Environmentalism in Ancient Rome

[Ursus]

I'm curious is anyone else has come across similar concerns in literature?

 

 

Greco-Roman philosophers declared that animals could not partake of human justice because they could not partake of human reason. In opposition to this, Plutarch asked if animals could be granted kindness if not justice. I forget the exact spot in Plutarch's works, but it is there somewhere. So among the intellectual elite there was one lone voice ...?

 

Spiritually, there is nothing per se in Roman religion that lends itself to environmentalism or 'animal rights.' Animal sacrifice was the cornerstone of public ritual. Some religious cults objected but these were few. Robert Turcan claims that before Romans cleared a glade of woods, they first made a sacrifice to propitiate any spirits that lived there; but once sacrifice was made, the land would be cleared for human development...

 

The Roman state crucified two dogs every year in memory of the guard dogs that supposedly did not bark to warn of approaching Gauls when the Capitol was under siege. Romans soldiers made a point to kill everything living when they stormed a city, including dogs on the street.

 

As to the animals slaughtered in the Ampitheatre, they became tasty treats for the hungry plebians. Can't imagine the masses were therefore interested in the preservation of a few elephants (what does elephant taste like? Chicken?).

 

Roman intelligentsia mocked the animal fetish inherent in Egyptian religion.

 

The picture I get is there is very little in the Roman tradition that lends itself to environmentalism.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Ursus

[Nephele]

Regarding the subject of "animal rights" in conjunction with environmentalism in ancient times... Bill Thayer gives a convenient link on his website from the Smith article on Venatio to the cited law in the Codex Iustinianus that states that beasts intended for the games had to be conveyed safely and without injury (to the animals). But this bit of seemingly humane treatment probably had more to do with practicality than kindness.

 

The picture I get is there very little in the Roman tradition that lends itself to environmentalism.

 

Same here.

 

-- Nephele

[sylla]

In more than one way, Themistius seems to have been aside from the regular Roman tradition.

Edited November 2, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

He does imply that isn't the case.. "We worry about..."

 

Who exactly 'we' are is another matter. Given he was an educated man and someone who gave it some thought, it wouldn't be stretching the imagination to think of him as one of the less avaricious members of Roman society. What skews this is he writes during a later period of Roman history, where the humanitarian sympathies of the ruling classes are increasing (underlined by the improving situation of slaves, possibly also by the adoption of christian beliefs, but in the latter case I don't know enough about how early christians viewed animals, and this was Rome after all).

 

To offset that, he makes thos quote whilst comparing barbarians with animals, remarking it was good that a barbarian tribe wasn't exterminated forever. It reveals less of an enviromentalist (as we more or less agree) and rather more of a typical patronial air of superiority. The fundamental ideology of the Romans from their early days was that the gods had given them a divine purpose to rise and dominate - An empire without end - and it seems this mindset was prevalent even in the late empire, which itself raises an interesting point about christianity - that it must have been coloured by Roman thinking.

 

Okay, I have no idea what religion Themistius worshipped (does anyone else have that info?) but actually I think that question is largely irrelevant, because ultimately Themistius, for all his apparent concern, only frets about the diminishing numbers of animals in the wild.

 

Notice that he does not curse his forefathers for their wanton slaughter. Neither does he suggest that steps must be taken to preserve wildlife, nor praise anyone else for doing so. The whole quote comments merely that a barbarian tribe is spared slaughter, almost if they were a curiosity, a colourful accessory in the world around them.

 

It raises the question then of how the Romans saw the natural world. To some extent, it was a strange and frightening place.

 

Rivers weren't just watercourses. They were places that were either the bounty of a gods benificence, or worse, a place forbidden by the gods unless correct observances were met. The legions that Claudius roused to invade Britain in 43 weren't keen to board the ships at all. The Channel was viewed as a stormy, dangerous barrier, a place the gods would placating over if they were to reach the shores of the mysterious island, and that was even after Julius Caesar had visited the place twice a century before, and despite the regular mercantile and political contact between Britain and the continent that had been going on even before that.

