Sei sulla pagina 1di 31

Was Rome a Polis?

Author(s): Clifford Ando


Source: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Apr., 1999), pp. 5-34
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25011091
Accessed: 06-12-2018 07:16 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25011091?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Classical Antiquity

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CLIFFORD ANDO

Was Rome a polis?

I. INTRODUCTION
Ancient models of cross-cultural contact under the Roman empire are notori
ously simplistic. The observations of Tacitus on Britain and Florus on Spain-that
the Romans encouraged the natives to live in cities on level ground, to wear togas,
and to speak Latin-are typical of Roman reflection on the topic.' Both Romans
and Greeks asserted, however, that Rome's relations with 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.2 This dominant view was best expressed by Horace: "Conquered Greece
conquers the wild victor and introduces her arts into rustic Latium."3
By asserting the superiority of Greek culture, advocates of this position
deflected attention away from Greek subjugation to a foreign power; in so doing,
they must have comforted Greeks unaccustomed to subservience to anyone other
than their fellow Greeks.4 Modem scholars have proved largely complicit in
that project, emphasizing the superiority of Hellenic culture as though that were

Earlier versions of this paper were delivered at Princeton University, York University, and the Annual
Meeting of the APA. I thank members 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 and monarchs over other
less powerful cities, Greek and otherwise, see Austin 1986:454-56.

? 1999 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.


ISSN 0278-6656(p); Io67-8344 (e).

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. I/April 1999

sufficient compensation for the hegemony of Rome. Yet Hellenistic kings p


to the second Macedonian war never regarded Roman conquest as inevitable
indeed, one might argue that many Greeks of the late third century B.C. assu
that they could defeat Rome precisely because of their superiority in all bran
of political and cultural endeavor. The conquest of the eastern Mediterrane
therefore demanded explanation, and all the more so for the astonishing s
with which Rome accomplished it. The explanations for, and narratives of, Ro
conquest had ramifications that reached far beyond the narrow confines of ancien
scholarly endeavor, whether in historiography or political philosophy. Politi
circumstances and post-colonial angst have conspired to produce rigorous a
well-crafted studies on the geistige Widerstand gegen Rom;5 Greek intellec
and emotional accommodation to Roman rule, particularly in the late Repu
and age of Augustus, has received less attention.6 Yet that latter process m
have shaped contemporary narratives of the past: as Greeks grew willin
direct their patriotism and nationalistic aspirations towards Rome, they requ
an intellectual model of the empire that could exonerate, even justify, the
participation in its political institutions.
The basis of this intellectual accommodation calls for investigation not le
because research of the last century has so deepened our knowledge of life
the Greek East at a religious, political, and institutional level. The last seve
years have seen the publication of large and sophisticated regional surveys, but th
empiricism that informs these works seemingly constrains them to view and to d
scribe surviving data exclusively as the result of concrete actions.7 The revolu
in Greek political consciousness that took place during this renaissance in G
urban culture has not received similarly detailed study.8 Yet the Greeks' wil
ness to integrate particular instantiations of Roman power into civic institut
and to accommodate imperial cult within their individual pantheons must
been preceded by a conceptual model allowing such integration. Greek actio
following Roman conquest-seeking priesthoods in the imperial cult or Rom
citizenship or meeting with Roman officials, to say nothing of describing su

5. Fuchs 1938; cf. Gauger 1980 and Swain 1996. On the social trends in which these stu
participate see Momigliano 1986:103-104.
6. Felicitous exceptions include Jones 1971:122-30; Gabba 1982 and 1984; Eckstein 198
1990, and 1995: 8-27 and 194-236; Stern 1987; Erksine 1990:181-204; Rogers 1991; Woolf
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
causal link-apparent even to contemporaries-between Greek classicism and Roman rule
Hidber 1996:75-81 and 117-23: Dionysius proposes Hellenic paideia as the means to unite Gr
and Romans culturally, while admitting that his ambition is capable of realization because of w
Augustus and the Romans had achieved politically. Similarly, the Panhellenion gave expression
Hellenic identity, and gave rise to much research into classical history, but its focus was on
relationship between the Greek people and their Roman emperor. Greek in inspiration, its exis
and content were inconceivable without Rome: see Jones 1996 and Birley 1997:217-20.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 7

deeds in the language of honorific dec


assigned individuals and institutions th
The creation of such maps or model
but they find expression in the metapho
understanding of the structure of th
historians seeking to understand Roma
reflection of the realities of life on th
springs from and can reveal the conceptu
the boundaries of the possible for Gr
Greeks did not share a single "concept
their systems be elucidated in a paper of
of researching Greek accommodation t
through which they understood Rome, h
Constructing a history of this proce
ties, for which I advance only tentati
case, of Greek misunderstandings acc
construal-does not proceed at the pace
tible neither to the same periodization
is easy enough to suggest that Greeks
and her empire as two distinct entities, a
an empire that possessed no more affe
Likewise, I can assert that Greeks of
the city and its empire as a unified w
ing innumerable fields and villages.'0 T
four hundred years separating these peri
Greeks of the late Republic proposed seve
pire, and the gradual consensus favorin
resulted from a harmonious if acciden
and intellectual arenas. This essay conc
The exponents of the varied late-Rep
each sought to assimilate a Roman inst
ence and then broadened the scope of t
cal extension. In doing so, Greeks of th
the terms and concepts of their own pol
By using the existing vocabulary of G
disjunctures between Greek and Roman
that Greeks had to negotiate, even as
articulating it. As Mommsen wrote of
a form of LaotnoXLTeia, these approac

9. On reading metaphor and political langua


and Bourdieu 1990:54-55.
10. See Dio 52.19.6, quoted at n. 115.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

yielded results contrary to Roman conceptions of those same institutions.1'


examples in this section concentrate on political terminology for two related
sons: they illuminate the gap that separated Greek and Roman political theo
even as they reveal the depth of Greek misinterpretation. The mapping o
miliar conceptual schemata onto the foreign thought-world of Rome, concr
in term-for-term translations of Latin documents in Greek, was thus based
false analogies. This is true in spite of the success of such translations, in
as the success of a reference-in this case, of applying Greek terminology
Roman institutions-does not depend on the accuracy with which any given
mapped the associative network of ideas on which the term and its referent
customarily predicated in their respective Greek and Roman contexts.12
Greek efforts to understand Rome were not mere intellectual games. T
possessed personal, political and moral dimensions. In the last decades of t
first century B.C., Augustan rhetoric to the provinces, exemplified in the
Cyrene edict, possessed a universalizing dimension that many probably wa
desperately or cynically to believe. In the same era, Greek historians stud
the integration of Italy after the Social War sought to understand and th
describe the peninsula and, implicitly, the empire as a united community. A
the conceptual models available to them, the only paradigm for a collectivit
which individuals had equal rights and toward which they directed their pat
sentiments was the polis. Prolonged engagement with, and repeated applicat
of, polis-based understandings of Rome induced Greeks to make an ontolo
commitment to their models: they ceased to employ them as heuristic device
came to regard them existentially.13 Between the Augustan age and the se
century, the continuous application of Greek political terminology to institu
that they did not literally describe forced a shift in the semantic field of the te
themselves (Section 111). "
In the third stage of this process, Greeks' evolving understanding of Ro
institutions changed the interaction between the target and source domai
this metaphorical mapping, and ultimately changed the underlying concep

I1. Mommsen 1887-1888: vol. 3, part 1, 231 n. 1: "Das der Latiner zu den Romern betrach
die Griechen vielmehr geradezu als Biirgerrecht (-noX-retLo, LnoXLteLoa), mit Rticksicht a
Stimmrecht; begreiflich genug, aber entgegen der r6mischen Auffassung."
12. On the success of references requiring metaphorical construal, see Soskice 1985:50-55
13. On this process and its dangers see Black 1962:220-42.
14. For a similar problem in Roman political thought, see Thomas 1996, a most elegant e
Thomas asks how the traditional idea of a patria could have been extended to such a larg
heterogeneous collectivity as the empire. Thomas begins with Roman juridical categories and
the overriding ancient tendency to see cities as both the basic unit of political life and the n
object for patriotic sentiments. He then shows that innovations in religious and public law of th
Republic and Augustan age, intended merely to extend earlier practice and based on antiq
research, in fact deconstructed the very foundations on which they were intended to build. The
was a fundamental shift in the notion of the "origin," a dissociating of the Roman people fro
particularized locality: this shift, in turn, allowed the creation of a shared patria, based on a
fiction, that transcended traditional geographic and ethnic boundaries.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 9

archetype of the political collectivity.


