2) had so long been lost, when he stands forth as the first vindicator of
condemned
virtue, he seems to venture on something so new, so strange, so bold, that it may well require apology.
Tacitus
But why would it have been unnecessary to apologize for writing the life of Agricola, if the times in which he lived had not been so unfriendly to virtue?
Because then Agricola would have had opportunity to achieve victories and honors, which would have demanded narration, but for which the jealousy and cruelty of Domitian now gave no scope.
This is the explanation of Roth; and he supports it by reference to the fact, that the achievements of Agricola in the conquest of Britain, though doubtless just as Tacitus has described them, yet occupy so small a space in general history, that they are not even mentioned by any ancient historian except Dio Cassius; and he mentions them chiefly out of regard to the discovery made by Agricola, for the first time, that Britain was an island (Vid.
R.
Exc.
1.
) This explanation answers all the demands of grammar and logic; but as a matter of taste and feeling, I cannot receive it.
Such an apology for the unworthiness of his subject at the commencement of the biography, ill accords with the tone of dignified confidence which pervades the memoir.
The best commentary I have seen on the passage is that of Walther; and it would not, perhaps, be giving more space to so mooted a question than the scholar requires, to extract it entire:—"Venia," he says, "is here nothing else than what we, in the language of modesty, call an apology, and has respect to the very justification he has just offered in the foregoing exordium.
For Tacitus there appeals to the usage, not of remote antiquity only, but of later times also, to justify his design of writing the biography of a distinguished man.
There would have been no need of such an apology in other times.
In other times, dispensing with all preamble, he would have begun, as in c.
4, 'Cnaeus Julius Agricola,' &c.
, assured that no one would question the propriety of his course.
But now, after a long and servile silence, when one begins again 'facta moresque posteris tradere,' when he utters the first word where speech and almost memory (c.
2) had so long been lost, when he stands forth as the first vindicator of condemned virtue, he seems to venture on something so new, so strange, so bold, that it may well require apology. " In commenting upon cursaturus—tempora, Walther adds: "If there is any boldness in the author's use of words here, that very fact suits the connection, that by the complexion of his language even, he might paint the audacity 'cursandi tam saeva et infesta virtutibus tempora'—of running over (as in a race, for such is Walther's interpretation of cursandi) times so cruel and so hostile to virtue. Not that those times could excite in Tacitus any real personal fear, for they were past, and he could now think what he pleased, and speak what he thought (Hist. i. 1). Still he shudders at the recollection of those cruelties; and he treads with trembling footstep, as it were, even the path lately obstructed by them. He looks about him to see whether, even now, he may safely utter his voice, and he timidly asks pardon for venturing to break the reigning silence. "—Tyler. ]
3 (return)
[ A passage in Dio excellently illustrates the fact here referred to: "He (Domitian) put to death Rusticus Arulenus, because he studied philosophy, and had given Thrasea the appellation of holy; and Herennius Senecio, because, although he lived many years after serving the office of quaestor, he solicited no other post, and because he had written the Life of Helvidius Priscus. " (lxvii. p. 765. ) With less accuracy, Suetonius, in his Life of Domitian (s. 10), says: "He put to death Junius Rusticus, because he had published the panegyrics of Paetus Thrasea and Helvidius Priscus, and had styled them most holy persons; and on this occasion he expelled all the philosophers from the city, and from. Italy. " Arulenus Rusticus was a Stoic; on which account he was contumeliously called by M.
2) had so long been lost, when he stands forth as the first vindicator of condemned virtue, he seems to venture on something so new, so strange, so bold, that it may well require apology. " In commenting upon cursaturus—tempora, Walther adds: "If there is any boldness in the author's use of words here, that very fact suits the connection, that by the complexion of his language even, he might paint the audacity 'cursandi tam saeva et infesta virtutibus tempora'—of running over (as in a race, for such is Walther's interpretation of cursandi) times so cruel and so hostile to virtue. Not that those times could excite in Tacitus any real personal fear, for they were past, and he could now think what he pleased, and speak what he thought (Hist. i. 1). Still he shudders at the recollection of those cruelties; and he treads with trembling footstep, as it were, even the path lately obstructed by them. He looks about him to see whether, even now, he may safely utter his voice, and he timidly asks pardon for venturing to break the reigning silence. "—Tyler. ]
3 (return)
[ A passage in Dio excellently illustrates the fact here referred to: "He (Domitian) put to death Rusticus Arulenus, because he studied philosophy, and had given Thrasea the appellation of holy; and Herennius Senecio, because, although he lived many years after serving the office of quaestor, he solicited no other post, and because he had written the Life of Helvidius Priscus. " (lxvii. p. 765. ) With less accuracy, Suetonius, in his Life of Domitian (s. 10), says: "He put to death Junius Rusticus, because he had published the panegyrics of Paetus Thrasea and Helvidius Priscus, and had styled them most holy persons; and on this occasion he expelled all the philosophers from the city, and from. Italy. " Arulenus Rusticus was a Stoic; on which account he was contumeliously called by M.
