Provenance and location

Ancient city: Ephesus
Modern city: Selçuk (Izmir - Turkey)
Province: Asia
Diocese: Asiana
Regional prefecture: Oriens
Provenance: Ephesus, the inscription was discovered by the Austrian archaeologist Franz Miltner in 1955 (see Swift, Oliver 1962 p. 247) in the pavement of the Embolos in front of Hadrian’s Temple on the street of the Kuretes.
Current location: Selçuk Museum, in the courtyard, inv. 1634
Ancient location: public space

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Legislative inscription

Latin text

Critical edition

This edition is based on the unpublished text kindly provided by D. Feissel (an edition with a complete critical apparatus by the scholar is forthcoming).

1: e(xemplar): Miltner 1959
3: gloria re[i publicae]: Miltner 1959; gloria re<i>: Swift, Oliver 1962; gloriari: Knibbe 1974, IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41
11: praemiis: chiselled on the stone, so all editors
12: spectatim for speciatim; spec<i>atim: all editors
15: exper<s> sollicitudinis: all editors
17: feliotatis for felicitatis
18: faoinora for facinora
22: [rei public]ae: all editors; nosiiae for nostrae; nost<r>ae: Swift, Oliver 1962, Knibbe 1974, IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41; temrentia for temperantia; tem<pera>ntia: Miltner 1959; tem[pera]ntia: Swift, Oliver 1962, Knibbe 1974; tem<pe>r<a>ntia: IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41
23: [sinceritas, iust]itia: Miltner 1959; [fortitudo ius]titia: Swift, Oliver 1962, Knibbe 1974, IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41; opificiosa: IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41
24: [quod est non queunt ae]quare: Swift, Oliver 1962 [quod est nequeunt ae]quare: Knibbe 1974, IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41
25: ] rei: all editors
26: ] et: Miltner 1959, Swift, Oliver 1962; [creditur] et: Knibbe 1974; [ . . . 10 . . . ] ẹt: IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41
27: [nostri ves]citur: all editors
28: [summae]: Knibbe 1974; servit[ium - - -] coepit: Miltner 1959; servit[ium]: Swift, Oliver 1962, Knibbe 1974; serviti[o]: IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41
29: [sple]ndere: all editors; n[os/t]ri: all editors
31: placemus: the verb should be placet
32: [mo]numenta: all editors
33: decernimus. Efficacia: Swift, Oliver 1962, Knibbe 1974; IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41
34: [qui p]opulorum: all editors; natione for nationum
36: [nost]ra: all editors

Translations

English

(by Porena 2020)

“Copy of the imperial letter

Innate virtue in men of proven devotion has this extraordinary consequence, that when (the virtuous man) undertakes to promote the interests of his prince and the state, the glory of that action outweighs the troubles of his life and one would say that he has pursued for personal fame [5] that which, as a result of tireless commitment, he knows has favoured the merits of his emperor. If among all these men – and the felicity of our age has received a great number of them by lot – there is one who remains impressed in our eyes and in our minds, it is Philippus, our father and friend, who I would rightly exalt as an extraordinary man, whose diligent measures day after day [10] have served to put renewed vigour into the expansion of my own empire... (*): what more could I say about a man who was born for our state if not that he has always subordinated his own safety to my interests, and assigned to himself this particular glory, to serve us at his own risk ? There is no need to enumerate his services one by one, since there was never a day in his life which did not shine without being ennobled by the duties of his faithfulness. For me it was always great achievements with Philippus, always glorious deeds [15] thanks to Philippus ! Never indifferent to my concern, never detached in difficult situations, he was at our side as a sort of bodyguard in fortunate enterprises, or, rather, as ‘general of our success’ so much so that, even when we remain silent, his extraordinary actions shine through. Thanks to these he distinguished himself as a man of such greatness and value that with the favour of our affection he won envy. He could not, in fact, draw the arrows of jealousy upon himself, [20] the one who committed himself to be more and more pleasing to his prince. For this reason, if anyone – whom, however, it has not yet been possible to find – felt envy for his duties, he did not dare to show the poison of his character against the advantage of our state. Discretion, self-control, greatness of mind, [courage], justice could really be for other individuals artifact designations, on the contrary they cannot equal what these qualities are in Philippus. If, endowed with these virtues, he could not but [...] [25] one could believe that he did not feel for the interest of the state [...] if not to reflect on the security of our empire; and for this reason he is crowned by the glory of our affection and does not feel the weakness of the body, from which he draws the maximum degree of glory [in proportion] to the duties of his devotion: he began to control the servitude of his soul and for this reason alone among all he bears the physical exertions, [30] he who has shown himself to be born for the interests of our empire. Therefore, our dearest and most beloved Marinus, we who intend to repay his great and illustrious merits, because we wish and believe it right that monuments of (his) devotion stand for this great man in the rich cities, we decree that gilded statues be erected in his honour, thanks to the effectiveness of Your sincerity, so that he, who is celebrated on the mouths of all peoples and different nations, [35] may appear before the eyes of every individual, and may be eternal in our empire the memory of him who by his labours has always favoured the glory of our state”.

