Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity 2004
[Close Print-Friendly Version]
81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91
VI.1 The chronological presentation of the late Roman material from Aphrodisias becomes steadily more imprecise over this period. This is partly because of the increasing use of metrical inscriptions, which convey very little factual information, and partly because of the increased activity of private citizens, whose inscriptions are less easy to date than those naming government officials. Of the inscriptions presented in the preceding section, 61 may well be dated to the reign of Maurice and some or all of 62 ff. may date from after the accession of Justinian in 527 ; and of the inscriptions presented in this section, only text 91 can be certainly dated, to some time after 539: see VI.42. Two funerary inscriptions (157 and 164) are specifically dated under Justinian, and some of the other private and ecclesiastical inscriptions presented below may well date from the sixth or seventh centuries; but not enough inscriptions can be definitely dated to provide a solid framework for discussing the history of Aphrodisias during this crucial period of transition. The uncertainty over dating makes it difficult to be sure even about the reduction in the number of inscriptions; but there are no public, secular inscriptions from the city which it appears possible to date later than 91, if that is correctly dated to the seventh century.
VI.2 The evidence which has been presented above from the later fifth and early sixth century, even though it cannot all be dated with precision, nevertheless combines to give a general picture of a prosperous community, where both civic officials and private individuals were spending money on public amenities. The evidence from other sources suggests that this prosperity extended well into the reign of Justinian. In his administrative reforms, Justinian in 535 abolished the vicariate of Asiana (Nov. 8; see discussion at V.33). He followed this up in 536 by creating an office of quaestor exercitus, with authority over the two frontier provinces of Moesia Secunda and Scythia, as well as the provinces of the Islands, Caria and Cyprus (Nov. 51). This arrangement, which was not particularly convenient for the citizens of these provinces (see the modifications to Nov. 51, dated 537), was specifically intended, as Lydus tells us, to ensure that the frontier forces could be directly supplied from provinces which were both easily accessible by sea and particularly prosperous: ἀφορίσας αὐτῷ (the quaestor exercitus) ἐπαρχίας τρεῖς τὰς πασῶν ἐγγὺς εὐπορωτάτας (De Mag. 2. 29). The implication is that Caria was remarkably prosperous at this period, and furthermore was considered a maritime province; and this may have been reflected in a shift in importance at about this time from the cities of the interior, such as Aphrodisias, to those of the coast. Already in the reign of Anastasius the governor of Caria had been repairing roads in the area of Halicarnassus (see List of Governors). At some time in this period Vitianus, governor of Caria, repaired a dyke at Miletus (see List of Governors); and the only definitely identified governor of Caria who can be dated to the reign of Justinian is Nonnus, attested at Miletus (List of Governors). Such a shift in emphasis foreshadows the situation in the Byzantine period (see further discussion at VI.55).
VI.3 During the reign of Justinian, however, there is evidence to show that not only Caria but also Aphrodisias itself was remarkably flourishing. In 529 Justinian issued a law ordering that once interest payments on a debt had reached twice the value of the original sum, the debt was to be considered cancelled (CJ 4. 32. 27). Justinian's Novel 160 deals with the effects of this law; it is undated, but was probably issued not more than a year or two later. It was written in response to an appeal from the property owners of Aphrodisias, represented by the pater civitatis, Aristocrates — Ἀριστοκράτης ὁ ἐλλογιμώτατος πατὴρ τῆς Ἀφροδισιέων πόλεως καὶ οἱ κατ' αὐτὴν κεκτημένοι. Aristocrates' rank of ἐλλογιμώτατος suggests that he was a scholasticus, as were the other patres, Fl. Ampelius and Fl. Photius (see List of Officials). Aristocrates had written to explain that the city owned a considerable sum of money from gifts or bequests (πρεσβεῖα), which had been lent out to influential citizens, who made a regular annual payment to the city for the use of the money: χρυσίον συχνὸν ἠθροῖσθαι τῇ πόλει ἐκ πρεσβείων καταλελειμμένων παρά τινων τῇ Αφροδισιέων πόλει, καὶ ὅπως ἂν μὴ τοῦτο ἐξαπόλοιτο, τινὰς τῶν ἐν δυνάμει τῆς πόλεως νείμασθαι τὸ χρυσίον τοῦτο ἐφ' ᾧ τε ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τῇ πόλει συντελεῖν ἔτους ἑκάστου . . . ὃ προσῆκόν ἐστι φέρεσθαι τῇ πόλει. The holders of this money were now claiming that this arrangement constituted a loan, and that under the new legislation, once they had paid out twice its value to the city, the principal became their own. Justinian ruled that this sort of arrangement was not an ordinary loan, and did not come under the new law. Aphrodisias' substantial endowments may indeed have been unusual, since the new law included no provision for such arrangements, which had been commonplace in the Roman period.1 What is clear is that in the early 530s Aphrodisias had a significant private income from gifts and bequests, sufficient to maintain important public services; Aristocrates stated that the loss of this money was preventing the heating of the public baths, and other public works: ἀδικεῖσθαι μὲν τὰς ἐκπυρώσεις τῶν δημοσίων βαλανείων τὰς ἐντεῦθεν γινομένας, ἐλαττοῦσθαι δὲ τὰ ἔργα τὰ δημόσια. This accords well with the evidence of the inscriptions presented above, which show individual citizens undertaking a variety of public works for the city, and in one case making a gift of money for the maintenance of the baths (74); it also helps to explain the frequent attestation of patres civitatis at Aphrodisias, acting with public money to restore and embellish monuments (38, 42, 43, 44, 61, 85, 86, 87) even to the extent of erecting statues (62) or public gameboards (68, 69, 238).
VI.4 This evidence for the prosperity of the city, and the persistence into the sixth century of old-fashioned munificence, makes it even harder to explain why the sixth century apparently saw the last public secular inscriptions on the site, and the end of civic life in its traditional form. This is discussed further below; but underlying problems may be indicated by the suggestion in Aristocrates' letter to Justinian that some at least of the influential citizens — οἱ ἐν δυνάμει — were already prepared to further their own interests in direct conflict with those of the city.
VI.5 It is not possible to restore with absolute certainty the name of the emperor honoured in text 81. His cognomen ended in -nus; and the positioning of the letters suggests that l. 5 probably contained some 12 letters. This would rule out Constantine (too long), Marcian or Justin (too short); Julian (preceded by Cl.) would fill the space, but his name has been erased elsewhere at Aphrodisias (19, 20); Valentinian is probably also too long; Justinian's name fits the space perfectly. The difficulties of dating scripts at this period are yet again shown here, where the script seems equally appropriate to the fourth or the sixth century. The elegant appearance of the text might suggest an earlier rather than a later date, and there is certainly a great contrast between this text and some others which we have dated to the later fifth or early sixth century (e.g. 62 and 65 from the Theatre area, both honouring officials). But the contrast is no greater than that between 85 and 86 and 87, all of which honour the same man, probably in the first half of the sixth century (see below). The script gives an indication of date only in l. 1: the lunate epsilon and sigma contrast oddly with the square letters below, and beta, with its two distinctly separate bowls, seems to be a late development: its earliest appearance at Aphrodisias is probably in 62, 73, 82 and 83, which have all been dated to the later fifth or sixth centuries. I therefore suggest that an attribution to Justinian, while not beyond doubt, is most probable. The epithets are too standard to be significant: for Justinian described as ὁ εὐσεβέστατος καὶ καλλίνικος ἡμῶν βασιλεύς see IGLS 1809.
VI.6 Inscriptions 82 and the 19 texts presented as 83 honour a man called Albinus; 82 was inscribed apparently on the base of a statue, and no 83 comprises a group of acclamations in his honour. Despite, however, having found so many, and such remarkable, inscriptions, we cannot determine a great deal about him. His name is not otherwise found at Aphrodisias, and is more usual in the Latin west than in the Greek east (thus all the Albini in PLRE are from the west). If the inscrutable ΠΕΡΔΕ in 83.vi and x is in fact the vocative of another name, Perdus, it is not otherwise attested as such. Albinus is clearly a citizen of Aphrodisias, since he is described as φιλόπατρις, lover of his country (82, 83. vii, xvii and xix; for the epithet, see further VI.16) he apparently came from a family of local benefactors, ἐκ προγόνων φιλόπατρις (83.xvii — compare e.g. φιλόπατριν διὰ προγόνων, in an inscription of the first or early second century at Aphrodisias, Reinach 39; cf. also MAMA 8, 484). He is honoured in 82 for his works (for ἀμειβομένη see Index), and for benefactions of untold gold; this probably means direct cash gifts, as in the case of Hermias (74), and as cited in the Novel of Justinian addressed to Aphrodisias (see VI.3). 83 is concerned with one particular benefaction — Albinus' foundation, κτίσις of the western portico of the South Agora, on whose columns these texts are inscribed (83. vi and xv); it is implied that he was also responsible for other κτίσματα (83. viii and xix, cf. καὶ τούτου in 83. xv).