with Greek linguistic praxis.'5 Describ
many Greeks-used to assuming a con
liteia-to regard Rome as the polis of t
as for Aelian, Rome became their city, an

II. ROME FROM A DIST


SOMETHING STRANGE, FRIG
There is every reason to think that
monarchs and Greek leagues in the face
bitter. Greeks had long prided themse
speakers throughout the text of Polybius
to ward off enslavement and depredation
West. 17 Particularly notable are the repea
Greek cities urging that all Greeks, "h
should rally behind the Macedonians, "p
whole lives fighting barbarians for the
did present a united front against Rom
repeatedly contrasted the single-minde
strife of Greek poleis and of the Hellen
the end of the first century of this era,
and to praise Roman rule: it alone prev
erupting into war. In the third and fourt
not only in Jewish texts, but also amon
Providence at work in the foundation of
In blaming their ancestors for allowin
implicitly suggested that a united Gree

15. See Lakoff and Turner 1989:60-67 and


deploys her theoretical framework in historical
epistemic processes, that brilliantly confirm the m
16. See Aelian Hist. 2.38: i 8E oCUx aXv 'Et
oyA5ac 8tx0CLW a&oycav, EL T& Vv Aoxp
,uv#pirg s06i.niv, t& be 8e\ tuTcxuoi novp'L
xotl toucwv [referring to ol. TEXXnveq], r'i ye '
17. E.g. Agelaus the Aetolian at Naupactus in 2
late in the spring of 210 (9.34-38), or the spee
207 (11.5).
18. For the Macedonians as oyu'Aor, see 9.37.7.
19. E.g. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.3.5 and 5.2; Appian Praef 8.30 and 10.42; cf. Polybius
5.106.3-5, referring only to the Peloponnesians.
20. E.g. Dio Chrys. Or 38-41, on which see Jones 1978:83-94; Pausanias 7.17.4, on which
see Jones 1971:17-18 and Habicht 1985:123; Cassius Dio 52.37.9-10; and Herodian 3.2.8. In later
literature see Augustine Civ. Dei 17.23; John Chrys. Homil. contra Iudaeos et Gentiles 3; and Sefer
Ha-Aggadah 5.92.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
10 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

against Roman aggression. They therefore shared a conception of political life


which solidarity based on ethnicity claimed second place only to one's loyalty t
the polis. Between the city of one's origin and one's cultural identity, moreove
there existed a natural bond. Hellenic solidarity ought, according to the logi
deployed by these admittedly later authors, to have required Greeks to give
fighting each other in order to fight their common foe. That correlation w
so fundamental to classical and Hellenistic political thought that Greek writer
never developed a vocabulary to describe the result of its breakdown. When, f
example, Posidonius attempted to describe the behavior of individuals during th
massacre of Italians in Asia instigated by Mithridates, the narrative strained h
vocabulary: "Of the other Romans, some prostrate themselves before the imag
of the gods, while the rest, changing into squared cloaks, identify themselves b
their original na-tp(q once again."21
Just whom does Posidonius here label as Roman? Strictly speaking, a perso
was Roman only if he was a Roman citizen. Thus, for example, when Paul wa
about to be whipped in Jerusalem, he did not have to say that he held noxeLto
TPcox,u v, but only that he was an av6ptnoq 'P&,IcZtoq.22 Yet I very much doub
that Posidonius here observes such constitutional niceties. In practice, Greeks h
difficulty distinguishing Romans and Italians-they were equally un-Greek-an
no doubt many in Asia operated on the same principle as Posidonius: a person
was Roman if he assimilated to Roman customs.23 How else could one change h
race by changing his clothes? On that basis, the "Romans" in this passage could
easily include Romanizing Greeks wearing togas.24 Yet it is just as clear that
describing this metamorphosis as a change in notxpL' does considerable violenc
to the conventional meaning of the term.
Traditional Greek categories of ethnicity did not aid attempts to elevate th
warriors of Rome to near-parity with their more civilized subjects. Dividing th
population of the world into Greeks and others by labeling men as 6o,6?uXot
or aXXYpuXoL did not tolerate any conceptual interstice in which to accomm
date a more bellicose, yet marginally less civilized Roman between Greek and
barbarian.25 Greeks were, of course, capable of distinguishing ethnic subdivision

21. Posidonius fr. 253 Kidd, 11. 82-84 (Athenaeus 213B): t&v 8' BXXwv 'P uai'v Oi ve
Ek&V cyo(4XLcZGL lTpOcnTErG')xa7YLV, OL 8E XOlIOL VETU Lec0qEVOL TEXpYV L.tlOCLt TC 't
apXnS TtaCtpL8Ot T tXLV OVOVai'OUoL.
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, in Greek astonishment that PWVicLo
spoke -i'v Acxtiv&v &&XEXTOV: see Kramer 1993.
24. Cf. Seneca on the rhetor Argentarius, 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 palli
quasi persona mutata rediebant et Graece declamabant. Argentarius derides this practice precise
because the change in garb, from toga to pallium, could not alter those facets of one's characte
that were, 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 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 11

within the Greek world, a process visible


and in the formation of fourth-century leagu
appeals to a unitary Greek identity tended
charged discourse, to create and then main
most obvious was the reductive binarism
constraint, the only route to reconciliation w
that taken by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. D
had descended from Greeks but that Rom
political institutions through the imitation
this he fought an uphill battle: he underto
remained ignorant of the history of the po
tinued to complain that TkXr had unjustly
upon the basest of barbarians.29
I will return to Dionysius and his unders
but I note here three facts about his place
must separate Greek scholarly interest in
background of the Romans from any met
the Roman state: the manipulation of the
literature may be understood as Greek an
and not as interest in Roman history for
clude Roman affairs within the contempor
Greek) world began with Timaeus, whose i
him to notice the growing power of Rome
largely because Rome's involvement in the
into the mainstream of Sicilian history.3' S
Timaeus and Xenagoras through Posidoniu
to Roman affairs, Dionysius found his tru
rians and grammarians like Hypsicratus of
both of whom attempted to demonstrate that
Dionysius did not persuade anyone. Amo

26. Hansen 1996b; Beck 1997:165-66.


27. Hartog 1988:212-30.
28. 1.89.1-2; see Bowersock 1965:131-32 and Ga
29. Dionysius 1.4.2: xaXi o' yE xaXxo0oEsepot
ycvep'v ' fxP3ap'pwv co?7 Tcovi)pot&toLq -r& -c
30. On Greek ethnographic history the locus cl
1992:6-51, and, toward a very different end, W
could serve political ends: Greek cities often manipu
(GuyyEveLa) with other cities and in that way establis
honorary citizenship ('ioonoXLTeLot); for the connec
1993:277-79 and Curty 1995, who collects extant e
founders in diplomacy of the Hellenistic and Roman
31. Momigliano 1966, esp. 44-51.
32. Hypsicrates: FGrH ii B 923. Philoxenus: Ci
1 85, on Tyrannio the younger.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

himself to the charge that he leveled against others, that of writing a false his
tory which labeled his patrons as Greek and their enemies as barbarians.33 In
the long run, it was not the category "Greek" that would stretch to accommo
date the polyglot population of the empire, a sad fact that Dionysius 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 the Greek world
through the legend of Aeneas. That legend provided Roman and Greek with a
shared mythological history, to be sure, but certainly not one that could read
ily unite them.35 This 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.36 Of course, it
remained possible for select cities to argue for a close connection with Rome on
the basis 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
the Romans, grounding that claim on little more than its location in the Troad.37
Such negotiations over kinship thus treated only membership among the Greeks
as questionable and subject to inquiry, while leaving the category Greek ontologi
cally intact. If the practical result of manipulating the mythological past was to
render the boundary between Greek and non-Greek quite permeable, that perme
ability was not acknowledged: ideological stress was rather laid on the existence
of the boundary.
More seriously and more ambitiously, in aiming at reconciliation Dionysius
departed from the path blazed by his intellectual forbears, Polybius and Posido
nius, with whose narratives he intended to join his own in a tripartite history of the
world. Reconciliation, for a writer of pr,aX-LX' 'tL^op'La such as Polybius, was
a non-issue. The growth of the Roman empire, like the evolution of the Roman

