The fourteen books of the Histories covered the period from January 1, 69, to the death of Domitian in 96, as stated above; of those only Books I-IV are preserved complete, while Book V breaks off with chapter 26, at about August, 70 A.D.
The first book contains an account of the brief reign of Galba, of the adoption of Piso as his successor, and of the revolution that placed Otho in the imperial power and cost Galba and Piso their lives ( - ). Then follow ( - ) the story of the uprising of the legions in Germany, where Vitellius was proclaimed emperor, the advance of these troops toward Italy, and Otho’s preparations to oppose them.
With the beginning of the second book ( - ) Tacitus directs our attention to the East, where Vespasian and his son Titus begin to play an important rôle. He then turns back to Italy and to the struggle between the opposing forces of Otho and Vitellius, which ends with Otho’s defeat at the battle of Bedriacum and his suicide ( - ). The rest of the book ( - ) contains an account of the reign of Vitellius, which is quickly threatened by the proclamation in Egypt and Syria of Vespasian as emperor. The general Mucianus, as chief of Vespasian’s forces, advances toward the West. The legions of Moesia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia join Vespasian’s cause. The news from the East finally causes Vitellius to despatch some forces to the north of Italy.
The third book gives an account of the struggle between the adherents of Vespasian and those of Vitellius. This finally comes to a close with the defeat of the latter, who meets a miserable end at the hands of a mob of soldiers and civilians.
With the fourth book we find Vespasian supreme. On January 1, 70, the emperor and his son Titus entered on office as consuls, although both were still in the East. The greater part of the book however ( - ; - ; - ), is taken up with an account of the threatening uprising of the Batavians under Civilis; this story is continued in the fifth book ( - ), although the opening chapters ( - ) claim a greater interest from the modern reader with their history of the expedition led by Titus against Jerusalem.
In time of composition the Histories lie between the three minor works with which Tacitus began his literary career and the Annals, the maturest product of his mind and pen. As is to be expected, the Histories are written in a style that has not yet fully attained the extreme compression of his last work; but nevertheless examples of the flowing period here are few, and the sentences are frequently overweighted with their content. Connectives are comparatively rare; the reader must often find for himself the connection of thought. In diction Tacitus avoids, when possible, the commonplace and vulgar, without, however, seeking for what is strange and unnatural. He employs poetic turns and phrases, being greatly influenced by his predecessors, especially by Sallust and by Vergil. Yet the poetic eloquence that often marks his style is all his own, as are the sharp epigrammatic sentences that form so striking a characteristic of his pages.
In form the Histories are annalistic, often interrupting the narrative to preserve the order of events. To the modern reader this procedure is disturbing, but we must remember that it was one of the canonical forms of history in antiquity.
Tacitus was a man of deep feeling and strong individuality. Eager as he was to write “sine ira et studio,” he was yet unable to do so; we may well conjecture that if we had to-day his account of the reign of Domitian, we should find that the man mastered the historian there as in his extant accounts of the reigns of Tiberius and of Nero. Conscious that the Empire did not offer him the great themes of the Republic, he sought after the springs of action that are hidden in men’s hearts. Human motives interest him so much that he sometimes does not give due weight to the influence of events themselves. He is the most individualistic, the most psychological of ancient historians, and in writing his history of the early empire he has endeavoured to write the history of the human soul. Like most historians of antiquity, he is also a moralist, who regards it as his duty to hold vice up to scorn and to praise virtue. With his age he is inclined to believe in astrology, prodigies and fate; but on these points he often finds himself puzzled.
We may and must at times doubt Tacitus’s interpretation of his facts; but his genius is such that he gives a mordant vividness to his pictures and descriptions. He writes with grim feeling because he is impassioned by his own experiences and knows what a tyrant is. His terse and epigrammatic style, unparalleled before or since, and the manner in which his personality pervades his work have made his fame secure.
