84

ISSN0258-0802.LITERATŪRA201557(3)

EGYPT IN ROMAN IMPERIAL LITERATURE: TACITUS’ ANN. 2.59-61

Lina GirdvainytėFaculty of ClassicsUniversity of Oxford

Abstract. The article analyses Tacitus’ account of Germanicus’ Egyptian voyage (Ann. 2.59-61) in the context of anti-Egyptian discourse met with in the Roman imperial literature. After a brief discussion of Egypt’s place in the Greek and Roman imagination, the article goes on to examine Tacitus’ use of Egypt by considering the role of Germanicus in the Egyptian setting, as well as ques-tioning the presence of prevalent (Graeco-) Roman stereotypes in the given passage. Throughout the paper, it is argued that the use of Egypt in Tacitus’ account is far more complex than the notion of general anti-Egyptian sentiment allows, and that the Tacitean representation of Egypt does not entirely fit into the paradigm of Graeco-Roman ‘Othering’. Rather than describing Egypt for its own sake, the account is carefully and artistically arranged in order to convey Tacitus’ own anti-imperi-alist views, implicit in his other works, such as the Histories and Agricola.

Keywords: Egypt, Tacitus, Roman imperialism, literary representation, intertextuality.

1. Introductory notes

Egypt has occupied a special place inGreek and Roman thoughtor, rather, im-aginationsincetheirveryfirstencounterswith Egypt’s long-lived civilization. Themagnificence of Pharaonic architecture,the breath-taking landscape of the riverNile, and the strangenessofEgyptian re-ligion and customs were the main ele-ments which contributed to the creation of Egypt’stwofoldperception:itwasthelandof exoticism and fascination on the one hand, and the ultimate manifestation of ‘Otherness’ontheother.TheGraeco-Ro-manperceptionsofEgypt,astheyappearin literary sources and visual arts, have received substantial treatment in scholarly

literature:agoodsummaryofavarietyofattitudes towardsEgyptanditsinhabitantsisofferedbyB.Isaac(2004)inThe inven-tion of racism in classical antiquity, while E.S. Gruen (2011) dedicates a chapter to ‘EgyptintheClassicalimagination’inhisRethinking the Other in Antiquity. Some of theworks,suchasM.-J.Versluys’(2002)Aegyptiaca Romana, have conveniently aimed at bringing together both literaryandvisualrepresentationsofEgyptinRo-man art and literature.

The scholarship has often attempted to combine and compare Greek and Roman conceptualizations of Egypt, in the hopeofdiscerningcertaincommonpatternsandtracingthemostprevalentstereotypes.In-

85

deed,toquoteGruen,themysteriouspeo-pleofEgypt“embodiedpractices,beliefs,and traditions remote from and even unin-telligible toGreek andRoman inquirers”(Gruen 2011, 76). Egypt was, therefore,treated similarly to the other territories along the fringes of the Hellenocentricworld, such as Ethiopia, Libya, India or Scythia1.YetGruenhasjustlynotedonthetendency of modern scholars to collect iso-lated bits and pieces from Aristophanes to Juvenaland“paradethemassamplingofGreekandRomanevaluationsofEgypt”,the tendency which is “not only meth-odologically flawed but also downrightmisleading”2.Ratherthangeneralizing,hesuggests,oneshouldtakeacloserlookatseparate authors and employ an in-depth analysisofsinglerepresentations,asthesemay then appear less uniform and carry a widerrangeofmeanings3.

FollowingGruen’ssuggestion,thispa-perwill,afterashortdiscussionofEgypt’splace in the Roman world, focus on the representation of Egypt in Tacitus’ An-nales 2.59-61.Theanalysisofthepassagewill be divided into three sections, each dedicatedtooneoftherecurringthemesinEgypt’sdiscussionsbytheGraeco-Romanauthors.ThepaperwillaimatexaminingtheuseofEgyptintheTaciteannarrativeby considering the role of themain cha-

1 Cf.Karttunen(2002,457-474). 2 Gruen(2011,101),notingontheassemblingof

anti-Egyptian attitudes of Roman authors in Balsdon(1979, 68-69), Reinhold (1980, 97-103), Sonnabend(1986,49-62;96-108),Isaac(2004,356-369)et al.

3 Similarly,Versluys(2002,434):“inaninvestiga-tionofspecificauthors[…]theconclusionmaybelessstereotypical and more nuanced”. However,Versluys’insiststhatnosurvivingauthorofthefirstcenturiesCEgiveshisownimpressionorattemptstonuancetheneg-ativeperceptionofEgyptbyemphasizingotheraspects(ibid.).

racterGermanicusintheEgyptiansetting,as well as questioning the presence ofprevalentstereotypesinthegivenpassage.Throughout this paper I will argue thattheuseofEgyptinTacitus’accountisfarmorecomplex than thenotionofgeneralanti-Egyptiandiscoursewouldallow,andthat theTacitean representation of Egyptdoesnot entirelyfit into theparadigmofGraeco-Roman‘Othering’.

2. Egypt in (Graeco-) Roman antiquity

TothemajorityofGreekandRomanau-thors,Egyptwasmorethanmerelyanin-triguingland.Herodotus’representationofEgypt,largelyethnographicasitis,appearsto be used to both contrast its landscape and customs to those of the Greeks (or, in fact,ofallotherpeoples),andtoarguethatin Egypt lay the roots of his ownGreekcivilization4. Nevertheless, we discern the stereotypingofethnictraits,suchasEgyp-tianfraudulence,greedorarrogancesinceAeschylus and the Old Comedy (Isaac2004,358;369).TheRomanconceptual-izationofEgyptwasinevitablyinfluencedby the prevalent Greek representations and stereotypes.WeseeearlyRomanauthorslargelyfollowingthefootstepsofHerodo-tusandPolybius,andfocusingonthesamepeculiarities that have both fascinated and disturbedtheGreeks:theannualfloodandcultivation of the Nile, administration of Egypt, or religious institution of animalworship5.

