AIUK11 no. 10 Catalogue of ephebes

Catalogue of ephebes

AIUK 11 (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) no. 10 Date: 195/6 AD

Above pediment ἀγαθῆι [τύχηι]

Pediment with relief depicting flying Nike

Relief of ephebes exercising with Herakles

ὁ κοσμητὴς τῶν ἐφήβων [- - -] ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Γ̅· Ἑλβιδίου Σε[κούνδ]ου Παλληνέως ἀνέγραψεν τούς τε συνάρχοντας καὶ [τοὺς ὑ]π αὐτῷ ἐφηβ̣εύσαντας. (5)ἀντικοσμήτης Πό Αἴλιος Ϊ[σόχρυ]σ̣ος Παλληνεύς.

col. 1

παιδοτρίβης διὰ βίου Νεικόστρατος Ἱλάρου Παλ γραμματεὺς διὰ βίου ἱερεὺς Στρ[ά]των Ἀχαρ τὸ διʹ (10)σωφρονισταί Ἡρακλέων Ͻ Φλυ Ἀπολλώνιος Ζωσίμου Βησ Ἐλευσείνιο[ς] Σόφου Κηφι Σωτᾶς Ͻ ἐξ Οἴ (15)Ἀφροδείσιο[ς Ἐπ]αφρο Στει Ἐλπίνεικο[ς] Μυρι ὑποσωφ[ρονι]σταί Ἰσίδοτος Ͻ Σουνι Ἀπελλῆς Ͻ Ἀντ[ι] (20)Ἀθηνόδωρο[ς Ͻ] Ἑκα Διονύσιος Σ[ώτ]ου ἐξ Οἴ Λεωνίδης Σ[ωτί]ω Ἀθμ Παράμονος [Ῥαδι]νοῦ Ὤαθ προστάτη[ς] (25)Πό Αἴλιος Παιδ[έ]ρως Παλ ἡγεμών Ἀθηνόδωρος Ͻ Ἀθμο ὁπλομάχος [Ζω]ΐλος Εἰρηνα[ί]ου Φλυ (30)δ[ιδ]άσκαλος Ζώσ[ιμ]ος Ἀλεξάν Λαμ ὑποπαιδοτρίβης Εὐτυχια[νὸ]ς Ὑακίν Σφήτ ὑπογραμματεύς (35)Πό. Αἴλ. Ἄνθος [Ἠ]ρεσί κεστροφύλαξ Κάρπος Ͻ Ἀ[ρ]αφ ἐκ τῶν σεβαστοφορικ[ῶ]ν ἐδόθη τοῖς ἐφήβ[ο]ις πᾶσι ἐ[ν] (40)Πλαταιαῖς τῶι δ[ι]αλόγω[ι] ἑκάστωι 𐆖 Γ̅ καὶ ὑπὲ[ρ] τῆς ὑγείας τοῦ Αὐτοκράτορος εἰς θυσίας τοῖς περὶ τὴ̣ν ἐπιμέλειαν αὐτῶν τε[τ]α- (45)γμένοις ἑκάστωι 𐆖 Ε̅ καὶ ἐκ τῶν περισσῶν ἐπετελέσθη ὁ ἀγὼν τῶ[ν] Ἀθηναίων vacat

Φιλιστείδ[ης Ͻ Πειρ]αιεὺς καὶ Πό Αἴλ Κορνήλιος Παλ~ (50)ναυμαχ[ήσαντε]ς Μουνίχια συνεστεφανώθησαν vacat

Relief (boat)

col. 2

ἄρχων καὶ γυμνασίαρ[χος] δι ὅλου ἔτους Φιλιστείδης Ͻ Π[ειρ] στρατηγός (55)Πό Αἴλ Κορνήλιος Πα[λ] κῆρυξ Φλά Μαρεῖνος Παια βασιλεύς Πό Αἴλ Φείδιμος Παλ (60)ἐπετέλεσεν τὸν ἀγῶνα τῶν Ληναίων καὶ ἑστίασε τοὺς συνεφήβους καὶ τοὺς περὶ τὸ Διογένειον πάντας (65)πολέμαρχος Αὐρ Διονυσόδωρος Ἀχαρ ἀγορανόμοι Διονυσόδωρος Ͻ Βησαι Μηνόδωρος Εὐόδου Ἀχαρ (70)ἐπετέλεσαν τοὺς Κύθρους ἀγωνοθέται Ἀντινοείων ἐν ἄστει Ἀπολλώνιος Ͻ Πειρ Ἁδριανείων (75)Αἴλ Ἐρωτιανὸς Φλυ Ἀντινοείων ἐν Ἐλευσεῖνι Νεικόστρατος Νείκωνος Τριν Θησείων Περικλῆς Προσδέκτου Κεφ (80)Φιλαδελφείων Αὐρ Διονυσόδωρος Ἀχαρ τοῦ περὶ ἀλκῆς Πό Αἴλ Κορνήλιος Παλ Φλά Μαρεῖνος Παια (85)Γερμανικείων vacat Ἀθήναια ἐκ τῶν σεβαστοφορικῶν Ἐπινεικίων (90)Πό Αἴλ Φείδιμος Παλ τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐπιτελέσας ὅμο[ι]ον τῷ περὶ ἀλκῆς εἱστί[ασ]ε τοὺς συνε- φήβο[υς] καὶ τοὺς περὶ τὸ (95)Διογένειον

