Inscription in honour of the praet. prefect Flavius Philippus from Chytri (Cyprus) by Constantius II Aug. and Gallus Caes. (gilded statue)
source date: 351/352 AD
edition published: 2020-03-27
availability: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Domini nostri, Constantius victor ac triumfator, semper Augustus, et , nobilissimus Caesar pro virtutum meritis et laborum quos in praefectura emensus est, viro clarissimo Filippo, praefecto praetorio, statuam ex aere fusam, auro condecoratam, conlocari iusserunt.

This edition follows CIL 03, 00214.

“Our masters Constantius, victorious and triumphant, forever Augustus, and Flavius Claudius Constantius, the most noble Caesar, because of the merits of (his) virtues and the labours he undertook during his prefecture, ordered (this) statue to be set up, cast in bronze and decorated with gold, to Philippus, the praetorian prefect of clarissimus rank.”

“Nos seigneurs Constantius, Vainqueur et Triomphateur, toujours Auguste, et Flavius Claudius Constantius, très noble César, ont ordonné que cette statue, coulée en bronze et décorée en or, soit élevée en l’honneur du clarissime Philippus, préfet du prétoire, pour les mérites de ses vertus et des fatigues qu’il a enduré pendant sa préfecture.”

“I nostri sovrani Constantius, Vincitore e Trionfatore, sempre Augusto, e Flavius Claudius Constantius, nobilissimo Cesare, ordinarono che questa statua, fusa in bronzo e decorata in oro, fosse posta al chiarissimo prefetto del pretorio Philippus per i meriti delle sue virtù e delle fatiche che sopportò durante la prefettura.”

The inscription is carved within a marble slab that was broken into two separated fragments and joined to a golden bronze statue base. The slab was discovered by Waddington in Kythrea in Cyprus, but it is unfortunately now lost and there is no photographic reproduction of it, except for a fac-simile in CIL 03, 00214.

The inscription of Chytri records the erection of a gilded statue in honour of the praetorian prefect Flavius Philippus (PLRE I, Philippus 7, pp. 696-697), a prestigious reward for his virtuous devotion and self-sacriﬁce (for gilded statues to praetorian prefects, see also PPRET 46; 48; 51; the first one was put up in 179/180 AD for M. Bassaeus Rufus in Trajan’s Forum, now CIL 06, 41141 = CIL 06, 01599 = CIL 06, 31828 = ILS 1326 = EDR 093411; for late metallic statues see PPRET 24; 57; 58).

Statues of Philippus were decreed by the Emperor Constantius II as a sign of gratitude for the former’s tireless work and the many risks the prefect had incurred. Apart from the recent discovery of the inscription at Perge (PPRET 29), the inscription from Chytri is the only one of series to have survived. Constantius II communicated his decision to offer gilded statues in honour of Philippus by means of a letter to his provincial administrators. A copy of this letter survives in an inscription of Ephesus (PPRET 28), and everything suggests that in many cities, the inscription on the statue base for Philippus and the copy of Constantius II’s letter to his administrators sat side by side.

Constantius’ decree ordered several golden statues of Philippus to be erected in the most prominent cities of the empire (PPRET 28, l. 31: in opimis urbibus), coinciding, in this case, with the eastern provinces that were under Constantius’ control and that fell under Philippus’ prefecture (Ephesus, PPRET 28; Perge, PPRET 29 and 31; cf. Hierapolis, PPRET 30). Since Chytri was a minor city tucked away in the hills of Cyprus, and since Constantius’ order specified “leading cities”, it has been assumed - without any other supporting evidence - that Philippus must have been a native of the place in order to justify such a location (see Swift, Oliver 1962, p. 260). Since the criterion by which the cities were chosen it is not mentioned, the final decision may well have been left to the provincial governors (Porena 2003, pp. 493-496). Thanks to the recent discovery at Perge (PPRET 29) and the literary attestation of a statue from Chalcedon (see below), it might be that these monuments were a little more widely spread than was first thought. Chytri may not necessarily have anything to do with Philippus’ origin (see Ritti 2017, p. 649). It is possible that the two rectangular sections of our slab copied from Waddington, but deprived of the inner strip, were cut from a base originally placed, for example, in Salamina, and brought to Chytri as building material (Deligiannakis 2019, p. 766).

The inscription from Chytri summarizes the qualities of Philippus that were also celebrated in Constantius’ letter to Marinus from Ephesus (l. 6: pro virtutum meritis et laborum, cf. PPRET 28, ll. 1 and 24 virtus; ll. 5 and 30 merita; ll. 5, 29, 36 labor). The inscriptions appear to be contemporaneous and ought to be dated to Constantius Gallus’ rule as Caesar (351-354 AD), whose name was erased at Chytri (l. 4) in or after 354 AD. But new important information contained within the unpublished imperial speech from Perge suggests an even narrower chronology, i.e. 351/352 AD (see PPRET 31). The qualities of Philippus, glowingly described in the Ephesus letter, appear to be explicitly linked to the Chytri inscription (l. 7), which would have supported a statue of the dignitary, dressed in the praetorian prefect’s garb (for the use of praefectura to indicate the mandate of the honorand, see PPRET 16, l. 3; PPRET 60, l. 4; PPRET 93, l. 31).