4 Cf.Lloyd(2002,426):“Egyptianhistoryismost-ly used to illustrate and confirm fundamentallyGreekperceptionsoftheworld”.

5 Admittedly,theGreekimageofEgyptwaslarge-lypositive,andinthethirdandsecondcenturiesBCE“thereisnoauthorwithaconsistentlynegativeconnota-

86

However, the political situation of the late Republic and early Principate in-troduced some significant changes to theparadigm.The role that Egypt and,mostimportantly, Alexandria have played in Caesar’swarwithPompeyand,lateron,inthat of Octavian and Mark Antony seem-inglytransformedtheperceptionsofEgyptin Rome. The land of exotic attraction be-cametheembodimentofavarietyofnega-tive vices: excess, superstition, rashness, untrustworthiness and so on. Unsurpris-ingly,perhaps,CicerowasthefirstRomanauthortonegativelyexpresshimselfaboutEgypt and, in particular,Alexandria. Hisviews,althoughnotatalltimesconsistentand heavily dependent on a preconceived argument, have influenced later authors,especiallywith regards toEgypt’s inhab-itants and their odd religious practices6. Themajorityof negative stereotypes andimagery, however, were coined slightlylater by theAugustan poets ofwhatmaybe called the (immediate) post-Actian pe-riod: Alexandria took blame for the assas-sination of Pompey, Cleopatra became asymbol of deceptive seductions of the East, while references to animal worship and a cliché imageofEgyptiansascowardbar-barians were repeated throughout literarytexts7. The anti-Egyptian propaganda ofAugustan poets permeated history writ-ingtoo,asStrabo’sGeography provides a canonical view ofRome civilizing Egypt(2.5.12,11.11.5,17.1.29,17.1.46,17.1.50),thusinlinewiththeAugustanideology8.

tionofEgyptandEgyptians”,Versluys(2002),426.6 Cf.CiceroRab. Post.12.35,andNat. D.1.16.43.

SeealsodiscussionofEgyptianreligioninNat .D. 1.81-82,1.101,and3.47.

7 For a fuller treatment, see SmelikandHemelrijk(1984),Nimis(2004)andManolaraki(2013).

8 Manolaraki (2013), 31. Strabo, nevertheless, doesnotaddmuchnewtothenegativerepresentationofEgypt.

The so-called post-Augustan concep-tualization of Egypt is generally thoughtto have followed the Actian vein as well9. Whilesomeofthestereotypesandnegativeclichés (animalworship,Egyptianuntrust-worthiness) continued to be used more fre-quentlythanthe others, new political and cultural circumstances determined a shift in the Roman discourse on Egypt. Withthe Augustan ideology gradually fading,andRomanimperialismgrowingtoabsorbnewlyacquiredterritories,Egyptreceiveda new range of significations10. Manola-raki draws one’s attention toVespasian’s(r.69-79CE)seizureofpowerwithsup-portoftheEasternlegions,aswellastheFlavians’patronageofEgyptiancults, allof which seemingly provided an alteredhistorical context for Egypt (Manolaraki2013,13).AsSmelikandHemelrijknoted,conceptualization between peoples in con-tact“gainsaspecialdimension,ifcontactsareofpotentiallyhostilenature,e.g.situ-ations of impending war, of domination,occupation, colonization or resistance to a dominatingpower”(SmelikandHemelrijk1984, 1856).The contact betweenRomeas an ever-growing imperial power andEgyptasoneofitsrecentacquisitionsthuscreated awide spectrumof significationswhich could be employed towards a vari-ety of different ends. The representation of Egypt in Romanwriting became evermoredependentonthecontext,genreandthe aims of an author.

9 Manolaraki (2013)claims this tobe the reasonwhypost-AugustanconceptualizationofEgypthasre-ceived far less treatment in modern scholarship than that oftheAugustantimes.Theauthor,therefore,choosestodiscuss the texts of Lucan, Valerius, Statius, Pliny the Younger,Fronto,PlutarchandPhilostratus, relating tothe‘imaginings’ofEgyptand,specifically,oftheNile.

10 Manolaraki (2013), 16 calls this process a ‘re-definitionofAugustanimprint’.

87

There were three main topics pertinent to the land which happened to recur in the Romanliteraturethroughoutcenturies:theantiquities, religion, and peopleofEgypt.These were the main triggers that madepeopleinRometalkaboutEgypt:thefas-cinationwithcountry’shistory, landscapeand monuments was diluted with contempt and disdain for religious practices andlooselifestyleofEgypt’spopulation.Suchdivergent conceptualizations are alreadyfoundintheAugustanpoets:VergilpraisesthefertilityofEgyptinGeorg.4.287-294,yet bashes the ‘Egyptian wife’ of MarkAntony in Aen.8.688(cf.coniunx Aegyp-tia inOvid’sMet.185.826),andcontraststraditionalRomandivinitiestoCleopatra’s‘monster-gods’ and ‘barking Anubis’11. Similarly, in Tibullus we encounter both reverence for the river Nile and the assess-mentofEgyptiansasbarbarianworshipersof the Apis bull, all in the course of a few lines(1.7.23-28)12.Stereotypesandgener-al ideas that one nation had about another could, as it seems, be self-contradictory, as they were intended to function only in a specific context13. The aforementioned pattern of general focus on Egypt’s an-tiquities, religion and people will further on be used in the analysis of the account ofGermanicus’ visit toEgypt inTacitus’Ann.2.59-61.Acloser lookathow thesethree key elements are presented or, per-haps, unrepresented in the account should

11 Aen.8.698-700:omnigenumque deum monstra et latrator Anubis contra Neptunum et Venerem contraque Minervam tela tenent.Cf.Gruen(2011,108).

12 TheseandmoreexamplesinManolaraki(2013,34-5).

13 Such stereotypes, according to Smelik andHemelrijk(1984,1856),“are not product of purposive thinking,butcanmoreaptlybeconsideredasirrationaland non-verifiable opinionswhich have been adoptedbythegroupbecauseoftheirtriedpracticability”.

allowustotracethecontinuityandrigidityofsomeimages,andtheflexibilityorrela-tivity of the others.

