City Patronesses in The Roman Empire

City Patronesses in the Roman Empire
Author(s): Emily A. Hemelrijk

Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 53, H. 2 (2004), pp. 209-245
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436724 .
Accessed: 26/11/2013 09:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CITY PATRONESSESIN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
In the early third century AD* a woman of senatorial rank with the long name
Oscia Modesta Cornelia PatruinaPublianal was honoured with a statue by her
native city Avioccala in the province of Africa Proconsularis. Erecting the
statue with public money the city honoured her, by decree of the decuriones,
"because of her conspicuous merits in rendering illustrious her city of origin",
whose "citizen and patrona" she was.2 In view of the services expected from a
patron of a city, such as legal advocacy and political intervention on behalf of
the client-city with the authorities in Rome,3 the choice of a woman as a
patroness of a city is somewhat surprising.Why did cities choose a woman to be
a city patron and why would she consent? How did the public honour bestowed
on her fit in with the domesticity and the reticent life expected from women
according to the ancient literary sources? And, thirdly, did her cooptation4 as a
patroness of the city entail public duties and responsibilities, or was it merely an
honorific title given to a woman because of her family, rank or wealth?
Before entering upon these questions a few words should be said about the
much-debated issue of the nature and function of municipal patronage in the
westem part of the Roman Empire. Municipal patronage was a formal institu-
tion subject to legal regulation as to the cooptation of a patron.5A patron was
* All datesare AD. I would like to thankProf. Dr. G. Alfoldy andProf. Dr. W. Eck for their
helpful remarks.
1 For polyonomy of senatorialwomen in the late 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, see Kajava
(1990) 33. Her full name was even longer containingone more gentilicium, probably
Valeria(FOS 587) or Ulpia.
2 CIL 8, 23832: [O]sciae Modes/[tae Valer?]iae / [-]n[-]iae Corneliae [PIa[tlrui/nae
Publianae/ c(larissimae)f(eminae)civi et patr(onae)/ ob insig(nia) eius me/ritaquibus
in/lustratoriginis suae patriam/ civitas Avioccal(ensis)d(ecreto)d(ecurionum)p(ublica)
p(ecunia).It was probablyset up aroundAD 240-50.
3 See Duthoy(1984a); for patronageof communitiesthe comprehensivestudyby Harmand
(1957), thoughsomewhatoutdated,is still fundamental;for the GreekEastsee now Eilers
(2002).
4 The term 'cooptation' for the choice of a city-patronby the decuriones is somewhat
confusing since thereis no college of patronscoopting a new colleague. However,since
the namesof city patronswere listed in the alba decurionum,they became- so to speak-
"honorary"decurions (Nicols (19891 132), which justifies the use of this term. The
formulapatronum cooptare is used on the tabulae patronatus offered to city patrons,see
Nicols (1980a) 550.
5 Cf. the municipallaws of Urso (Lex Coloniae Genetivae, titles 97 and 130; Crawford
[1996] 393-454 no. 25), Malaca (Lex Malacitana, title 61; ILS 6089; see also Spitzl
Historia,BandL1112(2004)
? FranzSteinerVerlagWiesbadenGmbH,Sitz Stuttgart

210 EMILYA. HEMELRIJK
coopted by a decree of the decurions and his name was added to the list of
patrons heading the album decurionum. The relationship could be formalized
by a bronze tabula patronatus commemorating the cooptation, which was
offered to the patronby legati selected from the ordo decurionum.6So far, there
is general agreement. The duties and responsibilities of the patronus, however,
are not defined - as is to be expected in such a fluid institution as Roman
patronage - and this has led to divergent opinions in modem discussion. P.
Veyne, for instance, regards city patronage in the Latin West as a purely
honorific title comparable to the acts of gratitudedecreed to civic benefactors in
the Greek East.7 Basing their opinion on a careful study of the wording of the
tabulae patronatus and honorific inscriptions for city patrons, R. Duthoy and,
more recently, B. Salway convincingly argue that promotion of the city's
interests and political intervention on its behalf were essential. City patrons
acted as a kind of intermediaries between their cities and the central govern-
ment in Rome and social prominence and connections were their most impor-
tant characteristics.8Though some allowance has to be made for the fluidity of
the institution which may well have entailed different services depending on the
sex, age and social status of the patron, their opinion will be followed here. Of
course, civic patronage was no regular office, nor could its duties be forced
upon the patron, but there seems to have been a moral obligation for the patron,
once he had agreed to being coopted, to fulfil these duties. Whether the same
was expected from female patrons is one of the questions to be discussed here.
Selecting the evidence
Female city patronage was a relatively rare phenomenon: among the roughly
1,200 patrons of communities recorded in Italy and the western provinces
during the first three centuries of the Empire there are only very few women.
Partly overlapping lists are given by Nicols, Kajava, Duthoy, Harmand, En-
[1984]) and Irni (Lex Irnitana, title 61; GonzAlez [19861) regulating the procedures of
coopting a city patron; see also Nicols (1979) 244 and 249ff. For municipal patronage
defined as an institution, see Duthoy (1984a) 147-8 n. 13; also Nicols (1989) uses this
term.
6 For the tabulae patronatus, see Nicols (1 980a).
7 Veyne (1976) 349 n. 219 and 767 n. 311: "la pretendue <<institution > du patronat de cite
est a rapprocher des tilres honorifiques que les cites grecques decernent a leurs bienfai-
teurs." Though arguing that mediation was the main function of city patrons during the
late republican and early imperial periods Eilers (2002) 84-108 assumes that in the course
of the imperial period city patronage became increasingly honorific.
8 Duthoy (1984a), Salway (2000) 140-148.

City Patronessesin the RomanEmpire 211
gesser and Warmington9,which, altogether, contain twenty odd women, not all
of whom are included in my list. Since the decisive terms patrona municipii or
coloniae (vel sim.) are used only rarely, it is sometimes hard to tell whether a
woman, who in an inscription is addressed as a patrona, was a patroness of a
community, or a patroness of, for instance, a private person, a freedman or -
which is rarer - a collegium. What criteria should be applied to determine the
nature of her patronage?
Of the authors mentioned above only Nicols explains his criteria. Since a
city patron was coopted by a decree of the decuriones, he takes it that "all
inscriptions which were authorized by a decretum decurionum and which also
refer to patronage may properly be said to involve patrons of communities".
Thus he formulates two conditions for the recognition of a city patroness: first,
the use of the title patrona and, second, the official authorization of the text of
the inscription by the decuriones. 10The first point is, of course, obvious, though
the bad condition of some inscriptions and the (not very frequent) abbreviation
of patronaelo to patron or patro may leave some doubt." I
The second point, however, is more problematic; it is not even met by all
patronesses considered as certae by Nicols himself.'2 This is due to the nature
of the evidence, most of which consists in honorific inscriptions.13In contrast to
the bronze tabulae patronatus, which record the original decree of the decuri-
9 Only Nicols (1989) andKajava(1990) focus on women:the thirteenpatronesseslisted by

Nicols (1989) in his comprehensivearticleon 'genderandcivic patronage'andthe seven
Italiancity patronesseslisted by Kajava(1990) form the basis of my list (for differences
see below note 23). Harmand(1957) 281-2 includes five patronessesin his list of over
670 patronsof communities in Italy and the westem provinces grouping them in the
category"patronatsdivers".Duthoy (1984-6) includes six patronessesin his list of 495
municipalpatrocinia in Italy;Warmington(1954) mentionsthirteenwomen in his list of
242 inscriptions recording North-Africancity patrons and Engesser (1957) includes
eighteen women in his list of 951 city patronsin Italy and the westernprovinces.
10 Nicols (1989) 120. For the cooptation of patronssee also Nicols (1979) 249-50 and
(1980a).
11 See, for instance,CIL9, 5898 = ILS 1386. The abbreviatedtitlepatron may eitherreferto
PetroniaSabina(patronae) or to her fatherL. PetroniusSabinus(patrono) or perhapsto
both of them (patronis).
12 For instance,no mentionof a decretum decurionum is preservedin the (badly damaged)
inscriptionfor lulia Memmia(number9 in his list): even the dedicatorsareunknown.Yet,
Nicols rightly includes Iulia Memmiain his list of city patronesses,since she is called
patrona in the inscriptionon the obverse of the statue base and on the reverse of the,
apparentlyfreestanding,base a letterby lulia Memmiaseems to have been copied, which
she probablywroteto the ordo decurionum andthe citizens of Bulla Regia. Unfortunate-
ly, the text is too heavily damagedto allow certaintyas to its contents.The inscriptionfor
CalpurniaCeia Aemiliana(table 1 nr. 7) was publishedafter Nicols's articleappeared.
13 Duthoy(1981): 70 % (for senatorseven 80 %)of the 468 Italianinscriptionsmentioning
a city patronare honorificinscriptions.

ones,'4 public honorific inscriptions were not necessarily set up by the decuri-
ones themselves, though they had to give permission for it. They could be
erected by the citizens or resident aliens, by the plebs urbana, or even by the
women of the town; besides, the official authorization by the decuriones,
though obligatory for all statues and inscriptions set up in public places'5, is not
always explicitly mentioned. Since most of these honorific inscriptions were set
up for other reasons than the patronage of the honorand (for instance, in
gratitude for benefactions), they refer to it only loosely. Usually the patronage
is mentioned last, after the cursus honorum (for male patrons)16; mostly the
patron is addressed simply as patrono or patronae without the specification
municipii or coloniae (see table 2). And even when municipal patronage is
clearly referredto - as is the case on the statue base of Abeiena Balbina (table I
nr. 1) - it does not follow that the inscription was set up because of her
patronage of the city:
"For Abeiena Balbina, daughterof Gaius,flaminica of Pisaurumand Arim-
inum, patrona of the municipium Pitinum Pisaurense. For her the urban
plebs of Pisaurum <set up this statue> in the year of the quinquennalitas of
her husband, Petinius Aper, because of their merits. To whom the emperor
[[name erased]] granted the ius liberorum. The place <for the statue> has
been given by decree of the decuriones."17
Abeiena Balbina was aflaminica (priestess of the imperial cult) in two neigh-
bouring cities on the Adriatic coast, Pisaurum and Ariminum, and patrona of
the inland municipiumPitinum Pisaurense. Her statue was set up by the people
of Pisaurum in cooperation with the decurions, not because of her religious
office or her city patronage but, as is clearly stated, for the merita of her
husband and herself - a term usually referring to benefactions.'8 By setting up
this statue the plebs urbana, moreover, celebrated a festive occasion: the
quinquennalitas of her husband19and perhaps also the fact that the couple had
14 Nicols (1980a) distinguishesan Italianform reproducingthe decurialdecree of coopta-

tion and a provincialvarietytakingthe formof a bilateralcontract.
15 See Lahusen(1983), Alfoldy (1979) and (1984); for examples of inscriptionsset up at
public places withoutmentioningdecurialpermission,see Eck (1992).
16 See Duthoy(1981) 299-300.
17 CIL 11, 6354 = ILS 6655: Abeienae G(ai) f(iliae) / Balbinae/ flaminicae/ Pisauriet
Arimini/ patronaemunicipi/ PitinatiumPisaurensium./ Huicannoquinquenna[l(itatis)1/
Petini Aprimaritieius / plebs urbanaPisau/rensiumob merita/ eorum.Cui / imp(erator)
[[- / - -]]/ ius commune libero/rumconcessit. L(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto)d(ecurionum).
The nameof the emperor,probablyCommodus,is erased.
18 Forbis(1996) 12-18, Saller (1982) 17-21.
19 During his term of office a magistrateoften received special honour;for instance, a
quinquennalis(or his wife) who died in his yearof office could be given a publicfuneral,
see Castren(1975) 62, Savunen(1997) 153.

