DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45246#0221
2θ8
EPH ESOS.
inscribe c upon a vacant side of the marble. An
exactly similar instance will be found in No. dxc. It
will be convenient to deal first with £, and then to
examine the original inscription a-b.
c.
c is a thank-offering to Artemis by Frontinus upon
having served as neopoios, and in other offices. On
the boule (line 5) see p. 71 foil.; and on the Essenes,
see p. 85. The use of the aorist proves
that the office was not permanent (p. 85 ante}. The
introductory formula, βύχαρίστώ σοί κυρία "Αρτεμι,
recurs in a number of these dedications of neopoioi
from the Augusteum, Nos. dlxxix foil. The date
is given by naming the σπονδοποι,ός, who must be the
temple minister who assisted Frontinus in offering
his libation and gift to the goddess ; see Prole-
gomena, p. 86; and compare Nos. dlxxix b, dlxxxix b.
In the latter document the same Theopompos is
named as spondopoios ; we may infer that his office
was an annual one, and that the two dedications
belong to the same year. Theopompos is termed
ιερός, i. e. a temple-freedman. The exact status of
the Ephesian ιεροί has been discussed on p. 85 foil.
The term does not imply slavery, for Theopompos
is described as y του Μενεκράτους, i. e. son of Mene-
krates, son of Menekrates, son of Menekrates. The
date of e is probably late in the second century a. d.
a, b.
a, b is an honorary inscription to the neopoioi of
a certain year, granted by the boule and demos.
Strictly speaking it should be placed in Section VI
(Nos. dxlvi—dlxiii) ; but it is sufficiently like a dedi-
cation to accompany the dedication c, which finds
here its proper place. The recovery of the heading
(lines 1-3) proves this list to contain the names of
the neopoioi of the year, τού$· ν^εωποιήσαντας'] line 2 :
Menadier, p. 26, had conjectured it to be a list of
prytanes. Two neopoioi were appointed from each
of the six tribes (see pp. 80 fol.), by open election
in the ekklesia (No. dlxx). The board was thus a
thoroughly representative one, enabling every portion
of the body politic of Ephesos to take part in the
custody of the Artemision. A fragment of a list
drawn up exactly like the present one will be found
in No. dxc, a. And these two lists at once explain
the fragment C. I. 2956, which speaks of the munifi-
cence of a certain Ephesian of the Bembinean tribe :
Β'Ρμβειναίων φυ(λής}' εν ταύττ) ενεοποίησεν , . , \ι(λιαστυν}
Πελάσγηος. Evidently each neopoios was distinctly
regarded as the representative of his tribe : compare
also No. dlxxix b.
The year is indicated by the eponymous prytanis,
line 3, whose name is lost; appended is the name of
the first neopoios in the yearly board, Δημητρίου ενιαυτω
(line 4). This should be compared with Πασσαλάτου
ενιαυτω in No. dxxviii, see note ad loc.
The document is further interesting as giving a
complete list of the Ephesian tribes, concerning which
see Prolegomena, p. 69.
What is the date of this list (a, b) ? Obviously later
than Augustus, after whom the second tribe receives
its name, Σεβαστή (line 9). But how much later ?
I should decide without hesitation for the first
century a. d., if it were not for the name of the
chiliastys of the Karenean tribe in line 18, Πεΐος.
One might hastily infer that this division of the
Ephesian people derived its name from Antoninus
Pius, and therefore that the inscription must be as
late as the middle of the second century a. d. Several
facts, however, point decisively to an earlier date.
The writing is highly florid, with apices, and
though wanting in the firmness of the Augustan age
(see Waddington, Fastes, p. 85), is yet very different
from the plain characters of the second and third
centuries. It would be equally strange to date the
writing of this inscription later than the Salutaris
documents of a. d. 104 (No. cccclxxxi). Equally
strong is the evidence of the names which compose
the list. No Roman name appears in it, except
Σεβαστή, already explained, and Πεΐος (if it be Roman)
now under dispute. The dedications of neopoioi and
other officers are numerous enough in the preceding
and following documents, most of them obviously
of the Antonine period or later; and a glance
shows how hopelessly Greek and Roman names were
fused together1. Judging from the other inscrip-
tions, it is scarcely conceivable that a list of nearly
thirty Ephesian citizens could be drawn up in the
third or even the second century without including
a single Roman name. Some other facts of less
moment point likewise to an earlier date. The
phrase which gives the date by naming the prytanis
and the first neopoios (lines 3-4), eirl πρύτανεως του
δεινός, του δεινός ενιαυτω, occurs only twice elsewhere, in
No. dxxviii and the fragment from Wood there cited
(Wood, Inscriptions from the Augusteum, No. 11),
and we saw reason to assign both those documents
to the first century a. d. In the orthography of our
inscription there is nothing which precludes a date
about the middle of the first century a. d. The iota
adscriptum is omitted in ΕΝΙΑΥΤΩ, line 4; «is used
consistently for ϊ; and once for i in Δ είκαιος, line 17 ;
[Σ]ωκλ??ου$· for [Σ]ωκλ€ίου$· (= Σωκλεοΰς} line 10. But «
for ϊ became common in the first century b. c. ; witness
πολεΐται, επίτειμα in lines 21, 33 of the Ephesian
decree about Mithradates (Waddington-Le Bas, No.
