Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-jkr4m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-03T14:00:40.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foedus and Sponsio1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

M. H. Crawford
Get access

Extract

The legal problem is easily posed. Gaius, in iii, 92–4, records that the making of an agreement by the use of the word spondeo, was confined to Roman citizens. The agreement which resulted from the use of the word, namely verborum obligatio or stipulatio, was apparently sanctioned by the Twelve Tables and may thus be regarded as forming part of the earliest Roman legal system. But Gaius goes on to record that his sources allowed one case when a foreigner might use the word spondeo, in the course of negotiations between a Roman general (for Gaius he was the Emperor) and a foreign princeps. Were Gaius' sources right? If they were, it is permissible to speculate on what lay behind the two usages. The conclusion of A. Magdelain is that the oral contract undertaken by the use of the word spondeo was religious in origin, that before the Twelve Tables it was backed up by an oath and that violation of this oath made a man sacer, effectively an outlaw who could be killed with impunity. Magdelain's thesis depends on accepting the premise that Livy's account of the disaster of the Caudine Forks, which involves a sponsio between a Roman and a non-Roman, is substantially true. V. Bellini, starting from the same premise, argues that a sponsio between a Roman commander and a foreign commander originally bound the Roman people and only gradually became subject to ratification at Rome.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 41 , November 1973 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Verbis obligatio fit ex interrogatione et responsione, veluti DARI SPONDES? SPONDEO, … (93) Sed haec quidem verborum obligatio DARI SPONDES? SPONDEO propria civium Romanorum est; … (94) Unde dicitur uno casu hoc verbo peregrinum quoque obligari posse, veluti si imperator noster principem alicuius peregrini populi de pace ita interroget PACEM FUTURAM SPONDES? vel ipse eodem modo interrogetur. Quod nimium subtiliter dictum est, quia si quid adversus pactionem fiat, non ex stipulatu agitur, sed iure belli res vindicatur.

3 Gaius iv, 17a; for an early use of spondeo see, e.g. Plautus, Captivi 898.

4 Essai sur les origines de la ‘sponsio’, Paris, 1943Google Scholar. So also in a more extreme form de Visscher, F., most recently in Munera Pringsheim (Athens, 1953), 138Google Scholar, ‘Pactes et religio’ = Etudes de droit romain, Milan, 1966, 405Google Scholar.

5 RHD, 1962, 509, Foedus et sponsio, so also H. Levy-Bruhl, RHD, 1938, 533, ‘La sponsio des Fourches Caudines’. This is a variant on the view of Mommsen, and Taübler, E., Imperium Romanum i, Berlin, 1913, 140–152Google Scholar, that a Roman general had originally the right to conclude a foedus, a paradoxical conclusion to base on the account given by the sources for the events of 321.

6 Cicero, , de off. iii, 109Google Scholar (for the citation of the precedent see also Appian, Iber. 83, 360; Plutarch, , Ti. Gr. 7, 2Google Scholar; Velleius ii, 1, 5; Floras ii, 18, 7; Orosius v, 7, 1): ‘At vero T. Veturius et Sp. Postumius, cum iterum consules essent, quia, cum male pugnatum apud Caudium esset, legionibus nostris sub iugum missis pacem cum Samnitibus fecerant, dediti sunt iis; iniussu enim populi senatusque fecerant. Eodemque tempore … Quod idem multis annis post C. Mancinus, quia ut Numantinis, quibuscum sine senatus auctoritate foedus fecerat, dederetur rogationem suasit eam, quam L. Furius, Sex. Atilius ex senatus consul to ferebant; qua accepta est hostibus deditus. Honestius hie …’ Other sources in Broughton, T. S. R., Magistrates of the Roman Republic, i, New York, 1951, 484–8Google Scholar.

7 ix, 5, 1: ‘Consules profecti ad Pontium in colloquium, cum de foedere victor agitaret, negarunt iniussu populi foedus fieri posse nec sine fetialibus caerimoniaque alia sollemni. Itaque non, ut volgo credunt Claudiusque etiam scribit, foedere pax Caudina sed per sponsionem facta est’. For a full list of sources see Broughton, T. S. R., 150–1, also Staatsverträge iii, pp. 27–30Google Scholar. Augustine, Add, de cit. Dei iii, 17Google Scholar; Eutropius ii, 9, 1.

