Tacitus (0056–0117)

In 27 BC, Julius Caesar’s adopted great-nephew killed the Roman Republic. Taking the title of Augustus, he emerged from a series of civil wars to assume sole control of Rome under cover of preserving liberty. When he died forty years later, he left an autocracy. This is what happened next.

The Roman politician and historian Tacitus, near the end of his life, wrote his annals of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. This dynasty had fallen with Nero’s suicide when Tacitus himself was a teenager. He show more lived through the entire arc of the succeeding Flavians, right through to its end in Domitian’s assassination. I don’t wonder that he spent his final years trying to document and explain the violence to which he bore a survivor’s witness.

The “Annals” are on the one hand intended to be an accurate and dispassionate record of the Julio-Claudians. As Tacitus writes, “Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus — more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.”

To an extent, he achieves his goal. He refers frequently to the numerous records and historians he consulted. He works hard to account for sources he knows to be as unreliable as humans: “So obscure are the greatest events, as some take for granted any hearsay, whatever its source, others turn truth into falsehood, and both errors find encouragement with posterity.”

On the other hand, Tacitus writes both to understand his own time and to place it in a moral context, which colors his interpretations. He’s as depressed as any reader by a drab succession of spurious prosecutions, state-sponsored informers, suicides, banishments, poisonings, executions, adulteries, murders, and steady declines of state and public virtue under debauched and paranoid emperors. He longs for the lost Republic, though he’s clear-eyed enough to admit it had decayed enough in its own right to invite the attention of a despot.

This longing is demonstrated in his admiration of Germanicus, grandson of Augustus through marriage. Tacitus records the people’s hopes that Germanicus would inherit the Empire and restore the Republic, leans into the theory that he died by poison, and traces the fate of his wife and children with sympathy. Tacitus seems to believe Germanicus was the last chance to reverse tyranny, and that Tiberius killed that chance as thoroughly as his stepfather Augustus killed the Republic.

In the end, Tacitus is resigned to the vagaries of fate. Despite the Empire, he’s still a patriot, referring to long-ago campaigns as “our” battles conducted by “our” soldiers in “our” provinces. He compares Rome’s tattered freedoms favorably against Parthian (Persian) monarchy. Though he may regret the grim fortunes of his beloved city, history provides him with perspective: “For my part, the wider the scope of my reflection on the present and the past, the more am I impressed by their mockery of human plans in every transaction.”

Two thousand years later, it’s hard to disagree. show less

The death of Nero begins a Roman bloodletting that Augustus had thought he had completely ended as four men will within a year claim the title Emperor. The Histories by Tacitus follows the aftermath of Nero’s death as a succession of men claimed the throne until the Flavians emerge to return the Pax Romana.

Tacitus begins his work with those who had prospered under Nero worrying for themselves while the rest of the populace celebrated and setting the stage for the eventual assassination for show more Galba and the rise of Otho, who the former had passed over as his chosen successor. Yet at the time of his death Galba was facing a mutiny on the German frontier that had installed Vitellius as their choice as emperor, a task that Otho took to quash and retain his own throne. The invasion of Italy by Vitellius’ legions brought war to the core of empire for the first time in almost a century and witnessed the defeat of Otho’s forces before he committed suicide. The rise of Vitellius brought Vespasian, the leader of the legions fighting the Jewish War, into the fray as he accepted the proclamation of his legions as emperor and soon found the supporters of Otho and others joining him. After the crushing defeat of his forces, Vitellius attempted to abdicate but the Guards wouldn’t let him resulting in his death by Vespasian’s soldiers. On top of civil war in Italy and the final phase of the Jewish War under Titus, a Gallo-German uprising at first claiming support for Vespasian became an invasion and rebellion that took numerous legions to suppress and the aftermath would be alluded to in Tacitus’ own Germany.

Although The Histories are incomplete, from the beginning Tacitus brings his aristocratic ideology and politics in focus early by showing only someone with political realism and firm hand on the legions can prevent civil wars and the rioting of the masses. The writing is quick-paced, going hand in hand with the rapid succession of events but Tacitus does give excellent portraits on the prime actors in this historical drama the played across the Roman world. The only thing a historian would have against Tacitus would be the twisting of the chronology to suit his own purposes. Yet like Agricola and Germany, my biggest complaint is how Oxford World Classics edition is structured with the Notes at the very end of the piece and making the reader use two bookmarks so they could go back and forth.

