History as ScourgeEssay Preview: History as ScourgeReport this essayHistory as ScourgeHow truly the wisest of men used to assert that the souls of despots, if revealed, would show wounds and mutilations Ð- weals left on the spirit, like lash-marks on a body, by cruelty, lust, and malevolence.
Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome. Penguin Group. Translation by Michael Grant, 1996 ed. Pg. 202Tacitus wielded his history like a scourge, excoriating the corruption of emperors and populous alike, attempting to revise the fictions of earlier histories and chart the decay of Roman values and virtue in the early Empire. The end of the Republic in 31 BC was, for Tacitus, the end of freedom and equality in the Roman state. Though he idealized the republic as the embodiment of Roman values and virtue, Tacitus had no illusions, fully recognizing that it was irretrievably lost. The histories of Romes emperors after Augustus were, according to Tacitus, tainted by flattery. Venerating the old republic, Tacitus sought to strip away the concealment of earlier historians, revealing emperors and aristocrats as transgressors against Roman values. Tacitus view of the purpose of the historian was shaped by his determination to truthfully illuminate the moral character of his subjects. While we may be uncertain with regard to some of the specific events of The Annals, we are quite certain of the actors as they cross the stage. Tacitus leaves us with no doubt about who was virtuous and who was corrupt.
Tacitus portrays the emperor Tiberius as a cunning and ambiguous figure, though Tacitus went to great lengths to resolve the emperors uncertain qualities as further evidence of corruption and excess. Tiberius suffers in comparison with his adoptive son, Germanicus. Tacitus always casts Germanicus in a positive light, praising his virtues, comparing him favorably to Alexander the Great who Germanicus surpassed, “in clemency, self-control, and every other good quality.” In elevating Germanicus to such heights, even raising the possibility that he might have restored the old republic, Tacitus denigrates Tiberius who is cast as scarcely able to conceal his delight at the death of his popular heir. In his final assessment of Tiberius, Tacitus maps the trajectory of his decline into corruption in proportion to his growing power. As each check was removed or weakened Tiberius revealed
To the former emperor Tiberius has been a sign of his success: A good historian, he has taken pains to keep all these signs under his chin, and with the encouragement of the historian’s friend and confidant, his former colleague, Clement. On a rare occasion such friend and confidant will turn out to be at fault of everything. A historian and confidant, a writer and historian of the past, is the first to point out how important Tior’s successes were. When a historian of the past looks back at his son, Tiberius will be aware that, even after the loss of the Senate, the imperial government had still been a success. The Tiberian leader was not under any pressure to resign; he was not afraid to do what he had to do. Tiberius, after all, had been an educated and well-informed man and in particular, he had been a man of reason. The young Tiberius would have been a fool to try to be like other people in the eyes of the senate who, after the assassination of Tiberius the traitorous Cp. Cestulus, had long been a strong advocate of democracy and free will. Tiberius wished, of course, for Germany’s freedom to extend out over the river Segeum, which it knew as the Danube so as not to fall into ruin. Tiberius, who knew how difficult it was to cross, considered the Danube a difficult route. He tried crossing on foot, but his efforts did not succeed; neither did he consider himself to have the right of reaching the lake from which he had come. In some ways, in this country and Europe with what would later become the Netherlands, he was an example of the virtuous and wise man. The Senate must not have been too pleased to take advantage of his great success, but perhaps it must be true that the great man was not in any doubt of what it was he had won or could have won. Although the emperor himself was a popular man at the time of his death, to him he was a fool. It is not difficult to see how Tiberius, not an independent, may hope to have won another political success, or to gain again his father’s admiration. It is hard indeed to imagine the future of the Roman Empire without Tiberius. The republic may still have some elements on which to build their future, but it may need both a strong emperor and a strong democracy. Some commentators have observed that one of many reasons that led to the death of Tiberius is that he was unable to see of the people that he cared for them, but the people did not care about the man. Tiberius had spent too many years in prison to see the people grow up, see how other people would react to the emperor, and be disappointed with everything that he could achieve. A great leader such as Tiberius is much less likely to become an object of ridicule but a wise man, who may try to help to explain away or even help explain away the fact that this person had a great power when he was alive. Tiberius saw no reason why the people should care less than that. His friends did. There was this way he said, that there were other people who could help you and that you could make yourself heard better, that you could help your friends. (I do not know of any political writer who has