been grantedthe privileges of the ius liberorum.20The unusuallycleardesignation

as a patrona municipiiof PitinumPisaurenseis occasioned by the fact that she held
two different offices in three different towns and that her statue was erected in
anothercity thanthatin which she exercisedherpatronage.21Of course,the fact that
her city patronageis mentioned,togetherwith her priesthood,addedto her prestige,
but her statuewith the inscription was not set up because of it.
Thus, a rigid application of Nicols's criteria seems impracticable. When
reviewing the evidence I take it that a woman should be regarded as a patroness
of a community, when the inscription calling her a patrona is set up by the city
(colonia, municipium,res publica, civitas, praefectura etc.), the ordo decurion-
um, the citizen body or a substantial section of it (such as the plebs urbana)22,or
when it is authorized by a decree of the decuriones. Inscriptions set up by
private persons, freedmen or collegia, and inscriptions that are only partly
preserved leaving the dedicators unknown, are to be left out of consideration,
since it cannot be determinedthatthey were set up in honour of a city patron(ess)
and not of a private patronor of a patron of a collegium.23With these criteria in
20 For the ius liberorum,see Treggiari(1991) 66-80; the privileges belonging to the ius
liberorum were sometimes grantedby the emperorto persons who did not have the
prescribedthreechildren,see Dio 55.2.6.
21 This is highly unusual:unlikethe magistraciesof the cursushonorumpatronageof a city
is - as a rule - only mentionedin inscriptionsset up in, or by, the client city itself, not in
inscriptions set up for the same person elsewhere; see Duthoy (1981), who does not
mentionthis exception (but see Duthoy [1984b] 34-5).
22 See also Duthoy(1984-6) who in his list includes severalinscriptionsset up by theplebs
urbana (cf. his note 39).
23 The following women are claimedby some to have been patronessesof cities but are not
listed here, because their patronageof a community cannot be ascertained:Egnatia
Certiana(CIL9, 1578 Beneventum2nd-3rd cent.; Harmand[1957] 282): moreprobablya
patrona of a collegium. The clarissimae puellae Publilia Caeciliana and Publilia Numisi-
ana (CIL 8, 4233 Verecunda[Num.] 3rd cent.; Harmand[1957] 241 and Engesser[19571
97 nrs. 220 and 221): dedicatorsunknown.Antistia Pia Quintilla (AE 1962, 143 and
1979, 402 Vasio Vocontiorum [Gall. Narb.] Ist cent.; Spickermann[1994] 212-213:
patrona of the colonia Flavia Tricastinorumin Gallia Narbonensis):flaminica of the
colonia Flavia Tricastinorum,but probablypatrona of her freedman who set up the
inscription.Ulpia Aristonica(AE 1933, 70, DianaVeteranorum[Num.] 2nd cent.; Warm-
ington [1954] nr. 194, contra Engesser[1957] 95 n. 4): probablypatronaof the two local
magistrateswho dedicatedthe inscription.lulia Mamaea(IRT 449 Lepcis Magna [Afr.
Proc.] AD 222-235; Warmington[1954] nr. 138): a lacunain the inscriptionmakes her
patronageuncertain.Atilia Lucillia (AE 1991, 456 Abella [It.] 2nd 3rd cent.; Kajava
[1990]): text largely erased leaving the dedicatorsunknown.AntoniaPicentina(CIL 9,
5428 Faleria[It.] 2ndcent.; Harmand[1957] 375): priestessand wife of a city patron,no
indicationthatshe was a patrona herself.ValeriaVerecunda(CIL2, 3269, Castulo[Hisp.
Tar.] ls' cent.; Engesser [1957] 110 nr. 285): a benefactress.Valeria Severina (CIL 2,
5812, Segisamum [Hisp. Tar.] 3rd cent.; Engesser [1957] 110 nr. 299): a patrona of a
collegium. In the case of PetroniaSabina(CIL 9, 5898 = ILS 1386 Ancona [It.]; Duthoy

214 EMILY A. HEMELRIJK
mind I have selected nineteen women (mentioned in eighteen inscriptions) who

with reasonable certainty may be called city patronesses (see tables 1 and 2).24
Three women are mentioned collectively in a single inscription (from Utica)
and one woman, Vibia Aurelia Sabina, was honoured by two inscriptions as a
patroness of Thibilis in Numidia and of nearby Calama in Africa Proconsularis.
Geographical and chronological distribution, rank and family
Though my number of city patronesses is somewhat larger than that given by

Nicols (1989) who lists thirteen women, it does only modify, but not essentially
alter, the limited geographical and chronological distribution he observes: all
references to city patronesses stem from North Africa (12) or (mostly Central25)
Italy (7) and date from the middle of the second to the early fourth century (see
table 3). The client-cities are of varying size and importance: some, like
Avioccala, are only small towns, but others, such as Bulla Regia in Africa
Proconsularis or Tarquinii in Italy, were quite prominent. Like many of their
male counterparts, city patronesses probably lived in, or stemmed from, their
client-cities, or possessed landed property in the neighbourhood.26Nummia
Varia held the municipal priesthood of Venus Felix at Peltuinum.27 Oscia
[1984-6] 290 n. 62) the inscriptionuses the abbreviated(and thereforeambiguous)title

patron (see note I1). Since no certainty can be established to whom this refers, the
inscriptionis not included.
24 Some doubtsmay be felt aboutthe patronageof LaberiaHostilia,whose statuewas set up
by the womenof the city. Dyson (1992) 199 andDuncan-Jones(1982) 227 n. 514 suggest
that she was a patronessof a female association, but since there are no indicationsto
supportthis, I preferto considerthemas a sectionof the city populationcomparableto the
plebs urbana(see also Duthoy [1984-6], Kajava[1990] and Forbis[19961243 nr. 265).
25 The only exceptionis CapertiaValeriana(nr. 8) who was patronessof Bellunumin North
Italy.
26 See Kajava(1990). City patronageis usually assumedto be a sign of local ties, but in
individualcases this is often hardto prove. Accordingto Duthoy (1984b) most patrons
stemmedfrom, or lived in, their client-cities; besides, a growing numbercame from a
largertown in the region. For criticism of his view and method,see Andermahr(1998)
20-24. Also the possession of an estate in the neighbourhoodis hardto establish:often
the only evidence is the inscriptionmentioningpatronageof the city. This easily leads to
circularreasoning,since the mentioningof the patronageis takenas an indicationof the
possession of landed propertyin the neighbourhood,which, in its turn, is used for
explainingthe patronage.Duringthe whole perioda small numberof patrocinia in Italy
may be explainedby an administrativeor militaryoffice in the imperialservice exercised
in the region. In the provinces this numberwas higher, see Harmand(1957) 285 (119
from the over 670 patronslisted), Warmington(1954) and Nicols (1980a) 544.
27 She did not stem from the region (her fatherwas a civis et patronusof Beneventumand
her mothercame from Brixia,see FOS 803), but, accordingto Andermahr(1998) 360-1,
her family possessed landedpropertyin or nearPeltuinum.

Modesta, Furcilia Optata, Seia Potitia and lulia Memmia are proudly addressed
by their respective client-cities as civis or alumna28,their city presenting itself
as theirpatria. Though, as senatorial (even consular) women, they lived most of
their lives in Rome and travelled all over the empire following their husbands to
the provinces, they apparentlycontinued to care for their native cities. The word
patria, however, cannot in all cases be taken as a proof of origin;29it is some-
times used loosely, or even deliberately misleadingly. For example, the small
town of Thibilis in Numidia poses as the patria of Vibia Aurelia Sabina in the
inscription honouring her as its patroness, whereas, in fact, it only was the city
of origin of her late husband, L. Antistius Burrus, who is not even mentioned in
the inscription.30Ignoring her less noble husband the city publicly associated
itself with a member of the imperial family, thus, of course, hoping to enhance
its prestige.
Almost all city patronesses came from exceedingly high-ranking families. The
highest in rank is Vibia Aurelia Sabina, the youngest daughter of the emperor
Marcus Aurelius. Fourteen of the remaining eighteen patronesses are of senato-
rial status, at least ten of them wives or daughters of consuls (table 4). Only
three patronesses are of equestrian (nrs 6 and 10) or decurial (nr. 1)31rank. The
social rank of one patroness, CapertiaValeriana, is unknown, but the unusually
large base of her statue, which must once have carried an over life-size bronze
statue, indicates that she was a woman of high prominence.32Comparedto male
city patrons, whose social status ranges from an occasional imperial freedman
to members of the ordo senatorius (senators and, especially, equestrians form-
ing the bulk of the evidence),33 the social range of female patrons is both more
restricted and conspicuously higher. This holds especially for North Africa,
28 Foralumnusla indicatinga personwho was bornandraisedin the city, see Corbier(1990)

and (1998).
29 Cf. Erkelenz(2001).
30 See ILAIg2, 4661. As appearsfromILAIg2, 4634 she was marriedto L. AntistiusBurrus
fromThibilis, who was consul ord. in 181 togetherwith the emperorCommodusand was
killed by Commodusin 187 or 189-190 (SHA Comm.6.11), see Le Glay (1982) 769-70.
It is, of course, possible that the honorarycitizenship of Thibilis was offered to her
together with the patrocinium of the city.
31 Thereareno indicationsthatshe was of equestrianrank,as is suggestedby Nicols (1989),
though this is not impossible. Since her husband was a quinquennalis, she was at least of
decurialrank,see also Duthoy (1984-6).
32 Limestonebase: 186 x 84 x 79 cm. Accordingto Alfoldy (1984) 38-9 n. 89 and nr. 151 it
carrieda monumental(over life-size) statuefor the wife of a local magistrateof decurial
or equestrianrank,but no husbandis known.The dowelholes point to a bronzestatue.
33 Nicols (1989) 129, Warmington(1954), Harmand(1957). The most detaileddiscussionof
the social status of city patronsis Duthoy (1984-6) who discusses 495 patrocinia from
Italy in the first threecenturiesAD (not distinguishedaccordingto gender).

where eleven out of the twelve are of senatorial status (one of the imperial
family, seven or more consular). The Italian evidence is more varied: apartfrom
four senatorial women (three of them 'consular'), one is of equestrian, one of
decurial and one of unknown (presumably decurial or equestrian) status. That
women of families of local prominence played a greaterpart in Italy agrees with
the gradualchange in the social status of Italiancity patronsnoticed by Duthoy34:
he finds that in the thirdcentury, in which most of our patronesses are dated, the
percentage of patrons of decurial status was much higher than in the first. Yet,
also in Italy female patrons were, on the average, of noticeably higher social
status than male city patrons. Apparently, only women of the highest status
were eligible in the eyes of the client-cities. As we shall see, the high rank and
social prominence of our patronesses compensated for the drawbacks of their
sex.
A family affair?
Interrelations between our patronesses are rather frequent. To start with the
most obvious: three patronesses stemming from one family, Gallonia Octavia
Marcella and her unmarrieddaughters, Accia Asclepianilla Castorea and Accia
Heuresis Venantium, were honoured as patronae perpetuae together with their
husband and father, L. Accius Iulianus Asclepianus in Utica.35 More distant
34 Duthoy (1984-6) shows that there was a gradualchange in the social status of city
patrons:whereasin the firstcenturyAD senatorsandthose equiteswho hada careerin the
imperialservice (Duthoy's"equitesfonctionnels"),takentogether,formedalmost65%of
the city-patrons(senatorsandall equitestakentogetheramountingto almost94%leaving
a mere 6,2% for the municipalelite), in the thirdcenturyAD they were only just over
50%.The otherhalf of the city patronsconsistedof equites fulifilling a municipalcareer
(26,9%;Duthoy's "equiteshonorifiques")andmembersof the municipalelite (18,2%;in
3,9%the social statusof the patronbeing unknown).Thoughsenatorsandequitesformed
the bulk of the evidence also in the thirdcentury,the percentageof patronsof decurial
statustripledbetweenthe first and thirdcenturiesAD.
35 CIL 8, 118 (Leiden,NationalMuseumof Antiquities,inv. nr. HBB 10):L. Accio luliano
Asclepianoc(larissimo)v(iro) co(n)s(uli) cur(atori)reip(ublicae)Utik(ensis?)et Gallon-
iae OctaviaeMarcellaec(larissimae)f(eminae)et Acciae HeuresidiVenantioc(larissimae)
p(uellae) et Acciae Asclepianillae Castoreae c(larissimae) p(uellae) filiabus eorum
Col(onia) Iul(ia) Ael(ia) Hadr(iana)Aug(usta)Utik(ensis?)patronisperpetuisd(ecreto)
d(ecurionum)p(ublica) p(ecunia). ("For L. Accius lulianus Asclepianus, of senatorial
rank,consul, curatorof the city of Utica and for GalloniaOctaviaMarcella,a womanof
senatorialrank, and Accia Asclepianilla Castorea,a girl of senatorialrank, and Accia
HeuresisVenantium,a girl of senatorialrank,theirdaughters,the city of Utica <dedicat-
ed this inscription>to their perpetualpatronsby a decree of the decurioneswith public
money").The wordingof the inscriptionsuggests thatboththe motherand herdaughters
were patrons.The cooptationof childrenas patronswas not unusual.The inscriptionwas

family relations appear to have existed between five other North-African city
patronesses: CalpurniaCeia, lulia Memmia, Aradia Roscia, Furcilia Optataand
probably Seia Potitia belonged, by birth or marriage, to the interrelatedsenato-
rial families of the Aradii and the Memmii, prominent in the region of Bulla
Regia, who intermarriedwith women of the senatorial family of the Calpurnii
from Utica.36 Thus, eight out of the twelve North African city patronesses
belonged to only a small number of highly distinguished, senatorial families.
This brings us to the question whether city patronage was a family affair
and perhaps even hereditary. Several inscriptions seem to suggest as much.
Children were sometimes included in cooptation decrees, with formulas such as
cum liberis posterisque eius, possibly to express the hope of the city that the
relationship would be enduring.37 Not only parents and children, but also
married couples could be city patrons. In the inscriptions honouring Aurelia
Crescentia and Fabia Victoria the patronageof their husbands is mentioned, and
in the case of Domitia Melpis and Oscia Modesta the patronageof, respectively,
her husband and son is known from an adjacent inscription (see table 4). Some
patronesses had male relatives who were patrons of other cities,38 and some, as
we have seen, were related to each other. Thus, city patronage might 'run in the
family' and it seems clear that, apartfrom high rank, family connections played
a role in the cooptation of a patron. Yet, as a rule, city patronage was not
hereditary. The decuriones were free to choose whomsoever they liked, wheth-
er or not he or she belonged to a family that had provided earlier patrons;
though the family evidently played a role in the choice of a patron, there is no
reason to assume that this role was decisive.39
bought for the Leiden museum in 1824 togetherwith two statues of emperorsand two
headless, slightly over-lifesize, statuesof women. All were allegedly found at the foot of
the acropolis.The statuesmay have adornedthe nearbytheatre.
36 Corbier(1982) 691, 693-4, 733, 739-40.
37 The additionperpetuusla to a patron(ess)may have served the same end; since city
patronagewas for life, the additionperpetuuslamakesno sense otherthanthe hope of the
city thatthe relationshipwould be continuedwithinthe family of the patron.Forchildren
and progenyincludedin cooptationdecrees (both tesserae hospitales and tabulaepatro-
natus), see Harmand(1957) 311-14, 339-44, Nicols (1980a) 541.
38 Thus, the fatherof NummiaVariawas a civis et patronus of Beneventum(AE 1969/70,
169) and a possible freedmanof hers, M. Nummiuslustus, is honouredas a patronof the
city of Peltuinumand granteda biselliumin honourof NummiaVaria(CIL9, 3436 = ILS
6528). Of the fatherof the clarissimapuella AradiaRoscia not much is known, but her
possible uncle, L. Aradius Roscius Rufinus SaturninusTiberianus,was a patronus of
Privernum(CIL 10, 6439) and anotherrelative, Q. Aradius Valerius Proculus, was a
patronus of six cities (CIL 6. 1684-9; Warmington [19541 42 nrs 99-104, Harmand
[1957] 190).
39 See also Duthoy (1984b) 48, Engesser (1957) 48-53. Eilers (2002) 61-83 argues very
persuasivelyagainstthe inheritanceof city patronage.

