Customer Reviews

The Annals & The Histories (Modern Library Classics)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Lest there be some confusion about the 2 stars I've given this book: Tacitus is fantastic and fascinating. So don't reproach me for SEEMING to criticize Tacitus, when my target here is the translation. (On the subject of reproach, Tacitus himself wrote: "To show resentment at a reproach is to acknowledge that one may have had it coming.") In fact, I think very highly of the incomparable Roman historian. Gibbon, among many others, loves him and so do I. However, this superficially handsome volume from The Modern Library (containing both The Histories and The Annals), does not do justice to Tacitus at all. These translations cannot be recommended, in spite of the praise lavished on them by the general editor. The Annals is barely acceptable but no more than that, and The Histories is inferior. No, the interested reader would be better off to consult the scintillating translation by W. H. Fyfe (revised by his editor, D. S. Levene) of The Histories, published by Oxford as a paperback in 1997. Tacitus' renown -- looking at his style rather than his content -- comes from his acerbic wit, pithy remarks and lucid analytical sentences. To get a truer sense of his abilities, look to another translation.

I read this book for a graduate course in Roman history. It is an indispensable primary source for students of Roman history.

On the first page of his Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus wrote that Octavian "seduced the army with bonuses, and his cheap food policy was successful bait for civilians." Tacitus' description of Augustus' transformation of Rome from a republic into an empire is most illuminating as well. "Upper-class survivors found that slavish obedience was the way to succeed, both politically and financially. They had profited from the revolution, and so now they liked the security of the existing arrangement better than the dangerous uncertainties of the old regime."

Sir Ronald Syme relied heavily on the work of Tacitus for his cogent narrative of Octavian's rise to power as Augustus. Syme's in-depth study of Tacitus' life and work was published in 1958. Tacitus' historical accuracy was doubted for centuries and Syme made a project of re-evaluating the accuracy of his historical writings. Syme believed that Tacitus was in a unique position to write about the birth and early political history of the Imperial period in Rome due to his very active political life. Tacitus had served as a senator, consul, and proconsul of Asia. In addition, he was known to be an excellent orator in his day. In his writings, Syme believed that Tacitus provided excellent accounts of Augustus' rise to power and his career as Rome's first Emperor.

Tacitus delved into the machinery of the new government, including Augustus' use of patronage as well as his many thwarted attempts at planning for his own succession. What Syme found was a man that grew very adept politically and whose political maturity rapidly developed at an early age. At eighteen, he was named as heir to Julius Caesar. He grew into the greatest Roman princeps spanning fifty-six years until his death. Augustus knew that to retain power he had to maintain the general consent of the governed. He astutely maintained order not by following the constitution or past precedent, but by using the tremendous resources at his disposal. Augustus kept the plebeians in check making sure they were fed, kept them amused with games, and constantly reminded them that he was protecting them from the oppression of the nobiles.

Augustus became the "leader of a large and well organized political party as the source and fount of patronage and advancement."

Recommended reading for those interested in Roman history, military history.