An Ephebic Inscription from Egypt Rigsby, Kent J Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 3; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 239 An Ephebic Inscription from Egypt Kent J. Rigsby THE DUKE UNIVERSITY ART MUSEUM possesses a Greek inscription of Roman imperial date (inv. DCC 75.12), which I publish here with the kind permission of the Curator of the Classical Collec­ tion, Professor Keith Stanley. The monument came to the museum in 1975 from an estate in England, with no record of its original pro­ venience.! Above the inscribed text is represented in relief a standing male figure wearing a long chlamys, flanked by an amphora and a post entwined by a ribbon. The inscription, dated to the third year of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (A.D. 162/3), is a list of the gradu­ ating ephebes of that year (oL xAafLv87]g,op~c[avTEc]), a kind of text known throughout the Greek world.2 The list begins with the magistrates who supervised the ephebes, the first of whom, the kosmete, was also a member of the city council (,8ovAf[VT~C]). Then come those ephebes who were victorious in the several competitions of the ephebic games; the other ephebes follow. Names like Am­ monius, Sarapammon, Anubias, Ptolemy, Didymus,3 taken together, guarantee that the monument derives from Egypt. Its form and vocabulary in fact find their closest parallel in an ephebic list from Leontopolis (Tell Moqdam), metropolis of the Leontopolite nome, dated to A.D. 220: this list opens with the words €ldv ot XAafLV8TJg,Op+ CaVT€C Kat eg,TJ,8€lJcavTEc, then names the presiding magistrate (the kosmete), then the ephebes who had won victories in the games, then the rest.4 The presence of a councilor in the Duke inscription further limits the possible provenience, for in second-century Egypt only Ptolemais and Antinoopolis were possessed of councils.o On the face of it, Antinoopolis would seem the more likely candidate simply from the 1 Ex catalogue Charles Ede, Ltd, Writing and Lettering in Antiquity IV (London 1975) no.28. 2 E. Ziebarth, Aus dem griechischen Schulwesen2 (Leipzig and Berlin 1914) 82-86; for the ephebate in Egypt see the references in O. Montevecchi, La Papirologia (Turin 1973) 183-84. 3 For the frequency of the name Didymus in Egypt see L. Robert, Hellenica 2 (Paris 1946) 8. 4 M. N. Tod, JEA 37 (1951) 86-99, with J. and L. Robert, BullEpigr 1952,180 [SB VIII 9997; SEG XIV 878]. This text too shifts to smaller lettering when the list of ephebes begins. 6 A. K. Bowman, Town Councils in Roman Egypt (AmStudPap 11, Toronto 1971) 11-15. 239 240 AN EPHEBIC INSCRIPTION FROM EGYPT far greater quantity of material evidence that it has yielded from the second and third centuries by comparison with that from contempo­ rary Ptolemais.6 But what fixes with certainty the Antinoite origin of the Duke inscription is a series of inscriptions that came to light a century ago in Cairo (SB 1481): these were five fragmentary lists of names found at Antinoopolis. They show much the same mixture of Greek, Egyptian and Roman names as the Duke inscription; the majuscule copies published in 1886 reveal that several were written in the same angular style of lettering and used interpuncts.7 Professor Andre Bernand, who is preparing a corpus on this part of Egypt, responded generously to my letter of inquiry about SB 1481, referring me to M. Patrice Cauderlier, who is engaged in a study of the history and monuments of Antinoopolis. M. Cauderlier, con­ fronting the five Antinoite fragments, now in Marseilles, with a photo­ graph of the Duke inscription, was able to establish that the new list joins SB 1481 fr.5. To M. Cauderlier lowe the improved readings and the photograph of the Marseilles fragment presented here, and in general his careful study and patient advice have contributed more to this article than can be acknowledged point by point. The Duke monument (see PLATE 1) is of white marble, broken on all sides; its maximum dimensions are 49.0 cm high, 38.5 wide, 1.