A New and Some Overlooked Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate*

In 1990 John Nicols published in the Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik an article which discussed the status of patrons of the Greek cities during the early empire.

In 1990 lohn Nicols published in the Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik an article which discussed the status of patrons of the Greek cities during the early empire 1 . Nicols argued that under Augustus there was a distinct change in the regulation of the patronage of communities in the east: only communities of Roman citizens were allowed civic patronage (either senatorial governors or locals of equestrian status) while peregrine communities were now prohibited from finding patrons from their own senatorial governors. As a result there was a noticeable decline in the numbers of civic patrons in the east until the early second century: "only after 135", asserts Nicols, "do we begin to find in the epigraphic record unambiguous cases of peregrine communities acquiring civic patrons". The sole exceptions to this pattern during the first century A.D., apparently, were Bithynian communities (Nicomedia and Nicaea) which, Nicols argued, were exempt from the ruling of Augustus on the grounds that civic patronage in that particular province was regulated by the Lex Pompeia 2 .
Nicols' argument is essentially based on two things: a passage of Dio which mentions some kind of decree by Augustus and the fact that there are relatively few extant inscriptions from the first century A.D. which honour senatorial patrons. Dio relates that Augustus, in ca. A.D. 11/12, "also ordered the provinces not to bestow any honours upon a person assigned to govern them either during his term of office or within sixty days after his departure; this was because some governors by arranging beforehand for testimonials and eulogies from their subjects were causing much * This note was written while staying at the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara in Spring 1995; my research was funded by an Institute travel grant and in particular by a Study Abroad Studentship from the Leverhulme Trust. I would like to express gratitude to both institutions for their generous support, and to all the staff of the Institute in Ankara for their warm hospitality. I would also like to thank R. S. Bagnall, R. A. Billows, W. V. Harris, S. MitchelI, and especially C. Eilers, for constructive comments. Above all I am grateful to Ender Vannhoglu of Ankara University for allowing me to publish the Stratoniceia inscription, providing me with a photograph of his squeeze, and for untold kindnesses during my stay in Turkey. Needless to say I remain solely responsible for all errors. mischief'3. The context here suggests only a measure against the abuse of gubematorial power but Nicols has suggested that a ruling on civic patronage was included in this decision because it was one of several honours from non-citizen communities which challenged the unique position of the emperor as patron and benefactor across the empire. As far as citizen communities were concemed, according to Nicols, their own municipal charters regulated the co-optation of patrons and so their affairs were left untouched. Adding to the work of Harmand, and careful to distinguish between civic patrons proper and those other city benefactors who were recognized as euergetai, soteres and so on, Nicols drew up a list of early imperial civic patrons whose status as patrones can be fully substantiated. The epigraphic evidence, as presented by Nicols, does seem to show a ,decline' in numbers of patrons of Greek cities after AuguSlU (eventy-two cases for the period 90 B.C.-A.D.! JIl 2 and eleven ca es for the period A.D. 4. The only valid in tances of civic patronage after A.D. 11/12, Nicols argues, are from citizen communities (i.e. Roman colonies and municipia). A pattern of ,decline' in the first century seems apparent, but is it to be associated with an outright ban by Augustus? And are we justified in claiming that Augustus' measure against gubernatorial corruption, as recorded by Dio, inc1uded measures about eligibility for the office of patron?
In fact in his catalogue of city patrons Nicols missed two inscriptions of Julio-Claudian date, one from the island of Cos honouring M. Aemilius Lepidus and another from Attaleia in Pamphylia honouring M. Calpurnius Rufus. I draw attention to these inscriptions because they directly challenge the thesis that after the reign of Augustus there could be no senatorial patrons of cities of peregrine status in the Greek east. I propose here that Nicols' thesis be abandoned or at least radically rethought. In addition I publish a new epigraphic fragment from Stratoniceia in Caria which appears to lend further support to the contention that there was no such measure by Augustus conceming civic patronage in the east. appears to b the very fir l Roman senator from Pamphylia 10: Rufus c1early ca rne fl' m Altaleia. for his m ther, Caecilia Terlulla, was priestess of lutia Augusta CLivia) and of Roma in the city. This was undoubtedly a position of great distinction. (The family' s special position within the city is illustrated by the inscription above honouring his son, L. Calpurnius Longus, and by another honouring his daughter-in-Iaw, Longus' wife) 11. It has been suggested that Calpumius Rufus may owe his advancement to his being the descendent of Italian immigrants and not, strictly speaking, a native Pamphylian l2 . Nevertheless, whatever his origin, Rufus was the first provincial from this region to reach senatorial rank.
Which province was Calpumius Rufus legatus of? Of course it is not c1ear which province he govemed since lhe inscriplion from Antnlya is fragmentary. But Bosch restored in line 7 of ehe inscription the phra e [AUKiac; ICO.l IIaj.l.(puA.tac;], and since his publicalion, schofars such as Syme Jameson, Eck, und Halfmann have <1 11 assumed lhal alpumills RlIfus was legallls pro praetore of Lycia-Pampby lia; he is most likely LO have slIcceeclecl Q. Vernnills in lhe po t perhap ca. 47/8-53/4 A.D .13. An homonymous senator is mentionecl in a funerary inscription from Ephesus (now in the British Museum); and it has been suggested that he is to be identified with the Pamphylian RlIflls l4 . But we hould differentiate between M. Calpumius Rufus ehe legatus pro praelore from Altaleia and lhe homonym at Ephesus who held successive legateships in various eastem provinces, ending with a post as legatus proconsulis in Asia l5 .
What emerges from this material is that a Roman senator from Pamphylia came to be appointed patron of Attaleia in Pamphylia before, during, or just after the reign of Claudius. Aualeia was of course a peregI'ine community and a.llhough M. Calpurnius Rufus was a man of local extracLion he was also of senatorial rank 16. Whelher or not he was governor of Lycia and Pamphylia, his rank and the date of the inscription (reign of Claudius or after) onee again seems to contradict the argument advanced by Nicols.
As we have seen in the eases of M. Calpumius Rufus and M. Aemilius Lepidus, some honorific inseriptions from the early imperial period suggest a different story from that presented by Nicols. These two overlooked eases might be supplemented by a third. In fact some years ago, in the course of publishing aseries of inscriptions from Stratonieeia in Caria, Ender Vannhoglu drew attention to an unpublished fragment which mentions a M. lunius Silanus as "patron and euergetes"17. The text of this inscriptional fragment is now presented in full. A fuller restoration is impossible because the inscription is so fragmentary and it is unc1ear how far the left margin extended. Nevertheless, despite the fragmentary state enough key words survive to indicate that this was part of an honorific inseription set up in the city. I would suggest that we see here the demos of Stratoniceia honouring the proconsul (7) M. lunius Silanus as patron and benefaetor: perhaps a statue was set up by the city and the accompanying inscription alluded to the ties which his ancestors had with the community and his eontinued good deeds towards them. (The final lrok of a mu i visible a l the beginning and it seems rea ollable to restore a.-yaAJ.Hx lIei Si/1/.) 18. The reading e(ue)pyeJ['CO'uJ in lines 2-3 is likely to be an error made by the stonecutter. The alternative would be EPYEI[1ttO''ta'tou] but such a term ("supervisor of works") joined with "patron" has no parallel and simply does not make sense. A Roman senator and provincial governor who is civie patron is unlikely to hold a local office such as supervising a public building.

