Annika B. Kuhn

The chrysophoria in the Cities of Greece and Asia Minor
in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods*

Sometime in the mid-first century AD Ti. Iulius Reglos, a distinguished notable from Peloponnesian Argos, was publicly honoured for the services and great benefactions which he had lavished on his hometown. In addition to the more traditional forms of civic timai, he was recognized by the community with a rather rare and exclusive honour as the dedicatory inscription of the extant statue base reveals: Reglos was awarded ‘the chrysophoria, along with purple, for life, as the first and only one (of the Argives)’.[1] The lifelong privilege to ‘wear gold’ (and purple) was obviously the highest expression of honour and dignity bestowed on outstanding citizens at Argos.

The chrysophoria was not a specifically Argive mark of distinction. It is attested as a civic honour in inscriptions from several cities in Greece (Athens, Argos, Messene), Asia Minor (Ephesus, Magnesia, Aphrodisias, Tralles, Hadrianoi, Arykanda) and the island of Kos from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In comparison with traditional timai such as statues, crowns, privileged seating or public praise, the recorded instances of the bestowal of the chrysophoria are relatively rare: altogether, the epigraphic evidence yields c. 70 attestations. The low number of references, however, does not imply its insignificance in the range of civic honours. On the contrary, despite (or because of) the undeniably small degree of its epigraphic attestation, it may be rightly assumed that the chrysophoria constituted a highly exceptional dis­tinction in the Hellenistic and Roman East.

Concomitant with the scant evidence, little attention has been paid to the chrysophoria in modern scholarship. In his entry in Pauly’s Realencyclopädie in 1899, Emil Szanto briefly defined it as the right to wear gold robes, sometimes in conjunction with purple, conferred on worthy officials and priests as a civic recog­nition by Greek poleis in imperial times. [2] His explanation well matches the infor­mation extracted from inscriptions like that in honour of Reglos. Szanto, how­ever, restricts the honorific practice to the wearing of gold garments and, chrono­logically, to the imperial period. Fifteen years later, Adolf Wilhelm discussed IG V 1, 1432, the well-known inscription from Messene on the land tax (oktobolos eisphora), which mentions the award of the chrysophoria to a local citizen. In this context, he broached the chrysophoria in a short excursus: [3] he compiled further attestations from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods and defined it as the wearing of gold ornaments in honour of a god, which constituted an exclusive right of cult officials.[4]

For over a century, Wilhelm’s survey has remained the only general treatment and assessment of the chrysophoria. Since then the topic has only been discussed casually and selectively by modern scholars. They usually refer to Wilhelm’s observations and (at times indiscriminately) adopt his general definition. Valuable as it is, Wilhelm’s brief outline did not and could not provide a detailed and nuanced study of the subject. On closer inspection, however, the epigraphic evidence reveals a wider and more complex semantic field of the chrysophoria, which manifested itself in a variety of forms and functions: in fact, the term does not necessarily refer — as commonly taken for granted — to a uniform honorific practice, and it eludes clear-cut definition. Still, it was obviously used in a rather formal and technical sense to denote an honour of ‘wearing gold’ that was apparently distinct from the otherwise explicitly and widely attested awards of honorific gold crowns.[5] In view of its importance, this extraordinary privilege certainly deserves to be given more attention than has hitherto been the case in order to bring out the essential features, contours and nuances of the honorific practice associated with it.

The following analysis intends to provide a comprehensive and in-depth dis­cussion of the major references to the chrysophoria, including the evidence that has emerged since Wilhelm’s overview a century ago. The main analytical focus is placed on the epigraphic attestations. In order to outline and specify more closely the semantic spectrum of the chrysophoria (and cognates like chrysophorein and chryso­phoros), the central issues of our examination are focussed on the implementation of the honour and its contextualization. It will in particular deal with the question of its function, of who was awarded the chrysophoria and why, by whom, on what occasion, with what kind of insignia — and what it reveals about the prevailing attitudes towards ‘wearing gold’ in the classical world. Considering the geographical distribution and chronological span of the attestations, it is appropriate to approach the issue from a diachronic and synchronic perspective. In each case we have to take account of the local setting and socio-cultural background to narrow down the specific meaning of chrysophorein and simultaneously bring out general character­istics and historical developments of one of the most brilliant marks of distinction in the honorific language of the Graeco-Roman world.

***

One of the earliest attestations of the chrysophoria as an official honour in the Greek-speaking world is reported for Magna Graecia in connection with the cult of Venus of Eryx in Sicily. Diodorus relates that in the third century BC, after the First Punic War, the Romans took a special interest in the re-organization and admin­istration of the temple of Venus Erycina due to Rome’s Trojan ancestry, its mythical kinship with Aeneas, the son of Venus/Aphrodite.[6] In their zeal to exceed all the honours ever paid to the goddess, the Roman Senate passed a senatus consultum,[7] which decreed that those seventeen Sicilian towns that had previously been most loyal towards Rome during the war against Carthage shall ‘χρυσοφορεῖν τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ’, and that two hundred soldiers shall serve as a sacred guard of the temple.[8]

In this passage Diodorus summarizes the provisions of the Latin decree, as it was rendered in his (Greek?) source. In his terminology he most likely draws on the official usage of chrysophorein, referring to an apparently well-known practice that did not require further explanation. It is obvious that χρυσοφορεῖν τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ de­notes an extraordinary honour that was first and foremost aimed at promoting the worship of the goddess. It has, therefore, been suggested that the term possibly refers to a religious tax to be paid in gold that was imposed on the seventeen cities for the maintenance of the shrine of Venus.[9] In the first century BC material contributions were indeed eagerly collected by a Roman quaestor who was in charge of the temple’s finances.[10] However, since Diodorus states that the cities selected for the chrysophoria had distinguished themselves by their loyalty towards Rome, it suggests itself that the grant of the honour signified a special distinction rather than an onerous financial obligation.[11] The privileged position of the poleis was obviously meant to join them together in a cultic alliance of major religious and political significance, a sort of amphictyony, which was to cement Rome’s control over Sicily.[12]

What exactly the right of chrysophorein implied for the Sicilian towns cannot be inferred from Diodorus’ passage. In a cult-related context, chrysophorein may be viewed to refer to ‘carrying/bearing gold’ in a physical sense. Cult officials charged with bearing ritual objects and offerings during a procession are well attested in the Greek East in all periods. Their names are derived from the objects they were carrying, such askanephoroi/liknaphoroi (basket-bearers), anthephoroi (flower-bearers), thallophoroi (shoot-bearers), hieraphoroi (bearers of sacred objects), phallo­phoroi (phallus-bearers), bomophoroi (altar-bearers), eikonophoroi (image-bearers), sebastophoroi (bearers of the emperor’s image).[13] Accordingly, the chrysophoroi (gold-bearers) of the seventeen poleis would be in charge of carrying golden cult objects (from the treasury) to the sanctuary as offerings or for the embellishment of the cult statue of Aphrodite.

