DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45246#0191
I 78
E P H ESOS.
June 26 b.c. 5. Moreover it is well known that the
proconsuls of Asia entered upon their office in the
spring (about May) of each year. These facts
enable us to determine the date of our inscription
within the first four or five months of the year
b.c. 5.
In this, as in the two next documents (Nos. dxxiii-
dxxiv) the name of C. Asinius Gallus has been
anciently obliterated from the marble. In line 3,
however, the lapidary has done his work carelessly,
and the names C. Asinio remain untouched, while
beneath the erasure the words GALLO · PROCOS
can still be faintly traced. This erasure took place
a.d. 30, when the senate sentenced him to death.
Dio Cassius tells the story (lviii, 3): τω δε δή
Γάλλω ό Τιβεριος, τω την τε γυναίκα αυτού άγαγομενω
καί τή περί τής αρχής χρησαμενω παρρησία, καιρόν λαβών
επίθετο . ... εν γάρ τή αυτή ήμερα παρά τε τω Τιβερίω
είστιάθη και φιλοτησίας επιε, και εν τω βουλευτηρίω κατε-
■φηφίσθη, ώστε και στρατηγόν τον δήσοντά τε αυτόν και προς
την τιμωρίαν άπάξοντα πεμφθήναι. How Tiberius kept
him in prison for three years until death by starva-
tion put an end to his sufferings, is well known to us
from the pages of Tacitus (Ann. vi, 23, 25).
We learn from our inscription that the Ephesians
had already built an Augusteum, or temple to
Augustus, within the precinct of the Artemision.
The site of this building was thought by Mr. Wood
to be indicated by some Roman ruins discovered
by him not far from the s. w. corner of the Temple
(Ephesus, p. 153 ; see note on No. ccccxcviii ante].
This rebuilding of the peribolos has an interesting
connexion both with the history of the Artemision,
and with the policy of Augustus. We are informed
by Strabo (xiv, p. 641) that the limits of the sanctuary
had frequently been changed: άσυλον δε μενει τδ
ίερδν και νυν και πρότερον' τής δ’ ασυλίας τούς ορούς άλλα-
γήναι συνέβη πολλάκις. Alexander extended the limit
to the radius of of a mile from the temple. Mithri-
dates rewarded the Ephesians for their support by
slightly enlarging this limit Μιθριδάτου δε τό^υμα
άφεντος άπδ τής γωνίας του κεράμου και δόξαντος ύπερ-
βαλεσθαι μικρά το στάδιον). Next Antony, whose stay
at Ephesos with Cleopatra is described by Plutarch
(Anton, § $6, 58), doubled the limit, thereby including
within the range of the sanctuary ‘ a certain portion
of the city’ {μέρος τι τής πόλεως}. As the city and the
city wall were a mile distant from the Artemision,
the extension of the sanctuary to a radius of mile
from the temple cannot literally have embraced
a portion of the city. Strabo must therefore be
understood to be speaking of the public road from
the city to the temple from the Magnesian gate,
and perhaps of the suburbs of the city. Such an
enlargement however was detrimental to public
order, for criminals would plead sanctuary and
escape from arrest, even in the public streets; and
accordingly Augustus annulled the grant of Antony
(εφάνη δε τούτο βλαβερόν και επί τοΐς κακούργοις ποιούν
την πόλιν, ωστ ήκύρωσεν ό Σεβαστός ΚαΐσαρΥ The sanc-
tuary underwent a further revision under Tiberius,
a. d. 22 (Tac. Ann. iii, 61). The statement of Strabo
is confirmed by this inscription, which proves that
Augustus not only defined the sacred precinct afresh,
but also surrounded it with a peribolos.
Augustus, the restorer of temples and of religion
at home, made a point of restoring also to the
shrines of Asia the treasures which Antony had
carried off to gratify Cleopatra. In many ways the
victory of Actium introduced an era of order and
comfort to the Greek towns which had suffered a
century of Roman misgovernment, and had of late
been alternately pampered and plundered by Antony.
