For additional references, see Heller 2006: 125ff and Thonemann 2011: 109ff.

52

rank of provincial capital, could have direct and wide-ranging effects on the urban fabric. For at least a few decades after the reign of Hadrian, membership in the Panhellenion served as another stimulus to construction, particularly in places like Athens and Eleusis closely connected with the league’s promotion of a Classicizing Panhellenism.51 _{Finally, besides the fiercely sought-}

after provincial temples, which had an immediate and profound impact on a city’s appearance, the imperial cult generated multitudinous civic temples and shrines, which can regarded, if in a less formal sense, as expressions of the relationship a city had, or desired, with Rome.

Yet provincial temples of the imperial cult remain the clearest examples of how civic building could manifest a carefully negotiated relationship with Rome. Provincial temples not only monumentalized an act of communication (the emperor and Senate’s grant of the

neokorate), but also established a setting for visible maintenance and performance of the relationship. Another example from Smyrna, the provincial sanctuary granted by Hadrian, will serve to illustrate the point. Philostratus records how Hadrian, travelling through the cities of Ionia in 123 CE,52 was so impressed by the great sophist Polemon that he granted, among other things, “the temple visible from afar, set on the promontory that seems to challenge Mimas” (VS 531).53 This was certainly Smyrna’s second provincial temple, which now-vanished ruins

confirm to have been a massive Corinthian structure.54 _{Although Polemon’s lobbying was}

probably instrumental in gaining Hadrian’s favor, it is unlikely that Hadrian’s decision to grant

51 _{A number of the buildings associated with the Panhellenion were characterized by deliberate archaism or}

reference to the definitive mythic/historical narratives of the Greek world; see, e.g. Spawforth and Walker 1985: 92- 103 (Athens and Eleusis), Spawforth and Walker 1986: 100-3 (Cyrene and Argos), and Walker 2002 (Cyrene).

52 _{Halfmann 1986: 200; cf. IGR IV.1398}

53 _{On Hadrian’s buildings in Smyrna, see Boatwright 2000: 157-62; cf. Shorndorfer 1997: 173-5. On buildings}

granted by emperors while touring the provinces, see Winter 1996: 108-18, Lehnen 1997: 85-92, and Halfmann 2009.

54 _{Our information on the remains derives from Prokesh 1834: 62ff and Walter 1922-4: 232. On temple architecture}

in Hadrianic Asia Minor, see Schorndorfer 1997: 31-68. A contemporary Smyrnaean coin series (BMC Ionia no. 330-2) depicts a hexastyle temple.

53

the temple was unpremeditated.55 The great building, poised on a hill overlooking the city,

conveyed a complex of messages about Roman authority. It reaffirmed imperial favor as the ultimate guarantor of civic status, and thus as final arbiter of struggles for regional preeminence; symbolized and rebranded Roman power, encouraging citizens to interpret Roman authority through the lens of imperial generosity; and, most importantly, monumentalized the possibilities of communication with the emperor.

The temple at Smyrna, in short, commemorated both a process and a moment of interaction.56 Hadrian’s grant stood last in a long series of reciprocal actions, precedents and

testimonia of benefactions granted and services paid. Far from being a mere statement of Roman power, it redounded at least as much to the glory of the city as to that of the Empire: the emperor had provided funding and an opportunity for local elites to monumentalize their loyalty; but the building they constructed was, physically and symbolically, an integral part of the civic

landscape. The new temple, then, not only celebrated and confirmed the ties between city, province, and Empire; it permanently impacted the local “image” of Roman authority, becoming emblematic at once of Smyrna and of her place in the Roman order. It was here that Smyrnaean elite performed and confirmed their relationship with the Empire, sacrificing for the emperor’s health and staging celebrations of his virtues.57 _{Deferring to a later chapter a discussion of how}

the design of temple and precinct modeled these ceremonies,58 it suffices to observe here that the

55 _{Philostratus frequently stresses the power of the sophists’ oratory to win imperial favors (e.g. VS 520, 533, 583,}

588, cf. 512). It should be noted, however, that the temple was actually granted “by senatorial decree,” albeit very close to the time of Hadrian’s visit to Smyrna (Boatwright 2000: 159-60, citing IvSmyrna 594 and other epigraphic evidence); it is likely that the Smyrnaeans had been lobbying for the temple for years. On the cult and its political implications, see Burrell 2004: 42-8. Cf. Burrell 2002/3 on the temple’s dedication.