33. See Bowersock 1965:108 and Sacks 1990:135.


34. See below (at n. 86) on 2.17.1-2. Thus men did not become Greek merely by participating in
Hellenic culture, as Isocrates had maintained (Paneg. 50); rather, they were discovered already to be
Greek through assimilation to pre-existing legendary genealogies.
35. Cf. Plutarch Flam. 11.4: The Greeks are astonished that men of another race (&Xo&(puXoL),
who were believed to have only insignificant traces of a shared ancestry (Evocxu6aaica ,Lxpa X0l
yXLaxpa xoLvWV#,para . aLXcoL) yevou; EXeLv 8oxoCvte), would undertake such toils to free
Greece from despots and tyrants. See also SEG 30.1073, from 189/8 B.C.: the Chians expressed their
friendship with Rome by erecting a monument depicting .iUOOL np6g 80'aV 'Pca LoLv, namely
the story of Romulus and Remus and their descent from Ares, which was "justly to be regarded
as true because of the manly courage of the Romans."
36. Momigliano 1984a, and see the bibliography cited in n. 30.
37. L Lampsakos 4 = Curty 1995, no. 39. Lampsakos seems not to have noticed that its
simultaneous citing of its kinship with Massilia (they were both colonies of Phokaia) rendered its
blood kinship with Rome impossible. Attempts to resolve that contradiction have produced some
ingenious scholarship: see Curty 1995:81-82 and 251.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 13

constitution, had taken place xacx yuaLv,


matter whether one liked Roman rule: th
to know why it had come about.39
Polybius grounded his explanation for R
of the Roman constitution, to whose expl
history.40 Polybius has risen steadily in the
several decades: we want to recognize in
attempt to escape the cult of personality th
Yet his work both stands outside the ma
just short of its goal: the "mixed consti
internal stability, but it certainly cannot
do the Histories anywhere address, at leas
permeability of the Roman citizen body t
countrymen. To adapt the comments of
inadequacy of Polybius as a guide to Gre
Polybius failed to see Rome "from a dist
in language and religion, frightful in rit
blindness arose, according to Momiglian
to view Rome as a member of the civilize
Momigliano directs our attention to ano
Wisdom did not allow him to explore. Gi
Greek audience, what conceptual categorie
and articulation of his topic? We must answ
consequences of Polybius' decision within
The next section explores Greek attemp
empires, leagues, and city-states. At a th
Rome can be explained through an analys
itself presumes that she is a polis, with i
some level analogous to Greek cities.43 T
of settlements as poleis does not require
of meaning, nor did it prevent theoretic
itself. On the contrary, designating a com

38. Polybius 6.9.12-13.


39. On Polybius and Rome, amidst a huge bibli
Eckstein 1985.
40. See esp. 1.1.5, 3.2.6, and 6.9.
41. Momigliano 1975:37 and 1942:119-20.
42. Momigliano 1975:37.
43. That Latin had no equivalent for noXtlteLx
himself had to employ various circumlocutions to
populus, qui est talis coetus multitudinis qualem ex
omnis res publica, quae ut dixi populi res est, co
Leg. 1.15 (Atqui si quaeris ego quid expectem, qu
statu, consequens esse videtur ut scribas tu idem d

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

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 the polis, neither in its attitude toward membership, 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 the manifest superficiality of this
presumption masks its more 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 framework within which
Greeks could justify their wholesale participation in imperial culture and political
life. Ultimately it would also force Greeks to choose, consciously or not, between
their polis of origin and the polis 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 through which Romans, and subsequently Greeks, articulated them, namely,
citizenship and popular sovereignty. In each case, describing the errors committed
by Greeks requires understanding the difference that separated Greek and Roman
thought on these topics.
We may begin by acknowledging that Greeks no less than modern scholars
wrestled with Latin political terminology. The fact that Greeks crafted translations
of Roman documents should not be allowed to mask the considerable conceptual
disjunction between their respective political traditions: did Greeks really under
stand the difference betweenpopulus Romanus and 6o 8i,uoq 'Pw iatv? According
to Cicero, "the res publica is the res populi, but a populus is not every crowd of
men, gathered for any reason, but a crowd bound by consensual commitment to a
particular normative order and by common interest."45 The populus Romanus was
thus notionally permeable, open to those willing to participate in this consensus,
and yet that consensus constructed the Roman people, in its corporate identity,
as a singular 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" inquit Africanus "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 the populus as a corpus, or Ateius 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, in qua gentes
civium patriciae non insunt. To Justinian belongs a particularly concise formulation: appellatione
populi universi cives significantur (Inst. 1.2.4). For the contexts in which Romans made explicit
reference to consensus, see Ruggiero, Diz. Epigr. s.v. Instinky 1940 is notable particularly for its
discussion of texts in which the ideology of consensus is operative without being explicitly raised.
More recently, see Nicolet 1979:332-39.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 15

agglomeration of citizens defined ultima


The genitive-populus Romanorum?-m
The Greeks therefore did not understand
Translating maiestas as OE:L&rT or occe3
because of Augustus (Eep3aaTo6) and all
the Republic doing so would have refle
relationship between the individual Rom
a Greek equivalent for res publica: the off
of Augustus uses four different phrases to
Polybius' narrative of the negotiations b
Glabrio is paradigmatic of the linguistic
early encounters with Roman magistra
ask the consul Glabrio for his pardon an
faith of the Roman people" (?t5 -rV Pw
writes, the import (8&vcxciLq) of the phra
infidem as unconditional; the Aetolians,
word "faith" into believing that their ac
(W? aV 8L&& TOOTO TE?XLOT6pOU YLoY
Aetolians an audience, Glabrio began to d
act in the future. The Aetolians cried
not Greek (EXXrXvLx6v)." Glabrio respo
around acting Greek (E':L yOp V ?LX ?X
yourselves s15 tnv Tctaatv? I will throw yo
Such broad disparities between the se
mous terms can reveal even more subst

47. See M. Humbert 1978:85-143, Gauthier 1981,


see also Hansen 1996b: 194: "All three types of ethn
in contradistinction to all other western peoples
of political status rather than as habitation name
or lived." Other recent essays contrasting Greek a
1990, concentrating on the differential hierarchi
in Greek and Roman thought, and Eder 1996. For t
traditions, see Nippel 1996.
48. The earliest use of 0et6tj,; is on an inscrip
no. 2 = Reynolds 1982, no. 54. For &Olae La see
49. Res Gestae 1.1 (rem publicam = tos xoLv
constituendae = x v x&v tpL&)V &VAP&V i'X
npoyVa-&cv), 2 (bellum inferentis reipublicae = n
publicam is subsumed, in the Greek, in natvtCov x
employed (see Mason 1974 s.v.). On "the ideolog
and on translating res publica in particular see J
Stark 1967.
50. Polybius 20.9-10. The accounts of this episode have generated an enormous bibliography
that is not immediately relevant to my purposes here, since I cite this episode merely as an example of
a larger phenomenon that is not itself in doubt. Gruen 1982 provides references, and I have seen
nothing since then that represents a significant advance.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
16 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

and Republican political ideologies. Thus, for example, a Hellenistic monar


was the state: Greeks did not address Antigonus or Ptolemy or Antiochus
"King of the Greeks," or "King of Egypt," or even "King of the Greeks who li
in Asia": it was characteristically Roman to insist that a king must be king o
something.51 Compare, for example, Livy's description of those who signed th
peace of Phoenice with Polybius' narrative of the debate before the Achaean syn
in 188/7 B.C. Livy identifies both kings and magistrates by the peoples whom they
represented-"Amynander, king of the Athamanians, and other magistrates o
the Epirotes and Acarnanians"-while Polybius identifies kings by name an
private individuals by nationality-"King Ptolemy" and "King Eumenes," b
"Nicodemos of Elaea" and "Apollonidas of Sicyon."52
The reasons behind this deserve examination. Romans conceived of the powe
of a magistrate or legitimate monarch as something transferred to that individual
by the people, and it was the populus Romanus in its corporate identity that retaine
the right to choose the bearers of its authority. The briefest formulation belongs t
Ulpian: "The wishes of the princeps have the force of law because the populu
transfers to him and into him its power of command (imperium) and its powers of
jurisdiction (potestas) by that lex regia which is passed concerning the imperiu
of the princeps."53 The office to which Ulpian refers may be anachronistic, bu
the reasoning is not: when Cicero argues that nothing so harmonizes with justi
and the laws of nature as imperium, he intends by that phrase the legitimat
exercise of power by a magistrate. The magistrate should command "justly,
beneficially, and in accordance with the laws"; the law thus prescribes magistrates'
power of command in specific ways, even as it urges the citizen to obey that
power in its legitimate domain.54 Greek political vocabulary did not connote t
same limitations and tended to describe instead the Roman magistrate's contro
over, and governance by, coercive force; not understanding the term provinci
in its non-geographical sense, Greeks were unable to reconcile the seemingly
limitless powers granted to holders of imperium with the ultimate and unqualified
sovereignty of the populus 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 r
publicae, but a Hellenistic monarch, who had similar-indeed, often inferi
coercive force at his disposal, accepted no such constitutional link betwee

