Greek verse inscription in honour of Tatianus praet. prefect from Aphrodisias by a descendant of the same name (rehabilitation)
source date: 430/450 AD
edition published: 2021-05-14
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/)

1-2[^1] τίς; πόθεν; ἐκ Λυκίης μέν, | ἀριστεύσας δ’ ἐνὶ θώκοις | 3-4[^2] Τατιανὸς θεσμοῖς τε δίκης | πτολίεθρα σαώσας· | 5-6[^3] ἀλλά με πανδαμάτωρ χρόνος | ὤλλυεν, εἰ μὴ ἐμὸς παῖς | 7-8[^4] ἐξ ἐμέθεν τρίτατος καὶ | ὁμώνυμος ἔργα θ’ ὅμοιο̣ς 9-10[^5] ἐκ δαπέδων ἀνελὼν | στήλης ἔπι θῆκεν ὁρᾶσθαι | 11-12[^6] πᾶσιν ἀρίζηλον ναέταις | ξείνοισει θ’ ὁμοίως | 13-14[^7] Καρῶν ἐκ γέης ὃς ἀπήλασε | λοίγιον ἄτην | 15-16[^8] τὴν δὲ δίκην μερόπεσσιν | ὁμέστιον ὤπασ’ ἐπεῖναι | 17-18[^9] πεμφθεὶς ἐκ βασιλῆος | ἔθ’ ἁδομένοισιν ἀρωγός.

[^1: Verse 1]

[^2: Verse 2]

[^3: Verse 3]

[^4: Verse 4]

[^5: Verse 5]

[^6: Verse 6]

[^7: Verse 7]

[^8: Verse 8]

[^9: Verse 9]

Edition based on the text edited by Merkelbach, Stauber 1998 (SGO 01), nr. 02/09/24 and Iaph2007 5.218 (with photo)

“Chi sono ? Da dove vengo ? Sono Tatianus, dalla Licia, che ha primeggiato sui seggi dei dignitari, e che ha salvato le città per mezzo delle leggi della Giustizia. Ma il tempo che domina tutte le cose mi avrebbe distrutto se il mio rampollo, la terza generazione dopo di me, che porta il mio nome e che mi è simile nell’agire, non mi avesse sollevato da terra e non mi avesse posto su un monumento, in modo che potessi essere visto e ammirato da tutti, abitanti del luogo e stranieri allo stesso modo; egli che allontanò la rovina fatale dalla terra dei Cari e che ha portato la Giustizia a dimorare fra i mortali, quando fu inviato dall’imperatore come difensore alle persone che ancora gioiscono.”

(based on Roueché 1989)

“Who am I ? Where am I from ? I am Tatianus, from Lycia, who excelled in the seats of high officials, who saved cities through the laws of Justice. But the time which dominates all things would have destroyed me if my progeny, the third generation after me, who bears my name and who is similar to me in her deeds, had not lifted me up from the ground and placed me on a base, so that I might be seen and admired by all, local citizens and strangers alike; he who drove fatal decay away from the land of the Carians and who brought Justice to dwell among mortal men, when he was sent by the emperor as a protector to the people who still rejoice.”

“Qui suis-je ? D’où est-ce que je viens ? Je suis Tatianus, de Lycie, qui excellait dans les sièges des dignitaires, et qui a sauvé des villes grâce aux lois de la Justice. Mais le temps qui domine toutes choses m’aurait détruit si mon descendant, la troisième génération après moi, qui porte mon nom et qui me ressemble par ses actions, ne m’avait pas soulevé de terre et placé sur un monument, afin que je sois vu et admiré de tous, locaux et étrangers; lui qui a chassé les ruines fatales du pays des Cariens et qui a fait régner la Justice parmi les mortels, lorsqu’il a été envoyé par l’empereur comme défenseur du peuple qui se réjouit encore.”

(German translations by Merkelbach, Stauber 1998, p. 246, and Liverani 2015, pp. 107-108)

The inscription was found in 1905 in the ancient city of Aphrodisias, Caria (today near the modern village of Geyre, Turkey) by G. Mendel (1873-1938), who was responsible for the french archaeological mission in Turkey (1904-1914). The inscription, chiselled onto the central moulded panel of a statue-base, was discovered in the southern side of the East forecourt (the so called Palaestra Court) of the Hadrianic Baths (on the findspot of the base see http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004/iPlans/0001/03.html; Smith 2007, fig. 42, B 42), where the monument is currently located (so Iaph2007 5.218 and LSA 0193 J. Lenaghan 2011; on the honorary statuary and inscriptions in Aphrodisias and in the Hadrianic Baths, see PPRET 82).

