Athletes, artists and citizens in the imperial Greek city 1
In the last decades of the second century AD, the officials of the sacred athletic synod in Rome set up a monument for one of their leading members: the former pankratiast Marcus Aurelius Demostratos Damas, archiereus (high priest) and xystarches (official) of the association, and director of the imperial baths in Rome. He had settled in Rome after a long and impressive career. As pankratiast and boxer he had been a periodoneikes (which meant that he had won twice the agonistic circuit of Olympia, Nemea, Isthmia and Delphi). He was never defeated (aleiptos) and he had even achieved the amazing feat of triumphing in two different disciplines at the same games (paradoxos).2 Damas was a near-global celebrity: apart from Rome, inscriptions with largely overlapping details of his impressive career were found in Sardeis, Ephesos and Delphi.3 The same monuments also state that he was a citizen of Sardeis, Alexandria, Antinoopolis, Athens, Ephesos, Smyrna, Pergamon, Nikomedia, Miletos and Sparta, and it is likely that monuments for him were set up in all these cities. Not only his many athletic achievements, but also his multiple civic status must have been shared knowledge throughout the empire. The same applies to hundreds of successful athletes and performers who proudly recorded the citizenship titles that they had obtained in the Greek cities of the Roman empire, alongside their agonistic achievements. Among them we find champions in all major disciplines: runners4, pentathletes5, as well as wrestlers and other heavy athletes6. Beside athletes we also find other performers, such as poets, actors, and musicians7. Even gladiators
Due to unforeseen circumstances this paper could not be read at the Tours conference. I am grateful to the editors for their offer to include my paper in the publication. I thank Andrew Farrington, Christina Kokkinia, Harry Pleket, and Sofia Voutsaki for their help, and Anna Heller for discussing the results of the conference with me. 2 IG 14.1105 = IGUR I 243. 3 For a reconstruction of his career and the identification of further monuments see the excellent article by Strasser: Strasser 2003. 4 E.g. SEG 53, 1437. 5 E.g. TAM 5.2, 1006. 6 E.g. TAM 5.2, 1368; TAM 2, 944; TAM 2, 944. 7 E.g. SEG 54, 517; FD 3.1, 542; FD 3.1, 551.
and fair-ground performers, including a strong man from Corinth, were the recipient of multiple grants of citizenship. 8 Apparently civic status was apparently well worth advertising for the top athletes and star performers of the Greek world under Rome. Scholars of ancient agonistic life have used these inscriptions with considerable success to reconstruct the progress of individual agonistic careers,9 but they have generally not addressed the question of what these citizens titles represented in a civic context. On the other hand historians with an interest in the political dimensions of citizenship, have noted that athletes featured prominently as recipients of citizenship grants, but they have not addressed the question of why athletes and performers were so successful in obtaining citizenship titles.10 It is mostly assumed, or implied, that these numerous grants of citizenship were empty titles devoid of any real political significance, merely aiming to flatter wandering athletes and performers from all over the oikoumene.11 Historians may have considered these titles as meaningless trifles, but can we assume that they would have been meaningless to the Greeks of the imperial age as well? Greek cities found it apparently important enough to offer citizenship, and athletes were keen enough to commemorate these grants of citizenship on their own monuments. Men like Damas clearly expected their audiences to be impressed by their achievements, as by the citizenships they had acquired. There is sufficient reason for us to take their claims seriously. In this paper shall argue that local citizenship still mattered, and continued to have political significance. I shall argue that local citizenship was still a privilege, strictly controlled by law and procedures, and meted out only to selected recipients by grateful cities. Athletes and performers found in these citizenship grants a source of status and distinction – and cities gratefully offered citizenship to athletes and artists, whom they thus raised to the level of civic benefactors.
E.g. FD 3.1, 216.; IGR 3, 216. E.g. Strasser 2004a; Strasser 2004b; Strasser 2003. 10 Stephan 2002, 168 ff. 11 Gouw 2009.
‘Decline of the Greek city’ and the’ agonistic explosion’
The high profile of travelling athletes with citizenship in various poleis of the Roman oikoumene, should be seen against the background of two historiographical debates: the discussion on the survival of the Greek city under Rome, and the growing appreciation for the cultural and political importance of Greek athletics under Roman rule. It is tempting to see the frequency with which citizenship was offered to travelling athletes and performers as a symptom of the decline and fall of the old Greek polis – which many believe to have been unavoidable after Chaeronea. 12 Previous scholarship on the political history of the Greek polis after the classical age has tended to dismiss this political activity as irrelevant – dismissing it as mere show or empty ritual. However, historians are now gradually abandoning long-held views about the supposed decline of the Greek city, and there is a revival of interest in the political history of the later Greek city. In the wake of Louis Robert and Philippe Gauthier, scholars have accepted that the Hellenistic polis was vibrant at least until the advent of Rome.13 Recent scholarship now seems to argue for greater continuity of political forms and institutions up to the later Hellenistic period, 14or even into the empire itself. 15 It is well know, that even at the end of the third century AD, when polis status was in the gift of the emperor, political decisions were still taken locally by the boule, and the demos in an assembly.16 Political institutions, and the formulae of political decision taking, would have been recognizable to Greeks of an earlier age. Indeed, Contemporary observers (Plutarch included) took local politics very seriously. The epigraphic record shows that the historical actors invested widely (in terms of time money and effort), patriotism was thriving, and generally we have every reason to assume that local citizenship remained a major source of personal identity.17 However, it cannot be denied that for all its institutional continuity, and for all the persistence of traditional forms and formulae, there was a marked difference in atmosphere. Being a citizen, did not exactly carry the same
For an overview of the historiography and recent trends see van Nijf and Alston 2010. E.g. Gauthier 1984,Gauthier 1993, and Fröhlich and Müller 2005. 14 Grieb 2008, Carlsson 2010. 15 Ma 2000, Zuiderhoek 2008, Heller 2009. 16 As in Pisidian Tymandos which obtained polis status from Diocletian: ILS 6090. 17 Meyer-Zwiffelhofer 2003.
bundle of expectations and connotations it had done in classical Athens, but the fact that expectations had changed does not in itself imply a devaluation of citizenship. The political experiences of the Greeks of the imperial age should therefore be taken seriously – and that includes of course the meaning of local citizenship offered to outsiders. The challenge then is to make sense of the experiences of men like Damas and his colleagues, and of their multiple citizenship. What was the meaning of such grants of citizenship ? What would these have meant to athletes, who were perpetually traversing the oikoumene, and what to the cities that offered local citizenship to outsiders, who were not very likely to become permanent residents and take up the bundle of duties and obligations that citizenship entailed? The rise in the number of athletes with multiple citizenship should of course also be seen against the background of the rich agonistic life under Roman rule. Athletic festivals are not always taken seriously by ancient historians, who have tended to privilege political and institutional history and to focus their attention on religion and high culture.18 But recent studies have established the centrality of agonistic life, athletic training and competition for Greek culture under Rome. 19 Athletic, dramatic and musical contests had always been a central preoccupation of Greek civic life, and Greek identity since the dawn of time. Greek culture was particularly agonistic and its greatest manifestation were undoubtedly the Panhellenic games. These been celebrated in Olympia, Delphi, Isthmia and Nemea since the Archaic period, and were still flourishing under the emperors, attracting competitors from all over the oikoumene. Moreover, the number of Panhellenic games even rose (with the active support of Rome). Among the additions we find games in Greece, such as the Aktia, but also the Capitolia in Rome, and other, less spectacular or less famous games also aimed to have a Panhellenic status.20 However, the Principate was also the heyday of local (civic) contests. All Greek cities had always organized contests and competitions for their own citizens, but most
Louis Robert insisted that Greek athletics was importance for an understanding of the Greek culture under Rome, but his efforts did not lead to a systematic treatise. One of the first to recognise the importance of athletics for social history was Harry Pleket, e.g: Pleket 1974 and Pleket 1975, as well as his popularising study written with Moses Finley: Finley and Pleket 1976. 19 Koenig 2005; Newby 2005. 20 Caldelli 1993; Ferrary 1996.