~ 2.0 thick. The angular lettering varies widely in height; the inter­ space is 0.5-0.6 cm. The first line, a heading, is 2.0 cm in height. Line 2, the most irregular, began large (1.8) but decreases to 1.3; thereafter the lines are generally 1.1 to 1.3, tending to decrease slightly, through line 9. With line 10 the mason visibly shifts to a slightly smaller size, 0.8-0.9, more regularly written. Interpuncts separate the names on the list. Inscription and figure were both highlighted with red paint, much of which survives. The Marseilles fragment (Musee Borely, archeologie inv. no.1630) is consistent with the Duke inscription in thickness (1.5-2.0). As PLATE 1 shows, the break between the two divides several letters which remain recognizable, so that there is no uncertainty where the stones join, along the lower right of the Duke piece. The height of the letters here is consistent, 0.8-0.9. The Marseilles • For Antinoopolis see for the present the list in A. Calderini, Dizionario dei nomi 1.2 (Madrid 1966) 69-114; for Ptolemais, G. Plaumann, Ptolemais in Oberiigypten (Leipziger historische Abhandlungen 18, 1910) 69-114. 1 E. Miller, RA N.S. 30 (1875) 107-10 (four lists); C. Jullian, RA SER. ill 7 (1886) 274-76 (these four and a fifth, in majuscules): SB I 1481. To the same series of texts probably belong SB I 4962, 4965, 4982 and 5980 (p. Cauderlier). PLATE 1 RIGSBY EPHEBIC INSCRIPTION FROM ANTINOOPOLIS, A.D. 162/3 FR. A: Duke University Art Museum inv. DCC 75.12, photograph by W. Wilkerson FR. B: Musee Borely arch.inv. 1630 (SB 1481 fr.5), photograph courtesy P. Cauderlier KENT J. RIGSBY 241 text was also painted red. It has been damaged since its publication in the nineteenth century; the lost portions are underlined here. On the Duke stone, the edge of the join is of the same color and texture as the other edges, so that the break may be ancient. ciya01}£ ,rtJX1}£ [i1T~ ath'OIcpa}Topoc Katcapoc MapKov AVp'TJAlov [)lV'Twvtvov .EE,BaC'TOv] [Kal. aV'TOK ]p'a'Topoc Kalcapoc AOVKlou Avp'TJAlou Q [mJpou .EE,BacTov ± 7 4 [ ± 8 E'TOU]C 'TplTOU toW ldv o[ XAaI-'Vo'TJop~c[avTEc Ka~ i'TJ,BEvCaV'T'Ec . . ] [ ± 7 KOCI-'1nT~C 8EOOOCLOC ~,Bapxoc toW KacTwp LJ'TJIo'[ ± 23 ] [ ± 9 C'TE]avwOEvTEC '" cTcfoLOV toW NEI-'ECta[voc . ... ]cp[ ± 19 ] 8 [ ± 14 ]goc 0 Kal. flTOAEl-'a'ioc flToAEl-'alou toW 1TaA7JV toW .Ea[ ± 18 ] [ ± 15 ]v '" 'Epl-'lac 'bSwpou Kal. LJ t8ul-'oc .Eapa1TCfl-'l-'w [voc ± 17 ] [ 'I]<;t8wpov ,.., Kop~Atoc Evoall-'ovoc toW l4l-'l-'ciJVtoc L'apa1Tlwr[ oc l4p]o8elctOc l4vov{3,cf8oc '" 8EOOOCtOC l41ToAAwvlov '" flTOAEI-' [a'ioc 12 ]oc l4pcwo7Jc toW 'Epl-'lac LJ'OCKOPOU toW l4yaOoc LJall-'WV 16 [ 20 [ o Kal. pootclov toW l4l-'l-'ciJVtoc LJ'TJI-''TJTPOVTOC '" LJ'TJI-''TJ'Tptavoc 'Ic[t8wpov ] , , fl' Z .. <;, 'H \'<;' < "E' . c 0 Kat UK'T7JC 0 LOOC toW paKI\ELD'TJC 0 Kat 1TLl-'axoc .Eapa1T[ ] 'E ~ 'I" \ , '{'1 , '{'1 , ~ toW Pl-'tVOC OUI\LOV toW ",apa1TLWV ",apa1TLWVOC '" 'lEpag 'HpaK[A ] 'A' '{'1' A , 'E' 9V ,.., r1I-'I-'WVLOC ",apa1TLwvoc ,.., ".HOCKOpOC Pl-'tou"" .tc8a" cf. Tod, loc.cit. (supra n-4): there spelled xAa,.,.v8o"'op~'iv, as in the Michigan papyrus cited below. 17 P.Mich. VI 426.16-18, cf. SB IV 7427 (the same man's cousin as an ephebe at Antinoopolis in 168/9). Compare ot ~lcKp,8'v'T~c 7Ta,8~c of PSI ill 199 (Antinoopolis. A.D. 203). For ~rCKplClC and ~7TlKPIC'C see U. Wilcken, Grundzuge 1142; V. Martin, Cd'E 7 (1932) 300-10 [SB V 7561]; P.Oxy. XVill 2186; J. E. G. Whitehorne, BASP 14 (1977) 29-38. 18 Naturally it was otherwise in the countryside of classical Roman Egypt, which lacked councils and where magistrates conducted this examination. For cities, see Acta Alexandri­ norum 1: the proposed council for Alexandria would see that the list of ephebes was kept free of mere tax-evaders, and also would keep the citizen-body pure of the uneducated. For Athens see A. Dumont, Essai sur l'ephebie attique I (Paris 1875) 136-37. KENT J. RIGSBY 245 were fragments of the ephebic lists.19 By 1886 these four and a fifth (precisely, the one that joins the Duke inscription) had been given to the Borely family in Marseilles by a M. Connolly. I have been unable to identify Connolly. The Borelli family of Marseilles had long­ standing commercial contacts