Valorizing the Barbarians: Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography

Introduction

introdUction The white man, strangely enough, tries to describe himself in the same oversimplified and malicious terms once used by the colonizer to describe the colonized. Pascal BrUckner, thE tEars of thE WhitE Man: CoMpassion as ContEMpt setting the scene: romans and the colonial “other” It is no secret that scholarly views of Roman imperialism and colonialism have altered considerably in the past few decades. In a recent article appearing in the journal Helios, Stephen H. Rutledge refers to Tacitus’ Agricola as “an abettor in the colonial process.”1 According to Rutledge, this work—despite its famous Calgacus speech (30–32) decrying the injustices of Roman imperialism —serves as a colonialist document aimed at perpetuating “the further expansion and spread of the Romanitas Agricola imposes on Britain.”2 Amounting to a more forceful articulation of current positions, Rutledge’s article seems to be in sympathy with the dominant view of Roman expansion and colonialism among contemporary classical scholars. In short, Rome the reflective, self-conscious power is out; Rome the self-assured maligner of other cultures is in. Accordingly, much recent discussion of Roman imperialism has centered on the ways in which ancient Roman historians consciously or unconsciously denigrate non-Romans.3 In some cases, contemporary historians have perceived ancient authors’ seemingly trenchant criticisms of Rome as subtly undermining the anti-imperialist positions they superficially appear to support .4 By this means, some of the most glaring examples of anti-Roman sentiment —such as Calgacus’ speech in the Agricola—have been cast as proRoman in effect. In a similar vein, contemporary scholars have downplayed Roman elite anxiety about their empire’s expansion. Benjamin Isaac, for ex- 2 introdUction ample, discussing numerous ancient literary sources on Roman imperialism, argues that “all speak exclusively in terms of utility, of cost and benefit, in addition to the desire for glory. Nowhere is it argued that one should refrain from foreign conquest for moral reasons or from considerations of justice or humanity.”5 More expansively, even the subtlest recent scholarly works that pertain to Roman perceptions of foreigners focus the large majority of their attention on Roman self-assurance and denigration of others.6 To some extent this is entirely appropriate; Roman writers offer much evidence of Roman selfaggrandizement . Yet this does not tell the whole story. This book aims in part to challenge such conclusions by testing the degree to which ancient historians of Rome were capable of valorizing foreigners and presenting criticisms of their own society. Clearly, contemporary positions on the general nature of Roman expansion have influenced perceptions of Roman attitudes toward their colonial subjects. During the late nineteenth century, as well as the early and midtwentieth century, many scholars believed that Rome’s foreign policy was essentially “defensive” in nature.7 That is to say, the Romans, who were traditionally hesitant to annex territory, did not intend to become masters of a huge empire; rather, they stumbled into a series of wars that compelled them to take control of a large number of provinces and a vast dominion. Since the 1970s, numerous Roman historians have questioned this thesis.8 In part as a result of more negative views of modern Western imperialism, scholars have criticized the notion of “defensive imperialism” as an elaborate exoneration of Roman conduct. This has especially been the case among British historians of Rome who came of age during their own country’s post-imperial period.9 And given current political vicissitudes, discussions of American imperialism are likely to have a great influence on such conclusions in the years to come.10 Nor are these the only intellectual influences on contemporary positions regarding Roman perceptions of conquered peoples. Some recent work on the topic appears influenced by the spirit, if not the specifics, of postcolonial theory.11 Much as Edward Said argued that Orientalists offered a demeaning portrait of Easterners in order to justify their exploitation and domination at the hands of the West,12 a number of contemporary scholars of Roman history have detected a penchant on the part of ancient authors to characterize non-Romans in a derogatory fashion. All this amounts to an understandable rejection of earlier views of Roman imperialism and the perception of colonial subjects in antiquity. Although contemporary critics may be too quick to suggest that political judgments regarding the modern West lie behind the erstwhile attraction to “defensive introdUction 3 imperialism,”13 it is undoubtedly true that...