THE GLORIOUS LIFE of AGIUCLOA a Critical Analysis of the Literary Form and Political Content of Tacitus' by DAVID PETERSON in Co

THE GLORIOUS LIFE OF AGIUCLOA

A Critical Analysis of the Literary Form and Political Content of Tacitus'

Agricola

by

DAVID PETERSON

A thesis submitted to the Department of Classics

in conformity with the requirements for

the degree of Master of Arts

Queen's University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

March, 1997

copyright @ David C. Peterson, 1997 National Library Biblioth4que nationale . du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services senrices biMiographiques 395 Wellington Street 39!5, rue Wdlingml OetawaON KtAW OttawaON K1AW Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accord6 me licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Biblioth&p nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, Hter, distnbuer ou copies of Merthesis by any means vendre des copies de sa thtse & and in any form or format, making que1qye manib et sops quelque this thesis available to interested fonne qpe ce soit pour mettre des persons. exemplaires de ~e#ethese a la disposition des personnes interess6es.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur consewe la propriete du copyright in hismer thesis. Neither hit&auteur qui prot&gesa these. Ni the thesis nor substantial extracts la th&e ni des dtsdstantiels de fiom it may be printed or otherwise celle-ci ne doivent &e imprimes ou reproduced with the author's permission. ABSTRACT

Traditionally studied as an invaluable source document for the Roman conquest and occupation of Britain, Tacitus' biographical treatise on the life of Agricola also has great relevance to the study of elite society at Rome. Modem scholarship on the Agricola has been focused for the most part on the historicity of the work. As such, the work offers the historian an unparalleled account of the Roman military campaigns and administrative initiatives in Britain. Consequently, the work has proven to be an excellent source document for both historians of the Roman military and Roman Britain. However, the literary, social, political and moral elements of the work, have largely gone unnoticed or at the very least have been studied in a cursory manner. At the same time, the large body of twentieth century scholarship pertaining to the role and function of the works of Tacitus has for the most part dismissed the Agricola as a minor work of little significance that provides only a glance of the artistic genius which would emerge in his later and larger works, the Histories and the Annals. The present thesis is an attempt to show the importance of the Agricola in the study of the Senatorial class in the first century AD, portraying their views and aspirations, as well as the literary framework upon which these concepts were conveyed. The first chapter examines the literary form and how it affects the content of the work. In the tradition of the eulogistic biography, a sub genre of history, Tacitus presents in the character of Agricola the ideal to which the majority of his class aspired. The second chapter is an account of the political and social changes that had occurred with the rise and evolution of the Imperial government and the resultant changes in the function and composition of the Senatorial class. Tacitus and the other members of his class had to create strategies to combine their old ideals with this new reality. Finally, the third chapter examines the political content of the work. Viewed in moral terms, Tacitus sought to convey an important message about the proper conduct of both his class and the Emperors, as well as ingratiate himself with the new regime of Nerva under which he was writing. The appendices provide information about the life of Tacitus, Agricola, and general political events in the Empire, along with a more specific examination of the conquest of Britain. These have been added to provide the reader with a historical context within which to more hlly understand both the writing of Tacitus and the impact of Rome and Agricola on the history of Britain. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am extremely gratefir1 to Professor A. J. Marshall, whose lectures on the political history of Rome introduced me to the fascinating world of the Romans and motivated me to undertake studies in the ancient history. His advice and thoughtfir1 suggestions were essential in the development of this thesis. Further, I would like to thank my mother and father, who have always provided me with guidance and support, both morally and fiscally, and my brother who greatly assisted me with my academic pursuits with his sound advice. Finally 1 would like to thank my wife, Nichole for her perseverance and support. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 1

Acknowledgments 11..

Table of Contents

Abbreviations

Introduction 1-8

Chapter 1. The Literary form 9-30

Chapter 2. The Senatorial Ethos 31 - 56

Chapter 3. Politics in the Agricola 57- 94

Conclusion 95 - 97

Bibliography 98 - 104

Appendix A. Chronological List of Select Roman Emperors 105

Appendix B. The Life of Tacitus 106

Appendix C. A Listing of the Offices Held by Agricola f 07

Appendix D. A Chronology of Political Events in the Late 108 - 109 Republic and Early Empire

Appendix E. A Chronology of the Roman Conquest of 1 10 - 1 12 Britain vita ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations and short titles appear in the notes and are cited in hll in the bibliography.

Ant. Journal Antiquaries Joumd

CE Carmina Latina Epigraphica

CIL Corpus Inscriptionurn Latinarum

CP Classical Philology

CW Classical World

G&R Greece and Rome

ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae

JRS Journal of Roman Studies

PLILS Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar

REL Revue des Etudes Latines After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all emperors, the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke .... Neither the fortitude of Caractacus, nor the despair of Boadicea, nor the fanaticism of the Druids, could avert the slavery of their country, or resist the steady progress of Imperial generals, who maintained national glory, when the throne was disgraced by the weakest, or the most vicious of mankind. At the very time when Domitian, confined to his palace, felt the terrors which he inspired, his legions, under the command of the virtuous Agricoia defeated the collected forces of the Caledonians, at the foot of the Grampian Hills; and his fleets, venturing to explore an unknown and dangerous navigation, displayed the Roman arms round every part of the island.

Edward Gibbon Introduction

The fame of Agricola, the successfbl general and adroit administrator who extended the northwestern Roman frontier to the West limits of the known world, has been sustained through the vivid account of his deeds and virtues in the writing of tacit us.^ Outside of Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law, de Vita Iulii Agricolae, there is little mention of either the man or his exploits. The other works of Tacitus, the Histories and the Annals, which also must have referred to Agricola's role in Roman history, have not survived the passage of time intact. Two references in the works of Cassius Dio2 and two inscriptions fiom Britain, one found on a building plaque in the forum at St. Albans (Verulami~m),~ the other on a lead pipe at the legionary fortress at Chester (Deva);

'All numerical references, unless otherwise specified are to the Oxford Classical text of Tacitus' Agricoia edited by H. Fumeaux. Further, English translations of Latin quotes shall be presented in the body of the work, with the original Latin contained within the footnote. while the few quotations from Greek authors will be presented in transiation only. For the Agricoia and Germania, these will be taken fiom Tacitus - the Aericola and the Gennania, H. Mattingly trans. (London: Penguin Books, 1970). The English translations for all other works. unless otherwise specified, will be taken from Loeb Classical library and the translator shall be cited when introduced.

= Cassius Dio refers to the poisoning of Agricola by Domitian. rumoured by Tacitus (43). as an undoubtable fact in 39.50,4; and discusses the mutiny of the Usipi, more elaborated by Tacitus (28), in 66.20, 1. For Dio's probable reliance on Tacitus see Appendix 2 and notes on c. 28; c. 43,2; c. 44.4, of R. M. Ogilvie and Sir Ian Richmond, ed. Comelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967)

Ant. Journal 36 (1956), p. 10. This fragmentary inscription reads (Cn Iulio A)gric(ola leg. Azig. pro) pr.

1L S 8 704% Imp(eratore) Vesp(asiano) viiii T(ito) imp(eratore) vii co(n)s(ulib us). Cn. hthAgricola leg(ui0) Aug(u.sti) pr(olp*(aerore) provide the only other ancient sources that mention Agricola. Fortunately, Tacitus' biographical treatise has survived, making Agricola one of the best known figures of antiquity.

The Agricola is a complex work that blends together two closely linked literary traditions. It is biography enhanced by certain conventions of historical writing. Absent fiom Rome when Agricola died, and possibly fearing the persecutions that characterized the second half of the reign of Domitian, Tacitus published the work in 98 presumably to serve in place of a funeral oration. A Latin eulogistic biography, the work is a synthesis of the traditional form of Greek encomiastic writing, and the sentiments of the Roman laudatio funebris and epitaph elogium. Details concerning geography, ethnography, and earlier history along with the use of speeches by the opposing leaders before battle, all common elements of ancient historical writing, provide the setting within which is staged the grand drama that was Agricola's life. This unique combination of biography enlivened by historic detail, was formulated to honour a deceased relative, not only as a matter of filial duty and moral obligation, but as a token of his great love and admiration for the

. . ------Ogilvie and Richmond, pp. 10-1 1. In short the reference to Nerva Caesar without Dims (c. 3.1 ) early and Trajan as princeps (c. 443 later, suggests Tacitus probably began writing in late autumn 97 when Nerva was alive and completed the work in spring after his death when Trajan was already emperor.

Tacitus, Agricola, 3,3. "Honori Agricolae soceri mei destinatus, professione pietatis aut laudatus erit aut excusatus." Intertwined with the story of Agricola is an assessment of contemporary politics at Rome. Although political affairs remain secondary in importance and consequently less formative for the content than the requirements of the encomiastic literary form, the work must also be considered a political statement. Under the rule of the principes the government of Rome was altered. A traditionally good Roman, Agricola rises in the traditional cursus honorurn, but in a manner which did not arouse the jealousy of an emperor. Romans of the upper class worked in a system where power was centrally held by the emperor, and as a consequence status was closely tied to imperial favour. Tacitus' portrayal of the life of Agricola presents a defense of passivity in the face of tyranny. With obedience and hard work coupled with modesty, one can attain greater glory than those who have died in confronting tyranny.7 Through participation in the civil service, an activity idealized by the Roman aristocracy throughout the history of the Republic and the Empire, the continuation of the state was ensured, while withdrawal and outright resistance to the authority of the emperor not only did not produce any tangible benefits to the state, but had the potential as was displayed in the Civil Wars and the Long Year of 69 AD, to destroy the state.

While some scholars have argued that Tacitus used the work to defend Agricola, and by implication himself, against those who might have denounced their compliance and success under Domitian, the evidence for such retributive action by members of the senatorial class is lacking. Instead, the work provides a coherent philosophy of the nature of the political system in Rome, presented by an active participant in the government who recognized the actions that were required of himself and the majority of his class in order to maintain themselves and the state. For this reason, Tacitus also uses the biography to flatter the new regime, by both degrading the fallen emperor Domitian and praising the new holders of imperium, Nerva and Trajan, as the restorers of civil liberties. Consequently, an underlying political message was inhsed into the work.

The life of Agricola, immortalized by Tacitus, provided ideal material for bi~graphy.~Tacitus supplies the reader with a number of details about Agricola and his rise to prominence. Gnaeus Julius Agricola was born in 40 AD at Forum Julii,° in the province of Gallia Narbonensis, where some ninety years before Caesar had planted a settlement, later refounded by Augustus as a c~Zonia.~"e nomen Julius suggests a paternal ancestor had been an army officer or wealthy incola, enfranchised by either Caesar or August~s.~Agricola belonged to a wealthy and ambitious provincial family. His grandfathers had been Roman equites and his father had sat in

For discussions on the conquest of Britain by Agricola see I. A. Richmond's article, "Gnaeus Julius Agricola" in J.R.S. 34 (1944), pp. 3445;A. R Bum, Amicola and Roman Britain (London: The English University Press, 1953); Ronald Syme, Tacitus, vol. 1 (Oxord: Oxford University Press, 1958) p. 19c Ogilvie and Richmond's Introduction.

WIL. xii, p. 38. The fill name was Colonia Ocravianorum Pacensis (or Pucuta) Classiccr Forum Itili.

Ogilvie and Richmond, p. 2. the Senate,12 only recently open to Gallic Romans under Cla~dius.~~As a member of the ruling elite, he undertook the necessary training for public life in Roman society, with the standard education in rhetoric and philosophy at the Graeco-Roman city of Massilia.li After the completion of his education he embarked on a long and successful career in the Imperial Roman government.

A member of the new Roman provincial aristocracy, Agricola followed the traditional path of the upper class, advancing in the cursus honorurn, but in the context of the Imperial system, where an individual's status was determined by the Emperor. He began his rapid rise in 60 with a military tribunate in Britain,ls followed in 64 by a quaestorship in Asia,16 the tribunate of the plebs in 66 and a praetorship in 68 ADL7Wisely choosing to support Vespasian in the civil war of 69,1e Agricola survived and certainly benefited from his loyalty. In the following year he returned to Britain in command of Legio XX Valeria VictnkL9Next, from

4 I. l3 Michael Grant, Historv of Rome (London: Faber and Faber, 1978) pp.229 & 379.

L4 4.2. 74 to 76 he became governor of Aquitania as legatus Augusti pro praetore with praetorian and in 77 he took the highest office of the regular cursus honorurn, the suffect consulship. In that year he married his daughter to Tacitus and he also received the high honour of a major priestho~d.~~

The career of Agricola culminated in the same or following year, when he went for a third time to Britain as the legatus Augusti pro praetore with consular rankz2 Tacitus gives a detailed and elaborate treatment of this greatest part of Agricola's career. For an unprecedented seven years Agricola remained in Britain, where he is presented as a successful general and administrator. First, he is said to have subjugated Wales, conquering the Ordovices and taking the island of Angle~ey:~Next, he embarked on the conquest of Northern Britain, completing the annexation of the brig ante^,^^ and conquering the lowland and highland tribes of Sc~tland.~sTacitus also presents him as an effective administrator who, in his first year of office, checked the abuses in the Roman administrationz6

- ---

20 9,I.

9,6.

22Fora listing of the offices held by Agricola see Appendix C.

23 19.

23.

25 24-38.

'6 220. and during the following winter provided the benefits of Roman material culture as a form of social betterment.z7 Finally, while campaigning he is said to have devised a permanent blockade of the north with a system of forts to defend Roman occupied lands.28 In 83 AD he accomplished his greatest achievement, the victory at Mons Graupius, for which he was awarded triumphal honours.23 In that same year, after having served twice the average term of governor, Agricola was recalled; to meet problems on the Danube frontier one of the four legions stationed in Britain, Legio N Adiutrii was withdrawn, a decision which was to prove decisive in the later abandonment of further conquest in Britain.30 Whether out of political expediency and jealousy as Tacitus states,lL or because of his lack of experience in the military affairs of other regions of the Empire, Agricola, after his recall by Domitian, held no further office. In 93 he died at the age of fifty four.32

In the final three chapters of Tacitus' work, the central themes are presented. Agricola was a great man whose death was a cruel loss, however, he was fortunate since he was not present in Rome to witness

David J. Breeze and Brian Dobson, Hadrian's Wall (London: Penguin Books. 1976) pp.13-15. the atrocities of Domitian. Finally, Tacitus with this work of commemorative biographical literature will secure forever the memory of Agricola and his achievements. The specific events and ranks achieved by Agricola would have been common knowledge to the peers of Tacitus, and consequently were in all probability based in reality. Too many people could disprove untrue claims. Tacitus takes these features of Agricola's life and intreprets them in a manner that creates an idealized picture of the man. As a consequence, his description of the life of Agricola shows us the values and belief system of the Roman aristocracy of the first century AD. Although traditionally analyzed more narrowly in relation to the Roman conquest of Britain and studies in Roman Britain, the form, the major themes, the ideas and sentiments expressed, and the chronicling of events within the Agricola of Tacitus make it also an important source document for the study of the literature, politics and society of Imperial Rome in the first century AD. Chapter 1 The Literary Form

First and formost, the Agrzeola of Tacitus was a biography. He declares in the opening chapter, "[F]amous men of old often had their lives and characters set on record,"[ and "I planned to recount the life of one no longer with us,"' presenting clearly the main purpose of the work, to provide an account of the life of Agricola in the traditional manner. Several comparable Latin biographical works are known, including a work by Cicero on the life of Cato and another by Augustus, the Vita Drusi,=but apart from the Agricola only two other Latin biographies exist: Nepos' brief summaries, de Viris Illustribus written in the late Republic, and Suetonius' somewhat formless and gossip-filled de Vita Caesarurn,' contemporaneous with Tacitus' later works on history.' Consequently, it may be inferred that there was an established tradition of biographical composition at Rome, of which Tacitus' composition was a product.

I. I. "Clarorurn virorum facta moresque posteris tradere"

I 4. "narraturo rnihi vitam defimcti horninis"

Suetonius, Claudius 1

In Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1983) Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, in opposition to most scholarly opinion, goes to great lengths in showing that Suetonius' work did in fact have a structure based on a chronological recounting of events enlivened with description and narration . See his p. 10 ff.

Ogilvie and Richmond, p. 12. In antiquity, the biography was recognized as a separate literary genre. Tacitus' full title, De Vita hlii Agricolae indicates that he was writing a formal biography, a life of his father-in-law. At the beginning of his work on Alexander and Caesar, Plutarch stated, "p]t is not histories that I am writing, but live^."^ Nepos used the phrase narrare vitam to distinguish his Lives from other historical works.' Similar to history, in that the author presents and analyzes past events, the biography was quite distinct in content, a reflection of the divergent bctions of these two literary forms. Rather than a comprehensive survey of men's deeds, the biography related in detail the life of a single individuaLa Character portrayal, only one aspect in the wider more complex framework discernible within the histories of Hellenistic and Roman authors, was at the core of biography? The difference between history and biography was thus one of content rather than form. In ancient biographical theory the selective use of historic details provided the necessary setting against which could be depicted the heroic stature of the protagonist.

Plutarch, Lives of Akxander and Caesar 1,2-3. translation by Bernadette Pemn.

' Nepos, Pelopidus. 1,l.

Plutarch, Lives of Alexander and Caesar 1, 1-2. He entreats his readers not to criticize the selective accounts in his works, for biography does not aim to give an exhaustive historical report, but rather sheds light upon character through a selective recounting of a person's deeds.

E. I. McQueen, "Quintus Curtius Rufus" in Latin Biom~hyT. A. Dorey ed.(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1967) p. 18. In form, Roman biography was founded on Greek models, which in tum had their origins in rhetoric. "the systematic study of the art of argument and expression."I@Rhetoric was introduced into Greek oratory in the fifth century BC by the sophists. As Gorgias astutely noted, the ability to persuade translated into power, and consequently rhetoric was highly developed into a vital feature of elite society in Greek-speaking lands. Rhetoric was also imported into literature, having a profound effect on prose works, which adopted over time the embellished style and themes of poetry. The encomium, once a triumphal verse sung in the homeward procession of a victor in the games, became an exercise in epideictic oratory, where in a fixed formula the merits of a mythological character were ce1ebrated.l In the fourth century BC, true biographies began with the publication of the Evagoras of Isocrates and the Agesilazrs of Xenophon. These were accounts based on the desire to maintain the memory of persons whom the author knew personally and whose death were recent? Although following the traditional scheme of the earlier encomium, these writings were based on more historical experience and concerned the lives of real persons, opening the way for more sincere composition^.^

- - lo A definition provided by M.L. Clarke in the preface to his work, Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Swev (London: Cohen & West, 1953) p. v.

Edna Jenkinson, 'Wepos - An Introduction to Latin Biography" in Latin biorrmhv T. A. Dorey ed. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967) pp. 3-4.

I2 Duane Stewart Reed, E~ochsof Greek and Roman Biomphy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1928) pp. 1 55- 156.

Jenkinson, p. 4. Biographical theory was fbrther advanced by Aristotle and his successors in the Peripatetic school, with their studies of human personality and their system of classification. They held that human character was fixed and that throughout life an individual maintained a static personality. The appraisal of character was based on a person's actions, which were grouped to form different predetermined types.14 These tended in the simplest form to be divided into two diametrically opposed categories of good and evil. Encornizrm, of course, elaborated the lives of good men, who included intellectuals, statesmen and warriors. For those men deemed tyrants, invective was the means of displaying character, which catalogued a man's vices. Biography, a formally recognized genre developed in the Classical and Hellenistic period, owed much to the rhetorical techniques of encomium and to a lesser extent censure.& Polybios, who belonged to both the Greek and Latin worlds, stated that encomium was a "rhetorical amplification of his (subject's) deeds."16 The encomiastic biography therefore utilized persuasive techniques and concepts of character developed by rhetorical theorists for the purpose of commemorating favourably the careers of good men.

The extension of Roman political power into Southern Italy, Sicily and the eastern Mediterranean fiom the third century BC onwards brought

For a brief discussion see M. L. Clarke, pp. 2-9; Jenkinson, p. 4.

Is A. I. Gossage, "Plutarch in Latin Bioma~hvT. A. Dorey ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967) p. 47. l6 Polybios, 10.2 1 (24) 8. Rome into direct contact with Hellenic and Hellenized peoples. Many aspects of Greek culture, including rhetoric, with its product encomium, were adopted by the Romans. A culturally receptive and pragmatic people, the Romans utilized many concepts, ideas and technologies of other peoples which might be advantageous to themselves.

Roman authors readily applied the Greek form to their own language to create Latin biography. As Tacitus expresses less blatantly in the introduction of his biographical work, Cicero in a letter to Lucceius* openly presents the encomiastic nature of Latin biography:

So I frankly ask you again and again to eulogize my actions with even more warmth than perhaps you feel, and in that respect to disregard the canons of history ... if you find such personal partiality enhances my merits even to exaggeration in your eyes, I ask you not to disdain it, and of your bounty to bestow on our love even a little more than may be allowed by truth.'4 Furthermore, when writing about the historian Pelopidas, Nepos expresses biographical theory when he states the purpose of his writing is "to tell of

l7 L. Lucceius after being the unsuccessfbl running-mate of Julius Caesar for the consulship of 59 BC. became a historian and undertook to write a history of Rome beginning with the war between Rome and its Italian allies. Cicero requests that Lucceius write a biography of his deeds, rather than including them in his history of Rome. See M.L.W.Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians (Berkeley: The University of California Press, l963), pp. 33-34 laCicero, Letters to his Friends, 5. 7,3. translated by W. Glynn Williams. "Itaque te plane etiam rogo, ut et omes ea vehementius etiam, quarn fortasse sentis et in eo leges historiae neglegas .... earn si me tibi vehementius cornmendabit. me aspernere, axnorisque nostro plusculum etiam, quarn condedat veritas, largiare." his deeds," and "merely touch upon the high points."u Latin biography therefore must be viewed as an extension of the Greek encomium, having the same rhetorical form and hction, namely to idealize the subject with exaggeration and selective chronicling of deeds as a reflection of character, but not in the context of a larger historical framework.

Within this tradition, the Agricola performed three main functions, to immortalize, to eulogize and to edify. While the form of expression, as has been previously shown, was derived fiom Greek encomiastic literature, the sentiments expressed had their origins in Roman culture. Not simply passive receptors of Hellenic culture, Romans tailored biography, as they did with other borrowed cultural material, to suit their ideologies and interests. Tacitus' Agricola in spirit is representative of a more Roman type of biography.

The inspiration behind the recording of the lives of famous men arose from a universal desire to transcend death, the great mystery which represented the obliteration of achievement and the annihilation of the human personality." Since Roman society lacked any sort of religious orthodoxy in the modem western sense, numerous religious and philosophical systems were available which offered many different interpretations of life and death? The dream of Scipio, in Cicero's Platonic

Nepos. Pelupidas I. 1.

Jenkinson, p. 2

For a more thorough discussion see: Keith Hopkins. Death and Renewal: Socioloeical Studies in Roman Histow, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) p. 20 1 14 dialogue on the ideal state On the Commomvealth, presents one synthesis of Roman ethics and Greek philosophy. In Cicero's work, the Stoic sage rewarded with the maintenance of his identity after death, was accordingly replaced by the Roman statesman: "[All1 those who have preserved, aided or enlarged their fatherland have a special place prepared for them in the heavens."" Generally, systems that affirmed Roman values, such as Stoicism which advocated participation in the state, were readily accepted. More nihilistic individuals, influenced by the belief held in Epicurean philosophy that the soul along with the body decayed into nothingness with death, might have nJf; ns, nc (nonfui, fii, non sum, non cum) inscribed on their epitaphs.* Literature, tomb fiuniture and epigraphy however, make clear that the majority continued to believe that some sort of afterlife or continuation of the soul occurred, and that the living and the dead were connected, even though the form of the afterlife and the level of interaction could vary depending on individual beliefs.

While the prospect of death threatened the loss of identity for the average Roman, for those men who have accomplished great things during their life an immortality of sorts was assured in the memory of future generations. Although viewed by some as having its origins in Greek culture, the concept of immortalizing by commemoration has a more ff.; J.M.C. Toynbee Death and Burial in the Roman world (London: Thames and Hudson, 197 1) 34 ff.; Richard Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin e~ita~hs(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962) p. 2 1.

Cicero. On the Commonweaifh,6,8, 1-2. Transation by Clinton Walker Keyes.

CIL 5.2283 cf. 1813. Literally, "I was not, 1 was, I am not, I do not care." widespread element and must be considered to have a foundation in Roman culture. As D. Stuart aptly states:

There is no suggestion other than native impulse to set into chanting lays in praise of ancestral heroes and intoning dirges or neniae over the dead. These forms of commemorative literature imbedded in the soil of universal racial experience are biography in embryo? The most ancient example of these practices in Roman society, similar to the bardic traditions of many other peoples, were "the praises of the virtues of famous men" sung at banquets, a practice that was obsolete by the time of Cato the Elder, but previously was an established cust~m.~

Great deeds, the hit of vim, led to gloria, which in turn gave fama which was everlasting. In the Agricola Tacitus leaves the question of an afterlife open: "l[]f there is any mansion for the spirits of the just, if, as philosophers hold, great souls do not perish with the body, may you rest in peace."' He is certain, however, "with many it will be as with men who had no name or fame: they will be buried in oblivion. "= The archaic elogia of the Scipios, in a manner similar to biography, presented the great deeds of these men in a manner which ensured the preservation of their virtus."

- - a Stuart, p. 196 a Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, 4,3. "clarorum virorum laudes atque virtutes."

6,. "si quis pionun manibus locus, si, ut sapientibus placet, non cum corpore extinguuntur magnae animae, placide quiescas" These sentiments are also expressed by Cicero in the Pro Archiu, 12,30; Twcuian Disputations. 1, 1 8.

6,4. "nam multos veterum velut inglorios et ignobiles oblivio obruet." a These elogia were inscriptions found in the tomb of the famed patrician clan of the 16 The literate upper classes in Roman society believed that a written record

could in some degree win a kind of immortality. a Tacitus followed this belief and closed his biography with the statement, "Agricolas story is set on record for posterity, and he will live.. Unsure about the consequences of death," Tacitus created a record of Agricola's deeds and virtues in order that his fama would be preserved forever.

Indigenous Roman practices show the value placed upon the remembering and gloritjling of ancestors. Precedent, encoded in the emotive phrase mos maionrm, was the guiding force in the workings of society. There was a strong belief that the past must prescribe for the future and point out the path to success for both the individual and the state.

Scipios which is located on the outskirts of Rome.

Cicero. Pro Archirr 9,20. "Narn et Cimbricas res adulescens ilttigit et ipsi illi C. Mario. qui durior ad haec studia videbatur, iucundus hit. Neque enim quisquam est tam aversus a Musis, qui non mandari versibus aetemum suorurn laborurn facile praeconium patiatur." or in English, "for he both touched upon the Cimbrian Campaign as a young man. and he was pleasing to that famous C. Marius himself, who seemed rather unsympathetic to these literary pursuits, for indeed, no one is so much devoid of taste for literature that he shall not readily allow to be entreated by poetry, an enduring proclamation of his labours. Translation by author. This belief is also reflected in epigraphy: one example is an epitaph from Trier of an imperial courtier killed by robbers, "Qui dolet interitum, mentem soletur amore. tollere mors vitarn potuit, post fata superstes fama viget. periit corpus, sed nomen in ore est nil. scelus. egisti: farna est quae nescit obire." CE 6 18, 1-3,9.

46. 4. "Agricola posteritati narratus et traditus superstes erit." a See B. Walker's Annals of Tacitus: A study in the writing of Historv (Manchester: the University Press, 1952) p. 245ff. for Tacitus' ambivalent view of the consequences of death. Intertwined with this belief was the pious regard for ancestors.* Great men from the past provided examples for the Living to follow. In the houses of the upper classes, the walls of the atrium were a monumental biography, having niches which contained the portrait masks of dead ancestors with a painted inscription supplying the subject's and his father's name? Adjacent to the atrium was the family archives room. These held the chronicles of deeds accomplished and offices held by individual family members, heral orations of illustrious men and their regalia of official posts held. Great pride was attached to their ancestry, which was visibly represented in the main room of the elite Roman's urban mansion.

Polybios' second century BC account of a Roman hneral provides an unparalleled glimpse at the reverence accorded to and importance placed upon ancestors for upper class Roman families. At the hneral of a distinguished family member, men acted as famous ancestors wearing death masks and their various garments of office. They rode in chariots preceded by fasces, axes and other insignia of office. At the forum these men, representatives of the greatest men in a family were accorded the high honour of being seated on ivory chairs.

It would not be easy to find a more splendid sight for a young man who love honour and virture to behold. For who would not be moved by the sight of images of men renowned for their excellence, all together in one place,

Stuart. p. 199.

* Livy 10. 7. 11; Seneca also mentions genealogical trees in the hallways. Letters, 44.5 Stuart. p. 200. portrayed as if still alive and breathing? Furthermore, Polybios says of the firnerd oration,

Since the renown of these noble men and their reputation for excellence is constantly being recalled to mind, the fame of men who have done great deeds is made immortal, and the glory of those who have faithfilly served the fatherland becomes well known to the people and is handed down as a model to future generations. * The male members of the mling class had a specific hction in Roman society, the continuation of the family's glory and renown by emulating past examples of greatness." These sentiments are dutifdly expressed in the closing chapter of the Agricola where Tacitus states he will honour his father-in-law's memory through following his example. The perpetuation of memory was vital, since the past and those who lived in the past were deemed necessary for the -re.

The content of the epitaph elogia, permanent memorials in the form of inscriptions recording the career of the deceased, show us how a deceased person or his family wished him to be presented and consequently portray the values of the upper class Roman male. Roman epitaphs were initially listings of offices held, military conquests and a testimony of merit. An example is the elogium of Lucius Cornelius Scipio from the early third century BC: a Polybios, 4. 53. 1-54.2. translation by b-Ann Shelton fiom her work, As the Romans 1988) e_Did (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Other ancient sources for funeral practices and the funeral laudation: Dionysios of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities, 5. 17 & 7. 72: Pliny, Letters, 2, 1. Most Romans agree that this one man, Lucius Scipio, was the best among (many) good men. He was the son of Barbatus, and was consul, aedile, and censor in your state. He captured Corsica and the city of Aleria, and duly dedicated to the Winds a temple he had vowed."

For the upper-class maie, stress was placed on civic duty and martial prowess. Service to the state was considered the most noble of activities, and as a result a man's standing equalled his public achievements. EZogia continued to be selective chronicles of deeds and virtues. Even the famous Res Gestae of Augustus lists, in the traditional form, his military and administrative successes, offices held and honours bestowed on him." The upper-class Roman male defined himself in worldly terms with a listing of public service and public rewards. Consequently, before the introduction of the Greek encomium into Rome, biographical material was valued and would become the foundation of sentiments expressed in Latin biography.

* ClL. I. 2d ed.. 6. Translation by Richard Latimore, from his work Themes in Greek Latin E~ita~hs,p. 271. "Honc oino ploirume consantiont R(omane) duonoro opturno hise viro Luciom Scipione. filios Barbati consol censor aidilis hic fuet a @ud vos. hec cepit Corsica Aleriaque wbe dedet Tempestatebus aide mereto (d votam)." For a selection of Latin biographicd epitaphs see also his p. 271 ff. For another excellent sample of epitaphs see: Lewis and ReinhoId Roman Civilization - Selected Reading. vol. I The Republic and Gumstan Ape, 3rd. ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990) pp. 523-525.

The Res Gestae Dbi Aumsti: The Achievements of the Divine Aurzustus, P.A. Brunt and J.M. Moore Eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967) provides the Latin text along with a translation and an excellent analysis of the work, a catalogue of achievements that was to be placed in fiont of his mausoleum. For information on this literary genre in relation to the Res Gestae, see their pp. 3-4. Tacitus writes that his composition "sets out to honour my father-in-law Agri~ola,"~since he was recording the life of a good man. In response, some scholars have attempted to categorize the AgricoZa as a special kind of encomi~m,~or as a literary 1audatiofirnebri.P It is true that in relation to most other extant examples of Latin biography, the Agricola is quite different in presentation. The jokes and anecdotal material found in Nepos and the rumours found in Suetonius are absent. Also, the work does share a number of similarities with the herd oration and other forms of commemoration. Tacitus honours with praise the deeds and virtues of the hero, providing a res gestae and curszrs honorurn. The closing chapters contain a number of conventional expressions used regularly in consolations and epitaphs: notably, the apostrophe in which the deceased is addressed as if present? In form, the work is a chronological listing of his military and administrative achievements concluding with his reward of triumphal regalia. During his consulship in 97, Tacitus himself pronounced the funeral oration of Verginius Ruhs, of whom Pliny stated "the series of his felicities was crowned by the applause of the most eloquent orators."e Tacitus was therefore well acquainted with

a 3, 3. "hic interim liber honori Agricolae soceri mei destinatus" a Gudeman in his German and English editions of the Agricola, and J. Cousin. in "Histoireet Rhetorique dans L'Agricola," EL12 (1934), p. 273 ff.

* Hubner first refers to the work as a literary replacement for the faudutiofunebris,in "Zu Tacitus Agricola," Hermes, i (1 866)

Pliny, Lefters.2. 1 . hneral orations and the work reflects a similar ethos of commemoration. But does this qualify his work as a literary variant of the laudatiofunebris?

There are several problems with these analyses of the work. First, the work was a tribute to a man Tacitus knew and admired, and it cannot be compared with the works of Nepos and Suetonius. They wrote to entertain or edify by recounting the lives of men far removed from themselves: famous historical figures lacking any ties to the author or his family. Only Nepos' Life of Atticus is similar to the Agricola, being a laudatory biography of a man he knew personally? Furthermore, the ancient Latin biographies that have come down to us show that the form in some ways was quite fluid, since all have unique features that differentiate them fiom each other. Suetonius took an eidological approach to his subject matter, by providing a list of actions and features for each individual character. Consequently, he made no attempt to make a single interpretation of the material fiom which he based his work? Nepos, like Plutarch, grouped great men in pairs, a famous Roman with a famous Greek, as a rhetorical exercise and a philosophical reflection." All however follow the rule of biographical composition, using actions to graphically delineate character.

Stuart, 238.

* A. J. Gossage, p. 58; G. B. Townsend "Suetonius and his influence" in Latin Biographv, T. A. Dorey ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1967), p. 82 ff; a Gossage, 5 1. The Agricola also should not be interpreted as a literary laudatio finebris. First, the work lacks certain elements that Quintilian viewed as hndarnental to a la~datio.~While the laudatiofirnebris was retained in a literary document for posterity, Cicero makes clear that there was not a literary tradition that was distinct £iomthe oral laudation^.^ Finally, a large section of Tacitus' work lay outside the realm of this sort of composition. Unable to attend the herd of Agricola, being away fkom Rome at the time of his death, Tacitus chose with his biography to create a literary tribute which he may have equated in spirit with the more indigenous practices of the laudatio ftinebris, but this certainly does not establish the work as an example of such orations. Overall, Tacitus chose in his biographical treatise a more encomiastic theme, which reflected Roman values and ideas.

Another form of literature which might have contributed something to the Agricola comprises the short accounts of the deaths of good men, who died as victims of tyrannical emperors. These works became popular during the last years of the reign of Tiberius as an expression of opposition through the praise of political dissenters. Pliny's mention of the Exitus IZlzatrium Virorum composed by Titinius Capito, indicates that the genre retained its appeal under Nero and provided Tacitus a source for Book 15 and 16 of his Annales. a The eulogies written by Arulenus Rusticus for

Quintillian, 3, 7. Also see Ogilvie and Richmond, 13.

Cicero. On Oratory, 2.341.

Pliny. Letters, 8. 12,s; Ogilvie and Richmond, 13.