The inscription was copied by A. Boulanger (1886-1958) in 1913, and his copy – and copies of other aphrodisian inscriptions transcribed in Boulanger’s notebook, yet unpublished – was offered to L. Robert (1904-1985). In 1946 Mr and Mrs Robert carried out an autopsy of the inscription at Aphrodisias, and after comparing their reading with Boulanger’s transcription, the greek text was published in 1948 in “Hellenica” IV (pp. 47-49). However, the best autoptic edition of the inscription, complete with translation, commentary, photographs was published by Ch. Roueché (1989, pp. 63-67).

The inscription is complete and consists of 9 hexameters, which in the epigraphic field are well arranged in 18 hemistichs (only in l. 15 does the last letter overhang the moulded edge). The second hemistich of each verse (at the beginning of the even-numbered lines) recedes to the right from the edge of the epigraphic field (for further information on the layout and the metric system of this type of verse inscription, see Agosti 2010; also Roueché 2006). This layout was perhaps intended to favour the reading and perhaps a loud recitation (declamation) of the epigram. According to custom, quite common in late antique Greek epigraphy, the inscription contains a monologue attributed to the statue itself, the vertibable ‘talking statue’ (on the relationship between editor, inscribed text and reader in late Greek and Latin epigraphy, cf. Liverani 2014 and 2015; concerning the difficulties of a late antique reader actually understanding the inscription, cf. Wueste 2019, pp. 238-243; regarding the popularity of Greek epigrams in the later eastern Empire, see Agosti 2019).

The verse inscription is in honour of Flavius Eutolmius Tatianus, who held the post of praetorian prefect of the East from 388 AD and 392 AD, and who crowned his career with the ordinary consulship in 391 AD. As we shall see, in 392/393 AD Tatianus had his property confiscated, endured damnatio memoriae and was sent into exile. Relating the rise and fall of Tatianus, this inscription was aimed at rehabilitating his memory, perhaps more than fifty years after his demise (on Tatianus, see PLRE I, pp. 876-878; for the inscritpions concerning his prefecture, see PPRET 82, 83, 84 the three from Aphrodisias; 85, 86, 87 listing his cursus honorum, 88 and 90 on his prefectural activity. For the inscription in honour of his son Proculus, see PPRET 89). Although our inscription from Aphrodisias does not explicitly mention the praetorian prefecture of Tatianus, it is also true that late antique metrical inscriptions in Greek do not list the single steps of a whole cursus honorum (on late antique epigraphic habit in Asia Minor, cf. Mitchell 2017, pp. 276-277). The monument was put up by a descendant with the intention of celebrating the career of Tatianus in a high style epigram. The descendant was, in fact, the governor of Caria and he put up the monument in the provincial capital, Aphrodisias. For simplicity we shall refer to him as Tatianus iunior.

The inscription is divided into three parts. In the first part (ll. 1-4) the text declares the identity, origin and merits of the personage being honoured, namely (Eutolmius) Tatianus, who is portrayed in the statue above the base. In the second part (ll. 5-12) the text describes the rebuilding of the honorary monument to Tatianus by his homonymous descendant (Tatianus iunior) in Aphrodisias, after the original monument had been demolished at the time of Tatianus’ damnatio. In the third part (ll. 13-18) the text celebrates the merits of the dedicator, Tatianus (iunior) governor of Caria. The transition between the first and second and between the second and third parts is marked by a visible blank space on the right-hand side of lines 4 and 12.

The first part

In l. 1, after a rhetorical question, the statue declares the identity and origin of the honoured personage, Tatianus the Lycian. The importance of this noble family in Lycia was still evident in 5th Century Caria (an explicit reference to the Lycian origin of Tatianus and his son can also be found in PPRET 89 and 90; a list of the literary sources citing his Lycian origin can be found in PPRET 87, which also pertains to a monument erected in honour of the praetorian prefect from Sidyma in Lycia). The condemnation of Tatianus and his son Proculus in 392/393 AD did not eliminate the family nor diminish its standing within the eastern aristocracy: members of Tatianus’ family had close ties with the future emperor Marcianus in 422 AD, one became a prefect of Constantinople in 450-452 AD, another formed part of a patrician embassy in 464 AD, while another obtained the ordinary consulship in 466 AD (see below; sources in PLRE II, pp. 1053-1054 and CLRE, pp. 466-467; on this family cf. Scharf 1991; Watts 2017; on the imperial aristocracy of the East cf. Cabouret 2020, pp. 41-66). It seems likely that the compression of the power of Tatianus’ family (senior) to the confines of a single region (Lycia) after 392 AD was followed in the first half of the 5th Century by a period of stasis. However, it would appear that after the death of emperor Theodosius II and the rise of Marcianus, they gained new ground, a bounce back that was marked by their return to Constantinople.