(*) anacholute

French

(translation by D. Feissel, October 2020)

“Copie de la lettre impériale

C’est un trait singulier de leur vertu innée, chez les hommes d’une loyauté éprouvée, que, lorsqu’il veille aux heureux accroissements de son prince et de l’État, la gloire de ce fait compense ce qui porte atteinte à la vie de cette homme, et l’on dirait qu’il a recherché pour sa renommée [5] ce dont, à force d’un labeur assidu, il sait que le succès appartient aux mérites de son empereur. Si parmi tous ces hommes il en est un qui laisse son empreinte à nos yeux et à notre esprit – et de tels hommes, la félicité de notre siècle a eu la chance d’en avoir bon nombre –, c’est Philippe, notre père et ami, que je puis appeller à juste titre un homme hors du commun, lui dont jour après jour les vigilantes dispositions, grâce auxquelles [10] les accroissements de mon empire lui-même reprennent vigueur, … (*) mais que dirais-je de plus d’un homme qui est né pour notre État, sinon qu’il a toujours fait passer son propre salut après mes intérêts, en se réservant spécialement cette gloire de nous servir à ses risques et périls. Point n’est besoin d’énumérer un à un les actes de celui dont pas un jour dans la vie n’a brillé sans avoir l’honneur de services rendus par dévouement. Toujours pour moi ce furent de grandes actions avec Philippe, toujours des actions glorieuses grâce à Philippe. [15] Jamais sans prendre sa part de ce qui m’inquiétait, jamais étranger dans les épreuves, il fut à mes côtés dans les actions heureuses comme une sorte de garde du corps, mieux, il fut à la tête de notre félicité, au point que, quand bien même nous garderions le silence, ses hauts faits hors du commun jettent leur éclat. Il s’est par eux tant et si bien distingué que, grâce à la faveur de notre affection, il a triomphé de l’envie. Il ne pouvait en effet s’attirer les traits de la jalousie, [20] lui dont tout le soin fut de plaire à son prince toujours davantage. C’est pourquoi, si quelqu’un a envié les services qu’il rendait – on n’a pas encore pu le trouver cependant –, il n’a pas osé révéler le venin de son caractère à l’encontre de l’intérêt de notre État. Discrétion, tempérance, grandeur d’âme, [courage], justice, ce pourrait être pour d’autres encore des appellations flatteuses, mais dans le cas de Philippe [elles ne sauraient] être à la hauteur de [la réalité]. Si, doué de ces vertus, il n’a pu ne pas [25] […], on croirait qu’il n’éprouve […] pour l’utilité de l’État […] sinon de méditer sur la sécurité de notre empire. Et c’est pourquoi il est couronné de la gloire de notre affection et ne ressent pas la faiblesse du corps, et c’est même par elle qu’il tire le plus de gloire des services qu’il rend par son dévouement. C’est pour cela qu’il a commencé à [dominer ?] la servitude de l’âme et c’est pour cette raison que, seul entre tous, il triomphe des fatigues du corps, [30] lui qui a donné la preuve qu’il était né pour servir les intérêts de notre empire. Nous donc qui nous efforçons de répondre à ses mérites si grands et éclatants, puisqu’il nous plaît et qu’il est convenable que, pour un si grand homme, on élève dans les villes opulentes des monuments à son dévouement, très cher et très agréable Marinus, nous décrétons que des statues dorées lui soient dédiées par l’efficace action de ta Sincérité, afin que celui qui est célébré par la voix de tous les peuples et des diverses nations [35] se présente aussi aux yeux de chacun, et que dans notre État dure toujours la mémoire de celui qui par ses travaux a toujours favorisé la gloire de notre État”.

