ROM-HostageRom 3-4-Guest & Trophy by Marcial Tenreiro

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE::TAi{tNG tNTHB

ROMAN EMPtRE

more strategic positions.92 Caesardeyalues the rumor andattribl\tes the He1vetians' resistance to their óvy-nanger and barbarousqualities; yet'Caesar~sownconduct in securing Gaul orla permanentbasis.makes' hisaccount dubious - Servius Galba probably did plan to stay,longer. over. andábove the terms ofthe' firsthostage-based settlement,93 ,Di records how .Metellus took hostages from Jugurtha in'exchang<:; fe peace, ónly to keep"uppingthe ante"Únexpected1ywith deman

H0ST-GUEST

for hi~ "Yé~pons,e1ephánts;and Romamcaptivesánddeserters.94 In:; of these'cas'es t:he h:ostage donors"got considerably lessthan what thj bargail'led,for:

It isin theseexamples.ofRLomans oyerst<:;ppingthe:boundsofd treaty that we'findthe.stifl'estresistance onthe part of the dbnprs' agryement:scoerced by hostages. Demetrius só tivit)r was a form ofresistance, llndertaken when the omans failed frornca] abide by thejusticeofhostage-baséd relationships. 'T.escape e Carthagini ofthe Third Punic War as well went to war with Rome in!spi,t

:~e

Glaucus, a Trojan,' on the nent as a descenHantcÜf'a' man Iwhohad been a gaest:in, thehpllse of oneof,his:ancestors longbeforethe;war. Boundby, a custom;of:, reciprócify betweenhost andguest;!. the, two exchange",armoF hther~ than fight;"wit:h 'Glauéusfatnously ,on'the 10sing end as;he'givesÜp,. gold in excharige,forbronze:I Each then,returns to his, trÓops,.still' on opposite'l'sides,' still,at war'with, eachiother.¡ Altnough the,writers! of the Rbman"e~pirdwere,[ar(iemeved in time from thé IDark"Age< epics, thesignificante,of hospitalityfot. travel;i cornmunication,. aild, internationaI. \relatiofl~ has' be en shoWn' to hate' persisted. Üi'R'oman' contexts?,l~ host, wasexpe<;tedto provide,:a' refuge' and, basiC\'cornJ:...

their hostages: The Sameans of Cephallonia,also continued td're the Illyrians faced byOctavian il'lAppian are said.to havemadeá,. def last stand, burning themse1ves in their citadel; theHe1vetiansultirmlt succeededin'drivingoffJulius Caesar's lieuienant; andJugárth'aprl ecuted a full waragainstJ'Vletepus and thenMátius in spite ofhóst ,in Roman possession. Perhapsthisresistan¿eshould beexpected: documentsécured by'the hostages hadproven tobévahieless,anq Romansrevealed as confidence menhiti their. international' re1ati Whenthe péaceordainedby hostageswasoverturnedby thebe of t9érecipients~i:the pahies,ieturnedtó1a state of war:¡¡'he actóI hostages as cóércion~foi Inbrethan wha(~as"agreed upoll'thus ha ironic affect of renderillg the practice worth1ess,~~a coercive,devi

92 Caes.BGa1l3.1-2.

¡"'.'

forts to a'wortliY,':traveler;',:arid:tlietraveler"was'~xpected td'be'¡gratiefüh and was informilly indebted to his hos\),as alresu1t. In \i:writing\iabout" hostage-taking;'Romari historians an.ddther'lit¿raryiftgureS'bccasionally applied thesimpleanalogy ofhostand'guest..to the'ho'stagetecipii ent and the hostagesthemselves, especiilly, but notonly, in th6 contextS'\ of peaceful, friend1y, or allied submissions. The attendant requirements

)

93 On Caesar's deliberate. construction of h~s officers' images in this episode, see Wel 1998, 93. ! 94 Cass. Dio, 26.89.1.Polyaenus, Strat. 1.47.2 also discusses an episode trom Greek histo in which Thrasyllus received hostages ttom Byzantium and then made a surprise attac;~ at night. See,~o

SHA, Pro.~. 14.2-3, where

the eIl}p~ror Probus took ho,stage~ ttom

his superiority, ...

to require grain and livestock after the fact.,,,m. ~,

see Traill 1989, Donlan

1!4.

1999, among

On proposed categories ofhospir,ality

in antiquity and their.,application

in Rome

(eSpt;T

cially according to Livy) , see Bolchao/ 1977, 1-54. Cf. Badian 1958, 154-155 and Saller 1982, 160. Burns 2003, 101 lirlks hostage-taking ~th guest-ttiendship when the detainees are adults.

1989, Scodel 1992, ahd Fineberg

many others. 2

nine Genpariic princes, and then proceeded

Hom. n. 6.II9-236. On Dioq¡.edes's profit in the. exchange, and~hs implication of

'Ii ~iIIi

HOST~GUEST

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE- TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

of reciprocity then held sway.As thé hostage stood in for his countqrmen, hospitality, as a governing force of interaction, was thought to have wide repercussions in geopolitics. Plutarch provides a brief example of the host-guest dimension of hostage-taking in an anecdote concerning the relationship between Philip 11ofMacedon and Philo ofThebes. Philip 11had spent years as a hostage in Thebes during his adolescence, where he evidently benefited from Philo's sustenance. Like Homer's Diomedes and Glaucus,

ofhostages, where two sides bothtraded detainees, signaled an equivalency in international,status. But in cases in which there is just one

they later meet:

the backgrounci' (if tl1ey \Vere not for~ótten" cq.~pletely), apd I?-()me accordi image of prisOp guard of the Méditerr~nean , .ngly, traded,the o,, ,', " .,0', '.,

Philo the Theban was [Philip's] benefactor and guardian when he was livin.g;iS a hostage in Thebes. Laterhe would not accept any gift from him; wherevpon Philip said, "D() not rob me of my invincibility by~ting me'be bested in benefattions and gratitude" (svspysO"íasKar XápiToS).3 ,

for tl)'at ofitshost?

hostage recipient

the overwhelnUng

number of examples in Roman

stories of our period -;:' the hostages of this type represented a benevolent hierarchy that was dominatedby the hostage-taker. Power on the inter national scene"remained abone of conténtion, just as it had when ,

host~ges were viewed primarpy as collate~a1,but;~he ~eí~tionship was settledwithout resort to arms.Thoughtsofblack'm~il thus rec~ded irito "

,,','

"'I\~

",,""",'

"o;'

graci~us,but ~till Üi'charge. Inp,e'host¡gecari

viewFdas,~surrogatef~r elltire,fofÜlati5ms,;~heh~~ade~s óf tliése stories, wp'~r9 hos~agesare like ~9sts.1encou~ter a worldin which the

Romans, are ovt¡rwhelmingly powe~,'ye~Uríl;,ersallYlove~, Unde~standipg the~host,guest ~nál,ogy'In hostage-taking helps to resolve certain eni~as óf dlepractice, such asthe stric,t s~nse()f decorum thatis sometimes presept,iri destriptioh,sof hóstage-taking, and ",,'

Plutarch does not provide any setting for thisvignette, )butthe economy of the situation would have dearly privileged Philip had hé not,been bound by the rite of his prior hostage status to assume a,positiol}of: subordination. The hostage, in addition to suffering theyears spent from home and the sometimes menacing environment ofhis travels" mustalso repay the kindness of the hostagerecipients,in a debt of gratitude. Wherever they were in thisstory, Philip figuratively left' with brorize, and Philo with the gold, yet Plutarch does not impl"Yli resentment oneither side; his,Philip jokingly seeks only to balance the,scales, not to break Ú'ee Ú'om anexcessive burden.o The hos~ge andhis ,caretakerare presented as too familiar with each other fot ar1Y bitterness ot animosity. The submission of hostages often had nothing to do with aggres~ sion, opposition, or threats. In manyepisodes" hostages arrivedili Rome before therewas any fighting. They'came not to ,enda battle¡ but to forestall it; not the o,guarantee of a truce, but as the emblt¡m¡ of an alliance that was undertaken Ú'om the ground up before troops were even mobilized. Rather than focusing on the coercive, function of hostage-taking, in these cases Romap writers emphasized a benign relationship, where the fact of the hostage proved an affinity (not a conflict) between the states in question'. The mutual exchange 3 Plut. Mor. 17Se.

how any departure from that a~conirp flag~:d theperpétrators not simply as dishonest, butalso as barbarie or animal.1;'a1>:inghostages was often seen' as a DJ.arkerof civilizatioriand 6rdei, and the expeiience of the hostage w~s 'accoidingly used40gauge the léyel,dfculture an? sophistication of tl1e parti~s illvolved. Even despit'e Chisforeign igentity and the pbtendally h?stile circumstances s~r~~rridiilg'his 'presence among the'Romans, a hostage,in a properandJ'ust cont.ext was affordeci 0',"', 'o, '; ,L, ,". l' a degree óf re{péct and cqmpassion~ And while}Qe early releilse of 'i hostages was seeu" asa sign of goodwill il} tJ1ecqntext of-blackiriail as discussed in tJ1~ p1:eVí6uschapter, únder the rubric of hosts and guests it connoted the opposite: if.holding hostages bespok~ f~iendship, tl1en releasing the~ could spdl thedisJ?leasure ofthe~bstage recipient. A proper graspof tht Rpman mindset on matters offdr~ign policy depends on unraveling what, for us, mayseem a paradóx: how newly established Ú'iendships 'éou,ld coexist with a ruthless application of blackmail. With the host-guest contrivance, the Romans seem to be applauding their brand of empire: taking hostages is a gesture of clemency, and when non-Romans themselves are said to embrace that clemency, Roman prestige sqars, and the notion of creditor-collateral is conveniently or momentarily displaced. ",' "" ""

,""

., "Co,"

,,""

,'"

"""""

"'"

",,"1 ,

""",

,,'

",,,

á,'"

HOST-GUEST

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE~,;:¡;f\KING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

A HIERARCHY¡:¡OF ALLIES A conventional model of coer¿ion and blackmail in hostage-taking might be thought of as a seriesofbasic step~: (1) some disagreelllent, between two states leads to hosdliry, which (2) leads to warfare, which (3)leads to a Roman victory (according to our predoniinantly,Romanfriendiy record); after;which (4) hostages are takenout ofsuspkion,anji ,

i".,

,,'

"f:

,,',

'.', 'y

'1'/

(5) dono~s re~r;ett?eir obli9atio~to sub~t. Bvt inr;any, ep~s9q~,~¡,,;,~s reportedin ~Üi sources, this p~ocess coulcrpe t~uncate~'/5?n~2r mpre "'" of the "ste~s" cONl~~~ ab~,e~tts)'th,epoi~~that the!:p~actice'in,Wli~; something very different fi;om,c<;>erciop.Fer example,' in s011J-~r;ca

warfareled to a Roman,vistol)'and.to re t t in' g t h"'' e l r n "g su SP"~cio ' yet far ,firo m ff "

' th~~e~and~or Ob li '

':''i ?'a"tion,

hosta~~'sQut " ''h o s:a,~4on " ,ü" , '

~ are said to welcome it '~ith cele¡pration,and the gen ral who to " the hostages is seen as exceedingly generous. "',;), ,'" ",'," When Di ',',dorus Sicuh """" "" , eated describes how the Carthaginian''I-Ianno deaItwith a de town "i , ,, ", " h ousan io~' to" take thre~t 'hostages as eviSicily, h,"e ,'"labels his decis , ,;"" dence of the generafs kindness,becausea ín°re" ~iolent retributiolJ: "

,, ".".,.

".,'.."",

"."

.,.,

.'.,

"",, ,,

,, ,,

, ", ,.

"., .

,",

",'.",.",

"" '

"" ,"

"",

..,..,

.""

we are, told, WO,uldh~ve ~een:J~,~tified.4Si~1~rly, Livy p;?ffrays tr.' consul Qu'intlls l\tfar;ciuspí1iliPP4~'Slevy ofhosi~ges following the SU] render of Agassae in 169 !ICEas a conciliatorymaneuver, a substitl for direct rule by a garrisort, ~hich allo\:$edhim t()"ch~rm the¡he "

"b",

',,',,;/¡

,1"

oQ?,eiemainin9~ás~donians."5 Accor~g~, toJosephVs, Arit,~?c VIISidetes was é~to1l6~ by theJews as i:h~iLbenefactor for ti '' " aV e e "a "it,., d ha"rsh m' W h"e h fi S pe a g 't?S .' '"' ho",~,t r()rÍ1)'er ",u al8 8 C? .h' ' e.f' ' I tiesoHe,was fete~, throughout the city 'and ~tterideq festi~alswWl " , troops were fully supplied.6 Hostage-taking cotÍld thus be, seen' ,, happy 1:0what ',,',was,seen as the~isto~\s'byright: h:eg~~ "", alternative ,, .. " .,,'.,/1',« ','".. P.' ,'" , ", , extirpation, or even ge'nocide. The conquerorsin all üf these, ca..~." ,, ., Hanno, Marcius Philippus, Antiochus VII" - are seen as espec: kindhearted given the preceding combativen.ess and resistance'''''i'''''';'í: oftl1e '.1, '

"I "". .'

'U'¡}..'

" '" "'' 'XI"

"' ' ..

",',

,.,'"

"",,

""""",

"""'""",,,,.,,,

.."

,'.."

., , ,

,..

, ,, "" ,,',,'

"""

" ,",'

.,.,'.

., ".",. ,

.,.,,

,. "

..'..".."

".,.

, ,..,",,, ,.,".,.." .,."...,., "., "."".""..

...

:,e."

di"

n'..

, , .'.', , .,..,,,

,.,"

donor societies, and ~though they hope to control states that had 01l1Yi1i¡jI! rece~tly been defe~ted, the defeated are grateful for a concession. 4 Diod. Sic. 24.10.2. 5 Livy, 44.7.5: ut relíquornm Macedonum animos fibi conciliaret. 6 Joseph. AJ 13.247-249. AntiochusVn Si&tes~ accornrnodating attitude toward the Jews is contrasted with that of Antiochus IV Epiphanes: AJ 13.243.

This sense of celebrationjnhostage.,.taking may account forrother episodes in which the,.series of steps in conventional coercion is abbreviated even further. 'Wthechancéiexists forhostage-taking to be wel..: comt?d;.,then,itstandsto-reason,that,a weak state in a disagree111.ent with a,strongone,may attempt t6',avoidwarfare entirely and hastento theco~clusion. 1m otl1er words, acommon scenarip in our sourc~sis thatan initialdisagreement,between twostates"gave way to imm~diat~.host~ge ~ubrn.ission;i'!0Yithout~nyfighting,but,still wi,tht~e ele111.~n!, 9:fsll~pis~on..Livyandpionysius ,of/Halicar;nassusiboth sp¿~k of th~\R:!pman,treát,y¿with the,Lllcanian~ o(southprn.ltaly,f}(datt,dto 29 8 B<=;r¡::along(thesé;lines.1¡,J'heiLucanif~$'ha?),di~~~~c~~ ,therpselves from ",Rq~ed~spite' an"old alliance¡ andi:rdations ,ipetwe~n' tht w1:?, had~oureqr J?utno)'T wantÜlg}~Oman ássis!anCt¡inawar;againstjtp.~ Samnites,/t~ey,squ,ghitó patch tl1e rift,ia~d thinking that merp peF:suasion(wollJdnot beenoug~t() win¡qyerith,e ;Itomans, hostage~,wére offered not~onlYJoprove, but ialSQ:,toqec¡t~!!4eirown loyaltyinthe eyes 9~th~:'R?111.aIJ:~} Qrii awh(9rs~p.usdessribe a s~tu,<ltioninWl1ith' warfare, st~p!in.,the n1,odelofh,o~tage.,.taking,was dropp~d; brit wheresl¡lspi9ionjibeny,een the rt;sipienvat.¡ld donor,stiUIfngéred;) Th,e resulting,ialJ,iancewas said. to be)strqng, as, the l\.om,pis; hostagesin hand, declaredtheirsupport,for LU9pia andwentto war,.against the' Samnites.~lnthese cases, coercion is still a powerful element in''the hostage rélatiónship"but is hasbeenscaleddbwn, in'itsintensity. The ambience''Óf,the recd'fdedfs\J.bmission(is<,v'~iy',différent'frpm:episodes where threats of viqlence' are prominent; die animosity between,!he states has~oftehe<H\yith;hostage~ aSithe,!.agentsof-irh,~(very teas'on for - thé lesstui;bulentrelati,-?nship: Coercion ceasestorbea '.central. explanaJion for~oman hostagetaking when even the elementaf suspicion is lost, and the gap betwéelli two states is closed without war, without victory, without skepticism on die part of the recipient, without remorse on'the part of the donor, and only with hostages, given over in a supreme act of alliance. Often the (self-professed) reputation of a Roman general's

7 Livy, IO.II.13; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 17.1.2-3;

17.3.1.

8 Livy, IO.II.13; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 17.1.2. For anotherview see Chapter 4. 71

..-

ofthe Lucanian hostages,

HOST:JJGUEST

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE- TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

thestandards which they once raised as a monument over the Romans, but Phraates also entrustedhis children to Augustus, and his children's children, thus obsequiously givil),g.hostages for his friendship (q>JAío:v). 13

1! previous accomplishments provided th¿ impetus for donor states to give hostages in such a way. In Julius Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic wars, for example, when word of Caesar's success in Gaul traveled north, tribes from across the Rhine were said to send hostages in droves as a sign of a new alliance.9 Likewise, Caesar saysthat heknew of the loyalty of the Remi, the sole Belgic tribe to support him, only because they had given him hostages unprovoked?O In Livy ambassadorsfrom 120 Iberian tribes rushed (legatíconcurrerunt)to Gnaeus and

Strabo's Phraates IV; in his relationship wjth Augustus, thus comes to resemble the Ga!lic tribes c~nfronted byCaesar: phraates IV here used hostages to court an intematibnal ally.14Tacitusrefers back to Strabo's iriterpretatioriofthéParthian hostages ih hisiccount of the N eronian ' '" wars in t .he East.'H e repOrts th at tlle R om ..a.ns 'l'n 54 cE'encour ag... ed ..... .,. .. , "", ,.,' . ".." "'~!' ... ,)'" '.' Vologae~es üfPartllia: to give hostages to Gnaeu,s Dorpjtius CorbUlo '

Publius Scipio in 217 BCEin order to offer them hostages after they had conquered the Balearic Islands and landed on their shores. II And in Tacitus's Agrícola,the British trihes are so impressed with the Ro11lans' civilization and strength and with Agricola himself (M course, the" of hostageauthor's father-in-law) that they. embraced the practi submission as an opportunity to join his side.12The notion' f coercion in hostage-taking is not raised by the various cOJ:nmentat rs in these episodes; the role of hostages as guarantees evaporates,an the fact of the submissions exists only as an acknowledged symbol bf hierarchy. The situation is not only one of peace or a ~essation of fighting but ofactive fi:iendship and of shared responsibilities, with Rome as the more powerful partner. This type ofhostage acts as a bridge connect-' ing sovereign states rather than a token of blackmail. Themetapho of the hostages as "shackles" that bind the contracting parties, seel earlier, for example, in Chapter 2, when the Romans were heldá bay by hostage-wielding Samnites, would. notbe appropriate in tHi contexto Authors of the early Principate shal'e the idea that hostages cou

. ...

... ...

...

'..'

", ..

. .

bef~re a~y conffi¿t)~~d thusé~o6se p~.ace ~~his. predetéss~rs had.15 Ultim:ately, according to TacitU:s,Vok)gaeses'h~d other reasons for sur~ rend~ringhissdns, \vhichhave todo with protecting histhrone from rivals, a theme to' he disctlssed inChapter

5. NevertReless,

Tacitus at

least p~eserves the n~tio~ tlla~á berievolent hi~rá~chy with Rome at the top couldbe expectedas asettlement orchestrated through hostages that is v\ihatdorbtilo hopJd to achieve.16 And the rhetoric 'app)ears in other places. In Ltlcan's Pharsalící;host'age-takingisdeployed asa metaphor fo describe Pompey's relations with the islcmdofU~sbós after he sent his wife Camelia to live theie during his civil war with Caesar. Addressing the peopl~ ofLesbos, Lucan'sPompey says: Not only by a promise had 1 shown. to you.tb,at no land in the world is more pleasing to me;Lesbos also b,eld my affection with mywife asahostage (Qbside);mysacred homeand'my cherished family gods were here; here was my Rome.17

The metaphor does not incl1.ldeany notion of compulsión to submit; on the contrary, Pompey sen!: his wife willingly, and the resulf 'vas to transform Lesbos into what Lucan suggests was an equivalent to

be given in unwarlike settings and could have, nothing to do wil coercion. It is how Strabo at one point charact~rizes the submissio ofParthian princes by Phraates IV to Augustus's care in 10/9 BCE:

1J Strabo, 6.4.2.

As for the Parthians, althoughthey are powerful neighbors of Rome, they¡( have neverthe1ess yie1ded to the superiority of the Roman people andoQ~' our rulers to such an extent that they have not only sent back to Rome

9 Caes.

BGall.

2.35.1.

10 Caes.

BGall.

2.3. See also Barlow

For chronology:

1998,

145 and Burns

2003,

124.

Livy, 22.20.II.

Hoyos 2001.

Tac. Agr. 20.3. For comment on the rhetorical nature of this passage, see Chapter 6.

'4 On the domestic

tensions within Parthia at the time, see Nedergaard

1988,102-105;

Campbell 1993, 222; Kennedy 1996, 82-83, 88; and Drijvers 1998, 289. On the other motive that Srrabo attributes to Phraates IV at 16.1.28 - that of eliminating his dynastic rivals - see Chapter 5. 15 Tac. Ann. 13.9. On the chronology, see Wheeler 1997. 16 On Tacitus's construction of Corbulo's character in the Annals through discussion ofhis attitudes toward hostages, see Chapter 9. 17 Luc. 8.129-133. In Sklenár 2003,121, the fact that Lesbos, a non-Roman place, counts as a second Rome demonsrrates the upheaval of the civil war.

