Opramoas and the Anonymous Benefactor

Author(s): J. J. Coulton
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 107 (1987), pp. 171-178
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/630080 .
Accessed: 26/01/2011 05:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 NOTES
The evidence for all this does not amount to much;
some artists-if I may use the word-made 'designs'
for metalworkers and, since metalwork (according to
Vickers) determined the colours as well as the shapesof
fine Attic pottery, it might as well provide the
decoration too. There are objections. Painted pottery
was cheap and 'designs'relatively expensive (so Vickers
reasonably observes)16 and, if only for economy, one
would expect a design to have been used repeatedly by
the potter who hired or bought it; yet in Attic painted
pottery close duplicates are remarkably rare. It is
perhaps not so important that, to judge by EypayE
inscriptions, most vase-painters (as identified stylisti-
cally) each used the 'designs' of a single and separate
designer.'7 A more serious difficulty, though, is in the
interpretation of which appears on a fair
ErroirlaE,
number of simply decorated pots and on some with no
decoration,18so that for the latter at least the craftsman
in the pottery cannot have been working to a 'design':
so EXoEKlaS on two undecorated cups should
E'rTOlEaEV
mean that Exekias made pottery and not metalwork
and, since we have two amphoras with elaborate
decoration inscribed EXoEKlaSEypaq(aE KCrrTOlEoE PE,it
should follow that he was also their painter (or
designer),19 so that the old interpretationsof irroifloE
and 'ypalE arejustified. Further,in the metalwork that
vase-painters are assumed to have been copying the
decoration was, it seems, engraved; why then did the
vase-painters develop three different kinds of line in
their copies-the relief line, the flush black line and the
dilute line?20 Lastly, I doubt whether vase-painters
regularly had any 'design' in front of them when
painting a pot;21 if they did and it was a detailed one,
there should again be more duplicates and the alte-
rations from preliminarysketches on some pots-here
Vickers and I agree--suggest that there they were
painting from the head and not reproducing a pre-
viously drawn 'design'. On archetypes I do not
understand Vickers's reasoning: where subjects and
types recur, surely vase-painters could imitate or be
influenced by one another, as sculptors and architects
obviously were?
To sum up, Vickers's claim that Attic pottery is
almost wholly dependent on metalwork has little
probability and less fact to support it. His argument is
enviably wide-ranging, but it is shallow and skims over
difficulties.
R. M. CooK
Museumof ClassicalArchaeology,Cambridge
16 The evidence is
Pliny's statement about Parrhasius-'multa
graphidis vestigia exstant in tabulis ac membranis eius, ex quibus
proficere dicuntur artifices' (NH xxxv 68): parchment ('membrana')
was expensive.
17 This point is made by F. Canciani in ed. E. B6hr and W. Martini,
Studienzur Mythologieund Vasenmalerei(Mainz 1986) 63 n. 8.
18 A convenient,
though now very incomplete, illustrated corpus
of signed pots is provided byJ. C. Hoppin, A handbookof GreekBlack-
figured vases (Paris 1924) and A handbookof Attic Red-figuredvases
(Cambridge, Mass. 1919)-
19 Hoppin (n. 17-B.F.) s.v. Exekias, nos. I and 4; 2 and 9.
20 If there were different kinds of line
in the 'designs' for
metalworkers, what was their purpose and how was a relief line
produced?
21 Vase-painters'own trial sketches for elaborate
compositions are
allowed by J. D. Beazley ('Potter and painter', PBA xxx
(1944] 38)
andJ. V. Noble (The techniqueof Atticpaintedpottery[New York 1965]
50).
171
After writing this I read M. Robertson'ssensiblelecture
in ed. D. Kurtz, BeazleyandOxford(Oxford 1985) 19-
30. He makes some of the points I make and some I do
not. But since our approachesare different, I have left
my text unaltered.
Opramoas and the Anonymous Benefactor
Opramoasof Rhodiapolisin EasternLyciais one of
the best known benefactorsin the Greekhalf of the
RomanEmpirebecausethe decreesand other docu-
mentsinscribedon histomballowusto tracetheextent
and sequenceof his benefactionsand the honourshe
received.' Two inscriptionsfrom the Letoon near
Xanthos,recentlypublishedby A. Balland,seem to
extendthispictureof generosity,one of themvirtually
doubling the previoustotal of Opramoas'benefac-
tions.2 The first, Balland no. 66, is a statue base
recordingthat Opramoasgave to the LycianLeague
landto financea distributionto the koinobouloi of the
league;the second,Ballandno. 67, is a stelelistinga
much longer seriesof benefactions,to the league,to
Xanthosandto otherLyciancities,butit doesnot, and
neverdid,includethebenefactor's name.Ballandargues
thatthesecondinscriptionalsorefersto Opramoas,and
thishasbeengenerallyaccepted;3but it is arguedhere
that its subjectis not Opramoasbut an anonymous
contemporary,so that Opramoasloses his unique
positionamong Lycianbenefactors,and we can com-
parethe nature,extentanddistribution of hisgiftswith
thoseof the AnonymousBenefactorandothers.4
The main argumentfor identifyingthe Anonym-
mous Benefactoras Opramoasis the inclusion in
Balland no. 67 of a gift of 40,ooo den. for the
constructionof a doublestoaby the harbourat Patara,
for according to document 63 of his mausoleum
Opramoasundertookthewholecostof a doublestoaby
the harbourthere.Threesupplementary argumentsare
less telling. Firstly,both Ballandno. 66 and no. 67
recordlargedonationsfor distributions to the Lycian
league.But the two benefactions,althoughof similar
size, are describedin differentterms;Ballandno. 66
namesthenatureof the gift (land),itsincome,5andthe
1 Discussions
of Opramoas: T. R. S.Broughton inT. Frank(ed.),
An economic
surveyof ancientRomeiv (Baltimore1938) 779-80; P.
Veyne, Le pain et le cirque(Paris 1976) 295-6; his mausoleum
inscription: TAM ii 905=IGR iii 739. R. Heberdey, Opramoas
(Vienna1897)discusses
thereconstruction
of theinscribed
wallsand
thechronologyof thevarious
documentsrecorded,andhisnumber-
ingof thedocuments,retained
inIGR andTAM,willbeusedhere.
2 A. Balland, Fouillesde Xanthosvii, Inscriptions du
d'Bpoque
imp&riale
Lhtoon 198i), citedbelowasBalland.
(Paris Theinscriptions
discussed
here,Ballandnos.66,67=SEGxxx (i980)1534-5,arediscussed at
lengthby Balland 173-224.
3 Balland
186-7. Theidentification
wasproposed
ina preliminary
paperby Ballandin ActesduColloque
surlaLycie (Paris1980)
antique
89-93,andadopted by H. Metzger,TADxxv (i980)192-3.It has
beengenerallyaccepted byreviewers
e.g.SEGxxx(1980)1534-5;G.
Moretti, ArchClassxxxiii (1981) 423-4; J. and L. Robert, REG xcv
(1982) 396-8.
4 My attention was drawn to this problem by A. Farrington, and I
owe much to discussion with him of the architecturalepigraphy of
Roman Lycia. I am also grateful to A. S. Hall, S.Jameson, and S. R. F.
Price for advice in the preparationof this paper, although they are not,
of course, responsible for the errors and weaknesses that remain.
5 A gift by Opramoas for a comparable but a smaller foundation at
Tlos (see below p. 174 and n. 12) is also specified as land, and valued
only in terms of its annual income.
172 NOTES
TABLE I. BENEFACTIONS OF OPRAMOAS AND THE ANONYMOUS BENEFACTOR

Opramoas Anon. Benefactor

Myra d. (Sanct.of Peace,theatre,

oo100,000ooo+ 5o,ooo+d.8 (gymnasiumperistyle)
gymnasiumexedra,statue,oil)plusagonothesia
Patara 38,ooo+d. (porticoand otherworks) 72,000d. (portico,sitometria,festival)
plusagonothesia
Tlos 60,000d. (theatre,exedrain baths) 80,000d. (baths,agora)
plusdistributionfund
Xanthos 30,000d. (theatre) 650,0ood. (councilchamber?,gymnasium,
2 baths,agora,worksatLetoon,remission of
debts)pluschildren'sfund,distributions

amountto be distributed, whileBallandno. 67 records Opramoas,the distribution fundmentionedat the start

only the capitalvalue;the identityof the two is not
obvious. Secondly,the AnonymousBenefactorgave
30,000 den. 'on behalf of Helena',perhapsClaudia
Helena,whosesister-in-lawwas a nieceof Opramoas.
But even if ClaudiaHelenais meant,the familyof this
wealthyLycianladyis remarkably well known,andshe
was certainlymore closely relatedto other potential
benefactors(Table II).6Thirdly, the identity of the
AnonymousBenefactorwasprobablyunderstoodfrom
the inscribedbaseof a nearbyportraitstatue,and the
stelewasfoundnearthestatuebaseof Opramoas.Butit
wasnot foundinsitu,andthereareotherstatuebasesin
the area.
The identificationeffectivelyrests,therefore,on the
two references to moneygivenfortheconstruction of a
double stoa at Patara,and in other respectsit raises
seriousdifficulties.
Fortheothergiftsof theAnonymous
Benefactordo not correspond to thoserecordedfor the
same cities in the documentson the mausoleumof
Opramoasandelsewhere,as Table I shows.7
Itisnotsatisfactoryto argue,asBalland189-90,does,
thatthisis becausetheanonymousbenefactions fallafter
AD152andso arelaterthanthe mausoleum.First,they
representtoo substantial a sum.The benefactions listed
on Opramoas'tombamountto about8oo,oooden.,and
thelandfinancingthedistributions to theLycianleague
and to Tlos would probablybringhis total to rather
over I,ooo,oooden.9 If the AnonymousBenefactoris
6 MausoleumDocuments59 and63 note Opramoas's
connection
with AeliaPlatonis(who was presumablythe daughterof a sisterof
Opramoaswho marriedan Aelius), while IGR iii 500.11.69-73
recordsherhusband's relationship to ClaudiaHelena.See alsobelow
p. 175andn. I9.
7 FortheAnonymousBenefactor seeBallandno. 67;forOpramoas
see MausoleumDocument63, Ballandno. 66, and TAMii, 578-9.
8 The sign for 50,000,quiteclear,is followedby a puzzlingletter.
Balland,transcribing it t, interpretsit withoutcomment(p. 193)as
givinga totalof 56,000den.Xi shouldmean60 or 60,oo0,not 6,000,
but60 denariiseemstoo smalla sumfor mentionin thiscontext,and
6o,oootoo large.The letterdoesnot matchthe xi in lines 19and26,
nor the lunatesigmaselsewherein the text.
9 Forthe Tlos foundationsee 174andn. 12. Thecalculationcan
p.
only be approximate.Broughton(n. 1) 780 arrivesat a figureof
604,000den.,with a ratherlow estimatefor Myra,and(of course)no
knowledgeof Ballandno. 66; Balland221 suggests750,000den. for
the mausoleumrecords.Therearemanyunquantifiable benefactions
such as the office of agonotheteat Myra and Pataraand the
gymnasiarchies at Korydalla.
of Ballandno. 67 is the sameas thatin no. 66, so must
not be countedtwice. But even withoutthatthe sums
specifiedin no. 67 add up to just under9oo,oooden.,
besides the various distributionsand the children's
foundationatXanthos,whicharelikelyto havetotalled
at least zoo,ooo den. PresumablyOpramoasdid not
updatethe recordson his mausoleumdaily, and may
well have died with some benefactionsstill unlisted
there;it is thereforequitereasonableto argue(asBalland
174)thatthesinglebenefactions recordedin Ballandno.
66 is absentfrom the mausoleumlists,becauseit was
made just before Opramoas'sdeath. But it is less
plausibleto usethe sameargumentfor thewhole series
of benefactions listedon Ballandno. 67, for thatwould
leave the loving recordsof the mausoleumwith only
aboutone thirdof the totalbenefactions of Opramoas,
and so many gifts are likely to havebeen spreadover
several years (those listed in Document 63 of the
mausoleumwerespreadover morethannineyears).10
Secondly,thereis a disturbinglackof crossreference
fromone list of benefactions to the other.In a number
of casesintentionis recordedin theearlierdecreeson the
mausoleum,althoughthefinalcostand/oroutcomedid
not emergeuntillater.'"Yet forXanthosDocument63
(AD 149) lists only a gift of 30,000 den. towardsthe
theatre;onewouldhaveexpectedthatby thenthemuch
largerprogrammerecordedin Ballandno. 67 would
havebeenenvisagedandreferredto on themausoleum,
evenif it hadnotyet beenexecuted.At Myratheexedra
of the gymnasiummentionedin Document63 cannot
reasonablybe takenas foreshadowingthe majorwork
on the gymnasiumrecordedin Ballandno. 67, for it is
not the exedrabut the peristylecourtwhichformsthe
essentialcomponentof a gymnasium.It would there-
fore be strangeif the exedrawas built andrevettedby
AD I49, but the peristyle,providedby the sameman,
was not builtuntilafterAD152. Equallystrikingis the
absenceof any referencein Ballandno. 67 to the gifts
listedon the mausoleum.The stelecannot be takenas
supplementing a previousinscriptionat theLetoon(not
10 Thereis no
questionthatspacewaslackingon the mausoleum,
for half of the eastwall and the whole of the northwall remained
uninscribed.
11 For instance,the work at Myra was promisedin AD 142,
itemisedin AD149;theworkon thestoaat Patarawaspromisedby AD
145,but still unfinishedin AD 149.
 TABLE II. THE CONNECTIONS OF OPRAMOAS, AELIA PLATONIS, AND CLAUDIA HELEN

