Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Inschriften von Magnesia 192 revisited
Slater, William J
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1996; 37, 2; ProQuest
pg. 195

I nschriften von Magnesia 192 
Revisited 

William]. Slater 

I
N AN EARLIER ISSUE of this journal I dealt with this inscrip­
tion. 1 whose interest resides in its apparent recording of the 
first pantomime contests in the east. Having been informed 

by a vigilant referee of the probable existence of a squeeze from 
the previous century, I was able in an addendum to confirm 
that the stone could not in fact refer to Isthmian and Pythian 
pantomime contests, as Kern and Louis Robert had postulated. 
That was all that was important for my argument there. But an 
invitation to speak at Hamburg allowed me to visit Berlin in 
October 1996 and to go over the squeezes of the two frag­
ments with the eagle-eyed Dr Klaus Hallof, who presides over 
the IG archives in Unter den Linden. It was immediately 
apparent that Robert's persuasive emendation of Kern's 
nOIHLIN to Y]nOKPILIN was also not possible. for Kern's 
reading is clear.2 At that point, it seemed to me that the whole 
inscription was about a poet and not about a pantomime. 

Dr Hallof. however, was more patient than I. especially 
because it seemed to him from the squeezes that the two 
fragments joined. as I had already speculated. In November, he 
responded to my offprint by sending two extraordinarily 
careful transcriptions of the bottom and top of the two 
fragments, which is the basis for figure 1 (p. 196). It was evident 
that the supplement [Ao,nel]/ou 'OullPou, previously unques­
tioned. was impossibly long for the space. and my colleague 
Claude Eilers immediately suggested the palmary [SE]/OU. At 

1 "The Pantomime Tiberius Iulius Apolaustus, n GRRS 36 (1995) 266-71. I 
seize the opponunity to correct two misprints: at p.270 read 163 for 164 for the 
marriage of Verus; and at p.275 read 180 for 183 for the accession of Com­
modus. There is an unnoticed piece of evidence that the koina of Asia were 
penteteric in the late first century in I G V.l 658. 

2 As I have no experience in reading squeezes, it is perhaps worth noting 
that even an amateur can see the letters. 

195 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

196 I.MAGNESIA 192 REVISITED 

Figure 1 (Courtesy David Meadows). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

WILLIAM J. SLATER 197 

this point the inscription took on new interest, for a reference 
to divus Verus solved the problem of the date. 

In order to simplify a reconstruction, both transcripts were 
scanned and brought together on a computer screen. By 
copying the missing letters from the transcript, we were able to 
reconstruct the inscription in a more than usually convincing 
fashion. 3 A crucial part of this exercise was to assure ourselves 
that the sigma, which is deariy vlsibie at the top of fragment B 
above the theta of i]vpu8jl.[ (line 11) and had not been recorded 
by Kern, fitted exactly into 8[Ea]~ [<I>a'\)o]1 (line 10) at the 
bottom of fragment A. As Hallof had carefully refrained from 
joining his two transcriptions, the resulting match seemed to 
Hallof and me to assure the postulated join. Because the length 
of lines and the nature of this join are so important for the 
ensuing deductions, the editor has allowed us to include the 
facsimile opposite, for the squeezes are not of sufficient quality 
to make it worthwhile to photograph them. 

Kern gives the dimensions as: two fragments of a 0.545 deep 
marble base. A: 0.45 high and 0.26 wide; B: 0.63 high and 0.45 
wide. They were found at the southwest corner of the agora. 
All of the supplements are those of Kern, save those mentioned 
below. 

