The 1st century CE Roman author Tacitus is one of the most important primary sources that we have for Rome under the Julio-Claudian and Flavian emperors. How Tacitus viewed the Principate largely shapes how it is viewed today. But is his account of what happened during the early age of the empire trustworthy?
While Tacitus primarily wrote about contemporary issues and the recent past, he was in the precarious position of being an aristocrat favored by Emperor Domitian, writing after that emperor was assassinated. This inevitably shaped how Tacitus perceived, and how he chose to portray, Roman imperial history.
Who Was Publius Cornelius Tacitus?
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born in 56 CE and lived during one of the most tumultuous periods in Roman history. As a young man, he would have witnessed the burning of Rome under Emperor Nero, the fall of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty that had transformed the Roman Republic into an imperial state, a year of bloody civil war, and the rise of the Flavian Dynasty, which confirmed once and for all there was no returning to the old ways of the Republic.
But despite living in interesting times, Tacitus had a typical life and career for a Roman aristocrat during the empire. Like many aristocrats, Tacitus was born outside of Rome, probably in the province of Gallia Narbonensis (southern France), but possibly in a different inner-western province. He was born into the equestrian order, which was the second highest social class under the patricians, who were the old aristocratic families. Since so many aristocrats had been persecuted over the last 100 years, there were many opportunities for equestrians to rise through the ranks.
As a young man, Tacitus came to Rome where he studied rhetoric to prepare him for a life in law and politics. As another step in establishing himself in Rome, in 77/78 CE he married the daughter of the well-respected general and senator Gnaeus Julius Agricola. This places the end of his studies and the start of his political career near the end of the reign of Vespasian, the first of the Flavian emperors.
Tacitus on the Cursus Honorum
Tacitus officially entered the cursus honorum, the ladder of public offices that aspiring politicians needed to pass through, under Titus, the second Flavian. Tacitus became quaestor in 81/82 CE, which probably marked his entry into the senate. After that, he became praetor in 88 CE under Domitian and became quindecimvir, a priest of the Sybilline Books and the Sacred Games. This was followed by a career in the Roman provinces, probably commanding a legion, between 89 and 93 CE. In short, he was a member of the senate and his political career thrived under Domitian, the last of the Flavian emperors.
But Tacitus did not immediately fall out of favor when Domitian was assassinated in 96 CE and a new dynasty was established. Tacitus served as consul in 97 CE. It is unclear whether he was chosen by the new emperor, Nerva, or whether he had already been chosen by Domitian, and for the sake of continuity, Nerva decided to maintain the appointment.
After this, Tacitus disappeared from political office for a period, suggesting that he may not have been trusted or favored by the new regime. Nevertheless, he was still active in Rome. Along with his friend Pliny the Younger, in 100 CE Tacitus successfully prosecuted the former governor of Africa, Marius Priscus, for extorting the provincials and abusing his power while in office. It was also during this career break that Tacitus began to write and publish his works.
About ten years later, Tacitus seems to have returned to favor, with Trajan appointing him the governor of Asia, one of the most important governorships in the empire. He probably served sometime between 112 and 118 CE. This seems to have been his last appointment, but by the time he finished his service, Tacitus would have been in his early 60s and was probably focused on his writing. It is unknown exactly when Tacitus died.
Tacitus the Writer
Tacitus’s training in rhetoric would have equipped him with the appropriate skills to become a writer, but he only seems to have decided on this path when his political career dried up. His first major publication was a biography of his father-in-law Agricola in 98 CE, the year after Tacitus’s consulship.
Agricola
This biography was written a bit like a funeral oration and is ostensibly a eulogy for his father-in-law since Tacitus was outside of Rome and unable to attend Agricola’s funeral in 93 CE. But why did he wait five years? While Agricola recounts the deeds of the general in Britain, it was meant to show how hard it was for men in public office, like himself and his father-in-law, to live under Domitian without being complicit in what was portrayed under the new dynasty as tyranny.
Agricola starts with a geographic and ethnographic profile of Britain and then praises the work of Agricola as a commander and general in the region. Tacitus makes it clear that Agricola followed the lead of the emperor because it was his duty as a man in public office. But he also says that it was Domitian’s jealousy of Agricola’s success and popularity that had the emperor prevent Agricola from expanding Roman territory into Scotland and saw his father-in-law’s governorship cut short.
