Tacitus and the Decadence of Rome

Tacitus' Rome is a scene of what? His works can be seen to be studies of what?

Crime, sex and violence. Excessive wealth and senatorial corruption.

Studies of tyranny and decline.

Annals: What period does it cover?

Which bits are missing?

How many books remain?

The death of Augustus to the death of Nero (we think). Missing are the periods of Caligula, Claudius and Nero.

Books 1-4, bit of 5, 6, 7-10 missing, 10 to a bit of 16.

Theme of the Annals?

Preoccupied with the question of how one can be a good senator under the autocratic regime.

Did he have 1st hand knowledge?

Yes - had been consul and proconsul of Asia. Knew history from the inside.

Histories: Written before or after the Annals?

Which period does it cover?

What is its main topic?

Before.

Covers AD 69 probably to the death of Domitian (we only have the first part of it).

Civil war.

How are Annals and Histories different/ the same?

Both explore whether Rome can be itself under the emperors, though Annals is perhaps more mature in style. Based on Rome itself in the 1st century AD but also brings in what is happening on the edges of the empire.

Why does Tac bring in events happening on the edges of the empire?

They act in counterpart to events back in the city (campaigns in Germany, in the East against Parthians, in Britain).

What advice did Aug give to successors about expanding the empire? How does this affect the kind of history Tac is writing?

Aug advised. successors not to extend the empire.

Annals stresses that the Romans maintain boundaries but do not push them further - this restricts how much military glory could be achieved. History is different cos there are no great wars.

Why did the army start to announce their own emperors?

They got behind the cause of a man they knew rather than some lofty, unreal figure back in Rome.

Was the empire rich in the 1st century?

Booty wasn't coming in cos they weren't conquering. Revenue came from local taxes and grain from Egypt. Regular flux of money coming to Rome.

Was the empire settled outside Rome in the 1st century?

Largely, but it does vary from place to place. At the end of the Histories, the brutal Jewish Wars are being fought and the siege of Jerusalem is about to happen.

Why did Tacitus focus on Germany?

Probably bc we wrote this in AD 98. Nerva had just adopted Trajan who was still out on the Rhine frontier. This was creating new tension in Rome. Tac probably wrote a monograph about Germany explaining the place to the people.

The Agricola: What is curious about it?

In civilising the British through the building of cities/ education of chieftain's sons, what does Tac say Agricola was really initiating in Britain?

It's meant to be a eulogy to Tacitus' father-in-law. Yet it does choose sometimes to critic empire and imperialism from the point of view from the conquered. Not a process of civilisation but of servitude that comes with baths/ banquets.

Agricola: Does Tac allow the conquered to criticise imperialism? Who? What does he call the Britains and what does he call the Romans? What does he say Roman rule has involved so far?

Yes.

The Caledonian chieftain Calgacus as he summons 30,000 troops in North Scotland to fight last stand against Romans.

"Last of the free."

"Pillagers of the world."

"Nothing but looting, ravaging and butchery."

Agricola: Does Tac admire the Britains? Which virtues does he find in them? Why is this ironic? Is the coming servitude of the Britains something Romans have already experienced?

Yes.

Old Roman values: dedication to country, respect for your ancestors.

Ironic that they are found only on the remote edges of the empire.

Yes.

Is there a sense in Tacitus' writings that the time of political equality and traditional morals was in the very dim distant past? Is he talking about before Augustus, during the Republic?

Yes. No - he is talking about the second century BC.

What are all the writings of Tacitus essentially about?

The subjection of the Roman world to the emperors.

What does power lead to?

Wealth - civil war - autocracy.

What did Tac see as the nature of corruption (what was corrupt and decadent in Rome)?

Complex process. Individual rulers are to blame as well as individual senators who collude with emperors.

It's not simply a question of blaming the emperors - everyone is compromised by it.

Does Tac blame himself for guilt of the senatorial order?

Yes. In the Agricola, he says WE the senators led opponents to prison and stained ourselves with innocent blood.

What can you do as a senator under an emperor?

1) Collude by bringing accusations of treason against ppl emperors are suspicious of.

(Helvidius Priscus)

2) You can stand to one side and be silent.

3) You can speak by but run the risk of being accused of treason yourself.

Who does Tacitus idolise and why?

The Republican Historians. Before Tiberius, historians wrote about the people of Rome, not the one ruler.

When they wrote about the people, they wrote without partisanship.

Does Tacitus say he will try to write without an obvious bias?

Yes - he says he will try to return to the neutrality of Republican Historians "sine ira et studio."

Does Tacitus make a direct link between moral and political corruption? Why does he show Tiberius as "lustful"?

Yes.

The lusts of Tiberius are a key part of his characterisation because Tacitus wants him to be shown as a tyrant - someone whose lusts are unbridled. Part of the way we perceive the "tyranny of Tiberius."

Does Tacitus go into details about Tacitus' lusts as much as Suetonius?

No! He's a bit more high brow...

Why does Tacitus think the inclusion of gossip and rumours is important?

Because this is how people told the story and perceived what was going on at the time.

What does it say about the regime when a ruler indulges his lusts?

It's corrupt.

Women are characterised mostly as what?

Scheming and corrupt, bringing down men with corruption.

Why does Tacitus include the story about Messalina and the freedmens' standoff over her illegal marriage? What does it tell us about roles of women?

Perfect example of senatorial gov gone wrong. All that's happening here is a contest for power between Messalina and the freedmen. Claudius is just a silly old man who doesn't know what's going on around him.

Are there many sex scenes in Tacitus? Why?

No - it's a sign of the corruption of senatorial power. Tells few sex scenes cos they show no possibility of redemption. More interested in senatorial scenes bcos there is the possibility of redemption.

Why are women so important? Did aristocratic women in the Republic have considerable political clout? In the Principate, what happens?

The women bear the heirs. They have more control over this than anyone else. Yes - they would organise who married who. Their influence is expanded.

Does Tacitus play on the resemblance between Livia and Agrippina (her great-great-granddaughter)? What binds them?

Yes. They both get their sons to power even though they aren't the sons of the emperors.

How does Agrippina like to "mussel in on" the great decisions of state?

She wants to greet the ambassadors. She wants to have a hidey-hole made where she can listen in on senatorial debate.

Is it terrible that women have such power in the principate?

Yes - this is a sign of deep corruption. The senate is where the decisions should be made, not the emperor's bedroom.

Who does Tacitus actually rate?

He's not critical of everyone. Lucius Vitellius (Vitellius' father) and Otho come off well, who are given provincial commands and behave impeccably.

Any historian he mentions is also quite virtuous.

How do Tacitus' works fail by modern historical standards?

In some senses, it would fail by the standards of serious historical scholarship bc of lack of explicitness about documentation and style etc.

How is Tacitus' history so much more than what modern history could be? What does Tacitus think is the function of history? Who is he writing for? Why is his writing so stylised?

It is also more than any history could be cos it has so many higher expectations of what history should be doing. The work of history is to commemorate great deeds and bring to the attention of posterity evil deeds.

Tacitus thinks history is didactic - we should learn from it and predict what will happen.

He writes as a statesman for people who will be in power.

Because of its strong sense of its utility, you have to stir up the emotions and engage your audience by writing in a style that is full of stylistic ornamentation.

Is decline a theme that occurs in literature even before the emperors? Who talks about Rome having declined from its republican days during Augustus' time? Is the theme stronger in writings dealing with the reigns of the emperors?

Yes - the golden age is always in the past.

Horace.

Yes. Trope that becomes esp important under the emperors. More of a reason to think Rome is in decline.

Why does Domitian come off so badly in Tacitus? Does he say the Romans can ever be what they once were after the tyranny of Domitian?

Bc he lived under his tyranny. No - he says we can never return to the same liberty, but we can at least speak about what happened.

Why is it such a shame we don't have the rest of the Histories?

The rest of the Histories would give us Tacitus' contemporary histories, which would be fascinating.

Does Tac actually talk that much about his own "good times"? Why?

No - it might not be congenial to his style of writing to celebrate the "good."

How many liberties did Graves take with Tacitus?

In some ways, he is very Tacitean. He presents Claudius as someone writing a history of Rome for posterity, wanting to expose the corruption of the imperial house so there can be redemption.

Also unTacitean by bringing up the anecdotes of other writers. Sex scenes are given a lot of prominence to represent the corruption of empire. He says Messalina did so and so. Dispels the rumours.