col. 3

Ἐρεχθεῖδος [. . . ⁶ . . .]μος ὁ καὶ Ἐλευσ̣είνιος Κηφ [. . . ⁶ . . .]νιος ὁ καὶ Π Αἴλ Ἐλευσί Κη [. . .]ος Ͻ Κηφ (100)-ρος Εὐπόρου Κηφ [. . . ⁵ . .]η̣τος Δημητρίου Λαμ -ι̣ος Δημητρίου Λαμ -ς Ͻ Κηφ [Ἀπο]λ̣λώνιος Σόφου Κηφ (105)-λιος Ἐπιγόνου Κηφ -ιγένης Θάλλου Φηγ Δ[η]μήτριος Ὀνησίμ Κηφ Ἑ[ρμ]ῆς Ζωπύρου ἐκ Κη Αἰγεῖδος (110)Ἀγαθοκλῆς Ἀττικοῦ Γαρ -ν Ἐ̣πικουριανὸς Γαρ Πανδιονίδος [Ἐπ]αφρόδειτος Ἀφροδει Στει [Αἴ]λ Λούκιος Ἀγγε (115)[Ὀκ]τάβιος Ἐλπινείκου Μυρι Ἐλπίνεικος Ͻ Μυρι Μουσώνιος Ἡροξέν Στει Ἰσίδοτος Ἡροξένου Στει Θ[ε]α̣γενη̣ς Σπόρου Κυδα (120)Βάσσος Ͻ Κυθ Λεωντίδος Σω[τ]ᾶς Ͻ ἐξ Οἴ Ζω[. . . . . ⁹ . . . .]ου ἐξ Οἴ Ἵλα[ρος Διονυ]σίου ἐξ Οἴ (125)Πισ- . . . Παιο Ζώσ[ιμος Τ]ειμοκρά Λευκ Ἀττ[ικὸς Φ]ιλήτου Εὐπυ Πάν[νυχ]ο̣ς̣ Ͻ ἐξ Οἴ Πτολεμαίδος (130)Ἡρα[κλέ]ω̣ν Ͻ Φλυ Ἀθή[ναι]ος Ἡρακλέω Φλυ Διόν[υσι?]ος Φιλοστράτ Βερ Ἀρτ[έμ]ων Ͻ Φλυ Μητ[ρό]δωρος Ἀρτέμω Φλυ (135)Σεκ[οῦ]νδος Ρητορικοῦ Βερ Ἀκαμαντίδος Ἀκάμας Προσδέκτου Κεφ Αὐρ Ἀττικὸς Πορι Πα[ρ]άμονος Μόσχου (140)Διονυσόδωρος Μόσχ Ἐπένγραφοι Εὐδαίμων Ἀφροδεισίου Κλ Σύνφορος Πρ[ό]σχολος Σωσιπάτρου (145)Φιρμάνιος Πειερίων Κλ΄ Ἑρμείας Φλ Νεικήτης Ζωτικὸς Μητροδώρου Κλ΄ Ἐπίκτητος (150)Εὐτυχιανὸς Περσέ[ω]ς Φ[ι]λοσέραπις Ζωσίμου [Ἀ]ριστοκλείδης Λάιος Νηρέως Ἐπιχάρης Ἰσιδώρου (155)Ζώσιμος Χρυσίωνος Νεικηφόρος Ζωσίμου Γέλως Ͻ Ὄλυμπος Ἀγαθημέρου [Ε]ὔτυχος Ὀνησίμου (160)Πάμφιλος Ͻ Ἔφηβος Ͻ

