1 Introduction: Εxempla, Structures of Power, and the Imperial Model

Οne of the most important conceptions in Roman mentality is that of the exemplum. The ancient Romans systematically utilized examples (exempla) as rhetorical devices and most of all examples provided by Romans who in the past performed (or were glorified for performing) great deeds for Rome, such as Horatius Cocles or Appius Claudius Caecus.¹ These exempla were recognized as such due to their moral authority and Romans were encouraged to imitate them. A common topos in the literary sources was the idea that the present or next generations ought to imitate the older, morally superior generations and past exempla. Indeed, one of the most significant Roman notions, connected with that of the exemplum, was that of the mos maiorum, the respect owed to the model ancestral morals. Among writers of the Roman imperial period, Tacitus expressed this widely held perception of respect to the exemplary older generations in a famous passage of the Annales. In the conclusion of the third book, Tacitus describes that Vespasian, himself of austere manners like the Romans of the past, provided a model for his contemporaries. However, Tacitus argued that his own period also produced many exempla in nobility and art to be imitated by posterity. In this way, the present would continue to compete with the glorious past in the production of exempla.²

Obviously, the idea of the exemplum was closely, if not inextricably, connected with that of tradition, since the examples were turned into precedents and simultaneously formed an important part of the Roman political tradition. But imitation was not an action that referred exclusively to the distant past. The persons recognized as exempla were included in the Roman tradition as models worthy to be imitated and, thus, the living-up to an example signified nothing less than the continuation of an already approved and highly estimated tradition. By establishing such a connection, leading men and women could enhance their social capital,³ and the (claim to) imitation of a model connected not just individuals, but also past and present. In other words, exempla made the past part of the present as a sort of moral continuum.

The notions of ‘example’ and ‘imitation’ were not limited in Roman culture, but were also widespread in the ancient Greek world. Both Greeks and Romans recognized certain individuals as models and followed in their steps. In the literary sources, the students imitate their teachers, while the children imitate their parents.⁴ On the civic level, countless honorific inscriptions and decrees set up in the public spaces of Greek cities honoured the benefactor for following the example of his noble ancestors and, in turn, urged the rest of the citizens to follow his example.⁵ Within the Hellenistic royal tradition, imitatio Alexandri is of course relevant, since Alexander the Great constituted a steady model for both the Hellenistic kings and Roman leading men.⁶ Despite the lack of modern research on the Hellenistic kings’ exemplarity and imitation, literary works, such as the Neopythagorean Ekphantos’ ‘On Kingship’ and some inscriptions, indicate that there was indeed a discourse on these notions.⁷

In sum, the imitation of a model’s virtues, practices, rhetoric, or visual language is a phenomenon widely attested in the Greco-Roman world, be he a god, a parent, a benefactor, or the ruler. Indeed, many members of the socio-political elites claimed publicly that they followed a prominent model. Tiberius offers a clear example, proclaiming in a speech in the senate in 23 CE that he observed every action and word of Augustus as law and followed his precedent.⁸ Such a case illustrates that exempla had a special application to the structures of power in the Greco-Roman world in a number of ways, since they were negotiated by both Greeks and Romans and carried great symbolical and political significance.

The first emperor, Augustus, was well aware of the importance of exempla and utilised them widely and publicly during his reign.⁹ Not only did he present others as exempla to connect them with his reign, but he also promoted himself as such in a renowned passage of the Res Gestae:

Legibus novis me auctore latis multa exempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi

By the passage of new laws, I restored many traditions of our ancestors which were falling into disuse in our time and I myself set precedents in many things for posterity to imitate.¹⁰

This passage constitutes an important starting point for the researcher of imperial exemplarity. It was proclaimed publicly also in Greek, since the Res Gestae were set up in eastern cities: Ankara, Apollonia and Pisidian Antiochia.¹¹ Augustus declared himself publicly as a role model, thus turning the idea of the princeps as an exemplum into an important and lasting ideological conception for the imperial regime. Of course, this notion was not a purely Augustan creation. The first emperor continued Hellenistic and late Republican conceptions of the ideal ruler who governed on the basis of his example and virtue.¹² The notion of ideal rulership was already a deeply rooted tradition, so it should come as no surprise when one finds references in the ancient sources according to which an emperor, a Roman aristocrat or a leading provincial followed imperial precedent.¹³ The exemplarity of the princeps was not merely a propagandistic slogan, deprived of deeper meaning, but a seminal notion that united the Roman Empire.¹⁴ Though generic formulations should be avoided and every case should be examined separately, it is clear that the emperor was the leading role model in a strictly hierarchical society in which he controlled the majority of the means of representation.¹⁵ Of course, the emperors lived in a society and were influenced by others and most of all by their aristocratic counterparts. However, in some certain cases they seem to have provided the stimulus for actions in Rome and the provinces that resembled imperial ones.

