HADRIAN AND THE GREEK EAST:
IMPERIAL POLICY AND COMMUNICATION
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of the Ohio State University
By
Demetrios Kritsotakis, B.A, M.A.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University
2008
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Professor Fritz Graf, Adviser
Professor Tom Hawkins
____________________________
Professor Anthony Kaldellis Adviser
Greek and Latin Graduate Program
Copyright by
Demetrios Kritsotakis
2008
ii
ABSTRACT
The Roman Emperor Hadrian pursued a policy of unification of the vast
Empire. After his accession, he abandoned the expansionist policy of his predecessor
Trajan and focused on securing the frontiers of the empire and on maintaining its
stability. Of the utmost importance was the further integration and participation in his
program of the peoples of the Greek East, especially of the Greek mainland and Asia
Minor. Hadrian now invited them to become active members of the empire. By his
lengthy travels and benefactions to the people of the region and by the creation of the
Panhellenion, Hadrian attempted to create a second center of the Empire. Rome, in the
West, was the first center; now a second one, in the East, would draw together the
Greek people on both sides of the Aegean Sea. Thus he could accelerate the
unification of the empire by focusing on its two most important elements, Romans
and Greeks.
Hadrian channeled his intentions in a number of ways, including the use of
specific iconographical types on the coinage of his reign and religious language and
themes in his interactions with the Greeks. In both cases it becomes evident that the
Greeks not only understood his messages, but they also reacted in a positive way.
Thus an exchange of ideas began between emperor and the Greeks and helped him
advance his program. By the medium of coinage and religion, Hadrian placed himself
in the heart of the Greek world, its history and culture. At the same time, he remained
loyal to Roman traditions and imperial ideology. As a result, the emperor succeeded
iii
in his plans: the participation of the Greek people in his imperial program, the
creation of two imperial centers, and, finally, the unification of the Empire.
iv
Όσο µπορείς
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank my advisor, Fritz Graf, for his intellectual guidance and his
support in all areas of this project, for his tireless efforts to improve my style and his
openness in discussions. He is a treasure of knowledge to me.
I would like to thank Anthony Kaldellis for his invaluable comments, which
are always sharp and insightful, on the various drafts of my dissertation.
I also thank Tom Hawkins for his comments and encouragement. Through our
many conversations he helped me improve my text and taught me how to write at this
level.
I also wish to thank Mrs Sophia Kremmyde of the National Hellenic Research
Foundation and Mr Volker Heuchert of the Ashmolean Museum for their
unconditional assistance in gathering my numismatic evidence.
My sincere thanks go to Mrs Wendy Watkins and Mr Phil Forsythe of the
Center for Epigraphical and Palaeographical Studies, as well as Mrs Mary Cole,
former administrative associate at the Department of Greek and Latin, for their
support and willingness to listen and advise.
I would like also to thank my family in Greece, whose love, support, and
understanding have made it possible for me to pursue my studies.
vi
To my Stavroula I owe a lot. Her cheerfulness, patience, and intellectual
conversation helped me succeed. Her love has made me a better person. Thank you
more than I can say.
Finally, I wish to thank my father, Nikos, for giving me the strength and
decisiveness I needed to write this dissertation. He lived with dignity and by his
example I live.
vii
VITA
August 25, 1971 …………………………. Born – Athens, Greece
1996 ……………………………………… B.A Archaeology, University of Crete
2002 ……………………………………… M.A Classics, The Ohio State University
2000 – present …………………………… Graduate Teaching and Research
Associate, The Ohio State University
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Greek and Latin
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract.....................................................................................................................ii
Dedication................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................v
Vita .........................................................................................................................vii
List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................x
Chapters:
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................1
2. Hadrian and the Greek East: realities and expectations..................................18
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................18
2.2 Greeks and Roman in the Empire ...........................................................20
2.2.1 Political views and expectations in the works of the Second
Sophistic...........................................................................................22
2.3 Hadrian’s Adventus ................................................................................31
2.3.1 Hadrian’s involvement in the life of the East............................33
2.3.2 Hadrian’s vision for the Greek East..........................................38
2.4 The Panhellenion....................................................................................40
2.4.1 Foundation of the Panhellenion................................................41
2.4.2 Membership of the Panhellenion..............................................44
2.4.3 Administration and responsibilities of the Panhellenion ...........48
2.4.4 The impact of the Panhellenion................................................51
2.5 Summary................................................................................................59
3. Hadrian and his audience ..............................................................................62
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................62
3.2 Hadrian’s travels ....................................................................................64
3.3 Imperial journeys ...................................................................................71
3.4 Hadrian and his Greek subjects...............................................................76
3.4.1 Elites and Hadrian....................................................................79
3.4.1.1 Participation in local administration...........................80
3.4.1.2 Relief from economic burdens of office.....................85
3.4.1.3 Entry to the Senate ....................................................89
3.4.2 The πολλοί...............................................................................94
3.5 Summary................................................................................................98
ix
4. Coinage and Hadrian’s program.................................................................. 101
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 101
4.2 Mint organization................................................................................. 103
4.3 Greek mints and central authority......................................................... 107
4.3.1 Organization.......................................................................... 107
4.3.2 Mints and Rome..................................................................... 110
4.4 Hadrian’s policy as reflected on coinage............................................... 114
4.4.1 Hadrian, the son of Trajan...................................................... 116
4.4.2 Hadrian and saeculum aureum............................................... 118
4.4.3 Hadrian and Roman past........................................................ 121
4.4.4 Hadrian and Greece: past and present..................................... 129
4.4.5 Hadrian Olympios.................................................................. 133
4.4.6 Hadrian’s “Virtues” series...................................................... 138
4.4.7 The series of the Provinces .................................................... 143
4.4.7.1 The Adventus type ................................................... 143
4.4.7.2 The Restitutor type.................................................. 145
4.4.7.3 The Exercitus type................................................... 147
4.4.7.4 The Province type ................................................... 148
4.4.8 The “Universal” series ........................................................... 150
4.5 Scene and legend selection................................................................... 152
4.6 Summary.............................................................................................. 158
5. The language of religion in Hadrian’s politics............................................. 161
5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 161
5.2 Hadrian and divine election.................................................................. 164
5.3 The 13th
god of Greece ......................................................................... 169
5.3.1 Hadrian as a neos theos.......................................................... 171
5.4 Hadrian and the divine ......................................................................... 186
5.4.1 Hadrian and divine knowledge............................................... 187
5.4.2 The art of the occult............................................................... 190
5.5 Consolidating traditions........................................................................ 196
5.5.1 The cult of Dea Roma............................................................ 197
5.5.2 Hadrian Zeus, son of Trajan Jupiter ....................................... 206
5.6 Summary.............................................................................................. 217
6. Conclusion.................................................................................................. 221
Bibliography.......................................................................................................... 226
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AJA American Journal of Archaeology, New York 1897AJP
American Journal of Philology, Baltimore 1880AnnEph
L'Année épigraphique; revue des publications
épigraphiques relatives a l'antiquité romaine, Paris
1888ANRW
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Berlin
1972ANSMN
Museum Notes, American Numismatic Society, New
York 1945AnsSoc
Ancient Society, Louvain 1970BCH
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Athens, Paris
1877BMC
Poole R.S. et alii, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the
British Museum, volumes 1-29, London 1873-1927.
BMCRE Mattingly H. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British
Museum, London 1923EA
Epigraphica Anatolica, Bonn 1983CID
Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes. 4 vols, Paris 1977CIG
Corpus inscriptionum graecarum, 4 vols, Berlin 1828-
1877
CIL Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin 1862CIRB
Struve I., Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani,
Moscow 1965
CJ The Classical Journal, Gainesville 1905CP
Classical Philology, Chicago 1906-
xi
CR The Classical Review, London 1887EA
Epigraphica Anatolica, Bonn 1983FD
III Fouilles de Delphes. Tome III, Epigraphie, Paris 1909GRBS
Greek Roman and Byzantine studies, Cambridge, Mass.
1959HSCPh
Harvard studies of classical philology, Cambridge,
Mass. 1890IDidyma
Wiegand T., Didyma 2: Die Inschriften, Berlin 1958
IEphesos Wankel H., Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Bonn 1979IErythrai
Engelmann H. and Merkelbach R., Die Inschriften von
Erythrai und Klazomenai, Bonn 1972
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1873IGR
Cagnat R. et alii (edd.) Inscriptiones graecae ad res
romanas pertinentes, Paris 1901-1927
IKourion Mitford T.B.. The Inscriptions of Kourion. Memoirs
of the American Philosophical Society 83, Philadelphia
1971
IKSestos Krauss J., Die Inschriften von Sestos und der
thrakischen Chersones. Inschriften griechischer Städte
aus Kleinasien 19, Bonn 1980
IGUR Moretti L., Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae. 4 vols. in
5 parts. Rome 1968-1990
ILS Dessau H., Inscriptiones latinae selectae, Berlin 1892-
1916
IMagnesia Kern O., Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander,
Berlin 1900
IosPE Latyshev V., Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis
Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, 3 vols. St. Petersburg
1885-1901. Vol. 1, 2nd edn., Inscriptiones Tyriae,
Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae, St. Petersburg 1916
xii
IScM II Stoian I., Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris
antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris
graecae et latinae. Vol. 2. Tomis et territorium,
Bucharest 1987.
ISmyrna Petzl G., Die Inschriften von Smyrna, Bonn 1982ITralleis
Poljakov F.B., Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa.
Teil I: Die Inschriften von Tralleis, Bonn 1989
IvP Fränkel M., Die Inschriften von Pergamon 2 vols,
Berlin 1890-1895
IvP III Habicht C., Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Mit einem
Beitrag von Michael Wörrle. “Altertümer von
Pergamon” 8.3, Berlin 1969
JHS The Journal of Hellenic studies, London 1880JNG
Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, Munich
1949JRA
Journal of Roman archaeology, Ann Arbor 1988JRS
The Journal of Roman studies, London 1911MAMA
6 Buckler W. H. and Calder W.M., Monuments and
Documents from Phrygia and Caria. «Monumenta Asiae
Minoris Antiqua» [MAMA] 6, Manchester 1939
MDAI(A) Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,
Athenische Abteilung, Athens 1921MonAnt
Monumenti antichi, Milan 1889NumChr
The Numismatic Chronicle, 7th ser., London 1961PCPhS
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society,
London 1882REG
Revue des études grecques, Paris 1888RPC
Burnett A.M., Amandry M., Ripollès P.P., Roman
provincial coinage, London 1998SEG
Supplementum epigraphicum graecum, Amsterdam
1923SNG
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, 1931-
xiii
TAM II Kallinka E., Tituli Lyciae linguis Graeca et Latina
conscripti, Vienna 1920-1944
TAM IV,1 Dörner F.K., Tituli Asiae Minoris, IV. Tituli Bithyniae
linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti, 1. Paeninsula
Bithynica
praeter Chalcedonem. Nicomedia et ager Nicomedensis
cum septentrionali meridianoque litore sinus Astaceni et
cum lacu Sumonensi, Vienna 1978
TAM V Hermann P., Tituli Asiae Minoris, V. Tituli Lydiae,
linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti, 2 vols. Vienna 1981
and 1989
TAPhA Transactions of the American Philological Association,
Chico 1974ZPE
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bonn 1967-
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The subject of this dissertation is the imperial program of the Roman emperor
Hadrian for the Greek East with particular focus on the regions of Asia Minor and the
Greek mainland. I will discuss what the emperor’s program was, to whom did he
address it, and how he advertised it, by examining evidence from coinage and the
sphere of religion.
Varius multiplex multiformis1
, Hadrian attracted by his actions and personality
the attention of contemporary and later authors. Publius Aelius Hadrianus succeeded
his adoptive father, Emperor Trajan, in A.D 1172
and reigned until his death on 10
July 138. He was notorious for his many interests and inquisitiveness. The emperor
was interested in oratory, philosophy, literature, and aspired to possess knowledge of
almost every art. He showed particular interest in architecture and adorned the cities
of the empire with all kinds of buildings, from harbors to aqueducts, from libraries
and baths to temples and gymnasia.
In the 21 years of his reign, Hadrian tirelessly engaged in the administration of
the vast empire and, in his frequent and lengthy journeys, surveyed all of its
provinces. Hadrian followed a non-expansion policy and his reign was marked by a
general lack of major military conflicts, apart from the Second Roman-Jewish War.
1
Epitome de Caesaribus 14.6.
2
Unless otherwise stated, all dates are A.D.
2
The peace policy was further strengthened by the erection of permanent
fortifications along the empire's borders, such as the British Wall and the fortifications
along the Rhine frontier. To maintain morale and keep the troops from getting restive,
Hadrian established intensive drill routines and personally inspected the armies.
Among the most important aspects of his program was the cancellation of
some 900,000,000 sesterces of debt to the public treasury which gained him public
favor. He continued and expanded Trajan’s practice of the alimenta, which supported
the local economy and helped maintain orphans in Italy. He also ensured that the
grain supply upon which Rome depended became more secure with his great building
program in Ostia. His most significant legal achievement was the codification of the
praetorian and aedilician edicts. This task was assigned to Salvius Julianus, who put
together these edicts. This work has been lost, but many excerpts made by
commentators upon it have survived in Justinian's Digesta.
Of particular significance were the relations that he established with the
people of the Greek East. The Graeculus, as he was ironically called3
, became an
ardent friend of the Greek people and displayed his interest in a number of
benefactions to cities and individuals alike. Before his accession to the throne Hadrian
had visited Greece and during his residence at Athens he served as the eponymous
archon of the city in 112. From 123, when he first visited the Greek provinces as
emperor, to 134, when he returned to Rome from his last tour, Hadrian contributed to
the renaissance of mainland Greece and Asia Minor more than any of his predecessors
had. His benefactions included, among others, public works for the betterment of life
in the cities, such as aqueducts, roads, baths; restoration and construction of temples;
monetary gifts to sanctuaries and associations; and revision of local laws. The
3
HA Hadrian I.5.
3
inscriptions, dedications and public documents such as decrees set up in the Greek
cities in unparallel number, reveal the gratitude of the people to a Roman emperor
who not only respected and promoted their rich culture, but also showed by his
actions that he intended for them to be active members of the empire.
A serious difficulty for the student of Hadrian is the insufficient literary
evidence. Our major sources are Dio Cassius’ Roman History and the Historia
Augusta. Each presents its own problems.
Dio Cassius was born between ca. 155 and 163/164 at Nicaea. He was the son
of Cassius Apronianus, a Roman senator. He too became senator under Commodus
and governor of Smyrna after the death of Septimius Severus and afterwards suffect
consul around 222. He was also proconsul in Africa and Pannonia. Alexander Severus
made him his consul again in 229 as consul ordinarius. He died sometime after 229.
Dio composed his History in 80 books in Rome probably during the 210-220s
to cover events from Rome’s foundation to his own day. His narration of Hadrian’s
reign survives mainly in the discontinuous and selected epitome of Xiphilinus, a
scholar at Constantinople in the eleventh century. Whether there were any formal
histories of the reign or biographies which Dio consulted remains a mystery. A
number of possible influences have been suggested, such as Dio’s contemporary
Marius Maximus or Asinius Quadratus, who wrote a Roman History, but nothing is
certain4
. Fergus Millar has also suggested that Dio compiled much of his information
from stories circulating among Rome’s elite, perhaps augmenting his narrative with
copies of Hadrian’s reports to the Senate5
. Dio refers twice to Hadrian as a source
(66.17.1, 69.11.2), once to a letter written by Hadrian (69.17.3; see also 69.2.4 and
4
See discussion in Millar (1964) 61ff.
5
Millar (1964) 61-72.
4
69.2.6), once he refers to Plotina’s rather than Trajan’s letter to the senate on
Hadrian’s adoption (69.1.4) and once to the “truthful” account of the death of Trajan,
which Dio’s father had heard as governor of Cilicia (69.1.3).
The text that has survived is a brief account of Hadrian’s life focusing on
certain events (such as Hadrian’s inspection of the army, inauguration of the
Olympeion, the Jewish War), his interactions with Roman aristocrats and intellectuals
and his character and moral values. Dio’s treatment of Hadrian is difficult to evaluate
from this epitome. However, a general trait that has been observed is a general
hostility to the emperor which must be attributed to the fact that Dio as a member of
the Senate expresses senatorial feelings in his work. In fact, it has been noted that Dio
makes the relations of the emperors with the senate a central idea in his history of the
empire6
. Regarding his account of Hadrian, we know that the Senate was alarmed by
various events. Not only the killings that occurred in Hadrian’s early reign, but also
the idiosyncrasies of the emperor, the abandonment of provinces conquered by his
predecessor, his Philhellenic stance, and the affair with Antinoos could have damaged
Hadrian’s image at Rome and generated hostility among the senators. Although
limited in the amount of information it offers (names, numbers, and exact dates are
often omitted and geographical details are scanty) and despite Dio’s senatorial bias,
his account of Hadrian’s reign remains in general trustworthy when we check it
against other sources.
The biography of the emperor in the Historia Augusta is more problematic.
The Historia Augusta is the conventional title given to a number of biographies of
Roman emperors, their heirs, and usurpers from Hadrian to Carinus (A.D. 283-285).
The Historia Augusta raises a number of questions: who the author(s) was, when was
6
See E. Cary’s introduction to Loeb’s edition, p. XVIff.
5
it written, did the original text undergo later changes, what was its purpose, what its
sources were and what is the veracity of the many literary references and
documentary quotations in the text? These are questions that puzzle scholars and a
number of possible, though not definite answers have been given7
. In what concerns
us here, the overall picture of the Historia Augusta created reliability problems which
are seen in Hadrian’s biography as well. It is unknown what the sources of Hadrian’s
Vita were. Two sources mentioned in the text are Hadrian’s autobiography and
Marius Maximus. We know that the emperor wrote his autobiography probably
towards the end of his life8
. Dio Cassius and the Historia Augusta quote from it9
. The
Historia Augusta claims that the autobiography was published under a freedman’s
name10
.
Marius Maximus has been identified with Lucius Marius Maximus Perpetuus
Aurelianus, born in ca. 155. He became senator under Commodus and held a number
of offices, among them governor of Gallia Belgica in 197, suffect consul probably in
199, governor of Coele-Syria in 208 and a few years later he became the first exconsul
ever to hold both the proconsulship of Asia and that of Africa in succession.
He also served as City Prefect in 217 and held a second consulship in 223 as
colleague of Alexander Severus. He wrote a series of biographies of twelve Roman
emperors, of which none survives. He is quoted as direct authority for four statements
in the Life of Hadrian (2.10;14.2;20.3;25.4) and for two in Aelius’ life (3.9; 5.4-5).
However, his authority is contested and scholars treat his quotations with skepticism.
7
With regard to its authorship, it has been suggested that the biographies were written by a single
person toward the end of the fourth century. The idea was first expressed by Hermann Dessau in his
article “Über Zeit und Persönlichkeit der Scriptor Historiae Augustae”, Hermes 24 (1889) 337-392.
The idea has found support among scholars such as Ronald Syme in his Ammianus and the Historia
Augusta (Oxford, 1968) and Emperors and Biography (Oxford, 1973), but the issue is not entirely
resolved yet.
8
See the interesting study on imperial autobiography by Lewis (1993).
9
Dio Cassius: 66.17.1; 69.11.2. HA: I.1; III.2-3; III.5; VII.2.
10
HA XVI.1
6
As in every person’s biography in the Historia Augusta, Hadrian’s life is
presented in the following form: ancestry, life previous to his accession to the throne,
policy and events of his reign, personal traits, death, personal appearance, honors after
death. The author follows a chronological narration in general and pays special
attention to Hadrian’s personal characteristics, habits, manner of administration and
program, and relations with individuals. In this respect the work is invaluable, as it
provides a wealth of detailed information, which must always be compared against
other sources for verification. In my opinion, this wealth of information, far larger
than what Dio provides, is the merit of the work. On the other hand, although Mary
Boatwright argues that Hadrian’s biography is one of the most veracious in the
Historia Augusta11
, the scholar must always be aware of important flaws in the text.
Inaccuracies, contradictions and events that seem to be the author’s invention or
popular imagination are frequent in the text12
.
Such is the state of the two main literary sources for Hadrian’s reign. I must
underline here the fact that the problems in these sources will not affect my argument
because this study will not rely on those aspects of these sources that are most
problematic, only on their general outline of the history of the reign, which is not
controversial.
Apart from these two works a little may be gleaned from the fourth-century
chroniclers Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Festus and the unknown author of the Epitome
de Caesaribus. The work De Physiognomonia by the sophist Polemon of Smyrna
provides some insight into Hadrian’s travels in the East and his personal appearance.
Other sources, such as Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists, Athenaeus’
11
Boatwright (2000) 21.
12
For example the confusion over the names of Pius’ two adopted sons in XXIV.1, or the
contradictions regarding Hadrian’s treatment of Heliodorus in XV.5 and XVI.10.
7
Deipnosophistae, or Pausanias’ Periegesis report events related to the emperor, but
the material they provide can only be used to supplement the two biographies.
The scholar needs to look elsewhere to confirm the scanty literary evidence of
Hadrian’s reign. Such information can be obtained from the vast number of
epigraphic texts from all over the empire, Hadrian’s rescripts preserved in legal texts,
and the numerous building activities. The emperor spent most of his reign traveling
throughout the empire, and his interactions with locals are attested by the variety of
inscriptions set up. Imperial proclamations and edicts; his correspondence with cities;
responses to petitions; general orders to governors or legates; speeches before the
armies; building inscriptions; dedications on his behalf and to him, all are reflected in
the rich epigraphic corpus that informs us of his whereabouts and interactions with
cities and individuals. As there is no a single published corpus of Hadrianic
inscriptions the scholar has to consult publications of texts in a number of
monographs and journals. Special attention has been given to Hadrian’s
correspondence and modern scholars have made attempts to collect the available
material. James Oliver’s Greek Constitutions (Philadelphia 1989) and Fernando
Martin’s La documentacion Griega de la cancilleria del emperador Adriano
(Pamplona 1982) can be a starting point. Paul Alexander’s article Letters and
Speeches of the Emperor Hadrian is useful in this respect as well13
.
Of particular usefulness are a number of online databases that provide a vast
number of epigraphic texts for the scholar to consult and search. Such projects have
been undertaken by the Packard Humanities Institute with special focus on Greek
inscriptions (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions). Also the research project of
13
Alexander (1938). E.M. Smallwood’s Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva Trajan and
Hadrian (Cambridge 1966) remains an invaluable source.
8
the Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften focuses on the collection of Latin
inscriptions (http://www.epigraphische-datenbank-heidelberg.de).
Legal texts are also of the utmost importance as they give us a picture of the
legislative program of Hadrian through rescripts and court decisions. This information
has been mainly preserved in Justinian’s Digesta. Papyri can also contribute to our
understanding of Hadrian’s administration of Egypt and preserve legal decisions as
well as land surveys. Hadrian’s involvement in the life of the cities can also be seen in
the large number of building projects throughout the empire. These have been well
studied by Mary Boatwright and Trudie Fraser as we will see below. The coinage of
the period, both imperial and provincial, can provide useful information for the study
of Hadrian’s imperial program, the provinces’ conditions and the finances of the
empire. The scholar is invited to consult the BMCRE and BMC series as well as
special corpora, such as Metcalf’s study of the cistophori of Asia Minor in Hadrian’s
reign14
. Finally the much anticipated second volume of the Roman Provincial Coinage
will contribute much to Hadrianic studies as it focuses on the provincial coinage of
Hadrian’s reign.
Thus a number of ancient sources can help scholars to recreate the picture of
the Empire in Hadrian’s reign. The scholar has to remember, though, that the state of
evidence is such as to require parallel consultation of different sources in order to gain
the most accurate picture.
In addition, a number of modern studies have contributed to our knowledge of
the life and accomplishments of Hadrian. The most recent biography of the emperor
was published by Antony Birley in 1997 and aspired to fill a gap in scholarship. As
14
Metcalf (1980).
9
Birley said, “Hadrian has long needed a new biography.”15
Indeed, the last biography
was that by B.W. Henderson in 1923. A brief look at Henderson’s work will reveal its
merits and flaws.
Henderson’s biography was arranged in two parts, the first, a narration in
chronological order, followed the emperor from his boyhood to his death at Baiae.
The second part is arranged thematically and deals with subjects important for the
administration of the empire: foreign policy and frontiers, administration of the army,
law reforms, the Jewish war, and Hadrian’s building activities. However, Henderson’s
weaknesses were the superficial analysis of the material at hand and the selective use
of both primary sources (he relies mostly on the scarce literary evidence without using
archaeological and other data) and modern scholarship. His notorious Germanophobia
is evident in his discussion of A. von Premerstein’s book Das Attentat der Konsulare
auf Hadrian im Jahre 118 n. Chr. (Leipzig 1908). In Henderson’s text Premerstein is
“the German” and his book “the German’s lengthy pamphlet.”16
We may attribute his
neglect of Wilhelm Weber’s work Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers
Hadrianus (Leipzig 1907) to his anti-Germanism. Weber’s monograph assembled a
substantial mass of epigraphic, numismatic and papyrological evidence (a still useful
collection) to date the main events of Hadrian’s reign down to the Jewish War.
However, his work is more useful as a study of the emperor’s journeys than as a
biography.
Birley’s work follows the chronological arrangement which we saw in
Henderson’s first part. The twenty-one chapters of his book narrate in much
prosopographical, geographical and chronological detail the life of the emperor. The
15
Birley (1997) xiii.
16
Henderson (1923) 52-54.
10
epilogue is devoted to Hadrian’s famous poem on his soul. Birley’s interesting
account brings together myriad facts from the empire at large. As in a documentary
we follow the emperor as he inspected the troops, moved from city to city, met with
prominent members of the local communities, made the fateful trip to Egypt anxious
over his health, and listened carefully the Olympieion’ inaugural speech by Polemon
at Athens in 131. Birley’s rich information however turns this book into a
prosopographical study of the second century rather than a biography of Hadrian. One
emerges with little sense of who Hadrian was, what program he really accomplished
in the empire, and what he may have done. Birley eschews consideration of Hadrianic
policy-financial, religious, military, legal, or administrative17
. As a result, the overall
picture of this text is that of a very useful prosopographical and geographical study of
the empire in the second century and not of an imperial biography. The way things are
presented in Birley’s work, Hadrian seems to be a wandering, curious emperor whose
activities complement a history of the first half of the second century.
Much of modern scholarship is devoted to the building program of the
emperor. Hadrian adorned with buildings not only the capital but also a number of
cities of the provinces, especially of the Greek East. Mary Boatwright contributed to
the subject with her work Hadrian and the City of Rome (Princeton 1987), where she
studied major Hadrianic buildings at Rome. Thirteen years later, the author completed
what she started in 1987 with her book Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire
(Princeton 2000). This work accumulated a tremendous amount of information
arranged by type of buildings, but chapters that deal with Hadrian’s involvement in
the (re)foundation of cities and the change of their status are also important parts of
the book. It is a very useful study for the scholar who wants an accumulated evidence
17
Birley (1997) xiv.
11
of Hadrian’s building activities throughout the empire. More recently, Trudie Fraser
published her work Hadrian as Builder and Benefactor in the Western Provinces
(Oxford 2006). The author aspires her work to be a continuation of Boatwright’s
studies by adding all the available evidence of Hadrianic civic building, but also of
road construction and military building from the western provinces.
A number of other studies have focused on various aspects of Hadrian’s reign.
For example, authors have attempted to retrace the exact itineraries of the emperor
during his lengthy journeys. The basic study remains that of Helmut Halfmann,
Itinera Principum (Stuttgart 1986). An interesting synthesis based on previous works
and new evidence was presented by Antony Birley in 200318
. Although Hadrian’s
visit to a number of places remains unclear, Birley’s chronological list of cities visited
by the emperor is a very useful tool for the student of Hadrian. Other studies focus on
the emperor’s personality and deal with his literary interests and acquaintance with
authors of the period. I will mention briefly Bowie’s discussion of Hadrian’s tastes in
Greek poetry19
, the same author’s examination of the relations between Hadrian,
Favorinus and Plutarch20
, and Stertz’s contribution in the ANRW series with a general
paper on Hadrian’s interactions with a number of intellectuals21
.
My study will approach Hadrian’s reign from a different point of view. It will
focus on two major themes: what was his program for the Greek East and how he
promoted it in this region. There is no modern study that treats the program of
Hadrian in the region and the mechanisms he used to set it in motion. Unfortunately,
scholars examine different aspects of his reign in isolation without attempting to set
18
Hence Birley (2003).
19
Bowie (2002).
20
Bowie (1997).
21
Stertz (1993).
12
them in the context of his imperial program. Studies on his building activities, his
Philhellenism, or his personality focus on them individually and attempt to give a
general account without explaining them in terms of his imperial program and
ambitions. On the contrary, this study will attempt to define his program and
illuminate a number of ways by which he promoted it. The geographical focus will be
the areas of the Greek mainland and Asia Minor as these are the Greek areas that
received Hadrian’s attention and benefactions the most. Moreover, contrary to
Henderson’s theory22
, I believe that the emperor desired to advance the regions’
interests and accelerate their growth not solely on account of his philhellenic
sentiments but mainly because he wished to bring the provinces closer to Rome, to
raise them to a level of equality with the capital, and create a second cultural center of
the empire. Thus he could accelerate the integration of these regions into the Empire
and bring to completion his plan for its unification. This aspect of his reign has been
underestimated in modern scholarship.
Moreover, my study will not only illuminate Hadrian’s plans for the region
and present the ways by which he promoted it but will also deal with the reaction of
the local populations. It will become clear from this discussion that the promotion of
Hadrian’s program was a dynamic, evolving process involving considerable input
from imperial circles and the public alike.
Any attempt to present and interpret Hadrian’s program in the Greek East
cannot carried through without first examining the circumstances in which the
emperor and the people of the Greek East came into contact. Accordingly, I will start
my first chapter by examining the political position of the Greeks in the Empire in the
second century A.D. I will attempt to highlight the political status of the Greeks under
22
Henderson (1923) 182-183.
13
the Romans in the second century; to examine how they viewed their necessary coexistence
with the Romans; and to present their political expectations. Next I will
examine Hadrian’s policy with regard to the Greek East. I will argue that Hadrian
envisaged a Greek world that could actively participate in the administration of the
Empire and his program of unification. He advanced the idea of two imperial centers,
one in the West, centered on Rome, and another in the East, centered on Athens and
the great cities of Asia Minor. He showed that the region and its people must not be
valued only for their past and cultural traditions but also and more importantly for the
dynamism and energy that they could bring to the Empire. In the last part of this
chapter I will focus on the institution which is believed to reflect his interest in the
region the most: the Panhellenion. Founded in 131/132, the council aspired to be the
focal point for communities that were able to demonstrate their Greek descent. The
institution functioned more as a cultural rather than a political organization, mainly
associated with the imperial cult. Contrary to other scholars, I will argue that it is this
cultural and religious character of the Panhellenion that explains the absence of the
most important Greek cities of Asia Minor: Ephesos, Smyrna, and Pergamos. I will
suggest that the function of the council as Koinon, associated with the imperial cult,
and the focus of the new league on Old Greece and in particular Athens must be seen
behind the absence of the Asian cities mentioned above and the limited impact of the
Panhellenion on cities outside of the mainland.
In the second chapter I will talk about the people that Hadrian addressed in the
East: his audience. This is a subject that has not received the attention it deserves in
modern scholarship. We hear about Hadrian’s interactions with locals but we do not
learn anything about them other than their names, genealogies, and offices they held.
From what social strata did they come, how did their expectations fit in with
14
Hadrian’s program, what was their role, if any, in its implementation? These are the
questions I will try to answer here. In order to approach them I will first discuss
Hadrian’s travels as the means that brought him close to them. I will not only trace his
route but, more importantly, I will attempt to explain his travels as a means of
securing the empire, fostering relations with the local populations, and promoting his
program. I will also discuss how the visit of the emperor was a major event both for
the central administration and the provinces. The impact on the provinces and peoples
the emperor visited and the gains sought from all sides are aspects of his travels that
have not been adequately studied, and my discussion aspires to correct this23
.
Then I will shift my focus to the people Hadrian met and addressed. I will
argue that not only local elites, magistrates, and religious officials received his
attention, but also the lowest classes of a city, rustic people, farmers and merchants.
All of them were looking forward to an imperial visit in order to present their case and
advance their interests, personal and communal alike. I will argue that Hadrian’s
program did not address only the elites but aimed at the broad population as well,
although, as is expected, the emperor relied first on the elites’ support for the
implementation of his program and its “distribution” to the masses.
The discussion in the first two chapters will help us understand better the local
necessities and expectations as well as the imperial ambitions that dictated the contact
of the emperor with the Greeks. It will set the framework within which the promotion
of his program will be illustrated.
Chapters three and four will discuss how the emperor’s plans for the Greek
East were promoted through the medium of coinage and religion. Despite the volume
23
This was a major flaw in Birley’s narration. We hear about the administrative, logistical, social, and
ceremonial aspects of imperial journeys only when a piece of evidence for that aspect can be placed
precisely within Hadrian’s itinerary (173,190-1,217,220-222,234).
15
of Hadrianic coinage, both imperial and provincial, no modern scholar has discussed
the evidence with regard to Hadrian’s program and its implementation. Therefore this
chapter innovates in its method and approach. Chapter three breaks into two major
parts. In the first part I will deal with the organization of the mints in the second
century. I will examine evidence related both to the central imperial mint at Rome and
the provincial mints of the Greek East. I will discuss the administrative mechanisms
of these mints with particular focus on crucial issues, such as who was in charge of
the mints and how independent were the Greek mints from local authorities.
The second part of this chapter will examine a number of iconographical types
of the Hadrianic coinage. I will discuss not only coins from the Greek East but also
from the central mint of Rome. I will show how coinage reveals a number of goals on
the part of Hadrian: to associate himself and his reign with his predecessor and with
myths and traditions both of Rome and of the Greek East; to present himself as the
counterpart of Olympios Zeus in the East, the god of all the Greeks; to advertise the
basic principles of his reign and his sincere interest in the welfare of the provinces
individually and of the entire empire. Finally, I will use these types to prove that a
number of persons were involved in the iconography of coins: from the emperor and
his family to Roman officials and governors, from Greek local magistrates to officials
of the mints, all were able to influence the selection of a certain type.
Chapter four will discuss the role of religion in the promotion of Hadrian’s
program in the Greek East. Jean Beaujeu’s La religion romaine (Paris 1955) remains
the best study of Hadrian’s religious policy. Beaujeu discusses Hadrian’s attitudes to
Roman and Greek pantheons, to Egyptian and Eastern divinities, the imperial cult,
16
religious associations and others24
. However, this study failed to see the connection
between Hadrian’s religious pursuits and his program. This is what I want to argue for
here.
The first subject that I will discuss is Hadrian’s claim to divine election.
Numismatic and other evidence advertised that it was by the providence of Jupiter and
the medium of Trajan that the new emperor was selected. Thus Hadrian legitimized
his accession by invoking both earthly and divine commands. Next, I will discuss the
use of religious language as reflected in the numerous epithets attached to Hadrian in
a number of epigraphic documents. I will show that these epithets derived from local
traditions and mythical and historical themes and eased the contact between emperor
and locals. After that I will discuss certain traits of Hadrian’s persona. I will suggest
that Hadrian’s association with superhuman, almost divine powers (as this is
evidenced in his interest in, among others, magic, oracles, and astrology) was part of
the religious language and themes that were familiar to the Greek populations in the
East, and consequently facilitated the Greeks’ approving of the emperor and his plans.
Finally I will study Hadrian’s association with the goddess Roma at Rome and
Zeus in the Greek East. Roma’s cult received new emphasis in the reign of Hadrian.
Contrary to current theories25
I will suggest that the emphasis the cult received mainly
in the Latin West but also in the East is indicative of Hadrian’s desire to highlight the
importance of the cult of Roma and Rome as unifiers of the empire. As I will show,
his goal was not to Romanize the empire by means of Roma’s cult but to bridge the
past and present of the empire and bring West and East closer. At the same time
Hadrian promoted the cult of Zeus in the Greek East and was assimilated with him,
24
Although a monograph on Hadrian’s cult is missing from modern scholarship, the reader may
consult the works by Price (1984), Birley (1997), and Burrell (2004).
25
E.g. Mols (2003).
17
most evidently by the title Olympios. I will argue that Hadrian’s association with the
Greek Zeus came as a response to Trajan’s reception as Jupiter in the West and also
placed Hadrian at the heart of the Greek pantheon, something that eased his reception
among the Greeks. Moreover, I will suggest that this emphasis on the two cults
reflects Hadrian’s desire to underline first, the two main cultural components of the
empire, Roman and Greek, and second, their crucial role in the stability of the empire.
The present study will contribute to our knowledge of Hadrian’s program for
the Greek East and his vision for the unity of the empire. Furthermore, I believe it will
give us a better sense of who Hadrian and the Greeks he dealt with were.
18
CHAPTER 2
HADRIAN AND THE GREEK EAST: REALITIES AND EXPECTATIONS
2.1 Introduction
Any attempt to present and interpret Hadrian’s program in the East (and for
that matter that of any Roman emperor) cannot be carried through without first
examining the circumstances in which the emperor and the people of the Greek East
came into contact. Accordingly, in the first part of this chapter I will examine the
political position of the Greeks in the Empire in the second century A.D. Looking at
works of authors of the period I will highlight the political status of the Greeks under
the Romans in the second century; examine how they viewed their necessary coexistence
with their Roman rulers; and present their political expectations.
Hadrian’s policy with regard to the Greek East will be examined next. The
East was already acquainted with Hadrian before he succeeded his adoptive father in
117. The new emperor was ostensibly a philhellene and during his reign he repeatedly
visited the Greek mainland and Asia Minor for long periods of time. His vision and
program for the region and the Empire in general set the tone for his successors. I will
argue that Hadrian envisaged a Greek world that more energetically participated in the
administration of the Empire and his program of a political, and to a certain degree
cultural, unification. He advanced the idea of two imperial centers, one in the West,
centered on Rome, and another in the East, centered on Athens and the great cities of
Asia Minor. He showed that the region and its people must not be valued only for
19
their past and cultural traditions but also and more importantly for the dynamism and
energy that they could bring to the Empire. The Empire belonged to all its inhabitants,
prominent among them Romans and Greeks. By bringing together peoples and
traditions, local expectations, and imperial priorities, Hadrian believed that the
unification of the Empire could be a reality.
In the last part of this chapter I will focus on the institution which is believed
to reflect his interest in the region the most: the Panhellenion. Founded in 131/132,
the council aspired to be the focal point for the communities that were able to
demonstrate their Greek descent. Presided over by an archon, the council convened in
Athens and organized the Panhellenia Games, first celebrated in 137. Despite the
fragmentary state of evidence, it has been generally accepted that the institution
focused more on cultural activities (e.g. games, the imperial cult) rather than on
political ones. I will argue that it is the cultural and religious character of the
Panhellenion that explains the absence of the most important Greek cities of Asia
Minor: Ephesos, Smyrna, and Pergamos. I will suggest that the council’s character as
a Koinon associated with the imperial cult, and the focusing of the new league on Old
Greece and in particular Athens, must be seen behind the absence of the Asian cities
mentioned above and the limited impact on cities outside the mainland.
The examination of the above subjects will help us understand better the local
necessities and expectations as well as the imperial ambitions that shaped the contact
of the emperor with the Greeks. At the same time it will set the framework within
which the promotion of his program will be examined later in this study.
20
2.2 Greeks and Romans in the Empire
The early period of Roman intervention in the East was for the Greeks, as for
the entire Roman world, a time of great turmoil and wars in which the Greek cities
seemed to have made all the bad choices by siding almost always with the wrong side:
the Mithridatic Wars, the wars between Caesar and Pompey, Antony and Octavius.
However, from Actium on, the Empire enjoyed stability, and, despite the bloody
struggles for power after Nero’s death, the prosperity that the Pax Romana ensured for
the Mediterranean world was not at risk. This stability allowed the Greek world, as
most of the peoples of the Empire, to recover and to adapt to the demands of the new
status quo.
In terms of the political organization of the region, the advent of Rome did not
change the traditional political structure of the East, which was based on the city, but
it affected the way the Greeks viewed the world and their place in it. The city
remained for the Greeks the main political, economical, and social unit. The Romans
favored this structure and its diffusion in zones of weak urbanization, in particular in
Thrace and central Asia Minor. However, the city was no longer the expression of a
political ideal based on freedom and autonomy, even if, sometimes, some of them
enjoyed a privileged status. The city became nothing more than a link of the huge
chain that was the Roman Empire26
. Now the polis and Hellas were parts of a large
organized whole, which could guarantee peace and prosperity. They had to adapt to
their new position within the imperial system.
As the Greeks had to adapt, so did the Romans (probably to a lesser degree)
need to adjust to the new reality and the relations it involved. Although not always
realistic, a mutual appreciation of each other’s culture, and a respect of rights and
26
Rizakis (1998) 600.
21
responsibilities were possible. Of course, in this era when the conquered populations
needed to define their role taking into consideration both their needs and the
expectations of Rome, a crisis was always possible. When we put under the
microscope the populations of a Greek province, we see that Rome’s dealings with
them were not always harmonious. Roman dominance might occasion resistance, and
factions at Rome could be reflected also among the members of a certain local class,
in particular dependent elites.
However, from Augustus to the end of the first century A.D., it seems that the
Greeks became gradually more eager to conform to the Roman presence. A number of
factors allowed and also gave an incentive to Greek populations to explore the limits
of their own microcosm within the Empire and examine it in relation to their past and
Roman present. Among the most important were a degree of Roman tolerance
towards the Greeks that derived from respect for the Greek past; the Philhellenic
attitude of certain emperors of the first century, in particular that of Nero, with the
famous grant of freedom to Achaea; the benefactions that adorned the Greek cities;
and the increasing participation of local elites in imperial administration and their
admission to the Senate (from Asia Minor under Vespasian, and from the Greek
mainland under Trajan, the result being that in the mid-120’s Spartan and Athenian
senators were at the fore among the Greeks of the mainland in gaining membership in
this body).
The desire for a Greek political rejuvenation and cultural renaissance reached
a climax under the most Philhellenic emperor, Hadrian. It is during his reign and the
following decades that the Greeks, in particular those of the Greek mainland and Asia
Minor, more energetically explored their past. The literature of this period and
22
especially the works of the authors of the Second Sophistic, to which I will now turn,
reveal the incessant struggle of the Greeks to define their role in the Empire27
.
2.2.1 Political Views and Expectations in the Works of the Second Sophistic
In the writings of the period we can discern a variety of attitudes regarding the
participation of the Greeks in the administration of the Empire and their
expectations28
. As we will see, these can range from an unconditional acceptance of
Roman rule to a more skeptical approach; from desire to participate in the imperial
administration to refusal to do so; from welcoming of imperial interference into the
affairs of the city to dissatisfaction over it and desire for more political autonomy. As
a consequence, we can detect among the local ruling classes the display of a twofold
loyalty: to their community and the imperial center. However, it would be a mistake
to identify in this attitude a general diminishing sense of local identity. New forms of
social behavior and new allegiances became more central to self-definition, especially
of the elite, but this does not mean that old ones had to be abandoned29
. The Greeks
were more eager now to espouse the Roman imperial program and contribute to it by
balancing its demands and their devotion to their community and culture. The
material has been adequately discussed in modern scholarship and here it will suffice
to examine in brief the main attitudes portrayed in selected passages from the Greek
authors of the period.
A number of writings by Aelius Aristeides demonstrate this interaction
between the elites and the central government. Aristeides hails the uniqueness of
27
On the Second Sophistic in general see Anderson (1993); also, Bowersock (1969), Whitmarsh (2005)
and Bowie (1974) on the use of the Greek past in the writings of the Second Sophistic.
28
Swain (1996) is a fundamental study of these attitudes.
29
Issues of identity in the literature of the period are beyond the scope of this study and therefore they
will not be touched upon. On this subject the reader can consult Whitmarsh (2001) and Bowie (1996);
also Gleason (1995), Bowie (1991), and Woolf (1994).
23
Greek culture and its claim to a privileged treatment by the Romans, but at the same
time urges his fellow Greeks to show compliance with the new status quo and the
necessities it dictates, for, he says, “it is a natural law for the weak to obey the
strong”30
. The superiority of Rome and the obligation of the Greek world to conform
to its demands are presented as a natural law, which is dictated by the one who
currently holds the scepters of power (ὑπὸ τῶν κρειττόνων καταδειχθεὶς). Obedience
leads to conformity, which in turn allows people to live in concord and peace.
The recognition of the role of Rome in the creation of a world of peace and
prosperity finds its best expression in Aristeides’ speech To Rome, delivered in all
probability before the imperial family at Rome31
. Here, among others, the Romans are
praised for ruling over free prosperous men32
; for surpassing all peoples in power and
moral values33
; for the constitution which seems to be a mixture of democracy,
aristocracy and monarchy34
. The Romans are also praised for making a distinction
simply between Romans and non-Romans instead of Greeks and barbarians35
; for
30
To the Rhodians On Concord 566: νόµος γάρ ἐστιν οὗτος φύσει κείµενος ἀληθῶς ὑπὸ τῶν
κρειττόνων καταδειχθεὶς, ἀκούειν τὸν ἥττω τοῦ κρείττονος. (I follow W. Dindorf’s edition of
Aristeides’ works).
31
Since this speech is biased by its very nature, being encomiastic, and delivered before the emperor, I
will not comment on it in depth. As Swain (1996) 274 says: “For some it is nothing but rhetoric devoid
of content, for others a blueprint of the Roman Empire in the second century A.D., while for others the
speech reflects the part not of Rome but of the eastern elites and their desire to exercise local control
through Roman support”. For similar views on Rome as the common homeland of the world, see the
evidence gathered by Swain (1996) 364.
32
To Rome 207, Μόνοι γὰρ τῶν πώποτε ἐλευθέρων ἄρχετε.
33
To Rome 209, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοὺς µὲν βαρβάρους ταῖς περιουσίαις καὶ ταῖς δυνάµεσιν ὑπερβαλέσθαι, τοὺς
δὲ Ἕλληνας σοφίᾳ καὶ σωφροσύνῃ παρελθεῖν, µέγα µοι δοκεῖ καὶ παντελὲς εἰς ἀρετῆς εἶναι λόγον καὶ
παντὸς ἀγώνισµα λαµπρότερον.
34
To Rome 222ff. Cf. Plutarch, Old men in public affairs 789e-790b, where he recognizes kingship as
the perfect form of government: Ἀλλὰ µὴν ἥ γε βασιλεία, τελεωτάτη πασῶν οὖσα καὶ µεγίστη τῶν πολιτειῶν,
πλείστας φροντίδας ἔχει καὶ πόνους καὶ ἀσχολίας·
35
To Rome 214, καὶ τὸ Ῥωµαῖον εἶναι ἐποιήσατε οὐ πόλεως, ἀλλὰ γένους ὄνοµα κοινοῦ τινος, καὶ
τούτου οὐχ ἑνὸς τῶν πάντων, ἀλλ’ ἀντιρρόπου πᾶσι τοῖς λοιποῖς. οὐ γὰρ εἰς Ἕλληνας καὶ βαρβάρους
διαιρεῖτε νῦν τὰ γένη, οὐδὲ γελοίαν τὴν διαίρεσιν ἀπεφήνατε αὐτοῖς πολυανθρωποτέραν τὴν πόλιν
παρεχόµενοι ἢ κατὰ πᾶν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν φῦλον, ἀλλ’ εἰς Ῥωµαίους τε καὶ οὐ Ῥωµαίους
ἀντιδιείλετε, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐξηγάγετε τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὄνοµα.
24
treating the Greeks, who live in abundance of goods, like children their parents36
; for
having divine support, since the world after their accession to power and the coming
of peace mirrors the one the Olympians created after they defeated the Titans37
. That
last point, the divine support of Roman rule (in particular the guidance of the emperor
by the gods, who appointed him on earth) is a common topos in the literature of the
period38
.
Along the same lines, Appian writing his Roman History under Antoninus,
praised the emperors of Rome for increasing the greatness of the Empire and securing
it. “On the whole”, he writes, “already possessing the best parts of land and sea, they
desire to preserve them by good counsel rather than to extend the rule endlessly over
impoverished and unprofitable barbarian races.”39
“They have surrounded,” he adds,
“the Empire by a circle with great armies and guard it like some small plot of land.”40
In this passage, which reflects not only Antoninus’ but even more Hadrian’s
achievements, Appian seems to believe that Roman imperialism has reached its limits,
and efforts to extend the imperium beyond its current borders were tantamount to
overextending Roman power41
.
Such displays of devotion to the Empire and loyalty to the emperor42
surely
influenced some emperors, who were eager to feel the adoration of their subjects.
However, it is a mistake to assume that the emperor, even the most Philhellene among
36
To Rome 224, διατελεῖτε δὲ τῶν µὲν Ἑλλήνων ὥσπερ τροφέων ἐπιµελόµενοι.
37
To Rome 226ff.
38
See, for example, Aristeides, On Concord 538; Dio Chrysostom, Olympicus 73-79, Charidemus 26-
44, Borystheniticus 31-32 (I follow J. von Arnim’s edition in 1893-1896); Plutarch, Philopoemen 17.2
and Flamininus 12.10; Galen On Theriac to Piso 217.
39
Proemium 26: ὅλως τε δι’ εὐβουλίαν τὰ κράτιστα γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης ἔχοντες σώζειν ἐθέλουσι
µᾶλλον ἢ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐς ἄπειρον ἐκφέρειν ἐπὶ βάρβαρα ἔθνη πενιχρὰ καὶ ἀκερδῆ.
40
Proemium 28: τήν τε ἀρχὴν ἐν κύκλῳ περικάθηνται µεγάλοις στρατοπέδοις καὶ φυλάσσουσι τὴν
τοσήνδε γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν ὥσπερ χωρίον.
41
Cf. Dio Cassius 68.29.1-3; 33.1 and 75.3.2-3, where he regards both the Parthian campaigns of
Trajan and that of Severus as burdens on the Empire undertaken to soothe their vanity.
42
Cf. Plutarch’s To an uneducated ruler 780d-781a, where the emperor is explicitly presented as the
image of the god, ἄρχων δ’ εἰκὼν θεοῦ τοῦ πάντα κοσµοῦντος.
25
them, Hadrian, or Nero and Marcus Aurelius, accepted the “gifts” of the Greeks
without skepticism, and granted any petitions emanating from Greek circles43
. In
general, we must not conclude that the respect some Romans had for the Greek past
led them to an uncritical acceptance of Greek culture. It is true that for Romans the
past and culture of the Greeks were reasons to differentiate them from other,
“barbarian”, conquered peoples. However, what really happened under the Empire
was the mutual acknowledgement of each other’s importance (the Greeks on account
of their past; the Romans for controlling both present and future) and of the necessity
of a dialogue, which complemented the two peoples and at the same time frightened
them with its dynamism44
.
It is in this atmosphere of Greek perceptions of imperial power that the Greeks
of the East searched for their own political role in the Empire. Political ambitions
within the community and beyond combined with a desire for as much independence
as possible are discernible in Plutarch’s writings to which I will now turn.
The text that perhaps expresses most eloquently these ambitions and
expectations vis-à-vis the reality of Roman rule is Plutarch’s Political Advice. The
text is an essay on the civic life of a Greek politician under Roman rule. It is written
in the form of advice to a certain Menemachos of Sardeis. After the introduction,
Plutarch begins his essay by stressing the need for politicians to have a consistent
policy (798c-799a). Then he deals with a number of subjects, all important to an
aspiring politician, among them the need to know the character of the politician’s
fellow citizens (799b-800a); the importance of oratory (801c-804c); the correct and
unblemished conduct towards the friends of a politician (806f-809b); and instructions
43
For a comprehensive study of the Philhellenism of the Roman emperors from Augustus to the
Antonines see Ferrary (1996).
44
For the impact of the Roman conquest on the socio-political and cultural “landscape” of Greece see
Alcock (1993) and (1997).
26
on dealing with one’s political enemies (809b-811a). Then follow three important
sections on the politician’s relations with Rome (813c-816a), where the anxieties and
concerns of the Greek politician of the Empire are perfectly mirrored.
Following on from the previous section Plutarch advises against excessive
ambition which takes the form of holding on to office continually (813c-d). Upon
obtaining office, Menemachos must remember the following advice Pericles gave to
himself: “watch out Pericles, you are in command of free men, of Greeks, of Athenian
citizens”. But he must also say this to himself: “you are in command, but yourself are
under command, the city being subordinated to the proconsuls and procurators of
Caesar. ‘There are no spearmen on the battlefield,’45
or ancient Sardeis and Lydian
power.” Menemachos must “make his cloak more modest, look out of his office at
the tribunal, and not put much pride in his crown when he sees the boots of the
Roman magistrate above his head.”46
This is a reminder of the gloomy reality:
Greece, now, is at best, a culturally influential, but politically a rather insignificant
province that can contribute little to the administration of the Empire. From an
individual’s perspective it is a reminder of the political prospects of the local
aristocracies. While within their own cities they were still dominant with regard to
low classes, their position was precarious and ultimately dependent on the will of the
45
Sophocles, Trachiniai 1058.
46
Political Advice 813d-e: εἰσιόντα δ’ εἰς ἅπασαν ἀρχὴν οὐ µόνον ἐκείνους δεῖ προχειρίζεσθαι τοὺς λογισµούς,
οὓς ὁ Περικλῆς αὑτὸν ὑπεµίµνησκεν ἀναλαµβάνων τὴν χλαµύδα, “πρόσεχε, Περίκλεις· ἐλευθέρων ἄρχεις,
Ἑλλήνων ἄρχεις, πολιτῶν Ἀθηναίων”· ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖνο λέγειν πρὸς ἑαυτόν, “ἀρχόµενος ἄρχεις, ὑποτεταγµένης
πόλεως ἀνθυπάτοις, ἐπιτρόποις Καίσαρος”· ‘οὐ ταῦτα λόγχη πεδιάς,’ οὐδ’ αἱ παλαιαὶ Σάρδεις οὐδ’ ἡ
Λυδῶν ἐκείνη δύναµις”· εὐσταλεστέραν δεῖ τὴν χλαµύδα ποιεῖν, καὶ βλέπειν ἀπὸ τοῦ στρατηγίου πρὸς
τὸ βῆµα, καὶ τῷ στεφάνῳ µὴ πολὺ φρονεῖν µηδὲ πιστεύειν, ὁρῶντα τοὺς καλτίους ἐπάνω τῆς
κεφαλῆς·
27
governor or the emperor. A wrong move and they might be banished, their estates
confiscated, while their opponents could advance in their place47
.
Further confirmation of Rome’s control of the life of the Greeks comes later in
the text. The author advises Menemachos to seek balance between his obligation to
the community and the priorities of the imperial administration. He warns against the
use of historical examples that might stir up the crowd and cause the intervention of
Rome48
. Marathon, Eurymedon and Plataea are to be left in the schools of the
sophists. As Simon Swain argues it is hard to believe that Plutarch was ideologically
against the use of the teachings of Greek history; he rather seems to be concerned
with the effect that an out-of-control manifestation of patriotic sentiments could have
on the Romans and their policy in the area49
. It is true that the late first century saw
the beginning of ever-increasing interference by the imperial government in the
administrative and particularly financial affairs of the Greek cities, a process that
began with ad hoc appointments and ended with the permanent office of curator. It is
perhaps no accident that the first evidence for these officials appears in the Life of
Philostratus’ earliest imperial sophist, Nicetes of Smyrna50
.
The politician must avoid anything that provokes the anger and intervention of
Rome. In addition, he needs to seek the friendship and/or patronage of the local
Roman governor or anyone from his milieu. Such a relationship, Plutarch continues,
47
See for example Pliny, Letters X.81, for attempts to expose Dio Chrysostom to prosecution by his
opponents in Prusa. There is no reason to suggest that elite members in the West, and even at Rome,
had more political space than those in the East.
48
Political Advice 814a: οἱ δ’ ἄρχοντες ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀνοήτως τὰ τῶν προγόνων ἔργα καὶ
φρονήµατα καὶ πράξεις ἀσυµµέτρους τοῖς παροῦσι καιροῖς καὶ πράγµασιν οὔσας µιµεῖσθαι κελεύοντες
ἐξαίρουσι τὰ πλήθη.
49
Swain (1996) 167-168.
50
Lives of the Sophists 512 (I follow the paragraph division of C.L. Kayser’s edition in 1838).
