Ulrich-SchlumbohmHistory (ALL CLASSES)CRITIQUE AND REVIEW SHEE.docx

Ulrich-Schlumbohm
History (ALL CLASSES)
CRITIQUE AND REVIEW SHEET:
This is formal writing so remember a few tips:
1. Grammar/Spell Check all work. Rule of 5 is: more than 5
major grammatical or spelling
errors and I am done grading, you fail the assignment. Helpful
hint: read finished document
aloud, or have someone read it to you. It will help you spot
problems I promise!
2. No 1st person. "I believe that. . ." No use of "I" statements.
3. No questions. Do not write in such a way that you are asking
your reader (your professor- ie
ME) questions.
4. All quotations, thoughts, and ideas gathered from another
source should be cited. All cites should be either Chicago Style
or Turabian Style and have EITHER footnotes or endnotes,
AND a bibliography.
5. Writing should be clear, concise, and on topic. It should
address the following elements in an
essay style format:
Secondary Source Analysis:
Critiques and Reviews should always address these elements.
Synopsis: Summary of what you have read, making sure you hit
the highlights and points that
struck you as important or interesting so that you will remember
what you have read. This element should be very brief- do not
get carried away.
Facts: What struck you in the argument as particularly
useful/not useful? Highlight your topic points- use quotations to
prove your point, be very specific so you will not need to return
to the author's sources or the text.
Thesis: Ask yourself, what did I just read? What was it about?

What was the argument or
position, what did they say? Each chapter of the book will
normally have a supporting thesis,
please make sure you address these as well.
Author: How does the author/s identify themselves? How does
this identification relate to the
material? Who is this person? Remember there is NO such thing
as a neutral author.
Position: What is the position within scholarly literature? What
position do they take? Do they seem similar to someone else
you have read? Where do they stand on the issues? What
identifiers can you find? Can you determine bias?
Critique: Who is the audience? What is the purpose of the
work? Did the author accomplish
what s/he set out to do? What is their goal?
Sources: Examine the author's use of sources? When is the
study done and does this have any bearing on the topic? Do the
sources reflect recent scholarship? Is the author relying on
primary sources or secondary sources? What does the type of
sources say about the author and the work? You will need to
look at the bibliography, footnotes/endnotes, and the
introduction and conclusion carefully to answer this.
DOC SUPPORT: Which primary documents provided
support/disprove the author’s thesis?
Primary Source Analysis:
A primary source is any document, letter, newspaper article,
photo, drawing, object, etc. from a specific historical moment.
It is something by and for the people at that time. A first-hand
source from that time and place.
This assignment is approximately a 2 page write up. Bullet
point responses are fine, but complete sentences are always
expected. You can choose any primary source from your

supplemental readings (but not the main text.)
Your analysis must include following questions.
Please Note: If you cannot give through details to these
questions then you do not have a useful document. Please find
another one.
1. What is the document?
2. What year was it written?
3. Who were the person(s) who made it? What facts about the
author(s) of the document help you to understand the purpose of
the document? (To understand the details of the document?)
You may need to do a little research either online or in another
source. DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA IT IS UNRELIABLE AND
OFTEN WRONG! If you cannot locate the author: What facts
about the TOPIC give you the background to understand the
purpose and importance of the details in the document?
4. (Related to #3) What was the authors point of view? How
does the author’s gender, race, social class, occupation,
political view, religion, sexual identity, or any other factor that
will help you understand what helped create the authors ideas
about the authors role at that time.
5. What was the original purpose of the document?
6. What are several specific details, or quotations in the
document that support the authors purpose. (Remember to cite!)
7. Prepare a paragraph or two explaining how the document
relates to the weeks readings-how it helps you understand the
themes prominent in the weeks syllabus. Use examples from
both the assigned reading and your document. (Again remember
to cite correctly!)
Ulrich
-
Schlumbohm

History (ALL CLASSES)
CRITIQUE AND REVIEW SHEET:
This is formal writing so remember a few tips:
1. Grammar/Spell Check all work. Rule of 5 is: more than 5
major grammatical or spelling
errors and I am done grading, you fail the
assignment. Helpful hint: read finished document
aloud, or have someone read it to you. It will help you spot
problems I promise!
2. No 1st person. "I believe that. . ." No use of "I" statements.
3. No questions. Do not write in such a way that you are ask
ing your reader (your professor
-
ie
ME) questions.
4. All quotations, thoughts, and ideas
gathered from another source
should be cited. All cites
should be either Chicago Style
or Turabian Style and have EITHER footnotes or endnotes,
AND a
bibliography.
5.

Writing should be clear, concise, and on topic. It should address
the following elements in an
essay style format:
Secondary Source Analysis
:
Critiques and Reviews should always address these elements.
Synopsis:
Summary of what you have read, making sure
you hit the highlights and points that
struck you as important or interesting so that you will remember
what you have read.
This
element should be very brief
-
do not get carried away.
Facts:
What struck you in the argument as particularly useful
/not usefu
l
? Highlight your topic
points
-
use quotations to prove your point, be very specific so you will
not

need to return to the
author's sources
or the text
.
Thesis:
Ask yourself, what did I just read? What was it about? What
was the argument or
position, what
did they say? Each chapter of the book will normally have a
supporting thesis,
please make sure you address these as well.
Author:
How does the author/s identify themselves? How does this
identification relate to the
material? Who is this person? Remember
there is NO such thing as a neutral author.
Position:
What is the position w
ithin scholarly literature? What position do they take? Do they
seem similar to
someone else you have read? Where do they stand on the
issues? What
identifiers can you find?
Can

you determine bias?
Critique:
Who is the audience? What is the purpose of the work? Did the
author accomplish
what s/he set out to do? What is
their
goal?
Sources:
Examine
the author's use of sources? When is the study done
and does this have any
bearing
on the topic
? Do the sources reflect
recent scholarship? Is the author relying on
primary sources or secondary sources? What
does the type of sources say about the author and
the work
? You will need to look at the bibliography, footnotes/endnotes,
and the
introduction
and
conclusion carefully to answer this.
DOC SUPPORT
: Which

primary
document
s
provided support
/disprove
the author
’
s thesis
?
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte
Geschichte.
http://www.jstor.org
City Patronesses in the Roman Empire
Author(s): Emily A. Hemelrijk
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 53, H. 2
(2004), pp. 209-245
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436724
Accessed: 16-04-2015 04:24 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and
tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of
scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]
This content downloaded from 209.129.16.124 on Thu, 16 Apr
2015 04:24:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436724
CITY PATRONESSES IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
In the early third century AD* a woman of senatorial rank with
the long name
Oscia Modesta Cornelia Patruina Publianal was honoured with a
statue by her
native city Avioccala in the province of Africa Proconsularis.
Erecting the
statue with public money the city honoured her, by decree of the
decuriones,
"because of her conspicuous merits in rendering illustrious her
city of origin",
whose "citizen and patrona" she was.2 In view of the services
expected from a
patron of a city, such as legal advocacy and political
intervention on behalf of
the client-city with the authorities in Rome,3 the choice of a

woman as a
patroness of a city is somewhat surprising. Why did cities
choose a woman to be
a city patron and why would she consent? How did the public
honour bestowed
on her fit in with the domesticity and the reticent life expected
from women
according to the ancient literary sources? And, thirdly, did her
cooptation4 as a
patroness of the city entail public duties and responsibilities, or
was it merely an
honorific title given to a woman because of her family, rank or
wealth?
Before entering upon these questions a few words should be
said about the
much-debated issue of the nature and function of municipal
patronage in the
westem part of the Roman Empire. Municipal patronage was a
formal institu-
tion subject to legal regulation as to the cooptation of a patron.5
A patron was
* All dates are AD. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. G. Alfoldy
and Prof. Dr. W. Eck for their
helpful remarks.
1 For polyonomy of senatorial women in the late 2nd and 3rd
centuries AD, see Kajava
(1990) 33. Her full name was even longer containing one more
gentilicium, probably
Valeria (FOS 587) or Ulpia.
2 CIL 8, 23832: [O]sciae Modes/[tae Valer?]iae / [-]n[-]iae
Corneliae [PIa[tlrui/nae
Publianae / c(larissimae) f(eminae) civi et patr(onae) / ob

insig(nia) eius me/rita quibus
in/lustrat originis suae patriam / civitas Avioccal(ensis)
d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ublica)
p(ecunia). It was probably set up around AD 240-50.
3 See Duthoy (1 984a); for patronage of communities the
comprehensive study by Harmand
(1957), though somewhat outdated, is still fundamental; for the
Greek East see now Eilers
(2002).
4 The term 'cooptation' for the choice of a city-patron by the
decuriones is somewhat
confusing since there is no college of patrons coopting a new
colleague. However, since
the names of city patrons were listed in the alba decurionum,
they became - so to speak -
"honorary" decurions (Nicols (19891 132), which justifies the
use of this term. The
formula patronum cooptare is used on the tabulae patronatus
offered to city patrons, see
Nicols (1980a) 550.
5 Cf. the municipal laws of Urso (Lex Coloniae Genetivae,
titles 97 and 130; Crawford
[1996] 393-454 no. 25), Malaca (Lex Malacitana, title 61; ILS
6089; see also Spitzl
Historia, Band L1112 (2004)
? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart
2015 04:24:24 UTC

