Customer Reviews

The Annals of Imperial Rome

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The Annals is without a doubt the most important book ever written on Imperial Rome, and the most important one dealing with the Julio-Claudian emperors. Focusing on the reign of Tiberius (14-37 CE) and ending suddenly during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE), Tacitus pulls no punches in this history. Extremely critical of the emperors, Tacitus is at his best describing the terror of the trials that began under Tiberius and which eventually paralyzed the Roman state. Tacitus also relates in detail the various military campaigns undertaken during the period. A word of advice---know your Roman history when you start this book. All the names and places can be extremely confusing to the novice. Unfortunately the section on Caligula is lost, although it is not hard to guess what Tacitus would have said about him. Read this book!

Tacitus (AD c.55-117), a Roman senator of the 2nd Century AD and famed historian, has written a brilliant year-by-year account of the Roman Empire from 14 AD to 66 AD. The book begins with the last year of Augustus and the assumption of power by the new emperor Tiberius and concludes with the final years of Nero. While certainly not the fault of either Tacitus or the contemporary editor, it is unfortunate that the book is missing vital chapters that have been lost over the centuries. This is particularly galling because the gaps come in vital transitional years. Thus, the loss of the chapters covering 30 and 31 AD leaves us without a description of the fall of Sejanus, commander of the Praetorian Guard under Tiberius. It gets worse, with the nine years of 38-47 AD also missing. This excludes the entire reign of Caligula and the first six years of Claudius' reign. Finally, the last chapter is missing the years 67-69 AD which cover the fall of Nero and the beginning of civil war. These missing years make the book painful to read because just as a particular section is reaching a climax, the main even is deleted. Thus what remains of the history is mostly the middle years of Tiberius, Claudius and Nero.

There is no doubt that Tacitus is a biased historian, despite his claims to impartiality. According to him, Tiberius, Claudius and Nero were all pretty poor emperors, marred by gross personal and moral flaws. This is far too simplistic, particularly given that nowhere does Tacitus espouse pro-Republican or anti-oligarchical opinions. Claudius in particular comes off worse than most readers would expect, after a generally favorable modern image due to Robert Graves' I Claudius. Tiberius is a highly controversial figure due to his aloof personality, but the portrait of him as a paranoid sex-obsessed maniac is more hostile than objective. Tacitus fails to mention that the last century of the Roman Republic was marred by violence that affected most if not all of Roman society. One man rule had given rulers the ability to eliminate most opposition but it had also centralized violence. The beginning of the Pax Romana - the greatest gift of the principate to World history - is not apparent to Tacitus.

The book does have interesting chapters on Germanicus' retribution campaign in Germany, a cohort that is decimated for cowardice in Africa and the revolt of Queen Boudicca in Britain. When the British are defeated in 60 AD and 80,000 are slaughtered, Tacitus proudly notes that, "the Romans did not spare even the women. Baggage animals too, transfixed with weapons, added to the heaps of dead. It was a glorious victory..." Some of Nero's part-time hobbies make interesting reading, too. Nero liked to disguise himself and go out with a gang of thugs into the city of Rome at night and harass or assault people at random. After several incidents where he himself was roughed up by his intended victims, Nero began taking gladiators along as bodyguards. There is also a brief mention of Jesus Christ and Pontius Pilate, the only Roman mention of this trial. However the book tends to drag down in places, like the treason trials of Tiberius and the purges of Nero.

As far as this translation by Michael Grant, the translator has taken far too many liberties. Readers familiar with the Roman Empire will be annoyed by Grant's clumsy use of "brigade" instead of "legion", "battalion" instead of "cohort" and "company commander" instead of "centurion". Grant drifts further from the true meaning by referring to a legion plus its auxiliaries as a "division" and there are a number of other substitute terms. These substitutions add nothing to reading clarity and it gets confusing when he refers to brigades and divisions simultaneously. On the plus side, the maps at the end of the book and the appendices were quite useful.

Reading Tacitus' Annals, I frequently remembered Thucydides' account of the Peleponnesian wars. An important theme of the latter work was the corrupting effects of prolonged war on the morals and intellect of the Athenian people, who were ultimately degraded so much that they voted the destruction of the people of a small island just because they had chosen to remain neutral. Tacitus, on the other hand, seems to have dedicated himself in this work to examining the corrupting effects of absolutism on the Roman people after the fall of the Republic. He shows how absolute power brought out the worst traits in the character of rulers like Tiberius and Nero, who grew more tyrannical with every year on the throne, and how members of the illustruous Roman senate and other sections of the Roman political society turned into a horde of spineless sycophants, informers and debauches. There were still a few honourable individuals, but as Tacitus shows in an endless series of judicial and non-judicial murders, most of these paid the price of sticking to the ancient traditions of liberty and honour with their lives. Tacitus also deals at length with the relations of the Romans with the subject peoples. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that in such passages Tacitus draws a parallel between the fate of these enslaved peoples and that of the enslaved Roman people -the first a slave to the Romans, the second a slave to the tyrant and his bureaucracy, made up of ex-slaves. Many subject peoples rebelled and some like the Cherusci under Arminius (towards whom he does not seem averse at all) could succesfully preserve their liberty against the intrusion of the Romans. On the other hand, those Romans who dared defy the tyrant, and especially those who could wisely remain independent and yet stay alive, were far fewer, Tacitus seems to imply. Insofar as it demonstrates how closely liberty (including liberty of thought) and morals are intertwined, this work is still relevant today as a central work of liberal humanism.