28
will safeguard the prosperity of the city51
. Plutarch, however, warns the politician
against extremely submissive behaviors that could turn him and his community into
slaves of Rome. “In ensuring,” he says, “that your fatherland is obedient to those in
control, there is no need to humble it any further.” Some politicians, he argues, keep
on referring all matters, regardless of importance, to Roman officials. The result is
that by their attitude, these politicians bring on a reproach of slavery52
. He blames the
greed and contentiousness of the local magistrates for this phenomenon. Either they
succeed in driving out their opponents or they bring in the Romans to help them. In
this way, city, council, people, and courts all lose their power and even privileges and
honors53
. The politician has to seek balance between independence and obedience54
.
It is surprising that nowhere in the Political Advice does the author speak
openly of imperial posts and particularly of a senatorial career. He only alludes to it
and remarkably in a negative tone. After advising the politician to seek the friendship
of a Roman official (“for the Romans are very keen to support their friend’s political
interests”-814c) he cites a couple of examples in which the friendship between the
Roman official and the local politician resulted in the benefit not only of the latter but
also of his fatherland. But then Plutarch shifts his tone and asks “is there any
51
Political Advice 814c: Οὐ µόνον δὲ δεῖ παρέχειν αὑτόν τε καὶ τὴν πατρίδα πρὸς τοὺς ἡγεµόνας
ἀναίτιον, ἀλλὰ καὶ φίλον ἔχειν ἀεί τινα τῶν ἄνω δυνατωτάτων, ὥσπερ ἕρµα τῆς πολιτείας βέβαιον·
αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσι Ῥωµαῖοι πρὸς τὰς πολιτικὰς σπουδὰς προθυµότατοι τοῖς φίλοις·
52
Political Advice 814e-f: Ποιοῦντα µέντοι καὶ παρέχοντα τοῖς κρατοῦσιν εὐπειθῆ τὴν πατρίδα δεῖ µὴ
προσεκταπεινοῦν, µηδὲ τοῦ σκέλους δεδεµένου προσυποβάλλειν καὶ τὸν τράχηλον, ὥσπερ ἔνιοι, καὶ
µικρὰ καὶ µείζω φέροντες ἐπὶ τοὺς ἡγεµόνας ἐξονειδίζουσι τὴν δουλείαν, µᾶλλον δ’ ὅλως τὴν
πολιτείαν ἀναιροῦσι, καταπλῆγα καὶ περιδεᾶ καὶ πάντων ἄκυρον ποιοῦντες. Dio Chrysostom gives a
similar warning to the Tarsians (Or. 34, To the Tarsians Second, 38). For a discussion of Plutarch’s
attitudes towards Rome and Roman politics in his Lives, see Pelling (1995) and more general Jones
(1971).
53
Political Advice 815a: αἰτία δὲ τούτου µάλιστα πλεονεξία καὶ φιλονεικία τῶν πρώτων· ἢ γὰρ ἐν οἷς
βλάπτουσι τοὺς ἐλάττονας ἐκβιάζονται φεύγειν τὴν πόλιν ἢ περὶ ὧν διαφέρονται πρὸς ἀλλήλους οὐκ
ἀξιοῦντες ἐν τοῖς πολίταις ἔχειν ἔλαττον ἐπάγονται τοὺς κρείττονας· ἐκ τούτου δὲ καὶ βουλὴ καὶ
δῆµος καὶ δικαστήρια καὶ ἀρχὴ πᾶσα τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἀπόλλυσι. Similarly, Dio Chrysostom, Or. 46, On
Revolt,14, warns a rioting crowd of the risk of proconsular intervention. See also Tacitus’ Annals 4.36
on Cyzicus’ loss of freedom in A.D. 25 on account of offences including violence to Roman citizens.
54
Cf. Political Advice 824c, where Plutarch seems to consider undesirable the gift of more freedom to
the Greeks by the Romans in his own day.
29
comparison between this sort of favor and lucrative procuratorships and
administrations of provinces which men pursue, growing old before other people’s
doors and neglecting their affairs at home?”55
He then paraphrases Euripides, The
Phoenician Women 524-525 and proclaims that “if you have to lose sleep and
frequent the court of another man and submit yourself to the familiarity of a leader, it
is best done for the fatherland.”56
According to Plutarch, it is wrong for a politician to
sacrifice his self-respect and damage his city’s prosperity for the sake of obtaining
imperial posts.
Simon Swain has erroneously interpreted the above comments as Plutarch’s
advice to the politician to stay at home and not to integrate57
. On the contrary, I
believe that Plutarch’s advice must not be viewed as a negative attitude towards
provincials taking up posts in the imperial government. I think the author is more
concerned with the correct conduct of the politician, a conduct which would secure
his own self-respect and the city’s prosperity and would not oppose the plans of the
central administration. Moreover, the author, perhaps having in mind certain Greeks
who held posts at that time or before, is more concerned with local magistrates
neglecting the interests of their community on account of their personal ambitions, an
attitude which can precipitate the intervention of Rome, something that Plutarch is
against. It is clear that these dangers are what he had in mind when in the next lines he
warns against the politician’s submissive conduct and excessive ambition (814e-
815a).
55
Political Advice 814d: ἆρά γ’ ἄξιον τῇ χάριτι ταύτῃ παραβαλεῖν τὰς πολυταλάντους ἐπιτροπὰς καὶ
διοικήσεις τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν, ἃς διώκοντες οἱ πολλοὶ γηράσκουσι πρὸς ἀλλοτρίαις θύραις, τὰ οἴκοι
προλιπόντες·
56
Political Advice 814e: τὸν Εὐριπίδην ἐπανορθωτέον ᾄδοντα καὶ λέγοντα, ὡς εἴπερ ἀγρυπνεῖν χρὴ
καὶ φοιτᾶν ἐπ’ αὔλειον ἑτέρου καὶ ὑποβάλλειν ἑαυτὸν ἡγεµονικῇ συνηθείᾳ, πατρίδος πέρι κάλλιστον
ἐπὶ ταῦτα χωρεῖν, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα τὰς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἴσοις καὶ δικαίοις φιλίας ἀσπάζεσθαι καὶ φυλάττειν;
57
Swain (1996) 169ff.
30
Besides, it would have been a contradictory position, if Plutarch himself had
held a post. According to the eighth-century historian George Syncellus, Plutarch was
appointed by Hadrian as procurator of Greece58
. Simon Swain argues that if the
information is correct, the procuratorship was only nominal59
. Given the involvement
of Plutarch in the administration of the oracle of Delphi and the Delphic
Amphictyony, the high esteem in which Hadrian held him, and the service that
Plutarch could offer to the advancement of Hadrian’s plans for the region, I believe
that it is still possible that Plutarch’s procuratorship was an actual office. The
involvement of the intellectual in the political life of the region was not a surprise and
certainly resonated with the participation of intellectual figures of the Greek East in
the politics of the Empire60
.
As we will see in the next chapter of this study it is this involvement that many
Greek aristocrats sought. For many of them the limited political space of their city did
not satisfy their personal ambitions and interests. Moreover, it is possible that the
incessant competition for the city’s magistracies had exhausted them both financially
and morally and their career was destined to end at the boundaries of the community
or the governor’s office. It was a way out of this situation that the local elites sought
from the Roman officials, offering in return their support to the regime. The elites
were a key structural element in Roman provincial rule with imperial strategies
largely dependent upon the co-operation of local power networks. It is they who
needed concord in quiet, obedient provinces (as of course the Roman authorities did),
58
Ecloga Chronographica 426, 22: Πλούταρχος Χαιρωνεὺς φιλόσοφος ἐπιτροπεύειν Ἑλλάδος ὑπὸ τοῦ
αὐτοκράτορος κατεστάθη γηραιός.
59
Swain (1996) 172.
60
I will return to the participation of local elites and intellectuals in the imperial administration in the
next chapter of this study.
31
and as little imperial intervention as possible61
. The accession to the throne of the
most philhellene emperor, Hadrian, was certainly greeted with joy by the elites for the
benefits it could bring. Hadrian’s vision for the region, to which I will now turn,
encouraged the Greeks to embrace the Empire as their own and participate more
energetically in the implementation of his program.
2.3 Hadrian’s adventus
When Hadrian succeeded his adoptive father in 117, he had to face the
suspicion of Romans focusing on the rumors of his false adoption by his
predecessor62
. This mistrust was intensified when in the early days of his reign the
killing of prominent figures of Roman politics cast a shadow over the new emperor63
.
Senatorial sentiments, as these are expressed in Dio, himself a senator, hardly
changed during Hadrian’s reign, even more so when the emperor made a decisive turn
in the Empire’s policy by applying the “non expansion” doctrine of Augustus.
Accordingly, shortly after his accession to the throne, Hadrian abandoned the
provinces of Mesopotamia, Armenia and Assyria, newly conquered by Trajan, as
Roman presence there faced resistance already before Trajan’s death, and Hadrian
judged as disadvantageous any attempt to hold them under Roman control. Hadrian
even thought of letting Dacia go. This was a decisive step in his reign for which he
engendered the enmity of many at Rome. As Clifford Ando nicely remarked, Hadrian
61
The need for concord was a matter much emphasized in the writings of the period. See, for example,
Aristeides, On Concord, and To the Rhodians on Concord. On the notion of concord and co-operation
within a city see also Plutarch, Political Advice, 805d; 819d; and 824c-e. See also Dio Chrysostom’s
Or. 38, To the Nicomedeians, for the importance of concord among cities. The message is twofold:
Greece and its culture can only survive if the people live in a state of concord; and this wish can only
be fulfilled and guarded by the emperor. Thus, the emperor is at the center of the cultural survival of
the Greek East.
62
Dio Cassius 69.1.
63
Dio Cassius 69.2.5-6.
32
“risked the scorn of senators who had been deluded by Trajan’s exaggerated letters
from the front.”64
However, Hadrian insisted on holding the Empire within its limits, on the one
hand by ceasing further expansion, on the other by marking the limits of the Empire.
Beginning in 121, a continuous palisade was to mark the empire’s limits on the Rhine
frontier. Besides its military value, to the barbarians it marked off the Empire more
clearly than ever before. In Britain he began, in 122, the great Wall and in North
Africa he organized the southern frontier of the Empire. In all three works Hadrian
sent a double message: the separation of the barbarians from the Romans, and the end
of the doctrine of an imperium sine fine. It was a message that certainly the admirers
of Trajan's expansionist policy did not welcome. There must be an allusion to this in
Tacitus: when talking of Tiberius, he complains about the confined space and the
princeps with no interest in expanding the Empire65
.
Nevertheless, this new policy set the tone for the administration of the Empire
in the second century and affected the reigns of his successors and in particular that of
Antoninus Pius. By abandoning the expeditions to the East, and by securing the
Empire by impressive constructions, the training of the army, and the loyalty of his
subjects, Hadrian sought a peace, which clearly paved the way for the next decisive
step of his reign: that of the development and prosperity of the Empire. Along with his
efforts to consolidate his rule (most conspicuously by improving his damaged
relations with the Senate) the emperor took a number of measures that improved the
life of his subjects, secured their loyalty, and as a consequence increased the power
and welfare of the Empire.
64
Ando (2000) 319.
65
Annals 4.32. So, Birley (1997) 116.
33
In what concerns us here, I will focus on his policy regarding the Greek East.
As the emperor never announced his plans publicly, in a proclamation or decree, we
can identify his intentions only by his actions in the region. Here I will attempt to
show how he envisaged the Greek East and I will suggest that what Hadrian had in
mind for the region was a long-term plan that would raise the living conditions in the
cities, revitalize the cultural and political structures of the region, increase the
participation of Easterners in the imperial program, and as a result, create a second
center in the East, mostly of a cultural character but with a certain political power too,
that could contribute to the stability of the Empire along with the imperial center at
Rome. As Hadrian’s activities in the East have been extensively discussed by
previous scholars, here I will summarize the evidence66
.
2.3.1 Hadrian’s involvement in the life of the East
In A.D 125 the Greeks who annually met at Plataea to celebrate the
deliverance from the Persians in 479 BC dedicated a thank-offering to the emperor
Hadrian, whom they addressed as “savior, who healed and nourished his own
Greece.”67
The emperor is praised for his contributions to the life of the region. As a
savior (ῥυσαµένῳ) and parent (θρέψαντι) Hadrian came to the rescue of his Greece and
provided it with anything that it needed to recover and advance. What provoked the
expression of such gratitude in addressing the emperor as healer and parent of the
Greeks? Without any doubt the answer is found in the unparalleled benefactions to the
cities, manifested in his interest in their everyday life and their cultural and political
66
See the most recent biography of the emperor by Birley (1997). Also, Boatwright (2000) on his
building program and other activities in the cities of the Empire, and Arafat (1996) 159-188 on the
building activities of the emperor in the Greek mainland as these are presented in Pausanias’
Periegesis.
67
Sylloge (3) 835A: Αὐτοκράτορι Ἁδριανῷ σωτῆρι,/ῥυσαµένῳ καὶ θρέψαντι τὴν/ἑαυτοῦ Ἑλλάδα, οἱ ἰς
Πλαται/ὰς συνιόντες Ἕλληνες χαρι/στήριον ἀνέθηκαν.
34
progress; in unmatched building programs; in donations to cities, leagues and
individuals alike; and finally in his passion for everything Greek and respect for the
culture of the region and its people. Before I outline his vision for the region, I will
first touch upon these activities briefly.
The Greeks had been familiar with Hadrian’s personality for a long time
before he succeeded Trajan in 117. The Athenians, who were already aware of the
Greek educational background of the princeps and his sentiments, invited the
Graeculus to become an Athenian citizen (probably in 111-112), and when the offer
was accepted Hadrian was made a member of the deme of Besa. It is interesting that
an outstanding member of the local elite, C. Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus,
grandson of King Philopappus of Commagene, was enrolled in the same deme, and
one may suppose that he played a role in the offer of citizenship68
. In 112 Hadrian
was elected archon eponymous of the city and was honored with a statue in the
Theater of Dionysus69
. Very few Romans of his rank had accepted the honor before
him. Among them, Domitian had consented to be archon, though without coming to
Athens70
.
Hadrian’s assumption of a city’s highest magistracy was not surprising. Such
an action is attested in many places throughout the Empire, from Italica in Spain to
Odessos in the Black Sea71
. In the Greek mainland and Asia Minor he is known to
have assumed the supreme position at Sparta (in 127/128 the city offered Hadrian the
office of eponymous magistrate, patronomos, a title which Hadrian accepted in
68
See Oliver (1951) for a brief but useful study on the Athenian citizenship of Roman emperors.
69
IG II² 3286: the long list of Hadrian’s titulature concludes with the dedication:
ἡ ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλὴ καὶ ἡ τῶν ἑξακοσίων καὶ ὁ/δῆµος ὁ Ἀθηναίων τὸν ἄρχοντα ἑαυτῶν/
Ἁδριανόν. Hadrian later showed again his respect to the festive culture of Athens by presiding as
agonothetes at the Great Dionysia in 125.
70
IG II(2) 1996. For more examples see Birley (1997) 64.
71
For the evidence see Boatwright (2000) 57ff.
35
absentia), Delphi (at least twice, probably sometime in 118-120, and in 125), Cyzicus
(twice, at unknown dates), and Colophon.
The emperor was much involved in the political life of the cities in a number
of ways. He is credited with the revision of the Athenian Constitution-although the
evidence is not certain72
-as well as with the regulation of the sale of olive oil in
Attica, sometime after 126/12773
. He assumed the role of nomothetes for the
Athenians as he did also for the Megarians and the Cyreneans74
. The cities responded
to his interest in their political mechanisms and expressed their gratitude by, among
others, adding a new tribe, Hadrianis (Athens by adding a 13th
tribe, Megara by
adding a 4th
) or by beginning a new era in the local calendar from the year of his visit,
as Epidauros and Tegea did on the occasion of his imperial visit in 12475
.
The life of the cities gained Hadrian’s attention in other respects too, such as
his interest in various organizations, guilds, and associations. This, for example, is
manifested in the correspondence between the emperor and Plotina regarding the
Successor of Epicurus at his School at Athens in 12176
. The current head of the school
(Successor), a Popillius Theotimos, requested permission (through the service of the
dowager empress as intermediary) to choose his successor regardless of citizenship
(until then the succession was restricted to Roman citizens) and to compose his will in
Greek. The empress reported that the emperor, “the benefactor and overseer of all
culture (l.21)” granted both requests to the School. Four years later, in 125, the
72
So Boatwright (2000) 91; cf. Birley (1997) 177, who considers the information correct. For the most
recent discussion of the subject see Kapetanopoulos (1992-1998).
73
IG II(2) 1100. See also Kapetanopoulos (1992-1998).
74
Megara: IG VII 70-72; 3491 (see the famous “Fish Tax” decree which exempts the Eleusinian
fishermen from Athens’ two-obol tax while selling at Eleusis, IG II(3) 1103); Cyrene: SEG
9.54=17.809.
75
Megara: see, for example, IG VII 74;101. Epidauros: IG IV(2),1 384. Tegea: IG V,2 50.
76
IG II(2) 1099=Oliver (1989) 73.
36
emperor confirmed his previous decision in a letter to the School77
. Another
manifestation of Hadrian’s involvement in the life and mechanisms of associations is
revealed in a letter of May 5th
, 134 addressed to the athletic synod of Heracles78
. The
delegate of the synod, Ulpius Domesticus, had requested a new religious and
administrative center. Hadrian accepted his request and in addition granted the synod
the right to revise its statutes if it wished so (ll. 7-9: καὶ τόπον ἔνθα · βούλεσθε ·
κελεύσω δοθῆναι ὑµεῖν · καὶ · οἴκηµα/ὡς τὰ γράµµατα ἀποτίθεσθαι τὰ κοινά· καὶ εἰ τῶν
διπλῶν τὴν/µεταποίησιν · ἀνανκαίαν · νοµίζετε, τοῦτο ἐφ’ ὑµεῖν ἐστιν).
Hadrian’s interest was seen most impressively in the huge building program
that he pursued throughout the region. Under Hadrian, the Athenians saw their city
transformed from a relative poor city to a cultural capital of the Greek East. Hadrian
filled Athens with a series of constructions that embellished the city and eased the life
of its people: the construction of an aqueduct and reservoir on the lower slopes of Mt
Lycabettos augmented the city’s water supply; the gift of the gymnasium contributed
to the city’s cultural life79
.
Hadrian left his everlasting mark on the city with works such as the Library,
the temple of Hera and Zeus Panhellenios, the Pantheon, and the transformation of the
area of the temple of Zeus. In a letter of 131/2 to his favorite city, Athens, regarding
the gymnasium, the emperor did not miss the opportunity to remind his addressees of
his intentions: “know that I use every kind of excuse to benefit both the city in public
and, in private, certain individuals.”80
Therefore, what Pausanias says regarding the
77
IG II(2) 1097+SEG 3.226. See now SEG 43.24. For possible relations of the emperor with the
Epicureans see Birley (1997) 109; 182.
78
IGUR I.235.
79
For a list of Hadrian’s utilitarian buildings and those serving religious activities and spectacles in the
Empire see Boatwright (2000) 108ff.
80
IG II² 1102, ll 10-11: ἴστε ὡς πάσαις χρῶµαι προφάσεσιν τοῦ εὐ ποιεῖν καὶ δηµοσίᾳ τὴν πόλιν καὶ
ἰδίᾳ Ἀθηναίων τινάς.
37
statue of Hadrian in a portico in the Kerameikos area is hardly surprising: “he was a
benefactor to all of his subjects and especially to the city of the Athenians.”81
Not only Athens but the entire Greek world benefited from the presence of the
emperor. During his frequent visits to the Greek East, the cities enjoyed the
benefactions of the emperor in the form of financial aid, land donations, and building
programs. Accordingly, for example, he granted Sparta, in 125, the island of Caudos
off the coast of Crete and the port of Corone on the gulf of Messenia, both valuable
sources of revenue82
. It is possible that he allowed the city to import corn from
Egypt83
. A series of altars from Sparta honoring Hadrian as savior, founder, and
benefactor reveal the city’s gratitude84
.
Frequent visits to Asia Minor led to unparalleled cultural and building activity
there. All the major cities of the region attracted the interest of the emperor and local
intellectuals, such as Polemon, struggled to gain the emperor’s favor for their own
homeland. Ephesos was allowed to import grain from Egypt and received funds on a
lavish scale for the temple of Artemis, while at the same time Hadrian contributed to
the repairing of its ports85
. Smyrna received 10 million drachmae for the construction
of a grain market and for a gymnasium as well as for the temple of Zeus in 12486
. In
the same year, the city of Cyzicus was granted the role of neokoros, temple warden of
the imperial cult, joining Pergamos, Ephesos, Smyrna, and Sardeis87
. Throughout the
Empire the advent of the emperor was seen as an opportunity for transformation and
renaissance.
81
Periegesis 1.3.2: ἐνταῦθα ἕστηκε Ζεὺς ὀνοµαζόµενος Ἐλευθέριος καὶ βασιλεὺς Ἀδριανός, ἐς ἄλλους
τε ὧν ἦρχεν εὐεργεσίας καὶ ἐς τὴν πόλιν µάλιστα ἀποδειξάµενος τὴν Ἀθηναίων.
82
Caudos: SEG 11.494; Corone SEG 11.495.
83
Birley (1997) 217.
84
IG V,1 381-405.
85
IEph 274.
86
Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 531.
87
For the neokoroi see Burrell (2004).
38
2.3.2 Hadrian’s vision for the Greek East
Without being exhaustive, the evidence of Hadrian’s activities presented
above defines the context in which the Greeks came into contact with Hadrian and
shared his regional program. As I have stated earlier the emperor never formulated his
program officially. So, what I will present here is my own synthesis based on an
analysis of Hadrian’s involvement in the region and discussion in modern scholarship.
Hadrian envisaged a Greece, traditional but active, culturally independent, but
politically in accordance with his vision for the Empire. The emperor aimed at the
unification of the Empire by bringing together its two most important elements,
Roman and Greek, and, as a result, creating two imperial centers, one in the West and
the other in the East. By gaining the loyalty of the locals and seeking balance between
his duty to Rome and his love for everything Greek, the emperor aimed at the
cooperation of West and East and the prosperity of the Empire. At the core of this
project he set the Greek cities of the mainland and Asia Minor, in particular the
former, most prominently among them that of Athens. The cities of Asia Minor had
received more attention by his predecessors and perhaps Hadrian wished to redress
the balance in terms of contemporary importance between the two provinces. Hadrian
acknowledged that cultural and historical eminence was as deserving of imperial
recognition as economic and political muscle88
.
An undoubtedly genuine erastes of Greece, Hadrian appealed to the traditions
as well as the cultural and political sentiments of the Greeks. He knew that the pursuit
of their culture could facilitate his reception among the Greeks. In his frequent and
long visits to the region he reached out to the provincials and asked for their support.
He showed visible signs that for the first time the central administration was honestly
88
Spawforth and Walker (1986) 104.
39
willing to incorporate this people into its plans for the future of the Empire. We may
suggest that the Greek populations felt that now they could become active members of
the Empire and that they meant to Rome not merely a land of sight-seeing and
taxation but an indispensable part of the Empire.
His encouragement of the Greek world reflects this desire to link East and
West by, first, seeking a balance between the promotion and integration of Greek
culture and the respect for Roman sensitivities and, second, by attempting to treat the
two parts as equally as possible89
. This was a difficult task. Hadrian was aware of the
ambivalent relations between Roman and Greek culture. From Augustus onwards,
Hellenism had received some degree of imperial sanction, but the amount of active
support varied from emperor to emperor and certainly the example of Nero had to be
avoided. As Lomas says, there was a “need to be seen to espouse Hellenism only in
carefully controlled circumstances90
”, and Hadrian was careful not to obtrude
philhellenism at Rome. In his plans for the Empire this balance was a priority.
However, what distinguished Hadrian from previous Roman philhellenes was
first, that his philhellenism was not limited to the admiration and study of the classical
past, and second, that he combined his feelings with a desire to make the Greek East
an active member of his Empire. He knew that every member was important to his
Empire and it was the task of the emperor to fit each member into its place. Hadrian
knew that the Empire could survive only if its members (Romans and Greeks in
particular) were given the same attention.
Without challenging Roman sensitivities and by acknowledging the special
weight of the Greek cultural past, he initiated a dialogue with his Greek subjects and
89
So Lamberton (1997) 158.
90
Lomas (1993) 181.
40
encouraged them to participate in it actively. The emperor carefully presented his
Greek program to them, a program that could lead to the elevation of the Greek East
to a status of equality with Rome. Latin West and Greek East could function as the
two centers of the Empire producing culture and advancing politics. Hadrian fostered
his relations with the local populations, secured their loyalty, exchanged ideas, and
invited them to share in and contribute to his vision for the Roman Empire, of which
they must be now active members.
The culmination of his efforts was the foundation of the Panhellenion, which
could be a point of reference for the Greeks of the East. This organization certainly
caused the Greeks to feel important again and an indispensable part of the Empire.
They felt now for the first time in centuries that their cultural survival was officially
secured while there was the prospect of political power within the mechanisms of the
Empire. But was the goal of Hadrian the creation of a council with political power or
the foundation of a center that advanced the unity and prosperity of the Greek cities
(thus contributing to the stability of the Empire) through the medium of culture? As I
will show next, it was rather the latter.
2.4 The Panhellenion
Since the publication by James Oliver in 1970 of a corpus of inscriptions
relating to the Panhellenion, a number of articles have dealt with the administrative
mechanisms, the activities and finally the role of the league91
. All modern scholars
have underlined the difficulty of defining the exact role of the league on account of
91
Romeo (2002); also Jones (1996), Spawforth (1999), Spawforth and Walker (1985) and (1986).
41
the scarcity of evidence, especially the literary one92
. Here, I will summarize the
information we have regarding its foundation and structure, and then, focusing on its
activities, I will argue that Hadrian’s goal, by creating the Panhellenion, was not so
much to unite the Greeks politically but rather to highlight their cultural traditions
with special emphasis on his cult. Then, I will attempt to interpret the limited
participation of Greek cities in the league, and in particular the absence of the most
important cities of the province of Asia: Smyrna, Pergamos, and Ephesos. I will
suggest that it was the function of the league as a Koinon with special interest in the
imperial cult and its focus on Old Greece that discouraged many cities from taking
part in its activities. Associated with this absence are the competition among the
Greek cities and their struggle for prestige and preeminence which certainly deterred
cities such as Smyrna from entering a league in which their role would be second to
that of Athens or Sparta.
2.4.1 Foundation of the Panhellenion
Hadrian formally inaugurated the league and the associated temple of Hadrian
himself, the Panhellenion, in 131/132, the same year in which he dedicated the
sanctuary of Olympian Zeus. For the capital of the new league he chose the most
famous among the cities of the Greek mainland, Athens. The scarcity of evidence
does not leave much space to reconstruct either the creation process or to determine
the area of Athens in which his temple stood and the Panhellenion convened. As to
the inspiration of the project, recent scholarship has attributed it to the emperor’s
personal initiative, “though he was assisted and perhaps inspired by prominent
92
Only two passages, one in Dio Cassius (69.16.2) and one in Pausanias (1.18.9) make a reference to
the temple of Zeus Panhellenios built by Hadrian (Pausanias) and Hadrian’s temple, called
Panhellenion (Dio).
42
citizens in the provinces” a theory which seems to have some merit93
. The most
explicit evidence for this theory is considered to be a decree in honor of Hadrian that
was erected on the Athenian Acropolis between 131/2 and 138 by the Lydian member
city of Thyateira. The decree records the role of the emperor in convening the
Panhellenic council in the city of Athens and in submitting its formation to the
approval of the Roman Senate94
. The city expresses its gratitude to the emperor for his
benefactions and wishes to set a decree on the most prominent place of Athens, the
Acropolis. “It will, thus, be clear to all how much the city was profited by the emperor
(ll. 12-13), who benefited all the Greeks when he summoned the council from among
them to the most brilliant city of Athens, who gave the reward of the Mysteries to
all95
. He also gave both the ethne and the cities a share in this Panhellenic council,
after the Roman senate approved it on his proposals.”96
It is possible, then, that the
initiative originated among the imperial entourage. The emperor, probably after he
had secured the support of the Greeks, proceeded to present the proposal to the Senate
for its formal approval.
It is possible that the Panhellenion was not Hadrian’s original plan. It has been
suggested that the emperor initially wished to transform the Delphic Amphictyony
itself into a common assembly of all the Greeks97
. In a letter to Delphi in 125
93
So Romeo (2002) 21ff, following Spawforth (1999), contra Jones (1996) 31ff who attributes it to a
local initiative, approved and modified by the emperor.
94
IG II(2) 1088+1090+IG III 3985, recently re-edited by Jones (1999).
95
Fritz Graf has pointed out to me that Thyateira’s claim of Athens the benefactor that gave humanity
the Mysteries is a traditional one and goes back to Isocrates’ Panegyricus 28-29, who in turn adopted
the claims of Athens when it introduced the tithe on the grain harvest at some point under Pericles.
96
ll. 13-18:
………………………….. ὅτ[ι ἅµα τε κοι]νῇ πᾶν τὸ τῶν Ἑλλή[νων] εὐεργέτησεν
ὁ βασιλεύς, συναγα[γὼ]ν ἐξ αὐ[τῶν ἐκεῖνο τ]ὸ συνέδριον, ὡς φ[ιλο]τειµίαν κοινήν,
εἰς τὴ[ν λαµ]προτάτη[ν Ἀ]θην[αίων] πόλιν, τ[ὴ]ν Εὐεργέτιν, καρπ[ὸν τῶ]ν Μυστηρίων
ὁµ[οῦ πᾶσι διδοῦ]σαν, τὸ [δὲ σεµνότα]τον Πανελλήνιον, δι’ ὧν ἐψη[φίσατο, ὁ]µολογούν[των
τῶν Ῥωµαίων δόγµατι] συνκλήτου, κα[ὶ ἰ]δίᾳ τά τε ἔθνη κ[αὶ τὰς πόλεις τ]ούτου τοῦ τει—
[µιωτάτου µετέδωκε συνεδρ]ίου………
97
Romeo (2002) 24ff, following Jones (1996) 45 and Spawforth (1999) 341.
43
regarding the Amphictyony and the Pythian games, the emperor reports a proposal
that was brought, probably by a senatorial committee, to the Senate regarding the
votes of the Thessalians in the Amphictyony98
. The emperor informs the city that the
authors of the proposal suggested that the excess votes of the Thessalians be given to
the Athenians, the Spartans and to other cities, so that the council might be a common
one of all the Greeks99
. It is hard to believe that the “panhellenic” tenor of this
proposal arose independently of the emperor100
. However, Hadrian never
implemented this proposal. If indeed this text is related to Hadrian’s panhellenic
project, it seems that it was long meditated, and that the idea of basing it on Delphi
was considered at an earlier stage but later abandoned101
.
Ilaria Romeo also notes that the cities of the Greek mainland with membership
in the Panhellenion coincide with those groups which were still, even in the Hadrianic
period, endowed with voting rights in the Delphic Amphictyony. The similarities, she
argues, between the two councils become more striking in light of certain
administrative and organizational aspects, such as the four-year duration of office
both of the archon of the Panhellenion and the epimeletes of the Amphictyony, and
the fact that in both organizations the membership of the cities was annual. “On the
basis of these similarities”, she concludes, “there are those who believe that Hadrian
initially attempted to transform the Delphic Amphictyony itself into a common
assembly of all Greeks according to those same rules of selectivity and Athenian
98
CID 4.152.
99
Col. II, ll. 1-6:
[κα]θ’ ἃ µέντοι χρὴ ποιεῖν κατὰ τοὺ[ς] νόµους, [εἰ]σ[ήνεγκαν]
γνώµην εἰς τὴν λαµπροτάτην σ[ύγ]κλητον εἰσηγη[σάµε]νοι
τὰς ψήφους ἃς πλέονας τῶ[ν] ἄλλων ἔχουσιν Θεσ[σα]λ[οὶ
Ἀ]θηναίοις καὶ Λακεδαιµονίο[ι]ς διανεµηθῆναι καὶ ταῖ[ς]
ἄλ[λαι]ς πόλεσιν, ἵνα ᾖ κοινὸν πάντ[ω]ν τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸ συνέ-
δρ[ι]ον.
100
So Spawforth (1999) 342.
101
Spawforth (1999) 342.
44
preeminence that, once the Delphic project failed, were applied in founding the
Panhellenion.”102
It is also possible that Hadrian wanted to emulate the great Athenian statesman
Pericles103
. As Plutarch says, Pericles introduced a bill to the effect that all Greeks, in
Europe or in Asia, should be invited to send deputies to a council at Athens. This
would deliberate over the Hellenic sanctuaries which the barbarians had burned down,
the sacrifices which were due to the gods in the name of Hellas, and the sea so that all
might sail it fearlessly and keep the peace104
. But, as he later adds, “nothing was
accomplished on account of the Spartan opposition” (Pericles 17.4). Plutarch also
registers the fact that the Athenian statesman was called Olympios105
. So, it seems
that Hadrian by imitating the Athenian statesman was bringing the abortive program
of Pericles to fruition.
2.4.2 Membership in the Panhellenion
At present, membership is known to have embraced cities in no fewer than
five provinces: Achaea, Macedonia (represented by the Thessalians, included as an
ethnos and by the capital Thessalonike), Thrace, Crete-and-Cyrene and Asia- the
Aegean provinces106
. An inscription from Thessalonike shows that the Panhellenion
102
Romeo (2002) 25.
103
So Birley (1997) 219.
104
Pericles 17.1: Ἀρχοµένων δὲ Λακεδαιµονίων ἄχθεσθαι τῇ αὐξήσει τῶν Ἀθηναίων, ἐπαίρων ὁ
Περικλῆς τὸν δῆµον ἔτι µᾶλλον µέγα φρονεῖν καὶ µεγάλων αὑτὸν ἀξιοῦν πραγµάτων γράφει ψήφισµα,
πάντας Ἕλληνας τοὺς ὁποίποτε κατοικοῦντας Εὐρώπης ἢ [τῆς] Ἀσίας παρακαλεῖν, καὶ µικρὰν πόλιν
καὶ µεγάλην, εἰς σύλλογον πέµπειν Ἀθήναζε τοὺς βουλευσοµένους περὶ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἱερῶν, ἃ
κατέπρησαν οἱ βάρβαροι, καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν, ἃς ὀφείλουσιν ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἑλλάδος εὐξάµενοι τοῖς θεοῖς, ὅτε
πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους ἐµάχοντο, καὶ τῆς θαλάττης, ὅπως πλέωσι πάντες ἀδεῶς καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην
ἄγωσιν.
105
Pericles 8.2.
106
The cities that so far are known members of the Panhellenion are: Athens, Sparta, Argos, Epidauros,
Methena, Corinth, Megara, Chalcis, Akraiphia, Amphikleia (Boeotia), Naryka (Locris), Hypata
(Thessaly), Demetrias, Thessalonike, Perinthos, Aizanoi, Synnada, Eumeneia (?) (Phrygia), Cibyra,
45
divided its membership into “cities” (poleis) and “peoples” (ethne)107
. The text was
inscribed on a statue base for Antoninus Pius set up by the Panhellenes according to a
decree submitted by the league to the emperor and then sent to all members.
“Peoples” here refers to certain regional leagues, representing (for the most part)
small cities which might otherwise have had difficulty in sustaining the cost of
representation at Athens; the epigraphic evidence shows that the Cretan and
Thessalian peoples were represented in this way.
As for the requirements for membership, the available evidence points to one
direction: that of origin. In order to be admitted to the Panhellenion a city had to
prove its Greekness. Those of the Greek mainland must be considered as automatic or
“charter” members on account of their geographical location in the heart of Historical
Greece and also due to their status as mother cities of the most important colonies.
Among them must be numbered in the first place Athens and Sparta but also Argos,
Corinth, Megara, Chalcis, and the Thessalian, Locrian and Boeotian communities.
The cities outside the mainland invoked their relationship with a city, or cities, of the
mainland, and based their Greekness on their suggeneia. The relationship between a
colony and its metropolis was a fundamental tool for the validation of a community’s
Greek status. For others, there were attempts to trace their foundation to eponymous
heroes or mythical figures, which were closely tied to ancestral Greece108
. As O.
Curty says, this was not a new phenomenon. Already in the Hellenistic period,
Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Tralleis, Miletos, Thyateira, Sardeis, Rhodes, Samos (?), Apameia, Lyttos,
Gortyn, Hierapytna, Cyrene, Apollonia and Ptolemais-Barca.
107
Oliver (1978) 189,2, ll. 8-10: …………ἁπ[ά]/σας τὰς µετεχούσας πόλεις κ[αὶ]/ἔθνη τοῦ πανελληνίου.
Cf. l. 17 of the decree of Thyateira.
108
For the phenomenon see Strubbe (1984-1986); Scheer (1993); Curty (1994) and (1995). For an
interesting study of the use of real or fictional kinship between Rome and cities of the West and the
East in Rome’s foreign policy see Elwyn (1993).
46
barbarian or semi-Hellenized kings insisted on being recognized as Greeks109
.
However, a major difference from the Hellenistic period was that in the Roman period
the cities were not just looking to establish kinship with the Greek genos, but rather to
associate themselves with the most prestigious cities of the Greek mainland, mainly
Athens and Sparta or Argos110
.
Two documents are revealing here. The first is the decree of the Panhellenes
regarding the admission of Magnesia ad Maeandrum111
, the second a dedication by
the Phrygian city of Cibyra in connection with its membership in the league112
. The
first text comes from the Athenian Acropolis and is dated to the reign of Pius. Only
the upper part of the text is preserved, but before it breaks off, the decree lists those
qualities that made the city a good candidate for the league: the city is a colony of the
Magnesians of Thessaly, the first ever of the Greeks to cross across to Asia and settle
there, true Aeolians themselves; they have been honored by the Roman people on
account of their alliance; and have also received exceptional gifts from the god
Hadrian113
. Although the theme of ancestral Greekness was essential to qualify for
admission to the Panhellenion, other prerequisites included good relations with Rome,
benefits received from Hadrian, and other sorts of links, both private and public.
109
Curty (1995) 254 and n.1
110
See Curty (1995) 259ff for some examples.
111
IG II(2) 1091.
112
SEG 44.823.
113
ἀγαθῆι v τύχηι. Λεύκιππος.
[ψήφισ]µα τὸ γενόµενον ὑπὸ τῶν Πανελλήνων.
[ἐπειδὴ Μάγνητες οἱ] πρὸς τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ ποταµῷ ἄποικοι
[ὄντες Μαγνήτων] τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ, πρῶτοι Ἑλλήνων
5 [διαβάντες ε]ἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν καὶ κατοικήσαντες, συνα[γωνισάµενοι
δὲ] πολλάκις Ἴωσι καὶ ∆ωριεῦσι καὶ τοῖς ἐ[κ
τοῦ αὐτοῦ γ]ένους Αἰολεῦσι, τιµηθέντες καὶ ὑπὸ
[τοῦ δήµου τοῦ Ῥω]µαίων δι’ ἃς ἐποιήσαντο συµµα[χίας
πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δ]ωρεῶν ἐξαιρέτων τυχόντες ὑ-
10 [πὸ θεοῦ Ἁδ]ριανοῦ, πατρὸς Τ Αἰλίου Καίσαρος
[Αὐτοκράτο]ρος Ἁδριανοῦ Ἀντωνίνου τὰς
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — υτ․․εµ — —
47
Similar is the idea in the second text. The inscription is dated to Hadrian’s
reign or slightly after 138. In this inscription, the city of Cibyra invokes interstate
relationships and imperial beneficence to justify its membership in the Panhellenion
and its prosperity: the city is the colony (ἄποικος) of Sparta, kin and friend (συγγενὶς καὶ
φίλη) of Athens. In addition, it is a Greek city (γένος Ἑλληνικὸν), enjoys the friendship
and favor (φιλίαν καὶ εὔνοιαν) of Rome, while it was given honors (εὐξῆσθαι τειµαῖς
ἐξαιρέτοις) by the emperor, Hadrian114
. Ilaria Romeo has rightly pointed out the fact
that both cities refer in the same order to their Greek ancestries, their history of good
relations with Rome, and the benefactions which they had received from Hadrian. As
a result it is possible that this arrangement replicates the official formula of
documents concerning admission115
.
Association with ancestral Greece and good relations with Rome are thus
interrelated under the Empire in this network of interstate relations. As S. Elwyn says,
“this network of legendary relationships allowed each city-state to find self-definition
in a world of increasing contacts with non-Greeks and to develop, with its fellow
Greeks, a way to overcome the parochial nature of the classical polis and expand on a
Panhellenic system of international relations.”116
The case of Cibyra is a good
example of the desire of such communities to attach themselves only to the most
prestigious cities of old Greece. Still, in our sources, Greekness, direct origin from the
114
[ἀ]γαθῆι τύ[χ]ηι Ζεὺς Σω[τήρ].
ἡ Κιβυρατῶν πόλις, ἄποικος Λ[ακεδαιµονίων καὶ]
συγγενὶς Ἀθηναίων καὶ φί[λη, µετέχουσα καὶ]
αὐτὴ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς Ἑλλάδος [συνεδρίου,ἐν ταῖς]
ἐνδόξοις οὖσα καὶ µεγάλαις [τῆς Ἀσίας πόλε]σιν
διά τε τὸ γένος Ἑλληνι[κὸν καὶ διὰ τὴν]
πρὸς Ῥωµαίους ἐκ παλαιοῦ φι[λίαν καὶ εὔνοι]αν
καὶ διὰ τὸ εὐξῆσθαι τειµαῖ[ς ἐξαιρέτοις ὑπὸ]
θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ, ἀνέθηκε τῆι [θεᾶι(?),κατὰ τὸ δό]γµα
τ[ο]ῦ Πανελληνίου ἐνγρα[φεῖσα εἰς τὸ συνέδριον]
115
So Romeo (2002) 31.
116
Elwyn (1993) 267.
48
Greek mainland (argued mainly through mythical claims), was regarded as the first
and foremost prerequisite for any city that wished to be a member of the league.
2.4.3 Administration and Responsibilities of the Panhellenion
The surviving inscriptions shed light on the league’s administrative
machinery: the highest office, that of archon, of which no fewer than thirteen are
known by name, and the council (synedrion) of delegates, called Panhellenes. The
archon held office at Athens for a period of four years (as the Delphic epimeletes), the
Panhellenes for one. It is unknown how the archon was selected, but presumably his
appointment was approved by the emperor. Of lesser officials we hear only of the
deputy-archon (antarchon), to whom a treasurer should perhaps be added, since the
league is found from time to time disbursing monies; among other personnel we
should allow for secretaries, who maintained the “minutes” (hypomnemata) of sittings
of the council and perhaps drafted the official documents emanating from the league;
also for more humble employees concerned with the maintenance of buildings
associated with the league in Athens.
As for the delegates, they were elected by the member-bodies which they
represented according to rules of individual eligibility laid down by Hadrian,
including a minimum age-limit and the requirement to have held local office before
entering the body. This is inferred from a fragmentary inscription that preserves a
number of texts, among them judicial questions and appeals from Athens to the
emperor Marcus Aurelius. In one of these cases, a Ladicus, son of Polyaenus, was
refused a seat on the Panhellenion on the grounds that he was not of legal age and had
not held office previously as Hadrian had prescribed. He appealed to the emperor, but
49
Marcus upheld the decision of the Panhellenic council117
. As for the number of
delegates to which each city was entitled, we do not know the exact number, but it is
clear that the membership was not uniformly represented on the council; the number
probably depended on the size and greatness of a city or its Greekness compared to
other candidates (as was the case with Cyrene and Ptolemais-Barca). Accordingly,
some cities sent one Panhellene to Athens, such as Ptolemais-Barca, or more, such as
Cyrene (two), and Sparta (at least two and perhaps more)118
.
A number of activities performed by the council are attested in our sources.
To begin with, the Panhellenion regulated its own membership. Hadrian’s letter to
Cyrene suggests that in the early years of the league’s existence the archon took a
leading part in administering applications for membership, submitting queries to
Hadrian himself (l. 6). We can also infer from the decree concerning the admission of
Magnesia ad Maeandrum, that the admission procedure also involved the council once
it was large enough to function effective1y119
.
Among the most important activities of the league was the cult of the emperor,
evidenced in Dio120
and in the inscriptions that mention the priest of the god Hadrian
Panhellenios. A monument from Aezanoi, honoring the citizen M. Ulpius Eurycles,
reveals that the archon of the Panhellenion wore a crown adorned with busts of the
emperors: his had two busts, of Hadrian and Pius121
. In association with the cult there
117
SEG 29.127, plaque II, ll 15-20: Λάδικος Πολυαίνου ὁ ἐκκεκληµένος πρὸς Σωφάνην Σω[φά]/νους
ἀπὸ Ἰουλ ∆αµοστράτου τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῶν Πανελλήνων φαίνεται κατὰ τὸν ὠρισµένον χρόνο[ν
ἤδη]/ἐντὸς οὗ ἔξεστιν δικάζεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς κεχειροτονηµένους Πανέλληνας κληθεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν κρίσιν,
ἀπ[ελεγ]/χθεὶς δέ, καίτοι µετὰ τὴν νενοµισµένην προθεσµίαν τῆς χειροτονίας γεγενηµένης, οὔπω τὴν
ἔννο[µον]/ἡλικίαν γεγονὼς οὐδὲ τότε καὶ οὐδεµίαν ἀρχὴν πρότερον ἄρξας ὡς ὁ θεὸς πάππος µου
ὥρισεν, ἀδίκως [ἐφει]/κέναι [δ]οκεῖ.
118
Ptolemais-Barca and Cyrene: letter of Hadrian to Cyrene regarding the cities’ admission, Reynolds
(1978) re-edited by Jones (1996) 47ff; Sparta: IG V,1 164.
119
See above, note 113, l. 2.
120
Dio Cassius 69.16.2: τόν τε σηκὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ, τὸ Πανελλήνιον ὠνοµασµένον, οἰκοδοµήσασθαι
τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐπέτρεψε, καὶ ἀγῶνα ἐπ’ αὐτῷ κατεστήσατο.
121
Jones (1996) 35.
50
was a festival, celebrated every four years, the Panhellenia, first attested in 137. The
league presumably appointed both the priest of the cult and the agonothetes of the
festival, posts often-but not invariably-combined with the archonship of the league.
Philostratus mentions two of his sophists, Herodes Atticus and Marcus Aurelius
Rufus of Perinthos as generous agonothetes122
. Inscriptions mentioning victors at the
Panhellenia extend well into the late third century, whereas no text referring to other
functions of the council can de dated beyond the first decade of the same century123
.
The Panhellenion orchestrated the offering of honors to the ruling emperor.
The most appropriate moment for such a large-scale vote of honors for the emperor
was his accession, when Greek cities customarily sent congratulatory embassies to the
new ruler. The evidence here comes from the statue-base set up at Thessalonike in
honor of Antoninus Pius according to the decree of the Panhellenes124
. Oliver noted
that the Panhellenion, by moderating the conferment of honors in this way, obviated
the need for its members to send individual embassies to Pius125
.
The league must also have administered a certain amount of routine
expenditure. It is possible that the Panhellenion was able to distribute money to the
Athenian ephebes when they participated in celebrations of the Panhellenia126
. It has
also been argued that the institution was in charge of the financial administration of
the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis127
. Presumably the league was also
responsible for the maintenance of the premises with which it was associated at
Athens and which it owned: the meeting place of the council and the sanctuary of the
122
Herodes Atticus: Lives of the Sophists 549-550; Rufus: Lives of the Sophists 597. See also SEG
28.97, where Rufus is attested not only as agonothetes but also as archon of the Panhellenion and priest
of Hadrian Panhellenios.
123
Jones (1996) 37-38.
124
See above note 107.
125
Oliver (1978) 190.
126
This is inferred from an observation in an ephebic catalog (IG II(2) 2105) dated to 173/4-178/9 that
the ephebes did not obtain their part of the distribution on the occasion of the Panhellenia.
127
Clinton (1997) 175 and note 93.
51
Panhellenion. The Panhellenion occasionally engaged in the setting up of dedications
and even building projects, such as the Hadrianic commemorative arches at Eleusis
set up by the Panhellenes in honor of Hadrian and the goddesses128
. Exceptional
expenditure of this kind was probably financed by subscription among the
membership or even donations by the emperor.
Such were the activities that were undertaken by the league in its short history.
The question that comes up is what was the role of the council in the life of the
region? Was it restricted to cultural (such as festivals) and religious activities that
united the Greeks around the common traditions and the cult of the emperor? Did it
have real political power? What was Hadrian’s goal when he founded the league? In
answering these questions I will also take into consideration a matter that has troubled
modern scholars: how can we explain the limited participation in the council and the
absence of the great cities of Asia? These are the issues to which I will now turn.
2.4.4 The Impact of the Panhellenion
So far, we have seen that the activities of the league centered around three
subjects: regulation of the admission and function of the league; the cult of the
emperor; and the supervision of the Panhellenia games. I believe that none of these
activities can be described as political, strictly speaking. Actions such as the setting
up of a statue of a Roman official or the conferment of honors to an emperor, as well
as monetary contributions to the life of the city were very common in the life of the
Greek cities and emanated not only from leagues but also individuals. Therefore,
these activities cannot be seen as political. There is no evidence that the Panhellenion
ever sent embassies or intervened between quarreling cities, even among the league
128
See discussion in Clinton (1989) and briefly (1997) 174ff.
52
itself, or prosecuted a provincial governor (as the Koina of Asia had done), or had
rescripts addressed to it, except for those concerned with its own constitution (such as
those mentioned above by Marcus Aurelius)129
.
Despite its lack of political authority at a corporate level, at another level, that
of the individual, the Panhellenion provided its members with the opportunity of
advancing their careers. There is some evidence that service in the Panhellenion was
seen as a source of personal prestige. So for example, in the reign of Severus,
Geminia Olympias, the daughter of Titus Aelius Geminius, was proud to record that
her father had been the first man from the most brilliant city of Thessalonike to
become archon of the Panhellenes130
. For at least three generations service in the
Panhellenion offered a prestigious outlet for the philotimia of upper-class Greeks;
some seventy years after the league's foundation aristocrats from neighboring
provinces were still willing to serve in Athens as archons. The league’s personnel
included magnates from the elites of the Greek cities, who tended to dominate the
organization’s high offices; but its council also provided an arena for Greeks of lower
status131
. Service in the Panhellenion was considered a career step.
The career of M. Ulpius Eurycles from Aezanoi provides the most obvious
example of a Greek who sought to benefit personally from his association with the
league. The evidence derives from a series of testimonials written in his favor
following his term as Panhellene, which fell in 156. A total of five such testimonials
are attested, copies of three of which have survived (they had been inscribed at
Aezanoi for public view). Four were composed by the archon and the Panhellenes and
addressed respectively to Antoninus Pius, the city of Aezanoi, and (two letters) the
129
So Jones (1996) 42ff.
130
IG X,2 1 181, ll. 7-9: πρῶτον γε/νόµενον ἄρχοντα Πανελλήνων ἀπὸ τῆς/λαµπροτάτης
Θεσσαλονεικέων πόλεως,
131
I will return to the class representation in the council in the next chapter.
53
Asian Koinon; the fifth was addressed to Aezanoi by the Athenian Areopagus132
.
These testimonials provide an insight into what was probably a routine part of the
league's activities. They also imply that its recommendation was thought to carry
weight among the addressees (including the emperor). Eurycles presumably wished to
be drawn to their attention in order to enhance his personal prestige, with a view to his
future career. How efficacious they were one cannot say; but one addressee, the Asian
Koinon, later twice conferred on Eurycles the post of high priest (the second term
falling between 180 and 190). In addition, Eurycles held the post of curator to the
Ephesian gerousia in 162 or 163, and later the same post at Aphrodisias133
.
For a prospective member of the league there were also the blandishments of a
stay in Athens. Not only had the city been provided with splendid new amenities by
Hadrian and Herodes Atticus, (the physical appearance of Athens was transformed by
gifts of magnificent buildings) but intellectually, culturally, and socially the city
became the center of Greece, as she was hostess to delegates coming from at least five
provinces, as well as to other Greek notables. The prospect of breathing for a while
the cosmopolitan air of Antonine Athens might well have seemed congenial to a
Greek from Aezanoi or Cyrene.
Given the limited political role of the Panhellenion, we have to seek its
importance at a different level, that of culture. The negligible political role of the
Panhellenion has already been underlined above, while the prerequisite of Greekness
must not be viewed as an expression of political aspirations or a manifestation of
chauvinism. What seems to be Hadrian’s plan, I believe, was the “unification” of
cities and regions with Greek roots that could advance a sense of Greekness (as it is
132
See discussion in Spawforth and Walker (1985) 89-90.
133
Spawforth and Walker (1985) 89-90.
54
testified by the name “Panhellenion”) and focus on cultural activities that were for
long common practice in the cities of the East: festivals, games and cult of the
emperor. All three were in accordance with standard imperial practice in the region
and certainly appealed to the idiosyncrasies of the locals. Therefore we must see the
activities of the league as manifestations of widespread cultural phenomena.
The focus on emperor cult, first of Hadrian Panhellenios and then of Hadrian
and his successors, is hardly surprising. The Greek East was familiar with the
mechanisms of the imperial cult since Augustus (following Hellenistic parallels). The
closest equivalent to the Panhellenion’s religious activities is found in the Koina of
Asia. I will dare to call the Panhellenion a Koinon even though the term was never
applied to the league, either in epigraphic sources or modern scholarship. But this is
what the Panhellenion really was: a body aspiring to bring together cities of Greek
origin (with particular emphasis on Old Greece), with shadowy political authority
(limited only to the administration of the body itself), and featuring cultural displays,
such as the Panehellenia and the cult of the emperor. It is true that the Panhellenion
did not have the political authority that the Asian Koinon had in bringing charges
against governors; but besides the fact that no such abuse has been recorded for the
second century in the mainland, the political power of the Asian Koinon was not as
great. It, too, focused mostly on the administration of the imperial cult and the
benefits that accrued from it134
. As for the notion of Greekness, I contend that this
needs to be seen as an expression of Hadrian’s emphasis on the role of the Greek
mainland and as a response to the expectations of Old Greece, in particular its most
glorious cities and peoples, Athens and Sparta, Ionians and Dorians. As I will show
134
The basic work on the Koina is Deininger (1965). See also the recent discussion of the association
of the Koina with the Neokoria in Burrell (2004) 343-358.
55
now it was the Koinon-character of the Panhellenion and the focus on Old Greece that
explains the limited participation in the league.
The absence of the most important cities of Asia Minor, Smyrna, Pergamos,
and Ephesos has been attributed by modern scholars to the scarcity of epigraphic
evidence135
. Here I wish to advance a different theory. The limited participation of
cities and the absence of the major cities of Asia Minor are not due to the amount of
evidence preserved but rather to the function of the Panhellenion as a Koinon of the
Greek mainland (though open to cities of proven Greek origin) and to the centrality
that Old Greece and in particular Athens had in the organization. The cities of Asia
Minor already enjoyed the benefits of hosting the imperial cult, not only of Hadrian
but of his predecessors as well, while the competition among the cities for
preeminence discouraged cities such as Smyrna from entering a league in which they
would have to accept the preeminence of other cities, such as Athens, and play a
secondary role.
It is true that the Panhellenion had limited impact on the Greek world.
Important cities did not participate; no contemporary Greek author directly mentions
the Panhellenion. There is the suggestion that already under Pius not all panhellenes
troubled to sit out their whole term in Athens; under Marcus the rules laid down by
Hadrian for the eligibility of the Panhellenes had been flouted; in the 170’s the
institution was in (perhaps temporary) financial straits, to judge from its inability to
make its customary distribution to the Athenian ephebes, as we saw above; and by the
later second century the Panhellenia were having repeated difficulty attracting
professional contestants136
.
135
So Romeo (2002) 35 and Spawforth and Walker (1985) 81.
136
Spawforth (1999) 350ff.
56
Spawforth attempts to explain this and concludes that since the league was
imposed by Rome (without it being a Greek initiative) and was a Roman, in particular
Hadrianic, scheme we can expect “a certain air of half-heartedness which hangs over
it.”137
He even argues that the known limits of the league’s membership to Greeks
from the mainland and their direct colonies reflect reluctance on Rome's part to permit
the permanent union of a large part of the Greek world within an organization
administered by the Greeks themselves138
.
Spawforth’s last hypothesis is totally unfounded. The character of the
Panhellenion, a cultural rather than political organization, is already found in the
creation of the Asian Koina, and certainly it did not pose any political danger to the
administration of the Empire. On the contrary, I believe, by diverting Greek national
feeling, as this is expressed in the prerequisite of Greekness, into cultural and
ceremonial channels, Hadrian anticipated any possible tension and dissatisfaction in
the region and gave local ambitions a way out through cultural activities. If indeed
Rome, meaning the Senate and certain imperial circles, wanted to prevent the
membership of a number of Greek cities, this could be done with regard to the cities
of Southern Italy and Sicily. Although this is possible, there is no evidence that such a
decision was ever taken. As for the senatorial provinces of Achaea and Asia, it is not
certain that the Senate found it necessary to intervene.
