In the Epistulae ex ponto, Ovid describes how he dealt with the arrival of the silver images of Augustus, Livia and Tiberia that Cotta Messalinus sent him (2.8). He also described his sacrum Caesaris while celebrating the Pomponius brothers for attaining consulships (4.9). The theme of emperor worship as a medium of communication between patrons and their exiled client is striking. Millar noted how Ovid was kept informed of the metamorphoses of the imperial household (Millar 1993, 15-17), and Syme pointed to Ovid’s ability to use concurrent language of homage at Rome (Syme 1978, 167-8). As such, Ovid’s descriptions bear significance beyond proving that domestic worship of living emperors and his household existed (Gradel 2002, 202-203; Martelli 2013, 200).   This paper argues that Ovid’s epistles show how elite Roman society cared about emperor worship. Ovid received the proper set of statues of the imperial family from his friend and patron Cotta Messalinus. He reported to the Pomponius brothers regarding how Tiberius and Livia stant pariter beside the deified Augustus in his sacrum Caesaris, and about his prayers that are meant for public consumption (Price 1984, 92). At stake is his hope to return to Rome: the proper exercise of worship demonstrates not only his pietas but also how he projected imperial symbolism on the edge of the empire. Hence, he boasted how Pontus knew of his pietas as part of his metric resumé submitted to his friend and patron Pomponius Graecinus (Helzle 1989, 22-26). Together with Pliny the Younger’s foundation of a temple at Tifernum (Ep. 10.8), the literary sources offer a potential model for the foundation process of small temples such as the one found at Eretria (Schmid 2001, 113), or others as documented by Simon Price (1984) and Heidi Hänlein-Schäfer (1985).

This paper studies the high priests found in inscriptions from Amastris concerning the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus (henceforth “the Koinon”), commonly recognized as an assembly of cities in coastal Paphlagonia (Marek 2003, Vitale 2012; contra Loriot 2006).  The Amastrian high priests (7 in total) comprise of three types: 1) ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ Πόντοῦ, which can be securely associated with the Koinon; 2) ἀρχιερεύς, without specific designation as to what sort of imperial or local cult it was in charge; 3) ὁ τοῦ ἐπουρανίου Θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ ἀρχ[ιερεὺς διὰ βίου, which also has the Latin equivalent Divi Aug. perpetuus sacerdos inscribed together as a bilingual text.  Should all three types titles be interpreted as the same office? Christian Marek (2003) assumed that they were: he included 2) and 3) under 1), without clarification. Xavier Loriot (2006) assumed differently: in his tabulation of dignitaries of Pontus, he omitted the office holders of 2) and 3), and he also did not state his rationale.  The discrepancy is significant because of dating. Time-reckoning markers on inscriptions of 2) and 3) help date the former to 62 CE, and the latter c. 50 CE, all considerably earlier than the earliest inscription in 1), which is Trajanic. The problem, on the other hand, is that Marek’s inclusion of 2) and 3) may be wrong: Frija (2012) demonstrated that when a high priesthood was not specified, they could be instead high priests of the municipal imperial cult.  This paper considers the possibility that 2) and 3) may have been local/municipal office(s), and could have been the precursor to the High Priesthood of Pontus. Particular emphasis will be on the bilingual text of 3), which contain the surprising attribution ἐπουρανίος, commonly associated with Zeus or Theos Hypsistos and without a Latin equivalent.