 

Animals were of course simply beasts. Manifestations of of the natural world. If nothing else, the Romans were consumers and the exploitation of a world the gods had given them a right to dominate would seem perfectly in order to them. Beasts were therefore a resource no different to valuable minerals, as both could be sold at a profit. This does seperate the natural world from agriculture. In farming, there is a desire to conserve and ensure the farm animals flourish, but that in itself is only to serve human needs.

 

On the face of it then, Themistius is indeed something of a rarity in Roman circles, a man who voices concern about animals, however lacking in real sympathy it may have been. I suspect though, and this is possibly in the thoughts of Themistius as he wrote about his concerns, that the dwindling stocks of animals in the wild was making itself felt in a very subtle way. Certainly it would have affected their wallet. Increasing numbers of beasts for the arena would have required importation and lengthy transportation, making the use of the creatures much more expensive. So we see both finance and practicality as two reasons for the decline in animal slaughter toward the late empire. The decline of pagan practises must also have contributed. But lurking beneath the obvious was an uncertainty about the world.

 

Because the Romans felt this divine purpose about infinite empire, it would seem in the order of things that the gods were providing the world for the Romans to exploit, something we know they did readily. With a declining resource in the increasing rarity of wild beasts, are the Romans somehow not keeping faith with their gods? The point I getting to then is that Themistius has a better overview of the world, by his education and position in society. He has witnessed the ebb and flow of current life and knows about the history of his realm. He sees the changes occuring around him and has begun, deep down, to question his Roman prerogative?

 

Only with guilt would Themistius have made an intellectual change of heart and assumed the mantle of enviromentalist. That is the essential point then. For all his worries about barbarians and the natural world, he voices no guilt. Themistius is therefore indeed as Roman as his contemporaries.

[sylla]

Some traits of modern environmentalism might have been anachronically attributed to Themistius; who knows?

 

In any case, Themistius was an eclectic Aristotelian and some of these ideas can be found among other philosophers, at least since Plato, and maybe even from the presocratics.

[caldrail]

I don't think we should be suprised that some individuals have leanings toward humanitarian sympathies. Human beings haven't changed much since we discovered Europe for ourselves and on average, a certain number will always identify with those people (or animals) that they see suffering. What we find in primitive peoples is that they learn to fit in with their enviroment. Early exploration peoples can be very wasteful in their new territory. It's new, fresh, and game is bountiful. Once the creatures become harder to find, so the need to be more thoughtful toward their enviroment evolves and spiritual practises along with them.

 

The native Americans are very much a case in point. Whilst we admire their ability to utilise their enviroment and waste very little of the animals they hunted, we also know they severely inhibited post-ice-age herds (if not responsible for their demise) and that herds were sometimes stampeded over cliffs for easy kills, a method hunting that was extremely wasteful and one that would inevitably be replaced with more careful exploitation.

 

The Romans never reached that stage. They had little cultural reason to. With their somewhat arrogant self-belief and greed the world around them was there to be exploited. There is of course the increasing cost of importing animals from abroad that finally made the large scale slaughter of animals in the wild less desirable, but this was an economic factor entirely and one that hadn't, even by the end of the empire, introduced any conservational sentiment in the Roman mindset, which itself was increasingly concerned with external pressure and internal politics as Rome developed toward the monarchy of the later era.

 

The laws on slaves over the years underline those trends. As the numbers brought in from warfare lessened and the individual slave became more valuable, so the owners often found themselves with a less overbearing relationship with them.

 

Of course you could argue the Romans had other reasons to pursue slave rights. These were effectively disenfranchised labourers living amongst them and at least once a Roman writer observed the delicate balance between obedience and rebellion in their midst.

