The Imperial Cult in The Peloponnese

ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΡΩΜΑΪΚΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ
ΕΘΝΙΚΟΝ ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITY

NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
MΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 63
ROMAN PELOPONNESE III

SOCIETY, ECONOMY AND CULTURE UNDER THE ROMAN EMPIRE:
CONTINUITY AND INNOVATION
Edited by
A. D. RIZAKIS, CL. E. LEPENIOTI
ATHENS 2010
DIFFUSION DE BOCCARD - 11, RUE DE MEDICIS, 75006 PARIS
Cover illustration: Head of city goddess (Tyche) of Sparta
(Sparta Archaeological Museum inv. no. 7945; photo courtesy of O. Palagia)
Maps: Yvonne-Dominique Rizakis

Layout: Dionysia Rosgova
ISBN 978-960-7905-54-3
© The Nationale Hellenic Research Foundation
Institute for Greek and Roman Antiquity
48 Vasileos Constantinou Ave., GR – 116 35 Athens – tel.: 0030. 210 72 73 673-4
Printed by: Ἐργαστήριο Χαρακτικῆς Ἠλία Ν. Κουβέλη

Aghiou Pavlou 26, Athens – Tel.: 0030 210.82 39 095
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Geographical map of the Peloponnese x
Preface xi
A. D. Rizakis, Peloponnesian cities under Roman rule: the new political geography
and its economic and social repercussions 1
M. Piérart, Argos romaine: la cité des Perséides 19
P. Marchetti, L’épigraphie argienne et l’oligarchie locale du Haut-Empire 43
J. Roy, Roman Arkadia 59
G. Steinhauer, C. Iulius Eurycles and the Spartan dynasty of the Euryclids 75
P. Themelis, The economy and society of Messenia under Roman rule 89
S. B. Zoumbaki, Elean relations with Rome and the Achaean Koinon and the role of Olympia 111
A. D. Rizakis, Colonia Augusta Achaïca Patrensis. Réaménagements urbains, constructions

édilitaires et la nouvelle identité patréenne 129
D. G. Romano, Romanization in the Corinthia: urban and rural developments 155
Chr. Hoët-van Cauwenberghe, Mécanismes d’acquisition et diffusion de la citoyenneté

romaine dans le Péloponnèse sous le Haut-Empire 173
O. Salomies, Roman nomina in the Peloponnese: some observations 193
N. M. Kennell, Citizen training systems in the Roman Peloponnese 205
D. Stewart, The rural Roman Peloponnese: continuity and change 217
I. Touratsoglou, Coin production and coin circulation in the Roman Peloponnese 235
V. Di Napoli, Entertainment building of the Roman Peloponnese: theatres, odea,

and amphitheatres and their topographical distribution 253
M. Vitti, P. Vitti, Trasmissione ed adattamento delle tecniche costruttive romane in Peloponneso:

il caso di Trezene 267
M. Jost, Chr. Hoët-van Cauwenberghe, La vie religieuse en Arcadie à l’époque du Haut-Empire 291
A. Lo Monaco, Feasts and games of paides in the Peloponnese of the Imperial period 309
M. Melfi, Rebuilding the myth of Asklepios at the sanctuary of Epidauros in the Roman period 329
J.-S. Balzat, Prosopographie des prêtres et prêtresses des Dioscures de la Sparte
d’époque impériale 341
M. E. Hoskins Walbank, The cults of Roman Corinth: public ritual and personal belief 357
F. Camia, M. Kantiréa, The imperial cult in the Peloponnese 375
Y. Lafond, Concours et identité civique dans le Péloponnèse d’époque romaine

(ΙΙe s. av. J.-C. - ΙΙΙe s. apr. J.-C.) 407
A. Farrington, The origin of victors in the Isthmian games 421
O. Palagia, Sculptures from the Peloponnese in the Roman Imperial period 431
GEOGRAPHICAL MAP OF THE PELOPONNESE
● PATRAI: ancient city settlement

● Loukou: modern settlement
✫ Ancient sanctuaries
The internal borders of the Peloponnese as depicted on the map are an approximation only, as their precise location varied
over time.
THE IMPERIAL CULT IN THE PELOPONNESE *
F. Camia - M. Kantiréa
Abstract: In this paper we present and discuss the main aspects of the worship of the Roman emperors (cult places,
festivals, priesthoods) in the cities of the Peloponnese. The evidence shows the tendency of Peloponnesian cities to
integrate the emperors into their religious life as well as their political, social and cultural world at large. Indeed, pre-
existing sacred buildings were re-consecrated to the emperors (e.g. the Metroon of Olympia), imperial contests were
added to traditional Greek festivals (e.g. the Kaisareia added to the Isthmian games), and the emperors were onomastically
and iconographically assimilated to traditional gods in inscriptions, coins and statues (e.g. Augustus represented in
the guise of Zeus in the Metroon of Olympia). Members of local aristocracies had a fundamental role in the organ-
ization of the various “events” of emperor worship, particularly through the assumption of the office of priest of
the imperial cult, usually assigned to prominent and well-to-do individuals. The pre-eminence of the Peloponnesian
imperial priests, together with the other kinds of evidence that illustrate different aspects of emperor worship in the
cities of the Peloponnese, contribute to proving the importance played by this region in imperial Greece.
I. Roman emperors and Greek gods consider the imperial cult a homogeneous phenom-
enon, not taking in account local particularities,
The imperial cult is probably the most important
such as the social structure, the cultural environ-
and fascinating chapter of Roman religious history.
ment and the administrative organization of every
It presents two major aspects: one political, because
city or province.2 The study of the imperial cult be-
the central figure of this practice was the Roman
comes more complicated in the eastern provinces
emperor, who was the incarnation of Rome’s in- of the empire, because of the religious life of the
stitutions and military sovereignty, the other reli- Greek-speaking populations. During the Hellenis-
gious, because this mortal person became the tic period Greek religion had included several cults
object of public and private adoration. of persons in different forms: royal and dynastic
Although the worship of emperors and members cults, cults of benefactors and of ancestors, cults of
of their families became part of the official religion Rome, and those of the populus Romanus and of
all over the Roman world,1 it would be wrong to Roman magistrates and generals.3
* We would like to thank M. Metcalfe and Ch. Schabel, who had the kindness to read the paper and improve the
English text.
1. Beurlier 1891; Taylor 1931; Étienne 1958; Fishwick 1978; id., ICLW; Price 1984a; Liertz 1998; Clauss 1999;
Gradel 2002; see also Bassignano 1974; Herz 1978; Zanker 1987, 294-328.
2. Mellor 1992.
3. Habicht 1970; Mellor 1975; id. 1981. It is worth noting that unlike what had happened in Asia Minor, the cults
of Hellenistic kings and Roman generals, with few exceptions, were almost non-existent in metropolitan Greece.
This should be explained on the grounds of the different historical evolution of these regions from the end of the 4th
c. B.C. until the end of the 1st c. A.D. Although the cities and the koina of Asia Minor were supposedly independent
and autonomous, they were situated within the geographical borders of the royal states. Thus, they depended directly
on the successors of Alexander the Great, to whom they had to offer religious honours (Ma 1999). Becoming familiar
with such practices, the Greek populations of Asia Minor and Egypt could easily introduce and incorporate, on the
model of the worship of Seleucids, Attalids and Ptolemies, Rome and the Roman emperors into their religious system.
375
The long duration and the broad diffusion of impe- ous assimilations of the first princeps to saviour
rial worship were due to two main factors. The first gods, especially to Apollo and Zeus.
concerns the nature of the new monarchic power – The salutary character of these titles had pre-
the Principatus – established by Augustus, which pared the religious attitude of the Greeks for the
consisted of the domination of only one person – worship of Augustus as a saviour god. At some point
the princeps – over the political affairs of the after 27 B.C., the ancient temple of the Mother of
Roman state. The second depended on the new ad- the Gods – the Metroon – in the sanctuary of
ministrative organization of Greece: the creation Olympia was restored and consecrated to “Augus-
of the province of Achaea in 27 B.C. was an act tus, saviour of the Greeks and of the whole world”.8
without precedent in the history of the Greek world, During the same period, on the occasion of the em-
since for the first time cities and koina joined to- peror’s second visit to their city in 21/20 B.C., the
gether in the same political unit – the provincia Athenians dedicated to him and to the goddess
Achaia – recognising the Roman emperor as their Roma a small monopteros temple without cella on
common lord.4 the Acropolis, a few metres east of the Parthenon’s
The place of the princeps within the religious entry.9 The minister of this cult, who belonged to
and social life of ancient Greeks must be consid- one of the most distinguished local families, bore
ered from three different points of view: the Hel- the title of “priest of Roma and of saviour Augus-
lenistic institution of benefaction,5 the cults of the tus on the Acropolis”.10
traditional gods and the prevailing ideology of the So, Augustus’ assimilations to saviour gods and
Roman Empire.6 the titles of εὐεργέτης and σωτήρ, with which he
In the aftermath of his victory at Actium against was honoured not only in the Roman Peloponnese,
Antonius and Cleopatra in 31 B.C., Octavian ap- but all over the eastern provinces, illustrate that
peared as the sole heir to a long Hellenistic tradi- the worship of the first emperor was initially intro-
tion of the worship of kings as great benefactors duced in the form of yet another personal cult of a
and saviours.7 Meanwhile, he had managed very benefactor. But this imperial adoration progres-
skilfully to promote his divine partnership with his sively included all the members – alive and dead –
stepfather – the divus Iulius – in order to be con- of the domus Augusta and it was promulgated
sidered, at least in the Greek world, a beneficient almost simultaneously in Greek cities and Roman
lord or even a beneficient god. Under the apparent colonies, although it was manifested in different
influence of his intentions or aspirations to divin- forms depending on the social system and the reli-
ity, the honours that Octavian received in Greek gious traditions of these political units.11
cities progressively adopted salutary elements, the The document that illustrates this procedure is
most explicit expressions of which were the vari- the famous lex sacra of the city of Gytheion in the
But the cities of metropolitan Greece, except those of Macedonia, had never been part of the Hellenistic kingdoms,
although they were placed for long periods under direct or indirect royal rule. In their eyes, the kings represented a foreign
authority that under various historical circumstances could be considered either enemies and conquerors threating
Greek liberty, or friends and allies defending Greek political independence, or even benefactors and saviours pro-
tecting Greek interests. Insofar as diplomatic relationships dictated the political vocabulary and imposed on religious
behaviour, the honours that had been granted to the kings were temporary and short-lived (Kantiréa 2007, 21-26).
4. Alcock 1993.
5. Veyne 1976; Gauthier 1985; Quaß 1993.
6. Clauss 1999; Gradel 2002.
7. Habicht 1970.
8. IvO 366; Hitzl 1991, 19-24 (SEG 42, 1992, 390).
9. Binder 1969; Baldassarri 1995.
10. IG II2, 3173. About the end of the 1st c. B.C., the Athenians began to offer sacrifices to Augustus as “leading and
saviour god” on an altar in the Roman market (SEG 22, 1967, 466); in Delphi they called him a god and dedicated to
him a statue for “the safety of all the Greeks” (SEG 19, 1963, 401 and 22, 1967, 466; Oliver 1981, 414-15). In Thessaly a
series of statues and altars were consecrated to Augustus as “saviour god” (Benjamin, Raubitschek 1959, 69 nos 21-25).
11. Kantiréa 2001; Kantiréa 2001/02.
376
The imperial cult in the Peloponnese
southern Peloponnese.12 This inscription preserves memorates similar celebrations in honour of mem-
the decision of the Eleutherolacones to introduce bers of the domus Augusta: the divus Augustus, Ti-
the imperial cult in their koinon in A.D. 15. A se- berius, Livia called θεά, Antonia Minor, Livilla,
ries of celebrations involving sacrifices, dramatic and probably the two Drusi, Maior and Minor,
contests and sacred processions was established by Germanicus and Agrippina Maior. It seems that
local decree in honour of five members of the im- during the festival imperial priests sacrificed lambs,
perial family, of T. Quinctius Flamininus, who had political and religious officials administrated an
liberated the Greeks from Macedonian rule in 196 oath of fidelity to the emperor and his family, and
B.C. and soon after the littoral Lacedaemonian the people participated in sacred processions.16
cities from Spartan control,13 and finally of two The political and religious ideology of the Prin-
members of the local royal family of Euryclids, C. cipate as well as the devotion of the emperor to
Iulius Eurycles and his son C. Iulius Laco.14 The particular deities brought about considerable
festival was to last eight days, five of which were changes in the composition of the local pantheons,
dedicated successively to Augustus divi filius sav- especially that of the Roman colonies of Corinth
iour liberator (θεοῦ Καίσ[α]ρος θεοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβαστοῦ and Patras, but also that of the Greek cities that
σωτῆρος ἐλευθερίου), to Tiberius, who curiously were the most Romanized or most open to Roman
enough bears the title of pater patriae (αὐτοκρά- influences. Furthermore, they contributed largely
τορος [Τι]βερίου Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ καὶ πατρὸς to the establishment of the imperial cult. The in-
τῆς πατρίδος), to Livia assimilated to Tyche of the troduction of Augustus’ worship via the cult of the
city and of the whole ethnos, that is the koinon emperor’s favourite god Apollo in Athens17 and
(Ἰουλίας Σεβαστῆ[ς] τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ πόλεως probably in Corinth18 is some of the most repre-
ἡμῶν Τύχης), to the Victory of Germanicus (Γερ- sentative cases. In addition, the significance of
μανικοῦ Καίσαρος τῆς Νίκης) and to the Venus of some Roman divinities for the imperial religious
Drusus (Δρούσου Καίσαρος τῆς Ἀφροδείτης).15 policy often brought about a renaissance of the
Although very fragmentary, an inscription from cults of their Greek equivalents.19 The assimilation
Messene in the southwestern Peloponnese com- of Caligula’s sister Drusilla to Aphrodite in the As-
12. SEG 11, 1950, 923; Ehrenberg, Jones 1955, 87-89 no. 102a; Oliver 1989, 58-65 no. 15.
13. Balsdon 1967; Badian 1970; Briscoe 1972; Ferrary 1988, 58-117; Kennell 1999, 189-92; Pfeilschifter 2005.
14. Chrimes 1949; Bowersock 1961, 112-18; Spawforth 1985, 193-97; Lindsay 1992, 290-97; Cartledge, Spawforth
2002; RP II, LAC 461 and 468 respectively; Balzat 2008, 335-50; see also infra, pp. 390-91.
15. For an interpretation of the last two clauses, see Kantiréa 2007, 68-69.
16. SEG 41, 1991, 328; see also infra, p. 385.
17. In Athens, Augustus’ preference for Apollo is seen in the revival of an ancient and almost forgotten sacred
procession that the Athenians used to send at irregular intervals to Delphi, the so-called Pythais, which, from Roman
times on, reappeared on epigraphic documents under the new appellation of Dodecais. The new name was derived,
in our opinion, from the 12th day of the Attic month Boedromion, which coincided with the 23rd of September of
the Roman calendar, that is, Augustus’ dies natalis; on this day the Athenians decided by public decree to celebrate
Augustus’ birthday. The imperial festival seems to have been organized on the model of the ritual of Apollo’s birthday
celebrated on the 7th day of Boedromion and it included an ἰσοπύθιος ἀγών, that is, a contest that rose to the rank
of Pythia (IG II2, 1071; Graindor 1927, 25-30; Stamires 1957, 260-65 no. 98; Kantiréa 2007, 45-48). The first priests
of Augustus in Athens – Pammenes son of Zenon, Ti. Claudius Novius and the Herodes Atticus’ ancestors – belonged
to the priesthood of Apollo Pythian and Delian, which means that they were at the same time religious ministers of
the god and of the emperor (Kantiréa 2007, 172-78).
18. CIL III, 534; Corinth VIII.2, no. 120; see also an altar of Augustus found near the archaic temple of Apollo
in Corinth (Corinth VIII.1, no. 97).
19. The introduction of the worship of Ares and of Hestia in the agora and on the Acropolis of Athens respectively
was achieved because of the important role that the equivalent Roman deities, Mars Ultor and Vesta, played in Au-
gustan religious ideology. So, the Greek temple of Ares dating from the 5th c. B.C., which originally stood in Acharnai
(or less probably in Pallene), was transported and reconstructed in the Athenian agora about the last decade of the
1st c. B.C. (Dinsmoor 1940; McAllister 1959; Baldassarri 1998, 153-72; ead. 2001, 417-18; on the acclamation of
Augustus’ grandson Gaius Caesar with the title of new god Ares by the Athenian people, see IG II2, 3250; Bowersock
1984). Similarly, the existence of a common cult of the goddess Hestia, and of Livia and Julia, the emperor’s wife
377
clepieion of Epidaurus is in this sense especially princeps into the religious context of the Panhel-
significant:20 it reflects the important place that lenic sanctuary.23
Venus occupied in the Roman pantheon because of It is evident that the introduction of the Roman
the religious ideology of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, emperor in the pantheon and the ritual system of
which propagated systematically its relation with a city was based on pre-existing cults of the tradi-
Trojan deities. The insistent quest for Venus’ pro- tional deities. However, the emperors’ identifica-
tection by Julius Caesar and afterwards by Augus- tion with gods did not constitute in itself a way or
tus symbolized their intention to advertise the a means of deification. Above all, such connections
origins of their family from Aeneas, the mythical demonstrate the reasons why some deities, who
son of the goddess, the king of Troy and the founder had been invested with a very strong political char-
of Rome. Because of this mythological interpreta- acter, were involved in matters of imperial wor-
tion of the divine genealogy, immortalized success- ship, and they reflect the historical conditions in
fully by poets and artists of the Augustan period, which members of the imperial family were inte-
and the false alteration of the name of Aeneas’ son, grated into the religious life of the Greek cities.
Ilos, which made an allusion to the name of the gens Onomastic and iconographical assimilations, such
of the Iulii, the Julian family insisted on the genetrix as Augustus represented in the guise of Zeus in the
aspect of Venus, connecting thus their own origins Metroon of Olympia and Livia honoured as god-
with those of the populus Romanus. It is very prob- dess Tyche in Gytheion,24 which brought to the
able that within this context the cult of Venus Au- minds of ancient Greeks their local patron deities,
gusta was created in Dyme, near the Roman colony invoked imperial acts of benefaction or patronage.
of Patras, in the northwest Peloponnese.21 If in some cases the scale of imperial generosity
The assimilation of Augustus to Zeus in Olympia was so great that the simple titles of benefactor,
was the result of an interactive procedure between patron or saviour were considered insufficient to
Greek religion and Roman political ideology. express it, they were substituted by or added to
Zeus, the father of gods and men, could easily be common divine epithets, so that the comparison
compared with the Roman emperor, the father of between the god and the emperor would become
the fatherland (pater patriae). Such comparisons more evident. When Nero liberated the entire
underlined the universal sovereignty of the victo- province of Achaea in A.D. 66 or 67, the extent of
rious princeps, while the title of saviour of the their gratitude was so great that immediately many
whole world, an attribute that was commonly given Greek cities decided to represent him like Jupiter
to Zeus, recalled imperial benefactions according Liberator on coins and statues, to address common
to the official ideology of the period.22 The Jovian sacrifices and prayers to the emperor and to the
representation of Augustus in the colossal and god, and to appoint common priests to serve the
most probably cult statue set up in the cella of the cult of both Nero and Zeus Eleutherios.25
Metroon in Olympia included elements of Roman From the 2nd c. A.D. on, very probably under
political ideology and of the Greek artistic tradi- the influence of the cultual practices of the Panhel-
tion, and it contributed to the incorporation of the lenion and of the worship of Hadrian as Zeus
and daughter respectively, on the Athenian Acropolis is a good example of the advertising of Augustus’ devotion to
the Roman Vesta (Kantiréa 2007, 127-29; cf. Kajava 2001).
20. Höet-van Cauwenberghe 1999, 179-81.
21. CIL III, 7254.
22. Ward 1933, 203-24; Alföldi 1970, 220-23; Alföldi 1971, 59-67; Fears 1977, 97-99; Fears 1984; Maderna 1988,
49-52; Strothmann 2000, 28-33.
23. Hitzl 1991, 34-38; Rose 1997, 147-49.
24. See supra, pp. 376-77 n. 12; SEG 11, 1950, 925. In Athens, Livia was assimilated to Hestia Boulaia (Schmalz
2009, 107 no. 135) rather than to Athena or Artemis Boulaia (Oliver 1965, 179; SEG 22, 1967, 152) in a statue
erected somewhere between the Prytaneion and the Bouleuterion, and Claudius was probably represented as Apollo
Patroos in a statue set up near the temple of the god in the agora (IG II2, 3274), while Flavia Domitilla as goddess
Fortuna had a priestess in Tanagra (IG VII, 572; Veyne 1962).
25. IG VII, 2713; Oliver 1989, 572-75 no. 296; Amandry 1988, 19 and 215-21; RPC I, 1203-206, 1238-240, 1264-
274, 1368-377, and Suppl. I, 1377A.
378
Olympios and Panhellenios, Jovian assimilations Σεβαστός. When Augustus founded Patras as a
of the emperors and the association of their cult Roman colony around 20 B.C., Aetolian popula-
with that of the most important god of the Greek tions who came or were forced to come to live in
and Roman pantheon seem to predominate over the new city brought with them the gold-ivory
other divine identifications, becoming thus part of statue of Artemis Laphria, a very old goddess of
the traditional imperial ritual in the Roman Pelo- Western Greece. In her new home, the deity took
ponnese, especially in Sparta and in the nearby both the Latin name Diana, an indication that she
cities. Even if the assimilation of Trajan to Zeus had also been accepted by the Roman inhabitants,
Embaterios in Hermione around A.D. 114 could and the attribute Augusta, which means that she was
yet be associated with a probable visit of the em- placed under high imperial protection. Thus, the
peror to that city on his way to Parthia,26 the ded- ancient Aetolian goddess, whose name announced
ication of about thirty altars to Hadrian “the saviour” and alluded to the Augustan benefaction and foun-
on the occasion of the adventus principis ceremo- dation, became a common religious point of refer-
nies, during the first visit of the emperor to Sparta ence for both Greek immigrants and Latin colonists.30
in A.D. 124/25, derived very probably from the re-
ligious tendancy of this period to attribute to the II. The topography and the ritual of the imperial
Roman lord the titles, symbols and qualities of cult
Jupiter.27 Within the same pattern falls the conse- The fact that imperial worship in Greece was based
cration of a group of about fifty altars to Antoni- on pre-existing religious structures is also demon-
nus Pius identified with Zeus Eleutherios in the strated by the building programme of the cult. From
same Lacedemonian city.28 the end of the 1st c. B.C. on, very few new con-
The worship of imperial deities and virtues constructions were realised for the needs of the impe-
stituted a regular religious practice in the Roman rial worship in the Peloponnese. Among these one
Empire. Therefore, it is evident that personifications can cite the Sebasteia or Kaisareia in Gytheion and
of abstract ideas were venerated in the Roman in Messene. While the first is known only through
colony of Corinth, where sacerdotes of Apollo Au- epigraphic evidence,31 the second has been discov-
gustus, Neptunus Augustus and Mars Augustus are ered on the north side of the sanctuary of Ascle-
attested epigraphically.29 What is most interesting, pios, near the agora of the city.32 The Kaisareion
however, is the “Romanization” of some local consists of two large buildings with six rooms each,
deities through the imperial titles of Augustus or flanking the main north staircase of the Hellenistic
26. IG IV, 701; cf. Robert 1963, 315; Baladié 1980, 274. See Richards 1988 for a different interpretation of the
epithet embaterios assigned to Trajan.
27. IG V 1, 381-404 and 1592; Euangelidis 1911, 198 no. 5; SEG 11, 1950, 763; SEG 13, 1956, 256; SEG 36, 1986,
358; see also SEG 49, 1999, 400. One of these altars (SEG 13, 1956, 256) can be dated with certainty to A.D. 124/25,
on the basis of the mention of the Spartan patronomos P. Memmius Sidectas (cf. RP II, LAC 579). When assimilations
to gods other than Zeus occur, they can be explained within the local context; so, the Dionysiac technitai in Athens
consecrated an altar to an unknown emperor, maybe Hadrian, designated as neos Dionysos (IG II2, 3323); in Sparta
an altar was dedicated “to the Olympian gods new Dioscouroi”, probably an allusion to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
Verus (IG V 1, 447).
28. IG V 1, 403, 407-45; SEG 11, 1950, 766-68; SEG 36, 1986, 359; SEG 41, 1991, 316; SEG 44, 1994, 359; SEG
47, 1997, 360-61; SEG 49, 1999, 402-04. Anyway, it is worth noting here that Antoninus Pius spoke in favour of
Sparta in a territorial dispute between the city and the Eleutherolacones (IG V 1, 37, ll. 7-9); Cartledge, Spawforth
2002, 114; for a different interpretation, see Hupfloher 2000, 172-73.
29. CIL III, 534; Corinth VIII.2, no. 120 (Apollo Augustus); Corinth VIII.3, no. 156 (Neptunus Augustus) and
no. 212 (Mars Augustus). The monument in commemoration of his victory at Actium in 31 B.C. that Augustus had
erected in Nicopolis was consecrated to his three protector gods (Oliver 1969; Carter 1977; Murray, Petsas 1989).
30. Paus. VII. 18, 8-9; CIL III, 510; Rizakis 1989, nos 4-5, cf. no. 6; RPC I, 1276-77, 1281; Anti 1916; Herbillon
1929, 57-73; Antonetti 1990, 241-69; Osanna 1997; Ellinger 1993, 243-45; Houby-Nielsen 2001.
31. See supra n. 12.
32. Its exact location has been identified via two inscriptions found in situ (IG V 1, 1462; Bardane 1988. Migeotte
1985, ll. 38-40 [SEG 35, 1985, 343]).
379
Asclepieion. According to the archaeological finds, foreign subjects. Throughout the centuries public
the monument seems to have served both as a din- buildings inevitably received new symbolisms that
ing room and as the main office of the imperial they absorbed and transformed, without losing
priests, and probably also as a meeting place for their initial character. In the case of imperial wor-
local nobles. From the topographical point of view, ship, the need for consecutive dedications and
the Sebasteion in Messene was part of the most reuses of monuments stemmed both from the
important sanctuary of the city, a well-structured Greek people, who wished to announce, to under-
architectural complex of monuments consecrated stand and to integrate the imperial presence into
to Asclepios. The temple of the god, who in their political institutions, social life and religious
Messene was not venerated as a healer deity, but system, and from the Roman authorities, who
as a political divinity, occupied the central part of sought to become part of this complex ritual pat-
a large peristyle precinct to which several public tern and thus to justify their sovereignty.35
and religious buildings have been annexed: the Therefore, in the beginning of the Principate the
council house and small temples of mythical heroes classical Metroon in Olympia was reconsecrated
and local deities associated with the foundation of to Augustus and afterwards, probably under Claudius,
Messene in 370/369 B.C.33 The construction of the it became a temple of the dynastic cult of the im-
Kaisareion in the beginning of the Principate perial family.36 Pausanias reports that a circular
linked the imperial power to this architectural com- religious monument surrounded by porticoes of
plex of political character. An altar consecrated to imprecise date in the agora of Elis was once dedi-
the Great gods Patrooi and to Augustus confirms cated to the Roman emperors, but in his time it
that the imperial cult had been incorporated into was falling into ruin.37 The Hellenistic house of a
the civic and religious institutions of the city.34 tyrant of Sicyon, which was situated near the fune-
Roman urbanization of Greek sanctuaries illus- rary monument of Aratos in the agora of the city,
trates the way in which the new prevailing ideology seems to have been consecrated to Nero on the oc-
could be built up progressively onto the symbolic casion of the liberation of the province of Achaea.38
structures of the past. In the Roman Peloponnese Numerous imperial inscriptions on honorific statue
and in mainland Greece, unlike the ambitious bases were placed in almost every Greek religious
building programmes destined for the imperial cult site, such as in the sanctuaries of Asclepios in Epi-
in Asia Minor, old temples were often reconse- daurus and of Hera at Argos.39 According to Pau-
crated to the new divi. This act should not be ex- sanias, statues of Trajan and Hadrian were erected
plained exclusively on the grounds of the probable in the pronaos of the Temple of Zeus in Olympia,40
economic difficulties that Greek cities faced be- while representations of the latter emperor and of
tween the end of the Hellenistic period and the be- his wife Sabina as Zeus Olympios and Aphrodite
ginning of the Principate. Rededications of ancient respectively were placed in an ancient round reli-
monuments to imperial persons involved the prin- gious monument in Sparta.41 The double or, better,
ciples of a political and religious dialogue between consecutive consecrations of temples, the dedication
the representatives of the Roman power and the of almost every new public building – porticoes,
33. Paus. IV. 31, 10; Orlandos 1960; Felten 1983, 84-93; Habicht 1985, 36-63; Themelis 1991, 102-03; Graf 1992,
174-76; Melfi 2007, 247-89. For the places of public dinners, see Schmitt Pantel 1992, 303-33.
34. SEG 43, 1993, 163, and 44, 1994, 376; Hoët-van Cauwenberghe 1999, 177-79 (AnnÉpigr 1999, 1467); cf.
Deshours 2004, 124-25.
35. Alcock 1993, 198.
36. See supra, p. 378 (and n. 23). A monument in the sanctuary of Athena Pronaia in Delphi, which very probably
should be identified with the magnificent Tholos, served similar purposes, probably under the Flavians (Paus. X. 8,
6; Kantiréa 2007, 153-56).
37. Paus. VI. 24, 10; Zoumbaki 2001, 150-51; Wojan 2008.
38. Kantiréa 2008.
39. Højte 2005, passim.
40. Paus. V. 12, 6; Alcock 1993, 190.
41. Paus. III. 12, 11; Hupfloher 2000, 160-61.
380
gymnasia, fountains and so on – to the gods Augu- simulated humility to deny it officially. The most
sti, as well as the erection of many imperial statues representative case is Tiberius’ refusal to accept
and portraits in agorai and sanctuaries illustrate the divine honours in the letter that he addressed to the
conscious will to associate the Roman emperors local authorities of Gytheion.43 Anyway, it is more
with the commonly accepted gods, and they than certain that Tiberius and his family accepted
demonstrate the intention of the imperial power to a cult by the koinon of Eleutherolacones.
dominate in every civic and religious public space. The local elites played an important role in the
The connection of imperial contests – Kaisareia institution and promulgation of imperial worship.
or Sebasteia – with traditional Greek festivals falls The appointment of priests and agonothetai, and
within the same pattern. With the exception of the organization and financing of festivals includ-
the Olympic games, which seem to have never ing sacrifices, games, expensive symposia and the
included imperial competitions, the double festiv- distribution of grain, wine and money were a bur-
ities took place in sanctuaries under the patronage den for the members of the upper classes. Never
of important cities, such as in the Asclepieion in the less, this ritual constituted a challenge for the
Epidaurus. Many victors’ lists and honorific in- rich people to show their power and to confirm
scriptions of agonothetai attest the long and com- their generosity, but it also gave them the oppor-
posite names of these double or triple festivals: tunity to receive honours and privileges in ex-
Apollonieia Asclepieia Kaisareia in Epidaurus, Se- change, and thus to enhance their prestige among
basteia Nemeia in Argos, Lykaia Kaisareia in Me- their fellow citizens. The imperial cult was an act
galopolis in Arcadia. The most unexpected case of benefaction for the nobles, a means of amuse-
was undoubtedly the connection of Kaisareia Se- ment if not of survival for the poorest populations,
basteia with the old Isthmian games in the Roman and a proof of loyalty and political obedience for
colony of Corinth.42 Rome. The long and detailed decrees of Gytheion
The border between civic and religious honours and of Messene make clear that the imperial cele-
cannot be easily determined, maybe because it did brations were realised according to an official pro-
not exist for the ancient Greeks. Dedications of tocol covering a very large range of activities,
statues and the acclamation of the honoured with from the dedication of cult images and the accom-
the titles of benefactor, saviour and patron were plishment of sacred processions to the clothing of
common civic honours, while festivals, sacrifices, the participants. This protocol had to be preserved
priesthoods and consecrations of altars and tem- respectfully in all cases, independently of the real
ples belonged to the most important religious ho- religious sentiment that the participants may or
nours. The former prove undoubtedly the human may not have felt during these ceremonies or their
nature of the Roman emperor, while the last belief in the true nature, divine or human, of their
demonstrate that simultaneously he was granted lords. Unfortunately, we will never know their gen-
godlike honours – ἰσόθεοι τιμαί. The imperial cult uine religious emotions, because we cannot base
was born of the need of the subjects to define the our answer on reliable indications, not even on the
place of their lord in a hierarchical system of val- title god, the use of which progressively became a
ues, and in this sense, it represented none other commonplace in the honorific vocabulary. In any
than the highest level in the scale of honours. case, the coexistence of two kinds of sacrifices,
Being a political expression in a religious guise those that were addressed directly to the emperor
or, vice-versa, a religious act marked with a strong as god and the more numerous ones that were of-
political discourse, the imperial cult had to concern fered to the gods on behalf of the safety, the health
and to be addressed to the whole society. With a and the eternal reign of the emperors, illustrates
couple of exceptions, the Roman emperors did not the double nature – human and divine – of the
impose their own cult, but they accepted it, even Roman overlord, which imposed different kinds of
if they were obliged by a feeling of pietas or by honours in different historic circumstances.44
42. See infra.