23 Thrasea Paetus and by Herennius Senecio for Helvidius Priscus* might belong to this style of literature. All four belonged to a group with a long history of opposition to the Caesars in attempts to reassert the status of the senate." The only extant documents in this genre are the Greek Acts of the Pagan Martyrs. Death was central, emphasizing the person's last words and end, and they contrasted the good martyr with the vile emperor. The ending of the Agricola follows this form. Tacitus discusses the death scene including the brave and cheefil testimony of the hero5' and suggests a poisoning by a jealous Domitian." Although influenced by these literary protests, the Agricola was far broader in scope and content than the recording of the death of a famous individual."

The historical content of the work has also raised questions about the nature of the work as a biography, since the main portion of the book (chapters 10 through 38) is more historical than biographical. The ethnological and geographical description of Britain," followed by the history of the Roman conquest and occupation of Britain, the annalistic

Ogilvie and Richmond. commentary on AgricoIa (c. 2,t) 132-34

* Ogilvie and Richmond, p. 14.

" to-I2 account of Agricola's campaign^,^ the mention of the mutiny of the Usipian cohort? and the speeches of the rival generals, Calgacus and Agricola, before the battle of Mons Graupiusa are all elements of historical writing. In many respects the Agricola is similar to the narrative style of Sallust's Jugurthine War. The geography and ethnology of Britain read like the description of North Africa and its inhabitants in that work,* while many Tacitean battle scenes have a counterpart in Sallust. For example, the Caledonian despair after their defeat echoes the aftermath of Marius' victory over the Nurnidians." The hction of these historic elements must be examined in the context of the purpose of the whole work.

The work was formulated to ensure for posterity the continued existence of the memory of the fame of Agricola. The introduction and conclusion are highly rhetorical and oratorical, in the style of Cicero, to convince the reader to believe the author's interpretation of the mama With the education and early career of Agricola, the reader is given a glimpse of his moral uprightness. At an early age he learned a sense of proportion from his

Sallust Jugurthine War,4, 18

For a discussion see: Herbert Bemario, An Introduction to Tacitus (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1975) 92.

60 Ogilvie and Richmond, 14 mother,n and during his quaestorhip in "decadent" Asia he was not seduced by wealth or luxuryo Tacitus includes the historical material with a similar view; to provide the setting for the grand drama of the hero's life. For Agricola's fame is based on the conquest of Britain. Throughout, Tacitus stresses the value of the undertaking and the importance of Agricola. First, he gives his audience a picture of the distant and mysterious island^ Tacitus also exploits the Roman interest in extending the frontiecu It is an important element in the speeches of both Calgacus and Agricola and it accounts for the episode of the Usipi? Next, he provides a survey of the earlier governors in a manner which downplays their role. Those who fought no battles or were mild are treated with contempt. Other more successfid men, such as Petilius Cerialis and Sextus

QDavid Braund's Ruling Roman Britain: Kings. Queens. Governors and Em~erorsfrom Julius Caesar to Amicola (London: Routledge, 1996) offers a succint analysis of the motivations behind the extension of Roman control into Britain. Particularly he argues Britain was considered another world, being beyond the Ocean, and that its conquest was an "unparalleled extension of human (especially Roman) experience, a challenge to the gods themselves." See his chapter 1.

UBritain.after the expeditions of Caesar in 55 and 54 BC which placed the island in direct contact with the Roman state, was viewed by Romans as an area that Rome was destined to conquer. For example, shortly after the Augustan settlement, Horace indicated in Odes, 3,5,2-4, that Augustus would undertake the task of conquering not only Britain, but Rome's traditional enemy in the east, the Persians. However, the conquest of Britain was delayed until the reign of the Emperor Claudius,due to more pressing matters in the state.

Ogilvie and Richmond provide the basis for this argument of the purpose of historic elements in the Agricola, 15- 16. Julius Frontinus, get brief mention without characterization^ As Syme states, Tacitus uses "wilfbl vagueness" to increase the stature of Agricola~ Two themes are presented: that Britain was at the edge of the known world and that Agricola was responsible for the Roman domination of its people. All elements are arranged to enhance the character portrayal of Agri~oia.~ Although he uses two styles, encomiastic and narrative, they are both related to the glorification of Agricola.

In form, the Agricola followed the precedent set by the Greek and Latin Peripatetic biography. Tacitus' early training and success in public oratory enabled him to construct an elegant literary memorial to his father-in-law. In all probability, he obtained infomation from four sources: the public records at Rome, the acta Senntzrs, to which he refers when he describes the burning of the eulogies by Arulenus Rusticus and Heremius Seneci~;~the household archives of his family; memories of conversations with possibly Agricola and other members of the Senatorial aristocracy who knew him. Although it is not known for certain whether Tacitus had ever even met Agricola, he had ample material to create a biography. To convey character

'See Appendix E and the accompanying maps for an account of the Roman conquest of Britain.

Ronald Syme, Tacitus vol. I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958) 12 1- 122.

9As Wiseman points out in his chapter in Roman Political Life. 90 BC - AD 69 (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1985) for the Roman aristocracy personal achievements. particularly military exploits were deemed the greatest achievement. In this context it was paramount to portray oneself in literatw and public displays as the fim, best and greatest among the highly competitive Roman elite. See his p. 3 ff. traits, he gives an incident or action of the subject followed by a brief noting of it as a reflection of a particular virtue. The work is thus a chronological unfolding of Agricola's career in order to present his greatness.

Agricola is presented as a coherent picture of the devoted public servant and ideal Roman male, a portrait which is Mher enhanced by the contrast with the tyrannical nature of Domitian. Qualities attributed to Agricola were stock characteristics of tfie good soldier and good administrator. Throughout the work he exemplifies modesty combined with strength and intelligence. Further, he incorporates a stem public bearing with an agreeable private manner,m he leads his troops in person," he checks abuses which had previously plagued the administration," with fairness and zeal he bestows praise and p~nishment,~when campaigning he surveys the route7' and chooses the sites of the camps.x In his final battle he showed his great courage. Although greatly outnumbered, Agricola sent away his horse and took up his position on foot in front of the colours." Agricola may in reality have been such a tigure, similar to Julius Caesar's self-portrayal in his work on the Gallic wars; but whether or not he did these things, since he was a great man, it necessarily followed in the Roman tradition that he would have acted in this manner. Later, the same traits were attributed to Germanicus, another paradigm of loyalty and capability." Also, since Domitian was a tyrant, Tacitus uses sayings and incidents from Caligula and Nero since they illustrate how stock tyrants acted. Similar models of evil tyrants and good public servants fill the pages of Latin literature." Tacitus, in the tradition of encomiastic biography, utilized rhetorical stock characteristics to present Agricola as an ideal Roman statesmen.

Tacitus does, however, attempt to personalize the figure of Agricola. Like a Roman portrait bust, the book shows some flaws in the man. Early in his life he almost drank too deeply fiom the well of philosophy," and at times he had a temper." Near the end, a short description of Agricola's appearance is given for those who might want to know. He is presented as "good looking rather than striking," with a demeanor of a good man, "and

See Walker, pp, I 18- 120 for a description of Tacitus' treatment of the events in the life of Germanicus and see pp. 232-234 for a discussion on Germanicus as a stock character in the Annals and a comparison between him and Agricoia

* Ogilvie and Richmond 20; F.R.D. Goodyear Tacitus in G & R - New Survevs in the Classics No. 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) 7-8. nJ. R. Dunkle,"The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography,"CW 65 (1 971 ) p. 14. one could willingly believe him to be a great man."' Thus, the work is not entirely panegyrical. While Tacitus followed a literary form which dictated a laudatory manner of character presentation, he does provide some personal details to individualize the man.

In conclusion, at Rome the Greek encomium, a form of rhetorical literature, was readily adopted as an ideal medium for the expression of Roman views. The desire to praise and immortalize great men, firmly established in the distant past, was expressed in customs and traditional practices that continued into the Empire. The actions and traits presented to aggrandize a Roman male of the elite class derived fiom concepts of martial prowess and civic duty that had indigenous foundations. These were the seeds of Latin encomiastic biography, of which the Agricola, although having a diversified form, presents the mature product, providing an idealized picture of the Roman statesman. Published for the Roman ruling elite, a rather small body of people linked by social, familial and political ties, whose members would know the extent of other members' deeds blatant fabrications of such recent events would not have been accepted? Although embellishment, invention, and carefbl selection of facts were all parts of the genre, there is no reason not to accept the general outline of the life of Agricola. Overall, Tacitus provides an intimate and thorough record of a man he both knew and loved.

=-/-I,2. "bonum virum facile crederes, magnum libenter." a Gordon Maxwell. A Battle Lost: Romans and Caledonians at Mons Graupius (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1 990) 4. Chapter 2 The Senatorial Ethos

Underlying the central biographical theme in the Agricola are statements about the politics in Rome during the lifetime of Tacitus. An accurate assessment of the political nature of the Agncola can only be drawn from an understanding of the life of Tacitus and the historical background of the Senatorial class of the late frst century AD. Tacitus was influenced by both his studies and his experiences. He read the literature produced in the Republic, worked within the Imperial government and was ranked among the Senatorial class. In his lifetime, he witnessed the destruction of the Long Year of 69 AD, and the tyranny of Domitian. The social and political changes in the late Republic and early Principate, which Tacitus either read about or witnessed, along with the pre-existing intellectual kamework, must all be taken into consideration when dealing with the political content of the Agricob.'

Like his father-in-law Agricola, whom he idealizes, and his fiend Pliny, Tacitus, in all likelihood, was a novus homo fiom the western provinces. Educated in the traditional manner in the art of rhetoric, Tacitus' skill in oratory brought him great success as a senior administrator at R~rne.~He wholly accepted the values and traditional virtues of the Senatorial class,

'See Appendix A for a chronological listing of Emperors and see Appendix D for a concise listing of events for the period discussed in this chapter.

'See Appendix B for a chronological listing of the political ofices and literary accomplishments of Tacitus. but he was also a political realist, understanding the central role of Imperial patronage for his success and that of his class. Consequently, his loyalty to the Republic was social and moral, not political. This was a stance taken by Tacitus and the majority of the Senatorial class in response to the changes in the structure of government, with power no longer accessible to the leading men but centralized in the Emperors.

In the late Republic competition among the ruling aristocracy Ied to periodic warfare. Real power was held by a ruling oligarchy consisting of no greater than twenty families who commanded armies, governed provinces and guided state policy. While some families fell and others rose in prominence, the lists of magistrates and priesthoods show that political power was consistently held by a select number of families.1 This ruling elite worked within a government structure which was bureaucratic, in that there was a system of public oflice holding. Parallel to this structure, Roman politics contained a Less formal, but no less important element, patronage.' These patronage and clientage networks linked all free elements of society fkom the top downwards and consisted of reciprocal arrangements of mutual benefit between individuals of unequal social or economic standing This was a complex system with social,

Donald Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (London: Thames & Hudson, 1967) p. 14.

'See Jerome Carcopino's IYailv Life in Ancient Rome, (Great Britain: Penguin Books. 194 1 ) for some mundane requirements within these relationships, p. 1 9 1 ff.

Tichard Saller, "Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction," in Patronage in Ancient Society, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill Ed. (London: Routledge, 1989) p. 49. political and economic components which bed together all elements of Roman society vertically rather than by class, with both the patron and client morally bound to hlfill obligations.' In the realm of politics, the client provided political support for his patron, who in return provided his client protection in the law cows. This political system, in which the distinction of public and private life did not exist, required of its political class a dual allegiance. Skills were to be used to benefit the state but also, through office holding, to increase the status of oneself and one's family.' Consequently, members of the governing class competed with one another for status and prestige. Overall, the structure of government was hierarchical, personal and adversarial, with a small ruling elite competing for control of the state and its resources.

In the late Republic, the political system broke down, with individual aristocrats fighting amongst each other for supremacy. The Senate could no longer control its members, who were backed by armies and large patronage networks that allowed them to tap into the vast resources of the Roman held lands. In this climate, familial glory superseded all else."

The term used to describe the quality possessed by individuals, which was drawn upon when a patrocinium relationship developed, was fides. This term had a number of meanings including, trustworthiness, faith, honour, loyalty, and protection. See John Rich's "Patronage and Interstate Relations," in Patronage in Ancient Society, p. 128.

'As Jeremy Paterson points out on p. 34 ff. in "Politics in the Late Republic" from Roman Political Life. 90 BC - 69 AD, T. P. Wiseman Ed. (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1985) there were no parties and the term partes and factio were terms of partisan rhetoric. No stable groups existed, rather members of the aristocracy grouped together at times as a political expedient for the chance of individual aggrandizment or for mere survival.

Ibid., p. 34 ff. Powerfbl men like Juiius Caesar attacked the state itself in order to acquire political power and pre-eminent status among the ruling elite. According to Sallust,

All who after that time assailed the government used specious pretexts, some maintaining that they were defending the rights of the commons, others that they were upholding the prestige of the senate; but under pretense of the public welfare each in reality was working for his own advancement. Such men showed neither self-restraint nor moderation in their strife, and both parties used their victory ruthlessly.' Familial factions divided the class into opposing groups who fought against each other for supremacy in the state. This pursuit, for members of the Senatorial class, was the defining feature of the res publica.

The struggle for control of the state was conclusively won by Augustus at the Battle of Actium in 3 1 BC? Previously, the governing class had divided themselves into two factions, placing their fate in the hands of the two most powerful men in the state, Augustus and Marcus Antonius. With the defeat of his rival, Augustus controlled the combined military force of the Empire and removed most of his political opponents, either in the battle, or after, with proscriptions. The rest of the aristocracy fell in line

Sallust The War with Catiline 38,3-4. translation by L C. Rolfe. "post illa tempora quicumque rem publicam agitauere honestis nominibus, alii sicuti populi iura defenderent, pars quo senatus auctoritas mamma foret, bonum publicurn simulantes pro sua quisque potentia certabant, neque illis modestia neque rnodus contentionis erat; utrique victoriam crudeliter exercebant." lo For a complete analysis of the life and achievements of Augustus see A. H. M. Jones, Augustus (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970) and with a coalition of new men and nobles, he then took control of the state. In possession of the armies and supported by the aristocracy, he astutely crafted a settlement benefiting Rome with a system that was both a monarchy and a republic. In his Res Gestae, or catalogue of deeds, Augustus presents his solution to the civil strife that had plagued Rome:

In my sixth and seventh consulships, after I had extinguished civil wars, and at a time when with universal consent I was in complete control of affairs, I transferred the republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and people of Rome. ... After this time I excelled all in influence, although I possessed no more official power than others who were my colleagues in the several magistracies.~~ His power was legally derived from the Senatus Populusqzre Romani, who conferred it upon Augustus through traditional oficeholding. The number of offices and government powers held by Augustus, however, was unprecedented. He also ensured that the majority of the remaining offices and powers were held by his allies. At the same time, as seen in the above comments from his Res Gestae, the illusion of Senatorial power was maintained through personal diplomacy and propaganda."

I' Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augustus, 3-1. translation by PA. Brunt and J.M. Moore "In consulatu sexto et septimo, postquam bella civilia existimeram, per consensum universorum potitus rerum omnium, rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrim transtuli. ... Post id tempus auctoritate omnibus praestiti, potestatis autem nihilo arnplius habui quam ceteri qui mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae herunt."

12See p. 47 ff. of Barbara Levick's "The Politics of the Early Principate," in Roman Political Life. 90 BC - AD 69, T. P. Wiseman Ed. (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1985) for a discussion on Augustus' policy in regards to maintaining the dignity of the senate, while ensuring his own power. As a consequence of the Augustan settlement, where a facade of senatorial power is maintained through personal diplomacy with the senatorial class. Augustus becomes the ideal upon which his successors are judged. Augustus administered the state with trusted men, most importantly with new men such as Marcus Agrippa and family members, who answered to him rather than the Senate. Through his powers and his officials he maintained control over the unsettled provinces which contained the military forces, and by virtue of his imperium maim he could intervene in all areas of government and the Empire. Furthermore, he was the greatest patronus in the state, sitting at the top of the hierarchically- ordered patronage-clientage system that vertically tied all members of society. As well, he was the official patron of the army and the people. In 2 BC the senate conferred on him the title of pater patriae, a roie which he took literally in his restoration of temples and religious practices, and his moral legislation. Finally, as the greatest individual in Rome, the leader of the military and civic administration, Augustus jealously guarded the highest honours of the state, particularly the awarding of triumphs and the prestige that went with them, in order to hrther bolster his position. Overall, since 27 BC, Augustus maintained one portion of the government and the senate and magistrates another.lJ This was the framework of the Imperial system that would be continued and further strengthened by later Emperors.

Roman government and the governing class underwent important changes with the Principate. The settlement was a redefinition of the Republic, now a res publica restituta. Often portrayed as fraudulent, since the framework of the Roman state was very dynamic and lacked any

See Sir Ronald Syme, Tacitus vol. 11 (New York: Basic Books, 1969) p.572 ff..

36 specific structure of government, the settlement must be viewed as an attempt to restore rather than replace the destructive system of the late Republic.14 The maintenance of traditional institutions created continuity with the past, but at the same time the new centralized authority of the Emperor ended lawlessness. It was similar to the old government structure, except that there was a princeps instead of principes. The open competition of the Republic was maintained, but now there were limits placed by the Caesars on the level of power that aristocrats could acquire." Absolutism was created under pre-existing legal forms; however, none of the Senatorial class had any illusions about who held power. Overall, the pax Augusta ended the chaos and destruction of the uncontrolled competition of the late Republican system of government.16 With the centralization of power, the senatorial class were the only real losers, but their honour and dignity were still to an extent maintained through the continuation of the Republican offices and forms.*

The survival of the system was assured primarily by the longevity of Augustus, rather than by partisan propaganda or constitutional legislation.

l4 Earl, p. 63.

Syme, Tacitus, p. 583. l6 Sir Ronald Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) p. 120.