While the imitation of a practice or of a specific action is based on a pre- existing model, it simultaneously constitutes a novel element in the political scene. This is because the imitating action could not be and was not an exact reproduction of the original one. The imitation of an ‘exemplary’ action obviously keeps up with the precedent, but there are different social actors at play, often addressing a different audience in time and space. Therefore, a different socio-political context is created in every case, which determines the very character of the imitating action and places it between ‘tradition’ and ‘change’.

As will be illustrated, the imitation of the emperor was a conscious, selective, and common strategy employed in different Roman provinces. Since the emperor was ‘the leading actor’ in the Roman Empire, many provincial men and women found his imitation appealing, irrespective of their social position and place in the civic, provincial, or imperial power structure. Of course, the act of imitating the emperor increased their social and symbolic capital since they appropriated part of the higher imperial prestige. In turn, they could potentially reinforce their image and social status in the civic scene.

With these briefly-sketched theoretical considerations in mind, I aim to demonstrate the way the imperial exemplum was imitated by prominent provincials in the Greco-Roman East who were attracted by the superior prestige of the leading aristocrat of the Roman Empire. The imitation of the Roman emperor, a phenomenon that can be conveniently characterized today as imitatio principis or imitatio imperatoris was employed also by men outside Rome to enhance their socio-political capital. By utilising the imitation of the emperor as a political and ideological tool, these illustrious provincials consolidated their leading position in the power structures of the Hellenophone provinces. Some characteristic examples from the geographical regions of Greece and Asia Minor in the Augustan (second section), and Hadrianic – Antonine age (third and fourth sections) will serve as case-studies, though the aim of this paper is not to provide an exhaustive analysis of these examples, but to delineate some main points that will be an aid to the better interpretation of the wider role the imitatio principis played in the structures of power of the Roman Empire.

2 Eurycles of Sparta

We can start the discussion with the Spartan magnate Eurycles. His connection with Augustus was formed early on, since he took part in the battle of Actium in 31 BCE on his side.¹⁶ It is interesting that according to Plutarch, Eurycles chose to support Octavian, because Mark Antony had executed his father.¹⁷ Eurycles, then, is presented as avenging the violent death of his father, just as Octavian had avenged the murder of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar, on Brutus and Cassius. It seems that a parallel between Eurycles and Octavian appears in the literary sources.

After Actium, Octavian rewarded Eurycles for his active support by placing him in charge of Sparta, his home city. However, it is not clear what kind of authority Eurycles possessed in Sparta. Τhe contemporary writer Strabo describes him as ἡγεµών (leader) who exercised ἐπιστασία (authority) in the city.¹⁸ However, Eurycles was not a hegemon in any technical or official sense. The local coinage from Sparta does not refer to any official title, but the description ‘issued under Eurycles’ (Ἐπὶ Εὐρυκλέος) is simply stated on the reverse legend, while on the obverse of some issues Augustus, Livia, and Agrippa are depicted.¹⁹ The ambiguity of Eurycles’ official position has confused even modern researchers and various designations can be found in the bibliography. A. Spawforth calls Eurycles simply a ‘leader’, in J.-S. Balzat he is ‘le chef de la cité’, and E. Calandra and M. Gorrini remark that Eurycles and his successors (known as the ‘Euryclids’) had “an extraordinary constitutional position” in Sparta.²⁰ The most interesting parallelism can be found in some recent studies in which Eurycles is described as princeps.²¹ Overall, it seems that he exercised a form of personal rule at Sparta but without abolishing the traditional civic institutions, a power structure much like that of Octavian’s Rome. The new position that was created for Eurycles was at the top of and simultaneously outside the city’s constitutional framework.²² Therefore, it could be thought that Eurycles’ leading and unofficial position at Sparta was partly based on the power structure formed by the princeps in contemporary Rome. It may be reasonably suggested that Eurycles watched his patron and benefactor for inspiration. Like his imperial benefactor, Eurycles exercised monarchical power simultaneously respecting and preserving the already existing civic institutions.²³

