UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The gerousia of Ephesus Bailey, Colin 2006

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2006-199343.pdf [ 40.35MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0092767.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0092767-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0092767-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0092767-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0092767-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0092767-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0092767-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE GEROUSIA OF EPHESUS by Colin Bailey B.A. , University of Calgary, 2000 M.A. , McMaster University, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Classics) University of British Columbia October, 2006 © Colin Bailey, 2006 11 A B S T R A C T In various cities throughout Asia Minor, associations called gerousiai existed under the Roman Empire. These groups are most easily studied from the inscriptions which have been excavated and published for each city; in fact, epigraphic evidence is often the only source which sheds light on the nature of any particular gerousia. It has been customary to divide the gerousia as an institution into two groups: the Asiatic gerousia, namely the gerousiai of the Roman provinces of Asia Minor, and the Doric gerousia, which is most well known from the board of twenty-eight elders who advised the kings of Sparta. The initial purpose of this study was to examine the Asiatic gerousiai in order to determine the position of these bodies in their cities, particularly with respect to the boule and demos of those cities. It quickly became apparent from the quantity of available inscriptions, however, that such a topic was somewhat too large for a mere dissertation. I have chosen, therefore, to limit myself to the Ionian city of Ephesus (modern Selcuk). The intensive focus on the Ephesian gerousia allows a greater degree of detail than would have been permitted in a more general study of similar size. The abundance of evidence for this city has made it possible to draw conclusions about several aspects of a single gerousia without introducing the assumption, implicit or explicit, that all Asiatic gerousiai were the same. This is a study of the gerousia of the Ephesus and does not purport to make any conclusions about a general Asiatic gerousia. The large number of inscriptions from Ephesus available for this study also offers a further advantage, as I hope will emerge in the following pages: we cannot speak of a "Hellenistic gerousia" and a "Roman gerousia" as two distinct entities. Certainly there was a gerousia in Hellenistic period and one in the Roman period, and the terms Hellenistic gerousia and Roman gerousia may well be used in the course of this work, but not as archetypes. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract • i i Table of Contents i i i List of Tables v List of Figures vi List of Charts vii Abbreviations viii Acknowledgements ix 1. Introduction: The Gerousia 1 2. Ephesus and the Gerousia 24 2.1. A Brief History of Ephesus 24 2.2. Origins of the Ephesian Gerousia 45 3. Epigraphic Evidence 59 3.1. Collections of the Inscriptions of Ephesus / 59 3.2. Chronology 60 3.3. Oranization of the Catalogue of Inscriptions 67 3.4. Gerousia, Presbuteros, Sunhedrion and Sustema 68 4. The Gerousiastai Pt. I - Numbers and Names 77 4.1. Introduction: The Gerousia of Sidyma 77 4.2. The Population of Ephesus 82 4.2.1. Estimates of the Population of Ephesus 83 4.2.2. Growth 87 4.3. The Size of the Ephesian Gerousia 91 4.3.1. The Mid-first Century: Gaius Stertinius Orpex 91 4.3.2. The Second Century: Gaius Vibius Salutaris 96 4.3.3. The Late Second Century: [Tiberius Claudius] Nicomedes 103 4.4. The Gerousiastai 106 4.4.1. Euphronius Herogeiton 109 4.4.2. Ambassadors to Roman Officials 110 4.4.3. Aurelius Artemidorus and Aurelius Attalus 113 4.4.4. Non-members of the Gerousia 120 Aelius Martiales 120 Marcus Aurelius Agathopus and Popillius Bassus 122 Trypho: geraios epi thymiatros 126 4.5. Conclusions 128 iv 5. The Gerousiastai Pt. II - Officers of the Ephesian Gerousia 132 5.1. Introduction 132 5.2. Officers of the Gerousia 134 5.2.1. Grammateus of the Gerousia 139 5.2.2. Gymnasiarch of the Gerousia 149 5.2.3. Pragmatikos of the Gerousia 156 5.2.4. Ekdikos and Logistes 159 5.3. Gerousiastai in the City 166 5.3.1. Kouretes, Prytanis and Epi thymiatrou 168 5.3.2. Ambassadors 174 5.3.3. Neopoioi 176 5.3.4. Chrysophoroi 182 5.3.5. Agonothetai 186 5.3.6. Essenes 190 5.3.7. Agoranomoi 193 5.3.8. Imperial Priest, Leitourgos and Nyktophylax 196 5.4. Conclusions 198 6. The Activities and Privileges of the Ephesian Gerousia 202 6.1. Introduction 202 6.2. Activities 204 6.2.1. The Hellenistic Period 204 6.2.2. The Late First Century BC and First Century AD 215 6.2.3. The Second Century AD 220 6.2.4. The Late Second and Early Third Centuries AD 234 6.3. Rights and Privileges 242 6.3.1. The Hellenistic Period 242 6.3.2. The Late First Century BC and First Century AD 248 6.3.3. The Second Century AD 258 6.3.4. The Late Second and Early Third Centuries AD 272 6.5. A Geronteion 276 6.6. Conclusions 279 7. Conclusion 283 Bibliography 290 Appendix I: Catalogue of Inscriptions 298 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures 381 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Named Members of the Gerousia 107 Table 2 Possible Members of the Gerousia 108 Table 3 Possible Officers of the Gerousia 139 Table 4 Offices and Positions Occupied by Gerousiastai 167 Table 5 Officers of the Gerousia and their Responsibilities 198 Table 6 Findspots of Inscriptions Included in the Catalogue 277 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Line drawing of IEph 1575 (Hicks, GIBM 575) 115 Figure 2 Hicks 575 with Proposed Restorations 117 Figure 3 Excavated city centre of Ephesus (White 2004) 381 Figure 4 Reconstructed elevation of the Prytaneion (FiE IX/I/I, Beilage I) 382 Figure 5 Cat. no. 1, line drawing (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel I, A2) 383 Figure 6 Cat. no. 2, line drawing (GIBM, 470) 383 Figure 7 Cat. no. 3, photo (IEph Vol . I, Tafel X , no. 8) 384 Figure 8 Cat. nos. 15, 54 & 55, photo (IEph Vol . I, Tafel 35, no. 27) 385 Figure 9 Cat. no. 17, photo, fragments a & b (IEph Vol . I, Tafel 25) 385 Figure 10 Cat. no. 17, photo, fragments c & d (IEph Vol . I, Tafel 26) 386 Figure 11 Cat. no. 17, photo, fragment e (IEph Vol . I, Tafel 27) 386 Figure 12 Cat. no. 17, line drawing (FiE II, pp. 120, no. 23) 387 Figure 13 Cat. no. 19, photo (IEph Vol . I, Tafel 31) 388 Figure 14 Cat. no. 21, squeeze (FIE IX/I/I, Tafel XXVIII , CI) 389 Figure 15 Cat. no. 22, line drawing (AD 7 [1921-2]: 113, abb. 28) 389 Figure 16 Cat. no. 22, photo (AD 7 [1921-2]: 113, abb. 28) 389 Figure 17 Cat. no. 23, line drawing (GIBM 587a+b) 390 Figure 18 Cat. no. 26, line drawing (GIBM 575) 390 Figure 19 Cat. no. 31, squeeze (JOA148 [1966-7]: 13-14, abb. 6) 390 Figure 20 Cat. no. 32, photo (ZPE 120 [1998]: 71, no. 8) 391 Figure 21 Cat. no. 39, line drawing (FiE II, p. 175, no. 61) 391 Figure 22 Cat. no. 40, line drawing (BCH 10 [1886]: 517, no. 8) 392 Figure 23 Cat. no. 43, line drawing (CIL III.6078) 392 Figure 24 Cat. no. 44, line drawing (GIBM 604) 392 Figure 25 Cat. no. 47, squeeze (FiE IV, III, p. 283, no 30, abb. 5) 392 Figure 26 Cat. no. 48, photo (JOAI26 (1930): 57, abb. 25) 393 Figure 27 Cat. no. 49, photo (FiE III, p. 143, no. 58) 394 Figure 28 Cat. no. 55, photo (IEph Vol . I, Tafel 36) 395 Figure 29 Cat. no. 56, line drawing, fragments 1 & 2 (FiE II, p. 109, no. 20) 396 Figure 30 Cat. no. 56, line drawing, fragment 3 (FiE II, p. 110, no. 20) 396 Figure 31 Cat. no. 60, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel XI , B22) 396 Figure 32 Cat. no. 61, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel XIV, B29) 397 Figure 33 Cat. no. 62, squeeze (FiE LX/I/I, Tafel X V I , B32) 397 Figure 34 Cat. no. 63, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel X I X , B39) 398 Figure 35 Cat. no. 64, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel X X , B40) 399 Figure 36 Cat. no. 65, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel X X V I I , B54) 399 Figure 37 Cat. no. 67, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel X X X I X , N2a, b, d) 400 Figure 38 Cat. no. 72, photo (FiE IV, I, p. 96, no. 23) 400 Figure 39 Cat. no. 72, photo (FiE IV, I, p. 96, no. 23) 401 Figure 40 Cat. no. 74, photo (FiE IV, I, p. 93, no. 17) 401 Figure 41 Cat. no. 74, photo (FiE IV, I, p. 93, no. 17) 402 Figure 42 Cat. no. 81, line drawing (GIBM 648) 402 Figure 43 Cat. no. 82, line drawing (CIL 3.6087) 402 Figure 44 Cat. no. 89, photo (ZPE 91 [1992] Tafel 13) 403 LIST OF CHARTS Chart 1 Chronological Distribution of Dated Gerousia Inscriptions ABBREVIATIONS The abbreviations for ancient authors and their works are those listed in the third edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (1996). AD: Archaiologikon Deltion. AE: L 'annee epigraphique. AJA: American Journal of Archaeology. AJPh: American Journal of Philology. CPh: Classical Philology. BE: Bulletin epigraphique (Revue des etudes grecques). CIG: Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. CII: Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum. CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum. EA: Epigraphica anatolica. FiE: Forschungen in Ephesos, (1906- ). GIBM: E .L. Hicks, The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part III, Priene, Iasos and Ephesos, Oxford (1890). IEph: Die Inschriften von Ephesos=IK vols. 11-19. IG: Inscriptiones Graecae. IGRR: Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. IJO: Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. IK: Inschriften griechischer Stddten aus Kleinasien. ILaodikeia: Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos, Vol. 1=IK 49. IMag: Inschriften von Magnesia. IMagnesia am Sipylum: Inschriften von Magneisa am Sipylum=IK 17. ISide: Inschriften von Side am Altertum-IK vols. 43-44. ITralles: Inschriften von Tralles=IK vol. 36. JOAI: Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts L-W: P. Ie Bas & W.H. Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines recueillies en Asie Mineure, Hildesheim (1972). OGIS: Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Oliver, SG: J.H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerousia, Hesperia Supplement VI, Baltimore (1941). POxy: The Oxyrynchus Papyri. REG: Revue des Etudes Grecques. SEG: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. SIG3: Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, third edition. TAM: Tituli Asiae Minoris. ZPE: Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik. ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors, Professors Tony Barrett and Franco De Angelis, both for agreeing to oversee a dissertation topic only indirectly related to their own fields of research and for their advice and patience. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the support and encouragement in all portions of my program which I have received over the past four years from the members of the Department of Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies at the University of British Columbia. I must also thank the various scholarship funds within the department and without from which I have benefited during my work, notably the Malcolm F. McGregor and the John L. Catterall Scholarship funds as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I would also like to express my gratitude once again to the administrators of the Homer A. Thompson Travel Scholarship fund, with whose assistance I was able to visit several different cities in Turkey in 2004, in addition to Ephesus. A very large debt of gratitude is owed to the Gerda Henkel and the Elise and Annemarie Jacobi Foundations with whose support I was enabled to spend two months in 2006 at die Kommission fur alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts in Munich completing my dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank friends and family, both in Vancouver and elsewhere, for their support and patience. 1 1. INTRODUCTION: THE GEROUSIA The inscriptions of Ephesus are numerous, with over five thousand available in Die Inschriften von Ephesos, and new finds published regularly by the Austrian Archaeological Institute in the Jahresheft des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts. Among these inscriptions are a significant number of references to a body called the gerousia or its members; Ephesus alone accounts for almost 30% of the approximately three hundred and sixty references to the gerousia in the inscriptions of Asia Minor. In the case of some cities, such as Priene and Colophon, the gerousia appears in very few inscriptions. Ephesus, on the other hand, has produced over ninety inscriptions which mention the gerousia in various capacities, to which may also be added a few fragments. No other city in Asia Minor has provided such a large body of evidence for the gerousia: Aphrodisias has produced the second most references to this body, but not more than forty to date, that is, quantitatively less than half of the evidence available in Ephesus. A study of the gerousia must, therefore, place a decided emphasis on the evidence from Ephesus, not only because of the abundance of evidence, but also because of the variety: the gerousia appears in several different contexts in Ephesus, whereas it is not uncommon for it to appear almost exclusively in a single context in other cities, for example, in funerary or honorary inscriptions. For reasons which will be laid out below, the present work focuses exclusively on Ephesus, but this is not to disparage the evidence from other cities. The abundance of testimony, however, has not rendered the nature of the gerousia in the civic and social structure of Greek cities Asia Minor during either the Hellenistic or the Roman Imperial periods clear. Although there have been few studies of the gerousia itself, theories about it have been put forth in the context of larger works on civic structure, provincial organization, epigraphic commentaries, and even general histories.1 The term gerousia encourages scholars to certain initial assumptions, since the Greek word is quite clearly derived from geron, old man; gerousia, consequently, literally means a body of old men. As such, a comparison with the Latin senex and senatus is inescapable. Geron and senex may be synonymous, but the same cannot be said to be true of gerousia and senatus. Gerousia is, it is true, used virtually interchangeably with boule, sugkletos and sunhedrion by several Greek historians in reference to the Roman senate. Dionysius of Halicarnassus asserts that the prerogatives of the original Roman Senate, namely to deliberate and vote on matters submitted by the King, were taken over directly from the Spartan model; he also states that Romulus called this body a senatus as a translation of the Spartan gerousia? Despite this synonymous use, though, several authors recognized a distinction between sugkletos, boule and sunhedrion, and the gerousiai of certain cities. Romulus may have named and modelled his senate after the Spartan gerousia, but Greek authors did not employ the same range of synonyms when discussing Spartan gerousia. Only once are alternative terms used, presbugeneas and gerontes; Plutarch reports that the former term was used in Delphi and that the latter was Lycurgus' term for the body.4 With these exceptions, the Spartan ' The major English monograph is J.H. Oliver's The Sacred Gerousia (1941); the gerousia is also the subject of a more recent Dutch dissertation, J.A. van Rossum's De Gerousia in de Griekse Steden van het Romeinse Rijk (1988). The conclusions of both works will be discussed briefly below. 2 Gerousia: Dion. H a l , Ant. Rom., 2.12.3, 30.3, 6.18.3; Plut, Mor., 789E; Caes., 18.5, 29.5, 33.5; Fab. Max., 18.5; Marc, 23.1; boule: Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom., 2.12.1, 14.2, 14.3, 6.18.1; Plut., Mor., 790E; Fab. Max., 17.5, 18.4 ; sugkletos: Plut., Mor. 789E, 790C; Caes., 33.4, 57.4; Marc, 23.1; Polyb., 1.20.1, 36.4.4, 5.3; Diod. S i c , 28.13.1, 37.6.1, 6.3; sunhedrion: Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom., 2.11.1, 14.2, 30.3. 3 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom., 2.14.2. 4 Plut., Mor., 789E. 3 gerousia is called simply that. Dionysius and Plutarch appear always to use gerousia when referring to the advisory body to the Spartan kings.5 Carthage, according to Polybius, possessed both a sugkletos and a gerousia. He mentions the sugkletos of the Carthaginians only twice, but in each case it is closely associated with the gerousia: representatives from both bodies were sent by Magon to Gaius Laelius, and the sons of members of both orders were given as hostages after the peace treaty with the Carthaginians.6 Elsewhere in Polybius, gerousia appears to be used as an advisory board, particularly in matters concerning the army.7 Of all ancient authors, Josephus employs the term gerousia most often; he also uses sunhedrion relatively frequently. It must be noted, though, that he does not use the two words interchangeably. When he uses gerousia, he is clearly referring to the council presided over by the Jewish high-priest, or to the elders of an individual town; this term, however, appears primarily in the first half of his Antiquitates Iudaicae, and only once in his Bellum ludaicum. Josephus uses sunhedrion somewhat less judiciously: it can refer to the Sanhedrin, of course, but it can also identify a meeting or a gathering of advisors selected from the friends and family of, for example, Augustus or Herod; this seems to be Q the most common sense of the word in both works. It is clear, consequently, that gerousia was not simply a translation of senatus, though it could be used as such. This distinction is blurred in literary sources, but it is 5 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom., 2.14.2; Plut., Lye, 6.1; Pyrr., 27.2. 6 Polyb., 10.18.1, 36.4.6: Sfo \ikv yap fjcrcxv KaxeiXnuufevoi xcov feK xfjc; Y£P°wtaS> Jtfevxs S£ Kcd Sfeica xcov e k xfjc, GVYKXT\XOV; 'ZKnk\i\\>a>c>iv ev xpidtKOv9' f||XEpca<; xo\>c, \iiovc, xcov feK <xfji;> avyKXiymv Kcd. xfjc; yepowiai;. 7 Polyb., 1.21.7, 68.5, 87.3, 7.9.1, 10.18.1, 15.19.2, 36.4.6. 8 Gerousia: Joseph., AJ, 4.186, 218, 220, 224, 255, 256, 324; 5.15, 23, 55, 57, 80, 103, 115, 135, 151, 170, 332, 353; 7.295; 12.138; 13.166; BJ, 7.412; sunhedrion: Josesph., AJ, 12.103; 14.91, 14.167, 168, 170; 15.358; 16.30, 357, 360, 367; 17.46, 106, 301, 317; 20.61, 200, 216, 217; BJ, 1.537, 540, 640; 2.25, 38, 81, 93; 6.243. P.J-B. Frey (Corpus Inscription Iudaicarum, Vol . I, Introduction pp. lxxxii-lxxxvii) presents a brief discussion of the gerousia in Jewish communities as a 'kind of local Sanhedrin, modeled partly on the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, partly on the gerousia of Greek and Roman associations.' 