Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:11:01.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PUTTING TORTURE (AND VALERIUS MAXIMUS) TO THE TEST1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2016

S.J. Lawrence
S.J. Lawrence*
Affiliation:
University of New England, Australia
*
sarah.lawrence@une.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has been a tendency, even among authors who have regarded Valerius Maximus as worthy of independent study, to use the Facta et Dicta as a neutral conduit of information about other wider areas. Valerius has thus sometimes become a sourcebook mined for nuggets of information but effectively invisible to those who work it. The past thirty years have seen valuable contributions that raise awareness of the importance of the genre of the Facta et Dicta and (to a lesser extent) the personal input of Valerius, but traces of the ‘conduit’ approach are still preserved in some authors’ attempts to justify their study of the work. For instance, Valerius provides an insight into the historical image of Marius, and is valuable precisely because he has no opinion or personal ideas to offer, because he preserves the language of school rhetoric, because his collection gives us strictly conventional material about religion, because he presents an unadulterated mirror-image of imperial policy and propaganda and because he is ‘middle-brow’ and thus depicts common attitudes. The text has also sometimes been studied for what it reveals about Early Imperial Latin, non-Republican culture and the organisation of Roman knowledge. Most recently, Tara Welch has argued that Valerius deliberately strips exempla of all authorial input, including his own, in an attempt to make himself a conduit for traditio. Alternatively, study of the text is justified by interest in the time period in which it was written.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 245 - 260
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

1

A version of this paper was first presented at the Roman Byways conference held at the University of Sydney in memory of Charles Tesoriero; my sincere thanks to those attending the conference and since then to Susanna Braund, Kit Morrell, Tristan Taylor, the anonymous reader for CQ and the editor, Bruce Gibson, for their valuable comments and advice.

References

2 See esp. Maslakov, G., ‘Valerius Maximus and Roman historiography. A study of the exempla tradition’, ANRW 32.1 (1984), 437–96Google Scholar, at 439–45 and W.M. Bloomer, Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility (Chapel Hill, 1992), 19 and 254–8.

3 Attempts to come to grips with Valerius himself and his particular concerns are most notably found in the work of Bloomer (n. 2), C. Skidmore, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen (Exeter, 1996), xv-xvii and H.F. Mueller, Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus (London, 2002), 3–5. See also D. Wardle, Valerius Maximus Memorable Deeds and Sayings Book 1 Translated with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford, 1998), 14–15 for a clear statement in support of Valerius’ authorial voice.

4 Carney, T.F., ‘The picture of Marius in Valerius Maximus’, RhM 105 (1962), 289–337 Google Scholar, at  289–91.

5 Sinclair, B., ‘Declamatory sententiae in Valerius Maximus’, Prometheus 10 (1984), 141–6Google Scholar, at 146.

6 Wardle (n. 3), 24.

7 A. Weileder, Valerius Maximus: Spiegel Kaiserlicher Selbstdarstellung (Munich, 1998), 44.

8 Mueller (n. 3), 3, 53 and 176.

9 Bloomer, W., ‘Good behaviour’, CR 48 (1998), 52–4Google Scholar, at 52.

10 Welch, T., ‘Was Valerius Maximus a hack?’, AJPh 134 (2013), 67–82 Google Scholar, at 68, 77.

11 Mueller (n. 3), 2–3 and Maslakov (n. 2), 437–8.

12 Mueller (n. 3), 3.

13 R. Langlands, Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, 2006), 125.

14 Ibid.

15 Bernstein, N.W., ‘“Torture her until she lies”: torture, testimony, and social status in Roman rhetorical education’, G&R 59 (2012), 165–77Google Scholar, at 166–8 usefully collects a range of sources on the potential difficulties of torture as a source of evidence.

16 Kaster, R.A., ‘The taxonomy of patience, or when is patientia not a virtue?’, CPh 97 (2002), 133–45Google Scholar, at 137.

17 The text of Valerius Maximus used throughout is that of John Briscoe: J. Briscoe (ed.), Valerius Maximus, vols. I and II (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1998). Translations of Valerius, unless otherwise specified, are my own.

18 The only Roman who does suffer torture at the hands of a foreign power in the Facta et Dicta is M. Atilius Regulus (cos. 267) and in this case, of course, the threat of summi cruciatus fails to motivate Regulus to plead for the release of the Carthaginian prisoners at Rome (2.9.8); the story of Regulus’ torture—although without the detail of his successful resistance—is also told in the chapter De Crudelitate (9.2.ext.1).

19 Sartre, in his introduction to Henri Alleg's account of his own torture in Algeria, The Question, also conceives of the power dynamic present in torture as a two-sided struggle: ‘The torturer pits himself against the tortured for his “manhood” and the duel is fought as if it were not possible for both sides to belong to the human race.’: H. Alleg, The Question (trans. John Calder) (London, 1958), 23.

20 Kaster (n. 16), 138–9.

21 The otherwise very faithful translation of D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Valerius Maximus Memorable Doings and Sayings, vol. I (Cambridge, MA, 2000), 281 blurs this emphasis by making vengeance the active donor of pleasure: ‘… he suffered all manner of torments, but resolutely maintained upon his face the joy his vengeance had given him.’ H.J. Walker, Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings (Indianapolis, 2004), 99 comes closer: ‘The slave was captured and subjected to every kind of torture but steadfastly persisted in showing on his face the pleasure he had gotten from his revenge.’

22 Bloomer (n. 2), 212, in a different context, identifies that Valerius positions Julius Caesar at the end of a series of exempla in order to underline his importance and the definitive interpretation of the virtue under discussion. What works for Caesar must also be relevant in this case.

23 non ergo fastidioso aditu uirtus: excitata uiuida ingenia ad se penetrare patitur, neque haustum sui cum aliquo personarum discrimine largum malignumue praebet, sed omnibus aequaliter exposita quid cupiditatis potius quam quid dignitatis attuleris aestimat, inque captu bonorum suorum tibi ipsi pondus examinandum relinquit, ut quantum subire animo sustinueris, tantum tecum auferas. (3.3.ext.7)

24 … eaque patientia regi … expetendae populi Romani amicitiae magnam cupiditatem ingenerauit (3.3.2).

25 Bernstein (n. 15), 171.

26 Another, less elevated, external exemplum implying resistance to torture is placed at 9.12.ext.1, where Coma, a dux latronum, is captured and asked by P. Rutilius for details of his comrades. He kills himself by suffocation and Valerius compares this strength of purpose with those who choose instead to torture themselves with elaborate plans for suicide. Outside of Valerius Maximus, there are other examples of those of low status who commit suicide in order to protect their accomplices, for instance, the unnamed man of the Termestine region under Tiberius and Epicharis, the freedwoman who protects her noble co-conspirators against Nero (Tac. Ann. 4.45 and 15.57). So, too, Clemens the freedman of Agrippa Postumus (Cass. Dio 57.16).

27 E. Peters, Torture (Philadelphia, 1996), 18.

28 T. Mommsen and P. Krueger, with translation by A. Watson, The Digest of Justinian (Philadelphia, 1985) is the edition of the text used throughout this paper. All translations from the Digest are those of Watson.

29 For instance, P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (London, 1970), 141–7, in which the section on torture barely mentions slaves.

30 Brunt, P.A., ‘Evidence under torture in the Principate’, ZRG 97 (1981), 256–65Google Scholar, at 260.

31 Bernstein (n. 15), 169–70.

32 There are thirteen incidents that emphasize the ineffectiveness of torture in the Facta et Dicta: 2.9.8, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.ext.2, 3.3.ext.3, 3.3.ext.4, 3.3.ext.5, 6.8.1, 8.4.1, 8.4.2 and 8.4.3. Of these, four depict the judicial torture of slaves: 6.8.1, 8.4.1, 8.4.2 and 8.4.3. The use of torture at 6.8.5 (as will be discussed) could be seen as successful in a secondary sense.

33 As Garnsey (n. 29), 215 points out, at different periods there was more or less resistance to the idea of torturing slaves to provide evidence against their masters, but certain crimes were generally excepted from the prohibition.

34 This exemplum provides part of the evidence that incestus was a charge that allowed slaves to be tortured as a means of securing evidence against their masters; Garnsey (n. 29), 215.

35 Interestingly, an edict of Antoninus Pius preserved in the Digest by both Archadius Charisius (48.10.1) and Paulus (48.15.1) states that those under 14 should not be tortured as witnesses in capital cases because, although they are likely to lie, they are too young to be exposed to the asperitas of torture.

36 argui fortuna merito potest quod tam pium et tam fortem spiritum seruili nomine inclusit (6.8.1).

37 The honour in the refusal to give up information depends on the victim having information to reveal; it is notable that, when speakers in a controuersia were trying to undermine the high moral ground of a matrona being divorced for barrenness after withstanding interrogation by torture about her (future) tyrannicide husband, they argued that she was silent only from ignorance (Sen. Contr. 2.5.12, 2.5.20). For further, very interesting, discussion of this particular case, see Pagán, V., ‘Teaching torture in Seneca Controuersiae 2.5’, CJ 103 (2007), 165–82Google Scholar.

38 This display of empathy is particularly interesting given that the Romans are often thought of as inured to violence against slaves; as observed by Parker, H., ‘Crucially funny or Tranio on the couch: the seruus callidus and jokes about torture’, TAPhA 119 (1989), 233–46Google Scholar, at 240, ‘The Romans had no objections to public torture and executions in everyday life …’. Elsewhere, Parker notes that C. Plotius Plancus is the only master to give himself up in order to protect his slaves: H. Parker, ‘Loyal slaves and loyal wives: the crisis of the outsider-within and Roman exemplum literature’, in S.R. Joshel and S. Murnaghan (edd.), Women & Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture (London, 1998), 152–73, at 160. R. Saller, ‘Corporal punishment, authority, and obedience in the Roman household’, in B. Rawson (ed.), Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (Canberra, 1991), 144–65, at 159–60 also emphasizes in his discussion of uerbera—a facet of torture in Valerius Maximus—how routine the public and private beating of slaves was at Rome. Masters did have the option to manumit slaves to prevent their torture, but this, as Cicero suggests, could well indicate a desire to avoid particular evidence coming to the fore rather than any concern for the slave (Cic. Mil. 57). H. Morales, ‘The torturer's apprentice: Parrhasius and the limits of art’, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge, 1996), 182–209, at 188–209 demonstrates some of the complexities involved in understanding Roman objections to (hypothetical) slave torture; interestingly, where sympathy for the victim is expressed in Seneca the Elder's Contr. 10.5, Morales argues it is based on the victim's powerlessness and frailty (ibid., 196–7).

