99490 AWE 16 05 Article De Hoz.Indd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
doi: 10.2143/AWE.16.0.3214937 AWE 16 (2017) 139-154 PRaYeR TO THe DeCeaSeD? ReLaTIONS BeTweeN GODS, DeaD aND THe LIVING IN pHRYGIa EpICTeTUS* MARÍA PAZ DE HOZ Abstract Ramsay’s interpretation of some Greek funerary inscriptions from Roman Phrygia Epictetus as referring to a prayer dedicated to Zeus Bronton and at the same time to the deceased has been rejected by Waelkens. Following the latter, these are now normally interpreted as prayers made only to the god in order to protect the grave and/or as ex-votos to the god. This paper returns to Ramsay’s interpretation and, though not necessarily accepting the idea of a divinisation of the deceased in Roman Phrygia Epictetus, it does accept the idea of a cult to the deceased, and the role of the deceased as an intermediary between gods and men. Other particularities in the epigraphy of this same area are adduced as proof of an especial Phrygian hierarchical conception of the divine world and of the especial relations between gods and men. Besides Phrygian survivals in language and onomastics, there are religious particu- larities in certain areas of Central Anatolia in Roman times that may be ascribed to an ancient Phrygian tradition. The focus of this contribution is to analyse a series of evidence that can probably be explained through the Phrygian conviction that the deceased entered the realm of the gods and could act as an intermediary between the gods and the living. There is an especial group of funerary inscriptions that are at the same time prays to Zeus Bronton. The cult area of this god is mainly Phrygia Epictetus: Midiaeum, Cotyaeum, Dorylaeum and Nacolea, especially. He is also very well attested in Bythinia, especially in Nicaea. Isolated evidence can be found in Paphlagonia, the Highlands, North Galatia, Laodicia Katakekaumene in Lycaonia and, to the west, in East Mysia and Maionia (Fig. 1).1 The cult dedications that are related to tombs * This research is part of the project ‘Helenización en el Oriente Grecorromano: procesos de asimilación y percepción de las culturas locales’ (FFI2015-63956-P) financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. I thank Bartomeu Obrador for his help concerning many aspects of the New Phrygian inscriptions, and for letting me use his unpublished catalogue; and Gocha Tsetskhladze for bibliographical help concerning the Thraco-Phrygian question, and for his comments on a first draft of this paper. 1 On the cult of Zeus Bronton and his extension, see Drew-Bear and Naour 1990, 1992–2013. Since then new evidence has appeared in this same area. On the cults of Phrygia Epictetus, see now Ricl forthcoming. 140 m.p. De HOz Fig. 1: Map of Phrygia and environs (after Drew-Bear and Naour 1990, 1912). are nevertheless concentrated in the area of Dorylaeum, Nacolea and Aizanitis. Examples of this type are: Ἀντιόχῳ πατρὶ φιλτάτῳ κὲ Διὶ Βροντῶ[ντι] εὐχήν, ‘to Antiochos, dear father, and to Zeus Bronton, a prayer’ (MAMA V R15, Nacolea). Διὶ Β]ροντῶντ[ι] / εὐχὴν κὲ γυναικ[ὶ] / [Δό]μνῃ, ‘to Zeus Bronton a prayer, and to his wife Domne’ (MAMA V 85, Dorylaeum). The pray is here made in behalf of the dedicant and all his family and belongings. Διὶ Βροντῶντι εὐχὴν / κὲ Ἀππῃ συνβίῳ ‘to Zeus Bronton a prayer, and to his wife Appe’ (MAMA V 229, Nacolea). As in former case, the prayer here is made on behalf of the dedicant and all his family and belongings.2 Variants of the same phenomenon are dedications of the altar to the deceased and the god without prayer: πατρὶ Ἀσκ[λ]ᾶδῃ κὲ Διὶ Βρον[τῶντι] ‘For the father Asklas and Zeus Bronton’ (MAMA V R11, Nacolea). 2 For further instances, see MAMA V 135–138, R 5, R 10. pRaYeR TO THe DeCeaSeD? 141 Διὶ Βροντῶντι καὶ / Ἀππᾷ τῷ ἀδελφῷ ‘For Zeus Bronton and Appas the brother’ (MAMA IX 51, Aizanitis). Διὶ Βροντῶντι, Ζωΐλῳ καὶ Ἀψάδι / Τρύφων καὶ ὑ ἀδελφὺ / βωμὸν ἀνέστησαν, ‘For Zeus Bronton, Zoilos and Apsas, Tryphon and his brothers dedicated the altar’ (I Iznik 1088). In a recently published inscription from Nakoleia, Alexander Avram translates ll. 1–4 of face A (Βρογιμαρος Ἐπικράτου /Διὶ Βρογιμαρου καὶ Κυρί/ᾳ εὐχήν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυ/τῷ μνημόσυνον) in this way: ‘Brogimaros, (Sohn) des Epikrates, für den Zeus des Brogimaros und für die Herrin aufgrund eines Gelübdes und für sich selbst (als) Denkmal.’3 Given so much evidence like the examples shown above, I would translate: ‘Brogimaros (son) of Epikrates (dedicates) to Zeus of Brogimaros and to Kyria (wife of Brogimaros) a prayer; and he (dedicates) also the tomb for himself.’4 This interpretation is supported by the fact that the bust of a man and a