Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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 support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CLIFFORD ANDO
I. INTRODUCTION
Ancient models of cross-cultural contact under theRoman empire are notori
ously simplistic. The observations of Tacitus on Britain andFlorus on Spain-that
theRomans encouraged thenatives to live in cities on level ground, towear togas,
and to speakLatin-are typical of Roman reflection on the topic.' Both Romans
andGreeks asserted, however, thatRome's relationswith Greece took place on a
different level and that between them cultural influence flowed in the opposite
direction. Although philhellenism occasionally became controversial in political
life at Rome, especially in the second century B.C., it did so in part because the
dominant tendency was not to question the seductive sophistication of Greek
culture.2This dominant view was best expressed by Horace: "ConqueredGreece
conquers thewild victor and introduces her arts into rusticLatium."3
By asserting the superiority of Greek culture, advocates of this position
deflected attention away fromGreek subjugation to a foreign power; in so doing,
theymust have comforted Greeks unaccustomed to subservience to anyone other
than their fellow Greeks.4 Modem scholars have proved largely complicit in
thatproject, emphasizing the superiority of Hellenic culture as though thatwere
Earlier versions of thispaperwere delivered at Princeton University, York University, and theAnnual
Meeting of the APA. I thankmembers of the audiences on those occasions for their comments,
particularly Jonathan Edmondson and Peter Brown. For instruction on earlier drafts I am indebted
to Erich Gruen, Sabine MacCormack, Gary Miles, Jeremy Trevett, Phiroze Vasunia, and a reader
for this journal.
1. Tac. Agr. 21.1-2; Florus 2.33.59-60.
2. On the history of this problem in second-century Rome see Gruen 1990:158-92 and 1992.
3. Horace Epist. 2.1.156-57; cf. Cicero Brut. 73.254.
4. On Greek acceptance of the domination of powerful (Greek) states andmonarchs over other
less powerful cities, Greek and otherwise, see Austin 1986:454-56.
1999
BY THE
REGENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA.
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
sufficient compensation for the hegemony of Rome. Yet Hellenistic kings prior
to the second Macedonian war never regardedRoman conquest as inevitable:
indeed, one might argue thatmany Greeks of the late thirdcentury B.C. assumed
that they could defeat Rome precisely because of their superiority in all branches
of political and cultural endeavor. The conquest of the easternMediterranean
therefore demanded explanation, and all themore so for the astonishing speed
with which Rome accomplished it.The explanations for, and narratives of, Roman
conquest had ramifications that reached farbeyond the narrow confines of ancient
scholarly endeavor, whether in historiography or political philosophy. Political
circumstances and post-colonial angst have conspired to produce rigorous and
well-crafted studies on the geistige Widerstand gegen Rom;5Greek intellectual
and emotional accommodation toRoman rule, particularly in the late Republic
and age of Augustus, has received less attention.6 Yet that latter process must
have shaped contemporary narratives of the past: as Greeks grew willing to
direct their patriotism and nationalistic aspirations towardsRome, they required
an intellectual model of the empire that could exonerate, even justify, their
participation in its political institutions.
The basis of this intellectual accommodation calls for investigation not least
because research of the last century has so deepened our knowledge of life in
theGreek East at a religious, political, and institutional level. The last several
years have seen thepublication of largeand sophisticated regional surveys, but the
empiricism that informs theseworks seemingly constrains them to view and to de
scribe surviving data exclusively as the result of concrete actions.7The revolution
inGreek political consciousness that took place during this renaissance inGreek
urban culture has not received similarly detailed study.8Yet theGreeks' willing
ness to integrate particular instantiations of Roman power into civic institutions
and to accommodate imperial cult within their individual pantheons must have
been preceded by a conceptual model allowing such integration. Greek actions
following Roman conquest-seeking priesthoods in the imperial cult or Roman
citizenship or meeting with Roman officials, to say nothing of describing such
5. Fuchs 1938; cf. Gauger 1980 and Swain 1996. On the social trends inwhich these studies
participate seeMomigliano 1986:103-104.
6. Felicitous exceptions include Jones 1971:122-30; Gabba 1982 and 1984; Eckstein 1985,
1990, and 1995: 8-27 and 194-236; Stern 1987; Erksine 1990:181-204; Rogers 1991;Woolf 1993;
and Shaw 1995.
7. Sartre 1991,Millar 1993, Mitchell 1993, and Sartre 1995.
8. Swain 1996 is an important exception, but that work fundamentally misunderstands the
causal link-apparent even to contemporaries-between Greek classicism and Roman rule. See
Hidber 1996:75-81 and 117-23: Dionysius proposes Hellenic paideia as themeans to unite Greeks
and Romans culturally, while admitting that his ambition is capable of realization because of what
Augustus and theRomans had achieved politically. Similarly, the Panhellenion gave expression to
Hellenic identity, and gave rise to much research into classical history, but its focus was on the
relationship between theGreek people and theirRoman emperor.Greek in inspiration, its existence
and content were inconceivable without Rome: see Jones 1996 andBirley 1997:217-20.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
be elucidated
with Rome
as a unified whole,
as a single polis
embrac
ing innumerable fields and villages.'0 This shift was obviously profound. But the
fourhundredyears separating theseperiods display no simple progression. Indeed,
Greeks of the lateRepublic proposed several differentmodels of Rome andher em
pire, and the gradual consensus favoring the second of the views described above
resulted from a harmonious if accidental convergence of trends in the political
and intellectual
conceives
in three stages.
of this process
each sought
In doing
a Roman
institution
to a paradigm
from Hellenic
through a process
experi
of analogi
B.C. misapplied
the terms and concepts of theirown political forms to those of Rome (Section II).
