Provenance and location

Ancient city: Delphi
Modern city: Delphi (Greece)
Province: Achaia
Diocese: Macedonia
Regional prefecture: Italia Illyricum Africa
Provenance: Delphi, but the specific provenance is unknown
Current location: Museum of Delphi, inv. 1647, inv. 4077
Ancient location: public space

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Legislative inscription (two official letters from praet. prefects to a priest)

Greek text

Critical edition

This unpublished text is based on Vatin 1965 with a different at l. 7 of fragment inv. 1647 suggested by Feissel 2016, p. 1226.

Translations

English

(inv. 1647): “Letters sealed by decision of the demiurges and engraved in the public archives.

Fl(avius) Dom(itius) Leontius, Fa(bius) Titianus, Fur(ius) Placidus to the former comes Fl(avius) Felicianus greeting. We find it inadmissible that you, who have successfully performed the priesthood of Pythian Apollo and who have been elevated to all honours by [the emperor] who is among the gods (Constantine) [father of] our masters (Constantius and Constans), and who have been praised by the same [our emperors], should be harassed by anyone in the very performance of your priesthood, [and since] we revere you and so that you may stay in peace all the time, we decree that, if anyone [- - -] bother you from now on, we will sentence against him who [- - - -], found guilty, shall be expelled and fined. We wish you health and wellness.”

(inv. 4077): “Fl(avius) Dom(itius) Leontius, Fa(bius) Titianus, Fur(ius) Placidus to the former comes Fl(avius) Felicianus greeting. [- - -] to have been consecrated to Pythian Apollo [- - -] to be performed by you through [- - -] and acts done by you [- - -] since no [- - -] admitting that [- - -].”

French

(by Vatin 1965)

(inv. 1647): “Lettres enregistrées par décret des damiourges et gravées dans les archives publiques.

Fl(avius) Dom(itius) Leontius, Fab(ius) Titianus, Fur(ius) Placidus à Fl(avius) Felicianus ex comitibus, Salut! Estimant inadmissible que toi, qui as exercé le sacerdoce d’Apollon Pythien avec succés, qui fus comblé de tous les honneurs par le bienhereux Empereur défunt et par Nos Seigneurs, qui fus chargé de louanges par les [- - -] eux-mêmes, tu sois troublé par quelqu’un dans l’exercice même de ton sacerdoce, étant donné le respect que nous portons à [- - -] et afin que tu demeures en paix à l’avenir, nous décrétrons que si quelqu’un désormais [- - -] nous prononcerions contre lui condemnation par laquelle il se trouverait [- - -] et puni d’amende. Nous te souhaitons santé et prosperité!

(inv. 4077): “Fl(avius) Dom(itius) Leontius, Fab(ius) Titianus, Fur(ius) Placidus à Fl(avius) Felicianus ex comitibus, Salut! L’exercice de ton sacerdoce d’Apollon Pythion et la célébration [- - -] grâce à toi [- - -] et tes actes [- - -] puisqu’aucune [- - -].”

Italian

(inv. 1647): “Lettere autenticate con il sigillo per decisione dei demiurghi e incise nell’archivio pubblico.

Fl(avius) Dom(itius) Leontius, Fab(ius) Titianus, Fur(ius) Placidus salutano Fl(avius) Felicianus ex comitibus. Poiché riteniamo inammissibile che tu, che hai esercitato con successo il sacerdozio di Apollo Pitico, che sei stato glorificato con tutti gli onori da parte dell’imperatore ormai tra gli dèi [padre dei nostri] signori e lodato da parte dei [nostri imperatori] stessi, noi impediremo che tu venga disturbato da chiunque nell’esercizio stesso del tuo sacerdozio, poiché ti portiamo rispetto [- - -] e affinché tu possa stare tranquillo per tutto il tempo, decretiamo che se qualcuno d’ora in poi ti molesterà [- - -] sentenzieremo contro di lui che [- - -], trovato colpevole, sia espulso e multato. Ti auguriamo che tu abbia salute e prosperità.