with Egypt and the Levant. Its most famous member was the jurist Philippe-Oct ave-Marie Borelli, who was in Egypt from 1878 to 1894 in the service of the French govern­ ment.20 EVidently in 1875 the extant Antinoite lists were in the possession of a Cairo dealer; Miller knew only those of which he had been sent squeezes. The five which Connolly gave to the Borelli family he must have acquired between 1875 and 1886: I imagine that he had enjoyed some favor or hospitality at the hands of the distin­ guished French jurist in Cairo, during these years of French-British cooperation in controlling Egypt. I am inclined to assume that Con­ nolly acquired the Duke fragment at the same time but kept it for himself as the most artistic of the six. In sum, all of the fragments extant seem likely to have come from a clandestine excavation at Antinoopolis in the early 1870's. In lines 5-6 are named the magistrates who supervised the ephebic corps. I would suggest that the kosmete Theodosius was introduced, at the beginning of line 5, by 7TpoEcr7]; the verb is frequent in educa­ tional texts, used of a kosmete for example in IG II2 1009.34. The grammatical relation between this verb and the list of ephebes proper would be given by restoring at the end of line 4 either iJJv or simply an interpunct. There is room for only three magistrates. At Leontopolis sixty years later we find only a kosmete and an archiephebos in charge of the ephebes. Perhaps the son of Heraclius was an &V7'LKOC/L~'T7Jc, as we would expect at Athens; this term, followed by an interpunct, probably would fill the space remaining in line 5, 7TfXLOO'Tptf37Jc would nearly do so. If the father of the ephebarch Castor was named De­ metrius, about 15 spaces remain in line 6: possibly this was left empty, 19 Of the other two, one was the Latin inscription ClL III 6609, excavated at Nicopolis under supervised conditions in 1871: in 1875 this stone was at the Institut Egyptien and was the only one of the six whose location was reported to Miller. The other was the asylia edict CI] II 1449, allegedly found in Cairo; by 1881 this stone had been acquired by the Dutch ambassador in Cairo and given by him to the archaeological museum in Berlin (cf Th. Mommsen, EphEp 4 [1881] no.33). I shall comment elsewhere on this text, which has nothing to do with Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. 20 Dictionnaire de biographie franraise 6 (1951) 1100. It is astonishing, however, that Jullian in 1886 did not know the origin of the inscriptions in Marseilles; but his publication is most perfunctory, and he was unaware also of their prior publication in the same journal. 246 AN EPHEBIC INSCRIPTION FROM EGYPT marking the close of this section of the text; but more likely we should seek here the beginning of the phrase that introduced the victorious ephebes of lines 7-9, something on the order of Col (ecp7Jf3OL) EV Tc'in (Ec/>7Jf3LK(in) aywvL cT€c/>]avwOevT€c.21 The list of the ephebes themselves begins in line 7 with the 'crowned', those who have won in the several competitions of the games that marked their graduation. Three events at least were held: the stadion-length footrace, wrestling, and whatever is to be understood at the beginning of line 9 (where nu cannot be the end of a patronymic). Line 9 demands our attention first, for here two eph­ ebes are linked by Kat. This usage might indicate the existence of a first, and a second place prize in the competition; in fact, second prizes are well attested in the games of the gymnasium in Hellenistic cities.22 But if this is the implication of line 9, then we should expect second prizes in all the events, as was the case elsewhere when those existed. There is easily space for Ptolemy'S son (line 8) as a second ephebe after "stadion", linked by Kat to Nemesianus (who must then have a rather long alias and patronymic). But there is clearly no room for a second name and patronymic after "wrestling." Therefore I would suggest rather that Hermias and Didymus ended their event in a draw, winning a 'sacred victory'. In Greek contests, in case of a draw, the prize