{"id":2138,"date":"2024-07-16T11:18:19","date_gmt":"2024-07-16T09:18:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/politeia.unimi.it\/2024\/07\/16\/id-1802-quinto-tullio-e-i-suoi-liberti-100-a-c-ca\/"},"modified":"2025-08-12T10:15:15","modified_gmt":"2025-08-12T08:15:15","slug":"id-1802-quinto-tullio-e-i-suoi-liberti-100-a-c-ca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/politeia.unimi.it\/en\/2024\/07\/16\/id-1802-quinto-tullio-e-i-suoi-liberti-100-a-c-ca\/","title":{"rendered":"Quintus Tullius and His Greek Freedmen \u2013 ID 1802 (c. 100 BC)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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\u2013Hasenohr\u2013Le Dinahet 2002, 218, nos. 4\u20137; Rauh 1993, 98\u2013102; Touloumakos 1995, 81\u201384). The inscription is bilingual (Latin\u2013Greek), and it is noteworthy that, while in the Greek text the three freedmen are simply designated as \u03bf\u1f31 \u039a\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (\u201cthose of Quintus\u201d), in the Latin text the letter l<\/em> for libertus<\/em> appears between the nomen<\/em> and the cognomen<\/em>, preceded by the genitive of their patron\u2019s praenomen<\/em>. \n \nThat the three dedicants were freedmen is also clear from the presence of the noun \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd (\u201cpatron\u201d) in line 4 and of the noun \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 (\u201cson,\u201d followed by the father\u2019s 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 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 in ID<\/em> 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<\/em> active there after 167 BC\u2014the year in which the island was declared a free port by Rome and transformed into an Athenian cleruchia<\/em> (on the Athenian cleruchia<\/em> on Delos, see Roussel 1916; Rauh 1993, 3\u201341). This is the case, for example, in ID<\/em> 1732 and 1733, where, in the Greek version, free individuals are not even designated by the formula \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 + genitive (on the use of this formula also in Greek, see Adams 2003, 670\u2013677; on the difficulty of distinguishing the freeborn from freedmen in many inscriptions written exclusively in Greek, see Touloumakos 1995, 115\u2013116; 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<\/em> 1761, ll. 7\u20138; cf. ID<\/em> 1724; 1765 with Hasenohr 2017, 121).<\/p>\n\n

The cognomina<\/em> of Quintus Tullius\u2019 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\u2013226; 2008). In particular, Latin\u2014often alongside Greek\u2014was used by freeborn Italics when they wished to confer official status on a document (e.g. ID<\/em> 1731, 1732). Freedmen and slaves, by contrast, show a marked preference for Greek, as demonstrated by inscriptions accompanying dedications made by the magistri<\/em> of the collegium<\/em> of the Compitaliasti<\/em>, which did not include freeborn members (e.g. ID<\/em> 1760, 1761; on this collegium<\/em>, see Hasenohr 2003; 2022, 84; Broekaert 2015, 171\u2013175). The fact that even ingenui<\/em>\u2014citizens of Italic urbes<\/em>\u2014so often used Greek reflects their desire to integrate into the Athenian cleruchia<\/em>, which was also subject to strong Ptolemaic and Cypriot influence (Mavrojannis 2002, 173\u2013179). Although Roman-Italic culture was by no means obliterated (Hasenohr 2007, 228\u2013230), the Italics on the island acknowledged a certain primacy of Greek culture. This also seems to explain why citizens of graecae urbes<\/em> in Italy, and sometimes even freedmen, ostentatiously displayed their ethnicum<\/em>, thus underlining their civic identity (e.g. ID<\/em> 1761, ll. 5\u20136; 1763, l. 7).<\/p>\n\n

The case of Quintus Tullius and his three freedmen constitutes an eloquent example of the phenomena described above. The findspot of the inscription\u2014likely the residence of Quintus Tullius (but see Rauh 1993, 198\u2013200)\u2014reveals 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 \u201cEastern Aphrodite\u201d (Zarmakoupi 2016, 70). In short, Quintus Tullius\u2019 house constitutes a microcosm reflecting the free space<\/em> that Delos represented for Italic mercatores<\/em> (on the concept of free space<\/em>, see Vlassopoulos 2007): within it, through the intrafamilial network linking the Latin-speaking, freeborn master to his Greek-born freedmen\u2014probably former citizens of Greek poleis\u2014a 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\u2013Roman Delos, see Broekaert 2015, 146\u2013149). It is no coincidence that one of the three freedmen, Heracleon, is attested in the 90s BC as magister<\/em> of the Compitaliasti<\/em> (ID<\/em> 1761), which suggests that, thanks likely to his patron\u2019s 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). \n \nThat Roman-period Delos constituted a significant free space<\/em> is strongly supported by the view that there was no single administrative\u2013institutional entity (conventus<\/em>) grouping the entire Italic community present on the island (thus Kornemann 1892, 50\u201361; Ferguson 1911, 355\u2013356, 396\u2013397; Hasenohr 2002). Rather, the Italics appear to have been divided into various collegia<\/em>, whose nature was exclusively socio-economic and cultic (so Hatzfeld 1912, 146\u2013176; Flambard 1982; Broekaert 2015, 159\u2013175).<\/p>\n\n

a.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [\u039a\u03cc\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 \u2014]\u03c0\u0323\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u0323\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd<\/p>\n\n

\u2003\u2003\u2003 [\u039a\u03cc\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a4\u03cd\u03bb]\u03bb\u0323\u03b9\u0323\u03bf\u0323\u03c2\u0323 [\u1f29\u03c1\u03b1]\u03ba\u0323\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03cc\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/p>\n\n

\u2003\u2003\u2003 \u03a4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03cc\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2<\/p>\n\n

\u2003\u2003\u2003 \u1f08\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u039a\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1<\/p>\n\n

5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u0323\u03b1\u1f76\u0323 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.<\/p>\n\n

b.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [Q. Tullium Q. f. \u2014 \u2014 \u2014pum]<\/p>\n\n

\u2003\u2003\u2003 Q. Tullius Q. l. A[ristarchus],<\/p>\n\n

\u2003\u2003\u2003 Q. Tullius Q. l. Ale[xander],<\/p>\n\n

\u2003\u2003\u2003 Q. Tullius Q. l. He[racle]o [p]atr\u1ecd[nem]<\/p>\n\n

5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 suom honoris et be[nef]\u1ecbci cau[sa].<\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n\n

\u201cQuintus 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

\u201cQuintus 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n