IGII2 1990 Catalogue of ephebes, 61/2 AD

Catalogue of ephebes, 61/2 AD

IG II² 1990 Date: 61/2 AD

In pediment For the good fortune of the victory of ⟦[Nero]⟧ Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (54-68)^[1]

In the archonship and priesthood of Drusus the consul of Thrasyllos (61/2),^[2] when Theogenes was herald,^[3] and when the hoplite general for the eighth time, high priest of Nero Claudius Caesar Germanicus and Zeus of Freedom (Eleutheriou) of the Greeks, manager (epimelētou) of the city for life, priest of Delian Apollo, (5) manager of holy Delos, High Priest of the House of the Augusti (oikou tōn Sebastōn), the best of the Greeks (aristou tōn Hellēnōn), and lawgiver (nomothetou) was Tiberius Claudius Novius of Oion.^[4] As superintendent (kosmēteuōn), Epiktetos son of Epiktetos of Eupyridai, having been honoured by the People for the beautiful (kalōs) and decorous (kosmiōs) manner in which he both lives his own life and directed the conduct (anastrophēs) and decorousness (kosmiotētos) of the ephebes, and having received from the People dining rights (seitēsin) in the City Hall (prutaneiō) for life, submitted these ephebes to the Metroon,^[5] (10) the trainer being (paidotribountos) Ariston son of Aphrodisios of Rhamnous, the leader being (hēgemoneuontos) Artemon son of Nikias of Pallene, the secretary being Areion son of Patrophilos of Kephisia, the weapons trainer being (hoplomachountos) Satyros son of Kleomenes of Phlya; the tutors (paideutai) were Erastos of Besa, Eutychides of Marathon, Euphemos of Sypalettos, Gaios of Azenia, Demetrios of Sybridai, Zoilos of Phlya.^[6]

uninscribed space These were the gymnasiarchs:^[7] (15) Z- son of Epiktetos of Eupyridai, Patrophilos son of Areion of Kephisia. These also were partners (sustatai) . . . son of . . . of Erchia, Demosthenes son of Satyros of Phlya, Olympos son of Soterichos of Hagnous . . . son of . . . of Gargettos, Sokrates son of Sokrates of Aphidna, Tiberius Herakleon of Oion, . . . son of . . . of Melite, Zoilos son of Thraseos of Aphidna. These were Areopagites with the gymnasiarchs,^[8] (20) the trainer being Ariston son of Aphrodisios of Rhamnous uninscribed space . . . Aristonymos son of Aristonymos of Oe, Epagathos son of Euporos of Oe . . . Demokrates son of Erastos of Besa, Eisidotos (son of Eisidotos) of Berenikidai . . . Aphrodeisios (son of Aphrodeisios) of Eupyridai, Zenon son of Dionysios of Potamos, . . . Anthesterios son of Menodotos of Steiria, Philemon son of Kallistratos of Erchia (25) . . . son of Chares of Lamptrai, Dionysios (son of Dionysios) of Kydathenaion, . . . (son of . . . ) of Halai, Aphrodeisios son of Gaios of Azenia, . . . -demos son of Agathokles of Hestiaia, Nikomachos . . . Limnaios son of Mystikos of Oe, . . . son of -des of Marathon

Previous - IG II² 1973a Next - IG II² 1993

References:

IG II² 1990 (Translated text) (PHI)

Wilson, Ephebic Inscriptions E.093

Schmalz 65

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: List of names (ephebic)