On the other hand, in several other passages of Diodorus’ work there is another, more common usage of the word chrysophorein in the sense of ‘wearing gold jewellery’. In Book 5, Diodorus describes the outward appearance of the inhabitants of the utopian island of Panchaea: ‘They wear ornaments of gold (φοροῦσι δὲ καὶ κόσμον χρυσοῦν), not only the women but the men as well, with collars of twisted gold about their necks, bracelets on their wrists, and rings hanging from their ears after the manner of the Persians.’[14] He then touches upon the ornaments worn by their priests, now using the term chrysophorein as a synonym: ‘They wear the same gold ornaments (χρυσοφοροῦσι) as do the women, with the exception of the earrings.’[15] In Book 13, where he describes the luxurious lifestyle of the inhabitants of Sicilian Acragas, Diodorus likewise relates that they wore delicate raiments and — as the context conclusively suggests — ‘gold jewellery’ (χρυσοφοροῦντες).[16] In all these instances, the meaning of chrysophorein as wearing gold ornaments is in line with the traditional use of the word in other literary sources, especially with reference to women who ‘wear gold’. [17] If chrysophorein, then, has the same meaning in the senatus consultum concerning the cult of Venus Erycina, it will arguably have signified that (sacred) envoys from each of the seventeen Sicilian cities had the right to wear gold adornment in the cult processions of Venus Erycina. Although the literary examples provide some vivid idea of the many different ways of wearing gold attachments subsumed under the expression of chrysophorein,[18] it must remain an open question what kind of adornment is meant in the cult of Venus Erycina and what ritual function it had. It must be emphasized at this point that the connotations of chrysophorein in the literary sources may well be different from its more formal use in the honorific decrees and, above all, in a ritual context, where the protagonists of the ritual activities were expected to conform with the strict cultic norms of per­formance and appearance.

*

The association of the chrysophoria with a ritual setting recurs in a decree of the Delphic Amphictyony dating from c. 117/6 BC, which renewed certain prerogatives of the Athenian association of the Dionysiac technitai.[19] As stated in lines 25–27, it encompassed the reconfirmation of the right of the guild’s priests to wear the ‘ancestral crowns’ ([το]ὺς πατρίους στεφάνους) in all cities, which consequently must have been a privilege which the Athenian technitai had been granted well before 117/6 BC. [20] In the following lines (30–33), further details of the provisions are given: the association’s priests shall be allowed to ‘chrysophorein’ in honour of the gods in all poleis — a privilege which no city, magistrate or individual shall hamper. Should anyone violate this right, a fine would have to be paid in honour of the god.[21] Some years later, in a letter to the Athenian Council and People in c. 112 BC, the Delphic Amphictyony again confirmed the Athenian technitai’s privilege of the chrysophoria along with the right of asylia, ateleia and synergasia, ‘observing that the Romans, the common benefactors, have come to the same opinion’.[22]

The decree and letter provide some interesting information about the privilege of the chrysophoria. It is a specific group, the guild’s priests, who are explicitly entitled to this prerogative in honour of the gods. Yet, although the chrysophoria ranks among such privileges as asylia and ateleia, it appears to be so extraordinary and rare that it had obviously been contested by several poleis and, therefore, required official en­dorsement by the Amphictyonic League. Moreover, there might be an indication of the concrete meaning of the priests’ chrysophorein: if there is an analogy between the wearing of the ‘ancestral crowns’ (line 26) and the activity of chrysophorein (line 31), the chrysophoria would refer to a specific gold item of the priests’ vestments: a gold crown.

In fact, in modern scholarship the chrysophoria has occasionally been identified with the wearing of a gold crown — and vice versa. [23] The equation is not unfounded: gold crowns, and crowns in general, played a crucial role in the symbolic commu­nication in Greek society and religion. The award of a gold crown, which is already attested at Athens in the late 5^th century BC,[24] represented one of the highest distinctions in the hierarchy of honours. It was bestowed by the cities as a special award on (primarily external) benefactors, on whole institutions and, above all, on victors of sacred athletic or musical competitions (especially of the Panathenaic Games). The crown itself was consecrated to a deity.[25] Besides this honorific context, some priests were vested with a gold crown as part of their priestly insignia, a privi­lege that was explicitly laid down in cult regulations.[26] The gold crown was often combined with the right of the sanctuary’s priest to be clothed in purple garments, another important symbol of status in antiquity.[27]

Against this background, a definition of the chrysophoria of the technitai’s priests as the right to wear gold crowns appears probable at first sight. Given the frequent combination of a gold crown with a purple dress as priestly insignia, the ed. pr. of the inscription of the Delphic Amphictyony therefore went on the assumption that the priests of the Athenian guild were entitled to wear purple in addition to their (purported) gold crown: accordingly, the fragmentary infinitive -ορεῖν in line 31 of the decree, which immediately follows the mention of the priests’ chrysophorein, was reconstructed with [πορφυροφ]ορεῖν (‘to wear purple’).[28] The lacuna before the infinitive -ορεῖν, however, poses a hermeneutic dilemma because an alternative reading should equally be considered. On grounds of spacing, it has been convinc­ingly argued that it could be more suitably filled with the word [στεφανηφ]ορεῖν.[29] Instead of purple garments (porphyrophorein), line 31 would then refer to the wearing of the ‘ancestral crowns’ mentioned before in line 26. [30] This in turn implies that chrysophorein here has a meaning that is different from wearing a crown. On the basis of this reading, an interpretation of the chrysophoria of the Athenian technitai’s priests that specifies the honour as the right to put on a gold crown does not seem to be cogent. Instead, their chrysophoria appears to have denoted the wearing of some gold insignia except for a gold crown. A more precise specification is admittedly not possible.

Why did several poleis take umbrage at the technitai’s right to the chrysophoria? A potential background to the necessary confirmation of the guild’s privileges may have been the long-standing dispute in this period (134–112 BC) waged between the Athenian association and their Isthmian counterpart, the Isthmian-Nemeian koinon of technitai, after the Romans had ruled a synergasia between the two guilds. [31] In the wake of their controversy, the Isthmian poleis may have challenged several privileges of the Athenian guild. However, the cities’ objections against the chrysophoria can in part be accounted for when we consider the prevailing attitudes towards gold in general and the exclusivity of wearing gold in contemporary Greek society.[32] Due to its natural rarity and special physical characteristics, gold was a metal of extremely precious value which in ancient civilizations carried an aura of divine power. Accord­ingly, the Greek gods and goddesses were abundantly equipped with gold attributes, their temples and cult statues lavishly adorned with gold ornaments.[33] In the ‘secular’ sphere, by analogy, gold and other precious substances like purple or pearls were employed as basic markers of social status and wealth. Given this mythic-religious and status-related connotation of gold, restrictions on its use were a common concern of early sumptuary legislation, moralist criticism of luxury, and sacred laws. From the late seventh century BC onwards, sumptuary laws limited the possession of gold for private display or as funerary offerings.[34] Sparta in particular imposed on men and women the prohibition of owning gold or silver (money). Gold-embroidered garments were to be the accessories only of prostitutes.[35] Women in particular were exhorted to abstain from the extravagance of precious textiles or jewellery.[36] In some poleis they were prohibited by law from decorating themselves with gold ornaments.[37] Without doubt, there was also a politically motivated stigmatization of wearing gold orna­ments: in view of the traditional antagonism between Greeks and Persians, the gold-wearing Mede had become a stereotypical image of the enemy. [38] In the sacred sphere, too, the wearing of gold ornaments (or other exclusive adornments) by worshippers was subject to sacred regulations,[39] obviously to avoid tensions among the wor­shippers: the carrying of luxurious valuables in the sanctuary might cause envy and disturbances.[40] It follows that any gold attributes worn by the god’s highest official, the sanctuary’s priest, could only be deemed appropriate on condition that they were worn solely in honour of the gods and consecrated to them.

Over time, gold (and purple) did not remain singular attributes of deities and their priests. Concomitant with the emergence of the Hellenistic monarchies, their conno­tation was extended to the realm of royal symbolism: gold and purple were in­corporated as royal insignia by the Hellenistic rulers, whose ritual crowning with a gold diadem marked their elevation to the status of god-like kings.[41] Against this background, the exclusivity of gold and purple as distinguishing marks of divine and royal status may have been reason enough for several rival poleis to oppose to the entitlement of the priests of the Athenian guild to the chrysophoria, which, therefore, had again to be officially guaranteed.