210 EMILY A. HEMELRIJK
coopted by a decree of the decurions and his name was added to
the list of
patrons heading the album decurionum. The relationship could
be formalized
by a bronze tabula patronatus commemorating the cooptation,
which was
offered to the patron by legati selected from the ordo
decurionum.6 So far, there
is general agreement. The duties and responsibilities of the
patronus, however,
are not defined - as is to be expected in such a fluid institution
as Roman
patronage - and this has led to divergent opinions in modem
discussion. P.
Veyne, for instance, regards city patronage in the Latin West as
a purely
honorific title comparable to the acts of gratitude decreed to
civic benefactors in
the Greek East.7 Basing their opinion on a careful study of the
wording of the
tabulae patronatus and honorific inscriptions for city patrons, R.
Duthoy and,
more recently, B. Salway convincingly argue that promotion of
the city's
interests and political intervention on its behalf were essential.
City patrons
acted as a kind of intermediaries between their cities and the
central govern-
ment in Rome and social prominence and connections were their
most impor-
tant characteristics.8 Though some allowance has to be made for
the fluidity of

the institution which may well have entailed different services
depending on the
sex, age and social status of the patron, their opinion will be
followed here. Of
course, civic patronage was no regular office, nor could its
duties be forced
upon the patron, but there seems to have been a moral
obligation for the patron,
once he had agreed to being coopted, to fulfil these duties.
Whether the same
was expected from female patrons is one of the questions to be
discussed here.
Selecting the evidence
Female city patronage was a relatively rare phenomenon: among
the roughly
1,200 patrons of communities recorded in Italy and the western
provinces
during the first three centuries of the Empire there are only very
few women.
Partly overlapping lists are given by Nicols, Kajava, Duthoy,
Harmand, En-
[1984]) and Irni (Lex Irnitana, title 61; GonzAlez [19861)
regulating the procedures of
coopting a city patron; see also Nicols (1979) 244 and 249ff.
For municipal patronage
defined as an institution, see Duthoy (1984a) 147-8 n. 13; also
Nicols (1989) uses this
term.
6 For the tabulae patronatus, see Nicols (1 980a).
7 Veyne (1976) 349 n. 219 and 767 n. 311: "la pretendue <<

institution > du patronat de cite
est a rapprocher des tilres honorifiques que les cites grecques
decernent a leurs bienfai-
teurs." Though arguing that mediation was the main function of
city patrons during the
late republican and early imperial periods Eilers (2002) 84-108
assumes that in the course
of the imperial period city patronage became increasingly
honorific.
8 Duthoy (1984a), Salway (2000) 140-148.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
City Patronesses in the Roman Empire 211
gesser and Warmington9, which, altogether, contain twenty odd
women, not all
of whom are included in my list. Since the decisive terms
patrona municipii or
coloniae (vel sim.) are used only rarely, it is sometimes hard to
tell whether a
woman, who in an inscription is addressed as a patrona, was a
patroness of a
community, or a patroness of, for instance, a private person, a
freedman or -
which is rarer - a collegium. What criteria should be applied to

determine the
nature of her patronage?
Of the authors mentioned above only Nicols explains his
criteria. Since a
city patron was coopted by a decree of the decuriones, he takes
it that "all
inscriptions which were authorized by a decretum decurionum
and which also
refer to patronage may properly be said to involve patrons of
communities".
Thus he formulates two conditions for the recognition of a city
patroness: first,
the use of the title patrona and, second, the official
authorization of the text of
the inscription by the decuriones. 10 The first point is, of
course, obvious, though
the bad condition of some inscriptions and the (not very
frequent) abbreviation
of patronaelo to patron or patro may leave some doubt." I
The second point, however, is more problematic; it is not even
met by all
patronesses considered as certae by Nicols himself.'2 This is
due to the nature
of the evidence, most of which consists in honorific
inscriptions.13 In contrast to
the bronze tabulae patronatus, which record the original decree
of the decuri-
9 Only Nicols (1989) and Kajava (1990) focus on women: the
thirteen patronesses listed by
Nicols (1989) in his comprehensive article on 'gender and civic
patronage' and the seven
Italian city patronesses listed by Kajava (1990) form the basis
of my list (for differences

see below note 23). Harmand (1957) 281-2 includes five
patronesses in his list of over
670 patrons of communities in Italy and the westem provinces
grouping them in the
category "patronats divers". Duthoy (1984-6) includes six
patronesses in his list of 495
municipal patrocinia in Italy; Warmington (1954) mentions
thirteen women in his list of
242 inscriptions recording North-African city patrons and
Engesser (1957) includes
eighteen women in his list of 951 city patrons in Italy and the
western provinces.
10 Nicols (1989) 120. For the cooptation of patrons see also
Nicols (1979) 249-50 and
(1980a).
11 See, for instance, CIL 9, 5898 = ILS 1386. The abbreviated
title patron may either refer to
Petronia Sabina (patronae) or to her father L. Petronius Sabinus
(patrono) or perhaps to
both of them (patronis).
12 For instance, no mention of a decretum decurionum is
preserved in the (badly damaged)
inscription for lulia Memmia (number 9 in his list): even the
dedicators are unknown. Yet,
Nicols rightly includes Iulia Memmia in his list of city
patronesses, since she is called
patrona in the inscription on the obverse of the statue base and
on the reverse of the,
apparently freestanding, base a letter by lulia Memmia seems to
have been copied, which
she probably wrote to the ordo decurionum and the citizens of
Bulla Regia. Unfortunate-
ly, the text is too heavily damaged to allow certainty as to its

contents. The inscription for
Calpurnia Ceia Aemiliana (table 1 nr. 7) was published after
Nicols's article appeared.
13 Duthoy (1981): 70 % (for senators even 80 %) of the 468
Italian inscriptions mentioning
a city patron are honorific inscriptions.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
ones,'4 public honorific inscriptions were not necessarily set up
by the decuri-
ones themselves, though they had to give permission for it.
They could be
erected by the citizens or resident aliens, by the plebs urbana,
or even by the
women of the town; besides, the official authorization by the
decuriones,
though obligatory for all statues and inscriptions set up in
public places'5, is not
always explicitly mentioned. Since most of these honorific
inscriptions were set
up for other reasons than the patronage of the honorand (for
instance, in
gratitude for benefactions), they refer to it only loosely. Usually
the patronage
is mentioned last, after the cursus honorum (for male patrons)
16; mostly the
patron is addressed simply as patrono or patronae without the

specification
municipii or coloniae (see table 2). And even when municipal
patronage is
clearly referred to - as is the case on the statue base of Abeiena
Balbina (table I
nr. 1) - it does not follow that the inscription was set up because
of her
patronage of the city:
"For Abeiena Balbina, daughter of Gaius,flaminica of Pisaurum
and Arim-
inum, patrona of the municipium Pitinum Pisaurense. For her
the urban
plebs of Pisaurum <set up this statue> in the year of the
quinquennalitas of
her husband, Petinius Aper, because of their merits. To whom
the emperor
[[name erased]] granted the ius liberorum. The place <for the
statue> has
been given by decree of the decuriones." 17
Abeiena Balbina was aflaminica (priestess of the imperial cult)
in two neigh-
bouring cities on the Adriatic coast, Pisaurum and Ariminum,
and patrona of
the inland municipium Pitinum Pisaurense. Her statue was set
up by the people
of Pisaurum in cooperation with the decurions, not because of
her religious
office or her city patronage but, as is clearly stated, for the
merita of her
husband and herself - a term usually referring to benefactions.'8
By setting up
this statue the plebs urbana, moreover, celebrated a festive
occasion: the

quinquennalitas of her husband19 and perhaps also the fact that
the couple had
14 Nicols (1980a) distinguishes an Italian form reproducing the
decurial decree of coopta-
tion and a provincial variety taking the form of a bilateral
contract.
15 See Lahusen (1983), Alfoldy (1979) and (1984); for
examples of inscriptions set up at
public places without mentioning decurial permission, see Eck
(1992).
16 See Duthoy (1981) 299-300.
17 CIL 11, 6354 = ILS 6655: Abeienae G(ai) f(iliae) / Balbinae
/ flaminicae / Pisauri et
Arimini / patronae municipi / Pitinatium Pisaurensium. / Huic
anno quinquenna[l(itatis)1/
Petini Apri mariti eius / plebs urbana Pisau/rensium ob merita /
eorum. Cui / imp(erator)
[[- / - -]]/ ius commune libero/rum concessit. L(ocus) d(atus)
d(ecreto) d(ecurionum).
The name of the emperor, probably Commodus, is erased.
1 8 Forbis (1996) 12-18, Saller (1982) 17-21.
19 During his term of office a magistrate often received special
honour; for instance, a
quinquennalis (or his wife) who died in his year of office could
be given a public funeral,
see Castren (1975) 62, Savunen (1997) 153.
2015 04:24:24 UTC

been granted the privileges of the ius liberorum.20 The
unusually clear designation
as a patrona municipii of Pitinum Pisaurense is occasioned by
the fact that she held
two different offices in three different towns and that her statue
was erected in
another city than that in which she exercised her patronage.21
Of course, the fact that
her city patronage is mentioned, together with her priesthood,
added to her prestige,
but her statue with the inscription was not set up because of it.
Thus, a rigid application of Nicols's criteria seems
impracticable. When
reviewing the evidence I take it that a woman should be
regarded as a patroness
of a community, when the inscription calling her a patrona is set
up by the city
(colonia, municipium, res publica, civitas, praefectura etc.), the
ordo decurion-
um, the citizen body or a substantial section of it (such as the
plebs urbana)22, or
when it is authorized by a decree of the decuriones. Inscriptions
set up by
private persons, freedmen or collegia, and inscriptions that are
only partly
preserved leaving the dedicators unknown, are to be left out of
consideration,
since it cannot be determined that they were set up in honour of
a city patron(ess)

and not of a private patron or of a patron of a collegium.23
With these criteria in
20 For the ius liberorum, see Treggiari (1991) 66-80; the
privileges belonging to the ius
liberorum were sometimes granted by the emperor to persons
who did not have the
prescribed three children, see Dio 55.2.6.
21 This is highly unusual: unlike the magistracies of the cursus
honorum patronage of a city
is - as a rule - only mentioned in inscriptions set up in, or by,
the client city itself, not in
inscriptions set up for the same person elsewhere; see Duthoy
(1981), who does not
mention this exception (but see Duthoy [1984b] 34-5).
22 See also Duthoy (1 984-6) who in his list includes several
inscriptions set up by the plebs
urbana (cf. his note 39).
23 The following women are claimed by some to have been
patronesses of cities but are not
listed here, because their patronage of a community cannot be
ascertained: Egnatia
Certiana (CIL 9, 1578 Beneventum 2nd-3rd cent.; Harmand
[1957] 282): more probably a
patrona of a collegium. The clarissimae puellae Publilia
Caeciliana and Publilia Numisi-
ana (CIL 8, 4233 Verecunda [Num.] 3rd cent.; Harmand [1957]
241 and Engesser [19571
97 nrs. 220 and 221): dedicators unknown. Antistia Pia
Quintilla (AE 1962, 143 and
1979, 402 Vasio Vocontiorum [Gall. Narb.] Ist cent.;
Spickermann [1994] 212-213:
patrona of the colonia Flavia Tricastinorum in Gallia

