Hostages and Hostage-Taking in the Roman Empire by Joel Allen

Abstract

202 PHOENIX the concept of pudicitia or its relation to the community. More focus on the emperors' manipulation of pudicitia in their public personae and in those of their family members would have been worthwhile for her discussions and conclusions here. Langlands offers interesting readings of her texts, particularly Livy and Valerius Maximus, and sheds important light on sexual virtue among women and children, while pointing out that pudicitia was equally important a virtue for the Roman male. She shows that pudicitia could be a physical and/or mental state, a moral force directing actions and an enforcer of social boundaries, since it indicated free status and thus affected one's relationship to the community. She reveals that the identification of sexual virtue was problematic, in the case of both men and women, thus making the rhetorical manipulation of pudicitia a particularly effective method of invective. An important contribution of Langlands's study is her conclusion that pudicitia was a locus of anxiety and reflection in Roman writers, as opposed to a uniform quality. Overall, she is successful in showing that ancient Roman attitudes towards sexual issues were complex and controversial, just as they are today. Her work adds much to studies on gender, sexual ethics, and the history of sexuality more generally. Brock University Allison Glazebrook Hostages and Hostage-Taking in the Roman Empire. By Joel Allen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. Pp. xiv, 291. As iswell known to historians and other students of antiquity, states (and sometimes individuals) regularly took hostages. Given the ubiquity of the practice, a new book should be a welcome addition to the scholarship, and so it is: Allen's discussion of hostages and hostage-taking in the Roman empire (the geographic entity, not the imperial period) has much of value to contribute tomodern understanding of the practice. Allen beginswith an "Introduction"(1-37) outliningdefinitionsand delineating the parameters of his treatment. In essence, his subject is the perception of hostages and how the concept of hostage and hostage-taking was viewed at Rome and constructed in the ancient sources (12), arguing, as his main thesis, that the "Romans expected to exercise authority over their hostages in ways that both reflected and reinforced their attitudes toward the periphery" (28). Though he discusses actual hostages, individuals and incidents are not his primary concern, and he does not include a catalogue. Rather, he refers his readers to Cheryl Walker's doctoral thesis on Hostages in Republican Rome (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hrll 1980; published online at theCenter for Hellenic Studies in 2005), and specificallyto itsAppendices 1a and Ib. Some readers may find this inconvenient; even a simple list would be useful, though the book can be read, and understood, without one. Most specifically, "the characters under study here are the young, elite figures who crossed into another world, were technically autonomous, yet betokened the subordinate role in a hegemonic, reciprocal relationship" (22). The rest of the chapter is devoted to a discussion of the evidence and its problems. The introduction precedes a series of chapters detailing different types of relationships between Romans and their hostages. Chapter Two ("Creditor-Collateral," 38-66) addresses the usual understanding of the role of hostages, that is, their physical presence in Rome (or around Italy) as assurance or insurance of continued peace between Rome and the hostages' own communties. As Allen points out, rhetoric was often harsher than BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 203 reality: hostages were generally treated well, and few were executed, despite the tendency of sources to paint a different, harsher picture. Allen sees in this combination of trust and (potential) brutality a verbal record of the Roman attitude toward the periphery. In Chapter Three ("Host-Guest," 67-94), the language of a host-guest relationship receives attention. Rome's hospitality toward hostages was reciprocal, in that the hostages' communities were expected to accept Rome. Especially when nations submitted hostages to prove or create loyalty in cases of distrust, no coercion was involved and loyalty was created; consequently, Rome saw inmutual exchanges between or among their enemies a potential threat. Hostages also arrived for other reasons, to grace a triumph, for example; Allen addresses this topic in Chapter Four ("Conqueror...