Imperial building16 provides the most direct way of exploring how the fabric of
provincial cities served to facilitate communication with Rome. Although a few emperors – most notably Augustus and Hadrian – intervened widely and actively in the fabric of provincial cities, imperial building outside Rome was essentially opportunistic. Liberality was always a basic
15 E.g. Vitr. 1.7, 5.1-3
16 On imperial building in the eastern provinces, see Mitchell 1987; Winter 1996, esp. 67ff; and Pont 2010: 459-88,
42
component of the emperor’s public image, but his generosity was a matter rather of occasion than policy.17 Personal initiative was rare. Usually, the emperor’s largesse had to be solicited by
civic delegation, most often in response to a natural disaster or some other emergency. Even when aid was granted, direct imperial involvement in the particulars of a project tended to be minimal.18 The most common form of assistance was remission or redirection of taxes for a set
period, though grants of raw material and labor are also attested. Whatever the nature of the emperor’s gift, all aspects of planning were carried out locally, with limited official oversight; civic elites tended to be heavily involved in the execution, often adding their own contributions to the imperial funds. Although some emperors favored utilitarian projects, no clear distinction can be drawn between their promotion of infrastructure like roads and aqueducts and their sponsorship of less practical buildings.19 Certain patterns can be discerned in the projects
sponsored by individual emperors, but none can be said to have pursued anything like a coherent “building policy.”
The Theodosian Code is perhaps the clearest guide to the assumptions that governed the emperors’ promotion of civic building. Though considerably more bureaucratic and
interventionist than its Classical counterpart, the Eastern Empire of the fourth century was still comprised, at least legally, of self-governing cities. The urban legislation of the Theodosian
17 Kloft 1970 treats comprehensively the ideal of imperial generosity; cf. Noreña 2011: 82ff. For an equally
thorough discussion of the occasions and products of imperial benefaction in Asia Minor, see Winter 1996: 35-42, 67-138. Horster 2001 provides an extensive catalogue of imperial building inscriptions from the western provinces.
18 On the occasions for imperial largesse, see especially Winter 1996: 94-138; see esp. Millar 1977: 203-72 on the
instrumentality of civic delegations in securing aid. It should be noted that even testimonia seeming to imply a more direct role for imperial patronage usually indicate little real involvement. Although, for example, Trajan is said to have “begun, finished, and dedicated” a pavement for the sacred way between Miletus and Didyma (ILS 4051 =I. Milet 402), he probably never saw the new road (cf. I. Kourion 111). Likewise, his apparently unsolicited repair of some buildings associated with the imperial cult in Aphrodisias (A&R 55) likely consisted of nothing more than timely remission of some duty; compare the same emperor’s activities at the temple of Apollo Hylates in Cyprus (I.
Kourion 108). Hadrian may have been more immediately engaged in building the temple of Zeus at Cyzicus
(Malalas II.279.3, Chron. Pasch. A. 123), but can hardly have been so interested, despite the inscription’s claim, in the aqueduct he ran to Nicaea (IvNikaia 1-2).
43
Code represents, in fact, a sustained imperial effort to restore rapidly-changing cities to their “ancient” (i.e. high imperial) prosperity and appearance. As under the early Empire, a close connection is posited between prosperity and appearance; public spaces and buildings are still supposed to be “useful, ornamental, and advantageous to the city”20 in terms recalling those of
Pliny’s letters. Even the distinctively late antique aspects have roots in older attitudes. For example, the provisions forbidding municipalities from being stripped of their statues and architectural decorations – a common problem in the highly centralized Late Empire, when governors often embellished provincial capitals at the expense of outlying cities – are justified by the fact that “it was not considered right by the ancients that a municipality should lose its
embellishments” (15.1.1).21 The idea that a city’s architectural ornaments were somehow
essential to its status and/or identity clearly had enduring resonance. Similarly, though the role governors are expected to play in restoration of the urban fabric22 reflects both the changing
nature of late antique city centers and the more active role of post-Diocletianic officials, it should be remembered that Pliny had engaged in the same activity,23 and for a similar end. Yet it was
only in the later empire, when new construction so often fell visibly short of the old, that “restoring to their former appearance and to their useful and suitable service the ornaments of cities and their marble embellishments” (15.1.16) could be so valued. Utility was always a concern,24 but so was an ideal of civic beauty still associated with grand public spaces, open
streets, and marble-clad buildings.25 This was the imperial administration’s conception of the
20 CTh. 15.1.43: usui vel ornatibus aut commodis civitatum (from a law referring to private appropriation)
21 Fas si quidem non est acceptum a veteribus decus perdere civitatem; see also 15.1.14, where civic embellishments
are specified as “signorum vel marmorum vel columnarum materiam.” Cf. EJ 365.
22 This duty is often enjoined: 15.1.2-3, 15-21, 29, 31, 37. See Coates-Stephens 2001 on the idea that spolia lent
cities a properly “antique” appearance.
23 Ep. 10.23, 70 24 E.g. 15.1.39
44
proper appearance of a Roman city: a clean, well-managed, monumental place, expressive at once of local prosperity and imperial splendor.
Though inherently exceptional, the few provincial building projects actuated by the emperors themselves can be interpreted as deliberate, even programmatic, statements on the proper appearance of provincial cities.26 Most of these projects were located in cities of
particular dynastic or personal significance for the emperor. Augustus, for example, sponsored construction in both Ilium, the putative ancestral home of the Julian line, and in Athens,
paradigm of the Classical history and aesthetic that he sought to appropriate for Rome.27 In a few
cases, such as Lepcis Magna under Septimius Severus, the emperor’s gifts constituted a whole new quarter of the city. Philip the Arab’s benefactions to the town of his birth, renamed Philippopolis in his honor, seem to have represented a wholesale refoundation.28 Such
comprehensive rebuilding created monumental spaces that can, with some reservations, be understood as manifestations of an imperial “ideal” of the provincial city – and thus as epitomes of the messages emperors wanted provincial public spaces to communicate. The best-attested examples from our period are Antinoopolis and Italica, cities on opposite sides of the Roman Empire that were, respectively, founded and massively enlarged by Hadrian. After briefly summarizing Hadrian’s building projects in each city, we will analyze the monumental presentation of imperial power in both.
26 See Winter 1996: 24-53 on the messages imperial building projects were intended to convey, and ibid. 131-8 on
the immediate occasions of the emperor’s personal involvement.
27 On Augustus’ construction program at Ilion, see Rose 2002: 38ff. Spawforth 2012: 59-86 summarizes the aims of
Augustan building in Athens.
45
Antinoopolis, one of the few Greek cities in Egypt,29 was given all the political
characteristics of a polis. Its citizens – who called themselves “the New Hellenes”30 – were
divided into tribes and demes in the traditional manner, and governed by a council and board of archons. Its laws and calendar were based on those of Naucratis, the oldest Greek settlement in Egypt.31 Although some of the buildings and monuments associated with the cult of Antinous
incorporated Egyptian motifs, most of the civic fabric followed contemporary Greek designs (Fig. 7).32 The orthogonal street grid was centered on three magnificent colonnaded avenues,
whose intersections were marked by tetrapyla. The north-south avenue, more than a mile in length, terminated in a portico fronting the theater; a cross street led to the stadium. Within this monumental framework was the agora, where the bouleuterion and logisterion stood alongside a praetorium and tribunal.33 A large bath complex sprawled along one of the main avenues nearby.
The great temple-tomb complex of Antinous, most prominent of the sanctuaries in the city center, was probably also located in the vicinity. The residential areas around the monumental center were organized by block, and designated with letters of the alphabet.34
Unlike Antinoopolis, the “Nova Urbs” of Italica was an expansion of an existing city (Fig. 8). The “Vetus Urbs,” established as a veteran settlement by Scipio Africanus, seems to
29 The others were Naucratis, Alexandria, and Ptolemais. It should be noted, however, that by our period many of
the Nome capitals had begun to acquire the trappings of Greco-Roman urbanism (summary in Alston 1997: 154-9; more extended treatment in Jones, CERP, Ch. 11).
30 E.g. P. Würz. 9, P. Stasb. 3.130, IGR I.1070. The citizens of Antinoopolis were recruited exclusively from the
Greek populations of neighboring districts.
31 Government and institutions summarized by Zahrnt 1988: 685ff. Cf. Braunert 1962
32 Hadrian’s favorite was worshipped as Antionous-Osiris, as on the famous obelisk, now in Rome, which once
stood before his temple in Antinoopolis. Baldassarre 1988 provides the best overview of the architectural evidence for the city’s streets and buildings.