136 a); γειν[ο]μενας in line 31 of the Tenos decree,
C. I. 2335 ; ύμεΐν, πολείτης, τειμή, passim in C. I. 2737,
immediately after Caesar’s murder. Certainly « for
4 (as in ’Aρτεμείσια No. dcv, line 11) is a later usage ;
but it may well have occurred as early as 50-60 a. d.,
especially in a proper name. The use of η for ει, as
in [Σ]ωκλ??ουί was a mark of the Augustan time, and
1 Already in the first century Apollonios of Tyana is represented as having taken bitter notice of this confusion in his 71 st letter
(Hercher, Epistologr. Graeci, Didot), ‘ To the Ionians ’ ("ίωσιν) : "Ελλ>;ι/ε? οϊεσθε δεϊν όνομάζεσθαι διά τά γένη και την έμπροσθεν αποικίαν . . . αλλ’
υμών γε ουδέ τά ονόματα μενει τοΐς πολλοί?, αλλ’ υπό της νέας ταΰτης ευδαιμονίας (the prosperous rule of the early empire) άπολωλεκατε τά των
προγόνων σύμβολα, καλώς ουδέ τοίς τάφοις εκείνοι δεχοιντ άν ατε άγνώτας αυτοίς γενομενους, ε’ί γε πρότερον ηρώων ην ονόματα κα'ι ναυμάχων και νομο-
θετών, νυνϊ δε Λευκόλλων τε καϊ Φαβρικίων κα'ι Λ,ευκίων των μακαρίων. εμοι μεν εΐη μάλλον όνομα Μίμνερμος.
EPH ESOS.
inscribe c upon a vacant side of the marble. An
exactly similar instance will be found in No. dxc. It
will be convenient to deal first with £, and then to
examine the original inscription a-b.
c.
c is a thank-offering to Artemis by Frontinus upon
having served as neopoios, and in other offices. On
the boule (line 5) see p. 71 foil.; and on the Essenes,
see p. 85. The use of the aorist proves
that the office was not permanent (p. 85 ante}. The
introductory formula, βύχαρίστώ σοί κυρία "Αρτεμι,
recurs in a number of these dedications of neopoioi
from the Augusteum, Nos. dlxxix foil. The date
is given by naming the σπονδοποι,ός, who must be the
temple minister who assisted Frontinus in offering
his libation and gift to the goddess ; see Prole-
gomena, p. 86; and compare Nos. dlxxix b, dlxxxix b.
In the latter document the same Theopompos is
named as spondopoios ; we may infer that his office
was an annual one, and that the two dedications
belong to the same year. Theopompos is termed
ιερός, i. e. a temple-freedman. The exact status of
the Ephesian ιεροί has been discussed on p. 85 foil.
The term does not imply slavery, for Theopompos
is described as y του Μενεκράτους, i. e. son of Mene-
krates, son of Menekrates, son of Menekrates. The
date of e is probably late in the second century a. d.
a, b.
a, b is an honorary inscription to the neopoioi of
a certain year, granted by the boule and demos.
Strictly speaking it should be placed in Section VI
(Nos. dxlvi—dlxiii) ; but it is sufficiently like a dedi-
cation to accompany the dedication c, which finds
here its proper place. The recovery of the heading
(lines 1-3) proves this list to contain the names of
the neopoioi of the year, τού$· ν^εωποιήσαντας'] line 2 :
Menadier, p. 26, had conjectured it to be a list of
prytanes. Two neopoioi were appointed from each
of the six tribes (see pp. 80 fol.), by open election
in the ekklesia (No. dlxx). The board was thus a
thoroughly representative one, enabling every portion
of the body politic of Ephesos to take part in the
custody of the Artemision. A fragment of a list
drawn up exactly like the present one will be found
in No. dxc, a. And these two lists at once explain
the fragment C. I. 2956, which speaks of the munifi-
cence of a certain Ephesian of the Bembinean tribe :
Β'Ρμβειναίων φυ(λής}' εν ταύττ) ενεοποίησεν , . , \ι(λιαστυν}
Πελάσγηος. Evidently each neopoios was distinctly
regarded as the representative of his tribe : compare
also No. dlxxix b.
