In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

“men might liVe and Be slaVes”: tacitUs’ sPeech of BoUdica tacitUs on BoUdica’s reBellion In either a.d. 60 or 61, Boudica, the widow of Prasutagus, the recently deceased client king of the Celtic Iceni tribe, led an unsuccessful revolt against Rome.1 We possess only three narratives of this rebellion, two by the same author.2 Tacitus presents an extremely terse account of the revolt in Agricola 14.3–16.2, and a longer, yet still concise, version in Annales 14.29–39. As we shall discuss at length in the next chapter, Cassius Dio provides a discussion of the revolt in 62.1–2, which has come down to us from antiquity only in the form of Xiphilinus’ epitome of Dio’s history.3 Unfortunately, Tacitus and Dio do not agree on major details pertaining to the revolt, which renders our understanding of it shaky.4 Tacitus first presented a description of Boudica’s rebellion in the Agricola. Since the revolt merely served as background information regarding the history of Britain prior to Agricola’s governorship, he discusses the uprising only very briefly. Although Tacitus does not firmly date the rebellion, he notes that it occurred while Suetonius Paulinus, then governor of Britain, was attacking the island of Mona (modern Anglesey) (14.3). Tacitus does not mention that the principal tribe to rebel from Rome was the Iceni,5 and does not discuss any specific causes for the revolt. With their governor elsewhere, Tacitus informs us, the Britons began to discuss the mala servitutis (“evils of slavery”) and foment discontent (15.1). Right from the start of his description of the uprising, Tacitus mentions a theme typical of his sentiments on the Roman Empire in general: servitium (“slavery”) versus libertas (“freedom”).6 This is a sign, perhaps, that the rebellion is an object of special interest to him. Tacitus then relates, in oratio obliqua , the various musings of unnamed disgruntled Britons (15). Nowadays, they assert, we possess two kings—a governor and a procurator (15.2). Both of these men and their henchmen, they continue, are insatiably greedy and lusty. In a powerful and memorable sentence, they claim, Nihil iam cupiditati, Chapter 5 120 BoUdica and Britain nihil libidini exceptum (“They take part in every conceivable act of avarice and lust”). Interestingly, this remark appears similar to the contention Sallust advanced in the EM: Roman greed knows no bounds.7 The anonymous Britons offer further complaints.The Romans in Britain— cowards all—go to great lengths to plunder from them. In fact, these men were prepared to die for anything, save their country (15.3). This criticism, we should note, fits well with Tacitus’ longing for the “good old days” of Republican Rome, when statesmen and officials would supposedly sacrifice all in service to the state. It also serves as a counterpoise to the behavior of Agricola , whose upstanding conduct is a reminder of an earlier and better time. One gets the sense, then, that Tacitus presents the Britons’ protestations in a manner that fortifies some of his own complaints about contemporary Rome. The unnamed Britons then offer a cursory exhortation to battle, arguing that the Roman soldiers in Britain are few, thanks to Paulinus’ endeavors on Mona (15.3). Britons fight for their countries, wives, and parents; the Romans, they aver, fight for avaritiam et luxuriam (“greed and luxury”; 15.4). The speech concludes with a paean to the Britons’ courage and the assertion that the gods are on their side (15.4–5). After offering this oration, Tacitus proceeds to discuss the outcome of the revolt. Under the leadership of a woman of royal stock named Boudica, he says, all Britain erupted in a revolt (16.1). Pursuing and capturing various Roman soldiers, these Britons eventually invaded the Roman colony of Camulodunum (modern Colchester), exacting horrible punishments on their victims . As a result, Tacitus explains, Paulinus returned from Mona and restored order after one battle (16.2). This ends Tacitus’ discussion of the uprising—a discussion markedly bereft of political and military details. The reader may be left with the impression, however, that Tacitus had an interest in likening the Britons’ criticism of Roman colonialism to his own concerns about failings of the Roman Empire. Tacitus’ other description of the revolt (Ann. 14.29–39) is a bit more thorough. After introducing the revolt with a reference to the consular year a.d. 61 (Caesennio Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus, “With Caesennius Paetus and Petronius...

Share