A. J. PAPALAS History Dpi. East Carolina University

HERODES ATTICUS AND HIS SON

Philostratus, the author of the Lives of the Sophists, dedi­ cated this work to Antoninus Gordianus. He noted that Gordianus was a descendant of Herodes Atticus, the Athenian millionaire professor who flou­ rished c a. A.D. 150l. Gordianus has been identified as either the elderly proconsul of Africa who became emperor in A.D. 238, or his homonymous 2 son who was proclaimed joint emperor with his father . There have been several attempts to discover the link between Herodes and Gordian. Herodes was survived by only one child, Bradua Atticus. It has recently been suggested that the younger Gordian married the daughter of Bradua3. It is the purpose of this article to investigate Herodes' attitude toward his son in hopes of shedding some light on whether Bradua is the link between the millionaire professor and the emperor. Philostratus V S. 2. 1. 558 deals with the relationship between Herodes and Bradua. Bradua was slandered to Herodes as ήλιθιώδη και δυσγράμματον καί παχύν την μνήμην. Bradua could not learn the alphabet so his father brought him up with twenty-four boys each named after one of the letters. We are not told whether this method succeeded. Herodes, observed that his dull son was a drunkard and given to senseless love affairs. In despair Herodes uttered the following prophecy εις δ' ίχι που μωρός καταλείπεται εύρέι ο'ίκω. So when Herodes died he left Bradua his mother's estate, but he gave his son's patrimony to other heirs. Philostratus clearly contradicts himself. If indeed the charges that Bra­ dua was stupid, a slow-learner with a poor memory were false why did Bra­ dua have such a hard time learning the alphabet, for Philostratus does not question the story of the twenty-four companions. As for Bradua's drun- keness and sexual licentiousness Herodes saw it with his own eyes. In order to understand Pbilostrartus' confusing account about the relationship between father and son it would be useful to know when the attack on Bradua was launcheed and by whom. Bradua was born c a. A.D. 152 4.

1. Philostratus VS. Pref. 479-80. For Herodes Atticus, see P. Graindor, Un mil­ liardaire antique: Herode Atticus et sa famille (Cairo, 1930. 2. Κ. Münscher, «Die Philostrate», Ρ h i 1 ο 1 ο g u s, Suppl. 10 (1905/7), p. 471, argues that this is Gordian I. A. R. Birley, Britain and Rome: Essays près, to E. Birley (1966), pp. 58-8, cogently maintains that the honorand of the Lives of the Sophists was Gordian II. J. H. Oliver, «The Ancestry of Gordian I,» A J Ρ 89 (1968), 345 ff., rejects the relationship between the Goridians and Herodes. 3. T.D. Barnes, «Philostratus and Gordian», Latomus 27 (1968), 581 ff, 4. Barnes, «Philostratus», 583. -245 —

Herodes heard unfavorable reports about his son when the boy was trying to learn the alphabet. The campaign against Bradua, apparently began in c a. A.D. 157 when he was about five years old. At this time many Athenians considered Herodes a tyrant. The Athe­ nians turned against him in c a. A.D. 137 when Claudius Atticus, the father of Herodes died, leaving to each Athenian citizen a substantial sum of money· Herodes did not honor his father's will, for he was able to prove that most Athenians owed him money, and that these debts cancelled his father's be­ quest. There were riots in Äthans and reporti of this turbulence was carried to Rome where Herodes was censured by some for his failure to execute the will5. Herodes was allowed to keep all of his patrimony. The Athenians did not forget the episode, and years later when Herodes paid for the constru­ ction of the Panathenaic Stadium, the people complained that it was well named since he had used their money for it 6.While the masses opposed He­ rodes it was a muted opposition, for Herodes possessed so much strength in th.3 city that no one dared speak out openly against him. Then in c a. A.D. 150 Sex. Quintilius Condianus, the praetorian proconsul of Achaea, came to Athens. Athens was a free city, and Condianus, who had no business there? nonetheless attended a session of the ecclesia7. During this session some

