Agricola

Chapters 1-3

The first three chapters provide a brief introduction to “Agricola.” Tacitus situates his work in a larger historical context by noting that it is a tradition to record the accomplishments of great men. He also alludes to the significance of his project by referring to recent events in Roman history, namely the trials of men who have done what Tacitus himself is doing (telling the stories of great men). When the subjects and authors of these works lost favor with the emperor, they were assassinated, their families exiled, and their texts burned. Some scholars believe these events traumatized Tacitus and fueled his anti-tyranny sentiments. Those who burned the eulogies of Paetus Thrasea and Priscus Helvidius believed they could wipe out “the voice of the Roman people, the freedom of the Senate and the moral consciousness of the human race” (55). Fortunately, in Tacitus’s view, it is not “as easy to forget as to be silent,” and through their works, historians ensure the memories of these men are not lost (55).

By writing about Agricola, Tacitus preserves his memory, a function of writing histories that Tacitus values as a way to resist tyranny and preserve freedom of thought. Such histories can provide alternative narratives to those propagated by a tyrannical emperor like Domitian, who sought to control people’s experiences and thoughts. While Tacitus heralds the “first dawn of this blessed new age” under Nerva Caesar, he cautions that it takes time to outgrow the vices the older regime—ostensibly Domitian’s—encouraged.

Chapters 6-9

Chapters 6-9 recount Agricola’s life before his governorship of Britannia. These chapters are characterized by lavish praise, a customary feature of funeral orations. Agricola’s parents and grandparents were of sterling character, his marriage to Domitia Decidiana a harmonious union, and his professional conduct impeccable. Tacitus repeatedly emphasizes Agricola’s ability to maintain a sense of proportion, a motif that recurs when discussing Agricola’s conduct as governor of Britannia. Even in times of tyranny and instability (Nero, the civil wars), Agricola was able to serve effectively by focusing on fulfilling his duties and avoiding extravagant but ultimately pointless resistance to the prevailing mood. His ability to focus on his tasks demonstrate that Agricola was a great man.

When Agricola returned to Rome from his service abroad, he was appointed to Aquitania. Though some scholars believe Agricola may have received the appointment through connections, Tacitus identifies it as a sign of imperial favor since his focus is on extolling Agricola’s virtues.

While it may seem, to modern readers, that Tacitus spends a disproportionately limited space on Agricola’s early life and military career prior to his governorship, this, too, is a convention of the period in which Tacitus wrote. Since the purpose of “Agricola” is to extol its subject’s virtues, and his gains in Britannia represent his most significant success, Tacitus devotes the most space to discussing into that success. These chapters establish Agricola’s virtues—moderation, restraint, duty, and solid judgment—that enabled his achievements in Britannia. 

Chapters 10-17

Providing a brief ethnography was a standard feature of ancient histories, beginning with the ancient Greek historian, Herodotus, who is considered the first historian. Contemporary historians note that some of Tacitus’s facts are inaccurate—notably, that Britannia faced Hispania to the east and that the “Britanni make no distinction of sex in the appointment of leaders” (63). Here, Tacitus is referring to Boudicca; however, only one other instance of a woman ruling is known (Cartimandua, whose people revolted because they did not want to be ruled by a woman).

Given Tacitus’s primary purpose in the essay (to extol Agricola’s virtues), the ethnography and review of Rome’s activities in the regionset Agricola’s later conquests in greater relief. Time would prove that his conquests went further north than any other Roman general’s. One frustration for modern historians has been that Tacitus does not provide years, only the names of relevant figures; through these figures, later historians have been able to piece together timelines of events.

Tacitus notes that the Britanni accepted “the obligation of empire” (levy, tribute) as long as they were not abused or enslaved, then goes on to enumerate the Britanni’s grievances against Rome (61). This demonstrates Tacitus’s complex view of empire. He accepted and even endorsed it, in particular when conquest and colonization were outward-directed and did not disrupt Romans’ freedoms. At the same time, Tacitus draws an implicit parallel between the method of colonization of peoples abroad and of Roman citizens at home. When describing the long-term effects of tyranny within Rome, he notes that, “[i]dleness gradually becomes sweet, and we end by loving the sloth that at first we loathed” (55). In a similar vein, he describes the Britanni becoming colonized through “salutary” measures undertaken by Agricola. He enticed them to enjoy “peace and ease” by encouraging the building of temples, squares, and Roman-style houses and introducing study of the liberal arts and Roman pastimes, among them “baths and sumptuous banquets” (66). Tacitus notes that, “[i]n their innocence they called this ‘civilization’, when in fact it was a part of their enslavement” (66). In this way, Tacitus demonstrates that tyranny does not always manifest in evidently harmful ways and may even seem enjoyable, though it is tyranny nonetheless.  

Chapters 18-38

In these chapters, Agricola’s many virtues, recounted in exquisite detail by Tacitus throughout the essay, build to his most historic achievement at Mons Graupius. Tacitus praises Agricola’s six years of service prior to the battle: his work ethic, his modesty about his successes, his ability to share credit for achievements, his discipline at home and in his work. Agricola devises effective tactics that capitalize on his troops’ strengths and channels their enthusiasm towards success in battle. In sum, these virtues set him apart from Domitian, who Tacitus describes as jealous of his generals’ achievements and immoderate in his desire for control.

Modern historians continue to debate the exact location of Mons Graupius, a region in modern-day Scotland. They also debate the veracity of Tacitus’s account, including of the two leaders’ speeches he reports. As with ethnographies, such speeches were a staple of ancient Graeco-Roman histories, a practice dating back to Thucydides in 5th-century BC Athens, and they were often produced in pairs, as Tacitus does in “Agricola.” Modern historians believe the two speeches were likely created by Tacitus, though he may have heard Agricola’s speech first hand.

Calgacus’s speech prior to the battle details the Britanni’s grievances against the Roman empire, an element Tacitus returns to that demonstrates the excesses of imperialism. The description of the battle emphasizes both the Britannic troops’ ferocity and bravery and the Romans’ superior tactics and discipline. By emphasizing the Britanni as formidable enemies, Tacitus highlights the extraordinary nature of Agricola’s achievement.

Chapters 39-43

Despite Agricola’s achievements in Britannia, he was recalled to Rome, and in the years to come, Rome would withdraw its troops from the areas in which Agricola established a Roman presence. Tacitus attributes this to Domitian’s envy of Agricola’s success. However, some modern historians side with Domitian, saying that Rome’s resources were overstretched due to military engagements elsewhere and maintaining a presence in the region represented a pointless drain on the Roman treasury. In a related vein, contemporary scholars note Tacitus’s evident biases, in particular his tendency to minimize the achievements of Agricola’s predecessors in Britannia and to overemphasize Agricola’s success as a way to demonize Domitian.

Following his return to Rome, Agricola was both denounced and defended behind his back, which Tacitus points out to show that denunciation was not a source of danger for Agricola. Rather, it was Domitian’s hostility to his generals, who achieved renown and had advocates working on his behalf. Tacitus describes Domitian as circumspect, never revealing exactly where people stood with him, which created anxiety and uncertainty among the people, who feared revealing their loyalties even among themselves. Outwardly, Domitian praised Agricola, yet he never held another post. Rumors circulated that Domitian had Agricola poisoned, and Tacitus is noncommittal on this point, noting that he has no evidence but can say nothing more than that. Agricola named Domitian as his co-heir, along with Agricola’s wife and daughter, which Domitian took as a compliment. However, Tacitus believes that Domitian was so “blinded and corrupted” by “incessant flattery that he could not see that a good father names as heir no emperor but a bad one” (80).

Chapters 44-46

Tacitus names Agricola’s years of birth and death, which translate to mid-June of the year 40 through August 23 of 93, and summarizes once again his many virtues, many of which demonstrate his sense of proportion in everything he did. He cared nothing “for bloated wealth, yet had a handsome fortune” (80). Tacitus suggests that Agricola’s early death at the age of 54 was a blessing in disguise as it prevented him from seeing “the Senate House under siege, the senators hedged in by solders and that one fell stroke sent so many consulars to death, so many noble ladies to exile and flight” (80). Here, Tacitus refers to events that transpired in 93, in which Senecio, Rusticus, and Helvidius were killed and their relatives exiled.

Mid-way through Chapter 45 and into Chapter 46, Tacitus switches to direct address, speaking to Agricola to express the grief of losing him and to exhort his wife and daughter to preserve his memory. Tacitus says that while he does not object to a statue being made of Agricola, such monuments are ultimately “feeble and perishable,” unlike the soul, whose essence “is eternal” (82). The admiration and love felt for Agricola will “abide in the hearts of men, through needless ages, in the chronicles of fame” (82). Tacitus has written his account of Agricola so that he may live on through posterity. As his account continues to be read, Tacitus achieved his objective as a historian, irrespective of the accuracy of that account.