Narbonensis): flaminica of the
colonia Flavia Tricastinorum, but probably patrona of her
freedman who set up the
inscription. Ulpia Aristonica (AE 1933, 70, Diana Veteranorum
[Num.] 2nd cent.; Warm-
ington [1954] nr. 194, contra Engesser [1957] 95 n. 4): probably
patrona of the two local
magistrates who dedicated the inscription. lulia Mamaea (IRT
449 Lepcis Magna [Afr.
Proc.] AD 222-235; Warmington [1954] nr. 138): a lacuna in the
inscription makes her
patronage uncertain. Atilia Lucillia (AE 1991, 456 Abella [It.]
2nd 3rd cent.; Kajava
[1990]): text largely erased leaving the dedicators unknown.
Antonia Picentina (CIL 9,
5428 Faleria [It.] 2nd cent.; Harmand [1957] 375): priestess and
wife of a city patron, no
indication that she was a patrona herself. Valeria Verecunda
(CIL 2, 3269, Castulo [Hisp.
Tar.] ls' cent.; Engesser [1957] 110 nr. 285): a benefactress.
Valeria Severina (CIL 2,
5812, Segisamum [Hisp. Tar.] 3rd cent.; Engesser [1957] 110
nr. 299): a patrona of a
collegium. In the case of Petronia Sabina (CIL 9, 5898 = ILS
1386 Ancona [It.]; Duthoy
2015 04:24:24 UTC
mind I have selected nineteen women (mentioned in eighteen

inscriptions) who
with reasonable certainty may be called city patronesses (see
tables 1 and 2).24
Three women are mentioned collectively in a single inscription
(from Utica)
and one woman, Vibia Aurelia Sabina, was honoured by two
inscriptions as a
patroness of Thibilis in Numidia and of nearby Calama in Africa
Proconsularis.
Geographical and chronological distribution, rank and family
Though my number of city patronesses is somewhat larger than
that given by
Nicols (1989) who lists thirteen women, it does only modify,
but not essentially
alter, the limited geographical and chronological distribution he
observes: all
references to city patronesses stem from North Africa (12) or
(mostly Central25)
Italy (7) and date from the middle of the second to the early
fourth century (see
table 3). The client-cities are of varying size and importance:
some, like
Avioccala, are only small towns, but others, such as Bulla Regia
in Africa
Proconsularis or Tarquinii in Italy, were quite prominent. Like
many of their
male counterparts, city patronesses probably lived in, or
stemmed from, their
client-cities, or possessed landed property in the
neighbourhood.26 Nummia
Varia held the municipal priesthood of Venus Felix at
Peltuinum.27 Oscia
[1984-6] 290 n. 62) the inscription uses the abbreviated (and

therefore ambiguous) title
patron (see note I1). Since no certainty can be established to
whom this refers, the
inscription is not included.
24 Some doubts may be felt about the patronage of Laberia
Hostilia, whose statue was set up
by the women of the city. Dyson (1992) 199 and Duncan-Jones
(1982) 227 n. 514 suggest
that she was a patroness of a female association, but since there
are no indications to
support this, I prefer to consider them as a section of the city
population comparable to the
plebs urbana (see also Duthoy [1984-6], Kajava [1990] and
Forbis [19961 243 nr. 265).
25 The only exception is Capertia Valeriana (nr. 8) who was
patroness of Bellunum in North
Italy.
26 See Kajava (1990). City patronage is usually assumed to be a
sign of local ties, but in
individual cases this is often hard to prove. According to
Duthoy (1984b) most patrons
stemmed from, or lived in, their client-cities; besides, a growing
number came from a
larger town in the region. For criticism of his view and method,
see Andermahr (1998)
20-24. Also the possession of an estate in the neighbourhood is
hard to establish: often
the only evidence is the inscription mentioning patronage of the
city. This easily leads to
circular reasoning, since the mentioning of the patronage is
taken as an indication of the
possession of landed property in the neighbourhood, which, in
its turn, is used for

explaining the patronage. During the whole period a small
number of patrocinia in Italy
may be explained by an administrative or military office in the
imperial service exercised
in the region. In the provinces this number was higher, see
Harmand (1957) 285 (119
from the over 670 patrons listed), Warmington (1954) and
Nicols (1980a) 544.
27 She did not stem from the region (her father was a civis et
patronus of Beneventum and
her mother came from Brixia, see FOS 803), but, according to
Andermahr (1998) 360-1,
her family possessed landed property in or near Peltuinum.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
Modesta, Furcilia Optata, Seia Potitia and lulia Memmia are
proudly addressed
by their respective client-cities as civis or alumna28, their city
presenting itself
as their patria. Though, as senatorial (even consular) women,
they lived most of
their lives in Rome and travelled all over the empire following
their husbands to
the provinces, they apparently continued to care for their native
cities. The word
patria, however, cannot in all cases be taken as a proof of
origin;29 it is some-

times used loosely, or even deliberately misleadingly. For
example, the small
town of Thibilis in Numidia poses as the patria of Vibia Aurelia
Sabina in the
inscription honouring her as its patroness, whereas, in fact, it
only was the city
of origin of her late husband, L. Antistius Burrus, who is not
even mentioned in
the inscription.30 Ignoring her less noble husband the city
publicly associated
itself with a member of the imperial family, thus, of course,
hoping to enhance
its prestige.
Almost all city patronesses came from exceedingly high-ranking
families. The
highest in rank is Vibia Aurelia Sabina, the youngest daughter
of the emperor
Marcus Aurelius. Fourteen of the remaining eighteen
patronesses are of senato-
rial status, at least ten of them wives or daughters of consuls
(table 4). Only
three patronesses are of equestrian (nrs 6 and 10) or decurial
(nr. 1)31 rank. The
social rank of one patroness, Capertia Valeriana, is unknown,
but the unusually
large base of her statue, which must once have carried an over
life-size bronze
statue, indicates that she was a woman of high prominence.32
Compared to male
city patrons, whose social status ranges from an occasional
imperial freedman
to members of the ordo senatorius (senators and, especially,
equestrians form-
ing the bulk of the evidence),33 the social range of female
patrons is both more

restricted and conspicuously higher. This holds especially for
North Africa,
28 For alumnusla indicating a person who was born and raised
in the city, see Corbier (1990)
and (1998).
29 Cf. Erkelenz (2001).
30 See ILAIg 2, 4661. As appears from ILAIg 2, 4634 she was
married to L. Antistius Burrus
from Thibilis, who was consul ord. in 181 together with the
emperor Commodus and was
killed by Commodus in 187 or 189-190 (SHA Comm. 6.11), see
Le Glay (1982) 769-70.
It is, of course, possible that the honorary citizenship of
Thibilis was offered to her
together with the patrocinium of the city.
31 There are no indications that she was of equestrian rank, as
is suggested by Nicols (1989),
though this is not impossible. Since her husband was a
quinquennalis, she was at least of
decurial rank, see also Duthoy (1984-6).
32 Limestone base: 186 x 84 x 79 cm. According to Alfoldy
(1984) 38-9 n. 89 and nr. 151 it
carried a monumental (over life-size) statue for the wife of a
local magistrate of decurial
or equestrian rank, but no husband is known. The dowelholes
point to a bronze statue.
33 Nicols (1989) 129, Warmington (1954), Harmand (1957).
The most detailed discussion of
the social status of city patrons is Duthoy (1984-6) who
discusses 495 patrocinia from

Italy in the first three centuries AD (not distinguished according
to gender).
2015 04:24:24 UTC
where eleven out of the twelve are of senatorial status (one of
the imperial
family, seven or more consular). The Italian evidence is more
varied: apart from
four senatorial women (three of them 'consular'), one is of
equestrian, one of
decurial and one of unknown (presumably decurial or
equestrian) status. That
women of families of local prominence played a greater part in
Italy agrees with
the gradual change in the social status of Italian city patrons
noticed by Duthoy34:
he finds that in the third century, in which most of our
patronesses are dated, the
percentage of patrons of decurial status was much higher than in
the first. Yet,
also in Italy female patrons were, on the average, of noticeably
higher social
status than male city patrons. Apparently, only women of the
highest status
were eligible in the eyes of the client-cities. As we shall see,
the high rank and
social prominence of our patronesses compensated for the
drawbacks of their

sex.
A family affair?
Interrelations between our patronesses are rather frequent. To
start with the
most obvious: three patronesses stemming from one family,
Gallonia Octavia
Marcella and her unmarried daughters, Accia Asclepianilla
Castorea and Accia
Heuresis Venantium, were honoured as patronae perpetuae
together with their
husband and father, L. Accius Iulianus Asclepianus in Utica.35
More distant
34 Duthoy (1984-6) shows that there was a gradual change in
the social status of city
patrons: whereas in the first century AD senators and those
equites who had a career in the
imperial service (Duthoy's "equites fonctionnels"), taken
together, formed almost 65% of
the city-patrons (senators and all equites taken together
amounting to almost 94% leaving
a mere 6,2% for the municipal elite), in the third century AD
they were only just over
50%. The other half of the city patrons consisted of equites
fulifilling a municipal career
(26,9%; Duthoy's "equites honorifiques") and members of the
municipal elite (18,2%; in
3,9% the social status of the patron being unknown). Though
senators and equites formed
the bulk of the evidence also in the third century, the percentage
of patrons of decurial
status tripled between the first and third centuries AD.
35 CIL 8, 118 (Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities, inv. nr.