VI.7 These references give us an interesting insight into the uses of the terms founder and foundations, derivatives of κτίζω.2 The portico to which 83. vi refers was originally built in the imperial period.3 It was clearly an important area in the late Roman period; among others, the statues of Arcadius and Valentinian stood in this portico (see above, 26 and 27). The southern portico of the South Agora was apparently built in the late fifth or early sixth century; 66 describes Philip, son of Herodian, as having paid for the work on of two intercolumniations, which suggests that several donors were needed to pay for the building. The resultant work was not impressive: the columns stand on a series of re-used and unmatched bases of irregular height, creating a very untidy appearance.4 By contrast, the restoration of the western portico seems to have been paid for entirely by one man, Albinus, and the work is far more elegant: all the column bases are identical, and the overall effect is entirely uniform. Whether this is the result of Albinus' lavish expenditure, or whether the western portico had simply required less repair, the inscriptions imply that at this period donations were being made, not just by a few very rich men, but on a varying scale of magnitudes; and the epithet κτίστης, founder, applied to Albinus, is not so much an exaggerated claim for what was in fact restoration, as a recognition of his particularly high standing in the scale of donors.
VI.8 It seems economical to associate Albinus' work in the western portico of the South Agora with that of Philip in the southern portico, which should probably be dated to the later fifth or early sixth century (see V.42). Other evidence, though slight, supports such a date for these texts. The epithet φιλόπατρις, while common in the imperial period (see above), is otherwise found only among the late Roman inscriptions in 86 and 87; and the unusual verb ληθαργέω and its derivatives are only found here in 83.xx, and again in 86 and 87. Those two texts honour Rhodopaeus, another benefactor of Aphrodisias who, I believe, should be dated to the early or middle sixth century (see VI.26). There are also slight parallels in 83.viii and a striking parallel in 83.xx to inscriptions found at Beirut, honouring Marthanius, a military commander in the reign of Justinian.5 for the parallels see VI.17, VI.24). A sixth-century date would accord well with the odder elements of the script, such as the cursive delta and mu.
VI.9 Furthermore, the use of Albinus' rank of λαμπρότατος/clarissimus (83. ix, xiii, xvi, xvii, xx) in 83. xiii, which appears to be a request for him to be made a senator, implies that he is not yet a member of the senate; that he can hold the rank of clarissimus without being a member of the senate, suggests a date after the mid fifth century.6 The presentation of this request perhaps provides the real purpose of these acclamations, but their ostensible function is to celebrate Albinus' work on the portico. It may be that the fragmentary acclamations in 61 record acclamations made at a ceremony dedicating a new or restored building; and I believe that that is the most likely source for the acclamations of Albinus, which would have been made at the inauguration ceremony for the newly restored portico. It is therefore of particular interest to find such a ceremonial activity including a specific request. Since these acclamations were normally expected to be reported to the imperial authorities,7 the request for Albinus' promotion would reach the appropriate quarters, supported by the praises in the acclamations, underlining his suitability for the Senate.8
VI.10 These inscriptions therefore reinforce the evidence for considerable generosity by private donors at Aphrodisias in the later fifth and early sixth centuries (illustrated here and in section V). They also suggest a political context for such activity; not only does Albinus seem to have been one of the more lavish donors, but the acclamation calling for the overthrow of his enemies (83. xi) hints at some kind of tension between different groups in the city. Such tension may well have been between prominent citizens vying for pre-eminence (it is perhaps implicit in the existence of the supporters of Pytheas, above, 59), and may even have become sufficiently important to be described as civil strife (64). A competitive atmosphere would help to explain the surprising extent of secular benefactions attested at Aphrodisias in this period.
VI.11 Texts 83 and 84 also make an important contribution to our understanding of the nature and the development of acclamations.9 They conform closely to other series of acclamations from all over the Greek east and even beyond, both in individual phrases and in general structure. To begin with, their syllabic structure is typical of such texts. Since the analysis by Paul Maas of acclamations recorded in the Hippodrome at Constantinople under Justinian, it has been recognized that late Roman acclamations followed a metrical structure, based on the number of syllables in a phrase and their accentuation, rather than on vowel-length.10 The structure provided a rhythmical framework within which acclamations could be developed and improvised; and it has been convincingly argued that this widespread familiarity with the use of syllabic rhythm is a precursor of the development of Byzantine syllabic verse-forms.11
VI.12 In considering the structure of the acclamations for Albinus, I was greatly helped by Professor Margaret Alexiou. Of the acclamations listed under 83, ii-v are standard formulae; i is another standard formula, expanded to produce a ten-syllable line. Of the remaining texts that can be analysed, vi, vii, x, xiii and xv form twelve-syllable lines, and viii, xvi and xix are composed of a twelve-syllable line followed by a seven-syllable phrase — in each case, Albine with an epithet. Of the five other texts, xi is composed of two eight- and one ten-syllable groups; the surviving phrase of xiv is of eight syllables; xvii consists of two eight- and one seven-syllable groups. xviii is partially restored, to provide two seven-syllable groups; xx, which is the most complex, appears to break down into a phrase of fourteen or fifteen syllables (depending on elision), one of twelve syllables, and one of five. Of all these groups, half have a paroxytone ending. The most common structure in these texts is, therefore, a grouping of twelve syllables — most of which make reasonable dodecasyllabic lines — or of groups of eight and seven syllables, which Maas showed to be the most common arrangement in the acclamations recorded at Constantinople, and which can be seen as underlying the later 'political verse' of fifteen syllables.
VI.13 The arrangement of these inscriptions also follows closely what we know of series of acclamations elsewhere. Thus 83. i — v are typical of the opening acclamations of an assembly. Εἷς θεός is an ancient acclamation found frequently on its own (as in 140) but also often at the beginning of a series of acclamations;12 for example, in the acclamations of the anti-Nestorian crowd at Constantinople in 431;13 at the church assembly at Edessa in 449;14 at the Council of Chalcedon in 451,15 and at the pro-Chalcedonian gathering at Tyre in 518.16 The use of this phrase as an introductory formula indicates, as Mouterde pointed out in his review of Peterson, that Peterson's interpretation of it as primarily apotropaic is not sufficient.17 In such a context it clearly asserts the right belief of an assembly, just as the acclamations of the secular authorities that follow assert its loyalty. The phrase used here, to or for the whole world, is unparalleled, although it echoes some New Testament language: here it perhaps stresses the adherence of this assembly to the catholic, empire-wide faith of Chalcedon — an assertion which might be necessary at Aphrodisias, with its history of monophysitism and schism (see V.25, and below, VI.37).
VI.14 83.ii — v are paralleled in secular and ecclesiastical contexts. The assembly at Tyre acclaimed the emperor and empress, the senate, and the eparchs, in that order;18 similarly, the meeting at Edessa acclaimed the hyparchs.19 The eparchs/hyparchs are almost certainly the praetorian and city prefects, as in the acclamations at Antioch in 388;20 they are perhaps acclaimed as representing the imperial administration as a whole, including, implicitly, the governor of Caria. Acclamations of cities are found elsewhere;21 the simplest formula for acclaiming one's city is that found in 84 (cf. also [PPA 10], 186. ii).
VI.15 The remaining texts, with the possible exception of xiv, all acclaim Albinus, and the phrasing, as well as the ideas expressed, becomes steadily more complex; this probably reflects the practicalities of acclaiming, where simple and familiar phrases are used to establish unison, before introducing less familiar expressions. Thus the first acclamation of Albinus (vi) is the most simple; and it is restated in similar terms in xv, offering an interruption to the less standard acclamations. Both vi, xiii and xv use one of the most standard of all acclamatory formulae, αὔξι.22 ΠΕΡΔΕ here and in x, if not a name (see VI.6 above), could be a transliteration: T. D. Barnes has suggested Per te and C. P. Jones Perde in the sense of spend extravagantly.23 Such transliterations, as Jones points out, are well attested among acclamations.24 A. C. Dionisotti suggests an abbreviated form of περιίδε in the sense look around.25 R. W. Daniel proposed a derivation from πέρδομαι but his literary parallels are not entirely convincing.26 Although I remain uncertain, it would perhaps be easier to accommodate an epithet (or a name) than a verb in these acclamations.
