Let me not be misunderstood: I do not say, that for the sake of hearing a bright display of eloquence, it is fit that the public peace should be disturbed by the machinations of turbulent and lawless men. But, not to lose sight of the question before us, let it be remembered, that we are enquiring about an art which thrives and flourishes most in tempestuous times. It were, no doubt, better that the public should enjoy the sweets of peace, than be harassed by the calamities of war: but still it is war that produces the soldier and great commander. It is the same with Eloquence. The oftener she is obliged, if I may so express it, to take the field, the more frequent the engagement, in which she gives and receives alternate wounds, and the more formidable her adversary; the more she rises in pomp and grandeur, and returns from the warfare of the forum crowned with unfading laurels. He, who encounters danger, is ever sure to win the suffrages of mankind. For such is the nature of the human mind, that, in general, we choose a state of security for ourselves, but never fail to gaze with admiration on the man, whom we see, in the conflict of parties, facing his adversaries, and surmounting difficulties.
XXXVIII. I proceed to another advantage of the ancient forum; I mean the form of proceeding and the rules of practice observed in those days. Our modern custom is, I grant, more conducive to truth and justice; but that of former times gave to eloquence a free career, and, by consequence, greater weight and splendour. The advocate was not, as now, confined to a few hours ; he might adjourn as often as it suited his convenience; he might expatiate, as his genius prompted him: and the number of days, like that of the several patrons, was unlimited. Pompey was the first who circumscribed the genius of men within narrower limits . In his third consulship he gave a check to eloquence, and, as it were, bridled its spirit, but still left all causes to be tried according to law in the forum, and before the prætors. The importance of the business, which was decided in that court of justice, will be evident, if we compare it with the transactions before the centumvirs , who at present have cognizance of all matters whatever. We have not so much as one oration of Cicero or Cæsar, of Brutus, Cælius, or Calvus, or any other person famous for his eloquence, which was delivered before the last-mentioned jurisdiction, excepting only the speeches of Asinius Pollio for the heirs of Urbinia. But those speeches were delivered about the middle of the reign of Augustus, when, after a long peace with foreign nations, and a profound tranquillity at home, that wise and politic prince had conquered all opposition, and not only triumphed over party and faction, but subdued eloquence itself.
XXXIX. What I am going to say will appear, perhaps, too minute; it may border on the ridiculous, and excite your mirth: with all my heart; I will hazard it for that very reason. The dress now in use at the bar has an air of meanness: the speaker is confined in a close robe , and loses all the grace of action. The very courts of judicature are another objection; all causes are heard, at present, in little narrow rooms, where spirit and strenuous exertion are unnecessary. The orator, like a generous steed, requires liberty and ample space: before a scanty tribunal his spirit droops, and the dullness of the scene damps the powers of genius. Add to this, we pay no attention to style; and indeed how should we? No time is allowed for the beauties of composition: the judge calls upon you to begin, and you must obey, liable, at the same time, to frequent interruptions, while documents are read, and witnesses examined.
During all this formality, what kind of an audience has the orator to invigorate his faculties? Two or three stragglers drop in by chance, and to them the whole business seems to be transacted in solitude. But the orator requires a different scene. He delights in clamour, tumult, and bursts of applause. Eloquence must have her theatre, as was the case in ancient times, when the forum was crowded with the first men in Rome; when a numerous train of clients pressed forward with eager expectation; when the people, in their several tribes; when ambassadors from the colonies, and a great part of Italy; attended to hear the debate; in short, when all Rome was interested in the event. We know that in the cases of Cornelius, Scaurus, Milo, Bestia, and Vatinius, the concourse was so great, that those several causes were tried before the whole body of the people. A scene so vast and magnificent was enough to inflame the most languid orator. The speeches delivered upon those occasions are in every body’s hands, and, by their intrinsic excellence, we of this day estimate the genius of the respective authors.
XL. If we now consider the frequent assemblies of the people, and the right of prosecuting the most eminent men in the state; if we reflect on the glory that sprung from the declared hostility of the most illustrious characters; if we recollect, that even Scipio, Sylla, and Pompey, were not sheltered from the storms of eloquence, what a number of causes shall we see conspiring to rouse the spirit of the ancient forum! The malignity of the human heart, always adverse to superior characters, encouraged the orator to persist. The very players, by sarcastic allusions to men in power, gratified the public ear, and, by consequence, sharpened the wit and acrimony of the bold declaimer.
Need I observe to you, that in all I have said, I have not been speaking of that temperate faculty which delights in quiet times, supported by its own integrity, and the virtues of moderation? I speak of popular eloquence, the genuine offspring of that licentiousness, to which fools and ill-designing men have given the name of liberty: I speak of bold and turbulent oratory, that inflamer of the people, and constant companion of sedition; that fierce incendiary, that knows no compliance, and scorns to temporize; busy, rash, and arrogant, but, in quiet and well regulated governments, utterly unknown. Who ever heard of an orator at Crete or Lacedæmon? In those states a system of rigorous discipline was established by the first principles of the constitution. Macedonian and Persian eloquence are equally unknown. The same may be said of every country, where the plan of government was fixed and uniform.
At Rhodes, indeed, and also at Athens, orators existed without number, and the reason is, in those communities the people directed every thing; a giddy multitude governed, and, to say the truth, all things were in the power of all. In like manner, while Rome was engaged in one perpetual scene of contention; while parties, factions, and internal divisions, convulsed the state; no peace in the forum, in the senate no union of sentiment; while the tribunals of justice acted without moderation; while the magistrates knew no bounds, and no man paid respect to eminent merit; in such times it must be acknowledged that Rome produced a race of noble orators; as in the wild uncultivated field the richest vegetables will often shoot up, and flourish with uncommon vigour. And yet it is fair to ask, Could all the eloquence of the Gracchi atone for the laws which they imposed on their country? Could the fame which Cicero obtained by his eloquence, compensate for the tragic end to which it brought him ?
XLI. The forum, at present, is the last sad relic of ancient oratory. But does that epitome of former greatness give the idea of a city so well regulated, that we may rest contented with our form of government, without wishing for a reformation of abuses? If we except the man of guilt, or such as labour under the hard hand of oppression, who resorts to us for our assistance? If a municipal city applies for protection, it is, when the inhabitants, harassed by the adjacent states, or rent and torn by intestine divisions, sue for protection. The province, that addresses the senate for a redress of grievances, has been oppressed and plundered, before we hear of the complaint. It is true, we vindicate the injured, but to suffer no oppression would surely be better than to obtain relief. Find, if you can, in any part of the world a wise and happy community, where no man offends against the laws: in such a nation what can be the use of oratory? You may as well profess the healing art where ill health is never known. Let men enjoy bodily vigour, and the practice of physic will have no encouragement. In like manner, where sober manners prevail, and submission to the authority of government is the national virtue, the powers of persuasion are rendered useless. Eloquence has lost her field of glory. In the senate, what need of elaborate speeches, when all good men are already of on
e mind? What occasion for studied harangues before a popular assembly, where the form of government leaves nothing to the decision of a wild democracy, but the whole administration is conducted by the wisdom of a single ruler? And again; when crimes are rare, and in fact of no great moment, what avails the boasted right of individuals to commence a voluntary prosecution? What necessity for a studied defence, often composed in a style of vehemence, artfully addressed to the passions, and generally stretched beyond all bounds, when justice is executed in mercy, and the judge is of himself disposed to succour the distressed?
Believe me, my very good, and (as far as the times will admit) my eloquent friends, had it been your lot to live under the old republic, and the men whom we so much admire had been reserved for the present age; if some god had changed the period of theirs and your existence, the flame of genius had been yours, and the chiefs of antiquity would now be acting with minds subdued to the temper of the times. Upon the whole, since no man can enjoy a state of calm tranquillity, and, at the same time, raise a great and splendid reputation; to be content with the benefits of the age in which we live, without detracting from our ancestors, is the virtue that best becomes us.
