Francesco Camia

Spending on the agones
The financing of festivals in the cities of Roman Greece

Festivals occupied a very important place in the religious as well as, more generally, the cultural and social life of Greek cities. Quite naturally, as these events entailed several expenses, they also represented a financial burden for the civic budget. In this paper I will deal with the financing of religious festivals — and of related activities, such as those connected with gymnasia — in the cities of mainland Greece during the Late Hellenistic and Imperial periods[1], and will analyse the strategies adopted by these cities to cope with the costs of such events. Before doing so, however, I will briefly consider the nature of Greek religious festivals, focusing in particular on their social and economic implications.

Although athletic and musical competitions represented the main event of many Greek festivals, and probably the most attractive one for those who attended them, one should not forget that such contests usually took place in the context of a religious feast consecrated to a god. Greek festivals were first of all religious celebrations, during which sacrifices and other cult rituals were performed for local and traditional gods as well as, starting from the imperial period, Roman emperors and other members of the imperial family. Festivals were not exclusively religious occasions though. In fact, a panegyris — a term etymologically indicating a gathering of people[2] — was a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, including religious, social and economic aspects, in addition to the athletic and artistic features represented by the agones[3].

Festivals were ”a welcome diversion from the tedium of daily life“ and an occasion to meet new people [4]. Particularly for the poor, festivals could also represent a means of support, albeit partial and temporary, as they not infrequently included banquets and distributions of food and even money [5].

Festivals also functioned as an ideal stage for the euergetic activities of the members of civic elites, who played a fundamental role in the promotion, organization and funding of such events. I shall shortly deal with the financing of festivals in the cities of Greece. For now, suffice it to say that such celebrations entailed many expenses and that by the Late Hellenistic period civic aristocracies came to sustain more and more of the burden of those costs. By assuming the presidency of the games (agono­thesia) and holding other magistracies, as well as by making donations or setting up endowments to fund the celebration of a festival, members of the elite displayed their economic and social power and pre-eminence. To put it differently, to act as a benefactor was one of the ways in which the local notables expressed and stressed their privileged social standing, thus strengthening their position at the top of society. Following the integration of the Roman emperors into the frame of traditional Greek festivals, the role of the elites was further enhanced, since their euergetic activities were now also demonstrating the loyalty of their communities towards the imperial power [6].

Religious festivals also had economic implications, since such celebrations gathered many people together and created favourable conditions for commercial activities, conditions from which both merchants or sellers and the organizing city as a whole could profit. Several sources, both literary and epigraphic, show that religious festivals were often accompanied by fairs and markets, and in a celebrated passage Strabo describes the panegyris at Delos as ”a kind of commercial affair“[7]. We know from Pausanias, for example, that tradesmen exchanged several types of goods (slaves, cattle of all kinds, clothes, silver and gold) during the third and last day of the festival celebrated in honour of Isis in the Phocidean polis of Tithorea[8]. The presence of commercial activities during a festive celebration is not at all surprising, as such a combination is also attested in other epochs and holds true in our age as well[9]. The influx of visitors to a city during a festival had positive effects on the local economy, since it ”enlarged the market for local services and produce, both agricultural and manufactured“ [10], as Dio of Prusa had already noted in one of his orations, observing that ”not only can those who have goods to sell obtain the highest prices, but also no one in the city is out of work … And this contributes not a little to prosperity, for wherever the greatest crowd of people gathers together, there we are bound to find the most money“ [11]. Furthermore, markets and fairs that took place during a religious festival represented a source of additional revenues for a city, as the latter could levy taxes on the import and export of products and on commercial transactions, as well as various duties (e.g. for the occupation of public soil, the use of public scales, etc.), in addition to collecting revenues from the lease of public workshops and booths for artisans and merchants[12]. With regard to this, we could even say that for a city to organize a festival could be regarded as a sort of ‘investment’: its financial costs would have been (at least partly) repaid thanks to the spending of visitors[13].

Panhellenic festivals like the Olympia and the Isthmia attracted a large public. During the imperial period, the Olympic games assumed an even stronger ecumenical character, as shown by the occurrence in inscriptions of epithets such as οἰκουμένη, and by the increase in the number of athletes from the East[14]. The massive influx of visitors who reached the sanctuary to attend the games led the Elean officials to take measures regulating their arrival as well as their accommodation and behaviour during the days of the contests [15]. That the accommodation of visitors, and particularly of athletes, was an important concern for cities hosting agonistic festivals is shown, for example, by one of the numerous benefactions performed in favour of the Isthmian sanctuary by the archiereus of the imperial cult P. Licinius Priscus Iuventianus. Probably in his capacity as agoranomos, Iuventianus acquired at his own expense from the colony of Corinth a public stoa, which was in ruins, in order to have fifty lodgings built for the athletes competing in the Isthmian games; the governor of Achaia himself — whom the Corinthian authorities had evidently consulted — gave his official permission for this operation, on the condition that the athletes could always use the lodgings for free on the occasion of the Isthmia [16]. During the celebration of the Mysteries which took place at the sanctuary of Apollo Carneios (Carneiasion) in Messenia — about which we are informed by a long inscription known as the ‘sacred law’ of Andania[17] — the sanctuary, located in the chora of Messene, was provided with tents where pilgrims and visitors could find shelter during the days of the festival [18]. The agoranomos of Messene — the polis which organized and administered the Mysteries[19] — was responsible for the material support of the pilgrims. In particular, he had to take care of the provision of water and to see that the bath which operated within the sanctuary from the fourth to the ninth hour (i.e. from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.) be provided with water, heating and tubs; every free-born man had access to the bath, upon payment of an entrance fee not exceeding two chalkoi[20].

As already noted, the presence of a large crowd at festivals created favourable conditions for local and itinerant merchants, who could sell their goods, so that the sanctuary (or the city) where the festival took place was turned into a sort of market, as shown by the term mercatus that some Roman authors used with reference to the Olympic games and other panhellenic festivals [21]. A very vivid image of what a sanctuary looked like on the occasion of a panhellenic festival is offered by Dio of Prusa, who in one of his orations describes — with manifest contempt — the large and varied crowd which gathered during the celebration of the Isthmian games, ”when one could hear crowds of wretched sophists around Poseidon’s temple shouting and reviling one another, and their disciples, as they were called, fighting with one another, many writers reading aloud their stupid works, many poets reciting their poems while others applauded them, many jugglers showing their tricks, many fortune-tellers interpreting fortunes, lawyers innumerable perverting judgment, and peddlers not a few peddling whatever they happened to have“[22].

A fair took place during the celebration of the above mentioned Mysteries of Andania as well. The magistrate charged with the supervision of the regular course of the fair was the agoranomos. During the festival, in addition to looking after the material conditions of the pilgrims’ daily life, this civic official had to verify that products were not faked (ἄδολα καὶ καθαρά) and that sellers made use of weights and measures in keeping with the official ones: in other words, he had to make sure that commercial transactions took place regularly, most likely applying a specific law [23]. Merchants were free to sell their goods at whatever price they liked and without any time limitation during the day, nor was a place due imposed on them (for occupation of public soil) [24].

