Ethnography, Politics, and Philosophy

As mentioned above, ethnographical writing was an important source of Roman images of places and peoples, at least among the educated classes. The genre dates back at least to the sixth century B.C. , by which time the rapid expansion of Greek trade and colonization had made the wider world a subject of keen interest.^[27] The earliest Greek descriptions of "foreign places" ranged from the purely informational accounts of early navigators (periploi ) and the credulous reporting of wonders associated with distant lands, to the more searching ethnographical material in the work of Ionian logographers and the ethnographical "digressions" (if such they may be termed) in the works of historians

[26] For a wide-ranging discussion of both the rhetoric and the reality of the "East vs. West" topos, see Carratelli, "Europa ed Asia." For the topos "North and South" (usually cast as a comparison between Scythians and Ethiopians), see Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity, 169–75, who notes that characteristic differences between the two groups are normally attributed by Greek and Roman writers to environmental differences.

[27] Seminal works in the study of the ethnographical tradition are Norden, Die germanische Urgeschichte; Trüdinger, "Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie." Thomas, Lands and Peoples, 1–5, provides a useful summary of the genre. For a valuable overview of geography and ethnography in the late Republic, see Rawson, Intellectual Life, 250–66.

such as Herodotus. The eastern campaigns of Alexander gave rise to a second wave of interest in geography and ethnography, and, as A. Dihle points out, this Hellenistic material was strongly influenced by the inclination to ascertain the rational causes of observed phenomena. Dihle notes that those who wrote of foreign places in these times—officers, diplomats, and travelers—couched their observations within the context of general aetiological theories. Further, he asserts that "the public for whom these men composed their observations demanded an anthropological, geophysical, moral or historical arrangement of new information."^[28]

The aetiologies advanced by Hellenistic authors to explain their data are difficult to recover from the later works in which they are incorporated. They may in general, however, be divided into two groups: those theories (like that of the author of On Airs, Waters, Places ) that emphasized the direct effect on the human constitution of "climate"—by which the ancients meant such things as distance from the sun, moistness or dryness in a location, or the characteristics of a particular band of latitude; and, on the other hand, those theories that assumed that the psychological and physical characteristics of individuals, as well as the level of civilization achieved by particular ethnic groups, could be explained by the combined effect of customs, traditions, and practices. These customs, traditions, and practices, in turn, were thought to be determined by a variety of environmental factors—including geography, climate, exposure to other cultures, and, especially, the means available in a certain location for sustaining life.^[29] This latter viewpoint is well represented in the pages of Diodorus Siculus, who begins his universal history with a rationalizing anthropology that attributes human progress to a process of trial and error, spurred by the necessity of maintaining life and facilitated by humans' possession of "hands, speech, and acuity of mind."^[30] For Diodorus (and certain of his Hellenistic sources), the explanation for the astounding diversity of human mores

[28] "Zur hellenistischen Ethnographie," 209: "Verlangt das Publikum, für das sie ihre Berichte abfassen, nach anthropologischer, geophysikalischer, moralischer oder geschichtlicher Einordnung der neuen Informationen."

[29] Dihle, "Zur hellenistischen Ethnographie," 216, contrasts the point of view of figures such as Megasthenes and Agatharchides, who explained ethnic traits by reference to custom and custom by reference to general environment, with that of figures such as Posidonius, who is criticized by Strabo (2.3.7, chaps. 102–3) for his reliance in ethnography on the idea of climatic zones.

[30] 1.8.9.

could be found in the natural drive of humans to use whatever means exist in a particular location in order to sustain life.^[31]

Earlier Hellenistic ethnography, an exclusively Greek science, was reflected in both Greek and Latin literature of Cicero's day. By the late Republic, the categories, if not the contents, of ethnographical discussions were fixed: the authors of such excursuses invariably alluded to aspects of the physical environment of a particular ethnic group (including physical geography, climate, crops, raw materials) as well as to their social institutions (including political, religious, and military groupings). A review of ethnographical passages in several works of the period reveals the kinds of assumptions about the connection between ethnic groups and their habitation that would have been widespread at the time.

