1Caesar wrote his De Bello Gallico in seven books, in which one can find out the conflicts between Romans and Gauls, as well as his own military campaigns. Caesar also used his work to justify his conquest of Gaul. Caesar, although there has always been a great discussion about his use as a reliable source for those facts, is fundamental to this research¹.

2In fact, during his years in Gaul, he has penetrated in an alien territory, in a universe not so well known and that was feared by the Romans. Caesar have learned to distinguish the different levels of ferocitas, the diversity of Celtic and Germanic nations, and he has observed the political and social instability of the Gauls, and their culture and bravery². Of course some Greek authors, such as Polybius and Posidonius, have written about the Gauls before Caesar, but they had never had deep contacts with them as the Roman commander³.

3Therefore, this research focus on the duality of Gauls’ society stressed by Cesar in his De Bello Gallico (6.11-19). We will study some literary aspects of those passages mentioned above so as to better understand what have probably motivated Cesar to differ from his contemporary sources, having in mind his political and ideological intents on writing his De Bello Gallico.

4Before we discuss Caesar’s work, it is important to take into consideration the writing of ethnography in the Classical literature, especially the ethnography concerning Gauls.

5In fact, ethnography itself was not a literary genre per se, and the Ancient texts written by the Greeks in this form were usually named after the people they approached: Lydiaka, Babyloniaka, etc⁴. This type of “sub genre” was very popular throughout Antiquity, from the v century BC until Late Roman Empire, as ethnography was used in the description of foreign people, their culture and habits. In Homer and Hesiod one can find some ethnographic passages, but it is from Herodotus that ethnography became common in digressions inside historiographical works⁵.

6In ancient times the contacts between “civilized” people and “barbarian” nations used to take place especially in the border areas, and these contacts were motivated by commerce, wars, migrations and/or colonization. Greeks and Romans, since the Archaic period of their history, were deeply interested and curious on peoples who inhabit beyond the limits of their civilizations⁶. Therefore, it is possible to find ethnographic narratives in almost every literary genre, as epic, didactic poetry, lyric, elegy, tragedy, philosophy, etc. However it is in historiography that ethnography was most applied and have had a relevant documental presence, since it was an essential part of this genre to endorse the author’s vision of the world.

7But ethnography itself did not have major differences in terms of subject; as a literary tool, it was limited by certain rules, conventions and expectations of a specific audience – as happened to ancient literature itself. In ancient times the literary tradition was so relevant that it explained why many authors have written ethnography without even going to the places they have described; in fact, it was not necessary, since the information they needed could be found in their sources. Furthermore, the established image of a nation was seldom superseded, even if this image was deceptive or false. The common ground was to make the observations fit into the theory, not the contrary⁷. For this reason, authors recurred to their predecessors’ sources to describe the same nations and places that have already been portraying, as well as they employed topoi and clichés to write about new nations and regions. This type of narrative consisted in the repetition of elements within a long literary tradition, and some marvelous (thauma, in Greek) and even bizarre elements of foreign people were emphasized⁸. According to F. Hartog⁹, the thauma should appear in ethnography, as an element that was part of the alterity’s rhetoric; these curious facts gave to the narratives an “authenticity”, and they could not be omitted, since the audience expected this kind of content.

8The Latin literature (and culture) was deeply influenced by the Greek one; therefore, it is natural that the Romans sought in the Greeks the early representations of the Celtic nations¹⁰. Later the Romans adapted and remolded those representations according to their own experience with the Gauls and the reality of their time. Some important authors of the ii century BC have written about the Gauls, as Polybius and Cato the Elder. They have both selected elements from a preexistent Greek literature that mentioned the Celts, and added material of their own, from their direct experience with the Gauls¹¹. One century later, Posidonius and Caesar, in long digressions, would introduce (or reintroduce) in the Ancient literature information about the Celts and their exotic habits, diet, social behavior, etc¹².