Since family relations account only in part for the choice of a patron, we
should not assume that a patroness was coopted simply because of her father or
husband and that the duties of patronage were actually fulfilled by them. To
understandthe choice of a woman, or a child, as a city patronwe should bear in
mind that in the imperial period many cities had several patrons at a time,40and
that city patronage was a fluid institution entailing a variety of services. Male
patrons too did not form a homogeneous group, far from it. Their services
varied according to their rank, career, age and personal capacity. Thus, a boy of
senatorial, or even equestrian,rankmight be coopted because of his promise of a
brilliantcareer- as was the youngerPliny who was chosen as a patronof Tifemum
Tiberinumwhen "still nearly a boy"'41-, a govemor of a provincemight be chosen
for his power to bestow privileges and immunities,and a local magistratefor his
benefactions, his regional network of contacts and, perhaps, his future career.
Senatorsand equestriansin the imperialservice were most sought afterbecause of
their influence in Rome, but also a woman of a distinguished senatorialfamily
might be highly influentialbecause of the prestige of her rank, family and social
connections. In comparison with her senatorial husband, who was mostly occu-
pied in Rome, she may have had more time to spend on behalf of her native city:
thus, her patronage may have been both accessible and rewarding.
The stress laid in the inscriptions on the family relations of the patronesses
seems often to be misunderstood. One of the striking differences between
honoraryinscriptions for men and women is the frequency of references to their
male relatives in inscriptions set up for women (see table 4). In only a few cases
the names of male relatives are lacking and some of these inscriptions may be
explained by adjacent ones: for instance, the statue for Oscia Modesta was put
up together with that of her consular son who, like his mother, was a "citizen
and patron" of Avioccala.42 The frequent reference to their male relatives is
40 Nicols (1980a) 547-8. The famous album decurionumof Canusiumreveals that in AD

223 Canusiumhad 39 patrons(CIL9, 338 = ILS 6121; on this album,see recentlySalway
[2000]), that of Thamugadiin Numidia lists twelve city patronsin AD 362-3 (CIL 8,
2403 = ILS 6122 and AE [1948] 118). An inscriptionin Saguntumin Spain lists six
patroni (CIL 2, 3867).
41 Plin. Ep. 4.1: oppidum .... quod me paene adhuc puerum cooptavit tanto maiore studio
quantominoreiudicio ("whichcooptedme as a patronwhen I was still nearlya boy with
greaterzeal than properjudgement").But, of course, Pliny is too modest.The city did
very wisely to coopt him as a patronat an early age (probablyabout 17, see Nicols
1980b): his brilliantcareer,his proximityto the emperorand his generosity (the same
letterrefersto a templehe built at his own costs in TifernumTiberinum)madehim a very
desirablepatron.
42 Pflaum(1970) 104 (CIL8, 2383 1= AE 1898, 111). Engesser(1957) 251 supposesthathe
receivedcitizenshipof Avioccalabecauseof his mother'smerits.Harmand(1957) 301-2
remarksthat his office as a legatus Karthaginismade him the more importantfor his
client-city. Since the originalcontext of most inscriptionsis unknown,we are normally
not informedaboutpossible adjacentinscriptions.

usually regarded as a sign of the domestic orientation of women. However, this

gender-difference in honorific inscriptions may be better explained by the
different way in which women's social status was displayed. Though around
the middle of the second century AD the titles clarissimafemina and clarissima
puella came into use for the wives and daughters of senators, women had no
independent claim to rank; they derived their social rank from that of their
nearest male relatives, from their father at birth or from their husband at
marriage.43Thus, for denoting their social rank other than senatorial, or their
position within the senatorial order, they had to refer to the status and offices of
their closest male relatives. Obviously, men usually had no such reason for
mentioning their female relatives.
That display of status was the main reason for including male relatives
appears from the fact that in most inscriptions honouring women only the
highest offices of their male relatives are mentioned; preferably of those rela-
tives who had the most distinguished careers, also when their status did not
legally affect that of the women in question. As has been said, the social rank of
a married woman is determined by the rank and cursus honorum of her hus-
band; yet, when her father, or even her son or brother (whose status legally had
no bearing on her own status44)had a higher rank, her husband may remain
unmentioned. For example, in both inscriptions honouring Vibia Aurelia Sabi-
na her father, the late emperor Marcus Aurelius, her pretended brother (because
of his self-arranged adoption by the late emperor Marcus Aurelius), the late
emperor Septimius Severus, and, in one of the inscriptions, even her pretended
nephews, the emperors Caracalla and Geta, are emphatically mentioned, but her
less distinguished husband is ignored. Even though he was killed by Commodus
in the late 180s, this omission is remarkable since he formed her link with the
city that honoured her. Reasons of status may well have been decisive here, the
city wishing to emphasize its connection with a member of the imperial fami-
ly.45 Similarly, in the inscription for Aelia Celsinilla only her consular son is
mentioned; possibly her husband was no consul.46 In short, the frequent refer-
43 See Hemelrijk(1999) 11-12 and the literaturequotedthere.

44 But, of course, a brilliantcareerof a son or brotherenhancedher prestige.
45 Cf. Matidia the Younger, whose imperial relatives are emphaticallymentioned in all
inscriptionshonouringher (see Hemelrijk[1999] 120-122), but her (non-imperial)father
and husbandhave not even once been mentionedand are still a mystery.
46 If so, she was legally not entitled to use the title consularisfemina, cf. Corbier(1982)
711-12 and 735. Unfortunately,we cannot tell whethera possible adjacentinscription
containedthe cursus honorumof her husband.Nevertheless,her son seems to have been
the more prominent:apartfrom his consulship he was curator of both Bulla Regia and
ThuburboMinus (see also CIL 8, 25523, an inscriptionfrom Bulla Regia honouringhis
daughterAgriaTannonia),whereasnothingis knownof his father:even his family name
has to be deducedfromthatof his son andhis possible consularstatuscan only be inferred
from the title of his wife.

220 EMILY A. HEMELRUJK
ence to male relatives serves to parade the high social status of the female
honorands.
Benefactions
What services were expected from city patronesses? Unfortunately, the honor-
ific inscriptions are disappointing. For example, in honour of Domitia Melpis
the following text was inscribed on a large marble plaque, once attached to her
statue base:
For Domitia Melpis, a woman of senatorial rank, wife of the consular
Quintus Petronius Melior, the ordo decurionum and citizens of Tarquinia
<set up this statue> for their most deserving patrona.47
Nothing is said about her activities, or the reason why she was coopted as a city
patroness. It is not even explained why she is called "most deserving". Yet, the
archaeological context permits certain inferences. The inscription was found in
the baths of Tarquinii together with another marble plaque of the same size, set
up by the same dedicators, but now in honour of her husband. This inscription
mentions, in the same order, his name, his career starting with his consulship,
the dedicators and his patronage of the city. Then the reason for the dedication
is given: "For the very best of patrons, since he favoured the city and repaired
the baths".48 Apparently two statues of the same size honouring Petronius
Melior and his wife Domitia Melpis were set up in the baths in gratitudefor the
repair financed by Petronius. Both Melior and his wife are called patronsof the
city. Are we to believe that benefactions were the main reason?
As has been said, Veyne regards Roman patronage of communities as a
purely honorific title bestowed in gratitude for, or in expectation of, benefac-
tions.49 In his opinion, benefactions formed the essence of city patronage,
which, therefore, could be exercised also by women and children. At first sight,
the inscriptions quoted above seem to support this view: Petronius Melior is
praised for repairing the baths and the praise of his wife as a "most deserving
patroness" may refer to this repair or, perhaps, to other benefactions on her
part.50On numerous other inscriptions city patrons, both male and female, are
47 CIL 11, 3368 (ht. 0.93m., w. 0.61m.): DomitiaeMelpidic(larissimae)f(eminae)/coniugi

Q(uinti)Petro/niMeliorisviri / co(n)s(ularis),/ ordoet cives / Tarquiniensium/ patronae
dig/nissimae.
48 CIL 11, 3367 = ILS 1180:patronoop/timo,quodrem p(ublicam)fove/ritet thermasresti/
tuerit.Apartfrompatronof Tarquinia,he was also curatorof fourdifferenttowns,among
whichTarquinia.Fora possibleconnectionbetweenthetwo functions,see Nicols(1989) 125.
49 Veyne (1976) 349 n. 219 and 767 n. 31 1.
50 Forbis(1996) 24-27.

praised for benefactions. These are usually referred to in general terms (see
table 5): Abeiena Balbina, Helvidia Burrenia, Laberia Hostilia and Oscia Mod-
esta are praised for their merita - Aurelia Crescentia also for her beneficia - and
Seia Potitia for her liberalitas.51 Helvidia Burrenia, Nummia Varia, Furcilia
Optata and Vibia Aurelia Sabina are praised for their amor or adfectio for, and
their pronus animus and benevolentia towards, their client-cities. Though these
words indicate a general attitude of goodwill and emotional involvement, they
are usually interpretedas referring to financial generosity.52
An inscription in honour of lulia Memmia is the only one to be more
specific: it tells us that she built "magnificent" baths for her native city (see
table 5). In gratitude the city erected her statue in, or in front of, the baths. In a
letter she wrote to the ordo and citizens of Bulla Regia - inscribed on the
reverse of her statue base but unfortunately badly preserved -, she seems to
have promised to donate a certain sum of money to the city in memory of her
father, who had been a patron of the city as well.53 The revenue of this capital
was probably intended for the maintenance of the baths and for the distribution
of free oil (gymnasium). A similar public building-initiative may have been
behind the merita of some of the other patronesses: for instance, a lead water-
pipe found in the baths of Trebula Mutuesca inscribed with the name of Laberia
Hostilia suggests that she built or restored the local baths.54
Yet, city patronage should not simply be equated with civic munificence.
The nature of our evidence should warn us against this conclusion. As we have
seen, most of it consists in honorific inscriptions, which, though mentioning the
city patronage of the honorand, were not set up because of it. Usually they were
made in connection with benefactions, or to celebrate some festive occasion,
which explains why these are usually mentioned as reasons.55 To understand
the responsibilities of a city patronthe honorific inscriptions are clearly insuffi-
cient. Yet, they may provide a hint. For example, apartfrom repairingthe baths
Petronius Melior is said to have "favoured the city". Since he was a consular
and a curatorof the city his "favours"may have comprised political assistance.
Also the amor and adfectio for which some patrons are praised may have
51 Forbis(1996) 12-21 and 34-42.

