Reflective Practice in the Islamic Tradition

Papers in Progress

Tacitus Use of Rumour: a Means of Realism or Distortion?History, in the sense of an account of the past and its underlying significance, is arguably as old as humanity itself. Indeed, the construction of narratives aimed at making sense of what has gone before seems to be common to all human societies. Thus, for example, in the ancient Middle East, the birthplace of literacy, history was understood and written as an account of fundamental religious truths. The stories of these early civilisations portray the deeds of mythic heroes and gods and use these narratives to say meaningful things about both the past and the present itself. In the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh the action takes place outside of mundane time. In some ways, Jewish historical writing marks an important departure; Hebrew scripture thus attempts to demonstrate Gods activity in real time. Biblical historiography, in contrast to modern historical writing, is driven by divine not humanly contingent forces.The emphasis on empirical, scientific data in the Greek world had a significant impact upon the establishment of truth. Thus Herodotus and Thucydides both felt that history could only be written where some form of personal experience or knowledge existed. The transformation of history into scientific discipline helped give it a central place in the literary traditions of the classical world.

The Roman view of history was firmly didactic; history was meant to be a form of moral guidance, aimed at inculcating values. For Roman writers, history could, by detailing situations where the soul is enslaved by base desires, illustrate and lionise virtuous behaviour. This was why Sallust, amongst others, rated historical study so highly: Among intellectual pursuits, one of the most useful is the recording of past events. Publius Cornelius Tacitus came from an upwardly mobile provincial family. His father had been the procurator of Gallia Belgica. As Tacitus himself admits, he was shown conspicuous favour by the Flavian dynasty. He was made praetor in 88CE and as a priest, he played a significant role in Domitians Secular Games. Most significantly, he was consul during 97CE, the pivotal year of Domitians assassination, Nervas brief rule and Trajans adoption; he was thus appointed to this office by Domitian himself.In line with the broad Roman tradition, Tacitus felt that history was a moral didactic. His first published work (a biography of his father-in-law Agrippa) makes repeated reference to Agrippas virtue. Published in early 98CE, it was followed later in the same year by the Germania, an ethnographic study of Romes northern neighbours. In 101-2CE Tacitus published a work on oratory (the Dialogus de Oratoribus); approximately four years later in 106CE, the first of his historical works (the Histories) was composed. Dating the Annals, Tacitus definitive work, is somewhat problematic. Some authorities argue that the work was completed and published in 118CE; others suggest that it was finished in 120CE.

Style is another important factor in understanding Tacitus writings. As with virtually all other ancient authors, Tacitus is both literary artist and historian in equal measure. The writing of history in the ancient world was art and science. History was also a deeply public affair, being written to be read aloud. A key feature of Tacitus writings is the place he accords to rumour. Rumour, public opinion and gossip all play a central role. Why should this be so? This question is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, addressing this issue will help us understand Tacitus literary aspirations. Secondly, looking more closely at the place Tacitus accords to rumour will help us understand him as historian. This paper, then, will attempt to explore these two aspects in some detail. It is clear that Tacitus was at the heart of Roman politics during the later first century AD. How then had these experiences shaped his beliefs? Moreover, what were those beliefs? Like most of his peers, Tacitus had scant regard for the ordinary plebeians. His notion of education was also thoroughly 'Roman'; placing greater emphasis upon those subjects designed to hone political skill, such as oratory and law, thereby disdaining 'Greek' philosophy and science. His praise ofAgricola, for not succumbing to the temptation to; '... drink deeper of philosophy than was allowable for a Roman', illustrates this clearly. Thus Tacitus, in a traditional Roman manner, had a strong personal moral ethic, and was concerned to demonstrate the centrality of that code in his writings.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus came from an upwardly mobile provincial family; his father had been the procurator of Gallia Belgica. As he admitted, his career was shown a high degree of favour by the Flavian dynasty: he was made praetor in 88, whilst as a priest he also played a significant role in Domitian's Secular Games. Indeed, as consul during AD97, the pivotal year of Nerva's accession and 'adoption' of Trajan, he was likely to have been appointed by Domitian himself.

As with earlier historians (Jewish, Greek and Roman), Tacitus conceived of history as a moral lesson. His first published work (a biography of his father-in-law Julius Agricola), makes much of such 'virtue'. Published in early 98, it was followed later in the same year by the Germania; an ethnographic study of Rome's northern neighbours. In AD 101-2, the Dialogus de Oratoribus (a work on oratory) was published, whilst approximately in 106, the first of his historical works, the Histories, was composed. Dating his definitive work, known to us as the Annals, presents something of a problem; some prefer AD118 and others AD12016. His style is also another important consideration; Tacitus being both artist and historian in equal measure17. A key feature of his writings is the place he accords to rumour. Rumour, public opinion and political subterfuge all play a central role. Why? The question itself is important in attempting to understand his literary aspirations. Therefore, it is this paper's aim to discuss those intentions; to attempt to explore his motives and highlight something of his purpose. However, before moving on, it is important to be clear about our terms; what do we mean by realism and distortion^ Although it is a truism to say that different people see things differently, it is fundamentally correct that we, at least, place our own individual emphasis on events. This does not however, make one view necessarily right and the other wrong. Indeed, it is history's task to account for these differences and make them intelligible. Thus 'realism' is, in this sense, a reflection of the complex nature of cause and effect. To talk of 'facts', as though referring to an external universal truth, is rather misleading. Interpretation of an event's meaning is essential; unlike Walker, who argues that: '...few historians can be content with a bare recital of the facts in the passages which they themselves feel to be historically most significant. Alternatively, distortion can be described as an attempt, whether deliberate or otherwise, to impose artificial boundaries upon me past.

To answer the question in short: Tacitus' use of rumour is inextricably bound up wrinhis own purposes. As with other ancient writers, Tacitus wrote history as amoral lesson. He believed the narrative should draw attention to 'virtuous' actions to be used by others as a guide. Implicit within such a concept is a belief in diminishing standards. As a means of combating this perceived decline, and on a deeper level studying its personal effects, Tacitus sought to explore the impact of one-man rule upon the res publica. In this respect therefore, it became fundamental to study the relationship between the Principate and libertas. Tacitus' concentration upon character becomes explicable; the personality of me emperor being central to stable political life. Public opinion and a person's reaction to such rumours helped the writer to understand his subject. Only by placing events within an intelligible context could Tacitus construct a realistic historical framework. Necessarily, reaction to a particular situation was an important factor in shaping the environment. This made an understanding of human inter-relationships essential; especially with regard to the powerful. Tacitus also included some rumours he wanted to refute; although by doing this he did not deny their fundamental role in shaping a given situation. By using a similar technique to describe foreign lands, he broadened the political arena and helped situate Rome within the wider world. His use of such techniques was therefore, a means of providing a realistic (though not uncritical) picture of Roman life.

By portraying history as a moral lesson, Tacitus was pursuing a fundamentally Roman aim. In his mind, however, me idea went further still. Individual character had always been important in politics, but with me coming of monarchy, personality now had an even greater impact. The remark Tacitus attributed to Sallustius Crispus during the panic caused by Agrippa Postumus' murder (and by Tiberius' failure to accept ultimate responsibility) is instructive in this respect: '... the accounts will not come right unless the ruler is their only auditor. Tacitus was interested in the practical application of this idea, rather than me theory behind it. As Shotter implies; 'A balance had to be struck whereby the emperor was in ultimate command and control, but where his subordinates felt that they had a worthwhile part to play'. Tacitus' reference to the 'golden age' of Nerva, who; '...harmonized the old discord between autocracy and freedom, implies such a belief. Tacitus' own pragmatic career shows a realisation of the need for such 'order'; a perspective reinforced by his critical view of political martyrs.This explains his attention upon individual personality. Without a proper examination and interpretation of a person's character, the relationship between those two extremes could not be investigated. An important example is Tiberius' reaction to Germanicus' handling of the Rhine mutiny (AD14). By paying the promised donatives of Augustus himself, he unintentionally undermined me new ruler's authority; alerting his suspicions.

Again, this was why he concentrated so heavily upon the Tiberian treason trials. He aimed to highlight the arbitrary nature of absolute power and its corrupting effect. As Shotter observes; '...a bad law over-ruled by a merciful pardoner might result in the fair treatment of an accused but could not represent justicef. In contrast to Walker, it was necessary to strongly emphasise this point. His use of words such as fides and perfidia underline this by describing the presence or absence of such faith. Walker again objects by pointing out mat Tacitus' narrative creates a false impression; it distorts the truth by devoting more space to the trials than was warranted by examples. This also misses the point. The effect of these trials was qualitative, not quantitative; the numbers mattered far less than their overall impact. Tacitus' selection of material provides further evidence: in contrast to Dio (who records mostly administrative details), Tacitus' account deals with the maiestas debates themselves, and their impact on Tiberius' senatorial relations.

Tacitus' primary interest was in determining the effect of personality upon politics. In order to understand individual actions he had to come to grips with their peculiar characteristics. By charting the way a person reacted to their environment, he was able to provide an intelligible assessment of their personality. This further enabled him to construct a reasonably accurate picture of their actions. Rumour gave him this opportunity. The Tacitean opinion of Tiberius is a good example of this: the manner of Tiberius' succession formed the basis of his understanding of the man. Similarly, Claudius' policies towards provincials helped to define Tacitus' opinion of him. The attempt to introduce Gallic nobles into the senate was portrayed by Tacitus as evidence of the domination of Claudius by his wives and ex-slaves. Accordingly, Tacitus recast the speech to emphasise those facets of his personality he felt to be characteristic. Despite me actual adequacy of Claudius' speech, Tacitus' narrative does describe an important facet of the man; namely, his vulnerability to manipulation. The chief value of rumour for Tacitus, men, was its ability to reflect adequately the human decision making process. It removed past events from an artificial vacuum and placed them firmly in the 'real' world. Rumour therefore, helped to establish an intelligible framework within which actions could be discussed. Accordingly, it was a key source of information; far more than mere 'padding' designed to help support an otherwise weak narrative. Indeed, as Shotter makes clear, public opinion was fundamental:

Without knowing what people were feeling, thinking and suspecting, it was impossible to form an impression of a situation full enough to facilitate an understanding of what people did'

Thus rumour provided all-important atmosphere; that sense of life's noisy confusion. The death of Germanicus is a prime example: the news filtering back from me East caused the urban populace to cease trading and go into a state of mourning. Similarly, Tacitus' account of the death of Agricola shows the mood of the time; the suspicions of poisoning were an example of the contempt with which his implied murderer, Domitian, was held. Perhaps the key example, however, was Tiberius' accession. By trying to avoid an outright assumption of power, Tiberius hoped to counter widespread rumours about the influence of his mother Livia. Senatorial suspicion was further heightened by news of the murder of Agrippa Postumus (committed in the aftermath of Augustus' death). By attempting to have the soldier responsible face a senatorial interrogation, Tacitus shows Tiberius trying to deflect the bad publicity which such a public relations disaster undoubtedly attracted. Obviously Tacitus' opinions show through into his narrative; he dislikes some people and prefers others. In contrast to many commentators beliefs, however, there was no blanket 'whitewashing' of character. Where he devotes a lot of attention to one individual, he does so in order to chart the route by which that person had reached a particular point. Walker's belief that; 'The greater length of the accounts of the German mutiny is ... explained by the appearance of Tacitus' political hero Germanicus', is therefore misconceived. The section of the narrative to which Walker refers, is concerned with charting the increasingly fraught relationship between both men. Tacitus' aim was to reconstruct the popular view of them as rivals. Moreover, Tacitus' account is a long way from panegyric. Indeed, in his account of the Rhine mutiny, Tacitus refers to his love of gloria; indicating that the young general was, perhaps, rather too fond of war. Appropriately enough, given Germanicus' actual conduct, Tacitus rightly criticises the young man: his attempted 'suicide' provokes a sarcastically humorous response.

Thus Tacitus' use of rumour assisted the growth of a realistic account. Whilst Syme's observation that; '... a phrase or a sentence carries the historian's comment and betrays his contriving' is true to an extent, Tacitus' methods are not; '...a conscious artifice to keep alive the memory of the 'respublica". Two points need to be made here: firstly, Tacitus may have felt emotionally attached to the old ideal of the Republic but, as the pragmatic and dedicated servant of the empire - even under his 'enemy' Domitian, he was not seriously advocating a return to the chaos of former days. Secondly, Tacitus often introduced popular suspicions so that he could disprove them where he felt it necessary. To ask why is to miss the point: he was interested in realism not falsification and the best way to achieve this was by portraying the world as it often was; confused and in a state of flux. This is demonstrated by his comments about me Greek influence in Germany: 'I do not intend to argue either for or against these assertions; each man must accept or reject them as he feels inclined. Rumour again developed this sense of realism by placing Romans within a wider world. Despite the tendency of many authors to fall back into mythical accounts, Tacitus' descriptions of peregrini were not blanket accounts; they too had their own perspective (albeit sublimated to Rome's imperial destiny). This technique helped to widen his audience's view of the world. It confirmed Rome's eventual primacy, as the crushing of Boudicca's revolt illustrates; whilst comparing the 'noble savages' of Britain and Germany with Rome's 'degenerate' urban plebs. It seems rather surprising mat many modem historians appear willing, if not actually eager, to separate historical Tact' from historical 'interpretation'. The two are inextricably linked. Indeed, it is something of a misnomer to even attempt such a distinction; these are, in a very real sense, the only tools with which we historians can decipher the past's meaning. Unfortunately, there is no single, all-embracing universal truth to which we can refer.

