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

Wirszubski
Review by: Arnaldo Momigliano
The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 41, Parts 1 and 2 (1951), pp. 146-153
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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. WVirszubskihas 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
360). iVMr.
22, I950,
Wirszubski,
who are replacing them are not more impressivre(cf. H. Last, Gnomizon
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, provresto be identical with the notion of Civritas. Libertas sums up the rights of a Roman
as MVlommsensaid, als dieser Rechtsschutz selbst als Biirgerrecht aufgefasst ward, fiel
civris
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 privrilegeand 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,is 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 vrague 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
Wirszubski
of research on Libertas as a primarily juridical notion there is scope for disagreement. iVMr.
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 havrebeen
classified by the Romans under the heading of Libertas. But if one examines Libertas in itselfto know what the Romans meant by it-one does not see what a discussion of Libertas has to do
unless evxidenceis provided that
with religious freedom or with the sanctity of the home (pp. 29-30),
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

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEW

AND

DISCUSSION

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 Cassiaof I37 are apparently
the
already connected with Libertas on coins before Ioo B.C. (B.-M.C., Rolz. Rep. I, I5I, I53):
evidence quoted by WI.for 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,
I feel uneasy about these coins, but the texts produced by IV. for the connection between
399-403).
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.
Ges.
(Dessau, ILS IS) which MIommsen's commentary made famous (HernmesIII, i869, 261
Schriften iv, S6, and Staatsrecht iii, p. xvii, n. I). As MNIommsenobserved, 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, civritaslibera, postliminium (on which
F. de Visscher, Festschrift P. Koschaker, I, I939, 367, will be found particularly useful), capitis
deminutio '. The ordinary tripartition of capitis deninazutiois 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
This
by Paulus: ' tria enim sunt quae habemus, libertatem, civitate;n, famniliam' (Dig. 4, S, II).
tripartition is not compatible with the identification of Ci-vitas and Libertas. If WN.thinks (as he
is already part of the juridical thought of
seems to imply) that the tripartitioln of capitis demizinuttio
the Roman Republic, he is not entitled to assert the identification of Libertas with Civitas. The
truth is, of course, that it is vreryuncertain 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 appearin 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
Hist. Juris 6,
(the most recent discussion known to me is between R. Ambrosino, Stuldia et Documlnz.
I am in substantial agreement with the latter).
30I:
I940,
369, and C. Gioffredi ib. II, I945,
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'ginzeronzain de la naoxalite'I947, I48. I may
perhaps add that I do not quite agree with De Visscher ' De l'acquisition du droit de cite romain
Hist. 7/uris. I2, I946, 69. One of the reasons for my
par l'affranchissernent ', Studia et Documniz.
disagreement is to be found in the ' vendere trans Tiberim', but I cannot argue the point here:
cf. iVM.Kaser, Zeitschr. Sav. Stift. Rom. Abt. 67, I950, 489, n. 59.
famous episodes of the traditional history of Rome are connected with
(3) Some of the most
'
Libertas (cf. U. Coli. Sul parallelismo del diritto pubblico e del diritto privrato nel periodo arcaico
di Roma', Stzudiaet Docutnm.
4, 1938, 95). They offered an explanation of certain Roman institutions
and represented a powerful stimulus for remembering and cherishing the formalities of Roman Law.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.'sresearch.
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
Herimes44, 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.has 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
The comparison with Professor L. Wickert, ' Der Prinzipat und die Freiheit,'
indispensable.
is favourable to W. Though Wickert quotes
Symbola Coloniensia Iosepho Kroll . . . oblata II I-I47,
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.,too, 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
and Musonius explored unusual avenues of moral action (A. C. van
probat moriens' (viii 62I);
Geytenbeek, iMiusoniuis
Rutfutsen de Griekse Diatribe, Amsterdam, I948, is better than anything else
on Musonius, yet insufficient: J. Korver, ' Neron et Musonius,' iMinemos.IV, 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 expectations. W. attempts to reduce the value of the passage of Dio 66, I2, 2, pCaloEiaS T?E&?i Kc(T-ryopEi icd
i
examining the long account of Philostratus, V7ita Apoll. Tyan. v,
?oKpaTiav
ETr?IVEI without
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 showvthat the alternative-Libertas or Imperator-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEW

AND

DISCUSSION

I49

was still a real one in the mind of some persons (for instance, Ann. i5, 52, 4). B. Croce found
It would also have been
Helvidius worth a close analysis in Qutadernidella Critica 4, I946, 25-35.
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
In strict theory
attribution of the Octavia to Annaeus Cornutus (Riv. Fil. N.S. I5, I937, 246).
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.is 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-dEpictetus. Mtiisonius is mentioned, but his writings are not examineda 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
They should make some show of
impression that they constantly agree among themselves.
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.
of
II. Dio of Prutsa, the Rhodiana' libertas' and the Philosophers.-i. Introduction.-Synesius
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 shoiwing 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
?). According to von Arnim, Dio, after having been a virtuoso in his youth and a philosophic
(96-I20
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.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.
speech to the Rhodians (xxxi) was written after Nero's
2. Dio and the statutsof Rhodes.-Dio's
death (prg. I48) and describes Rhodes' status as that of a civitas libera (II2 TnV EAUEVpiaV O'iEUeE
reign, and probably in the first
aTropacAEiv ;). But Rhodes lost her freedom during Vespasian's
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 wvrotehis 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-asgranted 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-INVs.v. Rhodos, Suppl. v, 8ii f.). Hiller's scheme can be sumrnarized
as follows:about A.D. 71, Rhodes loses her liberty;
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.

A.D.

It is now time to quote the texts and comment on them

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
(i)

-a
Ta- -TaTpiEl
6a'pcp T
7uv9povprTa
a -ForriS To rl' T? ThOV aJTOKpaTopa
cviiYTavTa
Kai

oIKOV auTou

TUXOvTa

Kai Tav

TCY)V KaAiUCTCov

a&E'X EX
E'VTC^)TaS lTpUvTaVEiaSXPOVCX) Kai lia6ElIaXEVOV
Kai Tov
CPaoiniov Kaicapa
EEpaaCTov OiVEcruacyiavOv
EUYvoiaV Kai TTicYTiv
IEpOV COYVKM1TOV KaC TOV Ma,uOv TOV PcoaiCOV
{T&-

TiTov

arTo

ypaQIa4rTcov

TOU eEOl

EEpacrTOU

?V Trc- TraS

rpUTvYaVEiaS

Kailpo

KTA.

(6) Dittenberger,
BouA[i((6as)]

Syll.3, 8i9
ayTCapEVOS

1TOAErrEfa(s>, Kai 0o Mios

[DomZlitiano].
?-rr.

apa,EYOV

KTEAa3E

TTpacypaTa

auTo 1

Kail

E)E EEPacTr 'Opovoi

EvXpas,

Eq)

oU

'Iaccov

a&?E[Ka]TEaTaxeTl

'Ap1CTOyVEVUS

a TVaXTpios

6o E\OucYavouvTiCOVKTA.

(7) Plutarch., Pr-aec. ger. reip. 815 d.

iEpaV

Kai AoPETi'a

XEpO[Va&]aOu

aAopEv'

iv
TrappY)iQY

KCi 'Po8iouvS

E'YyKOS

ETFi
?TF

6E Kal
TOIS

KYV6VYEUOlCYO1p01eEYV,

1EyfaTOIS-

O1Q
Vfpyop1aouS

C'OTFE7p yKUpaV
N?poVOS
?ri

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 saepeist den Rhodiern die Freiheit entzogen w7orden' (Geschichte der

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I5 I

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

alten Rhodier I900, 175), will have to search the history of Rhodes to find a grant of freedom before
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.
Staatsverw.2 I, 348).
(5) does not say, as von Arnim and his followvers imply, that Titus granted freedom to Rhodes.
T
Nobody indeed can know wlhat the Ka ypalUua-ra
-ra
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 answverthat Rhodes wvasprobably 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
Tr 7T0oXE
cf. IG xii, I, 2, 1. 12-13 [aTrroo0eEia]as
ToX)..v[
TQS 1TaTpToU TFoATTEaS Kal TCOX)6vv
-v
opc
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-WVs.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. XXXIiS 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 birthwlho reproached the Athenians for taking pleasure in gladiatorial shows
A.D.

122.
ETF)VEcyav,

Kail TOV ElT?rovTa

a

8E T

lKc[aJT1)V

PETa

TOv1

EXOVTc

apXaiovS

TrEpi

E?U

OUTCA)

1)AlK1qS O18?i5

aK&KOAOU0e

8laTp43Elv a00aXOcUETS

TOUJTOUpiAaCOpOV

Epavav,

C07TE

EKE?1VOV

Kai

vOueE-TlbcyavTa

pEV ovTa

yEVEl

aTous

PcoCi0v

OVKUaTKTE?awVTo

I8?VO;

UCTEpOV,

EK 'TTaXVu7TToAAOu TETUXTIKEV, 0OPOOyOip?VqOV 8E p6vov

TfTV -'vO6IV
V
TOTs AOyOi,
KQTcOTa-Ta
Kai
pacSov

PEPICOKEVai

O18?E
sotcv

paclcTa

E'?CEae

'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

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEW

I52

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)

(2)

Fronto, p. II5 Naber= II, p. 50 Haines (Loeb). Quid nostra memoria Euphrates, Dio,
Timocrates, Athenodotus ? Quid horum magister Musonius ?
8?E T7V aUTOKpaTOpa
Philostr. Vita Apoll. Tyan. V, 27. OivcT-raciavoU
apX7(lV TVEplVOOUVTOS
T?pi Ta
...

oT,opa

XalpEIV

EXQIPE. V, 31,
elJpalS

(3)

EV,
Ti; AiyuTFrTC( KE

I 1TpOXCOPOvJTOS

Tov

TflV

CZ pc(1AEU,

AyuvTTov,

ACOVES

pEV

KQI EvppaTal

pEvEupp'Tn Kai AfCoVI ?TEpi TO'TCV

Aicov'ra'ac c ol yvc'puioi ovTEs TTpO?S

Cf. also V, 37-8.

EiCiV.

Th-emist. or. x de pace p. I65 Dindorf (I39

uT1KTrlS
MEAayKouaSovopa auTco, Ka'AlCTOS
av71p,
Ou Kai

ETi

8? TTapaTrAflai@cS
'ATro.AAOcvioS
Kai
ElTrEV (Apollonius),
Ev)pp'Trns

TFapcEKEEUOVTO

TiTov

(4) Synesius, Dio

qpacyiv EpacyTrlv

A.

yEvEcyeal

Tov

a).

7V
TE Kai

TIS

Trri TCAV 'rrpOyOVCoV TCV

pEy1acTOS

7T1[ETEPCOV
Kai TT,V TEXVYnV EU8OKIcoTaToS,

a(TOKpaTopaX

a'

COCYTc)V
Kaci paTcrra
Els 'p1OCYOaOUS TE Kai
ol'ToS y?E TF1Ta 8iT
i
Kai To p7fTOpEUE1V
aQTrfvalCYXuVTflKEV. aTE yap, oipal,
XoucaX;
piosaoqpiav
qpuc7cOS?Xcv
TO
V KaTa
KO1VQ
V KaTa' 1ioapiav
aUTO flleEuEv,
T'S
aQVaQTETFE1cEVOs Eival TOU
aEpVOv
QeE)V O TE KaTa TcoV pI1OaCY6qov a AT6yo;
U1TO?VIEIs
?ai-rouv&aeCq
cy6cpa a-MyXcoviapvos
K Td O rp's MoUck viov E-TEpOS TOiOOTOS,
TC
oU
Kl
v
ppOvyUaCopovoU
6'KV7acicUxpa
...
38 A ouTCs yap av ElWPEV TOUS TE qIAocooUs
?K l1ae'?Co; ypC9OVTO
TOTrcA) ToJ AicovoS, a'
X C EUTVp ?V
aS
Kai Tovs a'To
ToJTo
EKaTEpOUs Xcopi
liE1kpoTES
CYOPlCYTlKOUS
A6yoUS

37

VuKTO,uaXia, TrEp1TEVu6,Eea
Kai Tovs

CYK opuiacyl

1TOAV

aTr'

aQuTC,

au(Tcov

KcdI 1OAITEicXY

VUVE

aOl

vuv
PJEV
paOVT1
2ZCAKpaTq
vT1 TacYfl
E avQUVEUl
YfS

UcTEcpaVoJVTi TE a1TO1S

Kai Tapa

Kaci

ZflVvcva

Ka'

ea<TTflS,
lya

TOYS EK AIOVUoiCOV

TIe?EVCy

COS OvTaS
I
yEVVQlOJ

Kflpas
iou

Kai cc)ppovos.

because it shows that (z) was well informed when it associated Dio's name
(I) is very important
Contrary to von Arnim's views, it can be shown that Dio had an early
with that of Euphrates.

philosophic education and moved in philosophic circles when he was young. If Dio was a pupil
of M'viusonius,it was easy for him to become acquainted with the Flavians, as M'viusoniuswas their
friend.
Also Melancomas may have had some part in putting Dio in touch with the Flavians. Dio
wrote two obituaries of Melancomas (xxviii, xxix), and Themistius (3) must have read somewlhere
s.v Dion v, 849)
that Melancomas was a young athlete loved by Titus. But N. Schmid (P-WNV,
has gone too far in stating that Melancomas died either before or at least not much after A.D. 70.
Dio says that Athenodorus, an athlete, was a friend of Melancomas a&ro -rai8o's (xxviii io). This
Athenodorus has been identified wNiththe athlete wlho appears in the list of winners at Olympia in
A.D. 49, 53, 6i (Eusebius, Chi-on. p. IOI Karst). If the identification were correct, it would point,
hoowevervaguely, to a date not later than c. A.D. 70, as Melancomas died young (xxviii 13, XXIX 20).
, wlhereas Eusebius
6o -ayKpaTiaca
It must, howNever, be observed that Dio calls Athenodorus
registers Athenodorus as a winner in the stadion. The identification of the two Athenodori is far
from being certain.
Of course, Philostratus' tale about Dio, Euphrates, and Apollonius discussing the ideal
constitution at Vespasian's headquarters in A.D. 70 deserves no credit. But the man wlho imagined
the scene knew something about both the personal relations between the three men and the type
of discussions current during the crisis of the principate after Nero's death. We may even go so
far as to admit that the presence of the two pupils of Musonius at Vespasian's headquarters would
not be surprising if it were better attested. After all, ' miscuerat se legatis Musonius Rufus' (Tac.,
Hist. III, 8i). Vespasian had been a friend of Barea Soranus (Tac., Hist. IV, 7), and Soranus, as
a friend of Rubellius Plautus (Tac., Ann. XVI, 30), is likely to have been also a friend of MIusonius
(Ann. XIV, 59). Musonius and Vespasian had probably met under Nero.
(4) points to a period in which Dio became violently hostile to the philosophers and asked for
persecution much more serious than anything done against them even by Vespasian. A connection
with Vespasian's policy seems probable. I hope I am wrong, but the evidence rather implies that
Dio became afraid of his early friendship with some of the philosophers and lost his nerve he
denounced his former friends. As is well known, Musonius was spared by Vespasian in the
persecution of A.D. 71, but must have been exiled later, for he was recalled under Titus (Hieron.
Chion. p. I89 Helm). Dio may either have written both pamphlets-against the philosophers and
to Musonius-wlhen Musonius lost his privileged position or he may have written each pamphlet
at a different stage of the struggle. Given the latter alternative, he may have attacked the philosophers

about 71.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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)either 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 new 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?vitaslibera (and foederata) by practices which
stultify any pretence of freedom. The honour of Hellas is in question (157). Because Rhodes has
It is better
no longer any possibility of political leadership, she must defend her dignity (I62-3).
to become a slave (8o0AElEIV UpJv -r65 Trav-rTi
PEA-\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-ais 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
If he wrote in the years in which Vespasian reconsidered
Greeks (cf. also the remark of prg. iii).
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(VE1TCAJvEv Tacs
TCAJvEXveae& -

' ScJTrEp

01

ouTCA0JI

1TpoJr)KoVrE5,

TroAEoIV OOJE?V TrotVS T1YE[JOVas OIKOI -TpOS

TCJ)V Trail5iCoV TCJ)v a'TaK-rTOTEpCA)V

Kal

Ta

TCV

5T1CV

aXapTTaTa

TrpOS

MyCo

5? TO1'S

TOUV

l1cXaKcX?\OU&

EKEiVOUS

aTrayyE?AETcra

EI'iOUS r)YEPoVC(S
KaXT1yOpOJIJiV

(14).

ARNALDO MONIIGLIANO.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:39:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions