|
Section: I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII
Section III: Constantius II to Theodosius I, 350-395
Inscriptions in this section
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
235
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
32
|
33
|
34
|
35
III.1 We have no evidence from any other
sources for the history of Aphrodisias at this period; and the epigraphic
evidence tells us remarkably little about the activity of the city and its
citizens. Nos. 19, 20, 235, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 all record the activity of imperial officials. In no. 22 the Council and People honour a governor, in no. 23 they honour an empress. These are
the latest examples from the site in which the authorities are described, in
the formula used over several centuries, as the Council and the People; all
later references to the civic authorities are to the Council, or simply to the
City. In nos. 24 and 31 the Council honours imperial
officials (one a local citizen). The only texts which appear to honour, or to
record activity by, private citizens are no. 30, and, perhaps, 34 and
35, and all of these are very
insecurely dated.
III.2 At the same time, governors of the
province seem to have undertaken substantial building works, constructing, in
particular, the Tetrastoon east of the Theatre, the West Gate, and the Walls
(nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 235). I have argued that these
projects may have been directed towards clearing debris in the city, whether
left by earthquake damage, or inadequate maintenance, or — most probably — a
combination of the two.
III.3 The apparent need for such major
works in this period, combined with the dominance — in the epigraphic sources —
of activity by imperial government officials, suggest that the city, and its
citizens, may have been in financial difficulties, and unable — or perhaps
unwilling — to maintain the city buildings in good repair. The pattern is
repeated elsewhere: compare, for example, the evidence from fourth century
Italy, suggesting that all recorded public works in the cities was undertaken
by imperial officials. 1 That this was a widespread problem at
this time is also suggested by the legislation of this period — so, in
particular, the rescript of Valens, discussed at III.20.
During the later fourth and the early fifth centuries there seems to have been
a consistent effort by the imperial government to restore the financial
condition of the cities. 2 This policy will have had varying
success; but at Aphrodisias the evidence from the later fifth and the sixth
centuries, recording a variety of building activities undertaken both by the
city and by private citizens offers a remarkable contrast with the material
presented here from the later fourth century.
III.4 The earliest dateable text referring
to building activity in this period is the inscription over the West Gate, no. 19, which can be dated with certainty
to the 350s, although the precise date has been much discussed since the first
publication of this text. It hinges on
the identity of the Caesar who was honoured in l.5 and whose name was
subsequently erased. Robert listed the various opinions as to whether the
erased name is that of Fl. Cl. Constantius (Gallus, Caesar 351-4) or of Fl. Cl.
Iulianus (Julian, Caesar 355-February 360), both of whom suffered damnatio memoriae. 3 Bailie preferred
Julian; Francke and Cormack considered that, since the mention of a Caesar was
not obligatory, Gallus was rather more likely to be honoured in an inscription
in the eastern part of the empire. Unfortunately the erasure was too efficient to
leave significant traces. Francke noted that the lacuna appeared too short for
the name Constantius; the copies available to him made the space seem even
shorter than it is, and he conjectured Φλ. Κλ. (Κωνσταντίου understood) τοῦ, which Boeckh rightly rejected. Examination of the stone, however,
suggests that the nine letters of Julian's name would be a great deal easier to
accommodate than the eleven letters of Constantius, and the final traces of the
name may be read as ΝΟΥ. I have restored
accordingly. Julian's name was also erased at Aphrodisias in 20.
III.5 This reading is perhaps supported by
the suggestion of the editors of PLRE I
that Fl. Quintilius Eros Monaxius, named here as governor, should be identified
with Eros, the addressee of a letter of Libanius. The letter, which bears the
same number (πβ) as that preceding it in the MS, was treated as an addition to that letter
by Forster in his edition; 4 but PLRE I follows O. Seeck 5 in considering it as a separate letter. 6 The letter is apparently addressed to
a man who has recently been made a provincial governor, and sets out his
fortunate career: ἐκ μὲν μουσείων ἐπὶ τὸ βουλεύειν
ἐλθὼν ἐκράτεις καὶ ἐδείκνυς τὸν ῥήτορα, ἐκ δὲ τοᾤ βουλεύειν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρχειν
ἧκεις, καὶ πάρεδρος ἡ Δίκη, from your studies you came to local office, where you ruled and
showed yourself a rhetor; from local office you have come to govern, and
Justice shares your throne. 7 Eros therefore rose, by his rhetorical
skills, first to local office (βουλεύειν) and then to a
governorship (ἄρχειν). In his capacity as
governor, Libanius advises him τοῦ
προγόνου μεμνῆσθαι τοῦ Μίνω to recall his ancestor Minos, the legendary
dispenser of justice; the description of Minos as an ancestor of Eros implies
that Eros came from Crete. Since Eros Monaxius describes his previous career in
terms of local office held in Crete, the identification is very tempting; and
Seeck's date of 359 for this letter would agree with our restoration of the
name of Julian as Caesar.
III.6 There is, however, a serious
objection to this identification: all that we know of the use of names at this
time suggests that Eros Monaxius should properly be referred to by his last
name, Monaxius, rather than the penultimate, Eros. Alan Cameron has shown in
analysing the use of the multiple names which became common from the third
century, that it was standard practice in the later Empire for a man to be
known and addressed by the last of his names. 8 If that is the case here, then Eros
and Eros Monaxius must be different individuals, although perhaps from the same
Cretan family. But the closeness of the parallels, and the economy of the
situation may indicate that this is one of the rare occasions when the
penultimate name was used; 9 in this case, and in literary circles,
it might well be argued that the name Eros was chosen for the charm of its
associations.
