No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Epaphroditus, Josephus, and Epictetus
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
‘Epaphroditus’ (= ‘lovely’, ‘charming’) is perhaps the commonest of Roman slave names apart from ‘Felix’, which it sometimes renders as a Greek equivalent. It is also used very extensively under the early empire by those with tria nomina, whether freedmen or freeborn, whether descendants of freedmen or not, whether citizens or Junian Latins. It is also found among decurions and even equestrians, but not senators. It thus has a non-elite resonance in the western half of the empire, but, like almost all personal cognomina, not exclusively so.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1994
References
1 Cf. Plut. Sulla 34; Appian, B.C. 1.97.
2 Solin, H., Die griechische Personnamen in Rom: Ein Namenbuch (Berlin, 1982), pp. 320ffGoogle Scholar., for example, records from Rome alone some 284 ‘Epaphroditi’ from the first and second centuries a.d., of whom over 152 are reckoned to be freeborn or of uncertain free status (incerti) and, of these, again over half would be from the late-first or early-second centuries. These lists also contain eighteen Augusti liberti – including one ab epistulis (CIL 6.1887), three T. Flavii Aug. liberti Epaphroditi (CIL 6.5323, 10518, 33468), and six Caesaris servi.
3 Over twenty decurions from Asia, Achaea and Macedonia alone and one equestrian tribune of a cohort in Britain (CIL 7.432 = RIB 1075).
4 PIR 2 E 69. It is highly likely that he was freed by either Claudius or Nero, but not certainly by Nero. Two other Ti. Claudii Aug. l. Epaphroditi are recorded: CIL 6.8759 (a cubiculo), 10061 (charioteer).
5 Tac. Ann. 15.55.
6 Suet. Ner. 49.3; Dio 63.27.3.
7 Suet. Dom. 14.4; Dio 67.14.4.
8 See RE 5.2710, CAH 11.32, OCD 2 386 etc. Millar, F., JRS 55 (1965), 141Google Scholar, expresses doubts – somewhat modified in The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 1977), p. 78Google Scholar – as does Stein, PIR 2 E 69, and Samonati, , Diz. Epig. 4.826Google Scholar. Jones, B. W., The Emperor Domitian (London and New York, 1992), p. 211 n. 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, concludes that it cannot be determined whether or not Epaphroditus held office after 68, but still requires him to be a prominent ‘courtier’ of Domitian until late in that emperor's reign (pp. 189, 193).
9 The S.C. Silanianum is treated at length in the Digest, Book 29, Title 5; see esp. ib. 1.22 (suicide); 3.16, 7, 10.1 (freedmen). For a good discussion see Watson, A., Roman Slave Law (Baltimore and London, 1987), pp. 134ffGoogle Scholar. On the legal basis of penalties imposed by emperors on their freedmen, see Boulvert, G., Domestique et Fonctionnaire sous le Haut-Empire romain (Paris, 1974), pp. 107f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 VC: το Νρωνος.
11 Cf. Eutropius 7.23: ‘suorum coniuratione in Palatio’; Aurel. Viet. De Caes. 11.7: ‘suspectior etiam suis libertorum consilio’.
12 This calculation depends on the assumptions that he could not have been manumitted much after the beginning of Nero's reign and that he was at least 30 years old at manumission, i.e. that he was born not later than c. a.d. 25.
13 On Domitian's relationship with his senior freedmen and on the meaning of ‘domestici’ in this context, see Jones, op. cit. [n. 8], pp. 65ff.
14 Paneg. 53.4: ‘an excidit dolori nostro modo vindicatus Nero? permitteret, credo, famam vitamque eius carpi qui mortem ulciscebatur, nee ut in se dicta interpretaretur quae de simillimo dicerentur.’