*

If we go on the assumption that the chrysophoria did not necessarily imply the wearing of a gold crown, we have to focus on the question of whether there were other typical (or even mandatory) priestly insignia of gold associated with the chryso­phoria. In this respect, the Hellenistic cult regulations from Kos that define the garb and the insignia of a priest in greater detail may be most instructive. One such sacred law does mention thechrysophoria, which is also chronologically the next epigraphic source on the chrysophoria that has come down to us. In the diagraphe of the priest­hood of Zeus Alseios in Kos (1^st century BC), the outward appearance of the priest is described (or rather prescribed) in detail:[42] he shall wear a purple chiton, an olive crown (στέφανον θάλινον) with a gold ἄφαμμα (knot/gold attachment)[43] during the sacred games — and he shall chrysophorein (χρυσοφορείτωι).[44] The context suggests that ‘wearing gold’ pertains to the priest’s attire. Accordingly, it may describe the right to wear a gold-embroidered himation (note that the chiton is already defined as made of purple cloth). In the light of some further contemporary diagraphai for priesthoods from Kos, it seems, however, more likely that a particular priestly insignia is meant.[45] In the regulation concerning the sale of the priesthood of Herakles Kallinikos (1^st century BC), the priestly dress is described in similar terms: during choral agons, the priest shall wear a white chiton and a crown of poplar leaves; in addition, he shall wear an ἄφαμμα — and gold rings.[46] The enumeration of chiton, crown and knot echoes the dress code for the priest of Zeus Alseios, with one remark­able difference: the fourth feature of the apparel, expressed by the general term chrysophorein in the diagraphe for the priesthood of Zeus Alseios, is now specified by the reference to gold rings. Gold rings also appear in another regulation from Kos, which concerns the priesthood of Nike: during his priestly activities her hiereus was obliged to wear a purple chiton, an olive crown (just as the priest of Zeus Alseios) — and, again, gold rings. [47]

Gold rings, then, represented a characteristic feature of the priestly vestments in Kos. The ring, especially the signet ring, is well attested as a magisterial or priestly status symbol in the Greek poleis.[48] Its emblematic value is well reflected in the syn­onymous use of the word symbolon for daktylon.[49] Along with purple garments, gold rings in particular were prestige markers of the philoi of the Hellenistic rulers, with the ring featuring a portrait of the king. [50] The outstanding significance of gold rings is already testified in one of the earliest Greek sumptuary laws: according to the Locrian Code, men are generally forbidden to wear gold rings.[51] Some sacred laws expressly mention (gold) rings as forbidden items in the sanctuary, possibly because of their association with magic. [52] In view of the high symbolic meaning of gold rings, it is legitimate to assume that the provision of the chrysophoria for the Koan priests implied the exclusive authorization for priests to wear gold rings in honour of a god. [53]

*

The specific meaning of the chrysophoria as the right to wear gold rings finds further corroboration in the well-known epigraphic dossier from Messene concerning the oktobolos eisphora.[54] The dossier, which has been dated to the first century BC,[55] contains two honorific decrees for Aristokles, the grammateus of the Messenian syn­edrion. Aristokles is praised for successfully collecting a special tax which the Romans had demanded as an additional contribution. Aristokles’ commitment and efficiency in raising the sum of 100,000 denarii must have been so outstanding that he was awarded a special honour: the first decree relates that, apart from a bronze statue, ‘the praetorian legate Vibius personally gave him in the presence of all the citizens the right to wear a gold ring, and the councillors themselves accorded (him) the same honour along with the statue.’ [56] In the second decree, the conferral of this honour is expressed in a different wording: the praetorian legate Vibius and the proconsul Memmius each gave him in recognition of his merits the ‘chrysophoria’, as did the Messenian synedroi. [57]

The chrysophoria here unmistakably implies the right to wear a gold ring. Unlike the cases of the chrysophoria in Delphi and Kos, it is not a priest who is granted the chrysophoria, but a magistrate who is honoured publicly for his services towards the polis. It is, of course, conceivable that Aristokles’ entitlement to the chrysophoria was confined to cultic events like processions or sacred competitions. It may as well have been attached to a civic priesthood that Aristokles possibly held. What, in addition, certainly deserves particular attention is the information provided in the inscription about who the initiator of the honorific decree for Aristokles was. It is not the hometown that nominates its grammateus and eminent citizen for the great honour; the Messenian synedrion merely agrees to a privilege that had been conferred on Aristokles by an external power, the Roman government as represented by the praetor and the proconsul of Macedonia. This raises the general question to what extent the chrysophoria is located in both a Roman and Greek honorific context. In fact, on closer inspection, a Roman element also surfaces in two other cases already mentioned: it was the Roman Senate that conferred the chrysophoria on the seventeen Sicilian towns by a senatus consultum; moreover, the Delphic Amphictyony, which was then under the control of the Romans, granted the chrysophoria to the Athenian technitai as long as the Romans had no objections. This is not to say that the chrysophoria was a ‘Roman’ honour. [58] We should bear in mind that Rome’s symbolic language was largely influenced by cultural interactions between Greece and Rome and that the evidence we have so far discussed dates from a period of increased Roman intervention in the East, so a Roman colouring should not be surprising.[59] Still, it is indispensable to accord due heuristic attention to the issue of a certain Roman involvement in the chrysophoria, i.e. the significance of gold in general and the gold ring in particular in Roman society must be equally taken into consideration in a comprehensive assessment of the ‘Greek’ chrysophoria. [60]

At Rome, just as in Greece, gold ornaments (as well as purple) constituted symbolic expressions of divine power, that were primarily reserved for the worship of the highest Roman god, Jupiter Optimus Maximus.[61] Only on the special occasion of the celebration of a triumph was the successful Roman general allowed to slip into the guise of Jupiter and wear the triumphal ornaments including thetoga picta with the tunica palmata (a gold-embroidered garment), while a gold laurel crown, which was owned by the res publica, was held above his head by a public slave.[62] Beyond this ceremonial sphere, a gold crown (corona aurea) formed part of the dona militaria, which a general could award in recognition of outstanding achievements on the battle­field,[63] whereas a tradition of crowning citizens with a gold wreath in the Greek honorific manner is unknown from Republican Rome.[64] Given the ‘symbolic capital’ with which prestige-generating symbols of power such as gold and purple were charged, it is not surprising that members of the Roman aristocracy deemed these assets increasingly attractive for their self-presentation and personal adornment — a development that was concomitant with the immense influx into Rome of precious artefacts as war booty. However, in the oligarchic society of Republican Rome, which did not accept individual social pre-eminence among the nobility, the use of such luxury items was carefully curbed from early times by sumptuary laws: the lex Oppia of 215 BC restricted the lavish use of gold jewellery by women to one ounce, and the lex Iulia sumptuaria of 46 BC aimed to control access to purple. [65]

As for the significance of the gold ring in Roman society — which brings us back to our discussion of the Messenian documents — it too meant far more than a mere piece of jewellery.[66] In his comprehensive chapter on the use of gold, Pliny the Elder offers an instructive insight into the history and special role of the gold ring in Roman society.[67] He points out how the ring gradually came to signify high social status and privilege — a deplorable development in Pliny’s view: ‘The worst crime against man­kind was committed by the man who first put a ring upon his fingers.’[68] Outlining the chronology of ring-wearing at Rome, Pliny notes that in early Republican times not even Roman senators or triumphators wore gold rings, but iron rings. In those days, only Roman envoys put on gold rings to insinuate high rank abroad, while they still used iron rings at home.[69] According to Pliny, it was around 300 BC that members of the Roman nobility began to adorn their fingers with gold rings. Most importantly, by the first century AD, the gold ring became the official status symbol of the equestrian order, as ratified in the Tiberian laws of 23/4 AD. [70] Pliny sarcastically comments on this, stating that it was the gold ring alone that created the second Roman order, which inserted itself between the Senate and the plebs.[71] In this way, the grant of the right to wear the gold ring, the ius anuli aurei (which also implied ingenuitas), opened up membership in the equestrian order.

Against this background, it has been maintained that in the Messenian decree the chrysophoria, which bestowed the right to wear a gold ring on Aristokles, is tantamount to the ius anuli aurei and hence confers equestrian rank on him. [72] It must, however, be emphasized here that this postulate may only be relevant as far as the award of the gold ring by the Roman officials is concerned, which according to the decree preceded the conferral of the same honour by the Messenian synedroi.[73] The local council itself was not in a position to confer equestrian rank; the second award — or rather approval — of the gold ring in the honorific decree was apparently a response of the Messenian synedrion to keep up with this extraordinary honour by the Romans and assert its honour-granting authority.

Given the late-Republican dating of the inscription, the equation of the chryso­phoria with the ius anuli aurei would presuppose that the gold ring already signified equestrian status in the first century BC.[74] But herein the crux of the matter lies: it is not at all clear exactly when the grant of a gold ring began to connote promotion to equestrian rank before its legal formalization in the Tiberian principate. Pliny vaguely dates this convention to Augustan times,[75] but some scholars have suggested that the status-granting quality of the gold ring already developed in late-Republican times. [76] A central source often discussed in this context is an episode in Cicero’s second speech against Verres.[77] After criticizing how unworthy subalterns (including scribes) have increasingly encroached on equestrian rank through their wealth, Cicero scolds Verres for giving a gold ring to his scribe at a public meeting — ‘a gift which was an act of such extraordinary impudence that it seemed novel to all the Sicilians, and to me incredible.’[78] He explains that it had been an ancient Roman custom that generals and magistrates with imperium presented their secretaries with gold rings in a public assembly, but only after the defeat of an enemy or some other military success.[79] His indignation with Verres, then, is primarily targeted at the misappropriated award of the gold ring outside the military context to an unsuitable person by an unworthy Roman magistrate. At first glance, the juxtaposition of his outrage about equestrian upstarts in the passage immediately preceding the report about Verres’ award of the gold ring to his scribe may insinuate that the gift of the ring also implied the scribe’s elevation to equestrian status. [80] However, this inference is a splendid example of a skilfully devised ambiguity and deceptive manoeuvre which the great rhetor deliber­ately creates in his effort to expose Verres’ depravity. Nowhere does Cicero explicitly equate equestrian rank and the gold ring.[81] He merely suggests that the gold ring was commonly deemed a mark of distinction to honour prominent individuals, which could enhance their social recognition.[82] The gold ring was certainly to develop into a distinct symbol of equestrian status at that time.[83] It reflected high status, but did not formally constitute it yet, even if given by an imperator.[84] There were still different ‘user groups’ of gold rings in Republican times, including honorands like Aristokles who were not of equestrian or senatorial status. [85]

Cicero’s remarks on Verres’ dealing with his scribe offer an interesting point of reference because of the striking similarities between the reported Roman custom of the award of gold rings by generals and the award of the chrysophoria for Aristokles in the Messenian decree. According to Cicero, it is Roman magistrates with imperium who grant the gold ring, just as the proconsul and praetor bestow it on Aristokles. They grant it specifically to their secretaries, just as Aristokles is a grammateus (albeit of the polis, not of the Roman governor). The award is made in a public assembly (contio), just as Aristokles receives the chrysophoria ‘in the presence of all citizens’. Elsewhere Cicero explains that the special ‘merit’ of Verres’ scribe was to levy a tax on public transactions,[86] just as Aristokles had introduced a special land tax. It is true that there is no indication of a military context in the Messenian decree, but the parallels suggest that the award of the gold ring to Aristokles ties in with the estab­lished Roman custom of honouring outstanding citizens with a gold ring, which is here applied to the provincial, civic context.

Besides, Aristokles rendered services to the Romans that may in particular have earned him — and legitimized — the exclusive privilege of the gold ring since he fell into yet another ‘user group’ of bearers of a ring. As mentioned above, before its development as a distinct status symbol, the gold ring used to be given by the Romans to their ambassadors.[87] As the second decree in honour of Aristokles states, he did act as an ambassador to the Romans and ‘achieved many important advantages to the benefit of the city at the hands of the governors, some here in the city, some as an envoy. Further, in entertaining governors and numerous other Romans too he devotes the expenditure of his own money to the advantage of the city.’[88] On analogy with the Roman practice of equipping their own ambassadors with gold rings, the chryso­phoria in the Messenian dossier may also be viewed as a form of recognition (by both the Roman authorities and the polis) of Aristokles’ role as an ambassador and mediator between the Roman power and his hometown.

Our contextual analysis of the chrysophoria in the Messenian decree gives us some idea of the complex intercultural contact between Rome and Greece in the field of status symbolism and civic honours. Apparently, the Roman honorific tradition of granting a gold ring to worthy individuals or envoys was transferred here to the Greek context, which was rendered by the term chrysophoria to assimilate the Roman honorific practice with an equivalent Greek honorific convention. As far as existing honours are concerned, the adoption of Roman ornamenta and their specific conno­tations into the ambit of Greek timai may at times have resulted in a re-interpretation or extension of their meaning. [89]

***

The establishment of the principate brought about a complex redefinition of the language of prestige in the whole Mediterranean world. Symbolic communication by all kinds of media was to become a pivotal instrument of the power politics of the imperial monarchy. Yet, especially in the early principate the self-presentation of the princeps was a delicate balancing act. The Republican façade of the principate expected from the emperors a display of modesty and parity in their dealings with the senatorial aristocracy. Augustus in particular concealed his quasi-monarchical position behind the markedly modest guise of the civilis princeps, who refrained from any royal symbolism and pomp, while the ostentatious use of gold and purple by the mali principes like Caligula, Nero and Domitian was denounced by contemporary moralists as inappropriate and became a distinguishing mark of their ‘tyranny’.[90] Nevertheless, a prerogative of the emperors to certain insignia to mark their exclusive status — the triumphal dress in particular — developed subtly and gradually behind the semblance of imperial civilitas. On the one hand, it was brought about by laws concerning luxury, which implicitly reserved precious metals to imperial display. [91] On the other hand, much of the symbolism associated with imperial power was accorded to the emperors from the outside, by senators and plebs alike.[92]

The eastern provinces played an important role in this process. The Hellenistic tradition of worshipping rulers with cultic honours bolstered the divine image of the Roman emperor and with it the glory and splendour that were due to gods. The willingness of the Greek cities to accept the god-like authority of the emperor had an impact on the honorific culture of the cities themselves in so far as new forms of honours, i.e. innovative ways of adulation, were eagerly invented for the new princeps.[93] In general, however, the imperial cult was largely modelled on the established honours of the Hellenistic ruler cult, which in turn followed the ritual traditions of the contemporary worship of the gods. [94] Given the divine symbolism associated in particular with the emperor, the cities will have become more hesitant in awarding outstanding honours to eminent citizens, especially with regard to such royal pre­rogatives as gold and purple, whose employment was even a sensitive issue for the emperors themselves.[95]

The new circumstances in the imperial honorific landscape may account for the lack of any explicit evidence of the award of the chrysophoria in the Greek East in the early principate. It is not before the mid-first century AD that the chrysophoria re­appears in several honorific inscriptions from Argos. In our introductory remarks, we have already mentioned Tib. Iulius Reglos, who was honoured with the chrysophoria as ‘the first and only one’.[96] Despite this (formulaic) statement about the uniqueness of the honour for Reglos, the chrysophoria was anything but exceptional in this polis: another prominent local notable, Claudius Diodotos, [97] is granted the chrysophoria along with the additional honour of wearing purple garments and the ‘honours of Perseus and Herakles’, which were presumably a local form of heroic honours with a ‘royal’ connotation since Herakles and Perseus were regarded as the ancestors of the Argive kings.[98] Of particular interest for our analysis is, of course, the information about the honouring body of these exclusive timai for Claudius Diodotos: it is the community of Italian businessmen (negotiatores) at Argos who bestow the honours on him ‘because of his benefactions towards the epitropoi (procuratores)’.[99] Here again, the active role of the Roman community in the conferral of both the chryso­phoria and the purple garment (possibly even the Roman toga praetexta?) comes to the fore and corroborates our previous observations on the Roman influence on the honour.[100]

Apart from his services towards the Roman epitropoi, Claudius Diodotos was much committed to the public weal of his hometown.[101] He had held the civic offices of agoranomos, grammateus, gymnasiarchos, hierophantes (of the mysteries at Lerna) and is praised as ‘the first and only one’ who distributed oil to free citizens and slaves. Above all, he presided, like his forebears, as agonothetes over the Sebasteia and Nemeia, where he sacrificed a hekatomb in honour of the Nemeian Zeus.[102] The reference to his agonothesia provides a valuable clue since the lifetime honour of the chrysophoria appears to be linked with this specific office: [103] the community of Roman residents explicitly connect the bestowal of the honour with the tenure of the agonothesia.[104] Notably, the aforementioned Tib. Iulius Reglos had also served as agonothetes and, along with the chrysophoria, also held the ‘honours of Herakles and Perseus’ as well as the right to wear purple.[105] The chrysophoria with purple (presumably without the ‘honours of Herakles and Perseus’) is possibly also alluded to in a fragmentary inscription for yet another Argive agonothetes, Kleogenes. [106] On this basis, it has been assumed that there were clearly defined honours at Argos which were regularly conferred on the agonothetai.[107] Interestingly enough, an honorific inscription from Argos speaks summarily of timai agonothetikai.[108] It is not certain whether those timai a priori implied the chrysophoria, but this much can be said that at Argos the chrysophoria in combination with a purple dress was an honour that was conferred comparatively frequently on citizens who were predominantly agonothetai.

It must be noted here that with the presidency over the Sebasteia at Argos, which had been added to the Panhellenic festival of the Nemeia,[109] Claudius Diodotos played a central role in the organization of the imperial cult in the Peloponnese.[110] In fact, as we can see from many documents, the specific attributes of such agonothetai com­monly included a purple dress and a gold crown, particularly a portrait crown that was adorned with the likeness of the emperor. This special attire was also the charac­teristic dress of the imperial high priests.[111] According to the foundation of the Demostheneia at Oinoanda, the costume of the agonothetes consisted of a purple stola and a gold crown with portraits of Hadrian and Apollo.[112] At Prusias ad Hypium, the first archon presided over the agones in a purple dress and was adorned with a gold crown.[113] In Severan times, M. Aurelius Daphnus, asiarch thrice and agonothetes several times at Ephesus, organized gladiatorial games and received the honour of wearing the gold crown and purple dress at the forefront of the procession.[114] At Tomis, an unknown pontarch who presided over the ceremonies of the imperial cult was likewise adorned with golden crowns and purple robes.[115] Against this back­ground, one is tempted to identify the chrysophoria at Argos first of all with the wearing of a gold crown depicting an imperial portrait which was combined with the right to wear purple.[116] Yet, given the semantic vagueness we are again faced with here, it is not clear whether the term chrysophoria correlates with the wearing of a gold crown.

Our cautious assumption seems to be substantiated when we consider a con­temporary epigraphic dossier from Athens which also mentions the award of the chrysophoria: the honorific statue bases of the (possibly) first provincial high priest of Gallia Narbonensis, Q. Trebellius Rufus from Tolosa, who had settled in Athens sometime in the Flavian period.[117] The dossier comprises the dedicatory inscription along with two letters, one from the concilium of Gallia Narbonensis, the other from the magistrates and the council of Tolosa. They both thank the Athenians for the honours which they have decreed on their compatriot Trebellius Rufus. As can be inferred from the inscriptions, Trebellius had pursued a distinguished career in the service of Rome and held civic and religious posts in his hometown Tolosa and at Rome, which was crowned by his promotion to the provincial priesthood of Gallia Narbonensis.[118] After several unspecified equestrian posts, he then obviously declined admission to the senatorial order and withdrew to Athens, where he also pursued a splendid local career: he not only received Athenian citizenship but held several high offices including the eponymous archonship and the priesthoods of the Elder Drusus and of Eucleia and Eunomia. It is not surprising that outstanding honours were granted to a great notable of such standing. They include the χρυσοφορία διὰ βίου and the setting up of busts and statues of Trebellius in prominent places all over the city.

Trebellius’ honours are also referred to in the fragmentary letter of the magistrates and the council of Tolosa. According to line 33, Trebellius was to be crowned, to be praised in the Athenian assembly and, finally, to be awarded the chrysophoria. [119] Here again, the chrysophoria obviously implies an honour that is different from the award of a (gold) crown. Hans-Georg Pflaum and Jean-Marie Pailler have assumed that it refers to Trebellius’ equestrian rank and hence signifies the anulus aureus, the wearing of the equestrian gold ring.^[120] While the possibility should not be dismissed that the chrysophoria for Trebellius Rufus implied the permission to wear a gold ring, it is most unlikely that it should specifically refer to the equestrian status symbol, which, as a marker of Roman status, certainly would not need a renewed bestowal on him by the Athenian bodies.[121] The context of the dedication makes it clear that the chrysophoria was newly conferred on him as a special lifetime distinction for his civic commitment at Athens. Duncan Fishwick has suggested that Trebellius’ chryso­phoria should be associated with the outward appearance of a local priest: the award of the chrysophoria ‘for life’ indicates that it may have been connected to the lifetime tenure of the priesthood of Eucleia and Eunomia.[122] In the dedicatory inscription this is listed directly before the mention of his lifetime chrysophoria. It therefore most likely signifies the wearing of gold ornaments (in addition to gold-embroidered robes?), which together with the crown and the entitlement to a privileged seat in the theatre of Dionysos made Trebellius ‘the cynosure of all eyes at public festivals’.[123]

The lifetime grant of the chrysophoria in connection with the specific priesthood of Eucleia and Eunomia might have had a particular reason: the priest of Eucleia and Eunomia obviously served a significant political function. He was at the same time the kosmetes of the epheboi and hence played an important role in overseeing the training programme of the ephebes, which was mainly focused on the organization of athletic competitions. [124] Consequently (and similar to Argos), Trebellius’ chryso­phoria may have been related to the specific occasion of the holding of contests (in this case for the ephebes). It is not certain whether the priesthood of Eucleia and Eunomia was also associated with the imperial cult.[125] However, Trebellius’ additional tenure of the priesthood of the Elder Drusus indicates that he continued to be involved to a certain degree in the cult of the imperial domus in his adopted city. Such involvement would account for the distinction of a special ceremonial costume, which equipped the Roman eques and former flamen Trebellius with the appropriate ornamenta and helped to integrate his extraordinary position into the honorific infrastructure of Athens.

*

As regards further attestations of the chrysophoria in the imperial period, it is striking that they all originate from poleis in Asia Minor: from Ephesus, Magnesia, Aphrodisias, and Tralles.[126] But while at Argos and Athens the chrysophoria has featured as an exclusive honour which was awarded to individual citizens as a life-long privilege and was attached to a priesthood or the agonothesia, the honour of chrysophorein in the poleis of Asia Minor was of a somewhat different nature. Generally speaking, the chrysophoria here manifests itself in an ‘institutionalized’, collective form.

