Treaties, Roman

1 Treaties, Roman GEORGY KANTOR Classical Roman legal theory and historical tradition distinguished several types of formal agreement with other communities into which the Roman state or its representatives could enter. Agreements of the most solemn formal and permanent nature, treaties, were known as foedera (sing. foedus). A comprehensive catalogue of other types of international agreement is not furnished by any Roman source and in all probability never existed, but the jurist Pomponius mentions as distinct from foedera official grants of hospitality to individuals or communities (hospitia publica) and relations of friendship (amicitia) formed with other communities without a formal treaty (Pompon. Dig. 49.15.5.2). Another type of agreement, distinguished from foedus by its temporary character, was armistice, indutiae (Gell. NA 1.25.1; Paul, Dig. 49.15.19.1; Täubler 1913: 29–44). It is a much debated point whether the surrender of a defeated community to a Roman general (deditio) can be considered a Vertrag in modern Romanist legal theory, but it is reasonably clear that this was a wholly distinct category from the foedera (Täubler 1913: 14–28; Heuss 1933: 60–113; Dahlheim 1965: 1–96). Early modern interpretations of Roman law (particularly Hugo Grotius) saw a distinct category in informal pacta, but in the Classical period the concept of pacta was limited to private agreements and did not intrude in the sphere of international relations. Livy (34.57.7–9) draws a distinction between three types of foedus: an unequal treaty with a surrendered community, a peace treaty concluding the war and establishing amicable relations, and a treaty of alliance between two communities that were never hostile to each other. This comes, however, in a speech of a Seleucid ambassador, and it is unlikely that this is a statement of any legal distinctions drawn in Livy’s own time, still less at the dramatic date of the speech in 194/3 BCE. The authority to ratify foedera in the Middle to Late Republican period belonged only to the popular assemblies (Polyb. 6.14; Cic. Balb. 34–5; Sall. Iug. 39), but the actual terms of treaties were drafted in the Senate or by Roman commanders in the field, usually with the help of senatorial commissioners (legati). The annalists assumed that the procedure of popular ratification was already in existence in the Early Republic. Agreements reached by individual commanders were not considered binding on the Roman people prior to popular authorization, and were sometimes conceptualized in the later tradition as the individual general’s promise (sponsio), for which he alone was responsible and from which the people could be extricated by surrendering the person of the general. The paradigmatic case was the surrender of Roman consuls to the Samnites after the ignominious treaty of the Caudine Forks of 321 BCE (Livy 9.5–11), but it is probable that this story was a patriotic invention following the more historical case of a similar surrender of the proconsul Hostilius Mancinus to Numantia in 137 BCE (Crawford 1973). The way in which strict legal categories only developed toward the end of the Republican period is illustrated by the fact that the Caudine Forks agreement is known to Cicero as a foedus (Inv. Rhet. 2.91; Brut. 103; Rep. 3.28). Even though “peace treaties” were sometimes regarded in the later legal and antiquarian tradition as part of the common law of all nations, ius gentium (Isid. Orig. 5.6), the actual practice as we know it from the historical tradition always had a distinct Roman coloring. The conclusion of foedera in the Republican period was, according to that tradition, a highly formalized religious act. The key role in the ratification ceremony belonged to the priestly college of fetiales, who were also charged with looking after the observance of the terms of treaties, making remonstrations on behalf of the Roman people to The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 6842–6846. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18135 2 other parties to the treaties, and declaring war (Watson 1993; Ferrary 1995). Their name was sometimes etymologically connected with the word foedus (Serv. Ad Aen. 1.62). Different dates for the institution of the ius fetiale in international relations fall mostly in the Regal period: under Ancus Martius (Livy 1.32; Serv. Ad Aen. 10.14; [Aur. Vict.] De Vir. Ill. 5.4), Tullus Hostilius (Cic. Rep. 2.31), Numa Pompilius (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.72; Plut. Num. 12; Cam. 18.1), or even earlier (Livy 1.24 presents the rite of ratification as already established by the time of Tullus). A connection with the Twelve Tables made by Servius (Ad Aen. 7.695) stands apart. Their rite was probably not of Roman origin and developed through diplomatic relations with other central Italian peoples: the sources ascribe its origin variously (and unreliably) to Latin Ardea (Gellius ap. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.72), to the Faliscans (Serv. Ad Aen. 7.695), or (perhaps for aetiological reasons) to Fertor Resius, king of the Aequicoli (Inscr. Ital. XIII 3.66; Livy 1.32.5; Serv. Ad Aen. 10.14; Varro, ap. De Praenominibus 1.5). A search for its IndoEuropean roots or Stone Age origins did not convince most scholars. The oaths used in the ratification rite involved, according to the late tradition most fully represented in Livy (1.24.4–9), killing a pig with a flint stone and calling on Jupiter Feretrius to punish the Roman people likewise in the case of a breach of the treaty, but our evidence is not unproblematic. The ratification ceremony is depicted on gold coins of the Roman mint of ca. 225–14 BCE (RRC 29.1–2) and on a number of the late second-century BCE denarii based on the same image (e.g., RRC 234). The images, however, show significant differences with Livy’s description, notably in the use of swords instead of flint stones. Polybius (3.25) also describes a different rite, an oath per Iovem Lapidem, “by Jupiter Stone” or “by Jupiter in the stone ritual” (cf. also Cic. Fam. 7.12.2; Gell. NA 1.21.4; Apul. De Deo Soc. 5), used for the first Romano-Carthaginian treaty of 508 BCE, and asserts that in the two later treaties with Carthage of 348 and 279 BCE the oath was given by Mars and Quirinus. The latter reference is probably to the well-known triad of Jupiter Feretrius, Mars, and Quirinus, but the former might be a testimony for a more ancient rite. A scene of an agreement between a Roman commander (probably Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus) and a Samnite general in a tomb painting of ca. 200 BCE found on the Esquiline (CIL VI 29827, 36612; Mustilli 1939: 15–16 and pl. XII) does not show any religious ceremony, but this need not be a depiction of a formal foedus. The view of some scholars that the whole fetial rite for the conclusion of treaties was an archaistic pseudo-revival of the late second century BCE goes too far in its wholesale rejection of a unanimous historical tradition. In the Middle and Late Republic the use of the fetial rite for the ratification of treaties seems well established: it is attested for the treaty with Carthage in 201 BCE (Livy 30.43.9), and in the very last years of the republic Varro (Ling. 5.86) attests it as a living practice. Some evidence for their continuing role in treaty ratifications has also been identified in the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus of 39 BCE (Reynolds 1982: 8, line 85). The ceremony of oath-taking described in the epigraphically preserved treaties of 46 BCE with Lycia (AE 2005, 1487, lines 74–9) and 45 BCE with Knidos (I. Knidos I 33, fr. A, lines 3–9) bears little resemblance to the fetial ritual as known from Livy, but the ceremony still clearly retained a strong religious component (Mitchell 2005: 237–40). The role of fetiales in interpreting treaties, however, gradually disappears and is limited to religious formalities. They were consulted on the propriety of declaring war against Antiochos III (Livy 36.3.7–12), but Cicero’s revival of that role in his ideal law code (Leg. 2.21) clearly does not correspond to the political realities of his time. According to the annalistic tradition, the texts of treaties were inscribed on wax tablets and recitation from the tablets was an essential part of the ratification rite. This may be anachronistic for the Regal period and the Early 3 Republic. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 4.58.4) speaks of a treaty of Tarquinius Superbus with the city of Gabii written on an ox-hide surviving to his own time in the temple of Semo Sancus Dius Fidius. In the later period treaties were normally inscribed on bronze tablets, kept on the Capitol in Rome, where they were restored by Vespasian after the fire of 69 CE (Suet. Vesp. 8.5). Greek translations of treaties with Rome were also sometimes officially inscribed on stone by Greek cities. The earliest Roman treaties mentioned by the annalists belong to the time of Romulus (Livy 1.13) and are legendary. Our knowledge of Roman treaties before the third century BCE is very limited and mostly unreliable, though texts of some early treaties may have survived to the Late Republic. Polybius (3.22–5) provides texts of three early treaties with Carthage (508, 348, and 279 BCE), and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 6.95) supplies terms of the treaty of 493 BCE with the Latins (the foedus Cassianum). Treaties of alliance were used to unite Italy under Roman leadership by the time of the First Punic War, and the treaties of the period of the Italian unification remained in force up to the time of the Social War. Evidence on Roman treaties up to 200 BCE is fully assembled in Bengtson (1962) and Schmitt (1969). In the Middle and Late Republic evidence on Roman treaties in literary sources is supplemented by the surviving epigraphic texts of Roman treaties with communities in the Greek east, ranging chronologically from the treaty with Kibyra of ca. 167 BCE (I. Kibyra I 1) to the treaty with Mytilene of ca. 25 BCE (RDGE 73), and by inscribed documents making reference to the treaty terms. The fullest checklists are provided by Mitchell (2005: 173–5) and Schuler (2007: 67–74). The best-preserved texts are those of the treaties with MARONEIA of 167 BCE (I. Thrak. Aeg. 168), with ASTYPALAIA of 105 BCE (RDGE 16B), and with the Lycians of 46 BCE (AE 2005, no. 1487). We also have the terms of treaties with the Aitolians of 189 BCE (Polyb. 21.32; Livy 38.11) and with the Jews of 161 BCE (1 Macc 8:23–30), reported more or less verbatim. Modern scholarship, building on a distinction drawn by the Julio-Claudian jurist Proculus (Dig. 49.15.7.1), usually distinguishes between “equal treaty” (foedus aequum) and “unequal treaty” (foedus iniquum). The latter term has little classical authority, and the whole distinction has been called into question by Gruen (1984: 13–53). It is probably better to speak of treaties that were not “equal” than of a specific category of foedus iniquum. It is clear from the terms of the Aitolian treaty as given by Livy (38.11.2), and from epigraphic examples, that in some treaties a clause was inserted requiring the other party to respect and maintain the power (imperium) and majesty (maiestas) of the Roman people. This clause had no precedent in Greek diplomatic practice and was clearly a Roman innovation, probably developed during the conquest of Italy. Toward the end of the republic, however, even a foedus aequum was deemed to bring a community within the orbit of the Roman imperium (Baronowski 1990). Surviving texts of treaties mostly cover questions of peace and friendship and mutual help in case of war. The more wide-ranging treaty with Lycia of 46 BCE also includes territorial clauses, clauses regulating the division of jurisdiction, and clauses dealing with smuggling (AE 2005, 1487). The preservation of a community’s “own laws,” and freedom from Roman taxation and from intrusion of provincial governors, are frequently associated in the sources with guarantees provided by treaties, but exact sets of privileges varied from case to case, freedom from taxation in particular being less common. For example, treaties with the Gallic tribes of Cenomani, Insubri, and Helvetii, and the Dalmatian tribe of Iapides, restricted the Roman right to enfranchise members of these tribes, but this clause was not usual in other treaties (Cic. Balb. 32). On the whole we are insufficiently informed about the range of issues that could be covered or the historical development of the treaty content, though the clauses of peace and 4 alliance were tralatician. The protection that treaties provided to communities was not so much from the unilateral action of Rome, which could follow anyway, as from actions of Roman governors not endorsed by the Roman people, on whose authority the force of the treaty rested. In the Imperial period, renewal of treaties with communities in Italy such as Camerinum under Septimius Severus (ILS 432) or Lavinium under Claudius (ILS 5004) was presumably of purely antiquarian interest, but in the provinces the “treaty communities” (civitates foederatae) remained the most privileged group of communities, and the terms of their treaties continued to be honored (if usually in a very narrow sense) and renewed well into the second century CE. The right of the city of Amisos in Pontos to retain its own laws was still based on a treaty in 111 (Plin. Ep. 10.92–3). In the third century, however, maintenance of old privileges of “free communities” was based on decisions of the Senate and emperors, rather than on treaties (Reynolds 1982: 22; I. Eph. II 217). There is no conclusive evidence for new treaties with cities within the territory of the empire being signed after the age of Augustus. The authority to enter into treaties in the Imperial period was transferred from the people to the emperor, as explicitly attested in Clause VII of the Lex de Imperio Vespasiani (Crawford 1996, no. 39). Already Augustus mentions German tribes entering into amicitia (perhaps by treaty) with “me and the Roman people” (RG 26.4). We do not know much about the formalities observed in that period in agreements with the powers fully independent of Rome, though there clearly was a distinction between entities with which Rome entered into formal relations, whether peaceful or hostile, and those who were classified as mere “bandits” (Ulp. Dig. 49.15.24). The fetiales were employed for a treaty with the German tribe of Hermunduri in Augustus’ time (Gell. NA 16.4), but Claudius’ use of them is represented as a whim of the antiquarian emperor (Suet. Claud. 25.5). The agreement between Corbulo and the Armenian king Tiridates in 63 CE was accompanied by “customary sacrifices” (Tac. Ann. 15.29), but Ulpian (Dig. 2.14.5) and in particular Gaius (Inst. 3.94) seem to assume a simple procedure resembling private law contracts by promise (sponsio). It is possible that toward the end of the Early Imperial period foedera with barbarian tribes near the borders of the Roman Empire came to be seen as temporary and in need of regular renewal (Jord. Get. 106 is sometimes interpreted in this sense). SEE ALSO: Diplomacy, Roman and Byzantine; Fetiales; Treaties, Hellenistic; Treaties, Late Antiquity. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baldus, C. (2002) “Vestigia Pacis: der römische Friedensvertrag als Struktur und Ereignis.” Historia 51: 298–348. Baronowski, D. W. (1990) “Sub umbra foederis aequi.” Phoenix 44: 345–69. Bengtson, H. (1962) Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, vol. 2: Die Verträge der griechischrömischen Welt von 700 bis 338 v. Chr. Munich. Crawford, M. H. (1973) “Foedus and Sponsio.” Papers of the British School at Rome 41: 1–7. Crawford, M. H. (1996) Roman statutes, vol. 1. London. Dahlheim, W. (1965) Deditio und Societas: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der römischen Aussenpolitik in der Blütezeit der Republik. Munich. Ferrary, J.-L. (1995) “Ius fetiale et diplomatie.” In E. Frézouls and A. Jacquemin, eds., Les Relations internationales: 411–32. Paris. Gruen, E. (1984) The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome. Berkeley. Heuss, A. (1933) Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit. Leipzig. Libero, L. de (1997) “Ut eosdem quos populus Romanus amicos atque hostes habeant: Die Freund-Feind-Klausel in den Beziehungen Roms zu griechischen und italischen Staaten.” Historia 46: 270–305. 5 Mitchell, S. (2005) “The treaty between Rome and Lycia of 46 BC.” In R. Pintaudi, ed., Papyri Graecae Schøyen (PSchøyen I): 163–258. Florence. Mustilli, D. (1939) Il Museo Mussolini. Rome. Reynolds, J. (1982) Aphrodisias and Rome. London. Schmitt, H. H. (1969) Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, vol. 3: Die Verträge der griechischrömischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr. Munich. Schuler, C. (2007) “Ein Vertrag zwischen Rom und den Lykiern aus Tyberissos.” In C. Schuler, ed., Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien: eine Zwischenbilanz: 51–79. Vienna. Täubler, E. (1913) Imperium Romanum: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des römischen Reiches, vol. 1. Leipzig. Watson, A. (1993) International law in archaic Rome: war and religion. Baltimore.