The short ethnographical account of Africa in Sallust's Bellum Jugurthinum (17–19) is, unfortunately, of limited use here, as the author hardly goes beyond the bare facts that he has received from his Carthaginian source and does not encourage the reader to analyze the reasons for the character traits and institutions he ascribes to the Africans. He presents a picture of a North Africa inhabited by mixed races: according to Sallust, the nomadic and savage Gaetulians, a people without customs, laws, or rulers, had intermarried with the Medes, a race who had come to western Europe with the army of Hercules, to produce the "Numidians" of his own day.^[32]

[31] See 1.8.1–10 (anthropology and discovery of language), 43.1 (Egyptians' discovery of edible foods); 2.38.2 (repetition of 1.8.9 in description of India); 3.10.6 (nature guides animals to survive), 15.7 (adaptation through necessity), 19.2 (house building), 49.5 (development of military skills). Diodorus also takes note of the effect of climate on health and body type (2.48.8; 3.34.8; 5.19.3), although only once does he explain mental ability in terms of the direct influence of climate (2.36.1: Indian skill in the arts is explained by the purity of the air and the quality of the drinking water). This theory of chance discovery, however, does not prevent the author from constantly reproducing his sources' euhemeristic or mythical accounts of the contributions of various culture givers (Hercules, Dionysus, Hermes, etc.) to human progress.

[32] See Scanlon, The Influence of Thucydides, ad loc., who compares Sallust's ethnography with Thucydides' digression on Sicilian antiquities (6.1–5), noting the shared pragmatic desire on the part of the two authors to acquaint their readers with information that will orient them in preparation for the description of the military campaign to follow. (Cf. Polyb. 3.36.8; 5.21.4–9; Cic. De or. 2.63; Or. 66.) Paul, Historical Commentary, 71–72, in analyzing Sallust's excursus, agrees with Tacitus's description of such passages as an attempt to "entertain and refresh" the reader (cf. Tac. Ann. 4.33: situs gentium . . . retinent ac redintegrant legentium animos ). See also Syme, Sallust, 153, 192–95.

Ethnographical passages in the Geography of Strabo, however, are more revealing and merit consideration because although this work was not available to Roman readers during his lifetime, it drew on many other earlier and contemporary sources that would have been well known to the educated classes of Cicero's day. A review of the ethnographical material in the Geography leads the reader to conclude that for Strabo differences between ethnic groups were primarily the result of cultural, economic, and geographical circumstances rather than due to the inborn traits of various peoples.^[33] When Strabo speaks of the Turdetani of Baetica (Cordoba), for instance, he notes that they were the cleverest and most civilized of the Iberians in his own time but were formerly the most brutish (3.1.6, 3.2.4–15). Likewise, the wildness of the mountain-dwelling Lusitanians is not, according to the author, due to any inherent defect but is explained by their "remoteness" (ektopismon ), which has prevented the growth of communal organization (to koinonikon ) and civilization (to philanthropon ) (3.3.8). Although it is true that Strabo often has recourse to stereotypical descriptions of ethnic groups—the Iberians, for example, are dour and malicious; the Celts, passionate and fickle; and the Western barbarians in general are cruel—he implies that the passage from savagery to civilization may be made by all. This passage is initiated through contact with Greco-Roman city-states and leads, in places where geography has been suitable, to the creation of stable agriculture, private property, law, and, the ultimate sign of civilized life, large urban centers. Where land was not suitable for settled agriculture, however, the inhabitants were apparently doomed to a life of savagery.^[34]

The employment of ethnography in the writings of Julius Caesar is a more complex matter than in Strabo's Geography, for with the Bellum Gallicum we encounter the exploitation of seemingly objective ethnographical material in support of a cleverly disguised but nonetheless tendentious account of history—the first Latin example of what might be

[33] See especially Strabo's criticism of Posidonius (2.3.7–8 chaps. 102–3). See also Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice, esp. 12–13.