contests were open to athletes from other Greek cities as well. After the classical age Greek athleticism had not exactly died. Especially in the Roman era attestations of local games and contests rose dramatically, allowing Louis Robert to speak of an ‘agonistic explosion’.21 I have argued elsewhere that this agonistic culture should be taken seriously as a core ingredient of Greek political and cultural life under Roman rule.22 Athletics offered the cultured elite of the imperial Greek city an opportunity to stake out a claim to Greek identity and social superiority under the protective aegis of Rome. Local festivals were major civic events: they were officially organized by the cities, whose entire political apparatus was involved in the preparation and organization of the events: they funded the athletes, sent out and subsidized the athletes, and appointed the festival presidents, and the panegyriarchs who were held responsible for the festival markets and the city’s food supply at such peak periods.23 The games also were the object of considerable local pride, as is evident not only from the monumental inscriptions but also from the proud legends that we find on Greek provincial coinage commemorating local games.24 The games were also the object of intense intercity rivalry.25 Cities vied with each other to have bigger games, larger prizes and better athletes, and they sent envoys to Rome in order to obtain more prestigious titles and privileges, and they negotiated with the associations of performers to secure the best competitors.26 The citizenship grants to the top athletes and the star performers must be seen against the background of this agonistic explosion.
The representation of victory
It should be noted that the popularity of multiple citizenship among athletes is to a large extent the product of the changing patterns of epigraphic self-representation of the athletes themselves. As we shall see below, the grant of citizenship to foreign athletes was in itself not a new phenomenon.27 What was new, however is that the
Robert 1982. van Nijf 2001; van Nijf 2002; van Nijf 2003, and van Nijf 2006. 23 Wörrle 1988 and Mitchell 1990. For a discussion of the foodsupply at the festival markets: Garnsey and van Nijf 1998 and de Ligt and de Neeve 1988. 24 Harl 1987. 25 Heller 2006. 26 Mitchell 1990, for the associations see: van Nijf 2006. 27 Forbes 1952, Robert 1967.
numbers of attested cases rise, as citizenship became a stock ingredient of the changing epigraphic self representation of victorious athletes and performers.28 Most of the information we have on the multiple citizenship of comes from the honorific monuments that were set up for or by athletes and performers. Large numbers of athletes were commemorated at the great festival sites, as in Olympia, where Pausanias could conjure up a millennium of continuous Greek athletic history just by describing the statues he saw in the Altis.29 In the late Hellenistic and Imperial period the monumental commemoration of agonistic success seems to shift to a large extent the cities, where we find the streets and squares increasingly lined with monuments for victors.30 Such monuments ranged from formal decrees by cities or by the associations of athletes and performers. The majority of the texts, however, is constituted by the martyria and dedications that were set up by, or in honour of, victorious athletes on festival sites and along the streets of the Greek cities, or in Rome itself. Modern scholars may find these monuments tedious and banal, especially as they were getting more numerous, and more elaborate as time went by.31 They contribute to a picture of top-athletes of the imperial period as excessive figures: overtrained and undercultured- and as vulgar over-achievers always on the road to acquire more prizes and individual status.32 Our prejudices have ancient roots, however. In his ‘Dialogues with the dead’, the satirist Lucians presents the type in an amusing sketch. Here, Hermes has accompanied a number of dead to the Styx, and asks the Charon to take them to the other side. The ferryman, fearing that his boat is too small to take them all, makes them strip to the bare essentials. The little party includes a number of stock figures of Greek culture: a philosopher, a sophist, a
Brunet 1998. I am very grateful to Stephen Brunet for sending me a copy of his unpublished dissertation. 29 Herrmann 1988; cf. van Nijf 2004. 30 van Nijf 2000 and van Nijf 2010. On the changing habits in commemorating Olympic victories: Farrington 1997. 31 Brunet 1998 on Moretti 1953, see also Young 1996a. 32 Early studies of ancient Greek athleticism have elaborated on this representation form the perspective of the debate about amateurism in modern sport: Gardiner 1930, Harris 1964. But see: Pleket 2001, Pleket 2004 and Young 1996b, and Kyle 1990.
tyrant, a general, a wealthy young boy of the gymnasion class, and also an athlete: Damasias. 33
“-Now you may, get in. You the fat and fleshy one, who are you? -Damasias the athlete. -Yes you look like him. I know you, having often seen you in the ring. -Yes, Hermes; but let me in; I am stripped to the skin (gymnos) -No you’re not, my dear fellow, not while you have all that flesh on you. Well take it off, for you’ll sink the boat, if only put one foot aboard. Off too with those wreaths and proclamations (stephanous and kerygmata).”
Lucian wrote satire, so the description must have been recognizable to his audience, who could observe the type during their festivals, or be reminded of them by a myriad honorific monuments. Athletes were getting more pompous, and their monuments were getting longer and more detailed, as more importance was attached to each individual achievement and distinction. 34 Victories were listed with great care, and one by one, when they were obtained in the prestigious stephanitic festivals. There is a marked tendency to rank these victories. They could be listed in the order in which they were obtained, but other texts seem to try to present them in a hierarchical order, which reflected a status hierarchy of the festivals themselves, or the order of a particular athletic circuit.35 Victories obtained in prestigious crown games, or in important cities, were listed individually, but those that were obtained in lesser prize games in small cities could be lumped together.36 Their power to impress relied on the sheer number of victories.
Lucian Dialogi mortuorum 20.5. -Ἔμβαινε ἤδη. σὺ δὲ ὁ παχύς, ὁ πολύσαρκος.τίς ὢν τυγχάνεις; -Δαμασίας ὁ ἀθλητής. -Ναί, ἔοικας· οἶδα γάρ σε πολλάκις ἐν ταῖς παλαίστραις ἰδών. -Ναί, ὦ Ἑρμῆ· ἀλλὰ παράδεξαί με γυμνὸν ὄντα. -Οὐ γυμνόν, ὦ βέλτιστε, τοσαύτας σάρκας περιβεβλημένον· ὥστε ἀπόδυθι αὐτάς, ἐπεὶ καταδύσεις τὸ σκάφος τὸν ἕτερον πόδα ὑπερθεὶς μόνον· ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς στεφάνους τούτους ἀπόρριψον καὶ τὰ κηρύγματα. (translation LCL). 34 The crowns were often represented on the monuments as well with a brief indication of the games where they were obtained. Cf. Rumscheid 2000, 79-89. For a good example see the inscription for the pythaules Lucius Cornelius Korinthos in the Isthmia museum: Michaud 1970, cf BE (1971), 308 and SEG 29:340. 35 For an attempt to reconstruct an overall ranking: Gouw 2009 who is endebted to Brunet 1998. 36 E.g. FD 3.1, 89; IAnazarbos 25; IEphesos2070-2071; SEG 52, 1193bis; ISinope 105.
In one way or another the monuments all seem to reflect an increasingly hierarchical atmosphere, one in which individual victories were systematically counted and compared against each other, and ultimately ranked - even though it would seem very hard to establish one universal athletic hierarchy. One significant aspect of this hierarchization of athletic honour is the tendency to commemorate particular successes, or ‘records.’ It is often thought that ancient athletes did not care for ‘records’, which are seen as a defining aspect of ‘modern’ sport as an autonomous sector in society.37 But recent studies have nuanced this view.38 From early on in Greek history there was a shared awareness of the biggest moments in Greek sports, and a tendency to measure individual achievements against those of competitors in the present and past. There was an established honorific terminology, centering on expressions like protos, heis and monos denoting ‘being first’ or ‘uniqueness’ with a pedigree going back to the days of Pindar – and even earlier.39 Such distinctions are found in epinician poetry, epigrams and honorific inscriptions. A good example is the long inscription that was set up for the athlete Theagenes, who had celebrated his successes in the fifth century BC. The inscription was set up in the fourth century, specifying his victories in the great crown games, and merely stating that he had obtained more than 3,000 victories during his career.40 This document may be unique for the fourth century, but such listings got more frequent as time went by. In the Hellenistic period and especially under the emperors the enumeration of victories get more detailed and specific.41 Athletes claimed to be the first or the only one from their city or region to have won a particular title. There was also a growing tendency to apply special titles to victors who had won a set of victories in a particular geographical or chronological series. Olympic victors (Olympioneikai) had always been prestigious, and as time went by they were joined by Pythioneikai, Nemeoneikai and later by other titles such as
Carter and Krüger 1990, Guttmann 1978. Young 1996a; Brunet 1998; Gouw 2009. 39 Tod 1949. 40 SIG (3), 36a = IAG 21. 41 Brunet 1998; Gouw 2009.
