By bolstering the political dominance of civic elites, promoting the practice of euergetism, and creating new structures for the advancement of their goals and ambitions, Roman provincial policy encouraged local notables to make their growing prominence visible in civic space. A direct consequence was the proliferation of honorific statues, increasingly
arranged in symbolically pregnant ensembles with images of the emperors and local heroes. Framed and accentuated by the newly formalized cityscapes, these sculptures made visible the bases of the local elite’s authority, and significantly altered the experience of civic space.
Honorific statues – portraits voted and paid for by the council and assembly in recognition of signal service to the city – had been a prominent feature of agoras, temple precincts, and a few other civic spaces since the late Classical period, when eminent citizens
71
began to be so commemorated in Athens and a few other poleis.35 The practice expanded vastly
in the course of the Hellenistic period, when honorific statues, reflecting the general ascendency of the elite citizens they depicted, became ubiquitous fixtures of Greek civic life.36 As the
numbers of statues grew, they increasingly came, through a combination of gradual accumulation and deliberate planning, to be presented in clusters and series that accorded new meaning to individual sculptures.37 This trend continued under the Empire, when honorific statues were
erected in unprecedented numbers.38 Driven in part by the simple need to accommodate the spate
of sculpture, new venues of display were developed.39 Though inspired by certain elements of
Hellenistic architecture, the aedicular facades that graced nymphaea, the “marmorsäle” of gymnasia, and the scaenae frontes of theaters and bouleuteria were unprecedented in scale and effect.40 Likewise, the colonnades constructed along the main thoroughfares of many eastern
cities in the imperial era, though direct descendants of the Hellenistic porticated agora,
stimulated the creation of newly extensive and regular sculptural displays.41 The creation of such
architectural settings reflected a growing interest in “programmatic” ensembles that can be directly connected with imperial policy. By strengthening the position of civic elites and
encouraging regional competition, Roman rule motivated the development of sculptural displays
35 Hölscher 1998
36 Ma 2013: 132-5 cautions against connecting the proliferation of honorific statues directly with the ascendancy of
elite citizens, pointing to the fact that such statues were still essentially honors granted by the city. At the risk of crude oversimplification, however, the trends were clearly parallel.
37 See Ma 2013: 118-30 on clusters and series of honorific statues.
38 A particularly interesting development was the growing popularity of the practice of erecting multiple statues for
individual benefactors (Pekáry 1995: 215-16).
39 Oliver 2007, Krumeich & Witschel 2009, Griesbach 2014, and Sielhorst 2014 survey the spatial contexts of
Hellenistic statues.
40 On the origins and characteristics of columnar screens, see Von Hesberg 1981-2, Berns 2002, and Klar 2006; cf. FiE XII.2: 87-100.
41 Trifiló 2008 discusses the new degree of hierarchization characteristic of the display of imperial honorific statues.
Ancient observers remarked the new prominence of statues in imperial cityscapes: e.g. Jul. Asc., 54; Dio Chrys., Or. 79.1; [Ap. Ty.], Ep. 32.
72
that not only articulated the authority of local notables more visibly than ever before, but also identified this authority with a newly coherent conception of civic identity.
On the most basic level, a statue voted by council and assembly identified its honorand as a benefactor of his city. Both the appearance of the statue – men were represented in the
traditional himation and tunic of the politically-engaged citizen – and the inscription on its base stressed adherence to, and promotion of, the traditional “communitarian” ideal of the polis.42 At the same time, of course, the statue acknowledged the benefactor’s exceptional status in the community, and elevated him above the ranks of his fellow citizens. The dynamics of euergetism in the imperial polis have been well-studied, and need no reiteration here; for our purposes it suffices to observe that, while public honors remained the most important vehicle of elite
prestige, the manner in which honorific statues were displayed under the Empire can be read as a visible assertion of the corporate dominance of the civic elite. Although statues continued to be coveted as individual honors, the increasingly regular architectural settings in which they were placed could accord them the effect of collective statements. In part, this reflected the fact that imperial notables collaborated with increasing frequency on large projects like baths, theaters, and colonnaded streets, which might involve a considerable portion of the civic elite.43 The city
council, responsible both for coordinating these projects and for voting honors to the
benefactors,44 seems sometimes to have made provision for honoring the participants in a manner
indicative of their cooperation; probable examples include the statues arrayed along the main hall
42 See Smith 1998: 63-70 and Smith 2006: 35-9 on the significance of the appearance of imperial honorific statues.
Gregory 1994 outlines the political implications of sculptural conventions; Eck 1999, the ethos that motivated such commemorative strategies. See Meyer-Zwiffelhofer 2003 for a good summary of “citizen values” in the imperial polis.
