not clear where their inscription originally stood — it appears to be re-used in its present position — but they might have had a central meeting point, something like the modern taxi-rank, in the Agora.
|1||Hellenica 4, 115-26.|
|2||The fundamental work on analysing and assembling these elements was done by K. Asmus in two articles, BZ 18 (1909), 424-80, and 19 (1910), 264-84, and in his translation, Das Leben des Philosophen Isidoros von Damaskios (Leipzig, 1911); the text used here is that published by C. Zintzen, Damascii Vitae Isidori Reliquiae (Hildesheim, 1967). The most recent examination of the fragments and their relationship is that of Polymnia Athanassiadi, The Philosophical History (Athens, 1999), cited here as Ath.|
|3||Edited most recently by M. A. Kugener, PO II.1 (1904), with a French translation, on which my English versions are based, and Greek transliteration of significant terms. Unfortunately Zintzen, in his edition of Damascius, referred only to the earlier edition of this text by Nau, ROC 4 (1899) and 4 (1900), and not to the further work of Robert in Hellenica 4.|
|4||The date of their stay can be deduced from the fact that in 491, when Peter the Iberian died, Zacharias was in his second year as a law student in Beirut, Kugener, ROC 5 (1900), 205-6; for the date of Peter's death, P. Devos, AB 86 (1968), 347-50.|
|5||On the conversion of Paralius see Haas, Alexandria, 187.|
|6||On such exemptions see Jones, LRE, 536-7, 744.|
|7||Hellenica 4, 118.|
|8||L. di Segni, The Greek inscriptions of Hammat Gader in Y. Hirschfeld, The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader (Jerusalem, 1997), 185-237, nos. 52 and 53.|
|9||K. T. Erim, TurkArkDerg 21. 1 (1974), 40; 22.2 (1975), 75 — 6; Aphrodisias, 92.|
|10||Damascius Epit. 139, Ath. 96.B.|
|11||See Robert, BCH 101 (1977), 87 and n. 74, and the description of an unnamed philosopher at Damascius, Frag. 38, Ath. 21.|
|12||Asmus, Leben (cited above), 79; PLRE II, Patricius 7; Damascius, Epit. 132, Frag. 213, Ath. 88.A, with ?214, Ath. 7.C.|
|13||Zacharias 17; Robert, Hellenica 4, 126 n. 6.|
|14||See, for example. Robert, Hellenica 4, 115 n. 4, on 53, v. 1.|
|15||So Hellenica 13, 171; for the reference to Olympus cf. Damascius Frag. 202, Ath. 86.A.|
|16||Damascius, Epit. 116 — 17, Ath. 81-82.A, analysed by L. Robert: BCH 101 (1977), republished as Documents d'Asie Mineure (Paris, 1987), I, 86-8.|
|17||On lllus' and his supporters' pagan connections see R. Asmus, BZ 22 (1913), 320-47; P. Chuvin, Chronicle of the Last Pagans (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 96-100.|
|19||Smith (1990), 128-130.|
|20||See Haas, Alexandria, 327-9.|
|23||de Solla Price (1969); see also the further observations of J. V. Field and M. T. Wright in their publication of another such sundial, Annals of Science 42 (1985), 87 — 138.|
|24||K. T. Erim in AnatSt 35 (1985), l78-9, and 36 (1986), 180 -1.|
|25||Zacharias 39; for the title see IV.22.|
|26||Haas, Alexandria, 169, 214|
|27||Thaumata, PG 87, 3379-3676; ed. N. F. Marcos (Madrid, 1975) with discussion in Spanish.|
|28||For Caria, see La Carie, Index s.v; for Aphrodisias, MAMA 8, 492, 528; I. Didyma 92.|
|29||Jones, LRE, 529.|
|30||Bury, HLRE, 34 n. 3; cf. Besevliev no. 87; see further at VI.26.|
|31||Jones, LRE, 554.|
|32||Damascius Frag. 140, Ath. 96.E.|
|33||Feissel (1991), 374.|
|34||Ath, p. 235, note 252.|
|35||A graffito from the Letoon, RA (1976), 336.|
|36||Common in the papyri by the sixth and seventh centuries, Hornickel, Rangprädikate, 29-3.|
|37||Chron. anon. ad 846 pertinens, ed. E. W. Brooks and J-B. Chabot, CSCO III (1903), 227.|
|38||Honigmann, Évêques, 123 n. 4.|
|39||Chron. 154. 9, τοῦ Καρίας ποτὲ ἐπισκόπου. ἔπειτα δὲ Ἁλικαρνάσσου, with Honigmann, Évêques, 125.|
|40||Στηλή, Festschrift Kontoleon (Athens, 1977), 13 — 20; REG 94 (1981), 348-61.|