The absence of major cities from the league must be first attributed to the
centrality of Old Greece and Athens in particular. This is an idea that was first
137
Spawforth (1999) 350ff; also Swain (1996). Cf. Jones (1996) 46: “In the history of Greek culture,
(Panhellenion) is an important monument to the Greek sense of self and unity, and to Greek
perceptions of imperial power: it is in that history not in the context of Roman benefaction,
administration, or political advancement, that it finds its proper setting.”
138
Spawforth and Walker (1985) 81.
57
expressed by Spawforth, but not really advanced139
. Hadrian’s selection of Athens as
the center of the league underlines the preeminence of the city, something that is
highlighted in the Thyateiran decree (ll. 14-15). So, I think, it is possible that
participation was interpreted by some cities as a form of subordination of one city to
another. A survey of the Asiatic cities currently included in the Panhellenic list seems
to suggest that it was often the smallest and least relevant communities that claimed
pure Greek descent in order to be admitted to that potentially prestigious organization.
Against the enthusiasm of, for example, Aezanoi, we should set the indifference of
Ephesos, Smyrna and Pergamos. The extreme sensitivity of those proud cities makes
it difficult to see their omission as merely a matter of epigraphic preservation140
. In a
world of fierce inter-state rivalries, such institutionalized deference to the Athenians
would not necessarily have a wide appeal. It is hardly acceptable that cities of such
caliber were content with a place other than the first, particularly in a period when
their prestige in terms of political power and cultural production was above that of
most Greek cities, if not all of them. The “constitution” of the Panhellenion expresses
not horizontal relations between equal cities, but rather vertical relations within which
a city that wanted to participate in the Panhellenion had to prove its Greekness with
relation to the most important cities of Greece, Athens and Sparta. The center of the
Panhellenion was old Greece, particularly Athens and Sparta, and its periphery the
mainland’s colonies. It was impossible for Smyrna to be at the periphery.
139
Spawforth (1999) 343.
140
Their struggle for preeminence in Asia is frequently seen in the literary, epigraphic and numismatic
evidence.
58
As a second reason I suggest the Koinon-function of the Panhellenion. The
role of the Panhellenion in the administration of the imperial cult has been
acknowledged by modern scholars, but not really examined to its full extent141
. As
was mentioned above the cult was administered by the council and initially focused
on the living emperor Hadrian, under the title Hadrian Panhellenios. After the
emperor’s death the cult included his successor, and evidently evolved into one of the
Theoi Sebastoi both living and dead, a familiar pattern in the Greek East. We saw
above that the crown of Eurycles bore the images of both Hadrian and Antoninus. Dio
also, as I mentioned, informs us of Hadrian’s cult: the emperor allowed the Greeks to
build in his honor a temple (sekos) which was named the Panhellenion and instituted a
series of games in connection with it.
Given the current state of the evidence, the cult of the emperor was the most
important activity of the league. It is possible that Hadrian intended his worship as a
unifying force for the Greeks, especially of the mainland, and built the league around
it. The cities of Asia Minor were already deeply involved in the institution of the
imperial cult and were enjoying its benefits and the largess of the emperor. Perhaps
this can also explain their absence from the league. However, it is a mistake to focus
only on cities such as Smyrna, Pergamos, and Ephesos. For example, staying in Asia
Minor, we notice that one of the most important cities of Bithynia, Nicaea, was also
not a registered member of the Panhellenion. The city had attested Greek roots, and
the emperor was familiar with it before he founded the Panhellenion. The city, as
most of Bithynia, had been damaged by an earthquake shortly before the emperor’s
visit in 123-124. Both Nicaea and Nicomedeia were rebuilt with lavish donations
141
Spawforth (1999) 344ff.
59
from Hadrian142
. The good relations with the emperor could guarantee the city a seat
in the council, but still its membership is not attested. The reasons for its absence can
be the same as for Smyrna above: prestige and earlier possession of a religiousoriented
institution similar to the one that Hadrian desired to found on the mainland. It
is noteworthy that cities that had held a neokorate before Hadrian, or those that
received the neokorate by him were not among the members of the Panhellenion143
.
2.5 Summary
In this chapter I put together the historical context for this study and
approached it from two different points of view: that of the Greeks and that of the
emperor. First, I examined the political situation of the Greeks of the East in the
second century AD as this is portrayed in the works of contemporary authors. By
examining this evidence we can create a picture of the thoughts of an ambitious local
with regard to his political career in the Roman Empire. We can detect a number of
attitudes, mainly a conservative appreciation for the current regime on account of the
security and stability it offered with regard to external dangers as well as with regard
to the elites’ position vis-à-vis the lower classes of the community. At the same time
we notice a desire for more political freedom and initiative, as an ambitious
magistrate looks beyond the boundaries of his community to a more prestigious
position in the imperial administration. This need is combined with a feeling of
caution as to the dangers that such an involvement might entail for the community.
Finally, a desire not to provoke interference of Roman officials can be detected here.
142
Birley (1997) 157.
143
See list in Burrell (2004). The only exception was Miletos, which allegedly received an imperial
temple but not neokorate by Gaius. On the evidence see discussion in Burrell (2004) 55ff.
60
In the second part of this chapter, I identified the basic elements of Hadrian’s
program for the region. I examined certain aspects of his involvement in the life of the
Eastern cities and showed that the emperor was genuinely interested in almost every
aspect of their communal life: cultural, political, religious, and economic. Hadrian
contributed not only in the form of money donations and building initiatives but also
by means of administrative reforms and most importantly by showing his deep and
sincere respect for the traditions and culture of the people. I showed that the emperor,
during his frequent and long trips in the area, aimed at the support of the locals as he
set forth his ambitious plan: that of the unification of the Empire by bringing together
its two most distinct elements, Roman and Greek. By gaining the loyalty of the locals
the emperor aimed at the cooperation of West and East and the prosperity of the
Empire.
Finally, I focused on the institution which has attracted the attention of
modern scholars mostly on account of its title rather than its impact on the history of
the second and third centuries. I showed that by creating this organization, of which
unfortunately we know little, Hadrian aimed at a kind of unification of the Greek
cities focusing on cultural rather than political activities. I suggested that the
Panhellenion was essentially a manifestation of a tradition long established in Asia
Minor, that of a Koinon. I argued that it was the cultural activities of the league and
the focus on the cult of the emperor, as well as the central role of Athens and the
mainland, that discouraged many from entering the league. In any case, the
Panhellenion remains the Hadrianic institution that most clearly reveals its creator’s
plans to contribute to the renaissance of the region and its participation in his imperial
program.
61
The audience that Hadrian reached through this institution and his other
activities in the region is what I will turn to in the next chapter in an attempt to
identify whom did Hadrian address and whose support did he seek, when he set forth
his program for the region and the Empire.
62
CHAPTER 3
HADRIAN AND HIS AUDIENCE
3.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter I presented the historical context in which Hadrian and
the Greeks came into contact. I also discussed the political expectations of his Greek
subjects and I outlined his vision for the region and the empire in general. Here, I will
talk about the people that Hadrian addressed in the East: his audience. This is a
subject that has not received the attention it deserves in the biographies of the
emperor, especially the latest by Anthony Birley. We hear about the emperor, his
personality, and his achievements, but we do not really hear about the people he
conversed with. This is what I will talk about here: the people Hadrian met and how
he met them.
As the only way by which Hadrian came directly into contact with the Greeks
was his travels I will first talk about them. This is a necessary step in my overall
discussion of his audience as it will set the geographical and chronological context.
Based on ancient evidence and recent scholarship I will reconstruct the routes of his
long and frequent visits to various places throughout the empire. I will examine the
motives for his frequent travels and I will argue that Hadrian desired to strengthen the
frontiers of the empire, to secure the loyalty of the legions, and foster his relations
with the local populations, aristocrats and common people alike.
63
As his travels played an important role in advancing his relations with the
locals and in promoting his program, I will next discuss the mechanisms of imperial
travels focusing on Hadrian but also using material from other emperors. Clifford
Ando has already noted the absence of such discussion in Anthony Birley’s biography
of the emperor144
. I will show that the visit of the emperor was a major event both for
the administration and the provinces he visited: every tour had to be planned well in
advance and provisions needed to be made at Rome to facilitate the imperial train. In
the provinces, the archons of the cities were notified by the local Roman authorities to
be ready to accommodate the emperor and his entourage. Thus, a large number of
provisions, food supplies, for men and animals alike, facilities, and temporary
constructions had to be in place well before the advent of the emperor. These
preparations were often viewed as a burden, but the benefits that could be gained from
the emperor’s visit were too many to ignore.
Next I will talk about the people Hadrian met in the Greek East and the gains
that each side, emperor and Greeks, expected to win. I will focus my discussion on
two different groups. On the one hand, local elites and magistrates expected the
emperor to solve a number of problems either communal or personal. Financial
assistance to the city’s treasury or great sanctuary, settling land disputes among cities,
and the support of individuals’ careers were among issues that the emperor often had
to rule on. Of particular importance for the elites was their participation in the local
councils and imperial posts in the province, and finally membership in the Roman
Senate. Thus, embassies formed of the most prominent citizens of a community
visited Rome on a regular basis, and when the emperor visited a city they were the
first to request a hearing.
144
Ando (1998) 184.
64
On the other hand, a number of people of lower status, residing either in the
cities or in the country and even slaves, would look forward to an imperial visit in
order to present their case and advance their interests. We can imagine them, along
with the elites, as they visited the emperor in his camp, or crowded the house that he
settled in, probably of a local aristocrat, or welcomed him as he passed by. In festivals
organized by the local magnates, they celebrated his advent. In the theater they
praised and blessed him for the gifts they hoped he came to grant them.
As it will become clear in the presentation of the above subjects, whenever
Hadrian visited the provinces he was expected to deal not only with the elites and
archons of a community, but also common people. It will be more evident then that
Hadrian’s program did not address only the elites but also the broad population,
although, as it is expected, the emperor relied first on the elites’ support for the
implementation of his program and its subsequent “distribution” to the masses.
3.2 Hadrian’s Travels
Synesius of Cyrene, the philosopher-bishop of Ptolemais in Cyrenaica, in a
letter to a certain Olympios, contemplates the remoteness of the emperor and the court
in the early fifth century145
. “The names of the emperor and his court”, he says “are
similar to flames: they rise up to a great height of glory and are then extinguished.” In
his hometown, there is a silence about these names and “our ears are spared from
news of that sort”. The writer complains that the only reason that “we know very well
(σαφῶς) that there has always been an emperor” is the tax- collectors, “who remind us
of this every year. But, who the emperor is,” he continues, “it is not very clear. In fact,
145
Synesius, Epistle 148; for other letters to the same individual see letters 45, 96-99 and 133.
65
some of us” he concludes, “believe that Agamemnon is still on the throne!”146
The
sarcastic tone of the ending lines cannot hide the provincials’ dissatisfaction over the
indifference and remoteness of the emperor and central administration147
.
It is very unlikely that Synesius would feel this way, had he lived in Hadrian’s
time. Hadrian was the emperor who honored the provinces with his presence more
than anyone else: “hardly any emperor ever traveled with such speed over so much
territory” the Historia Augusta informs us148
, and later the same text argues “so fond
was he of travel, that he wished to inform himself in person about all that he had read
concerning all parts of the world.”149
Besides the scarce literary testimony, traces of Hadrian’s presence have
survived from the entire empire in the form of statues, buildings erected in his honor
and by him, coins depicting his adventus and inscriptions commemorating the passage
of his entourage through cities and villages. This information was discussed in detail
by Halfmann in 1986 (his work remains the fundamental work on imperial travels)
but due to the increasing volume of epigraphic information a new study was deemed
necessary. This was carried out by A. Birley over a decade later and, although this
study is satisfactory, it has become outdated as new evidence has emerged. Therefore,
what I present here is largely based on the studies of Halfmann and Birley as well as
of other scholars and takes into consideration inscriptions published afterwards150
.
146
ll. 130-141: βασιλεὺς δὲ καὶ βασιλέως φίλοι καὶ δαίµονος ὄρχησις, οἷα δὴ συνιόντες ἀκούοµεν,
ὀνόµατά τινα καθάπερ αἱ φλόγες ἐπὶ µέγα τῆς δόξης ἐξαπτόµενα καὶ σβεννύµενα, ταῦτα δεῦρο
ἐπιεικῶς σιγᾶται, καὶ σχολὴ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς τοιούτων ἀκροαµάτων. ἐπεὶ καὶ βασιλεὺς ὅτι µὲν ἀεὶ ζῇ, τοῦτ’
ἴσως ἐπίστανται σαφῶς (ὑποµιµνησκόµεθα γὰρ ἅπαν κατ’ ἔτος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκλεγόντων τοὺς φόρους)·
ὅστις δὲ οὗτός ἐστι0ν, οὐ µάλα ἔτι τοῦτο σαφῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἡµῖν εἰσί τινες οἳ µέχρι καὶ νῦν Ἀγαµέµνονα
κρατεῖν ἥγηνται τὸν Ἀτρείδην, τὸν ἐπὶ Τροίαν, τὸν µάλα καλόν τε κἀγαθόν·
147
See Synesius’ On Kingship (especially 13ff), addressed to Arcadius, where the author strongly
disapproves of the remoteness of the emperor.
148
Hadrian XIII.5: nec quisquam fere principum tantum terrarum tantum celeriter peragravit
149
Hadrian XVII.8: Peregrinationis ita cupidus, ut omnia, quae legerat de locis orbis terrarum,
praesens vellet addiscere
150
Halfmann (1986) 188- 210; Birley (2003); Dräger (2000).
66
Accordingly, the current evidence suggests the following route for Hadrian’s
imperial travels:
117: Antioch- Cilicia- Antioch- Tarsos (October 12th
)- Mapsucrene (October 13th
)Panhormos
(October 14th
)- Aquae Calidae (October 15th
)- Tynna (October
16th
)- Tyana (October 17th
)- Andabalis (October 18th
)- Ancyra- Iuliopolis
(November 11th
)- winter at Nicomedeia and/or Byzantium?
118: Thrace- Moesia Inferior- Dacia- Moesia Superior- Pannonia- Italy- Rome (July
9th
)
119: Rome- Campania- Rome
120: Rome
121: Rome- Gaul- Germania Superior- Raetia- Noricum- Raetia- Germania Superior
122: Germania Inferior- Britain- Gaul
123: Gaul: Nemausus- Apta- Spain: Tarraco- Legio- Mauretania Tingitana?Cyrenaica-
Crete?- Side- Aspendos- Perge- Attaleia- Cyprus?- Syria: AntiochEuphrates-
Cappadocia: Neocaesarea- Trapezous- Pontus- Bithynia:
Nicomedeia?- Thrace
124: Cyzicus- Ilium- Hadrianutherae- Pergamos?- Thyateira- Saittae- SardeisSmyrna-
Erythrai- Ephesos- Rhodes- Athens- Eleusis- Megara- EpidaurosTroezen-
Hermione- Argos?(December of 124?)
125: Mantineia- Tegea- Sparta- Corinth- Athens (March)- Thespiae- Coronea- AbaeHyampolis-
Delphi- Dyrrhachium (May 20th
?)- Sicily- Rome- Tibur (between
August 14th
and September 12th
)- Rome
126: Rome
127: Rome
67
128: Rome- Sicily- Africa- Numidia: Lambaesis (July 1st
)- Zarai (July 7th
)- unknown
castellum (July 12/13th
)- Mauretania- Rome- Athens (September)- Sparta-
Athens
129: Athens- Eleusis- Ephesos- Miletos- Lycia: Patara- Maeander Valley- TralleisLaodiceia
on the Lycus (June 29th
)- Apameia (July 23rd
)- MelissaCappadocia-
Antioch
130: Antioch- Mt. Cassius- Palmyra- Gerasa- Jerusalem- Gaza (July)- PelusiumAlexandria-
Libyan Desert (September)- Heliopolis- Memphis- OxyrhynchusHermopolis-
Antinoupolis (October 30th
)- Ptolemais?- Thebes (November
18th
-21st
)- Oxyrhynchus (November 29th
- 30th
)- Tebtunis (December 1st
)-
Alexandria
131: Alexandria- Antinoupolis? (March- April)- Alexandria- Syria- CiliciaPamphylia:
Phaselis- Ephesos?- Mysia?: Hadrianoi- Hadrianeia?- Athens
132/133(?)/134(?): Athens- Judaea- Athens- Macedonia- Thrace?- Moesia Superior?Dalmatia?-
Pannonia- Italy- Rome
134-138: Italy-Rome-Baiae
We can say with confidence that Hadrian, with the exception of the years
during which he remained at Rome and its vicinity (119-120, 126-127, and the final
years of his reign), devoted at least half of his reign to the inspection of the provinces
and in particular the eastern ones. This was in marked contrast to some of his
predecessors (e.g., Augustus, Trajan) and successors (e.g. Marcus Aurelius), who
traveled outside of Italy mostly for military reasons. Others remained for most of their
reign in the vicinity of the capital (such as Tiberius and Antoninus Pius), while Nero’s
cultural journey to Greece in 66-67 seems to be the major exception.
68
A general trait that we can discern here is that Hadrian wished to inspect the
provinces of the empire and assess their needs and imperial priorities there. Thus we
can explain his travels from 118, on his way to Rome, to 125, when he returned to the
capital, during which the emperor inspected almost the entire empire. Specifically
speaking, I suggest that there were three main motives for his tours: strengthening of
the frontiers of the empire, securing of the loyalty of the legions, and fostering his
relations with the local populations. The emperor’s inherent curiosity and personal
interests, such as the Eleusinian mysteries, certainly played a role in planning his
travels.
After he was declared emperor in 117, Hadrian returned to Rome through Asia
Minor and the north-eastern provinces in order to present himself to the people and
the Senate of Rome. The senatorial body was especially alarmed by the killings that
took place shortly after his accession to the throne151
. According to the biographer,
when he returned to Rome, Hadrian appeared before the Senate and tried to clear
himself of the blame for what happened, while he promised never to cause harm to
any of its members unless the Senate so decided152
.
Soon after, the strengthening of the empire’s frontiers became a priority for
Hadrian. Accordingly, during his first trip from 121 to 125 Hadrian paid special
attention to the borders of the empire. It was in this period that he inaugurated the
construction of the British wall (122) as well as of a palisade on the Rhine frontier
(121), and there is evidence that he attempted to construct a similar border in
151
Dio Cassius 69.2.5 and HA, Hadrian VII.
152
HA, Hadrian VII.4: iuravit se numquam senatorem nisi ex senatus sententia puniturum. cf. Dio
Cassius 69.2.4, where he states that the promise was expressed in a letter to a senate rather than by a
speech there. It is possible that the emperor, while in Syria, sent a letter to the senatorial body in order
to anticipate any hostile move, and on arriving in Rome, appeared before the senators and presented his
case.
69
Northern Africa153
. To further secure the borders of the empire, Hadrian improved
military discipline by example. According to Dio, the emperor so trained and
disciplined the army both by his example and his precepts that even in Dio’s own
days “the methods then introduced by him (Hadrian) are the soldier’s law of
campaigning.”154
An even more important motive for Hadrian’s first trip as emperor has been
largely neglected in modern scholarship: to secure the legions’ loyalty. Given the
nature of his policy of non-expansion and the fact that with the exception of the
Jewish revolt there was no other major conflict during his reign, we may perceive his
reported insistence on the discipline of the army both as his interest in maintaining
battle-ready legions and as his acknowledgement of their power and role in selecting
an emperor and of the need to secure their loyalty. There were plenty of precedents to
consider from Nero and later. We know that there were legions in, among others,
Germany, Syria, Cappadocia, North Africa, places that the emperor visited in his first
153
Wall: HA Hadrian XI.2. There is a huge bibliography on the Wall. The reader may consult Hill
(2004), Breeze and Dobson (2000), and Birley (1997) 123-141; Rhine frontier: Birley (1997) 116. A
passage in HA may allude to it. The author claims that “in many regions where the barbarians are back
not by rivers but by artificial barriers, Hadrian shut them off by means of high stakes planted deep in
the ground and fastened together in the manner of a palisade” (stipitibus magnis in modum muralis
saepis funditus iactis atque conexis barbaros separavit. Hadrian XII.6); Africa: Birley (1997) 209. The
reader may also consult the useful work on imperial frontiers by Whittaker (1994).
154
Dio Cassius 69.9.4: συνελόντι τε εἰπεῖν, οὕτω καὶ τῷ ἔργῳ καὶ τοῖς παραγγέλµασι πᾶν τὸ
στρατιωτικὸν δι’ ὅλης τῆς ἀρχῆς ἤσκησε καὶ κατεκόσµησεν ὥστε καὶ νῦν τὰ τότε ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ταχθέντα
νόµον σφίσι τῆς στρατείας εἶναι. See a similar statement in the HA, “the emperor incited others by the
example of his own military virtue” (exemplo etiam virtutis suae ceteros adhortatus, Hadrian X.4). cf.
M. Cornelius Fronto who saw here a decline in the morale and performance of the army. In his
Principia Historiae, addressed to the emperor Lucius Verus in 165, he praised the latter’s military
virtues and compared them to Hadrian’s organization of the army (Princ. Hist. 10ff-I follow C.R.
Haines’s Loeb edition). He initially accused Hadrian of giving up the provinces that Trajan had
annexed instead of holding them with an army. Moreover, Hadrian entertained his troops with dances
rather than with battles and arms, more like a performer and not a general. Fronto also treated with
contempt the emperor’s travels. Stephen Stertz argued that Fronto had at least three motives for
attacking Hadrian: first, as a member of the senatorial order, he disliked Hadrian in the same way that
Dio does in his work; second, he seems to have fallen into the tendency of the panegyrist to magnify
the current emperor’s virtues by denigrating those of an earlier emperor; and finally, it is possible
(though not certain) that a reason for his hostility was that, at an uncertain date, he was engaged in a
lawsuit in which the Greek intellectual and friend of Hadrian Herodes Atticus was on the opposite side
(Stertz (1993) 615).
70
tour. In fact, his address to the North African legions at Lambaesis, in Numidia, has
been preserved on an inscription155
. Although this took place in 128, we may certainly
assume that similar events happened during his first tour. It was important for a new
emperor to prove himself a valiant and strong imperator in peace and war and to
present to his soldiers evidence of his ability to lead them.
After his accession to the throne, between his departure from Antioch in 117
and until his return to Rome in late 125, Hadrian had visited all the provinces. With
the exception of the visit to Lambaesis156
and its area in 128, when he left Rome for
his second trip to the Eastern provinces, Hadrian, to the best of our knowledge, did
not again visit the Western provinces and Africa. On the contrary, he turned his
attention to the East, where he spent most of the period from 123 to 125 and 128 to
134. Hadrian no doubt wished to meet with his Greeks and bring to conclusion affairs
of a personal nature, such as his initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries in 124 and
128, or of a public nature, such as building activities, a proof of his beneficence to
Greek populations. In the long term, though, his travels to the Greek East aimed at
inspecting the region, estimating its demands and potentials, and fostering his
relations with the local populations. The Greek East was an indispensable part of the
Empire Hadrian wanted to build, and surely his frequent trips to the region kept alive
and warmed his relations with the people.
During his long visits there, it is possible that he came into contact with almost
all kinds of people within a community: local dignitaries and aristocracies, merchants,
priests, rustic people, and representatives of athletic and religious associations. Before
155
CIL 8.2532. See also, for example, his interest in the soldiers as this is manifested in his reply to the
Prefect of Egypt, Rummius Martialis, in 119 on the children of soldiers (Oliver (1989) 70).
156
According to the HA, when he came to Africa it rained for the first time in five years and for this he
was beloved by the Africans: quando in Africam venit, ad adventum eius post quinquennium pluit,
atque ideo ab Africanis dilectus est (Hadrian XXII.14).
71
we turn to these people that were his audience, we may take a look at the
circumstances in which an imperial visit took place and its impact on the provinces
and their people. This discussion will help us understand better the relations between
the emperor and the Greeks.
3.3 Imperial Journeys
Communities invested a lot on an embassy to Rome to meet with an emperor,
but it was on hearing of an imperial visit that their expectations ran really high. All
emperors had an idea of what to expect when they set off on a journey to the
provinces157
. A few examples, both Hadrianic and from other periods of the empire,
will suffice to give the picture.
The itineraries of Roman emperors were fixed very early in order to secure the
supplies of the emperor and his suite. Dio claims that when Hadrian traveled outside
of Rome he never had with him the imperial apparatus158
. It seems that Dio implies
that the emperor traveled as modestly as possible, setting an example to the
aristocracy. However, we may assume that Hadrian was accompanied everywhere he
went by a large entourage including members of the imperial family, amici,
secretaries, Roman and Greek intellectuals and aristocrats, not to mention army units
and the servants that accompanied them. Dio also states that “both in Rome and
abroad he always kept the best men with him.”159
We know, for example, that
157
Halfmann (1986) remains the best account on the Roman emperors’ tours. See also MacCormack
(1981) and Millar (1977) 28-40 on the conditions of such journeys and their impact on local
communities.
158
Dio Cassius 69.10.1: περιπορευόµενος τὰς πόλεις, ἄνευ τῆς βασιλικῆς µέντοι παρασκευῆς· οὐδὲ
γὰρ ἔξω τῆς Ῥώµης ἐχρήσατό ποτε αὐτῇ.
159
Dio Cassius 69.7.3: ἀεί τε περὶ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἐν τῇ Ῥώµῃ καὶ ἔξω τοὺς ἀρίστους εἶχε.
72
Polemon, the sophist from Laodiceia, accompanied Hadrian on his travels in the East
in 124 as the sophist himself reveals in his work De Physiognomonia160
.
The impact that the size of the imperial train had on the provincials is
evidenced in a letter from a village secretary to the strategos of the district of
Oxyrynchus in Egypt. Some eight months before Hadrian visited Egypt in the summer
of 130, on December 19th
of the previous year (129), the local official had to make a
list of the provisions stored for the “presence of the greatest emperor Hadrian!”161
Apparently the village officials had been ordered some time before to take measures
and to give a detailed list to the strategos, probably from time to time. The provisions
included, among other things, 3000 bundles of hay, 372 sucking pigs, and 200
sheep162
. Extra supplies of barley were evidently being collected at the end of the
following May, as an ostrakon fragment suggests163
. Halfmann infers from the
quantities mentioned on the papyrus fragment that there were at least 5000 persons in
Hadrian’s entourage164
. However, as Birley rightly has pointed out165
, Halfmann did
not consider how many days’ supplies might be involved, nor did he take into
consideration local visitors who came to greet the emperor.
This is an example of what must have happened all over the empire in places
the emperor was expected to visit. It is true then that for the cities the emperor’s
travels involved a heavy economic burden. The disapproval with which Suetonius
treats Tiberius’ repeatedly abortive travels is characteristic. The emperor, according to
160
De Physiognomonia 12v.20: etenim aliquando regem maximum comitabar. See Halfmann (1986)
245-253 on a list of imperial comites.
161
ll. 4-8: γραφὴ τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος µέ/χρι εἰκάδος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος µηνὸς/ Χοιὰκ ἡτοιµασµένων
πρὸς παρου/σίαν τοῦ µεγίστου Αὐτοκράτορος/ Καίσαρος Τραιανοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ Σεβαστοῦ.
162
The papyrus is published by Van Groningen (1957).
163
Published by Sijpesteijn (1969), who on page 116 mentions two other ostraka that report the receipt
of barley supplied in connection with the emperor’s visit.
164
Halfmann (1986) 110.
165
Birley (2003) 437, note 73.
73
Suetonius, rarely traveled during his reign. “Yet” he says, “he often announced that he
would revisit the provinces too and the armies, and nearly every year he made
preparations for a journey by chartering carriages and arranging for supplies in the
free towns and colonies. He even allowed a person to make vows for his safe voyage
and return, so that finally everybody jokingly gave him the name of Callippides, who
was proverbial among the Greeks for running without getting ahead a cubit’s
length.”166
Apparently, the emperor was compared to the comic actor, famous for his
imitation of a runner who never moved from the same spot167
. The economic burden
of an imperial visit on a community was a matter that raised the skepticism and often
the dissatisfaction of people168
.
However great the cost was, cities and in particular their leading men were
preparing embassies, festivals, and monuments such as city gates or triumphal arches,
to please the imperial family and receive benefits from it. Such an initiative can be
seen, for example, in the case of Males from Palmyra. In a bilingual text, in Greek and
Palmyrian, the city honored Males, who was for the second time grammateus of the
city when Hadrian visited the area in 130. During the emperor’s visit, Males, provided
food for the citizens and visitors alike and saw to the reception of the army that
accompanied the emperor169
. A similar case is witnessed in Ancyra, in Galatia. The
city erected a statue in honor of Latinia Kleopatra, daughter of Latinius Alexandros,
166
Tiberius 38: quamuis prouincias quoque et exercitus reuisurum se saepe pronuntiasset et prope
quotannis profectionem praepararet, uehiculis comprehensis, commeatibus per municipia et colonias
dispositis, ad extremum uota pro itu et reditu suo suscipi passus, ut uulgo iam per iocum "Callippides"
uocaretur, quem cursitare ac ne cubiti quidem mensuram progredi prouerbio Graeco notatum est.
167
The same proverb is found in Cicero, Epist. Ad Atticum 13.12.2.
168
See for example, Philo’s account on Gaius’ prospective visit to Syria (which in fact did not take
place) in On the Embassy to Gaius 33.252-253, or Dio Cassius’ complaint of Caracalla’s burdensome
journey (77.9.5-7).
169
Sanct.Baalshamin III 55, 44, side A, ll. 1-10: [ἡ βουλὴ καὶ] ὁ δῆ[µος]/ Μαλην τὸν καὶ Ἀγρίππα[ν]/
Ιαραιου τοῦ Ρααιου, γραµµ[α]/τέα γενόµενον τὸ δεύτε/ρον ἐπιδηµίᾳ θεοῦ Ἁδρ[ι]/ανοῦ, ἄλιµµα
παρασχό[ν]/τα ξένοις τε καὶ πολείτα[ις],/ ἐν πᾶσιν ὑπηρετήσαντα/ τῇ τ[ῶν] στρατευµάτων/ ὑπο[δοχ]ῇ
………..
74
who among other magistracies distributed supplies to the city population on the
occasion of Hadrian and his armies’ passing through the city170
.
Once the emperor entered a populated area, he was immediately surrounded
by a group of people not only from the area but also all neighboring districts. The
emperor became the object of petitions and requests on a variety of matters from
individuals and cities alike. A vivid image of the fervor with which the local
populations rushed to hail the imperial train is nicely given in a later source,
Mamertinus’ Panegyricus of Maximian. The author relates the journey of Diocletian
and Maximian to meet at Mediolanum in the winter of 290/291. As soon as Maximian
crossed the Alps and came closer and closer, the people began to recognize him, and
“all the fields were filled not only with men running forth to see but even with flocks
of beasts leaving their distant pastures and woods; farmers rushed about among each
other, told everyone what they had seen, altars were ignited, incense placed among
them, libations of wine were poured, sacrificial victims slain, everything glowing with
joy, everyone danced and applauded, to the immortal gods praises and thanks were
sung.”171
The advent of the emperor caused unprecedented hope, and people, regardless
of age, gender or class, rushed through the fields and crowded the roads to welcome
the emperor. Organized embassies and individual petitioners arrived not only from the
170
Bosch, Quellen Ankara 141, 117, ll. 8-12: ἐπὶ <τ>ῇ τοῦ µεγίστου/ Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος
Τραιανοῦ/ Ἁδριανοῦ Σεβαστοῦ παρόδῳ καὶ τῶν/ ἱερῶν αὐτοῦ στρατευµάτων δόντος/ διανοµὰς τῇ
πόλει……..
171
Panegyricus XI (III) 10.5: ut vero propius propiusque coepti estis agnosci, omnes agri oppleti non
hominibus modo ad visen dum procurrentibus sed etiam pecudum gregibus remota pascua et nemora
linquentibus, concursare inter se agricolae, nuntiare totis suis visa, area incendi, tura poni, vina
libari, victimae caedi, cuncta gaedio calere, cuncta plausibus tripudiare, dis immortalibus laudes
grotesque cantari. See also the enthusiasm and the expectation of relief from heavy taxation with
which Constantine was received in Autun in 311: miratus es, imperator, unde se tibi tanta obviam
effunderet multitude, cum solitudinem ex vicino monte vidisses. Omnes enim ex agris omnium aetatum
hominess convolaverunt….. (Anonymi Panegyricus V (VIII) 8.1ff) (See C.E.V. Nixon and B. Saylor
Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. The Panegyrici Latini, Berkeley 1994 for these and
other Latin texts of this kind).
75
region he settled in, but also from all over the empire. The petitioners could indeed
overcome distance and financial obstacles in order to see the emperor and consult
him. People saw an opportunity to present their individual and collective issues and
were not willing to miss it. The passage of the imperial train was also viewed as a
kind of spectacle and certainly the locals felt proud to witness it. We may assume that
a similar atmosphere took place wherever Hadrian happened to visit.
In light of these remarks, little surprises us what Dio reports regarding the
earthquake that struck Antioch when Trajan was there in 114/5. According to the
author, not only was Trajan passing the winter there, but also many soldiers and a vast
crowd of embassies and individuals who came there from all over the world on
business or just for the spectacle. As that was the case, when the earthquake hit, there
was not a race or a city that escaped the disaster, but on the contrary the whole world
under Roman sway suffered172
.
Of course, Dio exaggerates when he speaks of the entire world being hit by the
earthquake, and certainly Trajan assembled his troops for the war with Parthia, but
this does not mean that people from all the area did not gather there on account of the
emperor’s presence. It is evident, therefore, that wherever Hadrian went, a huge
crowd was waiting for him: the local Roman authorities, the governor or any other
official, as well as representatives of the military, and a crowd of soldiers; local and
foreign dignitaries and aristocrats, individually or in embassies; common people from
the city or the country who came to witness the spectacle, or present their case;
priests, presidents of guilds, religious and athletic associations; a number of choruses
172
Dio Cassius 68.24.1-2: διατρίβοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ σεισµὸς ἐξαίσιος γίνεται· καὶ πολλαὶ
µὲν ἔκαµον πόλεις, µάλιστα δὲ ἡ Ἀντιόχεια ἐδυστύχησεν. ἅτε γὰρ τοῦ Τραϊανοῦ ἐκεῖ χειµάζοντος, καὶ
πολλῶν µὲν στρατιωτῶν πολλῶν δὲ ἰδιωτῶν κατά τε δίκας καὶ κατὰ πρεσβείας ἐµπορίαν τε καὶ
θεωρίαν πανταχόθεν συµπεφοιτηκότων, οὔτε ἔθνος οὐδὲν οὔτε δῆµος οὐδεὶς ἀβλαβὴς ἐγένετο, καὶ
οὕτως ἐν τῇ Ἀντιοχείᾳ πᾶσα ἡ οἰκουµένη ἡ ὑπὸ τοῖς Ῥωµαίοις οὖσα ἐσφάλη. See Millar (1977) 38-39
for more examples of this kind.
76
to welcome the imperial train. All these rushed forth hoping to meet him in person,
converse with him, present their case and advance their interests. It is this crowd that
Hadrian met in his long and frequent journeys. These people became his audience as
he promoted his program in the region, and to them I will now turn my attention.
3.4 Hadrian and his Greek Subjects
It is evident from the above that Hadrian, when he visited the Greek East,
expected to deal with all social strata of the region and give answers to a variety of
issues, communal and private. Some cities entrusted their petitions to prominent
figures of the province, such as Smyrna to Polemon, who as we saw accompanied
Hadrian in his travels. In the spirit of competition between the leading cities of
mainland Greece and Asia, the communities had to select their best men to represent
them. Polemon was able to win for Smyrna huge favors from the emperor: among
them, ten million drachmas for the construction of a grain-market and a gymnasium,
and a second neocoria. In the contest with Ephesos and Miletos, Smyrna could
momentarily appear as Hadrian’s favorite city thanks to Polemon’s efforts. Cities
presented their case, ranging from the need for financial support to the settlement of
land disputes. Hadrian, as most emperors, was often called upon to settle land disputes
around the empire173
.
Large and small cities alike were struggling to attract Hadrian’s interest. Even
the otherwise unknown κώµη of Kaparanaia in southern Samaria set up a dedication to
the gods for the safety of Hadrian, “the father of patris, the savior and benefactor of
173
For the emperor’s role in fixing the boundaries between cities see Millar (1977) 435ff and 328ff for
a number of Hadrianic examples.
77
the world and the village of Kaparanaia.”174
Although it is uncertain whether Hadrian
had visited the small village when he crossed Judaea in 130, it is possible that the
archons of the community thought it necessary to remind the emperor of their
existence and perhaps sent an embassy to him, no doubt including its best members.
In this case, the inscription in question, as the editor of the text argues too, may have
been set up not in the village itself, but somewhere in its vicinity, where Hadrian was
expected to pass. As to the gift that they might have received from the emperor, there
is no concrete evidence that there ever was one, but it is possible that they had
actually benefited from Hadrian’s Lex de rudibus agris, which had accorded
permanence of occupation to tenants who had proved themselves good farmers175
.
The correspondence between the cities and the emperor can give us a glimpse
into the relations between the emperor and local authorities176
. As was customary,
soon after the accession of a new emperor the cities sent an embassy to him, if they
could afford one, or a letter, by which they hailed the new princeps and expressed
their warm wishes and the sentiments of joy that filled them on the announcement of
his accession. It was then the emperor’s turn to make a move. In one case, Hadrian
replied in 118 to an embassy sent by the city of Delphi on his accession. Hadrian
praised the archons for the antiquity of their city, for celebrating his reign, and
praying for his well- being. As a result, he concluded, “I guarantee your freedom,
174
SEG 44.1361: [θ]εοῖς Ὀλυµπίοις ὑπὲρ σωτηρί/[α]ς Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρο<ς> Τραια/νοῦ
Ἁδριανοῦ Σεβαστοῦ/ πατρὸς πατρίδος τοῦ/ σωτῆρος καὶ εὐεργέ/του <τοῦ> κόσµου καὶ κώµης/
Καπαραναίας. See similar dedications by the inquilini vici Lartidiani in Italy (AnnEph 1977.200) or by
the Roman citizens who dwelt (temporarily) in the Numidian vicus Haterianus south-west of Carthago
(CIL 8.23125).
175
So the ed. pr. Di Segni (1994) 584.
176
A very good account of the correspondence of the Roman emperors is given by Oliver (1989), in
particular nrs 57-122, 164-166, 241-242, 283 on Hadrian; see also Martin (1982) which includes most
of the texts presented by Oliver. However, he limits his sources to Greek epigraphic and papyrological
evidence. Therefore, one should also consult Alexander (1938) who includes many Latin inscriptions
as well as letters mentioned in Justinian’s Digesta.
78
autonomy and all grants given to you by Trajan.”177
The city was in all probability
familiar with the new emperor during his stay in Greece a few years earlier and on
hearing the news of his accession, put together an embassy of its best people in order
to congratulate him and ask confirmation of the privileges bestowed to it by Trajan.
Such an act was quite customary and in accordance with the “diplomacy” of the era.
Cities all over the Greek world rushed to congratulate the new emperor, introduce
themselves and win his favor178
.
The selection and dispatch of embassies to the emperor was an established and
familiar function for the cities and participation in them was viewed as an opportunity
to gain prestige and perhaps some personal benefits directly from the emperor.
Plutarch, speaking of the few opportunities left for distinction in city life, says “there
remain lawsuits on behalf of the city and embassies to the emperor, which require a
man who is ardent, bold and intelligent.”179
But embassies are also viewed as a burden
to be avoided, as when Plutarch considers one of the compensations of exile the fact
that a man did not find himself compelled by his city to make contributions, to go on
177
FD III 4.301, ll. 3-10: ὑ[µεῖς µὲν ἐπηγγείλατέ µοι τὰ τῆς πό]/λεως π[ρεσβεῖα το]ῖς παρ’ ὑµῶν
ἐπεσταλµέν[οις γράµµασιν, ἐγὼ δὲ ὑµᾶς ἐπαινῶ]/ [ὅτι µὲν ὑφ’ ὑµῶν ὧ]δε ἡ ἀρχαιότης καὶ ἡ
εὐγέν[εια τῆς πόλεως τῆς ὑµετέρας]/ [ἀνεµνήσθη µοι], οὐχ ἥκι[στ]α δὲ ὅτι φανερὰν [ἀπεδείξασθε τὴν
πρὸς ἐµὲ προθυ]/[µίαν ὑµῶν συνηδόµ]ενοι µὲν ἐπὶ τῷ διαδέξ[ασθαί µε τὴν πατρῷαν ἀρχήν, τὸν]/ δὲ
θεὸν δ[οῦναί µοι πάντα] ἀγαθ[ὰ] παρακαλοῦντε[ς. δι’ ὃ τῆς ὑµετέρας πόλεως τήν]/ τε ἐλευθε[ρίαν καὶ
τὴν αὐ]τονοµίαν καὶ τὰ[ς ὑµῖν πάλαι συγκεχωρηµένας]/ δωρεὰς β[εβαιῶ καὶ τὰ δοθέν]τα καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ
[θεοῦ Τραιανοῦ πρεσβεῖα].
178
See, for example, Hadrian’s reply in 117/118 to the archons of the small island of Astypalaia who
sent him an embassy on his accession. The emperor assures them that he is aware of their joy (καὶ ἐκ
τοῦ ψηφίσµατ[ος ὑµῶν]/ [ἔµαθον] ὅπως ἥσθητε διαδεξαµέν[ου ἐµοῦ]/ [τὴν πατ]ρῴαν ἀρχήν, ll. 7-9),
and as it is expected in such cases he guarantees their freedom ([καὶ εἰ ἀλ]ηθῶς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ὑ[µῖν
ὁ]/[πατήρ µου ἔδωκεν, αὐτὴν κατακυρώσας — —] ll. 10-11), (IG XII,3 175).
179
Political Advice 805a: νῦν οὖν ὅτε τὰ πράγµατα τῶν πόλεων οὐκ ἔχει πολέµων ἡγεµονίας οὐδὲ
τυραννίδων καταλύσεις οὐδὲ συµµαχικὰς πράξεις, τίν’ ἄν τις ἀρχὴν ἐπιφανοῦς λάβοι καὶ λαµπρᾶς
πολιτείας; αἱ δίκαι τε λείπονται αἱ δηµόσιαι καὶ πρεσβεῖαι πρὸς αὐτο κράτορα ἀνδρὸς διαπύρου καὶ
θάρσος ἅµα καὶ νοῦν ἔχοντος δεόµεναι.
79
embassies to Rome, to give hospitality to the governor, or to accept liturgies. “Any
reasonable person”, he concludes, “will choose, instead, exile on a small island.”180
3.4.1 Elites and Hadrian
The role of local elites in these embassies and other contacts with the emperor
was twofold: on the one hand, they represented their city or their clientele by whom
they had been entrusted with the task of reaping benefits for them (security of the
area, regularization of taxation, solution to a land dispute, economic assistance, and
building plans were, among others, requested on behalf of the city; judgment on a
personal problem, support for future plans, advancement of career were the
expectations of one’s clientele). A positive outcome would certainly gain for the elites
the appreciation of the community and the gratefulness of their clients, whose support
would increase. It is also possible that more people would join their clientele.
On the other hand, in what concerns us here, the aristocrat who came into
contact with the emperor certainly sought personal benefits in addition to those for his
community and/or his clientele. As I will now suggest, Hadrian in his dealings with
local aristocrats was often expected to answer to the latter’s request for, first, support
in advancing a political career within the limits of the community and the region, and
also access to regional imperial offices; second, quite frequently, requests for personal
financial assistance on account of the burdensome liturgies or immunity from them;
and finally, entry into the Roman Senate.
180
On Exile 602c: καὶ πατρίδα µὴ περισπῶσαν µὴ ἐνοχλοῦσαν µὴ προστάττουσαν ‘εἰσένεγκε,
πρέσβευσον εἰς Ῥώµην, ὑπόδεξαι τὸν ἡγεµόνα, λειτούργησον. ἂν γὰρ τούτων τις µνηµονεύῃ φρένας
ἔχων καὶ µὴ παντάπασι τετυφωµένος, αἱρήσεται καὶ νῆσον οἰκεῖν φυγὰς γενόµενος Γύαρον ἢ Κίναρον.
I will return later to the financial burdens that offices involved and the aristocrats’ attempts to avoid
them.
80
3.4.1.1 Participation in local administration
In both the Greek cities and the Roman colonies of Achaea and Asia Minor
aristocrats promoted themselves inside their community and sought to extend their
influence and prestige beyond this181
. In what concerns us here, the elites of the Greek
cities were equally interested in their participation in the local councils and their
promotion to provincial imperial offices. Aristocratic Greeks wanted a political life
wherein their decisions could be seen to affect people’s lives, since they saw this as
their inherited prerogative. Recognizing the limits of the polis, aristocrats competed
with each other within the city and the province in gaining preeminence and
constructing ties with their Roman counterparts. The circle was a closed one, and only
wealth or education could allow entry.
Ties of patronage played an important role in the relationship between the
emperor, Roman elites and Greek subjects182
. Within the community, common people
reached out to the wealthy seeking short-or-long-lasting benefits. The same persons
often appealed directly to the local Roman authorities, presenting their problems and
requesting solutions. Sometimes they approached an imperial legatus or even the
emperor and his train if by some chance he happened to pass through their city or the
nearby area.
Euergetism and patronage linked the demos to the elite class and the latter to
the Roman officials and the imperial family. Therefore, patronage links or alliances
with members of the Roman ruling elite were deliberately sought by the local
181
See Rizakis (2001) on the participation of indigenous elites in the administration of the Roman
colonies of Achaea.
182
The subject of patronage is huge and cannot be dealt with within the limits of this study. On
patronage in the Roman Empire see the seminal work of Saller (1982). Also Eilers (2002) on patronage
in the late republic and early empire with special emphasis on the Greek East; more specifically see the
study of Tobin (1997) on Herodes Atticus. On the related topic of euergetism see Veyne (1990).
81
aristocrats183
. As C. Ando nicely puts it, “where cities could compete-indeed, where
the fact of Roman power required them to compete- was in the contest for Roman
esteem: a contest conducted through behavior and language, and drawing upon
sentiments and aspirations, that were themselves long familiar. If, prior to the coming
of Rome, Ephesos had boasted its preeminence in Asia, in the late first century AD it
measured and advertised its preeminence by the tokens of Roman favor.”184
Cities and
individuals, Roman officials and the emperor were expected to play their role in this
atmosphere of patronage and competition.
Susan Alcock has underlined the role of the Greek landscape in the
strengthening of the bonds between Roman and Greek elites. She argues that Greece
attracted Romans not solely as a land of history and glory, but also as a place where
they could spend time pleasurably, especially in the company of their elite provincial
counterparts185
. For Greek and Roman aristocrats alike, Greece was certainly a place
that could inspire otium and offer an escape from the cares of the world. Both the
large cities and smaller communities could offer suitable retreats for visiting Romans
and members of the native aristocracy. Plutarch tells us, for example, how the city of
Aidepsos could offer the opportunity for the pursuit of leisure and relaxation186
.
Through these paths, and also by winning the favor of Roman authorities and the
emperor, elites held hopes for advancing to offices and even receiving Roman
citizenship.
183
See Plutarch’ advice on seeking the patronage of a Roman official in Political Advice 814c
discussed in detail in the previous chapter.
184
Ando (2000) 132.
185
Alcock (1993) 224.
186
Quaestiones Convivales 667c: πολλοὶ γὰρ ἀφικνοῦνται τὴν ὥραν αὐτόθι καὶ συνουσίας ποιοῦνται
µετ’ ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀφθόνοις πᾶσι καὶ πλείστας περὶ λόγους ὑπὸ σχολῆς διατριβὰς ἔχουσι. Cf. also 723a:
ἅπαξ δὲ τοὺς µάλιστα φίλους καὶ φιλολόγους οἴκοι δεχοµένου καὶ αὐτοὶ παρῆµεν.
82
These elites were a key structural element in Roman provincial rule and could
not be ignored. Therefore, Rome, in laying out its imperial strategies, largely
depended upon the co-operation of local power networks. These elites were, among
other things, the arbiter of the degree and nature of land use, the survival of cities, the
patronage or abandonment of the less fortunate, the securing of taxation and regional
stability. In return, those classes which remained faithful to Rome could normally rely
upon Rome’s assistance in maintaining their position vis-à-vis the rest of the
population and in acquiring access to the administration.
A number of examples illustrate elite’s demand for administrative positions
within the community and the province. The composition of the Panhellenion council
can be the starting point187
. According to current evidence, almost all the senior
officers of the league- the archons, antarchons, agonothetai and priests- can be
identified as Roman citizens. The high officers of the Panhellenion can be defined
socially as members of the leading families of their home cities: they belonged to the
same stratum of provincials which provided Rome with its intake of eastern knights
and senators. On the other hand, although the possession of equestrian status is
assured for few archons, no archon can be identified as an active Roman senator.
Spawforth and Walker suggest, and it is possible, that the chief executive post in the
Panhellenion tended to be held by notables whose own careers, as opposed to those of
kinsmen, had not taken them into the Senate188
.
On the other hand, of 25 known councilors, about half of them were not
Roman citizens. Since, by the Antonine period, the leading families of Greek cities
usually possessed Roman citizenship189
, the fact that over half the known Panhellenes
187
For a detailed discussion of the subject see Spawforth and Walker (1985) 86ff.
188
Spawforth and Walker (1985) 87.
189
On the Roman citizenship see Sherwin-White (1973) and also Buraselis (1989).
83
were peregrini suggests in itself that the council was by no means dominated by the
narrow social stratum which supplied the high officers of the league. Moreover, as the
authors state (p. 88), some of them do not seem to be among the leading families or
especially rich. Thus a number of the Spartan delegates cannot be connected with the
city's leading families, or with tenure of the posts particularly associated with the
local elite (such as the eponymous patronomate, the gymnasiarchy and agoranomate,
the priesthoods and the position of bouagos in the ephebic training190
), while their
wealth does not seem to be especially great.
It has also been noted that some of the league's personalities were men of
culture191
. So, the Panhellenes C. Curtius Proclus, A. Maecius Faustinus and
Dionysius son of Hermogenes are styled “rhetors” in honorific inscriptions. Also the
archon Antiochus qui et Synesius, was head of the Museum at Athens, the
agonothetes Rufus a famous sophist, and certainly Herodes Atticus. It seems that
culture or education were qualities especially appreciated among the Panhellenes.
Thus Flavius Amphicles was a former student of sophistic rhetoric under Herodes
Atticus and Eurycles of Aezanoi was praised by the Athenian Areopagus for (among
other things) “concerning himself with paideia” during his term at Athens. However,
the league did not seem to have been a forum of Greek intellectuals as such. They did
not dominate its milieu, to judge from the surviving evidence, and men such as
Eurycles should be better considered as Greeks active in political life.
It is clear from the case of the Panhellenion that local aristocrats, and also
people of lower status, were highly ambitious with regard to the entry into political
bodies. As we saw earlier the Panhellenion itself was not a political body as such, but
190
As it was noted in the previous chapter (p. 48), one of the requirements for participation in the
Panhellenion council was that the delegate had to have held office in his native city.
191
Spawforth and Walker (1985) 88.
84
it provided its members with an opportunity to promote themselves, as in the case of
Eurycles. Local magistrates and ambitious individuals competed with each other for
positions that could advance their career and enhance their prestige in their
community and in the eyes of Roman officials.
This desire for participation in the political councils of the Greek cities can be
seen in the cases of Lucius Erastos and Philokyrios. In 124 Hadrian, in his first great
tour of the provinces, sailed from Ephesos to Rhodes. A number of ships
accompanied the emperor, among them two under the commands of the Ephesian
captains, Erastos and Philokyrios, who along with other captains transported other
members of the entourage and necessary supplies. A few years later, in 129, the same
captains accompanied the imperial fleet carrying Hadrian as he sailed from Eleusis to
Ephesos. In two almost identical letters to the council and the magistrates of Ephesos,
Hadrian asked that the two men be made councilors192
. The captains, the emperor
informed the Ephesians, claimed to be Ephesian citizens, to have sailed across the sea
repeatedly, to have benefited their fatherland by their occupation and to have
transported local magistrates many times. Apparently the two captains operated in the
Aegean Sea and especially on the routes between the Greek mainland and Asia Minor.
Hadrian underlined the fact that both captains had been in his service twice in 124,
sailing out to Rhodes, and again in 129, sailing in from Eleusis. Each man wished to
be councilor (εὔχεται δὲ βουλευτὴς γενέσθαι). Hadrian endorsed their application and
promised to pay the necessary fee a councilor pays upon entry.
Although the two men do not seem to have belonged to the city’s elite, and to
have been of moderate wealth, they made use of their service to the emperor and
sought to advance in the politics of their city by participating in the Ephesian boule.
192
IEph 1487 (Erastos) and 1488 (Philokyrios).
85
3.4.1.2 Relief from the economic burdens of office
I think that the reverse process, of avoiding offices, was another reason many
local magistrates and aristocrats looked forward to the emperor’s visit. It has been
observed that throughout the empire municipal elites were declining in numbers and
becoming impoverished by the constant financial pressures of office and the demands
of civic euergetism. As Peter Garnsey argues, local office had lost its appeal by the
late second century due to the mounting costs of government, external interference in
city administration, and a decline in local prosperity193
. Local office that in the early
Empire carried enough prestige and privilege to compensate for the expenditures it
entailed was not viewed as such anymore. Wealthy citizens were required to perform
local services and at the same time to maintain the role of euergetes not only in their
home town but also in the entire region. There were members of the local councils
who simply could not afford to hold magistracy, perform a liturgy, or be sent to an
embassy, when their turn came to do so. As a consequence, many members of the
local upper classes were unwilling to perform a service. In the early empire, service in
the local council of a city was both voluntary and sought-after; but, by the third
century it was often compulsory, to be avoided if possible. Severus, for example, in
one of his rulings on the repetition of office, reported by Paulus in the Digesta, makes
a distinction between unwilling and willing office-holders194
.
That the problem was identified already in the early second century is evident
from a number of sources of Hadrianic date. In one of them, a letter of Hadrian to the
city of Aphrodisias in 125, Hadrian replied to an official request regarding the funding
of the city’s aqueduct and the unwillingness by a number of citizens to serve as high
193
Garnsey (1998) 3.
194
Dig. 50.1.18 (Ad municipalem et de incolis): Divus severus rescripsit intervalla temporum in
continuandis oneribus invitis, non etiam volentibus concessa, dum ne quis continuet honorem.
86
priests of the imperial cult195
. In his reply the emperor refers the matter to the city
council to examine whether those individuals were unable to undertake the liturgy and
were evading it, or were telling the truth (ll. 32-35). That the reason of their reluctance
was certainly economic becomes clear in the next line: “if, however, some of them”,
the emperor continues, “were to appear to be better off, it is fair that they should hold
the high priesthood first” (ll. 35-36). Apparently, some citizens invoked their financial
disability, whether real or not, in order to avoid the magistracy.
Additional evidence of a financial crisis among the elites is seen in Hadrian’s
rulings preserved in the Digesta. In one of them, cited by Callistratus, Hadrian sent a
rescript on the repetition of liturgies. The emperor is reported to have answered a
request regarding a liturgy that “if there are no men suitable for the performance of
this liturgy, others should be appointed from among those who have performed it
already.”196
It is obvious that the city was unable to man its own magistracies by its
own men either because their number was limited or some of them were in financial
strains. The prospective office holders were unable to respond to their community’s
call and in all probability their further decline could be arrested only if they were
excused from magistracies and liturgies, at least for the immediate future.
Indeed, some of them were already facing bankruptcy. Ulpian reports the
answer given by Marcus and Verus to a certain Aufidius Herrenianus197
. The two
emperors had to decide whether or not debtors to the state could undertake office.
They replied that certainly state-debtors cannot take up magistracies, unless, of
course, they have first made reparation for the debt they owed. “But”, the passage
195
Reynolds (2000) = SEG 2000.1096, inscribed on a single stone along with three other letters of the
same emperor to the city.
196
Dig. 50.4.16.4 (De muneribus et honoribus): illud consentio, ut, si alii non erunt idonei qui hoc
munere fungantur, ex his, qui iam functi sunt, creentur.
197
Dig. 50.4.6.1 (De muneribus et honoribus).