52 Forbis(1996) 46-52.
53 Wesch-Klein(1990) 73-4 suggests that, insteadof a letter, it is a contractbetween the
city and lulia Memmiaconcerningthe foundation.For the monumentalbaths of lulia
Memmiabuilt in the centreof the town, see Nielsen (1990) vol. I pp. 90-1 andvol. II fig.
176 (C207) and DeLaine (1992) 266 fig. 165a.
54 Torelli (1962) 67-8; since her statue was put up by the women of TrebulaMutuesca,
Kajava(1990) 31 suggests that she may have financedthe women's baths.
55 Some inscriptionsmentionno reasonsat all (see table 5). Yet, they too may have been set
up in gratitudefor benefactionsunknownto us (becauseof the loss of the originalcontext
of most inscriptions)but obvious to the ancientpublic, since an inscriptionhonouringa
benefactorwas often set up at the buildinghe (or she) had donated.

comprised more than benefactions only. These terms of praise may have been
used in a deliberately vague way in order to indicate - and encourage - more
than only financial support.56
More information is given by the tabulae patronatus. In a careful study of
the reasons for choosing a patronmentioned in these decrees Duthoy shows that
influence with the central power in Rome was the chief criterium. In respect of
benefactions there was no difference between a city patron and other members
of the city elite.57 Thus, city patronage and civic munificence were far from
identical: though a city patron was often also a benefactor of the city, a
benefactor was not always coopted as a city patron. For example, despite
numerous benefactions to his native Comum, Pliny the Younger, as far as we
know, was never coopted as its patron.58The connection, if any, was only in one
direction: the honour of being coopted as a patron may have encouraged a
patron to respond with benefactions - if only for fear of being thought ungrate-
ful -, but benefactions were not his main duty, nor was lavish generosity the
reason for his cooptation. That this holds for women as well as for men will be
argued in the next section.
Duties and responsibilities
As we have seen, honorific inscriptions hardly inform us of the activities of city

patronesses. The best evidence for their duties is a tabula patronatus. This
bronze plaque from Peltuinum Vestinum in Italy records a decision of the local
council in AD 242 to coopt a woman of senatorial rank, Nummia Varia, as their
patrona. Unfortunately it is the only tabula patronatus for a city patroness that
has been preserved, but it agrees in form and contents with the standard
formulas of such tabulae for men. In the Italian variety of the tabula patronatus
- to which the tablet for Nummia Varia belongs (see above n. 14) - the decree
of the decuriones is quoted with a summary of their reasons for choosing her.
After recording the consular year, the day of their meeting and the names of the
leading magistrates the text runs as follows:
Nummia Varia, a woman of senatorial rank, priestess of Venus Felix, has
started to act with such affection and good-will towards us in accordance
with her custom of benevolence, just as her parents too have always done,
that she should rightfully and unanimously be made patrona of our praefec-
56 For the, often deliberatelyvague, terminologyof patronage,see Sailer (1982) 8-22; also
Engesser(1957) 279-80.
57 Duthoy (1984a), see also Harmand(1957) 354 and 386-396; Salway (2000) 142-3 is of
the same opinion.
58 Nicols (1980b). Similarly,hundredsof civic benefactressescan be epigraphicallyattest-
ed in the LatinWest, but, so far, only nineteenpatronessesof cities.

tura, in the hope that by offering this honour, which is the highest in our
city, to her so illustrious excellency, we may be more and more renowned
by the repute of her benevolence and in all respects be safe and protected
(...) All members of the council have decided to proffer to Nummia Varia, a
woman of senatorial rank, priestess of Venus Felix, in accordance with the
splendour of her high rank, the patrocinium of our praefectura, and to ask
from her excellency and extraordinary benevolence, that she may accept
this honour which we offer to her with willing and favourable inclination
and that she may deign to take us and our res publica, individually and
universally, under the protection of her house and that, in whatever matters
it may reasonably be required, she may intervene with the authoritybelong-
ing to her rank and protect us and keep us safe.59
The text ends by recording that a bronze plaque inscribed with the decurial
decision was to be offered to her by a delegation of the two highest magistrates
of the city and the two foremost decuriones.
Two things stand out: the tone of deference and the services expected from
Nummia Varia. She is addressed in the most honourable terms and a flattering
description is given of her relationship with the city. Her adfectio, pronus
animus, benevolentia and benignitas are stressed and the city humbly offers her
the highest possible honour. The submissive tone is marked by the repeated use
of words denoting her high rank and fame by which - it is hoped - she will
render the city illustrious.60 In the eyes of the decurions her rank was lofty
indeed: as a daughter and sister of consuls she was of senatorial, probably even
consular, status. Thus, the social distance between the prospective patroness
and the decurions is made abundantlyclear.
As to the services expected from Nummia Varia, the decuriones declare
their expectation that with the help of her authority (auctoritas) she will
59 CIL9, 3429 = ILS6110: NummiamVariamc(larissimam)f(eminam)sacerdotemVeneris

Felicis, ea adfecti/oneadquepronoanimocirca nos agerecoepisse pro instituto/ benevo-
lentiae suae, sicut et parentes eius semper egerunt, ut / merito debeat ex consensu
universorumpatronapraefecturae/ nostraefieri, quo magis magisquehoc honore,qui est
aputnos potissi/mus,tantaeclaritatieius oblatodignationebenignitatiseius glori/osi et in
omnibus tuti ac defensi esse possimus, (.) Placere universis conscriptis Nummiae
Variae,c(larissimae)f(eminae) sacerdotiVeneris/ Felicis, pro splendoredignitatissuae
patrociniumpraefecturaenos/traedeferripetique ab eius claritateet eximia benignitate,
ut hunc / honoremsibi a nobis oblatum libenti et prono animo suscipere / et singulos
universosquenos remquepublicamnostramin cl/ientelamdomus suae reciperedignetur
et in quibuscumque/ ratio exegerit, intercedenteauctoritatedignitatis suae, tutos de/
fensosquepraestet.
60 See the repeateduse of words such as c(larissima)f(emina), claritas, splendor,dignitas
and dignatio;for these termssee Lendon(1997) 272-6. Each time her name appearsher
rankand priesthoodare mentioned,as if an inextricablepartof her identity.

successfully intervene in defence of the city-interests whenever needed.6' No

reservations are made because of her gender; apparently, Nummia Varia was
believed to be perfectly capable of rendering such services. No husband is
known, and though we cannot tell whether she was marriedor not, it is clear that
the city sought her personal protection. By associating itself to this woman of
overpowering rank the city hoped to participate in her glory and to be "safe and
protected" by her authority.
Intervention on behalf of the client city was the chief service expected from
male city patrons, many of whom were senators or equestrians active in the
imperial service.62 That here, this is, with so many words, expected from a
woman, is remarkable. Nicols (1989) tries to explain the cooptation of city
patronesses by the extraordinarypower of the women of the Severi. However,
since some patronesses lived before the reign of the Severi (see table 3), this
explanation is hardly convincing. To my mind, it is doubtful whether an
explanation is necessary in the light of the ancient sources, which present city
patronesses as a matter of course. That we feel obliged to explain their city
patronage at all may be due to a preconceived notion as regardsthe exclusion of
ancient women from public life. The tablet of Nummia Varia contains no such
reserve: it publicly recognizes her social prominence and the political influence
that ensues from it - an influence, or perhaps we should even say power, that the
Romans themselves seem to have acknowledged more readily than modem
scholars.63 The words intercedente auctoritate dignitatis suae, tutos defen-
sosque praestet ("she may intervene with the authority belonging to her rank
and protect us and keep us safe") mean that the 'defence' of both the city as a
whole and its citizens individually (singulos universosque nos remque publi-
cam nostram) was expected of her. By intervening on behalf of the city she was
to safeguard its interests. This intervention - with the central powers in Rome -
was thought to be effective because of the dignitas of her lofty status. So far,
61 Fordignitas,dignatioandauctoritas,see Lendon(1997) 274-6, for dignitasanddignatio

as indicatorsof political influence and authority,see also Forbis (1996) 79-81. The
auctoritas ascribedto her and the repeateduse of the words tuti ac defensi "safe and
protected"indicatethe political efficacy thatwas expectedfromher.
62 See note 57 and Engesser(1957) 272ff. In a letterto the magistratesand local council of
Cirta,Frontopolitely refusesthe city patronageofferedto him by his nativecity because
of his healthandhigh age. He advises themto choose as patronsthose "whonow have the
highest place at the bar" (qui nunc fori principem locum occupant) in Rome, see Fronto
ad Am. 2, I1(HainesI pp. 292-5) and Champlin(1980) 10-12.
63 See, for instance, Servilia's power to change the administrativeposts in the provinces
allottedto BrutusandCassiusafterthe murderof Caesar,whichpuzzledmodemauthors,
but not Cicero(Att. 15.11) who acceptedit as a matterof course.In contrastto the ancient
epigraphicrecognition of the power of high-rankingwomen, modem studies usually
emphasizethe indirect,behind-the-scenesaspectof the political influenceof womenand
the condemnationof their public activities in the literary sources; see, for instance,
Hillard(1989) and (1992).

there is no difference from male patrons. But, as a woman and, therefore,

excluded from political office, how was she to accomplish this?
As can be learned from numerous literary sources, but also from the well-
known inscription for 'Turia',64women of the foremost Roman families could
exert great influence not only through their male relatives, but also through
their own network of social connections with men and women of their rank:for
instance, 'Turia' pleaded for her husband with Lepidus, Fulvia went round the
houses of the most importantsenators to gain support for Antony and Terentia
supported Cicero during his exile by exhorting his political friends.65 Such
influence of high-classed Roman women (which long predates the Severi)
resulted from the great public honour of the foremost families, which was
closely linked with political power. The auctoritas of women of these families
was not based on a political, military or juridical career, but on the prestige they
derived from their rank, wealth and reputation,and on their wide social network
of relatives, clients, friends, acquaintances and friends of friends.66In Roman
society with its blurringof the social and the political, such informal power was
real and, though of a private nature, it might be acknowledged publicly.
It is in the light of such female "lobbying" and political mediation that the
tablet for Nummia Varia should be understood. Yet, women wielding power
were exceptional and usually restricted to the highest circles. Moreover, some
of them met with sharp criticism from the authors of our literary sources, who
thought that such power conflicted with the modesty expected of women and
therefore should be suppressed. Incidentally, their repugnance shows the reality
of this power. In contrast with the literary sources, inscriptions show no scru-
ples in acknowledging the power of women of the topmost families:67 the
inscription for Nummia Varia (like, probably, the tabulae patronatus of the
other patronesses now lost) openly recognizes her authority and capability for
intervention on behalf of the city.
If intervention on behalf of the client-cities was the chief service expected
from city patronesses, this explains why client cities chose only patronesses of
the highest ranks. Women of consular families, who form the majority of the
city patronesses known so far, were capable of intervening on behalf of the
city's interests because of their access to the emperor and to the highest
magistrates in Rome. But also other senatorial and even equestrian patronesses
64 CIL 6.41062, see Hemelrijk(2004).

65 For the encounterbetween 'Turia' and Lepidus, see Gowing (1992). Fulvia: App. BC
3.51, Terentia:Cic. Fam. 14. 2.3-4, 14.3.5 en 14.4.3, for more examples see Hemelrijk
(2004).
66 Forthe relationbetweenhonourandpower in Romansociety, see Lendon(1997). For the
social and politicalpowerof high-rankingwomen, see Dixon (1983), MacMullen(I 986),
Purcell (1986) and Laurence(1997). Unfortunately,Bauman(1992) is inadequateand
uncritical.

must have been sufficiently well-connected to intermediate for their small or

far-off client-cities. The difference between the literary sources and epigraphy
in respect of the political influence of high-ranking women is partly a matterof
perspective. As prospective beneficiaries the client cities were, of course, not
inclined to be critical of the power of the high-ranking women they chose as
their patronesses. The literary authors, however, tried to attack political adver-
saries or to uphold traditional morality by criticising the 'undue' power of
women. But it may also reflect a real difference between Rome and the muni-
cipalities: in Rome the public role of upper-class women was both controversial
in the light of traditionalRoman values and overshadowed by that of the women
of the imperial family, whereas in the eyes of the municipal elite the power of
women of senatorial rank must have seemed impressive indeed; they probably
could not afford to ignore it - let alone be censorious.
Public honour and public image
To express gratitude for services performed, and in the hope for more, client
cities bestowed all kinds of honours on their patrons. The first official honour
could be the tabula patronatus.68 But there were numerous other ways to
honour a patron. He could be offered honorary citizenship (if he was not a
citizen yet), receive a seat of honour in the (amphi)theatre or a public funeral
after his death. His name was added to the list of patrons heading the album
decurionum, his relatives might get the privilege of public statues, the city
publicly rejoiced in his prosperity or sympathized with his misfortunes offering
consolation for the loss of relatives by means of public statues or a public
funeral and surrounding his arrival in, or departure from, the city by public
ceremony.69 But the most illustrious honour was a public statue of the patron
67 See, for instance,the matter-of-factrecognitionof Livia's powerandher influencein the

acquittal of Plancina on the well-known senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre from
Baeticain Spain(Eck et al. 11996]87f., 224ff. and 240ff.; transl.by M. Griffinin JRS 87
[1997] 250-3, 11. 109-120; see also the special issue of AJPh 120.1 [19991) which
contrastswith the highly criticalaccountof the same episode by Tacitus(esp. Ann.3. 15
and 17). Cf. also the controversialpoliticalrole of Comelia, the motherof the Gracchi,in
the literarysources, see Hemelrijk(1999) 64-67.
68 Harmand(1957) 332-344. Though no complete set has been found, it is generally
assumed that two identical tabulae patronatuswere made when a patronwas coopted:
one was presentedto the patron,the other was attachedto some public building(many
tabulaepatronatushave nail holes) as a public announcementof the patronage.Nicols
(1980a) 537 n. 12 considersthe possibilitythattherewas only one copy in bronze(the one
offeredto the new patron);the othermay have been madeof wood (andthereforelost) or
the city may have restricteditself to adding the name of the new patronto the list of
patrons heading the album decurionum.
69 See, for instance, the statue erected for Clodia Anthianillato console her parents(her

