Tacitus’ Dual Criticism of Roman Imperialism and Briton Disorder in Calgacus’ Speech, Chapters 30-32 in Agricola
I. Introduction:
Before the battle of Mons Graupius in Caledonia, Tacitus presents two pre-battle speeches, the first from the Briton leader Calgacus, the second from the Roman governor-general of Brittania, Agricola. Many scholars have pointed out that ancient historians presenting dramatic speeches is not unusual; says Janet Bews, “The speeches of Calgacus and Agricola before the battle of Mons Graupius owe something to Livy’s speeches of Scipio and Hannibal before the battle of Ticinum” (Bews, “Language and Style in Tacitus’ Agricola,” 205). Also, these scholars have pointed out the fictive nature of these speeches, especially Calgacus’: Ronald Martin notes, “It is unlikely that Calgacus delivered a formal pre-battle harangue, and if he did, it was certainly not couched in neat, Tacitean Latin” (Martin, Tacitus, 43). Moses Hades mentions that “Ancient historians are always more artists than scientists…. Such a fictive speech as the British chieftain is made to deliver in the Agricola…almost certainly sets forth the grounds for native opposition much better than any native could set them forth” (Hadas, “Introduction,” xvii). Most scholars point out the Roman characteristics of Calgacus’ speech: Ogilvie and Richmond state,
The speech is a declamatio, a rhetorical exercise. …Tacitus does not attempt to give arguments which Calgacus might actually have used, although he does convey something of a barbarian’s boastfulness… but contents himself with the traditional Roman criticisms of imperialism such as were voiced in the schools. …The attack on avaritia… and the contrast between freedom and slavery are typically Roman attitudes. Above all, the examples drawn from the position of slaves in a household… presupposes Roman society.
(Ogilvie and Richmond, “Commentary,” 253-54)
In giving Calgacus’ speech with Roman diction and rhetoric, Tacitus Romanizes Calgacus such that “[i]f virtus is a particularly Roman virtue, the Caledonians also possess it. Hence they are worthy opponents” (Bews, 206). Thus, Calgacus’ speech has the weight of a Roman rhetorician talking about Rome: “[the speech] has a real fire and vigour. Not only does it make an impassioned call to liberty, but it contains a savage indictment of Roman imperialism” (Martin, 43).
But Tacitus does not make Calgacus’ speech unconditionally laudable. As Bews points out, if “Calgacus’ speech is somewhat longer and more highly-coloured than Agricola’s… Agricola’s is in the stronger position since it comes last” (Bews, 202). Calgacus’ speech becomes a foil for Agricola; says Martin, “by portraying Agricola’s enemy as a determined and worthy opponent, he shows Agricola’s own virtus to greater effect” (Martin, 44). States Ronald Syme, “Tacitus is hostile to tyranny – yet not always a champion of its enemies and its victims” (Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus, 136). Although most scholars see this two-fold criticism of Roman tyranny and of “its enemies and its victims” by comparing the speeches of Calgacus and Agricola, one can see this dual criticism within Calgacus’ speech alone. As Calgacus criticizes Rome, using Roman rhetoric and diction which serves as Tacitus’ own explicit criticism, the tortured, discordant syntax of Calgacus’ words serves as Tacitus’ implicit criticism of Calgacus – and thus the Britons – as being a discordant, disorganized barbarian people.
II. Agricola 30
Calgacus’ speech begins with attention to the Britons’ present troubles and their newfound consensum which he proposes will be a solution to their oppression.
Quotiens causas belli et necessitatem nostram intueor, magnus mihi animus est hodiernum diem consensumque vestrum initium libertatis toti Britanniae fore:
How often I consider the causes of wars and our necessity, I have confidence that this day and your consensus will be the beginning of the liberty to all of Britain:
Calgacus stresses “consensus” and “all of Britain” because even though he himself is a Caledonian, i.e., a Scotsman, he is speaking for all peoples of Britain, literally, with one sense. His word initium shows that such a consensus is unprecedented up to this point.