In ll. 2-4, Tatianus is declared to be a man who had held the highest offices and a savior of cities. With regard to Tatianus’ administration saving cities (πτολίεθρα σαώσας, l. 4), this juxtaposition effectively echoes a quote by Libanius (Lib., Decl. 38, 04): τοῖς ἀριστεύουσι, παρ’ὧν ἡ σωτηρία τῇ πόλει. Libanius speaks extensively in his letters of what he believes should be the goal of a good prefect, that is to say, to be a savior for the cities he governs. The salvation of cities ought to be the desirable goal of prefects like Tatianus, whose qualities should be guaged not only in their ability to choose the right staff for the provincial administration (cf. Tantillo 2012), but also in their political activity (see Lib., Ep. 0872, Lib., Ep. 0990 and Lib., Ep. 0992, with Pellizzari 2017, pp. 58-60, 244-250; see also Pellizzari 2011; Cassia 2016). Another inscription from Aphrodisias, made by the provincial council, celebrates the praetorian prefect of the East Anthemius (405-414 AD, see PLRE II, pp. 93-95) for saving the cities and the whole province (cf. Roueché 1989, nr. 36 = LSA 0224: [σ]ῴζων γὰρ ὁμοῦ δήμους τε πόλεις τε | ῥύσαο καὶ Καρῶν τάξιν ἀπολλυμένην, from the eastern Gate of the South Agora).

In ll. 2-3, the periphrasis on Tatianus’ excellence in the seats of high officials alludes to a successful career spanning thirty-four years. Between 358 and 364 AD he worked as a lawyer and counselor, then from around 364 to 392 AD, he served as a high ranking official. Tatianus’ cursus honorem included being appointed praeses Thebaidos (364-366 AD), praefectus Aegypti (367-370 AD), consularis Syriae (370-373?), comes Orientis (before 374 AD), comes sacrarum largitionum at court (374-380 AD), then praetorian prefect of the East (388-392 AD). In 391 AD Tatianus received the highest appointment of all, that of consul (CLRE, pp. 316-317) while he was still in office as praetorian prefect (in an inscription from Sidyma in Lycia, likely his homeland, his entire career is recorded in ascending order of importance from praeses/ἡγεμών to praefectus praetorio/ἔπαρχος; His career are analysed in PPRET 87; for a synthesis of Tatianus’ career, see Seeck 1906, pp. 285-288; Ensslin 1932a; PLRE I, pp. 876-878; Delmaire 1989, pp. 62-67; Petit 1994, pp. 240-243; Olszaniec 2013, pp. 394-407). In 388 AD, Theodosius I recalled Tatianus from retirement and appointed him praetorian prefect of the East (Zos. 04, 45, 01). Tatianus’ policies as praetorian prefecture can be assertained from thirty-seven laws of the Theodosian Code. Furthermore, Libanius makes thirty references to him in his letters and speeches (concerning the politics of Tatianus, see Mecella 2015). In 388 AD, shortly before leaving for the campaign against the usurper Magnus Maximus, the emperor appointed Tatianus’ son, Proculus, urban prefect of Constantinople. Proculus enjoyed an exceptionally long urban prefecture, lasting four years (388-392 AD), when the average tended to be just one to two (PLRE I, pp. 746-747 Proculus 6; see also PPRET 89). Theodosius I remained in the West until July 391 AD, when he returned to Constantinople. At this point the emperor’s attitude changed radically, which takes us to the second part of the Aphrodisias’ epigram.

The second part

In ll. 5-6 and 9-10, the inscription attributes to the oblivion of time the decision of Tatianus (iunior), governor of Caria, to pick Tatianus’ (senior) statue up off the ground (ἐκ δαπέδων ἀνελὼν) and place it well in view on an inscribed base (στήλης ἔπι θῆκεν ὁρᾶσθαι). These neutral expressions conceal or cautiously suggest a very serious affair: the trial and conviction of Tatianus, former praetorian prefect and former consul, in 392/393 AD.