9Posidonius of Rhodes (or Apameia) was, in fact, the most important source on the Celts, along with Polybius, at least from what has come to us. As Polybius did not write a profound ethnography about the Gauls, it is from Posidonius (born c. 135 BC) that we have a more detailed report about the Celts. Posidonius was an ambassador at Rome and had travelled to Hispania and Gaul with the support of Roman authorities¹³. His Histories were a monumental work in c. 52 books, and were widely used and mentioned by later authors; they recounted the facts from 146 BC – to continue Polybius’ Histories – to c. 80. The range and scope of the subjects approached by Posidonius were vast, and covered the whole world around the Mediterranean Sea¹⁴. Because of his Stoic stance, Posidonius was systematic in his ethnographic descriptions and focused on the characteristic aspects of individuals and nations, using a “cause and effect” theory to explain the success (or failure) that the individuals or nations described have achieved¹⁵.

10Posidonius described in details the Celts and their eating and drinking habits, their cultural affairs, and their status symbols. Probably that account of the customs of the Celts came as a prelude to the narrative of the conflicts between Romans and Celtic tribes (the Allobroges and the Arverni) that lived nearby the Alps, in the southeast of actual France. Those conflicts culminated in the Roman victories of 121 and 120 BC¹⁶. Posidonius appreciated the organization and the extravagant nature of Celts’ society¹⁷; he could tolerate the barbarous habit of keeping the enemies’ heads as trophies, indeed (cf. FGH, 55, F 274; Str. 4.4.5). According to A. Momigliano, Posidonius has also definitely established the place of the Druids and of the bards in Celtic society, to the point that all later accounts virtually depend on him¹⁸.

11Certainly, Posidonius was a source to Caesar, Diodorus of Sicily, Strabo, Plutarch and Athenaeus¹⁹. Unfortunately, the work of Posidonius has come down to us in an extremely fragmentary state. Most of what we know about it came from other authors, especially Diodorus of Sicily and Strabo²⁰. Both Diodorus and Strabo were contemporary to Caesar; Diodorus died c. 30 BC and Strabo c. 23 AD.

12Following Posidonius, Diodorus described the Celts not only as brave and strong individuals, but also as men which possessed erudition – represented in the figure of bards, Druids, and diviners who performed human sacrifices. He wrote (Diod. 5.31.2-4):

“Among them are also to be found lyric poets whom they call Bards. These men sing to the accompaniment of instruments which are like lyres, and their songs may be either of praise or of obloquy. Philosophers, as we may call them, and men learned in religious affairs are unusually honored among them and are called by them Druids. The Gauls likewise make use of diviners, accounting them worthy of high approbation, and these men foretell the future by means of the flight or cries of birds and of the slaughter of sacred animals, and they have all the multitude subservient to them. They also observe a custom which is especially astonishing and incredible, in case they are taking thought with respect to matters of great concern; for in such cases they devote to death a human being and plunge a dagger into him in the region above the diaphragm, and when the stricken victim has fallen they read the future from the manner of his fall and from the twitching of his limbs, as well as from the gushing of the blood, having learned to place confidence in an ancient and long-continued practice of observing such matters. And it is a custom of theirs that no one should perform a sacrifice without a ‘philosopher’ = druida; for thank offerings should be rendered to the gods, they say, by the hands of men who are experienced in the nature of the divine, and who speak, as it were, the language of the gods, and it is also through the mediation of such men, they think, that blessing likewise should be sought” (transl. Oldfather 1952).

13For Diodorus, the lyric poets were the bards; the Druids were honored men “learned in religious affairs” and philosophers, and they also had to attend to the human sacrifices. The diviners took part on those sacrifices too, predicting the future from the “flights or cries of birds and of the slaughter of sacred animals”. That ritual of predicting the future from the entrails of sacred animals was also practiced by the haruspices in Rome, so it was not considered as an uncommon habit. But Diodorus said that the other custom of the Gauls was “especially astonishing and incredible”, since they immolate a man and saw the future according to the manner that he died and the way the blood gushed, just as they did with those animals.

14On the other hand, it is in Caesar that we can find out a more detailed account, the first one in Latin which survived until our times. The De Bello Gallico offers “an invaluable entrance to a critical subject: the mode of representing to a Roman readership a foe with a long history of hostility and one that had recently claimed many Roman lives while straining the manpower and resources of the nation for several bloody years”²¹. Caesar wrote considerations about the habits and culture of the Gauls and of the Germans, and dedicated to this subject a great ethnographic passage in Book 6. Caesar’s interest in those nations went beyond the conventional depiction of the enemy; his attention is driven to the contexts and characteristics whereby those societies shed light on each other²². Caesar himself has written that ethnographic digression probably around the end of the war and has combined his own personal observations to what he has found in his sources, such as Posidonius. In general, the image of the Gaul society produced by Caesar matches that described by Posidonius: they both stressed the internal factions and strifes of the Celts, and the volatile character of their decisions²³.

15Indeed, Caesar made use of the ethnographic knowledge of his days and contributed somehow to increase that knowledge, associating science and imperialism, as he stayed in Gaul for a period longer than Polybius’ and Posidonius’ or any other author we know about²⁴. In fact, among the authors which survived it is Caesar that went further in using ethnography for imperialistic purposes, as we will see forward. Evidently, it is difficult to distinguish how truthful Caesar was to what he saw and experienced in Gaul, but his De Bello Gallico is a tool to comprehend Caesar’s mentality and what was the message he wished to transmit to his audience through his portrait of the Gauls and the war²⁵.

16Caesar wrote a straightforward ethnographic passage in Book 6 about the Gauls and described their many nations as if they all had the same customs and habits; indeed, that description of the Gauls was largely based in the Aedui and the Sequani²⁶. In fact, Caesar unified the Celtic nations because he wished the Gaul to be regarded as a unique society, as he made clear since the beginning of the De Bello Gallico (1.1): Gallia est omnis diuisa in partes tres. Although Caesar made a division of Gaul by regions, this territory was described as a whole – as emphasized by the word omnis. Considering Gaul as a sole area was important to Caesar: he wished to make it clear that, in contrast to his predecessors, he had conquered this entire land in a definitive way, thus reinforcing his own importance to his readers in Rome. Actually, the Vrbs conceded the glory of the triumph to the commanders who not only won relevant battles, but who also have completely subjugated their enemies²⁷. Another factor that helps to endorse this theory is that Caesar, instead of keeping the division within the Gaul’s nations, actually celebrated the subjugation of Gaul in a single triumph, in 46 BC²⁸.

17He narrates at the beginning of the ethnographic digression (Gal., 6.11):

“Since I have arrived at this point, it would seem to be not inappropriate to set forth the customs of Gaul and Germany, and the difference between these nations. In Gaul, not only in every state and every canton and district, but almost in each several households, there are parties; and the leaders of the parties are men who in the judgment of their fellows are deemed to have the highest authority, men to whose decision and judgment the supreme issue of all cases and counsels may be referred. And this seems to have been an ordinance from ancient days, to the end that no man of the people should lack assistance against a more powerful neighbor; for each man refuses to allow his own folk to be oppressed and defrauded, since otherwise he has no authority among them. The same principle holds in regard to Gaul as a whole taken together; for the whole body of states is divided into two parties”²⁹.

18Caesar made it clear that the Gaul’s society was deeply divided in a macro scale, from states, cantons and districts, and even to a micro scale “in each several households”. However, it is not the first time that this dual theme appeared; in Gal., 1.31, Caesar wrote that Diviciacus told him that the whole Gaul was divided into two factions: the Aedui and the Arverni. At the end of Gal., 6.11, he repeated that the “Gaul as a whole” is “divided into two parties” (partes diuisae sunt duas). In the next chapter he reinforced that duality (Gal., 6.12):

