Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55 - c. 120) - ancient Roman historian, one of the most famous writers of antiquity, author of 3 small works (“Agricola”, “Germany”, “Dialogue on Orators”) and 2 major historical works (“History” and “Annals”).
There are many interesting facts in the biography of Tacitus, which we will discuss in this article.
So, here is a short biography of Publius Cornelius Tacitus.
Childhood and youth
Cornelius Tacitus was born in the mid-50s AD. The man's first name remains unknown, since some researchers mention him as Guy. But handwritten versions of the writer’s works, made in the Middle Ages, are signed as Publius. As for the place of birth, Rome, Transpadania or Narbonese Gaul are most often mentioned.
In his early years, the boy studied rhetoric, among the teachers, presumably, were Julius Secundus, Marcus Apr and Quintilian. But in the education of the future politician there was a gap in the study of philosophical sciences, which became the reason for a cold attitude towards this area of knowledge. Already in his youth, Cornelius was famous for his eloquence and knew how to win the attention of the crowd during public speeches.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Published Logic of the Famous: Quotes and Polls Thursday, December 20, 2021
Tacitus' political career developed during the reigns of such emperors as Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. According to one version of the researchers, he managed to win the trust of the rulers and get into the Senate ahead of schedule, another says that Publius received the position only after being promoted to the questura.
In 88, the man was among the praetors. This earned him membership in the college of quindecemvirs, to which only trusted representatives of the ruling emperor were admitted. During this period, Cornelius participated in the organization of the Terentine Games, which included sacrifice and theatrical performance.
After Nerva came to power, Tacitus became one of the consuls-suffects, whose list had been included under Domitian. The historian witnessed the revolt of the Praetorians, during which the emperor chose Trajan as the heir of Marcus Ulpius and sent him a letter with a line from the Iliad calling for revenge.
Political Views
Tacitus identified 3 main types of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. At the same time, he was not favorable to any of them, criticizing all of the listed forms of government.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus also had a negative attitude towards the Roman Senate he knew. He publicly stated that senators were somehow groveling before the emperor.
Tacitus called the republican system the most successful form of government, although he did not consider it ideal. However, with such a structure in society, it is much easier to develop justice and virtuous qualities in citizens, as well as achieve equality.
Story
During the time of Publius, historiography was considered a subspecies of oratory and was revered by the Romans. However, there were few writers willing to chronicle the events of the past or present. This was due to the fear of falling out of favor with the current emperor or ruining the reputation of the Senate. But Tacitus took it upon himself to describe the milestones of history, remaining in the role of an observer.
Tacitus (56 CE - 120 CE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
Posted by Second Hand Wisdom Friday, February 9, 2021
Sculpture of Publius Cornelius Tacitus
According to biographers, the desire to chronicle came to Publius soon after the overthrow of Domitian. The researcher’s works trace the influence of predecessors and rhetorical skill. The man uses the “new style” techniques that spread among orators in the 1st century AD - short, precise phrases, antitheses and paradoxes.
Among the first works of the historian was the biography of the commander Gnaeus Julius Agricola. It briefly describes the man's early life and focuses on military campaigns, with an emphasis on campaigns fought in the British Isles. Thanks to its geographical and ethnographic references, the work is considered a source of knowledge about the history of the archipelago during the period of Roman rule.
The next work was “Germany,” which describes the terrain of the state, its inhabitants and individual tribes. Cornelius meticulously recorded the facts, which were later used by researchers. It also contains brief information about the Slavs. After completing this work, Tacitus began work on the Dialogue on the Orators, which mentions his supposed teachers Julius Secundus and Marcus Apr.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Publio Cornelio Tacito (@publius_tacitus_55) on Jun 23, 2021 at 9:21am PDT
Later, the man began creating his most ambitious work, which was called “History.” The cycle includes from 12 to 14 books, the narrative of which begins with a description of the period of the reign of four emperors and ends with the time when Nerva came to power.
Another great work of Publius is the “Annals,” which includes about 16–18 books. They attempt to describe events starting from 14 BC. Tacitus was attentive to the selection of sources, trying to identify contradictory and unreliable information. He studied the memoirs of prominent Romans, the works of ancient researchers and writers, and used the archives of the Senate and legislative acts.
Despite the careful selection of information and the desire to remain neutral, his own point of view on events is often visible in Cornelius's works. Describing the era of the reign of Emperor Nero, the historian expressed his opinion about Christians. He considered believers to be sectarians and believed in stories that they held secret meetings and terrible rituals. And in the XIII part of the “Annals” the researcher spoke negatively about the Armenians, calling them “two-faced and fickle.”
Tacitus Cornelius(P. Cornelius Tacitus) is a wonderful Roman historian and one of the great representatives of world literature. As a thinker, historian, artist, he always attracted special attention. His life cannot be reproduced with accuracy and completeness. He came from a little-known Italian equestrian family, whose ancestor was, apparently, some freedman of the Cornelian family. Genus. around 55 A.D. His childhood passed during the time of Nero; According to the tastes of the era, he received a thorough but purely rhetorical education. In 78 he married the daughter of the famous commander Agricola; was on friendly terms with Pliny the Younger, who conveys valuable details about his life. The flourishing age of Tacitus coincided with the reign of the first Flavians; he began serving under Vespasian. Titus granted him a quaestor (about 80), that is, he introduced him to the senatorial class; under Domitian he was praetor (Tas., Hist., I, 1); after 88, he held some position in the provinces (maybe he was a legate in Belgica). Returning to Rome, T., amid the terror of Domitian's tyranny, was forced to withdraw from participation in affairs. Remaining a silent observer of the dark events taking place in the capital, he felt called to delve into historical work. Under Nerva in 97, T. was consul. During the reign of Trajan, he corrected the post of proconsul of Asia; under Trajan, the main works of T. were written. He died soon after Hadrian ascended the throne (c. 120). Rich life experience imprinted on his highly tuned soul; vivid memories of his older contemporaries about the beginning of the empire, firmly assimilated by his deep mind; careful study of historical monuments - all this gave him a large supply of information about the life of Roman society in the 1st century. according to R.H. Imbued with the political principles of antiquity, faithful to the rules of ancient morality, T. felt the impossibility of implementing them in the public field in the era of personal rule and depraved morals; this prompted him to serve the good of his homeland with the word of a writer, telling his fellow citizens about their destinies and teaching them goodness by depicting the surrounding evil: T. became a historian-moralist.
Literary activity of Tacitus
in his youth, it was expressed only in composing speeches for the trials that he conducted as a defender or prosecutor.
Practice convinced him that free eloquence cannot flourish during the reign of the monarchy, and his first essay is devoted to proof of this thought - a discussion on the reasons for the decline of oratory “Dialogus de oratoribus” (about 77). This is a very small work (42 chapters), written in an elegant language (still Ciceronian, although showing signs of the original style of the later works of T.), not only valuable in literary terms, but also rich in historical data. The presentation is heartfelt, subtle, witty, but still devoid of bitterness; a number of living typical images of representatives of Roman education pass before the reader’s eyes. The appearance of historical
works dates back to the reign of Trajan, when the justice and gentleness of the ruler ensured freedom of speech (see Tas., Hist., I, 1).
He began with two (“monographic”) essays, which appeared in 98. The first is a biography of Agricola
(“De vita et moribus Julii Agricolae,” 46 chapters), written with the express purpose of praising his civic virtues and military exploits.
This work is replete with material for getting acquainted with the era in general. The author provides important information about the population of the British Isles and the morals of Roman society during the time of Domitian. The construction of the story resembles the manner of Sallust. Language is not alien to artificiality, softened by the warmth of tone and the richness of painting. The figure of the hero and the background on which she is drawn are written masterfully. According to T., good people can live and act under bad rulers; through strength of spirit in exploits for the prosperity of the state and persistent abstinence from participating in the atrocities of tyrants, they gain glory for themselves and set a good example for others. Here you can already feel T.’s favorite philosophical and historical idea - In the same year, T. published his small but famous “Germany” - “De origine, situ, moribus ac populis Germanorum” (46 chapters). It first examines the life (economic, family, social, political, and religious) of the Germans, then describes the features of the institutions of individual tribes. Scientists have argued a lot about "Germany". Some argued that this was only a political pamphlet, written with the aim of keeping Trajan from a disastrous campaign into the depths of Germany with a story about the strength of its tribes. Others consider it a satire on Roman morals or the utopia of a political sentimentalist who saw a golden age in primitive ignorance. The only view that can be called correct is one that considers T.’s work a serious ethnographic study about the life of peoples who began to play a prominent role in Roman history. Compiled on the basis, if not of personal observations, then of first-hand information and the study of everything previously written about the subject, “Germany” is an important addition to the main historical works of T. It is great happiness for the science of German antiquities that at the head of its sources is a wonderful work, making it possible to begin the history of Germany from the 1st century. according to R.H.; it conveys irreplaceable data, although obscured by a certain mannerism and allegorical presentation, which has caused endless controversy. Disagreements in T.'s assessment of "Germany" stem from the fact that the moralistic element in it is even stronger than in "Agricola": the Roman, alarmed by the disasters of his homeland, involuntarily builds sad antitheses between the weakness of his compatriots and the strength of the enemy threatening them. But T.’s depiction of the morals of his semi-wild neighbors is far from idyllic; The words (chapter 33) sound with deep historical insight (chapter 33), in which the author expresses the wish that the internecine strife of the German barbarians should not cease, for the discord of external enemies delays the onset of the formidable fate that its internal disorders are preparing for the state. T.'s main work was the general history of his time that he conceived.
Initially, he intended to give a story about the cruel reign of Domitian and, in the form of a calming contrast, about the happier reign of Trajan;
but he felt the need to expand the scope and perspective, and the expanded plan covered the entire era of the Principate from the death of Augustus; the history of Trajan was supposed to form the final link of an extensive historiographical scheme, adjacent to the overview of the time of Augustus, already given by previous historians. The author completed only two parts of the program. First of all, he wrote (between 104 and 109) a review (in 14 books) of events from the accession of Galba to the death of Domitian; these are the so-called “Stories”
(Historiae).
Only the first 4 books and part of the fifth have reached us, covering the troubled times of Galba, Otho and Vitellius before Vespasian came into power (69 and 70). The story is told in great detail; The brilliant presentation, based on the author's close acquaintance with the subject, is full of deep interest. T.'s most mature work, the true crown of his historiographical activity, should be called his last work - “ Chronicle”
(Annales). It appeared between 110 and 117 AD. and contains the history of the Roman Empire during the times of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero (“ab excessu divi Augusti”). Of the 16 books, the first 4, the beginning of the 5th, part of the 6th and 11-16 have survived. Doubts that have arisen about whether the Annals belong to Tacitus should be recognized as unfounded (a striking example of absurd hypercritical skepticism in the study of the authenticity of a classical text is the assumption that the Annals attributed to T. are nothing more than, at least in part, falsification of the humanist Poggio Bracciolini). On the contrary, all the author’s individual traits are especially clearly revealed in this remarkable work of his. The opinion that T. borrowed his presentation from any one source, like Plutarch in his biographies, subjecting it only to literary revision, is also unfounded. The Annals are based on a thorough study of numerous written monuments and oral histories; The author partly drew information even from official documents (Senate protocols, a daily Roman newspaper, etc.).
Worldview of Tacitus
best known from his historiographical views. He is a typical representative of Roman education, but at the same time, traits of a unique and powerful individuality are revealed in him. T. was a deep idealist, but, like most historians of antiquity, his idealism is undermined by a pessimistic mood: he doubts progress and therefore is a conservative defender of the good old days. Depicting the republic, he puts forward as the main feature of this heroic era not freedom, but ancient Roman valor (virtus). This point of view caused T. to distrust democracy. Not everyone can be valiant: the people, the crowd - a dark and blind force (Ann., XV, 16); The bearers of virtue have always been nobles. T. knows the shortcomings of all three main forms of government known in his time - monarchy, aristocracy and democracy (Ann., IV, 33), but gives preference to the second: the nobles are the best, and it is good for the people when power is in their hands. T., by birth alien to the nobility, was a sincere defender of the Ciceronian ideal in the era of the already established principate, when the defenders of the fallen order laid their heads on the block, when even T.’s friend, Pliny the Younger, recognized himself as an adherent of the new order. The last “ideologist of the old aristocratic republic” to the question: why did it die? answered: “because the ruling nobility has lost its virtus.” Thus, the ethical-psychological moment is presented as the force that controls the historical process; the author's construction is united by moralistic pragmatism; He sees the source of historical change in the activities of leading groups leading the state to good or evil, depending on the level of morality of their leaders. T. himself clearly understands and frankly shows the need to establish a monarchy in Rome (see Ann., IV, 33; Hist., I, 16). He evaluates the cause of Augustus as a benefit for the Roman world, tired of war and the exploitation of incapable and greedy rulers (Ann., I, 2; Hist. I, 1). But the writer’s harsh conscience does not want to come to terms with the fall of the republic, and the discerning glance of the historian predicts impending disasters. Rulers with a high soul are rarely born into a corrupt society; the state is given into the hands of cruel and dissolute despots, who easily dominate the ignorant mob and do not meet resistance among the nobles, seeking only profit and a career, when even the Senate, the primordial stronghold of civil honor and freedom, is servile. Due to his old Roman mindset, T. could not see the progressive trends that were supported by the empire and strengthened it. The new regime is colored in his eyes only by the blood of his victims and orgies in the palace of the Caesars; his horizons do not extend beyond the center of the Roman world, and the sounds of new life emerging in the provinces do not reach his ears. T. is horrified by the victory of evil and writes history in order, by depicting misfortune, to teach its correction (Ann., III, 65; IV, 33; Hist., III, 51). This task of chronicling evokes almost religious animation in him; but he is perplexed as to how to fulfill his chosen calling. He no longer believes, like Herodotus, that his people are the chosen ones of the gods. The path of the deity is a mystery to him: he pictures it as more vengeful than merciful. On the other hand, he does not know how, like Thucydides, to believe in the saving power of social conditions. He did not learn to understand the significance of the collective factors of life. The story appears to his shocked soul as a dark and terrible tragedy. The state cannot be saved; All that remains is to look for a decent way out for the individual. This was not easy to do in the cultural environment that surrounded T. Members of the principled opposition to Caesarism did not have a ready-made program. They did not develop that spirit of unshakable passive struggle for an idea against violence, which was first created by Christianity; the road of conspiracies seemed low to their moral rigorism; The ancient idea of “loyalty to the state” weighed heavily on them and prevented them from becoming open revolutionaries. Their life was imbued with a difficult personal drama: their conscience reproached them for contributing to despotism by not resisting its cruelties (Agric., 45). T. strives to “submit to fate”; he says that one must desire good sovereigns, but endure the vices of bad ones, like ineradicable formidable phenomena of nature (Hist., IV, 8; 74). He admires the heroism of people like Thrasea, but does not approve of their useless self-sacrifice (Agric., 42). He tries to find between a hopeless struggle and shameful servility a middle path, pure from baseness and free from danger (Ann., IV, 20). T. sets Agricola as an example of such behavior; an ideological republican, he strives to become an honest servant of the empire. In the end he cannot stand this situation; in his very tone there is an internal discord between the noble instincts of a moral person and the rational arguments of a prudent politician. This is why sadness is spread throughout T.’s works; only this is not the indifferent melancholy of tired old age, but the ardent excitement of an offended, but loving and vital heart. His spirit seeks consolation in philosophy, against which the businesslike Roman mind usually feels prejudiced (Agric., 4). The Stoic doctrine, which recommends the development of firmness of will in personal life and death, is most suitable for his temperament. In the tragic crisis that T. was experiencing, this corresponded to the unyielding basis of his soul. Approving stoicism as the best moral support (Ann., IV, 5), T. does not, however, assimilate his characteristic contempt for the world; The teaching of the Stoics brings into T.’s thought only a humane stream, a anticipation of “universal humanity” among ancient national and class prejudices and religious superstitions, from which T. himself is not free. The most remarkable thing in T.’s worldview is what awakens in him next to the disappointment in the proximity of a better future for his homeland’s admiration for the spiritual power of the human person. Arising, perhaps unconsciously, from pessimism, the belief in the power of free will, imbued with the determination to serve good, reveals to him the purpose of studying history and the meaning of life itself. Such faith in T.’s writings fights the hopelessness of despair and, perhaps, gives him the energy to see a civic duty in the writer’s work. He realizes that it is difficult for the historian of the imperial era to erect such a brilliant monument to his time as for the historian of the glorious deeds of the republican past (Ann., IV, 32). But he thinks that much important can be done here: let the historian of the dark events of the age of the Caesars glorify valiant people, expose the vicious to the pillory, in order to educate courageous and honest leaders (Ann. III, 65). Observing the tyranny that wants to enslave the Senate and the people, to impose silence on enlightened people, the writer is illuminated with the hope that despotism will never be able to crush the consciousness of the human race (Agric., 2), that is, in our language, to crush the power of an independent thinking personality (cf. Tas. Hist., III, 55). The trait just mentioned should be called the main sign of T.’s pronounced “individuality” in his Roman worldview.
Internal and external features of historical works
Tacitus
is squeezed out of acquaintance with his character and the historian’s point of view on the matter. T. wants to portray the past impartially (“sine ira et studio”; Ann. I, 1); he strives to know well what happened and to fairly judge what he reports (“Hist.” I, 1), since truth alone can teach good. He collects as much information as possible, but being still more of a “teacher” than a “scientist,” he does not see the need to study the sources in absolute completeness, but is content with the material most suitable for his moralistic goal. He wishes not only to tell facts, but also to explain their reasons (Hist., I, 4). His criticism is weak: he easily accepts the evidence that psychologically seems probable to him; His imagination sometimes subjugates his mind. He does not know how to objectively separate source data from his own judgment. His conscientiousness and sincerity are impeccable, but under the influence of passion he often exaggerates the dark (Tiberius) or light (Germanicus) sides of personalities, and becomes subjective and tendentious when assessing events. However, the indicated shortcomings appear in T. in particulars, but the general picture he paints is usually correct in its core; he had a sense of historical truth. It is impossible to find in him a broad depiction of the cultural life of the entire Roman world; the socio-economic processes that then united the separate parts of the empire into one huge organism and renewed its progress are incomprehensible or unknown to him. But T. is an excellent historian of morals, political and spiritual culture of the old Roman society and at the same time a great psychologist of individuals, and also, partly, of collective movements of groups and masses. He has a lot of data for the history of institutions; he originally introduces the life of foreigners of the East and West. From his works one can glean useful information even on social history, if one reads them in the light of other monuments of Roman antiquity. In general, T.’s works are not only remarkable literary works, but also a primary historical source. T.'s style
places him among the first luminaries of world literature. It is difficult to remain indifferent to the charm of his speech. This is not the calm radiance of Livy's exposition; this is a stormy change of bright and dark colors, reflecting the excitement of the era in wonderful combinations. This is a truly dramatic language, an original mirror of events and the author’s attitude towards them, the indignant voice of a noble man, offended by the discord between reality and the ideal, a citizen struck by the decline of a great people. The author relentlessly participates with his heart in his narration, and this participation is embodied in an endless variety of shades of expressive, powerful words, sometimes majestic and strict, sometimes ardent and indignant, sometimes touching, depending on the nature of the subject depicted. T. was reproached for rhetoric, distorting the truth for the sake of effect; at present, it seems that the prevailing view is that he sought to create artistic rather than historical works. The latter is hardly true, but, undoubtedly, in the very nature of T.’s talent lay a powerful creative principle; in addition, he thought that beauty promotes truth, and therefore did not restrain his imagination from decorating the story with pearls of a strong and flexible style, distinguished by both the boldness of the design and the unique coloring of the colors. Rhetorical education gave T. a rich stock of stylistic techniques, but he did not follow school templates and developed an inimitable language, peculiar to him alone. Always strictly choosing words and sayings, T. carefully avoids the low, vulgar and petty, constantly stays at the height of the great, glorious, uplifting soul and invincibly charms with the luxury of poetic images. The conciseness of his presentation, the meaningfulness of the phrase, the density of thought at first glance sometimes feels like artificial confusion, an immoderate accumulation of material and reasoning. It is easy, however, to overcome this first difficulty - and then the excellent qualities of the work are revealed to the reader, magnificent as hard and at the same time thin metal or marble, wonderful in nature and wonderfully crafted. The book of the Roman historian becomes a source of fruitful scientific work and pure spiritual pleasure: in the ancient writer, a true son of his time, we sense a person close to us, whose powerful genius, through the power of suffering for his homeland, learned to understand eternal ideas.
The fate of the works and the influence of Tacitus
have been subject to strong fluctuations from century to century. Already his contemporaries recognized his talent; Pliny the Younger predicted immortality for him. But the prophecy was not fulfilled immediately. The spoiled taste of his immediate descendants preferred light anecdotal biographers to the sublime and strict historian. Only Ammianus Marcellinus (IV century) imitated T.; Sidonius Apollinaris (5th century) expressed his approval. Christian writers (Tertullian, Orosius) were repelled by his lack of understanding of the new faith. Thus, T. had little influence on the spiritual development of the ancient world, although the emperor who bore his name (see below) took care of the dissemination of his works. Therefore, their complete collection already existed then, from which later texts come. From the 5th century the era of oblivion of T. is coming; Cassiodorus already barely knows him. In the Middle Ages, his manuscripts rested in the darkness of monastery book depositories, rarely mentioned by chroniclers (for example, Rudolf of Fulda in the 9th century). Only from the 14th century. they reappear, and the era of new influence of T opens. Boccaccio reads him and the humanists of the 15th century know him. (Piccolo); his manuscripts are being sought by scientists (Poggio); secular patrons and popes (Nicholas V in the 15th century, Leo X in the 16th century) provide funds for this. T.'s works began to be published (from 1469) and from the 16th century. are the subject of growing interest among politicians (for example, Italian historian Guicciardini), scientists (Dutch philologist Lipsius, 1574) and writers from various countries. Then numerous editions and interpretations already appear. In the seventeenth century. T. becomes very popular in France precisely from the literary side: he attracts the French. philologists and inspires poets (Cornel, Racine). The Age of Enlightenment (XVIII) highly values T. as a defender of freedom. Voltaire salutes his talent; Montesquieu bases his understanding of the history of Rome on it. Rousseau and the encyclopedists find much spiritual affinity with him. He again animates poets (Alfieri, Marie-Joseph Chenier). Strong philosophical and political interest in T. moves into the 19th century; as “the avenger of peoples against tyrants” (the words of Chateaubriand), Napoleon I hates him. The era of special scientific study of T. as a writer begins (this is mainly the merit of German philology), as well as criticism of his historical views. Beginning with Montesquieu, the history of the Roman Empire was depicted according to T., and only in the light of new discoveries and constructions was the one-sidedness of his opinions discovered and the correct point of view on the world-historical role of the empire established (Am. Thierry and Fustel de Coulanges in France, Merivel in England , Mommsen and his school in Germany). This, however, did not diminish the high respect for T. of modern science; in her eyes, he still remains a major historian, a first-class writer (“Michelangelo of literature”) and a deep thinker, whose works, with their beauty and richness of content, according to Granovsky, give pleasure similar to that given by Shakespeare.
Literature
about Tacitus
M. Schanz, “Gesch. d. rom. Literatur" (vol. II, ed. 2, pp. 210 et seq., Munch., 1901; rich bibliography); popular books: O. Wackerman (1898) and W. Rösch (1891); "Der Geschichtsschreiber Tacitus"; scientific works - N. Peter, “Die geschichtl. Litteratur uber die rom. Kaiserzeit" (Lpc., 1895, T.'s world view) and Ed. Norden, “Die antike Kunstprosa” (Lpts., 1898; literary assessment). Wed. also Asbach, “Rom. Kaisertum und Verfassung bis auf Trajan, eine histor. Einleitung zu d. Schriften der T." (Cologne, 1896); Büdinger, “Die Universalhistorie im Altert.” (Vienna, 1895); Dubois-Guchan, “Tacite et son siécle” (P., 1861); G. Boissier, “L'opposition sous les Césars” (P., 1887); L. Ranke, “Weltgeschichte” (in the 3rd volume, chapter “Würdigung der Geschichtsschreibung d. T.”); P. Fabia, “Les sources de Tacite dans les Annales et les Histoires” (P., 1893); F. Ramorino, “Cornelio Tacito nella storia della coltura” (Milan, 1898). The best critical edition of all the works was given by T. Halm (Lpts., Teibner bib.), an excellent commentary edition of the Annals - Nipperdey (Berl.) and Furneaux (Oxford, 1891-96, with rich notes and valuable introductions), commentary. publication of “History” - E. Wolff (Berl.), “Germany” - Schweizes-Silder (1890) and Furneaux (Oxford, 1894). See also Gerbex und Greef, “Lexicon Taciteum” (beginning 1877, not yet completed). Russian translation by V. I. Modestov, with an article (St. Petersburg, 1886).
"Caesar's Candidate"
In 76-77, Cornelius Tacitus married the daughter of Gnaeus Julius Agricola. At the same time, his career began to actively develop. In his notes, Tacitus admitted that three emperors contributed to the rapid success: Domitian, Titus and Vespasian. In political language this means that he was included in the lists of praetor, quaestor and senate. Usually the latter included magistrates from the quaestor or tribune. Tacitus was included in the list ahead of schedule. This testified to the special trust of the emperor. So Tacitus ended up on the list of “Caesar’s candidates” - people who were recommended for the position and approved by the Senate, regardless of ability and merit.
Consulate
In 96 Domitian was overthrown. Nerva became emperor instead. It is not entirely clear from the sources which of them formed and approved the lists of the consulate. Presumably the compiler was Domitian. The final approval was made by Nerva. One way or another, in 97 Cornelius Tacitus received the post of consul-suffect. For him, this was the pinnacle of his fairly successful career. During the period of the consulate, Tacitus became a witness and direct participant in attempts to suppress the rebellion of the Praetorians. Around the year 100, with Pliny the Younger, he dealt with the case of African provincials who opposed Marius Prisca, a consul known for abuses.
[edit] Literature
- Knabe G. S. Cornelius Tacitus: Time. Life. Books. - M.: Nauka, 1981. - 208 p.
- Grevs I. M. Tacitus. - Moscow; Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1946. - 249 p.
- Handbook on the history of Ukraine. Ed. I. Podkova and R. Shusta. - K.: Geneza, 1993.
- Publius Cornelius Tacitus on www.nndb.com - a kind of Internet “Who's Who”
- Garnaga V. P. The work of Cornelius Tacitus in the studies of M. P. Drahomanov // Bulletin of Cherkasy University. — 2010. — Issue 182. — P. 27 — 33.
- Verzhbitsky K.V. Political views of Tacitus // in the book. History: the world of the past in modern light. - St. Petersburg, 2008.
Cornelius Tacitus: photo, origin
It is believed that his ancestors came from southern France or Italy. The cognomen "Tacitus" was used in the formation of Latin names. It comes from a word that means “to be quiet”, “to remain silent”. The cognomen "Tacitus" was most often used in Narbonentic and Cisalpine Gaul. From this, researchers conclude that the family has Celtic roots.
Cornelius Tacitus: biography
In his younger years, he combined service as a judicial orator and political activity. Subsequently, Cornelius Tacitus became a senator. By 97 he became consul of the highest magistracy. Having risen to the heights of political Olympus, Cornelius Tacitus observed the servility of the Senate and the arbitrariness of imperial power. After the assassination of Domitian, the Antonine dynasty took the throne. It was this period that was the first about which Cornelius Tacitus began to express an opinion. The works he planned to create had to truthfully reflect what was happening. To do this, he had to carefully study the sources. He sought to create a complete and accurate picture of events. He processed and reproduced all the accumulated material in his own manner. Effective language and an abundance of polished phrases are the basic principles used by Cornelius Tacitus. The author was guided by the best examples of Latin literature. Among them were books by Titus Livy, Cicero, and Sallust.
Problems of antiquity
However, speaking in general, historiography was in decline during the time of Tacitus. First of all, the establishment of the Principate was to blame for this. Because of him, historians are divided into two categories. The first supported the empire. They tried not to record events that happened in recent decades. The authors usually limited themselves to describing individual episodes, very recent phenomena, and glorified the current emperor. At the same time, they adhered to the official versions of what was happening. The other category included the opposition. Accordingly, in their writings they conveyed completely opposite ideas. This greatly alarmed the authorities. Authors who described contemporary events had difficulty finding sources. The fact is that many of the eyewitnesses remained strictly silent and were killed or expelled from the empire. All documents confirming conspiracies, coups, and intrigues were at the ruler’s court. A very limited circle of people had access there. Few of them dared to reveal secrets. And if there were such people, they asked a high price for information.
Censorship
In addition, the ruling elite began to understand that the authors, recording past events, invariably draw a parallel with modern realities. Accordingly, they expressed their own opinion about what was happening. In this regard, the imperial court introduced censorship. Tacitus was also well aware of this, describing the tragic events associated with Cremucius Cordus. The latter committed suicide, and all his works were consigned to fire. Everything that Cornelius Tacitus wrote testifies to reprisals against opposition thinkers of our time. For example, in his writings he mentions Herennius Senecion and Arulenus Rustik, who were executed. In his “Dialogue on the Orator,” the author voices the widespread opinion of that period that publications that the ruling power could interpret as an attack against it are undesirable. Active pressure began on potential writers for their desire to reveal the secrets of court life and the activities of the Senate. For example, Pliny the Younger testifies that Tacitus, who was reading out his work, was interrupted by the friends of “one man.” They begged not to continue, because they believed that information might be revealed that could negatively affect the reputation of their friend. Writing stories has thus come with various challenges. That is why relatively neutral works did not appear by the end of the 1st century. It was Tacitus who undertook the task of writing such works.
LUCIAN, satirist and atheist
What other famous evidence can be cited? There is evidence from Lucian, a satirist and atheist who lived in the 2nd century. He is called the “Voltaire of classical antiquity,” and even Engels sees in him a flat rationalist point of view. Lucian has an essay “On the Death of Peregrin”, or “On the Death of Peregrin”, where the name of Peregrin means a specific historical figure. Peregrine is engaged in gaining the trust of Christians, and then behaves in such a way that he is expelled from the community. And this is what Lucian writes about Christians:
“So to this day they honor that great man who was crucified in Palestine for introducing this new cult.” And here is the characteristic of Christians: “These madmen are convinced that they are immortal, that they will live forever, so they despise death and go to it voluntarily. Their first legislator inspired them that they were brothers to each other since they renounced the Hellenic gods. They adore their crucified sage and live by his law. They look at earthly goods with contempt and consider them to be common property. But this teaching is not based on anything. It is enough for some deceiver who wants to take advantage of their position to come to them and declare himself a Christian in order to immediately get rich, which does not in the least prevent him from laughing in the eyes of these simpletons.”
Peregrine, portrayed in the satire, was such a deceiver.