APOLLONIOS
OF RHODIAPOLIS

LICINIA IULIUS
MAXIMA = ANTONINUS APOLLONIOS =
OFOINOANDA

VILA CLAUDIUS
IULIA
PROCULA DRYANTIANUS = LYSIMACHE AELIUS = DAUGHTER OPRAMOAS
OF PATARA
(LYK.) (LYK.)

CLAUDIUS CLAUDIA CLAUDIUS AELIA

= HELENA
TITIANUS AGRIPPINUS=
PLATONIS
OF PATARA
(SEN.) (Cos.)

C. CLAUDIUSCLAUDIA CLAUDIA AVIDIA TI. CLAUDIUS CLAUDIA

CLEMENS IULIA TITIANA CASSIA DRYANTIANUS AMMIANA SULPICIUS
LICINIANUS -- PROCULA ALEXANDRIA = ANTONINUS DRYANTILLA = POLLIO
(Cos.) (SEN.) (SEN.)
174 NOTES
yet found) which recorded those gifts, for it begins
simply 'he gave', not 'he later gave' or 'he gave in
addition'. And although there is a summation of gifts to
Xanthos, Pataraand Tlos, there is no mention that they
are in addition to gifts previously made to those same
cities. This is quite contrary to the procedure in
documents on the mausoleum, where the later lists
repeat in full the previous benefactions as well as the
new ones.
Thirdly, the gift of 8o,ooo denariifor a bath building
and the agora is absent from two inscriptionsat Tlos,
which honour Opramoas. They record the gift to the
city of the 6o,ooo denariimentioned on the mausoleum,
and in addition a bequest of land to establisha festival
and a distribution to the citizens12 (this and the
distribution found in Balland no. 66 are the only gifts
certainly made by Opramoas which do not appear on
the mausoleum). The phraseology 8woprlCr&pEvov Kai
Kar 8itfiKrlv implies that the bequest has been made,
a
not just promised; that is, Opramoas is dead. So the
omission of the 8o,ooo denarii cannot be explained on
the grounds that it came late in his life.
Once faith in the identification of Opramoas as the
Anonymous Benefactoris shaken,it can be seen that the
two sets of benefactions have quite different patterns.
Balland 188 n. 104 notes that the size of the anonymous
benefactions sets the cities in the reverse order of that
given in the list of citizenshipsof Opramoas in Balland
no. 66. IndeedTelmessos and Limyra, the last two cities
listed in no. 66, do not appearin no. 67 at all. In contrast
both the dates and the sizes of the benefactionslisted on
Opramoas' mausoleum correspond very closely with
the order of this list of citizenships, suggesting that
Opramoas was consistent in ranking his personal
connection with the main Lyciancities. The only misfits
are that the order of Xanthos and Telmessos should be
reversed and that it is uncertain whether Patarain the
end received more than Tlos.13 The absolute size of the
anonymous benefactions is also generally larger than
those of Opramoas. The Anonymous Benefactor gave
to Xanthos and its sanctuary more than twice what
Opramoas initially promised to Myra (his biggest
beneficiary),and probably substantiallymore even than
he eventually spent on that city. The Anonymous
Benefactor's gifts to Tlos and Patara are also signifi-
cantly larger than those of Opramoas to any city other
than Myra. Opramoas, in fact, seems to have aimed at
breadth rather than scale in his benefactions. Although
in some cases the sums donated to individual cities rise
slightly,14 the successionof decrees on his mausoleum
12 TAMii 578 (=IGR iii 679, wronglyattributed
to Patara)and
579.R. VanBremenin A. Cameron,A. Kuhrt(ed.),Images of women
in antiquity(LondonandCanberra1983)229, takesKcrr& 5etlxKr)Vas
referringto Opramoas's inheritanceof the landfromhismother,but
although,being in Korydalla,the land probablywas inherited,the stimulated by the earthquakeof AD I40/I4I, and since
wordsin this contextimplya bequestby him.
13 If the 40,000 den. in Ballandno. 67 is takenas an appropriate anonymous benefactions,like those of
sum for buildinga doublestoa,Patarawould have received6o,ooo
den. for buildingsfrom Opramoas,the sameas Tlos.
14 The increasingbenefactions areas follows:
Myra ioo,ooo to a majorbuildingprogramme(seeTablei)
Patara to
20,000 38,000+ Kadyanda 1o,oooto 12,000
Tlos 5o,oooto 6o,ooo Limyra io,ooo to 30,000?
Telmessos 30,000to 35,00ooo Gagae
8,oooto baths
The figureof ioo,00oden. restoredfor Chomain Document59 is a
puzzle.Document63 givesa moreexpectedfigureof 7,oooden.,so iii 704. IIA.
suggeststhatup AD 152 at leasthe preferredto include
moreandmoresmallcities,ratherthanreturningto the
largecitieswith majornew projects.If Ballandno. 67
belongsto Opramoas,thenhe laterreversedhis policy
completely,showeringmoney on Xanthos,and con-
centratingon new, largergiftsto a few otherimportant
cities.
With theseargumentsagainstthe identificationof
Opramoasas the AnonymousBenefactorthe evidence
of the doubleporticoby the harbourat Pataramust
now be reconsidered. Two possibilitiespresentthem-
selves.Theremayhavebeentwo doubleporticoesnear
the harbourat Patara.15The type is not uncommon,
andin factthewordsusedon themausoleumarenot the
same as those in Ballandno. 67. The porticoin the
formeris describedsimplyas 8twrhiv, 'double',as if it