By using the existing vocabulary of Greek politics, thesemodels masked serious
disjunctures between Greek andRoman definitions of citizenship and community
that Greeks
had to negotiate,
articulating
it. As Mommsen
a form of
even
wrote
as their method
of Greek
were
attempts
rendered
them incapable
understandable
of
Latin
status as
enough,
but they
to construe
9. On reading metaphor and political language in these terms, see Lakoff and Turner 1980
and Bourdieu 1990:54-55.
10. See Dio 52.19.6, quoted at n. 115.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
(Section
"
111).
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rome
became
into war.
rule:
it alone
orators
adapted
prevented
a common
this became
from
cities
theme
not only in Jewish texts, but also among Christian authors seeking to findDivine
Providence atwork in the foundation of the empire.20
In blaming their ancestors for allowing their own subjugation, these authors
implicitly suggested that a united Greece might have been able to defend itself
15. See Lakoff and Turner 1989:60-67 and esp. Sweetser 1990:1-13 and 47-48. Sweetser
deploys her theoretical framework in historical inquiries, concerning, inter alia, metaphors for
epistemic processes, thatbrilliantly confirm themerit of that framework.
16.
oyA5ac
See Aelian
8tx0CLW
Hist.
2.38:
a&oycav,
Aoxp6v
xol
tov
'P0aicd&v
MaaaaXLw&tv
vo4ov;
xiL
t\
xaL
Tca
oCux
MLXkoLWv
&l&
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANTIQUITY
CLASSICAL
10
only
if he was
to be whipped
v, but only
TPcox,u
a Roman
in Jerusalem,
that he was
citizen.
Thus,
for example,
when
Paul was
an av6ptnoq
doubt
this metamorphosis
describing
violence
Greek
categories
of ethnicity
to elevate
the
bellicose,
yet marginally
less civilized
Roman
between
Greek
and
21. Posidonius fr. 253 Kidd, 11.82-84 (Athenaeus 213B): t&v 8' BXXwv'P uai'v
Ek&V cyo(4XLcZGL lTpOcnTErG')xa7YLV,
apXnS
OL 8E XOlIOL VETU
Lec0qEVOL
TEXpYV
Oi vev
L.tlOCLt TC't
22. For the former phrase, see Euseb. Hist. Ecl. 5.1.47; for the latter see Acts 22:24-29.
23. This problem found expression, among other things, inGreek astonishment that PWVicLoL
see Kramer 1993.
spoke -i'v Acxtiv&v &&XEXTOV:
24. Cf. Seneca on the rhetorArgentarius, Controv. 9.3.13: illud tamen optima fide praestitit,
cum uterque Graecus esset, ut numquam declamaret, <et> illos semper admiraretur qui, non
[fuerunt] contenti unius linguae eloquentia, cum Latine declamaverant, toga posita sumpto pallio
quasi persona mutata rediebant et Graece declamabant. Argentarius derides this practice precisely
because the change in garb, from toga to pallium, could not alter those facets of one's character
thatwere, in fact, determined by one's patria.
25. On the development of this opposition in the classical period see Hall 1997:40-51.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
11
in Roman
history
sake.30 Earnest
attempts
to in
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
himself to the charge that he leveled against others, that of writing a false his
torywhich labeled his patrons as Greek and their enemies as barbarians.33 In
the long run, it was not the category "Greek" thatwould stretch to accommo
date the polyglot population of the empire, a sad fact thatDionysius himself
almost anticipated.34
Dionysius failed in part because he was too ambitious. He tried by a his
toriographical sleight of hand to reconcile Greeks and Romans. In so doing,
he dissented from a long-standing tradition that tied Rome to theGreek world
through the legend of Aeneas. That legend provided Roman and Greek with a
sharedmythological history, to be sure, but certainly not one that could read
ily unite them.35This tradition, as Amaldo Momigliano has shown, reached its
mature state during the Hellenistic period, to provide a historical background
to diplomatic contacts between Rome and the cities of the East.36Of course, it
remained possible for select cities to argue for a close connection with Rome on
thebasis of its putative Trojan past, but the language of ethnicity intrudes in those
cases, too, indeed, is fundamental to them. Thus, when Lampsakos sought an
alliance with Rome after Cynoscephelae, it cited its kinship (auyYEvrELC)
with
theRomans, grounding that claim on littlemore than its location in the Troad.37
Such negotiations over kinship thus treatedonly membership among theGreeks
as questionable and subject to inquiry,while leaving the categoryGreek ontologi
cally intact. If the practical result of manipulating themythological past was to
render the boundary between Greek and non-Greek quite permeable, thatperme
ability was not acknowledged: ideological stresswas rather laid on the existence
of the boundary.
More seriously andmore ambitiously, in aiming at reconciliation Dionysius
departed from the path blazed by his intellectual forbears, Polybius and Posido
nius, with whose
world.
narratives
Reconciliation,
a non-issue.
he intended
for a writer
The growth
of
of the Roman
'tL^op'Lasuch as Polybius,
like the evolution
of the
was
of the Roman
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
13
can be explained
through
an analysis
of her constitution,
her ntoxt-sea,
in
to Greek
level analogous
of settlements
of meaning,
as poleis
nor did
does
it prevent
referred
the conclusion
reflection
to a broad
that polis
on the nature
was
range
devoid
of the polis
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
its political autonomy, and pointed to a citizen body with a shared commitment
to particular criteria of membership.' But Rome did not resemble any notional
idea of thepolis, neither in its attitude towardmembership, nor in its eagerness
to assimilate conquered populations, nor in its control and use of its colonies.