At Ephesus, there is an impressive record of c. 30 inscriptions that mention officeholders designated as chrysophoroi. [127] Several of these chrysophoroi appear in lists of cult officials or in votive inscriptions to Artemis.[128] Their cultic function is underlined by the fact that most of them have in addition held the office of a neopoios (‘temple-administrator’),[129] or they are characterized as officials in the service of the city’s main deity: χρυσοφόρος τῆς θεοῦ (= Artemis).[130] A certain (T. Flavius?) Lucius served as neopoios and chrysophoros in a hereditary capacity (ἐκ προγόνων), [131] while another (anonymous) neopoios, or rather several generations of his family, apparently performed the chrysophoria for sixty years.[132] Most importantly, several inscriptions reveal that, like the neopoioi and kouretes, the chrysophoroi formed a ‘sacred’ college or brotherhood (synedrion), which corroborates the impression of an institutional character of the chrysophoria at Ephesus. [133] The association had their own grammateus as well as an agonothetes who was obviously in charge of the organi­zation of the games of the chrysophoroi.[134] Moreover, ahymnodos nemetes, a musical judge (in the contests?), was apparently attached to the college. [135]

Undoubtedly, the Ephesian chrysophoroi formed a clearly demarcated group in the city’s public life, and the question suggests itself why they were called ‘chrysophoroi’ and what their public role and social standing was. In this respect the dossier of documents of the famous inscription of C. Vibius Salutaris (AD 104) is most illumi­nating. It is the earliest mention of the group of chrysophoroi at Ephesus, since all the other recorded instances can be roughly dated to the second or third centuries AD.[136] Apart from the civic distributions of money, the Salutaris foundation established a procession in honour of Artemis, in which thirty-one gold and silver statues of the goddess, of members of the imperial house and of Greek and Roman institutions were to be carried from the Artemision to the theatre and back again. [137] According to the original decree by the assembly and the endowment itself (fragments A and B), those in charge of bringing the type-statues from the temple to the theatre were two neopoioi, a herald and the guards. However, the epigraphic dossier of the endowment contains further documents, including two decrees of the boule and a supplement, which provided for later additions and modifications of these regulations — a graphic illustration of the complex process of negotiations that surrounded large-scale benefactions. The central amendment of Salutaris’ donation pertained to new regu­lations on the enlargement of the group of those carrying the statues. The first additional decree of the boule (fragment E) gives permission to ‘the chrysophoroi for the goddess to bring into the assemblies and the contests the type-statues and the images dedicated by C. Vibius Salutaris from the pronaos of Artemis, with the neopoioi sharing in the care.’ [138] It was the chrysophoroi who were now to figure prominently in the procession. But their participation in the procession was not the only alteration that was made in their favour. The second additional decree of the council (fragment F) endorses the request of the chrysophoroi to sit in the first row of the theatre, near the statue of Homonoia. This statue was an additional donation by Salutaris in the supplementary endowment (fragment G) and was again clearly related to the chrysophoroi. It was a silver image of Sebaste Homonoia Chrysophoros, which was explicitly dedicated to Artemis and the chrysophoroi and was to be placed above the block where the sacred victors were seated. Moreover, the chrysophoroi were now included in the money distributions.

The Salutaris inscription is a most instructive source with regard to the Ephesian chrysophoroi in so far as we can specify more closely their identity: the relevant passages speak of ‘the gold-wearing priests and sacred victors’ (οἱ χρυσοφοροῦντες τῇ θεῷ ἱερεῖς καὶ ἱερονεῖκαι). The expression is not unambiguous since it may imply that only the priests were chrysophoroi, which in turn moots the problem of how to define the relationship between the priestly chrysophoroi and the sacred victors (hieronikai). They are usually mentioned together. [139] Guy M. Rogers has put forward an interpretation that may point into the right direction: he suggests that at the end of the first century AD Ephesian athletes who had won at sacred contests were awarded the chrysophoria, which had traditionally been reserved for priests, and the two pre­viously independent groups came to form an influential association under the name ofchrysophoroi.[140] Rogers, then, like other scholars, goes on the assumption that the synedrion of the chrysophoroi had already existed before Salutaris’ donation. After the group had been completely passed over in the original decree, the chrysophoroi must have come forward before the council to claim a prominent role in the pro­cession. [141] Their success suggests that they must have obtained a position at Ephesus that could not be easily ignored. In the procession, they were given a central role appropriate to their standing — the escorting of the 31 type-statues. [142] Yet, given their sudden rise to prominence in the procession one cannot rule out the possibility that the honour, or rather ‘function’, of a chrysophoros was actually for the first time created in the Salutaris foundation for a group of certain high-ranking priests (who had some connection to the Artemision) and the city’s hieronikai. It is at least striking that no chrysophoros features in the Ephesian inscriptions before AD 104 and that the chrysophoroi were completely absent from the original decree of the foundation.

Since the inscription states that the chrysophoroi were to wear white garments, the chrysophoria cannot have implied the honour of wearing gold-embroidered costumes to mark a privileged status.[143] An indication of what ‘wearing gold’ in the Ephesian procession exactly implied is given in an inscription from 123/4 AD in honour of Hadrian, i.e. twenty years after the Salutaris foundation had been established. Here, the group of chrysophoroi are described as ‘the priests and sacred victors who carry the gold ornaments of the great goddess Artemis’ (οἱ τὸν [χρύ]σεον κόσμον βαστά[ζον]τες τῆς μεγάλης θεᾶς [Ἀρτέ]μιδος πρὸ πόλεως ἱερεῖς [καὶ] ἱερονεῖκαι).[144] The chrysophoria, then, constituted a very concrete ritual duty: the chrysophoroi not only accompanied the thirty-one statues, but actually carried the sacred gold objects and accessories of the goddess from the sacred treasury to adorn her cult statue with them. The Ephesian chrysophoroi were actually ‘gold-bearers’. [145] Their name was derived from an honorary function, which possibly also implied the financial spon­soring of the objects. The gold objects may have been specifically linked to the additional silver statue of Sebaste Homonoia Chrysophoros. It is certainly remarkable that the statue of Sebaste Homonoia, i.e. a personification of a key aspect of imperial ideology, bears the epithetchrysophoros. It once more underscores the ‘Roman’ background associated with the chrysophoria. [146] Likewise, the ‘Romanness’ of the chrysophoroi may be inferred from the fact that all the Ephesian chrysophoroi on record held Roman citizenship, and that in the theatre the synedrion of the chryso­phoroi had its seats in one section with the phyle Sebaste.[147]

Concerning the social standing of the chrysophoroi in Ephesian society, we have already mentioned that they were closely linked to another Ephesian group of cult functionaries, the neopoioi, with whom they shared the task of carrying the statues to the theatre in the Salutaris procession. A number of the chrysophoroi also served as neopoioi,[148] and the two separate synedria of the neopoioi and the chrysophoroi often jointly appear in the epigraphic record, in one instance along with the synedrion of the kouretes.[149] This suggests that the social background of the ‘gold-bearing priests and sacred victors’ was similar to that of the neopoioi and the kouretes, who hailed from families of the local elite.[150] In view of the fact that they are also represented among generous benefactors, the chrysophoroi obviously belonged to the upper social stratum.[151] Some further indication of their social position may be derived from an instructive passage in the second book of Artemidorus’ Dreambook ( Oneirokritikon). Elaborating on the symbolism of fire in dreams, he remarks that ‘to rich citizens who are designated to chrysophorein because of a magistracy or a priesthood, it (i.e. fire) will not do harm, but it predicts a brilliant career as high magistrates or priests. For gold is similar to fire because of its colour.’[152] The meaning of chrysophorein remains vague here, but since Artemidorus originated from Ephesus, he may have had the Ephesian chrysophoria in mind. From his remark we may gather that it was members of the well-off elite who held the chrysophoria, and that it provided a career-promoting conduit to high-ranking positions. In this context, it is indeed striking that in the decree on the Salutaris foundation the Ephesian chrysophoroi figure in juxta­position with the two principal civic bodies of the local aristocracy, the boule and the gerousia, where they are mentioned after the two institutions.[153] Likewise, the afore­mentioned hymnodos nemetes was associated not only with thechrysophoroi but also with the boule and the gerousia,[154] and several chrysophoroi were members of the gerousia.[155] In sum, the chrysophoroi at Ephesus obviously represented an influential, socially ambitious elite group of priests and sacred victors who, united in a cult association and equipped with the privilege to bear the gold ornaments of the statue of Artemis, aimed to be viewed on the socio-political level as equal to the members of the boule and gerousia.[156]

Similar characteristics of religious officials called chrysophoroi can be observed at Magnesia and Aphrodisias; in comparison with Ephesus, however, the extant evidence from these poleis is not so ample.[157] At Magnesia, chrysophoroi feature as sacred officials in the cult of Artemis Leukophryne.[158] Interestingly, there was also a board of neopoioi at Magnesia,[159] so it may reasonably be assumed that both groups cooperated with each other as they did in Ephesus.

The close correlation between chrysophoroi and neopoioi is most conspicuously confirmed by the evidence from Aphrodisias. Here,neopoioi of the goddess Aphrodite are in fact chrysophoroi, that is, they bear the title chrysophoros. The Aphrodisianchrysophoroi neopoioi formed a commission (synedrion), which is characterized as ‘most ancient’.[160] Similar to the ranking in Ephesus, they appear alongside the boule and the gerousia as beneficiaries of money distributions in foundations and are in the funerary context specified as the recipients of fines arising from the violation of tombs.[161] It suggests itself that the responsibilities of the Aphrodisianchrysophoroi neopoioi resembled those of the Ephesian chrysophoroi and were inextricably linked to the local sanctuary of Aphrodite. [162] The fact that several Aphrodisian neopoioi are attested in the inscriptions without the epithet chrysophoros cannot serve as a firm indication that the gold-wearing neopoioi constituted a subsection of the group of the neopoioi. They were most likely identical, and this is all the more likely when we consider that the Aphrodisian neopoioi are known to have played a significant role in the agonistic domain. They are attested as agonothetai of the Aphrodeisiea-Philemoniea, where they were in charge of honour­ing the sacred victors.[163] The (chrysophoroi) neopoioi count among the most important local officials at Aphrodisias.[164] They are recorded as munificent bene­factors and are praised as ‘generous’, ‘well-ordered’, ‘notable’, and ‘pious’ in their capacity as neopoios — common epithets for local elite members in Aphrodisias’ honorific epigraphy.[165] Most instructive is the statement in the honorific inscription for a certain Peritas Kallimedes that he ‘undertook offices and embassies and liturgies and was a pious and munificent neopoios’. [166] The office of neopoios is here singled out and distinguished from the performance of ‘public services’ such as magistracies, embassies and liturgies. The distinction reflects the high social significance of the (chrysophoroi) neopoioi at Aphrodisias.[167]

*

In the passage from Artemidorus’ Dreambook quoted above, the author dis­tinguishes between the chrysophoria attached to a priestly office and the chrysophoria attached to a civic magistracy. It is true that in several cases a clear distinction between the ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ sphere is problematic since the two spheres at times overlap, but Artemidorus’ distinction with regard to the chrysophoria is not unfounded. While all the chrysophoroi at Ephesus, Aphrodisias and Magnesia were evidently officials with cultic functions, the epigraphic evidence also yields examples of the chrysophoria which, cum grano salis, may be viewed as constituting a more ‘secular’ form. In Tralles in particular, the chrysophoria is presented in terms of a civic office. So, the impressive list of civic archai that the local benefactor Ti. Iulius Claudianus had held also includes the function of chrysophorein, which is recorded in a direct line with such high magistracies as grammateus tou demou, eirenarches, agoranomos, paraphylax, dekaprotos, and many more. [168] Another citizen from Tralles, P. Claudius Menetianos Kentaurianos, who held a similar series of prestigious offices, was chrysophoros strategos (a high archon at Tralles).[169] According to I.Tralles 90, the chrysophoros M. Aurelius Letoidos Iulianus was in charge of supervising the erection of an honorific statue together with another civic official, the grammateus
M. Aurelius Trophimo. The rather civic character of the chrysophoria at Tralles comes most strikingly to the fore in an honorific inscription for a certain Berenicianus.[170] His chrysophoria is not only mentioned as one of the many public offices which he had held (including the offices of stephanephoros, grammateus, agoranomos, eirenarches and boularchos), but the text expressly emphasizes that he performed the chrysophoria ‘for the patris’ (χρυσοφορήσαντα τῆι πατρίδι) rather than in honour of a deity (as in Ephesus, Magnesia and Aphrodisias). Here, the civic dimension is the prime feature of the chrysophoria.

The question, of course, arises as to what the ‘magisterial’ chrysophoria implied here — whether it was an honorary office in its own right, or an honorific title or the privilege of gold ornamenta added to another magistracy. As indicated by the expression chrysophoros strategos ( I.Tralles 134), it could be joined with another office, but it was also held separately (I.Tralles 73 and 145). It may well be that the ‘magisterial’ chrysophoria was not necessarily a much-coveted office but one of the burdensome liturgies. In another remarkable passage in hisDreambook, Artemidorus speaks about archai that ‘compel’ (ἀναγκάζῃ) the officeholder to wear gold or purple. [171] On the basis of the few extant sources, it is, of course, difficult to specify the responsibilities, if any but symbolic and representative, that the civic chrysophoria entailed. It is interesting to note that two of the chrysophoroi were victors of the local (iso)Pythian games and alytarchs of the Olympeia respectively, so the context of sacred games, in some way, may again prove relevant for the tenure of the chrysophoria.[172]

William Ramsay provided an important observation that can help to understand the equivocal character of the chrysophoria: he has suggested that the chrysophoria at Tralles may have been comparable with the eponymous office of the stephane­phoros. [173] The duties of the eponymous stephanephoros, whose name is derived from his bearing the crown of the city’s main deity, are not precisely known, but it appears mainly to have involved financial obligations. [174] The stephanephoria could also be attached to a priesthood or a magistracy and hence was, in a sense, located between polis and hieron. Ramsay associated the stephanephoria with the chrysophoria and assumed that the stephanephoros may have represented ‘the chief of the college of chrysophoroi’. [175] There is no direct evidence for the existence of a board of chrysophoroi at Tralles which was headed by a stephanephoros, but it is indeed remarkable that all the Trallians who held the chrysophoria also served as stephanephoroi.[176] Some interrelationship between the chrysophoria and the stephanephoria can therefore be postulated.

Two further documents from outside Tralles reveal that in other cities the chrysophoria could indeed have some similarity with the stephanephoria, as regards eponymity and repeated tenure. In an inscription from Hadrianoi, the chrysophoria is attested as an eponymous post: it is dated ‘during the chrysophoria of the (anonymous) bithyniarch’.[177] In Arykanda (Lycia), a certain Hermaios performed the chrysophoria even thrice: κεχρυσοφορηκότος τρί[ς]. [178] The context of the mention of Hermaios’ three chrysophoriai suggests that it was an office that ranked on the same level as his magistracies and priesthoods (he had been prytanis, hiereus, gymnasi­archos andhypogymnasiarchos and had performed ‘all other archai’).[179] As in Tralles, thechrysophoria may have been attached to other high civic offices, or was performed in its own right. [180]

***

It has been the major concern of the present analysis to point out the different manifestations and meanings that must be associated with the chrysophoria in different social and cultural contexts. It has become clear that — in contrast to the traditional communis opinio — the term chrysophorein cannot be associated with one specific, normative meaning. The semantic problem arises from the fact that in many sources it is used as an abstract generic term for a privilege whose exact implementation — e.g. the question as to which gold insignia were worn — seems to have been determined locally within a given context. For contemporaries it must have been familiar and unambiguous enough; so there was no need for any further specification and explanation. What, then, we can observe in the epigraphic evidence referring to the chrysophoria is the formation of local idiosyncrasies in the concept under specific historical conditions.