 

I'm not sure that simply putting Themistius into a category of philosophical ideology is entirely relevant. Whilst he may have had similar leanings to others who included themselves in such a cultural grouping (if indeed they thought themselves a seperate social order at all in those days) we don't see Themistius connecting his views in the quote given above with Presocratics or Aristotleans. When he mentions "We worry" it's far more likely he includes his associates which aren't necessarily to be exclusively of a certain philosophical bent.

 

Having said that, it's also clear that the issue was at least discussed amongst his peers at least once, probably more. Had there been new lands, more territory to conquer and exploit, I suspect the conversations would have amounted to a few shrugs and comments on what new resources could be brought into the Roman fold. With the inwardly looking perspective of the late empire, Rome was effectively held back from it's former stance on reaching out for more. There's little time for enviromental concerns if the enemy is threatening to trample all over it.

 

Incidentially, this raises another issue. The over-hunting by barbarians in surrounding lands, not just to obtain trade with the Romans, but also to ensure safe agricultural land for themselves. It seems then whatever we humans consider about our duty toward the enviroment, it will always be offset by the short term for wealth and security.

[sylla]

The above mentioned comparison of native Americans and Romans is probably as anachronical as it's possible within UNRV, ie. like 10,000 BC vs the Roman Era; in any case, the extinction of the Megafauna was a universal phenomenon out of Eastern / Southern Africa (ie, including therefore the whole future Roman world around 10,000 BC too).

 

Evidence and experience overwhelmingly show that complex civilizations (as the Romans) have overhunted far more (exponentially in fact) than pre-agrarian populations (eg, some Barbarians) for a number of reasons.

[Ludovicus]

The above mentioned comparison of native Americans and Romans is probably as anachronical as it's possible within UNRV, ie. like 10,000 BC vs the Roman Era; in any case, the extinction of the Megafauna was a universal phenomenon out of Eastern / Southern Africa (ie, including therefore the whole future Roman world around 10,000 BC too).

 

Evidence and experience overwhelmingly show that complex civilizations (as the Romans) have overhunted far more (exponentially in fact) than pre-agrarian populations (eg, some Barbarians) for a number of reasons.

It seems that Southern Africa megafauna survived quite well: giraffes, rhinos, elephants, hippos, et alia. It's

only recent homo sapiens who Is threatening these animals.

From Alan Wiesman, "The World without Us" on why African large mammals survived:

"...humans and megafauna evolved together. Unlike unsuspecting American, Australian,...herbivores who had no inkling of how dangerous we were when unexpectedly arrived. African animals had the chance to adjust as our presence increased."

Then, of course, came the Romans of recent history.

[sylla]

The above mentioned comparison of native Americans and Romans is probably as anachronical as it's possible within UNRV, ie. like 10,000 BC vs the Roman Era; in any case, the extinction of the Megafauna was a universal phenomenon out of Eastern / Southern Africa (ie, including therefore the whole future Roman world around 10,000 BC too).

 

Evidence and experience overwhelmingly show that complex civilizations (as the Romans) have overhunted far more (exponentially in fact) than pre-agrarian populations (eg, some Barbarians) for a number of reasons.

It seems that Southern Africa megafauna survived quite well: giraffes, rhinos, elephants, hippos, et alia. It's

only recent homo sapiens who Is threatening these animals.

From Alan Wiesman, "The World without Us" on why African large mammals survived:

"...humans and megafauna evolved together. Unlike unsuspecting American, Australian,...herbivores who had no inkling of how dangerous we were when unexpectedly arrived. African animals had the chance to adjust as our presence increased."

Then, of course, came the Romans of recent history.

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[caldrail]

The above mentioned comparison of native Americans and Romans is probably as anachronical as it's possible within UNRV, ie. like 10,000 BC vs the Roman Era; in any case, the extinction of the Megafauna was a universal phenomenon out of Eastern / Southern Africa (ie, including therefore the whole future Roman world around 10,000 BC too).