XLII. Maternus concluded his discourse. There have been, said Messala, some points advanced, to which I do not entirely accede; and others, which I think require farther explanation. But the day is well nigh spent. We will, therefore, adjourn the debate. Be it as you think proper, replied Maternus; and if, in what I have said, you find any thing not sufficiently clear, we will adjust those matters in some future conference. Hereupon he rose from his seat, and embracing Aper, I am afraid, he said, that it will fare hardly with you, my good friend. I shall cite you to answer before the poets, and Messala will arraign you at the bar of the antiquarians. And I, replied Aper, shall make reprisals on you both before the school professors and the rhetoricians. This occasioned some mirth and raillery. We laughed, and parted in good humour.
END OF THE DIALOGUE.
THE HISTORIES
Translated by Clifford H. Moore
Written circa AD 100–110, The Histories covers the Year of Four Emperors following the downfall of Nero, the rise of Vespasian and the rule of the Flavian Dynasty (69–96) up to the death of Domitian. In one of the first chapters of the Agricola, Tacitus had expressed a wish to speak about the years of Domitian, Nerva and Trajan. However, in the introduction of The Histories Tacitus explains that he will also deal with the age of Nerva and Trajan. Only the first four books and 26 chapters of the fifth book have survived, covering the year 69 and the first part of 70. The work is believed to have continued up to the death of Domitian on September 18, AD 96. The fifth book contains, as a prelude to the account of Titus’s suppression of the Great Jewish Revolt, a short ethnographic survey of the ancient Jews and is an invaluable record of the educated Romans’ attitude towards the Jews.
Tacitus wrote the Historiae 30 years later, not long after Trajan’s seizure of power, providing similarities to the events of the year 69, when four emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian) each took power in quick succession. The mode of their accession showed that because imperial power was based on the support of the legions, an emperor could now be chosen not only at Rome, but anywhere in the empire where sufficient legions were massed.
Nerva, like Galba, came to the throne by senatorial designation, in Nerva’s case after the violent death of the previous emperor, Domitian. Like Galba, Nerva had to deal with a revolt of Praetorians and like Galba, he had designated his successor by the traditional expedient of adoption. Galba, described by Tacitus as a feeble old man, had chosen a successor unable, due to his severity, to obtain the faith and the control of the troops. Nerva, instead, had consolidated his power by making a link between the throne and Trajan, who was general of the Upper Rhine legions and popular throughout the army. It is probable that Tacitus was a member of the imperial council in which Trajan was chosen to be adopted.
In the first book of the work, a speech assigned to Galba highlights Tacitus’ ideological and political position. Galba’s pure respect for formality and lack of political realism rendered him unable to control events. In contrast, Nerva adopted Trajan, who was able to keep the legions unified, to keep the army out of imperial politics, to stop disorder among the legions, and thus to prevent rival claimants to the throne. Tacitus was sure that only the principatus (the “prince”) could maintain peace, the fidelity of the armies, and the cohesion of the empire.
Discussing Augustus Caesar’s rise to power, Tacitus says that after the battle of Actium the unification of the power in the hands of a prince was necessary to keep the peace. The prince ought not to be a tyrant, like Domitian, nor a fool, like Galba. He should be able to keep the imperium safe, while saving the prestige and the dignity of the Senate. Tacitus, without any illusions, considered the rule of the adoptive Emperors the only possible solution to the problems of Empire.
The style of narration is rapid, reflecting the speed of the events. The rhythm of the quick-flowing narration leaves no space to slow down or digress, unlike the works of previous Roman historians. To write effectively in this style, Tacitus had to summarise much information from his sources. Sometimes he skips parts, often dividing the story into single scenes, creating a dramatic narration. Tacitus is a master of describing many characters and events. He knows how to portray the mass when it is calm; he knows equally how to show the threat of insurrection and panic-stricken flight. The Histories has been likened to a grim work; it speaks throughout of violence, dishonesty and injustice.
A plaster bust of Nero (AD 37-68), Pushkin Museum, Moscow
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOOK I
BOOK II
BOOK III
BOOK IV
BOOK V
FRAGMENTS
MAPS
Vespasian (AD 9-79) founded the Flavian dynasty that ruled the Empire for a quarter century. He was from an equestrian family that rose into the senatorial rank under the Julio–Claudian emperors. Although he fulfilled the standard succession of public offices, and held the consulship in AD 51, Vespasian’s renown came from his military success: he led the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 and subjugated Judaea during the Jewish rebellion of 66. He also built the Coliseum in Rome.
INTRODUCTION
Life and Works of Tacitus
Our scanty knowledge of the life of Cornelius Tacitus is derived chiefly from his own works and from the letters of his intimate friend, the younger Pliny. The only certain dates are the following: in 78 A.D. he married the daughter of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, whose life he later wrote; in 88 he was praetor and a member of the college of the XVviri, but he may have been appointed to this sacred office before this year. The consulship he obtained in 97 (or 98), and between 113-116 (or 111-112) he governed the province of Asia as proconsul. His earlier political career can be determined with somewhat less accuracy from his own words: dignitatem nostram a Vespasiano inchoatam, a Tito auctam, a Domitiano longius provectam non abnuerim. According to this we may conjecture that he had been tribunus militum laticlavius, and had held some of the offices of the vigintivirate under Vespasian (69-79); the quaestorship then would have come to him between 79 and 81.
From the above facts we can believe that Tacitus was born not far from 55-56 A.D. This date fits the course of his political career; besides, we know that he was only a few years older than his devoted friend, the younger Pliny, who was born in 61 or 62. The place of his birth is unknown, and in fact his praenomen is uncertain; the codex Mediceus I gives it as Publius, but Apollinaris Sidonius, writing in the fifth century, names him Gaius. His father may have been a procurator of Belgic Gaul. Certainly the historian was descended from well-to-do, if not wealthy, parents, for he enjoyed the best education of his day, had the full political career of the nobility, and early married well. Moreover, his attitude of mind is always that of a proud and aristocratic Roman, without sympathy or interest in the affairs of the lowe
r classes; his occasional admiration for an independent and free spirit in foreigners is prompted by his desire to secure a clear contrast for Roman vices.
The influence of Tacitus’s rhetorical studies is clearly seen in all his writings, and he won reputation as an orator. It was natural, then, that his earliest extant work, the Dialogus de Oratoribus, should be an inquiry into the reasons for the decay of oratory under the empire. Modelled on Cicero’s rhetorical works, it shows in form and style the effects of its author’s study. The scene of the dialogue is placed in the year 74-75 A.D., but the date of composition is unknown; apparently it was not published until after Domitian’s death (96). His other works belong to the field of history. Two small volumes preceded his larger studies. The Agricola is an encomiastic biography of his father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius Agricola. A considerable portion of this little book is given to a description of Britain and to an account of the Roman conquest, so that a triple interest — in geography and ethnography, history, and biography — is secured on the reader’s part. The book was composed, or at least published, in 98 A.D. The Germania, published at about the same time, gives an ethnographic account of Germany, in which the Romans then had an especial interest because of Trajan’s projected expedition thither. There is idealization of the Germanic peoples at the expense of the Romans, but also much sober and valuable matter with regard to the Germanic tribes; the booklet is the earliest significant account that we possess of these peoples, for the chapters dealing with Germany in the sixth book of Caesar’s Gallic War are too slight to give us more than a glimpse of the Germanic peoples and their ways.
However, as early as Tacitus was writing his Agricola, he was planning a larger historical work which should deal with his own era. But with the passage of time his plan was somewhat changed: he first composed the Histories, a translation of which is here presented. This work began with January 1, 69 A.D., and was carried through to the death of Domitian (96). Then he turned to an earlier time, and wrote a history of the period from the death of Augustus to the end of 68. He seems to have entitled this work Ab excessu divi Augusti, but he refers to it also as Annales, and this is the name by which it is generally known. Our slight evidence shows that Tacitus was working on his Histories between the years 104 and 109; the latest chronological reference in the Annals is to 117. Apparently death prevented him from carrying out his cherished purpose of writing the history of the happy reigns of Nerva and Trajan.
Complete Works of Tacitus (Delphi Classics) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 24) Page 14