About one year after Theodosius I returned to Constantinople (July 391 AD), the magister officiorum Rufinus (PLRE I, 778-781) used administrative documents to discredit the two prefects, in the eyes of the emperor. Both father and son were removed from office and tried, it seems, for corruption or crimen maiestatis. Rebenich (1989) has reconstructed the chronology of events, basing his analysis on Zos. 04, 52 (Paschoud 1979, pp. 321-322, 449-452; Engl. transl. by Ridley 1982, p. 95), the most detailed source. Between June 30th 392 AD (CTh 12, 01, 127 the last correctly dated constitution of the praetorian prefect Tatianus) and August 26th 392 AD (CTh 08, 06, 02 the first constitution of his successor as praetorian prefect of the East, Rufinus), Tatianus was suddenly deposed as praetorian prefect of the East and replaced by Rufinus. Before Tatianus’ trial began, Proculus fled. Probably in the Autumn of 392 AD (or in September ?) proceedings against Tatianus began: false promises induced Tatianus (perhaps deceived by Rufinus) to persuade by letter his son to return. We are uncertain whether the proceedings against Tatianus were suspended. Promised safety, Proculus was persuaded to return to Constantinople. Maybe in the Winter of 392/393 AD, Proculus was arrested and the trial against Tatianus resumed. His trail ended in early 393 AD with a death sentence that was commuted to exile in Lycia and confiscation of property (in addition to Zosimus, see Eun. fr. 59 Müller = 57 Blockley). At the same time, Proculus was imprisoned and tried; in the Autumn of 393 AD, he was sentenced to death. He was executed on December 3rd 393 AD at Sykai near Constantinople and his father was obliged to attend (Chron. Pasch. A. 393, p. 565 Dindorf = MGH AA 09, Chron. Min. 01, p. 245; Christian authors dwell on the sorrow of the fall of the pagan Tatianus, cf. Asterius, Hom. 04, 09, 01, p. 43 Datema [= PG 40, 224C-225A]; Phot., Cod. 258, p. 484 Bekker. On these events, cf. Rebenich 1989, pp. 159-163; Olszaniec 2013, pp. 400-402; Mecella 2015, p. 55). Many measures issued by Tatianus and Proculus during their terms of office were annulled by the Emperor Theodosius I (CTh 09, 42, 12; CTh 09, 42, 13; CTh 11, 01, 23; CTh 12, 01, 131; CTh 14, 17, 12, June/November 393 AD). The sudden fall of Tatianus and Proculus and the long trials against them led to their names being erased from many inscriptions (for those of Tatianus, see PPRET 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, but not on Tatianus’ inscription from Sidyma, see PPRET 87, and Canopus, see PPRET 90). In 396 AD, having killed the praetorian prefect Rufinus, the emperor decreed that no infamy should befall the clients of Tatianus, recruited mainly in the province of Lycia (CTh 09, 38, 09, on August 31st 396 AD, cited above, with Mecella 2015, in part. p. 58 nt. 26). Only fifty years later Tatianus appears to be rehabilitated in an honorary inscription from Aphrodisias (Caria) made by his omonymous grandson in his memory (PPRET 91). Also the name of Tatianus’ son, Proculus, was restored on the base of the obelisk of Theodosius I in Constantinople after having suffered a damnatio memoriae. The inscription from Aphrodisias suggests that besides erased inscriptions, the condemnation of Tatianus and Proculus also involved the removal and destruction or reuse of individual monuments raised to the former praetorian prefect and probably to his son. C. Roueché (1989, p. 64) rightly points out that our epigram recalls the ‘restoration’ of a monument in honour of Tatianus, perhaps erected in Aphrodisias by the city or the provincial council and then removed when the former prefect was sentenced in 393 AD at the latest (on the provincial Council of Caria cf. Filippini 2016). On the other hand, it seems very difficult for the expression in ll. 9-10 about the restoration of a base and a statue that had fallen to the ground to be true. Wherever the first monument to Tatianus was erected in Aphrodisias, it could not have remained on the ground in a public space for long (concerning the reuse of spolia in late antique Aphrodisias, cf. Öğüş 2018). The base and the statue erected by Tatianus (iunior) must have been new productions, made to order and placed in the East forecourt of the Hadrianic Baths. To speak of the restoration of an honorary monument is incorrect. This is a new monument to replace the previous one that had been removed for political reasons, made by a descendant of the honoured personage (concerning official monuments to praetorian prefects that were removed from their public places and then put back, see PPRET 46, 48; the posthumous rehabilitation of a praetorian prefect condemned by damnatio can be found in PPRET 93. Concerning inscriptions from Ephesus that deal with the restoration of statues, cf. Rendina 2020, pp. 58-59).

In ll. 6-8, the inscription provides the first three important pieces of information about the identity of the author of the new monument: a) his name was Tatianus (ὁμώνυμος); b) he was a third generation descendant of Tatianus (senior, the honoured man), or a third generation descendant including Tatianus (senior, the honoured man), or a third generation descendant to bear that name since Tatianus’ depiction in the statue (ἐξ ἐμέθεν τρίτατος; on the third generation’s importance in the degree of Roman nobility, cf. Cabouret 2020, p. 45); c) he performed actions similar (ἔργα θ’ ὅμοιος) to those of his eponymous ancestor portrayed in the statue: it is unlikely that the actions refer to a career similar to that of the honoured personage (the senior former praetorian prefect and consul), who was indeed exceptional, while the awarder (iunior) seems only to have been the governor of Caria at the time the inscription was written. The similarity between the actions of the ancestor and the descendant relates to justice and effectiveness (common themes when praising governors in late antique epigraphy, see Robert 1948, cf. Hoster 1998, p. 40; on governors’ virtues in verse inscriptions, cf. Gehn 2012, pp. 243-274). These themes characterise the third part of the epigram.