'X.P. Saller. in Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), shows that senators became the brokers of Imperial patronage and as a consequence retained their power. Rather than direct control of resources. power was based on Imperial favour, since the Emperors controlled the main financial and military resources OFthe state. See Chapter 2 and 4. Further, the reign of Augustus was preceded by an interval of approximately twenty-five years, known as the "Triumviral period," during which the state was nm by one or two competing powefil aristocrats. When he died in 14 AD, Augustus had been in power for almost forty-five years, and after him Tiberius reigned for another twentythree. After the death of Tiberius, few people were left who could ever have seen the late Republic.la After so long a span of time, the restoration of the Republic ceased to be either practical or desirable. Consequently, a new generation of administrators identified maintenance of the Principate with their own interests? The new government provided opportunity for the individual aristocrat to rise through a combination of loyalty and ability. At the same time, for the state it provided stability, efficiency and security, benefits that would not be discarded, for the old system had long disappeared and proved to be completely ineffective in governing the vast area of the Empire?

At the turn of the first century AD, when Tacitus wrote the Agricola, the Senatorial perception of the Imperial government varied, but overall the majority accepted the necessity of the system for the maintenance of the Empire. The year of the Four Emperors, 69 AD, showed men like Tacitus the destructive results of open competition for power. For Tacitus the ultimate atrocity of that year was the burning of the Capitol, when the

Is Earl. p. 80.

Syrne, Ten Studies in Tacitus, p. 123.

38 supporters of Flavius Sabinus were fighting against the supporters of Vitellius, whose cause was already effectively lost. He strongly denounces the act:

This was the most deplorable and disgracefid event that happened to the Commonwealth of Rome since the foundation of the city; for now, assailed by no foreign enemy, with heaven ready to be propitious, had our vices only allowed, the seat of Jupiter Supremely Good and Great, founded by our ancestors with solemn auspices to be the pledge of Empire, the seat, which neither Porsenna, when the city was surrendered, nor the Gauls, when it was captured, had been able to violate, was destroyed by the madness of our Emperors. Once before indeed during civil war the Capitol had been consumed by fire, but then only through the crime of individuals; now it was openly besieged, and openly set on fire. And what were the motives of this conflict? What the compensation for so great a disa~ter?~ In that year, a restoration was never an option, as each contender attempted to secure the Empire through military control. Emperors might change, but the Imperial system was entrenched.

The "high secret of the Empire" was previously revealed in 41 AD with the events following the assassination of Caligula. In that year, the Senate failed in a pathetic attempt to regain political control while the Praetorian

Tacitus, Histories, 3,72. Translation by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb from The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York: The Modern Library. 1942). "Id facimus post conditam urbem Iuctuosissimum foedissimumque rei publicae populi Romani accidit, nulio externo hoste, propitiis, si per mores nostros liceret, dies, sedem hisOptimi Maximi auspicatus a maioribus pignus imperii conditam, quam non Porsenna dedita urbe neque Galli capta ternerare potuissent, furore principum excindi. Arserat et ante Capitolium civili bello, sed fraude privata: nunc palam obsessum, palam incensurn, quibus armorum causis? Quo tantae cladis pretio?" guard effectively intervened and installed Claudius as the new Princeps- The power struggle in 69 AD f'urther reinforced the new political reality: the army rather than the Senate played the prime role in determining the destiny of Roman politics. As Septimius Severus is said to have stated to his heirs a century later, "Flnrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men."" By the end of the first century, with Nervats adoption of Trajan and execution of the assassins of Domitian under the direction of the Praetorian guard, it was obvious that the army was the ultimate source of power in the Empire. Control was further centralized in the hands of the Emperors who were backed by military force. Emperors now sought to placate the army rather than the Senate. The Imperial court, consisting of a small circle of trusted advisors known as the consilium princ@is, who could more effectively determine and carry out policy, was entrusted with governing the Empire." Furthermore, partisans of the Emperors were promoted through the traditional elective ofices into the Senate, removing the effectiveness of the body as a focus of the discontent-"

Since the Senate no longer represented a real political threat, Emperors were less and less inclined to maintain the facade of Senatorial authority."

* Dio Cassius, 76, 15,2. translation by Ernest Cq.

* See John Crook's Consilium Princi~is:Im~erial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955). In this work. he equates the Consilium principis with the amici principis, who were provided with umicitia or friendship From the emperor in return for advice, on p. 1 15. Further, on p. 2 1 ff. he provides an analysis of the composition and hction of the amici principis.

Syme, Tacitus, p. 590.

'S Syme, Tacitus, p. 28 40 The Histories and the Annales of Tacitus record the struggle between the Emperors and the Roman Senate. By the time of Trajan the battle was all but over. Without censorial power, Trajan created new Patricians and admitted new Senators by his mere prerogative? As a result, during the life of Tacitus the pretenses of cloaking the power of the Principate had eroded, while the Senate was fbrther isolated f?om power and its prestige was reduced.

Consequently, members of the Senatorial cIass in the Empire maintained a hostile tradition toward both individual Emperors and the Imperial system." Tacitus offers a glimpse at the ideological stance of the Senate on autocracy. Concerning the Augustan settlement he writes:

After laying down his triumviral title and proclaiming himself a simple consul content with tribunician authority to safe- guard the commons, he first conciliated the army by gratuities, the populace by cheapened corn, the world by the amenities of peace, then step by step began to make his ascent and to unite in his own person the functions of the senate, the magistracy, and the legislature: the boldest spirits had succumbed on stricken fields or by proscription lists; while the rest of the nobility found a cheefil accept- ance of slavery the smoothest road to wealth and ofice, and, as they had thriven on revolution, stood now for the new order and safety in preference to the old order and

" Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus, p. 126.

For a detailed analysis of Republicanism see, Rarnsay MacMullenfs Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest and Alienation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) p. ;I ff. adventure. a This was not a flattering picture of either the Senatorial class or the settlement. While the year of the Four Emperors showed that autocracy was a necessity, that did not mean that the traditional ruling class had to like it.

The mler, however, rather than the institution, was vulnerable to overthrow or, more frequently, belated literary attacks by the Senatorial class. The only real power that the Senate had was quasi-judicial: to pronounce judgement on a deceased Emperor. Of the first twelve Caesars five were deified. Among the other seven, Domitian suffered damnatio memoriae, a testament to Senatorial hatred. The most prevalent means of attacking a deceased Emperor was through literature. Like the Senate, as a body, individual authors judged Emperors after their death, when they were no longer a threat. Tacitus "writes as the prosecuting counsel at the courtroom of posterity" by perpetuating the memory of famous individuals, both good and bad." The knction of history he defines as follows: "...to ensure that merit shall not lack its record and to hold before the vicious word and deed the terrors of posterity and infarn~."~Since the literary class a Tacitus Annals. 1,2. translation by John Jackson "posito triumviri nomine, consulem se ferens et ad tuendam plebem tribunicio iure contentum, ubi militem donis, populurn annona, cunctos dulcedine otii pellexit, insurgere paulatim, munia senatus, magistraturn. legum in se trahere nu110 adversante, cum ferocissimi per acies aut proscriptione cecidissent, ceteri nobiliurn, quanto quis servitio promptior. opibus et honoribus extollerentur ac novis ex rebus aucti, tuta et praesentia quam vetera et periculosa mallent. a Donald R. Dudley, The World of Tacitus (London: Secker and Warburg, 1968) p. 13 1: Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus, p. 10. lPAnnals3.65. "ne virtutes sileantur utque pravis dictis factisque ex posteritate et infarnia metus sit." 42 was also the Senatorial class, the sources reflect a biased account of events. These distorted interpretations present the author's personal view and more generally the estimate of the Senatorial class as to the rule of an Emperor.

Imperial policy determined Senatorial opinion. The problem of the Senate was this: while in theory they exercised major political power and enjoyed high prestige with coveted positions, their power could be nullified by the Emperor. Liberal Emperors, who gave the Senate more tieedom and a role in policy, were popular since they propped up the self-image of the Senate and its constituent members. Emperors labelled as tyrants were those who viewed the Senate as a source of political rivalry or those who lacked political tact." Domitian's reputation suffered greatly because he failed to pay homage to the Senate as the central and most prestigious institution in the government, even though the court which consisted of trusted advisors that were attached to the Imperial household, as everyone knew, had usurped this fin~tion.~For the aristocracy, the traditional ruling class, the image of political power was greatly valued. Emperors who openly failed to respect or involve the Senate in affairs of state attacked the very identity of the body, and were posthumously vilified in literary works.

The composition of the Imperial government and restrictions imposed by Emperors were two areas that greatly damaged the pride of the aristocracy. The govemment, although centralized, retained an oligarchic element, and

------. ------

"Dudley. p. 122.

Brian W. Jones, The Emwror Domitian (London: Routledge, 1992) p. 196.

43 some members of the Senatorial class played an important hction in carrying out the policy of the Imperial court as governors of provinces and senior military commanders. Increasingly however, power was also held by courtiers, consisting of not only men of the Senatorial rank, but also fieedmen and men of Equestrian rank,* all of whom assisted in determining policy. The early Principate witnessed the creation of many new posts for Equestrian agents, but also, positions traditionally held by men of Senatorial rank were increasingly being given to Equestrians, a practice that was accelerated under Domitian, Trajan and Hadrim.* With access to court the largest factor in determining power, channels to the Emperor were often mediated by these men of lower and of previously non-political status, thus inverting the traditional power structure and humiliating members of the traditional ruling class. The use of freedmen as high authorities in government, like Pallas and Narcissus under Claudius, and the increase in Equestrian administrators enhanced the weakness of the Senate and affected its self-image.

The issue most discussed by Roman historians writing during the Imperial period was the loss of fieedom of speech or libertas. Vital within the framework of the highly competitive Republican system, libertas in the Principate was dampened, and at times completely and violently stifled.

13Eq~itescontrolled the Praetorian Guard, the vigiles or fire brigade, and Egypt. While the guard and watch protected the Emperor's person and his interests in Rome, the control of Egypt ensured the continuation of food supplies to Rome, maintaining order within and further propping up the positive image of the emperor among the lower classes.

B. Jones, p. 177. Emperors could not afford to have their personal authority, auctoritas, questioned, as this was the highest form of prestige, and was consequently the foundation of governmentis As stated with the aristocracy, Emperors, to maintain control and prevent usurpation, could not afford to have their image as the fountainhead of power in the state weakened. During the reign of Augustus, the civil wrong of iniuria, that encompassed both physical and verbal assaults which attacked an individual's dignity and standing, was extended into the public domain under the lex maiestatis, in which political dissent was deemed treasonous." The use of that law by delatores, who informed and prosecuted fellow members, was an object of fear and loathing to the Senatorial class? Domitian was particularly unpopular for his use of delatores and his crackdown on political dissent. Overall, the actions of an Emperor determined his popularity. Those Emperors who avoided restricting the fieedoms of the Senatorial class and who maintained the facade of Senatorial power, received little criticism from the Roman aristocracy. The "bad" Emperors were the more autocratic individuals, who stifled fieedoms and did not attempt to placate the Senate.

Along with the change in the governmental structure went a change in the composition of the governing class in the first century AD. In the Republic, the oligarchy was in a continual state of self-renewal and recruitment from the local aristocracies of municipal Italy. Men of talent,

" Earl, p. 35.

John Crook. Law and Life of Rome (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957) p. 25 1.

Dudley, p. 111.

45 wealth and birth could enter through patronage and rise in the cursus honorum. Cato the censor, later invoked as an ideal Roman, Marius and Cicero were three new men, novi homines, who achieved greatness in Rome. The struggle for power in the late Republic and the homicidal tendencies of the Julio-Claudian dynasty destroyed many old families, thereby accelerating the process of regeneration of the aristocracy from external sources.* Since the existence of other powerful aristocrats was a threat to Augustus, he removed them or united with the nearest rival families to align familial and patronage networks under his authority. In the early Principate, men of old Roman lineage still held great civic and military posts and won distinction, but through the patronage of the Emperors they were crowded out by novi homines. * The successors of Augustus would fixher this decline of the nobiles. Nero had the blood of the lulii, the Claudii and the Antonii, while the descendants of Cinna, Sulla, Crassus and Pompeius had perished.* With the death of Nero, the families of Republican stock had been greatly reduced, and by the time of Trajan they were a rarity." At the same time, Emperors claimed the right to create new patricians. In the end, the old governing order was subdued and in the process almost completely destroyed.

Sir Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford: Clarendon, 1939) p. 490 ff. a Syme, Tacitus, p. 572.

40 Ibid.. p. 574.

Earl, p. 85. Since lineage and the pride associated with noble birth were enemies of the Emperors, the old aristocracy was reduced, and as a consequence more and more novi homines filled the ranks of the aristocracy. The power of the autocracy rested on transforming the composition of the political oligarchy. The potency of the senate as a political rival was reduced, with the partisans of the Emperor promoted into its ranks through traditional channels. In the reign of Caligula and the first years of Claudius there was an advance of provincial Senators and even several provincial consul^.^ Under Claudius, the demand for new men, and their ambition to enter the elite, was so great that Gauls, whose ancestors had been conquered a century earlier, were invited into the Senate? Agricola's father, Julius Graecinus, was one of these Gauls who entered the senate under Claudi~s.~ The rise of Vespasian, the son of a tax collector, to the throne was a testament to the high rate of turnover among the Senatorial class and the unimportance of the old Roman lineage.

With the rise of a new emperor, some of his old clientela or amici were promoted, while some of the administrators of the former regime were kept on, in order to provide supporters in government. Under Vespasian some novi homines, Agricola from Gaul and Trajan fiom Spain, not only reached the Senate, but were numbered among the Patricians. An extreme example of this practice occurred under Domitian in the latter part of his reign.

-- -- a Syme. Tacitus, p. 590.

Dudley, p. 13.

4,1. Fearing an insurrection from some of the existing aristocracy with western origins, he began to bring men fiom the eastern Empire into the government.& The Imperial system spelled ruin for established Republican families, but constantly opened avenues for the rise of novi homines.

These men provided an ideal administrative body for the Imperial regime, since they owed their allegiance to the Princeps through patronage, and they lacked a strong tradition in the destructive and negative virtues of the older Roman noble families. Talented individuals sought active service in the provinces of Caesar. As Tacitus stated about his own political career, "1 would not deny that my elevation was begun by Vespasian, augmented by Titus, and still hrther advanced by Domitian."' Under the Emperors these new men had not known "liberty" and they advanced as much through obedience as talent. For Tacitus, Agricola was the paradigm of such loyal men, whose service to the state and the Emperor brought them fame and rank. Himself a member of the Senatorial class, Tacitus examined the recruitment and consequent behavior of his predecessors.

Such change in the composition and structure of government was followed by a an evolution of values. Two trends were at work. The novi homines that flocked to Rome under Imperial patronage took the old Republican outlook and values, then tempered these in response to their political function. The traditional Senatorial ethos was strong enough that

4~ B. Jones, p. 172.

Tacitus, Histories 1, 1. translation by Church and Brodribb. "Dignitatem nostram a Vespasiano inchoatam, a Tito auctarn, a Domitiano longius provectam non Abnuerim." these new men shared a nostalgic view of the Republic. As Syme noted, there was the patriotism of the fiontier zone coupled with a fervid devotion to the glorious past of Rome.= At the same time, loyalty to the Emperor was the necessary ingredient for survival and advancement. These men, lacking old Roman lineage, adopted traditional values of the Roman aristocracy in a manner that incorporated deference towards the emperor as a means to secure honours.

The value system of the Senatorial class was inherently political, in that members defined themselves and their worth by their public service. Along with wealth, virtus, associated with skill or talent, and nobilitas, or noble birth, separate or in combination, were the pre-requisites for a role in government. In the late Republic, virtus consisted of employing one's talent in the service of the state to perform outstanding deeds, which in turn brought gloria, the recognition of an individual's pre-eminence among leading men? Gloria, the fame acquired from accomplishing great deeds, became familial and, as previously mentioned, superseded concerns for the state. The competition for supremacy led to faction fighting among the oligarchy which ravaged Italy and the provinces.

Horace and Vergil under the patronage of Augustus offered another less destructive interpretation of proper conduct. Gloria was de-emphasized,

" Syme, Tacitus, p. 26.

&As Wiseman points out in "Competition and Co-operation" aristocracts competed to be the primus, maximus and optimus and then spent large sums of money to create monuments to advertise these achievements, p 3 ff. and pietas, a sense of duty towards one's family, fiends and country, was advocated as a central component of virtusf When Augustus chose to have the title of pater pcztriae conferred upon himself in 2 BC, he expressed the concept that he was the supreme pateMamilias as well as the supreme patronus (since clients often referred to their patrons as father) of the Roman state. Pietas called for establishing peace and order in the state, as well as proper respect for superiors.' These qualities were essential for maintaining the autocratic system of the Principate, and as a consequence were both valued and nurtured by the Principes.

The clients of the Caesars took over the inheritance of the nobiles, managing the Empire in the Imperial court and in the Senate. These men excelled in all the arts and set the tone for society. Virtus superseded nobilitas. With Emperors requiring men of talent to run the Empire, and with the destruction of the old Roman aristocracy whose high birth threatened Emperors, skill along with wealth and municipal Italian or provincial aristocratic background rather than Roman lineage was the requirement for service. For Tacitus, virtutes, the particular manifestations of virtus, were the strength of new men, and by using them in public life gloria was won. As shown by the characters of Piso and Galba, nobiliras was no longer defined in terms of ancestry; ability was now the central

'Epigraphic evidence in the early Principate shows that aristocrats of high standing could have their virrus praised in the old Republican fashion, but this had to be combined with a show of pietas towards the Emperor. See Wiseman p. 9. component of a great man? He equated the old order with decadence and laziness and the new with energy and integrity? These new men exploited the formulas devised by the famous Republican novi homines, Cato the censor, Marius and Cicero, in the struggle against the nobility of birth for office and advan~ement.~ Such a position, entrenched by the time of Tacitus, can be traced as far as the second century BC, but it also reflected the changing composition of the aristocracy over the first century AD. Syme astutely notes, "The judgments of the nows homo, like his status, derived from his own efforts. In pride of achievement, putting himself on a level with the older stocks when they first won rank by merit, he might look their descendants in the face - or pass them by?

