The Annals and Histories – Tacitus

The Annals and Histories – Tacitus – 116 A.D

Reviewed by: Michael Sympson           Date: 15 September 2001

Gossip elevated to an artform.

Tacitus the historian was neither sloppy nor a researcher. He was a senator. He had suffered a hard time under Domitian and bore a grudge against emperors in general. So he picked up on every piece of malicious gossip he could lay his hand on. His obituary at Augustus funeral is a masterpiece of calumny. First he gives the official eulogy, then he suddenly says “but there are those who say …” etc. and pours out all the dirt without ever qualifying who “those” might be. We need to understand, that the Senate considered itself traditionally as the regime’s opposition, regardless of the regime’s merits or demerits.

Only after it had passed the floor of the house a motion could become law; this was the senatorial prerogative. So at every new accession there was a period of haggling and arm twisting between the new emperor and the Senate over the most important piece of an emperor’s civilian power – the “tribunicia potestas” – his veto power. Only a senatorial vote could bestow it on the emperor, but of course it came for some sort of political quid pro quo. So one had a situation of permanent tension between even the best of the emperors and the Senate.

Of course, if necessary, behind every emperor stood 26 legions to bolster his popularity. And because the Senate was an extremely conservative club of plutocrats, a clearinghouse for perks and prestige of dynastic clans, and the Roman equivalent of the modern stock exchange, all rolled together in one enchilada, the emperors could easily figure as the defenders of the people’s rights. Think about Peron in modern days Argentina – same thing. So Nero was extremely popular, even after his death.

He was not at all the inane goof as Tacitus likes to present him. In fact, had Nero not lost his nerves in the end, the army would have remained loyal to him. His popularity was based on huge public works all over the empire – channels, aqueducts, that sort of thing – and tax relieve and generously provided funds from the imperial treasury for cities that suffered fire and natural catastrophes. So when after his assassination an imposter impersonated Nero at the Iranian court, it took years of diplomacy to get this con-man extradited but his myth lived on – see Rev. 9:14, 16:12.

Archaeologists have unearthed inscriptions from some of Nero’s original speeches, such as his pan-Hellenic address that returned administrative autonomy to Greece. It made him immensely popular with Greek people, but it infuriated the Senate, who till then had Greece assigned to his own domain as a proconsular province. Emperor and Senate shared in administration of the empire In most provinces the imperial regime installed legates and kept 17 legions to its disposal; the Senate administrated a few selected “proconsular” provinces nominally commanded 8 legions.

However this was borrowed power – the emperor was undisputed commander in chief. In fact Nero could even afford to issue an order to his best and most prestigious general Corbulo to commit suicide, and the order was obeyed, no questions asked. So we can gauge some of the Senate’s powerless despair, from the hysterical pitch, in Tacitus’ litany of imperial atrocities. But the actual Nero had been more than fifty miles away when another of frequent fires broke out in Rome.

After the news had reached Nero’s court, he immediately initiated relief measures and opened his own estates to the public for temporary shelter. The accusation that Christian or Jewish extremists had set Rome on fire, is not completely out of the question. We should keep in mind, that the destruction of Jerusalem was the result of a campaign ordered by Nero himself in reprisal for suspected or proven arson attacks on Marseilles and Rome! Today we look at Afghanistan and history seems to repeat itself.

Nero’s assassination stopped the campaign for a moment and left Vespasian in charge to finish the job. Which eventually he did. But he wouldn’t have if he had reason to disagree with the policies of Nero’s administration. Terrorism is not just a modern phenomenon and Christians of the period used to pray that the end of this world should come real soon. The theological concept of “parousia” has a political side to it as well. And this makes Tacitus such a difficult read.

How is the modern reader supposed to look through his subtle subterfuge of an extremely biased senator and conservative with an outstanding talent for malicious gossip and sardonic sarcasm who probably was one of the most gifted story tellers of the human race? Tacitus is all about style and innuendo, his narrative doesn’t merely report on facts, the facts are created by the method of their presentation.

Tacitus’ exposition of the Jewish religion is an excellent illustration: he knows as well as everybody else that the inner sanctuary of the Jewish Temple is empty, but he wouldn’t be Tacitus if he wouldn’t treat us to every bit of slanderous misrepresentation he could find on the subject, including the head of an ass as the object of Jewish worship. All this he represents with an air of objectively comparing opinions – as if the author himself is just a disinterested bystander who twiddles his thumbs in disgust over human credulity.

But when Tacitus spars another round on his favorite subject – the evil of empire and emperors as an evil – his monumental narrative can reach the heights of a truly aristocratic indignation and the power of a medieval morality play with Domitian or Nero taking the part of Satan. The danse macabre of the final days under Tiberius’ rule is unforgettable, even if the actual events on the Palatine must have made barely a dent in the public ignorance of half-literate citizens at the metropolis. People went on with their lives. Now they are gone, but Tacitus is still with us and for better or for worse, it is his perspective that has prevailed.