Agricola
Let us return to the question posed in the title. It is important to remember that people of the past, whether real or fictional, were not bound by our notions of good and bad but obeyed moral norms of their time. In this light, the question is only worth asking if we make an effort to answer it from the perspective of Tacitus’ contemporaries. This mean s, among other things, setting aside compassion for Britons and approaching the speeches at Mons Graupius as they likely appeared to their original readers: a veiled ethical debate rather than a dialogue of real historical figures. What comes to light, then, is a general and statesman who, through remarkable strength of character and self-restraint, ascended to one of the highest political offices while covering himself in glory. Although he did not speak against bad emperors, he also never stooped to sycophancy. However controversial Agricola may look to the modern reader, he was certainly far more appealing to his contemporaries. The text is still a eulogy, albeit a complex one, and there is no doubt that Tacitus admired Agricola deeply and expected his audience to share in this sentiment.
References
Lavan, M. (2011) ‘Tacitus’ Agricola ’, The Classical Quarterly 61.1: 294-305 Liebeshuetz, W. (1966) ‘The Theme of Liberty in the Agricola of Tacitus’ , The Classical Quarterly 16.1: 126-139
McGing, B. C. (1982) ‘Synkrisis in Tacitus’ Agricola .’ Hermathena 132: 15-25 Percival, J. (1980) ‘Tacitus and the Principate’ , Greece & Rome 27. 2: 119-133 Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. Agricola. (Trans. H. Mattingly. London, 1970) Woodhead, A.G. (1948) ‘Tacitus and Agricola’, Phoenix 2.2: 45-55
259
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting