Transcript
FERNANDO LOZANO THEA LI VI A
IN
A T H E N S : R E D A T I N G IG II 2 3242
aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 148 (2004) 177–180
© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn
177
THEA LI VI A
IN
A T H E N S : R E D A T I N G IG II 2 3242 * Iuliae Augusta, optume de republica meritae non partu tantum modo principis nostri, sed etiam multis magnisque erga cuiusque ordinis homines beneficis. A. Caballos, W. Eck y F. Fernández, El Senadoconsulto de Gneo Pisón Padre, Sevilla, 1996, ll. 115–117.
IG II2 3242 is a dedicatory inscription to Livia from Rhamnous. It was carved on the central block of the architrave of the eastern façade of the Temple of Nemesis. The most recent complete edition is that of Petrakos1. The text edited by the Greek author is as follows:
5
ı d∞mow yeçi Leib¤&, strathgoËntow §[p‹] toÁw ıple[¤]taw toË ka‹ fler°vw yeçw ÑR≈[mh]w k[a]‹ Sebas[t]oË Ka¤sarow Dhmostrãtou [toË Dionu]s¤ou Pallhn°vw, êrxon[t]ow d¢ [-----] toË ÉAntipãtrou Flu°v[w n]evt°rou
The date of the inscription is open to debate. The element usually employed to establish a chronology has been the missing archon’s name. Broneer restored the archon’s name as Aiolion, son of Antipatros2. This Aiolion was ephebe during the reign of Claudius and his father Antipatros was archon in A.D. 45/6. Since the date of Aiolion’s archonship was not known, Broneer dated it to the short rule of Galba, an emperor with close ties with Livia3. Kirchner and more recently Pouilloux followed Broneer’s proposal4. Later on, Oliver suggested an alternative restoration of the archon’s name. He suggested Antipatros instead of Aiolion5. Dinsmoor developed the idea and reconstructed the genealogy of the family, assigning Aiolion’s archonship to the reign of Nerva. Furthermore, Dinsmoor maintained that the term nevt°rou in line 6 applied to the son rather than to the father. His reconstruction implied that Antipatros the Younger was archon at the time of the dedication. Since the date of his archonship is 45/46, this would give a precise date to the inscription6. I. Terminus post quem As it has been shown, all restorations of the archon’s name have been made taking Livia’s deification at Rome in A. D. 41 as a terminus post quem. Previous editors and scholars were inclined to use this date, since they believed that the Athenians could only have consecrated a temple to the empress after the * A longer version of this paper was presented to the students of the Seminario Permanente de Historia de las Religi-
ones in the University of Huelva. I am grateful to Drs Jaime Alvar, Patricio Guinea and Juan Manuel Cortés for their assistance in writing this article, and to Vicky Jackson who purged it of errors and barbarisms. 1 B. Petrakos, O Demos tou Ramnountos, vol. II, Athens, 1999, 123–124. First edition of the text in A.-C. Orlandos,
Note sur le sanctuaire de Némesis à Rhamnonte, BCH 48, 1924, 319. Orlandos assigned the inscription to the fourth or third century B.C. 2 See: O. Broneer, Some Greek Inscriptions of Roman Date from Attica, AJA 36, 1932, 397–398. 3 See, for example: Suetonius, Galb. 5.2. 4 IG II2, 3242, and J. Pouilloux, La forteresse de Rhamnonte, Étude de topographie et d’histoire, Paris, 1954, 156–157. 5 J. H. Oliver, The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law, Baltimore, 1950, 85, n. 18. 6 W. B. Dinsmoor, Rhamnountine Fantasies, Hesperia 30, 1961, 187.
