Follet2020 2 Divine honours for Julia Domna

Divine honours for Julia Domna

Follet, Décrets attiques 2 Date: 197 AD?

[ἀγαθ]ῆι relief [τύ]χ̣ηι. [- - - - - - - - -]-τ̣η̣ς̣ relief [- - -]-µ̣αιεὺς εἶπεν̣· [- - - - - - - - - Α]ὐτο[κ]ράτο[ρων] [- - - - - - - - - παρ]ε̣χει ἐξ[ήγησιν] (5)[- - - - - - - - - το]ύ̣των εὐσέβειαν π[ρὸς] [- - - ἐπιδεδηµηκ]ως οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς ε̣[ἰ]ς̣ Ῥ̣[ώµην] [πρεσβείας - - -] τετυχηκὼς δὲ [πολλῶν εὐερ]- [γε]σ̣ι̣[ῶν καὶ δωρεῶν? ἐκ τ]ῆ̣ς ἐνφύτου αὐ[τοκράτορσι] [φι]λ̣ανθρ̣[ωπίας καὶ προνοίας?], συνεργούσης [δ’ ἡµῖν] (10)[ἐν] πᾶσιν τ̣[ῆς εὐεργετίδος? καὶ] σωτείρας τῶν [Ἀθηνῶν] [Ἰου]λίας Σ̣εβ̣[αστῆς, > δεδόχθ]α̣ι τὰ μὲν ἄλλα π̣[άντα] [πρ]άττεσθαι [καθὼς ὁ συνε]ργός μου τῆς ἐ[πιμελη]- [τεί]ας Ἐλπιδηφ[όρος Ἀσκληπι]ά̣δου Πα⟨λ⟩ηνε[ὺς παρὰ] [τὴ]ν ἐμὴν ἀποδ[ημίαν ἐψηφί]σατο > θύειν δ[ὲ πάντας] (15) [το]ὺς κατ’ [ἔ]τος [ἕκαστον ἄρ]χ̣οντας ἀγαθῆ[ι τύχηι] [ἧι ἱ]ε̣[ρω]τ̣άτηι ἡµέραι [Ἰουλία] Σ̣ε̣β̣αστὴ ἐγ̣[εννήθη] [- - - - - - - - -] ἀν̣ῆ̣κ̣αν τοῦ̣[τον? - - -] [- - - καὶ ποιεῖν τὰ εἰ]σιτήρια τῆι̣ [σωτείρᾳ τῶν] [Ἀθηνῶν Ἰουλίᾳ Σεβαστῇ ὡς] Ἀθηνᾷ Πολιά̣[δι · εὔχεσ]- (20) [θαι δὲ κ]αὶ θ[ύειν τὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁ]πλείτας στρατ[ηγὸν] [ὑπὲρ ἁ]ρµά̣[των καὶ στρατῶν, τὸ]ν δὲ ἄρχοντα τη[ν θεὸν συ]- [στῆσαί] οἱ ἐ̣[πὶ τῶι αὐτῶι ἐδ]ά̣φωι ἵνα συνθρον̣[ω ὦσι τὼ] [θε]ώ > ε̣[ἶναι δὲ ἱερὰν τὴν τ]οῦ Θαργηλιῶνος μ[ηνὸς τῆς] [Σ]ε̣βασ̣τ̣[ῆ]ς τ̣ε̣τ[ράδα ἱσταμέ]νου, ἐν ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ τὸν ἀ̣[ρχαῖ]- (25) [ον ν]α̣ὸν αὐτῆι [ὡς Πολιάδι] ἀνῆκαν αἱ Ἀθῆναι > τ̣[ὸν] [δὲ] π̣ολέμαρχον̣ [θύειν τῆι μητ]ρὶ τῶν στρατοπέδων ἐ̣[ν] [τῆι] π̣ρώτηι ἡμέ[ραι τοῦ κ]ατὰ Ῥωμαίους ἔτους, κα̣[τ]- [άρχ]ε̣σθα̣ι δὲ κ̣αὶ [τούτω]ν τῶν θυσιῶν τὴν ἱέρεια[ν] [τῆ]ς [Ἀ]θηνᾶς τ̣[ῆς Πολιά]δ̣ος καὶ τὰ γέρα φέρεσθ[αι, Ἰου]- (30) [λίας δ]ὲ̣ Σ̣ε̣β̣α̣σ̣τ̣[ῆς στῆσαι καὶ] ἄγαλμα χρυσοῦν ἐν τ[ῶι] [Παρθ]ενῶν[ι· τὸν δὲ στρατηγ]ὸν ἀγαθῆι τύχηι [τὰ ἱερὰ] τελ[εῖν κ]α̣ὶ τοὺ[ς ἄρχοντας καὶ ἱ]ερεῖς πάντας κ̣α̣[ὶ τοὺς] γεν[νητ]ὰ̣ς πέμ̣[πειν, τὰς δὲ ἱ]ερείας καὶ τὴν τοῦ̣ [βα]- σιλ̣[έως β]ασίλισσ̣α̣ν θ̣[ύειν καὶ] τ̣ὰ ε̣ἰσι̣[τήρι]α̣ τῆς ἱερω[σύνης] (35) π[οι]ε̣ῖν τῆι Ἀ̣θηνᾶι τ[ῆι Πολι]άδ̣ι [> θύειν] δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀ̣[ρρη]- φ[όρ]ους τὰς ἀ̣πολυο̣μ̣ένα̣ς καὶ δᾶ[ιδα ἱ]σ̣τᾶν καὶ σ[υνάι]- [δει]ν̣ καὶ χορε̣ύ̣ειν ε̣ἰς α̣[ὐ]τήν, ἵνα κα̣[ὶ το]ύτων [γεγε]- [νη]μ̣ένων ἐπ̣[ιφανὴς ἡ εἰ]ς τὴν σώτειραν τῶν̣ [Ἀθη]- ν[ῶ]ν̣ Ἰουλίαν̣ Σ̣ε̣β̣α̣[στὴν εὐ]σέβεια ὑπάρχῃ > [ἀνα]- (40) γρ̣άψαι δὲ κ̣αὶ τὴν [περὶ τούτων ε]ξ̣ήγησιν ἐν στ[ήληι] καὶ ἀναθε̣ῖναι πα[ρὰ τὸν ἐν ἀκροπ]ό̣λει βωμὸν [τῶν] Σεβαστῶν > vac. vac.

