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 4.4.4.1. Aelius Martiales 120 4.4.4.2. Marcus Aurelius Agathopus and Popillius Bassus 122 4.4.4.3. 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 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 fcec;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 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 KaTaYpao|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 literally "a sitting together". 27 IEph 27B /. 232 (cf. 27B /. 235), 737 [cat. nos. 54 & 46). There are instances of to sunedrion tes gerousias from elsewhere in Asia Minor, but it seems to be a rare expression in all cities (eg., TAM III.3.A3 from Termessus; IPriene 246; ISmyrna 212); there appears to be the single instance of the gerousia in Priene, while to sunderion tes gerousias is the only such association of the two terms among some twelve ^erowiia-inscriptions from Smyrna. 2 8 Eg., cat. no. 54, /. 232: xco xot> aweSpto-o xfj]c; yepo\xj[iac; y]pappaaei; /. 235: xdic; XCTO aweSpio-u u.ex£xp'ocn.]v. m e a c n case, it is possible avoid the restoration of sunhedrion: xfjc; (j>iA.oafepaaxo]c; yepox>a[iac, and xoiq xfjc; Yepovcndc; p.ex6%oixn]v, for example. 29 IEph 2420. 71 given this task; an individual, unspecified sunhedrion does not appear in funerary inscriptions from Ephesus.30 Sunhedrion does appear in one funerary inscription from Ephesus without a limiting genitive; the group is explicitly identified in an appositive clause, though, as the assembly of Ephesian doctors.31 A sunhedrion, when it appears as the caretaker in a funerary inscription, seems always to be identified by a limiting phrase, but there is no indication that this limiting phrase ever connected it to the gerousia of Ephesus, so there is little chance that it could be correctly restored in IEph 2420. Ta sunhedria appear not infrequently in inscriptions in positions which could easily be occupied by he gerousia: on two occasions two citizens were honoured for, among other things, providing a feast. In such benefactions, it is usual for the gerousia to appear after the boule and before the demos among the recipients; panta ta sunhedria appears in precisely this position in these two inscriptions. It seems unusual, though, that, earlier or later, in the same two inscriptions individual sunhedria are distinguished out of the greater number by the use of a limiting genitive.32 One could expect, then, to sunhedrion tes gerousias to be attested if the gerousia was considered one of the collective sunhedria, but it is not. The explicit appearance of the gerousia or one of its members (gerousiastes) in these inscriptions suggests that the gerousia may not always have been included in the phrase, 'all the assemblies'. It is possible, though, that it became more common to include the gerousia with the other assemblies as time went on: there is no case of sunhedrion certainly being used to refer to the gerousia until the mid-30 Gerousia and/or boule: IEph 2109 (Cat. no. 73), 2266 (Cat. no. 82), 2437 (Cat. no. 87), 2549b (Cat. no. 88), 4117a-d (Cat. no. 74); JOAI55 (1984): 124 no. 4265 (Cat. no. 85); JOAI55 (1984): 140 no. 4364 (Cat. no. 86; partially restored). Sunhedrion: IEph 943 (partially restored), 2212, 2441 (partially restored). 31 IEph 2304; the sunhedrion of the doctors is further specified: they are the doctors from the Museion. The same group appears in a statue base of two priestesses of Artemis (IEph 3239). 32 Panta sunhedria: IEph 951.7 (cat. no. 48), 3263.10; limiting genitive: 951.9-10, 3263.2-3; cf. 1151 (cat. no. 70). 72 second century in a letter of Marcus Aurelius- and Lucius Verus, and the two inscriptions which may include the gerousia in panta ta sunhedria are even later.33 It should be noted, though, that the Imperial letter does not provide evidence for the equation of the two terms: it is not the Ephesians who describe the gerousia as a sunhedrion, but the emperors. Inscriptions containing the phrase panta ta sunhedria are not normally included in the catalogue because there are no clear means of determining whether the gerousia was or was not intended to be included. The two inscriptions noted above recording distributions to the boule and panta ta sunhedria are exceptions: they have been included because the phrase panta ta sunhedria appears where one could reasonably • 34 expect gerousia. In only a single case is it possible to make a strong argument for equating to sunhedrion with he gerousia. To sunhedrion appears in what is often identified as a 35 decree of the gerousia. This is an inscription recording the activities of a certain Nicomedes as ekdikos of the sunhedrion. Nicomedes and his sons were praised for their efforts in restoring a festival which had fallen into abeyance because of a lack of money. Nicomedes is said to have 'found' monetary resources for the revival of this festival in the 'common treasury' of the gerousia. Both gerousia and sunhedrion are used in this inscription, but they are not used interchangeably: an injunction is laid upon the gerousia and upon the members of the sunhedrion to preserve the arrangements made by Nicomedes. It is possible that sunhedrion and sunhedrous in this case refer to those " Cat. no. 17. 34 IEph 951.7 (cat. no. 48), 1151 (cat. no. 70), 4330 (cat. no. 45) all mention the gerousia in addition to panta ta sunhedria; the phrase panta ta sunhedria or a variation thereof appears without apparent reference to the gerousia in IEph 958, 969, 824,990 & 3072. 3 5 Cat. no. 56; IEph 26. 73 members of the gerousia who are taking part in the sacrifice, but it is unlikely to refer to the entire gerousia.36 A sunhedrion is four times described as hieron, sacred, and three times as hierotaton, most sacred. Six of these are further qualified with a genitive noun and therefore cannot refer to the gerousia. The seventh instance may have been limited by a genitive.37 That six out of seven sacred sunhedria are limited suggests that the final instance also requires the restoration of a genitive noun. Tes gerousias is doubly unlikely in this case: the gerousia of Ephesus is never described as either sacred or most sacred. There remain several occurrences of sunhedrion which cannot certainly be said not to refer to the gerousia. The first is not described as sacred, nor is it identified as the caretaker of a grave, nor is it limited by a genitive or any phrase which identifies its members. The sunhedrion is described as hairesis, "selected", or "elected". The inscription is incomplete, so it is not possible to tell whether this sunhedrion was selected out of ta panta sunhedria, or if it was an elected group. If it was an elected group, though, it is unlikely to be the gerousia, which does not appear as an elected body in Ephesus. The second two cases appear in inscriptions which seem to have been erected by "the magistrates of the sunhedrion"?9 Once again, there is no adjective or phrase identifying the sunhedrion as a specific group. It is not unreasonable in these cases to The relationship between gerousia and sunhedrion is not clear in this inscription. A distinction does seem to be drawn between the two, but the nature of that distinction is not easily determined. 37 Hieron: IEph 966, 991, 1570b, 3263.1-4 (2); hierotaton: IEph 636, 1075, 1577a; the superlative form is most likely an indication of a later date rather than an important distinction in the relative standing of the sunhedria. 38 IEph 1577b. 39 IEph 742, 1057. IEph 1057 also identifies a member of the gerousia, and is therefore included in the catalogue (cat. no. 67); cf. IEph 15, Fabius Paulus' provincial edict which mentions a sunhedrion, about which few conclusions can be made. 74 read sunhedrion as the boule. There is no compelling reason, at any rate, to understand sunhedrion in these inscriptions as the gerousia. Presbuteros is perhaps the most difficult of these three terms to dismiss. It is a substantive use of the comparative adjective derived from presbus, "an old man", and so simply means "elder". There are several cases in which presbuteros simply cannot be read as a synonym for gerousiastes or presbuteroi for gerousia. The term is occasionally simply an indication of age, contrasting with neoteros, "a younger man", particularly in inscriptions referring to gymnastic games.40 The use of the term in Christian inscriptions probably refers to the individual's position in the Church rather than his membership in the gerousia.41 Often, however, it is not possible to deny that the term may be more than an indication of relative age 4 2 There is no direct identification in these inscriptions of the two terms, but presbuteros should not always be dismissed as valueless in a study of the gerousia: it will be recalled that Plutarch used presbeugenes in his description of the Spartan gerousia.43 In the pages which follow, 'Elders' will be used when presbuteroi refers to the gerousia rather than to the elder boys. It is possible that the use of one of sustema, sunhedrion, or presbuteros was meant to reflect the gerousia or its members in different contexts, that is, presbuteros may have been used in place of gerousiastes if the individual were being associated, for example, with a gymnasium, or that sunhedrion may have been used to describe the gerousia if it 4 0 For example, IEph 690, 1101, 1600.27, 1687, 3142; JOAI 59 (1989): 197-210, no. 37. The term does appear in contrast to the neoteroi and neoi in the context of the gymnasium in other cities in which it does not seem to refer to the gerousia: for example, BE 1955, 168: "le terme Tcpeo-ptaepoc. nous introduit dans le milieu du gymnase" (Prusa ad Olympum). 4 1 For example, IEph 543, 1251, 2253b, 4305b, 4316. 42 IEph 702 (cat. no. 38), 707c (cat. no. 51), 803 (cat. no. 33), 940 (cat. no. 29), 1393a (cat. no. 57), 2552 (cat. no. 78), 3214 (cat. no. 53); JOAI 59 (1989): 175-178, no. 9 (Cat. no. 52); JOAI 62 (1993): 116, no. 7 (cat. no. 11). 4 3 Above, Introduction, pp. 2-3; Plut., Lyc., 6.4. 75 were passing a decree.44 More so than for sunhedrion and sustema, this problem can be settled for presbuteroi in Ephesus: both "presbuteros" and "gerousiastes" are used as honorary titles in inscriptions: there does not seem to have been a decisive factor in the choice of presbuteros over gerousiastes, though the latter was by far the more common. Moreover, both "gerousia" and "presbuteroi" appear in decrees of the gerousia or decrees passed along to the boule and demos.45 The primary difficulties with presbuteros are those outlined above. Any nuances carried by sustema are necessarily difficult to intuit, given the low frequency with which that term appears in Ephesus, but it is possible that they are only minor: the "sustema of the gerousia" or the "sustemata" (assuming it is not a reference to guilds, as noted above) appear performing the same functions as the "gerousia". One is therefore left with the question, could the gerousia be called a sunhedrion if it was acting in a particular way? There is a single clear case of the use of sunhedrion as a reference to the institution, but it does not seem to be functioning any differently than the gerousia: Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus term it a sunhedrion when discussing the collection of debts owed, but the gerousia appears as such in financial affairs during both the Hellenistic and Imperial periods, and specifically in an affair concerning debts.46 It may be supposed, as noted above, that sunhedrion could refer to members of the gerousia participating in a specific activity, similar to tous parontas, those who were present; there seems to be only a single instance of this, and even that case is not clear. This point was brought to my attention during my stay at the Kommission fur alte Geschichte und Epigraphik by several members, to whom I would like to express my acknowledgment. 4 5 Cat. nos. 1,2, 56, 57; cf. cat. no. 55. 4 6 Cat. no. 17; cf. cat. nos. 1, 2,4-11, 16, 23, 74, 81, 83, 84 & 90. 76 The catalogue of inscriptions printed in the first appendix presents, obviously, those inscriptions containing the words gerousia or gerousiastes, as well as several which mention presbuteros, sustema or sunhedrion. Inscriptions containing one of the latter three words which do not appear have not been omitted arbitrarily, but after careful consideration in light of the points raised in the course of this chapter. 77 4. THE GEROUSIASTAI PT. I - NAMES AND NUMBERS 4.1. Introduction: The Gerousia of Sidyma Inevitably, the members of any group influence the outlook and nature of their assembly or association. In some cases, this effect is more pronounced and obvious. The Senate of the early Roman Republic was undeniably biased towards the patrician outlook at the expense of the plebeian. The effect of membership on the overall body, however, is not as important as the perception of that effect. The influence of any body - whether it is the Roman Senate or the Ephesian gerousia - is to a large extent proportionate to the perceived importance of the individual members - particularly in the Roman Republic and Empire, where personal patronage was an important feature of daily-life. Naturally, members vary in their personal influence, so that it can be argued that some members gain in personal power by their membership: the perceived importance of the body creates an expectation that all members have a similar amount of official or unofficial power, whether or not this is genuinely the case. In many ways, therefore, a study of the gerousia is necessarily incomplete without an account of its members. This chapter attempts to provide such a discussion, examining the evidence for the size of the gerousia at various points in its existence and considering the grounds for identifying citizens of the city as members of the gerousia. It should be noted before proceeding that the proportion of Roman citizens among known gerousiastai is not treated at any great length. This is because Roman citizenship often cannot be certainly determined. Twenty-six members of the gerousia appear to have Roman tria nomina, or the remains of one, suggesting that they possessed Roman 78 citizenship.47 These twenty-six individuals represent approximately sixty percent of the known members of the gerousia; if the first, second and third centuries are considered separately, a similar proportion of Roman citizens to non-Roman citizens emerges in each period, on the basis of the tria nomina. It should be noted, however, that this is only an estimate and that it may be misleading. Judging Roman citizenship solely on the basis of the tria nomina is a standard method, but it can never be more than an approximation. Punishment is known to have existed for the unlawful assumption of the tria nomina and the consequent counterfeit citizenship, so that it must be acknowledged that at least some individuals claiming the tria nomina were not truly Roman citizens. On the other hand, the absence of the tria nomina does not necessitate non-citizen status. The choice between using Aurelius Orpheus or simply Orpheus makes a public statement, at least initially: to use Aurelius Orpheus is to emphasize, however slightly or unintentionally, 'romanness', genuine or otherwise; to use Orpheus is to emphasize 'greekness'.49 It is probable that the retention of a Greek name alone was more common than the unlawful assumption of a Roman name, though. It can be said with relative certainty, therefore, that a significant proportion of the gerousia of Ephesus possessed Roman citizenship. More important are the questions of whether Roman citizenship carried any importance within the gerousia and whether the citizen-status of its members gained the body any advantages from Roman provincial officials. It is to be hoped that this chapter and the following one will show that the Roman citizenship of its members was not a dominant factor in the perceived or genuine influence and importance of the gerousia, 4 7 Cat. nos. 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 22-28, 40,49,50, 51, 60-63, 67-69, 76 & 80; cf. Table 1, p. 107; cat. no. 71. 4 8 Badian (1967): 256 n.6: "The Roman name adopted was often incomplete: it looks as if this had been done on purpose, to avoid the appearance of illegal arrogation of citizenship." 4 9 Cat. no. 50. 79 whatever Roman citizenship's importance to the status of an individual: Roman citizenship was not a requirement for membership in the gerousia; it should not be necessary to state that it did not automatically bring with it the opportunity of belonging to the gerousia. The membership of the Ephesian gerousia is not as convenient to study as that of the gerousia of Sidyma. Mommsen, in the nineteenth century, had drawn attention to an inscription from Sidyma which records that a gerousia was enrolled and incorporated into the social structure of the polis by a decree of the boule and demos.50 The names of the first one hundred members, fifty-one bouleutai and forty-nine demotai, are included, revealing that the gerousia of Sidyma, at least in its initial embodiment, was composed of freeborn citizens and freedmen, though there were only three of the latter. Whether a nearly equal split between bouleutai and demotai was maintained throughout the existence of this gerousia cannot be determined. The inscription provides no criteria for the selection of these particular individuals. The presence of both the bouleutai and the demotai creates the impression that the gerousia may have bridged the gap between these two groups. Hogarth, in the final decade of the nineteenth century, believed that the members were chosen primarily on the basis of their age: the fifty-one bouleutai were over a certain age, and the forty-nine demotai were citizens who were not members of the boule but who possessed a specified census of wealth and were also over a specified age.51 5 U Mommsen (1921): 326, no. 1; TAMII, 175 & 176. 5 1 Hogarth (1891): 71. 80 Age was a criterion for membership in the gerousia at Oxyrynchus, as three papyri from late in A D 225 demonstrate.52 These texts record requests by three individuals to join the gerousia, but do not reveal what the minimum age was: Aurelius Theon was fifty-three, Aurelius Dorion was sixty-three, and the third individual, whose name has been lost, was fifty-eight. It must be noted, however, that the gerousia of Oxyrynchus seems to be different from those found in Asia Minor: one of the requests identifies the members as "those who are maintained (at public expense)".53 There is nothing to indicate that the gerousia was intended to be a benefit society in Asia Minor. Moreover, a selection process based on age in Sidyma, though, presents problems: why would some members of the boule, who must have enjoyed a high status within the city, join and advertise on a prominent monument their membership in a body consisting of themselves and individuals who were not members of the boule, and presumably of necessarily lower social status? Is it probable that the city of Sidyma could boast fifty citizens whose wealth could be compared to that of members of the boule, but were themselves not bouleutai? A mixed gerousia consisting of a portion of the boule would, it would seem, diminish the perceived importance of the bouleutai as it could result in the membership in the gerousia of demotai who were over a certain age, but not as "worthy" in terms of wealth as some bouleutai who might have been passed over because of their youth. If the selection process were based solely on wealth, there still remains the problem of fifty wealthy citizens who were not included in the boule. This problem is alleviated, though, when one considers that it is an assumption that only a portion of the 52 POxy. 3099-3101. 53 POxy. 3099, //. 14-15: d^uio fev[T]otYfjvcd | ue fev TOIC, ufeAAcnxji xpfe$[ea9ai]. 81 boule was included: i f the entire boule were included in the new gerousia which was then filled out with wealthy demotai, the problems for a selection process based on age disappear: the gerousia would then become a body combining the members of the boule and those citizens whose wealth was significant, but who were not members of the boule, possibly because of limitations on the size of the boule; the combination of bouleutai and demotai would be an extension of honour to the demotai rather than a diminishment for the bouleutai, since the boule would remain a unified body none of whose members were passed over in favour of non-members. A selection process based on age would be easily reconcilable with Mommsen's belief that the gerousia, considered as a universal institution, was a kind of social c lub . 5 4 The passage of the decree instituting the gerousia by the boule and demos and the request for proconsular approval, though, might suggest that the new gerousia also had a political element to it, however small. A comparison with Bithynia may be valid in this respect: the incorporation of an assembly of firefighters in Nicomedia was vetoed by Trajan lest it become a "political gang". 5 5 The citizens of Sidyma recognized the Roman mistrust towards such groups, and acted pre-emptively to present themselves in a benign light through the request for official Imperial acknowledgement and approval. 5 6 The institution of the gerousia then becomes similar to requests for increases in the size of a city's boule.51 The Sidyma inscription presents the problems surrounding the Ephesian gerousia very clearly. Even in the case of a gerousia, whose incorporation is recorded, it is not 5 4 See above, Introduction, pp. 4; Mommsen (1921): 326, n.2. 5 5 PI., Ep., 10.33-34: hetaeriae eaeque brevifient. 5 6 Oliver (1954): 165. 5 7 Burton (2001): 205-207; Oliver (1989), no. 156. 82 possible to identify certainly either its position in the city or the criteria according to which it was populated. Nonetheless, inferences can be drawn on the basis of the original members that cannot be made in many other cases. There is, for example, no similar decree among the inscriptions discovered and currently published from Ephesus. In spite of the absence of any single, equally informative inscription, the sheer volume of epigraphic evidence for the Ephesian gerousia and for the city in general may provide a more certain understanding of the size of the gerousia and the criteria influencing membership. 4.2. The Population of Ephesus The gerousia of Sidyma is one of few to which a number of members can be assigned. The size of the Ephesian gerousia, it will be argued later in this chapter, grew, either by a continual increase or by occasional increases. The gerousia was originally much smaller than the one hundred member body in Sidyma, if the argument advanced in Chapter Two, that the Ephesian gerousia grew out of an official or unofficial oligarchy established near the beginning of the fourth century B C , is correct. At its height, the Ephesian institute was clearly larger than the Sidyman body. As a much larger city, it stands to reason that Ephesus would have not only a larger boule but also a larger gerousia. This raises the question of a correlation between the size of the population and that of the gerousia and, more importantly, whether membership in the gerousia varied with fluctuations in the population of the city. Unfortunately the inscriptions provide only rare and inconspicuous information about the number of Ephesian gerousiastai. Similarly, the population of Ephesus is not an issue which has been laid to rest. 83 Ephesus is variously placed in the hierarchy of cities in the Roman Empire. At its height, it was certainly one of the largest cities in the Empire, and its location made it equally important as a commercial centre, comparable, perhaps, to Alexandria. 5 8 Seneca selected these two cities as examples of particularly populous and prosperous cities; he is not necessarily saying that they were the two largest cities, but this is one possible interpretation. At the very least, the conclusion can be drawn from his statement that Ephesus was a major city in the eastern half of the empire.59 In some modern accounts, Ephesus is omitted from the "giants" or "near-giants" of the empire, that is, Rome, Alexandria, Carthage and Antioch. 6 0 The population of Rome can be taken to be less than one million, but estimates range between 500,000 - or even lower - and more than 800,000.61 Working under the assumption that Rome was the largest city in the empire, it is safe to say that the inhabitants of Ephesus will have been fewer than one million; a population in the hundreds of thousands cannot be ruled out, though. 4.2.1. Estimates of the Population of Ephesus The size of the population of Ephesus has been variously estimated by scholars. One of the earliest estimates was that of J. Beloch: he assumes that each tribe consisted of five chiliastyes, giving approximately 25,000 citizens (5 x 5,000) during the Hellenistic period. Given the city's increased importance at the expense of Pergamum during the Imperial period, Beloch posits 50,000 citizens during this time, to which must be added 5 8 In addition to the location, the presence of two agoras within a kilometer of the harbour and the warehouses fronting the harbour are an indication of the importance of commerce in the city. See Figure 3. 5 9 White (2004): 40-41; Seneca, Ep., 102.21: Primutn [animus] humilem non accipit patriam, Ephesum aut Alexandriam aut si quod est etiamnunc frequentius accolis laetiusve tectis solum. Seneca implies that Ephesus and Alexandria are humilem patriam, but this is to be understood as a hyperbole. 6 0 MacMullen (1974): 57. 6 1 Hopkins (1978): 96-98; Storey (1997). 84 women, children and slaves. Beloch's estimate for the Imperial population of Ephesus is, therefore, approximately 200,000 to 225,000.62 This estimate seemingly finds support in an inscription honouring Aurelius Baranus from the late second or early third century.63 Baranus is honoured for having feasted the boule, panta ta sunhedria and poleitas cheilious tessarakonta: Kcd imo8ec;du£vov xr\v xe 5 and having feasted the clarissima Kpaxiaxriv 'EeaicDv pcn)A.f|v boule of the Ephesians and all the Kcd ndvxa xd avvkdpia, K a l assemblies, and forty thousand noA,eiTa<; xeiXiovq x e a a a p d - citizens KOVTOt Keil, who published the inscription in 1930, did not provide a translation, but remarked on the number of citizens as evidence for "eine riesige Teilnehmerzahl". Almost all subsequent editions of the inscription have taken poleitas cheilious tessarakonta, influenced by Keil's riesige, to mean forty thousand citizens. On this interpretation, the inscription implies a total population of men, women, children, slaves and resident foreigners corresponding to Beloch's estimate. The validity of this inscription for an estimate of the population, however, has been called into question by Preston Warden and Roger Bagnall. 6 4 Their argument rests on the traditional ways of forming large numbers in Greek: poleitas cheilious tessarakonta, they argue, should be translated as one thousand and forty, since the phrase follows the common practice for forming numbers less than two thousand.65 Their argument can be supported by evidence from other Ephesian inscriptions. The equestrian 6 2 Beloch (1968): 230-231, 258-259. It must be noted that evidence discovered since the publication of Beloch's work indicates that each tribe probably included six chiliastyes; furthermore, there seem to have been eight tribes in Imperial Ephesus (Knibbe [1961-1963]). With this exception, Beloch's calculation based on the tribes and chiliastyes seems sound and the possibility of minimalizing should not be a significant issue. 6 3 Cat. no. 48; IEph., 951; Keil JOAI 26 (1930): 57-58. 6 4 Warden & Bagnall (1988). 6 5 Warden & Bagnall (1988): 222. 85 Gaius Vibius Salutaris, for example, included a capital sum in his endowment at the beginning of the second century A D which would provide annual cash distributions for one thousand five hundred citizens.66 The similarity in the number of beneficiaries is suggestive, but it should not be over-emphasized since Salutaris provided individual gifts of cash (eight asses) whereas Baranus provided a feast. Stronger support for the interpretation of one thousand and forty citizens may be found in an inscription, roughly contemporary with Salutaris' foundation but nearly a century earlier than that of Baranus. Titus Flavius Montanus is honoured as a high-priest and agonothetes, and among his benefactions is the provision of a meal for the citizens at an expense of three denarii per person.67 If the inscriptions of Baranus and Montanus are considered in conjunction, it is possible to suggest that the number of Montanus' beneficiaries is comparable to that of Baranus' beneficiaries, even though the two euergetic gestures were separated by approximately sixty years. An expenditure of one hundred and twenty thousand denarii (three denarii for forty thousand citizens) is incredible; an expenditure of three thousand one hundred and twenty denarii (three denarii for one thousand and forty citizens), on the other hand, is entirely believable and is in keeping with the scale of benefactions in Ephesus in general, comparable to the benefactions of Salutaris and Montanus. It is unlikely that Baranus would have failed to specify an amount if his expenditure had been anything like one hundred and twenty thousand denarii, and instead specified the number of recipients. There is no reason to assume that Baranus' meal was as costly as Montanus', but even an expense of one denarius per citizen would result in a benefaction of forty thousand 6 6 Cat. no. 54,//. 246-253. 6 7 Cat. no. 39, //. 11-12: KocfxaQfevca K]cd tote; 7toX[e]itai(; x6 | &pia[x]ov [feKJdcnap 8r|v(ccpia) y'. 86 denarii. Such a gift is not impossible, but it would be surprising that such a massive benefactor should appear only in this inscription: Baranus is not only otherwise unattested in Ephesus, but he does seem to have been commemorated in any other inscription in Ionia, Caria, Lydia or Lycia. 6 8 Montanus' expense of three denarii suggests that the poleitas cheilious tessarakonta feasted by Baranus is more plausible as one thousand and forty than as forty thousand. An undated inscription honours Gavius Menodorus who, among other things, provided a feast for six thousand citizens.69 Although such a benefaction is significantly larger than that proposed for Baranus, it is in no way comparable with the interpretation of forty thousand citizens. The Baranus inscription cannot be considered to provide evidence for the population of the city, only evidence of Baranus' generousity. Beloch's estimate of the city's size, two hundred thousand, may have influenced the interpretation of poleitas cheilious tessarakonta. T.R.S. Broughton suggests a population of two hundred thousand for Pergamum in the second century A D , but posits an enlargement of Beloch's estimate for Ephesus since that city was larger than Pergamum, and it had an extensive and fertile territory.70 Broughton does not specify the precise manner in which he arrives at his estimate of four hundred thousand, but it may be notable that taking this estimate and those which he provides for the remaining cities in the provinces of Asia Minor, he reaches a total population of twelve million, only slightly less than the census of Asia Minor-Turkey in 1935. Flavius Montanus is known from several other Ephesian inscriptions: possibly Montanus: IEph 498, 528, 698 (in which he is named proconsul); certainly Montanus: IEph 2037, 2061 (I), 2062, 2063. None of these inscriptions mention the provision of a meal for the citizens of Ephesus. Donations on the order of forty thousand denarii are not unheard of: cf. TAM 11(3), 671, 905 & 910. 6 9 Cat. no. 52; JOAI 59 (1989): 175-178, no. 9. 7 0 Broughton (1938): 812-816. 87 4.2.2. Growth The Mithridatic and civil wars of the first century BC will have had consequences greater than the simply economic. The financial demands of Mithridates and the various Roman generals will have taken a heavy monetary toll on the provinces of Asia Minor, 71 but depopulation must also be assumed: witness Fimbria's sacking of Troy. Ephesus, however, continued to issue coinage continually from 133 BC until 67 BC, when there 72 was a nine year interval before issuance resumed. This consistency suggests a corresponding degree of prosperity. Morley's model of feeder cities, therefore, becomes applicable: in order to recover after the wars of the first century B C , there must have been significant immigration.73 The large-scale building programs and benefactions which are attested in Ephesus indicate that the prosperity which allowed the city to continue issuing coins during the turmoil of the first century BC and the enormous demands of the various combatants continued into the first and second centuries A D . 7 4 The new constructions also indicate a growing population. The harbour gymnasium complex and the gymnasium of Vedius, for example, would surely not have been undertaken if the city were stagnating.75 The continuation and increase in public building during the period of the Flavian and Antonine emperors indicate that this period in particular was one of growth. This growth was certainly under way before the end of the first century. Philostratus records a speech composed by Apollonius of Tyana before Domitian, which 7 1 App., Mith., 53. 7 2Broughton(1938): 556. 7 3 Morely (1996): 159-183. 7 4 App. Bel. Civ., 4.73-74; 5.4-5: the cities of Asia contributed ten years worth of taxes to Brutus and Cassius in two years, and Antony thereafter demanded the same amount in one year. 7 5 On the harbour gymnasium, cf, for example, Friesen (1993): 158-160. On the gymnasium of Vedius, cf, for example, Kalinowski (2002): 135-138. Rogers (1991): 128-135 provides a comparative table listing constructions and renovations in Ephesus. 88 he says was prepared but not actually delivered. In the course of his defence, Apollonius is said to have described Ephesus in the following terms: Be|3AT|ufevr|v [ikv xdc, dp%dq xov JEVOVC, 'EK XT\C, KaGapcoxdxr iq 'AxGiSoc;, e7xi8e8coKmav 8e n a p d ndoaq, bnboai ' I c ov i Ka i XE K a l AuSioi, TxpoBepnKmav S£ k m xr\v BaXaxxav S i d TO imep f i K e i v xf\c, yf\c„ E§' fj cpK iaGn, \xeoxr\v S£ ( j jpovxiaudtcov c G a a v x iratco, pixipidcn. 5k dvOpoirccov \O%VE\., oobiav k n a i v o u a a [a city] which has laid the foundation of its people from the purest Attic race and which has grown beyond all Ionian and Lydian cities, advancing onto the sea because it has outgrown the land upon which it is built; it is full of the speeches of philosophers and rhetoricians, through whom the city gains its strength, not in its cavalry but in its thousands of inhabitants, praising their wisdom. Whether or not Philostratus did in fact report this speech faithfully from a genuine record of Apollonius' speech is important to the question of the population of Ephesus, but the precise details of the description are not as important as its suggestions. Apollonius' words can be assumed to have been coloured by his own rhetoric, and probably by Philostratus' as well, but the picture which emerges from this description of Ephesus corresponds to that of the archaeological record: Ephesus was a very prominent and populous city whose growth had not stopped; it was a vibrant and wealthy city. Population growth will have occurred contemporaneously with the construction of public buildings, so that the underlying sense of Apollonius' speech is perhaps more a result of his own observations in the first century than those of Philostratus in the late second and early third centuries. Obviously, the population of neither Ephesus nor any other city in the Empire remained static. As the speech of Apollonius preserved by Philostratus suggests, one must assume a general increase. Such an increase is also supported by the creation of new citizen tribes: the tribe Hadrianea obviously dates to the second century, while Philostr., VA., 8.7.8. 89 Antoniane may have been created under Antoninus or as late as the beginning of the third century.77 The city's prosperity - and consequently its attraction as an immigration hub -was the result of various factors: as the capital of the Roman province, Ephesus was the seat of the proconsul and the site of the aerarium and fiscus staffs. Before its elevation to the capital of the province, Ephesus, as a coastal city on a major trade route, became a point of immigration for citizens from less convenient settlements on the coast and from the interior. Pompey's suppression of much of the piracy in the Mediterranean increased the safety of sea-borne trade, and led, consequently, to immigration to growing cities. With the complete encircling of the Sea and the general peace of the provinces surrounding it, trade and immigration to trade centres must have begun to increase further. White, on the supposition that the population of Ephesus doubled from one hundred to two hundred thousand in a century, argues that a minimum of two hundred and seventy-four and a maximum of two thousand five hundred and seventy-eight individuals must have migrated to and settled in Ephesus each year.79 An influx of people from the chora is in keeping with Alcock's view of demographic change in the Greek mainland under the Empire, but the numbers discussed by White also provide evidence for immigrants from further abroad.80 White has Hadriane: IEph 2083, 4331 & 4332b; Antoniane: IEph 957 & 2926. The tribe Antoniane is not as strong an indicator of growth as Hadriane: Knibbe (1961-1963): 30 suggests that it was created in response to the Constitutio Antoniniana, that is, immigrants as well as residents of Ephesus who had received citizenship were both factors in the creation of the new tribe. 7 8 Broughton (1938): 708. 7 9 White (2004): 46-49. 8 0 Alcock (1993): 98-116. The appearance of depopulation in many areas may be the result of a general move toward nucleation rather than of an actual demographic loss. The pressures which Alcock notes influencing such a movement in Greece should also apply to movements in Asia Minor and Ephesus. The city provided protection against war and brigandage, but it also offered economic opportunities for those who were dispossessed by larger landowners (106). To this may be added the threat of tax collectors, 90 identified one hundred and fifty foreign benefactors in inscriptions.81 His count omits individuals in Imperial service, asiarchs and priests of the Imperial cult, some of whom may have remained in Ephesus after the completion of their duties. The foreigners who remained are likely to be even more common in the inscriptions than White has shown, since it is not necessary that not all immigrants should have included a mention of their homeland. Furthermore, epigraphic commemoration assumes a degree of wealth which would not have been enjoyed by all immigrants. It is probable that many immigrants, if not most, were impoverished and came to Ephesus for that very reason, so that commissioning an inscription was simply not possible. The majority of immigrants appear to have come from other cities or regions of Asia Minor, but some are also known from, among other provinces, Syria, Armenia, Judaea, Greece, Italy and Africa. Such a migration pattern is also in keeping with Alcock's model. It may be well to note that immigration to Ephesus occurred frequently in the Hellenistic period as well. Numerous decrees were passed granting citizenship to foreigners, and it is difficult to believe that none of these recipients became permanent residents of the city. 8 2 The exact size of the population of Ephesus cannot be determined with accuracy for any one point during the course of the second century, but such precision is not necessary for the present study: it is sufficient to note that all of the evidence indicates growth over the period under consideration, bringing Ephesus to its greatest population in whose methods may have been less violent in the presence of neighbours. Cf. MacMullen (1974): 37-40; Morely (1996): 159-183; Woolf (1997). 8 1 White (2004): 58-63, 66-79. White's evidence for these foreigners consists entirely of individuals who appear in the Die Inschriften von Ephesos. At least twenty-one individuals may be added to White's database, the majority of whom are recipients of decrees of citizenship (cf., for example, JOAl 59 (1989): 183-236, nos. 16, 17, 20, 22-28, 30-32, 34, 36, 54, & 59; ZPE 86 (1991): 140, no. 6; ZPE 91 (1992): 286, no. 4). 8 2 For example, SEG 33 (1983): 932; 34 (1984): 1080 & 1081; 39 (1989): 1151-1171; 46 (1996): 1451; 50 (2000): 1134-1145. 91 the second century A D . Since all the evidence indicates a rising population, the question of growth should also be considered for the gerousia. 4.3. The Size of the Ephesian Gerousia Although there is no document for Ephesus comparable to the constitution of the gerousia in Sidyma, there are several inscriptions that provide an idea of the number of Ephesian gerousiastai at various points in the body's history. Several of these texts record gifts or fines of money that are to go towards distributions of money for the gerousiastai. Inscriptions recording donations for cash distributions are not universally detailed, but the benefactor does, in some cases, provide specific details. Often, though, there is only a statement that a cash distribution was provided, with no indication of how much each individual received. Those inscriptions which do provide monetary details can be used to determine the size of the gerousia. 4.3.1. The Mid-first Century: Gaius Stertinius Orpex Gaius Stertinius Maximus served as consul in A D 23. His freedman, Gaius Stertinius Orpex, clearly settled in Ephesus, as his grave monument shows. The latter appears to have enjoyed some success in the city, whether as a trade agent for his former master or engaged in business of his own. He is known from other Ephesian inscriptions, which record honours for Orpex himself and his daughter, Marina. 8 5 The honours were voted to him in connection with the donation of several statues, the renovation of the Obviously, the population of Ephesus cannot be assumed to have grown steadily or constantly. There was the danger of plague which would have seriously affected growth, but as a general trend the size of the city did increase (cf. Philostr., VA., 4.4, 4.7.9). An average growth of approximately 0.5% per year would be reasonable (White [2004]). 8 4 Cat. no. 72 (IEph 4123). 85 IEph 720 & 2113 (cat. no. 33). 92 stadium and the establishment of an endowment fund to provide annual distributions of money for members of the boule and the gerousia. The inscription honouring Orpex and Marina does not provide monetary details about their endowment. These are, however, specified in their funerary inscription. The endowment consisted of two main parts in addition to the erection of statues in the gymnasium, stadium and Temple of Artemis. First, a donation of five thousand denarii was made to provide cash-distributions (dianomai) for the members of the boule and the priests, with each participant receiving the same amount.86 Assuming a rate of interest of 9%, four hundred and fifty denarii were available each year.87 Flicks, in his introduction to the Ephesian inscriptions published in 1890, identified a boule of four hundred and fifty members.88 The total number of priests envisioned in Orpex' endowment is unknown, but it is probable that it was limited to the priests of Artemis. Ephesus did not receive its first Imperial temple until at the earliest the reign of Nero, and there is no mention of the priests of Roma and Publius Servilius Isauricus or of Caesar in the inscription.89 The hierourgoi of Artemis number four on average during the first century, to judge from the preserved kouretes lists. 9 0 Orpex may, therefore, have envisioned a Cat. no. 72 W. 9-11. A common feature of dianomai is that only those who are present at the correct location and time are entitled to receive their gift. 8 7 The interest rate of 9% is an approximation, suggested on the evidence of the foundation of Gaius Vibius Salutaris in A D 104, in which this is the rate specified: the interest on the endowment of 20,000 denarii is expected to be 1,800 denarii (Cat. no. 54 //. 220-222). It must be noted, though, the two endowments and, consequently, their rates of interest are separated by between fifty and seventy-five years. 8 8 Hicks (1890): 71-74. Hicks notes that it is unclear whether the size of the boule remained constant throughout its history. Certainly, there appear to have been only 450 members in A D 104, as provision is made for no more in Salutaris' bequest. Hicks suggests it may have been made up of 75 individuals from each tribe, and admits the possibility that the pre-Roman boule had only 375 members, due to the addition of the tribe Sebaste under the Romans. If Knibbe is correct in identifying a pre-Roman tribe whose name is at present unknown, though, it is possible that the number of members remained consistent at 450 (Knibbe [1961-1963]). 8 9 Burrell (2004): 59. Servilius Isauricus: IEph 702 (cat. no. 38), 3066; Caesar: 5/G 3 760. 90 FiE IX/I/I b4-b21. The number of hierourgoi steadily increases over the first and second centuries until there is a total of seven (FiE IX/I/I b22-42). 93 maximum total of approximately four hundred and sixty recipients. The interest rate of 9% and the annual income of four hundred and fifty denarii are estimates; the interest rate may well have been higher at the time of Orpex' endowment. Even at a rate of 9%, though, the money available was probably at least enough to provide one denarius to the recipients. Only those who were present could receive a share, and it should not be supposed that every member of the boule would make the effort of being in the city to receive a single denarius if, for instance, they maintained a residence outside the city; nor should it be assumed that the bouleutai went out of their to attend even if they were present in the city: providing a cash-distribution was far more important than being among the recipients.91 The second part of the endowment was the donation of two thousand five hundred denarii to provide annual cash distributions (dianomai) to the members of the gerousia at a rate of two denarii each.92 Assuming an interest rate of 9% again, two hundred and twenty-five denarii would be available each year for distribution to the gerousiastai. This would provide gifts for one hundred and twelve individuals. The same restriction should 9 1 Distributions described as dianomai were not provided with a view to relieving poverty. They were handouts which reflected the social prestige of the benefactor by the number and status of the recipients. Inscriptions recording distributions commemorate the benefactor, not the recipients. 9 2 It is highly unusual for the gerousiastai to receive a larger cash gift than the bouleutai. Yet this seems unavoidable in the case of Orpex' foundation. Both distributions for the gerousiastai are explicitly stated to be annual events. This seems to be the case for the distributions for the bouleutai as, even though KOCT,' kviaxnbv feKocaxov does not appear in the clauses relating to the bouleutai. A second inscription honouring Orpex and Marina specifies that the dianome for the boule is to be annual but does not include the phrase for the gerousia (cat. no. 34; IEph 2113). The two inscriptions most likely describe the same distributions: both specify that the distribution for the members of the boule is to take place in the Tetragonus Agora. Since the same verb governs the clauses relating to the boule and the gerousia in the funerary inscription (cat. no. 72), it is possible to argue that the distribution for the gerousiastai also took place in that agora. The honorary inscription, however, places the distribution to the gerousiastai in the stadium. Since the stadium and the Tetragonus Agora are by no stretch of the imagination in the same area of the city, there must either have been two distributions for both the bouleutai and the gerousiastai, or a location was not specified for the distribution of the gerousiastai in the funerary inscription. The latter is more likely, because if there had been four distributions in total, one would have expected an indication of this, such as KaGifepooaav pic,, rather than the verb alone. Consequently, Orpex and Marina provided only one distribution for the gerousia and the boule, but both were annual occurrences. 94 be applied to this distribution, even though it is not clarified, namely that only those who were present would receive their share. There was, however, an added incentive for the members of the gerousiastai to take part in the honouring of Orpex: an additional donation of one thousand five hundred denarii was made available to provide a lottery (kleros) for the gerousia?7. Thirty denarii of the interest on this sum was marked for other purposes, but there would remain enough, approximately one hundred and five denarii, for thirty-five members of the gerousia at the specified rate of three denarii each. It is probable, therefore, that a greater proportion of the gerousiastai than of the bouleutai took part in the commemoration of Orpex' monuments and foundation. One can consequently estimate a membership of between one hundred and one hundred and twenty for the gerousia in the first half of the first century A D . 9 4 The occasion of these dedications is not known. The funerary inscription, which provides the most detail, is incomplete, preserving only the middle portion of the details for foundation.95 Some suggestions may be made, however. The association of Orpex' daughter in the establishment of the foundation can be seen as indicative of a joint office, such as a priesthood of Artemis and a kalathephoria. Such an association does not seem to have been a customary arrangement in Ephesus, though. There are instances of a father serving in a priesthood alongside his daughter, but such does not appear to be the case with Orpex and Marina, if only because there is no mention of any priestly office.9 6 The distinction between a dianome and a kleros is important and is treated in somewhat more detail below. Essentially, a dianome is a gift handed out to those who are present where as a kleros is distributed on the basis of a lottery. Everyone has a share in a dianome, but only some have a share in a kleros. 9 4 A slightly higher interest rate (10%) would provide enough annual income to fund distributions for 125 gerousiastai, while a lower rate (8%) would suffice for 100 portions. 9 5 Cat. no. 72 (IEph 4123). 9 6 An essene appears with his daughter in IEph 957 (Cat. no. 22); a more common association is the father as hestiouchos and his daughter, sister or wife as kalathephorus (IEph 1070, 1070a). 95 The foundation that was established by Orpex and Marina was intended to generate enough interest to provide for annual distributions. Such an endowment is akin to the establishment of games: regular distributions are not as expensive as regular games, but they are a significant benefaction of a sort that is not usually associated with service as a priest or priestess of Artemis. Consequently, a more probable occasion might be the introduction of Orpex to the Ephesian boule. Such an introduction would call for a large-scale benefaction involving the inductee's family since the status gained as a member of the boule would affect the family as a whole and not simply the inductee himself. Monetary payment is known to have been required for membership in the boule. The emperor Hadrian, approximately a half-century after Orpex' benefaction, recommended two men who had traveled with him during his sea-voyages and had requested membership into the boule.91 Both Lucius Erastus and Philocurius claimed to be citizens of Ephesus, so that they were probably ship captains based in the city. Significantly, Hadrian declares his willingness to pay the admittance fee for his two nominees, if the "magistrates and boule of the Ephesians" judge the men "worthy of the honour". Orpex' generousity may well have been in response to membership in the boule, but, since the gerousiastai are the recipients both of a dianome and a kleros, Orpex may have become a member of the gerousia instead. The payment for membership in the gerousia would have been limited to the donation of the one thousand five hundred denarii, with the two donations mentioned prior to this serving as more general IEph 1487, 1488. 96 benefactions, the likes of which Pliny complains about in a letter to Trajan. This proposition, if correct, would be the only indication that there was a type of fee for membership in the gerousia; payment for membership in the boule seems more likely. One must still explain the gifts to the gerousia, though. The provision of a dianome to the members of the boule can easily be seen as Orpex' "entry fee"; the additional gifts to the gerousia demonstrate his worthiness of such a status: by giving more than one denarius to the bouleutai whom he was joining Orpex might have impressed observers -particularly the bouleutai themselves - as somewhat sycophantic, whereas by giving more to the gerousiastai he would simply appear generous. 4.3.2. The Second Century: Gaius Vibius Salutaris Gaius Vibius Salutaris, at the beginning of the second century A D , established a foundation for the citizens of Ephesus which Guy M . Rogers has interpreted as a means of publicly and visibly proclaiming or re-asserting Ephesian identity." In short, Salutaris provided numerous statues and an endowment of twenty-one thousand five hundred denarii, the annual interest from which was to fund distributions for various members of the citizenry in celebration of the birthday of Artemis - and in celebration of Salutaris himself. Salutaris specified the distributions in great detail and had them confirmed by the boule and demos, and by the proconsul of Asia. He was allowed by the boule and PI., Ep. 10.116: Qui uirilem togam sumunt uel nuptias faciunt uel ineunt magistratum uel opus publicum dedicant, solent totam bulen atque etiam e plebe non exiguum numerum uocare binosque denarios uel singulos dare. Quod an celebrandum et quatenus putes, rogo scribas. Ipse enim, sicut arbitror, praesertim ex sollemnibus causis, concedendum ius istud inuitationis, ita uereor ne ii qui mille homines, interdum etiam plures uocant, modum excedere et in speciem 8i.avou.fjc; incidere uideantur. (Those who are assuming the toga virilis or who are getting married or who are entering upon a magistracy or who are dedicating a public work are accustomed to assemble the entire boule and even a not-inconsiderable number of the populace and to give them one or two denarii. I am asking you to tell me what you think of this custom and to what extent it should be permitted. For myself, I believe that principally on ceremonial occasions this type of invitation ought to be permitted, but I am afraid that those who summon a thousand or even more men, will appear to exceed moderation and to turn it into a kind of 8iavou.f|.) 9 9 Rogers (1991); cat. nos. 15, 54 & 55; (IEph 27C, 27B, 27G). 97 demos to have the terms of his endowment inscribed in five hundred and sixty-nine lines on the analemma of the theatre, an inscription which has been carefully reconstructed by numerous scholars. Salutaris is identified by his offices as an equestrian: among other posts, he served as a military tribune and as subprocurator of Mauritania Tingitana and Gallia Belgica. 1 0 0 There is no evidence to suggest that he was a member of the gerousia, but he does include that body among the recipients of his distributions. The endowment was made in two phases with a donation of twenty thousand denarii followed two months later by an additional donation of fifteen hundred denarii.1 0 1 Of the projected eighteen hundred denarii of annual interest at a rate of 9% on the initial capital donation, three hundred and eighty-two and a half denarii are to be given to the grammateus of the gerousia for a cash gift (kleros) to the gerousiastai, the neokoroi and the asiarchs. Three hundred and nine members of the gerousia are to receive a portion of this sum, and it is agreed by editors of and commentators on this inscription that they received their share at a rate of one denarius each. 1 0 2 The details for the other shares of the endowment make it clear that while Salutaris did not take into account a rate of interest of less than 9%, he did make provisions for a surplus. The four hundred and fifty members of the boule are normally to receive, like the gerousiastai, one denarius l u u Cat . no. 19; IEph 35. 1 0 1 Cat. nos. 54 & 55 (IEph 27B, 27G). 1 0 2 Cat. no. 54, //. 231-246; Heberdey in Oliver (1941): 81-85. Kleron is entirely restored in line 234, but the restoration is confirmed by line 242, in which kleron appears entirely unrestored, and by line 237, where Xax[6mcoi/] has been restored, a participle which appears in distributions of kleroi but not of dianomai. 98 103 each; in the case of a surplus, the additional interest is to be handed out. The gifts provided for the bouleutai and the gerousiastai, however, differ significantly. Four hundred and fifty denarii of the total interest earned on the twenty thousand denarii are dedicated to the boule. If the interest rate were greater, the interest at that rate of the boule's share of the total endowment, five thousand denarii, would be allotted to the grammateus of the boule for distribution. Thus, if the earned rate were 10%, five hundred denarii would be given to the grammateus of boule, and fifty members would receive an additional denarius. The same procedure would be followed for the share of the gerousia, the interest being calculated on four thousand two hundred and fifty denarii of the total. The gift for the boule is described as a dianome, that for the gerousia a kleros: xcov S£ Ka0iepcou£vcov vnb X a X o w a - 220 [piou Snv(apicov) P ' u/uptcojy %[e]Xtaei XOKOV laX.o'uxdpioc; 8paxuaiov KOCG' EKCLCXOV fevi-[avxbv] x d Yei[v]6u.eva Snvdp ia xiXia 6KXOK6cn.a, t3c' cov 5c6aei xcp ypa\x\ia-[xet xf\q PJOUATJC, Snvdp ia xexpaKoc>i[a TtjevxfiKovxa, oncoc knixeXex Siavoufiv h o t e l po 'uA.emaiq ev xcp Yepcoi ev x[coi Kp]ovdcoi xfji yeve[a]icoi xf\c, ueyi-CTxri^ Gedq ' A p -[xeutSoq,] fjxi.c, eaxlv \ir\vbc, 0apyr][X.i]covo<; kKxr\ \axa\xkvov, yeivopievnc; xfjq Siavo- 2 2 5 [\xf\c, f|8ri xf\]c, nk\xnxr\c„ Si8ou£vo[-u e]Kdaxcp xcov napovxcov Snvaptcu evoq, [uf| exov]xoq e ^ova i a v xov en l xfjq Siavoufjq anbvxi Sovvax, fercet dTioxeiad-[xco xfji p]ox>X.fji Imep EK&OXOV 6v6uaxoq xau ur] raxpayevoiJ.evo'u K a l Xap6vxoq [Txpoaxeiuo'u 8 r | v (dp i a ) . . . edv 8e uei£co]v Yei[vr |xai b KblXvfioc,, cbaxe] [eiq rcXetovaq %(£>pEiv, e£6ax]co K a l [ ] 2 3 0 [ ] a d v d K V [ K A , O ] V . buoicp[q 8c6-] [aei xcp XOTJ cruveSpicu xfj]q yepcuat iaq y]pau.uo:xei K[ax' evi-] [ awov eKaaxov anb xov 7tpoYeypau |t.ev]o'u X6KOU 8r|(vdpia) [xnP'] f d a g a p i a 0' , bncoc eTaxeA.fi KX,fipov xfji yeveaicp xfjc Qeopul [rmepa xoic xov aweSpiot) usxexopGilv eiq dvSpaq x9' [ d v d 8r)(vdpiov) a ' - edv] 2 3 5 [Se u.eit/ov fi b yevouevoq KoXAuPoq,] cbaxe eiq 7tA.eio[vaq] [%copeiv, KA.npc6aei K a l rcXeiovaq, e K ] d c x o D xcov A.a%[6v-] This type of distribution may be thought of as being conducted by queue: after receiving a share, a recipient went to the back of the line and could receive an additional denarius until the total set aside for the bouleuta was spent. A surplus sum over 1,800 denarii was not meant to accumulate and cause the capital to grow. Al l interest was to be spent each year. [xcov dvd 8nvdpiov ev A.au.pdvovx]oc;. Si86a0[co Se K a i ] [xdic; tote, v e o K o p c u a i rcapd] Ia[^]ox>xaptcp x[co KaGiepco-] [ K O X I eic, 8iavou.nv 8r|(vdpia) K a i xo]Tc; dgiapx,Ti[aaci] xoic; [dvaypayau-evoic; 8ri(vdpia) eic; K^fjpov] dva [8nvdp]ia i < a > ' , cp K a i [xd eic; xnv Qvaiav dyopdacuaiv,] xen) Kkf\pov y£ivou£vo'u [xfji TCE|XTCxr|i, u.t| e%ovxo<; e]i;o'Ucjiva xo-o ypau.uaxeoc; xfjq [yepouoiaq xov raxpievai xnv 8]iavo|a,f]v f| dvaypa^nv i xexd [xfiv £aA.ouxapicru xeA.e-uxf|]v, ercet dTOxeiadxco 7Tp6cxeiuov [xo ev xfj 8iaxdi;ei cbpia]jievov. buoicoc; denb xcro npoye-Of the twenty thousand denarii donated by Salutaris, Salutaris will pay 9% interest each year, making one thousand eight hundred denarii, from which he shall give to the grammateus of the Senate four hundred and fifty denarii, so that he may conduct a distribution of money to the members of the Senate in the temple in the pronaos on the birthday of the greatest goddess, Artemis, which is the sixth day of the month of Thargelion, with the distribution occurring on the fifth day, with one denarius being given to each man present; the one who is charge does not have authority to give a share of this distribution to anyone who is absent because if he does so, he shall repay to the Senate a fine of [...] denarii on behalf of each man who not present but received the gift. If the interest available is greater, so that it can provide for more, it shall be permissible also [to make a distribution at a rate of . . . ] . In the same way he will give to the grammateus of the assembly of the gerousia each year from the aforementioned interest three hundred and eighty-two denarii and nine asses, so that a lottery may be conducted on the birthday of the goddess for those who are members of the assembly, up to three hundred and nine men, at a rate of one denarius each. If the available interest is greater, so that it can provide for more, the he will allot more portions, but each of the recipients will receive one denarius. There will also be given to the temple-wardens in the donor's, that is Salutaris', house [...] denarii for a distribution of money and to the Asiarchs whose names are inscribed [...] denarii for a lottery at the rate of eleven denarii per person, with which they will purchase the materials for the sacrifice, with this lottery taking place on the fifth day. The grammateus of the gerousia who is in charge will not have the authority to omit the distribution or the enrolment after the death of Salutaris, because if he does so he will pay the fine which was specified in these arrangements. A dianome is a cash gift handed out by a benefactor to specified individuals, in this case, the bouleutai. Whether offered on a single occasion or repeatedly, a dianome is intended only for those who are present at the time of the distribution. Consequently, it is possible 100 that even when there was no surplus to be distributed some of the bouleutai could receive more than a single denarius if some of their number were absent.104 Ai kleros is also a cash gift, but one which is handed out by a benefactor to recipients chosen by lot as the word and its derivatives suggest.105 The phrasing of the inscription shows that the two terms cannot be synonymous: the recipients among the gerousiastai are hoi lachontes, "those who have obtained by lot;" in the case of the boule, on the other hand, "one denarius is given to each of those who are present."106 Thus, this distribution to the gerousia was also intended to continue until the interest dedicated to it had been exhausted, but Salutaris foresaw that the prescribed 9% would not provide enough to give each member of the gerousia one denarius. Consequently, it cannot be doubted that the gerousia numbered more than three hundred and nine members in A D 104. How many members there were beyond these three hundred and nine is unclear. Salutaris' additional benefaction later in the same year is uninformative in this respect. Rogers argues that this capital endowment provided a sum of interest which was distributed in a lottery, a kleros, to five members of the gerousia.107 Since the second foundation also provides a lottery for five members of the boule, it cannot be assumed that these gerousiastai are necessarily different from the recipients named in the original benefaction. It was a second lottery, also open to all members and any one of these five recipients may also have received a share from the original lottery. This lottery, 1 0 4 The lines which describe the method of the distribution of the ueic/ov K6M.vpo<; (230-231) have not been restored in any edition of the inscription. The final phrase before the description shifts to the gifts for the gerousia, however, dvd K-UKA,OV , suggests that the sense is, "let the grammateus give to each of those present one denarius in a circle;" the distribution is intended to continue, with each person receiving one denarius and some receiving an additional denarius until the amount to be distributed has been exhausted. 