HBB 10): L. Accio luliano
Asclepiano c(larissimo) v(iro) co(n)s(uli) cur(atori)
reip(ublicae) Utik(ensis?) et Gallon-
iae Octaviae Marcellae c(larissimae) f(eminae) et Acciae
Heuresidi Venantio c(larissimae)
p(uellae) et Acciae Asclepianillae Castoreae c(larissimae)
p(uellae) filiabus eorum
Col(onia) Iul(ia) Ael(ia) Hadr(iana) Aug(usta) Utik(ensis?)
patronis perpetuis d(ecreto)
d(ecurionum) p(ublica) p(ecunia). ("For L. Accius lulianus
Asclepianus, of senatorial
rank, consul, curator of the city of Utica and for Gallonia
Octavia Marcella, a woman of
senatorial rank, and Accia Asclepianilla Castorea, a girl of
senatorial rank, and Accia
Heuresis Venantium, a girl of senatorial rank, their daughters,
the city of Utica <dedicat-
ed this inscription> to their perpetual patrons by a decree of the
decuriones with public
money"). The wording of the inscription suggests that both the
mother and her daughters
were patrons. The cooptation of children as patrons was not
unusual. The inscription was
2015 04:24:24 UTC
family relations appear to have existed between five other
North-African city
patronesses: Calpurnia Ceia, lulia Memmia, Aradia Roscia,

Furcilia Optata and
probably Seia Potitia belonged, by birth or marriage, to the
interrelated senato-
rial families of the Aradii and the Memmii, prominent in the
region of Bulla
Regia, who intermarried with women of the senatorial family of
the Calpurnii
from Utica.36 Thus, eight out of the twelve North African city
patronesses
belonged to only a small number of highly distinguished,
senatorial families.
This brings us to the question whether city patronage was a
family affair
and perhaps even hereditary. Several inscriptions seem to
suggest as much.
Children were sometimes included in cooptation decrees, with
formulas such as
cum liberis posterisque eius, possibly to express the hope of the
city that the
relationship would be enduring.37 Not only parents and
children, but also
married couples could be city patrons. In the inscriptions
honouring Aurelia
Crescentia and Fabia Victoria the patronage of their husbands is
mentioned, and
in the case of Domitia Melpis and Oscia Modesta the patronage
of, respectively,
her husband and son is known from an adjacent inscription (see
table 4). Some
patronesses had male relatives who were patrons of other
cities,38 and some, as
we have seen, were related to each other. Thus, city patronage
might 'run in the
family' and it seems clear that, apart from high rank, family
connections played

a role in the cooptation of a patron. Yet, as a rule, city
patronage was not
hereditary. The decuriones were free to choose whomsoever
they liked, wheth-
er or not he or she belonged to a family that had provided
earlier patrons;
though the family evidently played a role in the choice of a
patron, there is no
reason to assume that this role was decisive.39
bought for the Leiden museum in 1824 together with two statues
of emperors and two
headless, slightly over-lifesize, statues of women. All were
allegedly found at the foot of
the acropolis. The statues may have adorned the nearby theatre.
36 Corbier (1982) 691, 693-4, 733, 739-40.
37 The addition perpetuusla to a patron(ess) may have served
the same end; since city
patronage was for life, the addition perpetuusla makes no sense
other than the hope of the
city that the relationship would be continued within the family
of the patron. For children
and progeny included in cooptation decrees (both tesserae
hospitales and tabulae patro-
natus), see Harmand (1957) 311-14, 339-44, Nicols (1980a)
541.
38 Thus, the father of Nummia Varia was a civis et patronus of
Beneventum (AE 1969/70,
169) and a possible freedman of hers, M. Nummius lustus, is
honoured as a patron of the
city of Peltuinum and granted a bisellium in honour of Nummia
Varia (CIL 9, 3436 = ILS
6528). Of the father of the clarissima puella Aradia Roscia not

much is known, but her
possible uncle, L. Aradius Roscius Rufinus Saturninus
Tiberianus, was a patronus of
Privernum (CIL 10, 6439) and another relative, Q. Aradius
Valerius Proculus, was a
patronus of six cities (CIL 6. 1684-9; Warmington [19541 42
nrs 99-104, Harmand
[1957] 190).
39 See also Duthoy (1984b) 48, Engesser (1957) 48-53. Eilers
(2002) 61-83 argues very
persuasively against the inheritance of city patronage.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
Since family relations account only in part for the choice of a
patron, we
should not assume that a patroness was coopted simply because
of her father or
husband and that the duties of patronage were actually fulfilled
by them. To
understand the choice of a woman, or a child, as a city patron
we should bear in
mind that in the imperial period many cities had several patrons
at a time,40 and
that city patronage was a fluid institution entailing a variety of
services. Male
patrons too did not form a homogeneous group, far from it.
Their services

varied according to their rank, career, age and personal
capacity. Thus, a boy of
senatorial, or even equestrian, rank might be coopted because of
his promise of a
brilliant career - as was the younger Pliny who was chosen as a
patron of Tifemum
Tiberinum when "still nearly a boy"'41 -, a govemor of a
province might be chosen
for his power to bestow privileges and immunities, and a local
magistrate for his
benefactions, his regional network of contacts and, perhaps, his
future career.
Senators and equestrians in the imperial service were most
sought after because of
their influence in Rome, but also a woman of a distinguished
senatorial family
might be highly influential because of the prestige of her rank,
family and social
connections. In comparison with her senatorial husband, who
was mostly occu-
pied in Rome, she may have had more time to spend on behalf
of her native city:
thus, her patronage may have been both accessible and
rewarding.
The stress laid in the inscriptions on the family relations of the
patronesses
seems often to be misunderstood. One of the striking
differences between
honorary inscriptions for men and women is the frequency of
references to their
male relatives in inscriptions set up for women (see table 4). In
only a few cases
the names of male relatives are lacking and some of these
inscriptions may be
explained by adjacent ones: for instance, the statue for Oscia

Modesta was put
up together with that of her consular son who, like his mother,
was a "citizen
and patron" of Avioccala.42 The frequent reference to their
male relatives is
40 Nicols (1980a) 547-8. The famous album decurionum of
Canusium reveals that in AD
223 Canusium had 39 patrons (CIL 9, 338 = ILS 6121; on this
album, see recently Salway
[2000]), that of Thamugadi in Numidia lists twelve city patrons
in AD 362-3 (CIL 8,
2403 = ILS 6122 and AE [1948] 118). An inscription in
Saguntum in Spain lists six
patroni (CIL 2, 3867).
41 Plin. Ep. 4.1: oppidum .... quod me paene adhuc puerum
cooptavit tanto maiore studio
quanto minore iudicio ("which coopted me as a patron when I
was still nearly a boy with
greater zeal than proper judgement"). But, of course, Pliny is
too modest. The city did
very wisely to coopt him as a patron at an early age (probably
about 17, see Nicols
1980b): his brilliant career, his proximity to the emperor and
his generosity (the same
letter refers to a temple he built at his own costs in Tifernum
Tiberinum) made him a very
desirable patron.
42 Pflaum (1970) 104 (CIL 8, 2383 1= AE 1898, 111). Engesser
(1957) 251 supposes that he
received citizenship of Avioccala because of his mother's
merits. Harmand (1957) 301-2
remarks that his office as a legatus Karthaginis made him the

more important for his
client-city. Since the original context of most inscriptions is
unknown, we are normally
not informed about possible adjacent inscriptions.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
usually regarded as a sign of the domestic orientation of
women. However, this
gender-difference in honorific inscriptions may be better
explained by the
different way in which women's social status was displayed.
Though around
the middle of the second century AD the titles clarissimafemina
and clarissima
puella came into use for the wives and daughters of senators,
women had no
independent claim to rank; they derived their social rank from
that of their
nearest male relatives, from their father at birth or from their
husband at
marriage.43 Thus, for denoting their social rank other than
senatorial, or their
position within the senatorial order, they had to refer to the
status and offices of
their closest male relatives. Obviously, men usually had no such
reason for
mentioning their female relatives.

That display of status was the main reason for including male
relatives
appears from the fact that in most inscriptions honouring
women only the
highest offices of their male relatives are mentioned; preferably
of those rela-
tives who had the most distinguished careers, also when their
status did not
legally affect that of the women in question. As has been said,
the social rank of
a married woman is determined by the rank and cursus honorum
of her hus-
band; yet, when her father, or even her son or brother (whose
status legally had
no bearing on her own status44) had a higher rank, her husband
may remain
unmentioned. For example, in both inscriptions honouring Vibia
Aurelia Sabi-
na her father, the late emperor Marcus Aurelius, her pretended
brother (because
of his self-arranged adoption by the late emperor Marcus
Aurelius), the late
emperor Septimius Severus, and, in one of the inscriptions, even
her pretended
nephews, the emperors Caracalla and Geta, are emphatically
mentioned, but her
less distinguished husband is ignored. Even though he was
killed by Commodus
in the late 180s, this omission is remarkable since he formed her
link with the
city that honoured her. Reasons of status may well have been
decisive here, the
city wishing to emphasize its connection with a member of the
imperial fami-
ly.45 Similarly, in the inscription for Aelia Celsinilla only her
consular son is

mentioned; possibly her husband was no consul.46 In short, the
frequent refer-
43 See Hemelrijk (1999) 11-12 and the literature quoted there.
44 But, of course, a brilliant career of a son or brother enhanced
her prestige.
45 Cf. Matidia the Younger, whose imperial relatives are
emphatically mentioned in all
inscriptions honouring her (see Hemelrijk [1999] 120-122), but
her (non-imperial) father
and husband have not even once been mentioned and are still a
mystery.
46 If so, she was legally not entitled to use the title
consularisfemina, cf. Corbier (1982)
711-12 and 735. Unfortunately, we cannot tell whether a
possible adjacent inscription
contained the cursus honorum of her husband. Nevertheless, her
son seems to have been
the more prominent: apart from his consulship he was curator of
both Bulla Regia and
Thuburbo Minus (see also CIL 8, 25523, an inscription from
Bulla Regia honouring his
daughter Agria Tannonia), whereas nothing is known of his
father: even his family name
has to be deduced from that of his son and his possible consular
status can only be inferred
from the title of his wife.
2015 04:24:24 UTC

220 EMILY A. HEMELRUJK
ence to male relatives serves to parade the high social status of
the female
honorands.
Benefactions
What services were expected from city patronesses?
Unfortunately, the honor-
ific inscriptions are disappointing. For example, in honour of
Domitia Melpis
the following text was inscribed on a large marble plaque, once
attached to her
statue base:
For Domitia Melpis, a woman of senatorial rank, wife of the
consular
Quintus Petronius Melior, the ordo decurionum and citizens of
Tarquinia
<set up this statue> for their most deserving patrona.47
Nothing is said about her activities, or the reason why she was
coopted as a city
patroness. It is not even explained why she is called "most
deserving". Yet, the
archaeological context permits certain inferences. The
inscription was found in
the baths of Tarquinii together with another marble plaque of
the same size, set
up by the same dedicators, but now in honour of her husband.
This inscription
mentions, in the same order, his name, his career starting with
his consulship,
the dedicators and his patronage of the city. Then the reason for

the dedication
is given: "For the very best of patrons, since he favoured the
city and repaired
the baths".48 Apparently two statues of the same size honouring
Petronius
Melior and his wife Domitia Melpis were set up in the baths in
gratitude for the
repair financed by Petronius. Both Melior and his wife are
called patrons of the
city. Are we to believe that benefactions were the main reason?
As has been said, Veyne regards Roman patronage of
communities as a
purely honorific title bestowed in gratitude for, or in
expectation of, benefac-
tions.49 In his opinion, benefactions formed the essence of city
patronage,
which, therefore, could be exercised also by women and
children. At first sight,
the inscriptions quoted above seem to support this view:
Petronius Melior is
praised for repairing the baths and the praise of his wife as a
"most deserving
patroness" may refer to this repair or, perhaps, to other
benefactions on her
part.50 On numerous other inscriptions city patrons, both male
and female, are
47 CIL 11, 3368 (ht. 0.93m., w. 0.61m.): Domitiae Melpidi
c(larissimae) f(eminae) /coniugi
Q(uinti) Petro/ni Melioris viri / co(n)s(ularis), / ordo et cives /
Tarquiniensium / patronae
dig/nissimae.
48 CIL 11, 3367 = ILS 1180: patrono op/timo, quod rem
p(ublicam) fove/rit et thermas resti/

