Provenance and location

Ancient city: Paphos
Modern city: Nèa Paphos (Cyprus)
Province: Cyprus
Diocese: Oriens
Regional prefecture: Oriens
Provenance: Paphos, found in April 1956 near the lighthouse of the port of Kato
Current location: Museum of Paphos, inv. 1255
Ancient location: public space

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Building inscription

Latin text

Critical edition

Edition based on Cayla 2018, p. 269, nr. 152

1-3: At the beginning probably three lines are lost; they included the dedication to Constantius II, a reference to the building and eventually its characteristics
4: Incendi[o collapsum (-am)]: Mitford 1961, p. 101, nr. 5
5: Cl(audia) Musonia [restitutum (-am)]: Mitford 1961, p. 101, nr. 5
6: cu[rante (praenomen)]: Mitford 1961, p. 101, nr. 5
7: Lauricio Vo[[pisco? procos.]: Mitford 1961, p. 101, nr. 5; [consulare?]: Cayla 1997, p. 74
8: prov(inciae) C[ypri]: Mitford 1961, p. 101, nr. 5

Translations

English

“Claudius Musonianus, praetorian prefect of clarissimus rank, commissioned the restoration [of a building damaged] by fire, supervised by Bassidius Lauricius, [consular] of clarissimus rank of the province of [Cyprus].”

French

(by Cayla 2018, p. 270)

“Claudius Musonianus, clarissime, préfet du prétoire, a commandité la restauration [de tel bâtiment endommagé] par un incendie, supervisée par Bassidius Lauricius, clarissime, [consulaire] de la province de [Chypre].”

Italian

“Claudius Musonianus, chiarissimo prefetto del pretorio, commissionò il restauro [di un edificio danneggiato] da un incendio, supervisionato da Bassidius Lauricius, chiarissimo [consolare] della provincia di [Cipro].”

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

This inscription was found in 1956 in the port of Kato at Paphos, near the lighthouse, in Maloutena district (Cayla 2018, pp. 269-270). It is carved on a precious white marble slab, of which only the lower left corner remains (probably half of the whole inscription according to Mitford 1961, p. 101). The inscription concerns the restoration of an unspecified public building destroyed by fire.

Mitford (1961, pp. 101-102, nr. 5) first published the text in 1961 and he dated the inscription paleographically to the 1st Century AD. He identified the personages cited on it as a wealthy lady named Claudia Musonia, the redditor who took charge of the financing, and Vopiscus Lauricius, a proconsul responsible for the restoration; both figures are otherwise unknown.

Nevertheless, almost forty years later J.B. Cayla (1997, pp. 71-76) edited the same text and was able to propose a different reading for one of the names - Bassidius Lauricius (PLRE I, p. 497) - consularis of the province of Cyprus responsible of works. Although this name is rare and does not appear before the 4th Century AD, that of Vo[piscus] is more implausible even palaeographically: the many “o” carved in the text are noticeably smaller than the other letters, and since one following a “v” is the same size as the others, it can be restored to v(ir) c(larissimus) (Cayla 1997, p. 72).

Bassidius Lauricius was comes et praeses Armeniae in 357 AD (Lib., Ep. 0585), then comes et praeses Isauriae in 359 AD (Socr., HE 02, 39, 06; Socr., HE 02, 40, 09; Soz., HE 04, 22, 02; Epiph., Adv. haeres., 73, 25) when Constantius Augustus and Iulianus Caesar ordered him to bring an end to the plundering of latrones on the Isauric coasts (CIL 03, 06733 = ILS 0740 = Conti 2004, nr. 15) that were hampering both movement and trade (Russo 2012). Ammianus (Amm. 19, 13, 02) provided a report of these events defining Lauricius as rector to which the appointment of comes rei militaris (adiecta comitis dignitate) was added in order to suppress the latrones (ad sedandos). Cayla believes that Lauricius became consularis Cypri after his office in Armenia in 357 AD, and before he was sent to Isauria in 359 AD (Cayla 2018, p. 270). But according to the Ordo Dignitatum (see Not.Dign. Or. 01, 37, Not.Dign. Or. 01, 50, Not.Dign. Or. 01, 63) Lauricius must have been governor of Cyprus before he was promoted comes Armeniae, that is to say before 357 AD. Moreover, Cayla (1997, pp. 73-74) identified the Musonia[----] on the second line of the inscription as the praetorian prefect of the East Musonianus, in service between 354 and 358 AD (see below), a high imperial official whose civil duties included the supervision of the restoration of public buildings, which is more plausible than a munificent lady posing as a redditor.

