*I can't get the damn footnotes to work automatically. You'll have to scroll down, dear reader.
Great Reversions: A Closer Look at Tacitus’ Opening Remarks (Annales I)
Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere. Tacitus opens his Annales with something of a blunt reminder. In spite of the fact that the very word “king” remained a taboo in polite Roman society, the idea of Roman monarchy begins his annalistic project. For Rome had been ruled by kings “from the beginning” (a principio) (1.1)[1]. And now, with over a hundred years having passed since Augustus had returned Rome to the rule of one, Tacitus is making an unpleasant suggestion: a great reversion has happened. The Roman Republic, it seems, was merely an unexpected swerving from the norm. As Katherine Clarke has written, “…Tacitus saw monarchy as the basis of power; like Appian, he found it possible to compress the whole history of the Republic into a few sentences before returning to Rome in its natural monarchical state” (Clarke 85). Kingship, as far as Tacitus could tell, was at the heart of what it meant to rule in Rome, a city which had now come full circle. Yet history never repeats itself exactly. Rome knew a king again (though of course he was never named as such), yet times had changed. There were new challenges and new disasters. There were also difficulties unique for the historian. These too are specifically noted by Tacitus in his opening remarks. Here he speaks of a time not nearly as far removed, a time mere decades in the past in which wicked emperors had been foolish enough to cause the distortion of history, which was then “falsified on account of fear” (ob metum falsae) (1.10). Tacitus, beginning his own work, seeks to avoid a second reversion to this previous state of censorship. As we work our way through Tacitus’ introduction, we shall see these two reversions at play, both immediately and in later books, particularly in they key historiographical passages of Annales IV.
“From the beginning kings had ruled the city of Rome; Lucius Brutus put in place liberty and the consulship” (…libertatem et consulatum L Brutus institutit) (1.1-2). Tacitus follows his monarchical reminder with an immediate turn: liberty and the elected office of the consulship were set up, or instituted – they had not come naturally. His readers, no doubt, are quite aware that this libertas and the office of the consulatus are in their own age not what they had been under Brutus. For liberty, in Tacitus’ age, was under the cool moderation of the principate, and the consulate was an office of honor, not action. Tacitus’ next turn, moreover, adds a nuanced depth to his theses. We are told of the brevity of despotic rule in the Republican era. Dictatorships were held, when necessary, only “for a time” (ad tempus) (1.2), nor was the office of the decimvir “beyond two years” (ultra biennium), nor did the consular jurisdiction of military tribunals “have strength for long” (diu valuit) (1.2-3). Prior despotisms, like those of Cinna and Sulla, were “not extended” (non longa) (1.4). With these expressions of temporality Tacitus produces for his readers an image of fluidity. Here was a lively and active arena of change, change which nevertheless led to the strength of the Republic. This description is in great contrast to the stagnant state which Tacitus describes in Annales VI. There, after again reminding his readers of the motion and growth of the past, he writes of his own imperial topic, a work, “constrained and inglorious: a peace wholly unmoved or modestly provoked, the state of a sad city” (nobis in arto et inglorius labor: immota quippe aut modice lacessita pax, maestae urbis res) (IV.32.2.1-2). Tacitus is here, right from the beginning, implying that his task will not be one of describing the rapid movements of a lively State, but rather of wading through the sorrowful (and at times pathetic) details of a depressed regime. Rome, having come full circle, is loosing steam.
Yet Tacitus’ portrayal is nothing if not nuanced[2]. He briefly mentions Pompeius and Crassus, men whose names were enough to recall their stories into the minds of Tacitus’ readers. Then he moves on, explaining Augustus, “who, when all were worn out by civil strife, accepted power under the name of ‘princeps’” (qui cuncta discordiis civilibus fessa nomine principis sub imperium incepit) (1.5-6). Here Rome’s freedom has led to Rome’s exhaustion. This it not merely an observation that too much volatility leads to chaos; it is a hint at what Tacitus makes more explicit later in his work: Republics don’t last. Again returning to Tacitus’ supremely important digression in Annales IV, we find Tacitus musing on the nature of human government. He explains, “For the people or the elites or individual men rule all nations and cities” (nam cunctas nationes et urbes populus aut primores aut singuli regunt) (IV.33.1.1-2). An obvious statement, to be sure, but Tacitus does not leave it at that. He continues, “A form of state chosen and brought together from all three [types of rule] is easier praised than produced, and even if it is produced, by no means is it able to exist for long” (delecta ex iis et conflata rei publicae forma laudari facilius quam evenire, vel, si evenit, haud diutruna esse potest) (IV.33.1.2-3). This is a bold statement in light of the Republican ideals which had once made Rome so great, to which even in the time of the principate lip-service was given. Tacitus is a pessimist. A reversion to monarchy, he implies, was not only likely- it was inevitable.
At this point Tacitus begins to change his topic. He gives a nod to the historians of old, reminding his readers that the dramatic events of the past are well-recorded and easily accessible (and were at any rate already common knowledge). His is a new task. Yet even this admission is not without a veiled insinuation. Tacitus states that the prosperous and disastrous events of the past were those of the “old Roman people” (veteris populi Romani) (1.6). These old Roman people are spoken of in such a way as to mark a clear distinction between them and the “new” Roman people living now under the principate. A clear division has occurred; an age divides Rome from Rome. It is no surprise then, to find numerous examples throughout Tacitus’ Annales of the slow passing away of the remnant of good old Roman men. Tacitus will go on throughout the Annales to paint two sides of a chasm: on one stand most of the populus vetus Romani. But a few of their number stand on the other side, making their way through the difficult terrain of a new Rome and slowly going extinct. The chasm between them is nothing other than the principate.
With this grave reminder, Tacitus turns to his second great introductory theme. With it, he is no longer pointing out a Roman reversion to the distant and primordial past, but rather warning his readers to guard themselves against the temptations of reverting to a more recent practice, namely foolish censorship. He starts by admitting that even up to the times of Augustus, “graceful characters” (decora ingenia) were not lacking to describe his rule (1.8). Yet such talents did not last. He explains that eventually “hindered by a swelling servility” (gliscente adulatione deterrentur) (1.8-9), their craft lost its strength. Yet servility to Augustus was only the start of a long historiographical descent into darkness. Its great plummet was to come after Augustus’ death. Tacitus continues, “The affairs of Tiberius and Caius and Claudius and Nero, while these men themselves were flourishing, were falsified on account of fear, and after they had died, were controlled/sedated/feigned [3] by fresh hatreds” (Tiberii Gaique et Claudii ac Neronis res florentibus ipsis ob metum falsae, postquam occiderant recentibus odiis compositae sunt)(1.10). We know, of course, that Tacitus will not leave this claim unsubstantiated. Again in Annales IV we find Tacitus philosophizing first on the nature of his craft (dangers included) and then offering us the ill-fated historian Cremutius Cordus as evidence.
In what is disguised as an aside, an editorial musing, Tacitus makes his case. After positing that critics of ancient history are few and far between, he turns his attention to the contrasting present. “But the descendents remain of those who, while Tiberius was ruling, endured punishment or disgraces. And even if the families themselves should be now extinct, you will find those, who on account of their similar behavior, reckon that alien crimes are being imputed to them” (at multorum, qui Tiberio regente poenam vel infamias subiere, posteri manent; utque familiae ipsae iam extinctae sint, reperies qui ob similitudinem morum aliena malefacta sibi obiectari putent) (IV.33.4.1-5). Tacitus then increases the potency of this veiled reference to his contemporary readers (those who are at least potentially hostile to his efforts), by the story of Cremetius Cordus himself. The re-telling, of course, concludes with Tacitus’ own moralizing: those that try to stomp out the truth to hide their evil will only end up more evil in the eyes history. Censorship is a futile task.
We see then, that the ending of Tacitus’ opening passage in Annales I is the conclusion of an act of authorial apophasis. Tacitus has just hinted at the failure of prior historians, and in doing so he has given a tacit warning of his own intention to set the record straight, even – I would venture – if his task becomes a threatened one. But he immediately brushes this unpleasant topic aside, as if it were irrelevant. “Thus my plan is to share a little about Augustus and his final acts” he claims, “And then about the principate of Tiberius and other things” (inde consilium mihi pauca de Augusto et extrema tradere, mox Tiberii principatum et cetera). This will be done "without bitterness or party spirit (sine ira et studio) of which he himself is far from (procul) (1.12). It is easy to picture a Tacitus grinning sardonically as he summarizes what will be such a dirty and potentially dangerous work with such sterile and optimistic words.
Tacitus opens his Annales with a concern for reversions. He claims immediately that the city of Rome has reverted to its original state. Furthermore, he quietly yet firmly pushes against any attempts to revert to the censorship under which his historian predecessors suffered. It is true, of course, that we do not know for sure which princeps Tacitus himself was writing under. Nor do we know the precise conditions of censorship and control that either Nerva or Trajan held over literature. Yet throughout the Annales we can be sure of Tacitus’ view of his own task, the seeds of which lie in his opening remarks. These reversions, of course, are linked the ultimate reversion – the one most fascinating and fertile for Tacitus as an author. This is the reversion from nobility into savagery, from honesty into deceit, namely, the reversion from good to evil [4]. Tacitus’ brief introduction is pregnant with all these themes, each teased out as his long narrative continues.
1- All quotes are from Annales Liber I unless otherwise noted. All translations from the Latin are my own.
2-Too nuanced, really. Which reminds me offhand of my favorite little footnote, found in Lukac’s At the End of an Age: “Sheridan on Gibbon: ‘Luminous? I meant voluminous’”. But I digress.
3-I have chosen to provide three definitions of the adjective “compositus”, as all three seem capable of fitting well into Tacitus’ opinion concerning the untrustworthiness of his predecessor’s histories.
4-And indeed, we can justifiably call this an actual “reversion” and not just a “getting worse”, inasmuch as one can picture in classical education the human animal becoming the “rational animal”, and then, through vice, returning merely to an animalistic state.
Works Cited
Clarke, Katherine. “In arto et inglorius labor: Tacitus’ Anti-history”. Proceedings of the British Academy. 114. 83-103. Print.
Tacitus Annales Liber I, 1.1-12
Vrbem Romam a principio reges habuere; libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus instituit. dictaturae ad tempus sumebantur; neque decemviralis potestas ultra biennium, neque tribunorum militum consulare ius diu valuit. non Cinnae, non Sullae longa dominatio; et Pompei Crassique potentia cito in Caesarem, Lepidi atque Antonii arma in Augustum cessere, qui cuncta discordiis civilibus fessa nomine principis sub imperium accepit. sed veteris populi Romani prospera vel adversa claris scriptoribus memorata sunt; temporibusque Augusti dicendis non defuere decora ingenia, donec gliscente adulatione deterrerentur. Tiberii Gaique et Claudii ac Neronis res florentibus ipsis ob metum falsae, postquam occiderant recentibus odiis compositae sunt. inde consilium mihi pauca de Augusto et extrema tradere, mox Tiberii principatum et cetera, sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.
No comments:
Post a Comment