[34] For agriculture as the sine qua non of civilization, see Guthrie, In the Beginning, 95–98 , and Greeks and Their Gods, 285–87. Cf. Caes. B. Gall. 5.14.

called a consciously "rhetorical" ethnography. It is chiefly in those sections of the work in which the author hoped to justify a controversial military policy that he has recourse to stereotypes of the barbarians as cruel, arrogant, faithless, or given to passionate anger. For instance, in the first book of the Bellum Gallicum Caesar creates a picture of the German Ariovistus and his followers as cruel and savage barbarians in order to cast his campaign against them in the form of a moral tale in which Roman arms are used "to spare the conquered and vanquish the proud" (Verg. Aen. 6.853).^[35] Such sections stand in marked contrast to the author's overall portrayal of the barbarian struggle against Roman arms as motivated primarily by a noble desire for libertas .^[36]

For the most part, Caesar's explanation for the differences in customs and temperaments among barbarians recalls that of Strabo. The least civilized and most savage tribes are those farthest from Greco-Roman trade and settlements. The Gauls were formerly fiercer and more savage than the Germans, but the nearness of the Roman provinces and their exposure to the amenities of civilization had made them soft (6.24).^[37] Caesar's admiration for the fortitude of his enemies is clear, and he notes several times that the tribes who were least civilized were also his bravest and most formidable foes. In addition to simple geographical isolation as an explanation for the relative degree of civilization or savagery among ethnic groups, Caesar points to the desire of the barbarians themselves to preserve their way of life. The Germans are the hardiest and bravest of peoples not only because they are farthest removed from the luxury goods of the civilized world but also because they actively reject them as emasculating (4.2).

In rare instances Caesar departs from the idea that the chief ethnic differences between barbarian tribes are to be explained by their isola-

[35] Ariovistus is described chiefly through the complaints of the Gallic tribes whom he has dominated: the German is said to exercise his power "haughtily and cruelly" (1.31: superbe et crudeliter imperare ); he is "savage, fierce, rash" (1.31: hominem . . . barbarum, iracundum, temerarium ); and the tribes live in fear of his "cruelty" (1.32: crudelitatem . . . horrerent ) and "tortures" (1.32: omnes cruciatus ). Caesar concludes that such "wild and savage men" (1.33: homines feros ac barbaros ) posed a threat to Roman territory, and he must therefore pursue this war, even though it takes him beyond the confines of the Roman province. (See Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice, 13–15.)

[36] B.Gall. 3.10; 5.27, 29, 54; 7.1, 76.

[37] Cf. B.Gall. 1.1, 36; 4.3; 5.14.

tion from or contact with civilizing influences.^[38] In his account of the revolt of all Gaul under the leadership of Vercingetorix, the author describes how the Aedui, formerly closely allied with the Romans, were drawn into the rebellion. He states that some were influenced by avarice, others by anger and "by the rashness that is especially engendered in the [Gallic] race" (7.42: impellit alios avaritia alios iracundia et temeritas, quae maxime illi hominum generi est innata ). The fickleness and mental mobility of the Gauls—seen in their most insidious dimensions in the depiction of the Gauls' perfidy and faithlessness to their commitments, in a less threatening guise in their tendency to hopelessness and loss of spirit when faced with adversity—are frequently alluded to and are treated by the author as inherent traits rather than products of culture.^[39]

We might take note as well of a curious statement in Caesar's account of the Suebi, the largest and most bellicose of the German tribes. Describing the group's rough and uncivilized life, which is chiefly devoted to hunting and warfare, Caesar remarks that the reasons for the Suebians' great physical strength and huge stature (4.1: vires . . . et immani corporum magnitudine ) were to be found in their food (consisting of milk, cheese, cattle, and the flesh of hunted animals), their daily exercise in hunting or warfare, and the "freedom of their life" (4.1: libertate vitae ). In explanation of this last Caesar notes that from boyhood the Suebians are not schooled in duty or discipline and do nothing at all that they do not wish to do (4.1: nullo officio aut disciplina adsuefacti nihil omnino contra voluntatem faciant ). It is clear to any reader of the Bellum Gallicum that Caesar ascribed the triumph of Roman arms in Gaul not only to his own good fortune and ability but in large part to the discipline and fidelity to duty of those who served under him. The work illustrates time and again how the gravest of perils could be over-

