The emperor's right-hand man - A review of Robert Harris' Agrippa
Generally, Robert Harris is considered one of the foremost of contemporary fiction authors. Indeed, his trilogy about Cicero regularly appears in lists of some of the best historical fiction available — let alone historical fiction set in ancient Rome. So, when I got hold of a copy of Agrippa, I was very excited to read it. This was to be my first time reading a Robert Harris book.
As you may guess from the title, the book is about Marcus Agrippa, right hand man of Octavian, the man who would end decades of civil war and implement one-man rule in the Roman Empire. Written in the style of a memoir, the narrative follows Agrippa’s career, from adolescence through to his death at the age of 50, focusing on his relationship with Octavian as he, too, evolves from a shy boy to become Augustus, the ruler of the most powerful empire of the ancient world.
The story is fast-paced, full of battles and intrigue — Harris is particularly good at showing the factionalism and paranoia of Augustan Rome — which is what you would expect for a book about this period of Roman history, as it is, indeed, full of battles and intrigue. Of course, covering several decades of what is, arguably, the best attested and certainly the most written about period of Roman history in 350 pages means that certain events and characters are bound to be elided or even omitted. As such, readers should not expect a thorough exploration of different characters’ motivations or detailed accounts of how various plots and conspiracies play out.
That said, I was fairly disappointed in the treatment that both Agrippa and Octavian-Augustus — the most important characters of this book — received. Neither character was particularly developed, their characterisation was, to me, relatively shallow, and Agrippa was particularly dull, even outright passive. This could be, of course, a stylistic choice. The Agrippa of history exists very much in Octavian-Augustus’ shadow, and he never appears to have striven for any grand recognition. So, having Agrippa be a fairly straightforward character does make some sense — it doesn’t make for a good protagonist.
As I said, we know very little about the historical Agrippa. He did write a memoir, but it has largely been lost to us — Pliny the Elder, for example, cites it when discussing Agrippa’s building work (Natural History 36.121). Yet we do know a very interesting detail about him: he avoided using his nomen Vipsanius, instead choosing to go by Marcus Agrippa (his full name being Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa). This, you would think, offers a fascinating opportunity to explore the man’s feelings about his position, his lineage, and the political culture of Rome. Seneca the Elder even recounts an anecdote wherein Agrippa’s avoidance of using his nomen is used to mock him during a trial (Controversiae 2.4.12–13). Aside from remarks from various patrician characters about his lowly origins, though, this avoidance of using his nomen is never remarked upon. Instead, Harris raises an old theory that, in his own words, is “purely conjectural” (p. 367) and “worthless to a historian” (p. 369), and which, in my opinion, adds nothing to Agrippa’s story.
Ultimately, throughout the book, it felt as though Harris avoided opportunities for Agrippa to be introspective, to offer the reader something about his personality. The most obvious example, in my opinion, being his recollection of his involvement in the Battle of Munda — Agrippa’s first battle, according to Harris’ story. Agrippa kills his first enemy, takes their ears as a trophy, and sees a man he considers a friend — or so we are told — die, and none of it elicits a comment. It makes Agrippa feel less like a man intent on simply getting the job done and more like a soulless, emotionless automaton. Later in the book, we do get a little more characterisation and introspection, but it falls short of being gripping precisely because it comes so late in the book.
All in all, I was fairly underwhelmed by this book. Since I am unfamiliar with Harris’ work, only knowing of his reputation for writing gripping historical fiction, I may have overinflated my expectations. Agrippa was, ultimately, a fairly fast-paced — potentially too fast-paced — exploration of a gripping period of Roman history led by a cast of disappointingly dull characters.