(*) anacolute

Italian

(by Angius-Porena 2020)

“Copia della lettera imperiale

La virtù connaturata agli uomini di provata devozione ha questo di straordinario, che, quando (l’uomo virtuoso) si impegna a promuovere gli interessi del principe suo e dello stato, la gloria di quell’agire compensa i travagli della sua vita e sembra che abbia perseguito per fama personale [5] quel che, per effetto di un impegno infaticabile, sa che ha giovato ai meriti del suo imperatore. Se tra tutti questi uomini, di cui un gran numero la felicità del nostro secolo ha ricevuto in sorte, ce n’è uno che rimane impresso nei nostri occhi e nella nostra mente, Philippus, nostro padre ed amico, a buon diritto esalterei quale uomo straordinario, le cui solerti disposizioni giorno dopo giorno grazie alle quali [10] quanto accresce il mio stesso impero ha ripreso vigore ... (*): che cosa potrei dire di più di un uomo nato per il nostro stato se non che ha sempre subordinato la propria sicurezza ai miei vantaggi, destinando a se stesso questa quale gloria precipua, servirci a suo rischio e pericolo ? Non c’è bisogno di enumerare i suoi servigi uno per uno, poiché nessun giorno della sua vita ha mai brillato senza che fosse nobilitato dai doveri della sua fedeltà. Sempre grandi cose con Philippus, sempre gloriose [15] grazie a Philippus ! Mai indifferente alla mia preoccupazione, mai distaccato nelle situazioni difficili, costui fu al nostro fianco come una sorta di guardia del corpo nelle imprese fortunate, anzi, come ‘condottiero del nostro successo’, a tal punto che, quand’anche noi restiamo in silenzio, le sue azioni straordinarie risplendono. Grazie a queste si è distinto come uomo di tale grandezza e valore che con il favore del nostro affetto ha vinto l’invidia. Non poteva infatti attirare su di sé le frecce della gelosia [20] colui che si è impegnato ad essere sempre più gradito al suo principe. Per questo se qualcuno – che tuttavia non è stato ancora possibile scovare – ha provato invidia per i suoi incarichi, non ha osato manifestare la malignità della sua indole contro il bene del nostro stato. Discrezione, autocontrollo, grandezza d’animo, [coraggio], giustizia potrebbero essere davvero per altri individui denominazioni artefatte, al contrario non possono dare la misura di queste qualità in Philippus. Se, dotato di queste virtù, non poteva non […] [25] si potrebbe credere che non sentisse per l’interesse dello stato […] se non riflettere sulla sicurezza del nostro impero; e per questo è coronato dalla gloria del nostro affetto e non sente la debolezza del corpo, dalla quale trae massimamente la gloria [in proporzione] ai doveri della sua devozione: cominciò a [controllare?] la schiavitù dello spirito e per questa ragione solo tra tutti sopporta le fatiche fisiche [30] lui che ha dato prova di essere nato per gli interessi del nostro impero. Perciò, nostro carissimo e amatissimo Marinus, noi che intendiamo ripagare i suoi meriti così grandi e insigni, poiché desideriamo e riteniamo giusto che nelle ricche città si ergano per questo grande uomo monumenti della (sua) devozione, decretiamo che si elevino in suo onore statue dorate, grazie all’efficacia della sincerità Tua, affinché colui che è celebrato sulla bocca di tutti i popoli e delle diverse nazioni [35] appaia davanti agli occhi di ogni individuo, e sia eterno nel nostro impero il ricordo di colui che con le sue fatiche ha sempre favorito la gloria del nostro stato”.

(*) anacoluto

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

In 1955 the Austrian archaeologist Franz Miltner discovered in the pavement of the street of the Kuretes in front of Hadrian’s Temple in Ephesus a carefully inscribed grey-blue marble slab. The slab was bordered by a carved aedicular frame and broken transversally in the middle. It was also missing a triangular fragment on the left central side. It bore a copy of an imperial letter (sacrae litterae) by which the emperor Constantius II ordered Marinus (according to the PLRE I, Marinus 1, p. 560, proconsul of Asia, but perhaps vicar of Asia, see below), to put up golden statues in honour of the praetorian prefect Flavius Philippus (PLRE I, Philippus 7, pp. 696-697, for his biography, see PPRET 27).

This imperial letter was engraved on a large marble slab as part of an honorary monument that was most likely accompanied by a statue to Philippus. The statue would have been publicly exposed along the street of the Kuretes in Ephesus, where our inscription was reused as a paving slab, before being identified in the last century. This area was the most appropriate place for official inscriptions concerning high officials and their privileges to be exhibited (see also IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 42; IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 43; Filippini 2019, pp. 16-17).

From the header – E(xemplum) s(acrarum) l(itterarum) – it is clear that this document reproduces an official copy of an imperial letter (for other copies of Sacred Letters, see Corcoran 2008; see also PPRET 53), although the name of the dedicant emperor is not specified. Miltner (1959, pp. 287-288) first identified the Augustus as Gordianus III and Philippus as Philippus the Arab. In 1962, Swift and Oliver (1962, pp. 247-264) rightly concluded, through an excellent reinterpretation of the text, that the emperor must be Constantius II, and that Philippus was his praetorian prefect.