1 0 5 The basic meaning of the noun b KA.fjpoq is an allotment (LSJ, s.v. KAipoc; (A); cf, KA/np6co). 1 0 6 Cat. no. 54, gerousia: 11. 230-246, esp. 238-239; boule: 11. 221-231, esp. 227. 1 0 7 Rogers (1991): 42-52; Cat. no. 55, //. 497#. 101 however, was provided in order that the recipients could perform a specific function, related to the annual celebration of the birthday of Artemis; the nature of that responsibility is unknown because of the fragmentary nature of the text of the inscription at this point. The number of the recipients is not certainly known to be five, nor is it relevant to a calculation of the total membership of the gerousia in A D 104. The inscription recording Salutaris' benefactions does not shed any light on what proportion of the gerousia could expect to receive a share in his lottery. That fifteen hundred citizens were to be allotted half a denarius in a lottery might suggest that the three hundred and nine members of the gerousia formed only a small part of the entire body. On the other hand, the equivalence of the value of the gift to individual bouleutai and gerousiastai suggests a similarity in social status and therefore indicates that three hundred and nine may have been a significant part of the gerousia. There are several hints, in addition to the equality of the gifts, to suggest that a large proportion of the gerousia is represented in Salutaris' benefaction. First, the appearance of the title gerousiastes in numerous inscriptions indicates that it was regarded as conferring some degree of honour; moreover, seats were reserved for the gerousiastai in the theatre.108 Furthermore, the appearance of the term patrogeron might suggest that membership in the gerousia was regarded as somewhat aristocratic.109 Finally, the several letters addressed to the gerousia by emperors or provincial governors demonstrate that the gerousia of Ephesus was a significant body in that city. It seems more reasonable that a comparatively small body of individuals would enjoy, as it were, IEph 2086b. See below pp. 113-116 for patroboulos and the similar patrogeron; cf. cat. nos. 26,27 & 56. 102 the Emperor's ear. The gerousia of the early second century should, therefore, be larger than three hundred and nine, but not dramatically so. Is the gerousia larger or smaller than the boulel There is no explicit indication. It is possible, though, to suggest an answer. Numerous kouretes lists have been discovered and published, most easily accessible in Knibbe's Forschungen in Ephesos IX/I/I . 1 1 0 These lists reveal several hints about the relative sizes of the boule and gerousia. Inevitably a greater number of bouleutai appear in any given list. Very rarely are there more than two gerousiastai.1U This suggests that the gerousia was less active overall in the college of kouretes, but it will be seen in Chapters Four and Five that they were active in the city, so that it is more likely that their lower frequency of appearance is due to a smaller overall size. This suggests a range of between three hundred and ten and four hundred and fifty members. This range can be narrowed. A lottery for nearly all of a single body would not make sense euergetically. To exclude a small portion of a body would not reflect well on the benefactor because it would be evident that for a slightly greater expense he could have included the entire body. Consequently, the gerousia must have numbered more than, say, three hundred and twenty-five. This would still result in an exclusion of only about 5%, so a larger membership would be more probable. On the other hand, the exclusion of a significant portion of one of the major bodies in the city would also reflect poorly on the benefactor: it reduces the generosity of the euergetic act and therefore the accolades which the act would otherwise have earned. 1 1 0 Knibbe (1981). 1 1 1 There is no reason to assume that some would identify themselves as gerousiastai and others would not. The absence of such identification is due to the individual who composed the inscription and should therefore be consistently variable as authorship changed. Given that the inscriptions were annual lists, it is probable - but not certain - that there was a degree of consistency even between authors. 103 How great a proportion of the gerousia could be excluded cannot be other than an arbitrary judgment, but certainly less than 50%. A rate of exclusion of 20-30% would seem to be a energetically safe proportion: if 70-80% of the gerousiastai could expect to receive a gift, that would be incentive enough for the majority of the gerousia to take part in Salutaris' festival while avoiding the risk of offending a relatively small number of non-recipients who did, nonetheless have the chance of benefiting from Salutaris' arrangements; it would also allow Salutaris to claim, without stretching the truth too far, that he had given cash-gifts to the gerousia. A total membership of between three hundred and eighty and four hundred and fifty, therefore, is not unreasonable. In light of the kouretes lists, the lower portion of this range is preferable. If a round number was a consideration for the Ephesians themselves, it may be suggested that there were four hundred gerousiastai at the beginning of the first century A D , with the caveat that this is an estimate.112 4.3.3. The Late Second Century: [Tiberius Claudius] Nicomedes A third inscription records the establishment of another endowment half a century 113 later. Like Salutaris, Nicomedes, a citizen of Ephesus, arranged for the investment of a sum of money to provide annual funds for a feast and a cash distribution. Nicomedes is identified in line seven of the inscription as the katholikos ekdikos tou sunhedriou hemon, that is, he oversaw the application and administration of the laws and rules governing 'our assembly', or he represented it in an official, legal capacity.1 1 4 If Oliver is correct in his supposition that the lacuna preceding the name of Nicomedes in the seventh line of 1 1 2 The possible desire for a round number should not be dismissed. The gerousia of Sidyma appears to have been filled out to include a total of one hundred members. 1 1 3 Cat. no. 56 (IEph 26). 1 1 4 The term ekdikos tou sunhedriou will be discussed below in Chapter Five. 104 the inscription should be restored as Tiberius Claudius, the name of a kouretes of A D 104-105, it is safe to suppose that the Nicomedes of the end of the second century was the member of a rather wealthy Ephesian family. On the other hand, the money which Nicomedes makes available in this inscription seems not to be his own: vvv 8e ebpeQevxcov S i d ] [ ] N E I K O U . T J S O ' U C , , xox) KaGofXiKOu E K S I K O J ' U XOV cruveSptou r|ixo3v, xfjc; OCUTOTJ £7n.u£A.eta ec;[aip£xov 7T.apaa%6vxoc, TtapdSeiyua, 7i6poov] [iKav]cov But now, since sufficient funds have been discovered through the efforts of [Tiberius Claudius] Nicomedes, the general financial supervisor of our sunhedrion, giving a singular sign of his diligence... If Nicomedes had made a donation from his personal resources, this would have been specified. The uninformative statement that Nicomedes discovered funds implies that he arranged the diversion of a certain sum of money for his benefaction rather than paying for it himself.1 1 5 The endowment, as in the Salutaris foundation, specifies the purposes to which the distributed money is to be put. Each recipient is instructed to use the gift in prayer and sacrifice to Artemis and the Emperor Commodus on behalf of his diamone.116 In fact, the 'prayer and sacrifice' takes the form of a feast for the members of the sunhedrion, the sunhedroi. Those individuals who attend the feast are to receive an additional Attic mina. Unfortunately, the amount of money which was set aside for this feast and distribution is unknown, and may not have been specified at all. The number of recipients, therefore, is also unknowable. The only amount that appears to have been 1 1 5 Cat. no. 56, //. 6-8; cf. / .II. 1 1 6 The translation of the dative xco ueYtaxcp KDOICO hucov K a i evfjxxveaxdxcp a i n o K p d x o p i K a i a a p i MdpKco At)pr|Xicp KoppbScp 'Avxcoveivco Sepaaxco E^aepai e\nv%£i in lines 8-9 as 'to the Emperor' or 'for the Emperor' has implications for the nuances behind the Imperial cult, but need not be addressed here. 105 specified in the inscription was the minimum amount which could be spent on the sacrifices and feast - but this was only a portion of the funds ear-marked by Nicomedes. The text containing the amount is missing. The Nicomedes decree, then, is not informative about the numerical size of the gerousia. Even if a total sum had been specified, though, the decree would not have been more illuminating in this respect. The terms gerousia and sunhedrion are not used interchangeably and are, in fact, restorations in several instances. Moreover, the closest association of the two terms in the inscription proves ephemeral: all members or participants in the sunhedrion are to receive an unknown amount of money from the common treasury of the gerousia according to the original organization under 117 Lysimachus. The terms can be understood as synonymous in this case, but the possibility that this is a case of the gerousia funding sacrifices carried out by another body should not be ruled out. Nor, as was suggested above in Chapter Three, should the possibility that sunhedroi in this inscription refers to a group within the gerousia who participated, that is, those who were present, be dismissed out of hand. The implication of the juxtaposition of the two terms is either that they refer to two distinct groups or that sunhedrion is here literally a meeting of some but not all members of the gerousia. This distinction appears in the section of the inscription that describes the third century BC arrangements of Lysimachus, but it seems to have been a distinction which existed and was acknowledged to exist at the time of the passage of this decree; it does not mean that the gerousia was thought of as The sunhedrion throughout its existence. The addition of the adjective koinon also implies that the funds of the entire 1 1 7 Cat. no. 56, /. 5: TCOC ,] pexexovxctc, xov a-ufveSpiO'u ndvx]aq E K XCOV KOIVCOV xfjc; yepotxricxc, Xprip-dxcov eK[aaxov...X.ap6vxac,: 'all the participants in the sunhedrion received [sum of money] apiece from the common funds of the gerousia.' 106 gerousia were being used by a portion thereof or by an entirely different body. The reduplication of the preservation formulas in lines 11-14 emphasizes the distinctiveness 118 of the gerousia and the sunhedrion. A specification of the total amount made available by Nicomedes, then, would be informative about the monetary resources of the gerousia, but not of the size of its membership. It cannot be determined, therefore, whether the gerousia continued to grow through the second century, or if it remained a consistent size during this period. The growth from the first century to the second though suggests that it may have continued to grow. 4.4. The Gerousiastai Although there is no inscription from Ephesus to answer the question of the size of its gerousia corresponding to the remarkable decree from Sidyma briefly discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the sheer quantity of inscriptions from Ephesus offers an idea of what a membership-inscription might have looked like. It is possible to trace the activities of several Ephesian families over multiple generations, so that the social status of some members of the gerousia can be determined with relative certainty. In the case of Sidyma, slaves and women were excluded from membership in the gerousia, but both freeborn and freedmen are attested. There are enough individuals named as members of the gerousia in Ephesus that some similar conclusions can be drawn about its members. At least forty-one named individuals are identifiable as members of the gerousia and thirteen additional individuals may have been members (Tables 1 & 2). The Ephesian gerousia was predominantly an organization composed of men, probably 1 1 8 Cf. above, Chapter Three, pp. 70-74. 107 Name Date Cat. No 1 Euphronius, son of Hegemon (pp. 109-110) 294-281 B C 1 2 Herogeiton (pp. 109-110) 294-181 B C 1 3 Theodorus (?)* (pp. 110-113) 50-1 B C 4 4 Curtius Proculus* (pp. 110-113) A D 12/13 8 5 Menodotus (?)* (pp. 110-113) A D 18 9 6 Tiberius Claudius D . . . * (pp. 110-113) A D 1-4 or A D 18 10 7 Tiberius Julius Heras* (pp. 110-113) A D 29/30 12 8 Lucius Cosinnius* (pp. 110-113) A D 30/31 13 9 Alexander son of Alexander* (pp. 110-113) A D 31/32 14 10 Titus Flavius Asclepiodorus1 A D 80/81 22 11 Julius Menecrates* Before A D 81 69 12 Diodotus Ephesius son of Asclepides*, Gaius Licinnius Euarestus*, Tiberius Claudius Nicomedes* & Asclepiodorus son of Apollonius son of Asclepiodorus A D 105 60 16 Lucius Caecilius Rufus* A D 112-120 61 17 Cascellius Politicus* (pp. 110-113) A D 120/121 16 18 Claudius Bassus* A D 117-139 40 19 Publius Aelius Isas Flavianus* A D 130-140 62 20 ...Venustus* A D 130-140 63 21 Bacchius son of Zeuxius* & Onesimus* A D 150-192 64 23 Eutyches (?)+ A D 161-181 20 24 The son of Saturninus (p. 119) Late 2"d-early 3 , d C. A D 23 25 Marcus Aurelius Artemidorus^ Late 2"d-early 3 r d C. A D 26, 27 26 Falcidius Epigonus (p. 119) Late 2 ,m-early 3 r u C. A D . 27 27 Julius Marcianus* Early 3 , u C. A D . 67 28 Evandris* A D 214/215 21 29 Gnaeus Julius Artemidorus§ A D 216/217 68 30 Zoticus Artemidorus* A D 231-239 45 31 Aurelius Antoninus Julianus* 3 r d C. A D 49 32 Zoticus, freedman of the Sebastov1 3 , d C. A D . 75 33 Aurelius Niconianus Eucarpus* Undated 24 34 ...Asiaticus* Undated 28 35 Aurelius Orpheus son of Orpheus§ Undated 50 36 Aphrodisius son of Cleander son of Herodes son of Herodes son of Apollonius (pp. 141-2, 155). Undated 31 37 Claudius Antistius Antiochus* Undated 76 38 Menecrates* Undated 77 39 Aurelius Hesychion* Undated 80 40 Straton (p. 119) Undated 89 41 Lucius Pomp.... (pp. 119-20) Undated 51 Table 1: Named members of the Gerousia. 1 1 9 The membership of many of these individuals is obvious: * Membership deduced from service as ambassador; T Membership indicated in the inscription with the phrase metechon tes gerousias; X Membership indicated in the inscription with the phrase ek gerousias; § Membership indicated in the inscription with the word gerousiastes. In the absence of a superscript marker, reference is made to the pages on which the membership of those individuals is discussed. 108 42 Theodoros, Memnon, Protogenes, Heraclides, Sopater, Asclepiades, Aristion, Agathenor & Menodotus (pp. 110-113) 29 BC 6 51 Gaius Octavius Magnus (pp. 119-20) Early Imperial 71 52 Herakleides Passalas (pp. 119-20) Reign of Tiberius 59 53 Titus Peducaeus Canax (pp. 153-4) Late 1st C. AD 38 54 Gavius Menodorus (pp. 153-4) Undated 52 Table 2: Possible Members of the Gerousia. citizens. A l l but five of these men are attested as having held at least one office in addition to being a member of the gerousia?20 This suggests that the vast majority of gerousiastai were Ephesian citizens. In many cases membership is clear, but there are several individuals for whom it is not obvious or certain. A number of inscriptions clearly identify members of the gerousia. The most common means of doing this is the addition of the term gerousiastes to the individual's name, but variations do appear. Thus, ek gerousias and metechon tes gerousias are synonymous with gerousiastes.Ul Although synonymous, however, these terms are not used interchangeably in the same inscription: any given inscription uses only one of them. Gerousiastes appears in a variety of inscription-types, including honorary inscriptions and dedicatory inscriptions. Ek gerousias most commonly appears in the kouretes lists; this is the only phrase used to identify a member of the gerousia in these inscriptions. The offices of the members of the gerousia, both within that body and in the larger Ephesian state, will be discussed in Chapter Five. 121 Gerousiastes: cat. no. 21, 24-27, 40, 45,49, 50, 68, 75-77,79, 80 (cf. IEph. 2227 & 2917); ek gerousias: cat. no. 20, 28, 60-64, 66, 67; metechon tes gerousias: cat. no. 22. Oliver suggests that metechon tes gerousias is not synonymous with gerousiastes, but in fact identifies individuals who were associated with the gerousia but were not regular members (Oliver [1941]: 41). The meaning 'to be partners' which Oliver gives to metecho is a specialized use of the word, and there is no reason to assume that it is in this sense rather than the more common sense of 'to partake' or 'to be a member' that the word is used in cat. no. 22. Furthermore, Oliver notes that metecho and nemontes are distinct (Oliver [1941]: 41-42); this is true, one would expect that nemetes, derived from nemo, would be used rather than metechon for irregular members (cf. cat. no. 44); cf. Hdt. 8.132; P.RevLaws 14. 109 4.4.1. Euphronius and Herogeiton The two earliest known members are Euphronius, the son of Hegemon, and Herogeiton, respectively the recipient and the author of a Hellenistic citizenship decree.122 Euphronius served as an ambassador to Lysimachus' general Prepelaus on gerousia-business associated with the Temple of Artemis, but he was not a citizen at the time of this service. Although probable, Euphronius' membership cannot be taken for granted because he is identified as an Acarnian, and may therefore have been a member of Prepelaus' army. Since embassies were at all times dangerous and expensive undertakings, it may have been easier and more feasible for the gerousia to commission someone who was already going to Prepelaus' location with its business. Two points can be made against this. First, Euphronius appears to have been a resident in or near Ephesus as he is named as a benefactor of the city. Second, the decree reports that he was "sent by the gerousia and epikletoi". The verb, apostello, is literally "to send" or "to dispatch", modified only by the gerousia and epikletoi as agents. If Euphronius had been commissioned by an additional body, it would be expected that this body would also have been mentioned and would have joined the gerousia in proposing honours. It is probable, therefore, that Euphronius was a member of the gerousia at the time of his embassy to Prepelaus, even though he was not a citizen until after the completion of this service.1 2 3 Ephesian citizenship would not, then, seem to have been a criterion for membership in the gerousia in the third century BC. Whether this principle is true for the entire period during which the gerousia is known to have existed is unclear, but a second century gerousiastes also may not have been an Ephesian citizen. Claudius Bassus, 1 2 2 Cat. no. UIEph 1449. 1 2 3 Euphronius was a member of the gerousia or the epikletoi. Membership in either body is, in the cases of Euphronius and Herogiton, taken to be membership in the georusia for the sake of simplicity. 110 whom Oliver identifies with an agonothetes in Smyrna, was a member of the gerousia of Ephesus, possibly during the reign of Hadrian. 1 2 4 That same Claudius Bassus appears in a list of individuals who promised various benefactions to Smyrna, promising to pave the basilike. The evidence that he was active as a benefactor in Smyrna suggests that he may have been a citizen of that city; it should be noted, however, that non-citizens could provide benefactions in a city. If Bassus was a citizen of Smyrna, though, his inscription might be an indication that non-Ephesians could be members of the gerousia into the Empire; it is also possible that Bassus enjoyed citizenship in both cities. Herogeiton is identified in the Hellenistic decree as the speaker of the proposal for Euphronius' citizenship. The decree is said to be one of the gerousia and the epikletoi, but it was supported by the neopoioi and the kouretes, suggesting a connection between these four groups or a specific procedure by which the gerousia officially approached the boule and demos.125 It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that Herogeiton, as the spokesman, was associated with each group. It will become clear that the services of kouretes and neopoios could be, and often were, performed by members of the gerousia. Herogeiton can, therefore, be considered to be a probable member of the gerousia. 4.4.2. Ambassadors to Roman Officials The series of letters from Imperial officials to the gerousia identify multiple members of the gerousia (Table 1, nos. 4-9 & 42-50). 1 2 6 Although several of the letters are too fragmentary to provide the names of the petitioners and ambassadors, others suggest that at least one member of the gerousia was involved in the presentation of the 1 2 4 Cat. no. 40. Oliver (1941): 90, no. 8; IGRR 4.1431; Die Inschriften von Smyrna 697. 1 2 5 An hypothesis has been advanced in Chapter Two about the nature of the connection between the epikletoi and gerousia. 1 2 6 Cat. nos. 4-14. I l l gerousia's request for each renewal of their privileges. Nineteen individuals are named in these eleven inscriptions, some only in fragmentary form, of whom seven can certainly be taken as members of the gerousia. Several of the remaining twelve names may also identify gerousiastai. The letters record the confirmation of certain pre-existing rights of the gerousia by various Roman officials. These were not written spontaneously, but in response to a petition brought to the attention of the respective officials by the gerousia itself. The letter of Octavian, dated to 29 BC, for example, records the names of nine ambassadors.127 Knibbe identifies these men as envoys of the ekklesia who spoke "im Auftrag der gesamten Polis, da Octavian seine Antwort an Rat und Volk der Stadt adressiert hat."128 This is possible, but, as Knibbe himself notes, it does not rule out a restoration of tes gerousias in place of tes ekklesias.129 Even if one accepts Knibbe's restoration, though, it is still probable that at least some of these men were members of the gerousia. The embassy was at least in part concerned with the state of the gerousia, so that it is implausible that at least one member did not accompany the embassy of the ekklesia - if that restoration is in fact correct - to represent that body's interests. The remainder of this series of letters are all addressed to the gerousia, so that there can be little doubt that the embassies were conducted by members of that body. At least nineteen ambassadors undertook embassies in the sixty to seventy years covered by this series of letters, although only seven can be identified as members of the gerousia with certainty: four individuals who appear as the sole ambassador in any given case are 1 2 7 Cat. no. 6. 1 2 8 Knibbe (1992): 114: rcpeape[iq xfjq e K K X r i J a i a c 1 2 9 The major objection to rcpeo"p£[t.c, %f\c, yEopv]aiq.c, is the addressing of the letter to the boule and demos rather than the gerousia. This does not preclude the possibility that Octavian is informing the boule and demos of the results of the embassy. 112 1 TP) most likely representing their own body, the gerousia. Two additional ambassadors are identified either as the gerousia's own ambassador or as having been sent by that body through the use of the second person plural personal pronoun.1 3 1 Nine individuals appear in Octavian's letter as the representatives of the ekklesia or the gerousia but it is 132 not possible to determine whether one or all of these were members of the gerousia. Finally, four men are named in a fragment which preserves little more than their names. It is clear, though, that the four individuals named in this case were divided into two groups. The first, Theodorus, appears to have been a member of the gerousia: his name is restored before a short lacuna after which tes gerousias may be read, and it is conceivable that this lacuna could be filled with the identification of Theodorus as an ambassador or gymnasiarch, that is, the ambassador of the gerousia. The remaining three men are separated both from Theodorus and the gerousia by the phrase "kai hoi epi ton..." which might suggest that they were representatives of a body other than the gerousia, although that body's name has not survived; Knibbe suggests that this phrase Cat. nos. 10, 12, 13 & 14. For the same reason, Cascellius Politicus, who conducted an embassy to Hadrian in A D 120/121, may be identified as a member of the gerousia (cat. no. 16). 1 3 1 Cat. nos. 8 & 9; it should be noted that the pronoun also appears in the inscriptions noted in n. 128, but in one case (10), it appears in the phrase 'Tiberius Claudius met me concerning your affairs;' the combination of the pronoun and the fact that Tiberius Claudius is the only individual named make his membership quite certain. The other three inscriptions (12, 13 & 14) identify the ambassadors as "your gymnasiarch," and it will be argued in Chapter Five that a gymnasiarch of the gerousia was not necessarily a member of the gerousia. It is, consequently, the fact that these three ambassadors appear alone in the letters that most strongly supports their membership in the gerousia, not the presence of the pronoun; two individuals identified only as gymnasiarchs of the presbuteroi have been included in Table 2 since it is not immediately clear that presbuteroi is a reference to gerousia nor, if it is, does that office guarantee their membership in the gerousia (cat. nos. 38 & 52). 1 3 2 Cat. no. 6; even if the restoration of ekklesia is correct, it is probable that at least one of the nine named individuals was an ambassador and member of the gerousia; xfjc; jEpov]aiac, might equally well have been restored. 1 3 3 Cat. no. 4. 113 may actually have been kai hoi epi ton chrematon (tes gerousias), citing ho epi ton chrematon in the Salutaris dossier.134 ' 4.4.3. Aurelius Artemidorus and Aurelius Attalus None of the major beneficent families of the city of Ephesus, such as the Publii Vedii or the Juliani, appear among the members of the gerousia. There is, however, evidence that places in the gerousia were occupied by some significant families of the city. Marcus Aurelius Artemidorus, the son of Attalus, appears in an honorary inscription with his son, Marcus Aurelius Attalus. 1 3 5 Artemidorus is clearly identified as a member of the gerousia, in addition to being a neopoios and an agoranomos. His son Attalus may also have been a member of the gerousia and neopoios. This identification, though, is based on a restoration, and raises questions because it would make Attalus the only known member of both the boule and the gerousia in Ephesus. In fact, Attalus was not a member of both bodies. The juxtaposition of gerousiastes and patroboulos can be explained in two ways. The restoration provided in Die Inschriften von Ephesos makes Attalus a member of the boule because of his father, a gerousiastes and a neopoios. The first half of the inscription, honouring his father, does not identify Artemidorus as a member of the boule, so the term patrofboulos would seem inconsistent, if not for a second inscription that supports the restoration. The restorations contained in this inscription, however, are also somewhat problematic, since it is the case endings which are restored. 1 3 4 Knibbe etal. (1993): 119, no. 11. 1 3 5 Cat. no. 26 (IEph 1575). 1 3 6 Cat. no. 27; 7Kup6p,oA.oc,: SEG 38: 1182; SEG 37: 1309 ad 756 where patroboulos is considered to be an inherited term. 114 The word patroboulos is important for the understanding of these inscriptions, so it deserves some comment. The term appears only rarely in the provinces of As ia . 1 3 7 Three other men are identified in Ephesus as patrobouloi: Lucius Junius Julianus, Lysimachus Mundicius and his son of the same name.1 3 8 These three men appear in lists of kouretes in which several others are identified as bouleutai, which suggests that patroboulos was a title distinct from bouleutes. The term could, therefore, refer to an individual who had been adopted by the boule as an honorary member; it was not a title describing an individual who owed membership in the boule to his father.139 The term patrogeron would appear to have been used in the same way. 1 4 0 The conclusion of the decree recording the financial arrangements of Nicomedes discussed above in the previous section includes the provision that Nicomedes himself and his sons should be publicly proclaimed and considered patrogerontes as a result of his efforts to revive a religious feast, thus supporting the honorary interpretation of both titles. 1 4 1 Patroboulos, however, is not the only problematic element in the two inscriptions. The difficulty arises in the attribution of the titles patroboulos, gerousiastes, and neopoios. Oliver, in The Sacred Gerousia (1941), could not compare the two inscriptions because the second, IEph 972, had not yet been published. He appears, however, to have realized that the restoration later adopted in Die Inschriften von Ephesos would create the The term does appear in an inscription from Cilicia (MAMA III.756; SEG 37 (1987): 1309). The interpretation of its appearance in this case is uncertain. 1 3 8 Julianus and Lysimachus Mundicius: JOAI 54 (1983): 125-126; Lysimachus Mundicius the son of Lysimachus: IEph 1044; cf. cat. no. 63, where Lysimachus Mundicius the son of Lysimachus is simply bouleutes. 1 3 9 Cf. Dmitriev (2005): 170, where it is argued that patroboulos identifies an individual who was intended to be associated with the boule by virtue of his family. This does not contradict the interpretation given here: association does equal equal standing within the boule. 1 4 0 naxpoyfepcov appears twice: Cat. nos. 27 & 56. 1 4 1 Cat. no. 56. The award of the title patrogerontes to Nicomedes and his son indicates that they were not members of the gerousia, even in an honorary sense, before this decree. 115 impression of a gerousiastes who was also a bouleutes; such a concurrent appearance is otherwise not attested, so that an attempt should be made to reconcile these inscriptions with the well-attested usages. IEph 1575.8-13 (cf. cat. no. 26) IEph 972. 22-28 (cf. cat. no. 27) K a i M(dpKOc;) Ai)p(fiX,iOQ) [' AxxaXoq] ayaefj TA)%[TV] 'ApxeiifiScopov] rcaxpofPo'UA.oc; yepov-] aiacn;[f]c; veo-] TCOI6[<; ] 'OAA)|l[7tlOVEiKT)C;] A"bp[fiA.ioc;] * ATtarXog] 'Apx8|i.i[6o6pov] yepovaia.[oxi]c,] ncx.xp6^o[vXoq] bbc, VEOTCOlO['0] K a i %px>co$6po[v] A T A G H I * T Y X H 1 M '- A Y P - APTEMI AC A T T A A O Y •< p(f\Xxor) [' AxxaXoc,] 'ApxeiifiSoopcu] 7iaTp6[(3o'uA,oc; yzpox)-] aiaaxfcu veo-] 7ioio[-u voq ] ' OXv\x[movei KT]C, ] IEph 972. 22-28 ayaGfi TA)%[TV] A"bp[fiA.tocJ' Axxa[Xoc,] 'ApT8|j.i[8c6po'u] yepo,uma[aTO'u] 7iaTp6f3o[\)Xoc;] bbq veonoio[v] K a i xp'uaocjjopofv] A T A G H I - T Y X H I M -> A YP - A P T E M I A Q P O E A T T A A O Y - (t)6pcov. 147 though, renders any such conclusion hypothetical and indemonstrable, so that it may be best not to include the unknown dedicator among known grammateis of the gerousia. The Salutaris-dossier suggests a financial activity for the grammateus of the gerousia, since this individual is entrusted with that portion of the total endowment intended to fund the lotteries for the gerousia, the Asiarchs and the neokoroi.56 Unlike the previous inscriptions, the grammateus mentioned in the Salutaris-dossier is treated as an officer, not an individual: the inscription specifies general regulations for whoever happens to be grammateus. According to his arrangements, Salutaris undertook to provide the grammateus of the gerousia with three hundred and eighty-two and a half denarii each year for the distributions to the gerousia, the Asiarchs and the neokoroi. Although the inscription is fragmentary, the grammateus is clearly the recipient of this money: b|ioicp[c; 8c6-] 231 [aei xcp XOTJ auve8piot) TTTJQ yepovcliac, Y]pau|iaxei K[ax' evi-] [amov EKOCCTTOV arc6 xov rcpoY£YpaiJ|ie]you T6KOV 5r|(vapia) [t7tpV] [aaadpia 6'] 234 In the same way he will give to the grammateus of the assembly (sunhedrion) of the gerousia each year from the aforementioned interest three hundred and eighty-two denarii and nine asses. The grammateus' responsibility for this portion of the distribution raises the question of whether the he had financial duties within the gerousia as a general rule, or if such duties were only exceptional. Since the Salutaris documents are the only indications at present of the financial duties of the grammateus of the gerousia, the question cannot be answered certainly, but it is not impossible that the grammateus was responsible to some degree for the monetary resources of the gerousia; it is equally possible that he was not. Cat. no. 54, //. 232, 291; Schulte (1994): 36. 148 An additional officer is attested in the Salutaris dossier as the treasurer of the gerousia. If a wealthy benefactor were to take over the administration of the total endowment fund, individual capitals could be paid to each group of recipients. Thus, five thousand denarii must be paid to the epi ton chrematon of the boule, and four thousand four hundred and fifty denarii to the epi ton chrematon of the gerousia, an office which may have existed from the beginning of the end of the Hellenistic period or earlier.57 This suggests, as Schulte notes, that the grammateus of the gerousia was little more than the distributor of the pre-counted annual interest designated for the gerousia, the Asiarchs 58 and the neokoroi. It was the epi ton chrematon who required financial expertise in the gerousia, not the grammateus. The grammateus, as the individual responsible for the distribution, appears as a public representative of the gerousia as a whole, in which role this officer also appears in the Nicomedes-decree three-quarters of a century later.59 The grammateus of the gerousia was an officer of that body whose duties can only be specified in negative terms. He was not directly responsible for the display of documents relating to the gerousia and its actions, nor was he particularly concerned with the financial aspects of his organization. Financial responsibilities may have been expected of a grammateus of the gerousia before or after A D 104; in A D 104, though, it is possible that the grammateus was an individual representative of the entire body. The Nicomedes-decree, however, suggests that even in the late-second century the grammateus of the gerousia was not engaged in financial activities on behalf of that body. His duties would seem to have been limited to representing the gerousia to the 5 7 Cat. no. 54, /. 193; the phrase is partially restored; Knibbe et al. (1993): 119 suggest that a group of individuals may appear in this position as o'l £7rt xcov xprjudxcov at the beginning of the imperial period. 5 8 Schulte (1994): 36. 5 9 Cat. no. 56. 149 public, and perhaps to directing such meetings of the gerousia as there were. Despite the absence of any clear positive evidence for his activities, the position was one which appears, like the gerousia itself, to presuppose a certain degree of wealth and to have been a position which conferred status and public honour. He was not a civic official, but he did operate on a public level both as a representative and, possibly, as a liturgist. 5.2.2. Gymnasiarchos of the Gerousia The gymnasiarch, as the title of the office indicates, was an individual primarily responsible for matters relating to one or more gymnasia. This could include the general maintenance and upkeep of the buildings constituting the gymnasium or the supervision of the physical and intellectual education which was to take place in them.6 0 The gymnasiarch was also responsible for the provision of fuel for the heating of the baths and the management of the slaves who worked in the gymnasium.61 Most importantly, though, the gymnasiarch was responsible for providing oil to the users of the gymnasium. This provision of oil, or the supplying of resources to purchase the oil and to meet the other expenses of the gymnasium, had become the primary responsibility of the gymnasiarch by the second century B C . 6 2 The office was, therefore, a costly one. The expense of the office resulted in a relatively high position within the city and a certain amount of respect for the gymnasiarch.63 The gymnasiarch did not always meet the expenses of his office from his own resources, but could instead rely in some cases on previously established endowments which would provide the funds w Cf. Chaniotis (2005): 49-51. 6 1 Jones (1940): 221. 6 2 Paulys-Wisowa, RE 7:2:2, 1975, s.v. yvuvaalapxoi;. 6 3 Schulte (1994): 37; Macro (1980): 680. 150 for, if not the entire cost of oil, at least a portion of it . 6 4 As a liturgy, the gymnasiarchy was in the later empire a position which was seen as a burden and a duty to be avoided: personal expense was often expected, if not required. When there was an unwillingness to volunteer for the gymnasiarchy, wealthy citizens could be selected to fill the office.65 The potential difficulty of finding a gymnasiarch is apparent from a papyrus from Egypt that stipulates that the duties of a gymnasiarch who died while in office were to be passed on to the heir or heirs.66 Seven men may be identified as gymnasiarchs of the Ephesian gerousia among the inscriptions collected in the catalogue.67 An eighth individual may be considered briefly: the gymnasiarch mentioned in the inscription of Marcus Aurelius Agathopus.68 This gymnasiarch, however, is identified simply as a gymnasiarch, not a gymnasiarch of the gerousia. The seven other possible gymnasiarchs of the gerousia appear in inscriptions unequally distributed through the Imperial period. Three come from the second quarter of the first century A D , one from the end of that century, and one from the late-second or early-third centuries; two are undated. Tiberius Julius Heras, Lucius Cosinnius and Alexander the son of Alexander may be the earliest known officers of the gerousia, appearing in three letters of the proconsul Publius Petronius to the gerousia between A D 29 and 32. 6 9 Heras and Cosinnius are each identified as "your gymnasiarch", that is, the gerousia's gymnasiarch. Neither individual appears elsewhere in the currently published inscriptions of Ephesus, although it is quite 6 4 Jones (1940): 222, n. 23; it is the choice between accepting public funds for expenses of the office or remitting those funds and using one's own resources which distinguished liturgies and magistracies (Dmitriev [2005]: 109-119). 6 5 Lewis (1983): 91; it should be noted that Lewis was considering Egyptian, not Ephesian evidence. 6 6 Lewis (1983): 85,89. 6 7 Cat. no. 12-14, 24, 31, 38 & 52. 6 8 Cat. no. 23; above, Chapter Four, pp. 122-125. 6 9 Cat. nos. 12-14. 151 possible that they each belonged to socially prominent families: numerous Tiberii Julii are known from Ephesus, and several Lucii Cosinnii, one of whom, Gaianus, appears in several kouretes lists about a century after Petronius' letters; a high standing and significant wealth is indicated by their service as ambassadors.70 Both men were very probably Roman citizens. It was noted in Chapter Four that the tria nomina alone are not enough to establish citizenship, but their names combined with their service as ambassadors to Publius Petronius seems to confirm this: individuals with Roman citizenship and other high connections were ideal ambassadors. It is not immediately evident whether the third gymnasiarch, Alexander the son of Alexander, was a Roman citizen or not; his service as ambassador might be an argument in favour of such status, though. His name neither confirms nor refutes citizenship, so it is best to leave the question open. It is obvious, however, that he must have enjoyed as prestigious a position in the city as Heras and Cosinnius: not only was he an ambassador to the proconsul, but he was also the gymnasiarch of all the gymnasia in the city. If Ephesus had funds set aside to pay for gymnasia-expenses, it would make little sense for a single individual to be gymnasiarch of the gymnasia unless he supplemented the civic funds to the benefit of all the gymnasia in the city. It is safe to conclude, therefore, that Alexander was a wealthy individual, as were Heras and Cosinnius. It becomes clear from Alexander's service to all the gymnasia that one did not have to belong to the body which one served as gymnasiarch. Nonetheless, Alexander's service as ambassador seems to be 71 a strong indication of his membership in the gerousia. The role which these three. 7 0 Tiberii Julii: IEph 968, 4118; 1933a, 5101-3, 5107, 5113-4; 684; 2070-1; 2273b; 241; 2277; 282; 810; 3440, 5101-6, 5108-5113; 736; 860; 2274b; 692, 692a, 1105, 1105a, 1105b, 1106a, 1130, 1604, 1605, 1611, 1621; 1384; Lucius Cosinnius Gaianus: IEph 1034-1037a, 1039. 7 1 See above, Chapter Four, pp. 110-113. 152 individuals played in representing the concerns of the gerousia may suggest that a fourth ambassador should also be identified as a gymnasiarch: a certain Theodorus appears in two letters confirming the privileges of the gerousia, though in each case the second half of his name is restored.72 The editors suggest that ho gymnasiarchos t]es gerousias could be restored in the former letter; for the purposes of this discussion, Theodorus is omitted: his office is entirely restored.73 Two other individuals may be certainly identified both as members of and gymnasiarchs of the gerousia. Aphrodisius the son of Cleander, whose service as grammateus of the gerousia was discussed above, also identifies himself as a gymnasiarch of the gerousia.14 He is not known from other Ephesian inscriptions and little can be said of him other than that he served as gymnasiarch.75 It is clear, though, from the fact that the inscription appears on an architrave found in the agora that Aphrodisius was wealthy: it will have belonged to a building which Aphrodisius constructed, dedicated or repaired. It is probable, therefore, that he would also have supplemented any resources allocated to the gymnasiarchy with his own wealth. Aurelius Niconianus Eucarpus appears in a partially preserved thanksgiving inscription datable to the later-second or early-third century A D after he had completed two terms as essen, the priest of Artemis.7 6 He also records his titles - voluntary neopoios, chrysophoros and gymnasiarch of the gerousia - and identifies himself as a gerousiastes. This title, given that he was gymnasiarch of that body, would seem 7 2 Cat. nos. 4 & 6. 7 3 Cat. no. 4; JOAI62 (1993): 119, no. 11a. 7 4 Cat. no. 31; above, pp. 141-142. 7 5 Aphrodisus appears without a patronymic, praenomen or nomen (IEph 1285, 1625(3, 2205). Aurelius Moschion the son of Aphrodisius, Lucius Spedius Aphrodisius and Titus Flavius Aphrodisius are known (IEph 3484, 1034, 3279). 7 6 Cat. no. 24. 153 superfluous were it not for the interpretation of Alexander's service as gymnasiarch of all the gymnasia: the gymnasiarch of the gerousia did not have to be a member of the gerousia. Eucarpus' use of the title gerousiastes, not his service as gymnasiarch of the gerousia, identifies him a member of that body. It is evident from his other services, once again, that Eucarpus was a wealthy citizen - most likely of both Ephesus and Rome. There remain two individuals who may have been gymnasiarchs. At the end of the first century A D , Tiberius Peducaeus Canax, a priest of Rome and of Publius Servilius Isauricus, was honoured by the boule and demos.17 In addition to his priesthood, Canax provided distributions of oil for the citizens and of money for the boule and gerousia; he was also a gymnasiarch of the presbeuteroi. The use of both gerousia and presbeuteros in this inscription may be an indication that Canax was a gymnasiarch not of the Elders, the gerousia, but of the older boys. Whether he was a benefactor of a group of boys or the Elders, he was probably not a member of the gerousia: there is no other case of a member providing a cash distribution to the gerousia. Finally, Gavius Menodorus is honoured in an undated, fragmentary inscription.78 Although the left half of the inscription is lost, it is clear that at least some of Gavius' benefactions were closely associated with the gymnasium. He served as agonothetes and panegyriarch, held the office of prytanis, feasted the citizens of Ephesus on apparently two occasions, provided games and gave a distribution of money for the purchase of oil. If the restorations printed in the catalogue are accurate, he also appears to have provided oil for all the gymnasia and to have served as gymnasiarch of the presbeuteroi in particular at his own expense. As in the case of Canax, this may be a reference to the Cat. no. 38. Cat. no. 52. 154 elder boys rather than the gerousia. The provision of oil may have been the primary duty of the gymnasiarch of the gerousia, whereas the gymnasiarch of the elder boys probably had duties including instruction and supervision in addition to the provision of oil. Consequently, providing oil for all the gymnasia and serving as gymnasiarch of the gerousia would seem to be stating the gymnasiarchy twice. One of the duties of the gymnasiarch was to supervise a public display consisting of competitions between members of his gymnasium - an element more likely to apply to a gymnasium of elder boys than of gerousiastai?9 The presence of the terms agonotheten (partially restored) and panegyriarchon give a competitive air to the initial portion of the inscription and may therefore bias the interpretation of presbeuteron in favour of the elder group of two divisions of boys or young men. There are, then, five individuals who can be identified as gymnasiarchs of the gerousia, and an additional two who may have served in this capacity. No position within the gerousia appears as often in the inscriptions from Ephesus, but the relative rank of the gymnasiarch is not clear. In Mommsen's view, shared by Oliver, the gymnasiarch was the highest officer, while Menadier argues that the gymnasiarch occupied the lowest position in the body.8 0 The phrasing of the inscriptions suggests that Menadier's view is closer to the truth in the case of Ephesus. Of all the gymnasiarchs discussed here, not one is honoured for his service as gymnasiarch. The three ambassadors to Publius Petronius are identified as gymnasiarchs not by the Ephesians but by the proconsul. Tiberius Peducaeus Canax is identified as a gymnasiarch in the initial lines of his honorary inscription, but it is clear that it is not specifically this office for Jones (1940): 223. Mommsen (1921): 326, n. 1; Oliver (1941): 43; Menadier (1880): 51. 155 which the honours have been decreed: he is honoured for numerous services to the city. Aphrodisius the son of Cleander identified himself as a gymnasiarch in what is probably a dedication of a building. Gavius Menodorus was honoured for activities apparently related to the gymnasium, but more specifically, he was honoured for donations and benefactions which went beyond the normal expenses of the gymnasiarchy. Surely if the gymnasiarch were the chief officer of the gerousia, that position would be deserving of more than a passing mention, which is all it ever receives. It is more probable that this individual was not the highest or even second highest ranking officer in the gerousia, though, because the gymnasiarch was not always a member - he was a benefactor. It is possible, though, to draw some conclusions about this individual's responsibilities within the gerousia. His duties were probably reduced over time. It is known that the original responsibilities, the supervision of the education of boys and the maintenance of a gymnasium, had narrowed during the Hellensitic period to the provision of oil, and it is possible that this reduction continued into the first century A D . The duties of a gymnasiarch in the Hellenistic period may also have included the military training of the paides and ephebes?1 In the case of the gerousia, the duties of the gymnasiarch probably did not extend beyond the provision of fuel and oil, and the maintenance of the gymnasium. The service of Tiberius Julius Heras, Lucius Cosinnius and Alexander the son of Alexander as ambassadors may have been undertaken in addition to the gymnasiarchy, but it is also possible that such services formed a part of the gymnasiarch's responsibilities at this time, so that the gymnasiarch was split into two separate offices: the gymnasiarch himself who provided oil, and a representative officer, such as the grammateus. 8 1 Chaniotis (2005): 50. 156 The source of the funds with which the gymnasiarchy was performed is nowhere specified, and depends in part on one's interpretation of the position: was the gymnasiarchy of the gerousia a regular position, or was it a service rendered at the discretion of the individual? If it was a regular position, it is probable that the gerousia had a fund to cover at least some of the expenses, which could then be supplemented by the gymnasiarch himself. If it was an irregular position, filled by a beneficent individual, the expenses would have been met entirely at that individual's expense - oil may have been distributed to the members of the gerousia in the same way as gifts of money, as a one-time (or annual) benefaction. One might reasonably suppose that the position was a regular one, but that only those who supplemented the 'gymnasium-fund' fund with their own resources were given the title of gymnasiarch, that is, the gymnasiarchs supplemented the allotted funds with their own resources. It does seem to be clear that the gerousia enjoyed the financial support of some of its members and some non-members, at least with respect with to gymnasium-expenses. If the gymnasiarchy could be filled by non-members of the gerousia - and the service of Alexander and other Ephesians as gymnasiarchs of all the gymnasia strongly suggests this - it must be acknowledged that the gymnasiarchy was not always an official position within the gerousia. 5.2.3. Pragmatikos of the gerousia Two pragmatikoi are known from the inscriptions of Ephesus. One appears in a Byzantine letter of Justinian to the bishop of Hypatios and is chronologically far outside the period under consideration.82 Keil suggests that the letter was written in response to a dispute concerning the precedence of the Churches of St. John and of Mary in the city; n IEph 4133. 157 the pragmatikos appears in the final line of the letter but the nature of his position is unknown. Besides this individual, a single pragmatikos is known from the first three centuries A D in Ephesus. On a stone containing an undated funerary inscription of Artemon and his family, a certain Straton is identified as the caretaker of the altar and tomb and as the pragmatikos apo gerousias. What the duties of the pragmatikos entailed is not clear: was he responsible for the physical upkeep of the tomb? for the continuation of graveside rituals? for the prosecution of individuals who violated the tomb?8 4 Because of the lack of Ephesian evidence, the pragmatikos can only be compared with individuals occupying the same position outside of Ephesus. A pragmatikos from the region of Phrygia served as the overseer of the construction of an aqueduct.85 A second pragmatikos appears in a decree of the sustema of the Elders in Magnesia regarding the provision of oil for the young and old men who used the city's gymnasium.86 Publius Publicius Apollodorus, again in Magnesia, oversaw the erection of an honorary inscription and statue in which he is described as the pragmatikos of the demos.81 Regardless of any similarities or dissimilarities between the gerousia of the Ephesus and the sustema of Elders in Magnesia or elsewhere, the duties of the pragmatikos appear in all cases to be primarily financial. Although the scale of expense in Straton's case cannot be compared in the cases of the pragmatikos from Phrygia and Apollodorus of Magnesia, the pragmatikos is in all non-Ephesian cases given the duty, 8 3 Cat. no. 89. 8 4 Cf. below, Chapter Six, pp. 238-242. 85 MAMA 4.333. 86 IMag 108. 87 IMag 242. 158 and possibly the financial resources, to oversee some activity decreed by the body of which he is the pragmatikos. This suggests that Straton, as the pragmatikos apo gerousias, may have been responsible for the maintenance of Artemon's grave and tomb, probably with funds set aside for that purpose. The inscription accompanying Artemon's tomb is remarkable in that it identifies a specific individual from the gerousia as the caretaker of the tomb, whereas it is common for the gerousia as a whole to be named as overseer.88 One may ask, therefore, if Straton was intended to perform this duty as a member of the gerousia or as a private citizen, that is, was this duty assigned to Straton the pragmatikos, or to Straton the citizen? The pragmatikos apo gerousias may have been entrusted with this duty as a patron of Artemon. Given the nomenclature of the individuals involved - Artemon the son of Metrodorus, Myrilla the daughter of Demetrius, Hageson the son of Hageson, Phrynichus the son of Hageson, and Straton - there does not seem to be any reason aside from his supervision of the tomb to identify Straton as a patron, though. It may be more probable that Straton and Artemon were peers - perhaps both were members of the gerousia - and that it was this peerage to which Artemon appealed for the upkeep of his tomb. If this is so, it follows that pragmatikos apo gerousias was not the title of an individual member who oversaw the upkeep of the tombs. Artemon's inscription, then, would shed no light on the official position or duties of the pragmatikos. Any connection between Artemon and Straton, however, may be spurious: the two inscriptions were inscribed at different times. A relationship between the two individuals is not, however, impossible: in the absence of the name of the deceased 8 8 Cf. below, Chapter Six, pp. 238-242; cat. nos. 73, 74, 82, 85-88 & 91. 159 whose tomb Straton is to preserve, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Straton became responsible for the monument after it had originally been inscribed. It may be noted that the scale of Straton's responsibility for Artemon's tomb cannot be compared to the construction of an aqueduct or service as gymnasiarch as performed by some other pragmatikoi from Asia; depending on the elaborateness of the tomb and statue, his service may not be comparable even to that of Apollodorus in Magnesia. At best, it may be supposed that the pragmatikos of the gerousia of Ephesus was similar to the pragmatikoi attested in other cities of Asia with the acknowledgement that this supposition is based solely on the similarity of titles. Icten and Engelmann suggest that on Straton was the administrator of the gerousia. If this is the case, it may be surprising that he is the only individual so identified. 5.2.4. Ekdikos and Logistes The ekdikos and logistes were not regular officers of the gerousia. An ekdikos was a legal representative, commonly of the city, appointed for a specific purpose or legal case.90 In the case of Ephesus, the ekdikos appears to have been a supervisor or an auditor rather than a strictly legal representative.91 Seven ekdikoi are known from Ephesus, only some of whom were clearly involved in legal cases. An ekdikos of the boule, Marcus Flavius Domitianus, oversaw the erection of a statue for Aurelius Baranus.92 No other actions are recorded for Domitianus in the inscriptions from Ephesus. According to the inscription honouring Baranus, Domitianus set up the statue at his own expense. It is not unreasonable to suppose that he did so in 8 9 Icten and Engelmann (1992): 291. 9 0 Paulys-Wisowa, RE 5:2:2, 2160, s.v., 6 K 5 I K O C . 9 1 Dmitriev (2005): 213. 9 2 Cat. no. 48. 160 his capacity as ekdikos, if only because the inscription is identified as a decree of the boule and demos. The use of his own resources to dedicate a statue decreed by the city is not unusual since with a public position, as was noted above, it was possible to supplement official funds with one's own, essentially transforming an arche into a leitourgeia. It should be acknowledged, however, that Domitianus' erection of the statue and his service as ekdikos of the boule may be unrelated. Ekdikoi could be on the other side of honorary inscriptions as well. Marcus Aurelius Menemachus was honoured by the sunhedrion of the kouretes and sacred heralds.94 He was the ekdikos of this sunhedrion, as the adjective idion indicates. What Menemachus was honoured for is not specified, but it is probably related to his being ekdikos. He may, for example, have successfully represented the kouretes and heralds in some dispute. Similarly, Ulpius Apollonius Plautus, a grammateus, boularchos and ekdikos of the boule, was honoured by the boule in the late second century, most likely for services provided as ekdikos?5 The reflexive pronoun heautes probably indicates that Plautus had represented the boule in a legal matter. Legal representation by the ekdikos appears most clearly in an early Byzantine fragment which records the result of a dispute between Smyrna and, probably, Ephesus: the ekdikos of the polis had represented the city. 9 6 As legal representatives, it is probable that many ekdikoi did not belong to the bodies for which they spoke. The nature of the duties of the ekdikos is not clear from those individuals bearing this title who have been surveyed so far. The clearest testimony for the activity of the 9 3 Above, pp. 141-142; Dmitriev (2005): 109-119. 94 IEph 1075;F( '£ IX/ l / ld2 . 95 IEph 740. 96 IEph 1343. 