Issuu on Google+

REVISIONES DE HISTORIA ANTIGUA V

LAVDES PROVINCIARVM Retórica y política en la representación del imperio romano

Departamento de Estudios Clásicos/Ikasketa Klasikoen saila Facultad de Filología, Geografía e Historia/Filologia, Geografia eta Historia Fakultatea UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAÍS VASCO/EUSKAL HERRIKO UNIBERTSITATEA

A R G I T A L P E N Z E R B I T Z U A SERVICIO EDITORIAL

VITORIA

2007

GASTEIZ


CIP. Biblioteca Universitaria “Lavdes provinciaum” : retórica y política en la representación del imperio romano / Departamento de Estudios Clásicos/Ikasketa Klasikoen saila, Facultad de Filología, Geografía e Historia ... ; [Juan Santos Yanguas, Elena Torregaray Pagola (eds.)] — Vitoria : Servicio Editorial. Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, 2007. — 299 p. ; 23 cm. — (Revisiones de Historia Antigua ; V) (Anejos de Veleia. Acta ; 6) D.L.: BI-575-08. ISBN: 978-84-9860-066-7 I. Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Departamento de Estudios Clásicos II. Santos Yanguas, Juan, ed. III. Torregaray Pagola, Elena, ed. 1. Roma — Historia — 30 a. C.-476 (Imperio) 2. Roma — Provincias 35(37) 94(37)

Esta publicación ha sido subvencionada por: El Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (BHA2002-12327-E) El Ayuntamiento de Vitoria-Gasteiz © Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatearen Argitalpen Zerbitzua ISBN: 978-84-9860-066-7 Depósito legal/Lege gordailua: BI - 575-08 Impresión/Inprimatzea: Itxaropena, S.A. Araba Kalea, 45 - 20800 Zarautz (Gipuzkoa)


ÍNDICE

PRESENTACIÓN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

PROGRAMA DEL SYMPOSIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

IMPERIVM, IMPERIAL SPACE AND EMPIRE por P. DEROW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

LAVS SICILIAE, LAVS ROMAE: EL LENGUAJE DE LA DIPLOMACIA EN LAS VERRINAS por E. TORREGARAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

LAS PROVINCIAS DE HISPANIA EN ÉPOCA REPUBLICANA: UNA REFLEXIÓN SOBRE ENFOQUES Y PERSPECTIVAS por F. WULFF . . . . . . . . . .

.........................................

41

I COLOQUIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

SIGNIFICACIÓN POLÍTICO-ADMINISTRATIVA DE LA PROVINCIA EN EL ALTO IMPERIO ROMANO: LA MISTIFICACIÓN DE UN CONCEPTO por A. CABALLOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

LA PROVINCIA D’EGITTO COME PROTOTIPO DI NUOVI MODELLI D’ORGANIZZAZIONE PROVINCIALE NELL’IMPERO ROMANO? por G. GERACI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

ACAYA, LA CONSTRUCCIÓN DE UNA PROVINCIA por J. M. CORTÉS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105

A DISTANT MIRROR. BRITAIN AND ROME IN THE REPRESENTATION OF THE EMPIRE por G. WOOLF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135

HONORIS AEMVLATIO: LES NOTABLES DES CITÉS GAULOISES ET L’INTÉGRATION PROVINCIALE DES TROIS GAULES À L’ÉPOQUE AUGUSTO-TIBÉRIENNE por R. BEDON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149

II COLOQUIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167


8

ÍNDICE

LAVDEM ADIPISCI. ELITES HISPANO-ROMANAS ENTRE SUS CIVITATES Y LA CAPVT PROVINCIAE TARRACONENSIS por E. ORTÍZ DE URBINA . .

.........................................