5. Philostratus VS. 2. 1. 549. For the technical aspects of Herodes' manoeuvers see R. Bogaret, Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques (Ley- den, 1968), pp. 33, 358-9. The trial is referred to in the correspondence between Fronto and Marcus Aurelius, see a d. M. C. 3. 2.=Haines I. 58 ff; a d M. C. 3.3.=Haines I. 62 ff; ad M. G. 3.6=Haines I, 68 ff ; a d A η t ο η i n. imp. 2.6.=Haines 1, 74 ff. The De- mostratus referred to here has been identified by G. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969), pp. 97-99, as a member of the Claudii of Melite. While there is no way to date this trial I feel that it took place sometime after A.D. 150 when the Athenians came out into opposition against Herodes, see p. 3. 6. Philostratus VS. 2.1. 549. For Herodes building program, see Graindor, Hérode, pp. 179-230. K. Münscher, RE 8A (1913) «Herodes», No. 13, 946, points out that Herodes preferred to achieve fame by erecting monuments rather than indulging the masses with largesses. 7. Philostratus VS. 2. 1. 599. Condianus was accompanied by his brother Maximus. For the Quintilii, see Ρ I R2, Q. 19, 24. Bowersock, Greek Sophists, p. 100, argues that the Quintilii appeared in Athens in ca. A.D. 171 as corrector and comes. Bowersock contends that a proconsul would not have had any business in Athens. There was, however, some proconsular interference in Athens, a civitates liberae et immunes, see Eusebius, Ghronicon (Helm), p. 170, 3961, 16; Orosius, 6. 22. 2; Tacitus, Ann. 2. 55; Cassius Dio 54. 7. 2; 69. 16. 2; Dio of Prusa, Or at. 31. 148; Philostratus VS. 2. 1. 559-560; Marcus Tod, «The Corrector Maximus», Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buckler (Manchester, 1939), pp. 333-34; P. Graindor, Athnèes sous Auguste (Cairo, 1927), pp. 4044; P. Graindor» Athènes de Tibère à Trajan (Cairo, 1931), pp. 97-111; P. Graindor, A t h è- nes sous Hadrien (Cairo, 1934), pp. 111-14; J. Delz, Lukans Kenntnis der athenischen Antiquitäten (Freiber, 1950), pp. 41, 156-184. -246- people denounced Herodes as a tyrant, and Condianus reported it to the emperor8. Now the Glaudii of Melite declared their opposition to Herodes. This prominent Athenian family held important magistracies in the city, high priesthoods in the Eleusnnan Mysteries, and furnished some important sophists, skilled public speakers with large followings 9. They formed an al­ liance with the masses and contested Herodes' control of Athens for nearly a quarter of a century. The strife in Athens reached such proportions that in c a. A.D. 174 the emperor Marcus Aurelius, while he was in Sirmium at­ tempting to plug up the porous frontiers, heard both Athenian factions and rendered a series of decisions aiming to end the unrest in the city10. During the period between A.D. 150 and A.D. 174 Herodes was so thoroughly mali­ gned by this faction that one modern commentator has concluded that He­ rodes was «a nasty fellow» H. It is possible that Bradua was defamed by the same people that attacked Herodes. This hypothesis is not, however, very sound since it is not probable that Herodes would have been alienated from his son by reports from his rivals. A more likely source for the vilification of Bradua is the Herodes faction itself. The term faction is used loosely to denote Herodes' freedmen and stu­ dents. Alcimedon, his freedman, had such control over the great sophist's affairs that he disciplined Regula, Herodes' wife, by kicking her in the sto­ mach. She was in her eight month of pregnancy, and died as a result of the alleged blow in c a. A.D. 161. When Herodes was tried for the murder of Regula he claimed that Alcimedon had acted on his own12. Yet the millionaire kept this freedman in his service, and in c a. A.D. 174 Alcimedon' s daughters accompanied Herodes to Sirmium 13. It seems strange that Herodes would ack­ nowledge the wicked deed of his freedman and still retain him. Alcimedon must have been indespensable to the millionaire in some way, perhaps in eco­ nomic matters. At Sirmium Marcus Aurelius considered Alcimedon guilty of some unspecified crime, but let him off scot-free in a gesture of sympathy, because during the trial the two teen-aged daughters of Alcimedon had been