Polybius was, of course, not alone in seeking and ultimately positing an illusory
similarity between Greeks and Romans. But themanifest superficiality of this
presumptionmasks itsmore serious consequences, both positive and negative. As
a handicap it crippled Polybius in his attempt to explain Roman rule even before
he began; at the same time, it provided a conceptual frameworkwithin which
Greeks could justify theirwholesale participation in imperial culture and political
life.Ultimately itwould also forceGreeks to choose, consciously or not, between
theirpolis of origin and thepolis of their empire.
In their efforts to understand the Roman constitution, Hellenistic Greeks
faced a series of conceptual obstacles logically prior to any attempt to construe
its operation on analogy with Hellenistic models. I focus on two issues and the
terms throughwhich Romans, and subsequentlyGreeks, articulated them, namely,
citizenship and popular sovereignty. In each case, describing the errors committed
by Greeks requires understanding the difference that separatedGreek andRoman
thought on these topics.
We may begin by acknowledging thatGreeks no less thanmodern scholars
wrestled with Latin political terminology.The fact thatGreeks crafted translations
of Roman documents should not be allowed tomask the considerable conceptual
disjunction between their respective political traditions:did Greeks really under
stand thedifference betweenpopulus Romanus and 6o8i,uoq 'Pw iatv? According
toCicero, "the res publica is the respopuli, but a populus is not every crowd of
men,
gathered
commitment
to a
and homogeneous
collective.46
A Greek
8n,oq,
by contrast, was
an
44. On poleis see Hansen 1996a: 14-34. See also Gauthier 1981:168-72, together with the
review of Hansen's collection by A. Chaniotis and Hansen's reply to that review (BMCR 97.7.16
and BMCR 98.2.7, respectively).
45. Cicero Rep. 1.39.1: "Est igitur" inquitAfricanus "res publica res populi, populus autem
non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et
utilitatis communione sociatus." On this passage see Zetzel 1995 ad loc., as well as Brunt 1988:2
and 326.
46. See, for example, Cicero Mur. 5 1, construing thepopulus as a corpus, orAteius Capito, cited
by Gellius 10.20.5: Plebem autem Capito in eadem definitione seorsum a populo divisit, quoniam in
populo omnis pars civitatis omnesque eius ordines contineantur, plebes vero ea dicatur, inqua gentes
civium patriciae non insunt. To Justinian belongs a particularly concise formulation: appellatione
populi universi cives significantur (Inst. 1.2.4). For the contexts inwhich Romans made explicit
reference to consensus, see Ruggiero, Diz. Epigr. s.v. Instinky 1940 is notable particularly for its
discussion of texts inwhich the ideology of consensus is operative without being explicitly raised.
More recently, see Nicolet 1979:332-39.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
15
maiestas
under
the empire
because of Augustus (Eep3aaTo6)and all that his name represented, but under
the Republic doing so would have reflected a profoundly mistaken idea of the
relationship between the individualRoman and his populus.48Nor did there exist
aGreek equivalent for respublica: the official Greek translationof theRes Gestae
of Augustus uses four different phrases to cover that term'sbroad semantic field.49
Polybius' narrative of thenegotiations between theAetolians andManius Acilius
Glabrio is paradigmatic of the linguistic pitfalls that confronted Greeks in their
early encounters with Roman magistrates. In 191 B.C. theAetolians decided to
ask the consul Glabrio for his pardon and resolved to commit themselves "to the
faith of the Roman
people"
as Polybius
After
granting
the
The Aetolians
cried
out
in surprise:
is
if Iwant
to."50
= x v
npoyVa-&cv),
2 (bellum
i'XOVta
= no6XeVov
T)oV 8TVOGL&V
-Ca L TC-orLptLL),and 34.1 (rem
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
it was
characteristically
Roman
to insist
be king of
as imperium,
he
intends
by
that phrase
the legitimate
of command
in specific
ways,
even
as it urges
the citizen
to obey
that
power in its legitimate domain.54Greek political vocabulary did not connote the
same limitations and tended to describe instead theRoman magistrate's control
over, and governance by, coercive force; not understanding the termprovincia
in its non-geographical sense, Greeks were unable to reconcile the seemingly
limitless powers granted to holders of imperiumwith theultimate and unqualified
sovereignty of thepopulus Romanus.55
As a consequence of his subordination to the populus, a Roman magistrate
could justify his actions by appealing to his patriotic sentiment, his studium rei
publicae,
but a Hellenistic
monarch,
who
had similar-indeed,
often
inferior
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
17
thus to misconstrue
of Greeks
the tendency
the exercise
of authority,
Mithridates,
sent to Rome
to Appian
of Bithynia
by Prusias
Ev QCTcEL,
deliberately delayed introducing them to the Senate. In comparison,
the description
baffling. Rumor
of Rome
reported
to help
and to make
depose,
kings,
kings;
exalted.
seems
to Judas Maccabeus
the Romans
they wish
wish
they
rCv 4SpEL8(,
T(XUtTV C'7OPAxELr
6.13.8
(?t Ov T&XLV &OiOIT .Lr
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
put on a crown
or clothed
himself
as a mark
of pride. And
they have
built a council-chamber for themselves, and each day three hundred and twenty
men take counsel, deliberating concerning the people, to govern themwell. They
trust one man
each year
to rule over
obey one man and there is no envy or jealousy among them."'Without Appian's
narrative, Iwould leap to the conclusion that these Jews, desiring to interpret the
exercise of power at Rome in terms familiar fromHellenistic monarchies, have
here described a consul and assumed that therewas only one of them. But in
light of Appian's story,we should perhaps leave open the possibility thatearnest
ambassadors mistook for a king-like magistrate themere praetor who ordered
them about.6'
speaking,
to be sure, before
a Roman
audience,
between
the Romans
who
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
19
even
then.69 Nor
did Romans
develop
a helpful vocabulary to describe relations between Rome and the cities of Italy
under such a plan. Livy, for example, described Servius Tullius as wanting to
unify the cities of Latium under Roman leadership, in which case the city of
Rome would become the caput rerum-not the stuff of catchy political slogans.70
In attempting to express what such a unity would constitute, Romans of the
middle Republic no less thanGreeks were hampered by traditionaldefinitions of
patria
and of citizenship.
