The concepts of ‘Roman-ness’, Romanitas, dictated much of what Romans did in their daily lives and how they did it. They formed the backbone of Roman identity. By the time Eboracum, York, was founded in AD 71 the empire was a very big and varied place; it had evolved over 800 years – the same time span between the English Middle Ages and 2021 – and it was made up of people from all over the known world. Because of this diversity, there was now no such thing as a Roman, as an identifiable entity or concept. The Roman man and woman was forever changing and evolving, socially, culturally, religiously and politically – a moving object, in place and in time. The Roman back in fourth century BC Italy was very different, and quite unrecognisable from, for example, the Roman in first century AD Eboracum.
Indeed, Romanisation as a process was a truly versatile, diverse and variegated concept and phenomenon. Romanisation intentionally blurred the distinction and the realities between the Roman and the native. Just how far and in what way the Romans imposed their culture and national superiority on a given territory depended on what they found there – the opposition, the local politics and demographics. The process, and results, of how Romanisation was adapted in Egypt, for example, were very different from how its counterpart was adapted in Britannia. Nowhere was the local tradition and way of life mutually exclusive with Roman ways, nowhere were local ways of doing things erased completely in favour of the Roman. Romanitas was imposed throughout the empire but in varying ways and degrees. The Romans had a knack of taking the best from a given conquest, place or procedure and repurposing it to their own benefit as subjugators, but at the same time allowing the locals to continue to function as far as was possible in their traditional ways. Brendel (1979) sums it up when he says that ‘Roman’ culture was by definition a cosmopolitan fusion of influences from diverse origins rather than purely the native culture of Rome itself. Haverfield (1912, p. 18) had said ‘First, Romanization in general extinguished the distinction between Roman and provincial ... . Secondly, it did not everywhere and at one destroy all traces of tribal or national sentiments or fashions.’ It was ‘a two-way process of acculturation: it was the interaction between two cultures’ (Millett 1990). Acculturation worked from the top down, with the predominantly urban upper classes adopting Roman culture first and the old tribal ways persisting for the longest among the peasantry in rural areas. In short, Romanisation was osmotic, nuanced, eclectic and syncretic.
Religions too received varying levels of tolerance and makeover. What is termed interpretatio Romana, ‘Latin translation’ (Tacitus, Germania 43, 3), was an important factor in Romanisation; it describes the Roman tendency to replace the name of a foreign god or goddess with that of a Roman deity which was considered comparable. It started off with the substitution of Greek gods and goddesses with Roman equivalents bearing Roman names, but it soon extended into other cultures as the Romans came into contact with them, so the German ‘Wodan’, for example, was called ‘Mercurius’ by Roman writers.
In the Germania reference above, Tacitus describes two German gods worshipped as twin brothers and youths as being just like [our] Castor and Pollux, ‘according to the Roman interpretation’. He also mentions the worship of Hercules and Mars. For the Romans, the translation from Greek to Roman allowed the Roman deity the inherent prestige and intellectual kudos implicit in the Greek version. Looking, Janus-like, the other way, interpretatio Germanica, for example, permitted the Germanic tribes to assume a Roman appearance, which was valuable in obtaining the status and benefits of a Roman citizen should they be desired. Interpretatio Romana was, therefore, part of the process of Romanisation, a step on the way to Romanitas. Rome was generally quite relaxed when it came to tolerance of religious practices of defeated populations: one way of allowing foreigners access to the Roman gods was through interpretatio Romana, which associated Roman deities with local gods and goddesses, and permitted the grafting on of local divinities.
But certain qualities and emblems of Roman identity can be recognised which are commonly and consistently attributable to Romans, wherever and whenever they were. Some of those qualities fall conveniently under the term ‘Romanitas’, a word that was never actually used by the Romans themselves until the third century AD by Roman writer, Tertullian. Tertullian’s use was pejorative: he coined it to describe his fellow Carthaginians who mindlessly aped Roman ways. Juvenal (AD 50–after 127) had said much the same, vilifying his fellow Romans who were slaves to the ways of Greeks and to all things Greek; to Juvenal, Greece was polluting and diluting ‘Romanitas’:
What is more sickening than this: no woman thinks herself beautiful unless she’s changed from being a Tuscan to a little Greek bit ... . Everything has gone Greek: however, it’s even more grotesque when Romans have no Latin. They show their fear, their anger, their joys and their worries in Greek; they pour out every secret of their souls in this tongue ... . You might allow this in a young girl, but will you still be Greeking it when you’re pushing eighty-six? Such a way of speaking is surely not right for a little old lady.
(Juvenal, Satires 6, 184-191)
Martial (AD 41–102) shared Juvenal’s exasperation:
Laelia, you don’t live in Greek Ephesus, or Rhodes, or Mitylene, but in a gaff in a posh part of Rome; and although your mother was a dusky Etruscan who never wore make-up; and although your father was a hard man from Aricia, you, and I’m ashamed to say it are a citizen of Roman Hersilia and Egeria – yet you keep assailing me in Greek!
(Martial, Epigrams 10, 68)
The concept of ‘Romanitas’ brought with it an air of respectability and nobility in tune with the ‘grandeur that was Rome’; it came to mean quintessential ‘Roman-ness’ – what it means to be a Roman and how the Romans regarded themselves; it defined a true Roman; it embodied the Roman ideal.
Despite the blandishments and exoticism promised by foreign influences, there was always an element of conservatism and traditionalism running through the marrow of the Roman people. This evolved over time into a national character which had its roots in the early humble, agricultural days and was characterised as demonstrating hard work, honesty, exuding gravitas (dignified, serious or solemn conduct) and being diligent in every way; moreover, the true Roman lived by and respected the mos maiorum, the way the ancestors had gone about things. The Roman was expected to be dutiful, to exhibit pietas, in every sphere of life: towards family, friends, country, fellow citizens, comrades in arms and gods. It was widely held that ‘Romanitas’, gravitas and pietas did indeed define the best of Romans.
With the invasion of Britannia came multitudes of Roman businessmen and government officials often with their families in tow. Roman troops from across the empire, as far as Spain, Syria, Egypt, and the Germanic provinces of Batavia and Frisia (modern Netherlands, Belgium, and the Rhineland area of Germany), were garrisoned in Roman towns such as York, and many formed relationships or, when it was officially permitted, married local Britons. The Roman army alone and their families and dependents amounted to an estimated 125,000 people, out of Britannia’s total population of 3.6 million at the end of the fourth century. There were also many migrants in other professions, such as sculptors from Roman Syria and doctors from the eastern Mediterranean. This diversification defined Britannia’s cultures and religions, while the populace remained mainly Celtic, but with a Roman way of life.
There is often an uneasy relationship between diversity and xenophobia. History lessons told every Roman schoolboy and girl about the arch-conservative Cato the Elder (234–149 BC). As champion of the mos maiorum and despiser of things Greek, Cato spoke out sternly against what he saw as a period of moral decline and the erosion of the sturdy principles on which Rome had lain her foundations. Among other things, he identified the growing independence of the women of Rome as an ominous ingredient in this. The defeat of Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC, the victory over the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 BC and the final extinguishing of the Carthaginian threat in 146 BC all allowed Rome to relax more and encouraged an unprecedented influx of Greek and eastern influences and luxuries into a receptive Rome. In 191 BC, Cato defiantly addressed a Greek audience in Athens in Latin.
Cicero too (106 BC–43 BC) was another stickler for good old-fashioned ‘Romanitas’. The Latin language, or rather the ability to speak it, and the practice of Roman law were equally potent badges of Roman-ness:
Ordinary men, born in obscurity, take to the sea and they go to places which they have never seen before; places where they can neither be known to the men among whom they have arrived, nor where they can always find a lawyer. However, due to their singular faith in their Roman citizenship, they think that they will be safe, not only among our own magistrates, who are constrained by fear of the law and of public opinion, but also with our fellow citizens who are joined with them, among many other things, by a common language and laws; but wherever they come from they think that this will protect them.
(Cicero in Verrem 2, 5, 167)
In Brutus, 37, 140, he is even more explicit, declaring that it is shameful for a man or woman not to know Latin; a facility for Latin was a mark of the good Roman citizen. Suetonius tells us that the emperor Tiberius believed it important that soldiers in the Roman army be able to speak Latin following an incident when he refused a Greek soldier permission to reply in Greek when summonsed to give evidence. The conquering or occupying Roman army was the prime vehicle for, and deliverer of, ‘Romanisation’ when it consolidated the lands into the Roman Empire: speaking Latin was a key element in that ‘Romanisation’. There is good evidence that some foreign troops and mercenaries in the Roman army learned Latin.
Wills had to be written in Latin; tombstones for Roman soldiers, be they Roman or foreign, throughout the empire were always in Latin, except for Roman Egypt where Greek was allowed. To the Romans, Latin was the only language of any significance; it would not have occurred to them to learn a ‘barbarian’ tongue – Latin symbolised civilisation. In about AD 30, the historian Valerius Maximus reported how Roman magistrates throughout the Roman world used Latin as a weapon in upholding Roman maiestas, greatness, when they insisted that court proceedings be in Latin and that the Greeks use interpreters to translate into Latin. Speaking Latin inculcated respect for Roman power and symbolised Roman-ness. Latin was an enduring emblem of ‘Romanitas’.
In the Roman Empire, about 400 towns enjoyed the rank of colonia – showcases of Roman culture and models of the Roman modus vivendi. The native population of any province could see from these how they were expected to live. The status of Colonia civium Romanorum brought with it full citizen rights while the fledgling citizens were required to dedicate a temple to the Capitoline Triad: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, the deities venerated in the temple of Jupiter Best and Biggest on the capitol in Rome. York was one such colonia.
Tacitus leaves us in no doubt regarding the zeal with which his father-in-law, Agricola, championed and promoted in deeds as well as words Romanisation and Romanitas:
He [Agricola] wanted to accustom them [the Britons] to peace and leisure by providing delightful distractions. He gave personal encouragement and assistance to the building of temples, piazzas and town-houses, he gave the sons of the aristocracy a liberal education, they became eager to speak Latin effectively and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so they were gradually led into the demoralising vices of porticoes, baths and grand dinner parties.
A cynical Tacitus, though, can see it all from a different perspective as is clear from this razor-sharp observation: ‘The naïve Britons described these things as “civilisation”, when in fact they were simply part of their enslavement.’
Invasion by the Romans, then, would, as a matter of course, involve the gradual but indelible Romanisation of, and the inculcation of Romanitas within, the conquered territory: Britannia was no exception and we shall see how Eboracum played its part in that process.