We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The most striking example of Roman intervention in the affairs of mainland Greece between the Achaean and Mithridatic Wars is provided by an inscription now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. This stone bears the text of a letter to the city of Dyme in Achaea from a Roman proconsul named Q. Fabius Maximus, which describes his trial and sentencing of certain men of Dyme whom he had judged responsible for a recent disturbance in that city. One crux to be resolved is chronological: A date of c. 115 b.c. has long been generally accepted, but recently evidence from another, still unpublished inscription has been thought to point to the year 144. Further, the letter of Fabius Maximus has long been held to exemplify the close supervision that most scholars, regardless of their position on the vexed question of Greece's formal status after 146, assume was exercised over Greece by Roman commanders in Macedonia from the time of the Achaean War. The document has also often been cited to bolster the claim that Rome pursued in second-century Greece a conscious policy of suppressing democracy or the political aspirations of the lower class. This is not, of course, the place for reassessment of these old, complex controversies. My purpose here is rather to show that interpretation of the letter of Fabius Maximus has not always been sufficiently mindful of the many obscurities of the text and, consequently, of the events that lie behind it; too often the great lacunae in our knowledge have been filled with assumptions that beg the questions that are under debate.
l Syll. 3 684 = Sherk, RDGE 43 = Abbott-Johnson 9.
2 Ferrary, J.-L., Philhellénisme et impérialisme (BEFRA 271; Rome, 1988), pp. 189–90 with n. 228Google Scholar, using information supplied by Ch. Kritzas.
3 See esp. Accame, S., Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 1–15Google Scholar, who adduces the Dyme inscription at pp. 9–10, 33–4, 149–53. The inscription has played a significant role in the debate over Accame's thesis that the defeated states in the Achaean War were appended to a formally constituted province of Macedonia: see, against Accame, Schwertfeger, T., Der Achaiische Bund von 146 bis 27 v. Chr. (Munich, 1974), pp. 70–2Google Scholar, and Gruen, E. S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, 1984), p. 524Google Scholar; and, in favour of Accame's hypothesis, Dahlheim, W., Gewalt und Herrschaft (Berlin, 1977), pp. 124–30Google Scholar; Bernhardt, R., ‘Der Status des 146 v. Chr. unterworfenen Teils Griechenlands bis zur Einrichtung der Provinz Achaia’, Historia 26 (1977), 62–73Google Scholar; Baronowski, D. W., ‘Greece after 146 B.C.: Provincial Status and Roman Tribute’, in Fossey, J. (ed.), Συνεισϕορά McGill 1: Papers in Greek Archaeology and History in Memory of Colin D. Gordon (McGill Monogr. Class. Arch. Hist. 6; Amsterdam, 1987), pp. 125–38Google Scholar, and ‘The Provincial Status of Mainland Greece after 146 b.c.: A Criticism of Erich Gruen's Views’, Klio 70 (1988), 448–60Google Scholar; Ferrary, , op. cit., 199–209Google Scholar. A new hypothesis is presented in my Hegemony to Empire. The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East, 148–62 b.c (University of California Press, forthcoming 1995), chapters 1–2Google Scholar.
4 See esp. Fuks, A., ‘Social Revolution in Dyme in 116–114 b.c.e.’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972), 21–7Google Scholar = Social Conflict in Ancient Greece (Leiden, 1984), pp. 282–8Google Scholar (citations below will be to the latter); also Rostovtzeff, M. I., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 1941), pp. 757, 1508–9Google Scholar; Deininger, J., Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 217–86 v. Chr. (Berlin, 1971) pp. 243–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schwertfeger, , op. cit., 66–7Google Scholar; Crawford, M. H., ‘Rome and the Greek World: Economic Relationships’, EconHistRev 30 2 (1977), 45–6Google Scholar; de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (Oxford, 1981), pp. 306–7Google Scholar; Baronowski, , Klio 70 (1988), 454CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Further noteworthy historical treatments are Colin, G., Rome et la Grèce de 200 à 146 av.J.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 654–5Google Scholar; Larsen, , op. cit., p. 503Google Scholar; Asheri, D., Leggigreche sulproblema dei debiti (Studi Classici e orientali 18, Pisa, 1969), p. 97Google Scholar; Schwertfeger, , op. cit., pp. 66–7, 70–1Google Scholar; Will, E., Histoire politique du monde hellenistique 2 2 (Nancy, 1982) p. 398Google Scholar; Bernhardt, R., Polis und Herrschaft in der späten Republik (149–31 v. Chr.) (Untersuch. ant. Lit. Gesch. 21; Berlin, 1985), pp. 222–3Google Scholar; Ferrary, , op. cit., pp. 186–99Google Scholar.
6 Fuks, op. cit. Ferrary's good discussion focuses on the evidence of the document for Rome's pose as Liberator of the Greeks.
7 Dobree, P. P., ‘Greek Inscriptions from the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge,’ Classical Journal (London) 30 (1824), 139Google Scholar.