161 ekdikos in Ephesus appears in the inscription recording Nicomedes' re-introduction of a festal celebration.97 Nicomedes is identified as the ekdikos of the sunhedrion and appears to have been responsible for reviewing the financial accounts of the gerousia. The passive heurethenton in line 6 indicates that Nicomedes redirected previously existing resources of the gerousia to a new purpose, rather than that he made an endowment, as has been noted above in Chapter Four. Nicomedes was not a member of the gerousia at the time of his service as ekdikos: the stipulation at the end of the decree to "praise both Nicomedes and his sons, and proclaim them honorary members of the gerousia" would be redundant if they were already members. Although he appears to have been an auditor of the gerousia, Nicomedes should not be considered to have been a member before his honorary induction. He is described as tou katholikou ekdikou tou sunhedriou hemon. Sunhedrion, however, may not refer to the gerousia here: both the gerousia and the members of the sunhedrion are named as responsible for the observation of the details contained in the decree.99 This may be interpreted as an injunction lain upon the gerousia as a whole and upon its individual members, but, as was noted in Chapter Four, the regular formula for identifying members of the gerousia is simply ek gerousias or gerousiastes. Moreover, there is no other case of a distinction between the gerousia as a single body acting collectively and a portion of its members acting individually. The precise relationship between the gerousia and the sunhedrion is not important for the interpretation of Nicomedes' service as ekdikos, though. As ekdikos of the sunhedrion, he provided, or 9 7 Cat. no. 56. 9 8 See above, Chapter Three, pp. 70-74, for the relationship between sunhedrion and gerousia. . 9 9 Cat. no. 56, // 12-15: %i]v yepoixjiav e\|] c, to 8 I [ T | V ] E K £ C , (^Maeo-Goa TT|[v ETC! xfj npoYjeYpappevT) ebaepeia vouoGeaiav cbc, a'i[covi.ov buoicoc, 5e IOVQ auveSpouc, uexa|] ^vkdaa[eiv] K a l ETCI/CEXEIV xd n[Epl xd 8eircv]a TtpoacfaXoxeiuo'ouevo'u xov E K S ' I K O U ' I C , xfifv Sarcdvnv. 162 more probably, redirected financial resources of the gerousia to meet the expense of the festival. The case of Tiberius Claudius Moschas is similar. He appears in three inscriptions, in two of which he is identified as ekdikos of the sunhedrion and ekdikos of the gerousia, respectively.100 The involvement of the gerousia in these two cases, however, is uncertain. The first, honouring Vibius Seneca, identifies the sunhedrion of the gerousia as the honouring body, but the inscription is acephalous, so that the phrase sunhedrion tes gerousias is entirely restored.101 The second inscription identifies Moschas as ekdikos of the gerousia, but there is nothing in the remainder of the inscription to connect Claudia Caninia Severa, the recipient of the statue associated with this inscription, with the gerousia. Although the inscriptions are roughly contemporary and the product of the work of a single individual, Moschas, the preambles are restored differently. Given that they were both erected under the supervision of the same individual, one would expect that the two inscriptions and statues were awarded by the same bodies, so that the lacunae at the beginning of each text should be the same. Moschas is named as the ekdikos of the gerousia in Severa's inscription so that one is tempted to suppose that the phrase to be restored in each case is that which appears in Seneca's inscription, that is, [TO auveSptov xfji; tyiXooefiacTov YepcuaiacJ, which is restored in Claudia's inscription. The gerousia, however, does not appear to have been active as the author of honorary decrees beyond the mid-second century A D , so that [f| PouA,f| K a i b Sfjuoi; eteiiinaav] should perhaps be preferred.102 Moreover, Moschas' 1 0 0 Cat. nos. 46 & 47; IEph 645. 1 0 1 As was noted above in Chapter Three, there is no certain instance of a sunhedrion tes gerousias in Ephesus (cf. pp. 70-74). 1 0 2 Cf. below, Chapter Six, pp. 237. 163 service as ekdikos is given among his other services so that the gerousia itself was not necessarily behind this dedication. Sunhedrion in Seneca's inscription, then, is probably either an alternate expression for the boule or a collective term for the boule and demos, but not for the gerousia alone. Moschas was not a member of the gerousia, though he is identified as ekdikos of the gerousia in the inscription honouring Claudia Caninia Severa. He, and the ekdikos in general, might have been similar to the epi ton chrematon, with the exception that he was appointed by an external body and was not limited to the financial affairs of the gerousia.103 His activities were limited, though, by pre-existing decrees. Included in the gerousia''?, efforts to ensure that the arrangements made by Nicomedes remained unchanged was a statement to the effect that not even an ekdikos could divert the interest of the capital sum. Such an injunction also appears in the documents recording Salutaris' endowment: no magistrate, ekdikos or private citizen was to emend Salutaris' dispositions on pain of two twenty-five thousand denarii fines. 1 0 4 The inclusion of both magistrate and ekdikos in this statement supports the theory that the ekdikos was not a regular official like an archon. His duties were not limited only to legal representation, but could also involve the supervision or auditing of finances even of bodies to which he did not belong. The logistes is more commonly attested than the ekdikos, although the two positions are similar. Several individuals, all male, who had served as logistes were honoured by the Ephesians during the Imperial period. Four of these were also 1 0 3 Since epi ton chrematon and ekdikos occur at the beginning and end of the second century A D respectively, it is possible that these are different names for the same position. 1 0 4 Cat. no. 54,11. 315-325: u/n8ev[i] 8k e^eaxco appoint fi fcKSiKCp f] 'i8ic6|xr|; it is argued in Chapter Six that there were in fact three fines for alterations to Salutaris' arrangements. 164 presbeuteis of Asia and three were Roman Senators: a propraetor and two consuls.1 0 5 [Marcus Ulpius] Aristocrates, in addition to serving as agonothetes and high priest, was appointed {dothenta) logistes for the gerousia by the Emperor Hadrian. 1 0 6 Ulpius Eurycles was similarly 'given' as logistes to the gerousia.107 The logistes was the equivalent of a curator civitatis.m The responsibilities of the logistes are more easily identified than those of the ekdikos, due to the fact that two extensive inscriptions record the activities of this official in Ephesus. Appropriately, these are two letters from the emperor. The first letter survives in two copies, neither of which is complete; it is in Oliver's opinion Antonine in date. In this case, though, the logistes is clearly responsible for conducting audits of certain individuals. 1 1 0 There is no indication of who these individuals are, but they are responsible through the logistes to the emperor. The letter is specific, requiring only those who had held office in the previous ten years to submit their accounts to the logistes, which suggests that the' position of the logistes was not previously an annual position, but was occupied only irregularly.111 The second inscription is a letter of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus sent to Ulpius Eurycles, the logistes of the gerousia, responding to the enquiries of Eurycles regarding, among other things, statues of busts of previous emperors in the assembly lu- IEph 25, 618, 3050,4341; propraetor: IEph 696; consuls: IEph 612 & SEG 41, 976. 1 0 6 Cat. no. 41. 1 0 7 Cat. no. 17 (IEph 25); Dmitriev (2005): 196 suggests that the use of the participle dothenta may be an indication that the logistai could be appointed at the request of the cities. 1 0 8 Paulys-Wisowa, RE 13:1:1, 1020-1021 s.v. Xoyicni]c,. 109 IEph 15 (IEph 16 is a copy containing identical text); Oliver (1979): 556; Kei l , JOAI27: 21-25. 1 1 0 Cf. Dmitriev (2005): 189-190. '"Dmitriev (2005): 192-193. 165 chamber (sunhedrion touton).112 These busts are to be retained and re-erected under their original names rather than melted down and recast as representations of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Next, the letter addresses the question of a public slave who inappropriately collected on debts owed to the sunhedrion. In this case, the emperors state the letter of the law, but do not pass judgment, referring Eurycles instead to the proconsul. The logistes, as an imperially appointed official, was responsible for the rendering of accounts of officers and of public bodies, and may, in the case of the gerousia, have had some involvement in the preparation of imperial busts and statues. He was able to bring certain matters to the attention of the emperor but he was liable to the proconsul of the province, to whom his inquiries were in most cases supposed to be addressed. The existence of a logistes of the gerousia also implies an official recognition of the gerousia by imperial authorities. The ekdikos, on the other hand, was responsible only for certain legal and financial affairs of local Ephesian bodies and was specifically appointed, probably by the boule, for this purpose. It would be unusual, one would think, for the logistes and perhaps the ekdikos as well to have been members of the gerousia: impartiality would be desirable, but unlikely to have been achieved if a gerousiastes was appointed to correct the finances of his own institution. Officers of the Ephesian gerousia are not attested as frequently as one might wish. Those positions which do appear in the epigraphic record suggest that several were not offices of the gerousia per se filled by gerousiastai, but rather were associated with it. Thus, anyone, given sufficient wealth, could serve as a gymnasiarch of the gerousia. As 1 1 2 Cat. no. 17 (IEph 25); it is tempting to see TOinov O"ove8piov as the place where the statues donated by Salutaris were kept when they were not being carried to the Artemision or to public meeting; cf. below, Chapter Six, p. 228-229, n. 53. 166 a representative, it is most likely that the grammateus of the gerousia was always a member; the ekdikoi and logistai were not members, but were instead overseers of the body responsible to the city and to the imperial administration respectively, indicating the subordinate position of the gerousia. 5.3. Gerousiastai in the City The members of the Ephesian boule and gerousia appear to have been distinguished: no individual is known to have been a member of both bodies. This situation contrasts sharply with that in Sidyma, where half of the gerousia was drawn from or consisted entirely of the boule.113 The offices discussed in the first half of this chapter suggest that the officers of the gerousia were in general wealthy. There it was concluded that occupying an office of the gerousia, such as the gymnasiarchy, is not an infallible indication of membership; wealth, however, was a consistent feature of those who were both officers and members of the gerousia. The same is true when individual members are considered in light of the offices which they occupied in the city in general - that is, their positions independent of the daily operations of the gerousia. Neither the large-scale benefactors of the city nor their close relatives appear to have belonged to the gerousia: none of the Vedii Antoninii is identified as a member; Titus Flavius Damianus, who constructed a stoa along the Sacred Way did not belong; Gaius Vibius Salutaris was a Roman knight, but not a member of the gerousia. This is not to say that individual gerousiastai were not benefactors of the city; clearly they were both publicly active and euergetic citizens, if only on a minor scale when compared to the best-known benefactors of Ephesus: Aphrodisius the son of 1 1 3 Cf. above, Chapter Four, pp. 79-82; TAMII, 175 & 176. 167 Cleander was able to put his name on the architrave of one building. Gerousiastai were politeuomenoi, that is, publicly active in the city. The civic offices in which the gerousiastai appear are often associated with the religious affairs of the city (Table 4). This association is consistent with what emerges from the Salutaris-dossier: the gerousia, Asiarchs and neokoroi are combined in the receipt of the distributions, suggesting a relationship, or at least a closeness between the three groups.1 1 4 Title Number of Appearances Catalogue Number Kouretes 12 23, 44, 59-63, 65, 66 Ambassadors 9 1,4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16 Neopoioi 8 19,21,24, 25,27,28,44, 58 Chrysophoroi 5 21,24, 26, 28,49 Agonothetai 2 49,51 Essenes 2 19, 24 Agoranomos 1 25 Imperial Priest 1(?) 31 Leitourgos 1 25 Prytanis 1(?) 51 Nyktophylax 1 19 Epi thymiatrou 1 63 (cf. 60-62) 1 1 b Hymnodos 1 77 Torch-race leader 1 77 Leukophoros 1 67 Table 4: Offices and Positions Occupied by Gerousiastai. Forty-five positions are known to have been occupied by members of the gerousia. Two-thirds of the attested offices and positions are clearly religious, namely the kouretes, the neopoioi, the chrysophoroi, the essenes, the nuktophylax, the epi thymiatrou, the hymnodos, the leader of the torch race and the leukophoros. To these may be added an Imperial priest and a prytanis, but it should be noted that it was argued in Chapter Four that there is reason to doubt whether the two individuals concerned were actually members of the gerousia. These forty-five offices and positions were occupied 1 1 4 Cat. no. 54, //. 231-245. 1 1 5 On the hymnodoi, see above, pp. 136-137. 168 by thirty-seven individuals, though the names of the occupants have not survived in all cases. 5.3.1. Kouretes, Prytanis and the Epi thymiatrou The origin of the kouretes was associated with the birth of Artemis and Apollo. According to myth, the kouretes took up a position on Mt. Solmissus to scare off Hera with their noise when Leto gave birth to the two gods at Ortygia. In the historical period, they performed sacrifices and held symposia at an annual festival; they may have acted out the myth as told by Strabo.1 1 6 The kouretes continued to play a cultic role, but they also took on political functions associated with the Temple of Artemis: the kouretes, at least in the early Hellenistic period, supported some citizenship decrees, which were displayed in the Artemision. 1 1 7 The kouretes of the Imperial period were organized into a college, a sunhedrion, which could have its own grammateus.xn They served under a prytanis, who may have had the right to choose his own kouretes, as the number of prytaneis related to their respective kouretes suggests.119 This personal choice could account for the fact that individuals did not normally serve as kouretes repeatedly: the position was, strictly, speaking, assigned rather than undertaken.120 At the earliest period for which there is evidence, that is, the second half of the first century A D , the proportion of probable Roman citizens to non-Roman citizens in the college of kouretes is almost 1:1. This ratio steadily increases in favour of Roman citizens until it is almost 3:1 between 180 and " 6 Strabo 14.1.20; Tac. Ann., 3.61; Knibbe (1981): 70-73. 1 1 7 Knibbe (1981): 74; cat. no. 1. 1 1 8 Knibbe (1981): 96, no. B 54. 1 1 9 Knibbe (1981): 97, n. 174; nos. B9, B13, B33, B35, B36, B41, B45, B51, B53, B54. 1 2 0 Knibbe (1981): 97. 169 192. 1 2 1 Although a large proportion of kouretes appear to have possessed Roman citizenship, relatively few can be certainly said to have been active in the Imperial service. The kouretes are known primarily through the annual lists inscribed in the prytaneion (Fig. 2, no. 61; fig. 3). Knibbe, however, suggests that these lists may not record the kouretes of every year, but only of those years when resources allowed the inscriptions to be erected.122 These lists, as was noted in Chapter Four, are highly formulaic: the prytanis is named, followed by 'hoide ekoureteusan' or 'kouretes eusebeis philosebastoV, the names of the kouretes themselves and finally the cultic servants. Additional titles are not often given to the kouretes, but when they are, they follow immediately upon the name of the individual. Thus, a typical list would be: 1 2 3 fern rcpmdvecoq r d i o u A I K I V V I O U MevdvSpoij i>ov Zep-ytoc Moc^tuot) 'IouA.iavo'O- KoupfJT.eq etxjeBeic, (jjiXoaeBaaxoi-r(d'ioQ) A i K i v n o q Mdcjiuoq MnvoScopo'u "Jioq Z e p y i a B e i B i a v 6 q BouA.e'UTfjq-M(dpKoq) K a i a e ^ A i o q B d a a o q BoTJ^emfjq-Ai68oToq AaKA.nTti.So'u 'Etj)£cnoq etc yepoijoxac;' 5 Ti(BfepioQ) KA,aib8ioc- NeiKO(ifi8r|-; etc yepoijalac;- n6(7i^ioc;) Kop(vtj^.ioc")-Apiaxcov pouA.emf|c; lEpoaKdno^] r(d'ioc;) A I K I V V I O C ; Ebdpeaxoc, feK yepovaiac,- MouvSiKoiq poijA.emr|q iepotj)dvTriq AaaKX,nTci68copoq A"io^A.coviou TOTJ 'ETxiKpdxriq iepoKrjp'uq' Membership in the gerousia is indicated in these lists with the phrase ek gerousias: the only instance of a gerousiastes in a list of kouretes is not actually a kouretes list, but a thanksgiving dedication by Favonia Flaccilla. 1 2 4 Membership in the boule appears to 1 Z 1 Knibbe (1981): 99, no. B54; cf. Burton (2001): 203-204; cf. above, Chapter Four pp. 77-79; this estimate is based on the possession of a tria nomina. 1 2 2 Knibbe (1981). 1 2 3 Cat. no. 60. 124 Gerousiastes: Cat. no. 21; ek gerousias: 60-64, 66 & 67. 170 have been indicated simply with the term bouleutes: there is no corresponding phrase ek boules.125 The Roman citizenship of the gerousiastai-kouretes, as is often the case, can only be determined on the basis of nomenclature. Six individuals can be said to be Roman citizens on the basis of their names.126 Five appear not to have possessed Roman 127 citizenship; the name of one gerousiastes-kouros is unknown. The absence of citizenship, though, is an assumption based on the absence of the tria nomina, which, it was noted in Chapter Four, is not an infallible indicator of legal status. In some cases, it will have been possible for individuals to choose to use a Roman name or a Greek name in public life. Thus, Tiberius Julius Heras could be known as such, or as Tiberius Julius, or simply as Heras. The decision could reflect a desire to project a message: the use of a Greek name and patronymic could be an expression of 'greekness' in the face of increasing 'romanness'.128 Rogers has argued that a similar statement emphasizing the collective identity of the Ephesians was being made in the foundation of Gaius Vibius Salutaris at the beginning of the second century A D . 1 2 9 The use of Greek names and patronymics was an affirmation of Greek heritage, just as during the Hellenistic period the use of ethnics as a part of one's name was a reminder of one's origins even if that city i -ir\ or region had been destroyed. 1 2 5 Knibbe (1981) nos. B3, B4, B9, B16-20, B22-30, B32, B33, B35, B36, B38, B40, B42, B44, B45, B48, B50-B52. 1 2 6 Cat. nos. 60 (Ti. Claudius Nicomedes, C. Licinnius Euarestus), 61 (L. Caecilius Rufus), 62 (P. Aelius Isas Flavianus), 63 (...Venustus) and 67 (Julius Marcianus). 1 2 7 Cat. nos. 60 (Diodotus son of Asclepides, Assclepiodorus son of Apollonius son of Assclepiodorus) and 64 (Bacchius son of Zeuxius); cat. no. 66 (unknown). 1 2 8 Above, Chapter Four, pp. 79-82; cf. Burton (2001): 202-203. 1 2 9 Rogers (1991); the inscription which mentions Diodotus son of Asclepides and Assclepiodorus son of Apollonius is dated to A D 105. 1 3 , 5 Chaniotis (2005): 85-86. 171 Additional offices are only rarely attested in the kouretes lists, so that inferences cannot be made about the social standing of gerousiastai-kouretes on the basis of their other public positions. The kouretes do not, however, appear only in these lists. One Zoticus the son of Artemidorus appears in an honorary inscription as a gerousiastes and member of the 'assembly of neopoioi, kouretes and chrysophoroi;'' he also served twice as essen.]3] Each of these positions will be discussed below, and it will become clear that all three are indications of wealth and high social rank. Since the gerousiastai-kouretes appear together with bouleutai-kouretes in the kouretes lists, it may be said with certainty that these gerousiastai were wealthy, with high social connections. Such a conclusion seems particularly warranted given the name and patronymic used by Assclepiodorus son of Apollonius son of Assclepiodorus: this use is one means of drawing attention to his family and ancestors and, presumably, to their euergetism. The inclusion of his father's name and that of his grandfather is an indication of the high standing of his family: both his father and his grandfather were known to the Ephesians, possibly through political or socio-religious activities.1 3 2 Closely associated with the kouretes, the prytanis was the leader of the civic cult. The cult of Artemis, which the kouretes originally celebrated, may have been amalgamated with the civic cult in honour of Hestia at some point in time, combining the kouretes' worship of Artemis with the prytanis' worship of Hestia. The amalgamation of the two cults is apparent in the numerous kouretes lists, all of which are dated by the eponymous prytanis, as well as in the relations which existed in some cases between 1 3 1 Cat. no. 45. 1 3 2 Cat. no. 60; the inclusion of the patronymic is distinct from the choice between a Greek or Roman name: the patronymics emphasize one's ancestry, while the personal name may emphasize one's present standing and connections. 172 certain of the kouretes and prytaneis. Thus, Gaius Terentius Beratius was a kouros and a brother of the prytanis Gaius Terentius Flavianus; 1 3 3 similarly, Aulus Larcius Julianus and Bacchius the son of Zeuxius are identified as kinsmen of the prytanis Publius Aelius Pontius Attalianus.1 3 4 The prytanis appears as the eponymous official in Ephesus. The high status thus rendered to the office is only enhanced by a trend in which Roman citizens appear to have occupied it more and more frequently until after the mid-century prytaneis were almost all Roman citizens.1 3 5 A single prytanis, Gavius Menodorus, may have been a gerousiastes. Gavius' membership in the gerousia is not certain, though. He served as gymnasiarch of the presbuteroi, although it is possible that the gymnasiarchy was that of the elder boys rather than of the gerousia. This is a less likely reading, but the fragmentary state of the inscription makes it inadvisable to rule it out absolutely. Gavius' membership in the gerousia, therefore, rests on the assumptions that presbuteron refers to the gerousia and that service as gymnasiarch indicates membership in the gerousia, which it does not. The hieros epi thymiatrou and acrobates epi thymiatrou were cultic servants; they are attested in the kouretes-Msis, but they were not themselves kouretes. Whereas those individuals did not generally serve repeatedly, the position of epi thymiatrou was regularly occupied by the same individual over the course of several years. Moreover, it might, like other positions in the cultic-service, have been passed from father to son. 1 3 6 While there is evidence of such dynastic possession of religious offices in the case of the Lysimachi Mundicii, who appear to have dominated the position of hierophant for a 1 3 3 Knibbe (1981): no. B32. 1 3 4 Knibbe (1981): no. B40. 1 3 5 Dmitriev (2005): 280. 1 3 6 Knibbe (1981): 79 173 century, familial succession is not as apparent in the case of epi thymiatrou: four men, Olympicus, Atticus, Tryhpo and Onesimus, all appear successively and repeatedly as epi thymiatrou over the course of the same century, but there is no reason to suppose that they were related to one another.137 There is variation in this title, even when the name of the individual does not change. Thus, Trypho was simply epi thymiatrou in A D 104, thereafter acrobates epi thymiatrou for at least four years, and finally geraios epi thymiatrou in at least four additional years.138 Onesimus' titles show a similar pattern, though he appears to begin as hieros epi thymiatrou with three appearances as simply epi thymiatrou interspersed 139 over a period of at least thirteen years; he was once geraios epi thymiatrou. Onesimus was a member of the gerousia, but this is not what geraios epi thymiatrou indicates.140 He is identified as hieros epi thymiatrou ek gerousias in a list of kouretes from the second half of the second century.141 Geraios should be seen as a description of epi thymiatrou like hieros and acrobates, rather than of Onesimus himself, as was argued above in Chapter Four. 1 4 2 The duties of the epi thymiatrou within the civic cult are not certainly known, but he must have been, as his title indicates, responsible for an incense offering. Knibbe suggests that the use of the word acrobates is a sign that a dance performance was part of 1 J / Lysimachi Mundicii: Knibbe (1981): nos. B16-45; Olympicus: Knibbe (1981): B4-B9; Atticus: Knibbe (1981): B10-B21; Trypho: Knibbe (1981): B22-29; Onesimus: Knibbe (1981): B30-44. 138 Epi thymiatrou: Knibbe (1981): no. B21; acrobates epi thymiatrou: Knibbe (1981): nos. B22-25; geraios epi thymiatrou: Knibbe (1981): nos. B26-29. 139 Hieros epi thymiatrou: Knibbe (1981): nos. B30-35, B37-40, B42, B42a; epi thymiatrou: Knibbe (1981): nos. B36, B41, B43; geraios epi thymiatrou: Knibbe (1981): no. B . 44. 1 4 0 Cat. no. 64; cf. Knibbe (1981): 42, no. B40 and note 6. it may be noted that Onesimus appears in B44 as epi thymiatrou geraios sun kai huoi Artemoni psephismati: Onesimus and his son were not simultaneously members of the gerousia (they may have been, but this inscription does not demonstrate that); Onesimus was assisented in his serveice as 'revered servant in charge of tending the incense' by his son. 1 4 1 The phrasing is partially restored, but reasonably so; cf. above, Chapter Four, pp. 127. 1 4 2 Cf. above, Chapter Four, pp. 126-128. 174 the offering of incense and of the acting out of the birth of Artemis and Apollo by the kouretes?43 5.3.2. Ambassadors Embassies were at all periods expensive undertakings. Cicero comments on the excessive expense of embassies sent to Appius Claudius Pulcher and other previous governors by several cities of Ci l ic ia . 1 4 4 Accordingly, he limited the amount which could be spent on such deputations.145 Similarly, Vespasian, a little more than a century later, limited the size of embassies which could be sent to the emperor, and Pliny the Younger reports his efforts to reduce the expenses of embassies in Bithynia-Pontus.1 4 6 The deputations limited by Cicero and Pliny were intended to carry expressions of thanks and gratitude to their recipients. Others, which were less likely to be restricted, might carry notice of awards decreed by a city to a benefactor; still others could conduct negotiations or arguments between cities and seek favours from provincial officials. Nine named gerousiastai are known to have undertaken embassies on behalf of the gerousia;141 at least two more can be inferred from fragmentary inscriptions;1 4 8 eleven individuals are also known to have represented the concerns of the gerousia to Octavian in 29 BC, any or all of whom may have been members.149 The purpose of these embassies was in all but the first and last cases to gain Imperial approval for the continuation of benefits enjoyed by the gerousia.150 The first embassy was that led by Euphronius to Prepelaus requesting exemption from the billeting of troops and taxation 1 4 3 Knibbe (1981): 85. 1 4 4 C i c , Ad Fam., 3.8.2. 1 4 5 Cic., Ad Fam., 3.8.3. 146 Dig., 50.7.5.6; PI., Ep., 10.43; Jones (1940): 135. 1 4 7 Cat. nos. 1,4, 8-10, 12-14, 16. 1 4 8 Cat. nos. 5, 11. 1 4 9 Cat. no. 6. 1 5 0 On the benefits and privileges of the gerousia, see below, Chapter Six, pp. 243-277. 175 on behalf of the Temple of Artemis early in the Hellenistic period. The final embassy which is known occurred early in Hadrian's reign; this last delegation concerned the gerousia's lending and collecting privileges. Hadrian's letter, written in reply to this representative's petition, provides the best indication of the potential expense of an embassy. He writes that a traveling expense should be paid to the ambassador, Cascellius Politicus, unless he had undertaken to represent the gerousia'?, interests at his own expense.151 The mention of payment for traveling expenses implies that an embassy was at the behest of the boule, demos, gerousia or other groups: it was an official, not a personal, undertaking. The traveling expenses, however, are to be paid only after the return of Politicus, so that it is a reimbursement rather than a payment. The deputation led by Politicus can, however, be argued to have been excessive: Hadrian refers the matter back to the proconsul of Asia, Cornelius Priscus, with the implication that there was no need to send an embassy all the way to Hadrian in Rome. Advantage was taken of the occasional proximity of members of the Imperial family, though, as an embassy was sent to Germanicus in Nicaea in A D 18; 1 5 2 an additional embassy which may also have visited Germanicus in the eastern regions of the Empire, but could have been sent to Gaius Caesar between A D 1 and 4 instead - the identification of the recipient is uncertain. The contents of the letters written in response to the petitions of the late first century BC and early first century A D , requests for the renewal of the gerousia''s privileges, are a strong indication that the ambassadors were members of the gerousia}53 The fact that these individuals undertook embassies is a suggestion that they were 1 5 1 Cat. no. 16, //. 14-15. 1 5 2 Cat. nos. 9 and 10. 1 5 3 Above, Chapter Four, pp. 110-113. 176 wealthy, though it also possible that they were traveling at the expense of a public body rather than at their own expense. Since the letters are addressed to the gerousia, it is safe to assume that, if they were not paying the costs of travel on their own, these men were traveling at the expense of the gerousia. The embassies then become a reflection of the combined wealth of the gerousiastai and of the gerousia's corporate wealth. There were certain niceties to be observed in the despatch of Imperial embassies, which will be considered below in Chapter Six; for the moment, though, it is sufficient to note that members of the gerousia undertook delegations to represent the collective interests of their peers, and possibly those of their fellow citizens: the eleven individuals named in Octavian's letter may be indicative of the gerousia'?, involvement in issues confronting the city in general rather than the gerousia in particular. 5.3.3. Neopoioi The neopoioi are commonly attested in the inscriptions of Ephesus, not exclusively in association with the gerousia. Originally,-the neopoioi were, as their name suggests, a college of individuals responsible for the construction and maintenance of temples.154 As a college, the neopoioi were also responsible for the administration of certain festivals.155 Consequently, they generally appear in the plural rather than the singular; this is not, however, the universal case in Ephesus, where the appearance of a single neopoios is not irregular. Service as a neopoios in Ephesus lasted for one year and was performed by members of various groups.156 Thus, there are both bouleutai and gerousiastai attested as P-W 16:2, 2433-2439, s.v. veoroioi. P-W 16:2, 2435. IEph 622. 177 neopoioi.151 The neopoioi were in the Imperial period an official board - a sunhedrion -of possibly twelve elected individuals, who appear to have remained as an unofficial body after their terms of service: "those who have been neopoioi" erected a series of statues in the Augusteum (Fig. 3, no. 53); the duty of attending statues, though, was not limited to former neopoioi: two of these individuals were to attend the statues donated by Salutaris during his procession.158 It was possible to serve as neopoios more than once.1 5 9 The neopoioi themselves occupied a variety of offices and positions - prytanis, agoranomos, eirenarchos, grammateus, essen, kouretes and the general leitourgos are all attested. Such offices suggest that wealth may have been a prerequisite for service as neopoioi. This seems to be confirmed by the frequent appearance of the gymnasiarchy in the lists of positions occupied by the neopoioi}60 Each neopoios was attached to a temple, either as an individual or as a member of a larger college. Publius Quintilius Valens Varius is identified as a neopoios of Artemis, in addition to being a grammateus, agoranomos, gymnasiarch and a benefactor who provided gifts of grain and money.1 6 1 Similarly, a statue group of Germanicus, Drusus and Tiberius was set up by a group of former neopoioi, as an inscription found in the temple of the Augusti indicates.162 This affiliation, however, was not restrictive. A neopoios and priest of Pluto and Kore oversaw a dedication by the demos of Aphrodisias in honour of Domitian in the Augusteum.1 6 3 The neopoioi were responsible for displaying at least some public decrees in their respective temples. This is particularly 157 Boultuetai: IEph 622, 712B, 842; gerousiastai: Cat. no. 20, 22, 24, 26, 45 & 69. 158 IEph 257; cat. nos. 54, // 209-210 & 55, // 543-544; cf. Rogers (1994): 103. 159 IEph 957, where the aorist participle veojtoifiaac; combined with VEOITOI.6<", indicates at least two occasions on which the honourand served as a neopoios. 160 IEph 661, 700, 712B, 1042 & 3014. 161 IEph TUB. 162 IEph 257. 163 IEph 233. 178 clear in Ephesus in the case of citizenship decrees - both Hellenistic and Imperial -which frequently identify the neopoioi as the college responsible for erecting a copy of the decree in the Temple of Artemis "where they have set up the other citizenship decrees."164 It was common after service as neopoios to make a thanksgiving dedication to the god in whose temple such service had been completed. The only offerings which remain, however, are thanksgivings to Artemis; it is not clear whether these were offered exclusively by neopoioi of Artemis or if other neopoioi were accustomed to dedicate their thanksgivings to Artemis as wel l . 1 6 5 The precise duties of the Ephesian neopoioi are not known. Their appearance as overseers of dedications (epimeletai) suggests that they continued to be responsible for the upkeep of temples and particularly of the statues in the temples. Philip Mazaios dedicated the architrave of the Baccheion as neopoios}66 A letter of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius which appears to be concerned with the neopoioi as a college and a feast celebrated by them and which might be hoped to provide more information about the activities and duties of the neopoioi is, unfortunately, too fragmentary to provide detail. 1 6 7 Rogers suggests that "the neopoioi were deeply involved in the institutional and legal processes of conferring honours upon non-Ephesian citizens, including crowns, public-proclamations and even citizenship."1 6 8 To be sure, they were involved in the 164 P-W 16:2, 2436; cf., for example, IEph 1408, 1409, 1440, 1443 & 1453 (Hellenistic), 1413, 1441 & 1447 (Imperial); Rogers (1991): 103. 165 IEph 958-963 & 967. 166 IEph 434. 161 IEph 221. 1 6 8 Rogers (1991): 103. 179 processes of honouring certain individuals, but not universally and not necessarily legally: being responsible for the records of citizenship grants in the temple is not indicative of involvement in the 'legal processes', but rather of the importance of citizen involvement in the civic cult of Artemis and of the goddess' role as patron of the city. Service as a neopoios in Ephesus carried with it membership in a college which was actively involved in the maintenance and upkeep of specific temples in the city. Like several of the other positions held by neopoioi, this service could entail significant expense, although there is evidence that at least some of this expense could be met by funds other than the private financial resources of the individual neopoioi.169 Financially burdensome offices are not attested in the case of every neopoios known from Ephesus: only rarely are services attested in addition to those of a neopoios. Nonetheless, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the position of neopoios was in general a financially demanding one. It can be said, then, that those gerousiastai who served as neopoioi were members of the wealthier classes of the city. Titus Flavius Asclepiodorus, in a thanksgiving offering to Artemis, declares that he served as neopoios voluntarily.1 7 0 The adverb authairetos, 'voluntarily', suggests that the office was one which could be - and was, in some cases - avoided: Asclepiodorus claims special status by declaring that he did not attempt to avoid service as a neopoios, contrasting his willingness to serve with the unwillingness of others. The reason for a refusal or failure to volunteer can only be the avoidance of financial outlay. Alternatively, the adverb may imply that the office could be forced upon someone if there were no volunteers or willing nominees. Asclepiodorus' 169 IEph 622. 1 7 0 Cat. no. 22. 180 other offices (essen, nyktophylax) are not remarkable for their prestige, but it may be noted that he did serve as a night watchman ek ton idion, at his own expense. The case of Aurelius Niconianus Eucarpus is similar: he also served as neopoios voluntarily.1 7 1 In addition, he served as gymnasiarch of the gerousia - an office expensive by its very nature - and as essen philoteimos - that is, on a generous scale. Eucarpus' inscription, therefore, reveals the same prerequisite of wealth which is common in the inscriptions of the neopoioi. Two fragmentary inscriptions honouring men whose names have been lost identify neopoioi who do not explicitly appear to support the requirement of wealth. 1 7 2 Both inscriptions are thanksgivings to Artemis. The second inscription has been reasonably supplemented to read that this individual was a voluntary neopoios, but the first, for an unknown son of Asiaticus, provides no indication of the scale on which the dedicator served or of his other offices. A dedication by a neopoios whose name may have been Eutyches or Charixenus identifies him simply as a neopoios, chrysophoros and gerousiastes. He is associated with his children, his wife, a freedman and a freedwoman. The presence of these last two individuals may be seen as an indication of the dedicator's wealth: not only could he afford slaves, but he could afford to grant them their freedom. Marcus Aurelius Artemidorus, whose inscription was discussed in Chapter Four, is identified as a neopoios, but not as an authairetos neopoios}14 Nonetheless, the phrase leitourgos endoxos in lines 6 and 7 indicates that Artemidorus did possess significant 1 7 1 Cat. no. 24. 1 7 2 Cat. nos. 28 & 29. 1 7 3 Cat. no. 20. 1 7 4 Cat. nos. 26 & 27; cf. above, Chapter Four, pp. 113-118. 181 financial resources. Furthermore, Artemidorus' son, Attalus, appears with the title of patroboulos, which is a clear indication of the family's wealth. Regardless of the nuances of the title - whether it indicated honorary membership, hereditary membership or membership based on one's father - it is unlikely that Attalus could have borne it if his family and his familial resources were insignificant. Zoticus the son of Artemidorus served in a variety of capacities - as 175 chrysophoros, essen, kouros and temple-guard. In addition to these positions, Zoticus also provided a feast for 'all the sunhedria' and for two Roman officials staying in the city at the time (c. A D 231-239). His status as host of these two officials and the provision of a feast for the assemblies or colleges of the city are clear indicators of his wealth even if he is not identified as an authairetos neopoios. Another gerousiastes who was also a neopoios is Julius Menecrates, who appears 17f» in a fragmentary list of voluntary neopoioi. Both Menecrates and his single surviving companion in this inscription were honoured by the boule and demos with crowns, suggesting that their service as neopoioi or as essenes was characterized by an abundance of generosity - that is, they performed their duties not only voluntarily but lavishly as well. Menecrates can, therefore, be considered to have been a wealthy citizen of the city like the other neopoioi considered in this section. The neopoioi of Ephesus were wealthy citizens who cannot be assigned to a specific position in the social hierarchy of the city. Among their number are bouleutai, gerousiastai and citizens who do not appear to have been members of either body. It is clear, however, that the neopoioi, whether they acted singly or as part of a sunhedrion 1 7 5 Cat. no. 45. 1 7 6 Cat no. 69. 182 neopoion, were wealthy. It follows from this that even those neopoioi who were not bouleutai were members of the upper classes of the city, including the gerousiastai. 5.3.4. Chrysophoroi The chrysophoroi were a college of individuals seemingly limited in Ionia to Ephesus. Like the neopoioi, they appear both as a college and as individual citizens; they are also closely associated with the Temple of Artemis. The nature of this association, however, is not clear from the epigraphic evidence; the majority of the inscriptions in which a chrysophoros or the chrysophoroi appear simply identify the individual as a chrysophoros or a benefactor of the college honoured by the chrysophoroi. A chrysophoros always appears with other titles. Five thanksgiving dedications offered by chrysophoroi appear to have been offered for the sake of other positions. Four of these record that the dedicator was, in addition to being a chrysophoros, also a neopoios;111 the third is an ekprogonon neopoios kai chrysophoros, that is, "a descendant 178 of neopoioi and chrysophoroi"', and a bearer of these titles in his own respect. The ordering of the titles in each of these three inscription might suggest that neopoios was the more important title, and possibly that it was on account of the service in that capacity that the thanksgiving was offered. Unlike a neopoios, a chrysophoros was a chrysophoros for life: the inscription of an unknown chrysophoros and voluntary neopoios records that his service as chrysophoros extended over sixty years.179 There is no indication that a neopoios served for an unlimited time. Chrysophoros could be a life-long title and could be borne simultaneously with other titles, such as neopoios and essen. Neopoios could be used as 177 IEph 940 & 943; JOA155 (1984): 120, no. 4211; J OA I 62 (1993): no. 27. 178 IEph 958. 179 IEph 959. 183 a life-long title as well, but it is generally understood that the individual in question had been but was no longer a neopoios. A chrysophoros was always a chrysophoros. It is significant that the verb neopoieo appears as an aorist and perfect participle in certain cases; there is no corresponding chrysophoresas. The chrysophoroi do not normally appear as such in inscriptions - the title chrysophoros or the college of chrysophoroi occur in conjunction with other positions. There is one instance, though, of the chrysophoroi by themselves. This is the case of the sunhedrion of the chrysophoroi erecting a statue in honour of Aurelia Metrodora. Unfortunately, the inscription is incomplete, preserving only the name of Aurelia, of her father and of several of her father's offices, including his service as grammateus of the demos; he is not identified as a chrysophoros. Consequently, the reason for the statue is unknown, though it may be related to a benefaction rendered to the chrysophoroi. The chrysophoroi were a fully organized college, with a grammateus and 181 occasionally an agonothetes. This grammateus, however, may not have belonged exclusively to the college of chrysophoroi. An unknown voluntary neopoios identifies himself in a thanksgiving offering to Artemis as gramjmateus ton [presbuteron \ kai tes 182 sun]odou [ton chrysophoron]. It should be noted immediately that both presbuteron and chrysophoron are restorations. There is only one other case of an association of these two colleges in Ephesus, if presbuteron is taken to be a reference to the gerousia. The boule, gerousia and chrysophoroi are associated in an honorary inscription, but there is no direct connection between these three groups; rather, the inscription indicates the equivalence or near-equivalence of the three groups: 180 IEph 991. 181 Grammateus: IEph 940; agonothetes: IEph 889 & 1618. 1 8 2 Cat. no. 29; cf. above, pp. 146-7. 184 [ fylXoOEfi&G-] TOD 'UU.VCpSo'U, lepoK'Pip'uc;, ypocu-uoccetic, 'ASpiaveicov, •ULivcoSoc; vetxr|xf|c; BoijA,f|c" yepoDcylac" 5 183 XP"jao(j)6pcov Individuals appear as chrysophoroi and gerousiastai at the same time, but there is no other instance of the two groups associated in this manner. The inscription simply grants to this individual an equal share in distributions for the three groups - that is, he is given the right of taking part in any distributions offered to any of these three groups. A more common connection is that between the chrysophoroi and the neopoioi. In slightly less than half the inscriptions mentioning a chrysophoros, the individual being honoured is also a neopoios. Furthermore, Zoticus the son of Artemidorus is identified as 185 a member of the assembly of the neopoioi, kouretes, and chrysophoroi. Consequently it may be preferable to restore neopoion in place of presbuteron: the chrysophoroi appear to have been more closely associated with the neopoioi than with the gerousia. Such an association is supported by several other inscriptions. Although it is not always possible to identify the god to whom service was rendered solely on the evidence of the five thanksgiving offerings noted above, at least some of the chrysophoroi appear to have been closely linked to the Temple of Artemis. Thus, there is one instance of a chrysophoros of Artemis; there are also two occurrences of agonothetai of the chrysophoroi}^ The connection between the agonothetai and the Temple of Artemis is brought out by the service of one of these as agonothetes of the Artemisian and Pythian m Cat. no. 44. 1 8 4 For example, cat. no. 20. 185 IEph 4330; cf. also IEph 940A in which the titles neopoios and chrysophoros are more closely associated with one another than either is with ek gerousias. 186 Chrysophoros of Artemis: IEph 1081 A ; agonothetai: 627b, 889 & 1618. 185 187 games. Furthermore, both agonothetai were priests - one a high priest of Asia, the other a high priest of the temples in Ionia and the Hellespont. In addition, the priests who are to be allotted a share in Salutaris' distributions are described as the chrysophoroi priests of Artemis. 1 8 8 Their service as priests suggests that at least some of the chrysophoroi were wealthy citizens. This is further supported by their use of the phrase authairetos neopoios and their provision of games. The high status of those citizens who were chrysophoroi is shown by the inscription of Zethus, who possessed both Ephesian and Roman citizenship, and by that of an unknown hymnode, who was granted an equal share in distributions with the bouleutai, the gerousiastai and the chrysophoroi}90 Although it is difficult to believe that the priests of Asia and of Ionia and the Hellespont were never members of the Ephesian boule, the chrysophoroi in general appear not to have been bouleutai. Nonetheless, their wealth cannot be doubted. Five gerousiastai are known to have been chrysophoroi}91 Of these four have been discussed in connection with the neopoioi. The fifth individual is Aurelius Orpheus the son of Orpheus, who was honoured as gerousiastes, chrysophoros, and agonothetes. The sequence of the three titles may or may not be an indication of their perceived importance; however important the title of agonothetes was in comparison to gerousiastes and chrysophoros, its presence indicates that Aurelius was a wealthy citizen like other chrysophoroi. 187 IEph 1618. 1 8 8 Cat. no. 55, //. 455-456. 189 Authairetos neopoios: IEph 940 & 959; JOAI 55 (1984): 120, no. 4211; agonothetes: 889, 974, 1081A & 1618. 1 9 0 Cat. no. 44. 1 9 1 Cat. nos. 20, 24, 27, 29 (?) & 50. 186 5.3.5. Agonothetai The inscriptions of Ephesus contain over eighty references to agonothetai. It need not be argued that the agonothesia was an expensive liturgy in any city. It does not appear to have been the most expensive liturgy to which wealthy citizens could be subjected, though. An agonothetes could be responsible for either musical or athletic contests: there were not individual titles corresponding to different types of games.192 The agonothetes was simply responsible for the defrayal of the expenses of the games and the awarding of prizes. Funds could be allocated to the agonothetes from the civic treasury, but this was not always the case.1 9 3 The agonothetai of Ephesus could be responsible for various major games - the Dionysia, the Great Ephesia, the Great Artemisia, the Great Balbillia, the Great Hadriania, or the Great Epinikia are all attested.194 In addition to these six games, there were also the Great Pythian, Isthmian and Olympian games celebrated in the third century A D . 1 9 5 These agonothesiai, however, account for only a portion of the agonothetai of Ephesus. Many individuals are identified simply as agonothetai with no indication of which festival or contest was administered. The named games were most likely celebrated quinquennially. This is certainly the case for the Hadriania 1 9 6 and for the Pythian, Isthmian and Olympian games, which would have been modeled on their mainland-Greece namesakes. Those agonothetai identified simply as 'agonothetes' would have celebrated lesser games, in most cases. Otherwise, the absence of a reference 1 9 2 P-W, RE 1:1 2 (1893): 870-877, 5. v. Agonothetess; Macro (1980): 680. 1 9 3 P-W, RE 1:1 2: 871-872; cf. Sartre (1991): 132. 1 9 4 Dionysia: IEp, 1211 & 2031; Great Ephesia: IEph 627, 637, 1160, 2067 & 3072; Great Artemisia: IEph 24c, 930.2, 1162, 1104A, 1606 & 3056; Great Balbillia: IEph 686, 1122; Great Hadriania: 730, 1085a & 1087a; Great Epinikia: IEph 671 & 721 1 9 5 Great Pythia (time of Maximinus): IEph 1107-1108, Great Isthmia (time of Maximinus): IEph 2711; Great Olympia: IEph 114-1120,4113. 1 9 6 / £ p / i 6 1 8 . 187 to which games were conducted would be remarkable, particularly in honorary inscriptions. This is not to say that such omissions could not occur, but it is unlikely that the majority of the twenty-two individuals identified simply as agonothetai failed to identify their agonothesia and lay claim to the credit for these greater agonothesiai. Some of these lesser games are, in fact, partially identified. Thus, there is an agonothetes of the Ephebes and possibly an agonothetes of the chrysophoroi.191 Moreover, one inscription, if supplemented correctly, records the victorious doctors in the Asclepieia. 1 9 8 The offices occupied by agonothetai, if the agonothesia by itself is not a sufficient indicator, leave no doubt about their standing in the social structure of the city. Although agonothetai were not drawn exclusively from the very highest of the citizens of Ephesus, they often were. Thus, there are Asiarchs and high-priests, grammateis (almost exclusively of the demos), prytaneis, gymnasiarchs, two Bithyniarchs and two Arabarchs.1 9 9 Marcus Aurelius Mindius Mattidianus Pollio had served as Prefect of Egypt; 2 0 0 Tiberius Claudius Tuendiarnus was the son of a tribune;201 Publius Vedius Papianus Antoninus was a Roman senator;202 one agonothetes whose name has been lost could identify himself as the son of senators and a consul. 2 0 3 The wealth of the agonothetai of Ephesus is confirmed from the offices which they occupied in addition to their status as Roman citizens. Several agonothetai are known to have also been gymnasiarchs. The gymnasiarchy could require considerable 1 9 7 Ephebes: IEph 1151; chrysophoroi: IEph 889 & 974. 198 IEph 1162; cf. IEph 1168. 1 9 9 Asiarch: IEph 616, 624, 637, 671, 679A, 810, 1087a & 1105a; high-priest: IEph 618, 642, 679, 686, 721, 810, 1105, 2062, & 3056; Bithynarch & Arabarch: 627 & 3056; prytaneis: IEph 650, 666A, 679, 679A, 1087a & 3063; gymnasiarch: IEph 666A & 3058. 200 IEph 627; Pflaum (1960): 523-531, no. 193. 201 IEph 650. 202 IEph 730; on the adlection of the Vedii Antonini to the Senate under Hadrian, see Kalinowski (2002); Bowie (1973). 203 IEph 810. 188 expense, since the gymnasiarch was responsible for the provision of oil for a gymnasium in addition to the heating expenses. The expense of this office would be multiplied in the cases of those gymnasiarchs who undertook to perform it for all the gymnasia in the city. One of the two gymnasiarchs who served as agonothetes was a gymnasiarch of all the gymnasia.2 0 4 Moreover, several agonothetai are identified as dia biou, 'for life', an indication that they set up permanent endowments which would generate enough income to offset the expenses of the games, whether quinquennially or annually, like the foundation of Gaius Julius Demosthenes in Oenoanda.205 Although the majority of known agonothetai in Ephesus did not serve dia biou, the nature of the agonothesia and the other offices held by these individuals necessitates a degree of affluence beyond the ordinary, so that it must be concluded that those members of the gerousia who served as agonothetai were also wealthy. Little more can be concluded about the two agonothetai who were members of the gerousia. One, Aurelius Orpheus the son of Orpheus, as was noted in the previous section, is identified simply as a gerousiastes, a chrysophoros and an agonothetes?06 If the actual sequence of the titles on Aurelius' statue base is significant, it may suggest that gerousiastes was seen as a more honourable appellation than agonothetes. There is no way to prove that this is the case, but it would be a further indication of the wealth and social standing of the members of the gerousia, if they could be ranked above some, even lwIEph 3071. 205 IEph 1105-1105B, 1130, 1604, 1611 (Tiberius Julius Reginus); 1107-1108, 2073 & 2711 (Marius Septimius Marion); 1114-1120 & 4113 (Tiberius Claudius Nysius); Worrle, M . , Stadt und Fest in kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oenoanda. Munich (1988); Mitchell, S., "Festivals, Games and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor." AJA 80 (1990): 183-93. 2 0 6 Cat. no. 50. 189 minor, agonothetai. This was surely not always the case, though: Aurelius was probably agonothetes of only a minor festival. The fragmentary inscription of Gavius Menodorus, if supplemented correctly, identifies him as a gymnasiarch of the presbuteroi and an agonothetes, though the name of the games of which Gavius had charge are perhaps irrecoverably lost. 2 0 7 He was also a panegyriarch, again, of an unknown festival. It is clear from what remains of the inscription, though, that Gavius was wealthy. If the proposed supplement for line 10 of this inscription is correct, then Gavius would be a benefactor comparable to Aurelius 908 Baranus as a feaster of the boule and a significant number of the citizens of Ephesus. His wealth is also indicated by line 13 of his inscription: he provided five days of games. It should be recalled, however, that it is not certain that Gavius was a member of the gerousia. The agonothesia was a cost-intensive liturgy. The expenses of the position could be partially defrayed by endowments and foundations, but this was not always the case, as the occasional use of ek ton idion indicates.209 The consistency with which many of the agonothetai oi Ephesus appear in such high-ranking offices as the asiarchy or the high-priesthood of the province suggests that the agonothetai were drawn from at least one of the upper levels of Ephesian society. This, in turn, indicates that the gerousiastai who were also agonothetai were wealthy as well. Although only one gerousiastes is known certainly to have performed an agonothesia, that service can be seen as a sign of the affluence of the gerousiastai in general. Cat. no. 52. 1 Chapter Four, pp. 84-85. ' IEph 9. 190 5.3.6. Essenes The essenes were priests of Artemis who, according to Pausanias, "neither wash nor spend their lives as do ordinary people, nor do they enter the home of a private 210 man." Pausanias gives this description in his discussion of Orchomenus, but it is unlikely to be entirely accurate when applied to Ephesus, even with his qualification that the Orchomenian essenes served only for a single year. The inscriptions of Ephesus give no indication that the essenes were markedly different from other priests in the city. They should not be confused or equated with the Jewish sect of the same name.2 1 1 There is no reason to doubt Pausanias' implication that the essenes of Artemis served for one year, though.2 1 2 The inscriptions from Ephesus, however, indicate that it was normal to serve as essen twice. Of nine known essenes, only one did not certainly 213 serve as essen twice. Whether the two esseneiai were continuous is unclear, but it would seem to be unusual to divide two years of continuous service into two distinct periods rather than to report it as a single period of service: there was probably an interval between the two terms. The essenes may be a remnant of a monarchy, comparable to the archon basileus of Athens or the rex sacrorum of Rome. 2 1 4 The duties of an essen, so far as the evidence reveals, were simple. As a college, the essenes were responsible for the allotment of new citizens of Ephesus to a tribe and a chiliast. Consequently, they appear frequently in 2 1 0 Paus. 8.13.1. 2 1 1 Joseph. AJ, 18.18-22. 2 1 2 Paus. 8.13.1. 213 IEph 1578b. IEph 969 does not record two esseneiai, but the participle kcc[r\vebcac, is partially restored, so it is possible that i&c, 8vo eacrnviac, should be understood. 2 1 4 Muth (1952): 124. 191 citizenship decrees.215 This aspect of the position did not change between the Hellenistic and Imperial periods. There are, however, more such decrees of Hellenistic date than of Imperial date. This is the most frequently attested role of the essenes. As individuals, essenes appear most often in thanksgiving dedications to Artemis. 2 1 6 These dedications were frequently made on the occasion of the individual's service as neopoios, rather than that of his service as essen. The esseneia is, in the case of multiple positions and titles, given towards the end. It appears to be closely associated with service as neopoios, since the esseneia appears only in the inscriptions of individuals who had served or were serving as a neopoios. There is one instance in which only the esseneia is mentioned, but this is in a fragmentary inscription so that it is quite possible that the noun neopoios or the participle neopoiesas was originally inscribed on the 217 stone. The number of essenes to serve each year is not known, but the citizenship decrees indicate that there were at least two; there may, in fact, have been only two. Two thanksgiving dedications to Artemis identify former essenes who served as priests with 218 their daughters or children and with another individual, a sumenos. The association of two individuals in the same thanksgiving offering strongly suggests that the esseneia was a priesthood occupied by two individuals at a time, though it is remarkable that two 219 essenes would appear in the same inscription with only one clearly emphasized: 215 IEph 1408, 1409, 1413, 1440, 1441, 1443, 1447, 1448, 1451, 1453, 1455, 1457, 1467, 2007, 2009, 2010, 1010 & 2013. 2 1 6 For example, IEph 957,958,963,969,1578b, 1582b, 1588b; JOAI 55 (1984): 120, no. 4211. 217 IEph 969. 218 IEph 957, 963, 967, 1588b. 2 1 9 Cat. no. 22. 192 dyaGfj TTJXTT yaxpi UOD K a i xcp aupf)-[ev%api]cx(a aoi Kupta vcp pcu Abp(nAicp)'E7iaYd0cp, 10 "Apxeui T(txoq) OA(doTJioq) ' A C J K A T I - K a i vuKxocfruAaKfiaac, ra65copoc, veorcoi6<; xdq 8-60 vuKxo^uA.aKdq abGaipexoq, eKxe^eaac; 5 eK xcov iSt[cov] xaq 8vo eocmvtac; eiiae- pexexcov K a i xfjq ' cov 8i[avo]ud<; yzvkoQai rruv6dvo|[uai, K a l x a m a 8o-uva]i a[i>xot>c; xcp Gecp] &<; rcoxe &cbGri SioiKTilfaduevoQ KeA.et>]co b a a 8[e xov QEOV xP^M-ocxa f|]8r) Steveiudv xi|[veq KeX,et*o xcp] Gecp e iarcpd^at K a l xd xcov 8iavet.]udxcov 6v6uaxa | [dvaKoivcocrai] uot xrjv xa%[taxT|v. 224 possibility that there may have been no need to mention the Temple explicitly if the gerousia was quite closely associated with it. In light of his apparent attention to such matters, the tone of Hadrian's response is also significant. Hadrian refers the matter to the proconsul without an expression of direct support for the gerousia, which can be seen as an indication that the emperor was unaware that the body was in this case concerned about a sacred loan. It is unlikely that the gerousia would have failed to mention this fact as it could only have made its case stronger. It must be concluded, therefore, that it was lending its own money, conducting at least some business independently of the Temple of Artemis; this does not mean that it was no longer involved in temple finances, but only that it was conducting a separate business from its own treasury, possibly in addition to sacred loans. The incidental income from the fines levied against violations of endowments should be seen as potential additions to these private resources, with the gerousia serving as the primary overseer of the arrangements of some benefactions. Those resources which were available to the gerousia may therefore have been used either to fund distributions and feasts for its members, or to increase its capital base. It is also possible that some of its cash resources were used to fund feasts and sacrifices for other members of the Ephesian citizenry.41 Hadrian's letter suggests a differentiation of the resources of the temple and those of the gerousia. If Menadier is correct in identifying the sustemata of the Mithridates-decree with the gerousia, as argued above, the influence which the gerousia enjoyed over the temple had already been limited by the first century BC: of all the sacred loans, only some were overseen by the sustemata. The process of limitation continued, despite the 4 1 Cf. cat. no. 56 and above, pp. 103-106 & below, pp. 237-238. 