had never been of any other type; the Anonymous
Benefactor'sporticois describedas 0ir' acro0i yEyo-
vvicrv8tvr•hfv'madedouble by him', as if there had
previouslybeen a one-aisledporticoon the samesite,
whichthebenefactorextended.Alternatively, although
the decreeson the mausoleumsuggestthatOpramoas
paidthewholecostof thebuilding,it maybe thatothers
contributedas well, and that what Opramoasunder-
took was to see the buildingcomplete,payingall the
additional
moneyrequired.A similarsituationmayhave
arisenat Myra.Herein AD142Opramoasundertookto
pay what was necessaryto see that certainbuildings
were completed; from Document 63 of AD 149 it
appearsthatone of thesebuildingswas thetheatre,yet
we knowthatIasonof Kyaneaigave Io,oooden.to that
projectbeforeAD146.16 It is truethatif thephrasesare
taken on their own, these alternativesare not more
plausiblethan Balland'spresumptionthat the two
inscriptionsreferto one buildingand one benefactor;
but the phrasesarenot on theirown, and ratherthan
acceptingthe simplerinterpretation of the two refer-
encesto a stoaat Pataraat theexpenseof animplausible
chronology,a dramaticchangeof charitable policyand
an uncharacteristicabsenceof cross-reference between
the two listsof benefactions,
it seemsbetterto choosea
ratherlesssimpleexplanationof thosephrasesandso be
freed from the necessity to link the anonymous
benefactionswith the significantlydifferentones of
Opramoas.
The acceptanceof thisargumentdoes not affectthe
force of most of Balland'svaluablecommentaryon
inscriptionno. 67, but we may look againat the date
and the identityof the donor. If the donor was not
Opramoas,we lose that indicationof the stele'sdate.
However, the mentionof a bath buildingat Tlos, a
gymnasiumat Myraanda stoaby theharbourat Patara
amongthe anonymousbenefactions as well as thoseof
Opramoassuggeststhat both men's generositywas
there is now no reasonfor a date in the ISos, the
Opramoas,
probably belong in the I40s. Morespecificallythework
on the peristyleof the gymnasiumat Myrais likelyto
that not only is the initial figure grossly out of keeping with
Opramoas's normalpractice,butit wouldalsoinvolvea drastic,and
surelyintolerable,reductionin generosity.
1s Thus when Opramoasgave money for 'a bath'at Oinoanda,
therewas probablyanotherbathalreadyat the city.
16 Documents53
(XIII 5o-4), 55 (XV 16-25), 63 (XIX 9-21); IGR
 NOTES
belong between AD I4I and 149, when the exedra of
Opramoas, which would depend on it, was apparently
complete. This building has not yet been identified, but
we can probably date to the decade after the earthquake
several buildings which do still survive: at least one of
the baths at Tlos, the porticoes of the Letoon, and the
agoras at Xanthos and Tlos.'7
The relative size of the gifts strongly suggests that the
Anonymous Benefactorcame from the Xanthos valley,
and the heavy emphasison the city of Xanthos and its
Letoon would most naturally come from a Xanthian
citizen. The unspecific reference to Helena is a more
complex matter. It is most probably to be explained by
the fact that her statue was associatedwith that of the
benefactor, presumably because they were honoured
together."' If this Helena is in fact Claudia Helena,
whose mother was related to the Licinii of Oinoanda,
then it would be most naturalfor her to be honoured in
association not with Opramoas, her sister-in-law's
uncle, but with her father (from Patara),her brother, or
her husband (also from Patara).19Any of these is likely
to have had the means to make the anonymous
benefactions, for her father was a lykiarch and her
husbandwas of senatorial,her brother of consularrank.
None of them is known to have had any specialinterest
in the city of Xanthos, but they were all from the
Xanthos valley.
Another rich family from which a concentration on
Xanthos would be more understandable were the
Arruntii of Xanthos. It is unlikely that the praetor M.
Arruntius Claudianus, who was probably selected for
the senate by Domitian, would still have been alive in
the 140s;but his family need not have died out, and his
wife's mother was called (among other names) Helena,
so that the name was in the family.20 However, there is
also the obvious possibility that the Helena in Balland
no. 67 is a hitherto unknown woman. There must have
been other families in the Xanthos valley whose
members could have become benefactorson this scaleif
they chose. One might mention, for instance, Ti.
Claudius Agrippinus, son of Ti. Claudius Iason, whose
statue base (now lost) once stood in the Letoon,
recording his distributionsof money to Xanthos and the
Lycian League, and citizenships of three of the four
cities mentioned in Balland no. 67.21 However, unless
further excavation in the area of the Letoon where the
17 For the baths and
agora at Tlos see W. Wurster, AA (1976) 34-6;
for the agora at Xanthos see REixA (1967) 1404-5 and fig. on 1397-8.