The year is indicated by the eponymous prytanis,
line 3, whose name is lost; appended is the name of
the first neopoios in the yearly board, Δημητρίου ενιαυτω
(line 4). This should be compared with Πασσαλάτου
ενιαυτω in No. dxxviii, see note ad loc.
The document is further interesting as giving a
complete list of the Ephesian tribes, concerning which
see Prolegomena, p. 69.
What is the date of this list (a, b) ? Obviously later
than Augustus, after whom the second tribe receives
its name, Σεβαστή (line 9). But how much later ?
I should decide without hesitation for the first
century a. d., if it were not for the name of the
chiliastys of the Karenean tribe in line 18, Πεΐος.
One might hastily infer that this division of the
Ephesian people derived its name from Antoninus
Pius, and therefore that the inscription must be as
late as the middle of the second century a. d. Several
facts, however, point decisively to an earlier date.
The writing is highly florid, with apices, and
though wanting in the firmness of the Augustan age
(see Waddington, Fastes, p. 85), is yet very different
from the plain characters of the second and third
centuries. It would be equally strange to date the
writing of this inscription later than the Salutaris
documents of a. d. 104 (No. cccclxxxi). Equally
strong is the evidence of the names which compose
the list. No Roman name appears in it, except
Σεβαστή, already explained, and Πεΐος (if it be Roman)
now under dispute. The dedications of neopoioi and
other officers are numerous enough in the preceding
and following documents, most of them obviously
of the Antonine period or later; and a glance
shows how hopelessly Greek and Roman names were
fused together1. Judging from the other inscrip-
tions, it is scarcely conceivable that a list of nearly
thirty Ephesian citizens could be drawn up in the
third or even the second century without including
a single Roman name. Some other facts of less
moment point likewise to an earlier date. The
phrase which gives the date by naming the prytanis
and the first neopoios (lines 3-4), eirl πρύτανεως του
δεινός, του δεινός ενιαυτω, occurs only twice elsewhere, in
No. dxxviii and the fragment from Wood there cited
(Wood, Inscriptions from the Augusteum, No. 11),
and we saw reason to assign both those documents
to the first century a. d. In the orthography of our
inscription there is nothing which precludes a date
about the middle of the first century a. d. The iota
adscriptum is omitted in ΕΝΙΑΥΤΩ, line 4; «is used
consistently for ϊ; and once for i in Δ είκαιος, line 17 ;
[Σ]ωκλ??ου$· for [Σ]ωκλ€ίου$· (= Σωκλεοΰς} line 10. But «
for ϊ became common in the first century b. c. ; witness
πολεΐται, επίτειμα in lines 21, 33 of the Ephesian
decree about Mithradates (Waddington-Le Bas, No.
136 a); γειν[ο]μενας in line 31 of the Tenos decree,
C. I. 2335 ; ύμεΐν, πολείτης, τειμή, passim in C. I. 2737,
immediately after Caesar’s murder. Certainly « for
4 (as in ’Aρτεμείσια No. dcv, line 11) is a later usage ;
but it may well have occurred as early as 50-60 a. d.,
especially in a proper name. The use of η for ει, as
in [Σ]ωκλ??ουί was a mark of the Augustan time, and
1 Already in the first century Apollonios of Tyana is represented as having taken bitter notice of this confusion in his 71 st letter
(Hercher, Epistologr. Graeci, Didot), ‘ To the Ionians ’ ("ίωσιν) : "Ελλ>;ι/ε? οϊεσθε δεϊν όνομάζεσθαι διά τά γένη και την έμπροσθεν αποικίαν . . . αλλ’
υμών γε ουδέ τά ονόματα μενει τοΐς πολλοί?, αλλ’ υπό της νέας ταΰτης ευδαιμονίας (the prosperous rule of the early empire) άπολωλεκατε τά των
προγόνων σύμβολα, καλώς ουδέ τοίς τάφοις εκείνοι δεχοιντ άν ατε άγνώτας αυτοίς γενομενους, ε’ί γε πρότερον ηρώων ην ονόματα κα'ι ναυμάχων και νομο-
θετών, νυνϊ δε Λευκόλλων τε καϊ Φαβρικίων κα'ι Λ,ευκίων των μακαρίων. εμοι μεν εΐη μάλλον όνομα Μίμνερμος.