Annals: Books 4-6, 11-12 (Loeb Classical Library 312)

Classicists invariably single out Tacitus as the greatest historian of the early Roman Empire, but I'm not really sure why. Among the reasons usually cited for elevating him above Suetonius, his contemporary, and Plutarch are his skill as a political analyst, his ability to delineate character and to infuse drama into his writing, and his psychological insight. In these volumes of "The Annals," Tacitus' astuteness as a political commentator is apparent, but otherwise I see very little evidence of the qualities for which he is so often praised.Volumes IV-VI of "The Annals" cover the later years of Tiberius' reign while Books XI-XII focus upon the last seven years of Claudius' rule. I will not deny that Tacitus can turn a nice phrase, and individual sentences or sentence fragments reveal his dry humor and flair as a writer. Nero is described as "certainly not given to self-depreciation"; the latter-day Tiberius, "once absorbed in the cares of state" is "now unbending with equal zest in hidden vice and flagitious leisure"; the consul Fufius "had a turn for wit and a habit of ridiculing Tiberius with those bitter pleasantries which linger long in the memory of potentates"; and the orator Domitius Afer "enjoyed a fame which stood higher for eloquence than for virtue. Yet even of that eloquence age took heavy toll, sapping as it did his mental power and leaving his incapacity for silence." However delightful these individual sentences may be - and I just love "those bitter pleasantries which linger long in the memory of potentates"! - they fail to translate into an entertaining whole. Not to put too fine a point upon it, but "The Annals" is boring. The first 100 pages of Book IV were a total yawn; I could barely make it through. One may argue that it is not the job of a historian to entertain, merely to inform. I disagree. I feel as though a historian has a certain obligation to present his or her information in a way that holds the reader's interest. Suetonius and Plutarch recognized this and were more than willing to oblige. Tacitus, on the other hand, too often indulges in tedious descriptions of battles occurring in far-flung regions of the empire and endless discussions of Parthian-Armenian political affairs (the latter of doubtful relevance even at the time in which he was writing).Tacitus' approach as a historian differs greatly from the biographical, emperor-focused chronicles of Suetonius and Plutarch. Tacitus' scope is much broader. He provides a detailed, year-by-year, blow-by-blow account of the events occurring not only within the city of Rome but throughout the empire. This may be why modern day classical historians love him so much. He is both prolific and comprehensive, providing plenty of fodder for their own analyses. However, for the reader interested in learning about the history of Rome, this approach is not ideal. It's as if I were to write a history of the United States in the year 2011 and I decided to include descriptions of all events occurring in countries in which the U.S. had any economic or political stake. It becomes overwhelming, and while reading "The Annals" the reader's eyes glaze over as Tacitus drones on about internecine squabbling amongst Numidians, Frisian uprisings, and the struggle between the countries of Hypaepa, Tralles, Laodicea, Magnesia, Sardis and Smyrna over who should have the honor of erecting a shrine to the emperor.Tacitus is at his best when he is describing palace intrigues and the political and economic situation within the city of Rome. For example, on the economic front he criticizes Rome for putting herself in a perilous situation with respect to the grain supply, arguing that Italy should grow her own crops instead of relying upon imports from Egypt and Africa. This observation was prescient: centuries later, the dependence upon foreign grain imports was a factor contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire. On the political front, Tacitus manages to recreate the atmosphere of paranoia that developed under Tiberius when Sejanus, prefect of the praetorian cohorts, began to exert undue influence and spearheaded a reign of terror. During these years, men were executed for minor transgressions, everyone was informing upon everyone else, and "alike in the Forum or at a dinner-party, to speak of any subject was to be accused: for every man was hastening to be first in the field and to mark down his victim, occasionally in self-defense, generally through infection with what seemed to be a contagious disease." Tacitus writes: "The ties of our common humanity had been dissolved by the force of terror; and before each advance of cruelty compassion receded." His portraits of Tiberius and Claudius are interesting but limited. Because Tacitus does not use the emperors' lives as the centerpiece of his history, he does not spend a lot of time fleshing out their characters or analyzing their motives. For example, Tacitus acknowledges that Tiberius' character had "its separate epochs" - the once just ruler "plung(ing) impartially into crime and into ignominy" - but he offers no real explanation for this degeneration beyond saying that Tiberius' family members and advisors had curbed his worst excesses and, with their deaths, "the restraints of shame and fear were gone."I did learn a fair amount from reading these volumes. There was a good discussion of the differences between Stoicism and Epicureanism. There was a wonderful paragraph or two about phoenixes, with Tacitus reporting on an alleged phoenix sighting in Egypt and speculating that it was a "spurious phoenix" because true phoenixes only visit at intervals of 1461 years. Tacitus' remarks concerning "the progress of alien superstitions" such as Judaism and the cults of Isis and Serapis were amusing. I learned that Claudius introduced three new characters into the Latin alphabet. And at long last, I discovered the reason why Roman nobles were always committing suicide the minute they were accused of a crime. According to Tacitus, a man who was legally condemned forfeited his estate and was debarred from burial, but if he committed suicide before being convicted "his body was interred and his will respected.""The Annals" has its moments, but it's a tough slog. For more enjoyable Roman history, I recommend Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars" and Plutarch's Lives.