Tacitus

==Literary style==
Tacitus's writings are known for their dense prose that seldom glosses the facts, in contrast to the style of some of his contemporaries, such as [[Plutarch]]. When he writes about a near defeat of the Roman army in ''Annals'' I,63, he does so with brevity of description rather than embellishment.

In most of his writings, he keeps to a chronological narrative order, only seldom outlining the bigger picture, leaving the readers to construct that picture for themselves. Nonetheless, where he does use broad strokes, for example, in the opening paragraphs of the ''Annals'', he uses a few condensed phrases which take the reader to the heart of the story.

===Approach to history===
Tacitus's historical style owes some debt to [[Sallust]]. His historiography offers penetrating—often pessimistic—insights into the psychology of power politics, blending straightforward descriptions of events, moral lessons, and tightly focused dramatic accounts. Tacitus's own declaration regarding his approach to history (''Annals'' I,1) is well known:
<blockquote>''inde consilium mihi ... tradere ... sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.''</blockquote>
<blockquote>my purpose is ... to relate ... without either anger or zeal, motives from which I am far removed.</blockquote>

There has been much scholarly discussion about Tacitus's "neutrality". Throughout his writing, he is preoccupied with the balance of power between the Senate and the [[Roman emperor|emperors]], and the increasing corruption of the governing [[social class|classes]] of Rome as they adjusted to the ever-growing wealth and power of the empire. In Tacitus's view, senators squandered their cultural inheritance—that of [[Freedom of speech|free speech]]—to placate their (rarely benign) emperor.

Tacitus noted the increasing dependence of the emperor on the goodwill of his armies. The [[Julio-Claudian dynasty|Julio-Claudians]] eventually gave way to generals, who followed Julius Caesar (and [[Sulla]] and [[Pompey]]) in recognizing that military might could secure them the political power in Rome. (''Hist.'' [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Tac.+Hist.+1.4 1.4])

<blockquote>Welcome as the death of Nero had been in the first burst of joy, yet it had not only roused various emotions in Rome, among the Senators, the people, or the soldiery of the capital, it had also excited all the legions and their generals; for now had been divulged that secret of the empire, that emperors could be made elsewhere than at Rome.</blockquote>

Tacitus's political career was largely lived out under the emperor Domitian. His experience of the tyranny, corruption, and decadence of that era (81–96) may explain the bitterness and irony of his political analysis. He draws our attention to the dangers of power without accountability, love of power untempered by principle, and the apathy and corruption engendered by the concentration of wealth generated through trade and conquest by the empire.

Nonetheless, the image he builds of Tiberius throughout the first six books of the ''Annals'' is neither exclusively bleak nor approving: most scholars view the image of Tiberius as predominantly ''positive'' in the first books, and predominantly ''negative'' after the intrigues of [[Sejanus]]. The entrance of Tiberius in the first chapters of the first book is dominated by the hypocrisy of the new emperor and his courtiers. In the later books, some respect is evident for the cleverness of the old emperor in securing his position.

In general, Tacitus does not fear to praise and to criticize the same person, often noting what he takes to be their more admirable and less admirable properties. One of Tacitus's hallmarks is refraining from ''conclusively'' taking sides for or against persons he describes, which has led some to interpret his works as both supporting and rejecting the imperial system (see [[Tacitean studies]], ''Black'' vs. ''Red'' Tacitists).

===Prose===
His Latin style is highly praised.<ref>Donald R. Dudley. Introduction to: ''The Annals of Tacitus''. NY: Mentor Book, 1966. p. xiv: "No other writer of Latin prose—not even Cicero—deploys so effectively the full resources of the language."</ref> His style, although it has a grandeur and eloquence (thanks to Tacitus's education in rhetoric), is extremely concise, even [[epigram]]matic—the sentences are rarely flowing or beautiful, but their point is always clear. The style has been both derided as "harsh, unpleasant, and thorny" and praised as "grave, concise, and pithily eloquent".

A passage of [[s:The Annals (Tacitus)/Book 1#1|''Annals'' 1.1]], where Tacitus laments the state of the historiography regarding the last four emperors of the [[Julio-Claudian dynasty]], illustrates his style: "The histories of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred",<ref>[https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_1&oldid=3754977#1 The Annals (Tacitus)/Book 1#1] Translation based on Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1876). [[Wikisource]], 15 April 2012.</ref> or in a word-for-word translation:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Latin
! Translation
|-
| <poem>Tiberiī Gāīque et Claudiī ac Nerōnis rēs
flōrentibus ipsīs—ob metum—falsae,
postquam occiderant—recentibus ōdiīs—compositae
sunt.
</poem>
| <poem>Tiberius's, Gaius's and Claudius's as well as Nero's acts
while flourishing themselves—out of fear—counterfeited,
after they came to fall—resulting from new-found hate—related
are.</poem>
|-
| colspan="2" | Interpunction and line breaks added for clarity.
|}

Compared to the [[Classical Latin#Authors of the Golden Age|Ciceronian period]], where sentences were usually the length of a paragraph and artfully constructed with nested pairs of carefully matched sonorous phrases, this is short and to the point. But it is also very individual. Note the three different ways of saying ''and'' in the first line (''-que'', ''et'', ''ac''), and especially the matched second and third lines. They are parallel in sense but not in sound; the pairs of words ending "''-entibus'' … ''-is''" are crossed over in a way that deliberately breaks the Ciceronian conventions—which one would, however, need to be acquainted with to see the novelty of Tacitus's style. Some readers, then and now, find this teasing of their expectations merely irritating. Others find the deliberate discord, playing against the evident parallelism of the two lines, stimulating and intriguing.<ref>Ostler 2007, pp.&nbsp;98–99 where the quoted example is used; Further quotes from the book: "…some writers—notably the perverse genius Tacitus—delighted in disappointing the expectations raised by periodic theory." – "this monkeying with hard-won stylistic norms…only makes sense if readers knew the rules that Tacitus was breaking."</ref>

His historical works focus on the motives of the characters, often with penetrating insight—though it is questionable how much of his insight is correct, and how much is convincing only because of his rhetorical skill.<ref>John Taylor. ''Tacitus and the Boudican Revolt''. Dublin: Camvlos, 1998. p. 1 ff</ref> He is at his best when exposing hypocrisy and dissimulation; for example, he follows a narrative recounting Tiberius's refusal of the title ''pater patriae'' by recalling the institution of a law forbidding any "treasonous" speech or writings—and the frivolous prosecutions which resulted (''Annals'', 1.72). Elsewhere (''Annals'' 4.64–66) he compares Tiberius's public distribution of fire relief to his failure to stop the perversions and abuses of justice which he had begun. Although this kind of insight has earned him praise, he has also been criticized for ignoring the larger context.

Tacitus owes most, both in language and in method, to Sallust, and [[Ammianus Marcellinus]] is the later historian whose work most closely approaches him in style.