SEG 50.155 Ephebic decree and transcript of ephebic oration, 184/5 AD

Ephebic decree and transcript of ephebic oration, 184/5 AD

SEG 50.155 Date: AD 184/5

In the archonship of Titus Flavius Sosigenes of Pallene (184/5 AD), when the superintendent (kosmēteuontos) was the priest ox-slayer (boutupou) Lakrateides son of Eutychides of Azenia, the ephebes, having gathered together after the [Theseia? contest], decided to inscribe on a stele the protreptic oration, (5) which Publius Aelius Isochrysos of Phlya, the archon of [the ephebes, gymnasiarch, and] competition director (agōnothetēs) of the Contest of Prowess (peri alkēs) delivered.^[1] uninscribed space with horizontal white line [Yesterday,] we delivered a funerary oration (epitaphion) for Theseus, thus [delivering an encomium for him] [as a hero], and we presented the first fruits (aparchas) to him, making recompense [in words] for [his] many [deeds]. Now, it has been determined that the [fellow ephebes (sunephēbous)] (10) [should rise to emulation of him], so that he may have from the ephebes also deeds [that imitate him];^[2] . . . but that we the . . . . . . . . . . . . first . . . (15) . . . for this infant? . . . . . . from this . . . . . . the labours . . . . . . without spirit . . . . . . in the . . . (20) . . . from that? . . . . . . complete . . . . . . praiseworthy things? . . . . . . . . . who, fighting? . . . (25) . . . same . . . . . . to praise victory? . . . . . . more having been said? or done? or arrayed? . . . . . . to the thing that was lacking also there? . . . . . . it is fitting also to recount . . . (30) . . . best things. Let us remember . . . . . . to the founder (oikistē) of Athens Ha[drian Augustus?] . . . . . . [he built] us the greatest city [and] [thus became our fatherland’s] father (patridos patēr). So, since these things [have been accomplished] the city [flourishes again in our] time. [And] the epigram [on the gate] (35) [bears witness] to [him], “This is Athens, once Theseus' city.”^[3] And we bear, [in whatever manner it may be, the hopes?] of the whole city. Remember this too: that Theseus himself, as an ephebe, earned the greatest prizes (athla) [and overcame Sinis?] in our land and his father Peri[phetes’ violence?] and drove out the Club-bearer (40) and the raiders [in the Megarid and], after Skeiron, Prokroustes.^[4] Yes, as an ephebe, [leading the double seven], he sailed out to Crete [against the Minotaur and from the most shameful] tribute (dasmou) he freed his fatherland [and thus greatly benefited] the citizens and ephebes.^[5] Who [then, could match such great] deeds as his? (45) What ephebe [could] imitate [such things], on hearing how overwhelming (pankratē)^[6] and [splendid those done] by him were? But [our contest of excellence is not,] like his, against wild beasts [nor against Kerberos?],^[7] but [we strive] against each other, in a manner worthy [of him and] rush [into competition], and it is the superintendent (kosmētēn), [who has received (the duty of) monitoring us ephebes] that we wish to imitate, (50) in his preference for excellence in everything.^[8]

Previous - SEG 49.136 Next - SEG 51.75
Greek text

References:

SEG 50.155 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG II² 2291a (= Fragment A & B) (PHI)

IG II² 1125 (= Fragment C) (PHI)

SEG 38.1970, T 17 (ll. 3, 41)

Byrne, RCA 509, 530

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Images: Krateros - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (ephebic), Transcript of oration

