Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Harmondsworth [Eng.] : Penguin Books, 1973. 1975 printing
Description
Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome recount the major historical events from the years shortly before the death of Augustus up to the death of Nero in AD 68. With clarity and vivid intensity he describes the reign of terror under the corrupt Tiberius, the great fire of Rome during the time of Nero, and the wars, poisonings, scandals, conspiracies and murders that were part of imperial life. Despite his claim that the Annals were written objectively, Tacitus' account is sharply critical of the emperors' excesses and fearful for the future of Imperial Rome, while also filled with a longing for its past glories.
User reviews
LibraryThing member le.vert.galant
Tacitus needs no recommendation. The five stars are for the translation by Cynthia Damon which was published in 2009. She captures what Kenneth Rexroth described as "the most mordant style in the history of prose." The bite and terseness of the writing, which seems amenable to English translation,
A few years ago, I tried reading the classic Victorian translation of Church and Brodribb. I thought it was fine, but I struggled to get through the work. In the older translation, it was hard to discern reported speech from Tacitus's narrative. Damon's translation sets off the reported speech in italics, an innovation which makes the text easier to follow while not cluttering the prose with verbal markers of speech. That and an updated syntax and less dated vocabulary make this new version preferable.
Show More
can make Tacitus difficult reading. The year-by-year structure of the Annals and the lacuna of several books, add to the difficulty.A few years ago, I tried reading the classic Victorian translation of Church and Brodribb. I thought it was fine, but I struggled to get through the work. In the older translation, it was hard to discern reported speech from Tacitus's narrative. Damon's translation sets off the reported speech in italics, an innovation which makes the text easier to follow while not cluttering the prose with verbal markers of speech. That and an updated syntax and less dated vocabulary make this new version preferable.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RandyStafford
Anyone who has even casually read about Roman imperial history will have encountered Tacitus. He is, according to translator and noted classicist Michael Grant, virtually the only Latin historian we have for the early days of the Roman Empire. This work, generally considered Tacitus' greatest,
It's history with a moral purpose: to punish evil and reward virtue through the judgement of posterity. Grant calls Tacitus' Latin "unusual and difficult", possessing a pungent simplicity in the original. Has Grant rendered it accurately? Not knowing Latin, I have no idea. (The problem of translation is further complicated by possible corruption in those two manuscripts.) As it appears here, it's a stylish history, particularly in its many speeches.
Tacitus himself was a noted orator and wrote about the art. The speeches he gives us range from mutinous Roman soldiers and Agrippina (wife of Tiberius' nephew Germanicus) reacting to said troops, German barbarians, and some of Nero's victims before they "opened their veins" after his condemnation. I say Tacitus gives us those speeches because they are all invented. There's no way Tactitus would have a verbatim record of what was said. However, as Grant makes clear, he's operating in a tradition of ancient historical writing as well as trying to tell a compelling story.
Grant claims that Tacitus' account of Tiberius' reign is usually considered the highest example of his art. There is certainly art there. I didn't find the condemnation of Tiberius entirely convincing though, and Grant argues that Tacitus is reacting to his experiences as a senator under the tyrannical reign of Domitian rather than Tiberius' who died before Tacitus was born. There is much on Rome's intervention in Parthian and Armenian politics. I found the reign of Nero the most interesting with Tacitus noting the craven, cowardly flattery of most of Rome's nobility along with a few who would not abase themselves. (The amount of people who pliantly committed suicide after facing Nero's disapproval is explained by their effort to protect surviving family members and to preserve at least a portion of their estate.)
Grant helpfully footnotes some of the allusions to missing parts of the work or earlier episodes of Roman history. Still, I wouldn't attempt this work without first reading a general history of the period. Grant does put in a nice glossary of Roman political and military terms. Frankly, I didn't need to look at it, but I did happen to glance at some of the entries. Grant chooses, here, to make some unconventional translations of some terms, particularly the military ones. I'm not sure why. I haven't seen things like "company-commander" for centurion in his other work including his later _The Army of the Caesars_.
The several included maps show almost all the referenced places, and there are four very necessary pages covering the complicated genealogies surrounding the Julio-Claudian emperors.
