Tacitus and Virgil

Both the Agricola and the Aeneid at some level are meditations on what it means to be Roman. Virgil and Tacitus led very different lives: Tacitus, the soldier, senator, Imperial official and functionary. Virgil the rural man of letters, a poet who came to prominence and the attention of the emperor Augustus. But both were men of letters who thought deeply about Romanitas: its origin, nature, and meaning. In other words, Agricola (and to a certain extent Germania), like parts of the Aeneid is an exploration of Roman identity.

As with Virgil, duty and pietas, rather than heroism or individual charisma, define a true Roman. Tacitus describes his father in law as a man who practiced moderation in all things - hardly sounds like Achilles, or Hector. A man who "knew how to obey and had learned to combine expedience with propriety" (7) and who practiced modesty and humility; who combined virtue and morality even in the exercise of power over others: ". . . he was serious and attentive, strict but often merciful. When he had completed his official duties, he no longer wore the mask of power" (8). Most remarkable, Agricola  eschewed the sort of quotidian corruption that was part of daily administration in even the distant reaches of the empire, the ancient equivalent of the no-bid contract. He even reformed the administration of the province and made it run more efficiently. For Tacitus, the age of gods and heroes is past, and he is searching for a way to be a good man even in the age of "bad emperors," when Rome has willingly given up its former "freedom" for "stability" in the years after nearly continual civil wars. Agricola, ever duty bound, disclaimed any suspicion even on his deathbed that the emperor Domitian was responsible for his death, the suggestions of Tacitus and others notwithstanding (31).

"Those whose habit is to admire what is forbidden ought to know that there can be great men under bad emperors, and that duty and discretion, if coupled with energy and a career of action, will bring a man to no less glorious summits than are attained by perilous paths and ostenatious deaths that do not benefit the Commonwealth" (31).

Comments

[Nikki]

From the standpoint of an audience member, Aeneas and Agricola are heroes that are true to life. The average Roman man of this time could easily relate to and feel able to achieve status like the kind Aeneas and Agricola acquire- be obediant and dutiful. Following the rules and living in "moderation" is not a giant leap for the average man. This is easily and realistically attainable.
This is not the same type of character seen in Homer's Greek epics. Achilles and Hector put forth an exuberant amount of energy and force to uphold their name, disobeying anyone that comes in their way (Menelaus comes to my mind instantly).
So I wonder, a different hero for a different time? For men like Aeneas and Agricola the JOURNEY to becoming a strong-willed hero is very important, maybe even more so than the hero himself. The "coming of age" or the path taken to achieve greatness is the positive message being related by Virgil and Tacitus. -Just a thought-

[Libby]

I agree with Nikki’s comment that the point of writing about Aeneas and Agricola are the journeys they take. I remember reading in the Germania, I think, about how the men would always give their glories of battle to the one in charge and how it seemed as though Tacitus admired this about them. He probably related this to his own people and how dutiful a Roman was to his emperor, like his father-in-law. I think this goes right along with Aeneas and our conversations in the classroom about how we have to remind ourselves that, though he may not seem to be the strongest character, Aeneas’ duty and piety are what ultimately make him a strong character. It is not really fair to Aeneas to compare him to Achilles and Hector because Vigil and Homer were doing different things with these characters. It makes more sense to compare Aeneas to Agricola because they seem to be the epitome of what it means to be truly Roman.

[lynda]

Agricola lived and died in an Epic fashion Vergil could have used to demonstrate pietas and clementia, the Augustan ideals Quint writes about in Epic and Empire. Tacitus's story of Agricola displays the best of what it is to be Roman, a victor who is able to forget revenge. These are attributes Quint applies to what Virgil believed could have led Rome to prosper through a sustained peace. But Agricola was not the cloth from what Virgil made Aeneas. Our budding Augustan Aeneas gives in to revenge, a repitition where Aeneas regresses into the past. He does not master it. Per Quint, the last six chapters of the Iliad are replayed in the Aeneid, "yet with a difference"--Aeneas is able to turn the loss of Troy into the establishment of the new Troy of Rome. But without clementia, Aeneas is not the Augustan hero in the Virgilian sense that Quint posits. After this battle, Aeneas is dead within a few years and will not be reborn because he was unable to forget the past. At the end of Book 12, Aeneas was given the chance to forget the past by sparing the life of Turnus, but the sight of Pallas's belt on Turnus condemned Aeneas to repeat the history of revenge killing. I agree with Quint, that Virgil allowed the quasi-hero Aeneas to make this regressive move as his commentary on the perpetual Roman civil wars.

[Erica]

I agree with Nikki and Libby that the journey Virgil’s Aeneas, and Tacitus’ life of Agricola embark on are of a different nature than the heroes in Homer’s Illiad. The idea of the hero is being altered and redefined to speak more truly to the average man. Both Virgil and Tacitus are aiming to establish the idea of dutiful and filial love for community and country by deeds that are beneficial to the whole community, and not merely for one’s own personal gain and glory. Tacitus, on page 29, describes Agricola’s life after retirement saying that Agricola’s “style of life was modest, he was courteous in conversation, with only one or two companions in public. As a result, most people, who always measure great men by their display, when they saw or met Agricola, asked why he was famous.” This quote reveals a shift in the notion of what it means to be a great Roman citizen, and also shows how Romans first responded to Agricola’s modesty. They were used to the heroes like Achilles, Menaleus, and Agamemnon whose great deeds were all for personal glory, and the preservation of their name through the ages. Tacitus presents a different approach to duty through Agricola in hopes of creating a new sense of community through modesty and humility.

[Karen]

I'm struck when reading Agricola & Beowulf by the similarities between the behavior of each hero in relation to their superiors. In Agricola we read: "He attributed his success, as a subordinate should, to his general, who had made the plans. Thus his quality of obedience and his modesty in reporting his achievements ruled out any jealousy but did not rule out some glory" (7). In Beowulf it said, "Beowulf bestowed four bay steeds to go with the armour, swift gallopers, all alike. So ought a kindsman act, instead of plotting and planning in secret to bring people to grief, or conspiring to arrange the death of comrades. The warrior king was uncle to Beowulf and honoured by his nephew: each was concerned for the other's good" (147). Modesty, bravery, and duty to their culture & superiors appear to be key components for both of these heroes. Aeneas too is dutiful, though as we've already said in class, he seems to lack direction until after he travels to the underworld and fully understands the importance of traveling to Italy to found a new Troy. But one main difference between Aeneas and the other two heroes is that he will be king sooner rather than later. So his need to be diplomatic lacks the same necessity that Agricola and Beowulf would have for it. Aeneas will be the boss, even though he only rules for 3 years. Agricola will never be emperor, and Beowulf has to respect his uncle as elder and higher born even though Hygelac awarded him his own kingdom, as a reward for his bravery and aid to the Shieldings. And it's not until after Hygelac's death that the wide kingdom reverts to Beowulf. So I do think that there's a different requirement for duty and modesty demonstrated in the different stories. I would say that none of these heroes may fit the Greek model of a hero, but I don't think it makes them any less heroic because cultures define heroic behavior according to their own values. And it seems clear to me that the cultures who produced these stories definitely defined all of these figures as heroes.