Fairs similar to those attested by literary and epigraphic evidence at the Olympia, Isthmia, at the Mysteries of Andania and at Tithorea in Phocis will have certainly taken place, in connection with religious festivals, in several other places of Greece. Commercial activities took place, for example, at the Spartan Leonideia, a traditional festival celebrated in memory of Leonidas and Pausanias — the Spartan heroes of Thermopylae and Platea respectively — and re-organized probably late in the age of Trajan, as shown by an inscription containing a provision granting tradesmen and sellers exemption (ateleia) from import and market taxes[25]. Moreover, the presence of a panegyris, and therefore, most likely, of some sort of commercial activities, can also be inferred by the reference to panegyriarch ai[26].

Thus, we can say that the organization of a festival, particularly if sacred and Panhellenic, contributed to a city’s general prosperity. Independently of the undoubted economic benefactions linked to festivals, however, when trying to explain their proliferation in the cities of the Roman East during the imperial period, one should also take into account the social and political aspects (the latter connected with the proliferation of the imperial cult) I have mentioned above. Moreover, a renowned festival was in itself an important source of prestige for the organizing polis, as it attracted visitors and spread the fame of that polis[27].

Prestige, however, had its costs, as the organization of a festival represented an appreciable financial burden for a city, entailing several expenses such as those for the celebration of sacrifices and banquets, the construction or restoration of buildings and displays used for the athletic and theatrical events, the remuneration of attendants and artists performing in the regular contests or in supplementary spectacles (ἐπιδείξεις), the provision of prizes for victors in the agones. The latter was certainly one of the most expensive items. In the account (apologia) of an agonothetes of the Serapieia of Tanagra, in Boeotia, dated to the beginning of the 1^st c. B.C., the sum spent for the prizes amounted to 2,470 drachmas, 2,070 for the first prizes (consisting in golden crowns), and the rest for the second (cash) prizes; in addition, 46 drachmas were given as payment to the goldsmith who had made the crowns[28]. Prizes for HS 87,760 are registered in an incomplete logismos of a Spartan agonothetes (of the Ourania or the Eurycleia) dated to the middle of the 2^nd c. A.D., while at the Spartan Leonideia, on the occasion of its reorganization — probably late in the reign of Trajan — the endowment for the cash prizes amounted apparently to HS 120,000[29]. A detailed review of the expenses connected with an agonistic festival is now provided by a recently published inscription of the late 2^nd c. B.C. concerning the pan-boeotic festival of the Delia celebrated at the sanctuary of Apollo in the territory of Tanagra. The agonothetes Damon spent a little less than 7,000 drachmas to cover the various costs of this festival (sacrifices, prizes, remunerations, sacred equipment, and so on) [30]. In addition to the ordinary items of a festival’s budget, some exceptional expenses can appear sometimes in connection with the celebration of a panegyris (although they are not directly linked to the latter). One agonothetes of the Ptoia of Akraiphia in the 1^st c. B.C., for example, declares in his account (apologia) that he has spent 2,477 drachmas for the cutting of the rock in front of the Temple of Apollo Ptoios and the removal of a wall delimitating the open-space where the temple stood[31]. Another agonothetic account of the Ptoia, similarly dated to the 1^st c. B.C., registers some expenses re­garding the repair of the proskenion (unknown sum), the polishing and upkeep of the cult statues (294 drachmas), and the fabrication of beds (klinai; 99 drachmas), probably used during the banquets that took place in the area of the Ptoion[32].

Cities could have problems in coping with such costs; around A.D. 180, for example, Aphrodisias asked the curator rei publicae M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurycles to look into the funds financing their festivals[33]. The importance of this issue, with regard to city life in the Greek communities of the Empire, emerges more clearly if one considers that during the imperial period there was a flourishing of agonistic festivals in the Greek East. As has been noted, it seems that between the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries games and festivals came even to replace building activities in the scale of urban priorities, so as to become one of the most substantial items of expenditure in the city budget; to cite S. Mitchell, ”there are indications that the balance swung in favour of festivals as the second century progressed, and that this became irreversible after the Severan period“[34]. This change is also reflected by the fact that in some cases games and festivals became a source of specific concern (and warnings) by the central authority. In the text of the well known foundation set up under Hadrian by C. Iulius Demosthenes at Oinoanda, the governor of Lycia, Flavius Aper, subjected the granting of the tax-free status of all commercial activities during the days of the festival of the Demostheneia to the condition that the citizens of Oinoanda ”take care that the city’s revenues are in no way diminished“[35]. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius showed a similar concern in A.D. 177 in replying to the Milesians, who had asked him permission to promote the festival of the Didymeia to the status of sacred games following the accession of Commodus: Marcus’ reply reveals his concern to prevent other cities from undertaking the financial burden of such festivals[36]. In the same year a senatus consultum was enacted in order to put limits on spending on gladiatorial shows; it applied to both western and eastern provinces[37]. As regards more specifically Greece, it is worth mentioning the Athenian gerousia. This body, composed by 400 members appointed according to age and wealth, was created at the end of the Principate of Marcus Aurelius (most likely with his encouragement) in order to cope with the financing of some festivals, and in particular with the Panathenaia, through the revenues from land holdings[38]. These concerns sometimes resulted in direct interventions taking the form of imperial grants[39]. In light of what has been said, such interventions cannot be regarded only as an expression of the traditional ‘paternalistic’ attitude of the imperial power towards its subjects, but also as the direct consequence of a real concern for the status of civic finances. Generally speaking, this concern became manifest, starting from the beginning of the 2^nd c. A.D., with the appointment of imperial functionaries called curatores rei publicae who were charged with the temporary supervision of civic finances, and therefore of all activities, festivals included, that entailed public expenditure [40]. The expenses for the celebration of Geta’s dies imperii in Athens (A.D. 209/10), including sacrifices for the whole of the imperial family and distributions to the people, needed the preliminary consent of thelogistes (= curator) of the polis C. Licinius Telemachus, as indicated by the fact that the relevant decree was the result of a gnome of the Areopagus, the boule of 500 and the popular assembly, which had previously been submitted for approval to Telemachus, and most likely to the emperor himself, as it concerned honours for the imperial family [41].

The issue of the funding of religious festivals and similar celebrations in the Graeco-Roman world is of course part of the wider and complex theme of civic finances (their nature and administration). Civic finances included sources of both public and private nature: taxes (direct and indirect); revenues from state and sacred properties (real estate, harbour and other public infrastructure, mines, etc.); public loans and subscriptions[42]; foundations [43]; summae honorariae, entrance fees for the city councils, and other formal or customary financial obligations connected with local magistracies and charges (munera, λειτουργίαι) [44]; benefactions by public officials and private individuals; gifts and grants from rulers[45]. Bearing in mind this scheme, largely based on the evidence (mostly epigraphic) at our disposal, the sources of funding for festivals and similar celebrations can be divided into two main categories: a) public revenues (including sacred funds)[46]; b) private funds, which cities had at their disposal as the result of more or less institutionalized forms of financial service by the office-holders involved in the organization of such celebrations ( in primis the agonothetai) as well as supplementary benefactions performed by the same public officials or by well-to-do individuals, and in some cases also by the representatives of an external and higher authority such as Hellenistic monarchs, Roman emperors and imperial officials. A particular position is occupied by the agonistic foundations, located in some way at the intersection between public and private funding, since they consisted of donations of sums of money (or estates) to a city (or a sanctuary) by private individuals or magistrates, often in the form of a bequest: such donations were to be administered by civic officials in order to secure, usually for a long time, the financing of a given festival, according to the recommendations provided by the donor[47].

