AIO 2882 Letters from Hadrian (and Plotina?) on the Epicurean Succession (125 AD)

Letters from Hadrian (and Plotina?) on the Epicurean Succession (125 AD)

AIO 2882 Date: 125 AD

Letter 1 [Emperor Caesar, son of the God Trajan Parthicus, grandson of the God Nerva, Trajan Hadrian]^[1] [Augustus, pontifex maximus, tribunician power 9 times, consul 3 times, to the Epicurean philosophers in Athens (?)], [greetings]. [Thanks to the concessions made to you, you are endebted to the Goddess Plotina, my most revered (semnotatēi)] mother. To the (5)leaders (proistamenois) [of the succession (diadochēs) of Epicurus, I conceded that they could dispose] of this with a Greek [will], [and make a choice], regardless of whether they want [a Greek] or a Roman . . . . . . Romans . . . . . . arranged for you . . . [I confirmed these matters previously to the scholarch] privately who had indicated [them to me] [and now I confirm them] publicly to [all?] the Epicureans. [Farewell. - days before the Ides] of March in Athens, [in the consulship of] [Valerius Asiaticus] for the 2nd time and of Aquilinus (125 AD)

Letter 2 (10) . . . to Heliodoros [and all the friends, greetings. From ancient] times and more or less [from the beginning]^[2] . . . of the succession of Epicurus' [doctrines] . . . . . . . . . , as I think, to honour with some gift . . . having a place . . . . . . . . . cuts for me of what formerly belonged [to you?], and I cannot . . . . . . . . . add - of buildings (oikodomiōn) . . . and costly dedications . . . . . . . . . self-sufficiently (autarkōs) and now having (15) . . . profitable even if to these . . . . . . . . . it was expected to receive a gift . . . have preferred to make . . . . . . . . . having been - , so that the - . . . [not] having [someone] fake (prospoiēton) . . . . . . . . . they would increase by however much for you . . . of the commandments (epitaxeōn) or pauses (epistaseōn) . . . . . . . . . so that I might say this in fact, in accordance with [the teachings (dogmasin)] of the men,^[3] despising . . . . . . . . . I moderated well (the scale?) of my giving (20) . . . , as I think, not only to . . . . . . . . . but also to not be an object of envy (epiphthonon) . . . since, lest this scorn . . . . . . . . . I would have forced my own . . . other currently necessary things . . . . . . . . . for the augmentation (sunauxēma) . . . . . . therefore another gift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . only a little silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)being fellow philosophers in accordance with whatever you . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . not - with the just - of the succession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . successors (diadochous) as one of the remaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . those who dispose by will, but . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . descendants and . . . the remaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30) . . . since, however much for the father- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . whatever sort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Previous - AIO 2880 Next - AIO 2883
Greek text

References:

AIO 2882 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG II² 1097 (PHI)

SEG 26.125 (PHI)

SEG 55.249

SEG 3.226 (PHI)

SEG 43.24 (PHI)

SEG 28.98 (PHI)

Oliver, Constitutions 74

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Letter (emperor)

Fr. a - Findspot: Athens (House of Gaspari) (EM 12386)
Fr. b - Findspot: Athens (National Gardens) (EM 8385)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This is the second of two dossiers of Imperial letters relating to the head of the Epicurean School at Athens, called the “scholarch” or “successor” (diadochos). The first dossier is SEG 55.250 of 121 AD, in which, at the request of his adoptive mother, Empress Plotina, the Emperor Hadrian grants the scholarch, Popillius Theotimos, the right to use a Greek will to choose either a Greek or a Roman as his heir and affirms the right of the school to overturn the scholarch’s choice through a common meeting. That grant is restated in the first letter of this inscription (ll. 1-9), written by Hadrian in March 125 AD, during his first visit to Athens as Emperor. On Hadrian and his relationship with Athens, see IG II² 5185 with notes; on inscribed Imperial letters, see I Eleusis 513 with notes). [2] The second and longer letter of this dossier is addressed to one Heliodoros, who appears to have succeeded Popillius Theotimos, as scholarch under the new concessions. He is probably identical with the Heliodoros named as one of Hadrian’s favoured philosophers in the Historian Augusta (Vit. Had. 16.10); it is unclear whether he is also identical with Avidius Heliodoros, who was imperial secretary from 128 until 130, when Hadrian denounced him in a vicious letter (Vit. Had. 15.5; Van Bremen Chiron 35, 2005, 523-24). Van Bremen sees the traces of a Roman nomen before his name, in which case he would be a Roman citizen; he may have received this citizenship after his succession or Theotimos may have chosen not to appoint a non-Roman.