Nam et universi coistis et servitutis expertes, et nullae ultra terrae ac ne mare quidem securem inminente nobis classe Romana. Ita proelium atque arma, quae fortibus honesta, eadem etiam ignavis tutissima sunt.
for also all you came together and having no part in slavery, and there are no lands beyond and no sea even secure for us from the imminent Roman fleet. Thus there are battle and arms, in which honorable things are for the strong, the same safest places even are for cowards.(2)
He shows what kind of consensus this is: it is the consensus of unRomanized Britons, hemmed in by the Roman fleet such that natural barriers – terrae ac mare – are not reliable. They must rely on man-made barriers, proelium atque arma. But the onus of reliability of these man-made barriers depends on the quality of man; Calgacus’ syntax for fortibus flows, but his syntax for ignavis is split by etiam, as if he does not want to mention that there are any cowards in the present group.
Priores pugnae, quibus adversus Romanos varia fortuna certatum est, spem ac subsidium in nostris manibus habebant, quia nobilissimi totius Britanniae eoque in ipsis penetralibus siti nec ulla servientium litora aspicientes, oculos quoque a contactu dominationis inviolatos habebamus.
Prior battles, in which against the Romans with various fortune it was contended, was having hope and help in our hands, because we are the noblest of the whole of Britain and in that in the very inner chambers of the site and no beholders of slaves from any shore, we were holding our eyes unviolated from contact of domination. (3)
In this personification of prior battles, Calgacus stresses the past and the present. In the past, the Britons had varia fortuna with Romanos because they were not as nobilissimi as the present Britons because their “eyes” are “unviolated” from the “contact of domination.” But the Latin syntax shows that this reason is not so – contactu dominationis separate oculos and inviolatos, and each end of this phrase syntactically touch the words oculus and inviolatos, such that the Britons’ eyes have been indeed violated, which is why Calgacus is able to mention servientium with knowledge.
Nos terrarum ac libertatis extremos recessus ipse ac sinus famae in hunc diem defendit: nunc terminus Britanniae patet, atque omne ignotum pro magnifico est; sed nulla iam ultra gens, nihil fluctus ac saxa, et infestiores Romani, quorum superbiam frustra per obsequium ac modestiam effugias.
Us the extremes of lands and liberty the remote position itself and a fold of fame into this day defended: now the end of Britain is open, and for all an unknown thing is considered a magnificent thing; but there is no tribe now beyond, nothing except waves and rocks, and the more hostile Romans, whose pride in vain through obedience and self-control you escape. (4)
With these words, Calgacus reveals that his eyes have been violated with Roman oppression and that even in his group nobilissimi there are slaves, as seen in the word effugias, “you escape.” Also, the fact that Calgacus begins this section with Nos, and yet the means to defend Nos – recessus – has receded deep into the sentence, shows that their remote position really was no defense for “the more hostile Romans” even before he mentions the word nunc. What follows is an indictment of Roman imperialist policy and character.
Raptores orbis, postquam cuncta vastantibus defuere terrae, mare scrutantur: si locuples hostis est, avari, si pauper, ambitiosi, quos non Oriens, non Occidens satiaverit: soli omnium opes atque inopiam pari adfectu concupiscunt. Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium atque ubi solitudinum faciunt pacem appellant.
The robbers of the world, after which the rest of the lands fell short for the devastators, scrutinized the sea: if the rich is the enemy, they're greedy, if poor, ambitious, for whom not the East, not the West has satisfied: they alone of all men desire wealth and want with equal feeling. They plunder, murder, and seize empire with false names, and also wherever they make a solitude they name it peace. (5)
In contrast to the previous sections of Calgacus speech, this raptores orbis section is syntactically clear and likely the voice of Tacitus speaking out through Calgacus. Mentions Bews, “unusual [is]… his [Calgacus’] reference to the Romans as raptores orbis (30.4), ‘ravagers of the world.’ Elsewhere the word raptores appears only once in the Histories (2.86.11)” (Bews, 207). “Says Hadas, “No paragraph in Tacitus is without its pregnant epigram embodying some acute observation or comment. …[O]ne of the best known [is] solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant” (Hadas, xxi). Unlike Calgacus’ previous equivocal syntax, which casts an ironic light on what he has said, this section is univocal and elegant in its syntax in its indictment against the character of Roman imperialism, as if saying to the speaker, “If you did not understand my Latin before, you will understand at least this part.”