8 ix, 10, 1 ff.; xxv, 6, 12.

9 Salmon, E. T., Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge, 1967, 228 ffGoogle Scholar.

10 E. T. Salmon JRS 1929, ‘The Pax Caudina’, 12 and Livy ix, 20, 2 for an attempted renewal of the foedus in 318; ix, 21, 2 for resumption of hostilities only in 316; Diodorus xix, 10, 1–2 (318) is his first record of hostilities, but he covers nine years in as many lines.

11 See also H. Nissen, RhM, 1870, ‘Der Caudinische Friede’, 54 ff., for contamination between the two stories; F. la Rosa, Iura, 1950, 283, for difficulties in Livy's account.

12 Fr. 57P=Gellius vi, 9, 12.

13 Fr. 73P=Priscian, p. 347 Hertz.

14 De inventione ii, 91: ‘In eo foedere, quod factum est quondam cum Samnitibus, quidam adolescens nobilis porcam sustinuit iussu imperatoris. Foedere autem a Senatu improbato …’; Brut. 103, de har. resp. 43, de re p. iii, 28; cf. Val. Max. i, 6, 7, de Vir. Ill. 64.

15 Controversy over Sulla's treaty with Mithridates (for which see Badian, E., Studies in Roman History, Oxford, 1964, 225Google Scholar) perhaps impinged also on the controversy over the events of 321 and 137.

16 Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford, 1967, 148Google Scholar; note particularly the witness of Polybius xxxv, 2, 13.

17 A point I owe to John Richardson.

18 In 218, argument apparently turned in part on whether the Ebro treaty bound Carthage (Pol. iii, 20, 6–21, 8; Livy xxi, 18, 1–12; 19, 1–5); Rome clearly assumed initially that it did.

For a ransom agreement, Senatorial, though not popular, approval could be given, Livy xxii, 23, 5–8.

19 Ratification as the norm is perhaps also implied by the agreement between a Roman and a foreign commander portrayed in the Esquiline tomb painting (D. Mustilli, Il Museo Mussolini, 15–16 = Strong, D. E., Roman Imperial Sculpture, London, 1961, pl. 10—about 200 B.C.Google Scholar).

20 See Cicero, , de re p. iii, 28Google Scholar for the claim that the cases of Pompeius and Mancinus were the same; de off. iii, 109; Appian, , Iber. 83, 360Google Scholar, for the raising of Pompeius' case in association with that of Mancinus (note that Cicero contradicts Appian and, by implication, Plutarch, over the attitude of Mancinus). Hostility of Aemilianus to Mancinus may have helped to produce the decision to surrender Mancinus and not Pompeius (A. E. Astin. Scipio Aemilianus, 70–1). Pompeius had of course already been tried de repetundis. The surrender of M. Claudius Clineas to the Corsicans is no great help here (Dio, fr. 45; Zonaras viii, 18), though the confusion between sponsio (Zonaras) and foedus (Dio) is perhaps significant; Clineas was apparently surrendered to the Corsicans for making an agreement contrary to his commander's wishes (Val. Max. vi, 3, 3 has a completely different story).

21 Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican coinage (Cambridge, 1974), no. 234Google Scholar, with pp. 61–2 and 74; the attribution of this issue to Fregellae in revolt (Mattingly, H., in ANS Cent. Pub., New York, 1958, 451–7Google Scholar) cannoy stand in view of the legend ROMA.

22 Mommsen, Th., Römisches Münzwesen, Berlin, 1860, 555–6Google Scholar; Heurgon, J., Capoue préromaine, Paris, 1942, 226–9Google Scholar; L. Breglia, Numismatica 1947, 67 adds nothing to the discussion.