|41||Introduction to P. Magdalino ed., New Constantines (Aldershot, 1994), 3.|
|42||ACO iii, 181.32; cf. in 518, νικᾷ ἡ πίστις τῶν ὀρθοδόξων, ACO iii. 72.10.|
|43||ed. F. Nau, PO 8 (1912), cap. 21, 68-9, and cap. 32, 75.|
|44||Nés dans la poupre, TM 12 (1994), 105-142, 108-111; cf. Dagron, Empereur et prêtre (Paris, 1996), 47-8.|
|45||See the examples in Roueché (1979), 116-9, and 42, 43, 68, 69, 238.|
|46||Roueché (1984), 197.|
|47||Roueché, PPA 145-6.|
|48||Hellenica 4,14 and 148 — 9.|
|49||Feissel (1998), especially 102-103.|
|50||Roueché (1979), 175 n. 7|
|51||A. Chastagnol and N. Duval, Mélanges Seston (Paris, 1974), 87 — 118.|
|52||Nov. 149; see Jones, LRE, 766.|
|53||Hellenica 4, 13 ff.|
|54||See Hellenica 4, 104 on the term.|
|55||H. von Gaetringen commented on this as a mark of cultural purism in a fourth-century inscription, IG IV2, 438.|
|56||For other examples of work of this kind, and for flood problems at the mouth of the Maeander, see the references at BE 1980.460.|
|57||Feissel (1991), 373.|
|58||See PPA nos. 1.1.iii, 2-10, 46.|
|59||See C. Roueché, Provincial governors and their titulature in the sixth century, Antiquité Tardive 6 (1998), 83-9, 84.|
|60||Jones, LRE, 510 — 12; cf. P. Petit, Les Etudiants de Libanius (Paris, 1956). 180-1, showing how this was a preferred career for ambitious men of relatively humble origins.|
|61||See Jones, LRE, 512-13.|
|62||F. S. Pedersen, Late Roman Public Professionalism (Odense, 1976)|
|63||Hornickel, Rangprädikate, 15-16.|
|64||P. Koch, Die byzantinischen Beamtentitel von 400 bis 700 (Jena, 1903), 74 f.|
|65||Eresos: A. Orlandos in AD 12 (1929), 39-41, nos. 2, 3,6 and 7; Sardis: J. H. Kroll, The Greek inscriptions of the Sardis Synagogue, HTR 94 (2001), p. 12.|
|66||I.Eph. 1320; cf. also V. Nutton, PBSR 37 (1969), 98-9, for other examples.|
|67||Hellenica 4, 76.|
|68||For a typology of such boards, see R. Bell and C. Roueché, in a forthcoming article.|
|70||See the large collection by M. Ihm, Bonner Studien . . . R. Kekule . . . gewidmet (Berlin, 1890), 223 — 39, and in MDAIRA 6 (1891), 208 — 20; there is a selection at ILS 8626 and 9453)|
|71||Lusoria tabula, RE 13 (1927), 1900 — 2029, esp. 2008-11.|
|72||Greece and Rome 4.10 (1934), 32-3.|
|73||A History of Board Games (London, 1952), 30-1.|
|74||ZPapEpig 28 (1978), 49-50, publishing the inscription now republished as I. Eph. 556.|
|75||See Palme (1999), 102 and note 92.|
|76||Palme (1999), 119; Liebeschuetz (2001), 280.|
|77||See Hornickel, Rangprädikate, s.v.; W. Ensslin, art. Praefectus Praetorio, RE XXII (1954), 2443-4|
|78||Jones, LRE, 731; Claude, Byzantinische Stadt, 156.|
|79||Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale a Byzance (Paris, 1977), 380-409, especially the table of building costs, 398-9, including this example, which she assumes to be the gift of a governor.|
|80||See Roueché (1984); for acclamations from other sites, C. Roueché, Enter your city! A new acclamation from Ephesos in Steine und Wege, Festschrift Dieter Knibbe, ed. P. Scherrer et al. (Vienna, 1999), 131-6; Looking for Late Antique Ceremonial: Ephesos and Aphrodisias in H. Friesinger — F. Krinzinger edd., 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos (Vienna, 1999), 161-8; Michael Ballance and C. Roueché, Three inscriptions from Ovacik, Appendix 2 , in Martin Harrison, Mountain and Plain: From the Lycian Coast to the Phrygian Plateau in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Period (University of Michigan, 2001), 87-112.|
|81||For which see PPA.|
|82||On all this see R. Cormack (1991), 109-122.|
|83||Hornickel, Rangprädikate, 28-9.|
|84||R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine2 (Paris, 1964), 270, with bibliography; ACO iii.85.|
|85||I.Side II, nos. 105-110 and p. 403.|
(c) Creative Commons Copyright by-nc-nd-2.0
[Close Print-Friendly Version]