How did Tacitus really feel?

I just had quite a discussion with my professor about how Tacitus really felt about the Roman imperial system. He maintains that Tacitus was a vehement opponent of the system, but I can't help but wonder if this is totally true. There's no doubt, through his own writing and the speeches he puts in the mouths of others, he indicts the imperial system bigtime as "slavery" among other things. But at the same time, he employed by it! And, he seems to have no problem with Romans achieving glory through it, even if it means the deaths of tens of thousands of foreigners--foreigners who at other times he laments have become "enslaved" by Rome, literally and figuratively.

So what do you guys think?

tacitus hatedthe imperial system yes, because one man - the emperor-controlled things, and not the senate, of which he was a member. he was an apologist for the old ways, and probably saw the mid republic as the perfect system , when (as he saw it) the senate led and the people followed. his agricola is a lament for a career that under the old system would probablyhave seen agircola achieve a triumph and become a consular. he could revel in the glory of rome on the one hand and revile the system on the other without any inconsistency in his political thought because of this. and his view of theempire is tainted by his experiences under domitian, experiences which probably colour his picture of life under tiberius. it would be fascinating to have a complete copy of his works because he was a master stylist.

Yeah it's a damn shame we have so little from him. I just can't really get over the inconsistency though. But I guess what it really is is what you're saying; it's not that he cared about the people in foreign lands who were being taken advantage of by Rome, but rather the fact that it was an emperor doing it.

Even so, he nevertheless seems perfectly fine with Trajan's exploits, and thinks of him as one of the "good emperors"; to me this mostly seems because unlike Domitian, he wasn't actively trying to kill him and everyone around him.

> 2 rcss67

Interesting post. It actually reminded me of some of the current commentators in the US today. Many folks are reviling the Bush Administration, what it stood for and how it acted, but they still profess a love of the US.

EDIT: I just noticed you're in Western Australia too! How coincidental. Your library and interests also seem very similar to mine. What a wonderfully small world we live in.

for tacitus it is all about deference to the senate. domitian ignored the senate, failed to show its members proper deference etc so was bad, even though he seems to have been a conscientious administrator who did much to 'pacify' the borders in germania, one of tacitus' pet peeves. trajan showed deference to the senate, so was good,even though many thought/think he over expanded the empire in his partian wars. i actually dont and think he died before he could finish the job, much as alexander is derided for only conquering when much of his administrative work was fine and copied the persian empire. LOL off topic but then if you cant be off topic in ancient history where can you be??? anyway to sum up- nice to senate GOOD EMPEROR bad to senate BAD EMPEROR.

It is interesting to consider how much we can really know about the inner motivations of ancient personalities. We can assume, we can surmise, we can rely on written accounts which may be attempting to advance a certain "spin" on events, a spin that may even be contrary to the author's true belief (the influence of patronage, perhaps?)

Recently I was in a used bookstore, and picked up a book about Boudica. I don't remember the author, or her credentials (pretty sure the author was a woman). I certainly don't disparage authors who attempt to widen our knowledge about people who may be under-represented in history, women in particular, but I couldn't help but leaf through these maybe 200+ pages of narrative and ask, how much do we really know about ancient Britain at this particular time in history, or specifically about Boudica?

What we do know about her, I assume, would be based on accounts of her enemies, i.e., the Romans. I believe Tacitus is the main point of reference, and Cassius Dio wrote something about her second-hand. So what, pray tell, did the author spin her book from? A general description of Roman Britain? Archaeological evidence? Extrapolations of Tacitus? Myths and legends of an idealized queen?

Maybe I was feeling cranky that day, but I couldn't help but feel that a book such as this would, by necessity, be mainly fiction. But if anyone has read the book in question (sorry, I don't have any more information on it) I'd be interested in hearing your impressions.

There is some archaeological evidence. For example the burning of London early in the Roman period can be verified - and is probably related to the fact that she (or her armies) are reported to have done so. But yes, actual factual information is thin on the ground.

Interesting. We know that London burned, we know that she is said to have burned it, but can we have any sense of assurance that the charred remains verify the particular incident? So much of history must be taken on faith, but, yeah, that is something.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Often you have to be glad if the evidence at least doesn't contradict.

I know what you mean re: Boudicca, Makifat. It's one thing to extrapolate a chapter in a book that's full of educated guesses, but I can't imagine there being enough detail, even from the archaeology, to make a book like that more than historical fiction.

Then again, what do I know? :-D

Then again, what do I know?

I think you know plenty.

Well, you aren't alone in finding such things irritating, Makifat. Being the grumpy person I am, I find myself annoyed that every sob dragged up out of the peat is considered 'a sacrificial prince'. Heck, lets face it. Most likely his wife's lover did him in. Or relatives did because they wanted to inherit.

Or maybe he was the village idiot, and they were glad to be rid of him.

:-D

(imagining future archeological digs in Crawford, Texas)

#10 Feicht> "I can't imagine there being enough detail, even from the archaeology, to make a book like that more than historical fiction."

or a New Age empowerment companion.
(damn, i need a 'roll eyes' smiley!)

Ah yes... that's an aspect where "the left" can be just as disingenuous as "the right." There are plenty of examples you can find in history of strong women standing up for themselves and others; you don't have to go about idealizing some to the point of caricature in order to press your point. I mean everyone is going to have a different view of specific people and events, but sometimes you get the impression of people trying to cram the square peg into the round hole, you know? It's kind of like modern Republicans claiming greatness since they're the "party of Lincoln" even though in the 1880s they became (and still are) the "party of big business kickbacks" and abandoned Blacks to their own devices when it was no longer politically expedient...something which they're still trying to come to grips with today.

But I digress...

To get back on the subject of Tacitus, right now I'm reading Whittaker's Frontiers of the Roman Empire and I can already hear my professor's complaints about his view of the ancient sources, heh.

He's saying things like "Tacitus was undoubtedly sympathetic to imperial expansion" and that the Greek writers of the Hadrianic era were essentially lying, haha. Next class should be interesting :-D

>6 Makifat:
I encountered this issue strongly when reviewing an ER book recently ( Circumference: Eratosthenes and the Ancient Quest to Measure the Globe)about the ancient thinker Eratosthenes -- the guy who measured the circumference of the Earth with considerable accuracy around 240 BCE.

Cut and pasted from my review:

"Part of the magic the book achieves is to tell the story of Eratosthenes, when almost nothing is known of the man, and most of his work is known only by the descriptions of others. I left this ample table well satisfied.

My only criticism might be this: the book is aimed at a general reader; no specialist knowledge is required. Yet some of the controversies to which considerable space is allotted appear likely to be of pressing interest largely to the specialist who would not be reading the book. For instance, detailed arguments over which value for the stade -- the Greek unit of linear measurement – Eratosthenes used may exceed the curiosity of the average reader. That said, Nicastro is thorough in covering these debates. And without a broader focus, there could be no book about the long lost Eratosthenes. Surely he deserves to be remembered."

Love it, Stellar! I'm particularly enamored of your phrase: "may exceed the curiosity of the average reader". Most excellent! In fact, I'm telling you now I'm stealing it.

======
edited for typu

You got it, Pam! And thanks.

Always wondered why Voltaire was unsympathetic to Tacitus. Thereʻs a good prima facie case for thinking that T. would be just V.ʻs "kind of writer."

I havenʻt been quite curious enough to go to the university (some 45 miles from here) and dig the applicable Voltaire writings out of his complete (50 or so vols.?) works.