VI.16 83.vii addresses Albinus as φιλόπατρις, as in 82 and 83. xvii and 83.xix, an epithet otherwise used only of Rhodopaeus in the late Roman inscriptions of Aphrodisias (86 and 87; see above, VI.8). The term is common in the Roman period (see above) and is one which we know to have been assigned by acclamation.27 Διαμένειν is another standard acclamatory term;28 Jones rightly points out that the translation must be remain, endure, to our benefit, rather than remain with us (as I had suggested).
VI.17 The next text, 83. viii, returns to the theme of Albinus' κτίσματα (see VI.7). Φιλοκτίστης is a characteristic term of praise for late Roman benefactors, used most notably of Justinian in a series of brick-stamps found at Mesembria.29 It occurs in an acclamatory formula on a mosaic found near Sidon: Λεοντίου φιλοκτίστου πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη.30 The idea of a man's good works as an eternal memorial is ancient, but ὑπόμνησις is not a standard term; the word may have been chosen for its rhythm. For the phrase as a whole, compare the fragmentary acclamation of Marthanius at Beirut, which should perhaps be restored as: Μαρθανίου στρατηλάτου πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη τὰ σὰ κτίσματα αἰωνία ὑπόμνησις.31
VI.18 83.x is again difficult. ΠΕΡΔΕ has been discussed above. For ΙΔΕ, Professor M. Alexiou suggested a spelling of ἴδε, behold; alternatively, Jones suggests a transliteration of ede, give: for the absolute use of the verb, he cites OLD ,32 and for its use in acclamations, the remarkable mosaic from Smirat.33 The latter explanation is very attractive, but is difficult to accommodate within the phrase as a whole. R. W. Daniels proposes reading ἠδἀ ἔτι.34
VI.19 83.xi is composed of standard acclamatory phrases. The reference to the whole city here and again in 83.xx is paralleled, for example, in the acclamations from Edessa in 449: ὄλη ἡ πόλις τοῦτο βοᾷ;35 this kind of assertion of the unanimity of an acclaiming assembly is very common, and is particularly relevant here in an acclamation rejecting Albinus' enemies (for the implications of which see VI.10).36 For the expression the city says, Feissel compares the Apameans say in an acclamation from Apamea.37 The next phrase, your enemies to the river, is in a construction standard for acclamations, with a dative of direction/recipient, and no verb; compare 83.xiii, or, for example, ἄλλος ἐπίσκοπος τῇ μητροπόλει.38 The expression to the river has no particular local relevance, but would appear to be an ancient abusive acclamation. The most famous examples of such a phrase are known from Rome, used of a series of unpopular characters.39 That the idea remained current is suggested by the shouts of the crowd at Constantinople in 433 against the Nestorians, Throw them into the Tigris and the Rhone — rivers presumably chosen to express the whole extent of the Empire.40 The last phrase in this text is again standard: thus a virtually identical phrase was used by the church assembly at Tyre in 518 — ὁ μέγας θεὸς τοῦτο παράσχεν,41 and a similar one by a crowd at Antioch in 484 — 'μέγας ὁ Θεός' καὶ 'Κύριε ἐλέησον, τὸ καλὸν καὶ το συμφέρον παράσχου'.42
VI.20 83.xiii contains a specific request, again in the standard construction with the dative described above: Albinus to the Senate. For the implications of this request discussion at VI.9; cf. the observations of Jones, LRE, 523-4.
VI.21 83.xiv is an adjuration against φθόνος, a word normally translated as envy, but having something of the sense of 'the Evil Eye', a malign occult power particularly likely to threaten success.43 Adjurations against φθόνος are a commonplace in the late Roman period, and are reported among acclamatory formulae — thus, at the Council of Chalcedon, ἀπείη φθόνος τῆς ὑμῶν βασιλείας.44 As L. Robert has pointed out, they are particularly often inscribed on buildings, especially at the entrance and on the lintel, apparently to avert φθόνος from the buildings themselves and from those responsible for them — what he called an épigraphie des linteaux.45 Such inscriptions are regularly expressed in acclamatory formulae;46 a typical example is provided by an inscription from Isauria, emended by Robert to read: κτίστα, σε φθόνος οὐ νικήσι .47 It is very likely that here in 83. xiv there was a preceding line on the lost upper section of the column, and that this addressed Albinus (as in 83.vi, 83.xiii and 83.xv); if so, the construction will have been similar to that of the text from Isauria. The τύχη, therefore, which φθόνος cannot overcome, is probably Albinus' own fortune, perhaps personified in the little figure under the inscription, But the frequency of such adjurations in building inscriptions suggests that protection is sought both for the donor and for his works, the buildings themselves; and acclamations or this kind would be particularly appropriate at a ceremony of dedication, such as I believe was the occasion for these and other inscribed acclamations.48
VI.22 83.xvi expresses an ancient commonplace that the generous man, who does not cling to his money, will obtain glory; the same idea is almost certainly to be found in 39. The survival of the idea into the Christian period, when in theory the reward of generosity was to be expected in the next world rather than this, is attested by an epigram, probably of the fifth or sixth century, found at Stratonicea;49 it is on the base of an honorific statue erected in front of a church to honour Maximus, a local benefactor, whose honours are said to show that it is good not to be concerned with possessions, ὡς ἀγαθὸν τελέθει μὴ κτεάνων ἀλέγειν, a lack of concern which Maximus had demonstrated by his many gifts (πολλὰ χαριζόμενον) to his city. The thought is precisely the same as that expressed here (for another similarity, see below, VI.24). The reference to Albinus' ancestral tradition of patriotism in 83. xvii has been discussed at VI.6. The second part of the text uses another standard acclamatory formula found among the acclamations at Chalcedon for the emperors — φιλοχρίστοι, ἄφθονα ὑμῖν — and also among acclamations for a donor in a group of painted inscriptions from the Negev Καλῶς ἔκτισεν. Κύριε βοήθησι. ἄφθονα καὶ ἀβάσκαντα τῷ οἴκῳ σου.50 There are clearly echoes of the rejection of φθόνος in 83. xiv; ἄφθονα can have its normal sense of plenty, wealth, but it is plenty free from the shadow of accompanying envy.
VI.23 83. xviii is inscribed on a surface which has been abraded at the left. If the text occupied roughly the same space as the others, it will have lost three to six letters at the beginning of each line. The surviving text appears to mean: Providing [ . . . . ] for (the) city, [ . . . .?in] this, he is acclaimed. The first lacuna requires a word for what Albinus has given, and I have tentatively conjectured κτίσμα. The second apparently requires a preposition to govern the dative, τούτῳ; if ἐν is right, the sense is you are acclaimed in the building which you have given, which would fit my suggestion that these acclamations were pronounced in or near the portico at its dedication; or perhaps we should supply a preposition such as ἐπί, to give the sense for this (action) you are acclaimed. Alternatively, we should perhaps read οὕτως, thus.
VI.24 83.xix returns to the theme of buildings, κτίσματα; by these Albinus has made the city splendid, ἐφαιδρύνας. The idea is entirely conventional. By contrast, 83. xx is difficult to parallel. The opening phrase recalls 83. xi, and again stresses the unanimity of those acclaiming (see VI.19). This formula is perhaps considered necessary in introducing a particularly extravagant or debatable statement: in 83.xi, the rejection of Albinus' enemies, and here, the claim that the man who forgets Albinus does not know God. The word for forget is the unusual ληθαργεῖν (see VI.8). I have found the sentiment paralleled in one other acclamation, inscribed at Beirut in honour of Marthanius (mentioned at VI.8, VI.17). The text has been published only in capitals, in a footnote, by C. Ghadban: Μαρθανίου στρατηλάτου πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη ΟΣΙΟΥΛΑΝΘΑΝΝΩΝ ΘΕΟΝΟΥΚΕΧΙ cross.51 In the light of our inscription, I would interpret the last two lines as ὁ σ<ι>ου λανθάννων θεὸν οὐκ ἔχι, the man who forgets you does not have God. The iota in ΟΣΙΟΥ could easily be an error. The use of λανθάνω in the active to mean forget is irregular, but not unknown; it is so used in later Greek, and earlier usage implies this meaning.52 The expression in both cases still seems extraordinarily extravagant. Another possible echo is in the inscription from Stratonicea honouring Maximus (cited at VI.22); his name is inscribed in the left-hand margin of the epigram, and above the text in the position of a title is inscribed the word θεός (followed by the letters ΗΛΟΥ, but in what Cousin considered to be an entirely different hand).
