Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T09:43:17.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Letter of Avidius Cassius?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Alan K. Bowman
Alan K. Bowman
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

To major suggestions have been advanced about the text of SB 10295. First, that the letter is not complete; the text now extant constitutes the end of a letter written in a single column containing not more than two or three lines above the present remains. Second, that the addressee, Apolinarios, is identical with the addressee of P. Oxy. 933, who was a bouleutes of Antinoopolis and a and that the title should be restored in SB 10295. Possibly he is also identical with a known president of the boule of Antinoopolis in the later second century. It has been suggested that Apolinarios went on an embassy to Alexandria in the spring of an unspecified year in connection with the accession of a new emperor. As a corollary to these hypotheses, it has been argued that the emperor concerned is in fact Avidius Cassius. Nothing in the text precludes this, and three references support it very strongly: namely, the distinction between ‘election’ and ‘accession to the close ties with Alexandria and the fact that Avidius Cassius' father was a prefect of Egypt, and finally the date. Objections which have been raised against previous theories do not hold for this one, and there is no reason (palaeographical or other) why SB 10295 should not date to A.D. 175.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , November 1970 , pp. 21 - 26
Copyright
Copyright ©Alan K. Bowman 1970. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The text is reprinted as SB 10295, and this convenient notation is hereinafter employed for reference to the text. References to Barns' commentary are by author and page number only.

2 Rea, J. R., ‘A Letter of Severus Alexander?’, Chronique d'Égypte 42 (1967), 391–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parsons, P. J., ‘A Proclamation of Vaballathus?’, Chronique d'Égypte 42 (1967), 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Both articles are hereinafter cited by author and page number only.

3 Dr. R. A. Coles confirms Rea's alignment of the small fragment on the basis of an enlarged photograph of the verso of the papyrus. Although the vertical fibres have been stripped from both the large and the small piece, the photograph shows that the impression of the top layer of fibres has remained. In Rea's placing of the small piece these fibre impressions are precisely aligned.

4 P. Oxy. 890, dated by reference to the strategos Aurelius Leonides, known to have been in office between 229 and 237, cf. Mussies, G., ‘Supplément à la liste des stratèges des nomes égyptiens de H. Henne’, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 14 (1965), 26Google Scholar; and add P. Oxy. 2473.

5 Alexandria is termed by Ptolemy, 4, 5, 4, but it is not so described in the papyri: see Calderini, A., Dizionario dei Nomi Geografici e Topografici dell'Egitto Greco-Romano I (1935), 56–7.Google Scholar 61; cf. Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (1937), 472, n. 11.Google Scholar

6 Rea, pp. 393–4; Parsons, p. 398.

7 In the case of Vaballathus this could hardly be read as anything but a reference to Palmyrene troops, whereas is the regular description of the Roman army; see, e.g., P. Oxy. 1412, 6–7. According to Zosimus, 1, 44, the invading army was composed of Palmyrenes, Syrians and barbari.

8 This is argued in Ch. III of my monograph The Town Councils of Roman Egypt (forthcoming in the series American Studies in Papyrology), and is confirmed by a recently published text, Borkowski, Z., ‘Le Papyrus de Berlin inv. 11314 et les prytanes d'Oxyrhynchus de 277 à 282’ Chronique d'Égypte 43 (1968), 325–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The main item of evidence for the date of the commencement of the presidency is SB 7696, 45 ff.

9 P.Osl. III, 119–20. A possible alternative reading is but this would violate the normal order of titles and lose the advantage of having the letter addressed to a prominent official of Oxyrhynchus.

10 From a photograph, kindly supplied by the Toledo Museum of Art, I have been able to check the reading of P. Oxy. 933 verso. Although a photograph can be deceptive, it seems to me that there is clearly an eta at some distance to the right of the beta, and traces of other letters in between are compatible with a reading of (taking the stroke which Grenfell-Hunt understood as a mark of abbreviation to be the left hand stroke of upsilon); this reading also makes the spacing more consistent. I suggest therefore

