Introduction
The Agricola, written by the Roman historian Tacitus around 98 AD, is one of our most important sources for understanding the early history of Roman Britain. This biographical work, which focuses on the life and career of Tacitus‘ father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola, provides a detailed account of the Roman conquest and administration of Britain in the late 1st century AD. However, as valuable as the Agricola is, modern historians have come to recognize the need for caution when using it as a historical source. In this article, we will explore the complexities of the Agricola from a historian‘s perspective, examining its strengths and limitations, its literary and political dimensions, and its relationship to other forms of evidence.
Tacitus and the Agricola
To properly contextualize the Agricola, we must first understand a bit about its author and the nature of his work. Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian who wrote during the reigns of the emperors Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan. He is best known for his Histories and Annals, which cover the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus to the end of Domitian‘s reign. The Agricola, written early in Tacitus‘ career, is a somewhat different work. It is a biography of Tacitus‘ father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola, who served as governor of Britain from 77 to 84 AD. However, it is also a work of literature and political commentary, shaped by the conventions of ancient historical writing and Tacitus‘ own rhetorical aims.
One of the key things to understand about ancient historical writing is that it was not a neutral, objective enterprise in the modern sense. Ancient historians like Tacitus were not primarily concerned with providing a comprehensive, unbiased record of events. Rather, they used history as a vehicle for moral instruction, political argument, and literary artistry. They frequently employed rhetorical devices such as invented speeches, selective emphasis, and dramatic embellishment to shape their narratives and convey their messages.
In the case of the Agricola, Tacitus had several overlapping motives. On one level, the work was a tribute to his respected father-in-law, who had recently died. By praising Agricola‘s virtues and accomplishments, Tacitus was fulfilling a social and familial duty. However, Tacitus also used the Agricola to advance a political agenda. As a senator, Tacitus was deeply committed to traditional Roman values and saw in Agricola a model of old-fashioned virtue and service. At the same time, Tacitus was critical of the imperial system, particularly the tyrannical rule of Emperor Domitian. By contrasting Agricola‘s nobility with Domitian‘s vices, Tacitus could make a veiled critique of imperial despotism.
Agricola and Archaeology
Given the literary and political dimensions of the Agricola, historians must approach its factual claims with a degree of skepticism. One important way to test Tacitus‘ account is to compare it with archaeological evidence. Over the past century, extensive excavations and surveys have revealed a wealth of information about Roman Britain, including the remains of forts, towns, roads, and other infrastructure.
In some cases, the archaeological record aligns well with Tacitus‘ narrative. For example, the broad outlines of Agricola‘s military campaigns, which extended Roman control into what is now Scotland, are supported by the distribution of Roman forts and artifacts from this period. The Agricola describes Agricola leading expeditions into Caledonia (modern Scotland) and engaging in diplomacy and conflict with the local tribes. The material evidence suggests a significant Roman presence in Scotland during the late 1st century AD, with forts and temporary camps stretching as far north as Aberdeenshire.
However, there are also notable discrepancies between Tacitus‘ account and the archaeological record. For instance, Tacitus describes Agricola subduing "unknown tribes" in the far north of Britain, implying that these regions were being contacted by the Romans for the first time. Yet archaeological evidence indicates that the Romans had already established forts and permanent garrisons in many of these areas prior to Agricola‘s arrival as governor in 77 AD. Sites such as Carlisle and Elginhaugh have yielded clear evidence of pre-Agricolan occupation.
Even more problematic is Tacitus‘ account of Agricola‘s climactic victory over the Caledonians at the Battle of Mons Graupius. Tacitus provides a vivid description of the battle, including the dispositions of the Roman and Caledonian forces, the stirring speech of the Caledonian leader Calgacus, and the crushing Roman victory. However, despite extensive searching, archaeologists have not been able to conclusively identify a battlefield site that matches Tacitus‘ account. There are no clear traces of a major engagement in the regions where the battle is thought to have taken place, and no Roman camps or fortifications of the appropriate size and date.
This lack of archaeological confirmation raises questions about the accuracy of Tacitus‘ account. It is possible that the Battle of Mons Graupius was a much smaller-scale affair than Tacitus suggests, or that it did not happen at all. Alternatively, the battle may have taken place in a different location or manner than Tacitus describes. Some historians have suggested that Tacitus may have exaggerated or embellished the battle for literary and political effect, using it as a set-piece to showcase Agricola‘s military prowess and Roman superiority.