171

PROVINCIA HISPANIA VLTERIOR LUSITANIA: IMAGEN LITERARIA Y REALIDAD POLÍTICA DE UNA PROVINCIA ROMANA DE OCCIDENTE por M. SALINAS DE FRÍAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

197

HISPANIA LEAL Y PROVIDENCIAL: LAVS PROVINCIAE Y DISTORSIÓN HISTORIOGRÁFICA EN OROSIO por M.ª V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

215

DE LAVDE SPANIAE Y DE GOTHORUM LAVDE DE ISIDORO DE SEVILLA. SU ENTROQUE CON ROMA Y SU ENCAJE EN EL REINO VISIGODO DE TOLEDO por F. J. LOMAS SALMONTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

237

III COLOQUIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

259

TYPES OF PROVINCIAL CAPITALS por R. HAENSCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

265

DE qhriwdevstatoi A stola`toi: EL ELOGIO DE LOS CELTÍBEROS COMO PROVINCIALES HISPANOS EN LA GEOGRAFÍA DE ESTRABÓN por J. PELEGRÍN CAMPO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

277

IV COLOQUIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297


PRESENTACIÓN

Que el Imperio Romano era una realidad institucional basada en una eficaz y extensa red de ciudades es una afirmación que manejan de forma cotidiana y recurrente la práctica totalidad de los historiadores de la Antigüedad. Que esa célula básica, entendida como fundamental en la administración romana es un espacio en el que se ponen en juego las principales representaciones del poder imperial y que como consecuencia de ello fue objeto de elaborados elogios por parte de los mejores oradores e historiadores del mundo antiguo ha sido también un tema evocado de forma significativa y abundante a lo largo de los últimos años en diversos coloquios y reuniones científicas. Y sin embargo, la entidad superior que la enmarca, la prouincia, apenas se concibe y se examina en el ámbito de la investigación fuera de su obvia función administrativa. A pesar de ello, es evidente que la provincia contribuyó, como la ciudad y junto a ella, a la consolidación del Imperio romano, y que por ello, recibió una atención elogiosa por parte de la retórica greco-latina, lo que le facilitó, de alguna manera, el poder llegar a formar parte del argumentario de la retórica de exaltación del. Imperio, la célebre - Laus Imperii-. Aunque no fue una práctica ni tan habitual, ni tan conocida como la referida a las ciudades, conservamos algunas laudationes, referidas a determinadas provincias, que se convirtieron en piezas retóricas reconocidas, aclamadas y copiadas, tanto en su formulación, como en su temática. Son éstas las que propusimos revisar y analizar a lo largo de las jornadas en las que se celebraron las V Revisiones de Historia Antigua en noviembre de 2003 en Vitoria-Gasteiz bajo el título de Laudes Provinciarum y las que constituyen el principal objeto de estas Actas. En ellas el hilo conductor es doble, puesto que pretendimos, por un lado, reexaminar el significado institucional y administrativo de la prouincia, tema que trataron los profesores Derow, Wulff y Haensch; y, por otro, utilizar un criterio geográfico, buscando el nacimiento y desarrollo de una posible identidad provincial, cuestión en la que trabajaron los profesores Torregaray para Sicilia, Cortés para Acaya, Geraci para Egipto, Woolf, para Britania, Bedon para las Galias, Ortiz de Urbina para la Tarraconense, Salinas para Lusitania.Finalmente, los profesores Lomas, Escribano y Pelegrín centraron su mirada en la retórica y el significado ideológico de las laudes de autores como Isidoro de Sevilla, Orosio y Estrabón, respectivamente. El resulta-


10

PRESENTACIÓN

do, altamente satisfactorio, se saldó de acuerdo con el espíritu de las Revisiones, que espera siempre proponer debates y abrir nuevas vías de investigación antes que cerrar sentenciosamente polémicas historiográficas. Por ello, esperamos que, en un futuro, estas Actas sirvan para profundizar en el complejísimo proceso de formación de la identidad romana, algo que suscita el renovado interés de nuestros colegas historiadores en estos últimos años y que no es ajeno al convulso contexto político, social y cultural en el que nos encontramos en este recién comenzado siglo XXI. La realización de este Symposium no habría sido posible sin el patrocinio del Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, el Departamento de Educación, Universidades e Investigación del Gobierno Vasco, la Diputación Foral de Álava (Convenio Diputación-UPV/EHU), el Ayuntamiento de Vitoria-Gasteiz, la Facultad de Filología y Geografía e Historia y la Sección del País Vasco de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos. Para todos nuestro agradecimiento. Cuando dábamos por finalizada la laboriosa edición de estas V Revisiones de Historia Antigua nos llegó la triste noticia del repentino fallecimiento del profesor P. Derow, colega entrañable y destacadísimo historiador, particularmente volcado en el desarrollo intelectual de sus alumnos y en el complejo análisis del mundo griego antiguo. Sirvan estas Actas como merecido homenaje a una fructífera labor de investigación y a una incansable y entusiasta dedicación profesional y personal a la Antigüedad. Los editores Octubre de 2006 Vitoria-Gasteiz