VI.25 There is a small figure, perhaps representing Albinus, cut below this inscription (as below 83. xiv). It is accompanied by its own legend, πάπα, possibly to be taken as father. If so, the reference might well be to Albinus as father of the city (see IV.23). 84 is cut lower down on the same column; it is in a shallower hand, and is perhaps a later addition. For the acclamation, which is common at all periods, see (PPA 10), and cf. 186. ii.
VI.26 Texts 85, 86 and 87 were assembled and discussed by L. Robert (Hellenica 4, 127 — 32). Rhodopaeus, the man honoured in all three, has a name not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias (although for Rhodopianus, a local Christian martyr, see II.20). He is given the rank μεγαλοπρεπέστατος/magnificentissimus (87, l.2). The only references to his offices are in 85, where πάτερ (v. 3) suggests that he was pater civitatis , and in 86, which indicates that he held a magistracy for regulating the corn supply (σιταρχίαις l. 3; cf. σιτοδότην, 87, l.10); both of these are only local, civic offices. Magnificentissimus is used of other patres, but in contexts which cannot be closely dated.53 Like many other similar ranks, magnificentissimus, first reliably attested of a consul in 403, declined steadily in value as it became more and more common during the fifth and sixth centuries.54 It was still being used by imperial officials and men of senatorial status (such as Pytheas, 55) in the later fifth and early sixth centuries, but increasingly in conjunction with some other, more specific, rank. Its use here by a man who apparently held only local offices and no other rank suggests a date well into the sixth century.
VI.27 The first monument honouring Rhodopaeus was apparently put up while he was pater civitatis (85), and praises him in general terms. 85 and 86 were both found in the area of the Hadrianic Baths, and 86 and 87 both refer to his restoration of baths; the unusual periphrasis, ἀρχηγὸν τῆς φιλοτιμίας of Rhodopaeus' work in 87 probably indicates that he restored the baths in his capacity as pater — that is, he was responsible for the work, but it was partly or wholly paid for from civic funds (see the discussion of this at IV.23). The description in 87 of the Hadrianic Baths as Olympian, as Robert observed, reflects their dedication to the Emperor, the Olympian Gods, and Aphrodite.55 Libanius describes baths as constructed appropriately for summer or winter, open to the breezes or very sheltered.56 It is evident that some bathing complexes included both summer and winter sections — so at Gortyn, ὄ ἐστι δύο σχήματα τοῦ δημοσίου θερινοῦ καὶ χειμερινοῦ,57 and at Antioch, τῶν δημοσίων βαλανείων ἑκάτερον τὸ πρὸς τὰς ᾥρας διῃρημένον,58 perhaps also at Ancyra.59 It therefore appears that Rhodopaeus, acting as pater civitatis, supervised the restoration of the summer part of the Hadrianic baths, presumably a group of cool and airy rooms.
VI.28 Rhodopaeus' restoration of the baths is described as the renewal of forgotten pleasures (87, ll. 11 — 13). Τέρψις is widely used of the pleasures of the baths;60 in particular, as Robert pointed out, the same theme is used in the epigram, recording the restoration of baths at Miletus by a Hesychius, although Herrmann has dated this to the mid-fifth century, rather than identifying this man with the sixth century Hesychius Illustris.61 The rare verb ληθαργέω, forget, is used to balance ἀληθάργητος (87, l. 16, and 86, l.1;62 ); the verb is also used in one of the inscriptions acclaiming Albinus (83.xx) from about this period. Another parallel with a contemporary inscription is perhaps provided by ποθοῦσα (86, l.6). The same word is used at Ephesus, where a proconsul of Asia, Damocharis, was honoured by loving (ποθέοντες) provincials; this may well be the Damocharis who contributed to the Cycle of Agathias in the middle decades of the sixth century.63
VI.29 Rhodopaeus' other service to the city appears to have been as a magistrate in charge of food supplies; this is the probable sense of σιταρχίαις (86, l.3), more vaguely expressed as σιτοδότην (87. l.10). Such an office is not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias; nor is there any other indication of concern with food supplies since the wars of the late Republican period.64 These two references are therefore very striking; and the coupling of σιτοδότην with κτίστην in the odd phraseology of 87, ll.10-11 is apparently intended to stress the importance of this work. We know that the duty of assuring food levies could fall to the pater civitatis, καὶ οἱ πατέρες τῶν πόλεων καὶ πᾶς ἕτερος τῆς συνωνῆς προνοούμενος,65 or to a separate magistrate, the σιτώνης.66 The σιτώνης appears also to have been responsible for supervising the local food supply, and a novel issued in 545 indicates that the pater civitatis and the σιτώνης were the two most important local magistrates.67 The phrasing of the novel may well reflect the increased importance and difficulty of maintaining food supplies in the aftermath of the plague of 541/2. The appearance at Aphrodisias of the first evidence for 500 years of concern with the food supply is so remarkable, that it can reasonably be associated with the effects of this plague.
VI.30 The great plague broke out in 541/2, and recurred regularly throughout the second half of the sixth century.68 The reduction of the workforce produced a severe shortage of food — λιμός τις ἀκριβής — at Constantinople,69 and elsewhere, aggravated in succeeding years by famine from other causes.70 The situation in the provinces is demonstrated by the account in the life of St Nicholas of Sion, abbot of a monastery outside Myra in Lycia. When the plague reached Myra, causing many deaths, the farmers of the surrounding countryside — οἱ παρακειμένοι τῇ ἐνορίᾳ γεωργοί — refused to bring food into the city for fear of infection. The archbishop of Myra, the governor and the eminent citizens (πρωτεύοντες) believed that Nicholas was responsible for the farmers' refusal, but they were able to do very little about it, beyond sending envoys to rebuke him. There was also a shortage of food in the countryside, but Nicholas himself had ample supplies (τὴν περισσείαν οἀκ ὀλίγην οὖσαν) and was able to travel to a series of villages, distributing food.71 The implication seems to be, firstly, that the city was more seriously affected by the plague than the countryside, and, secondly, that the city authorities had difficulty in exercising control over the inhabitants of the countryside, supported by the presence of a monastery, and — no doubt, although this is not mentioned — by those local landowners who chose to live chiefly in the country rather than the city. The contrast is striking with the well-known passage in which Galen describes how, during famine conditions in the second century, the city-dwellers took the best of the crops from the peasants.72 The plague perhaps accentuated the shift of importance from the cities to rural establishments — villages, private estates and monasteries — which had been gathering momentum throughout the late Roman period, and which culminated in the collapse of traditional city life at the end of the sixth century.73
VI.31 It appears likely that Rhodopaeus, who had held the office of pater civitatis at Aphrodisias, subsequently held that of σιτώνης at some time in the mid-sixth century, and that his function may have been to cope with the effects of the plague and famine after 541/2. The phrase λοιμὸς καὶ λιμός (86, l.4) is a widespread literary cliché, but here it may have a more precise significance. But it is very hard to know whether we should see this as a contained event or one which encouraged the decline of civic life at Aphrodisias. There may be conclusions to draw from the style of the inscriptions. The first text honouring Rhodopaeus (85) is inscribed with remarkable care. 86 and 87, set up later, after he had exercised his responsibility for the food supply, are far less well cut. They are both in prose; 87 is quite carefully phrased, drawing heavily on 86, but 86 itself makes a very strange impression because, although in prose, it uses poetic language and phrasing to the extent that it is partly metrical (esp. lines 6 — 10). The effect is almost as if the writer had wished to write in verse, but was not fully capable of doing so. There is certainly ample evidence from Aphrodisias to illustrate how closely contemporary inscriptions of the late Roman period could be inscribed in strikingly different styles (see e.g. 55—58). But the contrast between the careful elegance of 85 and the rough appearance and odd prose of 86 and 87 perhaps reflects a loss in the intervening period of people competent to compose texts and inscribe them. If, however, the circumstances of these inscriptions have been correctly interpreted, it is perhaps more remarkable than any decline in the standard of inscriptions that, after pestilence and famine, the Aphrodisians were still willing and able to honour a prominent citizen with two more marble statues.