8 See AR 1970–71, p. 77.
9 This list includes only those publications relevant to establishing the text. Historical treatments are cited above, nn. 3–5. Photograph in Oxford History of the Classical World (Oxford, 1986), 431Google Scholar. English translations are available in Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M., Roman Civilization I. Selected Readings: The Republic and the Augustan Age (New York, 1990), no. 127Google Scholar; Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. S., Greek Historical Documents: The Hellenistic Period (Chico, Cal. 1981), no. 46Google Scholar; Sherk, R. K., Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 4; Cambridge, 1984), no. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 For κίνημα/κίνησισ, see Plb. 2.39.2; 4.23.1, 5; 4.35.1; 5.25.7; 5.29.3; 5.50.2; 5.54.13; esp. 15.25.37. Curiously, νεωτερισμός (cf. Sherk, , RDGE 40Google Scholar, line 24) is avoided by Polybius except in its verbal form: 5.29.9; 7.3.6. On Polybius's typology of revolution, Mendels, D., ‘Polybius and the Socio-Economic Revolution in Greece (227–146 b.c.)’, AntClass 51 (1982), 86–110Google Scholar, is informative.
11 The LSJ cites the Dyme inscription for the meaning ‘confusion’ (s.v. σύγχυσις, III.2), as well as Acta 19:29 (disturbance at Ephesus).
12 So Accame, , op. cit., pp. 150–51Google Scholar, and Schwertfeger, , op. cit., pp. 24–5Google Scholar.
13 Walbank, F. W., Historical Commentary on Polybius iii. 734–5Google Scholar, and CR 26 (1976), 238Google Scholar; Ferrary, , op. cit., p. 191, n. 235Google Scholar.
14 The conjecture was especially common among the early editors (Boeckh, Viereck, Hicks, and Beasley; cf. Colin, , op. cit., p. 655Google Scholar); among modern treatments, the link is made most directly by Accame, , op. cit., p. 150Google Scholar; Schwertfeger, , op. cit., pp. 65–7Google Scholar; Fuks, , op. cit., p. 285Google Scholar; Croix, De Ste., op. cit., pp. 307, 525Google Scholar; Baronowski, , Klio 70 (1988), 453–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See further below, p. 21.
15 For an introduction to the problems of the entire passage, see Schwertfeger, , op. cit., pp. 65–72Google Scholar; Gruen, , op. cit., pp. 523–6Google Scholar; Ferrary, , op. cit., pp. 199–209Google Scholar; Baronowski, , Klio 70 (1988), 454–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar offers a defence. Pausanias's authority is diminished by at least two major errors (the statements that after Mummius the Romans regularly assigned a magistrate to Achaea and that the Achaean War concluded in the 160th Olympiad: 140–137) and very probably—if my arguments in Hegemony to Empire, chapter 3, are sound—another (the claim that Greece paid tribute to Rome from 146). Other serious errors appear in his survey of the history of the Achaean League: see Ferrary, , op. cit., p. 201, n. 264Google Scholar. J. Touloumakoss exhaustive examination of the constitutional structure of Greek states has shown that there is little if any epigraphic evidence for noteworthy change around the middle of the second century b.c. (‘Der Einfluβ Roms auf die Staatsform der griechischen Stadtstaaten des Festlandes und der Inseln im ersten und zweiten Jhdt. v. Chr.’ [Diss. Göttingen, 1967], pp. 1–12Google Scholar), a finding that has weight even if it is not decisive (Schwertfeger, , op. cit., pp. 65–6Google Scholar, and , J. and Robert, L., BE [1969], 82Google Scholar). Ferrary is probably right to conjecture that the claim that Mummius suppressed democracies is merely Pausanias's (over) interpretation of the import of the new census-requirement (op. cit., p. 194), on which see below, n. 71. Even De Ste. Croix (op. cit., p. 525) concedes that Pausanias's assertion should only be understood ‘in a very qualified sense.’
16 Further epigraphic references in Sherk's index, RDGE, s.v. συμβούλιον.
17 Beasley printed οἰκεία and λλοτρία, thus making both fem, sing., presumably agreeing with παρασκευν. Hiller and Sherk, however, accent as above, presumably in agreement with τατα.
18 See above, n. 17.
19 BE (1974), 262.
20 Yet it is a ‘supplemento indubbio’ according to Accame, , op. cit., p. 151Google Scholar.
21 From the left edge of the upper horizontal stroke of the Ξ to the left edge of the K that follows is a space of 0.04 m. The combination H and Σ with one other letter nowhere occupies more than 0.037 m on the preserved portion of this text (the average is about 0.034 m); nor is the space allotted to the letters of this line especially great.
22 Sherk: ‘lack of good relations with each other'; Bagnall and Derow: ‘a state of mutual disaffection’; Colin: ‘irréconciliables haines intestines’ (so too Accame). Rostovtzeff: ‘cancellation of contracts’ (p. 757), ‘abolition of ουναλλάγματα’ (p. 1509); so too Fuks, , op. cit., pp. 287–8Google Scholar, who saw this as far more radical than cancellation merely of debts. Asheri, , op. cit., p. 96Google Scholar: ‘inadempimento di contratti’; Ferrary, , op. cit., 187–8Google Scholar: ‘le non-respect des contrats’, comparing (at the suggestion of Gauthier, P.) ICr 1.19.3Google Scholar, lines 16–19, esp τν ποτ' λλάλος συναλλαγμάτων πάντων ν ταραχι τε κα διχοστασίαι τι μεγίοται κειμένων (188 n. 222). See Asheri, , op. cit., pp. 95–7Google Scholar on cessation of judicial enforcement of debt. Croix, De Ste., op. cit., p. 307Google Scholar, has it both ways: ‘concellation of debts and other contracts’; ‘disregard of contractual obligations’.
23 Stob. Ecl. 2.147 W εὐσυναλλαξίαν δ ἒξιν εὐλαβητικν τς ν τοῖς συμβολαίοις δικίας, μεταξὺ συναλλαξίας οὖσαν κα νωνύμου (τν δ νώνυμον κατ τ κριβοδίκαιον εἶναί πως) See id. 2.62 W = SVF iii. 264 εὐσυναλλαξίαν δ πιστήμην το συναλλάττειν μέμπτως τοῖς πλήσιον [Andron.] Peri Path. 254.28–255.40 = SVF iii. 273 εὐσυναλλαξία δ ἒξις ν συναλλαγαῖς ϕυλάττουσα τ δίκαιον. LSJ: ‘Fair dealing’.
24 Plut. Mor. 42F (listeners who make a lecturer digress or interrupt him with questions) οὐχ δεῖς οὐδ' εὐσυνάλλακτοι πρς κρόασιν. Compare John Chrys. Fragmenta in Job 64.513. LSJ: ‘Easy to deal with’.
25 Dion. Hal. 1.41.1: Heracles associated Greeks and barbarians, mainlanders with coastal dwellers, οἲ τέως πίστους κα συναλλάκτους εἶχον μιλίας; 5.66.3 (quoted below, p. 8). Plut. Mor. 416E νεπίμικτα τ τν θεν κα νθρώπων ποιοσι κα συνάλλακτα. LSJ: ‘Without intercourse; unsociable’.
26 Arist. Rhet. 1376b, 1.15.22 ἒτι δ πράττεται τ πολλ τν συναλλαγμάτων κα τ κούσια κατ συνθήκας, ὣστε κύρων γιγνομένων ναιρεῖται πρς λλήλους χρεία τν νθρώπων.
27 See esp. Off. 2.72–85 and Wood, N., Cicero's Social and Political Thought (Berkeley, 1988), pp. 123–32, 202–4Google Scholar.
28 The noteworthy exception is Asheri, , op. cit., p. 97Google Scholar, with n. 62. On the inference, see further below, p. 21.
29 See generally Posner, E., Archives in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA, 1972), pp. 91–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Dziatzko, , ‘Archive’, RE 2 (1895), 553–64Google Scholar.
30 χρεωκοπία/χρεοκοπία (for the Classical phrase χρεν ποκοπή [αί]) seems to appear first in extant literature in writers of the Augustan period (Dion. Hal. 5.67.5, 6.38.2; Diod. 29.33 [following Polybius, but there is no assurance that the phrasing is his]; the verbal cognate χρεοκοπουντες in Strabo 8.3.29).
31 LSJ, s.v., IV.
32 Above, n. 26. A noteworthy association of συναλλάγματα and χρεία in Arist. EN 1178a, 10.8.1 δίκατα γρ κα νδρεῖα κα τ ἂλλα τ κατ τς ρετς πρς λλήλους πράττομεν ν συναλλέγμασι κα χρείαις κα πράξεσι ἒν τε τοῖς πάθεσι διατηροντες τ πρέπον κάστῳ, τατα δ' εἶναι ϕαίνεται πάντα νθρωπικά.
33 See Gruen, , op. cit., pp. 132–57Google Scholar, esp. 155, and Ferrary, , op. cit., pp. 5–218Google Scholar, esp. 186–209. The effort of Bernhardt (Historia 26 [1977], 62–73Google Scholar) to define this freedom formally and within narrow limits rather obscures the rhetorical function of the claim: see Ferrary, , op. cit., p. 197Google Scholar.
34 The minority view originates with Colin (‘je l'ai fait déporter’) and is adopted in Accame's influential treatment (op. cit., pp. 9,151: ‘condanna a morte e fa deportare’). For the prevailing view, see LSJ s.v. παραχωρίζω, and e.g. Viereck (‘Q. Fabius de Soso et Phormisco supplicium sumpsit’), Beasley (‘Sosos was condemned to death’), Herwerden, H. von, Lexicon graecum suppletorium el dialecticum 2 (Leiden, 1902), 1116Google Scholar (‘morti concessi, pro παρέδωκα, tradidi’), a translation evidently favoured by Hiller in the Syll. 3 (n. 13), and the translations cited above, n.9: ‘I adjudged Sosus to be guilty and condemned him to death’ (Lewis-Reinhold); ‘I have judged to be guilty and condemned to death Sosos’ (Bagnall-Derow); ‘I judged him to be guilty and sentenced him to death’ (Sherk). Ferrary translates ‘j'ai jugé que Sôsos… était passible de la peine de mort, et je l'ai fait exécuter’ (op. cit., p. 188).
