Acknowledgements. I am indebted to Joyce Reynolds for reading an earlier draft of this paper and suggesting numerous improvements. I have also benefited from discussion of individual points with John Coulston, John Lazenby, and Simon Price. Remaining errors are, of course, my own, as is responsibility for the views expressed. I am grateful to the Research Fund of Newcastle University for contributing towards travelling and other expenses incurred in preparation of this paper.

Abbreviations

Artemis Orthia Dawkins, R. M. (ed.), The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (London 1929)Google Scholar

Bradford Bradford, A. S., A Prosopography of Lacedaemonians from the Death of Alexander the Great, 323 B.C., to the Sack of Sparta by Alaric, A.D. 396 (Munich 1977)Google Scholar

Chrimes Chrimes, K. M. T., Ancient Sparta (Manchester 1949)Google Scholar (reprinted Connecticut 1971)

Groag Groag, E., Die römischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia bis auf Diokletian (Vienna and Leipzig 1939)Google Scholar

Tod Tod, M. N. and Wace, A. J. B., A Catalogue of the Sparta Museum (Oxford 1906)Google Scholar.

Those volumes of the BSA referred to frequently will be cited for the first time in full, but thereafter by their volume number only.

¹ In a book now in preparation, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta and Lakonia, written jointly by Paul Cartledge and myself.

² BSA 80 (1985).

³ For the problem of the date of the CA, see Rubin, Z., Latomus 34 (1975), 430 ff.Google Scholar, who supports Bickermann's argument for 213. Unaware of Rubin's paper, Follet, S., Athènes au II^e et au III^e siècle (Paris 1976) 64–72Google Scholar, after exhaustive examination of the evidence and arguments favoured the traditional date, between March and July 212.

⁴ Hellenica 13 (Paris 1965) 232–4.

⁵ Op. cit. (n. 3) 72–105 (‘Les Aurelii à Athènes’).

⁶ Ibid. 82.

⁷ Ibid. 86.

⁸ Ibid. 83.

⁹ Cf. the remarks of Woodward, , BSA 43 (1948) 242, no. 144Google Scholar, regarding the date of IG v. 1. 144b–C. In fact, the text is independently datable to the period after the CA from its reference to the patronomate of P. Aelius Alcandridas (II): below, p. 284.

¹⁰ See below, p. 271.

¹¹ Woodward, art. cit. (n. g) 255, no. 666, confused this Asclepiades, with the Alexandrian pancratiast M. Aurelius Asclepiades qui et Hermodorus, only once (IG xiv. 1102); for the distinction, see Moretti, L., Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Rome 1953) 230.Google Scholar

¹² Inschriften von Olympia no. 382. For the identification, see Woodward, ibid., following a proposal by M. Fraenkel.

¹³ Below, p. 267–9.

¹⁴ For the text of this inscription, see Delevorrias, , ADelt 24 (1969) B1, 136Google Scholar = AE (1972) 169, no. 570. Identification of the group and photograph: Koumanoudes, S. N., AAA 3 (1970) 260–2.Google Scholar

¹⁵ CIG i. 1355.

¹⁶ IG v. 1. 504, dated by reference to the high priest P. Ulpius Pyrrhus to the Severan period (see below, pp. 279, 283).

¹⁷ Paus. iii. 11. 2. The term βονλή does occur in Spartan inscriptions of Roman date, although its significance is not certain; see, most recently, the discussion of Bradford, A. S., ‘The Synarchia of Roman Sparta’, Chiron 10 (1980) 413–25.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Moretti, op. cit. (n. 11) no. 82 (IGR iv. 1761), 2–9:

The title along with local citizenship, was frequently conferred by Greek cities of this period on successful agonistai: see Ibid. nos. 79. 8–10, 90. 2–7.

¹⁹ Lysippus: IG v. 1. 531, 680. His patronomate was placed c. 170 by Woodward, , BSA 46 (1951) 195, no. 680.Google Scholar

²⁰ IG v. 1. 680.

²¹ See his stemma, ibid.

²² The date for his term as bouagos of c. 165–70 suggested by Chrimes, 443–4, no. 16, on the basis of Kolbe's stemma, is much too early.

²³ Herodian iv. 8. 3: [sc. Caracalla] Macedonians: Cassius Dio lxxvii (lxxviii). 7. 1–2; Herodian iv. 8. 2.