56 _{Cf. Hölscher 2006.}

57 _{Sacrifices for the emperor’s health were regularly conducted on his birthday and a few other anniversaries (e.g.} IvE 211 (=OGIS 493), 1393; IGR IV.453).

54

sanctuary can be regarded as a template for the maintenance of successful relations between city and Empire.

Every system of civic rank and status patterned communication not only between the provinces and the emperor, but also between provincial cities. Imperial grants and favors set the parameters for the competitive building programs of neighboring and rival cities.59 More

directly, the hierarchies of the assize system, imperial cult, and other organizations centered on Rome created in every province nodes of special prominence and significance for

communication both with the emperor and between cities. The statues dedicated by the member cities of the Panhellenion in the precinct of Hadrian’s Olympieion at Athens provide a

particularly vivid example:

Before the entrance to the sanctuary of Olympian Zeus…stand statues of Hadrian, two of Thasian stone, two of Egyptian. Before the pillars [of the precinct

peristyle] stand bronze statues which the Athenians call “colonies.” The whole circumference of the precincts is about four stades, and they are full of statues; for every city has dedicated a likeness of the emperor Hadrian, and the Athenians have surpassed them in dedicating, behind the temple, the remarkable colossus. (Paus. 1.18.6)

The arrangement of these statues, with the bronze “colonies” along the stoas of the precinct ringing the colossal chryselephantine image set up the Athenians, vividly articulated both the broad membership of the Panhellenion and the dominant place of the Athenians within it. The fact that all of the statues represented Hadrian emphasized the authority that sanctioned the status they commemorated. Comparable ensembles seem to have been erected in at least some

provincial temples of the imperial cult; the Temple of the Flavians at Ephesus, for example, featured numerous statues of Domitian erected by the cities of Asia.60 In part, these statues

simply reflected the fact that provincial temples of the imperial cult and conventus centers were

59 _{Pont 2010: 269-96 is a good survey of this phenomenon.} 60 _{Friesen 1993: 29-49}

55

the most prominent, and therefore the most prestigious, sites of display in a given province. The imperial decrees and honorific statues habitually set up in these spaces,61 _{however, also seem to}

indicate some consciousness that they were nodes of provincial communication networks, and thus ideal places for making visible relationships between cities and with Rome.

Perhaps the clearest evidence that imperial Greeks were aware of the symbolic implications of “nodes” like provincial temples is Aelius Aristides’ encomium of the great Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus.62 _{Aristides begins by describing the building as an expression of}

imperial virtue: “these men [Marcus Aurelius and Verus, under whom the temple was finished] have presented to all mankind examples of virtue, justice, and friendship…it is reasonable for such men to be regarded in every way as dear to the gods as they are to each other, and as benefactors of all humanity” (Or. 27.36).63 _{Moreover, since the temple celebrates the emperors’}

amity, it stands as an example to their subjects. Monumental evokes social harmony: The ornaments of construction are beautiful and exert remarkable influence over the masses; but perfect, and truly the gift of some god, is the concordance of the ornaments of construction with those of the soul. For just as we praise harmony in a building, and the fact that each of its elements preserves a proper relationship with all others, so also should we recognize that life is well-lived whenever harmony and order prevail. This adornment truly befits cities. (Or. 27.40-1; trans. Behr)64

