Provenance and location

Ancient city: Ephesus
Modern city: Selçuk (Turkey)
Province: Asia
Diocese: Asiana
Regional prefecture: (not regional before 326 AD)
Provenance: Ephesus, precise findspot unknown
Current location: Selçuk Museum, inv. 2558
Ancient location: public space

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Honorary inscription for the Caesar Crispus

Latin text

Critical edition

The editions are based on Porena 2003, pp. 321-322, 327.

2-3: [aequita]te: IK 12, Ephesus, 02, 312, Grünewald 1990, nr. 444, EDH 022125
3-4: [rei pu/b]l[i]cae: Keil 1937, p. 206, nr. 12, IK 12, Ephesus, 02, 312, Grünewald 1990, nr. 444
4: re[ctori et]: Keil 1937, p. 206, nr. 12, AE 1938, 0085, IK 12, Ephesus, 02, 312, Grünewald 1990, nr. 444
5: Cri[spo] was replaced by «Con»[«stantio»] after Crispus’ damnatio memoriae in 326 AD
6: Caesar[i]: AE 1938, 0085
9-10: [n(umini) e]or(um) was replaced with: [nu]/`m´«ini eius» after Crispus’ damnatio memoriae; numinibus eor(um) in 317 AD, Keil 1937, p. 206, nr. 12 (see commentary)
11-12: [dica]tissi[mi]: Keil 1937, p. 206, nr. 12, AE 1938, 0085; IK 12, Ephesus, 02, 312; Grünewald 1990, nr. 444, EDH 022125

Translations

English

“[- - -] guide of the res publica endowed with culture, moderation and common sense, our master Flavius Iulius Crispus, the most noble Caesar; the pretorian prefects Petronius Annianus, of clarissimus rank, and Iulius Iulianus, of eminentissimus rank, ever devoted to their divine spirit.”

French

“[- - -] guide de la res publica en vertu de sa culture, de sa modération et de son jugement, notre maître Flavius Iulius Crispus, très noble César, les préfets du praetoire Petronius Annianus, clarissime, et Iulius Iulianus, très éminent, toujours dévoués à leur divinité.”

Italian

“[- - -] guida della res publica in virtù della sua cultura, moderazione e giudizio, il nostro signore Flavius Iulius Crispus, nobilissimo Cesare, i prefetti del pretorio Petronius Annianus, chiarissimo, e Iulius Iulianus, eminentissimo, sempre devoti al loro nume.”

The inscription and its prefects: critical commentary, updating, overviews

The inscription is carved on a blue-grey marble slab that was originally joined to a statue base. Apart from the lower left-hand corner, the slab has been irreparably reduced on all sides. Although most of the text is lost, where possible, it has been correctly restored by the editor (Keil 1937, p. 206, nr. 12). The precise findspot of the monument is unfortunately unknown, since the slab was already in the Selçuk Museum (Ephesus) when J. Keil first saw it in 1937 (see Keil 1937, p. 205). Since the editor has furnished no photographic reproduction, the fragment cannot be analyzed satisfactorily.

This slab was joined to a monument decreed by the two prefects Petronius Annianus (PLRE I, Annianus 2, pp. 68-69) and Iulius Iulianus (PLRE I, Iulianus 35, pp. 478-479; for their career see PPRET 08).

There are two evident alterations in the text. The first (l. 5) concerns Crispus Caesar, whose name suffered damnatio memoriae and was replaced with Constantius II Caesar after his death in 326 AD. It is clear that our inscription originally honoured Crispus (Caesar in 317 AD) and not Constantius II, who became Caesar in November 324 AD when Petronius Annianus and Iulius Iulianus were no longer pretorian prefects. Indeed the monument can be dated to 317 AD (or shortly after).

Concerning the second alteration on l. 10, there are conflicting opinions. Keil (1937, pp. 206-208) suggested restoring the lost incipit with Constantine Augustus’ name, as the first of two original dedicators (and to add a conjunction “et” near Crispus, l. 4), because according to him, two dedicators originally featured. He argues that the wording numinibus eorum (or numini eorum) would have been replaced with numini eius when the plural was no longer necessary, due to the damnatio of Crispus. Only after some time, when Constantius II took the place of Crispus, the dedicators would be two again and it was simply forgotten to change the singular numini eius.

Porena (2003, pp. 222-333) rightly argued that a prefectural dedication placed in a public and visible context of a city like Ephesus, renowned for the abundance of its works of art, would have been unlikely to allow such a negligence. Indeed, the replacement with Constantius II must have occurred simultaneously with the damnatio memoriae and not later, in order not to create such a confusion. In addition, both Caesar and Augustus’ celebration is unusual in a period of general concord. Not only that, but the position of Constantine’s name in the text supposed by Keil cannot be found in contemporary epigraphic usus scribendi. What prompted the stone-cutter to alter the final devotional formula after 326 AD, may have to remain a mystery.

Therefore, the monument originally honoured only one Caesar (Crispus) and the previous wording numini eorum might perhaps express the prefects’ loyalty to the other rulers through a plural devotional formula or it might indicate other parallel monuments individually addressing all the Caesars in charge (but unfortunately lost). Since the other two Caesars, Licinius II and Constantine II, were only infants (they were two and one years old respectively), Porena (2003, pp. 330-331) hypothesized that it might have been too difficult to represent them with imperial attributes, so the pretorian prefects may have decided to erect monuments only to the adolescent Crispus, and to honour the other two through a plural devotional formula. These three Caesars had the same dies imperii.

Whatever the case may be, the discovery of a prefectural dedication at Ephesus, a politically and culturally distant urban center from the other findspots of these monuments (PPRET 01; PPRET 02; PPRET 17; PPRET 18), but still administratively relevant, inevitably suggests a wider diffusion of this type of monument.

Bibliography

Grünewald Th., Constantinus, Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössischen Überlieferung, Stuttgart 1990.

Keil J., XIX Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos, JÖAI, 30, 1936-1937, 173-214.

Porena P., La prefettura del pretorio tardoantica, Roma 2003.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit