(ok)resenha momilgliano

8/17/2019 (Ok)Resenha Momilgliano

1/9

Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate by Ch.

WirszubskiReview by: Arnaldo MomiglianoThe Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 41, Parts 1 and 2 (1951), pp. 146-153Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/298106 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/298106?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/298106?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs


2/9

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

CH. WIRSZUBSKI,

LIBERTAS AS A

POLITICAL

IDEA A T ROME DURING THE LATE REPUBLIC

AND EARLY PRINCIPATE (Cambridge Classical

Studies). Cambridge University Press, 1I950.

Pp. XI +

I

82.

I5s.

A pilgrim to Cambridge (from Jerusalem),

iMir.

WVirszubski

has entered into the spirit of the

place and has written a little book which Lord Acton

will read with pleasure in the Elysian Fields.

Havring perused

it in no less distinguished a place-the Ashmolean

lMluseum-I

found it entirely

enjoyable and

would like to recommend it to those who are disturbed by the

present trends in

the

study

of

Late Republican and Early Imperial History.

Naivre apologists for Roman

'

vrirtues

'

are

only too obvriously discredited-except perhaps in

some numismatic cabinets; but the Realpolitiker

who are replacing them are

not

more impressivre(cf.

H. Last,

Gnomizon

2,

I950, 360).

iVMr.

Wirszubski,

unruffled by

the

recent, apparently unexpected,

discovrery that Cicero liked good dinners, that the

Roman populace

took bribes and

that Octavrian's

followers asked for rewards, understands Cicero

well, interprets Tacitus correctly,

and

knows what

Thrasea stood for.

The discussion of

a

book

one likes can

easily

outgrow any tolerable proportions. I must confine

my review to two points. First I shall probe the foundations

of Mr. Wirszubski's history of Libertas;

secondly, I shall try to show by one example that the reconsideration of the principles of Libertas

requires new research in detail.

I.

Liberty

and Libertas.-Two different and,

to my mind, mutually exclusivre interpretations of

Libertas havre been defended. According to one, Libertas is a juridical notion

which, if properly

analysed, provres

to

be identical

with

the

notion of Civritas. Libertas sums up

the rights of a Roman

civris as

MVlommsen aid,

als

dieser Rechtsschutz selbst als Biirgerrecht aufgefasst ward, fiel

diese

ihre libertas

mit

der civitas zusammen'

(R5in.

Staatsr.

iII,

63). According to the other

interpretation, Libertas

is a vague word which usually conceals egoistic interests.

As Professor Syme

puts it,

'

Liberty

and

the

Laws are

high-sounding

words. They will often be rendered,

on a cool

estimate,

as

privrilege

and vrested interests

'

(The

RomizanRevolution 59). Also :

'

Libertas

is a

vrague

and

negativre

notion-freedom from the rule of a

tyrant

or

a faction. It follows that libertas,

like

regnuin

and

donizitiatio,

s a

convrenient term of political

fraud

'

(p.

I55:

the whole page is relevant).

Miir.Wirszubski had to make up his mind whether to choose the former (juridical) or the latter

(ideological) interpretation of Libertas. He has chosen,

in my opinion quite correctly, the former.

It is indeed characteristic of Libertas

that,

though so often mentioned

in

the heat of political

discussion,

it seldom looks like an

empty

word. XVhen Libertas is quoted, some more or

less

important right

of

a Roman

' ciris

'

is

usually

in

question. H. Kloesel's dissertation

(I935),

which

Syme quotes

as his

only

evidence

for the thesis that Libertas was a

v

ague

and negativre

notion

',

provres the contrary. Kloesel's list of passages

shows that Libertas is often associated by Late

Republican

or

Augustan

writers

with precise

laN-s and institutions: such as

the yearly magistrates,

'auctoritas

senatus

',

the

tribunes,

'

provrocatio',

agrarian laws, the Lex Porcia, the Leges Tabellariae,

the ' Lex Cassia

altera

',

etc. Compared with

the use of the words

'

freedom

'

and

'

liberty'

in

political

discussions of our

time,

the use of Libertas

in

Roman

political struggles

seems

altogether

more

juridically minded-which,

of

course,

one would

expect, givren

the

persons

for whom

Roman

historians and politicians

were more

frequently

writing.

Thus, my agreement NwithMr. Wirszubski on the way of approaching his subject could hardly

be greater (cf.

YRS

xxxi,

I94I,

i6o;

XXXII, I942,

I20).

But when one comes to laying

the foundations

of research

on Libertas as a

primarily juridical

notion there is

scope

for

disagreement.

iVMr.

Wirszubski

is not precise enough to my mind, though

I

should

like to add that,

evren

when he

is not

perfectly

clear on

principles,

he is

nevrer

dangerously

misleading

on

details.

(i)

Libertas, we

would all agree,

is

not Liberty, but the process which

leads from

Libertas

to

Liberty

is

a

continuous one.

If

wvestart

from

Liberty and go back to

see what

the Romans

knew

and

practised

about

Liberty,

there are

many things

not treated

in

W.

's book to be

considered:

for

instance,

freedom of

travrelling,

of

teaching,

of

publishing books,

women's freedom,

freedom

of

trade,

freedom of

the

seas, freedom

in the matter

of drinking, eating,

and dressing,

freedom

in

sexual

behavriour,

freedom from want and

fear,

etc.

All

these freedoms

may

or

may

not havre

been

classified

by

the Romans under the

heading

of

Libertas. But

if

one

examines

Libertas

in itself-

to know what the Romans meant

by

it-one does not see what

a

discussion

of Libertas

has

to do

with religious freedom or with the sanctity of the home (pp.

29-30),

unless evxidence s provided that

these

things

were connected with Libertas, which

is

not the

case.

Furthermore,

the evridence on Libertas should

be

presented

in a

rigorous chronological

order

and each author should

be analysed by himself.