4 clearer in epigraphic sources. Even so, inscriptions, despite their numbers, do not render the exact nature of the gerousia clear. It is no surprise, therefore, that different theories have been proposed to account for the presence and activities of the gerousia in Asia Minor. There are as many theories as authors, so it may be well to review these. Th. Mommsen takes the view that the gerousia was primarily a social institution, analogous to the neoi, the association for young men who had passed through the ephebic order but continued their activities in the gymnasia. The gerousia was an assembly of older citizens meeting in the equivalent of a modern clubhouse: Vitruvius reports that the palace of Croesus in Sardis had been given over to the gerousia? The Roman gerousia had Hellenistic precedents, but, Mommsen. believes, it was not identical with the Hellenistic gerousia; he believes that the gerousia of the inscriptions, which is primarily the Roman gerousia, had nothing in common with the one of Ephesus which Strabo mentions.10 Under the Empire, there was no significant variation between the gerousiai of the different cities of Asia. It was not a group concerned with the welfare of the poor, but they were not exclusively aristocratic either; the gerousia, Mommsen argues, was open to all citizens. Once enrolled, the members of the gerousia appointed a gymnasiarch for themselves who was responsible primarily for the provisioning of o i l . 1 1 A . H . M . Jones argues, like Mommsen, that the close connection which exists between the gymnasium and the gerousia in a city indicates that gerousiai were primarily social organisations.12 Although gerousiai do appear in honorific decrees, the neoi, which were social groups, also appear in such decrees and so an appearance in these does 9 Vitr., 2.8.10. 1 0 Strabo, 14.1.21. 1 1 Mommsen (1921): 326, n. 2. 1 2 Jones (1940): 225-6. 5 not necessarily give an administrative or political function to gerousiai. Membership in the gerousia was more exclusive than membership in the neoi, with fees being charged in some cases, but the two groups were essentially parallel organisations for citizens of different ages, Jones argues.13 Both received a basic supply of oil from the city and supplemented this with funds received from endowments by wealthy benefactors. The gerousia had no political prerogatives, but in some cities performed religious functions, such as the conduct of cults.1 4 D. Magie agrees with Jones that the gerousia had no political powers: it was a social institution whose members exercised influence through the respect they received from their fellow citizens.15 The existence of two early Hellenistic honorary decrees indicates that the gerousia did not exercise supreme power over the affairs of the city at that time since these are subject to the approval of the boule and demos.16 Like the ephebes and neoi, the gerousia centred on a gymnasium and, although it was of more importance because of the respect paid to its members, it was before and after Lysimachus and under the Roman Empire a social organization. C. Curtius suggests that the gerousia and boule were similar institutions. The gerousia was a distinct organization which could and did own property and which lent money to private citizens. He argues that it cannot be identical with the boule in Ephesus or other cities in Asia Minor, since the two bodies often appear in the same inscriptions, 1 3 Jones (1940): 353,n.31. 1 4 Jones (1940): 226. 1 5 Magie (1988): 63, 600, 856, 1534. 1 6 The boule and demos may be defined as the senate and popular assembly of a Greek city. These two bodies debated proposals and passed laws for the city. Their authority, however, was much reduced under the Roman Empire, with the majority of decrees passed by the boule and demos conferring citizenship rather than directing domestic and foreign policy; cat. nos. 1 & 2. 6 and each appears to have had its own property. Instead, he accepts the argument of Boeckh that the gerousia was a standing committee of the boule, consisting of special authorities, annually elected from the bouleutai who had served for a lengthy period of time.1 8 He suggests that the word sunhedrion, in the case of Ephesus, might refer to a meeting of the gerousia; gerontes and presbeuteroi can refer to the gerousia}9 He believes that the gerousia of Ephesus was originally associated with the Temple of Artemis, from which it derived its initial funds; later, however, the gerousia found other sources of income, including fines paid for tomb violations.20 Curtius concludes that the gerousiai in Ephesus and other Ionian cities were similar to the Areopagus council in Athens and exercised a great influence over the public affairs of their respective cities through the dignity and respect they earned through their membership. I. Levy identifies the conflicting features of the gerousia: it was a limited body whose membership conferred honour and whose members often received shares in money-distributions which were equal to or only slightly less than those received by the members of the boule. At the same time, though, it had a role in funding the festival of Artemis, it had a grammateus (secretary), and a curator was appointed by the Emperor when the gerousia of Ephesus was unable to collect on a debt. The first group of features suggests a private, or at least an exclusive, group, while the second suggests a public 1 7 Curtius (1870): 181. 1 8 Curtius (1870): 224-225; Boeckh, CIG 11.2811: Ylaaa t| (3otiX.fi sic habetur etiam n. 2782.37.: Kod exepai; 8fe 5iavop.dc, SESCOKOTOC KOXXCXKIC, TTJ (3oi$.fi 7tdan KOCI xfj yepo" 1^ 0^ quo loco collato coniecerim yepoixriav fuisse partem PODXTJC, eximiam, ut Athenis Jtpwdveic,. If this is the case, the members of the gerousia (a collegium ex fkyoXfj selectum, in Boeckh's words) would receive a double share of the dianomai. It is more likely, though, the distributions mentioned here are similar to those arranged by Salutaris at the beginning of the second century A D (cf. cat. nos. 54 & 56, and below, Chapter Four, pp. 96-100) in which the entire boule but only a portion of the gerousia received shares. 1 9 Curtius (1870): 224-225; cf. Polyb., 36.4.4, 36.6.4. Presbeuteros could also be spelled without the second epsilon (ie., presbuteros). Both spellings are used in the course of this work, reflecting the spelling the in the inscriptions. 2 0 Curtius (1870): 181,200. 7 21 group. Levy denies that the gerousia was a division of the boule or simply an assembly of elder citizens. It played an honorific role in the administration of municipal affairs, he suggests, and was not significantly involved in the religious affairs of the city. Its primary concerns were not religious matters. The gerousia, he argues, only met exceptional expenses in the sacred games of Artemis when the public treasury was unable to do so. It was the boule and demos, not the gerousia, which approved and regulated the sacred processions in Ephesus.22 Lysimachus created the gerousia in 302 BC, giving it access to the treasury of the Temple of Artemis and significant political influence. Following its establishment, a continuing struggle between the boule and demos with the priesthood of the temple gradually diminished the authority of the gerousia. Despite this loss of power, though, the gerousia continued to exercise a degree of control over the treasury of the temple without interruption. The gerousia spread from Ephesus to the other Greek cities of Asia Minor, but new gerousiai were almost all private organisations.24 Many of these groups were established and enrolled by the boule and demos with the approval of Imperial authorities after the Hellenistic period.2 5 Membership, though limited in places, was open to all citizens, men and women. Levy cites the acts of a Syrian apostle which portray, in caricature, the members of the gerousia drinking, eating, singing and indulging in perfumes: the primary concerns of the Roman gerousia were the comforts of its members, and not religious or municipal Levy (1895): 233-234. Levy (1895): 235. Levy (1895): 237. Levy (1895): 239. Levy (1895): 242. 8 matters.26 The administrative associations which it retained under the Empire are remnants of its original functions. E.L. Hicks remarks that early gerousiai of Roman Asia Minor tend to appear in regions which were once subject to Lysimachus, and suggests on this basis that the Hellenistic and Roman gerousiai may not be entirely distinct. The connotations of the word gerousia are various in Greek literature: in Homer and in Euripides' Rhesus, the word implies a group of elders, official or otherwise. The Spartan gerousia, on the other hand, implies oligarchy and mastery to Demosthenes, while Plutarch also refers to the oligarchic nature of the gerousia in Sparta.27 Since Antigonus and Demetrius, whom Lysimachus had expelled from Ephesus, had favoured democrats, Hicks suggests that Lysimachus installed oligarchic bodies to replace democratic groups and the Antigonid legacy. Thus, he argues, the gerousia replaced the boule while the epikletoi replaced the ekklesia. Lysimachus used the gerousia to formalise the previously undefined influence of the temple-authorities, who might be expected to favour oligarchic forms and, therefore, to favour Lysimachus himself. Given the widespread appearance of the gerousia under the Roman Empire, it is probable that the Romans encouraged this body in the Greek cities, though there is evidence that a gerousia existed before the arrival of the Romans in Asia Minor in Sardis, Nysa, Lampsacus and Erythrae. These may have been remnants of Lysimachus' gerousiai.29 The Roman gerousia was a public body, similar to but distinct from the boule. Hicks takes the Ephesian gerousia as Levy (1895): 243; Acta Sancta Maris, 19-23, in Analecta Bollandiana 4 (1885): 43-139 [non vidi]. Hicks (1890): 75; Homer, //. 2.53; Plut, Lye, 5, Ages 8; Dem., Lept., 107; Arist., Pol., 5.1305b8. Hicks (1890): 75. Hicks (1890): 75. 9 representative of many other cities in Asia Minor, and suggests that one of the gymnasiarchs of the city was always a member of the gerousia.30 I. Menadier accepts that the citizen body of a city may have been divided into groups of younger and older citizens, but he argues that the gerousia was not one of these groups, as Mommsen had suggested. Instead, it and the boule were groups of the same type, but not identical.31 Some of Pliny's correspondence with Trajan suggests to Menadier that the gerousia could not have been a private, social club: Trajan outlawed 32 such clubs in Bithynia. Furthermore, Pliny calls the meeting place of the gerousia a 33 public building. The gerousia was established by Lysimachus in Ephesus and in many other cities, since the institution appears in many of the cities which were subject to him. 3 4 The gerousia had administrative and deliberative functions and was involved mainly in religious affairs, but contributed to the funds of the Temple of Artemis only in extraordinary circumstances.35 Alternate expressions for the gerousia may have existed; Menadier believes that sustemata should be understood as the gerousia, as should sunhedrion when it is not qualified by a genitive noun, such as chrysophoron?6 D.G. Hogarth follows Menadier in many respects, adding that the gerousia could not have been a social club if it was limited in number, which it seems to have been. Although women are not commonly known to have been members, Hogarth suggests that even their occasional presence also refutes the idea that the gerousia was nothing more 32 34 Hicks (1890): 82. Menadier (1880) Menadier (1880) Menadier (1880) Menadier (1880) Menadier (1880) 'Menadier (1880) 53-54. 52; PI., Ep. 10.34. 52 ;P l . , £p . 10.33. 62-63. 56-57. 49, 57. 10 than a social club. 3 7 In many respects Hogarth accepts that the gerousiai of different cities were similar. They had responsibility for some festivals and possibly for the general supervision of religious affairs in different cities.3 8 Whereas Menadier suggests that the gymnasiarch was the lowest ranking official of the gerousia, Hogarth argues that this officer was actually the highest ranking member. He believes that the neoi and the gerousiastai were both associated with the gymnasium, but that they had little else in common. Hogarth cites an inscription from Sidyma in which the members of the gerousia are elected by the boule and demos, a practice which is never followed in the case of the neoi; furthermore, the neoi had no administrative functions.40 The Hellenistic and Roman gerousiai were not continuous.41 Members of the Roman gerousia were members of the boule who were over a certain age, and demotai with "proper qualifications"; the numbers of the gerousia were limited. 4 2 V. Chapot notes that there are several different names for the gerousia, and he is of the opinion that the precise nature of this body must have varied from city to city; there were, nevertheless, features which were common to most gerousiai in Asia Minor. Members held an elevated position in the social structure of their cities, and they were probably less numerous than the members of the boule in the same city. Gerousiastai, to judge from the name of their association, were men of a certain age, though experience in the administration of civic affairs may have been a more important criterion for membership than age. Despite this, it was not a political college and had no authority in 3 7 Hogarth (1891): 70-72. 3 8 Hogarth (1891): 73. 3 9 Menadier (1880): 51; Hogarth (1891): 73. 4 0 Hogarth (1891): 74; also cited by Mommsen (1921): 326, n. 2; TAM 11.175 &176. 4 1 Hogarth (1891): 72. 4 2 Hogarth (1891): 71. 11 public affairs of its own. 4 3 The gerousia consisted not of members of the boule, but of citizens who had influence in the city and wealth, with no actual political role; that is, gerousiastai were drawn from the same social order as the bouleutai.44 The gerousia and the neoi, Chapot maintains, are not parallel, in part because the existence of one in a given city does not require the presence of the other.45 He argues that the epikletoi whom Strabo mentions in conjunction with the gerousia of Ephesus were added to a pre-existing body in the city by Lysimachus after the defeat of Antigonus in 302 BC. This was a means of adding an oligarchic element to the administration of the city while maintaining the democratic forms of the boule and demos.46 Following Levy, Chapot believes that the gerousia initially had control over the funds of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, but, in an ongoing conflict with the boule and demos, it gradually lost this influence; it remained active in the festivals and sacred processions. In Magnesia on the Maeander, on the other hand, the gerousia was much more social: that body passed a decree providing an oil supplement to the daily quota granted by the city, while some of its officers were responsible for the heating of the baths or the provision of wood for fuel. 4 7 The gerousia may have been divided into different groups which alternated through its offices, since an inscription of Hierapolis records that the eighth puxion of the gerousia of that city 48 received a legacy. Chapot argues that the Ephesian gerousia was able to maintain its original character of a religious and financial group, although most other gerousiai Chapot (1967): 221. Chapot (1967): 222. Chapot (1967): 220. Chapot (1967): 223; Strabo, 14.1.21. Chapot (1967): 225; IMag 116. Chapot (1967): 227, nn. 3^4. 12 dwindled to little more than social groups, because it was closely watched over by the provincial governor, whose seat was in Ephesus.49 J.H. Oliver provides a comparative study of the gerousiai of Athens and Ephesus and, to a lesser extent, several other cities in Asia Minor. 5 0 He argues that there were two primary types of gerousia, of which one type was a public corporation with the management of estates owned by a temple.51 Oliver maintains against Levy that the term hiera (sacred) when applied to the gerousia "expresses the essential character of the organization" and that it is not merely an epithet intended to enhance the status of the association.52 The majority of Asiatic gerousiai to which the adjective is not applied were simply social organisations of older citizens. The hierai gerousiai are those which began to take a role in the administration of economic affairs in local sanctuaries, and this is the type which existed in Roman Ephesus.53 The original gerousia in Ephesus, Oliver argues, was an association of citizens until Lysimachus transferred the financial and secular concerns of the priests of Artemis to these older citizens and added additional members, the epikletoi. The gerousia was intended to be a body like the Amphictyonic council at Delphi. 5 4 It was a council which had influence over the boule and demos based on the prestige of its members rather than their actual political power.55 As the Temple of Artemis lost its financial resources over the course of the Hellenistic period, Oliver argues, the gerousia dwindled in importance until it became insignificant. During the early second century A D , though, the Ephesian gerousia began to recover as Empire-4 9 Chapot(1967): 229-230. 5 0 Oliver (1941). 5 1 Oliver (1941): 3. 5 2 Oliver (1941): 6; Levy (1895): 235-236. 5 3 Oliver (1941): 12. 5 4 Oliver (141): 15-17. 5 5 Oliver (1941): 19. 13 wide reforms began. Thus, under Commodus it renewed the practice of performing sacrifices to Artemis which had formerly been discontinued due to a lack of money.56 Oliver deduces from a letter addressed by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to a logistes of the gerousia that that body was connected with the Imperial cult, though Magie denies such a connection.57 Oliver argues that this connection to the cult was simply the logical consequence of the collocation of the Imperial cult and the worship of Artemis. He concludes that the gerousia of Ephesus and those to which the adjective hiera is applied were economico-religious bodies, whose purpose was "to provide support for the more splendid celebration of one or more festivals," noting that the phrase hierai gerousiai C O does not appear before Roman rule in Asia. Van Berchem considers the question of whether the gerousia of the early Hellenistic period as it appears in two decrees is a direct antecedent of the gerousiai of the later Hellenistic and Roman periods.59 He places his emphasis on the gerousia of Ephesus. He argues that during the Hellenistic period it was a body in charge of the sanctuary of Artemis, but that under the Empire it was an association of elder citizens without a specific connection with the Temple of Artemis. 6 0 Van Berchem questions Strabo's account, often accepted as crediting Lysimachus with the association of the epikletoi with the gerousia, asking whether this was done by Lysimachus in order to secure his political interests in the city and temple. His conclusion is negative: the proposals of the gerousia required approval from the boule and demos, so that it, even Oliver (1941): 20. Oliver (1941): 6; Magie (1988): 1534, n.10. Oliver (1988): 37. van Berchem (1980): 25-40. van Berchem (1980): 26. 