IGIV21 82-84 Honours for T. Statilius Lamprias of Epidauros

Honours for T. Statilius Lamprias of Epidauros

IG IV² 1 82-84 Date: ca. 48 AD

Left side, top (IG IV² 1, 82) From the Athenians:^[1] The Areopagos Council and the Council of the Six Hundred and the People (erected this statue of) Titus Statilius Lamprias (5) son of Statilius Teimokrates, hero (hērōa).^[2]

Left side, bottom (IG IV² 1, 83) When Secundus was archon and priest of Drusus the Consul, fifth day from the end of Boedromion. Areopagos at Eleusis. Teimosthenes son of Kallistomachos of Anaphlystos made a speech.^[3] It was decided, a distinguished youth having passed away at Epidauros, (10) being famous for his good birth (eugeneia) throughout Greece and descended from the most conspicuous (epiphanestatōn) men among us and from the most prestigious (endoxotatōn) cities in Greece, and having been snatched away by the divine (daimonos) from great expectations in the first stage of his life, to elect a select committee (hairesin) who will travel and console (paramuthēsomenēn) his parents and grandfather, and also to set up statues of him on the Acropolis and in the courtyard at Eleusis, alongside his (15) ancestors, and in Epidauros the Sacred in the precinct of Asklepios, with the inscription, “The Areopagos Council and the Council of the Six Hundred and the People (erected this statue of) Titus Statilius Lamprias son of Statilius Teimokrates, hero,” and the herald Lysiades shall also write to the city of the Epidaurians and send the memorandum (hupomnēmatismon), marked with the public seal (dēmosiai sphrageidi). Appointed as select committee: Teimosthenes son of Kallistomachos (20) of Anaphlystos, Kallistomachos son of Kallistomachos of Anaphlystos.^[4]

Front side (IG IV² 1, 84) When Secundus was archon and priest of Drusus the Consul, in the third prytany, of Erechtheis, for which Archelaos son of Lysimachos of Marathon was secretary, eighteenth day of Boedromion, eighteenth day of the prytany. Principal Assembly in the theatre. Of the presiding committee Platon of Iphistiadai was putting to the vote (25) and his fellow presiding committee members. Teimosthenes son of Kallistomachos of Anaphlystos proposed, since it has happened that Lamprias son of Teimokrates died in Epidauros before his time, a decorous (kosmion) and self-controlled (sōphrona) youth, adorned (kekosmemenon) with every kind of excellence (aretēi) in the first stage of his life worthily of his ancestors’ prestige (doxēs), and through good birth (eugeneiai) at Athens being a legitimate descendant of the ancient first men, of priests and priestesses of the goddess after whom the city is named and (30) of the hierophantic and dadouchic houses (oikōn), yet it was not only at Athens that he was adorned with good birth and brilliance (lamprotēti), but also in the most prestigious (endoxotatais) and most noble (eugenestatais) cities of Greece – Lakedaimon, and Argos and Sacred Epidauros, being second to no house and, in addition to this, having been honoured with the citizenship (poleiteiai), which is greatest and most famed among all men – that of the Romans.^[5] The Council and the People shall decide^[6] to dedicate (35) statues of him on the Acropolis and at Eleusis in the sacred court of the two goddesses, where those of his ancestors are also located, and at Epidauros the Sacred in the precinct of Asklepios, with this inscription: “The Council of the Areopagos and the Council of the Six Hundred and the People (erected this statue of) Titus Statilius Lamprias son of Titus Statilius Teimokrates for his excellence,” and also to elect an embassy to convey this decree (psēphisma) to Epidauros, which will also console (paramuthēsetai), (40) in the name of the city, his parents, Teimokrates and Teimosthenis, and his grandfather, Lamprias, so that, by doing these things, the opinion (gnomē) of the Athenians may be made apparent to all, which is in no way negligent with respect to the good and prestigious among the men of Greece, and is not uncaring in these kinds of disasters, but provides powerful honour to the dead and consolation to the living and unfortunate. (45) Envoys were elected: Teimosthenes son of Kallistomachos of Anaphlystos, Kallistomachos son of [Kallisto]machos of Anaphlystos, Nestor son of Sosthenes of Phlya.

Previous - I Eleusis 300 Next - I Eleusis 360

References:

IG IV² 1 82-84 (Translated text) (PHI) (PHI) (PHI)

Syll.³ 796B

I Eleusis 345 (ll. 37-38) (PHI)

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Monument type: Base

Inscription type: Statue base (Areopagos, Council, and People), Decree (Areopagos), Decree (Council and People)

Original location: Epidauros (Sanctuary of Asklepios)

Findspot: Epidauros (Sanctuary of Asklepios) (Epidauros Museum 385)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This statue base in the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros bears three Attic inscriptions in honour of Titus Statilius Lamprias: the main honorific text (ll. 1-6) and a decree of the Areopagos (ll. 7-20) on the left-hand side, and a decree of the Council and People (ll. 21-46) on the front. The base was reused, perhaps more than once; one text was erased to make way for this inscription (W. Peek, Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion, 1969, p. 29) and an earlier inscription on the right-hand side of the base records that it was a dedication to Asklepios erected around 300 BC by Aristarchos son of Aristarchos of Epidauros (IG IV² 1, 238). On Epidauros in this period, see M. Melfi, in A.D. Rizakis and C.E. Lepenioti, Roman Peloponnese III, 2010, 329-339. The two decrees are decrees of consolation, often passed following the death of a high-status individual in the Late Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods and closely linked in themes and vocabulary to contemporary funerary orations (see N. Ehrhardt, Laverna 5, 1994, 38-55). This decree and IG II² 1072 are the only full decrees of this type from Athens, but honorific inscriptions for prematurely deceased young men are common in the Roman period and were probably the product of similar uninscribed decrees (e.g. AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 16 and Agora XVIII 400). On public decrees of the first two centuries AD, see SEG 21.499, with notes.

The honorand, Lamprias, who died aged eighteen around 48 AD (IG IV² 1, 85-86, l. 17; Byrne, Roman Citizens, p. 543), belonged to one of the most distinguished families in the province of Achaia, the Statilii of Epidauros (on this family, see A. J. S. Spawforth, ABSA 80, 1985, 248-58). Lamprias' grandfather, also called Lamprias, and his father Timokrates both held the priesthood of Asklepios and funded the Asklepieia festival there. They erected an exedra near the Temple of Asklepios with statues in honour of P. Memmius Regulus, governor of Achaia from 35 to 44 AD, on behalf of the Achaian League (IG IV² 1, 665 = exedra no. 11; cf. IG II² 4174); another exedra was devoted to statues of them (IG IV² 1, 670-673 = exedra no. 9). Probably in 67 AD, the year after Nero granted the province its freedom, Timokrates served as secretary of the Panachaean League, a kind of "league of leagues" which represented almost all the cities in the province (IG IV² 1, 80-81, on the league, see J. H. Oliver, Hesperia 47, 1978, 185-91). Through his mother, Lamprias was also related to elite families in Athens and Sparta. Lamprias’ only official role was serving as fire-bearer (pyrphoros) at Epidauros, a role reserved for aristocratic boys, ca. 40 AD (IG IV² 1, 671), but his early death left the family with no male heir, which explains the scale of the response to his death.