Thus, it can be said that on a general level the funding of festivals reflected the combined nature (public and private) of civic finances [48]. The above mentioned ac­count of the Serapieia of Tanagra, in Boeotia, dated to the beginning of the 1^st c. B.C., offers an exemplary demonstration of this mixed system of financing [49]. It contains an account (apologia) by the agonothetes of the pentaeteric Serapieia, Glaukos, who had received 3,000 drachmas for the ordinary costs of the festival from a civic board in charge of the administration of an agonistic foundation set up by a certain Charilaos. Glaukos used this sum to cover several expenses connected with the festival, which included a thymelic contest: he spent 2,070 drachmas for the purchase of the gold with which the crowns given to the competitors as first prizes were made; 400 drachmas for the second prizes (sums of money); 46 drachmas for the salary of the goldsmith who had made the crowns, 230 drachmas for the costume maker, 190 for the choirs, and 40 for the auletai; finally, he spent 300 drachmas for the sacrifices to Isis, Serapis and the other gods, and for the attached banquet, according to the foundation decree of the festival[50]. Glaukos spent in total 3,276 drachmas, a little more than the sum he had at his disposal for the ordinary costs of the festival: he will have paid the difference (276 drachmas) out of his own pocket, even though this is not specified in the inscription. Moreover, we learn from his account that Glaukos returned 140 drachmas to the commission, a surplus sum originally destined for second prizes which had never been assigned [51]. Furthermore, in addition to using the 3,000 drachmas received by the civic commission (and funding the deficit of 276 drachmas), Glaukos covered entirely out of his own pocket other expenses connected to the festival: he paid for sacrificial victims and libations, as well as for the daily banquets offered to judges, artists, choirs and winners [52].

Considering that religious festivals and agones represented a fundamental aspect of civic life in Greek communities, it can almost be taken for granted that public funds were allocated to finance these events as well as related activities. This statement is confirmed also indirectly, or ‘in negative’, through the occurrence in inscriptions of expressions such as ”at one’s own expense“ with reference to the holding of civic charges connected with the realm of festivals and games: the specification that an official had covered, in part or entirely, the costs of a charge out of his own pocket means that, at least in theory, public money was usually expected to fund that charge [53]. Notwithstanding this fact, direct and explicit references to the allocation and use of public funds for festivals and similar activities are, at least for the period in question, quite limited, and amount to a few cases such as an Athenian inscription of the 2^nd c. B.C. that mentions funds (prosodoi) allocated for the Panathenaic festival [54]. Indeed, it is worth noting that in most cases reference is made not to proper public subsidies but to ‘sacred’ funds, that is to revenues belonging to a sanctuary. Some financial accounts of Boeotian federal festivals show that the latter were financed through the revenues of the sanctuary where they were held. At Lebadea, Xenarchos, the agonothetes of the Basileia, had at his disposal 260 Aeginetic (bronze) drachmas plus 198 Attic drachmas. While the latter sum was a remnant from the budget of the former agonothetes, originally reserved for winners of horse races that had never taken place, the 260 Aeginetic drachmas were revenues deriving from the lease of the hippodrome — more precisely the horses-enclosure (hippaphesis) — and the stadium (with the surrounding area), both of which belonged to the sanctuary of Zeus Basileus. In addition to these revenues, Xenarchos could also have counted on the contribution (eisphora) which the cities of the Boeotian koinon usually had to pay in order to subsidize the federal Lebadeia; however, the agonothetes himself declared that he had exempted all of the cities from the payment of this eisphora[55]. The Pamboiotia — the proper national festival of the Boeotian ethnos and koinon — were also financed through sacred funds, as we learn from the accounts (apologia) of Nikarchos, a secretary of the Boeotian federal board of the naopoioi, who was in charge of the admi­nistration of the federal sanctuary of Athena Ithonia at Coronea as well as the management of the festival[56]. In addition to the lease of the hippodrome (maybe the hippaphesis in this case also), which yielded 250 denarii, other revenues consisted in a tax of 437.5 denarii on the provisional booths used by itinerant merchants and sellers, levied as a due for the occupation of public soil; a wine tax of 200 denarii; a sum deriving from the lease and exploitation of lands sacred to Athena Ithonia (a tithe of 40 denarii on barley; 100 denarii deriving from a tithe on corn and the lease of a field)[57]. Another pan-Boeotic festival, the already mentioned Delia, was financed through the lending of sums of money belonging to the sanctuary of Apollo, in the territory of Tanagra, to the organizing Boeotian cities, which in their turn paid back an annual interest to the sanctuary, thus undertaking a sort of annual contribution to the financial backing of the costs of this festival[58]. Other examples of funding of festivals through sacred funds from other areas of the Greek peninsula can also be mentioned. The hieros nomos of Gythium, in southern Laconia, concerning the celebration of the Kaisareia, informs us that this festival, which included theatrical performances, was financed with hiera chremata. The magistrate in charge of the administration of these funds and of the payment of the artists — as well as of the general organization of the Kaisareia — was the agoranomos, who at the end of the festival had to submit an account before the assembly. If he were found guilty of embezzlement, he would have his possessions confiscated and used for the purchase of additional theatrical ornaments (προσκοσμήματα)[59]. Public funds of a sacred nature were probably used to cover, at least in part, the costs of the organization of the Asclepieia at Epidaurus as well. In the latter polis a board of four hieromnemones had financial duties in connection with the sanctuary of Asclepios. Officials called hieromnemones are attested in various Greek cities, where they were involved in the administration of sanctuaries; their tasks often had to do with financial matters: they administered the sacred properties and treasure, in addition to collecting taxes and fines. They could also take charge of the execution of honorary decrees, as long as the costs were covered by the funds administered by the hieromnemones (hieromnemonikoi poroi), as attested at Epidaurus by the dedicatory inscription of an honorary monument for the Emperor Septimius Severus, his son Caracalla and his wife Iulia Domna, which was set up ἐκ τῶν ἱερομνημονικῶν πόρων[60]. Thus, it can be assumed that at least part of the funds administered by the hieromnemones at Epidaurus was intended to fund the celebration of the pentaeteric festival in honour of the god Asclepios [61].

Generally speaking, the revenues of a sanctuary usually derived from the lease and/or exploitation of sacred properties [62], taxes and duties of various kinds, fines, public subscriptions, foundations and donations. A sanctuary could also be assigned some revenues following the authoritative decision of an external power, as shown by the senatus consultum of 73 B.C. on the controversy between the Roman publicans and the polis of Oropos at the borders between Attica and Boeotia[63]. After defeating Mithridates’ armies at Chaeronea and Orchomenos, the Roman general Sulla granted a portion (1,000 feet) of the territory (chora) of the polis of Oropos to the sanctuary of Amphiaraos, declaring this portion to be inviolable (asylos). Furthermore, he stated that from that moment on, all of the revenues (prosodoi) deriving from the polis, its chora and harbours — i.e. the vectigalia formerly exacted by the Roman publicani — would be used to finance the celebration of the agones and the sacrifices for the god Amphiaraos, as well as those that the Oropians would perform in the future in honour of the Romans[64]. The funds of a sanctuary could also be filled out thanks to individual acts of munificence. Xenarchos, for example, the agonothetes of the Basileia of Lebadea, gave proof of great generosity, as instead of using the (sacred) funds at his disposal, he paid for all the costs of the festival out of his own pocket, except for a not specified, but presumably low sum of money he spent to dedicate a phiale to Zeus Basileus [65].

