The hard case here is, of course, Rome’s treatment of Carthage in the run-up to the destruction of that city in 146 B.C. Rome, in Polybius’ view, satisfied these criteria throughout the period covered by the Histories thus the view that Polybius passed a negative judgement on Roman imperial conduct after 168 B.C. Chapter 5 (87-113) asserts that Polybius systematically and consistently promulgates the view that successful empire-building depends on beneficence and moderation during all three phases of the imperial project- acquisition, expansion, and preservation. Polybius is sometimes critical of Roman foreign policy and sharp practice, but often tempers his criticism with an explanation of extenuating circumstances and stronger condemnation of foreign leaders. Polybius believed that in most cases imperialism was a noble pursuit by virtuous men, and that the Roman imperial achievement, aggressively pursued and justified on plausible pretexts, was particularly moderate and beneficial. Part II of Baronowski’s study begins building the case by considering Polybius’ attitude towards legitimate imperial expansion (Chapter 4, 65-86). On the other hand, uniquely among the Greeks, Polybius “eschewed the vain conceit that Roman power would prevail indefinitely,” typical of the poets pseudo-Lycophron, Melinno and Limenius (62), but rather believed that Roman power was destined to decline and fall through self-indulgence, greed and ambition brought on by imperial success (succinctly: 61-63, 164-75). Like his Greek contemporaries, Polybius admired imperial power and Roman domination, regarded Roman rule as largely moderate and beneficial to others, and yet maintained critical distance from Rome. Thus Polybius, who, as demonstrated in Part II of Baronowski’s book, was a proponent of imperial power generally and of Roman domination in particular, belongs squarely in the mainstream of Hellenistic intellectual opinion on the subject.īut Polybius is at the same time a much more complex thinker, as Baronowski elegantly demonstrates. The exceptions are relatively few: Polybius’ contemporary, Agatharchides of Cnidus, who abhorred imperialism in all its forms and especially that of Rome (22- 23, 53-54) Antisthenes the Peripatetic, the compiler of anti-Roman tales as reproduced in Phlegon of Tralles’s On Marvels (32-33) the Hellenizing Jewish writers of books 3 and 4 of the Sibylline Oracles (33- 40) and the pro-Carthaginian historians Philinus of Agrigentum (47-48) and Sosylus of Sparta (48-50). the Hellenized Jewish author of 1 Maccabees) “not only accepted imperial domination as a normal feature of the international structure,” but also “usually admired or defended Rome or some other imperialist nation” (15) these include the philosophers Carneades and Panaetius (whose views come to us via Laelius in Cicero’s De Republica) (17-28), the poets Alcaeus of Messene, pseudo-Lycophron, Melinno of Lesbos, Limenius of Athens, and pseudo-Scymnus (29-32), and the historians Aristotheus of Troezen, perhaps Zenodotus of Troezen, and, with qualifications, Posidonius, the continuator of Polybius (52-60). Baronowski discovers that the overwhelming majority of these imperialized Greeks (and a few non-Greeks-e.g. There then follow three chapters outlining the opinions of Hellenistic Greek philosophers (17-28), poets and prophets (29-42), and historians other than Polybius (43-60) on the issues of imperialism and Roman power.
The first third of Baronowski’s book is given over to background and prefatory material, including an Introduction that provides a brief biography of Polybius, a discussion of the scope of his Histories, a review of scholarship on Polybius’ attitude towards Roman imperialism, and a survey of Polybius’ conception of imperialism (1- 13). In addition, like Champion’s book, Baronowski’s is a valuable addition to the growing list of works that recognize Polybius as a complex and original thinker, and a man of great personal and intellectual integrity rather than a mindless apologist for and flatterer of the Romans. It is thus a very welcome full-length study on a particularly vexed question that scholars have chipped away at for years, but upon which there has yet to be much consensus. But whereas the latter examined Polybius’ complex attitudes towards Rome and Romans in general terms, Baronowski focuses in on the specific issue of the Greek historian’s views on Roman imperialism, that is, “how reacted to the expansion of Roman power over other peoples” (ix). Donald Baronowski’s new book announces itself as a kind of companion piece to Craige Champion’s masterful 2004 study, Cultural Politics in Polybius’s Histories (Berkeley).
0 kommentar(er)