Aktioneikai, or Halioneikai and so on. 42 When cities started to organize their own Olympic games, offering many more opportunities to win the title of Olympioneikes, it became attractive to specify that you had won your title at the original games in Elis (Pisa).43 Other refinements were also introduced: in the second century it became common to apply the term periodos to the circuit of Olympia, Isthmia Nemea, and Delphi. From the first century BC we find that victors of the entire periodos described as periodoneikes (circuit victor) and at the same time the number of circuits was also enlarged.44 The terminology became highly differentiated, as some titles refer to the category of contest: hieroneikes (the victor in a crown game), others to the way in which a victory was obtained: aleiptos (unvanquished), and paradoxos/paradoxoneikes (two victories in different disciplines at the same event). Some titles clearly aim to lift the bearer above all other athletes: (pleistoneikes)45, or underline the close link of athletic victory with Greek identity under Rome: Aristos Hellenon.46 The existence of an ever increasing set of very specialist titles, and the tendency of the authors of the monuments to compare the individual victories, show that athletes and their audiences must have been able to keep track of their own achievements as well of those of the Olympic champions and other top-athletes, stretching back for generations.47 An athlete could claim to be the first after Theagenes 48– but even bolder claims became popular, when athletes started to compare themselves to Herakles.49 It is undeniable that this multiplication of honour show signs of title-inflation, or a trivialization of athletic honour, but it is striking that such minute rankings were deemed important at all. There is sufficient
On Olympionikai: Farrington 1997, who deals with Isthmioneikai in a forthcoming article. I am grateful to Andrew Farrington for showing me this article in advance of publication. For the Pythia see e.g. Robert 1938. 43 E.g. IPerge, 314; IEphesos, 1133, 1609, 1615. 44 Gouw 2008. 45 Title inflation reached new heights when it was combined with the praise of Roman emperors. After his unparalleled series on victories obtained in Greece, Nero was hailed as pantoneikes – the victor of everything, but he was so to speak hors concours: Cassius Dio 63.10. For a reassessment of the emperor’s activities in Greece: Alcock 1994. 46 van Nijf 2005. 47 Brunet 1998; Gouw 2009. 48 Pausanias 6.15.3-5. 49 In the second c. BC a bold athlete claimed to be ‘the first after Herakles’ to have won: Pausanias lists the athletes: 5.21.10. This distinction became trivialised when in the first c. BC-1AD athletes started to described themselves as the third, fourth, etc in the same series: Brunet 1998, Gouw 2009.
evidence that victories were systematically recorded and shared throughout the Greek world. Authors like Pausanias, and Philostratus show that there records available at Olympia itself for consultation, and the names of the Olympioneikai circulated widely, giving rise to a distinct literary genre.50 To modern observers, this may not seem to differ very much from the ability of modern schoolboys or TV commentators to recite all the cup winners, and the runners up, or the Wimbledon finalists, of the last twenty years.51 However, this kind of information was not just kept for the interest of sports-fans: such records were vital to support the claims of athletes to the privileges that were attached to victory, such as the right to a triumphal entry, reserved seats at games, and other marks of individual distinction.52 We know that in Ephesos athletes could obtain a copy of a document stating their victory in one of the city’s contests for 60 denarii.53 Other cities must have had the same kind of information at their disposition.54 As the matter of athletic privileges was evidently a concern for the authorities and imperial legislation, it is likely that this information also travelled to Rome.55 The oikoumenical (world-wide) associations of athletes may have been a crucial link in this empire-wide network of athletic communication.56 What we see here then is the culmination of an athletic honorific system, that was shared between Greek cities, and that was underwritten by Rome. This system was not an autonomous sector of society, however, it was implicated in the empire wide exchanges of honour that were so typical of the empire. 57 Athletes and artists were not only concerned to raise their status by listing their agonistic achievements; they also made clear that honour had a civic effect. Victory catalogues and honorific testimonials prominently included the citizenship titles and other civic distinctions (such as membership of the boule) that the athletes
Philostratus Gymnastikos 2; Pausanias 5.21.9. See for the genre Christesen 2007, cf. the Olympiadai of Phlegon of Tralleis. 51 This observation was brought home to me, when I was completing the final version of this paper during the 2010 FIFA world championships. Maarten van Nijf kindly provided me with this kind of information about previous world cup achievements of even the most obscure footballing nations. Ancient ‘record-mania’ is described in Young 1996a, Brunet 1998 and Gouw 2009. 52 For the triumphal entry: Robert in BE (1961), 221. 53 IEphesos14; this is a hefty fee. 54 E.g. Keos IG 12.5, 608, 608 [I], or Athens: IG II(2), 2326. 55 For an example of the imperial interest in the athletic privileges: Pliny EpTra, 118-9. 56 Merkelbach 1974; or the associations: van Nijf 2006. 57 Wallace-Hadrill 1990; Lendon 1997.
received during or after their careers. Below I shall try to show how athletes actually obtained these citizenship titles, and indicate what these may have represented in practical terms, but here I want to draw attention to the manner in which these titles were used in their self-representation. On their monuments athletes employed their grants of citizenship in a very similar way as their athletic titles, as badges of individual status. Citizenship titles were displayed prominently, they were collected, counted and compared. Important cities such as Athens, Rome, Alexandria, or Ephesos were highlighted, lesser cities were lumped together, just like the athletic titles in the prize-games of small and unimportant towns. However, it is important to note that citizenship was only mentioned in these contexts, because it actually conferred prestige on the recipients. Of course, there was a similar trivialization of honour that we also observed in the case of the agonistic titles. When a Demetrios of Salamis mentioned that he had been made citizen in more than 47 unnamed cities he treated these like victories in the countless money games of the Roman empire.58 We should also note that many athletes were not merely offered citizenship, they were also admitted to the city councils, showing that their conception of citizenship had clear oligarchic, or aristocratic overtones.59 What I want to suggest here, then, is that the mention of multiple citizenship among athletes and performers is an ingredient of an empire-wide trend in selfrepresentation, that put great emphasis on all the individual achievements and individual honours of the victorious athletes and top-performers. In this context athletic victory and local citizenship were functional equivalents: badges of individual status. This phenomenon did not stand on its own: below I shall argue that there was a close and intimate link between citizenship and athletic victory that was a constant factor in Greek history. The proliferation of inscriptions recording victories and citizenship was a crucial ingredient of a wider system of honours, that was shared and underwritten by Greek cities and ultimately by the emperor in Rome. However, before we can discuss how citizenship and athletic
IAnazarbos25: καὶ τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους ἀγῶνας παντὸς κλίματος τῆς οἰκουμένης ταλαντιαίους καὶ ἡμιταλα[ντιαί]ους μζʹ· ὧν καὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἔχει. 59 SEG 6, 203; ITralleis 110; ISmyrna 661; IG II(2), 3169-3170Meyer-Zwiffelhofer 2003, Pleket 1998.
victory were related, we need to know how athletes and performers actually obtained citizenship outside their home country.
Becoming a citizen
The same martyria and other epigraphic texts that record the grant of citizenship are usually not very informative about the procedures involved. In fact the monuments, by juxtaposing citizenship titles with athletic victories, make it look as if citizenship was just another kind of athletic prize. It would therefore be tempting to assume that citizenship was indeed automatically offered to victorious athletes, but the situation was complex than this. After all, not every victorious athlete claimed multiple citizenship, and -as we shall see below- some athletes were offered citizenship without having first obtained a victory in that particular city. A handful of inscriptions, normally public honorific decrees, offer information about the procedures that lead to citizenship.60 This evidence suggests that the decision to award citizenship was not taken by an agonothete, nor was it the automatic consequence of victory. In all cases grants of citizenship still seem to have been the prerogative of the formal political institutions of the city, and the outcome of a complex process of civic decision taking. A committee of the boule (or an individual councillor) had to prepare the proposal for discussion in the assembly, which then had to pass an formal decree. This would have been followed by formal allocation to a tribe or other civic subdivision, and by registration in the lists of new citizens that each city maintained.61 The procedures involved seem to have changed only very mildly in comparison with those of the poleis in earlier periods of Greek history.62 In some cases local citizenship was in the gift of the emperor, as in Alexandria, where M. Aurelius Demostratos Damas was granted citizenship by Marcus Aurelius and Commodus in 176AD, but here also citizenship was not a standard prize for athletic achievement, and formal procedures prevailed. 63 Citizenship was
E.g. FD 3.1, 209 ; FD 3.2, 102; FD 3.2, 105; FD 3.4, 118; IAph2007, 5 214. Hellenistic examples: IEphesos1415, 1416; 2005; IvO 54. 61 Cf. Jones Nicholas 1991, IEphesos2005. 62 Cf. Nouveau Choix 1971, p. 83-84. 63 For Damas see Strasser 2003. For the role of the emperor in the grant of Alexandrian citizenship: Pliny EpTra, 7. Incidentally, Damas also received Roman citizenship later on in his career, but it had always been easier to obtain citizenship in Rome than in a Greek city. On the Roman ‘generosity’ with citizenship see: Gauthier 1974.
apparently still a well-guarded privilege that was given out only under particular circumstances to individual outsiders. These texts thus underline the long term continuity of the political institutions of the Greek polis, well into the empire. So, what were Greek cities offering, when they made foreign athletes into citizens, or even councillors? Was citizenship now purely honorific, without rights and obligations? It may be evident that we should not expect these travelling (peripolistikoi) athletes and performers to have acted as citizens in the strong Aristotelian sense of one ‘who rules and is ruled in turn’, but that does not make their citizenship an empty honour, that should be opposed to the ‘real’ citizenship of the other politai.64 It should be pointed out that athletes were not treated differently from foreign benefactors who had been offered citizenship in the Greek city from the Late Classical through the Hellenistic periods. Philippe Gauthier has insisted that in such cases we should not draw a sharp distinction between ‘honorific’ and ‘practical’ citizenship.65 Borrowing an expression from Bagehot we might say that citizenship had both ‘dignified’ and ‘efficient’ dimensions, that were always present and mutually implicated.66 The balance between the two varied between cities and periods, but in the end it was up to the individual citizen to decide how he positioned himself. When Greek cities offered citizenship to an outsider, that offer was always virtual of potential (‘politeia potentielle’). Every grant of citizenship should be seen as a permanent invitation to join the political community, which would only be made effective by taking up residence, registration in a phyle, and through active participation in civic life.67 Athletes may not always have wanted to take up residence in their new city, and become politically active citizens, but there can be no doubt that they were entitled to do so, if they chose (and the cities may have secretively may have hoped that they did).68
Aristotle eg. Politics: 1277a: 26-27. For the argument that the Aristotelian perspective should not be applied too strictly to the Athenian citizens of the classical era either, see: e.g. Blok 2005. 65 Gauthier 1985. 66 Bagehot 1867. 67 Gauthier, 1985 #645}. Cf. Gawantka 1975, cf. Kokkinia in this volume on the Lycian elites. 68 It is interesting to note here that athletic victory was was construed as a civic duty: Xenophon Mem. 3.7.1. Dio Chrysostom opposes the active athlete with the ‘idiotes’, the uninvolved private citizen: Dio Chyrsostom Or. 28.5.7.
As citizenship was virtual or potential, the athlete or performer was not expected or required to take up residence, but when he did, he could exercise his full civic rights, and he might have served his new city as magistrate, priest or benefactor. We saw that several athletes were also appointed to the boule of different cities; this may have raised the expectations.69 It is not easy to establish whether or not athletes or performers were often ready to accept the responsibilities that went with the title, but a recent study by Strasser shows that it was certainly a realistic expectation. This is an inscription for an athlete from Caesarea Panias, who settled in Rhodes, where he served as sacred herald (hierokeryx).70 In other cities we find (former) athletes who served as officials or as envoys to other cities, associations or even the imperial court.71 On the other hand it is not unlikely that athletes, were just as ready as any other member of the bouleutic class to shirk their responsibilities. But this did not detract from the status value of their appointments.72 It is important to note that the grant and acceptance of additional citizenship titles does not seem to have led to a weakening of the (emotional) bond between athlete of performer and his original patris. Many inscriptions emphasize the patriotism of athletes and performers, or take care to specify their original home town suggesting that this link was still important.73 Moreover, we find that consolation decrees for deceased athletes still address the original patris, showing that the close tie was also recognized by the globalizing athletic associations.74 There is evidence that citizenship grants were handled with some delicacy. Cities may not have wanted not to antagonize the original hometown of the victorious athlete, and citizenship offers could be the object of considerable diplomatic manoeuvring between the cities, which found its way to the honorific decrees. It is striking that many inscriptions did not only respectfully list the original patris, but they also seem to have been concerned to implicate in the honorific exchanges
E.g. CIG 3426, 3427; FD 3.1, 200; 3,2, 102, 105; 3.4, 476; IAph2007, 12, 215, 920; IEphesos1135; IG II(2), 3269-70. 70 Strasser 2004b with SEG 54, 724. See below n. 76. 71 CIG 3427 for an athlete who served as a mintmaster. 72 Tacoma 2010; it is surely no coïncidence that in their dealings with the emperors the associations of athletes and performers were so concerned with negotiating and defending freedom from munera and other privileges: Millar 1977, on the associations: van Nijf 2006. 73 E.g. SEG 35, 1125; 41, 1407; Robert 1989, no. 1.; IvO 55, 225; ITralleis 111. 74 Athletes’ consolation for original fatherland: Bean 1965, 588-593; SEG 54, 724; SEG 53, 1689.
between the new patris and the athlete or performer. Several texts show that a city might send a copy of the decree to the original patris. It was not uncommon by the new patris to offer to set up an honorific statue in the old home city, to commemorate the new grant. An inscription that was found in Aphrodisias (the original patris) but set up by the city of Ephesos shows how the two cities juggled to represent the exchange as a joint effort that brought glory to both. 75
i. [ - - ] since the most splendid city of the Ephesians always welcomes those who have shown zeal with testimonies that are fitting and just for their worth, and takes a share of pleasure in the advantages of all (men) as if they were her own, and (since she considers that) whatever outstanding (advantages) accrue to the good reputation of other cities from distinguished men, these are matters of (?general) good fortune; (10) and since she assigns an especial portion of her inclination towards goodwill to the most splendid city of the Aphrodisians, towards which she has many and outstanding justifications for the exchange of affection. For these reasons, (the city) has welcomed Aurelius Achilles - - who has both undertaken the training of the body, and is also most noble in training, and most dignified in his way of life and his conduct, so that in him (20) all virtue of body and soul is blended - - (has welcomed him) often, both in previous contests, which he adorned, having competed impressively and with all courage, and especially in the contest of the Olympia, because, when the city encouraged him - - as if it were his own fatherland - - to proceed to the ultimate competition, and to the category of men (30), he listened, and was persuaded by the encouragement, and defeated his opponents, and bound on the (crown of) olive with such glory that his (?display of) courage and eagerness are to be numbered among the most distinguished of contests. For these reasons it was resolved that the testimony about these events should not extend only as far as the knowledge of those who were present and (40) happened to be in the stadium at the time, but by means of this decree he should be commended even more to his fatherland.