43. SEG 11, 1950, 922; Taylor 1929; Oliver 1989, 58-65 no. 15.
44. Price 1980; id. 1984b.
381
III. Imperial festivals and celebrations such as Kaisareia, Sebasteia or others modelled on
Starting from the beginning of the Principate, im- the name of a given emperor – and sometimes also
perial festivals spread all over the Greek world, and in the inclusion in the programme of new compe-
the Roman emperors began to be celebrated on titions specifically aimed at celebrating and hon-
various occasions. Several imperial anniversaries ouring the emperor and his family. Within the Greek
came to be included in the festival calendars of the world, the Peloponnese occupied a remarkable po-
Greek communities, on the model of the official sition due to the particular privilege of hosting
Roman state calendar, which included all of the most three of the most famous Panhellenic festivals (the
important anniversaries commemorating episodes Olympian, Isthmian and Nemean Games); new sets
of the life and politico-military activity of the em- of competitions specifically dedicated to the em-
perors, such as dies natalis and imperii, imperial peror came to be included in two of them (the Ne-
salutations, consular designations, and so on. Although mean and Isthmian).
modelled on the state calendar of Rome, the local
festival calendars often included anniversaries a) Kaisareia and Sebasteia in the cities of the
commemorating specific episodes directly con- Roman Peloponnese
cerning a given community, such as the visit of an The above mentioned hieros nomos from the
emperor. The two series of altars for Hadrian and Eleutherolaconian city of Gytheion (A.D. 15)46
Antoninus Pius from Sparta offer a remarkable ex- provides precious information about the way in
ample of this situation. On the occasion of the Em- which imperial festivals were organized and cele-
peror Hadrian’s first visit to the Laconian city (A.D. brated, showing that they were basically modelled
124/25), the polis ordered the erection of some on the traditional religious festivals and included
thirty altars dedicated to Hadrian “the Saviour” different moments, i.e. processions, sacrifices, ag-
(soter), on which private citizens were supposed to onistic competitions. The text documents the offi-
perform sacrifices during the procession in honour cial institution of an imperial festival (Kaisareia)
of the emperor. The second (and more numerous) which included a solemn procession, sacrifices and
series of altars later dedicated to Antoninus Pius libations, and eight days of musical events (thyme-
Soter, identified with Zeus Eleutherios, shows that likoi agones). Five days were dedicated to as many
the ceremony of the adventus principis, celebrated members of the imperial family: the divus Augustus,
on the occasion of Hadrian’s first visit to Sparta, the reigning emperor Tiberius, Livia, Germanicus and
continued to be celebrated years later, and was thus Drusus the Younger (respectively Tiberius’ nephew
included in the Spartan festival calendar.45 and son).47 The sixth day was dedicated to T. Quinc-
In the Greek world, the integration of the Roman tius Flamininus,48 the Roman general and author of
emperors into the local festival calendars led to the the famous declaration of the freedom of the Greeks
institution of new (independent) imperial festivals, at the Isthmus in 196 B.C., who soon after freed
usually called Kaisareia or Sebasteia, which included Gytheion and the other Eleutherolaconian cities
agonistic competitions (athletic and/or musical from the domination of Nabis of Sparta.49 Two more
events). In addition, the emperor and other mem- days of games were then celebrated “in memory of
bers of his family were celebrated in local and Pan- C. Iulius Eurycles” and “in honour of C. Iulius Laco”
hellenic festivals along with traditional gods, a fact respectively, two Spartan aristocrats and benefactors
resulting in a change of the traditional festival’s who belonged to one of the most important families
name – with the addition of an imperial epithet, of the Peloponnese and of imperial Greece at large.50
45. On festival calendars and imperial anniversaries see Fishwick, ICLW II.1, 482-501 (esp. 492-97 for the eastern
part of the Empire). On Spartan altars see supra, p. 379; cf. also Hupfloher 2000, 172-73.
46. SEG 11, 1950, 923; see supra, pp. 376-77, and at n. 12.
47. SEG 11, 1950, 923, ll. 7-11.
48. Op. cit., ll. 11-12.
49. See supra, p. 377 at n. 13.
50. SEG 11, 1950, 923, ll. 18-22. On these individuals, and more generally on the Spartan C. Iulii (Euryclids), see
most recently Kantiréa 2007, 159-66 (with further bibliography at p. 159 n. 4) and Balzat 2008 (with further bibli-
ography at n. 2).
382
At Gytheion the celebrations were opened every when the institution of the imperial cult at Sparta
day by a solemn procession which preceded the be- can be dated, as shown by the presence of naoi of
ginning of the games. The pompe started from the Caesar and Augustus, and of an altar of Augustus,
sanctuary of Asclepius and Hygeia, the entire pop- in the agora.55 The initiative must have been spon-
ulation taking part: besides the magistrates, who sored by the same Eurycles, friend of Augustus (and
headed the parade and played a fundamental role partisan of him at Actium), who in all probability
in it, there were the ephebes, the neoi, all the other was also responsible for the institution of the im-
citizens wearing white garments and laurel wreaths, perial cult at Sparta.56 The Spartan Kaisareia in-
the sacred virgins and the women wearing ritual cluded athletic and maybe also thymelic contests,
garments.51 As the pompe reached the sanctuary of and are still attested in the 3rd c. A.D.; by the mid-
the imperial cult (Kaisareion), the ephors sacrificed second century they were celebrated together (i.e.
a bull for the safety and eternal power of the mon- successively in the same year) with a new agonistic
archs and gods (i.e. the reigning emperor and his festival, the Eurycleia.57 The latter was named after
divinized predecessors), and they also arranged for C. Iulius Eurycles Herculanus – descendant of Eu-
the other magistrates to perform sacrifices in the rycles and the first Spartan to enter the Roman
agora.52 Finally, at the theatre of Gytheion, before senate – in whose honour this festival was cele-
the artists entered the scene to compete in the brated for the first time following his death (around
thymelic games, the synedroi of the Eleuthero- A.D. 136).58
laconian koinon and the other magistrates of Some years later, around A.D. 180, a new ago-
Gytheion offered incense for the safety of the em- nistic festival was founded at Sparta in honour of
perors on an incense burner (thymiaterion) set on Commodus. The Olympia Kommodeia 59 – as far as
a sacred table (trapeza) in front of three painted is known the last games instituted at Sparta for an
images of Augustus, Tiberius and Livia, which had emperor – included athletic and musical competi-
been paraded in the procession through the city.53 tions and most likely envisaged sacrifices for the
The musical events could then begin. emperor’s safety. The institution of this new ago-
Kaisareia were also celebrated at Sparta, where nistic festival could have been prompted by the
they are mentioned for the first time in an agonistic Spartans’ desire to thank the Emperor Marcus Au-
inscription dated to the Flavian age.54 They had relius for returning the ager Denthaliatis to them.60
probably been introduced in the Augustan age, Under the Severans, the Kommodeia were among
51. SEG 11, 1950, 923, ll. 25-28.