Edelmann-Singer’s Koina und Concilia is a work aimed to highlight socio-economic aspects of provincial councils, which have often been downplayed or ignored in discourses concerning Roman provincial administration; but there is much more. Building upon seminal studies by Larsen ( Representative Governments in Greek and Roman History, 1955) and Deininger ( Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit, 1965), Koina und Concilia attempts to shift away from the practice of studying the provincial councils separately as koina of the Greek East and conciliaof the Latin West, a separation exemplified by the important works by Fishwick ( Imperial Cult of the Latin West, 1987-2005) and Price ( Rituals and Power, 1984). The result is a general theory regarding the origin, formation processes, and functions of Roman provincial councils.  Koina und Concilia is organized thematically: a literature review and the methodology of the book in the introductory chapter (chapter I, p. 13-40); historical analyses of koina and concilia in chapter II (p. 41-140); institutional analyses of the provincial councils’ legal basis and their personnel in chapter III (p. 141-192); evidence on the provincial councils’ socio-economic functions and their fostering of provincial identity in chapter IV (p. 193-309). Chapter V (p. 309-312) rehearses the main arguments.  The main thrust of the book, as set out in the introduction, is Edelmann-Singer’s objection to Deininger’s view that provincial councils were of limited significance to the administrative and economic aspects of Roman provinces (p. 16-24). Her fourth chapter marshals a considerable amount of evidence to show that the members of provincial councils were involved in regional and trans-regional socio-economic activities, at times even taking on administrative tasks such as tax collection, census surveys, construction and maintenance of road networks, providing logistical support for large scale movement of troops, and monetizing the local economy.  Edelmann-Singer attributes much of the disinterest in academia regarding the importance of the provincial councils to Deininger’s influential view that provincial councils were only concerned with the provincial imperial cult, the hosting of provincial games and festivities, and representing the interests of provincials against Roman provincial administration, and thus had little real impact on the life of a Roman province (p. 193). Edelmann-Singer compiles the known cases of the provincial councils’ regular and extraordinary revenues and expenditures, and examines the individual activities of their leading men, to refine Deininger’s paradigm. In the following, I provide further synopses and observations.  The second chapter deals with questions of the origin and dissemination of provincial councils. Edelmann-Singer argues that the similarities in the structural design of pre-Roman and Roman koina suggest affiliation in concept (p. 35; p. 44-45), particularly with Classical and Hellenistic traditions of city-leagues that had political-institutional, religious functions, and communicative-ritual aspects (p. 54). One could perhaps understand her position as a convergence of Deininger’s Hellenistic “precursor” proposal (Deininger, Provinziallandtag, 1965, p. 7-12) and Larsen’s “hybrid” model (Larsen, Representative Government, 1955, p. 128-9), but with a historical approach or “Transferprozess” (II.6). She identifies several phases based on known foundation dates of eastern and western provincial councils to construct a dissemination narrative. The experimental phase of the Roman provincialization process with Hellenistic and Late Republican eastern koina is presented in II.2 to II.3, followed by the Augustan dissemination as described in Cassius Dio’s account of the foundation of the cult of Roma and Augustus in II.4, then to II.5, where she discusses the numerous provincial councils that appeared in a relatively short span during the early Julio-Claudian period. Most important is Edelmann-Singer’s observation that the Julio-Claudian foundations were readily found across the empire, and already consisted of varied forms of local and Roman initiatives. This observation is a strong challenge to both the so-called Lex Krascheninnikoff (that less “civilized” provinces in the Roman west were first to be installed with a provincial council and the imperial cult), as well as to Fishwick’s argument that koina and concilia established during the Julio-Claudian period were planned, while Flavian foundations were spontaneous (p. 137; also see p. 114-126 for Edelmann-Singer’s objection to Fishwick’s Flavian dating of the so-called Lex Narbonensis).  