“It is true indeed that noble character is best appreciated in those ages in which it can most readily develop. But today, when I set out to recount the life of one no longer with us, I had to beg an indulgence that I would not have sought for an invective: so savage and hostile to virtue are our times.” 

This passage from the opening chapter of “Agricola” may be a reference to Tacitus having requested permission from Domitian to write about Agricola and being denied. Whether or not this is true, the sentiment Tacitus expresses here speaks to his belief that tyranny eroded morality under Domitian’s reign. According to Tacitus, the emperor was jealous of others’ success and hostile to hearing them praised, making it easier to abuse great men than honor them.

“No doubt they believed that by that fire the voice of the Roman people, the freedom of the Senate and the moral consciousness of the human race were wiped out; even teachers of philosophy and all honorable studies were banished, so that nothing decent might be encountered anywhere. We have indeed left an impressive example of subservience. Just as the Rome of old explored the limits of freedom, so have we plumbed the depths of slavery, robbed by informers even of the interchange of speech. We would have lost our memories as well as our tongues had it been as easy to forget as to be silent.” 

Here, Tacitus discusses the depths to which Roman morality has sunk during Domitian’s tyrannous reign. The “Rome of old” most likely alludes to the republic, ostensibly a time of greater freedom for Roman citizens, which Tacitus contrasts with the current empire, which not only engages in expansion abroad but seeks to colonize the inner consciousness of its citizens. The “fire” that would wipe out the Senate’s freedom and humanity’s moral consciousness—meaning the burning of the eulogies written for Paetus Thrasea and Priscus Helvidius—represents the destruction of freedom, especially freedom of memory and thought. Tacitus’s form of resistance is to preserve memory by writing history. 

“Now at long last our spirit revives. In the first dawn of this blessed age, Nerva Caesar harmonized the old discord of autocracy and freedom; day by day Nerva Trajan is enhancing the happiness of the times; and the public security, ceasing to be merely something hoped and prayed for, is as solid and certain as a prayer fulfilled. Yet human nature is so weak that the cure lags behind the disease. As our bodies, which grow so slowly, perish in a flash, so too the mind and its interests can be more easily crushed than brought again to life.”

The mention of Nerva Caesar and his adopted son, Nerva Trajan, dates “Agricola” to between late 97 and January 98. Tacitus is meditating on how the bad habits learned under tyranny linger even after the immediate threat is removed. In addition to being a veiled critique of Domitian’s reign and, ironically, somewhat obsequious flattery of the new regime, this passage speaks to the corrosive effects of empire, whose negative effects outlive the emperor who cultivated that negativity. What is lost is not easily recovered.  

“It was only natural that such a fine and upright soul should be attracted strongly, if not too wisely, by the fair ideal of fame in its higher and nobler aspects. In time, the discretion that grows with age restrained him; he came away from philosophy with its hardest lesson learned—a sense of proportion.” 

In this section, Tacitus discusses Agricola’s youth: the education he received and values he cultivated, the most challenging one being “a sense of proportion” (56). Throughout his ensuing discussion of Agricola’s achievements, it becomes clear that Tacitus values his father-in-law’s moderation and prudence, and his ability to act morally even within an immoral regime without drawing unnecessary attention to himself. By showing that Agricola developed this sense of proportion over time, Tacitus emphasizes that it is a learned skill. Thus, Agricola’s story can function as a road map and he as a role model.

“He succeeded where few succeed: he lost no authority by his affability, but no affection by his sternness. To mention incorruptibility and self-restraint of a man of his calibre would be to insult his virtues. Although the desire for fame is often a secret weakness even of the good, Agricola never courted it by advertisement of intrigue. Scorning all rivalry with his colleagues, all bickering with the procurators, he deemed it no triumph to override others, but ignominious to be overborne himself.” 

This passage exemplifies Tacitus’s literary approach to telling Agricola’s story. He uses amplification to praise Agricola, layering clauses that employ totalizing language (“never courted,” “all rivalry,” “all bickering,” “no triumph”). Tacitus also juxtaposes Agricola’s character against the character of men who have been influenced by the climate the emperor created. While others may bicker, compete, and seek external fame and reward, Agricola focuses only on the task at hand, undistracted by the corrosive temptations that the empire offers.

“Had he not, on his very first entrance to the province, a time usually devoted to pageantry and ceremonial visits, deliberately chosen a difficult and dangerous enterprise? Yet Agricola did not let success tickle his vanity. He had kept in check a conquered people; he would not call that a campaign of conquest. He did not even use laurel-wreathed dispatches to announce his achievement. But his very refusal to acknowledge his fame increased it: what hope he must have for the future when he could afford to ignore such great deeds as these!” 

Here, Tacitus discusses Agricola’s actions upon assuming the governorship of Britannia. He arrived during the latter half of summer, a time when Roman troops did not undertake new campaigns but instead rested. A new governor might be expected to herald his arrival with celebrations of honor in his name. However, Agricola, being focused on service rather than glory, assessed the current threat from the Ordovices (a Britanni tribe in what is now Wales) and acted accordingly. Stationing himself at the front line, Agricola “marched his men into the hills” and “slaughtered almost the entire nation” (64). He continued to subdue native tribes, never, according to Tacitus, seeking praise for his accomplishments or allowing success to bloat his ego. That Tacitus expresses admiration for Agricola’s military successes demonstrates Tacitus’s approval of Roman expansion abroad.

“And so they strayed into the enticements of vice—porticoes, baths and sumptuous banquets. In their innocence they called this ‘civilization,’ when in fact it was a part of their enslavement.” 

