No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
The Agricola, or, to give it the full title, the De uita Iulii Agricolae, is probably the earliest work of Tacitus, written in A.D. 98, as Tacitus’ words at 3. 1 indicate, thus in the same year as the Germania, but before it, if we accept that 3. 2-3 implies that Tacitus had written nothing earlier. It appeared at a time of relief and reviving confidence for the senatorial class, when, according to Tacitus (3. 1), primo statim beatissimi saeculi ortu Nerua Caesar res olim dissociabiles miscuerit, principatum ac libertatem, augeatque cotidie felicitatem temporum Nerua Traianus. But Tacitus’ experience, both as suffect consul in A.D. 97 and earlier, may have made him doubt the permanence of the new dispensation.
page no 3 note 1 The reservation is needed while any doubt remains about the date of the Dialogus, though there is now very little. For a brief account of evidence on the date of the Agricola see R. M. Ogilvie in his recent edition (jointly with I. Richmond), Oxford, 1967, 10-11. This edition is a model of its kind, but its predecessor, J.G.C. Anderson’s revision of H. Furneaux’s edition (Oxford, 1922), remains worth consulting on many points.
page no 3 note 2 Its influence may be detected in Pliny’s Panegyricus of A.D. 100.
page no 3 note 3 Though he is still thinking of it years later (Hist. 1. 1. 4).
page no 3 note 4 See Hanslik, R., ‘Die Ämterlaufbahn des Tacitus im Lichte der Ämterlaufbahn seiner Zeitgenossen’, Anzeiger der Oest. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien cii (1965), 47–60 Google Scholar.
page no 3 note 5 See Klingner, F., Römische Geisteswelt (Munich4, 1961), 495ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 4 note 1 See for helpful introduction to the questions involved J. G. C. Anderson, op. cit. xxi ff.; R. M. Ogilvie, op. cit. 11 ff.; S. Borzsák, op. cit. 399 ff.; Dorey, T.A., Tacitus (Studies in Latin Literature and its Influence, London, 1969), 1ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 4 note 2 e.g. Büchner, K., Tacitus: die historischen Versuche (Stuttgart, 1955), 81 Google Scholar: ‘Der Agricola ist die notwendige römische Form der geschichtlichen Biographie, vielen Formen verpflichtet, keiner hörig, dem Besonderen in besonderer Form Rechnung tragend.’
page no 4 note 3 This clearly indicates biography. Cf. Nepos’ distinction (Pelop. 1. 1) between uitam enarrare, biography, and historiom scribere, history.
page no 4 note 4 See Häussier, R., Philologus cxiii (1969), 34ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 4 note 5 See Pfister, F., Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift xxxv (1915), 755ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 5 note 1 A. Gudeman in the last century (see J. G. C. Anderson, op. cit. xxiv ff.) and, more recently, Cousin, J., REL xii (1934), 326ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 5 note 2 de St.-Denis, E., LEC ix (1941), 14–30 Google Scholar.
page no 5 note 3 See Ogilvie, op. cit. 13-14.
page no 5 note 4 Bemerkungen zu den kleinen Schriften des Tacitus (Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1915, 173-276), 186 ff. = Aufsätze zu Tacitus (Darmstadt, 1967), 30 ff.
page no 6 note 1 The Dialogus is entirely a special case. See on that work below.
page no 6 note 2 ‘Tacitus und Domitian’, Hermes lxxx (1952), 222-45 = Tacitus (Wege der Forschung xcvii, Darmstadt, 1969), 208-40.
page no 6 note 3 See the attempt of Traub, H. W., CPh xlix (1954), 255-7Google Scholar, to discredit what Tacitus says at 42. 2.
page no 6 note 4 ‘Agricola and Domitian’, Greece & Rome N.S, vii (1960), 66-71.
page no 6 note 5 See Fraenkel, E., ‘Tacitus’, Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung viii (1932),229 Google Scholar = Kleine Beiträge (Rome, 1964), 2. 325.
page no 7 note 1 Op. cit. 402 ff.
page no 7 note 2 On the characterization of Agricola generally see Zuccarelli, U., Psicologia e semantica di Tacito (Brescia, 1967), 97ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 7 note 3 ‘Tacitus’, Die Antike viii (1932), 151-69 = Römische Geisteswelt (Munich4, 1961), 490-513.
page no 8 note 1 See her interesting discussion, op. cit. 204 ff.
page no 8 note 2 See on this Fuchs, H., Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt (Berlin, 1938)Google Scholar, and, on the way the barbarians appear in imperial history, Walser, G., Rom, das Reich und die fremden Völker in der Geschichtsschreibung der frühen Kaiserzeit (Baden-Baden, 1951)Google Scholar.
page no 9 note 1 Our understanding of Tacitus’ use of sources in the Germania owes most to Norden’s, E. great book, Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus’ Germania (Berlin 3, 1923)Google Scholar. See, for a brief account, J. G. C. Anderson’s edition (Oxford, 1938), xix-xxvi.
page no 9 note 2 For examples and bibliography see Anderson, op. cit. xxviii ff.
page no 9 note 3 See particularly Jankuhn, H., Archäologische Bemerkungen zur Glaubwürdigkeit des Tacitus in der Germania, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft] der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1966, 411-26Google Scholar, and his revision with W. Lange of R. Much’s introduction and commentary (Heidelberg3, 1967). We now have in English a good general book on ancient Germany, namely Thompson, E. A., The Early Germans (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar.
page no 10 note 1 ‘Vrgentibus imperii f Mis’ in Vom Geist des Römertums (Leipzig/Berlin, 1938), 255-77.
page no 10 note 2 ‘Das geschichtliche Verstehen in Tacitus’ Germania’, Hermes lxix (1934), 121-64 = Tacitus (Wege der Forschung xcvii, Darmstadt, 1969), 241-97.
page no 10 note 3 The question is complex. I share some of the scepticism of Heinze, op. cit. 263-4.
page no 11 note 1 I cannot here even summarize the voluminous debate over urgentibus imperii fatis. That urgentibus indicates menace is strongly suggested by the context and by parallels in Livy (5. 22. 8 and 5. 36. 3).
page no 11 note 2 See on these and other ideas involved Häussier, R., Tacitus und das historische Bewu²tsein (Heidelberg, 1965), 264ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 12 note 1 Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1898, 180 ff. = Ausgewählte kleine Schriften (Rome, 1960), 2. 290 ff.
page no 12 note 2 The exact dramatic date is not certain. See Borzsák, op. cit. 434-5.
page no 12 note 3 For some ingenious speculation about Maternus’ fate see Cameron, A., CR N.s. xvii (1967), 258-61Google Scholar, who notes a well-attested custom in ancient dialogues of setting the dramatic date ‘shortly before the death of the host or principal interlocutor’.
page no 12 note 4 ‘Ancient’ here means Cicero, his contemporaries and predecessors.
page no 13 note 1 There is intense controversy about the lacuna’s size and contents, a matter of real importance for the dialogue’s structure as a whole. Some suppose a large lacuna, which contained a speech by Secundus. This is disputable on several grounds. See Haussier, R., ‘Zum Umfang und Aufbau des Dialogus de oratoribus’, Philologus cxiii (1969), 24–67 Google Scholar, a learned and exhaustive discussion, which gives a full account of technical questions and earlier views. Häussier shows that the lacuna is probably quite small, and that a speech by Secundus would not only be superfluous, but also impair the ‘to and fro’ structure of argument. Secundus belongs to a type well known in ancient dialogues, intervening from time to time to prompt or to defuse the discussion, but not himself contributing much.
page no 13 note 2 Recent investigation has satisfactorily removed the supposition that the manuscript tradition preserved no clear indication of the author’s name. For an introduction to this somewhat complex matter see Mendell, C. W., Tacitus, the Man and his Work (Yale, 1957), 5 Google Scholar and 241 ff. There is now virtual unanimity that the Dialogus is authentic (see Borzsák, 429-30). Paratore, E., Tacito (Milan, 1951), 145–238 Google Scholar, holds the contrary, but offers no valid arguments. The Dialogus does not fit the picture of Tacitus’ character and thought Paratore has conjured up, and so he dismisses it (see Brink, C.O., JRS xliii (1953), 148 Google Scholar). In fact it fits perfectly with everything else Tacitus wrote, as we shall see.
page no 14 note 1 In his review of A. Gudeman’s 1898 edition (2nd edition, Leipzig/Berlin, 1914) in Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1898, 169-88 = Ausg. kl. Sehr. 2. 277-98.
page no 14 note 2 Some scholars now feel that Leo made too much of an inexorable tradition and underestimated individual achievement. Perhaps so in detail, but his main conclusions remain unshaken.
page no 14 note 3 WS 1 (1932), 128.
page no 14 note 4 ‘Der Dialogus des Tacitus und Quintilians Institutio Oratoria’, CPh xlvi (1951), 159-64 = Tacitus (Wege der Forschung xcvii, Darmstadt, 1969), 349-60; ‘Tacitus’ Dialogus und der Panegyricus des Plinius’, Festschr. B. Snell (Munich, 1956), 145-52.
page no 14 note 5 Der Dialogus de oratoribus des Tacitus, Motive und Zeit seiner Entstehung (Berichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1954, 4).
page no 15 note 1 Gnomon xxvii (1955), 439ff.
page no 15 note 2 Tacitus und das historische Bewu´tsein,235.
page no 15 note 3 Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1898, 169-79 = Ausg. kl. Sehr. 2. 278.
page no 15 note 4 Philologus cxiii (1969), 24-67.
page no 15 note 5 Maternus interrupts Messalla at 27 and persuades him to turn from vindication of the ‘ancients’ to discussion of the causes of decline. Häussier reasonably takes this intervention as an important dividing point, and thus makes Messalla begin a new section when he resumes speaking.