8. Philostratus VS. 2. 1. 559. 9. For the Claudii of Melite, see J. H. Oliver, The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Laws (Baltimore, 1960), p. 77. For the de­ finition of Sophist, see Bowersock, Sophists, p. 13. 10. For the Sirmium settlement, see J. H. Oliver, Marcus Aurelius Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East, Hesperia, Suppl. XIII (1970), passim. 11. R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), 11, 505. 12. Philostratus VS. 2. 1. 556. 13. Philostratus VS. 2. 1, 561. -247- killed by lightening. The emperor, however, did punish other freedmen of Herodes 14. The students of Herodes represented an important element in his fa­ ction. They lived with him on his estate in Marathon. They dined, studied, and hunted together. Their loyalty to their teacher was annoying to other sophists. Philargus, the sophist from Cilicia, was practically driven from Athens by Herodes' students. Herodes put up statues of them throughout Attica, attempted to find them top academic positions, and if any died he mourned them as if they were his children 15. Why would Herodes' freedmen and students slander Bradua? Philo- stratus VS. 2. 1. 558 furnishes the answer: when Herodes died he gave Bra­ dua his mother's estate, but left his patrimony to other heirs. It is striking that Philostratus does not specify who these heirs were. By A.D. 161 Hero­ des had lost his wife and four children. Bradua was his only surviving child 16. It is not unreasonable to assume that Herodes' great wealth, and bad rela­ tions with his son encouraged those who were close to him, his students and freedmen, to play the role of legacy hunters. It is against the backdrop of legacy hunters that the relationship between Herodes and Regula may be illuminated. They were in Herodes' household before the birth of Bradua. Memnon, Achilles, and Polydeuces were brought up by Herodes as his τρόφιμοι, and he cherished them not only because they were καλοί, και αγαθοί, but φιλομαθείς as well17.When they died in c a. A.D. 147 Herodes' grief was prodigious. He filled Attica with so many statues of them that he was reprimanded by the proconsul of Achaea 18. Bradua was

14. Philostratus VS. 2. 1. 561. 15. According to Philostratus VS. 2. 5. 571, the sophist Alexander visited Athens in ca. A.D. 175. Herodes was staying with τήν νεότητα in Marathon. As for dining and study­ ing together note Herodes' Clepsydrion in Philostratus VS. 2. 10. 585. J. Papademetrios, αΒραυρών), A E (1961), pp. 33-36, notes various statues discovered in rural Attica depi­ cting Herodes' students in hunting postures. Philostratus (VS. 2. 1. 559) notes these statues and that the death of these students was a bereavement to Herodes. For the affair with Philargus, see Philostratus V S. 2. 8. 580, and C.P. Jones, «A Leading Roman Family of Thespiae, «Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, LXXIV (1970), 74. Bowersock, Sophists, p. 93, argues that Philargus started the quarrel. But Philo- stratus (VS. 2. 8. 580) states that Amphicles and his friends, probably students of He­ rodes, repeatedly looked in the direction of Philargus giving him the impression that he was being mocked. Herodes rather than apologizing for the affair blamed it on Philargus. For Herodes' machinations to obtain academic position for students, see A. Papalas, Stu­ dies in Roman Athens 29 B. C. to A.D. 180 (University of Chicago disserta­ tion, 1969), pp. 153-4, and below n. 27. 16. For a discussion on Herodes' offsprings, see Barnes, «Philostratus», 583-86. 17. Philostratus VS. 2.1. 558-9. 18. Philostratus V. S. 2. 1. 558-9. -248-