87
continues, “as state-debtors we should regard only those left in debt as a result of an
administrative office. Those who are not debtors as a result of office but have
borrowed money from the state are not so placed that they should be prevented from
holding magistracies.”198
As Peter Garnsey points out, we cannot be sure whether the
differentiation of two kinds of debtors is that of Ulpian or is based on this and/or other
rulings199
. In any case, the passage is revealing of the financial condition of some
aristocratic families drained by the responsibilities of an office.
The reaction of the emperor to this problem could usually take two forms.
First, that of direct financial assistance to the petitioner himself or to the entire city.
There was always the danger that lack of money, which meant lack of expenditure on
the part of the governing classes- for instance, on building, patronage, food
distributions- could lead to the decline of this class and lack of incentives for
residence within the community. This could dangerously affect the socio-political
conditions of a city, alter the spatial geography of the region, and create instability in
the province unless the central government reacted. I believe that Hadrian and other
Roman emperors found it to be in the empire’s best interest to react immediately and
prevent this from happening, and it is possible that Hadrian in his frequent contacts
with the locals attempted to do so.
The second form of reply could be that of the temporary exemption from an
office or the permanent immunity from it. There was a particular group of people who
were granted immunity quite often: philosophers, orators, grammarians, doctors, men
of culture. Hadrian’s alleged incidents with intellectuals and his relations with men of
198
sed eos demum debitores rerum publicarum accipere debemus, qui ex administratione rei publicae
reliquantur: ceterum si non ex administratione sint debitores, sed mutuam pecuniam a re publica
acceperint, non sunt in ea causa, ut honoribus arceantur.
199
Garnsey (1998) 7.
88
culture are topics much discussed in the sources200
. An intellectual himself201
, Hadrian
was prone to accept their requests and grant them privileges. Intellectuals had been
exempted from taxes and liturgies by Trajan; orators, grammarians, and doctors as
early as Vespasian202
. Hadrian further extended these exemptions by an edict
immediately after his accession. This decision is quoted in a letter of Antoninus Pius
and exempts the above categories from, among other things, the offices of
gymnasiarchia, agoranomia, priesthoods, and embassies203
.
However, it seems that this privilege must have been taken up on a greater
scale than had been anticipated, and so his successor, Antoninus, perhaps on the
invitation of the local authorities, imposed some limitations. In a letter addressed to
the Koinon of Asia, but referring to the whole of the empire, the cities are asked to set
limits on the number of the permanent exemptions: the largest cities, for example,
could excuse from liturgies ten doctors, five orators, and an equal number of
grammarians. Smaller cities could excuse even less. “Not even the largest city is
allowed to exceed this number” (ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν ἀριθµὸν οὐδὲ ἡ µεγίστη πόλις τὴν
ἀτέλειαν παρέχει.)
204
Some of the intellectuals were awarded additional privileges, such as those
given to Polemon both by Trajan and Hadrian. According to Philostratus, the sophist
had obtained from Trajan the right to travel by land and sea for free. Hadrian extended
200
See for example the famous exchange of poetry between him and Florus (HA Hadrian XVI.1-4), or
his habit of questioning and “torturing” scholars with questions, such as at the Museum of Alexandria
(HA Hadrian XX.2; see also XV.10-11), or the case of Caninius Celer, ab epistulis to Hadrian (cf.
Lives of the Sophists 524ff). For an interesting collection and discussion of the evidence see Stertz
(1993).
201
Dio Cassius 69.3.1: φύσει δὲ φιλολόγος ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ τῇ γλώσσῃ· καί τινα καὶ πεζὰ καὶ ἐν ἔπεσι
ποιήµατα παντοδαπὰ καταλέλοιπε.
202
Dig. 50.4.18.30 (De muneribus et honoribus): Magistris, qui civilium munerum vacationem habent,
item grammaticis et oratoribus et medicis et philosophis, ne hospitem reciperent, a principibus fuisse
immunitatem indultam et divus vespasianus et divus hadrianus rescripserunt.
203
Dig. 27.1.6.8 (De excusationibus). Hadrian granted similar privileges to the association of the
Dionysiac artists (such as the Edict reported on a papyrus from Oxyrynchus, BGU 1074).
204
Dig. 27.1.6.2 8 (De excusationibus).
89
this right to his descendants (Ἀδριανὸς δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ πᾶσιν.)205
Furthermore,
Polemon was enrolled in the Museum of Alexandria by the emperor, gaining the
upkeep, sitesis, which went with it. The sources state that the same privilege was
granted, among others, to Dionysios of Miletos and to a poet named Pancrates, whom
Hadrian met in Alexandria in 130 and rewarded for reciting a poem on the lion which
the emperor had just killed in Libya206
.
It is clear that the pressure of liturgies had mounted by the first half of the 2nd
century. However, despite efforts to avoid offices and services of state, membership
in the council was among the first goals of ambitious citizens and remained
prestigious under the empire. On the contrary, expulsion from a council could be seen
as a disgrace and arrest an individual’s further career207
.
3.4.1.3 Entry into the Senate
The peak of an aristocrat’s ambition was often the entry into the Senate.
Participation in this body increased an individual’s prestige and gained benefits for
him and his community. The history and mechanisms of this political body
throughout the history of the empire as well as prosopographical remarks regarding
the entry of Easterners into the Senate during Hadrian’s reign have been discussed
extensively by previous scholars208
. However a few remarks are useful here.
The promotion of novi homines in the administrative structure, especially the
Senate, became a constant characteristic of the political life of Rome. Caesar had
205
Lives of the Sophists 532.
206
For Dionysios see Lives of the Sophists 524. Cf. the statement in Dio Cassius, 69.3.4, who claims
that the emperor attempted to destroy Dionysius, Favorinus and others. I will return to Pancrates’ poem
in the fifth chapter.
207
See the evidence gathered by Macro (1980) 689.
208
The fundamental study on the Roman Senate remains Talbert (1984). For the admission of
Easterners see Halfmann (1979), and Eck (1982) and (1983).
90
introduced a few provincials. Augustus and Tiberius continued the trend cautiously.
During their reigns provincials came almost entirely from the western part of the
empire. Claudius continued along the same lines, so that from his time onwards
provincials became a notable group in the Senate. Yet it was not until after the civil
war of 69 and the accession of Vespasian that more than a handful of Greeks and
Easterners felt ready and qualified to enter the House. Under Trajan the Senate saw
the first senators from the Greek mainland.
As Talbert notes, the disappearance of the old senatorial families necessitated
the admission of provincials, first Westerners and then Easterners. Natural death, lack
of sons to succeed their fathers, refusal to be a member, execution on service,
financial problems, physical or mental disabilities played a role in the introduction of
provincials209
. In other cases, as probably in Vespasian’s admission of Easterners, we
can detect a desire to reward certain communities or entire provinces for their support
to an emperor or would-be-emperor. I believe that the central administration also
needed local senators as it gradually realized their importance in tying the empire
together and the rights of provincials in an empire that was theirs. There was a need to
channel the enthusiasm and energy of local elites for the benefit of the Roman
imperium.
Entry into the Senate was an important accomplishment (for the prestige and
personal benefits it had) for local aristocrats and many individuals were eager to go to
great lengths in seeking entry210
. As a result, their pride in being its member and a
feeling that the Senate was a special elite body are manifested in monuments
throughout the empire. So, M. Arruntius Claudianus was a Lycian from Xanthos who
209
Talbert (1984) 30.
210
Such attitudes are nicely portrayed by Dio Cassius on narrating Cleander’s, Commodus’ freedman,
selling of senatorships and many individuals’ spending of their property in order to enter the body
(72.12.3).
91
gained entry into the Senate in Nerva or Trajan’s reign. On a monument he erected in
his native land he called himself “the first man of the nation to become a senator of
the Roman people.”211
An unknown senator of Neronian times from Miletos described
himself with astonishing pride on a stone found at Didyma as “laticlavius of the
Roman people, the fifth man ever to enter the senate from the whole of Asia, and from
Miletos and the rest of Ionia the first and only one.”212
Another inscription from
Ephesos from the first half of the third century honors Claudia Caninia Severa,
priestess of Artemis, “daughter of Tiberius Claudius Severus, first Ephesian to be
consul.”213
However, it must be pointed out here that not all elite members wanted to
be senators. As Giovanni Salmeri notes, many of them, and especially those engaged
in intellectual activities, preferred to stay in their own fatherland and participate in its
administration214
. So, for example, Polemon spent his time between Laodiceia and
Smyrna engaging with local politics and gaining the appreciation of Roman emperors,
but he never entered the Senate. Still, membership in the Senate was for many of them
a goal.
It is certain that Hadrian (or any emperor for that matter) responded to this
desire. Statistically speaking, his reign did not see a great influx of Eastern
senators215
. However, he continued along the same lines as his adoptive father in
admitting a notable number of Greeks, a policy which was continued by the
Antonines, under whom we see an increase in numbers. It has been suggested, but not
proven, that Hadrian had to practice moderation in dealing with the Senatorial class in
211
ILS 8821, ll. 3-5: ….[καὶ ἐν τῷ]/[γένει] πρῶτος συνκλητικὸς [γεγενηµένος τοῦ]/[δ]ήµου
Ῥωµαίων…. On this senator see Halfmann (1979) 125, 28.
212
IDidyma 296, ll. 6-11: αὐτὸς δὲ πλατύ[ση]/µος δήµου Ῥωµαίων, πέµπ[τος]/ µὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσίας ὅλης
ἐκ το[ῦ αἰ]/ῶνος εἰς σύγκλητον εἰσελθ[ών,]/ [ἀ]πὸ δὲ Μειλήτου καὶ τῆς ἄλλη[ς Ἰ]/ωνίας µόν[ος καὶ
πρ]ῶτος. For discussion of his identity see Halfmann (1979) 108, 12.
213
IEph 892, ll. 12-13: θυγατέρα Τιβ(ερίου) Κλ(αυδίου) Σεουήρου,/πρώτου ὑπατεύσαντος Ἐφεσίων.
214
Salmeri (2000) 59ff.
215
See Halfmann (1979) 78ff.
92
Rome on account of their tense relationship, especially in his early reign216
. Normal
prudence dissuaded the emperor from importing a mass of new senators either from
the West or East. It is an interesting hypothesis that has some merit.
In promoting Greek senators, Hadrian displayed signs of favor towards the
educated class in the cities and urban aristocrats. The career of Flavius Arrianus from
Nicomedeia is a good example of Hadrian’s preference for men of culture217
.
Philosopher and man of letters, Arrian is the first known senator from Bithynia. His
first attested service in Roman government was as a member of the council of the
consular C. Avidius Nigrinus during the latter’s correctorship in Greece around
112/113. After apparently seeing service with Trajan on the emperor’s Parthian
campaign, Arrian was rewarded with the praetorian proconsulship of Baetica in the
120s. Afterwards, he was suffect consul probably in 129, and finally imperial legate in
Cappadocia in 131-137. Finally he retired to Athens, where he was archon in 145/146.
I will conclude this section with the discussion of a family case which is
representative of the direction in which many ambitious aristocrats of the Greek cities
wished to move: the Ulpii Carminii, a leading family that originated from the Carian
city of Attuda but was particularly active at Aphrodisias of the second century. M.
Ulpius Carminius Claudianus, son of Carminius Claudianus, who had been a high
priest of the provincial cult of Roma and the Augusti, was honored in a late second
century decree by the city of Aphrodisias for his generosity and service to the
people218
. Among other offices, he had served as high priest (as his father did),
treasurer of the imperial cult, priest for life of Aphrodite, and as curator at Cyzicus,
216
Syme (1985) 351ff.
217
On his career see the interesting article by Syme (1982).
218
CIG 2782 and p. 1112.
93
“after consulares had held the post” (ll. 13-14). This was remarkable as Carminius
was neither consul nor senator himself. The inscription also reveals that he was
honored on many counts by the emperors (ll. 4-5).
The same document mentions also in part the career of his elder son,
Carminius Athenagoras (ll. 10-11). The evidence is supplemented by another
document in honor of another one of his sons, M. Ulpius Carminius Claudianus the
younger219
. In lines 10-13 Athenagoras appears again, and the combined evidence
reveals that he became a Roman senator and proconsul of the province of LyciaPamphylia-Isauria,
presumably sometime between 180 and 205 when, it seems,
Isauria was temporarily removed from Cilicia and attached to Lycia-Pamphylia. A
third document, an honorary inscription for his son Mar(cus) Fl(avius) Carm(inius)
Athenagoras Livianus, confirms the fact that Athenagoras’ career was crowned with
the consulship220
. His son is also attested as senator in the same document.
The careers of the members of this family mirror the political ambitions of
many aristocrats who wanted to advance in imperial politics in the second century and
later. The grandfather, looking beyond the local aristocracy of Aphrodisias, held a
provincial position; his son was successful in maintaining the magistracy that his
father held and obtained an imperial appointment while the grandson, more
emancipated from provincial parochialism by his father’s success, became a
consularis221
. Various other examples of leading families could parallel the course of
the Ulpii Carminii and be witnesses of some aristocrats’ desire for inclusion in the
provincial and imperial administration and of their competition for distinction in the
empire of the second century.
219
MAMA 6, 74.
220
CIG 2783.
221
On the career of M. Ulpius Carminius Claudianus see Macro (1979) and (1980) 686.
94
3.4.2 The πολλοί
There was a particular category of provincials who apparently had “secured” a
permanent exception from public offices: the low classes, οἱ πολλοί. The poor citizens
of the city and the rustic inhabitants of the country were the least privileged among
the free people in terms of rights and benefits. They seem to have been excluded from
the administration, unless they managed to acquire wealth and be under the protection
of a powerful patron. However, a ruling by Hadrian and a subsequent one by
Antoninus left some room for the participation of lower class people in offices.
According to this, both Hadrian and Antoninus decreed that occasionally mean status
and rustic life can be an excuse for exemption. This means that sometimes mean
status and rustic life cannot prevent someone from taking an office! As for the
illiterate, this cannot be an excuse, unless that person is ignorant of the transaction of
business affairs222
.
Apparently, I think, either the local assemblies were faced with a demand by
common people and sent a letter requesting instructions, or the person(s) interested
sent a libellus to the emperor protesting exclusion from office. The correspondence
between the emperor and common people and the latter’s presentation of their case
before him was not unusual and there is evidence of it. Among the most interesting is
the so-called Sententiae Hadriani. This is a curious document that includes imperial
replies to pleas from ordinary people. The replies are presented in two parallel
columns in Greek and Latin, and in two versions, one short, and the other long223
. A
variety of requests are being addressed by the emperor: in two different cases a father
222
Dig. 27.1.6.19 (De excusationibus): Periì tw½n a)groi¿kwn kaiì tw½n tapeinw½n kaiì tw½n a)gramma/twn
gra/fei Pau=loº ou(twºi¿: Mediocritas et rusticitas interdum excusationem praebent secundum epistulas
diuorum Hadriani et Antonini. eius qui se neget litteras scire, excusatio accipi non debet, si modo non
sit expers negotiorum.
223
Corp. Glos. Lat. III. 30-38; 387-390. See Lewis (1991) for a discussion of this document and in
particular p. 267- 268 for past bibliography.
95
(case 3) and a mother (case 13) complain of neglect by a son. In the second case,
Hadrian replies to the son who does not recognize the woman as his mother: “if you
do not recognize her as your mother, I do not recognize you as a Roman citizen”; in
another case (case 6) a petitioner asks that his father be allowed to return from exile; a
manufacturer complains that his freedmen stole from him (case 7); an applicant for
military service asks to be enrolled in the Praetorian Guard (case 1).
Whether these petitions are authentic or a rhetorical invention or an
exercise224
, they suggest that ordinary people were expecting the emperor and his
court to pay attention to their problems with the zeal and devotion with which they
attended to those of the aristocrats. The emperor was viewed as the pater patriae who
would deal with all social strata and confer on all kinds of issues. Even slaves could
approach the emperor and submit their requests, such as the petition sent to Diocletian
in December of 294 by Pythagoris, a slave, who asked the emperor to decide whether
she should be freed or not225
. These examples reveal that the emperor was expected to
decide on a number of requests from people of various social backgrounds. It is
interesting in Pythagoris’ case that the final solution was given not by a local official,
whether the governor of a province or a magistrate in Rome, (in this case by the
governor of Bithynia, as Diocletian was at Nicomedeia at that time) but by the
emperor. We do not know if Pythagoris first presented her case to the local official,
but the emperor was the one who gave the final verdict on her case226
.
224
Hadrian’s Sententiae are not the only ones preserved. cf. the ἀποκρίµατα of Septimius Severus
published by Westermann and Schiller (1954).
225
Cod. Just 7.4.13 (De fideicommissariis libertatibus): Si te, donatam ante matrimonium uxori suae,
post ei legato relicto manumitti testamento seu codicillis verbis precariis a successoribus voluit, tam
hos ad redemptionem et manumissionem quam eam, quae in capiendis relictis defuncti consensit
iudicio, teneri tibique fideicommissariam debere libertatem non ambigitur. * diocl. et maxim. aa. et cc.
pythagoridae. * <a 294 s. vii id. dec. cc. conss.>
226
For cases of slaves manumitted before the emperor, see Millar (1977) 488ff; also 465-477 on
petitions to the emperors. On the subject of slavery the reader may consult Wiedermann (1981) and
also the interesting study by Boulvert (1970).
96
Hadrian was accessible to all classes and, as the Historia Augusta tells us, he
was accustomed to the company of the humblest of men and despised any person
who, under the pretext of imperial dignity, begrudged him the pleasure of such
friendliness227
. Despite the reliability issues that the biography presents, it abounds
with examples of his beneficence to the poor and invalid, which do not seem to be far
from reality: to the poor he saw, he gave money of his own (XXII.9); he increased the
alimenta paid to the children of the poor (VII.8); he boasted more than anyone about
his love of the plebs, “fuit et plebis iactantissimus amator” (XVII.8); and he often
bathed in the public baths, even with the common crowd (XVII.5). In the eyes of his
subjects the emperor seems to value quality and character more than birth and rank.
He was a princeps civilis, and in the meetings of the people and in the senate he often
said that he would so administer the empire that people would know that it was theirs
and not the princeps228
. The people should be at the center of the imperial program.
His contemporaries seemed to welcome his intentions and even the hostile Dio
pays him a tribute. Dio goes on to say how Hadrian was accustomed to the contact
with common people and was not offended by it. On one case, he says, Hadrian while
on a journey passed by a woman who made a request. The emperor initially replied “I
have not time”, but when she cried out “then, cease being an emperor”, he turned
about and granted her a hearing229
. Almost identical stories are told twice by Plutarch,
227
HA Hadrian, XX.1: In conloquiis etiam humillimorum civilissimus fuit, detestans eos qui sibi hanc
voluptatem humanitatis quasi servantes fastigium principis inviderent.
228
HA Hadrian VIII.3: et in contione et in senatu saepe dixit ita se rem publicam gesturum, ut sciret
populi rem esse, non propriam.
229
Dio Cassius 69.6.3: ἀµέλει γυναικὸς παριόντος αὐτοῦ ὁδῷ τινι δεοµένης, τὸ µὲν πρῶτον εἶπεν
αὐτῇ ὅτι “οὐ σχολάζω”, ἔπειτα ὡς ἐκείνη ἀνακραγοῦσα ἔφη “καὶ µὴ βασίλευε”, ἐπεστράφη τε καὶ
λόγον αὐτῇ ἔδωκεν.
97
once of Philip II and once of Demetrios Poliorcetes, and again by a writer called
Serenus about Antipater230
.
These stories, probably fictitious, fit well with Hadrian’s reputation and his
profile of the good, civilis emperor. In addition, I think, they underline the importance
of the emperor administering justice and examining petitions given to him by people
when he was passing by their community. The role of the emperor as administer of
justice is underlined in all four passages. In Plutarch’s Life of Demetrios in particular,
we hear that after the old woman complained to the king, he came back and for
several days did nothing else but receive the complaints of all, starting with the old
woman. “Surely” says Plutarch, “nothing so befits a king as the work of justice……
and Homer…… calls as a disciple and “confidant” of Zeus not the most warlike or
unjust or murderous of kings but the most just.”231
Accordingly in Dio, after Hadrian granted the old woman a hearing, he is next
presented as participating in the meetings of the Senate and administering justice
either in the palace, the Forum, or the Pantheon. He even joined the consuls when
they were trying cases232
. In all probability Dio had read Plutarch and adapted the
story to the needs of his presentation of Hadrian. I believe that on Dio’s part it reveals
the author’s wish for a just ruler who respects the institutions of the empire (the
Senate) and is not indifferent to the administration of justice in the city and the
provinces alike.
230
On Demetrios, see Plutarch, Demetrios 42.7, which is the most elaborated example of the four
stories; on Philip II, see Plutarch, Regum et imperatorum apopthegmata 179c; Serenus’ story of
Antipater is preserved in Ioannes Stobaeus’ Anthologium 3.13.48, under the general heading “ΠΕΡΙ
ΠΑΡΡΗΣΙΑΣ”. In this story, which is the shortest, the petitioner is a rustic man.
231
Demetrios 42.8-10: οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως βασιλεῖ προσῆκον ὡς τὸ τῆς δίκης ἔργον……Ὅµηρος… καὶ
τοῦ ∆ιὸς οὐ τὸν πολεµικώτατον οὐδὲ τὸν ἀδικώτατον καὶ φονικώτατον τῶν βασιλέων, ἀλλὰ τὸν
δικαιότατον ὀαριστὴν καὶ µαθητὴν προσηγόρευκεν (Odyssey 19.179).
232
Dio Cassius 69.7.1: ἔπραττε δὲ καὶ διὰ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου πάντα τὰ µεγάλα καὶ ἀναγκαιότατα, καὶ
ἐδίκαζε µετὰ τῶν πρώτων τοτὲ µὲν ἐν τῷ παλατίῳ τοτὲ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τῷ τε Πανθείῳ καὶ ἄλλοθι
πολλαχόθι, ἀπὸ βήµατος, ὥστε δηµοσιεύεσθαι τὰ γιγνόµενα. καὶ τοῖς ὑπάτοις ἔστιν ὅτε δικάζουσι
συνεγίγνετο, ἔν τε ταῖς ἱπποδροµίαις αὐτοὺς ἐτίµα.
98
Therefore, Hadrian’s familiarity with common people did not seem to be
surprising and this is evident even in the generally negative Jewish tradition, where
Hadrian is represented as conversing with ordinary Jews and Rabbis233
. Thus, Hadrian
(‫אדריינוס‬ in the texts) is portrayed questioning Rabbi Yehoshua b. Hananya about
various themes of the Jewish religion (mentioned by Schäfer on p. 236); is compared
to King Solomon (p. 237); in another story, he treats kindly a little girl affected by
leprosy (p. 238-239); and in one anecdote (p. 241-242), Hadrian, “may his bones rot”
(as virtually every reference to him in the rabbinical literature adds), questions a
centenarian peasant whom he encountered planting a fig tree. It is unknown whether
these stories were fictional or not but they can be indicative of the power of
perception. I believe that as Hadrian was reputed to be plebis iactantissimus amator
and conversing with leading figures and common people alike, so it is reasonable to
assume that the authors and the people in general would think about and judge him
according to that reputation234
.
3.5 Summary
In this chapter I analyzed the emperor-subject relationship by focusing on the
question: what was Hadrian’s audience in the East, whom did he meet and address his
messages to? First I dealt with Hadrian’s travels, and I argued that the purpose of
them was the consolidation and strengthening of the empire by securing its frontiers,
and maintaining the army’s loyalty; the examination of the potentials and needs of the
233
Schäfer (1981) 236-244; see also Herr (1971) who examines the dialogues between Jews and
Roman dignitaries from a historical perspective.
234
Herr, in his article, argues that these dialogues represent a literary genre rather than valid testimony;
yet, there is some likelihood, he concludes, that these types of encounters could have taken place in the
reality of Roman rule in Palestine.
99
provinces, especially those of the Greek mainland and Asia Minor, where he spent a
considerable amount of time; and the fostering of his relations with local populations.
By using evidence from Hadrian’s and others emperors’ reigns and by
summarizing discussion in modern scholarship, I next examined how imperial travels
affected the cities and their peoples. I showed that a province had to be ready to
accommodate imperial notables and provide them and their attendants with anything
they might request. Quite often such visits were a financial burden on a community,
but still the visit of an emperor was something that all looked forward to from city
magnates to rustic people.
Hadrian’s dealings with local magistrates and aristocratic and wealthy families
are easier to trace due to the vast amount of epigraphic evidence of their participation
in a number of activities related to the emperor: embassies, festivals, constructions,
dedications and so on. I argued that this group of people was in particular interested in
meeting with the emperor, and presented him with a number of requests. I showed
that their participation in the administration both of the city and the region was
definitely among their most important concerns addressed by Hadrian. The emperor
could reply in a number of ways: by endorsing their application to a governing body,
financing their office, relieving them from the expenses of it, and helping them enter
imperial offices and finally the Roman Senate, if they wished so.
In addition to the elites, a number of other individuals were equally interested
in appearing before the emperor. We may assume that the low classes of a city, rustic
people, and even slaves at some point found it necessary to appeal to the emperor.
Although we lack evidence of the contacts between Hadrian and certain individuals of
this social status, we may suggest that their requests reached Hadrian’s ab epistulis
(among them Suetonius) in the hope that they would be read by the emperor. Judicial
100
matters, hereditary issues, family problems and applications for office posts were,
among others, things that needed to be solved either by the local Roman authorities or
even the emperor.
As a result it was not surprising that Hadrian during his visits to the cities of
the East found a large and diverse audience waiting for him, from local archons, to
aristocrats, men of culture, priests, poor people, even slaves. Hadrian was aware that
matters of any kind and consequence, vital to the empire or important to individuals
of any class, could be brought to his attention. It was this crowd that Hadrian came
into contact with and eventually it was they to whom he addressed his messages,
advertised his policy, and in the presence of whom he performed. Actually, everyone
was ready to perform and persuade: the locals in order to gain privileges, the emperor
to receive their support and advertise his program. Performer and audience shared
roles and hopes.
In the following chapters we will see how he promoted his vision for the
empire among the Greeks of the East by examining numismatic evidence from Rome
and the Greek cities, and finally by discussing the role of religion in the promotion of
his political program.
101
CHAPTER 4
COINAGE AND HADRIAN’S PROGRAM
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will explore the role of coinage in advertising Hadrian’s program
for the Greek East and the Empire in general. This is the first attempt in modern
scholarship to examine Hadrian’s policy through the medium of coinage. In 1988
Kevin Butcher expressed his disappointment over the fact that provincial coinage had
been neglected by scholars on account of its enormous volume 235
. This fact began to
be corrected with the edition of the first volumes of the Roman Provincial Coinage
series by Burnett, Amandry, and others. However, Volker Heuchert underlined the
fact that the provincial coinage of the period from Nerva to Hadrian is still
understudied and not catalogued systematically236
. No modern scholar has brought
together coinage of the central mint and the provinces in a study of Hadrian’s
program. Thus, this chapter aspires to be a first contribution of such kind to Hadrianic
studies.
Here, I will attempt to answer the following questions: what were the
messages channeled through the coins? Who was in charge of the mints? Who took
the initiative for an image and legend to be struck? Was it the local authorities, the
local Roman governor, or the emperor and his court? How independent were the
mints of the Greek East from central administration? To answer these questions I will
235
Butcher (1988) 11.
236
Heuchert (2005) 29.
102
focus on the coinage from the mints of Achaea, Macedonia and Asia Minor but will
also bring into discussion iconographical themes from the imperial mint of Rome or
elsewhere that supplement the information we have from the eastern mints’ issues.
This chapter is divided into two major parts. In the first part I deal with the
organization of the mints in the second century. I examine evidence related both to the
central imperial mint at Rome and the provincial mints of the Greek East. I discuss the
administrative mechanisms of these mints focusing on the people who were involved
in coin production. This part examines crucial themes, such as who was in charge of
the mints, and how independent the Greek mints were from local authorities. This
discussion is a necessary step towards the presentation of the themes of Hadrianic
coinage as it will help us understand better the circumstances under which a particular
message was carved on them. It sets the context, narrative and historical, in which the
messages of Hadrianic coins can be better appreciated.
The second part of this chapter examines those messages. Bringing together
evidence from coinage but also from other sources I will show that Hadrianic coinage
reveals the emperor’s desire to associate himself and his reign with his predecessor
and with myths and traditions both of Rome and of the Greek East. I will also show
that he was interested in being portrayed as the counterpart of Olympios Zeus in the
East, a subject to which I will return in the next chapter. By discussing two other coin
series, the “Virtues” and the “Provinces”, I will reveal Hadrian’s plan to advertise the
principles by which he wished to rule and his sincere interest in the welfare of the
provinces, and by extension, of the entire empire.
After examining the messages displayed on Hadrianic coins I will conclude
this chapter with a discussion of iconography selection. By presenting ancient
evidence and modern scholarship, and by bringing forth my ideas I will argue that a
103
number of persons were involved in the production of coins: from the emperor and his
family to Roman officials and governors, from Greek local magistrates to officials of
the mints, all were able to influence the selection of a certain type.
I believe that this study will contribute much not only to the field of
numismatics but more importantly to our understanding of Hadrian’s vision for the
empire.
4.2 Mint Organization
The problem of the organization of the mints is one that still puzzles scholars.
Since the publication of the first volume of Coins of the Roman Empire in the British
Museum by Harold Mattingly in 1923 this question has not found a definite answer237
.
A first obstacle appears when we attempt to define the number of mints at Rome.
Mattingly promoted the idea (earlier expressed by Mommsen) that under the empire
there were two separate mints: an imperial one in charge of the issues in gold and
silver, and a senatorial in charge of the bronze ones. This theory has been treated with
skepticism by later scholars. Philip Hill238
and R.A.G. Carson239
, both agree that
during the empire there was only one mint, imperial, in charge of all issues. This mint
was housed next to the Temple of Juno Moneta on the Capitoline Hill and was in use
already in the Republic. Sometime between 64 and the early 2nd
century the mint was
moved to a new location on the Caelian Hill. Philip Hill appears more flexible and
accepts the slight possibility that there could have been two mints in the early empire
(p.4), whereas Carson insists that there only was one mint already from Augustus. I
believe that Carson’s theory is correct and, as I will show now, the disagreement
237
Extensive work on this subject has been done (to name just few) by Mattingly, in his introductions
to the volumes of the BMCRE, Carson (1956) and recently Harl (1996) 208ff.
238
Hill (1970) 2-5.
239
Carson (1956).
104
originated from the fact that the central mint employed different officinae
(workshops), some for gold and silver, and others for bronze issues.
There is little evidence for the administrative officials in charge of coinage in
the early empire. The Republican magistrates tresviri aere argento auro flando
feriundo continued for a short time to sign the Augustan coinage of Rome and are last
attested on aes in 4 B.C. Under the empire responsibility soon passed to the emperor’s
a rationibus and certainly by the reign of Trajan the head of the mint is attested as an
equestrian, the procurator monetae240
. The probability of an office of “curator” for the
Roman mint has been suggested in the case of Caius Iulius Quadratus Bassus. The
information comes from a Greek inscription of 118 from Pergamos241
. The text
records the erection of a funerary monument for Quadratus ordered by Hadrian. The
first part of the text lists the offices held by Quadratus, among them that of the
“curator of bronze, gold and silver coinage” (ἐπιµελη[τὴν χαλκοῦ] χρυσοῦ ἀργύρου
χαράγµατος, ll. A.12-13).
A number of inscriptions from the reign of Trajan give us a glimpse into the
workings of the mint. This series of dedications from Rome records the officials who
were in charge of the coinage production. The most senior among them was a
freedman named Felix who appears on three inscriptions, on one occasion as the sole
dedicator with the titles “optio et exactor auri argenti et aeris242
”; next in rank was
his second in command, the freedman Albanus, an optio with whom 25 officinatores
monetae aurariae argentariae are associated in the second inscription 243
; the third
inscription records the official optio et exactor again, together with the craftsmen
240
CIL 6.1607; 1625.
241
IvP III.21.
242
CIL 6.42.
243
CIL 6.43.
105
(signatores suppostores malliatores monetae Caesaris nostri), some of them being
liberti and others being servi244
.
It does seem that in these three texts certain distinctions of rank were drawn
and the mint was organized on quasi-military lines. Felix, the optio et exactor, appears
alone, then in conjunction with the optio and the officinatores, and, lastly, together
with the craftsmen. The optio et exactor was, presumably, the technical head of the
whole mint with an optio as a deputy in charge of the precious-metal section, divided
into a number of officinae or workshops whose heads, the officinatores, joined also in
this dedication. The craftsmen of the third inscription formed yet another grade.
It seems that there was a distinction between the officinae for gold and silver,
and those for aes. A funerary inscription of uncertain date (probably of the second
century) attests a Publius Calvius Iustus, manceps officinarum aerariarum quinque,
item flaturariae argentariae245
. This manceps may be the equivalent for the aes
coinage to Albanus, the optio monetae aurariae argentariae.
Therefore, we see that the mint itself was divided into officinae, some in
charge of precious metals and others of bronze. The heads of these units were the
officinatores. Some system of central control of the more important obverse dies in
the mint could account for the occasional die-linkage between officinae.
Some further remarks on the control of the officinae are appropriate here.
These will set the tone for the discussion of the control over the selection of legends
and scenes on the coinage.
In the second century, the emperor normally controlled all the officinae of the
mint and had coins struck not only for himself but also on behalf of members of his
244
CIL 6.44; for the titles of other craftsmen see Carson (1956) 235, note 1.
245
CIL 6.8455; cf. CIL 14.3642.
106
family, normally for substantive issues, though a few special types appeared from
time to time. Occasionally one or two officinae were handed over to members of his
family. The acquisition by members of the imperial family of their own share of the
mint was marked by a change of the legend, as, for example, from Sabina Augusta
Hadriani Aug(usti) P(atris) P(atriae) to Sabina Augusta in 134246
.
Trajan kept all the officinae in his own hands, as did Hadrian until 133, when
the new obverse formula on Sabina’s gold and silver seems to betoken her acquisition
of one officina247
. This was apparently increased to 2 in 136. After her death they
were handed over to Lucius Aelius Verus, then adopted by Hadrian. Antoninus
retained the officinae until some time in 139 when one was given to his wife Faustina.
When she died in 141, it reverted to the emperor, to be given to Marcus Aurelius in
147. This distribution among the members of the imperial family seems to have meant
in practice that, if the empress or Caesar did not participate in an issue, the emperor
would not use their officinae for his own types.
Thus we may conclude that the emperor and his family were the
“superintendents” of the mint in the second century. However, we cannot pinpoint
with accuracy the degree of control that they exercised over the iconographical types.
This is something I will attempt to answer later in this chapter. Now, I will turn my
attention to the mechanisms of coin production in the Roman Greek East and its
relations with the central government.
246
Compare, for example, BMCRE III.353, 894 and 358, 929.
247
Hill (1970) 3 provides an account of the officinae operating in the second century. According to this
account, 5 officinae operated from the ascension of Trajan to his currency reform (98-107), 7 during
the period of the reform (107-108), 5 again from 109-128, 6 from 129 onwards until 189, when the
number was reduced by Commodus to 5, the sixth being restored on the elevation of Caracalla to the
Caesarship seven years later.
107
4.3 Greek Mints and Central Authority
We saw that our understanding of the administration of the central mint is still
imperfect. Similar is the state of our knowledge of mint organization in the Greek
East during the empire and its relations with the central authority, whether this was
the emperor, his court, or the Roman officials of a province. However, the discussion
of this subject here will be useful, since it will not only contribute to the identification
of those individuals or groups who were responsible for the selection of the legends
and the images, but it will also help us comprehend better the significance of the
messages they carried, as these will be presented in the second part of this chapter.
4.3.1 Organization
In contrast to the regular production of coins at Rome and the imperial mints,
the local issues are characterized by irregularity. According to Howgego, this
phenomenon explains the absence of any standard magistracy throughout the Greek
world of which sole responsibility was to strike coins248
. A few inscriptions and a
number of coins provide some evidence of the mechanisms of coin production.
The motion to strike coins would have been put to the local council, the boule
or the gerousia. It is possible that the undertaking of the issue of coinage was an
epimeleia. A number of coin legends reveal that certain individuals were in charge
(ἐπιµελεῖσθαι) of an issue249
. These individuals were either local officials, or
prominent citizens who brought the matter to attention and undertook the whole
248
Howgego (1985) 85.
249
So the formula ἐπιµεληθέντος is found, for example, on a Trajanic coin from Miletopolis, BMC
XIV Miletopolis 92, or a coin from Attuda of the Severan period, BMC XIX Attuda 67. In one
instance, the production was undertaken by a woman, as the legend ἐπιµεληθείσης reveals (see BMC
XXV Eukarpeia, 203; 206 on coins carrying the portrait of Sabina). The legend parallels the Latin
curante to describe individuals in charge of production in the West (for example, from the city of
Clypea from Zeugitana in North Africa in imperial times (Müstenberg (1973) 3).
108
expense. If that was the case, that individual might record the fact on his coins. So a
high priest of Asia Minor had introduced a proposal (εἰσανγείλαντος) at Eumeneia250
in
the reign of Domitian, and an asiarch, perhaps by his own forethought (προνοηθέντος),
provided an issue for the Koinon of Ionia in Antoninus’ times251
. At Stratonikeia in
Caria, in the second century A.D., Flavius Diomedes put the matter to vote
(ψηφισαµένου)252
. At Mylasa, in the reign of Domitian, Claudius Melas called for vote
and undertook the cost (ψηφισάµενος Κλαύδιος Μέλας ἀνέθηκεν- I will return to the
significance of the verb ἀνέθηκεν later)253
. Another interesting piece of information
comes from Tripolis in Lydia. A certain Theodoros proclaimed on his coins that he
had struck them: Θεόδωρος βʽ ἐχάραξεν254
. Finally, the inscription on a statue base of
Antoninus at Lounda in Phrygia, infrorms us that the strategos Apollodotos, son of
Diodoros, struck coins, κόψας καὶ ν[οµ]ίσµατ[α]255
. The same person appears on coins
from Hyrgaleis in Phrygia as the magistrate in charge of coin issues, ἐπὶ Ἀπολλοδότου
[στρ]α(τηγοῦ)256
. It is possible that the preposition ἐπὶ on the coin denotes that
Apollodotos, as a magistrate, was indeed in charge of the coin production at
Hyrgaleis257
. When an individual undertook the expense, the act was viewed as a
philotimia, a private contribution to the welfare of the state. This idea is found in an
inscription from Magnesia ad Maeandrum of the imperial period258
. The city honored
250
BMC XXV Eumeneia 218.
251
BMC XVI Ionian Koinon 16.
252
BMC XIX Stratonikeia 153.
253
Imhoof-Blumel (1901-1902) 144, 4.
254
BMC XXII Tripolis 373.
255
IGR IV.769, ll.10-11.
256
Howgego (1985) 87.
257
So Howgego (1985) 87, and Butcher (1988) 25.
258
IMagnesia 164.
109
Moschion, son of Moschion, on account of his benefactions to the city, among them
the production of bronze coin259
.
A few comments can be added here regarding a formula that appears on coins
quite frequently and from Hadrian’s time becomes regular. As we saw above,
Claudius Melas put to vote and undertook the cost of the issue (ψηφισάµενος,
ἀνέθηκεν). The verb ἀνέθηκεν is used of issues dedicated by an individual (an
individual could finance the issue) to his fellow citizens, although in some cases the
benefaction may not have been the striking of the coin itself but, for example, a statue
depicted on the coin. Perhaps in some cases the formula referred both to a benefaction
(e.g. a statue) and to the coin recording it. Thus, the issue becomes the result of an act
of euergetism260
. However, the euergetic initiatives were not the norm; rather, as a
rule, the responsibility for coinage was attached to particular offices. Finally, no
matter who would have endowed the issue, there must have been a discussion within
official bodies, in particular the boule261
.
The process is generally the same for the provincial bronze in the west during
the late republic and early empire and for the Roman coloniae in the east. The
decision to strike was taken by the local senate (decreto decurionum or senatus
consulto). Individuals, perhaps usually magistrates, were put in charge (curante,
faciendum curavit, -verunt); they might be those who had proposed the motion (ex
s(ententia).
259
ll. 12-14: κατασταθεὶς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς χαράξεως τοῦ λεπτοῦ/χαλκοῦ, καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς δὲ φιλοτειµίας
τελιάσαντα ἁγνῶς καὶ/ἀµέµπτως. See also the inscription of Apollodotos, line 9.
260
Weiss (2005) 61 underlines the fact that not only the coins of the Greek cities were the result of
euergetism, but it is possible that this phenomenon shared by the cities of the West too. For a
discussion of other formulas appearing on coins see Howgego (1985) 86ff, and Weiss (2005) 61ff.
261
See for example the legend on a Trajanic coin from Ephesos: ὁ νεω(κόρος) Ἐφε(σίων) δῆ(µος)
ἐπεχάρ(αξεν) BMC XVI Ephesos p. 76; SNGAulock 1884. Also a late second century B.C. inscription from
Sestos (IKSestos 1, ll. 43-44: τοῦ τε δήµου προελοµέ/νου νοµίσµατι χαλκίνῳ χρῆσθαι ἰδίωι….).
110
Such is the overall picture of the mechanisms of coin production in the Greek
East during the empire. The next step, which will help us better understand the
messages of the coins, is to investigate the relations between local mints and Roman
authorities.
4.3.2 Mints and Rome
How free were the cities of the Greek East to strike coins during the Roman
Empire? Did city councils request permission from local Roman officials to strike
coins? Most scholars seem to agree that there was actually a degree of central control
over the striking of coins and (as we will later see) the images and legends on them.
As to the striking of coins, the body of evidence on which they base this theory is a
passage from the famous fictitious speech of Maecenas to Augustus in Dio Cassius
and certain formulas on coins.
The passage from Dio has been extensively studied and it suffices to present
here the main conclusions drawn from it262
. Of the advice that Dio makes Maecenas
give the future emperor a great deal is directed at restricting the privileges that could
be given to cities. Among them a recommendation regarding coinage: “no city should
have its own coins or weights or measures, but all of them should use ours.”263
Here,
the author, an official of the Severan period, implies that striking one’s own coinage
required permission or acquiescence by the emperor, which could be revoked. Since
weights and measures are also mentioned, it is clear that Dio is thinking not of the
262
See for example, Burnett (2005) 173-174 and Weiss (2005) 58.
263
Dio Cassius 52.30.9: µήτε δὲ νοµίσµατα ἢ καὶ σταθµὰ ἢ µέτρα ἰδίᾳ τις αὐτῶν ἐχέτω, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἡµετέροις
καὶ ἐκεῖνοι πάντες χρήσθωσαν·
111
municipia and coloniae, but of the mass of peregrine cities, that is, primarily of the
Greek cities, from which he came himself264
.
Additional evidence comes from the coins. The vast majority of the examples,
though, come from the Latin West, mainly from municipia and coloniae, and most of
them are dated to Augustus’ and Tiberius’ reigns. However, their examination here
can illuminate the workings of the eastern mints. From these legends it becomes
evident that sometimes permission to coin was sought from the Roman authorities.
Therefore, legends such as permissu Augusti are recorded on issues under Augustus
and Tiberius in Spain, Africa, and Syria; the colony of Berytus in Syria also presents a
permissu legend with the name of a consular legati Augusti265
. Later, under Domitian,
a few coins appear in Achaea, again in colonies: Patrae266
records an Indulgentia
Aug(usti) Moneta Inpetrata and Corinth a perm(issu) imp(eratoris)267
. Weiss
interprets the legends on the Achaean coinages as resulting from a possible
Domitianic lifting of the ban placed on such issues by Vespasian, supposedly
following the revocation of Nero’s grant of libertas to Achaea268
.
The attestation of the permissu formula in the West has led scholars to seek an
analogous formula in the East. Accordingly, Louis Robert argued that a similar
mechanism is hidden behind the legend αἰτησαµένου followed by a person’s name on
coins from Asia Minor269
. Robert saw in this form an embassy to Roman authorities
to request permission to coin in the name of a city270
. He brought forth a number of
numismatic examples of this formula as well as epigraphic testimony. With this he
264
It has been suggested that what Dio has in mind here is Septimius Severus’ confiscation of the right
to coin from the Syrian Antioch, after its unfortunate choice of sides in the war against Pescennius
Niger in 193-194.
265
Weiss (2005) 59.
266
The example from Patrae is attributed to the reign of Caligula by Howgego (1985) 88.
267
Weiss (2005) 59.
268
Weiss (2005) 59.
269
See Robert, Hellenica 11/12.56ff for examples.
270
Robert, Hellenica 11/12.53-62; also Robert (1967) 53, note 6; 54.
112
also linked a curious passage from Lucian, where the “false prophet” Alexander of
Abonuteichos asked (αἰτῆσαι) from the emperor Marcus Aurelius a permission to
change the name of the city to Ionopolis and to cut new coin and carve on it images of
himself and the human-headed serpent Glycon271
. Both forms, αἰτῆσαι and
αἰτησαµένου, Robert argues, refer to a petition to the emperor or the Roman
authorities. Weiss refuted Robert’s argument and saw in the form αἰτησαµένου a
petition by the person in question to local, indigenous, authorities: “we therefore have
to do with proceedings within the city.”272
After carefully examining Robert’s evidence and argumentation, I believe that
Robert was correct in his assumption and Weiss misread the evidence provided by the
French scholar. In my opinion the most compelling evidence is Robert’s remark that
the formula αἰτησαµένου appears either at the beginning of a city’s issues during the
empire or after an interruption of a considerable period of time273
. The formula
designates the citizen who went on an embassy to the Roman authorities to obtain
permission to cut new coinage. Even Lucian’s passage points in this direction.
Alexander submits his request for new coinage at the very same moment that he asks
for permission to change the name of the city, in other words to re-found the city. For
a new city, as Ionopolis would be, the striking of new coinage was among its
priorities. This remark is in accordance with Robert’s statement that the form appears
at the beginning of a city’s issues. As to the iconography of Alexander’s new coinage,
I believe that certainly, as I will show later, Roman authorities had to approve.
271
Lucian, Alexander or Pseudomantis 58: Ἐκεῖνο δὲ πῶς οὐ µέγα ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις τὸ τόλµηµα τοῦ
Ἀλεξάνδρου, τὸ αἰτῆσαι παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος µετονοµασθῆναι τὸ τοῦ Ἀβώνου τεῖχος καὶ Ἰωνόπολιν κληθῆναι,
καὶ νόµισµα καινὸν κόψαι ἐγκεχαραγµένον τῇ µὲν τοῦ Γλύκωνος, κατὰ θάτερα δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου, στέµµατά τε τοῦ
πάππου Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τὴν ἅρπην ἐκείνην τοῦ πατροµήτορος Περσέως ἔχοντος.
272
Weiss (2005) 59.
273
Robert, Hellenica 11/12.61: il resort clairement de ces observations que la formula αἰτησαµένου
apparaît soit au début d’un monnayage de l’époque impériale, soit après une interruption d’une durée
considérable.
113
Roman authorities were definitely responsible for the cutting of new coinage.
Their control should lie behind the very fact that the cities produced small change in
bronze, whereas silver was produced within definite traditional systems, certainly
under the governor’s control (cistophori in Asia; coins in Alexandria, Caesarea,
Antioch in Syria). Roman administration was possibly also responsible for the fact
that cities in a certain region coined, in bronze, only at a particular time and not
otherwise, such as the Peloponnesian cities under Septimius Severus and the Lycian
cities under Gordian III274
. Scholars also see central control over production behind
the frequent lack of an ethnic on coins from the Greek cities275
.
The production of money was so sensitive an area that it seems unthinkable
that in this matter every provincial city acted as it saw fit without any reference to the
Roman authorities. Some form of central control over the striking of coinage surely
demanded, at the very least, imperial acquiescence. As Howgego says, “The right of
local coinage was part of the delicate balance between local autonomy and centralized
authority which had been worked out in the Hellenistic period and taken over by the
Romans.”276
I think it is possible that the fact that Rome allowed local mints to
continue is related to the importance it assigned to the existing urban framework as a
means of securing the efficient government of the eastern provinces, and consequently
it is prudent to assume that Roman authorities maintained an involvement, sometimes
discreet, other times more authoritative, in the coin production of the cities.
In the preceding pages, I examined the mechanisms of the mint production
both in Rome and the Greek East. We saw that the production at the central mint was
274
So Weiss (2005) 59-60.
275
See for example, Butcher (1988) 98 and Metcalf (1980) 127.
276
Howgego (1985) 88.
114
well organized into offices, the officinae, manned by a number of officials. At the
head of the mint was the emperor. Production in the Greek East seems to have been in
the hands of local magistrates or rich individuals who could undertake the task. They
always consulted the Roman officials and even the emperor on matters related to coin
production. So both Greek and Roman authorities were involved in the coinage of the
cities during the Empire. We must keep these remarks in mind as we turn now to
discuss how messages on Hadrianic coins contributed to the advertisement of
Hadrian’s program.
4.4 Hadrian’s policy as reflected on coinage
Having outlined the mechanisms of coin production, I now turn to the
examination of certain iconographical types that reveal the connection between
Hadrian, his program, and the reaction of the Greek provincials. It is useful at this
point to summarize the basic characteristics of coin production in the reign of Hadrian
with respect to style and iconography.
On account of Hadrian’s imperial policy peace prevailed and the economy
recovered across the empire, first and foremost in the East. His reign influenced
numismatic production and iconography a lot. The evidence from coins confirms that
many more cities were producing coins, with a wide variety of coin types, particularly
in Achaea, Asia Minor, Alexandria in Egypt, and Syria.
The types are still of the same character as before but of greater variety and
more widespread: foundation and colonial themes as regards the colonies; Roman
themes, ranging from representations of Roma, the Senate, the emperor (current and
predecessors) and his family, to Latin divinities; themes of local interest and traditions
such as temples, mythical heroes and founders, great men of the past, and Greek gods
115
and goddesses. In general, the Greek cities adopted themes that acknowledged the
Roman presence, but at the same time favored those that promoted their culture and
interests.
As usual, the portrait of the emperor is found on the obverse. It normally
shows the head or bust of the reigning emperor laureate, or radiate. The bare head,
perhaps a sign of “civilitas”, is common for Hadrian throughout his coinage from
about the middle of his reign. In terms of other attributes, Hadrian begins with the
draped and cuirassed busts of his predecessor, but passes on later to the use of bare
back or busts with slight indication of drapery. In his later years a very wide variety of
representation is employed277
.
As to the characteristics of Hadrian’s numismatic portraits, the first remark
that must be made is that they imitate his statues and are characterized by a conscious
return to pure Hellenic models, as opposed to Roman ones, which marks a turning
point in the history of the imperial portrait278
. His love for everything Greek and the
great revival of interest in classical Greece that characterizes the second century
naturally invaded the coinage too, slowly at first, but in full power from about A.D.
126 onwards. This process culminated in the very large heads of his middle years,
reminiscent of those of the Hellenistic kings. In his last seven years his portraiture
settled down to an unchanged idealism: gracious, noble, grandly conceived, touched
with poetry and imagination, even with romance. His portraits are in marked contrast
to that of his successor, Antoninus. As Philip Hill remarks, Antoninus’ period was
uncomplicated, rather dull both in types and portraiture. It was realistic and changed
277
On the symbolism of attributes, such as aegis, paludamentum see BMCRE III.xxiii.
278
On Hadrian’s numismatic portraits see Moser (1974). See also, BMCRE III.cxxi-cxxiv and Hill
(1970) 13-17. For studies on Hadrian’s portraiture, in particular in sculpture, see Wegner (1956) and,
more recently, Evers (1994).
116
little, “a reaction by an Italian country gentleman to the Philhellenism of his
predecessor.”279
In terms of titulature, a variety of titles accompany Hadrian’s image on the
coinage, such as Caesar, Augustus Imperator, Pater Patriae, Pontifex Maximus, even
the military titles of his predecessors Optimus included, at least early in his reign. The
Latin forms as well as their Greek counterparts are found on the coins of the Greek
mints too, always followed, in both cases, by the indication of his Tribunicia Potestas
and his consulship. Of the titles the most striking, as we will see later, is, of course,
the legend Hadrianus Augustus (reflecting the simple form Caesar Augustus), which
Hadrian adopted sometime between 123 and 128.
With these remarks in mind, we can now proceed to the examination of certain
iconographical types that help us understand better Hadrian’s program.
4.4.1 Hadrian, the son of Trajan
As Hadrian’s adoption was somewhat doubted, the emperor hastened to first
emphasize his kinship with Trajan. A rare issue of 117 was clearly the accession issue
and the first in Hadrian’s time. There are two types, in silver and gold, both depicting
Trajan and Hadrian, one having the additional legend of Adoptio in the exergue. The
first type presents Hadrian laureate on the obverse, followed by the title [Imp Caes
Divi] Traian Aug F Traian [Hadrian Opt Aug Ger]280
. On the reverse, Hadrian and
Trajan are presented wearing the toga. Trajan hands the globe over to Hadrian. The
legend Dac [Parthico P M] Tr P Cos PP, SC continues the legend of the obverse and
surrounds the scene.
279
Hill (1970) 22.
280
BMCRE III.397, 1101.
117
The other type is even more explicit in its message. Again, a laureate Hadrian
appears on the obverse, followed by the title Imp Caes Traian Hadriano Opt [Aug
Ger Dac]281
. On the reverse, former and current emperors, standing, clasp hands. The
scene is accompanied by the title Parthic Divi Trian Aug F P M Tr P [Cos PP], and
by the legend Adoptio in the exergue. The message implied in the first type is clearly
expressed here: Hadrian was nominated emperor by Trajan himself, who first adopted
him and then entrusted the imperium of the world to him.
Paul Strack doubts the theory that the Roman mint was responsible for the
Adoptio issue and attributes it to the imperial mint of Antioch, Syria282
. I believe that
this theory has a certain plausibility given that Hadrian at the time of his adoption was
in that area283
.
It is interesting that the coins of his early reign included the title of P(ater)
P(atriae) in Hadrian’s titulature, while it is omitted from subsequent issues and does
not reappear until 128. It is probable that during the new emperor’s absence, mint
officials placed the title on the coinage without Hadrian’s consent. Trajan had
accepted it in the year following his accession, but Hadrian delayed his consent for 11
years, until he finally accepted the title in 128.
Interesting, though not unexpected in the titulature of Roman emperors, is the
fact that on the early Hadrianic issues Hadrian’s title includes all of Trajan’s epithets
(Optimus, Germanicus, Dacicus and Parthicus). Hill argues that the occurrence of
these titles is due to the engravers’ errors in titulature, who at first transferred them to
his successor and afterwards corrected their mistakes only in the consecration
281
BMCRE III.372, 1021.
282
Strack (1933) 195-196. Mattingly considers an Eastern origin too (BMCRE III.372, 1021).
283
See for example Dio Cassius 69.2.1.
118
issues284
. This seems hardly to be the case, as the frequent adoption of a predecessor’s
titles by his successor, widely attested in inscriptions, refute Hill’s theory285
. Hadrian
bore, by transference, the military titles of Trajan in the first issue of 117- never laterand
he adopted none of his own. Like the military titles of Trajan, Optimus was
abandoned by Hadrian after a short use in 117. Moreover, Hadrian is only Divi
Traiani F(ilius) on these first issues of 117. In contrast to Trajan, who maintained
some reference to Nerva throughout his reign on his coinage, Hadrian never once
mentioned Trajan in his numismatic titulature after ca. 125, though he piously
honored his adoptive father with a consecration issue in that year and an issue that
possibly alludes to the dedication of the temple of Trajan286
.
4.4.2 Hadrian and Saeculum Aureum
Three types from the early years of Hadrian’s reign, specifically from the
period of 117-121, connect Trajan and Hadrian’s new era with myth. The mythical
bird Phoenix features on the reverse of these coins, two of which come from the mint
of Rome and the third from the mint of Alexandria287
.
The first of them, an aureus, depicts Trajan’s bust, laureate and cuirassed, on
the obverse, with the legend Divo Traiano Parth Aug Patri. The anepigraphic reverse
284
Hill (1970) 49.
285
See for example, a miliarium from Berytus, in Syria: Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) divi T[r]aiani /
Parthici fi<l=I>(io) divi Nervae / nepo ti Traiano Hadriano / {V} Aug(usto) Germ(anico) Dacico
Parthic(o) / p(ontifici) m(aximo) trib(unicia) pot(estate) p(atri) p(atriae) / mil<l=P>(ia) pass(uum) / II
(AnnEp 1896.121); also a dedication of Trajan’s statue by Hadrian in Cyprus from 129:
Αὐτοκ[ρ]ά<τωρ> [Καῖσαρ Τραϊανὸς]/<Ἁδρ>ιανὸς Σεβαστὸς Γ[ερ]µανικὸς [∆ακικὸς Παρθικός],/[θεοῦ Νέρουα
Τ]ραϊα<ν>[οῦ] Καίσαρος υἱ[ός, θεοῦ]/[Νέρουα υἱωνός, θ]<ε>ὸν Τραϊανὸν τὸ[ν πατέρα] (IKourion 85).