A: 

B: 

U ]1t0YE"fpajl.[jl.EVOUe; ayw-] 
vue; EUOE~Ela e[v nO'no-] 
A.Ole; ~£Pao'ta tv N E[ a1to-] 
A£l 'EcpEOTJa 'ta 1tp&t<X i[Epa] 

5 AEuKocppu~vlla iOO[1ttl-]' 
9la apEoav'ta ~ha ayw[vwv] 
'PWI.I.(XlWV Ka1. 'tElJ.1119E[ v'ta] 
U1to'trov KUPlWV 'Av['t]w[vEi-] 
YOU Ka1. KOjl.o50u Ka[1. 9i-] 

10 01> OU~pou Ka1. 9[di]~ [<I>au-] 
o't£iVll~ O[w. 't~v·Elvpu9j.1[ov] 
'tpaYlK["V] 1tOlllOl~ 'tEtJ.1[ll-] 
9Ev'ta OJE K~t 1toA.£t'tEta[ l~] 
KJa1. av5puiv'twv avao['ta-] 

15 OEO~V ~1tO 'EcpEO\WV Tp<!>[a-] 
OEWV 'AV'tl0XEWV 'trov 1tp[o~] 

3 Only the letter phi is missing, and Hallof provided a sample. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

198 I.MAGNESIA 192 REVISITED 

llaq>VT\V BT\pu't{cov Ka,[ lOa,-] 
picov vac. 

4: [i.£pci] supp!. Moretti. 
5: A£'Ill(0<PPU11V11u legit HaHof; -UV11u Kern; -U11VU Robert. ioo[ltu]Ehu 

Slater; '1oe[~ta nu]Ota Kern, quod spatio nimis longum est. 
6: legit, suppl. HaHof; 'Ap£ouv'tuop[t]a[vttu Kern; apEouv'tU oi}~[cp] 

Robert 
9: suppl. Eilers; [Ao'lll(t-] Kern 

11,12: coniuxit, supp!. Slater 

In line 5, there is room for two or three letters only, and the 
supplement seems certain. In line 6 Hallof considered also 
ayw[ vac;] possible. I have not found a parallel for either phrase 
in agonistic inscriptions, though the term apEoac;, usually with 
the dative, is very commonly used of performing artists, 
including dancers.4 But I should not consider the expression to 
be impossible Greek for "popular in Roman contests"; in any 
case Robert's suggestion, though giving excellent sense, cannot 
be reconciled with the traces 5 and is much too short for the 
lacuna. In line 7 the expression 'tlJlT\8dC; UItO 'trov KUptWV now 
recurs in an inscription of Tralles recording the victories of an 
unknown artist. 6 

It is now clear that all Robert's suggestions 7 are mistaken. On 
the other hand, his attention to this text was justified. Now we 
gain a secure dating, as Verus is now dead, while Marcus is not. 
This means that only the younger Faustina can be meant in lines 
10f; and as she too is dead, the date is therefore after summer 
176. We can date the inscription between then and 180. Marcus 
and Commodus left Asia in autumn 176 for Athens. 8 Com­
modus is joint emperor as of 177. The inscription refers 

4 E.g. I.Stralonieea 691: ~.lloe(J)oal!£vot KUt uu'tOt 0PXll(HTJV btl lwtpu; l: /1N 
aptouv'tU It[uow] £'tcll!1l0UV ap"fUpicp ota Ow[ CO£u['tpou edd.), i.e., Min the 
theater, in front of the spectators, n and a good parallel for our passage. 

5 At my request Hallof has checked the squeeze and feels certain that the 
transcription represents faithfully the traces on the squeeze. One wonders if 
the variation from the usual formulae may be due to latinisms. 

6 W. Blume! and H. Malay, MInscriptions from Aydin Museum," EpigAnat 
21 (1993) 134, dated in AE (1993) 1528 to 199-200. 

7 MPantomimen in griechischen Orient," Hermes 65 (1930) 106-22 (=Opera 
Minora Seleeta I-VII [Amsterdam 1969- : hereafter 'OMS']) at I 654-70. 

8 H. Halfmann, I tinera prineipum (Stuttgart 1986) 210-13, who is skeptical 
about Verus' stay in Ephesus on his return in 166, arguing from IEph 672, 
3080 (el G. Alf6ldi and H. Halfmann, MIunius Maximus und die Victoria 
Parthica," ZPE [1979J 210). But there were Epinikia in Ephesus then for his 
returning army. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

WILLIAM J. SLATER 199 

therefore without a doubt to the first known pantomime com­
petitions in the east, if indeed a pantomime is the honorand. 