Findspot: Athens, church of St. Demetrios Katephores (EM 8653)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] The traditional opening formula of decrees, “for good fortune” is augmented by a reference to the Emperor Nero (54-68 AD). This occurs in several Athenian inscriptions of the first and early second centuries AD (e.g. AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 5, IG II² 1998, 2040). The combination of traditional formulae and institutions of the Athenian democracy with expressions of loyalty to the Roman emperor is typical of Athens in this period (see D. Geagan in M. C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff, Romanization of Athens, 1997). The erasure of Nero’s name is widespread in Attic epigraphy (e.g. IG II² 1989, 3182, 3248, 3278). Although Nero did not officially suffer damnatio memoriae, he was declared an “enemy of the Senate” at his fall from power (Suetonius, Nero 49.2) and this may have led the Athenians to remove references to him from the public sphere. On damnatio memoriae in Imperial-period Athens, see IG II³ 4, 1397 with notes. [2] The eponymous archon held the priesthood of Claudius Drusus (brother of Emperor Tiberius and father of Claudius) ex officio from 9/8 BC until around 120 AD – another example of the incorporation of expressions of loyalty to the Imperial regime into civic institutions. The archon Thrasyllos was part of a prominent family in late first-century Athens, which included Ammonius the hoplite general and tutor of Plutarch, and two other archons. They received Roman citizenship in 67 AD with the nomen Annius (Byrne, RCA, pp. 54-59; Schmalz, pp. 231-32). For the date, see Phlegon, FGrH 257, F36.xx. For the earliest attestation of the kestrophylax see AIUK 4.3B (BM, Ephebic) no. 2, 14-16 [3] The herald of the Areopagos presided over the meetings of the Areopagos Council, composed of former archons, which was the highest-ranking decision making body in Roman Athens. His tenure was annual and he was one of the two most powerful magistrates of Athens, along with the hoplite general (D. Geagan, Hesp. Supp. 12, 1967, 57-60). Tiberius Claudius Theogenes held several important priesthoods and civic offices in the reign of Nero, eventually becoming manager of the city (epimeletes tes poleos). He is not attested after Nero’s fall from power (Byrne, RCA, pp. 172-78). Presumably, he is mentioned in this inscription because he was to play some part in announcing the honours awarded to Epiktetos. [4] This inscription is the final and most extensive account of the career of Tiberius Claudius Novius, the leading figure in Athens under the Emperors Claudius and Nero, rising to power through extensive public spending, especially on games in honour of the Imperial family. No ancestors are known, but the name “Novius” suggests that he descended from the Italian traders (negotiatores) who settled on Delos in the second half of the second century BC. He tied himself closely to the Imperial family and Nero in particular, organising the addition of a monumental inscription in the name of Emperor Nero to the east face of the Parthenon (IG II² 3277) in the same year as this catalogue. The many titles attributed to him in this inscription testify to his pre-eminent position. The hoplite general was the most powerful office in Roman Athens, with wide-ranging responsibilities for security, the food supply, and public construction. Plutarch presents a hoplite general in the mid-first century AD reviewing the progress of the ephebes (Table Talk 9.1.1 = Mor. 736d), which suggests that the office had ultimate oversight of the ephebate and might explain why Novius is mentioned in this inscription. Multiple terms of office were common in the first century AD, but Novius’ eight terms are more than any other figure in Athenian history (D. Geagan, Hesp. Supp. 12, 1967, 18-31; Th. Sarikakis, The Hoplite General in Athens; see IG II³ 4, 276 for the earlier history of the position). The manager of the city (epimeletes tes poleos) was a special office held occasionally by very prominent Athenians, but the duties associated with it are uncertain – perhaps relating to construction or policing (D. Geagan, Hesp. Supp. 12, 1967, 117-19). Novius also held the title of lawgiver (nomothetes), which implies wide-ranging powers over the Athenian constitution, for this year only (cf. I Délos 2535-2537 and IG II² 1100 for other lawgivers in the Imperial period). Novius’ priesthoods combine traditional and Imperial cults in a manner typical of Athens in the first century AD (K. Clinton in M. C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff, Romanization of Athens, 1997, 161-82). The specific combination of cults was appropriate for Nero, who would dramatically proclaim the freedom of the Greeks at the Isthmian Games in 66/7 AD and closely associated himself with Apollo – there are a number of Athenian dedications to Nero as “the New Apollo” (e.g. SEG 32.252). The title of “best of the Greeks” indicates a victory in the footrace in armour at the Eleutheria festival at Plataia (Inschriften von Milet I 9, no. 369 = D. F. McCabe, Miletos, no. 406; A. Schachter, Cults of Boiotia, 1994, vol. 3, 141 n. 1). For the political relevance of athletic achievement in the Roman period, cf. IG II² 2193, 3741, and AIO Papers 12 sect. 3.2). Novius is not attested again after the year of this inscription and appears to have left no descendants. His successor in most of his priesthoods was Hipparchos, grandfather of the second-century AD magnate Herodes Atticus. For his full career, see Byrne, RCA pp. 170-73 and Schmalz, pp. 290-93. For analysis of his social and political context, see D. Geagan in M. C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff, Romanization