Barbarian Freedom and Roman Slavery under Nero.
Tacitus’ account of the revolt of the Iceni under Boudicca brings to the
fore the relationship between Romans and barbarians. Through the presentation
of the Britons trying to win back their libertas “freedom,” Tacitus invites his
readers to analyse the barbarians’ libertas and servitium “slavery” with respect to
the roles of libertas and servitium under the Principate. Parallels can be drawn
from such analysis between the barbarians’ relationship with the Romans and
the Senate’s relationship with the emperor. In this essay I will analyse how
Tacitus presents libertas and servitium, the barbarians and the Romans, victory
and its consequences with particular attention to Paulinus Suetonius to explore
Tacitus’ study of the loss of libertas and increase of absolute power under the
Julio-Claudians and to investigate further one of Tacitus’ main preoccupations as
a historian, can good men live under bad emperors, and if so, how and at what
consequence?
From the start of this narrative, Tacitus dramatically creates an
atmosphere full of tension with the description of the “gravis clades”1 occurring
in Britain. Focus moves quickly from background information on Britain (29) to
Suetonius’ attack of Mona (30). The reader is immediately confronted with a
strange, wild and disordered enemy, a presentation that continues throughout
the narrative and is starkly contrasted with Roman discipline and their manly
order. The presentation of the Britons is characterised by much ‘f’ alliteration:
feminis, Furiarum, ferali, faces, fundentes, fanaticum2 and later on feminae in
furorem, fremitus.3 The alliteration sounds fierce and aggressive and underlines
the enemy’s madness, lack of control and the dominance of women in a place
where they have no right or use and are ultimately detrimental. Though the
Romans are temporarily struck dumb, they soon take charge, becoming subjects
of the verbs and conquering the enemy in a swift tricolon: “inferunt signa,
sternuntque obvios et igni suo involvunt.”4 Tacitus uses this episode as a portent
of how the entire Briton rebellion will turn out and the reasons why the Romans
Tacitus Annals 14.29.1
Tacitus Annals 14.30.1
3 Tacitus Annals 14.32.1
4 Tacitus Annals 14.30.2
1
2
1
will be victorious, their discipline and order will conquer lack of control and
disorder, the masculine will defeat the feminine and the retention of virtue and
desire for glory will conquer the desire for vengeance and libertas.
The tension is fiercely increased in chapters 31 and 32, as Tacitus
describes the reasons for the rebellion, pessimistic portents and Roman defeats.
Both in chapters 31 and Boudicca’s speech, the Romans are presented as rapists
of the world, which is similar to their presentation in Calgacus’ speech in the
Agricola when they are actually called “raptores orbis.”5 Tacitus presents the
barbarians having justified reasons for revolt since after the death of Prasutagus,
the king of the Iceni and husband of Boudicca, the Roman centurions laid waste
his kingdom and the slaves his house, his wife was beaten and daughters raped,
the eminent Iceni were stripped of their property and his relatives were
imprisoned. The Iceni then stirred others “nondum servitio fracti”6 to take back
their libertas. The enemy not yet broken by servitude contrast the Senate who
are subject to the desires of the emperor as Book 14 has shown. Tacitus gives
such a detailed account of the Iceni’s grievances to increase tension and by
deepening the reader’s understanding of the motives he creates a fuller picture
of the rebellion and invites the reader to sympathise with the Britons. Though of
course the Britons are not innocent, Tacitus use of asyndeton vividly describes
them involved in “caedes patibula ignes cruces”7 when they have then chance.
Coincidences of pessimistic portent are then depicted “ut Britannis ad spem, ita
veteranis ad metum trahebantur.”8 This antithesis, typical of Tacitus, clearly
demonstrates the different affects these portents had and further adds to the
tense atmosphere Tacitus continues to intensify.
The narrative now takes a dramatic turn with the arrival of Suetonius, the
Republican-style hero who will save the day. Suetonius is prevalent at the
beginning of chapters 33: “At Suetonius,” 34: “Iam Suetonio” and 36: “Ne
Suetonius.” Such juxtaposition strengthens his importance and shows how vital
he was to victory. Suetonius brings with him the discipline needed for victory, as
the battle at Mona showed. He is “neque fletu et lacrimis auxilium eius orantium
Tacitus Agricola 30.4
Tacitus Annals 14.31.2
7 Tacitus Annals 14.33.2
8 Tacitus Annals 14.32.1
5
6
2
flexus est”9 and thus unlike the Britons, expels all femininity from his force. He
also chooses a suitable location for battle and deploys his troops with
professionalism so that they stand in order which is in stark contrast to the
Britons: “igitur legionarius frequens ordinibus, levis circum armatura,
conglobatus pro cornibus eques adstitit. at Britannorum copiae passim per
catervas et turmas exultabant.”10 With both sides now drawn up, it is time for the
customary declamations.
The speeches of Boudicca and Suetonius, reported indirectly, show many
examples of the antithesis and balance so beloved by Tacitus. Boudicca bore
witness that she “non ut tantis maioribus ortam regnum et opes, verum ut unam
e vulgo libertatem amissam…ulcisci”11 thus she effectively makes clear that she
is one of the people, fighting with them for a libertas. Added to this is the fact that
it is not only her body, afflicted with wounds that she is avenging, but also the
defiled chastity of her daughters. Boudicca further inflames hatred of the
Romans whose “cupidines ut non corpora, ne senectam quidem aut virginitatem
impollutam relinquant.”12 The antithesis between old age and virginity is even
more pronounced and outrageous because the Romans pay it no heed. Further
balance is found in the condition “si copias armatorum, si causas belli secum
expenderent, vincendum illa acie vel cadendum esse.”13 A contrast is drawn
between Britons’ benefits, their strength in numbers and reasons for war, and
what they thus should be able to do, conquer, but instead what they will do, die.
Boudicca’s final words “id mulieri destinatum: viverent viri et servirent”14 are
also a foreshadowing since she will die, but the men, both Briton and the Roman,
will live on and serve, the Roman state or emperor respectively. Suetonius’
speech quickly dismisses the threat of the enemy, describing Boudicca’s speech
as “inanis minas”15 and emphasising the femininity of their force. Alliteration is
also used to spurn the enemy who are “imbellis, inermis”16 and encourage the
Tacitus Annals 14.33.1
Tacitus Annals 14.34.2
11 Tacitus Annals 14.35.1
12 Tacitus Annals 14.35.2
13 Tacitus Annals 14.35.2
14 Tacitus Annals 14.35.2
15 Tacitus Annals 14.36.1
16 Tacitus Annals 14.36.1
9
10
3
Romans who in contrast wield “ferrum virtutemque vincentium.”17 Suetonius
also presses his troops to retain virtue and attain glory, and to think of the fame
victory will bring them. Such are the desires of the ‘Republican’ general who
joins battle “certus eventus.”18
The narrative now reaches its peak with the battle that has long been
anticipated. The battle is quickly and decisively won by the Romans, a feature
common throughout the Annals and through this “Tacitus portrays a world in
which, though the cultural value attached to military conquest remains intact,
military action itself has ceased to matter.”19 Dramatic military narratives are
found rarely in the Annals, Tacitus argued that his work was “confined and
inglorious”20 since “mighty wars, storming of cities, routed and captured kings”21
were all subjects for historians of old. This narrative is thus an exception and it is
used by Tacitus for varietas, to take the reader away from Nero, his debauchery
and political intrigues in Rome and refresh his mind “but by its very setting in
the larger context of the Annals, some kind of interaction between affairs in
Britain and Rome is likely to be involved.”22 Suetonius’ victory is made all the
more illustrious because Tacitus describes “clara et antiquis victoriis par ea die
laus parta.”23 Though Tacitus does not write a detailed battle description of the
Britons and Romans, he raised Suetonius’ achievement to equal that of victories
in the Republic. This parallel thus distinguishes Suetonius as a good man who
was prosperous even under a bad emperor.
However, the glory achieved by Suetonius is swiftly taken from him,
precisely when the emperor Nero involves himself in the affairs of Britain. This
at least is Tacitus’ presentation of events. After the climactic battle and
Boudicca’s abrupt death by poison, Nero sends to Britain troops from Germany
to supplement the army so that the war may be finished off. The good intentions
Tacitus Annals 14.36.1
Tacitus Annals 14.36.3
19 Levene, D.S. “Warfare in Annals” in Woodman, A.J (ed.) The Cambridge
Companion to Tacitus (Cambridge 2009) 232
20 Tacitus Annals 4.32.2
21 Tacitus Annals 4.32.1
22 Roberts, M. “The Revolt of Boudicca (Tacitus, Annals 14.29-39) and the Assertion
of Libertas in Neronian Rome” The American Journal of Philology, 109 (1988) 118
23 Tacitus Annals 14.37.2
17
18
4
of the emperor are hindered by the personal hostility between Suetonius and
Julianus Classicianus, who “disperseratque novum legatum opperiendum esse,
sine hostili ira et superbia victoris clemeter deditis consulturum.”24 Though in
the Annals, Classicianus seems to argue unjustifiably, a different and less positive
presentation of Suetonius is shown in the Agricola, where the Britons were
afraid “ne quamquam egregius cetera adroganter in deditos et ut suae cuiusque
iniuriae ultor durius consuleret.”25 Furthermore perhaps Classicianus was right,
the continued ravaging of the Britons throughout the winter, when they were
already afflicted with hunger, does seem extreme. The reason behind Tacitus’
bias towards Suetonius is not hard to find. Agricola, Tacitus’ father-in-law was
posted to Britain under Suetonius’ command. When Agricola “then saw
Suetonius recalled to Rome by an apparently ungrateful government and his
place taken by men whose policy was an implied reproach to that of Suetonius,
he must have felt considerable resentment,”26 which was arguably passed onto
Tacitus. Biased though it may be, Tacitus presents the glorious deeds of
Suetonius in accordance with his belief that it was history’s chief office “ne
virtutes sileantur.”27
A parallel between the recall of Suetonius’ and Agricola may be implied by
Tacitus to show that even though virtuous men can live and be successful under
bad emperors, eventually they will be beaten by the system and the jealousy of
others, and their achievements curbed. All the same, the qualities advocated by
Tacitus that he sees in Suetonius and Agricola are “to use one’s military and civil
talents energetically and thoughtfully when given the opportunity, to show
restraint in advertising one’s successes, to avoid initiating nauseating flattery of
the emperor, to work against wrongdoing but to refrain from harrying those
undeservedly exposed to the emperor’s wrath, in short, to show decency and
moderation.”28 This is in stark contrast to “ostentatious assertions of freedom,
Tacitius Annals 14.38.3
Tacitus Agricola 16.2
26 Overbeck, J.C. “Tacitus and Dio on Boudicca’s Rebellion” The American Journal
of Philology, 90 (1969) 142
27 Tacitus Annals 3.65.1
28 Oakley, S.P. Res olim dissociabilis: Emperors, Senators and Liberty.” in
Woodman, A.J (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus (Cambridge 2009) 194
24
25
5
even if it brought fame to an individual”29 which Tacitus did not think served the
Senate in any beneficial way. Even though acquiescence “lays itself open, all too
readily to the charges of servitium”30 this is the path Tacitus advocates, not in the
least because he followed it himself, or perhaps because he did.
At the end of the rebellion narrative, Suetonius could expose himself to the
charge of servitium since he obeys orders of the freedman Polyclitus. In this way
Tacitus shows how far the Empire has degenerated from the days of the
Republic. True libertas can only be found with the barbarians who are outside
the clutches of the emperor. Suetonius’ acquiescence “seems all the more
demeaning, by contrast with the vigorous assertion of libertas by the oppressed
natives”31 who now “mirabanturque quod dux et exercitus tanti belli confector
servitiis oboedirent.”32 The Britons are presented as admirably fighting for their
libertas against the servitium imposed by the conquering Romans, who take from
them all they can and maltreat them to the extreme. But because the Britons are
surrounded and indeed led by the weaker sex, are disordered and emotional
they stand no chance against Roman masculinity, power, discipline and order. A
parallel can be drawn between the Britons who are grievously subjected to
Roman rule and the Senate and Roman people who must obey and indulge the
emperor. When resistance is shown to these higher powers, defeat and often
death are inevitable.