PROGRAMA/EGITARAUA

16 de noviembre/azaroaren 16an Visita al Museo Txillida (Txillida Leku) en Hernani, Guipúzcoa, y al Museo Guggenheim de Bilbao 17 de noviembre/azaroaren 17an 09,00 h.

09,30 h. 10,30 h. 11,00 h. 11,30 h. 12,00 h. 12,30 h.

16,00 h. 16,30 h. 17,00 h.

Inauguración del Symposium 1ª Sesión: LAS PROVINCIAS EN LA REPÚBLICA ROMANA El sistema provincial romano durante la República. Dr. J. M. ROLDÁN. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Imperium, imperial space and empire. Dr. P. DEROW. University of Oxford. Iconografía de las provincias romanas. Dr. F. SALCEDO. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Laus Siciliae, laus Romae. Dra. E. TORREGARAY PAGOLA. Universidad del País Vasco. Las provincias de Hispania en época republicana: una reflexión sobre enfoques y perspectivas. Dr. F. WULFF. Universidad de Málaga. COLOQUIO 2ª Sesión: LAS PROVINCIAS EN ÉPOCA ALTOIMPERIAL Significación político-administrativa de la provincia en el Alto Imperio romano: la mistificación de un concepto. Dr. A. CABALLOS. Universidad de Sevilla La provincia dell’Egitto come prototipo di nuovi modelli d’organizzazione provinciale nell’impero romano? Dr. G. GERACI. Università degli Studi di Bologna. Las provincias griegas, el centro de la ecúmene. Dr. J. M. CORTÉS COPETE. Universidad Pablo Olavide de Sevilla.


12

17,30 h. 18,00 h. 18,30 h.

PROGRAMA DEL SYMPOSIUM

A distant mirror. Britain and Rome in the representation of the empire. Dr. G. WOOLF. University of Saint Andrews. Honoris aemulatio. Les notables des ciuitates et l’intégration provinciale des Trois Gaules dans l’Empire romain à l’époque d’Auguste et de Tibère. Dr. R. BEDON. Université de Limoges. COLOQUIO

18 de noviembre/azaroaren 18an 09,00 h. 09,30 h. 10,00 h. 10,30 h. 11,00 h. 12,30 h.

16,30 h. 17,00 h. 17,30h. 21,00h.

3ª Sesión: LAVDES HISPANIARVM Laudem adipisci: Élites hispano-romanas entre sus civitates y la caput provinciae Tarraconensis. Dr. E. ORTIZ DE URBINA. Universidad del País Vasco. Provincia Hispania Ulterior Lusitania: realidad política e imagen literaria de una provincia de Occidente. Dr. M. SALINAS DE FRÍAS. Universidad de Salamanca. Hispania providencial y leal: laus provinciae y distorsión historiográfica en Orosio. Dra. Mª V. ESCRIBAÑO PAÑO. Universidad de Zaragoza. De Laude Spaniae y laus Gothorum de Isidoro de Sevilla. Su entronque con Roma y su encaje en el reino visigodo de Toledo. Dr. F. J. LOMAS SALMONTE. Universidad de Cádiz. COLOQUIO Visita a la actuación arqueológico-arquitectónica de la Catedral de Santa María. Vitoria-Gasteiz. 4ª Sesión Types of provincial capitals during the High Empire. Dr. R. HAENSCH. Universität zu Köln. De bárbaros a civilizados: los ‘stolátoi’ de Estrabón como paradigma de transformación. Dr. J. PELEGRÍN CAMPO. Universidad de Zaragoza. COLOQUIO. CENA DE CLAUSURA DEL SYMPOSIUM


IMPERIVM, IMPERIAL SPACE AND EMPIRE1 PETER DEROW Wadham College, Oxford

At the Isthmian games in the summer of 196 BC, on the morrow of Rome’s war against Philip V, a Roman herald proclaimed the ‘freedom of the Greeks’ to an audience uncertain of Roman intentions. The response was rapturous (Polybius 18.46.4-9): … the herald came forward, and having proclaimed silence by the sound of a trumpet delivered the following proclamation: “The senate of Rome and Titus Quinctius, proconsul and imperator, having conquered King Philip and the Macedonians in war, declare the following peoples free, without garrison, or tribute, in full enjoyment of the laws of their respective countries: namely, Corinthians, Phocians, Locrians, Euboeans, Achaeans of Phthiotis, Magnesians, Thessalians, Perrhaebians.” Now as the first words of the proclamation were the signal for a tremendous outburst of clapping, some of the people could not hear it at all, and some wanted to hear it again; but the majority feeling incredulous, and thinking that they heard the words in a kind of dream, so utterly unexpected was it, another impulse induced every one to shout to the herald and trumpeter to come into the middle of the stadium and repeat the words: I suppose because the people wished not only to hear but to see the speaker, in their inability to credit the announcement. But when the herald, having advanced into the middle of the crowd, once more, by his trumpeter, hushed the clamour, and repeated exactly the same proclamation as before, there was such an outbreak of clapping as is difficult to convey to the imagination of my readers at this time.

1 This offering begins with a question, the answer(s) to which have perhaps wider ramifications. I am extremely grateful to the organizers of these Revisiones, especially Juan Santos and Elena Torregaray, for the opportunity to raise these issues in such a wonderfully congenial environment and in doing so to develop and to refine some ideas I have previously had on the period and the historical process at issue (cf. JRS 1979, 1-15; CAH 82 [1989], 290-323; ZPE 1991, 261-270; and A. Erskine, ed., Companion to the Hellenistic World [Oxford 2003] 51-70, q.v. for further bibliography). Translations of Polybius are from E.S. Shuckburgh, The Histories of Polybius (London 1889), of Livy from the Loeb Classical Library edition of E.T. Sage, of Greek inscriptions from R.S. Bagnall and P. Derow, The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation (Oxford 2004).


14

PETER DEROW

Four years later, in the autumn of 192 and on the eve of Rome’s war against Antiochus III, feeling amongst Greeks was very different (Polybius 39.3.5-8, esp. §8): His arguments were that “This man [scil. Philopoemen] had indeed been frequently at variance with the Romans on the matter of their injunctions, but he only maintained his opposition so far as to inform and persuade them on the points in dispute; and even that he did not do without serious cause. [6] He gave a genuine proof of his loyal policy and gratitude, by a test as it were of fire, in the periods of the wars with Philip and Antiochus. [7] For, possessing at those times the greatest influence of any one in Greece, from his personal power as well as that of the Achaeans, he preserved his friendship for Rome with the most absolute fidelity, [8] having joined in the vote of the Achaeans in virtue of which, four months before the Romans crossed from Italy, they levied a war from their own territory upon Antiochus and the Aetolians, when nearly all the other Greeks had become estranged from the Roman friendship (ejn w|/ tetramhvnw/ provteron th`~ ÔRwmaivwn diabavsew~ ¨Antiovcw/ kai; toi`~ Aijtwloi`~ to;n ajpo; th`~ cwvra~ povlemon ejxhvnegkan, tw`n a[llwn Ôellhvnwn scedo;n aJpavntwn ajphllotriwmevnwn th`~ ÔRwmaivwn filiva~).”