This is a monumentally bad translation and Penguin should be ashamed of themselves for having kept publishing it for forty odd years. While Grant's style is quite good, his awful, clashing, illogical translations of familiar Roman terms renders it unreadable. Everyone who has any interest in Roman History (and let's face it, who else would be reading this book?) knows what a legion is. But how many people know what a division is, or a brigade? The same goes for company commanders instead of centurions. This is not only confusing and anachronistic, its simply innaccurate. As far as i'm aware a modern company numbers about 120 men (please let me know if i'm wrong!) whereas a century had only 80. Also to call a Roman legion either a division or a brigade is also innaccurate. A division is made up of several brigades but a full legion is not made up of two or three smaller legions. Grant is just being difficult. Also the index infuriatingly insists on listing people by their correct family names instead of the names by which they are commonly called. Hence, you look up references to Corbulo and find "See Domitius" so you look up Domitius, go to one of the pages mentioned and there you find "Corbulo", repeatedly called Corbulo on every page by Tacitus. Finally, the maps. Penguin Classics maps are generaly bad and these are no different. A one page map of all of Northern Europe with all the various placenames and features squeezed awkwardly in through lack of space, and with no outstanding line to dilineate the roman frontier, then on another page a whole page map of africa with a grand total of SEVEN places mentioned on it. This may all seem picky, but it spoils the whole reading experience. I'm afraid it's symptomatic of Penguin Classics who have been resting on their laurels for far too long. They've been very good at constantly changing the covers and folio size of their books but seem to have no real interest in the CONTENT. ( I have binned my copy and bought a very nice secondhand Dent and Sons edition, with "legions" in it! )

Not only is Tacitus one of the sharpest narrative historians who has ever lived, not only are we incredibly fortunate to have this poignant account of his view of history, but we have Michael Grant's accurate and superb translation. I can't imagine anyone not thinking this is a superb edition: the bloke who compared it negatively with Gibbon (ALTHOUGH I OF COURSE RESPECT HIS OPINION) might try comparing it instead to Herodotus, Sallust, Xenophon, Polybius, Livy, Suetonius, Josephus, and Philo as they are a little closer to Tacitus' era. This is a major intellectual work by a marvelous writer of the first century AD who lived through some interesting times and had an opinion. Of course he is "biased" (in other words, HE HAS AN OPINION). Who isn't ? Everyone should know by 2003 that the historian's bias is one of the first things to look at. Tacitus was a conservative who pined for the golden days of a senatorial republic that he never knew. Of course he hated Tiberius and reserved much of his best invective against him: this may be the first non-hagiographic biographical portrait of such fulness that was ever written, or at least that survived, and is incredibly valuable just for that. I don't think I need to defend Tacitus much more from anyone who gave him, or who gave this edition, less than a five star rating, (you don't like M. Grant's translation? Then learn to read Latin, fellows -- if you work hard you'll be able to read Tacitus in one year) but I shall say this: Tacitus is like Homer and Aeschylus in the sense that if you think they are boring, it is because you have the problem, not them.

This is a translation of Roman history written in the 2nd century. If it seems dry, that is because it was originally written in what has been called a "jarring style" of Latin. The Latin of Tacitus differs greatly from say Caesar or Cicero. It is very difficult, full of long subordinate clauses, one word ablative absolutes, etc. The average Roman citizen may have found his work to be a bit over his head. The average college student finds Tacitus over his head and the cause for premature baldness. This translation is a very good however. Michael Grant gives a scholarly translation and includes notes for clarification of some of the more ambiguous passages.

I would recommend this book to someone who is perusing a serious academic paper, and to one who does not have time to translate the text. Compare what Tacitus writes of Augustus with the "Res Gustae Divi Augusti". You will find a historian risking his neck to expose the propaganda of the imperial family. Criticizing someone who calls himself a god is risky business.