According to Libanius, Flavius Philippus was of humble origins (Lib., Or. 42, 24-25). Despite having a father who was merely a “sausage-maker” (ἐχόρδευεν), Philippus was able to make his way into the Senate by virtue of his abilities as a shorthand writer. Under Constantius II it was not unknown for people of lower class to become senators because of their practical skills (Domitianus, Helpidius, Taurus and other praetorian prefects). Jones (1964, pp. 538-572), Dagron (1974, pp. 170-172) and recently Ritti (2017, p. 645), have all pleaded for the creation of a new oriental aristocracy made up of members of the lower class. Such a thesis, based largely on the evidence of Libanius, has been attacked by Skinner (2013, pp. 17-53), who challenges the idea of social mobility, especially from the lower classes to the highest levels of the imperial administration in the East. As Rendina (2020, pp. 47-48) states, Philippus was an imperial notarius who played an increasingly crucial role in Constantius II's court. Not only was his a position of great trust, it was a position that acquired ever greater significance under Constantine and Constantius II, which would, to some extent, explain his elevation to the praetorian prefecture.

Nothing about his career before the prefecture was previously known. Thanks to Constantius II’s Oratio ad Senatum from Perge (see PPRET 31) still unpublished, we now know that Philippus was entrusted with the cura palatii under Constantine and continued his service under Constantius (Feissel 2016, p. 1224; Moser 2018, p. 106). Perhaps, he became Constantius’ close associate and military consultant, when Constantine’s son was Caesar, then, much more when Philippus was appointed praetorian prefect, nearly ten years later. He is attested as praetorian prefect of the East in July 346 AD (CTh 11, 22, 01, on the constitution see Cuneo 1997, p. 146). His service might even have started earlier. Socrates’ account of the expulsion of the orthodox bishop of Constantinople Paul at the hands of Philippus, though not explicitly dated, may suggest a beginning of Philippus’ prefecture in the second half of 344 AD (Socr., HE 02, 16; cf. PLRE I, Philippus 7, p. 696; Barnes 1992, p. 254; Barnes 1993, p. 86; this solution would leave no room for a praetorian prefecture of Maiorinus in 344-346 AD: cf. PPRET 26). How long his office lasted is a matter of debate. He still appeared to be in office in September 349 AD (CTh 03, 13, 01; CTh 08, 13, 01; CTh 08, 13, 02; Cuneo 1997, pp. 188-190) and succeeded in combining his praetorian prefecture with the consulate in 348 AD (CLRE, pp. 230-231). He was still praetorian prefect in 350 AD, when he carried out his duty of προστασία concerning the approval and supervision of the restoration of the theatre of Hierapolis (τῶν ἱερῶν πραιτωρίων ἐπάρχου προστάξαντος, PPRET 30), a phase preceding the building works that continued until around 352 AD (for a contrary view see Ritti 2017, pp. 645-650, who assumed Philippus was in charge until the completion of the work, when the inscription and the prefect’s name were carved, and so also Moser 2018, pp. 204-205).

In 351 AD, Zosimus attests to Philippus being at the side of Constantius II in Sirmium during the Illyrian war against the usurper Magnentius, but not as praetorian prefect (Zos. 02, 46, 02: τῶν ἐν μεγίστοις ἀξιώμασιν ἄνδρα καὶ φρονήσει προέχοντα). With the two armies stuck in a stalemate, Constantius II sent Philippus as ambassador to the military camp of Magnentius in order to negotiate a peace settlement (actually a ruse to establish the size and moral of Magnentius’ army). Still according to Zosimus, Philippus, conscious of his diplomatic immunity, went so far as to openly reproach Magnentius’ soldiers for their ingratitude towards Constantius (Zos. 02, 46, 03), whereupon Magnentius had him taken prisoner, violating the ambassador’s immunity and breaking off negotiations in the process (Zos. 02, 47, 01-02). When Philippus accompanied his master to Sirmium (probably as comes) he was no longer praetorian prefect of the East, since he would not have been able to fulfill his functions while serving Constantius II in Pannonia. Someone must have immediately taken his place.