In what is a rather pompous panegyric, Constantius II eulogized the achievements and capabilities of the virtuous and self-sacrificing praetorian prefect Flavius Philippus and in order to reward him for his illustrious merits, promises to set up gilded statues in his honour.

It has been argued that this document was, in fact, a decree aiming to posthumously restore the honourable reputation of Philippus, who, according to Athanasius (Athan., Hist. Ar. 07), suffered a major fall from grace and died in misery, far away from his fatherland, after having exiled and killed Paul the Bishop of Constantinople around 351 AD. Jones (1955, p. 232) and Deligiannakis (2019, p. 766) assumed that after Philippus’ death the emperor changed his mind and decreed a post-mortem rehabilitation, to which the statues of Chytri (PPRET 27), Chalcedon (cf. PPRET 27) and Perge (PPRET 29) are part. However, there are no references to his misfortune in the literary sources (Zos. 02, 29-53; Soz., HE 03, 09, 01; Socr., HE 02, 16) except for Athanasius who was opposed to Constantius II in the Arian controversy and so, by extension to his praetorian prefect, since he also would have been a pro-Arian supporter. Moreover, Moser (2018, p. 202) assumes that there are no clear indications of such a public rehabilitation in the text. On the contrary Constantius uses the present tense in some passages and refers to his praetorian prefect as if he was still alive (see also PPRET 27). Indeed, on lines 18-22 the emperor states that the malevolent envy against Philippus did not affect his confidence in his praetorian prefect.

Philippus excelled under Constantius II and the trust and affection between the two were immense. Our prefect is described, by the emperor himself, as parens amicusque noster (l. 8), councillor and mentor, gestorum prospere armiger, dux nostrae felicitatis (ll. 16-17), champion of the emperor’s successes. Philippus appears to be a tireless official in his work (ll. 3, 5, 9, 15, 28-29, 36), endowed with great virtues (ll. 22-23), well known everywhere (l. 34), while constantly and faithfully relegating his own personal welfare in order to promote and strengthen the power of the emperor (ll. 11-12, 16-17, 27, 29). The praetorian prefect was a model of devotion, not only to the emperor himself, but also to the Roman state, a figure to be emulated.

Tullia Ritti (2017, pp. 647-649) has recently analyzed this adulation in order to reconstruct the courageous role played by the prefect during the campaign against the usurper (see PPRET 27). This interpretation is also confirmed by the Oratio ad Senatum still being published by Feissel (see PPRET 31). Such expressions and honours translate the very grave danger that Philippus ran during his diplomatic mission and the suffering he endured. Therefore Constantius’ letter has to be dated to 351/352 AD, shortly after the battle of Mursa (September 28^th 351 AD), as we just say for the statues made following the Emperor’s order (see PPRET 27 and PPRET 29).

This legislative document concerning praetorian prefecture is rare. It is probable that the imperial chancellery sent many letters to several provincial governors ordering them to put up an unspecified number of monuments to Philippus in various key cities in each province. Every governor receiving this document would then have communicated it as an imperial letter or proconsular edict to the municipal councils of the chosen cities. The inscription found in Ephesus (Asia) is thus only one of many copies of the same imperial document that would have been sent to different provinces, as demonstrated by the statues made at Chytri (Cyprus, PPRET 27), Chalcedon (Bithynia, cf. PPRET 27) and Perge (Pamphylia, PPRET 29). The selection criteria of the opimae urbes addressed to host these gilded statues is unclear: Porena (2003, pp. 494-496) argued that the selection was made at the discretion of Marinus and the provincial governors, and that maybe the economic status of each city played a part.

Another epigraphic copy of the same "Sacred Letter" by Constantius II was found in Asia Minor. It is a fragmentary version of the letter addressed to Marinus that was seen and copied by the Italian humanist and epigraphist Cyriacus of Ancona near Alexandria Troas (Hellespontus) during one of his journeys at the end of the 15th Century:

(ll. 6-7) Hic erexit quorum | magnam copiam fecit | (l. 13) opus est cuius aetatis nullus | (lin. 15) expers sollicitudinis meae | (l. 14) honoratus illuxit semper mihi magna cum Philippo | (ll. 35-36) qui laboribus suis reipublicae nostrae gloriam semper iuvit [...].