43 Representative examples include a major bath complex in Smyrna (IvSmyrna 697=IGR IV.1431) and the theaters
of Ephesus (IvE 2033ff) and Nicaea (Plin., Ep. 10.39).
73
of the civil basilica at Aphrodisias and the colonnaded street at Perge.45 Even where statues
accumulated gradually, as among the colonnades of many city streets, the regularity of their placement indicates a new concern for cumulative visual effect.46 The “galleries” of honorific
statues erected along virtually every important street and plaza in many imperial Greek cities presented communities of benefactors past and present, unified by their patriotism – and, of course, by their elite status. A particularly striking indication of this systemization of displaying elite status is the creation of ensembles of old honorific statues relocated from other parts of the city.47 In short, the prominence, individual and collective, of civic elites was more visible than
ever before in poleis under the Empire. In keeping with the traditions of euergetism, however, this prominence was phrased in terms of commitment to the city and its traditions.48
Although Rome had expanded the potential scope of elite ambitions, the polis remained the primary vehicle of their prestige. Most benefactors, of course, had no designs on political advancement beyond their native place, and sought only to become eminent on the local stage; but even those, like Opramoas, who had ambitions on a regional scale began by embellishing their own cities. An interesting consequence of the need to advertise patriotism, particularly pronounced from the early second century onward, was the development of “programmatic” sculptural displays that associated benefactors with civic tradition.49 Like the general
45 The niches for statuary built into the walls of the long hall of the Basilica at Aphrodisias (Stinson 2008: 101)
likely framed statues of the building’s benefactors. Although none of the bases were found in situ, at least one of the many benefactors who contributed to the colonnaded street at Perge was commemorated with a statues along the colonnades (IvPerge 117-18, 122, 125).
46 An excellent example is Termessus, where the lines of high imperial statue bases along the main colonnaded street
remain in situ (Van Nijf 2011: 231-2). See Ma 2013: 70ff for a discussion of the factors involved in a city’s choice of site for an honorific statue.
47 E.g., the statues in the logeion of the theater at Aphrodisias (Smith 2006: 54-6) and those along the diazoma of the
theater at Cibyra (IvKibyra 40, 42 a-e, 44 a-e). On epigraphically attested restorations of statues, see Pekáry and Drexhage 1992.
48 See Ch. 7.
74
proliferation of honorific statues, these can be understood as indirect consequences of imperial policy. Civic history was potentially a crucial weapon in the perpetual battle for titles, rank, and status within the structures created by Rome.50 Through monuments projecting a vision of civic
history connected with the prestigious cultural myths or episodes from the Classical past that dominated imperial definitions of Greek identity, local elites might not only associate themselves with the very bases of civic tradition, but also to present that tradition (and thus their association with it) as an argument for regional, and even imperial, significance.51 A complementary means
for benefactors to connect themselves and their patronage with the greater Greek tradition was the erection of copies of famous Classical sculptures, usually as components of larger
ensembles.52 Like the new emphasis given to certain elements of local history, the installation of
these copies at prominent points in the city center was partly inspired by the circumstances of Roman rule – in this case, the significance accorded to the Classical Greek tradition by elite Romans, of which Hadrian’s Panhellenion was only the most prominent manifestation.53
The growing systemization of honorific statues and the evolution of sculptural ensembles stressing a city’s local traditions and Greek culture represented new departures, or at least new emphases, in the decoration of public space. The most significant contemporary development in the representation of authority, however, was the introduction and proliferation of the imperial image. By the mid-imperial period, statues of the emperors and their families were features of
50 E.g., Tac., Ann. 4.55
51 Ando 2010 discusses the construction of local identities in an imperial context. In the cities of Roman Asia Minor,
foundation myths were commemorated with particular frequency. On this phenomenon, see Lindner 1994 and Heller 2006b; discussions of specific examples include Rathmayr 2010 (Ephesus) and Yildirim 2008 (Aphrodisias).
52 On the general phenomenon of copying in the ancient world, see Grüner 2014. Vermeule 1977: 83-98 discusses
the placement of copies in imperial Greek cities. On the public display of copies in Rome and the western provinces, see especially Zanker 1979, Boschung 1989, and Fuchs 1987: 185-90.
