Language and Style in Tacitus’ “Agricola” by Janet P. Bews, Greece & Rome, 2nd Ser., Vol. 34, No. 2 (Oct., 1987), pp. 201-211, is another JSTOR article (limited access) discussing Tacitus and his Agricola.
Or: Was Agricola a colorless person? <grin>
In her assessment of Agricola, Janet Bews writes that Ronald Syme, (Tacitus I. Oxford 1958, p.125), concluded that the work is
… a document of Roman political literature, a manifesto for the Emperor Trajan and the new imperial aristocracy.
She sets that against F.R.D. Goodyear's narrow assessment (The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, Cambridge 1982), including the statement that
… Tacitus probably found little else worth relating about Agricola except the governorship, and hence made the most of it. In thus concentrating on military and administrative achievements, he followed a hallowed Republican tradition.... A Roman aristocrat should possess and display virtus, above all in warfare: to this pattern Agricola conformed. Thus one old-fashioned attitude underlies a work somewhat novel in conception.
Bews introduces her own position with this:
Goodyear's views have been given at some length, since they illustrate well the way in which a literary work can be under-valued when it is approached from too narrow a focus. Even granted that he must write briefly, Goodyear gives no sense of the interplay between past and present which establishes the context of the work, the positive Vespasianic theme evinced in constructive energy and activity, and frustrated by the repression of Domitian, Tacitus’ assessment of the role of the senate during this period, his evaluative material on Roman imperial policy, as well as the musings on the life presented which make the Agricola a deeply personal work. Nor does he give any sense of Tacitus’ careful attention to form.
In any discussion of Tacitus’ writing, whether the specific work is the Agricola, the Histories, or the Annals, content cannot be divorced from language and style. How Tacitus expresses an idea, an historical fact, or an interpretation of his material is as important as the actual detail presented. The two inform one another, and, in turn, affect our assessment of the material. Hence the fascination of a detailed study of a Tacitean text.
She carefully and in clear language analyzes the work with these ideas in mind and comes to a positive assessment. She concludes her essay with this:
This schematic pattern tells us something about Tacitus’ view of Agricola, which takes us rather farther than Goodyear's comments suggest, and it may possibly raise a larger question. Agricola was a man capable of deep commitment. This quality of the man should not be dismissed as simply conventional and it is certainly not unrevealing. The stylistic basis for this judgement is too consistent. The sphere where that sense of commitment could find sufficient scope was Britain. All the strongly coloured verbal language used of Agricola appears in the context of Britain. In a sense, Tacitus anticipates himself stylistically when he uses the series of historic infinitives in chapter 5.1. But the young officer is credited with qualities he will display more clearly as governor. Tacitus might have noted that Agricola’s governorship was unusually long. To this extent his skills were recognized. But Tacitus did not mention it. If we set aside the negative picture of Domitian who fears and hates a potential rival in military skill, the fact remains, it would appear, that the Roman administrative system was one that, in Tacitus’ view, could waste talent when talent was available. Given the evidence he presents, that charge is very difficult to refute. The answer in Agricola’s case might, in different circumstances, have been a further extension of his term of office, or an appointment to another command, given his versatility. Waste, so to speak, can also be part of official policy. We should not forget Tacitus’ comment on Britain in his list of disasters (Histories 1.2), perdomita Britannia et statim omissa, Britain was completely conquered and immediately abandoned. It is an overstatement, to be sure, but it is also a bitter reflection on the official evaluation of his father-in-law’s achievement.
See also: the politics of latin literature
