Tacitus

His major works are the Histories and the Annals. The Annals was written after the Histories but covers early Roman Emperors. Books 1-4 part of 5 7-10 missing

Tacitus' premise in the Histories and the Annals is how can you functional as a good Roman senator under the corrupting influence of the emperors? Tacitus would have faced this dichotomy personally as he was both a senator Governor of Asia. He writes the Histories and Annals is the style with perhaps more maturity in the Annals in a time preoccupied with Civil War

Tacitus does not focus just on the machinations of Rome. he gives us a wide context and writes extensively on what is happening in Germany, Britain and the Parthaginans. He reminds us thatAugustus's advice was not to extend the boundaries of the Roman Emperor beyond what they were when he dies. In fact he writes that in to his will and largely the subsequent Emperors follow it. However, this leaves a vacuum. Armies are lacking focus in the 1st century and get attached to their generals rather than the Emperors. Stable borders means that the Governors can start to build their own power-bases. Looting and plundering has now been replaced by taxes and grain production in order to continue to fuel the Roman Empire back in Rome

He focuses on Germany and Britain for other reasons. He was writing during the time in AD89 that Nerva has adopted Trajan and he not returned to Rome, which raises suspicions. Tacitus maybe explaining the historical importance of the region and giving some contect to his deciosn not to return.

Tacitus and Britain is about battles and conquest. He takes the perspective of the tenacious Britons trying to defend their lands. He describes how, under Roman Governor Agricola the Britons civilized them but also led them into servitude and decadence. In contrast . The Caledonian King Calidicot gets an army together to have another battles with the Roman army. Tacitus sees Spartan values in these Picts as well as old Roman values. Tacitus is still wanting a Roman victory but wishes the Romans had some of these lost virtues he sees in the Picts.

In fact Tacitus believes the best of the Roman virtues was the during 2nd C BC and not during Augustus' reign. He believes it is in In man's nature to seek power and from that wealth, civil wars, autocracy and decadence develop. The system is to blame, Emperors are to blame with the collusion of the senators. They are encouraged to accuse fellow senators. Some physically haul them to prison and watch the torture and killings. Before Caesar, republican histories wrote about the people. In Emperor's time it is all about the emperor. During the introduction he makes this comment about the veracity of comtemporary Roman historians. After the conflict at Actium, and when it became essential to peace, that all power should be centered in one man, these great intellects passed away. Then too the truthfulness of history was impaired in many ways; at first, through men's ignorance of public affairs, which were now wholly strange to them, then, through their passion for flattery, or, on the other hand, their hatred of their masters. And so between the enmity of the one and the servility of the other, neither had any regard for posterity

Therefore he believes the quality and usefulness of their works has been compromised by ignorance, hostility or subsurvience to the emperor in question. He goes on to say that he is not similarly prejudiced although he personally flourished under the Flavian emperors. However, he still believes he can look back on their rule with a fair amount of detachment and therefore leaves his biographies of Trajan and Nerva until more time has passed to look back on their achievements. Unfortunatley if Tacitus got around to writing these histories they have been lost to prosterity.

Tacitus is more high minded than Suetonius in his depiction of Tiberius. A lot of what he writes is innuendo, rumor and gossip. He repeats the stories but then prefaces it as a rumor. For instance he relates a story of Nero and Pythagoras acting out a marriage with as Nero dressed as the bride Women are manipulative in Tacitus' history. Valeria Messalina is the lustful bride of Claudius. Tiring of Claudius she attempts to marry her lover while Claudius is still alive. Claudius' freemen are scandalized. Claudius races back to Rome. She pleads for mercy. He tells her he will see her tomorrow but she is slaughtered overnight by the freedmen worried that she will turn him around.

There are few sex scenes in Tacitus' history unlike Suetonius. Tacitus sees no redemptive quality whereas the senatorial stories there is redemption. For instance Livia poisons Augustus' fig to endure that Tiberius becomes Emperor and Agrippina likewise poisons Claudius so that Nero had become Emperor ahead of Britanicus(She is Livia’s great granddaughter).

In the history few are written about positively. Vitellius is one example of that but Tacitus also acknowledges that when he is sent away to become Governor his rule is enlightened

Conclusion

Is this history or gossip? It would fail by the historical biographical standards of today. It lacks the sources and documentation but in someway it is so much more because of its higher expectations. He says in work of history we should commemorate great deeds and for posterity the evil deeds and denounce them. It is didactic, we should learn and we can predict and it is a kind of moral manual. We should be moved and learn and put it into practice

We don’t know what happened to Tacitus. In later generations he influences Marcellinus Thomas Moore rediscovers Tacitus and so does Gibbon. For Gibbon it is decline and fall not rise and fall because in many ways Rome has always been in decline. Robert Graves takes Tacitus as his base for his history but brings in other writers especially Suetonius to recount the sex. Tacitus says rumor is important that is why it is relevant but Graves just presents it as facts.