Marguerite Johnson. Boudicca. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2012. 160 pp. $24.95, paper, ISBN 978-1-85399-732-7.

Reviewed by Nikolaus Overtoom

Published on H-War (May, 2014)

Commissioned by Margaret Sankey (Air University)

Marguerite Johnson’s Boudicca investigates Johnson’s study centers on the examination of the portrayal of Queen Boudicca in literature and Tacitus’ and Cassius Dio’s accounts of the 60/61 CE art from antiquity to the present day. She places Boudicca uprising. In investigating the character less emphasis on the historical fgure and more of Boudicca, she wants to reverse the traditional emphasis on the various manifestations of methodological order where these accounts are Boudicca throughout the centuries. Of particular merely supplements to broader historical ac‐ interest to Johnson is the portrayal of Boudicca in counts of the uprising. In essence, much of the antiquity. A severe lack of source material ham‐ book “functions as exercises in text analysis” (p. pers any defnitive historical understanding of 15). Johnson is more concerned with the motiva‐ Boudicca. No contemporary or native accounts tion and purpose behind the accounts than recre‐ survive. One must view Boudicca through the out‐ ating a set of events. She emphasizes that Boudic‐ sider’s lens. ca was a literary entity, a fgure in Roman and Johnson’s book is a part of the Ancients in Ac‐ Greek imagination. tion series, which aims to introduce fgures of the In her frst chapter Johnson provides limited ancient world to general readers. The short work background information on Boudicca, the Iceni, spans four chapters with a brief introduction and and the rebellion. She quickly covers Roman in‐ conclusion, totaling 140 pages. For the general teraction with the Britons from the brief expedi‐ reader, Johnson includes a helpful list of impor‐ tion of Caesar to the rebellion in 60/61 CE. She tant places and people with brief descriptions in then introduces the concept of Boudicca as a sym‐ the front of the book. She ofers only a basic map bol of freedom, resistance, and femininity masked of Roman Britain with the location of various in legend. Boudicca’s appearance and personality tribes. are idealized and exaggerated. The idealization H-Net Reviews and manipulation of Boudicca’s image is similar more interested in Boudicca as a character. She to that of Spartacus.[1] dominates his account of the rebellion and is the Chapter 2 introduces the sources that Tacitus main fgure behind the uprising. His depiction of used and his background as a Roman statesman. Boudicca also is stereotyped, idealized, and mas‐ Johnson argues that in the Annals the Roman en‐ culine. He portrays her as a noble savage and counter with the Britons on the island of Mona leader of an uncivilized people. Dio’s created acts as a precursor to the role of Boudicca in the speech for Boudicca emphasizes the familiar rebellion. Tacitus’ account of Boudicca’s speech theme of freedom versus slavery but also men‐ emphasizes the theme of freedom versus slavery. tions fnancial exploitation. Johnson argues that Boudicca argues that the Romans had wronged Dio creates an awareness of national identity the Iceni and had earned their hatred. Tacitus’ ac‐ among the Britons in his rhetoric that does not re‐ count is highly rhetorical and follows long-stand‐ fect the realities of tribal Roman Britain. Dio’s ac‐ ing historiographical traditions. In his account count demonstrates a preoccupation with gender Boudicca is less of a central fgure than in Dio’s ac‐ roles and reversals. He shared the misogynistic count, and he situates her within the larger tacti‐ prejudices of his contemporaries and the strong cal framework of the rebellion. Tacitus also de‐ character of Boudicca grabbed his attention. Dio’s scribes the brutal sack of three towns by the account is less balanced than that of Tacitus. He Britons, but unlike Dio he does not connect stresses the horrendous atrocities of the Britons Boudicca with the atrocities. Further, unlike in and ignores the Roman mistreatment of Boudicca Dio, his speeches are in the third person. Boudic‐ and her daughters. His account of the war is more ca’s speech hinges on thoughts of freedom and vague and confused than Tacitus’ account. Yet he vengeance. Through her speech Tacitus is critical too attributes ultimate victory to Roman disci‐ of Roman cruelty, oppression, and amoral behav‐ pline. Unlike Tacitus’ Boudicca, who dies of poison ior. In the speech of the Roman general Paulinus, after her defeat, Dio’s Boudicca dies of a mysteri‐ Tacitus stresses the disarray of the enemy army ous illness. Without her leadership the rebellion and highlights common Roman stereotypes of quickly dissipates. Dio’s portrayal of Paulinus also barbaric peoples. Meanwhile in his account of the goes much further than that of Tacitus. Dio’s fnal battle, the Roman army is a picture of mili‐ Paulinus is the ideal Roman general. In his speech tary perfection through efciency, order, and de‐ Paulinus talks of Roman valor and heroism. He termination. Tacitus’ account, although sympa‐ states that Roman vengeance is justifed and that thetic to the Britons, ultimately is biased and cele‐ success in battle comes through honor, excellence, bratory. Johnson then contrasts Tacitus’ negative and manly spirit. Johnson argues that Dio used assessments of Queen Cartimandua, Messalina, these speeches to create “a clear case of deliberate and Agrippina with his portrayal of Boudicca. Tac‐ narrative symmetry that links the two leaders” itus’ Boudicca is more like the heroic, barbarian (p. 108). Dio’s objective was to contrast the alterity fgures of Caratacus and Venutius. Although the and barbarity of the Britons with the resolve and stigma of her being a woman remains in his ac‐ superiority of the Romans. count, he considered Boudicca a separate and su‐ Johnson’s fnal chapter discusses the image of perior woman. Boudicca since antiquity. By late antiquity Boudic‐ The next chapter introduces the sources that ca had nearly faded from written history. Me‐ Dio used and his background as a statesman. His dieval writers mostly ignored her, and she was account of Boudicca is more dynamic, hyperbolic, not reintroduced into the annals of history until and rhetorical than Tacitus’ account. Dio was the Renaissance. These writers distanced Boudic‐ ca from her bellicosity and portrayed her as an

2 H-Net Reviews ideal matron. Elizabethan writers compared her jarring. Although it was not her main focus, a with Queen Elizabeth. They depicted Boudicca “as more detailed account of the Boudicca rebellion a positive icon of national identity” (p. 114). John‐ might prove useful to the general reader she son argues that by the eighteenth century tension hopes to attract. Also her brief conclusion lacks a over Boudicca’s gender began to soften. She in‐ summary of her major arguments. Her analysis of creasingly became associated with British imperi‐ Tacitus and Dio does not always give the reader a alism. To the Victorians she was “the legendary clear sense of which account should be favored and larger-than-life warrior queen of England” and where. On page 56 she cites the treatment of (p. 117). To them she was a symbol of national Caratacus after his capture by the Romans as a pride, confdence, and identity. In more recent motivation for Boudicca’s apparent suicide. Yet artwork, Boudicca has been increasingly sexual‐ can it be demonstrated that native Britons were ized. Meanwhile, women have adopted her image aware of his fate in Italy? If yes, then they would for political ends. Boudicca became a symbol of have known that the Romans pardoned him and women’s freedom and oppression in the early gave him honors. It seems that Boudicca’s own twentieth century. In recent years she has become harsh experience at the hands of the Romans and an image of female strength and defance in the her crushing defeat would have provided plenty battle against breast cancer. Johnson concludes of motivation for her suicide. Additionally, given that Tacitus’ and Dio’s versions of Boudicca are Johnson’s frequent discussions of ancient preju‐ ephemeral creations. She fnds an appreciation of dices, stereotypes, and concepts of the “Other,” it the icon of Boudicca more important than assess‐ is surprising that she did not make use of Ben‐ ing the accuracy of the surviving evidence. John‐ jamin Isaac’s defnitive work on proto-racism in son maintains that Boudicca remains “an elusive, the ancient world.[2] Finally, her rather under‐ ultimately imaginary icon” (p. 140). whelming conclusion that Boudicca remains “an Johnson’s book is more focused on Tacitus elusive, ultimately imaginary icon” may leave and Cassius Dio than Boudicca. Those looking for some students and general readers unsatisfed. a traditional biography will be disappointed. Her Notes intended target audience is a mixture of develop‐ [1]. Brent Shaw, Spartacus and the Slave ing students of ancient history and interested gen‐ Wars: A Brief History with Documents (Boston, eral readers. The signifcance of her work is the MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001). textual analysis of Tacitus’ and Dio’s accounts. She [2]. Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism admits that the second parts of these chapters are in Classical Antiquity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton more technically intensive and aimed at a more University Press, 2006). specialized audience. Her analysis of how these authors used the image of Boudicca to refect Ro‐ man morals and concerns is insightful and worth consideration. She also makes some solid points about the importance of revenge in Roman thought and policy. There are some issues with the book that must be mentioned. The use of endnotes and the select bibliography are unfortunate. On page 15 she calls Tacitus, “Tactitus.” Her continual use of Dio Cassius over the more accepted Cassius Dio is

3 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-war

Citation: Nikolaus Overtoom. Review of Johnson, Marguerite. Boudicca. H-War, H-Net Reviews. May, 2014.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=40263

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

4