15 Jones, op. cit. [n. 8], pp. 193ff. and his earlier work, Domitian and the Senatorial Order (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 46ff., esp. 49Google Scholar; cf. Bengtson, H., Die Flavier (Munich, 1979), pp. 236ff., 243Google Scholar. Among others, Jones places considerable emphasis on the effect of the deaths of both Epaphroditus and Clemens in precipitating the conspiracy, emphasis which he justifies by the participation of so many senior civil servants in the final assassination, a situation that was highly unusual, if not unique, in the annals of the Imperial administration. This interpretation depends on hindsight and the assumption that Epaphroditus was a former intimate of Domitian as well as of Nero.
16 E.g. Icelus and Asiaticus: PIR 2 I 16; A 1216.
17 E.g. Helius, Narcissus, Patrobius, Petinus and Polyclitus: Dio 64.3.4; Plut. Galba 17.
18 Suet. Vesp. 14; cf. 4.4.
19 PIR 2 114a = C 763; A 1336; AE 1972, 574 = I. Eph. 852; AE 1968, 489 = I. Eph. 853.
20 Cf. Weaver, P. R. C., Familia Caesaris (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 286–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Cf. Suet. Dom. 14.1: ‘tandem oppressus est insidiis amicorum libertorumque intimorum simul et uxoris.’
22 Despite statements in standard works to this effect, e.g. CAH 11.32; Garzetti, A., From Tiberius to the Antonines (London, 1974), p. 294.Google Scholar
23 PIR 2 E 66. He is also no doubt the Entellus who appears on the lead fistula dated to the reign of Domitian, post 83/4 (CIL 15.7282).
24 Statius, Silv. 5.1; Martial 4.45.2 (‘Palatinus…Parthenius’); 5.6; 8.28; and 11.1.5 (‘libros non legit ille sed libellos’!).
25 Jones, op. cit. [n. 8], p. 65, suggests ‘perhaps c. 93’.
26 Cf. Chantraine, H., Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der römischen Kaiser (Wiesbaden, 1967), pp. 279f.Google Scholar
27 E.g. Schenkl, H., Epictetus: Dissertationes2 (Teubner, 1916, repr. 1965), pp. xvff., esp. xxxiiGoogle Scholar; Souilhé, J. (Budé ed., Vol. 1, 1943), pp. iffGoogle Scholar., esp. ii; Oldfather, W. (Loeb ed., Vol. 1, 1925, repr. 1967), pp. viiff., esp. xii.Google Scholar
28 Adopting the date of Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS 47 (1957), 126f.Google Scholar; cf. id. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966), pp. 763–5.Google Scholar
29 Starr, C. G., ‘Epictetus and the Tyrant’, CPh 44 (1949), 21Google Scholar, settles for an even later date when Epictetus actually left Rome – 95, based on Jerome (on which, however, see Sherwin-White, , Letters of Pliny, pp. 764f.Google Scholar). This is unlikely and would have to coincide with or follow the banishment of Epaphroditus himself.
30 Cf. Starr, op. cit. 21, and the confident statement of Sandbach, CAH 11.694: ‘After being manumitted, [Epictetus] set up a school in Rome.’
31 Loeb translation, omitting commas in the last section.
32 As claimed in the Loeb edition ad loc, p. 295 n. 4.
33 Cf. Suet. Vesp. 23.3.
34 2.36, no. 2424 Adl.
35 Schenkl, op. cit. [n. 27], p. xvi n. 3, suggests that the term means ‘a cubiculo’ (should it not in that case be ‘one of the cubicularii’), which supplies grounds for an ingenious emendation of Epictetus 1.1.20. Why not then be tempted to identify him with the ‘Epaphroditus Aug. 1. a cubiculo’ of CIL 6.8759, possibly a freedman of Claudius or Nero, whose slave vilicus names a Claudia Prima as contubernalis? The post of a cubiculo (or even cubicularius) is certainly much more likely than that of corporis custos to have been Epaphroditus' stepping-stone to the top, but if these two posts have been confused at source or somewhere along the transmission line, this suggestion only serves to throw further doubt on the value of the whole Suda entry itself.