52. Op. cit., ll. 28-30.
53. Op. cit., ll. 5-7 and 33-35. In religious contexts, imperial images acted as substitutes of the emperor and con-
stituted a sort of duplicate of him; quite often they were taken in procession by bearers called sebastophoroi; cf.
Fishwick, ICLW II.1, 550-53 (with ns 465 and 469) and III.3, 273-74; Herz 1997, 249-50. At Athens and Tanagra the
ephebes took part in the transport of imperial images; cf. IG XII Suppl., 646, l. 13 (with Robert 1939, 124-25; id.
1960b, 323 and n. 7).
54. Moretti 1953a, no. 66 (a little earlier than A.D. 86).
55. Paus. III. 11, 4-5.
56. Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 99, 184-85; RP II, LAC 461; see infra, p. 390.
57. IG V 1, 71b (ll. 54-55); 86; 168; 550; 603; SEG 34, 1984, 308 (ll. 19-20). Four of the six known agonothetai of this
contest presided over the combined Kaisareia kai Eurycleia (Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 186-187, with 263-264 n. 14).
58. Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 110-111, 186-187; Hupfloher 2000, 169 n. 86; RP II, LAC 462. A catalogue of
ephors (Museum of Sparta, inv. no. 6474), recently published by Steinhauer 2006/07, registers two events – both to
be connected with the provisions of Herculanus’ will – in the patronomate of Neikephoros son of Marcus (A.D.
136/37): 1) the donation of the island of Cythera to Sparta by the Emperor Hadrian; 2) the first celebration of the
Eurycleia. Based on this information, it can be argued that Herculanus, who had inherited his ancestral estates on
the island from C. Iulius Eurycles, bequeathed them to the emperor Hadrian, who in turn gave them back to Sparta
– together with the entire island of Cythera, which thus lost its independence – so that the revenues coming from the
estates could be used for the funding of the newly established festival; cf. Steinhauer 2006/07, 201-02.
59. See Miranda 1992/93, 83, for the epigraphic references.
60. IG V 1, 1361 (A.D. 177/78) with Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 117, 139 and 187.
383
the so-called hieroi and eiselastikoi agonistic festi- which included a sacred agon – she expressed her
vals. According to A. J. S. Spawforth, this presti- gratitude towards him by adding the epithets Se-
gious status – which could only be granted by the basteia and Nerouanideia to the name of the festi-
emperor – was assigned to the Kommodeia in the val. The absence of these epithets from the later
Severan age, when these games would also have as- epigraphical references to the festival and the lack
sumed the epithet Olympia, thus undergoing a re- at Sparta of further specific evidence of a relation-
organization on the model of the Olympic games. ship between “Heavenly Zeus” and the emperors
As a result, a local era of “Olympiads” was also in- would, however, seem to indicate that the addition
stituted, regulating the quinquennial celebration of of the name of the emperor to the name of the fes-
these games.61 tival had a merely formal character and did not
While at Sparta, it is worth mentioning another provoke any lasting association between the cult
agonistic festival, dedicated to Zeus Ouranios, the of “Heavenly Zeus” and the imperial cult.65
Megala Ourania. This festival was founded around At Messene a festival called Kaisareia is men-
A.D. 97/8, as revealed by an agonistic inscription tioned for the first time in an honorary decree for
on a statue base dedicated at Sparta by a wrestler the quaestor pro praetore P. Cornelius Scipio,66
after his victory during the first celebration of a who had shown great benevolence towards Augus-
contest called Megista Ourania Sebasteia Neroua- tus and the imperial family. He spent lavishly on
nideia.62 It would seem that the reigning emperor organizing with all possible zeal the Kaisareia, pro-
Nerva had been associated with Zeus Ouranios.63 viding for the execution of vows and sacrifices for
Yet, this is the only known example of this partic- Augustus’ safety. Moreover, he arranged for many
ular denomination: in the subsequent epigraphical other cities of the province of Achaea to join him
references to the (Megala) Ourania – the last ex- in organizing similar festivals for the emperor.67
ample dating between the end of the 2nd and the But Scipio’s piety and loyalty towards the imperial
beginning of the 3rd centuries A.D.64 – imperial house went further. After learning that Augustus’
epithets never occur again. Therefore, given that nephew (and adoptive son) C. Caesar had returned
the particular denomination linking the festival for safely from the eastern campaign against the
“Heavenly Zeus” with the emperor refers to the Parthians, Scipio invited the whole population of
first celebration of these games, one could tenta- Messene to wear wreaths and to make sacrifices to
tively reconstruct the following scenario: once celebrate this happy news; moreover, he himself
Sparta had obtained from the Emperor Nerva the sacrificed a bull for the good health of Gaius and
permission for the institution of the new festival – offered lavish spectacles (theai ).68 In order to render
61. Spawforth 1986, 327-32; Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 187. The eiselastic agones gave victors the right to a
triumphal procession (eiselasis) in their home-cities, in addition to other (also material) privileges. Miranda 1992/93
thinks that the Spartan Kommodeia already enjoyed the status of sacred agon during the reign of Commodus; see
also RP II, 405-06.
62. IG V 1, 667. The games were partially financed by the local benefactors C. Iulius Agesilaus and T. Flavius
Charixenus (RP II, LAC 416 and 361); cf. Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 106, 185-86. Agesilaus, eponymous patronomos
around A.D. 100, dedicated a colonnaded building to the theoi Sebastoi and the polis of Sparta; see Cartledge, Spaw-
forth 2002, 106 and 219 app. I, no. 29.
63. Hupfloher 2000, 162-65; Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 196.
64. Moretti 1953a, no. 66; cf. also Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 232, app. IV B.
65. A parallel to this suggested scenario is provided by an inscription from Ancyra (Asia Minor): in the age of
Caracalla a boxer dedicated a statue after winning in the first celebration of the Asclepieia Antoneineia. According to
L. Robert, the addition of the epithet Antoneineia, which does not occur again in the subsequent epigraphical refer-
ences to this festival, refers to the permission granted by the emperor Caracalla to the city of Ancyra for the foundation
of new sacred games dedicated to Asclepius, but the absence of this epithet in the following epigraphical references
shows that “cette adjonction de l’empereur au dieu était sentie, même en haut lieu, comme banale et de pure forme,
et n’était pas considérée comme un élément essentiel du nom de la fête”, see Robert 1960a, 350-68 (quot. at 362).
66. SEG 23, 1968, 206 (A.D. 2/3); cf. Kantiréa 2007, 208 no. 1. On the individual see RP II, MES 175.
67. SEG 23, 1968, 206, ll. 2-10.
68. Op. cit., ll. 10-15. These rituals imitated the Roman vota pro salute Caesaris.
384
the homage paid to Gaius more lasting, Cornelius festival lasted three days – during which an inter-
Scipio also ordered the Messenians to celebrate ruption of any public and private activity (partic-
every year, by wearing wreaths and making sacri- ularly trials and executions) was proclaimed – and
fices, the anniversary day of the first designation included athletic competitions. The athletic con-
of C. Caesar to the consulship. He also stated that tests, reserved for paides and epheboi, and the
a two day interval should be placed between the equestrian races for the neoi took place on the em-
festival for Augustus and the celebration of the an- peror’s dies natalis; due to the fragmentary state
niversary of Gaius’ first designation to the consul- of the inscription, it is not known if it refers to the
ship.69 P. Herz has shown that these festivals birthday of the divus Augustus or Tiberius.73 Other
followed the official calendar of Rome, and he has rituals were performed before the beginning of the
proposed as feast days the 13th and 16th of January, games, as in the Kaisareia of Gytheion, which were
i.e. the anniversaries of Gaius’ first designation to aimed at expressing piety and loyalty to the impe-
the consulship in 5 B.C. and Octavian’s assump- rial power and at directing the gods’ favour to-
tion of the title Augustus in 27 B.C. respectively.70 wards the emperor and the imperial house. First,
Another Messenian decree, documenting the in- the magistrates of Messene had to swear an oath
stitution of the dynastic cult in this polis immedi- of allegiance to the divus Augustus, Tiberius and
ately after the death of Augustus, deals with the their descendants.74 Lambs were then taken to the
organization of an imperial festival for the domus temple of the imperial cult (Sebasteion) to be sac-
Augusta.71 This decree mentions the divus Augus- rificed, the sacred parade being headed by the an-
tus, Tiberius, Livia (called thea), Antonia the nual priest of the divus Augustus, who first entered
Younger and Livilla; in a lost part of the inscription the temple with a torch and illuminated the impe-
the names of other members of the imperial family rial images.75 This is another example of the im-
were probably inscribed: Drusus the Elder and the portant role imperial images played in the rituals
Younger (husbands of Antonia the Younger and of of the cult of the emperors.76
Livilla respectively) and most likely Germanicus The agonistic festival celebrated every two
and Agrippina the Elder as well. This Messenian years at the sanctuary of Poseidon on the Isthmus
decree could attest to the reorganization of the of Corinth was one of the oldest and most famous
Kaisareia mentioned in the honorary decree for Panhellenic festivals and attracted contestants and
the quaestor pro praetore P. Cornelius Scipio after spectators from all over the Greek world. During
Augustus’ death. Something similar may have hap- the Principate a new imperial contest was added to
pened at Gytheion, if we suppose that an imperial the traditional Isthmian games, so that the Roman
festival was already celebrated during Augustus’ emperors came to be worshipped together with the
principate (although we do not have any reference god Poseidon. After the destruction of Corinth by
to Kaisareia at Gytheion before the above-men- L. Mummius in 146 B.C., the Romans assigned to
tioned “lex sacra” of A.D. 15).72 The Messenian Sicyon the task of organizing the Isthmian games.
69. SEG 23, 1968, 206, ll. 16-20.

70. Herz 1993.
71. SEG 41, 1991, 328 (A.D. 15); cf. Kantiréa 2007, 206 no. 3. See also supra, p. 377.
72. Generally speaking, it is likely that most of the imperial festivals in Greek cities were introduced under Au-
gustus, or early in the imperial age, and that they continued to be celebrated in the following years in honour of the
reigning emperor and his family.
73. SEG 41, 1991, 328, ll. 34-35.
74. Op. cit., ll. 19-22. A link existed between the imperial cult and the ceremonies of the oath of allegiance to the
imperial house. Inscriptions from Asia Minor and Cyprus show that the magistrates (of cities or koina) and the
demos used to swear loyalty to the imperial house, sometimes in front of imperial images, and also invoked the gods
and the divinized emperors as witnesses. Moreover, they addressed prayers and vows to the gods for the safety and
good health of the reigning emperor; cf. Kantiréa 2007, 70 (and n. 2).
75. SEG 41, 1991, 328, ll. 22-29. Torches and lamps, which had always played an important role in Greek ritual
practices, also came to be used in the imperial cult, particularly in connection with the so-called imperial mysteries;
see Pleket 1965, esp. 342-44.
76. Fishwick, ICLW II.1, 550-53 (and ns 465, 469) and III.3, 273-74; Herz 1997, 249-50; Price 1984a, 189-90.
385
Following the foundation of the Colonia Laus Iulia that Kaisareia and Isthmia, although celebrated in
Corinthiensis (44 B.C.), Corinth recovered the the context of one and the same festival (dedicated
management of the Isthmian festival, and a new se- to Poseidon) and presided over by a single ago-
ries of competitions known as Kaisareia were nothetes, represented two independent series of
added to the programme of the traditional Isthmia: competitions, the former also including thymelic
from then on, the Isthmian games began to be events. Α third series of competitions was intro-
known as Ἴσθμια καὶ Καισάρεια.77 The earliest in- duced under Tiberius and named after the reigning
scription – that can be dated with certainty – which emperor; the latest certain reference to this quadri-
mentions the festival at Corinth in its new form, ennial imperial contest dates from the reign of Tra-
with the Kaisareia added to the Isthmia, is an ago- jan, but it may still have been celebrated during the
nistic catalogue dated to A.D. 3 by both the Actian reign of Marcus Aurelius.83 Under the Emperor
era and Roman consular dating.78 In all probability, Claudius new changes occurred. The Isthmia, which
however, the Kaisareia had been introduced imme- had until then been celebrated at Corinth, returned
diately after the battle of Actium, at the beginning to the sanctuary of Poseidon. The Epidaurian aris-
of the Augustan reign; as for the return to Corinth tocrat Cn. Cornelius Pulcher, son of the founder
of the management of the Isthmian games, this too of the imperial cult at Epidaurus Cn. Cornelius
occurred most likely at the beginning of the reign Nicatas,84 was responsible for this return. Pulcher
of Augustus (and may have coincided with the had embarked on a career in the Roman colony, as
introduction of the Kaisareia).79 In the age of was regularly the case for the most prestigious
Tiberius the local notable T. Manlius Iuvencus was members of the Epidaurian aristocracy, who
author of a reorganization of the festival: while sought to exploit the assumption of political and
holding the presidency of the games, he modified religious offices in the colony to increase their
the programme sequence by celebrating the Kai- prestige and social standing.85 After holding the
sareia before the Isthmia.80 This and other pieces quinquennial duovirate, Cornelius Pulcher held
of evidence clearly distinguish between the Isthmia the presidency of the Isthmian festival, both the
and Kaisareia,81 and the fact that there existed sep- Isthmia kai Kaisareia and the contest in honour of
arated lists of victors82 demonstrates beyond doubt the reigning emperor Claudius; on that occasion he
77. A few variants are also attested: Corinth VIII.1, nos 80-81, l. 2 (Καισάρεια Ἴσθμια); Corinth VIII.1, no. 14,
ll. 5-6 (Ἴσθμια Καισάρεια); Corinth VIII.2, no. 68 (Isthmia Caesarea). Kaisareia alone are also mentioned; cf. Geb-
hard 1993, 87 n. 35.
78. Corinth VIII.1, no. 14; SEG 11, 1950, 61; cf. Degrassi 1952, 6.
79. According to J. H. Kent (Corinth VIII.3, p. 70) Corinth recovered the management of the Isthmian games
sometime between 7 B.C. and A.D. 3, while the Kaisareia were introduced around 30 B.C. (p. 28), as already stated
by A. B. West, Corinth VIII.1, p. 65; Chow 1992, 47, proposes the year 30 B.C. for the return of the Isthmian games
to Corinth, while Gebhard 1993, 79-82, thinks of the period immediately following the foundation of the colony.
See Kantiréa 2007, 184-85.
80. Corinth VIII.2, no. 81, ll. 5-8: agonothet(e) Isthm(ion) | et Caesareon | qui primus Caesa|rea egit ante Isthmia.
See also Corinth VIII.3, no. 154.
81. Cf. IG VII, 1856 (Thespiai; reign of Augustus): honorary inscription for an individual who carried off victories
at the Isthmia, at the Nemeia and four times at the Kaisareia at Corinth.
82. Corinth VIII.1, no. 19 and Biers, Geagan 1970, 79-83: two catalogues of victors at the Kaisareia.
83. Corinth VIII.3, no. 156 (Tiberea Augustea Caesarea); Corinth VIII.3, no. 153 (Tiberea Claudiea Sebastea);
Corinth VIII.2, no. 86 and Corinth VIII.3, nos 208-09 (Neronea Caesarea and Caesarea Neronea); Corinth VIII.3,
no. 210 (Caesarea Vespasianea Sebastea); Corinth VIII.2, no. 71 and Corinth VIII.3, no. 218 (Caesarea Nervanea
Traianea Sebastea); Corinth VIII.2, no. 72 (Caesarea Nervanea Traianea Sebastea Germanicea Dacea); IG IV, 795
(Καισάρηα Νερουάνηα Τραιάνηα Σεβάστηα Γερμανίκηα Δάκηα; see also Corinth VIII.3, no. 138). According to
J. H. Kent (Corinth VIII.3, p. 19 n. 6), the mutilated text Corinth VIII.1, no. 77 might attest the existence of the
contest in honour of the reigning emperor in the age of Marcus Aurelius.
84. RP I, ARG 114 and 116; see infra, p. 395.
85. Cf. the case of Pulcher’s homonymous grandson Cn. Cornelius Pulcher (RP I, ARG 117 and COR 228), active
between the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian; see infra, p. 395 (and n. 164).
386
was the first to celebrate the Isthmia at the Isth- festivals at Epidaurus and Argos. In the former city
mus.86 The same inscription informs us that Cor- the local notable Cn. Cornelius Nicatas, two times
nelius Pulcher was also responsible for introducing priest of Augustus, introduced a new agonistic fes-
poetry contests reserved for young girls in honour tival called Kaisareia and held its presidency together
of the diva Iulia Augusta (i.e. Livia) to the pro- with that of the traditional festivals Apollonieia and
gramme of the Kaisareia.87 The presence in the Asclepieia.90 A series of inscriptions from the sanc-
programme of the Kaisareia of poetry and prose tuary of Asclepius, dated within the first half of the
eulogies for the reigning emperor and other mem- 1st c. A.D., documents the celebration every four
bers of the imperial family is also documented by years of a triple festival: the Apollonieia Asclepieia
some lists of victors.88 Kaisareia.91 This included athletic, musical and
In the imperial age, therefore, the Isthmian equestrian competitions and was presided over by
games were transformed by the addition of two a single agonothetes, who usually belonged to the
new series of imperial contests. The Kaisareia were most prestigious families of Epidaurus. An impe-
celebrated every two years, together with the tra- rial contest associated with the Asclepieia then ap-
ditional Isthmia, as homage to the founder of the pears on an inscription in honour of the imperial
Empire. Moreover, starting from the reign of high-priest of the Achaean League Cn. Cornelius
Tiberius, and at least until the reign of Trajan, an- Pulcher, great-grandson of Nicatas: the name of the
other contest, named after the reigning emperor, imperial games had turned from Kaisareia to Se-
was celebrated every four years in his honour in basteia, and the Apollonieia are not mentioned.92
addition to the Isthmia kai Kaisareia.89 At Argos imperial games (Sebasteia) were added
Imperial contests were also added to traditional to the traditional Nemeia.93 They were celebrated
86. Corinth VIII.3, no. 153, ll. 7-8: [qui Isthm]ia ad Isthmium egit | [primus omniu]m; cf. Kantiréa 2007, 185-86.
This mutilated honorary inscription, originally published by J. H. Kent, who identified the honorand with L. Castricius
L. f. Regulus, duovir quinquennalis under Tiberius [see RP I, COR 146], has been recently restudied by Kajava 2002,
who integrates at the beginning (ll. 1-2) the name of Cn. Cornelius Cn. f. Pulcher. The Finnish scholar argues that the
first celebration of the Isthmia at the Isthmus (under the presidency of Pulcher) took place in A.D. 43. As for the
Kaisareia, Gebhard 1993, 87-88 (and n. 35), believes that at least until the 2nd c. A.D. they were usually celebrated
at Corinth, while Spawforth 1989, 195 (and n. 22), thinks that they were celebrated at the Isthmus (in the sanctuary
of Poseidon): the inscriptions locate the Kaisareia “ἐν Κορίνθῳ (in the sense of city and territory) and specifically
ἐν Ἰσθμῷ”. It should be noted that the recent archaeological discovery of a circus in the colony – built most likely
in the mid-late Augustan period and in use until the 6th c. A.D. – makes it possible that at least the chariot races
which were part of the programme of the Kaisareia were held in Corinth (equestrian events were also present in the
programme of the Isthmia); see Romano 2005 (esp. 608-09).
87. Corinth VIII.3, no. 153, ll. 9-10: [carmina ad Iulia]m diva[m Au]g(ustam) virgi |[numque certame]n insti[t]u[it].
88. Corinth VIII.1, no. 19 (with Kantiréa 2007, 187, who integrates at l. 1 the word θεός before the name of Au-
gustus and dates the text to the age of Claudius); Biers, Geagan 1970, 80, ll. 20 sqq. Cf. also Pernot 1993, I, 86.
89. The present scheme is suggested by the consideration that while all of the known agonothetai were agonothetai
of the Isthmia (kai) Kaisareia, only some of them also presided over the contest for the reigning emperor; see Geagan
1968, esp. 73, followed by Puech 1983, 18, who thinks (41-42) that the quadriennial contest in honour of the reigning
emperor represented the most solemn manifestation of the imperial cult in the province of Achaea (for a different
view by A. J. S. Spawforth see infra); Chow 1992, 46-48. A. B. West (Corinth VIII.2, pp. 56, 64-65), followed by J.
H. Kent (Corinth VIII.3, pp. 28-30), had suggested a different scheme: the traditional biennial Isthmia (“Lesser Isth-
mia”) would alternate every four years with the Isthmia kai Kaisareia (“Greater Isthmia”), to which, starting from
the reign of Tiberius, the contest in honour of the reigning emperor was added. Cf. Kantiréa 2007, 187.
90. IG IV2 1, 652, ll. 3-8: ἱερέα τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Καίσα|ρος δίς, ἀγωνοθετήσαντα πρῶ|τον τὰ Ἀπολλωνίεια καὶ
Ἀσκλα|πίεια, κτίσαντά τε τ[ὰν] Καισα|ρείων πανάγυριν καὶ ἀγῶνας | καὶ πρῶτον ἀγωνοθετήσαντα.
91. IG IV2 1, 101; 654-55; 664; 674; Peek 1972, no. 86; cf. Kantiréa 2007, 225-27, nos 37, 39, 41-43.
92. IG IV, 795, l. 10 (ca A.D. 116/17) (see also Corinth VIII.2, no. 71); on Pulcher see infra, appendix. Cf. Sève
1993; Kantiréa 2007, 171.
93. IG IV, 606 (first half of the 1st c. A.D.): honorary inscription for the Epidaurian notable T. Claudius Diodotus
(RP I, ARG 88), who was agonothetes of the Σεβάστεια καὶ Νέμεια; cf. Kantiréa 2007, 171-72. See now also the
new honorary inscription for Ti. Iulius Claudianus, who was agonothetes of the same festival (Zoumbaki 2008). At
the end of the 3rd c. B.C. Argos had acquired the right to celebrate the Nemeia.
387
in association with the biennial Nemeia every four Mantineia in honour of Hadrian’s beloved Anti-
years, alternating with the quadriennial Heraia, as noos, worshipped after his death as θεὸς ἐπιχώριος
indicated by an honorary inscription for T. Statilius at the instigation of Hadrian himself.100
Timocrates Memmianus – imperial high-priest of
the Achaean League between the end of the 2nd b) Venationes and gladiatorial games at Corinth:
and the beginning of the 3rd centuries A.D. – who an imperial festival in the context of the Achaean
was agonothetes Ἡραίων καὶ Νεμείων καὶ Σεβα- League?
στείων καὶ Νεμείων.94 At an earlier date another An imperial festival with venationes and gladiato-
agonothetes of the Sebasteia kai Nemeia, Ti. rial games might have been introduced at Corinth
Claudius Tertius Flavianus, had supplied the oil ἐν around the middle of the 1st c. A.D., in connection
ταῖ[ς] θέαις τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοκράτορος Νέρβα with the imperial cult administered by the Achaean
Τραιανοῦ Καίσαρος Ἀριστοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανι- koinon.101 Based on a letter included in the series
κο[ῦ] Δακικοῦ Παρθικοῦ: the reference must be of epistles of the emperor Julian, but of uncertain
to some athletic contest in honour of the reigning chronology and authorship,102 concerning a dispute
emperor (Trajan), which was presumably included between Argos and Corinth about sums of money
in the context of the Sebasteia kai Nemeia.95 the former owed to the latter for the organization
An imperial contest called Kaisareia was added of wild animal fights (venationes) in the Roman
to the traditional Lykaia celebrated in honour of colony, A. J. S. Spawforth has supposed that the
Zeus Lykaios on the mount Lykaion, in the vicin- most solemn celebration of the imperial cult man-
ity of Lykosoura, probably in the Augustan age; it aged by the Achaean league was a festival held at
was still celebrated in the 2nd c. A.D.96 Corinth, including venationes and gladiatorial games
Moreover, other Kaisareia were celebrated at and financed through contributions from the cities
Sicyon97 and in the Roman colony of Patrai,98 but belonging to the koinon.103 In the Greek world,
we do not have any information about their char- wild animal battles and gladiatorial games were
acteristics; in all probability, however, in addition often present in the programme of imperial festi-
to the usual sacrifices for the emperors’ safety and vals. At Corinth we have certain hints of the cele-
good health, they will have included athletic and/or bration of such events: Corinth and Patrai are the
musical competitions and games, as with the other only known cities of Achaea to have an amphitheatre,
imperial festivals already discussed. the most suitable seat for venationes and gladiato-
Finally, also worthy of mention are the Anti- rial games; in addition, the Roman colony modified
noeia (or megala Antinoeia), a penteteric festival the theatre and the odeion so as to make them ca-
including isolympic agones 99 which took place at pable of hosting this type of event.104 Moreover,
94. IG IV, 590, ll. 9-11; on Memmianus see RP I, ARG 254 (and infra, appendix). On the rotation scheme of the
games see Boëthius 1922, 59-61; Charneux 1956, 609; Spawforth 1994, 213.
95. IG IV, 602; on Flavianus see RP I, ARG 89.
96. IG V 2, 463 (Megalopolis; 2nd-3rd c. A.D.): honorary inscription for M. Tadius Spedianus, ἀγωνοθετήσαντα
τῶν Λυκαίων καὶ Καισαρήων λαμπρῶς καὶ ἐναρέτως (cf. RP I, ARC 155; Robert 1969, 54, and ns 9-10); see also
IG V 2, 515, l. 31 (Lykosoura; 1st c. A.D.). Cf. Jost 1985, 179-85 (esp. 185).
97. Corinth VIII.3, no. 272, l. 9 (3rd c. A.D.).
98. SEG 29, 1979, 340, l. 9 (2nd-3rd c. A.D. [?]; cf. SEG 41, 1991, 1750).
99. IvO 450 and 452; IG V 2, 313.
100. Jost 1984, 541-42.
101. For the institution of a cult of the emperors in the Achaean league around the middle of the 1st c. A.D. see
infra, n. 189.
102. Bidez 1924, no. 198. Keil 1913 had already proposed that this letter be dated to the second half of the 1st c. A.D.
103. Spawforth 1994.
104. On the amphitheatre see Corinth I, 89-91. In the theatre fragments of frescoes with scenes of venationes
have been found (Corinth II, 84-98), while structures have been unearthed in the Odeion that may be interpreted as
cages for animals (Corinth X, 146-47). Cf. Dio Chrys., Or. XXXI. 121; Apul., Met. X. 18. For the stadium-theatre
of Patrai see in this volume supra, Rizakis, pp. 136-37 and Di Napoli, p. 259 (with n. 41).
388
the system of payments by several cities105 to Corinth A prominent role in this machinery – which in-
is similar to the system used in other federal and cluded religious, social and political aspects – was
provincial imperial cults, such as the provincial cult played by the members of the local elites, who con-
of Asia, where the koinon appointed special offi- tributed significantly to the introduction, promo-
cials charged with the management of the sums tion and development of the imperial cult in the
owed by each provincial city.106 The obligation of Greek world. Being directly involved in the man-
Argos towards Corinth, however, could be inter- agement of the imperial cult, the local Greek no-
preted as a case of Roman “financial attribution”, tables showed their own loyalty and that of their
the polis of Argos having to pay a sort of tribute to communities towards the emperors, expressing
the Roman colony, yet still retaining its full civic and strengthening their privileged relationship with
autonomy.107 In that case, the payments to Corinth Roman power. At the same time, the organization
might have been used by the colony to fund vena- of the imperial cult at both a local and provincial
tiones (and most likely also gladiatorial games) in level offered members of the elite the possibility
connection with the imperial festival of the Isthmia to act as benefactors: they held the imperial priest-
kai Kaisareia, and not (necessarily) in association hood and the presidency of the imperial games, fi-
with the imperial cult administered by the Achaean nanced imperial festivals, dedicated temples and
koinon. The reference in the letter in question to statues for the emperors and other members of the
“many cities” making payments is, however, quite imperial family. Through these acts of euergetism
problematic, as indicated by Spawforth according to connected with the cult of the emperors, those be-
whom “it would certainly be surprising to find “many” longing to the upper social strata expressed their
cities in Greece” in the same condition as Argos.108 social prestige and strengthened their power and
prominence both in their community and in the
ΙV. Priests of the imperial cult
province at large. A few members of the local elites
After the Romans became involved in the affairs even managed to exploit their standing to enter the
of the eastern Mediterranean a privileged relation- upper Roman orders (equestrian and senatorial).
ship, based on the principle of mutual collabora- Many of the individuals who held the imperial
tion, was established in the Greek world between priesthood (or the presidency of the imperial con-
Roman power and the upper social strata: the Ro- tests) in the Peloponnesian cities during the Early
mans relied on civic aristocracies to govern and Empire fit this scenario well: as members of the
control the local situations, while the members of most prestigious and powerful families of their native
the local elites, in turn, enjoyed the patronage of communities – and sometimes of the province of
senatorial families to strengthen their social pres- Achaea as well – and thanks to their characteristics
tige and to consolidate their position at the head (good birth, wealth, high economic and social
of society. After the foundation of the Principate, standing), they became privileged points of refer-
the institution and propagation of the cult of the ence for the Roman authorities. In the following
Roman emperors contributed to strengthening this pages we will present some of these individuals and
mutual collaboration. Through emperor worship their family background.
the Greek communities managed both to integrate
the new monarchs within their religious and sym-
a) Sparta
bolic world and to show their loyalty and gratitude
towards the Roman imperial power, from which In the city of Sparta, in a period covering approx-
better living conditions could ultimately derive. imately two centuries (from the beginning of the
105. The letter refers to “many cities” (Bidez 1924, no. 198, 409b).
106. Dio Chrys., Or. XXXV. 17; Deininger 1965, 70, 96, 155-57; Price 1984a, 54. The possibility that the vena-
tiones and gladiatorial games celebrated at Corinth – and put by Spawforth in relationship with the imperial cult
managed by the Achaean koinon – represented a provincial festival is of course linked to the more general issue of
the interpretation of the imperial cult within the Achaean league as a “provincial” cult. This vexata quaestio, which
goes beyond the scope of the present paper, cannot be dealt with here; see, however, infra, appendix.
107. Keil 1913, 7-9; Laffi 1966, 156-58; Heller 2006, 70.
108. Spawforth 1994, 217.
389
2nd c. A.D. to the age of Constantine109), 17 high- C. Iulius Eurycles, friend of Augustus, by whom he
priests of the imperial cult are known from inscrip- was granted the civitas and a personal dynasteia
tions, most of whom belonged to the most prominent over the Spartans as a reward for his support in the
families of the elite. Moreover, several different battle of Actium.112 In the following years Eurycles
members of the same family held the imperial sought to strengthen his social prestige by acting
priesthood, so that in some of these families, such as both as a benefactor at a local level and by culti-
the C. Iulii (Euryclids), this priestly office gradually vating his friendly ties with the imperial power.113
came to be regarded as a sort of hereditary charge. The promotion of the imperial cult met Eurycles’
Apart from Eudamos, only attested by a cata- need to enhance his (already) privileged relation-
logue of magistrates dated to the reign of Trajan ship with the emperor and the Roman power. Eu-
or Hadrian,110 the earliest known high-priest of the rycles must have had a decisive role in the institution
imperial cult at Sparta is C. Iulius Eurycles Her- of the cult of the emperors at Sparta, and we may
culanus (Lucius Vibullius Pius), who held office suppose that he was the founder of this cult and the
from the end of the reign of Trajan until the end of first priest of Augustus in his own city.114 He will
that of Hadrian and became the first Spartan sen- have financed the construction of the imperial
ator (towards the end of Trajan’s principate or at buildings mentioned by Pausanias in the agora of
the beginning of that of Hadrian).111 The first Eu- Sparta; he probably introduced the imperial festi-
ryclid to obtain Roman citizenship was the famous val (Kaisareia) as well.115 Eurycles’ disgrace (most
109. Although the first known archiereus of the imperial cult at Sparta – Eudamos, only attested by IG V 1, 137 (Trajanic/
Hadrianic), a catalogue of magistrates where he is referred to, in a filiation formula, as archiereus for life kata genos (ll.
14-15); cf. RP II, LAC 471 – can be dated to (or before the end of) the reign of Trajan, in the Laconian city the imperial
cult was already introduced during the reign of Augustus (cf. Paus. III. 11, 4-5: naoi of Caesar and Augustus in the agora
of Sparta), and C. Iulius Eurycles was probably the first priest of this cult; cf. Hupfloher 2000, 152 and see infra.
110. IG V 1, 137; ll. 14-15; see previous note.
111. IG V 1, 380; 971; 1172 (and add., p. 307); cf. Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 110-12; RP II, LAC 462. Herculanus –
who was related to the Corinthian Vibullii, as shown by his complete name – started his senatorial career as quaestor
pro praetore in the province of Achaea and continued as follows: praetor (ca A.D. 125); legatus provinciae Hispaniae
Beticae (ca A.D. 126/27); legatus Augusti legionis III (Gallicae) – in Syria, around A.D. 129/30; see IG V 1, 1172
(and add., p. 307). According to Halfmann 1979, 73-74, 126; Puech 1992, 4851 n. 64; Cartledge, Spawforth 2002,
110, Herculanus became a senator under Trajan; contra Groag 1939, 118; PIR2 I, 302; Birley 1997, 344 n. 7 (after
Hadrian’s assumption of power).
112. Strab. VIII. 5, 5; Plut., Vit. Ant. LXVII. 2-4; cf. Bowersock 1961; RP II, LAC 461 (with further bibliography
on Eurycles at p. 283). On the Spartan Euryclids see Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 97-104; Kantiréa 2007, 159-66;
Balzat 2008 (with further bibliography at n. 2); see also the article of Steinhauer in this volume.
113. On the occasion of the visit of Augustus and Livia to Sparta in 21 B.C., Eurycles minted coins with the por-
traits of the imperial couple; on the same occasion Augustus donated the island of Cythera to the Lacedemonians,
i.e. to Eurycles, who was then the ruler of Sparta (Dio Cass. LIV. 7, 2; Strab. VIII. 5, 1). Some years later (16 B.C.),
he minted other coins for Agrippa; cf. Grunauer-von Hoershelmann 1978, 68-71 and 168-69 groups XXVII-XXIX
and pls 20-21; RPC I, 1104-106, pl. 58. At Sparta there existed an association of Agrippiastai, headed by a relative
of Eurycles, C. Iulius Deximachus son of Pratolaos; see CIL III, 494 = IG V 1, 374 (SEG 28, 1978, 411; Spawforth
1978, 256-57): a bilingual dedication for Agrippa set up by the Agrippiastai; Roddaz 1984, 446; Kantiréa 2007, 54,
161 and 227 no. 48; see also RP II, LAC 456.
114. Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 99. With regard to this, it is worth mentioning that Eurycles’ descendant C. Iulius
Eurycles Herculanus (see infra) is designated as high-priest for life of the Sebastoi “apo progonon” in an honorary
inscription of Hadrianic age (IG V 1, 971, ll. 8-10): this expression indicates that the Euryclids came to consider the
imperial priesthood to be a sort of hereditary office.
115. The naoi of Caesar and of Augustus and the altar of the latter referred to by Pausanias (III. 11, 4-5) should
probably be interpreted as a building complex for the imperial cult; cf. Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 127-28; Kantiréa
2007, 161 (and n. 6). For the imperial festival of the Kaisareia see supra, 000-000. At Sparta Eurycles may have also
financed the Augustan refurbishment of the theatre (Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 128-29, 135, 185). He may have
promoted – or maybe also financed – the construction of the Kaisareia of Gytheion (SEG 11, 1950, 923, l. 28) and
Asopos (Paus. III. 22, 9), since these two Eleutherolaconian cities were under his patronage (Kantiréa 2007,
390
likely between 7 and 2 B.C.116) did not prevent his these new negative incidents meant the end of the
descendants from recovering the imperial patron- Euryclids’ dynasteia over the Spartans, they did
age and reaching a high standing and power. C. not prevent some of the Euryclids from maintain-
Iulius Laco117 and C. Iulius Spartiaticus,118 Eurycles’ ing a prominent position at Sparta and even from
son and grandson respectively, embarked on careers increasing their prestige and power, evidently suc-
in the Roman colony of Corinth; both reached the cessfully resuming their ties with the representa-
duovirate and the presidency of the Isthmian games – tives of the imperial power, as clearly revealed by
the peak of the municipal cursus at Corinth119 – the career of the Roman senator C. Iulius Eurycles
and held the most important religious offices, Herculanus. In addition to serving as imperial high-
among which was the priesthood of the imperial priest, Herculanus was eponymous patronomos at
cult: Laco was flamen Augusti, Spartiaticus flamen Sparta and received the honorific titles of philose-
divi Iuli (Caesar). The latter also became the first bastos, philopatris, patron (kedemon) and “son of
high-priest of the imperial cult in the Achaean the city”.123 As we shall see, similar titles were con-
league at the beginning of the reign of Nero. In ad- ferred on other imperial high-priests at Sparta:
dition, both Laco and Spartiaticus were admitted to they express loyalty towards the Roman power and
the equestrian order and became imperial procu- commitment to the defence of the local interests
rators charged with the administration of Sparta.120 against the background of Roman imperial pol-
They too experienced the loss of imperial favour: icy.124 Herculanus was responsible for various acts
Laco towards the end of the reign of Tiberius121 (but of eurgetism,125 and after his death (around A.D.
under Claudius he had been reinstated at Sparta, 136) divine honours were bestowed on him: his fel-
maybe thanks to a decision by Gaius), Spartiaticus low citizens dedicated a heroon to him, perhaps lo-
under Nero, and more precisely after A.D. 59, i.e. cated in the agora.126
after the elimination of the empress Agrippina, for Herculanus was succeeded as high-priest for life
whom he had acted as a sort of agent;122 although of the imperial cult at Sparta by C. Pomponius Al-
161); at Asopos, Eurycles also paid for the permanent provision of oil for the local gymnasium (IG V 1, 970). Cf.
Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 103-04.
116. Strab. VIII. 5, 5, with Bowersock 1961; see also Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 101. Eurycles’ exile and death
are traditionally dated between 7 and 2 B.C. based on the chronology of the composition of Book VIII of Strabo’s
Geography (cf. Baladié 1978, 7, 232-33). According to Lindsay 1992, 296, the terminus ante quem for the composition
of Book VIII is A.D. 15, the year to which the lex sacra of Gytheion can be dated, which is the only existing source
that documents Eurycles’ death with certainty; cf. Balzat 2008, 335 n. 4.
117. RP II, LAC 468; Kantiréa 2007, 228 no. 49.
118. RP II, LAC 509; Kantiréa 2007, 228 no. 50.
119. Rizakis, Camia 2008, esp. 229-30.
120. Corinth VIII.2, nos 67-68; Devijver 1976-1993, I, I 128 (and Suppl. I-II); Pflaum 1960-1982, I, 63-65 no.
24bis; Demougin 1992, nos 503 and 564; Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 102-03; Balzat 2008, 336; on the office of high-
priest of the imperial cult in the Achaean league see Spawforth 1994, 218-19 and infra, appendix.
121. Tac., Ann. VI. 18.
122. Spartiaticus suffered the damnatio memoriae: his name was erased from a dedication on the propylon of the
gymnasium at Messene, commemorating his benefactions towards the polis: he had donated 10,000 denarii for the
sacrifices to the Sebastoi and the supply of oil to both the gymnasia (Themelis 1995, 70-72; id. 2001a [esp. 122-23];
SEG 51, 2001, 488; RP II, MES 224); cf. Kantiréa 2007, 164-65.
123. IG V 1, 380; SEG 11, 1950, 518 and 779.
124. RP II, pp. 284-85. On philokaisar (or philosebastos) and philopatris see Buraselis 2000, 101-09; Veligianni
2001; Giannakopoulos 2008.
125. At Sparta the stoa located at the NW edge of the plateau called Palaiokastro (Kourinou 2000, 109 sqq.) and
most likely also a gymnasium (Puech 1992, 4851 n. 66; Marchetti, Kolokotsas 1995, 210 no. 35; Cartledge, Spawforth
2002, 111, 129-30), at Mantinea a stoa – only completed after Herculanus’ death – dedicated to the city and to An-
tinoos epichorios theos (IG V 2, 281: ca A.D. 136/37); cf. Paus. VIII. 9, 7-8; RP I, ARC 105; see also IG V 2, 311, an
honorary inscription for Herculanus from Mantinea.
126. Herculanus’ cousin Iulia Balbilla financed and took care of the construction of the heroon; cf. IG V 1, 489
+ 575 (A.D. 136/37), with Spawforth 1978.
391
castus (I),127 who is also the first known member interrelationships between these Pompeii are not
of the family of the Pomponii.128 A member of the completely clear, as indicated by A. J. S. Spaw-
body of ephors,129 Alcastus was honoured by his forth.134 Sex. Pompeius [- - -] is attested as impe-
city as philokaisar, philopatris and “son of the city” rial high-priest around the middle of the 2nd c.
and also received the honours of the aristopoli- A.D., and probably succeeded C. Pomponius Al-
teia.130 Alcastus’ descendants also had a prominent castus (I) in this charge. As with his predecessors
position within the local elite, holding charges and Herculanus and Alcastus (I), he too bears the titles
liturgies at Sparta.131 One of them probably be- philokaisar, philopatris and “son of the city”, but
came imperial high-priest: C. Pomponius Pan- his priestly title is no longer specified by the indi-
thales (I) Diogenes Aristeas132 is known to have cation dia biou.135 Following a suggestion by G.
held the post of archiereus of the imperial cult in Steinhauer, we may suppose that the cognomen of
the Severan age; although his relationship (and that this individual was Eudamus and that he was the fa-
of his descendants) with the Pomponii who descended ther of Sex. Pompeius Onasicrates (I) and the
from Alcastus is not completely clear, Aristeas was grandfather of Sex. Pompeius Eudamus, high-
perhaps a great-grandson of C. Pomponius Alcas- priests of the imperial cult at Sparta before A.D.
tus (I). As a reward for his virtuous life, and espe- 195 and in the second quarter of the 3rd c. A.D. re-
cially for the generosity he showed during his tenure spectively.136 Onasicrates (I) was also eponymous
as agoranomos, the polis of Sparta honoured him patronomos,137 while his son Eudamus, in addition
with twelve statues, eleven of which were paid for to serving as high-priest of the emperors, was high-
by his relatives.133 priest of Zeus and priest of several other cults.138
Other imperial high-priests are attested at Another Pompeius, Sex. Pompeius Menophanes,
Sparta among individuals bearing the gentilicium was most likely imperial high-priest at Sparta, but
Pompeius. Several Pompeii are known at Sparta he must belong to another line of Sex. Pompeii,
from the reign of Antoninus Pius onwards, yet the perhaps of Arcadian origin.139 He is to be identified
127. RP II, LAC 641. Herculanus apparently died without direct male heir. C. Iulius Eurycles (III) – maybe a
descendant of a Euryclid freedman (Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 166-67 n. 9; RP II, LAC 460) – must have been
married to a Pomponia, since his son C. Iulius Ario (RP II, LAC 425) is attested on an unpublished honorary in-
scription from Sparta (RP II, LAC 425 [5] and 460 [3b]) as ekgonos of C. Pomponius Alcastus (cf. Steinhauer 2006/07,
201 n. 10).
128. According to Groag 1939, 144 n. 594, the gentilicium Pomponius derives from an alleged C. Pomponius,
imperial official in Achaea during the Hadrianic age; contra, Box 1931, 214, thinks that this gentilicium derives from the
Trajanic procurator Achaiae A. Pomponius Augurinus T. Prifernus Paetus. On this family see Spawforth 1985, 241-43.
129. IG V 1, 65.
130. SEG 11, 1950, 780. This means that Alcastus had won the agon of the aristopoliteia, which was most likely
refounded at Sparta “between about 110 and 120” (Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 198-99 n. 14); the honours of the
aristopoliteia were “bestowed on officials that had undertaken a function connected to a liturgy (e.g. agoranomia)
and by thus had rendered outstanding services for the public good” (RP II, p. 230). On the aristopoliteia see Robert
1934, 268 n. 4; id. 1960a, 573-76; Schwertfeger 1981, 254; Marchetti, Kolokotsas 1995, 197 n. 50. The aristopoliteia
is so far only attested at Sparta and Messene (cf. Luraghi 2008, 301-02 and n. 36).
131. His homonymous grandson, for example, was eponymous patronomos (RP II, LAC 642); see also RP II,
LAC 425 (C. Iulius Ario), 640 (C. Pomponius Agis), 643 (C. Pomponius Aristeas).
132. RP II, LAC 646.
133. IG V 1, 547 (SEG 11, 1950, 798); see Spawforth 1985, 241; RP II, p. 588 stemma XI.
134. Spawforth 1985, 244: “it is possible that most or even all of them belonged to a single family, perhaps one
having several branches; but their interrelationships for the most part are obscure”.
135. For the implications of this absence for the duration of the high-priestly office at Sparta see infra n. 145. On
this individual see RP II, LAC 625; SEG 34, 1984, 310; Steinhauer 1998, 435-36 no. 5A.
136. Steinhauer 1998, 436 n. 19 (with RP II, p. 407); Spawforth 1984, 278-80, nos 3-4, 13; cf. RP II, LAC 626
(Eudamus) and 630 (Onasicrates).
137. IG V 1, 306.
138. IG V 1, 559; cf. SEG 11, 1950, 805; AnnÉpigr 2000, 1332.
139. RP II, LAC 629 and p. 588 stemma X.
392
with the homonymous general and imperial high- granted Roman citizenship by Hadrian himself on
priest for life of the Achaean league, Sex. Pom- the occasion of one of his two visits to Sparta (A.D.
peius Menophanes, son of Theoxenos,140 who was 124/5 and 128/9)148 – also served as high-priests of
honoured with a statue by the city of Tegea as eu- the imperial cult. P. Aelius Damocratidas, whose
ergetes. In the text of this honorary inscription, term as archiereus can be dated to the Severan age,
which can be dated to the age of Severus Alexan- and his son P. Aelius Alcandridas (III), who held
der, Menophanes is referred to as archiereus of the his priestly office between the second and third quar-
(reigning) emperor and his deified ancestors,141 and ters of the 3rd c. A.D., bear the usual (for Spartan
he bears the titles philokaisar, philopatris, son of archiereis) titles philokaisar and philopatris. Da-
the city and the boule. mocratidas, an athlete who reported victories in
Three members of the Spartan Claudii142 served several contests, was also gymnasiarch and epony-
as high-priests after Sex. Pompeius Onasicrates (I). mous patronomos. The latter charge was also held
This family, which was probably granted the civitas by his son, who in addition was agoranomos for life
under Claudius or Nero, is best attested from the and was accorded the honours of aristopoliteia.149
age of Marcus Aurelius onwards; the earliest firmly P. Ulpius Pyrrhus and M. Aurelius Philippus
attested member is Ti. Claudius Brasidas (I), one also served as imperial archiereis under the Sever-
of Sparta’s two known senators.143 His sons Ti. ans.150 In addition to the usual titles of philokaisar
Claudius Brasidas (II) and Ti. Claudius Sparti- and philopatris, they were both awarded the lifelong
aticus, and the latter’s son Ti. Claudius Euda- title of aristopoliteutes; this title is certainly, in the
mus, served as imperial archiereis, all of them holding case of Pyrrhus, and probably, in that of Philippus,
office probably during the period A.D. 198-212.144 to be connected to the title of agoranomos for
Spartiaticus and Eudamus held the high-priesthood life.151 Philippus, who bears the additional titles of
twice each, which shows that this priestly office was “son of the city” – as Herculanus, Alcastus (I) and
now held for a fixed term;145 Spartiaticus was also Sex. Pompeius [Eudamus] before him – and “son
hiereus of the goddess Roma.146 Both he and his son of the boule”, was also eponymous patronomos.
Eudamus were honoured with the aristopoliteia, The latest known Spartan archiereus is M. Au-
while Brasidas (II) is known to have been epony- relius Stephanus (I), who held office under Con-
mous patronomos.147 stantine (perhaps between A.D. 325 and 329). He
Two members of another prominent Spartan may have been a descendant of the Roman eques
family, the Aelii – whose earliest known represen- (in the Severan age) M. Aurelius Stephanus (II) at-
tative, P. Aelius Alcandridas (I), was probably tested by IG V 1, 596.152
140. RP I, ARC 139.

141. SEG 41, 1991, 384, ll. 7-9. Menophanes’ high-priesthood “is more probably to be associated with the imperial
cult at Sparta than to the one at Tegea” (RP II, p. 410).
142. On this family see Spawforth 1985, 224 sqq.
143. RP II, LAC 274. Brasidas (I) probably entered the Senate late in Hadrian’s reign or under Pius (Spawforth
1985, 227). The other Spartan senator is the above-mentioned Herculanus.
144. See infra, p. 394.
145. Spawforth 1984, 278-79, nos 5-7. The shift from lifelong to temporary charge might have occurred around
the middle of the 2nd c. A.D., after the term of C. Pomponius Alcastus (I), who is the last known Spartan archiereus
to have held the office dia biou; the latter indication is absent from the priestly title of Sex. Pompeius [Eudamus (?)] –
who was archiereus in the 150s or 160s – and this seems not to be the result of chance.
146. IG V 1, 500; 525 (the only known references to this priesthood in Spartan epigraphy).
147. On these individuals see RP II, LAC 275 (Brasidas), 290 (Eudamus), 326 (Spartiaticus).
148. RP II, LAC 5. On this family see Spawforth 1985, 246-48.
149. Spawforth 1984, 279 nos 8 and 11; RP I, EL 3 and RP II, LAC 7 (Alcandridas); RP II, LAC 9 (Damocratidas).
150. Spawforth 1984, 279 nos 9 and 12; RP II, LAC 170 (Philippus) and 709 (Pyrrhus).
151. IG V 1, 504, ll. 10 sqq.; SEG 11, 1950, 845, ll. 4-5.
152. Spawforth 1984, 280 no. 15; Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 124; RP II, LAC 187-88. See also SEG 11, 1950,
849, for an anonymous high-priest of the Sebastoi; this text – inscribed on a fragmentary architrave – should be as-
signed to the tetrarchic period (Spawforth 1984, 280 no. 14).
393
*Chronological addendum: the first Spartan archiereis (plural),155 while P. Ulpius Pyrrhus, P. Aelius Damocra-
up to and including Onasicrates bear the title archiereus tidas and Sex. Pompeius Menophanes, whose high-priestly
of the Sebastoi, referring collectively to dead and living title refers to a single reigning emperor, should be as-
emperors. A new titulature then appears (with the high- signed, based also on prosopographical grounds, to the
priests belonging to the Spartan Claudii), which refers periods 195-98 or 212-17 or 218-35, 212-17 or 218-35,
specifically both to the reigning emperor(s) and his or and 218-35 respectively.156 A. Hupfloher has cast doubts
their divine ancestors. According to A. J. S. Spawforth, on this “scheme”: she thinks that the high-priestly title
this change is to be connected to a reorganization of the “archiereus of the (living) emperor(s) and his (or their)
imperial cult at Sparta in response to the official dynastic divine ancestors” is a mere variant of the form “archiereus
propaganda of the Emperor Septimius Severus, who re- of the Sebastoi ”, both expressions collectively indicating
habilitated Commodus’ memory in A.D. 195 (asking the the reigning emperor and any other member (dead or
Senate to deify him) and asserted his claim to have been alive) of the imperial house; it would follow, therefore,
adopted by Marcus Aurelius, thus becoming the adop- that the presence of the forms Sebastos or Sebastoi in
tive brother of Commodus.153 Sometime later, the ref- the high-priestly title of Spartan archiereis cannot be
erence to theioi progonoi was dropped, and the “old” linked to a period of rule by a single emperor or by two
titulature reappeared. This probably occurred only after (or more) emperors respectively.157 There are, in fact,
A.D. 235, when the death of Severus Alexander “ushered cases which seem not to fit the scheme formulated by
in a swift succession of emperors, among whom attempts Spawforth. Ti. Claudius Eudamus, for example, whose
to establish dynasties were invariably short-lived and of- term as archiereus, based on his priestly title “archiereus
ficial claims to descent from earlier emperors a rarity”.154 of the Sebastoi and their divine ancestors”, has been as-
The Spartan high-priests bearing the titulature “archiereus signed to the period A.D. 198-212, appears with the same
of the (living) emperor(s) and his (or their) divine ances- title in an honorary inscription from Sparta, which has
tors” should therefore be assigned to the Severan period; been dated to the second quarter of the 3rd c. A.D.158
more precisely, the three Claudii and C. Pomponius Pan- based on prosopographical grounds. The latter case, how-
thales will have served in a period of co-reign (i.e. A.D. ever, as well as a few similar ones, could be regarded as a
198-212), since their high-priestly title refers to Sebastoi simple exception to the “rule” formulated by Spawforth.159
153. Spawforth 1984, 281; Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 117-18.

154. Spawforth 1984, 282. According to Spawforth, the return to the “old” titulature could have occurred already
after the death of Caracalla (A.D. 217), but he does not include in the list of the Spartan archiereis Sex. Pompeius
Menophanes, who was “archiereus of the (living) emperor and his divine ancestors” at Sparta (see supra) during the
reign of Severus Alexander: this shows that after Caracalla’s death the “new” title was still used by the Spartan
archiereis, unless we suppose that Menophanes’ term as archiereus was already over by the time the honorary in-
scription from Tegea in which Menophanes is referred to as ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ καὶ τῶν θείων προγόνων
αὐτοῦ (SEG 41, 1991, 384: A.D. 218-235) was set up.
155. Spartiaticus’ second term as high-priest might be assigned to the first years of the reign of Caracalla: in his
high-priestly title as it appears on IG V 1, 525 (ll. 10-12: ἀρχιερεὺς δὶς τῶν Σεβαστῶν καὶ τῶν θείων προγόνων
αὐτοῦ) the singular form “αὐτοῦ” – a slip of the letter cutter for “αὐτῶν” – could point to a recent change from the
rule of co-emperors to that of a single emperor, thus suggesting a date “shortly after the beginning of Caracalla’s
sole reign – say 212-15” (Spawforth 1985, 236; see RP II, p. 209).
156. Spawforth 1984, 281-83, with a chronological list of Spartan archiereis at p. 283 (without Eudamos and
Menophanes, for whom see supra, pp. 390 and 392-93.
157. Hupfloher 2000, 153-54.
158. IG V 1, 590 (cf. RP II, LAC 218 and 290 [1]).
159. The honorary inscription in which Ti. Claudius Eudamus is mentioned (see previous note) could have been
inscribed when his term as archiereus had already expired. Cf. also SEG 11, 1950, 800: honorary inscription for M.
Aurelius Philippus, “archiereus of the emperor”; since at this time (reign of Caracalla), Philippus was no longer im-
perial high-priest [ll. 2-4: [ἀρχι]ερέα γε|[νόμενον τ]οῦ Σεβα|[στοῦ]; cf. RP II, LAC 170 [3] (and p. 120)], it follows
that he must have served as archiereus during the reign of Caracalla at the latest, that is before the supposed drop of
the reference to theioi progonoi in the high-priestly titulature of Spartan archiereis. In this case, the absence of the
reference to theioi progonoi could be due to the particular form in which Philippus’ term as archiereus is expressed,
with the participle γενόμενον. In a similar way (i.e. the use of a synthetic form) one could explain the absence of the
reference to theioi progonoi in the high-priestly title of Ti. Claudius Spartiaticus in FD III.1, 543, an honorary in-
scription from the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi.
394
In any case, the link between the “new” priestly titula- vely). Pulcher (I), as we have already seen, was the
ture of Spartan archiereis and the cultic reorganization first to celebrate the Isthmia at the Isthmian sanc-
undertaken in the Severan age maintains all its validity. tuary again, and introduced musical events for
As for the chronological scheme of Spartan archiereis young girls in honour of the diva Iulia into the pro-
formulated by Spawforth, even questioning with Hupflo- gramme of the Kaisareia.162 His homonymous
her the “mechanical” association of the forms Sebastos grandson, who lived during the reigns of Trajan and
or Sebastoi with the number of reigning emperor(s), it
Hadrian, was one of the most prominent notables
can be considered to be correct in general, anchored as
not only of the Peloponnese, but of the province of
it is on prosopographical grounds.160
Achaea at large.163 He had already become a Roman
eques before the end of the reign of Trajan: he was
b) Other Peloponnesian cities
procurator of Epirus around A.D. 114 and contin-
At Epidaurus, the individual who is known to have ued his equestrian career under Hadrian as iuridi-
played a fundamental role in the introduction and cus of Egypt and Alexandria. Pulcher (II) also
promotion of the cult of the emperors belonged to played a prominent role in the Achaean League,
one of the most prominent families of this polis. where he served as secretary and general, and held
Cn. Cornelius Nicatas, son of Sodamos – who the linked charges of helladarch and archiereus of
must have received Roman citizenship from a the imperial cult for life from the very end of the
member of the senatorial family of the Cornelii reign of Trajan until the end of that of Hadrian.
Sisennae – was not only twice priest of the Em- Moreover, he probably became the first president
peror Augustus, but also founded at Epidaurus the of the Panhellenion founded by Hadrian and held
Kaisareia and held for the first time the presidency the priesthood of Hadrian Panhellenios.164
of this new imperial festival added to the tradi- The two Cornelii Pulchri, as well as other promi-
tional Apollonieia and Asclepieia.161 Two of the de- nent notables of the Peloponnesian cities during
scendants of Nicatas deserve special mention for the imperial period,165 exploited the vicinity of the
their activities with regard to the imperial cult, Roman colony of Corinth, seat of the governor of
both at a local level (the Roman colony of Corinth) the province. By holding political and religious of-
and at a federal one (the Achaean league): Nicatas’ fices, they succeeded in integrating themselves into
son Cn. Cornelius Pulcher (I) and the latter’s the ruling class of the colony, thus increasing their
homonymous grandson Cn. Cornelius Pulcher prestige and social standing. In a few (lucky) cases
(II). As with the Spartans Claudius Laco and Clau- they also managed to progress towards the upper
dius Spartiaticus, the two Cornelii Pulchri em- Roman orders, as the eques Pulcher (II) did.166
barked on a career at Corinth, running through the The municipal priests of the imperial cult at
whole local cursus honorum up to the quinquennial Messene also belonged to prominent families of
duovirate and the presidency of both the Isthmia the elite. Ti. Claudius Aristomenes (I) – whose
kai Kaisareia and the contest in honour of the family is attested from the 2nd-1st centuries B.C.
reigning emperor (Claudius and Trajan respecti- until about the middle of the 2nd c. A.D.167 – was
160. A. Hupfloher herself, although expressing reservations, re-presents the chronological list of Spawforth
(Hupfloher 2000, 149-50) adding “Soixiteles Eudamou” before Herculanus (N.B.: the archiereus was not Soixiteles,
as indicated by Hupfloher 2000, 149 (no. 1) and 150-51, but his father Eudamos; see supra, n. 109).
161. IG IV2 1, 652; RP I, ARG 114; Kantiréa 2007, 171 and 225 no. 36. Nicatas’ brother Archelochus (cf. Kantiréa
2007, 225 no. 37) held the presidency of the joint festival for Apollo, Asclepius and the emperor as well (IG IV2 1,
101: A.D. 33-34); on this festival see supra, p. 387.
162. See supra, p. 387 and n. 87.
163. RP I, ARG 117 and COR 228.
164. IG IV, 795 (ca A.D. 116/17); Corinth VIII.1, nos 80-81; Corinth VIII.2, no. 71; Corinth VIII.3, nos 138-40,
142-43; on Pulcher (II) see also infra, appendix. On the Panhellenion see Spawforth, Walker 1985; iid., 1986; Jones
1996; Spawforth 1999. For a priestess of Drusilla at Epidaurus see IG IV2 1, 600 (A.D. 38-39); cf. Kantiréa 2007,
225 no. 38.
165. E.g. the Euryclids at Sparta; see supra, p. 391.
166. Cf. Rizakis 2001, 45-46 (and n. 39).
167. On this family see now Baldassarra 2007, 28-36 (and 46 for the stemma).
395
priest of the Emperor Nero (and likely also of the Probably also of Messenian origin was the archie-
goddess Roma); he is known through a dedication reus M. Tadius Lycortas, honoured at Olympia by
accompanying a bronze statue of Nero that he ded- the polis of Messene, which conferred on him the
icated on behalf of the entire community, assuming wreath of the aristopoliteia.171 He must have served
the expenses together with his wife Gemonia.168 as high-priest of the imperial cult at Messene, but we
Both his son Ti. Claudius Dionysius Crispianus cannot state when, and we also do not know if he
(I) and his grandson Ti. Claudius Crispianus (II) was in some way related to the M. Tadii attested at
Geminianus served as imperial archiereis, the first Megalopolis during the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.172
between the end of the 1st and the beginning of the It is probable that the municipal high-priests of
2nd centuries A.D., the latter around the middle of Elis were also charged with the management of the
the 2nd c. A.D. Geminianus is known to have held emperor cult in the sanctuary of Olympia, given
the office of agoranomos in A.D. 139, while Crispi- the close administrative relationship between the
anus (I) was also priest of the Mysteries of the polis of Elis and the sanctuary of Zeus.173 Among
Megaloi Theoi at Andania and served in the the known imperial priests from Elis two at least
Achaean koinon as helladarch before this office belonged to prominent Elean families. M. Anto-
came to be associated with the imperial high- nius Alexion was archiereus of the imperial cult
priesthood. Moreover, he became a Roman eques, in the first half of the 1st c. A.D. His family had
serving as praefectus of the cohors I Bosporiana connections beyond Eleia, and most likely he knew
and military tribune of the legio XII Fulminata.169 and even had some personal relationship with the
Ti. Claudius Calligenes (II) is only attested in a Spartan C. Iulius Laco, whom he honoured with a
dedication inscribed on the base of a statue set up statue at Olympia as his own benefactor.174 L. Vet-
at Olympia at the end of the 2nd c. A.D. by the tulenus Laetus was imperial high-priest in the last
polis of Messene as a reward for his benefactions quarter of the 1st c. A.D.175 The Vettuleni – whose
towards his city, and following his victory in the members are known from the 1st to the 3rd cen-
competition of the aristopoliteia. In this dedica- turies A.D.176 – were most likely the descendants
tion, Calligenes is designated as high-priest of the of Italian negotiatores from central Italy who had
imperial house and as one of the dekaprotoi, that settled in the region of Elis.177 In addition to the
is of the most prominent notables of the city.170 imperial high-priesthood, Vettulenus held some im-
168. IG V 1, 1450; cf. RP II, MES 131; Kantiréa 2007, 229 no. 55; Baldassarra 2007, 32-33, who dates this statue
to A.D. 55-62 (p. 32 n. 38). Cf. also IG V 1, 1449, another statue for Nero dedicated by the first priest of his cult (and
also priest of the goddess Roma) Kleophatos son of Aristeus, who took office on the occasion of Nero’s accession
to the throne in A.D. 54 (Kantiréa 2007, 229 no. 54; Baldassarra 2007, 32 n. 38). A member of the Messenian family
of the Saethidae, Ti. Claudius Saethida, might have held the imperial priesthood during the age of Nero; cf. SEG 41,
1991, 353; Baldassarra 2007, 38.
169. Geminianus: see Themelis 2003, 34 and id., in this volume, at p. 103 (cf. also Baldassarra 2007, 36). For the
epigraphic references concerning Crispianus (I) see RP I, EL 148; RP II, MES 136 and Baldassarra 2007, 33-35; for
Crispianus’ equestrian career cf. Devijver 1976-1993, I, C 136 (and Suppl. I). The expressions ἄρξαντα τῆς Ἑλλάδος
and [ἄρ]ξαντα τοῖς Ἕλλησι which occur in SEG 11, 1950, 984 and IvO 448 respectively are to be regarded as equiv-
alents of the title helladarch (of the Achaean league). For the date of the introduction of the charge of helladarch see
infra, appendix.
170. SEG 31, 1981, 372 (AnnÉpigr 1989, 663); cf. Schwertfeger 1981; RP I, 147.
171. SEG 49, 1999, 469.
172. See RP I, ARC 154-57 and p. 529 stemma I. Lycortas’ father, M. Tadius Timocrates, bears the same name
as a member of the Tadii of Megalopolis (RP I, ARC 156).
173. Cf. Hupfloher 2006, 250-51.
174. IvO 426; cf. RP I, EL 34. On his family see Zoumbaki 2001, A 99.
175. IvO 436 (A.D. 85): honorary inscription on the base of a statue set up by the oecumenic xystos, the athletes
who took part in the 216th Olympic games and the xystike synodos; IvO 437 (A.D. 97-98): honorary inscription on
the base of a statue dedicated by the polis of Elis and by the Olympic boule (here the name of Vettulenus is partly
integrated; cf. Hupfloher 2006, 254-55). On the individual see RP I, EL 339; Zoumbaki 2001, B 9.
176. The first known is M. Vettulenus Laetus (RP I, EL 337).
177. Zoumbaki 1993; RP I, p. 540 stemma XV. The gentilicium Vettulenus – maybe of Etruscan origin – is
396
portant religious and civic offices: he was hiereus V. Conclusive remarks