The third part

In l. 13, at the beginning of the third part (ll. 13-18), the inscription provides the fourth piece of information about the awarder, Tatianus (iunior): he was the governor of the province of Caria (Καρῶν ἐκ γέης), probably when the monument to Tatianus was dedicated in Aphrodisias, which was the capital of that province. As said, this part celebrates the justice (δίκη, l. 15) of the governor (a subject typical of Greek epigraphy in honour of dignitaries, see above). Recently, Rendina (2020, pp. 54-56) has noted the similarities in the structure, family links and exaltation of justice between our epigram of Aphrodisias and the epigram of Hypaipa in Lydia in honour of Fl. Anthemius Isidorus proconsul Asiae in 405/410 AD (PLRE II, pp. 631-633), son of the powerful praetorian prefect of the East Anthemius (PLRE II, pp. 93-95; see IK 17.02, Ephesus 07/02, nr. 3820 = SGO 01, 03/04/01 = LSA 0240); the son, proconsul, imitates the qualities and style of government of his father, the praetorian prefect. But another important inscription has more striking similarities, because it was composed in the context of the posthumous rehabilitation of a praetorian prefect (of Italy-Illyricum-Africa) also struck by damnatio. An interesting parallel can thus be drawn with the inscription relating to the rehabilitation of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus senior (see PPRET 93). In 431 AD, thirty-seven years after the senator’s suicide (following the battle of the Frigidus River in September 394 AD), a new monument was erected in Rome in Trajan’s Forum to rehabilitate the memory of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus senior. Again, the dedicator was a grandson of the honoured person, Appius Nicomachus Dexter (PLRE II, pp. 357-358), and the honorary inscription also celebrated the son of Flavianus senior, the homonymous and at that time elderly Nicomachus Flavianus iunior (PLRE I, pp. 345-347). In Rome, as in Aphrodisias in the first half of the 5th Century AD, the descendants of a praetorian prefect subject to damnatio were deep engaged for the full public and official rehabilitation of the career of their ancestors, whose monuments had been removed. In the inscription for Flavianus senior in Rome, the emperor Valentinianus III’s letter to the senate was engraved below the honorary dedication, bestowing praise upon both Flavianus senior and his son Flavianus iunior. Similarly in the more modest monument in honour of Tatianus senior at Aphrodisias, the third part of the inscription also praises the descendant of the honoured personage. In these posthumous monuments created decades after the death of senators, who, for whatever reason had fallen into disgrace, their descendants associated praise for their ancestor with praise for themselves.

Scholars do not agree on the identity of Tatianus (iunior), governor of Caria, and his relationship to the Tatianus (senior) honoured at Aphrodisias.

Libanius (Ep. 899, cf. Pellizzari 2017, pp. 94-95) clearly states that the son of the (anonymous) daughter of Tatianus (senior, i.e. the former praetorian prefect of 388-392 AD and consul of 391 AD, later honoured in Aphrodisias) was named Tatianus, and that in 388 AD, he was a pupil of Libanius in Antioch. Proculus (see PPRET 89) was thus not the only child of Tatianus (senior), since he also had a daughter and an omonymous grandson through her. A further complication is that a conspicuous number of 5th Century (years 450/466 AD) sources refer to a Tatianus, but the references are never explicitly linked to each other, nor are they associable with the same man. Some scholars have ascribed all these sources to the same Tatianus. According to them he was the grandson of the former praetorian prefect and consul of 391 AD and also the author of the inscription from Aphrodisias. His career would be reconstructed as follows (cf. Seeck 1906, p. 288; Ensslin 1932b; PLRE II, pp. 1053-1054; Livrea 1997, p. 43; Begass 2018, pp. 238-240, nr. 198. Robert 1948, pp. 53-53 merely identifies Tatianus, author of the Aphrodisias inscription with his grandson, son of a daughter of Tatianus senior, when he was governor of Caria without indicating career and chronology).