286
BMCRE III.xxvi.
287
For a discussion of these types see Martin (1974), Castritius (1964) and briefly Hill (1970) 51-52.
Birley (1997) 83 notes the fact that Claudius had already produced a phoenix to symbolize and
authenticate his new saeculum. cf. Martin (1974) 328, who maintains “il s’agit de l’apparition, pour la
première fois à Rome, de l’ image e l’ oiseau fabuleux, le Phénix, sur une série de revers monétaires”.
119
depicts the mythical bird with radiate nimbus standing on a branch288
. The second, an
aureus too, presents Hadrian’s laureate bust with the legend Imp Caes Traian
Hadrianus Aug289
. On the reverse, a standing male figure holds in the left hand a
globe, on top of which stands Phoenix. The legend is particularly revealing: P(ontifex)
M(aximus) Tr(ibunicia) P(otestas) Co(n)sul III, Saec(ulum) Aur(eum). Hadrian’s
reign was a golden era.
The third example, a tetradrachm from Alexandria, depicts Hadrian’s laureate
head on the obverse with the legend Αὐτ Καίσ Τρα Ἁδριανὸς Σεβ290
. On the reverse, a
standing female figure, identified by the inscription as Pronoia, wears a chiton and
peplos and holds a garland. In her right hand she holds a radiate Phoenix, and in the
left a scepter.
It is possible that there is an allusion to the consecration of Trajan on the
iconography of the first coin. The legend Divus and the Phoenix symbolize the
eternity of Trajan’s name. The solar aspects of the bird and its mystic-religious
symbolism as well as the legend Divus, which clearly points to the divine status of the
deceased emperor, argue for the consecration of Trajan. However, I believe that the
political message is the one that prevails here. By issuing coins with the bird, Hadrian
affirms his affiliation with the dead emperor. The association of Trajan with a phoenix
on coins is a way to preserve the memory of the imperium of Trajan and to show the
will of Hadrian to be seen as the son of Trajan and follow in the foot-steps of his
predecessor as a good emperor.
288
BMCRE III.245, 48-49.
289
BMCRE III.278, 312.
290
SNG Denmark 41.414-415.
120
The male figure of the second type has been identified either as the Genius of
the Golden Age (Mattingly in BMCRE) or even as Trajan himself291
. Martin sees here
the dead emperor who holds the globe and looks at his own image, his successor,
Hadrian. This theory apparently attempts to show the connection between this type
and the aforementioned one, on which Trajan entrusts the globe to Hadrian. Although
his theory cannot be proved, it still has some plausibility. By the use of three types-the
one mentioned before, on which Trajan presents Hadrian the globe; the second, where
Hadrian as Phoenix rests on the globe handed to him by Trajan; and the Divus
Traianus type with the radiate Phoenix- Hadrian appears as the continuator of Trajan
rather than the inaugurator of a new era. Given the issue date, Hadrian had still to
prove himself as the legitimate successor of Trajan. Furthermore, it was in his interest
to reassure the people of Rome, first of all the Senate, about his intentions. He was the
new Phoenix, born from the ashes of his father, and continued a golden age, a
saeculum aureum.
Martin suggests that the inspiration for the design of the Alexandrian type
came from official circles, “impulsions venues d’en haut”, without connecting it
directly to Hadrian himself292
. Pronoia’s presence with Phoenix on the reverse is
justified, since Pronoia permitted Trajan to give himself a successor, who is depicted
on the obverse. Pronoia presents an aeternum imperium, symbolized by the globe and
the Phoenix, to Hadrian. She also guarantees the continuity of Trajan’s reign and the
greatness of the new era.
Thus, these types embody fundamental ideas which preside at the beginning of
the new reign: affiliation of the new emperor with Trajan and continuation of a
291
Martin (1974) 336.
292
Martin (1974) 337.
121
program which created the conditions of a golden age. The general idea, expressed by
the phoenix, was known to all: Hadrian was a new Trajan, the son who came to
continue what his father accomplished. It was the essential point of the propaganda of
Hadrian in a period when he still had to affirm the legitimacy of his imperium.
4.4.3 Hadrian and the Roman Past
This continuity had to be extended far beyond Trajan, back to the first
princeps, Augustus. Therefore, it is not surprising that his image is often found along
with that of Hadrian on the coinage of the period. Sources provide plenty of
information about the devotion that Hadrian showed to Augustus. Suetonius, in the
life of Augustus, reveals that Augustus, while in childhood, was named Thurinus. The
author claimed that he had a proof of this. In his possession, there was a bronze
statuette of Augustus, depicting him as a boy and carrying the inscribed name
Thurinus. This statuette, he continues, he presented to Hadrian, who placed it among
his Lares in his bedroom293
.
When the Fratres Arvales received a written communication from Hadrian in
118 they opened the tablets which were sealed with the signum impressed by a head
of Augustus: tabulae aperta[e si]gno [signatae, quod] exprimit kaput Augusti294
. In
other words, Hadrian had a portrait of the first princeps on his signet-ring.
The imperial coinage at about this time drastically abbreviates Hadrian's
titulature. Instead of being styled "Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus",
he was soon presented simply as "Hadrianus Augustus", a form which was not carried
on the coinage of his predecessor. The message conveyed is clear enough: he wanted
293
Suetonius, Augustus 7: Thurinum cognominatum satis certa probatione tradiderim, nactus puerilem
imagunculam eius aeream veterem, ferreis et paene iam exolescentibus litteris hoc nomine inscriptam,
quae dono a me principi data inter cubiculi Lares colitur.
294
Scheid (1998) 203, 68, ll. 30-31.
122
to be seen as a new Augustus. He wished to model himself on the first Princeps,
emulate his saeculum aureum, and return to the Augustan policy of non-expansion295
.
Suetonius' praise of Augustus’ non-expansion policy seems to allude to Hadrian296
.
In this atmosphere, the mints were eager to address the interest of the emperor
in Augustus. The mint of Nicopolis, in Epeiros, provides two interesting pieces. The
first carries the laureate and cuirassed bust of Hadrian on the obverse297
. The legend
reads Ἁδριανὸς Καῖσαρ. The reverse depicts a ship, on the prow of which a male figure
is standing. Karamesine-Oikonomidou correctly suggested that the figure is that of the
founder of the city, Octavian. The legend confirms this: Αὔγουστος.
The second coin from Nicopolis presents the same iconography and legend on
the obverse as the first298
. On the reverse, Octavian rides a horse which gallops to the
right. The legend again reads Αὔγουστος.
The coin that has attracted the most attention is a silver cistophorus from Asia
Minor. Metcalf in his study on the cistophori attributes the type to an unidentified
mint that was in operation as early as 129299
. The coin depicts the bare head of
Augustus on the obverse followed by the title Imp Caesar Augustus. On the reverse,
Hadrian, togate, is shown standing. In his right hand he holds a grain stalk and wraps
the left one in toga. The legend is unusual: Hadrianus Augustus PP Ren.
The restoration of the last word is problematic, and various theories have been
suggested.
Metcalf proposed “renovavit” and argued that Hadrian “renewed” the coinage
in a very literal sense by re-striking it and equally gave it new form through the
295
Suetonius, Divus Augustus 21.2
296
Birley (1997) 96.
297
Karamesine-Oikonomidou (1975) 82, 10.
298
Karamesine-Oikonomidou (1975) 84, 24.
299
Metcalf (1980) 89-90.
123
employment of local types300
. This interpretation, he continues, is consistent with the
use of Augustus’ portrait, which can be seen as an idealization of some of the portraits
of his (Augustus’) own cistophori; “Augustus had, after all, taken the final steps in the
Romanization of the cistophori.” Thus the coin, he claims, commemorates both the
founder and the renewer of the cistophoric series; Hadrian holding grain on the
reverse is a generalized symbol of well-being and prosperity. Moreover, his recoining
of the cistophori eliminated financial abuses in the province of Asia. In other
words, the legend reflects Hadrian’s coinage policy in the province.
Mattingly proposed instead ren(atus), a reading which has gained popularity
among scholars301
. According to this interpretation, the legend is connected with
Hadrian’s initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries. In September 128, five years after
his initiation into the first grade, Hadrian took part in the mysteries again. The grain
stalk held by the emperor symbolizes the connection of the Mysteries with Demeter.
Hadrian received initiation at Eleusis and was reborn to the eternal life of the faithful
“mystic”. The portrait of Augustus on the obverse takes on greater significance since
the first princeps was the only emperor before Hadrian to have been initiated. He had
likewise advertised the fact on the Asian cistophori with a reverse depicting ears of
corn. Accordingly, the legend “renatus” refers not only to Hadrian’s religious rebirth
at Eleusis, but more generally to his rebirth as a second Augustus. Recollection of
their common religious experience symbolized the spiritual kinship of Hadrian and
Augustus.
Kevin Clinton accepts the Eleusinian connection and argues that the person
depicted on the reverse is Ploutos with the features of Hadrian302
. The legend
300
Metcalf (1980) 90.
301
BMCRE III.clx; Grant (1950) 102; Kienast (1959-1960); Birley (1997) 215.
302
Clinton (1989) 57-58.
124
“renatus”, he argues, refers to the rejuvenation experienced in the Mysteries, and in
Hadrian’s case, to his new life as the young god Ploutos. Ploutos, celebrated in the
Mysteries, he continues, was the prosperity that comes to men from the two
goddesses. As a consequence, the scene on the reverse is a symbolism of prosperity
that Hadrian brought to people.
I believe that the Eleusinian connection is somewhat unclear as it is uncertain
whether the Asians paid particular attention to Hadrian’s initiation. The arguments on
which this theory is based are Augustus’ portrait, the grain stalk and the ambiguous
abbreviation “REN”. I do not see why all three elements have to be connected with the
Mysteries. In my opinion there might be other ways to explain their occurrence on
this coin. Therefore, here I would like to advance a different theory. I believe that the
depiction of Hadrian holding grain on the reverse reflects the expression of an Asian
city’s gratitude for an actual benefaction, either food supply or other. Although the
grain stalk could be perceived as a symbol of civilization, I think there is a great
possibility that it actually symbolizes what it is: grain supply. According to our
sources two cities of Asia Minor had received permission from Hadrian to import
grain from Egypt. The first was Ephesos in 129 and the second Tralleis some time
between 127 and 129303
. Based on stylistic arguments Metcalf has excluded Ephesos
as the mint that produced our cistophorus. Besides, Ephesos’ mint had already been
identified304
. Tralleis, on the other hand, is a strong candidate. The city was given
permission to import grain from Egypt, something that was a major benefaction to a
city, and perhaps could explain the title ktistes attributed to Hadrian on the city’s
303
Ephesos: IEphesos 274; Tralleis: ITralleis 80.
304
Metcalf (1980) 88.
125
coins, as we will later see305
. If indeed the scene of the reverse mirrors Hadrian’s
benefaction, how do we explain the image of Augustus on the obverse? Augustus had
been a major benefactor to the city as well. In about 27-26 BC the city was hit by an
earthquake. The poet Chaeremon traveled to the emperor, then in Spain, to appeal for
help for Tralleis. Augustus indeed gave money to the city, which in gratitude took the
name Caesarea306
. It seems then that Hadrian’s grain supply was viewed as a
benefaction equal to that by Augustus, and Hadrian was viewed as a second Augustus,
a fact which compels us to read “REN” as “renatus” and not “renovavit”. “Renovavit”
seems to be a little far-fetched interpretation and I doubt people were able to
understand it, unless of course they had access to coin production. Moreover, nothing
on the coin, legend or scene, can relate (in people’s mind) to the “renovation” idea.
On the contrary, I believe that Augustus’s portrait, grain stalk and the abbreviation
can be explained in the way I have suggested here. It is interesting that Hadrian’s
secretary, Phlegon, was from this city and perhaps he had something to do with it,
since he had personal knowledge of the emperor’s affection for the first princeps.
Perhaps the occasion of the striking of the coin was Hadrian’s visit to the city in 129.
It is also interesting that Tralleis is not accounted among the known cistophoric mints
and stylistic parallels compel me to think of the city as a very strong candidate for the
issuing of the coin307
.
As second Augustus, Hadrian inherited the first princeps’ role of new
Romulus. Hence the type of Romulus advancing with spear and trophy on sestertii-
305
Only five cities were granted this “gift” by Hadrian: Ephesos, Tralleis, Cyrene, Athens, and possibly
Sparta.
306
See Millar (1977) 423, note 16 for a list of ancient sources.
307
See the togate figure of Britannicus holding ears of corn on a Claudian coin from the city in RPC
I.2654.
126
size medallions, a type shared with aurei and denarii308
. On the obverse of this type,
Hadrian, laureate or bare headed, with the legend Hadrianus Augustus Cos III PP. On
the reverse, as mentioned, Romulus, bare headed, advances in military dress and
carries a spear in his right hand and a trophy over his shoulder in his left hand. The
legend reads Romulo Conditori. The dedication to ‘Romulo Conditori” is essentially
homage to Hadrian, the new founder of Rome.
The type originates from the mint of Rome, but as for its date there is a
disagreement among scholars. It seems to date from 134-138 and perhaps to be issued
at the consecration of the temple of Venus and Roma in 136 or 137309
. However,
regarding the aurei of this type, Hill argues that it was actually issued after Hadrian’s
death by his successor, as a means to force the Senate to agree to Hadrian’s
deification and ratification of his acts310
.
Particularly popular in the numismatic iconography of both Rome and the
Greek East was the theme of the she-wolf nourishing the twins311
. For example, an
aureus from Rome, of the period of 125-128, depicts the laureate bust of the emperor
on the obverse and the she-wolf suckling the twins on the reverse312
. Medallions
issued on the 150th
anniversary of the Principate also adopted the theme313
. The type
was picked up by local mints such as that of the city of Apollonia in Mysia, which
displays the same iconography as that from Rome314
. An aes, issued by the city of
308
On medallions see Gnecchi, Medaglioni III.18.84; on aurei see BMCRE III.306, 528; on silver
denarius, BMCRE III.329, 709.
309
Rothman (1978) 127, note 55.
310
Hill (1966) 179. Hill is not clear as to whether this date should be applied to the same type struck on
silver and medallions.
311
In this context see the Hellenistic honorific decree for an unknown individual from Chios (Graf
(1985) 456, I.Ch. 78). The city honored an unknown benefactor, who, among other things, set up a
votive offering that depicted the birth of the twins (ll. 22-27). The she-wolf and the twins were clearly
among the symbols of Rome and its power in the Greek East (ll. 27-29).
312
BMCRE III.295, 444.
313
Rothman (1978) 127, note 55.
314
Imhoof-Blumel (1913) 228-229.
127
Cydonia in Crete, portrays, as usually, Hadrian’s portrait on the obverse and on the
reverse the she-wolf nourishing only one child315
. An interesting piece comes from
Bithynia. The aes was issued by the Bithynian Koinon during Hadrian’s reign. The
bronze depicts Hadrian’s bust on the obverse, while on the reverse an octastyle temple
dominates the scene. Inside the temple the she-wolf suckles the twins. The legend
reads Κοινὸν Βειθυνίας. The temple is surely an allusion to the imperial cult.
The design was very common in Asia Minor and we find an interesting
combination of images on a bronze from Ilion, which was struck throughout the
second century AD. The coin depicts the she-wolf suckling the twins not on the
reverse, but on the obverse, while Hector, holding spear and shield, is shown on the
reverse316
. The point is very clear: both cities share the same past, the same legends.
The ties between the two cities and Ilion’s continuity in Rome are messages that were
understood by everyone. Preeminence is given to Rome, as the she-wolf is selected to
dominate the obverse. The “metropolis” recognizes the superiority of the daughtercity
and pays homage to her.
Hector appears again on a bronze from Ilion. The hero is depicted on the
reverse as before with the legend Ἰλι Ἕκτωρ. The obverse is dominated by the laureate
bust of Hadrian317
. It is noteworthy that the Trojan hero makes his appearance on the
coins of the city in the reign of Hadrian. We know that the emperor had visited the
area in 124 and restored the tomb of Ajax318
. It is also possible that he wrote an
315
Mionnet 2.275,139.
316
Sear (1982) 4922.
317
Sear (1982) 1159.
318
Philostratus, Heroicus 137 (I use the page numbers from volume 2 of C.L. Kayser’s Teubner edition
in 1871).
128
epigram on Hector’s tomb319
. I believe that the appearance of Hector on the coinage is
a local response to the emperor’s personal interest320
.
The close ties between Rome and Ilion are demonstrated again on a coin from
the same city dated to Hadrian’s reign321
. It depicts Hadrian’s crowned bust on the
obverse with the legend Αὐτ Καίσ Τρα Ἁδριανὸς. The reverse combines scenes that
most explicitly demonstrate the continuity of history: Aeneas carries Anchises and
holds Ascanius’s hand; next to them, the she-wolf with the twins. The legend reads
Ἰλιέων. The iconography of Aeneas was popular in Rome and Asia Minor322
as
attested by another Hadrianic from the same city that portrays the head of Athena on
the obverse and Aeneas carrying his father and leading Ascanius on the reverse323
.
The coins of Apameia, in Bithynia, from the time of Hadrian onwards, also carry the
design324
.
In this context of Hadrian’s association with Roman history and myths, we
must place the coins that depict Hadrian in association with Aeneas’ and Rome’s
mother, Venus Genetrix. A couple of examples from Rome and the provinces will
suffice to prove the point. In the first example, an aureus from Rome dated to 128-
138, Hadrian is shown on the obverse, while on the reverse Venus, holding Victory,
rests on a shield. A scepter leans against her left arm, and the legend leaves no doubt
regarding her identity: Veneri Genetrici325
. On a silver denarius from the same mint,
Hadrian’s wife, Sabina, is shown on the obverse, while on the reverse Venus holds an
319
Anth. Graeca 9.387. Cf. Anth. Latina 708.
320
Cf. Erskine (2001) 253 who argues that Hector’s appearance was due to the city’s need to reassert
its Trojan identity in light of the Hellenocentric policy of the emperor as that was reflected in the
Panhellenion.
321
SNG Aulock 1533.
322
On Aeneas on coins see Duncan (1948).
323
SNG England VI.II.1328.
324
Sear (1982) 1144.
325
BMCRE III.307, 529. Hill, as in the case of the aureus with the Romulo Conditori legend, identifies
this as a posthumous issue edited by Antoninus-Hill (1966) 179.
129
apple. The legend again reads Veneri Genetrici326
. An example from the East is found
on a coin from an unidentified mint with the legend Hadrianus Augustus
accompanying Hadrian’s bust on the obverse. On the reverse, Venus stands and raises
both hands. The legend is the same as on the previous examples327
.
So far I have examined types that advertise Hadrian’s association with great
figures of Rome and myths of the city. Now I will discuss numismatic iconography
that connects Hadrian with the traditions and myths of the Greek East.
4.4.4 Hadrian and Greece: past and present
We saw that the Greek mints were eager to publicize Hadrian’s association
with the legendary past and history of Rome. Even more frequent is the numismatic
portrayal of the emperor with figures from the past and traditions of the Greek world.
Given the Philhellenic feelings of the emperor and the interest in classical tradition in
the second century this is not a surprise. The frequent travels of the emperor in the
area, his benefactions to the Greek cities, in particular Athens, Smyrna and Ephesos,
as well as the atmosphere that led to the foundation of the Panhellenion, all these
factors facilitated those iconographical choices that exposed Hadrian’s relationship
with the Greek world.
One of the most important developments that we can observe in the
numismatic iconography of this period- which also echoes the emperor’s attitude to
Hellenism- is the appearance of unambiguously Greek themes on coins of Rome
itself. These issues associate in an amazing way the Greek past with its Roman
present and Hadrian’s philhellenism. Representations of Poseidon with dolphin and
326
BMCRE III.360, 944
327
BMCRE III.379,12.
130
trident, for example, or of Artemis and Pegasus are indicative of a growing re-approch
between the Greek and Roman traditions in his reign. A bronze dupondius of 119-121
from Rome depicts Hadrian on the obverse and the winged horse Pegasus on the
reverse328
. This motif was very popular in Corinth, with whose king, Bellerophon,
Pegasus was closely associated.
The horse was depicted on the city’s coinage already from Archaic times and
continued even when the city was re-founded as a Roman colony. A Corinthian
bronze depicts Hadrian on the obverse and Pegasus on the reverse329
. Another
example from the same city presents Hadrian followed by the legend Imp Caes Tra
Hadrian Aug; on the reverse, Bellerophon on Pegasus strikes at the Chimaera, while
the accompanying legend reads Col L (Iul Co)r330
. Perhaps the Corinthian types
reflect Corinth’s acknowledgment of Hadrian’s role in the prosperity of the city. We
know that the emperor provided the city with baths as well as a new aqueduct which
brought water from lake Stymphalos. The emperor also improved access to the city
from Attica by widening the road over the Skironian cliffs between Corinth and
Megara. It is no accident, and is certainly related to Hadrian’s benefactions to the city,
that an increase in coin production occurred in his reign and continued during the
Antonine period331
.
An interesting coin comes from the city of Aegeai in Cilicia332
. It is a silver
tridrachm of 117 that depicts a laureate bust of Hadrian on the reverse followed by the
legend Αὐτοκρ Καῖσ Τραιανὸς Ἁδριανὸς Σεβ. The reverse depicts the bust of a male
figure with a diadem and below him a goat recumbent, the symbol of the city. The
328
Cat. Ossolinski 3.423.
329
SNG Denmark 15.283.
330
SNG Denmark 15.284.
331
So Engels (1990) 53.
332
SNG Denmark 33.35.
131
legend helps date the coin: ἔτους δξρʽ Αἰγεαίων (= 164 of the Ceasarian era, that is
117). The editors of the coin identified the figure on the reverse as Alexander the
Great. Hadrian’s predecessor was anxious to imitate Alexander’s advance to the
East333
, but of Hadrian’s interest in Alexander there is not much evidence. We know
that in 122 a part of the Sixth Legion arrived at Tyne, at the east end of Hadrian’s
British wall. The legion dedicated two altars, one to Neptune, the other to Oceanus.
Alexander the Great had sacrificed to the same deities at the river Hydaspes (a branch
of the Indus river). Hadrian's friend Arrianus describes the scene334
. This act had
marked the end of the Indian campaign. Did Hadrian imitate the great king, whom
Trajan wished to emulate? Did he reach his western counterpart to Alexander’s at
Indus? Also, when Alexander's horse Bucephalus died in India, the king allegedly
founded a city at the spot. Hadrian showed himself prone to gestures of this kindwhen
his favorite steed, Borysthenes, died, Hadrian honored his horse by preparing a
tomb upon which he placed an inscription335
.
Hadrian’s intellectual interests were well known to contemporaries. Some
cities of the East underlined this by depicting him on their coinage along with famous
local figures. So a bronze from Halicarnassos depicts Hadrian, laureate, on the
obverse, and a bald and bearded bust of Herodotos on the reverse accompanied by the
legend, Ἁλικαρνασσέων Ἡρόδοτος336
. The figure of the historian appears now for the
first time on the coinage of the city and certainly reflects not only the contemporary
interest in classical Greece but also the literary pursuits of the emperor337
. Along the
same lines, the city of Priene issued a bronze with Hadrian’s laureate head on the
333
Dio Cassius 68.29.1; 30.1.
334
Historia Indica 18.11.
335
Dio Cassius 69.10.2; Historia Augusta 20.12-13. The inscription is published in the CIL 12.1122.
336
SNG England I.II.294.
337
Herodotus appeared again on the city’s coins under Gordian III.
132
obverse and the philosopher Bias standing on the reverse338
. The philosopher was a
citizen of the city and one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Certainly, such a selection of
iconography flattered the emperor.
Hadrian’s benefactions to the cities as well as his (re)foundation of a number
of them did not go unnoticed by local mints. A large number of coins honor Hadrian
as ktistes, which referred either to a major benefaction to the city by the emperor in
the form of building or even a (re)foundation of a city. For example, a bronze from
Tralleis depicts on the obverse laureate Hadrian accompanied by the legend Αὐ Καί
Τρα Ἁδριανὸς Κτίστης339
. The reverse depicts Zeus Larasios seated and holding Nike
and scepter. Before him stands Ephesian Artemis flanked by stags. As I stated above,
the epithet ktistes could be related to Hadrian’s permission to the city to import grain
from Egypt. If, on the other hand, we must associate the scene of the obverse with that
of the reverse, perhaps the epithet “ktistes” reflects an unknown major benefaction of
the emperor to the temple of the god. Though I find the first explanation more
satisfactory, I believe that the second is possible too.
Two issues from Argos in Peloponnesos allude to the emperor’s visit and
works there, perhaps in 124/125. The first, a bronze, depicts a laureate Hadrian with
the legend Αὐτ Ἁδριανὸς Κτίστης, while the reverse carries an image of Zeus with
scepter340
. The second, a bronze again, carries the same obverse, while the reverse
depicts Apollo holding lyre and plectrum, followed by the inscription Ἀργείων341
. We
know that the emperor had built a new aqueduct for the city with perhaps a
nymphaeum at its termination, probably before 124342
. Hadrian also dedicated a gold
338
SNG England VI.II.1497.
339
Sear (1982) 1189.
340
SNG Deutschland-Herzog 893.
341
SNG Denmark 17.86.
342
Boatwright (2000) 112; 134 with note 95.
133
and bejeweled statue of a peacock at the Heraion343
. Perhaps the building of the new
aqueduct can justify the epithet ktistes.
Our next example is a bronze from Stratonikeia-Hadrianopolis in Mysia344
.
The city had been visited by the emperor in 123. The obverse portrays laureate
Hadrian accompanied by the title Ἁδριανὸς Κτίστης, while the reverse depicts Zeus.
The epithet clearly refers to the re-foundation of the city, which now bore the double
name Stratonikeia-Hadrianopolis. Hadrian reconstituted as a polis an earlier
sympoliteia of two communities, Stratonikeia and Indeipedion345
. A letter from the
emperor to the city in 127 refers to the recent foundation of the city under its double
name346
.
The last example comes from a Roman colony, though originally it was
founded by Greeks. The city of Parion in Mysia was founded by colonists from the
island of Paros but under Augustus became a colony, Pariana Iulia Augusta347
. The
obverse of this bronze depicts Hadrian with the legend Hadrianus Aug PP. On the
reverse, a male figure, identified as a colony founder, is ploughing. The legend reads
C(olonia) G(emella) I(ulia) H(Adriana) P(ariana) a reference to the second refoundation
of the city as colony by Hadrian.
4.4.5 Hadrian Olympios
Hadrian’s hearty reception among the Greeks found its greatest numismatic
expression in the depiction of the emperor as Olympios. The use of the epithet
Olympios for Hadrian is attested for the first time in 128 but becomes regular after
343
Pausanias 2.17.6.
344
Weber Coll. 6567.
345
See discussion in Boatwright (2000) 184ff, who treats with skepticism the idea that the refoundation
was the result of the earthquake of 120 (186, note 67).
346
Oliver (1989) 201, 79, ll. 8-9: δίκαια ἀξιοῦν µοι δοκεῖτε καὶ ἀναγκαῖα ἄ[ρ]/τι γεινοµένῃ πόλει.
347
SNG Tübungen 4.3252.
134
131/2, the year in which the Olympieion was finished, the statue of Olympios Zeus
was dedicated in it, and the Panhellenion was founded by Hadrian. By addressing the
emperor as Olympios the cities clearly identified him with the head of the gods. Now
Hadrian becomes not the god of a single Greek city but of the entire Greek world. As
we will see in the next chapter, Hadrian paid special attention to his reception as the
earthly counterpart of Zeus. Certainly the coins presented below, as well as numerous
inscriptions that honored him as Olympios, reflect this atmosphere.
According to current numismatic evidence, nine cities named Hadrian
Olympios on their coins: the Roman colony of Dion in Achaea, the city of Cos, and
from Asia Minor, Cyzicus, Ephesos, Eumeneia, Hydrela, Kame, Sagalassos, and
Tarsos.
Despite the extensive evidence for the epithet on statue bases from the
provinces of Achaea and Macedonia, the epithet only shows up on coins from the
colony of Dion. The coins from Dion have the laureate bust of the emperor on the
obverse and the inscription Imp Caes Hadriano Aug Olympio. All coins with the
image of Hadrian from this city carry the epithet Olympios. On the reverse, we have
either Athena, accompanied by the owl and snake and pouring a libation348
, or a
standing Zeus349
, leaning with his left hand on a scepter and with his right holding a
phiale; he too is pouring a libation. An eagle is shown at his feet. The legend reads
Col Iul Aug Diensis. It is noteworthy that the image of Zeus on the coins of the city
was introduced in Hadrian’s reign. The issue of Olympios is dated to 132 or shortly
after, according to Kremmyde-Sicilianou (51).
348
Kremmyde-Sicilianou (1996) 184-186, nrs 1-14.
349
Kremmyde-Sicilianou (1996) 186, nr 15.
135
A Latin inscription from the same period helps date it. The text comes from
the temenos of Zeus Olympios in Athens and belongs to the vast number of statue
bases that were erected in honor of Hadrian at and after the completion of the
Olympieion and the inauguration of the Panhellenion. The statue in question was
erected by the city of Dion in 132350
. The dative case (Hadriano Olympio) that occurs
both on the coin and the inscription testifies to the fact that in both instances we have
a dedication to Olympios Hadrian, a clear reference to the divine status of the
emperor. This remarkable double dedication is an unprecedented honor for an
emperor by the city of Dion.
As the issue of the coin came shortly after the foundation of the Panhellenion,
it has been suggested that the issue could mark either the request of Dion for
admission to the Panhellenion or its membership351
. Although Dion’s membership is
not attested, it is noteworthy that the epithet Olympios is not frequent in Macedonia:
only the colonies of Philippi and Dion attributed it to Hadrian, and only to him. This
is even more striking since no city in Achaea attributed the epithet Olympios to
Hadrian on coinage, in contrast to the cities of Asia Minor where numerous coin
issues carry the title.
Karamesine-Oikonomidou, in her work on the coinage of Nicopolis, states that
she was unable to find a coin that bore the legend Panellenios, referring to Hadrian, as
earlier scholars had argued352
. This unique type was eventually located in the
collection of the city of Winterthur in Switzerland353
. This bronze of 130-138 depicts
350
CIL 3.548B; 7281: [I]mp(eratori) Caes(ari) divi Traiani Par/thici fil(io) divi Nervae nepo/ti
Traiano Hadriano Aug(usto) / [p(ontifici)] m(aximo) tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) XVI co(n)s(uli) III p(atri)
p(atriae) / Olympio / colonia Iulia Augusta / Diensium per legatum / G(aium) Memmium Lycum /
∆ιεστῶν.
351
So Kremmyde-Sicilianou (1996) 51 and Papaefthymiou (2001) 72.
352
Karamesine-Oikonomidou (1975) 31.
353
Bloesch (1987) 1781.
136
Hadrian’s bust on the obverse with the legend Καῖσ Πανελλ[ή]νιος. The reverse
displays a crescent and star followed by the inscription Νεικόπολις. It is unknown
whether the city had applied for admission to the Panhellenion and chose to advertise
this by the type. No other known coin from the Greek East carries this title with
respect to Hadrian, but we cannot exclude the probability that cities could have done
so, imitating inscriptions as they did with the title Olympios.
Of particular importance for the view of the emperor as Olympios is the
coinage of Ephesos. The city was one of the several Asian cities that cut this issue.
Two types, on bronze, carry the image of laureate Hadrian on the obverse followed by
the legend (Ἁ)δριανὸς Καῖσαρ Ὀλύµπ(ιος) . The first354
depicts the temple of Ephesian
Artemis within which stands her statue, and the second355
portrays the statue itself.
However, the most expressive piece is a silver cistophorus of 129356
. It depicts
Hadrian on the obverse with the legend Hadrianus Augustus Cos. III. PP, while on
the reverse, Zeus sitting on a throne, holds a scepter in his left hand and, in his
outstretched right hand, an image of the Ephesian Artemis. The legend reads Iovis
Olympius Ephesi.
The image of Zeus Olympios holding the small statue of Artemis and his
identification with the emperor (here and in a number of inscriptions) epitomize the
close relationship of the emperor with the city. Hadrian’s love for Ephesos was well
known in antiquity. Among other things, the emperor had granted the city a second
neokorate, and permitted the Ephesians to import grain from Egypt. An inscription of
129 on a statue base for Hadrian set up by the boule and the demos of Ephesos honors
Hadrian, their founder and savior, for his benefactions to the city and most of all for
354
SNG Denmark 22.387.
355
SNG Denmark 22.388.
356
Metcalf (1980) 281-283.
137
his unsurpassable gifts to Artemis357
. In light of these facts, I suggest that this last
piece reflects not any other benefaction to Ephesos, but the specific grant to the cult of
Artemis. The god’s holding the cult statue symbolizes Hadrian’s gifts to the temple of
the goddess and consequently strengthens Hadrian’s bonds not only with the citizens
of Ephesos, but all Asia Minor, of which Artemis was a chief deity.
Among other cities that issued an Olympios type in Asia Minor it will suffice
to mention here Eumeneia in Phrygia and Sagalassos in Pisidia358
. The first depicts
laureate Hadrian on the obverse accompanied by the legend Ἁδριανὸς Καῖσαρ
Ὀλύµπιος. On the reverse, a standing Nike holds a crown in her right hand and a palmbranch.
The legend reads Εὐµενέων Ἀχαιῶν 359
. The bronze examples from Sagalassos
carry on the obverse the laureate image of the emperor and the legend Ἁδριανὸς
Καῖσαρ Ὀλύµπιος. The reverse presents two distinct types. The first depicts the
Dioskouroi360
, while the other a male figure identified as a representation of
Lacedaimon nikephoros361
. It is obvious that both cities attempted to establish close
relations with the Greek mainland by claiming direct descent. Eumeneia invoked its
Greek origins by the general term Achaeans, Sagalassos by claiming Spartan origin.
We should place such attempts in the atmosphere of establishing links with old
Greece that is so characteristic of the second century and in particular of the period of
the foundation of the Panhellenion.
So far I have examined types originating from the central mint and the Greek
East that allude to Hadrian’s relations with his predecessor, the traditions of Rome
357
IEphesos 274.
358
For other examples see SNG Schweiz 1.999-1001 from Tarsos; SNG France 638 and 640 (bearing
the eponymous hero on the reverse) from Cyzicus; SNG Deutschland-Herzog 1111 from Cos; ImhoofBlumel
(1913) 612-613 from Kame in Mysia; Sear (1982) 1200 from Hydrela.
359
SNG Österreich 2.1538.
360
SNG France 3.1763.
361
SNG France 3.1764-1765.
138
and Greece alike, and his portrayal as the new god of the Greeks under the epithet
Olympios. I will now turn to the discussion of certain types (mostly originating from
the mint of Rome, although provincial examples will be included) that give a picture
of the imperial principles of the new emperor and also help us understand how he
envisaged his relations with the provinces. I will start with the so-called “Virtues”
Series.
4.4.6 Hadrian’s “Virtues” Series362
The accession of a new emperor often created hopes for a better age. Each
emperor made public on his coinage the principles by which he would reign. In this
context we can examine the numismatic issues that display the virtues of the emperor
as well as these principles363
. This discussion will help us understand better Hadrian’s
program.
The period from the civil wars of 68/69 to Antoninus was the apogee of the
personification of virtues and non-virtues on coinage. Not only are the goddesses
found in unprecedented numbers, but a new pattern of repetition and continuation
emerged. Once one emperor has introduced a new type, it is notable when his
successors do not continue it. Wallace-Hadrill attributes this increase to a competition
among the opponents of the civil wars of 68/69 to advertise their hopes and ideals on
coinage364
. This increase reached its climax under Hadrian and Antoninus365
.
362
“Virtues” is a conventional term that has been widely used in modern scholarship. I will employ it
here, though, as I will show, not all the personifications under discussion are virtues per se.
363
Wallace-Hadrill (1981) 308ff expresses concern whether the “term” virtues is correct and points out
that among the 40 or so personifications on the imperial coinage, only a dozen are virtues. See
Wallace-Hadrill (1981) and Charlesworth (1937) for discussion of the virtues of the Roman emperor.
364
Wallace-Hadrill (1981) 311.
365
Wallace-Hadrill (1981) 312-313 places the surge of interest in virtues during Hadrian’s reign in the
atmosphere of the early second century as it was reflected in Pliny’s Panegyric and Suetonius’s The
Twelve Caesars.
139
Hadrian showed a deep interest in virtues and his addition to the series is
outstanding: all his innovations are virtues: Liberalitas, Indulgentia, Patientia,
Pudicitia, Tranquillitas; or quasi-virtues, Hilaritas and Disciplina. What is most
remarkable is the series issued in 128, which is responsible for most of the new
virtues. In this year appeared in parallel Clementia, Indulgentia, Iustitia, Liberalitas,
Patientia and Tranquilitas. The impression is of a ruler possessed of endless virtues.
Of a total of 27 personifications that show up on Hadrian’s coinage, 12 are
virtues366
. The Greek names of two of these twelve virtues appear on coins from the
Greek East: ∆ικαιοσύνη/Iustitia from Ephesos, Iconion in Lycaonia, and
Alexandria367
; and Εὐσέβεια/Pietas from Alexandria368
. Five of them are found in
Latin form on coins that were issued in the Greek East: Aequitas, from Asia Minor
and Antioch369
; Clementia, from Asia (without further indication)370
; Liberalitas,
from Asia Minor371
; Pietas, probably from Asia without any further indication372
;
Pudicitia, from an eastern mint without further indication373
; Virtus, from Asia
without further indication374
.
In addition, the following personifications are attested in the mints of the East
in Greek legends: Εὐθηνία, from Alexandria375
; Ὁµόνοια from Magnesia ad Sipylum in
Lydia376
; Εἰρήνη from Kilbianoi in Lydia and Alexandria377
; and Ἐλπὶς from
366
Aequitas, Clementia, Disciplina, Indulgentia, Iustitia, Liberalitas, Patientia, Pietas, Providentia,
Pudicitia, Tranquilitas and Virtus.
367
Ephesos: Mionnet Suppl. 6.138,397; Iconion: Lindgren Collection I.A1379A; Alexandria: SNG
Denmark 41.281.
368
SNG Denmark 41.329.
369
Asia Minor: BMCRE III.375, 1034; Antioch: BMCRE III.378,3.
370
BMCRE III.380,34.
371
BMCRE III.376, 1041.
372
BMCRE III.381,35.
373
BMCRE III.291, 405note. In the catalog the coin was arranged under the Roman mint by Mattingly.
However, Hill (1966a) after re-examing Mattingly’s arrangement he sees more probable the issue of
the coin by an eastern mint (Appendix I.2).
374
BMCRE III.380,25.
375
SNG Denmark 41.298.
376
SNG Denmark 27.260 (the obverse carries Sabina’s image).
140
Alexandria378
. The following personifications occur in Latin legends in the East:
Aeternitas, probably from Antioch379
; Felicitas, from Asia without further
indication380
; Libertas, from Asia Minor381
; Pax, probably from Antioch382
; Securitas,
from an eastern mint without further indication383
; and Victoria, from Antioch and
Asia without further indication384
.
For the purposes of this study it will suffice to look at specific examples. The
first is a silver denarius from Rome, of the period 134-138, that is, between Hadrian’s
return from his last journey to the East and his death385
. The obverse depicts the bust
of the emperor, while the reverse carries the personification of Providentia, who
points at the globe on the ground and holds a scepter. The image is accompanied by
the legend Providentia Aug. The message is clear: the emperor has cast his eyes upon
the world, which he rules, and has the necessary forethought to anticipate its needs.
Another allusion to Hadrian’s domination of the world, this time emphasizing
his military skills, is found on a silver denarius from Rome386
. The obverse depicts a
laureate bust of Hadrian while another image of the emperor is seen on the reverse.
Here the emperor is presented bare-headed, in military dress, holding a rudder on a
globe in his right hand and a spear reversed in his left. The image of the emperor who
seems to rest rather than being in preparation for a battle, and the symbol of
leadership, the rudder, resting on the globe, speak of his rule over the world, achieved
by military skill.
377
Kilbianoi: SNG Österreich 1.1010; Alexandria: SNG Denmark 41.313.
378
SNG Denmark 41.314.
379
BMCRE III.378,7.
380
BMCRE III.381,39.
381
BMCRE III.374, 1027.
382
BMCRE III.378,2.
383
BMCRE III.313, 570-572, attributed to the mint of Rome by Mattingly, but Hill (1966a) sees more
probable the issue of the coin by an eastern mint (Appendix I.4).
384
Antioch: BMCRE III.378,4; Asia: BMCRE III.380,24.
385
BMCRE III.327,694.
386
BMCRE III.269, 238.
141
A remarkable coin that links Hadrian to Fortuna in a unique way is a silver
cistophoric tetradrachm from an unidentified mint (Metcalf’s Mint A) in Asia
Minor387
. On the obverse, a laureate bust of Hadrian is accompanied by the title
Augustus Hadrianus. On the reverse, a veiled figure, seated, holds a rudder and
transverse scepter. The type of the reverse is that of Fortuna, but the figure is clearly
bearded. The portrayal of the emperor as Fortuna, although without precise parallel,
is obvious enough, since the fors of the empire was intimately bound up with that of
the emperor; this is implicit in the many Fortuna Aug types struck at Rome. The
transfer of Fortuna’s attributes to Hadrian results in the emperor appearing veiled; this
is rare in the imperial coinage except when the emperor is shown sacrificing. Yet the
type has been modified in other respects: a scepter is substituted for the more common
cornucopiae, and Hadrian is seated on a sella rather than the throne normally
occupied by Fortuna. The fortune of the emperor secures the well-being and the
prosperity of the world.
The positive impact of Hadrian’s rule upon the world is further portrayed by
three coins from different places. The first is a silver denarius of 128-132 from Asia
Minor388
. The obverse carries the laureate head of Hadrian and the title Hadrianus
Augustus PP. On the reverse, Felicitas, draped and wearing a polos on her head,
stands holding a caduceus in her right hand and cornucopiae in her left. She rests her
right foot on a globe. The other example comes from Rome and is dated to 119-
121389
. It is a bronze dupondius that depicts Hadrian on the obverse and on the reverse
a female figure, holding a patera and a rudder and setting her foot on a globe. The
legend identifies her as Salus Publica. The safety of the ruler, Salus Aug, which is
387
Metcalf (1980) 74, 61.
388
BMCRE III.375, 1036.
389
BMCRE III.421,1237.
142
seen on other coins, becomes the saving power that flows from him, and guarantees
the safety of the world.
The last piece comes from the Roman colony of Corinth390
. This coin,
although it carries no personification on the reverse, sends a very clear message about
the emperor’s hopes for prosperity. The customary portrait of the emperor on the
obverse is accompanied by the cornucopiae with the globe on the reverse. A very
simple scene, limited to two symbols, which complement each other.
Focusing on a number of personifications that could be termed “Virtues” and
adding the principles by which the emperor ruled, the series presents Hadrian as he
wished to be portrayed and the long-lasting effects of his program (at least, what he
hoped for them to be). The people who used the coins knew what the symbolism
meant. They were aware that the personification on the reverse referred to the person
depicted on the obverse, the emperor. The personification was therefore in the power
of, or an aspect of the emperor on the other side. The image transferred the quality of
the virtue to the emperor and identified the emperor as a “charismatic” one. As a
result, by invoking virtues and imperial principles the emperor legitimized his
position. What, in my opinion, is more important, however, is that this series was a
constant reminder to the people that the emperor, however far he might be, cared for
them, pitied them, could not be deceived, and always exerted, to quote the phrase of
one of Hadrian’s soldiers, “a care that never tires, with which he watches unrestingly
over the good of mankind (infatigabili cura, per quam adsidue pro humanis
utilitatibus excubat)391
. This care for the welfare of the entire empire is also shown in
390
Papageorgiadou-Bani (2004) 110.
391
CIL 8.26416, ll. 13-16.
143
the series of the Provinces, which in my opinion demonstrated better than any other
issue his deep, sincere interest in the prosperity of the empire, Rome and provinces
alike.
4.4.7 The Series of the Provinces392
The series is dated to the period from 134/135 to 136, certainly after Hadrian’s
return from his last tour, and is attributed to the mint of Rome. This series depicts a
number of Roman provinces (and even cities or regions) personified as women
carrying local attributes. Four distinct types of the series have been identified: the
Adventus, the Exercitus, the Restitutor, and the Province types. Some of the provinces
are depicted on either gold and silver coins or bronze or both, but in general they are
far better represented on bronze393
. Here I will deal with the coins that present
personifications of provinces or cities of the Greek mainland and Asia Minor.
4.4.7.1 The Adventus Type
We examined in the second chapter the circumstances in which an imperial
visit took place and the impact it had on the provincial cities as well as its significance
for the local populations. The mint of Rome picked up the theme and paid tribute to
Hadrian’s visits to the provinces. The coins of this type are all bronze sestertii. The
392
Although it does not accurately represent the scenes depicted here, “Provinces Series” is a
conventional term in scholarship and as such it will be used here.
393
Gold and silver: Adventus: Africa, Alexandria (representing Egypt), Egypt, Hispania; Restitutor:
Achaea, Africa, Gallia, Hispania, Macedonia, and possibly Italia; Province: same as the Adventus with
the addition of Asia and Germania. There is no Exercitus type struck in gold or silver.
Bronze: Adventus: Africa, Arabia, Asia, Bithynia, Britannia, Cilicia, Gallia, Hispania, Italia, Judaea,
Macedonia, Mauretania, Moesia, Noricum, Phrygia, Sicilia and Thracia. Alexandria is the only city
honored with the record of a visit; Restitutor: Achaea, Africa, Arabia, Asia, Bithynia, Gallia, Hispania,
Italia, Libya, Macedonia, Phrygia, Sicilia. Nicomedeia is the only city thus honored; Province:Africa,
Britannia, Cappadocia, Dacia, Egypt, Hispania, Judaea, Mauretania and Sicilia; Exercitus: Britannia,
Cappadocia, Dacia, Dalmatia, Germania, Hispania, Mauretania, Moesia, Noricum, Raetia, Syria and
Thracia.
144
obverse carries a laureate image of Hadrian (except for “Macedonia”, where the
emperor’s head is bare). On the reverse there is one simple pattern which is only
varied in details. Hadrian is represented standing right, facing the province, raising his
right hand to dictate the prayer, while the province pours a libation from a patera over
an altar, behind which stands a bull. Hadrian is usually togate- he arrives as princeps
not as imperator. The avoidance of military dress is remarkable because it signifies
the peaceful intentions of the emperor and the harmonious relations that he wishes to
establish with the provinces.
In the first example, Asia wears a crown of towers and holds a scepter394
. A
bull is shown behind the altar. The legend is explicit: Adventui Aug Asiae, SC.
Bithynia is towered, and holds a rudder upright in her left hand. A bull is shown by
the altar and the legend reads Adventui Aug Bithyniae, SC395
. Cilicia wears a helmet
and holds a vexillum in her left hand. The legend reads Adventui Aug Ciliciae, SC396
.
Macedonia wears a short tunic and holds a whip in her left hand. A bull is behind the
altar and the inscription reads Adventui Aug Macedoniae, SC397
. Phrygia wears the
characteristic Phrygian cap and holds a pedum (shepherd’s crook) in her left hand.
Behind the altar stands a bull. The legend reads Adventui Aug Phrygiae, SC398
.
Finally, Thrace wears a short tunic without any attribute in her hand. A bull is
depicted behind the altar. The legend reads Adventui Aug Thraciae, SC399
. I think it is
possible that the fact that Thrace bears no distinguishing attribute indicates that the
province has no local talent that claims recognition or little significance for the overall
affairs of the empire or, as Larry Kreitzer suggests, “this lack of identifiable features
394
BMCRE III.490, 1638.
395
BMCRE III.490, 1639-1640.
396
BMCRE III.490, 1640.
397
BMCRE III.494, 1662-1663.
398
BMCRE III.495, 1669.
399
BMCRE III.496, 1671.
145
may reflect the fact that Thracia had only recently been elevated to provincial status
by Trajan and had yet to make its contribution to the empire’s diversity in a way
recognizable by a visual symbol.”400
4.4.7.2 The Restitutor Type
The examples of this series are either on bronze sestertii, dupondii, asses; or in
both bronze and silver denarius (Macedonia); or in bronze, silver denarius, and aureus
(Achaea). The obverse bears the bare or laureate head of the emperor. On the reverse,
the emperor is shown standing in the act of raising up a province that kneels before
him. Although each case must be individually examined in its historical context, it is
certain that the posture of a province in general emphasizes Hadrian’s role in the
development of a province. Hadrian appears as the mighty and merciful ruler who
delivers and raises the suppliant province to her feet.
The first Greek province to be examined here is Achaea. She is depicted
kneeling before the togate emperor, who extends his hand to raise her and holds a roll
in the other one. In the center, we see a vase with a palm, a Panathenaic amphora. The
legend reads Restitutori Achaeae, SC401
. Achaea is represented as a typical Greek
goddess and is unmarked by any attribute. Clearly the emperor wanted to advertise on
the coinage his unparalleled benefactions to and feelings towards the people of the
province. The Panathenaic vase alludes to the centrality of Athens in his program.
Asia, wearing a crown of towers and holding a scepter is shown in a similar
posture before the emperor, who has the same attributes. The legend reads Restitutori
Asiae, SC402
. Needless to say the frequent travels of the emperor there and his huge
400
Kreitzer (1996) 185.
401
BMCRE III.349, 868-869; 517-518, 1781-1785.
402
BMCRE III.519-520, 1798-1799.
146
benefactions to many Asian cities are witnesses of his interest in the development of
the province.
Bithynia holds an acrostolium or rudder and rests her foot on a prow. The
seaboard of the North Aegean and Hellespont appears in its full importance. Posture
and Hadrian’s position are as above. The legend reads Restitutori Bithyniae, SC403
.
The region was important for its geographical position and received the aid of the
emperor after the earthquake of 120. In terms of coin production the emperor
“restored” the coinage of the province as the Bithynian Koinon issued silver
cistophori for the first and last time during his reign.
Nicomedeia, the capital of Bithynia, shares with Alexandria the honor of
appearing as a city among provinces; she is shown, like Bithynia, towered, and
holding a rudder (even for an inland city the sea is all important). Her posture and
Hadrian’s position are as above. The legend reads Restitutori Nicomedeiae, SC404
. I
believe the city was included in the series because it and its rival Nicaea were
severely damaged by the earthquake of 120, shortly before the emperor’s visit there.
Hadrian took major part in the funding of the rebuilding of the city. The fact that
Nicomedeia of all cities that Hadrian helped restore after an earthquake (for example,
Cyzicus) appears on the official coinage certainly reveals the high esteem in which
the emperor held the city (Nicomedeia, among others, was the capital city of
Antinoos’ home province). It is also possible that Arrian, a native of the city, played a
role.
Macedonia, the other Greek province that has issues in both precious and
cheap metals, is shown in the same posture, wearing a kausia on head and holding a
403
BMCRE III.520-521, 1800-1805.
404
BMCRE III.524, 1827.
147
whip in left hand (bronze coins) before the emperor who bears the same attributes.
The legend reads Restitutori Macedoniae SC405
. No major benefaction of Hadrian in
the province is attested. It is unclear whether the emperor wished to pay tribute to
Alexander the Great or to include Macedonia along with Achaea as a group of Greek
provinces of the mainland. Thus the reason why the province was “restored” remains
unknown406
.
Finally, Phrygia, wearing the Phrygian cap and a short tunic, and holding a
pedum, kneels before the emperor who bears the same attributes. The legend is
Restitutori Phrygiae, SC407
. It is unknown what kind of “restoration” is implied here.
We know that Hadrian was at Apameia in 129 and probably inspected the quarries of
marble around Synnada and Docimium (columns were made of this marble for his
Library at Athens), but the information is too scanty to answer our question.
4.4.7.3 The Exercitus Type
The only example referring to the Greek East is that of Cappadocia408
. On the
obverse, the bare head of the emperor is shown. On the reverse, the scene is that of an
adlocutio. Hadrian, on horseback, harangues three soldiers: the first holds a legionary
eagle, the other two standards. The accompanying legend reads Exer Cappadocicus,
SC409
. The coin emphasizes the Roman military presence within the province.
Cappadocia’s geographical position was strategic and legions were stationed there. It
was located to the west of unstable Armenia and the Parthian kingdom. Dio reports
405
BMCRE III.352, 891 (silver); 524, 1826-1826A.
406
See Papaefthymiou (2001) on Hadrian’s relations with the province.
407
BMCRE III.525, 1828-1830.
408
BMCRE III.498, 1673.
409
BMCRE III.498, 1673*.
148
how Arrian brought to an end a regional war that involved Cappadocia in 136410
.
Hadrian had appointed Arrian as imperial legate in the region from 131 to 137. The
scene on the coin certainly commemorates the speeches of the emperor to the legions
when he visited the region in 123 and 129.
Paul Strack has observed that the provinces of the Exercitus type are in the
main represented as armed figures in the “Province” type411
. He has also observed that
the Restitutor type tends to match the fully pacified provinces- the provinces of the
Senate and the more orderly of the imperial412
. In only one case, that of Hadrian’s
own province of Hispania, does a province have both types, Exercitus and Restitutor.
In all other cases the choice is made- provinces encouraged in the art of peace
(Restitutor), provinces protected by the discipline of the armies (Exercitus).
4.4.7.4 The Province Type
This type provides us with two examples related to the Greek East. The first
one is a silver denarius413
. As is customary, the obverse displays the bust of the
emperor, either bare-headed or laureate. On the reverse, the personification of the
province of Asia is shown draped and standing. She rests her right foot on prow and
holds up a hook in right hand and a rudder in her left hand. Asia is again regarded
from the point of view of her sea-board- she is the great province of ports and seatrade.
The legend reads Asia, but one example reads Asia Aug414
, perhaps an allusion
to the close relationship of the province with the emperor.
410
Dio Cassius 69.15.1.
411
Strack (1933) 148ff.
412
Strack (1933) 155ff.
413
BMCRE III.344-345, 829-836.
414
BMCRE III.345, 836.
149
The second example is on bronze, either sestertius or dupondius or as415
. The
emperor appears either laureate or with bare head on the obverse, while on the reverse
Cappadocia is shown towered, wearing sleeveless tunic, cloak over shoulders, and
high boots. In her right hand she holds a miniature of Mt Argaeus and in her left a
vertical vexillum. The legend reads Cappadocia, SC. The military importance of the
province is indicated by the vexillum. Why the emperor chose to include Cappadocia
in the “Province” type is unknown. Perhaps it happened after a request of Arrian, then
legate at the province, or was conceived as recognition of Arrian’s work in the region.
Both suggestions are possible, though not proven.
The Province type epitomizes this series. The major difference from the other
types is the absence of the emperor from the reverse. The personification of the
province dominates this side. On the other side, the obverse, the bust of the emperor is
a reminder of his role in the history of the provinces. However, the focus is on the
provinces now. The other three types honored mostly Hadrian; this one honors the
provinces. This type reveals more than the other three Hadrian’s wish to take
seriously the interests of the provinces and invite them to be active members of the
empire. It is no accident that no Capta type was struck during his reign. The ruler is
the emperor of all and extends his welcoming hand to the people of the empire. This
series reveals his keen interest in the well-being of the entire empire, his universal
role. In association with this role we may examine the following issues.
415
BMCRE III.508-509, 1725-1734.
150
4.4.8 The “Universal” series416
Of particular importance for Hadrian’s imperial program are a number of
issues from Rome that refer to the welfare not of a single province or Rome but the
entire world, and as such it is appropriate to examine them after the “Provinces”
Series.
The first of them, dated to 119-120 or 121, is a bronze sestertius from Rome. It
carries the laureate image of the emperor on the obverse417
. On the reverse we see the
familiar motif of the Restitutor. Hadrian togate, holding roll in left hand, extends his
right hand to raise up a woman, towered, kneeling, and holding a globe in her left
hand. The legend gives us the identity of the figure, Restitutori Orbis terrarum, SC. It
is a dedication, as all the Restitutor types are, to Hadrian who restored the entire
world. The coin surely advertises Hadrian’s wish to be seen as the benefactor of all
humanity.