Bibliography
Manuscripts
The text of the Histories depends on a single manuscript, the Mediceus II (M), known also as the Laurentianus 68, 2, in which are found as well Annals XI-XIV and Apuleius, De Magia, Metamorphoses, and Florida. This manuscript was written in the eleventh century in Langobard script at Monte Cassino. It is published in facsimile with an introduction by Enrico Rostagno: Codices Graeci et latine photographice depicti, VII.2, Leiden, 1902. All other manuscripts are copies of the Mediceus and comparatively useless, except to supply the text in two passages that are now missing in the parent manuscript: I.69-75 and I.86-II.2.
Printed Editions
The editio princeps brought out by Vindelinus de Spira in Venice in 1470 contained Annals XI-XVI, Histories, Germania, and Dialogus. The first edition of all the works was by Beroaldus, published at Rome in 1515.
Modern editions are numerous. The text edition of Halm, 4th ed., Leipsic, 1884, has long been the standard; but it has now been somewhat replaced for the Histories by that of Van der Vliet, Groningen, 1900, and by C. D. Fisher’s in the Oxford Classical Texts, 1910.
Among annotated editions of the Histories the following may be named: E. Wolff, Berlin, 1886, 1888; C. Heraeus, Leipsic5, 1904; A. D. Godley, London, 1887, 1890; and W. Spooner, London, 1891.
For studying the language of Tacitus, Gerber and Greef, Lexicon Taciteum, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1903, is indispensable.
Translations
The earliest English translation of the Histories (I-IV) was made by Sir Henry Savile, London, 1591. The translation of the complete works by Arthur Murphy, London (1793), 1811, long remained the standard English translation.
More modern and better translations are by Church and Brodribb, London (1864), 1905; W. Hamilton Fyfe, Oxford, 1912; and G. G. Ramsay, London, 1915. That by H. W. Quill, London, 1892, 1896, may also be mentioned, but it is inferior to those just named. In French there is an excellent rendering by Burnouf, Paris, 1914. Although the following translation was made in the first draft largely in Italy with none of these renderings at hand, it probably owes more to them all than the translator is aware; for whatever he has taken, consciously or unconsciously, he is sincerely grateful.
It is unnecessary to say anything on the difficulties of translating Tacitus to those who have attempted to render even a small portion of his work; and the experiment is earnestly recommended to all who would entertain a kindly charity toward one who had dared to face the tempting but impossible task.
Historical Note
To understand the events narrated in the opening chapters of the Histories it is necessary to have in mind the events that led up to the death of Nero and the acceptance of the imperial office by Galba.
As a result of the discontent with Nero, Servius Sulpicius Galba had been proclaimed imperator by his troops in Hither Spain early in April, 68. Galba was now in his seventy-third year. He was of high birth and had been consul thirty-five years before; under Caligula he had distinguished himself when governor of Gaul by repelling the German invasion in 39 A.D., and at Caligula’s death he had declined to listen to his friends who urged him to claim the imperial power. Later the Emperor Claudius sent him to govern the province of Africa, then distressed by the poor discipline prevailing among the soldiers and threatened by barbarian raids. After restoring discipline and securing peace, for which accomplishments he was highly honoured, Galba retired from public life, but in 60 he was recalled by Nero, who sent him to govern Hispania Tarraconensis.
Early in the year 68 Galba had been approached by Vindex
, governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, who proposed that they should revolt and that Galba should be emperor. The old man was too cautious to embark then upon so dangerous an enterprise, but after the revolt under Vindex had broken out he began to fear for his own safety; claiming that his life was sought by Nero, he called his troops together and addressed them on the state of the empire. Although they proclaimed him emperor (imperator), Galba styled himself only the representative of the Senate and the people (legatus senatus populique Romani). He was supported by Otho, governor of Lusitania, and Caecina, quaestor of Baetica. After the rebellion under Vindex had been crushed and Vindex himself had committed suicide, Galba’s situation seemed desperate, but Nero’s hesitation and levity saved him. Finally, Nymphidius Sabinus, prefect of the praetorian guards, embraced Galba’s cause for his own purposes; Nero was condemned to death by the Senate, and met his end in the suburban villa of his freedman Phaon on the night of June 9. Seven days later the news reached Galba at Clunia in Spain, whereupon he assumed the imperial name. His progress to Rome was slow; pretenders in Spain and Gaul had to be put down, and claimants from Germany and Africa disposed of; in October he entered Rome, after overcoming the real, or supposed, opposition of some marines at the Mulvian Bridge.