Strabo speaks of his carrying off a statue from a
shrine of Ajax at Rhceteum in the Troad (xiii, p. 595),
and three more statues from the Heraion at Samos
(xiv, p. 637). A similar robbery at Ephesos is re-
corded by Pliny (N. H. xxxiv, 8, § 58): Fecit (Myro)
et Apollinem, quern ab triumviro Antonio sublatum
restituit Ephesiis divus Augustus admonitus in
quiete. To this and similar acts of restitution
Augustus refers in the Monumentum Ancyranum,
chap, xxiv (Mommsen, Res gestae divi Aug. pp.
lxxxx, lxxxxi, 95-96): In templis omnium civita-
tium pr[ovinci]ae Asiae victor ornamenta reposui,
quae spoliatis tem[plis is] cum quo bellum gesseram
privatim possederat : [’Er raoijs· π[ασ]ών πόλβω[ρ] τής
[’?l]crz[a]y νεικήσας τα αναθέματα άπ^οκατεστησα, [ά 6ίχ6ρ]
/[δία] ίεροσυλήσας δ ύπ’ [e/zov] 5[ί]αγωι/ίσ0€ό9 7roXe[/zioy].
It is in keeping with this view of his conduct that
Augustus (through the proconsul Gallus) employs
the word άποκατεστησεν in the next two documents
(Nos. dxxiii, dxxiv).
For the accusative νεάη line 6, see L. and S. s. v.,
and compare the N. T. forms ’Απολλω, accusative of
’ Απολλως, and τήν Κω (Moulton’s Winer, p. 72). The
forms Σεβαστήον and επιμελή a are noticeable in an
inscription of such good date as this : τιχισθήναι has
been noticed on No. dxxi.
A duplicate of this inscription was found near it,
similarly built into the peribolos. The Turkish
authorities had stipulated in the firman granted to
Mr. Wood, that any duplicates he might discover
should be handed over to the Ottoman government.
Accordingly Mr. Wood had one of these inscribed
stones (the fellow to the present one) conveyed to
Smyrna, and formally handed over to the Turkish
commissioner who was appointed to watch his pro-
ceedings (Ephesus, p. 132). It has now passed into
the possession of the German government (Ephem.
Epigr.,v, p. 60: ‘ Hodie adservatur Berolini in museo
n. 969, 9 septem versibus disposita ; ex deletis Latinis
apparent haec; / ASINI / GALLO · PRO · COS
et LEC ; Graeca deleta non leguntur.’ *
* In the Mittheilungen, x, 1885, p. 401, and the Bull, de Corr. Hell, x, 1886, p. 95, an inscription from Ephesos is published
which records the repair of the peribolos-wall (άποκατεστάβη το βλαβεν π^ριτάχισμα τοΰ Αυγουστήου) in the time of the Emperor Titus,
a.d. 79-80.
E P H ESOS.
June 26 b.c. 5. Moreover it is well known that the
proconsuls of Asia entered upon their office in the
spring (about May) of each year. These facts
enable us to determine the date of our inscription
within the first four or five months of the year
b.c. 5.
In this, as in the two next documents (Nos. dxxiii-
dxxiv) the name of C. Asinius Gallus has been
anciently obliterated from the marble. In line 3,
however, the lapidary has done his work carelessly,
and the names C. Asinio remain untouched, while
beneath the erasure the words GALLO · PROCOS
can still be faintly traced. This erasure took place
a.d. 30, when the senate sentenced him to death.
Dio Cassius tells the story (lviii, 3): τω δε δή
Γάλλω ό Τιβεριος, τω την τε γυναίκα αυτού άγαγομενω
καί τή περί τής αρχής χρησαμενω παρρησία, καιρόν λαβών
επίθετο . ... εν γάρ τή αυτή ήμερα παρά τε τω Τιβερίω
είστιάθη και φιλοτησίας επιε, και εν τω βουλευτηρίω κατε-
■φηφίσθη, ώστε και στρατηγόν τον δήσοντά τε αυτόν και προς
την τιμωρίαν άπάξοντα πεμφθήναι. How Tiberius kept
him in prison for three years until death by starva-
tion put an end to his sufferings, is well known to us
from the pages of Tacitus (Ann. vi, 23, 25).
We learn from our inscription that the Ephesians
had already built an Augusteum, or temple to
Augustus, within the precinct of the Artemision.
The site of this building was thought by Mr. Wood
to be indicated by some Roman ruins discovered
by him not far from the s. w. corner of the Temple
(Ephesus, p. 153 ; see note on No. ccccxcviii ante].