18 So Balland
187. An alternative is that Helena dedicated the
statue; but this does not seriously affect the argument.
19 For the connections of Claudia Helena see IGR iii 5oo.II.60-73,
III.15-23, S. Jameson, AS xvi (1966) 125-3o, and here Table ii.
Balland 187 n. 101ot suggests the possibility of some closer connection
between Opramoas and Claudia Helena; it is conceivable that another
sister of Opramoas might have been the mother of Claudius Titianus,
the husband of Claudia Helena; but his mother may well be Vilia
Procula of Patara (see n. 22 below), and in any case this connection
should have been mentioned on the mausoleum, like that with Aelia
Platonis. No closer connection is possible.
20 On the date of Arruntius's
promotion see E. Dabrowa, L'Asie
Mineuresous les Flaviens(Cracow 1980) 65-6, H. Halfmann, Senatoren
aus demostlichenTeil desImperiumRomanum(G6ttingen 1979) 125, no.
28; he gave a bath building to Xanthos at some stage (TAM ii 361;
Balland 143-4, 154-5)-
21 TAM ii 495 = IGR iii 603 = Balland no. 65. His career is further
detailed in inscriptions from Patara(TAM ii 422-5). H. Halfmann (n.
20) 165 and Balland 168 suggest that this Claudius Agrippinus was
closely related to the brother of Claudia Helena.
175
stele was found provides more evidence, the Anony-
mous Benefactor must remain anonymous.
The Anonymous Benefactor's gifts add up to
1,132,000 den., plus distributionsand a charitablefund,
which is rather more than Opramoas's total. Of this
about 450,000 den. was spent on buildings. It should not
be surprising to find that somebody else contributed
substantiallyto the rebuilding and beautificationof the
cities of Lycia after the earthquakeof AD 140/41. Some
more limited activities, such as the work of Vilia
Procula and her father on the theatre at Patara (AD
147),22 have long been known, and Opramoas'sspecial
position is largely due to his unique decision to turn his
tomb into an honorific archive. In areasadjoining Lycia
his benefactionswere certainlyequalled or approached.
Thus a gift of Ti. Claudius Erymneus for the water
supply at Aspendos came to 2,000,000 den.; Aurelius
Hermippus gave 627,000 den. to Philadelphia;Meno-
dora of Sillyon gave between 350,000 and 6oo,ooo den.,
together with substantial distributions; Q. Veranius
Philagrusgave 400,000 den. to Kibyra,and an unknown
citizen of Selge gave at least 300,000 den. to his city.23
So although Opramoas was apparentlyone of the big
spenders,he was not in a class of his own, and did not
approachHerodes Atticus, who spent 4,000,000 den. on
AlexandriaTroas alone. The chief difficultyin assessing
his true position is that most benefactionsare unquanti-
fied. Records of distributionsrarely give the number of
the recipients, and building inscriptionsseldom record
costs. But given the size of Ti. Claudius Erymneus's
contribution to the Aspendos water supply, Ti. Clau-
dius Aristion,who presentedEphesoswith a monumen-
tal fountain and a water supply running for 210 stades,
probably also spent more than a million denarii.24
The removal of the anonymous benefactions from
Opramoas allows a comparison of the activities of two
wealthy Lycian benefactors in the same period, and
Iason of Kyaneai forms a third, also active in the 140s
AD. We have already contrasted the broad spread and
comparatively small size of Opramoas's gifts with the
Anonymous Benefactor's large donations to a few
major cities. The wide geographical range of Opra-
moas's benefactionsappearsalreadyin the earliestgroup
(Document 53, AD142), which includesOlympos in the
east and Telmessos in the west; the second group (new
in Document 59, AD I45) similarly ranges from Gagae
to Kalynda, and the third (new in Document 63, AD
149) from Phaselisto Sidyma (FIG.I). Thus there seems
to be a consistentpatternthroughout the 140s.25There
22 TAM ii 408= IGRiii
664.ForthefamilyseeS.Jameson,AS xvi
(1966)13o-7, H. Halfmann(n. 20) 184,andBalland68 n. 202. Here
againtheremay be a connectionwith ClaudiaHelena,for Halfmann
and BallandidentifyTi. ClaudiusFlavianusTitianus,son of Vilia
Procula, with ClaudiusTitianus, husbandof Helena;Jameson,
however,is sceptical.
23 Aspendos:IGRiii 804;Philadelphia: IGRiv 1632;Sillyon:IGR
iii 8oo-82; Kibyra:IGR iv 915; Selge: K. Lanckoronski,Staiidte
Pamphyliens undPisidiensii (Vienna1892)no. 250. Non-imperialgifts
rarelyexceeded250,0ooden.in the westernempire,(seeR. Duncan-
Jones,PBSRxxx [1962]47-115 (Africa)andPBSRxxxiii[19651189-
306 (Italy)).But thoseof PlinytheYoungerto Comumtotalledover
i,ooo,oooden.(ILS2927,R. Duncan-Jones, PBSRxxxiii [19651184-
8).
24 Philostratos
VitaeSoph.(ed.Kayser)p. 56;C. B6rkeretal., Die
InschriftenvonEphesos ii, IK xii (Bonn 1979)424.
25 An earlierbenefactorwith
wide-rangingconnnections(mainly
in the Xanthos valley, west Lycia, and Caria, but perhapsalso
includingKyaneaiand Korydalla)is honouredin TAMii 508.
176 NOTES

PouaIa homa

-N
nd
~'Q VV.. xlrC m y aI
|nil

.~,ooo. 1 0
Wr 10
rqc
SUnder
18,000 den. rla0
O Sum "~• 1
unknown
M 50,00 den Ove

V * *
*;:,
50,000 den.
0 Sum
unknown!bnto.
18,000~ra NO
0fcin-M....
Tio
I-,----l ; ; J

x No
benefaction)?-. ,.I

x0N0beefatio

FIG.I. Cities aided by Opramoas. Cities with continuous underlininghave benefactionslisted in Document 53 (AD
142); those with broken underlining first have benefactions listed in Document 59 (AD I45); those with dotted
underlining first have benefactions listed in document 63 (AD 149).

may be an understandable change at the end of with a list of letters and decrees in his honour from
Opramoas'slife, however, for the distributionfunds at fourteen cities.27 These range in date from AD I37 to
the Letoon and at Tlos both belong to this period. 143, so some of them precede the earthquake,and there
Opramoas seems to have been childless, and this may is no evidence that even those after AD 141 are in
explain why he was now, apparentlyfor the first time, gratitude for architecturalbenefactions. But two later
willing to give away large pieces of his landed estate.26 decrees (dated to AD I46) are quoted in full in the same
The benefactionsof lason of Kyaneai are not known inscription. One, a decree of Myra, records the gift of
in so much detail, but the inscription recording the 10,ooo den. for a portico in front of a bath building and
approval by Antoninus Pius of the honours voted to the promise of another 10o,oooden. for the theatrethere,
him, in spite of the accusations of one Moles, begins and the other, of Patara,recordslason'sbeautificationof
26 The questionof Opramoas'schildrenturnson whether that city's sanctuary of Apollo. So he obviously was
Aglais
Aristokila(honouredin TAMii 916) was his motheror wife. If his interested in building projects. At any rate, lason must
wife, thenhe definitelyhadthreechildren,even thoughthey do not have conferred some benefits on all these cities, and the
appearon the mausoleumexcept in one uncertainrestoredphrase inscription serves to show the range of his activity.
(TAMii 905.XVIII.77-8).However,thephraseologyof TAMii 916 In comparison with the recipients of Opramoas's
is very similarto thatof TAMii 915, in honourof Apollonios,who the cities honouring lason are geographi-
generosity,
certainlywas Opramoas'sfather,and it also seems unlikelythat cally more limited, ranging mainly over central and
Opramoas(whosetup boththeseinscriptions) shouldhavelivedlong
eastern Lycia, with the one exception of Patara28(FIG.
enoughto seehiswife's,andso hisown, greatgrandchildren become
senators, andif he it is that
did, surprising moreis notmadeof themin II);those helped by Opramoasinclude not only the cities
the mausoleuminscription.On the other hand 'Ay(A)lai8os-ris 27 IGR iii 704.IA.
EpjIlaijovseemsreasonably compatiblewiththeindicationsrecorded 28 IGR iii 706.14-16 lists decrees of AD 141 from Xanthos and
for the name of Opramoas'smotheron the mausoleum(TAM ii Rhodiapolis, as well as Patara,but does not specify whether they were
9o5.VIII.46), giventhe otherexamplesof doubtfulreadingsandmis- in honour of lason or Mausolos his son. The context favours the latter,
spellingsin the mausoleuminscription;
andif Aglaiswas Opramoas's for the inscription is primarily concerned with him, and since his
mother,the senatorialgreat-grandchildrenof Apolloniosand Aglais honours had already been listed in AD 146 (IGR iii 704.IA.21-2), the
(TAM ii 915-i6) would then be not unrecordeddescendantsof early date is no obstacle. Thus although this inscription shows that the
Opramoas,but the family of the Aelia Platonis,whose daughter connections of lason's family extended also to Xanthos and Rhodiapo-
marrieda senator(IGRiii 5oo)andwhosesonapparently becameone lis, the honours need not have been for benefits from lason himself,
(PIRii C859);see Table2. Sincethereis now no certainmentionof and so they are ignored in the discussion below and on the map (Fig.
Opramoas's own children,they probablyneverexisted. 11).
 NOTES
.6.0
UNLOCATED
* Mylal
* Trebenda (nr. Myra)
Xanthos adyba
Phellos
KEY
0 Cities aided by the Anon. Benefactor
* Cities honouring lason of Kyaneali
FIG II. Cities aided by the Anonymous Benefactor, and cities honouring lason of Kyaneai.
of the Xanthos valley, but also those of far western
Lycia, like Kalynda. Within central and eastern Lycia
the list of placeshonouring lason correspondsclosely to
the list of placesissuingcoinage under GordianIIIin the
mid-third century.29 But Rhodiapolis and Akalissosin
the east, and more surprisinglyAperlaiand Arneai,both
of them cities heading sympolities in lason's home area,
did not honour lason, although all four were important
enough to issue this short-lived coinage, and also
received help from Opramoas. Nisa in the Milyas,
although not issuing the coinage, did get help from
Opramoas. The only cities which honoured Iason but
received nothing from Opramoas were Kandyba,
Mylai, and Trebenda.Mylai is otherwise unknown, and
Trebenda was a small place dominated by Myra; but
Kandyba was independent and issued coinage under
Gordian. Of the known Lycian cities that ignored Iason
and were ignored by Opramoas, some belonged to
sympolities headedby other cities;so they may not have
passed their own decrees in Iason's honour, while