born about five years after their death, and Herodes soon rejected him, for he was δυσγράμματος, exactly the opposite of his beloved students 19. He eventually turned to other students. And he lavished much affection on the daughters of Alcimedon, who were contemporaries of Bradua. When these girls died at Sirmium he mourned them with almost the same intensity that he did Memnon, Achilles, and Polyd euces2o. Herodes' attachment to these youth and the rejection of his own son must have enraged Regula, if we may assume that she had natural feelings for her offspring. It was to the advantage of Herodes' freedmen and students that discord should prevail in the sophist's family. Perhaps it was Alcimedon who sug­ gested that Bradua be brought up with twenty-four companions in order to humiliate the boy. One suspects that the fatal quarrel between Alcimedon and Regula was related to Bradua. After the death of Regula there is nothing to suggest that the relation­ ship between Herodes and Bradua improved. Some thought Herodes' extra­ vagant devotion to the memory of his wife insincere. Appius Annius Atilius Bradua, consul Ordinarius in A.D. 160, the brother of Regula, accused Herodes of murder21. The sophist went to Rome where he easily defended himself in the Roman senate, for his brother-in-law boasted of his pedigree rather than furnish proof for his charges 22. Regula's brother delivered a panegyric on his own family in order to emphasize the united opposition of his distinguished Italian relatives to Herodes, a mere grae- cuius. After Regula' s death, perhaps after the trial, Antoninus Pius ele­ vated Bradua to the patriciate. It has been suggested that this was done t:> placate Herodes23. The emperor may have elevated the boy to please his Italian relatives, for Antoninus had reason to dislike Herodes 24. After the experiment with the twenty-four comrades there is little evi­ dence for the relationship between father and son until Herodes observed

19. Philostratus V. S. 2. 1. 558. 20. According to (Philostratus VS. 2.1. 560), Herodes called these girls his daughters. 21. For Appius Annius Atilius Bradua, see Ρ I R2, A. 636. 22. Philostratus VS. 2. 1. 556. During the trial Appius strangely referred to his bene­ factions to a certain city in Italy. Perhaps he was criticizing the trend of the Antonine Age to pour money into the Greek East to benefit men like Herodes at the expense of Italy. Herodes countered by noting that he had benefited cities throughtout the world. 23. I G R R, 1, 194 A. Graindor, Hérode, pp. 102-3. 24. According to Philostratus ( V. S. 2. 1. 555), Herodes and Antoninus Pius, while the latter was proconsul of Asia Minor, allegedly exchanged blows. Graindor, Hérode, p. 59, plausibly connects this episode to the difficulties Herodes and his father encountered in constructing an aqueduct at Alexandria Troas. The story of the fistfight seems to be an exaggeration based upon an argument over the unexpected expenditures on the aqueduct. Antoninus was tolerant of the exuberant Greek intellectuals, see Philostratus VS. 1. 25. 535. -249-

that Bradua drank too much, and was involved in senseless love affairs. Herodes probably made this observation when Bradua was in his late teens in c a. A.D. 170. It was perhaps a few years before the millionaire' s death' in c a. A.D. 175, that he parodied the aforementioned Homeric verse25. He­ rodes was announcing that Bradua was not capable of managing his patri­ mony, and would therefore not receive it. Herodes rejected Bradua at an early age and the alienation between the two grew over the years. There is no reason to think that Bradua would remain isolated. He could have found a haven with his Italian relatives. His uncle, Appius Annius Atilius Bradua, may have helped the boy. Faustina, the empress, was related to his mother. She openly attacked Herodes and espoused the cause of the Claudii of Melite26. Her opposition to Herodes could have stemmed from his alleged mistreatment of Regula. In any event, since some of Bradua's Italian relatives were in sympathy with the rivals of Herodes, it is possible that Bradua himself, for he certainly had sufficient provocation, went over to the enemy camp. Philostratus (VS. 2. 1. 558) notes that the Athenians considered He­ rodes inhuman when it was made known that Bradua did not inherit his patrimony. Philostratus defends him by pointing out his affection for Achilles, Memnon, and Polydeuces, his beloved students. This was precisely the grie­ vance the Athenians, especially the Claudii of Melite, had against Herodes. His fondness for his supporters exceeded the feelings he had for his family. The crusty sophist, as he felt death approach, wished to leave his sympa­ thizers ascendant in the city. In c a. A.D. 176 Herodes procured for one of his students the recently created imperial chair of rhetoric in Athens with the annual salary of ten thousand drachmae 27. Herodes also saw to it that his freedmen received enough money to gain places in important Athenian institutions 28. Whatever portion of Bradua' s patrimony Herodes had not

