This long-awaited book by R. Malcolm Errington completes the important series of the Staatsverträge des Altertums, of which volumes II and III appeared in 1962 (19752) and 1969, respectively. Volume I never existed, and I do not know if a sequel is planned for the imperial period. Volume IV, which is twice as thick as its predecessors, brings together all the textual or epigraphic sources relating to the treaties and conventions made by the political communities (kingdoms, cities or peoples) of the Greco-Roman world in the second and first centuries BC.
The German term Staatsvertrag refers to any type of agreement of a public nature involving rights and obligations for the contracting parties. Applied to antiquity, it includes treaties of peace, military alliance, sympoliteia and isopoliteia sanctioned by oaths, which occupy the bulk of the volume. It also includes agreements intended to resolve specific problems, which were engraved on stone or bronze in sanctuaries in order to place them under the protection of the gods (territorial disputes, judicial or commercial agreements). Unlike H. Bengtson and H. Schmitt, the editors of volumes II and III, R. Malcolm Errington has included treaties and conventions that are only alluded to in the sources, and for which no clause is known.
The documents are arranged in approximate chronological order and are grouped into five sections identified by subheadings, but only in the summary. In the body of the text, the passage from one section to another is curiously no longer indicated. The first section includes 10 epigraphic documents from the end of the third century that were for various reasons not included in volume III (nos. 601-610). The second section gathers all the treatises of the second century whose exact or approximate date is known (nos. 611-719). The third section gathers the undated treatises that probably belong to the first half of the second century (nos. 720-750). The fourth section collects the undated treatises of the second century as a whole (nos. 751-786). The fifth section gathers the treatises of the first century, for which the approximate date is generally known (nos. 787-816). The volume also includes a list of abbreviations of reference works and collections of inscriptions often cited, a list of critical editions used for literary sources, and four very detailed indexes (proper names, subjects, Greek and Latin terms, ancient sources).
All the documents are accompanied by a historical and institutional commentary and, as a welcome novelty, by a German translation of all the literary or epigraphic sources. The bibliography and the critical apparatus, on the other hand, are now reduced to the strict minimum, if one compares with volumes II and III. For the epigraphic documents, R. Malcolm Errington refers to the principal editions and translations, which are indicated at the head of each entry, and he only points out the divergent readings or restitutions that are most significant for the interpretation of the documents. For treatises known from literary sources, he indicates some important works (e.g. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius; Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy; Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome). He sometimes mentions one or two articles on specific points, but he has refrained from proposing a state of the art for each treaty in order to be able to complete the volume in a lifetime. These bibliographical indications are not always easy to locate, since they appear between the translation of the source and the commentary, and not at the end of the entries, as was the case in volumes II and III. The main manuscript was completed already in 2015; therefore, one should not be surprised to find very few references to epigraphic documents or studies published after that date.
R. Malcolm Errington has produced a working tool of the highest quality, which will remain permanently on the desk of all those who work on interstate relations during the Roman expansion in the Mediterranean. The volume, although written in very accessible German, is intended for specialists rather than for students. It requires a solid knowledge of the history of the period and a good understanding of Greco-Roman institutions. Moreover, its use requires some practice: given the structure adopted for the classification of the treaties, it is recommended to go through the index of proper names to locate documents whose date is hotly debated. An example will suffice here: the treaty between Rome and Maronea appears in section II under no. 664, and is dated to ca 167 BC by the author. However, other historians would instead place this treaty after the first Mithridatic war, around 85-81 BC, that is to say in section V of the Book.[1] Similarly, for any systematic research on institutions or technical terms such as isopoliteia, foedus or deditio, one must consult both the index of Greek and Latin words and the index of subjects, where Greek words are transcribed in Latin characters. While carrying out this little exercise, I noted in passing two errors: p. 625, s.v. foedus aequum, it should be read 716, 393, 25-26 instead of 716, 303, 25-26; similarly, p. 625, s.v. foedus iniquum, it should be read 798, 549, 5 instead of 799, 549, 5. There could be other mistakes, but I obviously could not check all the indexes.
Of the 216 treaties listed by R. Malcolm Errington, 92 were concluded by the Roman people with another community, which is not a surprise for this period of history, marked by the birth of the imperium Romanum. This corpus gives rise to some reflections. First of all, it should be noted that the peace treaties imposed by the Romans on their defeated enemies constitute only a small part of this vast corpus. The majority of the documents concern treaties of military alliance concluded by Rome with kings, peoples or cities, some of which are of modest size. This phenomenon is especially perceptible in the Hellenic East, where the documentation is more abundant than in the West. Contrary to the communis opinio, which tends to minimize the role of these foedera, the author affirms in his preface, rightly so in my opinion, that these treaties did not have a purely honorary character, at least until the first Mithridatic war. According to him, the Romans sought to build a network of military alliances likely to be mobilized in the event of need, in accordance with the model that they had developed in the preceding centuries to ensure themselves the control of Italy. I am pleased to note that the author has included in this list the foedus made with the Jews in 161 BC, the historicity of which has often been disputed without good reason (no. 672).[2] After 85 BC and until the reign of Augustus, on the other hand, the foedus seems to have become above all a diplomatic instrument allowing the Senate to guarantee rights or to confer privileges to certain communities of the imperium Romanum that remained faithful to Rome during wars against external enemies, or to the winning party during civil wars.
In his preface, R. Malcolm Errington does not take a stance in the debate that, for more than a century, has opposed those who defend the existence of informal relations of friendship and military alliance between Rome and its partners, and those who consider that these relations necessarily had a formal and contractual character. Several elements indicate, however, that the author leans more towards the second interpretation: one notes that he has included in his volume all the documents evoking the amicitia/φιλία and societas/συμμαχία between Rome and a political community, or the status of amicus/φίλος and socius/σύμμαχος of the latter, without it being known whether or not this relationship rested on a formal treaty. But in his commentary, he suggests that these kings and cities may have entered into a foedus of military alliance with Rome of the same type as those known from epigraphic documents. I point out as an example the cases of Tabai and Thasos (nos. 766-767), which the author compares to that of Maronea (no. 664), but there are many others.
According to a well-established habit in the scholarly literature, R. Malcolm Errington uses the expressions foedus aequum and foedus iniquum to designate, respectively, treaties concluded on an equal footing (pp. 133, 221, 328, 337, 340, 371) and those that sanction a hierarchy between the two contracting parties, in particular by means of the famous unilateral clause known as the “majesty clause” (pp. 275, 549, 560, 579). It should be remembered, however, that these two formulas have no technical or legal value and that they do not correspond to two legally distinct categories of treaties: they generally appear in speeches and they reveal the subjective point of view of the speaker.[3] The expression foedus iniquum, which is attested only once, in Livy (35.46.10), designates an “unfair” treaty. As for the formula foedus aequum, it has several possible meanings depending on the context: in some cases, it effectively designates a treaty whose clauses are symmetrical and on an equal footing (Liv. 8.4.2 ; 28.45.20; Dig. 49.15.7.1.). But more often, it applies to treaties judged to be “favourable”, “advantageous” for Rome’s partner (Cic. Balb. 46, 50 ; Arch. 6 ; Liv. 23.5.9 ; 31.31.11), or “in accordance with justice” (Liv. 9.4.2-5 ; 38.8.3 ; 42.25.10-11). Finally, Latin authors are forced to use periphrases to designate treaties marking the hierarchy between Rome and its partners (Liv. 8.4.2 ; 28.45.20; Dig. 49.15.7.1). All this should encourage us to stop using these formulas to classify treaties.