 

Evidence and experience overwhelmingly show that complex civilizations (as the Romans) have overhunted far more (exponentially in fact) than pre-agrarian populations (eg, some Barbarians) for a number of reasons.

 

There are times, Scylla, when I struggle to decide whether you're pulling my leg. All you ever see are events. You list them, avidly, any chance you get, because your basis of self-worth is all those minute facts you've memorised. Do you ever try to understand underlying cause? Motivations? No, of course not. That requires imagination as much as the printed word.

 

I'm sorry, but I see no anachronism in human nature, something we share with every culture that has ever existed and ever will, whatever social rules and mindset exists.

 

But it's pointless discussing it. You don't want a discussion. You want to tell everyone what you know. I think you've done that already.

[sylla]

Nice hypothesis; the only way to understand "causes" and "motivations" would then be utterly avoiding evidence.

 

Impollute ignorance would then be the only way to let imagination free.

 

Have you any evidence backing such hypothesis?

 

In any case, you must admit I'm hardly the only one here worried for evidence as a support of our own assertions.

[Northern Neil]

I see no anachronism in human nature, something we share with every culture that has ever existed and ever will, whatever social rules and mindset exists.

 

... exactly the point made by Jared Diamond in his book 'Collapse' which explored environmental reasons for the extinction of societies as diverse as the Easter Islanders and Greenland Vikings. The Romans get a mention too, but he sees the Dark Age as more of a hiatus than a genuine collapse.

[sylla]

I see no anachronism in human nature, something we share with every culture that has ever existed and ever will, whatever social rules and mindset exists.

 

... exactly the point made by Jared Diamond in his book 'Collapse' which explored environmental reasons for the extinction of societies as diverse as the Easter Islanders and Greenland Vikings. The Romans get a mention too, but he sees the Dark Age as more of a hiatus than a genuine collapse.

Nope.

 

First of all, that is absolutely unfair to the superb methodology used by Prof. Diamond

Edited November 7, 2009 by sylla

[Northern Neil]

I see no anachronism in human nature, something we share with every culture that has ever existed and ever will, whatever social rules and mindset exists.

 

... exactly the point made by Jared Diamond in his book 'Collapse' which explored environmental reasons for the extinction of societies as diverse as the Easter Islanders and Greenland Vikings. The Romans get a mention too, but he sees the Dark Age as more of a hiatus than a genuine collapse.

Nope.

 

First of all, that is absolutely unfair to the superb methodology used by Prof. Diamond

[sylla]

It may well be 'anachronical' (I cannot find a dictionary definition of such a word)

Anachronic \An`a*chron"ic\, Anachronical \An`a*chron"ic*al\,a. Characterized by, or involving, anachronism; anachronistic.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

... to mention it in the context of other more recent events, but... so what?

So that's exactly one point that Diamond's Collapse didn't make; just that.

BTW, Collapse doesn't deal either with wreckages or urban fires, which are attributable to "avoidable actions of humans" too.

 

Now, the real and original anachronism was in Coldrail's post #21 from this same thread (i.e. you quoted his answer to my comment on that post):

"The native Americans are very much a case in point. ... they severely inhibited post-ice-age herds (if not responsible for their demise) and that herds were sometimes stampeded over cliffs for easy kills, a method hunting that was extremely wasteful and one that would inevitably be replaced with more careful exploitation. The Romans never reached that stage".

 

Now, it might be my 'lack of imagination' (?), but that statement doesn't make any sense, because it is absolutely anachronic(al); i.e., the extinction of the Pleistocene Megafauna of the future Roman World (mostly the Mediterranean basin & Western Europe) was essentially synchronic to (at the same time that) the equivalent event in America (the Quaternary extinction event was a global phenomenon).

Which was then the "stage" that the Romans never reached???

It seems that "stage" had already been reached by the Romans' predecessors thousands of years before them...

Edited November 9, 2009 by sylla