III.7 Eros Monaxius' highest previous
office had apparently been as Cretarch, that is, president of the provincial
assembly of Crete. While the term itself survives elsewhere only in a text of
the Roman republican period, 10 there is a good deal of evidence for
the activity of the Cretan assembly throughout the fourth century. 11 The fact that from this office Eros
Monaxius was promoted to a governorship further indicates the importance of the
provincial assemblies at this period; see discussion at II.37.
III.8 The reference (19.8) to the city's kinship with Crete would also be wholly
appropriate in an inscription put up by a man with rhetorical training, from
the circle of Libanius; it was a traditional function of rhetors to establish
such connections of συγγενεία, 12 and Libanius regularly refers to them. 13 The links between Crete and Caria were
ancient and well established; the historical evidence of Herodotus 14 was reinforced by mythology (thus Kar,
eponymous ancestor of the Carians, is the child of Zeus and the nymph Krete), 15 and religious practice — in particular the cult of Zeus Kretagenes
at Mylasa. 16 We know of no specific Cretan link
with Aphrodisias, except for the tradition that Ninus fled to Crete; 17 but there may be a hint in the
appearance of the name Gortynios on the site. 18 The connection may simply have been
with Aphrodisias as metropolis of Caria, which might suggest the restoration μητροπόλει τῶν Κάρων or τῆς
Καρίας in 19.8 (not otherwise
epigraphically attested, but cf. 23).
But our ignorance of a specific link with Aphrodisias by no means rules out its
existence and I prefer to restore μητροπόλει τῶν Ἀφροδεισιέων, as in 64.
III.9 It is not clear what Eros
constructed; κατεσκεύασεν the same verb as in 20; πυλῶνα, the conjecture of Francke and Waddington, would fit with the traces
visible to us and the space available. We know that a gate stood here in the
Roman period, when there is no reason to believe that the city was walled, from
CIG 2837, which refers to the
Antioch gate, and a copy of which was found (seriously defaced) at the West
Gate; the significance of this inscription was first pointed out by L. Robert. 19 Eros' reconstruction of the gate need,
therefore, have no direct connection with the building of the city walls; but
the style of construction of the gate and of the walls, with abundant re-use of
earlier materials, is very similar. 20 Such re-use might be explained if the
materials had been dislodged by an earthquake, and a major earthquake is
recorded for 358; 21 but such débris might also result from
a long period of neglect of the city fabric, combined with a regular pattern of
small earthquakes.
III.10 Eros Monaxius, the perfectissimus praeses responsible for
text 19, was therefore governor at some time between 355 and 360. The next
governor at present known to us is Antonius Tatianus, governor of Caria under
Julian (effectively November 361-June 363) and Valens (after March 364), who is
styled clarissimus praeses, perhaps
the first governor of senatorial rank: see List of Governors. He may well have been appointed under
Julian, and it is not surprising that in 364 he should have been eager to
assert his loyalty to the new dynasty by erecting a statue of Valens (21) next to the one with which he had
honoured Julian (20). He presumably
erased Julian's name in 20 at the
same time, if not before, but left the base, with his own name and
achievements, in a prominent position, where it was later re-used to honour
Theodosius I or II. Similarly, Ael. Cl. Dulcitius, who was probably appointed
proconsul of Asia by Julian, is known to have honoured Julian (I. Eph. 313A and 3021) and then Jovian (CIL III, 14405). That Tatianus was in a
hurry to honour Valens is suggested by the fact that he re-used an existing
base, and got Valens' name wrong, giving him the nomina Flavius Claudius used by the preceding dynasty. 22
III.11 While on present evidence Antonius
Tatianus appears to provide one of the earlier examples of the appointment of a
clarissimus to replace a perfectissimus praeses, chance
discoveries often produce new examples; 23 I would argue, also, that the terms in
which he is praised at Miletus (see below, III.14)
may well reflect his standing as the first governor of a higher rank. In a
large number of provinces (Dacia, Macedonia, Pisidia, Cilicia, Palestina
Salutaris, Phoenice, Thebais: see PLRE I
Fasti) the earliest clarissimus praeses
is attested in the 360s or the early 370s. This development must be
seen as the inevitable result of the enormous enlargement of the senatorial
class first under Constantine, but even more during the last years of
Constantius' reign. 24 As with the employment of senators
under Constantine, so to a much greater extent the appointment of senators
after 355 should be seen, at least in the east, not as the deployment of a new
group of people, but as the relabelling of a class of people who were already
in service. 25
III.12 Since Tatianus was in office long
enough to start (as implied by ἐκ
θεμελίων in 20) his building work and finish it during
Julian's reign, he was presumably already in office by autumn 362; he must,
therefore, have been the recipient of Julian's letter τῷ ἡγεμόνι Καρίας, written after the burning of the temple
at Daphne (22 October 362), ordering the destruction, in reprisal, of church
buildings adjacent to the temple of Apollo at Didyma. 26 Julian also wrote probably in late 362
to an anonymous recipient, clearly a provincial governor, whom he rebuked for
having ordered a priest of Apollo to be flogged, and accused of consorting with
Christians. 27 Julian refers twice to Didymaean Apollo in this letter, which has
therefore been taken to concern Didyma, which would make this man a governor of
Caria. 28 But the first reference is a quotation
from Didymean Apollo, which Julian uses again in Ep. 89a, a long treatise on the general theme of the sanctity and
immunity of priests. In the second reference, he claims ἔλαχον δὲ νῦν καὶ τοῦ Διδυμαίου
προφητεύειν, I have taken the post of prophet of Didymaean (Apollo); this seems
to refer back to his quotation of the god in support of his general argument,
rather than to be a claim to defend the interests of Didymaean Apollo. It is
not, therefore, at all certain that this letter is concerned with events at
Didyma; this may free us from having to assume that Tatianus, a man probably
appointed under Julian, and almost certainly charged with the demolition of
Christian buildings, turned out almost simultaneously to be a Christian sympathizer.