Against this welcome certainty we have to set two puzzles. 
Nowhere in poetry or Ii terature is there a reference to «tragic 
enrhythmic poetry.'" A pantomime is never commended for 
poetry or even composition but for movement, acting, imita­
tion, and precision; and poetry is never called tragic enrhyth­
mic. As "tragic enrhythmic'" is used at this time of the kinesis or 
hypokrisis of pantomimes, 9 and only of them, it seems at least 
reasonably probable that we are dealing with a pantomime after 
all, as Kern and then Robert supposed, especially in view of the 
imperial company this artist keeps, and his unusual lack of 
festival victories. But "poetry" is so unusual that caution is 
necessary. Why he chose to use this unique description 10 of his 
profession remains baffling, though there was certainly a 
reluctance to use the obvious but unsophisticated oPXTl(n.~; and 
"creation" might give a better idea of the intended meaning of 
1tOtTlOU;. Perhaps he orchestrated the music for the fabulae 
salticae needed by the chorus and orchestra, to whose ac­
companiment he or someone else danced. This was usually the 
work of a musicarius (l LS 5252, 5239). In any case, the correct 
designation would have stood earlier in the lost part of the 
inscription, which may yet be found by the present excavators. 

The second and older puzzle arises from Moretti's supple­
ment of i.[Epa], which fits the space well; [lColva] is too long, 
and nothing else suggests itself. This seems to put his victory in 
the first (sacred) Epheseia at some point before this inscription, 
and we wish to know its date. It is, I believe, now possible to be 
more precise. The Epheseia at this point were dated according 
to penteteric periods, and Robert!! showed convincingly that 
Photion son of Karpion, who was still in the 517th penteteris of 
the Epheseia a young man with few adult victories (though he 

9 AnnAraboSyriennes 23 (1973) 37-84 no. 10 (Bull. epigr. 1976.686: Aelius 
Paris of Apamea, reign of Hadrian); FdD IILt 551 (Apolaustus), III.2 105; 
IEph 2070 (Apolaustus); I. Magnesia 165 (T. Cl. Myrismos); SEC I 529 (P. Ael. 
Crispus from Syrian Apamea), XXXII 072 (Crispus of Alexandria); TAM V 
1016 (Thyateira: Ulpius Augustianus Paris); the literary evidence is collected 
by Robert (supra n.7) 658ff. 

10 Plut Mor. 748A-D, the closest I can find, is not really parallel. 
110M S II 1138--41. The deduction has been approved by all subsequent 

writers, including Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche grece (Rome 1953) no.73, 
though he wrongly objected to the penteteric numbering, and the editors of 
IEph 1605. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

200 I.MAGNESIA 192 REVISITED 

would later be an Olympic victor), had been about eighteen 
years old when he won the Epinicia at Ephesus; and that these 
Epinicia could only be celebrations for Verus' Parthian victory 
in 165/166. Photion was therefore about 22 years old in 170, and 
so the 517 lh penteteris of the Epheseia is not far from 170. 
Moreover, we know that the games were sacred at least in the 
516 lh Epheseis. 12 The sacredness of the Megala Epheseia there­
fore cannot really be dated later than 166. The festival certainly 
had had its promoter. Robert showed that the devout Ti. Iulius 
Regin us, 13 who became eternal agonothete of the festival by 
providing a foundation for its support, had probably been 
responsible for the antiquarian research that traced the origins 
of the penteteris back to prehistoric times. He was already 
eternal agonothete ca 154 at the 513 lh Epheseis, the first epi­
graphical evidence of its penteteric number,14 though the 
festival had been much earlier alleged to be prehistoric (Dion. 
Hal. Ant.Rom. 4.25). He was still eternal agonothete ca 174 
(lEph 1130). Robert thought that Reginus was a likely candidate 
behind the move to upgrade the Epheseia during the twenty 
years he was agonothete and financial sponsor, and the anti­
q uarian research would have been part of his proposal for 
recognition of its ancient status. From ca 154 to 174 therefore 
we know the name of the agnothete of the Epheseia, Reginus, 
who left his money to Artemis at the beginning of the period. 

