The Scipionic age: humanitas and maiestas

Scipio Africanus is the focal point of humanitas in the closing stages of the Second Punic War. And that focal point is strengthened by a special relationship between humanitas and maiestas populi Romani.

We begin with Livy. The word humanitas occurs only three times in the extant books of his History,⁸ but all three are linked to Scipio. The earliest use is in connection with an incident at Locri in 205. Scipio’s lieutenant, Q.Pleminius, is in command of the Roman forces as propraetor. A smaller detachment is commanded by military tribunes. A dispute over a stolen silver cup leads to violence between the two groups. Pleminius tells his lictors to flog the tribunes, whereupon the tribunes’ men attack Pleminius. Paying no regard to either the maiestas of his office or to humanitas, they mutilate his nose and ears and leave him almost lifeless: sine respectu non maiestatis modo sed etiam humanitatis... prope exsanguem relinquunt. After holding an enquiry Scipio absolves Pleminius but orders the tribunes to be sent to Rome for punishment. But Pleminius considers this too lenient. Declaring that only a man who has suffered a savage assault knows how to name a penalty, he has the tribunes tortured and killed and throws their bodies out unburied. He also plunders and ill-treats the Locrians (Livy 29.8.5-9.12).

Pleminius eventually paid the penalty for his crimes,⁹ but only for plundering the Locrians; there is no sign of his having been brought to book for his part in the carnival between the Roman groups. But the acts for which the tribunes would have been punished tell us quite a lot. As a magistrate Pleminius possessed maiestas as a derivative of the maiestas of the Roman people. Consequently the attack on him was culpable irrespective of the savagery or otherwise of the means employed.¹⁰ But because of the ferocity that was used humanitas came into it.

Later on the exaction of money from provincials was, if accomplished with special savagery, treated as a violation of maiestas as well.¹¹ There were also links not dependent on brutality. On his recall from exile Cicero extolled â€?The humanitas of the citizens, the dignity of the Republic, the maiestas of the Roman people!’ (Red. Quirit. 4). And at the turn of the first century AD the younger Pliny observed that the emperor Trajan’s humanitas in no way detracted from his maiestas (Plin Pan. 4.6).

There was an important connection between the two concepts in the area of treaties. It adds a new dimension to the links between ius gentium, natural law and human rights. When the city of Gades (Cadiz) in Spain defected from Carthage in 206, Scipio struck a treaty with the Gaditans under which they were obliged â€?to uphold the maiestas of the Roman people courteously’—maiestatem..comiter conservanto¹ The standard of behaviour, comiter/comitas, was a synonym for humanitas in the general sense of â€?courtesy’. When Scipio passed through Macedonia on his way to the East, Philip received him with finesse and humanitas; this was acceptable to Scipio, who had no objection to comitas as long as it was not ostentatious.¹³ The incorporation of comiter/comitas in an allied relationship went even further back: after the Caudine Forks disaster the comitas of the allies was enlisted in a (vain) attempt to console the Romans (Livy 9.6.8). But the Gaditan maiestas treaty was followed by a different formula in the Aetolian treaty of 189. The Aetolians were obliged to uphold Roman maiestas â€?without trickery’, sine dolo malo (Livy 38.11.1-2). The more rigorous criterion was adopted because of the contumacious behaviour of the Aetolians.¹⁴ The Gaditans’ defection from Carthage had entitled them to a humanitas-oriented formula based on an expectation of proper behaviour. But trickery was anticipated from the Aetolians in view of their past record.

After 189 the maiestas treaty reverted to counter, and that was still the criterion in the first century AD. The link with humanitas was, however, a masterpiece of camouflage. As the lawyers put it, the ally under such a treaty was free, but his status was analogous to that of a client vis-à-vis a patron. And—the real mailed fist in the velvet glove—all questions concerning his compliance with his obligations were decided by Roman courts.¹⁵ The always tricky question as to whether maiestas had been preserved or diminished¹⁶ provided Rome with a particularly effective synthesis of humanitas and traditionalism. And the link was discovered several decades before the evolution of humanitas Romana.

Livy’s third use of humanitas is in his account of a debate in the senate in 189, when the Rhodians and Eumenes of Pergamum presented their respective claims to the territories seized from Antiochus of Syria. The Rhodians gave a thumbnail sketch of maiestas—humanitas:

Rome has not waged wars in order to acquire territory. Her goal has always been status and fame in the eyes of the entire human race, which places her name and empire next to those of the gods. In the war against Antiochus she defended the liberty of an ancient people famed for its achievements and renowned for its culture and learning [humanitas doctrinaque]; she is the patron in a patron­client relationship with a whole people.¹⁷

The Rhodians were in fact describing a maiestas treaty of the comiter type. After a somewhat rocky run they eventually got such a treaty in 165-164 BC.¹⁸