Put simply,
a patria was
one's
family
sprang, and in thatcommunity one held citizenship: political rights in some far-off
polity were, through sheer impracticality, regarded and explicitly labeled as such,
as though not
intended
to be exercised.
As we have
seen,
the Romans
defined
on an individual's
actions,
it could conceivably
be bestowed
68. SIG 543, from August 215: seeWalbank 1972:156 n. 151 and the literature cited there.
Compare the astonishment of Pyrrhus at the rebirth of the army of Valerius Laevinus: he remarked
that the legions of theRomans, like a hydra, when cut down grew whole again (Cass. Dio 9 fr. 28).
69. Augustus' claim that tota Italia swore an oath of loyalty to him (ResGestae 25.2) illustrates
the vast changes which had taken place since the state of Italia rose against Rome in 90/89; it also
looks back to the enormous propaganda campaign thatAugustus had waged precisely to unite Italy
against the victor ab Aurorae populis et litore rubro. See Gabba 1978. For up-to-date summaries of
evidence, concentrating more on process than on cause, see David 1994 andM. Crawford, CAH2
X 414-33 and 979-89. On the integration of Italy as an intellectual problem in late Republican
literature, see Habinek 1998:88-102.
70. 1.45.3.
71. See at notes 39-43, with the literaturecited there.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Thus, for example, those who regard hospitium publicum as a status that
brought "all the private rights and privileges of Roman citizenship" without "its
burdens and obligations" seem, tome at least, to have misunderstood its import.72
Hospitium publicum was explicitly not a form of citizenship and was, on the
contrary, ideologically distinct from it.73Consider, for example, Cicero's defense
of Lucius Cornelius Balbus: it does not matter for us today, as it did not matter
for Cicero, whether Balbus might, as amatter of law, hold citizenship inGades
and Rome simultaneously.74Before the juryCicero emphasized not thatBalbus
had conformed to any existing statute, but rather thathe had formally renounced
his status as a Gaditanus once he moved his domicile toRome: Cicero insisted
thatBalbus now dealt with his former countrymen through pacts of hospitium,
precisely because hospitium did not imply shared patriotic sentiment. Honorary
citizenship among Greeks, not unlike dual citizenship between a polis and a
league, concretized very different attitudes toward the exclusivity of a patria's
emotive, political, and legal demands.75
municipal Italians aspired
Again, unlike Greeks holding tao- or ouItnoXLtEia,
to full participation in Roman life, and it was themuniceps Cicero who best
articulated an Italian ideal.76In the conversation thatopens the second book of De
legibus,Cicero referred to the land inwhich theywalked as his patria; this elicited
a question fromAtticus: "Have you then twopatriae? Or is our communispatria
the only one? Unless,
but
we
as our patria
are adopted.
But
must
be preeminent
in our affection,
inwhich the name of the res publica signifies the common citizenship of us all.
For her it is our duty
her altar we ought
to die;
to place
to her we ought
and to dedicate,
to give
as it were,
our entire
selves,
and on
Cicero thus urged that political loyalties need not stand in conflict with
each other. Although the next sentence evidently emerged badly mutilated in
the archetype of all surviving witnesses to the Leiden corpus,78 it seems clear
thatCicero concluded this section by urging that loyalty to the communis patria
must
take precedence
over
collectivity.
In the hierarchy
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
21
position: her laws and her culture provide thenormative fabric thatwill, to borrow
the phrase of Rutilius Namatianus, "create from distinct and separate nations a
single fatherland."79
InDe legibus Cicero could ignore the Social War. Appian could not. His
narrative of the political machinations leading up to the Social War participates
in two important trends in Hellenistic thought. First, Appian played the race
card. According to him, Gaius Gracchus reasoned that the Senate could not
refuse to grant full citizenship to the Latins because they were "of the same
race."80Second, he acknowledged the complaint by Italians thatcitizenship could
not be held piecemeal: the Italians desired citizenship "so that theymight be
Whatever its provenance, Appian's
partners in the empire, rather than subjects."'81
history of these years recognizes two categories-ruler and ruled-and these are
distinguished in the first instance along ethnic lines.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus approached relations between Rome and her
Italian allies in a very different fashion and, given his declared desire to educate
his fellow
Greeks,
we would
be remiss
if we
failed
as a
polemic with contemporary relevance. As Livy did in the same era, Dionysius
connected the legal details of Rome's relationswith her Latin allies to the reign of
Servius, althoughDionysius posited a source for Servius in thatking's admiration
forAmphictyon and theAmphictyonic council.82But Dionysius brought to the
entire issue a Hellenistic sense of wonder at the sheer size and structureof the
Roman state, one directly continuous with the remarksof Philip V.83More so than
his Roman counterparts, Dionysius attributed the fundamental rules of Roman
government toRomulus.84 The most significant of these rules by far, he argued,
established Roman policy on citizenship. Romulus extended citizenship to all free
men, including select members of conquered cities, and he started thepractice of
sending
colonies,
&.toLxoua., to occupy
some portion
territory.By thismeasure he increased the citizen body and stretched the tentacles
of Roman power throughoutLatium.85
Dionysius explicitly contrasted this practice with that of contemporary
Greeks. Taking up the comparison of constitutions, he declared allGreek states in
79. Rut. Namat. 1.63.
80.