Show More
covers the period from shortly before Augustus' death to AD 69, about three years before Nero's death. Unfortunately, we don't have the entire work. (The Annals only survived into the Middle Ages through two manuscripts, one for each half of the work.) The section on Caligula is totally missing, and we only have parts of Tiberius' and Claudius' reigns. It's history with a moral purpose: to punish evil and reward virtue through the judgement of posterity. Grant calls Tacitus' Latin "unusual and difficult", possessing a pungent simplicity in the original. Has Grant rendered it accurately? Not knowing Latin, I have no idea. (The problem of translation is further complicated by possible corruption in those two manuscripts.) As it appears here, it's a stylish history, particularly in its many speeches.
Tacitus himself was a noted orator and wrote about the art. The speeches he gives us range from mutinous Roman soldiers and Agrippina (wife of Tiberius' nephew Germanicus) reacting to said troops, German barbarians, and some of Nero's victims before they "opened their veins" after his condemnation. I say Tacitus gives us those speeches because they are all invented. There's no way Tactitus would have a verbatim record of what was said. However, as Grant makes clear, he's operating in a tradition of ancient historical writing as well as trying to tell a compelling story.
Grant claims that Tacitus' account of Tiberius' reign is usually considered the highest example of his art. There is certainly art there. I didn't find the condemnation of Tiberius entirely convincing though, and Grant argues that Tacitus is reacting to his experiences as a senator under the tyrannical reign of Domitian rather than Tiberius' who died before Tacitus was born. There is much on Rome's intervention in Parthian and Armenian politics. I found the reign of Nero the most interesting with Tacitus noting the craven, cowardly flattery of most of Rome's nobility along with a few who would not abase themselves. (The amount of people who pliantly committed suicide after facing Nero's disapproval is explained by their effort to protect surviving family members and to preserve at least a portion of their estate.)
Grant helpfully footnotes some of the allusions to missing parts of the work or earlier episodes of Roman history. Still, I wouldn't attempt this work without first reading a general history of the period. Grant does put in a nice glossary of Roman political and military terms. Frankly, I didn't need to look at it, but I did happen to glance at some of the entries. Grant chooses, here, to make some unconventional translations of some terms, particularly the military ones. I'm not sure why. I haven't seen things like "company-commander" for centurion in his other work including his later _The Army of the Caesars_.
The several included maps show almost all the referenced places, and there are four very necessary pages covering the complicated genealogies surrounding the Julio-Claudian emperors.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mattries37315
Augustus might have established the Principate, but it was up to his successors to continue it and prevent Rome from once against descending into civil war. Tacitus in The Annals of Imperial Rome, the reigns of the Caesars from Tiberius to the death of Nero which would lead to the events in the
The work begins with Tacitus reviewing the reign of Augustus and how Tiberius became his successor, over his more popular nephew Germanicus whose side of the family would eventual rule. Tiberius shrewdly attempts to be modest in claiming the Imperial title, but this hides his dark nature that he developed during his self-imposed exile before becoming Augustus’ heir. Under Tiberius is when the show trials and political persecutions of leading men that would begin that would become notorious under later Emperors. The middle and the very end of Tiberius’ reign, all of Gaius (Caligula)’s reign, and the first half of Claudius’ reign have been lost. Tacitus’ work picks up with how Claudius’ wife Messalina was brought down and his niece Agrippina shrewdly manipulating her way into marriage with her uncle so as to get her son, the future Nero, to become Emperor. Though the show trials and political persecutions continue, Claudius doesn’t instigate them and attempts to be lenient for those being wrongly convicted. Yet once Nero becomes an adult and Claudius’ son Britannicus still a child, Claudius’ days are numbered. Once his great-uncle and adoptive father is dead, Nero assumes the leadership and begins consolidating power including poisoning Britannicus at dinner one night. Though his mother Agrippina attempts to influence him, Nero humors her while attempting to get rid of her and finally succeeding. Though taught and tutored by the renowned Seneca, Nero has learned to rule in the guise of Tiberius yet with the ruthlessness of Gaius and soon anyone that offended him or could have been a threat to him or perceived to be by his hangers on. Though the end of Nero’s reign is missing, the trials and murders of senators were increasing in number to the point that later as mentioned in The Histories they decided to turn on Nero and proclaim Galba.
