Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
Network analysis provides a useful means of evaluating both the structures
and the dynamics of social relations in Graeco-Roman society. In so doing it
may also offer further insights on the development of Christianity, particularly the extent to which it did or did not adapt socially to organizational
patterns in the environment. The present study, therefore, focuses network
analysis on two related and sometimes overlapping types of social relationships (benefaction and patronage). The location is Thessalonica, a chief city of
Macedonia (Greece) under the early Roman Empire and a center for early
Christian activity. Four cases of non-Christian benefactor/patron relations
known from epigraphic or literary remains are discussed in detail. Analysis
of these four cases shows that in Roman Thessalonica there developed
specific hierarchies of benefaction structures that operated as networks between individuals, groups and /or institutions, and the Roman imperial
power. Significantly, the inscriptions also show religious elements in linking
these networks of social relations to the divine realm. Finally, the dynamic
qualities of these network relations serve to promote the individual actors
within them by connecting them to larger spheres of influence and power. At
the same time one can also see that the networks themselves may be enhanced beyond the local limits, but not without certain costs.
Introduction
Social historians of early Christianity should consider the behavior of
Christians both as social groups and as individuals in society. This requires a thorough appreciation of the kinds of social organizations and
more discrete social networks operating in Graeco-Roman societies. A
number of scholars have contributed to our understanding of GraecoRoman social organizations and the extent to which early Christians did
or did not adapt socially according to organizational patterns in their environments. It is important to continue this line of inquiry. The present
study, however, focuses on two related types of social networks among
Thessalonicans: benefactor-beneficiary and patron-client. Although the
objects of my scrutiny are non-Christian networks, I hope that the theoretical models and analytical methods employed may be of use to
students of early Christianity. It is my further hope that elucidating particular networks in an ancient Greek urban environment will contribute to
40
Semeia
42
Semeia
related (what structural properties are apparent)? What are the dynamic
features of the connections? Before addressing these questions to the evidence of networks in which Thessalonicans were involved, we should
survey briefly developments in benefactor/patron patterns in the Greek
East as they pertained to transformations in the phenomenon at Thessalonica.
Greek Benefactors and the Coming of Rome
A Greek benefactor in the Classical and Hellenistic periods was someone who was honored for an important public or private service.6 Such
service may have involved fulfilling in exemplary fashion the liturgies
(those duties involving expenses) of a particular office. Dedicated professional or unusual personal service could also motivate honors. Individuals benefiting from the service might honor their benefactor with a crown
to be presented on a formal occasion, perhaps a statue to be displayed
conspicuously and crowned periodically, an inscribed testimonial to the
benefactor's generosity and excellence together with a record of the honors accorded him or her, and any other amenities that it was in the power
of the group or individual to grant.
If the benefactor were a foreigner and the beneficiaries had some
power in the assembly, then citizenship might be granted with all its
privileges as well as other honors appropriate for benefactors. In fact, it
would appear that the peculiar honors and ceremonies that came to be
associated with benefactors in general were derived historically from
grants of proxeny (citizenship status) to non-native individuals who made
distinctive contributions to their host communities.7 In a later period
when particular Romans were perceived as benefiting Greek communities
or individuals, they were honored in ways typical of the foreign benefactor traditions. Monuments and inscriptions attested to their generous
benefaction. (See Hendrix 1984.)
In the Hellenistic kingdoms, the functions and honors of the Classical
Greek benefactor were appropriated by leaders claiming royal authority.
This was accompanied by an escalating emphasis on Alexander's divine
status. The title "benefactor" and "soter" (savior) became personalized
and regularized epithets of an increasingly divinized Hellenistic royalty
(as, for example, with Ptolemy Savior or Eumenes Benefactor).8 Among
Roman leaders of the second century BCE one finds the same peculiar
coordination of savior/benefactor and royalty that had become characteristic in the Hellenistic East. As Roman governor-generals assumed leadership in the East, they were perceived and perceived themselves as the
The good news, a gospel for the world, is the divine grant of arete mani
fested in the unsurpassed benefactions of Augustus.