BCiv.
1.23.99:
xal
TOuR Aa-cLvouv
Erl
Taivo
aPoiXc,(v,
ex&CXEL t&
S OCux EUTpET1J)5
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
this respect as failures: the Spartans, Athenians, and Thebans jealously guarded
their birthrights and granted citizenship to no one. As a consequence, each lost
their hegemony after a single defeat.86 Dionysius credited both Romulus and
Servius with a desire for world conquest; believing that the size of the Roman
state had been an important factor in her success, he attributed to both kings a
desire to increase the body of citizen-soldiers. He articulated the goals of this
policy most eloquently in his version of a speech delivered by Appius Claudius
during thewar with Coriolanus: "For all the Latins, towhom we recently gave
equal rights of citizenship, will standby us, fighting for thispolis as if theirpatria,
and themany good cities colonized from here will protect Rome, regarding it as
imperative that theirmetropolis be saved."87
I highlight two features of this remarkable passage. First, Dionysius has
followed Cicero and crossed the emotive boundaries of Hellenistic forms of dual
citizenship. The Latins ought tovalue Rome as apatria, above and beyond the city
of theirbirth. Second, Dionysius no less thanPhilip attributedan ideal strength to
the bonds between Rome and her colonies. Despite his assiduous and arduous
reading of Thucydides, Dionysius clearly had not learned that citizens of Greek
colonies did not automatically esteem theirmetropolis as theirpreeminent ntxTpL.
Indeed, itmay well be thatGreek cities of the second century petitioning Rome
for the status of a Roman colony transliterated the Latin colonia because they
recognized, even if they never quite articulated, that the semantic field of &7COLXLca
did not match the purely emotive attachment that their requestwas intended to
convey.88
The history of Greek politics did offer one potentialmodel for the integration
of several
communities
into a single
the Achaean
league.
"While many
about because
each made
in bygone
to bring
the
able
to bring
this
freedom
but
Peloponnese
of personal
power.
advantage,
Yet
times
attempted
no one was
in my
has been
so
completely realized that there exists among them not only an allied and friendly
but they use the same
community,
and measures
and coinage,
86. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.17.1-2; theargument is repeatedby Tacitus' Claudius (Ann. 11.24.4),
though not in this form by Claudius himself-perhaps a satirical reference throughDionsyius to
Claudius' Greek learning.
87. Dion.
8E8cw,tv,
Hal.
oL T' EVOEV86
Ant.
Rom.
v l
aTOO0l,
7.53.5:
-re yap
TTjv LotLOXJL;CEliV
otg vEWCr
tCXavCEq,
"
t
Trz Tc ccp
TiT98E
aY KVL6XsC
8i1pn
XOLXL9OSELOOCLTtO6XeLSTOXXoXLxcXt &yaC'L TCEP'L
TXVTOc TCOLOUlE4V0L CYW'E{79OXl
GU
ovu
"Aocttvo'l
88. For petitions toRome for colony status seeMillar 1993:143-44, 147, 150, 155. and 257-58.
For the use of xoXwv(e)Lot, see Millar 1990:9-10.
89. Greek terminology for confederate states and their institutions is notoriously vague: see
Larsen 1955:24-25, 87-92, and Beck 1997:10-19.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
23
as well as the same magistrates, councils, and courts: the entire Peloponnese
falls short of having the arrangement of a single polis in this respect alone, that
its inhabitants are not enclosed by a single wall, but in other respects-both in
common and city by city-conditions are nearly identical."90This formulation
of the achievement of theAchaean league maps the parameters within which
Polybius, as aHellenistic writer, could conceive of a community in its corporate
identity.Thus, inmatters thatconcern othermember cities, individualpoleis must
cease to command the specific loyalties of their citizens; at the same time, the
xolvov
was
a political
ideal
in its own
right:
a polis.
Dionysius
had argued
formed
a natural
unity because of their sharedGreek descent, Diodorus understood that the Italians
who
against Rome
rebelled
different
cities and
Corfinum
a common
as their xowVj
toXUL,and it was
in that city
from whom
that "they
those worthy
to
safety would
loyalties
and communis
and direct
them instead
patria.
xci
potpa7txYaCLOC.
91. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.25.3.
92. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.26.1-2.
93. Diodorus 37.1.6: .csxva-rr&vv
94.
Diodorus
XEVItVOL, NwXavoL,
nEvTaLxocatv
OtLTpoPou
rev90otL
yap tCOvXaxT&T)v'ICxXv
e,ovcv ....
Il
Ee PwLcx'LOL; EaUV-aL,
Aaxo)cwvoL',
Aeuxavot,
XOLVTv
XaL ETepRt TO'XEL(xai eOviq .... EuvEa-Cj%OvCrO 8E xat cuYxX7nyov
(Ej O'L e tT) T(XrpL8O;
E,~ xv
APXSLV C'LOL TXpOaeCFO0a
6VEXXOV XoI
37.2.4-5:
'EnoX4Eouv
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
were
Eyxpocre6;
or xpaxouvrEq.