Opramoas's benefactions may perhaps have been
intended for the whole of a sympolity, not just the
leading city. Aperlai, which included in its sympolity
Simenaand Apollonia, both placesactive and important
enough to have their own theatreand bath building,30
received the ratherlarge sum of 30,ooo den.; but Arneai
and Akalissos, although heading sympolities, received
only sums appropriateto a single minor city (600o and
3000 den. respectively). Others of these cities may have
been insignificant in the Roman period. Araxa, for
instance, which seems to have been a place of some
importance in the Hellenistic period, has no major
public buildings surviving from the Roman period, and
few Imperialinscriptions,although it still appearsin the
29 H. von Aulock, Die
Miinzpriigung des Gordian III und der
Tranquillinain Lykien, IstMitt Beiheft xi (Tiibingen 1974), esp. 23. He
does not comment on the geographical restriction of the issues; they
were not produced by any city in, or west of, the Xanthos valley,
except for Patara and Tlos.
30 For
Apollonia see W. Wurster, AA (1976) 43; for Simena, see C.
Texier, Descriptionde l'Asie Mineure(Paris 1849) iii, 204, 233, pl. 207-
8; also G. E. Bean, Lycian Turkey(London and New York 1978) o104,
I 6-17, C. Bayburtluoglu, Lycie (Ankara 198'?) 52-4.
177
LI
yra KorydIa
Kyaneai
*Gagal
I0 0 50 km.
h--- =: ,J.: .e.
city lists of both Ptolemy and Hierokles, and was later
the seat of a bishop.3' So too Komba in the Milyas,
although also listed by Ptolemy and Hierokles, appar-
ently did not, like its neighbours Choma and Podalia,
issue coinage under Gordian.32 It is unclear, however,
whether these cities were less important than still
unidentified places such as Symbra, which was helped
by Opramoas, or Mylai, which honoured lason. There
is no reason to suppose that Opramoas aimed at
complete coverage of all cities down to a certain size.
In their geographical spread Iason's benefactions in
some ways complement those of the Anonymous
Benefactor, whose activities were restricted to the
Xanthos valley, with the exception of Myra (FIG. II).
Thus the two chief cities of Roman Lycia, Myra and
Patara,form the link between a predominantlyeastern
and a predominantly western set of benefactions. But
although Iason's benefactions were, like those of the
Anonymous Benefactor, goegraphically more limited
than those of Opramoas, they are like those of
Opramoas in helping numerous cities both large and
small with (if the sums given to Myra are typical)
relatively small gifts. Thus they differ sharply in scale
and in number from the few large benefactionsto major
cities only which were given by the Anonymous
Benefactor. It may be significant that both Opramoas
and Iason themselves belonged to small cities, and so
would be less inclined to see the Lycian League only in
terms of its major cities.
Wealthy donors could exercise choice not only over
where they gave help and how much, but also over the
kind of projectsthey supported. It is not often that our
evidence is sufficientto see how differentpeople reacted
to the same circumstancesat the same place and time.
But in Lycia, after the earthquake of AD 140/141, to
some extent we can. The evidence for lason ratherfails
31 Ptolemy
Geog.v. 3.5,HieroclesSynecdemus685.2.Animportant
Hellenisticinscriptionfrom Araxais publishedby G. E. Bean,JHS
lxviii(1948)46-56;seealsoJ.andL.Robert,REGlxiii(1950) 185-97.
But only eightImperialinscriptionsfromthesitearelistedin TAMii
701-8. For the visibleremainssee G. E. Bean (n. 30) 70-2.
32 Ptolemy Geog.v, 3.5, HieroclesSynecdemus 684.12. For the
remainssee G. E. Bean(n. 30) 158-9.
178 NOTES
us;we know only of donationstowardsa theatre,the
porticoof a bath,andtheadornmentof a sanctuary. But
for Opramoasand the AnonymousBenefactorthe
evidencesuggestsdifferences in thisasin otheraspectsof
euergetism.Both of themmadetheirlargestdonations
to sanctuaries(at MyraandXanthosrespectively),and
both also contributedto variousstoas.Both also took
considerable interestin baths(threeeach),whichis not
surprisinggiven the popularityof such buildingsin
Lycia.But Opramoaswas particularly fond of exedras
(three),perhapsbecausetheyprovideda good opportu-
nity for displayat a fairly limited cost, and he also
contributedto four theatresbut not to any agora;the
AnonymousBenefactor,on theotherhand,contributed
to two agorasbut to no exedraor theatre.Thus the
recordof theanonymousbenefactions in Ballandno. 67
serves not only to offset the distorting effect of
Opramoas'sself-advertisement, but also to bring out
moreclearlythanusualhow muchvariationtherewas,
how muchscopefor personalchoice,in the size,spread
anddestination of benefactions,evenwhenthetime,the
place,and the amountof money spentwere virtually
the same.
J.J. COULTON
Ashmolean
Museum,Oxford
Messenger Scenes in Iliad xxiii and xxiv
(xxiii 192-211, xxiv 77-188)1
At Iliadxxiii 192-21 I, IriscarriesAchilles'prayerto
thebanquetingwinds,in a passagewhosehumouroffers
reliefafterthe funeralof Patroclus.At the sametime,
bothin its immediatecontextandin its relationto Iris'
two missionsin Book xxiv, the scenecontributesto
Homer'spresentation of the relationbetweengodsand
men.2
The passagedescribesdivine aid testifyingto that
concernof thegodsformenwhichis to be so important
in Bookxxiv;andit immediatelyfollowstheaccountof
anothermanifestationof divine concern,one which