But the sacred eiselastic status of the Great Epheseia first 
appears on I Eph 2067, a statue base for M. Ulp. Damas [Catul­
linus], chief priest and agonothete of the great sacred [eiselastic] 
Epheseia set up by P. [Vedius], his wife [Fl.] Papiana, and their 

12 Robert (supra n.ll) 1138--41 on the basis of I Eph 1605. His discussion in 
Documents d'Asie Mineure (Paris 1987) 170, is regrettably so distorted by mis­
readings and wrong references as to reduce its value. The four inscriptions 
referred to there are now: I Eph 1604-05, 1130, 1106. 

!3 Robert (supra n.12) 170, following M. Uimmer, Olympien und Had­
rianeen in Ephesos (diss.Cologne 1967): non vidi. Reginus is twice asiarch (M. 
D. Campanile, I Sacerdoti del koinon d'Asia [Pisa 1994] no. 71 a), kept 
gladiators, and was notable for leaving all his worldly goods to Artemis on his 
death (l Eph 692), as did in part the son of Vedius Antonius Phaedrus 
Sabinianus, on whom see below. It is only a supposition that he funded the 
Epheseia after his death; he could have done so earlier, so as to be ~eternal 
agonothete. " 

14 IEph 1105A, from Engelmann-Knibbe, OJh 52 (1980) 35 no. 40, a copy of 
a fragment from a 1898 excavation. The editors of I Eph, like Engelmann­
Knibbe, give Cj)'yt' with the second letter dotted as the number and interpret 
153; we would expect qny'. but I Eph 1130 also has <PTlt' for <pul'. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

WILLIAM J. SLATER 201 

son Antoninus. Vedius is the senator M. Cl. P. Vedius 
Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinian us, founder of the Vedius gym­
nasium. 1s His father, M. Cl. P. Vedius Antoninus Sabinus is 
known for his correspondence with the emperor Pius between 
140 and 150, and he offered Verus hospitality during his visits in 
162. But this Damas is dated to the era of Hadrian. 11> As Reginus, 
however, was eternal agonothete ca 154-174, Damas must have 
been agonothete of the sacred eiselastic Epheseia ca 150 or 146 
or earlier, which indeed suits his dates. Had they been the first 
sacred games, he would have said so; in which case, the first is 
earlier still. Reginus therefore may be responsible for the anti­
quarian numbering of the Epheseia, but not necessarily for the 
sacred and eiselastic status of the festival. As these privileges are 
not mentioned in the grand decree of the Dionysiac Artists for 
P. Ael. Alcibiades 17 ca 142, it is a not entirely safe assumption 
that the Epheseia were or became again sacred and eiselastic in 
the reign of Pius, who must have authorized both. We can 
suspect then that Vedius, with his imperial contacts, was the 
promoter. At Miletus the Didymeia were specifically author­
ized by the Senate and Marcus, after receiving an embassy, to 
become eiselastic Kommodeia in 177 to celebrate Commodus' 

15 Details in]. Kei~ ·Vedii Antonini (3)," RE SuppL 8A (1955) 566£; stemma 
in I Eph VIr. I 88f, with criticism by Halfmann (supra n.8) 135 n.510, and Die 
Senatoren aus dem ostlichen Tei! des Imperium Romanum (Gottingen 1979) 
nos. 84-84a. Campanile (supra n.13: 113-16 with genealogical table XIV) is a 
useful guide through the morass of the relationships of this powerful family. 
Note the caution about the stemma in O. Salomies, Adoptive and Poly­
onymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (=CommllumLitt 97 [Hel­
sinki 1992]) 42; for chief-priests P. HerZ, • Asiarchen und Archiereiai. Zum 
Provinzialkult der Provinz Asia" Tyche 7 (1992) 93-115, is fundamental. 

16 MA MA VI 60; I Eph 2064, 2067; Campanile (supra n.13) no. 112. As sec­
retary of the boule, he puts up a statue of the chief-priest Vedius, who has 
beautified the city, likely under Pius. Vedius in turn honors him when he 
becomes chief priest and agonothete, so that a date towards 150 is permissible. 

