Romans had a penchant for stressing their special values, qualities, and character. The assertions of leaders and the writings of intellectuals regularly affirmed their distinctiveness. A contrast with other peoples loomed large in the development of a self-perception. The history of Rome had, after all, taken shape in a setting that involved confrontations with other cultures right from the start. Etruscans and Greeks had a significant presence in the Italian peninsula in the formative years of the young city. Territorial expansion within Italy brought encounters with Sabines, Samnites, Oscans, and others even before Romans moved abroad. Exposure to Phoenician culture in North Africa, to Gauls in northern Italy, to mixed ethnic groups in Sicily, Sardinia, and Spain, preceded (and overlapped with) the great era of engagement with the Greek world of the east. The importance of differentiating Roman features took on greater urgency.
Cato the Elder gave voice to a celebrated antithesis: ‘‘the words of the Greeks issue from their lips; those of the Romans come from the heart’’ (Plut. Cat. Mai. 12.5). Cicero later sharpened the contrast, juxtaposing Greek levitas with Roman gravitas (Cic. Sest. 141). In assessing those who dwelled further east, the Roman orator could become progressively more caustic. He ascribed to the Greeks themselves slurs against Asians that he gleefully transmitted (or invented). Stereotypes, so Cicero alleged, reached the status of proverbs: the best way to improve a Phrygian was to whip him; the ultimate insult was to label an individual the worst of the Mysians; as for Carians, they are so worthless as to be fit only for human experiments (Cic. Flac. 65). Cappadocians became emblematic for stupidity, tastelessness, and a low form of humanity (Cic. Red. Sen. 14). Syrians and Jews are peoples born for servitude (Cic. Prov. Cons. 10). Livy delivers the same denunciation of the servile character of Syrians, and even lumps Asiatic Greeks into that category (Livy 35.49.8, 36.17.4-5). And Cicero targets Jews directly as addicted to a ‘‘barbarian superstition’’ (Cic. Flac. 67).
Phoenicians, of course, fared no better. Craft and deception were their hallmarks, a perception widespread among Greeks, and perpetuated by some Romans. Punica
Fides became proverbial (cf. Livy 21.4.9, 22.6.12). For Cicero, Phoenicians were acknowledged by written and material testimony alike as the most treacherous of all peoples. And Sardinians suffered from an even worse taint, for they were of Phoenician stock but they had been rejected by the Phoenicians themselves and abandoned on that disagreeable island (Cic. Scaur. 42). Egyptians were beyond the pale. No eastern people drew greater derision among Romans. The worship of animals especially prompted the scorn of Cicero, who denounced the depraved superstition that would lead Egyptians to prefer any form of torture than to do harm to an ibis, an asp, a cat, a dog, or a crocodile (e. g. Cic. Tusc. 5.78, Nat. D. 1.16.43).
When looking west Romans tended to see barbarism. Cicero brands the Gauls as practicing the savage and barbaric custom of human sacrifice (Cic. Font. 31). Cruelty and ferocity mark their character (Cic. Font. 33, 41, 43-4). Elsewhere he lumps Gauls, Spaniards, and Africans together: they are all monstrous and barbarian nations (Cic. Q Fr. 1.1.27). Spaniards even brushed their teeth in urine, according to Catullus (Catull. 37.20, 39.17-21). Blending of east and west brought still greater degeneracy, so Livy would have it. The Gauls at least used to be fierce fighters, terrifying their foes, though Roman virtue always surpassed Gallic ravings. But once Gauls moved east and mingled with Hellenic folk, they became infected with Greek decadence, a mixed bag of‘‘Gallo-Grecians,’’ just like the Macedonians, who came as conquerors of the Near East and then deteriorated into Syrians, Parthians, and Egyptians (Livy 38.17.5-11).
Stereotypes abound. Harsh judgments by Roman writers on alien peoples seem common and characteristic.1 How best to interpret them? One might infer a Roman inferiority complex, particularly with regard to Greeks, conscious of their own late arrival amid the cultures of the Mediterranean and concerned to establish their credentials by asserting the superiority of their values and principles. And the debunking of other peoples, both east and west, allowed Romans to sharpen and articulate the qualities that could help to define their own identity.
The explanation seems reasonable enough. On closer scrutiny, however, it is inadequate and simplistic - indeed, may point in exactly the wrong direction. Roman traditions did not claim purity of lineage. Distinctiveness of blood or heritage never took hold as part of the Roman self-conception. Indeed, the Romans had no term for non-Roman. They had to borrow the Greek notion of‘‘barbarian,’’ a particular irony since it signified in origin non-Greek speakers - a category into which the Romans themselves fell. Mixed ancestry, in fact, was part of the Roman image from its inception. Instead of an embarrassment, it served as a source of pride.
World History