Despite this negative picture, Tacitus tries to find a middle ground, a way in
which his fellow senators can survive but not totally lose their libertas and
“maintain an honourable position as the emperor’s partner.”33 The relationship
between the Senate and the emperor changed considerably over time as absolute
power became increasingly concentrated in the hands of the emperor, who was
in reality above the law, and the “notion of senatorial libertas remained fraught
and something of a charade: even under ‘good’ emperors senators never had
Wirszubski, C. “Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome During the Late Republic
and Early Principate.” (Cambridge 1950) 166
30 Roberts, M (1988) 127
31 Roberts, M. (1988) 128
32 Tacitus Annals 14.39.2
33 Wirszubski, C. (1950) 137
29
6
freedom to decide really important matters.”34 It could be presumed that
because Tacitus is so critical of the Principate, and so quick to praise the virtues
of men like Suetonius, who attains glory like a Republican general, and because
“by virtue of its tradition and by the strength of convention the Senate was
regarded, by senators at any rate, as the constitutional embodiment of the res
publica”35 that both Tacitus and Senate wanted to restore the Republic. This is
unrealistic and untrue, what is more important to Tacitus, as the Briton rebellion
parallels show, is not constitution but character, how senators could live with
dignity under emperors. The Britons are admired because they try to do what
the Senate could not, shake off servitium and take back libertas, but Tacitus
“conceives servitus and libertas not only as either external constraint or the lack
of it, but above all as inner proneness to servility or, in the case of libertas, as
courage to be free.”36 Tacitus therefore tries to show through the example
Suetonius, how a Roman senator could hope to attain glory through moderation,
discipline and courage, and even though this may be taken from him in his life, he
will not allow such virtue to pass into silence.
Although the narrative of the Iceni rebellion is an escape from Rome and
Nero’s ever decaying behaviour, through it Tacitus invites the reader to compare
the Briton’s fight for libertas with the servitium of the Roman people, particularly
the Senate, under Nero and earlier emperors. However, those fighting for libertas
are characterised by the female and the emotional and their aspirations are an
unrealistic and irrational estimate of the relationship between ruler and ruled.
Similarly, ostentatious assertion against an emperor achieves no benefit, only
fame for the individual. In this narrative Tacitus demonstrates through his
presentation of Suetonius that discipline, courage and acquiescence are needed
in order for good men to be glorious and still survive in the Prinicipate. Though
such behaviour exposes itself to charges of servitium, Tacitus argues that since
constitutionally the senators have had their libertas taken from them as much as
the conquered Britons, the only way they can assert their freedom is living with
dignity.
Oakley, S.P. (2009) 185
Wirszubski (1950) 138
36 Wirszubski (1950)164
34
35
7
Bibliography:
 Levene, D.S. “Warfare in Annals” in Woodman, A.J (ed.) The Cambridge
Companion to Tacitus (Cambridge 2009)
 Oakley, S.P. Res olim dissociabilis: Emperors, Senators and Liberty.” in
Woodman, A.J (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus (Cambridge
2009)
 Overbeck, J.C. “Tacitus and Dio on Boudicca’s Rebellion” The American
Journal of Philology, 90 (1969)
 Roberts, M. “The Revolt of Boudicca (Tacitus, Annals 14.29-39) and the
Assertion of Libertas in Neronian Rome” The American Journal of
Philology, 109 (1988)
 Tacitus Agricola
 Tacitus Annals
 Wirszubski, C. “Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome During the Late Republic
and Early Principate.” (Cambridge 1950)
8