Born around 370/375 AD, in 422 AD Tatianus (iunior) and his brother Iulius (PLRE II, p. 642) engratiated themselves with the future emperor Marcianus, who had fallen ill in Sidyma (Lycia), while returning from the Persian campaign. By taking care of the young officer in their homeland, the two brothers benefitted from the former’s rise to power (Theoph., Chron., A.M. 5943, p. 104 De Boor; Cedr., I, p. 603 Bekker; Nic. Call., HE 15, 01, PG 147; Zon. 13, 24, III, p. 245 Dindorf; cf. Brodka 2012). As soon as Marcianus ascended the throne after the death of Theodosius II in 450 AD, he married Pulcheria and appointed Tatianus urban prefect in Constantinople (up to at least August 452 AD; the sources can be found in PLRE II, pp. 1053-1054; cf. Dagron 1974, pp. 272-273; Iulius was appointed praeses Lyciae, or, according to Scharf 1991, p. 228, praetorian prefect of Illyricum). If this Tatianus was the author of our inscription, then its terminus ante quem has to be 450 AD, since Tatianus (iunior) had to be governor of Caria before becoming prefect of Constantinople. In this case, the expression in line 7 of the inscription of Aphrodisias (ἐξ ἐμέθεν τρίτατος) must refer to the third generation including Tatianus (senior). According to these scholars, in 464/466 AD, Emperor Leo I sent the same Tatianus, now promoted patrician, as an ambassador to the Vandals (Prisc., fr. 31 Müller = 31 Blockley). Then, in 466 AD, according to the western sources, he was made consul (cf. CLRE, pp. 466-467); probably around the same period the emperor Leo I came into conflict with Ardabur Aspar (PLRE II, pp. 164-169) over Tatianus and Vivianus, praetorian prefect of the East and consul of 463 AD (Candidus, p. 135 Müller = fr. 1 Blockey, from Phot., Cod. 79, p. 55 Bekker). Either the consul Tatianus fell into disgrace, or, as Scharf argues (1991, p. 229), he was appointed consul during an embassy to the emperor Libius Severus in the West, only for a dispute to arise about it on his return in 466 AD.

This reconstruction that recognises only one acting senator is invalidated by the biological age of this Tatianus: if he was a pupil of Libanius in 388 AD, then he must have been born around 375 AD. If he attained the governorship of Caria around the age of fifty-five/sixty and no earlier, then he must have been prefect of Constantinople around the age of seventy-five, ambassador at eighty-five and consul around ninety.

Other scholars have proposed more balanced reconstructions. Roueché (1989, pp. 64-66) thinks that the pupil of Libanius in 388 AD was the prefect of Constantinople in 450-452 AD and was also the father of Tatianus governor of Caria, author of the monument to Tatianus (senior) in Aphrodisias. The Tatianus, awarder of the monument at Aphrodisias, would be the great-grandson of the omonymous senator honoured in the Hadrianic Baths; he could, then, be the patrician and ambassador to the Vandals in 464/466 AD. Similarly Scharf (1991, pp. 226-229) agrees that the author of the monument in Aphrodisias could be the great-grandson of Tatianus (senior), i.e. the son of the prefect of Constantinople, while the ambassador and patricius of 464/466 AD could be the former city prefect of the year 450/452 AD, who most likely was also the consul of 466 AD (appointed by the emperor Liberius Severus in the West). Recently, Olszaniec (2013, pp. 403-405) also opined that the son of Tatianus prefect of Constantinople, also called Tatianus, the great-grandson of Tatianus (senior), could have been governor of Caria and thus the man behind the monument at Aphrodisias for his great-grandfather Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus. However, Olszaniec leaves open the question of the identity of the patricius and ambassador in 464/465 AD as that of the consul of 466 AD.

According to a second group of scholars, it is proposed that Tatianus (iunior), awarder of the monument to Tatianus (senior) in Aphrodisias was the son of the prefect of Constantinople and the great-grandson of the senator honoured in the Hadrianic Baths (the praetorian prefect of the East and consul of 391 AD). So, the expression in line 7 of the Aphrodisias inscription (ἐξ ἐμέθεν τρίτατος) signifies that Tatianus (iunior) was the third generation after Tatianus (senior), i.e. son, grandson, great-grandson of the honoured man.

The date of the inscription remains uncertain. It is possible that Tatianus (iunior) was governor of Caria when his father obtained the prefecture of Constantinople in 450 AD; he must have been at least forty to fifty years old at that time. If one assumes an eclipse of the family during the Theodosian dynasty, the appointments could not have been made by the emperor Marcianus before 450 AD. However, it is not impossible that Tatianus, grandson of the consul of 391 AD, and future prefect of Constantinople, together with his brother Iulius, future praetorian prefect of Illyricum, and the young Tatianus, who dedicated the monument to his great-grandfather in Aphrodisias, all attained provincial governorships in Asia Minor before 450 AD, and that they all attained the high prefectures only in 450 AD, thanks to the new emperor, Marcianus. For the sake of caution, we propose to date the inscription from Aphrodisias between 430 and 450 AD. Public rehabilitation in a province devoted to the family of the former eastern praetorian prefect of 388-392 AD, Eutolmius Tatianus, would have taken place at least thirty-five to forty years after the senator’s sentence (similarly for Nicomachus Flavianus senior at Rome in 431 AD, see PPRET 93).

Two final notes concerning the inscription of Aphrodisias.