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPlRE

Pompey's hometown. Later in the passage, Lucan uses another , metaphor to describe Cornelia's status on Lesbos, calling her a hospita, or guest.18 In none of these cases doesthe reader find hostility ór wariness or regret in hostage transactions, and the dey,ice is repeatedly reported as successful in sustaining alliances. As hostages guaranteed the trust, or fides, between Rome and the hostage donors,Jhey became the human mapifestation of a critical concept in Roman foreign relations. A temple to Fidesstood on the Capitoline Hill, which, though attributed to Numa by tradition, seems to have been firstdedicatedby,,A-tilius Cala;tinus, a consul of 258 and 254 and triumphator 0(257, at a time wh\:m the Romans were b~ginning' to engage in warfare overseas, beyond the Italian peninsula; it was ". , then rededicated by a Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, who co e either the consul of II5 or his son" the curule aedile ()f 58.19Fidesths had a home at the pinnacle of the city, and its co~truction and refurbi hment coincided with Rome's blossoming imperial forrunes. That th "trust" revered here had a specific application in foreign relations is prov;en by the treaties and other documynts pertaining to R,()me's allies, wh.i9Q seem to have been posted on the temple's wills, or at least nearby.20The1' diplomatic significance of fidesalso was acknowledged by the various kings themselves and by the cities belonging to Rome's network of ' allies: near the temple stood a long statue base, which was decorate with dedications from Asia Minor. All that remains ofthe monument are several fragmentary inscriptions, somein Latin, some in Greek, and, .. some bilingual; these mention gifts of statues ofRoma or of th~Roma., People, donated out of gratitude for Roman benefactions and generótis relations.21 Anyone wandering into this precinct of the Capitoline

18 Luc. 8.157. 19 See Richardson 20

would have been struck by the extent to which promises and good faith seemed to govern Rome's foreign affairs; hostages signified, or even reified, the. same notiop. Tht1 function ofthe hostage as thetalisman oftrust is especially vivid in caseswhere 'obsesor Ó¡.lT)pOS were used as metaphors to describe the role of children in cementing the bondso( extraordinary families., It wasa c9mmop.~cop.ceit .inRomanlit~r¡lt1lre.,forap1anlánd aiiWOmap. who produce offipring to be&scribed as.parties.agreeingto a contraet for which their children are the security. In lánguage in ,keeping with thef,inancial transac~ons, between a cre<:Jitorand d~btor,. t!)eme:wbqrn, childh~lps 'tó!.maintai,n'ianfoFbceryviséFpnten~ióus,,"bond;'the.., deplq;-, tion, 9f children as hostages is particularlycommon when the parents form an unusual pair that must be reminded of a.force beyond their coupledom to keep themtogether. InPropertius, when the deceas.ed Cófhelia áddresseshet husblind/Pa'u11us, from thegraveshe says~h¡át theirobligation to one another still holds by virtue of the secm:ity embodied in their two sons and one daughter;22 In Ovid's Heroides, whena brother and sisteri ,Macareus;a.nd;,Canace''"7produ,ce .a'(child from an incestuousunion, the son is called a pledge of.theír love that ;

will unite them in spite of th~ circurilstances and the hostilf reactiori'pf others:23,AIsoin the Heroi4es-, 'Yhen1'4edeaiW~~tO~C(~~I}~~~eJas9~'s faithlessness, sherefers tó their sons as twinpledges whom JasoIl has ignored.24 All of these couplesare remarkable in some way: adeceased ' woman and herwido~er, a ~istei and her, brother" and a jilted wife whose reyengei 9h h er disloyal hu~bandiis;.nptol'io US IYvio l en't'i ;~n .tbe~.e . '

,",

""y,.

cases the status'(jf the children moments inquestion the need and the one' who best fits that strained cóUpleh.:ísesa daughter

,,, ,

',.""..,..

,, ,

, ,

"".'''''' ,

" , '". ,

;

, " ,,

as pledges is inthe 'foretipnt: 'átrhe fóra security, orguarantee, is acute, role is a biological progeny. Another iri,the\sartlewayitiorn:~"ofthéstaged

1992 and the entry by Reusser in the Lexiron Topographicum Urbis Romae.

LTUR (Reusser)citesa dedicatoryinscriptionfrom Thasosdating to c. 80 BCEand a' reference in Cassius Dio to the damaging of inscriptions posted at the temple in 44 orA3 BCE (45.17.2-3; onewonders ifthis is'a rhetorical harbinger ofthe~risis ofthe time). Some soldiers' diplomata were also apparendy posted there. The Lex Antonia d¿ TerttreSsibus, concerning the grant of tteedom to Termessus and the levying of tribute there, was found nearby; seeH. B. Mattingly 1997. See also Freyburger 1986, 259-273.

HOST-GUEST

The inscriptions (CIL 12 725--731) are discussed and placed in historical context at Menor 1978, with references. The dedications, at least on this monument, seem to have begun shordy after the Batde ofPydna and extend into the early first century BCE

and possibly a litde later. Among the dedicators are the Lycian League; the cities of Laodicaea, Ephesus, and Tabae; an? Mithridates IV of Pontus (ruled 169-150) and Ariobarzanes (1 or 11)and Athenais of Cappadocia. The entire monument was rebuilt, and the inscriptions recarved, under Sulla the result of a fue and Sullan ideology

(Menor 1978, 329-330). 22 ProP.4.11.73.

23 Ov. Her. 11.113. Cf. the despair between Jupiter and Ceres when Proserpina, daughter - and hostage between mem - is taken by Hades: Ovid. Met. 5.523. 24 Ov. Her. 6.122, 130. 75

their

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-'TAKING IN THE ROMANEMPIRE

HdST.-'GUEST

ethical debates in the ControversíaeofiSeneca the;Elder.2s Themother and father have become catastrophically estranged:' the reader is ~old at the start that the mother has poisoned and killed her stepson who was born to her husband in'his first marriage. As she is about to be executed, she reveals that theirdaughter (the father's second child) was her !accomplice in the murder and thereforeshould beiexecuted as well. The father defends the daughter on the grounds that the wife,

another prodaimedequalstatus' ininternational relations. In this kihd of pact,Goercidnisan unlikely;;prospeét:the execution of hostages onone side wOl1ld; by reason, bé'answered in kind on the other, resultingin a losing situationtfor'bothWparties. Instead;,themutual excharige ofhostages/served as the'manifestatioh' ofa commonhond. It is partiGulady'pievalent in;R:pman accounts of diplomaéy,Within Galliccommunities. For,\eXa1nple;"according to"Tacitl1s;Julius Civi}is prepared hisrebellion'in,Gaultirstthroughthe mutual excnange"Of hostages?7 Eariier;\]ulius Caesar'citediasmmar pnysidu exchangel df hostages in Gau!""-t~emoveinent réqt:Hrct:iin;the lo~isticsof e:xchallge andiHerumbrs it triggeredcon~titutedthe1yetY;eyiaence;ofatiasGent rebellidh:,

disgruntled to saythe least, was using the girLas a hostage against her father. The':result is an odd,kind ofjides...,by-coercion, whichis to say, nottrue fides at all. Finally, in a second-century noveLby.Chariton,the identification of a child asa hostage between.twoparentsis critical to the:plot of mis-taken identities and confused parentage. The story is as sensational. as most Hellenistic novels:Callirhoe is taken from her husband G.ha reas by pirates and sold into slavery!to Dionysius; Di onysius fallsin love

with her and marries her, and sev~n months later she gives bir ... to. son whomthe reader is told belongs to Chaereas. Overcome withjo Dionysius calls out to Aphrodite: .

Similarly,.the. Cá!nut~s, wt;;,are tqld, chose,nQtF°';'~~Fhang~",hostag~s in their,.allianFe(ofl~si~ta~ce"~e§}}he plot ,thus'qe reyt;aled" .to the Romang}hroug~ iumoF29T~e theine that itlFélligellce ga}q.eringi!1 the non- Rom~n.W~stdeperided ()!1~beyisipility of thel11u}uall1ostage exchange also appears in Appian: lje descriq~s how a seGretive,allia.hce among .,Italians,was revea!ed befor~ .the'""",SOGia!War: " ,.." 'Ú ,,. i'"

have a hostage ofher good wiil (OIlTJPOV EX'" Ti'¡S'Evvoías).i6 is .unusual-

a master:and theslavehe

purGha!

frompirates,who herselfis stillmarried to another and.!Diollysi finds the legitimacy of their union in hisson/hostage. f.o~ reade who know the child is not,his¡. this expression points out ~he cha, acters' plights: Dionysius's ignorance"and Callirhoe's deception,.E¡~ our purposes,. it is enough to.note th~.language of hostage~taking.ii: Chariton's portrayal of the crux of conflict: the hostage may betoke fides,even when it should not truly existo

They secreHysentemb~~sie~.toeil1:ñ. othT~,b~dihg;t?g~ther

MUTUAl.;

over these

matters and eXcnanging .'.llostagesTOrIl}1itiíaltru,st\i(KCXi \OIiT1PdO¡ÉTIEIlTIOV ESTIícrrov éxAA1)I\Ols).TheRomans 'didi not learri abqutthesé.¡fúr aJong time bequseofthe disputes and factionsintheci~Wl1en~h(':y, didléarn about it, they s(':nt,toth(': citi(':sl11e~whO',M,';eresuit<1;blefor eadJ, i!:J,orderto learn what was happening without being detected. When one saw a young hostage (IlE¡pá!<¡OV ollTJPov)being Ied fram Asculum to another town, he alerted Servilius, tne piaetofin that region.30

...

While Caes,arwasiti his winter quarters in nearer Gaul.: . frequent rumQts were prougtit td him, apd llk~wis~he was infqpIledby lette'tsfram Labiéri.u~; that all theBelgae;'whbIl1 1have:i1ready~:lidtnad~up'a third of GauI, wete swearin1f6aths'ag1HnStRomeand'e:x:changing.host'agesamong tli#mselves.28

Callirhoe was a delight to me - sweeter than country pi parents; 1 also 19; this child and how he makes his mother more secun;l)' bound tú me; 1 r1

Again, the "marriage?'

EXCHANGE 27 Tac. Hist. 4.28. 28 Caes. BGall. 2.1. Cf Caes. BGall. 1.19, when Caesar similarly learns of a conspiracy among the Helvetii and Sequani through the evidently cumbersome movements involved in mutual hostage exchange, on which see also Burns 2003, 100-101. 29 Caes. BGall. 7.2: ne res tifferatur. On Caesar's confidence in the intelligence, see Austin and Rankov 1995, 22. )0 App. BCiv. 1.38.

Just as hostage submission from the weak to the strong articulated and cemented a hierarchy, the mutual exchange of hostages one to 25 Seno Controv. 9.6.3. 26 Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.8.4.

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE~TAKLNG IN THE ROMANEMPIRE

The movement ofhostages in Gaul#dItaly, swapped backand.,fo~th; wasa precursor to tb'e'movement'06ftroops in a unitiedassault.1'he act of mutual exchange registered a strong~nd detetrnifíéd effortat: attainingsharedobjectives.,By extension, 'allianc~s'i:without hostages must ,nave seemedcru&r, oFflimsier: in theseregiOri~;, hostageswere seen by Romamwriters aseanecessar)l'part of &iendship. The Romansin the period urid~rstudy areneversaidto nave engaged in mutual exchahge themseIves, perhaps becauseit!:woulg entail an admissiOri of1weakness'or at lblsteqUality'withaf()reigB, regimeY Theclosest exarripléHof'suchbehavior,ón thepart;iOf thé Romans involves rriytholdgy: a~cording to'Dionysius of H<I;1itarriassus the Trojans, led by Aeneas, and the indigenous Italiaris,led by Latirius'¡

partiescouldp~ma4ekincbi~9'~i(they l}ad hostages of one all°ther. A faptastic illustration of thi~¡.pQintcomes oddly in asecond-;-,pentury treatise on maril1e, biology byOppian, who uses certain phenmp:ena ofhumankiJ;ld asmetaPP-Pfs tp~:¡cpla;il1~ealife..Df course, itis,pppian's understanding,ofthe htl~anfIol1margn~fltnat, is inte~sting here,.,In this praye~ to" ~~9~,~h~hostag~:~sr~nge iriter¿onnec;tedne~~QfJ1ie ,

gave each other their, childr~n as ~~,~ir~ocalpostageson ~he~!t~t~.,~er¿' d th Rutu,liap.S.32 Ql Yshls me nti ns prepa r ing to fight Turn uS'" an ,, ,

that previous

authors

thollght

"'''{

"",

, ",'

".,'

,""

that Romul~s'1.1l~Itemvs"\Xef<;inyI~"

",j",,

,. , ,, "

~ j

among th,e Trojan entourage ofhostage~asgrandsons ofi\ené,as ,and not grandsons of Numitor, as it appearsin, Livy's famousaccount).

Accordingto thisaltetnate version ofthétnyth,it isfrom thispositipriS., as &iendly hostages -that the brothers léft tofollnd their cities;3JTht

mutual exchange in this'story is présent~das,prOa!()ftlÜ:~s1iaredíntet~ "

,.of ,~sh and birds explains tbe '"

t!i¿YS1,Cy:1,,\ .

"",

, '

'<'/.:

wi~h,such affe~tÜ:)1{'havé YOliseparáted'and divid'id each fromthe.other; the radi:lí1t sky and thl' air,aha tne floWin'g\vát~ralldthe earth; inotller' oran.' Yetyóu ~so brought~hem:it9g~therill'ian tÍf1b~qkeiibodi o[¡múty \lhd,ás'~ matt~rof necessity, you join them under a ~harydyoke,:not, tb be. r~inoved,: For tli~ sky,doe~ riQt,~~st Fithoutthe air,.,nof¡tne;nr without 1,',wáter"and:i:h~ , , ' .. " wateris not ~n'clifferen~to theearth, but tney¡are qorniofe,ach other, anop one, p~th, an¡unf<?lding ina si~gle cyc\e. For this, re~son t~ey Ialso excha~ge hosÚges (6¡..l'l1peúoO'cXl) iri the snared races of ampnibians:,sbme come upfro~ the'~ea t~ the iand; others dive,fróm.the airt~lmin~e ~ithAmphitrite:su~h as the cormorants and the lameriting'trib~s óf kingfishers and the migbtY., rapacious ospreys and whatever else that,plunges iuto the water to:hüb~':arid' fish:,Likewisei:here arethosei~hat livein tn¿ deep'yet cut through the sky: the cala~aris, the raC'eof seahawks, and.the underWater swallow.When,tllese fear a sh6hger fish at hand, they leap from die sea and take to wing,Üi thé: '

oeean;~hd

,/, '

ests, deeply felt, which' existed betweeri(theTroj~ns arid t~ehtiri The act tlllites the two peoplésrhetorically in a way"that: allóws fe the unique identitythat theRain~riscultivated in tlíéA-ügustanage';

air.35

rusticwarri()rs,,(Latins)t,yet,~~o

in rever se ~ theh~¿tagei~fhumiiiltina i~a ~"chlfur:il,,~~phibiaJ;l"'W:lio . lit 'j" " ,'''<'!'! i i" ."."I;,."i,I,;' '.1I ""11".;;'," ,,¡'t lit' "."i.:/!, ", ',t, ,1', e h le V can furt"C tion i n i:W 9 9 ;'e ,a.t , P ~Y911d P t .' 'o ~tage 'I " : ifr~rrl1t W rlf\~. ,,': yS;

her()~s()f,~"stori~d and ctiltMr~d,p; (Troja;ns):Ro~ulu~,and Re~us, in thisv~rsion, wereTroj;:llls,.an(itf1, wete supported by Latins, inwhoslIandthey foulldeq R,cOnie.31' 'Fat [rotil ::marking astate' ofunease 01'terriporáry distrust, hosta exchangecould be seeri as ptóof'ofa kind ofsymbiosis,asif 3' Elbern 199°, 128. Mutual exchange occ~rred more frequendy in late antiquity, perhap because Roman power was waning: Phi11ipson 19II, 399; Lee 1991, 373. 32 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.59.2. 33 Di"m. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.73.2. On Dionysius's use of Fabius Pictor, see tIte debate at Poucet

1976 and Verbrugghe

1981.

34 On the history and significance of identifyingRomulus (and sometimes Remus) as Trojans, see Gruen 1992, 35-39; Miles 1995, 137-178; Cornell 1995, 65 and70-'7I. On later rites thatce1ebrated the bond¡between Aeneas andLatinus: Galinsky 1969, 147. Wiseman

1995, 55-"'56suggests that the anonyrnity

divine parentage.

of the father may be me~t

On the filial aspect of their hostageship,

see Chapter

to imply

l~~t~r~d~,..w~~~:W9~~~~

Flyin~'cala&~ri~ 'n~~~~~sta~~~~1:~Bg~~ri's ,

...'

,1,. ,

", , '."

,,1 ,,

'.','", "

"'''I'''','.'!' ",

! " ", ",,, "

''1",", ,

, ,

' ,,'

,""""'" ,

"V",!

, ,

"i'

" ", ",,,

!'","'.

a Limbot~eny~~riWo separaty "~~~l~stp a' sf~~e,,:h.~re c()fj;l.pit~~i~~ is the,norm; ,As 0ppian undhstoodit, thei¡hostagejs,mo~~i\tbari(!¡tll oddity; he (it) isa,licruciiillirikiand the k~y toeqgili15fiuni¡!tb.estopg1p against chaos, whichkeeps tadically differentteairns "iillon'onepatl1:¡ all untolding in a sirigle cycle." The hostage is a specralkihd ofhybtid' figure~such tha.t if on~ world became threatening! he,could find reflige 01'asylum in thepther without undergoing radical change. The ess~nsy ofhostage exchange here is very different from the violence discussed in the previous chapter with respect'to coercion. The hostage might

35 Oppian, Halieutica 1.412-430.

lIIi

iIii

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

HOST -GUEST

even be seen as having a revolutionary identity to which the PartDfrs in the agreement ultimately aspire.

that Bithys was not that kind ofhostage, but was dispatched to Perseus prematurely by Cotys as a token ot:loyalty.38The senators had a decision to make; the fate of all Thrace hinged on whether Bithys's father had serit him to live with Perseus voluntarily or under duress, both of which were viable but distinct options in Livy's understanding of hostage-taking. The implication is that the most acceptable option for Cotys would have been a third path: to give Bithys to Rome as a hostage,.even thúugh Rome,and Thrace were already (informally) &iends. In a previous story,'after all, Livy récords that before Pydna, the Penestae and P~hini, which like Cotys were allies of Rome and also¡weak~r neighbors ofMacedoDi;"had given hostages to Rome unsolicited and in spite oÜ preexisting &iendship.39 fl'he senate ultimately decided that Cotys gave Bithys to Perseus in the same spirit; although the Romans thus concluded that Cotys had actedtreasonously, they opted not to punish him "as he deserved,',' and sent'Bithys home.40 Still, to Livy's senators, Bithys alone was evidenceof Cotys's place in Perseus's network of allies. The discrepancies between various attitudes toward Bithys illustrate the potential for the figure oi the hostage in Roman culture to endure a split identity, taking on different meanings at different times. The nature ofhis detention was contentious

GUEST OR COLLATERAL? THREE CASES OF CONTRADICTORY ACCOUNTS Roman writers were aware of a difference between hostage-taking for the sake of alliance and hostage-taking for the sake of coercion. An episode in Livy shows how the discrepancy could alter the path of Roman foreign policy: the entire interpretation of international relations surro\inding the Battle of Pydna depended on which of the

two rolesfor hostages- collateralor guest -" one as~ignedto Bithys,son of King Cotys of Thrace. Thrace had had nominally goodrelations with Rome in the recent past, but it had sided with Perseus OfMaced in the war.36 Livy recúrds that after the Rúm~ns defeated Perseus they discovered Bithys living at the court in Pella as a hostage. Qwing t Thrace's switching sides, they tookpossession ofBithys and sent him back to Rome as a hostage of their own. Shordy thereafter, envoys &om Cotys appeared before the senate to ask for Bithys to be released and simultaneously to justify and apologize for Thrace's support of Perseus: .

When [the ambassadors]were introduced into the senate, and when they

offeredas the basisof their.pIeathe specificar~ment that Cotys did no!,

help Perseus in the war"of his'own volitionbecause 'he had been forád t~" give hostages, they begged them to allow [the hostages]to be redeemed at whatever price the senators deemed appropriate. The response offered by the authority of the senate was'that the Raman peopIe rem.embered th friendship that had existed with Cotys and his ancestorsand with the peopIe ofThrace, but that the givingofhostages was itselfthe charge, not a defense of the charge,because,the peopIe ofThracehad had no reason to fear Perseu~t when he wasat peace, Iet alone when he wasoccupied in a war with Rome.37 Livy's Cotys was arguing that he had been forced to follow the orders'¡ of one who held his son hostage; the senate countered by 'claiming 36Chiranky 1982, 462-465 describes C°tYs's close relationship to Perseus before Pydna and identifies possible periods of amicitia with Rome preceding that. 37 Livy, 45.42.7-10. Polyb. 30.17.1-4, by contrast, makes no mention ofthe argument that Cotys's hostage to Perseus constituted fi-iendship.

and open to interpretatión, and yet-utterly crucial iti accountihg for geopolitical alliances, obligations, and vendettas. For the controversysurroundingBithys's hostageship, Livy records a debite in the senate;in another case~we see fustóiians, not senators, disagreeing over the same question of whether hostage donors should be construed

as &iendly or hostile. In telling the story of CIQelia

the

Roman rilaidefiwh6 serVed as a hostige to LarsP¿)rsenna,th¿ inyading Etruscan

king

Plutarch

allows the benevolent

qualities of hostage-

taking to dominate the series of events. 41He even fabricates neW details (or else includes ones ot4erwise unattested in extant'sources) ió. order to shoehorn peaceable hostage-taking into a tale that is, universally 38 Walbank 1979, 440; Lica 1988, 35-36. 39 Livy, 43.21.2-3. On an alliance with the Parthini, Livy, 29.12.13. 40 Livy, 45.42.10: in Rome.

, in 205, see Polyb. 2.11.11; 7.9.13 and

quid merito eiusfieri posset. See Braund 1984a, 16 on Bithys's education

41 Plut. Publicola 18-19 and Mor. 250 B-E 81

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE- TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

among prior authors, oneof warfary~between enernies,42 In allbtper versions but Plutarch's, Lars P()rsertna attacked Romein order to help the exiled king Tarquin retake his throneand took hostagesafter conquering the city or after deciding towithdraw ofhis own ..\7olition;43 But, according to Plutarch, Porsenria first broke offall ties/to Tarquin because of his villainyand qecal1?~.a friend of Rome. instead:44'He then accepted (notdemanded) ten h6stage boysand ten hostagegirls, including Valeria, the daughter ?Üthe constil,as tokens of aUíarice. It is another case of proactive,diplOh1atieoh()stage subrnis~ion,!with'no ,

fear and no distrust.

