When good people serve wicked ends (on Tacitus's Agricola)

To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace.--Galgacus (as reported by Tacitus).

It is, indeed, human nature to hate the man whom you have injured [Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris].--Tacitus

One of the great oddities of The Agricola (or De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae, that is, On the life and character of Julius Agricola) is that the greatest speech is not given by its dutiful hero, the successful conqueror of Britain, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, the father-in-law of the author, Tacitus, but by the noble born and courageous [virtute et genere praestans] British independence fighter, Galgacus ahead of the great battle (won by Agricola). His speech is an indictment not just of Roman tyranny -- and Tacitus's Agricola is one long argument against the tyrant Domitian --, but of the very idea of empire. In three extended paragraphs, Galgacus is allowed to set forth Caledonian freedom and courage against the slavery, taxation, and vengefulness* that Romans impose on conquered nations. In reading and re-reading the speech, I would not be surprised to learn if one of the screen-writers of Mel Gibson's Braveheart put a fine classical education to good use.

Agricola's contrasting speech has a stirring effect on his troops; but it is a bit anti-climactic. It mentions, of course, Rome's divinely sanctioned greatness, the honor and glory of victory, but it focuses on his men's fortitude, effort, patience, and the doing of one's duty. This despite the fact that at the start of the Agricola, Tacitus makes a point of insisting that Rome is an empire of "servitude," [servitute] lacking even in free speech. In the end the Romans win their victory with relatively little loss of life against their more numerous opponents. History is no theodicy. 

The remainder of Tacitus's narrative is about the dangers facing a successful and popular general under a jealous tyrant. While Tacitus insinuates that Agricola may have been poisoned, we learn that Agricola has developed survival skills that emphasize not the heroism of conscience as taught by the (presumably Stoic?) philosophers -- as exemplified by Agricola's philosophical father, who we are told at the start of the book was executed because he refused, following the example of Socrates, to obey an evil order -- , but the prudence of a good soldier who understands, instructed by philosophy's focus on "reason and experience," and, thus, the road of moderation,  his own political situation all too well. By the book's framing, Tacitus's reader is made to reflect on the awkwardness of good, dutiful men, who do not fear death, serving bad men, perhaps, serving bad ends because the alternative is certain death.** 

*The main blemish from a modern perspective in Galgacus's speech is his sexism.

**To be continued tomorrow.

Comments

[Enzo Rossi]

I just thought Tacitus was using Galcacus to slip in the standard, Stoic-tinted aristocratic dislike of the gluttonous Empire as corruption of the noble Republic (read: reduction of the senatorial class' power). The Stoic thing to do for Agricola might've been precisely to commit suicide; so in serving the tyrant Agricola gains glory but renounces his Stoic freedom, and the senatorial propaganda narrative is nicely wrapped up.

[Eric Schliesser]

Enzo, I think Tacitus is being more subtle and complicated (or cowardly) than your suggestion. For, as he makes clear in the text (at the start and end), he also does not act on the Stoic thing to do. He lived through the (very bad) periods he is describing, after all. But I don't see clear evidence he thought suicide was the right way to go. Rather, he seems to be saying, 'keep your head down and hope for better times' and serve where you can (or something to that effect).