VI.32 The chief grounds for dating text 88 are the close similarities between the script of this text and that of 85, which suggest that they were both put up about the same time, probably in the first half of the sixth century. Furthermore, although the language of this text is entirely typical of such epigrams (e.g. εὐεργεσία, ἀμείβομαι), the phrasing of v. 1, ὧν δωρήσατο πάτρηι is remarkably close to that of 85, v. 1, τεῇ δώρησαο πάτρηι. Eugenius was therefore probably a contemporary of Rhodopaeus (for whose dates see discussion at VI.26). Eugenius, who was a local citizen (so πάτρηι), was honoured by the τάξις. Robert, in his original publication, took this to mean the local ordo, that is, the members of the city council. T. Drew-Bear argued that it refers to a governor's staff, officium, which is often expressed in Greek as τάξις.74 This would suggest that Eugenius was a governor, who happened to be a local citizen — as in the case of Vitianus, 65. But the discovery of 36, where I believe that φάλαγξ is used of the members of the provincial council of Caria, suggests to me that τάξις refers to the local class of councillors, honouring a local citizen; this then explains why his achievements are not described in greater detail or in the terminology conventionally used for officials.
VI.33 It is also not clear that the members of the officium constituted an official body which might undertake such an action. There are some dedications for example by beneficiarii acting as a group;75 at Ephesus various groups on the staff of the patrimonial procurator act as a group, and even refer to themselves as a collegium,76 but it is far more common to find such honours paid by individual officiales, such as Valerianus, in 40. Moreover, it is extremely risky to extrapolate from the pretetrarchic administration to that of late antiquity. If we accept this as a reference to activity by the officium, therefore, we need to reconsider the structure of the officium; it would reflect the serious importance of the officia of governors who, themselves, only served for a single year. See further the discussion at IV.5.
VI.34 For acclamatory inscriptions, similar to 89, for individual citizens see, of course, those for Albinus (83) and 55, 79. Theopompus is a name not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias. If the restoration πολιτευόμενος is correct,77 he was a member of the city council (see III.32). Σὺν Θεῷ, the restoration that accords best with the surviving traces in 1. 3. is often used to qualify an achievement or a benefaction;78 it is therefore possible that ΠΑ is the opening syllable of a description of work undertaken by Theopompus. e.g. πᾶσαν or πάντα. But σὺν Θεῷ is also sometimes used to qualify a title — so, at Ephesus, σὺν θεῷ ἀνθύπατος;79 this usage may be preferable because it is found at a neighbouring city, and if so, the only probable title would be pa[ter civitatis (see IV.23).
VI.35 Whichever restoration is accepted, Theopompus appears to have held only civic office, and no other rank; his designation in these circumstances as magnificentissimus indicates a date not before the middle decades of the sixth century (see discussion at VI.26 for the similar considerations over Rhodopaeus' use of this rank). The script differs from that of the other inscriptions presented in this chapter; the tall, slightly curved letters, and the squared tops to alpha and lambda resemble some aspects of later hands, and I would favour a date fairly late in the sixth century. If this text and 88 have been correctly interpreted and dated, the mention there of the curial ordo, and the description here of Theopompus as a member of the council, suggest that at Aphrodisias the traditional structure of government by the council continued well into the sixth century, despite evidence for its collapse in some other places.80
VI.36 The restorations of text 90 are far from certain. Θεοφιλέστατος is a standard epithet for bishops in the sixth and seventh centuries;81 its restoration seems obligatory here, although it creates a discrepancy in the apparent lengths of ll.1 and 2. Orthagoras, a name not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias, also appears definite. The easiest interpretation of the verb forms in l.6 and probably l.7 is that they are first person active aorists; Orthagoras is describing his own work, which included clearing out, ἐξεχῶσα, some area, perhaps beneath something.82 The bishop's epithet suggests a sixth- or seventh-century date, and the lunate script shows some similarities to that of 82, 85 and 88.
VI.37 We are fairly well informed about the ecclesiastical history of Aphrodisias in the sixth century. A monophysite tradition appears to have become established at Aphrodisias in the later fifth century, presumably largely as a result of the work of the brothers Athanasius and Paralius, sons of a prominent local family, who were converted to monophysite Christianity at Alexandria in the 480s, and later returned to found a monastery near Aphrodisias, and to conduct missionary work (see V.4). Monophysitism was widespread in Caria, apparently based on a strongly monophysite monastic tradition.83 We know of at least one monophysite monastery not far from Aphrodisias called Gordiana and described as near Antioch (on the Maeander), where a companion of John of Ephesus was buried in the mid-sixth century; 84 it was almost certainly near the ancient site of Gordiouteichos, once an independent city between Aphrodisias and Antioch.85 This may or may not be the same monastery as that founded by Athanasius and Paralius, or as that in which the monophysite Bishop Paul lived (see below).
VI.38 Although our sources have preserved far more information about the life of the monophysite community in the easternmost provinces of the empire, it is clear that monophysitism was well established in western Asia Minor in the sixth century. From 542 until his death in 578 the great monophysite missionary, James Baradaeus, worked in Asia and the surrounding provinces, encouraging and spreading monophysite belief, and establishing a hierarchy. Also in 542 another easterner, John of Amida (later appointed monophysite bishop of Ephesus, and commonly known as John of Ephesus) was appointed by Justinian, despite his monophysite leanings, to undertake Christian missionary work in the same area. He later claimed to have baptized 80,000 pagans and to have converted synagogues into churches in Asia, Caria, Lydia and Phrygia.86 The accounts of his work suggest that paganism, attested among prominent citizens at Aphrodisias in the late fifth century (see V.5, V.13) was also widespread among rural communities. The whole area was therefore subjected to unprecedented Christian missionary activity, simultaneous with the active advancement of schism among Christians.
VI.39 A bishop of Aphrodisias, Euphemius, had been among several Carian bishops exiled under Justin I for their monophysite beliefs (see V.25); he was presumably replaced by a bishop more sympathetic to Chalcedon. In 553 Severianus, metropolitan bishop of Aphrodisias, attended the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople (see List of Bishops).87 Since that council was intended by the emperor to produce a compromise on which monophysites and Chalcedonians could agree, Severianus' loyalties cannot be determined with certainty from the fact of his presence; but all our evidence suggests that both the established church and the monophysites were by now attaching great importance to the maintenance of correct belief in the provinces of western Asia Minor, and it seems probable that only a reliable Chalcedonian would have been acceptable as metropolitan. It is perhaps an admission of the firm control exercised by Constantinople over episcopal appointments that, after 553, James Baradaeus started to consecrate an alternative, monophysite hierarchy.88 At some time in or after 558 he appointed Paul, senex sincerus et simplex, metropolitan bishop of Aphrodisias, apparently as an alternative to a Chalcedonian metropolitan in residence at Aphrodisias (see List of Bishops). Paul thereby became a member of the small group of metropolitans and bishops who represented the monophysite church at this period, and he is attested on several occasions as a signatory of documents issued in Constantinople. But he also appears to have spent some time in a monastery outside Aphrodisias, and was living there in 571. In that year, after the final failure to reach any agreement with the monophysites, the patriarch of Constantinople, John Scholasticus (of Sermin), started to put direct pressure on the monophysite hierarchy; he had Paul arrested and brought to Constantinople, where he succeeded in forcing him to communicate with him and sign a retraction. He then sent Paul back to the Chalcedonian metropolitan of Aphrodisias, with instructions that he should be re-ordained — a particular indignity — and appointed bishop of Antioch on the Maeander.89 The action of John Scholasticus makes it clear that the episcopal appointments made by Baradaeus were considered by the official church to present a significant threat, as well as an important advance by the monophysites. In 576/7 Paul died; he had continued to be considered by the monophysites as metropolitan of Caria, and John of Ephesus, now the active leader of the monophysite church in Asia Minor, appointed as his successor Deuterius, a man who had been his own assistant in his missionary work since 542 (see List of Bishops). The Chalcedonian bishops tried to depose him too, and make him bishop of Antioch, but were unable to do so, presumably because he avoided capture. Deuterius apparently died before 582, and we have no further information on the history of the see in the sixth century.90
VI.40 This evidence shows an intense ecclesiastical conflict centred on Aphrodisias; John of Ephesus' selection of his own close associate as monophysite metropolitan of Caria suggests that he attached great importance to the maintenance of right belief there. It is, however, quite impossible to assess to what extent, if at all, these disputes affected the ordinary lay population. We have no detailed accounts of popular involvement in these ecclesiastical disputes in Asia Minor to compare with the abundant evidence from the eastern provinces. What we do know is that in those provinces institutional monophysitism continued to exist, and to be persecuted; the resultant alienation of the local populations, if it did not influence the Arab victories of the seventh century, may have contributed substantially to the consolidation of Arab rule.91 By contrast, and despite all the efforts of James Baradaeus and his successors, evidence of organized monophysite activity in western Asia Minor disappears after the death of John of Ephesus in 585/6, either because of more effective persecution, or because monophysite belief had in fact never become really widespread in the region.