Livrea (1997) thinks that in 450/452 AD the empress Eudocia made an allusion to one of the (pagan) Tatiani in the preface to Patricius Bishop’s Ὁμηρόκεντρα / Homerocentones (Praef. l. 19, pp. 83-86 Ludwich = pp. 1-2 Usher; cf. Usher 1997, in part. p. 314; on this literary genre cf. Polara 1990; on Eudocia, cf. now Motta 2016). In his opinion, the two Tatiani, the one honoured, the other awarder in the Aphrodisias inscription, are well known mid 5th Century poets: Tatianus (iunior) would be the actual author of the verse inscription from Aphrodisias, continuing the tradition of the Homeric centons of his grandfather Tatianus (senior; cf. Lib., Ep. 0990), while the latter could be the author of four epigrams of the Anthologia Graeca, attributed to a Ευτολμίου σχολαστικοῦ ἰλλουστρίου (AP 06, 086; AP 07, 608; AP 07, 611; AP 09, 587).

A problem in the reading and of interpretation in l. 16: Robert (1948) reads ὤπασε πείνᾳ, as does Livrea (1997). The latter think that a reference to “hunger” recalls the topos of justice and privation: the absolute poverty of the administrator appears to guarantee his probity. Christian sources say that Tatianus ended his life whilst still in disfavor and in deprivation. Indeed, Photios writes that he spent his last years as a blind beggar (Phot., Cod. 258, p. 484 Bekker; cf. Asterius, Hom. 04, 09, 01, p. 43 Datema [= PG 40, 224C-225A]). Merkelbach (1970) suggested that πείνᾳ stood for ποινᾷ, with the meaning of punishment. Following this interpretation the verse could be translated: “he gave justice to mortals, which is the companion of punishment”, because, according to Merkelbach, one of the most important virtues for a governor was the μισοπονηρία, i.e. hatred of evil. Peek (1954) conjectured ὤπασ’ ἐπεῖναι, which seems to be the most plausible hypothesis: “he gave justice to live among mortals”.

Robert 1948, pp. 47-48 (with photo Pl. VII) = AE 1949, 0219 = BE 1949, 178 Peek 1954, pp. 217-218 (limited revision of the Robert edition) = SEG 15 (1958), 0661 Merkelbach 1970, p. 132 = BE 1971, 616 Roueché 1989, nr. 37 (with photo Pl. X) Livrea 1997, p. 43 = BE 1998, 646 = SEG 47 (1997), 1555 SGO 01, 02/09/24 Hedrick 2000, p. 129 Agosti 2010, p. 81 (with photo tav. 5a) Liverani 2015, p. 107 Wueste 2019, p. 238 (with photo, Fig. 3)