²⁴ Herodian iv. 9. 4: ‘sc. Caracalla’ .

²⁵ BSA 43, 241, no. 130. I note here that an inscription from Caesarea in Cappadocia associated with the Caracallan levy by Grégoire, H., BCH 33 (1909) 63–6, no. 44Google Scholar, probably, after Robert, L., Les Gladiateurs dans l'Orient grec (Paris 1940) 126–8Google Scholar, has to do with gladiators.

²⁶ Below.

²⁷ Below, p. 284.

²⁸ Wolters, P., ‘Ein Denkmal der Partherkriege’, AthMitt 28 (1903) 291–300.Google Scholar No photograph of IG v. 1. 817, now in the National Archaeological Museum (but not on display), seems to have been published, although Walters offered (ibid. 291) a facsimile drawing.

²⁹ Ibid. 297 no. 1.

³⁰ Klio 11 (1911) 358–66.

³¹ To IG v. 1. 817.

³² IG v. 1. 44 = Woodward, BSA 43, 219–33Google Scholar (SEG xi. 486).

³³ Woodward, , BSA 14 (1907–1908) 112–23Google Scholar, followed by Groag, cols. 131–2; Chrimes, 467, assigned them to the ‘late second century’.

³⁴ Cf. the and of lines 2–3. Woodward, 's restoration (BSA 14, 106)Google Scholar, followed by Kolbe in IG, in lines 1–2 of is based on no parallel from Sparta and does not, on the face of it, look very probable.

³⁵ See Schulze, W., Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (1904, reprinted 1966) 360, 424.Google Scholar

³⁶ Kolbe's text of 552 is based on Fourmont's copy; Joyce Reynolds has pointed out that Σ is often misread in transcriptions as E.

³⁷ See below, n. 40.

³⁸ BSA 14, 115, following Boeckh on CIG i. 1341.

³⁹ The first five lines, containing the names of the dedicators, are lacunose in the transcription of Fourmont, who evidently found them hard to read. But line 4 includes and the letters read by Fourmont as in the line above perhaps veil a reference to See above, no. 34.

⁴⁰ These synarchontes and the synarchoi of IG v. 1. 541 have caused some commentators confusion (cf. the explanations of Chrimes 143–4, who did not distinguish the terms of Pratolaus as epimeletes and patronomos; Woodward, , Historia 1 (1950) 621, n. 2Google Scholar; Bradford, , Chiron 10 (1980) 414Google Scholar, with n. 11). They were the two sets of colleagues of the patronomoi Lycurgus and Pratolaus respectively. The same number of colleagues (six) were attached to two Antonine patronomoi and called (SEG xi. 503); elsewhere these colleagues of the patronomos are called synpatronomoi (SEG xi. 499. 10–12: SEG xi. 500. 3: ) and on at least one other occasion they are found honouring their senior colleague, the eponymous patronomos (IG v. 1. 515 (mid-Antonine): This Xenarchidas was simultaneously patronomos (cf. IG v. 1. 39. 30) and gymnasiarch). The third reference to the patronomate of Pratolaus (IV) is IG v. 1. 311 = Artemis Orthia 332, no. 66.

⁴¹ See Spawforth II.

⁴² BSA 14, 121.

⁴³ Above, p. 271.

⁴⁴ Groag, cols. 131–2.

⁴⁵ Above, p. 269. Lycinus apart, the only other participant attested at Sparta following his return home was a public slave, (IG v. 1. 116. 17), whose status clearly had not been altered by two periods of campaigning against the Parthians.

⁴⁶ ILS 1166; cf. PIR ² E 31; Barbieri, G., L'Albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (Rome 1952) 51, no. 205.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ ILS 1167; cf. PIR ² E 30. Groag, cols. 131–2, assigned the corrector tentatively to the reign of Severus and left open the question of his identification. Barbieri, Ibid. (n. 46), preferred to identify him with Q. Egnatius Proculus.

⁴⁸ ‘Egnatius Proculus, consul suffect en 219?’, ZPE 13 (1974) 77–8, republishing CIL viii. 20709.

⁴⁹ Refs. above, p. 270.

⁵⁰ IG v. 1. 545.

⁵¹ IG v. 1. 547 and BSA 29 (1927–8) 34–5, no. 57.

⁵² Further on the family of Pratolaus (VII) see Spawforth II.