of Zeus Olympios, alytarches and epimeletes. He Together with Athens, the Peloponnese is the area
was also agoranomos and gymnasiarch in the city of mainland Greece for which we have the richest
of Elis, and became a Roman eques.178
and most varied evidence concerning emperor
Also worthy of mention is the Megalopolitan
worship at our disposal. This evidence highlights
benefactor Xenarchos son of Onasicrates, who
those which can be considered to be the main at-
in the 1st c. A.D. was honoured by his polis and the
tributes of the cult of the Roman emperors, as well
Roman negotiatores for his multiple acts of euer-
as of any other cult (cult places, festivals, priests)
getism, among which was the construction of a
and reveals a fundamental aspect, common to the
temple of the Sebastoi and the restoration of the
manifestations of emperor worship throughout the
temple of Despoina at Lykosoura. In addition to
Greek world, namely the association of the Roman
receiving several honorary statues and being granted
emperors to the traditional Greek divinities.
some privileges (exemption from all liturgies and
The reuse or re-consecration of pre-existing sa-
proedria at the Lykaia kai Kaisareia179), Xenarchos
cred buildings (e.g. the Metroon of Olympia), the
was appointed archiereus of the Sebastoi for life,
connection of imperial contests with traditional
with the right to transmit to his descendants the
same title, which therefore became hereditary.180 Greek festivals (e.g. the Isthmia and Kaisareia, Apol-
Although he was not a Roman citizen, Xenarchos lonieia and Asklepieia and Kaisareia, Sebasteia and
obviously succeeded in attracting the attention of Nemeia), the onomastic and iconographic assimi-
the Roman negotiatores at Megalopolis, and evi- lations of emperors to traditional gods (e.g. Au-
dently also the favour of the imperial power, in order gustus represented in the guise of Zeus in the
to be regarded both by his fellow-citizens and the Metroon of Olympia, Antoninus Pius identified
Roman negotiatores as the best fitted to assume with Zeus Eleutherios on the altars dedicated at
the important (religious but also representative) Sparta) illustrate the tendency of Peloponnesian
function of priest of the imperial cult. cities to integrate the Roman emperors into their
Finally, as regards the Roman colonies of the religious life as well as their political, social and cul-
Peloponnese, it is worth noting the occurrence at tural world at large. This practice met both the
Corinth of the Latin term flamen, with reference need of the Greeks to represent the imperial power
to the already mentioned C. Iulius Laco and C. to themselves in a more intelligible way, and the
Iulius Spartiaticus,181 the presence of Augustales at will of the emperors to impose their presence in
Corinth and Patrai,182 and the existence, both in the civic and religious space of Greek cities.
these two cities and in the other Roman colony of In this “machinery”, which was religious and po-
the Peloponnese (Dyme), of priests (sacerdotes) of litical at the same time, a fundamental role was
the Augustan deities.183 played by the members of civic elites, who made
common in central Italy, but it is rarely found in the provinces (see Schulze 1904, 256-57; Solin, Salomies 1988,
206). For some attestations of this gentilicium in the Greek world see Zoumbaki 1993, 229 n. 14.
178. IvO 437. Cf. also IvO 354 (Hadrianic/Antonine?): an anonymous archiereus member of the equestrian order.
179. On this festival see supra, p. 388.
180. IG V 2, 515b (ll. 29-30 for the hereditary title of archiereus of the Sebastoi); cf. Kantiréa 2007, 180-81 and
230 no. 60.
181. See supra, p. 391. Laco and Spartiaticus, styled as flamen Augusti and flamen divi Iulii respectively, are the
only priests of the local imperial cult attested with certainty in the Roman colony, except for some priests (sacer-
dotes) of Augustan gods, for whom see n. 183.
182. Corinth: Corinth VIII.2, no. 77 and VIII.3, nos 52-53, 59. Patrai: Rizakis 1998, nos 49, 50, 145.
183. Corinth: see the references cited supra, at n. 29, to which add Corinth VIII.2, no. 110 (Callicratea, sacerdos of
the Providentia Aug(usti) and of the Salus Publica under Tiberius). Patrai: Rizakis 1998, no. 5 (Aequana Musa, sacerdos
of Diana Augusta Laphria – she was also priest of Augustus). Dyme: Rizakis 2008, no. 10 (Fulvinia Helene, sacerdos
of Venus Augusta in the first half of the 1st c. A.D.). See also IG IV, 799 (Troizen; early Empire): reference to a priest
(hiereus) of the Tyche Sebaste (= Fortuna Augusta). For other imperial priests in the Peloponnesian cities cf. also IG
IV, 671 (Nauplia, Augustan; the boule and the demos honoured Phanaktes, hiereus of the reigning emperor); IG IV,
725 (the polis of Hermione dedicated a statue to the daughter of a certain Callisthenes, archiereus apo progonon).
397
possible the organization and celebration of the Appendix. The imperial high-priests of the Achaean
various “events” of emperor worship, particularly league [*F. Camia]
through the assumption of the office of priest of The first high-priest of the imperial cult in the
the imperial cult. This priestly office was usually Achaean league, at the beginning of the reign of
assigned to prominent and well-to-do individuals, Nero, was the Spartan C. Iulius Spartiaticus, grand-
whose high standing is revealed both by the other son of C. Iulius Eurycles.184 After him, several other
political and priestly offices that they held and by lifelong archiereis of the Achaean league are at-
their privileged links with Roman power. Such links tested until the Severan age.185 Although the Achaean
were made manifest primarily by the acquisition of koinon was geographically limited to the Pelopon-
the civitas, and in some cases (very rarely in reality) nese – in the imperial age it came most likely to
also by admission into the Roman upper orders include the whole of the Peloponnese, with the
(ordo equester and senatorius). The decision of a probable exception of the Eleutherolaconians186 –
community to assign the office of priest of the im- and it cannot therefore be considered to be a provin-
perial cult, as well as that of agonothetes of the im- cial koinon like those of the eastern provinces of the
perial contests, to members of its most prominent Empire (e.g. Asia),187 the archiereus of the Achaean
families certainly reveals the importance that Greek league can be regarded as a sort of provincial high-
cities gave to these functions in the context of priest of the imperial cult for the province of Achaea.
diplomatic and political relations with Roman power. Let us consider the following facts.
More generally, the pre-eminence of the Pelo- The introduction of the imperial cult to the
ponnesian imperial priests, together with the var- Achaean koinon during the middle of the 1st c.
ious other kinds of evidence that illustrate different A.D. most likely occurred in the framework of the
aspects of emperor worship in the cities of the sort of “Panhellenic” league, also known as the
Peloponnese, contribute to proving the importance Panachaean koinon,188 which was formed from
played by this region in imperial Greece. the merger of the Achaean koinon with other
F. Camia smaller regional leagues of central Greece (Boeo-
Institute for Greek and Roman Antiquity (I.E.R.A.), tians, Euboians, Phocidians, Locrians, Dorians).189
The National Hellenic Research Foundation, This cult was administered by the Achaean koinon
Athens, Grecce but evidently represented the other regional koina
M. Kantiréa included in the Panachaean league as well, so
University of Cyprus, Nicosia that, at least under Nero, the archiereus of the
184. Corinth VIII.2, no. 68; IG II2, 3538; RP II, LAC 509; Spawforth 1994, 218-19; Kantiréa 2007, 192-93; see
supra, p. 391.
185. See infra for a brief profile of these archiereis with discussion of their chronology.
186. Kahrstedt 1950, 73; Spawforth 1994, 226.
187. Cf. Puech 1983, 24 n. 38: “la lecture des documents du koinon, où n’interviennent que des Péloponnésiens,
assure que l’assemblée ne représente pas la province entière”.
188. In inscriptions, this “Panhellenic” confederation is referred to in various ways; apart from the simple enu-
meration of its components (see IG IV2 1, 81, ll. 16-17; IG VII, 2711, ll. 1-2, 22-23) – which can be considered to be
its official name – we find the following definitions: Panhellenes (IG VII, 2711, ll. 10, 61, 67, 101-02 and 2712, l. 46),
Achaeans (IG VII, 2711, ll. 44, 50, 100, 120), Hellenes (IG VII, 2711, ll. 15, 20), all of the Hellenes (IG VII, 2711, ll.
13-14), Achaeans and Panhellenes (IG VII, 2712, l. 40), Panachaeans (IG IV2 1, 81, ll. 14-15); all of these definitions
can be accompanied by terms like synodos, synedrion, koinon.
189. Cf. Spawforth 1994, 222-24, who defines this confederation as “early-imperial Achaia’s nearest equivalent
to a provincial concilium” (OCD, 5). In A.D. 37 the representatives of the Panachaean koinon gathered at Argos,
in the presence of the governor of the province P. Memmius Regulus, to celebrate a festival in honour of the newly
appointed Emperor Gaius; the celebration likely included cultic manifestations. From the latter – probably celebrated
again on Claudius’ accession to the throne – an official emperor cult would have derived. On the Panhellenes see
also Deininger 1965, 88-91; Oliver 1978. The Panachaean league must have been in existence by the end of the reign
of Tiberius at the latest, as his successor Gaius confirmed it in A.D. 37 at Argos. The latest known reference to the
Panachaean koinon is provided by a decree voted by this koinon in honour of its secretary T. Statilius Timocrates
(I), which has been persuasively dated by Spawforth to A.D. 67/8 (IG IV2 1, 80-81; Spawforth 1985, 253-54); contra
Deininger 1965, 89-90, and Oliver 1978, 187-88, date this decree to A.D. 34/5.
398
Achaean koinon was a provincial high-priest.190 held jointly both charges, between the end of the
Even after the dissolution of the Panachaean 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd centuries A.D. As
league, and though it was now geographically lim- a consequence, the archiereis of the koinon came
ited to the Peloponnese, the Achaean koinon con- to bear a title equivalent to those borne by provin-
tinued manifesting its “provincial” pretensions in cial archiereis of the eastern provinces of the
various ways, tending to present itself as a body Empire (e.g. Asiarches in the province of Asia,
representative of the whole of the province of Achaea, Galatarches in the province of Galatia), and to act
or at least of the greater part of it. Members of the presumably as “provincial” high-priests, represent-
Achaean koinon defined themselves as Hellenes, ing not only the Peloponnese but also central
the latter term being used in some cases as a syno- Greece, that is those poleis and ethne which had
nym of Achaioi. Moreover, in some inscriptions the constituted part of the Panachaean union.
archiereus of the Achaean league is called archiereus The situation of the province of Achaea was,
of the Hellenes (or of Hellas), which seems to in- however, quite exceptional, because in Greece
dicate that he was considered to act on behalf of there was also a helladarch of the Delphic Amph-
the entire province (in any case of an entity bigger ictiony.193 With regard to this, it is worth noting
than the Peloponnese alone).191 that in the 2nd c. A.D. no priests of the imperial
The provincial pretensions of the archiereus of cult are attested either in the Amphictiony or in
the Achaean koinon and of the koinon at large the polis of Delphi; more generally, the evidence
were in some way legitimized by the introduction regarding the imperial cult at Delphi is virtually
of the office of helladarches, which, starting from non-existent, except for some epimeletai of the
the reign of Hadrian at the latest – but probably al- Amphictyons who may also have held the priest-
ready from the reign of Trajan (see infra) – was hood of the imperial cult (P. Memmius Cleandrus
held in association with the high-priesthood of the and Ti. Claudius Cleomachus from Nicopolis, T.
imperial cult.192 The high-priests who served after Flavius Megaleinus, probably from Delphi, L. Cas-
P. Licinius Priscus Iuventianus (No. 3) were also sius Petraeus and T. Flavius Eubiotus from Hy-
helladarchs, T. Statilius Timocrates Memmianus pata).194 In light of this situation, and considered
(No. 8) being the last known archiereus to have that imperial Greece came to be represented by
190. Spawforth 1994, 222, considers the archiereus of the Achaean koinon during the reign of Nero to be “a truly
provincial dignitary”. However, he thinks that “it is hard to discern the institutional basis for a sacerdos provinciae
in the period after Nero…”, i.e. after the alleged dissolution of the Panachaean koinon.
191. Corinth VIII.1, no. 80 (Hadrianic): Cn. Cornelius Pulcher, archiereus of Hellas; IG V 1, 1451 (Messene, A.D.
139-161): Ti. Claudius Saethida Caelianus (II), archiereus of the Hellenes; IG IV, 590 (Argos, late 2nd-early 3rd c.
A.D.): T. Statilius Timocrates Memmianus, archiereus of the Hellenes; IvO 459 (Hadrianic): honorary inscription
set up by the Achaean koinon, on behalf of all of the Hellenes, for the Messenian P. Aelius Aristo, referred to as
strategos of the Hellenes; IG V 1, 512 (Sparta; Antonine): honorary inscription for the Messenian Ti. Claudius
Saethida Caelianus ([II?], see RP II, LAC 319), helladarch of the Hellenes ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν; IG V 1, 1398
(Corone, A.D. 264) and IvO 452 (after A.D. 212): honorary inscriptions for the Messenian C. Clodius Iulius
Cleoboulus, referred to in the first inscription as “prostates for life of the koinon of the Achaeans”, in the second as
“prostates for life of the Hellenes”. It is also worth noting that the Achaeans held the most prominent place within
the Panachaean union, as indicated by the official designation of this confederation – in which Achaeans are men-
tioned first (IG VII, 2711, ll. 1-2, 22-23; IG IV2 1, 81, ll. 16-17) – and by the number of delegates (eight) the Achaean
koinon used to send to the Panachaean synedrion (more than any of the other members); moreover, the term
“Achaioi ” was sometimes used to indicate the Panachaean union as a whole (see supra, p. 398 n. 188).
192. The helladarch’s tasks probably pertained to the jurisdictional sphere; see Oliver 1976; Puech 1983, 32-33
(and n. 72).
193. Sánchez 2001, 441-42.
194. FD III.4, 258; Syll 3 813 A and B; Syll 3 813 C; Syll 3 825 C; IG IX 2, 44. But cf. Sánchez 2001, 442: “selon
toute probablité, le titre de ἱερεύς/ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν Σεβαστῶν porté par certains épimélètes se rapporte à des fonctions
qu’ils ont exercées dans leurs cités d’origine, plutôt qu’à Delphes ou à l’Amphictionie”). See Puech 1983, 25: “à
Delphes, la documentation relative au culte impérial est pratiquement inexistante”; Sánchez 2001, 442: “il faut noter
l’absence de témoignage sur un éventuel culte impérial à Delphes”.
399
two large koina – the Achaean koinon (southern tarch’s passage – is not specified by any reference
Greece) and the Delphic Amphictiony (central and to the Achaean koinon, it cannot be ruled out that
northern Greece) – the archiereus of the Achaean Iuventianus (and Lucanios) served as priests of the
koinon may well have acted on behalf of central local Corinthian imperial cult [*it is worth noting,
Greece as well, so as to be regarded as “provincial” however, that apart from Iuventianus, at Corinth the
high-priest of the imperial cult.195 term archiereus is attested only with reference to in-
dividuals who are known with certainty to have been
Archiereis of the Achaean league:196 high-priests of the imperial cult in the Achaean
1. C. Iulius Spartiaticus (Corinthian) – *around league (Spartiaticus and Pulcher), and that the only
the middle of the 1st c. A.D. See supra, n. 184. (at my knowledge) local priests of the imperial cult
2. Lucanios (?) (Corinthian) – *end of the 1st c. attested with certainty in the Roman colony (i.e.
A.D. Known only from Plut., Quaest. conv. V. 3, Spartiaticus himself and his father C. Iulius Laco)
1 (Mor. 675 D-E), Lucanios was a friend of are referred to respectively as flam(en) divi Iuli
Plutarch and offered a banquet at Corinth during a and fla(men) Aug(usti) (Corinth VIII.2, nos 68, ll.
celebration of the Isthmian games. It is possible 5-6 and 67, l. 7)]. For Iuventianus’ benefactions at
that he is the same individual who appears in in- the Isthmus, see IG IV, 203 (SEG 39, 1989, 340).
scriptions as P. Licinius Priscus Iuventianus (see 4. Ti. Claudius Polycrates (Sicyonian) – *begin-
infra, no. 3); the name “Lucanios” would be a cor- ning of the 2nd c. A.D. Known from an honorific
ruption of Plutarch’s manuscripts for Licinius [cf. inscription set up at Delphi by the Amphictyonic
Corinth VIII.2, p. 55 (West)]. N.B.: if this is correct council and the koinon of the Achaeans to honour
though, Lucanios was a Roman citizen, and his daughter Ti. Claudia Polycrateia Nausicaa,
Plutarch used his nomen gentile to refer to him; archiereia of the Achaean league [Syll 3 846; see
yet, generally speaking, when a Greek who has ob- now CID IV, 162, where a date in the last third of the
tained the civitas is mentioned with a single com- 2nd c. A.D. is tentatively proposed by F. Lefèvre],
ponent of his new Roman onomastic formula, it is he might be identified either with the Polycrates to
the cognomen (usually his original simple name as whom Plutarch dedicated his work on Aratus’ life,
a peregrine; e.g. Eurycles for C. Iulius Eurycles). or with his son [Syll 3 846 (scholia at pp. 558-59);
3. P. Licinius Priscus Iuventianus (?) (Corinthian) PIR 2 C 969; cf. Puech 1983, 28 and ead. 1992, 4874,
– *towards the end of the 1st c. A.D. (?). The arguing for the son of Plutarch’s friend]. Based on
chronology of Iuventianus’ high-priesthood has a new interpretation of the fragmentary Corinthian
been highly debated; see Camia 2002 (with presen- inscription IG IV, 399 (Kantiréa 2008; the name
tation of the different possibilities), where a date of Polycrates can be integrated at ll. 7-8, see p. 18),
before the reign of Hadrian is proposed for Iuven- an identification with the friend of Plutarch is most
tianus’ term as archiereus. However, since two other likely; therefore, his high-priesthood should be put
archiereis probably served after Iuventianus, but at the beginning of the 2nd c. A.D., after the term
before the end of the reign of Trajan (see infra, nos of Iuventianus – who does not yet bear the title of
4-5), his high-priesthood could be put as early as the helladarch – but before the end of the reign of Tra-
late 1st c. A.D. In fact, if Iuventianus is not identical jan, since, starting from the very end of the latter’s
with the Lucanios known from Plutarch, he could reign, the archiereus of the imperial cult in the
in theory have served as archiereus before him (see Achaean koinon was the well known Roman eques
Corinth VIII.2, pp. 54-55). Finally, given that Iu- from Epidauros Cn. Cornelius Pulcher (see infra,
ventianus’ title as high-priest (IG IV, 203, ll. 4-5: no. 6). Polycrates must thus have been already
ἀρχιερεὺς διὰ βίου; Corinth VIII.3, no. 199, l. 5: dead when his daughter was honoured at Delphi
archiereus) – as well as that of Lucanios in Plu- (see infra, n. 199).
195. Athens was a civitas libera, while Macedonia and Thessaly both had their own koinon with archiereis of the
imperial cult.
196. N.B.: as will appear from the following considerations, the chronology of the archiereis of the Achaean
koinon is still an unsolved problem, with uncertainties and doubts remaining for many of the individuals who held
the imperial high-priesthood in the koinon. The chronological succession proposed below is an attempt, based on
the available epigraphic material, to state some firm points, but the overall picture remains hypothetical.
400
5. Ti. Claudius Saethida Caelianus (I) (Messen- Hadrian (A.D. 117-28) his father Caelianus (I) had
ian) – *reign of Trajan. The high-priesthood of already held the joint charges of imperial high-
Caelianus (I) – member of one of the most promi- priest and helladarch, and was therefore dead, see-
nent Messenian families197 – should be put during ing as the office of imperial archiereus of the Achaean
the reign of Trajan, and not during that of Antoni- league was a lifelong charge: in other words, Cae-
nus as previously thought [Halfmann 1979, no. lianus (I) is referred to in the Messenian inscription
93a; Puech 1983, 27; Habicht 1998, 493; see most as having been, rather than currently being, archiereus
recently also Luraghi 2008, 306-08, tentatively and helladarch.199 It therefore follows that Caelianus
supposing that Caelianus became helladarch and (I) must have held his high-priesthood before the
archiereus in Antoninus’ accession year]. The key end of Trajan’s reign, and that the office of hel-
is provided by an honorary inscription for the em- ladarch already existed before Hadrian.200 As a fur-
peror Hadrian dedicated at Messene by Caelianus’ ther consequence, the Ti. Claudius Saethida Caelianus
son, Ti. Claudius Frontinus Macer [Themelis 2005, who appears as archiereus and helladarch of the
43], which is to be dated before A.D. 129 due to Achaean koinon on the dedicatory inscriptions of
the absence of the epithet Olympios in Hadrian’s two statues – paid for by him – dedicated at Mes-
titulature.198 In the text of the inscription, Fronti- sene by the “Hellenes” to the Emperor Antoninus
nus Macer is referred to as “son of Ti. Claudius Pius and Caesar Marcus Aurelius respectively
Saethida Caelianus, archiereus and helladarch of (Themelis 2002, 44-45 [SEG 52, 2002, 405] and IG
the Achaeans for life” [Themelis 2005, 43, ll. 9-12 V 1, 1451; cf. RP II, MES 157 [3], [5]) is to be iden-
(SEG 55, 2005, 512)]. Since, as noted above, the tified with the homonymous grandson of the indi-
imperial archiereus of the Achaean league from the vidual in question, Ti. Claudius Saethida Caelianus
last years of the reign of Trajan, and most likely (II), whose term as archiereus (and helladarch) is
until the end of that of Hadrian, was the Epidaurian thus to be put after that of Cornelius Pulcher, that
Cn. Cornelius Pulcher (No. 6), we have to conclude is around the middle of the 2nd c. A.D.201
that at the time Macer dedicated the statue to 6. Cn. Cornelius Pulcher (Epidaurian) – *from
197. On which see most recently Baldassarra 2007, 36-42. Caelianus’ son, Ti. Claudius Frontinus (Macer), was
the first Messenian to enter the Roman Senate, soon followed by his two sons Ti. Claudius Frontinus Niceratus and
Ti. Claudius Saethida Caelianus (II). Cf. RP II, MES 142; Themelis 2005, 43-44.
198. Hadrian officially assumed the epithet Olympios in A.D. 128/29: the earliest reference is I.Eph. 274, which
can be dated with certainty, based on the imperial titulature, between December 10th 128 and December 9th 129.
199. This may be justified by the context: Caelianus is mentioned in the honorary inscription – which was dedicated
at Messene, Caelianus’ homeland – in the filiation formula of the dedicant (Macer), and most likely his titles of (ex)-
archiereus and (ex)-helladarch were assigned to him as a posthumous tribute to the glory of a well known and great
Messenian. Something similar, mutatis mutandis, can be supposed for the reference to Polycrates as archiereus and
helladarch in the filiation formula of his daughter Ti. Claudia Polycrateia Nausicaa, honoured at Delphi probably in
the second half of the 2nd c. A.D. (Syll 3 846 = CID IV, 162), while Polycrates’ high-priesthood is most likely to be
put at the beginning of the 2nd c., as we have already seen (No. 4).
200. This indirectly confirms the chronology assigned by P. Themelis to the long honorary decree for Caelianus
(I) recently found at Messene: two long fragmentary texts, inscribed on two statue bases and most likely belonging
to the same honorary decree for the individual, published by Themelis 2000, 78-81, pls 43-45 (SEG 51, 2001, 458;
AnnÉpigr 2002, no. 1314 a-b). Themelis dates the decree to the reign of Trajan (cf. RP II, MES 156 [2]), identifying the
proconsul Lollianus Avitus (SEG 51, 2001, 458 B, l. 22) with L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus (cos. suff. in 114 and pro-
consul of Asia in 128/29); he will have held the proconsulship of Achaea (a praetorian post) a little before becoming consul
(Themelis 2001b, 66). Contra B. Puech and M. Sève (AnnÉpigr 2002, p. 467), think that the high-priesthood of Caelianus
(I) is to be dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius; the proconsul Lollianus Avitus mentioned in the decree for Caelianus
(I) could be identified with the consul of A.D. 161 (“Le mot Traian[- - -], l. 6, n’implique nullement que le texte ait été
gravé sous Trajan, come le pense l’a.”). See most recently Baldassarra 2007, 39, who accepts the reign of Trajan.
201. Caelianus (II) was still alive under the reign of Marcus Aurelius, as he dedicated, together with his brother
Ti. Claudius Frontinus Niceratus, a statue to Marcus and one to his spouse Faustina: CIL III, 495 (A.D. 164); Themelis
2002, 45-46 (SEG 52, 2002, 405) (A.D. 161-176). Themelis also ascribes to Caelianus (II) a fragmentary honorary
decree (unpublished) originally inscribed on a statue base, fragments of which have been found near the stage of the
theatre: Themelis 2000, 81-82, pl. 46a (SEG 51, 2001, 460; RP II, MES 157 [6]).
401
the very end of the reign of Trajan until the Bibliography