His successor could be Thalassius (PLRE I, Thalassius 1, p. 886), who, according to the Passio Artemii (Pass. Art. 12), was appointed praetorian prefect of the East, before becoming, together with the quaestor Montius, the confidant and counsellor of Constantius Gallus, elevated to Caesar on March 1st 351 AD (on Montius, see PLRE I, Magnus 11, pp. 535-536; cf. Castello 2011, pp. 145-185). Nevertheless, this literary source is in conflict with the account of Zosimus (Zos. 02, 48, 05) who attests to Thalassius being an imperial comes (τὰ πρῶτα παρὰ βασιλεῖ φέροντες) immediately before the battle of Mursa (September 28th 351 AD), at Constantius II's camp in Sirmium, where the comes refused to attend a banquet in the imperial tent to express his concern over Constantius’ acceptance of Magnentius’ treatment of the envoy Philippus (cf. Drinkwater 2007, p. 147). In effect, both Ammianus (Amm. 14, 01, 10) and Libanius (Lib., Ep. 0016) only record the presence of Thalassius at Antioch as praetorian prefect of the East in 352 AD (Barnes 1992, p. 255). Since the quaestura of Montius Magnus is also dated to 352 AD by all the other literary sources, the chronology of the Passio Artemii, which rightly identifies Thalassius and Montius’ offices, is probably wrong (so Castello 2011, pp. 158-159). It is highly likely, therefore, that Thalassius was appointed praetorian prefect in 352 AD, like Montius, when after the battle of Mursa Constantius II left for the West and entrusted the Caesar Gallus (resident in Antioch) to their care. Therefore, provided that this reconstruction is correct, between the end of Philippus’ mandate and the beginning of that of Thalassius, perhaps there was another praetorian prefect for the East in 351 AD, whose name is unfortunately unknown (a potential candidate is Maiorinus: cf. PPRET 26).

Philippus is not attested at his master’s side at the battle of Mursa (September 351 AD), where Constantius II defeated Magnentius, and the literary sources cease talking about him after his embassy. Only Athanasius (Athan., Hist. Ar. 07) claims that Philippus was deposed and that he died destitute and in exile, after he himself had been responsible for exiling (350 AD) and killing (351 AD) Paul the Bishop of Constantinople. Given Athanasius’ hostility to Constantius in the Arian controversy, the veracity of this account is questionable. Indeed, many scholars have hypothesized that the unfortunate prefect actually died at the hands of Magnentius, or perhaps that he was killed trying to escape from the camp, or even that Constantius himself had had a role in his death, believing that Philippus (due to his absence) had betrayed him during his diplomatic mission. As a consequence, some scholars have concluded that the honours and statues Philippus received were only posthumous monuments in order to restore his reputation once the emperor changed his mind (Jones 1955, p. 232; PLRE I, pp. 696-697; AE 1973, 525; Vogler 1979, p. 137; Kelly 2004, p. 189; Maraval 2013, p. 190; Deligiannakis 2018, pp. 33-34).

Actually, the recent epigraphic evidence concerning Flavius Philippus contradicts Athanasius, as does our inscription from Chytri. Indeed, we can find no evidence of any posthumous rehabilitation in any of the inscriptions, as one would expect for such a public act (see Moser 2018, p. 202). If Philippus was heaped in praise and had golden statues erected in his honour it was simply because Constantius II (and Gallus Caesar) deemed him worthy of them. Thanks to the Oratio ad Senatum from Perge (PPRET 31), Feissel (2016, p. 1224) clarifies that his merits were related to the courageous role he played during the campaign against Magnentius. Probably in the immediate aftermath of the battle of Mursa (that is, after September 351 AD), Constantius II ordered the erection of this series of statues to Flavius Philippus.

Indeed, another proof of his enduring fame is given by the 6th Century antiquarian John Lydus, who reported that a statue in military garb (with the gladius) of Philippus could still to be seen in Chalchedon (Lyd., Mag., 02, 09, 06):

“Ξίφος δὲ διεζώννυτο ἀνέκαθεν ὁ ὕπαρχος, οἷα καὶ τῶν ὅπλων ἔχων τὴν δύναμιν· καὶ τοῦτο δυνατὸν αὐταῖς ὄψεσιν ἐπί τοῦ παρόντος εὑρεῖν εἴ γέ τις φιλάρχαιος ὢν ἐπί τὴν Καλχηδόνα περαιωθεὶς τὴν Φιλίππου τοῦ ὑπάρχου εἰκόνα καταμάθοι.”