178
F. Lozano
practice was officially approved in Rome. Therefore, the underlying notion is that the development of emperor worship in the provinces faithfully followed Roman customs and laws. However later writers have suggested that rituals in the provinces were not so closely linked to the norms sanctioned by Rome as was previously thought. There was ample margin for locals to create their own religious figures7. This inadequacy of the terminus post quem can be clearly illustrated in the case of Athens, since Augustus’ wife was termed a goddess in the city long before her formal deification in Rome8. She was also the recipient of divine worship and was assimilated to traditional Athenian deities9. For instance, the empress’ divine cult during the reign of Augustus is unmistakably attested by the seat in the Theatre of Dionysos reserved to her priestess (flerÆaw ÑEst¤aw §p' ÉAkropÒlei ka‹ Leib¤aw ka‹ ÉIoul¤a[w])10. The inclusion of Julia in the title suggests that this was approved before A. D. 2, the year of Julia’s dismissal from Rome. Likewise, an inscription from Eleusis, recently edited by Clinton, proves the existence of a priestess consecrated to Livia during the reign of Tiberius11. In addition, the empress was assimilated with Hestia, Hygeia, Artemis Boulaia and Pronoia in Athens12. Thus Livia was worshipped in Athens during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius as a new goddess in the Athenian pantheon. Consequently, it is not necessary to downdate the consecration of the temple at Rhamnous to Claudian times. The terminus post quem traditionally used to date this inscription is not correct. II. The empress’ name The problem associated with the terminus post quem necessitates a search for a new date for the inscription. The first argument in support of a new chronology is the name used in the text to designate the empress, Thea Livia. Augustus’ wife is referred to as Livia in Athens three times: IG II2 3242+SEG 19, 202; IG II2 5097, and SEG 24, 212. She was Livia during the whole reign of Augustus, as seen in the example of the seat in the Theatre of Dionysos (IG II2 5097) above, and the statue base dedicated by the Athenians at Eleusis (SEG 24, 212). In this last example, she was called Livia Drusilla, and this has been considered the oldest dedication to Livia in all the Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, it is highly significant that the empress was called Livia in the inscription from the Temple of Rhamnous (yeçi Leib¤&)13. In the rest of the inscriptions from Athens in which the empress is mentioned, she was called Julia Sebaste (except 7 For an excellent assessment of the difference in emperor worship between Rome and the Eastern provinces, see: S. R.
F. Price, Rituals and Power. The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge, 1984, 75–77. See also K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, Cambridge, 1978, 197–242. 8 Livia as goddess in Athens: IG II2 3238; IG II2 3239 (SEG 35, 146); IG II2 3241 (possible); SEG 22, 152; IG II2 3240; AE 1938, nº 83; and, IG II2, 3242. 9 On emperor worship in Athens during the reign of Augustus and the Julio-Claudian Dynasty, see lately: F. Lozano, La religión del poder. El culto imperial en Atenas en época de Augusto y los emperadores Julio-Claudios, Oxford, 2002. 10 IG II2 5096. 11 For Livia in Eleusis during the reign of Tiberius: SEG 47, 220; K. Clinton, Eleusis and the Romans: Late Republic to
Marcus Aurelius in M. C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff, The Romanization of Athens, 1997, 167. 12 The most recent discussion of the association of Livia with Hestia is M. Torelli, L’immagine dell’ideologia augustea
nell’agorà di Atene, Ostraka 4, 1995, 28. His proposal is based on two seats for Livia’s priestess found in the Theatre of Dionysos: IG II2 5097 (priestess of Hestia, Livia and Julia) and IG II2 5102 and IG II2 5145 (reserved for the fl°reia t∞w ÑEst¤aw t«n ÑRvma¤vn). Before Torelli, Graindor studied this relationship: P. Graindor, Athènes sous Auguste, Cairo, 1927, 153, n. 6 – the author doubts that IG II2 5097 was actually an assimilation of the goddess with Julia and Livia –, and see also page 155. The association of the empress with Hygeia is based only on a statue base dated to Tiberius’ reign with the following inscription: Sebastª ÑUge¤& (IG II2 3240). For this discussion, see lately: Torelli, (n. 12) 27–28. Artemis Boulaia and Livia: SEG 22, 152. Livia and Pronoia: IG II2 3238. 13 For the statue at Eleusis see C. B. Rose, Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period, Cambridge, 1997, 140–141, nº 71, with further bibliography.
Thea Livia in Athens
179
for IG II2 3241 in which she was termed [Lio]u¤a SebastÆ). The name Julia was given to her only after Augustus’ death in A. D. 14 when she became a member of the Imperial family14. This information from Athens can be compared to the evidence found in other cities of the Mediterranean. In fact, there are enough examples of the different names accorded to Livia to substantiate an evolution of their use in the Empire. Three different phases can be clearly distinguished15. Firstly, during the reign of Augustus, the empress is called Livia or Livia Drusilla16. Secondly, after Augustus’ will was implemented in A. D. 14, she was termed Julia Sebaste17. Lastly, she became Thea Sebaste, the translation of the Roman Diva Augusta, when she entered the Roman Pantheon in A. D. 41 under the auspices of Claudius18. In conclusion, from the reign of Claudius onwards, Livia was Thea Sebaste. Thus, it is very unlikely that the Athenians would consecrate a temple to the empress using a long outdated title. Even if they had not used the official name Thea Sebaste, the most plausible substitute would have been Julia Sebaste, not Livia. The usual date assigned to the Rhamnous inscription makes it the latest appearance of the name Livia in all the Eastern Mediterranean, at least thirty years after the previous known example. This is the main reason why I am inclined to date the inscription to the reign of Augustus19. III. The Hoplite General and Priest of Rome and Augustus Caesar The Hoplite General and Priest of Rome and Augustus Caesar named on this inscription is a certain Demostratos son of Dionysios of Pallene. A father and son, Dionysios son of Demostratos and Demostratos son of Dionysios of Pallene served as sacred officials at Eleusis around 20/19 B.C. (SEG 30, 93, ll. 12 and 25). However, none of the previous studies of the inscriptions take Demostratos into account in dating the temple’s consecration20. The main reason for his being overlooked was the terminus post quem traditionally given to IG II2, 3242. Since it was believed that the inscription belonged to the reign of Claudius, the Augustan official of the same name was thought to have been an ancestor of the Hoplite General in this inscription from Rhamnous. Thus it is usually believed that the oligarch mentioned in the Eleusinian inscription was the great-grandfather of the man acting as priest of Augustus in Rhamnous21.
14 I have examined IG II2 3241 in the Athenian Epigraphical Museum in order to determine whether the stone could have read “Julia Sebaste” instead of “Livia Sebaste”. My examination of the stone provides no evidence to necessitate a change in the published text. There are some parallels to this highly unusual denomination of Livia as Augusta, before Augustus’ death: S. E. Wood, Imperial Women. A Study in Public Images, 40 BC–AD 68, Leiden–Boston–Colonia, 2000, 105–107. 15 This evolution of Livia’s name is well known and accepted by all researchers. See, for example: M. D. Mirón Pérez,
Mujeres, religión y poder: el culto imperial en el Mediterráneo, Granada, 1996, 49–63. 16 During this period Livia is called Thea Livia in several occasions: U. Hahn, Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses
und ihre Ehrungen im griechischen Osten anhand epigraphischer und numismatischer Zeugnisse von Livia bis Sabina, Saarbrücken, 1994, nº 20; nº 22, and nº 32. See also from Mesene: SEG 41, 328, l. 28. 17 For this name see Hahn (n. 16), 322–334. It is by far the most common for Livia. See also: R. Cid López, Livia versus Diva Augusta, ARYS 1, 1998, 146: “En su testamento Augusto convirtió a Livia en Julia Augusta”. 18 Always after Livia’s deification in Rome. It appeared both in Latin (CIL III 651, and H. Kent, The Inscriptions 1926–
1950. Corinth. Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. VIII, part. III, Princeton, New Jersey, nº 55) and Greek (HAHN, (n. 16), nº 3, 14, 34, 44, 45, 48, 51). 19 For doubts about the usual date assigned to the inscription, see Rose, (n. 13) n. 112. 20 For the Hoplite General, see: D. J. Geagan, The Athenian Constitution after Sulla, Princeton, New Jersey, 1967, 18–
31. On Demostratos, see briefly: T. Chr. Sarikakis, The Hoplite General in Athens. A Prosopography, 1976, Chicago (2nd ed.), 48–49. See also for Demostratos: J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens, Toronto, 1996, 262, nº 319650. 21 K. Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Philadelphia, 1974, 77, n. 8; cf. M. Miles, A reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous, Hesperia 58, 1989, 238. Clinton was not the first author to mention this connection; see Dinsmoor, (n. 6 ) 194, and Broneer, (n. 2) 399.