61 _{E.g. Ando 2000: 80ff, esp. 101-2, 111-14; Burrell 2004: 305}

62 _{On this building, see Schorndorfer 1997: 146-53; Schulz & Winter 1990}

63 _{On Aristides’ vision of the emperor, see Stertz 1994: 1254-60. It is possible, particularly in view of his oft-}

repeated insistence that a city’s buildings should be both beautiful and useful (e.g. Or. 17.11, 33.24-32, 47.19), that Aristides was actually trying to justify the extravagance of the new building by insisting on its direct relation with imperial virtue. 64 _{καλοὶ μὲν γὰρ καὶ οἱ τῶν οἰκοδομημάτων οὗτοι κόσμοι καὶ θαυμαστῶς πιθανοὶ τοῖς πλήθεσιν, ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο ἤδη} τέλειον καὶ θεοῦ τινος ὡς ἀληθῶς δωρεὰ, ὅταν ἀμφότεροι συνᾴδωσιν οἱ κόσμοι, οἵ τε ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς καὶ οἱ τῶν οἰκοδομημάτων. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τούτοις τὰς ἁρμονίας ἐπαινοῦμεν καὶ τὸ σώζειν ἕκαστα τὴν γιγνομένην τάξιν πρὸς ἄλληλα, οὕτω καὶ ζῆν εἰς κάλλος τοῦτ’ εἶναι χρὴ δοκεῖν, ὅταν ἁρμονία καὶ τάξις διὰ πάντων κρατῇ. οὗτος ὁ τῶν πόλεων ὡς ἀληθῶς κόσμος οἰκεῖος […].

56

Appropriately, Aristides closes with a plea for unity; the cities of Asia, having united to build a great temple for the emperors,65 _{should translate this spirit to all their dealings with one another.}

Such acts will win the emperors’ favor: “in no way could you please them more than by

cooperating with one another, or more easily attain your desires from them than by behaving as they would most wish.”66 The various forms of harmony to which Aristides recurs throughout his

speech – within cities, between cities, and with the emperors – all find expression in, and are in some sense modelled by, the building they enabled.

Provincial temples of the imperial cult and other “nodes” of the urban networks created by Rome were imagined to manifest a city’s political relations with both its neighbors and the imperial center. At least insofar as it reflected and facilitated this function, the appearance of these spaces was a matter of concern to the imperial government. Yet while the expenditure on such projects was carefully monitored,67 _{there is little evidence that the emperor or his agents}

actively interfered in their actual design. In effect, this meant that the appearance of the spaces most pivotal for the articulation and expression of Roman authority in the provinces was left to civic initiative. Imperial policy, as we have seen, interpreted the physical fabric of its cities as an index of the governance, prosperity, and perhaps the loyalty, of the local elite; so long as a city’s appearance manifested the fulfillment of its basic administrative functions, the emperor and his officials were content. The exceptional nature of cities like Italica and Athens, which enjoyed personal connections with the emperor, proves the rule. The impulse for monumentalizing urban rule had always come from the cities. From the time of their first sustained engagement with the

65 _{The renovated temple had been built with contributions from throughout the province (IGR IV.140).} 66 _{ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἂν μᾶλλον αὐτοῖς χαρίζοισθε ἢ οὕτως δρῶντες, ἢ ὅπως ἂν μᾶλλον παρ’ αὐτῶν ὑμῖν ἃ}

βούλεσθε γίγνοιτο ἢ εἰ παρέχοιτε ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς ὁποίους ἂν ἐκεῖνοι μάλιστα βούλοιντο (Or. 27.45).

67 _{Construction of the Temple of Tiberius and Livia at Smyrna, for example, was overseen by a special legate (Tac.,} Ann. 4.56). For discussion and additional examples, see Winter 1996: 193-201.

57

Roman Republic, Greek cities had sought to “build,” and so define, a relationship with Rome. The process can be considered an analogue to the convention of regarding the emperor as a god: defined as a deity, the emperor was enrolled in a familiar, and controllable, category of ritual and reciprocity. Similarly, by constructing the spaces that symbolized its relationship with Rome (and thus with its neighbors), a city made that relationship visible, and (within certain bounds) controllable. The architectural and spatial language with which these relationships were articulated was not standardized by Rome – though it made extensive use of models and

concepts borrowed from the capital – but by the elites of cities competing with and imitating one another within the framework of the provincial and urban networks created by Rome.

58