of Athens, 1997, 25-26. [5] This inscription is the first attested example of the format of the ephebic catalogue which would be produced annually in Athens in the second and third centuries AD (see AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 10 and AIO Papers 12 sect. 1.3). It replaces, after several decades’ hiatus, the post-Sullan ephebic decrees honouring the graduating ephebes, their superintendent, and their staff (see IG II² 1039 with notes and RO 89 for earlier inscriptions honouring ephebes). The Hellenistic decrees were passed following sacrifices and a formal presentation of the ephebes to the Council of 600. A similar process of presentation and receipt of honours seems to be referred to at ll. 7-9. Whether the inscription indicates continuity in the ephebate, or the revival of older practices is unclear. However, the honours granted to the superintendent (kosmetes) in this inscription are far greater than those awarded in the Hellenistic and Post-Sullan periods (cf. IG II² 1039, ll. 35-45). As in those decrees, the superintendent is praised for inculcating good habits in the ephebes (cf. IG II² 1039, ll. 24-29), though in much less detail. He is also praised for his personal virtue, which reflects the dual nature of the position in this period as in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, as director of the ephebes’ activities and role model of proper behaviour (see SEG 50.155, AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.1). The findspot of this inscription indicates that it was set up in the Diogeneion gymnasium, the ephebes’ headquarters, as were later catalogues. For the superintendent in the Roman period, see IG II² 3739 and AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.1. Epiktetos is not otherwise known; his son appears as one of the ephebic gymnasiarchs at l. 15. [6] These are the ephebic staff, who instructed the ephebes on a day-to-day basis. Unlike the superintendent, who served annually, they could hold their posts for many years. For the trainer (paidotribes) see IG II² 3739 and AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.2. Ariston’s grandson also served in the role, see IG II² 2030 For the roles of the other ephebic staff, see AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 6 and AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.2. Areion, Satyros, Erastos, and Gaios have sons among the ephebes. A large number of staff also have children in the cohort in AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 6, but this becomes rare by the mid-second century AD. [7] The gymnasiarchs were ephebes who paid for the ephebes’ supply of oil – required for the ephebes’ athletic activities and thus a major expense. In the Classical period, there had been two ephebic gymnasiarchs per tribe who served for the whole year (see IG II³ 4, 336). Ephebic gymnasiarchs disappear from view in the Hellenistic period, until a new system is attested in the Post-Sullan period, in which a single ephebe served as gymnasiarch of the whole cohort for a month at a time (IG II² 1043, l. 26). This liturgy and the competition directorship gave young ephebes of means an opportunity to practice the euergetism that they would perform for the whole community as adults (see AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.3). The two gymnasiarchs in this inscription appear to be the son of the superintendent and of the secretary of the ephebes, respectively. It was common for the son(s) of the superintendent to go through the ephebate under their father and to play an important role in that year’s cohort (see AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 16. Sons of the ephebic staff are attested in such positions only in the late first and early second centuries AD (see AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 6. Z- is not otherwise attested; Patrophilos was subsequently a member of the Council of 600 (Agora XV 312, l. 15). The gymnasiarchs are followed by ten “partners” (systatai), perhaps competitors in the “sea-battle” (naumachia), on which see AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 10 and AIO Papers 12 sect. 3.5.i. Demosthenes (l. 16) is the son of the ephebes’ weapons trainer; the rest of the partners are not otherwise attested. [8] It is unclear whether these “Areopagites” are the ten “partners” listed above this line, in ll. 16-18, or the ephebes listed below at ll. 21-29 (after the intervening reference to the trainer). Strictly speaking, an Areopagite was a member of the Areopagos Council (i.e. an ex-archon, not an ephebe), but the term could be used in the Imperial period to refer to the children of Areopagite councillors. This development of a hereditary social status was modelled on the senatorial order in Rome and is attested in most Greek communities under the Roman Empire (Latin ordo, Greek taxis; A. Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence, 2009, 14-15). However, this inscription is much earlier than other evidence for an “Areopagite order” at Athens (e.g. I Eleusis 489, ll. 43-44 and SEG 24.200 of the late second and early third centuries respectively). If these individuals are Areopagites in this sense, it is striking that very few of them are otherwise attested. Demokritos (l. 22) is son of one of the teachers (l. 12) and Anthesterios (l. 24) has descendants in some early second century ephebic inscriptions. Another possibility is that these “Areopagites” are the first attestations of the ephebic archons, who held ephebic versions of the civic magistracies that were prerequisites for entering the Areopagos (see IG II² 2017, AIO Papers 12 sect. 2.3).

Added: 14 Jan 2021
Updated: 29 Mar 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2114