The unfortunate incompleteness of Tacitus’ work does not diminish the great historical account that it presents of early Imperial history as well as his critique of the Roman aristocracy during the reigns of Augustus’ Julio-Claudian successors. Though we know his opinions of Tiberius and Nero the best since their reigns survived the best, Tacitus critiques of those family members that did not rule were highly invaluable especially all those who in the writer’s opinion might have been more fitting successors to Augustus if not for political intrigue or bad luck. If there is a complaint with this book it is with a decision by translator Michael Grant decision to use modern military terminology in reference to Roman’s military was it, but his decision to use Roman numerals to help identify different historical actors who had the same name—a very common Roman practice—without a doubt help keep things straight. The biggest complaint that I had with Tacitus’ other works, which I had from Oxford World Classics, were non-existent with Penguin Classics and thus I encourage others towards that particular publisher.
The Annals of Imperial Rome is Tacitus’ finest work, showing the corruption of absolute power and how many choose to allow it overcome them instead of standing up to it. Although probably (at least) one-third of the work is missing, the portions we have covers how a politically stable Rome begins to slowly unravel through ever increasing fear of the most powerful man in the Empire. The end result of this is chronicles in Tacitus’ previous work.
Show More
writer’s The Histories.The work begins with Tacitus reviewing the reign of Augustus and how Tiberius became his successor, over his more popular nephew Germanicus whose side of the family would eventual rule. Tiberius shrewdly attempts to be modest in claiming the Imperial title, but this hides his dark nature that he developed during his self-imposed exile before becoming Augustus’ heir. Under Tiberius is when the show trials and political persecutions of leading men that would begin that would become notorious under later Emperors. The middle and the very end of Tiberius’ reign, all of Gaius (Caligula)’s reign, and the first half of Claudius’ reign have been lost. Tacitus’ work picks up with how Claudius’ wife Messalina was brought down and his niece Agrippina shrewdly manipulating her way into marriage with her uncle so as to get her son, the future Nero, to become Emperor. Though the show trials and political persecutions continue, Claudius doesn’t instigate them and attempts to be lenient for those being wrongly convicted. Yet once Nero becomes an adult and Claudius’ son Britannicus still a child, Claudius’ days are numbered. Once his great-uncle and adoptive father is dead, Nero assumes the leadership and begins consolidating power including poisoning Britannicus at dinner one night. Though his mother Agrippina attempts to influence him, Nero humors her while attempting to get rid of her and finally succeeding. Though taught and tutored by the renowned Seneca, Nero has learned to rule in the guise of Tiberius yet with the ruthlessness of Gaius and soon anyone that offended him or could have been a threat to him or perceived to be by his hangers on. Though the end of Nero’s reign is missing, the trials and murders of senators were increasing in number to the point that later as mentioned in The Histories they decided to turn on Nero and proclaim Galba.
The unfortunate incompleteness of Tacitus’ work does not diminish the great historical account that it presents of early Imperial history as well as his critique of the Roman aristocracy during the reigns of Augustus’ Julio-Claudian successors. Though we know his opinions of Tiberius and Nero the best since their reigns survived the best, Tacitus critiques of those family members that did not rule were highly invaluable especially all those who in the writer’s opinion might have been more fitting successors to Augustus if not for political intrigue or bad luck. If there is a complaint with this book it is with a decision by translator Michael Grant decision to use modern military terminology in reference to Roman’s military was it, but his decision to use Roman numerals to help identify different historical actors who had the same name—a very common Roman practice—without a doubt help keep things straight. The biggest complaint that I had with Tacitus’ other works, which I had from Oxford World Classics, were non-existent with Penguin Classics and thus I encourage others towards that particular publisher.
The Annals of Imperial Rome is Tacitus’ finest work, showing the corruption of absolute power and how many choose to allow it overcome them instead of standing up to it. Although probably (at least) one-third of the work is missing, the portions we have covers how a politically stable Rome begins to slowly unravel through ever increasing fear of the most powerful man in the Empire. The end result of this is chronicles in Tacitus’ previous work.
Show Less
LibraryThing member gooneruk
I managed to plough through The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, which details the history of Rome from (roughly) 15AD to 66AD, across a few emperors and a hell of a lot of history.
I say that I ploughed through it, but that’s not strictly true. The initial chapters were a bit of a slog, but
Tacitus seemed to take great pleasure in detailing how the imperial family were basically corrupt and despicable, for the most part, and were heavily influenced by advisers who were only interested in their own ends. Maybe this was because of the time when he wrote, with Rome firmly in decline, and transposing his contemporary views onto history. But I can see why someone like Nero drew contempt from Tacitus: he basically gorged and copulated his way through his time as Emperor, to the detriment of the Empire.
I don’t know Roman history particularly well, and I’ve no idea why I picked this book off of the shelves. My knowledge of Roman culture and history comes from one of those Horrible Histories books back when I was in school, and even then it’s concentrated around things like the army, its conquests and the many odd gods they worshipped.
[Sidenote: weren’t Horrible Histories the best series of books? I swear that my entire interest in history, especially British monarchs, stemmed from those books. They knew exactly how to make history interesting and how to make it appeal to children/young teens. I believe there was even a TV show developed at one point.]
So to go into this book a little blind was a bit daunting. Thankfully, the appendices were multiple and explanatory, and the introduction from its translator also gave the setting for the rest of the text. Usually I skip introductions when I read classics, and just go straight into the novel/text itself, but in this case it was almost necessary to read it.
It’s not an easy read, and it’s not exactly light, but I think it’s worth picking up if you’ve got a vague interest in the gradual downfall of the Roman Empire, and particularly the personalities which brought it to its knees. Whether I go so far as to pick up The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is another matter whatsoever.
I say that I ploughed through it, but that’s not strictly true. The initial chapters were a bit of a slog, but
Show More
once I got used to the style and how events were described, it became thoroughly enjoyable. There’s detail where you want detail, but equally Tacitus seemed to know a slow year when he saw one, and barely gave it more than a couple of pages.Tacitus seemed to take great pleasure in detailing how the imperial family were basically corrupt and despicable, for the most part, and were heavily influenced by advisers who were only interested in their own ends. Maybe this was because of the time when he wrote, with Rome firmly in decline, and transposing his contemporary views onto history. But I can see why someone like Nero drew contempt from Tacitus: he basically gorged and copulated his way through his time as Emperor, to the detriment of the Empire.
I don’t know Roman history particularly well, and I’ve no idea why I picked this book off of the shelves. My knowledge of Roman culture and history comes from one of those Horrible Histories books back when I was in school, and even then it’s concentrated around things like the army, its conquests and the many odd gods they worshipped.
[Sidenote: weren’t Horrible Histories the best series of books? I swear that my entire interest in history, especially British monarchs, stemmed from those books. They knew exactly how to make history interesting and how to make it appeal to children/young teens. I believe there was even a TV show developed at one point.]
So to go into this book a little blind was a bit daunting. Thankfully, the appendices were multiple and explanatory, and the introduction from its translator also gave the setting for the rest of the text. Usually I skip introductions when I read classics, and just go straight into the novel/text itself, but in this case it was almost necessary to read it.
It’s not an easy read, and it’s not exactly light, but I think it’s worth picking up if you’ve got a vague interest in the gradual downfall of the Roman Empire, and particularly the personalities which brought it to its knees. Whether I go so far as to pick up The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is another matter whatsoever.
Show Less
LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind
Roman history, straight from the horse's mouth.
An account which is missing large gaps, but still portrays the Empire through some of its most tumultuous times. A state which tears itself apart.
One of the best accounts of that era that we have - but it is still to be analyzed and read carefully,
An account which is missing large gaps, but still portrays the Empire through some of its most tumultuous times. A state which tears itself apart.
One of the best accounts of that era that we have - but it is still to be analyzed and read carefully,
Show More
with an eye for bias, as with any history. Show Less
LibraryThing member stillatim
In the year of the consulship of x and y, military events occurred, as did these notable moments of jurisprudence. There was the following scandal. The emperor plotted the deaths/punishment/exile of the following people. And so forth.
Tacitus himself apologizes for the monotony of some of the
Otherwise, I had to skim hefty portions of the text because I couldn't really be bothered to look up notes on every 'barbarian' tribesman, or every obscure Roman advocate. And I imagine that will go for anyone who's reading this but isn't a classics student or professor or obsessive. But the high (i.e., low) points make it very much worth while, and anyone who thinks Hollywood and Television and Modern Art are destroying the olde time morals should take note that there's more bloodletting, sexual misconduct and greed in Tacitus than in anything that would make it to your local cinema.