The Rhodian inscription for the runner from Caesarea whom we encountered above is an other example of the efforts of cities took to pay on another the required amount of respect.76 In this way care was taken not only to avoid possible tensions, but to strengthen ties between the cities involved. Cities would not have engaged in such complex, and costly, negotiations, if they had believed that there was no value to be found in the grant of citizenship. Not all observers would have agreed that they were doing the right thing, however. There is evidence that there was ideological objection top the transfer of citizenship. Pausanias, who is our best literary source for the history of athletes changing their patris, tends to frame such transfers in a context of corruption and venality of athletes. But his views about civic identity were rooted in a nostalgic view of the
IAPH2007, 5.214. (translation Roueché) See above n. 70 Strasser 2004b with SEG 54, 724.
past, which allowed him to close his eyes for what must have been a common development around him.77 We may conclude that local citizenship still mattered. The offer of citizenship to successful athletes and performers was not an empty honorific title, nor does it seem to have led to a weakening of the bond between athletes and their original patris –notwithstanding the nostalgic criticism of Pausanias. The way that cities handled these procedures shows that citizenship was not considered a trifle: it still required a decision of the full state apparatus, and there is evidence that offers of citizenship could lead to an intense diplomatic traffic. Athletes and performers were in this respect not treated differently from other powerful outsiders. Philippe Gauthier has demonstrated that for the Hellenistic period the grant of citizenship were particularly common for powerful outsiders, such as kings, officials, and even wealthy grain merchants.78 In the Roman period this leading role seems to have been passed on to athletes and performers. What did they have to offer to the cities, to deserve this honour? If we look at the decrees that offer citizenship, we see that the motivation to grant citizenship varied. In some cases the honorand had merely pleased the demos with his performance, as in the case of a victorious pantomime in Magnesia (2nd c. AD), whose monument records that he had received citizenship (as well as statues) in a variety of communities for the quality of his performance. 79 The pantomime Tiberius Iulius Apolaustos had received citizenship in many cities where he had stayed, for the ‘accuracy of his performance and his exemplary way of life’. We find similar formulations in inscriptions that were set up for this man in Delphi, and in Ephesos, where he was also made a councillor.80 Another pantomime received citizenship in Delphi for his eusebeia(?) and his dignified behaviour, he also received a statue.81 A particularly impressive performance (though no victory!) led the city
Forbes 1952 follows Pausanias in his judgments. Gauthier 1985. 79 IMagnesia 192: he had ‘also pleased the populus Romanus and was duly honoured by the emperors Commodus and Lucius Verus.’ ἀρέσαντα δή̣μ̣[ωι] Ῥωμαίων καὶ τειμηθέ[ντα] ὑπὸ τῶν κυρίων Ἀν[τωνεί]-νου καὶ Κομόδου κα[ὶ Λουκί]-ου Οὐήρου. 80 For this man see: Slater 1995. Cf. FD 3.1, 55; IEphesos20170-2071. 81 FD 3.2, 105.
of Elis to grant citizenship to the Smyrniote pankratiast Tiberius Claudius Rufus (1AD). He did not win, but his refusal to give up caused the match to last until sunset was construed as a particular honourable act, which was rewarded with the privileges of an Olympic victor, as well as with citizenship of Elis.82 He went on to become a xystarch and a board member of the oikoumenical association of athletes, based in Rome. A connection with the Rome-based association of athletes may also have been important in other cases where citizenship was granted. A surprisingly large number of athletes with multiple citizenship were also prominent members of the oikoumenical association of athletes. Quintilius Karpophoros from Ephesos and Elis, obtained citizenship in Delphi, while being the secretary of the oikoumenical association of athletes, not for a victory.83 The abovementioned Damas obtained the franchise of Nilomedeia, Miletos, Tralleis and Antinoopolis not in exchange for a victory, but because of his activities as xystarch and archiereus.84 It is not difficult to see why a city would be interested in maintaining good contacts with the well-connected athletes who served as the officials of the athletic association. Such men might be called upon to secure the appearance of top-stars in local festivals,85 or represent a city to the imperial authorities in order to have local contests officially recognised or to secure new agonistic titles and privileges for a city.86
The most common reason for the offer of citizenship, however, must still have been agonistic victory - but not as a simple prize. Citizenship could be offered to victorious athletes who transferred their victory to a different city from their home
IvO 54-55. Merkelbach 1974 suggests that the same honours were granted to the opponent, but that does not seem to be inevitable. Rufus was extremely well-connected: apart from being of consular family he later obtained the title of xystarch from the emperor himself. (cf. IGUR I 244). The inscription IvO 55 which was set up by the city of Smyrna at Olympia is another example of the close collaboration between cities in such cases. 83 FD 3.1, 209. 84 Strasser 2003. Other examples: SEG 50, 1450; SEG 46, 1532. 85 Cf. Aphrodisias IAph2007, 15.330: for the role of athletic associations in such negotiations: van Nijf 2006. 86 E.g. IEphesos22; FD 3.2, 70a; SEG 53, 1357. Ιmperial support was crucial for the recognition of a festival, cf. Mitchell 1990. The recently published inscriptions from Alexandreia in the Troad show how closely the agonistic circuits were followed by the emperors. Petzl and Schwertheim 2006, see also: Gouw 2008.
town. These transfers seem to have taken the form of highly ritualised exchanges, that centred on the victory crowns. To understand the logic of these exchanges it is useful briefly to set out the train of events at each festival. When athletes arrived at the site of the festivals they normally had to register (anagraphô) their name, father’s name and ethnic, which would normally be their original hometown (patris), but could also be an adoptive city.87 Literary sources show in fact that the option of a ‘transfer’ was not exactly new, and that Greek cities had always been able to presuade foreigners to enter a contest in their name.88 One of the earliest instances was the tyrant Gela from Syracuse, who persuaded in 488 the runner Astylos of Kroton to compete as a Syracusan.89 Another early example was the runner Ergoteles, who was originally from Knossos. Having fled that city as the result of political stasis, he took refuge in Himera, for which city he also competed at Olympia.90 This practice continued and grew in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. An elaborate example is that of the above-mentioned Aurelius Achilles from Aphrodisias who received citizenship in Ephesos after he had been persuaded to compete for that city in its local Olympic games.91 The inscription implies that it was neither a new nor a rare in the city of Ephesos, which had been generous with the grant of citizenship to foreign athletes before. A number of inscriptions from the Artemision, dating back to the Hellenistic period, record the award of citizenship to foreign victorious athletes. One of them was certain Athenodoros son of Semon who was a resident foreigner. One inscription shows him applying to the city for a subsidy to pay for a trainer and a stay at the Games, which could be expensive.92 A later inscription shows that he had been successful at the boys’ boxing competition in Nemea, where he was announced as an Ephesian. In exchange the boule and
Robert 1967, Robert 1967. Robert 1967; Forbes 1952. 89 Pausanias 6.13.1 Forbes 1952, 202 argues that this must refer to Gela, not to Hiero. 90 Pindar Ol. 12 ; Pausanias: 6.4.11, cf Forbes 1952, 169-17. Then, there was the case Dikon of Kaulonia, who competed as a Syracusan in 384 BC. (Pausanias 6.3.11 and Anth. Graeca 13.15). In this case the transfer was due to the fact that Dionysios of Syracuse had conquered Kaulonia. Forbes 1952, 169. 91 IAph20075.214. See above n. 75. 92 IEphesos2005; IEphesos1416 is a similar case: a young athlete receives citizenship in the expectation that he would obtain further victories for the city (νικήσειν ἀγῶ̣να[ς]).
demos decided that ‘he should be an Ephesian, like he had had himself announced at the contest.’ 93 The verb used in this last example epangellô (announce) points at a second moment after the event, when athletes celebrated their victory. This was of crucial importance to the exchanges. 94Literary and artistic sources represent this as the athlete’s moment of glory par excellence. Heliodorus’ description of the victory a Theagenes, captures the atmosphere nicely:95
Theagenes pressed home his victory, and using only his left hand to pin the bull to the ground, he stretched his right hand heavenwards and waved and waved, beaming at Hydaspes and the assembled multitude. His smile was an invitation to share his joy, and the bellowing of the bull was like a trumpet call to sound his victory (kathaper salpinggi to epinikion anakeruttomenos) . The audience responded with a tumultuous ovation: no distinct words could they articulate to praise him, but they just opened their mouths and let the sound come straight from their vocal cords to give voice to their wonderment, which wafted heavenwards as their cheering continued for some length of time without any diminution of its volume.”