14 with the epikletoi, could not impose the wishes of the king. 6 1 Such a gerousia, however, no longer existed at the end of the first century B C when Strabo described it: van Berchem argues that Strabo's description of the gerousia is an element derived from a lost Aristotelian Constitution of Ephesus, noted by Strabo precisely because it was a novelty which no longer existed in his day.6 2 Ephesus, he suggests, was once.governed by an oligarchic council of elders, the gerousia, which was then enlarged by the addition of the epikletoi. A form of this council still existed at the beginning of the Hellenistic age. Van Berchem argues that the civic organization of Ephesus underwent a significant change during one of its relocations, when a large influx of inhabitants caused the addition of new tribes for the citizens. Though it has been suggested that the tyrant Pythagorus was responsible for this change, van Berchem proposes that it was the Lydian king Croesus who was the cause of this reorganization in the sixth century BC. Since such a removal and the coeval restructuring of the tribes would also be an opportune time for other municipal changes, he puts forth the suggestion that the restriction of the gerousia and epikletoi to religious affairs took place at the same time. 6 3 Van Berchem sees the origins of the gerousia in the Iliad and the Odyssey, where elders hold an important position of influence.64 He suggests that the Ephesian gerousia in its original form was a model for the Roman Senate of the sixth century B C , citing several other historical and quasi-historical connections between Rome and Ephesus.65 Even after the changes, membership was hereditary, though the members were not necessarily elderly: 6 1 van Berchem (1980): 27. 6 2 van Berchem (1980): 28-29. 6 3 van Berchem (1980): 31-34. 6 4 van Berchem (1980): 34. 6 5 van Berchem (1980): 37-38. 15 citizens could gain membership - if there was an opening - because of authority or prestige gained through wealth and birth. 6 6 Van Rossum notes that the gerousiai of the different cities in Asia must have undergone individual evolutions, so that it is virtually impossible to develop a theory which accounts for the origin and nature of the gerousia; this is possible in the case of individual gerousiai, but not of a general Asiatic institution.67 Nonetheless, he observes that it is possible to form general conclusions about the gerousia based on the epigraphic evidence from all of Asia and beyond. Age and wealth were criteria for membership, as three papyri from Oxyrynchus seem to indicate, and potential members had to be approved by the civic authorities, though it is not clear what the minimum age for entrance was.6 8 Members of the gerousia enjoyed privileges similar to those enjoyed by members of the boule, but they were not responsible for discharging civic duties.69 He argues that there is no difference between Oliver's 'sacred' gerousiai and unqualified gerousiai, but that all gerousiai were sacred in the sense that their members took part in 70 religious feasts. Such are the theories regarding the gerousia. They are inconsistent with one another in large part because most scholars have based their arguments on different combinations of inscriptions form Asia Minor, so that conclusions about the gerousia of one city are often applied to the gerousiai of all cities. Once established, whether by a single individual or by imitating a neighbour, each gerousia will have undergone changes and developments according to the pressures facing each city; it is surprising that only 6 6 van Berchem (1980): 34. 6 7 van Rossum (1988): 238. 6 8 van Rossum (1988): 55-56,239-240; POxy 3099-3101. 6 9 van Rossum (1988): 241. 7 0 van Rossum (1988): 241. 16 van Rossum, in the most recent study of the gerousia, appears to have noted this. Each gerousia, therefore, is more or less unique; a general study of the gerousia will not necessarily result in conclusions applicable to every city in which a gerousia is known. There were, of course, similarities between the gerousiai in different cities. Hicks, however, was too precipitous in his assumption that the gerousia of Ephesus could be taken as representative of gerousiai throughout Asia. 7 1 This is tantamount to assuming that the magisterial organization of Ephesus is representative of that of another city: the variety of civic titles from the Asian Greek cities manifestly demonstrates that this is not the case.72 Hicks, however, is the only scholar of those discussed here to acknowledge that an assumption has been made: that evidence drawn from any city in which a gerousia is known to have existed can be applied indiscriminately to the gerousia of any other city. Nonetheless, each of the scholars in question makes this assumption to one degree or another. Thus, Mommsen's citations of meeting places in Nysa, Nicomedia and Sardis cannot be used to support the existence of such a structure in Ephesus. It is not impossible or even improbable that the Ephesian gerousia did have a building which could be described as its own, but Mommsen's suggestion that the gerousia was the equivalent of a modern gentleman's club does not necessitate such a building in Ephesus. The gerousia of Ephesus did, in fact, have an increasingly social character as it evolved, but there is little evidence to support a 'clubhouse' dedicated to the use of the gerousia™ 7 1 Hicks (1890): 82. 7 2 Dmitriev (2005). 7 3 This is not to deny the importance of inscriptions from other cities, however; such evidence must be used with care. 7 4 Strabo, 14.1.43; PI., Ep., 10.33; Vitr., 2.8.10; cf. below, pp., 228-229, n. 53, & cat. no. 17 (pp. 313-316, n. 8). 17 Similarly, Mommsen's suggestion that the neoi and gerousiastai are parallel does not appear to be true in Ephesus: the neoi appear far more rarely in the inscriptions.75 Two inscriptions mentioning this group are decrees of the boule and demos about the neoi, but the neoi do not appear alongside the boule and demos as the gerousia does. A third inscription records the dedication of a statue by the neoi alone from their own funds. Mommsen, it will be recalled, also noted the importance of the gymnasiarch within the gerousia, a feature of his interpretation which Jones and others upheld. There is, however, no evidence that the members of the Ephesian gerousia enjoyed either the exclusive use of one of the city's gymnasia or an allowance of oil at civic expense, as seems to have been the case in Magnesia on the Maeander.76 Several gymnasiarchs of the gerousia are known from Ephesus, but there is no mention of a gymnasium of the gerousia.17 This does not prove that there was no significant connection between the gerousia and the gymnasium, but it does validate caution in assuming that the gerousia was centered on a gymnasium. Mommsen's conclusions about the gerousia, therefore, may have little bearing on the Ephesian gerousia. The evidence to support the public orientation of the gerousia as opposed to Mommsen's private orientation can be summarized briefly, but will be treated in greater detail in the subsequent chapters. Most scholars agree that the gerousiai of various cities had access to their own funds, whether from endowments or from public grants. This in itself would not be inconsistent with the identification of the gerousia as a social group, 75 IEph 6, 446; JOAI62 (1993): 124, no. 14. 76 IMag 116. 7 7 Scherrer (2001): 73 suggests that the gymnasium located in front of the theatre (no. 24 in Figure 2) was that of the gerousia. It must be noted, though, that Scherrer does not incontrovertibly identify this building in this way; he cautiously says, "I would like to identify it with the Gymnasium of the gerousia, frequently mentioned in inscriptions from the third decade of the 1 s t c. A D onward." In fact, though, a gymnasium of the gerousia is not mentioned in the inscriptions from Ephesus; gymnasiarchs of the gerousia are (cat. nos. 12, 13 & 31; cf. cat. nos. 4, 38 & 52). 18 but the appointment of a logistes to review and oversee the finances of the Ephesian gerousia suggests that this particular group was not simply social. Furthermore, this gerousia appears in several cases - in Ephesus and in other cities - as the officially appointed guardian of graves, occasionally alongside the boule, which would give it religious, if not public, responsibilities.79 Furthermore, the gerousia, like the boule and demos, is occasionally identified as ton Ephesion, suggesting strongly that it was a public body of the city. 8 0 It is, however, probable that the Ephesian gerousia was not complementary to or a part of the boule, as Boeckh and Curtius propose.81 Members of the boule and gerousia are mentioned as separate recipients of different amounts in distributions of money, which implies a clear distinction. Furthermore, the gerousia appears in only two citizenship decrees, both times as a supporter, although there are many such decrees of the boule and demos from the Hellenistic period. Dio Chrysostom refers to dissension between the boule and demos and the gerousia in Tarsus, which suggests at the very least that it cannot be maintained that members of the gerousia everywhere were or had been members of the boule as well: one would expect in this case that the interests of the gerousiastai and bouleutai would coincide. Curtius' suggestion that the sunhedrion could refer to a meeting of the gerousia shows an awareness that the terms were not always synonymous.84 7 8 On the logistes, see below, Chapter Five, pp. 164-165. 7 9 On the overseeing of graves, see below, Chapter Six, pp. 238-242. 8 0 Menadier (1880): 52. 8 1 Curtius (1870): 224-226. 82 IEph 27.221-236; 4123.9-15. 8 3 Dio Chrys., Second Tarsian Oration, 16-17. 8 4 Cf. IEph 1057 in which sunhedrion appears to refer to the boule rather than the gerousia. There are several inscriptions in which sunhedrion appears, possibly as a synonym of the gerousia. These will be considered in the following chapter. 19 Chapot's suggestion that the gerousia of Ephesus was allowed to remain a semi-political organization because it was under the direct supervision of the proconsul is an inadequate theory for its continued existence and apparent importance. Ephesus may have been the most frequently occupied assize centre of the province, but it was only one of ten or thirteen judicial centres in Asia, so that the gerousiai of other assize centres would have been only slightly less subject to supervision and, it follows, only slightly less prominent. Furthermore, Nicomedia in Bithynia, which Cassius Dio couples with Ephesus as one of the two most important cities in their provinces under Augustus, has four of approximately four hundred inscriptions mentioning the gerousia?6 Proportionately, therefore, Nicomedia has only slightly fewer gerows/a-inscriptions than Ephesus, 1% as opposed to less than 2%. This does not mean that the Nicomdeian gerousia was more prominent in the total number of inscriptions originally erected in that city, but it does suggest that the Ephesian gerousia may not have continued to exist simply because the city was an assize centre. The nature and prominence of the gerousia of Ephesus are not the only points of issue which arise from the theories discussed above. The absence of evidence after approximately 281 BC has in general been seen as a sign of a decline in the importance of the gerousia. Since this argument is based on silence, it cannot be proven. Oliver tentatively supported this view because the gerousia appears in two inscriptions from the beginning of the second century BC, but is otherwise unattested in the Hellenistic 87 period. At the time of the publication of his Sacred Gerousia (1941), there was, in fact, no evidence beyond the two decrees from the beginning of the 3 r d century B C for this 8 5 Rogers (1991): 3; PI., HN, 5.95-122; Burton (1975). 86 JAM IV; Dio Cass., 51.20.6: ccuxou yap x6xe a'l nbXeiq fev xe xfj 'Aata K a l fev xfj BiGwta Tcpo£xexiuT|vxo. 87 IEph 1449, 1470. 20 body in Ephesus before A D 104. It is clear, though, that the gerousia was not in a state of recovery at this time, but had in fact existed throughout the first century A D and before: the publication in 1993 of a series of letters from, among others, Augustus, Germanicus and the proconsul of Asia has confirmed the existence of a gerousia of some importance in the late first century BC and early first century A D . 8 8 The theory that a decline in the wealth of Artemis might have caused a corresponding decline in the gerousia, therefore, requires revision. The existence of the gerousia in 302-281 BC, 45 B C - A D 30 and beyond A D 104 is most easily accounted for by the supposition that it existed continuously from at least the beginning of the third century B C , with no descents into obscurity and sudden revivals. Furthermore, if it is necessary for the gerousia and the Temple of Artemis to parallel each another - an assumption - it must be noted that the temple seems to have thrived throughout this period.8 9 A common failing of the discussions of the scholars noted above is that the gerousia seems to be viewed as a static institution under Roman rule. It is acknowledged that the gerousia of the Hellenistic period and that of the Roman period are different, but little attention is paid to the changes and developments which took place in the gerousia during the first, second and third centuries A D , not to mention those which must have taken place during the Hellenistic period for which there is as yet no evidence. It will be suggested below that overall the gerousia experienced an evolution from a significant political body within the city of Ephesus to a group which was by and large a social club for relatively wealthy citizens but which nevertheless did perform some public functions. A study which draws evidence indiscriminately from the first three centuries is, therefore, 8 8 704/62 (1993): 113-118, nos. 1-10. 8 9 Xen., An., 5.6.3; Caes., B. Civ., 3.33, 105; Dio Chrys., Rhodian Oration, 54, 55, 65; Aristides, Concerning Concord 24. 21 as flawed as a study of The Asiatic Gerousia - the former assumes a priori that no changes took place after the city fell into the hands of the Romans, the latter that gerousiai were the same throughout Asia Minor. The sixth chapter of this study, focusing on the activities and privileges of the gerousia, therefore, considers the evidence for the imperial gerousia in three chronological sections, the late first century B C and early first century A D , the second century A D , and the late second to early third century AD. At the same time, it should not be assumed that all changes which can be identified are the result of rule by the Romans. As MacMullen argues, "romanization" in the East was in many ways a process that was overwhelmed by "hellenization" as Roman citizens and other immigrants from the west were absorbed into the Hellenistic culture that had been introduced centuries earlier.90 Roman rule did undoubtedly have an effect on the gerousia of Ephesus and other institutions of other cities; the process of transformation, though, was a natural evolution of the body. The discovery of new evidence makes a re-evaluation of the various theories on the nature of the gerousia not only possible, but also desirable. At the same time, though, the study of gerousia itself can be conducted in light of advances in other aspects of ancient history, notably prosopography. Ongoing epigraphic discoveries inevitably lead to an increase in the overall number of individuals known throughout the empire. This in turn leads to the possibility of studying the gerousia on a more personal basis, considering the gerousiastai as members of the city at large. Such an approach has been partially available to previous scholars, but only Oliver appears to have considered the individual officers of the gerousia, and that only briefly. A more detailed examination of 9 0 MacMullen (2000): 1-29. 22 the men identified as gerousiastai is necessary if the position of the gerousia within the city is to be determined and is possible with the abundant evidence from Ephesus; such an examination marks the Ephesian gerousia as a body distinct from the boule. Just as the nature and prominence of the gerousia of Ephesus do not seem to be fully accounted for in the various theories proposed, the origins of the Ephesian institution may go beyond the currently available explanations. Van Berchem considers this question at length, but his model for the early gerousia of Ephesus is, as he himself admits, highly theoretical. Nonetheless, several of his arguments are compelling, particularly the existence of a gerousia in Ephesus long before Lysimachus' capture of the city. Certainly he is right to look to early Greek literature for clues to the origins of the gerousia, of both the Doric and the Asiatic types. The highly hypothetical reconstruction of van Berchem incorporates several elements which are capable of alternate interpretation, though. The origins of the gerousia, therefore, are by no means settled, and will be considered at length in the second chapter. The very early history of the Ephesian gerousia cannot be reconstructed from epigraphic sources, since there are none available. The third chapter presents a brief discussion of the epigraphic evidence for the gerousia in Ephesus which will serve as the documentary foundation for the fourth, fifth and sixth chapters of this study. The first half of this chapter indicated the existence of synonymous or nearly synonymous terms for the gerousia; the third chapter, consequently, also includes a brief discussion of the relevance of the terms sunhedrion, sustema(ta) and presbeuteroi, all of which appear in the inscriptions, to the study of the gerousia. The inscriptions themselves, each accompanied by a translation of my own, are presented in the first appendix. 23 Chapter Four considers the individual members of the gerousia. It argues that a civic decree from Sidyma, which records the registration of fifty-one bouleutai and forty-nine demotai as the first members of the gerousia, should not be used as a model for reconstructing the membership of the Ephesian gerousia. Although no similar document survives from Ephesus, sufficient evidence does survive to show that there was not a similar demographic split in the Ephesian institution. This chapter also considers the size of the gerousia at different points in its existence in relation to the population of Ephesus. Finally, the names of known gerousiastai are presented in this chapter. The offices within the gerousia form the subject of Chapter Five. Here the duties of each attested officer are considered briefly, as is their relative position to one another in the hierarchy of the gerousia. This chapter also questions whether a title such as logistes of the gerousia identifies its bearer as a member of the gerousia, or an external official appointed to oversee and correct certain aspects of the gerousia. The second half of this chapter considers the offices which the members of the gerousia held within the city. These offices help to indicate the social status of the gerousia and its members in Ephesus. Chapter Six examines in detail the activities in which the gerousia can be seen to have engaged, and the rights which it seems to have enjoyed. This examination is conducted on a chronological basis, attempting to demonstrate that the gerousia underwent a gradual decline from a significant political body in the city to an association of a much more social nature. 