225 support received under Augustus and Tiberius, until by the end of the first century the financial resources of the gerousia and the temple appear to have been largely separate. Nonetheless, there was still a close connection between the two. The close association between the gerousia and the neopoioi in Salutaris' arrangements for the annual distributions and the identification of both the temple and the gerousia as recipients of the fine for violation support such a connection. Consequently, the separation of the two treasuries may not have been entirely complete at this time, or it may have been a recent development. Certainly, however, the separation was underway if not complete by the date of Hadrian's letter in A D 120/121. Although there are no inscriptions preserving a transaction or a contract of the gerousia, its financial activities are sufficiently attested by occasional references of the type discussed earlier. The possibility that a logistes could be appointed must also be seen as confirmation that the gerousia used its income to engage in business practices.42 The direct role taken by the gerousia in the honouring of some its benefactors remarked upon in the previous section continued into the second century; after the first century, though, the gerousia appears to have honoured its benefactors or other individuals independently of the boule and demos. As in the first century, though, the gerousia did not honour all of its benefactors: the failure of the gerousia to honour Vipsania Polla and Vipsania Olympia has parallels in the second century. Although the body was the recipient of a portion of Salutaris' endowment, no evidence is currently known to indicate that it honoured him for this benefaction. Similarly, Titus Peducaeus Canax provided distributions of money for the boule and gerousia, but it is only the boule and demos which are named as the authors of the decree in his honour, as in the case of 4 2 Cat. nos. 17 & 4 1 . 226 the two Vipsanias.4 3 Titus Flavius Montanus provided a midday meal for the citizens of the city and "did everything which was fair for the boule and gerousia."AA Again, though, the gerousia is not named as one of the authors of the decree. The gerousia did, however, honour Tiberius Claudius Secundus in a brief bilingual inscription, datable to the early second century A D . 4 5 The reason for the honours is not known, nor is there any indication in the inscription of how Secundus was connected to the gerousia. He is, however, honoured in two other inscriptions from Ephesus by his freedman, Tiberius Claudius Hermias, of which one is given below: TiP(epiov) KA.a-65iov [dyo-uaav a]n' O I K O D C X O -EeKC/uvSov [dv i8p-6aav]xa K a i O K O U -Pidxopa xpipouvi [xAcocavxa . .]co<; xox> K I O V , dKKrjvaov ov- [ ] r|A,dxov, A.eiKXopa 5 rTiP(epiOQ) KAatiSioq] 'Epuiaq 15 Koupidxov, iau.a Jioi]r|advxcov [epy]oiq Koapf|aavxa [xcov 'E<|)eaico]v feK xcov [xf|v 'E())e]crLcov rc6A.iv [i8icov dve]CTxnaev46 1 9 [Ka i x6v] O I K O V K a i xf|v 10 The other inscription provides a partial Latin translation of the first half of the above inscription.47 These two inscriptions were erected by Hermias rather than the by gerousia, but they nevertheless provide an idea of the sort of activities which Secundus undertook to merit the honorary inscription offered by the gerousia. He was a friend to the city (philephesion) and "adorned the city of the Ephesians with other noteworthy works and constructed the house and the stoa leading away from the house." Which building ton oikon refers to is unknown but Secundus was clearly a benefactor of the city 4 3 Gat. no. 35. 4 4 Cat. no. 39. 4 5 Cat. no. 43. 46 IEph 1545. 47 IEph 646. 227 on a relatively large scale. It is possible that the gerousia was concerned with honouring the benefactors of the city as a whole rather than its own benefactors: the gerousia was not a direct beneficiary of Secundus. Marcus Ulpius Aristocrates was the recipient of an honorary statue a little after A D 140.4 8 Aristocrates was high-priest and agonothetes of the Hadrianeia; he also made donations in the tens of thousands of denarii for unknown projects as a form of summa honoraria. Perhaps more importantly, though, he had been appointed by Antoninus Pius to be the logistes of the gerousia. Strictly speaking, the summa honoraria would not warrant the spontaneous dedication of a statue, so that it is the service as logistes which more probably prompted the action. As was argued above in Chapter Five, the logistes was an external official and, as the appointee of the emperor, it would not be surprising for the gerousia to honour him: one could not simply ignore such an individual. 4 9 At some point during the first two centuries A D , the gerousia may have developed a connection with the Imperial cult. Oliver argues that this was a result of the extension of the cult of Artemis to include the emperors and that there was no direct connection between the gerousia and the Imperial cult. 5 0 Imperial high-priests are conspicuous among the members of the gerousia by their absence.51 Any suggestion that the gerousia was directly involved in the operations of the Imperial cult therefore cannot be indisputably proven, and Oliver's position is not unreasonable. Even in the case of an incidental connection between the gerousia and the Imperial cult the absence of cult officials from the ranks of the gerousiastai would be remarkable given the prominence of 4 8 Cat. no. 41. 4 9 Above, Chapter Five, pp 164-165. 5 0 Oliver (1941): 26. 5 1 Above, Chapters Four and Five. 228 its members in other religious aspects of the city's daily life, as discussed in the previous chapter. The connection may have been even less than incidental, though. A letter of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to the logistes of the gerousia, which seems to offer a connection between the two institutions, concerns, among other things, the restoration of Imperial statues.52 The logistes appears to have written to the emperors asking if it was appropriate to alter pre-existing statues or busts (eikones) into representations of the current emperors. Aurelius and Verus refuse this expedient, requiring instead that the existing statues be re-erected together with their original name plates and, by implication, that new statues be made for themselves. The statues at the time of the inquiry were kept in a sunhedrion, clearly, in this case, a reference to a chamber rather than a body of individuals: xdc; ow eiKovocc, xcov otbxoKpaxbpcov, etc, d i roKe laGa i Xeyeic, ev xcp a w e - 11 [8pi]co xouxcp, naXai&c, evi uev Xbya> ndaaq 8oKi|xd^o|j.ev c|n-A,a%8fjvott xdlq ovouxxenv, et))' o-[ic,] yeyovev abxcov eKdaxn , eic; 8e f|uexepo"oc; xocpaKxfjpac; ur|8ev x i xfjc; ij^nc; eKeivnc; [|a.]exa(|)epeiv . . . a l l the ancient busts of the emperors, w h i c h you say are stored i n this assembly chamber (cruve8piov), should be preserved under the names upon wh ich each of them or ig ina l ly w a s , 5 3 and that none of them should be changed into our representations. . . . 5 4 5 - Cat. no. 17. 5 3 One is to imagine the imperial representations as standing on inscribed bases. It is the emperors' decision that the bases and representations should be retained as is. The sunhedrion in which these representations were stored is clearly a building, one which would seem to have been associated with the gerousia. The nature of this association is not at all clear. It is unlikely to have been a meeting house of the gerousia, though. The verb dcJTOKeiucxi can be understood as "to store something for a common purpose or for safety", but this sense appears primarily in classical authors. The verb in later authors, as in this case, implies indefinite storage or neglect: the statues were placed in the sunhedrion in order to do something with them. The sunhedrion should therefore be understood in this case as a storage area, a type of attic, which was used by the gerousia, rather than as a meeting chamber. 5 4 Cat. no. 17. 229 Since it is the logistes of the gerousia who asks about these statues, it seems clear that the gerousia had supervision of them and, consequently, that the sunhedrion was used by the gerousia.55 That the inquiry is not raised by an Imperial cult member should be seen as an indication that these statues were not associated with the cult per se. They should be viewed as possessions of or dedications by the gerousia. The statues can therefore be seen as expressions of corporate rather than of provincial loyalty of the gerousia. Such expressions outside of the Imperial cult are not uncommon. The epithet philosebastos appears occasionally in the inscriptions of Asia Minor, though nowhere so often as in Ephesus. The term is not particularly common outside of Ephesus, but it is applied to individuals, such as grammateis and high-priests, groups of individuals, such as kouretes and strategoi, and to bodies, such as the boule and demos. In some cities, the adjective appears to be used very specifically, as in Miletus, where the boule alone is described as philosebastos, or in Stratonicea and its sanctuary sites at Lagina and Panamara, where only individuals acquire the epithet.56 Elsewhere, it is used with less discrimination, as in Tralles, Magnesia and Ephesus itself.57 Some of the earliest uses of the term are in dedications to Caligula and Drusilla in Didyma and Magnesia, respectively.58 It was not a common epithet in the first century, however, and appeared only sporadically after these initial attestations.59 During the reign of Trajan, philosebastos begins to appear with much greater frequency, known from 5 5 This is one of two mentions of a building which might have been used as a meeting place by the gerousia, but cf., p. 228-229, n. 53. A geronteion is mentioned in a second inscription (cat. no. 72), but little can be said about this building except that it existed. 56 Milet I 2 17,1 7 226, 228, 232, 238; I 9 344; IStrat 151, 184, 186, 187, 189, 210, 230a, 230b, 665, 665a, 1025, 1026. 57 ITralles 69, 77,93, 112, 141, 145; IMag 122, 169, 170, 171, 173, 179,218. 58 IDid 148; IMag 197. 59 AD 7 (1921-1922): 286, no. 5 (AD 84-85), RhM 22 (1867): 314-315, no. 1 (AD 41-100; both in Samos); ISmyrna (AD 80-83); Ilasos (AD79-81). 230 Chios, Didyma, Miletus and Magnesia.6 0 Thereafter, the epithet appears with relative frequency throughout the second century and into the third. With one exception, philosebastos is applied to individuals in every non-Ephesian instance dated to the first century; the exception is an inscription from Tralles, dated by B. Laum, in which the gerousia and the neoi are both described as philosebastoi.61 It is only in the second century that the epithet begins to be applied regularly to bodies of citizens. In particular, the appearances of a philosebastos boule, gerousia or demos occur most frequently between the reign of Trajan and that of Antoninus Pius. These bodies do bear the epithet into the Severan period and the third century, but by this time it is primarily individuals once again who are termed philosebastos.62 Ephesus is the source of the greatest number of instances of philosebastos, and the usage of the term in that city conforms to the outline of the word's use elsewhere as given above. Its earliest appearances seem to be in three inscriptions datable to the reign of Claudius, namely one dedication to the emperor, an honorary inscription for the proconsul and an honorary inscription for a legate. Although it does appear in inscriptions from the reign of Nero, applied almost always to individuals, it is with latter half of the reign of Domitian that the term becomes common in Ephesus.64 Individuals remain the most common recipients of the epithet throughout the second century and up to the mid-third century. As is the case elsewhere in Asia Minor, philosebastos is applied regularly to groups of citizens or public bodies in the second 6 0 Eg., CIG 2216b (Chios); IDid 312; Milet 12 17,17 226, 228; IMag 169, 170. 61 ITralles 145. 62 IDid 156 (AD 250), Milet 19 344 (AD 242-4); ITralles 69 (mid-3 r d century), 112 (3 r d century). 63 IEph 261, 716 & 829. 64 IEph 1008; JOAI 59 (1989): 163-164, no. 1 (reign of Nero); IEph 449, 1927.3, 263c & 319 (reign of Domitian at the earliest). 231 century, beginning in the reign of Domitian. The latest application of philosebastos to a public body appears in a pair of inscriptions honouring Vibius Seneca and Claudia Caninia Severa, dated to A D 244-246.65 With this exception, the epithet appears to have been no longer applied to bodies and groups of citizens at all beyond the joint reign of Severus and Caracalla, but the reign of Commodus marks the end of its regular use in this way in Ephesus. The term should not be seen as indicative of any special service to the emperor or to Rome, but rather simply as a parallel to philopatris or philephesios, that is, as an expression of eunoia and, through that eunoia, loyalty to the emperor and Rome. 6 6 The initial appearances of the epithet are cases of dedications to the emperor or his family, and so are more representative of a desire to emphasize loyalty. Its frequent use throughout the second century in the case of individuals probably removed most nuances of specific loyalty to the emperor, until it became a standard title, which could be attached to the names of some Asiarchs or individuals offering a dedication.67 When applied to bodies such as the boule or gerousia, the use of the term probably followed the same pattern: expressing actual loyalty or goodwill toward the emperor at first, but becoming less expressive of such feelings during the course of the second century. That philosebastos does not persist with any degree of regularity beyond the reign of Commodus indicates that its use as an epithet may not have become firmly established, and therefore that the degradation in its meaning may not have been as dramatic as in the case of individuals. The appearance of a philosebastos boule or gerousia in the third century outside of Ephesus is more frequent, strengthening the 6 5 Cat. nos. 46 & 47. 6 6 Cf. Schowalter (1999): 124; Forbes (1933): 39-40. 6 7 Eg., IEph 616, 619B, 621A, 632, 655, 679, 716, 739, 3030, 3063, 3088 & 3091. 232 suggestion that the term did not become a standard epithet of little significant meaning in Ephesus. It was used sparingly in the case of public bodies, revealing that some degree of importance was probably retained. The philosebastos gerousia should, therefore, be seen as an attempt by the gerousia to present itself as a body which was loyal to the emperor. Why such expressions should have become persistently common in the second century is unclear, but there are possible explanations. The consistent appearances of philosebastos may begin as early as the reign of Domitian. Ephesus received its first or second neocorate under the Flavians, and Domitian is known to have undertaken significant building projects in the city. 6 8 Philosebastos may, therefore, have been a title adopted in gratitude for the emperor's attention to the city. The boule and demos appear to have assumed the title first in Ephesus and so may be explained in this way. The philosebastos gerousia, though, does not appear until the Salutaris-dossier in A D 104. It is possible, therefore, that a Trajanic rather than a Domitianic explanation should be sought for the gerousia''s use of the title.6 9 Trajan's concerns about the assembly of private citizens are well known from his letter to Pliny forbidding the creation of a fire-brigade in Nicomedia. 7 0 When Pliny inquired about benefit societies in Amisus, however, Trajan did not overrule the right of certain cities to form assemblies of citizens if that right had been granted by a treaty. Trajan's concern, though, is the same as in the case of Nicomedia: Pliny is to ensure that the contributions paid by the members of the new society are not used for "riotous and unlawful assemblies". 6 8 Above, Chapter Two, p. 43-44; Friesen (1993): 158-160; Burrell (2004): 59; Dmitriev (2005): 267. 6 9 Cat. nos. 54 & 55; IEph 27A & G. 7 0 PL, Ep., 10.33-34. 7 1 PI., Ep., 10.92-93. 233 While the benefit society of Amisus and the gerousia of Ephesus are not precisely comparable, the situations are similar. The danger as feared by Roman officials was that any group of citizens - be it fire-brigade, benefit society or gerousia - could become a political gang. The gerousia of Ephesus had existed continuously from the Hellenistic period, so that the perceived danger could not be dealt with in the same way as that posed by a proposed fire-brigade, that is, by forbidding its creation; instead, the gerousia was permitted to continue, as, possibly, in Amisus. Trajan's concern cannot have been limited to Bithynia-Pontus alone, and so was probably known to the Ephesians. The application of philosebastos to the gerousia - and to other groups of citizens - can therefore be seen as an effort to assure the emperor and the provincial officials that the gerousia was not a political gang or any threat to civic peace, but simply an orderly and law abiding group of citizens with no grand, ulterior political motives. The use of the adjective in public inscriptions, however, was probably only one of several ways in which the gerousia - and other bodies - attempted to present this appearance. The statues about which the logistes of the gerousia writes to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus can be seen in the same light. The statues were dedicated and maintained - or simply stored as the letter indicates - and so can be seen as expressions of loyalty. Not only did the gerousia not meet for subversive or perceivably subversive purposes, but it observed the metaphorical presence of the emperors. Any connection to the Imperial cult can therefore only have been through the temple and the gerousia's financial activities associated with it. The second century provides the most evidence for the gerousia in Ephesus. Despite this, the evidence does not provide as complete a picture of that body's activities 234 as one might wish. The gerousia continued to act as a lending body, but there was a distinction between the financial resources of the Temple of Artemis and those of the gerousia itself. These resources were augmented occasionally by income from fines levied against violators of certain decrees whom the gerousia, because of the fines payable, had a vested interest in prosecuting. The gerousia continued, at least in the early years of the second century, to take a role in honouring certain benefactors of the city as it had occasionally done in special circumstances during the first century, but independently of the boule and demos. It undertook to demonstrate its loyalty to the emperor, but there was no direct connection between the Imperial cult and the gerousia. The financial activities which were evident in the first century continued into the second, and may have lasted the duration of that century, although the only evidence from the middle portion of the century seems be the existence of two logistai of the gerousia. Given the lack of evidence beyond the mid-second century, it is possible that the gerousia's involvement in loans diminished over the course of this century. Although evidence is more abundant during the second century, the presence of the gerousia is passive rather than active, that is, it is most often mentioned as a recipient or the body to which a citizen belonged rather than as the author of a decree or the dispatcher of an embassy. 6.2.4. The Late Second and Early Third Centuries AD The gerousia of the late second and early third centuries is known primarily through funerary inscriptions. The latest Imperial letter addressed to the gerousia is that of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, which was discussed in the previous section, and there are few decrees concerning the body's activities. A single honorary inscription was 235 erected in honour of a member of the gerousia; it does not reveal much about the activities of the body as a whole. The funerary inscriptions, on the other hand, do provide some evidence for its activities. Although funerary inscriptions form the bulk of the evidence for the gerousia in the late second and early third centuries, a dedication to (possibly) Dionysus, Artemis and the Tyche of the gerousia suggests that the body continued its lending activities beyond 72 the second century. Marcus Aurelius Agathopus erected a monument together with his family "because [he] preserved the trust of the gerousia". It has been argued above that this "trust" (ten pisten) is not an office within the gerousia but property entrusted to 7^ Agathopus as security. This would suggest that the gerousia was at this point not lending money, but borrowing against something which was temporarily entrusted to Agathopus. Such a proposition is not inconsistent with what is known of Agathopus. He appears in a second dedication in which he identifies himself as a prytanis, a position occupied by men of rank and therefore wealth, and only very rarely if at all by a gerousiastes™ It is possible that the gerousia's financial resources had significantly declined by this date. Alternatively, the body may have been temporarily short of liquid resources or outlaying an unusually large amount of money. Agathopus' inscription could only have been erected after the return of the pistis to the gerousia, so one of the latter explanations should be preferred to a significant and permanent decline: it was able to redeem whatever property had been held by Agathopus. 1 1 Cat. no. 23. 7 3 Above, Chapter Four, pp. 122-125. 74 IEph 1069; cf., above, Chapter Five, pp. 172: only one prytanis is known who may have belonged to the gerousia, but there his membership is not at all certain (cat. no. 52). 236 Activities beyond those pertaining to lending and borrowing must be gleaned from honorary and funeral inscriptions. These show that the active role taken by the gerousia in honouring certain individuals in earlier periods had either ceased entirely or was so infrequent as to be invisible in the epigraphic record. A third century member of the gerousia, Aurelius Antoninus Julianus, erected a statue in honour of a Marcus Aurelius whose cognomen has been lost.7 5 Marcus is identified as a gymnasiarch, grammateus, agonothetes and Asiarch, but in no way is he a benefactor specifically of the gerousia. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the gerousia itself was behind the dedication of the statue: Marcus' offices are to be regarded as conferring honour and status, but he was not a benefactor on a large scale like those individuals.honoured by the gerousia in the first century were. Given the titles attributed to him, it is highly unlikely that he was a member of the gerousia, so this cannot be a case of one member erecting a statue in honour of another. Aurelius Julianus was most likely a private beneficiary of his, perhaps a client, who erected a statue in honour of his patron and included gerousiastes simply as a list of his own positions and honours within the city. Tiberius Claudius Moschas served as ekdikos of the gerousia and possibly of the boule between A D 244 and 246. He appears in several Ephesian inscriptions, two of which are relevant to the gerousia; both appear on statue bases which Moschas erected.76 The first inscription honours Vibius Seneca, a tribune of the Praetorians and a sailor in the fleets of Messene and Ravenna. No reason is given for the dedication. The first few lines of the inscription have been lost and supplemented Die Inschriften von Ephesos to read "the sunhedrion of the Emperor-loving gerousia (has honoured)" Vibius Seneca. It 7 5 Cat. no. 49. 7 6 Cat. nos. 46 & 47. 237 was suggested in the previous chapter, though, that a more probable restoration might be "the boule and demos have honoured Vibius Seneca", which may also appear in the second inscription erected by Moschas, that of Claudia Caninia Severa.77 The gerousia was involved in the performance of a sacrifice in honour of Artemis at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and this activity continued for some time. It was, however, discontinued due to a lack of funds, though the date of its discontinuation is not known. This activity was revived, however, during the reign of Commodus.7 8 The degree of the gerousia's involvement is not clear, beyond its role of funding the sacrifices and the accompanying feast. It has been argued above that the gerousia and the sunhedrion in the Nicomedes-decree are not identical.79 Each member of the sunhedrion was to receive an unknown sum of money from the treasury of the gerousia and the injunctions laid separately on the gerousia and the sunhedrion suggest two bodies rather than one. It is possible, therefore, that the gerousia, as a unified body, played no role in the feast and sacrifice as they were re-established under Commodus other than to provide the funding. If the gerousia and sunhedrion are to be identified with one another in this decree, it appears that the members of the gerousia began to be separated into different groups, namely those who would participate in the feast and those who did not. As a body which had been throughout its documented history closely associated with the Temple of Artemis, the gerousia could be expected to take part in such a celebration. In the case of the endowment of Salutaris, arrangements were made with the intention that the entire gerousia would participate. Measures were taken to encourage the presence of the entire 7 7 Cat. no. 47; above, Chapter Five, pp. 162-163. 7 8 Cat. no. 56. 7 9 Cat. no. 56; above, Chapter Three, pp. 72-73, Chapter Four, pp. 103-106 & Chapter Five, pp. 161-162. 238 body, even if only a portion were actual beneficiaries of Salutaris' distributions. There is no distinction between the members in Salutaris' benefaction: each member of the gerousia is a potential recipient since the distribution is to be conducted according to a 80 lottery. If the sunhedrion is identified as a council within the gerousia, there is a clear demarcation of recipients and supporting members in the decree reinstituting the sacrifices and feast, a demarcation which is not supported by any of the other evidence for the gerousia. It is preferable, therefore, to identify the sunhedroi mentioned in the Nicomedes-decree either as those members of the gerousia who took part in the re-instituted festival, or as members of a different group. During the late second and early third centuries, the gerousia continued to play a role in ensuring the observance of certain decrees. There is, however, no case in which the gerousia played a role comparable to that which it has been suggested for it in the case of Salutaris' endowment, or even in the endowment establishing heroic honours for 81 a certain Peplus. Instead, the gerousia is given charge of ensuring adherence to funerary injunctions during this later period, both directly and indirectly, rather than of overseeing endowment-related activities.82 Julia Domnula erected a tomb for herself, her husband and her sons.83 According to the inscription, the gerousia, boule and the Augustales (Kaisarianoi) are to take care of the tomb (kedetai). The reason for the association of these three groups is unclear. The presence of the Augustales gives support to the proposition that Julia Domnula was a 8 0 Cat. no. 54. 8 1 Cat. nos. 53-55; above, pp. 220-222 & below, pp. 264-270. 8 2 This is true of Ephesus and of other cities. Thus, a funerary inscription from Magnesia ad Sipylum also specifies a penalty payable to the fiscus and to the gerousia in the event of violation of its terms (TAM V,II 1382), while three additional texts also identify the gerousia as the recipient of such a fine (TAM V,II 1383, 1386, Magnesia am Sipylum 23); cf. TAM 111,1 590 (Termessus); ILaodikeia 110, 122 & 123; on the violation of tombs and attempts to protect them, see Strubbe (1997). 8 3 Cat. no. 74. 239 freedwoman of Julia Domna. If so, it would not be unreasonable for her to take an interest in the affairs of the boule as a prominent member of the Ephesian populace and vice versa. The reason for the presence of the gerousia must remain even more hypothetical. It is possible that Gaius Julius Phoebus, Domnula's husband, was a member of the gerousia and this membership was used to garner further support to ensure adherence to the terms of the funerary inscription. Although it is possible that Phoebus was also a freedman of Julia Domna, there is no incongruity in identifying a former as a member of the gerousia: a certain Zoticus identifies himself as an Imperial freedman and as a member of the gerousia in an inscription approximately contemporary with that of 84 Julia Domnula. There is, however, no clear evidence that the gerousia maintained the tombs of its members. The exact reason for the involvement of the three groups in the guardianship of the tomb must remain uncertain, as it must in the case of Hellenia Meroe, who built a tomb for herself, her husband and their children.85 Two suppositions, though improbable, are possible. Meroe, like Domnula, may have had a connection to the gerousia through her husband. Alternatively, Sextus Hellenius, her former owner, may have been a member and used his membership to ensure adherence.86 Again, though, it may be noted that no inscription explicitly associates the gerousia with the tomb of one of its members. The term kedetai in these inscriptions must mean that the caretaker ensured adherence to the terms specified in the funerary inscriptions and not that the individual or group named physically maintained the tombs. In the case of Julia Domnula's tomb and 8 4 Cat. no. 75; freedmen as a rule do not appear to have been members of the gerousia, but Imperial freedmen must be considered separately from former slaves of regular citizens. 8 5 Cat. no. 82. 8 6 Cf. Cat. nos. 73, 85-88, in all of which the gerousia is charged with care (kedetai) for the tomb. 240 two others, multiple groups are assigned to "take care" of them.8 7 It would be excessive to charge several groups with simple maintenance, and it would seem to be beneath the dignity of the boule to be specifically charged with the maintenance of particular tombs. It should be noted, though, that a kedomenos could be a patron. Therefore, the appearance of the gerousia (and the boule) in association with this verb may be indicative of patronal activities.88 Several of the inscriptions identifying the gerousia as caretaker also specify a penalty for any violation of the terms of the inscription. To open Julia Domnula's tomb after her death, for example, carried a fine of ten thousand denarii, payable to the gerousia. Publia Julia Beryla stipulated that the sale of her tomb entailed a penalty of five thousand denarii, also payable to the gerousia?9 Interment of bones in the tomb of Claudia Magna required two payments of two hundred and fifty denarii to the gerousia and the treasury of the city respectively.90 A certain Paulina left very specific terms: to buy the tomb, to inter anyone other than those specified, to remove any remains, or to alter or remove any of the terms of the inscription carried fines of twelve thousand five hundred denarii each to the gerousia and the boule?1 Julia Domnula's inscription is the only one to include both a charge of guardianship with kedetai and the specification of a fine, but, as it was argued earlier in this chapter, the existence of a fine gave certain groups a vested interest in preserving the terms of the inscription.9 2 Consequently, it can 8 7 Cat. nos. 73, 87 & 88. 8 8 Cf. Nolle (1999): 107, n. 52. 8 9 Cat. no. 81. 9 0 Cat. no. 83. 9 1 Cat. no. 84. 9 2 Above, pp. 220-222. 241 be said with relative certainty that an important role of the gerousia during the late second and early third centuries was the enforcement of the terms of certain burials. Why the gerousia was given this task in only a few circumstances cannot be adequately explained. As was suggested, there may have been direct connections between the deceased and the gerousia, or an element of patronage may have been involved. Although this cannot be shown to have been the case in inscriptions naming the gerousia as the caretaker, it is almost certain in other cases. The husband of Aurelia Cyrilla, for instance, was a member of the gerousia, but the college of linuphoi is identified as the recipient of a fine for violation of the burial terms.93 The presence of the linuphoi can be explained only by the assumption that the deceased belonged to the college or that he was a patron of the college. Another possibility must also be recognized: those inscriptions which name the boule as the caretaker can be seen as transferring the honours of that body to the individual - that is, the deceased enhances his own status by associating himself (or herself) with the boule. From all the evidence, it appears that the members of the gerousia enjoyed a social status which, while below that of the bouleutai, was above the average.94 Associating oneself with that body, therefore, would also enhance one's own status. It cannot be imagined that such an association could have been accomplished unilaterally in a funerary inscription; the reason for the gerousia's appearance in these inscriptions and its relationship to the deceased must remain unexplained. The gerousia''s diminishing role in the lending activities of the temple during the second century appears to have continued into the third to the point that it may have been 9 3 Cat. no. 79. 9 4 Cf. Chapter Five. 242 required to take out loans. Although apparently reduced, the gerousia's finances were healthy enough at the end of the second century to support a sacrifice and feast in honour of Artemis and Commodus. The reduced authorship of honorary decrees which emerged during the second century was complete by the late second or early third century: the gerousia is no longer seen to honour its beneficiaries or those of the city with decrees or monuments. This general decline was accompanied by an increase in one aspect of the gerousia, though. By the third century, the gerousia was not infrequently identified as the recipient of fines levied against tomb violations and may therefore have continued to be an unofficial supervisor of certain decrees. 6.3. Rights and Privileges 6.3.1. The Hellenistic Period It was argued above in Chapter Two that the gerousia was an established institution by the beginning of the Hellenistic period. As such, its basic rights and privileges will have been established long before the period for which there is evidence. The process of the limitation of the authority which the gerousia exercised in the affairs of the city during the early Hellenistic period was most likely accompanied by a simultaneous diminishment of its rights and privileges. At the beginning of the Hellenistic period, the gerousia possessed the right of recommending individuals for grants of citizenship. Whether this was strictly speaking a privilege is uncertain. It is clear that the gerousia recommended Euphronius to the boule and demos for a grant of citizenship, but no other citizenship decrees preserve such a recommendation by the gerousia or by any other group or individual. 9 5 It was argued 9 5 Cat. no. 1. 243 above that the activity of the gerousia in securing honours for Euphronius was unusual and it is possible that the award of citizenship was not an honour which the gerousia could normally influence. It is clear, though, that the gerousia was able to influence the decision in his case, and it is equally clear that this right, if right it was, was used very sparingly. Thus, the inscription mentioning the flute-player from Boeotia appears to be simply an honorary decree, praising, crowning and publicly proclaiming him. The decree breaks off, but it does not seem to have included citizenship for the Boeotian.9 6 Given the absence of similar decrees later in the Hellenistic period, it may be argued that this privilege was lost early in the gerousia's Hellenistic existence. Honorary inscriptions in the first century A D , however, present a similar pattern: the gerousia only rarely appears as one of the authors of the dedication.97 The exceedingly rare appearance of the gerousia as an honouring body in the Hellenistic period is entirely consistent with its failure to appear regularly with the boule and demos in honorary inscriptions beyond the first century A D . That the gerousia did not support more of its benefactors and the benefactors of the Temple of Artemis for citizenship - or other honours - should not be taken as proof that it could not do so, only that it did so very rarely. The apparent right of recommending individuals may be similar to rights of first consultation of the boule granted to certain benefactors 9 8 The decree granting Euphronius citizenship also demonstrates that the gerousia possessed the right of sending embassies in its own name. Embassies were frequent in Hellenistic Asia Minor, both between cities and between cities and kings. They are known from honorary inscriptions, decrees of the cities and responding letters of kings or 9 6 Cat. no. 2. 9 7 Cf. above, pp. 217-220 & 226-227. 9 8 Cf. IEph 2007. 244 officials. Ambassadors were sent from city to city most often as bearers of decrees of isopoliteia, but there are also cases of ambassadors carrying decrees of thanks to cities which had arbitrated a dispute. Embassies sent to kings and officials were frequently intended to inform the recipient of an honorary decree, or to bring forward a complaint against another city. Thus, a pair of letters from Iasos records the oaths of two officials, Aristobulus and Asclepiodorus, to uphold the freedom and autonomy of Iasos at the beginning of the third century B C . " It appears that embassies such as that of Euphronius were relatively rare. Responses to petitions appear only occasionally, which suggests that petitions themselves were presented or granted only infrequently. Although it is not stated in every case, most ambassadors were sent out by the boule and demos of their respective cities; in those inscriptions which do not record the authorizing body, it is logical to assume that it was the polls. There is no evidence of an embassy dispatched by a body such as the chrysophoroi or the neoi. Euphronius' embassy was unusual, therefore, since it was dispatched not by the boule and demos, but by the gerousia. Since there is no other case of an embassy sent by a body other than the boule and demos, the polis or a patris, the gerousia's dispatch of Euphronius must be seen as a privilege of the gerousia, whether or not it was repeated.100 This would seem to place the gerousia on a level with cities which also dispatched embassies, as opposed to individual citizens whose regular method of appeal was through a letter or a patron. Recommending a foreigner for citizenship and sending an embassy in the manner of a polis were rights which the gerousia possessed before the beginning of the 99 Hasos 3; cf. Welles, 9, a petition regarding asylum and tax-free status addressed by Nysa to Seleucus I and Antiochus. 1 0 0 Cf. Mitchell (1999): 36. 245 Hellenistic period. The right to dispatch an embassy may be a remnant of the oligarchic control which it has been suggested the gerousia exercised during the fourth-century Persian ascendancy.101 Euphronius' embassy to Prepelaus did not gain privileges for the gerousia per se, but it did gain financial concessions for the Temple of Artemis, namely tax-free status and exemption from billeting soldiers. Individually, the members of the gerousia did not benefit from this success; they appear to have been personally exempt neither from taxes nor from billeting. Corporately, however, the body did benefit. The simple act of dispatching the embassy makes it clear that the gerousia did have an interest in the financial affairs of the temple at this time. This interest may have been limited to a supervision of the temple's possessions with no involvement in lending, but it is equally possible that the gerousia was already active in overseeing loans by the temple. In either case, the temple's exemptions became indirectly the gerousia's exemptions. If the representative role which it was argued the gerousia played in the early Hellenistic period was the limit of its involvement with the temple, the concessions gained by Prepelaus would still be of benefit to it: as a representative body, the interests of the temple would become its interests. Whether or not the gerousia's, supervision of loans of temple resources formed a part of its activities from the beginning of the Hellenistic period, lending was certainly an important part of the gerousia'?, operations by the end of the Hellenistic period. Reasons have been given above to support Menadier's identification of the unspecified sustemata of the Mithridates-decree as the gerousia.102 If such an interpretation is correct, it is clear that the gerousia's supervision of temple loans began at some point before the first 1 0 1 Above, Chapter Two, pp. 27-28. 1 0 2 Above, pp. 211-213; cat. no. 3. 246 century B C , and may have characterized the gerousia throughout the Hellenistic period. It is equally clear from the decree that the gerousia did not enjoy supreme supervision of the temple's resources. There is an unequivocal differentiation of sacred loans into those lent by the sustemata or individuals appointed by the sustemata, and other sacred loans. At some point, therefore, the sustemata must have gained a privileged position among the supervisors of the temple's possessions; it is possible that this decree marks the beginning of such special status. When the gerousia reappears under its own name in the second half of the first century BC, it is in possession of certain unspecified rights and 103 privileges (teimia kai philanthropa). It will become clear that these rights and privileges existed before the first letter to the gerousia, which is dated forty to sixty years after the decree declaring war on Mithridates. The emergence of special status for a supervisory board of the temple's finances shortly after the Mithridatic war would not be surprising. During the brief period of his supremacy in Ephesus, Mithridates, like Alexander before him, had extended the area of asylum covered by the Temple of Artemis, and it is reasonable to suppose that with this extension of physical area came an extension of the influence of the temple authorities.104 It is, however, more probable that the special status of the gerousia among creditors was a concession of the city used to limit the comprehensiveness of the remission of debts which the decree calls for. Certainly the emergence of such a privileged status under Sulla seems unlikely, since his main activity related to financial concerns in this area of Asia Minor seems to have been the imposition of a war indemnity after the defeat of Mithridates.1 0 5 Marc Antony appears to have been similarly interested in the exaction of tribute rather than the 1 0 3 Cf. cat. nos. 4-7; below, pp. 249-253. 1 0 4 Str. 14.1.23. 1 0 5 Above, Chapter Two, p. 31-42. 247 reorganization of the temple's administrative structure; he did, however, double the area of asylum to include a part of the city. 1 0 6 The uncertainty of Caesar's role in Ephesus makes it dangerous to draw any conclusions about a possible role in granting privileges to the gerousia.101 What may be the earliest letter written to the gerousia, however, may have been sent by Caesar, in which case it is unlikely that he granted rather than simply confirmed the gerousia's privileges.1 0 8 Alternatively, it may have been sent by Augustus. It would be noteworthy, if that were the case, that Augustus makes no mention of Caesar; one might have expected, for example, "the rights and privileges granted by my father." The absence of such a phrase, however, does not prove that Caesar was not responsible for the initiation of the privileges mentioned in the letter, if the letter itself is Augustan: a letter of Tiberius records the "rights and privileges which my grandfather and father confirmed for you." 1 0 9 That the rights are "confirmed" suggests that Caesar may not have granted new rights to the gerousia, but only upheld pre-existing ones. Given that the rights and privileges mentioned in this series of letters appear to be related to financial matters and that financial privileges appear to have been in place in 86 B C , it is not unreasonable to suggest that the rights and privileges confirmed in the letters are those which appear in the decree against Mithridates, that is, a special status among creditors. Such a correlation, however, depends on the sustemata of the Mithridates-decree being the gerousia. This cannot be proven beyond doubt, but the existence of financial privileges for both bodies is suggestive, as is the presence of the "sustema of the Elders" in a letter 1 0 6 Str. 14.1.23. 1 0 7 Above, Chapter Two, pp. 31-42. 1 0 8 Cat. no. 5; see below. 248 possibly sent by a proconsul of the early first century.110 It is probable that the lending activities which were mentioned in the previous section of this chapter had become established practices of the gerousia before the first century BC. Although these activities did not encompass all of the temple finances by 86 B C , the gerousia may have begun to occupy a privileged position in the temple administration by that date. At the beginning of the Hellenistic period, the gerousia possessed the privilege of bringing certain individuals to the attention of the boule and demos in order to reward their services. This was related to its representative role, but appears to have been very rarely exercised. Equally infrequently, the gerousia exercised its ability to send representatives to the ruling king or his officials. Some of its privileges were, therefore, based on the authority of the king, and others on the authority of the city. The gerousia's privileged status among the groups which supervised temple loans may originally have been granted by the city, but it was certainly supported by the city and Imperial officials. At what date the gerousia gained this concession is unknown, but it is clear that by 86 BC a stratification of the supervisors of temple loans did exist. 6.3.2. The Late First Century BC and Early First Century AD The privileges of the gerousia immediately after the consolidation of the empire by Augustus do not appear to have changed significantly. It has been noted above that one of the gerousia's activities during this period was the supervision of temple finances and loans, which was probably a continuation from the Hellenistic period. This continued activity was accompanied by a prolongation of the special status which, it has been argued, the gerousia possessed in 86 BC. no Cat. no. 11. 249 The series o f Imperial letters published i n 1993 confirms both the lending of and the special considerations granted to the gerousia.U] Each letter contains a recognition o f an embassy sent by the gerousia and a promise to uphold i f not to extend the honours and privileges (teimia kai philanthropa) of the gerousia: Kojupxiou np6KA.o-u TO KE[i6Qkv [v]b' bucov [\|/fl(j>iau]a SnAcruv TT|V XCOV Y£p6vxco[v] npbq xe 20 [xov eudv na]xepa K a l x6v O I K O V T\\MS)V &7r.[av]xa 8id-[voiav f|8eco]c; drcoSexouoa neneia\ikvoq [xfjq abxjfjf; [v\xdq Kai np]6q euauxbv ebvoiac; 8ia7ipovo[eia9ai pou-] [Aouevcu]^ a xeiuia Kai (jiiAdvOpcoTia 6 xe nd[nnoq pcu K a i ] [b 7iaxf |p e7ie]pepaicoaav, xama iaxe Kdue Siat^Adc^eiv] 25 [7iapeaKe 'u]ac(i .evov. eppcoaOe. I happily received from Curtius Proculus the decree sent by you which shows the goodwill of the elders both to m y father and to our entire domus, believing because of it that you wish that your respect for me to be made clear. What honours and privileges m y grandfather and father have confirmed for you, know that I, having made provisions, shall continue to preserve. Farewell. 1 1 2 Unfortunately, none o f the texts elaborate on the teimia kai philanthropa. Tiberius' letter, of which a portion is quoted above, is perhaps the most detailed i n this respect: he informs the gerousia that he will preserve the honours and privileges, as noted, "which m y grandfather and father confirmed for you." Neither of the two earlier letters i n this series, one o f which may have been written by Caesar, contains grants or specifications o f privileges, only confirmations. The first letter does contain a clause concerning debts owed to the gerousia (opheilomenoi chreoi). Matters are to be conducted i n this case "according to your own laws and practices".113 This would seem to be a reduplication o f the confirmation o f the rights and honours which immediately precedes this clause: the teimia kai philanthropa are confirmed, and debts are subject to local law and the gerousia's traditional guidelines. 1 1 1 Cat. nos. 4-13. 1 1 2 Cat. no. 8. 1 1 3 Cat. no. 5. 250 Since the two grants appear in the same fragment, it is probable that they are closely related. It is true that there is no guarantee that the two subjects are related: the letter sent by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in the second century, for example, deals with disparate issues.1 1 4 In that case, though, there is a clear indication that the logistes took the opportunity of an inquiry concerning Imperial statues to raise other unrelated issues. The lack of any such differentiation between relevant and extraneous inquiries may be an indication that the teimia kai philanthropa and the opheilomenoi chreoi are indeed both related to the same topic. 1 1 5 D. Knibbe, the editor princeps of the letters, suggested that the teimia kai philanthropa are the gerousia's privileges over those of other lenders, though he does not comment on the opheilomenoi chreoi.116 The teimia kai philanthropa may be a reference to the gerousia's privileged status among creditors, and the opheilomenoi chreoi to the methods of repayment or collection: it is clear that the gerousia had its own methods of administering and collecting debts by the first century A D . The exact nature of the gerousia's lending privileges cannot be known from the evidence of currently published inscriptions. It is possible to make some suggestions, though. Given the evidence of the Mithridates-decree and the possibility that it refers to the gerousia, it may be that loans administered by the gerousia were viewed more 1 1 4 Cat. no. 17. 1 1 5 The letter of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to the logistes Ulpius Eurycles indicates that the collection of debts by a public slave is extraneous to the main topic of Eurylces' inquiry, the modification or preservation of current Imperial busts (cat. no. 17). This can be seen as an indication that the second query was a matter which might have been better addressed on a provincial level. This does not imply that a similar inquiry under Caesar or Augustus would have been equally inappropriate to make of the Emperor. Precedent existed by the mid-second century for directing inquiries regarding the gerousia's finances to the provincial proconsul (cat. no. 16), whereas the relative newness Caesar's or Augustus' position would have made an inquiry to the highest levels of Roman authority not unexpected. 1 1 6 Cf. Knibbe (1993): 120. 251 strictly, with less possibility of leniency. The gerousia's advantages may have consisted of a higher rate of interest or greater freedom in the case of defaulting debtors. At the beginning of the second century, Salutaris made arrangements to ensure that his foundation would continue even if he died before he had completed all the arrangements: edv 8e rtp6 7to-Sowou xd 8iaux)pia 8r)(vdpia) fj 5iaxdc;£q0ai dixb npoobbov 305 Xcopicov 8i8oa0ai x6v X 6 K O V abxcov {f|} xeXewfjaei Za^oijxdpioq, bjioKeiaGcoaav d i K .^T)pov6u.oi ocbxoi} xfj eb -A,uxtjaei xcov Ka0iepco|j.evcov 8r)(vaptcov) SiaiJA-ptcov K a i xdic; e j ia-KoXo"j0f|aaai X O K O I C ; (lexpt xfjc; eb^mtjaeoc;, bxcoKEi-ixevcov abxcov xfi "ipdi^ei K a x d x d i e p d xfjc; Geof) K a i x d rca- 310 pd xdic; TtpeoP'uxepoic; e K S a v i a x i K d eypac^a. But if Salutaris dies before he pays the twenty thousand denarii or before he arranges for the interest to be paid from the income of his estates, his heirs will be liable for the payment of the donated twenty thousand denarii and they will be liable for the interest until the conclusion of the payment, with them being liable for payment according to the sacred loan-regulations of the goddess and of the Elders. 1 1 7 In the event of his death, Salutaris' heirs are to be responsible for the payment of the capital fund and for any interest which might accrue. They are to be liable "according to the sacred loan-regulations of the goddess and of the Elders" (ekdanistika egrapha). The mention of the loan-regulations of the Elders may suggest that a loan from the gerousia was not contracted at the regular interest rate; it certainly indicates special concessions. The "loan-regulations of the Elders", which appear to be conceived of as distinct from those regulations for the loans of the goddess, should be understood as the evolution of the teimia kai philanthropa of the gerousia.11* 1 1 7 Cat. no. 54. 1 1 8 The failure of Salutaris to specify a third party to ensure the payment by his heirs is unlikely to have been an issue. The support given by the proconsul-Aquillius Proculus to Salutaris' endowment must have rendered default an improbable occurrence. In the event that the heirs did fail or were delayed in paying any outstanding capital, though, enforcement of this clause, like that specifying the fines in the event of changing the terms of the endowment, could have been undertaken by any interested party. 252 Although the ekdanistika egrapha of the Salutaris-dossier are separated from the first appearance of the teimia kai philanthropa of the gerousia by over a century and from the exemption of the sustemata from the general cancellation of debts by nearly two centuries, the chronological distance is not as great as it appears. The treatment of the gerousia in the Salutaris-dossier implies an organized body of such an age and prominence as to be familiar to the Ephesians, and it has been argued above that the gerousia existed continuously throughout the first century A D . Continuous existence implies a continuity or, given the prominence which the gerousia assumes during the second century, an accretion of activities and privileges. Furthermore, the pairing of the lending practices of Artemis and of the gerousia, with no specification of those practices, implies that these regulations were commonly associated and were easily discovered by any who were interested. In short, the ekdanistika egrapha, which could be translated as the "lending customs", were in existence for some time before the beginning of the second century, and probably grew out of the teimia kai philanthropa confirmed by Caesar or Augustus, Agrippa, Tiberius and Gaius Caesar or Germanicus, which themselves may have emerged from the exemptions granted to the sustemata. Financial privileges were included in the teimia kai philanthropa, but it should not be concluded that other benefits were not also included in this phrase. The right of sending ambassadors, in the manner of the boule and demos, which the gerousia possessed during the Hellenistic period appears to have been maintained into the first century A D . Although there appear to be fewer cases of ambassadors during the Imperial period, the reasons for sending an embassy appear to have been similar: the delivery of a decree to the emperor, appeals to the emperor regarding privileges, and the 253 reporting of honours; there are also instances in which all that is known is that a mission was sent to Rome. 1 1 9 As in the Hellenistic period, representatives were sent by the boule and demos of any given city or by the collective body of citizens; with the exception of those recorded in the series of letters regarding the privileges of the gerousia, no embassy appears to have been sent other than by the boule and demos or the citizens as a whole. 1 2 0 In the case of smaller settlements and villages, petitions, even those to the proconsul, were presented through a powerful patron or the city to which the village was 121 subordinated. The appeals which the gerousia must have addressed to the emperor are not unusual in themselves; they can be seen as similar to the appeals and legal questions which every Roman citizen had the right to address to the emperor. What is unusual is that the responses came in the form of letters addressed directly to the gerousia and that those letters were then publicly inscribed. Such a public display suggests that the gerousia had a special standing within the city, and that the gerousia was concerned to make it clear that it enjoyed the personal support of the emperor - or to convince the Ephesians that it did. The addressing of the letters to the gerousia itself is an indication of the direct involvement of the central Roman authorities in local affairs. This o involvement, though, was invited: the letters are replies. It should be noted that these letters represent genuine embassies and indicate that the gerousia was not obliged to go through a patron or an overseeing-city.122 Delivery of a decree: Sardis 7.1.8, IKnidos 34, TAM 11.905; appeals: Aphrodisias & Rome 15, IPriene 111; honours: IEph 22; TAM 11.147; unspecified: eg., ISrat 631, 678, 689, 690; TAM 11.284 120 In the case of embassies whose purposes remained unspecified, it is possible that the embassy originated with a body other than the boule and demos, but since it is primarily honorary decrees in which these appear, it is most likely that they were in fact sent by the boule and demos; cf. Mitchell (1999): 30-31. 1 2 1 Mitchell (1999) notes that a direct approach by a village or its leaders to the proconsul was not necessarily "legally or procedurally out of order"; cf. Nolle (1999): 106-109. 1 2 2 Cf. Mitchell (1999): 36. 254 Three letters in Knibbe's series do not come from the emperor, but from the proconsul Publius Petronius, who governed Asia from A D 29/30 to 34/35; each letter refers to envoys sent to the proconsul.1 2 3 Since it was characteristic of Tiberius to leave provincial governors in place for extended periods of time, it is entirely reasonable that during the latter part of his reign requests which did not have direct claims on the emperor's attention should have been redirected to the appropriate provincial official. 1 2 4 Moreover, leaving requests to the proconsul is in keeping with Tiberius' efforts to encourage the Senate to act on its own. Nonetheless, Petronius' letters may form the nucleus of a diminishment in the gerousia's access to the emperor which seems to emerge in the second century. There is, however, an additional important difference to be noted in the three letters from Petronius: the phrase teimia kai philanthropa no longer appears. Instead, this general reference to the rights and privileges of the gerousia is replaced by the even more vague ta dikaia. It is, however, not certain that the two phrases refer to the same benefits. Although one letter subsequently employs ta philanthropa, each correspondence identifies the dikaia, with minor variations, as those 'which the Augusti have granted to you and which the proconsuls before me have uniformly preserved.' The statement that previous proconsuls had confirmed the dikaia suggests that the gerousia may have sought confirmation for ta teimia kai philanthropa from the emperors or members of their family and for ta dikaia from provincial authorities. Furthermore, Petronius specifies the dikaia concerned in the first letter, and promises to uphold specific privileges in the second two: [xd xcov Jipecpulxepcov Siicoaa, bueiv oi pev Zepaaxol exocptaavxo [oi 8e 7ip6 fepoG d]y8iL)7iaxoi navxeq awexfipnaav drcoA.'uaavxeq budc; 10 1 2 3 Cat. nos. 12-14; for the date of Petronius' proconsulship, cf. Corsten (1999). 1 2 4 Tac, Ann., 6.38; Suet., Tib., 31,41. 255 [xcov xe Ttapd 5i]oiKncriv evyxKov K a i Xoyfjac, K a i £7uaxa8 |incov. [816 Kdycoi eypa]\ | /a b i ie iv xd ^i^dvGpcoTia Kdixe a w x n p f j a a i [Ge^fjaeiv the rights of the elders, which the Augusti have granted to you and which all the proconsuls before me uniformly preserved absolving you of the securities for the assize district and of donations and of billeting. So I have written to you to say that I also am willing to preserve these privileges.... Ta dikaia are clearly spelled out: exemption from the payment of fees assessed for the assize district, exemption from donations, and exemption from billeting; Petronius' second letter includes the important addition of release from liturgies. 1 2 6 The privilege of being free from the onus of billeting is reminiscent of Euphronius' embassy to Prepelaus. It may be noted, however, that by this time it is unlikely that this would involve billeting soldiers, since Asia was an unarmed province. Instead, it would involve the housing and feeding of Imperial visitors. 