Quintus Tullius and His Greek Freedmen – ID 1802 (c. 100 BC)

The inscription records the dedication of a statue to Quintus Tullius by three of his freedmen: Heracleon, Aristarchus, and Alexander (on these individuals, see Ferrary–Hasenohr–Le Dinahet 2002, 218, nos. 4–7; Rauh 1993, 98–102; Touloumakos 1995, 81–84). The inscription is bilingual (Latin–Greek), and it is noteworthy that, while in the Greek text the three freedmen are simply designated as οἱ Κοίντου (“those of Quintus”), in the Latin text the letter l for libertus appears between the nomen and the cognomen, preceded by the genitive of their patron’s praenomen. That the three dedicants were freedmen is also clear from the presence of the noun πάτρων (“patron”) in line 4 and of the noun υἱός (“son,” followed by the father’s name in the genitive) to distinguish and qualify the dedicatee, Quintus Tullius, as a freeborn individual. Notably, the same person is referred to without the noun υἱός in ID 1730. The omission of any reference to the status of the individual is in fact a characteristic feature of many inscriptions from Delos documenting relations among Italic gentes active there after 167 BC—the year in which the island was declared a free port by Rome and transformed into an Athenian cleruchia (on the Athenian cleruchia on Delos, see Roussel 1916; Rauh 1993, 3–41). This is the case, for example, in ID 1732 and 1733, where, in the Greek version, free individuals are not even designated by the formula υἱός + genitive (on the use of this formula also in Greek, see Adams 2003, 670–677; on the difficulty of distinguishing the freeborn from freedmen in many inscriptions written exclusively in Greek, see Touloumakos 1995, 115–116; Hasenohr 2017, 125). Even slaves, in Greek texts, are referred to simply through the name of their master(s) in the genitive (see e.g. ID 1761, ll. 7–8; cf. ID 1724; 1765 with Hasenohr 2017, 121).

The cognomina of Quintus Tullius’ three freedmen clearly reveal their Greek origin. In the Delos of the later 2nd and early 1st century BC, Greek became, for Italics, the language of informality and self-representation, while Latin was the language of officialdom (Hasenohr 2007, 225–226; 2008). In particular, Latin—often alongside Greek—was used by freeborn Italics when they wished to confer official status on a document (e.g. ID 1731, 1732). Freedmen and slaves, by contrast, show a marked preference for Greek, as demonstrated by inscriptions accompanying dedications made by the magistri of the collegium of the Compitaliasti, which did not include freeborn members (e.g. ID 1760, 1761; on this collegium, see Hasenohr 2003; 2022, 84; Broekaert 2015, 171–175). The fact that even ingenui—citizens of Italic urbes—so often used Greek reflects their desire to integrate into the Athenian cleruchia, which was also subject to strong Ptolemaic and Cypriot influence (Mavrojannis 2002, 173–179). Although Roman-Italic culture was by no means obliterated (Hasenohr 2007, 228–230), the Italics on the island acknowledged a certain primacy of Greek culture. This also seems to explain why citizens of graecae urbes in Italy, and sometimes even freedmen, ostentatiously displayed their ethnicum, thus underlining their civic identity (e.g. ID 1761, ll. 5–6; 1763, l. 7).

The case of Quintus Tullius and his three freedmen constitutes an eloquent example of the phenomena described above. The findspot of the inscription—likely the residence of Quintus Tullius (but see Rauh 1993, 198–200)—reveals a strong blending of different cultures. The building displays a typically local style, similar to other Italic houses on Delos (Zarmakoupi 2013). Moreover, one of its rooms yielded a terracotta Egyptian figurine of an “Eastern Aphrodite” (Zarmakoupi 2016, 70). In short, Quintus Tullius’ house constitutes a microcosm reflecting the free space that Delos represented for Italic mercatores (on the concept of free space, see Vlassopoulos 2007): within it, through the intrafamilial network linking the Latin-speaking, freeborn master to his Greek-born freedmen—probably former citizens of Greek poleis—a composite culture and identity were shaped, which partially (and temporarily) dismantled the statutory barriers existing in their homeland. This milieu served as a privileged channel for establishing interfamilial social and commercial ties not only with other Italics but also with Greek and Eastern merchants from other regions (Zarmakoupi 2013, n. 24; on interfamilial and intrafamilial networks in Hellenistic–Roman Delos, see Broekaert 2015, 146–149). It is no coincidence that one of the three freedmen, Heracleon, is attested in the 90s BC as magister of the Compitaliasti (ID 1761), which suggests that, thanks likely to his patron’s support, he could provide valuable assistance to the latter in the social strategy just described (on the social advancement of freedmen and slaves, and its limits, see Hasenohr 2017). That Roman-period Delos constituted a significant free space is strongly supported by the view that there was no single administrative–institutional entity (conventus) grouping the entire Italic community present on the island (thus Kornemann 1892, 50–61; Ferguson 1911, 355–356, 396–397; Hasenohr 2002). Rather, the Italics appear to have been divided into various collegia, whose nature was exclusively socio-economic and cultic (so Hatzfeld 1912, 146–176; Flambard 1982; Broekaert 2015, 159–175).