was not split between the two contestants who were tied; this tradition was old, stemming from the days before money when prizes were exclusively objects and were not divisible. The prize was instead dedicated to the god, and the two competitors were said to share a 'sacred victory', the god's victory. Such a 'victory' was none­ theless something to be proud of, and the two rivals, called CVCT€cpavw­ OeVT€C, would include the 'sacred victory' among their other victories in any list of their accomplishments.23 But ties were rare, and if this is the situation in line 9, still it should not be assumed elsewhere in the text. In short, the long space after Nemesianus in line 7 must have been filled not by an indication of another draw (Kat) but by the name of another event, whose victor was the son of Ptolemy. If the term for the lost event was short, Nemesianus may well have had an alias, e.g. 21 A list of ephebes at Gela begins simply €CPT/{Jo, ol cn;cpavW8€VT€C: IG XIV 256.36. 22 Syll.8 958 (Coresia); OGIS 339.81 (Sestos), with L. Robert, RN SBR.V 15 (1973) 43-53. 28 References in L. Robert, RevPhil1930, 28 (= Opera Minora Seleew II [Amsterdam 1969] 1128). KENT J. RIGSBY 247 NE}LE"C£a[voc 0 Ka'J <.!?[p{wv-], and indeed the name of the event may have carried over to line 8. Again, at the end of line 9 there is no space to restore a fifth event with the name and patronymic of the victor; nor is such an entry likely to have carried over to line 10, for in line 10, written in visibly smaller lettering, begins the list of the other ephebes. Perhaps line 9 ended with a vacat, marking the close of this section of the text; or else with the beginning of a rubric introducing the other ephebes. It seems, then, that there were four events and four prizes in the ephebic games of Antinoopolis in 162/3. At Leon­ topolis sixty years later there were also four events (wrestling, pan­ cration, stadion, diaulos), but eight prizes, since there the ephebes were divided into two age groups. At Oxyrhynchus in A.D. 202 Aurelius Horion endowed ephebic games with ten thousand denarii, the interest from which was to pay for prizes equal to "those for which the Antinoites now compete." I have argued elsewhere that his reference cannot be to the panhellenic Great Antinoeia, as has been thought, but is rather to (unattested) ephebic games at Antinoopolis.24 The present inscription, while a pleasant surprise, lends no particular support to that interpretation, merely proving that Antinoopolis had ephebic games, as we would have assumed in any case. But if that argument is correct, and if Horion's fund was the total source of the prizes at Oxyrhynchus (rather than an addition to an older source), and if the Antinoite prizes were the same forty years earlier, then here at Antinoopolis in A.D. 163 a sum of approximately 1200 denarii25 was to pay for four prizes-worth an average 300 denarii apiece. There are too many vari­ ables here to insist on such computations. But I may note that this valuation is broadly consistent with a cash prize list of imperial date inscribed at Aphrodisias.26 There account was given of several con­ tests, which were of different orders (in one the trumpeter wins 150 denarii, in a second 500). In the lower-paying contests, we find the following prizes in the boys' category: dolichos 500 denarii, stadion 625 or 525, diaulos 500, pentathlon 250, wrestling 1000, boxing 1000, pancration 1250 or 1550. In a more illustrious contest in the account, 24 Wilcken, Chr. 153, with Cd'E 52 (1977) 147-55. 26 The usual interest rate of 12% is attested e.g. at Oxyrhynchus in A.D.178 by P.Oxy. III 485. 28 CIG 2758 [0. Liermann, Analecta epigraphica agonistica (Diss.Philol. Halenses X, 1889) no. 37], cf. MAMA VIII 420. 