Who’s Anti-Roman? Sallust and Pompeius Trogus on Mithridates

Contemporary scholars of Roman imperialism have discussed the ways in which ancient historians denigrate non-Romans and thereby present intellectual justifications for Roman conquest. This paper offers a case study that questions this position's validity: an examination of Sallust's Epistula Mithridatis (Hist. 4.69M) and Pompeius Trogus' speech of Mithridates (Justin 38.4-7). I argue that Sallust offers a more powerful attack on Roman foreign policy than does Trogus, whom many scholars have deemed "anti-Roman," and conclude that Roman historians are capable of using speeches offoreigners to engage in Roman self-criticism. n the last few decades, scholars of ancient history have grown increasingly critical of earlier views of Roman imperialism.' During the late 1 9 th century, as well as the earlyand mid-20th century, many ancient historians believed that Rome's foreign policy was essentially "defensive" in nature.2 That is to say, the Romans, who were traditionally hesitant to annex territory, did not intend to become masters of a huge empire; rather, they stumbled into a series of wars that compelled them to take control of a large number of provinces and a vast dominion. Since the 1970s, numerous Roman historians have come to question this thesis. In part as a result of more negative views of modern imperialism, scholars have criticized the " I would like to thank S. Douglas Olson and two anonymous referees for Classical Journal, whose helpful suggestions aided the completion of this paper in its present form. Thanks are also due to an audience at Swarthmore College, which heard an earlier, truncated version of the paper's thesis and made a number of helpful comments. I would also like to thank Mary T. Boatwright, who has offered many useful criticisms and much valuable advice. Any errors in fact or judgment are my own. ' For examples of more recent views of Roman imperialism, see Harris (1971) and (1979); Brunt (1978); North (1981); Hingley (1982) and (1993); Jal (1982); Miles (1990); De Souza (1996); Freeman (1996) and (1997); Mattingly (1996) and (1997b); Hanson (1997); Whittaker (1997). For a survey of scholarly approaches to Roman imperialism, see Fr6zouls (1983). 2 See Mommsen (1894); Frank (1912) and (1929); Holleaux (1921); Badian (1968); Errington (1972), esp. 3-5. Badian (1958) has been associated with the notion of "defensive imperialism," due to the recurring argument that Rome shunned annexing foreign territories in favor of a loose-ended patron-client relationship between itself and the states it had conquered. Yet Badian's thesis is more nuanced than the label "defensive imperialism" allows: he argues that for strategic purposes Rome preferred nebulous bonds of patronage with its defeated enemies to assess its own obligations and lack of obligations to the conquered areas in question. THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL 101.4 (2006) 383-407