Of all the emperors, Hadrian had the closest, most committed relationship with the cities in the provinces, whether they were Roman cities or Greek poleis.1 He strove to find ways of integrating the Greek cities into the Empire’s political, legal and institutional framework. This was no easy task.
As the Greek cities and Roman power gradually became increasingly interdependent, the number of embassies and legal appeals multiplied, threatening to exhaust the capacity of Roman institutions.2 Furthermore, growing interdependence also exerted negative effects on the very status of the polis, which was subject to the foreign legislation and arbitration of Roman power. Echoes of this situation reverberate in Plutarch’s Precepts of Statecraft. Plutarch claimed that a statesman’s fundamental mission was to ensure that unnecessary provocations did not oblige Rome to intervene, in order to “avoid the need for a physician and medicine from outside”. He summed this up in a single sentence: “You govern, being governed, a city subject to proconsuls, to the emperor’s procurators”.3
Hadrian clearly understood this difficulty and put various strategies in place to help overcome this problem and, at the same time, protect the Empire’s political and legal diversity. Although there is no programmatic statement of policy, the traces of an ideological framework are nevertheless preserved in some of the emperor’s public declarations and acts of governance. The most significant of these appears in Aulus Gellius’ commentary on Hadrian’s oratio de Italicensibus, a speech which the emperor read before the senate to promote a senatus consultum in favour of his motherland. In it, he staunchly defended the status of the municipia antiqua, as he called them. The distinguishing feature of these ancient municipalities was that they “could make use of their laws and customs” (cum suis moribus legibusque uti possent).4
These very same words of the emperor are recorded in a decree that the city of Synnada ordered to be published in the Acropolis of Athens. Despite the inscription’s highly fragmentary state, it remains possible to identify the part that is of interest here, where Hadrian grants Synnada the right to “use the ancient laws of the city” (
The emperor’s respect for the cities, whether Roman or Greek, and for their institutional and political customs is not only evident in these indirect testimonies but was also formulated explicitly by Hadrian himself in his first letters to Delphi and Hierapolis. He praised these cities for their antiquity and piety, which were perceived as the basis for their political and religious privileges in the Empire.6 The letter he addressed to the city of Naryca at the end of his reign is also of particular interest. Naryca had asked the emperor for protection against the claims of other neighbouring cities that denied it the status of a polis. In response, Hadrian sent a letter making it clear that for cultural and political reasons, Naryca’ status as a city was beyond doubt. As far as the Empire was concerned, participation in pan-Hellenic leagues and associations, the existence of magistracies and a council, organisation into Greek tribes and the possession of traditional Greek laws – those of the Opuntians (
1 Ancient Laws for Modern Times
The emperor’s evident desire to uphold the cities’ use of their own laws, coupled with the period’s passion for the past, prompted an upsurge in what might be termed ‘legal antiquarianism’. Thus, cities in the Empire felt encouraged to revive their own legal and political customs because it was clear that Hadrian would appreciate it. In turn, the emperor’s favour might bring benefits and new opportunities as regards the social and political advancement of the local elites promoting this recovery of the past.
Thus, in an interesting feedback loop, past and politics became intertwined. As a result, studies on the histories of cities and their own ancient laws proliferated,8 and possession of these traditions became a political advantage, since they provided a means to attract the emperor’s attention and might perhaps constitute a source of material and political benefits. This process explains three very important epigraphic testimonies, all of which were republications of ancient texts, and perhaps something more.
The oldest document that was republished in Hadrian’s time is a letter from the Persian King Darius to Gadatas concerning the cultivation of land and the cult of Apollo in Asia Minor. This inscription is as valuable as it is problematic. If King Darius’ letter really did exist and was not a later invention, it would have dated to the late sixth to early fifth centuries BCE. How it could have been preserved is perplexing. There is no question that this is an inscription from the imperial period: the style of the monument (stone, lettering and engraving) leaves no room for doubt on this point. It is possible that the letter was copied in order to provide historical and legal justification for maintaining or asserting economic privileges, along the lines of what happened at the temple of Zeus at Aezani.9
The second of the documents republished in Hadrian’s time is the law of the astynomoi of Pergamon. The heading of this text defines it as a royal law that was republished by an astynomos who funded the inscription out of his own pocket. The law that was copied dates back to the second century BCE, but the palaeographic and epigraphic evidence rules out any doubt that the inscription is from Hadrian’s time, despite the fact that nothing is said about the date of the copy. In the editio princeps, W. Kolbe proved that the lettering was identical to that of another Hadrianic monument in Pergamon: the emperor’s letter concerning the city’s bank and moneylenders.10 The similarities are so great that it is beyond question that both inscriptions were produced by the same hand. The same workshop also produced other monuments commissioned by the senator Aulus Julius Quadratus, who sponsored the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan.11
The nature and reason for republication of this document remain difficult questions. It is not clear whether the copy is a simple ‘reprint’ or if it is a ‘revised and expanded’ version. One possible reason for republishing the law may have been the urban expansion of Pergamon in the early decades of the second century. During Hadrian’s reign, a new quarter was built in the city that led up to the sanctuary of Asclepius and lay parallel to the temple of Zeus Philios. Perhaps this rendered it necessary or desirable to republish the law, because among its many provisions were some concerning the width of streets and the size of residential blocks.12
The city of Palmyra provides the third example of the resurrection and republication of an ancient law. In this instance, it was not simply a case of republishing the law that regulated the city’s commercial port. The content of the law was updated to reflect conditions in the Empire in the second century. Hadrian had visited the city in 130, and in 137, Hadriane Palmyra – the new name of the city – decided to republish its law in order to adapt it to new needs arising from reorganisation of the East following consolidation of the border.13 Circumstances had changed, and the old law required revision.
2 Hadrian Nomothetes
In addition to recognising the political value of local laws and favouring the restoration of ancient laws, Hadrian implemented other strategies to strengthen civic life. His visits, his numerous euergetic acts and his willingness to assume civic magistracies, even in person, are all proof of his support for and commitment to civic life in the imperial provinces.14 Moreover, in some cities, the emperor was appointed as nomothetes, or legislator.
So far, only six cities are known in which Hadrian was nomothetes. The information on four of these – Megara, Aegina, Thespiae and Cythera – comes from honorific inscriptions and says little about any legislative action. More interesting are the cases of Cyrene and Athens, since the epigraphic and, for Athens, also literary documentation is more extensive and meatier. It should be noted that the role of legislator in a Greek city was a temporary appointment for the purposes of wholly or partially reforming the city’s legal system. Offering the magistracy to the emperor had an honorary component that might work in the city’s favour if Hadrian accepted. Bestowing such an honour on the emperor was inherently political. The emperor assumed the role of legislator to change the laws of a particular city from within the city itself. It seems likely that Hadrian agreed to become magistrate of Megara, Aegina, Thespiae, Cythera – actually Sparta – Cyrene and Athens in order to reform their laws and bring them into harmony or alignment with the legislative, legal and political reform that the emperor had initiated within the Empire.
It is not possible to separate Hadrian’s legislative work in the cities under discussion from the major legal changes that he introduced in the Empire during his reign.15 In these reforms, Hadrian was assisted by expert jurists who also formed part of the concilium principis. This team of jurists, prominent among whose number was Salvius Julianus, lent solid expertise to the emperor’s legislative work not only in the Empire but also in cities in the provinces.16 Nor should Hadrian’s role as nomothetes be separated from his activity as a universal benefactor of the cities in the Empire. Hadrian brought many benefits to the cities, such as urban improvements and access to the Empire’s food resources, and the recipients of his laws viewed them as yet another benefit provided by the emperor.
Evidence from Megara is explicit in such a reading of imperial laws as benefits, even though this is the only place where Hadrian failed in his efforts to revive the weaker Greek cities. A group of four identical inscriptions, erected by each of the tribes of Megara, call Hadrian “founder, nomothetes and foster father” (
3 Athens: ἐνοµοθέτησε δὲ ἄλλα τε πολλά
In contrast to the above-mentioned cities, no inscription which states that Hadrian was nomothetes of the city has been preserved from Athens. There are, however, other sources that record the emperor’s legislative work in Athens, the earliest of which is a passage in Cassius Dio’s Roman History. Perhaps as a result of the work of the epitomist Xiphilinus, rather than of Cassius Dio himself, a paragraph in his book LXIX summarises much of Hadrian’s work in Athens. Among the other things that Hadrian did there, Dio tells us:
ἐνοµοθέτησε δὲ ἄλλα τε πολλά, καὶ ἵνα µηδεὶς βουλευτὴς µήτ᾿ αὐτὸς µήτε δι᾿ ἑτέρου τέλος τι µισθῶται .
He enacted numerous and diverse laws; there was also one to the effect that no senator, either personally or through the agency of another, should have any tax farmed out to him.21
The passage is echoed in Eusebius’ Chronicon. Although the original text has not survived, three derivative versions of the Chronicon record Hadrian’s legislative work in Athens. Despite their many similarities, these three texts contain some significant differences:22
Hadrianus Atheniensibus leges petentibus ex Draconis et Solonis reliquorumque libris iura composuit.
For the Athenians who had petitioned him for laws, Hadrian composed a legal code drawn from the books of Draco, Solon, and the rest.23
Adrianus Atheniensibus, qui ipsum precati sunt, leges a Dracone et a Solone aliisque composuit.
For the Athenians who had begged him, Hadrian composed laws based on Draco, Solon, and the others.24
ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀθηναίοις ἀξιώασιν ἐκ τῶν Δράκοντος καὶ Σόλωνος νόµους ἐπισυνέταξε, χειµάσας εἰς Ἀθήνας .
At the request of the Athenians, Hadrian himself composed laws based on those of Draco and Solon, while spending the winter in Athens.25
The first significant discrepancy is the date: 121 in the Armenian version, 122 in Jerome and 125–6 in Syncellus, which contains the addition that Hadrian spent the winter in the city. Attempts have been made to address this incongruity by proposing different meanings for the early and late dates. Thus, the year 121 or 122 may have been the year that the Athenians made their petition for new laws, and 125–6 the year in which Hadrian assumed the magistracy, since he was actually present in Athens. However, this seemingly simple solution creates serious problems that hinder understanding of the nature of the emperor’s legislative action in the city.
During Hadrian’s reign, Athens witnessed significant changes that could be termed constitutional.26 The boule shrank from six hundred to five hundred members, a new tribe (the Hadrianis) was created in the city, as was a new demos (the Antinoeis), which formed part of the new Hadrianis tribe. The city also underwent a profound urban transformation, expanding into an area that received the name of Hadrian’s City.27 In addition, the political calendar was changed, establishing the month of Boedromion as the beginning of the year. Moreover the so-called oil law was enacted, and according to Cassius Dio, another law was passed prohibiting members of the boule to collect taxes. Furthermore, legislation was passed outlawing artificial price increases in the market, and some action may also have been taken against defaulting on public bank loans. All of these changes bear Hadrian’s seal. Cassius Dio displays a clear understanding of the emperor’s work, describing it simply and accurately as: “Hadrian enacted numerous and diverse laws” (
The problem, however, is that further evidence for these changes mostly comes from partial or indirect epigraphic testimony and that this evidence is not consistent with the claim that Hadrian’s legislative work in Athens occurred at one specific point in time by enacting a single code. A brief enumeration is necessary to illustrate this. Boedromion (September) became the new beginning of the year in 125. Hadrian’s first visit as emperor therefore coincided with the inception of a new chronological era in the city, a change that brought Athens’ political calendar in line with that of Asia, where it had already been decided in Augustus’ time to start the year in September. The last mention of the boule of the 600 is also dated to 125. It seems logical, therefore, and to some extent necessary, that the reduction of the boule to 500 members would have occurred simultaneously with the creation of the new Hadrianis tribe and its new, associated demos, Antinoeis, but the earliest evidence for the boule of the 500 – a letter from Hadrian himself – dates from 132. This is also the earliest attested date for the Hadrianis tribe.28 Furthermore, the Antinoeis demos could not have been created before 131, the year of the young man’s death in Egypt.29 The conclusion seems obvious: many of the constitutional changes in Athens did not occur at a single point in time, in one year, but were spread over more than seven years, coinciding with the city’s major urban transformation. Therefore, Hadrian would not have been nomothetes, or have issued a unitary legal code, at a single point in time. There are other arguments in support of a long, open-ended process, and I shall briefly summarise them here.
First, there is the nature of Eusebius’ Chronicon. The purpose of writing a chronicle predetermines the form, content and presentation of the historical events that are recorded. Eusebius had to date each of the events he wished to include to a given year, regardless of that event’s duration.30 Despite having been assigned the date 121, 122, or 125–6, the imperial action that Eusebius summarises with the formula iura composuit or
Meanwhile, the Athenians themselves did not assume that the work of a nomothetes was necessarily a one-year task. At the start of Hadrian’s reign, the Athenians attempted legal reform by their own means, appointing a local aristocrat, Annius Pythodoros, who had ties with Plutarch and the emperor, as nomothetes from 119/120 to 125/6.31 It would have been from the final year onwards that Hadrian assumed personal responsibility for the task, which he undertook for several years. It seems clear that no one in Athens expected legal reform to be achieved in a single year. There is thus a simple solution to the apparent discrepancy in the evidence, and one that coincides neatly with Cassius Dio’s testimony: “he enacted numerous and diverse laws”.