39 This seems to be part of a general, and increasing, concern with power, status and torture in the Early Imperial period. There is a great emphasis in the literature dealing with the Julio-Claudian period on the unsuccessful torture of traditionally vulnerable figures and the successful interrogation of those whose status traditionally protected them from torture.

40 Parker (n. 38 [1998]), 160.

41 Ibid., 163.

42 P. DuBois, Torture and Truth (New York, 1991), 68.

43 Ibid.; also Peters (n. 27), 31.

44 48.18.1.23: quaestioni fidem non semper nec tamen numquam habendam constitutionibus declaratur: etenim res est fragilis et periculosa et quae ueritatem fallat. nam plerique patientia siue duritia tormentorum ita tormenta contemnunt, ut exprimi eis ueritas nullo modo possit: alii tanta sunt inpatientia, ut quoduis mentiri quam pati tormenta uelint: ita fit, ut enim uario modo fateantur, ut non tantum se, uerum etiam alios criminentur.

45 Maslakov (n. 2), 448–9 and Bloomer (n. 2), 150–2.

46 Shackleton Bailey (n. 21 [vol. II]), 213.

47 Bailey, D.R. Shackleton, ‘On Valerius Maximus’, RFIC 124 (1996), 175–84Google Scholar, at 182.

48 As stated above, even Valerius’ arguably most sympathetic modern scholar suggests that the uncomfortable juxtaposition of exempla in the work could be unintentional: Langlands (n. 13), 125.

49 48.18.1.27. Ulpian introduces the incident by stating: ‘If a person should confess to wrongdoing of his own accord, he should not always be believed; for sometimes people confess out of fear or for some other reason.’ It is notable that legislation was put in place in order to manage this eventuality. Kit Morrell on reading this paper also suggested the possibility that the slave might have been protecting someone else through a false confession.

50 On a number of occasions the Digest stresses the need for supplementary evidence for information gained under torture; e.g. 48.18.1.4; 48.18.8 or 48.18.1.17.

51 Although this exemplum might suggest that confession was a necessary precursor to execution, the legal signficance of Valerius’ comment is unclear. Hadrian is said to have advised torture as a useful technique when only the confessio was lacking from an investigation which implies that confesion was a desirable element (48.8.1.1); Severus, on the other hand, notes that the force of a confession is not equal to proof by other investigations (48.8.1.17). J. Harries, Law and Crime in the Roman World (Cambridge, 2007), 33 cites exemplum 8.4.2 as proof of the fact that there seems to have been no strict legal necessity for confession. Interestingly, when M. Hengel, Crucifixion (London, 1977), 59 cites the exemplum as a demonstration of the brutality of state punishments, he interprets the text as indicating that Alexander was eventually forced to confess; this (keeping in mind the warning of W.W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery [Cambridge, 1908] 92 regarding the lack of a cohesive criminal law code) is perhaps indicative of the extent to which scholars have associated confession and execution.

52 J.R. Ballengee, The Wound and the Witness (Albany, 2009), 10.

53 This demonstrates the need to examine stylistic choices made by Valerius Maximus rather than classifying them sweepingly as ‘faults typical of poor and affected writing’: C.J. Carter, ‘Valerius Maximus’ in T.A. Dorey (ed.), Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II (London, 1975), 25–56, at 45.

54 In the preface to chapter 3.8, De Constantia, Valerius specifies that constantia is the gift of natura; this is part of Valerius’ strategy throughout the work of depicting natura as the source of qualities (such as pietas [5.4.ext.5], crudelitas [9.2.ext.11] and humanitas [5.1.ext.6]) whose universality he emphasizes. De Constantia finishes the internal material with a self-conscious transition to two exempla about centurions, the first of whom Valerius describes as possessing sine ullis imaginibus nobilem animum (3.8.7).

55 Cassius Dio attributes the innovation of selling slaves to the state to increase the applicability of judicial torture to Augustus (55.5.4). Garnsey (n. 29), 144 states that Tiberius at his worst ‘used torture freely against free men and citizens’. Brunt (n. 30), 259–60, however, argues that the evidence does not support a real change to the legal position of free men and citizens as regards judicial torture, but rather that these tales of torture are part of the depiction of Tiberius as a tyrannical ruler. Pagán (n. 37), 178–9 suggests that an increasingly tyrannical use of torture inspires a perceptible ‘unease’ towards judicial torture in declaimers of the Tiberian era.