Tacitus relates what Agricola experienced under Domitian explicitly back to himself, in chapters 44-45 of the work:
“Agricola was spared those later years during which Domitian, leaving now no interval or breathing space of time, but, as it were, with one continuous blow, drained the lifeblood of the Commonwealth… It was not long before our hands dragged Helvidius to prison, before we gazed on the dying looks of Mauricus and Rusticus, and before we were steeped in Senecio’s innocent blood. Even Nero turned his eyes away, and did not gaze upon the atrocities which he ordered; with Domitian it was the chief part of our miseries to see and to be seen, to know that our sighs were being recorded…”
Thus, the Agricola reads like an apology for Agricola, Tacitus, and others like them who built political careers during the reign of Domitian.
Germania
Later the same year, Tacitus also published his Germania, which was an ethnographic study of the German tribes outside the Roman Empire. But this work also seems to have been designed to disassociate him from the Flavians and ingratiate himself with the new political regime.
Domitian campaigned against the Germans and celebrated a triumph for his successes against the Chatti tribe. But Tacitus paints a picture of the Germans as noble savages who are still free and not subjugated by Rome, implying that Domitian’s triumph was undeserved.
Dialogus
In 102 CE, Tacitus published his Dialogus, which was a treatise on oratory. While not as explicitly political as his previous two works, it shows how Tacitus imagined himself. Oratory was an art form that thrived during the Roman Republic and was associated with senators who fought for the Republic, like Cicero. By advocating for this art, Tacitus was suggesting that he was a traditional senator with Republican values.
This again aligned Tacitus with the ideology of the new regime. The first emperor, Nerva, was appointed by the senate following the death of Domitian. Rather than start a hereditary dynasty, Nerva appointed the popular general Trajan as his successor. While this reflected the power of the army at this point in Roman history, it was painted as Nerva choosing “the best man” as his successor, abandoning the nepotism that resulted in disastrous emperors such as Nero and Domitian.
Tacitus the Historian
It was after the publication of these shorter works that Tacitus decided to embark on his great historical endeavor. He planned to publish a complete history of the Roman empire, probably from the rise of Augustus to the reign of Trajan. However, he did not complete the work before his death although he published two important sections.
Historiae
Tacitus started by writing what is now known as his Historiae, which was probably published around 105 CE. This was his account of the civil war of 69 CE and the reigns of the Flavians. No doubt he started here not only because it was the period for which he was a firsthand witness, but also to show how he intended to deal with the Flavians in a way that aligned with the ideology of the new regime.
Unfortunately, we only have the first four books and the first 26 chapters of book five of this work. This only really takes us through the “Year of the Four Emperors” and the very beginning of Vespasian’s reign. It ends when Vespasian’s eldest son Titus is preparing to suppress the First Jewish War. This is very important because he provides an ethnographic profile of the Jews, as he did for the Britons and Germans, revealing a lot about how the Romans viewed the Jews.
This means that we don’t know exactly how Tacitus intended to deal with the Flavians, but we can infer some things based on the little that survives and what he says about them elsewhere, such as in Agricola.
He generally seems to have seen Vespasian in a favorable light. Vespasian was a strong general of good moral character who acted to save the empire from collapsing. He is generally portrayed as humble rather than power-hungry. Titus also seems to get favorable treatment, portrayed as a successful general in his own right worthy of succeeding Vespasian. Domitian, in contrast, even as a young man, is portrayed as having an unhealthy thirst for power.
Annales
Tacitus then turned his attention to the Julio-Claudian Period in his Annales, which was probably published after he returned from his governorship in Asia around 117 CE. It is named Annales because Tacitus composed the work in a traditional style, which was a record of each year starting with the names of the consuls, outlining the important international and domestic events, and including important omens that were recorded in that year. This gives the work the appearance of an unbiased “news report.”
Again, unfortunately, much of Tacitus’s text has not survived the millennia. Of what was assumed to be 16 books, we are missing all of books seven to ten and parts of books five, six, eleven, and 16. This means that we have much of the reign of Tiberius, but Caligula is completely missing, and while we have a lot of Claudius and Nero, the account ends in 66 CE, before the final tumultuous years of Nero’s reign.