VI.41 One effect of the frantic religious activity of the sixth century seems to have been that missionary pressure, first by Christians on pagans, and then by Christian groups on one another, was extended throughout western Asia Minor to reach communities, some of whom may until that date have been living much as they had always done. The picture which we have drawn so far of Aphrodisias is of a highly traditional society, continuing well into the sixth century the conventions of city life established in Roman and pre-Roman times. The intensification, however, in the sixth century of Christian missionary work conducted by two competing groups, may have helped to destroy the social consensus in which these traditions had been grounded and ultimately have contributed to the disappearance of traditional city life at Aphrodisias.92
VI.42 Text 91 only survives in a copy made by William Sherard in 1716. The obscurities in Sherard's copy suggest that the text, apparently on a re-used stone, was in a difficult hand. It comprises a witness list to a process confirmed by an imperial judge, probably concerned with a will; as Kirchhoff suggested, the fact that the last witness, George, describes himself simply as the brother of Abelcius, suggests that Abelcius may have been the testator. Since an imperial judge was involved, and the list was inscribed, the matter was presumably of some importance, perhaps concerning a substantial legacy; the presence of three church officials among the witnesses may suggest that this was a legacy to the church.
VI.43 It was Grégoire who pointed out that the ΒΙΟΥ of l. 8 should be corrected to ΘΙΟΥ and that Theophylact was one of the board of twelve θεῖοι δικασταί, the imperial judges or pedanei iudices, established by Justinian in 539 (Just. Nov. 82). The board was deliberately composed partly of ex-officials of high rank, usually, like Theophylact, ἐνδοξότατος/gloriosissimus ,93 and partly of distinguished lawyers, with the stated intention of providing judges with a real knowledge of the law.94 Theophylact must have been appointed after 539, since we know the names of all the judges appointed in that first year. The novel described the judges as sitting daily in Constantinople; but an inscription referring to one has been found at Megara (IG vii, 175, Παύλου . . . σχολαστικοῦ καὶ θείου δικαστοῦ) and another at Sardis (IGC 324, Ὑπερεχίου τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου ῥεφερενδαρίου καὶ θίου δικαστοῦ . It appears, then, that the work of these judges was in due course extended to the provinces. We know that the reorganization of the administration in western Asia Minor, which brought Caria under the jurisdiction of the quaestor exercitus, had created difficulties for citizens in Caria wishing to take cases to appeal, so that a visit from an imperial judge would have been extremely welcome.95 The need for easy access to an imperial judge will probably have increased as the provincial governor became identified during the sixth century more and more with the local governing class until in 569 the nomination of governors was entrusted to prominent local citizens.96
VI.44 All these considerations suggest a date well into the sixth century; but a far more precise dating was suggested by Grégoire, who proposed that Theophylact, gloriosissimus ex-eparch and imperial judge, should be identified with the historian Theophylact Simocatta, described in the introduction to his Histories as ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων καὶ ἀντιγραφεύς. Grégoire equated antigrapheus with referendarius, and suggested that Theophylact might have had a career similar to Hyperechius, described in the inscription at Sardis (cited above) as referendarius and imperial judge. In fact Bury had already demonstrated that the antigrapheus was not the same as the referendarius, but an official in the office of the quaestor, concerned with judicial matters, including the regulation of wills.97 The essence of Grégoire's argument therefore still holds good, since an antigrapheus would be quite as well suited as a referendarius to be an imperial judge. Grégoire further stated that Simocatta was the only prominent Theophylact known to him in the sixth or seventh centuries. Michael Whitby (for whose help on these issues I am most grateful) points out that the seals of several important officials with this name can be dated to this period. Grégoire's identification is thus less conclusive, although still plausible. If the imperial judge and ex-eparch at Aphrodisias were also the historian, antigrapheus and ex-eparch, he should probably be identified with the Theophylact, ex-eparch, whose seal is dated to 550-650.98 If correct, this identification offers a fairly close date for this inscription, which is dated to September in the fifteenth indiction. The possible years during Simocatta's active career are 611, 626 and 641. Of these 611 is too early for him to have held such high office; and Whitby points out that an imperial judge is unlikely to have been sent to the provinces in September 626, when the Avars had only just been repulsed, and the Persians were still in Asia Minor. The most probable date, therefore, seems to be 641, when Simocatta would have been in his 50s; this would then be the latest secular public inscription found at Aphrodisias.
VI.45 A date in the mid-seventh century might explain why Sherard had such difficulty in deciphering the inscription, after making excellent copies of fifth- and sixth-century material. The problems in the witness list cannot be resolved with any certainty; but since the earlier part of the list seems to consist of names and patronymics, the lack of a patronymic after Procopius (l.15) could be explained if he and Theodore, the ἀναγνόστης (for this church office see VIII.8), were brothers.
VI.47 The other group of texts which should perhaps be dated to the late sixth century are the group of acclamations from the Hadrianic Baths, 61. Those texts acclaim an emperor and an empress, and The New Theodosius. In my previous publication I suggested that these referred to Anastasius, praised for his similarity to Theodosius II — see the discussion at discussed at V.26. But Gilbert Dagron has made a cogent case for seeing this as a reference to the new son of the emperor Maurice, Theodosius, born in 583: for a discussion of this interpretation see V.30. If this is right, it adds to the body of evidence for active civic life at Aphrodisias throughout the sixth century. The expression of such activity in acclamations is typical of the period: acclamations for both Phocas and Heraclius, with his family, are found at Ephesus,99 and at Gortyn in Crete.
VI.48 The only other epigraphic activity at Aphrodisias which can be securely dated to the seventh century is an alteration to 42, the second of the two texts cut on the lintel of the North East gate in the city wall. The text originally read Ἐπὶ εὐτυχίᾳ τῆς λαμπρᾶς Ἀφροδισιαίων μητροπόλεως; at a later date, the letters ΑΦ and ΔΙΣΙΑ in Ἀφροδισιαίων were erased; the Ι of ΑΙΩΝ was changed to Τ, and new letters added in the erasures, to read ΤΑΥΡΟΠΟΛΙΤΩΝ. Earlier editors were in doubt as to how to interpret the resultant reading, ΛΑΜΠΡΑΣ ΤΑΥΡΟΠΟΛΙΤΩΝ. Francke interpreted ΛΑΜΠΡΑ as an abbreviation, and read λαμπροτάτης Σταυροπολιτῶν; but Boeckh, Bailie and Waddington all preferred λαμπρᾶς Ταυροπολιτῶν, and were followed by Grégoire. A city called Tauropolis is attested in Caria, in a passage from Apollonius of Aphrodisias cited by Stephanus Byzantinus (s.v. Χρυσαορίς and cf. Ταυρόπολις), and in the De Thematibus of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (1. 14); it was suggested that this was an early name for Aphrodisias, resurrected in the seventh century to replace the more pagan-sounding name. But, while Stephanus lists several earlier names for Aphrodisias, Tauropolis is not one of them (s.v. Νινόη): nor is an antiquarian revival of this kind attested among the name changes of this period (see below). Moreover, as Reinach pointed out, the only evidence for the position of Tauropolis, which can be deduced from its position in the description of the frontier of the Cibyrrhaeot theme by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, suggests that it was on the Lycian-Carian border, not far from Oenoanda.100 Reinach was no doubt correct in concluding that the stone-cutter, already pressed for space in inserting the new name, read the Σ of λαμπρᾶς as the initial letter of the following word, so that we must read (with Reinach, Robert and Cormack) τῆς λαμπρᾶς Σταυροπολιτῶν μητροπόλεως.
VI.49 The change of name of the metropolis of Caria from the pagan Aphrodisias to the Christian Stauropolis, city of the Cross, is attested in ecclesiastical documents, and can be dated roughly to the middle decades of the seventh century. In the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553, the see is still referred to as Aphrodisias,101 as it is in the History of John of Ephesus written in the 580s.102 Sophronius of Jerusalem, in his account of the miracles of John and Cyrus written between 610 and 619, also used the name Aphrodisias.103 The first dated mention of the name Stauropolis is in the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680, which was attended by the bishop of Stauropolis: τῆς Σταυροπολιτῶν μητροπόλεως τῆς Καρῶν ἐπαρχίας;104 the name also appears in the seventh-century bishops' list of Ps. Epiphanius.105 Thereafter the name Aphrodisias never appears.
