DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45927#0059
57
4. THE SCAENAE FRONS OF P. VEDIUS ANTONINUS
The changes wrought by P. Vedius in what was at earliest a Domitianic, and at latest a Trajanic building,132
involved an augmentation of the seating capacity by vaulting the parodoi to carry the upper cavea to the scae-
nae wall, and the addition of a pulpitum (plan 7; pl. 30, 3). But more central to his building program was the
provision of a modern columnar facade with projecting aediculae suitable for the prominent display of statuary
that was to present the reigning emperor and members of the imperial family, past and present, as guarantors
of his civic status (plan 6). There is good reason to believe that the ensemble included images of the patron and
his wife in accordance with contemporary practice, although they are unlikely to have occupied the scaenae
frons itself.133 Several letters from Antoninus Pius to the Ephesians praising Vedius for his efforts on behalf of
the city were to be given monumental expression, however, by being inscribed on the thin marble slabs of the
revetment along with two Hadrianic letters recopied from the original wall surface.134
Before attempting a reconstruction of the scaenae frons it might be useful to reiterate briefly the importance
of the entablature fragments mentioned in the introduction, as they not only recount the circumstances of the
Antonine renovation but provide vital information about the architectural ornament, the proportional system
used and ultimately about the design of the scaenae frons as a whole.
Central to both the architectural and epigraphic record is the block discovered in many pieces by R. He-
berdey in 1908 and published in 1912 that bore the foundation inscription naming Papiane and (certainly)
her husband Vedius Antoninus as donors (pls. 47, 1; 48, 1; 61).135 A second block found in the debris bore a
fragmentary inscription of formulaic content mentioning Artemis136 (pls. 47, 2; 60). Both inscriptions were
transcribed in the report but neither illustrated, although Heberdey did remark that they came from two differ-
ent stories of a “Sockelarchitektur” and that the first was an architrave-frieze wall block, the second part of a
freestanding architrave block that had been carved separately from its frieze.137
Of much greater interest for our present purpose is J. Keil’s “Skizzenbuch” for 1908 in which appears, along
with the fragments of the Papiane inscription drawn to scale, a dimension drawing of the restored block138
(pl. 48, 1). Another drawing (pl. 47. 2) with the pieces of the second inscription includes one fragment of
the architrave block preserving both top and bottom surfaces for which the height is given. In comparing the
heights of both blocks it is clear that they were elements of the first and second story. The notebook also illus-
trated a third series of fragments found in the Bouleuterion belonging to the first story architrave which bore
an inscription on its upper fascia139 (pl. 48, 2).
Meanwhile, a recent search of the inscription depot beneath the Domitian terrace at Ephesos has turned up
many (though not all) of the fragments recorded by Keil.140 Matching these were additional pieces brought to
light in the 1960’s during excavations in the Basilica Stoa which, judging from their size, style and technique
of carving, belonged to each of the three groups. Taken together, this material provides a basis for reconstruct-
ing both the architecture of the scaenae frons and the inscribed texts it carried (pls. 60; 61).141
It is interesting to note that the only architectural elements to have survived and/or to have been recorded
are those bearing inscriptions. It is to Keil’s credit that he viewed inscriptions as being integral with the build-
132 See below chap. 7.4.
133 See below chap. 9.
134 See below chap. 8.
135 IvE 40; see below chap. 8.1.2. The text was published for the first time by Heberdey 1912, 172-173.
136 IvE 460. In the “Skizzenbiicher” the piece was recorded by J. Keil (Skizzenbuch 1686 fragment D), including a drawing with the
architectural decoration to scale.
137 Heberdey 1912, 172 f.
138 Skizzenbuch no. 1685 recto.
139 IvE 477; Skizzenbuch no. 1687. 2403.
140 This search was greatly facilitated by Engelmann 1993, 279-288. For a list of all the fragments see appendix 1.
141 See below chap. 8 and appendix 1.
4. THE SCAENAE FRONS OF P. VEDIUS ANTONINUS
The changes wrought by P. Vedius in what was at earliest a Domitianic, and at latest a Trajanic building,132
involved an augmentation of the seating capacity by vaulting the parodoi to carry the upper cavea to the scae-
nae wall, and the addition of a pulpitum (plan 7; pl. 30, 3). But more central to his building program was the
provision of a modern columnar facade with projecting aediculae suitable for the prominent display of statuary
that was to present the reigning emperor and members of the imperial family, past and present, as guarantors
of his civic status (plan 6). There is good reason to believe that the ensemble included images of the patron and
his wife in accordance with contemporary practice, although they are unlikely to have occupied the scaenae
frons itself.133 Several letters from Antoninus Pius to the Ephesians praising Vedius for his efforts on behalf of
the city were to be given monumental expression, however, by being inscribed on the thin marble slabs of the
revetment along with two Hadrianic letters recopied from the original wall surface.134
Before attempting a reconstruction of the scaenae frons it might be useful to reiterate briefly the importance
of the entablature fragments mentioned in the introduction, as they not only recount the circumstances of the
Antonine renovation but provide vital information about the architectural ornament, the proportional system
used and ultimately about the design of the scaenae frons as a whole.
Central to both the architectural and epigraphic record is the block discovered in many pieces by R. He-
berdey in 1908 and published in 1912 that bore the foundation inscription naming Papiane and (certainly)
her husband Vedius Antoninus as donors (pls. 47, 1; 48, 1; 61).135 A second block found in the debris bore a
fragmentary inscription of formulaic content mentioning Artemis136 (pls. 47, 2; 60). Both inscriptions were
transcribed in the report but neither illustrated, although Heberdey did remark that they came from two differ-
ent stories of a “Sockelarchitektur” and that the first was an architrave-frieze wall block, the second part of a
freestanding architrave block that had been carved separately from its frieze.137
Of much greater interest for our present purpose is J. Keil’s “Skizzenbuch” for 1908 in which appears, along
with the fragments of the Papiane inscription drawn to scale, a dimension drawing of the restored block138
(pl. 48, 1). Another drawing (pl. 47. 2) with the pieces of the second inscription includes one fragment of
the architrave block preserving both top and bottom surfaces for which the height is given. In comparing the
heights of both blocks it is clear that they were elements of the first and second story. The notebook also illus-
trated a third series of fragments found in the Bouleuterion belonging to the first story architrave which bore
an inscription on its upper fascia139 (pl. 48, 2).
Meanwhile, a recent search of the inscription depot beneath the Domitian terrace at Ephesos has turned up
many (though not all) of the fragments recorded by Keil.140 Matching these were additional pieces brought to
light in the 1960’s during excavations in the Basilica Stoa which, judging from their size, style and technique
of carving, belonged to each of the three groups. Taken together, this material provides a basis for reconstruct-
ing both the architecture of the scaenae frons and the inscribed texts it carried (pls. 60; 61).141
It is interesting to note that the only architectural elements to have survived and/or to have been recorded
are those bearing inscriptions. It is to Keil’s credit that he viewed inscriptions as being integral with the build-
132 See below chap. 7.4.
133 See below chap. 9.
134 See below chap. 8.
135 IvE 40; see below chap. 8.1.2. The text was published for the first time by Heberdey 1912, 172-173.
136 IvE 460. In the “Skizzenbiicher” the piece was recorded by J. Keil (Skizzenbuch 1686 fragment D), including a drawing with the
architectural decoration to scale.
137 Heberdey 1912, 172 f.
138 Skizzenbuch no. 1685 recto.
139 IvE 477; Skizzenbuch no. 1687. 2403.
140 This search was greatly facilitated by Engelmann 1993, 279-288. For a list of all the fragments see appendix 1.
141 See below chap. 8 and appendix 1.