Strategius Musonianus (PLRE I, pp. 611-612), whose nomen Claudius we learn via this inscription, is well attested elsewhere. The abbreviated nomen of Musonianus, Cl(audius) – in Greek Κλ(αύδιος) – also appears on the inscription of the prefect’s statue base in Hierapolis (PPRET 43, l. 2), and on his inscription from the Dodekatheon / summa cavea of the Theatre of Hierapolis (PPRET 44, Block 12).

Musonianus was probably a native of Antioch (Lib., Or. 01, 080). He does not appear to have been a senator by birth and at the beginning of his career, he served as comes of Constantine, who employed his services in various religious affairs. In a passage of Ammianus Marcellinus’ Res Gestae (Amm. 15, 13, 02), we read that Constantine ordered Strategius, who was gifted in facundia sermonis utriusque, to investigate the followers of some religious sectae, some of whom were known to be Manichaeans. It is hard to date this event, it presumably happened between 324 and 337 AD.

The historian (Amm. 15, 13, 01-02) also stated that thanks his abilities as an interpreter carried out during his appointment, Constantine conferred upon him the second name of Musonianus, a hapax from the Greek μοῦσα 'eloquence'. Libanius also attests to the genealogy of his name (Lib., Ep. 0580) while a speech of Hymerius (Hym., Or. 62, 06) addressed to the inhabitants of Constantinople, referred to a man who had been named after the Muses and who was a devotee of culture and who governed the city at that time - surely this must be Musonianus the proconsul of Constantinople (Penella 2007, pp. 38-39; Barnes 1987, p. 220; for this charge, see below). Woods (2001, p. 263) and Minale (2013, p. 649) argued that Ammianus was merely attributing to Constantine his own personal thoughts, connecting the name Musonianus to an eponym of the Muses.

There are however different opinions about how many and which languages Musonianus could actually speak. Woods (2001, pp. 261-262) and Adams (2003, p. 10, nt. 31) argued that Ammianus’ expression facundia utriusque sermonis clarus referred to an officer who was obviously well-versed both in Greek and Latin, the languages of the imperial administration. Drijvers (1996, pp. 535-537) and Minale (2013, pp. 652-654) differ. They believe that Musonianus’ employment in a religious inquiry concerning communities made up of Aramaic and Syriac speakers (i. e. Manicheans whose sacred writings were in Aramaic and Syriac, see Minale 2013, p. 657) and later in a diplomatic mission with the Persians (see below) would suggest a gifted linguist capable of speaking also other languages in addition to Greek and Latin (or only Greek and Aramaic according to Drijvers 1996, but this is hard to believe). They assumed that the officer had acquired some kind of expertise that would make him suitable for these assignments: perhaps it was his knowledge of Aramaic, since Antioch, his native city, was a centre of cultural and commercial exchanges.

After the Council of Nicaea, Constantine had sent his trusted comes of perfectissimus rank Strategius (326-327 AD) to participate to the provincial synod in order to ensure that peace was being maintained in Antioch after the unrest following the election of a new bishop (Eus., Vit. Const., 03, 59, 03; Eus., Vit. Const., 03, 62, 01). Upon the identification of this Strategius scholars are divided. Drijvers (1996, pp. 534-535) assumes that they were, in fact, two different people, since in Ammianus’ account Constantine did not even seem to know who Strategius was, when he was recommended to him for the mission mentioned above (Amm. 15, 13, 02). And yet Eusebius portrays Strategius as a trusted member of the imperial entourage. Only Ammianus’s Strategius can be trusted to be ‘our’ Musonianus, since coming from Antioch himself, the historian must have known him. Conversely, Woods (2001, pp. 255-264) identifies them as being the same person, but in so doing he assumes that Ammianus, when recounting the inquiry into Manicheism, was referring to the same council of Antioch in 327 AD that Eusebius did. But there were other ecclesiastical councils.

Recently Minale (2013, pp. 649-673) assumed that the investigation into the Manicheans, an event that Ammianus could hardly confuse (Minale 2014, p. 336, nt. 12), would be connected with the religious situation in the eastern part of the empire when the Christological controversy was arising, just before the Council of Nicea. Thanks to his familiarity with Aramaic or indeed with the province of Syria, Musonianus was asked to delve into the Manichaean doctrine, to examine its texts, rites and communities of which Constantine had only vague knowledge. The second distinct event reported by Eusebius also involved Strategius Musonianus and was both linked and contemporary (or shortly after) to this investigation (Minale 2014, p. 352).

Thanks to these important assignments under Constantine, Strategius could have become a point of reference for religious matters in the eastern part of the empire. When he was comes under Constantius II, he partecipated in the Council of Serdica in 343 AD as a representative of the emperor, speaking in favour of the Arians (Athan., Hist. Ar. 15; Athan., Apol. c. Ar. 36), a group which he seems to have belonged to (Athan., Fug. 36, 04; Barnes 1993, p. 72).