The volume also contains a number of deditiones, which are not normally sanctioned by oaths and are not displayed in sanctuaries: the bronze table from Alcántara commemorating the deditio and restitutio of the Seanocori in 104 BC is a notable exception (no. 718). A relatively large number of deditiones are known for the period under consideration but, apparently, R. Malcolm Errington chose to retain only those for which a negotiation or convention is explicitly attested in our sources (nos. 628, 683-684, 693, 695, 718).[4] This choice makes sense and invites us to reconsider the status of the deditio, which created rights and duties for both the defeated peoples and the victorious Romans. But were the latter bound only by a moral obligation, as most historians think? On the contrary, did the deditio include a contractual and legal dimension limiting the victor’s room for manoeuvre, which authorizes us to classify it in the category of the Staatsverträge? The question is still being debated.[5]
But Rome is not everything. The majority of the entries in this volume concern treaties concluded by kings and cities among themselves, notably in Greece, Asia Minor, the Near East and Crete in the second century BC. Of course, some of these agreements were sponsored by Rome (nos. 648, 665, 675, 678-679, 705-706, 787, 801); others were made with explicit respect for Roman interests (nos. 649, 663, 668), but in any case, these documents illustrate the liveliness of regional interstate relations both before and after the Peace of Apamea.
R. Malcolm Errington chose the end of the civil wars in 30 BC as the lower limit for his collection of treaties, which led him to exclude some foedera struck during the first years of Augustus’ principate (for example with king Polemon of Pontus in 26 BC, or with the Parthians in 20 BC). In my opinion, it would have been desirable to consider these documents in volume IV, as diplomatic practices seem to have changed afterwards. With the exception of the foedus concluded by the emperor Claudius with Agrippa of Judea in 41, it does not seem that emperors continued to grant new treaties to the communities of the imperium Romanum. More often than not, they were content to renew the titles and privileges already granted under the Republic.
One notes some omissions, which the author anticipates in his preface. For example, we know that Pompey concluded many foedera with “cities, kings and tetrarchs” of the Greek East, which were ratified by the Roman people in 59 BC under the presidency of the tribune of the plebs Vatinius.[6] It is thus necessary to add Deiotarus, the tetrarch of Galatia, among the recipients, along with king Pharnace (no. 803). In the same way, I am convinced that the cities and people of Hispania, of the Balearic Islands (Malaca, Epora, Tarraco, Ebusus and the Bocchori) and the tribes of Gallia Comata (the Lingones, Aedui, Vocontii and Carnuti) who carry the title of foederati under the Early Empire obtained this privileged statute in the last century of the Republic or under Augustus at the latest (Plin. Nat. 3.7-8; 3.10; 3.18; 3.24; 3.37; 3.76-77; 4.106-107; 7.78). These few omissions, almost impossible to avoid in a collection of this magnitude, do not detract from the merit of its author and the quality of the published volume. An addendum to a possible second edition would allow them to be easily filled.
Notes
[1] See now L. Meier, Kibyra in hellenistischer Zeit. Neue Staatsverträge und Ehrinschriften, Wien, p. 32-37.
[2] See now L. Zollschan, Rome and Judaea: International Law Relations, 174-100 BCE, London/New York, 2017, but with unconvincing arguments.
[3] See P. Sánchez, A.-M. Sanz, “Le rôle des foedera dans la construction de l’Italie romaine”, in : M. Aberson et alii (ed.), L’Italia centrale e la creazione di una koiné culturale ? I percorsi della romanizzazione, Genève, 2016, p. 17-29.
[4] I do not take into account here the deditiones that lead to the conclusion of a proper treaty.
[5] For a detailed review of the bibliography and a defence of the second interpretation, see A. Zack, “Forschungen über die rechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Außenbeziehungen während der Republik bis zum Beginn des Prinzipats. VIII. Teil: Die juristische Form und der rechtliche Zweck der intergesellschaftlichen deditio und die Bedeutung der fides im Zusammenhang mit der deditio”, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft, 19, 2016, p. 89-163 [http://gfa.gbv.de/dr,gfa,019,2016,a,06.pdf].
[6] Cic. Vatin. 29 : Fecerisne foedera tribunus plebis cum ciuitatibus, cum regibus, cum tetrarchis.