tuerit. Apart from patron of Tarquinia, he was also curator of
four different towns, among
which Tarquinia. For a possible connection between the two
functions, see Nicols (1989) 125.
49 Veyne (1976) 349 n. 219 and 767 n. 31 1.
50 Forbis (1996) 24-27.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
praised for benefactions. These are usually referred to in
general terms (see
table 5): Abeiena Balbina, Helvidia Burrenia, Laberia Hostilia
and Oscia Mod-
esta are praised for their merita - Aurelia Crescentia also for her
beneficia - and
Seia Potitia for her liberalitas.51 Helvidia Burrenia, Nummia
Varia, Furcilia
Optata and Vibia Aurelia Sabina are praised for their amor or
adfectio for, and
their pronus animus and benevolentia towards, their client-
cities. Though these
words indicate a general attitude of goodwill and emotional
involvement, they
are usually interpreted as referring to financial generosity.52
An inscription in honour of lulia Memmia is the only one to be
more
specific: it tells us that she built "magnificent" baths for her

native city (see
table 5). In gratitude the city erected her statue in, or in front
of, the baths. In a
letter she wrote to the ordo and citizens of Bulla Regia -
inscribed on the
reverse of her statue base but unfortunately badly preserved -,
she seems to
have promised to donate a certain sum of money to the city in
memory of her
father, who had been a patron of the city as well.53 The revenue
of this capital
was probably intended for the maintenance of the baths and for
the distribution
of free oil (gymnasium). A similar public building-initiative
may have been
behind the merita of some of the other patronesses: for instance,
a lead water-
pipe found in the baths of Trebula Mutuesca inscribed with the
name of Laberia
Hostilia suggests that she built or restored the local baths.54
Yet, city patronage should not simply be equated with civic
munificence.
The nature of our evidence should warn us against this
conclusion. As we have
seen, most of it consists in honorific inscriptions, which, though
mentioning the
city patronage of the honorand, were not set up because of it.
Usually they were
made in connection with benefactions, or to celebrate some
festive occasion,
which explains why these are usually mentioned as reasons.55
To understand
the responsibilities of a city patron the honorific inscriptions
are clearly insuffi-
cient. Yet, they may provide a hint. For example, apart from

repairing the baths
Petronius Melior is said to have "favoured the city". Since he
was a consular
and a curator of the city his "favours" may have comprised
political assistance.
Also the amor and adfectio for which some patrons are praised
may have
51 Forbis (1996) 12-21 and 34-42.
52 Forbis (1996) 46-52.
53 Wesch-Klein (1990) 73-4 suggests that, instead of a letter, it
is a contract between the
city and lulia Memmia concerning the foundation. For the
monumental baths of lulia
Memmia built in the centre of the town, see Nielsen (1990) vol.
I pp. 90-1 and vol. II fig.
176 (C207) and DeLaine (1992) 266 fig. 165a.
54 Torelli (1962) 67-8; since her statue was put up by the
women of Trebula Mutuesca,
Kajava (1990) 31 suggests that she may have financed the
women's baths.
55 Some inscriptions mention no reasons at all (see table 5).
Yet, they too may have been set
up in gratitude for benefactions unknown to us (because of the
loss of the original context
of most inscriptions) but obvious to the ancient public, since an
inscription honouring a
benefactor was often set up at the building he (or she) had
donated.
2015 04:24:24 UTC

comprised more than benefactions only. These terms of praise
may have been
used in a deliberately vague way in order to indicate - and
encourage - more
than only financial support.56
More information is given by the tabulae patronatus. In a
careful study of
the reasons for choosing a patron mentioned in these decrees
Duthoy shows that
influence with the central power in Rome was the chief
criterium. In respect of
benefactions there was no difference between a city patron and
other members
of the city elite.57 Thus, city patronage and civic munificence
were far from
identical: though a city patron was often also a benefactor of the
city, a
benefactor was not always coopted as a city patron. For
example, despite
numerous benefactions to his native Comum, Pliny the Younger,
as far as we
know, was never coopted as its patron.58 The connection, if
any, was only in one
direction: the honour of being coopted as a patron may have
encouraged a
patron to respond with benefactions - if only for fear of being
thought ungrate-
ful -, but benefactions were not his main duty, nor was lavish

generosity the
reason for his cooptation. That this holds for women as well as
for men will be
argued in the next section.
Duties and responsibilities
As we have seen, honorific inscriptions hardly inform us of the
activities of city
patronesses. The best evidence for their duties is a tabula
patronatus. This
bronze plaque from Peltuinum Vestinum in Italy records a
decision of the local
council in AD 242 to coopt a woman of senatorial rank,
Nummia Varia, as their
patrona. Unfortunately it is the only tabula patronatus for a city
patroness that
has been preserved, but it agrees in form and contents with the
standard
formulas of such tabulae for men. In the Italian variety of the
tabula patronatus
- to which the tablet for Nummia Varia belongs (see above n.
14) - the decree
of the decuriones is quoted with a summary of their reasons for
choosing her.
After recording the consular year, the day of their meeting and
the names of the
leading magistrates the text runs as follows:
Nummia Varia, a woman of senatorial rank, priestess of Venus
Felix, has
started to act with such affection and good-will towards us in
accordance
with her custom of benevolence, just as her parents too have
always done,

that she should rightfully and unanimously be made patrona of
our praefec-
56 For the, often deliberately vague, terminology of patronage,
see Sailer (1982) 8-22; also
Engesser (1957) 279-80.
57 Duthoy (1984a), see also Harmand (1957) 354 and 386-396;
Salway (2000) 142-3 is of
the same opinion.
58 Nicols (1980b). Similarly, hundreds of civic benefactresses
can be epigraphically attest-
ed in the Latin West, but, so far, only nineteen patronesses of
cities.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
tura, in the hope that by offering this honour, which is the
highest in our
city, to her so illustrious excellency, we may be more and more
renowned
by the repute of her benevolence and in all respects be safe and
protected
(...) All members of the council have decided to proffer to
Nummia Varia, a
woman of senatorial rank, priestess of Venus Felix, in
accordance with the

splendour of her high rank, the patrocinium of our praefectura,
and to ask
from her excellency and extraordinary benevolence, that she
may accept
this honour which we offer to her with willing and favourable
inclination
and that she may deign to take us and our res publica,
individually and
universally, under the protection of her house and that, in
whatever matters
it may reasonably be required, she may intervene with the
authority belong-
ing to her rank and protect us and keep us safe.59
The text ends by recording that a bronze plaque inscribed with
the decurial
decision was to be offered to her by a delegation of the two
highest magistrates
of the city and the two foremost decuriones.
Two things stand out: the tone of deference and the services
expected from
Nummia Varia. She is addressed in the most honourable terms
and a flattering
description is given of her relationship with the city. Her
adfectio, pronus
animus, benevolentia and benignitas are stressed and the city
humbly offers her
the highest possible honour. The submissive tone is marked by
the repeated use
of words denoting her high rank and fame by which - it is hoped
- she will
render the city illustrious.60 In the eyes of the decurions her
rank was lofty
indeed: as a daughter and sister of consuls she was of
senatorial, probably even

consular, status. Thus, the social distance between the
prospective patroness
and the decurions is made abundantly clear.
As to the services expected from Nummia Varia, the decuriones
declare
their expectation that with the help of her authority (auctoritas)
she will
59 CIL 9, 3429 = ILS 6110: Nummiam Variam c(larissimam)
f(eminam) sacerdotem Veneris
Felicis, ea adfecti/one adque prono animo circa nos agere
coepisse pro instituto / benevo-
lentiae suae, sicut et parentes eius semper egerunt, ut / merito
debeat ex consensu
universorum patrona praefecturae / nostrae fieri, quo magis
magisque hoc honore, qui est
aput nos potissi/mus, tantae claritati eius oblato dignatione
benignitatis eius glori/osi et in
omnibus tuti ac defensi esse possimus, (.) Placere universis
conscriptis Nummiae
Variae, c(larissimae) f(eminae) sacerdoti Veneris / Felicis, pro
splendore dignitatis suae
patrocinium praefecturae nos/trae deferri petique ab eius
claritate et eximia benignitate,
ut hunc / honorem sibi a nobis oblatum libenti et prono animo
suscipere / et singulos
universosque nos remque publicam nostram in cl/ientelam
domus suae recipere dignetur
et in quibuscumque / ratio exegerit, intercedente auctoritate
dignitatis suae, tutos de/
fensosque praestet.
60 See the repeated use of words such as c(larissima) f(emina),
claritas, splendor, dignitas
and dignatio; for these terms see Lendon (1997) 272-6. Each

time her name appears her
rank and priesthood are mentioned, as if an inextricable part of
her identity.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
successfully intervene in defence of the city-interests whenever
needed.6' No
reservations are made because of her gender; apparently,
Nummia Varia was
believed to be perfectly capable of rendering such services. No
husband is
known, and though we cannot tell whether she was married or
not, it is clear that
the city sought her personal protection. By associating itself to
this woman of
overpowering rank the city hoped to participate in her glory and
to be "safe and
protected" by her authority.
Intervention on behalf of the client city was the chief service
expected from
male city patrons, many of whom were senators or equestrians
active in the
imperial service.62 That here, this is, with so many words,
expected from a
woman, is remarkable. Nicols (1989) tries to explain the
cooptation of city
patronesses by the extraordinary power of the women of the