Of particular interest is a type that dates to 134-138, thus coinciding with the
great “Provinces” series. In one example, on silver denarii, the emperor appears on the
obverse either laureate or with bare head418
. On the reverse, a female figure is shown
standing, wearing a tunic and holding a plough-handle in the right hand and a rake
upwards in the left. The legend reads Tellus Stabil(is), identifying, thus, the figure as
Tellus. It is noteworthy that the goddess Tellus appears on the official coinage for the
first time now.
416
Although no such title has been given in scholarship I believe that the types to be discussed here can
fit under this general heading.
417
BMCRE III.418, 1211-1214; 421, 1236*.
418
BMCRE III.332-333, 737-747.
151
Another example, a silver of the same period, depicts the bare head of the
emperor on the obverse419
. On the reverse, Tellus, reclining on the ground, rests her
elbow on a basket of fruits, her right hand on her knee, and holds a vine-branch in left
hand. The legend reads Tellus Stabil(is). A bronze example carries the same images,
with a slight, but important, difference420
. On the reverse, Tellus is shown as above,
but her left hand rests on a globe. The legend reads Tellus Stabil(is), SC. The order
and prosperity of the world achieved under the good administration of the emperor are
messages that were easily understood.
Medallions of the period picked up the theme and added more features to it.
A bronze medallion portrays on the obverse Hadrian’s head covered with a lion-skin
and followed by the title Hadrianus Augustus421
. The reverse, similar to the previous
examples, depicts Tellus reclining on the ground, and resting her right hand on a
globe. Around Tellus stand four boys representing the 4 seasons. The legend reads
Tellus Stabil(is). The obverse definitely relates the labors of Hadrian to those of
Heracles, and their happy outcome is of course tellus stabilis.
I will conclude the discussion of the “universal” types of Hadrian with two
more examples. The first is a bronze sestertius from Rome, dated to 119-124/125422
.
On the obverse, we see the laureate head of Hadrian. The scene of the reverse is much
crowded: Hadrian is togate, seated on a platform, and extends his right hand. In front
of him, to his right, Liberalitas is ready to empty the cornucopiae, held in both hands.
Below, we see two togati citizens. Could these figures be interpreted as Senators or
members of the aristocracy? In the context of relations that Hadrian wanted to
419
BMCRE III.333, 748. Mattingly attributed this type to the mint of Rome, but Hill attributes it to an
Eastern mint (Hill (1966) Appendix 1.5).
420
BMCRE III.514, 1765-1767; 486-487, 1625-1627.
421
Gnecchi, Medaglioni III.19.90.
422
BMCRE III.415, 1193-1194.
152
establish with these groups, it is very possible. However, the legend informs us that
the audience must be understood as a wider one: Locupletatori orbis terrarum, SC.
The whole empire is to share in his benefactions.
We may say that the final example complements the above types (Tellus
Stabil(is), Restitutor Orbis Terrarum) and chronologically comes as the result and
conclusion of these two. It appears both on bronze sestertii and bronze medallions of
137-138423
. The obverse depicts the laureate bust of the emperor accompanied by the
title Hadrianus Augustus Cos III PP. On the reverse, four boys, symbolizing the four
seasons, are shown at play. The legend reads Temporum Felicitas. Hadrian’s rule has
led to the stability of the world and the prosperity of his subjects. Now, the world
rejoices at his reign. The legend, I believe, sums up Hadrian’s vision for the entire
empire, not just Rome.
4.5 Scene and Legend Selection
We saw that a number of individuals and civic bodies were involved in the
production of coinage in the Greek cities of the empire: the emperor, his court, Roman
officials, local archons and individuals. We also showed, by the examination of a
number of coins, that the emperor was interested in associating himself and his reign
with Trajan, Augustus, the myths and traditions of Rome and Greek East and in
advertising his imperial principles and personal virtues as well as his concern for the
welfare of the provinces and the entire empire. The questions that arise are to what
degree was the emperor responsible for the iconographical types and legends; what
dictated the selection of a certain type instead of another?
423
Sestertius: BMCRE III.478, 1567*; medallion: Gnecchi, Medaglioni III.19.91.
153
Unfortunately, ancient sources reveal little about who bore the responsibility
for the choice of numismatic types, either at Rome or in the provinces. The few
references in the literature of imperial times can give us a glimpse into the
mechanisms of selection, but not the whole picture424
.
As to the central mint, some passages talk of the emperor’s direct control over
the iconography of the coinage of the capital. Suetonius, for example, when he talks
of Augustus’ stay at Apollonia, reports that after he had visited the astrologer
Theogenes he struck a silver coin stamped with Capricorn, the zodiac sign under
which he was born425
. The same author, narrating Nero’s victorious entry into Rome
after his Greek tour, reports that among others the emperor had coins struck depicting
him as citharoedos426
. Also, whether an emperor kept or destroyed coins with the
features of his predecessors was taken to be his decision. So Vitellius, as Dio informs
us, maintained the coinage struck by Nero, Galba, and Otho and refrained from anger
over their portraits on them427
.
Among modern scholars there is disagreement regarding the influence of the
emperor and some of them treat the literary evidence with skepticism. Among them,
Barbara Levick, focusing on the central mint, rejects the idea that the emperor himself
was responsible for the selection of iconographical types and legends and argues that
the responsibility of iconography-selection rested with certain officials, at the head of
which was the a rationibus428
. These, after making the initial choice, at some stage
would have submitted it to higher authority for scrutiny and advice; perhaps even to
424
The scarce evidence has been gathered by Price (1979) 277-278. Here only a selected number of
them are presented.
425
Suetonius, Augustus 94.12: tantam mox fiduciam fati Augustus habuit, ut thema suum vulgaverit
nummumque argenteum nota sideris Capricorni, quo natus est, percusserit.
426
Suetonius, Nero 25.2: sacras coronas in cubiculis circum lectos posuit, item statuas suas
citharoedico habitu, qua nota etiam nummum percussit.
427
Dio Cassius 65.6.1: τό τε γὰρ ἐπὶ Νέρωνος καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ Γάλβου τοῦ τε Ὄθωνος κοπὲν νόµισµα ἐτήρησεν, οὐκ
ἀγανακτῶν ταῖς εἰκόσιν αὐτῶν· cf. Dio Cassius 60.22.3; 77.12.6.
428
Levick (1982) 107ff.
154
the princeps himself for final approval. Levick believes that the mint officials
proposed types and legends that they believed would gratify the princeps; they
presented him on the coinage as he wished to see himself. The types were intended to
appeal not to the public but to the emperor, whose portrait, as a rule, occupied the
obverse of the coins. She further argues that the rare mention of coins in ancient
authors and the prolonged absence of an emperor from Rome (surprisingly, she
provides the example of Vespasian and neglects to comment on Hadrian’s
unparalleled absence from the capital) are proofs that the coinage officials at Rome
influenced the choice of particular types and not the emperor.
I believe Levick’s theory is not convincing for two main reasons. First, she
credits too much the freedom enjoyed by officials in selecting iconographical types
and assigns the emperor a secondary role in doing so. To a certain degree these
officials had their own suggestions and ideas but these were not the only ones. It
seems more plausible that the emperor suggested themes and legends as he was
concerned with the way he was represented and the messages conveyed to his
subjects429
. Numismatic iconography was important to him as it mirrored his reign,
even more so as this emanated from the central mint.
Levick’s argument of the lengthy absences of the emperor is also weak. To use
Hadrian’s example, it is interesting that while Hadrian was actually engaged in his
tours of the empire, the mint of Rome showed no concern for his enterprise. There is
no sign that any one at Rome shared in the emperor’s ambition, enthusiasm, and plans
that sent Hadrian on the move. On his return from his last foreign journey, Hadrian
decided to tell Rome and the world what he had hoped, planned, and accomplished;
429
See for example the unauthorized inclusion of the P(ater) P(atriae) legend in the 117/118 issues,
which the emperor stopped on his return as emperor to Rome in the summer of 118.
155
and he did so by issuing, among others, the Provinces Series. The sudden burst of
interest of the Roman mint in Hadrian’s travels after 134 can only be explained by the
personal intervention of the emperor. Therefore, I believe that the emperor was much
involved in the iconography of the imperial coinage, although it is right to say that
often mint officials presented their ideas to him.
As far as the provincial coinage is concerned the situation might have been
somewhat different. It is hardly likely that strict central control existed for provincial
issues430
. Here, a variety of types existed (as we saw above), sometimes on the model
of Rome’s coins, sometimes focused on the emperor and his family, or other times
with an emphasis on local subjects. Papageorgiadou-Bani argues that in the Greek
provinces the responsibility had shifted onto some sort of high-ranking local official
who would have possessed the ability and perceptiveness required to coordinate the
various manifestations of Roman politics and local tradition. She identifies this
official with the local governor or someone from his immediate environment. This
official might also have enjoyed the emperor’s authorization, which would thus
provide a satisfying explanation of the close connections that exist among the types
produced in the mints of neighboring areas.
Recently Christopher Howgego, Volker Heuchert and Kevin Butcher
associated the selection of types and messages with the ruling elites and their desire to
publicize their identity through coinage431
. According to these authors, the cities and
their magistrates had a considerable degree of freedom which enabled them to choose
coin designs. Therefore, the explicit representations on the coinage, and the identities
430
So Papageorgiadou-Bani (2004) 40ff.
431
Howgego (2005) 16ff, Heuchert (2005) 40ff, and Butcher (2005) 145ff.
156
implicit in the patterning of the iconography and in the structure of the coinage
belonged to those who controlled the coinage, the elite.
I believe that this approach is one-dimensional as the authors disregard both
the power of the entire community and the influence of the Roman authorities. How
do we know that the identities (if of course we can call them “identities”) expressed
on the coinage are not those of the community as well? The fact that local aristocrats
were able, as we saw, to fund an issue does not mean that the coinage of a city in
general expresses their identity. We may accept that a number of scenes reflect the
interests of the elites, but we cannot rule out the possibility that some of them might
also express the ideology of the entire community, or that others are selected by local
Roman officials432
. Certainly, the subject of identity is one that cannot be adequately
dealt with here, but the above approach is exclusive as it limits the power over the
selection of iconographical themes to local elites. At the same time it generalizes the
information that a certain issue may provide. Besides, the authors are making a
serious mistake by claiming that the elites controlled the coinage. This might have
been true (although far from certain) for the past when Greek cities had political
freedom. But now, this can hardly have been the case.
432
Heuchert (2005) 41 provides a number of examples that argue this. Some of them should be
mentioned here. The issue of the Koinon of Ionia in the name of its chief priest Claudius Fronton
reveals a Sardian influence on the choice of reverse designs, displaying for example the Kore of
Sardeis, despite the fact that the Lydian city of Sardeis was not part of the Koinon. This influence
clearly derives from Fronton himself, as he was strategos at Sardeis, and issued a series of coins in that
capacity. Probably the most obvious case of a magistrate influencing the choice of reverse design is a
series of coins from Smyrna in the name of the sophist Claudius Attalos. The inscription makes it clear
that they were dedicated by him to his hometowns Smyrna and Laodiceia jointly (Ἄτταλος σοφιστὴς
ταῖς πατρίσιν Σµύρνῃ Λαοδικείᾳ). The reverses display the Nemeses of Smyrna and Zeus of Laodiceia
representing their cities. Not only C. Attalos but also his father, the sophist Polemon issued coins at
Smyrna (e.g. SNG Aulock 2210: Πολέµων στρατηγῶν ἀνέθηκε Σµυρ(ναίοις), on a coin that depicts Hadrian
laureate on the obverse; and SNG Denmark 22.1366: Πολέµων ἀνέθηκε Σµυρ(ναίοις), on a coin of
134/135 that carries the bust of Sabina on the obverse).
157
In light of these remarks, here I would like to synthesize these theories and
provide my own. I believe that local magistrates, Roman officials and the emperor (at
least in the case of Hadrian) were all involved in the iconography of coins in the
Greek East. Thus we can explain the co-existence of local traditional themes and
Roman ones. Local magistrates and prominent individuals could suggest a theme to
Roman officials (as the forms ἀνέθηκεν and αἰτησαµένου suggest). The latter could also
be responsible, for example, on receiving orders from Rome to do so, or because they
wanted to honor the emperor who visited the area (as the Ephesian cistophori of 129
that honored Hadrian for his benefactions to the city). They all had to take into
account, among others, the personal aspirations of the emperor (as for example the
tetradrachm with the depiction of Phoenix from Alexandria), political, ideological and
religious components of the official program (as the personification of Omonoia from
Magnesia ad Sipylum), and the traditions of the local population (as in the Hadrian
Olympios scenes). Moreover, as coinage was one aspect of the self-administration of
Greek cities, Roman officials and local authorities had to make sure that no image or
legend would cause the Roman authorities to annul this privilege.
In Hadrian’s case an important factor that has not been emphasized by
scholars is his travels. The emperor’s journeys throughout the Roman world affected
coin production. First, the cities had to strike more coinage in order to meet the needs
of the Roman officials as well as of visitors who came to the region either on business
or embassies or to attend festivals and games held in honor of the emperor. Second, it
is possible that Hadrian wanted to inspect the striking of new coins as well as the
selection of images carved on them while in the province. It is possible that local and
Roman officials came to him suggesting the striking of new coins, and proposed
158
themes, both local and Roman, which the emperor approved or modified according to
his tastes; or simply the emperor suggested a theme himself.
Thus a number of individuals were involved in the selection of the
iconographical themes, from local magistrates to Roman officials and the emperor.
The displayed messages echoed not only local traditions and Roman ideology but to a
certain degree personal tastes (as Hadrian’s association with Bias and Herodotus). It is
hazardous to believe that the populations did not recognize the symbolism of these
scenes. As Papageorgiadou-Bani argues, “even if the language was not understood, it
was hard to miss the symbolism.”433
Especially among populations such as the Greek,
which had a long tradition of symbolic representations on their coinage, the visual
depiction of a given idea remained much the same, whether this was, for example, the
emperor’s virtues, or the beneficence he displayed toward a particular city or
province. The coded coin legends, in conjunction with easily understood images,
would have been reasonably understandable even to the least educated.
4.6 Summary
In the previous pages I showed how iconography and legends on coins of the
Hadrianic period contributed to the advertisement of the emperor’s plans for the
Greek East and the empire in general. Although my main interest was the numismatic
evidence from the mints of the Greek East, I think it would have been unproductive to
examine this evidence without cross-references to issues from the central mint.
In the first part of the chapter, I examined matters related to the administration
of the central mint at Rome and the mints of the cities of the Greek East. In light of
the evidence and modern scholarship that I discussed we can now conclude that a
433
Papageorgiadou-Bani (2004) 33.
159
number of persons were involved in coin production as well as selection of
iconographical themes and legends, as I later showed. I believe that the product of a
mint reflected among other things imperial ideology, personal tastes of the emperor,
local traditions and expectations, and concerns of local Roman officials. All were in
position to suggest the cutting of new coinage and the selection of particular
iconographical themes and legends.
In the second part I brought forth types and legends from Rome and the Greek
East. I showed that the emperor was interested in associating himself and his reign
with Trajan, Augustus, and the myths and traditions of Rome. We also saw his
appreciation for the Greek East as well as the local reaction to it in a number of
themes that commemorated historical figures of Greece and its myths. The Olympios
legend demonstrated how Hadrian presented himself as the earthly counterpart of
Olympios Zeus, something that was immediately accepted by the cities as the
numismatic evidence and numerous inscriptions show. Then I surveyed the “Virtues”
series and showed how it was in his immediate plans to advertise his personal virtues
and the principles by which he would rule.
Finally, I dealt with the “Provinces” series which summed up Hadrian’s plans
for the provinces and the entire empire. It is my argument that this series was a major
innovation in the imperial coinage. The series did not simply honor the provinces.
More importantly, I believe, it brought for the first time the provinces to Rome, not as
slaves, or delegates, or even senators, but as unique entities associated with the
emperor, and, thus, with Rome. It was now to be made clear to every Roman that the
empire was not a mere system of dependencies, but rather an organism alive in all its
members, each one contributing to its prosperity and survival and enjoying the
personal interest and care of the emperor. Is it a surprise that no “provincia capta”
160
type- not even rebel Judaea (in contrast to Domitian’s Judaea Capta, and Trajan’s
Dacia Capta)- finds a place in the series? The fact that the personifications of the
provinces are adorned with their own peculiar attributes in such detail is proof of
Hadrian’s sincere interest in them, the Greek ones in particular. The Greek provinces
that appear are those that had special importance for Hadrian and the accomplishment
of his vision for the Greek East and the empire: Asia Minor in general, Achaea,
Macedonia, all presented as provinciae pacatae, in harmonious relations with the
ruler. It is not surprising that only one “Greek” province appears in the Exercitus
series, Cappadocia, and this is due to the importance of the region on account of its
proximity to the Parthians.
The legends and the images of the coinage of the Greek mints, in conjunction
with those from the central mint, displayed the emperor’s concern for the welfare of
the Greek East and the entire empire. They reminded the Greek people of his
intentions and vision for them and also revealed the positive reaction to him by the
cities. In the next chapter we will see how religious themes were used in a similar
way.
161
CHAPTER 5
THE LANGUAGE OF RELIGION IN HADRIAN’S POLITICS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will discuss the role of religion in the promotion of Hadrian’s
program and vision for the Greek East in the region. The center of his religious
program was the imperial cult, which focused on the emperor but also on the imperial
house, especially his wife Sabina, and outside of it on his young lover Antinoos.
However, here I will not talk about the mechanisms of the cult and the individuals
involved. This has been amply treated in modern scholarship434
. Instead, I will discuss
aspects of his religious program that have not received the attention they deserve so
far.
The first subject that I will discuss is Hadrian’s claim to divine election. Very
early in his reign Hadrian attempted to silence the rumors regarding his adoption.
Numismatic and other evidence advertised the emperor’s adoption by Trajan as
planned by the gods. It was by the providence of Jupiter that the new emperor was
selected. Trajan was the one that implemented the divine will. Thus Hadrian
legitimized his accession by invoking both earthly and divine commands. By claiming
divine election through the medium of Trajan Hadrian was following established
Roman practice in imperial times.
434
See the general account in Price (1984); also Birley (1997) and Burrell (2004). Still, a monograph
on the cult of Hadrian is needed in modern scholarship.
162
Next I will examine the religious language employed by the Greeks in
addressing the emperor as this is evidenced in public monuments, private dedications
and literary sources. Hadrian received more divine honors in the Greek East than any
of his predecessors. These honors, among them the unprecedented erection of statues,
his worship in shrines, and close association with many Greek divinities, strengthened
his relationship with the region and placed him in the heart of religion and the Greek
pantheon. In honoring him the Greeks identified Hadrian with major divinities of their
pantheon. Hadrian became the manifestation of Zeus, Apollo and other gods on earth,
and a number of epithets were used to address him as a god. I will show that these
epithets were mostly local initiatives which Hadrian by his interest in the Greek world
encouraged and accepted. They were part of a political dialogue based on local
traditions which were much respected by Hadrian.
The next subject that I will talk about reveals more of Hadrian’s personality
and even more of his relationship with the culture of the Greeks. According to Dio,
the emperor was most curious and used divinations and incantations of all kinds435
.
He was also versed in astrology436
, as this is evidenced in his knowledge of Aelius
Verus’ horoscope, and he reportedly gave oracles and predicted the future437
. I will
explain what is religious in these behaviors and in the language used to describe them,
and I will suggest that Hadrian’s association with superhuman, almost divine powers
was part of that religious language and themes that were familiar to the Greek
populations in the East, and consequently facilitated the approval of the emperor and
his plans by the Greeks.
435
Dio Cassius 69.11.3.
436
HA Aelius III.8, III.9.
437
HA Hadrian XIV.7.
163
Another theme that I will approach is the cult of Roma. This cult received new
emphasis in the reign of Hadrian. It has been suggested that the cult and the erection
of the temple of Venus and Roma at Rome reveal the Romano-centricity of the
emperor438
. I would like to dispute this theory and suggest that the new emphasis the
cult received mainly in the Latin West but also in the East is indicative of Hadrian’s
desire to highlight the importance of the cult as unifier of the empire, in other words it
represents an empire-wide focus. As I will show, his goal was not to Romanize the
empire by means of Roma’s cult (the empire was already in its most part Roman in
political terms) but to bridge the past and present of the empire and bring closer West
and East.
Along with Roma’s cult I will examine Hadrian’s promotion of the cult of
Zeus in the East and his own assimilation with the Greek god. Hadrian was hailed by
the Greeks in an unprecedented association with Zeus and was viewed by them as the
new Olympian who would preside over their councils and lead them. I would like to
suggest that this emphasis on both cults reflects Hadrian’s desire to underline, first,
the two main cultural components of the empire: Roman and Greek, and second, their
crucial role in the stability of the empire.
This discussion will help us understand better Hadrian’s personality and
program for the Greek East. It will show that Hadrian had genuine interests in
espousing local traditions and sentiments and conversing with the Greeks in religious
terms. Genuine was also the Greeks’ reaction to the emperor and the use of religious
language in addressing him. It was part of a long tradition, mythical and historical and
was employed systematically in dealing with politics and individuals. At the same
time these religious language and themes were used intentionally by each side for its
438
So Mols (2003).
164
own goals: the emperor to legitimize his power, warm even more his relations with
the locals and ease the promotion of his program for the region and the unity of the
empire; the locals to receive the attention and benefactions of the emperor. Religion in
the service of politics had been for long a standard practice.
5.2 Hadrian and Divine Election
A papyrus of the 2nd
century from Egypt preserves a fragment of a dramatic
performance in honor of Hadrian’s accession439
. The performance took place at
Heptakomia, the metropolis of the nome Apollonopolites. The persons participating in
the scene are the god Apollo and the Demos of the city. Apollo brings a divine
message. He informs Demos that it is he, Apollo, who rides the chariot (dragged by
white horses) and rises as Helios to the sky (συνανατείλας) with Trajan. Furthermore,
he introduces the new king Hadrian to the audience: ἥκω….. ἄνακτα καινὸν Ἀδριανὸν
ἀγγελῶν. The god assures his audience that everything shall be subject to him,
Hadrian, on account of both his virtue and the τύχη of his adoptive father440
. Before
the text breaks up, the Demos expresses its joyfulness and thanks Apollonios, the
strategos of the nome for organizing the festivities in honor of Hadrian (ll. 6-14).
Two points must be stressed out here. The first relates to the occasion of the
poem. The poem was certainly composed on account of Hadrian’s accession shortly
439
PGiessen 3. See discussion in Boer, den (1975) with previous bibliography.
440
ll. 1-9
<? Φοῖβος> Ἅρµατι λευκοπώλῳ
ἄρτι Τραιαν[ῷ]
συνανατείλας
ἥκω σοι,
ὦ ∆ῆµ[ε,]
οὐκ ἄγνωστος Φοῖβος θεός
ἄνακτα καινὸν Ἀδριανὸν ἀγγελῶν,
ᾧ πάντα δοῦλα [δι’] ἀρετήν
καὶ πατρὸς τύχην θεοῦ.
165
after this took place on August 11th
, 117441
. We know that a number of festivities took
place in Egypt to celebrate Hadrian’s accession. A papyrus from Oxyrynchus dated to
24th
or 25th
August 117, that is 15 days after Hadrian’s accession, preserves a letter by
the prefect of Egypt Q. Rammius Martialis to the strategoi of the nomes of middle
Egypt (Heptanomia)442
. The prefect announces Hadrian’s accession (ll. 4-10) and
instructs the strategoi to declare festivities (ll. 14-17). One of them as we mentioned
above, Apollonios, organized the festivities at Heptakomia. We know that Q.
Rammius Martialis was in the East with Hadrian in early August and was sent to
Egypt to replace the current prefect Rutilius Lupus443
. Under these circumstances I
suggest that either Martialis gave instructions not only regarding the organization but
also the content (as the text discussed here) of the festivities, or that the poem offers a
glimpse of one way that local authorities viewed Hadrian’s accession.
Evidence in the poem itself supports the idea that the occasion of the poem
was Hadrian’s accession. The god clearly states that he comes to announce the new
emperor, Hadrian. Trajan appears to be already deified since he rises along with
Apollo, who came to announce the new emperor, not to lift Trajan to the heavens.
Hadrian is praised both on account of his virtue and the τύχη of his god father. His
father is already a god, and his τύχη, which is a reason for praising Hadrian here, can
be nothing else but his deification, a sign of Hadrian’s respect and of good fortune.
The composition of such a poem makes even more sense if we think that the
legitimacy of Hadrian’s accession was much disputed and Hadrian needed to
advertise that he was the successor Trajan had in mind. The fact that Apollo was the
messenger is not a coincidence either. At the time of Trajan’s death at Selinus,
441
Antony Birley (1997) 82 suggests that the author might have been a certain Orion whose Panegyric
on Hadrian was still extant in Byzantine times (Suda, Lexicon s.v.).
442
P.Oxy 55 3781.
443
For Q. Ruffius Martialis’ career see Bureth (1988) 483. See also discussion in Birley (1997) 79.
166
Hadrian was in command of the legions in Syria. Apollo, the Helios who rises in the
East, serves as an allusion to the circumstances of his accession. Apollo’s appearance
can also be explained as the product of Egyptian imperial ideology. Apollo as Helios
is the Egyptian god Ra who is the protector and father of the Pharaoh. The Pharaoh
himself is Ra’s manifestation on earth and son. Hadrian announced by Apollo/Ra is
the new Pharaoh of Egypt.
These remarks set the tone for the second point to be made here. The central
religious idea of the poem is that of divine election. Hadrian is announced to his
subjects by a god, while his adoptive father consents by being in the company of that
god. The idea of divine election has been extensively discussed by J. Rufus Fears in
his Princeps a deis electus (henceforth, Fears 1977) and here it will suffice to limit
our discussion to Hadrian’s divine election.
The text on the Giessen papyrus is not the only example where Hadrian claims
divine election (if Martialis instructed it) and the phenomenon is not limited to the
East. During the early years of his reign, the central mint of Rome issued coin types
that channeled Hadrian’s claim to divine election. The first of these types is a bronze
sestertius dated to 119-121444
. The laureate bust of Hadrian on the obverse is
accompanied by a reverse which depicts the emperor again. Here, he raises his hand
towards a flying eagle, which bears a scepter in his claws. Hadrian holds a roll on the
other hand. The legend reads Providentia Deorum, while the abbreviation S(enatus)
C(onsultum) legitimizes the issue. The flying eagle is a clear allusion to Jupiter, who
hands the scepter of the world to Hadrian. The legend Providentia Deorum is
particularly important since in the period of the adoptive emperors the providence of
444
BMCRE III.417, 1203.
167
the gods and of a good emperor becomes especially crucial in preserving the welfare
of the empire and removing the risk of a civil war.
The message becomes clearer in the next type dated to 119-122445
. The golden
aureus depicts Hadrian’s laureate bust on the obverse. On the reverse, Hadrian,
standing, receives the globe from Jupiter, who holds a thunderbolt. Between them
appears the symbol of Jupiter’s power, the eagle. Thus, early in his reign, Hadrian
wanted to state his divine election publicly. J. Rufus Fears, who discussed these two
issues, argued that the message carried here was that it was not by the foresight of
mortal men or even a mortal now deified, but by the foresight and the care which the
gods exercised for the Roman commonwealth that Jupiter sent his messenger, the
eagle, to grant Hadrian the ruling of the world. He further argued that “Hadrian used
the coinage to minimize the role of his predecessor in his elevation. Hadrian had good
reason to disassociate his claim to the purple from Trajan and the senate. His adoption
was doubtful; he was repudiating the expansionist policy of Trajan; his relations with
the senate had been permanently poisoned”446
.
I believe that this last statement should be re-examined. It seems very
improbable that Hadrian desired to disassociate himself and his accession from his
adoptive father: the fact that he abandoned the expansionist policy of his predecessor
can hardly be related to the mechanisms of divine election; his damaged relations with
the Senate would certainly only worsen if he officially and in a recognizable manner
denounced Trajan; and certainly the very fact that his adoption was disputed was the
main motive to associate his reign with Trajan and not the opposite. In addition, the
numismatic evidence contests Fears’ theory. A bronze sestertius of 117 depicts the
445
BMCRE III.269, 242
446
Fears (1977) 245-246.
168
laureate bust of Hadrian on the obverse, while on the reverse the emperor and his
adoptive father are depicted standing447
. Their gesture is of particular significance:
Trajan delivers the globe to Hadrian who receives it on his extended right hand, an
allusion to nothing else but Trajan’s share of imperium with Hadrian and the election
of the latter.
Trajan’s consent can be in fact suggested in the first two coins discussed
above. First, in the Providentia type, where his role is implied by the fact that it was
him, guided by the foresight of the gods, who made the best choice in selecting a
successor who would guarantee the welfare of the empire. It can also be suggested in
the other type, if we consider the fact that Trajan was most often identified with
Jupiter, as for example in Pliny’s Panegyric448
.
It is in the same speech that we should look for the most recent inspiration for
Hadrian’s divine election idea on coinage and literature alike. Divine election is the
central concept around which Pliny builds his Panegyric. From the very beginning of
the speech Pliny sets the record straight: if it were ever doubted whether Rome’s
rulers were appointed by chance or by the gods, it is now clear that the present
princeps owes his position to the will of the gods; not by dark processes of fate, but
clearly and openly by Jupiter himself449
.
Although it is to the gods and not to Nerva that Trajan truly owes his
principate (ad te imperii summam, et quum omnium rerum, tum etiam tui potestatem
dii transtulerunt, 56.3), it was through Nerva that the Providentia of the gods secured
447
BMCRE III.397, 1101.
448
Pliny, Panegyricus 88.8: Ideoque ille parens hominum deorumque Optimi prius, deinde Maximi
nomine colitur. Quo praeclarior laus tua, quem non minus constat optimum esse, quam maximum. See
also 5.4.
449
1.4-5: Ac si adhuc dubium fuisset, forte casuque rectores terris, an aliquo numine darentur:
principem tamen nostrum liqueret divinitus constitutum. Non enim occulta potestate fatorum, sed ab
Iove ipso coram ac palam repertus, electus est. Marcel Durry in his edition of The Panegyric (1938)
discusses at length the debt of Pliny to authors such as Cicero, Nepos and Seneca.
169
a good heir to the throne. Nerva avoided the error of choosing an heir from the
confines of his own family. He did not consult men, but instead he made the gods his
advisors. It was not in the marriage chamber, but in the temple of Jupiter Optimus
Maximus and before his altars that the adoption of Trajan took place450
. Trajan was
elected by the gods, but it was through Nerva that Trajan’s accession was
implemented and maintained its legitimacy.
Hadrianic imperial ideology followed closely this model of divine election and
human mediation as we saw on the Providentia type of Hadrian. Hadrian is elected by
the gods who gave Trajan the necessary providence to name Hadrian his successor.
This model was promoted both in Rome and the East, among the Greek populations,
and it is the latter that contributed the most to the encouragement and perpetuation of
this religious language when they referred to Hadrian as a god as we will now see.
5.3 The 13th
God of Greece
In his Antilogy about Julian to the sophist Libanius, the church historian
Socrates of Constantinople scoffs at the tendency of the Greeks to immortalize the
dead. One of the examples he brings forth is that of the city of Cyzicus. The people of
Cyzicus, he writes, declared Hadrian the 13th
god. Hadrian himself, he continues,
consecrated Antinoos, his lover (Κυζικηνοὶ δὲ τρισκαιδέκατον θεὸν Ἀδριανὸν
ἀνηγόρευσαν· αὐτός τε Ἀδριανὸς Ἀντίνοον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἐρώµενον ἀπεθέωσε .)451
The author,
who lived and wrote in the 5th
century, refers without any doubt to the benefactions of
the emperor to the city but especially the temple that Hadrian allowed the people of
Cyzicus to build for his cult, thus Cyzicus becoming his neokoros. What concerns me
450
8.1: Itaque non in cubiculo, sed in templo; nec ante genialem torum, sed ante pulvinar Iovis optimi
maximi, adoptio peracta est.
451
Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.170ff.
170
in this passage is not Hadrian’s temple and worship in Cyzicus. This is something that
modern scholarship has dealt with452
. What interests me here, and in this section in
general, is the use of a particular religious language to refer to and/or address Hadrian
in the Greek world. Socrates lived more than 300 years after Hadrian’s reign and the
consecration of his temple. But still his testimony preserves the feeling of the people
of Cyzicus in Hadrian’s reign. It is unknown whether Hadrian was worshipped alone
in the temple at Cyzicus as the 13th
god, as Barbara Burrell argues in her works, or as
a σύνναος god with Zeus453
or even the Olympian gods (if we interpret the
τρισκαιδέκατος literally and given the scanty information about the temple itself).
What is more important here is that the emperor himself made such an impact upon
the Greeks of the 2nd
century and of the time of Socrates that such epithets were often
associated with him.
Such epithets will be my subject in this section. These epithets speak of the
long tradition of the Greeks to identify rulers with their gods and goddesses and
confer on them the honors given to their gods. At the same time they reveal the
multiple ways by which the Greeks perceived a ruler: liberator, benefactor, restorer,
founder, religious leader, political authority and others. All these roles were much
acceptable among the Greeks (and Romans) and the religious epithets by which they
addressed the emperor helped them familiarize themselves with him and “absorb” the
impact of his adventus better454
.
I will demonstrate that many of these epithets (such as despotes) were used for
the first time widely now and became a norm afterwards in the address to the
452
Burrell (2004) and especially (2002/2003).
453
Boatwright (2000) 160.
454
So Price (1984), who has shown in the context of the imperial cult that the Greeks in the imperial
cult found a way to conceptualize their world and to place the emperor within the framework of
traditional cults of the gods.
171
emperor, a fact that proves the deep and lasting influence that Hadrian’s presence had
on his Greeks. Other epithets (e.g. eleutherios) were associated with previous Roman
emperors (Augustus, for example) who had been benevolent to the Greeks, thus
placing Hadrian in the company of these men.
5.3.1 Hadrian as a Neos Theos
Philostratus in the Life of the sophist Polemon pays special attention to the
benefits that the sophist received both from Hadrian and his adoptive father: ateleia in
traveling, free food provisions at the Museum of Alexandria, grants and other gifts to
Smyrna, and a most honored duty, that of delivering the inauguration speech at the
consecration of the Olympieion at Athens in 131/132455
. Moreover, the emperor’s
adoptive son Antoninus was made a friend of the sophist when he received the
imperium from Hadrian who on his death became a god456
.
The concept of an emperor becoming a god on his death (in the Latin West)
and being a living god (in the Greek East) was not a new one in the second century,
and, simply, Hadrian’s characterization as θεὸς was part of the religious language
employed to address the Roman emperors and the Hellenistic kings before them457
.
What is more interesting in Hadrian’s case is his presentation as the new
manifestation of a deity. The best way for the Greeks to describe this quality was the
use of the epithet νέος followed by the name of the divinity458
.
The divinity most often associated with Hadrian was of course the father of
the gods, Zeus. As we saw above the emperor was the earthly counterpart to
455
Lives of the Sophists 532-533.
456
Lives of the Sophists 533-534: διήλλαξε δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ παῖδα Ἀντωνῖνον ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ ἐν
τῇ τοῦ σκήπτρου παραδόσει θεὸς ἐκ θνητοῦ γιγνόµενος.
457
For a general discussion of the Greek language of the Imperial cult see Price (1984a).
458
For a discussion of the neos-terminology see Nock (1928) 148ff.
172
Zeus/Jupiter and was appointed on earth to rule in the way that the father of the gods
was ruling in the heavens459
. However, as I will suggest in the last section of this
chapter, where I will discuss in detail Zeus’ worship as well as that of Roma,
Hadrian’s association with Zeus in the Greek world was not only an expression of a
religious-political attitude that viewed the lord of men as a manifestation of the lord of
the gods; it was rather, and more evidently, a part of Hadrian’s plan to promote his
vision for the Greek East through the promotion of the cult of its major divinity.
Moreover, as I will argue, Hadrian/Zeus equation in the Greek East was a response to
and supplemented the Trajan/Jupiter equation in the Latin West. At the present, let us
turn our attention to the epithets that equated Hadrian with Zeus.
With regard to Hadrian neos Zeus, the epithets are mostly related to the
emperor’s actions and benefactions to a city or a province, which in the eyes of his
subjects raised him to the status of a divinity. The epithet most often used in
association with Zeus was of course Olympios. The epithet is attested in a vast
number of inscriptions and coins not only from the Greek cities but also, and this
emphasizes more Hadrian’s image as Zeus, the Roman colonies of the Greek East and
even the city of Rome460
. The use of the epithet Olympios for Hadrian is attested for
the first time in 128, but becomes regular after 131/2, the year in which the
459
See Fears (1977). For a discussion of the imperial cult and the intellectuals of the period see
Bowersock (1983). See also the still useful articles by Kenneth Scott on Plutarch’s and Elder and
Younger Pliny’s views on the imperial cult in Scott (1929) and Scott (1932) respectively.
460
Hadrian as (Zeus) Olympios occurs in the following cities: Abdera, Aidepsos, Aigina, Amphipolis,
Andros, Athens, Cephallenia, Chios, Corinth, Cos, Delos, Delphi, Haliartos, Lappa, Megara, Mytilene,
Nikopolis, Perinthos-Herakleia, Philippi, Rhamnous, Selinus, Skiathos, Syros, Tegea, Tenos, Thasos,
Thebai,Tomis, Akalesos, Akmonia, Alexandria at Troas, Anazarbos?, Aphrodisias, Apollonia ad
Rhyndacum, Attaleia, Cyzicus, Didyma, Elaia-Kaikos, Ephesos, Eumeneia, Flavia Philadelphia,
Stratonikeia-Hadrianopolis, Halicarnassos, Herakleia Salbake, Hydrela, Iasos, Kame, Kerameis,
Klaros, Koropissos of Kios, Klazomenia, Korydallos, Kyme, Letoion, Lysimacheia, Magnesia ad
Meandrum, Metropolis, Miletopolis?, Miletos, Myrina, Nicaea, Nikomedeia, Patara, Paegamos, Perge,
Phokaia, Pogla, Pompeiopolis, Phaselis, Prusias ad Hypium, Sagalassos, Sebastopolis at Pontus, Sestos,
Skamandros, Smyrna, Tarsos, Teos, Termessos, Thyateira, Xanthos, Koinon of Cyprus, Apollonia at
Cyrene, Abydos, Caesarea Antiocheia, Dium, Iulia of Laodiceia, Iulia Parium, Nikopolis, Patra,
Priapus, Rome.
173
Olympieion was finished, the statue of Olympios Zeus was dedicated in it, and the
Panhellenion was founded by Hadrian. The vast number of dedications and other
inscriptions that address Hadrian as Olympios is unprecedented. No emperor, with the
exception of the first princeps, has been so called, and the latter only on a small
number of dedications, mainly to Tiberius or Germanicus, son of Ζεὺς Ὀλύµπιος
Καίσαρ, from Lesbos461
.
One of the epithets exclusively associated with Hadrian is Panhellenios, an
epithet that Hadrian received after the foundation of the Panhellenic Council in
131/132. In what concerns us here, Hadrian appears as Zeus Panhellenios in two
inscriptions: the first, the decree of the city of Thyateira, is already discussed in
chapter 2; the second is a dedication to Artemis Astias, Hadrian, and the city of Iasos
by a certain Di nysios, son of Theophilos, on the architrave of the Eastern Portico of
the Roman agora at Iasos462
. Pending a further discovery of a public document, decree
or other, from Iasos, it seems that the formula Hadrian Zeus Panellenios reflects
Dionysios’ initiative, which, nonetheless, would find the local authorities in
agreement. It is worth mentioning that Zeus Panhellenios by himself appears in two
very fragmentary dedications (one of which is certainly of Hadrianic date), a fact that
makes it uncertain whether Zeus Panhellenios or Hadrian Zeus Panhellenios is the
recipient of these dedications463
. A third inscription from Ephesos is a list of priests
dated by the prytanes G. Iulius Epagathos to 180-192. Among others, Epagathos was
also the priest of Dionysos Propator, Zeus Panhellenios (restored), and Hephaistos464
.
It is unknown when the cult of Zeus Panhellenios appeared in the city and if it was
influenced by a “Panhellenic” ideology such as that of the Panhellenion.
461
IG XII, 2 206;209;540;656, Suppl. 42;59.
462
Thyateira: Jones (1999) and Follet and Peppas- Delmouzou (1997); Iasos: SEG 36.987A.
463
IG IV(2) 1 525 from Epidauros of Hadrianic date, and IG IV 1551 from Aigina.
464
IEph 1600.
174
A number of Hadrian-as-Zeus epithets are related to local traditions and events
that occurred during a visit of the emperor. Most characteristic are that of Hadrian
Zeus Dodonaios on a number of almost identical dedications to the emperor from
Nikopolis, all dated after 128 on account of the epithet Olympios465
; also that of
Hadrian Zeus Kynegesios on a statue base erected by the city of StratonikeiaHadrianopolis
in Mysia sometime between 130 and 138466
. The emperor had traveled
through the upper Kaikos valley on his journey of 124 and he probably stayed at the
city, to which he also granted the name Hadrianopolis. Obviously, while in the region,
the emperor indulged his passion for hunting. Not surprisingly, during the same
journey, he founded to the north of Stratonikeia a city called Hadrianotherai on
account of a successful hunting there, during which he killed a bear467
.
Another inscription from Cilicia is important on account of the information it
gives us about the locals’ perception of Hadrian. This statue base was found at the city
of Corycos, which lies at the mouth of the river Calycadnos in southern Cilicia. The
inscription calls Hadrian father of the homeland, Zeus Epikarpios, and lord of
everything, before it breaks off: π(ατέρα) π(ατρίδος), ∆ία Ἐπικ[άρ]/πιον τὸν
ἁπά[ντων]/κύριον εκ[—] (ll. 6-8)468. Evidently, the inscription refers to a benefaction to
the city by the emperor during one of his visits. The epithet Ἐπικάρπιος suggests that
this beneficence had to do with food provisions. The city was the main port of
Seleucia and it is possible that the imperial fleet landed there. The existence of the
465
SEG 35.674; 37.521; 39.528; 43.343.
466
SEG 27.809: vac. ∆ία Κυνηγέσιον. vac./[Αὐ]τοκράτορα Καίσαρα/[Τρ]αιανὸν Ἁδριανὸν
Ὀ/[λ]ύµπιον ὁ δῆµος ὁ Στ[ρα]/[τ]ονεικέων Ἁδριανοπ[ο]/[λε]ιτῶν τὸν ἴδιον κτίστη[ν]/[καὶ] οἰκιστὴν ἐκ
τῶν ἰδίω[ν]/[ἐπι]µεληθ[έ]ντ[ο]ς Ἀπολλο/[δώ]ρου τοῦ βʽ Κέλσου [․3-4․]/[κα]ὶ(?) ὑπὲρ Φουρίου
ὑ[ι?]ωνο[ῦ]/[ἐπ]ὶ στρατηγοῦ τὸ βʽ Τι. [Κλ.]/[vac.1-2?] Κανδίδαυ vac./ vacat.
467
HA Hadrian, 20.13: oppidum Hadrianotheras in quodam loco, quod illic et feliciter esset venatus et
ursam occidisset aliquando, constituit; also Dio Cassius 69.10.2.
468
CIG 4433.
175
cult of Zeus Epikarpios in the region is only attested by a dedication to him from the
same area, dated to 105/106469
. Hadrian’s arrival and gifts to the region were an
opportunity to equate him to the local deity. All of the last three epithets (Dodonaios,
Kynegesios, Epikarpios) have been exclusively attested with reference to Hadrian and
this testifies to the special place that Hadrian had among his subjects.
In concluding the discussion of the epithets that associate Hadrian with Zeus I
would like to talk about one more epithet. The emperor is called the son of Zeus
Eleutherios on the fragment of an inscribed statue-base from the Athenian
Acropolis470
. Anthony Raubitschek, after joining this fragment with two more,
restored the text and showed that in reality Zeus Eleutherios was part of the
nomenclature of the emperor Trajan. Therefore, Hadrian appears as the son of Trajan
Zeus Eleutherios471
. Raubitschek argues that as Zeus Eleutherios was worshipped as
the liberator of the city from the Persian attack, it may well be that Trajan, who fought
against the descendants of the old Persians, the Parthians, received the epiklesis Zeus
Eleutherios after his victories over the Parthians (130-131). Moreover, he correctly
argues that, by association, Hadrian would be the brother of the goddess Athena in the
pantheon of Athens (130). The presence of his statue in the Parthenon (Pausanias
1.24.7) would not only reinforce the connection with Athena, but also constitute an
exceptionally and unmistakably bold stroke which further associated him with the
heart of the religious life of classical Athens.
At any rate, it is worth noting that Hadrian did not receive this epithet in
Athens. On the contrary, instances of him addressed Eleutherios are numerous in
Mytilene, where a number of 11 almost identical dedicatory inscriptions have been
469
IGR 3.128.
470
IG II(2) 3322.
471
Raubitschek (1945).
176
found, while two more, one from Perinthos-Herakleia and one from Tomis, are the
only instances from the mainland472
. Tomis was granted the status of free city
sometime after 129473
. It is also possible that Hadrian conferred a similar privilege to
the cities of Mytilene and Perinthos-Herakleia although there is not yet such
evidence474
. It must be pointed out that Hadrian was not the first emperor honored
with the epithet Eleutherios. Domitian was honored as such at Delphi and Athens,
Nero at Akraiphia, whereas Augustus was not only Eleutherios, but, in addition, he
was called “the son of Zeus Eleutherios” in a number of inscriptions from Egypt475
.
Another divinity with whom Hadrian is often associated is Dionysos. On the
front seat of the theater of Dionysus in Athens, Hadrian received the epithet
Eleutheraios in an inscription that reads “(seat) of the priest of Hadrian
Eleutheraios”476
. This is the only example of a Roman emperor receiving this epithet
in association with Dionysus477
. The reservation of a seat for the priest of Hadrian
Eleutheraios in the theatre of Dionysos is not surprising. Hadrian had already been
honored with the erection of his statue in the same theatre in 112/113 when he served
as the eponymos archon of the city478
. Furthermore, the emperor had presided as
agonothetes at the Great Dionysia in 125 and probably in 132. It was during the visit
of 125 that the council of Areopagos, the council of the 600, and the demos honored
Hadrian with a series of twelve statues erected in the theatre of Dionysos as well479
. It
472
Lesbos: IG XII,2 183;185;191-198, Suppl. 53. Tomis: IScM II 47; Perinthos-Herakleia: PerinthosHerakleia
37.
473
Suceveanu (1975).
474
So Birley (1997) 168 and Weber (1907) 136 (Mytilene).
475
It is interesting that both Augustus and Hadrian appear as “Eleutherios” and “son of Zeus
Eleutherios”.
476
IG II (2) 5035.
477
Hadrian Eleuthereos is attested in two inscriptions from Athens (IG II(2) 3687;5022).
478
IG II (2) 3286.
479
Geagan (1979) 392.
177
should be noted here that Arja Karivieri, who discusses Hadrian’s association with
Dionysos in general terms, convincingly argues that the reliefs of the scaenae frons of
the theatre, built by Hadrian, associated him and Sabina with Dionysos and Ariadne
respectively and eventually functioned as a means to promote an image of the
emperor as a neos Dionysos480
.
Hadrian’s epiphany as neos Dionysos was witnessed throughout the Greek
world481
. His close relationship with the universal synodos of the Dionysiac technitai
played an important role in the development of this phenomenon. Since Trajan fused
all the different Dionysiac colleges into one universal college or synodos, the emperor
became the patron of the college and took, in a sense, the place of Dionysos. Hadrian
reaffirmed the privileges of the synod of Dionysiac artists, and in addition he allowed
the “synod of athletes and sacred victors”, as the two athletic guilds were known after
their conflation in Trajan’s times, to establish their headquarters in Rome in 134482
.
The synod honored the emperor and added him in its title, which now announced
itself “universal synod of Dionysos and Hadrian Neos Dionysos”. Furthermore, the
emperor allowed the same synod to found a mystikos agon at Ancyra. An honorific
480
Karivieri (2002) 44ff. The author also points out to the emperor’s connection with the mythical
founder of Athens Theseus (45ff). One of the reliefs from the scaenae frons depicts the enthronement
of Dionysos and Ariadne, both identified with the imperial couple. To their right a sitting figure is
Theseus. Theseus on his way to Athens, after he left Crete, abandoned Ariadne on the island of Naxos
where Dionysos found her and took her as his spouse. By association Hadrian and his wife are
connected to the mythical past of Athens and to the founder of the city. By taking Ariadne/Sabina
Hadrian in a sense replaces Theseus. Hadrian underscored this association as for example by the
inscriptions on his arch at Athens: αἵδ’ εἴσ’ Ἀθῆναι Θησέως ἡ πρὶν πόλις (east side), αἵδ’ εἴσ’ Ἁδριανοῦ
καὶ οὐχὶ Θησέως πόλις (west side) (IG II(2) 5185). If the correct reading of the first text is “this is
Athens the former city of Theseus”, Hadrian appears again (in conjunction with the text of the other
side) not only as the second founder of Athens, which replaces that of Theseus, but also as replacing
Theseus.
481
Hadrian Neos Dionysos is evidenced at Athens, Chios, Cos, Ancyra, Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Flavia
Philadelpia, Pergamos?, Sardeis, and Nemausus.
482
IG XIV 1054.
178
decree of the synod, dated to 128-129, included Hadrian as neos Dionysos in the
ceremonies there jointly with the god483
.
To a lesser degree, Hadrian is considered the new manifestation of or is
associated with Apollo, Asclepios, and Helios. Hadrian’s association with Apollo is
mostly evidenced in the use of the epithet Pythios. Hadrian is so labeled in a
fragmentary dedication from Tegea484
, and in a number of dedications from Megara,
where he was honored as “Πύθιος Πανελλήνιος κτίστης νοµοθέτης τροφέας.”485
The
emperor had clearly implemented reforms (he created a new phyle, named Hadrianis)
and widened Megara’s Scironian road486
. However, in this case, the epithet Pythios
must be interpreted in the light of Hadrian’s completion of the Megarian temple of
Apollo Pythios from 124-136, an event reported by Pausanias487
. Perhaps these
benefactions to the city can also account for the epithet ktistes, as there is no evidence
of Hadrian’s changing Megara’s civic status or reconstructing the city488
.
The emperor as Pythios is more closely connected with the oracle of Delphi.
Hadrian contributed a lot to the revival and welfare of the oracle and was especially
interested in it since he desired to transform the Delphic Amphictyony itself into a
common assembly of all Greeks, an abortive plan though which finally led to the
creation of the Panhellenion489
. Therefore, in a letter to the emperor in 132, the
archons, council and the demos of the city expressed their joyfulness on Hadrian
483
IGR 3.209.
484
IG VI,2 127.
485
IG VII 70-72; 3491.
486
Pausanias 1.44.6.
487
Pausanias 1.42.5: τοῦ δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος πλίνθου µὲν ἦν ὁ ἀρχαῖος ναός· ὕστερον δὲ βασιλεὺς ᾠκοδόµησεν
Ἀδριανὸς λίθου λευκοῦ. Hadrian, is reported, built another temple of Apollo at the small city of Abai in
Phocis (Pausanias 10.35.4), and also dedicated the temple of Apollo Clarios at Claros (SEG 51.1598).
488
So Boatwright (2000) 31-32.
489
See for example Hadrian’s letter to Delphi guaranteeing the oracle’s freedom and autonomy, FD III
4:301.
179
celebrating the Eleusinian mysteries (l. 5, καὶ µυστήρια ἐπιτελοῦντ[ί σοι τὰ Ἐλευσίνια
συγχαίρο]ντες), and addressed him as Olympios, Panhellenios, Pythios490
. It is possible
that the emperor in one of his visits to the city had met Plutarch, who was a priest of
the god. It had been Plutarch who set up a statue at Delphi to celebrate Hadrian’s
accession491
.
On a number of occasions, Hadrian was the recipient of dedications along with
Apollo492
. He also accepted the honorary office of the prophet at the temple of Apollo
at Didyma in a letter to the Milesians in 135493
.
There is little evidence of Hadrian’s association with Asclepios. This is
primarily numismatic and connects Hadrian and the empress with the god and
members of his family such as Hygeia494
. Two inscriptions from Pergamos point to
Hadrian’s relationship with the god. The first is an inscription recording the
dedication of a stoa and the propylon of the Asklepieion to the gods, Asklepios,
Hadrian and the city by a certain Polion495
. We know that there was a room for the
imperial cult in the sanctuary of the god, and certainly this inscription places Hadrian
in it in the company of Asklepios. The other text probably comes from Asklepieion as
490
FD III 4:308.
491
CID 4.150
492
So at Perge with Apollo Lyrboton (Merkelbach and Şahin (1988) 159,152), and at Miletos with
Apollo Didymaeus (SEG 4.425) and with Apollo Didymaeus, Artemis Pythia, Leto, Zeus and the
Demos of Miletos (IDidyma 58).
493
Oliver (1989) 87.
494
Coins from the Mysian city of Kame that bear Hadrian’s bust on the obverse, depict Asclepios
and/or Hygeia on the reverse (Imhoof-Blumel (1913) 613; 614); from the Thracian city of Bizya,
Hadrian’s bust on the obverse is accompanied by a doubtful scene on the reverse: a funerary table
scene, with Asclepios reclining on a couch, Hygeia sitting on it, and a child and horse standing next to
them (Euelpidis Coll. 1.907); Asclepios is also depicted on the reverse of Hadrianic coins from Cos and
Pergamos (SNG Herzog 1111 and SNG Denmark 19.480 respectively); finally, Koronis, Asclepios’
mother, is depicted on the reverse of a coin from Pergamos, on the obverse of which there is the bust of
Sabina, Hadrian’s wife (SNG Denmark 19.481).
495
IvP III 64.
180
well and assimilates the emperor with the healing god496
. The text dates to 129-138 on
account of the epithet Olympios. The inscription is a dedication to Hadrian soter
Olympios. The right part of the stone is missing and the inscription has been restored.
If the restoration is correct, then the wording that follows is remarkable and requires
extensive comment here. The language shifts from the dative case of the dedication on
the first line of the text to the nominative, which is unusual. The text indicates that the
base supported a statue of the emperor. Now the emperor is called lord of all men,
king of all the lands, most manifest new Asklepios:
[Ἁδριανῶι σ]ωτῆρι Ὀλυµπίωι.
[πάντων ἀνθρώπ(?)]ων δεσπότης, βασιλεὺς
[τῶν τῆς γῆς χωρ(?)]ῶν, ἐπιφανέστατος
[νέ]ος Ἀσκληπιός.
In this text Hadrian is the ἐπιφανέστατος νέος Ἀσκληπιός. The positive degree
of the adjective, ἐπιφανὴς, was a common component of the nomenclature of kings
and emperors from the Hellenistic period onwards. As Simon Price in his paper on the
Greek language of the imperial cult argued I believe that the word epiphanes was a
word with a convenient width of meaning which could be cited in both religious and
secular context, referring to both divine and non-divine, and therefore the epithet
should be translated as “manifest” or “prominent” depending on each case497
.
Moreover I believe that in translating this epithet in inscriptions we must take into
consideration the context, textual and historical, of each text. I suggest that when the
epithet is accompanied by the name of a divinity or by the genitive “τῶν θεῶν” in the
case of ἐπιφανέστατος or ἐµφανέστατος, the translation should be “manifest” or “most
manifest” respectively. Accordingly, when the epithet is not accompanied by these
elements, but simply predicates the emperor’s name, or is even predicated itself by the
496
IvP II 365.
497
Price (1984a) 86ff.
181
word “god”, it seems better to translate the adjective as “prominent” or “most
prominent”. In other words, the epithet by itself, if it is not further defined by a deity’s
name, does not necessarily allude to the emperor’s new manifestation of a deity.
Again, even in this case, the reading should pay attention to context.
Accordingly, in the inscription from Pergamos, a translation “most manifest
new Asclepios” seems better. In general, the epithet does not automatically mean that
the emperor had made a personal appearance in the city. Perhaps a visit by Hadrian
was the cause for this dedication, although it could also be the expression of gratitude
for a past benefaction which in the minds of the Pergamenes could be paralleled to the
therapeutic powers of the god.
This is the only case where Hadrian is called ἐπιφανέστατος in the Greek
East498
. It is worth noting that with the exception of three of his predecessors who are
so addressed once each499
, this form of the epithet occurs in large numbers in the
third, and especially in the fourth centuries. A similar epithet, though, appears in two
texts of Hadrianic date. The first of them is a document of 124 concerning the
neokorate of Smyrna followed by a letter500
. In lines 10-14, the author of the text is
stressing the fact that the whole world sacrifices and prays for the well-being of the
emperor and Rome. It seems to be an appropriate action in these most blessed times of
Hadrian “the most manifest of the gods.”501
The emperor is both the most manifest of
498
Hadrian epiphanes is attested only in two places: in a dedication from Nicomedeia (TAM IV, 1 401)
and in an impressive number of 20 altars dedicated to the emperor at Samos (IG XII 6 1, 503-509; 511-
512; 514-517; 519; 521-526).