Tacitus himself apologizes for the monotony of some of the
Show More
stories in 16.16, which is obviously a bit mischievous, since the continuous deaths, sexual escapades and military idiocies are, in their own way, pretty entertaining. He's great at telling small scale tales, particularly of Nero (his discussion of Tiberius is a little dull, unfortunately). But it's hard to see the overall arc here. That might be because I didn't read it in Latin and give it my undivided attention, it might be because we're missing big chunks of the text, it might be because the annalistic organization doesn't really allow for overarching arc. Or might be because there is no arc: it's just descent from one repulsive, disgusting emperor to the next. Otherwise, I had to skim hefty portions of the text because I couldn't really be bothered to look up notes on every 'barbarian' tribesman, or every obscure Roman advocate. And I imagine that will go for anyone who's reading this but isn't a classics student or professor or obsessive. But the high (i.e., low) points make it very much worth while, and anyone who thinks Hollywood and Television and Modern Art are destroying the olde time morals should take note that there's more bloodletting, sexual misconduct and greed in Tacitus than in anything that would make it to your local cinema.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Cecrow
Tacitus provides a good overview of the first five Roman emperors, albeit with sometimes large gaps where portions of the manuscript have been lost. There's an intriguing article floating around about the Vactican turning up missing parts, but this was only a well-done April Fools' joke. As the
Augustus: little time is spent on him but from what I gather, the machinations and strategies he employed to become Rome's first emperor were followed by forty years of peace. He also took more trouble than most emperors later would to ensure a worthy successor. I am sorry he was glossed over so quickly. Looked back on with so much adoration in the following reign, he becomes an almost mythic figure. Perhaps even in the time of Tacitus it was still not wise to interrogate this venerated figure's life too closely.
Tiberius: nearly half the volume is dedicated to his rule, and Tactitus seems less than objective. I believe Tiberius was fairly wise and tried to be decent, but was surrounded by tiresome sycophants who kept deferring everything to him. This was at least partly his own fault since he was increasingly too quick to side with and reward informers, encouraging more of them. Perhaps the years of peace under Augustus didn't prepare him to suspect others' motives. He did not do enough to investigate the deaths of his sons, but I'm cautioned not to readily to side with Tacitus in believing the emperor plotted against Germanicus. I largely sympathized with him, but then the pedophilia kicked in. He went downhill from there.
Caligula (Gaius): all the coverage by Tacitus of Caligula's brief four-year rule has been lost. If you turn this up, I'll give you five bucks for it.
Claudius: we've also lost coverage of the first six years for Claudius, and then what we learn most is how bad Claudius was at choosing his wives. Also that Claudius was a bit scatterbrained and easily marshalled by those closest to him. The result is a setting up for the worst emperor of the bunch.
Nero: his eventful reign makes for the easiest reading. Coming to power at the ripe old age of seventeen (with a helping hand from mom), he was far more interested in power than responsibility. In speech he seemed imperial enough, but this was in large thanks to Seneca's tutoring that otherwise came to naught. As a bully at heart he was fearful of any rival for power and resorted to the most obvious solution. On the eastern front with Parthia, I felt manipulated into admiring the exploits of Domitius Corbulo and despising Paetus, but I do. It's almost a mercy the manuscript ends before we see Corbulo's enforced suicide, after every other devastation of Nero's reign, but a pity we can't witness Nero's final downfall.
Show More
Penguin edition's introduction says, we've lost some of the highlights that we know only from other sources. This was a good edition to read, but sometimes I felt misled by word choices. Ballet' did not begin in Ancient Rome, it was actually pantomime dancing. I also object to slingers described as firing 'bullets'.Augustus: little time is spent on him but from what I gather, the machinations and strategies he employed to become Rome's first emperor were followed by forty years of peace. He also took more trouble than most emperors later would to ensure a worthy successor. I am sorry he was glossed over so quickly. Looked back on with so much adoration in the following reign, he becomes an almost mythic figure. Perhaps even in the time of Tacitus it was still not wise to interrogate this venerated figure's life too closely.
