Provenance and location

Ancient city: Hierapolis
Modern city: Pamukkale (Turkey)
Province: Phrygia Pacatiana
Diocese: Asiana
Regional prefecture: Oriens
Provenance: Hierapolis, found in the orchestra of the theatre, among the blocks fallen from the scaenae frons and the cavea
Current location: Hierapolis, behind the scaena of the theatre
Ancient location: public space

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Honorary for the praet. prefect Claudius Strategius Musonianus

Greek text

Critical edition

Edition based on Ritti 2017, p. 640

2: [Μ]ουσωνιανό[όν]: AE 2011, 1340

Translations

Anglais

(from LSA 2501)

“To Good Fortune. The council and the people of the metropolis of the Hierapolitans (honour) Claudius Musonianus, the prefect of the sacred praetorium of clarissimus rank, their benefactor and founder. With good fortune!”

Français

(from AE 2011, 1340)

“À la Bonne Fortune. Le Conseil et le Peuple de la métropole d’Hiérapolis (ont consacré la statue de) Cl(audius) Mousônianos, le clarissime préfet du sacré prétoire, leur bienfaiteur et fondateur. Heureux succès!”

Italien

“Alla Buona Fortuna. Il Consiglio e il popolo della metropoli degli Ierapoliti (onorano) Claudius Musonianus, il chiarissimo prefetto del sacro pretorio, loro benefattore e fondatore. Buona Fortuna!”

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

This cubic marble statue base still preserves the lower moulding (there was probably an identical one at the top with a plinth supporting the statue), but it is broken along the entirety of its left side, and the upper rim is chipped. Nevertheless, the inscribed field is almost complete (LSA 2501). The monument, published for the first time by Tullia Ritti in 2007 (Ritti, Miranda, Guizzi 2007, p. 610; cf. Ritti 2011, pp. 186-188; Ritti 2017, pp. 640-644) was found in the orchestra of the theatre of Hierapolis, among blocks that had fallen from the scaenae frons and the cavea (originating from the lower or middle diazoma). The monument is now exhibited behind the scene of the theatre.

On the inscription the Council and people of Hierapolis, which boasts the title of metropolis, honoured the praetorian prefect of clarissimus rank Claudius Musonianus as benefactor and founder (εὐεργέτην καὶ κτίστην, ll. 7-8) (on his career, see PPRET 42). The gentilicium Strategius is omitted, but the nomen Claudius, already identified by Cayla in 1997 in the inscription of Paphos concerning the restoration of a burned building (PPRET 42), is attested here and again on the Dodekatheon inscription which is also in Hierapolis (PPRET 44).

The dedication consists of a few and brief lines of prose and, except for the initial and final formulas, it differs from the Greek epigraphic tendencies of the mid 4th Century, which generally tend to adopt poetic compositions with hyperbolic formulas and literary references to honour high imperial officials in the East (for example the coeval epigram for the vicar Magnus by the people of Hierapolis, see Ritti 2017, pp. 621-624; for Greek verse inscriptions to praetorian prefects see PPRET 21; PPRET 26; PPRET 87; PPRET 91; for Greek inscriptions by cities, see PPRET 29; PPRET 52; PPRET 61).

Furthermore the civil authorities did not express the reasons of their gratitude, which was probably related to the appreciation of the praetorian prefect’s good government or to some benefits obtained (maybe related to taxation, see LSA 2501). According to Ritti (2011, p. 188), the choice of conciseness might be connected to its proximity to a monumental inscription for the restoration of the Dodekatheon of Hierapolis, in which the praetorian prefect Musonianus was already extensively praised by the same civic authorities, especially the βουλὴ, with longer eulogistic formulas (το[ῦ θαυ]μασιωτατου καὶ πάσης εὐφημ[ί]ας ἀξίου, τὴν μεγάλην ἐξου[σίαν ἐπαρχική]ν τοῦ ἱεριοῦ πραιτωρίου κατακοσμοῦντος, see PPRET 44). If the praetorian prefect received this statue base for the same work of restoration, perhaps they also wanted to honour such a benevolent official individually and in a more traditional way, whose statue already expressed his greatness its own right (see below). However, it is equally plausible that Musonianus won the praise of the city of Hierapolis for more specific reasons and not for the restoration project.

Ritti (2011, pp. 188-189) associated the marble statue base to a discovery made in 1975 of a portrait head found at the left side of theatre’s scaenae frons. The identification seems to be confirmed by the dating which was established even before the base had been discovered: Bejor (1991, pp. 34-36) dated the head stylistically to the 4th Century and surmised that it may well have been contemporary with the restoration of the theatre (352 AD, see PPRET 30). This portrait shows a mature jowly man with a clean-shaven face, short, curly hair, receding at the temples, a large hooked nose and a double chin (LSA 2502). If the head really does belong to the lost statue of Musonianus, then these physical features would, in effect, correspond to the age that he presumably would have had during his praetorian prefecture (more than fifty years old). Such a lifelike representation might have been a deliberate choice, a ploy aimed at displaying the integrity and refined culture of a high imperial dignitary (Ritti 2017, p. 644, for the attestation of his high culture and bilinguism, see PPRET 42). Since the body of the statue, made separately from the head, is unfortunately lost, we do not know if he was represented in civilis habitus (see PPRET 24; PPRET 75) emphasizing his senatorial dignitas and apparently in line with the traits of his face, or in military garb (as occurred for Flavius Philippus in Chalcedon, see Lyd., Mag., 02, 09, 06, cf. PPRET 27), referring to the military nature of the office during which he won the gratitude of Hierapolis (Ritti 2011, p. 190).

Since his office is mentioned explicitly, the monument can be dated to between 354-358 AD, when Musonianus was praetorian prefect of the East (see PPRET 42). However, Ritti (2017, pp. 642-643) argued that the base and its statue were made immediately after the end of his office because, according to the instructions of Augustus (Dio. 56, 25, 06) and to a constitution in the Justinian Code (CI 01, 24, 01), officials were not allowed to receive honours during their mandate, only at its end and only after sixty days (unless the honour was granted by an imperial beneficium).

Bibliography

Bejor G., Le statue. Hierapolis: scavi e ricerche 3, Roma 1991.

Ritti T., Andriantes kai eikones ... met’epigraphes oikeias. Contributi dell’epigrafia ieropolitana di età imperiale alla conoscenza delle opere figurative, in D’Andria F., Romeo I. (eds.), Roman Sculpture in Asia Minor: Proceedings of the International Conference to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Italian Excavations at Hierapolis in Phrygia, Held on May 24-26, 2007, in Cavallino (Lecce), Portsmouth 2011, 173-192.

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

Ritti T., Miranda E., Guizzi F., La ricerca epigrafica: risultati dell’ultimo quadriennio e prospettive future, in D’Andria F., Caggia M.P. (a cura di), Hierapolis di Frigia, I. Le attività delle campagne di scavo e restauro, 2000-2003, Istanbul 2007, 583-618.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit