De Tacito

While Livy wrote at the empire’s consolidation, Publius Cornelius Tacitus wrote at the zenith of Roman conquest under Trajan. Through his Annals and Histories he is the authority on the years from the death of Augustus (14 CE) to that of Domitian in 96. The former work bears heavy focus on the personalities of emperors and their role in a post-Republican society. In Book XII we find the British king Caratacus at the court of Claudius. In a short speech, this noble savage examines the Roman right of subjugation and the dignity of foreign peoples:

Si quanta nobilitas et Fortuna mihi fuit, tanta rerum prosperarum moderatio fuisset, amicus potius in hanc urbem quam captus venissem, neque dedignatus esses claris maiorbius ortum, plurimis gentibus imperitantem foedere in pacem accipere. Praesens sors mea ut mihi informis, sic tibi magnifica est. Habui equos viros, arma opes. Quid mirum si haec invitus amisi? Nam si vos omnibus imperitare vultis, sequitur ut omnes servitutem accipiant? Si statim deditus traderer, neque mea Fortuna neque tua gloria inclaruisset; et supplicium mei oblivio sequeretur; at si incolumem servaveris, aeternum exemplar clementiae ero. (Tacitus, Annals XII.xxxvii.92-103)
 
If moderation of successes had been as great as my nobility and Fortune, I might be coming to this city more preferably a friend than a captive, nor would you have disdained to receive in peace by treaty one having risen from brilliant ancestors and commanding several nations. My present lot, disfiguring as it is to me, is magnificent to you. I had horses, men, weapons and wealth. What wonder is it if I have lost these things unwillingly? For if you wish to command all peoples, does it follow that they all accept slavery? If I were handed over in immediate surrender, neither my Fortune nor your glory would have seemed so brilliant; and my punishment would be followed by oblivion; but if you keep me free from harm, I will be an eternal example of your clemency.

This passage discusses the role of pomp and circumstance in sustaining the emperor’s reputation. Citizens prefer triumphs rather than preemptive diplomacy. It is the contrast of the enemy’s humiliation that glorifies the victor. Caratacus makes this specific point directly to Claudius (esses) before addressing the Romans in general on the question of domination (vos omnibus imperitare vultis). Thus Tacitus renders advice both to his patron and his people. He reminds the latter audience that their affluent society is built on slave labor, and that these slaves were once dignified men like themselves. The only difference was the vicissitude of Fortune. This also counters Aristotle’s view that people are masters and slaves by nature; the Politics favored patricians, who equated birth with merit. Tacitus favored merit, his patrons’ system of succession, after a century of calamitous family rule. Caratacus doesn’t revile Claudius as would Mithridates; but the majority of Tacitus’ imperial characters would get such treatment. From the “uncivilized” perspective, the spectacle of supremacy becomes a “vanity of vanities.”            

           

While historians are products of their environment, they can still weave common threads across time and space. What we find are deeper philosophical and ethical questions, the answers to which determine an entire view of the past and present. Sallust wrote among the turbulence of civil strife, the consequence of a spoiled state. Through Mithridates he exposes Roman virtues as the vices that were tearing his fatherland to pieces, with such rhetoric that Pompey or Sulla would never use. Livy wrote in a cheerful aftermath. He lacked the cynicism to condemn the past; rather he reopened the debate over preordination. But Tacitus saw imperial calamity equal to that of the late Republic. He compromised distaste for enslavement with the meritocracy of his Good Emperors.

Rome’s enemies were at variance with the idea that Rome was superior both by destiny and nobility. The course of events was unkind to them. Thus they more credited the goddess Fortuna’s work than any other. She is the patron saint of humanism. Through her, Sallust can censure the bestial rapacity of Roman conquest; Livy can raise Hannibal to Scipio’s level; likewise Caratacus to Claudius through Tacitus. Removing divine favor accentuates human achievement, however inhumane.

The proper historian does not simply relate facts. He offers multiple perspectives and the lessons wherefrom. Without a look from without, history becomes mere propaganda. Voicing an alternative worldview through adversaries is how the narrator places himself in the narrative, without the perils of sedition. The prosperity of Rome from Scipio to Claudius is at first glance providential. Therefore Sallust, Livy and Tacitus took Romans’ heads out of the clouds, brought them down to earth, and let them face their fellow human beings, even those across the battlefield.