1 2 7 The benefits to the gerousia from these dispensations were financial and were probably a part of or developments of the teimia kai philanthropa. They were concessions which one would expect a provincial governor to grant: it is probable that ta dikaia confirmed by Petronius are a combination of the teimia kai philanthropa confirmed by the emperors and the exemptions specified in Petronius' letter. The concessions confirmed by the proconsul for the gerousia seem to be directed to the benefit of individuals rather than to the gerousia as a body, particularly the exemption from liturgies. The gerousia did enjoy corporate benefits, though, as the gerousia of Chios appears to have been subject to the assize fees from which the gerousia of Ephesus was exempted. Cat. no. 12. Cat. no. 13. Cf. Cat. no. 45. IEph 13.11. 256 Gymnasiarchs of the gerousia appear for the first time in A D 29. Only three such individuals are known from the first century, all of whom served as ambassadors of the gerousia to Publius Petronius.129 A l l three men, by virtue of their service on the embassy, appear to have been members of the body. Consequently, it cannot be said that the institution enjoyed a public gymnasiarch. It is certainly possible that a wealthy Ephesian who was not a member of the gerousia could undertake to supply it with oil, but this duty could and did fall to the individual members of the gerousia itself. The gerousia was the recipient of such benefactions, but only inconsistently. The services of a gymnasiarch do not prove that one the city's gymnasia was dedicated to the exclusive use of the gerousia. The final benefit known to have been enjoyed by the gerousia during the first century of the empire which deserves comment is its receipt of distributions provided by wealthy citizens seeking public honours or acclaim. This type of information is found primarily in inscriptions honouring the benefactors, most often with the simple statement that the honoured individual provided a distribution but with little detail to explain the procedure involved in the actual handing out of the gifts of food or money. The recipients of these small gifts were not the poor, but rather the members of the upper classes of cities throughout the province: for example, members of the boule and gerousia, some of the citizens or tribes, and occasionally the wives or children of these individuals. The gerousia does not appear as a recipient of every distribution, but when it does, it is listed immediately after the members of the boule. Such distributions are most often attested, like so much else, during the second century, but they do occasionally appear earlier. Thus, Gaius Stertinius Orpex and his daughter Marina, and Vipsania 1 2 9 Cat. nos. 12-14. 257 Olympia and Vipsania Polla all provided distributions for the boule and the gerousia during the first century.130 The gerousia's place among the recipients of these gifts is not so much a right as a general tradition or benefit, but it came to be expected in a certain respect and so can be seen as a privilege enjoyed by its members. Dianomai (small gifts of money) were given to members of the boule on thirty-eight attested occasions throughout Asia Minor during the first three centuries A D , and to members of the gerousia on nine occasions.131 In the case of Ephesus, though, the combination of the boule and gerousia as recipients of dianomai appears to have been a common practice.132 It may be said, therefore, that the gerousia enjoyed the attentions and favours of generous and ambitious citizens at the same general level as did the boule. Continuity can be seen in the rights and privileges enjoyed by the gerousia from the Hellenistic period into the first century of the empire. These privileges were primarily financial, involving the gerousia's lending practices and its payment of provincial exactions. The ability to bring its concerns to the attention of Hellenistic monarchs adapted with the establishment of Roman hegemony so that the gerousia could send embassies and letters to emperors or the provincial officials in the same way as a city could - and reasonably expect an answer. Finally, the gerousia began to be associated with the boule as a beneficiary of local euergetism. The absence of evidence makes it impossible at the moment to determine whether this was an innovation or if the gerousia had been the recipient of distributions during the Hellenistic period as well. u u Cat. nos. 34, 35 & 72. 1 3 1 Bailey (2002): 98. 1 3 2 The boule and gerousia appear together three times (IEph 27, 1151, 2113 & 4123); the boule appears without the gerousia twice (IEph 2111 & 3803b); the gerousia appears without the boule once (IEph Al; cf. IEph 3214 [Cat. no. 53] which specifies a fine to provide dianomai for the gerousia without the boule. 258 6.3.3. The Second Century AD The rights of the gerousia in the second century appear to continue directly from those of the first century. Corresponding to the diminishing role played by the body in lending suggested above, the lending concessions of the first century were probably gradually worn away. Nonetheless, the financial privileges enjoyed in the first century extended into the early second century and were supported by the emperors and imperial officials for a time. The receipt of gifts of money and food also continued beyond the first century. Imperial letters once again provide important information about the rights and privileges of the gerousia. Two Imperial letters are known which shed light on its rights during the first half of the second century.133 In addition, a letter of the propraetor Afranius Flavianus which forms a part of the Salutaris-dossier and a fragment of a letter from the third quarter of the second century are also informative. Hadrian's letter in A D 120/121 regarding the collection of debts, discussed briefly above, can be seen as a continuation of the confirmation of financial privileges by the early emperors.134 The letter records two appeals by the gerousia, one to the proconsul in the previous .year, Mettius Modestus, and a second to the emperor himself. The nature of the initial dispute is not known, but it is clear that Modestus upheld the rights (ta dikaia) of the gerousia; although very general, ta dikaia does recall Petronius' letters. The mention of Modestus suggests that it may have been a dispute similar to that which Hadrian addresses next, if not the same, involving the gerousia's resources or its lending procedures and rights, ta dikaia. The inclusion of the former proconsul may also serve as 1 3 3 Cat. nos. 16 & 17. 1 3 4 Cat. no. 16; Knibbe (1993): 120; cf., above, p. 223. 259 a reminder to the gerousia both that its appeals had previously been successful at a provincial level and that the proconsul had the authority to deal with financial disputes, including that which provoked this letter. The reason for the appeal to the emperor is clear: The opponents of the gerousia claimed that they were also creditors of the deceased and not simply heirs. Since under Roman law an heir became liable for the debts of the deceased, the gerousia was arguing that those in possession of the property of the deceased debtors legally became debtors of the gerousia. Hadrian, however, referred the entire matter back to the new proconsul of Asia, Cornelius Priscus, agreeing that the gerousia was entitled to the property if the current holders were in fact heirs: ETiel 8E noXXovq feSnMcoaocxE] aov] xox> "i/ncbtaixaxoc; K o p v n X i c o i ITpEiaKco i xcoi K pa x i a x c o i 10 dv9imdxcoi, i v a E I X I xo i ouxov E i n , £7uA,Ec;rixod x i v a 6c; K p i v e i X E xd(j.<))iaBT|xot|j.£va K a i Eia7xpdc;£i rcdvxa, baa d v bcfiEi^nxai xf j i yEpo i j c r i a i . ...but since you have shown that many men are usurping your money as they are seizing the property of your debtors claiming that they are not the heirs but that they themselves are also creditors, I have sent a copy of your decree to Cornelius Priscus, vir egregius, the proconsul, so that if such a thing should be the case, he may appoint someone who will both judge the disputed matters and exact all that is owed to the gerousia.136 The support for the gerousia is much less clear in this case than in the instances from the first century: Hadrian does not explicitly grant a privileged position among the creditors to the gerousia. The letter can be seen as supporting such a position for the body, though, depending on the interpretation of ei ti toiouton eie in line 11. The phrase translates " i f Borkowski (1997), 234 (8.5.2); since the appeal is addressed to the emperor, it is clear that Roman law is intended to apply to the case. 1 3 6 Cat. no. 16. 260 such a thing should be the case". It is unclear whether this means "if the argument is as you say" or " i f they are heirs and not creditors". The distinction is important for the relative clause of the apodosis of the condition. In the first case, the implication is that the proconsul's appointee will determine whether the gerousia's opponents are heirs or creditors and what is owed to the gerousia. This suggests that something is owed to the gerousia regardless of the status of its opponents, and may, therefore, indicate a ranking of the creditors. In the second case, the proconsul's appointee is essentially a formality: "if they are heirs, as you say, the appointee will judge the matter and you will be paid." In this situation, there is no ranking of creditors apparent in the letter. Hadrian does, however, provide some explicit support to the gerousia. The reminder that Modestus upheld the rights of the gerousia and the sending of the entire case to the new proconsul may both have served to bolster the gerousia's confidence. Furthermore, the fact that the case was referred to Priscus directly by the emperor may have ensured a faster resolution than might otherwise have occurred, and Hadrian's apparent approval of previous support for the gerousia may well have biased Priscus in that direction. Hadrian's ambiguous backing was not unusual. Direct support for the gerousia of the type which is evident in the first century did not return during the course of the second century. The letter of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus referring to Imperial statues, discussed above, also deals with a possible misappropriation of funds.137 The logistes Ulpius Eurycles informed the emperors that a public slave, Saturninus, had Cat. no. 17. 261 collected debts in the name of the sunhedrion.138 The emperors' decision is clear: if Saturninus rendered his collections to the gerousia, no harm has been done. If he has kept any for himself, it should be recollected. Any money which he collected over and above the debts owed to the gerousia was to be returned to its owners following an official trial. This is simply a matter of misappropriation, not a question of the rights of the gerousia. The final seventeen lines of the letter deal with a third matter. The inscription, however, becomes fragmentary at this point, with most of the right half lost. Consequently, the inquiry and the solution are alike unknown. From what is preserved, though, it appears that Eurycles raised the issue of the delayed payment of certain debts. The emperors provide a detailed response, with the inclusion of certain unknown conditions, as in the case of Saturninus and Hadrian's response to the gerousia. The final lines of the inscription seem to have contained an admonition that such an inquiry could have been addressed to the proconsul, which would correspond to a statement near the beginning of the letter that Eurycles used the necessary inquiry about the statues to raise additional, extraneous, matters. Again, support for the gerousia is indirect, but Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, to judge from the earlier inquiries in the letters, did, unlike Hadrian, actually pronounce a judgment, quite possibly, as in the matter of Saturninus, in favour of the gerousia. The letters of Hadrian and of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, therefore, suggest that the gerousia no longer enjoyed the ease of access to the emperor which it had in the first century. Hadrian refers the question of debts back to the proconsul, while Aurelius and Verus explicitly say that Eurycles inappropriately addressed certain matters 1 3 8 The inscription later states that Saturninus had collected the debts for the gerousia, so that sunhedrion in this instance appears to stand for gerousia; it should be noted that this is a case of the emperors calling the gerousia a sunhedrion, though, not of the Ephesians or the gerousiastai themselves calling it a sunhedrion. 262 to them, without any direct support for the gerousia's rights. The letters do not indicate whether the gerousia continued to occupy a privileged position among creditors. It is possible to see such support in Hadrian's letter, but even in the most generous interpretation his support is not nearly as explicit as that of the early Julio-Claudians. It should be noted that, in A D 120, at least, the gerousia did still have direct access to the Emperor: one of its members personally brought the matter to Hadrian's attention. The gerousia was not yet compelled to appeal to the emperor through a patron.1 3 9 A third letter, identified as one sent to the gerousia by an unknown proconsul, appears to address a disagreement between the gerousia and an Asiarch. 1 4 0 It has been suggested above that this may have been a dispute originating in the decision of the Asiarch, Aelius Martiales, to demonstrate his generosity through an act which benefited the gerousia indirectly, as a public building, instead of directly, as a gift of money, for example, would have.1 4 1 The letter appears to be supportive of Martiales rather than of the gerousia. This does not necessarily indicate a further diminishment of imperial support for the gerousia, though, since it would be remarkable for the proconsul to have found fault with an Asiarch and supported a local body unless a serious offence had been committed. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that a proconsul or emperor would have preferred distributions to public works and so ruled against Martiales. 1 4 2 The apparent admonishment of the gerousia does place it in a lesser position, though. If the 1 3 9 Cf. Nolle (1999): 106-109. It is significant that the letter concerning the gerousia's Imperial statuary, Saturninus' collections and the third, unknown issue was not a response to an embassy of the gerousia, but to an inquiry by the logistes. 1 4 0 Cat. no. 18. 1 4 1 Above, Chapter Four, pp. 120-122. An appeal to Imperial authorities in this case is understandable, since pledges made in the hopes of attaining a civic post could be legally enforced after the reign of Trajan (Dmitriev [2005]: 152). Martiales, however, probably did not fail to deliver on his promise - it is difficult to see why he would have been supported by the proconsul if that were the case - but rather made a donation for a specific purpose instead of general distributions. 1 4 2 PI., Ep. X.116 & 117; IEph 1491-3; Eck (1999): 11. 263 identification of a proconsul as the author of the letter is correct, the letter would further support the argument that the emperor became less and less accessible to the gerousia. In addition, the letter does not appear to have been written in response to an embassy sent by the gerousia. Nonetheless, the letter may have been sent after a complaint from the gerousia, possibly conveyed in a now lost letter: Antoninus Pius ' letter rebuking the Ephesians for failing to honour Publius Vedius Antoninus III contains the phrase, "I have learned of the generosity which Vedius Antoninus has shown towards you not so much from your letters as from his own letters." 1 4 3 Since no such phrase seems to appear in the letter concerning Martiales, it is reasonable to suppose that the gerousia appealed to the proconsul in the hopes of compelling Martiales to fulfill not the promises which he made, but the promises which the gerousia - and possibly other citizens - believed were deserved and appropriate. This loss of ease of access to the emperor clearly did not happen all at once. It was a process which was already underway during the reign of Hadrian and had progressed to the point where the gerousia appears to have had only indirect access to the emperor through its logistes.144 Hadrian's subtle admonishment that the proconsul would have been the appropriate authority to deal with the gerousia's complaint about its debtors suggests that the transferral of the gerousia's petitions from the emperor to the proconsul may have been a relatively recent development. The origins of the increasing prominence of the proconsul in the gerousia's affairs may be apparent as early as the beginning of the second century A D , i f not earlier. The 143 IEph 1491 UJ-9: x]t)v c^Aoxtuicxv f)v iAoxiu£[lxai] | [np6c, l)p.]dc- 0[\yf]8io]c, 'Avxcoveivoi; euoc6ov ob% oftxcofc-] 'EK | XCOV bpexepcofv Ypocujucxxcov &>q E K XCOV [eK]eivot). 1 4 4 The letters of Petronius (Cat. nos. 12-14) may mark the origins of this decline, providing a precedent for referring matters to the proconsul. 264 proconsul Aquillius Proculus is identified twice in the Salutaris-dossier in connection with the fine owed by any who altered Salutaris' directions.145 It is not remarkable that the decree establishing Salutaris' endowment should have been sent to the proconsul for imperial approval, but it is striking that the proconsul would have set the penalty for violation rather than that the boule or Salutaris himself would have done so. 1 4 6 Also noteworthy is that the gerousia may have been involved in the second portion of the fine, that which was payable to the fiscus of the emperor. The final portion of Flavianus' letter mentioning the fines has been almost entirely reconstructed on the basis of Salutaris' letter. Unfortunately, the two lines describing the gerousia's involvement, which does not appear in Salutaris' letter, have been almost entirely lost and have, consequently, not been restored.147 pcov KupcoGnaoixevcov, xoikov dvuTtepOexax; |3o\)A.ouea e[i]Q uev TO xfjq ueyicxn<; 0ed<; 'ApXEpiSoq iep6v KaxaGea-0ca Tipocxeiucu Sn(vdpia) P' p(upia) 7ievxaKio"[xl]A.ia, eiq 8e xbv xov [Kupiou KcdaapoQ biaKov ] yep[o"ucrta aXXa Sn(vdpia) Siauvpia 7r.evxaK]iaxlA.ia, 410 Koc0o)[q 'AKO'utA.A.ioQ rip6KAoc;, b A.au7ip6xaxo<; dvJOimaxoq, K a l Tifpbxepov Si' f\q dvxeypa\|/ev npbq budc, ^maxoXr]^ ETTfEKupcoaev K a l copiaev x6 7 ip6aTe ipov. e]ppcoa9e. ...I wish that he pay immediately to the temple of the greatest goddess, Artemis, a penalty of twenty-five thousand denarii and to the fiscus of lord Caesar...to the gerousia...another twenty-five thousand denarii, just as Aquillius Proculus, the most illustrious proconsul, approved and specified the penalty in the letter with which he formerly responded to you. Farewell. 1 4 8 The remains of the inscription indicate that two fines of twenty-five thousand denarii were originally certainly mentioned. Mention o f the gerousia between the recipient of 1 4 5 Cat. nos. 15 & 54. 1 4 6 Cf. Oliver (1954): 167, who argues that cities sought approval from Imperial authorities in order to strengthen their decrees and penalties. 1 4 7 Cat. nos. 15 & 54. 148 IEph 27D; Oliver, SG 3; FiE II, no. 27; cf. cat. no. 15; GIBM 481, //. 279-282: ...6cu npocrceiuou 5ri(vdpicx) p' u(ii)pia) nEvxaKxa[%i]Xia, eiq, S E xtv XOV \ [EEPOCCTTO-U (JIICTKOV &XXa 8r|(vdpia) P ' u(-upia) TtEvxaKtax iAia , K a l xfj] | Yepo[uda xfi 'E(t>£crtcov &XXa8r)(vdpia) p' pXtipia) 7tEvxaKi]axiAia | Ka0.... 265 the second fine, the fiscus of the emperor, and the amount of the fine interrupts and complicates the meaning of this part of the inscription. Salutaris' letter is clearer on this point: dnoTeicdixo eiq "ipoc~K[6auT|ua x]fjc; |j.e[Yicn;]r|q 0edq ApxeuiSoq 8n(vdpia) 8iau.<)pia Tce[v]Ta[KiaxeiA.ia K a i eic; xbv xov ZejRaaToij cbiaKov d A A a 8n(vdpia) 325 B' |a.(-upia) ,e. [f| 8e npoy£ypaii[i£VT] SidTac;iq eaj-tco K"upia eic; xbv d ixavxa xpb-[vov , Ka9d"xep 'AKCuiAAiJoq rip6KX[oq, b e]b[e]p[y]eTnc; [ K a i dvG\)7xaxo]q, K a i 'Ac^pdvioq O^aomavoq , b Kpdxiaxoc; rcpeaBemfiq K a [ i dvxiaxJpdxriYOc;, 8id kniaxoXmv nepi t amnc ; xfjq 8iaxdc;e-coq eTieKibpcoaav K a i cbpiaav T6 7ipoyeYpa|j,|j.evov rc[p]6a":eiu.ov. 330 ...and let the one who attempts to do anything in contradiction to these arrangements or to those aspects of .these arrangements which have been approved and ratified by the boule and demos pay for the additional adornment of the greatest goddess, Artemis, twenty-five thousand denarii and to the fiscus of the Emperor another twenty-five thousand denarii. Let the aforementioned arrangements be in legal effect for all time..., just as Aquillius Proculus, the beneficent proconsul, and Afranius Flavianus, vir egregius, the legate and propraetor, in their letters concerning these arrangements have approved and established the aforementioned fine. Gaius Vibius Salutaris, the son of Gaius, of the tribe Oufentina has brought forth the aforementioned endowment and gifts. 1 4 9 The violator of Salutaris' instructions is to pay two fines of twenty-five thousand, one to the goddess and the other to the fiscus of the emperor, with no mention of the gerousia. It should be noted before proceeding that the two letters need not have been identical. Since Salutaris' sought approval from the proconsul, it is entirely possible that the proconsul took it upon himself to add certain elements. In this case, it seems that Proculus altered the details of the fines to the benefit of the gerousia. If the restoration of Yep[ouaia in the dative is correct, the gerousia must have been intended as the beneficiary of at the very least a portion of the fine payable to the fiscus: the fine went to the fiscus for the gerousia. The length of the lines, however, indicates that more Cat. no. 54; cf. cat. no. 54, //. 110-116 where the double-fine is also mentioned. 266 information was provided on the way in which the gerousia was to profit from the penalty. A roughly contemporary inscription, already discussed above, establishing heroic honours, also associates the goddess, the emperors and the gerousia in the clauses specifying the penalty for alteration of its terms.150 The guilty party is to pay ten thousand denarii "for the further adornment of the goddess Artemis and of the Augusti and another ten thousand denarii for a cash distribution for the Elders." Although the fine in this case is "for the further adornment" of the emperors rather than for the fiscus of the emperors, the remainder parallels the penalty clause in Proculus' letter: both Artemis and the emperors are beneficiaries of the fine, and the gerousia appears in the dative, here as presbeuterois. This is the only other published instance of an association of these three in connection with such a fine, so it stands to reason that they should be similar. Given that the two inscriptions are nearly contemporary and generally similar -whatever other purposes Salutaris' endowment served, it was in many respects a public memorial of Salutaris, functioning in the same way as heroic honours for Peplus - the earlier inscription may provide a model for explaining the presence of gerousia in the penalty clause of Afranius' letter. With the acknowledgment that the remains of the stone have not been viewed by autopsy, the presence of gerousia can be explained by the supposition of three fines of twenty-five thousand denarii: one payable to Artemis, one to the fiscus of the emperor, and one to the gerousia to fund a cash distribution to its members. The inscription might then read: 0ca Ttpooxeiuo-u 5n(vdpia) B' \x.(vpia) 7t£vxaKia[xi]A.ia, eiq 8e xdv xov [leBaa-ccyu §IGKOV 5r|(vdpia) P' p(tpia) 7CEvxaiaa%lA.ia, eiq 8e xfiv xfj] Cat. no. 53; Jones (1983), in his edition of this inscription, notes similarities between it and Salutaris' inscriptions. 267 Y£p[oucta 8iavoLif)v aXXa 8ri(vdpia) Siau/upia 7tevxaK]ia;xo Trpd^ac;] eiq 2 7tpooK6a[ur)ua Qedq ?] ['Apxeui]Soc, K a i xcov LeBaax[cov 8]nvdpia u/upia Ka[i clX]Xa eiq 8ia[vo]u.Tjv xdic; 7ipeaB["UT;epoic,] [8nvdpi]a u/upia The restoration, however, raises the question of why the proconsul would add a fine to the benefit of the gerousia. There are several possible reasons. First, the gerousia's presence as a recipient of a portion of the fine would give it, as argued above, a strong interest in ensuring that Salutaris' arrangements remained in force. 1 5 3 Second, the decree instituting heroic rites suggests the possibility that it was becoming part of the gerousia's regular activities even at this early date to serve as official or unofficial guarantor of the terms of memorial endowments.154 Third, and most importantly from the perspective of the gerousia's interactions with the emperor, the addition of a third fine indicates that Imperial officials continued to take an interest in the affairs of the gerousia, but with the proconsul taking a more and more active role. 1 5 5 Closely related to this, it may be noted 1 5 1 Cat. no. 15. 1 5 2 Cat. no. 53. 1 5 3 Oliver (1941): 85, while denying a fine payable to the gerousia, states that "the two most irresistible executors at Ephesus, namely, the imperial procurator and the management of the Artemisium, were associated to guarantee the inviolability of the arrangements." 1 5 4 Above, pp. 220-222 & 238-242. 1 5 5 Publius Petronius' role in confirming the gerousia's freedom from contributions, assize district fees and billeting should not be viewed in the same light as Proculus' proposed action. The exemptions which Petronius granted can be seen to be purely provincial in nature and therefore at his discretion without necessary reference to the emperor. The introduction of third fine is not, admittedly, related to the emperor either, but, unlike Petronius' confirmations, Proculus' third fine, if this restoration is acceptable, indicates a closer involvement in the activities of the gerousia, particularly since it would have been done without a request from the body: Petronius' actions, on the other hand, were a direct result of an embassy from the 268 that the addition of such a fine may have won Afranius and the proconsul Proculus support from the members of the gerousia. A governor who took unpopular decisions risked the retaliation of his subjects after his departure, so that winning local supporters and allies may have formed an important part of the governor's activities:1 5 6 earning the favour of the members of the gerousia through the institution of a fine would have been a politically astute move on the part of Afranius or Proculus, or both, and one which cost nothing. As was argued in Chapter Five, the gerousiastai may not have formed the provincial elite, but they were of such social standing as to be worth winning over. At any rate, the presence of the gerousia in Afranius' letter cannot be entirely disregarded.157 Since Proculus or Afranius appear to have been responsible for the addition of the gerousia at this point, it seems beyond dispute that one of them took an active interest in the gerousia's affairs, whether or not he made them the beneficiaries of a third twenty-five thousand denarii fine. 1 5 8 It must also be stressed once again that the three clauses specifying the penalties for violators of the terms of Salutaris' donation do not agree. Heberdey suggests that this is a result of a misconception which influenced the gerousia. Afranius' letter was a response to the request of Salutaris and the city for official approval. Moreover, Hadrian's letter of A D 120/121, with its tactful reminder that the proconsul would have been a more appropriate authority to appeal to, suggests an uncertainty on the part of the gerousia concerning where exactly to direct their petitions. If the diminishment of its ease of access to the emperor began as early as Petronius' proconsulship in the 30s, it is perhaps unlikely that such uncertainty would remain nearly a century later. The introduction of a fine for the benefit of the gerousia could not be an explicit indication that the proconsul was now to be seen as the gerousia's imperial patron and the primary recipient of petitions, but it would make uncertainty on this point understandable. Twenty years might seem like a sufficient period of time to resolve this uncertainty, but it must be recalled that in another forty years after that the gerousia, through an imperially appointed official, still attempted to bring its concerns to the attention of the emperor, concerns which were not entirely dissimilar from those addressed to Hadrian and referred unceremoniously to the proconsul. 1 5 6 Kokkinia (2004): 56-58; the significance of the opinion of the governor held by provincial citizens continued well beyond the second century (Slootjes [2004]: 70-75). 1 5 7 Oliver (1941): 85: "we do not know how or even whether the Gerusia was mentioned by [Afranius Flavianus]." A l l editions - including Oliver - print yepfa'ucn.a at the beginning of 410. 1 5 8 This interest may also be apparent in the existence of logistai of the gerousia, who, as was noted in Chapter Five, were appointed - whether at the request of the body in question or not - by Imperial officials. 269 composition of Afranius' letter: he modelled his letter on others in which the gerousia did appear.159 It is true that it is difficult to reconcile the fact that Salutaris mentions only two fines while Afranius appears to mention three, particularly when Salutaris' two fines are accompanied by the phrase, "just as Aquillius Proculus, the proconsul, and Afranius Flavianus, the legate and propraetor, in their letters established the aforementioned fine." Virtually the same phrase, however, appears in Afranius' letter. Whether an error or not, the fact that a fine payable to the gerousia appears in a proconsular letter would, one can argue, override its absence in a civic decree. Consequently, while Salutaris and the boule may not originally have envisioned a third fine, Proculus' actions - or Afranius' error in his letter - created one. Although the gerousia's rights diminished in its loss of access to the emperor, the second century did not bring with it a lessening of the gerousia's privileges in every way. These privileges continue to reflect the relatively high social position which the gerousia occupied in the city. Thus, the gerousia continues to appear among the recipients of distributions of food and money, as is evident not only from the two inscriptions just discussed, but also from three additional inscriptions. A fragmentary inscription from the first half of the second century A D preserves the middle portion of an honorary decree.160 As such, the name of the individual being honoured is unknown, though the participles indicate that it was a woman. Among her services, the text of the inscription records that she provided distributions of sacrificial meat to the boule and gerousia. It can be concluded that the woman involved was a priestess of Artemis, since the phrasing of this clause, using the verbal dianeimo rather than the nominal dianome, finds Ephesian 1 5 9 Heberdey, FiE 11, p. 146. 270 parallels only in the decrees honouring Vipsania Polla and Vipsania Olympia; in addition, the sacred servant and the victors in the Artemisia are included among the recipients of the distributions.161 As was the case during the first century, the gerousia is given a prominence in these benefactions second only to that of the boule. A hymnode and grammateus of the Hadrianeia during the agonothesie of Tiberius Julius Reginus in A D 170 was honoured in an inscription which, like that of the priestess just discussed, preserves neither his name nor those of the authors of the decree.162 The recipient of a crown, he is also awarded the privilege of participating in distributions offered to the boule, gerousia and the chrysophoroi. Although distributions to the chrysophoroi are virtually unknown, the inscription indicates not only that the gerousia continued to be among the common recipients of distributions but also that the distributions were becoming more exclusive and perhaps less common. As such, the retention of the gerousia among the beneficiaries of these small gifts is a mark of the esteem in which it was held by the benefactors and the citizens of Ephesus in general. Finally, the gerousia appears as the recipient of a dianome in a long list of donors and kouretes from the reign of Commodus.1 6 3 As is often the case, no details are given about the dianome. The extent of the evidence for the distribution in this inscription is that the gerousia was the sole recipient and that it was provided by the prytanis Marcus Aurelius Menemachus. Obviously, the gerousia is given prominence and a degree of social importance by its appearance as the only beneficiary. An additional privilege, similar to its inclusion in distributions, hints at the gerousia's perceived high social 1 6 1 Cat. no. 35. 1 6 2 Cat. no. 44. 1 6 3 Cat. no. 65. 271 standing and honour: a section of seating in the theatre appears to have been reserved for the gerousiastai.164 The rights and privileges of the gerousia during the second century can be summarized briefly. At the beginning of the century, it most likely retained a portion of the freedom of access to the emperor which it enjoyed in the first century of the empire. This access was gradually limited over the course of the century until it was expected that the gerousia and its representatives would bring queries and complaints to the attention of the proconsul rather than the emperor; in exceptional situations, such as those involving the maiestas of the emperor, direct contact was still permissible, though an intermediary may have been introduced in the person of a logistes. Whether the replacement of the emperor by the proconsul as the patron and supporter of the gerousia was a result of an imperial decision cannot be known, but it is unlikely. The process was most likely begun through minor interventions and displays of support by a proconsul who took an interest in the gerousia and whose involvement created an Ephesian precedent upon which subsequent proconsuls gradually built until the proconsul became by tradition the regular authority to whom to appeal.165 With this development may have come a lessening of the gerousia's financial privileges with respect to sacred loans. It continued to appear as a beneficiary of distributions as it had during the first century, though again this is, strictly speaking, a general tradition rather than a genuine right. 1 6 4 Two fragmentary inscriptions, FiE II, p. 185, no. 83, and FiE II, p. 186, no. 86 (IEph 2086b), form the basis for this suggestion. 1 6 5 Cf., on a governor's interference in civic affairs, Kokkinia (2004): 39-42; Burton (2001); this is not to say, however, that such interference was the norm. 272 6.3.4. The Late Second and Early Third Century AD Most attestations of the gerousia later than the mid to late second century appear in funerary inscriptions. Consequently, evidence for its rights and privileges, as was the case for its activities, is not as abundant as for earlier periods. It is possible, though, to draw some conclusions about the benefits enjoyed by the gerousia during this period. Several inscriptions indicate the existence, as during the first century, of a gymnasiarch of the gerousia during the late second and early third centuries. Hicks and Oliver identified Marcus Aurelius Agathopus as one such individual, but reasons have been given above in Chapter Four to suggest that he was not in fact a gymnasiarch of the gerousia, but rather a gymnasiarch of an unspecified gymnasium.1 6 6 Niconianus Eucarpus, on the other hand, is clearly identified as a gymnasiarch of the gerousia}61 Similarly, Aphrodisius the son of Cleander served as gymnasiarch of the gerousia, as evidenced in an inscription which probably dates to this period. 1 6 8 A summary of the gymnasiarch's activities and responsibilities has been given above in Chapter Five and need not be repeated here. It is sufficient to note that the existence of a gymnasiarch indicates that the gerousia had access to a gymnasium. It also demonstrates that the 9 members of the gerousia were provided with oil for their use, through the generosity of fellow-citizens and, in some cases, fellow-gerousiastai. Again, however, a gymnasiarch of the gerousia does not prove that the gerousia had exclusive access to a gymnasium of its own. Although sunhedrion cannot indiscriminately be assumed to be a reference to the gerousia, it is possible that the gerousia came to be considered one of several sunhedria 1 6 6 GIBM 587; Oliver (1941): 105, no. 20; cat. no. 23; above, Chapter Four, pp. 122-125. 1 6 7 Cat. no. 24. 1 6 8 Cat. no. 31. 273 in the city of Ephesus, and that by the late second century the term sunhedrion had begun to be used more indiscriminately so that it came to mean a sunhedrion rather than the sunhedrion. As such, the gerousia appears to be the beneficiary of two citizens of the third century.169 Both Zoticus the son of Artemidorus and Aurelius Baranus are said to have feasted or entertained 'all the sunhedria'. It may be noted that in the case of Zoticus, this action is based totally on a restoration; nonetheless, the extant inscription honouring Baranus renders the supposition entirely plausible. If it is correct that the gerousia could be included among the 'all the sunhedria', then the tradition of providing distributions to the gerousia, among other recipients, was still alive as late as A D 239, the terminus ante quern of Zoticus' inscription. There are, however, significant differences to be noted. First, the inclusion of "all the sunhedria" rather than specifically the boule and the gerousia, for example, as the beneficiaries, although it appears more generous on the part of the benefactor, renders a position among the recipients less and less privileged. Second, the distributions provided by Zoticus and Baranus are not identified with a specific term, and appear in both cases to have been allotments of food rather than small gifts of money: Zoticus' hestiasas has clear associations with feasting, and Baranus' hypodexamenon, in the sense of receiving a visitor as a host, implies food rather than money. This may suggest a change in the perception of which gifts were appropriate for the gerousia. The phrase "all the sunhedria", in addition to suggesting a diminished importance among the beneficiaries, may also indicate a diminishment in the overall importance of the gerousia: it was no longer felt necessary to specify that a distribution had been provided for the gerousia. This should not be carried too far, however. Zoticus appears 1 6 9 Cat. nos. 45 & 48. 274 to have been a member of the gerousia, though the phrase gerousiastes is largely restored. Those offices which can be seen on the stone are not inconsistent with the position of a gerousiastes (neopoios, kouros, chrysophoros, essen, naophulax), so there is no strong reason to question the restoration.170 The inclusion of the term cannot be other than a sign that the gerousia still enjoyed some prominence in the city and that its members continued to occupy a relatively high position in the esteem of their fellow citizens. Moreover, Zoticus entertained two Roman visitors to Ephesus, Annius Anullinus Percennianus and Aurelius Pinarius Gemellus. The inclusion of this service is by itself an indication of Zoticus' wealth and importance among the citizens of the city: it cannot be imagined that such officials would reside anywhere but with the rich and influential. The specification of the titles of the two Romans increases the significance of his service by enhancing the importance of his guests. It is possible that Zoticus was an extra-ordinary member of the gerousia for this period, but it seems unlikely that the gerousia had completely faded into obscurity. The perception of the gerousia had, nonetheless, changed.171 Zoticus' inscription may provide evidence for one additional right enjoyed by the gerousia during the late-second and early-third centuries. It will be recalled that the gerousia sought exemption from billeting soldiers from the general Prepelaus, on behalf of the Temple of Artemis, and that this may have been paralleled in the first century A D ' / u Above, Chapter Five. 1 7 1 There may be additional evidence for distributions provided to the gerousiastai in the late-second and early-third centuries. Van Rossum (1988): 161 suggests that [xdiq 8e yepo\)0"iac7]|xcdc- should be read in place of the generally accepted [xoiq 8e 7t:oXei]|xcac" in the decree recording Nicomedes' re-institution of a sacrfice to the emperor and to Artemis (Cat. no. 56). Because of both the uncertainty of the gerousia's role in cash distributions at this time and the position taken in this work that this inscription presents an instance of cooperation between the gerousia and another body in the celebration of this sacrifice, [xoiq 8e 7ioXei]|xaic" has been printed in the catalogue. 275 by a similar exemption.1 7 2 The members of the gerousia themselves may not have received any personal benefits from this exemption, but through its association with the temple, the body must have benefited. At that time, it was most likely Imperial officials who would be billeted, as in the case of Zoticus, rather than soldiers. That Zoticus served as host, therefore, might suggest that the gerousia lost this privilege sometime between the first and third centuries. Commemoration of such billeting, though, does not appear to have been common. There is, in fact, only one parallel use of the verb epidemeo in the published inscriptions of Ephesus, though this is not an honorary inscription; the verb is most often used for the hosting of participants in games or festivals, or simply of xenoi.m The rarity of commemorations of individuals who had hosted Roman officials can be seen as an indication that such billeting was obligatory and therefore not appropriate for mention in an honorary inscription. Zoticus' inscription, then, becomes an anomaly. If it is assumed that the billeting exemption was still in effect, though, the mention of his hosting of Percennianus and Gemellus is easily explained: Zoticus was officially excused from billeting the Roman officials by virtue of his membership in the gerousia, but he voluntarily chose to perform this service and so earned for himself a highly unusual honour. The gerousia's rights and privileges appear to have been significantly reduced in the late second and early third centuries. There is no longer evidence that it was permitted to send embassies to the provincial proconsul, let alone the emperor, nor are there any letters responding to petitions or inquiries of the gerousia. It may, however, " z Above, pp. 207-208 & 255. 173 Titus Flavius Potemon hosted the emperor Hadrian in A D 129 (IEph 1145); cf., for example, SEG 14, 640 (Caunus); IStrat 530, 668, 672, 678, 706 (Lagina). 276 continue to enjoy the attention of at least some benefactors of Ephesus in the form of feasts and, occasionally, the provision of oil. 6.5. A Geronteionl The omission of one feature closely associated with the activities, rights and privileges in all periods of the existence of the gerousia should be immediately apparent: Where did it conduct its business? Was there a meeting house for the gerousiai Given the situation in Sardis where the palace of Croesus was given over to the gerousia of that city, one is inclined to answer affirmatively.174 Although Vitruvius seems to be imagining an association of older citizens (seniorum) somewhat different from the Ephesian institution, it is, nonetheless, still reasonable to suppose that a similar building existed in Ephesus. Unfortunately, no building has been discovered in the city conveniently identified as belonging to the gerousia. To suppose that this building should be sought from among the numerous gymnasia of the city is unreasonable: a gymnasium for a meeting house does not seem to be in keeping with the activities of the gerousia which have been discussed in this chapter. The letter of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to Ulpius Eurycles', it is true, does identify a building closely associated with the gerousia, which they call the sunhedrion. It will be recalled, though, that that building was probably not used as a meeting house, but as a storage area for Imperial statues.175 A single inscription mentions a geronteion, but there is no known building associated with this identification; nonetheless, the inscriptions may suggest an area of the city in which such a building may 1 7 4 Vit. 2.8.10: Croesi domus, quatn Sardiani civibus ad requiescendum aetatis otio seniorum collegio gerusiam dedicaverunt. 1 7 5 Cat. no. 17; cf. above, pp. 228-229, n. 53. 277 have been located.1 7 6 Eleven inscriptions appear in the catalogue whose findspots are unknown. The remaining eighty come from various areas and buildings in the city (Table 6). Several of these locations may be passed over immediately. Two of the inscriptions found in the Artemision were inscribed there because the boule and demos determined that they should be. Similarly, the prytaneion may be ruled out: six of the eight inscriptions mentioning the gerousia found there were kouretes-lists and were for that reason in the prytaneion. One of the two largest groups of inscriptions was found in or near the Church of St. John, but it is reasonable to suppose that they were moved there from elsewhere in the city during construction of the church or during subsequent repairs. Two of the three inscriptions found east of the Magnesian Gate are funerary inscriptions, Findspot Cat. no. Tetragonus Agora 14 4 ,5 ,6 ,7 , 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,31, 36,38 Church of St. John 14 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 42, 45, 52, 66, 77, 78, 86, 88, 90 Theatre 13 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, 39, 44, 54, 55, 56, 57, 87 Prytaneion 8 18,21,60,61,62,64, 65,67 Arcadiane Street & 6 27,48,50,51,70,91 Harbour East of the Magnesian Gate 3 30, 80, 85 1 77 Artemision 3 1,2, 59 Konzilskirche 2 72, 74 State Agora 2 33,43 Scholastica Baths 2 46, 47 Other Locations 13 3, 34, 35, 41, 53, 58, 68, 71, 73, 75, 79, 82, 84 Unknown Findspots 11 29, 32, 37, 40, 49, 63, 69, 76, 81, 83, 89 Table 6: Findspots of Inscriptions Included in the Catalogue ""Cat. no. 34. 1 7 7 A l l three of these inscriptions were in fact found elsewhere other than the Artemision, but their original location was the Temple of Artemis. 278 as are those from the Konzilskirche and one each from the Harbour and Arcadiane Street. Several of the inscriptions found in the theatre were there for obvious reasons and do not associate the gerousia with the theatre: those texts which form a part of the Salutaris dossier were inscribed in the theatre as a public display by Salutaris himself; Gaius Stertinius Orpex' inscription was a similar display accompanying his distributions. It may be supposed that the majority of the others were inscribed in the theatre because of the prominence of the location rather than because of any direct connection with the gerousia: the inscriptions inscribed on the walls of the theatre were placed there at the instigation of the dedicators or benefactors. Most of the inscriptions found in the Tetragonus Agora, though, have no immediately obvious reason for being there. Admittedly, eleven of these belong to the same series, but that they are a series may be significant: they were inscribed in an area which in all probability the gerousia itself selected. It was noted in Chapter Five that the grammateus of the demos was responsible for the display of Imperial decisions such as these, but given the gerousia's interest in these particular documents, it must have been involved in the choice of location. One of the remaining four inscriptions found in this area is also informative: the honorary inscription of Octavia Capitolina, in which the gerousia is associated with the boule and demos. Another gerousia inscription from this area of the city may also be of value: the architrave inscription of Aphrodisius the son of Cleander was found in the southwest corner of the Agora, probably, according to the editors, in secondary usage.178 If the architrave was originally in the area, however, it is possible that the gerousia had a particular interest in this area - secondary usage does not necessitate relocation. If it is necessary for the gerousia to have had its own "meeting 1 7 8 Cat. no. 31; Knibbe (1968): 13-14, no. 5: "in Sturzlage, dort wohl in sekundarer Verwendung." 279 house", it would not be unreasonable to suppose that it might be in this area of the city, perhaps associated with Aphrodisius' architrave.179 This is, however, no more than a suggestion. By its very nature, the agora was the scene of a wide variety of inscriptions. It must not be supposed that the gerousia dominated the Tetragonus Agora, or even a portion of it. Nevertheless, the body may have had a presence in the agora and the area around it, particularly when one considers that Arcadiane Street and the Scholastica baths are not far from the Tetragonus Agora. Two additional inscriptions come from this area as well, one from Terrace House 2 and a second from the not-distant Theatre gymnasium.1 8 0 The gerousia may or may not have had a building of its own in this area, but citizens of Ephesus and visitors to the city must have been aware of the presence of that body in this quarter of the city. 6.6. Conclusions The gerousia of Ephesus engaged in a variety of activities and enjoyed different privileges during the period of six centuries over which there is evidence. Naturally, these did not remain the same throughout the gerousia's existence, but rather changed and developed both as the city passed from kingdom to kingdom to empire and with the simple passage of time. Thus, the activities in which the body involved itself in the Hellenistic period form points of origin leading to activities attested under the Empire, while many of the rights and privileges possessed by the later gerousia appear to have 1 7 9 Two caveats are in order. First, the findspots of the inscriptions need not have been the original locations of the inscriptions, as in the case of those found in the Church of St. John or Aphrodisius' architrave, so that this is, and should not be taken as anything more than, a supposition. Second, it is not necessary that the gerousia had an official "meeting house". It was suggested in Chapter Five that the internal structure of the gerousia may have been somewhat informal, so that informal meetings (perhaps in the area of the Tetragonus Agora) would be possible. Furthermore, a secure location in which to keep its liquid resources may not have been required, given the institution's association with the Temple of Artemis for much of its history. 1 8 0 Cat. nos. 58 & 68. 280 developed out of those initially granted or upheld by the Hellenistic king Lysimachus through his general Prepelaus or by the city itself. The body reached a highpoint probably in the early second century, after which it began to decline, both in the activities it undertook and in the rights it enjoyed. At the time of Lysimachus' capture of the city, the gerousia was involved in the financial administration of the Temple of Artemis. An embassy sent by it requested and received exemption from the billeting of troops and taxation of temple lands. Shortly after the beginning of the first century BC, it gained a favoured position among the financial administrators of the Temple of Artemis, though it did not have complete control over the temple's finances. The gerousia may have continued to send embassies to various kings and generals during the Hellenistic period, but it is certain that it was sending ambassadors to Roman officials by the second half of the first century BC. The provincial proconsuls, possibly continuing a Hellenistic tradition, excused the body from billeting Roman officials and the payment of regular taxes and contributions. Augustus and Caesar before him confirmed the privileged position which the gerousia held among the individuals or bodies in charge of temple loans. Its lending activities continued beyond the first century, but it appears to have become less effective guaranteeing the repayment of its loans; by the third century it was reduced, on at least one occasion, to taking rather than granting loans. A decrease in lending activity may be directly related to the loss of access to the emperor. During the Hellenistic period and the first century, it was able to send its embassies directly to the ruler, but Hadrian propagated an already existing trend by which its inquiries were given over to the 281 proconsuls until that individual became the regular authority to which the gerousia appealed. The second century witnessed an increase in overseeing tombs and adherence to funerary instructions. The body is named in several instances as the recipient of a fine payable in the case of violation of the funerary inscription, sometimes alone and sometimes in the company of the boule. This may have been encouraged by the proconsul Aquillius Proculus at the beginning of the second century A D , but it had certainly begun by the end of the first century A D . It is a role in which the gerousia appears most often after the mid-second century. As the gerousia gained more and more clear support from the early emperors, it began to take a more active role in the city as a whole, occasionally joining the boule and demos in honouring certain large-scale benefactors. This cooperation did not continue into the second century, though the body continued independently to honour certain of its grander benefactors on rare occasions during the first part of this century. Overall, the gerousia gradually lost its position as the administrative body of at least some of the financial resources of the Temple of Artemis from the beginning of the Hellenistic period to the mid-third century A D ; nonetheless, it continued to remain active in temple loans. This loss was accompanied by oscillations in its prominence in the public political affairs of the city. This was not, however, accompanied by a decline in the status of the individual members. The gerousiastai continued to be citizens of wealth, at least until the date of the last known member, Zoticus the son of Artemidorus, in A D 231-239. With their wealth, a continuation of influence for the individual members and for the gerousia as a whole must also be assumed. The diminishment of the gerousia 282 suggests an evolution from a public or semi-private group at the beginning of the Hellenistic period into a more private and social group. Although every effort has been made in this chapter to include as much detail about the gerousia's activities and rights as possible, the treatment is necessarily incomplete. Several of the inscriptions which provide pertinent information are fragmentary and so are not as illuminating as they might otherwise have been. The inevitable consequence of this is that a degree of supposition and guess work is required. To cite only one example, the letter of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to the logistes of the gerousia is partially lost, so that the details of the final portion have to be deduced.181 Fragmentary inscriptions are not entirely debilitating to the purpose of this chapter; of far greater significance is the fact that the evidence for the gerousia is by its very nature selective. It is unreasonable to assume that every detail of the daily workings of the gerousia - or of any public or private body - would have been publicly displayed in inscriptions. Furthermore, not every inscription which was originally erected has survived: some stones may have been reused; some inscriptions may have been chiselled out and replaced; some inscriptions undoubtedly remain undiscovered or simply unpublished. The possibility exists, therefore, and must be acknowledged that the gerousia may have been active in more areas than those detailed in this chapter. ' Cat. no. 17. 283 7. CONCLUSION At the end of the nineteenth century, D.G. Hogarth noted that the gerousiai known to have existed in Asia Minor under the early empire had nothing in common with those of the Greek mainland before the coming of Rome.1 It is important to note that Hogarth says nothing about the relationship between Roman, Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic gerousiai in Asia Minor, only that the Doric and Asiatic institutions were distinct. The one obvious similarity between the Spartan gerousia created by Lycurgus and the Ephesian gerousia is the name. Naturally, the identical name encourages the search for ways in which the Doric and Asiatic bodies could be related, even if the Classical and Imperial bodies were not identical. Unfortunately, virtually no evidence survives for the pre-Hellenistic gerousia in Asia Minor to direct such an inquiry, but several facts which may be relevant do, nevertheless, emerge and may assist in the search for the origins of the Ephesian gerousia. First, towards the end of the Peloponnesian War, Sparta actively supported and created small oligarchic governing bodies in various cities along the western coast of Asia Minor, particularly through the efforts of Lysander; Ephesus was among those cities which were subjected to a decarchy. Second, Sparta agreed to leave the Greek cities of Asia Minor to the suzerainty of the Persian Empire after the unsuccessful revolt and death of Cyrus. Third, groups of special advisors in Persia were called by the Greeks epikletoi. Fourth, Alexander the Great replaced a small oligarchic ruling body in Ephesus by establishing a democratic constitution. Finally, the gerousia and epikletoi existed side by side at the beginning of the Hellenistic period in Ephesus, subordinate to the boule and demos. 1 Hogarth (1891): 69. 