Tiberius: nearly half the volume is dedicated to his rule, and Tactitus seems less than objective. I believe Tiberius was fairly wise and tried to be decent, but was surrounded by tiresome sycophants who kept deferring everything to him. This was at least partly his own fault since he was increasingly too quick to side with and reward informers, encouraging more of them. Perhaps the years of peace under Augustus didn't prepare him to suspect others' motives. He did not do enough to investigate the deaths of his sons, but I'm cautioned not to readily to side with Tacitus in believing the emperor plotted against Germanicus. I largely sympathized with him, but then the pedophilia kicked in. He went downhill from there.
Caligula (Gaius): all the coverage by Tacitus of Caligula's brief four-year rule has been lost. If you turn this up, I'll give you five bucks for it.
Claudius: we've also lost coverage of the first six years for Claudius, and then what we learn most is how bad Claudius was at choosing his wives. Also that Claudius was a bit scatterbrained and easily marshalled by those closest to him. The result is a setting up for the worst emperor of the bunch.
Nero: his eventful reign makes for the easiest reading. Coming to power at the ripe old age of seventeen (with a helping hand from mom), he was far more interested in power than responsibility. In speech he seemed imperial enough, but this was in large thanks to Seneca's tutoring that otherwise came to naught. As a bully at heart he was fearful of any rival for power and resorted to the most obvious solution. On the eastern front with Parthia, I felt manipulated into admiring the exploits of Domitius Corbulo and despising Paetus, but I do. It's almost a mercy the manuscript ends before we see Corbulo's enforced suicide, after every other devastation of Nero's reign, but a pity we can't witness Nero's final downfall.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RobertP
A steady diet of death and destruction, enlivened only by debauchery and dishonesty. Gripping read for all that. I would expect the real ancient Rome was probably not quite so bad as the judgmental Tacitus would have it, largely on the evidence that the empire lasted another 400 years past the
Show More
events described. A good read for anyone interested in Roman history, and for anyone who enjoys watching the soaps. Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
A friend of mine who teaches Latin for a living says it was this book (and Suetonius' The Twelves Caesars) that led to her fascination with things Roman and a change in her concentration. I wasn't hugely enamored at first. As our initial conversation went:
Me: Well, so far this isn't five star love
Her: Keep going. It's good for you.
Me: Like broccoli?
Well, in the end it was more like a feast. This does have its dry patches--I considered dropping it a star because of that but decided it just had too much that was awesome. This is a year by year narrative of Imperial Roman history from the reign of Tiberius to that of Nero, from 14 to 66 AD. Tacitus at times gives accounts of trials of people who aren't exactly famous. It's as if 2,000 years later one is reading bulletins of trials of John Edwards and Rod Blagojevich. Military battles and mutinies are related in sometimes (for me) eye-glazing detail. But though the events described here happened largely before Tacitus was born, being high up in the state himself, he had access to first hand Senate records--and of course he must have known people who could give him first hand accounts. Ancient Rome came vividly to life here. Reading, for instance, of all the suicides committed to anticipate arrest and execution or the real life instance of the origin of the word "decimate." Or even this little bit where an accused man "offered his slaves to the torture." (Testimony of slaves extracted without torture wasn't valid.) But the narrative really came alive when it dealt with the doings of the emperors, their entourage and family: incest, murder, betrayal. The doings of the emperors seemed an illustration of Acton's aphorism that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Honestly, often what came through was Roman barbarism rather than Roman civilization--maybe all the more when Tacitus was recounting events he seemingly took for granted or approved of--for instance freedmen being treated like second class citizens. I read--and did love--Thucydides' The History of the Peloponnesian War, which has good claim to be the first real history--dealing with forces and people without attributing it to Gods. At first I thought Tacitus didn't compare well. But my goodness, I don't remember the Greeks being this colorful or Thucydides this gossipy. Note this passage about the Empress Messalina, Claudius' wife:
Messalina meanwhile, more wildly profligate than ever, was celebrating in mid-autumn a representation of the vintage in her new home. The presses were being trodden; the vats were overflowing; women girt with skins were dancing, as Bacchanals dance in their worship or their frenzy. Messalina with flowing hair shook the thyrsus, and Silius at her side, crowned with ivy and wearing the buskin, moved his head to some lascivious chorus.
Something else was markably absent from Thucydides by the way very present in that quote--women. I can't recall and from googling online can't find that Thucydides so much as mentions an individual woman in his acount of the Peloponnesian War. About the most famous passage even regarding women in Thucydides' history is in Pericles' Funeral Oration where he purportedly said the best women pass anonymously through history. Women on the other hand, are very present in the Annals. I'm not saying Tacitus was some proto-feminist. There are plenty of misogynist remarks--but women are a vital part of this history: Livia, Agrippina, Messalina, Pompeia--and not just those married to or the mother of Emperors--but figures such as Boudicca, the Warrior Queen of Britain, make quite the impression. I felt reading this one could write many a novel just based on single paragraphs in the history. I've read (some) of Gibbon's famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I've read historical fiction about Rome by Robert Graves and Colleen McCullough among others, and I've dipped into contemporary popular histories of Rome. None really substitute for sustained reading of the real thing--from inside the head of a real Roman. So yes, whatever its faults, this was amazing.
Me: Well, so far this isn't five star love
Show More
it, but not first star hate.Her: Keep going. It's good for you.
Me: Like broccoli?
Well, in the end it was more like a feast. This does have its dry patches--I considered dropping it a star because of that but decided it just had too much that was awesome. This is a year by year narrative of Imperial Roman history from the reign of Tiberius to that of Nero, from 14 to 66 AD. Tacitus at times gives accounts of trials of people who aren't exactly famous. It's as if 2,000 years later one is reading bulletins of trials of John Edwards and Rod Blagojevich. Military battles and mutinies are related in sometimes (for me) eye-glazing detail. But though the events described here happened largely before Tacitus was born, being high up in the state himself, he had access to first hand Senate records--and of course he must have known people who could give him first hand accounts. Ancient Rome came vividly to life here. Reading, for instance, of all the suicides committed to anticipate arrest and execution or the real life instance of the origin of the word "decimate." Or even this little bit where an accused man "offered his slaves to the torture." (Testimony of slaves extracted without torture wasn't valid.) But the narrative really came alive when it dealt with the doings of the emperors, their entourage and family: incest, murder, betrayal. The doings of the emperors seemed an illustration of Acton's aphorism that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Honestly, often what came through was Roman barbarism rather than Roman civilization--maybe all the more when Tacitus was recounting events he seemingly took for granted or approved of--for instance freedmen being treated like second class citizens. I read--and did love--Thucydides' The History of the Peloponnesian War, which has good claim to be the first real history--dealing with forces and people without attributing it to Gods. At first I thought Tacitus didn't compare well. But my goodness, I don't remember the Greeks being this colorful or Thucydides this gossipy. Note this passage about the Empress Messalina, Claudius' wife:
Messalina meanwhile, more wildly profligate than ever, was celebrating in mid-autumn a representation of the vintage in her new home. The presses were being trodden; the vats were overflowing; women girt with skins were dancing, as Bacchanals dance in their worship or their frenzy. Messalina with flowing hair shook the thyrsus, and Silius at her side, crowned with ivy and wearing the buskin, moved his head to some lascivious chorus.
Something else was markably absent from Thucydides by the way very present in that quote--women. I can't recall and from googling online can't find that Thucydides so much as mentions an individual woman in his acount of the Peloponnesian War. About the most famous passage even regarding women in Thucydides' history is in Pericles' Funeral Oration where he purportedly said the best women pass anonymously through history. Women on the other hand, are very present in the Annals. I'm not saying Tacitus was some proto-feminist. There are plenty of misogynist remarks--but women are a vital part of this history: Livia, Agrippina, Messalina, Pompeia--and not just those married to or the mother of Emperors--but figures such as Boudicca, the Warrior Queen of Britain, make quite the impression. I felt reading this one could write many a novel just based on single paragraphs in the history. I've read (some) of Gibbon's famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I've read historical fiction about Rome by Robert Graves and Colleen McCullough among others, and I've dipped into contemporary popular histories of Rome. None really substitute for sustained reading of the real thing--from inside the head of a real Roman. So yes, whatever its faults, this was amazing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member datrappert
Read this after the Twelve Caesars. Tacitus is quite compelling. You won't be bored.
LibraryThing member jwhenderson
The status of this book as a classic cannot be denied. But what is it that makes that true? First, I consider the level of detail about the rulers of the Roman Empire from Augustus through Nero (excepting the lost sections) to be the main reason; given that detail, second was the description of
Show More
those around the emperors whose actions often determined the direction of the empire. In addition I found most interesting the importance of the lowly state of medicine (not to be improved demonstrably until centuries after the empire). It seemed that infections often led to death from injuries that should not have been fatal. The importance of this was seen in its impact on the machinations of the families in trying to make succession strategies. Ultimately the history was one that was filled with brutality and death that seemed unending leading Tacitus to rail about the "anger of the divinities against Roman affairs" near the end of the book (16.6). Show Less
LibraryThing member jpsnow
Tacitus live approximately from 55 to 117, was a friend of Pliny the Younger, held several public positions (including Proconsul of Asia). With the exception of several public offices and one famous trial in 99 (with Pliny), not much is known about him other than his Histories, Annals, and Germany.
Show More
He married the daughter of Julius Agricola, the Governor of Britain. I will relate here my observations and a few notes recorded from my reading of the Annals. However, there is so much there that I cannot possible cover. Tacitus worked to convey every important event, touching each with as much detail as relevant. In general the history focuses on the emperors during the years between the 14 ad and 66 ad. Tacitus himself witnessed the workings of Nero who forced attendance to the Senate to "see plainly whether you have any affection for me." Tacitus saw the decay of Roman society and emphasized that throughout his history of the reigns of Tiberius and Nero. Show Less
LibraryThing member kcshankd
I was distracted by the year-to-year history of the empire by an amazing amount of wrist slitting. Read in series of warming up for Gibbon.
LibraryThing member isabelx
Next year, when the consuls were Nero (for the second time) and Lucius Calpurnius Piso (V), little worth recording occurred, except in the eyes of historians who like filling their pages with praise of the foundations and beams of Nero's huge amphitheatre in the Field of Mars.
Tacitus tells the
I think it's a pity that the translator decided to use the less picturesque division (when the auxiliaries are included) or brigade instead of legion, and company commander instead of centurion.
Tacitus tells the
Show More
story of Rome under the Caesars, from shortly before the death of Augustus until the end of Nero's reign, although various parts of his book are lost, including the whole of Gaius(Caligula)'s reign. Tacitus was writing long enough afterwards to be able to speak frankly about the emperors' many faults. He seems to be fairly even-handed though, as although he quite obviously hates Tiberius, he comments more than once that Tiberius hated flattery, and did not not accept money left to him in people's wills unless they were personal friends of his. Tacitus is rather sharp tongued comments at times; the translator included a footnote saying that the quotation above is a catty reference to Pliny the Elder.I think it's a pity that the translator decided to use the less picturesque division (when the auxiliaries are included) or brigade instead of legion, and company commander instead of centurion.
Show Less
LibraryThing member philae_02
The Annals are the main source for Robert Graves' novels and miniseries 'I, Claudius.' Tacitus covers the lives of the early Roman imperial family -- starting with Augustus to Nero (parts of Caligula's reign are missing, but what is there, makes for an interesting look at Rome). Very fun read.
LibraryThing member Audacity88
A. J. Woodman's translation is excellent: superbly literal, it succeds in sounding, as far as I can tell with my nonexistent knowledge of Latin, very much like Tacitus. Its only flaw is an inconsitency in the translation of certain words in favor of "localized considerations" (xxiv); libertas, for
As for Tacitus himself, he is the subtlest ancient historian I have read, topping Herodotus and even Thucydides (and certainly, a fortiori, Livy). A close study of his depiction of Tiberius will bear fruit.
Show More
example, is translated sometimes as "liberty", sometimes as "freedom", but occasionally (and frustratingly) as "license".As for Tacitus himself, he is the subtlest ancient historian I have read, topping Herodotus and even Thucydides (and certainly, a fortiori, Livy). A close study of his depiction of Tiberius will bear fruit.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DinadansFriend
The classic account of Rome between the death of Augustus and that of Nero. Grant's translation is quite readable. The maps aren't great.
Awards
Original publication date
0117 (CE circa)
Physical description
455 p.; 18 cm
ISBN
0140440607 / 9780140440607