24 2. EPHESUS AND THE GEROUSIA 2.1. A Brief History of Ephesus An institution cannot be studied in isolation, whether it is a public body governing a state or city, or a private group attending only to the interests of its own members. Whether native or foreign to a city, any given institution will inevitably be affected by the pressures and needs facing that particular city. The gerousia of Ephesus, therefore, must be considered in relation to the history of the city and the region, particularly since Asia Minor as a whole was a part of various kingdoms and empires during the period covered by this study. A summary of Ephesus' history, then, is called for before a detailed consideration of the history of the Ephesian gerousia itself can be undertaken. Ephesus, like most Greek cities, had a mythological tradition surrounding its foundation. Androclus, the son of the Athenian king Codrus, sailed to Asia Minor with his followers and the approval of Artemis and Poseidon. On the voyage to Asia Minor, they conquered Samos. After crossing to the mainland, Androclus sent to the oracle at Delphi to inquire where he should build his city. In accordance with the oracle, Coressus was founded on the spot where Androclus killed a boar, believed to be the region near the remains of the macellum and stadium.1 According to the tradition found in Strabo, Androclus drove out the Carian and Lelegian inhabitants of the region.2 Under his guidance, the city grew. Androclus himself was killed in battle while helping the people of neighbouring Priene repel the Carians. Alternatively, Pliny the Elder records that Ephesus was founded by Amazons, and that it had had several different names during its 1 Ath., 8.361d-361e; Scherrer (1995): 3; Fig. 3, nos. 18 & 21. 2 Strabo, 14.1.21; cf., Vitr., 4.1.5. 25 early history.3 Vitruvius provides a third version of the foundation of Ephesus, in which Ion led an expedition from Athens to Asia, where he established the thirteen Ionian cities, including Ephesus.4 The site of Ephesus has been occupied since the fifth millennium BC, and excavations of the city, conducted by the Osterreichischen Archaologischen Institut since the early twentieth century, have revealed pottery and obsidian remains from the early bronze age in the area around the Church of St. John. The site continued to be inhabited thereafter; remains of houses have also been discovered below the Hellenistic and Roman Tetragonus Agora which have been identified as remnants of the village of ancient Smyrna, mentioned by Strabo. The earliest phase of these houses appears to date to the last third of the eighth century BC; because of the rising sea level and ground-water level the inhabitants seem to have abandoned the area in the early sixth century. The area continued to be used by craftsmen.5 Ephesus, emerging from a synoikism of the villages in the area, was ruled by the descendants of Androclus, the Basilidae, until around 600 B C , when the tyrant Pythagoras established himself. It was the first of the Ionian cities which Croesus attacked after succeeding his father Alyattes to the Lydian throne.6 After overcoming the tyrant Pindarus, Croesus compelled the citizens to move down from the slopes of Mt. Coressus to the area surrounding the Artemision; the remains of this settlement have not yet been identified, but Croesus probably attempted to unite the native Carians and Lydians with the Greeks in this settlement. Prior to Croesus' relocation, the ancient city, 3 PL, HN., 5.32.114: Alope, Ortygia, Amorge, Smyrna Trachia, Haemonion, Ptelea. 4 Vitr., 4.1.4; cf. Veil . Pat., 1.4.3. 5 Scherrer (2001): 59; Scherrer (2000): 14-15; Scherrer (1995): 3. 6 Domfnguez (1999): 77-78; Hdt., 1.26. 26 like its Hellenistic and Roman incarnations, had been a distance of seven stades from the sanctuary of Artemis.7 The Artemision was a source of refuge for citizens, and throughout the history of the ancient city the territorial extent of its asylum was expanded and reduced by kings and generals until the time of Augustus.8 After Cyrus the Great defeated Croesus, Ephesus and eleven other cities joined together to resist, unsuccessfully, the Persian army. Under the Persian Empire, the city was an important port, serving as the landing site of the Athenian fleet during the Ionian Revolt.9 Although the Athenian army, after sacking Sardis, was followed back to Ephesus by the Persian army, the city was the only one which was not burnt after Darius I finally suppressed the revolt. A century later, the Spartan admiral Lysander used Ephesus as his base of operations at the end of the Peloponnesian War, encouraging oligarchic government through the creation of a decarchy; the Coressos harbour was again used as a landing point by the Athenians in 409 B C , though less successfully this time.1 0 The status of Ephesus and other Ionian cities after the Peloponnesian war is not certainly known. The city was subjected to the Persian Empire in 411 B C , and probably continued to be so until Cyrus' revolt in 402 B C . 1 1 The Peace of Antalcidas of 387/6 acknowledged Persian control over the Greek cities of Asia Minor, including Ephesus.12 During this time, Lysander's decarchy may have been replaced with a more democratic constitution: J-F. Bommelaer argues that the reception of exiled democrats from Samos 7 Scherrer (2001): 64; Scherrer (2002): 16; Scherrer (1995): 3; Hdt. 1.26. 8 Strabo, 14.1.23; cf. SEG 41, 971. 9 Hdt., 5.100. 1 0 Plut., Lys., 5.3-4; Xen., Hell., 1.26. 1 1 Bommelaer (1981): 118-124. ' 1 2 Xen., Hell., 5.1.29-32. 27 by Ephesus at the end of the fifth century may be indicative of such a democratic restoration.13 Lysander, therefore, may have been eager to return to Asia in 397 BC in order to restore the decarchies which he had formerly established, but Xenophon suggests that the cities of Asia may have been at this time in political turmoil with neither democrats nor decarchs securely established.14 Officially, Lysander's decarchies had been abolished by the Ephors; the actual situation, however, need not reflect the ideal situation envisioned by the Ephors.1 5 Similarly, a potential democratic restoration does not mean that the decarchies must have vanished. When Tissaphernes regained control of Asia after the death of Cyrus at the end of the fifth century B C , it is probable that the cities were subject to decarchies and moderate oligarchies - that is, the political turmoil suggested by Xenophon probably still remained but with oligarchs enjoying satrapal support; Bommelaer tentatively adds the possibility of democracies in some cities.1 6 Whatever the constitutional character of the cities, Tissaphernes devoted himself to driving out Lysander's appointees.17 This may suggest support for democracies, but a seemingly more expedient means of removing Lysander's decarchs would be to establish other oligarchs' in opposition to them. A decarchical or oligarchical constitution for Ephesus is, therefore, a very real possibility at the beginning of the fourth century BC, particularly since such a constitution did exist in the city at the time of Alexander's conquest. Alexander the Great defeated Darius III in the battle at the Granicus River in 334 BC, after which Sardis and the cities along the coast surrendered without contest to him, 1 3 Bommelaer (1981): 121-122; IG2 1, l ;Tod 97. 1 4 Xen. Hell., 4.7; Plut., Ages., 6.2; Bommelaer (1981): 125. 1 5 Xen., Hell., 3.4.2. 1 6 Bommelaer (1981): 126. 1 7 Bommelaer (1981): 131. 28 with the exception of Miletus and Halicarnassus.18 Upon his arrival in Ephesus, Alexander removed the authority of the small oligarchic governing class and replaced it with democratic institutions, as he did throughout Asia Minor. 1 9 It does not take a great deal of imagination to see this ruling oligarchic class as a remnant or evolution of Tissaphernes' proposed oligarchs. After Alexander's death, Antigonus I controlled Asia Minor in 319 B C , and retained Ephesus until 302 BC, when it surrendered to Prepelaus, a general of 20 Lysimachus. Demetrius, Antigonus' son, had recovered the city by the end of that year or the following year, and installed a garrison of his own after expelling Prepelaus' 21 troops. Although Lysimachus and Antiochus defeated Antigonus and Demetrius in 301 BC at the Battle of Ipsus, Demetrius retained Ephesus until 295 B C , when Lysimachus captured the city once again.22 Lysimachus laid out a new wall for the city and built public buildings within the new circuit at a distance from the existing settlement around the temple (overlapping the site of the original site), but he was unable to persuade the Ephesians to relocate. According to tradition, therefore, he blocked the sewers of the city during a heavy rainstorm and thereby compelled the citizens to move to his new city, Arsinoe. Among the buildings constructed under Lysimachus, a long rectangular building (approximately 43.40 x 11.50m) with two rows of 7-9 chambers has been found in the southwest corner of the Tetragonus Agora. According to Strabo, a gerousia was registered and a body 1 8 Plut., Alex., 17. 19 Arr.,Anab., 1.17.10. 2 0 D i o d . S i c , 18.52.7,20.107. 2 1 Diod. S i c , 20.111.3; for Antigonus and Demetrius at Ephesus, IEph 1448, 1452, 1453. 2 2 Plut., Dent., 30; Cohen (1995): 177-178. 2 3 Scherrer 2001): 66-67. 29 which was called the epikletoi were associated with it; they are said to have managed everything.24 The meaning of Strabo's final sentence is unclear. It has long been recognized that the gerousia and epikletoi could not have governed everything: their earliest appearances show them honouring two individuals through the boule and the demos, bodies to which they were subordinate. One might suppose that Strabo simply meant that at some point in the city's history the gerousia and epikletoi S I C O K O W ndvxa; alternatively, since Strabo's next point refers to the temple, raAvxcc could be interpreted as referring specifically to temple affairs rather than civic affairs; equally possibly, ndvxa may refer to the business associated with the relocation of the city and the construction of new buildings.25 After murdering his son Agathocles by his first wife in 286 B C , or simply allowing his second wife to murder him, Lysimachus was defeated by Philetaerus, to whom he had entrusted Pergamum, and Seleucus I; he lost Asia Minor, Ephesus and his life in 281 B C . 2 6 During the following eighty years, Ephesus passed to and from the Attalids, Seleucids and Ptolemies until the end of the third century. Antiochus JJI had captured many of Attalus I's territories by 214/3 B C , and in 197 BC, he began his attempt to restore western Asia Minor to his kingdom. After capturing the Ptolemaic holdings, Antiochus was able to spend the winter of that year in Ephesus, which he had captured after it may have enjoyed a brief period of independence.27 Following this, the city 2 4 Strabo, 14.1.21: Aixjiuaxoc, Se xt|v vvv nbXiv xeixtcjcxc,, &T|8a>(; xdiv cxv9pc6ncov (leGiaranfevcov, xipficjai; Kcaapp&KTriv 6|i(3pov auvfpyriae KCXI abxbc, KOU xouc, pivouxouq evkfypa^ev, (bare KcxxaKX/uo-ca xt|v nbXw di 5e nexeaxr iaav CACTHEVOI. EKCxXeae 8' 'Apcriv6r|v 6.7:6 xfj? yovai icdi; xf|v TC6A.IV, e7ieicp&XT|0"e nevxoi x6 cxpxcdov 6vo|aa. fjv 5£ yepoucrLa Kaxaypa(|)0|i.fevr|, xo6xoi<; Sfe awf iecrav 01 k7riKX.r|xoi Ka.Xo-0u.evoi KOCI 8ici)K0t>v rt&vxcx; Paus. 1.9.7; cf. below, Chapter Two, pp. 47-50. 2 5 These possibilities were all raised during discussion at a workshop held at die Kommission fur alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts in Munich on May 18, 2006. 2 6 Paus. 1.10.4. 2 7 Hansen, (1971): 16-22, 28-36, 74; Kosmetatou (1999): 185-186. 30 served as a base of operations during his further campaigns in Asia Minor against his rivals and against the Romans. It was here that several meetings between Antiochus and embassies from Rome took place.28 After his defeat in 193 BC at Magnesia, the city voluntarily joined the Romans, and was subsequently used as a Roman base of operations until the end of the war. It was awarded to the Pergamene king Eumenes II after the eventual defeat of Antiochus under the terms of the Peace of Apamea and remained for the next sixty years a part of the Attalid kingdom.2 9 The city was specifically named with several others as subject and tributary to Eumenes II. When Attalus III died childless in 133 BC, he left his kingdom to the Roman Republic, though he granted freedom to several cities. When the Senate finally took action on the matter of the bequest, they proceeded slowly, sending a commission to Asia to organize the settlement. This resulted in the dismemberment of the kingdom through territorial grants to various kings rather than outright annexation. The provincial organization did not violate Attalus' bequest: those cities which had been freed by the king were not reduced to subject status. This organization of the province - or, as Gruen argues, a protectorate initially - took time, interrupted by the revolt of Aristonicus, an illegitimate son of Eumenes II. 3 1 Asia may not have officially become a province until the mid-120s, but Ephesus was used as an assize centre when the provincial organization had been completed.32 The city was included among the 'friends and.allies' of Rome. 2 8 Antiochus at Ephesus: eg., Livy, 33.38, 49; 35.13, 15; 36.20-21; 36.41, 42-43; 37.10#; Embassies, eg.: 35.14-19. 2 9 Surrender of Ephesus; Livy, 37.45; awarded to Eumenes: 37.55-56; Peace of Apamea: 38.37-39. 3 0 Hansen (1971): 95-96; Livy, 38.39. 3 1 Gruen (1984): 605-607; Sherk (1969): 59-62, no. U=IGRR 4.301. 3 2 Rogers (1991): 3, n. 9; PL, HN., 5.95-122. 31 'Friend and Al ly ' was a nominal status, eventually reserved for those states which had benefited Rome in some way. 3 3 Ephesus, during the revolt of Aristonicus, had defeated the rebel fleet, so that it may have had a double claim to the free status which it enjoyed: Attalus' will and service to Rome. 3 4 This status resulted in civic autonomy and "limited material and fiscal privileges within the provincial system."35 In 98/7 or 94/3 BC, the proconsul of Asia, Quintus Mucius Scaevola, sent a letter to the boule and demos of the Ephesians, in which he refers to a state of 'friendship' with the Romans.3 6 That a state of friendship existed between Rome and Ephesus might suggest that the city was at this point a free one. Though free, Ephesus was not beyond the reach of Roman tax-collectors. The publicani diverted the revenue of two nearby lakes from the Temple of Artemis to their own purposes, prompting the despatch of an embassy led by one Artemidorus to Rome. 3 7 This embassy succeeded in having the lakes returned once more to the goddess, possibly at the end of the second or beginning of the first century B C . 3 8 That the publicani were able to collect taxes from the territory of Artemis and of Ephesus itself suggests that the free status of Ephesus or of any other city depended on the cities insisting on that status.39 Originally, of course, 'friend and ally' was an important indicator of status. It seems, though, that the use of the phrase t) au|J.uoc%ia Kcd §\lXa by various Greek cities during the third century B C was "a relationship of informal amicitia: mere inter-state 'friendship' with no formal, legally binding treay of alliance" (Eckstein [1999]). 3 4 Hansen (1971): 153; Strabo, 14.1.38. Ephesus' service as a port during the war against Antiochus III at the beginning of the century should not be forgotten. 3 5 Sherwin-White (1984): 69. 3 6 Sherk(1984): 68, no. 57. 3 7 Strabo describes one of these lakes as "a lake that runs inland from the sea, called Selinusia"; the second is not named, but is said to be confluent with Selinusia. Both are to the north of the outlet of the Cayster river. (Strabo, 14.1.26: u.exd 8£ ii\v ts.K$oXi]v IOV Kattaxpo-o Xiuvn fecrdv E K TOVJ mX&yovc, exvcxx,eou£vri, KaA , e i ia i 8k ZeAavoixjia, Kcd fc<t>ec;f|c; &XXr\ avppovq atrcfj) 3 8 Strabo, 14.1.26; Guerber (1995): 392. 3 9 Millar (1977): 420-447 cites numerous instances of cities sending embassies to the Emperor to request, confirm and restore benefits and privileges such as immunity from taxes. Similarly, Tacitus reports an embassy from Ephesus justifying its privileges before Tiberius (Ann., 3.61). 32 Even the payment of taxes, though, does not necessarily contradict so-called free status: Stratonicea may have been paying taxes to Rome before and after the invasion of Mithridates VI, but it is still termed a friend and ally of Rome; similarly, Aphrodisias, which did enjoy free status, was obliged to seek confirmation of that freedom repeatedly in order to avoid tax collectors.40 Mithridates VI, the king of Pontus, invaded Asia in 88 B C and won over many cities 4 1 Even before the war, however, Asia, Greece and Africa were said to be revolting from Rome because of the cupidity of the generals who had been active in those provinces. Furthermore, the publicani, bankers and merchants from Rome, through their own rapacity, had played a role in encouraging the commoners of Ephesus and other cities to support Mithridates as a 'Liberator of the Greeks'. 4 2 Initially, Mithridates fulfilled this role, winning the first battles, invading Ionia while the Roman generals were wintering at Apamea, Pergamum and Rhodes, and 'freeing' many Greek cities from the Romans 4 3 He captured the Roman generals and proceeded to Ephesus, where he was well-received in 88 BC. During his stay in the city, the Ephesians are said to have overthrown statues of Romans which had been erected in their city. 4 4 Before Sulla arrived to take up the war, Mithridates ordered his satraps and governors to kill all the Romans and Italians in their cities on a single day in 88 BC. He promised rewards for those who revealed Romans in hiding, and slaves who killed their 4 0 Eckstein (1999): 407-408; OGIS 441 //. 71-72: 8fju.oc, KoCktc, Kcd ayocebc, Kod tyiXoc, a<>uuax6c. te ripi-xepoc,; Aphrdosias: Millar (1977): 429; Reynolds (1982): 115-118, no. 15; cf. Reynolds (1982): 54-91, no. 8. 4 1 Sherwin-White (1984): 240; App., Mith., 16-21. 42 App., Mith., 16, 18-19; Diod. S i c , 37.26-27.1; Rogers (1991): 5-6. 4 3 App., Mith., 19-20. 4 4 App., Mith., 21. 33 masters received their freedom. Memnon reports that eighty thousand Romans were killed as a result of Mithridates' action, but he implies that not all the cities of Asia Minor obeyed the instructions. Ephesus, however, is reported to have been especially enthusiastic: the citizens are said to have torn Roman and Italian suppliants away from the Artemision in order to kill them.46 The numbers reported for the slaughtered Romans may be assumed to have been exaggerated.47 In a discussion of population size and change, Walter Scheidel notes that "the large majority of references [to the reporting of numbers] are no more than symbolic values, at best indicative of a certain order of magnitude and deployed to lend colour or emphasis to the author's exposition;"48 this is how Memnon's figure ought to be interpreted, as a way of intensifying the atrocity of Mithridates' order. Although Appian similarly emphasises the brutality of the slaughtering of the Romans, he undermines this aspect of his own narrative: the proconsul of Asia, Lucius Cassius, escaped to Rhodes, which suggests either previous knowledge of the plot, or that there were sympathisers who helped Cassius and, presumably, other Roman citizens. It is evident that 4 3 Memnon, FGrHist 434 F 22.9=Sherk (1984): 66-68, no. 56; App., Mith., 22-23. 4 6 App., Mith., 23; the citizens of Pergamum treated suppliants in the sanctuary of Aesclepius in the same manner. While at Ephesus, Mithrdiates extended the area included under the protection of the Artemision to a little over a stadion (Strabo, 14.1.23). 