a.1       [Κόιντον Τύλλιον — — — —]π̣ον Κ̣οίντου υἱὸν

    [Κόιντος Τύλ]λ̣ι̣ο̣ς̣ [Ἡρα]κ̣λέων καὶ Κόιντος

    Τύλλιος Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ Κόιντος Τύλλιος

    Ἀρίσταρχος οἱ Κοίντου τὸν ἑαυτῶν πάτρωνα

5          ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν κ̣αὶ̣ καλοκἀγαθίας τῆς εἰς ἑαυτούς.

b.1       [Q. Tullium Q. f. — — —pum]

    Q. Tullius Q. l. A[ristarchus],

    Q. Tullius Q. l. Ale[xander],

    Q. Tullius Q. l. He[racle]o [p]atrọ[nem]

5          suom honoris et be[nef]ịci cau[sa].

“Quintus Tullius Heracleon, Quintus Tullius Alexander, and Quintus Tullius Aristarchus, those of Quintus, (dedicate a statue) to their patron, Quintus Tullius, son of Quintus, in recognition of the virtue and nobility he displayed towards them.”

“Quintus Tullius Aristarchus, freedman of Quintus; Quintus Tullius Alexander, freedman of Quintus; and Quintus Tullius Heracleon, freedman of Quintus, (dedicate a statue) to their patron for the sake of honour and gratitude.”

• J. N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge 2003.
• W. Broekaert, Recycling Networks. The Structure of the Italian Business Community on Delos in P. Erdkamp – K. Verboven (eds.), Structure and Performance in the Roman Economy, Bruxelles 2015, 143-182.
• W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens. An Historical Essay, London 1911.
• J.-L. Ferrary, C. Hasenohr, M. T. Le Dinahet, Liste des Italiens de Délos in Müller – Hasenohr 2002, 183-239.
• J. M. Flambart, Observations sur la nature des magistri italiens de Délos in F. Coarelli – D. Musti – H. Solin (eds.), Delo e l’Italia. Raccolta di studi, 1982, 67-77.
• C. Hasenohr, Les collèges de magistri et la communauté italienne de Délos in Müller – Hasenohr 2002, 67-76.
• C. Hasenohr, Les Compitalia à Délos, BCH 127.1, 2003, 167-249.
• C. Hasenohr, Les Italiens de Délos. Entre romanité et hellénisme in J. M. Luce, Identités ethniques dans le monde grec antique. Actes du colloque international de Toulouse organisé par le CRATA, 9–11 mars 2006, Toulouse 2007, 221-232.
• C. Hasenohr, Le bilinguisme dans les inscriptions de magistri de Délos in F. Biville, J.-Cl. Decourt, G. Rougemont (éds.), Bilinguisme gréco-latin et épigraphie, Actes du colloque de Lyon (1719 mai 2004), Lyon 2008, 55-70.
• C. Hasenohr, L’emporion de Délos, Creuset de mobilité sociale? Le cas des esclaves et affranchis italiens (II^e-I^e siècle av. J. C.) in A. D. Rizakis – F. Camia – S. Zoumbaki (eds.), Social Dynamics under Roman Rule. Mobility and Status Change in the Provinces of Achaia and Macedonia, Athens 2017, 119-132.
• C. Hasenohr, The Italian Associations on Delos: Religion, Trade, Politics and Social Cohesion (2^nd – 1^st c. BC) in A. Cazemier – S. Skaltza (eds.), Associations and Religion in Context. The Hellenistic and Roman Eastern Mediterranean, Liège 2022, 79-92.
• J. Hatzfeld, Les Italiens résidant à Délos, BCH 36, 1912, 1-208.
• E. Kornemann, De civibus romanis in provinciis Imperii consistentibus, Berlin 1892.
• T. Mavrojannis, Italiens et Orientaux à Délos: considerations sur l’absence de negotiatores romanes dans la Méditerranée orientale in Müller – Hasenohr 2002, 163-180.
• C. Müller – C. Hasenohr (éds.), Les Italiens dans le monde grec. II^e siècle av. J. C. – I^er siècle ap. J. C. Circulation, activités, integration, Athènes 2002.
• N. K. Rauh, The Sacred Bonds of Commerce. Religion, Economy and Trade Society at Hellenistic Roman Delos. 167-87 BC, Amsterdam 1993.
• P. Roussel, Délos, colonie athénienne, Paris 1916.
• J. Touloumakos, Bilingue [griechisch-lateinische] Weihinschriften der r¨omischen Zeit, TEKMHPIA 1, 1995, 79-129.
• K. Vlassopoulos, Free spaces: identity, experience and democracy in Classical Athens, CQ57, 2007, 33–52.
• M. Zarmakoupi, The Quartier du Stade on late Hellenistic Delos: A Case Study of Rapid Urbanization (Fieldwork Seasons 2009–2010), ISAW Papers 6: http://dlib .nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/6/
• M. Zarmakoupi, The Spatial Environment of Inscriptions and Graffiti in Domestic Spaces: the Case of Delos in R. Benefiel – P. Keegan (eds.), Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden – Boston 2016, 50-79.