Previous - Agora XVI 340 Next - Agora XVI 342
Translated text

References:

Follet, Décrets attiques 2 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG II² 1076 (PHI)

SEG 37.97

SEG 18.30 (PHI)

Agora XVI 341 (PHI)

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Images: Agora Excavations - (1)
Krateros - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (uncertain body)

Original location: Acropolis

Fr. a - Findspot: Unknown (EM 5029)
Fr. b - Findspot: Acropolis, north slope (EM 12290)
Fr. c - Findspot: Unknown (EM 3813)
Fr. d - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 5700)
Fr. e - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 8369)
Fr. f - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 8370)
Fr. g - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 8375)
Fr. h - Findspot: Unknown (EM 8373)
Fr. i - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 8379)
Fr. j - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 8374)
Fr. k - Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 5680)
Fr. l - Findspot: Unknown (EM 8376)
Fr. m - Findspot: Acropolis, north slope (EM 12751)
Fr. n - Findspot: Athens? (EM 4646)
Fr. o - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 8371)
Fr. p - Findspot: Unknown (EM 3490)
Fr. q - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 8377)
Fr. r - Findspot: Acropolis (EM 8372)
Fr. s - Findspot: Unknown (EM 3144)
Fr. t - Findspot: Acropolis, north slope (EM 12731)
Fr. u - Findspot: Acropolis, north slope (EM 13028)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Textual note: AIO follows the text of Follet, except for the speculative l. 2 Φλ. Ὀνησικρά]τ̣η̣ς̣ [∆ιο?]µ̣αιεὺς (see n. 2).