11 On palaeographical grounds no precise dating can be sought or hypothesized. Either document could belong to the late second or early third century. The absence of the nomen Aurelius in P. Oxy. 933 is suggestive but far from conclusive. It could have stood in the lost portion of SB 10295 but if the suggestion that not more than two or three lines are lost from the top of the document (p. 21) has any weight there will only have been room for an abbreviated form of the nomen. It should be noted that if the documents do belong to the second century the only places at which Apolinarios could have been a bouleutes are Ptolemais (see SB 9016), Antinoopolis (see Kühn, E., Antinoopolis: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Hellenismus im römischen Ägypten [1913], 90–137)Google Scholar and possibly Naukratis (see Wilcken, U., Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde I [1912], 12–13).Google Scholar

12 See, for example, SB 4101; P. Lips. 34–5; P. bond 1178 (iii, p. 213); C.P.Herm. 119 verso, 4, 4; P. Oxy. 1662; Musurillo, H. A., The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (1954)Google Scholar, index s.v. For an exception, see P. Oxy. 1560 and PSI 1225, referring to an Alexandrian with the titles

13 Dr. David Thomas, in an article forthcoming in Chronique d'Égypte, notes this, correctly remarking that the name was popular at Antinoopolis though not confined to that city. I am indebted to Dr. Thomas for permission to refer to this.

14 This explanation fits the theory of Dr. Thomas (o.c. in n. 13) that the night-strategos does not appear in the metropoleis until after 200, but he himself prefers to emphasize the connection with Oxyrhynchus and accept a dating in the third century.

15 A bouleutes of Antinoopolis with connections and probably property (cf. P. Oxy. 2106) at Oxyrhynchus is attested in P. Oxy. 2130; for with similar connections, see P. Oxy. 1119. For a prominent Antinoite family with property elsewhere, see P. Mich. 422, introd.

16 Wilcken, Chrestomathie 27, esp. lines 11–12,

17 Titled a term regularly used to designate the president of the boule at Antinoopolis, see The Town Councils of Roman Egypt (above, n. 8), index s.v. The identification can only be tentative, but there is no difficulty in assuming that the praenomen was omitted in P. Oxy. 933 and SB 10295 (see n. 11). The only other Antinoite of this period who seems to offer any possibility is C. Julius Apolinarios Niger, but he is not attested as a bouleutes (P. Mich. 422, introd.). For Antinoite prosopography, see Pistorius, P. V., Indices Antinoopolitani (1939), 1–38.Google Scholar

18 Dio 74, 6, cf. HA, Pesc. 2, 1; PIR 1 P 185; RE 19 (1938), 1086 ff.

19 Victor, de Caes. 20, 8–9; HA, Pesc. 7, 7, cf. Syme, R., Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), 47, 64.Google Scholar The evidence that he was called the ‘New Alexander’ (Dio 74, 6, 2a) is comparable to that about the Alexander-fetish of Caracalla. In neither case is it necessarily to be discredited, but it is not sufficient to justify the references to Alexandria in SB 10295 (cf. tne remarks of Barns, p. 145).

20 Wilcken, U., Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien (1899), no. 972Google Scholar; BGU 454.

21 Dio 71, 4; HA, Avid. Cass. 6, 5–7.

22 HA, Marcus 26, 3 (‘et cum multa Alexandrini in Cassium dixissent fausta’); 25, 12; cf. Joann. Ant., fr. 118 (Müller, , FHG 4, P. 582Google Scholar).