Then trumpeters would bid the crowd to silence, before the athlete covered with crowns and ribbons was formally announced as the victor with his name, father’s name and ethnic.96 This was the crucial moment to which the expression kerygmata of Lucian‘s sketch refers.97 At this stage the athlete had to tell the agonothe how he wished to be styled. Normally this would have been his patris of course, but it was apparently not uncommon to dedicate one’s victory to another city, or to someone, else.98 Louis Robert has published an agonistic catalogue from Xanthos listing victors in the Romaia, the Roman games that were instituted in the second century BC. The victors included a Roman citizen, who was resident in Telmessos, Octavius Pollio, who ‘had himself announced as a Telmessian’ in the horse race; another
IEphesos1415 εἶναι Ἀθηνόδωρον [Σήμον]ος Ἐφέσιογ καθάπερ ἀνήγγελται ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι Robert 1967. 94 Strasser 2004b; Robert 1967. 95 Heliodorus Ethiopica, 10.30.5: Ἐπέκειτο δὲ ὁ Θεαγένης, ταῖν χεροῖν τὴν λαιὰν μόνην εἰς τὸ ἐπερείδειν ἀπασχολῶν, τὴν δεξιὰν δὲ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνέχων καὶ συνεχὲς ἐπισείων εἴς τε τὸν Ὑδάσπην καὶ τὸ ἄλλο πλῆθος ἱλαρὸν ἀπέβλεπε, τῷ μειδιάματι πρὸς τὸ συνήδεσθαι δεξιούμενος(5) καὶ τῷ μυκηθμῷ τοῦ ταύρου καθάπερ σάλπιγγι τὸ ἐπινίκιον ἀνακηρυττόμενος. Ἀντήχει δὲ καὶ ἡ τοῦ δήμου βοή, τρανὸν μὲν οὐδὲν εἰς τὸν ἔπαινον διαρθροῦσα, κεχηνόσι δὲ ἐπὶ πολὺ τοῖς στόμασιν ἐξ ἀρτηρίας μόνης τὸ θαῦμα ἐξεφώνει, χρόνιόν τε καὶ ὁμότονον εἰς οὐρανὸν παραπέμπουσα. (translation: Reardon). 96 On the importance trumpeters see Robert, 1967 #4325}. Cf. Anth Graeca 6.350. For the iconography of the victorious athlete: Kefalidou 1996; a summary of her argument in: Kefalidou 1999. 97 Above n. 33 98 An early example can be found in Herodotus 6.103 where Kimon the father of Miltiades, is reported to have dedicated his victory to Peisistratos. In the imperial period athletes could dedicate their victory to the emperor: TAM 3.1, 41.
similar case was Peithô of Ephesos who had herself announced as an inhabitant of Apollonia. 99 Another elegant gesture would be to dedicate the victory –‘on the spur of the moment’- to the organising community. This was the route followed several times over by an athlete (runner) from Caesarea Panias at beginning of the 3rd cent. A.D. He placed his crown on the Herm that stood as a marker of the running track, and had his victory announced in the name of the demos and the boule of the city where he competed. In this way he ‘had earned himself’ citizenship in several cities including Laodikeia, Tarsos and Antiocheia. 100 The final episodes took place in the victor’s patris. After a victory in a stephanitic game the athlete returned to his patris where he was by law entitled to a triumphal entry in his patris (eiselasis).101 The procession often culminated in a carefully scripted re-enactment of the victory ceremony, which took place at a public location; in Ephesos this was the agora. 102 The name of the victor was announced: undoubtedly followed by his father’s name, and of course the name of the city itself. At this point also the privileges were confirmed to which the victorious athlete would from now on be entitled: including the seats of honour in the theatres and stadia, of a privileged position in civic processions, and entitlement to siteresia or opsonia. This was also the moment that athletes who had not enjoyed citizenship before, were actually confirmed in their new status. 103 The train of events was rounded off with the decision to set up a statue public space, which would permanently establish the victor on a par with other civic benefactors. In the martyria that were engraved in the statue bases, all these elements came together the athletes were praised for their moral, civic and athletic qualities, for individual victories, or for a particular combination of victories, and of course for their citizenship titles. 104
Robert 1978. SEG 54, 724. καὶ διὰ ταῦτα πολιτείαις ἀξιωθέν[τα Λαοδικέων καὶ Ταρ]σέων καὶ Ἀντιοχέων ὁπότε ἠγωνί[σατο] Cf. Strasser 2004b. 101 Kurke 1991, for a discussion of the ritual re-integration of the victorious athltes Robert BE (1961), 221. Cf. Diod. Sic 13.82-7-8 for a description 102 Robert 1967, IEphesos1415. 103 Pliny EpTra 118-9, shows that some athletes wanted to get rid of the obligation to take part in these ceremonies, and still be entitled to the benefits. But Trajan responds that the ceremony was an integral part of the exchange, free riders were not to be tolerated. 104 Cf. van Nijf 2000 and van Nijf 2010. Farrington 1997 show that in the imperial period commemoration of Olympic victories increasingly took place in the patris of the victors.
Athletic victory thus set in motion an exchange of benefits which, as Leslie Kurke has shown, had been at the heart of the relationship between the victor and his city since the days of Pindar – a Greek cultural phenomenon of très longue durée.105 Epigraphic and literary evidence, not in the last place the agonistic epigrams, highlight the ritual centrality of the victory crowns in this symbolic and mutually beneficial exchange between athlete and city. When the athlete won, he received a victory crown, which he then offered to the city. Victors are represented in the texts as literally ‘crowning’ or ‘giving honour to’ their city. The eiselastic ceremonies were also known as ‘bringing home the crown’, as athletes symbolically transferred the kudos, or symbolic capital of the crown from themselves to their patris.106 This ceremony established the victor as a major benefactor, who was henceforth entitled to the everlasting charis of his patris.107 A native champion could expect to receive all the usual rewards, including pensions, seats of honour, and prominent positions in civic procession. And, as we saw above, the city offered also their own honorific crowns and formally proclaimed the athletes as benefactors during games or at dedicated ceremonies. Foreign athletes who offered their crown to a different city from their own, were likewise considered benefactors, who were entitled to a city’s charis. But in this case the city had something special to offer as well: its own citizenship. This was a symbolic exchange, but real capital may have changed hands.108 Ephesian victors apparently received a financial compensation for their crowns.109 Literary and documentary sources make perfectly clear that the athletes were interested in these mundane aspects as well, and it would be naïve to suppose that material benefits were not discussed before an athlete agreed to lend his name and victory to another city – but in their public representation the cities and athletes maintained a dignified front and presented this as a truly disinterested exchange of benefits. 110
Kurke 1991 and Kurke 1993. Robert 1989 20-22. 107 E.g. [Demosthenes] In Theocrinem (58) 66. 108 For an application of the notion of symbolic exchange: to the Roman imp[erial cult: see Price 1984. 109 IEphesos1415. 110 Pausanias 6.18.6 accuses Sotades of Crete for having taken a bribe to compete for Ephesos (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ δὲ λαβὼν χρήματα παρὰ τοῦ Ἐφεσίων κοινοῦ).
To ask which of the two was ‘the real, decisive’ factor is to miss the point of this exchange, which was only possible because crowns, glory, material benefits and citizenship were construed as commensurable goods. Against this background it is quite understandable that cities were offering citizenship to successful athletes, either before the games – in the expectation that an athlete would be victorious, or after the event, when the victory (and the associated glory) were in the pocket, so to speak. The fact that this exchange was so popular under Roman rule was not a sign of the decline of the value of local citizenship, but rather a sign of the opposite: local citizenship was still an important good, and offering it to an outsider was prestigious for both parties.