These examples show that a sanctuary’s revenues (i.e. ‘sacred funds’) were used to cover, at least partially, the costs involved in the organization and celebration of religious festivals, and this must hold true, in my opinion, even in those cases for which we lack direct information. At Delphi, for example, a part of the funds of the sanctuary of Apollo must have been used to cope with the expenses connected with the celebration of the Pythian games, as the organization of the Pythia can be considered to be, as F. Lefèvre has underlined, ”la plus prestigieuse des tâches de l’Amphictionie“: some funds must certainly have been provided for this scope[66]. With regard to this, it is worth noting that the hieromnemones, who were in charge of all of the main aspects of the Pythia, were also, in the Hellenistic period, the chief responsible for the financial administration of the Amphictiony (they also collected a special tax, called ”tithe of the Pythia “, whose exact nature is not known)[67]. By the imperial period a newly introduced functionary, the epimeletes, had become the administrator of the hiera chremata[68]; together with the agonothetai of the Pythia, theepimeletai also took care of some of the tasks concerning the organization of the festival [69].

On the other hand, one has to consider that as far as a sanctuary depended on a city (or koinon), its funds, although formally distinct from public funds, also depended on that city (or koinon), and were usually administered by civic (or federal) officials according to rules fixed by the city (or koinon) itself. Cities resorted to sacred funds especially for expenses linked to cultic activities, such as religious festivals [70]. In their turn, sanctuaries used to receive funds from the city on which they depended, and those funds from that moment on came to be considered as sacred funds. In independent Delos, for example, funds were regularly allocated by the city, following a decision of the assembly, to the sanctuary of Apollo in order to cover several expenses, among which were those for the organization of the Thesmophoria, Posideia and Eileithyaia, and for the prizes in the athletic contests of the Apollonia [71]. Τhe expenses covered with these funds according to laws and decrees (τὰ κατὰ νόμους καὶ ψηφίσματα) were distinct from the ‘monthly’ (τὰ κατὰ μῆνα) expenses, for which some ordinary funds were used. Both the latter and the funds for the expenses approved ”according to laws and decrees“ were managed by the hieropoioi and were considered to be part of the ‘sacred chest’ of the sanctuary[72].

Another interesting case of public funding of a festival is provided by the already mentioned Mysteries of Andania in Messenia. In addition to cultic dispositions, the sacred regulation concerning this festival also contains a paragraph on its financial administration [73]. We learn from it that the city of Messene assumed the expenses of the reform by allocating funds for the restoration of some buildings[74] in theCarneiasion (sanctuary of Apollo Carneios) and for the funding of the first ce­lebration of the reformed festival [75]. A specific board of five members (the Five) was appointed, charged with the management of the funds allocated by the polis and of the revenues of the festival; the latter consisted mainly of taxes (‘purification taxes’; tax paid by the mystai) and fines. At the end of the Mysteries, the Five had to make an account before the synedroi (city councillors) [76]. The city of Messene therefore took care of the funding of the building works in the Carneiasion and of the first celebration of the festival. However, according to the Messenian authorities — who devised the regulation — the Five would have been able, by means of the revenues that they had received during the festival, to reimburse the city for the entire sum allocated for the building works and for the celebration of the Mysteries; a surplus was also expected on the revenues of the festival, to be used to continue the works at the sanctuary[77]. The paragraph in question ends with a clause stating that ”once the sum which is required for the celebration of the Mysteries has been spent, the sums coming from the Mysteries shall become part of the revenues of the city“[78]. It appears, therefore, that for the future the Messenian authorities expected the revenues of each celebration of the festival to be sufficient to ensure, on a regular basis, both the funding of the festival and even a surplus revenue (given that the revenues of the first year were expected to reimburse the city for the expenses, not only of the festival, but also of the building works in the sanctuary)[79]. In return for an initial ‘investment’, Messene regarded the Mysteries as a source of revenues for its finances. This is in line with what I have said above about the economic implications of festivals and games, and it is confirmed by what is known about another Peloponnesian mystery festival, which took place at the sanctuary of Despoina at Lykosoura, in Arcadia. In the 1^st c. A.D. Megalopolis, the city on which the sanctuary depended, had to resort to the liberality of a local benefactor, a certain Nikasippos — who accepted the priesthood of Despoina and paid the taxes owed to the Roman fiscus out of his own pocket — since the Mysteries of Lykosoura, which evidently represented a substantial source of revenues for Megalopolis, had yielded nothing that year due to the concurrence of the Olympic games[80].

What emerges from the evidence, therefore, is the close interconnection and interdependency between public and sacred funds, which perfectly reflects the close interconnection between a Greek city, its sanctuaries and its religious festivals. What is worth underlining, in any case, is that ‘public’ funds (be they in the form of proper public subsidies, or money belonging to a sanctuary’s treasury, or revenues deriving from the properties of a sanctuary) must have been quite regularly used to cover the expenses connected with the celebration and organization of festivals and similar activities, although this is only referred to explicitly in a relatively limited number of cases in our extant sources [81].

Public funds for the organization and celebration of games are also attested at Sparta, in connection with the festival of the Kaisareia kai Eurycleia. In the third century, the public budget of the polis of Sparta still provided ”agonothetic funds“ for the celebration of this combined festival. Although public, these funds most likely included (or even originated from) the revenues of at least one agonistic foundation set up by a local benefactor. It cannot be excluded, however, that these ”agonothetic funds“ included public revenues of a different provenience as well. Let us consider the evidence.

In the 3^rd c. A.D. M. Aurelius Cleomenes son of Nikephoros, agathos and philopatris, agonothetes of the megala Kaisareia kai Eurycleia, was honoured for giving back to the polis the entire surplus of the ”agonothetic funds“ (ἀγωνοθετικὰ χρήματα), at the same time providing that the statues and images of the victors were set up within the legally fixed term[82]. Although their earliest attestation dates to the Flavian age [83], the Spartan Kaisareia were likely founded in the age of Augustus, and the responsibility for their institution in all probability lies with the same C. Iulius Eurycles — ‘friend’ of Augustus, from whom he received the civitas and the recognition of a personal dynasteia over the Spartans — who was also instigator of the introduction of the emperor cult in the Lacedaemonian city at the beginning of the Principate[84]. Eurycles must have provided financially for the institution of the new imperial festival (Kaisareia), in the context of the creation of a cult of Augustus at Sparta, probably also setting up an endowment in order to provide for the celebration of the festival in the following years. The refurbishment of the theatre of Sparta during the reign of Augustus may be connected with the creation of the Kaisareia, and Eurycles probably contributed money towards the works in the theatre[85]. If Eurycles set up an endowment for the Kaisareia, as seems likely, part of the ”agonothetic funds“ mentioned in the honorary inscription for the agonothetes M. Aurelius Cleomenes may have consisted of the revenues of that endowment[86]. As for the Eurycleia, they were named after Eurycles’ descendant C. Iulius Eurycles Herculanus, the first Spartan to enter the Roman Senate, who was active during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian[87]. On his death, about A.D. 136, Herculanus left some properties to his own city; in the year A.D. 136/7 a civic official called πράκτωρ τῶν ἀπὸ Εὐρυκλέους is first attested at Sparta: he must have been in charge of the administration of Herculanus’ bequest to his own city[88]. The revenues, or, more likely, some of the revenues of this bequest were to be used to endow a new pentaeteric festival in honour of Herculanus, the Eurycleia. This can be inferred from a catalogue of ephors — dated by the patronomate of Neikephoros son of Marcus to A.D. 136/7, i.e. immediately after Herculanus’ death — in which the first celebration of the Eurycleia is recorded together with the donation of the island of Cythera to Sparta by the Emperor Hadrian [89]. Both these events are most likely connected with Herculanus’ will. In addition to leaving some of his properties to Sparta, Herculanus, following the common practice among the Roman aristocracy of including the emperor in wills, will have bequeathed his own family’s estates on the island of Cythera to the emperor, who in turn gave them back to Sparta, together with the entire island [90]. After Hadrian’s gift, therefore, the revenues from the island will have increased Herculanus’ bequest to Sparta. Moreover, according to a suggestion by Spawforth, the thermal complex found west of the theatre of Sparta should be identified with the gymnasium of Eurycles mentioned by Pausanias, ”the donor to be understood as the opulent Eurycles Herculanus“; this gift may have been part of Herculanus’ bequest, and it can be connected with the introduction of the Eurycleia [91].