looks forwardmore directlyto the next book-the
I should like to acknowledgethe constantinfluenceon what
follows of C. W. Macleod,Homer;Iliadxxiv (Cambridge1982).
Specificreferencesto this work areno measureof the extentof my
debt to it.
2J. Th. Kakridis,Homeric researches
(Lund1949)75-83 arguesthat
thescenecouldnot haveoriginatedin itspresentcontext;no aspectof
Patroclus'funeralmakesintelligibletheneedto persuadethewindsto
give theirhelp. Rather,he suggests,the sceneis explicableonly as
beingderived,with the accountof the funeralas a whole, from the
descriptionin theAethiopis of Achilles'burial;there,the needfor Iris'
visit to Boreasand Zephyruswould ariseout of theirreluctanceto
assistin the burningof the killerof theirhalf-brotherMemnon.(Cf.
S. L. ScheinThemortalhero[Berkeley1984]166 n. 44.)
The theorythatthe descriptionof Patroclus'funeralis basedon a
pre-existingaccount-whether or not thatin the Aethiopis-of that
of Achilles (Kakridis75-95) is attractivein suggestinga further
elementin Homer'spresentation of the inevitablesequencein which
Achilles'deathfollowsPatroclus'.It is, then,possiblethatthe episode
of the windsdid not originatein the contextof Patroclus'funeral.
However,thisneednot meanthatthe poet mechanically
reproduced
the scene,ratherthanchoosingto retainit becausehe couldso treatit
as to give it significancein its new context-turning to advantage
even the apparentlack of necessity, in this context, for the
introductionof Iris(seebelow).The passageis intelligiblein its own
right,not simplyas beinginheritedfroman earliernarrative.(CfW.
Kullmann,Das WirkenderGiCtter in derIlias[Berlin1956122 n. 2.)
description, at 184-91, of the protection of Hector's
body by Aphrodite and Apollo. The fact that Homer
anticipated here the description at xxiv 18-21 of
Apollo's protection of the body points to the impor-
tance of the concern thus emphasised. In its position
preceding the episode of the winds-rather than, for
instance,following Achilles' earlierthreatsof maltreat-
ment at xxiii 2 I-5-the descriptionseems designedalso
to underline the fact that the parallel between Hector
and Patroclus, most obvious in their deaths, is main-
tained here: both are the objects of divine aid, which in
both cases takes the same form, the warding off of a
threat to the hero's corpse, whether it is that of
maltreatment by Achilles or the lesser threat of the
pyre's failure to burn. This parallel protection is a
proper response to the combined equality in death and
inequality of treatment conveyed as the two bodies lie
side by side, but one face down in the dust (xxiii 24-6).
Both the paralleland the sense of divine compassionare
enhanced by the introduction of Iris as intermediary,
since she, unlike the winds but like Aphrodite and
Apollo, gives her aid unasked.
In the very giving of aid, however, the gods reveal
their distance from men. This emerges very clearly
from the passagefollowing the messenger scene, 212-
25, as Boreas and Zephyrus make the pyre burn in
answer to Achilles' prayer;the winds are seen in all their
superiorstrengthand freedom from human grief. They
maintain the pyre ravvviXilo,while wrrvvuvXos, Achilles
mourns--c K0s'AXiNECsable in his grief to move only
p-rr3cov.Similarly at 192-2II, the tone in which Iris'
help to Achilles is narratedunderlinesher distance,and
that of the winds, from him. In the humour of the
winds' invitations to Iristo sit beside them, and her neat
evasion, the divine world is contrasted with human
sufferingeven while the gods' actions show concern for
that suffering.3 Iris' excuse, that she must attend the
sacrificesoffered by the Ethiopians,may be intended by
the poet to be seen as a tactful invention enhancing the
scene's humour and so its contrast with the world of
men. In any case, it contributes also, like Thetis'
referenceto such sacrificesat i 423-4 and the description
at xiii 1-7 of the distant peoples to whom Zeus turned
his attention, to the sense of divine detachment.4 It is
appropriatethat Iris'speech should end with a reference
to the human grief which she cannot share--l&rTpoK-
Xos,Tr6V 'AXa(lOi.
Tnr•rTEs
The scene's vacrrEvXoolcIV
significance extends beyond its contrast
with its immediate context. Repeatedly in Book xxiii
3 Compare, for example, xxiv 19-2o, (jr' Kai
combining
TrrEp, withanaccount of divinepityaAEaipc0v
senseof the-,EVT6Tra
distance
betweengodsandmencreated byhumanmortality.
I disagree
withKakridis' (n.2) denialthatthesceneishumorous in
thedetailof theinvitations
intention; to Irisfromall thewinds-
dismissedbyKakridis as'generalkindness to a womanwhohascome
froma longdistance andconsequently mustsit down'-seemsto
thisscenefromthosewhichhecitesinsupport
distinguish ofhisbelief
thatthewindsaresimplyshowingIristherespect dueto a goddess
greaterthanthemselves.(Forasimilarscene,thistimewithanexplicit
comment on itshumorous
aspect,compare P1.Charm.155b9-c4.)
4 Cf I bT on 206, whereIrisis firstsaidto be inventing the
E
sacrifices, (rrp6s ar;akAayfivTCrv voxAov-rA)ovSprgai), but an
alternative comment is offered-XdplEv v V rrapipyc 8SE~hOKEVeOTI
of OEoi TO
Kai K Tris
-TroA~po rEp ppovrilos
dma•c&yrlo'av
KcrricTTrav; also Eustathius 1296.24-28.
0CaT
Contrast xi 645-654,
Patroclus' reason for his refusal-expressed, like Iris', with the words
oCX 8os---of Nestor's invitation to be seated.