III.13 As John Martindale pointed out,
Antonius Tatianus is probably also mentioned in two epigrams at Miletus,
although these present some problems. 29 A Tatianus is honoured in a late Roman
epigram, which apparently accompanied a statue, as ὑπέρτερος ἰθυντήρων; 30 in a second epigram he is described
as δικάσπολος. 31 The easiest interpretation of such
terminology is that he was a governor. 32 The difficulties arise from the fact
that the latter epigram is the third of a group of four inscribed together in
the Baths of Faustina; all four praise the renovation of the baths by a certain
Macarius, but the third records that, while Macarius renewed the baths founded
by Faustina, Τατιανὸς δὲ
πόνοιο εὕρατο τέρμα, Tatianus completed the work,
providing a hot water supply. 33 The association of Macarius and
Tatianus in one group of epigrams led to the proposal that Tatianus was the
architect employed by Macarius, and this was the interpretation favoured by the
first editors. 34 The two men, however, are not
necessarily contemporary. Macarius' title of Asiarch (339a and b) must indicate
that he was active while Miletus formed part of the province of Asia; but on
the evidence of the Nicene lists the city was in Caria by 325. If the damage
which Macarius repaired is rightly taken to be the result of Gothic attacks in
the 260s (the enemies referred to in 339a), this also suggests a late third or early fourth century date for his activities.
III.14 The script of the inscription,
however, appears more appropriate to a later date. Furthermore, the terms in
which Tatianus is praised suggest that he undertook his work after Macarius.
The evidence of an inscription published below (53) suggests that
epigrams of this sort could sometimes be re-inscribed (presumably when a
monument on which they were inscribed had to be repaired or removed). The four
epigrams at Miletus (recorded together as no. 339), may originally have been
separate, and subsequently inscribed together. Further, Peter Herrmann
suggested that the Macarius epigrams may have been re-inscribed, and two lines
about Tatianus inserted into the third epigram — which is six lines long,
whereas the other three are each of four lines. This seems a most elegant
explanation. It is therefore not essential to assume that Macarius and Tatianus
were contemporaries; Tatianus can be taken as a governor of Caria who continued
work on the baths already restored by Macarius. We know of two Tatiani who
governed Caria; as well as Antonius Tatianus, a second was governor in the first
half of the fifth century: see List of Governors.
But since Hesychius of Miletus, who restored the baths again in the late fifth
or sixth century, could refer to them as having been out of use for a hundred
years (Milet VI.1, 341), it is
perhaps easier to associate their earlier improvement with Antonius Tatianus in
the early 360s. There may be another indication. In the Miletus inscription
honouring Tatianus alone, he is described as προτέρων . . . ὑπέρτερος ἰθυντήρων surpassing previous governors. Such comparison is not particularly common,
since it might so easily give offence; perhaps, therefore, this is a poetic
reference to the fact that Tatianus was the first governor of a higher rank, clarissimus rather than perfectissimus (see above, III.10).
III.15 At Aphrodisias, Antonius Tatianus
apparently built or rebuilt the Tetrastoon which lies immediately east of the
Theatre, in substantially the form in which we see it now (see plan), but apparently at a higher ground-level than
what it replaced; the builders of the stoa built round, but did not move, an
altar (later re-used as a sundial) which stood at a lower level, but projected
above the new floor-level (see 249).
Respect for such a feature might be appropriate to the reign of Julian. In
earlier discussion I attributed this change of level to the presence of débris
left by an earthquake: but it is not necessary to assume an earthquake to
explain the rise of levels over time. 35 It is not easy to determine the exact
relationship of the Tetrastoon to the east end of the Theatre, because of the
construction in the early seventh century of a defence wall running between
them, in which the two bases erected by Tatianus (20 and 21) were re-used; but apparently as part of this
fourth century development the east end of the Archive Wall, in the north
parodos of the Theatre, which would originally have projected into the area of
the Tetrastoon, was remodelled. Blocks fell, or in some cases were levered out,
and the east end of the wall was patched up; subsequently some, but not all, of
these blocks were used in the city wall, while others remained in a room behind
the north side of the stage. 36 It appears, then, that the dismantling
of part of the Archive Wall was not done with the immediate aim of providing
material for the city wall; it appears to be associated with a redesign of this
part of the city plan, which led to the rebuilding of the east end of the
parodos, and the building of the tetrastoon. The building of the city walls,
with the material thus made available, may have followed soon after.