4 Cyrene: Ktistes, Tropheus, Nomothetes
The case of Cyrene seems to resemble that of Megara and the other cities in which Hadrian is called nomothetes in honorific inscriptions. A fragmentary marble tablet contains the dedication of a statue of the emperor dated to 129 BCE. The city of Cyrene also gives him the titles of “founder, foster father and legislator” (
P.M. Frazer, J.M. Reynolds and, lastly, C.P. Jones have successfully restored – albeit not in its entirety – a lengthy Cyrenaic inscription engraved in the time of Antoninus Pius.33 The stele bears at least five imperial documents, separated by titles indicating their nature and author. The first three documents are from Hadrian, the last two from Antoninus Pius, and all of them are letters from the emperors, except for the third, which is of a different nature and of interest here (ll. 25–68). Unfortunately, approximately the third quarter of the lines in the direction of reading is missing from the inscription, and the missing parts increase in size towards the bottom of the stele. This loss has also affected the title of the third document, which is obviously important in trying to understand its legal and political nature.
In its current state, the title of the third document reads as follows (l. 25):
Despite the missing parts of the text, at least three sections of this document are legible, each starting with a line moved to the left. The first section is six lines long (ll. 26–30) and begins with an exhortation from the emperor to the citizens of Cyrene not to yield to fear and not to forsake their city after the Jewish revolt. He reminds them that the city was founded following an oracle of Apollo, and that it would be shameful to abandon it. He ends this section by asking them to join together to restore the city to life as quickly as possible and “thus become not only inhabitants (
The second section, which also begins with a first-person verb, is devoted to the education of youth (ll. 31–35). Hadrian says he knows that the city’s gymnasium was destroyed during the revolt but also that more children are being born and growing older. Consequently, he donates, or enlarges, a gymnasium in the city, so that the children do not have to mix with the ephebes while they are training. In this gymnasium, the children will be able to receive lessons as well as food given by the emperor himself. This may have followed the pattern of the alimenta known from Antinoopolis.35 C.P. Jones proposed the following reconstruction:
Before moving on to the third section, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the first section of the imperial inscription discusses the transformation of the Cyreneans from simple “inhabitants” (
The missing part of the text increases in size in this last section of the text (lines 36 to 43), rendering it extremely difficult to reconstruct the content with any confidence. However, the surviving words in the first two lines are sufficient to give an indication of what this inscription said. Following J.M. Reynolds’ proposals, the text requires a somewhat closer examination:
ὃ µάλιστα ἀνανκαῖον ἦν ὡς ἠξιώσατ [ε ὑµεῖς αὐτοὶ ……… c. 13 ………νοµοθε ]σ̣ίαν ἐποιη [σ ]ά̣ |µην, ἐστὶν δ’ οὐδὲν νόµῳ πρὸ ὑµ̣ [……
Hadrian begins by recalling “what was most necessary”. This might be considered a banal phrase, were it not for the fact that “necessity”, ananke, understood as conformity with nature, constituted a fundamental principle of the emperor’s political action, along with conformity with the law, dikaion. Considering certain imperial decisions or rulings as necessary, anankaion, implied viewing them as belonging to the natural order, to the kosmos.39 Hence, Hadrian begins by saying that “what was most necessary, as you yourselves asked me …”, and ends the sentence after the interruption in the text by stating that “I made the legislation”. The word
Clearly, there are sufficient reasons for Hadrian’s third title in Cyrene, nomothetes. It is therefore time to propose a possible title for this document on the Cyrenean stele:
5 Hadrianic Grammar: Republishing the Past for the Empire
The large stele from Cyrene provides some clues as to how Hadrian merged ancient traditions with modern practices and laws. The emperor was familiar with the city’s history and with the oracles of Apollo that had led to Cyrene’s foundation. Such information was available not only through the text of Herodotus (4.150–4) but also in the oath of the colonists, dated to the seventh century BCE and republished on a stele by the Cyreneans in the fourth century BCE. The inscription mentioned the oracles of Apollo and the oaths taken by the citizens of Thera. It is clear that Hadrian’s legislative work was connected with this long history of revising the past, which had coloured the cities’ political struggle, under the motto patrios politeia, since at least the fourth century BCE.41
For the emperor, and for the Cyreneans themselves, it was important to link Cyrene with Sparta. Consequently, at one point, Hadrian spoke (ll. 42–43) of “Laconian prudence and exercise” (
The better reported case of Athens is more complex. In his brief text, Eusebius speaks of the sources of Hadrian’s legislative work; these definitely included Dracon and Solon, and some of the versions also cite other legislators, or their books, without further clarification. The Greek version by Syncellus, however, ignores this third source.44
It is probable that ancient laws from the seventh and sixth century BCE were still in force in imperial Athens. According to Cicero and Aulus Gellius, for example, the laws of Solon remained in force in Athens both before and after the Hadrianic reform.45 However, the information from both authors is more ideological than historical in nature, since neither of them was in a position to identify the various legal strata that had accumulated over time under the name of “the laws of Solon”.46 However, I would stress that, first as archon of Athens in 112 and then thanks to the help of his jurists and sophist friends, Hadrian was able to unearth a part of these oldest legal traditions of Athens.
Even in the second century CE, material traces of Dracon’s and Solon’s legislation remained accessible in Athens. As is well known, of Dracon’s laws only the law on homicide had been retained, the text of which had been republished in 409/8 BCE.47 In that year, the law was inscribed on a marble stele which has survived to the present day and which Hadrian could also see in the Stoa Basileios. It has therefore been suggested that the provisions of Dracon’s law on involuntary homicide may have influenced some of Hadrian’s reforms in the area of the public criminal law.48 The emperor also had the opportunity to see and study the remains of the archaic axones and kyrbeis that were used to publish Solon’s laws. Describing the axones, Plutarch stated that they were still visible in his day and that they were stored in the prytaneum. Pausanias also reported seeing them there.49 Given Hadrian’s antiquarian tastes, these historical legal relics would clearly have attracted his attention. There are, however, also other ways in which Hadrian could have acquired knowledge of Solon’s laws, the main one being Aristotle.
In the early centuries of the Empire, any interested Roman had access to the works of Aristotle thanks to the greatest Roman enemy of Athens: Sulla. When he sacked the city, the dictator took Aristotle’s library back to Rome. The grammarian Tyrannion took care of it and transformed it into the spring from which the Peripatetics drank, thanks to the work of Andronicus of Rhodes.50 This revived interest in Aristotle’s recovered works also encompassed his historical and political texts. An indication of this interest is the fact that the only two papyri of the Athenanion Politeia are from the imperial period, one from the Flavian period and the other from the second century CE.51 Aristotle’s treatise on Solon’s axones and kyrbeis, a work that Plutarch was able to consult, must also have been available. It is evident that in the emperor’s day, men in Rome and Athens had excellent information about the Athenian legislators at their disposal.
These Aristotelian books, and perhaps other historical works such as those of the Atthidographers, could be recognised in the reliquorumque libris to which Eusebius and Jerome referred. It were these that contained valuable news about the boule of the 500 which Hadrian had restored in Athens, returning to Cleisthenes’ original form and moving away from Hellenistic expansions. As we have seen, in Cyrene too Hadrian had demonstrated this predilection for the archaic and classical past as opposed to the Hellenistic legacy.52 Although the creation of the thirteenth tribe might seem to run counter to Cleisthenes’ original scheme, in another respect Hadrian perpetuated the work of this legislator. The discussion of Cleisthenes’ reforms in the Athenaion Politeia concluded with a list of “the eponymous heroes of the tribes, which the Pythia selected from a previous list of one hundred founding heroes”. Hadrian became the thirteenth founding hero of the city, giving his name to one of the phylae, the Hadrianis, and a statue of the emperor was erected alongside those of the city’s other twelve founding heroes.53
However, one final caveat is necessary. The spirit of the times was very much enamoured of the past, around which the Sophists’ intellectual and cultural activity pivoted. Hadrian was not only a pepaideumenos but also, to a certain extent, a sophist. Above all, however, he was an emperor, and it would have been insufficient for the Empire he ruled to simply resurrect the past, no matter how attached he was to it. His aim, therefore, was not to ‘reprint’ the past but to produce a “new, revised and expanded edition”. This is well exemplified by his oil law.
Plutarch recorded that Solon had regulated the export of agricultural products, allowing only the sale of oil. Hadrian’s law seems to refine the content of Solon’s rule by continuing to allow the sale of Athenian oil abroad, but establishing production quotas that could not be exported. However, the most characteristic features of the Hadrianic law concern Athens’ institutional integration into imperial life. Hadrian’s law had to provide a solution for issues that Athens could not solve on its own. It will suffice to list a few of these: the portion of Hipparchus’ lands that belonged to the fiscus, the persecution throughout the Empire of ship owners who broke the law, and the right of appeal to the Roman courts, including the emperor himself, against the decisions of the Athenian courts.54
Two final considerations. Firstly, Hadrian viewed the legal diversity of the ancient Greek cities, municipalities and poleis as an asset that merited preservation within the Empire. The second principle, however, somewhat contradicts the first: the intended legislative standardisation of the Empire. The gradual integration of the provinces into the Empire, and the impetus given to this process by Hadrian himself, revealed that local laws were largely incompatible with the social and political advancement of the provincials. There was a risk that the local laws which Hadrian wished to protect would be impractical in modern times. Hadrian had to preserve the old, local laws but at the same time blend them into the new imperial order. He also had to combine the work of legislator and antiquarian. This was something only an Imperator Nomothetes could achieve.
M.T. Boatwright, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton 2000). E. Guerber, Les cités grecques dans l’Empire romain (Rennes 2009), 222–233.
R. Haensch, ‘Des empereurs et des gouverneurs débordés. À propos des lettres d’Hadrien’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 19 (2008), 176–186.
Plut., Mor. 815C; 813E; P. Desideri, ‘La vita politica cittadina nell’impero: lettura dei Praecepta gerendae rei publicae e dell’An seni res publica gerenda sit’, Athenaeum 74 (1986), 371–384.
Gell., NA 16.13.4. J.M. Cortés-Copete, ‘KOINOI NOMOI: Hadrian and the harmonization of local laws’, in: O. Hekster, K. Verboven, eds., The Impact of Justice on the Roman Empire (Leiden 2019), 105–121.
SEG 30, 89 (IG II2, 1075).
J.H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia 1989), nº 62; SEG 55, 1415.
D. Knoepfler, ‘L’Inscription de Naryka (Locride) au Musée du Louvre: la dernier lettre publique de l’empereur Hadrien?’, REG 119 (2006), 1–34.
E.L. Bowie, ‘Greeks and Their Past in the Second Sophistic’, Past & Present 46 (1970), 3–41.
L. Boffo, ‘La lettera di Dario a Gadata’, Bullettino dell’Istituto di Diritto Romano Vittorio Scialoja 20 (1978), 267–303; C. Tuplin, ‘The Gadatas Letter’, in: L.Mitchell & L.Rubinstein, eds., Greek History and Epigraphy (Swansea 2009), 155–184.
H. Prott, W. Kolbe, ‘Die inschriften’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 27 (1902), 47–74; OGIS 484.
S. Saba, The Astynomoi Law of Pergamon. A New Commentary (Mainz 2013).
H. Halfmann, Éphèse et Pergame. Urbanisme et commanditaires en Asie Mineure romaine (Bordeaux, 2004), 68–83.
J.F. Matthews, ‘The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East’, Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984), 157–180; F. Millar, The Roman Near East (London 1993), 106.
Boatwright 2000, op. cit. (n. 1), 57–72.
A. D’Ors, ‘La signification de l’œuvre d’Hadrien dans l’Histoire du Droit romain’, in: A. Piganiol, M. Terrase, eds., Les empereurs romains d’Espagne (Paris 1965), 147–161.
R.A. Bauman, Lawyers and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (Munich 1989), 235–286.
IG VII 70–74. Paus. 1.36.3.
SEG 51 334, 336; AE (2001) [2004] no. 1815–1817.
IThesp 437. A. Gangloff, Pouvoir Impérial et vertus philosophiques (Leiden 2019), 243–254.
I.E. Petrocheilos, ‘An Unpublished Inscription from Kythera’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 83 (1988), 359–362; G. Steinhauer, S. Paspalas, ‘The Euryklids and Kythera’, Mediterranean Archaeology 19–20 (2006–2007), 199–206.
Cass. Dio, 69.16.2.
R. Helm, Eusebius Werke, VII. Die Chronik des Hieronymus (Berlin 1956), 198; A. Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum Libri Duo, II (Berlin 1866), 166.
Hieron., Chron. 198 Helm (122 CE).
Vers. Arm. ab Abr. 2137, 166 Schoene (121 CE).
Sync., 659 9D (125–6 CE).
P. Graindor, Athènes sous Hadrien (Le Caire 1934), 73–86. S. Follet, Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle (Paris 1976), 116–125, with references.
IG II2 5185. A. Kouremenos, ‘The City of Hadrian and not of Theseus: a cultural history of Hadrian’s Arch’, in A. Kouremenos, ed., The Province of Achaea in the 2nd Century CE (London-New York 2022), 345–374.
J.A. Notopoulos, ‘The Date of the Creation of Hadrianis’, TAPhA 77 (1946), 53–56.
The debate and evidences on the chronology of constitutional changes: Graindor 1934, op. cit. (n. 26), 1–36. Follet 1976, op. cit. (n. 26), 109–125. E. Kapetanopoulos, ‘The Reform of the Athenian Constitution under Hadrian’, Horos 10–12 (1992–1998), 215–237.
O. Andrei, ‘Canons chronologiques et Histoire ecclésiastique’, in: S. Morlet, L. Perrone, eds., Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire Ecclésiastique. Comentarie, T.I (Paris 2012), 33–82.
Graindor 1934, op. cit. (n. 26), 32.
SEG 17, 809. F. Ziosi, “Sulle iscrizioni relative alla ricostruzione di Cirene dopo il tumultus Iudaicus, e sul loro contesto”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 172 (2010), 239–248. Euseb. Chron. 121 CE (191 Helm).
P.M. Fraser, ‘Hadrian and Cyrene’, Journal of Roman Studies 40 (1950), 77–87. J.M. Reynolds, ‘Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and the Cyrenaican Cities’, Journal of Roman Studies 68 (1978), 111–121. C.P. Jones, ‘A Constitution of Hadrian concerning Cyrene’, Chiron 28 (1998), 255–266.
Fraser 1950, op. cit. (n. 33), 82–83. Reynolds 1978, op. cit. (n. 33), 118. Oliver 1989, op. cit. (n. 6), nº 122.
H.I. Bell, ‘Diplomata Antinoitica’, Aegyptus 13 (1933), 518–522.
Jones 1998, op. cit. (n. 33), 264.
A.V. Pont, ‘L’empereur fondateur’, REG 120 (2007), 526–552.
LSD s.v.
J.M. Cortés-Copete, ‘Words of the Lord’, in: F. Lozano et al., eds., Empire in Words, Empire in Rituals (forthcoming).
The trace of the
S. Dusanic, ‘The
A.J.S. Spawforth, S. Walker, ‘The World of the Panhellenion I, II’, Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985), 78–104; 76 (1986), 88–105.
C P. Jones, ‘The Panhellenion’, Chiron 26 (1996), 47–56.
Euseb. Hieron. Chron. (198 Helm). For the three versions echoing the Chronicon including the one by Syncellus see footnote 22: Helm 1956, op cit. (22), 198; Schoene 1866, op.cit. (22), 166.
Cic., Rosc.Am. 70, Gell., N.A. 2.12.1.
Ruschenbusch, E., Solon: das Gesetzeswerk. Fragmente (Stuttgart 2010). D. Leâo, P.J. Rhodes, The Laws of Solon (London 2016).
R.S. Stroud, Drakon’s Law on Homicide (Berkeley 1968).
Bauman 1989, op. cit. (n. 16), 264–267.
Plut., Sol. 25.2, Paus., 1.18.3; R.S. Stroud, The axones and kyrbeis of Drakon and Solon (Berkeley 1979).
M. Hatzimichali, ‘Andronicus of Rhodes and the Construction of the Aristotelian Corpus’, in: A. Falcon, ed., Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity (Leiden 2016), 81–100.
P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1985), 1–5.
S.R. Asirvatham, ‘No patriotic Fervor for Pella: Aelius Aristides and the Presentation of the Macedonians in the Second Sophistic’, Mnemosyne 61 (2008), 207–227.
Athen.Pol. 21, Paus., 1.5.5.
Plut., Sol. 24; K. Harter-Uibopuu, ‘Hadrian and the Athenian Oil Law’, in: R. Alston, O. van Nijf, eds., Feeding the Ancient Greek City (Leuven 2008), 127–142; K. Tuori, The Emperor of Law (Oxford 2016), 207–239.