284 One can, therefore, postulate the following early history of the Ephesian gerousia with the recognition that it is theoretical only. It had its origins not in the decarchy established by Lysander, but possibly in an oligarchy set up in opposition to it by the Persians after the official withdrawal of Sparta from the coast of Asia Minor at the beginning of the fourth century BC, or in a group of citizens who acted on their own authority in this or a similar time of crisis. This oligarchy or group of citizens was medized by the introduction of permanent or semi-permanent advisors, the epikletoi, Persian appointees. Under the Persian Empire, the gerousia and epikletoi administered the city, subject, presumably to the satrap, and were most likely involved in the affairs of the Temple of Artemis as well. Alexander deprived this double-body of its political powers, which he granted to the boule and demos, but it continued to exist, associated primarily with the temple. At this point, the beginning of the Hellenistic period, it becomes easier to trace the patterns of development of the gerousia, though such a task is by no means free from difficulties nor is it entirely free from speculation. The gerousia and the epikletoi became more closely bound until a single term sufficed to identify the hybrid group. The size of the body is unknown for this period of its existence, but it is reasonable to suppose that it was not significantly larger the proposed Persian appointees or citizens, which need not have been significantly more numerous than Lysander's ten decarchs. By the mid-first century A D , though, it had grown to between one hundred and one hundred and twenty members. The body continued to grow over the course of the first century until there were approximately four hundred gerousiastai in A D 104. Beyond this year, there is 285 insufficient evidence to determine the number of members but it probably continued to grow during the prosperous second century. At some point, though, membership numbers must have levelled off or even declined. The honour and public status associated with membership varied throughout its existence, but probably began to drop after a highpoint in the mid-second century A D . The latest certainly dated inscription in which it appears was erected during the reign of Philip the Arab, but the gerousia's absence thereafter is not an indication of a sudden disappearance. Rather, commemoration of membership in the gerousia diminished for some reason, possibly, but not necessarily, associated with the political turmoil and rapid succession of emperors during the mid-third century. A change in attitudes may also have been involved in the failure of the gerousia to appear beyond the mid-third century. As gerousiastai lost their claim to honour (or their perceived honour) on the basis of their membership, that membership must have been seen as less desirable and the gerousia consequently became less and less significant in Ephesus; there would, therefore, have been even less reason to commemorate one's membership. The gerousiastai themselves were wealthy citizens of Ephesus, though not the wealthiest or most socially significant. Religious positions appear frequently among their public offices, but there is no certain case of an individual enjoying membership in both the gerousia and the boule, nor is any gerousiastes known to have been an Imperial priest or a prytanis. The gerousia was, both in terms of social status and political power, subordinate to the boule, but membership did, during its highpoints, bring a certain degree of public prestige and may even have served as a means of gaining access to membership in the boule. There is, however, no indication of how membership to the 286 gerousia was gained; very little evidence exists to support the proposition that a fee was paid for entry. The actual workings of the gerousia cannot be determined from the present state of evidence. One would assume that it had access to a meeting place. Lack of evidence also hinders the investigation of the internal organization of the gerousia. Several officers are known - secretaries, gymnasiarchs, legal representatives, auditors and, once, a treasurer - but only two appear always to have been members, namely the secretary and the treasurer; the gymnasiarch could be a member, but did not have to be, while legal representatives and auditors were externally appointed. It may be inappropriate to look for a rigid ranking of officers of the gerousia, but the secretary would seem to be the most obvious choice for a leading official. The greatest change in the history of the body was that authored by Alexander the Great, and not its disappearance from the epigraphic record in the Hellenistic period or the city's transfer to Roman rule. The activities which the gerousia undertook from the beginning of the Hellenistic period to the mid-third century A D suggest that it evolved continually and not through sudden changes. Its first appearance shows it representing the interests of the temple regionally to the king, specifically Lysimachus, and locally to the city. The gerousia was at this time subordinate to the boule and demos, but was nonetheless able to dispatch embassies on its own authority. By the first century B C , the gerousia had become active in some sacred loans. That it seems to have acquired a privileged position among the lenders of the city by this time suggests that it had been involved in the administration of temple loans for some time before this. This favoured 287 position, along with the right of dispatching envoys, appears to have been maintained unchanged into the Imperial period. The body may have gained some equality with the boule and demos, joining those bodies as a partner in honorary inscriptions and possibly, on occasion, in embassies; it may, however, be more correct to say that the boule and demos lost some of their authority under the Romans than to say that the gerousia gained. This apparent equality, as far as the epigraphic evidence shows, does not persist into the second century, when the gerousia ceases to appear beside the boule and demos in honorary texts. The privileged lending position, though, received Imperial support during the second century as it had in the first. There was, however, an important change in the nature of that support: the proconsul of Asia appears to have become the gerousia's source of Imperial backing. The gerousia's ease of access to the emperor - originally manifested in its ability to send ambassadors and to receive replies in the forms of letters - diminished as the proconsuls of the province began to take a more active interest in its affairs. This diminishment may have progressed so far by the third quarter of the second century that the gerousia could only appeal indirectly to the emperor. In the late second and early third centuries, the gerousia appears in funerary inscriptions as the caretaker of certain tombs and as the recipient of fines in the case of violations of the sepulchral specifications. It is by this time an kind of unofficial guarantor of some funerary arrangements, but this role may have originally developed at the beginning of the second century, when it was given an interest in seeing that violators of the terms of one endowment fund certainly and possibly a second were held responsible. 288 Throughout the Roman period, the gerousia ensured that it remained benevolent in the eyes of provincial officials and emperors through the use of the title philosebastos, the erection of Imperial statues, and the occasional celebration of feasts in honour of the Emperor. This representation contributed to the gerousia's ability to continue to exist under the Roman government, an existence which was probably assisted by a policy similar to that of Trajan in Bithynia: if the formation of assemblies of citizens had been upheld in Rome's early treaties with particular cities, those assemblies were permitted to continue. It is not an unforgivable assumption to deduce from this that a body such as the gerousia of Ephesus, composed of many wealthy and prominent citizens of that city, should have been permitted to continue, given that it had certainly existed in the city for almost three centuries before the establishment of the principate, and quite probably for t four. Moreover, it was closely associated with the Artemision, which may have further justified its continued existence in the eyes of provincial officials. The gerousia, though, was not simply a body of citizens which was allowed to remain: it has been seen that both emperors and proconsuls of Asia were involved in the affairs of the gerousia. Although the gerousia had probably lost the majority of its political powers by the beginning of the Hellenistic period, it remained an influential body under the empire because of the status of its individual members and because of its longstanding existence. It did, however, retain some political elements. The existence of a logistes of the gerousia, even if he was only an irregularly appointed individual, is, perhaps, one of the most obvious of its political features. That a logistes or curator could be appointed suggests that a public, officially recognized position was occupied by the gerousia. It must be noted, however, that this body does not normally appear alongside 289 the boule and demos, particularly for the period during which logistai are known to have been appointed for the gerousia. Moreover, the appearance of the gerousia beside the boule and demos seems to be limited to honorary inscriptions. It is unlikely, therefore, that the gerousia formed a third political partner for the boule and demos. The constitutional position of the gerousia in Ephesus is unclear. It cannot be definitively stated that it was political, social or religious. At all periods for which there is currently evidence, it seems that it was involved in the lending of temple resources and its own secular resources. It enjoyed a privileged position in the city through the social status of its individual members and its connections with the Temple of Artemis, and was thereby enabled to associate itself, sometimes on an equal footing, with the boule and demos. Such an association was probably not the result a defined constitutional position, though. Its official political powers probably disappeared for the most part with Alexander's restoration of a democratic constitution, after which it became a semi-public association of Ephesians engaging in financial activities; it was at all times closely involved with the affairs of the temple. The Imperial Ephesian gerousia may have nothing in common with the original Doric institution. The two bodies were not, however, completely separate. Originally, the Ephesian gerousia was most likely genuinely political, but, beginning in the Hellenistic period, it began an evolution into a body which, by the mid-third century A D , was no longer an administrative body whose decisions and actions directed Ephesian policy. The changes which can be observed in the epigraphic evidence for the gerousia, particularly in its activities and privileges, should be seen as natural developments, influenced by Roman rule, perhaps, but certainly not caused by Roman rule. 290 BIBLBIOGRAPHY Alcock, S.E., Ed., The Early Roman Empire in the East, Oxford (1997). , Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge (1993). Alzinger, W., "Athen und Ephesos im fiinften Jahrhundert vor Christus" in E. Akurgal (ed.) Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara (1978): vol. I., 507-516. Bammer, A. , "Ephesos in der Bronzezeit" JOAI 57 (1986-1987): 1-38. Beloch, J., Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt, Reprint, Rome (1968). van Berchem, D., "La gerousie d'Ephese" Museum Helveticum31 (1980): 25-40. de Blois, L. , (Ed.), The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power, Amsterdam (2003). , (Ed.), Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam (2001). Bommelaer, J-F., Lysandre de Sparte: Histoire eiTraditions-Bibliotheque des Ecoles franqaises dAthenes et de Rome Vol . 140, Paris (1981). Bowersock, G.W., Augustus and the Greek East, Oxford (1965). Bowie, E.L. , "The Vedii Antonini and the Temple of Hadrian at Ephesus" in E. Akurgal (ed.) Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara (1978): vol. 2, 867-874. Brein, F., "Zur ephesischen Topographie" JOAI 51 (1976-1977): 65-76. van Bremen, R., The Limits of Participation: Women and civic life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Amsterdam (1996). Broughton, T.R.S., "Roman Asia Minor" in T. Frank (ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome Baltimore (1938): Vol . 4, 499-916. Burrell, B., Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors, Boston (2004). Burton, G.P., "The Imperial State and its Impact on the Role and Status of Local Magistrates and Councillors in the Provinces of the Empire" in L. de Blois (ed.), Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam (2001): 202-214. , "Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire" JRS 45 (1975): 92-106. 291 Buyukkolanci, M . , & Engelmann, H. , "Inschriften aus Ephesos" ZPE 120 (1998): 65-82. Cartledge, P., & Spawforth, A. , Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities, 2 n d Ed., New York (2002). Chaniotis, A. , War in the Hellenistic World, Oxford (2005). Chapot, V. , La province romaine proconsulaire dAsie depuis ses origins jusqu'a la fin du haut-empire, Reprint, Rome (1967). Cohen, G .M. , The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor, Berkeley (1995). Colvin, S. (ed.), The Greco-Roman East: Politics, Culture, Society, Cambridge (2004). Corsten, T., "Die Amtszeit des Proconsul Asiae P. Petronius" EA 31 (1999): 94. Crook, J.A., Law and Life of Rome, 90BC-AD 212, Reprint, New York (1967). Curtius, C , "Inschriften aus Ephesos" Hermes 4 (1870): 174-228. Dmitriev, S., City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Oxford (2005). Domfnguez, A.J . , "Ephesos and Greek Colonization", in H. Friesinger & Krinzinger (eds.), 100 Jahre Osterreischische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, Vienna (1999), Vol . 1, 75-80. Eck, W., "Zur Einleitung. Rbmische Provinzialadministration und die Erkenntnismbmoglichkeiten der epigraphischen Uberlieferung" in W. Eck & E. Muller-Luckner (eds.), Lokale Autonomic und rbmische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert, Munich (1999): 1-15. Eck, W., & Muller-Luckner, E., Eds., Lokale Autonomic und romische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert, Munich (1999). Eckstein, A . M . , "Pharos and the Question of Roman Treaties of Alliance in the Greek East in the Third Century B C " CPh 94 (1994): 395-418. Engelmann, PL, "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XIII" JOAl 69 (2000): 77-93. , "Celsusbibliothek und Auditorium in Ephesos" JOAl 62 (1993): 106-111. Forbes, C.A., Neoi: A Contribution to the Study of Greek Associations, Middletown (1933). Frank, T., (ed.) An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Baltimore (1938). Frey, P.J-P., Corpus.Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, 2 Vols., Rome (1936). 292 Friesen, S.J., Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family, New York (1993). Friesinger, PL, & Krinzinger, F. (eds), 100 Jahre Osterreischische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, 3 Vols. Vienna (1999). Gasser, A. , Die korinthische und attische Importkerdmik vom Artemision in Ephesos=FiE XII/1, Vienna (1990). Gassner, V. , Das Siidtor der Tetragonos-Agora: Keramik und Kleinfunde=FiE XIII/1/1, Vienna (1997). Gruen, E.S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2 Vols. Berekely (1984). Guerber, E., "Cite libre ou stipendiaire? A propos du statut juridique d'Ephese a l'epoque du Haut Empire Romain" REG 108 (1995): 388-409. Hanson, E.V. , The Attalids of Pergamon, 2 n d Ed., Ithaca (1971). Hanson, M.H. , The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes, New York (1987). Heberdey, R., "Vorlaufige Berichte iiber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos, II" JOAl 1 (1898): 71-82. Head, B.V. , Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Ionia, London (1892). , On the Chronological Sequence of the Coins of Ephesus, London (1880). Hicks, E.L. , The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part III, Priene, lasos and Ephesos, Oxford (1890). Hingley, R., Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire, London (2005). Hogarth, D.G., "The Gerousia of Hierapolis" JPh 19 (1891): 69-101. Hopkins, K. , Conquerors and Slaves, Cambridge (1978). Icten, C , & Engelmann, H. , "Inschriften aus Ephesos und Umgebung" ZPE 91 (1992): 283-295. Jobst, W., "Embolosforschungen I: Archaologische Untersuchungen ostlich der Celsusbibliothek in Ephesos" JOAl 54 (1983): 149-242. Jones, A . H . M . , The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, Oxford (1940). Jones, C P . , "Atticus in Ephesus." ZPE 124 (1999): 89-94. Kalinowski, A. , "The Vedii Antonini: Aspects of Patronage and Benefaction in Second-Century Ephesos" Phoenix 46.1-2 (2002): 109-149. 293 Keil, J., "Vertreter der zweiten Sophistik in Ephesos" JOAI40 (1953): 5-26. , "Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos X I V " JOAI 25 (1929): 5-52. , "Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos XJJ" JOAI 23 (1926): 247-300. , "Ephesische Funde und Beobachtungen" JOAI 18 (1915): 279-286. Keil, J. & Maresch, G., "Epigraphische Nachlese zu Miltners Ausgrabungsberichten aus Ephesos" JOAI 45 (1960): 75-100. Knibbe, D., "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII" JOAI 62 (1993): 113-150. , Die Staatsmarkt: Die Inschriften des Prytaneions=FiE IX/1/1, Vienna (1981). , "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos III" JOAI 49 (1968-1971): 57-88. , "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos I" JOAI 48 (1966-1967): 1-22. , "Neue ephesische Chiliastyen" JOAI 46 (1961-1963): 19-32. Knibbe, D. & Engelmann, H. , "Aus ephesischen Skizzenbuchern" JOAI 52 (1978-1980): 19-59. Knibbe, D., Engelmann, H . & iplikcioglu, B. , "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos X I " JOAI 59 (1989): 162-238. Knibbe, D. & Iplikcioglu, B., "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos VIII" JOAI 53 (1981-1982): 85-150. , "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IX" JOAI 55 (1984): 107-135. Koester, H. (ed.) Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, Reprint, Cambridge, Mass. (2004). Kokkinia, C. "Ruling, Inducing, Arguing: How to Govern (and Survive) a Greek Province" in L . de Ligt, E.A. Hemelrijk & H.W. Singor (eds.), Roman Rule and Civic Life: Local and Regional Perspectives, Amsterdam (2004): 39-58. Kosmetatou, E., "The Mint of Ephesos under the Attalids of Pergamon (202-133 BC)", in H. Friesinger & Krinzinger (eds), 100 Jahre Osterreischische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, Vienna (1999), Vol . 1, 185-193. Lewis, N . "The New Evidence on the Privileges of the Gerousiasts of Ephesos" ZPE 131 (2000): 99-100. Levy, I., "Etudes sur la vie municipale de l'Asie Mineur sous les Antonins" REG 8 (1895): 203-250. 294 de Ligt, L. , Hemelrijk, E.A. & Singor, H.W. (Eds.), Roman Rule and Civic Life: Local and Regional Perspectives, Amsterdam (2004). Lintott, A.W. "The Capitoline Dedications to Jupiter and the Roman People" ZPE 30 (1978): 137-144. Marco, A.D. "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium" ANRW 2.7.2 (1980): 658-697. Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, 2 Vols., Princeton (1950). MacMullen, R., Romanization in the Time of Augustus, London (2000). , Roman Social Relations, London (1974). Maier, F.G., Griechische Mauerbauinschriften, Heidelberg (1959-1961). Menadier, I., Qua condicione Ephesii usi sint inde ab Asia informam provinciae redacta, Berlin (1880). Millar, F., Government, Society & Culture in the Roman Empire, Eds. H . M . Cotton & G . M Rogers, North Carolina (2004). , "Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status" JRS 73 (1983): 76-96. , The Roman Emperor in the Roman World, New York (1977). , "Triumvirate and Principate" JRS 63 (1973): 50-67. Mitchell, M . , "The Administration of Roman Asia from 133 B C to A D 250" in W. Eck & Muller-Luckner (eds.), Lokale Autonomic und romische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom I. bis 3. Jahrhundert, Munich (1999): 17-46. Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. , Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos: Kleinfunde=FiE IX/2/2, Pt. 1, Vienna (1991). Mommsen, Th., The History of Rome, 4 Vols., Tr. W.P.Dickson, Reprint. London (1894-1901). , Romische Geschichte, 5 Vols., Reprint. Berlin (1921). __,.Gesammelte Schriften, Vol . 4, Historische Schriften, Vol . 1. Berlin (1906). Morley, N . , Metropolis and hinterland: The city of Rome and the Italian economy 200 B. C.-A.D. 200, Cambridge (1996). Muth, R., '"EaafjV", Anzeigerfur Altertumswissenschaft 5 (1952): 61-64 & 123-128. 295 Nolle, J., "Marktrechte ausserhalb der Stadt: Lokale Autonomie zwischen Statthalter und Zentralort" in W. Eck & E. Muller-Luckner (eds.), Lokale Autonomie und rbmische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert, Munich (1999): 93-113. Noy, D., Panatyotov, A. , & Bloedhorn, H. , Eds., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, Volume 1, Tubingen (2004). Noy, D., & Bloedhorn, H. , Eds., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, Vol . 3, Tubingen (2004). Oliver, J.H., Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Philadelphia (1989). , "The Roman Governor's Permission for a Decree of the Polis" Hesperia 23 (1954): 165-166. , The Sacred Gerousia, Hesperia Supplement VI, Baltimore (1941). Parrish, D. (ed.), Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge andXanthos, JRA Supplement 45, Portsmouth, Rhode Island (2001). Perrot, G., & Guillaume, E., Exploration archeologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, Vol . 1, Paris (1872). Price, S.R.F., Rituals and Power: The Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge (1984). Reynolds, J., Aphrodisias and Rome, London (1982). Rogers, G .M. , The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City, London (1991). van Rossum, J.A., De Gerousia in de Griekse Steden van het Romeinse Rijk, Diss. Leiden (1988). Russell, J.C., The Control of Late Ancient and Medieval Population, Philadelphia (1985). Sartre, M . , L'Orient Romain: Provinces et societesprovinciales en Mediterranee orientate dAuguste aux Severes (31 avant J.-C. - 235 apres J.-C), Paris (1991). Schulte, C , Grammateis von Ephesos: Schrieberamt und Sozialstruktur in einer Provinzhauptstadt des rbmischen Kaiserreiches, Stuttgart (1994). Scheidel, W. (ed.), Debating Roman Demography, Leiden (2001). , "Progress and Problems in Roman Demography" in W. Scheidel (ed.), Debating Roman Demography, Leiden (2001): 1-81. 296 Scherrer, P., "The City of Ephesos: From the Roman Period to Late Antiquity" in H . Koester (ed.), Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, Reprint, Cambridge, Mass. (2004): 1-25. , "The Historical Topography of Ephesos" in D. Parrish (ed.), Urbanism in Asia Minor: New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierabpolis, Pergampn, Perge and Xanthos, Portsmouth, Rhode Island (2001): 57-93. , Ephesus: The New Guide, Turkey (2000). Schowalter, D., "Honoring the Emperor: The Ephesians Respond to Trajan", in H . Friesinger & Krinzinger (eds), 100 Jahre Osterreischische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposions Wienl995, Vienna (1999), Vol . 1, 121-126. Seiterle, G., "Lysimachische Stadtmauer" JOAl48 (1966), Grabungen, 8-11. Sherk, R.K., Rome and the Greek East to the death of Augustus, New York (1984). , Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus, Baltimore (1969). Sherwin-White, A . N . , Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168 BC-AD1, London (1984). Sirks, A.J.B., "Making a Request to the Emperor: Rescripts in the Roman Empire" in L . de Blois (ed.), Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam (2001): 121-135. Slootjes, D., "The Governor as Benefactor in Late Antiquity" in L . de Ligt, E.A. Hemelrijk & H.W. Singor (eds,.), Roman Rule and Civic Life: Local and Regional Perspectives, Amsterdam (2004): 59-75. Southern, P., Domitian: Tragic Tyrant, New York (1997). Storey, G.R., "The Population of Ancient Rome" Antiquity 71 (1997): 966-978: Strubbe, J., APAIELJITYMBIOI: Imprecations against Descrators of the Grave in the Greek Epitaphs of Asia Minor. A Catalogue. Bonn (1997). Tod, M . N . , "Greek Inscriptions at Cairness House" JHS 54.2 (1934): 140-162. Warden, P.D. & Bagnall, R.S., "The Forty Thousand Citizens of Ephesus" CPh 83.3 (1988): 220-223. White, L . M . . , "Urban Development and Social Change in Imperial Ephesos" in H . Koester (ed.), Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, Reprint, Cambridge, Mass. (2004): 27-80. Wilhelm, A. "Athen und Ephesos in funften Jahrhundert von Christus" in Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara, 1978, Vol 1.507-517. 297 Woolf, G., Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul, Cambridge (1998). , "The Roman Urbanization of the East" in S. Alcock, (ed.)., The Early Roman Empire in the East, Oxford (1997): 1-14. 298 Appendix I: Catalogue of Inscriptions The criteria determining the inclusion and exclusion of inscriptions in this catalogue have been discussed in Chapter Three and need not, therefore, be repeated here. It may be well, however, to review.the arrangement of the inscriptions. The primary divisions of the catalogue are very broad: an inscription is either Hellenistic or Imperial in date. Because the vast majority of gerousia-mscriptions fall into the latter category, they have been further subdivided by type, of which six are identified: Imperial letters, Dedicatory inscriptions, Honorary inscriptions, Public decrees, Lists of names and Funerary inscriptions. The three Hellenistic inscriptions can all be classified as Public decrees. Each inscription is accompanied by references to earlier editions, by an identification of its findspot, by its measurements and by an estimate of its date whenever possible. The first reference in the case of each inscription is the source for the text presented. Alternate readings, when they affect the gerousia or its members, are provided in footnotes. Illustrations of the inscriptions have been collected when possible and presented in the second appendix. pp..299-303 pp. 304-316 pp. 317-324 pp. 325-338 pp. 339-361 pp. 362-370 pp. 370-380 I. Hellenistic Inscriptions A. Decrees Nos. 1-3 II. Imperial Inscriptions A. Letters from Imperial Officials Nos. 4-18 B. Dedicatory Inscriptions Nos. 19-31 C. Honorary inscriptions Nos. 31-52 D. Public Decrees Nos. 53-58 E. Lists of Names Nos. 59-70 F. Funerary Inscriptions Nos. 71-91 299 I. Hellenistic Inscriptions A. Decrees (1) FiE IX/I/I a2; IEph 1449.1-10; GIBM 449; SGDI 5589; SIG3 353; Oliver, SG 1: honorary decree of boule and demos of Ephesus for Euphronius the son of Hegemon of Akarnania; fragments on two blocks found built into the proscenium of the theatre but originally from the Artemision. Measurements of the original block (including several other inscriptions): 208.4 x 60 cm. Date: 302-294 B C ; the general Prepelaus, who is the recipient of the embassy.referred to in this inscription, captured Ephesus on behalf of Lysimachus in. 302 BC. The city was lost, until Lysimachus once again captured it in 295 or 294. Prepalaus was a general whom Cassander sent to assist Lysimachus in the campaigns leading up to the battle of Ipsus in 301 BC, so it cannot be taken for granted that he remained with Lysimachus throughout the seven years following Ipsus until the recapture of the city. He is known from Diodorus to have been present in the city in 302 BC, but it might make more sense for Euphronius to lead an embassy, to him if he was not present in the city. Illustration: Fig. 5. ebo^ev xfji poDAfji Kai xcoi 5f|ucoi- 'Hpoyeixcov elnev rtept c5v oi vecorcoiai Kai oi Koupfixec; KaxacxaBevxeq 8ieA.ex9er|aav xfji pouAfji K a i x6 \|/f](t>io"ua f|veyKay xfji; yepovaiai; K a i xcov e7UKAf|xcov vnep Eixjjpoviou noXixeiaq, 8e86x9ai xfji pouAfjv £7T.ei8t| Eb xov iepou K a i xfjt; dxeA.ei-aq xfji 9ecoi crovSioiKnaev pexd xfjg Ttpecpeiai; bncoq dv f| dxeA[ei]a imdpxr]i xfji 5 Gecoi, Kai xd Aoirax ev drtaca Kaipoic; 8iaxeA.ei Xpf|cauo<; cov K a i Koivfji xo3i 8f|ucoi K a i iSiai XOIQ evxvyx&vovai x[co]p 7toA,ixcbV eyvc6o"9ai enaiveaai xe Eb(j>p6viov ebvotag eveKev f]v e%ei rcepi xe x6 iepbv K a i xr\\i JT6AIV, K a i Souvai abxcoi 7toAixe[ia]v eb' iar | i K a i bpoir|i, abxcoi K a i eKybvoic;, dvaypdi | /ai 8e abxcoi xf||a TtoAixetav ei<; xo iep6v xfjq 'ApxepiSoq dv Kai a i Aoiraxt TroA.ixei[ai djvayeypaupevai e i a i v emKAnpcoaai 5e abxbv K a i eiq bvXr\v K a i eiq %iXiaoxvv, bncoq dv eiScoca 7idvxeq oxi b 8TJUOQ b 'E.]fji K a i xcoi Sfjucm eraxivea[ai — [co]va 'Ia(j,r|vo8c6po"J Boicoxiov [xbv abXn-] [xfj]v K a i axedavcoaai abxbv [xpixyecoi] [ax]e6dvcoi K a i d v a y y e i X a i [— 10 [ - ] j -xa [— Translation: It was decreed by the boule and demos; [...] proposed the measure; when the temple wardens were before the boule in accordance with the decree of the gerousia and the epikletoi on behalf of [...]on the flute-player; it was decreed by the boule and demos to praise [...]on the son of Ismenodorus the Boiotian flute player and to crown him with a golden crown and to announce.... (3) IEph 8; SIG3,742; two decrees of the city of Ephesus regarding Mithridates VI on a marble plaque; found near the aqueduct. Measurements: 130 x 75 cm. Date: 86/85 BC. Illustration: Fig. 7. [ ETxeiSfj, xou Sfjuou] [4x)A.daaov]xoq xfjv Tipbq 'Pcouatouc; xauc, Ko[ivoijq acoxfjpac; rax-] [Xaidv ebv]oiav K a i ev raxaiv xbiq fertixaaaop-efvoiq rax-GvuxocJ [TieiGapxlo'uvxoq, Mi0pa8dxr iq Ka7xrax8oKi[aq Baai^eijc; raxpa-] 1 For o-T0c8u.dc; as the billeting of soldiers, see Roussel, REG 37 (1924): 79 & Robert, Hellenica 3 (1946): 79; cf. cat. nos. 12,/. 11; 13,/. 29; 14,/. 39. 301 Section I: Hellenistic Inscriptions A. Decrees [Rett; xdc; 7t]pdc; 'Pcouaiooc; cruvGfJKac; K a i auvayayco[v xdc; S w d i i e i t ; e-] ["iexeipr|]aev Kbpioc; yeveaGai xfjc; u/nGev eavxcoi 7r.po[ar|KO"6ar|c;] 5 [Xc6pa]<;, K a i rcpoKaxaXapduevoc; xdc; 7xpoKeiia,evat; rjixcov nb[keic, a-] [raxx]r|, eKpdxnaev Ka i xfjc; f|p.exepac; rab^ecoc; Kaxa7r.A.r|c;du£voc; [xcoi] xe nXr\Qei xcov 8-ovduecov K a i xcoi dTtpoaSoKfjxcoi xfjc; em.poA/fjc;, [b] 8e Sfjpoc; hpcov drab xfjc; dpxfjc, awtj)\)A.daccov xfjv xcp6c; 'Pcopai-ouc; ebvoiav, ecxriKcoc; Kaipbv Tipdc; x6 pon0eiv xdic; KOIVOIC; Ttpdyua- 1 aiv , KeKpiKev d v a 8 e i i ; a i xdv Tipdc; MiBpaSdxnv "xd^eirov bicep xe xfjc; 'Pcou.aicov f-yeiioviac; K a i xfjc; Koivfjc; e^ euGepiac;, b p o 0-uuaSdv rcdvxcov xcov TtoXixcov emSeScoKdxcov eauxobt; eic; xob[c;] [re] epi xobxcov dycovaq, 8id 8e8dx0ai xcoi Sfjpcoi, xob "ipdyixaxoc; [d-] VTJKOVXOC; eic; xe xdv -r.dXeu.ov K a i eic; xfjv duXaKfjv K a i daddA,eiav Ka[i] 1 acoxnpiav xov xe i epou xfjc; ApxepiSoc; K a i xfjc; rabXecoc; K a i xfjc; xco-[p]ac;, xobc; axpaXriyobc; K a i xdv y p a u p a x e a xfjc; paoA-fjc; K a i xobq npoeSpo-Jc; eiaeveyKeiv ii/fjdiaua raxpaxpfju.a K a i rcepl 6iA,av0pc6raov KaGdxi crupdepeiv, K a i Tcept xobxau SieXapev b Sfjuoc;. eSoc^ ev xcoi 8fju.coi, yvc6u.n rcpoeSpcov K a i xov ypa|j.paxecoq xob" 2 PoijA.fjc; AaK^rpxidSau xob 'AaKA.rjJTidSo'u xov EbpouMSot), e i a a y -[y]eiA,auevcov xcov axpaxTrycoV eicct xcov (xeyiaxcov KivSbvcov e-nayoiaevcov xcoi xe iepcoi xfjc; Apxeux8o<; K a i xfji nbXei K a i raxai xdic; TtoXei-xaic; K a i xdic; KaxoiKobaiv xf|v xe 7xdA,iv Ka i xfjv xcopav, dvayKaiov eaxi raxvxac; buovofjaavxac; b[-xo]axfjvai xdv KivSuvov, 5e8dx0ai xcoi 8fj- 2 (xcoi, xob Tcpdypaxoc, dvf|Kovx[oc; eic;] xfjv d-j^aKTjv K a i daddA,eiav K a i acox[n-] piav xov xe iepou xfjc; 'Apxep[i8oc; K a i ] xfjc; rab^ecoc; Ka i xfjc; xcopctc;. xobc; pev eKyeypaupevoDQ fj raxpa[yeypa|i.]u.evouc; brab Xoyiaxcov 'lepcov f\ 8[r)-] u.oaicov cbixiviofjv xpdraoi nd[Xiv e i ]va i evxiuout; K a i f|K\-pco00ai xdc; K a -[x'] abxcov eKypaddc; Ka i 6cj>eiA,'f|u,[axa], xobc; 8e raxpayeypawxevo'uc; Tipdc; [ie-] 3 [p]dc; KaxaS iKa t ; fj Snpoaiac; fj eTiixeiucx 'iepd fj 8r|ubaia fj dXXa bdeiXfjuaxta] cb ix iv iow xpdTtcoi raxpeia0ai Tidvxac; K a i e tva i dKbpouc; xdc; K a x ' abxcov 7tpdc;eic;- ei 8e xivec; eveia iv ev xalq 'lepaic; i i iaGcoaeaiv fj Sr ipoaiai t ; cb-vaic; uexpi xob vi3v, xobxoit; e a x d v a i xdc; 7tpdc;eic; K a x d xdc; Ttpouraxpxo'oaac; oiKOvouiac; Kaxd xobt; vduouc;- baa 8e iepd SeSdveiaxai, ndvxac; xob[c;] 3 ddeiA-ovxac; K a i xei-pi^ovxac; dnoXe^-uaOai drab xcov bdeiXruo-dxcov, 7tA,ij[v] xcov brab xcov awxepdxcov fj xcov dno8e8eiy(ievcov bra abxcov eK8ave ia -[x]cov era bTtoGfJKaic; 8e8aveia|xevcov, xobxcov 8e raxpeia0ai xobc; xdKcuc; dnd xob eiaidvxoc; k v i a m o b , ecoc; dv b 8fju.oc; eic; KaA.Mova raxpayevnxai Kaxdafxa - ] c a v K a i ei xivec; 8e neTtoXixoypddrivxai (xexpi xci3v vbv xpbvcov, eivai ndvxac; e[v-] 4 xipo\)c; Kai xcov abxcov uexexeiv 4i^ av0pc6raov A,eA,ba0ai 8e Ka i eivai dKbpo[-uc;] xdc; xe iepdc; K a i 8n|j.ocriac; SiKac;, ei |J.tj xivec; e i a i v VKEO raxpopiapcov x&pac, fj 8 i ' d|xt))[ia-] Prixfjaecoc; K^npovoixiac; et^e-uypevai- e i v a i 8e Ka i xobq iaoxeXeic; K a i raxpotKOUc; K a i iepobc; K a i e^eXevQepovc, K a i £evouc;, 6ao i dv dvaX.dpcocnv xd bnXa K a i Ttpdc; 302 Section I: Hellenistic Inscriptions A . Decrees XO["UC,] f|ye|j,6vac, &7toYpd\|/covi;cu, ndvxac, TtoAixaQ e xd a-uu.B6A.aia x d xe vauxiKa Ka l Kaxd %ElP°-Ypac()a K a l K a x d Tiapa0f|Ka<; K a i imo0f|Ka<; K a i e7ii0f|Kaq K a l K a x d cbvdq K a l 5 0 buoAoYi-[a]q Ka l 8iaypa<))dQ Ka l eKXpf|aei<; 7idvxe<; dau£vco<; K a l eKcuaicoc; awKaxa0ep .e-[voi] xcoi Sfpcoi, drceAuaav xobc, xpeo i^A-exag xcov 6<|)£iAr|udxcov, pevouacov xcov [ ]ai SiaKaxoxcov rcapd xoi<; vvv SiaKaxexouavv, ei pf| xiveq f\ ev0d8e f) kn' k-[ jevoig 8eSaveiKacav f| a-uvnAAdxaaiv xd 8e node, xovc, xparce^ei-[xaq, 6aoi pev kv xcoi e]2 [ ] -Jidq 'E^iKCOVXoq, 5 [ ].pox[ ] Translation: .. .sends greetings to the gerousia of the Ephesians. Theo.. .of the gerousia and those who upon the...Protogenes the son of Ouliadus...Aratus the son of Aratus...the son of Helicon.... (5) JOAl 62 (1993): 113, no.1.1-6: fragment of a letter of Caesar (?) or Octavian(?) to the gerousia of Ephesus regarding privileges; found in the Tetragonus Agora. Measurements: the next six inscriptions (5-10) are on a single stone measuring 141 x 66.5 x 21-25 cm. Date: 48/47-27 BC. [ ] . . 0 . . [ ] [ ]. dtte8ec;dur|v, cbuoXdynad xe xfnpfjaai xcov] [TipeapVcepJcov Kai x d x e i p i a K a i 6iA.dv6pcoTta. 6[7r.£p 8e] [Kai bu.eiq f|x]fjaaxe Txepi xcov b*eiX.ouevcov ab[xfj xfj ye-] [pcuaia xpe]cov K a x d xouq vduouq auvfj8[ouai xauq] 5 [bixexepoDq] K a i -rpd^eic, yeivecGai. [eppcoaGe.] Translation: .. .1 have received, and I agree to preserve the honours and privileges of the elders. And what you have asked about the debts which are owed to the gerousia itself I wish that it be in accordance with your own laws and practices. Farewell. (6) JOAl 62 (1993): 114 no 2.7-16: letter of Octavian to the boule and demos of Ephesus, regarding a vote of the gerousia concerning its privileges; found in the Tetragonus Agora. Date: 29BC. [Abx(OKpdxcop) K a i a a p Ge]oi3 uidq, bTxaxoq xd e', abxo[Kpdx]cop xd ['Edeaicov po]uA,fi, 8fju.co xodpeiv ei eppco[aGe K]aXcoq dv [exoi, Kdyco 8e ue]xd xou axpaxe-uuaxoc; byia[i]vco. ©edSco-1 JOAl: di kni xcov x,pr|(a.dxcov (xfjc; yepouaiac;). 2 JOAl: Tcpeap-uxjepoi? 305 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions A . Letters from Roman officials [poq, Meuvcov (?), npJcoxoYevnc,, 'HpaKAeiSnc,, Ec6Tta[xp]oc„ 'AaKA,r| - 1 0 [7iid8r|g,] 'Apiaxicov, 'AyaGfivcop, MrivbSoFcoq] TipeaBe[i<;] [xfJQ EKKA,r|]aiqq3 epol xd raxpd xfjt; yepova\iac, \|/]f]Aia|j.[a] [SieAec;]dy xe dKoA.O"u0co<; xoit; ev abxfco 5i]aKe[ipe-] [VOIQ- 5i6 xo] xe a u a x T p a xfjc, Yepouoiac; [dTtoSexouou,] [xr|pf|aco xe]. [[ ]] xovq bpexfepauq vbuoui;] 1 5 [Kai xd xeiua K a i ] diAdvGpcoTta. [eppcoaGe.] Translation: Imperator Caesar, son of the god, consul for the fifth time, hailed as Imperator seven times, sends greetings to the boule and demos of the Ephesians. If you are well, it is well, and I am healthy along with the army. Theodoras, Memnon, Protogenes, Heraclides, Sopater, Asclepiades, Aristipn, Agathenor, Menodotus the ambassadors of the Assembly (eKKAnaia) have given to me the decree from the gerousia, and afterwards they spoke about the conditions in it; therefore I accept the constitution of the gerousia, and I shall preserve... your customs and honours and privileges. Farewell. (7) JOAI 62 (1993): 115, no 6.48-50: rescript of M Agrippa to the gerousia of Ephesus regarding its privileges; found in the Tetragonus Agora. Date: 17-1 4 B C 4 MdpKOc; 8e 'AypinTtai; xd a"bxd xeipia [ K a i ] [<()i]AdvGpco7i:a eYpaxuev K a i exapiaax[o] xfji Yepotxjiai. 50 Translation: And Marcus Agrippa proclaimed and granted these same honours and privileges to the gerousia. (8) JOAI 62 (1993): 114, no. 3.17-26: letter of Tiberius to the gerousia of Ephesus regarding its privileges; found in the Tetragonus Agora. Date: 12/13 A D . [TiBepioq Kaiaap ZleBaaxcG v\bq, dpxiepe-ug, 8r|u(apxiKf|<;) [ecjoDCftaq) x6 i'], [abxoKpdx]cop xd 'Ecfieaicov xfj Yepowifa xcxi]peiv [Ilapd . Kojupxio-u npoKA-ou x6 rceu^Gev [v]b' bpcov [vufi(j)iau]a SnAouv xi|v xcov Y£p6vxco[v] npbq xe 2 0 [xbv epov 7ia]xepa Kai xov OIKOV fjpcov &Ti[av]xa Sid-[voiav f|8eco]q dnoSexopai rcerceiapevoc, [xfjc, a-bxjfji; [bpaQ K a i rcpjoc, euawov. ebvoiaq SianpovofeiaGai B O D - ] [Aopevo\)]q- d xeiuia K a i 6iA.dv6pco7ta 6 xe nd[nnoq [iov K a i ] [b naxfip eTte]BeBaicoaav, xavxa iaxe Kdpe 8ia[6"i)A,dc;eiv] 2 5 [TtapeaKeDjaauevov. eppcoaGe. 3 One might also read [xfjq yepov]aiac, to avoid the introduction of £KKAr|0-ia, which does not otherwise appear in this series of letters. 4 This inscription is the sixth in the series, appearing after a letter of Gaius Caesar or Germanicus (cat. no. 10). As such, it seems to be out of chronological order in the arrangement presented by Knibbe. 306 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions A. Letters from Roman officials Translation: Tiberius Caesar, son of Augustus, pontifex maximus, having the tribunician power for the tenth time, hailed as Imperator seven times, sends greetings to the gerousia of the Ephesians. I happily received from Curtius Proculus the decree sent by you which shows the goodwill of the elders both to my father and to our entire domus, believing because of it that you wish that your respect for me to be made clear. What honours and privileges my grandfather and father have confirmed for you, know that I, having made provisions, shall continue to preserve. Farewell. (9) JOAl 62 (1993): 115, no. 4.26a-37: fragment of a letter of Germanicus (?) to the gerousia of Ephesus concerning its privileges; found in the Tetragonus agora. Date: Germanicus was in northern Asia, in the region of Nicaea, in A D 18 (Knibbe; Tac. Ann. 11.54). [ - 5 26a ['E6eaicov x]fj yepoxjoia yaXpew Mn[v68oxoc; (?)- - ] [b 7ipeape"j]Triq bucov, c5i x6 \|/fj6iaua K a i xo[ ] [ ] a i awxuxcov uoi ev N e i K a l a coie[ ] [ ] t|(j.cxc; e8fjtaoc-ev K a i abxbv aGv a[ ] 30 [ Ttjpdq cv\inavxa xbv O I K O V f|M-o3v TI[ ] [ ] feTtaivcoi di^oxei-iouuevo-jc, qfirro-jc; eic; xe xbv] [naxepa K a i ? ] f|u.dc, ebvoiav emSeiKvijaGaLi. ] [ ] euol a7r.o8ex6u.evoc-. e7Uu.eA.n.[ ] [xouq vbuouc-,] xe xfjq yepouaiac; K a i x d eGn abx[fjq Kdyco] 3 5 [ob ubvov] 8iavaDc;[eiv eic;] [xo \ikXKov en]i x6 Kpixxov Tieipdaoi ia i . [eppcocGe.] Translation: Germanicus Caesar, son of Augustus, proconsul, sends greetings to the gerousia of the Ephesians. Your ambassador, Menodotus, by whom the decree and the..., having met me in Nicaea...has shown us and so it...towards our entire domus...being honoured with public praise they have displayed respect for my father and myself...being received by me took care...both the customs of the gerousia and the practices of it I shall attempt not only to continue to preserve but also to augment for the better. Farewell. (10) JOAl 62 (1993): 115, no 5.38-47: letter of Gaius Caesar or Germanicus to the gerousia of Ephesus concerning its privileges; found in the Tetragonus Agora. Date: A D 1-4 or A D 18. [reptxaviKbq (?) K ] a i a a p Eepaaxox) mbq dv6 bpieiv oi uev Z e p a a x o i e%apiaavxo [oi 5e Tipb euau dJyGimaxoi Tidvxei; awexf ipnaav dTtoA.'Oaavxec; b u d q 10 [xcov xe Tiapd 8i ]oiKnaiv evyocov K a i Xoy^ac, K a i eTtiaxaGprjcov.6 [Sid Kdycoi eypa]\(/a bpeiv x d 6iA,dv9pcoTta Kdue auvxripfiaai [GeAfiaeiv Sid xe x ]d xfjc; Tt6A,eco<; dc; icoua K a i Sid xd npeapeiov bpcov [hSecoc, (?) o]b udvov a-uvxnpcoi x d S i K a i a bpcov aXXa K a l Enav- . 6 C f . cat. no. 1, line 4. 308 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions A. Letters from Roman officials [cjfjaeiv bmaxlyo'Ouai, anoXixo xe buxxq xcov xe napd SioiKnaiv ev- 1 5 [yucov K a i Xoyfj]aq K a i emaxaGixncov eKxbq ei ufj xiva abxbq 8id cxvdv-[ K T | V Snuoaiav] bvoiiaaxel 8et£coi, rtpbq xe xovq 64etA,ovxac, bumv [Kai Ttpdcjeiq] yeiyegGai raxd xobq btxexepouq v6u.o"jq. Translation: Publius Petronius, proconsul, sends greetings to the gerousia of the Ephesians. Tiberius Julius Heras, who is also your gymnasiarch, has shown to me the rights of the elders, which the Augusti have granted to you and which all the proconsuls before me uniformly preserved absolving you of the securities for the assize district and of donations and of billeting. So I have written to you to say that I also am willing to preserve these privileges; because of the worthiness of your city and because of your dignity. I gladly promise not only to preserve your rights but also to increase them, and I absolve you from the securities for the assize district and of donations'and of billeting except if because of a public emergency I myself specify someone by name, and regarding those who are indebted to you and have business with you, it shall be done in accordance with your own laws. (13) JOAl 62 (1993): 117-118, no 9.19-31: letter of the proconsul of Asia Publius Petronius to the gerousia of Ephesus regarding its privileges; found in the Tetragonus Agora. Date: the inscription dates to the second year of Petronius' proconsulship, A D 30/31. [floTt^ioq nex]pcovioq dv0-J7taxoq x6 P' 'E6eaicov [yepouata %atpeiv evxuxbvx]6q ii[oi] AoyKiou Ko'ucavvio'u 2 0 To[ - - 'iepeco]q [Tipepioju Kfataapoq] lepaaxoi) K a i 'Ioi)A.i[acJ Zepaaxfjq K a i I,vvKkt\xov K a i y['UM^acadpx]o'u buriSv aixnaauevo'o empepaicoaai |a.e, baa b Zepaaxcbq [Qeox> vibq] KaGcoq K a i di rrpb eu.au dvG-Cnaxoi eypavt/av, bvXd^ay [u.ev budcj . d^eixoupyfjxoijq [[—]] eniaxaGixncov K a i Xoyncov, dnoA.['uaai] 2 ^ 8e K a i xcov napd SioiKnaiv kvyvcov, xauxri udXXov fjSiov bneaxb -(inv ypdyai1 , K a [ . . ] I J V T | I Koaivvioq b eia.6q diXoq K a i a68pa |j.oi xeiu,i-oq fearcox)8aau.evoq bnep v\ii]A,oq, ev noXXolq [e]Y[vcopia9r|,] ei Ka i xov^.nXeiaxovq eA,dy[0ave]v, cbq k%e\. Ttpbq [b]p[dq ebvoia]q xe Ka i rcpoatpeaeoq. vvv [8e f|8]ri xf|v ea rnou [Si]aTc[pe;rii 6]iA,og[x]opYlav, t | V ec; dpxfj[q 7tp6]q xf|v TI6A.IV k^ei, 3 8 0 (j)av[epdv naoi] 7ie7io[ir|]|j.evo'u, oiKeiov [dpa K a l ] TtpeTcov xcp xe p[icp xcp eaux]oi3 K [ a i ] xcp f]0ei v[opi£ovxoq xd] Koapei[v] K a i afeuvixveiv K a i xd dy]vd K[a l ] xd K o i v d x[fjq peyiaxriQ] K a l ema[Tpoxdxr)q bpcov TxbAecoq, ei]q xe xei[if\v K a l e"baep[eiav xfj]q era-6avea[xdxr|(; 0edq 'A]pxepi8oq K a i xov OIKOV X C O V abxoKpaxd- 3 8 5 p[co]v 8[copediq K a i xPfllpdxcov d(j)iepcoaei xd vvv diAoxeipou-uevou, [aDvf|Sop]ai bueiv xe K a l rcepl xdvSpbq [epci x' e] iacov 7t[e]pi bp[cov eiq x6] d[vx]iuT]vuaai papxupfjaai xe [Ka i eb](jynuiq xfj n[p]oar|K[oi)a]r| avxbv [b]7tep bucov dpe i \ | / aa0av 6[7tep] qcbxcp K a i rca-p' [b]pcov 6<|>e]iAeo-0ai yopit /o 7tp6q x6 K a l TiA,e[iot>]q e i v a i xcnbq 3 9 0 b[p]oicoq 7i[po0]t)uo'op[e]voDq, ei cCxoq <)>aivoi[xo x]fjq K a x d xf|v d q l a v duoipfjq xuvxdvfcov.] eir | 8' dv K d u o l ev xoiq p d A i c x a Kexapiapevov K a i f|8iaxov, e i , 6v ecjaipexcoq xcov <|>iA,cov xeipco K a l cxepyco, Trap' bpeiv bpcprjv papxupiaq K a i xeipfjq dc;icn)pevov. Ttepi pevxoi ye xfjq xco xpT|p[d]xcpv Siaxd- 3 9 5 i;ecoq K a i xcov drceiKOviapdxcov xfjq 0eoi3 K a l xcov eiKbvcov, bncoq abxoiq Sefjaei xpfjo"<0>ai Ka l eiq xfiv x i v a b iKovopiav dvSpa xexdx0oci, abxbv xe xbv dvaxi0ev[xa] eiar|f|O"ao"0ai vopiqai evXoyov e tva i K a l bpdq obx[co] \|/r|apevxeipf|aei Xv-oueva f| pexaxiOepeva. e i Se xiq 7ieipa0eir| bnwaovv f| avv-fiovXevcai xi xoicuxov f] e i a r |Yf i aaa9a i Ttepi tfjq pexa0e-coq K a i pexaSioiKfjcecoq xcov vov vnd xe abxcxu K a i vb' v- 4 0 5 pcov K-upco0r|aopevcov, xauxov dvu7tep0excoq PcuAopai e[i]q pev x6 xfjq peYicxriq 0edq 'ApxepiSoq iepbv KaxaGea-0 a i Tipoaxeipou 8r|(vdpia) P' p(-Opia) rcevxaKic[xi]A,ia, eiq Se xbv xov [Eepaaxau | [Kvpicu K a i a a p o q (^ ICTKOV ] | vep t coa i a -&XXa SrKvdpia) S i a p t p t a 7tevxaK]iaxiX.ia, | Ka8[coq; cf. Oliver, SG 3, /. 410: Yep[ovpaia; Hicks, GIBM 481, //. 279-282: . . .9a i Jtpoaxeipot) Sri(vdpia) P' p( tp ta) J i evxaK ia [x i ]X i a , e iq 8e x6v xo-d | [Sepaaxo-u 4>iaKov aXXa 8ri(vdpia) p' pCfapia) TtevxaKia^iAia, K a l xfj] | Yepo[\x^a xfj 'Efyeoiwv aXXa Sri(vdpia) P' p( tpta) JtevxaKt]acj iAiAia | Ka8...; FiE II, no. 27, //. 408-411: . . .0ai Ttpoaxeipco Sri(vdpia) P' p(i)pta) 7tevxaKia[xi]A,ia, eiq 8e xdv xo-o | [K-opiou K a i a a p o q ^ICTKOV 8ri(vdpia) p' p(-Opia) 311 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions A. Letters from Roman officials Ka9[c6c, ' A K c r u i M a o q npdicXoc,, b XauTtpbToaoq avJGbrcaxoc,, K a i 7i[p6tepov 81' fjc, a v x e Y p a y e v rcpbc, bua c , e]TciaToX.fjc; ETcfeKbpcoaev K a i copiejEV T.6 TtpbcrcEiuov. E]ppcoa9£. Translation: During the prytany of Tiberius Claudius Antipater Julianus in the month of Poseideon. (372) Afranius Flavianus, the legate and propraetor, sends greetings to the magistrates, boule and demos of the Ephesians. Vibius Salutaris, our very dear friend, being on account of his rank most noble and furthermore being a man of the best character, because of the disposition which he holds towards us, has shown himself to be a friend, one of the most loyal and fervent, which he has demonstrated in many cases, even if he escapes the notice of most men, since he holds goodwill and concern for you. But now since he has made his signal affection, which he has bad for the city from his youth, clear to all, and since he believes that it would be in keeping with his lifestyle and conduct to adorn and to exalt both the sacred and the common affairs of your great and noteworthy city, and since he has now done honour and reverence to the most manifest goddess Artemis and of the house of the Emperors with gifts and the dedication of money, I rejoice for you, because of the man, and for myself equally, because of the reciprocation and the testimony and the response to him from you with appropriate eloquence; therefore I believe it is owed to him by you to the end that many others also might be zealous in the same way, that this man should be seen to receive a reward in accordance with his merit. (392) But this would be most welcome and dear to me of all things, if my friend, whom I honour and esteem in particular, should be seen among you as worthy of recognition and reward. But concerning the endowment of money and of the statues of the goddess and of the busts, how it will be necessary to use them and which man is to be appointed to the administration of them, I believe that it is seemly that he who has dedicated these things should propose a motion and that you should decree in that way. And when appropriate things have been ratified by the donor himself and by you yourselves, I wish that the endowment remain on those terms unchanged by anyone or by any proposed decree to dissolve or redirect the funds. But if someone attempts in any way whatsoever either to advise some such thing or to propose a measure about the redirection and re-interpretation of the things which shall now be ratified by him and by you, I wish that he pay immediately to the temple of the greatest goddess, Artemis, a penalty of twenty-five thousand denarii and to the fiscus of the Emperor twenty-five thousand denarii and another twenty-five thousand denarii for a distribution to the gerousia, just as Aquillius Proculus, the most illustrious proconsul, approved and specified the penalty in the letter with which he formerly responded to you. Farewell. TtevTOCKiaxUua, -xfj 8e] | yeplaocria iXoae|3&aTco &XXa 8ri(vapiot) Stapupia TtevTaK]ia%iX,ia, | Ka0[c6<; cf. above, Chapter Six, pp. 264-270. Both [Sepaa-cou cJaaKOv] and [xdv xov K-upiou Kcdaapoq diaKOv] appear elsewhere in the Salutaris dossier (cf. cat. no. 54, //. 112-113 & 325). 312 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions A. Letters from Roman officials (16) IEph 1486.1-16; GIBM 486; S I G 3 833; Oliver, SG 7 Hermes 4 (1870): 178-81: Letter o f Hadrian to the gerousia of Ephesus; found in the theatre. Measurements: 75.9 x 129.3cm. Date: Gaius Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus was proconsul of As ia in A D 119/120 (PIR2 M 568), the predecessor of Cornelius Priscus, the proconsul of A D 120/121 (PIR2 1420). [AbxoKpdxcop] K a [ i ] a a p Qeov Tpcavo'i) r t a p G i K o u v\6q, [Qeov Nepoua •ujicovbq, Tpaiavbq 'ASpiavbq ZeBacxbq, [dpxiepe-uq] peyiaxoq, SnuapxiKfjq eciouoiaq x6 8', [ imaxoc; x]6 y\ 'E(j>ecricov xfji Y e p o u a i a i xodpe i v . [Mexxioq] MbSeaxoq b Kpdxiaxoq eC eTto inaev x d 8iK[aia] 5 [bpeiv Kaxa]veipaq kv xfji Kpiaev knei Se noXXovq eSnAfcoaaxe] atj)[sxepi]^eaGai xprpaxa buexepa, obaiaq xo3v SeSavia[u£-] vco[v K ] a x e x o v x a q o b (jidaKovxaq Se KAnpovope l v , xovc, [Se] K a i [a-bjxouq xpecbaxac, bvxaq, neno\i<\>a bpcov x6 dvx[iypa68iov SoGfjxco, e i ye pf| TxpoiKa b7i;e[axe]xo TrpeaBe-uaeiv. evxv%elxe. np(6) e' K(aA.av8cov) 'OKXcoBpicov. 1 5 [ypappaxewvxoq no]7tMo'u 'PauxeiAiou Bdaaou Translation: Imperator Caesar son of the divine Trajanus Parthicus, grandson of the divine Nerva, Trajanus Hadrian Augustus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power for the fourth time, consul for the third time, sends greetings to the gerousia of the Ephesians. Mettius Modestus, vir egregius, has done well granting your rights to you in his judgment; but since you have shown that many men are usurping your money as they are seizing the property of your debtors claiming that they are not the heirs but that they themselves are also creditors, I have sent a copy of your decree to Cornelius Priscus, vir egregius, the proconsul, so that i f such a thing should be the case, he may appoint someone who wil l both judge the disputed matters and exact all that is owed to the gerousia. The ambassador was Cascellius Politicus, to whom a travelling expense should be given, i f he did not undertake this embassy of his own accord. Farewell. Septermber 27. When Publius Rutilius Bassus was grammateus. 313 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions A . Letters from Roman officials (17) IEph 25.1-61; Oliver, SG 11; FiE II, pp. 119-122, no. 23; JOAl 1 (1898) 78-79; cf., GIBM 497; OGIS2 508: Rescript of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to the logistes of the gerousia; found in the theatre. Measurements: the text was inscribed on five marble blocks: / / 1-14: 59.5 x 123 x 29cm; / / 15-21: 22 x 59.5 x 29 cm; / / 22-40: 59.5 x 134 x 29 cm; / / 41-47: 23 x 63.5 x 29 cm; / / 47-61: 123 x 62 x 29. Date: A D 162/163. Illustration: Figs. 9-12. AbxoKpdxcop K cda c xp MdpKOc; Aup r jA i o c ; AVXCOVETVOC; EeRacjTOC, K a i AbxoKpdxcop K a i a a p A s b K i o t ; Abpf jA ioc; Obfjpoc, Zepaaxbc ; 'Apu.£viaKdc; ObA.Tt.tcp E b p U K A e i X a t p E i v . 6xi uev vn' d v o r n d x c o v 8o9evxa a e xfj y e p a u a i a xcov 'Edea tcov 5 A o y i a x i j v EKEIVOIC; eSe i , rcepl c5v i]nbpeic, dvadfepE iv , abxdc; X E Ebyvco-udvcoc; ESfjAcoaac; Emaxduevoc ; , K a i f]\ieic, did xobxo eTceu.vfja6riuev, cbc; uf) paiSicoc; d v d y e a O a i x ivac; xcp Tcapa8elyu.axi. 6 8e Tcpcoxov t p i v eKoivcoaac;, xd TCEpl xcov dpy-upcov eiKdvcov, Ttpdyua cbc; dAnScot; xfjq ^exepaq a-uvxcopfjae-[cocj TtpoaSedu.evo, 8fjA.dv e a x i a o i Ka t xfjv eic; xd<- dXXaq epcoxfjaeic; l u , ddopu i j v a u p p e -[pAr|]uevov. xdc; obv eiKdvac; xcov abxoKpaxbpcov , dc; dT coKe i aGa i Aeye ic; E V xcp OWE-[8pl]co xobxco, T caAa i dq , e v i [lev Adyco, Ttdaac; SoKiudc^ouev 6"uA,ax0fjvai. xdic; bvduaaiv , ed' o-ftq] y eyovev abxcov E K d a x r ) , E'IC; 8E f iuexEpauc; x a P a K T r l P A Q M-TI8EV XI xfjc; bAr |c; feK£ivr|c; [ujexadepeiv o i yap [o]b[x'] dXXcoq, [eic; x]dc; f|pe[xe]pac; xija.dc; kauev [Tc]p6xeipo[i, noXv] 8fj x[i f j]x[xov dv] [dXXaq eic; t|ixcxc; u.Ex]apa[AAo]u.Evac; d v a a x o t p E u a - dXX' baai [i[ev abxcov 1 5 • ] [ ] exouai xdc; popddc;, Kdv 6aov yvcopii^eg[8ai xcov TtpocodTtcov xobc xot-J [paKxfjpaq, xabxac; K a ] i a o l Ttapeaxri AeAoyiapevcoc;, 6xi xdic; abx[oic; Set d 'uA.axQfjvai bvo] [uaaiv , fed' die; yeydvacrtv] Tiepi 8e XCOV obxcoc; d y a v awxE0pax)[ap£VCOV, cbc; dvadfepEiq, K a i ] [ obSEu i a v popdfjv fex]i d a i v E i v S w a p E v c o v x d x a pkv dv K a i [xobxcov E K xcov ETC! xdic; p d - ] [Gpoic; ETaypadcov, x ] d x a 8' d v K a i E K Pt.pA.icov, ei x i v a e a x i xcp [cruveSpicp 2 0 xobxcp ] [ xd dvd](xaxa awT i op i a 0e i r | , c&axE xdifc; TtpoyEyovdai u d A A o v x i j v ] [XEi]pijv dvavEcoGf j va i [fJTtEp 8id x]fjc; dvaxcov[Eba£coc; E ^ a d a v i a G f j v a i xcov] EiKdvcov. xfj 8E x iSloiq xfjq hpexepaq oiKiaq Aoyiapoiq 7ipoaexai;ev cJnAdaaeg[6ai., %a>piq xob] pAdxtxeauai xiva xijv xcov TtpooacbTtcov evaAAayijv xcov dTceiA.r|ddxcov, [xdxe ob8e-] tiia tjr|uia Ttapr|KoAob9T|aev ei 8e KdKeivoi SeScbKaaiv, c5 pf| TcpoafJKOv fjv, K[a i b anoXa-] Pcov f|dviaev xd Ko[uia6evxa, xdxe,] ei pev xi ebpiaKoixo iSiov fj excov fj 3 5 KaxaAeA.[oiTtcbq] feKeivoq, xd 8f| Tcpoaa[yopeudpevov 7ie]KobAiov, xobxo auA.A,ei;ac8ai Ttdv ddeiAeiq- [ei 5e] K a i obxcoq bicep xfj[v [Sbvjapiv xf][v £Kei ]vou TtpoaSei xi xfj yepoucia xcov eicmpax6evx[cov b-] 7i' abob K a i Kaxeax[T||J.]evcov, e7nyv[c6p]cov b Kpdxiaxoq dvGbnaxoq yevea[Gco] 8i8aa[Kd|xe-] voq vnb aou, Jipdq ob[ax]ivaq fenaveA,Gei[v] ae 8ei xcov eKefcp KaxapepA,T|Kdxco[v, SiaKpivcov] [K]ai eK xob XPbvo["o xob pe]xai;b 8ieA.[r|A,M6]dxoq K a i xcov [di;]icpv xop 4 0 xpcmoy [ ] [-16 - x]exeiKcbq dxcoSeiKvbei, raxpaaxair] [- 22-24 - ] [- 12 - dveve]yKeiv KeAeuaGfjvai xd KaKcoq drcoSofGevxa -14 -16 - ] [- 16 - x]fj Sdaei. ai Se ouvexeiq dvapoAai x[cov xpecov - 11-13 - ] [- 17 - ]v b TtdTntoq abxob lapeivoq, cbq cbfjq, eve[ -17-19 - ] [- 16 - ]xicova, axeSdv dvayKaiov Tcodbca K a i aot xd xp[- 16-18 - ] 4 5 [-17 - ]i xd avyxcopeiv coanep ydp aiSco TtoA,A,fjv dv8[-16-18 - ] [-17 - ]aiv, obxcoq, eneiSdv abxoi xiveq aixiav [-16-18 - ] [. .]aaG[ai] xauq pAaTt-xopevauq [- c.45 - ] [auv] dA.au auveSpiau Koiv[fja6ai - c.40 - Tipo-] [a]ievai xcp Kpaxiaxcp dv0im[dxcp - c.44 - ] 50 [.]ov. Ka i ydp xobxo xd aKepu.[a - c.44 - d]-vadopdv, cbq Aeyeiq, kni xobq [- c.44 - ] giv evxcopobvxoq elxe eiq 7iapa7i[- c.44 - ] priaiv abxcov eKeivcov, xi aXXo [- c.42 - ye-] paoaia, xdv 8e dvGbnaxov K a i d[vxiaxpdxr|yov? - c.32 - ] 5 5 pov evybGev emaxa etjeupeiv [- c.44 - ] 315 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions A. Letters from Roman officials o. xdq uevxoi K a l d7i6 xotixcov abx[- c.44 - ] ob pbvov K a x d xdcjiv eaxl x6 7ipo[- c.44 - Ttpoa-] icoaiv, aXXa K a i Tipbc; xf|v xcov [- c.45 - ] npoCTicocrt xolq K a i pdAAov en[- c.46 - ] 6 0 ua0eiv kvyvQev 5v[ "Eppcoao.] Translation: Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus and Imperator Caesar Lucius Aurelius Verus Augustus Armeniacus send greetings to Ulpius Eurycles. You yourself have shown in your understanding, and we have been reminded through this affiar that it was necessary for you having been appointed by the proconsuls to the gerousia of the Ephesians as their logistes to look into those things about which you were uncertain, because some men may not easily see this as a precedent. But what you first communicate to us, concerning the silver busts, a matter which indeed truly requires our approval, has clearly been used by you as a starting point for your other additional questions. (11) So, in a word, we believe that all the ancient busts of the emperors, which you say are stored in this assembly chamber (cruveSpiov), should be preserved under the names upon which each of them originally was,8 and that none of them should be changed into our representations; for we who are not otherwise eager for our statues, are far less ready to receive other representations altered to show our features; but however many of them as ...they have forms... and however many of the faces as may be recognized as portraits, these it is also possible for you upon inquiry to determine upon which bases they belong, for it is necessary to preserve them with the same names; but concerning those which are quite excessively damaged, as you report, and can no longer show any feature, either those of them which are inscribed on the bases, or from the records, if there are any... in this assembly room...the names may be deduced, so that honour may be restored for our predecessors rather than disappear through the re-smelting of the busts. And at the smelting first you from the ...may receive from the record of the accounting office; but since...you began and conducted the gaining of approval from us, for... to be done, since...others in particular...whom..., vir egregius, the proconsul might approve either from the gerousia itself or from the whole body of citizens. (28) As to the matter about Saturninus the public slave...who you say has collected a great deal of money from the debtors of the gerousia (cvvedpiov),9 although it was not appropriate for him to perform the collection, the case is this: if he has turned in anything of what he has received, it is nothing but this, that those who have paid have not 8 One is to imagine the imperial representations as standing on inscribed bases. It is the emperors' decision that the bases and representations should be retained as is. The sunhedrion in which these representations were stored is clearly a building, one which would seem to have been associated with the gerousia. The nature of this association is not at all clear. It is unlikely to have been a meeting house of the gerousia, though. The verb dnoKeipat can be understood as "to store something for a common purpose or for safety", but this sense appears primarily in classical authors. The verb in later authors, as in this case, implies indefinite storage or neglect: the statues were placed in the sunhedrion in order to do something with them. The sunhedrion should therefore be understood in this case as a storage area, a type of attic, which was used by the gerousia. 9 To sunhedrion, it seems, cannot mean anything other than the gerousia in this case. 316 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions A. Letters from Roman officials paid the appropriate person, as our procurator of the private accounts of our household advised them to guard against, with no of harming anyone in the exchange the persons of the recipients, and no punishment should follow; but if those men (the debtors) have given to a person who was not the appropriate man, and the receiver has hidden what he has collected, then, if that man should be found to possess or to have bequeathed some private property, this being called the peculium, you ought to collect all this; if, on the other hand, in this situation there remains anything in excess of his property of those things which have been collected for the gerousia and which has been kept back by him, let the proconsul, vir egregius, being informed by you judge to whom of those who have paid it is necessary for you to return the property, judging from the time which has passed and from the... of manner... having paid gives proof, he would present.. .to be ordered to return those things wrongly paid.. .for the payment. (43) But continual delays of the debts...his grandfather Sabinus, as you say, ... almost necessary for those doing and for you ... the conceding; for just as I respect great ... even so, whenever some of them...a case...that those who have been harmed should...of the whole gerousia (awne8ptov)...should be directed to apply to the proconsul, vir egregius...for even this question...recourse, as you say, to the...of the one who pays or to the...of themselves, any other...the gerousia, but that the proconsul and proprietor (?)...find each thing nearby....But the...from these...is not only according to the arrangement...they apply, but also to the...they will apply to the and instead...to learn.... Farewell. (18) IEph 214.1-12: Letter of an unknown proconsul to the gerousia; found in the prytaneion. Measurements unknown. Date: Aelius Martiales was Asiarch under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, or Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. A D 161-180. [b Kpdxiaxojq [dv]0i)[7r.axoq?- - i8fjAecoc;, dvxeTtixpo- 1 5 noq enapxeiat ; Maupexaviac ; Tivyeixavfjc; K a i ercapxefac; BeA/yiKfjc;, 'Apxepiv dpyupeav K a i e'lKbvac; dpyupdc; [B',] p i a v rryepo-vtSoc; 'Pcbpnc; K a i <&XXr\v xf\q> d iAoaeBdaxou yepouatac;, E K XCOV iSicov kTtoinaev d x i v a KaGiepcoaev, I v a xiGfjxai K a x d e K K A n a i a y kni xcov fidaecov, cbc; f| Sidxai;ic; abxob Ttepiexev KaGiepcoaev 8e 2 u K a i eic; KA.fjpov xfjc; yepouaiac; Snvdp ia x e x p a K i a x e i A i a S i a K d a i a rcevxfJKOvxa. em. dvGimdxau r(a'iox)) ' A K D I A A I O D YlpbKkov, ypappaxebovxoc; TiB(epiau) K A a u S i a u [ 'IaujAiavob, d iAoaeBdaxou K a i 6iA,OTtdxpi8oq, xd B ' . Translation: To Ephesian Artemis and to the Emperor-loving gerousia of the Ephesians, Gaius Vibius Salutaris, the son of Gaius of the tribe Oufentina, having been the chief contractor for the harbours of the province of Sicily and the chief contractor for the municipal grain supply for the Roman People, prefect of the cohort of the Asturians and the Gallaecians, tribune of the twenty-second Legion Primagenia Pia Fidelis, subprocurator of the province of Mauretania Tingitana and of the province of Belgica, has made a silver Artemis and two silver busts, one of the ruling city of Rome and another of the Emperor-loving gerousia, from his own money; which he dedicated so that they may be placed in every assembly (EK.K\r\oioL) on bases, as his donation specifies; he also donated four thousand two hundred and fifty denarii for a lottery for the gerousia. When Gaius 318 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions B. Dedicatory Inscriptions Aquillius Proculus was proconsul, and when Tiberius Claudius Julianus, Emperor-loving and patriotic, was grammateus for the second time.1 (20) IEph 940A.b.l-14; dedication by a neopoios; built into a wall of the Church of St. John. Measurements unknown. Date: A D 161-181. ayaGfj xb%r\-[ J J C a p i . • • [ - - - ] [ ]o<; zoic, K[a]l §\.X[o]c-[eBaaxcp veojnoico K a l xpuao-[<))6pcp E K ] yepoticriaq tyiho- 5 [aeP(dcaxo'u).. . ] 2 K a l xdic; XEKVOIC, [abxou Xa]pic;evco Kal Evxv-[%a> Kai x]fi dneXevQepa av-[xou Eb]T/uxicp, Kai 'EAm.8r|(j)0-[piSi x]fj Y^-UKmoccri cuv- 1° [Pico] Kai OaBicp O a u a x E i -[viav]co iepoKf|p-uKi Kai [ Tei]uaoicp [ ] X K O [ - - - _ ] Translation: To good fortune;...and for an Emperor-loving temple-warden, a chrysophorus and a member of the Emperor-loving gerousia and for his children Charixenus and Eutyches and for his freedwoman Eutychia;3 and for Elpidephoris his dearest wife and for the sacred herald Fabius Faustinianus and for .. .Timasius... (21) FiE IX/1/1 no. c l ; IEph 1060.1-15; Oliver, SG 19: thanksgiving to Hestia Boulaea and other gods; found in the hearth room of the prytaneion. Measurements: 139 x 115cm. Date: A D 214/215. Illustration: Fig. 14. Oapcovia O A . a K K i A A a np-uxavic; K a i Yuuvaaiapxoc, apxifepeia ebxapicxco ' E a x i q BouA,ai K a l Af|pr|xpi Kai AfprixpoQ K6pn Kal Uvpi d<))6dpxcp K a l 'ArcbAAcovi KAapico K a l ZcorcoAi K a l n&oiv xdic, Geoiq, bxi bA.OKAnpo'uadv pe pexd xov a u p p i o u pcu ' A K a K i o u 5 Kai xcov XEKVCOV pou Kai xcov dvGpcoraov ucu xov feviauxov 6KxeA,eaaaav x d pt>axf|pia rcdxva ebx^xcoq dTXOKaxeaxnaav oiSe E K C u p f i x e w a v Ebdv8pic, yepovciaax^c, 1 0 riepiYfevriQ (j>i^oaeP(aaxo(;) Ypappaxetig ' The phrase (tnAoaepdaxoc, and the dating formula are absent in the Latin. 2 IEph: "<|)iX.o|[aepdaxcp] odercrov] K a l xoic, X E K V O I C , . " 3 Eb]xv)X,icp should probably be understood as an error for Ei)]xiyxir|. 319 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions B . Dedicatory Inscriptions 'Apwxiavbc, (j>iAoaeB(ao"TO(;), OctB(ioq) Kupiaicdq ecxiovxoq, OaB(ta) ZcoaipiTi lv} KaAa9r|(j)6poq, pavxnA,dpior Aapco, ITpetaKiA.A.a, N O U V E X I C , , A o u K i a v f ] . evxvx&q. I 5 Translation: I, Favonia Flaccilla, prytanis, gymnasiarch and high priestess, give thanks to Hestia Boulaea and to Demeter and to Kore the daughter of Demeter and to incorruptible Fire and to Clarian Apollo and to Sopolis and to all the gods, because they have blessedly restored me with my partner Acacius and with my children and with my family after I had performed and completed the mysteries for a year. The following were the kouretes: Evandris, a member of the gerousia; the Emperor-loving Perigenes, the grammateus; the Emperor-loving Amyntianus; Fabius Curiacus the hearth guardian; Fabia Zosime, who was the basket-carrier; those who brought the towels were: Damo, Priscilla, Nunechis and Luciana. Farewell. (22) IEph 957.8-23; Oliver, SG 18.8-23; AE 1926: 15; JOAI 36 (1946): 13-14; SEG , 4: 535: Thanksgiving to Artemis; found in the Church of St. John. Measurements: 59 x 82 x 34cm. Date: On the basis of the lettering, Keil dates the inscription to second or third century A D . The tribal name Antoniane indicates that the inscription may have been erected during the reign of Antoninus Pius at the earliest, or, if the tribe was created in response to the constitutio Antoniniana, during that of Caracalla (cf. above, pp. 55-58, 75 & cat. no. 67; Knibbe [1962-1963]: 30). Late second or. early third century A D . Illustration: Figs. 15 & 16. dyaGfj xuxTT [£bxapi]axco aoi KDpia 'Apxepi T(ixocJ OA-Cdomoc,) ' A O " K A , T | - 1 0 TUbScopOQ V8071016Q abGa i pE xoq , EKxeA,£aac, xdc, 8vo e a a n v i a c ; e b a e -Bcoq K a i (|)iA.ox£ipcoc, a w Kai O X ( aomq) OoiBn xfj Qv- 15 y a x p i pou K a i xcp o"uuf|-vcp pou Abp(nMcp) 'ETiaydGcp, K a i vmxo,fiQ) 'Avxcovia-vf\q, xi(A.iaaxiL)v) TLaiavievq. Translation: To good fortune; I, Titus Flavius Asclepiodorus of the tribe Antoniana and of the Thousand of Paianieis, a voluntary temple-warden, having served as essen twice piously 320 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions B . Dedicatory Inscriptions and generously with Flavia Phoebe my daughter and with my partner in office Aurelius Epagathus and having twice served on the night watch at my own expense, being also a member of the Emperor-loving gerousia, give thanks to you, queen Artemis. (23) IEph 1587.1-15; Oliver, SG 20; GIBM 587: dedication to Artemis; found in the theatre. Measurements: 82.8 x 55.2cm. Date: late second or early third century AD. Illustration: Fig. 17. [ - ] [iep]oKnpt)Ke-6ovTOQ [ -] [Eajxopveivou, TtpeaP'uxepcov [- - ] [[ ]] [[ ]] 5 'AYOC0fj TtixTV [M(dpKOQ)] Abp(nA.iocJ 'AyaQbnovc, ebxapiaxco [x]c5 9eco K a i xfj Kt ipig Zcoxei-[pq] K a i xfj Tv%r\ xf\q YePOt> 10 aiac;, oxi xr|v rciaxiv exf|-pnaa xfj yepcuaiq cruv K a l [x]oig epoiq Ttdcav, b abxoc, ypappaxeix; [K]ai Y'upvacriapxog. 15 ebxtrx^-Translation: ... when... was the sacred herald.. .of Saturninus, of the elders... To Good Fortune; I, Marcus Aurelius Agathopus, give thanks to the god and to Queen Soter and to the Tyche of the gerousia, because I have preserved the trust of the gerousia along with all my family. The same was grammateus and gymnasiarch. Farewell. (24) JOAI 55 (1984): 120, no. 4211.1-9; SEG 34, 1125; BE 1987: 194: thanksgiving to Artemis; found near the Church of St. John. Measurements: 44 x 50 x 65 cm. Date: late second or early third century. [e]7ti dpxic7K[r|xoiL)xot) M(dpKOD) Abpr]A,io"u] rioaei[5coviot)] ebxapiaxco a o i K[upia] "Apexpi Abp(f|A,io<;) [N]eiKcoviav6q Ei)[K]ap7io<; 'Aya-enpepoi), abGaipefxoQ] veonoibi;, 5 Xpvoobbpoc, K a i Ye[pou]aiacxfjc,, [y"u]pvaaiapxoc; xfjq yepo[vcsia]c„ bxi [e]baepcoQ K a l ()nA.ox[eipcoc, exeAxoaa] [x]dc; Sw eaanveifaq ] Translation: During the service of Marcus Aurelius Posidonius as chief wand-bearer; I, Aurelius Niconianus Eucarpus the son of Agathemerus, a voluntary neopoios, a 321 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions B . Dedicatory Inscriptions chyrsophorus and a member of the gerousia, gymnasiarch of the gerousia, give thanks to you, queen Artemis, because I have piously and generously served as essen twice.... (25) JOAI 55 (1984): 119-120, nr. 4210.1-10: funerary inscription; found near the Church of St. John. Measurements: 35 x 50 x 65. Undated, but associated with (Cat. no. 24=704/55 [1984]: 120, no. 4211 [Knibbe]). [ ] . . H Z . .[ ] [ J 'AxT iKf jq [ ] [- - (?)Eb]Kap7uac; K a i [ ] [- -]avov yepoDoiaaTov [ ] [- -(?)Zxpaxo ]velKr | ( ; 0t>yaxp[6q ] 5 [ JviSoc, Qvyaxpb[c, ] [ ]vov xov adeXb[ov ] [ ]awe5pi[o\) ] [ ]KAZME[- - -] Translation: ...of Attica...of Eukarpia and...a member of the gerousia...the daughter of Stratonice... the daughter of ... the brother of... of the sunhedrion... (26) IEph 1575.1-14; GIBM 575; Oliver, SG 21: dedication by Marcus Aurelius Artemidorus and Marcus Aurelius Attalus; found in the theatre. Measurements: 62.75 x 52.7cm. Date: late second or early third century. Illustration: Fig. 18. ayaOfji xvxr\v M(dpKoq) Abp(rjAioq) 'ApTepi8co[poc;] 'Axx&Xov xov ] ov Tipmavef-uaavxa Kai dycovo6£xf|aav-] xa xd K a x d Tq[bpea (?) eb-] XD%£CJxax[a - K x i a a v x d ] 5 xe E K xcov i[8icov K a i x6 K a l x6] q6aip[iaxf|piov - ] Translation: The boule and the demos and the gerousia have honoured Glaucon the son of Mandrylus the grandson of .... He was prytanis and agonothetes for the Taurian games... most prosperously ... and having founded from his own money both the ... and the ball-court. (33) IEph 803.1-5; AAWW 102 (1965): 104 no. 3; AE 1967: 483; RPh 41 (1967): 70; honorary inscription for Epaphras; found in front of the south gate of the agora. Measurements unknown. Date: Epaphras was priest of the divine Augustus; since Xepaaxo'u is singular, the priesthood most likely took place in the early first century A D . [oi] npeapbxEpoi EXEipnaav [. .]X[ -] ['E7t]a*pdv i s p e a Sid piou 0£oi3 EEPaaxof-u - ] [Kp]axiaxou, dvSpa KaA,6v K a l dya96v aa[ Ka - ] 9i£pcoKoxa ic, EKSaviapbv xfj iEpoi) aw[e8piou (?) ] Snvdpia p-upia. 5 Translation: The elders have honoured...Epaphras, priest for life of the divine Augustus...and vir egregius; he is a good and estimable man...having dedicated...ten thousand denarii for lending out for the.. . f the sacred assembly. 1 Engelmann and Buyiikkolanci (1998) note both f| yepowioc and oi veoi as possible restorations for line 1. Both have their merits. The TatpEa in line 4 and a-] 1 0 xbv 7ip6 xcov xeipcov abxcov ev [xfj] dyq