In this paper I have argued that the multiple citizenship of athletes and performers was a political reality that can only be understood properly against the particular cultural background of the imperial Greek city -a political culture that was very different from our own.111 As scholars have increasingly come to realise, politics is not simply the study of formal institutions, laws, and procedures, but also the study of the wider culture in which politics takes place.112Historians need to pay attention to the context of norms and values that inform and frame political action and institutions. Politics is a cultural practice, and if we want to understand the changing role of the citizen in the post classical Greek city we need take into account practices that institutional historians may find less important, but that are crucial to our understanding of what was implied by local citizenship. Agonistic life was such a practice. The examples above have highlighted the immense importance of agonistic competition for the Greek cities under Rome. It was at Panhellenic festivals that all cities were still gathered as peers, and where they were exposed to
See: van Nijf and Alston 2010 and the other articles in: van Nijf and Alston 2010. This volume is the outcome of wider research project, The Greek city after the Classiocal age that I have been directing with Richard Alston of Royal Holloway, University of London. I intend to return to these matters in a new project on the political culture in the Imperial Greek City. 112 Lynn Hunt defines political culture as: “the values, expectations, and implicit rules that expressed and shaped collective intentions and actions” Hunt 1984, see also Blanning 2002. Cf. Heller 2009 and Pleket 1998 for antiquity.
the gaze of ‘whole of Hellas’.113 Ancient Panhellenic festivals were an opportunity to assert a shared Greek identity, and thus membership of an imagined community of Greek cities under Roman rule.114 Athletic victory was the most efficient way to secure status within that gremium – and for some cities it was even the only way, as was observed by Gauthier, who describes ‘small’ cities as those whose only ‘grands hommes’ were the athletic victors at the Panhellenic games.115 Victorious athletes had something valuable to offer to the cities: kudos or symbolic capital resulting from victory that was won in a traditional Greek contest and that gave status in a contemporary world. Cities were, therefore, understandably proud of their topathletes, and other performers who were declared public benefactors, and who were offered citizenship to integrate them closer into the city. Athletes brought status to the city, which in its turn reflected back onto the athletes, who became figures of high symbolic importance in the cities and in the wider Greek oikoumene under Rome. In this way, the wandering athletes and performers may have contributed to a transformation in the way that citizenship was experienced. In the imperial period citizenship was transformed from a reciprocal bundle of rights and obligations to a form of social dignity, a badge of status that was sported by an individual alongside other distinctions. This seems to represent a crucial stage in the development of Greek civic culture. A study of the changing meaning of the concept of politeuesthai in the imperial Greek city still remains to be done; but the activities of the wandering athletes and performers may be a useful starting point for the debate.116
Alcock, S.E. (1994) 'Nero at play? The emperor's Grecian Odyssey', in J. Elsner and J. Masters (ed.), Nero at play? The emperor's Grecian Odyssey, London, 98-111. Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined communities, London and New York (2). Bagehot, W. (1867) The English constituton, London. Bean, G.E. (1965) 'Inscriptions of Elaea and Lebedus', Belleten Türk Tarih Kurumu 29,
Robert 1967. C.f. Xenophon Mem. 3.7.1 (τὴν πατρίδα ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι εὐδοκιμωτέραν ποιεῖν); IvO 225. 114 Anderson 1991, van Nijf 2005 applies this approach the Greek athletics under Rome. 115 Gauthier 1987, 190. 116 This article is a preliminary study for a larger project on the political culture of the Imperial Greek city. Cf. van Nijf 2006, van Nijf and Alston 2010.
Blanning, T.C.W. (2002) The culture of power and the power of culture. Old Regime Europe 16601789, Oxford. Blok, J.H. (2005) 'Becoming Citizens. Some Notes on the Semantics of "Citizen" in Archaic Greece and Classical Athens', Klio : Beitraege zur alten Geschichte. 87, 7-40. Brunet, S.A. (1998) Greek athletes in the Roman world : the evidence from Ephesos, Austin. Caldelli, M.L. (1993) L'agon Capitolinus. Storia e protagonisti dall 'istituzione domiziana al IV secolo, Rome. Carlsson, S. (2010) Hellenistic democracies : freedom, independence and political procedure in some East Greek city-states, Stuttgart. Carter, J.M. and A. Krüger (1990) Ritual and record : sports records and quantification in premodern societies, Contributions to the study of world history, no. 17, New York. Christesen, P. (2007) Olympic victor lists and ancient Greek history, Cambridge; New York. de Ligt, L. and P.W. de Neeve (1988) 'Ancient periodic markets: festivals and fairs', Athenaeum 66, 391-416. Farrington, A. (1997) 'Olympic victors and the popularity of the Olympic Games in the imperial period', Tyche 12, 15-46. Ferrary, J.-L. (1996) ‘Rome, Athènes et le philhellénisme dans l’empire romain, d’Auguste aux Antonins’, Rome, 183-210. Finley, M.I. and H.W. Pleket (1976) The Olympic Games, the First Thousand Years, London. Forbes, C.A. (1952) 'Crime and punishment in Greek athletics', The Classical Journal 47, 169173. Fröhlich, P. and C. Müller, ed. (2005) Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique : actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris BNF., Hautes études du monde grécoromain, 35, Genève. Gardiner, E.N. (1930) Athletics of the Ancient World, Oxford. Garnsey, P. and O. van Nijf (1998) 'Contrôle des prix du grain à Rome et dans les cités de l'Empire', in (ed.), Contrôle des prix du grain à Rome et dans les cités de l'Empire, Rome, 303315. Gauthier, P. (1974) '"Générosité" romaine et "avarice" grecque: sur l'octroi du droit de cité', in (ed.), "Générosité" romaine et "avarice" grecque: sur l'octroi du droit de cité, Paris, 207-215. Gauthier, P. (1984) 'Les cités hellenistiques: épigraphie et histoire des institutions et des régimes politiques', in (ed.), Les cités hellenistiques: épigraphie et histoire des institutions et des régimes politiques, Athens, 82-107. Gauthier, P. (1985) Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe - Ier siècle avant J.-C.). Contribution à l'histoire des institutions, Paris. Gauthier, P. (1987) 'Grandes et petites cités : hégémonie et autarcie', Opus 6, 187-202. Gauthier, P. (1993) 'Les cités hellénistiques', in M.H. Hansen (ed.), Les cités hellénistiques, Copenhagen, 211-231. Gawantka, W. (1975) Isopolitie : ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen in der griechischen Antike, Vestigia, Beitraege zur alten Geschichte, Bd. 22, Muenchen. Gouw, P. (2008) 'Hadrian and the calendar of Greek agonistic festicvals. A new proposal for the third year of the Olympic cycle', ZPE 165, 96-104. Gouw, P. (2009) Griekse atleten in de Romeinse keizertijd (31 v. Chr. - 400 n. Chr.), Amsterdam. Grieb, V. (2008) Hellenistische Demokratie: politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Grossen, Stuttgart. Guttmann, A. (1978) From ritual to record : the nature of modern sports, New York. Harl, K.W. (1987) Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East A.D. 180-275, Berkeley. Harris, H.A. (1964) Greek Athletes and Athletics, London. Heller, A. (2006) Les bêtises des grecs : conflits et rivalités entre cités d'Asie et de Bithynie à l'Epoque romaine, 129 a. C.-235 p. C, Scripta antiqua, 17, Pessac/ Paris. Heller, A. (2009) 'La cité grecque d'époque impériale: vers une société d'ordres', Annales ESC 341-373. Herrmann, H.-V. (1988) 'Die Siegerstatuen von Olympia. Schriftliche Überlieferung und archäologischer Befund', 1, 119-184.