[38] In spite of his acceptance of slavery and of the idea of the natural inferiority of the barbarians to the Greeks, Xenophon had made the same observation, stating that the "most barbarous" barbarians are those "farthest removed from the customs of the Greeks" (An. 5.4.34). For primitivist assertions that barbarian society was corrupted by contact with the Greco-Roman world, see Cic. Tusc. 5.90; Strabo 7.3.7, chaps. 300–301; Justin. Epit. 2.2; Dio Chrys. 6.25.

[39] B Gall. 2.1 (mobilitate et levitate ); 3.8 (Gallorum subita et repentina consilia ), 19 (willingness to begin a war but lack of steadfastness in defeat); 4.5 (prey to rumors). This same mobilitas may be implied in Caesar's observation that the Gauls were especially quick-witted and adept at imitating other cultures (7.22).

come by an army schooled in the belief that the individual must be willing to sacrifice his own desires and interests to those of the group as a whole. It is striking, therefore, to note that in this passage Caesar argues that it is the absence of this very disciplina and sense of officium that allowed the individual to grow most powerful, at least in a physical sense.

Caesar's accounts of the Gauls and the Germans, his analysis of their motives and intentions, and his interpretation of the character of the tribes in the areas in which he operated must have reached a large popular audience, for the Bellum Gallicum, even if its contents were not identical with the dispatches sent back to the Senate from Gaul, surely reflected the tone and content of those dispatches. And Caesar was well aware that it would be his account of events in such dispatches that would ultimately form the basis for reports to the populace about the course of events in the war, for speeches by his adherents celebrating his deeds, and for proclamations of public thanksgivings to be celebrated in honor of his victories. His exploitation of ethnographical material, then, was directed to both Senate and people and was meant not simply to inform but to persuade as well.^[40] This observation leads us to consider, at least briefly, the role that characterization of non-Roman groups played in Roman politics in general.

When Roman orators appeared before the people to speak on behalf of declaring war against a foreign state or granting a military command to an individual they would have combined considerations of expediency with those of justice, since fetial law demanded that the Roman state act only in a just cause.^[41] Those who favored a declaration of war, therefore, would have needed to prove that the state in question was guilty of wrongdoing against Rome or her allies, while those opposed could argue that Roman honor or fides to an ally did not require military intervention. Both those attacking and those defending a declaration of war against a foreign state would have supported their interpretation of events by fitting particular incidents into a pattern of past actions—a pattern that, in turn, would have been explained through

[40] On Caesar's ethnography, see Beckmann, Geographie; Klotz, "Geographie."

[41] See "fetiales" in RE 12(1909):2259–65; Harris, War and Imperialism, 166–75; Cic. Off. 1.36–38. Although by the late Republic fetial law would have lacked any actual "motive power"—as Badian has noted (Roman Imperialism, 11–12)—the necessity to give lip service to claims of justice would have endured.

assumptions about the character and temperament of the people in question. The underlying motives for urging declarations of war were many and in most cases must have outnumbered those inclining speakers towards advocating restraint. Actual fear of a perceived threat, the insatiable desire of the upper classes for military command and glory, and the efficacy of a campaign against an external enemy in suppressing internal faction are but a few of the former. Given the constant engagement of Roman armies throughout the Mediterranean, the citizens of Republican Rome doubtlessly proved a receptive audience for a barrage of indictments lodged against foreign peoples for their supposed duplicity, ferocity, barbarism, and impiety.^[42]