17 I Eph 22, 42; A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals oj Athens 2 

(Oxford 1988) 319 no. 15. Arguments e silentio in regard to ·sacred," 
• eiselastic," and similar festival privileges are dangerous, but this is precisely a 
decree that goes out of its way to be extravagant in these matters, as one 
expects of the Artists. There is a good example of the problem in I Eph 4114 
for Aur. Athenaios of Tyana, who has won -the sacred eiselastic Artemisia, 
the Epheseia, Barbilleia, and Adrianeia"-all Ephesian games ca 200. Why are 
the epithets missing from the other games? and why does he then go on to 
recount a victory in the sacred eiselastic Olympia Asklepeia of Pergamum? 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

202 I.MAGNESIA 192 REVISITED 

accession to the imperial throne. 18 The same happened earlier 
with the Epheseia. It is perhaps worth mentioning that ca 163 
much official attention was being paid to the extension of the 
cult of Artemis and the Artemisia (l£ph 24: edict of the procos. 
E. Popillius Carus Pedo). On the other hand, we cannot be sure 
-in the time of Claudius, and even perhaps under Augustus­
that the" sacred victors," who were illegally claiming free main­
tenance at the expense of Artemis, did not include victors 
besides those in the Artemisia. 19 

If the first sacred Epheseia are to be dated to the reign of Pius 
or earlier, then it seems now quite impossible that our artist 
could have won a competition in 150 or probably earlier at 
Ephesus and also after 176 at Magnesia, and nothing in between. 
Moreover, any date before 150 contradicts completely Lucian's 
statement (Slater [supra n.t] 272) of ca 163-165 that there were 
no pantomime contests in the east. Nor does our artist claim to 

perform for anyone before Verus and Marcus. There is the 
possibility, which I raise only to dismiss, that "the first" means 
not that his particular festival was the first, but that the original 
festival of the Epheseia was the first festival of Ephesus. For a 
claim formulated in this highly misleading way, we have an 
exact parallel in I.Smyrna 635, where in the middle of the third 
century, the koina Asias are so called, and this is confirmed by 
coins (Petzl ad I.Smyrna 635). But, apart from other considera­
tions, one will not expect such a designation of an Ephesian 
festival at Magnesia. 

Therefore the only solution out of this impasse is to punctuate 
after Epheseia and read together "the first sacred isopythic 
Leukophryena." This grandiose description signals the Mag­
nesian victory, which is principally commemorated by the 
inscription, and which might well include, like the later Com­
modeia, new competitions for mime and pantomime to suit the 
tastes of the Romans and, just possibly, visiting members of the 

18 P. Herrmann, "Fragment einer Senatsrede Marc Aurels aus Milet," IstMitt 
38 (1988) 309-13, improving on his "Eine Kaiserurkunde der Zeit Marc Aurels 
aus Miler," 1st Mitt 25 (1975) 150. 

19IEph 17: edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus. There had been a ruling of 
Vedius Pollio on this issue earlier, in the time of Augustus (on him see R. 
Syme, Roman Papers, ed. E. Badian II [Oxford 1979] 518ff], and Vedius had 
even then limited the cost of the ·penteteric contest" to 4,500 denarii. This 
suggests that even then Ephesian sacred victors by Republican criteria were 
being supported by temple revenues, and that too much was being spent on 
the Great Artemisia. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

WILLIAM J. SLATER 203 

imperial family. The victory list now runs smoothly: after the 
Italian victories there is no need to elaborate Epheseia <in 
Erhesus>, but there is a reason to exalt this special celebration 
o the much less important Leukophryena, which is why we 
are told that it is isopythic, as it had been promoted 400 years 
earlier. We have seen the same antiquarianism operating in 
Ephesus. We knew from the decree of the Artists for Al­
cibiades 20 that the Epheseia was the festival at which this very 
powerful group assembled, and of the close relations of their 
association with the imperial family in the 140s. What could be 
more appropriate than that this ancient festival, on which the 
chief priests Vedius and Reginus lavished such care as 
agonothetes, and whose panegyriarchs suddenly thought it 
worthwhile to record their office,21 was eventually to be the 
first known festival to include the new tragic ballet? It would 
seem that the Artists of Dionysus may have been involved. 