In light of the previous considerations we can argue that the ”agonothetic funds“ referred to in the above-mentioned honorary inscription for theagonothetes of the Kaisareia kai Eurycleia, M. Aurelius Cleomenes, most likely included the revenues of Herculanus’ endowment for the Eurycleia, and maybe also those of the endowment that Herculanus’ ancestor, C. Iulius Eurycles, had likely set up on the occasion of the institution of the Kaisareia (unless these endowments had run out by this time). We can imagine, therefore, a similar situation for both festivals (Kaisareia and Eurycleia): a local benefactor creates a new festival, and in order to secure its funding he sets up an endowment, administered by civic functionaries[92].

This is what probably happened also at Epidaurus, when Cn. Cornelius Nicatas, twice priest of Augustus and agonothetes of the Apollonieiakai Asclepieia, founded an imperial festival, the Kaisareia, and held for the first time the presidency of the games [93]: it is likely that Nicatas, in addition to assuming the expenses of the first celebration of the new festival, also allocated a sum to secure the celebration of the festival in the future.

To return to Sparta, some time after Herculanus’ bequest, the Kaisareia and Eurycleia began to be celebrated successively in the same year. A. J. S. Spawforth has supposed that ”the reasons for this association may have been financial, perhaps so as to allow the more recent endowment bequeathed by Herculanus to subsidize the (by now depleted?) funds given by his ancestor for the older festival“ [94]. If this is the case, Eurycles’ endowment may have run out by the middle of the 2^nd c. A.D. In fact, although foundations were often supposed to be eternal, at least in the intention of their authors, they could be affected both by bad administration and by the un­certainties of the market (e.g. debasement of currency [95]).

Modifications to an already existing foundation are attested by a fragmentary inscription from Eleusis dated to the second half of the 2^nd c. A.D. It consists of a decree — to which an extract of a declaration of a praefectus named Severus is attached — probably voted by the synedrion of the Panhellenes, which concerns a foundation originally set up in order to favour the financial administration of the sanctuary of the Two Gods, and particularly the celebration of the Mysteries. Among other matters, which remain obscure due to the fragmentary nature of the text, the latter contains provisions for the use of a surplus deriving from the original foundation to make distributions to the members of the Athenian boule and to priests and other cultic personnel of the sanctuary of Eleusis. The author of the original donation, which was administered by the hierophantes and the dadouchos, is probably to be identified with T. Flavius Xenion of Marathon, archon of the Panhellenion in the years A.D. 165–169, who some years later left some funds in his will for the celebration of birthday ceremonies for members of his own family and the imperial family in his hometown of Gortyn (Crete)[96].

In some cases an agonistic foundation could be set up to resume a festival (or one of its events) which was no longer being regularly celebrated due to the lack of public funds. This is what happened a little before the middle of the 1^st c. B.C. at Pagai, in the Megaris. Soteles son of Kallinikos was honoured for giving the city 1,200 Alexandrine drachmas; the interest on this sum was to be used to finance the yearly celebration of the pyrrhic — a traditional dance in armour with musical ac­companiment performed during the festival of the Soteria — whose realization in many cases was prevented by the absence of adequate funds[97]. Another Megarian Hellenistic inscription attests to the institution of a foundation intended to fill out the funds allocated for the celebration of an agon and sacrifices addressed to a certain Poseidonios. In this case the author of the donation is a woman, Arete daughter of Aristandros. After buying a portion of akepos located near the sea from the koinon of the Aigosthenitai for 1,000 drachmas, she consecrated to Poseidonios and the koinon itself a temenos, called Poseidonion. From the revenues (phoros) of this temenos, which was evidently rented out, the members of the koinon were required to enlarge the endowment (argyrion) allocated for the costs of the celebration of an agon and sacrifices for Poseidonios, so as to make them more splendid[98].

A ruler could also set up an agonistic foundation. At the end of the 3^rd c. B.C., on the occasion of the reorganization of the festival of the Mouseia, Ptolemaios IV and Arsinoe III donated a sum of money to Thespies, which was reinvested by the Boeotian city in some estates. The revenues derived from the lease of these lands will have been used to pay for the prizes assigned to competitors in the dramatic contests of the Mouseia [99]. Some years before, a private individual serving as hiereus of the Muses had consecrated 4,200 drachmas to the latter and the city in order to provide Thespies with an income to be used for the purchase of the oxen to be sacrificed during the Mouseia[100]. In 12 B.C. Herodes of Judea received the honorary title of perpetual agonothetes (διηνεκὴς ἀγωνοθέτης) from the Eleans, having set up an endowment for the Olympic games [101]. The title of agonothetes (of the Olympic games) was also bestowed three times on the Rhodian M. Cocceius Timasarchus[102]. As in the case of Herodes, Timasarchus, who was archon of the Panhellenion in the years A.D. 197–200, most likely received that title because of his financial support of the celebration of the Olympic festival. At Elis a regular office of president of the games did not exist, the title of agonothetes being sometimes bestowed as an honorary recognition of well-to-do and munificent foreign benefactors who had contributed money to the cost of the Olympic festival, as shown by the two examples just mentioned[103]. Some of the tasks of theagonothetes — as well as of the financial burden that agonothetai usually sustained in Greek cities [104] — might have been assumed at Elis by the alytarches, a police officer charged with the control of good order in the sanctuary during the celebration of the games. It seems that by the third century A.D. this official had financial duties as well, judging from the recurrence of expressions such as δαψιλὴς φιλοτιμία and φιλοτείμως in honorary inscriptions for alytarchs set up by the Olympic boule and the alytai: those expressions point most likely to liturgies or voluntary financial service, some of which may have been performed in the context of the Olympic games[105].

The activities of the gymnasium — an institution connected with athletism and agones — were sometimes funded through foundations as well. In the commercial harbour of Gythium, a woman named Phaenia Aromation — a rich liberta involved in the trade of perfumes — provided the oil for the local gymnasium by setting up a bequest; it was her intention that the interest from the sum she had bequeathed to the city should have ensured in perpetuity the provision of oil for those attending the gymnasium, both citizens of Gythium and foreigners [106]. Endowment of the activities of the gymnasium is also attested at Sparta, where this practice seems to have been quite frequent in the late 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, at least judging by the honorary title of permanent (aionios) gymnasiarch which occurs six times in inscriptions, being bestowed on those individuals who had endowed the office of gymnasiarch instead of actually holding it[107]. An endowment for the gymnasiarchy was set up by the emperor Hadrian in Athens. Starting from the second half of the 2^nd c. A.D. inscriptions mention an official called ” epimeletes of the gymnasiarchy of the god Hadrian“: he must have been in charge of a fund donated by the philhellene emperor to finance the activities of the Athenian gymnasia[108]. Even after the introduction of this endowment, rich and ambitious men could still assume the office of gymnasiarch, yet in these cases they usually covered the resulting expenses out of their own pockets[109].