Pride and dignity, greatly valued in the Republic, had to be curbed by modesty and discretion for political survival and upward mobility, for rank and status were now determined by Imperial favour. Quies, the mark of a knight and the apolitical lesser aristocracy, became an honourable trait in the Senatorial class.* As Tacitus pessimistically stated, "[llt was thus an

Tacitus, in both the Annals lS,48; Hisrories 1,49, indicates the view of ability superseding birth. For an excellent overview of the views of nobility in the principate see Matthias Gelzer, The Roman Nobiiity trans. Robin Seager (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1969), p. 141 ff-

Syme. Tacitus, p. 580.

Cicero, Pro Bdbo 5 1. In defending Balbus Cicero proclaims that Romans do not care about the origins of a man, and as a result they brought into the ranks of citizens men of valour from all quarters and often preferred energy without birth to birth without energy.

Syme. Tacitus, p. 582. altered world, and of the old unspoilt Roman character not a trace lingered. Equality was an outworn creed, and all eyes looked to the mandate of the sovereign with no immediate misgiving^."^ Complete liberty and the Imperial government were incompatible, as it required the subordination and the obedience of the governing class to the authority of one man. Tacitus in his works illustrates the new values of these new men at Rome. The Senatorial class lost power and were altered in composition because of the gradual process of centralizing power into the hands of the Caesars. Consequently, members of this class had to adjust their values in order to survive and prosper.

While political values were transformed, and aspirations limited, under the Imperial government, the intellectual framework within which the Senatorial class operated and conceptualized itself was retained intact. Firstly, politics remained social and personal and hence was viewed in moral terms, although in the Roman mind these distinctions would have been unreal, as all facets of aristocratic life were viewed as inextricably intertwined. In the Annales and Histories for example, Tacitus provides a record of the Roman people, a history of the res publica. The relations between the Emperor and Senate, intrigues at the Imperial court, campaigns against foreign enemies, civil wars, trials in the courts, debates in the Senate and the deaths of famous men were the interests of himself and his contemporary audience, the aristocracy at Rome? Politics were central in

* Tacitus. Annals 1,4. "Igitur verso civitatis statu nihil usquam prisci et integri moris: omnes, exuta aequalitate, iussa principis aspectare, nulla in praesens formidine."

Dudley, pp. 10- 11. defining the Senatorial class and its constituent members, who viewed themselves as the driving force behind the direction and development of the state.

For Tacitus and other Roman authors, an accurate interpretation of fact involved passing moral judgments, since historical processes were believed to consist of individuals' actions, as direct manifestations of character. For them, great men like Gemanicus and Agricola benefited the state with their good conduct, whereas tyrants like Domitian were destructive forces, ruinous to the res publica with their attacks on the senatorial class. Tacitus and other Latin authors attribute events to individuals' decisions and an individual's choices in turn, that is, to moral excellence or baseness.= Overall, a study of the political nature of any piece of Roman literature must be a study in morality. Consequently, public events at the state level were paramount and were given moral explanations.

Furthermore, the value placed on precedent greatly influenced the interpretation of history. Mos maiovum, the customs and the traditions of the ancestors, was revered. Great individuals of the past provided moral examples, a guide to proper conduct for both the present and the future generations of Rome." For this reason power and position could always be

* B. Walker, The Annals of Tacitus: A Study in the Writing of History (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1952) p. 6 K Also see the Introduction of Ogilvie and Richmond ed. Cornelii Taciti De Vita Amicolae (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967) p. 19.

Earl, pp. 27-29. legitimized through precedent. Augustus restored rather than replaced the Republic; novi homines in the Empire legitimized their position with the precedent set by men like Cicero. The Senate, which after the Punic wars controlled and directed government in the Republic, was originally a private and unofficial body that initially provided counsel for magistrates. The role of the Senate evolved to suit the needs of the state, not through legal sanctions, but rather by custom and precedent? The past, although subjectively interpreted, was highly valued and provided the model for behavior. This had important implications for the aristocracy's outlook on themselves and their age.

With an idealistic picture of the past, they could only see the reality of present time as morally degraded. There was always a nostalgia for an earlier age, when men were superior in virtue. In the opening to the Agricola, Tacitus refers fiercely to his own age:

For noble character is best appreciated in those ages in which it can most readily develop. But in these times, when I planned to recount the life of one no longer with us I had to crave an indulgence which I should not have sought for an invective. So savage and hostile to merit was the age." Pessimism formed an integral part of most ancient historical works. The distant past was exalted and as a result idealized, while the present, not

Ibid.. p. 30.

61 1.3-4. "adeo virtutes iisdem temporibus optime aestimantur, quibus facil lime gignuntur. at nunc narraturo mihi vitam dehcti hominis venia opus kit, quarn non petissem incusaturus: tam saeva et idesta virtutibus tempera." purified of reality by time, could only in comparison be seen as degraded and inferior.

For the Roman, there were thus two main beliefs about individuals and the greater society within which they functioned. Firstly, the actions of an individual were understood through and explained in moral terms. Secondly, as a whole, Roman society was believed to be in a state of moral decline. These notions were conveyed through rhetoric, a standard part of the curriculum of the elite Roman, which provided a format within which Latin authors could present past human action and events. The classification of individuals offered a framework upon which a literary character could be built= These were based upon actions, which, when grouped together, formed a type or stock figure. As mentioned in the first chapter, a Listing of virtues and their manifestation in good deeds, along with praise, was the manner in which good men were described, while invective was used to create a composite picture of evil men through a listing of vices, more often imaginary than real. Consequently, Roman literature reflected class interests in politics that were understood in moral terms and presented through rhetorical devices.

In his lifetime, Tacitus witnessed great political and social change that had its origins in the late Republic. With the introduction of the Principate, Augustus' solution to the strife which threatened to destroy the state, the structure and composition of government was drastically altered. Under

@ For an analysis of rhetorical typology see J.R. Dunkle. "The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography," CW. 65.1 (1 97 1 ) pp. 12-20. his successors, the Imperial system continued to evolve with further centralization of power. At the same time, both in reaction to the change in government and also as a reflection of the changes in their composition, the Roman aristocracy were adapting their value system to suit their new role in society. There were at work two opposing forces, necessity and tradition. The aristocracy had to work out a solution that would maintain the integrity of past values in a system that stifled any overt and spontaneous expression of them. Tacitus in all his writings was preoccupied by the relationship between the Senate and the Emperor. As a consequence, the Agricola provides an excellent source for the political views of Tacitus as a member of the Senatorial class in the late first century AD. Chapter 3 Politics in the Agricola

As a novus homo, Tacitus was immersed in and adopted the traditional values of the Roman aristocracy, tempered, as mentioned in the previous chapter, by the new reality of the Roman Imperial system or Principate. In the Agricola, Tacitus presents his own beliefs, and consequently the feelings and aspirations of the Senatorial class in the late first century AD. While studies of the Agricda per se which do not approach it simply as a "minor work" of Tacitus have been lacking, there are several opinions as to its political purpose. Following Fumeawc, the political aim has been divided by scholars into two main foci. Through his praising of the life of Agricola as that of the ideal Roman statesman, who strove to accomplish great deeds for the state but remains modest and acquiescent to Imperial power, Tacitus proclaims the political philosophy of the novi homines that now dominated the Senatorial class. At a more personal level, the work also provides a medium for Tacitus' apologia, justifying the actions of Agricola, and by implication Tacitus under the 'tyranny' of Domitian. Within this framework, Tacitus also attacks Stoic opposition to the Imperial system and praises the new regime of Newa and Trajan. While the work does present a political philosophy in a coherent manner, the evidence from the period does not support the idea that Tacitus was writing an apologia for himself or Agricola. Only a delator or a member of a radical political faction, not a moderate like Tacitus and the vast majority of the senatorial class, might have feared any retributive attack with the inception of the new government. Rather, the work was a literary advertisement that conveys Tacitus' support of the new regime. He presents his father-in-law as a loyal and successful servant of the Imperial government, while at the same time he slanders the old emperor Domitian and welcomes the new emperors Trajan and Nerva. Thus Tacitus, both a member of the Roman political class and a subtle and complex writer, presents in his biographical treatise of his father-in-law several interrelated political messages both as a means to present an ideology and as a way to aggrandize himself and his family.

First and foremost, the Agricola fiom start to finish embodies a code of ethics and action for the Senatorial class. The character of Agricola was the paradigm of the loyal Imperial servant, a model of civic and martial excellence for the Empire. Tacitus' Agricola is a literary construction or stock character, created by selecting and interpreting specific events of the real Agricola's life to present an idealized picture of him. As mentioned in the first chapter, Roman literature reflected a belief that people could be classified into specific types. In order to fit a real personality into a particular stock character, authors removed whatever features or actions that were contrary to the attributes ascribed to this type of individual.

The question then arises, whether Agricola the real person was the same as the heroic figure portrayed in his biography? There are similarities between the character of Agricola and other individuals in the other works of Tacitus. B. Walker believes that Agricola provided a prototype for two other great men in Tacitus' later works, Germanicus in the Annales and Corbulo fiom the Histories, as they all shared common traits and a common fate. Similarities exist, but these do not rule out the accuracy of Tacitus' interpretation of his father-in-law; however, they do imply that Tacitus was being selective in presenting their lives. More importantly for this study, the molding of these characters helps the reader discern what Tacitus perceived as great in the actions and hence the personalities of these men. The unraveling of Agricola's life in the Agrrcola consequently represented the type of individual who for Tacitus was the epitome of greatness in an age which he describes as "so savage and hostile to merit."' He was a new hero for the new aristocracy, that could nostalgically admire, but could no longer emulate the heroes of the Republic.

The character of Agricola was brought forth through his conduct in the sphere of public life, the most valued aspect of existence for the Roman aristocrat. From an early age, the Agricola of Tacitus' account shows the necessary characteristics that were conducive to rising in the Imperial system. As a youth, his education, sound instincts, and his mother's prudent counsel gives him a sense of proportion.' During his miiitary apprenticeship, he chooses the best models to learn from, and with the rebellion of Boudicca in Britain he prudently carries out his duties without seeking notice, as it is "a thankless passion in an age in which a sinister

B. Walker in her work, Annals of Tacitus: A Studv in the Writing of History indicates that like Agricola both Germanicus and Corbulo rise to greatness through their heroic actions only to be struck down by tyrannical emperors. For a comparison of the character of Agricola with those of Germanicus and Corbulo, see pp. 207 - 209; pp. 218 - 219; and pp. 232 - 234 of her work.

I, 4. "tam saeva et infesta virtutibus." construction was put upon distinction and a great reputation was as dangerous as a bad." While a quaestor in Asia, he maintains self control under the temptations of wealth.' Inertia, a negative vaIue term denoting laziness and refusal to enter into politics in the Republican ideology,' for Agricola is a sign of sapientiu or wisdom during his tribuneship and praetorship under Nero.? The year was 63 AD, when there was a great conspiracy against Nero. Among those punished were a number of provincials, men of Agricola's age and class, including M. Annaeus

Lucanus, who was born in 39 AD, a In his early career, Agricola learns and follows the proper course of action. At a time when birth, talent and independence might incur the suspicion and at times wrath of Nero, Agricola wisely shows none of these qualities.

Throughout his political career Agricola is portrayed by Tacitus as an adept administrator. Under Galba, he diligently undertakes his commission to check the temples and he curbs state 10sses.~ When he finds out about Vespasian's bid for the Empire, he joins his party and because of his conscientiousness is put in command of the twentieth legion. Governors

' 5, 5. "ingrata temporibus quibus sinistra erga eminentes interpretatio nec minus pericuIum ex rnagna farna quam ex mala."

Earl, The Moral and PoliticaI Tradition of Rome, p. 23

6.3.

'S yme. Tacitus, p 2 1 .

6.5. of consular rank fear the unruly men of this legion, but Agricola restores order, takes disciplinary measures with rare modesty and gives the impression that they were unne~essary.~@He knows how to behave to avoid conflict with his superiors. Under a sluggish governor, Vettius Bolanus, he restrains his enthusiasm,ll but under a more energetic man, Petilius Cerealis, Agricola wins glory, not only through his efficiency in carrying out orders, but also because he never brags about himself? He also administers with fairness and courtesy. As the governor of Aquitania, he discharges his duties well in a manner that does not incite jealousy. He also does not seek fame with self-advertisement or intrigue, and he avoids any rivalry with his peers and all squabbles with his proc~ators.~As the governor of Britain, he gives his subordinates full credit," and he redresses grievance^.^^

Finally, In the field of battle Agricola is presented by Tacitus as an astute general. With the campaigning season almost over, Agricola arrives in Britain to take over the governorship in 78. Almost immediately he confronts the Ordovices, who earlier in the summer had almost wiped out a squadron of cavalry. Agricola, after raising a force of legionaries and a small number of auxiliaries, attacks the Ordovices in the hills and almost completely wipes out their fighting force.' By soundly defeating a recalcitrant tribe with the disadvantage of difficult terrain, not only does he remove an enemy of the Roman government, but the action also presents another example to the Britons of the strength of the Roman army and consequently provides a deterrent to those who might aspire to rebellion. Further, Agricola is not only a strategist, but he both presents his bravery and instills a sense of esprit de corps by marching and fighting at the front of his men. In that same season, with a small number of men, he takes the island of Anglesey, completing the conquest begun by Paulinus whose efforts were cut short by the uprising led by Boudicca in 61. Lacking a fleet, Agricola chooses members among his auxiliaries who could swim with their arms and horses and leads them onto the island where they

surprise and defeat their enemy. l7 In his first summer, Agricola is portrayed as a brilliant strategist and a brave warrior.

In the following campaigning seasons, Tacitus' Agricola is depicted as maintaining a keen interest and aptitude for military exploits. While marching he praises good discipline and ensures the stragglers keep up to the main body. Further, he chooses the sites for camps and does the reconnaissance of both estuaries and forests, while never providing the enemy an opportunity to rest by continuously raiding their holdings. After inspiring fear through force, he would show them clemency and the advantages of peace. This results in many states giving up their independence: hostages are taken and a ring of garrisoned forts are placed around them? On the most favorable locations, he builds permanent forts, maintaining a year's supplies there; thus he both withstands attack and thwarts any attempts by the enemy in the winter months to regain lands lost in the ~ummer.~Further, he secures areas already under Roman control. The Clyde and Forth, where the landmass of Britain narrows, is chosen as the boundary which separated Romans €?om their enemy and is held firmly by garrisons." In his fifth campaign he subdues peoples who had previously

never faced the Romans. a Finally, following the traditional practice of defensive imperialism, the reduction of possible enemies on the periphery of the empire,l Agricola moves his forces into northern Britain, beyond the Clyde and Forth line of defense. Agricola does not let fear overtake him and he pushes forward into hitherto unknown lands.

I9 22, 1-2. See also Brenda Dickinson & Brian Hartley's article, "Roman Military Activity in First-Century Britain: The Evidence of Tacitus and Archaeology, in PLILS (1995) pp. 250 - 252 for a succinct discussion on innovative Flavian forts in Scotland whose manner of construction has been credited to the genius of Agricola.

a For an excellent analysis of the ideology behind the expansion of Roman political control see E. N. Luthtrak's The Grand Stratem of the Roman Em~ire- From the First Centuw AD to the Third ( Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1976). At Mons Graupius, afier instilling confidence in his troops with an oration," Agricola positions himself at the fiont of them for the attack on the Caledonians, who Tacitus states had a force which was of greater size and had the additional advantage of being positioned on higher ground." Through qualities that had been exhibited in his previous campaigns, particuIarly his ability to lead and his knowledge of strategy, he defeats the combined tribes of northern Britain. Overall, Agricola is presented by Tacitus as an astute general whose greatness in the field of battle allowed him to be victorious without loss, while securing and greatly expanding the province of Britain.

Throughout the work, Tacitus offered a new, but not wholly unique, view concerning gioria and the struggle for recognition and honour. To strive for greatness was praiseworthy, and entailed service to the state with industvia and vigorsa Agricola with these qualities performed virtuous actions or virtutes which carried him into glory through the winning of public position and office." For the Roman elite reputation was central, and Agricola's virtuous actions bestowed upon him glory, or the recognition of his pre-eminence, assured by the recollection of posterity and commemoration in historyn The vaIue placed on the commission of great deeds for the state, vital in the Republican concept of virt~s,~was maintained by Tacitus? At the same time, gloria, so ruinous to the late Republic where personal aspirations superseded the interests of the state,' was redefined by Tacitus in conformity with the new political reality. Self- interest was maintained in government, but was limited by the new position of the Emperor.

Gloria became defined as service not only to the state and but also to the Emperor. In the late Republic the quest for gloria led to civil wars, as members of the Roman senate fought each other for control of the state. The lack of control of political power led to fierce rivalries in the Senate which immersed the state in destructive civil wars." In the Empire, great men like Agricola could acquire a great reputation. However, as was not the case in the Republican system, the Princeps controlled the government, military and finances of the statesa This control of the state was further enhanced as the Imperial system became entrenched, and the old Senatorial order was eroded through purges and the promotion of novi homines by the Emperors." No longer could powerfir1 men rise unimpeded and threaten the

Cicero, Philippics 1,29. a As Earl points outgloria played such an integral role in both the consciousness and traditions of the Roman political class that Tacitus fully accepted this concept as the foundation of virtus, p. 8 1.

Ibid., pp. 56 ff.

31 Ibid., p. 55.

" Syme, Tacitus, p. 27.

Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus, p. 123; Tacitus, p. 572. 65 order of the state. The Principes became the benefactors of glory, dispensing it to those who proved worthy and loyal servants in order to ensure stability and prevent overthrow by a Roman aristocracy that idealized its Republican past. The new reality, which Tacitus echoes in his work, was that status was a consequence of imperial favour and gloria was acquired through actions which bolstered the Imperial regime.