Severi. However,
since some patronesses lived before the reign of the Severi (see
table 3), this
explanation is hardly convincing. To my mind, it is doubtful
whether an
explanation is necessary in the light of the ancient sources,
which present city
patronesses as a matter of course. That we feel obliged to
explain their city
patronage at all may be due to a preconceived notion as regards
the exclusion of
ancient women from public life. The tablet of Nummia Varia
contains no such
reserve: it publicly recognizes her social prominence and the
political influence
that ensues from it - an influence, or perhaps we should even
say power, that the
Romans themselves seem to have acknowledged more readily
than modem
scholars.63 The words intercedente auctoritate dignitatis suae,
tutos defen-
sosque praestet ("she may intervene with the authority
belonging to her rank
and protect us and keep us safe") mean that the 'defence' of both
the city as a
whole and its citizens individually (singulos universosque nos
remque publi-
cam nostram) was expected of her. By intervening on behalf of
the city she was
to safeguard its interests. This intervention - with the central
powers in Rome -
was thought to be effective because of the dignitas of her lofty
status. So far,
61 For dignitas, dignatio and auctoritas, see Lendon (1997) 274-
6, for dignitas and dignatio

as indicators of political influence and authority, see also Forbis
(1996) 79-81. The
auctoritas ascribed to her and the repeated use of the words tuti
ac defensi "safe and
protected" indicate the political efficacy that was expected from
her.
62 See note 57 and Engesser (1957) 272ff. In a letter to the
magistrates and local council of
Cirta, Fronto politely refuses the city patronage offered to him
by his native city because
of his health and high age. He advises them to choose as patrons
those "who now have the
highest place at the bar" (qui nunc fori principem locum
occupant) in Rome, see Fronto
ad Am. 2, I1 (Haines I pp. 292-5) and Champlin (1980) 10-12.
63 See, for instance, Servilia's power to change the
administrative posts in the provinces
allotted to Brutus and Cassius after the murder of Caesar, which
puzzled modem authors,
but not Cicero (Att. 15.1 1) who accepted it as a matter of
course. In contrast to the ancient
epigraphic recognition of the power of high-ranking women,
modem studies usually
emphasize the indirect, behind-the-scenes aspect of the political
influence of women and
the condemnation of their public activities in the literary
sources; see, for instance,
Hillard (1989) and (1992).
2015 04:24:24 UTC

there is no difference from male patrons. But, as a woman and,
therefore,
excluded from political office, how was she to accomplish this?
As can be learned from numerous literary sources, but also from
the well-
known inscription for 'Turia',64 women of the foremost Roman
families could
exert great influence not only through their male relatives, but
also through
their own network of social connections with men and women of
their rank: for
instance, 'Turia' pleaded for her husband with Lepidus, Fulvia
went round the
houses of the most important senators to gain support for
Antony and Terentia
supported Cicero during his exile by exhorting his political
friends.65 Such
influence of high-classed Roman women (which long predates
the Severi)
resulted from the great public honour of the foremost families,
which was
closely linked with political power. The auctoritas of women of
these families
was not based on a political, military or juridical career, but on
the prestige they
derived from their rank, wealth and reputation, and on their
wide social network
of relatives, clients, friends, acquaintances and friends of
friends.66 In Roman
society with its blurring of the social and the political, such
informal power was

real and, though of a private nature, it might be acknowledged
publicly.
It is in the light of such female "lobbying" and political
mediation that the
tablet for Nummia Varia should be understood. Yet, women
wielding power
were exceptional and usually restricted to the highest circles.
Moreover, some
of them met with sharp criticism from the authors of our literary
sources, who
thought that such power conflicted with the modesty expected
of women and
therefore should be suppressed. Incidentally, their repugnance
shows the reality
of this power. In contrast with the literary sources, inscriptions
show no scru-
ples in acknowledging the power of women of the topmost
families:67 the
inscription for Nummia Varia (like, probably, the tabulae
patronatus of the
other patronesses now lost) openly recognizes her authority and
capability for
intervention on behalf of the city.
If intervention on behalf of the client-cities was the chief
service expected
from city patronesses, this explains why client cities chose only
patronesses of
the highest ranks. Women of consular families, who form the
majority of the
city patronesses known so far, were capable of intervening on
behalf of the
city's interests because of their access to the emperor and to the
highest
magistrates in Rome. But also other senatorial and even

equestrian patronesses
64 CIL 6.41062, see Hemelrijk (2004).
65 For the encounter between 'Turia' and Lepidus, see Gowing
(1992). Fulvia: App. BC
3.51, Terentia: Cic. Fam. 14. 2.3-4, 14.3.5 en 14.4.3, for more
examples see Hemelrijk
(2004).
66 For the relation between honour and power in Roman
society, see Lendon (1997). For the
social and political power of high-ranking women, see Dixon
(1983), MacMullen (I 986),
Purcell (1986) and Laurence (1997). Unfortunately, Bauman
(1992) is inadequate and
uncritical.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
must have been sufficiently well-connected to intermediate for
their small or
far-off client-cities. The difference between the literary sources
and epigraphy
in respect of the political influence of high-ranking women is
partly a matter of
perspective. As prospective beneficiaries the client cities were,
of course, not
inclined to be critical of the power of the high-ranking women

they chose as
their patronesses. The literary authors, however, tried to attack
political adver-
saries or to uphold traditional morality by criticising the 'undue'
power of
women. But it may also reflect a real difference between Rome
and the muni-
cipalities: in Rome the public role of upper-class women was
both controversial
in the light of traditional Roman values and overshadowed by
that of the women
of the imperial family, whereas in the eyes of the municipal
elite the power of
women of senatorial rank must have seemed impressive indeed;
they probably
could not afford to ignore it - let alone be censorious.
Public honour and public image
To express gratitude for services performed, and in the hope for
more, client
cities bestowed all kinds of honours on their patrons. The first
official honour
could be the tabula patronatus.68 But there were numerous other
ways to
honour a patron. He could be offered honorary citizenship (if he
was not a
citizen yet), receive a seat of honour in the (amphi)theatre or a
public funeral
after his death. His name was added to the list of patrons
heading the album
decurionum, his relatives might get the privilege of public
statues, the city
publicly rejoiced in his prosperity or sympathized with his
misfortunes offering
consolation for the loss of relatives by means of public statues

or a public
funeral and surrounding his arrival in, or departure from, the
city by public
ceremony.69 But the most illustrious honour was a public statue
of the patron
67 See, for instance, the matter-of-fact recognition of Livia's
power and her influence in the
acquittal of Plancina on the well-known senatus consultum de
Cn. Pisone patre from
Baetica in Spain (Eck et al. 11996] 87f., 224ff. and 240ff.;
transl. by M. Griffin in JRS 87
[1997] 250-3, 11. 109-120; see also the special issue of AJPh
120.1 [19991) which
contrasts with the highly critical account of the same episode by
Tacitus (esp. Ann. 3. 15
and 17). Cf. also the controversial political role of Comelia, the
mother of the Gracchi, in
the literary sources, see Hemelrijk (1999) 64-67.
68 Harmand (1957) 332-344. Though no complete set has been
found, it is generally
assumed that two identical tabulae patronatus were made when a
patron was coopted:
one was presented to the patron, the other was attached to some
public building (many
tabulae patronatus have nail holes) as a public announcement of
the patronage. Nicols
(1980a) 537 n. 12 considers the possibility that there was only
one copy in bronze (the one
offered to the new patron); the other may have been made of
wood (and therefore lost) or
the city may have restricted itself to adding the name of the new
patron to the list of
patrons heading the album decurionum.

69 See, for instance, the statue erected for Clodia Anthianilla to
console her parents (her
2015 04:24:24 UTC
himself provided with an inscription publicizing his rank and
career, and his
merits for the city. Thus, his importance was publicly displayed
not only for his
contemporaries but also for posterity; a prominent place and the
use of expen-
sive material added to the honour.
This is all very well for men. But how can such public honour
be brought
into agreement with the domesticity traditionally expected from
women? Were
the honours for female patrons perhaps less? And what public
image was
created? At present, the evidence for the honours awarded to
city patronesses
consists almost exclusively in statue bases or marble plaques
once attached to
such bases (see table 5)70. Yet, this does not mean that no other
public honour
was awarded. Their names were probably added to the list of
patrons heading
the album decurionum71 and the city publicly sympathized with
the vicissitudes

of their lives, celebrating their birthdays and marriages and
mourning their
deaths. We have no evidence for public funerals of city
patronesses, but one of
them received a statue on her birthday and others were publicly
commemorated
after death.72
The statue bases and plaques form our only source.
Unfortunately, the
archaeological data are scarce.73 The size of most statue bases
and plaques (see
table 5) indicates life-size statues of standing figures.74 The
large marble plaque
(2.35 m. wide) honouring L. Accius lulianus Asclepianus, his
wife Gallonia
Octavia Marcella and their unmarried daughters, Accia
Asclepianilla Castorea
and Accia Heuresis Venantium probably once faced a base
carrying a group of
father was a patron of the city) for her premature death (AE
1910, 203). The fact that it
was set up publice at a much frequented spot of the town
(frequentissimo loco) enhanced
the honour. For her (now headless) marble statue found with the
inscription, see NSc
(1910) 146-8. For a list of the types of honour accorded to city
patrons, see Harmand
(1957) 345-353. For ceremonies surrounding the arrivals and
departures of a city patron,
see Plin. Ep. 4.1.4.
70 For the use of marble plaques, see Alfoldy (2001) 12-13.
71 See Nicols (1989) 118, 132 and 138. As Salway (2000) 133
rightly remarks, the value of

the list of patrons in the album decurionum was "primarily
symbolic". It was a token of
honour for the patrons, but also a source of pride for the city,
since it publicized their
relations with high-ranking members of the imperial elite.
72 The statues for Helvidia Burrenia and Seia Potitia were set
up posthumously and that for
Aurelia Crescentia was dedicated on her birthday.
73 Very few archaeological details are given in the epigraphic
corpora (the CIL and the
earlier volumes of the AE); I have found some additional
evidence by browsing through
all other publications of the inscriptions I could lay hands on.
Personal inspection has
only been possible for CIL 8, 1181 in the National Museum of
Antiquities in Leiden (inv.
nr. HBB 10) and for CIL 11, 6354 in the Museo Oliveriano at
Pesaro. I thank Prof. Dr. G.
Alfoldy and his staff for their kindness in showing me photos of
the statue bases of Aelia
Celsinilla, Aurelia Crescentia and Capertia Valeriana (for her
statue base see also Alfoldy
[1984] pl. 4.3) in the "Epigraphische Datenbank" in Heidelberg.
74 Cf. Alfoldy (2001) 40-1.
2015 04:24:24 UTC

statues of this family. Also the limestone base of Capertia
Valeriana is larger
than usual: her bronze statue must have been somewhat over
life-size. All
statues were erected by the city, the citizen body or a
substantial section of it
(see table 2) and those of which we are informed stood on
prominent places in
the city: in, or before, the theatre or the baths, or at the foot of
the acropolis
(table 5). In this respect, no difference was made between male
and female city
patrons. However, some statues for female patrons were
expressly dedicated by
women: the women of Trebula Mutuesca set up a statue for
Laberia Hostilia,
and "citizens of both sexes" of Interamna dedicated the statue
for Helvidia
Burrenia (see table 2). Both groups had collected money among
themselves to
pay for the statues.
Unfortunately, as no statue belonging to the inscriptions has
survived, it is
hard to gauge the impression they made on the ancient viewers.
However, since
public honorific statues of women in the imperial period were
more or less
standardized, we may form an idea of their appearance. All are
heavily draped,
standing figures, but there are many variations in details of pose
and clothing.75
Most popular during the first three centuries of the Empire were
the 'Large and