⁵³ IG v. 1. 305 = Artemis Orthia 333–4, no. 69 and 556; SEG xi. 803. For the family of Alcandridas, see Spawforth II.

⁵⁴ Inschriften von Olympia no. 238.

⁵⁵ IG v. 1. 665 = Robert, L., RÉA 31 (1929) 13–19Google Scholar = Woodward, , BSA 29 (1927–1928) 41–3, no. 65Google Scholar (SEG xi. 831).

⁵⁶ If this reasoning is correct, in line 3 should perhaps be amended to

⁵⁷ Art. cit. (n. 55) 43.

⁵⁸ IG v. 1, p. xvii, lines 123–4; SEG xi. 831.

⁵⁹ Moretti, L., Olympionikai. I vincitori negli antichi agoni Olympici (Rome 1957) 171–2, nos. 917, 920.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Bideos: IG v. 1. 556, 682 (SEG xi. 844). Patronomos and high priest: below, pp. 279, 284.

⁶¹ Woodward, , BSA 43, 246–8Google Scholar (SEG xi. 633) and IG v. 1. 682 (SEG xi. 844) 3–5, where Kolbe had restored

⁶² Above, p. 265.

⁶³ IG v. 1. 539, 540 (SEG xi. 797).

⁶⁴ Wilhelm, A., SDAW (1913) 858–63.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Groag, cols. 84–6 (‘Drittes Jahrhundert (erstes Drittel?)’); Barbieri, op. cit. (n. 46) 362–3, no. 2071, with 379, no. 2156 (‘prima metà del III sec., forse nel primo trentennio’ (following Groag)).

⁶⁶ Wilhelm, art. cit. (n. 64) 863.

⁶⁷ Groag, col. 86.

⁶⁸ For other cases of Spartan cives taking ‘Aurelius’ as an additional or alternative nomen see IG v. 1. 551, honouring Γά. Ἀσίννιον Λεωνίδην Λέοντος Αὐρ. Ἀσιννίου Λέοντος σειτώνου πατέρα and IG v. 1. 600 (SEG xi. 815), in honour of Αὐρηλίαν Φορτουνᾶταν Συλλίου Ξένωνος θυγατέρα. The onomastic practise of taking ‘Aurelius’ as a second nomen is reported from other parts of the Roman Empire and is ‘impressively common’ in the Roman army, where it has been connected with the CA and interpreted as ‘a mark of loyalty’ to Caracalla: see Gilliam, J. F., Historia 14 (1965) 89.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Groag, col. 85.

⁷⁰ Above, p. 267.

⁷¹ Wilhelm, art. cit. (n. 64) 863.

⁷² Above.

⁷³ For Sex. Pompeius Damaenetus, see below, p. 288.

⁷⁴ PIR ² I 451.

⁷⁵ In line 15 Wilhelm, A., SO suppl. xiii (1950) 13Google Scholar, corrected the restoration proposed by Wilamowitz and adopted by Kolbe, to The honorand as patronomos is likely to have been a mature adult; perhaps rather than Kolbe's should be restored in lines 13–14.

⁷⁶ CIG i. 1409 (IG v. I, p. 332, s.v.

⁷⁷ Groag, cols. 86–7 (whence the entry in Barbieri, op. cit. (n. 46) 379, no. 2156), a view later modified in his Die Reichsbeamten von Achaia in spätrömischer Zeit (1940) 7. In SEG xi. 797 Charisius is taken to be a man's name; Bradford, s.v. (9), misunderstood the poem to mean that Spartiaticus set up a statue (sic) of his daughter Charision.

⁷⁸ I am grateful to Joyce Reynolds for pointing out the occurrence of this name at Aphrodisias (in a third-century-AD context): Reynolds, J. (ed.), Aphrodisias and Rome (London 1982) 131–2Google Scholar, no. 20. 8

⁷⁹ On this family, see Spawforth II.

⁸⁰ IG v. 1. 493 (mid second century).

⁸¹ IG v. 1. 558–9, discussed below, p. 280. In both the name of the dedicator, probably the city, is missing.

⁸² Paus. iii. 11. 4, records ναοί of Caesar and Augustus in the agora at Sparta.