Even in 196 there had, of course, been those who were mistrustful of the Roman proclamation, most notably the Aetolians, who claimed, according to Polybius (18.45.6), that what was happening was a change of masters (meqavrmwsi~ despotw`n), not liberation of the Greeks (ejleuqevrwsi~ tw`n ÔEllhvnwn). But the situation Polybius describes as obtaining in 192 goes a good deal further than that: tw`n a[llwn ÔEllhvnwn scedo;n aJpavntwn ajphllotriwmevnwn th`~ ÔRwmaivwn filiva~. How are we to explain this change of feeling between 196 and 192? In what follows here I shall endeavour to offer an explanation for this phenomenon, or rather a collection of reasons which must, I believe, be seen as working together. Some of these reasons are more immediate (section II), and some have to do with discrepant views of what ‘freedom’ entailed (section III). But all are connected with a fundamental tension between Hellenistic Greek notions of ‘imperial space’ and what for the Romans was imperium (section IV). First, however, it will be as well to say a little about why Polybius’ portrayal of the situation in Greece in 192 should be taken seriously and not viewed as a gross exaggeration designed to enhance the defence of Philopoimen he offered to the Roman commissioners in 146/52 (section I). I For the affairs of Greece between 196 and 192 we are not overly well-informed. Polybius’ Book 19 is lost, but a certain amount of what was there is preserved in Livy’s Book 35, particularly with reference to 192.3 The message in the relevant passages is clear: 2 As suggested by E.S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1984) 326 n. 44. 3 The passages in question come from sections of Livy 35 reckoned to have their origin in Polybius: H. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (Berlin 1863) 166-176.


IMPERIVM, IMPERIAL SPACE AND EMPIRE 35.23.4-5: Therefore the senate, although it had sent the praetor Atilius with a fleet to Greece [viz., against Nabis of Sparta], still, because there was need not only of military forces to influence the temper of the allies, but also of prestige (quia non copiis modo sed etiam auctoritate opus erat ad tenendos sociorum animos), sent Titus Quinctius and Gnaeus Octavius and Gnaeus Servilius and Publius Villius as ambassadors to Greece … 35.31.1: While the war between the Achaeans and the tyrant was in progress, the Roman commissioners were going around the cities of the allies, being afraid that theAetolians had turned the thoughts of some of the allies toward Antiochus (solliciti, ne Aetoli partis alicuius animos ad Antiochum avertissent). 35.31.4: There [viz., at Magnesia] a council of the Magnetes had been called. It was necessary to employ more carefully-chosen language at this council because some of the chiefs (principes) were alienated (alienati) from the Romans and wholly devoted to Antiochus and the Aetolians because, when it was reported that Philip’s son, who was a hostage, was being returned to him and the tribute which had been imposed remitted, among other falsehoods it was said that Demetrias also would be given back to him by the Romans. 35.31.12: And, carried away too far in the passion of speaking, he [viz., Eurylochos the Magnetarch] threw out the remark that even then Demetrias was free in appearance, while in reality everything was done at the Romans’ nod (specie liberam Demetriadem esse, re vera omnia ad nutum Romanorum fieri). 35.32.9-11: Menippos [Antiochus’ envoy, speaking at the Panaitolika in 192] … said that it would have been best for all who lived in Greece and Asia if Antiochus could have intervened while Philip’s condition was unimpaired: each one would have his own and everything would not have become subject to the nod and control of the Romans (sua quemque habiturum fuisse, neque omnia sub nutum dicionemque Romanorum perventura). ‘… But this rests on liberty, which exists by its own might and does not depend on another’s will (ea autem in libertate posita est, quae suis stat ex viribus, non ex alieno arbitrio pendet)’. 35.33.5-6: Flamininus to the Aetolians [at the Panaitolika]: ‘… if, nevertheless, they considered that they had any just claim [viz., regarding the places they believed they should have received after the end of the war against Philip], how much better it would be to send ambassadors to Rome, whether they preferred to arbitrate or to appeal to the senate, than for the Roman people to go to war with Antiochus… (si quid tamen aequi se habere arbitrarentur, quanto esse satius Romam mittere legatos, se disceptare seu rogare senatum mallent quam populum Romanum cum Antiocho … dimicare)’. 35.33.8: [still at the Panaitolika] Thoas then and others … succeeded in carrying a motion … and by this decree Antiochus was invited to liberate Greece and to arbitrate between the Aetolians and Romans (quo accerseretur Antiochus ad liberandam Graeciam disceptandumque inter Aetolos et Romanos). 35.46.5-6: [at Chalkis] The Aetolians urged them strongly while retaining the Roman friendship to take the king also as an ally and friend; for he had come

15


16

PETER DEROW to Europe not to make war but to free Greece, and to free it in reality, not in words and pretence, as the Romans had done (sed liberandae Graeciae causa in Europam traiecisse, et liberandae re, non verbis et simulatione, quod fecissent Romani). 35.46.13: [Chalkidians reject Aetolian démarche] for they were determined not only not to admit them within the walls, but not to conclude any alliance even except in accordance with the authorization of the Romans (sed ne societatem quidem ullam pacisci nisi ex auctoritate Romanorum).

