Eager to Be Roman: Greek Response to Roman Rule in Pontus and Bithynia by Jesper Majbom MadsenLives behind the Laws: The World of the Codex Hermogenianus by Serena Connolly

414 PHOENIX 161),butvirtually noneofthedevelopments arerevolutionary in thesenseof1789 or1917. Instead, they playa part in thecontinuous developments that changed the nature oftherepublic overthedecades andcenturies, withthelastcentury forming anincreasing distortion oftherepublican constitution under theforce ofviolence and military necessity. Sullamay wellhave played a leading role intheprocess bywhich the republic broke down, butitdoesnotgetusvery far toinsist uponinflexible (andoften meaningless) subdivisions asmarking clear breaks when they donot. University ofAlberta Christopher S.Mackay Eagerto Be Roman:GreekResponse to RomanRule inPontusand Bithynia. ByJesper Majbom Madsen.London: Duckworth. 2009.Pp.175. Livesbehindthe Laws: The World of the Codex hermogenianus. BySerena Connolly. Bloomington andIndianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2010. Pp.270. Crucialto understanding the longevity - andtothat extent, thesuccess - ofthe impérium Romanům isunderstanding therelationship between ruler andruled, i.e.,the methods bywhich power wasexercised, thedegree towhich itcould benegotiated, and themanner inwhich itwaslegitimized andnormalized. In Eager toBeRoman ,Jesper Madsen takes upthequestion ofthereception andacculturation ofRoman authority byinvestigating theresponse ofthepopulation ofPontus andBithynia toRoman rule from theperiod ofPompeys settlement to theConstitutio Antoniniana. As histitle suggests, hecontends that these BlackSea provincials "were eager to announce their active participation inRoman institutions andtodemonstrate their affiliation toRome, Roman power andtheRoman sphere ingeneral" (128). With hisfirst two chapters, Madsen investigates the Roman method of, andexperience in,governing Pontus andBithynia ("AGovernor atWork") andtheextent towhich Roman rulemodified thetraditional, localwayoflife("Roman Rulein Pontus and Bithynia"). Thecorrespondence between Pliny andTrajan isthenatural source for such discussions, andMadsen isright totreat these letters asevidence ofquotidian imperial life(howsoever much subsequently polished; 13-17). Nevertheless, itis alsotrue that thecontent andpurpose ofthese letters areidiosyncratic andso a dangerous source from which to generalize. He is on unsecure footing, forexample, whenadducing Pliny's appeal toTrajan for permission tocover a sewer inAmastris (Ep. 10.98)asproof that thecity hadlostitsright tocarry outsuchanimprovement onitsownandhad thereby losta considerable degree ofautonomy (54). Madsen haselided theimportant distinction between obligation andpotentiality in thisinstance, which he offers as a prime example oftheRoman capacity andreadiness tointerfere inlocalaffairs. Indeed, thisis thecentral theme ofChapter Two,which is supported byarguments on the powerful role played bytheRomans inshaping theimperial cult andindirecting imperial worship. Though itisnot hisprimary focus, itisunfortunate that Madsen didnotspend more time developing these arguments andpresenting a more comprehensive discussion thathighlights thenuances in theevidence. The Pliny-Trajan correspondence itself reveals a complex imperial perspective oftheprovince - i.e.,an interest inpreserving localautonomy, yet a willingness tointerfere paternalistically inlocalaffairs; a concern BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTESRENDUS 415 andsense ofobligation for those whohave mismanaged their finances yet a fundamental fear ofsedition from them - that surely affected Roman operations andtheir reception inBithynia. Madsens central arguments arepresented inChapters Three ("Greeks intheRoman World"), Four("Turning Roman in Pontus andBithynia"), andFive("Responses to Roman Rule").Drawing ontheepigraphic record, hedemonstrates that bythemidsecond century c.E.native Bithynians heldpositions intheimperial service, eventhe Senate, andthat many whoattained these positions didsobygradually working their way through themilitary ranks, rarely returning totheir native communities. Incontrast toorthodoxy, then, Madsen contends that Greeks didnotavoid Roman administration andthat those whodidgaina foothold initrecognized itssocio-political advantages and worked diligently tosupport Roman interests. Elites' useofthetria nomina (oratleast someform ofit)andtheir promotion ofcloserelations with theemperor, whether in theservice ofhiscult orinthelanguage oftheir honorific dedications tohim, present a general picture inwhich the localelite inPontus andBithynia genuinely admired Roman power andauthority (94).Indeed, itislargely because ofthis growing participation inthe imperial service that Madsen seesa shift intheessence ofwhat itmeant tobeRoman, from anidentity premised onethnicity tothemore negotiable dynamics ofsocial and political status (101).To this end, thecriticisms ofRome found inthewritings ofDio Chrysostomus, Arrian, andCassius Dio- allnative Bithynians - ought tobe seenas a healthy level ofdebate from securely within a Roman world. Thevalue ofMadsen's work ishisengagement with important questions about identity anditsroleinthesuccess ofRoman rule intheGreek world; andhisoverall argument that Greek elites were keen toidentify themselves asRoman andwork with theimperial administration islargely successful. Yethisclaims would have beenstrengthened bya greater sensitivity tohisownidentifications of"Greek" and"Roman." Itistroublesome, for example, that without addressing theethnic history oftheregion, Madsen routinely uses "Greek" when speaking ofthe population ofPontus andBithynia. He himself points outthat Pompey hadtoreorganize theformer Pontic kingdom radically byintroducing eleven Greek-style poleis> andthat still intheAntonine period Arrian didnotmeet the imperial definition ofwhat itmeant tobe Greek because Bithynia wasnotconsidered part ofthepan-Hellenic union(121). In fact, inspeaking ofan imperial definition, Madsen seems tosuggest that there wassome kind of"imperial" identity, andhespeaks tantalizingly ofa "concept ofcollective identity" among Greeks andRomans (122). A discussion ofhowelite citizens ofPontus...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.