himself provided with an inscription publicizing his rank and career, and his
merits for the city. Thus, his importance was publicly displayed not only for his
contemporaries but also for posterity; a prominent place and the use of expen-
sive material added to the honour.
This is all very well for men. But how can such public honour be brought
into agreement with the domesticity traditionally expected from women? Were
the honours for female patrons perhaps less? And what public image was
created? At present, the evidence for the honours awarded to city patronesses
consists almost exclusively in statue bases or marble plaques once attached to
such bases (see table 5)70. Yet, this does not mean that no other public honour
was awarded. Their names were probably added to the list of patrons heading
the album decurionum71 and the city publicly sympathized with the vicissitudes
of their lives, celebrating their birthdays and marriages and mourning their
deaths. We have no evidence for public funerals of city patronesses, but one of
them received a statue on her birthdayand others were publicly commemorated
after death.72
The statue bases and plaques form our only source. Unfortunately, the
archaeological data are scarce.73The size of most statue bases and plaques (see
table 5) indicates life-size statues of standing figures.74The large marble plaque
(2.35 m. wide) honouring L. Accius lulianus Asclepianus, his wife Gallonia
Octavia Marcella and their unmarrieddaughters, Accia Asclepianilla Castorea
and Accia Heuresis Venantium probably once faced a base carrying a group of
fatherwas a patronof the city) for her prematuredeath (AE 1910, 203). The fact that it
was set uppublice at a muchfrequentedspot of the town (frequentissimoloco) enhanced
the honour. For her (now headless) marble statue found with the inscription,see NSc
(1910) 146-8. For a list of the types of honouraccordedto city patrons,see Harmand
(1957) 345-353. For ceremoniessurroundingthe arrivalsanddeparturesof a city patron,
see Plin. Ep. 4.1.4.
70 For the use of marbleplaques,see Alfoldy (2001) 12-13.
71 See Nicols (1989) 118, 132 and 138. As Salway (2000) 133 rightlyremarks,the value of
the list of patronsin the albumdecurionumwas "primarilysymbolic". It was a token of
honourfor the patrons,but also a source of pride for the city, since it publicized their
relationswith high-rankingmembersof the imperialelite.
72 The statuesfor HelvidiaBurreniaand Seia Potitiawere set up posthumouslyand thatfor
AureliaCrescentiawas dedicatedon her birthday.
73 Very few archaeologicaldetails are given in the epigraphiccorpora(the CIL and the
earliervolumes of the AE); I have found some additionalevidence by browsingthrough
all other publicationsof the inscriptionsI could lay hands on. Personal inspection has
only been possible for CIL 8, 1181 in the NationalMuseumof Antiquitiesin Leiden(inv.
nr. HBB 10) andfor CIL 11, 6354 in the MuseoOliverianoat Pesaro.I thankProf. Dr. G.
Alfoldy and his staff for theirkindnessin showing me photosof the statuebases of Aelia
Celsinilla,AureliaCrescentiaandCapertiaValeriana(for herstatuebase see also Alfoldy
[1984] pl. 4.3) in the "EpigraphischeDatenbank"in Heidelberg.
74 Cf. Alfoldy (2001) 40-1.

statues of this family. Also the limestone base of Capertia Valeriana is larger
than usual: her bronze statue must have been somewhat over life-size. All
statues were erected by the city, the citizen body or a substantial section of it
(see table 2) and those of which we are informed stood on prominent places in
the city: in, or before, the theatre or the baths, or at the foot of the acropolis
(table 5). In this respect, no difference was made between male and female city
patrons. However, some statues for female patrons were expressly dedicated by
women: the women of Trebula Mutuesca set up a statue for Laberia Hostilia,
and "citizens of both sexes" of Interamna dedicated the statue for Helvidia
Burrenia (see table 2). Both groups had collected money among themselves to
pay for the statues.
Unfortunately, as no statue belonging to the inscriptions has survived, it is
hard to gauge the impression they made on the ancient viewers. However, since
public honorific statues of women in the imperial period were more or less
standardized,we may form an idea of their appearance.All are heavily draped,
standing figures, but there are many variations in details of pose and clothing.75
Most popular during the first three centuries of the Empire were the 'Large and
Small HerculaneumWomen', so called after the famous statues from the theatre
of Herculaneum.76They are in the form of a heavily draped woman supporting
her weight on one leg, the other leg being relaxed and slightly bent. The left
arm, enveloped in the mantle, hangs down, the right hand is raised in front of
the breast holding the edge of the mantle. They wear a long tunic (chiton) and
an elaborate mantle (himation), both belonging to the original Greek proto-
types, but in some cases a stola, the symbol of the Roman matrona77, is visible
between the tunic and the mantle. On these standard bodies the heads were
usually carved as portraits.However, sometimes the facial features were ideal-
ized, so much so that they only show the fashions of the time, especially the
hairstyle. Apparently, the individual personality was sometimes considered less
importantthan the dignified modesty of the type. The quiet and restrainedpose
of such statues and their complicated drapery express the wealth, high status
and traditional virtue of the portrayed.78
What impression do the inscriptions create of the city patronesses? As we
have seen, most of them publicize their high rankreferringto the highest offices
of their male relatives, and some indicate their wealth by mentioning their
75 For a detailed treatmentof the stylistic developmentin drapedstatuesof women in the

second centuryAD, see Kruse(1975).
76 Trimble(2000); Kruse(1975) lists 153 statuesof the LargeHerculaneumWomanand 125
of the small one from the 2nd centuryAD; see also Bieber(1977) 148-162 and (1962).
77 See Scholz (1992) and Sebesta(1994).
78 Other types of drapedportraitstatues have similar connotations;see, for instance, the
Eumachiatype (Zanker [1990] 316-19), the Ceres type (Kruse [19751 3-40) or the
'Pudicitia' type (Kleiner [1977] 162-4 and Bieber [19771 132-3). For their Hellenistic
prototypes,see Eule (2001).

munificence. But what do they say of their virtues? Here, two kinds may be
distinguished: civic, and traditional female virtue (see table 5). In contrast with
the Greek East, where women are praised in public inscriptions for traditional,
domestic virtues, it is civic virtues that are stressed in our inscriptions.79
Traditional female virtues are mentioned in no more than two cases and only in
conjunction with civic virtues. Thus, Aurelia Crescentia is praised both as "a
most honourable and chaste woman" and for her merita and beneficia towards
the city of Trebula Mutuesca, and Helvidia Burrenia not only for her "chastity,
prudence and innocence",80but also for her "merit and love" for Interamna.
In all other cases only civic virtues are mentioned. The patronesses are
presented first and foremost as exemplary citizens. The merita, beneficia and
liberalitas, for which some of them are praised, mainly refer to material bene-
factions, but amor and adfectio point to a more general attitude of goodwill:
they are the mark of the ideal citizen. This could, of course, be manifested by
benefactions - and amor and adfectio are therefore usually interpretedas proof
of such benefactions - but the words also indicate an emotional tie with the city.
Emphasis on a personal, emotional relationship between city and elite is com-
mon in the first three centuries AD. It is a symptom of what has been called the
"domestication of public life", a tendency to present the relation between the
emperor and his subjects, and that between members of the elite and the citizens
of municipalities, in terms of family relations.81Thus, Furcilia Optata and Iulia
Memmia are addressed as the alumnae of their client cities, a term which, when
used metaphorically, renders the relation between the city and the patroness as
an affectionate family tie.82Comparably, women of the elite may be presented
in this period as mater of some collegium or collectivity.83 Their pronus
79 This accords with the conclusions drawnby Forbis (1990) from a sample of thirty-two
honoraryinscriptionsfor women in imperialItaly. For women in the GreekEast, see Van
Bremen (1996).
80 In inscriptionsfor men innocentiais one of the administrativevirtuesdenotinga blame-
less administrationof publicoffice, see Forbis(1996) 64-8, but in the case of women it is
probablyused to denote chastity. Similarly,sapientia denotes intellectualachievement,
in honorific inscriptionsespecially the applicationof intellectualabilities for the benefit
of the city, see Forbis(1996) 95; whenappliedto womenit may denote(sexual) prudence.
81 Set out (for the Greek East) most clearly by Van Bremen (1996) 163-70 and Strubbe
(2001) 35-8. The latterplaces its culminationin the late Hellenisticperiod;for the Roman
West it seems to lie at a laterperiod:the second and thirdcenturiesAD.
82 For the metaphoricaluse of alumnusla, see Corbier(1998) 136ff.
83 See, for instance,CIL 11, 5752 in whichtheflaminicaAvidiaTertulliais honouredby the
seviri Augustales of Sentinumas mater municipaliumand AE 1998, 416 in honourof
Numisia Secunda Sabina, who is addressed as mater municipii et coloniae. For matres of
collegia and other collectivities, see, e.g., CIL 5, 4411 (mater synagogae, cf. Brooten
[ 1982] 57-72 who discusses five "mothersof synagogues"and one "fatheress",pateres-
sa, from imperialItaly) and CIL 11, 5748 (matercollegii) and the inscriptionscollected
by Waltzing(1900) IV: 369-70 and SaavedraGuerrero(1998).

animus, benevolentia and benignitas present the relationship in a similar light:

the patroness, like a parent, is encouraged to show a personal interest and an
emotional involvement in the well-being of the citizens and of the city as a
whole.84
Civic virtues and a, so to speak, matriarchalattitude towards the client city
are the main characteristics indicated by the inscriptions. Traditional female
virtues seem to have been less important, but here we are probably misled by
our evidence. Since only the inscriptions have survived, we perhaps attach too
much importance to them: for their contemporaries the statues were surely the
main thing85- quite apartfrom the question whether they could, or actually did,
read the inscriptions.86 The heavily draped statues must have conveyed a
venerable image of continence, modesty and self-control, that is of traditional
virtuousness. Yet, in itself a public statue of a woman seems to contrast with the
domesticity traditionally expected of her. How did the ancient public react to
this discrepancy between public statuaryand common ideals of female domes-
ticity? Did it affect their appreciation of these statues? For instance, did they
regardthe statues of the patronessesjust as the women they met in the streets, or
did the heavily draped statues towering above them on their high pedestals
impress them as hardly human, almost as goddesses?87 It seems likely that for
the ancient public honorific statues of women were sharply distinct from actual
women, in the same way as naked male statues were regarded as raised high
above daily life and caused no embarrassmenteven when seen by women.88Not
only were they dressed in elaborate, almost unmanageable drapery,very differ-
ent from everyday dress, but their formularizedbodies and sometimes idealized
heads made it impossible to think of them as ordinarywomen. The fact that they
received a public honorific statue, which was typically a male honour, 89 may
84 Nicols (1989) 127 argues that this allows for the inclusion of women since "amoris a
quality women might demonstrateas easily as men". This misses the point, since the
amor or benevolentiaof city patronswas expressed by their promotionof the city's
interestsor their interventionon its behalf. Of course,the "domesticationof public life"
may have facilitated the participationof upper-class women in public life, since as
'loving' and 'benevolent'patronae they symbolisedthe affectionaterelationshipbetween
the city and the elite.
85 See also Eck (1984).
86 For ancientliteracy,see Harris(1989) and Beard(1991).
87 It would be interesting to know whether they were depicted with the attributesof
goddesses, for instance,the poppiesandcorn ears of Demeter,which are sometimesseen
on the HerculaneumWomen.
88 Cf. the remarkascribedto Livia when she accidentallyran into some naked men: "to
chaste women such men are no differentfrom statues"(Dio 58.2.4).
89 As an indicationof the roughratioof men and women in RomanhonoraryinscriptionsI
take the studies by Alfoldy (1979) and (1984) of the statuebases in regio 10 of Italy and
in the conventusTarraconensisin RomanSpainas a point of departure.On respectively
18,7%and 23,4%of the honorificinscriptionson statuebases in these regionswomenare

have made them, in a sense, 'masculine' in the eyes of the ancient public.90
Whether 'male' or 'female', mortal or godlike, the impression the statues of
city patronesses made depended on the perspective of the onlooker. Only the
inscriptions could guide the viewer, and in them the patronesses are presented
first and foremost as high-ranking women and worthy citizens. We cannot be
certain whether the honorand had a say in the choice of his or her statue and
inscription - in fact, all this was decided by the local senate -, but it seems
likely that some consultation took place. 91 The city probably did its best to
erect a statue with an inscription that was to the patron's liking and was
appropriateto the relationship between them. A statue was regarded as a gift
from the city to the patron and, thus, it carried some obligation for the patron to
live up to the expectations.92 Of course, it only did so if the gift pleased the
patron and we may therefore conclude that city patronesses wished to be
presented as high-ranking, dignified and virtuous women and as dutiful citizens
during their lifetime and to live on as such in civic memory.
Motives
Why would an upper-class woman accept the patronage of a city and undertake
the duties expected from a city patron(ess)? Prestige may have been the first
consideration. The public distinction of a city patron, the various public hon-
ours - such as statues and inscriptions - and their promise of lasting fame, must
have attracted both men and women. According to Duthoy, the repeated ac-
knowledgement of his (or her) superior status inherent in these public honours
was an important reward for the patron.93For women, public prestige and
acknowledgement of their superior position may have been the more attractive,
since no political career was open to them. City patronage was one of the few
ways in which their influence and prominence could find public recognition.
Thus, we need not assume that they sought this high public distinction only in
the interest of their male relatives. Surely, they wanted prestige for themselves,
and city patronage offered it.
However, prestige was probably not their only motive. In his letters Pliny
speaks of the burdensome duties of patronage, which, as a responsible citizen,
mentionedeitheras dedicatorsor as honorands,or otherwise(for instance,when a statue

was erected "also in the name of' a woman). When restrictedto female honorandsthe
percentageis much lower: resp. 6.1%and 11.3 %.
90 See Gleason(1998). However,Davies (1997) stressesthe humilityandcoyness expressed
by the body languageof female statues, which emphasizedtheir traditional(modest and
submissive)role.
91 For an excellent discussion, see Eck ( 1995).
92 Cf. Tanner(2000) 31ff.
93 Duthoy(1984a) 151-2.