As we have seen, public and sacred funds were usually allocated to finance festivals and agones. Moreover, ad hoc foundations may in some cases have augmented civic funds, thus securing the celebration of festivals and games even for long periods of time. Notwithstanding this fact, and even though a religious festival itself usually represented a source of revenues for the organizing city — as the case of the Mysteries of Andania shows — public funds were not always adequate for the financing of such events. Cities therefore had to resort to the liberality of their citizens (private individuals and office-holders) or of well-to-do foreigners, and later also to the gifts of the emperors or of other representatives of the Roman state. The example of Messene, which used to assign the provision of the sacrificial victims for the Mysteries of Andania — as well as of the firewood for the heating of the baths of the sanctuary of Apollo Carneios where the Mysteries took place — to any (well-to-do) citizen who agreed to accomplish this task for the lowest price[110], shows that even when public funds and/or the revenues coming from a festival secured its financing[111], the members of the elite were still called upon to play an important role in support of their cities.

Generally speaking, in the communities of the Roman Empire the munificence of the wealthy members of the elite — expressed through both formal or customary financial obligations (summa honoraria and liturgies) and other supplementary benefactions (i.e. proper acts of euergetism, which by strict definition should be spontaneous) — represented one of the most important items of civic finances, its weight greatly increasing over time [112]. By the second century A.D., public euergetism — in its widest sense — had become a regular feature of civic life, i.e. of the functioning of civic institutions, representing an essential aspect of a city’s insti­tutional machinery[113]. This situation is reflected in the epigraphic habit of that epoch and in the honours publicly bestowed on the benefactors in order to encourage others to act like them.

The poleis of Greece were not exceptions to the general trend which saw, beginning particularly from the Late Hellenistic period and with growing intensity during the first two centuries of the Empire, the decisive role of notables in the organization and funding of civic activities (including festivals). As we have seen, this liberality sometimes took the form of an (agonistic) foundation, but in many other cases it consisted of services and benefactions of various kinds performed both by private individuals and office-holders.

In Greek cities the official charged with the organization of a festival was the agonothetes. If the financing of a festival was made through public funds, in theory the agonothetes was not expected to contribute money to it. It seems, for example, that at the already mentioned Demostheneia at Oinoanda in Lycia most of the agonothetes’ burden was organizational rather than financial, since the festival’s funding was secured by Demosthenes’ foundation. In practice, however, this charge quite invari­ably amounted to an onerous liturgy; in particular, if the funding was not adequate, the agonothetes might end up contributing a large sum of money, for example by providing prizes [114]. As C. Roueché has put it, ”in practice there was always a chance to spend … and there are signs that the term (scil. agonothetes) became increasingly equated with simply putting on (and paying for) a contest“ [115].

As has already been mentioned, the polis of Athens allocated public funds for the celebration of the festival of the patron goddess of the city, the Panathenaia. The same must hold true for other festivals as well. Furthermore, after the abolition of the choregia at the end of the 4^th c. B.C., individual choregoi — who before that reform were required to sustain the costs for the preparation of dramatic and dithyrambic choruses — were replaced by the collective choregia of the demos, which implied that in theory from that moment on it will have been up to the polis to cover the expenses of the Dionysia and the other dramatic festivals (Lenaia, Thargelia). As a matter of fact, however, the money allocated by the polis was not sufficient to pay for all of the involved expenses; as a consequence, in addition to taking charge of the practical aspects of the festivals, the newly introduced official of the agonothetes had to contribute money to their costs[116]. Thus we can say that although the reorganization of the Athenian choregia at the beginning of the Hellenistic age implies the existence of some public funds for civic festivals, in practice it was the individual agonothetes who was called on to sustain much of the financial burden at his own expense. For example, the famous Athenian of royal descent Philopappus was honoured as archon and agonothetes of the Dionysia by the tribe Aiantis for his euergesia, which certainly consisted in sustaining the festival’s expenses[117]. The epigraphic and literary evidence for the liberal spending of the Athenian agonothetai also relates to other agonistic festivals of the city. The agonothesia of the Panathenaia (particularly the Megala Panathenaia) equated to a very onerous liturgy. Around the middle of the 2^nd c. B.C. Miltiades of Marathon, as agonothetes of the Panathenaic festival, lent considerable sums of money to his city without claiming the interest, in addition to assuming many expenses connected with the celebration of the festival out of his own pocket. More­over, he financed building works on the Acropolis, in the Odeion and the Anakeion [118]. An individual’s liberality and philotimia could reach very high levels, as in the case of the Athenian ‘millionaire’ Herodes Atticus, who during his four year term as agonothetes of thePanathenaia completed and paid for the rebuilding in marble of the Panathenaic stadium[119]. A series of honorary decrees for agonothetai of the Theseia, dated to the middle of the 2^nd c. B.C., give further details on the variety of expenses connected with a festival and of the financial burden an agonothetes could be called upon to sustain. The agonothetai in question are honoured for organizing a well-ordered procession, for realizing the sacrifices to Theseus in the ancient manner, for taking care of the contestants in the lampadedromia and the athletic agon, for providing prizes for the winners; moreover, they made daily distributions of money to the boule and the prytanies and paid for the erection of a stele with the name of the winners, to be set up in the sanctuary of Theseus [120].

Many further examples of the munificence of the agonothetai can be found in other parts of Greece. At Argos, two agonothetai of the festival of the Sebasteia kai Nemeia are known to have performed several benefactions. In particular, they pro­vided the gymnasia and the bath with oil for an entire day from dawn to sunset and offered a hecatomb to Zeus Nemeios [121]. Another Argive agonothetes, Ti. Iulius Regulus, donated a sum of money to the goddess Hera, his generosity being rewarded with a golden crown and a purple cloak[122]. Still at Argos, C. Claudius Tychicus, while holding the position of eisagogeus — basically an assistant of the agonothetes — of the Heraia, made a distribution of one denarium to every free-born citizen[123], while at Epidaurus an anonymous benefactor was honoured for giving 10,000 denarii ”for the agones of the Sebastoi“, in addition to donating 5,000 drachmas to the city[124]. At Akraiphia, Aischriondas son of Praxilles, agonothetes of thePtoia, offered sacrifices to the gods and banquets to his fellow citizens with liberality and splendour (ἐκτενῶς δὲ καὶ λαμπρῶς) [125]. At Thespies Lysandros son of Polycratides held the agonothesia of the Erotideia Rhomaia at his own expense, in addition to a priesthood[126] . Ariston son of Phileinos was honoured by the polis and the demos of Thespies for holding several local offices in an excellent way and for twice assuming (evidently at his own expense) the agonothesia of the Erotideia kai Kaisareia, of the Mouseia and of the games in honour of Livia[127]. At Hyampolis, in Phocis, an individual introduced some festivals (Megala Kaisareia, Megala Elaphebolia, Laphria) and held the post of agonothetes at his own expense [128].

