Tacitus Histories (Extra Credit)
Most of the historical works written by the Romans disappeared long ago. But while other books were lost, Tacitus' works were often copied, studied and preserved. Can you guess why this might be so? Please read the first few paragraphs of Tacitus' Histories, and see if you can find a line or two that explains the appeal of Tacitus and his approach to history.
posted by Ancient Art at 8:50 AM
6 Comments:
"I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword"
I think that this work was not lost for one because of the topic that it is on. It is talking about the worst times in Roman and possibly human history, this tends to intrest people. Not to say that his writing style is not the reason as well but to me a topic dealing in this sort of story is always most intersting.
Then too the truthfulness of history was impaired in many ways; at first, through men's ignorance of public affairs, which were now wholly strange to them, then, through their passion for flattery, or, on the other hand, their hatred of their masters. And so between the enmity of the one and the servility of the other, neither had any regard for posterity. But while we instinctively shrink from a writer's adulation, we lend a ready ear to detraction and spite, because flattery involves the shameful imputation of servility, whereas malignity wears the false appearance of honesty.
I like the attributes of what is written in the first paragraph. Tacitus notes that many historians write history the way they see it and a true account of events are one sided. A good historian would either bare witness to the events or compile data from many different sources, including the views of the other sie. A true historian cannot be biased or commited to his particular government. The early greeks new this and tried to get true events by reading the histories kept in the temples and by talking to locals from all sides.
I too liked this line:
"I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once. There was success in the East, and disaster in the West."
People do like to read about these types of things. There would be no interest if there were no conflict. Tacitus was very smart to put this comment into his history before he really delved into the body of what he wanted to say. He engages his readers from the get-go with a great writing tactic.
Wasn’t Tacitus the historian who gave the readers all the juicy gossip, but didn’t really have a direction? Seems that it is interesting reading with many facts.
“There were also many detachments from Germany, Britain, and Illyria, selected by Nero, and sent on by him to the Caspian passes, for service in the expedition which he was preparing against the Albani, but afterwards recalled to crush the insurrection of Vindex.”
“Ever since the time of the Divine Augustus Roman Knights have ruled Egypt as kings, and the forces by which it has to be kept in subjection. It has been thought expedient thus to keep under home control a province so difficult of access, so productive of corn, ever distracted, excitable, and restless through the superstition and licentiousness of its inhabitants, knowing nothing of laws, and unused to civil rule.”
Seems that Tacitus talks about all the areas of the Empire, (Egypt, Britain, Germany, etc, not just Rome). Perhaps the readers of the time just wanted their history to have the interesting facts of the years without all the dry reading. Tacitus adds the dates along with the stories very well.
-Nate Mills
too the truthfulness of history was impaired in many ways; at first, through men's ignorance of public affairs, which were now wholly strange to them, then, through their passion for flattery, or, on the other hand, their hatred of their masters. And so between the enmity of the one and the servility of the other, neither had any regard for posterity. But while we instinctively shrink from a writer's adulation, we lend a ready ear to detraction and spite, because flattery involves the shameful imputation of servility, whereas malignity wears the false appearance of honesty.
This tells that Tacitus is aware of the issues surrounding history and he will do his very best to not keep repeating those follies. I does go on to say that he knew nothing of Galba, whom he choses to write about.
And why his works kept getting copied and the like. I believe it is because he had taken such a non-biased position. That he wrote what he saw.
am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once. There was success in the East, and disaster in the West.
Well the line i choose it is very catchy. People love to read things that catch their attention right away its like fish if you can get them to go for the bait and get the line set then you have them hooked caught. i think tacitus did a good job of baiting the hook and getting the people wanting to read his interupation of roman history therefore that is why it has been preserved over the centuries.
Post a Comment
<< Home