You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE<br />
demanded that the emperor send in Tetrinius to fight as a gladiator. Caligula<br />
brusquely turned down the request, on the grounds that those who made it<br />
were themselves just like Tetrinius. 10 Insignes <strong>latrones</strong> and, with these, probably<br />
also famosi <strong>latrones</strong>, unlike their common colleagues in crime, enjoyed<br />
no possibility of appealing against their death sentence: it was held to be in<br />
the public interest to execute such criminals forthwith. 11 The same holds<br />
true for seditionem concitatores and duces factionum – ‘instigators of revolts’: for<br />
the purposes of this study it is interesting that top-class <strong>latrones</strong> were mentioned<br />
in the same breath as agitators and ringleaders of rebellions. The<br />
prosecution of <strong>latrones</strong>, given the threat they posed to public order, was the<br />
personal responsibility of provincial governors. 12 To proceed against a latro<br />
by means of trickery was not considered illegal as a dolus malus – ‘entrapment’,<br />
but rather praised as a dolus bonus – ‘stratagem’. 13 This is clear from<br />
a case in Tacitus. 14 A servus latro – ‘slave-bandit’ – could be killed without<br />
penalty. 15 Latrones might also include those who committed the crimes of<br />
receiving stolen goods, evading sentence and aiding and abetting, as well<br />
as banditry proper. 16 On the other hand, from the time of Hadrian there<br />
was mitigation in the punishment of those who turned informer, and helped<br />
arrest accomplices. 17<br />
From these texts it can be concluded that though every latro was a robber,<br />
not every robber was a latro. In other words, the crime of robbery appears to<br />
have been a necessary, but not a sufficient, criterion for being a latro. Latrones<br />
are emphasised as a special category of robbers through their use of weapons<br />
(vis armata), through their forming of bands ( factiones, homines armati coactive) 18<br />
and through their aim of plunder (spoliare) with malice aforethought (dolus<br />
malus). In brief, therefore, <strong>latrones</strong> are those who, as armed brigands, commit<br />
particularly serious crimes.<br />
The establishment of a distinction between <strong>latrones</strong> and ordinary robbers<br />
may be followed up with an opinion of the jurist Pomponius, which offers<br />
an even closer definition of the term latro: ‘“Enemies” are those who have<br />
made a formal declaration of war against us, or against whom we have so<br />
declared. The rest are either <strong>latrones</strong> or praedones.’ 19 His declaration hinges on<br />
a conception of the hostis as an agent defined by his exclusivity. The exclusive<br />
characteristic of the hostis is his capacity to make a declaration of war<br />
that is valid under international law. By contrast, all other enemies of state<br />
are <strong>latrones</strong> or, synonymously, praedones. However, apart from their inability<br />
to make a public declaration of war, <strong>latrones</strong> are indistinguishable from hostes.<br />
In particular, as is shown in the concluding antithesis of Pomponius’ opinion,<br />
hostes and <strong>latrones</strong> are linked by the common characteristic that they both<br />
wage war on the Roman state. But hostes are regular, and <strong>latrones</strong> irregular<br />
wartime enemies. As Theodor Mommsen commented, <strong>latrones</strong> are ‘different<br />
from hostes only in political terms’. 20 However, this difference went beyond<br />
that of simple definition; it also had a particular judicial relevance, insofar as<br />
freemen could become the captives of either <strong>latrones</strong> or hostes. According to<br />
16