As already noted, one of the most expensive items of agonistic festivals was the provision of prizes for victors. In the 3^rd c. B.C. the Argive Eudoxos son of Eudoxos was honoured by the Amphictions as he had promised to realize at his own expense ten bronze-gilded shields for the foot race of the Pythia[129]. At Sparta around A.D. 98 two local benefactors, C. Iulius Agesilaus,patronomos in about A.D. 100, and T. Flavius Charixenus, likely a kinsman of the former (perhaps his son-in-law), appear as first athlothetai (”prize-givers“) of the newly founded Ourania[130], while probably late in the reign of Trajan, on the occasion of the reorganization of the already mentioned Leonideia, Agesilaus promised to give Sparta HS 42,000 to be used to provide (or increase) the prize-money in specific events; such a gift permitted the city to double the value of the cash prizes, which were apparently increased to HS 120,000[131]. Moreover, the famous Spartan benefactor and member of the Euryclids, C. Iulius Laco, who probably founded the local cult of Augustus’ spouse Livia after her death in A.D. 29, or following her official consecration in A.D. 42, might have contributed money to the annual games (Livia) on which this cult was centred[132]. Cn. Cornelius Pulcher, who was agonothetes of the Isthmia kai Kaisareia during the reign of the Emperor Claudius, took the Isthmia back to the Isthmus (they had until then been celebrated at Corinth) and introduced poetry contests for young girls into the programme of the Kaisareia, in honour of the diva Iulia Augusta (i.e. Livia); in all probability he contributed money to the prizes for these new contests, and maybe also to the restoration of the buildings where theKaisareia took place. Moreover, he offered a banquet to all the citizens of the colony of Corinth [133]. At Hypata, in Thessaly, T. Flavius Eubiotus, serving as archiereus and agonothetes of the theoi Sebastoi, promised to provide the prizes (crowns) for the victors in the imperial festival (Sebasta )[134].

The agonothetes was not the only civic official to play a part in the organization and celebration of festivals and games. Quite obviously, the gymnasiarch too played an important role, given the relationship in Greek cities between agones, athletic life and the gymnasium, a relationship that there is no need to stress once again here; suffice it to say that one of the main duties of this official was to ensure that the gymnasium, where athletes as well as normal citizens underwent their physical training, had an adequate provision of oil. But the complex and multifaceted nature of Greek religious festivals accounts for the involvement of other officials, such as the agoranomos. The latter, who in Greek cities was the official usually in charge of the market and the provision of supplies, played an important role in connection with festivals, since during such events, as we have seen, many people gathered in a city or sanctuary, and commercial activities took place. The agoranomos’ role in connection with festivals is further proved by the existence in some cases, next to the agoranomos of the city, of a special agoranomos attached to the panegyris[135].

Inscriptions show that it was not at all infrequent for gymnasiarchs and agora­nomoi to spend their own money to accomplish their tasks, exactly as the agonothetai did[136]. I will limit myself to citing a few examples. At Thisbe a gymnasiarch was honored because, while fulfilling his role at his own expense, he dedicated to Hermes, Herakles and the polis a stoa, a gateway and some doors, all of which were likely connected to the city’s gymnasium [137]. At Megara, towards the end of the 1^st c. A.D., two individuals, most likely father and son, were honoured by the boule and the demos for holding the gymnasiarchy at their own expense [138]. In the same period the polis of Delphi honored the gymnasiarch Archelaos son of Hyginos for providing oil φιλοτείμως καὶ πολυτελῶς[139]. It is also worth mentioning the case of the Spartan notable C. Iulius Theophrastus, who, while gymnasiarch, provided oil for the gymnasium, the thermai and the Machanidai[140], after buying it at 30 denarii per hydria. He was also agoranomos (on the occasion of Hadrian’s first visit to Sparta) and sitones; while holding the latter office, he provided cheap grain in a period of shortage: he bought it at 40 denarii per medimnos and made it available at Sparta at 12 per medimnos[141]. Similar acts connected with the provision of supplies were most likely performed by two Elean agoranomoi, in one case certainly during the Olympic games. L. Vettulenus Laetus, agoranomos during the 216^th Olympiad (A.D. 85), was honoured by the ecumenical athletic association, by the athletes who took part in the Olympic games and by the hiera xystike synodos for his munificence and generosity, which means that he must have provided food at his own expense, at least in part, for the athletes[142]. Ti. Claudius Niceratus held the position of agoranomos φιλοτίμως[143] in a period of shortage; he probably bought some supplies at his own expense so as to make them available at a low price. As he was honoured not only by the polis of Elis but also by the Olympic boule, Niceratus may have performed his good deed during the celebration of the Olympic games, when the influx of visitors to the sanctuary of Zeus resulted in an increase in the demand for food[144].

It also occurred sometimes that emperors themselves intervened to help the poleis to sustain the costs of festivals. Hadrian’s initiatives in favour of the city of Athens are a good example of this phenomenon. It seems that the philhellene princeps assumed in perpetuum the agonothesia of the Hadrianeia, as no agonothetai of this festival are attested in inscriptions: in other words, he will have allocated an endowment to finance the celebration of the festival, which was likely founded on the initiative of Hadrian himself. Hadrian was also responsible for the institution of the Panhellenia, which Dio says he founded soon after giving permission to the Hellenes to build a sanctuary for the cult of his own person (the Panhellenion). In the same passage Dio goes on to say that Hadrian granted a sum of money to the Athenians, an annual quota of grain and the revenues from the island of Kephallenia [145]: a part of the income deriving from these ‘gifts’ may have been used to finance the celebration of the Panhellenia. Furthermore, when visiting Athens in A.D. 124/5, Hadrian held the ago­nothesia of the Dionysia[146].

If we take into consideration a Roman colony like Patrai, we see that there euergetism expressed itself, so to speak, through the typical Roman institutions. Following his election to the position of duovir (pro duoviratu), P. Pomponius Atianus offered a munus (i.e. a gladiatorial spectacle) to the colony at his own expense[147]. In Roman colonies and municipia the offering (editio) of munera and ludi scaenici was usually performed by magistrates (duoviri but also aediles) — as well as by sexviri, sexviri Augustales and Augustales — upon entering their office as a form of summa honora­ria[148]. Yet, it could also be accomplished by a magistrate as an additional benefaction for having been elected to an office (ob honorem), usually as a con­sequence of a promise ( pollicitatio), made either before or after appointment to that office[149] .

Gladiatorial combats and wild-beast shows (venationes) not only spread in the eastern part of the Empire — and even in completely Greek cities like Athens — but they also came to represent one of the main events in the celebrations attached to the imperial cult. Municipal and provincial imperial priests used to offer such spectacles in honour of the emperors, often out of their own pocket, and L. Robert has suggested that the editio ofmunera was ”obligatoire pour les grands-prêtres des provinces, légitime et facultative pour ceux des cités“ [150].