After Agricola subdues the Britanni, he rooted out abuses that other governors had neglected to address, which gave them “reason to love and honour peace” (66). To further entice them to cooperate, Agricola introduced “salutary” elements of Roman culture: “temples, public squares and proper houses,” liberal arts education and Roman national dress, and, as indicated in the above passage, “porticoes, baths and sumptuous banquets” (66). Interestingly, Tacitus calls these “vices,” perhaps because they use pleasure to distract the native tribes from seeking their freedom (66). In this sense, Tacitus also draws an implicit parallel between how empire conquers foreign tribes and how it conquers its own people: by appealing to pleasure over duty.

“Agricola had welcomed an Hibernian prince, who had been driven from home by rebellion; nominally a friend, he might be used as a pawn in the game.” 

This event takes place during Agricola’s fourth year and is striking because it portrays Agricola as devious. Agricola’s deviousness is presented as strategically clever, essentially a virtue, demonstrating that Tacitus does not necessarily object to using manipulation to subdue foreign people in the name of the Roman empire.

“Robbery, butchery, rapine, these the liars call ‘empire’: they create desolation and call it peace. […] Britannia daily buys her own enslavement, daily feeds her enslavers.” 

This passage is an excerpt from the speech of Calgacus, a leader of a Britanni tribe that resisted Roman rule. Presented as a speech in the English translation, it is believed to be Tacitus’s own composition. Its significance lies in its presenting Britanni grievances against the Roman Empire with force, essentially legitimizing these grievances. This is consistent with Tacitus’s disapproval of abuse, whether at home or abroad. In Tacitus’s view, Roman expansion is acceptable, perhaps even necessary, but there are right and wrong ways to pursue expansion. Tacitus does not seem to object to manipulation and enticements, but disproportionate brutality is neither correct nor productive, since it inspires conquered people to revolt.  

“There was nothing Domitian feared so much as to have the name of a subject raised above that of a prince. In vain had he silenced the eloquence of the courts and the distinctions of civil careers, if another man was to seize his military glory. Other talents could at a pinch be ignored, but that of a good general must belong to the emperor. Such were the worries that vexed him over and over which he brooded [on] in secret until he was tired—a sure sign in him of deadly purpose.” 

Following Agricola’s victory in Britannia in his seventh year of service, Domitian recalls him to Rome. Tacitus is remarking on how Domitian received the news and on his jealousy of successful generals in his service. He could not bear to have military leaders outshine him, and Tacitus blames this moral deficit of the emperor’s both for the degradation of Roman citizenry and for Agricola never again receiving a military post.

“Often during this period Agricola was denounced to Domitian behind his back, and as often behind his back acquitted. His danger did not arise from any charge against him or any complaint by an injured party, but from an emperor hostile to merit, his own renown and that deadliest type of enemy, the singers of his praises.” 

Tacitus here refers to the period after Agricola’s return from Britannia to Rome. Typical of Domitian’s reign as portrayed by Tacitus, rumors and gossip were common occurrences. Because Agricola was unwilling to draw attention to his success, some underestimated him. Others envied him. Still others supported and admired him. This too was common among prominent men in Rome. The only true threat to Agricola was Domitian’s envy of anyone who achieved success and admiration, which could be stoked as much by Agricola’s defenders (if unwittingly) as by his rivals. 

“It is a distinctive feature of human nature to hate those whom you have harmed, and Domitian was especially prone to plunge into a fury that was all the more inexorable the more he kept it hidden. Yet even he was appeased by the restraint and good sense of Agricola, who declined to court, by a defiant and futile parade of freedom, the fame that must mean his fall. Let it be clear to those inclined to admire unlawful acts that even under bad emperors men can be great, and that a sense of duty and discretion, if backed by ability and energy, can reach that peak of honour that many have stormed by precipitous paths, winning fame, without serving country, through an ostentatious death.” 

This passage highlights the moderation and duty to service that drove Agricola. He acted according to his own internal moral compass, untouched by the vagaries of the emperor in power. In this way, he becomes a model for Tacitus on how to be a good man while serving a bad emperor. In the final sentence of this passage, Tacitus may be referring to the executions of men who openly resisted the regime. Their resistance can be read, in Tacitus’s terms, as ostentatious and attention-seeking while ultimately failing to serve the people of Rome. Moderation and a sense of proportion are Agricola’s greatest virtues, and they manage even to placate, to some extent, an emperor determined to hate Agricola.

“You were fortunate indeed, Agricola, in your glorious life, but no less so in your timely death. Those who were present at your final words attest that you met your death with a cheerful courage, as though doing your best to absolve the emperor of guilt.” 

In the final chapters of “Agricola,” Tacitus shifts to address his praise directly to Agricola. As a rhetorical technique, it is typically used to appeal to the listener or reader. Here, Tacitus uses it to invoke Agricola’s presence. Though he has died, Agricola remains alive in the memories of those who knew him, and his memory will continue to be preserved in ages to come through Tacitus’s memorial.

“Nero at least averted his gaze; he did not inspect the crimes he ordered. It was distinctive to our torments under Domitian that we both watched and were watched: he noted down our every sigh and kept score as each of us turned pale, relying himself on that scowling ruddy visage with which he shielded himself from shame.” 

One way that Domitian penetrated citizens’ consciousness, according to Tacitus, was by monitoring their responses to events, ostensibly to determine who was and was not loyal to him. This is part of what instilled the anxiety and fear that Tacitus claims as a defining feature of Domitian’s reign. Nero too was known as a tyrannical emperor prone to excess but, in Tacitus’s portrayal, not to the same extent as Domitian, who was determined to penetrate his citizens’ thoughts and memories.