Fragment a - Findspot: House of K. M. Parisis, south of the tower of the Winds (EM 9506-9507)
Fragment b - Findspot: Unknown (EM 9509)
Fragment c - Findspot: Near the Hephaisteion (EM 2097)
Fragment d - Findspot: Near the tower of the Winds (EM 9510)
Fragment e - Findspot: Unknown (EM 9505)
Fragment f - Findspot: Unknown (EM 9508)
Fragment g - Findspot: Unknown (EM 3028)
Fragment h - Findspot: Unknown (EM 3862)
Fragment i - Findspot: Unknown (EM)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This inscription is a decree passed by the ephebic cohort of 184/5 AD (for the date, see Byrne, RCA, p. 509, 530). The ephebic catalogue (IG II² 2128) and a systremma list (IG II² 2129) also survive from this year. This is the only decree of the ephebes from the Imperial period to be inscribed in full, but collective decisions by the ephebes, particularly honorific ones, are frequently referred to in inscriptions (e.g. IG II² 3737). On other decrees of the Imperial period, see SEG 21.499. This decree orders the inscription of a speech delivered by the ephebic archon at one of the ephebic festivals, probably the Theseia (on which see IG II³ 4, 377). The speech is a “protreptic oration” – an exhortation to listeners to behave virtuously. According to IG II² 2119, ll. 247-49, the ephebes were subjected to two of these per year, as well as numerous speeches at the ephebic festivals. However, this is the only ephebic speech whose text survives – unfortunately, only in fragmentary form. Inscribed Greek orations are very rare; the few other examples are all of Roman date: IG II² 2291B (speech of an unknown sophist before the Areopagos), IG VII 2713 (speech of Nero at Isthmia), SEG 39.1193 (speech of thanks, Ephesos). The speaker, Isochrysos, possessed Roman citizenship and was wealthy enough to perform the ephebic gymnasiarchy and competition directorship (agonothesia), but is only attested subsequently once, as a member of the Council of 500 (Agora XV 392, l. 44). For the positions held by him as an ephebe, see AIO Papers 12, sect. 2.3. The superintendent’s title, “Ox-slayer” (boutypos) was a priesthood involved in the “Ox-slaying rite” (Bouphonia) of the Dipoleia festival, on which see AIO 1185 F1 col. 2 with notes, cf. Parker, Polytheism, 187-91. [2] The opening section of the speech, the exordium, introduces the topic of the whole oration: how are the ephebes to emulate Theseus, founding hero of Athens? The parallel between Theseus and the ephebes had been established already in the Classical period, since he carried out his most famous exploits as a young man and went on to be the archetypal male citizen (H. J. Walker, Theseus and Athens, 1995, 94-112). The association of Theseus with the ephebes remained live in the Roman period, as shown by this speech (especially ll. 37-38 and 41, where Theseus is called an ephebe). Compare SEG 46.286, a funerary stele for an ephebe called Paramonos, which concludes, “I am a new Theseus.” However, given his superhuman stature and the difference between his world and that of the ephebes, it was not obvious how the ephebes were meant to emulate Theseus in practice. This gap between the emphasis on the idealised mythic and Classical past and the reality of life under Roman rule was a key issue underlying Greek literature and thought of this period (S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire, 1996, esp. 65-100, J. König, Athletics and Literature, 2005, 45-96). The question had a contemporary dimension, since in this period Theseus was often treated as an Athenian prototype for the Emperor – another role model, whom the ephebes could not realistically expect to emulate (see n. 3). Isochrysos thus sets out to deal with an issue of central importance to his audience. The conclusion that he reaches – that the ephebes should take Theseus as inspiration for the pursuit of virtue generally, but must be conscious of the difference between his setting and theirs, restricting their own efforts to competitions amongst themselves in a civic context – is similar to that presented by Plutarch (e.g. Political Advice 813c-816a, On Progress to Virtue 85a). [3] The speaker appears to refer to the Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), whose extensive benefactions to Athens led him to be honoured as a second founder of Athens (see M. Boatwright, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire, 2000, 144-57, 167-71). Hence the (probable) reference to him as “our fatherland’s father” (l. 