III.16 The next governor
of Caria known to us may be Flavius Constantius, clarissimus praeses, but he cannot
be securely dated: see List of Governors.
He is named in an inscription on the North East gate
(text 22) and in another on a mosaic in the
Basilica (text 235). In text 22, as Christopher Ratté has pointed
out, although the inscription runs along the architrave of the gate,
Constantius is honoured in the accusative, rather than naming himself as
builder; the text may therefore have been accompanied by an image of the
governor. In text 235 he appears in the nominative, in a standard formula, but this
is only the second example of the verb ἐποίησεν used at Aphrodisias by a donor, rather than a sculptor (the other is
10); see discussion at II.24. Constantius could conceivably
have been a governor of the joint province of Caria and Phrygia between 250 and
301; but the lettering of his inscriptions bears little resemblance to those of
the later third century (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 234), and would, on present evidence, be most
easily dated to the middle of the fourth century. If Constantius is, therefore,
clarissimus praeses of Caria, he
should be dated after Antonius Tatianus, who was probably the first senatorial
governor of the province (see above III.10). The
very elegant lettering of 22 most
closely resembles that of 21, which
is one reason for suggesting that Fl. Constantius held office not long after
Tatianus; another is the reference in 22
to the Council and the People. This is the last example of this traditional
formula found at Aphrodisias; at Ephesus the Council and the People honoured
Aelia Flaccilla in about 383, the latest datable example of the phrase known to
me. 37 There is, however, no
other internal evidence for dating Constantius more closely than to about the
third quarter of the fourth century.
III.17 This
uncertainty is particularly frustrating since Constantius' inscription is the
only direct epigraphic evidence for the building of the city walls; it is not
necessary to suppose that Eros Monaxius (above III.9)
built anything more than the West Gate itself. That gate, however, appears
quite homogeneous with the walls, and does not differ in the basic style of its
construction from the other gates in the circuit; the design most closely
resembles that of the east gate, but is more elaborate. The west gate, and the
entire circuit of the walls include much re-used material from buildings and
monuments inside the city, and from tombs outside; they are built carefully,
and with a consistent style of coursing. The quality of the work does not
suggest excessive haste in construction, and this makes it difficult to accept
that the re-used materials came from monuments that had been deliberately
destroyed under some sudden threat. It is easier to assume that these materials
were already lying available, as a result of the decay or destruction of
buildings no longer in use. 38
III.18 The other evidence for dating the
walls is provided by the re-used material itself. This includes several
inscriptions of the 250s (3, 5 and 6) and one inscription to be dated during or shortly after the
reign of Diocletian, text 9, which
shows signs of having broken before it was re-used. The evidence of the other
late antique inscriptions found in the walls, 112, 209, 210, and 211, is equivocal, since the texts may have been inscribed when the
stones were in place. The walls also contain material from a variety of tombs,
and incorporate one large tomb in the south-east as a bastion. All this
suggests a date for their construction after c. 311 at the earliest (9);
the extensive use of material from tombs may suggest a disregard by Christians
for pagan tombs, or perhaps the reduced importance of various local families.
The circuit, however, apparently follows that of the ancient city boundary. No
evidence has been found for the existence of any earlier walls, 39 and at one point the walls appear to
have encroached on a private house; but that the walls followed the city
boundary is indicated by the fact that, at several points, burial grounds of
the Roman period are found immediately outside. The city which built them,
therefore, did not consider any area dispensable, which is another reason
against assuming that the citizens would have pillaged public buildings in good
repair to find building materials.
III.19 The available evidence, therefore,
suggests that the walls were constructed in the mid fourth century from débris
already available. In my earlier publication of the material I attempted to
associate this with earthquake damage, and perhaps that caused by the
substantial earthquake of 358 (Amm. Marc. 11. 7. 1). But Clive Foss had put
forward some careful arguments for caution in the interpretation of such
evidence; 40 and the theatre at nearby Hierapolis,
for example, was extensively repaired in the 350s but before 358 (information
kindly supplied by Dr Ritti-Adamou). It looks as if the west gate was rebuilt
with re-used materials in the late 350s (19),
while the Tetrastoon behind the theatre was constructed in its present form in
361/3 (20), involving the
remodelling of the Archive Wall of the Theatre; the walls were then constructed — or perhaps
completed? — by Fl. Constantius probably in the mid or even late 360s. The
picture, therefore, is of a gradual building programme, conducted at quite a
leisurely pace, if the circuit of walls was already conceived when the west
gate was built. Moreover we now know that Constantius was also active in
providing at least a mosaic floor in the Basilica (235); work in the North Agora may also belong to this period (29).