W;.

has

givren

separate paragraphs to Cicero's


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9


I47

De Re Publica and De Legibus, and

to Tacitus, with excellent results, but on the whole he has confined

himself to desultory quotations.

One consequence is that

we

do not

know

from his book

what

Cicero, Sallust, Livy, Seneca, Lucan thought about Libertas: whether

the idea of Libertas was

a central one for them, what notions they connected with Libertas or

what aspects of Libertas they

emphasized, what thoughts they attributed to other persons on Libertas, etc.

Another consequence is that WV.makes no attempt

at a

systematic

use of the epigraphical

and

numismatic evidence and therefore

does not utilize inscriptions and coins even in those cases

in which they really help to supplement the literary evidence.

The Lex Porcia de provocatione

(?

I99.

W. does not seem to be aware

of difficulties about the Leges Porciae: the subject must be

re-examinedafter A. H.

lMJcDonald,

JRS

XXXIV,

I944,

I9)

and the Lex Cassia of I37 are apparently

already connected with Libertas

on coins before

Ioo

B.C. (B.-M.C., Rolz. Rep.

I,

I5I,

I53): the

evidence quoted by

WI.

or both connections

is not earlier than Cicero. Allusions in terms of Libertas

to

the grant of Roman citizenship

to the Italians havrebeen found on coins of about

75 B.C.

(ib.

i,

399-403).

I

feel uneasy about these coins, but the texts produced by

IV. for the connection between

Libertas and the grant of citizenship to the Italians are

evren

more unsatisfactory:

one is the alleged

utterance of an Italian in Velleius

II, 27, 2,

and the

other is the

opinion

of a Greek, Strabo V, 4,

2,

p.

24I.

Among the inscriptions it will be enough

to recall the decree of L. Aemilius of

I89 B.C.

(Dessau, ILS

IS)

which MIommsen's commentary made famous (Hernmes

II,

i869,

261

Ges.

Schriften iv,

S6,

and Staatsrecht

iii,

p. xvii, n.

I).

As MNIommsen bserved, Rome discouraged

serfdom.

(2) The identification of Civitas

and

Libertas requires

careful analysis. One has

to

account for

what the writers said about it at different times and in different circumstances

(e.g. Cic., pro

Caecina 96 ; Livy ii, 5 ;

Dig.

49,

I5, 5,

2, on wrhich

cf. MI. Nicolau, Cautsa Liberalis

1933,

53),

keeping in mind the three notions

which

inevritably

contributed to complicate any statement on

this

subject: the notion

of

Roman

citizenship, the

notion or

suspicion

that

all

men are

naturally

free, the notion of men living

a free life outside Roman citizenship.

In

other words one must

analyse what the texts mean by

'

Libertas ex iure Quiritium, civritas ibera, postliminium (on which

F.

de Visscher, Festschrift P. Koschaker,

I, I939, 367,

will be

found particularly

useful),

capitis

deminutio

'. The ordinary tripartition

of

capitis deninazutio

s

found already

in

Gaius

(i I60-2)

and

involves a series of

problems

which

W.

has not faced.

He

says:

'

Only

a

Roman citizen

enjoys

all

the rights, personal and political, that constitute libertas. The so-called Capitis Deminutio lMledia

whereby

a Roman loses

citizenship

while

retaining

freedom

does not

contradict

this conclusion.

For

Capitis

Deminutio

Miedia

means

loss of

Roman

citizenship

as

a

consequence

of

the

acquisition

of a different

citizenship' (p. 4). This

I

take

to be

an

optimistic

view. For

Gaius

says:

'

Minor

siue media est

capitis

deminutio

cum civitas

amittitur,

libertas retinetur:

quod

accidit

ei

cui

aqua

et

igni

interdictum fuerit.' The

principle

underlying

the

tripartition

of

the

'

deminutio

'

is

explained

by

Paulus:

'

tria enim sunt

quae

habemus, libertatem, civitate;n, famniliam

(Dig.

4,

S,

II).

This

tripartition

is not

compatible

with

the

identification

of

Ci-vitas

and Libertas.

If WN.

hinks

(as

he

seems to

imply)

that the

tripartitioln

of

capitis

demizinuttio

s

already part

of

the

juridical thought

of

the Roman

Republic,

he is

not entitled to

assert

the

identification of Libertas with Civitas. The

truth

is,

of

course,

that it

is

vrery

uncertain when the

tripartition

was introduced. It does

not

yet

appear in Festus

(s.v.

'

deminutus capite ', p. 6i Lindsay

--70

lMfiller),

and there are some

passages

in the Digest

which

taken each by

itself would

give

rather the

impression

of

bipartition (D.

38,

i6,

I,

4; 38,

i7,

i8

50, I3,

5, 3).

The tripartitioncertainlydoes not appear n any of the republican

and

Augustan passages

on

c.d. known to me

(Cic.,

Top.

4

(i8),

6

(29);

Caes.,

BC

2, 32, I0;

Hor.,

Carin.

3,

5, 42

; Livy

22,

6o,

IS).

It is not

necessary

to

go

into the modern theories

on

c.d., though

especially

what has been written

by

H.

Kruger,

UI.

Coli

and F. Desserteaux would

be

vrery

relevrant

(the most recent discussion

known to me is between

R.

Ambrosino,

Stuldia

et

Documlnz.

ist. Juris

6,

I940, 369, and

C.

Gioffredi

ib.

II, I945, 30I:

I

am in substantial

agreement

with the

latter).

It seems

reasonable to

conclude

that the

tripartition

of

c.d. was introduced

in

the

early imperial

age

and

does

not

affect

what

republican

jurists

thought

about Libertas. For

the

meaning

of

'

caput

'

in

repu-blican

texts

compare

also

F. De

Visscher,

Le

re'ginze

onzain

de la

naoxalite'

947,

I48.