35 R. Renehan drew my attention to the problem posed by παρεχώρισα. Most of what follows derives directly or indirectly from discussion of this word with him, but he is naturally innocent of the result.
36 LSJ s.v. ἒνοχος, II.2. The phrase appears with the penalty in the dative or in the genitive: for both usages in the same author, cf. Diod. 14.6.1 and 27.4.1.
37 So Dobree, Boeckh, Hicks and Beasley. Viereck: ‘sed ne hoc quidem graecum esset.’ Herwerden, op. cit., offering ‘concessi’ as a Latin translation of παρεχώρισα, would appear to have thought this to be a form of παραχωρ.
38 On the phenomenon in this period, see Bubenik, V., Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area (Amsterdam, 1989), pp. 186, 217–18, 237–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In Ptolemaic papryi: Mayser, E., Gramtnatik der griechischen Papyri cms der Ptolemäerzeit 1.12 (Berlin, 1970), pp. 51–2Google Scholar.
39 Note other errors in line 1 and 7.
40 Cf. LSJ s.v. παραχωρέω, 4. Usage with an accusative object is exemplified by Plut. Cic. 8.6 οἰκίαν… τῷ δελϕῷ παρεχώρησεν; Mor. 843F λαχὼν κ το γένους τν ἱερωσύνην κα παραχωρήσας τῷ δελϕῷ Λυκόϕρονι. A human object in II Macc. 8.11 προκαλούμενος π' γορασμν Ἰουδαίων σωμάτων ὑπισχνούμενος νενήκοντα σώματα ταλάντου παραχωρήσειν.
41 So Herwerden, op. cit.: ‘morti concessi,’ construing θανάτῳ both with ἒνοχον and παρεχώρισα.
42 For these standard phrases, see Cic. Verr. II.5.11–12, 66, 166; Clu. 181; Vat. 21.
43 The affair and its immediate background is related by Plb. 27.1–2 and Livy 42.43.4–44.6. Livy supplies the verdict of the Roman s (42.44.6 auctores regiae societatis decreto suo damnarunt), which does not appear in our text of Polybius. But this fragment of Polybius, transmitted by the Constantinian excerptors (De legationibus gentium), does mention what must be the consequences of condemnation (the flight of one of the men to Macedonia and the imprisonment of two others: 27.2.8–9); the excerptors appear to have skipped over part of Polybius's original text, as they can be seen to have done not infrequently where we can check them in the extant books. Curiously, Livy's record of the legate's verdict is not noted in modern discussions of the embassy; cf. e.g., Meloni, P., Perseo e la fine della monarchia Mace done (Cagliari, 1953), p. 199Google Scholar; Deininger, , op. cit., pp. 158–9Google Scholar; Gruen, E. S., ‘Class Conflict and the Third Macedonian War,’ AJAH 1 (1976), 44–5Google Scholar; Walbank, , HCP iii. 290–93Google Scholar; Roesch, P., Etudes beotiennes (Paris, 1982), pp. 372–7Google Scholar.
44 Plb. 27.2.8 οί δ περ τν Ἰσμενίαν κα Δικέταν τότε μν πήχθησαν εἰς ϕυλακήν, μετ δ τινα χρόνον πήλλαξαν αὑτοὺς κ το ζν. Since Polybius has just mentioned the departure from Chalcis of the Roman embassy, it does not appear to be the agent of this action.
45 So Dittenberger, ad Syll. 2 316, n. 10 (comparing the compoun καταχωρίζω) whose comment is reproduced by Hiller, Syll. 3 684, n. 13; LSJ s.v. παραχωρίζω, ‘hand over,’ citing only this single example (‘condemn to death’), followed by Sherk, for whom παρεχώρισα ‘is equivalent to παρέδωκα’ (RDGE, app. crit.).
46 [Mac. Aeg.] Sermones 64 (B) 37.4.8 (Berthold) ν αὑτῷ οὖν όρσι τν θεότητα… τν μν ρχαίαν ϕύσιν ϕανερώσας, τ δ παρ ϕύσιν παραχωρίσας, ϕέρει [sc. χριστς Ἰησος] τ τῷ ῥματι τς δυνάμεως αὐτο.
47 Sen. Ep. 18.11 Liberaliora alimenta sunt carceris, sepositos ad capitale supplicium non tarn anguste qui occisurus est pascit.
48 See Dornseiff, F. (rev. Hansen, B.), Rückläufiges Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (Berlin, 1957) 254. For ‘Damiscus'Google Scholar;, see Pape, W. (rev. Benseler, G. E.), Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen 3 (Braunschweig 1884) i. 268Google Scholar, and Bechtel, F., Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (Halle, 1917), p. 130Google Scholar; cf. also SEG 11.972, line 31; 979, line 53; and the Messenian Damiscus at Paus. 6.2.10–11. For ‘Lamiscus,’ Pape, , op. cit., ii. 768Google Scholar; Bechtel, , op. cit., p. 274Google Scholar; 1G IX.I2 1, p. lv, Fl 44; 2.246, line 12; 247, line 11; 582, line 2; SEG 26.184, line 28; 26.704, lines 16–17; 34.941, line 7; 35.665, A, lines 10, 14; 38.475, line 9; 38.476, line 5; 38.490, I, line 19.