The Histories, the first of Tacitus’ two large scale historical works, shows the horrors of civil war and the according to Tacitus the dangers of leader who cannot control the legions and masses. Even though the we are missing over two-thirds of the overall work, the portion we have that covers the Year of Four Emperors shows the breakdown of society in vacuum of strong leadership that is important not only in that time but throughout all of history including down to our own time. show less

The Annals of Tacitus covers the years 14–68 CE. Why these dates? Well, Augustus, a colossal figure in Roman history, died in 14 CE, and this is when Tiberius began his rule. 68 CE marks the year of the death of Nero, which would lead to the year of four rival emperors. Here, we see the end of the Julio-Claudian line.
Unfortunately there are gaps in this chronology. As one can imagine, not all books of the complete Annals survived the passage of time. Several books are missing and some show more others are incomplete. While it is disappointing that the entire reign of Caligula is missing there is much that is interesting in what remains.

The status of this book as a classic cannot be denied. But what is it that makes that true? Tacitus covers a time in Roman history when, as the result of the consolidation and planning of Augustus (originally Octavian) the beginnings of the Roman empire take shape. More significantly, what he started in 14 CE suggests that he wanted to show two pictures of the empire. On the one hand, he does not question the need for an emperor. Augustus established peace, which was desperately needed, in light of many civil wars and civil conflicts following the death of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BCE. On the other hand, there is a dark side to all empires. Tacitus portrays this point, especially in the life of Tiberius. He paints a picture of tyranny. We read, for example, of Tiberius’s reign of terror, and we can say the same for Nero.

Some of the most fascinating aspects for this reader included the machinations and politics of the day which were both personal and brutal. In spite of the wealth of the Emperors and their immediate families, the plans of some, starting with Augustus, for an orderly succession were derailed, often by accidents and illness that, due to the primitive state of medicine, led to unexpected deaths. That, of course, was in addition to the deaths plotted by such angels as Tiberius and Nero's mother Agrippina. Tacitus narrates the rise of potential rulers like Sejanus alongside the unlikely rise to power of Claudius. There are many fascinating and exciting moments in this narrative including the infamous fire that devastated Rome during Nero's reign.

Earlier in the narrative, during the reign of Tiberius, Tacitus comments in an aside about his project:
"That much of what I have recorded, and of what I shall record, seems perhaps insignificant and trivial to recall I am not unaware; but no one should compare my annals with the writing of those who compiled the affairs of the Roman people of old." He notes that mighty events had occurred in centuries past, while "my work, on the other hand, is confined and inglorious: peace was immovable or only modestly challenged, affairs in the City were sorrowful, and the princeps indifferent to extending the empire." (4.32)

Here we read instead about villains, such as Sejanus, and darlings of the people, such as Germanicus, and so much more. Ultimately the history was one that was filled with brutality and death that seemed unending leading Tacitus to rail about the "anger of the divinities against Roman affairs" near the end of the book (16.6). In spite of this the remnants of his original tome still make a fascinating and exciting read - truly a great book. show less

Imagine that an American historian documented the years 1861 to 1885, the quarter century during which the Republican Party controlled the presidency and enjoyed nearly unbroken control of Congress. Now imagine this work was lost except for the part covering 1861, including the election of Lincoln, the formation of the Confederacy, and the first battles of the Civil War.

This is Tacitus’s “Histories.” In its full form, it covered the 27-year reign of the Flavian Dynasty, from its rise show more in the shambles of Nero’s suicide to its collapse with Domitian’s assassination. The only books which survive are those covering the Year of the Four Emperors — and what a year it was.

What makes this especially valuable is that Tacitus has two advantages: the eye of a critical historian and the fact that the Flavians are dead. The former allows him to sift conflicting sources from an era of civil war and rival agendas, and the latter allows him to write without fear that a sitting emperor might take offense and banish him to the tender embrace of Pluto.

That’s not to say Tacitus writes without bias. He’s no friend of the late dynasty; and is an aristocrat of a traditionalist bent, equally contemptuous of undisciplined soldiers, scheming generals, and slimy politicians. As far as he’s concerned, everything went wrong when Rome’s greatness dissolved the ancient republican virtues that gave it greatness:

“The old ingrained human passion for power matured and burst into prominence with the growth of the empire. With straiter resources equality was easily preserved. But when once we had brought the world to our feet and exterminated every rival state or king, we were left free to covet power without fear of interruption.”

This sort of irony is red meat to Tacitus, and he piles it high as rival generals from the picket lines of Germania and the war zone of Judea converge on Rome, and as barbarian tribes erupt from the receding tide of Roman distraction. Tacitus loves jarring contrasts and competing opposites. No one appreciates the sardonic twists of Fate’s knife quite as much as he does.

This picturesque chronicle of imperial chaos leaves me regretful that we don’t have the rest of the “Histories,” but what we do have is invaluable. Tacitus offers a salutary reminder that the blessings of civil peace are not small. When a great nation turns on itself, vicious men prosper over virtuous, and brave soldiers die the death of cowards. Irony is fun to read about, but much less fun to live through. show less