I

may

perhaps

add that

I

do not

quite

agree

with De

Visscher

'

De

l'acquisition

du droit de

cite

romain

par

l'affranchissernent

',

Studia

et

Documniz.

ist. 7/uris. I2,

I946, 69.

One

of the

reasons

for

my

disagreement

is

to

be

found

in the

'

vendere

trans

Tiberim',

but

I

cannot

argue

the

point

here:

cf. iVM.

aser,

Zeitschr. Sav.

Stift.

Rom. Abt.

67, I950, 489,

n. 59.

(3) Some of the most famous episodes of the traditional history of Rome are connected with

Libertas

(cf.

U.

Coli.

'

Sul

parallelismo

del diritto

pubblico

e

del

diritto

privrato

nel

periodo

arcaico

di

Roma',

Stzudia

et

Docutnm.

,

1938,

95). They

offered an

explanation

of

certain Roman institutions

and represented a powerful stimulus for remembering and cherishing the formalities of Roman Law.




4/9

I

48

REVIEW

AND DISCUSSION

The stories on the origin of provocatio,

the tale of the

origins

of the

Republic,

the

legend

of Verginia,

certain episodes of the struggle

between patricians and plebeians were powerful factors in the

education of the Romans. These

traditions may, of course, be said to have already been in existence

in the second century

B.C.

and

therefore to be outside the chronological limits of

WV.'s

esearch.

But it is evident that some at least of these legends were still being reshaped in the last centuries

of the Republic and that they

maintained, and perhaps increased, their educational importance

during the political struggles

of the late

Republic. They

made it

possible

for Cicero to say:

'

Aliae

nationes servitutem pati possunt,

populi Romani est propria libertas

'

(6 Phil.

i9).

One is surprised

to see that

a

chapter

'

Education

for Libertas

'

is missing

in

W.'s book. This is regrettable because

Roman

legends

with

a

juridical

background

have

recently been

the

object

of

lively

discussion

among

French scholars.

While

my private opinion

remains that there is very little in

Dumezil's

theories, the studies

of

H.

Levy-Bruhl and P. Noailles

are

often

illuminating. Noailles has, for

instance, made it

clearer

that

the legend of Verginia as it appears

in Livy really represents the

reinterpretation by

a

lawyer of

a much simpler legend. It is interesting to see

Le'W-Bruhl

and

Noailles'

opinions

now

spreading

in

Germany (for instance,

M.

Kaser,

l.c.

474).

(4) Though

the

main

emphasis

was

on juridical Libertas,

the

Romans

in

the last centuries of

the

Republic thought

of

Libertas as

a

sign

of

distinguished

humanity irrespective of juridical status.

W. does not seem to have considered this aspect. Unless I am mistaken, he does not quote either

Ennius' solemn

words

in

a

tragedy

(259 R3.

=

300 V.2)

'

ea libertas

est, qui pectus purum et firmum

gestitat

'

or

Terence's

lines

'

feci

ex

servo ut esses libertus mihi, propterea quod servibas liberaliter'

(Andria 37-8,

on

which

cf.

F.

Jacoby's suggestive, though probably adventurous, remarks

in

Herimes

44, I909, 362).

The

non-juridical approach

to

Libertas,

which

provided

M. Antonius

with

some

good

fun

(De

Orat. I, 226),

became more

important

than

the

juridical

when the

Roman

Senatorial Republic

was

destroyed by

Caesar.

Everything

WV. as written on

liberty

in

the first

century

of the Empire is sound and well said.

A

word

on the often misunderstood passage of Tac. Ann.

I,

75 would have been useful, but is not

indispensable.

The

comparison

with

Professor

L. Wickert,

'

Der

Prinzipat und die Freiheit,'

Symbola Coloniensia Iosepho

Kroll . . . oblata

II I-I47, is

favourable to W. Though Wickert quotes

more

passages,

knows

the

inscriptions

and has

some good remarks,

his

conclusion-' jedenfalls ist

die libertas die der

Prinzipat

ertragt und schirmt, nicht mehr die tatige Freiheit des Republikaners,

sondern die zahme Behaglichkeit des Untertanen' (p.

I41)-can

hardly be called a contribution to

knowledge.

Yet

in

some

way WV.,oo,

has missed the full

implications

of the fall

of

the

Roman

Republican

Government.

When

many

of the

rights usually

connected with

Roman

Libertas were

lost,

some

people

rediscovered what

the

Greek

philosophers

had noticed

before,

that

loss of

political rights

involves

almost

unexpectedly

a much more serious offence to

elementary

moral

values.

PrivTateLaw

was not

deeply

affected. The

majority

of

the Roman

lawyers

could

perhaps go

on

working

without

noticing any revolutionary

change:

E.

Levy's

recent

remarks on this

subject ('

Natural

Law

in

Roman

Thought',

Stutdia

et

Docutmenta

I5, I949, 22)

deserve careful

consideration. But

people

more

directly

concerned with moral life were

less

easy

to

placate.

In

45-44

B.C.,

the

'

anni mirabiles

'

of Latin

thought,

Cicero

worked

feverishly

to

give

Rome

in

her own

tongue

the

system

of moral

and

metaphysical

values she

was still

lacking,

'

ut si

occupati profuimus aliquid

civibus nostris

prosimus etiam,

si

possumus,

otiosi'

(Tutsc. Disp.

I,

3,

(5)).

The

De

Officiis

is a code of behaviour

for the aristocracy just liberated from Caesar s tyranny. During the second big crisis-the Neronian

one-Seneca

repeatedly

faced the

question

of the relations between

personal

freedom and

political

activity;

Lucan

(as

B. Marthi

observed

in her

admirable

paper

in A.j.

Phil.

66,

I945, 352)

showed

that

Pompey's

moral character

improved

with

the

progress

of the

struggle against

Caesar-'

seque

probat

moriens'

(viii

62I);

and

Musonius

explored

unusual avenues of moral action

(A.