III.20 If the walls of Aphrodisias were
indeed built in this way, as part of a larger programme of maintenance and
redevelopment, this would fit other evidence from the period. The rescript of
Valens to the proconsul of Asia, Eutropius, refers to an imperial policy of
assisting cities to undertake building works — ad instaurandam moenium
faciem. 41 The rescript apparently dates from
370, and refers to abuses of this programme, suggesting that it had been
initiated some time earlier in the decade. As a result of this policy, some
cities were claimed to have been greatly improved — a foedo priorum
squalore ruinarum in antiquam sui faciem nova reparatione consurgere. Moenia
can refer to a range of public constructions, including walls; and other
legislation suggests that the imperial government was particularly keen at this
period to see walls built or rebuilt. 42 It is important to remember that what
was undertaken was the complete construction of a circuit of walls for a city
which, unusually, had been unwalled in Hellenistic and Roman times. In the absence of any obvious military
threat, this must be seen as a project undertaken in order to adorn the city,
in the context of all the other building projects.
III.21 After Valens (21) the next member of the imperial house to be honoured at
Aphrodisias was the empress Aelia Flaccilla, who was already the wife of
Theodosius I when he became emperor (January 379) and died in 386 (PLRE I. s.v. Flaccilla). We know that
she had a statue in the Senate at Constantinople, 43 and she was also honoured with two
statues at Ephesus, one with a lavish accompaniment of statues of Victory. The
Ephesus texts — both put up by the
Council and the People — describe her
in terms very similar to those used here, as εὐσεβεστάτην Αὐγοῦστν, τὴν δέσποιναν τῆς οἰκουμένης. It is therefore very likely that all
these statues were put up when Flaccilla was declared Augusta, most probably in
383 when her son Arcadius was declared Augustus. 44 At Aphrodisias Flaccilla was honoured
by the provincial assembly (see discussion at II.37),
describing themselves simply as The Carians. The phrasing seems to emphasize
the importance of Aphrodisias' position as provincial metropolis.
III.22 The man honoured in text 24 is a native Aphrodisian, Menander — a name extremely common at
Aphrodisias throughout the Roman period; he is said to have decreased
Aphrodisias' burden of taxation (δασμοὺς πρηΰνας); that he was able to do so
must indicate that he was a fairly high official. His affability (πᾶσι προσηνέα) is a virtue particularly appropriate to men in authority. 45
Robert suggested that to be able to exercise such power, he must have been
higher than a provincial praeses, and
proposed to identify him with Menander, vicar of Asiana in May 385 but no longer
in office by 388. 46 The same man is apparently attested as
Flavius Menander, vicar of Asiana, in a boundary inscription from Sanaos in
Phrygia. 47
III.23 While the identification of the subject
of this inscription with the vicar of Asia cannot be proved, it appears highly
likely. Such a date is supported by the script, which in layout and overall
appearance is quite similar to 21
and 22 (from the 360s) but
incorporates some new features; note particularly kappa and mu, and the
tendency to stress the serifs of letters. Robert discussed the language very fully. The theme of the citizen
repaying the price of his rearing — θρεπτήρια — to
his birthplace is standard; 48 the phrase appears again in 73, and as Robert has pointed out, 54 expresses the same idea in different
words. 49 In l.5, μεγάλῃ πόλι refers to Aphrodisias' position as
metropolis of Caria, providing further evidence of the importance of this
position (see discussion at II.37). There may
also be an antiquarian echo of Aphrodisias' supposed early name of Μεγαλόπολις (Steph. Byz., s.v. Νινόη); such a reference would reflect the
continuing interest in lore of this kind as shown in 19 (see discussions at III.8) and
frequently elsewhere. 50
III.24 The
next group of honours for the imperial house is formed by three statue bases, 25, 26, 27 set up, like that of Aelia Flaccilla, in the area of
the East Court of the Hadrianic Baths (see plan 3);
25, for Honorius, was apparently
placed in the court, near to the statue of his mother, while those of Arcadius
(26) and Valentinian II (27) flanked the eastern entrance to the
court. The inscription for Honorius was found in 1904 by Gaudin, working in the
east court of the Baths. The bases for Arcadius and Honorius were excavated in
September 1905, and with them was found the statue of a young emperor which is
now in the Istanbul Museum, 51 usually referred to as of Valentinian
II. 52 A photograph of this statue was taken
by Gaudin shortly after its discovery, and published by K. T. Erim. 53 The background in that photograph
suggests that the statue was standing — and so had perhaps been found — nearer
to 26 (honouring Arcadius) than to 27 (honouring Valentinian II). The
current expedition undertook further clearing work in this area, and in 1975
discovered fragments of a second similar imperial statue (now in the
Aphrodisias Museum), but without the head. These fragments were found at about
the central point of the portico, and nearer to the present position of 27 than of 26. While the state of disarray in which the entire area was left
after the 1913 excavations makes it difficult to draw any definite conclusions
about findspots, the evidence suggests that the statue in the Istanbul Museum
is more probably that of Arcadius, while the statue in the Aphrodisias Museum
is more likely to be that of Valentinian II. 54
III.25 The group can be fairly closely dated
after the appointment of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus as Praetorian Prefect in June
388, and before the death of Valentinian II in May 392. It was Grégoire who
first proposed the restoration of the name of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus in the
erasure on 25. He pointed out the
similar phraseology in another dedication by Tatianus of a group of statues of
Theodosius I, Arcadius, Valentinian II and Honorius from Antinoopolis in Egypt. 55 Grégoire did not realize, however,
that the two bases from Aphrodisias (which he also published, but from Mendel's
copies) honouring Arcadius and Valentinian bore similar erasures (26 and 27). It was Louis Robert who noted this, and suggested that all
three bases belonged to a group of statues of the imperial family, similar to
that at Antinoopolis, of which the base at Aphrodisias honouring Theodosius I
has not been recovered; 56 it is on this identification that the
restoration of the erased lines is based. He also demonstrated that an
inscription at Side (I.Side52) should
be emended to read as the dedicatory inscription accompanying another such
group erected by Tatianus. 57
III.26 The career of Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus
is known in some detail, partly because it is set out in an epigram inscribed
in his honour at his home town of Sidyma in Lycia. 58 He was praeses Thebaidos in the 360s, prefect
of Egypt 367-70, comes Orientis 370-4
and comes sacrarum largitionum 374-80;
he then appears to have lived in retirement until June 388 when he was
appointed praefectus praetorio per
Orientem. At the same time his son Proculus was made prefect of
Constantinople. 59 Theodosius departed almost immediately
after making these appointments for the west, where he remained until his
return to Constantinople in autumn 391. Tatianus and Proculus fell dramatically
from power in September 392, largely as a result of the endeavours of Fl.