⁸³ The Augustan dynast C. Iulius Eurycles, an ancestor of Herculanus, perhaps introduced the cult to Sparta. The attempt of Chrimes, 192–6, to argue from their coinage that Eurycles and his son, the dynast Laco, were imperial high priests has not found acceptance: see Woodward, , Historia 1 (1950) 622Google Scholar; Momigliano, A.RSI 62 (1950) 283Google Scholar; Bowersock, G. W., JRS 51 (1961) 112 n. 8.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Spawforth, , BSA 73 (1978) 251–2.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Spawforth, , BSA 73 (1978) 251–2.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ I would be less inclined than Chrimes, 202, to place weight on the evident absence of in the priestly title of Alcastus in IG v. 1. 59, which perhaps is no more than a lapidary omission.

⁸⁷ IG v. 1. 112 (SEG xi. 587) 7 and 111 = SEG xi. 584. 9; SEG xi. 585. 7–8.

⁸⁸ If the high priest Alcastus is indeed the ensitos IG v. 1. 116. 14, as Premerstein, von, Klio II (1911) 362Google Scholar, believed, then he was still alive after the Parthian war of L. Verus in 163–6 (cf. IG v. 1. 116. 18). But there is no reason why the ensitos should not be the homonymous nephew of Alcastus, C. Pomponius Alcastus (II), of IG v. 1. 494 (on this family, see Spawforth II).

⁸⁹ BSA (1923–5) 221–2 (SEG xi. 841).

⁹⁰ Above, p. 263.

⁹¹ In IG Kolbe printed although the particle τε otherwise never recurs in this way in the titulature of the imperial high priest.

⁹² For a discussion of this family of Tib. Claudii, see now Spawforth II.

⁹³ Spawforth II.

⁹⁴ Spawforth II.

⁹⁵ Mamius Leontas: above, p. 270. For the family of Damocratidas, see Spawforth II.

⁹⁶ Agoranomos: above, p. 273. Family: Spawforth II.

⁹⁷ Spawforth II.

⁹⁸ BSA 26, 212–13.

⁹⁹ Cf. LSJ⁹ s.v. Cf. too IG v. I. 593, of a deceased Spartan woman. The names and titles of M. Aurelius Philippus were also restored by Woodward, , BSA 43, 256–7Google Scholar, in IG v. 1. 685 (SEG xi. 845).

¹⁰⁰ Above, n. 68.

¹⁰¹ Woodward, BSA 30, 213Google Scholar, commented on the similarity of their lettering, although it is unclear whether he did so on the basis of autopsy. The two herms are of the same thickness, 0·25, and of similar breadth, 0·29 (IG v. 1. 558) and 0·26 (IG v. 1. 559): see Tod 48, no. 243, and 70, no. 544. In both, is abbreviated to ΑΞ. Onasicrates is called Eudamus

¹⁰² Woodward, , BSA 30, 212–14.Google Scholar Chrimes 474, 7, dated Eudamus to c. 240 by relating him to ‘descendants of the Dioscuri’ in other Spartan families; but Woodward has made clear, BSA 30, 212 and 223–5, that ‘descent from the Dioscuri is of no value for the purpose of identifying contemporary generations of different families at Sparta’.

¹⁰³ BSA 30, 212–14.

¹⁰⁴ BSA 30, 214, no. 3 (SEG xi. 850); note especially the form of omega (W) in both: BSA 30, 210, fig. 20 and 218, fig. 21, no. 56.

¹⁰⁵ The date is that given in Jones, A. H. M.et al., Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire i (Cambridge 1971) s.v. ‘Stephanus 4’.Google Scholar Two doubtful high priests may here be noted. (1) IG v. 1. 595, where Fourmont's transcription of the stone (evidently hard to read) preserved [……], Kolbe restored (2) In IG v. 1. 137, a catalogue of bideoi from the patronomate of C. Iulius Lampis, the senior bideos is listed as which Kolbe (IG v. 1. p. 302) restored as this text too is known only from Fourmont's transcription.

¹⁰⁶ See Hasebroek, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus (Heidelberg 1921) 88–92Google Scholar; Birley, A., Septimius Severus (London 1971) 184–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On ancestors in the official styles of Severus and Commodus, see too Hammond, M., MAAR 25 (1957) 57–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Nesselhauf, H.Historia-Augusta-Colloquium Bonn 7963 (Bonn 1964) 88–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ There are occasional signs of confusion in the provinces over the correct style of members of the Severan dynasty—e.g. in Egypt, where papyri dated 221/2 refer to Elagabalus and his Caesar, Alexander Severus, as Bureth, P., Les Titulatures impériales dans les papyri (Brussels 1964) 107Google Scholar (I am grateful to John Rea for this reference).