Four Cases Of Benefaction At Thessalonica
This oppressive summary is intended to highlight an extremely im
portant development in benefactor/patron patterns in the Greek East. In
the Classical and early Hellenistic periods benefactors were for the most
part inhabitants of various poleis. With the insinuation of Roman power
into the area, networks of benefaction were expanded and new patronclient networks forged in order to maximize benefits from Roman powers.
The banality of this observation invites the equally banal conclusion that
this phenomenon merely reflected the changed political-economic realities
of the times. But such a simplistic economic reduction precisely misses the
point. To what extent were benefactor/patron networks principal agents
in changes involving economic, social, and religious realities? With this
question added to our agenda, we may consider four cases of
benefactor/patron networks as reflected in inscriptions from Roman
Thessalonica.
CASE I "The Youths and a Gymnasiarch"
oi
' ', [],
? , ',,
, []$
Semeia
44
5
10
15
20
25
7re ' []
[] [\1 [] [], - 7[[5 6
~
[] be [al ] [] , [ ]() , []
]() 7rpoa[tp] [],
,
, '
eoCev []
[]
[]', be []
ev [], [] Te []
.
intervallum
w ',
['] w [[]] .
vacai
vacai
vacai
Translation:
The Youths
10
15
20
25
for the gods and Roman benefactors; (and) being c[on]cerned with good order in the place a[nd g e n erally endeavoring after that which is most proper
in all things, he has not
neglected t[he] attendant [ex]pense, but rather
has [com]pleted his term of office
TES
having given the oil;
and it is good that those who aspire to public re [cog]nition obtain the appropriate honors
so that others also when they consider the honors bestowed
by The Youths might strive for similar honors;
be it resolved by those from the gymnasium to commend
Paramnos for his aspiration (to public recognition) and
to honor him with a
crown and with a bronze likeness, life-size and painted,
and the (honorific) decree engraved on a stone stele
is to be given a conspicuous place in the gymnasium; expenses for the painted likeness and the stele are to be
met by the presiding treasurers.
(vacant space)
Sanctioned (by vote) in the year 3 and 50, (vacant)
on the tenth day from the end of Hyperbertaios ("E" erased).
(vacant) 11
A youth organization of the city issued this honorific decree commending the gymnasiarch Paramnos. The inscription bears a date
equivalent to September 95 BCE.12 The provisions of the decree imitate
civic declarations granting honors to benefactors.13 Though rather modest,
the tributes are quite typical of those awarded by other Greek cities to
their patrons.
Apparently, Thessalonican gymnasiarchs of this period were responsible not only for underwriting expenses of the gymnasium programs but
also for contributing honors on behalf of its affiliates to the gods and
Roman benefactors.14 As will become clear in the next case to be presented, this reference is certainly to the civic cults of the gods and of
Roman benefactors at Thessalonica. Since the decree mentions no other
deities consecrated by the gymnasium (Heracles, Apollo, Hermes, etc.),
one might conclude that the gods and Roman benefactors were the cultic
patrons to whom the Youths were devoted.
The precise nature of the honors that Paramnos increased to the gods
and Roman benefactors (lines 10-11) is obscured by the ambiguous
qualifier "customary."15
Semeia
46
[ . . ] . v
[ ' boav ? ] roc z/eots * Kepc
[
-16
] . )/5
c
c
- 7 - - []
- - - - [' N]vbpo
yAobpo
10
' [
?
^
/)/>[ ]
' []
? TrXecos ' A y \ -
15
/;[[
13
Til
Translation:
[In the year - and -] of Augustus.
[Decreed by the boule?] and by the neoi, P(ublius) Cer[
b]y a bequest, in the time of priest and ago[nothete of Impera]tor Caesar Augustus son of god
5 [G(aius) Julius Rhoime]talces, prince, and (in the time of)
vice-agonothe[te]
[Heliodo]ros son of Heliodoros, and of priest of (the) gods
[
so] of Philon, and of (priest) of Roma and Roman benefactors
nos so [] of Dionysios; in the term of politarchs
doros son of [N]eikandros, Asklepiodoros son of
10 Asklepiodoros, [Sojsipatros son of Isidoros, Zoilos
son of Zoilos (and) of Lysiponos, Athenogenes son of
Plousia; in the term of gymnasiarch Menelaos
son of Antigono[s]; in the term of ephebarch Neikolaos
son of Epimenes, of city treasurer G(aius) Agil15 lius Potitus, of archit[e]ct L(ucius) Julius Firmus,
(vacant space)
presiding treasurer of the
neoi [[Deina
[son] of]]
T. Memmius Zosimos 1 6
,
, w
ba
^ ".
vacai
Semeia
48
Translation:
ffva
,
o bi
bofj ,
' .
Translation:
Phoebus, the Cephallenians' harbor-watchman,
dweller on Panormus' beach, opposite craggy
Ithaca, grant me to go with fair sailing
through the waves to the Asian land in the
wake of Piso's long vessel. And dispose
my valiant sovereign to gracious favor
towards him, gracious also to my songs.23
50
Semeia
52
Semeia
corporate activity of the Youths was directed to the polis, the increase in
honors to the gods and Roman benefactors may have been intended, in
part, to expand the association's connections with Roman benefactors.
Increasing honors to Romans was one way in which Greeks sought to
stimulate Roman obligation and benefaction. So, for example, the early
cult of Roma at Smyrna was generated in lieu of Roman benefactors attached to the city and may have been designed, in part, to attract the
beneficence of individual Romans (see Wardman).
In the case of Rhoimetalces, the "friends of friends" phenomenon
comes to the fore. Presumably, in assuming a position of such civic distinction, the dynast would have been recognized as a "citizen," perhaps
worthy of other civic benefactor honors. Such an opportunity to extend or
consolidate his sphere of influence might have been an attractive enticement for the dynast. From Thessalonica's perspective, it also should have
proved an advantageous policy. Since at least Antony's time, Thracian
rulers had been important allies of Roman interests. And although under
C. Julius Rhoimetalces, Roman affairs had suffered some reverses in
Thrace, the prince had been supported firmly by Tiberius and his magistrates, as exemplified in the dynast's assumption of a royal title. By the
honorific extension of its office of priest and agonothete of the Emperor to
Rhoimetalces, Thessalonica forged an important link to Imperial benefaction. It not only secured the attention of a regional power instrumental in
the execution of Imperial policies but also further consolidated patronage
ties that were connected directly to the emperor. A "friend of Caesar" was
now officially a "friend of the city." 26
Thessalonica's honorific embrace of Rhoimetalces reflected the increasing expansion of a hierarchy of benefaction. Provincial magistrates
and other influential Romans continued to be honored together with the
goddess Roma. But the cultivation of Roman patronage now necessarily
extended beyond honors for magistrates and local Roman magnates.
Through its differentiation of honors to the emperor, the city expressed its
esteem and solicitation of commitment directly to the supreme ruler. With
the honorific involvement of Rhoimetalces, yet another important avenue
of influence was established. A benefactor perhaps in his own right, the
Thracian client/ruler may have been a valuable mediator for the city's
interests in the Imperial establishment.
In what amounts to a publication of Damon's special connectedness to
Metellus, this Thessalonican may have been promoting himself as "a good
friend to have." By broadcasting his success as a client of Metellus, Damon projects himself as a potential broker on behalf of those connected to
him. The pan-hellenic hyperbole of the honorific may reflect at least one
54
Semeia
realities? And how, in turn, was the divine mediated in socially meaningful ways?
Conclusions
On the basis of the networks analyzed, four general observations may
be made about the possible importance of connections for interpreting
interaction in the networks as well as behavior outside of these networks.
First, in each of the cases except that involving Rhoimetalces, the honorific
behavior itself manifested and reinforced the connectedness of benefactorbeneficiary and patron-client. The honorific activities were transactions in
more encompassing exchanges. Furthermore, the activity of the Youths
reinforced the connectedness of members of the corporate group in the
expression and fulfillment of their mutual obligations to their benefactor.
Second, dynamic features of the networks are apparent in attempts to
promote persons in the network. So Antipater links Apollo to Piso in
promoting the patron in the poet's effective network and links Apollo and
Augustus in promoting the patron in Piso's extended network. Antipater's behavior established the possibility of transactions between previously unconnected personae of his network and reinforced transactions
between already connected personae in a way that would be beneficial to
the poet. The activity of those Youths who nominated Paramnos for
honors may reflect a similar phenomenon. The discrete cluster of Youths
responsible for the motion may have been operating as an "action-set"
(Boissevain 1974: 186-91) in promoting the interests of one to whom they
were closely (or potentially closely) connected. In commending Paramnos to the Youths, the action-set may have been furthering their own
interests through the promotion of Paramnos.
Third, if one of the reasons for Damon s honorific was the publication
of his connection with Metellus, another dynamic feature of the network
is manifest. The network is activated (in this instance through publicity)
to promote the interests of the person outside the network. As was noted
in the analysis of the gymnasiarch inscription, the honors accruing to
Paramnos probably had a positive effect on his interests outside the
network. In this instance behavior in the network influenced behavior
outside the network.
Finally, another example of behavior in the network influencing
behavior outside the network is a dynamic feature exhibited in all the
cases studied: network expansion. In their publication of Paramnos'
honors, the Youths explicitly solicited connection to the corporate group,
and in their emphasis on the gymnasiarch's increase in honors to the gods
and Roman benefactors, they may have been attempting to attract ex-
56
Semeia
NOTES
1
58
Semeia
the time of an otherwise unattested Asian tour undertaken after his victories in Thrace
(11 BCE).
24
On the civic nature of the priesthood, see Hendrix (1984:134-35, 312).
25
Damon's choice of Olympia might also reflect his sensitivity to Metellus'
publicity of his particular attachment to Jupiter. On his return to Rome after the defeat
of Andriscus, for example, he constructed temples for Jupiter Stator and Juno Regina.
See J. R. Fears' discussion of the episode (736-826, 758-59).
26
Though such technical language is not to be found in evidence of Rhoimetalces'
relationship to the city, its use in analogy is quite warranted. If the dynast were
granted such civic distinction, he should have been regarded as a "public friend" or
"friend of the city." As client/prince and later king, with Tiberius' endorsement,
Rhoimetalces in theory, if not in fact, could have been counted among the amici of the
emperor. On the denomination of benefactors as public friends, see Walbank and
sources in Danker (30, 65, and 90).
27
Mary Noble (5) has summarized the distinction between "effective" and
"extended" networks as follows: "The effective network is made up of those people
known to ego who also are known to each other. The extended network includes
people who are known to ego but not to other members of ego's network and who in
turn know other people."
28
See especially AP 9.59 and 9.297 (=Gow and Page nos. 46 and 47).
29
In the Greek polis, this interrelation between the divine and human spheres was
manifested in any number of ways. Benefactors' honors were usually sanctioned by
the city's patron deity or deities. So, for example, the honorific crown granted a benefactor might be dedicated in the temple of the city's principal deity and an inscription
declaring the honors would be installed in the temple precincts. A city's benefactors
were honored periodically in concert with honors for the patron deities of the city.
Divine patronage of the city was realized, at least in part, by the tangible benefactions
of its human patrons.
30
An asymmetrical discharge, of course, may enhance the power of one over the
other. So, for example, Smyrna's honors for Roma may have constituted a projection
of obligation to which the Smyrneans hoped individual Romans might respond. See
further Boissevain (1974: 33,215-19).
31
One relatively well-preserved inscription (IT 7) records local benefactor honors
for Parnassos dated to 60 BCE. The date may be significant. In 60 BCE, the Macedonian
proconsul G Antonius Hybrida was called to Rome to answer charges of misadministration (extortion) and maiestas.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.