1. Eric Adler (Dept of Classical Studies, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA)
An examination of the Boudica speeches to her troops found in the works of Tacitus (Ann. 14.35) and Cassius Dio (62.3-6 )

Recent scholars, including Steven Rutledge, David Kennedy, and others influenced by post-colonial theory, have argued that the works of various Roman historians demonstrate a persistent demonization of Rome's enemies. To such critics, the jingoistic and xenophobic mindset of the Roman historian makes his writing ineluctably a textual colonization of alien societies--an elaborate justification for Roman imperialism.

But the reality is not so clear-cut, as we can see from a case study: An examination of the Boudica speeches to her troops found in the works of Tacitus (Ann. 14.35) and Cassius Dio (62.3-6). This paper argues that both of these orations, put in the mouth of a "barbarian" enemy, demonstrate an inclination on the part of both Tacitus and Dio to criticize the vicissitudes of Roman rule.

Far from demonizing Boudica, Tacitus presents her as a matron wronged by the injustices of imperial rule. He focuses on the Romans' torture of Boudica and the rape of her daughters--clearly serious and indefensible charges of provincial misconduct. Although terse, Tacitus' Boudica oration offers trenchant moral appeals against the rapacity of Rome. To be sure, we cannot assume that this harangue formfits to Tacitus' own views on the Empire. But his Boudica speech portrays Tacitus as fully capable of examining his own society's collective sins.

The same can be said for Cassius Dio, whose Boudica oration has been viewed as weaker than Tacitus' on essentially aesthetic grounds. Granted, Dio's garrulousness is no match for the stylistic virtuosity of Tacitus. Still, Dio's Boudica harangue contains many savage, deep-rooted criticisms of Roman rule in the provinces. In this long oration, Boudica decries the unfairness of Roman taxation and portrays Rome as a decadent, effeminate society.

To be sure, neither historian offers a Boudica speech that merely demonizes Roman imperialism. Both Tacitus and Dio are also critical of Boudica and her revolt from Rome. Even so, both authors have at least partial sympathy for Boudica and the Britons. This casts doubt on postcolonial readings of Roman imperialism, as such exegeses view the matter as too cut-and-dry: Either the author is utterly supportive of the natives' rebellions, or, far more likely, superciliously condemns all anti-Romanism. Why must these orations be seen as the equivalent of medieval morality plays? Why cannot ancient authors perceive Roman rule to be both a blessing and a curse? It appears as if both Tacitus and Dio, in their speeches of Boudica, are asking these very questions.

Back