Hunt, L. (1984) Politics, Culture and Class in the French Revolution, Berkeley. Jones Nicholas, F. (1991) 'Enrollment clauses in Greek citizenship decrees', ZPE 87, 79-102. Kefalidou, E. (1996) Νικητής. Εικονογραφική μελήτη του αρχαίου ελληνικού αθλητισμού, Thessaloniki. Kefalidou, E. (1999) 'Ceremonies of Athletic Victory in Ancient Greece: an Interpretation', Nikephoros 12, 95-120. Koenig, J.P. (2005) Athletics and literature in the Roman empire, Cambridge. Kurke, L. (1991) The traffic in praise: Pindar and the poetics of social economy, Ithaca. Kurke, L. (1993) 'The economy of kudos', in C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (ed.), The economy of kudos, Cambridge, 131-163. Kyle, D.G. (1990) 'E. Norman Gardiner and the decline of Greek sport', in D.G. Kyle (ed.), E. Norman Gardiner and the decline of Greek sport, Arlington, 7-44. Lendon, J.E. (1997) Empire of Honour. The Art of Government in the Roman World, Oxford. Ma, J. (2000) 'Public Speech and Community in the Euboicus', in S. Swain (ed.), Public Speech and Community in the Euboicus, Oxford, 108-124. Merkelbach, R. (1974) 'Der unentschiedene Kampf des Pankratiasten T. Claudius Rufus in Olympia', ZPE 15, 99-104. Meyer-Zwiffelhofer, E. (2003) 'Bürger sein in den griechischen Städten des römischen Kaiserrreiches', in K.-J. Hölkeskamp (ed.), Bürger sein in den griechischen Städten des römischen Kaiserrreiches, Mainz, 375-402. Michaud, J.P. (1970) 'Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1968 et 1969', Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 94, 883-1164 [946-949]. Millar, F. (1977) The emperor in the Roman world, London. Mitchell, S. (1990) 'Festivals, games, and civic life in Roman Asia Minor', JRS 80, 183-193. Moretti, L. (1953) Iscrizioni agonistiche Greche, Rome. Newby, Z. (2005) Greek athletics in the Roman world : victory and virtue, Oxford studies in ancient culture and representation, Oxford ; New York. Nouveau Choix (1971) Nouveau choix d'inscriptions grecques, Paris. Petzl, G. and E. Schwertheim (2006) Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler. drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstler-Vereinigung, Asia-Minor-Studien, Bd. 58, Bonn. Pleket, H.W. (1974) 'Zur Soziologie des antiken Sports', Mededelingen van het Nederlands Historisch Instituut te Rome 36, 57-87. Pleket, H.W. (1975) 'Games, prizes, athletes and ideology: some aspects of the history of sport in the Graeco-Roman world', Stadion 1, 49-89. Pleket, H.W. (1998) 'Political culture and political practice in the cities of Asia Minor in the Roman empire', in W. Schuller (ed.), Political culture and political practice in the cities of Asia Minor in the Roman empire, Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), 204-216. Pleket, H.W. (2001) 'Zur soziologie des antiken Sports', Nikephoros 14, 157-212. Pleket, H.W. (2004) 'Einige Betrachtigungen zum Thema: ' Geld und Sport'', Nikephoros 17, 77-89. Price, S. (1984) Rituals and Power: the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge. Robert, L. (1938) 'Fêtes, musiciens et athlètes', in L. Robert (ed.), Fêtes , musiciens et athlètes, Paris, 7-112. Robert, L. (1967) Monnaies grecques. Types, légendes magistrats monétaires et géographie, Hautes Ètudes numismatiques, 2, Genève; Paris. Robert, L. (1967) 'Sur des inscriptions d'Éphèse: fêtes, athlètes, empereurs, épigrammes', Revue Philologique 7-84 [= OMS 5, 347-424]. Robert, L. (1978) 'Catalogue agonistique des Rômaia de Xanthos', Revue Archéologique 277-290 [= OMS VII, no 176]. Robert, L. (1982) 'Discours d'ouverture', in (ed.), Discours d'ouverture, Athens, 35-36. Robert, L. (1989) Décrets hellenistiques, Claros, 1, Rumscheid, J. (2000) 'Kranz und Krone. Zu Insignien, Siegespreisen und Ehrenzeichen der römischen Zeit', Istanbuler Forschungen 43,
Slater, W.J. (1995) 'The pantomine Tiberius Iulius Apolaustus', GRBS 36, 263-292. Stephan, E. (2002) Honoratioren, Griechen, Polisbürger : kollektive Identitäten innerhalb der Oberschicht des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien, Göttingen. Strasser, J.-Y. (2003) 'La carrière du pancratiaste Markos Aurèlios Dèmostratos Damas', Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 127, 251-299. Strasser, J.-Y. (2004a) 'Les Olympia d'Alexandrie et le pancratiaste M. Aur. Asklèpiadès', Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 128, 421-468. Strasser, J.-Y. (2004b) 'Sur une inscription rhodienne pour un héraut sacré (Suppl. Epig. Rh. 67)', Klio 86, 141-164. Tacoma, L.E. (2010) 'The councillor's dilemma. Political culture in third-century Roman Egypt', in O.M. van Nijf and R. Alston (ed.), The councillor's dilemma. Political culture in thirdcentury Roman Egypt, Leuven, 243-261. Tod, M.N. (1949) 'Greek record-keeping and record-breaking', CQ 106-112. van Nijf, O. (2000) 'Inscriptions and civic memory in the Roman East', in A. Cooley (ed.), Inscriptions and civic memory in the Roman East, London, 21-36. van Nijf, O. (2003) 'Athletics and paideia: Festivals and physical education in the world of the Second Sophistic', in B.E. Borg (ed.), Athletics and paideia: Festivals and physical education in the world of the Second Sophistic, Berlin - New York, 203-228. van Nijf, O. (2004) 'The Roman Olympics ', in M. Kaila, G. This, H. Theodoropoulou and Y. Xanthakou (ed.), The Roman Olympics Athens, van Nijf, O.M. (2001) 'Local heroes: Athletics, festivals and elite self-fashioning in the Roman East', in S. Goldhill (ed.), Local heroes: Athletics, festivals and elite self-fashioning in the Roman East, Cambridge 2001, 306-334. van Nijf, O.M. (2002) 'Athletics, Andreia and the Askesis-Culture in the Roman East', in I. Sluiter and R. Rosen (ed.), Athletics, Andreia and the Askesis-Culture in the Roman East, Leiden, van Nijf, O.M. (2005) 'Aristos Hellenôn: succès sportif et identité grecque dans la Grèce romaine', Metis. Anthropologie des mondes grecs anciens NS 3, 271-294. van Nijf, O.M. (2006) 'Global players: Athletes and performers in the Hellenistic and Roman World', in I. Nielsen (ed.), Global players: Athletes and performers in the Hellenistic and Roman World, Augsburg (= (Hephaistos, Kritische Zeitschrift zu Theorie und Praxis der Archäologie und angrenzender Gebiete 24), 225-236. van Nijf, O.M. (2006) 'Politiek in de polis', in G. Voerman and D.J. Wolffram (ed.), Politiek in de polis, Groningen, 16-22. van Nijf, O.M. (2010) 'Public space and political culture in Roman Termessos', in O.M. van Nijf and R. Alston (ed.), Public space and political culture in Roman Termessos, Leuven, 215-242. van Nijf, O.M. and R. Alston, ed. (2010) Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age, Groningen-Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek city after the classical age, ii, LeuvenParis-Walpole. van Nijf, O.M. and R. Alston (2010) 'Political culture in the Greek city after the Classical age: introduction and preview', in O.M. van Nijf and R. Alston (ed.), Political culture in the Greek city after the Classical age: introduction and preview, Leuven, 1-26. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1990) 'Roman arches and Greek honours', PCPhS 143-181. Wörrle, M. (1988) Stadt und Fest in kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oenoanda, München. Young, D.C. (1996a) 'First with the most : Greek athletic records and « specialization »', Nikephoros 9, 175-197. Young, D.C. (1996b) The Modern Olympics. A struggle for revival., Baltimore and London. Zuiderhoek, A. (2008) 'On the Political Sociology of the Imperial Greek City', GRBS 48, 417.