(inv. 4077): “Fl(avius) Dom(itius) Leontius, Fab(ius) Titianus, Fur(ius) Placidus salutano Fl(avius) Felicianus ex comitibus. [- - -] essere consacrato ad Apollo Pitico e la [- - -] venga celebrata da parte tua attraverso [- - -] e le cose che sono state fatte da te [- - -] poiché nessuna [- - -] ammettere questa [- - -].”

The inscription and its prefects: critical commentary, updating, overviews

These two fragments of letters, put up by a prefectural college and addressed to Felicianus the priest of Apollo, were discovered at Delphi and are still unpublished. Greek text and translation are based on Claude Vatin’s transcription and restoration (1965); they are corroborated by Polymnia Athanassiadi, who recently verified the Greek text of the two fragments in the Delphi Museum (1991, p. 277, nt. 55). These two fragments were part of a white marble slab originally mounted upon Delphi’s public archives and, in spite of numerous gaps, it is possible to understand the topic since many passages have been carefully restored (wherever possible) by Vatin.

The two letters were an official announcement of the prefectural college, consisting of Domitius Leontius (PLRE I, Leontius 20, pp. 502-503; concerning his career see also PPRET 24) prefect of the East, Fabius Titianus (PLRE I, Titianus 6, pp. 918-919; cf. Feissel 2014) prefect of Gaul and Placidus (PLRE I, Placidus 2, pp. 705-706; about his career see also PPRET 25) prefect of Italy, Africa and Illyricum, listed in chronological order of appointment to the office (cf. Chastagnol 1968, p. 336). This inscription is the only one to attest to this prefectural college, a college which parallels the one set up by Augusta Traiana (PPRET 22): it was formed by the same praetorian prefects except for Placidus, who succeeded Marcellinus probably in 342 AD. It is possible to date our inscription to between the second half of 342 and the first half of 344 AD, using as a yardstick the mandate of Fabius Titianus (341/342-349 AD), Domitius Leontius (340-344 AD) and Memmius Baburius Placidus (342-344 AD). At the end of 341 AD Antonius Marcellinus was still in office as prefect of Italy, Africa and Illyricum; his replacement with Placidus probably occurred towards the end of 342 AD, while Titianus at the same time must already have been praetorian prefect of Gaul (see PPRET 22). Concerning the terminus ante quem, Placidus is last attested in service as prefect on May 28^th 344 AD (CTh 12, 01, 037), Leontius on July 6^th 344 AD (CTh 13, 04, 03).

The three prefects replied to a complaint made by the priest of Apollo Flavius Felicianus, who was demanding protection against disturbances to his priesthood. The actual author of the letter was probably Placidus, because Delphi was under his own jurisdiction; the text was probably written in Latin and translated in Greek by order of the ‘δαμιουργοί’ (see Feissel 2016, pp. 1225-1226).

Felicianus, ἀπὸ κομήτων / ex comitibus, “who has merited the priesthood of Pythian Apollo” and “who has been raised to every single honour by our deified [ἐν θεοῖς] emperor” (on this reference, see Lenski 2016, pp. 216-217), was appointed by Constantine first as comes Orientis in 335 AD in Antioch, and then as consul prior together with Fabius Titianus in 337 AD (PLRE I, Felicianus 5, pp. 330-331; Barnes 1982, pp. 109, 142; CLRE, pp. 208-209; Rinaldi 2015, pp. 27-29). Although scholars are unanimous in the identification, the decision to mention his rank of ‘comes’ and not the higher ‘consular rank’ (ἀπὸ ὑπάτων or vir consularis) in the prefectural letter is doubtful. Furthermore, Felicianus is explicitly mentioned by Malalas as the first comes Orientis of Christian faith in 335 AD (Mal., Chron., 13, 04, pp. 318-319 Dindorf = pp. 244-245 Thurn). Our Felicianus, priest of Apollo, was a pagan. It is generally believed that Malalas is wrong, also because in the passage he attributes to the praetorian prefect Rufinus the construction of the great Basilica of Antioch during the reign of Constantine, while Rufinus was the prefect of Theodosius I in 392-395 AD (see PPRET 15).