Because Plutarch's hostage-taking is .aevóid ofany sense'of.coer" cion, in his casewhen qToelia famqusly led the hosÚges,ir;f;!ian escape to freedom, theRomans -'partictilarly the consul Pu.bli¿Ola,cwere accordingly angered (notinspíred) by..the hostages'deedías. madethem "less honorable," andtliey decidedto s.endCloelia andlh other,hostagesback.45 When thehostages,were sent back. toPorserin;.,

asPluparch teUsit,iFarqt,tintried,to':lillbush them; Valeria thenescaped toPor~ennao(not from him), and therest were rescued (not detained) by 1\.r.uIls,'!>orsenna's;:,sol}.1?And iniresponse tQ Cloelia's courage, Porsenpa gave her. a\warj,horse,af.,yersion which,disagrees withi,qth--' ers thatsayoshe:stolethe,horsedlf~ing oher escape,go.Hostage-t~ers here w:ereplike,the'heroes!i,il}í.apl,e,lqdrama;¿l}otthe.,'!ill¡rihs¡ I>orse,llIJ,a;, ¡

provid~da;. sé~ce;Jor.jwl1,ich,itheRomansgel}!traUy;: .;were: gratefu}; Ac~ordirig' to,,;f;?l.utarch,)o;Gloe,lia¡ll}dtl1~odJ.ers''o/e~~:treatedw~l1;¡t-he Rqrnanstb()kpa~ns,tq rnaiht¡lin;iphe,~~newpii~ridship¡ojapd Taní.uirÍ',\<vas, excl.u~e,dgas ,¡l., mtlt~aUy;~espised;()uts!~et'tó tl1~ alfiarice;! ' :;,', ¡ '0The, '\jariousipossible, !!interpieta;ti9ris0i()~.h°stag~",.t~Ilg oini'f\ntiqlfi~! could:lead tQo!:i!lonfU$iqn\amon,gr,pheiya¡riqus..authors.COmmehting

a singleoindividual;!tr.e.oo

many¡,ac'co.un.ts.;ofi,.(2loeliapresent!idjtfer~t

interpretatibns.ofihostage,ship,:Which,ln,:turn.¡,lead,to

Rom. S.31-34;Val.

can be found at Livy, 2.13.1-n;

Max. 3.2.2; SiLPuri!IO.490;;-'S02

9.11.6; Dlon. Hal. A

and 13.828~830; and Flor. tL

8. Many others mention Cloelia b\it referonly to her bravery without any,additi, narrative: c::ic. Off. 1.61; Verg.oAen. 8 .9S~; Sen., ad Marc. de COIJf9/' 16.2;; l'lin. 34.28-29; Juv. 8.26S; De viro iU.1~.; Polya~n~s, Strat. 8:3~; andC~ss, Dio~4?}l.1. o, Ann. n .24 adds a reference to' Porsenna's l\ostages to Claudius'sspeech'o'rio beh: Gallic citizenship, ofwhichthete is;(Jimous,inscribed version (Dessau, ZI2;);,or\' rus's fhange see.Griffin di~c~ssed,i~the : AfforrunatiLand

1982'i~0;)Vi1}iar1}s

2,89I',oW-182.

Yar.~atioqs inothf ,§t .,

equestria;n 'osp;1tueofo€loe,lia

Pl.u~~ch;botl1:record!t4atia:i1JronZe,j¡

S(oop. oIl1'phe'Via,S;¡.cra"in';t4e,1!:R;;orn*#í

forum¡¡(alth,9),lghitwasgoIle byi;tl1éirlifetirnes ).,buteac4in'terpt;e,ts:,the}, . , .O'!i statue in\,adi.ffereIlt'YaY'o,Liv)T;,b¿!li.evc;d,tl1a~¡thestatuehonor.ed01o!t~'1]\5

valoriat?havingiswurn the.eDib~r,and'forihaving.jmail}taine,~s.uffi.siehti compo.s.urecinthe;pr'esence1ot1p'qrse!)na;¡tó.retiievei!th~jqoys:t'Yho;::were hostag~s.1& Plu,tar~Ha4rni(t!td'¡!6ti:ajqe~a;t~sq.rroundirgithe'm~ni1),gi!ofj o

foo~~otes,pelo;v.o Onqther historicaldiscrepancies int~e Lift ojJ Scardigli 1992, On historical rraditions for Porsenna: Gagé1

c::org!CllI99S, 216-218.Ónth!Ccnáiacteri2:i~6h

of Cloelia, see;\Valker 1980,

especjallYf6 S on the role 9f tp.e anl1alist/,Val~rius Antias, inchanging stóry, :p~rtiCularly in makingValetia,IJ:ot CIOella, the chief herpine. 43 Liv)', 2.13:1-4 says PorsenIJ:a deihandedp,ostage'sin:order' tO :vithdra'Y bdcause he ffightened by, an assassination att~rnpt..I?í9n. Hal. 4'11" Rom. S.31.4 says p'e d~!11an hostages because rus Etruscan noblemen war and because he mino] , .'" 00:... were 00 weary o' bf"0:. . o lost "".' a:o ,,0"'! skirmish. In other accounts the irnplication is that Porsenna had nearly defeated Üie city and was stillthreatening Rome: Yal.'Max. 3.2.1-2;; Sil. Pun. IO.48S-49o';"and Flof~j 1.4.2. ' 44 Plut. Publico/a, 18.1-2 and Mor. 2soB. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. S.34.1 says th~ falling o\lt with Tarquin did not oCCn! until after the debacle with the hostages.' 45 Plut. Mor. 2S0 D: E\I TIíO'TEIXEípO\lES.~soPlut. Publico/a, 19.2. In Livy, 2.13.7, it is Porsenna who is angry at the berrayal, and he rebukes the Romans as dishonest (cf. Livy; 9.n.6),<Sirnilarly, inDion. Hal. Ant. Rom. S.33.2, it,'¡s Tarquin who rebukes,the Romans, who in rurn reply that Cloelia acted 'alone and not at their instigation.oln both these versions, it is only after the Romanshave already been critici~ed that they

,.;,

. '

'cO

o; o'' i ''V' ..¡

'0'00','

.ti:!!:

"'.

,oj. "~'

sendbacftlie .lios~~~~s in.order t? l1ta¡~tain t~r~<lt)'. NO~G..~rmeep'isod.~si~ 9~h~~ ~k!¿oPd;se~riJ, 'h~~ in their' ~ccoU~~~ authofsreters'tQootlie ifác~,that Cloeliawas i

she is pr'aised for. ffeeihgher

'0'0"

o..

..,.'

0"':/""

country,.,By means,<of./ier ~ght¡VatYMax;

0".0

3.2;2;.,I"i!;¡Putti'

10.4?Q¡;oS02an4J3. 828; Seno ad M<f~c.,d~o9n.¡R!,fr~.tt¡;Ju'i1:~..%637:'f?5o;apd,R9fj,:1 .4-7z;-8J. 46 Plu!.. Publico/a, 19:3 al}d M'~r..25~E. DioI}.~~. Ant. ~°tn1,?'V.38~esssnti~Y)~mf~ with this version;except that Tarquin's me~arrive~o~ late tb!~ffesta sert01is a~lit1sh. None of the other sources mentions the arnbush;although .P)iny,~#N,34.29;believes! Tarquin succeeded,somehow, in laying rus handson all of the hosrages,ex¡;eptValeria. 47 Plut. Publico/a 19.4 and Mor. 2S0 E-E Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. S.34.3 again agrees,saying Porsenna gave her thehorse. Forthe theft of4he horse: V,al..,Max.;J.2;2;Flor I.'4.7. Plut. Mor. 2S0 D and F refer to the traditipnot\1at Cloelia stole the horse, but he does notsubscribe to it. Seno ad,Marc. de Conso/.r6;2 says she was given a horse, but does not say by whom. For the bronze equesrrian statue of Cloelia, see later. 48 Livy, 2.13.n; Seno ad Marc. de Conso/. 16.3 interprets the statue along similar lines: it testifies to Roman courage inescaping an enemy.

83"

il} mipp:¡par--;"

tietyariimpq::ssibns .o(rthé'Etr.usca.ll:;WíI;r? and imakeitl1e¡hqstagesi,0If{t,<r accordingly.¡ln eitl1ér case,.therm.utal:iility óf the.gigwci'oof.thei?hostage is .evident;, ForexarÍ1ple,,!iLivyahd

42 Different narratives ofCloelia

dif(erent\1.lIldet4j;

stahdings 'of,earlyR!,qme.r,@wrather;;i:t.he,.authorshave.

ÍÍi

.IHOS'i' -GUEST

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE.,TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

( l'

the statue, but he ultimately believedtH~t it commemorated Porsenn¡'s friendship, in reference to his decision to give Cloelia a,.horse for Rome's integrity in returning so brave a girl.49 Thebranze image! itself was obviously ftxed, but its meaning as an icon was tluidandever changing;Cloelia was able to beapprapriated and deployedaccording to any historian'splan. At timesi the guest identity ofhostage~taking could be recorded and emphasized, while atothers itcouldbe denied~ In iddition tú the discrepancies in the stories ofBitnys and.Cloelia; one further example of competing claims demonstrates the exteIÍt<tO which a, deftnition of the hostage - collateral or guest - affectsour understandingof criticalepisodes ofRomanforeign policy. There are contlicting and obscure reportsi,ab()ut'Augustus's ftrst encounter with a Parthian hostage- as 'well. 'Fhe surrender offour princes;by Phraates IV in 10/9 BcE isfamous and has received much attention in modern scholarship. Less well krlown is thedetention 'of an older sibling of these .four an unnamed son of Phraates IV whowasin Augustus's possession in the mid-twenties B~E. The two accounts-/ one in Justin's epitome of Pompeius Tragus and the othei in Cassius Dio ~,differin several details, butwhat is agreed between themis that a Parthiannobleman"Tiridates, tled.Parthiaand sought refuge with the "~

emperor after Phraates IV had returned fram exile to claim his thrane.50, According to Justin,th,e event occurred in 25 BCE,when Augustus wasin Spain. Hesays ,that Tiridatesafrived,.with a large retinueofi poli~ical allies and, in exchangeforasylum, offeredAugustus both ht' assistance in leading a campaign against Parthia and possession o( son ofPhraates,.;.vhom~ehadkidnapped bef~re his escape.Phra:a~1 then sent au ellibassy, ~o Al1gH~tHs,either still in. Spain or i~ Rom:ei' to demand th,e,returnof "his,slave Tiridates"and hishostage son. 51 In an effort to delay'choositl~ sides'in thePa~thian civil war, asJusti~ tells it, Augustussent back thech,ild but decided to maintain Tiridates among the Romans inan'opulent lifestyle.

" 49 Plut. Publicola, 19.5 :ind Mor.25oF.Plin. HN 34.28-29 does not cornment on the statue's purpose. He also says that Annius Fetialis s:¡id that an equestrian statue ofValeria similarly stood next to the Temple ofJupiter Stator.Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.35.2 mentions a statue but does not say specifically that it was equestrian. 5° Just. Epit. 42.5.6-9;.Cass. Dio, 51.18.2-3 and 53.33.1-2. 5] Just. Epit. 42.5.7: servum suum Tiridaten.

Dio'sstoI')" isdifferent¡iyIm hisversion, Tiridates tled' to Augustus twice, firstwheni he wa~.in Syria . in 30 BCE (still Octavian at that point), and again around 23BCEIDRome. In neither case hadTiridates kidnapped a son..ofPhraates;instead, Dio says that in 30 BCEPhraates's son passed 6.-9m Tiridates's care into';¡Octavian's, at which point he becanie a [oi'i:nal"hóstage{evo¡.1T\peíe;x)inRome; thefeceipt of the hostage iS¡.deseribed,.asan "act ofkinclhess"directed,at Phraates.52 Sometifue arOund¡'23 BCE;y then,,'.'FiJ;'idati~sappealedtoRome for,a secónd;titne~' Tnes~natb'¡referrc;¡~Lbóth,Tirtt1atesan<i.P.h,,:aates's¡en.vóys to August~s¡;who)de9ided,tio. contiritte'Q.oldirig¡Tiridates, buttO,rettiiñ Phraate$'ssonwithi".the>result~haqJ?a:tthia¡restdfe&¡ die cáptives ..'and standárdS'táken 6.-oniGrassÚs arid.A!HtotlY~~; Ther~Lds<an. obvious( discrc;¡pancybétWqen<1ustin's hostage,;who was unwillingIy kidnapped,and,Pio's hdstage,whose; submissioh. was received aS.abenefactionfor: Phraates, 1'he. cpiPmentin theRe$ Gestae that Tiridate~had.come ~\.asasuppliaqtE (supp}ices)t9 Augt'lst!ls/to ask fophis support.confirms.the ROmanstit()le in nfediating the:.dispute but lacksáhy .de.taj,ls~concerqingtbehostage.?4i13othJustin andDio say that A!lgust4s reJ;ur~ed Phraa~es's;isQ¡n.tQhim,buthis,.motivation. iri..doing so is. contc;¡sted(;~s,.a.(result ,oEthe different possible,understandings.;(jf the inicial detentioq;Justin's .versionis¡ .ast()ry\~f,il1lv()luntarycreditot... con:;¡¡teral,where;itis,implied;.thatPhraates's..soncwas inÓ;eo'pardy.As we have'\seen~ iE¡tbisis, the case,tbe¡}'~tQ(.,returning¡.,i;h,e hostage!is a sigp¡ qfgqodw1U., au ,ac:t!:ofdipl()h;t'ac~.that,!e~eaJs,...:orjf~gesi.dose ties ~e~een th,e.¡partieSi'involve~.,Dio"'§¡'.vefsio.Q¡jP'Y' cdntrast,/'is;:one.of ...

1988,!'I37 and SuJ:livan 1990, 468, note 134stIggest that he is.theki:dmappecli~on (Óltra~ mare argues that AllgustUS. received himas a hostage but was;pretenrnmgiru theRes Gestae that he was a refugee), but that is. unlikely, .sfute the Res Gestae says. that he' carne after (postea) Tiridates, ~'pointed! out by Tirtrpe~975, 157. Oflittle helpare two references to the corrl.Eict in Horace1s. poetry; Od'es''l.2ó.5 has: Tiridates on the throne; whilé OJes .2.2.17 refe¡;s to, the reinstaternent ofPhraates, but neither can be securely dated: Nisbet and Hubbard 1978, 47;.West 1995 , 120;in spite of 0Itramare 1938, 124-127.

¡~

52 Cass.D:io; 5-].IS.J,:svsvspyeakxs llÉi?st. She~':"WJ:iiti!'¡19!i4;, 323., note.! points out that thelanguage. ofk:idnapping is. missing frorp.Di(};s version. 53 Trans!:;l.ting ~'mt¡Té;>" as "witb the rest!J1'tthatG differsfi:ortrthe.l0.eb?s "on tJ:¡e condítion that," wlitich itnplies a contractual arrangement. that,wóuId see~' odd. giVen tbe tlTree:' year lag before the retrieval'ofthe stangards"Cf: Ziegl~r.I96'4,. 47. 54 Mon.. Anc. 3,2.1. The other of the supplices mentioned-in tb p~sage,isalt llnidentitiable Phraates, son ofphraates,lV: Tarn ~932; 831; Oltramare 1938:; 129; Karras~Klbpproth

,"""

.¡; ...111

lIIk"

liIi

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE~ TAKtNG IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

HOS'F~GJJEST "

host-guest, where the hostage prince,1)etokens ttiendship l'ather tha¡n staves off resistance. In this scenario, the return of the hostage should signal a breakdown in the alliance. It'is an important \conundrum 'to resolve, as both of OUTsources attribute Augustus's earliest dealings with Phraates as havingan influence on thelater, more\mornentous settlement of 20 BCE,when the Parthians returned the lost standards. Numismatic evidencemay. help somewhat: Tiridates and. Phraates were both minting coins simultaneously ttom early 26tto at least May of 25 BCE,suggesting that the two were. eng<lgedin a civil war;i one of Tiridates's epithets on hiséoins, <1>II\.OPIDMAIO,shbws'thathe'atleast advertised his Roman connections.55 Justin's version does not seem'to fit with this epithet: he says that Tiridatd cametoR:.ome fÓfiimilita:ry support in 25, yet never received it and was kept, presumably, anlon~ the Romans thereafter.56 In Dio's account;Tiridates's appeals to Rome occurred first in 30 and then again in 23 BCE.With, the coins in mind, one might interpret Dio as follow$: Augustus took over the hostagy in 30 as a favor to Phraates, agreeing not to help Tiridates, but when Tiridates resurfaced in the East a short time' later; at least claiming Rome's support, and vvasagaihforced to flee,''theeniperorgave back that which had marked the earlier agreement, namely Phraates's son. It seems likely, then, thatJustin,who was workihg,'from the larget history ofPompeius Trogus, invented th~ kidnapping of 25 BCEto explain AUgUstus'spos$.essionof a hostage 'ati'that time; which may have been,}, oniitted by Trogus or neglected by the epitimator;57 Either way, the flexibility, of the figure of the hostage is what is, important.for this 55 On the coins, see McDowell

1935,,185 and 222. Wroth

156-157 point out that another epithe~, AYTOKPATO, Tiridates and the Hellernstic Seleucids. 56 The suggestions

19°3, 135 and Timpe

1975,

is meant to draw a lirik between\,

of Sherwin- Wh1te 1984, 322 that Tiridates

understood in antiquity without considering the firstParthian hostage, who¡,was inthe shadows even then,as l,1eis now.

THE CULTURE OF HOSPIJALI;fY Descriptions of the living conditions of hostages suggest that the RomanstXpéctedhostages tÚ bevvell cared for, everi coddlea; in their internrilent. Hostages hada special statUsttom the moment they canie lntó\Ro'nian pSssbsibn: according to HygÍ11us'streacise on'the' layout of the basic Roman camp, they were housed!!in the same place as the ambaS's'á:dó¡;s:ofthe" enemy,)'at the~ ihnerépraetoriumJ59As for their accommodations once they atrived ih R.:ome, we iliave a handfu1 of famous references. According 'to Livy, hostages ttom Thurü and Tarentum lived ih the so-called Atrium Libert~tis during the Second Punic

War.60 The name, House

of Freedom,

.is

hardly appropriate

made the clairn without

"material Roman support" reconciles this discrepancy. 57 Develin 1994, 5-6 discusses Justin's tendency to diverge from Trogus. Alonso-Nuñez 1987, 60-61 has suggested that his entire section on Parthian relations from 30 to 10 BCEhas been shortened at the expense ofthe chronology ofTrogus's account. However, notéTarn 1932, 832 who accepts Justin's account, because a flight from Syria to Spain is simply stranger than fiction. 1 cannot pretend to have resolved the controversy surrounding the facts of the first Parthian hostage, which is not as pressing'here as the representation of his detention anyway. Timpe 1975, 155 observed that no two scholarly opinions on the matter agree in every detail. Tarn 1932, 834 suggests Augustus had backed both Tiridates and the mysterious son as co~rulers, disrnissing the story of the kidnapping (cf. Sullivan 1990,

study:the status and experience of~ahostage could be manipulated by different historians'to channel different interpretations ofthe pasto WithJustin¡ the return of the hostage tteedPhraatesttom a situation ofblackmail and constituted an.alliance between Augustus and Parthia (partially, givenRome's simultaneoussheltering ofTiridates); the staÍ1dards were returned only after Augustus shifted policy andintimidated Pln;aates with troop movements in the East.58With Dio, the emphasis is ona host-guest paradigm "a ttierídly possession,ofahostage,- whose deterioration stemmed ttom Rome's support qfTiridates; it was tl;1en therelease"pftheh?stage that l~atto Rhraates's fear. Thetrue sequence' of events may nevér'be recovered, but fopour purposes it' is sufficient toobserve that the critica! R()man relationswith the Eastcould not be

318). Debevoise 1938, 136 believes Dio's second story in Book 53 actually¡refers to the same event of 3° BCE,toldin Book 51, and so there was nosecond flight ofTiridates in 23. Olttamare 1938, 131 interprets the return ofthe son (in Dio) as evidence for Augustus's prudent diplomacy and skill in winning back the standards, but Ziegler 1964, 47 denies that the evidence substantiates a link between the Tiridates matter and the standards. Nedergaard 1988, 1°5 simply ornits Dio's later referenc"e to the hostage and its impact on the retrieval ofthe standards. Timpe 1975, 166-167 suggests Augustus's handling of the affair played a role in his receiving the tribunída potestas. 58 Just. Epít. 42.5.10-11. 59 Hyginus, De munítione castrorum 18. 60 Livy, 25.7.12. cf. Purcen 1993. 87

HOST -GUEST

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE.:.TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

if one were to hew to the aggressive,ior coercive interpretation qf hostage-taking.61 The location of the building is controversial, but it seems that it stood on the eastern slope of the Capitoline liill. The reference to the Thurian and Tarentine, hostages is the earliest mention of it, but it probably began life inthe Struggle of the Orders between plebeians and patricians: it was mainly known as an archive for laws and other documentspertaining to the censors.Ne:vertheless, its connection with resident non-Romans in the city continued (at least according to our patchy sources): it was completely rebuilt by Gaius Asinius Pollio in 40 BCE,'at which point a library was included in its walls; it is the sam~ Pollio who,hous~d thesons of Herod,the Great, Aristobulus and Alexander, whowere sent to Rome for, among other things, an education.62 Moreover, German soldiers stayed at the Atrium Libertatisin the last daysof Galba's reign in 69 CE(though not a formal hostages).63 The building was later replaced in grandiose fashion by the Basilica Ulpia of Trajan's forum, whose library apparently continued to be called the Atrium Libertatis.64

Varro mentions briefly that the Carthaginianhostages who carne to Rome after the Second Punic War drew enough attention to inspjre a new name for the district on the Esquiline where they lived, the Vicus AfricuS.6SNothing else i~iknown about their liying conditions, . although it has been suggested that an offering to '~,DeaCaelestis". oom the Esquiline may refer to a Romanized version of Tanit, an important Punic goddess, and thus a rernnant of the Carthaginian

61 Elbern

1990, 113. It should be adnútted,

however, that libertas in the Roman

not have any association with ilIternational relations. 6> Pliny, HN 35.10; Suet. Aug. 29.5. On Herod's sons, seeJoseph. 63 Tac. Hist. 1.31.

sense need

AJ 16.6 and Chapter

64 The preceding discussion has preferréd the arguments of Coarelli 2000 and the LTUR (Coarelli) against those ofPurcen 1993, who associated the Atrium Libertatis with what topographers have long misleadingly called the "Tabularium." Briefiy, the most convincing piece of evidence seems to be the &agment of the Forma Urbis that labels the eastern apse ofthe Basilica Ulpia in Trajan's forum (known to have been a library) wlth "Libertatis"; presumably the diagram of the western apse, now missing, read "Atrium" (cf. Clarke 2003, 39). Moreover, the claim ofPurcen 1993, 143 that the detention ofhostages (and other prisoners) in the Arrium meant that it must have been like a "forrress" - and therefore

to be associated

with

the massive

"Tabularium"

- is not

we know about the fioeedoms of many hostages in the city. 6S Varro, Ling. 5.159.

in keeping

with

what

presence there.66 Long after the Punic detentions, the porticus ofLivia, a lavish enclosed garden and gallery, was built nearby. Asconius gives us the oft-cited, oblique reference, tO"an expensive house on the Palatine that was bu:ilt ttom public funds for Antiochus IV of the Seleucids and later used by the wealthy satirist Lucilius.67 It was located on the Palatine Hill, the elite residential district of the Roman Republic. We do not knqwwhere Antiochus's replacement as a hostage, Demetrius Soter¡ lived; hut Polybius tells usothat he was allowed to join Roman hunting parties, ta attend banquets, and to travel unaccompaqiedaround the ~nvironsandperiphery ofRome.68 Diodorus Sicuh.lSbffers art an~d:lotetliatIDemetrius¡ when<a,h0stage, met his cousin Ptolemy IV Phi1ometor, who was coming to Rome on a diplomatic mission ttom Egypt to plead <for assistance against his brother, Physcon, who hail, usurped,his throne.69 Ptolemy was intentlohallydressed dowrl:in oÚier tdconveyari image ofdesperation before the senate, and Demetrius, not privy to the details of the plan, offered someof his own clothes that were more fitting for a royal personage, thusdemonstrating his,rel~tive opulence;' In more cases, we see hostages dispersed to towns surrounding Rome, although even these were expected to provide a comfortable setting, ,as we have seen with the~~Carthaginian hostages who were allowed to mave fram N0rba,:Ín Latium,sdUtheast'o(Rqme;"to the nearby towns of Signia and Ferentinum, in arder to improve their living conditions.70 I,n the remaining examples, we know little more than n~fues and locations of to;wns. The hdstagesttom the Penest3ceand ,,' "" "\o," ", j'," '.." )'i' ",J,''';',;", ,dy "" /' ,,'" " Paithini; who were 'givenover to tne Roniá.ns cWidídut pro:vocationas a sign of alliance before the warwith Perseus, were kept in Apollonia and Dyrrachium, respectively, on the Illyrian coast.71 Bithys, the s()n 66 LTUR

(palombi).