499
Gaius at Cyzicus (MDAI(A) 16 (1891) 141-144), Domitian at Delphi (CID 4 142), and Trajan at
Didyma (IDidyma 407).
500
ISmyrna 594.
501
[— ἐν τοῖς/εὐτυ]χεστάτοις καιροῖς τοῦ θεῶ[ν ἐµφανεστάτου Αὐτοκρά/τορο]ς Τραιανοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ
Καίσαρο[ς Σεβαστοῦ πᾶσα ἡ?/․4․․υ οἰκουµένη θύει καὶ εὔχετ[αι ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου δια/µον]ῆς αὐτοῦ
καὶ τῆς ἀνεικήτ[ου Ῥωµαίων ἡγεµονίας……].
182
the gods on account of his frequent visits there and certainly the most distinguished
given the enormous gifts he has conferred upon the city.
We find the same idea in the second text. A decree of the city of Karystos,
dated to 131/2-138, praises the emperor for the way he administers the world502
. If
there is anything in accordance with the divine will, a certain Iatrokles says, that
Hadrian Panhellenios archegetes and ktistes of Karystos undertakes, he does so in the
most distinguished manner in accordance with the plan of the gods, in order to rule
the vast world in a worthily manner503
. The emperor not only acts according to divine
laws, but he also makes sure that everything will be accomplished in a way that will
leave no doubt as to the will of the gods, whose plans he is the most adept to bring to
conclusion504
.
The second epithet from the Pergamene inscription that requires some
comments here is despotes (l. 2). This is an epithet that was frequently associated with
a divinity in the Greek East, but not very often with a living emperor. In fact there are
only three instances of rulers called despotes before Hadrian. The earliest is in a letter
by an Athenian Dionysodoros, son of Athenadoros, to Ptolemy XII Philopator
Philadelphos from the area of Euhemeria in Egypt, dated to 69/68 BC505
. The letter
concerns the asylia of the sanctuary of Ammon at Arsinoe. On line 10, the author of
the letter addressed Ptolemy as lord and king, δέσποτα βασιλεῦ. The second example
comes from Egypt too. A certain Katilios, son of Nikanor, dedicated an epigram on
502
IG XII, Suppl. 527.
503
ll. 5-10: εἶπεν· πᾶν µέν, εἴ τι κα[ὶ ἀκόλουθον ταῖς θείαις]/ὑπέρχεται διανοίαις πρά[ττειν—]/
Τραϊανὸν Ἁδριανὸν Κ[αίσαρα Σεβαστὸν Πα]/νελλήνιον ἀρχηγέ[την καὶ κτιστὴν Καρύσ]/του, θεῶν
γνώµῃ ἐµ[φανέστατα συµπράττει]/ὅπως ἀξίως τὸν µέ[γαν διοικῇ κόσµον·….]
504
In addition to Hadrian, the epithet is only attested in two fragmentary inscriptions: the first from
Delphi, of Domitianic date, refers to the most blessed times of the most manifest of gods (the name of
the emperor is missing): τῶν εὐ/[τυχ]εστ[ά]των καιρῶν τοῦ/[θεῶν ἐµφ]ανεστάτου Αὐτο/[κράτορος-]
(ll. 15-18- IEph 449); the second, from Magnesia ad Maeandrum, is undated and seems to refer to an
unknown emperor, most manifest god: [τοῦ]/ἐµφανεσ[τάτου θεοῦ] (ll.5-6- IMagnesia 157c).
505
Fayoum 2.136.
183
the island of Philai in 7 BC506
. The author of the epigram dedicated it to Augustus,
who among others is addressed as the lord of the seas, ruler of the boundless earth,
Zeus Eleutherios, son of Zeus, lord of Europe and Asia alike: Καίσαρι ποντοµέδοντι καὶ
ἀπείρων κρατέοντι/Ζανὶ τῶι ἐκ Ζανὸς πατρὸς Ἐλευθερίωι,/δεσπόται Εὐρώπας τε καὶ Ἀσίδος,
ἄστρωι ἁπάσας,/Ἑλλάδος, ὃς σωτὴρ Ζεὺς ἀνέτειλε µέγας (ll. 1-4). The last example
comes from Gorneae in Armenia507
. This building inscription records the erection of
fortifications by Tiridates in 77. The king is titled Helios Tiridates, great king of the
great Armenia, despotes. All three examples came from the Eastern Mediterranean
and the vocabulary used reflects the attachment to local traditions and old sentiments
regarding absolute regimes and rulers.
Hadrian is called despotes in three other inscriptions in addition to the text
from Pergamos. The first comes from the Cilician city of Iotape, and is a dedication of
a statue of the emperor, lord of land and sea ([γ]ῆς/ καὶ θαλάσσης δ[ε]σ/πότην), by the
demos508
. The second example comes from Pantikapaion in the Tauric Chersonese509
.
Again, it is a dedication of a statue of Hadrian, lord of the world, (δεσπό/[την τῆ]ς
οἰκουµέ[ν]ης) by a certain Eubios. The last one is a fragmentary letter to the emperor
by the city and archons of Delphi510
.
It is noteworthy that starting with Hadrian the epithet despotes is frequently
associated with Roman emperors. With the exception of Antoninus Pius, who is called
despotes in only three instances511
, the epithet became a very common part of the
emperor’s nomenclature in the following years and well into the late Empire. The
506
IGR I,5 1295- this is the only metrical text of the known examples. All others are in prose.
507
SEG 40.1315.
508
Paribeni and Romanelli (1914) 182,128.
509
CIRB 48.
510
FD III 4:304; cf. SEG 26.634.
511
At Chersonesos in the Tauric Chersonese (IosPE I(2) 362); the Cilician Lamos (Paribeni and
Romanelli (1914) 169,117); and at the Lydian Kamai (TAM V,2 1231).
184
epithet had negative connotations since already in Classical Greece it alluded to an
absolute, non-free, regime512
. This is also evident in Dio Cassius (55.12), according to
whom, when Augustus was once called "master" by the people, he not only forbade it,
but also took very good care to enforce his command (δεσπότης δέ ποτε ὁ Αὔγουστος
ὑπὸ τοῦ δήµου ὀνοµασθεὶς οὐχ ὅπως ἀπεῖτε µηδένα τούτῳ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν τῷ προσρήµατι
χρήσασθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ διὰ φυλακῆς αὐτὸ ἐποιήσατο.) The ideology is clearly that of
the Senatorial class, whose status was endangered by such absolutist behavior as that
displayed by Commodus and Elagabalus, under whose rule Dio lived.
In light of these remarks, I would like to suggest that the Greek populations
were comfortable with a view of Hadrian not simply as a passing-by Roman emperor
but more as a kind of a Hellenistic ruler. Perhaps Hadrian himself was not reluctant to
be seen as such. Fears, commenting on the imperial cult, has suggested that the new
emphasis on divine election in the period from Domitian onwards was the result of the
transformation of the principate to monarchy: “the emperor becomes the ultimate
power; a centralized, enlightened autocracy replaced the Augustan ideal of the
princeps as a special agent of the senate and Roman people; at the same time a broad
imperial vision of empire superseded a more narrowly Romano-Italian outlook.”513
Although I agree with his idea of a broad imperial vision, I hesitate to view the
principate evolving into an autocratic regime in the second century. I believe that both
Trajan and Hadrian had to take the necessary steps to consolidate the empire and
secure its longevity: the former mostly with respect to the priorities of the state at its
borders, and the latter basically by improving the administration of the vast empire. A
more centralized form of administration came as the natural consequence of these
512
See for example, Herodotos 3.89, Thucydides 6.77, Plato, Laws, 859a, where despotes is associated
with tyrannos.
513
Fears (1977) 251.
185
efforts, and it is more obvious in the case of Hadrian, who brought to an end the
further expansion of the empire and turned his attention mostly to its internal affairs.
Perhaps there is no better way to conclude this section of Hadrian’s “neos
theos” manifestations than with the most “manifest of all”, Hadrian as Neos Helios.
The first evidence is a very fragmentary text from Amastris in Paphlagonia, and is
dated to 119514
. The inscribed base carried the statue of the emperor, the benefactor of
the world, neos Helios: εὐεργέτην τῆ[ς οἰ]/[κουµένη]ς, νέον Ἥ[λιον] (ll.9-10).
A later text comes from Klazomenai515
. It is a dedication to Hadrian dated to
129-138. The dedication addresses Hadrian Olympios neos Helios ktistes: Ὀλυ[µ]/πίῳ,
νέῳ/Ἡλίῳ, κτί[στῃ] (ll. 5-7) and, perhaps, alludes to an unknown cult of Hadrian as
Helios there. The title was used for many Roman emperors. Fritz Graf comments on
the symbolism of the epithet and argues that as in the inscription from Akraiphia, by
which Nero granted freedom to Achaea516
, the emperor is hailed as new Helios,
shining upon the Greeks, elected to benefit Greece (νέος Ἥλιος ἐπιλάµψας τοῖς Ἕλλησιν,
προειρηµέ/νος εὐεργετεῖν τὴν Ἑλ<λ>άδα, ll. 34-35), so an emperor’s benefactions to his
subjects parallel those of Helios to men517
. It would be an appropriate connection for
Hadrian, who first was introduced to his subjects by Apollo-Helios and now is
assimilated with him.
So far, I have presented evidence on the intentional use of religious language
in the Greeks’ address to Hadrian. This language was already familiar to them in their
dealings with Hellenistic monarchs and Roman emperors or officials alike. It shows
the tendency of the Greek world to include the Roman authorities into their universe
514
Marek (1993) 160, 9.
515
IErythrai 513.
516
IG VII 2713.
517
Graf (1985) 396-397.
186
in their own linguistic terms. Hadrian’s personality certainly encouraged the use of
such language in an environment of competition among the cities, all of which vied
with each other to draw the most benefits from him.
I have shown that his Greek subjects viewed Hadrian as the manifestation of
the divine in an unprecedented way and extent. Some of the epithets are not only
unattested before, but the use of a number of them sets the precedent for their
inclusion in the titulature of Roman emperors from the 2nd
century onwards. The
epithets clearly reveal the association of Hadrian with Greek culture and his
appropriation of local and Panhellenic myths. The emperor was the ἐµφανέστατος of
all of his predecessors by his repeated journeys to the region.
The same stress on the use of familiar terms and language will be evidenced in
a number of behaviors, with less religious connotations, but all with allusions to the
superhuman, the supernatural and by consequence to the divine: idiosyncrasies of the
emperor as these were projected by him or encouraged by the Greek populations and
even invented by contemporary and later authors.
5.4 Hadrian and the Divine
An important factor that determined Hadrian’s policy in the East was his
personality. Among other things, the emperor was interested in divination and mystic
cults, magic and superstitions, was skilled in astrology, knowledge of every science
and art, and was even credited with healing powers518
. Although this aspect of his
personality is not directly connected with his cult in the region, it pertains to the
divine, the superhuman and as such I deem it worthy of being examined here.
Moreover, I believe that these interests of his facilitated his reception among the
518
Cf. Suetonius, Vespasian 7.2 on the emperor as healer.
187
Greeks. They were part of the religion-colored language that the Greeks and the
emperor used to communicate with each other.
In spite of the fact that this aspect of Hadrian’s life was the subject of great
interest in our sources, modern scholarship has underestimated the significant role that
it played in the creation of his image in the East. Here I will closely discuss it and
demonstrate by a number of examples that a) Hadrian’s interests in the divine and
superhuman fostered his relations with the populations of the Greek East, b) this
particular attitude contributed to the damage that his reputation suffered among the
Roman elites and Senators, and finally c) even if a number of them is plain fiction on
the part of an author (as is sometimes the case in the biographies of the Historia
Augusta), the tendency of the authors of the late empire and later centuries to confer
these qualities on Hadrian reveals the desire of the Greeks to view that emperor of
their past as en extraordinary person that was versed in the world of superhuman, of
divine, and thus ready to converse with them in a familiar language.
5.4.1 Hadrian and Divine Knowledge
Our sources present Hadrian as desirous of knowledge both of the past and the
future, and for this reason he often visited oracles and prophets. We know for
example, that Hadrian was particular generous to the city and the oracle of Delphi. As
we saw above among others he guaranteed the freedom, autonomy and other
privileges conferred upon the city by previous emperors. The emperor visited Delphi
in 125 and was elected for the second time archon of the city (the first time was in
120). On one of his visits he posed a question to Pythia: where was Homer from and
who were his parents? The priestess answered in hexameters that Homer was from
188
Ithaca, son of Telamachus and Polycaste519
. Such an inquiry would certainly fit in
with Hadrian’s interests. The emperor was famous for his often annoying curiosity. It
is also probable that Hadrian, since he was in the area, might have visited the oracle of
Trophonios, although there is no evidence of such a visit.
This is not the first time that Hadrian is associated with Apollo. We saw
already that it was this god as Helios who announced Hadrian to the world. A strange
event, but not at all in disagreement with Hadrian’s character, is reported by the
church historian of the 5th century Sozomenos in his Historia Ecclesiastica addressed
to the emperor Theodosios II. In a long passage discussing the temple of Apollo at
Daphne, just outside of Antioch, Sozomenos reports that the water of the Castalia
fountain of the sanctuary had oracular powers. Even Hadrian, he continues, before his
accession to the throne, consulted the oracle by dipping a leaf of laurel in the waters
of the fountain. When he pulled it out, he says, knowledge of his future appeared on
the leaf. After he received the throne Hadrian covered the fountain with soil so that no
one should benefit from it520
. Of course, all this, Sozomenos concludes, is nothing
more than the words of tellers of tales: Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα µέν, οἷς τούτων µέλει, ἀκριβῶς
µυθολογούντων. However, historical circumstances (Hadrian’s known presence in the
area before Trajan’s death) and his character as is presented in the two main literary
sources can add a degree of credibility to the story.
519
Anthologia Graeca Book 14.102:
Ἄγνωστόν µ’ ἐρέεις γενεῆς καὶ πατρίδος αἴης
ἀµβροσίου Σειρῆνος· ἕδος δ’ Ἰθάκη τις Ὁµήρου·
Τηλέµαχος δὲ πατὴρ καὶ Νεστορέη Πολυκάστη
µήτηρ, ἥ µιν ἔτικτε, βροτῶν πολυπάνσοφον ἄλλων.
Cf. Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 32-43.
520
Historia Ecclesiastica Book 5.19.10-12: ἐπιστεύετο δὲ παρὰ τοῖς τάδε πρεσβεύουσι ῥεῖν αὐτόθι καὶ ὕδωρ
µαντικὸν ἀπὸ Κασταλίας τῆς πηγῆς, ὁµοίως τῆς ἐν ∆ελφοῖς ἐνεργείας τε καὶ προσηγορίας λαχούσης. ἀµέλει τοι
καὶ Ἀδριανῷ ἔτι ἰδιωτεύοντι τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐχοῦσιν ἐνθάδε προµηνυθῆναι. φασὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν φύλλον
δάφνης ἐµβάψαντα τῇ πηγῇ ἀρύσασθαι τὴν τῶν ἐσοµένων γνῶσιν ἐγγράφως ἐπὶ τοῦ φύλλου δηλωθεῖσαν.
παρελθόντα δὲ εἰς τὴν ἡγεµονίαν καταχῶσαι τὴν πηγήν, ὥστε µὴ ἐξεῖναι καὶ ἄλλοις προµανθάνειν τὸ µέλλον.
189
The Historia Augusta stresses the fact that Hadrian was a frequent visitor of
oracles. The author asserts that the emperor received at least two oracles prior to his
enthronement: one from the Vergilian oracle or the Sibylline verses, the other from
the temple of Zeus at Nikephorion (it is possible that the temple of Zeus Nikephorios
at Nikephorion by the Euphrates is meant here)521
. Both instances are in accordance
with the emperor’s character. The author even argues that oracles given by Antinoos
were in reality composed by Hadrian (et Graeci quidem volente Hadriano eum
consecraverunt oracula per eum dari adserentes, quae Hadrianus ipse conposuisse
iactatur, HA Hadrian 14.7)522
.
Hadrian’s desire for knowledge of the future is manifested in the repeated
allusions of the HA to the emperor’s interest in astrology523
. Four passages, two in his
Vita, and two in that of Aelius Verus, talk about the emperor’s excellence in the art of
astrology. The text very early treats Hadrian’s interest when it is said that while in
Lower Moesia, where he was appointed tribune of the Fifth Legion, the Macedonica,
Hadrian heard from an astrologer the same prediction about him receiving the
imperium which he had heard from his astrologer uncle524
. Later, in a statement
allegedly coming from Marius Maximus, the emperor appears so proficient in
astrology that he could write on the calends of January all that would happen to him
during the year to the point that he wrote down everything that he was going to do
521
HA Hadrian II.8-9.
522
In another case, Hadrian changed the name of the Thracian city Oresteias to Hadrianopolis after he
received an oracle (HA Elagabalus VII.8). Antinoos was honored as Neos Pythios on the coinage of
Delphi and Nikopolis, a fact which reveals a local desire to attribute oracular powers to the new deity.
523
R.G. Lewis after examination of the literary sources and the extant fragments of Hadrian’s
autobiography argues that it is possible that Hadrian in his autobiography made use of astrological and
perhaps other means of prophecy “in claiming not so much perhaps skill in the art as the sanction of
Fate” (Lewis (1993) 702). On Hadrian’s horoscope in Antigonos of Nicaea see the excellent study of
Stephan Heilen, The Emperor Hadrian in the Horoscopes of Antigonos of Nicaea, in Oestmann G. et
alii (edd.), Horoscopes and Public Spheres. Essays on the History of Astrology, Berlin 2005, 49-67.
The author has announced the preparation of a much anticipated edition of the fragmentary work of
Antigonos with translation and commentary.
524
HA Hadrian II.4.
190
down to the very hour of his death525
. The emperor also seems to have been
acquainted with Aelius’ horoscope: fertur… Hadrianum Veri scisse genituram (HA
Aelius III.8.)526
5.4.2 The Art of the Occult
Hadrian reportedly employed divinations and magic arts of all kinds. The
inherent curiosity of the emperor for everything strange and exotic is excellently
portrayed in a magical papyrus now in Paris527
. The text talks about a “spell of
attraction” (Ἀ γ ω γ ή ) that attracts those who are uncontrollable, inflicts sickness
excellently and kills powerfully, sends dreams beautifully, and accomplishes
marvelous dream revelations (ll. 2437-2440). Then the text claims that Hadrian
witnessed a demonstration by a prophet from Heliopolis called Pachrates. Pachrates
revealed the power of the potion and his own art: “for he attracted within an hour,
made someone sick within two hours, killed within seven hours, and even sent the
emperor himself dreams, thus the emperor testing thoroughly the very truth of his
magical powers528
. The emperor so marveled at the prophet that he ordered double
allowance to be given to him (ll. 2449-2451).
It is possible that the emperor met the prophet during his visit to Egypt in 130
that eventually led to Antinoos’s death. Pachrates without doubt is that Pancrates who
appears in Lucian’s Philopseudes and also the poet who celebrated Hadrian’s and
Antinoos’ successful lion-hunt as it is recorded by Athenaeus and on a fragmentary
525
HA Hadrian XVI.7: Mathesin sic scire sibi visus est, ut sero kalendis Ianuariis scripserit, quid ei
toto anno posset evenire, ita ut eo anno, quo perit, usque ad illam horam, qua est mortuus, scripserit,
quid acturus esset. Cf. HA Aelius Verus III.9.
526
See also HA Aelius IV.5 and VI.8.
527
Papyri Graeci Magici IV.2436ff.
528
δύναµιν τῆς θείας αὑτοῦ µαγείας. ἦξεν/γὰρ µονόωρον, κατέκλινεν ἐν ὥραις βʽ, ἀνεῖ/λεν ἐν ὥραις
ζʽ, ὀνειροπόµπησεν δὲ αὐτὸν/βασιλέα ἐκδο<κ>ιµ<ά>ζοντος αὐτοῦ τὴν ὅλην/ἀλήθειαν τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν
µαγείας· (ll. 2444-2449).
191
papyrus529
. It is likely that Hadrian was interested in meeting the prophet, for
whatever purpose, but particularly because he was concerned about his own health.
Dio supports this idea when he discusses Antinoos’ drowning in the Nile. The
young man, Dio tells us, died either by falling into the river, as Hadrian writes, or, as
the truth is, by being offered as a sacrificial victim (εἴτε καὶ ἱερουργηθείς, ὡς ἡ ἀλήθεια
ἔχει.)530
He justifies this allegation with the following statement: “for Hadrian in all
things, as I said, was most superstitious, and used all kinds of divinations and magic
arts” (ἔχει· τά τε γὰρ ἄλλα περιεργότατος Ἁδριανός, ὥσπερ εἶπον, ἐγένετο, καὶ µαντείαις
µαγγανείαις τε παντοδαπαῖς ἐχρῆτο, 69.11.3). Indeed, he adds, Antinoos offered his life
for Hadrian for “it was necessary that a life should be surrendered freely for the
accomplishment of the ends Hadrian had in view.”531
It seems that Hadrian wanted to
extend his own life, and when the magicians demanded a volunteer to substitute for
him, Antinoos offered (or forced to) himself.
In fact this is the theory expressed in the writings of Aurelius Victor. In his De
Caesaribus, the author discusses the personality of the emperor and pays particular
attention to his lasciviousness and affairs with men. As for the honors offered to
Antinoos, he attempts to explain them by saying “some indeed maintain that this was
529
Philopseudes 33ff; Deipnosophistae 15.21 (I follow G. Kaibel’s division of books and paragraphs in
the Teubner edition, 1887-1890); as for the papyrus, I follow D.L. Page’s text in the Loeb’s edition
Select Papyri III: Literary Papyri, Poetry, Cambridge, Ma 1962, 516, 128. As Antony Birley (1997)
argues, the difference between the different spellings “Pachrates” and “Pancrates” should not cause any
problem. "The former is an adaptation of a purely Egyptian name which sounded slightly similar, the
latter is a “corrected”, more Hellenic version” (244).
530
Dio Cassius 69.11.2. Cf. HA’s comment regarding Antinoos’s death, Hadrian 14.6: de quo varia
fama est aliis eum devotum pro Hadrian adserentibus, aliis, quod et forma eius ostentat et nimia
voluptas Hadriani.
A now lost cornaline supposedly alluded to Antinoos’ sacrifice. Royston Lambert (1984) 47;53
cautiously discussed an engraved gem once reported to belong to a French collector. Allegedly, the
scene showed Antinoos sitting contemplating his doom and holding a lyre, while a sick Hadrian and
Aelius Caesar gaze at the goddess Hygeia and the snake of Asklepios. As Lambert himself suggests,
there are certain problems with this scene. If, however, as he says, the gem was authentically Hadrianic
and if the goddess, snake, Antinoos and Hadrian were identifiable on it, then it would point to a
contemporary belief, if nothing more, that Antinoos sacrificed himself for the health of the ailing
emperor. However, until the rediscovery of the gem, this source should be treated with caution.
531
Dio Cassius 69.11.3: ἑκουσίου γὰρ ψυχῆς πρὸς ἃ ἔπραττεν ἐδεῖτο.
192
done because of piety or religion: for in fact, they say, Hadrian wanted to extend his
own life-span, and when the magicians (magi) demanded a volunteer to die in his
stead, everyone declined, but Antinoos offered himself.”532
Hadrian was gravely
concerned about his health and the magi (could Pachrates be one of them?) suggested
this solution.
A fourth century source even claims that the emperor traveled to Egypt for
precisely this reason: to treat his illness. Epiphanius in his work De mensuris et
ponderibus relates the story of how the Old Testament was gradually translated from
Hebrew into Greek from the period of Ptolemy Philadelphos well into the Roman
imperial times (l. 228ff). During his discussion of the role of Aquila of Sinope533
as a
translator of the sacred text, Epiphanius adds some remarks about Hadrian (l. 362ff).
Surprisingly, the first thing that Epiphanius decides to tell his reader about Hadrian is
his illness. Hadrian, he says, was seriously ill and for this he had summoned doctors
from all over the empire. But Hadrian received no cure from them, and, Epiphanius
concludes, on account of his persisting illness he went on a journey to the land of
Egypt: Τῆς δὲ προκειµένης αὐτῷ νόσου ἕνεκα στέλλεται τὴν πορείαν ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων
γῆν (ll. 367-368). Then Hadrian made his way to Jerusalem, where he rebuilt the city
as Aelia Capitolina.
The fact that Epiphanius emphasized only Hadrian’s illness in relation to his
visit to Egypt, reveals two things: first, that the visit of the emperor had made a huge
impact in the area and his illness was a subject much discussed there, and second, that
the statement of the author that Hadrian concerned about his health made the trip to
532
14.8: Quae quidem alii pia volunt religiosaque: quippe Hadriano cupiente fatum producere, cum
voluntarium ad vicem magi poposcissent, cunctis retractantibus Antinoum obiecisse se referunt,
hincque in eum officia supra dicta.
533
It is interesting that in Epiphanius’s text Aquila was expelled from the Church on account of
practicing astrology (l. 403ff).
193
Egypt seems to reflect an earlier oral, if not written, tradition regarding Antinoos’
death as this was alluded to in Dio534
.
It is unclear whether Hadrian’s health had been (temporarily) improved by his
stay in Egypt. An issue from the mint of Rome may provide some insight into
Hadrian’s expectations535
. The type, in both silver and bronze, depicts Hadrian’s
laureate bust on the obverse. On the reverse, Hadrian standing in military dress holds
spear and parazonium. His left foot rests on a crocodile. The legend S(enatus)
C(onsultum) completes the scene. According to Anthony Birley, it is possible that we
have here a depiction of Hadrian as Horus and thus as "King of Egypt", the
vanquisher of evil forces. He further argues that “it has also been pointed out that it
had long been standard practice in Egypt for ill or afflicted persons to identify
themselves with Horus and the demons that were causing them pain with scorpions,
crocodiles and serpents. The identification, accompanied by spells, guaranteed a cure
for the patient who had taken on the god's identity.”536
If this is the case here, then it
is possible that Hadrian felt that his resort to divinations and magic finally paid off.
Perhaps we may interpret the hieroglyphics on Antinoos’ obelisk, now at
Rome, in the same light537
. The obelisk was erected after Antinoos death and certainly
while Sabina was still alive (AD 130-137/138) as we can infer by the lines of the
north side: “Sabina, who lives….” The illustrations and hieroglyphics on the obelisk
celebrate deified Antinoos, called Osirantinoos the Reborn and Ever-Living, and
Hadrian. In what concerns us here, on the east side of the obelisk, Osirantinoos
addresses a prayer to Re-Harachte. Among other things he asks the god to reward
534
It seems improbable that Epiphanius who spent many years in Egypt was not aware of Antinoos’
death. The omission here is perhaps due to his Christian sentiments: it is possible that the story was
very offensive to him.
535
BMCRE III. 1552-1553; 1617-1620.
536
Birley (1997) 257ff.
537
I follow Mary Boatwright’ text here: Boatwright (1987) 239-260.
194
Hadrian, the beloved of the Nile and the Gods, "who lives, is safe and healthy, just
like the Sun in a fresh, beautiful youthful age”, and later on, “Sabina lives, is safe and
healthy, Augusta, who lives forever”.
The obelisk was certainly erected by Hadrian in Antinoopolis and in all
probability the emperor was responsible for the composition of the text. The lines on
the east side seem to express not so much Hadrian’s conviction, but rather his hope
that Antinoos’s sacrifice brought the results he wished for and the magi promised him.
Unfortunately, as we know, Hadrian never recovered from his illness. And when all
doctors had failed to cure him, he then again resorted to occult arts, as Dio tells us:
“Hadrian by certain charms and quack remedies was relieved for some time of his
dropsy, but soon he was filled with water again.”538
It is interesting that in Dio’s History the use of charms, spells, and magic arts,
is treated from a negative point of view. In his work, all three words, “µαγείαι”,
“µαγγανείαι”, and “γοητείαι” are either the work of non-Romans (sometimes helping
but usually resulting to endangering individuals)539
, or the constant occupation of evil
and immoral individuals540
, who quite often are banned from Rome541
. It is
noteworthy that no emperor other than Hadrian is presented in his work as constantly
employing such arts.
The negative position of Dio towards such practices is most clearly manifested
in the famous fictitious speech of Maecenas to Augustus. In a part of the speech
538
Dio Cassius 69.22.1: Ἁδριανὸς δὲ µαγγανείαις µέν τισι καὶ γοητείαις ἐκενοῦτό ποτε τοῦ ὑγροῦ,
πάλιν δ’ αὐτοῦ διὰ ταχέος ἐπίµπλατο.
539
So a native of Mauretania performing in the presence of the ex-praetor Gnaeus Hosidius Geta
(60.9.4); or an Egyptian magician, a companion of Marcus Aurelius, during the war against the Quadi
(71.8.4). Xiphilinus doubts the authenticity of the incident (71.9.2-3), by emphatically claiming that
Marcus was not finding pleasure in the company of magicians or in witchcraft: οὐδὲ γὰρ µάγων
συνουσίαις καὶ γοητείαις ὁ Μάρκος χαίρειν ἱστόρηται.
540
So Agrippina in order to seduce Claudius (61.11.3).
541
As in the case of Agrippa who banished astrologers and magicians from Rome (49.43.5), and
Tiberius, who acted in a similar manner (57.15.7-8).
195
Meacenas objected to the worship of the living emperor (52.35-36)542
. The speaker
asserts that there should be no formal worship of the emperor, no gold or silver
images, and no temples. Only virtue brings its reward, including a close
approximation to divinity, and no vote or formal institution can replace this. He
further urges Augustus to be the guardian of the worship of the gods and punish those
who introduce new religions, since this could lead to anomaly. Therefore, he adds,
“do not permit anybody to be an atheist or a sorcerer (µήτ’ οὖν ἀθέῳ τινὶ µήτε γόητι
συγχωρήσῃς εἶναι-52.36.2-3). Soothsaying, he continues, is a necessary and good art,
but there ought to be no workers in magic at all (τοὺς δὲ δὴ µαγευτὰς πάνυ οὐκ εἶναι
προσήκει-52.36.3), for their sayings and deeds encourage rebellious actions.
Foreign divinities, magic arts, charms and spells not only undermine the
position of the gods of the Roman pantheon, but above all are a continuous threat to
the cohesion and stability of the imperial system. Apparently, the latter is what alarms
Dio the most. Therefore, in his negative view of Hadrian’s interest in these arts, the
author does not merely act as an advocate of Roman religion, but rather as a defender
of the entire structure of the empire. Without doubt, Dio’s views reflect those of the
Senatorial class, which perhaps considered itself the guardian of the state. Certainly
the senators did not welcome such attitudes by a princeps, who, in Hadrian’s case,
seems to betray old Roman traditions by the adoption of such practices. Perhaps
different was the situation in the East where people were probably more eager to
accept a ruler who had interest in oracles, divinations and magic arts. Hadrian’s
familiarity with these arts and his apparent lack of fear to learn them and employ them
demonstrates even more his desire for an empire that would not focus on the
assimilation of non-Roman peoples but rather would be ready to accept foreign
542
For a recent discussion of the subject of imperial cult in this speech see Fishwick (1990).
196
traditions and idiosyncrasies. In other words, an empire that would bring together all
its distinct elements, mostly Roman and Greek, and would not fear to exploit them for
its benefit.
This desire for accepting, improving and exploiting elements from both
Greeks and Romans for the benefit of the empire was also much evident in Hadrian’s
promotion of the cult of Roma and attachment to that of Zeus to which I will now
turn.
5.5 Consolidating Traditions
In this section I will discuss Hadrian’s emphasis on the cult of Dea Roma in
the West, and how this can be paralleled with the cult of Zeus in the East. Although
modern scholars have discussed both phenomena, no one has placed them in the
sphere of politics with regard to Hadrian’s vision for the Empire.
By providing ancient evidence and discussing modern scholarship I will argue
that a) the cult of Dea Roma was a crucial tool in Hadrian’s plans for the Greek East
and the empire; b) the promotion of the cult of Roma must not be interpreted as
Romanocentric but rather as empire-focusing; by promoting her cult the emperor
focused more on a unification of the empire’s elements rather than their total
Romanization; c) in his association with and assimilation to Zeus the emperor did not
simply express the established belief that the emperor was the image of the father of
gods on earth; I suggest that Hadrian had to reinvent himself as Zeus in the East as a
response to Trajan’s assimilation to Jupiter in the Latin West. Hadrian’s association
with Zeus is what helped him the most, in the sphere of religion, to promote his
program among the Greek people; and finally, d) the cult of the two deities advanced
197
the idea of two cultural centers, one in the West, centered around Rome, and one in
the East, centered around the great cities of the Greek mainland and Asia Minor.
5.5.1 The Cult of Dea Roma
The basic studies of the cult of Roma in the Greek World and its development
in the West remain the two almost contemporary works by Ronald Mellor and Carla
Fayer543
. First I will summarize the evidence regarding the cult of the goddess from
these two works and next I will turn to Hadrian’s policy with regard to her cult.
Already from at least the end of the third century BC the Greek East had found
in the idea of the goddess Roma a way to deal with the political reality of Roman
power and the increasing presence of Rome in the area. However, the first official
appearance of the cult did not occur until the early second century BC. It was the
Smyrnaeans that first built a temple to the goddess. According to Tacitus, when the
Koinon of Asia had been granted permission to build a temple to Tiberius, Livia, and
the Senate, envoys from eleven cities came to Rome to plead for the privilege of
constructing it544
. The candidates were narrowed down to Smyrna and Sardeis.
Presenting their case, the Smyrnaean ambassadors argued that among the many ties
between their city and Rome was that they were the first to build a temple for the
goddess Roma in the consulship of Marcus Porcius Cato (195)545
. Eventually, the
Senate granted Smyrna and not Sardeis the new temple.
For the next two centuries the cult centered on Roma as the personification
and deification of the Roman state and its power. It is important that during that
543
Mellor (1975) (see also (1981)) and Fayer (1976).
544
Annals 4.55ff.
545
Annals 4.56: seque primos templum urbis Romae statuisse, M. Porcio consule, magnis quidem iam
populi Romani rebus, nondum tamen ad summum elatis, stante adhuc Punica urbe et validis per Asiam
regibus.
198
period her cult was limited to the East only. It seems that Rome was not interesting in
promoting a cult the object of which was herself. The advent of the empire changed
the role of Roma. Now the worship of the princeps joined that of Roma. Already early
in Augustus’ reign the emperor received delegates from Asia and Bithynia who
requested permission to establish cults and dedicate temples to him. The emperor
exercised particular caution lest he seem to accept suspect honors and succumb to
oriental excess. Therefore, he permitted two temples in each province: one dedicated
to Roma and Augustus (at Pergamos and Nicomedeia) for the non-Roman
populations, and the second dedicated to Roma and Divus Iulius (at Ephesos and
Nicaea) for resident Romans546
. Thus Augustus allowed himself to be linked to Roma
in the East and later brought their joint worship to the West, even if not to Rome
itself, an action which seems to have promoted loyalty and solidarity.
Augustus’ successors did not pursue the cult of Roma. According to Mellor,
there was no longer any political rationale for the inclusion of Roma in the imperial
cult547
. “If she remained,” he continues, “it was usually out of inertia and religious
conservatism”. Through the reigns of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and even for the first
decade of Nero’s rule, Roma disappeared from imperial coinage. Despite very
sporadic and occasional mentions it was only after the civil wars of 69 that Roma
reappeared on coins. Trajan, in turn, was interested in the promotion of her cult, but
his reign did not bring Roma to the capital.
546
Dio Cassius 51.20.6-7: Καῖσαρ δὲ ἐν τούτῳ τά τε ἄλλα ἐχρηµάτιζε, καὶ τεµένη τῇ τε Ῥώµῃ καὶ τῷ
πατρὶ τῷ Καίσαρι, ἥρωα αὐτὸν Ἰούλιον ὀνοµάσας, ἔν τε Ἐφέσῳ καὶ ἐν Νικαίᾳ γενέσθαι ἐφῆκεν· αὗται
γὰρ τότε αἱ πόλεις ἔν τε τῇ Ἀσίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ Βιθυνίᾳ προετετίµηντο. καὶ τούτους µὲν τοῖς Ῥωµαίοις τοῖς
παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἐποικοῦσι τιµᾶν προσέταξε· τοῖς δὲ δὴ ξένοις, Ἕλληνάς σφας ἐπικαλέσας, ἑαυτῷ τινα,
τοῖς µὲν Ἀσιανοῖς ἐν Περγάµῳ τοῖς δὲ Βιθυνοῖς ἐν Νικοµηδείᾳ, τεµενίσαι ἐπέτρεψε. Also Tacitus,
Annals 4.37.
547
Mellor (1975) 26.
199
The turning point was Hadrian’s desire to re-invest in the neglected cult. He
expressed this desire in the most visible and impressive way: the construction of the
Temple of Venus and Roma in Rome. Hadrian himself seems to have personally
designed the temple, as Dio Cassius tells us548
. The temple was consecrated in 121, on
the April 21st of which Hadrian celebrated the Parilia under a new name, Rhomaia,
that is, the Natalis Urbis Romae. Athenaeus, in The Deipnosophistae, remarks on the
joyful and crowded celebrations of the Rhomaia for the Fortune of the city of Rome,
to which the best and most accomplished-in-arts emperor Hadrian dedicated a
temple549
. Perhaps the temple was consecrated on the 21st of April too. However,
construction did not begin until 125-6. As for the completion of the temple, there is
disagreement among scholars and the date varies from 135-137550
, when it was
dedicated, to early in Pius’ reign551
.
Mary Boatwright has provided a detailed architectural description of the
temple552
. Here I will only focus on those elements that pertain to my discussion of
Roma’s cult in the empire. The temple was located at the far-east side of the Forum
Romanum and clearly visible from it. It almost became a counterpoint to the temple
of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill at the other end of the Forum. Of all the buildings
that Hadrian constructed in Rome, this was the most central one. The temple itself
consisted of two main chambers, cellae, each housing a cult statue. The cellae were
arranged symmetrically back-to-back. In the west cella, Roma Aeterna’s statue was
548
Dio Cassius 69.4.1ff.
549
Deipnosophistae 8.63: τοιούτων οὖν ἔτι πολλῶν λεγοµένων τότε ἐξάκουστος ἐγένετο κατὰ πᾶσαν
τὴν πόλιν αὐλῶν τε βόµβος καὶ κυµβάλων ἦχος ἔτι τε τυµπάνων κτύπος µετὰ ᾠδῆς ἅµα γινόµενος.
ἔτυχεν δὲ οὖσα ἑορτὴ τὰ Παρίλια µὲν πάλαι καλουµένη, νῦν δὲ Ῥωµαῖα, τῇ τῆς πόλεως Τύχῃ ναοῦ
καθιδρυµένου ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντα ἀρίστου καὶ µουσικωτάτου βασιλέως Ἀδριανοῦ· ἐκείνην τὴν ἡµέραν
κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐπίσηµον ἄγουσι πάντες οἱ τὴν Ῥώµην κατοικοῦντες καὶ οἱ ἐνεπιδηµοῦντες τῇ πόλει.
550
So, Mols (2003) 462.
551
As Boatwright (1987) 123 suggests.
552
Boatwright (1987) 119-133.
200
looking out over the Forum, while in the east one, Venus Felix was looking out over
the Colosseum.
As far as the cult statues are concerned, the Hadrianic coins that depict the
statues make clear that they must have looked similar. Venus Felix sits in a throne,
wearing a long robe and a diadem; in her outstretched right hand she holds a winged
Amor, and in her raised left hand a vertical reversed spear553
. Roma Aeterna sits on a
curule chair, wears a long robe and a helmet. In her right hand she holds a winged
Victoria or the Palladium, and in her left hand a vertical spear, but not reversed554
.
Hadrian’s dedication of the temple to Venus Felix can hardly be a surprise.
Hadrian’s choice shows his pietas towards the genetrix of the ever-popular JulioClaudian
dynasty, especially Augustus555
. This provided an important way to
legitimize power in spatial terms by associating his reign with the Julio-Claudians something
Hadrian had partly taken care of by finishing Trajan’s forum and
dedicating it to his adoptive father556
. The epithet Felix indicates that this Venus was
especially a goddess of fecundity and prosperity.
The other dedicatee of the temple is what gives most value to it. The epithet
Aeterna refers to a hopeful future, an everlasting imperium. As Stephan Mols
correctly argued, the goddess’ iconography, depicting her sitting on a cella curulis or
on a throne, is clearly divergent from the goddess Roma as she was put forward by the
Julio-Claudians, amongst others on the Ara Pacis, where she is shown sitting on a pile
of weapons. She similarly differs from the Flavian Roma as depicted on, amongst
553
See for example BMCRE III.334,751.
554
See BMCRE III.329, 703 (Victory); 708 (Palladium).
555
See in this context, the association of Venus Genetrix with the imperial family on Hadrianic coinage
from Rome and the provinces: thus, Venus Genetrix appears on the reverses of an aureus and a silver
denarius from Rome with Hadrian’s and Sabina busts on the obverse respectively (BMCRE III.307,
529, and 360, 944), and on the reverse of a coin from Asia Minor, the obverse of which depicts
Hadrian’s bust (BMCRE III.379, 12).
556
Mols (2003) 461.
201
others, the Cancelleria reliefs, helmeted and holding a shield with the gorgonion,
therefore borrowing attributes from Athena, as it was often the case in the East557
.
As we saw, before Hadrian, no Roman emperor had been interested in
establishing a cult for the goddess in the capital. Hadrian’s initiative held a symbolism
not only with regard to the cult of the goddess but also the city of Rome and the entire
empire. As Jean Beaujeu stated in La religion Romaine: “l’installation du culte de
Rome dans la Capitale de l’Empire, avec son contexte de l’Age d’or, est la plus
grande entreprise religieuse du règne d’Hadrian, la plus importante sans doute depuis
la mort du fondateur du régime imperial.”558
In what concerns the city of Rome, the
introduction of her cult is certainly a remarkable initiative, but not an isolated
manifestation of the emperor’s reverence for and interest in the goddess.
We can see traces of the emperor’s interest in the art of the period.
Accordingly, in a relief now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Hadrian emphasized the
role of the goddess in the line of succession and in the administration of the empire. A
helmeted Roma stretches her hand forward to greet Hadrian and hand him the globe.
These two figures dominate the foreground with the Genius populi Romani and the
Genius Senatus standing just behind559
. The scene on the relief is very similar, in the
expressed idea, to Hadrianic Adventus issues which show the dextrarum junctio
between Roma and the emperor560
, and also to issues from Rome of 134-138, where
Roma is shown standing between Hadrian and the Genius Senatus561
. The goddess
draws the right hand of Hadrian towards that of the Genius.
557
Mols (2003) 462.
558
Beaujeu (1955) 160.
559
Mellor (1981) 1014.
560
e.g BMCRE III.316, 586 from Rome, dated to 134-138.
561
BMCRE III.303, 506.
202
Hadrian’s association with the goddess does not fade outside of Rome. The
atelier of the Macedonian city Edessa reopened in 131/132. Actually, the city had not
issued coins since the reign of Tiberius. Now, under Hadrian, the city issued a single
series562
. On the obverse we see the laureate bust of the emperor. The iconography of
the reverse inaugurates a scene that would last until the closing of the atelier by Philip
the Arab563
. The goddess Roma, portrayed with the characteristics of Athena, is
shown sitting on arms. Behind her, a woman, which is Edessa, crowns the goddess. It
is noteworthy that the city in its single issue in almost hundred years honors not only
the Philhellenic emperor, but also the personification of the Roman imperium, Roma.
We know that the goddess was worshipped in Macedonia564
, but so far there is no
evidence of her cult in the city. Therefore, this issue has special value for the image of
the goddess in the region.
Hadrian is associated with Roma again on the coinage of the Bithynian
Koinon. On the reverse of this bronze series, a large temple dominates the scene.
Inside the temple, Hadrian, holding a scepter, is crowned by Roma who holds a
palm565
. Behind him, the personification of the province, Bithynia holds a scepter.
The legend reads Κοινὸν Βειθυνίας566
. The scene in all probability alludes to the
addition of Hadrian’s cult to the provincial temple of Roma and Augustus in
Nicomedeia.
As I said above Roma entered the capital for the first time now, and her cult
was served there by a new college of duodecimviri and in the provinces by
sacerdotes. It is also interesting that after the Republic whenever Roma was included
562
Papaefthymiou (2001) 72ff.
563
Papaefthymiou (2001) 72ff.
564
See the evidence gathered by Mellor (1975) 211.
565
BMC XIII Bithynia 108,32.
566
For a variation of the reverse see SNG Denmark 18.323.
203
in a provincial cult it was always in the company of the living emperor. Moreover, as
Mary Boatwright states, the coupling of Venus and Roma was very rare until
Hadrian567
. What lies, then, behind this new promotion of the cult of Roma by
Hadrian?
According to Mary Boatwright the temple documented that for Hadrian Rome
was materially and ideally the center of the Roman world and substantiated Hadrian’s
claims to be a new founder of the city, another Romulus Conditor. The temple and its
cult were more national than dynastic, breaking precedent with earlier imperial
temples in and around the Forum by exalting the strength and origins of Rome and the
Roman people above those of an individual family. As a result it would unite all
Romans in a new state cult that reflected their glory and their origins. Yet, this
national temple, she argues, epitomizes the Roman empire of Hadrian’s day, since the
temple, which was the largest in Rome, was strongly Greek in its general
appearance568
.
Following along the same lines, Stephan Mols argues that the cult aimed first
and foremost at the population of Rome. As an argument he brings forth the location
of the cult statue of the goddess. As it is known, the statue was placed in the western
cella, that is, on the Forum Romanum side of the temple, and thus at the side of the
city center. Had Roma been intended as an empire-wide goddess from the very
beginning, he argues, a position at the country- or east-side would have been far more
appropriate569
. The argument seems week and not supported by any comparative
evidence. The author further claims that the Greek language of the new cult statue of
567
Boatwright (1987) 128.
568
Boatwright (1987) 132ff.
569
Mols (2003) 463.
204
Roma helped to create a counterpart to the Athena Parthenos570
. The argument is
totally unfounded. Images of the goddess with the attributes of Athena are widespread
throughout the empire (even during the Republic), while his theory of a “counterpart”
implies that Athena Parthenos’ cult was advanced by Hadrian. However, there is no
such evidence either literary or other, and Hadrian’s promotion of Athens and his
statue on the Acropolis cannot be interpreted as sponsorship of Athena. If there was a
deity whom Hadrian favored in particular and was identified with, it was Zeus, to
whom I will return later.
It is true that the temple and the cult, established in the center of the life of the
capital, appealed first of all to the people of Rome. However, scholars have failed to
see beyond this and acknowledge three facts: first, that Hadrian by renewing the cult
of the Goddess in the West picked up from where the first emperor stopped almost a
hundred years ago. We know that Augustus was the one who transferred the joint cult
of Roma and Augustus from the Greek East to the provinces of the Latin West.
Hadrian, now, continues Augustus’s work and finally brings Roma, the cult of which
started in the Greek East, within the pomerium, thus connecting East, West and Rome.
Moreover, the fact that the statue depicted a goddess with the attributes of Athena in
the cella of a temple with strong Greek elements testifies to the blending of Roman
and Greek traditions in the heart of Rome. It is clear that the designer of the temple,
Hadrian, had a broader image of the empire in his plans.
Second, it is revealing of Hadrian’s thoughts that Roma was introduced not in
the joint-cult of Augusti nor was she added to the temple of Augustus at Rome. The
goddess was introduced as an independent entity, and this increases her importance as
a Roman deity, which was one of Hadrian’s objectives. The goddess coexists in the
570
Mols (2003) 464.
205
temple with Venus, but this serves more as an emphasis of the association of the
emperor with Venus Genetrix and as a consequence with the mythical, Trojan origins
of the city. More importantly though the emperor displayed his association with the
Julio-Claudians whose genetrix Venus was, and especially with Augustus, rather than
with the Roman people. We know that Hadrian wished to model himself on the first
princeps, and he certainly would not miss the opportunity to show his intent to do so
in this case. The emphasized role, then, of Roma, and the inclusion of the Augustan
line in the monument gave legitimacy to his rule in a much recognizable way.
Finally, the rebirth of Roma’s cult is a confirmation of Hadrian’s passion for
restoration and revitalization as it has been seen, for example, in the completion of the
Olympieion and the restoration of the temple of Augustus at Tarraco in 121. The
emperor renewed a cult forsaken by his predecessors and he even gave the goddess
traditional Greek attributes in the midst of Rome. The extent to which her cult
survived in the empire after Hadrian’s reign is not yet known. However, her cult was
still attested both in the West and the Greek East well into the third century571
. Roma
Aeterna remained a symbol of the longevity of the empire well into Christian times,
even though she was not considered a Dea anymore572
. Perhaps it is not a coincidence
that even in modern times people refer to Rome as the Eternal City.
However, it is a mistake to argue that the revival of her cult addressed only the
people of Rome as scholars argued above. Under Hadrian, Roma through her cult in
the East, her connection with Augustus, and her continuing cult in the empire, has to
be perceived as a goddess for the empire as a whole573
. A cult that would exclude a
significant part of the empire (the Greeks among others) from participating in it was
571
The survival of her cult in the Greek East is a topic worth exploring. The absence of such discussion
in Mellor’s Thea Roma is a major fault in it.
572
Mellor (1981) 1024ff.
573
Contra Mols (2003) 463.
206
not in agreement with Hadrian’s empire-wide plans. His vision for the empire was a
broader one and included all its elements, above all Roman and Greek. The revival of
her cult served as a medium to strengthen the ties between the two parts of the empire,
East and West, and to bring closer its distinct cultures. Thus Roma Aeterna served as
a link between Romans and Greeks and showed Hadrian’s interest in the equal
development of both parts.
Roma was not the only deity that served as a means to promote Hadrian’s
program. As we will see, Hadrian’s devotion to Zeus in the East revealed clearly his
desire to set his Greeks on an equal partnership with his Roman subjects.
5.5.2 Hadrian Zeus, son of Trajan Jupiter
Beyond any doubt, the deity with which Hadrian wished to associate himself
(and was associated by the Greeks) the most was Zeus, the father of gods. Although
modern scholarship lacks a monograph on Hadrian’s image as Zeus, some
information can be retrieved from the scanty literary sources, the recent biography of
the emperor by Anthony Birley (1997), while Anna Benjamin’s collection of
epigraphic data (1963) remains valuable even though it has to be supplemented with
new material.
Hadrian was identified with Zeus throughout the Greek East as can be seen in
Benjamin’s collection of inscriptions. As we saw before, the epithets that
accompanied him in his identification with Zeus prove the broadness of imagination
and willingness of the Greeks to see him as a manifestation of the great god in their
dedications and public records: he was Zeus Epikarpios at Corycos; Panhellenios at
Athens, Ephesos and elsewhere; Olympios throughout the East, in Greek cities and
Roman colonies alike; Epiphanes at Ephesos; Dodonaios at Nikopolis; Kynegesios at
207
Stratonikeia- Hadrianopolis; he was even the son of Trajan Zeus Eleutherios at
Athens. As such, Hadrian was often honored jointly with his wife Sabina (in the guise
of new Hera) as for example at Philippi and Thasos574
.
Popular imagination is also seen in episodes narrated by our literary sources.
The Historia Augusta relates how the emperor once killed a lion with his own
hands575
. It was in Egypt that the emperor met Pancrates, who composed a poem
(mentioned by Athenaeus and fragmentarily preserved on a papyrus) to celebrate the
successful hunt in the Libyan desert576
. A fragment of the poem describes Antinoos
awaiting the lion with spear in his hand. But it was Hadrian who struck first, but
deliberately only wounded the animal for he wished to test the skill of Antinoos, son
of Hermes577
. The stricken animal grew fiercer and in rage tore at the ground with his
paws….. His eyes were flashing dreadful fire, his ravening jaws were foaming, and
his teeth were gnashing578
….. In such guise the beast charged against the glorious god
(Hadrian) and Antinoos, like Typhoeus of old against Zeus the slayer of giants,
ὣς ὅ γ’ ἔβη] κατέναντα θ[εοῦ] κλυτοῦ Ἀντι[νόου τε,
οἷα γιγαντ[ο]λ[έταο] ∆ιὸς πά[ρο]ς ἄντα Τυφωεύ[ς. (24-25)
574
Philippi: AnnEp 1984.818: Imp(eratori)/Hadriano/Olympio/et Iunoni Con/iugali Sabina[e]; Thasos:
IG XII, Suppl. 440: Αὐτοκράτορι/Καίσαρι/Ἁδριανῷ Σεβαστῷ/Ὀλυµπίῳ/σωτῆρι καὶ κτιστῇ/καὶ
Σαβείνῃ/Σεβαστῇ/νέᾳ Ἥρᾳ.
For Sabina’s assimilation with Hera in the epigraphical record see dedications from Metropolis (IEph
4111), Patara (TAM II 412), and Tlos (TAM II 560).
575
HA Hadrian 26.3: venatus frequentissime leonem manu sua occidit.
576
See above note 529.
577
Fragment 2, col. 2, ll. 3-9:
τοῖ]ον ἐφεζόµενος δαµασήν[ο]ρα µίµνε λέοντα
Ἀ]ντίνοος λαιῆι µὲν ἔχων ῥυτῆρα χαλινόν,
δεξιτερῆι δ’ ἔγχος κεκορυθµένο[ν] ἐξ ἀδάµαντος.
πρῶτος δ’ Ἀδριανὸς προιεὶς χαλκήρεον ἔγχος
οὔτασεν, οὐδὲ δάµασσεν, ἑκὼν γὰρ ἀπήµβροτε θ[ηρός·
ε]ὐστοχίης γὰρ πάµπαν ἐβούλετο πειρηθῆναι
Ἀ]ργειφοντιάδαο µεγηράτ[ου Ἀντι]νόοιο.
578
Fragment 2, col 2, l. 10ff.
208
The remaining damaged lines tell how the lion mauled Antinoos’ horse and was then
struck evidently by Hadrian579
. Hadrian is the skilled hunter that can subdue beasts
and tame wild forces. Moreover, he is the Zeus who crushes the ravaging force of
Typhoeus, a god who defeats disorder and chaos and secures order and prosperity for
his people. The emperor was so pleased with Pancrates’ verse that he granted him
double allowance at the Museum of Alexandria.
It was only natural that his subjects would look up to him as Zeus given the
gifts and privileges he granted to cities all over the Greek East. It was his building
program at Athens that proves this the most and manifests in an impressive way his
piety towards the god and of course Hadrian’s concern with his public image and
posterity. His program at Athens has been extensively dealt with by previous scholars,
to whom I refer for detailed discussion of the monuments580
. The monument which
contributed the most to the creation of Hadrian’s image as Zeus was the sanctuary of
Zeus Olympios at Athens.
The massive temple stood incomplete for almost six hundred years since
Peisistratos began construction at the site. Now Hadrian set the Olympieion at the
heart of his program for the embellishment of Athens. The temple was dedicated in
128 and the completion came almost four years later in 131/132. Polemon, the
sophist, was selected to deliver the inauguration speech581
. Hadrian dedicated a
colossal chryselephantine statue of Zeus in the sekos of the Olympieion582
; four
579
Fragment 2, col 2, l. 26ff.
580
Willers (1990), Boatwright (2000).
581
Polemon: Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 533: τὸ δὲ Ἀθήνησιν Ὀλύµπιον δι’ ἑξήκοντα καὶ
πεντακοσίων ἐτῶν ἀποτελεσθὲν καθιερώσας ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ, ὡς χρόνου µέγα ἀγώνισµα, ἐκέλευσε καὶ
τὸν Πολέµωνα ἐφυµνῆσαι τῇ θυσίᾳ. ὁ δέ, ὥσπερ εἰώθει, στήσας τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς ἤδη
παρισταµένας ἐννοίας ἐπαφῆκεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς κρηπῖδος τοῦ νεὼ διελέχθη πολλὰ καὶ
θαυµάσια.
582
As the statue of Zeus in Olympieion was chryselephantine, it recalled the cult statue of Zeus at
Olympia, and that of Athena in the Parthenon, both made by Pheidias.