33 Most of these were presumably located along one of the monumental avenues; a description made before the site’s
spoliation in the early nineteenth century describes the columns and pilasters of public buildings all along the N-S avenue (Jomard 1818, Ch. 15, 28ff; Pl. 53ff). Baldassare 1988: 281-2, surveying the areas within the colonnades, notes that Late Antique construction obscures much of the plan of Hadrian’s city. The evidence of papyri, collected by Calderini 1966: 88-93, provides tantalizing witness for the now-vanished civic buildings.
46
have been an unremarkable Hispano-Roman city with a forum and capitolium.35 Hadrian’s
extension, built on a hill overlooking the older center, was laid out on an orthogonal plan. The main streets were colonnaded, and at least one intersection was marked by a tetrapylon.36 Three
imposing buildings dominated the addition. A huge bath-gymnasium complex, on the scale and model of Trajan’s baths in Rome, filled several blocks; an amphitheater capable of seating 25,000 spectators stood just outside the grid; and atop the highest hill, visible from every part of the city, rose a vast Temple of Trajan. Around the marble bulk of amphitheater, bath, and temple stood a number of lesser monuments – most notably an Odeon – and blocks of upper-class housing, all constructed with methods and materials characteristic of the capital.
Before discussing the representation of imperial power in these two cities, we should briefly review the factors that may account for their similarities and differences. Both were of course imperial showplaces, designed to reflect a special relationship with the ruling house. Although the exact nature of the emperor’s involvement is obscure, it seems likely that he took a special interest in the details of their design and construction. In certain respects – whether because Hadrian really conceived of Greek and Roman cities differently, or simply because he employed craftsmen and architects from different regions – the public architecture of the two cities reflected disparate traditions; where Italica draws on contemporary building in Rome, Antinoopolis looks toward the Greek east, and especially the example of Alexandria. Divergent systems of civic government may also have contributed, though it is unclear to what extent the
35 On Republican and Early Imperial Italica, see Rodriguez-Hidalgo & Keay 1995: 397-404. Hadrian may have
renovated the old civic center – he certainly remodeled the theater (ibid. 411-12) – but the modern village has prevented any extensive investigation.
47
curia of Italica,37 let alone the inchoate boule of Antinoopolis,38 could have influenced or
interpreted the emperor’s largesse. Likewise, though differences in social organization might account for some idiosyncrasies of both sites, no patterns are readily discernable.39 If Italica and
Antinoopolis can be regarded as representative of how Hadrian imagined Greek and Roman cities, it would seem that he drew few categorical distinctions. Although there were certainly a few building types particular to one city or the other,40 Italica and Antinoopolis undeniably
shared many component parts. To mention only the most salient points of comparison, both cities were planned orthogonally, featured grandiose colonnades along the main avenues, and
possessed exceptionally large and lavishly decorated buildings devoted to public entertainment (theater, baths, Odeon, etc.). More significantly, both were centered in some respect on structures associated with the imperial cult.
37 Until Hadrian upgraded it to a colony (evidence listed in Boatwright 2000: 40, n. 19), Italica was a traditional
municipium, governed by duoviri and curia (on civic government in the west, see RE IV, s.v. “Coloniae,” 578ff; RE XVI, s.v. “Municipium,” 610ff; cf. Abbott & Johnson 1926: 56-68). Assuming that the basic strictures of the Flavian municipal law (or some analogous code) were followed in Italica, building projects were approved by the curia, executed under the supervision of the duoviri, and maintained by aediles. The Lex Irnitana (Gonzalez & Crawford 1986) stipulates the role of the aediles (§19), the majority needed in the curia to undertake a building project (§79, cf. §62), and the responsibility of the duoviri to supervise construction (§81). Cf. Liebenam 1900: 134ff, 417-30.
38 At Antinoopolis, building projects approved by the boule were overseen by special committees of councilmen,
and civic maintenance assigned to the astynomos. On the process of approving and managing a building project in Greek cities, see Martin 1956: 48ff and Pont 2010: 351ff. The best evidence for our period on the functions of an astynomos is a lengthy inscription from Pergamon, recently and comprehensively discussed by Saba 2012. In smaller cities, an agoranomos might fulfill these duties in addition to his usual oversight of weights and prices (RE I, s.v. “agoranomoi,” 883-885).
39 At least in the years immediately after the city’s foundation, the ten tribes of Antinoopolis may have been
organized geographically –which (in addition to the precedent of Alexandria) might explain the alphabetical labelling and rigid organization of city blocks. In Italica, where the fiction of voting tribes may have never even been introduced, the nova urbs was characterized by a looser system of streets and lots, partly on account of the local topography and absence of new settlers, but perhaps also in reflection of a more hierarchical social order. The
Lex Irnitana, for example, stipulates a hierarchical seating order in the theater (§81). It should be noted, however,
that in the same period at least some Greek cities enforced similar policies – consider the example of early imperial Ephesus (Kolb 1999). Cf. Small 1987.
40 It is hard to imagine, for example, that the polis Antinoopolis possessed any analogue to Italica’s capitolium.
Aelia Capitolina, founded the year before Antinoopolis, indicated its status as a Roman colony with a capitolium on the main agora (Boatwright 2000: 198-202).
48
While it is unsurprising that the imperial cult would be woven into the urban fabric of two cities so closely associated with Hadrian, the degree to which representations of imperial power operated as an organizing principle in both is remarkable. The Trajaneum at Italica was undoubtedly the most prominent building in the city. Surrounded by an expansive precinct and built of the costliest materials, it appears to have been modelled on the provincial temple at Tarraco – a striking indication of its claims to regional importance. Within the precinct stood a series of over life-sized statues depicting prominent citizens of Italica (with a particular focus, it may be assumed, on ancestors of Trajan and Hadrian) in heroic poses.41 The center of
Antinoopolis, likewise, was dominated by the Temple of Osiris-Antinous.42 Nothing is known of this sanctuary’s design or appearance, but it seems to have made substantial use of Egyptian motifs (an obelisk was discovered on the grounds), and certainly stood in a prominent place along one of the main streets. The associations of this complex with imperial authority were reinforced annually, when the citizens were accustomed to meet the Prefect of Egypt and present their petitions to him in the precinct,43 and still more during the games periodically held in honor
of Antinous, when processions joined the temple with the gymnasium, stadium, and theater.44 It
is tempting to regard the grand colonnaded avenues as a deliberate stage setting for such ceremonies, a grandiose armature enameled with shrines and statues of the emperor’s favorite. One might imagine a similar inspiration for the colonnaded streets around the Trajaneum at Italica.45 The cityscapes of Antinoopolis and Hadrian’s extension of Italica seem, in short, seem
41 For a detailed discussion of the temple and its relation to other monuments, see Boatwright 1997.
42 It should be noted that, though no shrine of the imperial cult has yet been discovered at Antinoopolis, one surely
existed, at least after Hadrian’s death. The emperor’s unique relationship with the city, written even into the names of its tribes (Bell 1940: 140-1), was very likely commemorated apart from the cult of his favorite.
43 POxy XVII, 2131 (third century)
44 On the games, see Decker 1973; cf. Origen’s comments on the cult of Antinous (C. Cels. 3.36).
45 Although the great colonnaded avenues of Syria are sometimes posited as the inspiration for Antinoopolis’
49
to have both been centered on a network of sites for imperial representation, which could, at least on certain occasions, visibly involve the entire city in celebrations of the emperor or his favorite.
Hadrian’s building projects in Antinoopolis and Italica reflected his exceptional relationships with both cities. Both cities were commemorative monuments on a grand scale, designed to enlist citizens and visitors alike in a demonstration of the emperor’s largesse and (in the case of Antinoopolis) piety. In the sense that the appearance of their public spaces manifested the benefits of an intimate relationship with the emperor, however, Antinoopolis and Italica were also exemplary cities, advertisements of the benefits to be gained by close cooperation with Rome. In most cities, gifts from the emperor were the products of hard-won negotiations by local notables, frequently keyed (as we shall see) to the hierarchies of ranks and status that were the most important markers of Roman favor. Despite the unconventional means by which they acquired their special position, the status of Antinoopolis and Italica, embellished with buildings of imperial opulence and endowed with exceptional positions in the hierarchies of tax status and imperial cult, can be understood as the ideal of the civic elites vying for the emperor’s attention and largesse. In the same sense, the appearance of these cities, dominated in every part by symbols and products of the emperor’s power and generosity, can perhaps be regarded as the closest approximation of an imperial ideal of the provincial city.
dromos of Hermes, the processional way in neighboring Hermopolis Magna, were equally influential (on H., see Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 147-50, s.v. “El-Ashmunein”); compare the dromos of Serapis,
the colonnaded main avenue of Oxyrhyncus, which connected two temples (POxy I.43). Leon 1992: 89-91 notes that there are few western parallels for Italica’s colonnaded streets; cf. Bejor 1999: 87-9. Revell 2009: 137-42 discusses the evidence for ritual movement in Italica and remarks (84-7) the prevalence of imperial statues in the cityscape.
50