Primary Source Critique Tacitus: \"Life of Cnaeus

Primary Source Critique

Tacitus: "Life of Cnaeus Julius Agricola"

Unlike our own period of time, the ancient Romans experienced very little angst about the prospect of colonizing a geographically and ethnically distinct people for the enrichment of their own country. As is evident in Tacitus' "Life of Cnaeus Julius Agricola," the British resistance to Roman colonization is viewed as evidence of the British people's barbarity, not praiseworthy British fortitude against foreign domination. However, the Roman Tacitus also used the example of Britain not simply to praise his father-in-law Cnaeus Julius Agricola, but also to praise what he considered the true Roman values of freedom, austerity and military valor, in contrast to licentiousness and laziness, which he felt, was characteristic of contemporary Roman morality. This primary source text thus is less a fair portrayal of Britain of the era as it is an introduction to what Romans of Tacitus' class considered important -- the former Republican glory, colonization and military fortification, and familial honor.

Interestingly enough, at the beginning of Chapter 3 of this "Life," Tacitus proudly valorizes Roman freedom. He sees no evident contradiction between using that freedom to subjugate other peoples for Roman enrichment. He looks back with fondness at the heady days of the Roman Republic in his salutation to the reader in his first two chapters, noting that he shall not regret that he has told, though in language unskillful and unadorned, the story of Roman past servitude to tyranny, that has now resulted in Rome's present happiness, glory, and relative liberty. To his credit as an historian, Tacitus does admit his bias that the life he relates was written with the intention of doing honor to Agricola, his father-in-law, as an expression of filial regard.

Agricola's early service, as well as his kind and moderate temperament towards his soldiers while serving in Britain merits praise from his son-in-law over the course of Chapter 4 and 5. Yet, even while stressing the glory of Roman freedom, the Roman historian notes the savageness and barbarity of the Britain's efforts to ensure their own freedom. Tacitus portrays a contrast -- in comparison to Agricola's moderation, Britain's populace was always excited in a state of revolt. They had, even at this early date, massacred some of the veteran, Roman occupying society. This experience, notes Tacitus, spurred Agricola to pursue military valor, even after Britain had been subdued. Why valor in Roman hearts in military action is praiseworthy and not amongst the British is not answered.

Later, in Chapter 8, after speaking of Nero's excesses and the difficulties his father-in-law had experienced financially in the city of Rome, Tacitus again lambastes the British people who were undergoing if not worse oppression at the hands of colonizing Romans. He notes that Britain was then under Vettius Bolanus, and criticizes this leader for governing more mildly than he should have given the turbulent, that is, revolting nature of the British province. The harsher Petilius Cerialis who succeeded Agricola is given greater praise, for subduing Britain and giving Agricola's warlike merits more room for display, Cerialis often put Agricola in command of part of the army. Agricola is called moderate and obedient to his commanders through this process of suppression, although clearly both Tacitus and Agricola prefer the stronger-armed tactics towards Britain, in comparison to Bolanus, Cerialis' immediate predecessor.

Agricola's ferocity is called worthy of Britain, not because of his affection for the province in Chapter 9, but because of his warlike resolve and temperament. This is needed against such fierce barbarians -- even the women are fierce, notes Tacitus. And even when Tacitus attempts a detached chronicle of Britain, such as when he narrates British geography in Chapter 10, he reports to stressing the turbulent nature of the waters. British defense of British freedom is always seen as recalcitrant, even geographically recalcitrant, never as an example of British glory.

In Chapter 11, Tacitus even refers to the British barbarians as of uncertain origin, as if disputing their claim to their own land and territory. He notes that their religious ideology may be traced to what he calls the strongly marked British superstition, rather than real faith. However, lest the yolk of Rome seem to onerous to the reader, Tacitus quickly notes, in the first sentence of Chapter 13 that the Britons bore Roman conscription, taxes, and the other burdens cheerfully. This is because Julius Caesar, struck terror into the hearts of the inhabitants, stresses Tacitus, somewhat contradictorily. The Roman civil wars resulted in a long neglect of Britain that fostered British ire and military regrouping against the Roman forces.

Tacitus thus blames not a British desire for freedom, but Roman civil strife as the reason for the bloody, later revolts in the colony. In Chapter 15 Tacitus stresses once again that "relieved from apprehension by the legate's absence, the Britons dwelt much among themselves on the miseries of subjection, compared their wrongs, and exaggerated them in the discussion." But despite this Roman-centric view of Britain, Tacitus does not provide a completely Roman-centric view of British life. In Chapter 29, he actually takes on the supposed voice of Galagcus, who speaks against tyranny, as did Tacitus at the beginning of the text.