III. Agricola 31
From this general indictment, Calgacus moves to a list of concrete grievances against the Romans, again showing that his eyes have been violated with the specter of Roman slavery and coldness of Roman domination.
Liberos cuique ac propinquos suos natura carissimos esse voluit: hi per dilectus alibi servituri auferuntur; coniuges sororesque etiam si hostilem libidinem effugerunt, nomine amicorum atque hospitum polluuntur.
Children of each man and his own kinsman nature to be the dearest wished: these men through conscription elsewhere to be slaves are carried away; wives and sisters even if they escape the hostile lust, in the name of friends and guests are polluted.
Calgacus personalizes the grievances with concrete examples of family, as seen in liberos, hi, and coniuges sororesque, which begin each clause. Again, he stresses the unnatural evil of Roman domination – all men become slaves, all women become polluted, in contrast to natura.
Bona fortunaeque in tributum, ager atque annus in frumentum, corpora ipsa ac manus silvis ac paludibus emuniendis inter verbera et contumelias conterentur.
Goods and fortunes are consumed in tribute, land and also the yearly corn are consumed, bodies themselves and hands by making roads through woods and swamps between lashes and insults are consumed. (2)
He then moves from family to the natural and human resources which the Romans consume. This section is deep in assonance, especially the “u” sounds in fortunaeque, tributum, annus, frumentum, paludibus emundiendis, contumelias conterentur. The “u” sounds emphasize the consumption by Roman domination of the Britons and Britain, culminating in the only finite verb in this section, conterentur.
Nata servituti mancipia semel veneunt, atque ultro a dominis aluntur: Britannia servitutem suam cotidie emit, cotidie pascit.
Born to servitude, slaves once for all are sold, and also from then on by their masters they are fed: Britain daily buys and daily feeds its own slavery.
This section extends the “consumed goods” metaphor of the previous section with the balanced clauses and anaphora (e.g., cotidie emit, cotidie pascit) of Roman rhetoric. Once people become slaves under Rome, they become consumed goods, participating in the economics of slavery. Again, the knowledge of such an economy and the rhetorical techniques speak of Tacitus speaking through Calgacus, criticizing such an economy.
Ac sicut in familia recentissimus quisque servorum etiam conservis ludibrio est, sic in hoc orbis terrarum vetere famulatu novi nos et viles in excidium petimur; neque enim arva nobis aut metalla aut portus sunt, quibus exercendis reservemur.
And just as in a household the most recent one of slaves even to keep slaves is a mockery, so in this of the world of lands an old slavery we new and cheap are sought into destruction; and indeed there are no fields for us or metals or ports, for which cultivating we may be saved. (3)
This section extends the example of the Roman economics of slavery into a Roman household, which serves as a strange metaphor: Roman-enslaved lands are to old, household slaves as Britain is to new, household slaves. But what does the excidium are not these lands but Rome itself. If one were to bring this metaphor to its logical conclusion, then Rome, in the logic of the metaphor, would be included in the very lands that it enslaves, i.e., Rome enslaves itself.
Virtus porro ac ferocia subiectorum ingrata imperantibus; et longinquitas ac secretum ipsum quo tutius, eo suspectius. Ita sublata spe veniae tandem sumite animum, tam quibus salus quam quibus gloria carissima est.
Further, virtue and ferocity of subjects are unwelcome to rulers; and remoteness and seclusion itself the safer, the more suspect they are. Thus with hope of pardon having been removed take courage, as people to whom safety as to whom glory is dearest. (4)
In this section, Calgacus gives two-word phrases which suggest a kind of hendiadys: Virtus is only virtuous if it is ferocia. Longinquitas is only tutius if it is secretum. Spe is only hope if it is veniae. Salus is only safety if it is gloria. These hendiadys suggest a mentality of continual, nomadic war, which brook no other kind of interpretation, a black and white view which does not take in account the complexity of civic government.
Brigantes femina duce exurere coloniam, expugnare castra, ac nisi felicitas in socordiam vertisset, exuere iugum potuere: nos integri et indomiti et in libertatem non in paenitentiam laturi, primo statim congressu ostendamus, quos sibi Caledonia viros seposuerit.
The Brigantes with a woman leader burned up the colony, captured the fort, and if felicity into folly hadn't turned, they would have been able to set aside the yoke: let us show ourselves as intact and undominated and to liberty not to penitence to be carried, in our first assembly at once display, what men for itself Caledonia has reserved.
Calgacus here exhibits an obvious break of the consensus that he has spoken before in the beginning of his speech. In pointing out a division among the Britons – those Brigantes over there, we Caledonians over here – he (i.e., Tacitus) implies a division among the Caledonians themselves.
IV. Agricola 32
In this final chapter, Calgacus stresses the “Us versus Them” mentality which will spur his men on to fight for their own particular culture, their own particular people.
An eandem Romanis in bello virtutem quam in pace lasciviam adesse creditis? Nostris illi dissensionibus ac discordiis clari vitia hostium in gloriam exercitus sui vertunt; quem contractum ex diversissimis gentibus ut secundae res tenent, ita adversae dissolvent:
Or do you believe that for the Romans the same virtue in war is present as lasciviousness is present in peace? By our dissensions and discords those bright men turn the vices of an enemy into the glory of their own army; which collected out of the most diverse peoples as successful things hold, so adverse things will dissolve:
In this section about dissensions and discords, one sees discordant syntax. The accusative phrase eandem virtutem is separated by Romanis in bello, indicating that for Calgacus virtue is found in war. Similarly, the nominative phrase illi clari is separated and tucked within the clause Nostris illi dissensionibus ac discordiis clari, indicating that “those bright men,” i.e., the Romans, are indeed found within the dissensions and discords of the Britons.
nisi si Gallos et Germanos et (pudet dictu) Britannorum plerosque, licet dominationi alienae sanguinem commodent, diutius tamen hostes quam servos, fide et adfectu teneri putatis.
unless if that Gauls and Germans and (it is shameful to say) many of the Britons, if it be granted to foreign domination they lend their blood, longer nevertheless enemies than slaves, by faith and feeling to be held you think. (2)
The discord mentioned in the previous section bears fruit in this syntactically discordant clause, in which not only does one find discord among Britons and Romans but also among Gauls, Germans, and even fellow Britons, as Tacitus has implied in previous syntatically discordant sections. The phrase pudet dictu displays Calgacus continuing black-and-white view of the absolute evil of Rome such that he seems almost disbelieving that any Briton would become “one of them.”
Metus ac terror sunt infirma vincla caritatis; quae ubi removeris, qui timere desierint, odisse incipient. Omnia victoriae incitamenta pro nobis sunt: nullae Romanos coniuges accendunt, nulli parentes fugam exprobraturi sunt; aut nulla plerisque patria aut alia est.
Fear and terror are the feeble chains of charity; which things when you will have removed, those who have ceased to fear, begin to hate. All incentives to victory are for us: no wives kindle the Romans, no parents will reproach with escape; either there is no country for many or there is another country.
This section is syntactically clear and, not surprisingly, exhibits balanced clauses of Roman rhetoric: timere, desierint, odisse incipient; nullae…nulli; aut…aut. Such clarity of syntax indicates that Tacitus wants the reader to clearly understand these words. Fear and terror are the chains of a dominator’s charity, when once removed, the dominated will begin to hate. These are truths for any oppressed people, and they ring with the clarity of an axiom.
Paucos numero, trepidos ignorantia, caelum ipsum ac mare et silvas, ignota omnia circumspectantes, clausos quodam modo ac vinctos di vobis tradiderunt.
Few in number, agitated by ignorance, to the sky itself and the sea and the woods, with all things unknown them looking around, closed in a certain way and spellbound the gods to you passed down. (3)
In contrast, this section begins with an extended accusative with extended appositives which render the meaning vague until the clause di vobis tradiderunt. This syntactic mental exercise indicates Calgacus’ speculation of the Roman army, which seems untrue, especially since one already knows that some Britons exist in Agricola’s army.