woman are represented respectively in two sides of the monument, while on the other two we can find the busts of a younger man and woman, probably the chil- dren of the couple. Mark Waelkens, followed by other researchers, refuted a theory postulated by W.M. Ramsay that suggested the belief on the divinisation of the deceased in Phry- gia based on some inscriptions and on tomb architecture and iconography.5 Accord- ing to his refusal of such divinisation, Waelkens considers that inscriptions such as the ones quoted before were funerary dedications combined with a dedication to the god. This dedication to the god would serve as a vow for the protection of the tomb. Through a very long exposition of all possible epigraphic evidence of private deification or assimilation of the deceased with a god in the Greek world (with parallels in the Latin West), he argues that the Phrygian evidence is not evidence of deification, that deification is to be differentiated from the comparison of the deceased with a god, that cases of deification are attested throughout the Graeco- Roman world, and that an ethnic particularity stemming from Phrygia cannot be inferred. Of course there are many instances of comparison between the deceased and the gods (though most of them, and most of the ones adduced by Waelkens, are metric); similarly, a heroic cult, a cult of the governors, and cult-honours for especial citizens are attested in the Graeco-Roman world from Hellenistic times onwards and even earlier. But even Waelkens admits that there is an especial inten- sity in the comparison of the deceased to the god (or deification?) in Phrygia. The fact that there are more inscriptions there than in other places is not a valid 3 Avram 2015 (p. 203 for this translation from the Greek). 4 For Κυρία as feminine personal name in Phrygia, see for instance MAMA VII 261; Sterret 1888, nos. 159, 557, 564. 5 Ramsay 1884. For the whole argument and bibliography, see Waelkens 1983. 142 m.p. De HOz argument since there are many other places in Roman Anatolia with a very intensive epigraphic habit that would have attested such ideas through funerary formulae if they would have had then. Furthermore, Waelkens objects that εὐχή is only used for Olympic gods, but this supposition is contradicted for instance by a series of votive dedications to human heroes in Roman Thrace (see below). He also adduces that in the cases where the name of the deceased precedes the name of the god before εὐχήν, the writer has just omitted the formula μνήμης χάριν after the name of the deceased, and in one occa- sion where εὐχήν appears twice, after the god’s name and after the name of the deceased (Haspels 1971, no. 103), an error has been made while copying the text. He does not explain cases such as Διὶ Βροντῶντι καὶ πατρὶ εὐχήν (Haspels 1971, no. 136). Should we think it is also an error of the copyist? If Haspels 1971, no. 103 is not an error (and, despite what Waelkens may suggest there is no reason to think it is), it is an especially interesting altar with two dedications. The first one is dedicated to Zeus Bronton (Διὶ Βροντῶντι εὐχήν) on behalf of the family, and the second one is dedicated by the same person to his mother: Ἀρίστων Α[․․․]πιλαιου ἰ/δίᾳ μάνμῃ εὐχήν. I think this is a clear evidence that both the deceased and the god were prayed for on behalf of the family. Waelkens also mentions the assertion of Cox and Cameron that there are almost no funerary imprecations in the area where these inscriptions are attested, conclud- ing from this that the prayer to the god in these inscriptions is a substitution of the usual funerary imprecations.6 But the fact that the vow to the god includes also protection of the grave (as is clearly expressed in the inscription of Brogimaros) does not mean that the vow is just a substitution of imprecations. It is not certain that all of them are funerary dedications. The only difference between some of them and cult dedications is that the name of a person appears together with the name of the divinity. For instance, there is no other difference between MAMA V 85, beginning with the acclamation to Agathe Tyche and dedi- cated on behalf of the dedicant and his family to Zeus Bronton and the wife of the dedicant, and nos. 78, 87 or 101 (this one dedicated to Meter Tetraprosopos). In other cases the funerary function is certain, for instance in MAMA V 111 (cf. 138): ---πατρὶ/ Ἐπαφροδείτῳ κὲ μητρὶ / Ἡδονῇ γλυκυτάτοις /μνήμης χάρ[ι]ν κὲ Διὶ Βρον/τῶντι εὐχήν, though the prayer is here directed only to the god. The repre- sentation of symbols related to the god supports the function of these altars and stele as prayers in some cases more than as funerary monuments.