Rufinus, who succeeded Tatianus as PPO. 60 Tatianus was relegated to Lycia,
Proculus was executed, and the names of both were erased from public monuments,
as here at Aphrodisias. Extraordinarily, measures were even passed excluding
Lycians from public office; these were repealed only after the death of Rufinus
in 395. 61
III.27 The abrupt and violent fall of
Tatianus and Proculus has attracted conjecture. E. Stein saw the significant
feature as their paganism. 62 He pointed out that Tatianus was
chosen as PPO in 388 after pagan
sensibilities had been ruffled by the activities of the Christian Cynegius; 63 his downfall was brought about by
another energetic Christian, Rufinus, and was followed almost immediately by
the issue of a law banning all pagan practice. 64 G. Dagron preferred une cause
institutionelle, suggesting that Theodosius was disturbed by the power
accumulated by the alliance of Praetorian Prefect and Urban Prefect. 65 Dagron then has to explain the action
against the Lycians simply as evidence of la grande peur du souverain.
Rebenich stresses that there was a cluster of circumstances which led to the
disaster. 66
III.28 Each of these explanations carries
some weight. Tatianus and his son were exceptions, as men of the eastern empire
who reached high office in a reign otherwise dominated by men of western
origin. 67 Between 388 and 391 they exercised
undisputed power over the eastern empire, and this institutional imbalance may
have given increasing cause for concern, if it was seen to be reinforced by a
cultural sympathy between the two men and certain elements of the population of
the eastern empire. The action against the Lycians suggests that Tatianus and
Proculus were seen to be developing a specific, geographically located,
influence; indeed, by this date one of the most important aspects of paganism
may have been its support of local identity over the empire-wide uniformity
which Christianity appeared to require. There seems to have been some attempt
to reinstate the two men after the fall of Rufinus — the name of Proculus,
which had been erased from the inscription on the base of the obelisk in the
Hippodrome at Constantinople was re-inscribed; 68 while this was perhaps the work of
their family (as with the restoration of Tatianus' statue at Aphrodisias, for
which see text 37), it may suggest
that they were seen as representatives of something more than just their own
power.
III.29 It is therefore worth considering the
evidence from the imperial dedications for Tatianus' activity as Praetorian
Prefect. Those which have survived comes from Egypt, where he had spent a long
period of his career; from Side, which was the home of at least one apparently
pagan sophist in the late fourth century, Troilus; 69 and from Aphrodisias, where we know
pagans held prominent positions a century later. At Aphrodisias Tatianus
himself was also honoured with a statue (text 37). The evidence of such chance discoveries cannot be pressed too
far, but it may indicate the places where Tatianus wished his influence to be
felt. The closely similar wording of the inscriptions at Antinoopolis, Side and
Aphrodisias is striking. Perhaps all three groups were erected simultaneously,
that is in 388-90, since the governor responsible for the Antinoopolis group is
attested in this period. In all three texts, the unusual phrase τῇ συνήθει καθοσιώσει is used of the dedication of the
statues. A few years previously the governor of Crete, Oecumenius Dositheus
Asclepiodotus had set up two bases in honour
of Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius (I.Cret.
IV, 284a and b, dated 379/83), in which he described himself as καθοσιούμενος τῇ αὐτῶν εὐσεβείᾳ. Another base honouring the same
emperors has lost the name of the dedicator, probably also Asclepiodotus (I.Cret. IV.285); he claims ταῖς τε ἱεραῖς καὶ θείαις
προτομαῖς . . . καθιέρωσεν τὴν στήλην ταύτην, μνήμην ἀθάνατον τῆς
βασιλείας. In my earlier
discussion of these texts, I was inclined to see this wording as evidence of
pagan, conservative, proclivities, basing my argument in part on the discussion
by Louis Robert. Robert argued, among
other things, from the use of the concept of dedication of statues, which he
saw as declining in Late Antiquity; but we now have examples for the late fifth
or early sixth centuries at Aphrodisias (53,
62, 65). As Denis Feissel
observes, the phraseology of καθοσιούμενος and similar terms should probably be understood as reflecting the
Latin usage of devotio and related
words. Moreover, the dedication to Victory associated with Asclepiodotus can
now be seen in a wider context. 70 I would now prefer to see this
language as evidence of ostentatious traditionalism, part of a wider search for
new formulae which characterises the statue dedications of Late Antiquity.