he felt himself obliged to undertake.He gives as his reason his desire not to be
outdone in generosity by his clients and to serve the best interests of his city or
province.94 Pliny's self-portrait as a dutiful citizen is in agreement with the
civic virtues mentioned in the inscriptions for city patronesses. Their amor,
adfectio and benevolentia conform to the ideals of good citizenship. There are
two aspects to this: not only did the members of distinguished families feel
obliged to show their personal commitment to their cities by exercising local
patronage or by conferring various kinds of benefactions, but also the people
expected such services from their local grandees. Social pressure might be
strong on men as well as on women: this appears, for instance, from the case of
Aemilia Pudentilla, who celebrated her marriageto Apuleius, according to this
author, not in the city but in her suburbanvilla in order to avoid the pressure of
the city populace for a distribution of money. Not long before, Apuleius
remarks, she had felt obliged to distribute 50,000 sesterces to the people at the
marriageof her elder son Pontianus and the coming of age of her younger one.95
Thus, not only prestige but also the ideology of good citizenship and a sense
of obligation induced high-ranking women to spend part of their wealth and use
their influence for the good of their cities. Apart from this, there might be a
family tradition of city patronage, or a husband who was a city patron himself.
For those patronesses who came from the most prominent families the ideals of
good citizenship and a sense of moral obligation must have been the main
incentive, since the patronage of a small (provincial) town hardly added to their
standing. Women of less elevated rank may have set greater store by the public
honour of a cooptation.
Women of imperial and senatorial families lived mostly in Rome and their
patronage of a (provincial) municipality was, therefore, a favour to that city
rather than an honour for themselves. This is manifest in the case of Vibia
Aurelia Sabina, one of the daughters of Marcus Aurelius, who had little to gain
by a patronage of the small North African cities of Thibilis and Calama. But it
also holds for women of senatorial rank, as is illustratedby Oscia Modesta, with
whom this article opens. The citizens of her native city of Avioccala in northern
Africa had more profit from their connection with this distinguished woman
than she had from them. As a wife and mother of consuls she passed most of her
life far from Avioccala: in Rome and in Pisidian Antioch, where her husband
was a patron.96In Rome she probably took part in the ludi saeculares of 204
and, after the early death of her husband and her children, she educated her
94 Plin. Ep. 1.8; 3.4; 4.1 For Pliny's patronageof communities,see Nicols (1980b). Also
Salway (2000) 143 regardsa feeling of obligation as an importantmotive for a city
patron.
95 Apul. Apol. 87.10.
96 CIL 3, 6810-6812. She is mentionedon an inscriptionon a statue base in Thuburbo
Maius,set up for her son, ILAfr279 = AE 1915, 23.

grandson, who gratefully commemorated her as his "dearest grandmotherand

sweetest educator".97In Rome, she was finally buried herself, at a high age,
after having composed her own epitaph in elegic distichs in archaizing, pseudo-
Homeric, Greek:
Here I lie, wife of the consul, the proud hero, my dear Arrius, with whom I
was wed in single marriage. From my ancestors I once received the name
Publiana (they were descendants of the Scipiones and distinguished for
their noble birth). I myself remained in widowhood for the rest of my life
and I was consumed by grief by the early death of my children. In my life I
endured much suffering in distress; my mind found pleasure in the Muses
alone.98
This amateur poem, though rather clumsy, shows that Oscia Modesta had
received the bilingual literary education of the Roman upper classes. Her
literary tour deforce in composing an epigram in obsolete Greek suggests that
she wanted to be seen as a well-educated lady, whose erudition equalled that of
upper-class women in Rome.99To underscore her Romanitas - and to conceal
her African birth and background - she traces her ancestry back to the distin-
guished family of the Scipiones; of course, this is hardly truthful. Also her
adherence to Roman values (she remained an univira) is stressed as is the
consulate of her husband, the supreme mark of status in Rome.'00 No wonder
that she is silent about her patronage of her native city of Avioccala and the
"conspicuous merits" the city praises her for. In Rome she lived the life of a
Roman woman adapting herself to the values and standardsof the Roman elite;
her African face was for Africa alone.
97 CIL 6, 1478 set up by her grandsonin commemorationof her:Osciae ModestaeM(arci)
[f(iliae)] / CorneliaePublian[ae]/c(larissimaef(eminae)/ aviae carissimae[et] / educatri-
ci dulcissim[aej / M(arcus) Fl(avius) Arrius Osciu[s] / Honoratusnepo[s] / IIIlvir,
trib(unus)[mil(itum) leg.--- . For the avia educans, see Quint. 6 praef. 8 and Dixon
(1990) 154. As to her participationin the ludi saeculares of 204, see FOS 587: she is
identifiedwith the matrona[- -]A, wife of a CalpurniusFrontinusin CIL 6, 32329.21.
98 IGUR 1311 = IGR I 336 = IG 14, 1960 = Kaibel Epigr. Gr. 674 (on a large marble
funeraryaltarin Rome):
e068e Kctigat 8cgap -6ardou nppoo; ayavoi
Appiot goli otkiot, t66e Iuyeiaa g6voy
AV U5 K?V ?K npoy6v(ov ort ToVvoga floupXtavn got
(XK?tntSalt 8 ?EXoV EiyiVin T ?ipecoV),
XIpeiat aUTi TO6vd,avta Xp6vov lisvaaa

Kolug6Opowv Teicov ngv0vt TaKog9vVl'
? pikqt6o& it6vov nouX6v 6 advgrkTXv goygovaa,
Mouclaaunv ioiVoV rflv Op?va 0exyogEVi.
99 For the education and (amateur-)poetry of Roman upper-classwomen, see Hemelrijk
(1999).
100 For feelings of inferioritybecause of provincial extraction, see Champlin(1980) and
Hemelrijk(1999) 142.

Conclusions
Since women in the Graeco-Roman world were formally excluded from a

public career, the choice of a woman as a patronof a city seems surprising. Yet,
women's patronage was not an empty honour: they were expected to contribute
to the interests of their client cities by intervening on their behalf with the
central power, by embellishing their cities by public buildings and by gratifying
the decurions and the people by all kinds of benefactions. Financial munifi-
cence appears to have been the result of, rather than the reason for, their
cooptation. Intervention on behalf of the client-city, however, requiredauthor-
ity and connections within the capital. Women of senatorial and imperial
families - and also to some extent those of equestrian rank whose relatives
pursued a career in the imperial administration- had both, and it is an indica-
tion of the importance of their influence and connections that the vast majority
belonged to this group. Of course, we cannot tell whether our patronesses
actually did protect their client cities, but that they were expected to do so is
beyond doubt.
The power these high-ranking women wielded was an informal one: like
that of men, it was based on birth, rank, family, reputation and social connec-
tions, but, unlike them, it was not formalized by a political career. Women of
the elite had only informal, 'private' authority. Because of the blurring of the
public and private spheres in Roman politics this informal power of women was
real, as was acknowledged - though not applauded - by the authors of our
literary sources. The sharpcontroversies aroundpowerful women in the literary
sources are an indication of Roman awareness of their power. The occasional
cooptation of a high-ranking woman as a city patroness in the second and third
centuries AD is, therefore, no sign of a new, or greater, political role of women
in contemporary life. Rather, it indicates the public recognition of their power
by Roman municipalities, which, in their mutual competition for glory and
because of their dependence on the central government in Rome, tried to secure
as much support as possible.
In contrast to the capital, where the ideals of female domesticity were
sharply defended by the authors of the literary sources, these municipalities had
no scruples in acknowledging the power of high-classed women - at least, if it
served their interests. They hoped to profit from their authority and from their
wealth, and expected that their prestige would reflect on them. In this, the
inscriptions served a twofold aim: on the one hand, by erecting a statue with an
inscription the city showed its gratitude to the patroness and encouraged her to
reciprocate. On the other hand, the city thus publicized its own prestigious
association with a woman of the highest importance. In short, publicity and
public honour were inextricably bound up with city patronage and there is no
indication that this was in any respect different when the patronhappened to be
a woman.

City Patronesses in the Roman Empire 235
The reasons women must have had to accept city patronage were a desire
for public prestige mingled with a sense of obligation; thus, their public image
as dutiful citizens was not only flattering, but also, at least partly, truthful.Since
the public image of the patronesses, as presented in the statues and inscriptions
set up for them, combined responsible citizenship with traditional female
virtue, there seems to have been no feeling that their public prominence con-
flicted with the ideals of female domesticity. This compatibility of "male"
qualities of public honour and good citizenship with the traditional "female"
virtues points to a greater de facto acceptance of the public prominence of
women in the Roman municipalities than the literary sources, centering on
Rome, suggest. This discrepancy reflects differences in aims and perspective
between the inscriptions and the literary sources, but is also a sign of a more
pragmatic, or perhaps we should say opportunistic, attitude of the municipali-
ties as to the public role of rich and powerful women of the elite.
Though city patronesses were exceptional, their occurrence shows that
women were not wholly barred from formal public positions. The restrictions
imposed upon them because of their gender could be overruled by high birth,
wealth and standing, or by the personal capacities and political connections of
individual women. In short, without abandoning the general principle that
women, because of their sex, were formally excluded from a public career, they
could, in practice, be coopted as city patronesses for reasons that transcended
their gender. In ancient opinion this inconsistency does not seem to have caused
surprise; it is modern rigid reasoning, which sees problems where, in ancient
opinion, there were none.
Table 1: city patronesses
No Full Name Source FOS / PIR / RE
I Abeiena Balbina CIL 11, 6354 = ILS 6655

2 Accia Asclepianilla Castorea CIL 8, 1181 PIR2 A 29
3 Accia Heuresis Venantium CIL 8, 1181 PIR2 A 30
4 Aelia Celsinilla ILAfr 414 = AE 1915, 37 FOS 1 1; PIR2 A 290; RE
Suppl. 12 Aelius 168a
5 Aradia Roscia Calpumia CIL 8, 14470 = Eph. Ep. PIR2 A 1018
Purgilla 5, 472
6 Aurelia Crescentia CIL 9, 4894 = ILS 6554 PIR2 A 1648
7 Calpurnia Ceia Aemiliana AE 1995, 1653
8 Capertia Valeriana AE 1976, 250 = Suplt 4, B IO
9 Domitia Melpis CIL 11, 3368 PIR2 D 184; RE 5
Domitius 106
10 Fabia Victoria (?) lovina CIL 8, 7043 PIR2 F 83
11 Furcilia Optata T[iberian?Ia unpublished'?'
101 See Corbier (1990) 827 and 838 who announces the forthcomingpublication of the
inscriptionby herself and A. Beschaouch,which, however,has not appearedto date.

No Full Name Source FOS / PIR / RE
12 GalloniaOctaviaMarcella CIL 8, 1181 PIR2G 52

13 HelvidiaBurreniaModesta CIL 11, 4180 PLREI 605
14 Iulia Memmia[Pris?]caRufa ILAfr454 = AE 1973, FOS 449; PIR2C 264,
AemilianaFidiana 578 = AE 1921, 45 M 487; RE 15 Memmius
45
15 LaberiaHostiliaCrispina AE 1964, 106 FOS 478; PIR2L 15; RE
Suppl. 14 Laberius21a
16 NummiaVaria CIL 9, 3429 = ILS 6110 PIR N 240-1; RE 17
Nummius19
17 Oscia Modesta[Valer?]ia AE 1898, 112 = CIL 8, 23832 FOS 587; PIR20 155;
CorneliaPatruinaPubliana RE 18.1 Oscius 2
18 Seia PotitiaConsortiana ILAfr511 = AE 1913, 13 FOS 693; RE Suppl. 14
Seius 24
19 Vibia AureliaSabina ILAIg2, 4661 FOS 800; PIR V 411;
RE 2 Aurelius263
eadem ILAIg 1, 241 = CIL 8, 5328
= ILS 388
Table 2: dedicatorsand titles of city patronesses
Name Monument Inscription dedicator(s) Text

type type
Abeiena statuebase honorary plebs urbanapatronaemunicipi(i)PitinatiumPisau-

Balbina rensium ... plebs urbana .... L(ocus)
d(atus)d(ecreto)d(ecurionum)
Accia Ascle- marble honorary city Col(onia) Iul(ia) Ael(ia)

pianilla plaque Hadr(iana)Aug(usta)Utik(ensis?)
patronisperpetuis.D(ecreto)d(ecu-
rionum)p(ublica)p(ecunia)
Accia marble honorary city Col(onia)Iul(ia) Ael(ia) Hadr(iana)

Heuresis plaque Aug(usta)Utik(ensis?)patronis
perpetuis.D(ecreto)d(ecurionum)
p(ublica)p(ecunia)
Aelia statuebase honorary ordo patronaeperpetuae.... universusordo

Celsinilla decurionum splendidissimaecol(oniae) VIII
(Octavanorum)Thub(urbitanae)
Aradia statuebase honorary ordo patronaeuniversusordo

Roscia decurionum
Aurelia statuebase? honorary city (?) and patro(nae)....(?) [ildem tricliniares

Crescentia collegium L(ocus) d(atus)d(ecreto)
d(ecurionum)

Name Monument Inscription dedicator(s) Text

type type
Calpumia statuebase honorary city c(ivitas) T(hibicaensis)d(ecreto)

Ceia d(ecurionum)patronae
Capertia statuebase honorary plebs urbanaplebs urbanapatronae

Valeriana
Domitia marble honorary ordo decu- ordo et cives Tarquiniensium

Melpis plaque rionumand patronaedignissimae
citizens
Fabia ? honorary city res p(ublica)Cirtensiumpatronis

Victoria
Furcilia ? honorary city patronaet alumnacol(oniae)

Optata
Gallonia marble honorary city Col(onia) Iul(ia) Ael(ia) Hadr(iana)

Octavia plaque Aug(usta)Utik(ensis?)patronisperpe-
tuis. D(ecreto) d(ecurionum)p(ublica)
p(ecunia)
Helvidia statuebase honorary citizens cives Interamnanaecivitatis utriusque

Burrenia sexsus .. patronae
lulia statuebase honorary city (?) [pa]tronae

Memmia
Laberia statuebase honorary women [mmulieres

Trebulana[e] patro[n]ae
Hostilia
Nummia bronze tabula ordo ex consensu universorumpatrona

Varia plaque patronatus decurionum praefecturae
Oscia statuebase honorary city civi et patr(onae) ....civitas

Modesta Avioccal(ensis) d(ecreto)
d(ecurionum)p(ublica)p(ecunia)
Seia Potitia statuebase honorary ordo patronaedicernenteordiner(ei)

decurionum p(ublicae)Thibaritanor(um)
p(ecunia)
p(ublica)
Vibia marble honorary citizens [patrJonaeThibil(itani)

Aurelia plaque
eadem statuebase honorary ordo patronaemunicipiidecurio[nes]

decurionum

Table 3: chronologicaland geographicaldistribution
Name Status Date* Client City Province**
Abeiena Balbina decurial 180-192 PitinumPisaurense It. (6)

Accia Asclepianilla senatorial 2nd-3rdcent. Utica Afr. Proc.
Accia Heuresis senatorial 2nd-3rd cent. Utica Afr. Proc.
Aelia Celsinilla senatorial 2nd-3rdcent. ThuburboMinus Afr. Proc.
AradiaRoscia senatorial 3rd-4th cent. Bulla Regia Afr. Proc.
AureliaCrescentia equestrian 243 TrebulaMutuesca It. (4)
CalpurniaCeia senatorial ca. 220-250 Thibica Afr. Proc.
Capertia Valeriana unknown 2nd-3rdcent. Bellunum It. (10)
Domitia Melpis senatorial mid 3rd cent. Tarquinii It. (7)
FabiaVictoria equestrian 3rd cent. Cirta Num.
FurciliaOptata senatorial first half 3rdcent. Bulla Regia Afr. Proc.
Gallonia Octavia senatorial 2nd-3rd cent. Utica Afr. Proc.
Helvidia Burrenia senatorial 338 Interamna It. (6)
lulia Memmia senatorial 200-210 Bulla Regia Afr. Proc.
LaberiaHostilia senatorial 139-153 TrebulaMutuesca It. (4)
NummiaVaria senatorial 242 PeltuinumVestinum It. (4)
Oscia Modesta senatorial ca. 240-250 Avioccala Afr. Proc.
Seia Potitia senatorial ca. 190-200 Thibaris Afr. Proc.
Vibia Aurelia imperialfamily 211-212 Thibilis Num.
eadem imperialfamily after211 Calama Afr. Proc.
* (approximate)date of the inscription

**in brackets:the regio of Italy.
Table 4: rankand family (the names and offices knownfrom othersourcesare bracketed)
Name Social Male Relatives Office Male Female Office

Status Relative Relatives Female
Relative
Abeiena decurial husband:PetiniusAper quinquennalis

Balbina
Accia senatorial father:L. Accius IulianusAsclepianus consul, curator mother: patrona

Ascle- patronus Gallonia perpe-
pianilla perpetuus Octavia, tua
sister:Accia
Heuresis
Accia senatorial father:L. Accius lulianusAsclepianus consul, curator mother: patrona

Heuresis patronus per- Gallonia perpe-
petuus Octavia, tua
sister:Accia
Asclepianilla

Name Social Male Relatives Office Male Female Office

Status Relative Relatives Female
Relative
Aelia senatorial son: (Agrius)Celsinianus consul,

Celsinilla consularis curator
femina
Aradia senatorial father:P. AradiusRoscius Rufinus

Roscia SaturninusTiberianicus
Aurelia equestrian husband:AureliusFelicissimus procurator,

Crescentia patronus
Calpurnia senatorial husband:Q. AradiusRufinus(Optatus (consul)

Ceia Aelianus)
Capertia unknown father:Maximus

Valeriana
Domitia senatorial husband:Q. PetroniusMelior consul (curator,

Melpis patronus)
Fabia equestrian husband:L. Lucceius Hadrianus rationalis,

Victoria patronus
Furcilia senatorial father:FurciliusCen[sor?I husband:

Optata husband:AradiusPaternus governorof
Cappadocia
in 231
Gallonia senatorial husband:L. Accius IulianusAsclepianus consul, curator, daughters: patrona

Octavia patronusperpe- Accia perpe-
tuus Heuresis tua
and Accia
Asclepianilla
Helvidia senatorial maternalgrandfather:Helvidius mother:
Burrenia BurreniusSeverus Burrenia
Severa
lulia senatorial father:C. MemmiusFidus Iulius Albus consul, patronus
Memmia et alumnus
Laberia senatorial father:M'. LaberiusMaximius,husband: father:consul (2x),
Hostilia G. BruttiusPraesens husband:consul (2x)
Nummia senatorial (father:M. NummiusUmbriusPrimus (both consuls;
Varia Senecio Albinus;brother:M. Nummius father:patronof
Senecio Albinus) Beneventum)
Oscia senatorial (husband:C. ArriusCalpurniusFrontinus (both consuls,
Modesta Honoratus;son: C. ArriusCalpurnius son: civis et patro-
Longinus) nus of Avioccala)
Seia senatorial son: Roscius PotitiusMemmianus
Potitia
Vibia imperial father:MarcusAurelius;brother(!): emperors

Aurelia family SeptimiusSeverus(fictive, posthumous
adoptionby MarcusAurelius)

Table 5: archaeologicaldetails and the motives mentionedin the inscriptions
Name Monument Finding Archaeological Justification

Type Place Details*
Abeiena statuebase Pisaurum marblebase: 1.60 x 0.62 m. ob meritaeorum

Balbina
Accia Ascle- marble Utica huge size: 0.98 x 2.35 m.;

pianilla plaque found at the foot of
the acropolis
Accia marble Utica idem

Heuresis plaque
Aelia statuebase Thuburbo marblebase

Celsinilla Minus
Aradia statuebase Bulla Regia found nearthe theatre

Roscia
Aurelia statuebase? TrebulaMutuesca honestissim[aelet

Crescentia pudicissimaefemine
(sic!) . ob meritaet
be[nelficia saepe [uin
se conlata
Calpurnia statuebase Thibica

Ceia
Capertia statuebase Bellunum limestonebase:

Valeriana 1.86 x 0.84 x 0.79 m.
Domitia marble Tarquinii found in the baths: patronaedignissimae

Melpis plaque 0.93 x 0.61 m.
Fabia ? Cirta
Victoria
Furcilia ? Bulla Regia singularisin cives

Optata et patriamamor
Gallonia marble Utica see Accia Asclepianilla

Octavia plaque
Helvidia statuebase Interamna pudicitia,sapientia,

Burrenia innocentia .... ob me-
ritumamoremqueeius

Name Monument Finding Archaeological Justification

Type Place Details*
lulia statuebase Bulla Regia found in the baths ob praecipuamoperis

Memmia sui thermarum[mag-
nifilcentiamqua et
patriam[suame]xor-
navit et saluticivium
[sumptumagnif?]ico
consulere[dignat3aest
Laberia statuebase Trebula limestonebase; ob merita

Hostilia Mutuesca 1.00 x 0.66 m.
Nummia bronze Peltuinum adfectioneadque

Vana plaque Vestinum pronoanimocirca nos
...proinstitutobenevo-
lentiae suae
Oscia statuebase Avioccala ob insigniaeius meri-

Modesta ta quibusinlustrat
originis suae patriam
Seia Potitia statuebase Thibaris 1.38 x 0.50 m. ob insignemeius et

innumerabilemlibera-
litatemquaordinemet
patriamdonationesua
amplificavit
Vibia marble Thibilis ob singu[l]aremeius

Aurelia plaque in patr[ia]madfectio-
nem
Vibia statuebase Calama marblebase

Aurelia
* Max. dimensionsare given in the following order:height, width,depth.
Abbreviations
AE L'Anne'eepigraphique,Paris 1888 -.
CIL CorpusInscriptionumLatinarum,Berlin 1863 -.
CRAI ComptesRendusde l'Academiedes Inscriptionset Belles Lettres
FOS Raepsaet-Charlier,M.-Th. (1987) Prosopographiedes femmes de l'ordre
senatorial (ler - lie sikcles) (2 vols), Louvain:Peeters.
IG InscriptionesGraecae, Berlin 1873 -.
IGR InscriptionesGraecae ad res Romanaspertinentes,Paris 1906-1927.
IGUR InscriptionesGraecae Urbis Romae,ed. L. Moretti,Rome 1968-90.
ILAfr Inscriptionslatines d'Afrique(Tripolitaine,Tunisie,Maroc), Paris 1923.
ILAIg Inscriptionslatines d'Algerie, Paris 1922 -.

ILS InscriptionesLatinaeSelectae (3 vols), ed. H. Dessau(Berlin 1892-1916).

Kaibel Epigr. Gr. Kaibel, G. (1878) EpigrammataGraeca ex lapidibus conlecta, Berlin:
Reimer.
NSc Notizie degli Scavi dell' Antichitd.
PIRI,pFR2 ProsopographiaImperiiRomani,Berlin 1897-8; 2nd edition, Berlin and
Leipzig 1933 -.
RE Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll,Realencyclopadieder classischenAltertumswissen-
schaft, Stuttgart1894 - 1978.
Suplt SupplementaItalica, Rome 1981 -.
Tituli4, 5 Panciera,S. (ed.) Epigrafiae ordinesenatorio.Atti del ColloquioInterna-
zionale AIEGL (2 vols), Rome 1982 (Edizionidi Storiae Letteratura).
Bibliography
Alfoldy, G. (1979) 'Bildprogrammein den romischenStadtendes ConventusTarraconensis:

das Zeugnisder Statuenpostamente', Revistade la UniversidadComplutense(Homenaje
a Garcia Bellido IV) 18, 127-275.
Alfoldy, G. (1984) RomischeStatuenin Venetiaet Histria. EpigraphischeQuellen. Heidel-
berg: CarlWinter(Abhandlungender HeidelbergerAkademieder Wissenschaften,Phi-
losophisch-historischeKlasse, 3).
Alfoldy, G. (2001) 'Pietas immobiliserga principemund ihr Lohn:OffentlicheEhrenmonu-
mente von Senatorenin Rom wihrend der Fruhenund HohenKaiserzeit',in Alfoldy, G.
and Panciera,S. (eds) (2001) InschriftlicheDenkmalerals Mediender Selbstdarstellung
in der romischenWelt,Stuttgart:SteinerVerlag (HABES 36) 11-46.
Andermahr,A.M. (1998) Totus in Praediis. SenatorischerGrundbesitzin Italien in der
Frihen undHohenKaiserzeit,Bonn:Habelt(Antiquitas3, vol. 37).
Bauman,R.A. (1992) WomenandPolitics in AncientRome,LondonandNew York:Routledge.

Beard,M. et al. (1991) Literacyin the RomanWorld,Ann Arbor:The Universityof Michigan
Press (JRA Suppl. 3).
Bieber, M. (1962) 'The Copies of the HerculaneumWomen', Proceedings of the American
PhilosophicalSociety 106, 111-134.
Bieber,M. (1977) AncientCopies. Contributionsto the Historyof Greekand RomanArt,New
York.
Bremen,H.C. van (1996) TheLimitsof Participation.Womenand CivicLife in the GreekEast
in the Hellenisticand RomanPeriods, Amsterdam:Gieben.
Brooten, B.J. (1982) WomenLeaders in the AncientSynagogue.InscriptionalEvidenceand
BackgroundIssues, Chico, California:ScholarsPress (BrownJudaicStudiesvol. 36).
Castr6n,P. (1975) Ordo populusque Pompeianus. Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii,
Rome:Bardi(Acta InstitutiRomaniFinlandiaevol. 8).
Champlin,E. (1980) Fronto and AntonineRome, CambridgeMass. and London: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Corbier,M. (1982) Les familles clarissimesd'Afriqueproconsulaire(ler - Ille si&le), Tituli
5, 685-754.
Corbier,M. (1990) 'Usages publics du vocabulairede la parent6:patronuset alumnusde la
cit6 dans l'Afriqueromaine', in Mastino,A. (ed.) (1990) L'AfricaromanaVii, Sassari,
815-854.

Corbier, M. (1998) 'Epigraphieet parente', in Le Bohec, Y. and Roman, Y. (eds) (1998)

Epigraphieet histoire : acquis et problhmes.Actes du congres de la Sociit' des Profes-
seurs d'Histoire Ancienne,Lyon-Chamb&y,21-23 mai 1993, Lyon: De Boccard, 101-
152.
Crawford,M.H. (ed.) (1996) RomanStatutes/, London(BICSSuppi. 64).
Davies, G. (1997) 'Genderand Body Languagein RomanArt', in Cornell,T. and Lomas, K.