25. See above p. 1. 26. According to Philostratus (VS. 2. 1. 560), Faustina' s three year old daughter would fall to her father' s knee and beg Marcus to save the Athenians. It seems that Fau­ stina told her daughter to do this. For the relationship between Faustina and Regula, see Graindor, H é r ο d e, p. 83. 27. Philostratus VS. 2. 2. 567; 2. 10. 599. S. Mazzarino, «Prima cathedra», Mélan­ ges André Piganiol (Paris, 1966), pp. 1660 ff., argues that Marcus appointed Hadrian to the imperial chair because he needed Herodes' support during the Avidius Cassius conspiracy. For a slightly diffirent interpretation, see Papalas, Roman A - t h e η s, pp. 152-4. 28. According to Philostratus (VS. 2. 1. 561), the emperor mildly punished certain freedmen of Herodes. This perhaps meant that they were removed from certain key posi­ tions in Athens. Oliver, Aspects, pp. 3-9, edits an inscription of Marcus Aurelius deal­ ing with appeals related to the Sirmium settlement. This inscription will be referred to as EM 13366. According to EM 13366 (lines 57-69), Marcus had decided that the areopagus -250- lavished on his supporters while he lived was given to them after he died in A.D. 178. When Philostratus dealt with the relationship bet wenn H erodes and Bradua he utilized sources vitiated by factional politics. At the perspective of two generations Philostratus was not able to determine the true chara­ cter of Bradua. It was, however, apparent to Herodes' contemporaries that his son, while still a young boy, would never make himself a name in the world of letters. As Bradua grew older, probably due to the unusual pres­ sures on him, he gave way to some extent to a dissipated existence. Whether he was dimwitted and a drunkard is questionable, but Philostratus does not seem sure himself, but he is certain of the bad relations between father and son 29. The biographer generally defends the controversial Herodes through­ out the Lives of the Sophists 3<>. Philostratus, apparently, did should consist only of men who could prove that their family held Athenian citizenship for three generations, but at Sirmium the emperor was forced to admit that this measure was unsuccessful, for the number of good, old families had shrunk considerably. Marcus declared that a man could serve as an areopagite if his father was an Athenian citizen, and that anyone who had been expelled because of the three generation rule should be reinstated. The emperor, however, made it clear that after this ruling there would be no new areopagites of such status. According to Philostratus VS. 2. 1. 549 certain freedmen of Herodes* father took credit for that aforementioned provision in his will that gave each Athenian citizen a considerable sum of money in order to gain the favor of the masses. Oliver, A s ρ e e t s, pp. 119-20,134-35, argued that the masses rewarded these freedmen with a place in the areopagus. Perhaps the Quintilii helped promote these men in ca. A.D 150 when the movement against Herodes picked up momentum. By the time of the Sir­ mium trial many of Atticus' freedmen would have passed away. Their sons, presumably cherishing the hostility of their fathers toward Herodes, replaced them in the areopagus. Apparently, Herodes countered by getting some of his own freedmen into the areopagus. Marcus wished to break the «tyranny» of Athens by Herodes so he enacted a one genera­ tion rule which allowed the sons of Atticus' freedmen to stay in the areopagus, and forced the freedmen of Herodes to leave. Herodes may have manoeuvered some of his men into the panhellenion. This institution was founded by Herodes in ca. A.D. 130 in Athens for the purpose of relieving Roman authorities of settling petty disputes among the Greeks, see Oliver, Aspects, pp. 92-138. According to EM 13366 (lines 15-23), the emperor upheld the decision of the archon of the panhellenes to disqualify a certain Ladicus, novus homo. In EM 13366 (lines 77-81), Marcus ruled that those areopagites, who were members of the panhellenion and unable to meet the three generation rule, could remain in the panhellenion. It is possible that Ladicus and thsese areopagites in question, all novi homines, belonged to the Herodes' faction. 29. That Bradua had some ability is suggested by the fact that he was consul during the reign of Commodus, and proconsul of Asia under Septimius Severus, see Ρ I R2 C, 785. 30. A thorough examination of Philostratus' impartial judgment in behalf of Herodes, and his prejudice against the Claudii of Melite is needed, see Philostratus VS. Pref. 479; 2. 1. 547; 555; 556; 561; 562; 563; 2. 2. 567. The problem is complicated by Philostra- tus close friendship with Apsines, a member of the Claudii of Melite, see Philostratus V S. 2. 33. 628, and J.H. Oliver, «Greek and Latin Inscriptions», Hesperia X (1941), 261. - 251- not want to offend his descendant, Gordian, by being critical of Herodes. It seems that Philostratus would have suppressed unfavorable reports about Bradua, and the trouble between him and his father, if he indeed was the link between Herodes and Gordian.

ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΙΣ

Ό 'Ηρώδης ό 'Αττικός, ό περίφημος 'Αθηναίος σοφιστής, ήτο εις εκ των πλουσιωτέρων πολιτών της Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας, χατά τον δεύτερον μ.Χ. αιώνα. Κατά τον Φιλόστρατον, τον συγγραφέα του έργου «Βίοι Σοφιστών», ό 'Ηρώδης εσυγγένευε μέ ενα εκ τών Γορδιανών αυτοκρατόρων. Το έργον του τοΰτο ό Φιλόστρατος αφιερώνει εϊς τίνα Γορδιανόν καί δι' αύτου υπερασπίζει τον Ήρώδην. 'Αποβιώσας ό 'Ηρώδης άφησε τον υίόν του Βραδύαν, δστις λέγεται δτι απέ­ κτησε θυγατέρα τινά, ην ενυμφεύθη ό Γορδιανος ό Νεώτερος. Ό Φιλόστρατος αναφέρει δτι ό 'Ηρώδης άπεκλήρωσε τον υ'ιόν του, διότι έθεώρει τούτον ως στενοκέφαλον καί ασελγή. Σκοπός τής παρούσης μελέτης εϊναι νά είσηγηθή δτι δ Βραδύας δέν ήτο ό στενός κρίκος μεταξύ Ήρώδου καί Γορδιανου, καί δτι ό Βραδύας δέν ήτο προι­ κισμένος ρήτωρ. Άλλα πρέπει νά σημειωθή επίσης δτι ό χαρακτήρ του καί α'ι ικανότητες του δέν ήσαν καί τόσον άσχημοι, δπως περιγράφει αύτας δ Φιλόστρατος. Έκτος τούτου, δ συγγραφεύς του έργου «Βίοι Σοφιστών», γράφων περί το έτος 240 μ.Χ., ήντλησε μερικώς τάς πληροφορίας του άπδ τους μαθητάς καί απελεύθερους του Ήρώδου, οίτινες συνωμοτούν, οοτως ώστε να διαβάλλεται δ Βραδύας, δια να κληρονομήσουν τον έκατομμυριουχον διδάσκαλον καί τέως κύριόν των. Δέν φαίνεται δμως λογικόν, δτι δ Φιλόστρατος ύπερήσπιζε τον Ήρώδην μέ σκοπδν να ευχάριστη τον Γορδιανόν καί δτι άπεδέχετο τάς συκοφαντικάς κακο­ λογίας εναντίον του Βραδύα, έάν δ τελευταίος ήτο πενθερδς του Γορδιανου.