Eurycles probably served as the first priest of Augustus in the city and founded the local festival of the Kaisareia, actions that must have strengthened the already close bond of the Spartan magnate with the first emperor.²⁴ Moreover, he played an active role in the ambitious building programme in Sparta that presents strong parallels to the contemporary activities of Augustus in Rome.²⁵ As the first priest of the imperial cult and the ἡγεµών of the city, Eurycles is the most likely candidate for the construction of two temples dedicated to Caesar and Augustus in the Spartan agora.²⁶ The dedication of the temples probably took place shortly after the battle of Actium and the construction of a temple of divus Iulius in the Roman Forum by Octavian (29 BCE).²⁷ The construction of the two temples of the imperial cult made the civic centre of Sparta quite comparable to a Roman Forum.²⁸

Furthermore, aside from the construction of magnificent public buildings in the civic centre, it has been remarked that Eurycles and his circle played a role in the revival of ancient local cults and religious practices according to epigraphic testimonies. Many members of the local aristocracy, connected with Eurycles, are attested in catalogues of participants in the renewed celebrations of the Taenarian Poseidon and the sacred banquets of the Dioscuri.²⁹ These cults saw a renewed importance after thin attestations in the Late Republican period. The revival of the cult in Tainaron was supported probably by Eurycles, whose family was active through benefactions in the coastal zone of Laconia, while members of the family of Pratolaos, a relative of Eurycles, are attested in the sacred banquets of the Dioscuri. Pratolaos’ family contributed to the repair of the temple of the divine twins and thus assisted in the revival of this local cult. It is worth noting that the temple of Castor and Pollux in the Roman Forum was repaired and dedicated by Tiberius in 6 CE.³⁰ Taken as a whole, the renewal of ancient cults in Sparta must have been realized by well-informed prominent local families, connected to Rome. They followed the mood of religious renewal of Augustan Rome and promoted divinities such as the Dioscuri contemporaneously with the imperial centre to advance their εὐσέβεια (reverence) towards the gods and connection with the regime.³¹

The phenomenon of the renewal of Spartan cults through, for example, the construction of new and restoration of ancient sanctuaries has been connected to, and was in accordance with, the topical religious programme of Augustus in Rome.³² In this way, a part of the extensive programme of public works in Sparta, led by Eurycles himself and his circle, seems to have followed the contemporary Augustan building programme in Rome. Moreover, the renewal of ancient Spartan cults was modelled in the promotion of pietas and the imperial care for traditional cults in Rome.

With this connection in mind, we may recall that many researchers have pointed out that white marble was employed widely in the theatre of Sparta under Augustus and, characteristically, it was the first time white marble was used extensively in the city.³³ Under Augustus, this material served as a symbol of architectural modernisation in the imperial constructions in Rome.³⁴ Of course, the use of marble was already widely attested in ancient Greek cities, but its unprecedented utilisation in the Spartan theatre and agora can be connected with the renewed importance this material acquired in Augustan Rome, in combination with other developments such as the inflow of wealth to Sparta.³⁵ Moreover, the improvement of the Spartan theatre fits well with the Augustan emphasis on the restoration of public buildings after the battle of Actium. For this reason, it has been proposed that the work was undertaken by Eurycles.³⁶ The monumental theatre was the centre of the Spartan building programme and one can reasonably suggest that this Spartan ‘partisan’ of the emperor imitated the contemporary Augustan programme in Rome.³⁷

Imitatio Augusti did not inspire every single aspect of Eurycles’ reign, but it certainly did impact him on a constitutional, building, and cultic level. The prominent political position of Eurycles in the city, an outcome of his personal acquaintance with the first emperor and the favour he enjoyed, directed him towards the ideology of the imperial state, as happened in other cases of prominent provincials. It seems that Eurycles knew of the contemporary activities and the ideological themes promoted by Augustus, such as his extensive building programme in Rome and the revival of ancient cults, which he implemented in his own area of authority.³⁸ The nature of his power and the deeds of the local magnate recall Augustus and the topical imperial ideology.