This fragmentary inscription regulates cult honours for Empress Julia Domna, wife of Emperor Septimius Severus (on whom, see AIUK 7 (Chatsworth), pp. 16-18; B. Levick, Julia Domna, 2007), which closely associate her with Athena Polias (see n. 6-8) and far exceed those given by the Athenians to any other Roman empress. It amends an earlier, even more fragmentary decree of the Council and People, Agora XVI 340 (see n. 2). The earlier decree dealt with honours for the whole Imperial family; this one is focussed entirely on Domna. This decree seems to adjust the details and tone of the earlier arrangements, rather than totally overhauling them. Cult honours were awarded to Roman emperors and members of their family from the time of Augustus, and derive from the honours granted to kings and others in the Hellenistic Period, but at Athens we mostly know of them from statue bases of emperors and their priests. Decrees outlining these honours survive only from the reign of Augustus (see Agora XVI 336 with notes) and from the Severan period (Agora XVI 340, Agora XV 460). Domna's close relationship with Athens is also indicated by the statues erected in her honour (AIUK 7 (Chatsworth), no. 2, IG II² 3418, IG II³ 4, 1397) and her patronage relationship with the Athenian author and leader Philostratos (Philostr. Vit. Ap., 1.3.; B. Levick, Julia Domna, 2007, 107-23). On Athenian decrees of the Severan period, see AIUK 4.3A (BM, Decrees), 10.

Agora XVI 340 and this decree post-date the proclamation of Domna as "Mother of the Camps" on 14 April 196 AD (see n. 6) and the reference to plural "emperors" in Agora XVI 340, l. 19 shows that they were passed after Caracalla was promoted to co-emperor in March/April 197 AD. The statement in l. 6 that the Athenian embassy went to Rome further limits the possible dates to the few periods when the emperors were in that city: March/April 197, April 202, June 203-207 AD (on imperial chronology, see D. Kienast and W. Eck, Römische Kaisertabelle, 6^th ed., 2017, 149-59). The fact that the initial decree was passed while an embassy was in Rome and in the absence of the proposer (see n. 2) suggests that it reacted to sudden news that required an immediate response. A possible scenario is that the Athenians sent an embassy to Rome in late 196, as it became clear that Severus and his rival Clodius Albinus would go to war with one another, with instructions to congratulate the victor. After Severus won, he returned to Rome, celebrated his triumph and elevated his son Caracalla to co-emperor in March/April 197. When news of the promotion reached Athens in late Mounychion (around the beginning of May), the Athenians passed Agora XVI 340. The proposer of this decree returned sometime after Thargelion (May/June, l. 23), with news that Domna had interceded with the Emperors in support of the Athenians (ll. 3-14) and proposed this decree. What form Domna's intercession took is unknown; an unreliable source (Hist. Aug. Life of Severus 3.7) says that Severus removed some of Athens' privileges on his accession, because of their treatment of him on a visit during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. If this occurred, Domna may have helped to reverse or ameliorate this decision. The Athenians had been using embassies and skilful reference to their cultural heritage to defend their interests before Roman authorities since the philosopher's embassy of 155 BC (Polyb. 33.2.10, cf. AIUK 4.3A, p. 55).

The relief in the pediment is a simple circle. The inscription was later cut up and reused as a set of paving stones, some of which subsequently tumbled down the north slope of the Acropolis into the Agora. [2] The prescript at ll. 3-4 seems to introduce a transcript of a speech, which uses first person singular pronouns (ll. 12, 14) and is referred to at ll. 4 and 40 as an "interpretation" (exegesis), i.e. the opinion of the interpreter (exegetes), a religious professional who advised on the details of sacrifices and other rituals (cf. IG II² 1035, ll. 11-13 with note, I Eleusis 489, ll. 17, 48-49), apparently the decree's proposer. It also has features of a normal decree, such as a motivation clause (ll. 5-11), a resolution clause (l. 11) and the use of indirect discourse. At ll. 11-14 it deploys the amendment formula "in other respects that everything be done just as so-and-so decreed, but that" used in Classical decrees (e.g., IG II³ 1, 294 and 447; see S. D. Lambert, IALD II, 2018, 249-52), but idiosyncratically. In Classical times, this formula was used to amend proposals put to a single meeting of the Assembly, whereas here it is used to alter a decree passed some months earlier. The archaising deployment of Classical formulae is a feature of Athenian inscriptions of the Severan period (cf. AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 17, with notes). The preserved portions of the prescript and the resolution formula in l. 11 make no mention of the body that issued the resolution. It is probably the Council and People, but the Areopagos (cf. IG IV² 1, 82-84 and AIUK 4.3A (BM, Decrees) no. 10) or some other body (e.g., the gerousia, cf. I Eleusis 624) are also possible.

The identity of the interpreter who proposed this decree is uncertain; Follet proposes Flavius Onesikrates of [Diom?]eia, priest of Asklepios ca. 200 AD (cf. IG II² 3685, IG II³ 4, 850, l. 3, 859, ll. 6-8), but other restorations are possible. The proposer of the original decree, Elpidephoros, is not otherwise known and it is unclear whether the collaboration between the two (ll. 12-13) is limited to the institution of these honours or involves the administration of the city more generally. [3] The decree outlines a programme for the veneration of Julia Domna, involving all civic magistrates and priests and celebrations throughout the Athenian year, which closely links her with the cult of Athena Polias. This link was fitting, since Domna had protected the city of Athens through her intervention in support of the embassy (ll. 3-14), had a martial aspect as Mother of the Camps (see n. 6), and cultivated an association with philosophy (Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2.30, Ep. 73; Cass. Dio 76.15.7). The Acropolis had been a site of Imperial cult since the erection of the altar of Roma and Augustus (referred to in ll. 41-42) in front of the Parthenon in the 10s BC (see IG II³ 4, 10, cf. S. Aneziri in R. Krumeich and C. Witschel, Die Akropolis in Athen 2010, 271-302). Oliver restored ll. 18-20 and 25 to indicate that the decree did not just associate Julia Domna with Athena Polias, but actually identified her with the goddess (cf. Domitian as Zeus Eleutherios in IG II² 1996), but in the preserved text, they are closely associated rather than identical (F. Ghedini, Giulia Domna, 1984, 128-31). Domna is synthronos ("throne-sharer") with Athena in ll. 22-23 and receives a separate statue in l. 30, while Athena Polias appears alone in ll. 29 and 35. It was common for members of the Imperial family to share temples with an Olympian god in this manner in Asia Minor (B. Burrell, Neokoroi, 2004). In Athens it is not otherwise attested (but see n. 7).

Sacrifices are offered by all officials to Good Fortune (Agathe Tyche) on Domna's birthday (ll. 15-16) and sacrifices to Domna are added to the existing sacrifices to Athena at the entrance sacrifices (eisiteteria) that officials offered when they took office (ll. 18-19). The surviving text of Agora XVI 340 mentions these entrance sacrifices at l. 23 but not the birthday sacrifices. On commemoration of imperial birthdays, see Agora XVI 336 and Agora XV 460 with notes. Domna's birthday may have been 25 September (cf. B. Levick, Julia Domna, p. 173 n. 97), which would fall in Boedromion, the month when officials took office in this period, so the two sacrifices may be linked. The association of Domna with the beginning of the year is repeated in the polemarch's sacrifice in ll. 25-27 (see n. 6). [4] Follet restores ll. 19-21 as a prayer and sacrifice for the success of the Roman army. The hoplite general would be an appropriate official to make such an offering, but the reference to chariots is odd and unparalleled. [5] The 4^th of Thargelion (May/June) is made a sacred day to commemorate the admission of Domna into "the old temple" alongside Athena Polias, probably the Erechtheion, which hosted the cult of Athena Polias (R. Krumeich and C. Witschel, in R. Krumeich and C. Witschel, Die Akropolis von Athen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit, 2010, 24, n. 132). This is only a few days after the passage of the original decree on 23 Mounychion (early May) and thus had probably already occurred at the time of this amendment. The dedication was timed to follow the monthly sacred day for Athena on the 3^rd and to precede the Thargelia festival, associated with civic purification, on the 6^th and 7^th (J. Mikalson, Sacred and Civil Calendar 1977, 151-154; on the Thargelia, see IG II³ 4, 475 with notes). This grant is distinct from the gold statue in the Parthenon in ll. 30-31. In l. 23, the two goddesses are Domna and Athena, referred to with the dual form - an archaising touch (cf. AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees) no. 17). [6] Domna's title, Mother of the Camps (mater castrorum), was an important part of the Severan dynasty's self-representation, emphasising their role as a model family (cf. Agora XV 460), their close relationship with the legions, and continuity with the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, since the title had originally been held by Marcus Aurelius' wife Faustina the Younger (on representations of the Severans, see A. M. Kemezis, Greek Narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans, 2014, 55-74). It was probably awarded to her on 14 April 196 AD (see M. Heil in H.-U. Wiemer, ed., Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln, 2006, 73-74 arguing against the traditional date of 14 April 195). The polemarch had originally been the commander of the Athenian army; this function was long defunct in the Roman period, but was still remembered (cf. IG II³ 4, 172) and made him an appropriate official for the sacrifice to Domna in her martial aspect. The sacrifice on the first day of the Roman year, 1 January (the Athenian and Roman calendars were not synced but this falls around mid-Poseideon) parallels the sacrifices at the start of the Athenian year in ll. 18-19. An event on 1 January and sacrifices to Domna as Mother of the Camps appear in Agora XVI 340 ll. 18 and 21, but there they appear to be separate events and the polemarch is not involved; the amendment may have merged them. On the reservation of perquisites, cf. AIO 314; AIUK 4.1 (BM, Cult provisions), p. 32 n. 60. [7] This grant is distinct from the statue installed in the Erechtheion (ll. 21-25). A golden statue implies divine status; it might also recall the golden statues of Nike which had stood in the Parthenon in the Classical period (cf. IG II³ 1, 444 with notes). Before this decree, only Hadrian had received a statue inside the Parthenon (Paus. 1.24.7). Agora XVI 340 l. 18 mentions prayers in the Hekatompedon (the Parthenon or specifically its central chamber, cf. IG I³ 329). [8] A range of rituals, including sacrifices, a procession, dances, and hymns are described in ll. 31-40. No date is given for these events; the references to Good Fortune and entry sacrifices (ll. 31, 34) may indicate that the section provides further details on the sacrifices in Boedromion first mentioned at ll. 15-19. This would also explain how they make manifest the piety of the city towards Domna, which is otherwise unclear. The text emphasises wide participation, including both men and women and all members of genē (cf. Agora XV 460, ll. 27-29), but the Council, People, and ephebes are notably absent. The queen (basilissa, l. 34) is the wife of the archon basileus and could be seen as the preeminent female representative of Athens in religious matters (cf. Demosthenes 59.72-78; J. Blok, Citizenship in Classical Athens, 2017, 195-96). The arrephoroi were a set of four girls aged 7-11 who were chosen each year to live on the Acropolis and carry out ritual duties for Athena Polias until they were released in Skirophorion. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the role was given to daughters of elite families (see IG II² 3488 with notes; R. Schmidt in R. Krumeich and C. Witschel, Die Akropolis, 2010, 219-32).

Added: 28 Jul 2023
Updated: 13 Oct 2023
Feedback

ID: AIO_2733