“From the beginning the prefect girded himself with a sword inasmuch, in fact, he had power over arms; and this can be found out at the present time with one’s very eyes if, that is, one who is a lover of antiquities should cross over to Chalchedon and observe the statue of Philippus the prefect.” (transl. Bandy 1983, pp. 96-99)

This passage demonstrates once again that Philippus did not suffer any misfortune and his statues were still exhibited almost two centuries later. Unlike most of the non-imperial late antique statues, the one of Philippus is represented not in habitus civilis, but girthed in the military belt with an attached sword, a direct reference to the original military duties of a praetorian prefect (statues of prefects in habitus civilis in PPRET 24; PPRET 75). On the basis of this source, Moser assumes that the military appearance of this particular statue was limited to this city (2018, p. 206), although it is equally possible that the decree of Constantius demanded militaristic statues as a symbol of imperial military might. When placed in the context of the civil war and all the precarity that went with it, such a series of public monuments demonstrates how important such figures were in propping up the imperial cause. If our dating is correct, then Philippus had already ceased being praetorian prefect when he received these honours and had already completed his dangerous embassy to Magnentius. Philippus was portrayed as praetorian prefect because the office was the highest position he acquired during his career. Such honours also underline just how important the praetorian prefecture was in the 4th Century. The appointment demanded a great deal of trust, carried with it huge responsibilities and was not without danger. The heroic Philippus is thus represented as a ‘fighting’ prefect, at the top of his senatorial career, the right-hand man of Constantius II. As a consequence, his statues were intended to inspire others to emulate his loyalty and faith and in so doing receive rewards for their devotion towards emperors.

According to Moser (2018, pp. 203-205), although Philippus survived his imprisonment at the hands of Magnentius and was thus able to follow his master to Gauls in 353 AD, he died in disgrace, being convicted of treason, after the final victory of Constantius II.

Flavius Philippus had important descendants: his nephew Anthemius was the praetorian prefect of the East (405-414 AD), the grandson of whom would be Procopius Anthemius, Western Roman Emperor from 467 to 472 AD (for a detailed study of this family, see Rendina 2020, pp. 50-71; on the prefect Anthemius, now Rendina 2021).

Le Bas, Waddington 1870a, p. 639, nr. 2769 Le Bas, Waddington 1870b, p. 633, nr. 2769 CIL 03, 00214 ILS 0738 Swift, Oliver 1962, pp. 259-260

CIL 03, 00214 (fac-simile)

EDCS 22300114 LSA 863 TM 495412

Bandy A.C., Ioannes Lydus, on Powers, or the Magistracies of the Roman State, Philadelphia 1983 Barnes T.D., Regional Prefectures, in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1984-1985, Bonn 1987, 13-23 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 Castello M. G., Il quaestor Montius e il vicarius Fl. Magnus: alcune riflessioni sul reclutamento del funzionariato sotto Costanzo II, Historikà, 1, 2011, 145-185 Cuneo P.A., La legislazione di Costantino II, Costanzo II e Costante (337-361), Milano 1997 Dagron G., Naissance d'une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451, Paris 1974 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 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 Drinkwater J.F., The Alamanni and Rome 213-496 (Caracalla to Clovis), Oxford 2007 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 Jones A.H.M, The Career of Flavius Philippus, Historia, 4, 1955, 229-233 Jones A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. A Social Economic and Administrative Survey, Oxford 1964 Kelly C., Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge 2004 Laniado A., L’aristocratie sénatoriale de Constantinople et la préfecture du prétoire d’Orient, in Morrisson C., Sodini J.-P. (éd.), Constantinople réelle et imaginaire. Autour de l’œuvre de Gilbert Dagron, Paris 2018, 409-454 Le Bas P., Waddington W., Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grece et en Asie Mineure, III/1, Paris 1870(a) Le Bas P., Waddington W., Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure: Explication des inscriptions grecques et latines recueillis en Grèce et en Asie Mineure, septième partie, Ile de Cypre, Paris 1870(b) Maraval P., Les fils de Constantin: Constantin II (337-340), Constance II (337-361), Constant (337-350), Paris 2013 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 Porena P, Le origini della prefettura del pretorio tardoantica, Roma 2003 Rendina S., L'inarrestabile ascesa di una famiglia orientale, in Oppedisano F. (a cura di), Procopio Antemio imperatore di Roma, Bari 2020, 45-71 Rendina S., La prefettura di Antemio e l'Oriente romano, Pisa 2021 Rinaldi G., Antiochia nel secolo quarto: interazioni tra pagani e cristiani e note prosopografiche, SMSR, 81, 2015, 21-69 Ritti T., Hierapolis di Frigia. IX. Storia e istituzioni di Hierapolis, Istanbul 2017 Skinner A., Political Mobility in the Later Roman Empire, P&P, 218, 2013, 17-53 Swift L.J., Oliver J.H., Constantius II on Flavius Philippus, AJPh, 83, 1962, 247-264 Vogler C., Constance II et l' administration impériale, Strasbourg 1979 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

[statua]m ex aere fusam, aur[o cond]ecoratam

pro virtutum [meritis] et laboru[m] quos in p[raefectur]a emensu[s est]

viro clar[issimo]

pr[aef(ecto)] praetorio