3 Par inter principes: Herodes Atticus and the imitatio principis

The Spartan Eurycles was not the only prominent Greek provincial employing the imitation of the Roman emperor as an instrument to acquire precious social and symbolic capital. Another instructive example is that of the famous Athenian magnate of the second century CE, Herodes Atticus.³⁹

It is impossible to describe here all the actions and ways through which Herodes attempted to imitate the Roman emperors, so an outline of some selected and characteristic examples has to suffice. As will be clear, the case of Herodes Atticus presents perhaps the culmination of the imitatio principis in the Hellenophone provinces. The prominent Athenian did not try to hide his ambition to be compared with the emperor, especially Hadrian, but many of his public initiatives were based on the imperial model.

When he was still a child, Herodes Atticus resided with the grandfather of Marcus Aurelius in Rome, an experience quite atypical for the son of a Greek provincial, even a prominent one.⁴⁰ Afterwards, he was included among the amici of Hadrian (124 CE) as a quaestor and travelled in his entourage.⁴¹ His personal bonds with the imperial house were sealed with his marriage with Regilla, a relative of Faustina Maior, Antoninus Pius’ wife. Together, they owned a great estate on the Appian Way, a few miles from Rome, called the Triopion.⁴² The fact that he wed a Roman lady coming from the highest echelons of Roman society singled out Herodes among his Greek counterparts.⁴³ As one researcher has aptly put it, ‘for the king-like Athenian magnate, Regilla, “little queen” by name, was thus an appropriate match’.⁴⁴

The catalogue of the offices Herodes held in Rome and the provinces is dazzling: archon eponymos in Athens (126/7 CE), agoranomos, agonothetes of the Panathenaea, high-priest of the imperial cult (ca. 138), priest of Dionysos, corrector of the free cities of Asia (ca. 135/6), archon of the Panhellenion in the first years of the institution (between 137 and 141 CE). He even reached the consular office in Rome, being consul ordinarius in 143 and surpassing his father who had been a suffect consul. Herodes was also the teacher of oratory of the young imperial heirs Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus from 141 to 146.⁴⁵ It is evident, then, that Herodes Atticus maintained personal, close and lasting ties with the imperial family.⁴⁶ The personal bond with the imperial centre is an aspect we already witnessed in the case of Eurycles and should be taken into account in the study of the imitatio principis. In case the prominent men were personally acquainted with the emperor, they were directly affected and (possibly) impressed by imperial magnanimity, thus making it easier for them to follow his example. Personal contact with the emperor is an element that cannot be ‘measured’, but I think we should not underestimate it as a factor for imitation. Of course, this does not mean that there is no imitatio without a personal connection between emperor and imitator. As appears from e.g. the imperial impact on hairstyle and fashion trends, numerous provincials were inspired for their self-representation from features of the imperial representation without being personally acquainted with members of the imperial family. The personal bond can serve merely as an additional indication that imperial imitation is at play in the cases of the most prominent men who might have been influenced from their contact with the princeps.

The most impressive way through which Herodes Atticus sought to imitate and even emulate the emperors was in his euergetic activity. The numerous and magnificent benefactions of Herodes in many provincial cities, including Athens, Eleusis, Corinth, Delphi, Olympia, Alexandreia Troas, and Ephesos render his multi-faceted euergetic activity reminiscent of the imperial. Accordingly, it has been remarked that his passion for building activities was in accordance with the Hadrianic model of euergetism, and I would add that it was based on the contemporary exemplum of the philhellene emperor.⁴⁷ This is illustrated especially in the benefactions of Herodes at Athens that can be compared with Hadrian’s extensive building works in the same city only a few decades earlier.⁴⁸