end of that of Hadrian. Pulcher was already Alcock (S. E.), 1993: Graecia capta: the Landscapes of
archiereus at the end of the reign of Trajan, as at- Roman Greece, Cambridge.
tested by IG IV, 795 (ca A.D. 116/17), ll. 12-13. He Alföldi (A.), 1970: Die monarchische Repräsentation im
most likely died around A.D. 137; his son appears römischen Kaiserreiche, Darmstadt.
as “Cn. Cornelius Pulcher neoteros” in a list of vic- —, 1971: Der Vater des Vaterlandes im römischen Den-
tors at the Isthmian games dated with certainty to ken, Darmstadt.
Amandry (M.), 1988: Le monnayage des duovirs corin-
A.D. 137 [Corinth VIII.1, no. 15 (l. 45); Corinth
thiens, BCH Suppl. 15.
VIII.3, p. 29 n. 26]: the specification “neoteros”
Anti (C.), 1916: “L’Artemis Laphria di Patrai”, ASAA
was probably intended to distinguish him from his 2, 181-99.
father, who must have still been alive in that year. Antonetti (C.), 1990: Les Etoliens: image et religion, Be-
In any case, Pulcher was certainly still alive and sançon.
therefore serving as archiereus in A.D. 131/32, Badian (E.), 1970: Titus Quinctius Flamininus: Philhel-
when the Panhellenion was founded, as he became lenism and Realpolitik, Cincinnati.
president, probably the first, of the new league Baladié (R.), 1980: Le Péloponnèse de Strabon: étude de
[Follet 1976, 129; RP I, p. 118] and also priest of géographie historique, Paris.
Baldassarra (D.), 2007, “Famiglie aristocratiche a Mes-
Hadrian Panhellenios [Corinth VIII.1, no. 80].
sene nella prima età imperiale: il contributo dell’epi-
7. Ti. Claudius Saethida Caelianus (II) (Mes-
grafia”, in G. Cresci Marrone, A. Pistellato (eds),
senian) – *ca middle of the 2nd c. A.D. See Studi in ricordo di Fulviomario Broilo, Atti del con-
supra, no. 5. vegno, Venezia, 14-15 ottobre 2005, Padova, 25-62.
8. T. Statilius Timocrates Memmianus (Epidau- Baldassarri (P.), 1995: “Augusto soter: ipotesi sul mo-
rian) – *late 2nd/early 3rd c. A.D. For the nopteros dell’acropoli ateniese”, Ostraka 4, 69-84.
chronology see Spawforth 1985, 256-58. A mem- —, 1998: ΣEBAΣTΩI ΣΩTHPI. Edilizia monumentale
ber of the Epidaurian Statilii, he was also a citizen ad Atene durante il saeculum augustum, Roma.
—, 2001: “Lo specchio del potere: programmi edilizi ad
of Argos. Memmianus is the last known archiereus
Atene in età augustea”, BCH Suppl. 39, 401-25.
of the Achaean koinon to have held jointly the
Balsdon (J. P. V. D.), 1967: “T. Quinctius Flamininus”,
charges of archiereus and helladarch. He was three Phoenix 21, 177-90.
times strategos of the Achaean league and became Balzat (J.-S.), 2008: “Les Euryclides en Laconie”, in C.
a member both of the Amphictyonic council at Grandjean (ed.), Le Péloponnèse d’Épaminondas à
Delphi – where he was also helladarch of the Am- Hadrien, Actes du Colloque de Tours, 6-7 octobre
phictyons – and the council of the Panhellenes at 2005, Bordeaux, 335-50.
Athens. Bardane (B.), 1988: “Εἰς IG V.1, 1462”, Horos 6, 1988,
9. M. Aurelius Amarantus – *after A.D. 212. 79-81.
Bassignano (M. S.), 1974: Il flaminato nelle province ro-
See Moretti 1953b.
mane dell’Africa, Roma.
10. Sex. Pompeius Menophanes (Spartan) –
Benjamin (A. S.), Raubitschek (A. E.), 1959: “Arae Au-
*reign of Severus Alexander. See supra, 392-93. gusti”, Hesperia 28, 65-85.
He was also municipal priest of the imperial cult Beurlier (E.), 1891: Essai sur le culte impérial. Son his-
at Sparta.202 toire et son organisation depuis Auguste jusqu’à Jus-
tinien, Paris.
202. See also IvO 473-74 (A.D. 212/13): two honorary inscriptions for Claudia Tyche, citizen of Cleitor and Elis –
she must originate from Cleitor – who was “archiereia for life of the emperor and of the koinon of the Achaeans”;
cf. RP I, EL 119. In a recent article on the aristocratic Messenian families of the early imperial period, D. Baldassarra
mentions a Ti. Flavius Polybius, “vissuto nel II d.C., che dovette godere di una notevole fama sia a Messene sia a li-
vello provinciale divenendo elladarco della Lega Achea e sacerdote a vita del culto imperiale” (Baldassarra 2007,
42 n. 83). It must be underlined that none of the known epigraphic references to this individual (IvO 449-50; cf. RP
I, EL 209) make reference to him as holding either the helladarchia or the charge of high-priest of the imperial cult;
see also Luraghi 2008, 303-04 (and n. 43).
402
Bidez (J.), 1924: L’empereur Julien. Œuvres complètes Ehrenberg (V.), Jones (A. H. M.), 1955: Documents il-
I. 2. Lettres et fragments, Paris. lustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius,2 Ox-
Biers (W. R.), Geagan (D. J.), 1970: “A new list of vic- ford.
tors of the Caesarea at Isthmia”, Hesperia 69, 79-93. Ellinger (P.), 1993: La légende nationale phocidienne.
Binder (W.), 1969: Der Roma-Augustus Monopteros auf Artémis, les situations extrêmes et les récits de guerre
der Akropolis in Athen und sein typologischer Ort, d’anéantissement, BCH Suppl. 27.
PhD, Stuttgart. Étienne (R.), 1958: Le culte impérial dans la péninsule
Birley (A. R.), 1997: Hadrian. The restless emperor, ibérique d’Auguste à Dioclétien, Paris.
London - New York. Euangelidis (D.), 1911: “Λακωνικαὶ επιγραφαί”, AEph,
Boëthius (A.), 1922: Der argivische Kalender, Uppsala. 193-98.
Bowersock (G. W.), 1961: “Eurycles of Sparta”, JRS 81, Fears (J. R.), 1977: Princeps a diis electus. The divine
112-18. election of the emperor as a political concept at
—,1984: “Augustus and the East: the Problem of the Rome, Rome.
Succession”, in F. Millar, S. Segal (eds), Caesar Au- —, 1984: “The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ide-
gustus: seven aspects, Oxford, 169-88. ology”, ANRW II 17.1, 3-141.
Box (H.), 1931: “Roman Citizenship in Laconia”, JRS Felten (F.), 1983: “Heiligtümer oder Märkte?”, AK 26,
21, 200-14. 84-105.
Briscoe (J.), 1972: “Flamininus and Roman Politics, 200- Ferrary (J.-L.), 1988: Philhellénisme et impérialisme. As-
189 B.C.”, Latomus 31, 22-53. pects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde
Buraselis (K.), 2000: Kos between Hellenism and Rome. hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine à la
Studies on the Political, Institutional and Social His- guerre contre Mithridate, BEFAR 271, Paris – Rome.
tory of Kos from ca. the Middle Second Century B.C. Fishwick (D.), 1978: “The Development of Provincial
until Late Antiquity, Philadelphia. Ruler Worship in the Western Roman Empire”,
Camia (F.), 2002: “IG IV 203: la cronologia di P. Licinius ANRW II 16.2, 1201-253.
Priscus Iuventianus, archiereus della Lega achea”, —, ICLW: The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies
ASAA 80, 361-78. in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the
Carter (J. M.), 1977: “A new fragment of Octavian’s in- Roman Empire I-III, Leiden 1987-2004.
scription at Nicopolis”, ZPE 24, 227-30. Follet (S.), 1976: Athènes au II e et au III e siècle. Études
Cartledge (P.), Spawforth (A. J. S.), 2002: Hellenistic and chronologiques et prosopographiques, Paris.
Roman Sparta. A tale of two cities,2 London - New Gauthier (Ph.), 1985: Les cités grecques et leurs bienfai-
York. teurs (IV e-I er siècle av. J.-C.). Contribution à l’histoire
Charneux (P.), 1956: “Inscriptions d’Argos”, BCH 80, des institutions, BCH Suppl. 12.
598-618. Geagan (D. J.), 1967: The Athenian Constitution after
Chow (J. K.), 1992: Patronage and Power. A Study of Sulla, Hesperia Suppl. 12, Princeton.
Social Networks in Corinth, Journal for the Study of —, 1968: “Notes on the agonistic institutions of Roman
the New Testament Suppl. 75, Sheffield. Corinth”, GRBS 9, 69-80.
Chrimes (K. M. T.), 1949: Ancient Sparta. A re-exami- Gebhard (E. R.), 1993: “The Isthmian Games and the
nation of the evidence, Manchester. sanctuary of Poseidon in the early empire”, in T. E.
Clauss (M.), 1999: Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im Gregory (ed.), The Corinthia in the Roman Period.
römischen Reich, Stuttgart. Including the papers given at a Symposium held at
Degrassi (A.), 1952: I Fasti Consolari dell’Impero Ro- The Ohio State University on 7-9 March, 1991, JRA
mano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo, Roma. Suppl. 8, 78-94.
Deininger (J.), 1965: Die Provinziallandtage der römi- Giannakopoulos (N.), 2008: “Remarks on the Honorary
schen Kaiserzeit, München. Titles υἱὸς βουλῆς, υἱὸς δήμου and υἱὸς πόλεως”, in
Demougin (S.), 1992: Prosopographie des chevaliers ro- A. D. Rizakis, F. Camia (eds), Pathways to Power:
mains julio-claudiens (43 av. J.-C. - 70 ap. J.-C.), Civic Elites in the Eastern Part of the Roman Em-
Rome. pire, Athens, 253-70.
Deshours (N.), 2004: “Cultes de Déméter, d’Artémis Or- Gradel (I.), 2002: Emperor Worship and Roman Reli-
theia et culte impérial à Messène (Ier s. av. notre ère- gion, Oxford.
Ier s. de notre ère)”, ZPE 146, 115-27. Graf (F.), 1992: “Heiligtum und Ritual; das Beispiel der
Devijver (H.), 1976-1993: Prosopographia militiarum griechisch-römischen Asklepieia”, in O. Reverdin, B.
equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum, Grange (eds), Le sanctuaire grec. Entretiens sur l’an-
Symbolae series A. 3, I: Litteare A-I (Leuven 1976); tiquité classique XXXVII (Vandœuvres-Genève, 20-
II: Litterae L-V: Ignoti-Incerti (1977); III: Indices 25 août 1990), Geneva, 159-99.
(1980); Suppl. vol. I-II (1987-1993). Graindor (P.), 1927: Athènes sous Auguste, Le Caire.
Dinsmoor (W. B.), 1940: “The temple of Ares at Athens”, Groag (E.), 1939: Die römischen Reichsbeamten von
Hesperia 9, 1-52. Achaia bis auf Diokletian, Vienna - Leipzig.
403
Grunauer-von Hoerschelmann (S.), 1978: Die Münzprä- Kantiréa (M.), 2001: “Remarques sur le culte de la
pung der Lakedaimonier, Berlin. domus Augusta en Achaïe de la mort d’Auguste à
Habicht (Ch.), 1970, Gottmenschentum und griechische Néron”, in O. Salomies (ed.), The Greek East in the
Städte 2, Munich. Roman Context. Proceedings of a Colloquium organ-
—, 1985: Pausanias’ guide to Ancient Greece, Berkeley ised by the Finnish Institute at Athens (May 21 and
- Los Angeles - London. 22, 1999), Helsinki, 51-60.
—, 1998: “Kleine Beiträge zur altgriechischen Personen- —, 2001/02: “Παρατηρήσεις ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἵδρυση τῆς
kunde”, REA 100, 487-94. αὐτοκρατορικῆς λατρείας στὴν Πελοπόννησο”, in
Halfmann (H.), 1979: Die Senatoren aus dem östliche Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Στ´ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννη-
Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. σιακῶν Σπουδῶν (Τρίπολη, 24-29 Σεπτεμβρίου 2000)
n. Chr., Göttingen. II, Athens, 423-32.
Heller (A.), 2006: “Les bêtises des Grecs”. Conflits et ri- —, 2007: Les dieux et les dieux Augustes. Le culte im-
valités entre cités d’Asie et de Bithynie à l’époque périal en Grèce sous les Julio-claudiens et les Fla-
romaine (129 a.C.-235 p.C.), Bordeaux. viens. Études épigraphiques et archéologiques,
Herbillon (J.), 1929: Les cultes de Patras avec une pro- Meletemata 50, Athens.
sopographie patréenne, Baltimore. —, 2008, “Une famille sacerdotale du culte impérial de
Herz (P.), 1978: “Bibliographie zum römischen Kaiser- Sicyone (Syll 3 846 et IG IV 399)”, in A. D. Rizakis,
kult (1955-1975)”, ANRW II, 16.2, 833-910. F. Camia (eds), Pathways to Power. Civic Elites in the
—, 1993: “Die Adoptivsöhne des Augustus und der Fest- Eastern Part of the Roman Empire, Athens, 15-22.
kalender. Gedanken zu einer Inschrift aus Messene”, Keil (B.), 1913: “Ein Λόγος συστατικός”, NAWG, 1-41.
Klio 75, 272-88. Kennell (Ν. M.), 1999: “From perioikoi to poleis. The
—, 1997: “Herrscherverehrung und lokale Festkultur im Laconian cities in the late Hellenistic period”, in S.
Osten des römischen Reiches (Kaiser/Agone)”, in H. Hodkinson, A. Powell (eds), Sparta. New perspecti-
Cancik, J. Rüpke (eds), Römische Reichsreligion und ves, London, 189-210.
Provinzialreligion, Tübingen, 239-64. Kourinou (E.), 2000: Σπάρτη. Συμβολή στη μνημιακή
Hitzl (K.), 1991: Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung τοπογραφία της, Athens.
des Metroon, DAI, OlForsch. XIX, Berlin – New Laffi (U.), 1966: Adtributio e contributio. Problemi del
York. sistema politico-amministrativo dello stato romano,
Hoët-van Cauwenberghe (C.), 1999: “Notes sur le culte Pisa.
impérial dans le Péloponnèse”, ZPE 125, 177-81. Liertz (U.-M.), 1998: Kult und Kaiser. Studien zu Kai-
Højte (J. M.), 2005: Roman Imperial Statue Bases from serkult und Kaiserverehrung in den germanischen
Augustus to Commodus, Aarhus. Provinzen und in Gallia Belgica zur römischen Kai-
Houby-Nielsen (S.), 2001: “Sacred landscapes of Aetolia serzeit, Rome.
and Achaea: synoecism processes and non-urban Lindsay (H.), 1992: “Augustus and Eurycles”, RhM 135,
sanctuaries”, in J. Isiger (ed.), Foundation and De- 290-97.
struction. Nikopolis and Northwestern Greece. The Luraghi (N.), 2008: The Ancient Messenians. Construc-
archaeological evidence for the city destructions, the tions of Ethnicity and Memory, Cambridge.
foundation of Nikopolis and the synoecism, Athens, Ma (J.), 1999: Antiochos III and the Cities of Western
257-76. Asia Minor, Oxford.
Hupfloher (A.), 2000: Kulte im kaiserzeitlichen Sparta. Maderna (C.), 1988: Iuppiter, Diomedes und Merkur als
Eine Rekonstruktion anhand der Priesterämter, Berlin. Vorbilder für römische Bildnisstatuen. Untersuchun-
—, 2006: “Kaiserkult in einem überregionalen Heilig- gen zum römischen statuarischen Idealporträt, Hei-
tum: das Beispiel Olympia”, in K. Freitag, P. Funke, delberg.
M. Haake (eds), Kult - Politik - Ethnos. Überregio- Marchetti (P.), Kolokotsas (K.), 1995: Le nymphée de
nale Heiligtümer im Spannungsfeld von Kult und Po- l’agora d’Argos. Fouille, étude architecturale et his-
litik, Stuttgart 2006, 239-63. torique, ÉtPélop XI, Paris.
Jones (C. P.), 1996: “The Panhellenion”, Chiron 26, 29-56. McAllister (M. H.), 1959: “The Temple of Ares at Athens.
Jost (M.), 1985: Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie, Paris. A Review of the Evidence”, Hesperia 28, 1-64.
Kahrstedt (U.), 1950: “Zwei Probleme im kaiserzeitli- Melfi (M.), 2007: I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia I,
chen Griechenland”, SO 28, 66-75. Rome.
Kajava (M.), 2001: “Vesta and Athens”, in O. Salomies Mellor (R.), 1975: ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ. The Worship of the
(ed.), The Greek East in the Roman Context. Pro- Goddess Roma in the Greek World, Göttingen.
ceedings of a Colloquium organised by the Finnish —, 1981: “The Goddess Roma”, ANRW II 17.2, 950-1030.
Institute at Athens (May 21 and 22, 1999), Helsinki, —, 1992: “The local character of Roman Imperial reli-
71-94. gion”, Athenaeum 80, 385-400.
—, 2002: “When did the Isthmian games return to the Migeotte (L.), 1985: “Réparation de monuments publics
Isthmus? (rereading Corinth 8.3.153)”, CPh 97, 168-78. à Messène au temps d’Auguste”, BCH 109, 597-607.
404
Miranda (E.), 1992/93: “Testimonianze sui Kommo- —, 2001: “La constitution des élites municipales dans les
deia”, Scienze dell’Antichità 6-7, 69-88. colonies romaines de la province d’Achaïe”, in O. Sa-
Moretti (L.), 1953a: Iscrizioni agonistiche greche, Roma. lomies (ed.), The Greek East in the Roman Context,
—, 1953b: “Un nuovo proconsole d’Acaia?”, ArchClass Proceedings of a Colloquium organised by the
5, 255-59. Finnish Institute at Athens, May 21 and 22, 1999,
Murray (W.), Petsas (Ph. M.), 1989: Octavian’s Camp- Helsinki, 37-49.
site Memorial for the Actian War, TAPhA Suppl. —, 2008: Achaïe III. Les cités achéennes: épigraphie et
79.4, 1989. histoire, Meletemata 55, Athens.
Nigdelis (P.M.), 2006: Επιγραφικά Θεσσαλονίκεια. Rizakis (A. D.), Camia (F.), 2008: “Magistrature muni-
Συμβολή στην πολιτική και κοινωνική ιστορία της cipali e svolgimento delle carriere nelle colonie ro-
αρχαίας Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki. mane della provincia d’Acaia”, in Cl. Berrendonner,
Oliver (J. H.), 1935: “Greek Inscriptions”, Hesperia 4, M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, L. Lamoine (eds), Le quoti-
5-70. dien municipal dans l’Occident romain, Clermont-
—, 1965: “Livia as Artemis Boulaia at Athens”, CPh 60, Ferrand, 233-45.
179. Robert (L.), 1934: “Études d’épigraphie grecque”, RPh
—, 1969: “Octavian’s inscription at Nicopolis”, AJPh 8, 267-92.
90, 178-82. —, 1939: “Hellenica”, RPh 13, 97-217.
—, 1976: “The Helladarch”, RivStorAnt 8, 1-6. —, 1960a: Hellenica XI-XII, Paris.
—, 1978: “Panachaeans and Panhellenes”, Hesperia 47, —, 1960b: “Recherches épigraphiques”, REA 62, 276-
185-91. 361.
—, 1981: “Roman Emperors and Athens”, Historia 30, —, 1963: “Nouvelles inscriptions d’Iasos”, REA 65, 298-
412-23. 329.
—, 1989: Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emper- —, 1969: “Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce Cen-
ors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Philadelphia. trale”, AEph, 1-58.
Orlandos (Α.), 1960: “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH, Roddaz (J. M.), 1984: Marcus Agrippa, BÉFAR 253,
210-27. Rome.
Osanna (Μ.), 1997: “Artemis in Patras: Wandel einer Romano (D. G.), 2005: “A Roman Circus in Corinth”,
Polis im Spiegel ihrer Kulte”, in P. Berktold, J. Hesperia 74, 585-611.
Schmid, Chr. Wacker (eds), Akarnanien. Eine Land- Rose (C. B.), 1997: Dynastic commemoration and im-
schaft im antiken Griechenland, Munich, 183-93. perial portraiture in the Julio-Claudian period, Cam-
Peek (W.), 1972: Neue Inschriften aus Epidauros, Berlin. bridge.
Pernot (L.), 1993: La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le RP I: A. D. Rizakis, S. Zoumbaki, M. Kantirea, Roman
monde gréco-romaine I-II, Paris. Peloponnese I: Roman personal names in their social
Pfeilschifter (R.), 2005: Titus Quinctius Flamininus. Un- context (Achaia, Arcadia, Argolis, Corinthia, and
tersuchungen zur römischen Griechenlandpolitik, Eleia), Meletemata 31, Athens 2001.
Göttingen. RP II: A. D. Rizakis, S. Zoumbaki, Cl. Lepenioti, Roman
Pflaum (H. G.), 1960-1982: Les carrières procurato- Peloponnese II: Roman personal names in their so-
riennes équestres sous le Haut Empire romaine I-II cial context (Laconia and Messenia), Meletemata 36,
(Paris 1960), III (1961), Supplement (1982). Athens 2004.
Pleket (H. W.), 1965: “An aspect of the emperor cult: Sánchez (P.), 2001: L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de
imperial mysteries”, HThR 58, 331-347. Delphes, Stuttgart.
Price (S. R. F.), 1980: “Between Man and God: sacrifice Schmitt Pantel (P.), 1992: La cité au banquet. Histoire
in the Roman imperial cult”, JRS 70, 28-43. des repas publics dans les cités grecques, EFR 157,
—, 1984a: Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult Rome.
in Asia Minor, Cambridge. Schulze (W.), 1904: Zur Geschichte der lateinishen Ei-
—, 1984b: “Gods and Emperors: the Greek language of gennamen, Berlin.
the Roman imperial cult”, JHS 104, 79-95. Schwertfeger (T.), 1981: “Die Basis des Claudius Calli-
Puech (B.), 1983: “Grands-prêtres et helladarques genes”, OlB 10, 249-55.
d’Achaie”, REA 85, 15-31. Sève (M.), 1993: “Les concours d’Epidaure”, REG 106,
—, 1992: “Prosopographie des amis de Plutarche”, 303-28.
ANRW II 33.6, 4831-893. Solin (H.), Salomies (O.), 1988: Repertorium nominum
Quaß (F.), 1993: Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten gentilium et cognominum Latinorum, Hildesheim-
des griechischen Ostens, Stuttgart. Zürich - New York.
Richards (F.), 1988: “Les souverains en «Theoi epibate- Spawforth (A. J. S.), 1978: “Balbilla, the Euryclids and
rioi»”, Cahiers d’Histoire 33, 441-52. memorials for a Greek magnate”, ABSA 73, 249-60.
Rizakis (A. D.), 1998: Achaïe II. La cité de Patras: Épi- —, 1984: “Notes on the third century A.D. in Spartan
graphie et histoire, Meletemata 25, Athens. epigraphy”, ABSA 79, 263-88.
405
—, 1985: “Families at Roman Sparta and Epidaurus: Finnish Institute at Athens, May 21 and 22, 1999,
Some Prosopographical Notes”, ABSA 80, 191-258. Helsinki, 119-26.
—, 1986: “A Severan statue group and an Olympic fes- —, 2001b: “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH 156, 63-96.
tival at Sparta”, ABSA 81, 313-32. —, 2002: “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH 157, 21-55.
—, 1989: “Agonistic festivals in Roman Greece”, in S. —, 2005: “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH 160, 39-65.
Walker, A. Cameron (eds.), The Greek Renaissance Veligianni (C.), 2001: “Philos und philos-Komposita in
in the Roman Empire, BICS Suppl. 55, 193-97. den griechischen Inschriften der Kaiserzeit”, in M.
—, 1994: “Corinth, Argos and the Imperial Cult: Pseudo- Peachin (ed.), Aspects of friendship in the Greco-
Julian, Letters 198”, Hesperia 63, 211-32. Roman World, JRA Suppl. 43, Portsmouth, 63-80.
—, 1999: “The Panhellenion again”, Chiron 29, 339-52. Veyne (P.), 1962: “Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia
Spawforth (A. J. S.), Walker (S.), 1985: “The World of Domitilla et les dédicaces grecques et latines”, Lato-
the Panhellenion I”, JRS 75, 78-104. mus 21, 49-98.
—, 1986: “The World of the Panhellenion II”, JRS 76, —, 1976: Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d’un
88-105. pluralisme politique, Paris.
Stamires (G. A.), 1957: “Greek Inscriptions”, Hesperia Ward (M. M.), 1933: “The association of Augustus with
26, 260-65. Jupiter”, SMSR 9, 203-24.
Steinhauer (G.), 1998: “Unpublished lists of gerontes and Wojan (F.), 2008: “Le culte impérial à Élis: à propos de
magistrates of Roman Sparta”, BSA 93, 427-47. Pausanias 6.24.10”, in C. Grandjean (ed.), Le Pélo-
—, 2006/07: “The Euryklids and Kythera”, MedArch 19- ponnèse d’Épaminondas à Hadrien, Actes du Collo-
20, 199-206. que de Tours 6-7 octobre 2005, Bordeaux, 271-75.
Strothmann (M.), 2000: Augustus-Vater der res publica. Zanker (P.), 1987: Augustus und die Macht der Bilder,
Zur Funktion der drei Begriffe restitutio-saeculum- München.
pater patriae im augusteischen Principat, Stuttgart. Zoumbaki (S.), 1993: “Zu einer neuen Inschrift aus
Taylor (L. R.), 1929: “Tiberius’ Refusals of Divine Hon- Olympia: die Familie der Vettuleni von Elis”, ZPE 99,
ors”, TAPhA 60, 87-101. 227-32.
—, 1931: The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Middle- —, 2001: Elis und Olympia in der Kaiserzeit. Das Leben
town, Connecticut. einer Gesellschaft zwischen Stadt und Heiligtum auf
Themelis (P. G.), 1991: “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH prosopographischer Grundlage, Meletemata 32, Athens.
146, 85-128. —, 2008: “Στὰ ἴχνη ἐπιφανῶν Ἀργείων τῆς ρωμαϊκῆς
—, 1995: “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH 150, 55-86. ἐποχῆς. Παλαιὲς και νέες ἐπιγραφικὲς μαρτυρίες γιὰ
—, 2000: “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH 155, 75-105. μιὰ σημαντικὴ οἰκογένεια ἀπὸ τὸ Ἄργος”, in Β´
—, 2001a: “Roman Messene. The Gymnasium”, in O. Πανελλήνιο Συνέδριο Επιγραφικής (Θεσσαλονίκη
Salomies (ed.), The Greek East in the Roman Con- 24-25 Νοεμβρίου 2001), Thessaloniki, 115-34.
text, Proceedings of a Colloquium organized by the
406