67 Asc. Pis. 13.16-17. On the house, see Marshall 1985, 105-106; 68 Polyb. 31.11-15. 69 Diod. Sic. 31.18.1.

Gruen

1992,279.

70 Livy, 32.2.4. They also are said to have'been kept at Seria (Livy, 32.26.5) and at Fregellae (Nep. Hann. 7.2), still in central Latium, and at Ceiceii (Liry, 32.26.5), on Latium's coast. All of these are plotted on map 44 in the Barrington Atlas (Talbert 2000). Cerceii is also where Demerrius said he'was headed when he was plotting his escape (polyb. 31.14.2); it is also where Lepidus was detained after his fall fi-om the Second Triumvirate. 71 Livy, 43.21.3. 89

HOSTAGES ANDHOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

couldhot match, IMter, expressilig"the,ir'agreement, honoring him, and saluting him as king,~heyappl~\l4~.~''hhri;:.and Scipio h9II1blytold,them to take couragcr, fo~ they.would enj~~,~~~h~ g7n,erosiw of theRgmans. 75

ofCotys, whohad moved to ltaly i~om rhe hostageship,of Perst,'fs, was housed along with otherhostag~satCarseolijust, east..ofRome, haIf way to Alha Fucens and just'north of the Carthaginianhostages.72 Palyhiussays thatthe, "thousandAchaeans" wereYscatteréd toother

":"

Po,l,y~hlS\

towns outside Rame although herstayed in the'city, pre~uinahly atthe household.'of Aemilius Paullus;7~The obscmity ofrp.ost:ofthese towns and the.ap.onymity of their)hostages wouldlead6ne'tb think+that;.,in practice; notall hostageswould'have had alúxtirioús;'orievenevéntful, stay in captivity.B\lt \yhenevertherepórti11igdfhostag~ ~.ccorrtnJ.oda,", , tions isspecific !apdd,~ta'iled, the over;whe~ming;ten4i~n~y,!on'the'patt o[ou1' sou1'ceSis taemphasizetheir collÓcationwith powertuly!wealthy Romans. The aú1'a,surrounding hosta~eship;1'ega1'd1éss'ofthe'1'eality,

could easilybe one of privilege;

The allegation by a Romap. sou1'ceiofanothe1'peophS's barbariSh1 l O

oft,en p~edic:ted on thei1' denial .f the, ideal:ve1'siorlo fhostag~jUstiC Tlie nust1'eatment of ,hostages,'i!like the nust1'eatmentr'ofguests;¡ w a cause fo1'shame for the civilizedand an e~pected'characte1'isticof theba1'ba1'ic.74In Polybius,!Scipid'sgeneroust1'eatmentófhostagesin. Spain in209BCE during the ,'Second¡púnicWar -c.¡hé gave.p1'esents ; to the children and protettedthewomenfromr¡1pe ---¡cisisharply'cón,... trasted with thei1' forme1"plight:unde1'Ca1'thaginiah control, .,,,,,nicho was,n~pó.rted to him by Indihilis(fa¡Spanish chieftain: .

Wher Indibilisf1nishe4lp~ SBeoyyh,SÓpioorepli~dthat he, be,~eved hit~~ sations, and that, ,he knew well of the hubris of' the "'"Carthaginians fi:om ,,',...',;,', ""',' , brutality against otÍler IberiaJ:lsandagainst the wives and da~ghters ófInd ami hi~fi:ie~ds, whonilie r~c~nt{yfo~:nd n~t h61ding'the ;a~k ofhostáges, of prisoners and slaves (OV)(6'~W'pwv~xovcras5¡áeecrtv,akXaih\aA~Tc,;v '50ÚAWV).He said that he guárdbd thern with a loyalty,that they, their fame! 72 Livy, 45.42.5, I2'. 73 Polyb. 31.23.5. In terms oEdetainees who resided in the city with prominent Romans; ii is interesting to consider also the case' oETigranes, a son oE a king oEthe same name wh6" was ,installed in Armenia by Pompey: he was living with the praetor, LucillsFlavius, when Publius ClodiusPulcher stole him away (Cass. Dio,.38.30'1-2). Other detai1s of the story are at Cic. Dom. 66; Mil. 18 and 37; and Plut. Pompo 48.6. Tatum 1999; 170; reEers to him as a'.ho~tage,although he is'unlversally called a prisoner in our sources: Cicero, hostem captivum (Dom:\66);Plutarch, alx~áAooTov; Cass. Dio, év 6eO'~ois. 74 Compare Phillipson 19II, 406 who believed the,Romans actually weremore civilized than non-Roman communities by virtue oE their hostage-taking practices.

'..J"

,¡",,!,;, ''''1'

,., "., "." , ,

,~~g~f,itplf~IR~em,<;>~ ~~s~~g~~ ~tt~e(~t~~~' .~,~~ of ~"spe5~

~~:::;~~1~;:1~~~s~:~!1~1lJ¡~i!r ,,~h!f~,::ts",h::.~~f~~1:i~~~~ ,) 'H: ,'"s.,' 10'''':''1 ,¡,Ií/I,n;I'<"" ',,1,".,:' ',"',' ",i~:'¡1\ "1,:",,"",', ~o~t,~g~~~N~~~1's,t~3~ ,~~¡,f"pá,~

'~~?0'~~ip;~~p~~,~rial 1'~r~"t,~~

s~1f::m~~ate~l,;VJ~

tlO~;~?}f~Nmvg¡9,,~~, 9n ro~~Y4~f:~,t:~~ br,.y~mr:~r~so~~~~,

Ibe;q~\ls " king .qt~1?;

;~t~§~.P.~%,~s, ~s'~ih~ cO~tlt:, 'Th~ ~~~t; , ' ,"'" , 'A.' 1" ,,' .' ",,,,,,

'.,.~~f"a,ga,II1~~"..~tas "'''''''",,' 00,., ..

t;:;~~~ ',{, ", ,lA

1~~,prRo

...ilc<;>WP¡11'~~'{e an,a)~

ysispf~9~fage,.11?:~f,i~~comesi.,. 1,' :'i?~~N~ri~~/['htC i\1~ait,~~} are,,,',q,~1'ba~ic i ~,~h7i1'po¡icyo(h()l<HngJIJ~~,on~n:~p~pht;'Yopf/ l' .. 0", , ," l' "',' ",' ," oO"" '.'. ,', 'o, "" '" '.1, '" "iD,:,sla~ery.~q,~o~~age:: wh:r~R!or~

.)~e~¡~so.~Os~(~~oel'

and ','thus~~Restt;~ 76 Ca,~sax t:~cpgp.i o.' ,,'o, ".,,'¡, b~tter: 00, ". "",.,,,',.',,,;,." like,I~ol):biu~'sStjpio, carne .~otll,~,resc"u~\ "",,,.,' ,'O"""" .' ,,'00,' , 1" ' ','Y", . '"

as."l'a '1"",' ~acrilegean,4, '" . ~J), L ivy ,th~ {;0f1.. 1"" ,,' ", o"" .

sul fl~~llinus i~¡~~e4, the me1J1'?f>'°f"f:!~~s~\¡~tec~tip'ri;.Dfl?-o,~~~ge boys by: ",J the" Spar~an ty1'ant N)~is,qddress~ng9Í1;n)n a 1'~p1'()~ingan4 "',

,.,

'",,o

",1".

"".,,",

",,',,",

oO,'

sarca~?f\ton~¡ 77"Th~sl~~ghfe~ (~r~he.r9st,!g~,~",W~t¡~~~,,~9~~.pro.tlfÍn~9i entry i~ aJi~t9f f~~n.~~a}\~r:rW1'~~F~!?i~S~gs,,~f~~~<\1:e~RYiN~bi~ ,;~ndwas ground~.f,°r Spar~~,s 4i~rus~~ fwm ~()tl}a~>ml~S; Mt~o1',theeIJsU1tlgw~1' betweenNabis andR6'me,tiVy theri se\s iip.~,t~W~g"~ontrast: whe1'eas Nabis 'isilnmo1'al in.his . Freatm~nt<?(hs)srage~,'F~~mi~imis holds ,,' them "", ,o ,,' ,,' ,'O , ,,1 '.' '", '", o ' ), " " in a digmfied ,~ay, i!'J." k~c;:ping \\'t~h,p1'()p~r:qiplorp.a~ic~raditi()n~.78 '!ht; " message to t eader "o,',.td1'i . '" "''1' at tp.e h9itage~ i5 , " . .',' "" \" '1" ", in. '",1""th" "1.'.',''O '. .,el:ab~seÓf ' , '"',,,",,' ',," ,,' "

unconsciona totheRom ..y~t Some R:omim ve'1'~ibnsofG1'eekm ,

""', 'o,

'" "Oo'other( . .." '()hstdte a collective ,')

.',

,,'

anxiety abo,\}t, t?e eXpe~i~nce "c>fhost~g~s;:E~Hf)!ol'qrid;~. fi.1~t~~o,rphoses,Jupite1' addl-essesanassembly of tb,egods in order to discuss'!,the 75 Polyb. 10.38.1-3. CE. Livy, 26.49.4: the hostages were treated<..:'as iE they!were the children oE al1ies" (ac si sodorum.liberiessetÍt). CE. Diod. Sic. 26.ZI;:App. Hisp..23. 76 Caes. BGall. 5.27: in servitute et catenis. Moscovich 1979-1980,127 notes that the discrepancy between Roman and non-Roman behavior mayo be attributed to a "stark editiorial contrast" on Caesar's parto 77 Livy,' 34.J2.II-12. CE. 34.27.7-8, where Livy describes the circumstances under which the boys were detained by Nabis. 78 Livy, 34.52.9 and 37.25.12. cf.Polyb. 21.3.3-4 and 21.11.9-10.

HOST';::~UEST

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE.:TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

to itshostages: just as Jupiter,honorsand protects the obligationsof hostage:":taking, sodoes Augustus. Ovid'sLycaon, an obvious villain,

depravity of the human xace and the,heed to takeaction to, corr~t them.79 Tó illustrate his point,he reports on amission that he' undertook to investigate the human raée: disguisedas a mortal, heiwandered , himself as a god to the people throughout Greece and then revealed of Arcadia. King Lycaon, not believingthe stranger's divinity, decided to test him bykilling a hostage from the MolOssiansand then s'erving

thus falls? into

banquet.80 1hisversion isunique t~ bvid;inot~er him toJupiterin accounts, Lycaonkills either hi~.own'so~,/~s grancls°n, or~n urpd¡ntified child (not a hostage):81 Outraged,Ovid'sJupitet turnedLyc~on into a wolfaridclt'cided, basedon this sol~transgression, t8 ft60d t~.~ earth and eradicate an inórtals:82;Jtis unlnistakiÍbIe fhai Ovid's'1upiter, seated on a,throne and a'ddressihg ~he assemb1edgbd~, .i~ huiant to resonate with ihe riewly enthroned and senate-friend1yimag~ ofthe princeps,Xugustus: the gods{\rhoattend Jupiter's sp~ech are saidto gather in what the poet calls "the Palatine in the sky," andJupiter's reaction to their approval is speCificallylikened tó Augustus'sgratittige for the support of the Roman people in die ,Óvilwar agairis'ttaesa~'s' assassins.83Th~ conflatioiÍofJupit:er ahd Augustus makes it'illl1ie more significant that Ovidhas created a new story whose (ocus is ón the propriety of hostage-taking, which was aptevalent device of dipI6macy during Augustus's reign. Ovid is making animplicit coininent on the riature and rectiiude' of R6man foreign pol1cy wiih respett

Al. 'Prótr,.2.36.

Grandson: Hyg. Poet. Astr. 2.4; Eratosth. [Can'8. Other child::Apollod. Bibl. 3.8; Stat. Theb., Il.I28; Paus. 8.2.3 (Arc~dia). In Hyg. Fab.176 and Nic. Dar». fi:. 43, Lycaón's sons kill the boy and serve itio Zeus.,See

Grimal '1963. Anderson

1997, 174 notes the

uniqueness of the hostage submission and the gravity of the concon1Ítant notions of hospitality. 82 Some say that Zeus blasted Lycaon with a thunderbolt instead: Apollod. Bibl. 3.8; Hyg. Fab. 176. Ovid does not say eXÍ>licitly thatJupiter was responsible for the metanr6rphosis; Wheeler 1999, 180 suggests the silence makes the heilJ.ousness of the crime and the appropriateness of the penalty "more credible." 83 Ov. Met. 1.176 (Palatia cae/¡) and 1.200-207. Solodow

as ¡Polybius's

. 1988, 85 emphasizes

.Carthaginians,.

Caesar1s

Gauls, Livy's Nabis,or any otherRoplanenemyof themoment. One'could likewise compareSeneca's treatinent of Atreus's crime in histragedy,Thyeste$.Thyestes had seducedhis brother Atreus's wife, and sowasbanished .(detailsithatare,notin,the play);§4 YetAtreus iSi determined,to punish rom further,'feigningtlemency inorder to dr~ Thyestes:int<Ya'trap. Jri)atwist on, theGreekt'tnyth,Seneca has Atreus at "firstc,~cceptth~ sons.ofThyestesasihostagei.as ;i'way of redressing theil1.pastdisputes. 85:The pron,ounceddon:le~ticity ofthe ~cene sets ihe stagy,'fo¡:.the.~ragi9.den.oueip.ent; which.wQu1d'haveb~enwe1L.known to:tHeRQman audienge;,At¡:eus's;kind~sstoward Thyestes'QIlCeth;e host;:tges;had.beerf<tcgepted is;of9ourse, an act,andiAtreus'faplo\.Í,sly murders t.he boys.andfe,¿dsth~mtq!theinfather,just as Lycaon..tried to do with Jupiter., In otherNersion~. ofthe.story, Atreusmanages to' .abductandallurder the boys)rather~han.receive themashostages by Thyestes. 8~ButSentkahasin~en.sifiéd theatroci1Y.by.Mding.th~ violatiQnot~ hostag~-based trúsltoth~:!!c11ime, of cannibalism.The crime hadwide ¡:epercussipns:justca.sLycaon's sirileads.to the..dt:owni,ng of m0stcbf.~he.human'race¡!AtreuS'~éresultS in,.thecurseby jVhich his househQld.is' turned upside 'do~m,:.fat,herkil1s'daughter(Agamemnon and Iphigenia); wife killshl.lshand::{Clyternne;straand Agamemnon); son kil,1s.rnother.(Orestes and C1ytemn~str¡¡)i Ordel1in bot:qre1igion and farnily life,an important concept in ~omanthought,isarticu1ated in part inthes.estories through próperrespe9t for hQstages';dignity. , .." Obserxi1J~. $h;~generous tre'J,~J1l~ntQf,h;Q~t~g<:;f:~~<;l ).t,h;e..pist~J:lc", tion made in the sources bet\.v'een th~m and regular prisQners and between.'the civilized and the barbaric, somescholars have' argu:~dthat hostages were formally sa.crosanct, prote9tedjfrom harm ..and des~rving of respect through pardy religious, pardy legal strictÚres.87 Our

79 Ov.,Met. 1.164-252. 80 Ov. Met. 1.226-227. 8, Son: Nonnos, Dion. 18.20-24-. See. also ArIl' Adv. .Nat. 4.24 andClem.

the' same. category

ls the syco84 85 86 87

phantic conduct of the gods/senators, ;vhereas Wheeler 1999, 181 suggests that the emphasis on Lycaon's disbelief warns the audience of the poem against the disbelief of Augustan authority. For readings ofthe episode as subversive to Augustus: Mueller 1987, 277-281; Anderson 1989; and Segal2001-2002, 85 (with Lycaon's ¿time as a "violation of the sanctity of guests").

For the mythography ofThyestes, see Grimal 1963. Seno Thyestes, 519. ' Apollod. Epit. 2.13; Hyg. Fab. 88; Paus. 2.18.1 (Corinth). See Grima! 1963. Lécrivain 1916, 13°; Moscovich 1979-1980, 127; Elbern 1990, 109-IIO; Ndiaye 1995, 159. 93

011

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE- TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

sources,. ,however, are by no means explicit on this. score. The near-, est case is in Dionysius of Halicarnassus:in describinghow Tarquin ambushed Cloelia and the other hostages. as they were being returned to Lars Porsenna (discussed earlier), he says,that Tarquin violated the hostages' "sacred bodies" (iepéx.crw¡J.O:Ta).88 Some ,have also pointed to the story in Livy where Scipio (soon to be Africanus) orders his men to treat thehostage-womenoLSpain; whom he has,commandeered from the Carthaginians,', asifthey were the wives and mothers '~ofguest-friends.. (hospitum);.which category'certaiply benefitedfrom quasi-,sacred status,S9In..the;case of the former, Walkersuggests that the truly sacred entity wastheagreement whichPorsenna swore'to uphold and which Tarquin violated.9Q;More important, onecould;not~ that both of these storiesr~xist inmultipl~ versions:.and,in botll,cases;no authorother than the' one cited uses the. specific vocabUlarY9Lth sacred: what we have are authors chariging the terms (if.,..onlY slightly)

('ONQOEROR-TROPHY '<

"iij!U~l~r ,'in:~e~gi~;.lhs'.a

life'ofi~~::'b~n;

andi'a?fer~ifying

..:. .">ha\?lmth",01fflffii;'Fft,,","appea'~'''J

:'ohe.

.,gmesom", ¡,¡m, ...hose feathers. c61lceah.tho1.isands'oféy~b'ills;:::\\rhi¿hp'eer outat the..worId

""".

hostages will be sacrosanct or noto

88 Dion.Hal.

'.,"

':h'<::':'

',o,l.g

':, ';

in pursuit of their arguments, whether it be to villainizeTarquin .orto exalt Scipio. Moreover, none of the hundreds of other references to hostagesimplies that they hefd ¡lsacred status. In somecases,ofc;ourse, reviewed earlier, the hostagesare well treated, .butWalker points.out that there.are many others where'they are not: if anything, the captor of the hostage was governedbyexpediency rather than byany "law of war," to which those who allegesacrosanctity must ahachronisticallyy. allude.9I In short, itis often theauthor's choice whether.rhis written ...

Ant. ¡{om. 5.34.1..

89 Livy, 26.49.16; th¿ reférence to guest':fiiendship is nót present at Polyb,'Io.I8. 9° Wa1ker 1980, 15. 9' Walker 1980, 16. Note.Ndiaye 1995, 159: le droit d,eguerreoIn. Ell:]ern 199°, 109---UOi'

fromühdér¿óVei';f.:By:the,very'a¿f!9ffiyírig¡,J:it'glb'ws largeriandhrger: as die .ni'etaphor' ill1pli,es;visiori.';leadslto)'stories that proll1pf furtp.er inquiries and a btoader audiencé¡With/.nidresetshOf eyes,iyidding additionalstotid', and so O1i.The:patticipan.tsiihi'tttmor..;mori.gering, by definiti6nfever increas~ innumber,resuIt:itrgi1.1i!the creatiOnofnew knowledge.N&rgil'sRumor:" growsas'it gOes."zli'FhexfactthatVetgil. makes,Rl.lmOr!into a monster and no~sÓmethingihbre pl'easant highlights "the;ROniari'anXietyiconcerning!t~e.indomitable natute.Óf!one's reputatiop;3.Prestige,a very rotigktt~msIati()n'; oftheLatih; auctoritas; carried' an inestiWa.ble!weight in..the';>RlomafJ.i,wdrl&:it'could;accóunt for orie's'pOliticalt'pówet eV'enm'bre.thaná"[ofmalhllagisttaGy;iit;cou1d enhance '&hé'ssocial;sfanding':irithei'formOfálárge;base "9:t1clients;'. and it could givé cJl1.e;ecoriomic!clol.ltbéy;óñdJheil~vél'ofhis trueepersonal wealth.4 A/publk figtíre's image.was thus catefullyÓrchestrated for the

sacrosanctity did not apply to hostages who came as a result of deditio, but did to those" who were part of a treaty; in the lattercase, sanctity were waived implicidy.

Yergo Aen. 4.173-195. YergoAen. 4.175: viresqueadquirit eundo) J Néraudau 1993 argues that Vergil chose a horrific image in order to reflect the role of rumor in the civil war. Rutherfurd 1989 argues that the eyes belong not to the monster 1

if the treaty was violated, rights to sacro': '.'

but to the people watching it. For the distinction betweenjáma and existimatio: Ya~hz I974b. 4 The single word, "prestige," of course, is not enough to encapsulate the complex meaning of auctoritas; a fuller discussion is at Galinsky 1996, 10-41. Zecchini 1996 discusses the derivation ofthe epithet "Augustus" from auctoritas, the significance ofwhich, however, is downpIayed in Lacey 1998. See also Luetcke 1968.

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUEROR-

benefit of all those thousands of eyes on the streets, in the temp);s, behind the helmets, and gazing out from the senatehouse. With this in mind, one begins to understand the supreme value of the triumphal procession in Roman politics during which generals were honored as gods for the performance of their duty to Rome. It is hard to think of a more attention-getting entrance into the city than a triumph, as described in the Introduction to this book, and yet thisis how most hostages would have had their &st exposure to the Roman people, arriving at the apex of festivities, which in some cases lasted for several days.5 In such a way, hostages were closely associated with the individuals who brought them there. As they wereintroduced in thecontext of military achievement, they represented that aspect of the hostagetaker's career even long after the triumph had ended and the booty dispersed. They were proof, especially vivid, otthe force ofthe ViQ~r

accomplishment: unlike a pile of gold, hostages cauld walk, talk, and express emotion. The possessor of the hostage stood much to .