4 7 If Herodotus' statement that Xerxes' army consisted of three million soldiers can be rejected as exaggeration, there is no reason why Memnonn's figure of eighty thousand should be accepted at face value. Roman and Italian citizens would have been settling and visiting the Hellenistic East from at least the beginning of the second century B C . Soldiers may have settled in various regions of the east soon after Rome's first expeditions across the Mediterranean, and merchants will have followed them closely - if they did not in fact precede settlers of military background. In many ways, these Romans will have been assimilated into the Greek population, becoming, for all intents and purposes, Greeks themselves (MacMullen [2000]: 1-7). It must therefore be asked how likely it is that Greeks would murder not only their fellow citizens - who in many cases may have been of Greek descent - but also those citizens whose presence must have contributed in no small part to the prosperity of many cities. If MacMullen is correct in his estimate that the number of Romans - including those of Greek descent or those who had themselves been Hellenized - exceeded one hundred thousand at its peak (MacMullen [2000]: 27), one must ask whether the number of Roman citizens who were in actual danger of being murdered - that is, those who had not been in the east sufficiently long to have become Hellenized - could have been eighty thousand. 4 8 Scheidel (2001): 49. 34 Mithridates' promises of rewards for revealing those Romans who concealed themselves did not achieve their intended goal in every case. The use of rewards can, in fact, be seen as an indication of reluctance to obey Mithridates' command.49 Furthermore, support for Mithridates in Ephesus may only have been a result of his presence and his victories: the citizens of Ephesus rejected his agent Zenobius after his losses in Greece and a deportation of the citizens of Chios. 5 0 The enthusiasm on the part of the Ephesians reported by Appian and Memnon may have been remarkable because it was against the overall persuasion of the city; the executions may have been the work of relatively few fanatics. Approximately three years after the execution of the Romans, at the end of 86 or beginning of 85, Mithridates had had successes in both Asia and Greece but his armies were beginning to undergo large defeats; he became more and more despotic, no longer playing the role of a liberator. This, and the exportation of the Chians by Zenobius, encouraged the Ephesians to kill that officer when he came to the city while the king was at Pergamum. Again, Ephesian loyalty to Mithridates appears to have been lacking during Mithridates' absence, upheld, perhaps, only by a minority of the inhabitants.51 The citizens reversed their former position, attempting to rejoin the Romans by declaring war on Mithridates and attributing their obedience to his commands to the suddenness of his attack and the terrifying size of his forces. The Ephesians passed a decree to this effect, although it did not protect them from punishment in Sulla's settlement after Mithridates' surrender and retirement to Pontus. Appian reports that the citizens were 4 9 App., Mith., 24. 5 0 App., Mith., 46-48. 5 1 App., Mith., 46; Magie (1988): 224-225. 5 2 IEph 8; SIG3 742=Sherk (1984): 73-74, no. 61. 35 punished very severely (ekolazonto pikros), and that Sulla required the province to pay five years of taxes at once in addition to the cost of the war. Ephesus was not alone in being punished: Sulla stripped some cities of their freedom and fiscal immunities; only a few, for especial services, retained their freedom, but not necessarily their fiscal immunities. Ephesus and other cities became responsible for taxes formerly collected by the publicani.54 The legal status of Ephesus after Sulla's settlement is disputed. Magie and Sherwin-White assume that Sulla stripped the city of its free status, because, as they argue, such status was regained between 48 and 46 B C . 5 5 There is, however, debate about from whom it received the restoration of free status. There are two potential benefactors, Publius Servilius Isauricus, who was consul in 48 and 41, and proconsul of Asia in 46; and Caesar, who was Isauricus' consular colleague and present in Asia in 48 BC. Both Servilius and Caesar were the recipients of divine honours in Asia. Two Ephesian inscriptions from the time of Hadrian record honours for two priests of Servilius and Roma, while others from Ephesus and Pergamum honour Caesar as a descendant of Ares and Aphrodite, a manifest god, and the saviour of human life. 5 6 On the basis of these honours and an inscription from Pergamum which honours him as having "restored to the city its ancestral laws and its democracy without restrictions," " Sherwin-White (1984): 40-46; App., Mith., 61-62. 5 4 Magie (1988): 236-237. 5 5 Sherwin-White (1984): 40-46; Magie (1988): 474, 955, 1271 n. 42. E. Guerber (1995) provides a detailed study of the question of Ephesus' status under the Empire, with the conclusion that the city was by then, and probably under the Republic, among "les cites stipendiaires de la province dont elle etait la capitale" (409); he also provides a summary of the earlier scholarship on this question, pp. 389-390, nn. 1-4. 5 6 Servilius: IEph 702, 3066; Caesar: SIG3 760=Sherk (1984): 100, no. 79d. 36 Magie argues that Servilius restored freedom to both Ephesus and Pergamum during his proconsulship. Sherk argues that Caesar restored freedom to Pergamum as a favour to a citizen of the city, Mithridates, who had come to his aid at Alexandria; 5 8 if Caesar did restore freedom to Pergamum, a contemporary restoration to Ephesus would make sense. The inscription on which the restoration of autonomy is based, however, is fragmentary, and no copies exist of the final portion which identifies precisely what Caesar restored to Pergamum; Servilius, however, receives commendation for the same reasons in Pergamum, that is, for the restoration of autonomy and rights of asylum to the temple of Asclepius.5 9 There is no secure evidence that Servilius restored free status to Ephesus, or that Caesar restored this status to Pergamum, let alone Ephesus. The inscriptions honouring Servilius and Caesar may have been erected in response to restorations affecting only the temples, not the overall status of the cities. Sherk concedes that it is not actually stated in any source that Caesar restored freedom to Pergamum at the request of his rescuer, Mithridates.60 The same may be said of the revocation of free status from both cities. The debate about who restored Ephesus to free status is irresolvable because it is possible that the city did not lose this status in Sulla's arrangements. Appian records Sulla's settlement of Asia Minor after the end of " Magie (1988): 416-417, 474, 1270-1271, n. 42, 1336-1337,"n. 19; ILS 8779=Sherk (1984): 102, no. 81: b 5f)uo<; '£%ii±T\G£v I nbrcXiov EspoTXiov norcXtou tfidv 'Iaavpi|K6v xov dv9urcaxov, yeyovbxa acoxfipa KOA | eTjepyETny xf\q TC6A.£CDC, KOCI a.7to5e8coK6'KX xfj | nbXei xcuq roxxptovx; v6uou? Kcd xf\v 8r|UOK[pa]|xiav dSotiXcoxov. 5 8 Sherk (1969): 280-284, no. 54; Caes., B. Alex., 26. 5 9 Sherk (1969): 282: [5 Sfjuog] | [exiuriae] xdv eauxoij g[coxfjpa KCXI Ebepykxr\v] | [rdiov 'Iou]Xioy Todou b6v Kai.a[apa x6v abxKpdxopa Kal] | [a.pxx]epea Kod SiKX&xopa xd [|3' Tt&ar|<; apexfii; Kcd ebvoiacj | [ev£K]ev cxTtoKaxaaxf)oa[vxa xol^ GEOII; xf|v xe n6Xiv] | [Katxfi]v %(&pav o[{j]cjav 'i£pd[v Kai &cvXov Kal a-bx6vouov.]; the restoration is probable. Precisely what it means, though, is unclear: freedom for the Greeks was a common slogan during the Hellenistic Period, used by Antigonus, Demetrius, Antiochus III, Mithridates and Rome (eg., Gruen [1984]: 123, 138, 146; OGIS 5, 409; Diod. S i c , 19.61.3). Servilius: ILS 8779. 6 0 Sherk (1969): 282. 37 the Mithridatic war, listing several cities and regions that were granted freedom for their loyalty during Mithridates' invasion. Those that supported and obeyed Mithridates' commands, on the other hand, were severely punished, "especially the Ephesians, who had treated the Roman offerings in their temples with shameless indignity."6 1 Sulla summoned the supporters of Mithridates to Ephesus where he informed them of their punishment. He required the province to pay five years of taxes immediately, in addition to the costs of the war and whatever additional expenses Sulla incurred in the restoration of order as was noted above.62 Appian is regularly cited in support of the statement that Sulla revoked Ephesus' free status, along with that of other previously free cities, as part of the punishment for supporting Mithridates.63 In fact, though, Appian does not even suggest this, and would seem to be saying the opposite. The punishment is recorded in a speech which Appian composed himself. The omission of a revocation of free status, however, is not the result of this secondary composition. Appian hints at punishment for the Ephesians at the time of the killing of the citizens and Mithridates' entry into the city. 6 4 He suggests early in his account of the Mithridatic wars that Ephesus was strongly chastised after Sulla's campaigns in Greece and his arrival in Asia. It is unlikely, therefore, that Appian would fail to mention a loss of free status in his speech if that was included in Sulla's settlements. Ephesus is the only city named among the "Cappadocianisers", upon all of whom the indemnity is imposed. Since this punishment is specified immediately after the 6 1 App., Mith., 6 1 : d l te KoaiTtaSoKtcTavxEi; &v5pec, f| nbXeic, EKOXCXC^OVTO TUKPCOI;, Kcd n&licxa. a incov 'E<|)Ecnoi, o~uv ao%pa koXctKEta ec, xd 'Pcoucdcov cxva9f||j.cu;a bfipioavxeq. Ilium, Chios, Lycia, Rhodes and Magnesia received freedom; Magnesia had been among the cities which received Mithridates (21) . 6 2 App., Mith., 6 2 . 6 3 Eg., Sherwin-White (1984) : 4 0 - 4 6 ; Rogers (1991) : 6. 6 4 App., Ato/i., 2 1 , 23 . 38 statement that Ephesus and the other cities which had supported Mithridates were severely punished, the large indemnity should be taken as the "severe punishment".65 So severe was the indemnity that Asia still owed a part of it in 69 BC. Surely Appian would have added the loss of freedom, picking up on his earlier hints, and demonstrating the full extent of the severity of the punishment. It may be argued that the indemnity itself implies subject status. The payment of an indemnity and taxes does not necessarily indicate a loss of freedom, though. Early in his career, P. Servilius Isauricus introduced a decree which "protected free communities against excessive demands on the part of Roman capitalists," a clear indication that even free cities could be liable for taxes.66 Furthermore, Hadrian wrote in A D 119 for the express purpose of exempting the citizens of Aphrodisias from a tax on nails because the city had been removed from the structure of the province.67 Clearly free status did not always bring freedom from taxation. It has already been noted that the publicani had confiscated the revenues of Artemis' lakes before the beginning of the first century, and that their depredations were involved in the defection of Asia to Mithridates in the eighties.68 App., Mith., 61-62, says that Sulla punished various cities by tearing down walls and giving them up to plunder, while granting benefits to those cities which had not favoured Mithridates. Sulla summoned representatives from these to Ephesus where he informed them of their punishment: (J>eiSdi 5e yevouc, exi xft ' A c t a , KCCI xf|<; §IXV±XT\C, 'Pcouatoic; eix|>T||ita<; oftveKa, u6vot><; u u i v emypdcjxo Ttevxe excov (fxbpauc; ecreveyKeiv airdica, Kcd xf|v xov> noXeuo'u 8OCTCCXVT|V, 6OT| xe yeyove u o i Kod feaxou. Ka9icrKX|j.eva) x d vnbkoina. Aiavp-riaco 8e xat)9' feKcxaxoi^ eyco K a x d nbXeic,, Kal x d £ c o TtpoGeautav xdic; k c ^ o p d l ^ , Kcd xdic; oi> 6iAd!;acnv E7u6f|C7co 8tKT|v (be, Tto^euloic;. There is no mention of a loss of freedom. Appian reports the bestowal of freedom on several cities (61), including Magnesia ad Maeandrum although this city had received Mithridates on his march, but it is possible that these cities had not enjoyed a privileged status before: Sulla enrolled them among the Friends of Rome ('Pcouatcoi/ dveypa^s <|>lA.ou<;); at no point, however, does he report the revocation of freedom from Ephesus. 6 6 Magie (1988): 416, 1270, n. 41. 6 7 Millar (1977): 429; Reynolds (1982): 115-118, no. 15; cf. Reynolds (1982): 54-91, no. 8. 6 8 Strabo, 14.1.16; Guerber (1995): 390, n.4; Sherwin-White (1984): 240; App., Mith., 16. 39 A Latin inscription from a dedicatory monument on the Capitoline hill in Rome records an embassy led by Heraclitus and Hermocrates expressing the gratitude of the people of Ephesus to the Romans for their libertas.69 Magie dates this inscription to 167 BC because the monument also contains an offering of thanks from the Lycians for their libertas, which he assumes to be the liberation from the domination of Rhodes in that year; he argues that the dedication by the Ephesians is contemporary.70 Ephesus, however, was subject to Eumenes II after the peace of Apamea, and there is no evidence that Rome deprived the Attalid kingdom of territory as it did the island of Rhodes. Such a deprivation is, in fact, unlikely since the situations of Rhodes and the Attalid kingdom differed. Rhodes was in danger of being attacked because it had delayed choosing a side during the Third Macedonian War, only offering to mediate between Rome and Perseus relatively late in the dispute. The island suffered for this tardiness by the exploitation of the ambiguity of the statement which had given the Rhodians authority in Lycia twenty years previously.71 Rhodes had maintained its position among the Hellenistic kingdoms and Rome by playing them off against one another; Eumenes, however, was in a position of strength in Asia Minor, such that the Romans were unlikely to interfere directly in his affairs by removing cities from his kingdom, no minor interference. Mommsen, decades before Magie, had argued that the Ephesian inscription and the monument on which it appears should be dated to the period during or just after the First Mithridatic War. 7 2 A.W. Lintott acknowledges that the early date supported by 6 9 CIL I2.727=VI.373: Populus Ephesiu[s populum Romanum] \ Salutis ergo quod ofptinuit maiorum]\ sown leibertatem i[ /| legatei Heraclitus H[i - - filius]\ Hermocrates Dem[etri filius]; Mommsen, (1965): IV.69-80. 7 0 Magie (1988): 954-956, n. 67; CIL I2.726=C/L VI.374. 7 1 Gruen (1985): 123, 166, 572-574. 7 2 Mommsen (1906): 74-75. 40 Magie is less likely than that proposed by Mommsen, since the letter forms would be unusual as early as the mid-second century B C . 7 3 Each scholar accepts that the multiple thanksgiving inscriptions on this monument are approximately contemporary, although Lintott broadens this to argue that the inscriptions represent successive dedications recorded "at the behest of foreign embassies over a longer period from c. 100-60 B C " , accounting for the similarity of the letter forms with the supposition that the monument was re-inscribed after damage in 83 B C . 7 4 In this scheme, the inscription recording the embassy led by Heraclitus and Hermocrates is dated to the end of the second century B C , after the settlement of Attalus Ill's bequest. Lintott supports this date in part because of his belief that Mommsen's suggested date placing the inscription during Sulla's dictatorship would make it "a piece of bootlicking servility": he accepts Appian's statement of Ephesus' severe punishment without examining the nature of that punishment.75 As argued above, though, the only punishment which Appian reports is the imposition of a massive indemnity. In this case, a thanksgiving dedication would not be a display of obsequiousness, but rather a genuine sign of gratitude for Sulla's restraint: some cities suffered the demolition of their walls, while others were plundered.76 Ephesus had good reason to offer a dedication in gratitude for its situation after the end of the war. Furthermore, Lintott's dating of the inscription to the end of the second century BC raises the significant question of why the other beneficiary cities, such as Pergamum, do not appear with Ephesus on this monument. The same question, of course, can be asked if a Sullan date is accepted: Magnesia on the Maeander became a friend and ally of 7 3 Lintott (1978): 138; Lintott notes, however, that it would not be impossible for the letter forms to have been current in the mid-second century, just unlikely. 7 4 Lintott (1978): 143. 7 5 Lintott (1978): 140. 76 App., Mith., 61. 41 Rome, despite having welcomed Mithridates during the war, but does not appear with Ephesus on this monument. The Ephesians, however, may have been made more aware of how much more they could have suffered by the fact that the settlement was announced in their own city. Such an expression of gratitude would be particularly appropriate for the Ephesians, since they had defected from Rome before rejoining her. Similarly, Laodicea in Lycia whose citizens had surrendered Q. Oppius and his men to Mithridates, appears on the monument; this appearance is not an instance of sycophancy, but, as in the case of Ephesus, the result of a very real sense of having been treated leniently by Sulla. 7 7 This would then imply that Sulla in fact restored the freedom to the Ephesians, as he had to the Lycians, which they had previously enjoyed and lost under Mithridates' domination. Such a restoration would not be remarkable if in fact Ephesus was lukewarm in its support of the Pontic king, as seems to have been the case. Although Ephesus does not appear in Appian's list of the cities to which Sulla granted freedom, a restoration of free status is still possible because those cities which are named do not appear, from Appian's phrasing, to have been free before Mithridates' advance.78 The decree passed by the Ephesians to commemorate their returning to Rome makes the dating of the dedication to the time of Sulla more convincing. The decree was erected at Ephesus, but it cannot have failed to have been reported to the Roman Senate. The delegation led by Heraclitus and Hermocrates and recorded on the dedicatory " App., Mith., 78-79; Mommsen (1906): 72-75, no. III. 7 8 App., Mith., 61; the freed cities were inscribed among the <J>lXoi of the Romans; Ephesus had enjoyed this status at the beginning of the first century. 42 monument presents an ideal opportunity for such a report. Although the dating of the monument and its inscriptions is clearly not agreed upon, the dedication by the Ephesians can be seen as support for the city's continued free status after the First Mithridatic war; neither Isauricus nor Caesar were responsible for a restoration of such status in the early forties BC. Antony came to Ephesus after the defeat of Brutus and Cassius in 41 BC. As punishment for the support rendered by Ephesus and other cities to these generals, he required nine years' worth of taxes - Plutarch says that Antony extracted 200,000 talents from the Asian cities. During his time in Ephesus, Antony was joined by many Senators who were opposed to Octavian, a clear indication of the city's continuing importance.80 Possible interventions by Augustus in the affairs of the city in 38 BC, despite the fact that Ephesus lay in Antony's half of the former republic, also suggests this ongoing prominence.81 Octavian also imposed a pecuniary fine after the defeat of Antony in 31 BC, but distributed benefits as well. Cassius Dio writes that Octavian deprived the cities of "the limited authority over their citizens which had hitherto rested with their Strabo also reports an embassy to Rome in which an orator from Adramyttium made a speech in defence of Asia, when the province was accused of "Mithridatism" (Strabo, 13.1.66). 