3. Tacitus’ Annales 2.59-61

Tacitus’ Annals, written sometime be-tween 100-110 CE, is the history of thecityofRome,whichexamines the reignsofTiberius,Claudius,Nero,andthosewhoreigned in the so-calledYear of theFourEmperors, thuscoveringyears14-68CE.It has long been noticed that in the An-nals, much like in the Histories, Tacitus is critical of almost everyone and every-thinghechooses todiscuss: thesenators,the soldiers, even the emperors are full of weaknesses and vices. Tacitus’ treatmentofGermanicusinthefirsttwobooksoftheAnnals, nevertheless, appears of a some-what more complex nature. Germanicus is, undoubtedly, a characterofmajor im-portance inTacitus’work.Firstofall,hewasamemberofJulio-Claudiandynasty:grandson-in-lawandgreat-nephewofAu-gustus,nephewandadoptivesonofTibe-rius,fatherofCaligula,aswellasbrotherofClaudius,andthematernalgrandfatherof Nero. Apart from his familial ties, Ger-manicuswasaprominentgeneralhimself,and was widely perceived by the Romans as the only hope of restitution of the Re-public14. Precisely this duality of German-icus’ charactermayhave enabledTacitusto use him in a variety of ways in order to convey one or anothermessage15. For instance, Germanicus is not infrequentyperceivedasa foil toTiberius inTacitus’accounts, due to historian’s emphasis on

14 Germanicus as hope in Tacitus: Ann. 1.33.1-2;3.4.1;2.49.2.

15 ForTacitus’treatmentofGermanicusthroughoutthe Annals,seeShotter(1968)and O’Gorman(2000).

88

their reversed values. Furthermore, as O’Gorman asserts, Germanicus’ posi-tion in the history of the Principate raises crucial questions about how meaning iscreated in the interplay between past and present (O’Gorman 2000, 46). In otherwords, Germanicus often appears to be ‘outofplace’intheTiberianregime,asheacquires historical significance retrospec-tively,thusactingasasymbolofthepastintheTaciteannarrative(O’Gorman2000,47)16.Similarly,LuceandWoodmantakenoteofthelackofconsistencyinTacitus’treatmentoftheyounggeneral(LuceandWoodman1993,60).Thequestionworthaskinghere is fromwhoseperspective istheaccountofGermanicus’visittoEgyptactuallywritten:fromthatofGermanicus’orTacitus’own?IsthedigressiononGer-manicus’ voyage intended to say some-thing about the past (or perhaps present)ofEgypt, thecharacterandsentimentsofGermanicus toward the land, or is it rather constructed and employed to convey cer-tainviewsofTacitusregardingbothmat-ters?

While the account has been called the primeevidenceforEgypt’sstrategicroleinthe empire by Manolaraki, Kelly observes that Ann.2.59-61isaratheroddpassage,in that it is the most detailed account of Germanicus’ sightseeing activities (Kelly2010, 221).

Egyptstandsalongsidetheotherplacesthat Germanicus sets out to see, yet the representation of the land and the artistic arrangementoftheaccount,togetherwithGermanicus’ownportrayal,demandame-ticulous treatment. Germanicus’ itineraryappears as follows: he starts with Alexan-

16 Seediscussiononpp.8-9below.

dria,thencontinuesontoCanopus,visitsthe ruins of ancient Thebes, the colossus of Memnon, the pyramids near Memphis, the lake Moeri, the abyss or the so-called ‘source’oftheNileand,finally,paysavis-it to Syene and Elephantine17.

3.1 Antiquitates

At the outset of his account, Tacitus clearly stateswhatGermanicus’realandassumedreasonsforhisEgyptianvoyagewere:theyoung general set out forEgypt in orderto learn of its antiquities (cognoscendae antiquitatis), yet the pretended reason was concern for the province (cura provinciae praetendebatur)18. The only activity of Germanicus, pertinent to cura provinciae, thatTacitusinformsusofistheloweringof the price of corn by opening the stategranaries(levavitque apertis horreis pretia frugum, Ann. 2.59.1). The historian further elaboratesonGermanicus’popularbehav-iour:“headoptedmanyhabitswelcometothepublic–walkingaroundwithout sol-diery, his feet uncovered, and in an attire identical with that of the Greeks” (mul-taque in vulgus grata usurpavit: sine mi-lite incedere, pedibus intectis et pari cum Graecis amictu)19. Consequently, TacitusinvokesGermanicus’civilitas by compar-ing him to a Republican hero P. Scipio,and contrasting Germanicus’ conduct inAlexandria with the reaction of Tiberius, whocriticizedtheyounggeneral’sbehav-iourandhisneglectof theAugustanpro-

17 Interestingly and,perhaps,not incidentally,Al-exandria,CanopusandMemphisareoftenportrayedassymbols of various vices in Roman literary texts.

18 Cf. cognoscendae vetustatis in Curtius Rufus’Historia Alexandri Magni4.8.3onAlexander’svisittoEgypt.

19 Hereandfurther,translationbyA.J.Woodman.

89

hibitiononRomansenatorsorequestriansofhigherranktoenterEgyptwithouttheimperial consent (Tiberius ... acerrime in-crepuit, quod contra instituta Augusti non sponte principis Alexandriam introisset, Ann. 2.59.2)20. In a few lines, thus, Tacitus both demonstrates the typical fascination that theRomanshadwithEgypt, and al-ludes toAugustus’ imperialist policy andfear of opposition (Ann. 2.59.3). Havingrevealed the actual reason for his visit to Egypt, Tacitus uses Germanicus’ fasci-nation with the Egyptian antiquities andmanoeuversthegeneral’svoyagetoshowhisreaderswhatwasleftofthecountry’spastglory.TheauthorseemstoemploytheantiquitatesofEgypt tocommunicatehisown anti-imperialist views in the hope of appealingtohisreaderofasimilarmind.

Inthefollowingparagraph(2.60)Taci-tus elaborates on the sites which Germani-cus goes on to see. Each of the ancientsites that he visits is represented in a way evokingacertaintyrantorheroand,con-sequently, his failure or misfortune: thetown ofCanopus is related toMenelaus,the river-mouths to Hercules, Thebes to Pharaoh Rhamses etc.21. Furthermore, Germanicus’ itinerary creates allusionsto the tyrants of a more recent day: par-allels with Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar are markedly present displays of

20 Kelly (2010, 223-4).Cf. Cass. Dio 51.17. Seealso Suetonius’ Tib. 52 on Tiberius’ lack of affectiontoward Germanicus, illustrated by his reaction to Ger-manicus’ unsanctioned trip to Alexandria. Suetonius,nevertheless, vindicates Germanicus’ deed by sayinghis trip was due to the severe famine. Josephus Ap. 2.5 alsomentions Germanicus’ presence inAlexandria inthecontextofcorndistributioninatimeofmajordefi-ciency.

21 ThisisarguedthroughoutKelly(2010),esp.227-230.

the Tacitean irony22. One of the sites that Germanicus visits is granted exclusivelyelaborate treatment by Tacitus, namely, the inscriptionofKingRhamsesinThebes:

et manebant structis molibus litterae Aegyptiae,prioremopulentiamcomplexae:iussusqueesenioribussacerdotumpatriumsermonem interpretari referebat habitasse quondamseptingentamiliaaetatemilitari,atque eo cum exercitu regem RhamsenLibyaAethiopiaMedisqueetPersisetBac-trianoacScythapotitumquasqueterrasSuriArmeniiqueetcontiguiCappadocescolunt,indeBithynum, hincLycium admare im-perio tenuisse. legebantur et indicta genti-bustributa,pondusargentietauri,numerusarmorumequorumqueetdonatempliseburatque odores, quasque copias frumenti etomniumutensiliumquaequenatiopenderet,haudminusmagnifica quam nunc vi Par-thorum aut potentia Romana iubentur (Ann. 2.60).

“Andonthemassivestructurestherere-mained Egyptian letters, summarizing itsformerwealthiness:oneofthepriests’elders,orderedtointerprethisnativelanguage,re-ported that seven hundred thousand men of military age had once lived there andthat with that armyKing Rhamses – hav-ing gained control of Libya, Ethiopia, andthe Medes and Persians, the Bactrian andScythian, and the lands which the Syrians, Armenians, and adjacentCappadocians in-habit – had held under his command the areafromtheBithynianseaontheonesideto the Lycian on the other. Also read out were the taxes imposed on various peoples, theweightofsilverandgold,thenumberofweaponsandhorses,andgiftsofivoryandperfumes to the temples, and the amounts of grain and of all the comestibleswhicheach nation paid – contributions no less magnificentthanthosethatarenowatthebidding of theParthians’might orRomanpowerfulness”.

22 Cf. Lucan B.C.10.189-93,268-282; see p. 9 be-low.

90

Itisunconvincing,Kellyaptlyargues,to interpret this passage as a triumphalstatement of the Roman power, especially given Tacitus’ anti-imperialist views ex-pressed elsewhere23. Rather, one should perceive the comparison of the former successofRhamses’ruletothatofimpe-rialRome as awarning about the transi-ence of kingly achievement (Kelly 2010,226). Rhamses’ inscription evokes mo-narchical power and vainglory, thus pos-siblyalludingtoAugustus’Res Gestae as wellaslateremperors’tastefordisplayingtheir deeds on inscriptions, at times hiero-glyphic,inthecityofRome24. Thus, to a RomanofTacitus’day, the inscriptionofRhamses’ encountered by Germanicuswould have evoked the “epigraphic self-aggrandizementoflaterRoman‘tyrants’”,as well as the fascination that some of the Roman emperors had overtly demonstrat-edtowardthehieroglyphicmonumentsorEgyptatlarge(Kelly2010,227).Further-more,Romansviewedhieroglyphicsasamysterious and sacred script, which has ledtothemoccasionallycreatingpseudo-hieroglyphicsinthecityofRomeorelse-whereintheEmpireinordertolegitimizethe Egyptian character of a piece of art(O’Gorman2000,122;Swetnam-Burland 2007).

By the end of the first century BCERomeherselfwasalreadyfullofEgyptian-themedmaterial,soTacitus’readerswould

23 Cf. Agricola16,21,30-32.24 Cf.Hdt.4.87onkinglyinscriptions.Agoodex-

ample of Roman aemulatio provided by Kelly (2010) is Domitian’s (r. 81-96 CE)Obeliscus Pamphylius in Rome,ahieroglyphicinscriptionwithtraditionalphara-onictraitsattributedtoDomitian:militarystrength,for-eignconquests,extractionoftaxesfromAsia,aswellasthesamehonorificnamesasthoseassignedtoRhamsesII.

have known exactly what Tacitus was re-ferringto.

O’Gormanalsonotesthatthecompari-son of Rhamses’ Egypt with Parthia andRomeacquiresthestatusofaninscriptionitself: the comparative comment develops syntactically out of the translated inscrip-tion in such a way that it is not clear wheth-er it is part of the story or the narrative, in other words, it remains obscure whether it is the priest, Germanicus, or Tacitus who makes the comparison. In this way, the comment“transcendstheimmediate timeof reading” (O’Gorman 2000, 114).Ger-manicus,justasthereaderofTacitus’day,hastheadvantageofknowingthehistory:Rhamses’inscriptionisbeingrenderedtohim as a memory of what has been there once but no longer exists. O’GormanseeminglyagreeswithKellyinperceivingthe inscription as a tool to evoke the im-ageof the fallofRhamses’ realm,whichinitselfconstitutesawarningtoGermani-cusand,simultaneously,toTacitus’reader.Thus, the relationship between past and present,communicatedthroughGermani-cus’interestinEgypt’santiquities,presup-poses “a cyclical narrative of successive empires”(O’Gorman2000,113).

Thefollowingkindofantiquitates that Germanicus viewswhile inEgypt has todo with royal building activities, calledmiracula by Tacitus: in Ann.2.61wearepresentedwiththecolossusofKingMem-non and the pyramids. Herodotus and Ar-istotle had already interpreted some pieces of Egyptian architecture as monumentsto autocratic excess and tyranny (Hdt. 2.126-8,136;Arist.Pol.1313b),apercep-tion later on adopted by Roman moralist writers (e.g. Pliny H.N. 36.75-82) (Kelly2010, 228). Similarly, Martial employed

91

a denigrating comparison betweenEgyp-tian pyramids and the new Flavian palace on the Palatine in Rome (Ep. 8.36.2). Ina similar vein, manipulation of nature is evoked, as Germanicus visits an excavated lake and the supposed sources of the river Nile (lacusque effossa humo, superfluen-tis Nili receptacula; atque alibi angustiae et profunda altitudo, nullis inquirentium spatiis penetrabilis, Ann. 2.61.1). Here,more clearly than ever, we see the impor-tant part that intertextuality plays in the Tacitean narrative, as the given passageresembles closely Lucan’s account (B.C. 10.268-282) on Sesostris, Cambyses,Al-exanderandCaesarallattemptingtofindthebeginningsoftheNile,andallequallyfailingtodoso.Tacitus’readeristhusin-vited to recall earlier – both Greek and Ro-man – authors who touched upon similar themes, and to follow the same train of thought.