Again, because so much is missing, we must infer how Tacitus would have treated each of the emperors. Unlike the biographer Suetonius, who seems to think that Tiberius was a thoroughly bad emperor, Tacitus suggests that Tiberius started as a man trying to fulfill his duty and facing the impossible task of filling the power vacuum left behind by Augustus. But that impossible position led to Tiberius’s corruption.
Tiberius is juxtaposed with Germanicus, the nephew he adopted and agreed to name as his successor before the death of Augustus. Germanicus is portrayed as beloved, and several of Tacitus’s characters praise Germanicus. At the beginning of Tiberius’s reign, the armies mutinied in Pannonia and wanted to put Germanicus in power. Unlike the generals of the civil war of 69 CE, Germanicus refused. This angered his troops and Germanicus ended up crying and making emotional appeals to win them over. He only managed this in the end with the help of his wife Agrippina. This behavior from Germanicus would have been considered weak by the Romans, so this was embarrassingly indecent of the general. Therefore, even the venerated Germanicus is not portrayed in a purely positive light.
We know almost nothing of what Tacitus thought of Gaius Caligula, and we do not know if Tacitus had the same contempt for Claudius as Suetonius, who suggested that he was unfit for power. Tacitus does seem to agree with Suetonius that Claudius’s wives were problematic. Tacitus also portrays Nero as wretched from the beginning, the result of being raised at the heart of imperial power. But we don’t know what Tacitus thought about the end of Nero’s reign.
The Annales are also extremely important because it is the oldest non-Biblical source to reference the crucifixion of Jesus during the reign of Tiberius, confirming that he was a real historical figure.
How Reliable is Tacitus?
Overall, Tacitus is considered a good source for the history of the early Roman Empire. He lived through many of the events that he wrote about, and he also had access to excellent sources such as the Acta Senatus, the records of the meetings of the senate, the Acta Diurna, daily notes recorded by Roman officials, plus collections of speeches made by the emperors and collections of letters sent by various important public figures.
Tacitus also claimed that he tried to produce a true historical account not influenced by fear or sycophancy, differentiating him from previous historical accounts, and he was not unduly influenced by his own opinion on decisions and situations from which he was far removed.
While this might have been Tacitus’s aim and ideal, there is no way for writers not to be influenced by their ideology and worldview. While Tacitus may not have personally condemned individual emperors with vitriol, something we see in the works of the imperial biographer Suetonius, what he chooses to include and ignore creates a more subtle bias that can be even more difficult to identify and untangle.
This is why it is important to understand who Tacitus was and what motivated him. An equestrian, Tacitus was a newly minted member of the senate, and the first person in his family to reach that rank. Therefore, he seems to have valued the ideals of the old Republican Senate in a way that only a newly initiated member could.
Tacitus built his career under the Flavians, especially Domitian. The last Flavian was probably not the mad psychopath that he appears to be in many surviving sources, such as Suetonius. Like Nero before him, he was portrayed in this way to justify his assassination and removal from office, and to justify the creation of a new dynasty. Nevertheless, there is evidence that Domitian was autocratic to the point of tyranny and was, perhaps justifiably, paranoid about conspiracies against him. Tacitus is probably genuine when he says that he sometimes felt morally compromised when fulfilling his duty under Domitian.
But Tacitus did fulfill his duty and thrive under Domitian, which put him in a precarious position when the Flavian was overthrown, and a new regime took power. Tacitus had a vested interest in making it clear that he supported the new regime. This situation shapes much of his historical account.
Tacitus comes across as very jaded. He seems to have accepted that imperial power is necessary but flawed, inevitably leading to tyranny and abuses of power. He also clearly believed in the ideals of the Republic but saw the weakness and impotency of the Senate in his day and accepted that there was no going back to the old ways. Overall, this leads Tacitus to be pessimistic, and this runs throughout his account.
While we do not know what Tacitus would have said about Augustus or Trajan, two figures who were generally praised by Roman historians, there are no heroes, among the emperors or the senators, in the rest of his history.