Although there is no available epigraphic evidence for Corinth regarding munera gladiatoria or venationes, that such events took place there is shown by both the archaeological data[151] and some literary sources [152]. Among the latter, one deserves further consideration for its financial implications. It is a letter included in the correspondence of the emperor Julian, but of disputed date and authorship, concerning a quarrel between Argos and Corinth about sums of money the former owed to the latter for the staging of wild-beast shows (venationes) in the Roman colony[153]. Based on this letter, A. J. S. Spawforth has suggested that the venationes referred to in it would be part of a major festival held at Corinth — in the frame of the imperial cult administered by the Achaean league — which was financed through contributions of the cities belonging to the koinon, maybe with the sanction of the Roman autho­rities [154]. This system of funding, indeed, would closely match that known for other federal and provincial imperial cults, such as the imperial cult of the province of Asia, where the koinon appointed special officials charged with the management of the sums owed by each provincial city[155]. With regard to this, Spawforth has also proposed that two lists of cities belonging to the province of Achaia [156] should be interpreted as the record of the payments made by the cities of the Achaean koinon taking part in the celebrations at Corinth. The fact that in these lists there are poleis which did not belong to the Achaean league — the island of Kephallenia, with its three poleis, and one or two Eleutherolaconian poleis (Boiai and ? Leuktra) — however, makes Spawforth himself admit that ”these inscribed lists in the present state of knowledge raise more questions than they answer“ [157]. As an alternative, the payments of Argos to Corinth could be explained in terms of a Roman financial ‘attribution’, the quota paid by the polis of Argos — which would retain its full administrative autonomy — towards the funding of venationes (and most likely gladiatorial games too), maybe held in association with the Isthmian games [158]. As indicated by Spawforth, however, the reference in the letter in question to ”many cities“[159] contributing money for the staging of wild-beast shows at Corinth is problematic, since ”it would certainly be surprising to find “many” cities in Greece“ treated like Argos [160].

In any case, at Corinth, as in Patrai, duoviri and other magistrates will have offered munera (and ludi scaenici) in fulfillment of their legal obligations or as additional benefactions, as indicated by the story referred to in Apuleius’ Golden Ass about a certain Thiasus, a citizen of Corinth, who offered a three-day gladiatorial show following his appointment to the quinquennial duovirate [161]. More than the absence of inscriptions concerning gladiatorial games, however, what is remarkable in the colony is the persistence of traditional Greek offices such as those of the agonothetes (of theIsthmia kai Kaisareia) — the highest charge of the municipal cursus at Corinth [162] — and the agoranomos. As we have seen (Pulcher, Iuventianus), these officials were not only directly involved in the organization of festivals, but in some cases also contributed money to them. In this respect, even in the strategies of financing its civic activities, the Roman colony of Corinth shows the same combination of both traditionally Greek and typically Roman features which characterizes other aspects of its life, such as the imperial cult or the use of language.

At the end of this review on the strategies used by the poleis of Greece in the Late Hellenistic and Imperial periods to cover the costs of festivals and related activities — such as those centred on the gymnasium — we can conclude that the picture which emerges basically confirms what is known for other areas of the Roman East: the financing of festivals and games was secured by a combination of public funding, including the revenues of agonistic foundations administered by civic officials, and private munificence, taking the form of benefactions by both office-holders and private citizens. Judging from the variety and number of the above mentioned examples — to which others could be added [163] — it would seem that in the balance between public and private funding the latter form of financing weighed more than the former. One should always consider, however, the ‘pitfalls’ of the epigraphic evidence: to ‘publicize’ benefactions was in the interest both of the notables (who could thus increase their prestige) and of the civic authorities (who hoped to encourage others to behave in the same way), so acts of euergetism are more likely to appear in inscriptions than other more ordinary forms of funding. What is apparent, in any case, is the fundamental role that civic aristocracies played not only with regard to festivals and games, but also in the political, social and cultural life at large. Yet, the situation was bound to change. If in the first two centuries of the Empire the wealthier citizens were (more or less) willing, at least in the eastern provinces, to bear on their shoulders what A. J. S. Spawforth has rightly called ”the price to pay for local political predominance“[164] — even though already in this period there is clear evidence for reluctance in holding onerous charges and liturgies, and of the resort to compulsion by civic (and imperial) authorities — by the late third century, partly as a consequence of the crisis that had hit the Roman world, to find candidates ready to assume the financial burden of public functions had become much more difficult for local communities, and direct compulsion much more widespread [165]. Local bene­factors, therefore, were much rarer. At Patrai, probably in the fourth century, a certain Basilios Oxylides assumed alone and voluntarily the usually collegial charge of duovir quinquennalis, performing at his own expense for an entire year an impressive series of benefactions (restoration of baths; offering of banquets, gold and clothes; free distributions of grain, oil and wine): in the honorary epigram of epic overtones which was set up by the city of Patrai to perpetuate the memory of Basilios’ outstanding munificence, the fact that he had assumed the charge of duovir alone and voluntarily was outlined as a mark of exceptional distinction [166].

Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2008: Urban Life and Local Politics in Roman Bithynia. The Small World of Dion Chrysostomos, Aarhus.

Calvet, M., Roesch, P. 1966: Les Sarapieia de Tanagra, RA (1966) 297–332.

Cartledge, P., Spawforth, A. J. S. ²2002: Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. A tale of two cities, London, New York.

Chandezon, Ch. 2000: Foires et panégyries dans le monde grec classique et hel­lénistique, REG 113, 70–100.

De Ligt, L. 1993: Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam.

De Ligt L., De Neeve, P. W. 1988: Ancient Periodic Markets: Festivals and Fairs, Athenaeum 66, 391–416.

Deshours, N. 2006: Les mystères d’Andania: étude d’épigraphie et d’histoire reli­gieuse, Bordeaux.

Duncan-Jones, R. 1974: The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies, Cambridge.

Fröhlich, P. 2004: Les cités grecques et le contrôle des magistrats (IV^e–I^er siècle avant J.-C.), Genève, Paris.

Geagan, D. J. 1967: The Athenian Constitution after Sulla, Athens.

Migeotte, L. 1984: L’emprunt public dans les cités grecques. Recueil des documents et analyse critique, Québec.

— 2006: Le financement des concours dans la Béotie hellénistique, in: Coins, Cults, History and Inscriptions VII. Studies in Honor of John M. Fossey III, The Ancient World 36, 14–25.

— 2010: Le financement des concours dans les cités hellénistiques: essai de typo­logie, in: B. Le Guen (ed.), L’argent dans les concours du monde grec. Actes du colloque international, Saint-Denis et Paris, 5–6 décembre 2008, Paris, 127–143.

Mitchell, S. 1990: Festivals, Games, and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor, JRS 80, 183–193.

Quass, F. 1993: Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens, Stuttgart.

Rizakis, A. D. 1998: Achaïe II. La cité de Patras: Epigraphie et histoire, Athènes.

RP I = A.D. Rizakis, S. Zoumbaki, M. Kantiréa (eds.), Roman Peloponnese I. Roman personal names in their social context, Athens 2001.

RP II = A.D. Rizakis, S. Zoumbaki, Cl. Lepenioti (eds.), Roman Peloponnese II. Roman personal names in their social context, Athens 2004.

RP III = A. D. Rizakis, Cl. Lepenioti (eds.), Roman Peloponnese III. Society, economy and culture under the Roman Empire: continuity and innovation, Athens 2010.

Sartre, M. 1991: L’Orient romain. Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-Ch. — 235 après J.-Ch.), Paris.

Spawforth, A. J. S. 1994: Corinth, Argos and the Imperial Cult: Pseudo-Julian, Letters 198, Hesperia 63, 211–232.

Wörrle, M. 1988: Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oinoanda, München.

Zoumbaki, S. 2001: Elis und Olympia in der Kaiserzeit, Athen.