They
ruled over
his work
a review
with
of
the political
power
wielded
by authors
of
beneath
structure,
as if they were
Providence. For Providence, assembling the order of the visible stars and the
natures of men into a common relation, continually directs all things for eternity,
to each
distributing
those writing
up the
95. E.g. Fornara 1983:42-46. Momigliano 1984 implicitly argues against such simplistic,
'rhetorical"models. Cf. K. Sacks 1990:36.
96. See Tarn 1948, vol. 2:399-449. Badian 1958may have successfully denied the relevance of
"cosmopolitanism" to the study of Alexander, but his work does nothing to disprove the effect of
Alexander's conquests on theGreek political imagination.
97.
Polybius
3UVEf3tLVE; Tk
1.3.3-5:
T7(
ev
lIbv
O'LXOUie;Vi5
ouiv
TOl5
TpO' EL;,
UT
Tp6OTOU6TWV XpOVOlq 6r, aEv
EIVOU
1topab&X
TO\
OaS 7tnLOXO),(q 8E
xat
8\ca TO XXL XXa\
E`C
OuvTEXELO(
Ocu`v O6qOl(&8e;xOCxczta toC\ t6itoU<;&yineXCLV
iexxcracctxv nenpczyVESvx. aci.o
8E TOUTCOVT&V Xalp&OV O'LOV Et 06
Ea'Itc)Xixa
xcx3.ALvx&
-cp\,el to
-Ci\v &Vayopopv
ouVnXe6aXOL
&ot&vtrcov.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANDO:
Was
Rome
apolis?
25
Rather,
Rome
had united
all men
In this period,
too, authors
to describe
began
as a city
Rome
whose countryside was the empire. Aelius Aristides delivered themost famous
development of this theme in his panegyric toRome, inwhich he added the detail
that the armies
of a single,
great
city.'02 At
one level suchmetaphors and themodels they represented arose from theGreek
tendency to divide theworld between Greeks and barbarians,'03and on that level
theirusage must reflect aGreek desire to lump themselves togetherwith Romans
as common participants in a single ethnic and political reality.Yet thesemetaphors
accomplished thatdesire throughawholly Greek attempt to envision the residents
of the empire
as the inhabitants
of a single
city. On
these
terms,
the erroneous
be unraveled."'4
to be some
around
a city
sort of wall.
But why
use a miniature
because
representation
the
100. Diodorus 1.1.3. On the strands of thought intersecting in this passage, andDiodorus' role in
bringing them together, see Sacks 1990:10-11, 36, and 64. Among earlier literature, see esp. Burton
1972:35-38.
101. See, e.g., Nigrinos 2, 16, 29, 34, and cf. Jones 1986:85 n. 31. Elsewhere see Philostratus Vit.
Soph. 488 and 534.
102. Or. 26.80-81.
103. Palm 1959:56-62, 75-76, and 82-83; J.Vogt 1967:8-9 and Brunt 1990:473-77.
104.
Suda
[I 2178:
fI&un5ptov
-o
tou
LeLXouq sExo6vLaGcX.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
author of
AND CONSEQUENCES
of Maccabees
was
not alone
in his desire
to
was,
cloaked
in fancy dress.'08
That fancy dress was the res publica. Imperial ideology continued for cen
turies
to suggest
quarreled
with maiestas
the state:
thus Tacitus
that he was
was
trials because
the servant
of
107.
xCa
Appian
,ovapXLctv
108. Appian
s
r
BCiv.
1.6.24:
68e
,uv
?x caO?@t(YV TtOLXLX&V
T0oXL'teLCXPTN0L0Lool
praef
t
r t
"bePiX;
s
*~T)
T)
iUCv
I'XPL VUV
o
E'L
;V. XpXOVtl oU,
t
*
opvotxv
7CEpLeG-U.
CL npw,TT)V xeyaXpc0v
ti(
7TorS
noXLt-cebx)
and 2.2.
On Greek
fXcOLXErc,
topcX e
l
ea& av
names
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
for
the
27
tendencies or the rationalism inherent in the fifthCyrene edict, in its concern for
non-citizen provincials and its allusions to a hierarchical appeals process; nothing
in the ideology of Hellenistic monarchies suggested thatkings were not sovereign
within their territories.When in Roman political oratory the goddess Roma or
thegenius publicus addressed the emperor, the author simultaneously honored his
emperor and yet also suggested thatRome herself was the ultimate repository of
authoritywithin the state. The prosopopoeia of Dea Roma or the genius publi
cus inGreek oratory, which became prevalent only in the fourth century A.D.,
thus represented the penetration of a purely Roman imperial ideology intoGreek
thought, andByzantine legislation retained for the next two centuries this explicit
subordination of emperor to state.109
The breakdown of traditional links between citizenship, city, and fatherland
required considerable negotiation to resolve, nor was its outcome predetermined.
To adapt
the phrase
of Appian,
it was
not necessary
for Rome
to invite
all her
subjects to become equal participants in the empire. Yet in the end theRomans
themselves played no small role in this process. Polybius himself had remarked
that theRomans had thecapacity-which theydid not always act upon-to govern
their subjects wisely.110 As Cicero saw, themore the Romans subordinated the
coercive aspect of their rule, and themore they governed for the good of their
subjects, the greater would be the good realized by both ruler and ruled. For
that reason he urged that a properly governed empire not be called an empire, an
imperium,but a protectorate, apatrocinium. l' Greeks acknowledged this rhetoric
regarding theuniversalization of thebenefits of Roman rule in the age of Augustus,
at which
largely ceased
to be a&uvaa-erLo or a xpacioq
and became
an apXt)
Some inscriptions fromAsia Minor in the same period exhibit similar sensi
tivity to the finerpoints of diction. Late in the rule of Augustus themember-cities
of the koinon of Asia erected a series of inscriptions recording honors voted to
the emperor.They named the emperor using his official titulature, translated into
Greek, with one minor but importantaddition. They render the titlepater patriae
as narTp
norpL'8og xai toO a,u'4TEcvtoE Txv oiv6pxTv
yEvou~: "Father of
his fatherland and of the entire human race.""12 At one level, this represents a
always
of that phrase
benefactors
into several
or saviors
of the human
race. And
must
yet the
have been
109. E.g. N. Maj. 1. Though [Aristides] does not personify Rome or the state, he does describe
the emperor as useful to the empire, implying the priority of the latter (Or. 35.12): ... rov[tEv ,eya
O(prXO(
I 10.
