The historical works of Tacitus have long commanded most scholarly attention while the opera minora are often viewed as experiments in lesser genres, undertaken as a precursor to the serious business of history. It is this assumption that Bram ten Berge sets out to challenge in this stimulating study. Rather than viewing the works in isolation, B. offers the ‘first integrative analysis of the Tacitean corpus’ and argues for the fundamental interconnectedness of Tacitus’ oeuvre as a unified intellectual project from the outset. For B., each of Tacitus’ works is in dialogue with its predecessor(s) and, through a complex network of autotextual interactions, presents a consistent view of imperial power.
Following some brief remarks on Tacitus’ funeral oration for Verginius Rufus in a.d. 97 as the impetus for his literary career, the book presents a sequential reading of the corpus. Ch. 1 sets out to analyse the Agricola and identify in Tacitus’ literary debut the key themes and narrative techniques that recur in the later works. B. finds in the Agricola a pessimistic view of a principate marked by systemic oppression. The loss of libertas and virtus among the Gauls and Britons stands as a warning of the corrupting effects of absolute power on subjects of the empire. Agricola himself represents an exemplum of virtus and moderatio that condemns the imperial system and Domitian in particular, while avoiding the ostentations of the stoic resistance.
Having established Tacitus’ key thematic concerns, ch. 2 reads the Germania alongside the Agricola, identifying several important connections: both exceed the standard conventions of their genres, are centred on the north-western frontiers of empire and emphasise the contrast between periphery and centre. While the Germania has variously been read as a call to arms or a discouragement of conquest, B. argues that Tacitus ultimately favours an indirect foreign policy, due to the specific natural and cultural challenges presented by the region and its people (itself a major theme in the later works), in contrast to his justification of the conquest of Britain and Gaul in the earlier work. For B. this is not a shift in Tacitus’ thought, but rather a consistent view of empire that endorses Rome’s imperial mission only when acculturation is sufficiently viable; a view that only becomes apparent when the two texts are read as in dialogue with one another. In their representation of the principate, B. sees unity between the Agricola and Germania in depicting a system of government that restricts libertas and expressions of virtus and in pushing back against this system via the description of peripheral contexts in which these qualities can still be found.
While these early conclusions are convincing, they are generally incremental rather than revolutionary. Ch. 3, however, on the Dialogus de Oratoribus, often considered an anomaly within the Tacitean oeuvre, has wider implications. B. convincingly argues that, far from being an outlier, the Dialogus plays a central role in Tacitus’ authorial project and should be read as a deeply intertextual and resonant companion to the Agricola and Germania. Through extensive analysis of linguistic echoes, B. demonstrates that across all three texts Tacitus develops a consistent set of vocabulary and ideas that are used to explore the workings of the state and what it means to be a good man and senator under the principate. While recent scholarship has tended to emphasise the text’s open-endedness, when read alongside its predecessors a nuanced Tacitean view (broadly aligned with Maternus’ second speech) can be identified.
Ch. 4 turns to the opera maiora via a chronological reading of the Historiae that emphasises the recurrence of the themes already identified. These themes are found in every major episode of the Historiae, demonstrating the centrality of the earlier works to their understanding. Domitian and Agricola continue to be invoked as exempla, the character and landscape of Germania is influential in depicting Vitellius’ troops and the Batavian revolt, and Vitellius’ famous visit to the site of the first battle of Bedriacum (Hist. 2.70) engages fruitfully with previous scenes of carnage at the battle of Mons Graupius and of imperial scopophilia (Agr. 37 and 45, respectively).
The final chapter on the Annales demonstrates how all the themes of the earlier works coalesce in Tacitus’ magnum opus. Here B. does not provide an extended sequential intertextual analysis, but rather focuses on the recurrence of his central themes of principate and empire. Once again, Agricola and Domitian loom large and sections of the narrative centred on the north-western frontiers (Germanicus’ campaigns, the Boudiccan revolt) are in constant dialogue with Tacitus’ earlier depictions of these people and places.
Overall, the book makes a convincing case for the interconnectedness and thematic unity of the Tacitean corpus and is particularly successful in restoring the early works as integral elements of, and sometimes the keys to, Tacitus’ thought. While individual conclusions about Tacitus’ view of the principate and empire may not come as much of a surprise to those familiar with Tacitus’ works, the strength of the book lies in how it conclusively demonstrates how these themes are central to the understanding of every work. B. ends his epilogue with the hope that the reader is persuaded of the merits of an integrated approach. In this it has undoubtedly succeeded, and the implications, particularly of the ‘rehabilitation’ of the early works, will no doubt prove influential in future studies of Tacitus and his thought.