col. 4

Ἁδριανίδος Εὔπορος Ἀπο̣λλωνίου Βησ Ζώσιμος Ἀρίστωνος Βησ (165)Ἡδιανός Ͻ Φηγαι Μένανδρος Ἡδιανοῦ Φηγ Ραδινός Ͻ Ὤαθ Ἀγαθόπους Εἰσιδώρ Ἀφι Νεικηφόρος Γλύκωνος Βησ (170) Οἰνεῖδος Χαρίτων Φιλήτου Ἀχαρ Γαργήττιος Φιλήτου Ἀχαρ Αἴλ Φιλωνίδης Ἀχαρ Στράτων Ὀρθαγόρου Φυλά (175)Ἀθήναιος Φιλοστράτ Ἀχαρ Κεκροπίδος Φιλήμων Ͻ Τρινε Ἰσίδοτος Φιλήμονος Τρινε Εὐοδιανός Ͻ Αἰξω (180)Ἀθήναιος Στεφάνου Ἐπεικ Ζώσιμος Πολυκτήτου Μελι vacat Ἱπποθοωντίδος Πιστοκράτης Πιστικοῦ Πειρ (185)Διονύσιος Γενεθλίου Πειρ Διονύσιος Ἰσιδότου ἐκ Κοί Ἑρμείας Ζωσίμου Πειρ Φιλοκράτης Γενεθλίου Πειρ Αἰαντίδος (190)Κλ Ἕλενος Μαρα Ἰούλ Ἀγρίππας Μαρα Αὐρ Λυκοῦργος Μαρα Ἰούλ Διόσκορος Μαρα Κράτων Διονυσίου Φαλη (195)Ἀρίστων Ͻ Ψαφι Ἀντιοχίδος Κλ Ρουφεῖνος Παλ Πομπηιανὸς Εὐνόμου Παλ Ἑρμείας Κλεωνύμου Φυρν (200)Φιλων Ͻ Ἰτεα Ἀτταλίδος Γοργίας Ἡρακλείδου Σουν Μόσχος Κορνηλιαν Ἁγν Βακχύλος Εὐκάρπου Ἀπολ

(205)Αὐρ Σωτήριχος Πραξιτέλης Ͻ Δομετιανὸς Μαρκέλλου Ἀρέσκων Ͻ Μηνόφιλος Σωτῦ (210)Ζώσιμος Αὐγαίου Ἱππεὺς Εἰσᾶ Παράμονος Ͻ Εὔτυχος Ἀσκληπιάδου Ζώσιμος Ἀντωνείνου (215)Ἀττικὸς Ἰκέλου Ἀντιπᾶς Νείκωνος Στρατοκλῆς Πρείμου Δάφνος Ͻ Ἀγαθόπους Εὐφήμου (220)Ἐπαφρόδειτος Εὐφήμου Αὐρ Ἡρᾶς Εὐήμερος Ἀπολειναρίου Νεικηφόρος Διονυσίου vacat θυρωρός· Κορνήλιος Δημήτριος (225)λεντιάριος· Μέλισσος Διοφάντου

Previous - AIUK 11 (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) no. 9 Next - AIUK 11 (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) no. 11
Translated text

References:

AIUK 11 (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) no. 10 (Translated text) (AIO) (AIUK)

IG II² 2130 (PHI)

SEG 42.140 (PHI)

Wilson, Ephebic Inscriptions E.257

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

AIO Images: 1

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: List of names (ephebic)

Original location: [Diogeneion]

Fr. a - Findspot: Athens, St. Demetrios Katephores (NM 1470)
Fr. b - Findspot: Athens, “House of Benaldi” (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford ANChandler 2.52)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This inscription consists of two fragments. Fragment A (the left half of the stele) was used as building material for the Post-Herulian Wall and was discovered during excavations of the section of the wall under St. Demetrios Katephores in 1862. Fragment B (the right half of the stele) is one of ten inscriptions acquired by George Wheler on his visit to Athens in 1676 and donated to the University of Oxford 1683 (cf. AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 4). He acquired it from the house of Ioannes Venaldes, where it seems to have been used as a door lintel.

This stele is an ephebic catalogue, a list of ephebes, young men undergoing a year of military and civic training in 195/6 AD, along with the magistrates and staff who managed the ephebate that year. These catalogues were erected in the Diogeneion gymnasium (the headquarters of the ephebate), every year from the early first century AD until 267 AD. For the earlier history of the ephebate, see RO 89 with notes. This inscription is a particularly fine example of these catalogues and the insights they provide into the way the ephebate was used to present an idealised version of the Athenian past and present and to inculcate particular ideas about virtue, masculinity, and social order. For a general discussion of the ephebate in Roman Athens see AIO Papers 12. [2] Only the left half of the relief is preserved. In a pediment, there are traces of a Nike flying right towards a (lost) shield. Below the pediment there are a number of nude figures, from left to right: an ephebe running left past a flaming altar, holding a torch; two ephebes wrestling, one throwing the other; Herakles depicted in the style of the Farnese Hercules (images on Wikimedia commons). Herakles was one of the patron deities of the ephebate, along with Hermes (cf. AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 7). The scene is unique among the surviving ephebic catalogues (for the more usual scene of the ephebes crowning their superintendent, see IG II² 2044), but it encapsulates the ephebate’s emphasis on physical training and athletic competition. The association of youth training with athletics and the gymnasium goes back to the Classical Period, when it had been seen as a central part of preparing the youth for military service. In the Imperial period, Athenians were very unlikely to experience warfare, but the idea of the ephebate as military training remained current – as shown by the shield which appeared in the pedimental relief. The importance of physical training is emphasised in a number of Imperial texts on education (e.g. [Plutarch] On Educating Children 8c-d; Lucian Anacharsis, Dio Chrysostom, Or. 28-29). It was part of a broader trend in which athletic success served as a signifier of prowess, masculinity, and Greekness, for individual athletes and for their communities (J. König, Athletics and Literature, [2005], esp. 45-157; AIO Papers 12, sect. 3.2). [3] The superintendent (kosmetes) and deputy superintendent (antikosmetes) were annual magistrates in charge of the ephebate, see IG II² 3739 and AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.1). It was common for superintendents’ sons to go through the ephebate during their year of office (cf. AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 16). In this way, the catalogues blurred the distinction between public and private, simultaneously recording the operation of the ephebate as a public institution and showcasing the superintendent’s own family. Because the superintendent’s name is lost, it is unclear whether he had a son in this cohort (perhaps Philisteides, ll. 51-53), but two of the deputy superintendent’s sons, Cornelius and Pheidimos, appear at ll. 55 and 59. [4] The permanent staff of the ephebate, “those associated with the Diogeneion” (hoi peri Diogeneion) are listed in three sections of the stele, reflecting their different levels of prestige. The trainer (paidotribes) and the secretary are listed at the top of column 1 (ll. 6-9); only they are specified to hold office for life (dia biou). The majority of the staff are listed at ll. 24-37. Most of these were responsible for instructing the ephebes in particular athletic and military skills. Finally, two much lower-ranking positions, the doorman (thyroros) and linen-keeper (lentiarios) appear at the very end of the stele (ll. 224-25). Their lack of demotics suggests that they were non-citizens, which is common in these posts. For more on the ephebic staff, see AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 6 and AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.1. [5] The board of six controllers (sophronistai) and six deputy controllers (hyposophronistai), were annual magistrates who oversaw the ephebes conduct and ensured that they developed the virtue of self-control (sophrosyne). See IG II² 2044 and AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.1. The controllers each had one or more sons among the year’s ephebes, who are listed first in their respective tribes (ll. 97-98, 104, 113, 115-16, 122-23, 130-31, 163), suggesting that they enjoyed a certain prestige. [6] The name of the Sebastophoric fund refers to the role of the ephebes as sebastophoroi (“emperor-bearers”), who carried busts of the emperors and their consorts in religious processions and into the Assembly (see SEG 21.509 and AIO Papers 12, sect. 3.1, cf. I Ephesos 27A). The debate (dialogos) at Plataia (ll. 37-44) took place every four years at the common council of the Greeks. It was a ceremonial debate between Athens and Sparta over which city would have precedence at the Eleutheria festival, a Panhellenic festival which celebrated the Greek victory over the Persians at Plataia in 479 BC. The ephebes attended as a sympathetic audience and were presented with a clear demonstration of how Athens’ contemporary prestige was linked to its past achievements. This was followed by a disbursement of money for sacrifices for the Emperor’s health. The close relationship with the emperor was thus presented as being as important to Athens as the achievements in the Persian Wars (see N. Robertson, Hesperia 55, 1986, 88-102). [7] The naumachia (“sea-battle,” ll. 48-49) was a naval contest undertaken by the ephebes. It may have been a mock sea-battle or, more likely, a rowing contest. The relief at the bottom left of the stele shows three youths in the victorious boat. One of them lifts his oar in the air (a gesture of triumph?). The contest recalled the naval prowess of Classical Athens and commemorated the Athenian victory over the Persians at the Battle of Salamis (480 BC), making it another example of the ephebate’s emphasis on Athenian military heritage. It mirrored similar events held in Rome and Nikopolis in honour of Augustus’ victory at Actium in 31 BC, perhaps implying that the two victories were on the same level. It is unclear whether “at the Mounichia” means that the event took place at the Mounichia festival or in the Mounichia harbour. See AIO Papers 12, sect. 3.5.i. [8] The second column (ll. 51-95) lists ephebes who had helped to organise and fund the ephebes' activities. Usually the first part of this section would be structured around the gymnasiarchs, who each paid for the olive oil required for the ephebe’s athletic activities for one month of the year (see IG II² 1990 and AIO Papers 12, sect. 2.3). Extraordinarily, Philisteides had fulfilled this role for the entire year (ll. 51-53). Thus, the first part of this list is instead structured around the cohort magistracies. These positions mirrored the chief magistracies of contemporary Athens: the eponymous archon, basileus, herald, general, polemarch, and six thesmothetai, occasionally supplemented by other positions, like the market-inspectors (agoranomoi) in ll.67-70. It is not clear exactly what the duties of the cohort magistrates were, but they are an example of how the ephebate modelled an ideal version of the civic structure that the ephebes would shortly participate in as adult citizens (see IG II³ 4, 418 and AIO Papers 12, sect. 2.3). [9] Publius Aelius Cornelius (l. 55) is the brother of Publius Aelius Pheidimos (l. 59) and both appear to be the sons of the deputy superintendent Publius Aelius Isochrysos (l. 5). There are at least ten sets of brothers in this catalogue. On these “ephebic twins,” see AIO Papers 12, sect. 0.2. [10] The Lenaia (ll. 58-64) and Chytroi (ll. 67-70) were celebrated by all Athenians, not just the ephebes. It is interesting that the ephebic king archon paid for expenses of the Lenaia, since the adult king archon was traditionally in charge of this festival (see IG II³ 4, 41). Perhaps this was an occasion when the ephebic king and his adult equivalent collaborated on a single civic event, in a symbolic gesture of continuity between adult and youth elites. For Chytroi (day two of the Anthesteria festival), see R. Parker, Polytheism (2005), 290-316. [11] The Competition-directors (agonothetai) were ephebes responsible for funding the ephebic games festivals. They tend to overlap closely with the ephebic gymnasiarchs (see AIO Papers 12, sect. 2.3). This catalogue lists nine separate festivals organised by them. Most of these festivals stressed Athens’ close and enduring relationship with the Imperial House. The oldest of these was the Germanikeia (l. 85), honouring Germanicus Caesar, the original heir of Emperor Tiberius (see IG II² 1969). The Hadrianeia honoured the Emperor Hadrian and the two Antinoeia festivals honoured Antinoos, Hadrian’s young lover who died in 130 AD and received widespread cult honours as an idealised youth thereafter, which made him a particular appropriate figure to be honoured by the ephebes (ll. 72-77). The Philadelpheia (ll. 80-81) and the Epinikeia (ll. 89-95) were established for the joint-Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (see IG II² 2090). Other festivals emphasised Athenian mythic heritage. The Theseia (l. 78-79) honoured the Athenian hero Theseus, perhaps presenting him as an Athenian equivalent to the Roman emperor (cf. SEG 50.155). The Athenaia (l. 87-88) revived a mythical festival of Athena that Theseus was supposed to have replaced with the Panathenaia (cf. IG II² 2116, ll. 17-21). Thus, these festivals were another area in which loyalty to the Emperor and commemoration of Athens' heritage were intertwined. For the contests that took place at these festivals, see IG II² 2119 and AIO Papers 12, sect. 3.5.iii. The Contest of Prowess (Peri Alkes) seems to have been a different kind of contest from the others (see AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 7 and AIO Papers 12, sect. 3.5.iv.). [12] The ephebes who had not performed special liturgies are listed in columns 3-4. There are a total of 123 ephebes in this cohort (including the ten ephebic liturgists). The seventy-four of these were regular citizen ephebes, who are listed with patronymics and demotics and arranged according to their tribes, in the upper halves of columns 3 and 4 (ll. 95-140, 162-204). The number of ephebes in this inscription is slightly under the average for this period, but is still larger than many cohorts of the Hellenistic period (see AIO Papers 12, sect. 1.3.). [13] The thirty-nine “additional enrollees," who are listed in the lower halves of columns 3 and 4 (ll. 141-61, 205-23), were non-citizen ephebes. See IG II² 2017 and AIO Papers 12, sect. 4.1.).

For more detailed discussion of the inscription see AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 10.

Added: 14 Jan 2021
Updated: 29 Mar 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2104