“When Caesar arrived in Gaul the leader of one party were the Aedui, of the other the Sequani. The latter, being by themselves inferior in strength – since the highest authority from ancient times rested with the Aedui, and their dependencies were extensive – had made Ariovistus and the Germans their friends, and with great sacrifices and promises had brought them to their side. Then, by several successful engagements and the slaughter of all the Aeduan nobility, they had so far established their predominance as to transfer a great part of the dependents from the Aedui to themselves, receiving from them as hostages the children of their chief men, compelling them as a state to swear that they would entertain no design against the Sequani, occupying a part of the neighboring territory which they had seized by force, and securing the chieftaincy of all Gaul. This was the necessity which had compelled Diviciacus to set forth on a journey to the Senate at Rome for the purpose of seeking aid; but he had returned without achieving his object. By the arrival of Caesar a change of affairs was brought about. Their hostages were restored to the Aedui, their old dependencies restore, and new ones secured through Caesar’s efforts (as those who had joined in friendly relations with them found that they enjoyed a better condition and a fairer rule), and their influence and position were increased in all other respects: in result whereof the Sequani had lost the chieftaincy. To their place the Remi had succeeded; and as it was perceived that they had equal influence with Caesar, the tribes which, by reason of ancient animosities, could in no wise join the Aedui were delivering themselves as dependents to the Remi. These tribes the Remi carefully protected, and by this means they sought to maintain their new and suddenly acquired authority. The state of things then at the time in question was that the Aedui were regarded as by far the chief state, while the Remi held the second place in importance”.

19In this passage, Caesar says that when he arrived in Gaul the two parties were occupied by the Aedui and the Sequani; it is different from what he declared in Gal., 1.31 (that the parties were the Aedui and the Arverni). As the Sequani were weaker than the Aedui, they sought help from Ariovistus and the Germans. As the Sequani then defeated the Aedui, Diviciacus asked assistance from Rome. Caesar showed himself as the solution to that conflict, for when he arrived “a change of affairs was brought about”, the hostages were restored to the Aedui, and their influence once again overrode the Sequani. The duality, however, did not cease to exist, as the Remi occupied the place that once belonged to the Sequani. The Remi also had influence with Caesar, and that fact made the balance between the two parties evener. Indeed, according to Caesar, the ones who did not want to be in the Aedui party could deliver themselves as dependents to the Remi. Caesar referred to those dependents as clientela, a precise Roman concept used to describe a foreign people.

20After approaching the duality of Gaul’s society in the level of nations, Caesar resumes his digression (Gal., 6.13):

“Throughout Gaul there are two classes of persons of definite account and dignity. As for the common folk, they are treated almost as slaves, venturing naught of themselves, never taken into counsel. The more part of them, oppressed as they are either by debt, or by the heavy weight of tribute, or by the wrongdoing of the more powerful men, commit themselves in slavery to the nobles, who have, in fact, the same rights over them as masters over slaves. Of the two classes above mentioned one consists of Druids, the other of knights. The former are concerned with divine worship, the due performance of sacrifices, public and private, and the interpretation of ritual questions: a great number of young men gather about them for the sake of instruction and hold them in great honor. In fact, it is they who decide in almost all disputes, public and private; an if any crime has been committed, or murder done, or there is any dispute about succession or boundaries, they also decide it, determining rewards and penalties: if any person or people does not abide by their decision, they ban such from sacrifice, which is their heaviest penalty. Those that are so banned are reckoned as impious and criminal; all men move out of their path and shun their approach and conversation, for fear they may get some harm from their contact, and no justice is done if they seek it, no distinction falls to their share. Of all these Druids one is chief, who has the highest authority among them. At his death, either any other that is preeminent in position succeeds or, if there be several o equal standing, they strive for the primacy by the vote of the Druids, or sometimes even with armed force. These Druids, at a certain time of the year, meet within the borders of the Carnutes, whose territory is reckoned as the center of all Gaul, and sit in conclave in a consecrated spot. Thither assemble from every side all that have disputes, and they obey the decisions and judgments of the Druids. It is believed that their rule of life was discovered in Britain and transferred thence to Gaul; and today those who would study the subject more accurately journey, as a rule, to Britain to learn it”.

21Caesar deepens the duality in Gauls’ society by saying that even the men were divided into two classes. He referred to the “common folk” as plebs; as the folk did not participate in the public affairs and was treated as slave, he then divided the rest of the people into two categories: the Druids and the knights (equites). Caesar probably preferred to dedicate more details to the Druids and knights than to the folk because to his audience it would be more interesting to have information about what was different in Gaul’s society than to what was similar to the Romans. According to Caesar, in the elite there were the Druids and the knights; Caesar produced this parallel with Roman society, in which there were the patricians, with noble origin, and right below them the equites. That ethnographic subject used to draw the attention of audience at Rome, and those digressions were used to give a scientific objectivity to the narrative, explain some situations, justify some points, as well as satisfy the audience’s curiosity³⁰.

