Giorgos Mitropoulos

Το πρότυπο του ηγεμόνα και η imitatio imperatoris: Διαλεκτικές επιρροής μεταξύ αυτοκρατόρων και υπηκόων στην ελληνορωμαϊκή Ανατολή (31 π.Χ. - 235 μ.Χ.), Αθήνα 2020. Διδ. διατριβή, Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών [The model of the Roman emperor and the imitatio imperatoris: Dialectics of influence between the princeps and the provincials in the Greco-Roman East (31 B.C. – A.D. 235), Athens 2020. PhD thesis, University of Athens], υπό έκδοση στις εκδόσεις της Βιβλιοθήκης Σοφίας Σαριπόλου του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών – forthcoming in Greek in the Series of the Foundation Saripoleion of the University of Athens
https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/48549

This paper examines two epigrams of the Mytilenean poet Krinagoras (AP 9.562 and 9.224), traditionally interpreted as court flattery examples. Krinagoras was a poet close to the Augustan court, and many of his epigrams praised members of the imperial house. However, a closer examination of these epigrams reveals a discreet dose of irony towards the glory of Augustus, a seemingly strange choice on the part of a court poet of the Augustan circle. It seems that Krinagoras, who travelled from his native island Mytilene to the westernmost part of the Roman Empire in Tarragona as a member of the embassy to meet Augustus, used irony as a stylistic instrument to insinuate his discontent for the hardships he had suffered. The paper contributes to a growing literature that examines the ways literary works functioned as instruments of flattering the ruler but also concealed resentment or mockery, even against the Roman emperor. Krinagoras' irony is merely one instance among many where subtle mockery and satire of the imperial family were exercised in the early Augustan period.

The present paper aims to describe how both the provincials and Roman officials interpreted the ‘good’ emperor through the representation of his qualities in the eastern provinces and the way they assessed their role in relation to him. More specifically, the study of selected inscriptions demonstrates that the emperor’s subjects and Roman officials sought to closely associate themselves with the imperial qualities in various roles (e.g. as dedicators of statues to honour them or priests of their worship). Elements of the beneficent imperial rule were highlighted through the promotion of a different quality each time. Occasionally, it seems that the same provincials and officials even imitated the emperor in the promotion of specific and different qualities per emperor that had been elevated by the imperial house in Rome. By symbolically connecting themselves with the princeps and his qualities, these individuals possibly enhanced their personal prestige and were promoted as ‘mirrors’ of the ‘good’ emperor
in the eastern provinces.

This paper examines some aspects of the attitudes of the last Antonine emperors towards the illustrious past of Achaea, namely Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Selected epigraphic and literary testimonies from the province of Achaea (especially Athens, Eleusis, and Sparta) will be assembled together in order to assess the political behavior of these emperors in relation to the past of the province. For example, especially remarkable is the fact that Commodus was enrolled in an Athenian tribe and took up ancient offices in Athens, while Marcus Aurelius resolved an old territorial dispute in Sparta and conceived important constitutional reforms in Athens, all actions closely connected with the remote past of these cities.     

Several questions will be addressed; first, what did the Greek past mean for these emperors and how did they choose to interact with it? Did the emperors have certain role-models in mind concerning their promotion of the Greek past, and if so, who were they? Did the ‘philhellene’ emperor Nero or the prominent intellectuals Philopappus and Herodes Atticus serve as examples? Furthermore, how did Hadrian influence the attitude of Marcus Aurelius, and he that of his son, Commodus? Finally, what was the impact of imperial actions on the illustrious provincials of the Graeco-Roman East? The answers to these queries will illustrate the power of the local and imperial past in 2nd-century ‘old Greece’. This paper also argues that the promotion of the past in the cities of Achaea was not only an expected conduct in an age of collective historical nostalgia, but also a response to the actions of contemporary and pepaideumenoi emperors, who were conceived of as exempla.

This paper aims to examine closely the circumstances behind the choice of the inclusion of Germanicus’ Nike in the festivities described in the ‘lex sacra’ of Gytheion. It will be argued that Gytheion and the Koinon of the Eleutherolacones considered Germanicus’ Nike in particular as the most appropriate choice for an indirect worship of his person because they were influenced by the atmosphere in Rome after his victories and the Senate’s grant of a triumph in his honour. The ambassador of the city to Tiberius, Decimus Turannius Nicanor, could have played a key role in the circulation of the news upon his return in Gytheion. This examination will also have implications for the debated question of the dating of the Senate’s award of a triumph to Germanicus.

The imperial cult in the Roman provinces is a major subject in current scholarly works on religion in the Roman world. Scholars so far have perhaps undervalued an interesting aspect: not only was the emperor himself worshipped, but also the various qualities of the emperors were objects of worship (e.g. ‘Pietas Augusti’, ‘Providentia Augusta’). The latter are often regarded as merely subordinate to the ‘main’ imperial cult. Yet, qualities had a rich past in Greek religion as well as in the Roman political tradition. 
This paper aims to examine how events throughout the empire were interpreted through the worship of imperial qualities in Roman Greece. Did the emperor himself give the example by honouring an imperial quality in Rome or can we speak of a more provincial practice? If the latter is more valid, did Roman officials, associated with the imperial rule, introduce ‘Roman’ ideals and combine them with traditional Greek beliefs? Or, alternatively, was it the initiative of Greek inhabitants, who wished to approach the emperor by exploiting ancient concepts?

This article aims to examine the turbulent course of the Aetolian League in the confused years after the Antiochian War (191-188) up until 160/159, when its leader at the time, Lykiskos, passed away. Military defeats, political developments and economic problems will be studied together in order to form an accurate interpretation of the internal strife inside the Koinon. In addition, the factor of Rome also needs to be taken into consideration, as the new power seems to have adopted a cautious stance, intervening in the League's internal politics only when it was considered necessary. Prominent (and relatively neglected in the modern literature) Aetolians of this era, like Thoas and Lykiskos, as well as their crucial political roles, are also analysed.

The presence of virtues in Antiquity is an underestimated subject in modern bibliography. However, since the classical age, virtues such as ‘Tyche’ (‘Fortuna’) and ‘Nike’ (‘Victoria’) were individual divinities, which could shape every man’s destiny and provide their gifts. As power was bestowed upon one person during the Hellenistic and Imperial age, the need to justify his position was crucial. In religious terms, this was possible directly through the worship of the princeps or indirectly through the adoration of his virtues. 

Thus, in this essay the worship and the promotion of the Roman emperor’s individually deified achievements and his relevant virtues in the provinces of Achaea and Macedonia during the first three dynasties are being analysed. The concentrated data consists of 39 inscriptions and 204 coins and can lead to certain conclusions. In the ‘Introduction’, the previous bibliography (1.1) as well as the presence of the virtues since the Hellenistic era and the age of the res publica (1.2) are examined. The second part begins with a short study of the virtues as cities’ formal titles (2.1). Afterwards, the promotion and the worship of the imperial Victory (‘Victoria Augusta’) throughout the inscriptions and the coinage of the aforementioned provinces is thoroughly analysed. In the next subchapter, the various virtues, which were honoured and worshipped in Achaea and Macedonia, are examined (2.3). In addition, in the third part the inscriptions of the imperial virtues are interpreted in relation to the topography and the date of their dedication (3.1 and 3.2 respectively). Additionally, a prosopographical analysis of the dedicators and the priests of these virtues is necessary in order to clarify what kind of people chose to be connected with such virtues (3.3). Finally, the examination of the inscriptions per ‘Greek’ cities and ‘Roman’ colonies is also essential in order to determine in which communities this phenomenon was more widespread (3.4).

In conclusion, the plurality of the imperial achievements and virtues which could be honoured and worshipped by the cities collectively or by citizens individually is impressive. Roman colonies, such as Corinth, Nicopolis and Philippi and cities, such as Athens or Gytheion, participated actively in this practice. All cities established new cults or erected altars and statues to the imperial virtues, often responding to events in Rome, in the borders of the Empire or even within the cities themselves. Thus, a hidden clue of Roman Greece is unearthed; Cities and individuals, mainly members of the civic elite, chose to approximate the imperial virtues and successes in order to be displayed as well as to share a portion from the majesty of the Roman Imperium and his princeps. Eventually, the worship of the imperial virtues encloses many themes, as the personal ethics, the sacred identity of cities and colonies, the provincial elite, the virtues and the predominant figure of the emperor. The old subject of ‘Romanisation’, which appears often among researchers, seeks here answers; What was the impact of the worship and promotion of the imperial virtues in the process of ‘Romanisation’ of these provinces?

The Roman emperor constituted not only a unifying personality for the vast Roman Empire, but a role model for all the subjects as well. His ‘superhuman’ nature, his virtues and his maiestas deriving from his power to rule contributed to his view as an example.
Still, a theoretical framework for the so-called ‘imitatio Imperatoris’, the imitation of the emperor by the rest of the Empire is difficult to be attested, as many questions arise; Firstly, can a definition of the ‘imitatio Imperatoris’ be applied? In which areas of the public and private life can we identify this and how can we be sure that an ‘imitation’ (a quite strict term) took place? Lastly, who imitated (or perhaps dared to imitate) the imperial person?
In this lecture I would like to describe and discuss the first results of my on-going PhD essay. Specifically, I intend to address the question of the origins of the emperor’s imitation as well as to give a first definition, still lacking in the modern bibliography. Some characteristic examples from the Graeco-Roman East should be added in order to be clearly understood that imitating the emperor was a far more dialectical process one could ever imagine. Indeed, the interactions between the princeps and the subjects varied as well as the inspiration the first provided.

Η παρουσία των αρετών στην αρχαιότητα είναι ένα υποτιμημένο θέμα στη σύγχρονη βιβλιογραφία. Εντούτοις, οι αρετές αποτελούσαν ήδη από τα κλασικά χρόνια ξεχωριστές θεότητες, που καθόριζαν τη μοίρα του ανθρώπου και παρείχαν τα δώρα τους, όπως η Τύχη και η Νίκη. Καθώς στην ελληνιστική και αυτοκρατορική εποχή η εξουσία συγκεντρωνόταν σ’ ένα άτομο, παρουσιάστηκε η ανάγκη να δικαιολογηθεί η θέση του. Σε θρησκευτικούς όρους, αυτό μπορούσε να συμβεί μέσω της άμεσης λατρείας του ηγεμόνα ή έμμεσα με τη λατρεία των επιτευγμάτων και των αρετών του. 
Έτσι, στην διπλωματική εργασία εξετάζεται η λατρεία και η προβολή τόσο των επιτευγμάτων όσο και των αρετών του Ρωμαίου αυτοκράτορα στις επαρχίες της Αχαΐας και της Μακεδονίας κατά τις τρεις πρώτες δυναστείες. Το συγκεντρωθέν υλικό αποδεικνύει πως ρωμαϊκές αποικίες, όπως η Κόρινθος, η Νικόπολη και οι Φίλιπποι, αλλά και πόλεις όπως η Αθήνα ή το Γύθειο συμμετείχαν ενεργά σ’ αυτό το φαινόμενο. Ίδρυσαν λατρείες με ιερείς ή έστησαν βωμούς και αγάλματα προς τις αρετές των αυτοκρατόρων. Όμως, συμμετείχαν ομοιόμορφα σ’ αυτό το ευρέως διαδεδομένο φαινόμενο ή ακολούθησαν έναν ιδιαίτερο τρόπο έκφρασης;