There was not the same concept of race in the ancient world as there is today, and that is the first hurdle in determining whether or not the Romans were racist. If race did not exist, and this is evidenced by the lack of terms in Latin for ‘race’, ‘discrimination’ or ‘prejudice’, then it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to label the Romans as “racists”. It is evident, however, that the Romans were aware of differences between themselves and other cultures and ethnicities. They did indeed make sweeping generalisations that denied people individuality or personality, with the Germans and Africans being prime examples of this. With these two ethnicities in particular, Romans used environmental determinism to explain the variations in their appearances and demeanours, and decided that these were due to geographical location and climate. This shows that they were acutely aware of differences between them and the savage, barbarian ‘Other’. This is a much more significant idea regarding the way the Romans viewed cultures and peoples different to themselves. In a way similar to the Greeks, they saw themselves as superior in lifestyle, temperament and location. However, in contrast to the Greeks, they were also viewed themselves as a more inclusive, civilising power and often sought to conquer and convert these groups, in order to increase the strength of their almighty empire, rather than actively keep them at arms lengths as the fiercely protective Greeks did.
Rome, the centre of the vast empire, was great due in part to its bustling diversity, and this makes it hard to condemn the Romans entirely as racists. The most problematic part of judging the Romans’ attitudes to ‘the other’ is separating modern views and concepts on race and racism from modern studies of a society where these views just do not belong.
Racism as it would be known to a modern audience stems from the slave trade, but slavery in antiquity was a vastly different concept, an issue of class rather than of race, meaning ‘the identification of blackness with slavery did not develop.’[1] Modern ideas of race are very much tied up with colonialism and justifications of the slave trade: making black people seem like a subspecies made it a lot easier to justify the treatment they received. So as racism is a constructed concept which was non-existent during antiquity, we must be sure not to judge ancient Romans by modern standards.
Therefore it is essential for us to define race, racism and ethnicity. A race is a group of people with similar physical characteristics, in particular skin colour. Racism is prejudice and/or discrimination against groups of people based on their race. Ethnicity is belonging to a group due to national, or cultural origins. Therefore race cannot be changed, as it is largely genetic. Ethnicity is more fluid. What is interesting is that the group that is closest to a race, the Africans, seem to be of the least concern to Roman authors out of the three mentioned in our selected sources. The Germans are viewed as more of a group of tribes than a race; they are vastly different from any other groups due to their isolation geographically, significant as by modern terms they would belong to the same race as the Italian Romans. The Jews are a religion, not a race, and again they are a detached group with their own customs and traditions. So the Germans and Jews, who are the groups given the most precedence in our ancient sources, would very definitely be categorised by ethnicity rather than race.
Isaac has formulated a definition of racism as follows: “an attitude towards individuals and groups of people which posits a direct and linear connection between physical and mental qualities. It therefore attributes to those individuals and groups of peoples collective traits, physical, mental and moral, which are constant and unalterable by human will, because they are caused by hereditary factors or external influences, such as climate or geography.”[2]
This has been carefully and conveniently crafted to suit his own argument, and thus is not necessarily applicable generally. The problem that remains is if there is no concept of race, then there cannot be the belief that certain races are inferior or superior. Isaac has changed his definition to replace the word ‘race’ with ‘individuals and groups of people’. By doing this, Isaac makes the Romans fit his definition. “Proto-racism” is more suitable as a label for any instances of ancient discrimination or prejudices, as they lived in a pre-slavery, pre-colonialism world where race just did not exist as it does now.
There are scholars who would wholeheartedly disagree with Isaac and argue that race and racism are not terms we can use in conjunction with Romans’ treatment of other civilisations. In particular, Dee draws the conclusion that ‘the most remarkable aspect of all this material is the absence of the kind of obsessive and corrosive concern with whiteness and blackness that so disfigures our modern world.’[3] He highlights that there was no notion of a ‘white’ race, due to the Mediterranean norm being a tanned, olive complexion. The closest thing to an idea of different races was, as Lloyd Thompson points out, ‘a tripartite scheme of categorization by skin colour in the ancient world: the ‘black Aethiopes at one extreme, in polar contrast to the barbarian Northern European Celts and especially Germans’[4]. The Mediterranean occupies the optimum location in between the two. However, we can see that the basis of the groupings here is on the geographical origins of these people, rather than the colour of their skin or hair. This means we must look for an alternative word to ‘racism’ in order to represent the importance of culture and ethnicity in the Romans’ concerns about ‘the other’.
Therefore if Roman attitudes to ‘the Other’ must be labelled, the most suitable label must acknowledge the differences between modern and ancient concepts of race and methods of categorising people. Keeping this in consideration, the most appropriate choices would be either “proto-racism” or possibly even more accurately, “xenophobia”, defined as a fear and dislike of foreign peoples, practices and customs.
We can fully evaluate the Romans’ attitudes to ‘the Other’ by examining their thoughts on three specific groups: Africans, Germans and Jews. These are grouped together because of their geographical location or shared religious and cultural beliefs: the distinction is not made on race. Therefore the argument that Romans were racists is discredited partially before the evidence is even discussed.
So to start, the evidence for Romans categorising ‘the Other’ according to a system of geography and culture must be explored. This semi-scientific method appears in the works of Vitruvius, Pliny and Tacitus.
Vitruvius sets out his explanations in such a way as to prove not just the inferiorities of both Northern and Southern barbarians, but also the superiority of the Romans, ‘the masters of the world’[5]. He illustrates how ‘the people of the north are so large in stature, so light in complexion, and have straight red hair and blue eyes…for they are formed by the abundance of the moisture, and the coldness of their country.’[6] In opposition, those who live closer to the equator are ‘low in stature, of dark complexion, with curling hair, black eyes’[7] because of the strength of the sun. Hannaford would argue that this “demonstrates that Roman attitudes toward Ethiopians had nothing to do with the modern phenomenon of race and were of a kind very different from those commonly described by social scientists and historians as racist”[8], presumably because of its scientific method. Vitruvius has here employed the theory of environmental determinism, juxtaposing the polar extremes of the Germans and the Aethiopes with the perfect medium of the Romans, in a way similar to the line from the Goldilocks and the Three Bears fairytale; one is too hot, one is too cold, and the third is just right. He also makes an effort to emphasise divine intervention in this placement, stating that it was no accident that ‘in the middle of the earth, and of all nations, the Roman people should be seated; on this account the people of Italy excel in both…strength of body and vigour of mind’[9]. Therefore, Vitruvius’ motivation in this writing is to portray the Romans as ‘a humanising civilisation seeking to escape the clutches of barbarity and viciousness’[10], and presenting the barbarians on the outskirts of a Rome-centric world as inferior acts a foil to further highlight Rome’s prestige.
Similarly, the theme of geographical and cultural distinction is prevalent in Pliny’s works too. He ascertains that ‘there can be no doubt that the Aethiopians are scorched by their vicinity to the sun’s heat’[11] while ‘in the opposite and frozen parts of the earth, there are nations with white skins and long light hair.’[12] Again the idea of the perfect situation being in the middle of these two extremes is emphasised by Pliny, who states that in this location ‘the manners of the people are gentle, the intellect clear, the genius fertile and capable of comprehending every part of nature.’[13] So this is the same concept as explained by Vitruvius. However, Pliny adds here the notion of empire, stating they ‘have formed empires, which has never been done by the remote nations’[14]. The Romans were hugely proud of their empire, and here Pliny uses it as a mark of distinction between them and lesser civilisations, to elevate the Romans above the barbarians. So again, we see the idea of the foreign discussed in relation with the Roman, in order to create a comparison by contrast.
Tacitus uses the same logic in his discussion specifically of the German tribes, but also acknowledges the role of genetics and inherited features. He seems to have a certain sense of admiration for their purity of bloodline, being ‘free from all taint of inter-marriages with foreign nations and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race’[15]. It is this sense of admiration that led to the Germania being used for Nazi propaganda, due to Tacitus’ representation of the German tribes as the ‘ultimate form of virility’[16]. This shows that Romans could respect and revere other cultures for possessing the qualities that they found desirable, and regarded highly in themselves. Vogelstein has a theory to explain this specific show of admiration: ‘the virtues of the Germans are praised only as a device for scoring Roman short comings’[17]. This supports the idea of Romans believing themselves to be superior to these savages, and shows Tacitus urging his readers to improve an area in which the Germans surpass them, through shame of being exceeded by a barbarian.
This idea of recognising the strengths in other cultures is significant, because although it seems contradictory, admiration for other cultures and ardent patriotism and belief in Roman supremacy is actually intrinsically compatible. The Roman empire was built on an foundation of multi-culturalism, as highlighted by Livy. He specifically draws attention to the attitude of Rome’s founder Romulus in creating the city, which was a focus on quantity in order to then attain quality. Livy describes the first inhabitants of Rome as ‘a miscellaneous rabble…eager for new conditions, and these constituted the first advance in power towards that greatness at which Romulus aimed’[18]. This, combined with the story of the rape of the Sabine women in order to increase population, show that Rome in its origins was accepting of other tribes and peoples to help build its city and reputation. The Romans thus placed importance of empire and conquering lands to dominate a vast expanse, in contrast to the Athenians for example, who imposed stringent measures on who could gain citizenship. The Romans however, instead could pride themselves on being an accumulation of and indeed an advancement of many other great people, fused to make the supreme rulers of the world.
This idea of empire and patriotism is intrinsic to the Romans’ attitudes to another ethnic group: the Jews. However, the Jews are different in many respects to the distant, external aliens like the Aethiopes and Germans. They are in many ways, the enemy within the city walls. As highlighted extensively by Tacitus in his histories, the Jewish population purposely segregated themselves from the Romans, refusing to conform and integrate yet with Roman society yet still managing to flourish within it. Tacitus’ account is said to show ‘most palpably the fear of the Roman upper class’[19] through ‘incomparably aggravated anger and contempt’[20] and there is no doubt that he speaks of the Jews in a very different manner to that which he use for the barbarians. The description he gives of the Jews’ behaviours make it clear not only that they were perceived as a threat, but that this made them extremely unpopular as well. Tacitus calls them ‘base and abominable’[21], cites how they are ‘extremely loyal toward one another…but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity’[22]. They purposely ‘adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples’[23] and goes on to reinforce how everything they stand for is in conflict with Roman mores: ‘the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country and to regard their parents, children and brothers as of little account’[24]. Tacitus here has really attacked the morals of the Jews, and made a point of the fact that people so ‘un-Roman’ are living inside the Roman empire.
This is ‘what distinguishes Jews from other barbarians’[25], as they have managed to retain their own distinct customs regardless of any external factors, and their resilience makes them a concern for the Romans, who like to be able to crush their opponents. This ‘ambivalent combination of fear and hatred’[26] leads Schafre to conclude that the Romans were Judeophobic rather than anti-Semitic, which again is a term slightly too modern to be applicable – for he too believes that the ancient world ‘certainly did not have any concept of race as we understand it.’[27] The Jews are united by a foreign, common cause and this unity makes them a very real threat to the stability of the Roman Empire. Contrary to the uncivilised, savage barbarians, Jews were capable, sophisticated, successful and therefore much more dangerous. Their refusal to integrate and adopt Roman customs marks them out as defiant and for these reasons they receive a lot harsher treatment in the ancient sources. They were aware that the Jews’ strength lay in their distinction from Roman society, and this terrified them. This treatment of the Jews in particular heavily supports the idea that Romans were more xenophobic than racist; they were afraid of those different to them and the threat that they posed to their highly prized authority.
In conclusion then, “racist” is not an entirely appropriate term to use when considering ancient views on ‘the Other’. Romans undoubtedly had prejudices and at times did discriminate against other groups of people. This is not the issue that causes debate. What is, is the fact that the idea of race did not exist in the same defined way that it does in modern times, and racial discrimination did not occur in ancient times to the extent that it has done in modern history. Therefore the term ‘racist’ is not particularly helpful here. Romans were generally quite accommodating of other cultures during the expansion of their empire, often incorporating other gods into their own religion, for example the temple of Aqua Sulis in Bath, honouring the Celtic goddess, who was similar to Minerva. However, they were less tolerant of civilisations and cultures which they deemed a threat to their highly prized empire; the Jews in particular. They felt a mixture of hatred and fear towards the Jews, who flourished in Roman society despite not fully integrating into it and taking on board its morals. Similarly, there is a sense of fearful admiration for the Germans in Tacitus’ Germania, due to the hardy nature of the tribes which had on occasions managed to defeat the Romans themselves. So it is clear from the ancient sources that Romans were comfortable identifying, discussing and even making an effort to explain the differences between ethnic groups. However, the emphasis was very much more on cultural identity than race, which as a concept did not exist as it does now. There was no unifying ‘white’ race, with Europe as it is today non-existent, and there was no idea of euro-centricity. Romans, Greeks, Gauls, Germans: today would all be classed as white, but in ancient times they were vastly different in many ways. Therefore the modern idea of race can be said to have been preceded by a sense of cultural identity. This means that ‘racist’ is an anachronistic term to apply to ancient views, and so it is impossible for Romans to be ‘racist’ when ‘race’ did not exist. It is evident that Romans held prejudices against others, but these were based more on ethnicity than race. Therefore as a society that existed before the concept of race, the more suitable way to define their views on ‘the Other’ would be as “proto-racism” or even more appropriately, to use the term coined from the Greek words for ‘fear and ‘foreigners’: “xenophobia”.
Bibliography
Ancient Sources:
Livy, Histories, 1.8.
Pliny, Natural History, 2.80.
Tacitus, Germanica, 2-4.
Tacitus, Histories, 5.4-5.
Vitruvius 6.1.3-6.1.11.
Secondary Reading
Dee, J. H. 2003. ‘Black Odysseus, White Caesar: when did ‘white people’ become ‘white’?’, Classical Journal 99.2: 157-6
Hannaford, I. 1996. Race: the history of an idea in the West (Baltimore)
Isaac, B. 2006. ‘Protoracism in Graeco-Roman Antiquity’, World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology: 32-47
Schäfre, P. 1997. Judeophobia: Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge)
Snowden, F. M. 1983. Before Color Prejudice: the Ancient View of Blacks (Cambridge, Mass.)
Vogelstein, 1941. History of Jews in Rome, (The Jewish Publication society of America)
[1] Snowden, Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks, 1983, pg 70.
[2] Isaac, Proto-Racism in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, 2006, pg 34.
[3] Dee, Black Odysseus, White Caesar: when did ‘white’ people become ‘white? , 2003, pg 162.
[4] Dee, Black Odysseus, White Caesar: when did ‘white’ people become ‘white? , 2003, pg 158.
[5] Vitruvius 6.1.3-6.1.11.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Hannaford, Race: The History of an idea in the West, 1996, 19.
[9] Vitruvius 6.1.3-6.1.11.
[10] Hannaford, Race: The History of an idea in the West, 1996, pg 80.
[11] Pliny Natural History 2.80.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Tacitus, Germania 2-4.
[16] Isaac, Proto-Racism in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, 2006, pg 44.
[17] Vogelstein, History of Jews in Rome, 1941, pg 78.
[18] Livy, Histories, 1.8.
[19] Schafre, Judeophobia:Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World, 1997, pg 192.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Tacitus, Histories 5.4-5.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Schafre, Judeophobia:Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World, 1997, pg 210.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Schafre, Judeophobia: Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World, 1997, pg 198.
rebeccateahan 