23 Dio 71, 4, 2.

24 Dio 71, 28, 3, where he is called Flavius Calvisius. After his deposition we find a vice-prefect in office, namely Caecilius Salvianus (BGU 327, April 176); so too after the removal of Epagathus, P. Oxy., XXXI, p. 102. As for the position of the city of Alexandria during the revolt, a problem is presented by HA, Marcus 25, 4; Avid. Cass. 7, 4, where it is stated that Alexandria was put in the hands of Maecianus who ‘consenserat spe participatus Cassio’. The theory that this was the well-known jurist L. Volusius Maecianus (on whom see Pflaum, H-G., Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres … [1960]. no. 141)Google Scholar necessitated an emendation of ‘filium’ in the Codex Palatinus of the HA to ‘fautorem’ ‘conscium’ or ‘socium’. It is now discredited by the evidence that Volusius was prefect of Egypt in 160–1 (Stein, A., Die Praefekten von Aegypten [1950], 88–90)Google Scholar, and hence can hardly have been iuridicus Alexandriae in 175; the error has persisted, however, see Rémondon, R., ‘Les Dates de la révolte de C. Avidius Cassius’ Chronique d'Égypte 26 (1951), 369.Google Scholar Stein (PIR'2 A 1406) suggested that the HA refers to Maecianus, the son of Avidius (cf. Dessau, H., ‘Die Familie der Kaiserin Sulpicia Dryantilla’ Zeitschrift für Numismatik 22 [1900], 199–205Google Scholar) and that the Alexandria of which he was given charge was not the city but the daughter of Avidius (see below, n. 27). In spite of justified criticism (Hohl, E., BPhW 58 [1938], 1364–5Google Scholar), the view has been revived (de Laet, S. J., ‘Note sur deux passages de l'Histoire Auguste’ L'Antiquité Classique 13 [1944], 127–34).CrossRefGoogle Scholar If the evidence is to be accorded the status of fact at all, it is probably safest to regard Alexandria as the city and Maecianus as the son of Avidius Cassius. But the HA is clearly confused.

25 Dio 71, 23, 1. According to Philostratus, VS 2, 1, 13, he was virtual ruler of the east (cf. Dio 71, 3). For a recent account of the revolt, see Birley, A. R., Marcus Aurelius (1966), 252–60.Google Scholar

26 Stein, A., Die Praefekten von Aegypten (1950), 72–4Google Scholar; Coles, R. A., ‘The Date of the Prefecture of Avidius Heliodorus’ in Acts of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 1968 (1970).Google Scholar

27 HA, Marcus 26, 12; Avid. Cass. 9, 3; cf. Dessau, o.c. (n. 24); and for his granddaughter, (Claudia) Maeciana Alexandria, PIR2 C 1100.

28 The expression will bear this sense and is consistent with the fact that Cyrrhus in Syria was his cf. Syme, R., ‘Hadrian and Italica’ JRS 54 (1964), 142–9.Google Scholar The evidence for the career of Avidius Cassius does not fit very well with the supposition that he was born at the earliest in 137. He is attested as suffect consul on May 6 of an uncertain year between 161 and 168 (CIL IX, 2995), usually assumed to be between 161 and 163. Even if we assume the consulship to have been a reward for his part in the Parthian war held between 166 and 168 (167 probably being excluded by the fact that another pair of suffect consuls are attested on May 5, CIL XVI, 123), he would only have been about thirty years of age at the most. A consulship at this age for the son of an equestrian prefect would be highly unusual: see Morris, J., ‘Leges Annales under the Principate’ Listy Filologické 87 (1964), 316–37Google Scholar, esp. 332 f. Apart from the fact that he held the post of ab epistulis under Hadrian, nothing is known of the career of Avidius Heliodorus other than his prefecture (Pflaum, , Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres … [1960], no. 106Google Scholar, cf. Townend, , Historia 10 [1961], 376–7Google Scholar). We must therefore be satisfied with the probability that Avidius Cassius will have spent some part of his childhood or early youth at Alexandria during his father's prefecture.

29 Bulletin de l'Institut Égyptien ser. 3, 7 (1896), 123; omitted by Rémondon, R., ‘Les Dates de la révolte de C. Avidius Cassius’, Chronique d'Égypte 26 (1951), 364–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Dio 71, 27, 32.

31 O. Bod. 1487.

32 o.c. (n. 29).

33 Herodian, 2, 8, 7 (Pescennius).

34 BJ 4, 656— On the visit of Vespasian to Alexandria, see now Heinrichs, , ZPE 3 (1968), 51–80.Google Scholar Josephus' description (BJ 4, 616 ff.) of the intrigues of Tiberius Julius Alexander over the proclamation of Vespasian is worth quoting at some length, for it might equally have served as an account, mutatis mutandis, of the situation in Alexandria in the spring of 175:

35 See CPJ 418a (Vespasian), cf. Koenen, , Gnomon 40 (1968), 256Google Scholar; SB 421 (proclamation of Maximus as Caesar); Klio 7 (1907), 278 (Hadrian); P. Oxy. 1021 (? sacrifices for the accession of Nero); BGU 646 (Pertinax); all pertaining to the accession of a new emperor or Caesar.