The Speeches in the Agricola
Another aspect of the Agricola that requires critical scrutiny is Tacitus‘ use of invented speeches. Like many ancient historians, Tacitus frequently puts elaborate orations into the mouths of his characters, using them to express key themes and arguments. The most famous example in the Agricola is the speech of the Caledonian leader Calgacus before the Battle of Mons Graupius. In this speech, Calgacus denounces Roman imperialism and tyranny, praises the freedom and virtue of the Britons, and urges his men to fight bravely.
While stirring, the speech is almost certainly a Tacitean invention rather than a verbatim record. It is highly unlikely that Tacitus had access to reliable reports of what a Caledonian leader said before a battle, let alone that such a leader would express himself in polished Latin rhetoric. Rather, the speech of Calgacus is best understood as a literary device that allowed Tacitus to voice his own criticisms of Roman imperialism and his admiration for barbarian freedom and simplicity.
In fact, many of the sentiments expressed by Calgacus echo Tacitus‘ own views as articulated elsewhere in his writings. The speech thus serves as a commentary on Roman politics and morality, using the Caledonian chieftain as a mouthpiece. While this technique was an accepted convention in ancient historiography, it is important for modern readers to recognize it as a rhetorical construct rather than a factual report.
The Influence of the Agricola
Despite its limitations as a straightforward historical source, the Agricola has had an enormous influence on perceptions of Roman Britain and ancient Scotland. Tacitus‘ vivid descriptions and memorable speeches have captured the imagination of readers for centuries, shaping popular images of noble savages, rapacious imperialists, and clashing cultures.
In the medieval and early modern periods, the Agricola was one of the few surviving sources on early Scottish history, and it played a key role in the development of Scottish national identity. The figure of Calgacus, in particular, was celebrated as a heroic ancestor and freedom fighter, with his anti-Roman sentiments resonating in later struggles against English domination. In the 19th century, Scottish nationalists frequently invoked Calgacus and the Caledonians as symbols of resistance and independence.
The Agricola has also had a significant impact on later historiography and archaeology. For many years, Tacitus‘ account was treated as a reliable guide to the events of the Roman conquest, and archaeologists sought to match their discoveries to his narrative. The identification of Roman forts and camps was often influenced by attempts to trace the route of Agricola‘s campaigns as described by Tacitus.
More recently, however, historians and archaeologists have taken a more critical approach to the Agricola, recognizing the need to corroborate and question its claims. Advances in archaeological methods and theoretical approaches have allowed for a more nuanced understanding of Roman Britain that goes beyond Tacitus‘ rhetoric. Nonetheless, the Agricola remains an essential source, providing a valuable window into Roman perceptions and preoccupations, if not always a straightforward record of events.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Agricola of Tacitus is a fascinating but challenging source for the study of Roman Britain. As a work of literature and political commentary, it offers valuable insights into the mentalité of a Roman aristocrat and the currents of imperial politics. However, as a work of history, it requires careful and critical handling. Its factual claims must be tested against archaeological evidence and other sources, and its literary and rhetorical dimensions must be acknowledged.
For modern historians, the Agricola serves as a case study in the complexities of using ancient texts for historical reconstruction. It demonstrates the need for interdisciplinary approaches that combine literary analysis, archaeological investigation, and theoretical reflection. By situating the Agricola within its literary, political, and material contexts, we can arrive at a richer and more nuanced understanding of both the text and the history it purports to record.
At the same time, the Agricola‘s enduring influence reminds us of the power of historical narratives to shape collective memory and identity. Even if some of its details are questionable, Tacitus‘ account has had a profound impact on how later generations have imagined and interpreted the Roman past. As historians, we must grapple not only with what the Agricola says about the past, but also with what it reveals about the ongoing dialogue between past and present.
References
- Birley, A. R. (1996). "Agricola." In Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 39-40. Oxford University Press.
- Breeze, D. J. (2006). Roman Scotland: Frontier Country. Batsford.
- Clarke, K. (2001). "An Island Nation: Re-Reading Tacitus‘ ‘Agricola‘." Journal of Roman Studies 91: 94-112.
- Hanson, W. S. (1987). Agricola and the Conquest of the North. Batsford.
- Ogilvie, R. M., and I. A. Richmond, eds. (1967). Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae. Clarendon Press.
- Rutherford, R. (2010). "Voices of Resistance." In Ancient Historiography and Its Contexts: Studies in Honour of A. J. Woodman, edited by C. S. Kraus, J. Marincola, and C. Pelling, 312-30. Oxford University Press.
- Wolfson, S. (2008). "Tacitus, Thule and Caledonia: The Achievements of Agricola‘s Navy in Their True Perspective." Britannia 39: 281-88.