There is a sense of alienation from Rome. There is a feeling that the freedom the Romans offered was not quite freedom and a corresponding feeling that the Aetolians had spoken true when they had talked of a ‘change of masters’. And the year for all this is 192, two years after the Romans had led down their garrisons from the ‘fetters of Greece’, of which Demetrias in Magnesia was one (the Magnesians had been specified in the proclamation of 196: quoted above). This is precisely the time of which Polybius 39.3 speaks. The situation was already developing in this direction in 194. For this, the evidence is not from Livy (or Polybius). Writing to the Thessalian city of Chyretiai, Flamininus evidently recognized that the concerns expressed by the Aetolians were taking hold4 (Sherk, RDGE 33. 1-8): Tivto~ Koi?nktio~ strathgo;~ u{pato~ ÔRwmaivwn Curetievwn toi’~ tagoi`~ kai; th`i povlei caivrein: ejpei; kai; ejn toi`~ loipoi`~ pa`sin fanera;n pepohvkamen thvn te ijdivan kai; tou` dhvmou tou` ÔRwmaivwn proaivresin h}n e[comen eij~ uJma`~ oJloscerw`~, beboulhvmeqa kai; ejn toi`~ eJxh`~ ejpidei`xai kata; pa`n mevro~ proesthkovte~ tou` ejndovxou, i{na mhde; ejn touvtoi~ e[cwsin hJma`~ kataalei`n oiJ oujk ajpo; tou` beltivstou eijwqovte~ ajnastrevfesqai... Titus Quinctius, strategos hypatos of the Romans, to the tagoi and the city of (the) Chyretians, greeting. Since even in other matters we have made altogether clear to everyone both our own policy toward you and that of the demos of the Romans, we wish also in what follows to demonstrate in every respect that we have taken a stand for what is honourable, in order that those who are not in the habit of acting from the best motives may not be able to talk us down in these matters either…

As early as 196, before the Isthmian proclamation, Flamininus had been aware of the importance of convincing the Greeks that the Romans had originally crossed over ‘not for the sake of benefit but for the sake of the freedom of the Greeks’ (ouj tou` sumfevronto~ e{neken, ajlla; th`~ tw`n ÔEllhvnwn ejleuqeriva~: Pol. 18.45.9). With the proclamation at the Isthmian Games in 196 he achieved success. But in 194, when 4 Katalalei`n is the word used by Flamininus to describe what Rome’s detractors were doing and by Polybius 18.45.1 to describe what the Aetolians were doing. On this and other aspects of Flamininus’ letter, cf. J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme (Rome 1988) 112-117.