248 AN EPHEBIC INSCRIPTION FROM EGYPT the victor in boys' stadion receives 1400 denarii. These were all prizes for professional athletes, meant to attract famous and talented com­ petitors to Aphrodisias; we should not be surprised to find that the prizes awarded ephebes, local boys of diverse physical capacities com­ peting by requirement,27 were worth less than half those given professionals at even a minor festival. A value of about 300 denarii thus seems credible. It would be superfluous to attempt here a discussion of the nomen­ clature and prosopography of the text: these matters will be put on a new basis by M. Cauderlier's work on the onomastics of Antinoopolis. I may note that I do not understand the exclusive use of a metronymic by several ephebes (Anubias 11, Arsinoe 12, Demetrous 14, Zois 15); the same usage occurs in other of the Antinoite lists. Metronymics are of course common in the papyri, but normally as an addition to the patronymic. In the Leontopolis ephebic list, most of the boys name both father and mother, some only the father; but there too we find in several instances the metronymic alone.28 Perhaps one listed that parent who was a citizen of the city. The relief above the text presents its own difficulties, on which I would defer to those more expert. The figure may simply be the type Qf the ephebe, a Cchlamys-wearer'.29 But his flowing mane, on a monument from Antinoopolis, must surely indicate Antinous himself, here in the role of ephebe. The rendering of his left hand is too schem­ atic to reveal whether it clasped some object (rather than the chlamys alone); perhaps a small bottle (aryballos or lekythos would be appropri­ ate) was once represented here, now weathered smooth, or even a small bird, the emblem of a dead child (suggestion of Professor Robert). The amphora to his left must certainly evoke the allotment for the games.30 By the object to his right I am puzzled: it seems .7 The Leontopolis list in fact contains a section of boys excused from the competitions because of physical inadequacy: the Roberts, op.cit. (supra n.4) 68. 88 The high percentage (ca 15%) of these at both cities and the questions about parentage asked at EtCKPLctC (SB 7561) speak against the theory (H. C. Youtie in Le Monde grec, Hommages d Claire Preaux [Brussels 1975] 730-32) that they are simply illegitimate, «:TraTOpEc. It A figure wearing a chlamys appears e.g. on the contemporary ephebic monument IG III 3746, erected in honor of one ephebe by his fellows; the figure holds a shield. 10 See for example the Athenian ephebic monument IG ill 3734 (A.D. 126/7), with the important discussion of D. Peppas-Delmousou, AAA 9 (1976) 241-52; an amphora beside a victorious athlete at Caesarea, J. Ringel, Cesarfe de Palestine (Paris 1976) 115 with pI. 14.3, cf. J. and L. Robert, BullEpigr 1976, 733. In general, H. Gaebler, ZjN 39 (1929) 271-312; L. Robert, Hellenica 7 (Paris 1949) 107-08. KENT J. RIGSBY 249 a slender post, tapering toward the bottom, bearing a small plaque topped by a circle or ball, entwined by a tapering pennant or ribbon. The width and the taper of this last feature seem to exclude its being a mitra or another of the bands with which athletes were crowned,31 hung here as a trophy. Nor, lacking a head, ought it to be a snake.32 There are traces of red paint on the plaque; since they are not recon­ cilable with letters, and since all of the frieze was painted, I take these traces to be random survivals and not an inscription. The post and its trappings thus remain to be explained.33 DUKE UNIVERSITY May, 1978 31 See E. Egger and E. Fournier in Daremberg-Saglio, Dietionnaire I 1520-37, esp. 1523, s.v. "Corona"; A. De Ridder, id. III 1955-56 S.v. "Mitra." Professor Gerhard Koeppel has kindly drawn my attention to elements of Roman triumphal art which, he notes, are only slightly similar: on the one hand, the inscribed tabulae ansatae carried atop posts in the triumph (to be seen e.g. on the arch of Titus); on the other, the taenia tied to the top of a scepter and hanging or fluttering down (e.g. M. Rotili, L'Areo di Traiano a Benevento [Rome 1972] pIs. 114 and 135). 32 An Asclepiean emblem would be appropriate to Antinous, who was a healing god (Origen, C. Cels. 3.36), but probably not on an ephebic monument. Serpent and amphora together on an altar from Phrygia: T. Drew-Bear, GRBS 17 (1976) 259. 33 My warm thanks, for their advice and encouragement, to Louis Robert, Jeanne Robert and William H. Willis.