49 See Walbank, , HCP iii. 735Google Scholar and my Hegemony to Empire, chapter 3.
50 Unfortunately I have not been able to obtain Ch. Veligianni-Terzi's Heidelberg dissertation (1977) ‘Demiurgen. Zur Entwicklung einer Magistratur.’
51 Cf. Pape, , op. cit. ii. 1001Google Scholar; Bechtel, , op. cit., p. 335Google Scholar.
52 See Deininger, , op. cit., pp. 168–72Google Scholar.
53 Ibid., pp. 191–208.
54 Rightly noted by Ferrary, , op. cit., p. 313 n. 156Google Scholar, contra Sherk, , RDGE, p. 248Google Scholar, Deininger, , op. cit., p. 244Google Scholar, and Fuks, , op. cit., pp. 283, 288Google Scholar.
55 Information kindly supplied by Dr Ch. Kritzas. See ArchDelt (Chron.) 28 (1973), 126Google Scholar for preliminary notice of this important find.
56 Ferrary, , op. cit., pp. 189–90Google Scholar, with n. 228.
57 Aemilianus: Boeckh, and Münzer, (RE 6 [1909], 1794)Google Scholar. (Münzer's argument, however, dissolved upon revision of Sherk 14 = ICret III.4.10: see Guarducci's commentary to that stone.) Servilianus: Beasley (p. 163). Hiller's date in Syll. 3 (‘139?’), reproduced without comment by Lewis-Reinhold, depends on Münzer. Colin, however, thought the 140s too early ‘pour qu'on puisse déja regarder comme bien vraisemblables de nouvelles revolutions en Gréce’ (op. cit., p. 654, n. 2).
58 Accame, , op. cit., pp. 149–50Google Scholar, followed by Sherk (with a query), and Broughton, T. R. S., Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York and Atlanta, 1951–1986) ii. 644, iii. 87–8Google Scholar. Zumpt, , Commentationum epigraphicarum ad antiquitates Romanas pertinentium 2 (Berlin, 1854), p. 167ffGoogle Scholar. (non vidi) first formulated the argument; see also Holleaux, M., Hermes 49 (1914), 583, n. 4Google Scholar, and Στρατηγς Ὕπατος (BEFAR 113; Paris, 1918), 15, with n. 1, who saw that Fabius might be of praetorian rank but did not pursue the consequences.
59 See, for example, Cn. Cornelius Sisenna (FD III.2.70a = Syll. 3 705 = RDGE 15, lines 59–60), or Cn. Egnatius (BCH 98 [1974] 813–16 = CIL I2 2977), both praetorian proconsuls of Macedonia. For further examples, see the lists given by Jashemski, W. F., The Origins and History of the Proconsular and the Propraetorian Imperium to 27 b.c. (Chicago, 1950)Google Scholar. Jashemski (following Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht 2 3 [Leipzig, 1888], pp. 647–50Google Scholar) believes indeed that all praetors sent to Macedoni a were given proconsular imperium. That is doubtful, but does not affect the present argument.
60 MRR i.458, iii.87.
61 MRR i.514.
62 He presided as praetor over the court in which L. Crassus prosecuted C. Carbo, no later than and almost certainly in 119 (MRR 1.526); but Cn. Cornelius Sisenna, his praetorian colleague in 119, held Macedonia as praeto r and in 118 as proconsul (ibid. 1.528 with n. 2). Even if Eburnus's praetorship were to be placed earlier than usual, in 120, he could not have held Macedonia because its commande r at that time, almost certainly the immediate predecessor of Sisenna, is known: Sex. Pompeius, killed in action against the Scordisci in 119: Syll 3 700 and MRR 1.527 n. 3.
63 Namely C. Porcius Cato, C. Caecilius Metellus Caprarius, M. Livius Drusus, and M. Minucius Rufus, the last of whom remained in Macedonia until c. 107.
64 Plb. 39.5. On this politeia, see above, p. 4; on conditions in Achaea, see below.
65 I would assume that Servilianus had been assigned Macedonia provincia, which sufficed for any necessary proconsular intervention in Greece. That is not to say that a ‘province’ of Macedonia had been formally constituted and that Greece was part of it. On all this see my Hegemony to Empire, chapter 2.
66 There is no evidence that a praetor in a provincial command during his year of office would have been styled officially pro consule or νθύπατος (see above, n. 59). Fabius's titulature in the Dyme inscription in my view therefore should exclude 145, the most likely date of his (Servilianus's) praetorship.
67 πσαι μν γρ κορύζων αί πολεις (38.12.5). Cf. Fuks, A., ‘The Bellum Achaicum and its Social Aspect’, JHS 90 (1970), 85, with n. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I hesitate to put too much stress, however, on Polybius' comments that immediately precede about the lowly composition of the crowd at the Achaean assembly in spring, 146; this is brought up precisely to provide partial exculpation for the noisy disrespect shown the Roman envoys.