Tatianus can therefore be seen to have asserted his presence — and his loyalty
— at several places in the East; but it is hard to detect evidence of any
religious commitment.
III.30 The term ἀνέθηκεν , found in 25, 26 and 27, is also used in 28,
which was set up by Antonius Priscus, praeses of Caria at the time that Tatianus made his dedications, and so at some time
between 388 and 392 (see List of Governors).
What he dedicated may have been described in l. 4 or on the plinth of the
statue, or may have been self-explanatory; compare 11, 12, 13 and 252. The restoration in the
metropolis (rather than a dedication to the metropolis) is based on 23.
III.31 The following group of texts, 29—35,
offer no certain criteria for dating (although the governors in 29 and 31 must be earlier than the late fifth century). I am inclined to
believe, for reasons set out below, that they are all of the fourth century, or
perhaps the early fifth; but this cannot be proved, and may be disproved by
further discoveries.
III.32 Texts 29 and 30 were found on
adjacent columns of the southern colonnade of the North Agora. Both give the a
name and a title in the genitive. 30,
the inscription of Menander, a local citizen and councillor, could be taken as a
'place' inscription (see XI.2); but this could
not explain the presence of the governor's name in 29. It is therefore easiest to interpret these two texts as naming
the donors of the columns or contributors to work on the portico. The naming of
donors on columns is not unusual; 71 a good example is provided by three
columns in the adjacent north portico of the South Agora, each inscribed with
the name Claudia Antonia. 72 Those texts use the nominative, which
is more usual; but for the genitive compare e.g. I.Stratonikeia 1224. Although the scripts of these two texts are
not very similar, their phrasing and position suggest that they should be taken
together. In 29, Flavius Pelagius
Ioannes, as a clarissimus praeses of
Caria, can be dated only after 360 (see above, III.11)
and before the later fifth century (see IV.16);
he was perhaps a relative of Flavius Pelagius Antipater, attested as dux Arabiae in 411. 73 The crisp, square script of 30, however, and in particular the
ligature of l.1, seem more suited to a fourth- than a fifth-century date.
Robert pointed out that the abbreviation after Menander's name stood for πολιτεύομενος, a
term which became common in the fourth century to describe members of the
curial class — that is, those eligible to be members of the local council. 74 Its use here,
therefore, suggests that Menander is acting as a private citizen, and it is
interesting to find his benefaction apparently undertaken in co-operation with
an imperial official (compare 38—40 below).
III.33 Text 31
is on a base found with its statue; the head was found in 2001 and the whole monument discussed by Smith (2002). Oecumenius is shown wearing a chlamys and
bearing a scroll. The language of the epigram was analysed very fully by Sevcenko (1969);ἡγεμονῆα (l.7) shows that Oecumenius was praeses of
Caria, and so must be dated
before the later fifth century, when the governor of Caria was a consularis (see IV.16); the content perhaps
allows a closer dating to the late fourth century. The themes of a governor's
justice (νόμων πλήθοντα)and incorruptibility (καθαρῶι φρένα καὶ χέρα) are standard in epigrams of this
kind. 75 The praise for Oecumenius' skill in
both Latin and Greek is more unusual; but although there are no epigraphic
parallels, Sevcenko showed that the topic is found in literary sources, chiefly
of the later fourth century. 76
III.34 The name Oecumenius is not particularly
common (only twice in PLRE I and II), and it is therefore tempting
to associate this Oecumenius with Oecumenius Dositheus Asclepiodotus, consularis of Crete in the early 380s. 77 The latter, whose names indicate a
Greek-speaking origin, was responsible for a series of inscriptions honouring
prominent figures in the Roman Senate, and so (as Sevcenko pointed out) was
probably bilingual. 78 Sevcenko proposed the identification,
but he also drew attention to its difficulties. Oecumenius Asclepiodotus should
have held the lower, praesidial, governorship of Caria before the consular
governorship of Crete, where he is attested in and around 382-3; but the script
of the Aphrodisias inscription suggested to Sevcenko a date later than the
370s. The script is certainly closer to that of 36 (from the very last years of the fourth century, or the early
years of the fifth) than to that of the inscriptions of the 360s (20, 21) or of 24, probably put up around 385. We should, then, accept perhaps
that this is another, later, Oecumenius — possibly a son of the governor of
Crete.
III.35 Text 32
honours Alexander for his justice and god-like rule; this terminology suggests
overwhelmingly that he was in a position of official authority. 79 He is also praised for his εὐφροσύνη, good cheer; although this might seem
a surprising attribute for an imperial official, it recurs in an epigram at
Ephesus in praise of a proconsul of Asia, Stephanus. 80 As well as the general sense of
delight, εὐφροσύνη has a specific sense
of banquet and the joy of a festive occasion, a meaning which continues into
the late empire. 81 This suggests that the εὐφροσύνη of Stephanus and Alexander was
manifested in their generous and hospitable entertainment, which must have
formed an important part of a governor's duties. A similar sense of hospitable
entertainment is probably conveyed in the late antique epigram at
Philippopolis, praising a certain Ammonius; 82 the εὐσεβίης τόπος which he built is more likely to have
been a house where he entertained, than pietatis sacellum, as Kaibel
suggested. 83
III.36 Alexander is therefore honoured as a man
in authority; but he is honoured by the mother — that is, as Robert pointed
out, the metropolis — of Phrygia, who has sent his statue to Aphrodisias, the
metropolis of Caria. The body of the statue, which was found beside the base,
probably dates from the second century; it had a separately sculpted head which
is now lost, and it seems quite likely that what was sent was simply the head.
