The book presents itself as a product of postcolonial theory. A. attempts to modify the received view of Roman identity, which claims that it requires the denigration of its barbarian Other, with a close reading of some speeches by barbarians in Roman historians. The tendency to see Roman historians as supporting the imperialist project, even in speeches like that of Calgacus in Tacitus, does not, A. claims, allow a role for Roman societal self-criticism, especially the ‘ways in which ancient historians of Rome demonstrated deep-seated criticisms of Roman society’ (p. 4). This seems a reasonable undertaking, one that Gruen has recently turned his attention to in Rethinking the Other (2010). While Gruen is concerned with societal processes as they appear in society or throughout a work like the Germania, A. is concerned with the ‘close reading’ of a few speeches in Roman historians. This focus means that A. does not discuss Roman self-criticism more broadly in the historians he treats, nor does he review evidence elsewhere, for example in Roman law dealing with mismanagement in the provinces.
The latest entry in the bibliography is 2009, so it is probably unfair to expect him to engage with Gruen; Erskine, Roman Imperialism (2010); or Levene, Ancient Historiography and its Contexts (2010). These works will be useful to others interested in the topic. However, he does not cite Richardson, The Language of Empire (2008); Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (2000); or Lendon, Empire of Honour: the Art of Government in the Roman World (1997). The discussion of other scholars is weak, primarily relegated to footnotes. I noted only one reference to Badian. Burck, Einfuhrung in die Dritte Dekade des Livius (1950) with its well-known essay on the paired speeches before Zama, ‘An Introduction to Books 29 and 30’, now available in Livy (2009), pp. 227–96, is overlooked in A.'s reading of those speeches; Hannibal's characterisation in terms that recall Sallust's Catiline is presented as if it were the author's own observation, without citing Clauss in MD (1997); and Riggsby's discussion of how Roman and Barbarian interacted in Caesar in Gaul and Rome (2006) is not considered. Theory is nodded at in the introduction, but in general A. proceeds as if a naïve reading of Roman speeches is adequate.
The book's subtitle is a little misleading. The approach is not to discuss enemy speeches in general, but to focus on those speeches for which there is a parallel in another historian. A. does not deal with Calgacus' speech because there is no parallel version in another historian, but he does compare ‘two speeches of Boudica as found in the work of two different historians’ (p. 6). His survey is in effect limited to Mithridates in Sallust and Pompeius Trogus; Hannibal and the Scipios in Polybius and Livy; and Boudica in Tacitus and Cassius Dio. This format entails numerous problems.
First, why do we have paired historians and in what sense are these historians paired? The justification becomes clear in the conclusion: ‘the impulse to offer orations critical of Rome's expansion and misrule is not confined to Greek or Romano-Gallic historians (Polybius, Cassius Dio, Pompeius Trogus), but remains detectable in the works of Italian-born historians as well’ (p. 165). The general argument is that these ‘Italian-born historians’ are as critical or more critical than their non-Italian parallels: ‘it is the historian who hails from a town close to Rome – Sallust – who seems more concerned with presenting criticism of Roman conduct than does the man from Gallia Narbonensis’ (p. 57). If the Roman elite really was more self-critical than those they conquered and colonised, that would be an interesting conclusion.
But A.'s method cannot lead to that conclusion. What relevance does Dio's birthplace, Bithynia, have? Is he a ‘non-Italian writer’ whose relationship to Rome would be coloured by ‘concern for his fatherland's loss of autonomy’ (p. 157) more than, say, Livy? Livy's Patavium felt the coercive power of Roman force under Asinius Pollio in the 40s, and had only become a municipium in 45; he shows no military experience, no political experience, but was fond of his home. Cassius Dio, on the other hand, member of the ancient gens Cassia, was the son of the Senator Cassius Apronianus, himself a Senator, Governor of Smyrna, Consul and father of a Consul – who happened to be born in Bithynia, a place he loved? Anyone familiar with colonial studies would see in Dio the appropriating imperialist.
Similarly, it is not clear that Pompeius Trogus, ‘a man of Gallic origins’ (p. 37), was in a meaningful way either non-Roman or anti-Roman. His grandfather served with Pompeius (hence, the name); his paternal uncle commanded a squadron against Mithridates; and his father served with Caesar and became his secretary. Surely these details are relevant to the conclusion that ‘Pompeius Trogus’ speech of Mithridates appears far less successful at offering powerful criticism of Roman conduct than did Sallust's …' (p. 54). Even with Polybius a distinction between elite views of Rome and non-Italian views is problematised by Polybius' role in the 140s, when he was sent back to Greece to reorganise government in the city-states. A.'s paired historians do not support a categorical distinction between elite Italian self-critical views and writers of non-Italian descent whom one would expect to be more critical of Rome.
There are other problems. The paired speeches in most instances are not true pairs. Tacitus' Boudica speaks before the rebellion, while Dio's Boudica speaks when defeat is near. Surely this makes a difference in what is said. Sallust's Mithridatic letter to Phraates in 69 after his defeat at Tigranocerta, when he was desperate to form an alliance, is paired with Trogus' Mithridatic speech to his troops near the beginning of the First Mithridatic War, 88 b.c.e., after Mithridates has just driven M' Aquilius from Bithynia. The different contexts, attitudes and purposes vitiate any comparison such as ‘Trogus, unlike Sallust, sees no need to place these examples [‘forceful examples of Roman misconduct’] in powerful places in the oration' (p. 54). But A. offers no discussion of how the different circumstances, different genres and different audiences would affect what is said and how it is justified. Several of the speeches are battle-speeches, but A. never addresses the genre, nor discusses its typical gestures, the role of booty or self-justification in them.
The assumption that speeches can be taken out of context and treated as an ongoing critique and defence of Roman aggression is problematic. He manufactures ‘retorts’ where there are none (e.g. pp. 69, 127) and imagines that ‘Tacitus could have used Paulinus’ oration as an opportunity to refute (or at least attempt to refute) the arguments his Boudica presents' (p. 129). Finally, A. has a penchant for weak conclusions. A Roman victory ‘could serve to highlight the tragic character of Boudica’ (p. 126). Economic arguments ‘(even if overstated) might have caused some ancient readers to reflect on the potential injustices of Roman rule’ (p. 148).
A. judges without a sense of the historical, literary or cultural context. He does not consider the many Roman discourses of self-criticism; he does not contextualise arguments within their speech genres or according to audience and purpose; he does not consider the demands of verisimilitude; he is not fully aware of how tropes are used at Rome or within the authors he discusses (e.g. Hannibal's use of the trope that those who do not flee do not lose is ridiculed without reference to the fact that Scipio Africanus uses the same trope); he pairs and compares the incomparable without regard to the differences of their historical context and arrives at conclusions about Italians and non-Italians which treat 400 years of Roman change synchronically.
There are a few typos and some questionable translations. The index is poor in citing modern scholars (I found only Said and Al-'Azm, which are essentially the same citation) but fairly good at covering general topics, and especially good at sub-categories under the authors discussed (categories like ‘freedom in’, ‘greed in’, ‘primitivism in’). For the most part the writing is clear. The appendix includes the texts and translations of all the major speeches discussed.