The fragmentary state of the letter leaves it unclear who wrote it and why. Follet and all earlier editors assumed the author to be Hadrian, while van Bremen proposed Plotina (see textual note; for a balanced assessment, see A. E. Cooley, JRS 97, 2007, 201). All have noted that this letter, like Plotina’s letter in SEG 55.250 is suffused with Epicurean terminology and ideas. Thus, self-sufficiency and moderation are emphasised and contrasted with envy and excess, (esp. ll. 14-15, 19-22). “A little silver” (l. 24) recalls Epicurus’ “little pot of cheese,” an Epicurean symbol of properly moderate pleasures (Diog. Laert. 10.10). An abstract noun ending in -ma, a noted Epicurean stylistic feature, appears in l. 22 (van Bremen, 519-21). Follet’s interpretation is that Hadrian denied a request from the Epicureans for new buildings and dedications (ll. 13-15), instead giving them a small amount of money for repairs to their gymnasion (ll. 23-24, but the phrase is restored and there is no other evidence for this gymnasion, see textual note). Hadrian’s use of Epicurean terminology and ideas would be fiercely ironic criticism of the Epicureans’ request as excessive and thus inconsistent with their philosophy (Follet, pp. 164-170). This would incidentally reveal that Hadrian was very familiar with Epicurean thought and style. It is difficult to understand why the Epicureans would have inscribed and displayed such a critical letter. Van Bremen’s interpretation (511-22) is that this is a letter of Plotina (posthumously inscribed, since she died in 123 AD), perhaps explaining a bequest left in her will, incorporating Epicurean stylistic features and ideas to explain what she had given and to advise the Epicureans to use it in accordance with their philosophy, similar to her advice on how to choose a successor in SEG 55.250. In this case, “arranged for you” in l. 7 of the first letter might be Hadrian introducing the topic of this bequest. As Plotina’s heir, it would have been his role to execute all bequests in her will. [3] Epicurus, Metrodoros, Hermarchos, and Polyainos, the founding thinkers of Epicureanism, were normally referred to by Epicureans as “the men” (andres), as here, or “the leaders” (kathegemones, cf. SEG 55.250, l. 35).

Textual note: AIO follows the text of Van Bremen (= SEG 55.249), over the more daring text of S. Follet, REG 107, 1994, 158-71 (= SEG 43.24). Reconstruction of the consular date in ll. 8-9 and the need for a proper greeting formula in l. 10 indicate that Follet has under-estimated the size of the gaps at the left and centre of the line, vitiating her supplements. At ll. 1-3, van Bremen presumes a full greeting formula – the details of Hadrian’s titulature follow from the consular date; the exact term used for the addressees is uncertain. Follet’s restorations of ll. 4-9 give broadly similar sense. At l. 10, where Follet proposed [τῶι ἡμετέ]ρωι Ἡλιοδώρωι “to our Heliodoros” and van Bremen had [Πλωτείνα . . .c.5. .]ρ̣ωι Ἡλιοδώρωι [καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς φίλοις χαίρειν “[Plotina] to -rus Heliodoros [and all the friends, greetings” (-rus interpreted as a Roman nomen, though there is no obvious candidate), AIO does not restore; the implications for the authorship of the second letter are discussed above. Follet’s very full restorations of ll. 11-31 cannot be repeated here; the key passage is l. 15-18, which she restores as ὑμῖν μὲν οὖν] ἐ̣κ̣λαμβάνειν ἐδόκει δό|[σιν, ἐγὼ δὲ π]οιήσασθαι προῄρημ̣[αι - - - δο]θ̣ησομένην ὅπως οἱ κα|[θηγηταί], π̣ροσποίητον ἔχοντ[ες αἰτίαν, μὴ λαμβ]ά̣νωσιν ἐφ᾽ ὁπόσον ἂν ὑμῖν | [δόξηι, ἀλλὰ] τ̣ῶν ἐπι{σ}τάξεων πρ[ονοῶνται (“So, while you] expected to sieze a gift, [I] prefer to make ... what will be given, so that the [leaders], having a fake [pretext, shall not] take as much as you [wish, but take care] of the commandments”). At the end of l. 23, Follet reads ἑτέραν μὲν οὖν δ[όσιν χαρίζομαι εἰς τὴν τοῦ γ]υ̣[μνα]σ̣ί̣ο̣υ̣ ἀ̣ν̣[ασκευήν, which she translates as “another gift, then, [I graciously make for the] gymnasion’s repair” (but the last word normally means “demolition”); van Bremen saw only undecipherable traces. This would be the only evidence for an Epicurean connection with a gymnasion.

Added: 17 Aug 2024
Updated: 17 Aug 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2882