¹⁰⁹ IG v. 1. 684. Date: above, p. 265.

¹¹⁰ IG v. 1. 32b, 3–6, corrected by Woodward, , BSA 43, 215 (SEG xi. 477).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See Hammond, Ibid. (n. 106).

¹¹² Among Kolbe's list, the patronomoi Cossaeus, Panthales, Longinus, Agathocles, and M. Aristocrates were assigned by Chrimes, 463–70, to the Antonine period. Kolbe's ‘ghost’ patronomoi (the last three on his list) arose from the old and now outdated view that synephebes were attached to patronomoi.

¹¹³ Above, p. 265.

¹¹⁴ Above, p. 272.

¹¹⁵ Above, p. 273.

¹¹⁶ Above, p. 273.

¹¹⁷ Above, p. 265.

¹¹⁸ Spawforth II.

¹¹⁹ Above, p. 273.

¹²⁰ Above, p. 268.

¹²¹ Above, pp. 265–7.

¹²² Spawforth II. The text discussed above (pp. 267–9), IG v. 1. 130 (SEG xi. 603), where it is dated c. 217–20, is dated by an unknown patronomate of Lycurgus—perhaps the fourth or the fifth.

¹²³ Above, pp. 276–7.

¹²⁴ Tod 46–7, no. 238.

¹²⁵ BCH 1 (1876) 384, no. 12.

¹²⁶ Joyce Reynolds pointed out this possibility.

¹²⁷ See Mason, H. J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto 1974) 92.Google Scholar Other Spartans with this privilege: IG v. 1. 586. 3–4 (Memmia Xenocrateia); 589. 5–6 and 608. 1–2 (both referring to Claudia Damostheneia; 596 (Antonia Eudamia). The first two are independently attested as mothers of three (or more) children: see Spawforth II.

¹²⁸ Ἀρχηΐς, IG 1. 586–7Google Scholar; priestess of the Dioscureia: IG v. 1. 602.

¹²⁹ On P. Memmius Longinus see Spawforth II.

¹³⁰ IG v. 1. 586–7 (of the Hyacinthia).

¹³¹ IG v. 1. 559. 7–13.

¹³² Above, n. 131 (Dioscureia and Leonideia); IG v. 1. 32b. 8–10 (Urania).

¹³³ Robert, L., RPh (1929) 140–2Google Scholar: Charneux, P., BCH 80 (1956) 612 no. 2.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ IG v. 1. 65. 25–6.

¹³⁵ Hepding, H., RE 8. 2 (1913) cols. 1490–6.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ West, A. B., Corinth VIII. 2. Latin Inscriptions (Cambridge Mass. 1931)Google Scholar no. 81, and Kent, H., Corinth VIII. 3. The Inscriptions 1926–1950 (Princeton 1966) no. 156.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Cf., at Sparta, the catalogues of tribal ball-players (sphaireis) headed by the names (in the genitive case, dependent on ἐπί) of the senior bideos, whose board supervised the ephebic games (Paus. iii. 11. 2), and the tribal diabetes, closely concerned with his tribe's team of ball-players (cf. SEG xi. 493. 2–3): IG v. 1, 676, 680. Further afield, note the names in the genitive case of the agonothetes and hellanodikai which head the Isthmian victorlists of imperial date: e.g. Biers, W. and Geagan, D., Hesperia 30 (1970) 79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meritt, B. D., Corinth VIII. 1. Greek Inscriptions (Cambridge, Mass. 1913)Google Scholar nos. 15 + 18 = Spawforth, , GRBS 15 (1974) 297–9Google Scholar; Kent, op. cit. (n. 136), no. 223; also the list of agonistic officials, again in the genitive case, which may have headed an Argive victor-list of imperial date: Charneux, P., BCH 80 (1956) 604–10, no. vi.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Woodward, , BSA 26, 210–11, no. 9 (SEG xi. 627).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Above, p. 275.

¹⁴⁰ For Dexter, see Spawforth II.

¹⁴¹ IG v. 1. 324 = Artemis Orthia 336, no. 74.

¹⁴³ IG v. 1. 209. 17.

¹⁴² IG v. 1. 464; see Spawforth II.

¹⁴⁴ Above, p. 275.