The third chapter deals with the organizational aspect of provincial councils, focusing on their legal basis and officials. Edelmann-Singer asks what were the legal bases for provincial councils to possess right to assemble, to maintain independent control of revenue and expenditure, and to petition (p. 142-153). Edelmann-Singer assumes that Cassius Dio’s passage describing the foundation of the worship of divine Augustus in Pergamon and Nikomedeia implies that the provincial councils in Asia and Bithynia received a new legal status as a religious association, though this could not be proved (p. 143-144). To further substantiate this claim, she highlights literary and epigraphic evidence demonstrating that the provincial councils were treated by Roman authorities as subordinate although independent (Tac. Ann. 15.20-22; Aelius Arstides εἰς Ῥώμην 32; Cicero Verr. 2.2.137 & 145; Cod. Theod. 12.12.1 & 12.12.9). The most definitive piece of evidence seems to be the Calendar Decree of Asia, in which a letter issued by the proconsul to the Koinon of Asia included a diatagma-edictum, ordering the provincial council to reform the calendar of Asia to observe Augustus’ birthday, effectively rendering the koinon a subordinate institution (p. 150). Another important document is the so-called Lex Narbonensis (p. 148-149), which provides a glimpse of a lex collegii, with which Edelmann-Singer bundles the Dionysiac Technitai together as a reconstruction of what a provincial council might have looked like had it been indeed a private collegium (as opposed to the amplissima collegia and the sodalitates sacrae, p. 147-148). Regarding the officials of the provincial councils, Edelmann-Singer discusses in particular the provincial priesthood (III.2.1) and the koinarchy (III.2.2). She argues that the two offices represent two stages of the historical development of the provincial council in the east (p. 174). One could perhaps also read these subsections as an attempt to revise the mainstream honor-oriented discourse (such as Lendon’s approach in Empire of Honour 1997, p. 166-172) from a “provincial” perspective. While local elites indeed took part in the activities of the provincial councils in order to display wealth and prestige, the accumulative experience led to a qualitative change. Elites participated in the fostering of a “province-based” system of honor, and in turn defined a sense of provincial belonging and self-identity (p. 174-179).  The fourth chapter is the longest and most complex of the book. Edelmann-Singer argues that the provincial councils were similar and comparable institutions across the empire, because the collated evidence from both the Greek East and Latin West indicates that provincial councils provided services with self-sustaining revenue structure based on trading, banking, financing, and minting operations, in addition to their relatively better known activities such emperor worship and imperial communications relating to petitions or arbitration (IV.1-IV.3). Particularly interesting is the scale of ordinary revenues that could be deduced from the epigraphical evidence found at Myra and Kaunos. If assuming an average contribution of each of the 33 cities of the Lycian koinon, one would expect no less than 165,000 denarii in annual contributions (p. 235-239). Yet, with no evidence for salaries paid to middle-status personnel, and with no comparable evidence on expenditure and revenue from provincial councils other than Lycia, the significance of the Lycian financial data becomes difficult to ascertain. Edelmann-Singer also argues that provincial councils could be tapped by imperial authorities from time to time to provide many services, such as conducting the census, collecting taxes, supplying and quartering of troops, constructing roads, and policing, among others. The proposal is intriguing, but the evidence available seems to indicate that these were extraordinary services, as Edelmann-Singer herself observed while discussing the case of Caius Valerius Arabinus, a high priest of the provincial council of Hispania exterior, who was awarded an honorific statue for having faithfully administered the office of the census (p. 260-266).  