C.

van

Geytenbeek,

iMiusoniuis

utfuts

n de Griekse

Diatribe, Amsterdam,

I948,

is

better than

anything

else

on Musonius,

yet

insufficient:

J. Korver,

'

Neron

et

Musonius,'

iMinemos.

V,

I950, 3I9,

is

controversial).

W. does not

seem to have

appreciated

the

magnitude

of the

Neronian

crisis: he

does

not

discuss

either

Lucan or Musonius

and

says

very

little about

Seneca.

Consequently

he is not in

a

position

to assess the disillusionment

of those

who,

like

Helvidius

Priscus, evidently thought

that

Vespasian,

the friend of Thrasea

and Barea Soranus

(Tac.,

Hist.

IV,

7),

did not come

up

to

expecta-

tions.

W.

attempts

to reduce

the

value of

the

passage

of Dio

66,

I2, 2,

pCaloEiaS

T?E &?i Kc(T-ryopEi

icd

i

oKpaTiav ETr?IVEI

without examining the long account of Philostratus, V7ita

Apoll. Tyan. v,

33

ff.,

about

the

discussions

at the moment of

Vespasian's

accession: Philostratus and

Dio

have

at least

this

in

common that

they

describe

people prepared

to

question

the

very

foundations of

the

Roman principate. There is enough in Tacitus to

showv

hat the alternative-Libertas

or Imperator-




5/9

REVIEW AND

DISCUSSION

I49

was still

a

real

one in the mind of some persons

(for instance, Ann.

i5,

52,

4). B. Croce

found

Helvidius

worth

a

close

analysis in

Qutaderni

della

Critica 4,

I946, 25-35. It

would

also have

been

important

to

take an

unambiguous

position about two

recent interpretations

of the opposition

of

the

intellectuals. M. A.

Levi's theory (Nerone e

i

sutoi

tempi I949) that

Seneca and Lucan

were

representatives of a Western ideology against Nero's oriental sympathies can be true only up to

a point.

It is not possible to

combine Lucan's passionate

interest in Roman

tradition

with

Seneca's

concern

for individual perfection.

The details of

Levi's theory are

doubtful:

for instance, he

makes

Barea Soranus

an accuser of Thrasea

(p. 205, n. 4) and

takes kindly to Ciaffi's

truly fantastic

attribution

of the Octavia to

Annaeus Cornutus (Riv.

Fil.

N.S. I5, I937,

246). In strict

theory

there

is

more

to be said for

Miss J. M. C. Toynbee's

distinction between

the Cynic dislike

of

the

emperors

as

such and the

Stoic

dislike

of bad emperors

(Greece and Rome I3, I944,

43). But

the facts about

individual

philosophers

do

not fit

into this scheme. Helvidius

Priscus

who, according

to

Miss

Toynbee,

went

Cynic,

is

described as Stoic

by Dio 66,

I2

; and

it is hardly fair

to suppose

that

Mlusonius

had evinced 'some unexpected Cynic

symptoms' when

he

was

exiled by Vespasian.

WV.

s far

more

persuasive

on

the third big crisis-the

Domitianic one. He sees with

a clarity

denied to other

students of

Tacitus,

but

not

to the

great Tacitist, Amelot

de la Houssaie, that

Tacitus

analysed

the conflict between

Libertas and

'

adulatio

'. W., however,

does not go into the

conflict

between Libertas and imperialism from whose difficulties Tacitus never disentangled himself.

Moreover,

if

Tacitus

is the first to make '

adulatio

' the centre of his analysis of tyranny, the problem

of

freedom

of

speech

inevitably

concerned most

of

the writers

of the imperial age

from Phaedrus

and Persius

to Quintilian

and Juvenal. Precisely

because Libertas was

no longer a clear juridical

concept, these

writers

are not

concerned

with

formal rights to speak

in assemblies, but with

the

opposite

of

'

adulatio

'.

The study

of freedom

of

speech

under the

Principate

is not to

be

found

in W.'s book.

(5)

It

is

an

open question

whether we must introduce

Greek texts

in

a

discussion

on Libertas.

As long

as Libertas represents

the rights of the

Romans as rulers, the

investigation

must remain

strictly

confined

to Roman citizens.

But I

do

not see

how

one could

separate

the

discussion

on

Libertas

from that on

Eleutheria when

one

comes

to the imperial age.

Many of the people

who

wrote

in

Greek

were

by

now

Roman

citizens,

and

in

any case

both Roman citizens and provincials

obeyed

the

emperor.

In

practice

W.

admits

Dio,

on whom

he

follows

von Arnim (discussed

below),

but not Philo, Pluitarch, an-d Epictetus. Mtiisonius is mentioned, but his writings are not examined-

a

clear

'

reductio

ad absurdum'

of the

distinction.

Nothing is better

than Plutarch's Precepts

of

Statecraft

about

liberty

in

Greece

under the Romans. Plutarch

exactly

defines the limits of

political

activity

for an ambitious young

Greek,

he

warns

the officers of the

city not to urge foolishly

the

people

to imitate

the actions and

ideals of

theii

ancestors,

and

he

invites

them to remember

that

they

have the boots of

the

Roman

soldiers over

their head. But

he is also

perfectly

candid about

his way of understanding

freedom of discussion.

It would

be bad for the leaders to give

the

impression

that

they

constantly agree among

themselves.

They

should

make some

show of

disagreement

(8I3

B).

This notion of

freedom of

speech

is also

a

key

to

the

understanding

of Dio.

Any

Greek speaker

had to

rediscover

for

himself

the

narrow

path

existing

between the

suspicions

of the

Roman

authorities and the

passions

of the Greek

crowds. So to Dio

we can turn.

II. Dio

of

Prutsa,

the

Rhodiana

libertas'

and

the

Philosophers.-i.