.$ .

from the detentian of this type of foreigner. The previous two chapters have argued that when hostagesmarched through Rome in a triumphal procession or passed through. the streets as temporary residents, they helped Romans to think about the world beyond their city. We have seen how a Roman would understand; through the hostage, the obligations of the defeatedin virtual contracts of international relations; we have also seen how the possession of the hostage articulated Rome'g own honorable place in an international society. This chapter focuses on the role ofthe b;ostagein shapi the individual character of the general or emperor responsible for the hostage's internment. Specifically, we see how the hostage determined one's military reputation, which in turn translat~d into politicalinfluence. In short, this chapter examines a simple syllogism: ifpower comes s EIbern 1990, 102-103 and Scardigli 1994, 126-127 discuss the importance ofhostages in a triumph. It is an understatement to say that triumphs were contentious in Republican politics. On the availability of the rite to praetors, see Richardson 1975 ana Brennan 1994, and on the political motivations for triumphs on the Alban Mount, see Brennan 1996. Flory 1988, 498-499 notes that the; lavishness ofPompey's triple triumph necessarily triggered a response fiom Caesar, and Gurval 1995, 22 discusses the competirive nature of the pageantry. For Nero's manipulation of the triumph to recall Augustan associations, see Miller 2000, 415-419. The setting up of any trophy was critica! in politics: Rawson 1990, 159-162.

TROPHY

from victory, and if victory comes from hostages, then in some cases it makes sense to see that power could be derived directly from hostages, skipping the "step" of victory. The associations of hostage-taking had the effect of offering a shorter path to power. Thehostage became a prize in and ofhimself; Romans are said to brag about them, lie about them, and compete ferociously for them.

VICTORY AND HOS!.4GES

For Roman Wr"iters,hostagesw;ere an integral part of triumphal processions. They offdredsomething unique!to theoverall presentatiorl and are therefore often singled out. Although hostages and royal prisoners of war probably marched in the same"position in the parade,just in front ofthe chariotcarrying thetriumphator, iheir roles were dearly differentiated in our sources. Wéhave alre~dyseen how Livt isolates the hostages in his accouni: of Flamininus's triumph over Macedon: he draws attention to the presence of Demetrius and Armenes over and/above the prisonersofwar:whom theyaccompanied.6Demetrius's march, in Livy, comes, in sharp contrast to that of hisoldef brother, Perseus, who was a prisoner .of war after the Battle of Pydna nearly thirty years later andwhose plight is,repeated over and over in Livy's record offhe triumph of Aemilius Paullus.7 Similarly.Appian and Plutarch, in their accounts ofPompey's triple triumph, malee an effort to distinguish between prisoners ofwar on the one.hand and hostages on the other withinthe howd¡ of 324detained satraps; princésses, royal children, fud defeated generals: th~ prisoners indudedthe wife, son, daughter-in-Iaw, and granddaughter of Tigranes; the sister and five children of Mithridates; the leaders of the Mediterranean pirates; Aristobulus, fhe king ofthe Jews; aild' gt6tipsiof Scythián' wonien, while the hostages induded groups from Asian Iberia, Albania, and Commagene.8 The distinction communicates an added dimension to Pompey's accomplishment: the group of detainees is divisible and 6 Livy, 34.52.9. 7 Livy, 45.35.1; 45.39.1; 45.40.6; 45.4I.lo-n; 142.

45.42.4. Cf. PIut. Aem. 37. Cf. Reiter

1988,

8 App. Mith. n7; Plut. Pompo 45.4. App. Míth. 103 says that Pompey took hostages simultaneously fiom Oroezes of Albania, Artoces of Iberia, and fiom an Amazonian race;

"r,,

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE~TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUERORi1~()PHY

" complex,and Pompey's work 'abr()a~wisseen as allthe.morewaritf' flexible, and strategic. Livy manipulates the fact"ofhostages and their visual r()le,in tri" umphs to tell the story of the..falland rise of Romanfortunes in the Battle ofthe Gaudine I:orksin32LBcE anditsaftermath. "W:henLivy, attempts to describe the nature of the defeated ROll"l.an~,he,dqesso by setting up a kind of anti-triumph, a photograph's negatiyeof a proper triumphal proceSSiOlhastl,les,oldi~t~ in ,his acc()unt "imagined to themselves. . . the rethrll to theifpá(rí.d~n.d totheir par~nts,where

rejoicing (quodomnia,superabat gaudia)j;the'equites,whom the ,Samniteshad stationeq to, guard Luceria as guarante~S.,9f peace, were recovered. '4

often they. themselves ant:l:their.ancestorS.hildreturnedintriumph¡;!,~ Hostages were surre~dered,here, wheieas they ought t01,.have¡;beeíf detained, and:,.the" soldiers:"progressionyt~.e.pce.",continues;fo¡Whereas tríumphat(Jres ,typically wore'aspecialcloak¡ the:gen~rals::were"s,~ippe.d, by the Samnites; w:hereasvicforious armies usually)marched:inpria~ through the city, the,,Solc:iiersp¡lssedheneath.theyqke U)?a.Fmed'and half-naked; whereasconventionh¡lditthati,the Romans g¡l?e,d;..upo

a tri~m~liJn

The retrieval ofho~tilges, toLivY?constituted the ¡::limax of the affair; the sigh~ ofRowal}s ,not'in. captivity as hostages was the visual reasser-

ti~h ofRom~'s h~geth~ny'o~e;sbuthefn Italy. ,"

("Scythian women")

tdptisoners

LiVY,9.5.II---9.6.3. Livy, 9.6.]: per hostium oculos.

Quoted in Gell. NA 2.19.8.

",'

'",

,',

""',

.'"

o', '"

,,,,

,r>

b,ecau~li

,~..¡

,,'

14 Livy, 9.15.7-8. '5 Livy, 33.22.9. The absence ofhostages (ifthat is what is meant hereby "sine ul/o pignore") was cited by the opposition as aclue that the deditiones were fal~e (falsas). On the question ofthe "criteria" fortriumphs in this period, see Richardson 1975, 60-62. See also Gruen 1995, 63. 16 On the Alban triumph as an act ofprotest, see Brennan 1996, 324-325. 17 Dio, 49.22.2. 18 Livy, 36.39.3 and 36.40.5.

1111 lO

197 ~~E/O~ h,.i~"c~mip,~~s a~~~nst,!~e, ~i~rian,s

Walsh 1961; 120-12L

"'..r:

rc'

i:~iins of sqpdVillg the en,.eh1y, , ", I .,', "'1", ". ,: ,', " ' " .',

and adds the,hostagh,

13 On Livy\,use of Claudi1.1sQuadrigarius and thelatter's occasional exaggerations, see

'"¡,¡,',"','"',,',,,,

v~ue had com~ from t?e"ca~1?,:i~~,'7 W~th~p~,~ ~i~~fidl~~ c~owd'()f hostages, avictory couldbe brought into qU,estiOl(Roman g~n~rals thus rieeded them for more thanjust the gÜ~~arit~~'~(~settl~~ent: " th~yteflected bac;k,on".th~ gen~ral'sdignÜy ,aQ,9,wer~ indispensable evidence of victoty. In some episodes, o,ur sO)lrces,suggestthat the possession offoreign hostageS wasnearly a pre'conditior{,'tot a trícim):Jh:ifa generafs acCbniplishiiíe'nt was in''d'6ttHt inth¿ keJi~te:<then\th~, revel~tio~of HÜ , hostag~s, amoIigother' h-"ap~ings.of vidory,t()ul~f8o'nfirm'~sriglit'1:6' public 'esteem. For examph~,LiVy 'tells tfie 'stSry, of Publius Corndlus Scipio Nasic~7wh? asked the sen'ate,Jo~ atriu~ph after defe~ti~gfthé Gallic tribe of the Boii in 191 BCE, having taken, half ofthe4f)an~ and killed half of their men. 18A tribune, Publius Sempronius Blaesus;.

9 Livy, 9.5.8---9. Crawford 1973 and Horsfall 1982 discuss the fictive qualities in Livy's account of the Samnite Wars and setdement. 10

,",:,

M~Il~ciu~ was forc;ed t~ celebra~e,aprivate 'til{¡cippon.'th,e Al~ar Mo~nt In Lati~rri.16Likewise, Dí~ sho~s dis4#n,'(~~Mar~tBt~~y~~ negotiations wi~~ !\ntipch\ls of ConÚnag~n,.eí~' 38'B~É base~ ~ri ,the paltry number~njd nafure 6tllls hos~~ges;:di~'fa~itth~th~' had ~~ceived only:two, low;rankillg q~~sprqved','Jq'bio'at.'1e'a~t, 'th~t nothing ~f

, ,:¿

he,did"not ~~v~ ~o;s~ag~s t~ ~afk,i1lp{t~~cl~il11:it?athe,h~dJ~,9B~}1,e,r~d, a" number of towns. 15LIVY s¡¡.ysthat wl~hout ,,' appro,val frow. tlle senate , " " "',.' ',," ",,: i ,',

Seven thousand p¡-enweresent ~ndt¡qhe.yoke,and a;huge @.mounfo(l:¡ ", was captured in LUS,eria, ~thallí'the, standafds.apd ,\yeaponry.wl1ic~] been lost at Ca1f4iym retrieyed, and, whft \yas more imp?rtant in an:of th

from Commagene.

,,'

c~uld ?? ~n~c,~~owle~~ed" otsP~TPo~ b~ ~g~~np~ax~sk~f no h~sta~~ wer~ ta~en. Accordingtp qyy, Quilltus l\1i~~ius Rufvs ",as denied "

the defeated, here they.:were,takenin by'" e~,emy:eyes."II AccorditÍg to the early.historian€laudiusQvadrigarius¡ ,the',newsoftheihQstagí detained by theSal1mites,causedtheir relativeS:,torun,\}'ailihg. throug the streets. 12,For LiW, \yhohad:accessto: th1s,account, th~,/I(Jss);1 hostages is asirhportant yisuallyina Prqcessiohofthe defeated¡lsthei inclus,ión is .in abetteróutc'ome,J},Of .course"Livy.-wrqteth1s¡narr; tivewith [ull knbw~Fdge'oftl1e .:Roman recovery:,the defeat!is¡:l¡lt corrected by a.reversal 9f.fortunes wJ:¡erethe rescue,;ofthe hqstages highlighted over and abovejthe, humiliation of the Sanmites:,

Plutarch demotes the Amazons

AvictOl:Y, no, I1J,att~r~ó~"'abspli:ltein . J' " , , v. ,'" "\ >," " ",','

!.> iIí

iI' ~

'IIi'

"',~

1iI,

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUEROR-

had intervened to argue that Nasica was not worthy of a trium¡h until he also had defeated the Ligurians, who were the Boü's partners in warfare and who would surely repair the setbacks that Nasica had inBicted if left unchecked. In response, we are told, Nasica pointed to his Boan hostages which he had taken "as a guarantee of future peace."19 Nasica's rebuttal continues in Livy as he recounts the "much greater" matter (illud multo maius) his feats in battle and the large number of enemy casualties. The hostages were thus only one part of Nasica's resumé, but it would be reasonable to speculate that they were present, at the very meeting at the Temple of :Bellona where Nasica had convened the senate. Nasica naturally would have wanted to avoid the criticisms that had been leveled against Minucius, as seen earlier; In the end, Blaesus was compelled to withdraw his veto, and Nasica was awarded the triumph.20 The display ofhostages in the quest for pre 'nge <ould ha.. a fo<cign audience as well as a domestic one. Livy tells the story of a diploma' conference between Perseus and the Romanlegate Marcius Philippus in the Third Macedonian War. Perseus's goal in the negotiations was to avoid an outright war:

andhis legates did not arrive from the same level of dignity (nequaquam ex dignítatepan). The greeting was not at al1hostile, but was kind and hospitable and when seats were brought out, they sat down together.2I

Livy here sees the Roman demand for hostages as having a symbolic function entirely separate from the assuranceof a safe meeting. 22 Philippus's call for hostages constituted a bald show of power, orchestrated, so Livy tells us, to impress the'large crowds in attendance On either'side.

As they stood facing each other, the river flowing between them, a minor delay transpired in the exchange of messages about who should cross to the other side.Sonie thought that some privilege was owed to Perseus's royal dignity, others thought the right belonged to the name of the Roman people, especial1y because Perseus had asked for the meeting. Marcius also convinced those who were delaying with a joke: he s'!:id\."Perseus ought tq crpss ov~r to him as a younger man approaches an elder or as a son to bis father" - for bis cognomen was Philip. The king was easily persuaded. Then there was more indecision about how manyshould cross. The king thought it was falI' to cross with bis entire entourage; the envoys, however, ordered him to come over with just three, or if he was going to bring across so great a line, then to give hostages that there would be no treachery in the meeting. Perseus assigned Hippias and Pantauchus, the best of bis mends, to be hostages; he had akeady sent them as ambassadors. But these hostages were not sought by the Romans as a security of trust so much as to prove to the allies that the king

19 Livy, 36.4°.3: pacis futurae pignus. The reference to the hostages Nasica's summary of the Boan campaign and victory. 20 Livy, 36.4°.10. cf. Gruen 1995, 63. 100

punctuates

(Livy's)

TROPHY

HOSTAt;ES IN SELF-REPRESENTATION

The power of the ilnages of hostages can be inferréd ftOm the few texts tt-om Roman antiquityiti which individuals refer to themselves. So far, we have seen examples ofwriters who describe thehostagetaking activities of others, but we gain a better sense of the triumphant quality of the practice from those who are boasting for their own gain or to propagate their own memory. Three inscriptions and two sets . ofletters «)f a sort) demonstrate that in the ongoing competition for prestige, the contribution that a group of hostages could make was substantial. That the first epitaph here c::;itedis'<lrguablythe second oldest extant verse inscription in Latin points out the antiquity as we~ as the significance ofhostage-takirj.gin an aristocratic military career. It comes from the tomb of the Scipios on the Appian Way, and it honors Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, a consul foi 298 BCEand censor for, perhaps, 280: Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, born to Gnaeus,!Us father, was a brave and wise man whose appearance was equal to bis courage. A consul, censor, and aedile among you, he seized Taurasia/Cisauna from Samnium, conquered al1 Lucania, and detained hostages.23 j" 21

LiVY,42.39.4--'7.

Cf. Braund 1996a,who discussesthe symbolismof riversas boundariesbetween two reahns in Roman historiography. 56 BCE, was Octavian's stepfather to the credit of the prinaps.

Note also that Lucius M~ius Philippus, consul in (Suet. Aug. 8); perhaps the story in Livy redounded

2) Dessau, 1: Lucius Corne/ius Scipio Barbatus Gnaivod patre / prognatus, fortis vir sapiensque, quoius forma virtutei parisuma / fuit, como/ censor aedilis queifuit apud vos Taurasia Cisauna / 101 S úE Al4!1"4

~'0Q}.~~.KO C,{4.1~,

~ \" <..'}-~'

~ó,

'.S'::

.=.~. ~?- UP_V/EHU ~~.

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

make'the case that theinScription.a~a}the literarytexts ¡areusingthe fact of'tme' hostage episode :for differenteffects, playingon the anibiguity of hostages as eitherbh.ckmai1.(the inscription) or guests(the pros~historians), as discussed,earlier in;Chapter 3,¡W1iat,concernsus h~re; however"isthat the;,epigraphic reference to the' hostagescomes in th~ context of,!:uid¿bcqring one man's¡lifetime acc;()mplishments. ]ust like t~e.verbs"pfac;tion, the hostag~smentl()ned in .tlleÜnscripti()n;are meant toinspire ay.¡etand¡ieverencei1J;'t~e read~F.lYlarcotte;,~~hougll noibelieving t?at t~e in~criprion ,an<ithelit~rary;h~stories d~al with, thesame:.eyeQt;, \did¡.conGlud~.that:,the" epitap4':s(mg~p to'wmpens¡tte Ba¡:battlswith¡ yxJt;aglory after~s co'-consuh~§:J:?átiusEwyiusMaximu~ Centunialus,had:beeh:;the! bn1y ope ,tO':celebrate. aJriumph {or theii

The war with the Lucanians mentipned here is a mystery thatra1,~es qÜestions about the mutability oi hostage-taking in the iq\lestfqr auctoritas.It is uncertain to which war withLucania the inscriptión refers.24 One l'°ssibilityis thaE,the inscriptiqn cOmmemorates th~ s~me event as recorded by LiyYa~d Dionysius of I-:Jalicarnassus:asiy.¡~haye seen ip Chapter 3, the, historians J:"eForcl that theLucanian§iF~~,to" Rome in 298,~.y,E,when Barpft~,s '¡Ya§"consul,to a§k lor helpélg;ri~st tbe Samnites; they offered h~stages to mark the alliance,25 Tb,~ fa<;tof ~e hostages from Lu.cania would seell).,to bring all pfthese ~exts ~nto line, excepuhat there is a discrepancy b~tween them: the, verb§il1~p.e

inscription .d,Ccepit, subigit,abdoucit;ilte seized¡he s\lbdues7subdue~,he detains/ detained - are at odds witb the to.ne ofthe " two historianswho ,,' ",' see the relationship more as one qfhost a~ guest.26 Ma"r,<;otte pl~u~i b,ly., ,

""",

consu

' 1aryear.,!!

",,)..

When it is not~d that. although, the'§arcophagusdatestoaround believed, that the absence of any "degradation"jn mgge'" <hat th"'e were different hQ'_'

tb,e literary fCCC)~~

270 B,C,E;the., 'origin

al ,in scriPt"l'on'\N "'~ .e",e,'~ and the.,_,yer ~e~asw,e have them. may.1?ave,been: carvedwell\ fter ¡thedeathot..StlP}O Barbatt1s, arourid;2oo BCE,another aspect.()t.t. e,prespige""valu~.()fhostage..,taking becomes apparel1t.~8iAro4nd the time(}f c;arving, ~c;ipioAfricanÍls ~as actiy;ein overseas y.¡arfaTeand haddealt<with hostages,fa,morisly;inboth Spain:.and 'Carthage. Jn' the..generation before, Africanus'sfathe~. and uncle,. Gnaeus,and.Publius, had $inplar1yacquired'a reputation{or:the shrewd managemenp of hostages, alsoin,Spain.,.Moreover, African.us and his younger brother, Lucius, were instrumental in winning the war against:.Antióchus.III' in '189;;'YhiSh;'.uso,Y,ielde<i¡sigtlificant:hosta~e~~ especi;il,ly)Aiitiochus rVAs: ';N.e; háve:seen; 'Sc;ipió' !'faska' waS'sáid, to have',aigúecf éffe¿tÍyely for a triumph OVe!;' , ... the BOií"based, ¡irt, part~. " on his posséssion of hostages in 191. The a,ct of reme~beJ:"ing' qne. Scipio's hostages from. a.;century earlier, - Barbat4s's", fr()m L\lcawa , " ,would have reflected back and magnified the more,rec;ent feats pBhis descendants.\ Barbatus's sar~ophagus was in ,the ¿~riter,of the'fanÍily tornB, experdy and expensively carved from a single block of stone and unique1y decorated with architectural elements. His descendants,

entir9\1J..but oQe COU)~~, ",

'",,'

Samnio cepit, subigit omne Loucanam opsidesque abdJu~t. The tran¿lation of1fu'rajia Cisauna /Samnio is eontroversial: La Regina 1968, 176;Silvesri'i 1978, 1742179;M.lrJ eotte 1985,727;

Radke

1991, 73-75. The, date ofthe inseriptibn

is <LIsodeb~ted. Seye~a

seholars argue that it was earved long after the sarcophagus, was made and }oF9,atf?: not only Barbatus's death (c. 270), but also that ofhis spn (e.~30), ""hp waserlt~~ge( nearby. The language of the son'sepitaph seems morea~ehaif alI4,the shape ~f tl)~elé~e G in the father's suggests it is !ater. Moreover, ~l1e eras\\Ú~,of;,¡ .Jitd~ more ~hat;r (" ¡¡ne of text on B,arbat#s's sareophagus seell15 to be ,the~~mrialI,t ~~~n ,earliereRita, whieh our inseription n;pla~edat a later date. W61ffiinI'890beli~vedthe in~ciip' was, in effect, cornmissioned by Scipio Africanus"at,Fhe'!ieightCofj;lis prestige)¡ Zama, around200.,JiiscJ1ronology (if not his i4entif).s~ti°1l of fue ~eryppef¿" wrote the verses) is followed by Frank 1921, 169; Coa~~lli 1973, 234; 'and van Si ter th an that of thé son./

1987, 43, note 9. Other scholars agree that theteit

is la

cannot pin it to 200 and al!ow that it may havecome bc;:fore that, in the'last qua of thethird century BCE: La Regina'1968, 175;Silvestri1978; Marcotte 1985;7, These Views are al! vehemendy contéstedby Wachter 1987,'301-342and Ra:dke 199 , '

whoargue that the text was carved soon after Barbatus'sdeath, Krusch~tz 1998, f?&; 283, although leaning toward this opinion, conch.ides thatthe ,available evidenc;;;;; insufficient. Cf. LTUR (Zevi). What follows is based on WolfHin's scenario; even i~!, this should be somehow unambiguously refuted in the future, the Iarger point - that' meRtion hold.

of the hostages helped to fashion the memory

24 Possibilities are reviewed by La Regina

of the honorand

-!would

still 27 Mareotte 1985, 740-742, noting the Pasti Triumphales. Cf. La Regina 1968, 175.0n the inscription as an indieation of "the ideology of nobilitas," see Holkeskamp 1993, 26-27. It may be that the poem on the stone was remembered from Barbatus's eulogy: van Sickle 1987,44.

1968, 177- 187; Silvestri 1978, 170-171; Marcotte

1985, 728-'731; Radke 1991,75-'76. 25 Livy, 10.11.13; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 17.1.2-3; 17.3.1. 26 Radke 1991, 76 argues that subigit does not necessarily demand the power"differential between captor and donor is clear.

a military action, but

28 See note 23, on the question of the date.

102

..~

103

.. ..~,"L..IiI!

~- ..liilIfL *

...H

tr...'!L..'Iik...,..!I!'...

"'-

.........

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

CONQUER<iaR,7TROPHY

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Roman people with me as princeps,leV!?Il,when there had ,been no prior eXFl1angeof embassies ~9 friendship~.~l1Jhe Roman peopl:e.32

piling Up animpressive record ofh~stige-taking themselves, may h'\¡ve highlighted anew the exploits of théit oldest ancestor. with the newer inscription. In short,a family's aécomplishments in hostage-taking in the past could enhancesimilar, success in the'present, even jf, that past were a new creation, or new interpretation.29 Right around the ear1y second century BCE, the clan of the Scipios on the one hand an<i the idea of hostageJtaking;on the otherwereintersecting in multiple locations;. both were powerfuUy assodated withniilitary conquest~ The, second inscription. to mention hostage~fu.king"does' so. in a

Auiustus, or the wrlÚr of the ins¿~iptiori, explicidy denies the use of force th.eParthian princd; pígnora(assur-. .' ,inreceiving " " , . '1¡, ..'and he calls '.. 't~em ,. ari¿es) rather than obsíd~s.In this w;¡.y,hisdescriptionisurilike that of theÍióst~gesricorded in\:Barbat\is'~;~pitaphifud ls'lliOre iri k~~ping with Li~'s andDi6ny¿iu~'s literary'di~r!icterization ofI3arbatus's Lucaniahs '''doesn.bt'lliake as l'gu~~t~hóstages.A1th.otígfi dIe"'''',wiit~r6fth~'f~scri~riÓ ',.', '".:". ",', '", " ,,/. ,"'" , " any pretense of military victor); ahd iristead focuses "on "embassi,es and frfenclship,;' Augqsttsheveith~léss'reaprfhe b~neftts 'a d legitirhacyof th{hegemonic assOciatiohs"ofhos\:iges: oreve~ p'ignora,whiéh allbw h.lniti;earn a~Cto~Üásall the sihÚ~. In fhbsectionofth.e Res Gestar

[

different conte"q ind!describes the subrnissionqfítheiH'Ostagesiwith less martiahtories: The Re5.Gestae, or Accomplishments, ofAugustus was written in the first persori and was set up outside the emperor's new mausoleum on the northernedge of the campUSMartiíi well as copied, translated into Greek"and

distributed

thrOUghO

Uq ~

irrlmediately preceding'this8he, he siys tliat Be "cOtripelled" the Parthiánstorettirn tné ~tá'ndardsl~stby C;~ássus~gen'eratíon before, and ihthe' subsequent seci:ion, he'talks abüut h6~'he cOiit~olléd the eastern states tü st1ch''an: extent tha1:h~'é'~ciid ~appoirif thelr';kin~

empire for public display.3° In reviewing Roman affairs'inthe., ~S; E sts and elsewhere under hisregime, Augustus q,egins with a 10ngJist of foreign kings who bowed to him in searchOfsoIIl:ekind ofassistancy or other; the long names W'ould have stoodoutto the Roman reader. for their exotic qualities: Tiridates, ,Artavasdes, Artaxares, Dumnq.:J.,. bellaunus, and others.31 l,fe then mentions thesoils and grandsonso Phraates IV; who were given to his care.in 10/9 BCE: . .

"~i

from

Cf. Brennan 1996, 322, disctlssing Gaius Papirius Maso's decision to hold a tri\iP1p on the Alban Mountin 2310n the same day, l\1arch5, on which his most illustr~ous 'ancestor, Lucius Papirius Cursor, triumphed over the Sanmites nearly a century before, in 324; it was a move to enhance his ownglory for 'the presento For the competiqve

nature 'of politics at the timeai\.d the place of the Scipi()s therein, see, in general, Gruen 1995 and Comell 1995, 359-360. 3° Augustus had written a literary - that is to say, nonepigraphic - autobiographyiin thirteen volurnes, of which only a few &agments survive. The inscription is shorter by necessity, of course, but also by design: Yavetz 1984 with notes. 3' See Barnes 1974 for Augustus's acclarnations as imperator. Yavetz 1984, 13 discusses the sloganeering quality of literary propaganda: iri a large1y illiterate society, the rhythm of the words, or even their shape in a line, coUld matter more than contento On the monurnentality

.°

32 Mon. Anc. 32: Parthorum / PhratesOrod(i)sfiliusfilios suosnepot(esque omnesmisit) in Italiam, non / bello superatu(s), sed amicitiam nostram per (/iberorum) suorum pignora / petens. Plurimaeque aliae gentes exper(taesunt.p.R.) fidem me prinJ cipe, quibus antea cum populo Roman(o nullum extitera)t legationum / et amicitiae (c)ommercium.For a discussion of the language of the text and the use of the ftrst persono' see Ramage 1987, 21-28. 33 Mon. Anc.29,33.

of the words, see Elsner 1996. 104

Of the Parthiaiis,Phraatesson of prodes sent all.,his sons. and granch;c:ms't ltaly, not.conquered in war, buts~ekipg our friendship tl:lroJ.1ghQiscl:¡.il:9¡ as securities (pignora).Many other tribes experienced the .good faith, off¡

among the batchesófheirs surre~'d~r¿d~33 wh~t . ,'" . , ~hohad,?eeh . " ", ". , . .. i ,. ,

Augustus wants readers to learn is not that he did not nght otners, but that hedld. not habeto'fight furthered R6íne's iht~rests . . . othé~s;he , "" '" by sheer inti~dation, and, thes6ns of Phiaates IV and tl1eir faInilies constitute living p~oof. -. Thei irorlÍc messag~ of péaceful;c9nquest ,,' " .,' '" ", '. '" . '.. would,have , '., .,," bééh , furdíer , , articuÍated fol' the visitar to the mausoleumcOIriplex by:its proxlmity to théA1tár o[pedcé(AraPac'is), whi~h h~d'been cohsttucted nearby. Turning from the tomb andwalking in a ~outheasterlydi~ecti6n dbwn the Via Flanllnia to the pavement of anenormous sundial (another kind oftrophy),'one would come upon thé riorthwestern side ofth~ Sculpted frieze surrounding the altar, which depicted a procession of senators

105

HOSTAGE-TAKINGIN THE ROMAN EMPlRE

HOSTAGES.AND

and members

óf the imperial ,

CONQUERO~~~0PHY

fami1y (Figures 1 and 2),34 Prominently

','"

',~;

AII

featured in the center of the p~nerf~cing him, at eye lev~l, would be a surprising sight: a bare-footed childlooking distinctly un~Rom~n with his buttocks shpwing from beneath ,\,too-s4p~t turnc, with lpng cur1y hair and a,twisted torque necklace arot.md iJ.ist:leck,~miling as .. "" ' ,"""', he tugs the;!~ga pf the ~ani~, fro¡::ttofhim (Figure 2)",lyloving"around the! building to the opposite" sputheast~r~,~ide",!~e \Ti~itor'j:p~g. s;~ ano*er npt:l-~om~n child, al~o~fh i~~g5uJ;!Yih~1~ an~ '~1,~1~grt!~ diffc~rept kind Oftorque necklace, but who, in addjtiQn;wears adiadem, .. ',";' N,'" " .' ", "" "':Y>"';«\ ¡";;'\" ,

has shoes QP, ,and~~em~;p Reacs,om~ani~q,.PX,~>,~du!XNVo~a,~"R,~,ltJi~~ him; he is old~r than the ,nOrthw~stern side,,;¡,ri,<i the ". '. "". t4e c):1ildon' ,,' ,H';' 'i'", ,y' ,;,."".,

Roman b~fore him, whom h,e'~sopestefs bYPulling oPBh~9g~,. , ""

',,'

'd'

',',',

,,,

,,',

",,'e'.,

",'

is Agrippa hims~lf,August~s's son-in-:l~~, one-,t,~ffteheir, and'11?-9st trusted general (Figur~s 3;¡,n~4)' ~uch ~sholarly debate,l:1a~',B,~~, devoted to identifying these chil~re,n.35iiS()1fl~h~ye suggested h'oth ar~ eastern princes;some, have suggested botli are wester¡'¡ princes; bu ,

the, differences

'.,

"",,,,,

in c1ot~ng

"',

are signipcant

, .'"

' "

"',"

"barptrian" of western EtlropelJt hist()rical events to,tl:1e;se figures

mayhe,p()ssible~o assi~ name¡sa

- t~e ,sou!t4easternI~py

, "

,0'

"ll1eanti!~'~a

" ",

T?~se.~~e¡t~e.typesF~ cl1iI~~en'A~~stu~!refe:red,to "in"hi~neig~b.o~¡' ,message1is"tHát¡the self-+pottra~~! <1:S'i;'~p ,.ignora;;'¡;'Ehe'ia.ltar's , ," chi1dH~flj,ateii1rR:pnié¡¡~s¡á)!éstllb'50fipéacé1~i sitnilarly;the,ipscription repeat~ihát¡Parthia.:r'r'diildren,'ha,diCOme'" tdi'him> ~.'n¿tconquered'by ing. ~pigtaphic

war/i i'The"guestJ"aspectof¡foreigi:í.icihildren in. Rofue is thus emplp~ sized irtii\\Íbpt6'ximate,!;strüctui:'éS."Tó theiR:omanpedestriarí; three shared attribtites, Ofthese children'\\roul&havemáttereqthe.niost:,they they'areyoung;

and!.tHeyjare'tifidl:~r control;'ievenpeacefuh

chil?wea~ing e~stepl d~ess~r? th; northwesterpppe,:~B1;'~~~llgi~

o~geoppljticS. Thein~rfUel pl%R~~;~~tof,t~~¡boys.on'8~P8site sides,Óf t}fé,.mOntll:nent,thediametric n;¡,tufy;,;oftheir""clothingi:and;the"coorr dination ofthéir,ethniciden:tity,~it1:ri'P()iÍlt~. Qnthe coropass. allosigri:ál ke ptecede#~'here .0Verthe specifip ~? fhathhegeneric was

areforeig~;

;ll°tl,g;? to conc1ud~ tI

they come from opposite geographic extri~es, with the ~outheastern , " "

by Augustuswhen he visitedLugdunufu, an episode unrecorded by literary soÚrcesbutj suggested,in,!Óthermonumental commissions.38 Btit "perhaps they are"n.oneófthesé:'thevarious arguníentsofidentific;Ü;ionmay'miss thepóint:ofi:heihipact ofthe:image onthe average Romap vi~JVer,íw69..\j'óuld havehadpn1y anptionál ~mderstanding

They ire abstractions

()f thépei-iphery;both:ja~

:,niany Romans'wóÚld

haveprefdrred!to view'itand as!Augustus'.wotild"V\J;~ntto préserífik 4° SuetoniustepórtedthafAugustusbricie'appe~réa;\With the Parthian

allA,}Vpw.

could be Iotape and AntiochusIlI of Commag~1?-e,or DY1?-a1fli~, Pontus and an unnamed son, possibly Aspurgus; 1 would argue th~tl

13 BéJiNand .the. Parth;ianscü.Pi:!iot ardve\.intil,'1 b9y,il1!~l¡1~st.ionis grippillg,

bo~.p;ay, in any case, have évpke;,~therec~llt deteR!i9t;1:of\~e ~~~Íh: hostages.~7 Theporthw~ster!n child may Q,~a prinÚ of Gaú1a,9ce~;!

finis~e?!~~~J~~.~?f witll th~!newly':irtived

di~~ in j2!!C~.

0/9 ,BCE;aridAgt'ipP'a.,iWhose

B~~~~ellene!~?t5s

toga the

t4.lt..the altar;.y~s not

9:,~fE~ ~lii~P?Ssip¡!i!y:~er~es"t~art~i'~?y!i~spire~ c?~p~;ison Parthians\ AS:Kutthel: 1995i¡1274ihoter6b' poínts.íout/ th:~!fact

of Ag;ippa,(~!po,traitdoes' not.&yeZe atermin!Js ante,.qu~mfor"th;~!figure,~iin",gues,~oIl' 38 Kuttne,:;I99 5'associates the northwestemboy with the ,childr~!lqn theBossqrea1~Sl¡1p, 34 On the meaning ofpax;so

displayed, seeKuttner1995,

I05,]3..ose 1990, 459 and cIl

2003, 19-22 ~so discuss the conne.ction Rfthe altar tqthe~es Gestaeand maus¡)l~~ On thehoroiógium as a trophy, see Favro 1996, 264. For Augustan social policy' a relates to thealtar; see Kleiner 1978,

say thatt~;

of alost molltunent>Cf.. "sp:ci~S,,:kl~ntitYi~altqge,~er

Rose 199~N6I.

" '1",

u~P?rt;¡llt:Kuttn;ta9?5,

37 Iotape and Antiochus IlI: Kuttner 1995, 104. Dynamis: Rose 1990,458. The Parthians hav~ usually been quickly ruled out by virtue of timing in that the altar was ordered in

122 poi~ts out, that the imagesmu~toriginallyh~ve refeF;ed toactual pers,?ns. But!~avr() 1996, 267, in her re&eshingly creative, hypothetical'image of a girl and grandfather conttonting the monument in 14 CE, points out that twenty years after that altar was c9'ihpleted, "a more global message" characterized the ttieze,as'the!,girl, illiterate al1.d unfamiliar with the detailsofpolitical history &om a generation before, primarily recognizes the fact of pax. Cf. Clarke 2003,22-28 on the response ofthe "ordinary'I,Roman viewer. SimOn!1967, 18; followed by Rose 1990, 461 suggests, the images of the children could have been connected with the personifications of provinces in the interior of the altar. See Billows 1993, 910n Augustus's supplicatio of 13 BCE, arguing that the foreign children aregeneric "guests." 4° A similar conc1usion' is"reached at Severy 2003, lIO. Cf. Augustus's and Agrippa's map ofthe world set up in the Porticus Vipsania: Nicolet 1991, lIO-lI4.

106

107

35 Rose 1990 and Kuttner 1995 arerecent, successful studies ofboth figures; they also review earlier scholarship. 36 Both eastern: Simon 1967,18 and 21 (she says the boy on the northwestern side "brings to prind the barbarian child," but also suggests that"he is a son,of Julia, dressed as a camillus). Both western: Po!lini 1987, 27; previously suggested at Kleiner 1978, 757-"1, 758, note 15. But see also Kuttner 1995, 264, n. 25. On the identification ofthe two boys as Gaius and Lucius Caesar, grands6ns and heirs of Augustus, and the ambiguous, filialrelatiohship between f6reign hostages and their captors, see Chapter 5,

itself;¡' possible "quo~tion" 39 This iS~?ttR

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUEROR-

hostages in public, bringing them intothe theater with him and hai"ing them sit behind him.41 It was by accentuating the hostages that Augustus was proven to have achievedthe same result, as, saYoScipio Barbatus, even though he kept the peace on an international scale. Augustus's celebration of a victory over Parthia is well known: coins showed kneeling Parthians surrendering the standards; the breastplate of the Prima Porta statue depicted the same event (although with the Parthian standing, not kneeling); and even a victory at¡chseems tohave gone up next to the Temple of Divus Julius.42 But i¿ is a strange kind of victory: the unequivocal message of the Res Gestae is that Augustus conserved Rome's resources and avoidedthe tensions ofwarfare,that

across the Danube to pay tribute, with their wives'and children and leadersor kings. He suppressed an initial uprising of the Sarmatae although he hadsent a large part of bis arrny on an expedition to Armenia. He drew kings who were previously unknown or hostile ~o the ~oman people to the bank of the Danube, wliich he was guard.ill.g,in order to pay homage to the Roman standards. He sent back sons to tht; king of \:he Bastarnae and Rhoxolani and the brother (or brothers) to theking(or kings) of the Dacians, who had been'capturedor rescued ITom 'the enemy.'He recelved hostages fiuIh some ofthese and throughthese actions he confirmed and extended the;peace il'l "-*-1 Moesia . . .43 .

had beleaguered the Roman state in the previous generations in the form ofinternecine conflicts, yet did not sacrifite Rome's international reputation and did not let up on the foreign enemy, who despite bei unknown, was ever viewed in Roman culture as a threat that needed suppressing. In the Augustan Campus Martius, the guest identity of', hostages afforded as much prestige as that of the blackmail emphasiz in the tomb of the Scipios. The final inscription to mention hostages presents yet another type ofboast that could be grounded in hostage possession. The epitaph for Tiberius Plautius Aelianus dates to the late seventies CE,and it honors a man who was consul under two very different emperors: Claudins '~ in 45 and Vespasian in 74 (as co-suffictus with Vespasian's son, Titus). It was set up outside the large cylindrical tomb ()f Plautius's fami1y on the ,road between Rome and Tivoli. Theinscription meritionshis various magistracies and posts, yet devotes its majority to his record as JfI governor of Moesia:

To Tiberius Plautius Aelianus, son .of Marcus, ... governor of Moesia, in wbich he led more than 100,000 fium the multitude of the Transdanubians 41 Suet. Aug. 43.4. Their oddity is what was emphasized: Suetonius also describes Augustus's display of a stentorian dwarf, a rhinoceros, a tiger, and a gigantic snake. Cf. Nederga:ard 1988, 109. t 42 On Augustus's depiction of victory over Parthia, see Rich 1998 (note page 73: "an ostentatious display of modesty"); Mattern 1999, 172-176; Campben 2002, 122-132. This, in spite of Augustus's refusal of a triumph: HicIeson 1991, 135-137. Simpson 1992 belíeves that the arch was never erected; Rich 1998 argues that an existing arch was given new decoration. The new temple of Mars Ultor referred to revenge against Parthia as wen as agálnst the conspirators: Galinsky 1996, III. 108

TROPHY

Hostage-taking is ju~t one smallpa:tt C)f,a large dossier of,~iumphworthy;,activity, but itis still something that Plautius is sure toinclude. 44 The llscription gOt;Son.to explain that Plautius's honors fo.r:all this activity were late in ¡comin,.g.It was upon Vespasian's suggestion, six years after the, fa¡,:t,that Plautius was granted triumphal ornaments for his t¿Í1urt;in Moesia and,was simultaneously givenhis secondconsulship. Proper honors, it implies, h~d been denied by the megaloInfni<1; of,the late Julio-Claudian emperors,particularly Nero, whom Plautius had served. The inscription thus had,a douJ:>le.otaslcllot onlydid it record ,the honorand:s de.eds for posterity, it also redressed tb,.epuJ:>lic's current ignoranc,~, wh!ch stemmed fi-01I1thesuppression of the "tqlth" byother emperors before Vespasian.45Echoes o(Augustus's R,.esGestae can be heard in Plautius's daim tO have SUppressedthe Sarmatae even

43 Dessau, 98Q: Ti(berio) Plautio M(ard)'.. .legat(o) pro praet(ore) Moesíae / in qua plura quam centum mill(ia) (ex numero .Transdanuvíanorum / ad praestanda tribu.te cum cOniugib(us) /, ac liberis etprindpibus a,ut r¡?gíbussuis / transduxit; motum orientem Sarmartar(um) / compressit quamvís parte<m> magna<m> exerdtus / ad expeditionem in Armeniam misisset; / ignotos ante aut infensos p(opulo) R(omano) regéssigna / Romana adoraturos in ripam quam tuebatur / perduxít; regibus Bastarnarum et / Rhoxolanorum filios et regi (or regibus) Darorum fratrem (or fratres) / captos aut hostibus ereptos remisit; ab / aliquis eorum opsidesaa:epit; per quae pacem / provindae et confirmavít et protulit. 44 C2Jt1pare Dessau, 985, iÍ1 which Tampius Flavianus also boasts oftriumphal ornaments which he won, in part, as a result of taking hostages from across the Danube. The

epitaph is shorter and more fi:agmentary. It is the same Tampius Flavianus, governor of Pannonia and polítical ally ofVespasian in 69 CEwhose name is the last word in Tacitus's Histories before it breaks off(Tac. Hist. 5_26). See also Tac. Hist. 2.86; 3.4; 3.10. On the background of Moesia and Balkans generally, see Conole and Milns 1983; Lica 1988, 37-38; and Scardigli 1994, 197-198. 4$ Conole and Milns 1983 see the inscription ornaments as a rebuke to Nero.

109

and Vespasian's awarding of the triumphal

(

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUEROR-

without much of his army, to have exposed formerly unknownpeopIe to Roman diplomacy, to have performed favors for neighbors, kd to have received hostages, al1in the name of peace. The mention of hostages provided the reader with an additional way of thinking about the honorand in terms of his contributions to Rome's/glory. Pardy , . .' "', , i~', by means of his hostages, Plautius Aelianus was tied conceptual1y tO' Augustus, elevated material1y by Vespasian, and distinguished from the "bad" emperors who had co~e in between. Self-aggrandizing references to hostage-taking could appear inliter- \\~ ary form aswell, in published pamphlets or letters. Cicero, for example, is infamous for calling for a triumph f()llowing his stint as govetnor' in Cilicia in 51 BCEand his highly questionable military activity there. Catothe Younger was opposed to the senate granting him any such recognition, but that did not keep CiceroJrom trying for,a supplícdti~ the first step iri securing a triumph.46 Not a seasoned soldiér, CiCerQ:', had complained bitterly about the provincial assignment, which was , the site of the death in battle of his' grandmother's brother and whi was forced on him by the senate. He had harsh words for the governor ,

preceding him and repeatedly calledfor reinforcements to strengtheJ

,,'

his position.47 We know from Cicero's correspondence that at the start of his term, Parthian armies of indeterminate size marched into Syria and threatened to invade his own province next. Cicero's response was to move to Cybistra, with a mountain range between him ar11, the opposing Parthians, and to send a detachment to the bordei" a. Epiphania to fight them in the interim.48 After this divisipn's initial success, he ascended into the Amanus mountain range on the border with Syria. ay contrast with his dilatory conduct during the ea~l fighting of the war, in a later contex~ ,herecords, a siege..ofPindeniss~! a town (oppidum) ofthe "Free Cilicians"; his prose in a letter to Cato is clipped and intimidating, suitable for announcing his military acumen:

TROPHY

Isurrounded the town witha wall'andíditeh; Irenclosed it with six forts'and substancial fortifications; I'aci:acked with earthworks, roandets, and towers; using many catapults and. archers and at greatpersonaltoil; without any darnage to or e:¡q>ensefio,pt our' allies 1 finished the task on the 57th day, sO,that,)Vitl1 every part gf1he city in ruiIls ()~b~rned, ~hey ~ere driven to surrender,toI11Y autho¡-ity''fhe people of Téb'er¡1are nea~est to these and are ~qual in their s~v~g~ly ~d tearléssness; oncePindeirisSus \vas captured, however, 1 received hostages froro fuero. 1 then dispatched the arroy to its winter'c~p.49 i.~'

Iri'i1l.ppealiriglf6f>otpciaL recognitibn. !fromthé')senatt~,( Eiéeroi niad~ assertions ofhis own tactical ingenuiry, which was so impressive that Tebara gave ho'stages without a fight.50 Without these,presumably, a supplicatiowould have been mote difficult to obtain: they were proof of sliccessbeyond Pindemssus"'alond The hostageswere, an important partof!: th~h()ast;,the deciined Ciliciaris"tould producean exteUent reputation with respect to the military, an área of Roman politics in which Cic'ero had heretofore been lacking. In the fifties BCE, a public'figure needed militiry honors in order to operate at theuppér levels df pblitiC's.W~ have already seen that Pompey' celebrated a triple triÚlIlph inwhich hostagesplayed aprominentrole, at least in Appian's and Plutarch's.accounts. After him cfassus, Pompey's co-consul in 55 (and in 70 before that), made his ill-fated journey to Parthia in 53 in search ofsimilar glbry-;.an expeditionthat famously.endedin utter defeatárid',Cra.sStis'SOW11demise. SI.IÍlt:his dmteXt/;Citero's epistles, written tWoyears late~ in 51, make sense as a way of furthering one statesman's ambitions. Whether one tried to wrest difficult hostages from Parthia or snatch easy Ohes from Cilicia" an enhancement in auctoritaswas;e,*pectedas!a resúk Cicero, after all,'was awardedllis supplicatio,although itwas not followed by a triumph.52 J~

49 Cic. Fam. 15.4.10. ," 46 Seé Hickson 1991, 130 on the process of requesting triumphs and supplicationes in the'!'1 late Republic. 47 Fuhrmann 1992, 122-123, who points out that Cicero viewed his service abroad as a "second spell of exile." 48 Mitchell 1991,227 sees this as a move to defend Cappadocia.

110

50 On the self-glorifYing nature and purpose of the letters, see Steel 2001, 192-202. For Cicero's attitude toward the proper conduct of a governor in general, see Braurid 1998, 17-18,21-23. Generous assessments ofCicero's military actiVity exist, based largely on the evidence ofhis own letters: Sherwin-White 1984,290-297; Mitchell 1991, 228. 51 On Crassus's efforts to compete with Pompey at home, see Parrish 1973. 52 Cic. Fam. 8.II.1-2; 2.15.1; 15.5.1-2. On the vote, see Mitchell 1991,235-236.

111

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUEROR-

A fourth playerin this game,JuliusCaesar, alsotook largecrow~of

hostages; with him we again ha.vethe benefit of a personal voice in the form ofhis reports to Rome fiom the battlefie1d in GauI. Througb:out these, his Commentaries on the Gallic Wár, Caesar refers to the taking

TROPHY

he was rewarded with a supplicatio,for the entirepackage, hostages included.57 This'is the final statement ini his final book before Aulus Hirtius tookover for'Book 8. When petsuasion of victory to the masses was critical for political survival, hostages played a prominent role in self-representation.

of hostages ffom thirty-seven diff~rept triges.53 He was keép to wr~t'e about bis campaigns because, with potential rivals in charge of the senate hundreds of miles away in Rome, he couId not otherwise be assured of a career...,defining triumph. It is perhaps for this reason that he also kept the hostages close to him in GauI, rather than sendÚl) them to Ita.lyfor. the senate to manipuIate on its own.54 In S(>Inecases, Caesar<lid morethan record the simple faqt¡i;ofhostagesubn:1issiQn,; he manipuIated the.circumstances ofthe detention inordefto e1evate his own accomplishments. Forexample, hostages were said to be the sticking point in the'pegotiations between Divico ofthe HeJve;tians. and Caesarin a particuIarly tense exchange in 58 BCE.Caesaf says that he told the He1vetians that they couId enter a peace with Rome aslong as they surrendered hostages! Caesar's words pave.I)ivico,boasting thap'. among the Helvetians, the custom is to take hostages, not to submit them.55 Hostilities ensued,and the Helvetians were eventualIy conquered. Caesar's narrative pointedJy reports that the fIe1vetiansvv:ere then compelled to surrender hostages.56 Divico's spoclighted refusal tÚ give them at the start of the digression is thus answered with Caesar's almost tnechanicalsuccess,as thedetentiofi.ofhostages p~n,ctu,ate~,w.e end of the episode; the hostages have lent a' dramatic arc to his, cam.l paign, such that Divico was not only defeated but also humiliated. Judging, by Caesar'sown accoupt, .onefinds that the written boast¡qC hostages along with alI ofthe other trappings of victory won himréal advances in politics back home. In. referring' t.o his victory óver the Arverni at the Battle of Alesia,Caesar says that "he acquired agre,ap number ofhostages," among other concessions. At the moment when the announcements were made in Rome concerning this viétory,

tribes ii)Jll)'ricum,and,.GauI to J:l1aintainl'eace. dur~i)g lús:bsence.5~ From tIiispoint. Caesaí-'sa~count ofhis c~paign itiBritai¡{procee& with characterlstic brio, as the Romans areable not only to defeat the enemy, but alsq, ip.thespirit .of imperial writing, to map t:4eiJ:island, to observe their ethnic habits, and to gauge their degree of civilizati~ 60 His success is alI the more pronounced by comparison with

S3 Moscovich 1979-1980, 54 Elbern 199°, III.

S8 Caes. BGall, 4.21, 27, 31, 36, 38. See also Braund

The potential fdr.Writers tointerpret hostages and to gauge their value for prestige in different ways can be seen in the case of Caesar'5Jecotdof hisd,emand, and, manimuation ofhostag¿~ ttomBritain ,'ti','""

from3s,

",¡',"

,"',',

",'".

"',

,:'

"~O

to 5.4-BCB,and the'ensuing reactiotiÍlóflaterauthors. As in..his

story of the hospages of Divico, Caesar at first asked,for hostages in Britáin with littlesuccess. As he reports, word"of bis pr~p~atjon~ ~q. cro~s theChannel in 55BcE prompted several tribes to offer hostages, a pron1ise that Caesar says he encouraged. Nevertheless, he never rece,iyed any host~ges,'and."met, wit,l,rsti1f re~istan,ce,'on attempting ,a landing. Mter winning a difficuIt victory, he again heard' promises for hostages fiom thedefeated, ,but the tribes de1ayed and eventualIy regrouped.J7be¡cy~le becqmc::sfamiliar:c:aesa,r sco,redad<litiopalvigt07 ries and then doubled the number ofhostages thathe was demanding; but winter fQundhim back on the maittland with detainees ttom only two of the tribes.58 What Caesar was seeking, at leaS!:,was the basic acceptance of Roman hegemony, in theregion. In his narrative, hostages cOme to stand for not only theguarantee of,s1.1ccessofi,thisscore,but the very maniÍestation of his autho:rity. A.she prepated t:oretuiñ tO":Britainin the ~eXt:year, he says that he doggedly colli~cted hostages ttom unruly

S7 Caes. BGall. 7.90.

122.

ss Caes. BGall. I.I4. Cf. App. Gall. 15. S6 Caes. BGall. 1.28. See also Lécrivain 1916, 126; Moscovich Ndiaye 1995, 150-151, n. 9. 112

1979-1980,

127-128; and

S9 Caes. BGall, 5.1 (the Pirustae), 5.4 (the Tteveri). 60 Caes. BGall, 5.12 (ethnography), 5.13 (geography), the "most humane," humanissiml).

113

1996b, 61-66. 5.14 (the inhabitants

ofCantiumare

HOSTAGES ANDHOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

legionsofhisafh1y, and he broughtba.dC'hostages, slaves, and ahugequantity ofthe,remaining SpOilS;65 Suetopius:,[Tpeq«itied;,Ju).iu,sl'adv<1,11ced as far as, the BritoJ;ls, too, who

the problems he reported for 55: now,in 54, he isreceiving host~Fesf, from the Trinobantes, the ':strongest" tribe (firmissima), ,and,'thenhe completes the record of the expedition with reference to evenmore hostages:

had been pr~vipuslyunkn°'fll' demanded 'Phlt~rch: ,

Because he had decided to spend.the winteron ,the J;Ilainland,pn ac~ount of recent uprisings in GalJ¡l,and, becausefino~.tpJ1cp ofsll¡wmerrewained, because he judg(:d thatit wpuld bepo$sibkforit~9 qe(:asily etfe,ct(:d,\=aes~r i '" ,""" "'", """ """,ri ,

',,',

the army bacI<:to the sea.6"

As in the accountofDivico,

"",

t9;'ia1?am~on,ii!tb,eir

ánqsu~cu'lr1biti~'t~~~

~llllUal trib'ute.68

"'..

With the connection between hostages and victory inmind, 'lliof these authors measureCaesar's contribtftion bytef~rring t()ithe natui~of the hü¿tages, britthey dó so in súbÚY'differerit~~ys.;cicéro,who ~as referring diiecdyro ¡¿tt~rs andnot to theico~entariesthemsdves,s~es the hostages assuggestive:e"idence thai:spinethiúg go'~d c~me out bf Cae, saf's'cainpaign~: with hostages and tribute, he says, t~~sar (and Qtiintus Cicero) at h::asthad two out of three. Perhaps 'they all;- Caesar, Cicero, andhis brother - u~derstoÓd that booty,,' would ."llave been great", '" ", the ,., estprize:But tlJ:e essence of viCtOl.y,for'Cicero,"had been' achfeved: Cicero" lateé w()rkeClon an epíc poein celebrating ithéinvasiotl~ 69 St~aho, by',tontrast, stresse's"the,lacldusrer quility'Ó( thé campaign (Caesar "accomplished notlling'~r~at;') and' d.tes't1ie hostage~ oll1y as a kind' al saving gracci. The reason for rus relativelysubdued '

btü h~

,,/,

65 .,Strabo, 4.5.3. 66jSuet. Caes. 25.2. 67 Plut. Caes. 23.3. 68 Dio, 4°.3.2.

Cf. Ndiaye 1995, 163.

62 O~ the publication and distribution of Caesar's cornmentaries in Rome" see White 1997. 6) Allen 1972 argues that Catullus II also may refer to Caesar's British campaign (no

69 Cf.,Braund

1996b, 66. Gn the poem: Lossman 1962, Byrn'e 1998. Albertson

1990, 804

sees an image of Cicero building walls on the frieze of the Basilica Aemilia as a parody of Cicero's opportunistic obsequiousness to Caesar after the defeat ofPompey. On Cicero's ambivalent attitude toward Caesar later in life, after 46 BCE, see Dyer 1990.

hostages are mentioned, however). For the history of the campaigns as opposed to their representation, see Ellis 1980; Braund 1996b, 61-66., 64 Cic. Fam. 4.18.5 (Att. 92).

IIS

II4

(i]~gXX!tO"E)

th~~a¡:bof.[J::~.~~~i~~~s]tp~n,lJ~cal11'~ f~i~hten~d ~~d capitu1;J.t~4,~iYiñg hÓstagys

returned hav'ing accomplished nothing~fe~t (6voeV~ÉYd~J~~~~~á¡¡E nor having penetrated into the further reaches of the island :. ,.he cbnquI (evíKT)O"E) thé Britons in two orthreevictories,' although he hadjust.

61 Caes. BGall. 5.22-23.

J?¡:i~()ns]

fortificationsbyan ,Qv:erwh~1ming"assault,and,aft~l',this,extricated(e~1ÍXgQ:E) ""'" ''''i,;'''' ',"IX,.,., l' " ".,ii"'i',,' i,,<, " ",d,",,', ";' ", ,'i "'" " >'ej,' , them,from thei~defet¡.s,es.pya si~ge, a~pthers droye off a maraudingband (rom

die entire storyhas"b~gunwitharefúsaJb)

, " J(I',

Cass\/r;>i8:/ga~~¡t~,{.~hyn:,fo¡:9~d}Üh~

/í

Caesar crossed oyer to the islandn\rice,

heiabando1).ecl;th~i~land;1Z'i"

Cicero: On 24 Oct6ber l'received letters from my'b:rother"Quintus',ahe from Caesar sent ttom the shores of nearer Brit~n,u25Septel):l1;>er.'!~i the campaign in, J3ritain, finished, \Vith hpstag(:s; receiYed,ang. witrn"i} b()oty, but;\\Jithsome funds,delllal}ded, they reJ?S>Hedthat t4e¡tfmYP¡td)1 Strabo: Thedeifi,ed

After sail~'pgj;ó~er tothe1i~1~J:J.4:'twid:~,from the fa~iJ:J.gcoast ,,'of Gaul, ", ,', ,""" '1', ,",."",' "',,

peÓplé~ he Br8uglli<irllendto the~jiih~w~inot,~she inteñclea(ov~~Tov el3ovfiETO)i.But'taking;hostagesifromth~ kingafiáarranging tributepaytn'ents,

the enemy to give hostagesaridhascircled back with Gaesar's;abrtipt contravention óf that ver')' refusal. A number of other writerscléarly naveread this passage;6i <in evaluating Caesar's accÓniplishment, th~ye~éh, giveatr~lltioh"itÓ.th~ hostages, as he did, andiriterpretthemintheir'Ownway. Tlie fo11ow';" ing five referencesto the hostages of Caes~t'sBritish adventtires are) presented in chronological order'Óf composition.63

B~'itain.64'

an4¡¡fte¡: tpey were conquered (superatís)he

an4having harried the enemy ín'ni~nyJjat!le~ more so than benetitiJ:J.ghis ovvn meo [()r nothirig\vas.wbith d.k1hg'froll1 rhis impoverishUancl wretched

demandedhost~ges a~d deci,ded on h~\\(,l~U7~,~ibttt,~,s~()~lq,pe7h~r9~cl~~f3 year to Bfitain f9r the ROl11~nfeo,f1~. Iie'fo~~,~qedsi~ell;hrisfr?~~ar~~~' Mandub{acius andthe Trinobant~s.énce the host::1gesw~re received; heleq"

funds andhost¡tges.66

...

'"'

.....h

,. .!!. ';'"

.oiiilu",,,,iiliiill

.., ...IO...~ '-'" ,

iIíIi!'....

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUEROR-

treatment of the hostages may have to do with an interest in promoting Augustus's image by contrast: his account of Caesar in BritJn is immediately followed by a record of the Briton kings who carne to Rome to pay obeisance to the princeps,practically"giving the entire island to the Romans."70 Strabo gives an impression ofCaesar's success without it seeming overwhelming; he strikes a balance by mentioning the hostages but also by citing the overall shortcomingsof the whole enterprise. Like Strabo, Plutarch also presents the hostages as a saving grace for a flawed .carnpaign, but. he has more interest in,,, absolving Caesar of any culpability: he doubts that there was anything of value in Britain and implies th;¡t the hostages were taken out of habit by a mariflurnmoxed as to l10w tú deal with sudi a savage land.7I Suetonius and Dio are the least cynicalabout the invasion ofBritain, and they present it as an unqualified victory for Caesar. The Britons were "extricated ttom their defenses" (Dio) and "were conquere outright (Suetonius) by Caesar. Dio, whose account is more thorough than any of the other summaries, also preserves Caesar's notion of revenge in winning hostages ttom the recalcitrant: he says that Caesar's stated reason for returning in' 54 was that the hostages had not been received; he calls it a "pretext" (1Tpó<pacnv),cover~ng for Cae~ sar's true arnbition to subdue the entire island.72 Although Caesar did not succeed (which Dio admits), Dio's account ends with flattering appraisal. Such enthusiasm might be attributed to imperial wishful thinking or to the mystique of Caesar, compounded by gene,rations of emperors claiming descent. In any case, it is interesting to find both Suetonius and Dio relying on the fact of the hostages in order to con'

TROPHY

ground; they were one ingredient in a.recipe for success and prestige, which were crave& alike by Pompey, Caesar, Crassus, and Cicero in the late Republic, and by generals and príncipesafter them. COMPETITION Another sigD.that,hostages themselves weretickets to 'glory comes in stories where Romans vie with one another specifically for the possessiplJ. of hostagesahd,the .atten~on¡.tlteybring. When'Publius Clodius Pulcher so.pght to challenge Pompey in'58 BCE,he, as tribune, requisitioned Tigr:mes,a son of the Armenian king who had b~ installeddn Pompey's.easte:rncampaigris,?3 Clodiustried toship hilp backto Armenia, butTigranes was forced by a storm to land at Antium: Pompey's loyalists raced to recoverhim there, as did ttiends of Clodius; bothbands carne to blows'on the Appian Way, resulting iri the death of one ofPompey's men. The fate of this Tigranes is uriknown, but it is dear by the lengths to which the general and the tribune went to secure him that he afforded his possessor some real value. As afurther ,example; inJosephus, when Vitellius received hostages ttorn Artabanus of PartllÍa in 37CE, a virtualrace was on between Vitellius and Herod Antipas, the Judaean tetrarch, to be the first to inform Tiberius:

vince their readers of their point of view. Hos~ages would connote military victory, even if no lasting impression had been made on the

Herod, wanting to be the first to send word of the receípt of the hostages (TOOV O¡,I1'¡POOVT1)S A1Í\fIEOOS) to Caesar, wrote¡precisely abouteverythingin'aletter and sent couriers such tha0re-Ieft nothihg for the proconsul to announce. When letters had been sent by Vitellius, and Caesar toldhim that.everything was made clear to him by the earlier news ofHerod, Vitellius was furious and took greater offense than appropriate

Earlier, Josephus 7° Strabo, 4.5.3. Clarke 1999, 327 sees Strabo's account as asserting that "Rome has chosen not tO conquer Britain" (italics included), because its subordination is apparent in other ways. 71 Relative to others of his Lives, with the Caesar, Plutarch took a keener interest in

records

. . .74

that Tiberius's

explicit

instructions

were

to ignore any treaty that did not include hostages; accordingly, the host'agehad become the most important piece of information &om the negotiations, althoughthe author is ultimately mystified by the desire of Vitellius to be the first to announce it to the emperor

domestic rivalries and politics as opposed biographical anecdote (pelling 1986), which may explain his enthusiasm in this case. 7Z Cass. Dio, 40.1.2. McDougal 1991 points out thathisaccount ofthe Gallic wars blends Caesar's commentaries with a second, unknown source. 116

73 For references and for his identity as a prisoner, rather than a hostage, see Chapter 3, note 73. On Clodius's motivations, see Tatum 1999, 170-171. Cf. Braund 1984a, 169. 74 ]oseph. AJ 18.104-105. Cf. Cass. Dio, 59.27.2-6; Suet. Calig. 14. 117

HOST AGES AND HOSTAGEiTAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

(the Qffense was judged.not. to, be aslbad as Vitellius's.ange:t:'.iJ?-di~ cated).75 Ithas. been suggestedth;¡;P!f\ntipas acted.quic19ybeeau$~t~e, feared that Vitellius would down,play his rok in'.the peaq':fu1(andprof~ itable) mediation; with the emperor Tiber~us's (or Caligula's - the daty is in question) favor, Antipas mayhaye stoo~ á better chapee ofbeing granted the territory ofhis recendy decea~ed brother, Philip.76 Inan.Y case, asJosephusrecórds it, justtew.pg<a~vpe:t:'iorabout a.hostag~.;w<J.s

a covetedoppOftUnit)'.

.,'.,,'

According. toTacitus thepo~~essioní.R~b.a'{ih()~~;¡;g~'''¡rV;¡;sJl:Wi~aV~~ of a minor feud getweeni¡tb,e,iMer<:miap,gen..e:t:'~$,hin.th~!}~ast'iq.ti.us Urnmidius., Quac,lrapl1s "andGnayus.Pomitivsi.(:;prgp}qi,íri',54,:.q.it:q;JJ:r' legions were divided betW~entb,~tn;r[]Jlak.ingpb,ypo~se~~ionof.supty]J:lei imperium.ambiguou~; Quadratus, was.govern°:t:' óf~yri;¡;,andCqrbwóf of Cappadocia~(}alitía.77EaGhis,:saidtqh;¡;ve wapted :tq d~taci~)tb,:~! hostagesof the. Parthian Volqgaeses, and,in, ordyr to;¡,yoida di~plÍte, they agreedto an unusual solution:

Each warned Vologaesesvia'messengers[togivehostages]

:rhé cent1.lriol1

Isteiusi sent by Quadratus, received them,bec.i!1se by chance die kingh;¡;d gone to him conl'erning. a priorp:1atter.When [tb~:submis~ion] ~~l;¡;tef madt¡knq~ tO Cqrbulo, heorderedf'\rri~s Va,~u~""th,eprefectofhiscqhor to goand take command of the hostag~s. At this,point an ~~UleP.t t;ruBt~ between the prefect and the centurion, and lest it be come aspectacle .aJ ' m atte r.w~ grant 'e' d to Se t tle i!he lohger beforen o n-R om~n, eyeS" the r' ight: , thehostagestbemselves and thé envoyswhoescorted,them: , , They preferr' " , " Corbulo by virtue ofhis recent glory and.because:ofa ¿ertain.proq~ toward him, even though they were enemies.1\ttb;¡¡tpoint;a rift opene¿ between the leaders (unde discordiainter.duces). . .78 "

",,

, ",

: ,

Because this. was a bloodless victory of dipld]Jlacy,hostages wo have been the sole evidence of success agaJust,the Parthians, and th physical possession of them thus, became critical for receiving due

75 On the instructions: joseph. AJ 18.96. Cf. Cass. Dio, 59.27.3. Cf. Paltiel 1991, 156. 76 Hoehner 1972, 253. On the, controversy 'surrounding the date, see Edmondson 1992, 180 and Paltiel 1991, 154-155. 77 Vervaet 1999b, 579. 78 Tac. Ann. 13.9.

recognitíori.79: TB.e'parthiarl audienCek\VaS'also ofconcern: the teas6n fór'tpe odd decisiótf,t6Iet the:hd$tages'decide their fate,according to ',Ta6tusi was ,to avoid1huri1iJ.i~tioh;lnfront oftné, enemy. 80.The dispute was.(not"an'incOJ1~equéntíal,inatter~ Tacitusgóes; on to say thii: Nero was 'forced to' giv~ b'oth;gerierals eredit ih' :t publid iieclaratlall,in '6r&r ita;'settle their qu\ar;rel,~1 'The hist6iian hillself,uses¡hostages' td' ~ake hiS"owtÍ:distinction~'ias,he'¿¿hsthi~d' it; ,tlíe deeis,ion df th¿:hostageS'fo gd¡'With'C::brbüt6;bas¿d~bndilis'gli>'ria~ ireveals' tn¿trdth hehiJ)d':~érO'$ ~ cómp~~misi~~!iiC~~h~io'is's;ucI:;toi,}ia.Ve be'etth;h()sen"be~ause' ho'stages "fie,"b'~tá~tWith th,e;getiet~ wii:h.tl1,egreater llúlltary ptowess; Quadra..c tus n7ld"thertlt :MtévalÍ;:'only "by 'cháric~'1.(forte):córbulo is;Ta¿itü~'s herdihmi~i1amiive:í ihe' ~písode opens' with:acontrast;betWeen')th~ errlptY,and fo!rceaad'td~tibn;' eX:hibited by Rómans'towardNetoaf1ii th¿if',:bonajlderespect¡ for Gorbulo: Mdreover, Tacitus' had ireportM'iri th:e passage before' the hdstage! episode'th,at the easternkin~ :had beeh rlloreirhpressedwithCorbuloth:tn' with Quadratus.8;<\'Tl1e'message th:4sils:thati4'general.must earnJhis, tropnies'\('il'ot:'be giveri them. Ta~:" itus ;reveiUs;:that;he haa .:accesstoCorbulo's'memóifs as'a';sburce for ,his!l1istory;83;it!would,bea reasonable'assu.mption, tnen, th'at Tadtl1s~s , " ,,, , ,,' , ' atteÍ1tíohto' Corbulols"hOstages refle<:tsacOncern bftb,e hostage-taker himselfto win: credit andexplain thoroughly his victory, aswith the

Scipios, Caesar,Augustus, and the athed.

A law recorded in the' Digest suggeststhat. emperbrs' were anxlous aboufthe'cdntrol that'their! úh~nggeneráls exeicise,dpver hostages and tné p~r4ep~ionofp9wer that. went alo~g:!.~tñ,At.!Thy Ju).iap.la:w on, treaso#,:,."qrmai~Úas,.,states'thatit, :wouidbxad:irn,e'<}gaii1~t th~ emperor! .. 'lat ;'to ,killhostag<.¡switho~thi~ 'qon,:y:narid: "8~The~l1atge is followed by a list of other, subver~ive,activ~ties,;includingtaking up 79 Eck 1984; 138""139discusses the end of senatorial triumphs

unde'r Augustus, long before

~orbulo was fighting and TacitUs was writing. . 80 On die nature ofthe (expected),humiliation, see Gihnartin 1973, 588-589. 81 Tac. Ann. 13.9: quocomponeret diversos. ' 82 Tac. Ann. 13.8. On the characterization of Corbulo as a model for Irajan to follow: Vervaet 1999a. As a foil to Nero: Syme 1958, 579. Comparing Corbulo's eventual courage in suicide with that of SOCrates is Allison 1997 .For more on TacitUs's manipulation of narratives involving hostages, see Chapter 9. 83 Tac. Ann. 15.16. 84 Dig. 48.4.1: quo obsidesinvisuprindpis interdderent.

119

.íIiiIIi8

,-A"",_&JI:...

CONQUERÓ~~TROPHY

HOSTAGES AND HOSTAGE- TAI<JNG IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

cowardice)., anambitious Roman'üould put fálse hosta.ges ondisplay in order'to sway public()pihión;;}n'his,favor. For example, as Appian tellsus,"Quintus P()mpeius, failin~repeated1y in hissiegeofNumanba inT40 BCEand'desiringsome'sign(dfsucéess.in orderto savefaceiback in Rórtie, offered' gener()usitérms'totlie lberians in/private, but in in'the endhe/left\with éash public'.'demande& atomplete"sutrender; andhostages+bút withoút'ta.kingtl1eéit:yj,~8"Hqstage..ta.king¡.V\{as<,e.kcel1 lént1fodderf for;propag~hdalf:"andtaccording)td"ohFSdUr$eS,ithe'¡,~rly príncipcs ;"mast~r~fóf)tb!elrmedia~;i:readilyi¡~~k¡to "'fak:1ng;it;;~.;;g¡¡eYhave álréady'seen'iaiow ,Tacitús.b~lievedi.tna.t>Dói:hitia~i.dressed;>uprSlaveS\áS prlsOllerséófwar, as.awayib(2ma.ssagirigdiis! publi,,' persohaiand»h6td", ingi his:'oWÍ1/1ga.inSe+more, ¡capablé gen,~ráls; suth as.A.grkOla;;;/SU'~t{jj.,. nius'assigned¡/sinlilarbehaVior .to:CMigula"011>twoóccasior1s;)FirSt~\he describesic.;áligula's'delusionálconquest.. ()fBritaíh,ian:direpeated1yithe emperOr's campaign;:asimagined,involves fálseilcaptUres ahd déte~.. tions.iWheni,A.driúnlns, aisón ofthe Brit()nithieftain €yifobellinus; was bariislled:by)'his'{ather ahd..deserted:tú ,tne Rútn.an side; :€álignla is alleged to nave sent a. nussive to the senate eqnatingA.dtnihiÚs's presencér<a11lorig...theR.omansÚiwithtne deféatióf..the '.entire,isÍand:89

armsin assembly, killing a magistrate, Or.plottingwith foreign ehe~s; one thus sees thatrobbing1án:errt.peror of a hostageis seen.,a.$the equiválent of issuing a challenge. The law isnót ¿t:mcernFd spm).1ch with the safety ofthehostage; rather, mariipulating hostages wa,sthe privilege ofthe41ighestpoliticálóffice, andothers whointer.feredwere thought to .be dangerously out. of line; To>an .emperor, theh, itGould álso seem threateriing for a.generál.. tort:ake.hostages o~ hisPWll!in the fitst place. According; to E>i()\wh~n?Nitelliusreceived, the hostages; of Artabanus, hedrewthe,envy. andire of,:Ciligul~,'W1io.'call~d\(& his execution, a fa'te whichhe.is ,.saidtohave,marró'Wlyavóided by .

panderihg tp.the emperór.85;Sinillarly, inthe. biography()f.Ag¡;;i(;~la, Tacitus saysthat the governor'ssuccess in Brftain,\indhdihgt1'í~.taking of hostages froro the Boresti, annoyed Domitiánwho~uppqsedly.~iá~ not beenable to take?reál prisoners:in GerrnaJly,bpthád dressedup slavesto appear as such. 86Domitian is saidto,haverespondéd1l>ycb:ttirig shortAgricola's career and, ifthe r).1morreportedbyTacitus. is.true, py regularlysending one.ofhis imperiálfreedrne'i).tOpoison him:slowly.8? Much ofthisisclearly apolehrlc againstI)omitiari, blit the forrtiulatipn of the polemic,based onachievementsinhostagettaking, suggests,tha:t hostages were a prerequisite inan iridividuál's,.or,erilperor's,reputation, or even survivál.

Moreover,SnetQniusih:ts.his'€ali~la,*fúrcing"numJers,ofhiSliGepilall prisoriers to hide'among;the tt;eesonfthe oppositeside ofaJ;iverand poseiasenen1ies"whomhe soÓn'iushes offt<:5fight.9?H:isCaligulaálso . has preexistirig'hostagesremoved .fromi theschool whete ¡theY';Were studyingaridiSentahea:diofhistra'iri sotnit heconld¡;"rec:apture1' tneril' and p\.lt¡tnem inchains.&\!¡+lnitheeridi',¡hé¡!inedY;'nt}fis army oni:thet beaches:O€Gaí1l;'prepared;to'¡láússt()fBritaini only tocall ititoffia:nd¡ have..the soldierstollectiseasheUs, tú"beú~ed¡as"'ttbphies,in;the.cele" brationbackihome:&2 In all;iSttetohius 'éxposes fou¡;;actsof deception

FALSE HQS;:rAGES Romanleaders and the wiiterswho discussed thenina.turally'UhéterL stood' that their worldwas pne 6f imperfect infórma.tion ah& th~t misrepresentati()ri arid dist:ortion of die truth could be150th sirilpie . arid enormously effective When the power derived ftom éonquest was a primary objective, but the timetable was short or true caril':' paigning was unsavory for whatever reason (expense, inconvenience,

App. HisJl.79.

8~$llet. Calig. 44.2. On the unreliability ofSuetonius's obvious invective, seelater. 9° Suet. Calig. 45.1. 9' Suet. Calig. 45.2. On the "schools"'ofhostages, see Chapter 6. 92 Suet. Calig. 46.1. Cf. Cass. Dio, 59.21.3, 59.2j.2-3. SOIne scholars have attempted to absolve Caligula of guilt, particularly with respect to :Britain. Woods 2000 argues that the "seashells" collected in Britain were actually small boats called conchae. Aory 1988, 501 says that they were pearls and thus a valuable haul,given the Julio-Claudians' descent from Venus. Benediktson 1988-1989 attributes his behavior.to aform of epilepsy, neglecting the rhetorical nature of the passages. Malloch 2001 suggests that Caligula

85 Cas:Y.Dio, 59.27.3-5. 86 Tac. Agr. 38.3-39.1. With respect to the negative assessment ofDomitian's triumph over the Chatti, Rives 1999, 281-282 argues t;hat Tacitus contradicts himself at the Germ. 29.3, in which he discusses roads thathad been built under Domitian. Hanson 1987, 180-18 I points out that Frontinus approved of the campaign. For further rehabilitation ofDomitian's memory in general, see Jones 1992, 87 Tac. Agr. 43.2.

121

120

~ ~

lIiI

11( ..... ~

.~~1iIII

¡;¡

...

....

iIi .

"Al

.~~~IIó.~

HOST AGES AND HOST AGE-TA1GNG IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUERq~~~OPHY

his'decapitateg,hea.dona,staye ~~fonfJhe eyes ofhis peopl~,iwllO)ater remembered pim as,,amadman,96 The enging,is' a moral to¡an ethical,' tale:deceptionjnhostage-taking~ the contravention oftruth in such a, way. cquld havedeadly repercussionsJor th~ perpetrator and his state;

in CaliguJ,a's portrayal\of bis EurQI>e~pcampaign; three of the four involve falsely redefining detainees' ,ü.~derhis power. ti Perhaps more infamous is Suetonius's second example ,of fabricated hostages (also recouht~d in Dio,althoqgh slightly ditIerently) ;; those in Caligula's fanciful "triumph" over J\[eptune, staged in the form of a procession over, a bridge ofships spanning the Bay' ofNaples;93 Accordi!J.g to Dio,Caligula led, Da.rius, the I?arthianhostage ,whom Vitel1iushadreceived from Artabal}us, acrps~i~hebay asjfEhrius h~d

~riters of the sec,ond centurycE seem yspec:i~y a.ttuned to the notion that"hostagescol1~9 be fictitiqusa.nd ,l.Ilap.~pulatedwith qeliberate intent}:r;h~áEc6untsofGaligu~a andiI?on1itia.nin'Suetonius and'

been captured in battle.,Suetonius'sversionis,slightly,ditIerent:,hesays, that on the secondday,on thetdpbackactoss the bay, Cali¡mla?dressed as acharioteer, acted as Dariu,s's ddver,p.qt his master. In rnaking Caligula the,slaveto his hostage, Suetonius portrays,tche ernperq.r's insanity aS,even more pronounS,ed: .not on1yjshe faking a.,tdumph, but he is also ceding the more respectable ,status to theunderlilJ,gwhe> is,both a false hostagein this context ap.d a true "postage, won by someone else.94 Caligula, as so characterized, is saidtQ desecrate the reputatiog ofRome; reversing the logic ofhostage-taking that WaSto have Rome on topo These episodes, in Gaul and on the Bay, of N aples a.r~listeq in, the catalog of Caligula's,madness, but,Qnone occasion, in JustiI?-'sepitome of Pompeius Trogus,~he ruse of hostage-takingwas .said to backfire. in a dangerous way. He reports that Ptolemy Ceraunus, a short-lived king of Macedon in the early third century BCE,was under atta.ck by, the Gauls in" 279 BCE.The¡Gauls,takingmercy on him;otIered to let him bribe his way tosafety.95 According to Justin, ptolemy;was

prepáred to settle,,but inthe outward,portrayal"of the ,negotiations; pui on for the benefitof his people, heclaimed thatthe Gauls werJs standingdown out of fear. He made a show of demanding hostages in order to enhance his prestige; the Gauls were' amused at first, but soon grew angry to the point of withdrawing fi-om the peace. Justin reports that they took Ptolemy by storm, murdered him, and paraded . dowrÍgraded

the celebration

of the British adventure

to an ovation in recognition

1992, 163-165.

~.....

I¡¡L ,~~

'"",", "", """

, "

' '.

,'"

," ", ,

, "",' '"", "

"""

" ,

"','

,, , "

e, u .

, ,,

,, ,

", ", ,""",

,','

, ,

, "

.'Yi '

, , ", ",,

":,:"">";""'"

ej, ',/ ';""

fqrP-I ",.¡lcilJ,g"a ,,¡,'

.Y'"

,"(.{,"'¡i',cy,,/y',"'/,..,';"

", ", "",

";,""''''',

fal§,<;'Ú~imconc'erping,h9~~~g~¿ "," '" ',"','"r'''

,"',,""

"",", , ",'F'," ,, ,

, "

",,

of I1istoriEal 'criticism,Pludrch~s&~ils'tlie:father~Ristorian'H~r~ddtus

", , "

, ,,, ,, , ,, , ,""

,,"",,,,,

,, ,, "', ,

'..",':'i,,'i"';.'fi/"

i~, '~rd~r i'"

tÍ? ~k~w4is ",.,

narrative,to his own, tastes.97 A(;c.prdi~gtp J?lutiJ;~ch,J;ipr9dotus trie<i. todiscredit the polis of Thebes qy s~yip.gthat ..theOb1Yreaspn that the, Thebap~, were,/pr~sent at theBattly' of,,¡I:hermqpyla¡;:...ea,defining., evept 'fOtiSpaftan ",gldrytagainst ,a,'b,~gyP~~sian0armY,~ wasbeca.use fou" t hundr , ed, ofthem were" detained;s,ho~tagesby,.J,eolJ,idasand tlJ,e, "

, ,,

,,"

,',"

, ' ,

'u,

Spartahsi:p.prderto prevent Thepes fi-omrehelling.1?l~tarcl:1attell1ptt¡d, to,"teha~ilitateth<;nature, of thet T'h,~ban coPtipgep.tat,¡~he',.b;1ttleby arguing,that theY'Yer~", nót hostages but!h;1dfought,0;(tl:1~iri9wn voli, "', \'," tion, He:points otl~,that (1) theF~wer,eon1ythrey:h\m<iryd,Spartans and 'so Jhey could "not have detai~edfour"hundredTl1eb<lns)against their.will; (2);Leonidashad\earliep;.ordered ,theCI;hebalJ,s,ttoleave,¡far frornkeeping them inyóluntarily;"anpi\ (3)ifthé, T~,c;jb<llJ,Si had"been, hostages, they wouldhave tried to"escap'e,,,whenthey hadthech,ancé, The, validity>.,ofElutarch's,interpretatiolliof thet6le ofthe, ~bahs at Thermopylae doés not, concern us h<;re' so mtich,as' Plutarch's accusationthat!Herodotus had kriówinglychanged the.statusofthe, Thebans, whowereactual1y al1iesin the;battle,i and refashioned;them as fictive hostages.98 Just,as Suetonius exposed Galigula:s "texts"of phony hos~es, Plutarch suggests that,Herodottlshadfalsely colored the Thebans with the hostage.stigma in ord~~tp portray the Spartans 96 Just. Epit. 24.5.11. 97 Plut. Mor. 865B-D, commenting on Hdt. 7.222. 98 Seavey 1991 believes Plutarch's critique is an epideictic exercise. Marincola 1994, 199 discusses Plutarch's motivations and methods in his negative appraisal ofHerodotus. For the Thebans at Thermopylae, see Hammond 1996.

122

"" " ,

that

it was incomplete. 93 Suet. Calig. 19; Cass. Dio, 59.17. Cf. Seno Brev. Vit. 18.5-6; Joseph. AJ 19.5-6. 94 Kleijwegt 1994 suggests that, with the event at Baiae, Caligula was trying to build a stronger a1li:mce with bis soldiers. See also Edmon~on 95 Just. Epit. 24.5.1-6.

' ' ' ' ' ' ' : ' ' ' Ta¿it~s:ca~'he~\Íppler11ynted" \X~t~ie~~~Rle~¡SÓ~si~~5i;~alyse~.fi-~~ thel r 'n ear co n temPorar ies "' Pluta rch'an d P.l l''UY t h ' b n ge.r" 1n' a P l e"c e

123

ifIo

"'4'

,,¡;.

!!.

HOST AGES ANDHOSTAGE-

TAKING IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUEROR-'ÍROPHY

as stronger and braver than they des'~rved. For Plutarch, himself, a \;' Boeotian, such reinvention was unácceptable. Pliny's Panegyricto Trajan exemplifies the new attitude to the 'jvictory theater" of the recent pasto Here he is praisingthe 'new world order under Trajan and expressing disdain for the policies of preceding "bad" emperors:

leaders,but also.Roman writers, we~e adept at manipulating hostages. Just ashostages could serve as trop1iies to enhance one's prestige, they could be manipulated by Our sources as the opposite of trophies, as the evidence ofbad'character.'suetomus hirnself ,"admits that previous ..,,00 ""',.., ..'X ,~..:,o " sources on Caligula's m~cktiiurrtpIí' 6~e~ the Bay of Naples a~ that he had staged the event for legitimate reasons - either to impress thé Germans and Britons with Roman' engineering or to emulate Xerxes,the' Persian king who bridged the Hellespont on his way to , .0, (',' , ) ',' .:o",~~,}, .. , ,.", '" .:? ! Athehs. Suetonius, howt(yer, chose tq accéntuat.e an vnfl.élttnÜIg story of.d~lusÚ:m and dt~eption. Once a~~n, we s~e~os,tages assymbpls whosé' identity iS,fleX1ble:some, viewed iCaijgilla'sh6~tages, ho~ever ',' """. "0 " ,,,'.' . "." . '. ')0 ;i' fake,a~¡hav~ng reá1yaluein thy iJ;1~~dation)Qf..nonf~Qrnans;

Now terror.has returned .to . all [of Qur enemi~s] as w:~U,asaWe,anda Y°V'{' ,

to do what.is,conunanded

of.thel11.for,.w<;y,see<:l:.Rom,<:I:l1,¡l,eader ~ho.;~~es

after the great menpf old. t°'Y~qljD¡¡~4~fielgs,.!coy¡~re?witr1:>lood,.and,th~ waves, stain~d with victQries, grant~dth~ title !mperqtor.Therefor~ we I,'eceive ",

',""

,')"".""

'.'

..1

hostages rather thall purchase t~~~ (afc,ipimuso?sidt;ser.go~on emimus), ~or do we attain peaée through huge expenses and enormous gifts in order to seem like we have conquered.99

.1~k~~uetoniuslíim~eIf,

Sa}V. thern'a~..signs'9fa

IdangerQus,insamtyplt.;w'y

think!.ofhostágesas,aWind9wforRP'wansontQ,the putside,world,.then the. abílity'fOl¡\thetn!1tobe tiophies,pr¡~imJ:1lytrophy'-ized,slJ.m.ys ti'1.at .the.peiipherYandits,,~ubjugatioilwas,th91.1;ght pfas, a.means tq;atl:~rid,';" succes,sindomestitpolipcs,,.., rath~r thal1,tbypre;ya'iling Qbje;~tiyc:;¡ifs~lf. When<R..ornans, saw.hdstages op,,'the..street, at:least.by. t~~PBihdpat~ al1,d'perhapsearlier'ithe;y.might .nQt,have..givel1"any'f'~h,Qt¡ghtto. th~

As Pliny tells it, Trajan;would have been appalled atCaligula and his sham triumphs andat Domitian and hisslaves in disguise. Bythislogic, Augustus couldalso be faulted, in that he minted coinswitMkneeling Parthi:ms, erected an arch in celebration of victory, andhad the scene' oftheirsubmission carved ontothe breastplate of a militaryportrait, when in reality all he had done was negotiate the return of the standards and later received hostages'without resort toarms. At the start of the second century, it wasbelieved that all of these emperors should have been more likeTacitus's,Corbulo, who, while'eschewing warii1:'54cE! and taking hostages instead,is said atleast tohave deservedthem: the; hostages chose him based ou:his gloria. In the end, it is difficult to know" if certain emperorsrealiydii

perip~ery.:atall,and .insteadfocused.;,pn.

theikader

oin\,éharg~,

min~s racingJo figure out i{.thehostages wer~ ~egitimat~!

dress up counterfeit hostages. The record of fictive hostage+takingi common enough, andthetonesufficiently vitriolic, for die motifW ? be challenged asa trope of Roman invective historiography. Asth¿," formula goes, somecorrupt emperor or other dtesses up. someone (usually a slave) as ahostage from someexotic nation. All thatwas left for a historian in pursuit of a specific agenda was to f111in the blanks with a new perpetrator and a new source for false ho;tages. It is the ftlling in of the blanks that is interesting here. Not only Roman

.J~

99 Pliny, Pan. 12.1~2: On the significance ofthis passage in relation to Trajan's campaigns in Dacia, see Lica 1988, 40 and Lica 2000,202. J24

125

11'

Í<ÍÍ ..

...

.. ... 'IlI

their

HOSTAGES

ANDHOSTAGE-TAKING

IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

CONQUEROR-

as stronger and braver than theydeserved. For Plutarch, himselffI a Boeotian, such reinventionwas unaceeptable. Pliny's Panegyricto Trajan exemplifies the new attitude to the '\victory theater" of the recent past. Here he is praising the new world order under Trajan and expressing disdain for the policies of preceding "bad" emperors:

leaders, but a).soRoman writers, were adept at manipulating hostages. Just as hostages could serve as tropllies to enhance one's prestige, they could be manipulated by OUrsources as the opposite of trophies, as the evidence ofbad character,Su~tonius himself admits that previou~ sources on Caligula's mocktriumph:' over tlle Bay of Naples argued that he had staged the event for legitimate reasons - either to impress I the Germans arid Britons wit:h Raman, engineering or to emulate

Now terrQnhas retl.lrned tQ al} [of ol.lr enemies) as w~ll.as awe.and a vpw to do what is cOmmanded of therp,. ForJh~y seea, Rqm~nJeader ~l:J.otakes after the great lllen of old. to WllOrp,t4~ fielgsi covered Witll.blood, and .th~ wave~, st~ined ~th victqrie,~, g;ra~tedthe title imperator.Therefore we rec.eive. hostages rathe.r th~~ purchase 't~e~ (~cdpimuso?sidesergo~on emimus), nor do( we attainpeace thtough huge expenses and enormous gifts in order to seem like we have conquered; 99

As Pliny tells it, Trajan would have been appalled at Caligula and his'" sham triumphs and at Domitian and his slavesin disguise. By this logia, Augustus could also be faulted,in thathe minted coinswithkneelin¡ Parthians, erected an arch in celebration of victory, andhad the scem of their submission carved onto the breastplate of a military portrait when in reality all he had done was negotiate the return ofthestandards and later received hostages without resort to arms. At the start of th; second century, it was believed that' all of these emperors shouldhavl been more likeTacitus's Corbulo, who, while eschewingwarin 54"6 and taking hostages instead, is said at least tohave deserved them: th hostages chose him based on his gloria. In the end, it is difficult to knowifeertain emperors really dress up counterfeit hostages. The record of fictive hostage..,taking i: common enough, and the tone sufficiently vitriolic, for the motif td" be challenged as a trope of Roman invective historiography. Asthé. formula goes" some 'corrupt emperor or other dtesses up someone" !Ii (usually a slave) as a hostage from some exoeic nation. All that wis left for a historian in pursuit of a specific agenda was to fill in the blanks with a new perpetrator and a new source for false hostages. It is the filling in of the blanks that is interesting here. Not oruy Roman

peripheryatall; and', instead focused.c)ll the,'leaderin charg~, thei~ minas iacingto figure out if thehostages were ~egitil11(1.te,

99 Pliny, Pan. 12,1-2: Onthe significance of this passage in relation to Trajan's campaigns in Dacia, see Lica 1988, 40 and Lica 2000, 202.

Xerxes, the'Persianking who bridged th~.JI~Uespont on his w~y to Athens. Suetonlus, liowever, chose to accéi'i~uatean unflattering story ofdelusion and d~ception. Once again, we see' hosJages as symbols whose identity isflexible¡ some. viewed Cal+gcla's hostages, hOjfe~~r fake,ashaving ie;il valuejn tb,~ intimidation iot::non-Romans; o'tb~[s, lik~ ?uetonius himself, sa1Vthem.;:),ssigns.of.adangerous.insanityitf~e think ofhostáges as awirid9w forRolpans onto .the outside world,then theábility.for1them...to betrophies,.prsimply trophy-ized, sb,ows that .theperipheryandits.subjugation.was thqught 01 as a means to.an erid..... s\1ccessirldomestlc polipcs ratherthan th~ pr~vail~ngQbjectiyei~s~lf. When Romans ;sawhostages oh the streef,' at:leastby. trePrincipate and/perhaps ea:rlier,they migrt ,not have given.any..thoughtto th~

J24

TROPHY

125