Edelmann-Singer introduces transaction cost theory from New Institutional Economics to explain why koina and concilia were attractive to Roman administrators and provincial elites (IV.4.1-IV.4.3, p. 193-253; IV.4.4, p. 253-269). For Tres Galliae in particular, eleven inscriptions concerning the treasury of the provincial council that honor members of the local elite show that nearly 40% of the men who worked at the treasury were members who worked in business corporations, some even having attained senior positions, and about 55% of the treasury staff had links to the private sector or served as extraordinary financial controllers for Roman administrators (p. 253-257; esp. 254). Edelmann-Singer interprets this information as indicative of the members’ networking with each other and their awareness of lowering and stabilizing transaction costs, a speculative but nevertheless intriguing way to approach the limited evidence at hand.  Finally, Edelmann-Singer discusses provincial coinage (IV.5). Cistophoric and Macedonian provincial issues are used in particular to discuss questions concerning rights of coinage, economic benefits, and the fiscal and political importance of provincial issues. Provincial coinage was issued to prepare for the large movement of troops during large military campaigns and to prepare to receive the large retinue of the emperors during imperial visits, but it was also issued to bolster the visibility of the provincial council as an active and competent body, and hence a legitimate agent, authority, and partner for a variety of purposes.  One curious choice Edelmann-Singer makes is to leave out the so-called “landschaftliche Koina” (as coined by Kornmann in his 1900 RE article) – namely the leagues of cities that were region- instead of province-oriented, such as the Boiotian, Phokian, Thessalian, Arkadian and the Eleutherolakonian “leagues” in Provincia Achaia – with relatively little explanation, other than that they were not “provincial” and did not last into Late Antiquity (p. 28). This exclusion of the “landschaftliche Koina” and the reasoning behind it seem to follow Deininger’s methodology (Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 1965, p. 6). Occasionally, the distinction between these categories breaks down, as in the case of the Messenians and the Achaian koinon honoring Ti. Flavius Polybius with two statues in Olympia in the second century CE, where Edelmann-Singer even adds a footnote stating that the self-presentation of elite representatives of the regional councils shows a similar pattern to that of the members of the provincial councils (p. 177, fn. 193). Perhaps further treatment comparing regional and provincial councils would enhance our understanding of regional vs. provincial associations.  To conclude, Edelmann-Singer’s book has the potential to change the discourse on provincial councils and Roman provincial administration altogether. Her extensive review of the origins, formation processes, legal bases, personnel, expenditures, revenues and activities of provincial councils in the Greek East and the Latin West, as well as her introduction of New Institutional Economics and the numismatic approach to flesh out the significance of provincial councils, demonstrate how the study of provincial councils ought to be extended from existing discourse on honor and emperor worship to socio-economic and even cultural factors. Perhaps more tabulations are needed to bring clarity to each chapter, since foundation dates and the changing status, rights and activities of provincial councils through time can be hard to follow. Nevertheless, Edelmann-Singer’s work provides an extensive dossier of evidence pertaining provincial councils as well as a intriguing set of theoretical proposals which will enable students of Roman provincial administration to reconsider existing analytical paradigms.

在书于公元12至13年的《黑海书简》2.8中，奥维德（Ovid）宣称他收到了科塔·马克西姆斯（Cotta Maximus）寄来的奥古斯都（Augustus）、提比略（Tiberius）、利维娅 （Livia）的银像（诗人以simulacra、imagines、effigies等词称之）。而书于公元15至16年的《黑海书简》4.9中，奥维德宣称全黑海地区都知道他每日早晨于家中的凯撒圣所（Sacrum Caesaris）祭拜奥古斯都、提比略、利维娅、日耳曼尼库斯（Germanicus）、德鲁苏斯（Drusus）。自斯科特（Kenneth Scott）始，学界广为接受的解释是这两篇信体诗当连在一起读：诗人于公元12至13年获得了三尊半身或小型的全身像，另于公元15至16年间又取得了日耳曼尼库斯与德鲁苏斯的像。若这个解释为真，如查尔斯‧布莱恩‧罗斯（Charles Brian Rose）所言，奥维德对于他家的凯撒圣所做的描述就可以作为解释皇室群像如何散播的一种途径。以奥维德的诗来证明奥维德是否祭拜皇室、或是诗人是否拥有皇室圣所，证据力明显不足。但奥维德于公元12/13年、公元15/16年分别告知两位不同的罗马贵族关于他祭拜皇室雕像的细节，显然代表皇室祭拜是帝国初期罗马贵族交流的重要议题。碑铭与文献记载显示，此时皇帝虽彰显宽仁之心，却兼行威吓之术，一方面强调皇室的雕像只是人像而非神像、却对于一些亵渎皇室雕像的案子采先审后放的策略，另一方面又对特定骑士阶级与元老阶级等罗马贵族的亵渎案特别关注，也就间接鼓励了公众妄加臆测并频繁诬告、以及罗马贵族对于崇拜皇室的实践与讨论格外投入的社会氛围；因此，奥维德除了希望返回罗马、有求于皇室这项因素之外，也被罗马贵族的集体行为左右。是以本文立场为：奥维德于两则信体诗中所言崇拜皇室云云是历史事实。本文先讨论奥维德两则信体诗的出版背景，再讨论奥维德究竟收到了何种馈赠、为什么会收到这种馈赠、以及这个馈赠与皇室圣所的关连性等等。本文再将奥维德的皇室圣所放于历史语境之中，讨论提比略成为元首前后的亵渎案以及社会政治氛围与奥维德的两则信体诗之间的关系。