The Imperial Cult in The Peloponnese

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Imperial Cult in The Peloponnese

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Imperial Cult in The Peloponnese

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΡΩΜΑΪΚΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ

ΕΘΝΙΚΟΝ ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ

RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITY

ROMAN PELOPONNESE III

Maps: Yvonne-Dominique Rizakis

Printed by: Ἐργαστήριο Χαρακτικῆς Ἠλία Ν. Κουβέλη

Geographical map of the Peloponnese x

M. Piérart, Argos romaine: la cité des Perséides 19

P. Marchetti, L’épigraphie argienne et l’oligarchie locale du Haut-Empire 43

J. Roy, Roman Arkadia 59

G. Steinhauer, C. Iulius Eurycles and the Spartan dynasty of the Euryclids 75

P. Themelis, The economy and society of Messenia under Roman rule 89

A. D. Rizakis, Colonia Augusta Achaïca Patrensis. Réaménagements urbains, constructions

D. G. Romano, Romanization in the Corinthia: urban and rural developments 155

Chr. Hoët-van Cauwenberghe, Mécanismes d’acquisition et diffusion de la citoyenneté

O. Salomies, Roman nomina in the Peloponnese: some observations 193

N. M. Kennell, Citizen training systems in the Roman Peloponnese 205

D. Stewart, The rural Roman Peloponnese: continuity and change 217

V. Di Napoli, Entertainment building of the Roman Peloponnese: theatres, odea,

M. Vitti, P. Vitti, Trasmissione ed adattamento delle tecniche costruttive romane in Peloponneso:

F. Camia, M. Kantiréa, The imperial cult in the Peloponnese 375

Y. Lafond, Concours et identité civique dans le Péloponnèse d’époque romaine

A. Farrington, The origin of victors in the Isthmian games 421

● PATRAI: ancient city settlement

42. See infra.

51. SEG 11, 1950, 923, ll. 25-28.

69. SEG 23, 1968, 206, ll. 16-20.

140. RP I, ARC 139.

153. Spawforth 1984, 281; Cartledge, Spawforth 2002, 117-18.

portant religious and civic offices: he was hiereus V. Conclusive remarks

the very end of the reign of Trajan until the Bibliography

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.