(eds) (1997) Genderand Ethnicityin AncientItaly, London:AccordiaResearchInstitute,
97-107.
DeLaine,J. (1992) 'New Models, Old Modes:Continuityand Changein the Design of Public
Baths', in Schalles, von Hesbergand Zanker(1992), 257-275.
Dixon, S. (1983) 'A Family Business:Women's Role in Patronageand Politics at Rome, 80-
44 BC', C&M34,91-112.
Dixon, S., 19902,TheRomanMother,London:CroomHelm [firstedition, London 1988].
Duncan-Jones,R. (19822) The Economyof the RomanEmpire. QuantitativeStudies, Cam-
bridge:UniversityPress [firstedition, Cambridge1974].
Duthoy, R. (1981) 'Quelques observationsconcernantla mention d'un patronatmunicipal
dans les inscriptions',AC 50, 295-305.
Duthoy, R. (1984a) 'Sens et fonction du patronatmunicipaldurantle principat',AC 53, 145-
156.
Duthoy, R. (1984b) 'Scenariosde cooptationdes patronsmunicipauxen Italie', Epigraphica
46, 23-48.
Duthoy,R. (1984-6) 'Le profil social des patronsmunicipauxen Italie sous le Haut-Empire',
AncSoc 15-17, 121-154.
Dyson, S.L. (1992) Communityand Society in Roman Italy, Baltimoreand London:Johns
HopkinsUniversityPress.
Eck, W. (1984) 'SenatorialSelf-representation.Developments in the AugustanPeriod', in

Millar,F. and Segal, E. (eds) (1984) CaesarAugustus:SevenAspects,Oxford:Clarendon
Press, 129-167.
Eck, W. (1992) 'Ehrungenfur Personenhohen soziopolitischenRanges im offentlichen und
privatenBereich', in Schalles, von Hesbergand Zanker(1992), 359-376.
Eck, W. (1995) "'Tituli honorarii",curriculumvitae und Selbstdarstellungin der Hohen
Kaiserzeit', in Solin, H., Salomies, 0. and Liertz, U.-M. (eds) (1995) Acta Colloquii
EpigraphiciLatini(Helsingiae3.- 6. sept. 1991), Helsinki(Societas ScientiarumFennica
vol. 104), 211-37.
Eck, W., Caballos,A. and Fernmndez, F. (1996) Das senatus consultumde Cn. Pisone patre,
Munich:Beck (Vestigia 48).
Eilers, C. (2002) RomanPatrons of GreekCities, Oxford:UniversityPress.
Engesser, F. (1957) Der Stadtpatronatin Italien und den Westprovinzendes romischen
Reiches bis Diokletian,Freiburg(unpublisheddissertation).
Erkelenz,D. (2001) 'Patria, civis, condecurio.Zur Identifizierungder Herkunftvon Rittern
und Senatorenin der romischenKaiserzeit',ZPE 137, 271-279.
Eule, J.C. (2001) Hellenistische Burgerinnenaus Kleinasien. WeiblicheGewandstatuenin
ihremantikenKontext,Istanbul:Task.
Forbis,E.P. (1990) 'Women'sPublicImagein ItalianHonoraryInscriptions',AJPh 111, 493-

512.

Forbis,E.P. (1996) MunicipalVirtuesin the RomanEmpire.TheEvidenceof ItalianHonorary

Inscriptions,Stuttgartand Leipzig:Teubner(Beitragezur Altertumskundevol. 79).
Gleason, M.W. (1998) 'Elite Male Identity in the Roman Empire', in Potter, D.S. and
Mattingly,D.J. (eds) (1998) Life, Death, and Entertainmentin the RomanEmpire,Ann
Arbor:The Universityof MichiganPress, 67-84.
GonzMlez,J. (1986) 'The Lex Irnitana:a New Copy of the FlavianMunicipalLaw', JRS 76,
147-243.
Gowing,A. (1992) 'Lepidus,theProscriptions andtheLaudatioTuriae',Historia41, 283-296.
Harmand,L. (1957) Un aspect social et politique du monde romain: le patronat sur les
collectivites publiques des origines au Bas-Empire,Paris (Publ. de Clermont,2e s6rie
Fasc. 2).
Harris,W.V. (1989) AncientLiteracy,CambridgeMass.: HarvardUniversityPress.
Hemelrijk,E.A. (I1999)Matronadocta. EducatedWomenin the RomanElitefrom Corneliato
Julia Domna, London:Routledge.
Hemelrijk,E.A. (2004) 'MasculinityandFemininityin the LaudatioTuriae',Classical Quar-
terly 54, 185-197.
Hillard,T. (1989) 'RepublicanPolitics, Women,and the Evidence', Helios 16, 165-82.
Hillard,T. (1992) 'On the Stage, behindthe Curtain:Imagesof Politically Active Womenin
the Late RomanRepublic', in Garlick,B., Dixon, S. and Allen, P. (eds) (1992) Stereo-
types of Womenin Power. Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views, New York:
GreenwoodPress (Contributionsin Women's Studies, 125), 37-63.
Kajava,M. (1990) 'A New City Patroness?',Tyche5, 27-36.

Kleiner,D.E.E. (1977) RomanGroupPortraiture.The FuneraryReliefs of the Late Republic
and Early Empire,New York and London:Garland.
Kruse, H.-J. (1975) Romische weibliche Gewandstatuendes zweitenJahrhundertsn. Chr.,
Gottingen(diss.).
Lahusen,G. (1983) Untersuchungenzur Ehrenstatuein Rom.Literarischeundepigraphische

Zeugnisse,Rome:Bretschneider(Archaeologica35).
Laurence,R. (1997) 'Historyand FemalePowerat Rome', in Cornell,T. and Lomas,K. (eds)
(1997)GenderandEthnicityinAncientItaly,London:AccordiaResearchInstitute,129-139.
LeGlay, M. (1982) 'S6nateursde Numidieet des Mauretanies',Tituli5, 755-781.
Lendon,J.E. (1997) Empireof Honour.TheArt of Governmentin the RomanWorld,Oxford:
ClarendonPress.
MacMullen,R. (1986) 'Women's Power in the Principate',Klio 68, 434-443.
Nicols, J. (1979) 'Zur VerleihungoffentlicherEhrungenin der romischenWelt', Chiron 9,

243-260.
Nicols, J. (1980a), 'TabulaePatronatus:A Studyof the AgreementbetweenPatronandClient-
Community',ANRWII 13, 535-561.
Nicols, J. (1980b) 'Pliny and the Patronageof Communities',Hermes 108, 365-385.
Nicols, J. (1989) 'Patronacivitatis:Genderand Civic Patronage',in Deroux,C. (ed.) Studies
in LatinLiteratureand RomanHistoryV, Brussels(coll. Latomus206), 117-142.
Nielsen, 1.(1990) Thermaeet Balnea. TheArchitectureand CulturalHistoryof RomanPublic
Baths, Aarhus(2 vols): AarhusUniversityPress.

City Patronesses in the Roman Empire 245
Pflaum, H.-G. (1970) 'La romanisationde I'ancien territoirede la Carthagepunique a la

lumieredes decouvertesepigraphiquesrecentes',AntAfr4, 75-117.
Purcell,N. (1986) 'Livia and the Womanhoodof Rome', PCPhS 212 (n.s. 32), 78-105.
SaavedraGuerrero,M.D. (1998) 'Honory poder en la ciudadromana:el caso de las matres

collegiorum',Latomus57, 127-135.
Saller, R.P. (1982) Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Salway, B. (2000) 'Prefects, Patroni, and Decurions:a New Perspective on the Album of
Canusium', in Cooley, A.E. (ed.) (2000) The EpigraphicLandscape of Roman Italy,
London(BICS Suppl.73), 115-17 1.
Savunen,L. (1997) Womenin the UrbanTextureof Pompeii, Helsinki(diss.).
Schalles, H.-J., Hesberg, H. von, and Zanker, P. (eds) (1992) Die romische Stadt im 2.
Jahrhundertn. Chr. Der Funktionswandeldes offentlichenRaumes. Kolloquiumin
Xantenvom2. bis 4. Mai 1990, Cologne:Rheinland-Verlag.
Scholz, B.1. (1992) Untersuchungenzur Trachtder romischenMatrona,Koln: Boehlau.
Sebesta,J.L. (1994) 'Symbolismin the Costumeof the RomanWoman',in Sebesta,J.L. and
Bonfante,L. (eds) (1994) TheWorldof RomanCostume,WisconsinandLondon:Univer-
sity of WisconsinPress,46-53.
Spickermann,W. (1994) 'Priesterinnenim romischenGallien, Germanienund den Alpen-
provinzen(1.-3. Jahrhundertn. Chr.)',Historia 43, 189-240.
Spitzl, Th. (1984) Lex municipiiMalacitani,Munchen:Beck.
Strubbe, J.H.M. (2001) 'Burger, Nicht-BUrgerund Polis-Ideologie', in Demoen, K. (ed.)
(2001) The Greek City from Antiquityto the Present. Historical Reality, Ideological
Construction,LiteraryRepresentation,Louvainetc: Peeters,27-39.
Tanner,J. (2000) 'Portraits,Power,and Patronagein the Late RomanRepublic',JRS 90, 18-

50.
Torelli, M. (1962) 'LaberiaCrispinae un praefectus castrorumin due epigrafi inedite di
TrebulaMutuesca',Epigraphica24, 55-77.
Treggiari,S. (1991) RomanMarriage.lusti Coniugesfrom the Timeof Cicero to the Timeof
Ulpian, Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Trimble,J. (2000) 'Replicatingthe Body Politic: the HerculaneumWomen Statue Types in
EarlyImperialItaly', JRA 13, 41-68.
Veyne, P. (1976) Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historiqued'un pluralismepolitique, Paris:

Senil.
Waltzing, J.-P. (1895-1900) Etude historiquesur les corporationsprofessionelles chez les

Romainsdepuis les origines jusqu'd la chute de l'Empired'Occident,vols I-IV, Brus-
sels: Hayez.
Warmington,B.H. (1954) 'The MunicipalPatronsof RomanNorthAfrica', PBSR22 (n.s. 9),
39-55.
Wesch-Klein,G. (1990) Liberalitasin rem publicam.Private Aufwendungenzugunstenvon
Gemeindenim rbmischenAfrikabis 284 n. Chr., Bonn:Habelt(AntiquitasI vol. 40).
Zanker,P. (19902)Augustusunddie Machtder Bilder, Munich[first edition, Munich 19871.
University of Utrecht Emily A. Hemelrijk


City Patronesses in The Roman Empire

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City Patronesses in The Roman Empire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City Patronesses in the Roman Empire

Author(s): Emily A. Hemelrijk

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

Selecting the evidence

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

9 Only Nicols (1989) andKajava(1990) focus on women:the thirteenpatronesseslisted by

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

14 Nicols (1980a) distinguishesan Italianform reproducingthe decurialdecree of coopta-

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

been grantedthe privileges of the ius liberorum.20The unusuallycleardesignation

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

mind I have selected nineteen women (mentioned in eighteen inscriptions) who

Geographical and chronological distribution, rank and family

Though my number of city patronesses is somewhat larger than that given by

[1984-6] 290 n. 62) the inscriptionuses the abbreviated(and thereforeambiguous)title

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

28 Foralumnusla indicatinga personwho was bornandraisedin the city, see Corbier(1990)

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

40 Nicols (1980a) 547-8. The famous album decurionumof Canusiumreveals that in AD

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

usually regarded as a sign of the domestic orientation of women. However, this

43 See Hemelrijk(1999) 11-12 and the literaturequotedthere.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

47 CIL 11, 3368 (ht. 0.93m., w. 0.61m.): DomitiaeMelpidic(larissimae)f(eminae)/coniugi

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

51 Forbis(1996) 12-21 and 34-42.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

Duties and responsibilities

As we have seen, honorific inscriptions hardly inform us of the activities of city

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

59 CIL9, 3429 = ILS6110: NummiamVariamc(larissimam)f(eminam)sacerdotemVeneris

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

successfully intervene in defence of the city-interests whenever needed.6' No

61 Fordignitas,dignatioandauctoritas,see Lendon(1997) 274-6, for dignitasanddignatio

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

there is no difference from male patrons. But, as a woman and, therefore,

64 CIL 6.41062, see Hemelrijk(2004).

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

must have been sufficiently well-connected to intermediate for their small or

Public honour and public image

67 See, for instance,the matter-of-factrecognitionof Livia's powerandher influencein the

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

75 For a detailed treatmentof the stylistic developmentin drapedstatuesof women in the

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

animus, benevolentia and benignitas present the relationship in a similar light:

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

mentionedeitheras dedicatorsor as honorands,or otherwise(for instance,when a statue

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

grandson, who gratefully commemorated her as his "dearest grandmotherand

XIpeiat aUTi TO6vd,avta Xp6vov lisvaaa

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

Since women in the Graeco-Roman world were formally excluded from a

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM

Table 1: city patronesses

No Full Name Source FOS / PIR / RE

I Abeiena Balbina CIL 11, 6354 = ILS 6655

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:40:47 AM