180
F. Lozano
However, once the inadequacy of the terminus post quem has been demonstrated, the traditional identification of Demostratos of Pallene can be reconsidered. There is no evidence against the most likely reconstruction, namely, that the oligarch in the Eleusis inscription (SEG 30, 93) and the Hoplite General in the Rhamnous inscription (IG II2, 3242) are one and the same. This proposal follows more closely the information preserved in the epigraphical record, since exactly the same name is used in both inscriptions. Furthermore, this reconstruction does not necessitate creating three generations of unknown Athenians. Demostratos son of Dionysios of Pallene was, thus, an Athenian official serving both at Eleusis and Rhamnous during the reign of Augustus. He was one of the two known priests of Rome and Augustus. The other one, Zenon of Marathon, is firmly dated in Augustan Athens (IG II2 3173). Demostratos’ identification is, then, another argument that can be used to support an Augustan date for IG II2, 3242. IV. Conclusion Detailed study of this inscription allows me to propose an Augustan date for the temple’s consecration. I have assessed three reasons for this date. The first one is the inadequacy of the terminus post quem. The second one is Livia’s name used in IG II2, 3242. Lastly, I have put forth the case of the Hoplite General mentioned in the inscription. A more precise date could be proposed if we were able to restore the archon’s name with any certainty. However, that is not the case. Petrakos does not restore a name in his recent edition. We only know the name of his father, Antipatros, and his deme, Phlya, so we must conclude that the unknown archon in IG II2, 3242 was a member of this prominent family. But the incomplete nature of the inscription prevents any further conclusions about his exact identity. It is difficult to determine more precisely the date of the inscription within the long reign of Augustus. Nevertheless, it can be suggested that the action took place in the first half of his rule (27–9 B.C.), since Octavian had already received the title of Sebastos, but the title of Eponymous Archon was not yet coupled with the priest of Drusus Consul, a link that took place in 9 B.C.22 If the argument presented here is acceptable, the new date places the consecration of the Temple of Nemesis to Livia within the wider process of religious change that took place in Athens during the reign of Augustus. This transformation was characterised by the loss of political relevance of Attica and the oligarchisation of Athenian religious life. In particular, it is important to notice that when other temples from Attica were being dismantled and moved into the city centre – the itinerant temples –, the naos of Nemesis was refurbished and dedicated to an Imperial figure. It seems possible to propose that the dedication of the Temple of Nemesis to Livia would be most fittingly explained as yet another instance of the use of the ‘Persian-Wars’ tradition at Athens by both Augustus and the local élite23.
Universidad de Huelva
Fernando Lozano
22 This is not, however, a conclusive argument because Drusus’ priesthood was not always coupled together with the
archonship in the inscriptions. Both titles were always linked in the Archon Lists, but other types of epigraphical documents did not follow this practice: see Geagan, (n. 20), 8, n. 46. There is yet another argument that seems to confirm my proposal. The temple restoration that took place when the naos of Nemesis was consecrated to Livia used some construction techniques similar to those employed in Athenian buildings erected during Augustus’ reign, such as Agrippa’s Odeon and the Temple of Ares: Miles (n. 21) 200, n. 88. 23 For the itinerant temples see: H. A. Thompson, Itinerant Temples of Attica, AJA 66, 1962, 200. Attica depoliticised in: D. Plácido, Las transformaciones de la ciudad de Atenas desde el inicio de la intervención romana hasta la crisis del siglo III, in Kolaios. Publicaciones ocasionales 4, Sevilla, 1995, 241–251. For the use of the Persan-Wars tradition see: A. J. S. Spawforth, Symbol of Unity? The Persian-Wars Tradition in the Roman Empire, in S. Hornblower (ed.), Greek Historiography, Oxford, 1994, 233–247. For a more detailed explanation of the social and political context of the consecration see: F. Lozano, Santuarios tradicionales para nuevas deidades: el templo de Livia en Ramnunte, ARYS 5, forthcoming.