This new definition of gZoria is fbther elaborated in the Germania, published probably in 98, the same year as the Agri~ola.~As an ethnographical treatise, the work contrasts simple rustic virtues of peoples on the edge of the empire with contemporary Romans, whom wealth and urban civilization had made decadent.' Tacitus presents in the Germanic tribes the virtues and habits that embodied the traditional customs of Rome's rural past. He offers an important political message that corresponds to the political philosophy espoused with the life of Agricola:

On the field of battle it is a disgrace to a chief to be surpassed in courage by his followers, and to the followers not to equal the courage of their chief. And to leave a battle alive after their chief has fallen means lifelong infamy and shame. To defend and protect him, and to let him get the credit for their own acts of heroism, are the most solemn obligations of their allegiance.

Furneaux in his commentary in Cornelii Taciri Vira Agricolae (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898) sees the appearance of the two works almost simultaneously as an indication that they shared a common purpose, p. 7.

JS Goodyear, "Tacitus"p. 10, This common theme is also found in Seneca, De Ira 1.1 1.4. and Caesar, Gallic Wars,1. The chiefs fight for victory, the followers for their chief? Gloria, the cornerstone of virtus, no longer the pursuit of individual pre- eminence, but ensured the pre-eminence of the state, through an individual's action under the authority of the Princeps.

The Imperial government did not prevent good men fiom making a contribution to the state, but it required of them pies and obsequium. Tacitus strongly advocates this stance:

Let it be clear to those who insist on admiring disobedience that even under bad Emperors men can be great, and that a decent regard for authority, if backed by industry and energy, can reach that peak of distinction which most men attain only by following a perilous course, winning fame, without benefitting their country, by an ostentatious self-martyrdom.' The actions of Agricola illuminate both the necessity of these qualities and positive value placed on them. Tacitus tells us that when he was the governor of Britain, Agricola never used his successes to glorify himself? Trained in previous military offices, Agricola reaches the peak in his career with his victory over the combined forces of the Scottish peoples at Mons

Tacitus. Germania 14.1. "cum ventum in aciem, turpe principi virtute vinci, Nrpe comitatui virtutern principis non adaequare. iam vero infame in omnem vitam ac pro brosurn superstitem principi suo ex acie recessisse: illum defendere, tueri. sua quoque fortia facta gloriae eius adsignare praecipuum sacramenturn est: principes pro victoria pugnant. comites pro ptincipe."

" 42.4. "Sciant, quibus moris est inlicita mirari, posse etim sub malis principibus magnos viros esse, obsequiumque ac modestiam, si industria ac vigor adsint, eo laudis excedere, quo plerique per abrupta, sed in nullurn rei publicae usum. ambitiosa morte inc iaruerunt." Graupius. He announces this achievement to Domitian without grandiloq~ence.~He then, after being recalled to Rome, makes a discreet re-entrance into Rome and subsides into a quiet private life., Only forty- four, a rather young age to retire, Agricola paid the penalty for rapid success, an early consulate under Vespasian and a command of unprecedented duration in Britain. He was a vir hiumphalis, the highest of honours for a Roman aristocrat. Tacitus in the later chapters suggests that Agricola knew that continuing in the sphere of public life might incite the jealousy of Domitian and bring down destruction." Under emperors deemed tyrants by the senatorial class, Tacitus advocated inaction and survival in preference to action, the catalyst for a tyrant's jealous wrath. Consequently, Tacitus' Agricola knew the limitations placed upon his class and he aspired to the highest level he could safely attain within the Imperial system.

Later in life, when his military achievements might have qualified him to set up as a focus of disaffection toawards the Emperor Domitian, Agricola maintained his loyalty. While Tacitus claimed Dornitian wronged him, Agricola showed no resent~nent.~Defiance and any display of libertas, would have earned him renown, as with others who opposed those Emperors vilified by the Senatorial class. This type of open opposition often resulted in death or at least exile. Agticola chose self-restraint, and for a while he survived. Agricola practiced obsequium, rational obedience to authority and loyalty to Rome and the Empire within the chain of command. Tacitus defends moderation and conformity, which may have been viewed by some as unheroic. However, such qualities allowed members of the Senatorial class not only to participate in public life and augment their status within the Imperial government, but also to survive.

The road that Agricola took lay between servility and absolute but hazardous freedom, the via media. Tacitus presents in all his writing the ideological solution that was being worked out by the Senatorial class in reaction to the problem of Imperial government and transfer of power from the Senate to the Emperor's court. The ancient values that had hnctioned in the Republic were adapted to suit the new autocratic form of government. An agent of Nero portrayed in the Histories, expresses a similar sentiment to that conveyed with the life of Agricola:

For his own part he remembered the time in which he was born, the form of government that their fathers and grand- fathers had established; he admired the earlier period, but adapted himself to the present; he prayed for good emperors, but endured any sort. ... In short, let them set Helvidius on an equality with Cato and Brutus in firmness and courage: for himself, he was only one of a senate which accepted a common servitude?

Tacitus, Hislories 4, 8."Se merninisse temponun quibus natus sit, quarn civitatis formam patres avique instituerunt; ulteriora mirari, praesentia sequi; bonos imperatores voto expetere, qualiscurnque tolerare ... Denique constantia fortitudine Catonibus et Brutis aequaretur Helvidius: se mum esse ex illo senatu. qui simul se~erit." Moderation and wisdom, obedience and subordination, along with hard work for the benefit of the state was the new ideal. Excessive displays of freedom threatened to de-oy the order of the state by eroding the authority of the Emperor? Consequently, Emperors harshly stifled, by means of death and exile, those who attacked the Imperial order through the reckless acquisition of personal or individual gluria.

Displays of freedom were thus dangerous for both the individual and the state, but complete servile sycophancy was also not required. In the Andes, Tiberius is said to have exclaimed in Greek on leaving the curia, "[Tlhese men! - how ready they are for slavery!" Of the comment Tacitus reflects,"... even he, it was manifest, objecting though he did to public liberty, was growing weary of such grovelling patience in his slave^."^ With the good character of Lepidus, Tacitus wonders whether an individual may not be "between the extremes of bluff contumacy and repellent servility, to walk a straight road, clear of intrigues and of perils."* A middle course was devised where glory was limited by obedience that was necessary to hlfill the administrative needs of the state. Tacitus, with the career of Agricola, presents in a coherent manner the ideological stance of the new aristocracy that filled the administrative posts of the Empire.

" Earl. p. 33.

'Tacitus. Annals 3,65. "0homines ad servitutem paratos!"; scilicet etiam illurn qui libenatem publicam nollet tam proiectae servientium patientiae taedabat."

Tacillrs, Annals 4,20. "interabruptam contumaciam et deforme obsequiurn pergere iter ambitione ac periculis vacuum." To hrther emphasize the necessity of following the via media, Tacitus presents a common theme in Roman Literature, the decline of Roman values. Following the tradition of Latin literature, Tacitus glorified the rustic past of Rome, which he saw mirrored in the peoples on the borders of the western provinces.' Roman writers traditionally gave moral explanations for events and individual actions, the two central components of historical writing? The comments concerning Agricola's offer of Roman civilization to the native British and the speech of Calgacus highlight this aspect of the work. When discussing the Roman policy of civilizing the barbarian Britons, Tacitus stresses the loss of morality among them, rather than giving credit to Agricola for his efforts of fostering peace and stability. During the winter of his second year, Agricola is said to have given both private encouragement and public assistance for the development of urban centres and Latin culture. The British, rather than benetiting from these policies, were demoralized with the temptations of the amenities of the city state; arcades, baths and banquets. Tacitus strongly indicts contemporary Rome: "[Tlhe unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilization,' when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.' The British in accepting Roman civilization were accepting Roman decadence and moral decay which Tacitus viewed as the underlying cause for the servile nature of the senate? In his statement concerning the

------Both Tacitus' Agricola and Gentonia, published in the same year, present an idealized picture of life beyond the Roman frontier.

* Earl, p. 16. a 2 I. 2. "idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset." "civilizing" of the British, Tacitus used this common theme to attack the Roman Senatorial class which he later presents as servile and weak.

Next, Tacitus utilizes the character of Calgacus, who as B. Walker pointed out, is another of Tacitus' stock characters, like Boudicca and Armeniu~.~'Types of wronged vims or nobiliras, they provide worthy antagonists for a great Roman general. The heroic status of these characters was presented in pre-battle speeches, a common literary device where foreign enemies spoke about themselves and their concerns in superb rhetorical Latin? The tone set with their powerfhl orations recreates that of the Republican heroes in the works of Livya The inference made by the noble words of Calgacus, whose enmity to the Roman state provides Tacitus with an ideal medium to attack contemporary Roman society, was that the Roman people were slaves due to their lack of moral integrity.

'For some modem and less moralistic analyses of the Romanization of Britain see, Anthony Birley's Life in Roman Britain (London: B.T. Batsford, 1964); Sheppard Frere's Britannia: A Historv of Roman Britain (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967); Martin Millet's The Romanization of Britain: An essay on archaeoloeical interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); H. H. Scullard's Roman Britain: Ournost of the Empire (London: Thames and Hudson, 1979); and Joan Liversidge's Britain in the Roman Emtire (New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1968).

3ee Walker. p. 227-229. Arminius was the chief of the Cherusci, a Germanic tribe. He had acquired Roman citizenship and attained the rank of eques and had served in the auxiliary forces of the Roman army. However, he went against the Romans. and in 9 AD at Teutoberg forest with a force of Germans, he defeated Varus and three legions. In 16 Germanicus beat him, but he thwarted the Roman conquest of Germany. See Colin Wells. The Roman Em~ire(Glasgow: Fontana Paperbacks, 1984) p. 82. a Benario, p. 28. a Goodyear. p. 7. At the simplest level, the speech of Calgacus can be seen as an attack on the Imperial system: the Emperors took the liberty and property of the population of the entire Roman world. Further, the choice to submit to Roman rule also meant submitting to Roman taxation, labour in the mines and all the other tribulations of slavery* To view the speech of Calgacus simply as an indictment of the Empire would however be a mistake. Afkica argues that a speech such as this suggests that Tacitus "could not condone the relentless march of Roman imperiali~m."~This comment, however, goes against Tacitus' own views as exemplified by his choices of subject matter used to glorify Agricola. Tacitus did not select one of Agricola's administrative successes as his greatest achievement, but rather his conquest of the peoples of northern Britain at Mons Graupius and the consequent expansion of the Roman Empire to the edge of the known world.

In the speech of Calgacus, Tacitus seeems to imply that the Roman people, rather than Imperial system or any particular Emperor, were to blame for the Senate's loss of power and prestige. The speech contrasts liberty with slavery. Calgacus states that the peoples of the Empire are slaves under the yoke of a foreign tyrant; consequently, the Empire is weak and its maintenance based on fear. He concludes by asking his Caledonian

Africa, Thomas W. Rome of the Caesars (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1%5), p. 163.

73 warriors whether they will choose fteedom over Roman domination.* The Germania also illuminates this idea. The Germans are in Tacitus' eyes the most dangerous external enemy to the Roman state because they had libertas, a quality lost by the Roman people.

Neither by the Samnites nor by the Carthaginians, not by Spain or Gaul, or even by the Parthians, have we had more lessons taught us. The freedom of the Germany is capable of more energetic action than the Arsacid despotism." Tacitus believed that libertas required moral integrity, or it would lead to destruction. The episode with the Caledonians and their leader Calgacus represents this moral purity which he believed no longer existed among the majority of Romans of his day, whom in the introduction and conclusion of the Agricola he stigmatizes as weak, servile, cowardly and hostiIe to virtuous actions. Consequently, the rustic virtues of the "noble savage" untainted by the vices of urban life contrasted with the moral flaws of contemporary Rome.

Further, in the conclusion of the Agricola, Tacitus explicitly articulates the idea that Romans had become morally bankrupt. He contrasts Agricola with other members of the Roman aristocracy: "[HJis (Agricola's) energy and resolution, and his proven courage in war, were universally contrasted with the general slackness and cowardice (of the rest of the Senatorial

Tacitus, Germania 37,3. "non Samnis, non Poeni, non Hispaniae Galliaeve, ne Parthi quidem saepius admonuere; quippe regno Arsacis acrior est Gennanonun libertas." cla~s)."~While the comment is another example of his idealization of Agricola, it also presents Tacitus' view of contemporary Roman society. Therefore, the commentary on the Romanization of the Britons, the speech of Calgacus, along with comments made by Tacitus at the end of the work, demonstrate his belief that the degradation of morality was the root cause of the current political situation. Tacitus had certainly read about the civil wars of the first century BC, and he lived through the Year of the Four Emperors. Since for the Roman, history was a morality-play where great men determined the course of events, Tacitus conveys in the Agricola his sad conviction that the Senatorial class could no longer control the state. Further, never once in the work does he question the Legitimacy of the Imperial system; rather he accepted the system itself but, attacked or praised particular Emperors depending on their actions. For Tacitus, "in an age so savage and hostile to merit,"s the Imperial system was a necessary evil, since the Senate and its oligarchic form of government had proved to be incapable of harmoniously ruling the Roman Empire.

The Principate which established peace and order required effective administrators in both Rome and the provinces. In contrast to the speech of Calgacus, in his own description of his governorship of Britain Tacitus presents Agricola as a fair administrator who is just to the people, removes corruption and provides stability. At the same time, he is also seen as maintaining peace within and extending the borders of the Empire. As a

41. 3-4. "cornparantibus cunctis vigorem, constantiam et expetturn bellis animum cum inertia et formidine eorurn."

I. 4. "tam saeva et infesta virtutibus tempera." result, Agricola served an unprecedented term in Britain under Domitian and received the highest honour permitted to a victorious general in the Principate. The men who followed the course presented in Agricola's life would achieve greatness, and at the same time provide the foundation for personal prosperity and collective security. Neither excessive displays of independence, which threatened both the individual and the state, not sychophancy were required. A combination of glory with obedience was the ideal which allowed both the individual and the state to benefit? In a sea of decadence pervaded by fear and submission, men like Agricola rose to glory following the middle road between liberty and slavery. Overall, the use of the Britons and Caledonians to contrast with the Romans by Tacitus not only highlights his belief that the decline in contemporary Roman morality was the basis for Imperial control, but also allows him to portray the qualities necessary for the novus homo to survive and flourish within the Imperial structure. The character of Agricola as the ideal statesman is fbrther enhanced by the backdrop of Roman moral corruption.

Tacitus also provides a message to the Imperial government. With the description of the Emperors Domitian, Nerva and Trajan he presents the qualities that were required if an Emperor were to have an effective government, under which the Senatorial class also maintained its dignity. An important theme of the Agricola was the hostility of the times to the virtutes upon which gloria was based." The rule of Domitian was presented as a reign of terror, with Domitian, a bitter foe of gloria, fearing lest the fame of a subject should exceed his own." Tacitus states that Domitian was disturbed by Agricola's success, all the more so since he was conscious of the ridicule that his own fkaudulent triumph had received. The silencing of forensic eloquence and the suppression of all accomplishments of civic life would be wasted if another were to seize military glory.a Tacitus includes a story, which he himself concedes is dubious, that Domitian, fearing Agricola, dea covert attempt to buy him off with an offer of a Syrian governorship if he did not return fi-om Britain after being recalled to Rome. Upon AgricoIals return to Rome, in order to prevent Agricola from accepting the proconsulship of Asia, Domitian secretly threatens him. As a consequence, Agricola refbses the post and goes quietly into retirementea When Agricola falls ill, Domitian's interest in him is given an evil motive, and Tacitus suggests that he had his great general and servant poisoned." Tacitus thus presents Domitian as a character type commonly depicted in Roman literature, the stock tyrant whose actions and reactions are motivated by fear and jealousy.'

" 43, 2. Robert P. Bowman in his M.A. Thesis, The Significance of Caedes in Tacitus' Annals and Histories (Kingston: Queen's University. 1996) indicates that poisoning was regarded by the Romans as a disgracehl and unmanly way of removing enemies. See his p. 34 K

Seet p. 53. Also, J. R. Dunkle presents the origins of stock characters tiom Greek drama and their use as a rhetorical device in both oratory and literature; B. Walker discusses the character of Domitian, and other tyrants in Tacitus' work on pp. 204 ff. Tacitus' analysis is highly critical, with Domitian appearing as the paradigm of tyranny. After the revolt of Saturninus in upper Germany in 89 AD, Domitian revived the treason laws, under which a number of Senators were executed." Altogether eleven men are known to have been killed, and many more were exiled, for either having ties to Saturninus or for being among those who in 93 were considered to be part of the extreme Republican opposition.' Tacitus dramatically recounts how Agricola was fortunate to die when he did, since he did not witness the siege of the senate house and the slaughter of Senators. He states:

Yet it was no small compensation for his untimely cutting off that he was spared those last days when Domitian, instead of giving the state breathing-space to recover fkom one blow before the next one fell, rained them upon its head so thick that its life-blood was drained as though by a single mortal w0und.a The description of the savage countenance of Domitian was contrasted with the fears of the Senatorial class. The commentary is pervaded with a deep sense of guilt as Tacitus himself was a member of the Senate who condemned Domitian's victims." Unable to act, he remained free to think,

. ------"As most historians contend, the revolt of Saturninus was in all probability an important turning point in the relations between Domitian and the Senate. See Suetonius, Domitian 6ff; Cassius Dio, 67,I 1; Martial, 4,11 & 9,84.

B. Jones. p. 180.

44, 5. "ita festinatae mortis grave solacium tulit evasisse postremum illud tempus, quo Domitianus non iam per intervalla ac spiramenta temporurn, sed continuo et velut uno ictu rem publicarn exhausit."

Africa, p. 163. and upon the death of Domitian Tacitus through his literary skill was finally able to attack Dornitian and avenge those fellow Senators who had fallen during his reign.

It is also evident, However, that in the Agricola Tacitus provides some indicators to the modem historian that within the context of the Imperial system Domitian in fact treated his loyal administrators fairly and granted them the honours that they deserved. Since an actual triumphal procession, the highest military honour, was reserved for Emperors, Agricola for his victory over the Caledonians was granted the next highest honour, the insignia of a triumph, a statue, and a highly flattering address? Upon his return to Rome Agricola retired, after a long and successful career in which he achieved the highest honours possible under the Principate. After such a career the decision to retire does not seem odd, particularly since it was uncommon to be granted further commands after reaching the status of vir triumphalis." Furthermore, one should not forget that Agricola was retired for nine years before his death, and in that time he avoided publicity and any displays of his greatness. It would seem highly unlikely that such a non-political figure, whom Tacitus remarks "the majority ... were left asking why he was so famous,"" would pose any threat to Domitian.

40. I; B. Jones on p. 58. shows that Agricola was in all probability a formal amicus of Domitian due to his prolonged tenure in Britain. Also, Agricola is the only general known to have received the honour of being given ornaments triumphalia by Dornitian

£3. Jones, p. 58. In the Agricola, Tacitus provides his interpretation of these features of Agricola's life in a manner favorable to his place in the new political order." Tacitus implied that jealousy motivated Domitian when he did not employ Agricola on the Rhine and Danube frontier following his governorship in Britain? It is more Likely that Domitian based his decision on Agricola's lack of experience in dealing with Rome's continental enemies.^ The poisoning and tale of the Syrian governorship, both of which remain rumour rather than fact, are added by Tacitus to portray Agricola as a victim rather than associate of Domitian: he symbolized wronged vimis. All the actions and reactions of Domitian, that might have been motivated out of concern and kindness for a loyal servant, become malicious in the writing of Tacitus.

Virtus, so valued by the Senatorial class, was now the preserve of the Emperor, since strong military leaders with too much prestige and a large army posed a threat to the regime. Tacitus states explicitly that the qualities of a good general should be the monopoly of the Emperor? The Imperial system required the Emperor to be the greatest general and

Dorey, Tacitus. p. 6

xAgricola held the offices of trubune, legate and governor in Britain. He began and ended, as well as spent the majority of his pofitical career on the island. For a chronological listing of the offices held by Agricola see Appendix C.

39, 3. "ducis boni imperatoriam virtutern esse" administrator upon whom all depended on for peace and stability. All knew how Augustus, and later Vespasian, acquired and then maintained the Empire. Problems arose for the Senatorial class when an Emperor like Domitian monopolized the hits of virtus and failed to award his administrators for their service to the state. The Senatorial class, while losing most of their power to the Imperial government, still desired to maintain the image of being the central governing body of the state.

Domitian's reputation suffered greatly at the hands of the Senatorial class who wrote the histories after his death. Modern scholars have re-examined the reign of Domitian, concluding that he was an effective administrator, but that he fatally lacked tact in dealing with the Senatorial class. He made no attempt to clothe his autocracy in Republican forms, nor did he make any effort to maintain the prestige of the Senatorial class. For the Senate, power had been effectively lost under Augustus. The prestige they still retained, the visible manifestation of status, was greatly reduced by Domitian, who looked to his court or household rather than the Senate for able-bodied administrators." Under the 'five good Emperors' writers laid as much stress as possible on Domitian's autocratic behavior in order to highlight the 'restoration of freedom,' and no mention was made of the new regime's similar attitude of intolerance to opposition. To give but one example, Hadrian began his reign with the execution of four consular generals." Tacitus himself, a loyal and efficient servant, who might have

* 8.Jones, pp. 22 ff. rJ B. Jones, pp. 124 ff. received his nomination to the consulship in 97 fiom Domitian, may not have liked the man, but he had no reason to fear him? Tacitus describes the Agricola as "however inartistic and unskilled my language, recording the bondage we once suffered, and in acknowledging the blessing we now enjoy."a1It must be recognized that Tacitus used the character of Domitian, presented as the paradigm of tyranny, as a foil to the character of Agricola, but also to introduce the concept that autocracy in the wrong hands was destructive to the wellbeing of the state, a central theme in his later writings.

However, Tacitus advocates acquiescence rather than open hostility to these 'destructive' Emperors, since as mentioned above overt displays of libertas had negative consequences for both the individual and the state. Tacitus effectively displays the Stoic opposition, the Senators who perished in the reigns of Nero, Vespasian and Domitian to expand upon on his concept of an ideal system of government. Again, Tacitus' central values are the basis for his judgement upon them. The lives of these men are contrasted with that of Agricola, since they chose the path of excess rather than moderation.= He must be refemng to a particular group of people devoted to Republicanism and to some extent Stoicism. The major claim

Martial provides a blatant example of allegiance shifting and renunciation. Under Domitian he refers to Domitian's palace as more splendid than the pyramids (8.36.1) but after the emperor's death it was considered as an extravagance of an arrogant king. ( 1 2.1 5.4-5)

3.3. "nontamen pigebit vel incondita ac rudi voce memoriam prioris servitutis ac testimonium praesentium bonorum composuisse."

42.4. See p. 67 for quotation. that their Stoicism was central to their demise cannot be substantiated, though it is true that they adhered to some aspects of Stoicism which supported their Republican ideals. Using Cato the Younger as a model of political wisdom, they regarded fieedom of speech as central to the res publics? These men stood for the libertas and dignitas of the Senatorial order and on these grounds they opposed the Principate? Consequently, members of the Stoic opposition, with their vision of the state in direct contrast to the reality of Imperial autocracy, were construed as traitors by the Emperors. Under more autocratic Emperors such as Nero and Domitian, they were forced into direct opposition with the Imperial government. Tacitus criticized their policy of futile resistance, placing it in direct contrast to the values exemplified in the character of Agricola, but with great tact, not naming any member of the resistance.

Tacitus in the introduction of the Agricola refers to four members of the Stoic opposition by name, Arulenus Rusticus and Herennius Senecio, who wrote biographies, the former of Thrasea Paetus, the latter of Helvidius Priscus. Thrasea Paetus was executed by Nero, Helvidius Priscus by Vespasian, and Arulenus Rusticus and Herennius Senecio by Domitian. The members of this group were not only tied by a philosophical and moral stance, they were also a small tightly knit homogeneous group linked by origins in northern Italy and familial ties: Written in biographical treatises,

------a B. Jones, p. 122

Syme, p. 10.

" Dudley p. 58-59. their lives followed a common pattern: opposition to the Emperor, followed by defiance which resulted in persecution and in the end an edifying death with memorable last words.= These men were martyrs who impressed with courage and fortitude, in direct opposition to Agricola who impressed with moderation. They were not however presented as firtile critics by Tacitus, but rather as martyrs who symbolize the loss of fieedom and tolerance in the state particularly when a tyrant is in control.

While attacking political action, Tacitus also made a case for inaction. In the year when Arulenus Rusticus was tribune and he attempted to protect Thraesea Paetus with the use of his veto, he baulked authority at the cost of his life, whereas Agricola was inactive "for he understood the age of Nero, in which inactivity was paramount to ~isdorn."~Tacitus astutely used these opponents of the principate to dramatize the loss of Senatorial freedom, associating himself with their cause, while he namelessly criticized their futile action which he contrasts with the successfid actions of Agricola. The Stoic opposition provide another tool by which Tacitus underpinned his belief that the senatorial class must follow a middle course, while pointing out an important problem with the Imperial system, that autocracy could lead to tyranny and repression of freedom.

a Ibid., pp. 58 ff.

6.3. "gnarus sub Nerone temporum ... quibus inertia pro sapientia hit."

84 At the same time however, Tacitus also praises the new Imperial regime of Nerva and Trajan, which he portrays as a model of enlightened monarchy. He refers to the dawning of this new age as a time of happiness and public sec~rity.~The ideal for Tacitus was principatus in conjunction with libertas. Pliny also wrote similarly about the new regime, stating that its commencement was "the first days of restored freedom."" Later in the chapter in which he praised the new regime of Nerva and Trajan, Tacitus also denigrates Domitian and his government." In an age of freedom, Tacitus offered his contemporaries a record of their past sufferings, and what Rome will regain with the new government. A biography praising the glory of a Roman aristocrat might not have been tolerated under Domitian, even if it lacked personal attacks on the Emperor. Tacitus waited until after the death of Domitian in 96 AD to produce the work praising his father-in- Iaw, who died in 93 AD. His delay may have been prompted by fear, which he no longer felt under the new Emperors Nerva and Trajan. OveraIl, it is his considered view that the Senatorial class had an obligation to work for the benefit of the state, following the middle course between servility and excessive displays of power. Meanwhile, the Emperors also had to follow a similar course of action by maintaining absolute control of the state while ensuring that the Senate retained its prestige, the two primary policies of Augustus in his settlement.

- - 3, I. "filicitastemporum"; "securitas publica"

Pliny. Lerfers, 9.13,4. "primis quidem diebus redditae libertatis."

" 3. 3.

85 Tacitus writes that with his death, Agricola was spared the sight of Domitian's last days when he ravaged the Senatorial class, but, he was also prevented fiom experiencing one good fortune which he had prophesised, the blessed age to come with Trajan as Princeps? A novus homo from the western provinces, Trajan had been a general under Domitian, and like Agricola he rose in the ranks through ob~equium.~Trajan was of similar background, and lived in similar circumstances to Agricola. In the work, Trajan would accordingly have seen his life both mirrored and glorified with the portrayal of Agricola. Tacitus both praises and offers a political philosophy to the new Imperial government.

In all probability Tacitus embraced this new regime. The death of Domitian promised an end to the bloodshed of which Tacitus writes with such great emotion, and it raised the possibility of a stronger role for the Senate in government or at least a less blatant show of Imperial authority by the new Emperor. As he states of the action of the work, it is the "...recording of the bondage we once suffered and in acknowledging the blessings we now enjoy."" On a more personal level Tacitus was also praising the new order to secure for himself a favourable position within its structure. Overall after the death of Domitian, Tacitus in the Agricoh welcomed the new regime. As well, he used the work as a medium to

- ---

91 44, 5. a Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus, p. 14.

3, 3. "memoriam prioris servitutis ac testimonium praesentium bonorum composuisse."

86 bolster his position with the new dynasty by both writing a bitter attack upon the old Emperor, and flattering the new.

Many scholars, prominent among them Furneawt, Syme and Dorey, have argued that the Agricola went Merthan being merely a political treatise. They argue that the work goes beyond the advocacy of a political philosophy and the advancing of Tacitus' political aspirations and that the work was an apologia which hctioned to exonerate the behaviour of Agricola, and by inference Tacitus, while they rose to success under Domitian." The work is thus seen as a response to or a means of preventing criticism. The argument rests on two tenuous assumptions. Firstly, under Nerva and Trajan 'moderates' remained the targets of retributive attack. Secondly, Tacitus recognizes that he was or could be a target of such an attack and consequently distorts the facts in the Agricola to present a more favorable representation of Agricola and a Less favorable picture of his peers. There is little evidence however, to substantiate that Tacitus wrote the biography as a defence.

With the description of Domitian and the suggested poisoning of Agricola, Tacitus distorts the position of Agricola within Domitian's court. In the introduction Tacitus writes that "all the most energetic have fallen victim to the cruelty of the emperor."' He seems to manipulate the facts in order to present a favourable picture of Agricola in contrast to Domitian.

------Dorey. Tacitus, p. 4; Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus, p. 14; Furneax, p. 8.

* 3.2. "promptissirnusquisque saevitia principis interciderunt."

87 As has been shown, Domitian was presented as the stock tyrant, a jealous and suspicious ruler who feared great men as exemplified by Agricola. In the closing chapters on Agricola's life, the nature of Domitian is made explicit, in a way that emphasizes Agricola as a victim of the regime rather than one who enjoyed favour. As Dorey and other Tacitean scholars point out, many of the recorded actions of Domitian, if they are factual, might have been motivated out of concern for a loyal servant rather than malice against a possible threat.* Further, the quiet retirement of Agricola is not so strange, when you consider he ended a long military career with an unprecedented seven year proconsulship and was given triumphal ornaments, the highest honour in the state that he could have acquired. Finally, the execution of Civica, which was described as a warning for Agricola, was more likely carried out because of the former's complicity in the Saturninus revolt? Tac itus can manipulate these events in order to change the image of Agricola, but he cannot pretend that his own public career suffered under Domitian. Tacitus gives his own interpretation of events, that Agricola rose and then fell because of his great ability and the jealousy it incited in Domitian. The question then arises: were these distortions an attempt at defending Tacitus' actions or merely a means of conveying a political philosophy and flattering the new regime?

Ogilvie and Richmond believe that the career of Agricola as set out by Tacitus is accurate, for it is substantiated by archaeology. As a result, they

-- -- " See eg. Dorey, Tacitus, pp. 6 &

Ibid., p. 7. conclude that the work presents within the contemporary conventions of rhetorical elements, an accurate interpretation of the events of Agricola's life. The distortions are viewed in this interpretation as part of the literary form rather than part of a defense or political parn~hlet.~The conventions of the laudatory biography, as was discussed in the first chapter, required Tacitus to select what he viewed as the best qualities of Agricola and overlook anything incriminating that would not fit the character profile that he was creating. These scholars ask an essential question of the evidence that had previously been ignored: did the death of Domitian result in serious criticism for moderates who had held This raises an important point: if there were no attacks during the reign of Nerva on moderates who acquiesced under the regime of Domitian, such an apologia would be unnecessary.

The ancient sources only speak of attacks, after Domitian's death, on delatores or informers, those ambitious men who had attacked fellow members of the Senatorial class in order to advance themselves. Syme, using comments by Dio and Pliny, argues that the death of Domitian was followed by a strong reaction. Exiles were full of revengeful feelings against the tools of tyranny under which they suffered. Pliny, who held office under Domitian, sought fame by accusing an accuser,lal and

* Ogilvie and Richmond, p. 19.

'Ibid.,p. 17. lmDio Cassius, 68, t ,2

10' Pliny. Letters. 9.1 3 2 claims that he himself was almost a victim. Nerva had to restrain the desire for retributionu" and even protected some informers such as Veiento.le The vast majority of the Senate, however, were not delatores. As Tacitus mentions in his Histories, most of his contemporaries in the Senate had all been 'slaves' together, indicating that the majority of the Senate played a similar role as servants of the Emperor.lU The administration of the Empire was undertaken by men like Tacitus, who yielded to the authority of the Emperor knowing full well the negative consequences of independent behaviour. Those who went against the system were small in number and were swiftly punished, and an individual Senator could do little except protect himself by avoiding confkontation with the Emperor. The evidence cited above, then, shows that most senators acquiesced in the authority of Domitian and that after his death these members only wanted to attack the deiatores or informers, those who had actively assisted the deceased Emperor in his purges of the Senate.

Another argument put forth by Syme, that men might remember silence under Domitian as passive support, is also quite improbable. Syme states that Agricola served with four legions in Britain and might have set up the standard of revolt like Antoninus Satumin~s,~while Tacitus himself acquired a praetorship, a priesthood, a provincial governorship and a

I" Dio Cassius, 68. 1,3

ImPliny. Letters, 4.22,4

Tacitus, Histories, 4. 8,s.

Irn Suetonius, Domitian, 6 consulate, and he had served as a Senator during the last and 'worst' years of Domitian's reign. Tacitus and Agricola, however, were not alone. The vast majority of the aristocracy acquiesced, and there is no evidence that the success of an individual under a ruler deemed tyrannical by members of the Senatorial class resulted in accusations of complicity. Ne~awas a member of Domitian's amici and he protected informers like Veiento who were part of the deceased Emperor's small circle of advisors. Further, he must have protected other Loyal servants to the state who would continue to fill administrative posts. The hypocrisy of an attack on some of these moderates by others along with the Emperor would have been quite obvious. Further, the Imperial government required this type of man to govern the Empire. After years of bloodshed, Nerva chose a policy of moderation, for he knew both how he had acquired power and how it could be taken away. Consequently, Tacitus and other moderates had little to fear fi-om the Emperor Nerva.

There are some indicators in the work that Tacitus was attempting to defend himself through laying the guilt of his passivity upon the entire Senatorial class. Tacitus at the beginning and end of the work reminds his audience of their own culpability under the reign of Domitian. When making reference to the atrocities committed by Domitian, he gives the response not of himself alone, but of the senate and himself. He states in the opening, " [Wle have indeed set up a record of subservience,... we have plumbed the depths of slavery etc."la He also describes the mental scars

la 2.3. "dedimus pro fecto grande patientiae documenturn";"ita nos quid in servitute." inflicted by fifteen years of silence in contrast to the new age of freedom under Nerva and Trajan.ln In this scathing indictment of Domitian, Tacitus points out that the majority of the Senatorial class were forced to acquiesce in order to survive. Finally, in the closing chapters of the work he Wher implies that even with moderation, no person with rank was totally safe when the state was ruled by a tyrant.1a Using inclusive language and presenting in stark reality the Senate's role in the reign of Domitian, Tacitus may here be attempting to divert some guilt from Agricola and himself to his whole class.

His discussion of Domitian's reign of terror is couched in such strong and passionate terms that it seems more likely that Tacitus wrote in an attempt to relieve personal anxiety over his passive role and the detrimental result this had on his peers: "...but before long we senators Led Helvidius to prison, watched in shame the sufferings of Mauricus and Rusticus, and stained ourselves with Senecio's innocent b10od."~ All showed subservience, all were forced into such a position during the autocratic reign of Domitian. Tacitus writes of the passive role of himself and his peers as a means of diverting blame or more likely as a means of cleansing his mind of personal guilt. Strictly speaking, the work is not an apologia, for there is no indication of persecution or any evidence for a

45, I. "mox nostrae duxere Helvidiurn in carcerem manus; nos Maurici Rusticique visus (adflixit,) nos imocenti sanguine Senecio perfudit." strong reaction against members of the senate who acquiesced, although there may have been, as the sources suggest, attempts to punish more infamous delatores.