Theroyalbuilding,manipulationofna-ture and vain attempts at exploration are all integralpartsoftheEgyptianantiquitates that still fascinated the Romans of Taci-tus’day.Inthiscase,however,weobservesomething other than the typical fascina-tionandadmirationofEgypt’slandscape.Rather, as Kelly argues, the antiquitates that Germanicus visits are all related to the transiency of royal achievement and, as such,likelyreflectTacitus’ownattitudeto-ward Roman imperialism. The invocation ofsuchimages,andtheveryuseofEgyptas a historical exemplum, was still relevant totheaudienceofTacitus’day.Ann. 2.59-61 is, as it seems, an ‘Egyptian voyage’inwhichanalienviewerisnotgenuinelyinterestedindescribingEgyptforitsownsake but rather for what it says about the viewer and his ownworld” (Kelly 2010,

236)25.Similarly,Juvenal’scelebratedfif-teenth Satire may well be a ridicule of a typical stereotype-driven Roman rather than that of a stereotypical Egyptian26. One should also considerTacitus’ use ofirony when discussing these passages27. As Gruen notes in his analysis of Germa-nia, an indirect skewering of Romans isTacitus’favouritepastime28. The political situation in Rome and its dependence on theprovinces(Egyptbeingoneofthemostimportantgrainsuppliers),theoverarchingwhimsofEmperorsandtheweakeningoftheSenateareallsubjecttoironicaltreat-mentinTacitus,asheselects,arrangesandmanipulates his material in order to make his reader take a critical look.

3.2 Religion

Tacitus’selectivitymanifestsclearlyinhischoice of the sites that Germanicus visits. Much of this has to do with what the au-thor intends to say or, rather, refrains from saying of Egypt’s religion: for instance,Tacitus deliberately omits from his ac-countGermanicus’visit toMemphis (theplace of special contempt for the Romans, mainlyduetoitsreligiousimportance)andconsultingtheApisbull.WereadofGer-manicus’visittoMemphisinotherauthors,and may safely assume Tacitus to have

25 KellycomparesHerodotus’viewonEgyptinthecontext of a democratic Greek polis, and that of Taci-tus,whoseeminglysawitasanopportunitytodiscusscycles of power, domination and liberty of Rome.

26 ForadiscussionofJuvenal’sSat.15,seeSingle-ton(1983)andMcKim(1986).

27 Cf. Gruen(2011,161):“Irony is a Tacitean stock in trade”,orSyme(1958,206):“Ironyisall-pervasive”. For broader treatment of irony in Tacitus, see Köhnken (1973)andRobin(1973).

28 Gruen (2011, 167), admitting that “the histo-rian’s ironyappliesasmuchto theGermani, as to the Romani”.

92

known about it29. The choice to suppress thisimmediatelysuggestsTacitus’unwill-ingnesstoportraytheyounggeneralinthelightofanimalworship–themostdespic-able practice of Egyptian religion in theeyes of the Romans. Indeed, the absence of any reference to the notorious practice whichhadlongstimulatedpeopleinRometotalkaboutEgyptsignalsthatpaintinganegative and stereotypical picture of theland was not amongst the primary aimsoftheaccount.Inasimilarvein,althoughreferringtoadifferentpassage,Goodyearmaintainedthat“TacitusfavoursGermani-cus by refraining from comment wherecommentwascalledfor”(Goodyear1972,81). Infact, thesameappliesforTacitus’treatmentofVespasianwithregardstohispatronageoftheEgyptiancultofIsisandthenighthehadallegedlyspentwithTitusat the Serapeion (Hist.4.81-82)30.

The peculiar religious practices hadlong been marking the ‘outlandishness’ofEgypt,whiletheinhabitantsofthelandwere called the most pious of all people by Herodotus(2.37,2.65-76).Similarly,Cas-siusDiodeclaredtheEgyptianstobethemostreligiouspeopleonearth(42.34.1-2),albeitelsewherenamingtheeasyandun-predictable character of the Egyptians asone of the reasons forAugustus’ specialtreatment of the province (51.17.1-2)31. AlongsidethematerialAegyptiaca,Egypt’sreligionalsofounditswaytoRomeduringthefirstcenturyCE.Perhapsunsurprising-

29 Cf. Pliny H.N.8.185or,muchlater,AmmianusMarcellinus22.14.8.

30 Cf.SmelikandHemelrijk(1984),1933:“Tacitus attempts to minimize the role of Serapis in his report of the events of Alexandria. Tacitus seems to consider too close an associationwith thisEgyptiangod less com-mendable for Vespasian”.

31 Cf.Isaac(2004,365).

ly,then,theEgyptiancultsinRomewere,toquoteIsaac,“asubjectofeverrecurringtensionbetweenthosewhofiercelydisap-provedofthemandtheiradherentsamongthecitypopulace”(Isaac2004,362).Taci-tus is likely to be placed within the for-mergrouping: itsuffices tomakenoteofa comment the historian makes elsewhere in the Annals,whenspeakingof the fourthousandfreedmenwhoadheredtoEgyp-tian and Jewish rites, being shipped toSardinia and employed there to suppress banditry: “if they died owing to the op-pressiveness of the climate, it was a cheap loss” (si ob gravitatem caeli interissent, vile damnum, Ann. 2.85.4). Furthermore,theRoman discourse onEgypt’s religionwas largely aligned with the prevalentstereotype of Egyptian superstition. Lu-cianreferstoEgyptiansnotsomuchasthemostreligious,butratherthemostsuper-stitiousof all people (δεισιδαιμονέστατοίεἰσινπάντων,Pro imag.27),asopposedtoθεοσεβέεςinHerodotus(2.37).Similarly,in the Histories, Tacitus calls the Egyp-tians a nation devoted to superstition (ded-ita superstitionibus gens, Hist.4.81)32.