68 Plb. 38.11.10, 15.3–6, 15.11. Cf. Fuks, , JHS 90 (1970), 79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and esp. 84, 86, 88–9, stressing the nationalistic over the social-revolutionary aspect of these measures.
69 Singled out by Plb. 38.16.4: Πατρεῖς δ κα τ μετ τούτων συντελικν βραχεῖ χρόνῳ πρότερον πταίκει κατ τν Φωκίδα κα τ συμβαῖνον ἦν πολλῷ τν κατ Πελοπόννησον λεεινότερον; cf. Walbank, , HCP 3. 712–13Google Scholar, and for the Patraean synteleia, Larsen, J. A. O., ‘The Rights of Cities within the Achaean Confederation’, CP 66 (1971), 84–6Google Scholar.
70 For condemnation and confiscation of property of those allegedly responsible for inciting the war with Rome, see Plb. 39.4.3 (cp. Zon. 9.31.8, Diod. 32.26.2), and perhaps Plb. 39.6.4–5. Abolition of ἒγκτησις and indemnities: Paus. 7.16.9–10. For the moratorium on debts, cf. above, n. 68.
71 The census-requirement: Paus. 7.16.9. The passage in which this reference appears is tendentious and not altogether reliable, but the imposition of a census-requirement at least is supported by the precedent of Flamininus's arrangements in Thessaly in 194 (Livy 34.51.6). Of course, given the practical realities of self-promotion and office-holding in the Hellenistic city, it is unlikely that a census-requirement of magistrates, as reported by Pausanias, will have had much effect on the participation of the poor in politics: see Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City (Oxford, 1940), pp. 170–71Google Scholar, and Plb. 28.7.7, with O'Neil, J. L., ‘The Political Elites of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues’, AncSoc 15–17 (1984–1986), 41–3Google Scholar.
72 Plb. 4.83.5; cf. 7.11.7 with Walbank, , HCP ii. 58Google Scholar. See also Paus. 7.17.5, who, strangely, claims that Dyme, alone among Achaean cities, was directly subject to Philip.
73 Paus. 7.17.5; Livy 32.22.10 (cf. 21.28).
74 Livy 32.22.8–12 chooses to stress obligations to Macedon rather than hostility to Rome (for which see Paus. 7.8.2, App. Mac. 7), but Dyme had reason to hate Rome as well as to love Philip.
75 The dedications of the 160s by and for Hagemonidas of Dyme (ISE 56–7), a general in the Seleucid service under Antiochus IV, Antiochus V, and Demetrius, are suggestive, but of course do not imply hostility toward Rome. Cf. however Moretti, L., ‘Epigraphica’, RivFil 93 (1965), 284–7Google Scholar, who explains the Laodicean honours for Hagemonidas (set up in his home town at Dyme) by the hypothesis that he had saved Laodicea from punishment by Demetrius after the murder there of the Roman legate Cn. Octavius in 162. On Hagemonidas's service under the Seleucids, see Habicht, C., ‘Der Stratege Hegemonides’, Historia 7 (1958), 376–8Google Scholar. Whether SEG 15.254, which lists Dymaeans among those Achaeans who served under Cn. Domitius π Γαλάτας, belongs in 122, as has been most recently argued by Schwertfeger (op. cit., pp. 30–8) or in 162 or even 96, is in my view unknown (Hegemony to Empire [forthcoming], Appendix F). Syll. 3 530, the judgment of Dyme against counterfeiters, which Thür, G. and Stumpf, G.would now date shortly after 190 (Tyche 4 [1989], 171–83)Google Scholar, casts little light on the history of the city in this period.
76 Perhaps the former is more likely, in view of Mummius's execution of some hippeis of Chalkis: Plb. 39.6.5.
77 Cf. Plb. 38.16.6 οί μν ἦγον κδώσοντες λλήλους τοῖς πολεμίοις ὡς λλοτρίους γεγονότας ‘Ρωμαίων, οί δ’ μήνυον κα κατηγόρουν τν πέλας. A transition between the immediately preceding mention of the fate of the men of Patrae in Phocis (above, n. 69) and this sketch of the terror of the inhabitants of the cities of Central Greece must have been passed over by the Constantinian excerptors.
78 See Polybius's famous account of the beginning of his friendship with Scipio Aemilianus, 31.23–4. Fabius Aemilianus's house: 31.23.7. A. M. Eckstein alerted me to the possibility of a connection between Servilianus and Polybius, but must not be supposed to accept the view I take of the matter.
79 ‘Scipio Aemilianus' Eastern Embassy’, CQ 36 (1986), 491–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and, on the embassy in general, Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), 127, 137–9, 177Google Scholar.
80 See the works cited above, n. 3, esp. Dahlheim, , op. tit., p. 127Google Scholar: ‘Das Eingreifen des römischen Beamten war also keine subsidiäre nur für den vorübergehenden Zweck vorgenommene Maβnahme, sondern die selbstverständliche Ausübung einer rechtens anerkannten Funktion’; Baronowski, Klio 70 (1988), 453Google Scholar: ‘[Fabius's] authoritative handling of the revolution at Dyme, which he merely reported to the civic administration, indicates his formal locus standi in Greece.’ Schwertfeger, , op. cit., p. 71Google Scholar, rightly saw that Fabius's intervention hardly demanded the formal underpinning of ‘provincialization’.
81 Rightly stressed by Schwertfeger, , op. cit., pp. 67, 71Google Scholar, and Bernhardt, , op. cit., p. 223Google Scholar. Schwertfeger (p. 67), Bernhardt (p. 222) and Bagnall-Derow (above, n. 9) extract from the specification of the sunedroi at lines 4–5 as those ‘with Cyllanius’ that some sunedroi at least stood on the other side, backing Sosus. The conjecture is not historically implausible, but the phrase itself cannot be stretched so far, as its regular use in Polybius and in inscriptions (cf. Hiller, [Dittenberger], Syll. 3 684, n. 4Google Scholar) shows.
82 Above, n. 43.
83 See Polybius on the Achaean leader Callicrates of Leontium: 24.9–10, esp. Callicrates's assertion that ν μν οὖν ὑπ τς συγκλήτου γίνηταί τις πισημασία, ταχέως κα τοὺς πολιτευομένους μεταθέσθαι πρς τν, 'Ρωμαίων αἲρεσιν, κα τοὺς πολλοὺς τούτοις πακολουθήσειν δι τν ϕόβον (24.9.6) and Polybius's own assessment of the result: οὒτως κα τότε πρτον πεβάλετο τοὺς μν κατ τ βέλτιστον ίσταμένους ν τοῖς ἰδίοις πολιτεύμασιν λαττον, τοὺς δ κα δικαίως <κα δίκως> προστρέχοντας αὐτῇ σωματοποιεῖν. ξ ὦν αὐτῇ συνέβη κατ βραχύ το χρόνου προβαίνοντος, κολάκων μν εὐπορεῖν, ϕίλων δ σπανίζειν ληθνν (24.10.4–5). Cf. also Pol. 30.13.4–10 (Livy 45.31.8) on the effect on local Greek politics of Rome's victory over Perseus.
84 Most notorious were Charops of Epirus an d the Aetolian Lyciscus. See Derow, P. S., ‘Polybius and the Embassy of Kallikrates’, in Essays Presented to C. M. Bowra (Oxford, 1970), pp. 12–24Google Scholar; also Gruen, , op. cit., pp. 514–19Google Scholar, who may well be right to regard the phenomenon as a n ephemeral result of the war with Macedon. Even so, the reprise of Roman military intervention in the Achaean War will have encouraged its reappearance.
85 Livy 34.48.2; Sherk, RDGE 38 = Syll 3 611, lines 10–14; legates; above, n. 43; Paulus: Livy 45.31.1–2 (cf. 45.28.6–8), 45.31.15.
86 The implications are pursued in Hegemony to Empire, chapters 1–3.
87 Fuks, , op. cit., pp. 282–8Google Scholar assumes that the legislation followed the fire, without argument. So too Bernhardt, , op. cit., p. 223Google Scholar; Sherk, , equally tacitly, seems to imply the reverse (RDGE, p. 248)Google Scholar.
88 See above, p. 132.
89 Almost certainly a local official of Dyme, not of the Achaean League: above, p. 139.
90 Fuks, , op. cit., pp. 283–4, 288Google Scholar. That the legislation brought about a ‘new “system of government”’ (p. 285) Fuks extracted from Fabius's use of the word κατάστασις in line 12. Rostovtzeff, , op. cit., p. 757Google Scholar, Sherk, , RDGE, p. 248Google Scholar, Dahlheim, , op. cit., p. 127, n. 159Google Scholar, Schwertfeger, , op. cit., p. 67Google Scholar, similarly speculate that the ‘revolution’ may have been temporarily successful.
91 Sherk concludes from the men's legislative activity that ‘they must have established some sort of an organization' (RDGE, p. 248). But the appointment of nomographoi in times of distress is no revolutionary novelty: compare Plb. 13.1.1–2.1 on Aetolian nomographoi c. 206/205, and the references given above, p. 137.
92 Above, n. 85.
93 Note that only [—]miscus is noted to have confessed (line 23). The kategoroi who provided ‘true proofs’ (lines 16–17) of Sosus's guilt were almost certainly the very ones who laid the information before Fabius, namely Cyllanius and the synedroi with him.
94 Such appears to be the nature of the contrast expressed in Fabius's explanation of his judicial rationale (οὐ μόν[ον…]… λλ κα, lines 13–15).
95 So esp. Fuks, , op. cit., pp. 282, 285Google Scholar, and Schwertfeger, , op. cit., pp. 65–7Google Scholar, following the lead of Boeckh, Hicks and Beasley (p. 163); contra, Deininger, , op. cit., p. 244Google Scholar, and Bernhardt, , op. cit., p. 223Google Scholar. See above, p. 132.
96 Fuks, , op. cit., p. 288Google Scholar, wrongly makes Timotheus one of the ringleaders in the destruction of the archives. It was hardly the case, then, that ‘to change the new constitutions… was punishable with death’ (JHS 90 [1970], 86Google Scholar). See above, p. 140.
97 See the works listed above, n. 4, with varying degrees of emphasis on socio-economic and political factors. The more sensitive recent treatments by Bernhardt and Ferrary are notably cool toward this aspect.
98 Op. cit., p. 757.
99 Fuks, , op. cit., pp. 283, 285, 288Google Scholar; Accame, , op. cit., p. 150Google Scholar; Larsen, , op. cit., p. 503Google Scholar. Will, , op. cit., p. 398Google Scholar: ‘revolution democratique’.
100 See also above, n. 81.
101 See above, p. 132. ‘Die absolute Demokratie’ is Schwertfeger's phrase (op. cit., p. 67). ‘Unfettered democracy’ would have been rather out of place in second-century Achaea: on the moderation of the traditional democracy in Achaea, see esp. Walbank, , HCP i. 221–2Google Scholar, and O'Neil, , AncSoc 15–17 (1984–1986), 41–3Google Scholar.
102 7.16.9. See above, p. 132.
103 Bernhardt, , op. cit., p. 223Google Scholar; Ferrary, , op. cit., pp. 198–9Google Scholar, with n. 257.
104 This scenario is never rigidly distinguished from the one that stresses an ‘anti-timocratic’ aspect, but emerges particularly strongly in Rostovtzeff, Fuks and Baronowski: see above, n. 4.
105 Asheri, , op. cit., p. 97 n. 62Google Scholar.
106 See the fire in Rome, 7 b.c. (Dio 55.8.5–6), or that in Antioch, A.D. 70 (Jos. BJ 7.54–62).
107 Naturally, it must not be assumed that only the lower orders would be indebted: Bernhardt, , op. cit., pp. 222–3Google Scholar. Cf. Asheri, , op. cit., pp. 92–4Google Scholar.
108 Fuks, , op. cit., pp. 286–7Google Scholar.
109 See Goodman, M., The Ruling Class of Judaea. The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome, a.d. 66–70 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 18, 54–8, and 152–227 (esp. 153–5, 167–9, 199–208, 215–18)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt’, JJS 33 (1982), 417–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the economic background to this event, which he regards as essentially symbolic, since other records will have existed in private possession.
110 See Boeckh and Hicks ad loc.; Beasley (p. 163), apparently followed by Accame, , op. cit., p. 150Google Scholar; Fuks, , op. cit., pp. 286–7Google Scholar.
111 Cic, . Cael. 78Google Scholar, Mil. 73; cf. Red. Pop. 14, Sest. 84–5, Har. Resp. 57, Parad. 4.31. See Nicolet, C., ‘La temple des Nymphes et les distributions frumentaires à Rome à l'époque républicaine d'apres des découvertes récentes’, CRAI 1976, 29–51Google Scholar.
112 Contra Sherk, RDGE, p. 248, who accepts Fabius's hostile characterization of the laws of Sosus and Timotheus and concludes that ‘this implies rather grandiose plans’. Similarly, Fuks, , op. cit., p. 288Google Scholar: ‘the last echo of a long period of social-economic struggles in late classical and Hellenistic Greece’.
113 Above, pp. 12, 17–18. Mummius had executed some hippeis of Chalcis (Plb. 39.6.5).
114 Servilianus captured 10,000 prisoners in a sweep of towns held by Viriathus; of these, he beheaded 500 and sold into slavery the remaining thousands; then he cut off the hands of the followers of a ‘brigand’ named Connoba. See App. Ib. 68; Front. Strat. 4.1.42; Val. Max. 2.7.11; Oros. 5.4.12, with Astin, , op. cit., p. 83Google Scholar.
115 Plb. 38.12.1, 15.8, 17.9, 18.7; 39.5.5: μ γρ ξεργασαμένξυ τούτου [sc.το Πολυβίου] κα γράψαντος τούς περί τς κοινς δικαιοδοσίας νόμους ἂκριτα πάντα ἦν κα πολλς γέμοντα ταραχ. Note too Polybius's description of the seven or eight years down to 146 as one of ταραχή καί κίνησις (3.4.12)—in my view, a rebellious disruptiveness caused by a failure to recognize the fact, which Polybius regards as patent after 168, that Rome's orders had to be obeyed (3.4.3). On the period of ταραχή καί κίνησις, see esp. Walbank, F. W., Selected Papers (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 325–43Google Scholar (= Historiographia antiqua: commentationes Lovanienses in honorem W. Peremans septuagenarii editae [Leuven, 1977], pp. 139–62), and Ferrary, , op. cit., pp. 265–348Google Scholar.
116 Ferrary, , op. cit., pp. 196–9Google Scholar. Polybius explicitly attributes monarchic power to Critolaus at 38.13.7; certainly his description of Diaeus's method of dealing with opponents (38.17.1–18.6) recalls the standard depiction of the tyrant.
117 Plb. 20.7.3; 22.14.6; 23.8.2; 30.31.13; 30.31.20; 38.9.4; 38.12.3; 38.16.6 (quoted above, n. 77.
118 Plb. 24.9.6, quoted above, n. 83.
119 An answer is attempted in my Hegemony to Empire (forthcoming).