BOOK I
1 1 I begin my work with the second consulship of Servius Galba, when Titus Vinius was his colleague. Many historians have treated of the earlier period of eight hundred and twenty years from the founding of Rome, and while dealing with the Republic they have written with equal eloquence and freedom. But after the battle of Actium, when the interests of peace required that all power should be concentrated in the hands of one man, writers of like ability disappeared; and at the same time historical truth was impaired in many ways: first, because men were ignorant of politics as being not any concern of theirs; later, because of their passionate desire to flatter; or again, because of their hatred of their masters. So between the hostility of the one class and the servility of the other, posterity was disregarded. But while men quickly turn from a historian who curries favour, they listen with ready ears to calumny and spite; for flattery is subject to the shameful charge of servility, but malignity makes a false show of independence. In my own case I had no acquaintance with Galba, Otho, or Vitellius, through either kindness or injury at their hands. I cannot deny that my political career owed its beginning to Vespasian; that Titus advanced it; and that Domitian carried it further; but those who profess inviolable fidelity to truth must write of no man with affection or with hatred. Yet if my life but last, I have reserved for my old age the history of the deified Nerva’s reign and of Trajan’s rule, a richer and less perilous subject, because of the rare good fortune of an age in which we may feel what we wish and may say what we feel.
2 1 The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time. There was success in the East, misfortune in the West. Illyricum was disturbed, the Gallic provinces wavering, Britain subdued and immediately let go. The Sarmatae and Suebi rose against us; the Dacians won fame by defeats inflicted and suffered; even the Parthians were almost roused to arms through the trickery of a pretended Nero. Moreover, Italy was distressed by disasters unknown before or returning after the lapse of ages. Cities on the rich fertile shores of Campania were swallowed up or overwhelmed; Rome was devastated by conflagrations, in which her most ancient shrines were consumed and the very Capitol fired by citizens’ hands. Sacred rites were defiled; there were adulteries in high places. The sea was filled with exiles, its cliffs made foul with the bodies of the dead. In Rome there was more awful cruelty. High birth, wealth, the refusal or acceptance of office — all gave ground for accusations, and virtues caused the surest ruin. The rewards of the informers were no less hateful than their crimes; for some, gaining priesthoods and consulships as spoils, others, obtaining positions as imperial agents and secret influence at court, made havoc and turmoil everywhere, inspiring hatred and terror. Slaves were corrupted against their masters, freedmen against their patrons; and those who had no enemy were crushed by their friends.
3 1 Yet this age was not so barren of virtue that it did not display noble examples. Mothers accompanied their children in flight; wives followed their husbands into exile; relatives displayed courage, sons-in-law firmness, slaves a fidelity which defied even torture. Eminent men met the last necessity with fortitude, rivalling in their end the glorious deaths of antiquity. Besides the manifold misfortunes that befell mankind, there were prodigies in the sky and on the earth, warnings given by thunderbolts, and prophecies of the future, both joyful and gloomy, uncertain and clear. For never was it more fully proved by awful disasters of the Roman people or by indubitable signs that the gods care not for our safety, but for our punishment.
4 1 Before, however, I begin the work that I have planned, I think that we should turn back and consider the condition of the city, the temper of the armies, the attitude of the provinces, the elements of strength and weakness in the entire world, that we may understand not only the incidents and the issues of events, which for the most part are due to chance, but also their reasons and causes. Although Nero’s death had at first been welcomed with outbursts of joy, it roused varying emotions, not only in the city among the senators and people and the city soldiery, but also among all the legions and generals; for the secret of empire was now revealed, that an emperor could be made elsewhere than at Rome. The senators rejoiced and immediately made full use of their liberty, as was natural, for they had to do with a new emperor who was still absent. The leading members of the equestrian class were nearly as elated as the senators. The respectable part of the common people and those attached to the great houses, the clients and freedmen of those who had been condemned and driven into exile, were all roused to hope. The lowest classes, addicted to the circus and theatre, and with them the basest slaves, as well as those men who had wasted their property and, to their shame, were wont to depend on Nero’s bounty, were cast down and grasped at every rumour.
5 1 The city soldiery had long been accustomed to swear allegiance to the Caesars, and had been brought to desert Nero by clever pressure rather than by their own inclination. Now when they saw that the donative, which had been promised in Galba’s name, was not given them, that there were not the same opportunities for great services and rewards in peace as in war, and that the legions had already secured the favour of the emperor whom they had made, inclined as they were to support a revolution, they were further roused by the criminal action of Nymphidius Sabinus, the prefect, who was trying to secure the empire for himself. It is true that Nymphidius was crushed in his very attempt, but, though the head of the mutiny was thus removed, the majority of the soldiers were still conscious of their guilt, and there were plenty of men to comment unfavorably on Galba’s age and greed. His strictness, which had once been esteemed and had won the soldiers’ praise, now vexed them, for they rebelled against the old discipline; through fourteen years they had been trained by Nero to love the faults of the emperors not less than once they respected their virtues. Besides, there was the saying of Galba’s to the effect that he was wont to select, not buy, his soldiers — an honourable utterance in the interests of the state, but dangerous to himself; for everything else was at variance with such a standard.
6 1 Galba was weak and old. Titus Vinius and Cornelius Laco, the former the worst of men, the latter the laziest, proved his ruin, for he had to bear the burden of the hatred felt for the crimes of Titus and of men’s scorn for the lethargy of Cornelius. Galba’s approach to Rome had been slow and bloody: the consul-elect, Cingonius Varro, and Petronius Turpilianus, an ex-consul, had been put to death, Cingonius because he had been an accomplice of Nymphidius, Petronius as one of Nero’s generals: they were killed unheard and undefended, so that men believed them innocent. Galba’s entrance into Rome was ill
-omened, because so many thousands of unarmed soldiers had been massacred, and this inspired fear in the very men who had been their murderers. A Spanish legion had been brought to Rome; the one that Nero had enrolled from the fleet was still there, so that the city was filled with an unusual force. In addition there were many detachments from Germany, Britain, and Illyricum, which Nero had likewise selected and sent to the Caspian Gates to take part in the campaign which he was preparing against the Albani; but he had recalled them to crush the attempt of Vindex. Here was abundant fuel for a revolution; while the soldiers’ favour did not incline to any individual, they were ready for the use of anyone who had the courage.
7 1 It happened too that the executions of Clodius Macer and Fonteius Capito were reported at this same time. Macer, who had unquestionably been making trouble in Africa, had been executed by Trebonius Garutianus, the imperial agent, at Galba’s orders. Capito, who was making similar attempts, had been executed in Germany by Cornelius Aquinus and Fabius Valens, the commanders of the legions, before they received orders to take such action. There were some who believed that, although Capito’s character was defiled and stained by greed and lust, he had still refrained from any thought of a revolution, but that the commanders who urged him to begin war had purposely invented the charge of treason against him when they found that they were unable to persuade him; and that Galba, either by his natural lack of decision, or to avoid a closer examination of the case, had approved what was done, regardless of the manner of it, simply because it could not be undone. But both executions were unfavourably received, and now that the emperor was once hated, his good and evil deeds alike brought him unpopularity. Everything was for sale; his freedmen were extremely powerful, his slaves clutched greedily after sudden gains with the impatience natural under so old a master. There were the same evils in the new court as in the old: they were equally burdensome, but they did not have an equal excuse. Galba’s very years aroused ridicule and scorn among those who were accustomed to Nero’s youth, and who, after the fashion of the vulgar, compared emperors by the beauty of their persons.
Complete Works of Tacitus (Delphi Classics) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 24) Page 15