Arguments concerning the character and intentions of Rome's allies, provinces, friends, and enemies not only figured in the conduct of foreign policy but at the same time played an essential role in internal political struggles, also fought out before the eyes of Roman voters. Vilification of a foreign people could serve as part of an overall strategy in which one's political opponents were themselves identified with an external enemy. Octavian's propaganda against Antony's governance of the eastern provinces provides the most conspicuous example of such a strategy, the precedent for which was surely the claims of Alexander's enemies that he had become more Asian than Greek.^[43] On the other hand, internal political considerations might also prompt a man to defend the character of a foreign people. Roman politicians would frequently have attempted to increase their own prestige by acting on behalf of their foreign clientela, and the power of a leader was greatly enhanced if, as patron, he were able to procure citizenship for a subjugated or allied people. Political enmity might also influence a politician's

[42] For a summary of Roman stereotypes of specific ethnic groups, see Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, 30–71. Some military operations were initiated by a Roman governor or by the Senate without action by the Comitia Centuriata. It is unclear from the ancient evidence how often, in Cicero's day, appeal was made to the voters for a formal declaration of war; a speech such as the De imperio Pompei, however, shows that there would indeed be opportunities for public debates (contiones ) concerning projected military action.

[43] Alexander's opponents attempted to rouse their fellow Greeks to rebellion by claiming that the Macedonian king had succumbed to the model of Persian satrapy. See Haarhoff, Stranger at the Gate, 80–84; Badian, "Agis III"; Borza, "The End of Agis' Revolt," esp. 233–35. On the other hand, anti-Persianism was exploited by Isocrates in support of Philip. See Bringmann, Studien, 96–102; Dobesch, Der panhellenische Gedanke; Cloché, Isocrate, 57–127; Kessler, Isokrates, 45–80.

support of foreign peoples. We learn, for instance, that Cato accused Caesar of outraging the rights of innocent Germans and argued that he should be bound and handed over to them for his violations of fetial law.^[44] Of the role of characterization of non-Romans in the arena of the law courts more will be said in the next chapter.

Finally, some mention should be made of attitudes identified with the philosophical schools dominant in late Republican Rome: Stoicism and Epicureanism. While it cannot be claimed that these schools would have had a direct influence on the opinions of the masses, they might well have had an indirect effect, for a combination of philosophical and advanced rhetorical training played a role in the education of the leading politicians of Cicero's day, and such men would surely have made use of philosophical tenets—albeit disguising them well—whenever these ideas were useful in furthering their positions.^[45] In spite of the gap that separated the two philosophies, there existed an underlying similarity of belief between them.^[46] Both schools were cosmopolitan in outlook and addressed themselves to the question of the happiness of the individual through assumptions about human nature at all times and in all cultures. Epicurean physiology recognized no essential differences between one person and another and assumed that culture, not nature, lay at the heart of perceived differences between peoples. Lucretius, chief Roman exponent of Epicureanism in the late Republic, does not acknowledge racial differences as a determining factor in the pursuit of happiness in De rerum natura . Similarly, Stoic philosophy taught that all people were alike, united by the divine spark of rationality that they shared. Although Stoicism countenanced the enslavement of individuals, it did not do so on the assumption that enslaved races were by na-

[44] For discussion of this event, see Gelzer, Caesar, 131, with n. 2.

[45] Cf. Cic. Para. 2: nos ea philosophia plus utimur, quae peperit dicendi copiam et in qua dicuntur ea quae non multum discrepent ab opinione populari.

[46] See Baldry, Unity of Mankind, esp. 141–203; Verbeke, "Le stoïcisme, une philosophie sans frontières." For a general account of Greek philosophers in Rome in Cicero's day, see Rawson, Intellectual Life, 282–97. For the Stoic idea of the world conceived as a single city, see Bréguet, "Urbi et orbi," 150–51. For Stoic anthropology, see references to Posidonius in Seneca's Ninetieth Letter . It is, in general, impossible to make assumptions about what sort of specific connections would be made between ethos and locus by individual Stoic or Epicurean writers. Strabo, for instance, shows affinities with Epicurean ethnographical theories and criticizes Posidonius. See Dihle, "Zur hellenistischen Ethnographie," 216.

ture intended for such a fate. Rather, Stoics saw no reason to support the elimination of slavery, since they believed that only moral enslavement to vice could undermine the happiness of the truly wise person.