22Furthermore, Caesar did not mention the bards or the diviners, as Diodorus (via Posidonius) did. In fact, in De Bello Gallico the functions performed by the diviners, such as helping in the sacrifices or having the knowledge of natural philosophy, as mentioned by Diodorus, are executed by the Druids alone. Caesar omitted the bards and diviners because he wished to stress the duality between Druids and knights in the Gaul’s society³¹. The Druids in Caesar’s account were in charge of the divine worship, public and private sacrifices, and the “interpretation of ritual questions”. Both in Diodorus and Caesar the Druids were described as very honored and respected men. However, in Caesar the Druids also decided on “all disputes, public and private”. Caesar also specified the role of the Druids, as he gave more details of them and their organization, by declaring that the Druids had one chief who possessed the “highest authority among them”, by evoking the conflicts between them for this position, and their assembly in the Carnutes’ territory. Caesar also wrote that their “rule of life was discovered in Britain” and later it was brought to Gaul. Caesar only mentioned the Druids in that ethnographic digression in Book 6; he probably did not meet the Druids during his campaigns, but only in his literary sources³². However, it is complicated to determine if the Druids were known by Caesar himself or up which point he just counted on his sources.

23Caesar declared that the Druids did not take part in war, as well as other information about them (Gal., 6.14):

“The Druids usually hold aloof from war, and do not pay war-taxes with the rest; they are excused from military service and exempt from all liabilities. Tempted by these great rewards, many young men assemble of their own motion to receive their training; many are sent by parents and relatives. Report says that in the schools of the Druids they learn by heart a great number of verses, and therefore some persons remain twenty years under training. And they do not think it proper to commit their utterances to writing, although in almost all other matters, and in their public and private accounts, they make use of Greek letters. I believe that they have adopted the practice for two reasons - that they do not wish the rule to become common property, nor those who learn the rule to rely on writing and so neglect the cultivation of the memory; and, in fact, it does usually happen that the assistance of writing tends to relax the diligence of the student and the action of the memory. The cardinal doctrine which they seek to teach is that souls do not die, but after death pass from one to another; and this belief, as the fear of death is thereby cast aside, they hold to be the greatest incentive to valor. Besides this, they have many discussions as touching the stars and their movement, the size of the universe and of the earth, the order of nature, the strength and the powers of the immortal gods, and hand down their lore to the young men”.

24In Caesar, the Druids dedicated their lives to society’s affairs, their knowledge and the question of life after death, as they believed that the souls did not die. The Druids also had an important role during peace and war times. Caesar possibly wrote that detailed account on the Druids and their rituals because there was a big interest for his audience in that theme³³. In fact, the Druids had always drawn attention of the ancient writers and the people in general.

25About the other pole of Gaul’s society, the knights, Caesar briefly describes them (Gal., 6.15):

“The other class are the knights. These, when there is occasion, upon the incidence of a war - and before Caesar’s coming this would happen well-nigh every year, in the sense that they would either be making wanton attacks themselves or repelling such – are all engaged in there; and according to the importance of each of them in birth and resources, so is the number of liegemen and dependents that he has about him. This is the one form of influence and power known to them”.

26As the knights’ role among the Gauls did not have a curious or different characteristic, Caesar did not give many details about them. Again, Caesar referred to the knights’ dependents as clientes, and once more he made it clear that he brought peace to Gaul, by declaring that before his arrival the wars “would happen well-nigh every year”.

27Caesar also returned to the religious rituals of the Gauls, a more interesting subject, as he wrote (Gal., 6.16):

“The whole nation of the Gauls is greatly devoted to ritual observances, and for that reason those who are smitten with the more grievous maladies and who are engaged in the perils of battle either sacrifice human victims or vow to do so, employing the Druids as ministers for such sacrifices. They believe, in effect, that, unless for a man’s life a man’s life be paid, the majesty of the immortal gods may not be appeased; and in public, as in private, life they observe an ordinance of sacrifices of the same kind. Others use figures of immense size, whose limbs, woven out of twigs, they fill with living men and set on fire, and the men perish in a sheet of flame. They believe that the execution of those who have been caught in the act of theft of robbery or some crime is more pleasing to the immortal gods; but when the supply of such fails, they resort to the execution even of the innocent”.

28In that passage it is possible to perceive that the Gauls had a primitive justice, as they used to condemn criminals to the immolation, although if there were not criminals available, they recurred to innocents³⁴. Caesar described the rituals of human sacrifices in a neutral way and without judging the Gauls, differently from Diodorus, who wrote that it was a habit “especially astonishing and incredible” (Diod. 5.31.3). Indeed, the human sacrifice was a recurrent topos of ancient ethnography, as a manner to emphasize the “barbarous” or “uncivilized” character of a nation or people³⁵.

29Furthermore, Caesar narrated some of the legal practices of the Gauls (Gal., 6.19):

“The men, after making due reckoning, take from their own goods a sum of money equal to the dowry they have received from their wives and place it with the dowry. Of each such sum account is kept between them and the profits saved; whichever of the two survives receives the portion of both together with the profits of past years. Men have the power of life and death over their wives, as over their children; and when the father of a house, who is of distinguished birth, has died, his relatives assemble, and if there be anything suspicious about his death they make inquisition of his wives as they would of slaves, and if discovery is made they put them to death with fire and all manner of excruciating tortures. Their funerals, considering the civilization of Gaul, are magnificent and expensive. They cast into the fire everything, even living creatures, which they believe to have been dear to the departed during life, and but a short time before the present age, only a generation since, slaves and dependents known to have been beloved by their lords used to be burnt with them at the conclusion of the funeral formalities”.

30Although the Gauls could be considered by the Romans as a less “civilized” people, they had many “civilized” characteristics: the Druids’ erudition (Gal., 6.14) and, in the passage above, the legal process of inheritance – even the women could inherit their husbands’ goods. Caesar called the “father of a house” as pater familiae and the Gaul patres, like the Romans, did also have the power of life and death over their wives and offspring. In that passage, on the other hand, it is possible to perceive a certain perversity of the Gaul society, as they could torture the women, as they did to the slaves, if there was any suspicion about the husband’s death. Besides, the Gauls burnt animals with the deceased, and until right before the arrival of the Romans, they also burnt slaves and dependents (serui et clientes), although later they have abandoned that custom.

31In order to stress the similarities between the Romans and the Gauls, Caesar used Latin words, as we saw, to make his description of the Gallic society, such as equites, plebs, clientes and pater familiae³⁶. Actually, the clientela was a structural form typical of the Roman society; the clientes were free men bounded to the patrician families which gave them protection; those bounds were transmitted from father to son and the clientes should completely obey their patrons³⁷. For that reason, the Gauls did not have clientes, as that social structure did not exist in Gaul. Caesar used that term to facilitate the understanding of Gaul by his audience³⁸. As Caesar used Latin vocabulary to bring Romans and Gauls close, it became possible the conquer purpose and the bonding of these two cultures³⁹. Caesar assigned to the Gauls a more favorable condition, as he emphasized their barbarian humanitas, since they respect the law, the justice and the erudition of the Druids, the immortal gods, and the legal aspects of their culture⁴⁰.

32As we have seen in the passages from the De Bello Gallico, Caesar stressed the dual character of the Gauls’ society. He did not contradict his source, Posidonius; he just assimilated distinct roles into one, such as the Druids, who were on charge of religion, philosophy, erudition, and justice. The topoi that could not be reused in the De Bello Gallico (as the Bards) were merely removed. In fact, Caesar wished to prioritize the political and self-advertisement elements in his work, instead of having a truly concern to make just an ethnographic account. However, as we saw on those same passages, Caesar did not go so far from Posidonius, since the stereotypes mentioned were useful to help the audience in Rome identify and recognize the people narrated in the De Bello Gallico⁴¹.

33Caesar has done something that no other author did, at least in the same scale as the Roman commander: Caesar has used ethnography especially to justify his conquer of Gaul. In fact, it is a “cesarean” ethnography that we can find in the De Bello Gallico, Book 6. Most of the descriptions of the Gauls are not marvelous or exotic, but on the contrary: Caesar stressed more the similarities between Gauls and Romans than the differences⁴². He has made use of a few ethnographic elements (as the human sacrifices) to establish and relate his work to the historiographic tradition from his days.

34As A. W. Lintott writes, the whole De Bello Gallico is “a testimony to Roman virtue, not only Caesar himself, but of his troops, whose abilities are rarely portrayed so effectively elsewhere; there is a political message too: when discussing the Gallic communities Caesar exalts established power and conservatism”⁴³. Furthermore, as the Gauls were portrayed as divided into two factions, there is a counterpoint with the more organized Romans⁴⁴. Evidently, the Gaul was much more complex as we can deduce from the Greek and Latin sources; the burial evidence found in that region does not suggest that there was a straight division of the Gauls’ society, on the contrary: a wide range of variation without any distinct breaks in wealth or status has been uncovered⁴⁵.

35During the i century BC, many images of the Gauls circulated in the Classical literature, both in Greek and in Latin, especially in Posidonius, Diodorus, Caesar, Cicero (Pro Fonteio) and later Strabo. These multiple representations were used by the Ancient authors according to the literary genre that they adopted and the type of message they would wish to transmit: a political one, a moralizing, nationalist, etc. That is what G. Woolf designates as “interpretative frameworks”⁴⁶, which were the topoi available to those who wrote ethnography in any literary genre. As these topoi were constantly reused and reworked, it is almost impossible to distinguish when those images have emerged, especially after the unification of the Mediterranean world under the command of Rome⁴⁷. One example of a reutilization of topoi in ethnography can be found in Strabo (Str. 4.4.4):

“Among all the Gallic peoples, generally speaking, there are three sets of men who are held in exceptional honor; the Bards, the Vates and the Druids. The Bards are singers and poets; the Vates, diviners and natural philosophers; while the Druids, in addition to natural philosophy, study also moral philosophy. The Druids are considered the most just of men, and on this account they are entrusted with the decision, not only of the private disputes, but of the public disputes as well; so that, in former times, they even arbitrated cases of war and made the opponents stop when they were about to line up for battle, and the murder cases, in particular, had been turned over to them for decision. Further, when there is a big yield from these cases, there is forthcoming a big yield from the land too, as they think. However, not only the Druids, but others as well, believe that men’s souls, and also the universe, are indestructible, although both fire and water will at some time or other prevail over them” (transl. H. L. Jones 1960).

36Strabo stressed that “among all the Gallic peoples” there were three sets of honored men; the bards were the singers and poets. This partition of Gaul’s society is very much alike the one described by Diodorus. Strabo called the diviners mentioned by Diodorus as uates, and the Druids were the “most just of men”. What Strabo wrote about the Druids and their decisions on particular and public affairs, as well as that the Gauls belief in life after death, echoes Caesar⁴⁸.

37One can perceive through the sources that arrived to our times that ethnographic reports of Western Europe (and Gaul) decreased, especially from the i century BC. The authors that wrote about the Gauls with substantial ethnographic content have ceased with Strabo. From Augustus the Romans did not have interest in the “barbarian” Gauls, as they became more and more “civilized” and integrated to the modus uiuendi of the Vrbs. Therefore, the interest of the Romans turned to the people that inhabit the world’s frontiers – at least of the world known in that time. The more distant were these people, the bigger was the curiosity; thus, these nations were portrayed as exotics, bizarres and marvelous, especially in the regions that were not reached by the Empire, such as India, Ethiopia and Scythia.

38In the case of Latin representations of foreign nations and regions, these narratives were more useful to comprehend how the Romans have seen a different people than, in fact, to obtain a reliable knowledge of the non-Romans⁴⁹.