51. On the lack of ideological import behind the rare, and exceptional, usage "king of th
Macedonians," see F. W. Walbank in CAH2 VII.1 64-66.
52. Livy 29.12.12-14; Polybius 22.7-8.
53. Dig. 1.4.1 .pr On the Republican origins of Augustan construals of imperium see Berange
1977.
54. Cicero Leg. 3.2-5.
55. See Magie 1905 s.v. or Mason 1974:132-34. Of course, the Romans had maintained that the
consuls' potestas was genere ipso ac iure regia (Cicero Rep. 2.56). See Livy 2.1.7-8 and 2.7.7:
The iinperium of the consuls was more limited than regia potestas only in duration, and yet the
people appreciated that its maiestas visque were greater than those of the suspect consul Valerius.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 17

himself and any community.56 This ge


ideologies governing the eastern monarc
but I concentrate here on the much vast
On the rare occasions on which Hellenis
they signified only an emotive link to t
precisely the period when the meanings
of "birthplace" from "the object of one
aspirations." Similarly, loyalty toward a
of his "Friends," was a personal relations
a shared native land or community.58
Polybius in the second century had al
obstacle facing Hellenistic Greeks in th
to him, someone with a limited perspec
functional power of magistrates or the sen
assessment of the Roman government as
in turn. The language of Polybius stresses
an observer, who would err while watching
senate while the consuls were absent.59
present inquiry, these individuals interp
using the paradigms provided by Helleni
these individuals by asserting that Helle
model for Rome, by yielding exemplars for
Extrapolation through analogical extensi
thus doomed to failure.
Given the tendency of Greeks thus to m
suspect that a Latin source-Cornelius Si
from the ambassadors sent to Rome by Pru
Mithridates, revealed to Appian that the ur
Ev QCTcEL, deliberately delayed introdu
the description of Rome in the first bo
baffling. Rumor reported to Judas Macc
to help and to make kings, they make
depose, and they have been greatly exalt

56. E.g. Memmius at Sallust Iug. 31. 1.


57. See Welles 1934, no. 45 (= IGLS 3.2.1183)
no. 71 (OGIS 257), 11. 15-16. Indeed, the ability
"generosity" to Seleucia, his 7out-p'L, signifies th
but "generosity" reveals that wealth and privilege
58. On the institutionalization of "friendship," s
phenomenon, considering the changing perception
1980/81.
59. Polybius 6.12.9 (65oa' elxO6&; ;trMlv av, &r" TLg El T(XUtTV C'7OPAxELr rCv 4SpEL8(,
6LOTl VOVOCPLXOXV 0C7)&)( Xcl X aOlXLXO'xV EGtL 'c6 TOoX[TruVa), 6.13.8 (?t Ov T&XLV &OiOIT .Lr
6?1L8T)V OR nl '7 frCXOpVTO, Ut0ctTOU.. .), and cf. 6.14.12.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
18 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

put on a crown or clothed himself in purple as a mark of pride. And they hav
built a council-chamber for themselves, and each day three hundred and twent
men take counsel, deliberating concerning the people, to govern them well. The
trust one man each year to rule over them and to control all their land; they a
obey one man and there is no envy or jealousy among them."' Without Appian'
narrative, I would leap to the conclusion that these Jews, desiring to interpret the
exercise of power at Rome in terms familiar from Hellenistic monarchies, hav
here described a consul and assumed that there was only one of them. But in
light of Appian's story, we should perhaps leave open the possibility that earnes
ambassadors mistook for a king-like magistrate the mere praetor who ordere
them about.6'

III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL


BETWEEN POLYBIUS AND DIODORUS
Let us now connect two problems already raised: the identity of the Romans in
the narrative of Posidonius and the size of the Roman citizen body. It is impossible
to know precisely whom Mithridates targeted for extermination in the cities of
Asia early in 88 B.C.62 Two contemporary letters by Mithridates survive, which
refer only toWPuIaXoL, and do not address the extermination as such, leaving us
with the same difficulty that we encountered in the text of Posidonius.A Posidonius
believed that Mithridates received embassies from Carthage and the peoples of
Italy, seeking his aid in the destruction of Rome.64 Appian, on the other hand,
attributed to Mithridates the knowledge that Rome was preoccupied with a civil
war against the Italians but nevertheless argued that he included both Romans
and Italians in his plot.65 Cicero, speaking, to be sure, before a Roman audience,
lamented only the massacre of cives Romanos.66 Even if, as seems probable,
Mithridates wished only citizens to die, many Greeks throughout Asia clearly
did not differentiate between the Romans who ruled the empire and the Italian
publicani who profited from it.67

60. IMacc. 8:13-16.


61. Cf. Shaw 1995:378-80, arguing that Josephus under the Principate, as opposed to Polybius
and the author of I Maccabees, felt little need to explain the structure of Roman government because
he could interpret the Principate as "a form of personal power" "much like that which typified his
own world."
62. The sources are canvassed by Magie 1950, vol. 2:1103 n. 36; Brunt 1987:223-27; and more
briefly by J. G. F. Hind in CAH2 IX 149 n. 67. For the chronology of events between 91 and 87,
Badian 1976 remains fundamental.
63. Welles 1934 nos. 73 and 74, from the Chaeremon dossier, from Nysa on the Maeander.
64. Fr. 253 Kidd, 11. 87-92.
65. Appian Mith. 22.83.
66. Leg. Man. 3.7 and 5.1 1; cf. Livy Per. 78.
67. Appian Mith. 23.91.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 19

If many easterners drew no distinctio


cording to what political structure did t
arranged? That is to say, through what p
collectivity uniting cities throughout Ita
For what surprised Greeks was not the
enough money could hire an equivalent
fielded enormous armies of citizens and a
patriotic, and not just pecuniary, at stake in
understanding of that problem, correct or
V to Larisa from August 215, in which h
the franchise to freedmen. "In that way," h
nearly seventy places."68 And surely for Gr
unity of Italy could provide a paradigm for
corridors of power within the Roman gov
We should be chary of holding Greeks
had themselves aspired to unite Italy at an e
and they did not all share in that objecti
a helpful vocabulary to describe relation
under such a plan. Livy, for example, de
unify the cities of Latium under Roman
Rome would become the caput rerum-not
In attempting to express what such a un
middle Republic no less than Greeks were
patria and of citizenship. Put simply, a p
sprang, and in that community one held cit
polity were, through sheer impracticality
as though not intended to be exercised.
citizenship through intersecting legal, em
Greeks allowed that citizenship followed
states did not depend on an individual's a
on an individual who would not exercise its

68. SIG 543, from August 215: see Walbank 19


Compare the astonishment of Pyrrhus at the rebir
that the legions of the Romans, like a hydra, when
69. Augustus' claim that tota Italia swore an oath
the vast changes which had taken place since the s
looks back to the enormous propaganda campaign
against the victor ab Aurorae populis et litore rub
evidence, concentrating more on process than on
X 414-33 and 979-89. On the integration of Ital
literature, see Habinek 1998:88-102.
70. 1.45.3.
71. See at notes 39-43, with the literature cited there.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
20 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

Thus, for example, those who regard hospitium publicum as a status that
brought "all the private rights and privileges of Roman citizenship" without "i
burdens and obligations" seem, to me 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.73 Consider, for example, Cicero's defen
of Lucius Cornelius Balbus: it does not matter for us today, as it did not matt
for Cicero, whether Balbus might, as a matter of law, hold citizenship in Gad
and Rome simultaneously.74 Before the jury Cicero emphasized not that Balb
had conformed to any existing statute, but rather that he had formally renounced
his status as a Gaditanus once he moved his domicile to Rome: Cicero insisted
that Balbus now dealt with his former countrymen through pacts of hospitium
precisely because hospitium did not imply shared patriotic sentiment. Honorar
citizenship among Greeks, not unlike dual citizenship between a polis and
league, concretized very different attitudes toward the exclusivity of a patria
emotive, political, and legal demands.75
Again, unlike Greeks holding tao- or ouItnoXLtEia, municipal Italians aspir
to full participation in Roman life, and it was the municeps Cicero who best
articulated an Italian ideal.76 In the conversation that opens the second book of
legibus, Cicero referred to the land in which they walked as his patria; this elicited
a question from Atticus: "Have you then two patriae? Or is our communis pat
the only one? Unless, that is, you think that Cato's fatherland was not Rome, but
Tusculum?" To which Cicero responded: "Absolutely I think that both he and
all other municipal nien have two patriae: one by birth, and one by citizenship
Thus we consider as our patria both the place where we were born, and that pla
by which we are adopted. But that patria must be preeminent in our affection
in which the name of the res publica signifies the common citizenship of us al
For her it is our duty to die; to her we ought to give our entire selves, and
her altar we ought to place and to dedicate, as it were, all that we possess."77
Cicero thus urged that political loyalties need not stand in conflict wi
each other. Although the next sentence evidently emerged badly mutilated i
the archetype of all surviving witnesses to the Leiden corpus,78 it seems cle
that Cicero concluded this section by urging that loyalty to the communis pat
must take precedence over that to any other political collectivity. In the hierarc
of allegiances outlined by Cicero, loyalty toward Rome occupies a superordinat

72. E.g. Cornell 1995:321.


73. So, rightly, Humbert 1978:139-43 and Brunt 1987:515-16.
74. See Balb. 28-30, 42-43, and Caec. 100, and cf. Brunt 1982, Rawson 1985, and Erringt
1988:153. Contra: Sherwin-White 1973:302-304.
75. See Gawantka 1975 and Beck 1997:174-85.
76. Roman patriotism received exemplary treatment in Bonjour 1975. I believe that she h
supplied a proper framework for approaching the topic, although I do not always sympathize w
her reading of individual texts.
77. Leg. 2.5.
78. Schmidt 1974.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 21

position: her laws and her culture provide


the phrase of Rutilius Namatianus, "crea
single fatherland."79
In De legibus Cicero could ignore th
narrative of the political machinations l
in two important trends in Hellenistic
card. According to him, Gaius Gracch
refuse to grant full citizenship to the
race."80 Second, he acknowledged the com
not be held piecemeal: the Italians desir
partners in the empire, rather than subjec
history of these years recognizes two c
distinguished in the first instance along
Dionysius of Halicarnassus approach
Italian allies in a very different fashion
his fellow Greeks, we would be remiss
polemic with contemporary relevance.
connected the legal details of Rome's rela
Servius, although Dionysius posited a sou
for Amphictyon and the Amphictyonic
entire issue a Hellenistic sense of wonde
Roman state, one directly continuous with
his Roman counterparts, Dionysius attr
government to Romulus.84 The most sign
established Roman policy on citizenship.
men, including select members of conqu
sending colonies, &.toLxoua., to occupy s
territory. By this measure he increased th
of Roman power throughout Latium.85
Dionysius explicitly contrasted this
Greeks. Taking up the comparison of con

79. Rut. Namat. 1.63.


80. BCiv. 1.23.99: xal TOuR Aa-cLvouv Erl Taiv
UyYYEVEAL tr( f3ouXi( (V-CLOtT)VaL 8uvocievr).
of "the concept of Italian unity" in the context o
Brunt 1988:111-20, esp. 112-13.
81. BCiv. 1.34.152.
82. Livy 1.45; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.23-25.
83. Cf. Gabba 1991:19-20.
84. Although Gabba 1991:162-63 remains unco
"constitution of Romulus" as a fully Dionysian
as Miles 1995:124-25.
85. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.16. On Dionysius' u
contrasts he drew with the Greek world see Hum
1989.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
22 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

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 the war with Coriolanus: "For all the Latins, to whom we recently gave
equal rights of citizenship, will stand by us, fighting for this polis as if their patria,
and the many good cities colonized from here will protect Rome, regarding it as
imperative that their metropolis 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 to value Rome as apatria, above and beyond the city
of their birth. Second, Dionysius no less than Philip attributed an 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 their metropolis as their preeminent ntxTpL.
Indeed, it may well be that Greek 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 request was intended to
convey.88
The history of Greek politics did offer one potential model for the integration
of several communities into a single state, and that was the xotLV6V, or league.89
Yet understanding Rome on strict analogy with Hellenistic leagues remained an
illusory fantasy. For example, Polybius gave eloquent testimony to the glories
of the Achaean league. "While many in bygone times attempted to bring the
Peloponnese into a state of common advantage, no one was able to bring this
about because each made the effort not for the sake of the common freedom but
for the acquisition of personal power. Yet in my time this object has been so
completely realized that there exists among them not only an allied and friendly
community, but they use the same laws and weights and measures and coinage,

86. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.17.1-2; the argument is repeated by Tacitus' Claudius (Ann. 11.24.4),
though not in this form by Claudius himself-perhaps a satirical reference through Dionsyius to
Claudius' Greek learning.
87. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.53.5: "Aocttvo'l -re yap tCXavCEq, otg vEWCr TTjv LotLOXJL;CEliV
8E8cw,tv, ovu GU v l aTOO0l, " 8i1pn t Trz Tc ccp TiT98E aY KVL6XsC
oL T' EVOEV86 XOLXL9OSELOOCL TtO6XeLS TOXXoXL xcXt &yaC'L TCEP'L TXVTOc TCOLOUlE4V0L CYW'E{79OXl
Ti) VUycp7tO-AOXLV 0t1UVOU5LV aOj."
88. For petitions to Rome for colony status see Millar 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 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 23

as well as the same magistrates, councils


falls short of having the arrangement of
its inhabitants are not enclosed by a sin
common and city by city-conditions are
of the achievement of the Achaean leag
Polybius, as a Hellenistic writer, could co
identity. Thus, in matters that concern oth
cease to command the specific loyalties
xolvov itself did not become a political
was a polis.
In contrast to Polybius, the Augustan writers Dionysius and Diodorus each
display-albeit in different fashions-the influence of Roman conceptions of
community. It is not that they coined new words, or transliterated Latin; on
the contrary, they employed the terminology of Polybius. Yet we may detect
in their usage subtle shifts in the meanings of the terms themselves, as they
stretched to embrace the institutions to which they were now applied. When
Dionysius described the foundation of the Latin league under Servius, he attributed
that king's inspiration to the paradigm provided by the Amphictyonic league.
According to Dionysius, the cities in that league had laws common to the league
and laws unique to themselves.9" Dionysius did not draw attention to Servius'
departure from that plan, but, like Livy, he argued both that Servius assigned
leadership in the league to Rome and also that the Latin communities assented
to that plan.92 Although Dionysius had argued that the Latins formed a natural
unity because of their shared Greek descent, Diodorus understood that the Italians
who rebelled against Rome in the Social War came from many different cities and
peoples.93 In his narrative they came together, however, as Italians. As Italians
they fortified Corfinum as their xowVj toXUL, and it was in that city that "they
established a common senate of five hundred men, from whom those worthy to
rule their patria and those capable of taking thought for the common safety would
be chosen."94 Diodorus has here successfully envisioned, through an analysis of
Italians imitating Romans, a political union in which individuals abandon their
partisan loyalties to race and polis and direct them instead toward a single polis
and communis patria.

90. 2.37.9-11, the key clause being xcOo6Xou be -coit ,oivo 8tLoXXa&CeLV tou Vu vLoij
Te O6v 8lO'COelLV
lO)XeW(; tcv Ga[ a'eXELV
IkXrt6vvr)ao , ' x tvtCcXU
axe 0V InV AU,lOCV t 6 v EepLf3oXov
OZvy)(YOVI ZlnTVajo elBk
U7TCXPXELV tOl, XOtOLXOuaLV aUrT)V, TCXXaX A ' 0 LVOXL XXd XOLVj XAl XOCtl LO6XEL; EX&aGTOL5 -CuO
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 yap tCOv XaxT& T)v 'ICxXv e,ovcv ....
94. Diodorus 37.2.4-5: 'EnoX4Eouv Ee PwLcx'LOL; EaUV-aL, Aaxo)cwvoL', Aeuxavot, Il
XEVItVOL, NwXavoL, XaL ETepRt TO'XEL( xai eOviq .... EuvEa-Cj%OvCrO 8E xat cuYxX7nyov XOLVTv
nEvTaLxocatv E,~ (Ej xv O'L e tT) T(XrpL8O; APXSLV C'LOL TXpOaeCFO0a 6VEXXOV XoI
OtL TpoPou rev90otL 8UVcXI.ELVOL rTEpiL CY XOLVT) O-T)PLO;.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
24 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

We can observe the development and exploitation of this language in that


most Hellenistic of historical genres, universal history. Given some anecdotes
connecting Ephorus to Isocrates, scholarly imaginations have naturally assumed
that the first universal history culminated in a paean to the unification of the
world under a united Hellas.95 But if it was first the dream of an Alexander,
and then Alexander himself who made universal history possible,96 it was Rome
that made universal history meaningful. Polybius gave voice to this view in his
preface, after judging the achievements of previous empires to be lacking: none
of them had truly conquered the world. But since the start of the second Punic
war, "history became like an organic whole" in which the events of East and West
tended toward a single t?Xoq.97 Yet for Polybius the Roman empire remained
the natural culmination of man's natural tendency towards imperialism: he felt
no need to disguise its coercive force. Although he continued his history from
167 to 146 specifically to understand whether Rome governed her territories with
the same intelligence with which she had conquered them, he did not expect the
empire to be anything other than an agglomeration of conquered territories: it was
a 8uvaa-m(a, and the Romans were Eyxpocre6; or xpaxouvrEq. They ruled over
others because they had the power to do so.98
Of the universal histories written in the age of Augustus, that of Diodorus is
the most complete. Dionysius, as we have seen, intended his narrative to end where
Polybius began, though it was no less politically charged for its preoccupation with
ancient history. Diodorus carried this political program a step further, not least
in his integration of Stoic political philosophy with universal history.99 Diodorus
understood universal history in precisely the terms outlined above; in fact, he
opened his work with a review of the political power wielded by authors of
universal histories. "Furthermore, these authors have aspired to gather all men
who share with each other ties of kinship and yet are separated in time and place
beneath one and the same narrative structure, as if they were the agents of divine
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,
distributing to each thing the lot cast for it by fate; similarly 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 1958 may 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 the Greek political imagination.
97. Polybius 1.3.3-5: ev lIbv ouiv TOl5 Tp6O TOU6TWV XpOVOlq 6r, aEv UT 1topab&X EIVOU
3UVEf3tLVE; Tk T7( O'LXOUie;Vi5 TpO' EL;, 8\ca TO XXL XXa\ OaS 7tnLOXO),(q E`C 8E xat TO\
OuvTEXELO( Ocu`v O6qOl(& 8e; xOC xczta toC\ t6itoU<; &yineXCLV iexxcracc txv nenpczyVESvx. aci.o
8E TOUTCOV T&V Xalp&OV O'LOV Et 06 aTOCL87 aUIPcxLVeL yiVEGOaL T V LOTopiav, ouVnXe6aXOL
E a'Itc)Xixa xcx3. ALvx& -cp\,el to TC oua& xcv AOL'ov xcd Talg 'EXrnVLxO(Z Xcoct
Titp6r i'v YLIVe(YOCL t6?,Xo( -Ci\v &Vayopopv &ot&vtrcov.
98. Walbank 1965 and 1972:173-81; cf. Eckstein 1985.
99. See Pavan 1991 and Camoux and Bertrac 1993:xviii-xxii.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 25

common history of the world as though


treatises a unified narrative and common
Diodorus later contrasted the four great e
of his genre demanded. But he clearly saw
entity than any which had preceded it.
her control over the entire oixouue'vr. D
common kinship from their shared hum
had not been and was not in itself suffic
therefore, articulate the Roman achievem
simply a geographical term-nor could
speak of empires was to invoke a dichoto
far more than conquer men. Rather, Ro
universal historians who connected them th
crowned the succession of world empires
it was a polis. On this understanding, eve
decision: "writing the common history of
construes narrative not merely as the re
a political reality. For Diodorus, the Roma
man's desire to gather in the most natura
Authors of the Second Sophistic display
of the empire in various ways. Lucian, fo
as "The City."'01 In this period, too, aut
whose countryside was the empire. Aeliu
development of this theme in his panegyric
that the armies on the borders were like
one level such metaphors and the models
tendency to divide the world between Gr
their usage must reflect a Greek desire to l
as common participants in a single ethnic a
accomplished that desire through a wholly
of the empire as the inhabitants of a sin
definition of pomerium given in the Sud
of a city wall"-may be unraveled."'4 To be
the pomerium to be some sort of wall. B
of a wall around a city that had a real o

100. Diodorus 1.1.3. On the strands of thought in


bringing them together, see Sacks 1990:10-11, 36,
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 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

pomerium represented was the imaginary wall around the borders of the empire,
through which the community of the empire became coextensive with the territory
of its polis.

IV. COMPLICATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES


The author of the first book of Maccabees was not alone in his desire to
see power exercised at Rome by a single, all-powerful magistrate, whom the
Romans entrusted "to rule over them and to control all their land." Scattered
inscriptions and papyri describing embassies to the triumvirs suggest that Greeks
throughout the East not only welcomed the existence of de facto monarchs
with whom to negotiate, but that they particularly appreciated that access to
these men was controlled by others, like so many qlXOL of a Hellenistic king.105
These embassies, which continued unabated for the next four centuries, were
themselves directly continuous with the Greek practice of using embassies to
congratulate a new monarch on his accession while receiving assurances that
the city's status with the central government remained unchanged.'" To these
Greeks, the outcome of the civil wars seemed perfectly natural. In the words
of Appian, "Thus, from its varied internal disorders the Roman state resolved
to harmony and monarchy."'07 Both he and Cassius Dio remarked upon Roman
reticence to call a spade a spade: the principate was, for them, a monarchy cloaked
in fancy dress.'08
That fancy dress was the res publica. Imperial ideology continued for cen
turies to suggest that the emperor was the servant of the state: thus Tacitus
quarreled with maiestas trials because they had no legal justification that he was
prepared to recognize. He would not have objected, I suspect, to trials based
on the emperor's tribunician sacrosanctity. The application of maiestas, however,
implied that the dignitas of the emperor was somehow coextensive with that of the
Roman people, and that Tacitus found intolerable, not least because it conflicted
with the publicly professed ideology of the Principate. A Greek steeped in Hel
lenistic political thought could not understand the objections of a Tacitus because,
to put it bluntly, Hellenistic thought had developed a philosophy of kingship but
never one of empire. Nothing in Hellenistic rhetoric resembled the universalizing

105. On knowledge in the Greek East regarding men's status as amici Caesaris, see Millar
1977:116. Cf. Shaw 1995:378-80, paraphrased in n. 61.
106. Millar 1984.
107. Appian BCiv. 1.6.24: 68e ,uv ?x caO?@t(YV TtOLXLX&V T0oXL'teLCXPTN0L0Lool ' opvotxv
xCa ,ovapXLctv 7CEpLeG-U.
s r t e t s ws s *~T) t T) o t *
108. Appian praef 6.23: xad 1aicv "be PiX; r I'XPL VUV iUCv E'L ;V. XpXOVtl oU, fXcOLXErc,
l OU XeyOUl,V, &V to V) VOVLG), lQOV OpXOV MCltOUl.eLVOL l;OV ntE
OvoIICoucQLv, o XaL t(O3V TtpoCxaip&v atpa7y&v ovo,u tat
See also Cassius Dio 53.17-18 and John Lydus Mag. 1.4 (o`m nx
TPWV.EZOL, otov CL npw,TT)V xeyaXpc0v ti( 7TorS noXLt-cebx) and 2.2. O
Roman emperor, see Wifstrand 1939.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 27

tendencies or the rationalism inherent in the f


non-citizen provincials and its allusions to a
in the ideology of Hellenistic monarchies su
within their territories. When in Roman p
the genius publicus addressed the emperor, the
emperor and yet also suggested that Rome h
authority within the state. The prosopopoe
cus in Greek oratory, which became prevale
thus represented the penetration of a purely
thought, and Byzantine legislation retained for
subordination of emperor to state.109
The breakdown of traditional links betwe
required considerable negotiation to resolve,
To adapt the phrase of Appian, it was not
subjects to become equal participants in the
themselves played no small role in this pro
that the Romans had the capacity-which the
their subjects wisely.110 As Cicero saw, the
coercive aspect of their rule, and the more
subjects, the greater would be the good rea
that reason he urged that a properly govern
imperium, but a protectorate, a patrocinium. l
regarding the universalization of the benefits
at which time the empire largely ceased to be
an apXt)
Some inscriptions from Asia Minor in the same period exhibit similar sensi
tivity to the finer points of diction. Late in the rule of Augustus the member-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 important addition. They render the title pater 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
perfectly natural adaptation of royal honors from the Hellenistic period: kings
at that time were always benefactors or saviors of the human race. And yet the
intrusion of that phrase into several lines of Latin nomenclature must 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( T?) PaGLtXSL XtL iTplV ELS X6T)'V XxtaoTi(Vxl.
I 10. 10.36.2, and cf. 3.4. 1.
111. Off 2.8.27: itaque illud patrocinium orbis terrae verius quam imperium poterat nominari.
Cf. Erskine 1990:202-203 and Dyck 1996 ad loc.
112. Texts collected in Buckler 1935. See IGRR IV 1410.6-7; IGRR IV 1611 (= OGIS 470),
tablet B.6-8; IGRR IV 1756, section X, 11. 101-102; and IBM 894.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
28 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

intended, at least in part, to claim Augustus as their father, too. These Gree
began to share the empire, by first sharing the emperor.
Citizenship remained a contentious issue, of course. But long before th
universal extension of the franchise Greeks began to use first-person possessiv
adjectives to refer to Roman institutions.113 In the words of Aelius Aristide
"You, again, have best proven the common maxim that the earth is the mothe
and communis patria of all. Now at last it is possible for a Greek or non-Greek
traveling with or without his possessions, to pass wheresoever he wills, as easi
as if traveling from country to country. The Cilician Gates do not cause fear, nor d
the narrow, sandy roads from Arabia to Egypt, nor impassable mountains nor t
endless lengths of rivers nor the savage tribes of barbarians: for safety it suffices
to be a Roman or, rather, simply one of those under your rule."'14 We should
I believe, read the last sentence as a prescriptive slip of the tongue: realizing
that "Roman," strictly construed, meant "Roman citizen," his correction urged
the extension of the franchise by thanking the Romans for extending the benefits
of empire to all.
Aristides does not envision an empire whose residents link their identity
as Romans to some abstract political community, which has a capital but
nevertheless defined by the geographic and imaginative dispersal of its citizen
On the contrary: as we have seen, Aristides lacked a model and a term for
national state. He has rather succumbed to that reasoning which, with the benef
of hindsight, Cassius Dio put in the mouth 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 our faithful allies, as though they dwelt in some unified cit
of us all, regarding this polis as truly their own, and their cities as its fields
and villages."'15 Dio's clumsy expression in this climactic phrase divulges the
poverty of his political vocabulary even as it discloses the model that exonerat
his selection of Rome over Nicaea as the primary object of his loyalties and the
beneficiary of his talents. Libanius participated in the same mentality as Dio,
albeit with different attitude, when he argued that men must choose between t
polis of their origin and "the polis founded by a certain emperor" that drain
the city-councils of the East."'6
Greeks did not universally subscribe to the binarism that forced Libanius t
choose between Antioch and Constantinople. Career inscriptions throughout th
East celebrate men like Tiberius Claudius Diogenes of Aphrodisias, and we shoul
note that the council and people of Aphrodisias listed first in their dedication,

I 13. Instances catalogued by Palm 1959 passim.


114. Or. 26.100.
115. Cassius Dio 52.19.6: . .. 'Lxvo xot cotc6 'LOOVtLpO CVtEr RlGtO. C UVVLXoL U6lV WYLoV
)CFTLEp XO lVLV [cV t )V ICpEE V nOtXLV OLXOU5VrE, XXl -OtUTV 4EV OVT TtOXLV ta e 8
(7(p Tepa &ypouc xai xiVcr VoViLoVtEg etVal.
116. Libanius Or. 49.2.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 29

in positions of priority, Diogenes' priest


perspective, like that of Plutarch, urged
with imperial officials for the benefits of t
it is not destructive."8 Romans did not s
Cicero's achievement in De legibus had be
basis for a larger community. Other Rom
in matters of political theory as Cicero,
felt the need to sacrifice Mantua or Sul
of Rome.
What about those provincials who did feel loyal toward Rome and who,
well before the Constitutio Antoniniana formally embraced them, felt their safety
ensured by Rome's success? What was to stop a non-citizen provincial from
identifying himself as Roman, in order to celebrate his love of his country
and his membership in her community? To return to the language of Paul,
I believe it was necessary in the era of the martyrs of Lyons to specify that
some of those Christians held Roman citizenship-and not simply to identify
them as Roman-precisely because so many non-citizens had begun identifying
themselves as Roman."'' Insofar as this revolution in provincial self-definition
was aided by the universalizing themes of imperial rhetoric and by long-standing
awareness of Rome's willingness to extend its franchise, it was for similar reasons
that the term "peregrine" disappeared in legal texts of the later empire. The
Constitutio Antoniniana obviously rendered it irrelevant within the empire, but the
government did not subsequently classify those outside the empire as "peregrine":
to do so would have implied that those outside the empire possessed a character
equivalent to the recently enfranchised within. Legal texts of the later empire
therefore divide humanity between Roman and barbarian.
The rapid spread of citizenship and the dissolution of the category "Roman"
was not altogether to Rome's liking. It could have promoted egalitarianism,
a distinctly un-Roman concept. Sporadic claims of citizenship in legal contexts
remind us that some benefits continued to accrue to citizens, especially in criminal
courts. But even as these appeals went on, the government began to recognize
a very different division of the population, into honestiores and humiliores. No
extant text defines these terms, but two facts emerge from those texts that recognize
the categories: first, appeal to these categories becomes markedly more frequent
from the middle of the second century on and, second, "the honestiores/humiliores
distinction cut across the citizen/alien one: there were citizens and aliens on both
sides of the dividing line."'20 The vast expansion of the semantic field of Romanus,
coupled with the increasingly rapid extension of the franchise, thus had as its

117. Reynolds 1981:321 no. 4.


118. See Plutarch Moralia (Praec. ger. reip.) 814C, together with Jones 1971:113-16.
1 19. See the texts cited in n. 22.
120. Garnsey 1970:266.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
30 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1 /April 1999

inevitable consequence the development of new categories of status, categories,


most importantly, that were not determined by the language of ethnicity.
If Greeks slowly shifted their conceptions of homeland and of city to accom
modate their participation in imperial government and ultimately to justify thei
loyalty to the imperial city, what became of the classical city? In his narrative o
events in Athens during the Mithridatic war, Posidonius put a speech in the mouth
of the demagogue Athenion, in which that self-appointed philosopher urged th
Athenians to "tolerate no longer the anarchy which the senate of the Romans ha
allowed to continue, until it should see fit to decide how we are to be governed."'2'
Athenion and his followers chafed at the disjunction between Roman rhetoric a
nouncing the freedom of Greek poleis and the realities of Roman rule. More tha
a century later, Plutarch still felt called upon to comment on this feature of Roman
rule: "Being yourself governed, you govern a city managed by proconsuls, th
procurators of Caesar."'22 Given the technological constraints on transportation
and communication in the ancient world, Rome had little choice but to gover
through cities, and the empire consequently brought urbanization of all areas of the
Mediterranean to new heights. Did these cities, the new and the refurbished, la
out on Roman models and decorated with Roman monuments, ultimately inspir
the sort of partisan loyalty found in classical poleis? I do not think so. Rather,
each new forum was a mirror for that other forum; each city a representation o
The City. The improvements in quality of life brought by these urban centers thus
reflected to Rome's credit. The slow desertion of the classical city in late antiquity
may have been due, in part, to Christian withdrawal from this world and, in part, it
was a response to the financial and personal duties incumbent on the curial clas
But Rome, ironically, made that desertion possible by lowering the place such
cities held in the hearts of men. For Rome had finally become, in the words of the
Syrian Greek and Roman jurist Modestinus, "the communis patria of us all."'23

University of Southern California


cando@usc.edu

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Austin, M. M. 1986. "Hellenistic kings, war and the economy." CQ 36: 450-66.
Badian, E. 1958. "Alexander the Great and the unity of mankind." Historia 7: 425-44.
. 1976. "Rome, Athens, and Mithridates." In D. M. Pippidi, ed., Assimilation
et resistance a la culture greco-romaine dans le monde ancien, 501-21. Paris.
Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 1971. "Dionysius on Romulus." JRS 61: 18-27.

121. Fragment 253 Kidd, 11. 94-97.


122. Moralia (Praec. ger. reip.) 813E: .px6VuEvo C aPXeL4 U7o0nETCyCvr)q 7t6XeXo &vO
UTWCtOLq, EnvLponOtg KocLacapo,.
123. Modestinus ad Dig. 50.1.33: Roma communis nostra patria est.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 31

Beck, H. 1997. Polis und koinon. Untersuchu


griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhunder
Beranger, J. 1977. "'Imperium,' expression du
Bickerman, E. J. 1952. "Origines gentium." CP
Birley, A. R. 1997. Hadrian: The restless empe
Black, M. 1962. Models and Metaphors. Itha
Bonjour, M. 1975. Terre natale. Etudes sur u
romain. Paris.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanf
Bowersock, G. W. 1965. Augustus and the Gre
Brunt, P. A. 1982. "The legal issue in Cicero, p
1987. Italian Manpower. 2nd. edition. Oxf
1988. The Fall of the Roman Republic and
1990. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford.
Buckler, W. H. 1935. "Auguste, Zeus Patroos
Burton, A. 1972. Diodorus Siculus, Book 1. A C
Camoux, F., and P. Bertrac, eds. 1993. Diodore
I. Paris.
Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome. London.
Curty, 0. 1995. Les parentes legendaires entre les cites grecques. Geneva.
David, J. M. 1994. La romanisation de l'Italie. Paris.
Derow, P. S. 1979. "Polybius, Rome, and the East." JRS 69: 1-15.
Drexler, H. 1957. "Res publica." Maia 9: 247-81.
. 1958. "Res publica." Maia 10: 3-37.
Dyck, A. R. 1996. A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis. Ann Arbor.
Eckstein, A. M. 1985. "Polybius, Syracuse, and the politics of accommodation." GRBS
26: 265-82.
. 1990. "Josephus and Polybius: A reconsideration." ClAnt 9: 175-208.
. 1995. Moral Vision in The Histories of Polybius. Berkeley.
Eder, W. 1990. "Der Burger und sein Staat-der Staat und seine Burger." In W. Eder, ed.,
Staat und Staatlichkeit in derfruhen romischen Republik, 12-32. Stuttgart.
. 1996. "Rechtsentwicklung und Verfassungskrise in Athen und Rom. Meth
oden und Moglichkeiten einer vergleichenden Untersuchung." In E. Schmidt, ed.,
Griechenland und Rom, 131-51. Thilissi.
Errington, R. M. 1988. "Aspects of Roman acculturation in the East under the Republic."
Festschrift K. Christ, 140-57. Darmstadt.
Erskine, A. 1990. The Hellenistic Stoa. Ithaca.
Fornara, C. W. 1983. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome. Berkeley.
Fuchs, H. 1938. Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt. Berlin.
Gabba, E. 1978. "II problema dell"unita' dell'Italia Romana." La cultura Italica, 11-27.
Pisa.
. 1982. "Political and cultural aspects of the classicistic revival in the Augustan
age." ClAnt 1: 43-65.
. 1984. "The historians and Augustus." In F. Millar and E. Segal, eds., Caesar
Augustus, 61-88. Oxford.
. 1991. Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome. Berkeley.
Garnsey, P. 1970. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
32 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

Gauger, J. D. 1980. "Phlegon von Tralleis, Mirab. III. Zu einem Dokument geist
Widerstandes gegen Rom." Chiron 10: 223-61.
Gauthier, Ph. 1981. "La citoyennete en Gr6ce et a Rome: Participation et integratio
Ktema 6:167-79.
Gawantka, W. 1975. Isopolitie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der zwischenstaatlic
Beziehungen in der griechischen Antike. Munich.
Giovannini, A. 1993. "Greek cities and Greek commonwealth." In A. 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 in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden.
1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca.
Habicht, C. 1958. "Die herrschende Gesellschaft in den hellenistischen Monarchien."
Vierteljahrschriftfiir Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 45: 1-16.
. 1985. Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece. Berkeley.
Habinek, T. N. 1998. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empir
Ancient Rome. Princeton.
Hall, J. M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge.
Hansen, M. H. 1996a. "lToXX0aCX6 no'XiL X6eye-to (Arist. Pol. 1276a23). The Copenhag
inventory of poleis and the Lex Hafniensis de civitate." In M. H. Hansen, e
Introduction to an inventory of poleis. Symposium August 23-26, 1995, 7-
Copenhagen.
. 1996b. "City-ethnics as evidence for polis identity." In M. 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.
Herman, G. 1980/1981. "The 'friends' of the early Hellenistic 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 in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon, 279-31 1. Toronto.
Kramer, J. 1993. "TPWuCiXot und AwrZvoL." In G. W. Most et al., eds., Philanthropia kai
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.
Larsen, J. A. 0. 1955. Representative Government in Greek and Roman History.
Berkeley.
Magie, D. 1905. De Romanorumjuris publici sacrique vocabulis sollemnibus in graecum
sermonem conversis. Leipzig.
-. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton.
Mason, H. J. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANDO: Was Rome a polis? 33

Meier, C. 1996. "Der griechische und der


Unterschiede im Ensemble gesellschaftli
Griechenland und Rom, 41-66. Tbilissi.
Miles, G. 1995. Livy. Reconstructing Early R
Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman
. 1984. "State and subject: The impact of
eds., Caesar Augustus. Seven aspects, 37-60
. 1990. "The Roman coloniae of the Near
H. Solin and M. Kajava, eds., Roman East
History, 7-58. Helsinki.
1993. The Roman Near East. Cambridg
Mitchell, S. 1993. Anatolia. Oxford.
Momigliano, A. 1942. "Camillus and Conco
. 1966. "Atene nel III secolo a.c. e la sc
di Tauromenio." Terzo contributo, 1: 23-53
1975. Alien Wisdom. Cambridge.
1984a. "How to reconcile Greeks and Tro
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.
Mommsen, T. 1887-1888. Romisches Staatsrecht. Leipzig.
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 in Athen 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 the Areopagus." 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' in Mittelalter
und Renaissance. Munich.
Shaw, B. 1995. "Josephus: Roman power and responses to it." Athenaeum 83: 357-90.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 18/No. 1/April 1999

Sherwin-White, A. N. 1973. Roman Citizenship. 2nd ed. Oxford.


Soskice, J. M. 1985. Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford.
Stark, R. 1967. "Res publica." In H. Oppermann, ed., Romische Wertbegriffe, 42-110.
Darmstadt.
Stem, M. 1987. "Josephus and the Roman Empire as reflected in The Jewish War." L.
H. Feldman and G. Hata eds. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Detroit. 71-80.
Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek
World (A.D. 50-250). Oxford.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects
of Semantic Structure. Cambridge.
Tam, W. W. 1948. Alexander the Great. Cambridge.
Thomas, Y. 1996. "Origine" et "commune patrie." Etude de droit public romain (89
av. J.-C. - 212 ap. J.-C.). Rome.
Vogt, J. 1967. "Kulturwelt und Barbaren: Zum Menschheitsbild der spatantiken Gesell
schaft." AbhMainz 1967, No. 1.
Walbank, F. W. 1965. "Political morality and the friends of Scipio." JRS 55: 1-16.
. 1972. Polybius. Berkeley.
Welles, C. B. 1934. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. New Haven.
Wifstrand, A. 1939. "Autokrator, Kaisar, Basileus. Bemerkungen zu den griechischen
Benennungen der romischen Kaiser." DRAGMA Martino P. Nilsson ... dedicatum,
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 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:16:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Potrebbero piacerti anche