33), which also puns on the title “father of the fatherland” (pater patriae) awarded to Emperors by the Roman Senate. The “epigram on the gate” is IG II² 5185a, still visible in Athens today on the Arch of Hadrian. The arch itself emphasises the parallel between Theseus and Hadrian, referring to one side of the gate as “the Athens of Theseus” and the other as “the city of Hadrian and not of Theseus.” The reference to Hadrian had contemporary relevance, since Hadrian was the adoptive great-grandfather of the reigning emperor Commodus. This fact was referenced in Commodus’ official titulature and the two emperors were closely associated (e.g. being honoured together in Hadrianeia-Commodeia festivals at both Smyrna and Ephesus, FD III 6, 143; TAM II 587). If l. 35 is correctly restored, a parallel is constructed between the city’s buildings, which “bear" witness to the past, and the ephebes who “bear" the hopes for the future. Such parallelism between civic structures and the city’s populace was a literary commonplace (e.g. Plato, Laws 778d-e, Plutarch, Life of Lykourgos 19). [4] The parallel between Theseus and the ephebes is emphasised by the anaphora (repetition of the opening clause) in ll. 37-38 and 41, and by the reference to his successes as “prizes” (athla), akin to those won by the ephebes themselves in their athletic competitions. In ll. 38-40, Isochrysos refers to various bandits defeated by the young Theseus as he travelled from his birthplace in Troizen to meet his father in Athens. The main literary accounts of this journey, which was a prototypical Athenian coming-of-age narrative, are Bacchylides 18.16-30, Isokrates Or. 10.29, Diodoros 4.59-61, and Plutarch, Life of Theseus 8-12. Many of the restorations are tentative. Sinis the “pine-bender” killed people by bending down pine-trees, tying people to them, and then letting the trees bounce back. The reference to him as “in our land” is unparalleled (he was traditionally placed at Isthmia, whose special symbol was the pine); the restoration of a reference to him may be incorrect. Periphetes or Korynetes (“Club-bearer”) was based at Epidauros – as reconstructed, this speech would be the only source to separate him into two individuals. However, the first name might instead be Perigyne, daughter of Sinis (Plut. Theseus 8). Skeiron was a bandit at Chelone in the Megaris, who would make travellers wash his feet at the top of a cliff and then kick them off. Prokroustes, based at Korydallos on the road from Eleusis to Athens, killed travellers by stretching or amputating them to make them the same length as his bed. [5] Theseus’ most famous exploit was his defeat of the half-man, half-bull Minotaur. According to the myth, Minos’ son Androgeos was killed in Attica and as compensation the Athenians were required to send seven young men and seven young women (regularly referred to as “the double seven,” dis hepta, hence the restoration in l. 41) to Crete to be fed to the Minotaur. Theseus volunteered to join the "double seven" and slew the monster. The myth was also closely associated with the ephebes – one explanation of the black cloaks that the ephebes wore until 165/6 AD was that they commemorated the black sails of Theseus’ ship (see IG II² 2090). [6] Lines 44 and 45 use anaphora of τίς (“who, what”) to strengthen the rhetorical questions. “Overwhelming” (pankrate) might be a pun on the pankration, a wrestling event familiar to the ephebes from their athletic contests. [7] Theseus fought against a number of beasts, aside from the Minotaur: the sow of Krommyon, the bull of Marathon, and the Centaurs (Plut. Theseus 9, 13-14, 30). The restoration of Kerberos, if correct, refers to Theseus’ expedition to the Underworld in a failed attempt to abduct Persephone as a bride for Perithoos. [8] This is the most explicit statement of the role of the superintendent (kosmetes) as a moral exemplum for the ephebes, something which is implied by other epigraphic and visual material – especially the herms erected by the ephebes in their honour, on which see IG II² 3739 and AIO Papers 12, sect. 1.4 and 2.1.

Textual note AIO’s text follows S. Follet, D. Peppas-Delmouzou, in F. Prévot, Romanité et cité chrétienne, 2000, 11-17 (= SEG 50.155). Restorations in ll. 3 and 41 are due to A. Chaniotis, Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften, 1988, T 17, p. 70-72 (= SEG 38.1970, T 17).

Added: 14 Jan 2021
Updated: 4 Jul 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2128