A transcription of these fragments was found in the manuscript Conv. I, IX, 30 (f. 385r, nr. 36) at the National Library of Florence. This miscellaneous codex was bound (together with many others) into a small quire of few pages (foll. 382-393) including a collection of 110 inscriptions from Greece, Cyprus, Asia Minor and Constantinople. Di Benedetto suggests the disorderly arrangement of the lines seems to be a faithful reproduction of how these fragments were actually seen, probably belonging to the masonry structure of the buildings (Di Benedetto 1998, p. 158). These fragments must pertain to another copy of the imperial letter from Ephesus, received and carved in Alexandria Troas.

Another small fragment of our imperial letter addressed to Marinus, still unpublished, has been recently found in Laodicea on the Lycus, in the province of Phrygia (the name Marine is perfectly readable). This fragment corresponds to the final part of the Ephesus copy (ll. 30-34). It reports the same text and is very close to the copy made by Cyriacus of Ancona, whose textual differences are caused by reading mistakes and manuscript tradition (Di Benedetto 1998, p. 159).

Those two fragments attest to the great diffusion of this imperial letter, not only in Asia (Ephesus), but also in the province of Phrygia (Laodicea on the Lycus) and Hellespontus (Alexandria Troas), where other statues to Flavius Philippus were built. We do not know if the fragment seen by Cyriacus of Ancona was addressed to Marinus too or to some other lower official, but Marinus clearly received a copy in the province of Asia (Ephesus) and in Phrygia (Laodicea on the Lycus). This recent discovery in Phrygia urges us to reconsider Marinus’ office as proconsul of Asia (according to Swift, Oliver 1961, p. 255; cf. PLRE I, Marinus 1, p. 560). Since his administrative role is unspecified in both texts, it is no longer credible that Marinus was merely proconsul of Asia, since the area of jurisdiction of this office never comprised the province of Phrygia. Perhaps the position of vicarius Asianae would be more appropriate.

Bibliography

Corcoran S., The Heading of Diocletian's Prices Edict at Stratonicea, ZPE, 166, 2008, 295-302.

Deligiannakis G., Imperial and Ecclesiastical Patrons of Fourth-Century Salamis/Constantia, in Rogge S., Ioannou C., Mavrojannis T. (eds.), Salamis of Cyprus. History and Archaeology from the Earliest Times to Late Antiquity, Münster-New York 2019, 761-768.

Di Benedetto F., Un codice epigrafico di Ciriaco ritrovato, in Paci G., Sconocchia S. (a cura di), Ciriaco d'Ancona e la cultura antiquaria dell'Umanesimo: Atti del convegno internazionale di studio (Ancona, 6-9 febbraio 1992), Reggio Emilia 1998, 147-167.

Feissel D., L’épigraphie d’Orient, témoin des mutations de l’empire constantinien, in Brandt O., Fiocchi Nicolai V., Castiglia G. (a cura di), Acta XVI congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae (Romae, 22-28.9.2013): Costantino e i Costantinidi. L'innovazione costantiniana, le sue radici i suoi sviluppi, Pars II, Città del Vaticano 2016, 1221-1234.

Filippini A., Efeso, Ulpiano e il Senato. La contesa per il primato nella provincia Asia nel III sec. d.C., Stuttgart 2019.

Jones A.H.M., The Career of Flavius Philippus, Historia, 4, 1955, 229-233.

Kelly C., Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge 2004.

Knibbe D., Inschriftstele, Inv. 1634, in Bammer A., Knibbe D., Fleischer R. (hrsg.), Führer durch das Archäologische Museum in Selçuk-Ephesos, Wien 1974, 104-108.

Miltner F., XXII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos, JÖAI, 44, 1959, 243-313.

Moser M., Emperor and Senators in the Reign of Constantius II. Maintaining Imperial Rule between Rome and Constantinople in the Fourth Century AD, Cambridge 2018.

Pekáry T., Statuen in kleinasiatischen Inschriften, in Schwertheim E., Sahin S., Wagner J. (hrsg.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976, II, Leiden 1978, 727-744.

Porena P., Le origini della prefettura del pretorio tardoantica, Roma 2003.

Ritti T., Hierapolis di Frigia. IX. Storia e istituzioni di Hierapolis, Istanbul 2017.

Swift L.J., Oliver J.H., Constantius II on Flavius Philippus, AJPh, 83, 1962, 247-264.

Weisweiler J., Making Masters, Making Subjects: Imperial Ideology and Memory Policy in the Early Roman Empire and in the Later Roman State, in Galinsky K., Lapatin K. (eds.), Cultural Memories in the Roman Empire, Los Angeles 2015, 66-85.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit