Paullus Fabius Persicus, Claudius, and the temple of Artemis in Ephesos

Typology: Edict

Original Location: Agora of Ephesus

Current Location: Museum of Ephesus in Selçuk (Turkey), inv. no. 377-378

Date: 44 CE

Centuries: 1st CE

Material: Marble

Measurements: Block A: 52,4 centimetres in height, 70,5 centimetres in width, and 68,8 centimetres thick.Block B: 56 centimetres in height, 73 centimetres in width, and 70 centimetres thick.

Languages: Greek

Category: Roman, Greek

Publications: Die Inschriften von Ephesos I, p. 98-105, no. 18 [SEG 4.516]

Description: Originally part of a pillar and later reused. The inscription was discovered in different blocks of a similar size and outline. In the first two – selected for our collection – no special decorative elements appear. Letters are well carved and serif forms are preferred.

Edition :
I reproduce the first edition of the block A in full and lines 1 to 18 of block B as provided by Keil, XII Vorläufiger Bericht, p. 282-286. New readings resulting from the re-examination of the stone in Die Inschriften von Ephesos are also added and diacritical marks have been updated to comply with the Leiden conventions.

A)	Τ̣ι̣βε̣ρ̣ί̣ου Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ [Γερμανικοῦ προτρέ]-
	ψαντος αὐτοῦ ἐπίκριμα συμφέρον τῆι [τε Ἐφεσίων πόλει καὶ]
	ὅλῃ τῆι ἐπαρχείαι· ὃ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ προέθηκ[εν καὶ πρὸ εʹ Καλ(ανδῶν)]
	Ἀπρειλίων ἀναγραφῆναι ἐν στήλληι προε[νοήθη·]
5	ἐν ταύτῃ διὰ παντὸς τῇ ὑπολήψει ὑπάρχων [πρὸ πάντων]
	τοὺς τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν προεστῶτας ἄρχοντα[ς μετὰ πάσης]
	εὐσταθείας καὶ πίστεως δεῖν ἐπιμέλεσθα[ι τῆς ἐγκεχει]-
	ρισμένης αὐτοῖς ἀρχῆς, ὥστε τοῦ διηνεκῶς κ[αὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ]
	τὸν βίον χρησίμου τοῦ τε καθ’ ὅλην τὴν ἐπαρχεί[αν τοῦ τε]
10	κατὰ πόλιν προνοεῖν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῦ ἰδίου ἐνιαυτοῦ μό[νον,]
	ἥδειον ὅμως ὁμολογῶ{ι} πρὸς ταύτην ἐπιτετάσθα[ι τὴν]
	γνώμην τῶι ὑποδείγματι τοῦ κρατίστου καὶ ἀλ[η]-
	θῶς δικαιοτάτου ἡγεμόνος, ὃς πᾶν τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώ-
	πων γένος εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν ἀναδε{ι}γμένος κηδεμονί-
15	αν ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις καὶ πᾶσιν ἡδίστοις φιλανθρώ-
	ποις καὶ τοῦτο κεχάρισαι τὸ τὰ ἴδια ἑκάστωι ἀπο-
	κατασταθῆναι.
	διόπερ φορτικὴν μὲν ἐπίγνωσιν ἀνεδεξάμην,
	ἀναγκαίαν δὲ τῇ λαμπροτάτηι Ἐφεσίων πόλει
	c. 16 lines missing
B)	συμπτώσεως ἀμόρφως εἰσὶν κατερριμμέναι, τό
	τε τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος αὐτῆς ἱερόν, ὃ τῆς ἐπαρχείας
	ὅλης ἐστὶν κόσμος καὶ {ὃ} διὰ τὸ τοῦ ἔργου μέγεθος
	καὶ διὰ τὴν τοῦ περὶ τὴν θεὸν σεβασμοῦ ἀρχαιόττ
5	καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν προσόδων ἀφθονίαν τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ
	Σεβαστοῦ ἀποκατασταθεισῶν τῇ θεᾷ, στέρεται
	τῶν ἰδίων χρημάτων, ἃ καὶ εἰς ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ εἰς
	κόσμον τῶν ἀναθημάτων ἐξαρκεῖν ἐδύ· περισπᾶ-
	ται γὰρ εἰς τὴν ἄδικον ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν οὕτως τοῦ κοι-
10	νοῦ προϊσταμένων, ὡς ἑαυτοῖς λυσιτελεῖν νομίζου-
	σιν· ὁσάκις τε γὰρ ἂν ἀπὸ Ῥώμης ἱλαρωτέρα ἔλθῃ
	ἀγγελία, ταύτῃ πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον ἀποχρῶνται πορισ-
	μὸν τό τε σχῆμα τῆς θείας οἰκίας προκάλυμμα
	ποιούμενοι τὰς ἱερωσύνας ὥσπερ ἐν ἀπαρτεί-
15	ᾳ πιπράσκουσιν καὶ ἐκ παντὸς γένους ἐπὶ τὴν
	ὠνὴν αὐτῶν συνκλοῦσιν ἀνθρώπους, εἶτα οὐκ ἐγλέ-
	γονται τοὺς ἐπιτηδειοτάτους, ὧν ταῖς κεφαλαῖς
	ὁ πρέπων ἐπιτεθήσεται στέφανος·

English translation:

I reproduce the translation provided by Braund, David, Augustus and Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC – AD 68 (London: Croom Helm, 1985), p. 213, no. 586. He does not indicate line breaks, preferring a readable version instead of one too much attached to Greek text. 

[Paullus Fabius Persicus], at the instigation of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus himself, and edict beneficial to the city of the Ephesians and the whole province, which he published at Ephesus and ordered to be inscribed on a column before March 28^th:

While it is very much my own view, above all else, that magistrates in charge of provinces must perform the office entrusted to them with all steadfastness and good faith, in such a way that they give thought to the long-term good of the individual, of the whole province and of each city, and not only to that of his own year of office, for all that I freely acknowledge that I have drawn to this view by the example of the greatest and most truly just princeps, who has taken the whole race of men into his personal care, amongst his benefactions, one and all most welcome, has conferred this favour – he has restored to each person what is his own.

For this reason I have taken a decision which is burdensome but necessary for the most illustrious city of the Ephesians [lines missing]... (many things) have been reduced to a heap of rubble by collapse; and the temple of Artemis herself, the jewel of the whole province on account of the grandeur of the building and the antiquity of the cult of the goddess and because of the abundance of funds which have been restored to the goddess by Augustus, is being deprived of its own money which would have sufficed for the care and decoration of the dedications. For this money is being siphoned off to the corrupt ends of those who lead the league in a way that they consider to be to their own profit. For whenever rather good news come from Rome they exploit it to their own profit: using the condition of the divine house as a veil, they sell priesthoods in the manner of a public auction and they call together men of every kind to buy them; then they do not choose those most suitable to have the appropriate crown placed on their heads.  

Commentary:

Our edition and commentary only concerns two of the several blocks recording a lengthy edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus that have been found in Ephesus. There are at least four copies of the document, two written in the original Latin and two translated into Greek. The best preserved Greek version would have been of up to 77 lines long. The many fragments of these copies were found in central public places such as the lower market and the theatre. Consequently, there should be no doubt that both the local institutions in charge of the stone-cutting and the Roman official issuing the order regarded the edict as being of prime importance (see Dörner, Der Erlass).

This document is indeed fundamental for studying Roman administration in the eastern Mediterranean. Likewise, it is one of the limited sources illustrating the mismanagement of religious entities in the early imperial period. However, our interest does not lie in explaining the specifics rules dictated by the Roman authorities. Instead, this commentary will focus on the way in which Paullus Fabius Persicus presents and justifies his decision to the population of Ephesus. As will be shown below, the provincial governor seeks to communicate that Rome cared for its subjects. This preoccupation for the way in which local communities were handling internal affairs allegedly motivated his intervention. With it, several key areas of the cultic life of Ephesus were to be transformed. It is therefore no coincidence that Persicus – in a block omitted in our edition (I.Eph. 17, l. 1-3) – opened his edict with a preface listing a career and positions closely related to religious activities. Through highlighting that he had been pontifex and member of the sodales and the Arval brethren (PIR² F 51), he was portraying himself as a pious man who had an insight into sacred matters.

The second important message of the governor’s preface (l. 1-3) is to emphasise that his edict (ἐπίκριμα/epikrima) had the emperor’s backing and was beneficial (συμφέρον/sympheron). Persicus’s argumentation, as recorded in lines 5 to 17 of our inscription, is based on these three ideas: his personal suitability, the convenience of his decision, and the imperial sanction. Thanks to line 18, it is possible to understand why this specific decision (ἐπίγνωσις/epignôsis) needed such a lengthy justification. The governor acknowledges that, even if necessary, it will be burdensome (φορτική/phortikê) to the city of Ephesus. For this reason, he first explains (l. 5-10) that the benefits will not come immediately but rather on long-term basis. The province of Asia was, as a rule, governed by proconsuls staying in office only a year. Consequently, the inhabitants of the provincial capital would only experience negative effects during Persicus’s term. The governor therefore appears to compromise his instant popularity, but considers that the virtues of steadfastness (εὐστάθεια/eustatheia) and good faith (πίστις/pistis) should prevail in his administration. The last argument (l. 11-16) developed to prevent him acquiring a bad reputation is particularly interesting. His long-term policy was following the example (ὑπόδειγμα/hypodeigma) of the emperor, who is presented as a “truly just leader”. The lack of god-like attributes complies with Claudius’ initial stance against divinisation (see Temple of Thasos). Persicus’s praise, nonetheless, is not diminishing. He affirms that the whole of the human race is under the emperor’s care (κηδεμονία/kêdemonia) and that, thanks to his benefactions (φιλάνθρωπα/philanthrôpa), “he has restored to each person what is his own.” From these last words, we can infer that the governor is not only elevating the emperor’s prestige to justify his actions, but also uses this document to spread imperial ideals. This propagandistic attitude is present in other provincial edicts dealing with both generous grants and complicated matters which could potentially damage the local reception of Roman power; for example the exaction of official transport in Galatia under Tiberius or the reform of Egypt under Galba.

Now, why could Persicus’s decision trigger negative reactions in the Asian capital? The edict was concerned with the temple of Artemis, and this could potentially damage the very core of Ephesus’s pride, prestige, and wealth. The governor himself refers to this temple as the “jewel of the entire province” in lines 2 and 3 of block B. Indeed, this religious complex was not only beautiful and listed among the wonders of antiquity, but had also played a very prominent role in Ionia since ancient times (see Karwiese, Gross ist die Artemis). In the Roman imperial period, its importance continued partly thanks to the benefaction of Augustus which is mentioned in the edict too (l. 5-6). The emperor confirmed the control of the sanctuary over an extensive territory in the Cayster valley, which was later confirmed by Domitian and Trajan (see Knibbe, Meriç, Merkelbach, “Der Grundbesitz”). From these lands and other sources of income such as loans and fines, the temple could perfectly finance its activities as Persicus insists (see Dignas, Economy of the sacred, p. 144-157). Consequently, they should not be selling priesthoods because, according to the governor, this was leading to corruption and the lower quality of the priestly personnel (l. 14-18). One element of such venal actions is quite remarkable. The governor claims that the receipt of good news (ἀγγελία/angelia) from Rome was a factor facilitating corruptive practices. This accusation most likely refers to the fact that favourable events advertised by the imperial power such as victories, triumphs, or dynastic successions motivated the local organisation of corresponding religious celebrations. This was actually one of the pillars of the imperial cult in the provinces, but the Ephesians had abused such a pretext to create new cultic structures that may be sold at a price.

For all such elements, this edict is important for attesting how the provincial population could take advantage of Rome’s intentions to propagate the worship of its dominion and care. At the same time, it illustrates the procedure followed by a provincial governor who needed to foster local loyalty and, simultaneously, had the power to intervene in regional administration with unpopular measures involving even sacred matters. Finally, Paullus Fabius Persicus’s words evidently served to enhance the propagandistic actions of his superior leader, Claudius. The proconsul acknowledged that he could be subject to aversion for imposing a burdensome – albeit convenient and necessary – reform. However, the Roman emperor still had to be perceived as the ruler caring for the benefit of humankind.