ALA2004 37 IAph2007 5.218 LSA 193 PH 257612 TM 856033

Agosti G., Eisthesis, divisione dei versi, percezione dei cola negli epigrammi epigrafici in età tardoantica, Segno e Testo, 8, 2010, 81-82 Agosti G., Greek Epigram in Late Antiquity, in A Companion of Ancient Epigram, ed. C. Henriksén, Blackwell 2019, 597-614 Begass C., Die Senatsaristokratie des oströmischen Reiches, ca. 457-518. Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, München 2018 Brodka D., Priskos von Panion und Kaiser Marcian. Eine Quellenuntersuchung zu Procop. 3,4,1-11, Evagr. HE 2,1, Theoph. AM 5943 und Nic. Kall. HE 15, 1, Millennium, 9, 2012, 145-162 Cabouret B., La société de l'Empire romain d'Orient, IVe-VIe siècle, Rennes 2020 Cassia M., Una città da “curare”. Antiochia nell’epistolario di Libanio, Historikà, 4, 2016, 243-266 Dagron G., Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451, Paris 1974 Delmaire R., Les responsables des finances impériales au Bas-Empire romain (IVe-VIe s.). Études prosopographique, Bruxelles 1989 Ensslin W., Tatianus 3, in RE IV A 2, Stuttgart 1932a, coll. 2463-2467 Ensslin W., Tatianus 4, in RE IV A 2, Stuttgart 1932b, coll. 2467-2468 Filippini A., Fossili e contraddizioni dell’«èra costantiniana»: i dignitari del culto imperiale nella Tarda Antichità e il loro ruolo nelle ‘riforme religiose’ di Massimino Daia e Giuliano, in Kaiserkult in den Provinzen des Römischen Reiches. Organisation, Kommunikation und Repräsentation, hrsg. A. Kolb, M. Vitale, Berlin-Boston 2016, 409-475 Gehn U., Ehrenstatuen in der Spätantike. Chlamydati und togati, Wiebaden 2012 Hedrick C.W., History and Silence: Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity, Austin 2000 Horster M., Ehrungen spatantiker Statthalter, Ant Tard, 6, 1998, 37-59 Liverani P., Chi parla a chi ? Epigrafia monumentale e immagine pubblica in epoca tardoantica, Using Images in Late Antiquity, Oxford-Philadelphia 2014, 3-32 Liverani P., Spätantike Ehrenstatuen zwischen Distanz und Dialog, in Leibhafte Kunst. Statuen und kulturelle Identität, hrsg. D. Boschung, C. Vorster, W. Fink, Paderborn 2015, 93-122. Livrea E., I due Taziani in un’iscrizione di Afrodisia, ZPE, 119, 1997, 43-49 Mecella M., L’amministrazione di Taziano e Proculo e il destino dei Lici tra Teodosio e Arcadio, in Governare e riformare l’impero al momento della sua divisione: Oriente, Occidente, Illirico Roma, 2015, 51-84 Merkelbach R., Epigramm aus Aphrodisias, ZPE, 6, 1970, 132 Merkelbach R., Stauber J., Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, I, Die Westküste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1998 Mitchell S., The Christian Epigraphy of Asia Minor in Late Antiquity, in The Epigraphic Culture of Late Antiquity, Stuttgart 2017, 271-286 Motta D., Eudocia Augusta: fra leggenda, politica e religione, in Donne, istituzioni e società fra tardo antico e alto medioevo, a cura di F. Cenerini, I.G. Mastrorosa, Lecce 2016, 115-145 Öğüş E., Urban Transformations at Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: Destruction or Intentional Preservation ?, in Reuse and Renovation in Roman Material Culture. Functions, Aesthetics, Interpretations, eds D.Y. Ng M. Swetnam-Burland, Cambridge 2018, 160-185 Olszaniec S., Prosopographical Studies on the Court Elite in the Roman Empire (4th Century AD), Toruń, 2013 Paschoud F., Zosime, Histoire nouvelle, II/2 (Livre IV), Paris 1979 Peek 1954-1955: W. Peek, Πείρατα τέχνης. Grundsätzliches und Kritisches zu neuen Büchern über griechische Epigramme. IV, Halle – Wittenberg 1954-1955 Pellizzari A., «Salvare le città»: lessico e ideologia nell’opera di Libanio, Κοινωνία, 35, 2011, 45-61 Pellizzari A., Maestro di retorica, maestro di vita. Le lettere teodosiane di Libanio di Antiochia, Roma 2017. Petit P., Les fonctionnaires dans l’œuvre de Libanius. Analyse prosopographique, Besançon 1994 Polara G., I centoni, in Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, III, La ricezione del testo, a cura di G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina, Roma 1990, 245-275 Rebenich S., Beobachtungen zum Sturz des Tatianus und des Proculus, ZPE, 76, 1989, 153-165 Rendina S., L’inarrestabile ascesa di una famiglia orientale, in Procopio Antemio, imperatore di Roma, a cura di F. Oppedisano, Bari 2020, 45-71 Ridley R.T., Zosimus, New History. A translation with commentary, Canberra 1982 Robert L., Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques, IV, Epigrammes du Bas-Empire, Paris 1948 Roueché Ch., Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, London 1989 Roueché Ch. Written Display in the Late Antique and Byzantine City, in Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, ed. E. Jeffreys, Aldershot 2006, 235-254 Scharf R., Die Familie des Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus, ZPE, 85, 1991, 223-231 Seeck O., Die Briefe des Libanius zeitlich geördnet, Leipzig 1906 Smith R.R.R., Statue life in the Hadrianic Baths at Aphrodisias, AD 100-600: local context and historical meaning, in F.A. Bauer, C. Witschel (eds), Statuen und Statuensammlungen in der Spätantike - Funktion und Kontext (Spätantike, Frühes Christentum, Byzanz: Kunst im ersten Jahrtausend), Wiesbaden 2007, 203-236 Tantillo I., “Dispensatore di governatori”: a proposito di una dedica a un prefetto del pretorio di Gortina (IC IV 323), Riv. Filol. Istr. Class., 140, 2012, 407-424 Usher M.D., Prolegomenon to the Homeric Centos, AJPh, 118, 1997, 305-321. Watts E., The Lycians are coming: the career of Patricius, the Father of Proclus, in Proclus and his Legacy, eds D.A. Layne, D.D. Butorac, Berlin-New York 2017, 137-145 Wueste E. Managing multiple conversations: the multileveled communication of Late Antique Honorific Monuments and Epigraphy, in Communicating through the Material in the Ancient World, eds E. Cole, A. Mandell, Rolling Hills Estates (CA) 2019, 229-251

ἀριστεύσας δ’ ἐνὶ θώκοις Τατιανὸς θεσμοῖς τε δίκης πτολίεθρα ξαώσας