Small Herculaneum Women', so called after the famous statues
from the theatre
of Herculaneum.76 They are in the form of a heavily draped
woman supporting
her weight on one leg, the other leg being relaxed and slightly
bent. The left
arm, enveloped in the mantle, hangs down, the right hand is
raised in front of
the breast holding the edge of the mantle. They wear a long
tunic (chiton) and
an elaborate mantle (himation), both belonging to the original
Greek proto-
types, but in some cases a stola, the symbol of the Roman
matrona77, is visible
between the tunic and the mantle. On these standard bodies the
heads were
usually carved as portraits. However, sometimes the facial
features were ideal-
ized, so much so that they only show the fashions of the time,
especially the
hairstyle. Apparently, the individual personality was sometimes
considered less
important than the dignified modesty of the type. The quiet and
restrained pose
of such statues and their complicated drapery express the
wealth, high status
and traditional virtue of the portrayed.78
What impression do the inscriptions create of the city
patronesses? As we
have seen, most of them publicize their high rank referring to
the highest offices
of their male relatives, and some indicate their wealth by
mentioning their
75 For a detailed treatment of the stylistic development in

draped statues of women in the
second century AD, see Kruse (1975).
76 Trimble (2000); Kruse (1975) lists 153 statues of the Large
Herculaneum Woman and 125
of the small one from the 2nd century AD; see also Bieber
(1977) 148-162 and (1962).
77 See Scholz (1992) and Sebesta (1994).
78 Other types of draped portrait statues have similar
connotations; see, for instance, the
Eumachia type (Zanker [1990] 316-19), the Ceres type (Kruse
[19751 3-40) or the
'Pudicitia' type (Kleiner [1977] 162-4 and Bieber [19771 132-
3). For their Hellenistic
prototypes, see Eule (2001).
2015 04:24:24 UTC
munificence. But what do they say of their virtues? Here, two
kinds may be
distinguished: civic, and traditional female virtue (see table 5).
In contrast with
the Greek East, where women are praised in public inscriptions
for traditional,
domestic virtues, it is civic virtues that are stressed in our
inscriptions.79
Traditional female virtues are mentioned in no more than two

cases and only in
conjunction with civic virtues. Thus, Aurelia Crescentia is
praised both as "a
most honourable and chaste woman" and for her merita and
beneficia towards
the city of Trebula Mutuesca, and Helvidia Burrenia not only
for her "chastity,
prudence and innocence",80 but also for her "merit and love"
for Interamna.
In all other cases only civic virtues are mentioned. The
patronesses are
presented first and foremost as exemplary citizens. The merita,
beneficia and
liberalitas, for which some of them are praised, mainly refer to
material bene-
factions, but amor and adfectio point to a more general attitude
of goodwill:
they are the mark of the ideal citizen. This could, of course, be
manifested by
benefactions - and amor and adfectio are therefore usually
interpreted as proof
of such benefactions - but the words also indicate an emotional
tie with the city.
Emphasis on a personal, emotional relationship between city
and elite is com-
mon in the first three centuries AD. It is a symptom of what has
been called the
"domestication of public life", a tendency to present the relation
between the
emperor and his subjects, and that between members of the elite
and the citizens
of municipalities, in terms of family relations.81 Thus, Furcilia
Optata and Iulia
Memmia are addressed as the alumnae of their client cities, a
term which, when

used metaphorically, renders the relation between the city and
the patroness as
an affectionate family tie.82 Comparably, women of the elite
may be presented
in this period as mater of some collegium or collectivity.83
Their pronus
79 This accords with the conclusions drawn by Forbis (1990)
from a sample of thirty-two
honorary inscriptions for women in imperial Italy. For women
in the Greek East, see Van
Bremen (1996).
80 In inscriptions for men innocentia is one of the
administrative virtues denoting a blame-
less administration of public office, see Forbis (1996) 64-8, but
in the case of women it is
probably used to denote chastity. Similarly, sapientia denotes
intellectual achievement,
in honorific inscriptions especially the application of
intellectual abilities for the benefit
of the city, see Forbis (1996) 95; when applied to women it may
denote (sexual) prudence.
81 Set out (for the Greek East) most clearly by Van Bremen
(1996) 163-70 and Strubbe
(2001) 35-8. The latter places its culmination in the late
Hellenistic period; for the Roman
West it seems to lie at a later period: the second and third
centuries AD.
82 For the metaphorical use of alumnusla, see Corbier (1998)
136ff.
83 See, for instance, CIL 11, 5752 in which theflaminica Avidia
Tertullia is honoured by the

seviri Augustales of Sentinum as mater municipalium and AE
1998, 416 in honour of
Numisia Secunda Sabina, who is addressed as mater municipii
et coloniae. For matres of
collegia and other collectivities, see, e.g., CIL 5, 4411 (mater
synagogae, cf. Brooten
[ 1982] 57-72 who discusses five "mothers of synagogues" and
one "fatheress", pateres-
sa, from imperial Italy) and CIL 11, 5748 (mater collegii) and
the inscriptions collected
by Waltzing (1900) IV: 369-70 and Saavedra Guerrero (1998).
2015 04:24:24 UTC
animus, benevolentia and benignitas present the relationship in
a similar light:
the patroness, like a parent, is encouraged to show a personal
interest and an
emotional involvement in the well-being of the citizens and of
the city as a
whole.84
Civic virtues and a, so to speak, matriarchal attitude towards the
client city
are the main characteristics indicated by the inscriptions.
Traditional female
virtues seem to have been less important, but here we are
probably misled by
our evidence. Since only the inscriptions have survived, we

perhaps attach too
much importance to them: for their contemporaries the statues
were surely the
main thing85 - quite apart from the question whether they
could, or actually did,
read the inscriptions.86 The heavily draped statues must have
conveyed a
venerable image of continence, modesty and self-control, that is
of traditional
virtuousness. Yet, in itself a public statue of a woman seems to
contrast with the
domesticity traditionally expected of her. How did the ancient
public react to
this discrepancy between public statuary and common ideals of
female domes-
ticity? Did it affect their appreciation of these statues? For
instance, did they
regard the statues of the patronesses just as the women they met
in the streets, or
did the heavily draped statues towering above them on their
high pedestals
impress them as hardly human, almost as goddesses?87 It seems
likely that for
the ancient public honorific statues of women were sharply
distinct from actual
women, in the same way as naked male statues were regarded as
raised high
above daily life and caused no embarrassment even when seen
by women.88 Not
only were they dressed in elaborate, almost unmanageable
drapery, very differ-
ent from everyday dress, but their formularized bodies and
sometimes idealized
heads made it impossible to think of them as ordinary women.
The fact that they
received a public honorific statue, which was typically a male

honour, 89 may
84 Nicols (1989) 127 argues that this allows for the inclusion of
women since "amor is a
quality women might demonstrate as easily as men". This
misses the point, since the
amor or benevolentia of city patrons was expressed by their
promotion of the city's
interests or their intervention on its behalf. Of course, the
"domestication of public life"
may have facilitated the participation of upper-class women in
public life, since as
'loving' and 'benevolent' patronae they symbolised the
affectionate relationship between
the city and the elite.
85 See also Eck (1984).
86 For ancient literacy, see Harris (1989) and Beard (1991).
87 It would be interesting to know whether they were depicted
with the attributes of
goddesses, for instance, the poppies and corn ears of Demeter,
which are sometimes seen
on the Herculaneum Women.
88 Cf. the remark ascribed to Livia when she accidentally ran
into some naked men: "to
chaste women such men are no different from statues" (Dio
58.2.4).
89 As an indication of the rough ratio of men and women in
Roman honorary inscriptions I
take the studies by Alfoldy (1979) and (1984) of the statue
bases in regio 10 of Italy and
in the conventus Tarraconensis in Roman Spain as a point of
departure. On respectively

18,7% and 23,4% of the honorific inscriptions on statue bases in
these regions women are
2015 04:24:24 UTC
have made them, in a sense, 'masculine' in the eyes of the
ancient public.90
Whether 'male' or 'female', mortal or godlike, the impression the
statues of
city patronesses made depended on the perspective of the
onlooker. Only the
inscriptions could guide the viewer, and in them the patronesses
are presented
first and foremost as high-ranking women and worthy citizens.
We cannot be
certain whether the honorand had a say in the choice of his or
her statue and
inscription - in fact, all this was decided by the local senate -,
but it seems
likely that some consultation took place. 91 The city probably
did its best to
erect a statue with an inscription that was to the patron's liking
and was
appropriate to the relationship between them. A statue was
regarded as a gift
from the city to the patron and, thus, it carried some obligation
for the patron to
live up to the expectations.92 Of course, it only did so if the

gift pleased the
patron and we may therefore conclude that city patronesses
wished to be
presented as high-ranking, dignified and virtuous women and as
dutiful citizens
during their lifetime and to live on as such in civic memory.
Motives
Why would an upper-class woman accept the patronage of a city
and undertake
the duties expected from a city patron(ess)? Prestige may have
been the first
consideration. The public distinction of a city patron, the
various public hon-
ours - such as statues and inscriptions - and their promise of
lasting fame, must
have attracted both men and women. According to Duthoy, the
repeated ac-
knowledgement of his (or her) superior status inherent in these
public honours
was an important reward for the patron.93 For women, public
prestige and
acknowledgement of their superior position may have been the
more attractive,
since no political career was open to them. City patronage was
one of the few
ways in which their influence and prominence could find public
recognition.
Thus, we need not assume that they sought this high public
distinction only in
the interest of their male relatives. Surely, they wanted prestige
for themselves,
and city patronage offered it.
However, prestige was probably not their only motive. In his

letters Pliny
speaks of the burdensome duties of patronage, which, as a
responsible citizen,
mentioned either as dedicators or as honorands, or otherwise
(for instance, when a statue
was erected "also in the name of' a woman). When restricted to
female honorands the
percentage is much lower: resp. 6.1 % and 11.3 %.
90 See Gleason (1998). However, Davies (1997) stresses the
humility and coyness expressed
by the body language of female statues, which emphasized their
traditional (modest and
submissive) role.
91 For an excellent discussion, see Eck ( 1995).
92 Cf. Tanner (2000) 31 ff.
93 Duthoy (1984a) 151-2.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
he felt himself obliged to undertake. He gives as his reason his
desire not to be
outdone in generosity by his clients and to serve the best
interests of his city or
province.94 Pliny's self-portrait as a dutiful citizen is in
agreement with the
civic virtues mentioned in the inscriptions for city patronesses.