VI.50 The new name in 42 was probably inserted at the time of the name-change; this may also have been when the names Aphrodite and Aphrodisian were erased on several public monuments, notably in the texts on the Archive Wall in the Theatre.106 Those erasures were carried out more thoroughly in the lower registers of the text than in those above, and a similarly haphazard approach can be found in other erasures in the Theatre.107 Since the Theatre was the focus of considerable attention at this time, these erasures too may also be associated with the seventh-century change of name; but other erasures of pagan terminology on the site, such as that in 11 and those in PPA 72 as well as the elimination of various pagan images could well date from an earlier period of tension between pagans and Christians at Aphrodisias.
VI.51 The replacement of pagan theophoric names with Christian ones took place over a considerable period.108 The Synecdemus of Hierocles, recording the situation in the mid-fifth century (see IV.17), lists three former Apollonias, two (in Palestine and Libya) as Sozousa, and one (Pisidia) as Sozopolis. Apollonia in Thrace is also recorded as a Sozopolis in the Notitiae ;109 yet other Apollonias appear unchanged in the Notitiae. Only one case can be precisely dated: the name of Antioch was changed to Theoupolis after the earthquake of 528. There may have been another cluster of name-changes in the seventh century. Prusa appears as Theoupolis or Prusa in the Acts of the Council of 680, as Theotokiana in 692, but as Prusa in 787.110 Aphrodisias and Dios Hieron seem to have changed their names at about the same time.
VI.52 Given the length of time involved, it is not clear that all these changes had precisely similar motives. The adoption by four Apollonias of very similar names, three at least before the mid-fifth century, suggests that the cities were influenced by each others' examples, and perhaps that their concern was more to make evident their Christianity and their rejection of paganism, than necessarily to obtain divine protection. On the other hand, in the only documented case, that of Antioch, the adoption of a Christian name, in place of one with no particular religious significance, was apparently to obtain protection. Malalas says that the name was changed on the advice of a holy man (443). Theophanes mentions the name-change, and also recounts how, when the citizens inscribed Χριστὸς μεθ' ἡμῶν στῆτε on their lintels (ὑπέρθυρα) on the advice of a pious man, the earthquake stopped.111 Nicephorus Callistus links the two stories, and implies that the new name was chosen because the pious inscriptions had had this effect.112 Since the two traditions are interrelated, it is particularly interesting to find the new name of Stauropolis carefully inserted in an inscription over one of the gates to the city. Probably at the same time, a large cross in a circle, flanked by an alpha and an omega was cut over the upper inscription (22) on the same gate; although the relevant part of the inscription on the West gate (19) is lost, it is likely that that too was altered, and there are Christian inscriptions, perhaps with a prophylactic significance, in the side entrance to the East Gate (139).
VI.53 All this suggests that the change of name at Aphrodisias was not just the rejection of a pagan past, but a deliberate attempt to gain divine protection; the alteration of inscriptions, which by this date were no longer part of the city's normal life, indicates that they may have begun to be seen as vaguely talismanic, like the inscriptions of Constantinople in the eighth century.113 In or after the seventh century an inner fortification wall was built round the Theatre and the Acropolis, using materials from the decoration of the Tetrastoon, and the monumental processional way to the Sebasteion, built in the first century AD.114 It may be assumed that those structures were no longer considered necessary, and it is very likely that they were in a damaged state, perhaps as the result of earthquakes. It is significant that the new name was placed on the old outer ring of walls; similarly, perhaps, the newly fortified Acropolis may have been assured of divine favour when pagan names — particularly that of Aphrodite — were erased from some of the inscriptions in the Theatre. This perhaps suggests that the retreat at Aphrodisias from the extended city to the fortified kastron was a slow one, and that the Acropolis was fortified at a time when the inhabitants still considered that their city was defined, and to some extent protected, by the fourth-century city walls.
VI.54 Aphrodisias' change of name, however, was not necessarily in response to an earthquake, as in the case of Antioch, since the seventh century provided abundant reasons for seeking a reinforcement of divine protection. As has been said, Prusa seems briefly to have adopted a Christian name. A closer parallel is Dios Hieron, whose blatantly pagan name was changed to Christoupolis in the seventh century, although not to the exclusion of the earlier name: the two appear together in the conciliar acts of 680 and 692,115 and the earlier name survives in the Notitiae. By 879, however, a third name, Pyrgion, has emerged, and it is this which has survived as the modern name of the site.116 Similarly, the name Stauropolis seems rapidly to have been replaced, as has been pointed out by John Nesbitt.117 The see, described as Stauropolis in 692,118 is described as Caria in 787,119 and as Stauropolis or Caria in the Notitiae; Nesbitt has shown that Caria was established as the name of the see by the eighth century, perhaps even before 730, although Stauropolis was not eliminated. Perhaps Caria was simply more familiar and less clumsy than the new name, just as Pyrgion may have seemed easier than Christoupolis; as Pyrgion survived as the modern Birge, so Caria became Geyre, the name of the Turkish village on the site of Aphrodisias.
VI.55 By the seventh century inscriptions at Aphrodisias — as elsewhere — are few, and can no longer serve as a useful guide to the development of the city. The archaeological and numismatic evidence makes it clear that the city, like so many others in Asia Minor, went into a decline in the early seventh century; but there is no evidence of an external attack, as at Sardis.120 As was pointed out above, the city walls appear to have continued to delimit the city, perhaps simultaneously with the fortification of the Acropolis. Some reasons for the city's decline have been suggested — the effects of the plague, and a shift in importance from the inland to the maritime cities — but it was entirely typical of a development which seems to have been taking place throughout the empire. It is perhaps more remarkable that the city had continued so apparently prosperous, and so constant to its civic traditions for so long. The shift in importance to the coastal cities will have been reinforced when the area became part of the organization of the maritime Carabisian theme in the seventh century, and, in the eighth, part of the Cibyrrhaeot theme, a maritime subdivision of the earlier grouping. When Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing in about 933, listed the important cities of the Cibyrrhaeot theme, only one, Mylasa, was an inland site.121 It was largely the most ancient cities that were again the most important. Aphrodisias, indefensibly situated in a rich but remote plain, appears to have become important only when the Romans reached Asia Minor, and established peace and good communications. As the traditional institutions of the Roman empire declined and disappeared in the seventh century, so did Aphrodisias. The Byzantine community of Stauropolis, of which we know little, continued to occupy the site and maintain buildings. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, here as elsewhere, there was a recovery of prosperity which was manifested in restoration and building work on the churches, with some associated inscriptions (99, 108); this was curtailed by the arrival of the Turks in Asia Minor, and at some time in the thirteenth century Caria was finally lost to Byzantine rule. What we know of the history of this site in the later period is set out below, VII.9, and VII.27, discussing 110, the latest public inscription found at the site. That is a church inscription; after the early seventh century the city apparently produced no more secular public inscriptions.
|1||A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City (Oxford, 1940), 246; in detail, R. P. Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1982), 132 — 3.|
|2||See L. Robert, Hellenica 4, 116.|
|3||For the dedicatory inscription see, most recently, Reynolds (1980), no. 6.|
|4||See also the comments of M. Waelkens and N. de Chaisemartin in Aphrodisias de Carie (1987), 123-9, 135-9.|
|5||For his career see IdC 142-6.|
|6||Jones, LRE, 529.|
|7||Roueché (1984), 187.|
|8||Roueché (1984), 197-8.|
|9||Roueché (1984), 181-99.|
|10||P. Maas, BZ 20 (1912), 28-51; see also Cameron, CF, Appendix C, 318-33.|
|11||See the critical bibliography by Margaret Alexiou and David Holton, Mandatophoros 9 (1976), 22-34.|
|12||The fundamental study is still that of E. Peterson, Εἷς θεός (Göttingen, 1926).|
|13||Translated from the Coptic original into French by P. Battifol, Un épisode du Concile d'Éphese, Mélanges Schlumberger (Paris, 1924), 28-39, 32, 34, 36, 37.|
|14||Translated from the Syriac into German by J. Flemming, Akten der Ephesenischen Synode (Berlin, 1917), 15.|
|15||ACO ii. 1. 2, 110, quoted at Roueché (1984), 189.|
|16||ACO iii, 86 and cf. 85.|
|17||MUSJ 12 (1927), 290-4, esp. 291-2.|
|18||ACO iii, 85, quoted at Roueché (1984), 189.|
|20||Libanius, Or. 56. 16, with O. Seeck, RhM 73 (1920), 84-101, at 89.|
|21||BE 4. 1966, 319; 1969, 369, and references.|
|22||Peterson, 181-3; Hellenica 11-12, 23; and Index, s.v.|
|23||OLD s.v. 6.|
|24||Cameron, Porphyrius, 76-8, and cf. P. Maas, Kleine Schriften (Munich, 1973), 494-5.|
|25||For elision of this kind see F. T. Gignac, Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Milan, 1976) i, 306 f.|
|26||ZPapEpig 61 (1985). 127-30; see also D. Bain, Six Greek verbs of sexual congress, CQ 41 (1991), 51-77, 53.|
|27||Hellenica 13, 215|
|28||Peterson, 114-6, and for its use with the dative of the beneficiary, cf. Flemming, 15-16.|
|29||Besevliev no. 153, and commentary; cf. also the inscription of Justinian at Mount Sinai, I. Sevcenko, DOP 20 (1966), 262 no. 1.|
|30||BE 1961.783, and cf. 835.|
|31||MUSJ 8 (1922), 96 — 100; discussed also at VI.8, VI.24.|
|32||Plin., Paneg. 33. 2.|
|33||A. Beschaouch, CRAI 1966, 134-57, cited at Roueché (1984), 183.|
|34||ZPapEpig 61 (1985), 127-30.|
|35||Flemming, 16 and 19.|
|36||Peterson, 189-90; Roueché (1984), 187-8.|
|37||Feissel (1991), 374.|
|39||e.g. Tiberius in Tiberim, Suet., Tib. 75. I; cf. HA, Commod. 17. 4. and S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 348 n. 1.|
|41||ACO iii, 85, cited at Roueché (1984), 189.|
|42||Malalas, ex. de insid. 166.|
|43||See K. M. D. Dunbabin and M. W. Dickie, JbAC 26 (1983), 7-37, and references there; cf. the reference to βασκανία in 33, and for φθόνος in funerary epigrams see 159.|
|44||ACO ii. 1. 2, 155.|
|45||See REA 1960, 354 (= OMS ii, 870) for this phenomenon, particularly common in Syria; see also Hellenica 13, 265 ff., and discussion at VI.52.|
|47||Hellenica 11-12, 23.|
|48||VI.9, and Roueché (1984), 197.|
|49||I. Stratonikeia. 1204, from Cousin, BCH 15 (1891), 430 no. 20; not, as Sahin suggests, a funerary text.|
|50||ACO ii. 1.140; the inscriptions, SEG 1978.1404a and b.|
|51||C.Ghadban, Ktema 5 (1980), 107 — 8 n. 33.|
|52||e.g. Theoph. Cont. 95.10; LSJ s.v. A. 3.|
|53||Roueché, (1979), 178, for two examples from Tarsus and one from Elaeussa, and cf. below 89.|
|54||Hornickel, Rangprädikate, 28-9.|
|56||Or. II. 220; see BE 1946/47.207 for examples.|
|57||Malalas 14, 360.|
|58||Evagrius 6. 8.|
|59||C. Foss, DOP 31 (1977), 63.|
|60||Robert, Hellenica 4, 129; Hellenica 11-12, 8 n. 4 and BE 1976. 751.|
|61||Milet VI.1, 341-3 with p. 213; for Hesychius see PLRE III, Hesychius 14.|
|62||For the vocabulary see Robert, Hellenica 4, 129 — 30, REA 1960, 353-4 (= OMS II, 869-70), and BE 1961.249.|
|63||Most recently published as I.Eph. 1302; for the identification see A. and A. Cameron, JHS 86 (1966), II; despite R. C. McCail, JHS 89 (1969), 89, it is clear that the proconsul at Ephesus was a poet.|
|64||e.g. A&R, docs. 28 and 30.|
|65||CJ 10. 27. 2. 12, Anastasius.|
|66||CJ 12. 63. 2. 6 of 530.|
|67||Just., Nov. 128. 16.|
|68||For a useful account see P. Allen, Byzantion 49 (1979), 5 — 20; also E. Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance (Paris, 1977), 84-92.|
|69||Procop., BP 2. 23, 19, cf.. Allen, loc. cit., 16.|
|70||Patlagean, op. cit., 91.|
|71||Vita Nicolai Sionitae 52 — 7, in Hagios Nikolaos, ed. G. Anrich (Leipzig, 1913), 40-5.|
|72||CMG 5. 4. 2, 389.|
|73||For an account of the question see now Liebeschuetz (2001).|
|74||T. Drew-Bear, REA 82, (1980), 163.|
|75||So CBI 118: beneficiarii consularis honour the governor at Mainz in 218-9.|
|76||Haensch, CP 645.|
|77||For the abbreviation, compare IGC 41.|
|78||So IGLS 1627 and references, 2828.|
|79||I.Eph. 1323, 1339.|
|80||See Claude, Byz. Stadt, 107-14.|
|81||So Hornickel, Rangprädikate, 29-30.|
|82||For the verb, compare Foss, Sardis, 115, source 19.|
|83||Honigmann, Évêques, 122-35, esp. 135.|
|84||Jo. Eph., Vit. SS. Or. 40, PO 18, 650.|
|85||La Carie, 18 n. 2; T. Drew-Bear, BCH 96 (1972), 439 — 41.|
|86||Jo. Eph., Vit. SS. Or. 47, PO 18, 681; see Honigmann, Évêques, 207-15, esp. 208.|
|87||Mansi, ix. 390; see List of Bishops.|
|89||For an account of these events see Jo. Eph., Hist. 3. 1. 14 and 42, and the detailed analysis by Honigmann, Évêques,218-19.|
|90||Jo. Eph., Hist. 3.1. 44, and Honigmann, Évêques, 219, with List of Bishops.|
|91||See W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972), 354 -9; G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London, l981), 483-4.|
|92||cf. de Ste. Croix, op. cit., 497 for the possibility of tension introduced by Christianity into the late Roman world.|
|93||so Nov. 82. 2; for the rank see Hornickel, Rangprädikate, 8-11.|
|94||see Jones, LRE, 501-2.|
|95||Just., Nov. 51. 2|
|96||Justin II, Nov. 149, with G. Dagron, DOP 31 (1977), 20.|
|97||HSCPh 21 (1910), 22 — 9; see also N. Oikonomides, Les listes de préséance byzantines (Paris, 1972), 322-3.|
|98||Zacos and Veglery, no. 559. See PLRE III, Theophylact 2 for the inscription, Theophylact 10 for Simocatta, Theophylact 6 for the seal. For the most recent discussion see Michael Whitby, Theophylact the Historian and the Miracles of Artemius, in E. Dabrowa ed., Donum Amicitiae: Studies in Ancient History (Krakow, 1997), 221-234.|
|99||Phocas: I.Eph.1191.a and b; Heraclius and family: I.Eph. 1195, 1196, 317, with C. Roueché, Looking for Late Antique Ceremonial: Ephesos and Aphrodisias, H. Friesinger — F. Krinzinger edd., 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos (Vienna, 1999), 161-8; I.Cret. IV.512.|
|100||see Hellenica 4, 63 n. 2.|
|101||Mansi ix, 390.|
|102||Hist. 3.1.14, 42.|
|103||Thaum. 30, cited at V.18; for the date of composition during the patriarchate of John the Almsgiver, see Thaum. 8.|
|104||Mansi xi, 672.|
|105||ed H. Gelzer, Texte der Notitiae episcopatum (Munich, 1900), 539.|
|106||A&R, xv — xvii, docs. 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 20.|
|107||C. P. Jones (1981), 126.|
|108||The account in Claude, Eyz. Stadt,142, should be treated with caution.|
|109||RE ii, 113 no. 2.|
|110||Mansi xi, 676, Mansi xi, 996, Mansi xiii, 145.|
|111||Chron. 178; for the abundant inscribing of such texts on door lintels in Syria, see e.g. IGLS 877, 1406, 1559, 1705 and Hellenica 13, 266.|
|112||17. 3, PG 147. 225.|
|113||As described in the Parastaseis syntomai chronikai, ed. and trans. Averil Cameron and Judith Herrin, Constantinople in the early eighth century (Leiden, 1984).|
|114||Ratté (2001), 139.|
|115||Mansi xi, 673, 993.|
|116||Mansi xvii, 376, with R. Janin, DHGE xiv, 514-15.|
|117||DOP 37 (1983), 159-60.|
|118||Mansi xi, 99.|
|119||Mansi xiii, 137.|
|120||Ratté (2001), 145; Foss, Sardis, 53ff. See also the observations of B. Ward-Perkins, Urban survival and urban transformation in the eastern mediterranean, in G. P. Brogiolo ed., Early medieval towns in the western mediterranean, Documenti di Archeologia 10 (Padua, 1995), 143-53|
|121||De Them. 14.|
(c) Creative Commons Copyright by-nc-nd-2.0
[Close Print-Friendly Version]