SEG 55.250 Letters from Plotina and Hadrian on the Epicurean Succession (121 AD)

Letters from Plotina and Hadrian on the Epicurean Succession (121 AD)

SEG 55.250 Date: 121 AD

Greek text . . . [in Athens?] . . . ^[1]

Letter 1 (in Latin) [In the consulship of Marcus Annius Verus for the second time and Gnaeus] Arrius Augur (121 AD) From Plotina Augusta:^[2] [What enthusiasm I] have for the sect of Epicurus, you know well, lord. His following (successioni) requires help from you. (5)[Currently, because] it is not allowed for anyone except Roman citizens to become the successor (diadochum), [the ability] to choose has become very restricted. [I ask therefore] in the name of Popillius Theotimos, who is currently successor in Athens, that it be permitted to him by you both to leave a Greek will regarding that part of his judgements which relates to the arrangement of the succession (diadoches) and that he be able to select as his replacement one of his followers (successorum) of peregrine status,^[3] if the success of the person persuades him to do so; and (I ask) that you might concede to Theotimos that future successors of Epicurus’ sect might use this same right (iure) in turn, especially because it is their practice, (10)whenever a mistake is made by the testator in the choice of the Successor, for the scholars of his sect to replace him through a common meeting (communi consilio) with whoever is best. That would be easier, if he could be chosen from very many candidates.

Letter 2 (in Latin) Emperor Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus to Popillius Theotimos: I permit a Greek will to be made about those things which relate to the succession (diadochen) of the Epicurean sect. But, since one could choose a successor even more easily, if one had the ability to choose a replacement from among the peregrines also, I grant this too and (I grant it) in turn to the others who will hold the succession: it will be allowed (15)for this right (ius) to be transferred to either a peregrine or a Roman citizen.

Letter 3 (in Greek) Plotina Augusta to all the friends, greetings.^[4] We have what we were eager to get. For it has been conceded to the successor (diadochōi), whoever is going to lead Epicurus’ succession (diadochēs) in Athens, both to manage all the administration (oikonomēma) relating to the succession with a Greek will (diathēkēi) and to make the choice, regardless of whether he wants a Greek or a Roman as the future guardian (prostatēsanta) of the (20)succession. So, since a fine right (exousias) has been gained, for which we ought to feel proper gratitude to the one who is most truly a benefactor (euergetēi) and superintendent (kosmētēi) of all education (paideias) and, on that account, a most august emperor (sebasmiōtatōi autokratori), and is dearest to me in all respects both as an outstanding lord (kuriōi) and as a good child, it is fitting that each of those who have been entrusted with the decision (krisin) about the guardianship (prostateias) try to choose the best man at any time from those who adhere to the same doctrine (homodoxōn) to serve as replacement for his own position, and (25)give more weight to the overall picture than to his personal fondness (sunetheiai) for individual people. So then, it pleased me that he not favour any individuals more than those who are recognised as being distinguished in the force of our doctrines (logōn) and, accordingly, in their pre-eminence with respect to their moral conduct (diathesin tōn ēthōn). But if this were not to happen, not because of the specific nature of the situation, but because of our own weakness or due to some other chance impediment, I think it proper that the one who is to deliberate about the common veneration (thrēskeumatos) (30)aim for what will please all in common and not himself personally. But, by Zeus, I do not think that someone who has grasped the benefit which belongs to him from the doctrines and feels gratitude for this kind of full perception (sunaisthēmati) of his, along with the use of reasoning (epilogismōi), which will not allow [him] to abuse the magnitude of the gift, will fail to dispose of it in such a way as to [firmly secure] the preservation of exaltation of that place which contains the (35) . . . as well as the opinion about the leadership (kathēgemonias) of the saviour . . . having become [the first] lord (kuriou) of the school (scholēs), being at that [time?] . . . to Epicurus, according to other specifications (idiōmata), not according to the pre-eminence . . . . . . and of more other . . .

Previous - SIA VI 44

References:

SEG 55.250 (Translated text) (EDH)

IG II² 1099 (PHI)

CIL III 12283

ILS 7784

Syll.³ 834

SIA VI 57 (PHI)

Oliver, Constitutions 73

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Letter (empress and emperor)

Fr. a - Findspot: Near the Tower of the Winds (EM 10404a)
Fr. b - Findspot: Piraeus (EM 10404)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Textual note: AIO is indebted to the translations of Oliver, Greek Constitutions and R. van Bremen, Chiron 35, 2005, 525-27 (=SEG 55.250).

This is a dossier of letters from Empress Plotina and her nephew and adopted son Emperor Hadrian (r. 117-138 AD), which allow the head of the Epicurean school at Athens, Popillius Theotimos, the right to choose a non-Roman as his successor. The dossier consists of an initial Greek text, which is almost entirely lost (l. 1), a Latin date (l. 2), a petition in Latin from Plotina to Hadrian asking for the privilege (ll. 3-11), a response in Latin from Hadrian to Popillius Theotimos granting the privilege (ll. 12-15, cf. n. 3), and a letter in Greek from Plotina to the Epicurean school, announcing that the privilege had been obtained and advising them to use it wisely (ll. 16-38). Presumably all three letters were delivered to the Epicureans together in 121 AD (l. 2). A later dossier reconfirms the grant and discusses other matters (SEG 55.249). This is the earliest inscribed Imperial letter at Athens, the only one to include Latin texts, and the only one with text from other members of the Imperial family. On Hadrian and his relationship with Athens, see IG II² 5185 with notes; on inscribed Imperial letters, see I Eleusis 513.

Epicureanism was a philosophical movement established by Epicurus at the end of the fourth century BC; in Roman times it was regularly contrasted with Stoicism. The Epicurean school at Athens was a group known as “the friends” (l. 16), based at “the Garden” (ho kepos), which had been left to the first head of the school in Epicurus’ will (transcribed in Diog. Laert. 10.16-21) and inherited by subsequent heads in turn. The head was thus called “the successor” (diadochos) and the property that he managed was “the succession” (diadoche). The Platonic Academy and the school of the Stoics were also run by successors (cf. IG II² 3571, 3801, 11551; IG II³ 4, 1405; Agora XVIII 401). It is unclear how these roles interacted with the “chairs” endowed at Athens by Marcus Aurelius for each of the philosophic schools (cf. Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2.2), but literary sources indicate that the Platonic successor, at least, survived into the fifth century AD (J. H. Oliver, AJP 98, 1977, 160-78). The problem prompting this dossier was that the successor was only allowed to leave the role to a Roman citizen. Since only a small minority of people held Roman citizenship, this excessively limited the pool from which Theotimos and the school could select the next successor (ll. 11). It is not clear how this situation had arisen nor whether it was a new issue or long-standing. It may be a consequence of the fact that the successor at this time, Popillius Theotimos, held Roman citizenship, since under Roman law citizens were only allowed to leave their property in a Roman will (i.e. written in Latin and conforming to Roman law) and their heirs had to be Roman citizens (see Puech, Orateurs 1 with notes). Alternatively, an earlier emperor may have specifically instituted the limitation (Oliver 1977, 165), though there is no positive evidence for this.

Pompeia Plotina had been the wife of Trajan and was thus Hadrian’s adoptive mother. The literary tradition records that she and Hadrian were close (Dio Cass. 69.10.3a) and gives her a leading role in Hadrian’s accession (Dio Cass. 69.1), but does not mention the close association with the Epicureans which this inscription reveals (H. Temporini, Die Frauen am Hofe Trajans, 1978, esp. 162-66). In the third letter of the dossier, she repeatedly refers to the Epicureans as “we” and “us” (ll. 20, 26, 28) and uses a great deal of Epicurean vocabulary (see n. 4). She probably died in 123 AD and was deified thereafter (R. van Bremen, p.512 n. 26). Theotimos is not otherwise attested, but his son or grandson was archon in 155/6 (IG II² 2068). [2] Plotina’s request seems to be a written petition (libellus) and Hadrian’s response a subscript (subscriptio), an imperial response written on the petition below the original text (hence the name). Typical of these documents is the use of Latin, the absence of formulae of greeting and farewell, and the abbreviated Imperial titulature. Unusually, the formulaic confirmation that the emperor had doublechecked the scribe’s transcription (“I wrote it in reply. I reviewed it”) is missing; it may have been omitted when the text was inscribed or Hadrian may have chosen to write the response to his adoptive mother himself. Subscripts were the normal form of Imperial response to requests from private individuals (F. Millar, Emperor in the Roman World, 1977, 240-52, 541-44). By contrast, Roman officials, cities, and other communities sent letters and received separate letters in response (for an alternative interpretation, see W. Williams ZPE 66, 1986, 207 n. 2). [3] A peregrine (literally, “one from abroad”) was the Roman legal term for anyone who had free status but not Roman citizenship. [4] The third letter by Plotina is a dense and learned piece of writing. She briefly announces to the Epicureans that the request to Hadrian has been successful (ll. 16-20), then praises Hadrian (ll. 20-23), notably linking his worthiness as an emperor to his support for paideia (education and culture), which would be a central plank of Hadrian’s imperial self-presentation throughout his reign. The superintendent (kosmetes), the director of the Athenian ephebate, was held up as a paragon of virtue for the youths in his care (cf. AIO Papers 12, pp. 16-17); Hadrian is placed in the same role in relation to paideia itself. The phrase “most august emperor” puns “august” (sebasmios) with the Greek form of the Imperial title of Augustus (sebastos). As the senior male in Plotina’s household, Hadrian had legal authority over her, as her “lord” (kyrios, Latin paterfamilias).

The rest of the surviving text is an exhortation to Theotimos to choose the best successor for the school. This advice is suffused with Epicurean ideas, terminology, and stylistic features (Van Bremen, 513-22). Plotina frequently uses abstract nouns ending in -ma (translated here with words ending in -tion), a noted affectation of Epicurus’ writing, which is fairly rare in other authors. Plotina’s advice is to choose the most learned Epicurean (ll. 25-27). In accordance with Epicurean concept of the sage, such a man would, as a result of his learning, also have the best “moral conduct,” the key interpersonal virtue of Epicureanism (D. Clay, Lucretius and Epicurus, 1983, 246). If no such sage is available, Plotina recommends choosing whoever is generally favoured rather than a personal friend (ll. 27-30). Plotina emphasises that the absence of a sage at any given moment would not be due to the failure of Epicurean doctrine or practice (“the specific nature of the situation”), but due to the weakness of the members of the school at that moment or just random chance (“chance impediment”). This conforms to the Epicurean doctrines that moral weakness is the main reason for the failure of learned people to behave correctly, but that chance also plays a role. The “common veneration” (koinon threskema) appears to refer to the shared life of the Epicurean community; the term has connotations of religious worship. Finally, Plotina expresses her confidence that a learned Epicurean would certainly make the decision in the way she advises (ll. 30-33) and that doing so would ensure continued respect for post of successor of the Epicurean school and for Epicurean philosophy (ll. 33-35). Epicureans argued that philosophers should swear by Zeus, against Plato and other philosophers who favoured minced oaths (Philodemos, On Piety 833-35). The meaning of “full perception” (sunaisthema) is unclear. “Reasoning” (epilogismos) is Epicurus’ term for inductive reasoning (Ad Herod. 73). Epicurus stressed the importance for human happiness of “preserving exaltation” of the divine (Ad Herod. 77). “Leadership” (kathegemonia) was a standard term for the role of the four founders of Epicureanism; the “saviour” is Epicurus. At l. 36 a parallel seems to be implied between Epicurus or the successor as lord over the school and Hadrian as lord over Plotina’s household.

Added: 17 Aug 2024
Updated: 10 Dec 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2881