209
larger-than-life-size statues of Hadrian himself stood before its entrance (two of
Thasian marble, two of porphyry). Throughout the temenos stood numerous bronze
statues which the Athenians named colonies and many statues of Hadrian Olympios,
most of which were dedicated by the Panhellenion cities. The statue bases of Hadrian
Olympios from all over the Greek world suggest the Panhellenic character of the
Olympieion. Hadrian also received a colossus from the Athenians in the sanctuary,
but this, while it may well have been used for worship, stood behind the temple583
.
Although the Olympieion served primarily for the worship of Zeus, it is possible that
it was also associated with Hadrian and the imperial cult, even though the emperor
was not worshipped there as σύνναος of Zeus Olympios.
In addition to the Olympieion, Hadrian launched the construction of two other
buildings, one a temple of Hera and Zeus Panhellenios and a second one for all the
gods, a Pantheon584
. All three buildings have been connected with the Panhellenic
council founded by Hadrian at 131/132. Accordingly, Antony Birley suggests that the
Olympieion “could well have been served as the meeting-place of the
Panhellenion”585
; Spawforth and Walker suggest that the Pantheon was not really a
temple but the meeting place of the council586
; and Mary Boatwright alludes to a
possible connection of the Panhellenion with the temple of Hera and Zeus
583
Pausanias 1.18.6: Ἀδριανὸς ὁ Ῥωµαίων βασιλεὺς τόν τε ναὸν ἀνέθηκε καὶ τὸ ἄγαλµα θέας ἄξιον, οὗ
µεγέθει µέν, ὅτι µὴ Ῥοδίοις καὶ Ῥωµαίοις εἰσὶν οἱ κολοσσοί, τὰ λοιπὰ ἀγάλµατα ὁµοίως ἀπολείπεται,
πεποίηται δὲ ἔκ τε ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ καὶ ἔχει τέχνης εὖ πρὸς τὸ µέγεθος ὁρῶσιν—, ἐνταῦθα
εἰκόνες Ἀδριανοῦ δύο µέν εἰσι Θασίου λίθου, δύο δὲ Αἰγυπτίου· χαλκαῖ δὲ ἑστᾶσι πρὸ τῶν κιόνων ἃς
Ἀθηναῖοι καλοῦσιν ἀποίκους πόλεις. ὁ µὲν δὴ πᾶς περίβολος σταδίων µάλιστα τεσσάρων ἐστίν,
ἀνδριάντων δὲ πλήρης· ἀπὸ γὰρ πόλεως ἑκάστης εἰκὼν Ἀδριανοῦ βασιλέως ἀνάκειται, καὶ σφᾶς
ὑπερεβάλοντο Ἀθηναῖοι τὸν κολοσσὸν ἀναθέντες ὄπισθε τοῦ ναοῦ θέας ἄξιον.
Pausanias also mentions a statue of Hadrian standing next to that of his adoptive father in the pronaos
of the temple of Zeus at Olympia (5.12.6). In this context fits the erection of Hadrian’s statue in the
Parthenon beside the cult statue of Athena Parthenos, mentioned by the same author (1.24.7). It should
be emphasized that Hadrian’s was the only statue of a Roman emperor there.
584
Pausanias 1.18.9: Ἀδριανὸς δὲ κατεσκευάσατο µὲν καὶ ἄλλα Ἀθηναίοις, ναὸν Ἥρας καὶ ∆ιὸς
Πανελληνίου καὶ θεοῖς τοῖς πᾶσιν ἱερὸν κοινόν. Cf. Dio Cassius 69.16.2
585
Birley (1997) 266.
586
Spawforth and Walker (1985) 97ff.
210
Panhellenios (“The temple, perhaps designated the Panhellenion, was special to the
Panhellenian League”). She also argues that the same temple included a shrine, or, at
least a statue, of Hadrian Panhellenios587
.
In any case, after 128 Hadrian included the epithet Olympios in his
nomenclature. Indeed, from 128 onwards the commonest epithet of Hadrian was
Olympios or the variation Hadrianos Zeus Olympios. In Sparta there was a civic cult
of Zeus Olympios in Hadrian’s honor, and in Athens the emperor founded the
Olympia games in honor of Zeus Olympios. In adopting the epithet Olympios,
Hadrian was in fact emphasizing his Panhellenic program, for Zeus Olympios, chief
deity of the Greeks, is the Panhellenic god. Hadrian becomes the new Zeus. The
emperor is the reincarnation of that Zeus of the old myths and becomes the head of
Olympos. At the same time by receiving the epithet Panhellenios he becomes the
power that presides over the commonwealth of the Greek cities, he is the Zeus of all
the Greeks.
The emperor was an expert in promoting himself by appearing as the inheritor
of the legacy of antiquity. Therefore, he did not limit his efforts to Athens. Hadrian
benefited from his close association with other long-established religious centers such
as Delphi, where he was offered the titles Pythios and neos Pythios by the Achaean
League in 126, or Ephesos where his gifts to the city and in particular the sanctuary of
Artemis gave him a status equal to that of Zeus. In a decree of 129, during Hadrian’s
visit there, the council and the people of Ephesos honored the emperor for a number
of favors588
: provision for the corn supply (ll. 12-13), making the harbors navigable
(ll.13-14) and diverting the Caystros river (ll. 14-16). Most of all, though, they
587
Boatwright (2000) 170.
588
IEph 274.
211
expressed their gratitude for his unsurpassable gifts to the sanctuary by granting it the
right of receiving legacies: διδόντα τῇ θεῷ τῶν κληρο/νοµιῶν καὶ βεβληκότων τὰ
δίκαια/καὶ τοὺς νόµους αὐτῆς (ll. 10-12). The emperor continued bestowing gifts to the
city and in 131/132 allowed the city to build a temple for his cult, thus making it twice
neokoros. It was a move without precedent as Hadrian, by allowing the city to have
the second neokorate, became the first emperor to grant three neokorates in the same
Koinon, of Asia. The other two were to Smyrna, around 124, and to Cyzicus, in
123/124589
.
Such benefactions could not pass unnoticed and additional honors were given
to Hadrian on the coinage of the city. A cistophoric issue of 129 reflects this spirit of
gratitude. Hadrian is shown on the reverse with the legend “Hadrianus Augustus
co(n)s(ul) III p(ater) p(atriae).” The legend of the reverse seems to be a continuation
of these titles, “Iovis Olympius Ephesi". The god is shown sitting on a throne, holding
scepter in his left hand, while in his outstretched right hand he holds a small cult
image of the Ephesian Artemis590
. The worship of Zeus Olympios was not new to
Ephesos and by the time of Pausanias his temple was well known591
. William Metcalf
was the first to advance the theory that the image and legend on the reverse talk about
Hadrian himself592
. The date of the issue seems to coincide with the visit of the
emperor and the gifts mentioned in the decree. The portrayal of the god holding the
cult statue of the Ephesian Artemis epitomizes the relationship between the emperor
and the city: the emperor shows his pietas towards the goddess and contributes to the
welfare of the sanctuary and by consequence of the city. He is the lord and protector
of the city. Identification of the emperor and the god is surely intended.
589
For the institution of neocoria see Burrell (2004).
590
Metcalf (1980) 17.14;15.
591
Pausanias 7.2.9.
592
Metcalf (1974).
212
Hadrian’s devotion to Zeus and to his image as Zeus in the region was not
simply the expression of the belief that the emperor was Zeus’ earthly counterpart
appointed by him and endowed with his providence and virtues. I would like to
suggest that role to his widespread assimilation with Zeus played Trajan’s
assimilation with Jupiter in the West. The Latin West already had its own Jupiter,
Trajan, and it is not certain that Hadrian’s efforts would come to a happy end there
given the Senate’s preference for his father and enmity towards him. Hadrian desired
to shine upon his Greek subjects as a new earthly Zeus, even better than his adoptive
father. Eventually, it was his assimilation with Zeus that contributed the most in the
sphere of religion to the promotion of his vision among the easterners. Therefore, we
should briefly take a look at Trajan as Jupiter here.
Dio Cassius informs us that when Trajan had captured the land of the
Armenians and brought their kings to his own terms, the Senate voted to him all the
usual honors and also bestowed upon him the title Optimus593
. This statement
obviously reflects Trajan’s official acceptance of the honor in 114, after the Senate
once again had implored him to accept the title. The appellation Optimus was
normally restricted to Jupiter, Optimus Maximus, whose temple dominated the
Capitoline Hill. Pliny, probably reflecting public sentiment, had attached the epithet to
Trajan as early as February 98 (Letters 10.1.2; Panegyricus 2.7; 88.4). By his
assimilation with Jupiter the emperor was transformed from a mere mortal into a
leader destined by providence (see above discussion on Trajan deus electus). Once the
epithet was given wider currency, it was natural that it should quickly appear in the
West (and its Greek equivalent, aristos, in the East) on unofficial inscriptions
593
Dio Cassius 68.18.3-23.1: ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶσαν τὴν Ἀρµενίων χώραν εἷλε, καὶ πολλοὺς τῶν βασιλέων τοὺς
µὲν ὑποπεσόντας ἐν τοῖς φίλοις ἦγε, τοὺς δέ τινας καὶ ἀπειθοῦντας ἀµαχεὶ ἐχειροῦτο, τά τε ἄλλα
ἐψηφίζετο αὐτῷ πολλὰ ἡ βουλή, καὶ ὄπτιµον, εἴτ’ οὖν ἄριστον, ἐπωνόµασεν.
213
becoming fairly common in this medium from 101 onwards. Trajan allowed the
coinage to carry the title Optimus, in late 103 or early 104, even if he was careful not
to incorporate it in his formal titulature. Its appearance on the coinage testifies to
something more. The series is characterized by the appearance on the obverse of the
imperial name in the dative case: Imp(eratori) Traiano Aug(usto) Ger(manico)
Dac(cico) P(ontifici) M(aximo) Tr(ibunicia) P(otestate) Co(n)s(ul) V P(atri)
P(atriae), and the dedicatory formula SPQR Optimo Principi on the reverse594
. The
combination of formula and dedicatory dative suggests the passage of a resolution
expressing a spirit of homage and devotion of Rome to the princeps, whose virtues
(most probably in the first Dacian War) made him rank only just after the supreme
deity.
In the East, Trajan was identified with Zeus Eleutherios at Athens595
and with
Zeus Embaterios at Hermione in Peloponnesos596
, but in both cases only after his
death597
. During his life, Trajan was worshipped with Zeus only at Pergamos. Trajan
allowed the city a second neokorate making it the first city to have two imperial
temples. This second temple was dedicated to Zeus Philios and Trajan, and is
sometimes called the Traianeum598
. Games were founded, commonly called simply
the Traianeia, but also known as the Traianeia Diphileia.
The coinage of Pergamos is a witness to the cult. Two different types have
been identified: the first depicts the bust of Trajan on the obverse and that of Zeus on
the reverse, with the legends Αὐτ(οκράτωρ) Τραϊανὸς Σεβαστός, and Ζεύς Φίλιος
594
E.g. BMCRE III.54, 156.
595
See above note 470.
596
IG IV 701.
597
See also Price (1984) 273, 153 for coins of Selinus in Cilicia from three different reigns in the
second and third century that show Trajan within his temple enthroned as Zeus holding thunderbolt and
scepter.
598
See Price (1984) 252, 20 with earlier bibliography.
214
respectively599
; the other type reveals the interior of the temple. On the obverse there
is a tetrastyle temple within which Zeus Philios, holding patera and scepter, is
enthroned. Trajan in military dress, is shown approaching him to do homage. The
legend reads Φίλιος Ζεύς Αὐτ(οκράτωρ) Τραϊανός. Roma and Augustus inside their
local temple appear on the reverse. The legend reads θεᾷ Ῥώµῃ καὶ θεῷ Σεβαστῷ600
.
However, there is a conflict between these coins which depict Zeus and Trajan
and the preserved statues which represent Trajan and Hadrian (Zeus’ statue has not
been found yet). Barbara Burrell rejects the idea that Zeus was ousted by Hadrian and
suggests that according to an unpublished inscription (dated to 135-138) Hadrian
allowed the Pergamenes to set up a portrait of his in the temple601
. The emperor, she
explains, did not permit the city to build a temple for him (wishing to restrain
spending at Pergamos, where they were still working on the porticoes around Trajan’s
temple), and instead he modified the request by allowing the city to put his portrait in
the temple. However, the Pergamenes set up a statue modeled after Trajan’s cult
image, and presumably Hadrian’s statue received similar respects602
.
I believe that Burrell is right and indeed it seems that the erection of his statue
there, at the end of his reign, took place with the intention of him being worshipped.
Both statues, of Trajan and Hadrian, were of colossal size and were found in the sekos
of the temple. I also want to add that given Hadrian’s character it is very unlikely that
the emperor would decline divine honors in the city altogether and especially in the
company of his adoptive father and Zeus, the god he revered the most in the East.
599
Weber Coll. III.1.5212-5213.
600
Weber Coll. III.1.5214.
601
Burrell (2004) 26-27. Also Price (1984) 252, 20. cf. Birley (1997) 166, who enthusiastically claims
that “the great sanctuary was to be turned into a shrine for Trajan and Hadrian together……There was
no room left for Zeus Philios”.
602
Burrell interprets “eikon” as a portrait of Hadrian. However, it should be noted here that the term
“eikon” was used for both “portrait” and “statue” in Greek inscriptions. I am not aware which of the
two meanings is implied here, as the inscription remains unpublished. Until then we should cautiously
accept Burrell’s translation of the word.
215
Hadrian had shown elsewhere his desire to associate himself with both figures,
especially in a religious context. It was at Olympia that a statue of Hadrian was set up
in the pronaos of the temple of Zeus next to that of Trajan by the Achaean League
(Pausanias 5.12.6). Of course, the context is not that of imperial cult, but, still, it
shows one of the characteristics of Hadrian: appropriation of local cults as means of
establishing himself and connecting with the local populations. The same can be also
argued about Hadrian’s statue next to the cult statue of Athena Parthenos in the
Parthenon, an honor offered to no other Roman emperor (Pausanias 1.24.7). Is there
really any doubt that the ancient visitor to the temple at Pergamos, once he saw the
colossal statue of Hadrian in the sekos, would infer that the emperor had a share now
in the worship offered there? Moreover, in what concerns Trajan and Hadrian, we
must underline the fact that Trajan was honored as Zeus after his death while Hadrian
already during his life. In the only instance where Trajan was worshipped along with
(and not as) Zeus at Pergamos Hadrian “intruded” and his cult statue entered the
temple. Thus Hadrian in a sense diminished Trajan’s importance in the temple and
shifted the focus of the Pergamenes on himself.
Hadrian had been by far the most influential imperial figure in the Greek East.
His frequent journeys to the region secured an unprecedented relationship with the
local populations. His philhellenism preceded his arrival to a city, which was viewed
as an epiphany. Hadrian was hailed as Zeus more than any of his predecessors and his
gifts were manifestations of his providence and honest interest in the welfare of the
region. The locals helped him re-invent himself in the form of Zeus. His grants to
small and large sanctuaries alike made him the head of the gods, the leader of the
Pantheon. As such, Hadrian is constantly honored in the monuments of the period.
216
The number of monuments, statues and temples, dedications and inscriptions that are
associated with him, dull the memory not only of his predecessor but also of the
emperors of the first century among the Greeks. Hadrian neos Zeus became the
counterpart of Trajan Jupiter. This identification underlined the importance that Greek
religion had for Hadrian and shifted the interest from the Roman Trajan Jupiter to the
Greek Hadrian Zeus. By promoting the cult of Zeus, Hadrian gave a new emphasis on
traditional Greek religion and refreshed the collective memory of Hellenism. He
created a center, a religious one, around which the Greek populations unified. Jupiter
was a deity that could not appeal to Greek sentiments, but rather remained a symbol
of the Roman people and his role could only relate to them. By assimilating with Zeus
and focusing on his cult the emperor once again rejected his predecessor’s policy of
annexing-and-Romanizing and instead promoted the idea of coexistence of Greek and
Roman traditions for the welfare of the Roman empire. In the words of Jean Beaujeu,
Hadrian practiced a “philhellénisme à dominante jovienne et meme olympienne.”603
I suggest that it is in this context of unification that Hadrian promoted equally
the cults of Zeus in the East and Roma in the West. By building her temple at Rome
and encouraging her cult, Hadrian filled a gap in the Roman Pantheon and corrected
the injustice made by his predecessors after Augustus. Jupiter Optimus Maximus on
the Capitoline Hill was Rome’s most exalted god, but he was hardly distinctive
enough to be the imperial god of Rome’s new empire. Roma’s cult, although still
popular and widespread in the East, could not satisfy the need of the Greeks for
religious leadership by a more familiar, local divine figure. So, in a sense, Hadrian’s
promotion of Zeus responded to this need. Hadrian displayed pietas and devotion to
Roman and Greek deities and traditions alike. At the same time, the religious policy
603
Beaujeu (1955) 276.
217
of the emperor revealed his wish to create two cultural centers, one in the West
around Rome, and the other in the Greek mainland and Asia Minor. Both centers
would be allowed, based on their own traditions and under the leadership of the
princeps, to produce culture which would be equally acceptable by each other.
The two cults did not divide, but, on the contrary, helped bring the two main
elements of the empire closer. The deities themselves were able to unite. In fact, the
divinity most often joined with Roma in the East, as it is attested in inscriptions, was
Zeus in his various manifestations: Zeus Eleutherios, Zeus Kapetolios, Zeus Ktesios,
Zeus Patroos, Zeus Polieus, and Zeus Solymeus. And when the emperors joined the
cult of Roma, they often took over the characteristics of Zeus. Thus, a Roman
emperor borrowing from Zeus his qualities became the guardian of Panhellenic
traditions. Zeus Olympios and Roma Aeterna guaranteed the divine guidance and
prosperity of the empire and they can serve as an example of unification through the
blending of cultural diversities.
5.6 Summary
In this chapter I discussed certain religious aspects of Hadrian’s reign. First I
discussed Hadrian’s claim to divine election. Hadrian advertised himself as the son of
Trajan appointed by him but selected by the gods. Jupiter himself had the providence
to select Trajan’s successor and the emperor implemented his will. By doing this,
Hadrian followed established practice and presented his reign as commanded by
humans and gods alike.
Next, I put under investigation the use of epithets that were attributed to him
by the Greeks in honorific and other inscriptions. I discussed how these epithets
identified the emperor with major divinities of the Greek pantheon. By doing so, the
218
Greeks conversed with the emperor in a religious language, which was already part of
their tradition, mythical and historical. Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors as well
as officials and other individuals were constantly addressed in this style. This helped
the Greeks introduce these individuals into their everyday life and understand the
cultural changes and political necessities that their presence meant. By placing
Hadrian in the sphere of Greek myth and religion, the people of the region extended a
welcoming message to him. Hadrian, who could never resist such initiatives,
expressed his thankfulness by the showering of gifts upon cities and individuals and
the promotion of anything that was Greek. This procedure created an atmosphere
which encouraged the implementation of his program both for the region and the
empire as a whole.
At the same time rumors of his idiosyncrasies were circulating fast. The
complex personality of the emperor as well as his interest in every kind of knowledge,
as this is evidenced in our sources, created an almost mythical aura around him and
raised him to the level of divine and superhuman. The emperor was certainly flattered
by such rumors and did nothing to prove them wrong. On the contrary, during his
journeys around the Mediterranean, he eagerly sought contact with the supernatural.
This behavior did not seem to offend the Greek people. It was probably within the
limits of behavior they could accept from a ruler.
It seems that the reaction in Rome was quite the opposite. Hadrian had already
damaged his image by the killings that occurred early in his reign (and he would
damage it further in the end by the murder of Servianus and his grandson Pedanius
Fuscus). Hadrian had never been particularly popular among the senatorial groups,
although he was in general well received by the populace of the capital. It is possible
that the Philhellenism of the emperor would not ring well in the ears of the Senators,
219
given the precedent of Nero, whose memory was still fresh. Therefore, it is only
natural that the conservative and to a certain degree xenophobic Senate would not
welcome the news of an emperor hailed to such a degree as a god and even magician
or astrologer. Perhaps, there was nothing that Hadrian could do about it, as in all
certainty he encouraged and promoted such an image. It is improbable that the
building of the temple of Roma and Venus, along with other benefactions to the city,
could change the mood, as it is evident in the negative senatorial tradition preserved
in Dio. Hadrian was displaying Roman attitudes to a lesser degree than his adoptive
father, a much beloved figure at Rome, and in the eyes of many Romans he was less
Roman than his position demanded. And in truth, he was not! He was a provincial
from Hispania, as was Trajan, but the latter knew well to conceal his personal flaws
by completely following Roman standards in performing his greatest role, that of the
Roman emperor.
We may assume that the building of the temple of Roma and Venus at the
heart of Rome revitalized, to a certain degree, the national feeling of the populace. By
this gesture, Roma, the deification of the power of the city and thus the state, becomes
one of the most important divinities of the city and the empire, a counterpart to Jupiter
on the Capitoline Hill. The reinvention of Roma connected Hadrian’s religious
program with that of the first princeps and bridged her cult in the East with that in the
West and Rome. At the same time, Hadrian’s encouragement of and assimilation with
the Greek Zeus had a similar impact on the psyche of the Greeks. Now the Greeks had
again their own god, the head of the Greek Pantheon, to preside over their lives.
Hadrian became a benevolent, omnipresent Zeus, who now came from the West to
encourage the people of the East to participate in an empire which is more welcoming
than ever before. The promotion of these cults clearly reveals the roles that Hadrian
220
had in his plans for the western and eastern parts of the empire. The two cults would
now function as the focal points of two cultural centers, at Rome and on both coasts
of the Aegean. The cult of Zeus would bring together the Greek people and encourage
them to work collectively in bringing into completion Hadrian’s vision for the region.
At the same time, Roma would be his divine partner and serve as a constant reminder
of the imperial center’s interest in the region.
Whatever Hadrian’s personal beliefs may have been, he adapted official policy
to suit the various parts of the empire and consistently promoted the cult of the
traditional gods of Rome, of Greece and of the imperial house. Religion could hardly
be separated from administration in antiquity, and Hadrian knew this very well. He
consciously used it in order to serve his desire for consolidation of traditions and
cultures and to finally bring together the two main cultural partners of an empire
which he hoped he could truly unite. Hadrian aspired to turn the cultural divisions of
his subjects into a unifying force that would provide homogeneity and peace. And he
was certainly justified given the relative stability of the empire under the Antonines.
More than other emperors of the first two centuries, he seemed to have viewed
religion as a means to bring together, to achieve unity. Therefore, it is not an
exaggeration to say that Hadrian became the first emperor after Augustus to promote
the princeps’ role as the religious leader of the Roman Empire.
221
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
In the 21 years of his reign, the emperor Hadrian visited inermis the Greek
East more than any of his predecessors. During his lengthy stays on the Greek
mainland and Asia Minor the emperor showed his sincere interest in everything
Greek. The emperor was a sincere philhellene, but this was not the only motive for his
benefactions to the region. More important was his desire to promote his program for
the region that would ultimately affect the entire empire.
Hadrian realized that the survival of the empire could not depend entirely on
Rome but also on the loyalty of the provinces. The Greek East was an important part
of the empire, both in terms of geography and its dynamism. Hadrian understood that
the Greek East could offer more to the empire than the greatness of its past. Asia
Minor and the Greek mainland must now participate more actively in the affairs of the
empire, contributing both by culture and politics. He advanced the idea of two
imperial centers, one in the West, centered on Rome, and another in the East, centered
on the big cities of the Greek mainland and Asia Minor. By bringing the region closer
to Rome, Hadrian could accelerate their further integration into the Empire and bring
to completion his plan for its unification. The present study focused on the various
aspects of this program and the ways by which the emperor promoted it in the Greek
East.
222
I first examined the historical context in which the emperor and the people of
the region came into contact. Accordingly, I presented the political position of the
Greeks in the Empire during the second century A.D. I argued that the Greek elites
aimed at their participation in the administration of the region and the empire and at
the same time they showed signs that they wished to minimize the degree of imperial
interference in the affairs of the Greek cities. Hadrian’s accession to the throne
showed that the region and its people must not be valued only for their past and
cultural traditions, but also, and more importantly, for the dynamism and energy that
they could bring to the Empire. He envisaged a Greek world that could actively
participate in the administration of the Empire and his program of unification. He
showed signs that the Empire did not belong only to Romans, but to all subjects of
Rome, prominent among them the Greeks. The most visible action by which he
showed his interest was the foundation of the Panhellenion council. As I showed, the
council functioned more as a cultural rather than a political organization, mainly
associated with the imperial cult. It was this character of the council, as well as its
focus on the cities of the Greek mainland, Athens in particular, that can explain the
absence of major cities of Asia Minor from among its members.
In order to better understand Hadrian’s program for the Greek East we had to
talk about the people that this program addressed. Accordingly, in the next chapter of
my study, I talked about these people and defined the circumstances in which they
came into contact with the emperor. Thus, I first discussed Hadrian’s travels in the
region and using comparative material I showed how an imperial visit could affect a
city or an entire region. I argued that the goal of his travels was to secure the empire,
foster relations with the local populations, and promote his program. I argued that not
only local elites and religious officials were among those interesting him, but also the
223
lowest classes of a city, rustic people, farmers and merchants. All of them were
looking forward to an imperial visit in order to present their case and advance their
interests, personal and communal alike. I further argued that Hadrian’s program did
not address only the elites but aimed at the broad population as well, although, as is
expected, the emperor relied first on the elites’ support for the implementation of his
program.
In the last two chapters, I presented evidence for the promotion of Hadrian’s
program. I focused on numismatic material and religious themes. In the first part of
chapter three I dealt with the organization of the mints in the second century. I
discussed the administrative mechanisms of these mints and argued that a number of
persons were involved in the production of coins: from the emperor and his family to
Roman officials and governors to Greek local magistrates. All were able to influence
the iconography of an issue. This discussion helped us understand better the
circumstances under which a particular message was carved and why. The second part
of this chapter examined these messages. By presenting a number of coins from the
central mint and the provincial ones, I showed how coinage reveals Hadrian’s goals:
to associate himself and his reign with his predecessor and the Julio-Claudian
dynasty, with myths and traditions of Rome and the Greek East alike; to present
himself as the earthly image of Olympios Zeus, the god of all the Greeks; and to
advertise the basic principles of his reign and his sincere interest in the welfare of the
provinces individually and of the entire empire.
The last chapter treated the role of religious language and themes in the
promotion of Hadrian’s program in the Greek East. I demonstrated how the emperor
and Greeks “conversed” in religious terms. I showed that these terms derived from
local traditions, mythical and historical themes, and eased the contact between the
224
emperor and locals. I first examined Hadrian’s claim to divine election. I argued that
Hadrian legitimized his accession by invoking both earthly and divine commands.
Next I discussed the use of religious language as reflected in the numerous epithets
attached to Hadrian in a number of inscriptions. After this I examined certain aspects
of Hadrian’s personality that linked him to the superhuman and divine. I suggested
that both the epithets used to address the emperor and his association with
superhuman, almost divine powers were part of the religious language and themes
that were familiar to the Greek populations in the East, and consequently facilitated
the Greeks’ approving of the emperor and his plans. Finally I discussed Hadrian’s
association with the goddess Roma and Zeus. I suggested that the emphasis on the
cult of Roma during Hadrian’s reign, mainly in the Latin West but also in the East, is
indicative of Hadrian’s desire to highlight the importance of her cult and Rome as
unifiers of the empire. At the same time, Hadrian promoted the cult of Zeus in the
Greek East and was assimilated with him. I showed that Hadrian’s association with
the Greek Zeus came as a response to Trajan’s reception as Jupiter in the West, and
also placed Hadrian at the heart of the Greek pantheon, something that eased his
reception among the Greeks. Moreover, I suggested that this emphasis on the two
cults reflects Hadrian’s desire to underline first, the two main cultural components of
the empire, Roman and Greek, and second, their crucial role in its stability. They both
served as unifiers of the empire.
It became clear from this discussion that the promotion of Hadrian’s program
was a dynamic, evolving process which involved considerable input from imperial
circles and the public alike. Initiatives did not come only from the emperor. On the
contrary, the Greek people responded to Hadrian’s interest and displayed their
willingness to follow him. Without negating the genuineness of Hadrian’s
225
philhellenism, I believe that he fervently pursued his relations with the Greeks on
account of his desire to promote his program for the region and his overall vision for
the unification of the empire. Perhaps, if we view this atmosphere between Hadrian
and the Greeks as the result of both the philhellenism of the emperor and the pursuit
of his imperial program, we can comprehend better the history of the Roman Empire
in the second century.
226
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alcock (1993), Alcock S.E., Graecia Capta: The landscapes of Roman Greece,
Cambridge 1993
Alcock (1997), Alcock S.E., Greece: a landscape of resistance? in D.J. Mattingly
(ed.), Dialogues in Roman Imperialism; Power, discourse, and discrepant
experience in the Roman Empire, JRA Suppl. 23, Portsmouth 1997, 103-115
Alexander (1938), Alexander P.J., Letters and Speeches of the Emperor Hadrian,
HSCPh 49 (1938) 141-177
Anderson (1993), Anderson G., The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the
Roman Empire, London 1993
Ando (1998), Anthony Birley, Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, London 1997, rev. by
Ando C., Phoenix 52 (1998) 183-185
Ando (2000), Ando C., Imperial ideology and provincial loyalty in the Roman
Empire, Berkeley 2000
Arafat (1996), Arafat K.W., Pausanias’ Greece. Ancient Artists and Roman Rulers,
Cambridge 1996
Beaujeu (1955), Beaujeu J., La religion Romaine à l’apogée de l’empire. I: La
politique religieuse des Antonins (96-192), Paris 1955Bellinger
(1956), Bellinger A.R., Greek Mints under the Roman Empire, in
R.A.G. Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland (edd.), Essays in Roman Coinage
Presented to Harold Mattingly, Oxford 1956, 137-148
Benjamin (1963), Benjamin A.S., The altars of Hadrian in Athens and Hadrian’s
Panhellenic Program, Hesperia 32 (1963) 57-86
Bennett (1997), Bennett J., Trajan Optimus Princeps. A Life and Times, Bloomington
1997
Birley (1997), Birley A.R., Hadrian. The Restless Emperor, London 1997
Birley (1997a), Birley A.R., Hadrian and Greek Senators, ZPE 116 (1997) 209-245
227
Birley (2003), Birley A.R., Hadrian’s Travels, in L. de Blois et alii (edd.), The
Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the
third workshop of the international network Impact of Empire (Roman
Empire, c. 200 B.C. – A.D. 476), Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20-
23, 2002, Amsterdam 2003, 425- 441
Blamberg (1976), Blamberg J.E., The Public Image Projected by the Roman
Emperors (AD 69-117) as reflected in Contemporary Imperial Coinage, PhD
Thesis, Indiana University 1976
Bloesch (1987), Bloesch H., Griechische Munzen in Winterthur, Winterthur 1987Boatwright
(1987), Boatwright M.T., Hadrian and the City of Rome, Princeton 1987
Boatwright (2000), Boatwright M.T., Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire,
Princeton 2000
Boer, den (1975), Boer W. den, Trajan's Deification and Hadrian's Succession,
AncSoc 6 (1975) 203-12
Bollansée (1994), Bollansée J., P.Fay. 19, Hadrian’s Memoirs, and Imperial
Epistolary Autobiography, AncSoc 25 (1994) 279-302
Bosch, Quellen Ankara, Bosch, E., Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im
Altertum. «Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan», Ser. 7, no. 46, Ankara 1967
Boulvert (1970), Boulvert G., Esclaves et affranchis impériaux sous Haut-Empire.
Rôle politique et administrative, Naples 1970
Bowersock (1969), Bowersock G.W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, Oxford
1969
Bowersock (1973), Bowersock G.W., Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the
Second Century AD, in E.J. Bickerman and W. den Boer (edd.), Le Culte des
souverains dans l’Empire Romain, Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1973, 179-212
Bowie (1974), Bowie E.L., Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic, in
M.I. Finley (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society, London 1974, 166-209
Bowie (1991), Bowie E.L., Hellenes and Hellenism in Writers of the Early Second
Sophistic in S.Said (ed.) ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ, Quelques jalons pour une histoire
de l’identité grecque. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 25-27 Octobre 1989,
Leiden (1991) 183-204
Bowie (1997), Bowie E.L., Hadrian, Favorinus, and Plutarch, in J. Mossman (ed.),
Plutarch and his Intellectual World. Essays on Plutarch, London 1997, 1-15
228
Bowie (2002), Bowie E.L., Hadrian and Greek Poetry, in E.N. Ostenfeld (ed.) Greek
Romans and Roman Greeks. Studies in Cultural Interaction, Aarhus 2002,
172-197
Breeze and Dobson (2000), Breeze D.J. and Dobson B., Hadrian's Wall, 4th ed.,
London 2000
Buraselis (1989), Buraselis K., ΘΕΙΑ ∆ ΡΕΑ. Μελέτες πάνω στην πολιτική της
δυναστείας των Σεβήρων και την Constitutio Antoniniana, Athens 1989
Bureth (1988), Bureth P., Le préfet d'Égypte (30 av. J.-C.-297 ap.J.-C.): État présent
de la documentation en 1973 in ANRW 10.1 (1988) 472-502
Burnett (2005), Burnett A., The Roman West and the Roman East, in C.
Howgego, V. Heuchert and A. Burnett (edd.), Coinage and Identity in the
Roman Provinces, Oxford 2005, 171-180
Burrell (2002/2003), Burrell B., Temples of Hadrian, not Zeus, GRBS 43,1
(2002/2003) 31-50
Burrell (2004), Burrell B., Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman emperors, Boston 2004
Butcher (1988), Butcher K., Roman Provincial Coins. An Introduction to the
“Greek Imperials”, London 1988
Butcher (2005), Butcher K., Information, Legitimation, or Self-Legitimation?
Popular and Elite Designs on the Coin Types of Syria, in C. Howgego, V.
Heuchert and A. Burnett (edd.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces,
Oxford 2005, 143-156
Calandra (1996), Calandra E., Oltre la Grecia: alle origini del filellenismo di
Adriano, Naples 1996
Carson (1956), Carson R.A.G., System and Product in the Roman Mint, in R.A.G.
Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland (edd.) Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to
Harold Mattingly, Oxford 1956, 227-239
Castritius (1964), Castritius H., Der Phoenix auf den aurei Hadrians und Tacitus’
Annalen VI,28, JNG 14 (1964) 89-95
Cat. Ossolinski, Sukkienik G., Catalogue of ancient coins in the Ossolinski
National Institute Library, 5 parts, Wroclaw 1985Charlesworth
(1937), Charlesworth M.P., The Virtues of a Roman Emperor.
Propaganda and the Creation of Belief, Proceedings of the British Academy
1937, 105-133
Clairmont (1966), Clairmont C.W., Die Bildnisse des Antinous. Ein Beitrag zur
Porträtplastik unter Kaiser Hadrian, Rome 1966
229
Clinton (1989) Clinton K., Hadrian’s Contribution to the Renaissance of Eleusis, in S.
Walker and A. Cameron (edd.), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire.
Papers from the Tenth British Museum Classical Colloquium (1989) 56-68
Clinton (1997), Clinton K., Eleusis and the Romans: Late Republic to Marcus
Aurelius, in M.C. Hoff and S.I. Rotroff (edd.), The Romanization of Athens:
Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April
1996), Oxford 1997, 161-181
Corp. Glos. Lat, Loewe G., Corpus glossariorum Latinorum, Leipzig 1888-1923
Curty (1994), Curty O., À propos de la SUGGENEIA entre cités, REG 107 (1994) 698-
707
Curty (1995), Curty O., Les Parentés Légendaires entre Cités Grecques: Catalogue
raisonné des inscriptions contenant le terme SUGGENEIA et analyse critique,
Geneva 1995
Deininger (1965), Deininger J., Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit,
Munich 1965
Dignas (2002), Dignas B., Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia
Minor, Oxford 2002
Di Segni (1994), Di Segni L., A New Toponym in Southern Samaria, Liber Annuus
44 (1994) 579-584
Dräger (2000), Dräger M., Überlegungen zu den Reisen Hadrians durch Kleinasien,
Klio 82 (2000) 208-216
Duncan (1948), Duncan T.S., The Aeneas Legend on Coins, CJ 44.1 (1948) 15-29
Eck (1970), Eck W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Prosopographische
Untersuchungen mit Einschluß des Jahres- und Provinzialfesten der
Statthalter, Munich 1970
Eck (1982), Eck W., Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von
69/70 bis 138/139. 1. Teil, Chiron 12 (1982) 281-362
Eck (1983), Eck W., Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von
69/70 bis 138/139. 2. Teil, Chiron 13 (1983) 147-237
Eilers (2002), Eilers C., Roman Patrons of Greek Cities, Oxford 2002
Elwyn (1993), Elwyn S., Interstate Kinship and Roman Foreign Policy, TAPhA 123
(1993) 261-286
Engels (1990), Engels, D., Roman Corinth. An Alternative Model for the Classical
City, Chicago 1990
230
Erskine (2001), Erskine A., Troy between Greece and Rome. Local Tradition and
Imperial Power, Oxford 2001
Evans (1992), Evans J. DeRose, The Art of Persuasion. Political Propaganda from
Aeneas to Brutus, Ann Arbor 1992
Evelpidis Coll., Hackens T. and Evelpidis R.H., Collection Réna H. Evelpidis,
Athènes, Athens 1970Evers
(1994), Evers C., Le portraits d’ Hadrien. Typologie et ateliers, Bruxelles
1994
Fayer (1976), Fayer C., Il culto della dea Roma. Origine e diffusione nell’Impero,
Pescara 1976
Fayoum, Bernand É., Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum. 3 vols.
Leiden, Paris 1975-1981.
Fears (1977), Fears, J.R., Princeps a deis electus: the divine election of the Emperor
as a Political Concept at Rome, Rome 1977
Fears (1981), Fears J.R., The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology, ANRW
17.2 (1981) 827-948
Ferrary (1996), Ferrary J.-L., Rome, Athènes et le Philhellénisme dans l’ Empire
Romain, d’ Auguste aux Antonins, in Convegno Internazionale: Filellenismo
e Tradizionalismo a Roma nei Primi Due Secoli dell’ Impero (Rome, 27-28
April 1995), Rome 1996, 183-210
Fishwick (1990), Fishwick D., Dio and Maecenas: The Emperor and the Ruler
Cult, Phoenix 44.3 (1990) 267-275
Fishwick, The Imperial Cult, Fishwick D., The imperial cult in the Latin West: studies
in the ruler cult of the western provinces of the Roman Empire, 3 vols., Leiden
1987-2005
Follet (1976), Follet S., Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle. Études chronologiques et
prosopographiques, Paris 1976
Follet and Peppas-Delmouzou (1997), Follet S., Peppas- Delmouzou D., Le Décret
de Thyatire sur les bienfaits d’ Hadrien et le “Pantheon” d’ Hadrien à Athènes,
BCH 121 (1997) 291-309
Fraser (2006), Fraser T.E., Hadrian as Builder and Benefactor in the Western
Provinces, Oxford 2006
Friesen (1993), Friesen S.J., Twice Neokoros. Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the
Flavian Imperial Family, Leiden 1993
231
Garnsey (1998), Garnsey P., Aspects of the Decline of the Urban Aristocracy in the
Empire, in W. Scheidel (ed.), Cities, Peasants and Food in Clasical Antiquity.
Essays in Social and Economic History, Cambridge 1998, 3-27
Geagan (1979), Geagan D.J., Roman Athens: Some Aspects of Life and Culture I: 86
B.C.-A.D. 267, in ANRW 7.1 (1979) 371-437
Gleason (1995), Gleason M.W, Making men: sophists and self-presentation in ancient
Rome, Princeton 1995
Gnecchi, Medaglioni, Gnecchi F., I medaglioni romani, 3 vols, Milan 1912
Gradel (2002), Gradel I., Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford 2002
Graf (1985), Graf F., Nordionische Kulte: religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische
Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia,
Rome 1985
Graindor (1973), Graindor P., Athènes sous Hadrien, New York 1973
Grant (1950), Grant M., Roman Anniversary Issues. An Exploratory Study of the
Numismatic and Medallic Commemoration of Anniversary Years 49 B.C.-A.D.
375, Cambridge 1950
van Groningen (1957), van Groningen B.A., Preparatives to Hadrian’s Visit to Egypt,
in Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni II, Milan 1957, 253-
256
Halfmann (1979), Halfmann H., Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium
Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr, Göttingen 1979
Halfmann (1986), Halfmann H., Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der
Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich, Stuttgart 1986
Hardetert (1998), Hardetert P., Propaganda, Macht, Geschichte. Fünf Jahrhunderte
Römische Geschichte von Caesar bis Theodosius in Münzen geprägt,
Gelsenkirchen 1998
Harl (1996), Harl K.W., Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700,
Baltimore 1996.
Heitsch (1963), Heitsch E., Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen
Kaiserzeit, vol. 1, 2nd ed., Göttingen 1963, 52-54
Herr (1971), Herr M.D., The Historical Significance of the Dialogues between Jewish
Sages and Roman Dignitaries, in J. Heinemann and D. Noy (edd.), Studies in
Aggadah and folk-literature. Scripta Hierosolymitana 22, Jerusalem 1971,
123-150
232
Henderson (1923), Henderson B.W., The Life and Principate of the Emperor
Hadrian, London 1923
Heuchert (2005), Heuchert V., The Chronological Development of Roman
Provincial Coin Iconography, in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert and A. Burnett
(edd.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, Oxford 2005, 29-56
Hill (1966), Hill P.V., The Aurei and Denarii of Hadrian from Eastern Mints,
NumChr 6 (1966) 135-143
Hill (1970), Hill, P.V., The Dating and Arrangement of the Undated Coins of
Rome, London 1970
Hill (2004), Hill P.R., The construction of Hadrian's Wall, Oxford 2004
Howgego (1985), Howgego, C.J., Greek Imperial Countermarks. Studies in the
Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire, London 1985
Howgego (2005), Howgego C.J., Coinage and Identity in the Roman
Provinces, in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert and A. Burnett (edd.), Coinage and
Identity in the Roman Provinces, Oxford 2005, 1-17
Imhoof-Blumel (1901-1902), Imhoof-Blumel F., Kleinasiatische Münzen, 2 vols,
Vienna 1901-1902.
Imhoof-Blumel (1913), Imhoof-Blumel F., Die antiken Münzen Mysiens, Berlin 1913
Instinsky (1962), Instinsky H.U., Die Siegel des Kaisers Augustus. Ein Kapitel zur
Geschichte und Symbolik des antiken Herrschersiegels, Baden-Baden 1962
Johnston (1985), Johnston A., The so-called “Pseudo-Autonomous” Greek
Imperials, ANSMN 30 (1985) 89-112
Jones (1971), Jones C.P., Plutarch and Rome, Oxford 1971
Jones (1996), Jones C.P., The Panhellenion, Chiron 26 (1996) 29-56
Jones (1998), Jones C.P., A Constitution of Hadrian Concerning Cyrene, Chiron 28
(1998) 255-266
Jones (1999), Jones C.P., A Decree of Thyateira in Lydia, Chiron 29 (1999) 1-21
Kapetanopoulos (1992-1998), Kapetanopoulos E., The Reform of the Athenian
Constitution under Hadrian, Horos 10-12 (1992-1998) 215-237
Karamesine-Oikonomidou (1975), Karamesine-Oikonomidou M., Η
Νοµισµατοκοπία της Νικοπόλεως, Athens 1975
233
Karivieri (2002), Karivieri A., Just one of the boys. Hadrian in the Company of
Zeus, Dionysus and Theseus, in E. N. Ostenfeld (ed.), Greek Romans and
Roman Greeks. Studies in Cultural Interaction, Aarhus 2002, 40-54
Karwiese (1995) Karwiese S., The Church of Mary and the Temple of Hadrian
Olympios, in H. Koester (ed.), Ephesos Metropolis of Asia. An
Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, Valley
Forge 1995, 311-319
Kienast (1959-1960), Kienast D., Hadrian, Augustus und die eleusinischen Mysterien,
JNG 10 (1959-1960) 61-69
Kreitzer (1996), Kreitzer L.J., Striking New Images. Roman Imperial Coinage and
the New Testament World, Sheffield 1996
Kremmyde-Sicilianou (1996), Kremmyde-Sicilianou S., Η Νοµισµατοκοπία της
Ρωµαικής Αποικίας του ∆ίου, Athens 1996
Kuhlmann (2002), Kuhlmann P., Religion und Erinnerung. Die Religionspolitik
Kaiser Hadrians und ihre Rezeption in der antiken Literatur, Göttingen 2002
Lambert (1984), Lambert R., Beloved and God, The story of Hadrian and Antinoos,
London 1984
Lamberton (1997), Lamberton R., Plutarch and the Romanizations of Athens, in
M.C. Hoff and S.I. Rotroff (edd.), The Romanization of Athens: Proceedings
of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996),
Oxford 1997, 151-160
Levick (1982), Levick B., Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage, Antichthon 16
(1982) 104-116
Lewis (1991), Lewis N., Hadriani Sententiae, GRBS 32.3 (1991) 267-280
Lewis (1993), Lewis R.G., Imperial Autobiography, Augustus to Hadrian, in ANRW
34.1 (1993) 629-706
Lindgren Collection, Lindgren H.C. and Kovacs F.L., Ancient bronze coins of Asia
Minor and the Levant from the Lindgren collection (Lindgren I), San Mateo,
California 1985
Lomas (1993), Lomas K., Rome and the Western Greeks 350 BC- AD 200: Conquest
and Acculturation in Southern Italy, London 1993
MacCormack (1981), MacCormack S.G., Art and ceremony in late antiquity,
Berkeley 1981
Macro (1979), Macro A.D., A Confirmed Asiarch, AJP 100 (1979) 94-98
234
Macro (1980), Macro A.D., The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium,
ANRW 7.2 (1980) 658-697
Magie (1950), Magie D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century
after Christ, 2 vols, Princeton 1950
Marek (1993), Marek Chr., Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und NordGalatia,
Tübingen 1993
Martin (1974), Martin J.-P., Hadrien et le phénix. Propagande numismatique, in
Mélanges d’ histoire ancienne offerts a William Seston, Paris 1974, 327-337
Martin (1982), Martin F., La documentacion griega de la cancilleria del emperador
Adriano, Pamplona 1982
Mellor (1975), Mellor R., Thea Roma: the worship of the goddess Roma in the Greek
world, Gottingen 1975
Mellor (1981), Mellor R., The Goddess Roma in ANRW 17.2 (1981) 950-1030
Merkelbach and Şahin (1988), Merkelbach R. and Şahin S., Die Publizierten
Inschriften von Perge, EA 11 (1988) 97-170
Metcalf (1974), Metcalf W.E., Hadrian, Jovis Olympius, Mnemosyne 27 (1974) 59-
66
Metcalf (1980), Metcalf W.E., The Cistophori of Hadrian, New York 1980
Millar (1964), Millar F., A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford 1964
Millar (1977), Millar F., The emperor in the Roman world, 31 BC-AD 337, London
1977
Millar (1993), Millar F., The Roman Near East 31 BC-AD 337, Harvard 1993
Mionnet, Mionnet T.E., Description de Médailles antiques Grecques et Romaines,
Paris 1806Mols
(2003), Mols, S.T.A.M., The Cult of Roma Aeterna in Hadrian’s Politics, in
L. de Blois et alii (edd.), The Representation and Perception of Roman
Imperial Power. Proceedings of the third workshop of the international
network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C. –A.D. 476),
Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20-23, 2002, Amsterdam 2003, 458-465
Moser (1974), Moser R.K., Coinage as a means of dating the portraits of the
emperor Hadrian, M.A. Thesis, Univ. of California 1974
Münsterberg (1973), Münsterberg R., Die Beamtennamen auf den griechischen
Münzen geographisch und alphabetisch geordnet, Hildesheim 1973
235
Nock (1928), Nock A.D, Notes on Ruler-Cult I-IV, JHS 48 (1928) 21-43
Nock (1930), Nock A.D., ΣΥΝΝΑΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ, HSCPh 41 (1930) 1-62
Oliver (1951), Oliver J.H., Athenian Citizenship of Roman Emperors, Hesperia
20 (1951) 346-349
Oliver (1970), Oliver J.H., Marcus Aurelius: aspects of civic and cultural policy
in the East, Hesperia Suppl. 13, Princeton 1970
Oliver (1978), Oliver J.H., Panachaeans and Panhellenes, Hesperia, 47 (1978) 185-
191.
Oliver (1989), Oliver J.H., Greek constitutions of early Roman emperors from
inscriptions and papyri, ed. by K. Clinton, Philadelphia 1989
Papaefthymiou (2001), Papaefthymiou E., Hadrien et la Macedoine, Revue Belge
de Numismatique et de Sillographie 147 (2001) 67-78
Papageorgiadou-Bani (2004), Papageorgiadou-Bani H., The Numismatic
Iconography of the Roman Colonies in Greece. Local Spirit and the
Expression of Imperial Policy, Athens 2004
Paribeni and Romanelli (1914), Paribeni R. and Romanelli P., Studi e ricerche
archeologiche nell' Anatolia meridionale, MonAnt 23 (1914) 5-277
Pelling (1995), Pelling C.B.R., Plutarch and Roman Politics, in B. Scardigli (ed.)
Essays on Plutarch’s Lives, Oxford (1995) 319-356
Perret (1929), Perret L., La titulature impériale d’ Hadrien, Paris 1929
Price (1979), Price S.R.F, The Divine Right of Emperors, rev. of J.R.Fears, Princeps
a Deis Electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at
Rome, Rome 1977, CR 29 (1979) 277-279
Price (1984), Price S.R.F., Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia
Minor, Cambridge 1984
Price (1984a), Price S.R.F., Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman
Imperial Cult, JHS 104 (1984) 79-95
Perinthos-Herakleia, Sayar M.H., Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi)
und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische
Inschriften, Vienna 1998.
Raubitschek (1945), Raubitschek A.E., Hadrian as the Son of Zeus Eleutherios, AJA
49.2 (1945) 128-133
236
Reynolds (1978), Reynolds J., Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and the Cyrenaican Cities,
JRS 68 (1978) 111-121
Reynolds (2000), Reynolds J.M, New Letters of Hadrian to Aphrodisias: trials, taxes,
gladiators and an aqueduct, JRA 13 (2000), 5-20
Rizakis (1998), Rizakis A.D., Incolae-Paroikoi: populations et communautés
dependants dans les cites et les colonies Romaines de l’ Orient, REA 100
(1998) 599-617
Rizakis (2001), Rizakis A.D., La constitution des elites municipales dans les colonies
romaines de la province d’ Achaïe, in O. Salomies (ed.), The Greek East in
the Roman Context. Proceedings of a Colloquium organized by the Finnish
Institute at Athens May 21 and 22, 1999, Helsinki 2001, 37-49
Robert, Hellenica, Robert L., Hellenica. Receuil d’épigraphie de numismatique et
d’antiquités grecques, 12 vols, Limoges 1940Robert
(1967), Robert L., Monnaies grecques. Types, legendes, magistrates
monétaires et géographie, Geneva 1967
Romeo (2002), Romeo I., The Panhellenion and Ethnic Identity in Hadrianic Greece,
CP 97 (2002) 21-40
Rothman (1978), Rothman M.S. Pond, Posthumous Hadrianic Medallions,
ANSMN 23 (1978) 107-128
Saller (1982), Saller R.P., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge
1982
Salmeri (2000), Salmeri G., Dio, Rome, and the Civic Life of Asia Minor, in S. Swain
(ed.), Dio Chrysostom: politics, letters, and philosophy, Oxford 2000, 53-92
Sanct.Baalshamin III, Dunant C., Le Sanctuaire de Baalshamîn à Palmyre, III. Les
Inscriptions, Neuchâtel 1971.
Schäfer (1981), Schäfer P., Der Bar Kokhba- Aufstand, Tübingen 1981
Scheer (1993), Scheer T.S., Mythische Vorväter: Zur Bedeutung griechischer
Heroenmythen im Selbstverständnis Kleinasiatischer Städte, Munich 1993
Scheid (1998), Scheid J., Recherches archéologiques à la Magliana: Commentarii
Fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt: les copies épigraphiques des protocoles
annuels de la confrérie arvale: 21 av.-304 ap. J.-C., Rome 1998
Scott (1929), Scott K., Plutarch and the ruler cult, TAPhA 60 (1929) 117-135
Scott (1932), Scott K., The Elder and Younger Pliny on Emperor Worship, TAPhA 63
(1932) 156-165
237
Sear (1982), Sear D.R., Greek Imperial Coins and their Values, London 1982
Sherk (1988), Sherk R.K., The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, Cambridge
1988
Sherwin-White (1973), Sherwin-White A.N., The Roman Citizenship, 2nd ed, Oxford
1973
Sijpesteijn (1969), Sijpesteijn P.J., A New Document concerning Hadrian’s Visit to
Egypt, Historia 18 (1969) 109-118
Smallwood (1966), Smallwood E.M., Documents Illustrating the Principates of
Nerva Trajan and Hadrian, Cambridge 1966
Spawforth (1999), Spawforth A.J., The Panhellenion Again, Chiron 29 (1999) 339-
352
Spawforth and Walker (1985), Spawforth A.J., Walker S., The World of the
Panhellenion. I. Athens and Eleusis, JRS 75 (1985) 78-104
Spawforth and Walker (1986), Spawforth A.J., Walker S., The World of the
Panhellenion II: Three Dorian Cities, JRS 76 (1986) 88-105
Stertz (1993), Stertz S.A., Semper in omnibus varius: The Emperor Hadrian and
Intellectuals, ANRW 34.1 (1993) 612-628
Strack (1933), Strack P.L., Untersuchungen zur Römischen Reichsprägung des
zweiten Jahrhunderts. Teil II. Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Hadrian,
Stuttgart 1933
Strubbe (1984-1986), Strubbe J.H.M, Gründer kleinasiatische Städte: Fiktion und
Realität, AncSoc 15-17 (1984-1986) 253-304
Suceveanu (1975), Suceveanu A., În legătură cu statutul juridic al oraşului Tomis în
epoca romană, Pontica 8 (1975) 115-124
Swain (1996), Swain S., Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in
the Greek World AD 50-250, Oxford 1996
Sydenham (1968), Sydenham E.A, Historical references on coins of the Roman
Empire from Augustus to Gallienus, London 1968
Sylloge(3), Dittenberger W., Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, 3rd
ed., 4 vols, Leipzig
1915-1924
Syme (1982), Syme R., The Career of Arrian, HSCPh 86 (1982) 181-211
Syme (1985), Syme R., Hadrian as Philhellene. Neglected Aspects, Bonner HistoriaAugusta-Colloquium
1982/1983 (1985) 341-362
238
Taeger (1957-1960) Taeger F., CHARISMA. Studien zur Geschichte des antiken
Herrscherkultes, 2 vols, Stuttgart 1957-1960
Talbert (1984), Talbert R.J.A, The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton 1984
Tobin (1997), Tobin J., Herodes Attikos and the City of Athens. Patronage and
Conflict under the Antonines, Amsterdam 1997
Toynbee (1934), Toynbee J.M.C., The Hadrianic School. A Chapter in the History of
Greek Art, Cambridge 1934
Veyne (1990), Veyne P., Bread and circuses: historical sociology and political
pluralism, transl., London 1990
Wallace-Hadrill (1981), Wallace-Hadrill, A., The Emperor and his Virtues,
Historia 30 (1981) 298-323
Weber (1907), Weber W., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus,
Leipzig 1907
Weber Coll., Forrer L., The Weber Collection of Greek Coins, London 1922-
1929
Wegner (1956), Wegner, M., Hadrian. Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina, Berlin
1956
Weiss (2005), Weiss P., The Cities and their Money, in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert
and A. Burnett (edd.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, Oxford
2005, 57-68
Westermann and Schiller (1954), Westermann W. L. and Schiller A. A.,
Apokrimata: decisions of Septimius Severus on legal matters, New York 1954
Whitmarsh (2001), Whitmarsh T., Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The
Politics of Imitation, Oxford 2001
Whitmarsh (2005), Whitmarsh T., The Second Sophistic, Oxford 2005
Whittaker (1994), Whittaker C.R., Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and
Economic Study, Baltimore 1994
Wiedermann (1981), Wiedermann T.E.J., Greek and Roman Slavery, Baltimore 1981
Willers (2000), Willers D., Hadrians panhellenisches Programm. Archäologische
Beiträge zur Neugestaltung Athens durch Hadrian, Basel 1990
Woolf (1994), Woolf G., Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the
Civilizing Process in the Near East, PCPhS 40 (1994) 116-143
239
Zanker (1995), Zanker P., The mask of Socrates: the image of the intellectual in
antiquity, Berkeley 1995