Their amor,
adfectio and benevolentia conform to the ideals of good
citizenship. There are
two aspects to this: not only did the members of distinguished
families feel
obliged to show their personal commitment to their cities by
exercising local
patronage or by conferring various kinds of benefactions, but
also the people
expected such services from their local grandees. Social
pressure might be
strong on men as well as on women: this appears, for instance,
from the case of
Aemilia Pudentilla, who celebrated her marriage to Apuleius,
according to this
author, not in the city but in her suburban villa in order to avoid
the pressure of
the city populace for a distribution of money. Not long before,
Apuleius
remarks, she had felt obliged to distribute 50,000 sesterces to
the people at the
marriage of her elder son Pontianus and the coming of age of
her younger one.95
Thus, not only prestige but also the ideology of good citizenship
and a sense
of obligation induced high-ranking women to spend part of their
wealth and use
their influence for the good of their cities. Apart from this,
there might be a
family tradition of city patronage, or a husband who was a city
patron himself.
For those patronesses who came from the most prominent
families the ideals of
good citizenship and a sense of moral obligation must have been
the main

incentive, since the patronage of a small (provincial) town
hardly added to their
standing. Women of less elevated rank may have set greater
store by the public
honour of a cooptation.
Women of imperial and senatorial families lived mostly in
Rome and their
patronage of a (provincial) municipality was, therefore, a favour
to that city
rather than an honour for themselves. This is manifest in the
case of Vibia
Aurelia Sabina, one of the daughters of Marcus Aurelius, who
had little to gain
by a patronage of the small North African cities of Thibilis and
Calama. But it
also holds for women of senatorial rank, as is illustrated by
Oscia Modesta, with
whom this article opens. The citizens of her native city of
Avioccala in northern
Africa had more profit from their connection with this
distinguished woman
than she had from them. As a wife and mother of consuls she
passed most of her
life far from Avioccala: in Rome and in Pisidian Antioch, where
her husband
was a patron.96 In Rome she probably took part in the ludi
saeculares of 204
and, after the early death of her husband and her children, she
educated her
94 Plin. Ep. 1.8; 3.4; 4.1 For Pliny's patronage of communities,
see Nicols (1980b). Also
Salway (2000) 143 regards a feeling of obligation as an
important motive for a city
patron.

95 Apul. Apol. 87.10.
96 CIL 3, 6810-6812. She is mentioned on an inscription on a
statue base in Thuburbo
Maius, set up for her son, ILAfr 279 = AE 1915, 23.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
grandson, who gratefully commemorated her as his "dearest
grandmother and
sweetest educator".97 In Rome, she was finally buried herself,
at a high age,
after having composed her own epitaph in elegic distichs in
archaizing, pseudo-
Homeric, Greek:
Here I lie, wife of the consul, the proud hero, my dear Arrius,
with whom I
was wed in single marriage. From my ancestors I once received
the name
Publiana (they were descendants of the Scipiones and
distinguished for
their noble birth). I myself remained in widowhood for the rest
of my life
and I was consumed by grief by the early death of my children.
In my life I
endured much suffering in distress; my mind found pleasure in
the Muses

alone.98
This amateur poem, though rather clumsy, shows that Oscia
Modesta had
received the bilingual literary education of the Roman upper
classes. Her
literary tour deforce in composing an epigram in obsolete Greek
suggests that
she wanted to be seen as a well-educated lady, whose erudition
equalled that of
upper-class women in Rome.99 To underscore her Romanitas -
and to conceal
her African birth and background - she traces her ancestry back
to the distin-
guished family of the Scipiones; of course, this is hardly
truthful. Also her
adherence to Roman values (she remained an univira) is stressed
as is the
consulate of her husband, the supreme mark of status in
Rome.'00 No wonder
that she is silent about her patronage of her native city of
Avioccala and the
"conspicuous merits" the city praises her for. In Rome she lived
the life of a
Roman woman adapting herself to the values and standards of
the Roman elite;
her African face was for Africa alone.
97 CIL 6, 1478 set up by her grandson in commemoration of
her: Osciae Modestae M(arci)
[f(iliae)] / Corneliae Publian[ae]/ c(larissimae f(eminae) / aviae
carissimae [et] / educatri-
ci dulcissim[aej / M(arcus) Fl(avius) Arrius Osciu[s] /
Honoratus nepo[s] / IIIlvir,
trib(unus) [mil(itum) leg.--- . For the avia educans, see Quint. 6
praef. 8 and Dixon

(1990) 154. As to her participation in the ludi saeculares of 204,
see FOS 587: she is
identified with the matrona [- -]A, wife of a Calpurnius
Frontinus in CIL 6, 32329.21.
98 IGUR 1311 = IGR I 336 = IG 14, 1960 = Kaibel Epigr. Gr.
674 (on a large marble
funerary altar in Rome):
e068e Kctigat 8cgap -6ardou nppoo; ayavoi
Appiot goli otkiot, t66e Iuyeiaa g6voy
AV U5 K?V ?K npoy6v(ov ort ToVvoga floupXtavn got
(XK?tntSalt 8 ?EXoV EiyiVin T ?ipecoV),
XIpeiat aUTi TO6v d,avta Xp6vov lisvaaa
Kolug6Opowv Teicov ngv0vt TaKog9vVl'
? pikqt6o & it6vov nouX6v 6 advgrkTXv goygovaa,
Mouclaaunv ioiVoV rflv Op?va 0exyogEVi.
99 For the education and (amateur-) poetry of Roman upper-
class women, see Hemelrijk
(1999).
100 For feelings of inferiority because of provincial extraction,
see Champlin (1980) and
Hemelrijk (1999) 142.
2015 04:24:24 UTC

Conclusions
Since women in the Graeco-Roman world were formally
excluded from a
public career, the choice of a woman as a patron of a city seems
surprising. Yet,
women's patronage was not an empty honour: they were
expected to contribute
to the interests of their client cities by intervening on their
behalf with the
central power, by embellishing their cities by public buildings
and by gratifying
the decurions and the people by all kinds of benefactions.
Financial munifi-
cence appears to have been the result of, rather than the reason
for, their
cooptation. Intervention on behalf of the client-city, however,
required author-
ity and connections within the capital. Women of senatorial and
imperial
families - and also to some extent those of equestrian rank
whose relatives
pursued a career in the imperial administration - had both, and
it is an indica-
tion of the importance of their influence and connections that
the vast majority
belonged to this group. Of course, we cannot tell whether our
patronesses
actually did protect their client cities, but that they were
expected to do so is
beyond doubt.
The power these high-ranking women wielded was an informal
one: like

that of men, it was based on birth, rank, family, reputation and
social connec-
tions, but, unlike them, it was not formalized by a political
career. Women of
the elite had only informal, 'private' authority. Because of the
blurring of the
public and private spheres in Roman politics this informal
power of women was
real, as was acknowledged - though not applauded - by the
authors of our
literary sources. The sharp controversies around powerful
women in the literary
sources are an indication of Roman awareness of their power.
The occasional
cooptation of a high-ranking woman as a city patroness in the
second and third
centuries AD is, therefore, no sign of a new, or greater, political
role of women
in contemporary life. Rather, it indicates the public recognition
of their power
by Roman municipalities, which, in their mutual competition for
glory and
because of their dependence on the central government in Rome,
tried to secure
as much support as possible.
In contrast to the capital, where the ideals of female domesticity
were
sharply defended by the authors of the literary sources, these
municipalities had
no scruples in acknowledging the power of high-classed women
- at least, if it
served their interests. They hoped to profit from their authority
and from their
wealth, and expected that their prestige would reflect on them.
In this, the

inscriptions served a twofold aim: on the one hand, by erecting
a statue with an
inscription the city showed its gratitude to the patroness and
encouraged her to
reciprocate. On the other hand, the city thus publicized its own
prestigious
association with a woman of the highest importance. In short,
publicity and
public honour were inextricably bound up with city patronage
and there is no
indication that this was in any respect different when the patron
happened to be
a woman.
2015 04:24:24 UTC
The reasons women must have had to accept city patronage were
a desire
for public prestige mingled with a sense of obligation; thus,
their public image
as dutiful citizens was not only flattering, but also, at least
partly, truthful. Since
the public image of the patronesses, as presented in the statues
and inscriptions
set up for them, combined responsible citizenship with
traditional female
virtue, there seems to have been no feeling that their public
prominence con-
flicted with the ideals of female domesticity. This compatibility

of "male"
qualities of public honour and good citizenship with the
traditional "female"
virtues points to a greater de facto acceptance of the public
prominence of
women in the Roman municipalities than the literary sources,
centering on
Rome, suggest. This discrepancy reflects differences in aims
and perspective
between the inscriptions and the literary sources, but is also a
sign of a more
pragmatic, or perhaps we should say opportunistic, attitude of
the municipali-
ties as to the public role of rich and powerful women of the
elite.
Though city patronesses were exceptional, their occurrence
shows that
women were not wholly barred from formal public positions.
The restrictions
imposed upon them because of their gender could be overruled
by high birth,
wealth and standing, or by the personal capacities and political
connections of
individual women. In short, without abandoning the general
principle that
women, because of their sex, were formally excluded from a
public career, they
could, in practice, be coopted as city patronesses for reasons
that transcended
their gender. In ancient opinion this inconsistency does not
seem to have caused
surprise; it is modern rigid reasoning, which sees problems
where, in ancient
opinion, there were none.

Ulrich-SchlumbohmHistory (ALL CLASSES)CRITIQUE AND REVIEW SHEE.docx

Ulrich-SchlumbohmHistory (ALL CLASSES)CRITIQUE AND REVIEW SHEE.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ulrich-SchlumbohmHistory (ALL CLASSES)CRITIQUE AND REVIEW SHEE.docx

Similar to Ulrich-SchlumbohmHistory (ALL CLASSES)CRITIQUE AND REVIEW SHEE.docx (20)

More from willcoxjanay

More from willcoxjanay (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ulrich-SchlumbohmHistory (ALL CLASSES)CRITIQUE AND REVIEW SHEE.docx