No More Learning

Tacitus pours scorn on the philosophic
opponents of the Principate, who while refusing to serve the emperor
and pretending to hope for the restoration of the republic, could
contribute nothing more useful than an ostentatious suicide. His own
career, and still more the career of his father-in-law Agricola,
showed that even under bad emperors a man could be great without
dishonour. Tacitus was no republican in any sense of the word, but
rather a monarchist _malgré lui_. There was nothing for it but to pray
for good emperors and put up with bad ones.

Those who decry Tacitus for prejudice against the Empire forget that
he is describing emperors who were indubitably bad. We have lost his
account of Vespasian's reign. His praise of Augustus and of Trajan was
never written. The emperors whom he depicts for us were all either
tyrannical or contemptible, or both: no floods of modern biography can
wash them white. They seemed to him to have degraded Roman life and
left no room for _virtus_ in the world. The verdict of Rome had gone
against them. So he devotes to their portraiture the venom which the
fifteen years of Domitian's reign of terror had engendered in his
heart. He was inevitably a pessimist; his ideals lay in the past; yet
he clearly shows that he had some hope of the future. Without sharing
Pliny's faith that the millennium had dawned, he admits that Nerva and
Trajan have inaugurated 'happier times' and combined monarchy with
some degree of personal freedom.

There are other reasons for the 'dark shadows' in Tacitus' work.
History to a Roman was _opus oratorium,_ a work of literary art.
Truth
is a great but not a sufficient merit. The historian must be not only
_narrator_ but _ornator rerum_. He must carefully select and arrange
the incidents, compose them into an effective group, and by the power
of language make them memorable and alive. In these books Tacitus has
little but horrors to describe: his art makes them unforgettably
horrible. The same art is ready to display the beauty of courage and
self-sacrifice. But these were rarer phenomena than cowardice and
greed. It was not Tacitus, but the age, which showed a preference for
vice. Moreover, the historian's art was not to be used solely for its
own sake. All ancient history was written with a moral object; the
ethical interest predominates almost to the exclusion of all others.
Tacitus is never merely literary. The [Greek: semnotês] which Pliny
notes as the characteristic of his oratory, never lets him sparkle to
no purpose. All his pictures have a moral object 'to rescue virtue
from oblivion and restrain vice by the terror of posthumous
infamy'. [2] His prime interest is character: and when he has
conducted some skilful piece of moral diagnosis there attaches to his
verdict some of the severity of a sermon. If you want to make men
better you must uncover and scarify their sins.

Few Christian moralists deal much in eulogy, and Tacitus' diatribes
are the more frequent and the more fierce because his was the morality
not of Christ but of Rome. 'The Poor' are as dirt to him: he can stoop
to immortalize some gleam of goodness in low life, but even then his
main object is by scorn of contrast to galvanize the aristocracy into
better ways.