Believing the work to be neither a political pamphlet nor a personal apologia, Ogilvie and Richmond state, "p]t ( the Agricola) may have been pregnant with lessons for Tacitus' contemporaries: this is in~idental."~1@ Further, they conclude that the ancient belief in static character, rather than a conscious manipulation of fact by Tacitus for a specific political meaning, resulted in distortions which were developed in order to make the work plausible to his contemporaries. While this intellectual framework certainly played a large role in the form of the work, particularly in the manner in which individuals are portrayed, Tacitus belonged to a political class whose members wrote with a political purpose. Tacitus was a political realist who, like his peers, strove to increase his own status and thereby further the reputation of his family through service to the state, an activity of paramount moral significance to all within the Roman aristocracy. In his biography of his father-in-law, Tacitus unashamedly flatters the new regime of Nerva and Trajan, while at the same time he strongly indicts the government of Domitian, the emperor who had fostered his own successfbl political career. But also, in the presentation of both Agricola and Domitian Tacitus provides a political philosophy, that of the via media, the road to a success£hl though unequal partnership between the Emperor and the senatorial class. To refer to his

"oOgilvieand Richmond, p. 19. writing as simply a product of an intellectual £kamework, and to the political lessons it contains as incidental, is to underrate the genius of Tacitus, the artist who utilizes contemporary concepts concerning character to his own purpose in order to convey notions about himself, his class and the world around him, as well as to provide a means of aggrandizing himself and his family. One simply has to compare the content and methodology of Tacitus with that of his near contemporary Suetonius to see that the circumstances and beliefs of a particular artist determine the purpose of the work and make each literary creation unique. Overall, it may be concluded that Tacitus consciously arranged and developed the biographical form, which contained the use of rhetorical stock characters, to present his own ideas and agenda. CONCLUSION

Overall, Tacitus' biographical treatise, de Vita Iulii Agricolae, as has been presented in this thesis, is an invaluable source document in the study of the social and political history of the Roman aristocracy of the late fust Century AD. Tacitus lived in an age preceded by great political change, with power no longer focused among the Senatorial class, but rather in the person of a single individual, the Princeps. Over the first Century, The Augustan settlement, with its facade of Senatorial authority, had slowly eroded and at the same time, as a consequence of Imperial policy, the old aristocracy was destroyed and new men filled government posts. Tacitus was one of these new men and his writing provides an insight in the beliefs and aspirations of his class.

The Agricola is a eulogistic biography, elogium, an established but dynamic literary form in Roman Literature. Tacitus, a talented and complex writer, utilizes the intellectual tools that were available to him, namely rhetoric and its product the stock character, to present an idealized portrayal of Agricola. He selectively takes the real events of Agricola's life, those which surely were documented and were in the memories of fellow members of the senatorial class and interprets these in a manner favourable to the characterization of Agricola. Domitian, on the other hand, is presented as a tyrant, a common literary figure whose actions are motivated by fear and jealousy. In comparison to Domitian, Agricola's greatness is hrther enhanced, and his death is made a greater tragedy, as he is presented as the victim of a tyrant. The conclusion of the work presents the primary purpose of Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law: to glorify Agricola so that he would gain immortality through the memory of hture generations. Tacitus succeeds in this task not only through his ski11 as a writer, but also with the fortunate survival of the work.

The choice of subject matter utilized in his character portrayals, of both Agricola and Domitian, overtly expresses Tacitus' beliefs concerning Roman politics and the role of both the administrator and the Emperor within the Imperial system, the political reality of his age. The actions of Agricola deemed praiseworthy, his military and administrative successes, are presented as a product of his virtus. Tacitus is surely presenting a code of conduct for members of his class, the vast majority of whom avoided death or exile by following a similar course to that presented in the Agricola. Tacitus also uses the introduction and conclusion of the work to convey a more personal political message. Through strong and often emotional language he attacks the old regime of Domitian, while he praises the new regime of Nerva, which offered the hope of a restoration of some of the prestige lost by the Senatorial class.

While some scholars have argued that the work was a defense of Tacitus against his critics, since he himself, as did Agricola, succeeded under Domitian, there is little evidence to support such a claim. The characterization of Domitian must be viewed simply as a means of showing Tacitus' support of the new regime, as well as providing a foiI for the character of Agricola. Others have argued that the political messages conveyed within the Agricola are incidental being part of the literary genre

96 and the intellectual framework within which Tacitus functioned. Such a view, however, has little merit, for a cursory study of the AgricoZu in comparison with the Twelve Caesars of Tacitus' near contemporary Suetonius, shows how two authorst personal interests and beliefs affect the content of their respective literary creations. Therfore, underlying the central biographical theme in the Agricola, Tacitus presents his keen interest in the politics of the Imperial system, a theme which would be central to his later works, the Annales and the Histories.

Consequently, the Agricola of Tacitus provides an exemplary portrait of a Roman aristocrat during the Principate. The work not only presents, in a coherent fashion, an ideological solution to the problem of the Principate within the context of the elite Roman value system, but is also a political pamphlet utilized by Tacitus to show his support of the new regime of Nerva and Trajan. Tacitus was a member of the Roman aristocracy, for whom political activity was essential and who defined themselves in terms of their public service. This being said, one aspect of the work which cannot be overlooked is that it is also a heartfelt eulogy of an individual whom Tacitus clearly admired as a great Roman hero. BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Latin texts

Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae. Henry Fumeaux Intro. Cornm. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 898.

Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricola. Ed H. Fumeaux, Rev. J.G.C. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922.

Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae. R. M. Ogilvie and Sir Ian Richmond Eds. , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

Scriptorum Chssicorurn Bibliotheca Chconiensis. Ed. H. Fumeaux, Oxford: C larendon Press, 1 898.

In translation

The Complete Works of Tacitus: The Annals, The History, l%e Life of Cnaeus Julius Agricola, Germany and its Tribes, A Dialogue on Oratory. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, Trans.; Moses Hadas, Eds. New York: The Modem Library, 1942.

Loeb Classical Library, London: William Heineman, 1900.

Roman Civilization: Select Reading vol. 1 & 2. Lewis, Naphtali and Reinhold, Meyer Eds. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.

Tacitus - The Agricola and the Germania. H. Mattingly intro. trans., S. A. S. A. Handford, rev., London: Penguin Books, 1970. SECONDARY SOURCES

Studies of Tacitus' works and other Latin Literature

Bernario, Herbert W. An Introduction to Tacitus. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1975.

Clarke, M. L. Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey London: Cohen and West, 1953.

Cousin, J. "Histoire et Rhetorique dam LIAgricola."in Revue des Etudes Lathes, vol. 14 (1936) pp. 326-336.

Cox, Patricia. Bioeraph in Late Antiquity: A Ouest for the Holy Man. California: University of California Press, Ltd. 1983.

Daitz, Stephen G. "Tacitus'Technique of Character Portrayal." American Journal of Philology vol. 8 1. (1960) pp.30-52.

Dorey, T. A. Ed. Tacitus. New York: Basic Books, 1969.

----- . Ed. Latin Biography. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.

Dudley, Donald R. The World of Tacitus. London: Secker and Warburg, 1968.

Dunkle, J. R. "The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography: Sallust, Livy and Tacitus" in ClassicaiWorld Vol. 65.1. (1971) pp. 12 - 20.

Goodyear, F. R D. "Tacitus" in Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics, No. 4, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Gossage, A. J. "Plutarch" in Tacitus. Dorey Ed. New York: Basic Books, 1969. Hubner. "Zu Tacitus Agricola." in Hermes, vol. 1 (1866) pp. 439-448

Jenkinson, Edna. "Nepos - An Introduction to Latin Biography" in Tacitus. Dorey Ed. New York: Basic Books, 1969.

Kennedy, G. A. A New Histow of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Laistner, M. L. W. The Greater Roman Historians. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963.

McQueen, E. I. "Quintus Curtius Rufus" in Tacitus. Dorey Ed. New York: Basic Books, 1969.

Mendell, Clarence W. Tacitus: The Man and his work. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.

Mellor, Ronald. Tacitus. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, 1993.

Richmond, I A. "Gnaeus Julius Agricola" in Journal of Roman Studies. vol. 34 (1944) pp. 34 - 45.

Stuart, Duane Reed. Epochs of Greek and Roman Bioara~hy.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1928.

Syme, Sir Ronald. Tacitus Vol. I and Vol. 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958.

-----. Ten Studies in Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Townsend, G. B. "Suetonius and his influence" in Tacitus. Dorey Ed. New York: Basic Books, 1969.

Von Fritz, Kurt. "Tacitus, Agricola, Domitian, and the Problem of the Principate" in Classical Philology, vol. 52 (1 957): pp. 73 - 97. Walker, B. The Annals of Tacitus: A Study in the Writing ofHistow. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1952.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1983.

Waters, K. H. "The Character of Agricola" in Phoenix vol. 1 8 ( 1964): pp. 49 - 77.

Political and Social History at Rome

Adcock, F. E. Roman Political Ideas and Practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1964.

Africa, Thomas W. Rome of the Caesars. New York: John Wiley and Sons 1965.

Bauman, R. A. Im~ietasin Princi~em:A Study of Treason Against the Roman Em~erorwith Special Reference to the First Century AD. Munich: Beck, 1974.

Campbell, J. B. The Emberor and the Roman Army. 3 1 BC - AD 235. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Carcopino, Jerome. Dailv Life in Ancient Rome. London: Penguin Books, 1941.

Crook, John. Consilium Principis: Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian. Cambridge: Cambridge Universityr Press, 1955.

-----.Law and Life of Rome. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957,

Earl, Donald. The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome. London: Thames and Hudson, 1967. Gelzer, Matthias. The Roman Nobilitv. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969.

Grant, Michael. History of Rome. London: Faber and Faber, 1978.

Hopkins, Keith. Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Jerome, Thomas S. Aspects in the Studv of Roman History. New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1923.

Jones, A. H. M. Augustus. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970.

Jones, Brian W. The Em~erorDomitian. London: Routledge, 1992.

Lattimore, Richard. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962.

Levick, Barbara. "Politics of the Early Principate." in Roman Political Life, 90 BC - AD 69. T. P. Wiseman Ed. Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1985

Luttwak, E. N. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire - From the First Century AD to the Third. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1976.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason. Unrest. and Alienation in the Em~ire.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Millar, F- & Segal, S. Eds. Caesar Augustus. Seven Aspects. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Paterson, Jeremy. "Politics in the Late Republic." in Roman Political Life, 90 BC - AD 69. T. P. Wiseman Ed. Exeter: University of Exeter, 1985.

Rich, John. "Patronage and International Relations in the Roman Republic. " in Patronage in Ancient Society3 Wallace-Hadrill Ed. London: Routledge, 1989. Salier, R. P. Personal Patronage Under the Earlv Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

-----. "Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction" in Patronage in Ancient Societv, Wallace-Hadrill Ed. London: Routledge, 1 989.

Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Syme, Sir Ronald. The Roman Revolution. Odord: Clarendon Press, 1939.

Toynbee, J. M. C. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London: Thames and Hudson, 197 1.

Wells, Colin. The Roman Empire. Glasgow: Fontana Paperbacks, 1984.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. Patronage in Ancient Society. London: Routledge, 1989.

Wiseman, T. P. Eds. Roman Political Life. 90 BC - AD 69. Exeter: University of Exeter, 1985.

Roman Britain

Birley, Anthony. Life in Roman Britain. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. 1964.

Braund, David. Ruling Roman Britain: Kings. Oueens. Governors and Emperors fiom Julius Caesar to Agticola. London: Routledge, 1996.

Breeze, David I. and Dobson, Brian Hadrian's Wall. London: Penguin Books, 1976. Bum, A. R. Amicola and Roman Britain. London: The English Universities Press, 1967.

Collingwood, R. G. Roman Britain. London: Oxford University Press, 1923.

Dickinson, B. & Hartley B. "Roman Military Activity in First-Century Britain: The Evidence of Tacitus and Archaeology." in Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar, vol8. (1995) pp. 241 - 255.

Frere, Sheppard. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain. 3 Ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987.

Ireland, S. Roman Britain, A Sourcebook. London: Croom Helm, 1986.

Liverside, Joan. Britain in the Roman Em~ire.New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968.

Maxwell, Gordon. A Battle Lost: Romans and Caledonians at Mons Graupius. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990.

Millet, Martin. The Romanization of Britain: An essay in Archaeoloaical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Scullard, H. H. Roman Britain: Outpost of the Em~ire.London: Tharnes and Hudson, 1979. APPENDIX A

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SELECT ROMAN EMPERORS

The following list provides the regnal dates for the emperors cited in the text,

Augustus 27 B.C. - 14 A.D.

Tiberius 14 AD. - 37 A.D.

Gaius (CaIigula) 37 A.D. - 41 A.D.

Claudius 41 A.D. - 54 A,D.

Nero 54 A.D. - 68 A.D.

Galba 69 A.D.

Otho 69 A.D.

VitelIius 69 A.D.

Vespasian 69 A.D. - 79 A.D.

Titus 79 A.D. - 8 1 A.D.

Domitian 8 1 A.D. - 96 A.D.

Nerva 96 A.D. - 98 A.D.

Trajan 98 A.D. - 1 17 A.D. APPENDIX B

TEE LIFE OF TACITUS

56 or 57 A.D. Birth of Tacitus, the son of a Roman knight, probably in a nual town of Gallia Narbonensis

77 Married daughter of Agricola

81 or 82 Held office of quaestor, or financial official

88 Held office as a praetor, or judicial official

Held a consulship at Rome, the highest magistracy of the government

98 Completed the Agricola and Germania

112- 113 Served as governor of the province of Asia

Before 115 Completed his two major historical works, first the Histories and then the Annals

It is not known when Tacitus completed his only other known literary work, the Dialogue on Oratory nor is the date of his death recorded. APPENDIX C

A LISTING OF TIIE OFFICES ECELD BY AGRICOLA

6 1 A.D. Military Tribune in Britain

64 Quaestor in Asia

66 Tribune of the Plebs in Rome

68 Praetor in Rome

71 - 73/74 Legate of the Twentieth Legion (Valeria Victrix) in Britain

74 - 77 Praetorian Legate (governor) in Aquitania

77 or 78 Consul in Rome

78 - 84 Praetorian Legate (governor) in Britain

This is a short listing based on the information provided by Tacitus in his biographical treatise on Agricola. APPENDIX D

A CHRONOLOGY OF POLITICAL EVENTS IN LATE REPUBLIC AND EARLY EMPIRE

60 B.C. "First triumvirate" of Pompey, Crassus, Caesar

59 First consulship of Julius Caesar

58-51 Caesar's Gallic War

53 Defeat and death of Crassus at Cmhae

49 - 45 Civil War

48 Defeat and murder of Pornpey

44 Perpetual dictatorship and assassination of Caesar

43 Second Triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus; Octavian consul; murder of Cicero

Defeat and Deaths of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi

Octavian eliminates Sextus Pompeius and Lepidus

Octavian and Agrippa defeat Antony and Cleopatra at Actium

Fall of Alexandria; suicides of Antony and Cleopatra

Octavian assumes name Augustus and receives fiom the Senate a package of powers making him ruler of the Roman Empire 23 Augustus given tribu~cianpower

19 Augustus imperium made valid in Rome

16- 9 Annexation to the Danube and Elbe

6-9 A. D. Revolts in Pannonia and Illyricurn

9 Anninius defeats 3 legions and kills commander, Varus, at Teutoberg forest

19 Death of Gemanicus

3 1 Execution of Sejanus

63 - 66 Settlement with Parthia over control of Armenia

65 Pisonian Conspiracy

66-70 First Jewish Revolt

68-69 The Long Year or Year of the Four Emperors, Civil war

89 Revolt of Saturninus in Upper Germany

106 Annexation of Dacia

1 13 - 1 1 7 Trajan's Eastern Campaigns

This is a general list of major political events that had occurred in all areas except Britain. For a comprehensive chronology of the conquest of Britain, see Appendix F. APPENDIX E

A CHRONOLOGY OF THE ROMAN CONQUEST OF BRITAIN

55 - 54 BC Two expeditions of Julius Caesar to Britain

43 A.D. Claudian invasion with four legions under Aulus Plautius Campaigns in the west (Legio II Augusta under Vespasian), in the Midlands (XXValeria Victrix and XIV Gemina) and in the east (TX Hispana)

47 Osterius Scapula, governor, draws a fiontier fkom Trent to Severn

49-50 Foundation of Colonia Victicensis at Carnulodunum Mendip lead mines already in Roman hands Legionary fortresses at Glevum and Lindum Invasion of south Wales

5 1 Caratacus, finally defeated in North Wales, flees to Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes, and is surrendered to the Romans c. 55 Didius Gallus, governor, intervenes on the side of Cartimandua in Brigantian civil war

61 Suetonius Paulinus, governor, attacks Anglesey Icenian revolt under Boudicca suppressed after sack of Carnulodunum, Londinium and Vemlamium

66 One legion (XIV Gemina) withdrawn from Britain

68 Army in Britain refises to join the governor, Trebellius Maximus, in revolt against Galba Romans fail to prevent the defection of the Brigantes

Petilius Cerealis, governor, with a new legion (II Adiutrix) conquers the Brigantes Legionary fortress at Eburacum

Sextius Julius Frontinus, governor, subdues Wales and plants garrison there Legionary fortresses at Isca and Deva

Cn. Julius Agricola, governor, completes the conquest of North Wales and plants garrisons there

Consolidation of Brigantian conquest

Agricola advances to the Forth-Clyde line

Agricola advances north and defeats the Caledonians at the battle of Mons Graupius. Roman fleet circumnavigates Britain. Legionary fortress at Inchtuthil.

Agricola recalled by Domitian

One legion (I1 Adiutrix) withdrawn from Britain

Legionary fortress at Inchtuthil evacuated

Foundation of Lindum Colonia at Lincoln

Foundation of Colonia Nervia Glevensis at Gloucester

Legionary Fortress at Isca and many auxiliary forts in Wales rebuilt in stone

Legionary fortress at Deva rebuilt in stone 107 - 108 Legionary fortress at at Eburacum rebuilt in stone c. 117 Revolt in north Britain

I22 Hadrian visits Britain Legio IX Hispana replaced by VI Victrix. Construction of Hadtian's Wall from Tyne to Solway begun by Aulus Platorius Nepos

139 - 142 Q. Lollius Urbicus, governor under Antoninus Pius, advances into Scotland and builds the Antonine Wall across the Clyde-Forth isthmus