IMPERIVM, IMPERIAL SPACE AND EMPIRE

17

he wrote to Chyretiai, questions clearly remained, and by 192 they had spread more widely.5 II There are some straightforward enough reasons why doubts and questions about Roman intentions should have remained after the proclamation of 196 and spread more widely after that. The chiefest of these has to do with the ‘fetters of Greece’ (the great citadels of Chalkis, Demetrias and the Acrocorinth). Even before the proclamation the Aetolians had reminded people that the Romans had taken these places over from Philip and were holding them (Pol. 18.45.5-5). Although Flamininus persuaded the Roman commisioners that Corinth should be handed over to the Achaeans, the Acrocorinth remained garrisoned by the Romans, along with the citadels of Chalkis and Demetrias (Pol. 18.46.15). It will have been observed that the Romans kept garrisons in these strongholds despite the fact that the Corinthians, Euboians and Magnesians had been proclaimed to be free, i.a., free from garrisons (Pol. 18.46.5). The war against Nabis, conducted by Roman forces under Flamininus, accompanied by a small coalition of the willing (chiefly the Achaeans), can have done little to justify the retention of Roman garrisons in the fetters. And at the end of that war, nothing was done about Nabis himself once he was obliged to relinquish control of Argos. The Roman garrisons left after that war, in 194, but it is clear from what Flamininus is obliged to say in his letter to Chyretiai and from the passages in Livy Book 35 cited above that the good will gained then by doing so was not enough to outweigh the doubt engendered by having held them for as long as they did. And there were other things which seem likely enough to have helped to foster doubts about Roman intentions, including Flamininus’ reorganization of constitutions in Thessaly in 1946 and the announcement made at Rome in the winter of 194/3 to a gathering of embassies from the Greeks of Greece and Asia Minor: they were to ‘carry word back to their states that with the same courage and the same fidelity with which the Roman people had won their liberty from Philip, they would win it from Antiochus if he did not retire from Europe (nisi decedat Europa).7 Also to be taken into consideration is the fact that in the spring and summer of 192 Roman armies were sent to the Peloponnesos against Nabis (Livy 35.22.2) and to Epeiros (Livy 35.24.7). III At the same time, and at least as significantly (for the future as well), it had begun to emerge by 192 that there was a measure of inconcinnity between the freedom the Romans thought they were giving and the freedom the Greeks thought they were

5 In addition to the passages from Livy 35 cited above, see Pol. 20.3 on the Epeirotes and Eleians. In Epeiros they felt particularly vulnerable to Rome in a straightforwardly military sense. 6 Livy 34.51.6: a censu maxime et senatus et iudices legit potentioremque eam partem civitatium fecit, cui salva et tranquilla omnia esse magis expediebat. This will not have been to everyone’s taste. 7 Livy 34.59.4-5 and cf. Diod. 28.15.4. I do not think that Badian’s attempt to expunge the conditional element here or to show that the passage does not go back to Polybius is successful (Studies in Greek and Roman History [Oxford 1964] 127 and n. 70 [on p. 135]; originally in CPh 1959): see Nissen (above, n. 3) 162-164.


18

PETER DEROW

getting. The Isthmian proclamation declared that the peoples named were to be free, free from garrisons, free from tribute, and using their ancestral laws; the senatus consultum issued prior to that had declared that the Greeks of Asia as well as the Greeks of Greece were to be free, using their own laws. It is freedom from external control (as manifested by garrisons and exaction of tribute) and autonomy (strictly defined) that are at issue in what the Romans were proclaiming. The Greeks, it seems, thought they were also free to conduct their affairs independently. That it was being realized by 192 that this was in fact not the case emerges from some of the passages from Livy Book 35 cited above (esp. 31.12, 32.9-11, 46.5-6), where the freedom is called illusory because everything is done ad nutum Romanorum, everything has come to be sub nutum dicionemque Romanorum. In this context the Chalkidians were the exception who proved the rule (who showed that they both apprehended would accept the reality of the situation) when they decided ne societatem quidem ullam pacisci nisi ex auctoritate Romanorum (35.46.13). That this was, had been and would continue to be the reality of the situation is shown most clearly by Polybius’ comment on the Romans’ response to the Achaean League’s ultimately successful conduct of their conflict with the rebellious Messians in 183 (23.17.4):8 ejx ou| katafanei`~ a{pasin ejgenhvqhsan o{ti tosou`ton ajpevcousin tou` ta; mh; livan ajcagkai`a tw`n ejkto;~ pragmavtwn ajpotrivbesqai kai; parora`n, wJ~ toujnantivon kai; dusceraivnousin ejpi; tw`/ mh; pavntwn th;n ajnafora;n ejf¨ eJautou;~ givnesqai kai; pavnta pravttesqai meta; th`~ auJtw`n gnwvmh~. By this they showed clearly that, so far from avoiding or disregarding the affairs of foreign nations not directly concerning themselves, they were, on the contrary, annoyed at everything not being referred to them and carried out in accordance with their opinion.

In a general way this is what is reflected in Polybius’ description of cities in Illyria in 219 as uJpo; ÔRwmaivou~ tattomevna~ (3.16.3) and by the description of the Romans as kuvrioi of the Corcyraeans, Apolloniates, Epidamnians, Pharos, Dimale, the Parthini and Atintania in the treaty struck between Philip V and Hannibal in 215 (Pol. 7.9.13). In a more specific way it is what is reflected in C. Livius Salinator’s letter to the Delphians in 189/8 (Sherk, RDGE 38. 17-20): ... kai; peri; tw`n ejn Delfoi`~ katoikeovntwn e[cein uJma`~ ejxousivan ejfh`ken hJ suvgklhto~, ejxoikivzein ªoºu}~ a]m bouvlhsqe kai; ejan` katoikei`n par¨ uJma`~ tou;~ eujarestou`nta~ tw`i ªkºoinw`i tw`n Delfw`n: … And concerning those dwelling in Delphi, the Senate has allowed you to have power to banish those whom you wish and to allow to dwell among you those who are acceptable to the koinon of the Delphians. 8 It will be evident that I set a great deal more store by this passage, and by Polybius’ perceptiveness and judgment, than does Gruen (above, n. 2) 495 n. 65.


IMPERIVM, IMPERIAL SPACE AND EMPIRE

19

In the eyes of the Romans the Delphians do not have the power to deal with this matter until it has been granted to them by the Roman senate. The Delphians here, like the Chalkidians in 192 (see above), have recognized that the only valid authority is Rome’s, that the only valid orders are to come from Rome except insofar as the Romans might authorize others to give orders. Some acknowledged this more quickly, as here, some more slowly after persisting for a time in the belief (or the hope) that Roman orders might be negotiable,9 and others, of course, simply did not –until they were compelled to do so. The later third and early second century saw, as Polybius was keenly aware, the development of Roman dominion in the Mediterranean world, a process that was complete –as he was also aware, keen contemporary observer that he was– when all were compelled to agree that all that remained was to give heed to the Romans and to obey them in their orders (3.4.3: o{ti loipovn ejsti ÔRwmaivwn ajkouvein kai; touvtoi~ peiqarcei`n uJpe;r tw`n paraggellomevnwn). It is this state of affairs that marks the fulfilment of what he ascribed to the Romans as hJ tw`n o{lwn ejpibolhv (3.2.6 and elsewhere).10 During this process the Romans proclaimed the freedom of the Greeks. For the Romans this involved no contradiction: the Greeks would be free from garrisons and from tribute and would have use of their own laws. That they would acknowledge Rome’s authority, and, more, that they would be subject to Roman orders on all things great and small, went without saying and was simply, for the Romans, understood. For the Greeks, especially the smaller states, it was very different. They had been accustomed to dealing with great powers for a long while, since the days of Alexander’s successors. In the course of those dealings modes of behaviour had developed, and along with those a discourse that mediated the relationship between the more and the less powerful, between, above all, kings and cities/groups of cities.11 The situation described by Polybius 23.17.4 (quoted above), including the subterfuge that helped to prompt Polybius’ comment, was quite alien to that context; even more so was the particularly Roman penchant for giving orders. It should accordingly come as no surprise that the freedom the Greeks thought they were getting was a different thing from the freedom the Romans were giving.

9 It was the Achaeans who were able around this time to maintain a measure of equality in their dealings with the Romans (kata; povson ijsologivan e[cein pro;~ ÔRwmaivou~); this was owing to their loyalty to the Romans during the wars with Philip and Antiochos (Pol. 24.10.9). One would like to know the context of Pol. fr. 165 B-W (if it is indeed from Polybius). 10 On this and on the orders/obedience syndrome, see above all ‘Polybius, Rome, and the East,’ JRS 69 (1979) 1-15. 11 On these modes of behaviour and on this (euergetical) discourse –involving benefactions on the one side and acknowledgment of them on the other, in the form of honours, cults and other expressions of support and good will– see J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford 1999), especially the Introduction and chapter 4; by the end he has successfully revealed (245) ‘the existence of a fluid, open-ended interaction between ruler and ruled, where unspoken power-structures, euergetical assumptions, and mutual role assignment along moralizing norms combined in a complex game.’ It was a game that required for its proper functioning both sides to be playing by the same rules; the contention here, as I hope is clear, is that the Romans were not playing by the same rules.


LAVDES PROVINCIARVM