a X[ap-] pdvcoc 8iavopf|V bpoicoq K a i xfj yepcuatla ,] bncoq Aappdvcoai ev xcp axaSicp 7tp6 [xcov] xeipcov abxcov Siavopijv Kat fey[Ybr|v Sana-] vrjpaxoq abxob ei; exepou xpfip[ocxoq bpol-] ^ [coq] Ka9iepcoaav abxoiq- dveGriKav [8e]3 [Ka ] l ev xcp yupvaatcp AaKA,nni[ov] ' Y [ y i - ] 4 [eiav]" Ynvov avv navxl xcp ISicp [Kbapco — ] Translation: ...in the Temple of Artemis...with the statues with every individual adornment of the goddess and with the covering; the same individuals also built in the stadium on the right side two wedges of seats with the dividing white stone wall and with the exedra which is in front of their project; and they also donated money to the boule, so that from the annual interest they might receive a cash distribution in the agora in front of their statues. And in the same way they donated money to the gerousia, so that they might receive a money distribution in the stadium in front of their statues, and they also donated (to the members of the boule and gerousia) as surety of these expenses the revenue from another property; and they also set up in the gymnasium statues of Asclepius, Health and Sleep with all their individual adornments.... 2 IEph: [ K a i ] raxvxl [xcp ]ov K6auxp K a i . 3 IEph: E[Jit xo-o]|[p]vfipaxoq ainov ei; exepox) XPflMfaxoc; KXfj]|[pov?]; Oliver's reading is preferred here since it would be unusual to donate a lottery (KAfjpov Ka9iepcoaav); one donates a sum of money for a lottery. 4 Oliver: 'AGKAT|7U[G3 a]i)[vpco]|[po]v "Ynvov; Given 'AaKAnjudv avv ' Y y i e l a avv 'Yrcvco | avv Tiavxt abxcov K6aucp in IEph 4123 (cat. no. 72), though, this is unlikely. 327 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions (35) IEph 987.1-27 and 988.1-30; JOAI 45 (1960): 87-89 no. 14 I & II: honorary inscriptions for Vipsania Olympia and Vipsania Polla; found in the Byzantine Baths. Measurements: 95 x 52 x 30. Date: the absence o f mention o f a neocorate has suggested to the editor that the inscriptions are earlier than A D 88. [ri Bo-uAf|l Ka i b 8fj[p]oq rETeliuT|qav [Obei\j/av]iav 'OA-upTud-[8a, AOU]KIO \ ) Ouei\|/avt-[p-u Nscolvoc -uio-u Kopvn-[Ata] 'ATtEAAfjovq K a l [KAaujSiaq ITu0o-u 0-u-fyaT.pl6c noAepcovl-[8oc 0\)]yat£pa, 'lEpaxe-u-[aaaav] xfjq 'Apx£pi8oq [i£pOTip£]Tta3q xd TE p-ua-[xipia K]ai xdq 0-uataq [dcjicoq] ETuxEAkaaaav [ K a l K j a x a a x k y a a a v [x6v T ] E vaov K a l xd TCE-[pl al>x]6v n d v x a kv xa iq [£TU f|p£p]caq, Tioifjaaaav [xdq 8n]|j.ox£A£iq 0-oai-[aq Kal] SiavEipaaav [xfj] [B]ouAfj K a l xfj y£po-u[oiq,] [fen]i8o-uaav Eiq £Tti[c-] [K£]\)f|v xfjq BacnAiKfjq 8r|(vdpia) 8i[av£ipqgav xfj BapA/Q] TCEvxaKiax e^ l 0 t ' ' l £ - K a H ID yEPODoiq, kniSo-u-l [paJxEvaacav kTtt rcp-uxd- aa[y Eiq kTaaKE-uf|v xfjcl 2 ^ • [v£co]q Taio-u AiKivvio-u Pa[cnA,iKfjc Srjvdpia] [Ai ] ovuaoScopou TIE [ v x a K i a y E i A i a , 'IEJD- ] apxE-uo-qqav km. Ttppxd-1 [vECoq Taiou AIKIVVIOD] [Aiovuao8copo-y]5 30 Translation: The boule and demos have honoured Vipsania Olympia, the daughter o f Lucius Vipsanius Apelles the son o f Neon o f the tribe Cornelia and Claudia Polemonis the daughter o f Pytho; she served reverently as priestess o f Artemis and completed the mysteries and sacrifices in a worthy manner; she decorated the temple and everything around it on the days most suitable to the goddess, and she performed the public sacrifices and she offered distributions to the boule and the gerousia; she made a gift o f f| Bo-uA.[fj Kal b SfjurjcJ EX£[lUT |gavl Ob£[i\|/avtay] ncoA[Aav - -] u £ v n [ v ] AO-UKR-OP Obei\|/avio-u1 Necovoq \v\ox> Kopvn-1 Ala 'ArTtEAAfio-uc;! Kal KfAavSiaq n-uOo-ul 0vya[xpoq noAEUco-1 viSo[q 0t>yaxEpa, ispa-l xet[aaaav xfiq 'Ap-1 xkp[iSoq JEpoTtpETtcuql xd X[E u-uaxfipia Kal xdq] 0x)CT[lqq dqlcoq kjuxe-] A-koraoav Kal Kaxaaxk-1 \|/ac[av x6v xe vqbv] Kal [xd TtEpl abxby Ttdv-1 xa [kv xaic knibavea-] xd[xaiq xfk 0EO-U T)\IE-] pa[iq, Ttoifiaaaav xdq 8n-] poxfEAeiq 0-uoiaq Kal] Since the inscriptions record identical donations, it is not unreasonable to suppose both priestesshoods took place during the prytanny of Gaius Licinnius Dionysodorus. 328 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions five thousand denarii for the repair of the colonnade; she was priestess during the prytany of Gaius Licinnius Dionysodorus. The boule and demos have honoured Vipsania Polla ...the daughter of Lucius Vipsanius Apelles the son of Neon of the tribe Cornelia and Cladiua Polemonis the daughter of Pytho. She served reverently as priestess of Artemis and she performed the mysteries and sacrifices in a worthy manner; she decorated the temple and everything around it on the days most suitable to the goddess; she performed the public sacrifices and she offered distributions to the boule and the gerousia; she made a gift of five thousand denarii for the repair of the colonnade. She was priestess during the prytany of Gaius Licinnius Dionysodorus. (36) JOAl 69 (2000): 86, no. 19; AE 2000: 1408; SEG 50, 1146; honorary decree for Octavia Capetolina; from the agora depot. Measurements: 42 x 49 x 10cm. Date: the script is probably from the 1 s t century A D . [f| BODXTJ] Ka t b Sfjpoc; [Ka i f| Yelpowla K a i tb c;u-[vbv xco]v 'Icovcov exeip-[naav] 'OKxaptav Karce-[x]coA.[£i]yav acodpoab- 5 vnc, K a i 6iAav8plac, X&piv Translation: The boule and the demos and the gerousia and the general assembly of the Ionians have honoured Octavia Capetolina because of her prudence and generousity. (37) IEph 657A.1-4: honorary inscription for Marcus Com...; unknown findspot. Measurements unknown. Date: probably 1s t century A D . f] pouAfj Ka[i f| y e p w a i a ] K a i b Sfjpoc; e[xeiuT|-] Xav M(dpKOV) Kop[ ] vo[ ] Translation: The Senate and the gerousia and the People have honoured Marcus Com... (38) IEph 702.1-16; JOAl 18 (1915): 281-2; AE 1920: 74; Oliver, SG 5: honorary decree for Titus Peducaeus Canax; statue base reused north of the north gate of the Tetragonus Agora. Measurements unknown. On the basis of the text, Keil has dated this inscription to the late first century A D . [f|] PouAfj K a i b Sfjpoc; exeipnaav Tlxov neSouKdiov KdvaKa biAoaepaaxov xbv yupvaaiap-%ov xcov Ttpecp-uxepcov, rcpbxa- 5 vebaavxa xfjc; nbXecoc; K a i iepa-xebaavxa xfjc; 'People; K a i YlonXi-329 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions' C. Honorary Inscriptions ov l e poT j e i A t ou ' Iaaup iKOTj , e A a i -oGEX i j a a v x a Se K a i xcov T I O A E I -xcov xbv E r a p a A d v x a xpdvov l u K a i KaGiepcoae i t ; raunadpEvotv] [d] pyupicov PouAfj K a i yEpouaia, [xfjv x ]e Tiepi x d tiwxfjpia nXr\-[peaxajxa 7toir|adp£vov ebaepeiav, [dva8]6vxa S E K a i xb b n e p xcov 1 5 [Gecopijcov dpybpiov. Translation: The Senate and People have honoured the Emperor-loving Titus Peducaeus Canax, a gymnasiarch of the elders. He served as prytanis of the city and as priest of Roma and Publius Servilius Isauricus; he also provided oil in the following year for the citizens and he made donations of money to the boule and the gerousia, and he demonstrated his piety most completely regarding the mysteries, and he also offered money for the spectacles. (39) IEph 2061.-H.1-23; FiE II, pp. 174-176, no. 61.11; AE 1913:143b: honorary decree for Titus Flavius Montanus; found in the theatre. Measurements: 240 x 330 cm. Date: Montanus was the recipient of numerous honours connected to his building activities (IEph 498, 528, 2037, 20611, 2062, 2063); he was also a procurator under Trajan. AD103-116. Illustration: Fig. 21. f) pouAfj [Ka i b Sfjpoc,] Ex[x£lpT)aav] T(ixov) A,dou[iov Movxdvov] Sit; fcraxpxov xexeix[cov,] dpxj.ep[fea 'Aaiac; v a a b x]ob 5 [ E ] V 'Et|>6acoi K O I V O T J xfjc; 'Aaiac;, aepaa-[x]otj)dvxriv Kai dycovoGexr|v Sid [pio]\), xeAeicoaavxa x6 [Gjeaxpov [Ka] i Ka[0iep]c6aavxa E V xfj [ d ]px iepoabvr | , S[6vxa K a i p]ovopaxlac; K a i K u v f j y i a , 1 0 Ka[xa6fevxa K ] a i xdic; 7ioA[e]ixaic; xd dpia[x]ov [eKJdaxco 8r|v(dpia) y ' , [xfj] xe po[u]A,fj K a i xfj yepo-ua ta j i A r i p coaavxa x d S i K a i a raxvxa, d p i G p f j a a v x a K a i e i q x i jv xob [Aipe]voc; K a x a a K E U i j v pupid8a[c;] knxa 1 5 [fj]pia\) K a i dy covoGex f j aavxa d y co va Koivdfv xfjc; ' A j a t a c ; ETiidavcoc; AobK i o c ; Obe i [p ioc ; A E ] V [ X ] O I ) [ A O C ; , k]7iixpo[7toc; A b x o K p d - ] xop[oc; NEpo]ixx Tpa iav [ob K a l a a p o c ; ] ZEpa[axo -u r ] E p p a v i K o [ b A a K i K o b ] 2 0 [drab] xcov Adycov, E K 7i[poad8cov 8r|-] 330 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions [poot]g 8eA[x]iKfj 5ia0[fJKT| AeAeip-] pe[vco]v 1)TC' abx[ou] Translation: The boule and demos have honoured Titus Flavius Montanus who was twice prefect of the craftsmen, highpriest of Asia of the common temple of Asia in Ephesus, sebastophant and agonothetes for life. He provided and donated a theatrical show during his high-priesthood, giving also gladiatorial fights and beast-hunts. He also provided for the citizens a mid-day meal costing three denarii for each man, and he did everything which was fair for the boule and the gerousia. He also counted out for the dredging of the harbour seventy-five thousand denarii. He served famously as agonothetes of the common games of Asia. Lucius Vibius Lentulus, the procurator a rationibus of Imperator Nerva Trajanus Caesar Augustus Germanicus Dacicus from the income which was bequeathed by him in his publicly registered testament erected this. (40) IEph 1599.1-4; GIBM 599; Oliver, SG 8; ITralles 2: honorary inscription for Claudius Bassus; from Ephesus, not Tralles. Measurements: 25 x 41.4cm. Date: Oliver suggests that Bassus may be the Claudius Bassus who is honoured in Smyrna as an agonothetes of the Nemesia under Hadrian (IGRR 4.1431). A D 117-139. Illustration: Fig. 22. ayaGfi T U X T T KA,ai)8ioc Bdaaoc yepcucricxaxfic. Translation: To Good Fortunre. Claudius Bassus, a member of the gerousia. (41) IEph 618.1-23; Oliver, SG 9; IKeramos T6: honorary inscription for Marcus Ulpius Aristocrates of Ceramus; found near the aqueduct. Measurements unknown. Date: by the second pentetetric Hardianeia, the inscription dates to shortly after A D 140. [M(dpKov) OvXmov] 'IepoicAeouc 'ApiaxoKpdxnv Kepauifixnv, dpxiepea 'Aa[i-] acq vacov xcov ev 'Ecjjeaicp K a l [dyco-] 5 voGexnv xcov psydAcov ['ASpia-] veicov xfjc, 5e"oxepac rcefvxae-] xnptSoc, 86vxa xdc vnk[p xfjc dp-] Xeipawr|c pupidSac [ eic] xf|v KOCxaaKewiv x[ ] 10 [K]od dXkaq p-opid8ac [- - e'ic x6] [. . . .]epiov, SoGevxa [Xoyia-] [xf|]v vnd Qeov 'ASpiavoo [xfj 6i-] [AJoaepdaxcp yepoDoig, Qkvxa 8e K a i vnd peytiaxou] 1 5 AbxoKpdxopoc; Kaiaapoc, [TAxou] AiXiov ASpiavob 'Avxcovel[vou] Eepaaxob Eba[ep]obc; e[ ] 6Q dpa K a i SeKdKic; S[o0evxa6 xfj] yepauaia Aoyiax[ijv ] 2 0 a i p(-upid8a<;) i ' , f| 6iAoaeB(aaxoc,) [yepoucla]7 xfjc; [npc6xr|c; K a i peyiaxrjc; 'E6e-] [aicov nbXeoic] Translation: Marcus Ulpius Aristocrates of Ceramos the son of Hierocles, the high-priest of the temples of Asia in Ephesus and agonothetes of the great Hadrianeia in the second cycle of five years, having given ... thousands for the office of the high-priesthood ...for the preparation...and an other...thousand... for the ...and having also been appointed logistes of the gerousia, which is loyal to the Emperor, by the divine Hadrianus, and being loved by the greatest Imperator Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius..., who , also was appointed ten times as logistes of the gerousia... eighty thousand... the Emperor-loving gerousia of the first and greatest city of the Ephesians set this statue up. (42) JOAl 62 (1993): 129, no 21.0-13; fragment of an honorary decree; from the Church of St. John. Measurements: 43 x 41 x 28 cm. Date: Knibbe dates the inscription to the first half of the second century on the basis of the lettering. [icoifjaaaav xdc; SnpoxeAeic, 8x>aiaq K a i Si-] 8 [ajvelpaaav [xfj pouAfj] [ K ] a i xfj yepo\)c[ta eK] [x]cov 0wicov bp[olcoc;] [K]ai xcp iepcp OIKCO [Kai ] [xo]iq ' lepovelKaic; [xdic;] 5 [ 'Apxep]eiaiaaxdi<;, [dva(?)-] [A.coaa]pevr|v x d i S i a 8[rivd(?)-] [pia 8i]d xdc; xob 7tax[p6cJ [abxjfjc; <|)iA.o8oc;i[ac; eic;] [Tt]pi)xaveiav K a i [yupva-] 10 [ai]apxiav K a i xcov [Xoi-] [7i]cov rcdvxcov *iA[av0pc6-] 6 IEph: 8[iavou.f|v eTcotnae xfj] | yepo-ucla Xoyi.cn:[Eiac; feveicev (IEph 618); the presence of a logistes is not consistent with descriptions of such distributions in other inscriptions, though. Oliver's reading of 8[o9evxcx xfj | yepoxxjia is, therefore, preferred here. 7 Oliver reads: 21 . M . I .: -cri |i(upid8ac;) it', f| iXocfe|3[aaTo<; fSouMi]. repaoaia seems to be a more reasonable restoration as the boule appears otherwise not to be involved. 8 The editores principes suggest for the beginning: [--'lepaxe'Oaaaav xfjc; 'ApxepiSoc; 'leporcperaoc; x d xe uxxjxfipux K a i xdq GXXJICXC; cxi;icoc; ETCixeAeaaaav Kai Kaxaaxe\ |/aaav x6v xe va6v Kai x d jcepl abx6v rcdvxa ev xdic; ETU<)>aveaxdxaic; xfjc; 9eoi3 tipepaic;, Tioifjaaaav xdc; KXA . ; cf. cat no. 35. 332 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions [ncov ].7t.[ ] Translation: ...having performed the public sacrifices and having offered distributions to the boule and to the gerousia from the sacrificial victims and in the same way also for the sacred servant and for the sacred victors in the Artemiseia, and having devoted her own money to the endowments of her father for the prytaneion and the gymnasiarchy and all the remaining donations... (43) IEph 1544.1-12; GIBM 544; Oliver, SG 15; Hermes 4 (1870): 215, no. 29; CIL III 6078, 12254; ILS 1925: bilingual honorary inscription for Tiberius Claudius Secundus; found in the basilica on the south of the commercial agora. Measurements: 105.4 x 60.25 x 57.75cm. Date:A freedman of Tiberius Claudius Secundus erected a statute during the proconsulship of Marcus Lollius Paullinus Decimus Valerius Asiaticus (AD 108/109; IEph 857, 1545; PIR2 L 320.). Tiberius Claudius Secundus is also honoured on an undated inscription as viator tribunicius and lictor curiatus (IEph 646). Oliver and Curtius, however, date the inscription to the age of the Antonines. Mid-second century. Illustration: Fig. 23. Ti(berio) Claudio Secundo viatori tribunic[io] accenso velato, licto-ri curiato, gerusia h[o]- 5 noris caussa sua [pecunia.] f| Y E p c u o i a ETEIUTIGEV Ti(Bepiov) KAcxbSiov l £ K o b v 8 [ o v ] obidcTopa Tp i Bauv lK f i o v , ] cxKKfjvaov obnActTov, 1 0 AeiKTOpCX KOUpiCXTOV, E K xcov iSlcov. Translation: The gerousia has honoured Tiberius Claudius Secundus, a tribune's bailiff, a veiled attendant and a lictor of the curiate assembly, from its own funds.9 (44) IEph 1604.0-13; GIBM 604; Oliver, SG 10: honorary inscription for a hymnodos; found in the theatre. Measurements: 97.9 x 50.2. Date: Tiberius Julius Reginus was agonothetes in A D 170 (IEph 1105, 1105a, 1105b, 1106a, 1130, 1605, 1621). Illustration: Fig. 24. [ 6iA.oo"£Bda-] xov b|j.vcp8oi3, lepOKfjp'uc;, ypcxp-pcaEbc, 'ASpicxvEicov, bpvcoSoc, VEpnTTjc, 9 Although phrased differently, the Greek and Latin texts are translations of one another. 333 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions Boi)A.fjc Yepouoiac, 5 Xpuaodbpcov tiYcoviaaTO dYcovaq xpelq, eaxecj)9r| Sioco, dYcovo0exo,uvxoq Si' aicovoq TiB(epioi)) ' IoD^iou) 1 0 'PriYetvov dcadpxo'u B' vacov xcov ev 'E(j)ecacp xfjq 6i£' rtevxaexripiSoq. Translation: ...son of...the Emperor-loving hymnodus, a sacred herald, the grammateus of the Hadrianeia, hymnodus having a share in the distributions for the boule, the gerousia and the chrysophoroi; he put on three sets of games, he was awarded a crown twice during the eternal agonothesie of Tiberius Julius Reginus, (when Reginus was) asiarch for the second time of the temples which are in Ephesus in the five hundred and seventeenth pentateric cycle of the games. (45) IEph 4330.1-13; F iE I V , 3, pp. 283-4, no. 30: honorary inscription for Zoticus the son of Artemidorus; from the northern arm of the Church of St. John. Measurements: the inscription is in several fragments: 49 x 22-17 cm; 31 x 22-17 cm; 5 x 22-17 cm. Date: A D 231-239. [ Z]coxiK6q 'Ap[xepiSc6pou?] [Yepox>oiaax]f|q, pexe^cov K[al xo-u] [auveSpioD xco]v vecoTtoicov K[o"upf]-] [xcov xpwo(j)6pco]v, eaarjvebaaq xd[q Sbo] [eaanviaq K a l ] vaocjwAaKiaq, 7i[Ar|pc6-] 5 [aaq 8e K a i xd] puaxipia 7idvx[a, eaxid-] [aaq x d cuveSpia] ndvxa K a i xotiq [cje-] [vouq xobq Kaxd Kai]p6v eJuSfipfjaafvxaq] ['Avviov 'AvouA,X,i]vov FlepKivviavbv [x6v Kpdxiaxcov dv]vcoaxapiav eTtixpo- 1 0 [Ttetiovxa xfiv 'Pcop]r|v, 8o\)Kn[v]dpiov [Kai Abpf|Aiov? II i ]vdpiov rey.[eAA,?]ov (eiKoaxf]q) [KA,npovopicov erciJxpoTtov rc[p6 x]oi)xcov Translation: Zoticus the son of Artemidorus, a member of the gerousia, a member also of the Assembly (o-uveSpiov) of the temple-wardens, kouretes and chrysophoroi, having twice served as essen and as temple-guard, and having also completed all the mysteries, having feasted all the assemblies (cruveSpia) and the guests who were dwelling in the city at the time, namely Annius Anullinus Percennianus, vir egregius, the procurator of the grain supply in Rome, the recipient of a salary of two hundred thousand sesterces, and Aurelius Pinarius Gemellus the procurator of the 0.5% tax on inheritances; on behalf of these.... 334 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions (46) IEph 737.1-18; AAWW 92 (1955): 163-165; AE 1968: 488, 1956: 10; SEG 17: 506: honorary inscription for Vibius Seneca; built into the Scholastica Baths. Measurements unknown. Date: Tiberius Claudius Moschas' service fell between A D 244-246. [f| BoiAfi Kai b 5fjpoc] [etetpnaav] 1 0 ObtBiov ZeveKccv x6v KpdXICXOV 5 %eiltapxov {SouKfa]} Ko6pTT|c 8eKdxr | [c] rcpaixcopiaq [[OiXunuavfjq]] <8o'UKa> ol)T|4iA.A,axic6vcov 10 K^daanQ Ttpaixcopiaq Meiar|vdxcov K a i 'PaBevvriaicov, eKSiKCUVXoq xov cvvebpiov 1 5 TiP(epto'u) K^(ax>8iou) Moaxd (j)iX.oaeP(daxo'u) d8[eA.]())0'u daidpxou [ - - - - ' 1 Translation: The boule and demos have honoured Vibius Seneca, vir egregius, tribune of the tenth Praetorian cohort Philippian, leader of the standard bearers of the Praetorian fleets at Messene and at Ravenna, when the Emperor-loving Tiberius Claudius Moschas, the brother of the Asiarch, was the advocate of the assembly. (47) IEph 892.1-23; FiE IV , III, p. 283, no. 30; JOAI 49 (1968-71): 65, no. 6: honorary decree for Claudia Caninia; built into the Scholastica Baths. Measurements: 108 x 50-56 x 50-56 cm. Date: Claudia Caninia Severa is is also honoured in IEph 635c. The hymnode Tiberius Claudius Moschas was honoured under Philip the Arab (IEph 645). Claudia's father, Tiberius Claudius Severus, is probably the Severus who was consul under Septimius Severus (IEph 648; PIR2 1025, 1028). A D 244-246 (cf. IEph 131; CIL 16.149, 151, 153). Illustration: F ig . 25. [f| potAti Kai b Sfjpoq] [exeipriaav] [KA,a-uStav Kaveiviav] Zeowjpav xr\v ^ap7ipoxdxr|v 5 IEph: [xd aweSptov xfjq, (|)iXoaeP(daxo-u) yepovxridaq]; cf. above, Chapter Four, pp. 118-119; Chapter Five, pp. 162-163; Chapter Six, pp. 237-238; cf. cat. no. 47. 335 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions E K Ttpoydvcov vnauK.f\v, [x]f|v i epe i av K a l Koapf|XEipav xfjc Kupiac, 'ApxEpiSoq K a l Trpbxaviv ebaepfj K a l 0ecop6v xcov iieydAcov 10 'OATJUTUCOV, 0-iryaxepa TiB(epiov) KA(av8iot>) Zecyufipou, vxpcoxoi) ImaxE-uaavxoc 'E^eaicov, K a i K a v e i v i a c rapYCOviAAriQ E K Tipoybvcov •bnaxiKfjc 1 5 noXXoic, K a i UEydAoic fepyoic Koauo-ucav xf|v 7taxpl8a rtiacov TtpovonaapEvo'u xfjc dvaaxdcjEcoc, xov dvSpidvxoq TiP(EpiO'u) KA.(av8icyu) M o a % d £CJicov pouX,f|v • • K a i n d v x a x d a w E S p i a , K a l noXeixaq x e i ^ ' - 0 ' u C XEaaapd-Kovxa, pEXExovxa 8E K a l xov auvESpiou xcov VEOTtOUOV 1° K a l xpwoA.fjc, Translation: B y a decree of the boule and demos. Aurelius Baranus, an Emperor-loving and generous temple warden, who entertained the city for eleven days and feasted the outstanding boule of the Ephesians and all the assemblies, and one thousand and forty citizens, being himself a member of the assembly of the temple-wardens and chrysophoroi. Marcus Flavius Domitianus, an Emperor-loving son of an asiarch and an Asiarch himself, and the advocate of the clarissima boule of the Ephesians, has set up the statue at his own expense. (49) IEph 3058.1-16; FiE III, p. 143, no. 58: honorary inscription for Marcus Aurelius; unknown findspot. Measurements: 91.5 x 51.5 x 48.2cm. Date: Third century. Illustration: F ig . 27. [- - yu-] [p]v[a]c[i]a[p%o]v [rox]v[x]cov [xcov] [yl^pvacacov, ypappaxea rcpcoxov [x]ob Sfjuou K a i dycovoBexnv noAAdKic,, bbv M(dpKou) Abp(nX.iou) 'Apxepi- 5 Scopou 6iA.oaep(daxou) dcadpxou K a i noXX&Kiq dycovoBexox), feKyo-vov M(dpKO'u) Abp(nAloD) MnxpoScopou 61X0-ceP(dcxou) ypappaxecoc, xob Sfjpou K a i A.ixo'upYO'u evdb^ov, Ka9iepc6aav- 1 ° xa abv xcp naxpi dxxiKdc; ,e'-Tcpovonaapevou xfjc; dvaaxdaecot; xob dv-Spidvxoc, Abp(nMo\)) 'Avxcovei-vov 'Iot>Xiavob yepou- 15 [ajiaaxob d[p]xovxoc; x[ob cxuveSpio'u?] Translation: ...the gymnasiarch of all the gymnasia, first grammateus of the demos11 and an agonothetes on many occasions, the son of the Emperor-loving Marcus Aurelius Artemidorus, an asiarch and himself an agonothetes on many occasions, a descendant of the Emperor-loving Marcus Aurelius Metrodorus, a grammateus of the demos and an outstanding liturgist, having dedicated with his father five thousand Attic denarii; Aurelius Antoninus Julianus, a member of the gerousia and magistrate (of the sunhedrion!), arranged for the erection of this statue. " Cf. Schulte (1994): 52-56. 337 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions (50) IEph 627b. 1-5: statue base found in the Arcadian street. Measurements unknown. Undated Abp(fjA,ioq) 'Opdebc, Sic, 'Edecnoq yepoug-taaxijq %px>ao-bopoq K a i dycoyo-BExriq 5 Translation: Aurelius Orpheus the son o f Orpheus, an Ephesian, a member o f the gerousia, a chrysophorus and an agonothetes. (51) IEph 707c. 1-4: honorary inscription for Lucius Pomp.. . ; found in the harbour. Measurements unknown. Undated. f| RouAij K[ai b Sfjpoc;] exeiH-tnaav] A E U K I O V Ilop[Tt- - - -] TtpeaRb[Tepov.] Translation: The Senate and People have honoured Lucius Pomp.. .an elder. (52) JOAl 59 (1989): 175-178 no. 9.1-19: honorary inscription for Gavius Menodorus; from the Church o f St. John. Measurements: 52 x 38 cm. Undated. [f| Ro\)A.f| K a i b Sfjpoc; ETEipnaav o]v rdytov Mr|v-[68copov? e^aio9Evxa T tdvxa xcov y j u p v a a l c o v SpqtKXCp, pf| A a p B d v o v x a [- - y u p v a a i a p x p j y xcov TtpEaRuxEpcov K a i dyvo-[9Exrjv xcov K]qi 7iavr|y\)piapxov xcov ueyd-[A-cov - - K a i xcov pEyd^cov riaa]i0fjcov, A-apnpcoq K a i p£yaA,o\|/-u- 5 [xcoq EV xcp] xfjq TtpmavEiaq feviauxco xfj [ ] T c a p a a x o y x a , K a x a K ^ E i v a v x a [ ]coa£i EV xcp iepco xfjq Apx&piSoq [ - ].o\)q T io^Eixaq, e b c o x f j a a v x a S E [xijv xe Kpaxiaxr iv 'EdEcricov pouMiv K a i ] roAeixac. E^qKiaxtMo-oc; 1 2 m [- - - ] eiaSbvxa xd i q TioXeixaiq [ . ]q feKaxbv EpSopfJKOvxa [ - - ? K o i f j a a v x a ] Gecopicov fiM^potq TCEVXE [ - e ] i q x 6 EA.EOV Sr |vdpia [ - ] p a K a i dvaA , copa - 1 5 [ xa EK]xEvcoq K a i [ dq l coq xob yfevcuq K a i xfjq Tta]xpi8oq [- - - JIIAOIEIZ 1 2 Cf. cat. no. 48. 338 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions C. Honorary Inscriptions [ - ] . . . Translation: The boule and demos'have honoured ... Gavius Menodorus...who supplied oil for all of the gymnasia, not taking... the gymnasiarch of the elders and agonothetes of the ...and panegyriarch of the Great...and of the Great Pasithea, brilliantly and magnanimously... having provided in the very year of his prtyany..., having provided a banquet...in the temple of Artermis [for?] the citizens, and feasting the oustanding boule of the Ephesians and six thousand citizens...having given to the citizens...one hundred and seventy...having put on five days of games...denarii for oil . . .and the expenses...in a manner worthy of his family and his fatherland. 339 D. Public Decrees (53) JRS 73 (1983): 116-125; SEG 33: 946; IEph 3214: endowment for heroic honours at a grave. Found near Apateira. Measurements: the inscription is in three fragments measuring: 80 x 36 x 27 cm; 84 x 51 x 22 cm; 35 x 34 x 12 cm. Date: C P . Jones dates the inscription to the end of the first century A D . [ fe]dv Se X I C e7tiBd[^A.T|Tai], T6 pev b7T.eva[vxio]v ye[Ypapp,evov xabxn xfj Siaxdc;ei ?] [\)/f|(j)ia]pa bnapx^Tca &K[vpov], K a l dnoxeiadxco [b xo]mo 7ipd[cjac] eic TtpoaK6a[pr|ua Gedc] ['Apxepi]5oc K a i . xcov ZeBaax[cov S j n v d p i a p-upia Ka[ i dX]Xa eic 8iq[vo]pfiv xoic npeaptuxepoic] [8r)vdpi]a pbpia, d K a i 7ipac;drj[0coa]av oi pex' eKeivo[v x]6v feviax>x[6v dp]xpvxec K a i b na-[pa.dv0pco7t;ov xo[v e]K8iKaicoaopev[ot) x6] [ f |p ia]u xoi3 eia7ipax9naopev[o]'u xpfijaocxoc;. eaxiv [8]e K a l xcov [ev x]co fipcoop 7ipoaKo[apr|-] [pdxcojv K a l CKe-ucov xcov eiq xf|v brcripeaiav xov [fiplcoiapou [b]7ioYeYpappevr) [f] dTIO-] [Ypa<))], fyac K a i ev xcp fipcoco e[v] axfi^A,r| A,i0ivn Kex[dpaK]xqv [ e'iKov]ec Ypanxal N6vv[i-] [ac njaibXric Seraxpeic, i^coSia A())po8eiaiaKd 8eK[axeacapa, 'Eppai m p]appdpivai xexp[dyco-] [voi eJxovxec Ttpbaama xdA,K[iv]a 8vo, dXXa. 'EppdSia [papudpiva xex]pdycova 8bo, £c6[8ia] [Six)], 0nBaiK6v, 'AA,ecjav8p£iv[6]v, Xovxf\peQ pappdpf ivoi ] p[. .]p[. . . . . ] [.. .]a 'AA.ec;avSpeivd xj/ndcoxd SeKaevvea, AA.ec;a[v5peiv ] . [. . .]xa xpeidKovxa eq\ XeovxiSec 'eni r|pcpop pappfdpivoi ] [. . .]oi pappdp ivo i 8i)o, cbpo^byiov, cxf jMai eTciyeypautpevai ] 1 5 [SiaJ&avelc Sbo, d K o v u a x f p e c p6A,upoi Si>o, aei<|)co[vec ] [...] xpicKeA,f|v cnSripo'uv, pd9pa 2;"u?iiva ercxa[- c. 15 - edv Se xic xcov Tipo-] [yeYlpappevcov IltnXov hiXav, olc x6*iA,dv9pco[7iov xf|C xou fipcoiapou pexcuaiac ? 8ia-] [xex]aKxai, t^ covxoc YlenXov dxeKvoc xe^et>xf|[0T|, ofixoc eK xcov 7ipoor|K6vxcov exepbv xiva ? eiq] [xbv] feKeivcu XOTIOV f|pcoiaxf|v dvxiKaxa[o"xf)0"ei vacat?] 2 0 Translation: ...but i f someone adds anything within, let that decree which is in contravention of these arrangements be invalid, and let the one who does this pay for the further adornment of the goddess Artemis and of the Augusti ten thousand denarii and another ten thousand denarii for a cash-distribution for the Elders, which money the archons of 340 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees the subsequent year and the paraphulax shall administer; but i f they do.not do this, they wi l l owe (the fine) and they wi l l be prosecuted by any who wishes, be he citizen or foreigner, earning by the performance of this task one half of the money which is to be paid over; and of the appropriate things in the heroon and of the things prepared for the performance of the heroic honours mention has been made below, which has also been indicated on the stone stele in the heroon; thirteen inscribed statues of Nonnia Paula, fourteen portraits of Aphrodisian stone, two square marble Herms with bronze faces, and two other square marble Herms, two portraits of Theban and Alexandrian stone,...marble water jars...nineteen Alexandrian mosaics, thirty-six Alexandrian.. . , ...marble lions on top of the heroon...two marble..., a sun dial, two public inscribed stelai, two lead statues of javelin-throwers, . . . an iron tripod, seven... wooden bases; but i f anyone of the aforementioned friends of Peplus, to whom a share of the honours has been apportioned, should die childless while Peplus is still alive, that one (Peplus) shall appoint in his stead someone else from those who are suitable to stand in his place for these heroic rites. (54) A : IEph 27A.1-133; Oliver, SG 3.1-133; cf., GIBM 481.1-60: Honorary decree for Gaius Vibius Salutaris. B : IEph 27B.134-332; Oliver, SG 3.134-332; cf., GIBM 481.61-228: Letter of Gaius Vibius Salutaris offering a benefaction to the Senate and People of Ephesus in the form of a legal document. The text of the Salutaris dossier, of which A and B are two documents, is organized in six columns forming a trapezoid measuring on the left 208 x 12.5-20 cm and on the right 403 x 12.5-20; cf. cat. nos. 15 & 55. Date: Tiberius Claudius Antipater Julianus was prytanis during the proconsulship of Aquill ius Proculus (PIR2 A 999), under whom Afranius Flavianus (PIR2 A 443) was propraetor. A D 104. Illustration: F ig . 8. 5 1 ETCI 7c[pux]dy£cu[c,] [T]iB(EpioD) KA(a"o8lou) 'AvxiTtdxpou 'IoyA.[i]qvob pr|v[6g] noaEi5£covoc, c,' iaxapEvou [E]8oxe xfj poiAfj K a i xcp VECOKdpcp Sfjpcp 6[i]AoaeRdaTcp-[xcE]pi c5v evEbdvicav TiB(Epioc,) KA(abSioc,), TiB(Epiou) KA(a\)8iot)) 'AA,Ec;d[v8p]o\) bide,, 5 [Kup(eiva)] ['IoiAiavd]c,, biAdrcaxpic, K a i diAoo"EPacxo[c;, dyv]6c;, Ebaeptjt;, [ypappaxEbc, xo]b Sfjpou xd P', Kat di axpaxnyol xfj[c,] Tcd[A.]£coq biAoae-[paaxoi- £TCEt8fj xobcj diA.oxElpouc, dvSpac, nepi xfjv [nbX]iv Ka i Kaxd [rcdvxa d7io8£ic;ap£vov)]c; axopYijv yvr|aicov noA,£i[xcov djpoipai- 1 [cov xpfj xx>xeiv xeipcov npdq] xd dno^abEiv P E V xobc, Eb [Ttoijrjaav- 1 0 [xac, fjSr| xijv nbXiv, drtoKEiaGai 8E xdic; pojutapEvoic, 7xep[i xd] bpoia dui[AAda0ai, d p a 8E xobc;] fea7i:ox)8a[K]dxac; xijv u£Yic7xr|v 0E-dv " ApxEuiv [xEipdv, nap' fjc, y]eiveza\ naciv x[d] K d ^ X i a x a , Ka9fJKE[i] Tiapd xfj rcd?i£[i ebSoKipEiv, Tdidc;] XE Obipi[oc; ZaA.o]x>xdpiot;, d-vfjp 'iTtniKfjc; xd[££]oc,, yevei Ka i a^ia Sidaripoc;, axpaxeiaic; XE K a i 1 5 ETiixporcaic; d[nd] xob KDpioi) bpcov abxoKpdxopoc; KEKoapripEvoc;, ' IEph 27 A , 1.9 & Rogers (1991): 152, A , I. 9: dro5Eii;au.Evoi]c;; Oliver, SG 3, /. 9: dTto8eic;apevoti]c;. 341 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees TtoA,Eixriq f|[u.£Te]poc, Ka i xob POIAEUXIKOX) avveBpiov, node, 7r.atT.p6cJ [xe dY]a0fj xpcbu.[£voq 8i]a0£ai, cbq K a i xdq anb xfjq xbxxiq kni xb Kpe[ia-] [GOV] TtpoKOTtdq Koafueiv xfj] xcov f|0cov ae|j.v6xr|xi, Ebaepcov |IEV biXoxei-[pcoq] xijv dpxryyfexiv rco[iKi^]qiq \ikv ETtivoiaiq eanobSaKev nepi XTJV 0pr|g-[Keiav,] u.£YaAoi|/bxo[iq SE ] Ka0iepc6aeoav xijv 7t6A,iv KCXXCX TKXV xexe[i(j.T|-] KEV, 7ipoa[£xi SE K a i vvv rtpoae?L0]a)v Eiq xijv EKKX.r|caav vnea%E[xo kvvka a-] TC£iKovia[u.axa Ka0i£pc6o-£iv,] EV IXEV xpbaEov, EV C5 K a i d p Y [ b £ p a ] knixpuaa, Ex [£pa SE dpybpEa] d7i£iKOvia|a.axa OKXCO, Ei[K6vaq xe] dpyopEaq Ei[Koca, TTEVXE IXEV] xov K[\)]piox> ti|a.cov abfxoKpdxopoq] NEpoua Tpdia[vob K a i a a p o q Z j E P q a x o b rEpuav iKob , A [aKiKob, K a i ] xfjq i£pcoxdx[r|q ywcxiKoq abxob nA.]cox£ivr|q K a i xfjq i£p[dq awKA.fjxou] K a i xob Tco[patcov inTtiKob xdYua]xoq K a i Sfpox), [xobxcov SE xco-] piq EiKov[aq SEKarcEvxe 'Ecj>Eoico]v xijv 7t6A.iv 7tpoa[co7r.o7coiobaaq,] [x]ob Sfjta.[ot) K a i xcov e<; *"uA,cov Ka]i po"y[A.fj]q K a i yEptoucriaq K a i £[EpT|]xai, 8ia8[£xou.e-] vcov [a\)(a.7ipo7r£|j.Tt6vxcov xcov] fev K[a0' EKaaxov e]viax)xbv K a -[xd x]ijv 8idxac;iv abxob x[fj yevjeattcp xfj]q Qeov fifiiepq,] [fjxi]q EGXIV xob 0apyTiAico[v]oq ur)v6q EK[X]T | iaxa|j.£[vox)] [bjixoAoyfjaaq d7to8c6ae[i]v xd xpfpcxx[a] fl] fcatrcbv xd [Kd-] [0i]£pco|j.Eva, 6xav PouXr|[0]jj, fj xobq KA,T)pov6[|J.ot)q ai)-] [xo]b xfj nbXei, Kopi£o|j.£vcov xcov £Kd [c ]xou Tipo[ac6-] [nov 7i]pdiaxa|j.Evcov TtEpi [c5v] dndvxcov 8idxa£iv £iarry[r|(7du.E-] [voq i8i]q f][c;i]coaev erci[Ku]pco0fjvai KOCI S i d \|/[r|](|)io-pa[xoq xfjq] [Po-uA/rjq K a i xob Sfjiiot), Ka i vv]v xfjq fe7ia[px]?icxq [f|Y£po-] [v£\)ovx£q b Kpdxiaxoq dv ] fp K a i EbEpY£[x]Tiq 'AKo[\)f ]AAi-2 IEph 27A, //. 55-6 & Rogers (1991): 154, A, //. 55-6: ir]fevx[Exr|piKCOV - - -1 - - ]co[v feopxaiq; Oliver, SG 3, //. 55-6:7t]evx[exnpiKcov pEyd|X.cov 'Ec|)Ea]E[i]co[v feopxaiq. Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees [oc npoK?ioc, b dv0imaxo]c, K a i 'Adpdvifpjc OXaoma-[vdc, b TtpeaBeuxfic K a i dvx]impdxr|Yo[c, dv]p7r.eppA.f)xcp [xfj Ai^avGpamig Ka i ] diAoaxop[Yi]g e[7UYd]vxec xt|v xop dv8po[c [ieyaXo\]i]vxiav, cbq Yvftfoaoi] TcoA,eixai -ucov abxo i , K C X [ 0 ' d dvxr|pei]\|/avxo abxo3[i K ] a i Si ' e7uaxoA,cov [a\)]vr|86uevo[i dvxe]ypa\|/av, e[TteKeA.]e\)aav, coaxe Si ' [abxco]v eiaeve[vKeiv 7i]epi xcov [Ka0iepc6a]ecpy abx[ou-] 8[eS6x0]ai r[diov Obei]Biov [EaA.o'uxdpiov, dvSpa] e]baeBfj [|j.ev] 7tp6c [xovc, 0eoi)]c, eiq 8e x[f|v Tt6A.iv dvcp ev xdic eKK[A/naiaic cbq arco'uSdJ^ovxa K a l ditaxp-xeaxv XTJV Se rcapqxf)[pr|cav xcov 7ipoY]eYpap|J.evcov i e -pcov [eiS]cov K a l xf|v rcpd KOIV[O\) drab xaui]epoi> eiq x6 0ea-Tpov Kal xf|v eK XOTJ Oedxpou ei[c x6 iepdv] xfjc 'Apxepi8oq IpexaKopiSf|v Ttoifjaai K a x d x-pv Sidxa^iv K ] a 0 ' eKaaxov [e -] xoc [eK xcov veoTtoicov dvo K a i aKT|7ix]oi3xov K a l xoi)[c] c|)[x)AdKox)c - ] 7 lines missing [ ] x6v vadv xfjc ApfxeuiSoq — ] [ x]cov Ka0r)K6vxco[v - - ] [ . xf|v Se Sidxa^iv av]xov KVpiav e iv[ai , dpexdOexov,] [dKaxd^uxov, draxpdM.aKX]ov eic xbv [draxvxa xpdvov.] [edv Se xic, eixe iSicoxcov e]ixe dpxofvxcov emiyr|] YEY[pocppevnv K a i 8id xo-uxou xov i|/r|dia]pax[oc] [xfjc po-uXfjq K a i xov Sfjpo-u KeK-upcopevnv 8id]xai;iv, [dvaY]pa[fj-] [vai - - - ]0a[. . .]a[..] [ ] [ ]v ev p&v xcp 0edxpcp [kni xcp xfjc voxiaq rax-] 3 Cf. cat. no. 15, //. 408-411; Chapter Six, pp. 264-270. 343 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees [p65oD xoixco] abxou oapuapivco, fj p[o"6Aexai al)x6q, ev 8e] [xcp 'Apxep]igicp ev xbrcco e7uxr|8eicp, iiAoxeifuiaq eveKa K]al [cxpexfjc-] Kai nepi xfj[c 8]iauovfjc xco Ka6i[epcouevcov] vn' av-[xov %p]r\\xax(£>v xfj xe BouA.fi K a l xfj yepo[-uatg Kai rcoAeixaic, K a l ] 4 [e6f|B]oic brceaxexo abxbc Kaxd [xf|v 8idxaq\v xcp eveaxcoxi]5 [exe]i eKSaviaxric yeveaGai [ ] [ - - .------] [ - - - - ] [8eS6xGai xfji BouAfji K a l xcoi vecoK]6pcoi Sfjucoi eaico[v Sfjuco <|)iAoaepdaxcp, Ttepl c5v KaGiepcoKev enl] xalc bntoyeypaupevaic oiKOVOuiaic xfj ueyiaxr) Geg 'E xfi xe ponAfj Kal xfi yepo[\xrlq Kal JioAelxati; Kal]. 5 IEph 27A, /. 128-129 & Rogers (1991): 158, A , /. 128-129: Kaxd [xf)v Sidxa^iv - - -| . . .]t; Oliver, SG 3, /. 128: Kaxd [xf)v 5idxa£iv xcp eveaxcoxi | exe]i. Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees [xpco]v 8', ypap

dxcov 8', x d K a i a i red KaGiepcopeva xfj xe A p x e p i S i [ K a i xf\ 61X0-] g[ep]daxcp 'E iea icov pouXfji. bpoicoq K a i dpyupea " Apxepiq Xa[p7ta8r|(|)6-] p[o]q, bXKf jq X K a i eiKcov dpyupea xob Sfjpou xob 'Pcopatcov, [bXKfjq X .] K a i E'IKCOV dpyupea xfjc; 6 iXoaepdaxou yepouaiaq, bXKfjq X [... x d K a i ] a b x d Ka0iepcopeva xfj xe A p x e u i 8 i K a i xfj 'E(|>eoicov yepouaiq . bpoicoq K a i aXXr\ " Apxepiq dpyupea Xap7ta8r](|)6poq, e[ubepfjq] xfj ev xfj e2,eSpq xcov ebfjpcov, bXKf jq X obvKicov e', ypaix[(j,dxcov . . ] K a i eiKcov dpyupea xob ITITIIKOU xdyuaxoq, bXKf jq X y ' , f |[u.iow-] Kiou, ypapudxcov y ' , K a i 6XXr\ eiKcov d p y u p e a xfjq ecbT|Peta[q, bXKf jq X .] xd K a i a b x d KaGiepcopeva xfj xe 'Apxep i8 i K a i xoiq Kax ' eviaux6[v ob-] [a i ]v ebfjpoiq. bfpoicoq K a i d X X r | "Apxeuiq dpyupea Xap7i;a8ri66poq, e%ov-] [aa] 6idA.T|v, bXK[fjq X ., obvKicov . , ypappdxcov . , K a i eiKcov dpyupea] [0eo]u Zepaaxou, [bXKfjq X . , obvKicov . , ypappdxcov . , K a i eiKcov dpyupea Au-] [Xfjq £e]paaxf jq , b[XKfjq X ., xd K a i a b x d KaGiepcoixeva xfj xe ' A p x e p i S i K a i ] [xoiq a i e i e]gopev[oiq TtoXeixaiq xfjq Eepaaxfjq buXfjq. bpoicoq K a i dXXr | ] [ ' Apxepiq dpyupea - , bXKfjq X . ] [Ka i eiKcov dpyupea xou 6 iAoaepdaxou 'Ebeaicov Sfjpou, bXKf jq X . ] [Kai eiKcov dpyupea cjyuXfjq 'E]b[eaecov, bXKfjq X ., x d K a i a b x d KaGiepcop]ev[a] [xfj xe 'Apxeu i8 i Ka i xoiq a i e i e]gopev[oiq rcoXeixaiq xfjq 'Edeaecov 6uXfjq.] [bixoicoq K a i &XXr\ " Apxepiq] dpyupea [ %]ei-pi [- -, bXKf jq X ., obvKicov] 0', K a i e[iKcbv dpyupea bXKf jq X .,] K a i [eiKcov dpyupea buXfjq KapT|vaicov, bXKfjq X ., obvKicov . , ypap]dxcov y ' , x d [Kai a b x d KaGiepcopeva xfj xe 'Apxep iS i K a i xoiq a i e i eaopevoiq 7r.o]Xeixaiq [xfjq Kaprivaicov cjruXfjq. bpoicoq K a i &XXr\ " Apxepiq dpyupea A.au.7t.]a8r|cb6-[poq , bXK f i q X ., K a i eiKcov dpyupea A u a i p d x o u , bXKf jq X , . , y]p(appdxcov) y ' , K a i eiKcov [dpyupea buXfjq Tijicov, bXK]fjq [X . , xd Ka i a b x d KaGiepcopeva xfj x]e ' A p x e p i S i [ K a i xoiq a i e i eaopevoiq 7i]oXe[ixaiq xfjq Tfjcov <))uXfjq.] bpo[lco]q K a i d X X t | " A p -[xeuiq dpyupea e x o u ] g a xb x[ , bXKfjq X . , obvKi]cov y ' , hp igouq y p d p p a -[xoq, K a i E'IKCOV dpy]upea E[bcovbpou, bXKfjq X . , Ka i eiKcov dpyup]fea 6uXfjq Eb-[covupcov, bXKfjq X] y ' , f|p[i-OUVKlou, ypappdxcov . , x d K a i a b x d K]q0iepcope-[va xfj xe 'Apxep i8 i K a i xo]iq [ a i e i eaopevoiq TtoXeixaiq xfjq Ebcovupcojv duXfjq. [bpoicoq K a i d X X t | "Apxepiq dpyupea Xap7ia8T|cj)6poq Ka ] axaXt -[a - - , bXKfjq X . , obvKicov . , K a i eiKcov dpyupea ntcovoq, bXKfjq X . , K a i eJ iKcbv [dpyupea 6uXfjq BepPeivaicov, bXKfjq X . , x d Ka i a b x d Ka0iepcopeva xfj] xe ' A [ p - ] [xepiSi K a i xoiq a i e i eaopevoiq rcoXeixaiq xfjq BepPeivaicov 6uXfj]q. [b 8e Tipoyeypappevoq axa0p6q xcov evvea d7t:eiKOviapdxco]v xfjq 0e-[ou K a i xcov e i K o a i eiKbvcov napeaxd0T) Ebpe]vei Ebpev[ouq xou 0eo(j)iX]ou, xcoi [Ka i abxcoi axpaxriycoi xfjq 'Ebeaicov nbXecoq, 8 i ] d xou c^uyfoaxdxou 'Eppiou,] iepou xfjq ['ApxepiSoq, aupTiapaXappdvo]vx[oq M o u a a i j o u , iepou x[fjq Apxep iSoq , xou] eni xcov [napa0T |Kcov. xd 8e npoyeyp]appe[va d7xeiKo]yia|j.ax[a dnoxi6ea0co]o"av K a x d [rtdaav vbpipov eKKXjr ja iav K [ a l xfj xfj veq] voupT|[vid exouq dp ]%iepaxi -[KOU e n i x eXoupev r i 0uc?i]q ev xcoi [0edxpcoi b7i]6 xcov Ka[0T|K6vxcov eni xd]q K a x d ae-345 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees [AA8aq xe9eiu.evaq K]ai emYEYtpaM-M v^ac] 9' pdaeiq [dvd y \ cbq h, kni] xoiq pd- 2 0 5 [Gpoic Kat r| ev xfj 8]iaxdi;ei Po[i)Afjq, YepoDjaiaq, eaat>xcoq 8e Y£vea9ai K a l ev ratal xoiq Y^MV l K°i]C dYcoai K[al ei xiveq] [exepai vnb xfjq pauAfjq K a l xov Sfjuoi; bpia9tjaovxai fpepai. u.r|8]evt 8e ec;[eaxco] [uexoiKovopfjaai f| xd dmeiKOviauaxa xfjq 9e]o"u f| xdq eiKbvaq Ttpbq x6 2 1 5 [|j,exovo|xaCT9f|vai fj dvaxcoveuGfjai fydAAcoi] xivl xpbncoi KaK0\>pY'n.9fjva[i,] £Tti [b rtoifjaaq x i xowcov bji:ei)9x>vo]q eaxco iepoauAig Kal daepeig K a l obSev [fjaaov b abxoq em.SeiKvi)a9co axa]9udq ev xoiq rcpcyyeYpauuevoiq dTieiKOvia-[uaaiv Kai eiKoaiv Aeixpcov] pia', exovxoq xtjv nepl xoi>xcov eKSiKiav en' dvdv-[KT| xov axpaxTryo'u xfjq rabAecoq.] xcov 8e Ka9iepcou£vcov vnd EaAoma-6 2 2 0 [piau 8r|v(apicov) P' (a.i)pico]v x[e]Aeaei XOKOV EaAauxdpioq Spaxuaiov Ka0' eKaaxov evi--[abxbv] xd yei[v]6[ieva 8r|vdpia x^oc bKxoKbaia , a§' c5v Scoaei xcp Ypccu.ua-[xei xfjq p]ouA,f|q 8r|vdpia xexpaK6ca[a 7t]evxfJK0vxa, braoq emxeAei Siavourjv [xoiq] povA.e'uxaTq kv xcp iepcoi kv x[coi 7ip]ovdcoi xfji Y£ve[a]icoi xfjq ueYicxriq 9edq 'Ap-[xeuiSoq,] fjxiq eaxiv |xnv6q 0apYT|[Ai]covoq eKxr) iaxanevcu, Y£ivou.evr|q xfjq Siavo- 2 2 5 [ufjq f|8ri xfj]q 7T.eu7ixriq, 8i8ouevo[u e]Kdaxcp xcov rcapbvxcov 8r)vaploD evbq, [u.t| exov]xoq ecjauaiav xov kni xfjq Siavoufjq drcbvxi So-ovai, feicel drcoxeiad-[xco xfji piouAfii imep eKdaxoo bvbuaxoq xov uij 7T.apaYevou.evao K a l Aapdvxoq [7ipoCTxei|iou 8r|v(dpia)... edv 8e uet£co]v Y£i[vr|xai b KbAAupoq, coaxe] [eiq 7tA.£iovaq x^ opeiv, e£eax]co Ka l [ ] 2 3 0 [ ]a dvd K<)[KAO]V. buoicpfq 8c6-] [aei xcp xov cruveSpiou xfj]q yepova[iaq Y]pauu.axei K[ax' evi-]7 [awov eKaaxov and xov 7T.pOYeYpau.u.ev]o'u X6KOU Sri(vdpia) [xrcp'] [daadpia 9', braoq emxeAfj KAfjpov xfj] yeveoicp xfjq 9eo['G] [rpepg xoiq xoi3 aweSpiou |xexexovcri]v eiq dv8paq x9' [dvd 8ri(vdpiov) a'- edv] 8 - 2 3 5 [5e (leit^ cov f| b yevouevoq KoAAupoq,] coaxe eiq nAeio[vaq] [Xcopeiv, KAT)pc6aei Kai TtAeiovaq, eKJaaxcu xcov A.ax[6v-] [xcov dvd Srjvdpiov ev Aaupdvovx]oq. 8i86a9[co 8e Kal ] [xoiq xoiq veoKOpouai napd] lafAJouxapicp x[cp Ka9iepco-] [K6XI eiq 8iavouf|v 8r|(vdpia) K a i xo]iq dgiapxtlfaaai] xoiq 2 4 0 6 IEph 27B, //. 219-220 & Rogers (1991): 164, B, //. 219-220: exovxoq xt|V Jtepl xoi)xcov feKSiKiav kn' dvav|[KT|- - -; Oliver, SG 3, 11. 219-220: e%ovxoq xf]v Ttepl xotnxov feKSiKiav en' dvdv|[KT| xoi3 axpaxeyoi) xfjq Jt6Aecoq. 7 An alternative to the unattested 8c6|aei xcp xou aweSpioi) xfj]q yepowfiaq may be 8c6aei | xfjq c()iA,oaepaaxo]q yepowfiaq. 8 One might equally restore xoiq xfjq yepoixjicxq pexexovxjijv. 346 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees dvaYpa\|/apevoiq 8r|(vdpia) eiq KAfjpov] dvd [8r|vdp]ia i', xov Ypcxppaxeoq xfjq yepouaiaq xou raxpievai xfjv 8]iavou.ijv fj dvaypa(j)f|v pexd xfjv ZaXouxapiou xeAeuxfjjy, ertei dnoxeiadxco Ttpbaxeipov 2 4 5 xb ev xfj 8iaxdi;ei cbpiajiievov. bixoicoq drab xou Ttpoye-Ypappevou XOKOU Scoaei Kax' e]yiqu[xbv e]Kdaxov K a i xoiq ei; <\>v-Idpxoiq dvd 8ri(vdpia) pKe', b7t]cpq e7t[ixeAco]g[i] KA.fjpov xfjq raxyyeYpau.-Lievriq Ka0iepc6aecoq xfjq] 0eou ei; [eKdaxr|]q (JruAfjq eiq bvbpaxa 81-d K o a i a 7ievxT|Kovxa, A.a]pPav6y[xcov x]cov Xr|i;oixevcov daadp ia 0' 2 5 0 Ka0' emaxov edv Se pett/ov fj b Y£v]6pevoq KoAAupoq, vno xcov cJjuAdpxcov ei;eaxco K a i dXXovq ra)X]eixaq K?ir|poua0ai. bpoicoq Sc6aei drab xou npoYeYpappevo]y X6KOU Kax ' eviauxbv eraaxov xcp e(j)r|Pdpxcp 8T|v(dpia) pKq', brao]q emxeXfj KA,fjpov xcov K a x ' eviauxbv bvxcov e<)>fjpcov xfj yeveciu) x]fjq 'ApxepiSoq 255 eiq bvbpaxa SiaKoaia TievxfJKOvxa, A.appav6v]xcov xcov A,r|i;o-pevcov dvd daaap ia 0', Aappavexco Se] b ebijpapxoq xco-piq xouxcov Sri(vdpiov) a', bpoicoq Scoaei drab x]ou TtpoYeYpappe-vou X6KOU K a i xcp dpxiepei 'Aa iaq xou ev 'E(j)e]acp vaou KOIVOU xfjq 'Aa iaq 5r |(vdpia).K8',da(adpia)iY' fpiau] Kax ' eviauxbv e m a - 2 6 0 xov, braoq ei; abxcov xfj Yeveaicp xfjq 0]eou tjiafepoc ercixeAei KA,fjpov xcov 0eoX6Ycov ev xcp iepcp x]fjq 'ApxeuiSoq, Xap-pdvovxoq eKdaxou xcov raxp' auxco]i dvaYpa\|/apevcov Kai Xaxbvxcov dvd Sri(vdpia) P', da(adpia) iy' fjpiau, Y]eivopevT|q xfjq dva-Ypatj)fjq xfji Trepracrji. bpoicoq Sc6a]ei drab xou TipoYeYpau- 2 6 5 pevou X6KOU Kax ' eviauxbv x]fj iepeiq 'ApxepiSoq vneo xcov bp.vcpScov xfjq 0eou xfji Yeveaicoji xfjq 'ApxepiSoq eiq Siavopfjv Srivdpia ir\\ bpoicoq 8c6a]ei drab xou 7t[p]oYeYpaia,-pevou XOKOU K a x d raxaav vbpipov eKKA,]r|aiav 8ua[i]v veorau-oiq K a i aKr)7txouxcp da(adpia) 8' fjpiau, dbaxe cbep]ea0ai eK xou npovdou 2 7 0 eiq xb Geaxpov xd d7r.eiK0viauaxa xfjq] 0eou K a i xdq eiKbvaq K a i raxXiv dva<|)epea0ai eK xou 0edxpo]u eiq xbv rcpbvaov ab&rpe-pbv pexd xcov cbuAdKcov. bpoicoq 8c6]aei drab xou 7ipoYeYpocppe-vou X6KOU Kax' eviauxbv eKaaxojv Ka i xoiq raxiScovbpoiq 8r|(vdpia) ie' , da(adpia) iy' fjpiau, braoq xfj yeve]ciu> xfjq Beou f|pepq enixeXt- 2 7 5 acoai KXfjpov xcov raxiScov raxv]xcov eiq bvbpaxa p0', XapPavbv-xcov xcov A,T)i;opevcov xaux]p xfj f|M£p a e v tcp 'iepcp xfjq 'ApxepiSoq dvd da(adpia) 8' fjpiau, A,appav6]vxcov Ka i xcov raxiScovbpcov xcopiq xouxcov dvd daadp ia 0'. bjpoicoq 8c6aei drab xou npoYeYpap-pevou X6KOU Ka0' eKaaxov evjiauxbv xcp xd Ka0dpaia noiouvxi raxpe- 2 8 0 ] x d Xoirax 8r|(vdpia) xpidKovxa, cbaxe K a -Oapt^eiv eKdaxoxe, brcoxav ei]q xb'iepbv dra^eprixai xd dneiKov-i a i i a x a xfjq 0eou, Ttpiv dra>0eiv]qi a b x d eiq xbv npbvaov xfjq 'Apxe-347 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees [ixiSoq. edv U.EV obv exepbq xiq K a x ' ] iSiav Ttpoaipeaiv dyopdat] [xfjv K A i p o v o u i a v xa-6xT|v K a i pouA,]r|0fj Ka6 ' E K a a x o v evi- 2 8 ^ [ auxbv x6v X6KOV, SiSoxco b dyopd]£cov xd 7i.poy£ypau.|xeva 8r|(vdpia) yiXia [b]KxaKo[caa, |xf] ec;6v raxpa xfj]v 8idxac;iv eia[ev]evKeiv uriSev eAaaao[v , d]M.d Tipoaaa^aAati^oixevou edv Se XI [q dyopdoTi abxfjv, poDA.]r)0fj Se drcoSobvai xdxeiov xd xfjq Ka0iepcb[aecoq d p x d i a dnavx]a, ei;eaxai abxcp fen' dvdvKT| Xr\\yo\iE- 29^ vcp x[cp ETII xcov %pr)|j.dxco]v xfjq poiAfjq xd yei.v6i4.eva brcep xcov Ka[0]iepco[|xevcov xfj Pot>A.fj] d p x a i o t ) Sri(vdpia) T t e v x a K i a x t A i a , bu.[o]tcoq Ka[l xcp eni xcov xpxi]|xdxcov xfjq y e p o u a i a q xd yeivbixeva b7t£p xfjq Ka0i£pcouE[v]cov xfj y E p o u a i q 8T|(vdpia) XExpaK[i]g[x]e[i]-Xia XExpaKbaia rcevxfJKOvxa, bixoicoq K a i xoiq GeoAbyo iq 2 9 5 K a i bixvcoSdiq x d y e i v o u e v a brcep xfjq KaOiepcbaecoq d p x a t o u 8r|(vdpia) 8 i a K 6 a [ i ] a TtevxfJKovxa KEVXE, bixoicoq xcp ypa i x i x a xe i xob 8fj|xou x d Ao iTtd y e i v o u e v a xob d p x a i a o brrep xfjq Ka0 iepc6-aEcoq xcov Eiq xobq rcoAe ixaq KATJPCOV K a i efiPcov K a i veo-TCOICOV Ka i aKTinxobxcov K a i Ka0apaicov Sri(vdpia) ixbpia SiaKbaia 3 0 0 EpSoixfJKOvxa 7i£vx£, bncoq feKSavit/oaiv a b x d eni X6KCO daaapicov SEKaSbo dpyupcov dSidnxcoxa Ka i eruxeA/fj xai K a 0 ' EKaaxov dnb xob X6KOU x d Siaxexayixe-v a dvwtepOexcoq, cbq rcpoyeypaTtxai. fedv Se Tipb 7io-Sobvai x d Siaixbpia Sri(vdpia) fj Siaxdc^EaOai dnb 7tpoa68ou 305 Xcopicov 8t8oa0ai xbv X6KOV abxcov {fj} xeAeuxfjaei EaA.ouxdpioq, bnoK£ia0coaav oi KA,T)pov6|xoi abxob xfj eb -Auxfjaei xcov Ka0i£pco|x£vcov 5T|(vapicov) Siauuptcov K a i xoiq erca-KoAcuOfjaaai xbKOiq I X E X P X xfjq ebAittfjaeoq, bnoKei-uevcov abxcov xfj 7tpdc;ei Kaxd xd iepd xfjq 0eob Ka i xd na- 3 1 0 pa xoiq rcpeapuxepoiq eKSaviaxiKd feypacjia. brceaxexo <8>e LaAorndpioq, cbaxe dpd;[a]a0ai xrjv ia|X£voiq K a i ETUKEKD-pcoixevfoiq nepl] xabxTiq xfjq Siaxd^ecoq drcoxeiadxco eiq 7ipoaK[6a|xri|xa x]fjq |xe[yiax]T|q 0edq 'ApxeuiSoq Sri(vdpia) Siaixbpia [n]e[v]xa[KiaxeiAia K a i eiq xbv xob Ze]paaxob <\>ICKOV aXXa 8r|(vdpia) P' ix(bpia) ,e. 3 2 ^ [f] Se Trpoyeypaixixevri 8idxat;iq ea]xco K -up ia eiq xbv d r a x v x a xpb-348 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees [vov - , KocGcxTtep ' A K a u t X X i ] o q n pbKA f oq , b e]i)[e]p[Y]fexT|c [Ka l dv9b7Taxo]c, K a l ' A i p d v i o q OAaomavbq, b K p d x i c x o q TXpeaBemfjq KOC[1 dvxiax]pdxrryoq, 8id emaxoAcov rcepl xainnq xfjq Siaxdcje-coq eTceKbpcoaqv K a l cop i oav xd TipoYEYPOtppevov rc[p]6axeiu.ov. r i o q O b e i B i o q , T d i o t ) u i b q , 'Q6evxeiva, EaA.auxdpt.oq e i [ a ] e v t j voxa xfjv Sidxc;iv K a l K aG i ep coaa x d T tpoYeYpaupeva . Translation: (A) During the prytany of Tiberius Claudius Antipater Julianus on the sixth day of the month Poseideon. It was decreed by the boule and the Emperor-loving neocorate demos: Concerning those things which Tiberius Claudius Julianus, the son of Tiberius Claudius Alexander, of the tribe Quirina, who is loyal to his country and Emperor-loving, a reverent and pious man, who is the secretary of the demos for the second time, and the Emperor-loving generals of the city have brought forward; since the men who are generous towards the city and who display in every way the affection of citizens born in the city should receive rewards in return equal to the enjoyment of men who have previously benefited the city, and the enjoyment built up for those who wish to compete for the same rewards, and which is equal to the enjoyment of men who have been zealous to honour the greatest goddess Artmeis, from whom the most wonderful things come to all, it is fitting for them to be honoured by the city; Gaius Vibius Salutaris, a man of the equestrian order, eminent in birth and worth, who has been honoured by our master the Imperator with military positions and procuratorships, who is our fellow-citizen and a member of the senatorial assembly (Bo'oA.e-uxiKO'u a v v e S p i a u ) , and who lives in a good manner following the conduct of his father, since, to complement the promotions of Fortune more with the great reverence of his lifestyle, he strove in his piety to f i l l the office of Archegetis munificently with detailed plans for the cult and honoured the entire city with bountiful dedications, and moreover even now approaching the assembly (eKKA.r)aia) he is promising to dedicate nine statues, one in gold on which silver is overlaid with gold, and eight other silver statues, and twenty silver busts,9 five of our ruler the Imperator Nerva Trajanus Caesar Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, and of his most revered wife Plotina and of the holy Senate and of the Roman equestrian order and of the populus of Rome, and in addition to these fifteen busts representing the city of the Ephesians, the demos, the six tribes, the boule, the gerousia, the order of the Ephebes . . . . (48) . . . by the guards, with two temple wardens and the staff-bearer assisting, to be carried and carried back, with the Ephebes receiving them and joining in the procession from the Magnesian gate to the theatre and from the theatre in the same manner, both at the new moon sacrifice of the archieratic year, and at the twelve sacred and customary meetings in each month of the Assembly (eKKXriaia), which is summoned twelve times each month, and at the festivals of the Sebasteia and the Soteria and the penteteric Great Epheseia... (62) . . . of the money donated by him to the boule, the gerousia, the citizens, the Ephebes and the paides of the Ephesians he himself promised to be the investor for the . . . 9 The words rendered statue (dTteiKOviauoc) and bust (E ' IKCOV ) have been translated so with the intent to convey the distinction apparent in the Greek but to retain the similarity of media which is also apparent in the Greek. 349 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees and to pay as interest one as per drachma which wi l l be distributed each year according to his arrangement on the birthday of the goddess, which is the sixth day of the month Thargelion having agreed that either he or his heirs would give the promised money to the city, whenever it was wanted, with those who are the leaders of each group receiving it; having announced the arrangement for all these things in private he deemed it worthy to confirm them also through a decree of the boule and the demos, and now the governors of the province, Aquill ius Proculus, vir egregius, the beneficent proconsul, and Afranius Flavianus, the legate and the propraetor, both recognizing with unsurpassable philanthropy and affection the generosity of the man, like active citizens themselves, according as they replied to him and wrote happily in their letters, have decreed that they would introduce on their own authority the matters concerning Gaius Vibius Salutaris' donations. (84) It has been decreed that Gaius Vibius Salutaris, a man who is pious toward the gods and generous toward the city, should be honoured with the greatest honours and with the erection of busts in the Temple of Artemis and in the most prominent places of the city, and that he should be publicly praised with a golden crown in the assemblies (eKKXnaica) because he is zealous and devoted to Artemis; and that two of the temple wardens and the staff-bearer and the guards should oversee the aforementioned holy images and the carrying of the images before the general procession from the temple to the theatre and from the theatre to the Temple of Artemis in accordance with his arrangements each year.... (104) .. . the Temple of Artemis. . .of those which are due...that his arrangements shall be authoritative, unalterable, indissoluble and immutable for all time. But i f anyone, either a private citizen or a magistrate, should propose something contrary to the arrangements ratified in this decree or changes any of the arrangements, everything contrary to the arrangements wi l l be invalid, and let the one who does any of these things or introduces such a measure pay toward the additional adornment of Queen Artemis twenty-five thousand denarii and to the Imperial fiscus another twenty-five thousand denarii, according as the governors, the proconsul Aquill ius Proculus and the legate and propraetor Afranius Flavianus, viri egregii, have determined in their letters as the fine; so that his generosity to the city and his piety toward the goddess may be made clear, the arrangements made by him and ratified by a decree of the boule and demos ...to post...in the theatre facing its marble wall on the southern parodos, wherever he himself wishes, and in the Artemision in a prominent place, because of his generosity and virtue; and concerning the continuance of the money which has been donated by him to the boule and the gerousia and the citizens and the Ephebes he has promised that he wi l l be the investor for this year in accordance with his endowment.... It has been decreed to be so by the boule and the Emperor-loving neocorate demos according as it has been written above. (B 134) In the second consulship of Sextus Attius Suburanus and the first of Marcus Asinius Marcellus, on the [...] day of January; during the prytany of Tiberius Claudius Antipater Julianus, on the [...] day of the month Poseideon. Gaius Vibius Salutaris, the son of Gaius of the tribe Oufentina offered his endowment to the Emperor-loving boule of the Ephesians and to the Emperor-loving neocorate demos of the Ephesians, with regards to which he has dedicated on the terms noted below to the 350 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees greatest goddess, the Ephesian Artemis, and to the Emperor-loving neocorate demos of the Ephesians and to the Emperor-loving boule of the Ephesians and to the Emperor-loving gerousia of the Ephesians and to the six tribes of the Ephesians and to the annual Ephebes of the Ephesians and to the theologoi10 and to the hymnodoi and to the temple wardens and to the staff-bearers and to those who wi l l be the Paides of the Ephesians and to the paidonomoi nine statues of the goddess, one in gold and the others in silver, and twenty silver busts and 20,000 denarii, in such a way that a silver bust of our ruler the Imperator Caesar Nerva Trajanus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, weighing...pounds and three ounces, and a silver bust of Plotina Augusta, weighing three pounds, should be entrusted to Salutaris himself, the donor, and after the death of Salutaris the aforementioned statues should be given to the grammateus of the Ephesians at the aforementioned weight by Salutaris' heirs, so that they might be placed during the councils (eKKA.T|aiai) above the seating area of the boule with the golden statue of Artemis and the other busts. Let the statues and busts be: (158) A golden Artemis, weighing three pounds and the two silver deer around it and the rest other gold plated, weighing two pounds, ten ounces and five grams, and a silver bust of the Roman Senate weighing four pounds and two ounces, and a silver bust of the most revered Emperor-loving boule of the Ephesians, weighing four pounds and nine grams, these dedicated to Artemis and to the Emperor-loving boule of the Ephesians. (164) Likewise also a silver torch-bearing Artemis, weighing seven pounds, and a silver bust of the populus Romanus weighing...pounds, and a silver bust of the Emperor-loving gerousia, weighing...pounds, these dedicated to Artemis and the gerousia of the Ephesians. (168) Likewise also another silver torch-bearing Artemis, resembling the one in the exedra of the Ephebes, weighing seven pounds, five ounces and...grams, and a silver bust of the equestrian order, weighing three pounds, nine ounces and three grams, and another silver bust of the order of the Ephebes, weighing...pounds, these dedicated to Artemis and to those who are the annual Ephebes. (173) Likewise also another silver torch-bearing Artemis, holding an urn, weighing...pounds,...ounces and...grams, and a silver bust of the divine Augustus weighing...pounds,...ounces and...grams, and a silver bust of the tribe Sebaste, weighing...pounds, these dedicated to Artemis and to all who are citizens in the tribe Sebaste. (17.7) Likewise also another silver [torch-bearing] Artemis, weighing...pounds, and a silver bust of the Emperor-loving demos of the Ephesians, weighing.. . pounds and a silver bust of the tribe Ephesea, weighing...pounds, these dedicated to Artemis and to all who are citizens in the tribe Ephesea. (182) Likewise also another silver [torch-bearing] Artemis with a.. . in her hand, weighing...pounds and nine ounces, and a silver bust of...weighing...pounds, and a silver bust of the tribe Carenaea, weighing...pounds,...ounces and three grams, these dedicated to Artemis and all who are citizens in the tribe Carenaea. The theologos may have prayed at the festival; in other cities, they were associated with the Imperial cult (Rogers [1991]: 53). 351 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees (186) Likewise also another silver torch-bearing Artemis with. . . , weighing.. . , and a silver bust of Lysimachus, weighing...pounds and three ounces, and a silver bust of the tribe Teia, weighing...pounds, these dedicated to Artemis and to all who are citizens in the tribe Teia. (189) Likewise also another silver [torch-bearing] Artemis holding a..., weighing..., three ounces and half a gram, and a silver bust of Euonymus, weighing...pounds, and a silver bust of the tribe Euonymea, weighing three pounds, half an ounce and...grams, these dedicated to Artemis to all who are citizens in the tribe Euonymea. (194) Likewise also another silver torch-bearing Artemis. . . Castalia, weighing...pounds and...ounces, and a silver bust of Pion weighing.. . , and a silver bust of the tribe Bembinaea, weighing...pounds, these dedicated to Artemis and to all who are citizens in the tribe Bembinaea. (198) The aforementioned weight of the nine statues of the goddess and of the twenty busts was provided to Eumenes the son of Eumenes and grandson of Theophilus, that Eumenes who is strategos of the city of the Ephesians, through the agency of the weight-officer Hermias, a sacred servant of Artemis, while Musaeus, a sacred servant of Artemis in charge of dedications, joined in the receiving. The aforementioned statues wil l be set up at every customary assembly (eKK^riaia) and at the sacrifice completed at the new moon of the archieratic year in the theatre by those responsible on the nine bases arranged in blocks and inscribed in groups of three, as the dedication on the bases and the dedication in the arrangements for the boule, the gerousia, the order of Ephebes and each tribe. A n d after the assemblies (eKKA,r)oiai) have been concluded the statues and busts wi l l be carried back to the Temple of Artemis and handed over by their guardians, with two of the temple wardens and the wand-bearer joining them, to Musaeus, the sacred servant of Artemis in charge of dedications, with the Ephebes receiving them and joining in the procession from the Magnesian gate to the theatre and from the theatre to the Coressian gate with all due pomp; and it is to occur the same in the gymnastic games and if any other days are specified by the boule and the demos. But it shall not be possible for anyone to alter either the statues of the goddess or the busts in order to rename them or to re-smelt them or to do them harm in any other way, since the one who does any of these things shall be held accountable for sacrilege and impiety and the same weight and no less shall be shown to have been put into the aforementioned statues and busts, namely one hundred and eleven pounds; the strategos of the city is responsible under law for prosecuting in these matters. (220) Of the twenty thousand denarii donated by Salutaris, Salutaris w i l l pay 9% interest each year, 1 1 making one thousand eight hundred denarii, from which he shall give to the grammateus of the boule four hundred and fifty denarii, so that he may perform a distribution of money to the members of the boule in the temple in the pronaos on the birthday of the greatest goddess, Artemis, which is the sixth day of the month of Thargelion, with the distribution occurring on the fifth day, with one denarius being given to each man present; the one who is charge does not have authority to give a share of this distribution to anyone who is absent because i f he does so, he shall pay to the boule a fine of...denarii for each man who was not present but received the gift. If the interest 1 1 Literally, "Salutaris will pay interest per drachma per year." 352 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees available is greater, so that it can provide for more, it shall be permissible also [to make a distribution at a rate of? . . . ]. (231) In the same way he wi l l give to the grammateus of the assembly (cruveopiov) 1 2 of the gerousia each year from the aforementioned interest three hundred and eighty-two denarii and nine asses, so that a lottery may be conducted on the birthday of the goddess for those who are members of the assembly, up to three hundred and nine men, at a rate of one denarius each. If the available interest is greater, so that it can provide for more, he wi l l allot more portions, but each of the recipients w i l l receive one denarius. There wi l l also be given to the temple-wardens in the donor's, that is Salutaris', house...denarii for a distribution of money and to the former Asiarchs whose names have been inscribed...denarii for a lottery at the rate of eleven denarii per person, with which they wi l l purchase the materials for the sacrifice, with this lottery taking place on the fifth day. The grammateus of the gerousia wi l l not have the authority to omit the distribution or the enrolment after the death of Salutaris, because i f he does so he wi l l pay the fine which was specified in these arrangements. (246) In the same way from the aforementioned interest he wi l l give each year also to the six tribe-leaders one hundred and twenty-five. denarii, so that they may perform a lottery of the aforementioned dedication of the goddess for two hundred and fifty men by name from each tribe, with the winners receiving nine asses each. If the available interest is greater, it may be allotted by the tribe-leaders to other citizens. (253) In the same way he wi l l give from the aforementioned interest each year to the Ephebarch one hundred and twenty-six denarii, so that he may perform a lottery for the annual Ephebes on the birthday of Artemis for two hundred and fifty individuals by name, with each of the winners receiving nine asses, and the Ephebarch may take one denarius aside from these. (258) In the same way he wi l l give from the aforementioned interest also to the Highpriest of As ia of the common temple of As ia in Ephesus twenty-four denarii and thirteen and a half asses each year, so that from this on the birthday of the goddess he may perform a lottery for the theologoi in the Temple of Artemis, with each of those who have been registered by him and winning the lottery receiving two denarii and thirteen and a half asses, with the registration taking place on the fifth. (265) In the same way he wi l l give from the aforementioned interest each year to the priestess of Artemis on behalf of the hymnodoi of the goddess on the birthday of Artemis for a distribution eighteen denarii. (268) In the same way he wi l l give from the aforementioned interest at every regular assembly (eKKA,noia) to two temple wardens and to the wand-bearer four and a half asses, so that the statues of the goddess and the busts may be brought from the pronaos to the theatre and back again from the theatre to the pronaos along with the guards on the same day. (273) In the same way he wi l l give from the aforementioned interest each year to the paidonomoi fifteen denarii and thirteen and a half asses, so that on the birthday of the goddess they may perform a lottery for forty-nine Paides by name, with each of the 1 2 Or, "to the grammateus of the Emperor-loving gerousia.'' 353 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees winners receiving four and a half asses on the same day in the Temple of Artemis, and with the paidonomoi receiving separately nine asses each. (279) In the same way he wi l l give from the aforementioned interest each year to the one who performs the cleaning...the remaining thirty denarii, so that he may cleanse cleanse them each time when the statues of the goddess are carried back to the temple before they replace them in the pronaos of the Temple of Artemis. (284) If any other person buys this lottery on a private initiative and wishes to pay the interest each year, let the buyer pay the aforementioned one thousand eight hundred denarii; it wi l l not be permissible to pay any lesser amount contrary to these arrangements..., but making it secure. But i f anyone buys it, and wishes to pay all the capital sum of the donation in advance, it wi l l be permitted to him to pay it to the one who is obliged to receive it, giving five thousand as a capital sum to the treasurer of the boule for the gifts donated to the boule; and in the same way to pay four thousand four hundred and fifty denarii as a capital sum to the teasurer of the gerousia for gifts donated to the gerousia; and in the same way to pay two hundred and fifty-five denarii as a capital sum to the theologoi and the hymnodoi for their gifts; and in the same way to the grammateus of the demos as the remainder of the capital sum ten thousand two hundred and seventy-five denarii for the lotteries for the citizens and the Ephebes and the temple wardens and the wand-bearers and the cleaners, so that they may invest the money at a rate of twelve silver asses with reliable security and that they may complete the gifts from the annual interest without delay, as has been written above. (304) But i f Salutaris dies before he pays the twenty thousand denarii or before he arranges for the interest to be paid from the income of his estates, his heirs w i l l be liable for the payment of the donated twenty thousand denarii and they wi l l be liable for the interest until the conclusion of the payment, with them being liable for payment according to the sacred loan-regulations of the goddess and those of the Elders. (312) Salutaris has promised, so that his generosity may begin in the current year, that on the birthday of the goddess he wi l l give one thousand eight hundred denarii for the aforementioned distributions and lotteries. (315) A n d it shall not be permitted to any magistrate, advocate or private citizen to attempt to alter or change or reorganize or divert anything or to propose a different measure for the donated statues or the money or its interest or to direct to any other income or expense or to do anything contrary to the aforementioned arrangements; let any action against the donations be illegal; and let the one who attempts to do anything in contradiction to these arrangements or to those aspects of these arrangements which have been approved and ratified by the boule and demos pay for the additional adornment of the greatest goddess, Artemis, twenty-five thousand denarii and to the fiscus of the Emperor another twenty-five thousand denarii. (326) Let the aforementioned arrangements be in legal effect for all time..., just as Aquill ius Proculus, the beneficent proconsul, and Afranius Flavianus, vir egregius, the legate and propraetor, in their letters concerning these arrangements have approved and established the aforementioned fine. Gaius Vibius Salutaris, the son of Gaius, of the tribe Oufentina has brought forth the aforementioned endowment and gifts. 354 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees (55) IEph 27G.447-568; Rogers (1991): 180-184, G.447-568; Oliver, SG 3.447-568; cf., GIBM, 481.318-406: additional benefaction of Gaius Vibius Salutaris. The text of the Salutaris dossier, of which G is the final document, is organized in six columns forming a trapezoid measuring on the left 208 x 12.5-20 cm and on the right 403 x 12.5-20; cf. cat. nos. 15 & 54. Date: Tiberius Claudius Antipater Julianus was prytanis during the proconsulship of Aquil l ius Proculus (PIR2 A 999), under whom Afranius Flavianus (PIR2 A 443) was proprietor. A D 104. Illustration: Figs. 8 & 28. Zecjxcp 'Axxico EouBo'upavcp xd p \ MdpKco ' A c n - 4 4 7 vico MapKeAAcp bTtdxoiq npb n ' KataxvScov Mapxicov era. np-uxdvecoq TiP(epiau) KAocuoio-o 'Avxirtdxpau ' IauXiavau pnvdq 'Av9eaxnpicovoq P' Xepaaxfj. 4 5 0 rd 'ioq Obeip ioq , r(dioD) Di(dq), Obcodevxeiva, EaXauxdpioq, ea]cp KOIVOU xfjq ' A a i a q K a l dKpopdxa ig xfjc ['ApxepiSoq em] xoiq S i K a i o i q K a l jrpoaxei-poic, cbq ev x n p d [xabxric 8i]axdc;ei h a d d A i a x a i , e iKd- 4 6 0 vcov dpyupecov Sbo k[ni]%[p]yc(x)v, coaxe a b x d c e i v a i avv xoiq drceiKoviaudxcov xfjc Qeov dpi9pcp xpidKovxa K a l p i a v , K a l dpyupiau dXAcov 8n(vdpicov) %eiXi(av TievxaKoaicov, coaxe e i v a i a b x d avv xoiq 7ipoKa9iepco|j.evoiq 8r|(vapioic) pupioiq x e i ^ 0 l C rcev-xaKoaio iq- ed' co eiKcov dpy-upea 'A9r|vdc r i appouaau , b^Kfjc 4 ^5 avv xco eraxpybpcp xfjc pdaecoc abxfjc Aeixpcov emtd, t|pi-OW-KIOV, ypaupdxcov 6KXC6, f| Ka0iepcopevr| xfi xe 'Apxep iS i K a i xdic a i £ l eaopevoic 'Edeaicov 7iocii, xi9fjxqci Kaxd raxaav vd-uipov e K K ^ n a i a v eTtdvco xfjc aeMSoq, ob [oji TtaiSeq Ka9e£[o]yxai. bpoicoc Kai E'IKCOV dpy-upea Z e p a a - 4 7 0 xfjc 'Opovoiaq Xpuaoddpau, blKrjq avv xcp eTtapybpcp xfjq pdaecoq abxfjc Aeixpcov eq, f| Ka9iepcopevn xfj xe 'Apxe-piSi K a i xoiq del xpwotbopobaiv *iepe{j-a i v Kal i epove iKa iq Ttpb 7i6^[eco]q, xl9exq[i] 4 7 5 K a x d Ttdaav eKK^r | a i av [endvjco [xfjq] ae-A,iSoq, ob d i iepoveiKai Ka[9e£]ovxai. b Se 7ipoyeypa[p]y.ev[oq a]xa9pdq xcov e i K d -vcov K a l pdae[cov 7i]apeaxd9n Ebpevei Eb -pe[v]o-uq [xo]b] 0eoXr\ pr]8epiq kKpdaaea0av K a i 5 4 5 x d Ao iTtd S r i ( vdp i a ) bKxcb 8o0fjaexai K a 0 ' emaxov k v i a m b v xcp ert i xcov 7iapa9r|KCOv e i q xfjv k7upeAeiav xcov dTteiKoviaudxcov K a i xbv dyopaapbv xfjq dpy-upcopaxiKfjq yfjq. bneaxexo Se ZaAouxdpioq Scbceiv K a i 8 r | (vdp ia ) 5 5 0 eKaxbv xpidKovxa rcevxe, cbaxe d p i ; a a 0 a i x i jv £pexcocav k K xob Ttpovdou Kaxd rcdaav eKKAr i -aiav e i q xb 0eaxpov K a i xobq yuuviKobq dyco-vaq, K a i e i xiveq kxepai vnb xfjq povA f i q K a i x ob . S f p a u b p i a 0 f j a o v x a i f i p k p a i , k K xcov veorcoi- 5 6 0 cov Sbo K a i d i i e p o v e i K a i K a i aKT|TCXobxoq K a i (JyuAaKoi K a i ndXiv d7ioq e]7tl 7iA,eiaxv Sid xiva eKSiav Xpripdxcov exeoav [baxepoiq t|peA,f|a9cu- vvv Se ebpe0evxcov Sid] [Ti(Bepio"u) KACa-uSiao)]13 NeiKopfjSoDq, xov Ka0o[A.iKob eK8iKo]D xob auveSpiou f|pcov, xfjq abxob eJiipeA.eia eqfaipexov napaaxbvxoq raxpdSeiypa, 7x6pcov] [iKav]cov, eiq xo naXaibv e0oq e7ta[veA,0auaav xf|]v yepauaiav ebaepeiv Ka l Qveiv xfj xe raoKa0nye[p6vi xfjq 7i6A,ecoq t\\i(£>v 0eq 'ApxepiSi K a l xcp pe-] [yiaxjco Kupico fjM-^ v K a i ev[*aveaxdxco ajbxoKpdxopi K a i a a p i M(dpKCp) Abp(nXicp) KoppbSco 'Avxcoveivcp [Eepaaxcp Ebaepdi Ebxuxei xdq K a x ' exoq 0D-] [crijaq vnep xfjq aicoviou Siapovfjq [abxoij, cbaxe, eq]6v pfj eAaxov dvaAiaKeiv eiq 1 0 XTJV ebcoxiav 'AX[XIKCOV - - eK xcov vnb xov NeiKopfjSauq] SrjAaupevcov Tibpcov, eKaaxov x6[v napbvxa eiq x]6 dvdAcopa xov deinvov eqcoGev Oliver suggests [Ti(Pepiou) KX(au8lou)] NeiKou1j5ou?. An individual by this name appears in a list of kouretes during the prytanny of Licinnius Maximus Julianus in A D 104-105 (IEph 1022; cat. no. 60). The Nicomedes of this inscription may, therefore, be the grandson or great-grandson of Tiberius Claudius Nicomedes the kouretes. 359 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees Kai E K xfjq xo[b NEiKopfjSouq <)>iA.ox£iptaq AaREiv] ' AXXIKTJV p i a v 8id xobxo ESOC^EV x[diq cruv£8po]iq Kupcoaai K a i vopoGExfjaai EiaaEt 8id xobSE x[ob \j/r|(|)io"paxoq- Tir^T) 'AyaGfj xijv yEpouaiav ei-] q xb 8i[T|v]EK£t; (JwAdaEaGai xfj[v eni xf\ 7tpoy]£ypapp£vr| ebaEpEiq voixoGEolav cbq ai[cbviov- bpoicoq SE xobq avvtbpovq e i a a e l ] tjnjAdaa[eiv] K a i ETtixeAeiv xd TC[epi xd 8ei7tv]a TrpoatjjiA.oxeipo'up.evo'u xob eKSiKou \q xfj[v Saraxv-nv xbv Se - - ] 7ipovo[eiv, cbq] ev u£v xoiq Sefinvoiq A,a|j.]7r.a8o'u%E[i]v, EV SE x a i q KaxaKAiaEcnv 1 5 Kax£[ xobq cvvedpovq LtExa-] AavpdvEiv [xfjq] Ebcoxiaq. Ei nox[E SE pij raxpjeiev exepoi [n]6poi, en i x a i q bpota iq ebcoxiaq [Kai G w i a q emxeAeiv, xbv 8e - ] drib xob xcov npoa68[cov KoAAbpot) rcpoaGfjjKnv noieiaG[ai] xoiq Ttpob7idpxovcn.v nopoiq [iq xfjv Sandvnv xfjq G w i a q - xoiq Se 7T.oA.ei-]14 xa iq S iavopdq y[evEoGai raxaaq K a x d x68e xb] \|/fj(|)iapa ev xoiq nepi xbv vabv xfjq Zcoxei[paq 'ApxepiSoq oiKoiq- eopxd^eiv 8e K a i ] Kaxd [xd npoKeKTjpcopeva \(/r| pr)vb[q xobq TtoAetxaq- ev 8e xoiq] ye[ve6Atoiq xob Geob abxoKpdxopoq xcov 'E<|>ecy]tcov yepbvxcov dpi[6pbv pfj] pfe iova - 2 ^ --] Several lines missing [ - - obSevbq exovxoq] 2 0 i [eqjopcrlav ob[x]e dpxov[xoq obxe i]Sicoxo["u ob]xe EKSIKOD o[bxe x d eyricbi-] [ap]eva. nepi ob e7iripd[aax]o p£[v K]oivfj rcda f| y E p c u a l a xcp [7i£ipdaovxi — , k\|/T](j)iaaxo SE K a i d a E p E i q abxbv] E i v a i b7i£bGi)vov Ka[i i£po]cxuA,tq- £[xi K]ai bTtEbGwov abxbv Kax£a[xr|0"EV - -• fenaivEaai SE N£iKopfj8T|v K a i xobq biobq] abxob, dnoKr|pbxx£i[v SE K ] a l 7taxpoy£[p]ovxaq. fexi E8O<;EV xbv KaG' fexo[q 2 ^ ----] EV xfj dpxfj Kdl xb dp[x,a]iov xb EbpEGkv 8i86va[i], c5 dv KOIVTJ Ttdaa f| [yEpoixjia i|/T|(j)iaT| -] EbaEpEiq [ ] ypappa[x]£bovxoq xcov Jip[eo"P"uxepcov — ] Translation To Good Fortune. Concerning the matters which [ ] has brought forward; in the times following the foundation of the city, K ing Lysimachus, having become the master of the affairs of the city, arranged everything concerning both the mysteries and the sacrifices and our sunhedrion in the best way, with all reverence and kindness, and having dedicated both the temple and statue of Artemis the Saviour in...he arranged that 1 4 van Rossum ( 1 9 8 8 ) : 161 suggests xoiq SE y£poixJiaa]|xaiq, which is not impossible given that the members of the gerousia did receive shares in cash gifts during the late second century. It might be unusual, though, to describe an allotment of the common funds of the gerousia to the gerousiastai themselves as a dianome. 360 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees all those having membership in the sunhedrion, after receiving from the common treasury of the gerousia [sum of money] each, should hold a feast and sacrifice to the goddess; but although the custom endured for a very long time, it was in later times neglected because of a lack of money. But now, since sufficient funds have been discovered through the efforts of [Tiberius Claudius] Nicomedes, the general financial supervisor of our sunhedrion, giving a singular sign of his diligence, the gerousia can, returning to the ancient custom, revere and sacrifice the annual sacrifices to the protector of our city, the goddess Artemis, and to our great ruler and the most manifest Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Sebastus Pius Felix on behalf of his everlasting life, in such a way that, it being not possible to spend less than [sum of money] Attic drachmas from the resources indicated by Nicomedes on the feast, each individual present may receive in addition to the cost of the meal one Attic drachma from the generosity of Nicomedes. Therefore, the members of the sunhedrion (sunhedroi) have resolved to ratify and ordain this forever through the following decree: To Good Fortune. The gerousia shall uphold in perpetuity forever the decree which was passed on the principle of the aforesaid piety. A n d in the same way the members of the sunhedrion (sunhedroi) shall always uphold and fulfill their duties with respect to the feast with the ekdikos contributing in addition to the expense; and the...shall arrange for a torch-procession at the meals, and among the recliners...the members of the sunhedrion (sunhedroi) shall take part in the feast. If at any time other funds are not available to hold the feasts and sacrifices on the same scale...a contribution wi l l be made to the revenue toward the expense of the sacrifices from the revenue of the exchange. A l l distributions to the citizens in accodance with this decree shall occur in the buildings around the Temple of Artemis the Saviour. The citizens shall celebrate the Augustan day each year in the twelfth month, in accordance with the previously ratified decrees. On each birthday of the Emperor a number of Ephesian elders not less than... ...since no one, not a magistrate or a private citizen or an advocate or.. .shall have the authority [to change] the things which have been decree. Concerning this matter, the entire gerousia in common has laid a curse upon anyone who attempts...and it has been decreed that that person shall become liable to charges of impiety and sacrilege; he shall also be liable to a charge of.... It has been decided to praise Nicomedes and his sons, and to publicly proclaim them as patrogerontes. It has also been decreed that the annual...in office and that he give the capital which has been found, to whomever the entire gerousia in common shall appoint.. . in reverence.. .when.. .was grammateus of the Elders. (57) IEph 1393A.1-4: fragment of a decree of the presbuteroi; from the parodos of the theatre. Measurements: 16 x 24 x 5 cm. Undated. [- - ]p- KOU [ - - - - - ] [- - Se56x]9oa xoiq npeaBf-uxepoiq yeveaGai KaGoxi] [- - Ttpoyeypa]7ixai [ ]eay[- - - ] Translation: .. .it has been decreed by the Elders that it is to be written up accordingly... 361 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions D. Public Decrees (58) JOAI 55 (1983), 145 no. 4374; SEG 34, 1098.1-27: Fragment concerning financial affairs of the gerousia including a decree of the gerousia; found in Terrace House II. Measurements: 1.26 x 0.675 x 0.21m. Imperial? [ . ]AIZ[—] . IOIZ Siavopdc cbq pnSevi A[- - ] 0 [ ] «[ ] A O N [ ] 5 EIQZ[ - ] M . Z T A [ - - ] N. . TO[ ] £2NA[ ] XNIZQ . ZI[. --] 10 ZOAO[ - -] N.M[ ] O Y K A O N . O N M [ - ] M . .AMANOIZELUTOK. .EQN. .KOIIQN O.ZIAZ dnoer jcexai robe . OTAZ.TY.OIZ 15 [e]5oqev xr\ Yepouaiq 6TICOQ Ttdaaic a l e Gecav fj feq fartoiac . H. OI . . . .IAI . .£>.P ON. . A T A [ - ] EION. ,IO. .TO[- - - ] EL . . .SO.K[- - ] 20 I •bTTOKEl. .[ ] H.I.I. .OMENOPIO[ ] i . . . . . .EN. mim.. .o [ - ] E.EIOY[ ]NAalac,)-KaAAlveiKoc, KaAAaveiKou xob BaKxiou EbKaprcoc/ Ti (pep ioq) KA(ab8ioc,) repeA,A.oc/ iepoupyor 15 U(bnXioq) KopvfjA,ioc, Aplaxcov poiXAeircfjc,) i epoaKbrcoc/ MOUVSIKIOC , ve(rixepoc,)iepoddvxnc/ M O W S I K I O C , dyvedp^nc, Sid piao- 20 [ ' EnJ iKpdxr iQ iepoKfjpui;-[Tp]b(bcov yepa idc , eni Bupi-[dxp]ou-[TpbdipocJ anovSabAnc;-[Tlapdaioq i]epbq aa[X,TiiKXljc;.] 25 Translation: During the prytany o f Quintus Cerrinius Cimber the son o f Lucius o f the tribe Ultinia, the pious and Emperor-loving kouretes were: 364 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions E. Lists of Names Lucius Tarutilius Tyrannus, a kouros for the third time; Marcus Ugellius Montanus the son of Marcus of the tribe Fabia; Publius Cornelius Anicetus; Lucius Caecilius Rufus, a member of the gerousia; Callinicus Eucarpus the son of Callinicus the son of Bacchius; Tiberius Claudius Gemellus. The sacrificing priests were: Publius Cornelius Ariston, a member of the boule was the omen-taker; Mundicius the younger was the hierophant; Mundicius (the elder) was the hagnearch for life; Epicrates was the sacred servant who was the herald; Trypho was the revered servant who tended the incense; Trophimus led the libations; Parsius was the sacred servant who was trumpeter. (62) FiE FX/1/1 no. b32; IEph 1032.1-26: List of kouretes under Gaius Terentius Flavianus, prytanis between c. A D 130 and 140; found in the hearth-room of the prytaneion. Measurements: 154 x 115 cm. Date: the daughter of Terentius Flavianus was honoured under Marcus Aurelius or Commodus (IEph 720a); Terentius Flavianus himself was grammateus of the polis in about A D 140. c. A D 130-140. Illustration: F ig . 33. kni npmdvecoq r(diot)) Tepevciou r(diou) biob rioAcccEiva OAaouiavob KOtJpfjtEc EbaEpEiq 5 cfjiAoaepaaTor r(dioc) Tepevxioc Bnpdu-oq b adeXtybc, xov 7ipmd[ve]coQ po\A(£"UTfjc)-n6(7ilioc) Br|[pdx]ioc noai8c6[vioq] 1 0 A ( O U K I O C ) Tapouxei^ioc [Kou-] dpxoq po\)A.(et)xfjc)-TiP(epioc) KA,(ab8ioc) OfjAiq Pou[A](£\ttfjq)-Ko(ivToc) Nepioc Zaxopveivfoq] TtapdSoqoc PO-UAE-UTTIC)- 1 5 n6(7x?iioq) AiAioc Eiadq OXapia-vbq E K yepo-uaiaq. lEpoupyoi-[II6(7iA,ioq)] KopvfjAioq 'Apiaxcov iEpoaKbrcoq pou(AEwfjq)- 2 0 Auoipaxoq M o w 8 i K i o [ q ] . iepO())dvxr|q-'E[7UK]pdTTiq iEpoKfjpDc;-'Ovfjaipoq 'i£p6q e m GupidTptou.] MnxpbScopoq i£p6q anov- 2 5 8ocuA.nq. 365 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions E. Lists of Names Translation: During the prytanny of Gaius Terentius Flavianus the son of Gaius of the tribe Palatina, the pious and Emperor-loving kouretes were: Gaius Terentius Beratius, a member of the boule and brother of the prytanis; Publius Beratius Posidonius; Lucius Tarutilius Quartus, a member of the boule; Tiberius Claudius Felix, a member of the boule; Quintus Nerius Saturninus, an extraordinary member of the boule; Publius Aelius Isas Flavianus, a member of the gerousia. The sacrificing priests were: Publius Cornelius Ariston, a member of the boule, was the omen-taker; Lysimachus Mundicius was the hierophant; Epicrates was the sacred herald; Onesimus was the sacred servant in charge of tending the incense; Metrodorus was the sacred servant who led the libations. (63) FiE IX/1/1 no. b39; IEph 1039.1-12: list of kouretes; unknown findspot. Measurements: 72 x. 166 x 29 cm. Date: A D 150-192. Illustration: F ig . 34. [- - - -] [ ]q Obevoba-xoc, E K yepouaiac;. • iepoupyoi-Aua ipaxoc , 8' MOUVSIKIOC , iepo- 5 bdvxnc, Bou(Aemfjc,)- n6(7i:A,ioc,) Kopvfj[A.i]oc, Aplaxcov iepoaKbrcoc;, Kat KA,(ab8ioc,) AiaSoxt-otvbc,- 'EniKpcxxnc; ipo-KfjpucV 'Ovfjaipoc, 'lepbc, 'eni Oupid-xpoir MnxpbScopoc, 'lepbc; arcov- 1 0 AabAnq- A(obKioc;) Koaivvioc, r a i avbc , iepbc; aaAjiiKxtjc;. Translat ion: [During the prytanny of ... the pious and Emperor-loving kouretes were: ] .. . Venustus, a member of the gerousia. The sacrificing priests were: Lysimachus Mundicius the son of Lysimachus the son of Lysimachus the son of Lysimachus, a member of the boule, was the hierophant; Publius Cornelius Ariston was the interpreter of omens; and Claudius Diadochianus; Epicrates was the sacred herald; Onesimus was the sacred servant in charge of tending the incense; Metrodorus was the sacred servant who led the libations; Lucius Cosinnius Gaeanus was the sacred servant who was the trumpeter. (64) FiE IX/1/1 no. b40; IEph 1040.1-30: List of kouretes under Publius Aelius Pontius Attalianus, prytanis in the second half of the second century A D ; found in the Hestia-roon of the prytaneion. Measurements: 176 x 115. Date: A D 150-192. Illustration: F ig . 35. 8711 TtpUXd-vecoc, U.o(nXiox>) A i -366 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions E. Lists of Names XlOV r iovx-iov A x x a A i -avov, Koupfj- 5 Tec, ebaeBeic/ A(vXoq) AbpKioc; 'Iou-Aiavoc; 8t-Kic ; iepobdvxnc;- n6(7bUoc;) Kop- 2 ^ vfjA.i[oc, Aptajxcov ie[po-] [oKbnoc,- 'ErciKpdxnc; iepoKTJP'olc;' 'Ov[fj-] [aipoc; iepbc; en i B-upidxpou] feK [yepo\>] [aiac;- Mnxp68copoc; iepbc; anov8]ab-[Xr\c, A(obKioc;) Koatvvioc; Taiavbc;] 3 0 [lepoc; aaAmKxfjc;] Translation: During the prytanny of Publius Aelius Pontius Attalianus, the pious kouretes were: Aulus Larcius Julianus, a kinsman of the prytanis and a member of the boule; Publius Claudius Trypho, a member of the boule; Bacchius the son of Zeuxius, a kinsman of the prytanis and a member of the gerousia; Aemelius Menander, a member of the boule; Apollonianus the son of Apollonius the son of Athenaeus, a kinsman of the prytanis; Lucius Sentius Orpegianus, a member of the boule; Epicrates the son of Epicrates the son of Salustius. The sacrificing priests were: Lysimachus Mundicius the son of Lysimachus the son of Lysimachus the son of Lysimachus was the hierophant; Publius Cornelius Ariston was the omen-taker; Epicrates was the sacred herald; Onesimus,, a member of the gerousia, was the sacred servant who was in charge of the incense; Metrodorus was the sacred servant in charge of the libation; Lucius Cosinnius Gaeanus was the sacred servant who was the trumpeter. 367 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions E. Lists of Names (65) FiE IX/1/1 no. b54; IEph 47.1-7; AAWW 96, 41-42: List of donors and kouretes under Marcus Aurelius Menemachus, prytanis under Commodus. Found in the porch of the prytaneion. Measurements: the inscription survives on four fragments: 142 x 92 x 7-10 cm, 59 x 72 x 7-10 cm, 22 x 65 x 7-10 cm; 29 x 69 x 7-10 cm. Date: A D 180-192. Illustration: F ig . 36. kni rcp-uxdvecoq M(dpKov) Abp(nA,io'u) Meveudxpu Tob K a l dvavecoaapevou xb iep6v CDV-eSpiov xcov KO"upf|xcov Sbvxoq Siavopdq oaaq K a i xfj yepo-uaig [[KoppoSiavfj]] 67x1 dp%6vxcov Oitaovoq B' xob 'EppoXdou 5 diA-oaeBCdaxou) K a i ' E p p e i a B' 'ATtoAAcovio'u 6 a o i KaG i ep coaav npuxdveiq xoiq KeKoupnxeuKocav Translation: During the prytany of Marcus Aurelius Menemachus who, having renewed the sacred Assembly (oweSpiov) of the kouretes, gave bountiful distributions also to the Commodian gerousia, when Philo, the Emperor-loving son of Philo the son of Hermolaus, and Hermeias Apollonius the son of Hermeias were archons, the following members of the prytany donated for the preparation of the kouretes: [There follows a list of donors contributing seven thousand three hundred denarii and an incomplete list of kouretes.] (66) IEph 1055B.1-13; JOAI 53 (1981-1982): 108, no. 65: List of kouretes; from the Church of St. John. Measurements: 51.5 x 19 x 30 cm. Date: Dies the son of Alexander appears in an inscription dated to the reign of Commodus (IEph 613); Alexander the son of Dies also appears under Commodus (IEph 613a). A D 180-192. [- - ]Kobpn[q - - - ] [- - ] Se Aifjo[uq — ] [xob] 'AXeqdfvSpou — ] [xob A]itjovq, d[Se^6q— ] [xfjq] np\)xdve[coq ] 5 [Abp]fp \ ioq T a [ - - - ] [d8eA.][---] 10 [- - ]poq i7xq[- - - ] [- e K ] yepo\)a[iaq — ] [- - ]oq Bda[aoq — ] Translation: .. .and... the son of Dies. . .the son of Alexander.. .the son of Dies, the brother of the prytanis; Aurelius T a . . . the brother of the prytanis...lus the son of . . .a member of the gerousia; Bassus... 368 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions E. Lists of Names (67) IEph 1057.1-14; FiE IX/1/1 Nachtfag no. 2: fragments of a list of kouretes; found in the hearth-room of the prytaneion. Measurements: the inscription survives in several fragments: 26 x 24 cm, 26 x 24 cm, 27 x 25 cm, 31 x 32 cm, 21 x 25 cm. Date: A D 180-192. Illustration: F ig . 37. npvxa,ve[vovxoq xob KV-] piov fipco[v Avxcovlvou?] [-------] . KA(a"uSioc,) n£io[c, — ] . [ - - - - - ] A t > p [ - - - ] 5 . [ ]<3>A, ..[ Bo\)]Ae\ttfjc,: Mnv[ ] TaBeiv. Avxcov[eivoq..;?... Bo\)]Aevxljq- Xxape[— ] Aopbbopoq [ po]\)Aemfjq- A b p [ — ] Abp(eA,ioc,) "Epcoc, P'E[ dK]popdxnc/ M a [ — ] 'IobA.(ioc,) Map[Kiav6c, - - - E K yepjouciac, [- - - ] 1 0 [ i£po6]dvT.nc, po\)A(emfjc> [dpxbvxcov xo]b ovveSpiov Avp(r\kiov) Tn-[Mbou — ] Translation: When our lord was prytanis...[the kouretes were:] Claudius Peius.. .a member of the boule; Men.. .Gabinus Antoninus...a member of the boule; Strate...Doryphorus...a member of the boule;... Aurelius. . . Aurelius Eros the son of Eros...acrobat...Marcus...Julius Marcianus...a member o f the gerousia...a member of the boule was hierophant...when Aurelius Telephus and...were archons of the boule (cruveSptov). (68) IEph 907.1-19: list of leukophorountes; found in the theatre gymnasium. Measurements unknown. Date: ...appears in a list of donars dated to A D 216/217. c. A D 216/217. oioe eA-eufKobopnaocv--] TiP(epioc,) KA,(ab8ioc,) KoSpdxoc, [yEpaibc/] Tpbbcov 'IoupevTiou xo[b — ] reAAioc, npeiaxoq xP^o^poc,)-rvaioc, 'IobAaoq ApxspiScopoc, yepou(cn.aaxf|c;) K a i [xpvcobbpoc/] 5 Aob(Kioq) AbpTjAioc, Tpbbcov xP'ooobopoc/ [.] AyeAfjioc, KoTvxoc, %pvao(fobpoc)-Adbveic, KpaxEpot) xob AnoAAcoviov 'Iobaxoc, xptc/ KpdxEpoc, Adbvou xob Kpaxepou xob 'AnokXiaviov 1 0 ripeiaxoc; AiSbpov xob AIOVEIKOU xob Llaptov Tpobipoc, NeiKoaxpdxou P' xob AlAicu-OiAcov ATioAAcovtbou xob Aiobcopou Kdpmpoc, ZxpaxovetKou Booc/ 3 6 9 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions E. Lists of Names IcoKpctxric MeiA.fjxo'u- 15 Mooxtcov Zcooiuotr , Aoi)(Kioq) AbpfjAioq Tpbdcov ve(c6T:epoq) K a i %pvaobbpoq-'Appiavbc bibc TiP(epico) KA.CauSio'u) KoSpaxou yepaiob-'AyeA-fjioq Kdivxoq ve(c6xepoq) xp (^o"0(j)6poq). Translation: . The following men were the wearers of white robes: the revered Tiberius Claudius Quadratus; Trypho the son of Juventius the son of...; Gellius Priscus, a chrysophorus; Gnaeus Julius Artemidorus, a member of the gerousia and a chrysophorus; Lucius Aurelius Trypho, a chrysophorus; ...Ageleius Quintus, a chrysophorus; Daphnes the son of Craterus* the son of Apollonius; Justus the son of Justus the son of Justus; Craterus the son of Daphnes the son of Craterus the son of Apollonius; Priscus the son of Didymus the son of Dionices the son of Parius; Trophimus the son of Nicostratus the son of Nicostratus the son of Aelius; Philo the son of Apollonides the son of Diodorus; Carpimus Bous the son of Stratonicus; Socrates the son of Miletes; Moschion the son of Zosimus; Lucius Aurelius Trypho the younger, a chyrsophorus; Amianus the son of the revered Tiberius Claudius Quadratus; Ageleius Quintus the younger, a chrysophorus. (69) IEph 2 9 2 6 . 1 - 4 ; list of temple-wardens; unkown findspot. -Measurements unknown. Date: The tribal name Antoniane indicates that the inscription may have been erected during the reign of Antoninus Pius at the earliest, or, i f the tribe was created in response to the constitutio Antoniniana, during that of Caracalla (cf. above, pp. 5 5 - 5 8 , 7 5 & cat. no. 69 ; Knibbe [ 1962 -1963] : 30) . Late second to early third century A D . [ ] q c a a i X[.. . ]a [.]e[ ] oi8e veoJifoioi ab0-] [aipe]i;oi axe^avcoBevTec UTT.6 rfjc, Bp-uA,fjq K a i xov STJUOD K a l kaar\VEv[davxEQ] [ ] TobAaoc I.x&%vc, b(A,r|) 'E^eaecov, xi(^ocaxb) KA.at)8iebq [ TobJ^ioc MeveKpdTnq (A.r|) 'Avxcoviavfjc, xi(A.iao"TU) ITaiaviebq, E K Y E t p o w i a q ] Translation: [When...was prytanis] the following men were voluntary temple wardens and were crowned by the boule and the demos; they were also Essenes: Julius Stachus of the Tribe Ephesea and of the Thousand of Claudieus. Julius Menecrates of the Tribe Antoniane and of the Thousand Paianieus, a member of the gerousia. . (70) IEph 1151 .1 -15 : List of epheboi; found in Arcadiane street. Measurements: 105 x 9 2 x 25 cm. Undated. [ - - - ] 'Io'uM.O'u AO"UKOUAAOU 6i"ko[aE^aaxoq] [ - - II]P6KA,OQ diAoaepaoxoc; [- n a A J a x e i v a 'Pobtboq d i d o e s B a a T o q ] "[— - -- - - ]oy 0iA,[o]ae[pa]gTOc TouAxatv --] 5 [--' - - - - - - - - ] 'A8p iay [ ]£*,[- - - ] 370 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions E. Lists of Names [ - dYcovo]0exnc; xcov e6fjBco[v — ] [ nopTifjioc,] EngxpAAfia ]vbc, T(txoq) A.(cxomoq) nopTCfjloc, MapKeAfAeivocJ [ ] A o v K f j i o q [ - ] Mo-ovdxioc, Aovyeivoc; T[- - - ] 1 0 [ - ]ox[... np]ei|iiY£VO"u xob ebnBdpxo-u [— ] [ ]qg K q i kxci56ae[i]t; xcov ebfjBcov K a i xcov ei; kQovc, ex[i|a.T|9evxcov(?) -] [ xfjc; Y£ve9A,tcro x]fjc; 9eoi3 t|(J.epac;, 86vxo<; 8e K a i Siavopdc; RouAfj [Kai] [ Yepoucdq K a i xdic; aweSpoic; n]dai xcp iSicp eviatrccp [ ijepoKTJpui; 15 Translation: . . . Emperor-loving son o f Julius Lucullus...the Emperor-loving Proculus . . . the Emperor-loving Rufus o f the tribe Palatina...the Emperor-loving...Julian[us].. . Hadrian...the agonothetes o f the ephebes...Pompeius Sestullianus Titus Flavius Pompeius Marcellinus...Luceaus...Munatius Longinus...son o f Primigenus the ephebarch... who also made endowments for the ephebes and for those accustomed to be honoured...on the birthday o f the goddess, and who also gave distributions to the boule and to the gerousia and to all the assemblies in the same year; he was the sacred herald. 371 F. Funerary Inscriptions (71) IEph 2295.1-4; JOAl 52 (1978-80): 59, no. 127: funerary inscription of Gaius Octavius Magnus; found east of the city hi l l . Measurements: 53 x 72.5 x 36cm. Date: Given the nomen and praenomen, one is inclined to assign an early imperial date to this inscription. xd pvripeidv eaxiv rctlo'u 'O-KT-cxBiou M d y v o u 7ipeaB\)xepo\) Translation: This is the t o m b of Gaius Octavius Magnus, elder. (72) IEph 4123.1-21; FiE IV, 1. pp. 96-97, no. 23; cf. AE 1935: 169: bilingual funerary inscription for Gaius Stertinius Orpex and his family; from the plaster in the ceiling of the Konzilskirche. Measurements unknown. Date: Gaius Stertinius Maximus, the former owner of Orpex, was consul in A D 23. The inscription therefore belongs to the second to third quarter of the first century A D . Cf. cat. no. 34. Illustration: Figs. 38 & 39. C(aius) Stertinius C(aii) Stertini Max imi consularis l ( i be r tus ) Orpex q u o n d a m scriba l i b r a r i u s h i e situs est et S t e r t i n i a C(aii) l(iberta) Quieta C(aius) Stertinius C(aii) f(ilius) Marinus v(ixit) a(nnis) VIII C(aius) S t e r t i n i u s C(aii) f(ilius) A s i a t i c u s v(ixit) a (nn is) III 5 S t e r t i n i a C(aii) f(ilia) Prisca v(ixit) a(nn is) VIII obxoq pexd M a p e i v n q [xfj]q Gvyaxpbq [ — ] [ ] ev xcp y-upvaatcp ave&nKcxv AaKA , n7 i i 6 v avv ' Y y i e i q avv " Yrcvcp avv raxvxi abxcov Koapcp, KaG i epcoaav 8e K a i xfj ' Ebeatcov pauAf j K a i i e p e i a i v X n e v x a K i a x e t A i a , i v a note, x a i q x e i p a i q abxcov x a i q ev xfj xexpaycovcp d y o p q l u [ . . . ] [ ] A a p p d v c o a i v Siavopijv oi n apbxveq dvd 8paxpdq i a o p o i p a q , K a i xfj y e p o t ) o i q X 8iaxeiA,ia n e v x a K b a i a , i v a A a p p d v c o a i 8iavoprjv K a x ' e v i a m b v E K a a x o v dvd S n v d p i a P', bpo icoq KaG iEpcoaav xfj abx f j y e p o u a i q dA.AaXxeiA.ia T i E v x a K b a i a , braoq E K xfjq npoabSo i ) abxcov K a x ' e v i a i r c dv E K a a x o v o i KAnpcoGevxEq dvGpcorcoi A a p p d v c o -a i v ETii xo i q xb r axq e i q Eb cox i a v e K a a x o q X x p i a K a i eK xcov A o i r a o v X ^ xpidKovxa [ ]AqpPqvcoaiv X e i K o a i K a i xpayeiKco ( ? ) X 8eKa, bpoicoq eKdaxco [ — ] [ : ] K a i A e i x p a q xpe iq , c b [ — ] K a A e v 8 a i q M a i a i q [ ] eK K i x x p i K a i q (?) Sfjpov. K e i [ p a i - ] - -[ - — -] bpo icoq [ e i q xb] yepovxe i - 2 0 ov X TtevxaKbaia. 372 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions F. Funerary Inscriptions Translation: (Latin) Gaius Sterntinius Orpex, freedman of the consular Gaius Stertinius Maximus, who was once a bookkeeping clerk, lies here, as does Stertinia Quieta, a freedwoman of Gaius; and Gaius Stertinius Marinus, the son of Gaius, who lived eight years; and Gaius Stertinius Asiaticus, the son of Gaius, who lived three years; and Stertinia Prisca, the daughter of Gaius, who lived eight years. (Greek) This one with his daughter Marina...dedicated in the gymnasium a statue of Asclepius with Health and Sleep with all their adornments, and they also donated to the boule of the Ephesians and to the priests five thousand denarii, so that beside their statues which are in the tetragonus agora...those who are present might receive a distribution of an equal number of drachmae; and they donated to the gerousia two thousand five hundred denarii, so that they might receive an annual distribution at a rate of two denarii each; in the same way, they donated to the same gerousia another one thousand five hundred denarii, so that from the interest of this money each year men who have been selected by lot might receive three denarii each at the places for a feast and so that from the remaining thirty denarii they might receive twenty for . . . and ten for a tragic performance; and in the same way to each...and three pounds...on the Kalends of M a y . . .and in the same way five hundred for the geronteion. (73) IEph 2109.1-14; JOAI 53 (1981-1982): 94, no. 17; SEG 37: 908: funerary inscription in elegiacs; built into the south wall of the Library of Celsus. Measurements 31 x 180 x 40 cm. Date: i f the stone was incorporated into the original building of the library and not later repairs, it must date to the first century A D at the latest. [ ] [cfjpoc T.65' — TxaiSi avv dpxilyevei [obxco eeiKoaexiq xeipai evi a(iaaxob) K a i yuvaiKbc, abxob AbpCnAinc;) 'Poubetvnc, K a i XEKVCOV abxcov £coaiv Translation: This is the tomb of Claudius Antistius Antiochus, an Ephesian and a member of the gerousia, and of his wife Aurelia Rufina and their children. They are alive. (77) IEph 2524.1-9; JOAl 53 (1981-1982): 103-104, no. 50; fragment of a base; from the Church of St. John. Measurements: 46 x 45 x 40.5 cm. Undated. [xa]bxa x d o i K l j p a x a [a]bv xfj aKowAcoae i [x]fj E w v a b i K f j K a i xfj [e]v abxoic, aopco KEI-[p]evr| X -ovva8 iKf j 5 K a i a i GfJKai eicav OAaptac, A b [ K a i ] MeveKp[dxox)q yepou-] aiaaxob Translation: These buildings with the marble revetment from Synnada and the marble from Synnada lying within them in the tomb and the graves belong to Flavia Aurelia (?) and Menecrates, a member of the gerousia. 375 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions F. Funerary Inscriptions (78) IEph 2552.1-2; JOAI 53 (1981-1982): 107, no. 62: fragment of a grave stone; from the Church of St. John. Measurements: 9.5 x 78.5 x 13.5 cm. Undated. [ o] i 'E(j)ecaoi TtpeaBmepcov [ ] [- - ejxepcp eqeaxai BA,r|9fjvai fj pfj abxoiq xoiq [- - -] Tranlsation: .. .the Ephesians of the Elders.. .it is not permitted for another to be placed within, unless with these very... (79) IEph 2446.2.1-4: sarcophagus for a member of the gerousia; from Panaghir Dagh (eastern face). Measurements: 130 x 290 x 135 cm. Undated. f| oopbc eaxiv avv c5 e n i K e i x a i K a i xcp 7ip6 xfjc aopob dvcoxepcp f|P<*>a<])icp K a i xcp KUK^bae dvexcp xbrccp Ttavxi K a l x[cp ]ov YepoDoia-axob bpvcoSob A,ap7ia8dpxo\) K a l y w a i K o c abxob Abp(nXiac) Kvp iAAr ic K a i xeKvcov ev oTq obSevl eqeaxai xadfjvai, ercei Scoaei xfj a w e p y a a i q xcov A,ivb<|>cov X pb(pia)- olq K a l Ka9iepcoaev X ,e-t^ooaiv. Translation: The tomb with what lies within it and with the grave altar in front of the tomb and with all the consecrated circular area and with...belong to...a member of the gerousia, a hymnodos and leader of the torch race and his wife Aurelia Cyr i l la and their'children; among whom it is not lawful for anyone to be buried; otherwise, he w i l l give to the college of linuphoi ten thousand denarii; and he wi l l donate to them five thousand denarii; they are alive. (80) IEph 2225.1-3; JOAI 52 (1978-1980): 54-55, no. 109; AE 1981: 432: sarcophagus for a member of the gerousia; found forty minutes east of the Magnesian Gate. Measurements: 50 x 212 x 87. Undated. Yepaucaaaxob abxri f| aopbq eaxiv Abp(r|X,lou) 'Hat>xiov nA.aKouvxd Ka i Y w a i K b q abxob Abp(r|X.iac)" EA,7ii8oc Ka i xeKvcov t /ociv . Translation: This is the tomb of Aurelius Hesychion the baker, a member of the gerousia, and his wife, Aurelia Elpis, and their children; they are alive. (81) IEph 1648.1-10; GIBM 648; Oliver, SG 17: funerary inscription for Publia Iulia Beryla; unknown findspot. Lines 1-3 and 6-10 were inscribed at the same time, but lines 4-5 appear to have been "inserted in smaller characters of different style, as an afterthought" (Hicks). Measurements: 42.3 x 74cm. Undated. Illustration: Fig . 42. x6 pvripeiov eaxi no7rA,iac<'I>ox)Aeia B i p b A a c Kai xd xeKva abxfjc t/oaiv. K a l xob cruvBiou abxfjq Mevdv-376 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions F. Funerary Inscriptions Spotr vacat C/rj- 5 TctAou m o b abxob- £fj- K a i 'PcoaKiAiac; Ebx^xiotc, yvvaiK.bc, abxob. xobxo xb pvnufjov edv xic, ncoXf\or\, dTtoxeiaei xfj yepoTjoiq X ,e'. 1 0 Translation: This is the tomb of Publia Julia Beryla and her children, who are alive; and of her husband Menander, who is alive; and of his son Talus, who is alive; and of Roscil ia Eutychia his wife. If anyone should sell this tomb, he wi l l pay to the gerousia five thousand denarii. (82) IEph 2266.1-14: bilingual funerary inscription by Hellenia Meroe for herself; found in a building beyond Domitian-Street. Measurements: 88 x 69 x 30cm. Undated. Illustration: F ig . 43. v(ivit) Hellenia Sex(ti) l(iberta) Meroe sibi.et P(ublio) Castricio Valenti viro suo-'EAAnvla Xec/cot> dneXevQkpa Mepbiy £fj-eawfj Kai [Uovn]Xi(a Kacxp iKlcp ObdAevxi dv8pi i8ico Kai Bdaaco Ka i 'IovKobvbcp 5 K a i riomA,icp KaaxpiKtcp 'Eppq- c/fj- Kai KaaxpiKtq TVXIKT\ Kai UovnXiw KaaxpiKtcp NupboSoxor c/ry Ka i K a a -xpiKtq TpaMA8v £fj- Ka i YlovnXico KaaxpiKtcp Xxe-bdvco- £fj- K a i [Kaa]x[p(iKicp) 'EA,]Anvtcp AyaGbTtoSv £fj 1 0 Kai xoiq xobxcov eyybvoic/ xobxo xb pvnpeiov KAnpovbpoiq obK dKoAoDGnaei- xobxou xob (a.vnpeiou f| yepoDaia KfjSexav h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur). Translat ion: (Latin) Hellenia Meroe, freedwoman of Sextus, who is alive, has built this for herself and for Publius Castricius Valens, her husband. This monument wi l l not pass to her heirs. (Greek) Hellenia Meroe the freedwoman of Sextus, who is alive, has built this for herself and for Publius Castricius Valens her husband and for Bassus and Iucundus and Publius Castricius Hermas, who is alive; and for Castricia Tychice and for Publius Castricius Nymphodotus, who is alive; and for Castiricius Trallis, who is alive; and for Publius Castricius Stephanus, who is alive; and for Castricius Hellenius Agathopus, who is alive; and for the descendants of these people; this tomb wi l l not pass to her heirs; the gerousia w i l l take care of this tomb. 377 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions F. Funerary Inscriptions (83) IEph 1636.6-17; Hermes 4 (1870): 209, no. 18; CIL III 6087; GIBM 636; Oliver, SG 13: funerary inscription for Claudia Magna; unknown find-spot! Measurements: 80 x 47.5 x 50 cm. Undated. KAoc-uStg Mdyvg TiBeploD KA.auSto'u AiOYvf|T.ou yvvr\ pdppp iSig-6c dv x a m a xd Ypcxu- 1 0 para, e K K o y n fj dAA6xpia b a x d paA/fj, brcebGuvoq eoxco xfj Yepouoig X av' K a l xoiq x a p l a i q xfjq ^ 7t6Aecoq X av' e^naev exn A,n' pfjveq P' cbpaq 8'. Translation: The wife of Tiberius Claudius Diognetes built this for her own mother Claudia Magna; whoever strikes out these letters or inters the bones of someone else wi l l be liable to the gerousia for two hundred and fifty denarii and to the treasurers of the city two hundred and fifty denarii. She lived thirty-eight years, two months and four hours. (84) IEph 2299B.1-14: two sarcophagi for Paulina and her family; from the Hermaion. Measurements: 80 x 70 x ? cm, 82 x 217 x 80 cm. Undated. [xabxnv x]fjv aopbv efTtoinaev eauxfj — ] [- - riauAjeiva- £f j \Kai Otaxouia . [— ] ei pfj . [—]Xia Tvaiov Gvyo^pi nauAivn [- K a i 0]A.aouicp Tupdvvcp xcp dvSpi-obSevi 8e eqea- TtcoA/rjaai xobxo x6 pvijpeiov fj xdq eni-t a i Keipevaq vacat aopobc fj eiaevexSfjvai f| xeGfjvai eic ocbx6 5 fj eiq xdc aopobq pA.n0fjvar bpoicoq ob8evi eqeaxai xcov Keipevcov xivd pexaGeivai f| paaxdaai fj pexem.Ypdi|/ai xi xcov eniYeYPCxppevcov fj exepbv xi 7ipoaYpd\(/ai fj eKKO\j/ai f| 7ioifjaai xi bnevavxiov xoiq evKexapaYpevoiq- ei 8e pij, b xo^ptjaaq xi Ttapd xd TtpcryeYpappeva fj noifjaa xi brcevavxiov xobxoiq drcoScoaei xfj 'Eeaicov poDA/ij 8T)v(dpia) p(bpia) a'.p*' m Kal xfj 'Etbeaicov yepouaiq 8tjv(dpia) p(bpta) a',p*' e^ouaiaq obcmq xcavxl xcp PoiAopevco dyeiv nepl xob-xou 378 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions F. Funerary Inscriptions Translation: Paulina, who is alive, made this tomb for herself, and for Flavia...unless...for Paulina the daughter of Gnaeus...and for Flavius Tyrannus her husband; it is not permitted to anyone to buy this tomb or the associated tombs or to bury anyone in them or to insert anyone into these tombs; in the same way it is not permitted to anyone to remove any of those who are buried or to cast them out or to alter any of those things which have been inscribed or to add anything additional or to strike out or do anything contrary to these rules; otherwise, the one who has dared or has done anything against these rules wi l l pay to the boule of the Ephesians twelve thousand five hundred denarii and to the gerousia of the Ephesians twelve thousand five hundred denarii, with responsibility for this lying with any who wish to act. (85) JOAl 55 (1984): 124 no. 4265.1-15; SEG 34, 1140: funerary inscription for Poseas the son of Artemon and others; found near the Magnesian gate. Measurements: 59 x 38 x 29 cm. Undated. xb pvnpfjov rioafjo'u xob A p x e -pcovoc, K a i A I O K A E -ovq xob AnoAAcov i -ov. 5 ATTOAACOVIOC, Avxlyovoc, Apxepcovoc, Avxtyovot) xob r ioaeau, £fj- C,f\ rpaTtxn £fj Avxlyovoc, ApxEucovoc,. Avxtyovox) 10 ra'ioc, A6A- r a i o c / £fj Aioc, 'Pob FIAcoxia-" EA-cboc. Cu- ro.c/ CT1 xobxot) xob pvnpfjou [f| yep]ox)aia Kfj[8exai.] 15 Translation: This is the tomb of Poseas the son of Artemon and of Diocles the son of Apollonius; Apollonius the son Artemon the son of Poseas, w h o is alive; Grapte the daughter of Artemon, w h o is alive; Gaius Loll ius Rufus, who is alive. Antigonus the son of Antigonus, who is alive; Antigonus Gaius the son of Antigonus, w h o is alive; Plotia Elpis, who is alive. The gerousia shall have care of this tomb. (86) JOAl 55 (1984): 140 no. 4364.1-4; SEG 34, 1159: funerary inscription for an individual of the tribe Quirina; fragment of a sarcophagus found near the Church of St. John. Measurements: 38.5 x 95 x 17.5 cm. Undated. [abxn f| aopoc/] eaxiv [ K]x)peiva 379 Section II: Imperial Inscriptions F. Funerary Inscriptions [- xabxrjq xfj]q aopob [KfjSexou r| yepoj ix j ia . Translation: This is the tomb of.. .of the tribe Quirina.. .the gerousia has care of this tomb. (87) IEph 2437.1-2: fragment of a funerary inscription for an unnamed individual; found built into the theatre. Measurements: 115 x 120 x 30 cm. Undated. [-----] pou f| BcuA-fj KfjSexai-[— po]-u f| yepoua ia KfjSexai. Translation: .. .the boule has care of my tomb.. .the gerousia has care of my tomb. (88) IEph 2549B.1-2; JOAI 53 (1981-1982): 114, no. 87: fragment of a funerary inscription for an unnamed individual; from the Church of St. John. Measurements: 17 x 24 x 6.5 cm. Undated. [ x]ob pvfnpeiou xobxcu KfjSexca] [ f| ye ]paua ia K a [ i ] Translation: .. .the gerousia and the.. .have care of this tomb. (89) ZPE 91 (1992): 291, nos 19-20: funerary inscription for Artemon and others; unspecified findspot. Measurements: 57 x 37cm. Undated. Illustration: F ig . 44. Apxepco.Mnxpo8c6[po ,u,] 1 MvpaXXic, Anpr|xpto["u,] cppbvixpq Ayfjacovoq, 'Ayrjacov Ayfjacovoq. xob pvripeio'u 1 K a i xob pcopob Zxpcxxcov TtpaypaxiKdq arab yepouata[q] KfjSexai Translation: This tomb belongs to Artemon the son of Metrodorus, Myral l is the daughter of Demetrius, Phrynichus the son of Hageson and Hageson the son of Hageson. Straton the pragmatikos of the gerousia has care of this tome and altar. (90) IEph 2514.1-4; JOAI 53 (1981-1982): 95, no. 20: fragment of a funerary inscription; from the Church o f St. John. Measurements: 18 x 20 x 3.7 cm. Undated. [- - ]pevcov .[- -] [ - ]u.exaKeivfj-[ a a i fj y p d p p a x a eKK]6\j/ai, vnev-[0-uvoq feaxco xfj ye]pot)olq X p- u 2 < 2 IK 2 X 111 o * i— _ u -W Z < < M {-u w >-*z < < u < < < a . L . < 2 w o w >-u z •2 v 111 O ' < £ W 2 O I a . P W *• < W H u w •< z 111 111 z -; 5 J >- lil >-< 111 •4 < z w < I < X ^ - < Id w z >-z >-l i l w 111 W lil >- t y LI 1 < X 2 o U 2 X < L. M L < t 2 Ul >-w w y >-< < t u w £ E: >- Ul o l . >-§ Id 3 w 111 Q. £- t l i l w a . z w < 2 W l i l i < w X < z - Ill w £ 111 -2 < w 111 * 111 o w w o )-l i l z £ •< _ < £ < W W -X < % Z-W O O co Ui H ^A IO£ ^^ ' OYAITia 'F^ YPYKAEI A X E T H r E P O Y X l A T G N K c p E r i a N SE; BAXTO^ -APME;NJAKO2: X A I P OTlMEWnAKGYrTATaNAOOE NT . l A O r l £ T F I N - E K E I N O I I E AEHTEFIQN HnJ omt ANAcj>E PElNAYTOZTEEYrNQ, M O N A t - E A H A Q , t A t ETTI tTAMENOS *KAIH^ M E l X A I A T c V T O E n ^ H K H ^ Q H MEN 1 Q I M H F A J A l Q I A N A r E I Q A f T I N A I T A r i A P A A . EirMATI - OAEnP&TONHMIN EKOlNflSAI ^ O T T E P l T A N A P r Y P A N E l K O N A N - n f A T M A iASAAHQA^THSHMETEPAStYNXQPHSE lPOEAEOMENOIAHAON EET1 SOLKAC W E T A S A A A A E EPGTHEElEAfOPMHNIYMBE .. HENOH 'TATOYNElKONACTXXNAYTokPA TORQNAnATTOKElZOAlAErE1£ENXQEYNE XlT6YT.QnAAAIAX - E N f M E N AOrQITAlA EAO KlH^OMeN^YAAXeHNAlTOliONOJ^iNEto. • S ErONENAYTfttf E K A S T H E I E A E H M E T E F 0 Y : E X A P A K T H P A S M H A E N T 1 1 1 H S Y ? \ H ? , E •ET ?1AI NETNAYNAHENaNTAXAM ENANKAt A, XAAAH KAI EK.B1 BALQHElTiMAEITi Tr" — , --' I 5 3 3 3 3 rrppT£iggrH~sxTFTo• • . _ ^ H M A l 2 ^ £ a i N A i - E A l ^ T i T ; J E1KONUN TH AEXQNEY'EEOT POTON MENSE TTA IPArY> TAAAMBAHHTOYMETPOYTHIAoriSTEIAtAJAAE ITEIAi YTTH PEG KAJTOtYrXOPHGHNAIAI ETTPAH (on nPAXQHWAl E nE1 TA.KAIAA AC Y E n PO£TC501 MM lETAANEi • OT<^ATirTOZ>iNC3YTlATOS E lTE E£AYTHXTJH£liEPOYr;lAE £ \ TaMAOKiMAIH TOAEKATAHATOPH E1N ONTONAHMOz^ ON n AP ATQ.NXP E CL t TQ W TOYS Y N E A PI OYnOJA AA^ K EK.0 MllQ AI A E r"EiV. ZHSTHtEirnfASEAETOIOYTONEtTlH Ei MEN FAPTlE'EHN Er K E K a N / ^ N nAPATOTTOErHAlA<|>OPON OTI OYXftTI POSH KEN EAOEAN OIAONTEt OlONTlKAft^ MCLNENTOi :A!Ol£THIHK::TEPAXa.:K;AT>>on ZMOiSnPOSETASEN^YAAtSE: BAA nTEE0MTlNAKATATHNTASinPOEXinUilNErfAAAArHN TQNAjrTElAH(j>C\T,Q,K M I A 2 H M l A J 1 A P H K . O A O Y ^ H £ E ^ , F l \ E KAKE ([NO 11A EJ±Q KAS IN •AMHTTPOZHKON ' DO.NHCpANlEENTAK.ot EKEINOrTOAHnPOEA#: KATOYTcccYhEPTH'-: rtAYTO Y~KAI KATEX > W O S Y J I O S OYtTPOXOY . •'VYFfoYXPOh'T:R''••J , - r t V J N T h . - . \ Mot" ENCNE.-Tir^i as i NAEEnA N EA©2> 'EE T ^ Y A I C A I fir-H N K : GIF. EJNT IIE YPIEK 01 TO IAJONH E X C L N & KATAAE/ grotJA 10 N T O Y T O E Y A A E S A S e A l T L A H p c b E l A E I ^ npo SAEmTHrEPOYElATQNElErTPAXQENT% O K P I A T J £To£ AN 0YriATOx;rEN E2E - lAA" AEI iTUNEKEINa KATABEBAHKoTdi Hi TOI--KAIT.C NTC . AX-i.;;. T O t^sAATTTOME KOre. yf" v/CAOYtYNEAPI OYKOIN ~l£NAlTAKPATl£TAANam, ' i:. •. ; ; ' 0 Y K A i r A P T 0 Y T 0 T 0 i : K E M l - ' k - | . £ ' .SLA^oPAKQSAErEn: E m T c r r i t : ^ i:;TJsrE^xciPcrmTc£ET^ ...feFH^INAY'IJqNEjK^IHftN TIAAAC ;M'^SlA^ONAEAN0YTTATONKAlAJ ; ' ; ? O N E N T Y G E N E K A 5 T A E S E Y P E l i v | ^ASMEHTOIKATATIordYTANAYT::^ •OYMON ONKATATASINE^TI T o n p c L : f A ^ I N - A A A A K A I T T P a S T H N T A N # ^ i nposjiiQisi T O I ^ K A I M A A A O N E I T :. i M A GEIN E r I" Y 3E N A Y I f2f' "1 .., . 3 A . . i K N ! (UnAPAirrATR : j T K£ I N KE AEYS©HN Al TA K AKQ^ATTOAW H A0IE1 AIAEIYN EX El 2 ANAB OA AIT. jN onAJl nOEAYTOYrA BEl N O i a t ^ H E E N E : [I IHNAEXEAONANATKAIONnOOYSI KAJtOlTO I ; TOTYNXAPEIN-ntnEPrAPAlAanOAAHNAK Kiua< OYTm: En El AA N AYTOlTLNEEAITl AN Fig. 12: Cat. no. 17, line drawing (FiE II, p. 120, no. 23) 388 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures Fig. 13: Cat. no. 19, photo {IEph Vol. I, Tafel 31) 389 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures Fig. 14: Cat. no. 21, squeeze (FIE IX/I/I, Tafel XXVIII, CI) 4 > I A O Z E B A Z T O Z N(i OnOIOZ A Y 0 A I P E T ( o c IAOTEIMflZ T H N A P X H N E I I I T E A E Z A Z M E T A KAI T O Y A A E A OY A I O | ~ E N O Y Z a y « ) 0 H T Y X H i0x«pi)ZTflZOI K Y P I A Ap)TEMI T . A. A Z K A H n i O A f l P o z NEonoioz A Y 0 A I P E T O Z E K T E A E Z A Z T A Z A Y O A I Z Z H N I A S ( i u « t B Q Z KAI ctolAOTEIMftZ Z Y N KAI IBH T H 0 Y T A T P I MOY KAI T H Z Y M H Nn MOY A Y P . EnArAon KAI N Y K T O < t > Y A A K H Z A Z T A X A Y O N Y K T O < | > Y A A K A Z EK T f l N IAI(iov METEXQN KAI THX OIAOIEBA XTOV rEPOYIIAZ *Y. ANTO.NIA NHI X riAIANIEYZ. Fig. 15: Cat. no. 22, line drawing (AD 7 [1921-2]: 113, abb. 28) Fig. 16: Cat. no. 22, photo (AD 7 [1921-2]: 113, abb. 28) 390 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures O K H P Y K E Y O N T O Z TOPNEINOY>. n f E Z B Y T E f r i r (Two lines here anciently erased.) (In rather larger letters.) ATA0H - T Y X H « A Y P < ArA0onoYS< E Y X A P I Z T Q A 0 E H - K A I T H K Y P I A S H T E I 1 K A I T H T Y X H H S T E P O Y ~ I A Z - O T l T l N n i l T I N « E H P H Z A ^ T t T E P O Y Z I A Z Y N K A l O I Z E M O I Z « - < TTAZIN J A Y T O Z T P A M M A T E Y Z -A I T Y M N A Z I A P X O Z « < E Y T Y X f l Z < Fig. 17: Cat. no. 23, line drawing (GIBM 587a+b) A T A G H I « T Y X H ' M - A Y P - A P T E M I AC A T T A A O Y - cblAO T E P O Y Z I A Z T H ^ 5 n O I O S A r O P A N O f A T N O S A l T O Y P r O E N A 0 3 " KAI * M * A Y A P T E M io FT A T P O Z I A Z 1 n o i o n A v Fig. 18: Cat. no. 26, line drawing (GIBM 575) Fig. 19: Cat. no. 31, squeeze (JOAI 48 [1966-7]: 13-14, abb. 6) 391 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures Fig. 20: Cat. no. 32, photo (ZPE 120 [1998]: 71, no. 8) K3 O'YVff T - O A A C ^ - " ' y' „o 4>AP H T H N t^iXna y Q J d (AT? I KAI R S A N T A H M T H & O H O M ^ 4 ^ K A l K ^ b M r i A J A l T O l £ T T O / / \ ^ A l £ - T t o J* ! f ' H r E ; f e ' 2 i A H A H P A I n S T A T A - A 4 KA.1A MXA A P i e H T - I S l A - N T A A E K A r E I S ^ H ' TT^iY"' M |t-r^ X" •' ArxiNO©E'TH I ' A N T A ^ . - I ^ I A . -\~0 F T X T N ' Fig. 21: Cat. no. 39, line drawing (FiE II, p. 175, no. 61.11) I I . 392 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures A T A 0 H T Y X H K A A Y A I O Z B A Z Z O Z F E P O Y Z I A S T H S Fig. 22: Cat. no. 40, line drawing (BCH 10 [1886]: 517, no. 8) » T I • C L A V D I O . . / S E C V N D 0 V I A T O R I • T R I B V N I cio A C C E N S O • V E L A T o licto 6 RI • C V R I A T O ' G E R V sia ho N O R I S - C A V S S A - S V a pec H TEPOYSIA ETEIM yjTsi> TI • K A A Y M O N SEK O Y I A T O P A T P I B O Y vixtov 10 A K K H N S O N O Y H A CCTOU A E I K T O P A K O Y P I A T i O f EK TON I A I O N J Fig. 23: Cat. no. 43, line drawing (CIL III.6078) lOY >- Y M N H A O Y I E P O K H P Y Z V T P A M MATEYZAAPIANEIQN YMNQAOZNEMIHZ BOYAIIZTEPOYZIAZ XPYZO(}>OPQN HraNiiATOArnNAS T P E I Z E Z T E 4 > 9 H A Y J Q A r n N oo E TO YrToz AIAIQNOZ^TIB'IOYA P H T E 1 N O Y A Z I APXOY >B N A U N T J Q N E N E (j) E Z i i TlZcJ^I X ^ FENTAETI P I A O Z Fig. 24: Cat. no. 44, line drawing (GIBM 604) Fig. 25: Cat. no. 47, squeeze (FiE IV, III, p. 283, no 30, abb. 5) 394 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures Fig. 27: Cat. no. 49, photo (FiE HI, p. 143, no. 58) 395 Appendix TJ: Maps and Additional Figures 396 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures i i 11 . AtX OfONTA^TOYcYj A HOEaaiAMElNANTOEZ , < S ? N E I K b H H A O Y E - T O Y K A 9 0; ^Sk'EiETOnAAAJON EOOE-ETIA ^ ^ L r t Y p i a i i H a H •t'iA] o E a N ' E K v: p H^YnEPf HEAiaNiaYAIAMOKKEJ P & H A O Y M E N A H T T OPttH- E ^ A E T O N T O , A T T I R H ii i H I A N •AIAa'OYTOEAO* E H T , XTQAlk ' ' i~ r ,R.E E - ^ Y A A I : E H Q A I ' T H ( J J Y A A E X " J^ AI STT iTE A E I HTArii T T P O H O - NMEHTOIIAE AANBAHElS^v- -1.1 XiX'iAE• ?.IHCT A n o T oYta,K-nPor,,pA-' T A J £ A I A N O M A s r r " ; i M A*i K O E K Al E E AAr' S*>HKA " |"AIp£jkA-.ABI°XAO A f A G H S S S T I X H • 1 'X ir* O . O F . N fh O T O N O ! : \ I IH C K T H 2 I n OAttl l" T A K T A - n E ? I T E > ^ Z T H P I A H ' K A l o Y s i f ! N ; , 0 : A I A P I E A H E H O K A E KAINEtMcXlATAAMA'XATEl Bj r f A E - E x V n N ^ 0 ! H a H T H S r E r 6 ^ I A X - X ? H H A T A N E f G : ; j 'f[ 1TTAEI Z T . Q H - A J A T 1 N A - E ^ A l / d ^ W C r r i N - E T E t l N ^ \ hrr^ 3f£YNEAPi S ^ I M A N - T H E A W O Y E r r r H E A E I A - E S 1 j s rEPoYriAN-EYmEiN*ki eiEiNTHTEnPOTCAeHTEl I YroitfATOFIlUEAPI-M-AYp>^DHHOAa-ANTriN-:iN.QJ ^KHHEAATONANAAlXKElN -EirrHNt!fh»AH'AT, 1 ^AMAAGMA-TdlCAElTTHcYESaSEN ' K A i E K T H ZT; : ' i v HYpar,AI-RAI N O H O O E T H Z A I - E I E A E I A L A T O Y A J E I I |§£ r P A M M E H H E Y E E B E I A - H O H O © E SI AN 'PZ Al TTAAOYX^ 'Ifef- E N A ETA fZ KATA KAl£ E EI N-KATE! .; . EIEHETEfOiV.^Poi-EnrrAlSOMOIAIX-tYaXlAE / ' IKHNnoiEI Ic$ : : , -To is nfoYTApy'6YxiNnoPoix j^Hckl I M A-E N T O l ^ H E P IT O H N A O N - T H E E A T E I I ^ T O Y E T O Y E - T H N E EfAETRK S E I O N • rF ? O N T V M AP.:~ 'OYAni TYl-HHC: Fig. 29: Cat. no. 56, line drawing, fragments 1 & 2 (FiE II, p. 109, no. 20) III v ;iEHA-n£Pi6YEnHP^f ,-OHt, OINH.AtrtAsi.fp6ft,iArr^K ^ i H A l T n ^ Y H O N - I s A / ' ^yklk^L ' ^ lTIEYcM#>HAYtON kATEt-n?.-. / H A M H A " • E Y 0 N T O I - T D . N n r | / \ Fig. 30: Cat. no. 56, line drawing, fragment 3 (FiE II, p. 110, no. 20) Fig. 31: Cat. no. 60, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel XI, B22) 397 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures • ft:* -M .'•';Aii:U)W/)yd>o>ir^-Fig. 33: Cat. no. 62, squeeze (F/£ IX/I/I, Tafel XVI, B32) 398 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures Fig. 34: Cat. no. 63, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel X I X , B39) 399 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures Fig. 36: Cat. no. 65, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafel XXVII, B54) 400 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures a Fig. 37: Cat. no. 67, squeeze (FiE IX/I/I, Tafei X X X I X , N2a, b, d) Fig. 38: Cat. no. 72, photo (FiE IV, I, p. 96, no. 23) 401 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures Fig. 40: Cat. no. 74, photo (FiE IV, I, p. 93, no. 17) 402 Appendix II: Maps and Additional Figures T O M N H M E I O N E Z T I n o f T A I A Z o T A E I A B H P T A A S • K A I T A T E K N A A Y T H Z - Z-A .ZIN K A I T o T C Y N B l o Y A Y T H S M E H A N A P o T Z H T A A O Y Y I O Y A Y ~ O Y Z H • K A I • P Q Z K I A l A Z E Y T Y X I A Z T Y N A l KoZ A T T O Y T O Y T O T O M N H M H O N E A N T I Z n n A H Z H A T l O T E l Z E l T H T E P O Y Z I A - X ' E -Fig. 42: Cat. no. 81, line drawing (GIBM 648) KAAYAIA MArNA TIBEPIOY KAAYAIOY AIOrNHTOY TYNH MAMMH IAIA Ot AN TAYTA • TA TPAM MATA E K K O t H • H AAAOTPIA 0 * T A BAAH YnEYQYNOi ESTUU TH TEPOYSIA X CN KAI TOIS TAMIAIJ THS nOAEfK X CN 6ZHC6N €TH • AH MHNGC B UJPAC A Fig. 43: Cat. no. 82, line drawing (CIL 3.6087)