Hostage Princes and Roman Imperialism in the Second Century B.C.

297 HOSTAGE PRINCES AND ROMAN IMPERIALISM IN THE SECOND CENTURY B. C. 1 Until as recently as the middle of the eighteenth century most civilized nations followed the practice of demanding and rendering hostages in conjunction with treaties and ag reements. 2 The status of such hostages was usually very formal, quite distinct from that of prisoners or captives. Certainly this is true of the Roman view of official hostages,3 which linked their status very closely to the concept embodied in the law of pignus. Indeed, the sources frequently use this term to describe their function. 4 Livy, however, suggests that the fundamental purpose of hostages was to act as a 1The original version of this paper was read at the annual meeting of the Classical Association of Canada, June 3, 1982, at Ottawa. 2The Treaty of Aix-Ia-Chapelle (October 18, 1748), which ended the War of the Austrian Succession, is traditionally viewed as the last ~i:~~~ic;t~~cu~:~:~ ~ye~~I1~~ ;~rD~~~la~~1i~~r.y Xo~ L~~~~ang,e~ 9~irgli~~ 926, Article ix). 3Dionysius of Halicarnassus (5.34.1) even suggests, mistakenly, that they enjoyed the same sacrosanctity of body as legates and ambassadors. 4Liv . 2.13.9; 9.15.7; 21.21.11; 22.22.5; 24.1.8; 28.34.9; 36.40.4; 37.45.16; 40.47.10; 42.39.7; 43.10.3; Cic. Cael. 78; Suet. ~. 21.2; Mon. Anc. 32.6; Amm. Marc. 17.12.313; Frontin. Str. 1.8.6; Just. ~~n7'~~~i I~~ido~'n~~~~~g~~ :e~~r~~; ~~/~~eth~:~f;~:~~:~~ obligation. For further details consult W. W. Buckland, A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, 3rd. ed. (Cambridge, 1963), 474 ff. 298 M. J. MOSCOVICH pignus fidei, which implies that their function was essentially moral rather than legal in nature. 5 Consequently, the relationship which developed between Rome and the donors of hostages, and frequently even the hostages themselves, was like that of patron and client. Surprisingly, one of the least contractual aspects of Roman usage involving hostages was the term of detention. Occasionally a timetable for restoration is specifically indicated, but it is amply evident that the Romans rarely felt themselves legally or morally bound to liberate hostages simply because the cause for which they had been delivered had ceased to exist or agreements had been fulfilled. 6 Some hostages spent only a few days in Roman hands, but _ others spent many years. For example, the Parthian Phraates was for over fifty years an official hostage (Tac. Ann. 6.32). 5Livy employs this phrase only twice of hostages (40.47.10; 42.29.7) but the sources often stress the relationship between obses and fides (~., Liv. 2.13.9;.5.27.15; 10.11.13; 21.34.3; 32.2.3; 42.s:T2'; 4D1.2; 44.25.7; CIC. Fam. 10.17; Caes. BGal1. 2.15.1; 4.22.2; 6.9.7; 7.2.2; 8.3.5). T~reek equivalent tOP19nus was enechuron (on which see Meier-Schoemann-Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren [Leipzig, 1905], 690), and although this term is occasIonally used to describe the role of hostages (e.g., App. BCiv. 1.44), Greek authors more often use pistis (PolYS:- 4.17.9; If:36; 21.17.8; Dion. Hal. 1.59; 5.33.1; Strabo 7.1.4; Thuc. 3.90; Plut. Pyrrh. 31.2; Xen. f:i!:. 4.2.7; ~. 3.2.18). That pistis is also often used as the Greek equivalent of fides (Polyb. 2.11.2; 2.11.5; 2.12.2; 3.15.5; 10.40.9; 18.38.5; etc-:Tt'ends to strengthen the impression that the function of hostages was largely extra-legal. The studies of Heinze (Hermes 64 [1929] 140-166), Piganiol (RIDA 5 [1950] 339-347) and Badian (Foreign CI ientelae, [Oxford, 19'5'8], 5-10) emphasize the religious and moral nature of fides. 60nly the treaty granted to the Aetolians in 189 specifically mentions a term. Polybius (21.32.10) states that they were to furnish ~od::nn~~ r~~i~~~:B:~11n~O~~~~j~ f~;8}s~x d~~a:~dingTa~~~~~I/I...