PAROLE IN MOVIMENTOLINGUAGGIO POLITICO

E LESSICO STORIOGRAFICO

NEL MONDO ELLENISTICO

atti del convegno internazionale

roma, 21 -23 febbraio 2011

a cura di manuela mari e john thornton

P I S A · R O M A

F A B R I Z I O S E R R A E D I T O R E

M M X I I I

STUDI ELLENISTICI

x x v i i · 2 0 1 3

P I S A · R O M A

F A B R I Z I O S E R R A E D I T O R E

M M X I I I

Rivista annuale · A Yearly Journal

*

Amministrazione e abbonamentiFabrizio Serra editore

Casella postale n. 1, succursale n. 8, i 56123 Pisa,tel. +39 050 542332, fax +39 050 574888, fse@libraweb.net

AbbonamentiI prezzi ufficiali di abbonamento cartaceo e/o Online sono consultabili

presso il sito Internet della casa editrice www.libraweb.netPrint and/or Online official subscription rates are available

at Publisher’s web-site www.libraweb.net.

I pagamenti possono essere effettuati tramite versamento su c.c.p. n. 17154550o tramite carta di credito (American Express, Visa, Eurocard, Mastercard).

*

Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Pisa n. 13 del 15 aprile 2005Direttore responsabile: Fabrizio Serra

*

Sono rigorosamente vietati la riproduzione, la traduzione,l’adattamento, anche parziale o per estratti, per qualsiasi uso

e con qualsiasi mezzo effettuati, compresi la copia fotostatica,il microfilm, la memorizzazione elettronica, ecc.,

senza la preventiva autorizzazione scritta dellaFabrizio Serra editore, Pisa · Roma.

Ogni abuso sarà perseguito a norma di legge.

*

Proprietà riservata · All rights reserved© Copyright 2013 by Fabrizio Serra editore, Pisa · Roma.

Fabrizio Serra editore incorporates the Imprints Accademia editoriale,Edizioni dell’Ateneo, Fabrizio Serra editore, Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa,

Gruppo editoriale internazionale and Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.

www.libraweb.net

*

Stampato in Italia · Printed in Italy

issn 1828-5864isbn 978-88-6227-561-3 (brossura)isbn 978-88-6227-562-0 (rilegato)

SOMMARIO

Manuela Mari, Introduzione : Parole in movimento 9

dynasteiai. dal riemergere della regalità nella grecia del iv sec. a.c. alle percezioni

dell’imperium Romanum

Mario Mazza, « L’atto di nascita dell’Ellenismo » ? Qualche considerazione sulla c.d. Lettera di Aristotele ad Alessandro sulla politica verso le città 29Stefania De Vido, Tuvranno~, strathgo;~ aujtokravtwr, dunavsth~. Le ambi- gue parole del potere nella Sicilia di iv secolo 45Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos, Le vocabulaire de la prise de décision dans les sources littéraires et épigraphiques de la Macédoine antique 61Paolo Desideri, Terminologia imperiale in Polibio 71Andrew Erskine, Expressions of Power in Polybius’ Histories 81Giuseppe Zecchini, ∆Adhvrito~ in Polibio 93Laura Mecella, Umberto Roberto, ∆Isotimiva tra Roma e la Persia : una te- stimonianza dell’età di Severo Alessandro 99

dentro la città, oltre la città. le dinamiche politiche interne alle poleis

Stefano Ferrucci, L’ambigua virtù. Filotimiva nell’Atene degli oratori 123Benjamin D. Gray, The Polis becomes Humane ? Filanqrwpiva as a Cardinal Civic Virtue in later Hellenistic Honorific Epigraphy and Historiography 137Andrea Raggi, Il lessico dei privilegi fiscali nell’Oriente greco tra età ellenistica e romana 163Cinzia Bearzot, Il lessico dell’opposizione politica in Polibio 175Paolo A. Tuci, Il lessico della collaborazione politica in Polibio 185Adolfo La Rocca, Apuleio e gli ejkklhsiastaiv 207

difetti di traduzione. il linguaggio dei rapporti interstatali

e della comunicazione tra poleis e regni ellenistici

Anna Magnetto, Ambasciatori plenipotenziari delle città greche in età classi- ca ed ellenistica : terminologia e prerogative 223Biagio Virgilio, Forme e linguaggi della comunicazione fra re ellenistici e città 243Paola Lombardi, Parole nuove per nuovi equilibri. Su alcuni termini del lessico epigrafico politico di età ellenistica 263Paschalis Paschidis, Fivloi and filiva between Poleis and Kings in the Helle- nistic Period 283

sommario8

Alice Bencivenni, Il giuramento civico di Mileto, il figlio di Tolemeo II e il potere del linguaggio in I. Milet i 3, 139 299Daniela Motta, I soldati nelle città : osservazioni sul lessico epigrafico di età ellenistico-romana 317

lessico, narrazione e (ri)scrittura degli eventi nella storiografia ellenistica: oltre polibio

Angelos Chaniotis, Emotional Language in Hellenistic Decrees and Helleni- stic Histories 339John Thornton, Tragedia e retorica nella polemica sulla presa di Mantinea (Polibio ii, 56-58) 353Leone Porciani, Aspetti della nozione di « comune », « collettivo » e « generale » tra politica, società e storiografia : un profilo di koinov~ 375Guido Schepens, Lo sfruttamento militare e politico della memoria e della storia : a proposito del frammento di Sosilo sulla battaglia dell’Ebro (217 a.C.) 385

conclusioni

John K. Davies, Words, Acts, and Facts 413

Recapiti dei collaboratori del fascicolo 421

EXPRESSIONS OF POWER IN POLYBIUS’ HISTORIES*

Andrew Erskine

1. Introduction

Of all the Greek historians active between the death of Alexander and the later part of the first century bc Polybius of Megalopolis is the only one

whose work survives in any quantity. He thus gives us a snapshot of political lan-guage use in the middle of a period of enormous transformation. His subject is power, the rise of the power of Rome and the decline of the power of the Helle-nistic monarchies or, more precisely, how Rome in less than 53 years came to world power, something which he observes had never happened before. Rome, then, was a new phenomenon, one that challenged existing ways of expressing power.

Polybius had grown up in a world where kings dominated and cities could only exercise significant power by combining together in federations such as his own Achaean League. Now, however, there was a city-state that not only challenged the authority of the kings but forced them into a subordinate position. So a city replaced kings as the dominant power and, further turning the Greek conception of the world upside down, it was not even a Greek city. In this paper I want to examine the language Polybius employs to describe Rome, paying particular at-tention to the terminology used to express Roman power and its manifestations. I will suggest that Rome occupies an ambiguous space between king and city.

Polybius uses a variety of phrases to express Rome’s world power or aspirations to it. There is the famous question of the opening chapter : « who is so worthless or so lazy as not to want to know how and by what sort of government in less than fifty-three years almost the whole inhabited world (scedo;n a{panta ta; kata; th;n oijkoumevnhn) was subjugated and brought under one rule (uJpo; mivan ajrch;n), that of the Romans, something unique in history ? » 1 Shortly afterwards Polybius uses a combination of ajrchv and dunasteiva. The first two introductory books will show, he says, how Rome had both « adequate grounds for conceiving the ambi-tion of the rule and dominion over everything (hJ tw`n o{lwn ajrch; kai; dunasteiva) and adequate means for achieving it ». 2 Later in the first book dunasteiva is used

* I benefitted greatly from the discussion at the conference and I am particularly grateful to Manuela Mari, Guido Schepens and Giuseppe Zecchini.

1 Polybius i, 1.5-6, repeated at xxxix, 8.7 ; cf. xxx, 6.6 (th;n th`~ oijkoumevnh ejxousivan uJpo; mivan ajrch;n pivptousan).

2 Polybius i, 3.10 ; cf. viii, 2.4-6 on how fortune has brought all parts of the world uJpo; mivan ajrch;n kai; dunasteivan ; xv, 9.2 where the Romans at Zama are fighting peri; th`~ tw`n o{lwn ajrch`~ kai; dunasteiva~ ; xxi, 16.8 where Seleucid ambassadors after Magnesia tell the Romans that fortune has handed Rome th;n th`~ oijkoumevnh~ ajrch;n kai; dunasteivan. It has been suggested that when Polybius uses this phrase in his rendering

andrew erskine82

in a partnership with hJgemoniva ; it is through such great undertakings as the First Punic War that the Romans gain the confidence to aspire to the leadership and dominion of everything (hJ tw`n o{lwn hJgemoniva kai; dunasteiva). 3 These aspirations are voiced by Scipio Africanus when addressing his troops before the battle of Zama in 202 : victory will bring Rome « undisputed leadership and dominion over the rest of the world » (th`~ a[llh~ oijkoumevnh~ th;n hJgemonivan kai; dunasteivan ajdhv-riton). 4 Phrases such as these are often translated quite loosely in English as « uni-versal empire » or « world empire » ; in other words the two nouns are merged into a single concept. 5

Polybius also uses verbs as well as abstract nouns to express Roman world power, for instance, when he writes that the Romans made the whole world subject to themselves : ÔRwmai`oi pa`san ejpoihvsanto th;n oijkoumevnhn uJphvkoon auJtoi`~. 6 But in this paper my attention will be focused on three abstract nouns, ajrchv, dunasteiva and hJgemoniva. Their meaning has often puzzled me. Their use can suggest that they are interchangeable : compare hJ tw`n o{lwn ajrch; kai; dunasteiva in Polybius i, 3.10 with hJ tw`n o{lwn hJgemoniva kai; dunasteiva in i, 63.9. But what would these phrases have conveyed to a contemporary ? What are the connotations of each word ?

2. The Classical Background

Of these three words it is ajrchv and hJgemoniva that are most familiar from the clas-sical period, at least when used in the sense of imperial power. ∆Archv in particular is widespread, referring equally to the power wielded over others by a monarchic state such as Persia or by a polis such as Athens as in the case of the fifth-century Athenian empire. Thus, in Herodotus, when Croesus is told by the oracles that if he invades the territory of the Persians a great empire will fall, the word used is ajrchv. 7 It is, of course, his own empire that falls, but the term is clearly meant to be appropriate to either empire. ∆Archv continues to be used of the Persian empire through the fifth century and into the fourth, for instance in writings as varied as Thucydides’ history, Isocrates’ Panegyricus, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and Aristotle’s Politics. 8 But it is not only monarchic states that can have an ajrchv. Thucydides

of the Romano-Aetolian treaty of 189 bc (xxi, 32.2), he is translating the Latin imperium maiestasque, so H. G. Gundel, Der Begriff Maiestas im politischen Denken der römischen Republik, « Historia », 12 (1963), pp. 283-320, esp. 289-290. The argument is based on Livy’s Latin version of the treaty where the relevant words are given as imperium maiestasque (xxxviii, 11.2), but Livy is translating Polybius so no guide to the original text of the treaty ; Gundel’s position is effectively refuted by M. Dubuisson, Le latine de Polybe : les implications historiques d’un cas de bilinguisme, Paris, 1985, pp. 91-93, in a useful discussion of dunasteiva in Polybius.

3 Polybius i, 63.9. For hJgemoniva alone in the phrase, hJ aJpavntwn hJgemoniva, Polybius viii, 2.6.4 Polybius xv, 10.2 ; on the significance and meaning of ajdhvrito~ in Polybius, see G. Zecchini in this

volume, pp. 93-98.5 Consider various translations of Polybius i, 3.10 (hJ tw`n o{lwn ajrch; kai; dunasteiva) : « world empire »

(Paton/Habicht/Walbank Loeb editions and Scott-Kilvert) ; Waterfield tries to capture both terms with « imperial rulership over the whole world » ; Shuckburgh takes a more literal approach, « universal empire and dominion », as does Mari’s Italian translation, « impero e … dominio universali ».

6 Polybius iii, 3.9 ; cf. i, 64.1. 7 Herodotus i, 53.3 ; 86.1 ; 91.4 (cf. Aristotle, Rhet. iii, 5.3).8 Thucydides viii, 48.4 ; Isocrates, Paneg. (iv) 178 ; Xenophon, Cyrop. viii, 1.45 ; Aristotle, Pol. v,

1313a38.

expressions of power in polybius’ histories 83

regularly uses the word of the Athenian empire ; for example, when he introduces the Pentekontaetia, he says that he will now explain the growth of the ajrchv of the Athenians (Thucydides i, 97.2). Nor does he limit its use to Athens ; on occasion it is found referring to power exercised by Sparta and Carthage. 9

ÔHgemoniva, on the other hand, is often distinguished from ajrchv by scholars, espe-cially in the context of the history of the fifth century bc. It tends to be seen as a term, when used in international relations, that is more appropriate to the rule of a polis and even as one that suggests the relationship is in some way consensual. 10 There is, I am sure, something in this but it can be pushed too far. 11 Herodotus, like Thucydides, does use hJgemoniva for the leadership of the Greek military al- liance against Persia but he also uses it to refer to Cyrus’ seizure of power from the Medes. 12 Nor is the word hJgemoniva itself as common in Herodotus and Thucy-dides as scholarly discussion might sometimes lead us to think and many of the examples are strictly military in character, referring to leadership in a military al- liance. Often it is cognate terms such the noun hJgemwvn or the verb hJgevomai that are pressed into service to fill the gap. 13 Underpinning the distinction is the idea that the Athenian empire reflects a change from hJgemoniva to ajrchv, from hege-mony to empire. 14 This idea, although frequently attributed to Thucydides, is not one that is ever explicitly stated by him. 15 Our evidence becomes more plentiful in the fourth century. Isocrates uses hJgemoniva more broadly – for him it expresses not only the formal leadership of a military alliance but also a position of politi-cal ascendency within Greece. 16 Looking back to the Athenian supremacy of the

9 Thucydides i, 97.2 (Athens, cf. also i, 67.4 ; vii, 66.2) ; vi, 82.3 (Sparta) ; 90.2 (Carthage) ; cf. the illumi-nating remarks of G. E. M. De Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, London, 1972, p. 287.

10 Cf. L. Kallet-Marx, Money, Expenses and Naval Power in Thucydides’ History 1-5.24, Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford, 1993, p. 6: ajrchv «clearly implied to contemporaries, including Thucydides, considerably greater impact on the autonomy of its constituent members than hegemonia»; R. N. Lebow, The Tragic Vision of Politics: ethics, interests and orders, Cambridge, 2003, p. 122: «hegemonia was a form of legitimate authority», «arche meant “control”, and … applied … to rule or influence over other city states»; J. M. Wickersham, Hegemony and Greek Historians, Lanham, md, 1994, p. 23: «hegemony’s capacity for changing into other things, especially arkhe, hegemony’s evil twin».

11 Note the wariness of H. van Wees, Greek Warfare : Myths and realities, London, 2004, p. 7, and P. Low, Interstate Relations in Classical Greece, Cambridge, 2007, p. 201 n. 67. R. I. Winton, Thucydides 1, 97, 2 : the ‘arche of the Athenians’ and the ‘Athenian Empire’, « mh », 38 (1981), pp. 147-152, sees the two terms as virtu-ally synonymous, especially at Thucydides i, 97.

12 Military leadership : Herodotus vii, 161.3 ; viii, 3.1 ; Persians : iii, 65.6 ; vii, 8a.1 ; ix, 122.2.13 Cf. Wickersham, Hegemony and Greek Historians.14 For instance, the classic study of R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire, Oxford, 1972, p. 1 (and underpin-

ning account), or De Ste. Croix, Origins of the Peloponnesian War, p. 51. In contrast the Second Athenian Confederacy is often considered to be a hegemony but not an empire, J. Cargill, Hegemony, not Empire : The Second Athenian League, « AncW », 5 (1982), pp. 91-102 ; J. G. Griffith, Athens in the Fourth Century, in P. Garnsey, C. R. Whittaker (eds.), Imperialism in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 1978, pp. 127-144.

15 A key text here is Thucydides i, 96.1, where Thucydides writes that the Athenians took over the hJge-moniva from the Spartans with the agreement of the allies due to the latter’s hatred of Pausanias and then in the next chapter begins his account of the development of the Athenian ajrchv. For Kallet-Marx, Money, Expenses and Naval Power, p. 48, Thucydides considered it to be an empire, an ajrchv, from the beginning.

16 J. Buckler and H. Beck, Central Greece and the politics of power in the fourth century bc, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 129-130.

andrew erskine84

fifth century, he sees hJgemoniva as something granted to the Athenians and some-thing to be viewed positively. ∆Archv, on the other hand, need not have this positive character for Isocrates ; the Panegyricus, for example, can be contrasted with more negative approach displayed in his On the Peace. 17 The use of hJgemoniva to describe the relationship of one Greek city ruling others may have its roots in that mo-ment when the Athenians took on the hJgemoniva of the Greeks after the Persian Wars – or at least in a widespread presentation of that moment in writers ranging from Thucydides and Herodotus through to Isocrates and Philochorus. 18

So ajrchv and hJgemoniva are used in the classical period to express the various forms of authority that one state may have over others, although hJgemoniva was more likely to be restricted to relations of power between cities than states in general. Polybius’ third term, dunasteiva, on the other hand, is much less often used in this way. Indeed the word itself shows up very rarely in surviving fifth-century litera-ture. Its earliest appearance is in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, where it is used in the very general sense of « power » or « influence ». 19 It does not appear in Herodotus and occurs only four times in Thucydides. On each occasion it refers not to inter-national relations but to the way power is exercised within a city, when it is in the hands of a small group whose position is based more on strength than law. 20 Nor does it become any more popular in fourth-century historiography – admittedly there is only one surviving representative, Xenophon, who can manage but one use of it, again with reference to the internal affairs of cities. 21

Nonetheless, the fourth century sees a considerable increase in the number of examples of dunasteiva, but it is unclear whether we should explain this by the increasing popularity of the term or merely as an accident of survival. Many of these examples come from Athenian oratory, from Lysias and Andocides early in the century through to Demosthenes and Aeschines ; Isocrates in particular makes extensive use of the word. 22 It is possible that it was a term more readily used in speeches than historiography, but I am inclined to think that it is Xeno-phon who is the anomaly. Living in the Peloponnese and exiled from the world of political debate in Athens, he may have looked back to the political language of Thucydides and his youth rather than the discourse of contemporary Athens.

17 Y. Lee Too, The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates. Text, power, pedagogy, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 62-64. For a detailed discussion of On Peace, J. Davidson, Isocrates against Imperialism : an analysis of the De Pace, « His-toria », 39 (1990), pp. 20-36. Even hegemonia, however, need not always be positive, cf. Xenophon, Hell. vii, 1.33 on Theban desire for hegemony with the aid of the Persian king.

18 Herodotus viii, 3 ; Thucydides i, 96.1 ; Isocrates, De Pace (viii), 42 ; Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 117. 19 Sophocles, ot 593 (in combination with ajrchv).

20 Thucydides iii, 62.3 ; vi, 78.3 ; 126.2, vii, 38.3 ; S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides Vol. 1 : books i-iii, Oxford, 1997, p. 457 suggests « family clique », which seems overly restrictive.

21 Hell. v, 4.46.22 Lysias ii, 18 ; Andocides ii, 27 ; Demosthenes, Phil. iii (ix), 24 ; Demosthenes, Epitaph. (lx), 25 ;

Aeschines iii, 145 ; Isocrates, Archidamus (vi), 45 ; see S. C. Todd, A commentary on Lysias, speeches 1-11, Oxford, 2007, pp. 228 (on Lysias ii, 18) and 618-619 (in general) and C. Bearzot, Il concetto di ‘dynasteia’ e lo stato ellenistico, in C. Bearzot, F. Landucci Gattinoni, G. Zecchini (eds.), Gli Stati territoriali nel mondo antico (« Contributi di storia antica », 1), Milan, 2003, pp. 21-44.

expressions of power in polybius’ histories 85

It is here in fourth-century Athens that dunasteiva seems to emerge and flourish, not only in the speeches of the orators but also in the political writings of Plato and Aristotle. 23 It continues to be employed of small ruling groups within cities, groups that we might label extreme oligarchies or even collective tyrannies. 24 But it is also found used in two other significant ways. Firstly, it expresses the power of an individual, whether someone influential within a city, a minor ruler or a king. 25 Secondly, it comes to be used of the authority that one state wields over others, as for instance Athens at the time of her empire. 26 It is these latter two senses that are of most importance in understanding Polybius’ use of dunasteiva.

3. Polybius and Empire

These, then, are the three key terms that Polybius uses of Roman rule, ajrchv, hJgemoniva and dunasteiva. They are not the only ones. For instance, at the very be-ginning of his history he writes of the uJperochv of the Romans but this is a term that tends to express preeminence rather than power. 27 Of the three key terms it is dunasteiva that Polybius most often uses to convey Roman power. 28 For him this seems to be the essential element which is paired on occasion with one of the other two terms, thus ajrch; kai; dunasteiva or hJgemoniva kai; dunasteiva, as was observed in the opening section of this article. The other two terms, however, are never paired with each other by Polybius, so there are no occurrences of ajrch; kai; hJgemoniva. 29 The addition of ajrchv and hJgemoniva give extra rhetorical force and it is noticeable these phrases tend to occur in more rhetorical passages rather than straightforward narrative, for instance in speeches, introductions or breaks from the narrative. 30 The rhetorical character may also come out in the rising register, from the milder hJgemoniva or ajrchv to the more forceful dunasteiva.

23 Cf. J. Martin, Dynasteia. Eine begriffs-, verfassungs- und sozialgeschichtliche Skizze, in R. Koselleck (ed.), Historische Semantik und Begriffsgeschichte, Stuttgart, 1979, pp. 228-241 ; I. Jordovic ´, Did the ancient Greeks know of collective tyranny ?, « Balcanica », 36 (2006), pp. 17-34 ; Bearzot, Il concetto di ‘dynasteia’.

24 Aristotle, Pol. vi, 1292b4-10 ; Lysias ii, 18 ; Demosthenes, Epitaph. (lx), 25 ; cf. Jordovic ´, Did the ancient Greeks know of collective tyranny ?

25 Demosthenes, De Cor. (xviii), 270 (of Philip and Alexander) ; Isocrates, Timoth. (Ep. viii), 8 (of Cleommis of Methymna) ; Archidamus (vi), 45 (of Dionysius of Syracuse).

26 Cf. Isocrates, Antidosis (xv), 307 on Themistocles and Athenian empire, or Demosthenes Phil. iii (ix), 24 on Sparta.

27 Polybius i, 2.2 ; cf. i, 64.1 ; iii, 59.5 ; xxiv, 11.3 ; also occasionally used of the Romans is ejxousiva which does refer to power (iii, 4.12).

28 For the use of all three see A. Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexicon, Berlin, 1956-1975, s.v. ajrchv, dunasteiva and hJgemoniva. On relative uses of ajrchv (20 times) and dunasteiva (25 times), J. S. Richardson, Polybius’ view of the Roman empire, « pbsr », 47 (1979), pp. 1-11.

29 All three combinations are found earlier, albeit rarely, even ajrch; kai; hJgemoniva. ÔH hJgemoniva kai; hJ duna-steiva : Isocrates, Antid. (xv), 307 (achieved by Themistocles for Athens) ; ajrch; kai; dunasteiva : Demos-thenes, De Cor. (xviii), 67 (Philip’s pursuit of ) ; ajrch; kai; hJgemoniva : Thucydides vi, 82.3 (of the Spartans).

30 Introductory material : Polybius i, 3.10 ; viii, 2.4-6 ; break in narrative : i, 63.9 ; speeches : xv, 10.2 (cf. xv, 9.3) ; xxi, 16.8. The rhetorical character is sometimes enhanced by reference to tuvch, e.g. i, 3.10-4.1 ; viii, 2.4-6 ; xxi, 16.8 ; cf. L. Hau, Tychê in Polybios : Narrative answers to a philosophical question, « Histos », 5 (2011), pp. 183-207 (online journal at http ://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos).

andrew erskine86

The central role played by dunasteiva in Polybius’ conception of empire is evident in the second chapter of his history. He neatly demonstrates the unprecedented scale of Rome’s empire and by extension the importance of his own work. In this chapter he outlines the most celebrated empires of the past, those of the Per-sians, the Spartans and the Macedonians ; the word he uses to encompass them all as a group is dunastei`ai. The first of these empires belonged to the Persians, whom he describes as possessing a great ajrchv and dunasteiva. He is less explicit about the other two empires. He follows the Persian empire with the Spartans. For many years, he says, the Spartans competed for the hJgemoniva of the Greeks but once they had attained it they held it undisputed (ajdhvriton) for barely twelve years. There is no mention of ajrchv and dunasteiva. Polybius concludes with the Macedonians who acquired the rule (ajrchv) of Asia when they overthrew the du-nasteiva of the Persians. None, however, are equal to the Romans, who have made subject to themselves not parts of the world but the whole of it. Rome thus is the latest and greatest in a series of ruling powers and, as the world power, heir to all three. The inclusion of the Spartans is a little odd ; not only because their rule was short-lived but also because the transition from the Persian empire to Macedonian seems to bypass it. When Polybius later, in book xxix, quotes Demetrius of Phaleron’s premonition of the failure of Macedon, there is no room for Sparta – its twelve-year hegemony is hardly significant. 31 But its inclu-sion here in the list of empires enables Polybius to compare Rome both to the monarchic states of Persia and Macedon and to a Greek polis.

At this point it is necessary to consider how Polybius uses dunasteiva, the more central of these three terms. The questions to ask are these : who possesses du-nasteiva and what is it they possess ? In the classical period we observed that it was often used to refer to a small clique who ruled a city. This sense, although not ab-sent from Polybius, is much less common in his history. 32 Instead dunasteiva often expresses the power of individual rulers, both major Hellenistic kings and lesser figures. Alexander, Lysimachus, various Antigonids, Ptolemies and Seleucids are all holders of dunasteiva. 33 Among the lesser rulers, who may or may not have taken the title of king, we can note especially those of Sicily, such as Dionysius, Agathocles and Hiero, but also Demetrius of Pharos, the Thracian Abrupolis and the Spartan kings who had abandoned the traditional constitution, Cleomenes

31 Polybius xxix, 21 (cf. also Scipio’s thoughts at xxxviii, 22), on which F. W. Walbank, Supernatural paraphernalia in Polybius’ Histories, in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into Greek History, Oxford, 1994, pp. 28-42 (reprinted in F. W. Walbank, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World : Essays and Reflections, Cambridge, 2002, pp. 245-257). Nor does Sparta appear in the traditional (but varying) lists of four great empires, such as Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Ant. Rom. i, 2, where Sparta is specifically excluded (i, 3) ; cf. D. W. Baronowski, Polybius and Roman Imperialism, London, 2011, pp. 34-39. J.-L. Ferrary, L’empire de Rome et les hégémonies des cités grecques chez Polybe, « bch », 100 (1976), pp. 283-289, argues that the key to Sparta’s appear-ance in Polybius’ list is that its hegemony (in contrast to that of Athens) extended over both land and sea, albeit only for twelve years. This surely explains the ajdhvriton but only goes a little way towards explaining why Sparta appears at all. 32 Polybius iii, 18.1 ; vi, 9.4.

33 Alexander : Polybius iii, 59.5 ; Lysimachus : xviii, 51.4 ; Antigonids : v, 104.6-7 ; ix, 29.10 ; Ptolemies : v, 34.1 ; 34.5 ; Seleucids : iv, 48.7 ; v, 67.5 ; xxi, 14.8 ; in general : iv, 2.10.

expressions of power in polybius’ histories 87

and Nabis. 34 It might be thought that there would be a close link between duna-steiva and dunavsth~. Yet, while there is an overlap, this connection is rarely made by Polybius. 35 For the most part, when he employs the term dunavsth~ he has in mind the more insignificant rulers, often tribal leaders and frequently anony-mous, for example Spanish, Celtic and Thracian chieftains. 36 Several times he even distinguishes dunavstai from basilei`~, although there are occasions when he does include kings among the ranks of dunavstai. 37

Furthermore, dunasteiva is not limited to individual rulers. It is also used of the power wielded by cities, in particular Rome and Carthage, but rarely Greek cities with the exception of Sparta, which features in the list of empires in Polybius’ sec-ond chapter. 38 It is possible to try too hard to give dunasteiva a definition. It clearly refers to the exercise of power but whether that power is, for example, royal, in-heritable or territorial depends on context. Thus P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus re-frains from taking basilikh; dunasteiva for himself when offered it in Spain (x, 40.7 ; cf. 40.2-5), Philip V succeeds to the dunasteiva of the Macedonians while still young (vii, 11.4), Seleucus III learns that Attalus has seized all his dunasteiva that side of the Taurus mountains (iv, 48.6) and the Romans recover their dunasteiva of Italy during the Second Punic War (iii, 118.9). In the case of the last two examples terri-torial qualifications are added, « that side of the Taurus mountains » and « of Italy ». 39

The virtual absence of Greek cities from the holders of dunasteiva is interesting. One explanation would be to say that Greek cities rarely held power over others so their absence should be no surprise. But Polybius does consider Greek cities to have held power over others ; it is simply that he does not choose to employ the word dunasteiva to describe it. Even in that list of dunastei`ai in book i chapter 2, when it comes to Sparta’s short-lived empire, the word employed by Polybius is hJgemoniva. Similarly Athens contended with Sparta for the hJgemoniva of the Greeks ; the Thebans also briefly and unexpectedly laid hold of it as well. 40 For the most part, however, it is the hJgemoniva of the Spartans that Polybius repeatedly refers to, an emphasis that is a consequence of his own Peloponnesian perspective. 41 Only on one other occasion does he directly describe Spartan power as dunasteiva. 42 Re-

34 Sicilian rulers : Polybius ii, 39.7 ; vii, 4.6 ; 8.5 ; ix, 23.2 ; Demetrius of Pharos : v, 108.7 ; Abrupolis : xxii, 18.2 ; Spartan kings : viii, 35.5 ; xiii, 6.5.

35 An exception is Polybius xxi, 11.6, where Scipio tells Prusias that Rome has deprived no kings of their dunasteiva but has even made some men into dunavstai.

36 Spanish : Polybius ii, 36.2 ; x, 18.13 ; 35.6 (named) ; Celtic : iii, 34.4 ; Thracian : iv, 45.2-3 ; xxii, 14.12 ; barbarian leaders to east of Seleucid kingdom : v, 55.1 ; on the use of dunavsth~ in Polybius, see E. Lévy, La tyrannie et son vocabulaire chez Polybe, « Ktema », 21 (1996), pp. 43-54, esp. 52-54.

37 Distinguished at Polybius ix, 23.5 (ouj movnon hJgemovsi kai; dunavstai~ kai; basileu`sin, ajlla; kai; povlesin) and xxvii, 7.12 (ejk tw`n dunastw`n kai; basilevwn), but kings are included among dunavstai at ix, 1.4 (tw`n ejqnw`n kai; povlewn kai; dunastw`n) and at ii, 71.10 the three recently deceased heads of the Hellenistic royal houses are together called dunavstai.

38 Rome : Polybius i, 3.10 ; ii, 14.2 ; iii, 2.2 ; xv, 9.3 and many others ; Carthage : iii, 23.5 ; 33.6 ; x, 36.5 ; Sparta : i, 2 ; vi, 49.6. 39 Cf. also Polybius v, 40.7 ; 43.2 ; 67.6 ; xxi, 14.8.

40 Athens : Polybius xxxviii, 2.5 ; Thebes : ii, 39.8, cf. xxxviii, 2.8.41 Polybius ii, 49.4-6 ; vi, 48.6 ; 49.10 ; 50.5 ; ix, 30.4 ; xxiii, 11.4 ; xxxviii, 2.8.42 Polybius vi, 49.6.

andrew erskine88

vealingly it is during a very negative presentation of the Spartans as a people who betrayed the Greeks to the Persians in order to get the money to finance their rule over Greeks. The choice of dunasteiva here seems to add to the negative force of what is being said. An awareness of a pejorative edge to the term may be one rea-son why, although featuring widely in literature and rhetoric, it rarely appears in public inscriptions, whether in speaking of cities or kings. 43 So, although in general Polybius’ use of dunasteiva may be seen as descriptive rather than judgmental, it is far from being neutral ; the audience’s understanding is shaped by knowledge of context and whatever it refers to. 44 dunasteiva may be appropriate, in literature at least, for kings and non-Greeks but for Greek cities it is somehow unsuitable. ÔHgemoniva with its suggestion of leadership and even consent (at least in an ideal-ized world) is more appropriate for how Greeks deal with one another. Kings, on the other hand, do not appear among the holders of hJgemoniva. 45

So to put it in an over-simplified way Greek cities tend to be the holders of hJge-moniva but not dunasteiva whereas kings tend to be the holders of dunasteiva but not hJgemoniva. Rome falls somewhere in the middle. For the most part Polybius talks of it in terms of dunasteiva, but occasionally this is combined with hJgemoniva and there are times, even, when hJgemoniva is used alone. 46 It would be wrong, however, to search too hard for very precise meanings of these terms, especially when used in combination, something which often occurs in the more rhetorical passages of the history, for instance introductory passages rather than narrative. 47 What is important, however, is what associations the terms would have carried for Poly-bius and his readers. Surely dunasteiva would have put the reader in mind of mo-narchic power while hJgemoniva would have aligned Rome with the polis. 48 Polybius then seems to be interpreting Rome on the model of kings rather than cities, even if the occasional use of hJgemoniva is some form of acknowledgement that Rome is indeed a city. In other words Roman power is different from that wielded by a Greek city and has more in common with that of a king. A comparison with ruler cult might be made. Cults of Roman power, such as the widespread cult of the goddess Roma which developed during the course of the second century bc, were very like the cults of Hellenistic kings. In establishing these cults Greeks were dealing with Rome in same way that they dealt with other forms of extraordinary

43 Apart from one questionable restoration a search of the PHI epigraphic database reveals only four occurrences of dunasteiva, all dating from the Roman Imperial period. ∆Archv, on the other hand, is quite an acceptable term to use of a king : cf. OGIS 219, a decree of Ilion, honouring Antiochus for recovering his patrwvia ajrchv.

44 Thus qualifying to some extent Lévy, La tyrannie et son vocabulaire, pp. 52-53, who argues that in Poly-bius dunasteiva appears to have lost its pejorative character.

45 On two occasions the Macedonians are represented in speeches as competing with Greeks for hJge-moniva, Polybius ii, 49.6 ; ix, 37.7, but the emphasis is on Macedonians rather than the king and in both instances the Macedonians and Greeks (or at least certain Greeks) are seen as having common interests (in the latter example the alternative is Roman douleiva).

46 Combined : Polybius i, 63.9 ; ii, 21.9 ; xv, 10.2 ; alone : ii, 23.12 ; viii, 2.6 ; xxi, 31.7 ; xxxvi, 9.4-5.47 E.g. Polybius viii, 2.4-6 ; xv, 10.2, see n. 30 above.48 Cf. the similar conclusions of Richardson, Polybius’ view of the Roman empire, pp. 9-10, focusing on

Polybius’ use of dunasteiva and ajrchv.

expressions of power in polybius’ histories 89

power, but some states in formulating these honours also signalled Rome’s polis-character. Thus Miletus set up a cult of Roma and the demos of the Romans. 49

But there is more than this to Polybius’ emphasis on the dunasteiva of the Ro-mans. Reading Cinzia Bearzot’s illuminating article on dunasteiva in the Hellen- istic period I was struck especially by her conclusion. 50 Here she asks what the various meanings of dunasteiva might have in common. To explain it, she turns to Aristotle, for whom dunasteiva is a type of oligarchy closest to monarchy where men rather than law are sovereign. 51 This seems to me to be the essential char-acteristic of dunasteiva in whatever form it may be ; it is power exercised without the constraints of law. In many ways this sums up the Hellenistic period. Power is exercised outside the traditional channels of law, which are so much part of polis-society. This applies to so many of the key features of Hellenistic political life : kings issuing orders, cities obeying, the importance of euergetism, ruler cult, the influence of the king’s philoi. All these are about the exercise of power and all are outside the realm of law. Cities may try to legislate with honorific decrees, sacred laws and the inscription of royal letters, but the relationships themselves are extra-legal. This is in marked contrast to the careful regulation of relations between cities, with all the agreements about symmachia, isopoliteia, asylia and arbitration. 52 This latter is the world of hJgemoniva rather than dunasteiva. We might think that this is hardly how things operated at the time of the Athenian empire, when ajrchv and Thucydidean tyranny were one and the same. But for Polybius the Athenian empire would have been in the distant, ill-defined past and so not especially relevant. 53 Indeed, unlike the short-lived Spartan empire, the Athenian empire does not even merit inclusion in his list of empires. 54 What is relevant is his concept of inter-city relations in his own day.

The absence of law that is so important a part of dunasteiva applies as much to Rome as to kings. Rome may be a constitutional state but its relationship with others, whether kings or states, is not regulated by law so much as by its capacity to enforce obedience and this, for Polybius, was the fundamental feature of Ro-man rule. Polybius puts it very clearly after the end of the Macedonian kingdom

49 On cult of Roma, R. Mellor, QEA ÔRWMH : the worship of the goddess Roma in the Greek world, Göt-tingen, 1975 ; S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power : the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 40-43 ; on cults of the Demos of the Romans, C. Fayer, Il culto del Demos dei Romani : un aspetto del culto tributato al potere romano nel mondo greco d’Oriente, « Studi Romani », 26 (1978), pp. 461-477 and J. R. Fears, ÔO Dh`mo~ oJ ÔRwmaivwn : Genius Populi Romani. A note on the origin of Dea Roma, « Mnemosyne », 31 (1978), pp. 274-286 ; for Miletus, Milet i.7, n° 203. 50 Bearzot, Il concetto di ‘dynasteia’, p. 44.

51 Aristotle, Pol. iv, 1292b5-10 with 1293a30-34 ; cf. Thucydides iv, 78.3, where dunasteiva is contrasted with ijsonomiva, or Isocrates, Paneg. (iv), 39, where lawlessness (ajnovmw~ zw`nta~) and dunasteiva are opposed to and remedied by novmoi and politeiva.

52 Symmachia : H. H. Schmitt, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, iii. Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr., Munich, 1969 ; isopoliteia : W. Gawantka, Isopoliteia : ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen in der griechischen Antike, Munich, 1975 ; asylia : K. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1996 ; arbitration : S. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 bc, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1996.

53 See, for instance, his dismissive remarks about Athens at Polybius vi, 44.54 Ferrary, L’empire de Rome et les hégémonies des cités grecques.

andrew erskine90

in 168. At the beginning of the third book he writes : « The period of fifty-three years came to an end at this point, and the growth and advance of the dunasteiva of the Romans was complete. In addition everyone now recognized that it was inevitable that in future they would have to pay heed to the Romans and obey their orders ». 55

Rome ruled not through law or institutions such as, for example, might oper-ate in the Achaean League but through the exercise of pure power. Indeed Poly-bius stresses how the Greeks found themselves forced to decide whether to obey Roman orders and ignore their own laws or to stand by their laws and risk Ro-man anger. Unsurprisingly his attention is especially focused on his own Achaean League. Callicrates was an example of someone who advocated obedience to Roman orders while Philopoemen encouraged his countrymen to do nothing contrary to Achaean laws. 56 As Peter Derow pointed out in an important article some thirty years ago, Polybius repeatedly represents the Romans as issuing or-ders. 57 The final part of this paper, therefore, will examine how Polybius shows the exercise of Roman power in practice.

4. Power and Orders

Importantly the Romans issue orders not only to cities but also to kings. This comes out starkly in the negotiations between T. Quinctius Flamininus and Philip V of Macedon at Nicaea in the middle of the Second Macedonian War. It begins with Flamininus ordering Philip to disembark from the ship and Philip refusing. The word used is keleuvw. 58 Nor should we to imagine that this is merely Poly-bius using keleuvw as a verb to describe Roman actions. At one point he clearly intends the reader to understand that the phrase « I order you », keleuvw, was ad-dressed by Flamininus to Philip : oJ de; tw`n ÔRwmaivwn strathgo;~ auJtw`/ me;n aJplou`n tina lovgon e[fh kaqhvkein kai; fainovmenon. keleuvein ga;r aujto;n ejk me;n th`~ ÔEllavdo~ aJpavsh~ ejkcwrei`n… (« The Roman general said that his duty dictated an answer that was both simple and clear ; that he ordered him to withdraw from the whole of Greece… »). The use of the infinitive keleuvein in the oratio obliqua here sug-gests that this was part of what was said, not merely how it was said. Later in the exchange between the Roman commander and the king, Philip becomes in-dignant with the Aetolians for interfering and says : « But, worst of all, they make themselves the equals of the Romans and order (keleuvonte~) the Macedonians to withdraw from the whole of Greece. To talk like this at all is arrogant enough in the first place, and while it might be tolerable coming from the Romans, it is

55 Polybius iii, 4.2-4 : o{ te ga;r crovno~ oJ penthkontakaitrieth;~ eij~ tau`t∆ e[lhgen, h{ t∆ au[xhsi~ kai; prokoph; th`~ ÔRwmaivwn dunasteiva~ ejteteleivwto: pro;~ de; touvtoi~ oJmologouvmenon ejdovkei tou`t∆ ei\nai kai; kathnagkasmevnon a{pasin o{ti loipovn ejsti ÔRwmaivwn ajkouvein kai; touvtoi~ peiqarcei`n uJpe;r tw`n paraggellomevnwn.

56 The theme of the opposition between law and obedience to Roman orders runs throughout Polybius xxiv, 8-13 (note especially Callicrates at xxiv, 9 and Philopoemen at xxiv, 13) ; Roman displeasure is evident at xxii, 10.13 and xxiii, 17.4.

57 P. S. Derow, Polybius, Rome and the East, « jrs », 69 (1979), pp. 1-15, esp. 4-6.58 Polybius xviii, 1.6 : tou ̀de; Tivtou keleuvonto~ aujto;n ajpobaivnein.

expressions of power in polybius’ histories 91

quite intolerable when it is spoken by the Aetolians ». 59 The judgment that Roman orders are arrogant (uJperhvfano~) is attributed to Philip rather than Polybius but it is not the only occasion on which Polybius makes the association between the issuing of orders and arrogance. 60

Kings, of course, issue orders as well, but Polybius seems to have thought that the Romans were peculiarly preoccupied with orders and ordering. Derow lists nu-merous examples from 200 bc onwards, both of Roman orders and the necessary corollary, the expectation of obedience. 61 One of the most notorious incidents is the meeting of the Roman legate C. Popillius Laenas with the Seleucid king Antiochus IV outside Alexandria in 168 shortly after the Roman victory at Pydna, the victory which for Polybius marked the point at which everyone obeyed Ro-man orders. 62 Here as elsewhere it is the manner of Rome’s orders that is so strik-ing. The Senate had passed a decree instructing Antiochus to end his war with Ptolemy. Popillius now gave Antiochus this decree and ordered (ejkevleuse) him to read it. When the king replied that he wanted to discuss the contents with his philoi, Popillius drew a circle around him and ordered (ejkevleuse again) him to remain there until he gave his answer, behaviour that Polybius says « seemed bul-lying and completely arrogant (baru; me;n dokou`n ei\nai kai; televw~ uJperhvfanon) ». 63 Again there is the combination of Roman orders and Roman arrogance and again Polybius keeps his distance a little : he does not say that it was bullying and ar-rogant, but that it « seemed » (dokou`n) so. What is interesting too is Antiochus’ response ; the surprised king answered that he would do « everything that was asked, to; parakalouvmenon ». The term used here, parakalevw, seems to be rather softer and more polite. It is the kind of word that kings might use to disguise their commands and authority ; thus Philip V, writing his second letter to the people of Larisa, in spite of his annoyance that they have taken insufficient notice of his earlier letter, merely says « even now I ask (parakalw)̀ you to get on with the mat-ter without rivalry ». 64 In the exchange with Popillius, then, Antiochus responds by re-writing the Roman command in language more appropriate to the Hellenistic

59 Polybius xviii, 5.5-6.60 Cf. Polybius xxix, 27.4 ; xxxii, 2.7, on which A. Erskine, Spanish Lessons : Polybius and the Maintenance

of Imperial Power, in J. Santos Yanguas, E. Torregaray Pagola (eds.), Polibio y la peninsula Ibérica, Vitoria, 2003, pp. 229-243, esp. 240-241 ; on arrogant orders, see also J. Thornton, Lo storico, il grammatico, il bandito. Momenti della resistenza greca all’imperium Romanum, Catania, 2001, pp. 175-214.

61 Derow, Polybius, Rome and the East, p. 5 n. 16.62 Meeting : Polybius xxix, 27 ; significance of Pydna : iii, 4.2-3.63 See P. Köln 6.247, col. ii, lines 30-34 and Plutarchus, Demetr. 10.2 for similarly negative uses of baruv~,

this time in connection with Antigonus I and Demetrius I, pointed out to me by Paschalis Paschidis, who translates it as « oppressive », see his forthcoming paper, P. Paschidis, Agora XVI 107 and the royal title of Demetrius Poliorcetes, in V. Alonso Troncoso, E. Anson (eds.), The Time of the Diadochi (323-281 B.C.), Oxford, section 3.

64 Sylloge3 543, lines 34-35 : e[ti ge kai; nu`n parakalw ̀uJma`~ ajfilotivmw~ proselqei`n ªpro;~ to;º pra`gma ; cf. also seg 36 (1986), 1218, line 25 (Ptolemy III to Xanthos) ; for other examples, see C. B. Welles, Royal Correspon-dence in the Hellenistic Period, New Haven-London-Prague, 1934, nos. 14, line 12 ; 15, line 30 ; 34, line 21. Keleuvw is not absent from Welles’ collection, but it makes only one appearance (n° 68, line 11).

andrew erskine92

chancellery. 65 Kings have power but there are rituals of concealment ; the power relationship between city and king, for instance, is often dressed up in the lan-guage of euergetism. 66

On another occasion, in 191 during Rome’s war with Antiochus III, it is the Ae-tolians who are surprised by Romans orders. In this case they have uncondition-ally surrendered to the Romans and are taken aback by what they are told they must do. Their reply is to say that this is « neither just nor Greek ». 67 Roman be-haviour is, thus, very clearly marked out as different from the more usual Greek diplomatic practice. Indeed the Aetolians would soon find out how different it was when the Roman consul threatened to put them in chains. Nor is it only Roman magistrates that are presented in this way. The decrees of the Senate are several times said by Polybius to give instructions to cities and kings as to how they should act. 68

In their dealings with the political institutions of the Greek East the Romans fail to conform to what were established modes of conduct for either kings or cities. Perhaps the Aetolians do get it right when they say that the behaviour of the Romans is simply not Greek. Polybius’ fluctuating terminology captures the problem of defining Rome’s position in the Greek world. As a city-state we might expect hJgemoniva to be a suitable word to express its position but the Romans are so evidently not like most cities and certainly not like Greek cities in their relation-ships with others. In so often preferring dunasteiva Polybius is using language that is more appropriate to autocratic power unconstrained by law or even custom. Rome may have been a constitutional state – that after all is the point of book vi that compares Rome with the Greek polis – but in its relations with other states it had more in common with monarchy than any city Polybius knew.

65 Derow, Polybius, Rome and the East, p. 5 n. 16, sees parakalevw and keleuvw (along with ejpitavttw and prostavttw) as used interchangeably but if the examples he gives are examined it can be seen that pa-rakalevw is often used to represent the viewpoint of the ordered (cf. Polybius xviii, 9.2 ; xx, 10. 6 ; xxii, 4.12 ; xxiv, 8.3 ; 11.6 ; 15.1 ; xxix, 27. 6) ; keleuvw in contrast is not used in this way, apart from once when the Achaean Philopoemen uses to; keleuovmenon, but then it is to compare the relationship with Rome to slavery, an example that only serves to accentuate the difference in use between the two words (xxiv, 13.4).

66 Cf. J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford, 1999, pp. 182-206.67 Polybius xx, 10.6, where again the Roman command is re-formulated by the Aetolians as to; paraka-

louvmenon. 68 Polybius xxviii, 13.11 ; xxix, 27 ; xxx, 5.12 ; 30.2 ; 31.20.

Tutte le riviste Online e le pubblicazioni delle nostre case editrici(riviste, collane, varia, ecc.) possono essere ricercate bibliograficamente e richieste

(sottoscrizioni di abbonamenti, ordini di volumi, ecc.) presso il sito Internet :

www.libraweb.net

Per ricevere, tramite E-mail, periodicamente, la nostra newsletter/alert con l’elencodelle novità e delle opere in preparazione, Vi invitiamo a sottoscriverla presso il nostro sito

Internet o a trasmettere i Vostri dati (Nominativo e indirizzo E-mail) all’indirizzo :

newsletter@libraweb.net

*

Computerized search operations allow bibliographical retrieval of the Publishers’ works(Online journals, journals subscriptions, orders for individual issues, series, books, etc.)

through the Internet website :

www.libraweb.net

If you wish to receive, by E-mail, our newsletter/alert with periodic informationon the list of new and forthcoming publications, you are kindly invited to subscribe it at our

web-site or to send your details (Name and E-mail address) to the following address :

newsletter@libraweb.net

composto in carattere dante monotype dalla

fabriz io serra editore, p i sa · roma.

stampato e r ilegato nella

tipografia di agnano, agnano p i sano (p i sa) .

*Giugno 2013

(cz 2 · fg 3)