T?) PaGLtXSL
10.36.2,
XtL
XxtaoTi(Vxl.
111. Off 2.8.27: itaque illud patrocinium orbis terrae verius quam imperiumpoterat nominari.
Cf. Erskine 1990:202-203 andDyck 1996 ad loc.
112. Texts collected in Buckler 1935. See IGRR IV 1410.6-7; IGRR IV 1611 (= OGIS 470),
tabletB.6-8; IGRR IV 1756, section X, 11.101-102; and IBM 894.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
intended, at least in part, to claim Augustus as their father, too. These Greeks
began to share the empire, by first sharing the emperor.
Citizenship remained a contentious issue, of course. But long before the
universal extension of the franchiseGreeks began to use first-person possessive
adjectives to refer to Roman institutions.113In the words of Aelius Aristides:
"You, again, have best proven the common maxim that the earth is themother
and communis
patria
of all. Now
at last it is possible
or non-Greek,
for a Greek
the contrary:
as we
have
seen, Aristides
lacked
a model
national state.He has rather succumbed to that reasoning which, with the benefit
of hindsight, Cassius Dio put in themouth of Maecenas in the fateful debate
of 29 B.C.: by giving his subjects a share in their governance, Augustus could
bring it about that they "believe themselves equal participants in the politeia
and thus become
of us all,
our faithful
regarding
allies,
as though
in some unified
they dwelt
this polis
city
as its fields
and villages."'15 Dio's clumsy expression in this climactic phrase divulges the
poverty
of his political
his selection
vocabulary
of Rome
over Nicaea
even as it discloses
as the primary
the model
object
that exonerated
of his loyalties
and the
different
of their origin
attitude, when
he argued
founded
choose
emperor"
between
the
that drained
and people
of Aphrodisias
listed
13.
I
Instances catalogued by Palm 1959 passim.
114. Or. 26.100.
115. Cassius
Dio
)CFTLEpXOlVLV [cV
(7(p Tepa &ypouc
52.19.6:
t
xai
xiVcr
. .. 'Lxvoxot
)V ICpEE V
VoViLoVtEg
etVal.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
29
it was
necessary
in the era of
the martyrs
of Lyons
to specify
that
But
even
on,
the government
began
to recognize
the categories: first, appeal to these categories becomes markedly more frequent
from themiddle of the second century on and, second, "thehonestiores/humiliores
distinction cut across the citizen/alien one: therewere citizens and aliens on both
sides of thedividing line."'20The vast expansion of the semantic field of Romanus,
coupled
with
the increasingly
rapid extension
of
the franchise,
in n. 22.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
forum was
a mirror
of
The City. The improvements in quality of life brought by these urban centers thus
reflected toRome's credit. The slow desertion of the classical city in late antiquity
may have been due, in part, to Christian
withdrawal
and, in part, it
was a response to the financial and personal duties incumbent on the curial class.
But Rome, ironically, made that desertion possible by lowering the place such
cities held
For Rome
in the words
of the
C
.px6VuEvo aPXeL4
U7o0nETCyCvr)q7t6XeXo &vO
KocLacapo,.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
31
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Gauger, J. D. 1980. "Phlegon von Tralleis, Mirab. III. Zu einem Dokument geistigen
Widerstandes gegen Rom." Chiron 10: 223-61.
Gauthier, Ph. 1981. "La citoyennete en Gr6ce et a Rome: Participation et integration."
Ktema 6:167-79.
Gawantka, W. 1975.
Isopolitie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der zwischenstaatlichen
Beziehungen
in der griechischen Antike. Munich.
Giovannini, A. 1993. "Greek cities and Greek commonwealth." InA. Bulloch et al., eds.,
Images and Ideologies, 265-86. Berkeley.
Gruen, E. S. 1982. "Greek Hflat L and Roman Fides." Athenaeum 60: 50-68.
1990. Studies inGreek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden.
1992. Culture and National Identity inRepublican Rome. Ithaca.
Habicht, C. 1958. "Die herrschende Gesellschaft
in den hellenistischen Monarchien."
Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte
45: 1-16.
Vierteljahrschriftfiir
. 1985. Pausanias' Guide toAncient Greece. Berkeley.
Habinek, T. N. 1998. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in
Ancient Rome. Princeton.
Hall, J.M. 1997. Ethnic Identity inGreek Antiquity. Cambridge.
Hansen, M. H. 1996a. "lToXX0aCX6
no'XiLX6eye-to (Arist. Pol. 1276a23). The Copenhagen
inventory of poleis and the Lex Hafniensis de civitate." In M. H. Hansen, ed.,
Introduction to an inventory of poleis. Symposium August 23-26, 1995, 7-72.
Copenhagen.
. 1996b. "City-ethnics as evidence for polis identity." InM. H. Hansen and K.
Raaflaub, eds., 96-169. More studies in the ancient Greek polis. Stuttgart.
Hartog, F. 1988. The mirror of Herodotus. Trans. J. Lloyd. Berkeley.
"The 'friends' of the early Hellenistic
Herman, G. 1980/1981.
rulers: servants or
officials?" Talanta 12/13: 103-49.
Hidber, R. 1996. Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass. Die Praefatio
zu De oratoribus veteribus. Stuttgart.
Humbert, M. 1978. Municipium et civitas sine suffragio. L'organisation de la conquete
jusqu'a' la guerre sociale. Rome.
Instinky, H. U. 1940. "Consensus Universorum." Hermes 75: 265-78.
Jones, C. P. 1971. Plutarch and Rome. Oxford.
1978. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge.
1986. Culture and Society in Lucian. Cambridge.
-. 1996. "The Panhellenion." Chiron 26: 28-56.
Judge, E. A. 1974. "'Res publica restituta' A modem illusion?" In J. A. S. Evans, ed.,
Polis and Imperium. Studies inHonour of Edward Togo Salmon, 279-31 1. Toronto.
und AwrZvoL." In G. W. Most et al., eds., Philanthropia kai
Kramer, J. 1993. "TPWuCiXot
Eusebeia. Festschrift fur Albre,cht Dihle, 234-47. Gottingen.
Lakoff, G., and M. Turner. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago.
. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago.
-in Greek and Roman History.
Larsen, J. A. 0. 1955. Representative Government
Berkeley.
Magie, D. 1905. De Romanorumjuris publici sacrique vocabulis sollemnibus in graecum
sermonem conversis. Leipzig.
-.
1950. Roman Rule inAsia Minor. Princeton.
Mason, H. J. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
33
Meier,
C. 1996.
"Der griechische und der romische Burger. Gemeinsamkeiten
und
im Ensemble gesellschaftlicher
Unterschiede
Bedingungen."
In E. Schmidt, ed.,
Griechenland und Rom, 41-66. Tbilissi.
Miles, G. 1995. Livy. Reconstructing Early Rome. Ithaca.
Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World. Ithaca.
. 1984. "State and subject: The impact of monarchy." In F.Millar and E. Segal,
eds., Caesar Augustus. Seven aspects, 37-60. Oxford.
. 1990. "The Roman coloniae of the Near East: A study of cultural relations." In
H. Solin and M. Kajava, eds., Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman
History, 7-58. Helsinki.
1993. The Roman Near East. Cambridge.
Mitchell, S. 1993. Anatolia. Oxford.
Momigliano, A. 1942. "Camillus and Concord." CQ 36: 111-20.
. 1966. "Atene nel III secolo a.c. e la scoperta di Roma nelle storie di Timeo
di Tauromenio." Terzo contributo, 1: 23-53. Rome.
1975. Alien Wisdom. Cambridge.
1984a. "How to reconcile Greeks and Trojans." Settimo contributo, 437-62.
Rome.
1984b. "The origins of universal history." Settimo contributo, 77-103. Rome.
1986. "Some preliminary remarks on the 'religious opposition' to the Roman
empire." EntrHardt 32: 103-29.
Romisches Staatsrecht. Leipzig.
Mommsen, T. 1887-1888.
Nicolet, C. 1979. Rome et la conque^te du monde Meoditerraneen. Vol. 1: Les structures de
l'Italie romaine. Paris.
Nippel, W. 1996. "Recht und Gesetz. Bemerkungen zur Funktion rechtstheoretischer
Reflexion inAthen und Rom." In E. Schmidt, ed., Griechenland und Rom, 152-59.
Tbilissi.
Palm, J. 1959. Rom, Romertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literature der
Kaiserzeit. Lund.
Pavan, M. 1991. "Osservazioni su Diodoro, Polibio e la storiografia ellenistica." In E.
Galvagno and C. Mole Ventura, eds., Mito Storia Tradizione. Diodorus Siculo e la
storiografia classica, 5-16. Rome.
Poma, G. 1989. "Dionigi d'Alicarnasso e la cittadinanza Romana." MEFRA 101: 187
205.
Rawson, E. 1985. "Cicero and theAreopagus." Athenaeum 63: 44-46.
Reynolds, J. 1980. "The origins and beginning of imperial cult at Aphrodisias." PCPhS
26: 70-84.
. 1981. "New evidence for the imperial cult in Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias." ZPE
43: 317-27.
. 1982. Aphrodisias and Rome. London.
Rogers, G. M. 1991. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos. London.
Sacks, K. 1990. Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton.
Sartre, M. 1991. L'Orient romain: Provinces et societe's provinciales en Me'diterranee
orientale d'Auguste aux Se've'res. Paris.
. 1995. L'Asie Mineure et l'Antatolie d'Alexandre a Diocletien. Paris.
Schmidt, P. L. 1974. Die Uberlieferung von Ciceros Schrift 'De legibus' inMittelalter
und Renaissance. Munich.
Shaw, B. 1995. "Josephus: Roman power and responses to it."Athenaeum 83: 357-90.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Volume
18/No.1/April1999
529-39. Lund.
Wigtil, D. N. 1982. "The ideology of the Greek 'Res Gestae.' "ANRW 2.30.1: 624-38.
Wiseman, T. P. 1995. Remus. A Roman Myth. Cambridge.
Woolf, G. 1993. "Becoming Roman, staying Greek: Culture, identity and the civilizing
process in the Roman East." PCPhS 40: 116-43.
Zetzel, J. E. G., ed. 1995. Cicero: De re publica. Cambridge.
This content downloaded from 99.72.109.133 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:21:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions