Chapter 1 Pan-Hellenism Goes Global
In: Rome, Global Dreams, and the International Origins of an EmpireSearch for other papers by Sarah H. Davies in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Abstract
Mapping a “Mediterranean” World
Three cartographic layers are introduced, as modes with which the oikoumenē, or inhabited world, was mapped during the third and second centuries BCE. The first two—experienced and universal—are discussed here. Experienced cartography, which combined the knowledge of mariners with literary travelogues and ethnographies, was for the first time claiming to know the entirety of the world. This layer was then plotted outwards onto a universal plane—i.e., the regions of the world aligned with the cosmic spheres and determined that a centerline, corresponding with the “Mediterranean,” or “our sea,” was the “only region” in which great empires could emerge.
Hellenicity and World Citizenship
To Hellenikon, or the essence of Greek-ness (a.k.a., “Hellenicity”), represents the third cartographic layer. During the third and second centuries BCE, “being Greek” was increasingly an ethos and a form of prestige politics, and this phenomenon led to a building sense that an international community (both friendly and contentious) did indeed exist.
Kinship Diplomacy: Building Bridges
One of the most important aspects of this budding internationalism was so-called “kinship diplomacy,” according to which Greeks could recognize Romans as Hellenic, and Romans could understand and position themselves as such as well. Via the linkages of syngeneia (or mythic genealogy) and oikeiotēs (or mythic guest-friendship), alliances and patronages could be forged. At the same time, such bridges were not without their complications and misunderstandings.
Roman Identity and Global Hellenism
As Hellenicity was entering a new phase of development, even self-awareness, during this period, Rome’s international prominence was on the upsurge. Neither the trends in Hellenicity nor the trends in Rome’s geopolitical presence directly caused the other. However, they were occurring in tandem, and were affecting each other, in a feedback loop. Most noteworthy in this process were the seemingly minor—and yet profoundly impactful—disjunctions between “Greek” and “Roman,” in which “Roman-ness” continued to be defined as something distinct and outstanding.