This article explores Tacitus’ negotiation of the dilemmas of writing due to the emergence of the Principate and the displacement of Republican politics. These developments constrained the orator and the historian, and required a distinctive approach to the writing of history. I argue that Tacitus develops a conception of the historian’s task that centers on the historian’s moral freedom and educative role in the Principate. This freedom is evident in Tacitus’ depiction of good and bad principes, as well as his discussion of how one ought to behave under the Principate. The historian’s task and moral freedom are important given Tacitus’ desire to avoid the twin dangers of writing under autocratic rulers: contumacy and obsequiousness.
Ronald Syme ( 1958) Tacitus, vol. 1, p. 104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
See Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria , 10.1.122. Tr. H.E. Butler (1963) Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
For a recent (and skeptical) discussion of oratorical decline, see Steven Rutledge ( 2007) ‘Oratory and Politics in the Empire’, in William J. Dominik and Jon Hall (eds) A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, pp. 109-121. Oxford : Blackwell.
4.
Tacitus, Dialogus De Oratoribus , 18. Ed. Roland Mayer ( 2001) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Syme (n. 1), p. 27.
6.
Tacitus, Annals, 4.20. Tr. John Jackson (1986) Tacitus: The Histories and the Annals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
On this point, see C. O. Brink (1994) ‘Can Tacitus’ Dialogus be Dated? Evidence and Historical Conclusions’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96: 279.
8.
For Tacitus’ influence on the history of political thought, see Ronald Mellor (1993) Tacitus, pp. 137-62. New York: Routledge.
9.
For a classic study, see Ronald Syme (1970) ‘The Political Opinions of Tacitus’, in Ten Studies in Tacitus, pp. 119-140. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
10.
A. Saxonhouse (1975) ‘Tacitus’ Dialogue on Oratory: Political Activity under a Tyrant’, Political Theory, 3(1): 54.
11.
Roger Boesche (1987) ‘The Politics of Pretence: Tacitus and the Political Theory of Despotism’, History of Political Thought, 8(2): 189.
12.
Ibid. 190.
13.
Ibid. 205.
14.
Benedetto Fontana (1993) ‘Tacitus on Empire and Republic’, History of Political Thought14: 30.
15.
Ibid.
16.
For readings of the Dialogue which either view Maternus as representing Tacitus in the Dialogue or Tacitus as largely sympathetic to Maternus, see Mellor (n. 7), p. 18;
17.
George A. Kennedy (1994) A New History of Classical Rhetoric, p. 190. Princeton: Princeton University Press .
18.
T.J. Luce ( 1982) ‘Tacitus’, in Ancient Writers: Greece and Rome, vol. 2, Lucretius to Ammianus Marcellinus , ed. T. J. Luce, p. 1014. New York: Scribner. Syme (n. 1), p. 111;
19.
Elaine Fantham ( 2004) The Roman World of Cicero’s De Oratore, p. 323. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
Michael C. Alexander ( 2007 ) ‘Oratory, Rhetoric, and Politics in the Republic’ , in William J Dominik and Jon Hall (eds) A Companion to Roman Rhetoric , p. 98. Oxford: Blackwell.
21.
Quoted in Mark Morford ( 2002) The Roman Philosophers from the Time of Cato the Censor to the Death of Marcus Aurelius, p. 22. London: Routledge .
22.
Cicero, On Duties, 2.66, cf. 1.132, 2.49. Ed. M. T. Griffin and E. M. Atkins (1991) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Fantham (n. 15), p. 308.
24.
Though meetings of the comitiae were not themselves the locus of debate, prior meetings, known as contiones, featured debate. See Andrew Lintott ( 1999) The Constitution of the Roman Republic, pp. 41-3. Oxford : Oxford University Press. On the centrality of political debate to Republican politics, see Fontana (n. 13), pp. 36-7.
25.
Ibid. 37.
26.
Epideictic was relegated to a lower status in Republican rhetorical manuals. Cicero, at De Oratore, 2.44, 340, doubts the utility of viewing it as a separate genre. On its status, see Martin Lowther Clarke (1996 ) Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey, p. 32. New York: Routledge.
27.
On forensic and deliberative oratory in Republican politics, see Elaine Fantham ( 1997) ‘The Contexts and Occasions of Roman Public Rhetoric’ , in William J. Dominik (ed.) Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature, pp. 111-28. London: Routledge.
28.
Cicero, De Oratore, 1.8.34 (n. 22).
29.
For a recent discussion of the relationship between the Principate and literature, see Christina S. Kraus (2000) ‘The Path between Truculence and Servility: Prose Literature from Augustus to Hadrian’ , in Oliver Taplin (ed.) Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A New Perspective, pp. 311-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
Cicero, On Duties, 2.67, 3.1-2, cf. 2.3 (n. 18).
31.
Cicero, Brutus , tr. G.L. Hendrickson (1952) Cicero: Brutus and Orator, p. 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
32.
Tacitus, Dialogue on Oratory, 12.2. Tr. W. Peterson and M. Winterbottom (1958) Tacitus: Dialogus, Agricola, Germania. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
On forensic oratory in the 1st century CE, see Steven Rutledge ( 2001) Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian. New York: Routledge.
34.
Tacitus, Dialogue on Oratory, 13.4: (n. 27), 36.3.
35.
Ibid. 37.1.
36.
Ibid. 36.4, 37.6.
37.
Ibid. 37.4.
38.
Ibid. 37.4.
39.
Ibid. 40.2, 38.2. On his invocation of Sparta and Crete, see Saxonhouse (n. 9).
40.
In using the phrase bene constitutis civitatibus, Tacitus alludes ironically to Cicero’s Brutus, 6, 45.
41.
Tacitus, Dialogue on Oratory, 40.4 (n. 27).
42.
Ibid. 36.2, 41.5.
43.
Tacitus (1963) Agricola, 1.2. Tr. M. Hutton and W. Peterson (1958) Tacitus: Dialogus, Agricola, Germanicus, p. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
Ibid. 1.3.
45.
Tacitus (1967) De Vita Agricolae, ed. R. M. Ogilvie and Ian Richmond, p. 130. London: Oxford University Press.
46.
Tacitus (n. 37), 4.1.
47.
Ibid. 39.2. On this point, see Boesche (n. 10), pp. 205-9.
48.
Tacitus (n. 37), 45.2.
49.
Tacitus, Histories, 1.1. Tr. Clifford H. Moore (1925) in Tacitus: The Histories and the Annals. Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press. Ogilvie and Richmond suggest the passage implies that perceived insults were to be recorded for potential accusation. Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, 309 (n. 39).
50.
Tacitus, Histories, 1.1 (n. 43).
51.
Ibid. 1.1.
52.
On the significance of this title, see Kraus (n. 24), p. 38.
53.
Tacitus, Annals, 1.1 (n. 5).
54.
Tacitus, Dialogue on Oratory, 13.4 (n. 27).
55.
Tacitus, Annals , 1.1 (n. 5).
56.
T.J. Luce ( 1989) ‘Ancient Views on the Causes of Bias in Historical Writing’, Classical Philology84(1): 17.
57.
Ibid. 19.
58.
Ibid.
59.
Polybius, Histories , 8.8.6. Tr. W.R. Paton (1929) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
60.
Ibid. 8.8.7.
61.
See Charles William Fornara (1983) The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, p. 105. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
62.
T.P. Wiseman (1979) Clio’s Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature, p. 38. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
63.
Herodotus, Histories, 1.1. Tr. Aubrey de Selincourt (1996) New York: Penguin.
64.
Cicero, Pro Archia Poeta . Tr. N.H. Watts (1935) Pro Archia Poeta, Post Reditum in Senatu, Post Reditum Ad Quirites, De Domo Sua, De Haruspicum Responsis, Pro Plancio, 14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univeristy Press.
65.
Wiseman (n. 56), p. 39.
66.
Tacitus, Agricola, 1.1.
67.
Ibid. 42.4. There is an irony to this, of course, as Tacitus notes in the following paragraph that Agricola was rumored to have been poisoned.
68.
Tacitus, Histories, 1.2, 1.3 (n. 43).
69.
Tacitus, Annals, 3.65 (n. 5).
70.
In this regard, we may compare him to Seneca, who in On Mercy emphasizes the honor and glory that attended Augustus in his mercifulness. Seneca, On Mercy, 1.10.2-4. Ed. John M. Cooper and J. F. Procope (1995) Seneca: Moral and Political Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
Tacitus, Annals, 4.33 (n. 5).
72.
On Tacitus ‘reading’ principes, see Steven Rutledge (1998) ‘Trajan and Tacitus’ Audience: Reader Reception of Annales 1-2’, Ramus27: 141-59.
73.
Cicero, Ad C. Herennium De Ratione Dicendi, 3.5.10. Tr. Harry Caplan (1964) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74.
Cicero, De Oratore, 2.54.340. Tr. E.W. Sutton (1987) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75.
Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 3.7.2 (n. 2). Clarke and Kraus suggest epideictic took on increased importance under the Principate. Clarke (n. 22), pp. 131-2. Kraus (n. 24), p. 443.
76.
Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 3.7.20-2 (n. 2).
77.
Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1367b36. Ed. Jonathan Barnes, tr. W. Rhys Roberts (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University.
78.
It is important to note, however, the role of non-elite Romans in Tacitus’ narrative. See Victoria E. Pagan (2000) ‘Distant Voices of Freedom in the Annales of Tacitus’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Collection Latomus 10: 368.
79.
Tacitus, Annals, 4.34 (n. 5).
80.
In a similar vein, Strauss noted the dilemma of the censor: ‘the censor must prove not only that the author is intelligent and a good writer in general, for a man who intentionally blunders in writing must possess the art of writing, but above all that he was on the usual level of his abilities when writing the incriminating words’. Leo Strauss (1952) Persecution and the Art of Writing, p. 26. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
81.
For a recent discussion of the strong link between free speech and democracy in Athens, see Kurt A Raaflaub (2004) ‘Aristocracy and Freedom of Speech in the Greco-Roman World’, in Ineke Sluiter and Ralph M. Rosen (eds) Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, pp. 46-9. Leiden: Brill.
82.
Tacitus, Annals, 4.35 (n. 5).
83.
See Boesche (n. 10), pp. 205-9.
84.
Tacitus, Annals, 1.7 (n. 5).
85.
Ibid. 1.11.
86.
Ibid.
87.
Compare Tiberius’ dissembling to the contrast Seneca draws between a tyrant and a king: the tyrant has ‘no trust in the loyalty of friends or the piety of his children’; by contrast, ‘What the people say about [the king] is the same in secret as in the open.’ Seneca, On Mercy, 1.13.3, 5 (n. 64).
88.
Tacitus, Annals, 1.81 (n. 5).
89.
Ibid. 1.52. On the idea of a civilis princeps, see Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (1982) ‘Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King’, Journal of Roman Studies 72: 32-48.
90.
Tacitus, Annals, 1.74 (n. 5).
91.
Ibid. 4.20.
92.
Ibid. 6.23.
93.
Ibid. 6.25.
94.
Seneca, too, had argued that rulers get no glory from savage treatment, but from containing their power. Seneca, On Mercy, 1.17.3 (n. 64).
95.
Tacitus, Annals, 1.13 (n. 5).
96.
Cf. Plato, Republic, 567b-c. Tr. Allan Bloom (1991) New York: Basic Books. Aristotle, Politics, 5.11.1313a40. Tr. Carnes Lord (1984) Chicago: University of Chicago.
97.
Tacitus, Histories, 4.86 (n. 43).
98.
Tacitus, Agricola, 3.2.
99.
Ibid. 39.1.
100.
Ibid. 39.2, 39.3.
101.
Ibid. 41.1.
102.
Germanicus Julius Caesar (16/15 BCE-19 CE) had been adopted by Tiberius, who had in turn been adopted by Augustus, and was hence in the Julian line of succession. Gnaeus Julius Agricola (40-93 CE) was Tacitus’ father in law; his career culminated in his service as legate of Britain from 77 to 84 CE, at the end of which he received a triumph.
103.
Tacitus, Annals, 1.33 (n. 5).
104.
Ibid. 1.43.
105.
Tacitus, Agricola, 22 (n. 37).
106.
Tacitus, Annals, 3.55 (n. 5).
107.
Tacitus, Histories, 1.1 (n. 43); Tacitus, Agricola, 3.2.
108.
Tacitus, Agricola, 3.3.
109.
Tacitus’ depiction of good and bad principes may be fruitfully compared with that of Pliny. Cf. Pliny, ‘Panegyricus’, in (1969) Letters and Panegyricus, ed. Betty Radice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
110.
Pagan (n. 72), p. 367.
111.
Tacitus, Agricola, 42.4.
112.
Tacitus, Dialogue on Oratory, 42.4.
113.
Tacitus, Agricola, 8.1.
114.
Ibid. 9.4.
115.
Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus, a Stoic, opposed Nero by abstaining from participation; he committed suicide, having been condemned for his activities, in 66 CE. See Tacitus, Annals, 16.21 (n. 5).
116.
John Percival (1980) ‘Tacitus and the Principate’ , Greece and Rome27(2): 127.
117.
Tacitus, Agricola, 3.2.
118.
Ibid. 42.4.
119.
Marcus Aper was an orator and praetor in the 1st century BCE. He is often viewed as representing the position opposed to Tacitus’ own. See T. D. Barnes (1986) ‘The Significance of Tacitus’ Dialogus De Oratoribus’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 90: 237-8.
120.
Tacitus, Dialogue on Oratory, 5-8 (n. 27).
121.
Ibid. 5. Sander Goldberg makes precisely this point in his defense of Aper: ‘For Maternus to repudiate the oratorical enterprise itself . . . is therefore to turn his back not just on vanity and avarice but on the very obligations of his class to his society . . . Maternus’ withdrawal from such traditional civic duties when has still has much to accomplish (5.4) is thus fraught with moral ambiguities.’ Sander M Goldberg (1999) ‘Appreciating Aper: The Defense of Modernity in Tacitus’ Dialogus De Oratoribus’, Classical Quarterly 49(1): 230.
122.
Tacitus, Dialogue on Oratory, 18.2 (n. 27).
123.
Ibid. 18.3.
124.
Catherine Steel (2006) Roman Oratory, p. 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