38 On the sources and value of this entry in the Suda, see further p. 477 f. below.
37 Accepting the arguments of Frankfort, Th., Rev. Belge de Phil, et d'Hist. 39 (1961), 52–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, of who concludes that Josephus must have published the Life between 93/94 and September 96.
38 Josephus, AJ 1.8f.: διαϕερντως δ χαρων μπειραις πραγμτων, ἅτε δ μεγλοις μν αὐτς μιλσας πργμασι κα τχαις πολυτρποις, ν ἅπασι δ θαυμαστν ϕὺσεως πιδειξμενος ἰσχὺν κα προαρεσιν ρετς μετακνητον. τοτῳ δ πειθμενος ὡς αἰε τοῖς χρσιμον ἤ καλν τι πρττειν δυναμνοις συμϕιλοκαλοντι
39 Origen, Adv. Celsum 7.53.
40 Loeb, Josephus, Vol. 4, ed. Thackeray, (London, 1930, repr. 1967), p. x.Google Scholar
41 Cf. Solin, op. cit. [n. 2], pp. 320–4.
42 Suda 2.334, no 2004 Adl.;cf. RE 5.2711–14, and esp. Christes, J., Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen im antiken Rom (Wiesbaden, 1979), pp. 103f.Google Scholar; he is advocated by Thackeray, op. cit. [n. 40], p. xi, and suggested by Frankfort, op. cit. [n. 37], 57, who does not exclude as Josephus' dedicatee someone different from either of the two best known Epaphroditi, and most recently by Rajak, T., Josephus, the Historian and his Society (London, line 1983), pp. 223fGoogle Scholar. and n. 11.
43 CIL 6.1887 = ILS 1944 = PIR 2 E 70 ab epistulis, 5323,8439 = ILS 1527 ab auctorita(tibus) ration(is) heredit(atium), 10518, 33468 [tabul(arius ?)] a rationibus.
44 PIR 2 I 357; 432. Cf. J. Christes, op. cit. [n. 42], pp. 72–82 (Hyginus), 94–6 (Modestus). I exclude from this canon Phaedrus the first-century fabulist, whose credentials for membership of the Familia invite scrutiny.
45 Discourses 1.9.29; 19.21; and testimonia in Schenkl, op. cit. [n. 27], pp. v–xiii.
46 Origen, Adv. Celsum 7.53, discounting the Christian air of martyrdom about the scene as recounted by Origen.
47 As Fergus Millar points out, JRS 55 (1965), 141Google Scholar, it cannot be proved that Epictetus was already in Rome during the reign of Nero, as the stories in the Discourses that can be dated to that period are part of the Stoic martyr tradition.
48 Cf. 1.6.30; 1.13.3; 2.7.13; 2.13.18; 3.10.10; 3.24.74; 3.26.19; etc.
49 See the discussion above, p. 5.
50 Cf. Schenkl, op. cit. [n. 27], pp. xvif., n. 3.
51 2.365, no. 2424 Adl.
52 Above, p. 473.
53 Suda 2.414, no. 3045 Adl.; see esp. J. Christes, op. cit. [n. 42], pp. 137–40.
54 Pliny, Ep. 28.1.
55 Adv. Celsum 3.57.
56 ἒγραψε πολ is a common formula in the Suda.
57 For a full discussion, see Schenkl, op. cit. [n. 27], pp. xvff., who shows (e.g.) that Themistius is the source of errors in the Suda entry on Arrian. Oldfather (Loeb ed., Vol. 1, p. ix n. 1), discussing Epictetus' lameness, goes several steps further: ‘But it requires unusual powers of credulity to believe Suidas against any authority whomsoever.’
58 Cf. Schenkl, op. cit. [n. 27], pp. xvff.
59 Cf. Starr, op. cit. [n. 29], 28: ‘Epictetus does not emphasise the social ailments arising from slavery’.
- 26
- Cited by