It is worth observing that nowhere between Alexandria Troas 
and Caesarea, not even in Antioch, was there apparently a 
festival for an influential artist to win, save at Ephesus and 
Magnesia. One assumes that the "Roman games" were not 
Asian or Magnesian Romaia, for no festivals of that name were 
still being given. 22 The alternative would be the certamina 
among the great pantomimes that caused such trouble for law 
and order in the theaters of the capital, and which represented 
the ultimate crown for any artist. 

Otherwise his Asian victories and honors are all on the route 
for those heading for Antioch, where his imperial contacts will 
have assured him of suitable honors. At a guess, our artist will 

2C Cf SEC XLI 945 (I.Nysa 22); cf IEph 22. From before 50 B.C. there were 
annual Ephesian Dionysia conducted by a priest of Rome (I £ph 9), which 
suggests that the close contact between the Artists and the imperial cult at 
Ephesus had a long history. 

21 The sophist Flavius Damianus (PIR2 F253), son-in-law of Vedius A. Ph. 
Sabinianus, was panegyriarch of the Epheseia at the return of Verus' troops 
from Parthia in 166 (IEph 672). Junius Maximus (IEph 811) is panegyriarch 
about the same time. Both Vedii had been panegyriarchs of the Epheseia (and 
Pasithea also: IE ph 728). For the debate about the dedication of the 
gymnasium (160/161 or 146/148), see most recently S. Dillon, JRA 9 (1996) 
269. It seems possible that the Vedius gymnasium should be connected with 
the Epheseia. 

22 I rule out the idea that aptouv'tu Ihex ayw(vrov] 'Pro~uirov could be an 
additional phrase referring to the Magnesian festival itself, so that this would 
be a reference to the mimes and pantomimes and such classified usually as 
akroamata and paramisthomata and tacked on to the end of Greek festivals. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

204 I.MAGNESIA 192 REVISITED 

have come to the east with the imperial family in 175, travelled 
to Syria, and won the Epheseia and Leukophryena in the year 
176 or later. Both Marcus and Com modus were in Asia in 
August 176, though we have evidence only for visits to Smyrna 
and Miletus; but this should be sufficient to allow for visits to 
Ephesus and Magnesia,23 and as we know, the following year 
was a good occasion for Asian cities to ask for an upgrade of 
their festivals. 2i Ulpius Augustianus (known as Paris: TAM V 
1016, with Herrman ad loc.) ornamented--<JuYlC00J.1ll0uVtU­
victory celebrations in Thyateira for the "undefeated emper­
ors, '" the best guess being for Marcus and Verus probably in 
165/166. A visit of Marcus and Comodus in 176 was not likely 
to be without similar celebration. At any rate, we now have 
some better evidence for associating the presence of emperors 
in the east with the appearance of pantomime contests at Greek 
festivals.25 

McMASTER UNIVERSITY 

February, 1997 

23 Coins of Magnesia do show Marcus and Verus with the victorious Ar­
temis: S. Schultz, Die Munzpragung 'Von Magnesia am Maander (Hildesheim 
1975) no. 130. Artemis Leukophryene has the epithet Nikephoros in the 
second century B.C. in the inscriptions of Magnesia. 

24 TAM V 1018 records how Perelius Aurelius Alexander, a periodonikos, 
engineered from Elagabalus the upgrade of the Augusteia (Pythia) to a sacred 
eiselastic isopythic oikoumenic contest. 

25 Thanks are due to David Meadows for computer work using Photoshop, 
Claude Eilers for discussion, and most of all Klaus Hallof, whose kindness 
and generosity are even more impressive than his acute eyesight and drafts­
manship., 

Addendum: H. Engelmann, KEine Victoria Caesaris und das Part her­
monument (I'VE 721)," 2PE 113 (1996) 91, writes that the Great Epinikia in 
Ephesus were penteteric; this was specifically denied by L. Robert, Docu­
ments de l'Asie Mineure meridionale (Geneva/Paris 1966) 91, who also 
pointed out (BulL.epigr. 1977 417) that illtcp was used in the technical sense 
postulated by Engelmann.