In addition to this inscription, a statue with an honorific decree for Lamprias was also erected at Epidauros by the Spartans (IG IV² 1, 85-86), also appropriating an earlier base (IG IV² 1, 239), and by the Corinthians (IG IV² 1, 676), the Epidaurians (IG IV² 1, 677), the Epidaurian association of the Asklapiastai in Panakeia (IG IV² 1, 679), and Lamprias’ maternal uncle Lucius Volusenus Aristokrates of Sparta (IG IV² 1, 681). [2] Heroization was a common honour in Greece and Asia Minor in the Hellenistic and Imperial periods (see C. P. Jones, New Heroes in Antiquity, 2010, 68-72). In Athens, it does not occur before the Roman period, and there are relatively few examples (SEG 66.153, I Eleusis 349, and Agora XVIII 400 from the first century AD; AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 15 and IG II² 6791, both of which seem to have been controversial, from the second century AD). The honour was introduced to this inscription by the Areopagos (see n. 3), perhaps so that the Athenian honours would match those awarded to Lamprias by the Spartans (IG IV² 1, 85). [3] In the Imperial period, the Areopagos, Council and People all passed decrees on behalf of the city as a whole, both separately and jointly. This decree and SEG 30.82 (ca. 230 AD, fragmentary) are the only cases where we have both the decree of the Areopagos (ll. 7-20) and the decree of the Council and People (ll. 21-46), allowing us to see how the three bodies interacted. Although the Areopagos had always claimed a role as the guardian of the laws, it asserted its control over the other two bodies and over Athens in general much more actively in the Imperial period than previously, presenting itself as the Athenian analogue to the Roman Senate (cf. AIUK 4.3A (BM, Decrees) no. 10 with notes). Both decrees were proposed by the same individual, Teimosthenes (see n. 4). The decree of the Council and People is earlier, having been passed at a meeting of the Assembly the day before the Eleusinian procession (see AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 17 with note on the chronology), while the decree of the Areopagos was passed at a meeting in Eleusis after the festival (on post-festival meetings, see e.g. IG II³ 1, 344, l. 4 with note). This order is also seen in AIUK 4.3A (BM, Decrees), no. 10, ll. 4-5, AIUK 4.2 (BM, Decrees), no. 17, ll. 36-37, and SEG 30.82, but the Areopagos decrees first in Agora XVI 333, and the Areopagos also passes decrees alone (e.g., AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 16). In this case, the Areopagos confirms most aspects of the earlier decree, but it changes the inscription for the statue base from “honours on account of his excellence” (l. 38) to “honours as a hero” (l. 17). It is the Areopagos’ version that prevails (l. 6) and if the decrees had not been inscribed, we would have no indication that it was not the unanimous decision of all three decision-making bodies. The Areopagos also seems to remove one of the envoys elected by the Council and People (ll. 19-20, 45-46) and it seems that the Areopagos had control of the public seal (l. 19), which had been held by the prytany chairman of the Council of Five Hundred and used at the direction of the People in the Classical period (cf. IG II³ 1, 292, ll. 39-41; Ath. Pol. 44.1).

The language of the decree of the Council and People generally derives from forms developed in the Classical Period, but the Areopagos’ decree consistently uses different formulae (cf. D. Geagan, Athens after Sulla, 1967, 53-55). The Council and People’s decree opens with details of the prytany, secretary, and presiding committee (ll. 22-25), is “proposed” (l. 25), gives the background in a long subordinate clause (“since…” ll. 26-35), has a long motion formula “the Council and the People shall decide” (l. 35), and calls itself a “decree” (psephisma, l. 39). The Areopagos’ decree gives no details about presiding officials, the proposer “made words” (l. 8), the background is a genitive absolute (ll. 9-12), the enactment formula is very short (“decided” l. 9), and it calls itself a “memorandum” (hypomnematismos, l. 18, the characteristic term: Cic. ad Fam. 13.1.5). It is also briefer. Some of these formulae seem to derive from decrees of the Roman Senate - “made a speech” calques their opening phrase, verba fecit, and the brevity of the motion formula might correspond to the Latin censuere, “judged” (P. Graindor, Athènes de Tibère à Trajan, 1931, 63; on the language of Senatorial decrees, see R. J. A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome, 1984, 304). [4] Timosthenes, the proposer of the decrees (ll. 8-9, 25) is selected as envoy along with his brother Kallistomachos (ll. 19-20, 45-46). They are likely relatives of Lamprias’ mother, Timosthenis, and are not otherwise attested. A third envoy, Nestor, present in the decree of the Council and People, but excluded from the Areopagos’ decree, is related to a court president of the reign of Augustus (IG II² 1729, l. 2). [5] The praise of Lamprias’ good birth (eugeneia) and ancestry (ll. 10-11, 28-32) epitomises the wider aristocratic ideology of first-century AD Greece. It parallels the Spartan decree, which calls him one “in whom the good birth of Greece converged to the highest degree” and specifies that he was descended from the Inachidai at Epidauros, Perseus and Phoroneus at Argos, and Herakles and the fifth-century BC general Lysandros at Sparta (IG IV² 1, 86, ll. 9-14). The "ancient first men" (l. 29) may be a reference to Athenian claims to autochthony. The priests and priestesses of "the namesake goddess of the city" (l. 30, i.e., Athena) came from the genos of the Eteoboutadai (see IG II² 3453 with note) and the “hierophantic and dadouchic houses” are the gene of the Eumolpidai and Kerykes. Emphasis on good birth had been studiously avoided in honorific decrees from Classical and Hellenistic Athens, as being undemocratic. From the first century BC, good birth is presented as a virtue for citizens (cf. IG II² 1039, l. 16; 1043, l. 18; I Eleusis 300, ll. 32-56) and for foreigners (cf. IG II² 1072). By the second century AD, good birth was a requirement for admission to the Areopagos (SEG 29.127, ll. 63-66). Claims of descent from mythical and Classical heroes become common in public epigraphy in the first century AD (e.g., SEG 21.498 and I Eleusis 621; cf. IG II² 1069 with notes for the contemporary practice of dubbing benefactors “the new” version of these heroes). From the Hellenistic period, if not before, male nouveaux riches often married female genos members who were eligible for priesthoods to gain status and prestige, because genos membership could be inherited matrilineally (see J. Blok and S. D. Lambert, ZPE 169, 2009, 95–121; on this marriage strategy see also [S. B. Aleshire and] S. D. Lambert in J. Richardson and F. Santangelo eds., Priests and State in the Roman World, 2011, 558-9). Lamprias' descent, which results from at least three generations of inter-marriage between the elites of different cities, takes this a step further. This inter-marriage and the inscription's emphasis on "Greece" are evidence for the development of a “supra-civic” provincial aristocracy in Greece from the first century BC onwards (cf. A. E. Alcock, Graeca Capta, 1993, 78; cf. IG V 2, 517 for Saon of Megalopolis).

The emphasis on the prestige of Roman citizenship in ll. 33-34 is also characteristic of Greece from the mid-first century onwards. As grants of citizenship to civic notables became more frequent under Claudius, possession of Roman citizenship became a status marker that distinguished the highest stratum of the provincial elite (cf. Aelius Aristides' claim in the mid-second century that the Romans "have split the people under their rule into two parts… making the whole of the more graceful, well-born, and able element from every place citizens or even family, while the rest are subjected and governed," Or. 14.59, and see C. Brélaz in M. Lavan and C. Ando, Roman and Local Citizenship, 2021, 257-63; from Athens, cf. I Eleusis 624). The fact that Roman citizenship was also held by the freedmen of Roman citizens (low-status individuals) sat awkwardly within this paradigm and could be a source of conflict (cf. J. H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions, no. 184, an Imperial ruling dealing with civic participation of freedmen at Athens).

The family received their Roman citizenship in the 40s through the intercession of the Statilii Tauri, a prominent Senatorial family, descended from one of Augustus’ commanders at the Battle of Actium. Throughout the Julio-Claudian period, they maintained close ties to Greece (see F. Marchand, Journal of Ancient History 1, 2013, 145-69), including with Lamprias’ family (IG IV² 1, 604), and remained prominent at Rome (Statilia Messalina was Nero’s third empress, 66-69 AD). [6] On the motion formula “the Council and the People shall decide,” see IG II² 1072 with notes.

Added: 20 May 2023
Updated: 24 Jul 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2638