I would not recommend this book to someone who is reading about Roman history for fun. This is a scholarly translation of the original text that is suitable as a source for your own writings. Tacitus was read by Machiavelli, Locke, and other ground-breaking political writers. In reference to the negative feedback on this book, it seems that the authors of some of these reviews might have believed that Tacitus wrote this in English (sigh).

Dr. Grant gives us a "bene fecit" translation that stays true to the original. He leaves his own opinions to the footnotes allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions on historical truth. If you translate an ancient text and spice it up to please Americans, you run the risk of not being taken seriously by smart people (a perilous position to be in when everyone is called doctor).

I must agree with some of the other reviewers who note the annoying habit of Grant to use division, brigade and colonel instead of the Roman terms which of course are now in common usage. Other than that Grant is an excellent translator, see for example his numerous other books on Roman history/Emperors. Thankfully these terms are defined in an appendix.

This book by Tacitus much like his other "Histories" approaches the subject in the same way which varies considerably from the more light hearted approach of "Agricola and the Germania". However unlike the Histories Tacitus does not yet give the overwhelming impression of an Empire which is degrading and falling apart at the moral seams. This impression is present strongly throughout the Histories. Instead in this fascinating journey through the times of Tiberius, Claudius and Nero extending from the dates: 14-66 AD we are presented not only with the lives of the Emperors but also some of the knights and senators who played a role in the affairs of the time. In addition there are numerous excerpts about events which take place on the frontier eg the revolt in Germania and the revenge of the Teutoburger Forest disaster and remarkably enough a very interesting account of the Royal family and trouble on the Eastern frontier with Parthia.

I am always fascinated by Tacitus's ability to make the barbarians seem like Romans, they often have Roman names and Roman weaknesses such as greed and corruption, it brings them closer to the Romans as human beings rather than alienating them. Here again we are met with the bravery and courage of the ordinary Roman soldier much as it was described by Caesar in his Gaulish wars. The legionary has lost none of his stalwartness and stoic characteristics eg "The Germans were as brave as our men ..." (p 86). Tacitus speaks glowingly of Germanicus and rather disparagingly of Tiberius who he considers an emperor lacking in moral fibre. It is interesting to note his favouritism for certain people such as Germanicus and to some degree Claudius and his strong bias against both Tiberius and Nero (who no doubt deserved this).

It too is unfortunate that some of his works were lost which of course interferes with the flow of the account and interrupts the reader's concentration. Nonetheless Tacitus is a brilliant hostorian writing in an entertaining style, in spite of his bias, thereby describing the time well rather than presenting a series of facts lacking a sense of place and culture.

Excellent as usual.

What a book! I'm not a classical scholar, just "well-read," so I'm can't say much about the translation or the author's accuracy or the rest of the scholarly details. To you people who are embarassed to read black Penguin classics outside of a forced curriculum -- think again! Here's what you get in the Annals: (more in the lines of modern journalism, if you ask me -- pretended objectivity with obvious leanings) a historian is perched precariously on the edge of what just might be the end of his world-wide civilization. He gives a rundown on how this great republic started from a little country(a few noble Founding Fathers, some great principles, lots of national honor, and good, hard work) and then goes over the next hundred years of so of its decline. The reasons? Well, the leaders are increasingly nuts, the entertainment business gets immoral and out of hand, there's a lot of cynical P.R. in Rome (parades, games, festivals) while the foreign service fights pointless wars where their high-tech legions are slaughtered by guerillas in the swamps. A new multicultural society means the old "Eurocentric" worldview is less convincing. Cheap, militarily-supervised international trade means laziness at home and discontent in the "member states." Then there are the big distractions - the public works, highways and stadiums -- plus the silencing of dissenters -- the censorship and obsession with immorality in the capitol. True -- you get a lot of names in this book; just concentrate on the key ones, and let the story take you. I would say this is one classic that really is coming into its own time right about now. Things are hauntingly familiar, and readers of more heroic classical historians could be in for a big awakening. I would recommend that anyone interested in the present American situation read this book and re-seize it for the common person!

The more I've read and re-read this book, the less Tacitus' politics appeal to me, and I wonder that his antiquarian, narrow idealization of Old Republican Rome as against the realities of his own time must have made him a superlative bore to his colleagues in the Roman Senate, who must have wondered that, if the Old Republic was so much better, then how the Empire could even begin existing? However, there's his grasp of the art of the psychological portrait, an art in which he excelled, and that made him the first historian of mentalities and ideologies ever, something for which he used his oppulent, crisp prose, something that in my view fares far better than, say, Caesar's dry record of his military campaigns. Therefore, one cannot but surrender to his powers of expression and read his book for the nth. time as we allow ourselves to become, again, and again, fascinated by it.

If you love history, this has got to be one of the most important books you could have. This, along with Caesars War Commentaries rank at the highest for their historical significance. Talk about eyewitness accounts! It doesn't get any better than this.