In a tabula patronatus of Paestum (CIL 10, 00476 = ILS 6112 = EDR 122208) Felicianus’ name suffered damnatio memoriae. According to Athanassiadi (1996, p. 276), his name was erased because he was a relative of Constantine: after his death Felicianus may have lost the emperor’s protection and in view of the struggle for succession, he prudently retreated to the sanctuary of Apollo, where he held the priesthood of Delphi’s oracle. Instead, Lenski (2016, pp. 221-224) suggested a link between the erasure of Felicianus’ name in CIL 10, 00476 and the constitution of 341 AD, whose incipit says: cesset superstitio sacrificiorum aboletur insania (CTh 16, 10, 02; the inscription bears only the name of the emperor Constantius II but this law was probably issued in the West by Constans: Cuneo 1997, pp. 88-89; Maraval 2013, p. 247; on the problematic evidence of the imperial colleges registered in the Theodosian Code, see Bernier 2018). In fact, also the names of the patron, presumably a pagan, and of one of the city’s duumvirs were erased from the monument of Paestum. In a city where pagan temples to Poseidon, Hera and Athena still stood as symbols of a pagan cult that was very much alive, its citizens probably thought that Christians protectors would better defend their interests after the issuing of the constitution against sacrifice. According to the scholar, the disturbances to Felicianus’ priesthood in Delphi may well have arisen from “overzealous enforcement” of the same edict (Lenski 2016, p. 216). It is possible that Felicianus personally addressed his former colleague in consulate Fabius Titianus (Athanassiadi 1991, p. 276; Lenski 2016, p. 224), who was praetorian prefect and shared the same religious ideas (Titianus is quindicemvir sacris fanciundis in ILS 8983).

The praetorian prefects promised that any further assaults would lead to exile for the troublemaker and that Felicianus should continue to officiate unmolested. The problem was thus resolved by the prefects with diligence and respect towards the priest in light of the honours he had received from Constantine and his sons. The letters do not suggest that Felicianus was related to Constantine (as Athanassiadi suggested), and it is dubious that it had anything to do with the issuing of the constitution CTh 16, 02, 10, as Lenski thought. It is clear that, even if the edict prevented sacrifices, the emperor did not intend to abolish the worship of Apollo. As Vatin claimed (Vatin 1965, pp. 263-264), the troublemakers were probably Christians who were sufficiently rowdy to draw the attention of the central power.

The prerogatives of these cults were so rooted in the cities’ history that they were still respected, especially at Delphi whose sanctuary had always enjoyed and would continue to enjoy the protection by the imperial power.

Bibliography

Athanassiadi P., The Fate of Oracles in Late Antiquity: Didyma and Delphi, Deltion of the Christian Archaeological Society, 15 (1989-1990), 1991, 271-278 (= Mutations of Hellenism in Late Antiquity, London 2015, XI).

Barnes T.D., The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge 1982.

Barnes T.D., Constantine. Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire, Chichester-Malden 2011.

Bernier A., Il problema delle inscriptiones del Codice Teodosiano, Koinonia, 42, 2018, 269-303.

Chastagnol A., Les préfets du prétoire de Constantin, REA, 70, 1968, 321-352.

Cuneo P.A. (a cura di), La legislazione di Costantino II, Costanzo II e Costante (337-361), Milano 1997.

Feissel D., L’épigraphie d’Orient, témoin des mutations de l’empire constantinien, in Brandt O., Fiocchi Nicolai V., Castiglia G. (a cura di), Acta XVI congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae, Romae (22-28.9.2013): Costantino e i Costantinidi. L'innovazione costantiniana, le sue radici i suoi sviluppi, Pars II, Città del Vaticano 2016, 1221-1234.

Lenski N., Constantine and the Cities. Imperial Authority and Civic Politics, Philadelphia 2016.

Maraval P., Les fils de Constantin: Constantin II (337-340), Constance II (337-361), Constant (337-350), Paris 2013.

Rinaldi G., Antiochia nel secolo quarto: interazioni tra pagani e cristiani e note prosopografiche, SMSR, 81, 2015, 21-69.

Vatin C., Delphes à l’époque impériale, Paris 1965 (Thèse de 3e cycle inédite, soutenue à la Sorbonne le 25 mai 1965, déposée à l’Université).

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit