SUMMATIVE ESSAY: TACITUS
by P.R. Eaton
With
Tacitus, Ronald Martin manages to position himself in the company of
many esteemed historians of ancient Rome and in particular, a special place
among noted historians specializing in Tacitus and his voluminous works. Martin
presents an argument that is both cogent and clever, as he doesn’t shy away
from enjoining other criticisms of Tacitus, but ably presents a fresh
perspective worthy of investigation and appreciation. Martin skillfully uses
the comments of other contemporary scholars, such as Mommsen, Gibbons, Macaulay
and Bury, to argue that Tacitus, for all of his shortcomings, “had the ability
to see, and the courage to describe the gulf between public perception and
private motive.”[1]
[1] Ronald Martin, Tacitus, Tacitus, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1981). 243, accessed
July 24, 2021.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.5040/9781472540201.ch-008.
[1] Ronald Martin, Tacitus, Tacitus, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1981). 243, accessed
July 24, 2021.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.5040/9781472540201.ch-008.
Tacitus, published by Bloomsbury Academic in 1981,
is eleven chapters at just over 240 pages. Martin commences with background;
the history of history as practiced in Rome. Context is especially important
and Martin clearly sets out to navigate the often-debated waters that is the
historiography of Rome. Very early on in the book, Martin writes that “Tacitus
clearly stands with those who believe that history has a political purpose.”[2] Martin then provides ample
analysis as to what and why Tacitus wrote and believed as he did. Tacitus’
adult life was during the early Roman Empire. Although he as born near the end
of the Republic, he was very much active during the Emperor Domitian’s career.
Martin astutely points out the conditions and the political forces that shaped
Tacitus as an historian and writer.
Martin’s subsequent chapters, after providing
introductory background on the who’s and why’s of Roman historiography, lays
out all of Tacitus’ major works. The Lesser Works, the Histories,
the Annals (Tiberius), the Annals (Claudius), the Annals
(Nero) and then summing up by discussing Tacitus’ style as a writer and
historian. Within these chapters Martin provides clear analysis by way of
sharp, forceful statements and prose. Martin touches the edges of historical
debate so as to not tire or mire the reader down, thus losing ones’ place.
One chapter focuses in on the Histories, capturing
the tumultuous period after Emperor Nero’s death and the period that followed.
A further three chapters alone are dedicated to the Annals and
specifically Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. These four chapters are the
heart of Martin’s argument; that a closer look at Tacitus reveals him to be a
historian of the first rank. Martin powerfully argues that Tacitus skillfully
selects a start time that forces a linkage or connection of Tacitus to a very
long line of Republican historians. Martin compares Plutarch and Tacitus not so
much as a competition but to highlight the differences in styles, approach, and
interpretation of events. Tacitus places
events differently and often makes reference to sources and further, employs
historical perspective. Of the Histories, Martin stakes a claim that “it
has some claim to be the best book Tacitus ever wrote” as it has “pace,
incident, and variety.”[3]
The Annals, typically written year to year, and
pioneered by the Romans, was Tacitus’ cataloging of events from Nero’s death,
AD 69, right up to the death of Domitian in AD 96. Martin observes that Tacitus
used the Annals as character studies of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. The Annals,
collects events and personalities in chronologic order with analysis of ‘why’
and the ‘so what.’ Tacitus endures some critique from Martin, as he points out
the section on Britain. “The British chapters reveal clearly both the merits and
the deficiencies of Tacitus as a historian.”[4] The Annals provide
the grist with which most Roman historians have been judged. Tacitus, like
other before him, is no different. But Martin dispels the concept that Tacitus
made no effort for to be careful and conscientious in his work towards
historical truth and accuracy.
Of
Tacitus’ style, Martin comments “in style he [Tacitus] is acknowledging a
direct line of succession from Cato through Sallust, for whom Cato has been an
important model; but more significantly, he indicates an allegiance in thought
to Cato.”[5] Further commentary by
Martin includes comparing others, such as Cicero and Sallust to Tacitus.
Tacitus is remarkably brief with an ‘avoidance of symmetry’ and Martin goes on
to elucidate Tacitus’ unique position with respect to other Latin historians.
“Tacitus has an acute sensitivity for the disparity between men’s professions
and their actions.”[6]
Thus Martin continues by providing excellent descriptions of the nuances of the
Latin language and how Tacitus employed his knowledge and understanding of the
politics if the day.
Martin
is sympathetic to the struggle Tacitus was consumed by; being an objective and
unjudging neutral historian. Tacitus makes the attempt but often falls short as
he was both a politician and a Roman with vested interests and observations of
political life in his day. Martin comments on another large work on Tacitus by
Ronald Syme who claimed that Tacitus was both an historian and stylist which
Martin lends credulity by remarking the claim as ‘valid.’ Martin cleverly
reminds readers that Tacitus, for failing to remain neutral and objective,
fares no worse than say, Bury, who “claimed history to be a science in 1903”[7] but wrote differently
after World War I.
[1] Ronald Martin, Tacitus, Tacitus, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1981). 243, accessed
July 24, 2021.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.5040/9781472540201.ch-008.
[2] Ibid., 24.
[3] Ibid., 86.
[4] Ibid., 156.
[5] Ibid., 41.
[6] Ibid., 215.
[7] Ibid., 242
Comments
Post a Comment