Musonianus was probably in lower Egypt as vir perfectissimus praeses Thebaidis in 349 AD, a mission probably connected to the problematic levying of corn for the troops on the Persian fronts (Groag 1946, p. 35; Moser 2018, p. 185; differently in PLRE I, p. 611). He lacked senatorial rank, but his closeness to the emperor nonetheless granted him the prestige necessary to succeed.

Musonianus probably became the first proconsul of Constantinople in 350 AD after Magnentius’ usurpation (it cannot be precisely dated, but the advancement was certainly before 352-353 AD; Barnes 1987, p. 220). During this office at Constantinople, where a faction supported Vetranio or Magnentius, he had the difficult mission of keeping the city under Constantius’ control (Them., Or., 04, 80). He was awarded the rank of clarissimus. He was then promoted to proconsul of Achaea during the war against Magnentius in 352-353 AD (Lib., Or. 01, 081; Moser 2018, p. 186).

Strategius finally gained the praetorian prefecture as of 354 AD (before July, 25^th succeeding Domitianus; CTh 08, 05, 05; Amm. 15, 13, 01; Lib., Or. 01, 106) to 358 AD (before August, 24^th, when Hermogenes replaced him, Lib., Ep. 0021; Amm. 19, 12, 06). In 354 AD, he prepared a trial in Antioch against those who had caused the death of Theophilus the consularis of Syria: Ammianus described Strategius as a capable administrator, but also as a greedy and corrupt man, who acquitted, in exchange for a fee, the real criminals, sentencing instead the innocent (Amm. 15, 13, 02); a fact omitted by Libanius (Lib., Ep. 0497, 01). He was a friend and correspondent of the pagan sophist Libanius, who wrote him some letters and referred to him in many others (see the list in Petit 1994, pp. 236-240).

During the absence of Constantius II from the East after the execution of Gallus in the autumn of 354 AD, Musonianus was the main reference point of the administration of the eastern provinces, a role he carried out, according to the literary sources, with wisdom and initiative (Amm. 16, 09, 02-03; Amm. 16, 10, 21). Indeed, Musonianus undertook an important embassy to arrange a peace with the Persians (Amm. 16, 09, 02-04, see Lee 1993, pp. 106-112 and Seager 1997, pp. 254-255) in 356 AD (so Scholten 1998, p. 458) or in the beginning of 357 AD (PLRE I, p. 611; Blockley 1992, p. 18). His embassy was a personal initiative from which Constantius II later distanced himself, although he admitted it was done in the public interest, when two years later Shapur asked for the return of Armenia and Mesopotamia and threatened to attack (Amm. 17, 05, 12). It is hard to believe that the praetorian prefect had taken such an important decision of foreign diplomacy on his own or, if it really had happened, that he did not suffer any consequence of it. According to Blockley (1992, pp. 18-23) and Seager (1997, p. 255) it was an isolated and unauthorised enterprise and there are no reasons to doubt Ammianus’ account. More plausibly, Scholten (1998, pp. 454-467) affirmed that it is unlikely that the prefect had acted unbeknownst to Constantius, since there was an effective control system upon these diplomats and their initiatives. Moreover, a contemporary speech of Themistius (Them., Or., 04, 57) reports that Constantius himself had started negotiations with the Persians and that Musonianus had only had an executive role in it. Libanius too (Lib., Ep. 0430; Lib., Ep. 0513; Lib., Ep. 0514) clarifies that the emperor was always informed about these events and that the prefect always acted according to the emperor’s wishes. More recently Marcos (2012, pp. 507-510) argued that it is unlikely that Constantius would have allowed the prefect unauthorized negotiations with the Persians, and, that if Musonianus really was guilty of insubordination, Ammianus would not have omitted it. It is possible, therefore, that these negotiations constitute an instance of backchannel diplomacy approved by Constantius.

Libanius (Lib., Or. 02, 52) also records building activity in Cyprus after the earthquakes that struck the island. Archaeologists here confirm that the port area was rebuilt after strong earthquakes between 332 and 342 AD, since rebuilds dating to the second half of the 4th Century are visible in the architectural remains (Cayla 2018, p. 270).

The restoration of the buildings that were destroyed by fire in Cyprus, not to mention the intervention at Hierapolis (PPRET 44) are examples of building projects supervised by Musonianus as praetorian prefect. These renovations responded to precise imperial orders. Officials who undertook new building projects before fulfilling their duties of restoring the existing public ones incurred penalties. It is unlikely that our aedificium in Cyprus was the first building to be restored by Musonianus during his praetorian prefecture (Cayla 1997, p. 75).