Interestingly, the only reference toEgypt’s religious life in the account ofGermanicus’ voyage is the presenceof an Egyptian high priest interpretingRhamses’ inscription.Thepriesthereap-pears as a key figure in representing theold Egypt together with its religious in-stitutions:throughhimGermanicuslearnsof Rhamses’ achievements and Egypt’sformerheyday.O’Gormanmaintains thatthefigureofpriestasaninterpreterinTac-

32 Note the shiftinthestereotypingofnon-Romanpeoples in Apuleius’Florida6,whereinsuperstitionisattributed to the Jews: super Aegyptios eruditos et Iu-daeos superstitiosos et Nabathaeos mercatores.

93

itus’ account is a sign of historical tradi-tionevokingmemoryofsimilarfiguresinearlier historical narratives (cf. EgyptianpriestsinHdt.2.100-6andStrab.17.1.46)(O’Gorman2000,114).ItisthroughsuchconstructionofnarrativethatintheEgyp-tian account, as well as the overall descrip-tionofhissightseeingactivities,Germani-cus is portrayed as the reader of history. Indeed, Tacitus plays with the relationship between the reader, i.e. Germanicus, and the Pharaonic past as it is transmitted to him through the agency of the priest. Itis also by means of this transmission, in-cludingthecomparisonofEgypt’spasttoRome’scontemporarymight,thatthestorybecomes available to the reader of Taci-tus’ narrative. The Egyptian high priestisthusthepivotalagentinthecreationofhistorical significance and historical con-tinuity, in that he acts as a story-teller and an interpreter between Egyptian and La-tin, otherwise mutually incomprehensible (O’Gorman2000,49;112-113).

By employing the figure of an Egyp-tianpriest,TacitusevokestheimageofoldEgyptian religious institution, essentiallymaking the representative of that institu-tion communicate to the Roman generalthesamemessageconveyedbyreferencesto royal building activities. It becomesfairly clear fromTacitus’ account that hewasnotfondofEgyptianreligion,norwashe in favour of Egyptian-themed monu-mentserectedinRome.Wemayinterpretthe absenceofGermanicus’ adherence toEgyptianreligioninAnn.2.59-61asTaci-tus’ own sentiment toward Germanicus,for thisway thegeneralescapesnegativelight.Thus,whatTacitusdoesnot say is of nolesserimportancefortheunderstandingof the Tacitean narrative.

3.3 People

Similarly to his omission of Germani-cus’visit toMemphis,Tacitus leavesoutGermanicus’ enthusiastic reception bythe Alex andrians, of which we read in the papyrological evidence33. This may also have to do with Tacitus’ desire tomaintain critical distance between Ger-manicusandtheimmediateEgyptiansur-roundings: Germanicus remains more ofa viewer from the outside world than an activeparticipantthroughouttheaccount.AlongsideEgyptianreligion,thecountry’sinhabitants were largely perceived andportrayed in a negative light by the Ro-mans.Isaacgoesasfarastoconcludethat“therewasnootherpeoplethatsoirritatedmanyGreeks andRomans asEgyptians”(Isaac 2004, 370).Notably, a great num-ber of anti-Egyptian comments presentin the Roman authors in fact refer to the people of Alexandria: for instance, a fairly harsh remarkbyCicero inhisRab. Post. 34-36refers toAlexandrians,andnotna-tiveEgyptians.Similarly,Alexandriansareportrayed as a deceitful folk (gens fallax) in the Bellum Alexandrinum2434.

These were the people who welcomed Germanicus in Alexandria with their arms

33 Cf.Germanicus’edict,whereinherejectsdivinehonours accorded to him by the Alexandrians upon his arrival (S.B.1.3924,ll.31-45),andsemi-literaryP.Oxy. 25.2435r,whichmayalsobereferringtoGermanicus’visit.

34 Meanwhile, the Alexandrians themselves had equallynegativeviewsaboutthenativeEgyptianfolk,cf. Achilles Tatius, an Alexandrian-born, who writes: “FortheEgyptianissubjecttothemostslavishcoward-ice when he is afraid and the most fool-hardy rashness whenencouragedbyhisposition;inneithercasehashemoderation – he either bows to the fortune with over-greatpusillanimity,ordisplaysinsuccessmorethanidi-otictemerity”(Leucippe and ClitophonIV.14,transl.byB.Isaac).

94

wide open, and this is precisely what Taci-tus fails to mention at all. Admittedly, the authornoteson thegeneral’spopularbe-haviour while in Alexandria (multaque in vulgus grata usurpavit, 2.59.1), yet his in-vocationofGermanicus’Greek-likedressremindsmoreofStrabo’snarrative,where-inthehistorianreiteratesPolybius’conten-tionthattheAlexandrians,althoughadis-orderly and mixed race, were still better than the natives, as they retained the cus-toms common to the Greeks (ἐμέμνηντοτοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθους, Strab.17.1.12-13).Onceagain,wemayspeculatethatitwasnotinTacitus’interest,atleastnot in that of the present account, to invoke andelaborateonEgypt’sinhabitants.Ger-manicus’fascinationwiththecountryandthe purpose of his journey were perhapsfound less affirmative and more neutralhavingleftthecheeringcrowdsofAlexan-drians outside the picture.

Indeed, Egypt is largely portrayed byTacitus as an ancient country nearly empty of people: it almost stands as a monument itself to the fadedgloryof thePharaonicpast.TheonlypersontoappearalongsideGermanicus is the Egyptian high priest;yet even he, as discussed in the previous section,isassignedaspecificroletoplay.ThisnotionisonlyreaffirmedbythefactthatTacitusdoesnotrefrainfromnegativecomment toward Egyptians elsewhere inhisworks. In fact,Egypt is theonlypro-vince in the introductory passage of theHistories to deserve a separate treatment withregardstoitsnativeinhabitants:

ita visum expedire, provinciam aditu difficilem, annonae fecundam, supersti-tione ac lascivia discordem et mobilem, in-sciamlegum,ignarammagistratuum,domiretinere (Hist. 1.1.11).

“Ithadseemedwisetokeepthusunderthe direct control of the imperial house a

provincewhich isdifficultof access,pro-ductiveofgreatharvests,butgiventocivilstrife and sudden disturbances because of the fanaticism and superstition of its inhab-itants,ignorantastheyareoflawsandun-acquaintedwithcivilmagistrates”35.

Isaac describes this explanatory com-mentas“amajorityof the standard slursagainstEgyptasencounteredinthesourc-es, expressed with typical Tacitean brev-ity”(Isaac2004,362).

Similarly incongruent treatment ofa foreign people is observed in Tacitus’Germania.AsGruenconvincinglyargues,Tacitus is as much interested in the Ro-mans, as he is in the Germans. So, at the sametime,muchlikeGermanicus’Egyp-tianvoyage,thetreatiseonGermanscon-stitutesareflectiononTacitus’owncoun-trymen(Gruen2011,160).Duetothenu-ance,complexity,ambiguityandirony,allof which are typical of the Tacitean narra-tive, both accounts seem to be constructed toconveyaspecificmessagenolessthanto describe a foreign land and its peculi-arities.WhatGruenmaintainsofTacitus’Germania, namely, that it offers more than a simplistic contrast between the Germans and the Romans, may thus be extended to theEgyptianaccounttoo,onlythatthede-scriptive function of the latter is hardly at all there, for there are almost no locals to be compared and evaluated.

Although Versluys notes that the in-habitants of Egypt are generally charac-terized by the Roman authors as complete opposites of the ideal Roman, this notion doesnotfullyfitthecaseofTacitus36. The

35 Transl. byC.H.Moore. Cf. also the aforemen-tioned Hist.4.81:dedita superstitionibus gens.

36 Versluys2002,437.Versluysmayalsobetooas-sertiveinhisclaimthat“bothliterarysourcesandNilot-icscenesare (ingeneral)purelynegativeaboutEgyptandherculture”,ibid.439.

95

historian is far too complex and construc-tive in his treatment of Egypt, his narra-tive heavily dependent on the purpose it is meant to fulfilwithineachaccount. It is,nevertheless,evidentfromTacitus’choiceto employ certain themes and imageswhile restraining from explicit treatmentof Egypt’s inhabitants and their religion,that therewasa tendencyamongtheRo-manauthorstoseparateEgypt’slandscapeand its antiquitates from its people.

4. Conclusions

Contrarytothewidelyassumedexistenceof a purely negative image, reverence toEgypt’spastandtheantiquitiesofthelandseems to coexist in the Roman discourse with disdain to its present situation, its cus-tomsanddecadence.FromthefirstcenturyCEonward, theRoman representationofEgypt goes beyond mere ethnographicstereotypingofthe‘Other’.Whilethefo-cal points in Roman literary representa-tionsofEgypt remain largely thesame–anti quitates, religion, and people – thereseems to be increasinglymore space forinterpretationand,perhaps,imaginationinusingEgyptinordertoconveyavarietyofmeanings.ThepejorativestereotypesandconceptualizationsofEgyptremainmark-edlyvariedthroughouttheGraeco-Romanantiquity.

Similarly to Hellenocentric Greek writers, Romans also viewed Egyptiansthrough their own Roman lens37. Whilethe general prejudice towards Egypt andits long-lived traditions, such as animalworship, remains vital in the mentality of its foreign Graeco-Roman counterparts,stereotypes adopted from the Greek tradi-

37 Cf. Isaac2004,369.

tion appear to be somewhatmodified bythe Roman imperial discourse. The con-flictingconceptualizationsofEgyptinRo-man literary sources may be reconciled by thenotionofanapparentgapbetweentheRomanunderstandingofEgypt’smaterialculture (its landscape and antiquitates), and the nature and customs of its inhabit-ants. Some of the stereotypes remain fairly morefixedthantheothers:whileonemaydescribe Egypt’s antiquitates or religion(e.g. cults of Isis or Serapis) on a positive note, the Egyptian religious practice ofanimal worship or certain traits of native inhabitants remain negative throughoutthe period discussed and beyond. This no-tionmayonlybeconfirmedbytheabsenceofthelattertwoelementsinTacitus’Ann. 2.59-61.

InhisaccountofGermanicus’visit toEgypt,Tacitusislessinterestedindescrib-ing Egypt for its own sake, and focusesinstead on constructing the narrative insuch a way that it would serve his overall aim.Egypt’sstateatthetimeofGermani-cus’ visit is likelymeant to remindTaci-tus’ reader of the transience and fragilityof monarchical rule. The country appears to be desolate and empty of people, thus almost acquiring the status of an ancientmonument itself. Germanicus’ figure inEgypt is primarily that of an observerfrom the outside world: critical distance is maintainedandpropagatedbytheauthor.TheonlypersontoappearintheEgyptianaccountalongsideGermanicusisanEgyp-tian high priest, who embodies the anti-quityofEgypt’sreligiousinstitutionsandacts as a medium or, rather, a communica-torofTacitus’messagetoGermanicusand,simultaneously, to his reader.

Tacitus’ portrayal of the country inthe present account has to do less with

96

the representation of Egypt and morewith its potential to serve as a source of comparison in Roman moralist writing.One of the fiercest portrayals of Egyptfound inJuvenal’sFifteenth Satire, when seen in the ramificationsof itsgenreandcontext,mayequallybe interpretedasanexpressionof“amoregenerallamentaboutthedeclineofmoralsandnostalgiaforanearlierdaywhenmen’sbetternature still

prevailed”38.Forbothauthors,Egyptmayhave merely provided a dramatic settingrather than evoked the story told. At the timeoftheirwriting,Egyptwasverymuchpresent in Rome. It remained the land of multiple, both positive and negativesignifications. The material was there tobe collected, tailored and employed as it guaranteedreaders’attention;oneonlyhadto decide how and to what ends to use it.

38 Gruen 2011, 110 on Juv. Sat.15.131-74.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

All abbreviations of ancient authors and works consulted follow the fourth edition of The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. by S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth, and E. Eidinow (2012), Oxford Univer-sity Press.

P.Oxy.=Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1898–)S.B. =F.Preisigkeet al., Sammelbuch griechis-

chen Urkunden aus Ägypten (1915–)

Tacitus(P.CorneliusTacitus).P. Cornelii Taciti Libri qui supersunt, Tom. I: Ab excessu divi Augusti, ed.byH.Heubner(1983),StuttgartandLeipzig.

Tacitus (P. Cornelius Tacitus). Cornelii Taciti Libri qui supersunt, Tom. II pars prima: Historiarum libri,ed.byK.Wellesley(1989),StuttgartandLeip-zig.

Tacitus: The Annals. Translated, with introduc-tionandnotes,byA.J.Woodman(2004),Indianapo-lisandCambridge.

Tacitus: The Histories, Books I-III,withanEng-lishtranslationbyC.H.Moore(1952),LondonandCambridge,MA.

Balsdon,J.P.1979.Romans and aliens. London. Bricault,L.,M.J.Versluys,P.G.P.Meyboom,

eds. 2007. Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman world: proceedings of the 3rd international confer-ence of Isis studies. Leiden.

Goodyear,F.R.D.1972.The Annals of Tacitus: Annals 1. 55-81 and Annals 2,Cambridge.

Gruen, E. S. 2011. Rethinking the other in antiq-uity. Princeton and Oxford.

Isaac,B.2004.The invention of racism in classi-cal antiquity. Princeton and Oxford.

Karttunen, K. 2002. ‘The Ethnography of theFringes’inE.J.Bakker,I.J.F.deJong,andH.vanWees (eds.).Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. Lei-den,457–474.

Kelly, B. 2010. ‘Tacitus, Germanicus and theKings ofEgypt:Tac.Ann. 2.59-61’,The Classical Quarterly60(1),221–237.

Köhnken,A.1973.‘DasProblemderIroniebeiTacitus’,Museum Helveticum30,32–50.

Lloyd,A.B.2002.‘Egypt’inE.J.Bakker,I.J.F.deJong,andH.vanWees(eds.).Brill’s Companion to Herodotus.Leiden,415–435.

Luce,T. J.,A. J.Woodman,eds.1993.Tacitus and the Tacitean tradition. Princeton.

Manolaraki, E. 2013.Noscendi Nilum cupido: Imagining Egypt from Lucan to Philostratus. BerlinandBoston.

McKim,R.1986.‘PhilosophersandCannibals:Juvenal’sFifteenthSatire’,Phoenix40(1),58–71.

Nimis,S.2004.‘EgyptinGreco-RomanHistoryandFiction’,Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics 24,34–67.

O’Gorman, E. 2000. Irony and misreading in Tacitus.Cambridge.

Reinhold, M. 1980. ‘Roman attitudes towardsEgyptians’.Ancient World 3,97–103.

Robin,P.1973.L’ironie chez Tacite. Lille.Schmal, S. 2005. Tacitus. Studienbücher Antike.

Hildesheim,ZurichandNewYork.

97

Gauta: 2015-10-06 Autorės adresas:Priimta publikuoti: 2015-11-10 LadyMargaretHall

Norham GardensOxford

OX26QAUnitedKingdom

El.paštas:lina.girdvainyte@classics.ox.ac.uk

Straipsnyje detaliai analizuojamas Tacito pasakoji-masapieGermanikokelionępoEgiptą(Ann. 2.59-60) bei siūloma pažvelgti į šį tekstą platesniameRomosimperijosliteratūros,kuriojeneretaiEgiptasvaizduojamas nepalankiai, kontekste. Po trumposEgiptovietosgraikųirromėnųliteratūrojeapžvalgosautorė nagrinėja, kaip Egiptas pristatomas veikaloištraukoje,atsižvelgdamaįtai,kokspasakojimosan-tykissuvyraujančiaisstereotipaisbeikokįvaidmenįEgipto aplinkoje atlieka pagrindinis veikėjas Ger-manikas. Egipto kultūros paminklai (antiquitates), šaliesgyventojaibeijųreligijabuvodažnaisenovėsautorių gvildenamos temos, audrinusios skaitytojųvaizduotę.Susižavėjimasšalies istorija,kraštovaiz-džiuirmonumentaisbuvosumišęssupaniekairpa-sibaisėjimu Egipto gyventojų religiniais papročiaisbeicharakteriobruožais.Straipsnissiūlopažvelgtiįtai, kaip šie trys elementai pateikiami arba, priešin-gai, ignoruojamiTacitopasakojime,iršitokiubūdu

Shotter, D. C.A. 1968. ‘Tacitus, Tiberius andGermanicus’.Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte,17(2),194–214.

Singleton,D.1983.‘Juvenal’sFifteenthSatire:areading’.Greece & Rome30(2),198–207.

Smelik, K.A. D. and E. D. Hemelrijk. 1984.‘Who knows not what monsters demented Egyptworships? Opinions on Egyptian animal worshipin Antiquity as part of the ancient conception ofEgypt’.ANRW 2.17.4,Berlin,1852–2000.

Sonnabend,H.1986.Fremdenbild und Politik: Vorstellungen der Römer von Ägypten und dem Par-

terreich in der späten Republik und frühen Kaizer-zeit. Frankfurt am Main.

Swetnam-Burland,M.2007.‘Egyptianobjects,Roman contexts: a taste for Aegyptiaca in Italy’ in L.Bricault,M. J.Versluys, andP.G.P.Meyboom(eds.) Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman world: proceedings of the 3rd international conference of Isis studies.Leiden,113–136.

Syme,R.1958.Tacitus. Oxford.Versluys, M. J. 2002. Aegyptiaca Romana:

Nilotic scenes and the Roman views of Egypt. Lei-den.

EGIPTAS ROMOS IMPERIJOS LITERATŪROJE: TACITO ANN. 2.59-61

Lina GirdvainytėS a n t r a u k a

suteikiagalimybęnustatyti,kurieįvaizdžiaigajūsirtvirti,okurielengvaitransformuojami.

Šiuo straipsniu siekiama parodyti, kad Tacito pasakojime Egiptas vaizduojamas kur kas įvairia-lypiškesnis ir šis vaizdavimas neatitinka tradicinėsgraikųbeiromėnųpriešiškumoegiptiečiųbeikitomstautomsparadigmos.Istorikokruopščiaiatrinktame-džiagairpasakojimoeiga,susilaikantnuoįprastųnei-giamųpastabų,kokiųrandamakituoseautoriausdar-buose,įrodo,kadšiuopasakojimusiekiamanesukur-tietnografinįšaliespaveikslą,oįgyvendintiautoriaustikslus.TacitopasakojimasapieGermanikokelionępoEgiptąiliustruoja,kaipšaliesaprašymasgalibūtipanaudotas siekiant perteikti autoriaus antiimperialis-tinesnuotaikasbeipaskatintiskaitytojąkritiškesniamžvilgsniui.Panašitendencijabūdingakeletuikitųtopatieslaikotarpioautorių,tadgalimateigti,jogšitoksnaujų reikšmių suteikimas seniems įvaizdžiams yrabūdingasRomosimperijosliteratūrai.