23 K. Regling, ZfN 1912, 153, n.l; Hill, G. F., Historical Roman coins, London, 1909, 88Google Scholar; Bahrfeldt, M., Die römische Goldmünzenprägung, Halle, 1923, 12Google Scholar; see also E. J. Haeberlin, ZfN 1908, 244 and 265.

24 Velleius Paterculus i, 14, 3: ‘Sp. Postumio, Veturio Calvino consulibus Campanis data est civitas partique Samnitum sine suffragio’.

25 Toynbee, A., Hannibal's legacy i, Oxford, 1965, 398Google Scholar.

26 Corolla Numismatica. Numismatic essays in honour of B. V. Head, Oxford, 1906, 310Google Scholar.

27 xxvii, 10, 11–13.

28 Note J. Heurgon, Capoue préromaine, 228, ‘il est inadmissible que Ti. Veturius ait eu l'imprudence ou la distraction de représenter sur ses monnaies la conclusion d'un traité dans le seul désir de rappeler l'année où un préteur de son nom avait fait la guerre en Gaule’.

29 M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican coinage, p. 46.

30 xxii, 38, 1–5; the theory is in any case mistaken, see M. H. Crawford, p. 715.

31 Early Roman Coinage, ii, Copenhagen, 1961, 285.

32 Festus 74L; cf. 267L; Varro, , RR ii, 4, 9Google Scholar: ‘initiis pacis, foedus cum feritur, porcus occiditur’; Vergil, , Aen. viii, 641Google Scholar; Suetonius, , Claud. 25, 5Google Scholar; Livy i, 24, 9; Vergil, , Aen. xii, 170Google Scholar.

33 Livy xli, 21, 8–9.

34 ILLRP 515.

35 Badian, E., ‘Sulla's augurate’, Arethusa i, 1968, 26Google Scholar.

36 Compare the fictional victorious Roman campaign after the defeat at Trebia, Livy xxi, 59, 3. For the early origin of the basic story of the repudiation of the agreement of 321, note its acceptance by P. Oxy. 12, a chronicle following Polybian chronology, M. W. Frederiksen, JRS 1968, 226, reviewing E. T. Salmon. For some variants in the account of Appian, see H. Nissen, 45 ff.

37 Polybius xiv, 2, 5–5, 15; Livy xxii, 58, 8.

38 For surrender of a Roman to compensate for individual wrong-doing, compare the Clineas incident (n. 20 above); Valerius Maximus vi, 6, 3 ( = Livy xxxviii, 42, 7) and 5 ( = Livy, Per. 15; Dio, fr. 42; Zonaras viii, 7); Livy xxii, 58, 8 and 61, 4; Plutarch, , Caes. 22, 3Google Scholar, cf. Cato Min. 51, 1; Suetonius, , Iul. 24, 3Google Scholar; Appian, Celt. 18, also the Roman account of the outbreak of war with Carthage in 218, Livy xxi, 6, 8; 10, 12–13; 18, 4; Polybius iii, 8, 8; 20, 8; 21, 8. In 109 Rome did not bother with the susceptibilities of foreign peoples; the agreement of A. Postumius Albinus with Jugurtha was repudiated, but its author was not handed over (Sallust, BJ 37–9; Livy, Per. 64).

39 For a balanced survey of the origins of the procedure, see Jolowicz, H. F. and Nicholas, B., Historical introduction to Roman Law Cambridge, 1972, 280–1Google Scholar. For the loose use of spondeo, sponsio for ‘undertake’ ‘undertaking’ where foreigners are concerned see Livy ix, 20, 8; xxiii, 43, 14; xxix, 30, 2; Sallust, , BJ 79, 4Google Scholar (spondeo); Livy ix, 41, 20 (sponsio). Spondere was equated in antiquity with dicere (Festus 462L) or derived from sponte (Varro, , LL vi, 69Google Scholar; Festus 440L, from Verrius) or σπονδαί (Festus 440L, also from Verrius); for the ideas associated in early usage with spondeo see the SC de Bacchanalibus, lines 13–14, coniourase, cormovise, conspondise, conpromesise (cf. Festus 51L, consponsor, coniurator).

40 I hope to return to this theme in due course.