398 Adam M. Kemezis
corresponding displays of collectivepaideia, in the form of a suitably Greek public cul-
ture. The Panhellenion inscriptions attest to this process in its most basic form, in that
they repeatedly stress member cities’ cultural achievements, usually at greater length than
their genealogy (see Oliver 1970, nos. 5–7). There are more complicated instances,
though, in which it is asserted that cities with valid descent claims come up short in
the cultural sphere. Thus, a rhetoric of Hellenic inadequacy or degeneracy is found
throughout Imperial Greek literature. The Bithynian philosopher–orator Dio Chrysos-
tom (fl. 100) is constantly calling his audiences’ Hellenic credentials into question. To his
ownfellowcitizensinPrusa,heassertsthat“IwishsomuchforyoutohaveaHellenic
character ( ̄ethos)” (43.3; see also 31.157–61). What will make them Hellenic in his view
is, unsurprisingly, correctly understanding his speech and endorsing his civic leadership.
Philostratus’ hero Apollonius finds that even the Athenians and Spartans have fallen into
luxury and dissipation (VA4.21 [Athens]; 4.27 [Sparta]), which his teachings are able
to correct. Literary and cultural celebrities could thus obtain powerful leverage by mak-
ing themselves the agents and arbiters of a city’s Hellenic status. For those who could
claim only an ordinary degree ofpaideia, however, having a properly Greekpatriswas
all the more important, and doors in high places might not be open to a man who came
from the wrong sort of city. If one could not, as with Dio, use one’s own literary skill
to confer Greek status, one could still use one’s money, by sponsoring the buildings,
institutions, and festivals that were the infrastructure of civicpaideia. The continued
willingness of Greek-speaking elites to make ostensibly free benefactions to their com-
munities stemmed from a desire not just to control local politics, but also to secure for the
donors the basic descent-based Hellenic credentials that were necessary for recognition
on a wider stage.
Hellenic, Local and Imperial
Thus far, we have been mainly concerned with internal dynamics of Greekness. This last
section will consider how the category of “Greek” interacted with the many other eth-
nic labels that imperial-era Greek speakers applied to themselves. In archaic and classical
times, Greekness was only the broadest of several levels of categories to which Helleno-
phone inhabitants of the Aegean basin belonged, and that hierarchy of categories was
subject to constant reinterpretation (see Hall 2002). By Roman times, the picture was
more complicated still, in that Greek language and culture were also used in regions
where they coexisted with a wide range of indigenous or otherwise pre-existing lan-
guages and cultures. In addition, Romanness progressively assumed the highest place in
the hierarchy of identities, as provincial elites entered the Roman power structure and
incorporated its discourses into their self-definition. Until recently, studies of Greekness
in the Roman Empire (with the exception of regionally based archeological work) tended
to be structured around a very strict binary of Greek and Roman. In the last few years,
a more complex picture has begun to emerge that gives due consideration to the global
and local levels of identity (see, e.g., Mitchell 2000; Spawforth 2001; Whitmarsh 2010
and 2013).
Greekness remained a basically “global” category. If Greek speakers of this period
were asked theirpatrisorethnos, few would in the first instance have said “Hellas”