8 0 Plut., Ant, 24; App., B. Civ., 5.4-5; Frieson (1993): 7. 8 1 Jones (1999): 92; Reynolds (1982): nos. 8 & 12; Millar (1973): 56, no. 10. Jones, perhaps, overemphasizes Augustus' role in Ephesus at this time. Of the two Aphrodisian documents which he cites, the second (Reynolds no. 12, a letter of Augustus to the Ephesians) may not be a significant intervention in Antony's affairs: the ambassador Solon son of Demetrius of Aphrodisias reported to Augustus (or at this time, Octaivan) the sufferings of the city. As a Julian, Augustus would hardly be an unlikely recipient of the Aphrodisians' appeal; indeed, in a second letter (Reynolds, no. 10; Millar, no. 11) Augustus emphasizes his attachment to the city: uiotv it6X.iv vxxm\v | et, 6X.r|c, xfjc, 'Aoiocc, feuocuxcp eiX.T|ralxx. xomouc, obxco 9eX.co (Ji'oX.axOfjvca cbc, k\xoi>c, 7ioX,eixac, (cf. Reynolds, no. 6; Millar, no. 13). Reynolds suggests that Augustus' "superior or more active benevolence" is hinted at in the letter, but it must be noted that Augustus does not directly order the Ephesians to restore the Aphrodisians' property (specifically a statue of Eros): he acts through Antony (rcepl c5v | ndvxcov 'Avxcovicp xe xcp awdp^ovxi kvxoX.dc, | 6£8GL)KO( OTICOC, baa noxk dv Swnxoa 6 dv eftpri d|7toKaxaaxf|0"T) abxoic,). Furthermore, Reynolds suggests that "Octavian had apparently come to an agreement with Antony, who recognized his speical relationship with Plarasa/Aphrodisias; it was, perhaps, parallel to Antony's special relationship with Bononia, recognized by Octavian" (98). Augustus' involvement with the Aphrodisians affected the Ephesians, and the fact that he took the trouble to inform the latter of his actions may be a suggestion of the importance of the city of the Ephesians. 43 assemblies." Ephesus may have lost its freedom at this point, but not before.82 Ephesus was also granted permission to consecrate areas of the city to Roma and Caesar as the most important city in Asia by Augustus; the city may now have replaced Pergamum as the administrative centre of the province, an elevation which was assisted by Augustus' residence in the city in 29 B C . 8 3 Ephesus' status as the provincial capital virtually necessitated extensive construction, which took place primarily around the State Agora. 8 4 Throughout the first century A D , emperors and proconsuls of the province took an active interest in the financial affairs of Ephesus, in large part because the status of the Artemision as a bank and the importance of the port made the city the economic centre of Asia. 8 5 The interest shown by the emperors of the first century, particularly the Julio-Claudians, is shown by the building programs of this period. Almost all major building projects between 31 BC and A D 81 were sponsored by an emperor or a provincial official. 8 6 During and after the reign of Domitian, building and renovation increased significantly, with local benefactors, many of whom possessed Roman citizenship, taking a more prominent role. 8 7 Domitian himself granted Ephesus a temple of the provincial cult early in his reign and instituted Olympian games in the city. The temple continued as a temple of the Flavian emperors after his assassination, and although the games were s / Dio Cass., 51.2.1; Friesen (1993): 9-10, 158; Rogers (1991): 8. Grants of freedom after this time became quite rare (Millar [1977]: 430-433). 8 3 Dio Cass., 51.20.6. 8 4 Scherrer (2001): 69-71; Fig. 2. no. 56. 8 5 Rogers (1991): 9-14; cf. Tac, Ann., 16.23; Aristides, Concerning Concord, 24; Dio Chrys. Rhodian Oration, 54, 55, 65; Caes., B. Civ., 3.33, 105. 8 6 White (1995): 51-52; Ephesus' stature in the eastern empire was such that Seneca could refer to the city alongside Alexandria as one which was particularly populous and thriving (Sen., Ep. 102.21: Ephesum aut Alexandriam aut si quod est etiamnunc frequentius accolis laetiusve tectis solum). 8 7 White (1995): 53, 62-65; Scherrer (1995): 9-14. 44 probably discontinued, Domitian's initiatives may have been involved in the building boom in Ephesus shortly after his reign.8 8 The correspondence of Publius Vedius Antoninus III and Antoninus Pius indicates that the emperors in the mid-second century continued to be involved in the projects of local benefactors, both in approving the erection of public buildings and QQ monuments and contributing to the costs of construction or decoration. The city's importance for the province and the Empire as a whole is shown by the fact that during the late first and early second centuries, more and more of these munificent citizens of Ephesus are known to have belonged to the senatorial order. Thus, for example, Aulus Julius Quadratus was adlected to the Senate and served as consul under Trajan, while Publius Vedius Antoninus III gained senatorial standing under Hadrian. 9 0 Public building appears to have declined and been limited to renovations under the Severans, until earthquakes and invasions by Gothic tribes put an end to Ephesus' prosperity in the third century; this prosperity, though, may have been declining slightly as early as the reign of Antoninus.91 Along with the city's prosperity, the population began to decrease. Ephesus was once again the recipient of Imperial aid for reconstruction during the fourth and fifth centuries. By this time, however, the gerousia has passed out of the epigraphic record of the city. Friesen (1993): 28-40, 58-63; Domitian established a foundation in order to pay for a portion of the expenses of the Harbour Gymnasium; cf. Scherrer (2001): 74-78. 89 IEph 1491-1493. 9 0 Quadratus: White (1995): 62, 66; IEph 980, 1538, 3033, 3034; Vedius Antoninus: Kalinowski (2002): 118-120; IEph 1491-1493, 4108, 4110; cf. Tiberius Julius Dama Claudianus: Friesen (1993): 137-140; IEph 424, 461, 508, 638, 5101, 5113. 9 1 Scherrer (2001): 78-79; Scherrer (1995): 15-16. 9 2 Scherrer (1995): 16#. 45 2.2. Origins of the Ephesian Gerousia The origins of the Ephesian gerousia are unclear. It first appears in the epigraphic record at the beginning of the third century B C , and only once thereafter before the Roman period. Strabo also reports the gerousia in existence in the third century B C ; his is one of very few literary testimonies to this body in the city. The long period in which it does not appear has led many scholars to question the relationship between a Hellenistic and a Roman gerousia, usually with the conclusion that they should not be identified as the same bodies. There has, however, been little effort to understand the nature of the Hellenistic institution. Some hypotheses may be advanced, but it must be noted that much of what follows is speculation and is not meant to be in any way definitive. Strabo reports that at the time of Lysimachus' relocation and renaming of the city there was a gerousia registered, with which was associated a body called the epikletoi^ This statement is often taken to mean either that Lysimachus created both bodies, or that he attached the epikletoi to the previously existing gerousia?* Van Berchem alone of the scholars discussed in the Introduction considers the early history of the gerousia at length. His suggestion that the gerousia of Ephesus served as the model for the Roman Senate is provocative, but it does not offer an hypothesis on the origins - it simply pushes the question back. 9 5 His argument requires the gerousia to pre-date Lysimachus, and this element of his reconstruction is quite possibly correct. The early history and origins of 9 3 Strabo, 14 .1 .21: fjv 5e YEPOIXJIOC KaTaYpa<t>o|j.evT|, xcOxoi? Se a w f i e a a v d i e7ttK\rrE0i KOAOIJUEVOI. 9 4 Creation of both: Hicks (1890) : 7 5 ; Menadier (1880) : 62; ' Chapot (1967) : 2 3 3 ; Levy (1895) : 2 3 6 ; Attached the epikletoi: Oliver (1941) : 15-17; van Berchem (1980) . On some possible meanings of Strabo's statement, cf. above, p. 29 . 9 5 van Berchem (1980) : 37 -38 ; Menadier's note that Roman gerousiai appear in cities once controlled by Lysimachus does not constitute proof that Lysimachus established them (62) . 46 the gerousia deserve further attention - even if no certain conclusions can be drawn - and will serve as a useful starting point for the subsequent chapters. It is agreed among scholars that the Doric and Asiatic gerousiai are distinct, but this should not lead to the assumption that the two were completely unrelated throughout their histories. The Spartan gerousia was a body of twenty-eight elders and the two kings instituted by Lycurgus on the advice of the Delphic oracle; it was to be a body which prevented the kings from acting too monarchically, and the people from acting too democratically.96 Xenophon refers to the gerousia of Sparta as a body of the aristoi andres, while Aristotle and Demosthenes also refer to the Spartan gerousia, giving it clear oligarchic overtones, as Hicks has noted.97 Later Greek authors clearly saw a connection between the Spartan gerousia and the Roman Senate, and they may well be correct in their statements that the former was the model for the latter.98 Certainly this seems a more plausible connection to draw than van Berchem's unattested sixth century BC Ephesian gerousia which served as the model for the Roman Senate. This is not, however, to deny the existence of such an early gerousia in Ephesus, regardless of its relationship with the Senate of Rome. The Spartan gerousia provides the obvious starting point for an investigation of the origins of the Ephesian gerousia, but, before considering the relationship between the Spartan and Ephesian institutions, the role occasionally ascribed to Lysimachus should be reviewed. Strabo reports that the gerousia and the epikletoi governed everything in the Plut., Lye, 5-6. 9 7 Xen., Mem., 4.4.16; Arist., Pol., 1306a8; Dem., Lept., 107; Hicks (1890): 75. 9 8 Dionysius of Halicarnassus remarks on several other elements of early Rome which he claims were modeled on Spartan practices (2.13.4, 14.2, 28.2) 47 city." This expression, however, has given rise to different opinions about Strabo's exact meaning because of the two Hellenistic inscriptions in which the gerousia and epikletoi appear.100 These decrees are associated with the temple, and do not show supreme authority in the administration of the city. The first is a decree of the boule and demos granting citizenship to a certain Euphronius who conducted an embassy to Lysimachus' general Prepelaus on the authority of the gerousia and epikletoi regarding the billeting of soldiers in the temple's properties and the taxation of Artemis. In the second document, a decree of the same bodies, a Boeotian flute player is crowned with a golden crown and proclaimed publicly. In both cases, the gerousia brings the measure before the boule and demos and appears to be subordinate to these; in fact, the psephismata of the gerousia and epikletoi are brought before the boule and demos by the neopoioi and kouretes or the neopoioi alone. To account for this apparent contradiction, it has been suggested that Lysimachus involved himself in the affairs of the gerousia. He either put the gerousia in charge of the Temple of Artemis to give the influence of the priests official sanction or to gain an element of control over the temple and its treasury, or gave it the highest authority in the city subject to the nominal approval of the boule and demos in order to give the administration an oligarchic element.101 The third possibility can be rejected with relative certainty since it rests on Strabo's statement that the gerousia and epikletoi "governed everything." If this is how 9 9 Strabo, 14.1.21: 6IC6KOUV TOXV-KX; cf. above, p. 29. 100 IEph., 1449, 1470. 1 0 1 Sanction for the priests' influence: Hicks (1890): 75; Access to temple funds: Levy (1895): 237; Oliver (1941): 15-17; Oligarchic influences: Hicks (1890): 75; Chapot (1967): 223. Oliver aruges that the epikletoi were a means of giving Lysimachus emergency access to the treasury of the temple, but this is scarcely different from gaining direct access. 48 the statement should be interpreted, one may suppose either that it refers to an unspecified time, or that the geographer was mistaken: the two most prominent gerousiai in the Roman world were the Spartan gerousia and the Roman Senate, both of which were authoritative administrative bodies. Furthermore, the testimonies of Aristotle and Demosthenes indicate that the word gerousia had clear oligarchic overtones. The creation of such a body, even if nominally subject to the authority of the boule and demos, would have had a significant effect on the appearance of the administration. It would have been tantamount to dissolving both bodies rather than adding a non-invasive oligarchic element. The two Hellenistic inscriptions indicate that the Ephesian gerousia was not in a position to add oligarchic elements. Alternatively, as noted above, panta could refer not to the affairs of the city as a whole, but to the construction entailed in Lysimachus' refoundation of the city or to temple affairs. The second possible explanation for Lysimachus' supposed involvement in the affairs of the gerousia can also be rejected. The importance of the Temple of Artemis as the 'bank' of Asia Minor and the praise of the Ephesians for their restraint from using its wealth in their own difficulties suggests that Lysimachus probably could not have expected to access temple-funds through the creation of a board subject to the authority of the existing civic bodies.1 0 2 Surely such a change would have elicited some comment in the sources, if only to praise the Ephesians additionally in contrast to Lysimachus. Finally, the power of the priesthood over the temple and over Ephesus itself could not have been influenced by the creation of a subordinate body any more effectively than it was already influenced by the boule and demos. The persuasive powers of the priests 1 0 2 Dio Chrys., Rhodian Oration 54, 55, 65; Aristides, Concerning Concord, 24; Xen., An., 5.3.6-8; Caes., B. Civ., 3.33, 105. 49 will have been based on their control of the temple, but also to no small extent on their own personal wealth and status in the city. Furthermore, while there are only two decrees of the Hellenistic gerousia, neither of them directly involves the priesthood, which would be unexpected if the gerousia had been created or modified to legitimise the priests' unofficial power. The Hellenistic inscriptions provide another argument against Lysimachus as the creator of the gerousia. Prepelaus was the general who captured Ephesus for Lysimachus and, as the decree for Euphronius shows, the recipient of an embassy from the gerousia 103 and the epikletoi. The result of the embassy was exemption for the temple from taxes and from billeting soldiers. The exemption from tax indicates that Lysimachus did not benefit from a regular payment from the temple, so that access to the temple's funds becomes an even less likely motivation. The use of the verb huparcho may suggest that the request for exemption from tax was a new privilege being sought, but it may also suggest a continuance of the current status. Such status probably existed prior to Lysimachus' capture of the city. Demetrius had bypassed Ephesus after his defeat at Ipsus out of the fear that his soldiers would plunder the temple: the Antigonids kept an eye on the economic welfare of the temple and so the exemption from tax may have been in existence during their period of dominance.104 Furthermore, the embassy itself implies a familiarity with the affairs of the temple. Since the petition was addressed to Lysimachus' general Prepelaus instead of the new ruler, the gerousia and epikletoi may be assumed to have sent the embassy shortly after capture. It is unlikely that a newly instituted board would have been sufficiently 1 0 3 Diod. S i c , 20.107.4. 1 0 4 Plut., Dem., 30.1. 50 established to send a petition regarding either new or existing privileges to the general so soon after his capture of the city. It is even more unlikely that a body instituted by Lysimachus - through Prepelaus or personally - would make a request for exemptions not granted at the time of its recent establishment. Its role in the operation of the temple and its privileges would have been specified at the institution of the body. An embassy seeking confirmation of the existing rights and privileges sent at the beginning of a new reign is more appropriate than an embassy requesting additional rights and privileges from the ruler who established those privileges in the first place not long before. It should also be noted, though it often is not, that Strabo does not say that Lysimachus or his general Prepelaus created or registered the gerousia; he simply says that there was a registered gerousia.105 In addition, the use of the imperfect contrasts with the use of the aorist for Lysimachus' other actions, namely the relocation and renaming of the city. Van Berchem argues that the use of the imperfect in this case indicates that Strabo is describing an institution which no longer existed in his own time, perhaps using a lost Aristotelian Constitution of Ephesus as his source.1 0 6 In fact, van Berchem's argument is unnecessary, as the publication in 1993 of several letters to the 107 gerousia of Ephesus indicates. The gerousia did exist in Strabo's time, and his use of the imperfect requires no explanation: it simply describes the continuing existence of the institution from pre-Lysimachan to post-Lysimachan Ephesus. Lysimachus did not create the gerousia in Ephesus. It is, however, unclear who did create it, or when. Van Berchem, as has been noted, argues that the it was an 1 0 5 Strabo, 14.1.21: fjv 8e yepoucia Kaxaypacfjouevri; Kaxaypac()ouer| is a participle used as an adjective, not as part of the verb, ie., not 'a gerousia was registered'. 1 0 6 van Berchem (1980): 28-29; one may wonder why the renaming of the city was not also reported in the imperfect if this is the case: the name Arsinoe appears not to have survived Lysimachus' demise. 107 JOAI 62 (1993): 113-150. 