In Hellenistic times the chrysophoria refers to the wearing of gold adornment in honour of a god (except for the case of Aristokles). It was associated with the outward appearance of a priest and may primarily pertain to gold ornaments, a gold ring, a gold crown or gold-embroidered priestly garments. Which of these distinguishing features is exactly alluded to in the honorific inscription must occasionally remain an open question. In several cases a contextual analysis has proved expedient to clarify the semantic vagueness by exclusion (to suggest what presumably it is not) or on analogy, in the attempt to define it more precisely. At Messene and probably at Kos, for instance, chrysophorein will have specifically referred to the privilege of wearing a gold ring.

In several poleis the honour of ‘wearing gold’ ranked among the highest distinctions in the nomenclature of honorific titles, not least because it carried an aura of divine and monarchical power. It is of particular interest to note that it was awarded as an exclusive mark of distinction especially in those cities where sumptuary and sacred laws expressly forbade the use of gold luxury items. Several of the extant documents mentioning the chrysophoria originate from Peloponnesian poleis (or their colonies), i.e. from a region that is generally known to have prohibited the lavish use of gold jewellery in the private and the religious spheres. So, it is the Peloponnesian city of Messene that approves of the chrysophoria for its grammateus; Tyndaris, which is the only securely attested town among the seventeen Sicilian cities privileged with the chrysophoria, is a colony of Messenian Greeks;[181] likewise, it will most probably have been the member cities of the Isthmian-Nemeian koinon of Dionysiac artists, above all the Peloponnesian cities of Thebes, Argos, and Corinth, which will have raised objections to the entitlement of the Athenian technitai to the chrysophoria.[182] As a result, the honour of ‘wearing gold’ was given a particular mark in the Peloponnesian poleis by the general prohibition of their citizens on wearing gold jewellery.[183]

As regards the imperial period, the epigraphic evidence originates mainly from Asia Minor, with Ephesus providing the largest number of attestations. At Argos and Athens, the chrysophoria features as an individual honour conferred on the honorand for life, and often along with the right to wear purple. But there are also new modes of its manifestation that reveal a significant extension and shift of meaning: in imperial times the notion of chrysophorein and chrysophoros also comprises an institution­alized form of ritual practice. It designates a collective group of cult functionaries organized in a synedrion to perform cultic duties (Ephesus, Aphrodisias, Magnesia). As to the ambiguous meaning of chrysophorein in terms of ‘wearing’ or ‘bearing’ gold, the name of the Ephesian chrysophoroi actually corresponds with their function as ‘gold-bearers’. According to the Salutaris foundation it was their official duty to carry the deity’s gold ornaments in a procession through the city. Most significant, however, is another development that comes to bear in some places in the second century AD. Whereas all the epigraphic testimony concerning the chrysophoria was essentially cult-related — it was a distinction awarded to perform cultic duties in honour of a deity — some inscriptions indicate that the honour refers to a (temporarily held) civic office in the service of the patris (Tralles, Arykanda). With reference to Artemidorus’ differentiation between the chrysophoria attached to priesthoods and the use of the term applied to magistracies the latter may well be labelled ‘magisterial’ chrysophoria.

One striking feature that runs through the Hellenistic and Roman evidence is the close relation of the chrysophoria to the agonistic context. At Argos it was linked with the holding of the agonothesia. At Aphrodisias, members of the chrysophoroi neopoioi frequently served as contest-presidents of the Aphrodeisiea-Philemoniea. The hieronikai constituted one sub-group of the Ephesian chrysophoroi. Some chrysophoroi at Tralles were agonothetai or hieronikai. As priest of Eucleia and Eunomia, Trebellius Rufus was in charge of the agonistic competitions of the ephebes at Athens. This close link with the agonistic setting is clearly apparent in imperial times, but it already emerges in the Hellenistic period with the chrysophoria of the priests of the Athenian technitai, i.e. performers in sacred games, and the priest of Zeus Alseios at Kos, who was to wear gold on the special occasion of the sacred agones.

The frequent connection with agones is not coincidental. It may provide a clue to the origin and background of ‘wearing gold’ as an exceptional privilege. There is good reason to believe that it was deeply rooted in the honorific framework of the sacred games, where the winners were highly honoured with prestigious prizes. The performance of the chrysophoria was most likely limited to this particular occasion and was primarily reserved as a prerogative for the contest-presidents and victorious athletes. All this reflects the enormous prestige that could be drawn from the involve­ment in the cities’ festivals and games as central elements of the social and cultural life in the Greek East. [184]

It is indeed noteworthy that the context of victory and the presidency of games, in which the chrysophoria is basically embedded, have much in common with the agonistic background of a central Roman honorific practice, the award of the triumphal honours (ornamenta triumphalia) with gold and purple insignia. In Republican times, it was not only the victorious general on the occasion of a triumph, but also, most notably, the magistrates presiding over the games who were allowed to wear the triumphal insignia.[185] This Republican tradition was not fundamentally changed in the principate, although the celebration of triumphs was monopolized by the imperial family: the contest-presiding officials continued to be dressed in triumphal garb, and as a substitute for a triumph the victorious general (or loyal senator, as was the later practice) was still distinguished with the award of the orna­menta triumphalia, which were worn on the occasion of festivals and games.

The similarity with the ornamenta triumphalia again draws attention to the issue of a Roman involvement, which we have observed as another striking peculiarity of the ‘Greek’ chrysophoria. It has come to the fore when the honour was awarded by a decree of the Roman Senate to seventeen cities in Magna Graecia, or on the initiative of the Italian negotiatores at Argos and the proconsul and praetorian legate at Messene, or when it needed approval of the provincial government in the case of the Athenian Dionysiac technitai. So, as regards the conferral of this ‘Greek’ honour, the Romans occasionally had a hand in it, and the question has inevitably arisen whether this was facilitated by certain analogies and mutual influences in the honorific practices of Rome and the Greek East. However, although a certain Roman colouring underlying the Greek honorific concept can be observed, there is no indication that the chrysophoria can generally be viewed as an example of a cultural transfer. It was apparently only in the case of Aristokles at Messene that a Roman honorific tradition was adopted and rendered by the Greek term chrysophoria. Thechrysophoria, then, was not directly modelled on Roman practices and was in many respects essentially different from the award of the ornamenta triumphalia[186] or the grant of the gold ring in the context of the ius anuli aurei to confer Roman equestrian status.[187] The analogies rather reflect some cultural consensus in Rome and the Greek East that prestigious symbolic signifiers such as gold jewellery and purple robes should be con­fined to festive occasions and cultic duties.

The chrysophoria completely vanishes from the epigraphic record in late antiq­uity. It was a period characterized by the lavish use and display of gold and purple as imperial insignia, which went hand in hand with restrictive regulations on their use and with their monopolization by the late antique emperors.[188] It was, moreover, a period marked by the rise of Christianity to the Empire’s state religion and the con­comitant decline of pagan cults. In contradiction to the doctrine of humility, [189] love of splendour became a significant feature in the ecclesiastical hierarchy — wearing gold as a symbolic reflection of the brightness of God’s love, the glory and magnificence of the One God.[190] It was, ultimately, a period in which the social and cultural conditions and reasons for the award of the extraordinary honour of the chrysophoria as practised in the previous centuries had obviously become irrelevant and obsolete: the civic honour of the chrysophoria had become a thing of the past.