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).

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。

This chapter proposes to read the sculptural program of the Philopappos Monument at Athens from the perspective of power and status of the Orontid’s royal house of the kingdom of Commagene. Investigations will focus on the honorand’s grandfather, Antiochus IV of Commagene, styled as a togate figure and sitting on a sella curule, and how such choice can interpret Philopappus’ career. This chapter argues that the monumental façade of the Commagenian king Philopappus defines the concept of client-kingship as a non-territorial Roman institution. Client-kings and their members were a class of their own within the Roman political hierarchy, and served bureaucratic functions.

学界提及陆其安《神棍亚历山大》(Lucian, Alexander the false prophet)的 伊比鸠鲁领袖阿马斯翠的雷皮度(Lepidus of Amastris)时，往往将此人与一篇 出土于阿马斯翠(Amastris)的 CIG 4149(即 Marek 1993, p. 162 Kat. Amastris no. 12)Tiberius Claudius Lepidus 当作是同一人，但如此推论多没有提出具体证 明。本文探讨将两人视为同一人在证据上以及推论上会出现的问题，并主张 在证据不足的情况下，若采用 Prosopographia Imperii Romani 较为保守的说法，比较合理。 In the Alexander the False Prophet, Lucian presents a biographical account of Alexander of Abonuteichos, who founded a snake oracle cult in Paphlagonia. This oracle cult eventually spread to Rome under the crafty guidance of its founder Alexander, who used deception, trickery, and human flaw to ensnare laymen and dignitaries alike. Lucian informs us that Alexander was perplexed by Lepidus of Amastris and his Epicurean followers, who doubted Alexander's oracles and made fun of his craft. Scholars were able to link many of the personages in Alexander's biography to historical persons based on inscriptions and literary accounts by other authors, and Lepidus was linked to an inscription found at Amastris, which commemorated one Tiberius Claudius Lepidus, 'high-priest of Pontus' and 'president of the city. This paper examines this identification, and finds that alternative interpretations on the connection between Lucian's Lepidus and the Lepidus inscription ought to be considered.

Lucian’s short pamphlet Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ Ψευδόμαντις (Alexander, or The False Prophet) gives an account on how a conjurer by the name of Alexander concocted a syncretistic snake oracle to victimize Paphlagonians. Alexander met resistence, however. Lucian claims that Amastris in particular was Alexander’s most despised city in Pontus, because “the followers of Lepidus and others like them were numerous in the city; and he would never deliver an oracle to an Amastrian” (Luc. Alex. 25). While the snake oracle is widely attested on coins, statues and iconography, there is no corroborating evidence on Alexander of Abonuteichos and Lepidus of Amastris beyond Lucian’s text. Yet, scholars used two inscriptions mentioning a Tiberius Claudius Lepidus (CIG 4149 & 4150, now lost) to establish Lepidus as a historical figure (Robert 1980: 146; Marek 1993: 98; Gordon 1996: 114; Victor 1997: 151). The rationale behind this identification, however, seems to have only been based on the identical cognomen and the hypothesis that the inscribed Lepidus, being an archpriest of Pontus (ἀρχιερεύς τοὺ Πόντου), controlled both the sacred and the profane domains of Amastris. After a literature review concerning the historicity of Lucian’s Alexander and Lucian’s Lepidus, this paper presents a close reading of the Lepidus inscriptions from Amastris previous studies. Since previous studies seldom considered the definitions and functions of the different types of archpriesthood found in Amastris, this paper studies Amastrian inscriptions and associated literature to establish context. A reassessment of the hypothesis that Lepidus controlled the religious domain of Amastris during the Antonine period will conclude the paper.

This paper studies how displaced royal families in the Roman principate speak about their royal ancestry. Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes "Philopappos" and his sister Julia Balbilla, who were descendents of the Orontid dynasty of Commagene in northwestern Syria, are objects of this study. The kingdom of Commagene was twice incorporated into the Roman province of Syria, first upon the death of Antiochos III Epiphanes in 17 CE, then during Vespasian's reign in 72 CE. Philopappos and Balbilla were displaced and eventually integrated into the circle of the Roman senatorial élite. The two siblings are examples of displaced royal families "at work," creating their extraordinary status within the Roman principate through monumental and literary works that claim inheritance to their ancestral past.  This paper will first review relevant scholarship – such as David Braund on client kingship (1984), Joel Allen on hostage and hostage taking in the principate (2006), Paul Burton on Roman foreign relations in the Republic (2011) – to clarify the operating terms of amicitia, fides, and foedus that formed the socio-political context within which Philopappos and Balbilla operated. The second part of the paper will discuss how the visual and inscriptional programme of Philopappos' monument at Athens and Babilla's graffitti poetry on the statue of Memnon in Egyptian Thebes negotiate socio-political contexts. This paper argues that Philopappos' monument did not only speak to his extraordinary status as humbled royalty under Rome, but also his belonging to Athens, and how Commagenian royalty and Roman citizenship attributed to his sense of belonging. Similarly, Balbilla was a valued member of Hadrian and Sabina's court specifically because of her conscious pronouncement of her family's royal blood and their piety, which qualities were pronounced in her graffiti poetry. Together, Philopappos and Balbilla marks a change in the nature of client kingship from Trajan onwards, as royal members become valued not for their ability to govern kingdoms, but for their extraordinary status as royal Roman citizens.