51 oligarchic council of ancient standing whose authority had been limited to religious affairs at an early date.108 As that scholar himself notes, his argument rests on theory and inference rather than direct evidence. He is nonetheless most likely correct in arguing for an oligarchic body which evolved into the gerousia as it appears in the two Hellenistic inscriptions, but it may not have been of such ancient standing as he suggests. The similarity in names suggests that an investigation into the origins of the Epehsian gerousia might benefit from a consideration of the Spartan gerousia. This was an oligarchic body in Sparta of limited numbers with lifelong membership.109 The initial gerousiastai in Sparta were men who shared Lycurgus' ideal (gnome), but age was not initially a factor in their membership.110 The honour consisted in being a member of a body of a limited number of men chosen initially for their wisdom. There is, however, no demonstrable connection between the Spartan and Ephesian gerousiai, but the use of the same word suggests that it may not be fruitless to speculate on a connection, particularly if the gerousia had even nominal influence in Ephesus' public affairs. The councils which Lysander appointed in Ephesus and other cities consisted of ten members, appointed because of their eminence and their relations with himself - essentially, because they were friends of his, just as Lycurgus is said to have appointed the first Spartan gerousia.]U If there had been a gerousia in Ephesus before Lysander's arrival, as van Berchem suggests, it seems odd that he would establish a separate oligarchic body by the institution of a decarchy instead of supporting or , U 5 van Berchem (1980): 28-34. 1 0 9 Plut., Lye, 5-6, 26.1; Dem., Lept., 107-108. 1 1 0 Plut., Lye, 5, 26.1. 1 1 1 Plut., Lys., 5.3-4. 52 strengthening this body. Lysander, then, may have been involved in the creation of the Ephesian gerousia or, more probably, in the creation of an environment which led to it. The decarchies which Lysander established in Ephesus and its Ionian neighbours, however, may not have survived 411 BC, when Sparta first acknowledged Persia's suzerainty over those cities. 1 1 2 Xenophon gives as Lysander's motivation for accompanying Agesilaus on campaign in Asia Minor in 397 BC the desire to restore the authority of his appointed boards, and Plutarch implies that these boards had not yet lost all of their authority when the expedition set out, but that they were in the process of losing i t . 1 1 3 A decree of the Ephors had dissolved the decarchies which Lysander had set up, as was noted above, but it may be asked how effective such a decree would have been in the Ionian cities, which were ostensibly subject to the Persian Empire and distant from Sparta.114 Sparta's authority beyond central Greece declined with distance: authority in Asian affairs was in the hands of the navarchs; a decree of the Ephors may have carried very little weight in the Ionian cities. 1 1 5 Lysander's activities in setting up decarchies had contributed to prosperity in many Greek cities, so it may be that these decarchies were not overthrown at the first opportunities even if they did not enjoy popular support. A governing body of ten members, however, is very different from the epigraphically attested gerousia of A D 104 with at least three hundred and nine members. It was noted above that Tissaphernes attempted to drive out Lysander's appointees after the death of Cyrus, and that the establishment of an opposing group of oligarchs might be an ideal way to do this. Consequently, it is unlikely that Lysander's decarchy and the 1 1 2 Bommelaer (1981): 124; cf. above, pp. 26-27. 1 1 3 Bommelaer (1981): 125; Xen., Hell. 3.4.2; Plut. Ages., 6.2. 1 1 4 Xen., Hell., 3.4.2. 1 1 5 Bommelaer (1981): 163-165. 53 gerousia can be identified as one and the same body. Rather, the gerousia may have originated in a group of individuals who were in opposition to the decarchs and who enjoyed satrapal support. It may be noted that Alexander dispossessed a governing oligarchy in Ephesus of its authority, an oligarchy which may have developed from such individuals. Alternatively, the origins of the gerousia may have been somewhat more humble than this. The name might suggest that the position of its members was supported by their age or respected position within the city, independent of any Spartan connection.116 They may have been an unofficial group of citizens who quickly came to genuine authority in a time of crisis or need. Their supervision of Lysimachus' building, if that is how dioikoun panta should be interpreted, or the conflicts between the diadouchoi at the end of the fourth century might provide such an opportunity, but it is also possible that a crisis prompted their emergence earlier. Oligarchs supported by Tissaphernes are not attested, and it cannot be overly stressed that their existence is entirely hypothetical. It is, perhaps, more plausible that a group of citizens joined together at this time to keep the business of the city from collapsing. The period of disorder in some cities of Asia Minor at the beginning of the fourth century BC, during which the decline of his decarchs may have influenced Lysander's desire to return to the region, would provide an atmosphere in which the emergence of such citizens would not be unreasonable.117 These citizens may have formed an early incarnation of the gerousia and the oligarchy which Alexander replaced when he instituted a democratic restoration. 1 1 6 Cf., Plut, Lye, 6.4; Plut, Mor., 789E-F. 1 1 7 The Persian conquest of the Ionian cities in the sixth century B C , which led to emigration and exile in many cities and possibly in Ephesus (Domfnguez [1999]: 79), may have provided a similar opportunity for such citizens to join together in the interests of the city. 54 The fact remains, though, that the speculative origins of the gerousia suggested above leave that body significantly smaller than it appears in A D 104. The epikletoi are informative in this respect. Oliver argues that this body was attached to the pre-existing gerousia by Lysimachus in order to provide a supporting body should he require emergency access to the temple treasury; van Berchem argues that they had been attached 1 1 8 to the gerousia much earlier in its existence. Both Oliver and van Berchem note that an epikletos was in literature a guest invited not by a host, but by one who had himself been invited by the host.1 1 9 Oliver, therefore, takes an epikletos to be an outsider invited by a third party and concludes that the epikletoi were appointed to join the gerousia by a third party, that is, Lysimachus. There are major two problems with such an interpretation. First, the epikletos is not invited by an outside third person, but by others who had also been invited. Plutarch implies that the epikletos might arrive before or after his inviter, but there is no indication that the inviter himself failed to arrive. There is no indication that Lysimachus was a member of the gerousia - if he had been, it would be surprising that the embassy led by Euphronius would have gone to Prepelaus instead of Lysimachus himself - so that his grafting of the epikletoi onto the gerousia is not parallel to inviting a guest to a symposium. Second, this is not a dining context like that of Plutarch's dialogue, and there is little evidence to suggest that the gerousia was simply a social club at this time and therefore describable in terms from such a context: sending Euphronius on an embassy 1 1 8 Oliver (1941): 15-16; van Berchem (1980); cf. above, pp. 12-15. 1 1 9 Oliver (1941): 16-17; van Berchem (1980): 35; Plut, Mor., 707A. 55 for which he receives public honours actually implies that the gerousia and epikletoi were a public body. Lest it be objected that the chronological separation between Lysimachus and Plutarch may have witnessed a change in the interpretation of epikletos, a few remarks on that word are not out of place. Plutarch's use of epikletos is not a second-century A D development of the word: it appears to have the same meaning in Aristophanes, that of guests at a dinner party. In addition, a second century BC decree of the Delian Society of Poseidoniasts from Berytus which Oliver cites does not use epikletos in a context parallel to that which is found in the Ephesian decrees, but rather in a festival context: the honorand may bring an epikletos to a procession and two to a celebration.121 Epikletos is in this case precisely parallel to the use which appears in Aristophanes and Plutarch. The meaning of epikletos in the decree from Berytus should not colour the interpretation of the two Hellenistic documents from Ephesus, nor should its appearance in Plutarch. Tod notes Strabo's use of the word, in his commentary on the Berytus inscription, but otherwise does not comment on the word itself. He does, however, cite two occurrences in Herodotus which are illuminating in the case of the Ephesian epikletoi.122 Epikletoi were advisors to the Persian king or one of his officials: they were a semi-permanent group of counsellors who could be summoned for particular purposes.123 It may not be accidental that a group called the epikletoi appear in a city which, under an oligarchic council, had been subject to the Persian Empire for fifty years.1 2 4 1 2 U Ar., Pax, 1266. 1 2 1 Oliver (1941): 16-17; Tod (1934): 142, // 36,48. 1 2 2 Tod (1934): 152. 1 2 3 Hdt., 8.101.1, 9.42.2; cf., Hdt., 5.75, 7.8 & 7.203. m Axx.,Anab., 1.17.10; Xen., An., 5.1.29-32. 56 Strabo's use of the participle kaloumenoi may be relevant at this point. In the case of Plutarch, Aristophanes, and the Berytus decree, epikletos refers to individuals considered as individuals, not to a public body which the Ephesian inscriptions imply or to a group of advisors among the Persians. The consistent use and chronological distribution of Plutarch, Aristophanes and the Berytus decree suggest that epikletos was easily or even primarily understood as referring to individuals rather than a body or board. Consequently, Strabo informs his readers that the body which was associated with the gerousia was the 'so-called' epikletoi: the word is used in a technical sense to describe advisors such as those who appear in Herodotus. The epikletoi were an official or semi-official body ancillary to the regular members of the gerousia in Ephesus which predated Lysimachus' resettling and renaming of the city. 1 2 6 Oliver leaves the question of the epikletoi after Lysimachus open: there is no evidence to determine whether they became permanent members of the gerousia, or if they ceased to exist after Lysimachus' death.127 Since Lysimachus did not create either body, though, there is little reason to believe that either would have disappeared after his death. The reversion from Arsinoe-Ephesus to Ephesus may be seen as a reassertion of Ephesian identity, but there is no reason for the epikletoi, who were no longer a ruling body after Alexander's conquest, to have been dissolved at Lysimachus' death when they had survived Alexander's. It is more probable that the gerousia and epikletoi were assimilated into a single body. If the proposition that the epikletoi are to be understood in 1 2 5 Strabo 14.1.21: fjv 8k Yepoixjia Kaxaypa(|>ou£vT], TO<>TOI<; 8k avvf\eaav o't 'EIAKXT\IO\. KaA,o'6u,evoi KCd SlCpKOW K&VVX. 1 2 6 The fact that the epikletoi are described in the plural rather than the singular like the boule and demos would seem to indicate that they formed a less tightly organized body, but their appearance in a decree with the gerousia suggests that they cannot be considered as private individuals. The argument that Strabo uses the term in a technical sense may be supported by the fact that the epikletoi do not appear in the Ephesian inscription with the exception of these two citizenship decrees. 1 2 7 Oliver (1941): 17. 57 the sense of the Persian advisors in Herodotus is correct, one would not expect a synthesised oligarchic board to have been subordinate to the boule and demos as they appear in the decrees for Euphronius and the flute player. It should be remembered, though, that Alexander restored the democratic institutions in Ephesus, stripping the small governing group of its power. 1 2 8 It is not implausible that this governing group, simply an oligarchia in Arrian, was the gerousia with a group of advisors, the epikletoi. The two bodies may then have developed into a less and less political board under a single name during the Hellenistic period. A great deal more evidence exists for the gerousia under the empire so that the Hellenistic period is a suitable point at which to end a summary of the gerousia which has been based on a series of inferences. It must be stressed that the preceding discussion has not been intended to provide a definitive account of the history of the gerousia in Ephesus, merely to offer some suggestions. It is hoped that the remainder of this work will supply a historical account of the gerousia under the empire. This discussion has produced the following hypothesis for the early development of the gerousia of Ephesus. The gerousia arose, officially or unofficially, after Lysander's creation of a decarchy in the city and the acknowledgment of Persian suzerainty in Asia Minor and enjoyed, or came to enjoy, significant political authority, but cannot be identified with Lysander's decarchy. During the fifty years before the Alexander's capture of Ephesus, the epikletoi were introduced, perhaps simply as an advisory board for the gerousia which came to serve as an oligarchical governing body. When Alexander captured the city, he made the gerousia and epikletoi subject to the boule and demos, reducing the oligarchy and strengthening the democracy; perhaps he 1 2 8 Arr., Anab., 1.17.10. 58 also limited the gerousia's interests to the temple. Lysimachus may have favoured oligarchy after the democratic Antigonids, but it is unlikely that he undertook constitutional changes regarding the gerousia. During the Hellenistic period, the two bodies coalesced under a single name, and probably continued throughout this period. The absence of evidence after 281 BC may be a result of the chances of preservation rather than the complete disappearance of the gerousia. Oliver had concluded that the gerousia did not become significant again until A D 104 because of this apparent disappearance. His tentativeness in making this conclusion, though, was well grounded, as the letters published in 1993 show. It is the position taken in this work that the gerousia was in continual existence. The functions which remained for the gerousia after the humbling of the oligarchy have not yet been considered, and it is difficult to make conclusions about these in the Hellenistic period. Nonetheless, these, the Roman functions, and the effects of the coming of Rome will be examined in the remainder of this study, following a brief general discussion of the available epigraphic evidence in the next chapter. 59 3. EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 3.1. Collections of the Inscriptions of Ephesus The evidence for the gerousia of Ephesus is primarily epigraphic. Beyond Strabo's brief mention of the gerousia and the epikletoi, there is no other reference to the Ephesian gerousia in the literary sources.1 The gerousia does not appear in the numismatic evidence from Ephesus.2 The Jewish gerousia which appears frequently in Josephus, and occasionally in Judaic inscriptions (almost always in the person of a gerousiarcli), does not appear to have any bearing on the Ephesian gerousia and will not, therefore, be used for comparative purposes.3 The inscriptions of Ephesus published prior to 1981 are readily accessible in Die Inschriften von Ephesos, volumes 11 to 19 of the Inschriften griechischer Stddte aus Kleinasie series (1979-1981). The vast majority published since 1981 are available for consultation in various volumes of the Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts. The catalogue in the appendix presents the text of the inscriptions which refer to the gerousia of Ephesus, and to the presbuteroi (elders), a term which some scholars have suggested refers to the gerousia; sunhedrion [tes gerousia] (assembly of the gerousia) and sustema (constitutional body) have also been suggested as alternate expressions.4 Arguments for and against the inclusion of these terms will be discussed below. For the time being, it is sufficient to note that it is not always clear whether these are in fact references to the gerousia, but it is certainly clear that, if the terms can refer to 1 See above, pp. 1-2, for the use of yepcuaia in Greek authors. 2 Head (1964): 47-115. 3 Cf. above, Introduction, pg. 3, n. 9; C / /9 , 66*, 95, 106, 119, 147, 189, 301, 353, 368, 425, 511, [533], 561 600; IJO i.163, iii.Syr53 & Syr74. 4 Menadier (1890): 49; Chapot (1967): 216. 60 the gerousia, they do not always do so.5 Every attempt has been made to provide as comprehensive a collection as possible. The latest reading of the text of the inscriptions is, in most cases, provided by Die Inschriften von Ephesos. An apparatus criticus has been provided only when such information pertains to the gerousia or its members, or when an emendation is proposed; for a complete apparatus criticus and epigraphic commentary, the reader is directed to the references for each inscription. Traditional epigraphic notation has been used. Translations of those inscriptions which have been discussed in earlier treatments of the gerousia are available in previous publications.6 The increase in available evidence, however, has made it advisable to provide both the Greek text and a translation of each inscription.7 3.2. Chronology The epigraphic evidence for the gerousia at Ephesus covers a period of approximately six hundred years. The earliest inscriptions are two decrees of the boule and demos of the city acclaiming a benefactor and a participant in one of the religious festivals. The latest are not precisely dated, but on the basis of the frequent appearance of the praenomen and nomen Marcus Aurelius, they are most likely to be dated to the second half of the second century A D , if not later. The latest precisely dated inscriptions come from the reign of Philip the Arab in the mid-third century.9 5 For example, [xd lepcoxccxov] | [aw]e5piov xcov veorouov' (JOAI 55 [1984]: 121-122, no. 4238); [x]6 ...| aweSpiov | [x]cov i}uvw8cov | [K]OCI 0EOX.6YO)V | [K]OCI Geauco&ov (IEph 645). 6 The most recent such work in English is Oliver's Sacred Gerousia (1941); his body of evidence, however, is limited to twenty-one Ephesian inscriptions. 7 A l l translations in the catalogue are my own. 8 IEph 1449, 1470 (Cat. nos. 1 & 2). 9 IEph 737, 892 (Cat. nos. 46 & 47). 