The same expression, mother of Phrygia, is also used in a fourth-century
inscription of Hierapolis which had the formal rank of metropolis; but that
inscription was set up at Hierapolis itself (honouring Magnus, vicar of Asiana in
354) and reflects the city's own claim for itself. 84 The metropolis here is more probably an administrative metropolis — that
is, either Laodicea, capital of Phrygia Pacatiana, or Synnada, capital of
Phrygia Salutaris. The former is perhaps suggested by its proximity; but the
latter, as the home of a marble industry, might well undertake to send a
sculpture (as Robert suggested). At Aphrodisias, however, a reference to
the metropolis of Phrygia, without further explanation, would probably be taken
as meaning Laodicea.
III.37 Alexander's authority, praised by the
Phrygians, presumably extended over Phrygia; he was honoured at Aphrodisias
apparently because it was his home town. 85 While Alexander might have had
authority over both cities as vicar of Asiana, this would not of itself explain
why the Phrygians honoured him at Aphrodisias, since the seat of the vicar was
probably at Laodicea. 86 It would be very attractive to date
this inscription to the earliest years of the fourth century, and identify
Alexander as a governor of the joint province of Phrygia and Caria; but the
script seems to rule out such an early date. This dedication, with its emphasis
on the equal status of Aphrodisias and the Phrygian capital, may have been
intended partly to draw attention to that equality at a time when Aphrodisias'
period as capital of the joint province had not yet been forgotten; this would
be a further reason for identifying the dedicator as Laodicea (see discussion
at I.5). Beyond this slight hint of a
mid-fourth century date, the only other indications of date are tenuous: the
script does not resemble very closely any other on the site; its overall
appearance is perhaps fourth century, and shows some similarity to that of 19 (c. 359).
III.38 Text 33
is another verse inscription which must have accompanied a statue; it honours
Eupeithius in particularly uninformative terms. The only indication of date is
provided by the script. Sevcenko felt that it should be earlier than 31, the inscription for Oecumenius. The
form of omega used here is not found
in any later inscriptions; it may, of course, be an example of deliberate
archaizing, but together with the general style of the script, it probably
indicates a mid to late fourth-century date. Eupeithius' position is unclear.
He is praised as wise, which is regular in praise of governors at this period,
even using the same opening τὸν
σοφόν; 87 but there is no other term in this
epigram suggesting that Eupeithius exercised authority. Furthermore, his statue
was apparently erected after his death, μετὰ πότμον. 88 It seems unlikely that this would be
done for a governor; nor should a governor have been troubled by envy, βασκανία (see discussion at VI.21).
III.39 Eupeithius, therefore, may have been a
private citizen, not necessarily of Aphrodisian origin; ἥδε πόλις might indicate that Aphrodisias was only one of
the cities likely to honour him (cf. 14),
but it is used of Aphrodisias itself in 53
below, which honours a local citizen. Eupeithius appears to be praised for his
wisdom, and whatever benefits are vaguely referred to by εἵνεκα πάντων; perhaps,
therefore, his excellence was in intellectual activities. Slight parallels to
this inscription are provided by a pair of epigrams of the late fourth or early
fifth century on a monument from Athens
honouring a prominent sophist, Iamblichus (PLRE I, Iamblichus 2); 89 these were inscribed after his death (καὶ μετὰ πότμον) in
gratitude for his help in rebuilding the city walls, and for his σοφία. It may also be significant that the
only Eupeithius of any distinction in the ancient world was an Athenian sophist
of the later fifth century (PLRE II
s.v.); we know that in the intellectual circles of the late Roman period
particular names were favoured, and recurred in several generations. We also
know that in the later fifth century there was a school of philosophy at
Aphrodisias (see discussion at V.5, V.13); at
that period there is a reference to a certain Proclus as σοφίστης of the city (Zacharias 39, and V.3), implying some kind of institutionalized
intellectual activity. Eupeithius may, then, have practised as a sophist or a
teacher at Aphrodisias in the middle or late fourth century. A funerary epigram
for a Eupeithius has been found at Aphrodisias, but there the script probably
suggests an earlier date. 90
III.40 Text 34
runs along the rim of the theatre stage, and was probably in verse (for εὐεργεσία in verse compare 36, 63, 88); it records a benefaction,
presumably towards the maintenance or restoration of the Theatre. Androcles is a name not otherwise attested
at Aphrodisias; it is impossible to say whether he was an imperial official or
a local citizen. The surviving letters do not provide any firm basis for
attempting to establish a date, beyond suggesting that the fourth century seems
most likely.
III.41 Another benefactor about whom we know very
little is Flavius ?Septimius in text 35;
he might be an imperial official or a local citizen. We do not even know
whether he was responsible for this inscription, or whether it was put up in
his honour, since we do not know whether his name appeared in the nominative or
the accusative. There are various possible phrases with the term 'metropolis'.
Section: I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII
|