The current archaeological knowledge of the area surrounding the lighthouse of Kato (Paphos) does not allow us to formulate concrete hypotheses about the nature of the public building referred in our inscription. In all likelihood, the restoration had to do with one of the public buildings identified during excavations in the Kato area: a theatre, an Asclepion and a Gymnasium (Karageorghis 1977, pp. 773-774).

As for the chronology of this monument, according to Cayla (1997, p. 75-76; 2018, p. 270) it is possible to fix a terminus post quem at 357 AD, that is to say up until Bassidius Lauricius was in Armenia. A terminus ante quem can be placed between the end of 358 AD and the beginning of 359 AD, when Musonianus completed his mandate of praetorian prefect and Bassidius Lauricius was sent to Isauria. Nevertheless, Kantirea (2013, p. 117) does not exclude that Bassidius Lauricius could have been the consularis of Cyprus before his post in Armenia (as suggested above), between 354-357 AD, coinciding with the first years of the praetorian prefecture of Musonianus. If this were the case - and we suspect that it is -, then the inscription should be placed in this time frame.

Strategius Musonianus retired from his post in Antioch in 358 AD (Lib., Ep. 0378) and moved to Constantinople, where he died at some point before February, 11^th 371 AD, since the constitution CTh 13, 05, 14 referred to him as vir clarissimae memoriae.

Bibliography

Adams J.N., Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge 2003.

Barnes T.D., Himerius and the Fourth Century, CPh, 82, 1987, 206-225.

Barnes T.D., Praetorian Prefects, 337-361, ZPE, 94, 1992, 249-260.

Barnes T.D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, Cambridge (Mass.)-London 1993.

Blockley R.C., East Roman Foreign Policy: Formation and Conduct from Diocletian to Anastasius, Leeds 1992.

Cayla J.B., Bassidius Lauricius gouverneur de Chypre? Une nouvelle hypothèse à propos de la restauration d'un monument incendié à Paphos (PL. XXIII), CCEC, 27, 1997, 71-76.

Cayla J.B., Les inscriptions de Paphos: la cite chypriote sous la domination lagide et à l’époque impériale, Lyon 2018.

Conti S., Die Inschriften Kaiser Julians, Stuttgart 2004.

Deligiannakis G., The Last Pagans of Cyprus: Prolegomena to a History of Transition from Polytheism to Christianity, in Horster M., Nicolaou D., Rogge S. (eds.), Church Building in Cyprus (Fourth to Seventh Centuries). A Mirror of Intercultural Contacts in the Eastern Mediterranean, Münster 2018, 23-44.

Drijvers J.W., Ammianus Marcellinus 15, 13, 1-2. Some Observations on the Career and Bilingualism of Strategius Musonianus, CQ, 46, 1996, 532-537.

Groag E., Die Reichsbeamten in Achaia in spätrömischer Zeit, Budapest 1946.

Kantirea M., Gouverneurs, évêques et notables de Chypre au Bas-Empire, in Benoist S., Hoët-van Cauwenberghe C. (éd.), La vie des autres: Histoire, prosopographie, biographie dans l’Empire romain, Villeneuve d'Ascq 2013, 113-127.

Karageorghis V., Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1976, BCH, 1977, 707-779.

Lee A.D., Information and Frontiers: Roman Foreign Relations in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 1993.

Marcos M., Some Notes on the Backchannel Communications of the Prefect Musonianus with the Persians, Historia, 61, 2012, 507-510.

Minale V.M., Strategio Musoniano, un funzionario poliglotta?, in Cascione C., Masi Doria C., Merola G.D. (a cura di), Modelli di un multiculturalismo giuridico. Il bilinguismo nel mondo antico. Diritto, prassi, insegnamento, Napoli 2013, 649-673.

Minale V.M., Costantino, Strategio Musoniano e i Manichei: ancora su Amm. Marc. Res Gestae 15.13.2, in Randazzo S. (a cura di), Religione e diritto romano. La cogenza del rito, Tricase 2014, 332-356.

Mitford T.B., Further Contributions to the Epigraphy of Cyprus, AJA, 65, 1961, 93-151.

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.

Penella R.J., Man and the Word: The Orations of Himerius, Berkeley 2007.

Petit P., Les fonctionnaires dans l'oeuvre de Libanius: Analyse prosopographique, Paris 1994.

Russo C.A., La difficile realtà dell’Isauria tardoantica: il caso dei latrones, Antesteria, 1, 2012, 475-481.

Scholten H., Römische Diplomatie im 4. Jh. n. Chr. Eine Doppelstrategie des Praefectus praetorio Orientis Musonianus?, Historia, 47, 1998, 454-467.

Seager R., Perceptions of eastern frontier policy in Ammianus, Libanius, and Julian, 337-363, CQ, 47, 1997, 253-268.

Woods D., Strategius and the "Manichaeans", CQ, 51, 2001, 255-264.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit