Alberto Gandini

The treatise De mundo included within the Aristotelian Corpus contains an elaborate analogy between God – the supreme cosmic principle – and the Great King of Persia. The Author offers a fascinating image of the Achaemenid power apparatus, that the King orders and dominates seated in majesty in the innermost chambers of his palaces. The present paper aims at providing insights as to the historical dimension of the passage, which, so far, has never been the object of a thorough analysis.

The paper deals with the vocabulary of σεμνότης as applied to political discourse and practice in the Greek world. Readers will be presented
with two case-studies that investigate the theoretical and operational implications of the theme, which has not yet been the object of systematic research by modern scholars.
The two sections tackle different key-contexts of the political and diplomatic activities carried out by the Greek poleis, approaching them by different and complementary perspectives: A. Gandini deals with the internal dynamics of the Athenian democracy in the Classical period, while S. Caneva sets the vocabulary of σεμνότης against the background of the international politics of Hellenistic Peloponnese.

This paper conducts an in-depth analysis of Diodoros Siculus’s account of the Battle of Chaironeia, written ca. 300 years after the events it relates to. Drawing upon Early Hellenistic sources, the first-century Diodoros re-elaborates them according to his own historical and historiographical sensitivity, thus providing modern readers with a true ‘Hellenistic’ perspective on Chaironeia. In so doing, he offers a valuable alternative to the long-lasting Athenocentric paradigm, which has proved crucial in establishing both the ancient and modern views about one of the greatest historiographical myths of the Classical past.

In Polybius’ Histories, Scipio Africanus, Aemilius Paullus and Scipio Aemilianus, at the peak of their military and political career, all exhibit a full and virtuous awareness of the instability of fortune (τύχη) and of human helplessness before it, revealing a typical Greek sensibility notwithstanding their uncontested Romanness. No doubt this is consistent with Polybius’ positive attitude toward his “Roman heroes” and the idealized picture he presented of them. Nevertheless, one should not simply dismiss Polybius’ portraits as unreliable; quite the contrary, they find confirmation in what we know about the keen interest in Greek culture that was so typical of Roman nobility in Polybius’ times, marked by an intensification of cultural exchanges between the Hellenistic and Roman worlds.

This paper is aimed at examining the nature of the diplomatic institution of the amicitia populi Romani, and specifically the evolution it underwent in the aftermath of the Third Macedonian War. Following the battle of Pydna in June 168 BC, on four different occasions, the Roman Senate announced its intention to terminate its relationship of amicitia with some major Hellenistic States and Kings (Antiochus IV, Rhodes, Ptolemy VI, Prusias II). As a matter of fact, such acts were not meant as a prelude to war, as they had been in the past; quite the contrary, they were thought of as purely diplomatic instruments, alternative to weapons. Indeed, Rome could now look at them as an effective way to assert its supremacy over distant regions of the Eastern Mediterranean.

This paper takes as its starting point an analysis of three inscriptions dating
from the second quarter of the 2nd century BC, related to matters of international
politics within the micro-Asiatic Hellenistic world: the treaty of alliance between Pharnakes
I and the polis of Chersonesos (IOSPE I2 nr. 402), the treaty of alliance among Plarasa-
Aphrodisias, Kibyra and Tabai (Milner 2007), and the (possible) foundation act of the
Kibyratic Tetrapolis (I.Kibyra I nr. 2). What is most interesting about these major political
agreements is that all the contracting parties make a common commitment not to
undertake anything contrary to the Roman decrees or interests; in addition to this, they
set it as a condition for the validity of the acts and express it by using much the same
wordings. These texts are not addressed to a Roman audience; notwithstanding, they
betray a common need to display an undisputed loyalty to the Roman cause. Accordingly,
there is a strong case for supposing the action or the presence of the Roman Senate
behind them. Indeed, it is telling a comparison to some Roman inscriptions dated
to the 2nd century BC, whereby similar phraseologies figure in the words of the Romans
themselves. Such coincidences demonstrate the sharing of a highly codified language
by different political actors and can be related to the stress put by the ancient narratives
(notably, the Histories by Polybius) on the necessity to obey Roman orders in the aftermath
of the Third Macedonian War. Thus, we can recover an element of the script of the
philo-Roman diplomacy in a specific historical and geopolitical context; it reflects the
manner the Romans looked at their own imperium after Pydna, when a radical shift took
place in the power relationships within the Hellenistic world.

I frammenti pervenuti del XXXI libro della "Biblioteca" di Diodoro rappresentano una delle principali fonti sul periodo compreso tra la terza guerra macedonica e la terza guerra punica (168-152/1 a.C.), fase sotto molti aspetti decisiva per l'evoluzione dei rapporti tra Roma e il mondo greco. Il XXXI si caratterizza come libro 'ellenistico', in ragione della molteplicità degli scenari geografici e degli attori storici considerati all'infuori di Roma e, malgrado l'assenza di un evento bellico centrale, si segnala come quello di gran lunga meglio preservato nel panorama delle ultime due decadi frammentarie della "Biblioteca", in ragione di una tradizione particolarmente composita. Si tratta di uno dei pochi libri per cui sono possibili confronti per esteso con passi della fonte maggiormente seguita nella circostanza da Diodoro, le "Storie" di Polibio, ciò che rende possibile una disamina accurata delle modalità di elaborazione della materia proprie dello storico siceliota.

This paper takes as its starting point an analysis of three inscriptions contemporary to the battle of Pydna, regarding matters of international politics inside the micro-Asiatic Hellenistic world: the treaty of alliance between Pharnakes I and the city of Chersonesos (IosPE I2, 402),  the foundation oath of the Kibyratic Tetrapolis (SEG 57, 1637), and the treaty of alliance between Plarasa-Aphrodisias, Kibyra, and Tabai (SEG 32, 1097). What is most interesting about these acts of major political relevance is that they assume as a condition for their own validity the common commitment of all the contractors not to undertake anything contrary to the Roman decrees or interests, and - moreover - express it with similar formulations (μηδὲν ὑπεναντίον πράττειν τοῖς Ῥωμαιοις / τοῖς τῆς συγκλήτου δόγμασι).
These texts are not addressed to a Roman audience, but evidently feel the need to display an undisputed loyalty to the Roman cause. This being said, there is a strong case for supposing the action or the presence of the Roman Senate behind these agreements. Indeed, one could suggest a comparison with a senatusconsultum dating from those same years following the Third Macedonian War (RDGE 5) and concerning a Delian-Athenian dispute: within it, the same phraseology recalled before figures in the words of the Romans themselves. Such coincidences not only demonstrate the sharing of a highly codified language between different political actors, but are also to be related to the stress the ancient narratives (particularly the Polybian Histories) put on the necessity to obey Roman orders in the aftermath of Pydna.
In so doing, we can recover an element of the script of the philo-Roman diplomacy in a specific historical and geopolitical context; it reflects the manner the Romans looked at their own imperium after Pydna, but also confirms that after 168 BC a radical shift took place in the power relationships within the Hellenistic world.