Introduction.-Synesius

of

Cyrene, dissenting from Philostratus, divided Dio of Prusa's literary activities into a sophistic and a

philosophic period

(Dio

35A,

p.

233 Terzaghi). Synesius,

admittedly,

had a

personal

interest

in

shoiw-

ing

that Dio

was

ultimately

able

to

combine

good philosophy

with

good

Greek

(see

his letter to

Hypatia,

no.

I54

in

Hercher, Epistol.

Graeci ed.

Didot, p.

735).

His

views

were

accepted

and

developed by

H. von

Arnim

(i898)

who classified

Dio's

works

into three

groups: sophistic speeches

and

essays

before the

exile

(which

he dated

in A.D.

82)

;

essays

written

during

the exile

but

subsequent

to his

conversion

to

philosophy;

literary

and

philosophic

production

later

than

his recall

from exile

(96-I20

?).

According

to von

Arnim,

Dio,

after

having

been

a virtuoso in

his

youth

and a

philosophic

rebel

in his

maturity,

subsequently

discovered

the

possibility

of

bringing

eloquence

into

harmony

with

philosophy.

Von

Arnim's

sympathetic description

of

Dio

contributed

much to an

understanding

of

the

first-century philosophers.

But doubts

have

repeatedly

been

expressed

about the

rigidity

of his

chronological

scheme.

Indeed,

as a Russian critic

rightly

observed

(V.

E.

Valdenberg,

'

The

Political Philosophy of Dio Chrysostom,' in Izvestia Akad. Navk SSSK

I926,

p.

946 (in Russian),

but

see also

R.

Hirzel,

Der

Dialog

II, 85,

n.

3),

von Arnim

treated Dio's

life

as if it were

a

Hegelian

triad:

rhetoric-thesis

; philosophy-antithesis

;

final

period

of

harmony

between

rhetoric

and

philosophy-synthesis.




6/9

I50

REVIEW

AND DISCUSSION

Nobody, however,

seems

to

have re-examined the evidence in detail. The

following

discussion

is confined to one speech, but

it is meant to show

that

von Arnim's account of the intellectual

development of Dio is founded upon

a chronology

of his

works which is insufficiently supported

by the evidence.

2.

Dio and the statutsof Rhodes.-Dio's speech to the Rhodians (xxxi) was written after Nero's

death

(prg.

I48)

and describes

Rhodes'

status as that of a civitas

libera (II2

TnV EAUEVpiaV O'iEUeE

aTropacAEiv

;).

But Rhodes lost her freedom

during Vespasian's reign, and probably in

the first

years of it. Thus, one would naturally

date the

speech betwseen

A.D. 68

and, say,

c.

73. Von

Arnim,

however, did not accept this date, because it appeared

to him

incompatible with wvhat

he knew

about the progress of Dio's mind.

He took the

speech

to

be indicative of

an intermediate

stage

in Dio's ascension from rhetoric to philosophy

and

suggested

that a

date about

A.D.

8o would be

more suitable to

it than

a date

about A.D.

70.

His

theory

involved the

assumption that Rhodes

recovered her freedom before the alleged date

of Dio's exile,

A.D.

82. But von Arnim, who did not

hesitate to make this

assumption, thought

he had found some corroborative

evidence in

IG

xii,

i,

58,

a

Rhodian inscription

in

honour

of a man who

as a

Prytanis conveyed the expressions of the

EVo 1a

and

-rriuTis

of

his

island to Titus.

Von

Arnim

agreed

that the

terminology of this inscription (closely

paralleled by Dio xxxi,

II3)

seemed

'

nicht

auf ein Unterthanenverhaltnis, sondern nur auf das alte

Bundesverhaltnis zu passen' (p.

2I7).

His conclusion was that Rhodes received back her freedom

and that

Dio wvrote

his

speech (xxxi)

in the same

years

between

79

and 8i.

Von Arnim persuaded

A.

Wilhelm

to

accept

his

dating

with

consequences

which

became

apparent

in I9I3

when the great

Viennese master

gave

his

opinion

on the

inscription

first

published

in

'Eriji.

'ApX.

I9II, 59

(now

Dittenberger,

S11.3

8i9).

The new

inscription

honours Domitian and alludes to a

grant

of freedom:

the most natural interpretation

of it is that the freedom

w-as

granted by Domitian. Wilhelm, however,

suggested that the grant had already

been made by Titus. He also quoted Plutarch., Praec. gel'. r'eip.

8I5

d,

as

evidence for

a later anti-Rhodian phase

of Domitian

(Sitz.

Wien.

Akad.

I75, I9I3,

50).

On

the other

hand,

Hiller

von

Gaertringen,

who

incidentally

seems

to

have misunderstood

what

Wilhelm said, took the view that

Domitian

first

deprived

the

Rhodians of their freedom and then

gave it back to them (P-INV .v. Rhodos,

Suppl. v,

8ii

f.). Hiller's scheme can be sumrnarized

as follows:-

about

A.D.

71, Rhodes

loses her

liberty;

A.D.

79-81, Rhodes recovers her liberty: Dio writes Or.

xxxi;

after

A.D. 8i, Rhodes

again

loses her

liberty;

before

A.D.

96,

Rhodes

recovers her

liberty.

It

is

now

time

to

quote

the texts

and

comment

on them

(i)

Tac.,

Ann.

XII,

58

(A.D.

53).

reddita Rhodiis

libertas, adempta saepe

aut

firmata, prout

bellis

externis meruerant aut domi

seditione

deliquerant.

(2)

Suet.,

Vesp.

8.

Achaiam, Lyciam,

Rhodum, Byzantium,

Samum libertate

adempta,

item

Trachiam

Ciliciam

et

Commagenem

dicionis

regiae usque

ad id

tempus

in

provinciarum

formam

redegit. Cappadociae propter

adsiduos

barbarorum incursus

legiones

addidit

consularemque

rectorem

imposuit pro eq.

R.

(3)

Hieron.

Chion.

p.

i88 Helm

(A.D.

74).

Achaia

Lycia

Rhodus

Byzantium

Samus Thracia

Cilicia

Commagene quae

liberae

antea et

sub

regibus

amicis

erant

in

provincias

redactae.

(4) Sextus Rufius, Brev.

io.

Sub Vespasiano principe insularum provincia facta est.

(5) IG

xii, I, 58. 'Ep,ay6pav

0aiviiTriTov

KXa&oiov

TaTVTa

TpaVQavTa

KaQl

uvvPovuAEJvaVTa

T

co

6a'pcp

-a

7uv9povprTa

Ta-

-TaTpiEl

{T&-

E'V

TC^)

TaS

lTpUvTaVEiaS

XPOVCX)

Kai

lia6ElIaXEVOV

a

&E'X

EX

a

-ForriS

To

rl'

T?

ThOV

aJTOKpaTopa

TiTov

CPaoiniov

Kaicapa

EEpaaCTov

OiVEcruacyiavOv

Kai Tov

cviiYTavTa oIKOV auTou Kai Tav IEpOV COYVKM1TOV

KaC TOV

Ma,uOv

TOV PcoaiCOV EUYvoiaV Kai TTicYTiv

Kai

TUXOvTa

TCY)V KaAiUCTCov

ypaQIa4rTcov

arTo

TOU

eEOl

EEpacrTOU

?V

Trc-

TraS

rpUTvYaVEiaS

Kailpo

KTA.

(6) Dittenberger, Syll.3,

8i9

[DomZlitiano].

Kai

AoPETi'a

E)E

EEPacTr

'Opovoi

'Iaccov

'Ap1CTOyVEVUS

BouA[i((6as)]

ayTCapEVOS

?-rr. XEpO[Va&]aOu Kail

EvXpas,

Eq)

oU a&?E[Ka]TEaTaxeTl

a

TVaXTpios

1TOAErrEfa(s>,

Kai

0o Mios

6o

E\OucYavouvTiCOV

KTA.

(7)

Plutarch.,

Pr-aec.

ger. reip. 815

d.

aAopEv'

6E

Kal KYV6VYEUOlCYO1

01eEYV,

C'OTFE7p

yKUpaV

iEpaV apa,EYOV

E

auTo

1

iv

rappY)iQY

ETFi

TOIS

1EyfaTOIS-

O1Q

fpyop1aouS ?ri

N?poVOS

KTEAa3E

TTpacypaTa

KCi

'Po8iouvS

E'YyKOS ?TF AopETlaVOU.

About

(i)

it

will

be

enough

to

say

that it

refers

only

to the

period

before A.D.

53.

I

doubt

the

wisdom of

pressing

the

meaning

of

'

saepe

',

but

anyone

wlho

wishes to follow van

Gelder

and

state

' also nicht

zwreimal,

sondern saepe st den

Rhodiern die Freiheit entzogen

w7orden

(Geschichte der




7/9


I5

I

alten

Rhodier

I900, 175),

will have to

search the history of Rhodes to find a grant

of freedom before

A.D.

53, which is beyond

our present purpose.

Suetonius in (z)

certainly implies that Vespasian acted in

the first years of his reign, but

St.

Jerome

(3)

does not help to date

Suetonius's passage more precisely. One or

twvoof the changes

mentioned by Suetonius may have been dated in 74 by some other writer known to St. Jerome.

In

A.D.

77 Pliny the Elder had not yet

registered one of the facts recorded by

Suetonius, the change

of

status of

Byzantium (NH IV, 46).

(4)

is frankly

mysterious but does not affect our

question (see, for instance, J. Marquardt,

RZumn.taatsverw.2

I,

348).

(5)

does not say, as

von Arnim and his followvers imply,

that Titus granted freedom to

Rhodes.

Nobody indeed can know

wlhat

the

Ka

-ra

palUua-ra

T

were meant to convey.

But it is arguable

that

a

grant of freedom was a thing to be

mentioned

explicitly as we see in Ditt.,

Syll.3 819,

or in

IG

XII, I, 2.

(5)

if anything rather

discourages the notion

that Titus restored freedom to

the

Rhodians. As for von

Arnim's remark that

ElJvola

and

-TriasTi

suit a free city better than a provincial

towvn,

it is

easy to answver

hat

Rhodes wvas

probably proud

enough not to change her terminology

according to her fortunes and

misfortunes under the emperors. What

may have happened is that

Titus

promised freedom by

his

Ka'?OaTa

ypappara

but

did

not live long enough to fulfil the

promise.

In

that case Domitian would simply

have fulfilled his brother's promise.

(6) prima facie shoows

that Rhodes

recovered her freedom under Domitian (on

TrarTplos

TroAlTfa

cf.

IG xii,

I, 2,

1. 12-13 [aTrroo0eEia]as

Tr

7T0oXE

QS 1TaTpToU

TFoATTEaS

Kal TCOX)6vv

pc

-v

ToX)

[.v

with

reference to Claudius's grant.

(7)

does not say that Rhodes lost her

freedom under Domitian, nor does it

seem to imply any

change of status. Plutarch

seems to say that the wvisemen of

Rhodes managed to extricate themselves

from a difficult

situation. There is no reason to believe that

Plutarch refers to a date earlier than (6),

though

if

he

did,

it would

not prove

anything.

The

conclusion of this

analysis

is

that, according

to

the

best

of

our

evidence,

Rhodes lost

her

freedom in the early

years of Vespasian's reign and recovered

it some time under

Domitian.

To

anyone

who

has

no

preconceived

ideas on Dio's

evolution

this

means

that

Dio

may

have

written

his speech

either between Nero's death

and

Vespasian's move

against

Rhodes or after

Domitian's act of liberation. Three further arguments may perhaps narrow these chronological

limits.

I

write them in order of

decreasing cogency

(a)

Or. xxxi

was written wlhen

the details

of

Nero's

reign

were fresh in men's memories. A date

after

Dio's return from exile

(A.D. 96)

is

unlikely.

(b)

It seems common sense to

suggest that

Dio could

hardly

have

written Or.

xxxi

during

his

exile. The date of the

beginning

of

his

exile

depends,

according

to the most

probable theory,

on

the

date of the death of T. Flavius

Sabinus,

which is

rightly put

between

82

and

89 (A. Stein,

P-WV

.v. Flavius

vi,

2615;

PIR2, F

355).

This would exclude

at

least the

years 89-96.

(c)

Dio

does not seem to be

addressing people who

have

recovered their freedom

only

a few

years

earlier. WIhat he

says

in

xxxi,

112-113

applies

better

perhaps

to

the

period

of

Vespasian (before

the

punishment

of

Rhodes)

than to the

period

of Domitian

(after

the

repeal

of

Vespasian's act).

Anyway,

the

evidence

so far

known seems

to

point

to the

following

conclusions: about

71-5

Vespasian deprives

Rhodes of the

status

of civitas libera

(andfoederata);

after

8i

Domitian restores

her liberty; Dio xxxi was written either between 8i and 89

(wl-hich

would imply that Domitian

granted freedom some

time before 89) or more probably

between

69

and

c.

75.

The

only

date

which seems to be

really unlikely

for

Or.

XXXI

S

79-8I,

the date

suggested by

von Arnim.

3.

Dio

and the

Philosophzers.-The

results so

far

obtained

encourage

us to re-examine

the

problem of the relations between Dio and the

philosophers

before his exile.

Speech

XXXI

contains

a

very favourable allusion to a

philosopher-distinguished by

Roman

citizenship

and

high

birth-

wlho

reproached

the Athenians for

taking pleasure

in

gladiatorial

shows

122.

Kail TOV

ElT?rovTa

TrEpi

TOUJTOU iAaCOpOV

Kai

vOueE-TlbcyavTa

aTous

OVKUaTK

TE?awVTo O18?E

ETF)VEcyav,

a

OUTCA)

E?U Epavav,

C07TE

EKE?1VOV pEV

ovTa

yEVEl PcoCi0v

I8?VO;

UCTEpOV,

sotcv

8E

T

lKc[aJT1)V

EXOVTc

1)AlK1qS

O18?i5

EK

'TTaXVu

7TToAAOu

TETUXTIKEV,

0OPOOyOip?VqOV

8E

p6vov paclcTa

PETa

TOv1

apXaiovS

aK&KOAOU0e

PEPICOKEVai

TOTs

AOyOi,

KQTcOTa-Ta

V

fT V'vO6IV

Kai

pacSov

E'?CEae

8laTp43Elv

a00aXOcUE

S

'EA0axoS.

Reasonably enough,

this has been taken as

a

reference to Musonius

Rufus,

a

knight

of

Etruscan

origin (Tac.,

Ann.

14, 59;

Hist.

3, 8I).

What matters most

is

that

Dio must

haTve

written

this

passage at a moment in

which

3e

was

friendly

to at

least one philosopher and

did not think

it




8/9

I52

REVIEW

AND DISCUSSION

dangerous to exhibit

his friendship

in public. Other evidence

suggests

that before his

exile Dio

was

not always

of one mind about

philosophers. Here

are the

relevant

passages:-

(i) Fronto,

p.

II5

Naber=

II,

p.

50

Haines (Loeb).

Quid nostra

memoria Euphrates,

Dio,

Timocrates, Athenodotus

? Quid

horum magister Musonius

?

(2) Philostr.

Vita Apoll. Tyan.

V, 27. OivcT-raciavoU 8?ET7V aUTOKpaTOpa

apX7(lV

TVEplVOOUVTOS

T?pi

Ta

oT,opa

Ti;

AiyuTFrTC(

EV,

E

I

1TpOXCOPOvJTOS

ETi

TflV AyuvTTov,

ACOVES pEV

KQI EvppaTal

...

XalpEIV TFapcEKEEUOVTO 'ATro.AAOcvioS

8?

TTapaTrAflai@cS

pEv

Eupp'Tn

Kai

AfCoVI

?TEpi

TO'TCV

EXQIPE. V,

31,

CZ

pc(1AEU, ElTrEV

(Apollonius),

Ev)pp'Trns

Kai

Aicov

ra'ac col yvc'puioi

ovTEs

TTpO?S

elJpalS

EiCiV.

Cf.

also V, 37-8.

(3)

Th-emist. or.

x

de pace p.

I65 Dindorf

(I39

a). 7V TIS Trri TCAV 'rrpOyOVCoV

TCV

7T1[ETEPCOV

uT1KTrlS

v71p,

MEAayKouaS

ovopa

auTco,

Ka'AlCTOS

TE

Kai

pEy1acTOS

Kai

TT,V TEXVYnV

EU8OKIcoTaToS,

Ou

Kai Tov

TiTov

qpacyiv

EpacyTrlv

yEvEcyeal

Tov a(TOKpaTopaX

(4)

Synesius,

Dio 37 A.

a'

ol'ToS

y?E

TF1Ta 8iT Kaci

paTcrra

COCYTc)V

Els

'p1OCYOaOUS

TE

Kai

piosaoqpiav

aQTrfvalCYXuVTflKEV. aTE

yap,

oipal,

qpuc7cOS

?Xcv

XoucaX;

i

Kai

To

p7fTOpEUE1V

aUTO flleEuEv,

aEpVOv

aQVaQTETFE1cEVOs

Eival

TOU V KaTa'

1ioapiav

TO V KaTa

T'S

KO1VQ

U1TO?VIEIs

QeE)V O

TE

KaTa

TcoV

pI1OaCY6qov

a

AT6yo;

?ai-rouv&aeCq

cy6cpa a-MyXcoviapvos

Kl

v

cUxpa 6'KV7ac- K Td O

rp's

MoUck

viov

E-TEpOS TOiOOTOS,

oU

ppOvyUaCopovoU TC

TOTrcA) ToJ

AicovoS,

a' ?K l1ae'?Co;

ypC9OVTO

...

38 A

ouTCs

yap av

ElWPEV TOUS

TE

qIAocooUs

Kai

Tovs

a'To

ToJTo

CYOPlCYTlKOUS A6yoUS

liE1kpoTES EKaTEpOUs

Xcopi

aS

X C

EUTVp ?V

VuKTO,uaXia,

TrEp1TEVu6,Eea aQuTC, vuv

JEV

paOVT1

2ZCAKpaTq

Kaci

ZflVvcva

TOYS

EK AIOVUoiCOV

CYK

opuiacyl

Kai

Tovs

aTr'

au(Tcov

aOl

vT1

TacYfl

E

avQUVEUl

YfS

Ka'

ea


9/9

REVIEW AND

DISCUSSION

153

Such being

the evidence,

we

must see

hoow

Dio Or.

XXxI,

iz2,

can best be harmonized

with the

other texts.

If Dio's general attack against

the philosophers

(as distinguished

from the

-rpo6s

Moacuw,viov)

ither

was

written

some years after

71

or made an emphatic

exception

for

Mlusonius,

I

do not see

why

xxxi,

I22

could not refer

to Musonius

and have been

written about 70-5. On

the

other hand, if it is felt that Dio must haTveattacked the philosophers in

7I

and that

his

attack is

incompatible with the trend

of

xxxi, 122-3

we

must put

xxxi

in the early years

of

Domitian

and

have it as an implicit recantation

of his former attack against the

philosophers (and possibly

of

his

animadversions on

Mlusonius).

As far as I can see, there is not

evidence enough to enable us

to

choose. But

an early date for

xxxi

is

consistent

with

what

we

know

about the early connections

of

Dio with Musonius

and

Euphrates.

This date

also makes it unnecessary to suppose

that Dio

in

xxxi

withdrew1

his

attack against the philosophers (or

more specifically his remarks

on

Musonius,

if

the

allusion in

122

iS

taken to refer to

him).

I

like

to think that

Or. xxxi

was

written

before

the

attack

against the

philosophers and to imagine that

the

-rpo6sMouvcoviovwas

an address

(or

a

reply)

to

Musonius composed when

it became apparent

that he had lost Vespasian's

favour.

4.

Dio

and the

'

libertas'

of the Greeks.-Dio's speech to

the Rhodians is so

long

and so full

of

sophistry

that one is easily inclined to underrate

its

positive

quality.

By giving

new

names to

old

statues so

as to honour contemporaries in the

cheapest

way,

the Rhodians were first

of all

guilty

of meanness-w hich any well-bred Hellene would know how to classify. But they were also guilty

of

adulation for the Romans

because, obviously enough, many of the ne

w

labels were

put up

to

please the Roman

authorities. Dio is well

aware

of this implication. His

argument

is that

the

Rhodians ought not to try to

preserve the status of a ci?vitas ibera

(and foederata) by practices

which

stultify any pretence of

freedom.

The honour of Hellas is in

question

(157). Because

Rhodes has

no

longer any

possibility of political leadership,

she must defend

her dignity (I62-3).

It

is

better

to

become a

slave

(8o0AElEIV

UpJv

-r65

Trav-rTi

EA-\Tov

fi&r)

than

to

live

in

a

precarious

and

undignified

liber-tas (i

u).

Dio, apart from being loquacious

and

over-subtle,

must needs

appeal to the rivalries between

Greeks

(in this

case especially to the

rivalry

between

Rhodes and Athens). But by putting

dignity

of

behaviour

before the juridical status of a civitas

libera,

Dio was saying something

essenitial.

He

was,

in

fact, doing something

comparable with what certain

Roman

senators

and

knights,

his

contemporaries,

were doing

when

theY

refused

to pay for their privileges by undignified

behaviour-

'adulatio '. He was saying that the status of a civitas liber-a s not worth saving if it must be defended

by constant use of

'

adulatio

'. The allusion to the Roman philosopher

shows

that it was far

from

Dio's

intention to antagonize

the

Romans.

He

presented a Roman philosopher

as a

model

to the

Greeks

(cf.

also the remark of prg.

iii).

If he wrote

in the years

in which

Vespasian reconsidered

the

grant of

libertas

made by Nero to provincial

Greece, there

woould be even more point in

his

discussion.

Few

or

none of Dio's other

speeches provide lessons of

this kind. One of the

reasolns

is that

Dio

himself waasnot independent of the Romans

and had to seek

their

help

when there were

economic

and

social difficulties

in his own

town.

Or.

XLVI,

another pre-exilic speech,

is a very good

example

of this

dependence.

As Dio puts it objectively

ouJ

y'ap

A(XVe0a(VE1

TCAJvEv

Tacs

TroAEoIV

OOJE?V

TrotVS

T1YE[JOVas

-

MyCo

5? TO1'S EI'iOUS

r)YEPoVC(S

TCAJv

EXveae&

-

'

ScJTrEp TCJ)V

Trail5iCoV

TCJ)v a'TaK-rTOTEpCA)V

IKOI -TpOS TOUV l1cXaKcX?\OU&

KaXT1yOpOJIJiV

01

1TpoJr)KoVrE5,

ouTCA0JI

Kal

Ta

TCV

5T1CV

aXapTTaTa

TrpOS

EKEiVOUS

aTrayyE?AETcra

(14).

ARNALDO

MONIIGLIANO.

This content downloaded from 195 34 79 228 on Thu 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

(ok)resenha momilgliano

Documents