P.Oxy. 471: Hadrian, Alexandria, and the Antinous Cult

CHAPTER 6 P.Oxy. 471: Hadrian, Alexandria, and the Antinous Cult

Alessandro Galimberti

Antinoupolis, Alexandria, and Egypt in general were the privileged place of the cult of Antinous, as the pais died in the Nile in October 130. Egypt is also the land of the papyri whose continuous discovery over the last century has brought about a veritable revolution in our knowledge of this province. The aim of this paper is to consider an intriguing papyrus, which undoubt- edly belongs to the first half of the 2nd century. The text speaks of a trial against a high-ranking Roman magistrate (most likely a prefect of Egypt) which seems to draw a parallel with the relationship between Antinous and Hadrian, for which the emperor was already criticised by his contemporaries during his life- time, and also following his death, especially by the historiography of the 3rd century (by the Christians in particular). In accordance with the themes of this volume, a new historical analysis of the papyrus testifies, in the first place, the good fortune and amazing spread of the cult of Antinous, mainly due to the fact that it had its most important place in Egypt (Antinoupolis), and that it had a Hellenistic design, conforming to the philhellenic attitude of its main promoter, Hadrian. In the second place, it shows that the figure of Antinous and his relationship with the emperor were charged with negative moral connotations, which could in turn be used in an allusive way during the indictment of a trial. In 1903, Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Arthur Surridge Hunt published, in the third volume of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, a speech delivered by the lawyer of the accuser at the trial of a Roman governor before the emperor.1 The chronology of the text, which the editors classified as literary (‘elaborately punctuated like a literary work’)2 is the first half of the 2nd century; it is arranged in six

* La revisione linguistica di questo paper è stata finanziata integralmente dall’Università Cattolica nell’ambito dei suoi programmi di promozione e diffusione della ricerca scientifica (Linea D.3.1. anno 2015). 1 P.Oxy. 471; republished with corrections five years later (P.Oxy. V [1908], p. 314). I am grateful to Livia Capponi who brought this papyrus to my attention. 2 For an initial debate on the nature of the text, cfr. Musurillo 1954, 150–151; see now Harker 2008, 73–78; Sarischouli 2009.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��7 | doi ��.��63/9789004347113_007 P.oxy. 471: Hadrian, Alexandria, And The Antinous Cult 99 fragmentary columns (the first is lost) and written in semi-uncial on an area of 30.5 × 46.5 cm. In this speech, a certain Maximus is charged with usury, corruption, having interfered in the appointment of judges in Alexandria for bribes, as well as certain matters relating to his conduct during the exercise of his authority and, in particular, with regard to his conduct in the company of a 17-year-old boy. Maximus apparently holds the position of prefect (l. 22: ἐπαρχεἰας), and in several passages he appears to be a prominent official: l. 54 refers to the ‘royal rank, taken by him’; ll. 66–72 to the mass of clientes at his door; ll. 95–97 to peti- tions addressed to him and to his power to confiscate the property of others; and ll. 124–130 mention his trips to Egypt. By virtue of a 1949 communication by Wilhelm Schubart, we now know that this text has to have a bearing on another papyrus fragment (P.Schub. 42 = Musurillo VII 42 (33) p. 39) containing a dialogue between three Alexandrian ambassadors (Heraeus, Diodorus, and Eudaemon) in the presence of the emperor (Trajan?) about the conduct of Maximus: his name appears in con- nection with that of Eudaemon archidikastes: ‘Eudaemon, archidikastes: I especially ought to make an accusation against Maximus, for during my term he has been known to order the young boys to be trained in the gymnasium until their eleventh year, and one of these was my Theon’ (trans. Musurillo 1954, 43).3 Ever since the edition by Musurillo (1954, with translation and commen- tary), in which the two texts are printed together, scholars have conventionally spoken of Acta Maximi I and II. The first issue to be raised is the identity and chronology of Maximus. It is almost certain that he is to be identified with a prefect of Egypt: in effect, he lives in the praetorium (l. 110); carries out regular inspections in Egypt (ll. 124–130); and holds power of life and death (l. 107). For these reasons, it has been proposed to identify him4 with C. Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt in Trajan’s time between April 103 and March 107. On friendly terms with Pliny (Ep. 3, 2:09, 1), Martial (9, 106, 1, 7), and Statius, C. Vibius Maximus was known for having composed an Epitome of universal history (Stat. Silv. 4, 7, 54); he had also been praefectus alae in Syria (Stat. 4, 7, 45). What is most intriguing, however, is that he was passed the abolitio no minis, as attested by at least three inscriptions (IGR 1, 1148; 1175; 1351).5 The

3 For a different translation cfr. now Capponi 2017, 140–141: “per avere imposto ai giovani di ungersi fino all’ora undicesima”. 4 Data are derived from Musurillo 1954, 152. 5 IGR 1, 1148; 1175; 1351. The first inscription can be datable to 109; the second to 103; about the third we lack information.