本文讨论一枚公元前五世纪的石碑在定年方面遇到的问题。《艾格斯塔决议》是众多无法透过雅典执政姓名精确定年的公元前五世纪雅典─阿提卡地区碑文之一。研究者采用了字母定年法来判断此碑应该落于哪个可能的时间区块内，再用碑文第三行中雅典执政姓名的残存字母精确定年。这个字母定年方法十九世纪开始成为定年参考，到了二十世纪中叶，随着《雅典贡银清册》这个大型计划的支持，一时成为学界除了雅典执政姓名以外主要的定年方法。但从一九六〇年代开始，学界开始针对未能利用雅典执政姓名定年的石碑挑战。经过三十年的文字争论后，Mortimer Chambers et al.于1990年发表了摄像成果，成功地挑战了文字定年的权威性，使得公元前五世纪雅典阿提卡地区铭刻的定年问题再次成为开放议题。

克里斯脱夫·密赫尔(Christoph Michels)《文化转移与君王的希腊疯：希腊化时期的比提尼亚、旁图、加帕多西亚》是德国万登出版社(Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)政治传播学系列的第四册。此书作者以文化人类学下的文化转移概念出发，研究希腊化时期三个小亚细亚地区的非希腊裔王朝统治各自领地的手段。多年来，学界检讨卓业森(Johanna Gustav Droysen)所提出的「希腊化」概念，多发现马其顿君王不只是于领地内众建希腊城市，而是多有接纳所辖领地之内地方统治文化与生活方式的现象，以致于小亚细亚、列凡特、美索不达米亚、埃及等地，文化种类繁杂。延续如此研究潮流，此书作者以三个非希腊裔的小亚细亚王国作为研究对象，针对三国的碑刻、钱币、众建城市等往往被认为是代表「希腊化」或「希腊文化政策」的表征，研究非希腊裔君王与希腊文化之间的关系。以方法论，此书以文化人类学理论为基础，检视卓氏「希腊化」定义之下的「希腊疯」君主以及「希腊化」定义下的「文化政策」两个面相。非希腊裔君主究竟是不是扮演「推动希腊文化者」这个角色？这些君主究竟有无所谓的「文化政策」？ 研究发现，三国虽铸钱币，且钱币文字与图示在设计上虽与希腊钱币雷同（如正面有君王人头像、背面有神祇图示、并使用希腊文标注君王或国度名称等等），但是神祇模样与种类呈现在地化的特征，并不能说是以希腊人为目标群而设计的。城市亦然：虽然有作家如有三国非希腊裔君王众建城市、并如马其顿诸王将城市以自己或皇室成员命名的记载，但究竟三国建的是生产或防御型的镇，还是如希腊地区一般有体育场、剧院等公共设施的城市，就难以考证。考古资料显示，希腊化时期在此三国领地之内的希腊城市似乎多原本就是希腊殖民地，随后被各王国或征服、或威吓，而收入势力范围之内。由希腊化时期三国诸王建起的希腊型城市少之又少，其余多是以生产或是管理方便而扩大范围的城镇。各君王的目的似是要建立统治体系，而不是要希腊化。之所以会有非希腊裔国王建城以将其领土希腊化的误解，多与古希腊作家的偏见有关。此书作者所提的核心例子就是西西里的狄奥多罗(Diod.类Sic. 31.19.8)叙述加帕多西亚君王阿立阿拉提五世(Ariarathes V)的希腊疯(Philhellenimus)。狄奥多罗记载，阿立阿拉提五世母亲是希腊人，早年受希腊教育，在王位竞争中胜出后，在加帕多西亚内推行希腊制度，终于成为有文化水准的人都能畅游的国度。然而，此书作者强调，除了加帕多西亚并没有明显的希腊化特征之外，没有任何迹象显示阿立阿拉提五世有如其他非希腊裔君王一样，在希腊半岛与爱琴海诸岛上大肆捐献雕像建筑，以宣传自己的希腊性。狄奥多罗应是以希腊本位思想渲染了阿立阿拉提五世的若干举措，而这些举措（如领雅典城公民资格、由波斯式钱币改为铸希腊式币、大兴土木在提亚那(Tyana)建希腊式公共建筑等），或与王位竞争时依靠马其顿与希腊势力较有关系。作者结论以为，三国君主是有文化政策，但所谓文化政策的意义与今日不同。三国文化政策并不是主动地推行和散布希腊文化，而是将文化当成统治者自我表述的工具，以稳定国内外局势。建立权力与正当性才是三国文化政策的目的。若有其他效果，也不是主要的目的。