This chapter analyzes a number of municipal decrees and honorary inscriptions from Campania which can be dated to the second century CE. In these texts freed persons receive honors and privileges as a reward for their benefactions towards the community. The phenomenon itself is not surprising, but most acts of generosity by freed persons were done in their capacity as Augustales. In all cases discussed in this chapter the benefactions were done on a voluntary basis after negotiations with representatives of the city’s main political bodies. The most striking aspect of these texts is the language in which the benefactors are praised. They are heralded as role models whose behavior should be imitated by their fellow-citizens and their acts of generosity are praised as contributions to the political landscape. The benefactors provide a service to the community which corresponds to the standing of the city. While these texts may not prove that freed persons at the municipal level were consistently viewed in a positive light, a case can be made that at least some of them were regarded as valued members of the community. This evidence can then be used to broaden our perspective on the integration of freed persons in Roman society.

This chapter focusses on the importance of conspicuous generosity to the emperors and their heirs. Euergetism describes a performed relationship between rulers and ruled, where exchanges of goods, money, and clout are transacted. The expectation of such generosity is important for the stability and legitimacy of an emperor’s reign, which makes the question of succession a secondary focus of this chapter: how did the Roman emperor secure the future legitimacy of his position?

More than any other Hellenistic dynasty, the Attalids patronized city gymnasia. A much needed explanation for that curious philanthropic habit is provided, and it is argued that the Pergamenes helped transform the gymnasium into the “second agora” of the post-Classical polis. While the financial instability of the gymnasium and its agglomerative architectural ensemble made it an attractive target for royal donors, the ideological appeal was paramount. In the mid-second century BCE, the gymnasium may have represented itself as “the city writ small,” but this was a fiction, concocted by its elite membership and reinforced by the Attalids, ever anxious to present themselves as champions of the polis without ceding real power to the populace. The social distance of the gymnasium from other polis institutions was the critical factor for the entry of the Attalids, who partnered with towering civic benefactors to remake the space just as the royal capital reformed itself with a gymnasium as the anchor of the new urban plan.

The budgetary earmark was a key feature of public finance in the expanded Attalid kingdom and contributed to the success of the Pergamene imperial project. The dynamics and meaning of this administrative technique are thus explored in depth. Earmarking not only increased the quantity of money available to royal bureaucrats; it also made money into a medium for messaging. In a pointedly transparent manner, specific royal taxes and other revenues were earmarked for specific public goods. A series of inscriptions record the neat and final arrangements, but it is possible and even illuminating to reconstruct the entanglements of the process of negotiation by which these earmarks came into existence. The creation of an earmark required an interlocking of royal and civic fiscal institutions that further entrenched Attalid rule. The earmarking process posed ideological risks, as kings delved into the domain of private property and devolved agency to local actors, while also providing an arena for the display of providential care (pronoia) for royal subjects.

The conquest of Egypt and Asia, leading to new urban and fiscal infrastructures and new forms and levels of elite consumption, increased the scale of trade and exchange in the Hellenistic economy. Complex institutional changes that were spurred by both fiscal-military demand and local responses to this demand changed agrarian and commercial patterns, with likely positive effects on local markets. This chapter argues that the Hellenistic period was one of moderate economic growth both in the Greek poleis of the Aegean and in the core regions of Hellenistic Asia and Egypt. The greater presence of Roman traders in the Hellenistic East from the second century onwards is also likely to have had positive effects on market exchange and monetary circulation. Yet there is reason to assume that in the final decades of the Hellenistic period, all Hellenistic regions to some extent, but particularly the Aegean and Asia Minor, suffered from the destructive forces of the Roman military presence and subsequent tributary exploitation. Only after the Roman civil wars came to an end and fiscal practices were better regulated did the economies of the East begin to recover and to expand along the pathways that had developed in the Hellenistic period.

From the late archaic period, all the functions of money – medium of exchange, measure of value, store of value, and medium of payment – were performed by coins, almost always silver, struck by scores of states on a few different weight standards. Market trade, international commerce, and labor were all mediated by money. Finance was an important, and often decisive, factor in statecraft and warfare, and temples were both dependent upon and replete with silver and gold. Agriculture was less monetized; cultural effects are still being debated. Credit was an essential part of both friendship and business: mortgages and eranoi (joint loans by an ad hoc group of lenders) supplied extraordinary personal expenses, while small market loans and larger bottomry loans for overseas expeditions financed both large and small commerce. Banking, in the sense of investing depositors’ money, was a Greek invention. Athenian banks, always family businesses, provided credit, remote payments, money-changing, and a secure place to hide money. Ptolemaic royal banks managed royal revenue and were involved, alongside private bankers, in the local economy; cashless book-transfers were common. The scope of banking was, however, limited by the need for coin reserves, which kept the banks from dominating the economy.

The budgetary earmark was a key feature of public finance in the expanded Attalid kingdom and contributed to the success of the Pergamene imperial project. The dynamics and meaning of this administrative technique are thus explored in depth. Earmarking not only increased the quantity of money available to royal bureaucrats; it also made money into a medium for messaging. In a pointedly transparent manner, specific royal taxes and other revenues were earmarked for specific public goods. A series of inscriptions record the neat and final arrangements, but it is possible and even illuminating to reconstruct the entanglements of the process of negotiation by which these earmarks came into existence. The creation of an earmark required an interlocking of royal and civic fiscal institutions that further entrenched Attalid rule. The earmarking process posed ideological risks, as kings delved into the domain of private property and devolved agency to local actors, while also providing an arena for the display of providential care (pronoia) for royal subjects.

More than any other Hellenistic dynasty, the Attalids patronized city gymnasia. A much needed explanation for that curious philanthropic habit is provided, and it is argued that the Pergamenes helped transform the gymnasium into the “second agora” of the post-Classical polis. While the financial instability of the gymnasium and its agglomerative architectural ensemble made it an attractive target for royal donors, the ideological appeal was paramount. In the mid-second century BCE, the gymnasium may have represented itself as “the city writ small,” but this was a fiction, concocted by its elite membership and reinforced by the Attalids, ever anxious to present themselves as champions of the polis without ceding real power to the populace. The social distance of the gymnasium from other polis institutions was the critical factor for the entry of the Attalids, who partnered with towering civic benefactors to remake the space just as the royal capital reformed itself with a gymnasium as the anchor of the new urban plan.

This chapter argues that Ephesos was a milieu de mémoire in the Noran sense, and that ancient Ephesians experienced its monuments (i.e buildings and inscriptions) in a way that elided distinctions between the past, present, and future. The material products of euergetism or public benefaction, that is, builidngs and statue monuments, embodied individual, family, and civic identities, and commemorated them in the landscape of the city.

Around 50 BCE a certain P. Vedius disembarked ship in Ephesos. He was Italian and a Roman citizen of free or freed status, and like many others, he came to Asia to make his fortune. He found success and stayed, setting down firm roots in its fertile soil. He married and had children and grandchildren, and he prospered. By the late first century CE,1 his descendants were among the wealthiest and most prominent citizens in Ephesos. Members of the family achieved the highest magistracies in the city, serving as grammateis and prytaneis, as priests and priestesses, and festival presidents. By the mid-second century, the Vedii became senators of Rome. However, this success did not cause them to cut ties with their adopted patris, Ephesos, where they had landed wealth, houses, business interests, and an affection for their new homeland. They continued to contribute their fortunes to Ephesos as euergetai (benefactors) in a series of building projects and in more ephemeral activities, such as sponsoring festivals. By the late second century this prolific family, having intermarried with another distinguished family of Ephesos, the Flavii, had Roman consuls in its ranks, and at least one house in one of Rome’s wealthiest districts. At the end of the Severan age they disappear from the historical record, like so many other individuals and families.2 Natural disasters and the political instability of the third century affected Ephesos deeply. An earthquake shook the city in 262. The following year, a band of Goths raided the city and burned the temple of Artemis to the ground. But even before this cataclysm, the epigraphic habit dropped off, a sign of political and economic malaise, and of social change. Civic authorities and individuals were no longer interested in raising honorific monuments to honor and commemorate benefactors, possibly because benefactors were no longer interested in demonstrating their philotimia (generosity, munificence) through office-holding, the sponsorship of festivals, and the financing of buildings. Thus by the mid-third century, we lose sight of the Vedii, although we know that some of their buildings and statues stood until the fifth century.

Patronage and commissioning of public events and buildings was a key tool in the attainment and replication of social status in antiquity. In the early Middle Ages, new ideals emerged around Christian forms of wealth and support, and different values were attached to the acquisition of agricultural land. Urban properties took on new relevance, and agricultural property became socially valuable in new ways. Cultivated spaces within cities came to be newly prestigious. This chapter considers the principal means by which aristocrats and rulers performed status and power within the late antique and early medieval cities of Italy, marshalling the new evidence of urban cultivation to inform our understanding of power in the built environment. It then develops three examples of this process from the mid eighth century to the early tenth, in Rome, Ravenna, and Naples. These examples show clearly the sophisticated strategies employed by rulers, ecclesiastical institutions, and families alike to control cultivated spaces, and the social status which came with successful strategies.

The Introduction outlines the main themes, issues and structure of the volume; provides a historiography of the debate on public giving and euergetism; and discusses recent theories.

Athens represents a special case in the history of Greek public benefactions. It is probably the polis that most resisted the emergence of civic euergetism, that is, the establishment of an organized exchange of benefactions for honors between polis and citizens. At the same time, no other classical polis contributed so much to the development of the practice and to its transformation into a defining institution of the Hellenistic age. This chapter examines these two sides of the history of Athenian euergetism in order to explain the widespread integration of citizens into an institution born before the classical period to regulate the relationship between poleis and foreigners. It deals with the reasons for the opposition to donations and honors for citizens, the factors that contributed to overcoming resistance to euergetism, and the elitist content of classical civic euergetism. Finally, it discusses some developments that counterbalanced this elitist component: the ‘democratization’ of euergetism through grants of honors to non-wealthy citizens, the organization of epidoseis, and other measures that served to prevent the rise of a class of great financial benefactors, along with the relaxation of this policy in the time of Lycurgus.

This chapter considers the ‘vase festivals’ recorded on Hellenistic Delos as benefactions, and then considers the implications of this approach on our chronology for the period. It argues that the vase festival was a socially constrained form of competitive display, one open only to Delians and others who successfully sought and negotiated this privilege. Through the endowment and the associated display, these individuals claimed and performed a distinct superior status: as patrons of the sanctuary. But this was not an exclusive claim. It coexisted with and competed with other claims, both when they were founded and in subsequent years. As such, the dates and periods during which royal (and non-royal) individuals founded these vase festivals (Third Ptolemaea, 246/5 BC, Soteria/Antigonia, 245/4 BC, etc.) can be understood as periods of engagement by those individuals on Delos and the region. But this competitive context indicates that they should not be understood as dates for changes of control. Quite the reverse: if the vase festivals have any implication for our understanding of the broader geopolitical terrain – and they may not – they indicate that these were times when interest in the sanctuary and the region were higher, and when any specific patronage or hegemonic relationships in the sanctuary and the region were particularly contested.

Institutions were also financed through economic transfers that drew resources from the individuals that institutions were intended to serve. Two different types of transfers are discussed: euergetistic, or voluntary, contributions made by wealthy patrons in Greco-Roman societies, and involuntary forms of taxation found in many ancient societies. The chapter also discusses forms of tax collection and the use of rents in order to fund institutions.

Building on the themes of regionality in Chapter 4, and of empire in Chapter 3, this chapter focuses on Aquae Sulis’s place in the social, religious, and artistic networks of Britain, Gaul, and Germany specifically, and on how to put the site’s locally specific practices in dialogue with broader trends. It explores the significance of artistic connections seen in smaller iconographic works such as the ‘altar’ blocks, which can be linked to Viergöttersteine from the Rhineland, and the relief of Mercury with a local goddess, which is part of a regional cluster centred on Gloucester, and uses a series of case studies, in particular the ‘curse tablets’, to delineate the ways in which provincial religious knowledge may be characterized as a series of increasingly localized concentric circles of practice.