How could I not like it? It gave me background information on my father's mother's family in Germany. They live (there are still some there in the Minden area) in the ancient territory of the Angrivarii. These people were eventually absorbed into the Saxons and were neatly placed to forge west and take over Britain. Perhaps this explains why I have DNA hanging around England and Wales.
The version I read of this had almost more footnotes than text. But it was such a slim volume that I went on to read his biography of his father-in-law, Agricola. A bit of that was about Agricola, but much of it about the history of Britain under Roman occupation, also interesting.

It’s not for nothing that Tacitus is considered both the greatest historian as well as one of the greatest prose stylists to write in Latin, and even reading him in translation (I read Mattingly's) it’s easy to understand why. I really liked his dry, terse style of writing. My main reason for picking up this book was that it included Germania, but Agricola proved to be a very positive surprise, and both of these works have their unique qualities. In Agricola, the juxtaposition of the speech by Calgacus (a chieftain) to the Caledonian army, with that of Agricola to the Roman troops before the battle of Mons Graupius works really well as a literary device, and had the effect of almost transporting me back in time. In his biography of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, his father-in-law, Tacitus focuses on his achievements in Britain, and contrasts this to the politically oppressive climate back in Rome - in an age "so savage and hostile to merit" (Ch. 1.) "We have indeed set up a record of subservience. Rome of old explored the utmost limits of freedom; we have plumbed the depths of slavery, robbed as we are by informers even the right to exchange ideas in conversation." (Ch. 2.)

Both Agricola and Germania are short works, and both were written in 98 CE, which is a good reason to combine them in one volume. They also both take us to the frontiers of the Roman empire, and far beyond that in the case of Germania. And of course, they both contain criticism of the decline of Roman moral values, against which the virtus of Julius Agricola and the “noble savages” of Germania is contrasted. - "No one in Germany finds vice amusing, or calls it 'up-to-date' to seduce and be seduced. (...) Good morality is more effective in Germany than good laws are elsewhere." (Ch. 19.)

I was struck by the similarities of the Assemblies of the Germanic tribes as they are described by Tacitus, and the Things of the Norse societies: "When the assembled crowd thinks fit, they take their seats fully armed. Silence is then commanded by the priests, who on such occasions have power to enforce obedience. (...) If a proposal displeases them, the people shout their dissent; if they approve, they clash their spears. To express approbation with their weapons is their most complimentary way of showing agreement." (Ch. 11.) And likewise in his description of the customs of Germanic hospitality – and not to forget their feasting: "The Germans are not cunning or sophisticated enough to refrain from blurting out their inmost thoughts in the freedom of festive surroundings, so that every man's soul is laid completely bare. On the following day the subject is reconsidered, and thus due account is taken of both occasions. They debate when they are incapable of pretence, but reserve their decision for a time when they cannot well make a mistake." Tacitus’ comments are often remarkably astute, and adds a lot to his vivid descriptions of the Germanic people and their ways.

The original title of Germania is "De origine et situ Germanorum (On the Origin and Geography of the Germans)", and from Ch. 28 onwards, Tacitus turns from describing the character and customs of the Germanic people to that of the various Germanic tribes and their locations. He also gives due attention to their respective religious practices, and, as well, their military strengths and weaknesses and their tactics. Tacitus laments the fact that it is taking so long to conquer Germany ("a total of two hundred and ten years. (...) In this long period much punishment has been given and taken." (Ch. 37.) And he goes on to state that: "The freedom of Germany is capable of more energetic action than the Arsacid despotism."

It is a fascinating journey that ends with the Fenni, who are described as "astonishingly savage and disgustingly poor", although as well: "Unafraid of anything that man or god can do to them, they have reached a state that few human beings can attain: for these men are so well content that they do not even need to pray for anything." (Ch. 46.) Tacitus is unsure of whether to class them with the Germans or the Sarmatians, but under any circumstance, their degree of freedom nevertheless wins them a nod of approval. We may at this point be far from the virtus, the qualities of bravery, found in e.g. Agricola, Calgalus and the different Germanic tribes, but, even at the very end of this book, and having reached the sea "that is believed to be the boundary that girdles the earth", Tacitus still finds barbarian virtue (or virtue in the barbarian) - and he avoids speculation: "What comes after them is the stuff of fables... On such unverifiable stories I shall express no opinion."

We know little of Tacitus’ sources for Germania, but clearly he must have reflected on their veracity. I can’t help wondering how he might have commented about Scandinavia had he had better access to information about the lands and tribes so far north. It is likely that his Suiones "right out in the sea" were inhabiting present-day southern Sweden. He states that "They are powerful not only in arms and men but also in fleets. The shape of their ships differs from the normal in having a prow at each end, so that they are always facing the right way to put in to shore", but then goes on to say that they don’t use sails, which might just as well be another of Tacitus’ attempts at generalization - as he admits to when describing the physical characteristics of the Germans: "always the same: fierce-looking blue eyes, reddish hair, and big frames" (Ch. 4), and that's not the only example I can think of. Maybe he did get "the stuff of fables" mixed up with his facts in a few instances in Germania; and likewise e.g. the speech of Calgalus in Agricola is most certainly Tacitus’ own invention, but those instances of inaccuracy and/or 'author's license' need not be held against him. For a large part, Tacitus is confirmed by archaeology and other literary sources. Add to that his own literary genius. Both works are thoroughly engaging on several levels, and gives a unique glimpse into the Roman mind - of course that of Tacitus especially - as well as the British and Germanic tribes at the end of the 1st century CE.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. ( )

They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretenses, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace.

Tacitus as Graham Greene. Whether offering a biography or an anthropological survey, Tacitus remains both terse and eloquent, all the way with a taste that all is certainly going to shit. I liked both pieces equally, I was struck in the latter by what I fathomed to be the respect shown for the Nasser of the Danube. The first section, a portrait of his father-in-law can't help but appear regal in defeat. ( )

Every one of Roman’s greatest historians began their writing career with some piece, for one such man it was a biography of his father-in-law and an ethnographic work about Germanic tribes. Agricola and Germany are the first written works by Cornelius Tacitus, which are both the shortest and the only complete pieces that he wrote.

Tacitus’ first work was a biography of his father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, who was the governor of Britain and the man who completed the conquest of the rest of the island before it was abandoned by the emperor Domitian after he recalled Agricola and most likely poisoned him. The biography not only covered the life of Agricola but also was a history of the Roman conquest of Britain climaxed by the life of the piece’s hero. While Agricola focused mostly one man’s career, Tacitus did give brief ethnographic descriptions of the tribes of Britain which was just a small precursor of his Germany. This short work focused on all the Germanic tribes from the east bank of the Rhine to the shores of the North and Baltic Seas in the north to the Danube to the south and as far as rumor took them to the east. Building upon the work of others and using some of the information he gathered while stationed near the border, Tacitus draws an image of various tribes comparing them to the Romans in unique turn of phrases that shows their barbarianism to Roman civilization but greater freedom compared to Tacitus’ imperial audience.

Though there are some issues with Tacitus’ writing, most of the issues I had with this book is with the decisions made in putting this Oxford World’s Classics edition together. Namely it was the decision to put the Notes section after both pieces of writing. Because of this, one had to have a figure or bookmark in either Agricola or Germany and another in the Notes section. It became tiresome to go back and forth, which made keeping things straight hard to do and the main reason why I rate this book as low as I did.

Before the Annals and the Histories were written, Tacitus began his writing with a biography of his father-in-law and Roman’s northern barbarian neighbors. These early works show the style that Tacitus would perfect for his history of the first century Caesars that dramatically changed the culture of Roman. ( )

Tacitus' AGRICOLA bio, and his GERMANIA, a moral ethnological essay are bracketed here. These are his first works, later he turned to larger histories. Professor Mattingly has done a workman-like job, and this Penguin paperback was a standard text for roman historians. I am very surprised about the lack of retrieval of this edition.
The Latin original was completed about 98 CE, according to the introduction. ( )