The foregoing, while not an exhaustive survey of the complex body of ideas about the relationship between ethos and locus prevalent in the late Republic, may serve as an introduction to ancient thinking on the subject. It is important to keep in mind that, in most cases, we can only speculate about the degree to which the concepts discussed above actually influenced popular belief, since this survey is, first, dependent on the vagaries of literary survival and, second, skewed by the fact that both the authors and the intended audience of most of the sources that have survived were restricted to a small, well-educated upper class. Gravestones, inscriptions, and dedications may tell us of the numbers of foreigners in Rome or of the popularity of foreign cults, but little survives to speak to us of the way in which the common man and woman looked at the world and the people in it. If Rome possessed drama comparable to Greek Old Comedy or tragedy, with its frequent allusions to barbarians, our task would be made easier.^[47] Roman comedy, however, derives from a period generations removed from that of Cicero and, furthermore, is adapted from Greek New Comedy. Its value in predicting the sentiments and beliefs of citizens in the late Republic is therefore limited.

A similar problem presents itself when we turn to rhetorical handbooks as a source of Roman ideas about other peoples and places, for these works, like Roman comedy, constituted a hybrid genre, as much dependent on Hellenistic Greek sources as on contributions from Roman writers.^[48] Latin rhetorical handbooks did indeed advise the orator

[47] Long, Barbarians in Greek Comedy; Bacon, Barbarians in Greek Tragedy .

[48] For citations of ancient rhetorical works, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1:204–6 (§§376.2, 3, 6, 7, 11), covering arguments based on characterization of a person (argumenta a persona ), which include consideration of natio (nam et gentibus proprii mores sunt, nec idem in barbaro, Romano, Graeco probabile est), patria, educatio et disciplina, habitus, and studia (nam rusticus, forensis, negotiator, miles, navigator, medicus aliud atque aliud efficiunt) ; and 133–34 (§§245.I, 247.1, 2), covering epideictic and epideictic elements in forensic and deliberative rhetoric, in which praise or blame of an individual includes consideration of genus and patria . For the related topic of praise of places or cities, see 1:135 (§247.1, 2). On descriptions and encomia of cities, see also Classen, Die Stadt, esp. 4–5.

to use considerations of race, nationality, city-state, education, and habits of life to characterize individuals either positively or negatively. But when we turn from such general admonitions to the exceedingly rare specific examples, we find passages such as that in Cicero's De inventione noting that distinctions of race would lead one to consider whether a person "[was] a Greek or a barbarian," and distinctions of birthplace would raise the question of "whether one [was] an Athenian or a Spartan."^[49]

This state of affairs leaves us extraordinarily dependent on the extant speeches themselves as a reflection of everyday thought in the late Republic, for of all the literary works that we have inherited from this period rhetoric alone depended for its success on the belief of the many. Concerning this subject Cicero wrote that "both those who make legal judgments and those who make moral judgments are completely guided by [the opinion of the crowd]" (Top. 73: vulgi opinio mutari vix potest ad eamque omnia dirigunt et qui iudicant et qui existimant ).^[50] This is not to say that a one-to-one correspondence exists between the conceptions found in the speeches of Cicero and the opinions held by most Roman citizens. Cicero's oratorical success, however, allows us to assume that in the speeches we find a storehouse of ideas and beliefs that were both understandable and credible to the Roman public at the time at which they were delivered.

[49] Inv. 1.35. For the general question of ethos in rhetorical theory, see Kennedy, Art of Rhetoric, 100–101, 222–23; Vasaly, "Masks of Rhetoric," 1–4; May, Trials of Character, 1–12; Wisse, Ethos and Pathos .

[50] Cf. Quint. 12.10.53: Cum vero iudex detur aut populus aut ex populo, laturique sint sententiam indocti saepius atque interim rustici, omnia quae ad obtinendum quod intendimus, prodesse credemus adhibenda sunt.