3) Fragment of an honorific inseription
Nicols was aware of this text, but without having seen it was inc1ined to view Silanus as the praetor of 77 B.C., proconsul of Asia in 76/5 B.C., who is also known to have been the patron of My lasa 19. Ender Vannhoglu has suggested that, stylistieally at least, the inscription belongs to the early Imperial period, and that it certainly cannot be from the first quarter of the first eentury B.C., the date which Nicols pre-fers 20 . On the basis of the lettering the inseription eould perhaps be dated to the firsteentury AD. and thus it seems plausible to interpret M. Iunius Silanus as the eonsul of AD. 46, who was proeonsul of Asia in AD. 54. (An alternative identifieation eould be M. Silanus, cos. 25 B.C., who served as governor in 20s B.C.)21. Aeeording to this new inseription the aneestors of Silanus (cf. 1. 3) appear to have been patrons of the city. The Iunii Silani eertainly had aneestral ties of patronage with nearby Carian Mylasa (above n. 19). If our identifieation of M. Silanus as the eonsul of A.D. 46the great-great-grandson of the praetor of 77 B.C., honoured by Mylasa -is eorreet, then the new Stratonieeia inseription would also strengthen the ease against Nicols' argument for a complete ban by Augustus on Greek poleis having eity patrons after AD. 11/12.

* * *
Nieols has c1aimed that Augustus' measures went further than Dio suggests, by arguing that the decline in epigraphic in tances of sen3torial civic patrons of non-eitizen communities indicates that tbe princep made an oulrigbt ban on civic patronage of non-Roman eities in the east. Not only is this explanation unjustified and unneeessary but even Dio's testimony may be suspeet. That in a systematie ban by Augustus provineial communities were only prohibited from eoopting the governor who was currenlly in office in lheir province 01' who had recently left the province, i clearly ruled out by the ca e f M. Aemilius Lepidus. Rather t11an interpolatiug material into Dio we might even caU into question his accuracy aboUl thi so-ealled measme of Augustus. Could Dio have confused the identity of the autbOI' of the deci ion which he attributed to Augustus? Could the "Caesar" have in fact been Julius Caesar, whose own lex lulia de repelundis may weil have dealt with govemors who organized laudatory deeree on tlleir own behalf 22 ?
Moreover, alongside tbe two exeeptions, and a possible third, presented here, the four inseriptions auesting civic patronage at Nieaea and Nieomedia in the Julio-Claudian and Flavian pel'iods mjght appear not as an anomaly LO be explained away by obseure c1auses of the Lex Pompeia (as suggested by Nieols) but as further instanees of ordinary peregrine communilies (a with our Coan, Pamphylian and Carian exampies) freely cboo 'ing senator and enatorial governors as lheir patrons 23 .
The "decJine' in the !lumber of Roman enatorial pat.rons of Greek eities in tbe immediate po t-Augustan period is probably due to the realization by bOlh enators and provincial communilies of tbe radieal new position of the princep a. patron and benefactor. The unehallenged political dominance of Augl'lSlll , al the very least his auctoritas, meant that senators were chary of elieiting honours which detraeted from him but also were themselves naturally obseured in the provinees by the greater figure 20 I am grateful for Prof. Vannhoglu for sharing with me his own observations about this text.
21 Suggested by C. Eilers. It was the fathcr of the COS. of 25 B.C. who was honoured at Mylasa. Cf. Syme (above,n. 5) Adm.in.ürrarion, London 1993,105, n. 40. of the Sebastos. And on a simply practical note the increase in instances of civic patronage after Trajan could be said to reflect the general increase in numbers of inscribed documents in the second and early third centuries A.D., the spread of the socalled "epigraphic habit".
Whatever the correct interpretation of this difficult material, it is clear that we should not automatically shy away from identifying a Roman senator as a potential civic patron of a Greek city. Nicols has wisely exhorted us not to restore too casually the word 1t6:tprova in Greek inscriptions of the early Principate, nevertheless our inscriptions from Cos, Attaleia and possibly Stratoniceia from the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius do indicate that civic patronage was actively pursued by at least some poleis at that time.