As is well-known, Hadrian completed the great temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens, founded a new neighbourhood in this temple’s vicinity, and constructed a magnificent library. He also built a great aqueduct, a temple dedicated to all the gods, the Pantheon, a temple of Hera and Zeus Panhellenios, and a bridge over the river Kephissos.⁴⁹ In this way, an ancient writer would have argued justifiably that Hadrian was the greatest benefactor of Athens. However, Philostratus stated that the two monuments of Herodes Atticus in Athens, namely the Panathenaic stadium (which he rebuilt in marble) and the Herodian Odeon were unparalleled throughout the Empire.⁵⁰ This undoubtedly exaggerated statement sets aside the Hadrianic constructions and places Herodes in direct rivalry with Hadrian, albeit on a rhetorical level, in terms of magnanimity of construction, and in the symbolical euergetic primacy of an individual over the city of Athens. Indeed, the capacity of the Panathenaic stadium renovated by Herodes can be compared with the Roman Colosseum and its dimensions with Domitian’s stadium in Rome.⁵¹ Moreover, the impressive Odeon has been interpreted as an almost regal ‘answer’ of Herodes to the reconstruction of the theatre of Dionysos by Hadrian, located on the same slope of the Akropolis hill.⁵² Lastly, the bridge Herodes constructed over the river Ilissos, close to the Hadrianic Olympieion, perhaps imitates the bridge Hadrian had constructed over the river Kephissos in terms of its practical function and symbolical significance.⁵³ Therefore, there were new, grandiose benefactions and novel additions to the civic landscape of Athens by Herodes, which simultaneously continued the great Hadrianic benefactions completed a few years prior, which Herodes had seen in person.

According to Philostratus, the Athenians regarded the Herodian benefactions with suspicion due to the dispute over the donation of Herodes’ father to them.⁵⁴ However, there would have undoubtedly been many Athenians who appreciated deeply the benefits of Herodes’ works both in practical terms and for the augmentation of the city’s prestige as a cultural centre and the seat of Hadrian’s newly-instituted Panhellenion. The Herodian monuments constituted (and many of them still do) a vivid example of the degree to which the emperor could be a model for imitation by prominent provincials. Hadrian provided an example of benefactions in Athens which Herodes consciously continued, imitated, and perhaps even competed with.⁵⁵

The height the ambitions of Herodes may have reached is revealed in his almost imperial plan to cut a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth, which was a clear attempt at aemulatio principis, since this was a work that even Nero and, to a lesser extent, Caesar and Caligula could not achieve.⁵⁶ Indeed, Philostratus has Herodes stating that only this deed would ensure posthumous fame for him. In the end, Herodes did not seek imperial permission for carrying out his plan, because he was afraid that he would be accused of trying to complete a project that even Nero could not achieve, and he abandoned the whole effort. Even if we take Philostratus’ account as rhetorical exaggeration rather than historical fact (though there is no reason to do so), it is revealing both for the ‘imperial’ impression Herodes Atticus had made on later generations of Greeks and for him being portrayed as careful not to challenge imperial authority.

The scale of Herodes’ ambitions in the euergetic sphere became evident already during his correctorship of the free cities of Asia (ca. 135/6). Hadrian had donated three million drachmae for the construction of an aqueduct in Alexandreia Troas. But when the sum proved to be inadequate, Herodes covered the additional expenses by disbursing four more million drachmae from his family’s fortune, thus surpassing the sum the emperor had initially offered.⁵⁷ In this interesting and peculiar episode, Herodes is presented as emulating the emperor by not merely imitating him in the sense of personally continuing the construction of the aqueduct, but even surpassing him.⁵⁸ Herodes’ ambitions became clear, since the magnificent aqueduct, the nymphaeum and a complex of baths and gymnasium he constructed with the family’s fortune dominated the landscape of Alexandreia Troas.⁵⁹ In my opinion, Herodes was promoted as a ‘mirror’ of Hadrian to the inhabitants of the city through these impressive benefactions.

One of the most striking expressions of Herodes’ imitatio Hadriani was his reaction following the premature death of his young adopted son, Polydeukion. Herodes bestowed heroic honours on him and set up statues in his honour at numerous sites. It has been suggested that Herodes’ exceptional mourning and honorific actions for his foster son were modelled after the honours of Hadrian to his deceased beloved Antinoos.⁶⁰ Indeed, the cases of the two young men can be compared: both were objects of affection by wealthy prominent men, died prematurely and received cultic honours (through worship, dedication of statues and institution of festivals in their honour). The portraits of Polydeukion are similar to those of Antinoos concerning the depiction of the youthful and idealized facial features. Polydeukion is the best and most widespread example of imitation of the Antinoean model of juvenile beauty in sculptures.⁶¹ Even more impressive is the fact that some youthful private portraits depended iconographically on the portrait of Polydeukion, thus disseminating the ideal of juvenile beauty both Antinoos and Polydeukion promoted.⁶² Moreover, Antinoos was often depicted in the guise of a god – for example as Dionysos or Osiris – or as a hero, and it seems that some statues of Polydeukion in Herodes’ estates in Marathon and Eva-Loukou perhaps presented him as an Egyptian god and one of the Dioscuri.⁶³ Furthermore, the private contests Herodes instituted in honour of Polydeukion in Kephisia imitated those of Hadrian for Antinoos in Antinoopolis and elsewhere.⁶⁴ Taken together, the worship, the contests, the numerous statues of Polydeukion (also as a god), and his portraits can be interpreted as a conscious imitatio or even aemulatio of Hadrian’s honours for Antinoos.⁶⁵

However, the worship of Polydeukion seems to have been limited to Herodes’ estates. The cult was probably not promoted publicly, but had more of a personal character for Herodes and some members of his circle.⁶⁶ In this regard, it is perhaps relevant that Polydeukion was honoured as ‘the hero of Herodes’ (τὸν Ἡρώδου ἥρωα) in an inscription from Delphi.⁶⁷ Obviously, the provincial cities did not regard Polydeukion’s death as an event of equal importance to Antinoos’ passing, and of course Herodes did not equal the emperor, and thus Polydeukion’s worship was not elevated in the public sphere. After all, as noted above, many Athenians bore a hostile attitude to Herodes.⁶⁸ Moreover, perhaps Herodes himself did not intend to disseminate further the worship of Polydeukion, since he would have been conscious that a promotion of the cult in public spaces could have been considered as a provocation by the imperial centre. As Philostratus’ narration about Herodes’ plan to cut a canal through the Isthmus indicates, he was careful not to attract displeasure from the imperial government. Indeed, it is characteristic that the governors of Achaea, the brothers Quintilii, considered Herodes’ honours for his deceased favourites as excessive and criticised the statues he had dedicated, thus forcing Herodes to appease them by pointing out the private character of ‘his poor marbles’ (τοῖς ἐµοῖς … λιθαρίοις). Herodes’ exceptional grief and honours would probably have reminded the Quintilii of the by then deceased Hadrian’s mourning for Antinoos, and thus Herodes risked being accused of emulating the emperor, as could have happened in the case of his plan to cut through the Isthmus.⁶⁹ The Quintilii episode indicates that Herodes’ excessive mourning, though expressed in a mainly private context, also had a public function. It probably became a topic of discussion among Athenians and attracted the attention of the provincial governors who rushed to reprimand the important magnate. In this way, it seems that sometimes the imperial imitation created tension in the imperial structures of power and, more specifically, in the relations between the official authorities representing the emperor, even the emperor himself, and the provincial imitators.

To briefly sum up, the benefactions of Herodes Atticus can be compared with the inter-provincial and extraordinary euergetic activity of a Roman emperor. His imitatio principis is illustrated most of all in his ambitions and the magnificence, the breadth, the number, and the permanence of his public benefactions in numerous cities, especially in Athens. It is especially these actions that reveal a person who acted like an emperor in many ways and ‘forced’ ancient writers like Philostratus to refer to him using descriptions more appropriate for emperors.⁷⁰ To this we should add the heroisation and the various honours Herodes bestowed to his favourite, Polydeukion, based on the Hadrianic model of those addressed to Antinoos. Moreover, his aemulatio principis is also clear in the events around the aqueduct of Alexandria Troas and his plan concerning the cutting of a canal through the Isthmus. All taken together, Herodes Atticus probably constitutes the apex of the imitatio principis in the Greco-Roman East concerning its extent and the clarity through which this is detected.

4 Marcus Ulpius Apuleius Eurycles: the Panhellene from Aezani

A final case study of imitatio principis from the Greco-Roman East brings us to the prominent M. Ulpius Apuleius Eurycles from the city of Aezani in Phrygia. Eurycles was chosen from his city to serve as a Panhellene in the Panhellenion at Athens, founded by Hadrian in 131/2. Eurycles remained in Athens during his entire service as a Panhellene, from 153 to 157. This was an unusual practice, as most Panhellenes did not stay in the city for the full term of their office, but returned to their home cities. However, Eurycles sought to be advanced in the public scene through his office in the Panhellenion, as is illustrated in the numerous ‘testimonials’ composed in his honour by the Panhellenes and the Athenian Areopagus and addressing Antoninus Pius, the city of Aezani and the Koinon of Asia.⁷¹ Therefore, Eurycles was a zealous provincial who utilized his stay in Athens and his office in the Panhellenion for his social advancement.

During his sojourn in Athens, Eurycles obviously had the opportunity to personally observe the benefactions of Hadrian in the city and be impressed by them, which led him to dedicate a bridge to various deities as soon as he returned to Aezani in 157 CE. The text of the inscription is interesting and worth quoting in full:

Αὐτοκράτορι Καίσαρ[ι] | Τ. Αἰλίωι Αδριανῶι Ἀν|τωνείνωι Σεβαστῶι̣ | Εὐσεβεῖ καὶ θεῶι Ἁδρι̣|ανῶι Πανελληνίωι | καὶ θεαῖς Ἐλευσεινί|αις καὶ Ἀθηνᾶι Πολιά|δι καὶ Ποσειδῶνι καὶ | Ἀµφιτρείτηι Εὐρυ|κλῆς ἐπὶ τῆς σλδʹ Ὀ|λυµπιάδος, Πανελ|ληνιάδι ϛʹ.

To imperator Caesar T. Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius and the deified Hadrian Panhellenios and the goddesses of Eleusis and Athena Polias and Poseidon and Amphitrite, Eurycles (dedicates this bridge) under the 234th Olympiad, 6th Panhellenias.⁷²

Therefore, Eurycles’ bridge in Aezani is dedicated to a series of deities. While the reference to the living emperor and the maritime gods is expected, some deities stand out in the text: the deified Hadrian Panhellenios, the Eleusinian goddesses and Athena Polias. The choice of specifically these deities reveals vividly the motives of Eurycles: the construction of this bridge constitutes an imitation of the bridge Hadrian built over the river Kephissos, along the Sacred Way leading from Athens towards the sanctuary of Eleusis, on the occasion of his initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries as recently as 124/5.⁷³ The prominent Panhellene obviously saw with his own eyes Hadrian’s bridge and decided to construct a counterpart in his home city. By imitating the imperial construction and having already fulfilled his office as Panhellene, Eurycles honoured Hadrian Panhellenios and presented himself as a ‘miniature’ Hadrian in Aezani. It goes without saying that the new bridge also served the practical needs of the city, but this does not contradict the notion that the construction was an expression of imitatio principis. By carrying out this kind of construction in particular, Eurycles had the opportunity to imitate a specific benefaction of Hadrian at Athens. This interpretation explains the mention of Hadrian Panhellenios, the deities of Eleusis and Athena Polias in the text of the dedicatory inscription. It seems clear that the bridge of Aezani evoked that of Eleusis, with Eurycles by extension evoking Hadrian himself. It is also possible that Eurycles was initiated in the Mysteries, again imitating the imperial model.⁷⁴ As a result, the construction of the bridge at Aezani can be viewed as both an expression of imitatio principis and a homage to the deities of Athens and Eleusis with whom both Hadrian and Eurycles were connected.

In this connection, we should be reminded of the bridge Herodes Atticus constructed over the river Ilissos, close to the Hadrianic Olympieion. It seems that both Herodes and Eurycles imitated the same imperial construction: Hadrian’s bridge over the Kephissos, which they both had witnessed in person. In this way, one imperial construction offered the model for similar works from two prominent provincials in two different provinces of the Greco-Roman East.

5 Conclusion: Imitatio principis, Tradition and the Structures of Power in the Roman Empire

The Spartan magnate Eurycles, the Athenian Herodes Atticus and Eurycles from Aezani are only some selective cases of imitatio and aemulatio principis in the Greco-Roman East. Usually, these examples are interpreted as ‘flatteries’ addressed to the emperor on the basis of Oscar Wilde’s famous proverb ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’. However, this interpretation is only partly correct. Flattery is only the first step to approach this phenomenon. Leading provincials like Herodes and the two Eurycles followed imperial practices, benefactions, and elements of the imperial ideology, thus ‘transferring’ central incentives to their home cities not as exact ‘copies’ of the imperial model, but in a variated and original form. They followed imperial precedent, but simultaneously their actions constituted a novel element in the civic scene, through the appearance of a new structure in the city or the expression of an ideological notion in a novel form. It can then be stated that the imitatio principis functioned as a ‘bridge’ between tradition and innovation.

The imitatio principis connected the imperial incentives with the provincial social practices. The imperial model often served as a firm basis for the rhetoric, initiatives, and images of prominent individuals throughout the Empire who wished to associate themselves with the emperor as well as to leave their own, unique mark in the civic scene by following the imperial exemplum. The imitatio principis was thus an important instrument for gaining precious social and symbolic capital in the structures of power in the Roman Empire.⁷⁵ In turn, these structures were maintained, since the provincial elites strengthened their superiority over the lower echelons by utilizing the imperial exemplum.

In this regard, the question of the provincial imitators’ ‘audience’ is important. The emperor would probably have been informed about a provincial imitation only if this was considered as dangerous for his rule.⁷⁶ But otherwise, the provincial imitators examined here did not necessarily have the princeps in mind as their primary audience for acting imitatively. By borrowing from the imperial repertoire, these illustrious men appeared as ‘mirrors’ of the princeps to provincial society and especially its leading members, their counterparts in the higher echelons, and claimed power and prestige in the local community and the imperial society as a whole. The audience of the imitatio principis was mainly local and internal, be they Spartans, Athenians or Aezanitai.

Imitation of the emperor reinforced the public image of prominent provincials in the deeply hierarchical structure of Roman imperial society, as it was translated into social power and prestige. The leading men (and also women)⁷⁷ demonstrated that they could imitate and connect themselves to the leading role model and most admirable aristocrat of the Roman Empire. In this way, the imitatio principis contributed to the legitimation of the prominent men’s rule in the communities. The imitators understood that part of the prestige of the imperial model would reflect upon them, resulting in the increase of their social and symbolic capital. Eurycles’ rule and constructions, Herodes’ benefactions, and Polydeukion’s cultic parallelism with Antinoos, and even the ‘modest’ bridge of Eurycles in Aezani were all forms of imitatio principis, expressed in an indirect way in the literary testimonies and epigraphic texts. The Spartan Eurycles and Herodes Atticus maintained close bonds with the imperial centre and had personal experience with the emperors, which is an indication that they may have been influenced by them. However, as the case of Eurycles from Aezani demonstrates, the contact with the imperial model could also be indirect. Moreover, the imitatio principis was not restricted to only a top few in Greco-Roman society, but was also practiced by the lower echelons of society, as is vividly demonstrated by the impact of imperial iconography in private portraiture.

It should be pointed out that the imitatio principis is merely one side of the coin and a part of the wider discourse on exemplarity in the Greco-Roman world. It does not exclude the various interactions between emperor and leading men of the imperial and provincial elites (including their own impact to the imperial centre), nor the role local traditions might have played. The cases examined here were prominent Greeks who acted in a world of long-established civic traditions. For example, Herodes Atticus imitated Hadrian, but he was simultaneously a Greek sophist and his benefactions can also be interpreted in the context of the civic tradition of euergetism that was at its apex in the second century CE.⁷⁸ Moreover, Herodes chose to be depicted in his portraits as a Greek political man of the classical period, without any reference to the contemporary portraits of the Antonine emperors.⁷⁹ Imperial imitation did not rule out the use of local traditions and other models (for example, prominent ancestors or Hellenistic kings), but instead, could be combined with them, especially when we take into account that many elements of imperial rule were based on Hellenistic kingship. There is no reason to constrain ourselves and interpret provincial cases as deriving exclusively from either imperial imitation or other models – both apply, as they do in other examples from Rome and the Latin West. Therefore, the imitatio principis offers an interpretive approach that can help us understand better certain provincial actions and even general phenomena of the imperial age, since it served as an instrument for the gaining of social and symbolic capital in the structures of power in the Roman Empire. With this in mind, it would be interesting to examine more systematically the phenomenon of the imitatio principis in other regions of the Roman Empire.⁸⁰ Herodes Atticus and the two Eurycles are merely some instances among many where leading men of the Roman Empire felt the allure of the imperial model and imitated it for their own benefit.