61 As Chart 1 (pg. 63) implies, it is possible to date forty-eight inscriptions to within fifty years and an additional seven to an approximate period around the change from the second to third century A D . More precise dating is often possible because of the abundance of inscriptions from Ephesus: the many named individuals frequently appear in the corpus of Ephesian epigraphic evidence. Many prytaneis are known, not only from dating formulae, but also from lists of priests or kouretes, so that it has been possible to identify the tenure of many of these officials and to suggest a period for their public activities. Such information makes it possible to assign a fairly accurate date to other inscriptions when a kouros, for example, is present in an honorary inscription. Occasionally, the names of the proconsuls of Asia are given in public documents, in which case a specific year can often be deduced. Letters which survive in entirety - or which preserve the necessary formula at the necessary spot - are datable to the day of postage. Some inscriptions, on the other hand, are datable only to broad periods, if at all. The appearance of an emperor's praenomen and nomen gentilicum indicates that the individual using those names or their ancestor may have received citizenship from or been freed by that Emperor; in the absence of other criteria, these inscriptions can be dated to a time after the beginning of that Emperor's reign, although this is not universally the case. This results in a degree of uncertainty beginning with the reign of Marcus Aurelius: the many Marci Aurelii known in inscriptions may have received citizenship from Marcus Aurelius or Commodus (AD 161-192), or from Caracalla's constitutio Antoniniana (AD 212 or 214), or even later from Elagabalus or Severus 62 Alexander.10 The dates of those inscriptions naming a Marcus Aurelius with no other explicit criteria, therefore, have been generalized to from the late second to the early third century.11 More rarely, the editores principes or subsequent editors have hazarded dates on the basis of the style of the text and palaeographic forms; with few exceptions, these dates have been accepted for the purposes of this study. The catalogue contains twenty-seven inscriptions in which there are insufficient data to estimate a date. Such a lack is often due to damage to the stone. It is not infrequent, though, that the individual or individuals mentioned in a complete or nearly complete inscription are otherwise unknown, so that their careers are not datable. Those inscriptions which can be dated with relative certainty and precision are not evenly distributed over these five and a half centuries (Chart 1). The earliest appear to be the only two testimonies of the gerousia in the Hellenistic period. Thereafter, the gerousia seems to disappear epigraphically until the final years of the Republic and the inauguration of the Principate, when it reappears in a series of letters, beginning with one Although A D 212 is the traditional date for the constitutio-Antoniniana, alternate dates have been proposed (Crook [1967]: 8, n. 8; Millar [1962]; Eck [1999]: 3). Millar (1962) in particular provides an informative argument for A D 214 in two parts. The first half of Millar's argument considers Dio Cassius' placement of the announcement of the constitutio Antoniniana in his discussion of the events at the beginning of Caracalla's reign. Since the proclamation of the decree appears in Dio's reports of Caracalla's travels, "which took up every year of his reign from 213 onward" (126), Millar argues that the constitutio Antoniniana should be dated to this period, that is, after A D 213. The second portion of his argument is based on P. Giessen 40, a papyrus on which the constitutio Antoniniana and two other decrees, arranged in three columns, appear. The second decree can be dated to A D 212-213, the third to A D 215 (126). The papyrus is a collection of Imperial edicts, and since other such documents are not chronologically arranged, there is no reason that the first decree, the constitutio Antoniniana, should precede the second and third in date. A second papyrus (P. Mich. Inv. 5503i) records payments of a suntaximon at three thimes by an individual twice named Liberalis and once Liberalis Aurelius. The payments are dated to November 2, 214, March 27-April 26, 215 and May 1, 215. Millar proceeds to argue that the constitutio Antoniniana was therefore promulgated in the last two months of A D 214. He does, however, note that his argument is far from decisive: Dio's text does not provide evidence for the dating of the decree (to A D 212 or 214), but it does seem to favour the later date. The papyrological evidence, however, serves only to establish the earliest date by which the effects of the constitutio may be observed. 1 1 So cat. nos. 22, 23, 24, 26 & 69; cat. no. 48 is also dated to the late second or early third century, but on the basis of lettering, not the presence of the nofnen gentilicwn- Aurelius. 63 from Julius Caesar or Octavian to the Ephesian gerousia.12 It starts to appear more 12 Chart 1: Chronological Distribution of Dated Gerousia-Inscriptions13 commonly at the end of the first century A D , but it is in the second century that the gerousia begins to appear consistently. It should be noted that the statement that the gerousia became more prominent in Ephesus during the second century A D , when based solely on the distribution of evidence as presented in Chart One, carries the implicit assumption that the frequency with which the Ephesians erected public inscriptions remained constant throughout the period of six 1 2 704 /62 (1992): 113-119, nos. 1-11 (Cat. nos. 4-14). The gerousia may in fact appear in A D 86/85 in a decree of the city regarding the invasion of Mithridates VI in which sustemata may refer to the gerousia (see below; IEph 8 [Cat. no. 3]). 1 3 It will be noted that only fifty-five inscriptions are represented in this chart. Twenty-seven inscriptions are undated (cat. nos. 25, 28-31, 50-52, 57, 58, 70, 76-91), and five are dated broadly to the first, second or third century AD (cat. nos. 36, 37, 43, 73 & 75); these inscriptions have not been included in the chart. Also omitted are cat. nos. 54 & 72; the appearance of the gerousia in cat. no. 54, Salutaris' benefaction, is the same as that in cat. no. 15, Publius Afranius Flavianus' letter granting confirmation for the benefaction. Cat. no. 55, which also refers to Salutaris' benefaction, has been included because that inscription records an additional benefaction in which the gerousia once again appears. Cat. no. 72 is a funerary inscription for Gaius Stertinius Orpex and his daughter, who provided an endowment to fund distributions to the gerousia that is mentioned in both cat. nos. 34 & 72. 64 centuries represented in the chart. That is, the chart does not take into account any changes in the Ephesian epigraphic habit. In general, though, there is an increase in Ephesian epigraphic evidence during the second century A D when compared to the first; the exact causes of this increase cannot be absolutely determined, but probably include factors such as population growth and economic prosperity, to say nothing of the necessarily variable desires of the Ephesians themselves, both as individuals and as groups, to publicize certain information and, further, to do so on a medium as enduring as stone. Thus, the chart might be significantly altered if it were possible to take into account any commemorations which may have been consigned to perishable public display, such as, for instance, a wooden tablet. Nonetheless, it may be said that throughout the Imperial period, there was a trend for members of the gerousia to proclaim their membership on stone. Perhaps such proclamations did vary in quantity from the first to the second century, but it would seem that they also varied in quality, that is, the use of stone rather than wood. Such a choice reflects on the gerousiastai: they were able to afford stone, and the increase suggests an increase in the wealth, and social prominence, of the gerousia in the second century AD. The increase in the number of gerousia inscriptions may be directly attributable to the growth of the city and of the gerousia itself, but the use of stone suggests a degree of wealth and prominence which at the very least spanned the first two centuries, if it was not gradually increasing over that time.1 4 This apparent trend should not be taken for granted, though, for several additional reasons. First, the chart does not include all the inscriptions which appear in the 1 4 On the population of Ephesus, see below, Chapter Four, pp. 82-91; on the growth of the gerousia, see below, Chapter Four, pp. 91-106. 65 catalogue, but only those which can be dated to within approximately fifty years or less. The chart is, therefore, representative of only two-thirds of the available evidence. Second, any chronological distribution of inscriptions of any type should be viewed with caution, since there is no guarantee that the inscriptions which have been discovered are proportionately representative of those which were originally produced. It was noted above that it has commonly been assumed that the gerousia diminished in importance and prominence until a re-emergence in the second century. This mistaken supposition was based on an absence of evidence which is now available and which provides strong evidence for an active gerousia in the late first-century BC and early first-century AD. Third, assuming an ideal situation in which all the documents inscribed and erected in any city have survived to be consulted, the inscriptions would still not provide a record of the complete activities of a group. The testimonies committed to the stone are not without bias: the commissioner of the inscription, whether an individual or a group, will have chosen what information to include in the text and, more importantly, what information to exclude. Thus, it is not at all surprising that the letters in the catalogue are all favourable replies, confirming, for example, the privileges of the gerousia. It would, however, be surprising to find an inscription in Ephesus recording a limitation or withdrawal of the privileges of the gerousia. While there must have been such letters at some time, they do not appear in Ephesus; it is possible that there is a single letter rebuking the gerousia, but this, it will be suggested below, was erected by its recipient, not the gerousia.15 1 5 Such inscriptions should, rather, be found in cities competing with Ephesus for provincial prominence if they had gained privileges which had been denied to Ephesus. There do not appear to be any such 66 These considerations, however, do not negate the value of those inscriptions which do survive in a sufficiently well-preserved state to shed light on the gerousia. Rather, one must recognise that the conclusions drawn in the course of this work cannot be considered to be irrefutably certain. Hypotheses may and will be advanced with the acknowledged realization that they signify only a distant and partial view of the representation of the gerousia by the Ephesians and the members of that group. The gerousia, then, can be studied only through a series of filters: first, that of the original authors of the documents; second, that of history; and third, that of the scholar. Such biases are recurrent and inescapable in all branches of historical research. The third distortion, however much care the researcher takes to avoid it, will always be present. The second can only be corrected with ongoing scholarship as more evidence comes to light. The first bias incorporates the third, but in the case of epigraphy in particular it is perhaps the easiest to minimize. With relatively few exceptions in the case of regions and cities which have produced many inscriptions, the perspective represented is that of a wide variety of individuals. The scholar's interpretation of that point of view is, therefore, based on a collection of opinions rather than on the opinion of a single author such as, for example, Strabo. This widespread representation of contemporary views is increased not only by the variety of individual composers, but also by the differences between the documents themselves. For the inscriptions cannot be grouped into any one simple category. The catalogue includes letters to the gerousia, or to the boule and demos, public decrees, honorary inscriptions and decrees, official lists of kouretes or benefactors, and funerary inscriptions from the cities of Asia Minor, though. Cf. below, Chapter Four, pp. 120-122, Chapter Six, p. 263-264, and cat. no. 18, a letter to an Asiarch, Aelius Martiales, which may be a chastisement of the gerousia by the proconsul. 67 inscriptions. The gerousia appears in these inscriptions as a collective group - for example, a letter to the gerousia - or as a group to which an individual belongs - for example, Aurelius Hesychion, a member of the gerousia}6 The distinction between these general groups is not always clear, particularly in the case of fragmentary inscriptions. 3.3. Organization of the Catalogue of Inscriptions The categorization of inscriptions into different "types" is somewhat artificial, but can be useful. Each "type" has a different purpose and for that reason includes material intentionally chosen and represented. Thus, letters and public decrees can provide evidence for the official role and function of the gerousia within the city of Ephesus, while honorary decrees and funerary commemorations can represent the social position of the gerousia and its members: it is very significant that a third century individual chose to report the fact that he had hosted two Imperial officials during their stay in Ephesus.17 The primary means of organizing the inscriptions presented in the catalogue, therefore, has been to assign them to one of several groups. The ordering of the "types" is arbitrary and is not intended to reflect the relative importance of the inscriptions for this study: that letters precede public decrees does not give greater importance to the letters. The larger sections are arranged as follows: (I) Hellenistic Inscriptions, all of which are decrees (cat. nos. 1-3); and (II) Imperial Inscriptions, which may be subdivided in the following manner: (A) Letters from Roman Officials (cat. nos. 4-18); (B) Dedicatory Inscriptions (cat. nos. 19-31); (C) Honorary Inscriptions (cat. nos. 32-52); 1 6 Cat. no. 80. 1 7 Cf. below, Chapter Five, pp. 181 & Chapter Six, pp. 255-256 & 275-256; cat. no. 45. 68 (D) Public Decrees (cat. nos. 53-58); (E) Lists of Names (cat. nos. 59-70); (F) Funerary Inscriptions (cat. nos. 71-91). It must be remembered, though, that the date of an inscription is often as important as its "type"; each category is, therefore, organized chronologically. The evidence for the gerousia is spread over nearly six centuries, and it cannot be taken for granted that this body remained static during this time. Whether the gerousia maintained a constant character throughout its existence will receive consideration precisely because it is a conclusion (and incorrect), not an a priori fact. 3.4. Gerousia, Presbuteros, Sunhedrion and Sustema Damage to inscriptions through reuse or weathering has other consequences for the catalogue of inscriptions. A careful perusal of Die Inschriften von Ephesos or the pages of the Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts will demonstrate that several inscriptions referring directly to the gerousia have, in fact, been omitted. Quite simply, this is because the inscription is so fragmentary that "gerousia''' alone is legible.18 Such a perusal will also indicate that Menadier's conjecture, that presbuteros/foi, sunhedrion and sustema(ta) are references to the gerousia, has not been accepted as true in all cases.19 In fact, it appears to be manifestly untrue in several cases. Sustema This is an acknowledged bias of the student. These inscriptions, with the isolated phrase "gerousia", appear to contribute no information beyond the presence of a gerousia; IEph 2917: - -]iep£co<; yepoxifaiaaxovj (?). IEph 2227 is a sarcophagus bearing several inscriptions, some of which have been erased. One end of the lid has an erased inscription and yspoxiaiaazox); this may belong to the Christian inscription on the lid (abxr\ t) aop6q 'ETUSIOCVOTJ | o'lKoSbue/u | K a l yvvEKdq cdrcovj | £cu(j>poviac,), but equally may not. Because of this uncertainty, I have thought it best not to base conclusions on this example. 1 9 Menadier (1890): 49; cf. Chapot (1967): 216; Hicks (1880): 77 & nos. 570b & 577b (=IEph 1570b & 1577b). It should be noted immediately that these inscriptions are just as apt to be fragmentary and 69 appears rarely in Die Inschriften von Ephesos, in one instance clearly not referring to the gerousiai. This instance is a fragment of a foundation decree from A D 301 in which six 90 sustemata are identifiable with six guilds or groups of workers. Ta sustemata, though, were involved in the lending of the money of Artemis certainly by the beginning of the first century B C , if not earlier.21 The boule and demos passed a decree at the time of Mithridates' invasion of Asia in which one of the provisions was that all sacred debts should be absolved, with the exception of those which were owed to the sustemata. Hadrian, in A D 120/121, wrote to the gerousia of Ephesus, confirming its priority in the collection of debts, which renders more plausible Menadier's suggestion that the sustemata in the Mithridates decree may in fact be the 22 gerousia. Although the two inscriptions are separated by two hundred years, the connection does find support if Knibbe's suggestion that the rights and privileges mentioned but not specified in these inscriptions include those which Hadrian confirms is correct.23 Since monetary privileges appear to be granted and confirmed in three cases, it is possible that the sustemata in the Mithridates decree does refer to the gerousia. Sustema does, in fact, appear in cases in which it must refer to the gerousia: a letter from Knibbe's series confirming the rights and privileges of the gerousia is addressed to the sustema of the Elders (presbeuteroi).24 It cannot, therefore, be categorically asserted that sustema never refers to the gerousia. Consequently, the first century B C decree declaring war on Mithridates has been included in the catalogue, and an expanded argument will be therefore of very little use as those which contain the word "gerousia"; for example, IEph 1790, 1968, 3142,4305b. 20 IEph 3803d. 21 IEph 8.35-40 (cat. no. 3); sustema also appears in JOAI62 (1993): 116, no. 7 (cat. no. 11), as "the body of presbuteroi". 22 IEph 1486 (cat. no. 16). 2 3 Knibbe (1992): 120. 2 4 Cat. no. 11. 70 presented in Chapter Six to identify the sustemata mentioned in that decree with the gerousia?5 The term sunhedrion appears more frequently in the Ephesian inscriptions than either sustema(ta) or presbuteros!oi, and is often, but not always, limited by a plural genitive noun, and more rarely by a singular genitive.26 It is, therefore, possible, in a study of the gerousia, to eliminate with certainty some of those inscriptions in which sunhedrion appears. The limiting genitive is the singular tes gerousias in only two cases, but in each case one or both terms are entirely restored.27 Since the only clear uses of to sunhedrion tes gerousia are restorations, they cannot be used to support the proposition that the two terms were interchangeable or that sunhedrion alone could be an abbreviation for the whole phrase; to sunhedrion tes gerousias should not be restored without very careful consideration, if at a l l . 2 8 To sunhedrion appears in an inscription which could conceivably refer to the gerousia, but most likely does not.29 This fragment of a sarcophagus states that "the sunhedrion has care of this tomb", but the final portion of sunhedrion is restored, so that there may originally have been a genitive noun. Several funerary inscriptions entrust the care of a tomb to the gerousia, or the boule, but sunhedria of specific groups are also 2 5 Cat. no. 3; cf. below, Chapter Six, pp. 211-214. 2 6 For example, [x6 iepcoxcxxov] | [auvJsSptov xcov veortoicov (JOA1 55 [1984]: 121-122, no. 4238); [x]6 ...| awsSpiov | [x]cov t>uvcp5cov | [K]OCL 6eoX6ycov | [K]ai 9saucp8cov {IEph 645); IEph 47.2-3, 636, 951.9-10, 966, 991, 1075, 1247b, 1277b, 1577a, 2083c, 2212, 3263.2-4, 4330.3-4. There seems to be no direct connection with the Jewish Sanhedrim, which does not appear in the inscriptions of Asia Minor; sunhedrion is known from Herodotus and Xenophon, and is lit