53 Spawforth 2012 discusses the profound influence of Augustan taste on contemporary Greece; cf. Shear 2007 on
the Roman taste for Classical honorific sculpture. A representative example from Asia Minor is the square fronting the bouleuterion in Miletus (see Ch. 10), where both copies of Classical masterpieces and a whole gallery of figures associated with local myth and history were on display.
75
virtually every public space in most Greek cities, arranged in collocations of varying deliberateness and significance with images of benefactors and figures from civic myth and history.54 To a certain point, it is tempting to dismiss the practice of incorporating statues of the
emperor into civic buildings as a convention, analogous to the habit of dedicating projects to the emperor. That the convention existed at all, however, is itself remarkable, and can only be explained as a reflection of that fact that, for centuries, cities and their elite benefactors regarded the imperial image as a significant component of the statements that they wanted to make about themselves and their projects. Textual and archaeological evidence illuminates the enduring nature of the imperial image’s political significance. Most obviously, statues of the emperors manifested individual and communal loyalty to Rome, a message that, for all its familiarity, retained value in dealings with the imperial administration.55 They could, accordingly, play a
significant role in a community’s advertisement of its relationship with Rome, particularly where an emperor had granted some special favor.56 In the sculptural ensembles so characteristic of
imperial poleis, where statues of the emperor were frequently juxtaposed with personifications of a city or representations of its founders and patron gods, imperial images might effectively associate the local past with Roman patronage –a claim, as we have seen, with potentially considerable political purport.57 Perhaps the single most important factor guiding the placement
54 Niemeyer 1968 and Pekáry 1985 remain fundamental on the placement and sociopolitical significance of statues
of the emperor; cf. Revell 2009: 82-9. Von den Hoff 2011 surveys the communicatory functions of imperial images.
55 Ando 2000: 228 -53 discusses the functions of the imperial image in generating provincial loyalty. Emperors
consistently expressed concern for the visibility and prominence of their statues in the provinces (e.g. ILS 8792; P.
Lond. 1912; Arr., Peripl. M. Eux. 1.3-4).
56 The directness of the link with Rome represented by imperial statues was perhaps clearest during episodes of damnatio memoriae (e.g. Pekáry 1985: 134-42, Benoist & Daguet-Gagey 2008). At Ephesus, for example, dozens of
statues connected with Domitian’s grant of a neokorate temple had to be recut after his damnatio (Friesen 1993).
57 Famous examples include the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias (Smith 2013) and the Parthian Monument at Ephesus
(Oberleitner 2009). Statues of emperors were almost invariably featured in the most prominent part of the scaenae frons of a city’s theater (Niemeyer 1968: 33-4; cf. Fuchs 1987: 166-84), and very frequently in nymphaea (e.g. Rathmayr 2014).
76
of imperial statues, however, was the assumption that they manifested in some way the power of the emperor himself, and thus had a validating effect on rituals and political acts.58 The
polyvalence of the imperial image reflected its very centrality to the thought world of Greek elites: an instantiation of the power of a distant sovereign, it served as a symbol and source of prestige flexible enough to be adduced in support of any sociopolitical structure.59 In short, like
the galleries of benefactors and ensembles of figures from local myth and history that stood beside them, statues of the emperor made the sources of elite authority more visible than ever before in the cityscapes of the Roman east.60
It will be useful to conclude this portion of our discussion with a brief description of the sculptural ensembles erected along the main street of the Pamphylian city of Perge in the early second century.61 Toward the beginning of Hadrian’s reign, the eminent benefactress Plancia
Magna sponsored a massive rebuilding of the south city gate, a Hellenistic structure at the south end of the main street (Fig. 11).62 First, sometime between 120-22 CE, she funded the
construction of a monumental triple arch just inside the old gate. The most notable components of its decoration were the statues of its arcade, where Hadrian, Trajan, Nerva, Augustus, and a coterie of imperial women stood alongside Artemis Pergaia and the Tyche of Perge. Each figure
58 This assumption is discussed in detail in Ch. 12. Edelmann 2008 discusses how the placement of imperial statues
in theaters during civic rituals served to evoke the presence of the emperor. By the same logic, statues of the emperor were suitable for sanctioning social or political relationships. In Athens, for example, the statues of Hadrian installed by dozens of cities in the precinct of Zeus (Paus. 1.18.6; cf. IG II² 3289ff) manifested the emperor’s confirmation of their relationship with the “mother city” of Greek culture. The 26 statues of Hadrian erected by the 13 tribes of Athens in the Theater of Dionysus (See Pekáry 1985: 48, n. 71), likewise, symbolized the emperor’s oversight of the city’s organization.
59 Statues of the emperors evoked a figure whose omnicompetent charisma and prestige elided the ambiguities
inherent in a city’s actual relationship with Rome (Hopkins 1978: 197-242; cf. Geertz 1983).
60 In this respect, imperial statues were analogous to imperial decrees, which were frequently displayed in an
“emblematic” fashion designed the bolster the prestige of local notables (e.g. Haensch 2009, Kokkinia 2009).
61 For a survey of these sculptures and their intent, see Bravi 2011.
62 IvPerge 86-7, comprehensively discussed by Șahin 1999: 107-26. See also Boatwright 1991, ead. 1993, and
77
was identified in both Greek and Latin.63 Sometime in the years immediately following her
construction of the new arch, Plancia undertook to remodel the space which fronted it. Here, in the oval court between the Hellenistic city gate and new arch, Plancia constructed a grandiose monument to the founders of Perge.64 Expanding a pre-existing system of decoration, she caused
no less than twenty-eight statue niches to be arranged in two registers along the semicircular inner face of city gate. Gods occupied the upper rank; but the lower was reserved for men of Perge, past and present. Seven of these were the city’s legendary founders, in a few cases so obscure as to require a brief explanatory tag after their names.65 The other seven were
contemporary “founders,” citizens whose had remade the city with their benefactions. The only two of these bases to survive are dedicated to M. and C. Plancius Varus, Plancia’s father and brother; a statue of Plancia herself likely stood beside them.66
Plancia’s conception of civic identity was not exceptional. At the other end of the main avenue, within a few years of the completion of the gate complex, an unknown benefactor constructed the so-called North Nymphaeum, a two-story structure at the base of the acropolis decorated with statues of Hadrian, Artemis, Zeus, the river god Cestrus, and a founding hero of Perge (Fig. 12).67 The similarity of this sculptural program was hardly coincidental. Even if the
nymphaeum and gate were not constructed as part of a concerted program,68 their benefactors
were obviously motivated by a desire to express a basically similar conception of Perge’s
63 IvPerge 89-99
64 Although founder’s monuments are widely attested in the Greek world, there is no evidence that the figures here
assembled were so honored before the imperial period. Șahin 1999: 144-5 suggests a date shortly after Hadrian’s institution of the Panhellenion in 124/5 for the monument, regarding that organization’s emphasis on Greek origins as Plancia’s primary motivation for constructing it.
65 The bases on which the statues of the gods stood have been lost. The legendary founders (labelled in Greek only)
are all local heroes connected in some way with the Ionian migration (IvPerge 101-7). Three of the seven – (Labos (102), Machaon (104), and Rhixos (107) – are given explanatory tags.
66 IvPerge 108-9. Șahin 1999: 143 suggests that Plancia’s own statue filled the center niche. 67 See Chi 2002: 164-77 on these attributions.
78
(fictive) Hellenic heritage, articulated with reference to a newly-discovered founding hero, the patron goddess Artemis Pergaea, and the sanctioning figure of Hadrian. This complex of associations between civic identity, the figure of the emperor, and the cultural narratives that denoted “Greekness” is indicative of the expanded goals and worldview of Greek civic elites under the Principate. Claiming prominence within a city now entailed defining that city’s place in the Roman Empire.
The main avenue of Perge, lined with statue-studded colonnades, bisected by an
ornamental water channel, and bounded on both ends by grand sculptural ensembles advertising the city’s place in the Greek world and Roman Empire, neatly illustrates the extent to which the policies and circumstances of Roman rule, by reorienting the goals of local notables, transformed the cityscapes of the eastern provinces. By providing elites with new prominence in their
communities and a new visual language, centered on the imperial image, for articulating this prominence, Rome profoundly, if indirectly, altered the role played by civic space in the
constitution of authority. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the new civic spaces is the sheer visibility of power relations: statues of the ruling class lined every public space, dominated by ubiquitous images of the emperors and sculptural ensembles describing the city’s place in the Greek tradition. Though a product, as we have seen, of the new types and degree of elite
competition predicated by imperial policy, the tangible nature of power in imperial cityscapes is best understood as a reflection of the unprecedented need for communication – with
representatives of Roman authority, between cities, and among members of civic elites – in the new world order.
79