Ne terreat vanus aspectus et auri fulgor atque argenti, quod neque tegit neque vulnerat. In ipsa hostium acie inveniemus nostras manus: adgnoscent Britanni suam causam, recordabuntur Galli priorem libertatem, tam deserent illos ceteri Germani quam nuper Usipi reliquerunt.
Do not let terrify an empty aspect and the glitter of gold and also of silver, which neither protects nor wounds. In the very army of the enemy we will discover our hands: the Britons will acknowledge their own cause, the Gauls will recall their prior liberty, as the rest of the Germans will desert them as lately the Usipii have left behind.
A bit of boasting on Calgacus’ part, he exhibits the Roman rhetorical technique of balanced phrasing, especially in series of phrases regarding the other tribes: adgnoscent Britanni, recordabuntur Galli, deserent… Germani. The verb-subject pattern shifts to subject-verb Usipi reliquerunt, which puts the stress not upon the Usipi but upon “have left behind.” In making this Usipi the last of the series, it makes the example of the Usipi stronger, just as Agricola’s speech, in being second, is stronger in argumentative position because he has the last word.
Nec quicquam ultra formidinis: vacua castella, senum coloniae, inter male parentes et iniuste imperantes aegra municipia et discordantia.
And there is nothing beyond of dread: the forts are empty, the colonies are of aged men, between subjects with evil and rulers with injustice feeble are the towns and discordant. (4)
Calgacus is talking about the Romans in this section, but without a finite verb anywhere, his own words almost become a jumble of nouns and adjectives, ending in discordantia.
Hic dux, hic exercitus: ibi tributa et metalla et ceterae serventium poenae, quas in aeternum perferre aut statim ulcisci in hoc campo est. Prionde ituri in aciem et maiores vestros et posteros cogitate.
Here is a leader and an army: there tributes and metals and all the other punishments of enslaved people, which in eternity one carries through or at once one avenges in this field it depends. Accordingly as you about to go into the battle line also think both of your ancestors and your descendents.
Tacitus renders Calgacus’ syntax clearly here, stressing the importance of his people’s actions, as seen in the position of the finite verbs – they end the sentences. This final exhortation, spoken clearly and with balanced clauses, becomes ironic in regards to how his men receive this speech, fremitu cantuque et clamoribus dissonis, “with roaring and singing and dissonant clamours” (33.1) Although Calgacus insists upon the harmony and concord of the Britons, the discordant reception of his own people betrays him.
V. Conclusion
Calgacus criticizes Rome, using Roman rhetoric and diction which serves as Tacitus’ own explicit criticism. Simultaneously, the tortured, discordant syntax of Calgacus’ words also serves as Tacitus’ implicit criticism of Calgacus – and thus the Britons – as being a discordant, disorganized barbarian people. As Martin points out, although “Tacitus understands the sentiment [of the Britons]… he does not endorse it” (Martin, 44) because Calgacus’ alternative to Roman imperial government is disorganized, discordant, barbarianism. As Syme puts it, “Tacitus knew that compromise is the essence of civil government” (Syme, Ten, 138), and it is the grey world of compromise which one must negotiate the world, and not the “foolish anachronism, and perhaps dangerous” (Syme, “How,” 14) views of Calgacus.
Primary Source:
Tacitus. Cornelii Taciti: De Vita Agricolae. R.M. Ogilvia and Ian Richmond, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Secondary Sources:
Bews, Janet P. “Language and Style in Tacitus’ Agricola.” Greece and Rome (1987) 34: 201-11.
Hadas, Moses, ed. “Introduction.” Complete Works of Tacitus. Trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. New York: Modern Library, 1942. ix-xxiii.
Martin, Ronald. “Chapter III: The Lesser Works.” In Tacitus. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1981.39-66.
Ogilvie, R.M. and Richmond, Ian, ed. “Commentary: 30-33 The Speech of Calgacus.” In Cornelii Taciti: De Vita Agricola. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. 253-264.
Syme, Ronald. “How Tacitus Came to History” Greece and Rome (1957) 160-7. Rpt. Ten Studies in Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. 11-18.
-----------------. “Chapter X: The Political Opinions of Tacitus.” In Ten Studies in Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. 119-140.
© 11 August 2000 Rufel F. Ramos