This rebuilding of the peribolos has an interesting
connexion both with the history of the Artemision,
and with the policy of Augustus. We are informed
by Strabo (xiv, p. 641) that the limits of the sanctuary
had frequently been changed: άσυλον δε μενει τδ
ίερδν και νυν και πρότερον' τής δ’ ασυλίας τούς ορούς άλλα-
γήναι συνέβη πολλάκις. Alexander extended the limit
to the radius of of a mile from the temple. Mithri-
dates rewarded the Ephesians for their support by
slightly enlarging this limit Μιθριδάτου δε τό^υμα
άφεντος άπδ τής γωνίας του κεράμου και δόξαντος ύπερ-
βαλεσθαι μικρά το στάδιον). Next Antony, whose stay
at Ephesos with Cleopatra is described by Plutarch
(Anton, § $6, 58), doubled the limit, thereby including
within the range of the sanctuary ‘ a certain portion
of the city’ {μέρος τι τής πόλεως}. As the city and the
city wall were a mile distant from the Artemision,
the extension of the sanctuary to a radius of mile
from the temple cannot literally have embraced
a portion of the city. Strabo must therefore be
understood to be speaking of the public road from
the city to the temple from the Magnesian gate,
and perhaps of the suburbs of the city. Such an
enlargement however was detrimental to public
order, for criminals would plead sanctuary and
escape from arrest, even in the public streets; and
accordingly Augustus annulled the grant of Antony
(εφάνη δε τούτο βλαβερόν και επί τοΐς κακούργοις ποιούν
την πόλιν, ωστ ήκύρωσεν ό Σεβαστός ΚαΐσαρΥ The sanc-
tuary underwent a further revision under Tiberius,
a. d. 22 (Tac. Ann. iii, 61). The statement of Strabo
is confirmed by this inscription, which proves that
Augustus not only defined the sacred precinct afresh,
but also surrounded it with a peribolos.
Augustus, the restorer of temples and of religion
at home, made a point of restoring also to the
shrines of Asia the treasures which Antony had
carried off to gratify Cleopatra. In many ways the
victory of Actium introduced an era of order and
comfort to the Greek towns which had suffered a
century of Roman misgovernment, and had of late
been alternately pampered and plundered by Antony.
Strabo speaks of his carrying off a statue from a
shrine of Ajax at Rhceteum in the Troad (xiii, p. 595),
and three more statues from the Heraion at Samos
(xiv, p. 637). A similar robbery at Ephesos is re-
corded by Pliny (N. H. xxxiv, 8, § 58): Fecit (Myro)
et Apollinem, quern ab triumviro Antonio sublatum
restituit Ephesiis divus Augustus admonitus in
quiete. To this and similar acts of restitution
Augustus refers in the Monumentum Ancyranum,
chap, xxiv (Mommsen, Res gestae divi Aug. pp.
lxxxx, lxxxxi, 95-96): In templis omnium civita-
tium pr[ovinci]ae Asiae victor ornamenta reposui,
quae spoliatis tem[plis is] cum quo bellum gesseram
privatim possederat : [’Er raoijs· π[ασ]ών πόλβω[ρ] τής
[’?l]crz[a]y νεικήσας τα αναθέματα άπ^οκατεστησα, [ά 6ίχ6ρ]
/[δία] ίεροσυλήσας δ ύπ’ [e/zov] 5[ί]αγωι/ίσ0€ό9 7roXe[/zioy].
It is in keeping with this view of his conduct that
Augustus (through the proconsul Gallus) employs
the word άποκατεστησεν in the next two documents
(Nos. dxxiii, dxxiv).
For the accusative νεάη line 6, see L. and S. s. v.,
and compare the N. T. forms ’Απολλω, accusative of
’ Απολλως, and τήν Κω (Moulton’s Winer, p. 72). The
forms Σεβαστήον and επιμελή a are noticeable in an
inscription of such good date as this : τιχισθήναι has
been noticed on No. dxxi.
A duplicate of this inscription was found near it,
similarly built into the peribolos. The Turkish
authorities had stipulated in the firman granted to
Mr. Wood, that any duplicates he might discover
should be handed over to the Ottoman government.
Accordingly Mr. Wood had one of these inscribed
stones (the fellow to the present one) conveyed to
Smyrna, and formally handed over to the Turkish
commissioner who was appointed to watch his pro-
ceedings (Ephesus, p. 132). It has now passed into
the possession of the German government (Ephem.
Epigr.,v, p. 60: ‘ Hodie adservatur Berolini in museo
n. 969, 9 septem versibus disposita ; ex deletis Latinis
apparent haec; / ASINI / GALLO · PRO · COS
et LEC ; Graeca deleta non leguntur.’ *
* In the Mittheilungen, x, 1885, p. 401, and the Bull, de Corr. Hell, x, 1886, p. 95, an inscription from Ephesos is published
which records the repair of the peribolos-wall (άποκατεστάβη το βλαβεν π^ριτάχισμα τοΰ Αυγουστήου) in the time of the Emperor Titus,
a.d. 79-80.