If we bear this in mind when studying Tacitus, we can appreciate me subtlety with which he constructed his narrative. Although many modem authors have emphasised the importance of the artist within Tacitus55, the historian within him was equally important. By investigating me fundamental relationship inherent in the Principate (namely, the relationship between the ruler and the ruled) he was, perhaps, the first and most passionately eloquent advocate of a pragmatic approach to politics: '... even under bad emperors men can be great'56. Perhaps this explains the survival of most of his work: it certainly explains his impact during the later empire. Indeed, the third century emperor Tacitus not only claimed descent from him but also republished his extant works himself.BibliographyBennett, J. (1997), Trajan: Optimus Princeps, London: RoutledgeCary, E. (trans.) (1961), Dio's Roman History. Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann

Ltd., Cambridge.

Collingwood, R.G. (1946), The Idea of History, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Dorey, T.A. (ed.) (1969), Tacitus, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Ginsburg, J. (1984), Tradition and Theme in the Annals of Tacitus, The Ayer Company,

New Hampshire, USA.

Grant, M. (trans.) (1989) - Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome'. Penguin Books

Ltd., London.

Handford, S.A. (trans.) (1963) - 'Sallust: The Jugurthine War/The Conspiracy of Catiline'.

Penguin Books, London.

Handford, S.A. (trans.) (1970) - Tacitus: The Agricola and the Gel-mania' PenguinBooks, London.Homblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds.) (1996) - "The Oxford Classical Dictionary'.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Magie, D. (trans) (1960) - "The Scriptores Historiae Augustae'. Loeb Classical Library, William

Heinemann Ltd., London.

Martin, R. (1989) - Tacitus'. B.T.Batsford Ltd., London.

Mellor, R. (1993) - Tacitus'. Roufledge, London

Rackham, H. (trans.) (1961) - 'Pliny: Natural History'. Loeb Classical Library, William

Heinemann Ltd., London.

Sandars, N.K. (trans.) (1995) - 'Gilgamesh and Enkidu'. Penguin Books, London.

Shotter, D. (1991) - Tacitus' view of Emperors and me Principate' Aufstieg und Niedergang

derRomischen Welt, Pt.n, vol.33.5, pp.3263-3331.

Syme, R. (1958a) - Tacitus. Volume T. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Syme, R. (1958b) - Tacitus. Volume IT. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Syme, R. (1970) - Ten Studies in Tacitus'. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Walker, B. (1960) - The Annals of Tacitus'. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Wellesley, K. (trans.) (1972) - Tacitus: The Histories'. Penguin Books Ltd., London.

Wellesley, K. (1954) - 'Can You Trust Tacitus?' Greece and Rome I, pp. 13-33.

Woodman, A.J. (1985) - Tacitus and Tiberius: The Alternative Annals'. University of

Durham, Durham.

Collingwood, 1946, 14; Sandars, 1995, 1-54

Collingwood, 1946, 15

Hornblower & Spawforth, 1996, 714

Ibid, 715

Jugurthine War I.1

Jugurthine War I.2

Pliny NH 7.76. It is also possible that he was Tacitus uncle (Walker, 1960, 162)

Histories 1.1

As a member of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis. See Annals 11.11

Shotter, 1991, 3268

Hornblower & Spawforth, 1996, 1469

The earlier date is preferred by Shotter (1991, 3265); Hornblower & Spawforth prefer the later date (1996, 1469)

His depiction of Tiberius retreat to Capri, for instance, has much in common with traditional depictions of foreign lands, the aim here presumably being to add to the sense of the emperors isolation (Woodman, 1985, 14-15). Woodman, perhaps, goes too far in the importance he attaches to the Tacitean use of the word adsidere in the description of a collapsing amphitheatre, which he feels relates the incident to a besieged city (ibid, 18).

Cf. Plutarch (Jones; 1971; pp.14-27); Dio Cassius (Millar, 1964); Herodian (2.9.3); Suetonius (Wallace-Hadrill, 1983).

See his description of the credulity of the urban mob when news of Gennanicus' death reached Rome (Annals n.80-1; pp. 116-117).

Agricola IV; p.54.

fSstoriesiS.l-.p.ll.

Pliny Natural History VTL76. Although he could have been Tacitus' uncle (Walker, 1960; p. 162)

astonesil;p.2l.

This was as amember of the quindecimvin sacnsfaciundis (Annals XL11; p. 236).

Indeed, it was an adoption in the true sense rather than the only means atNerva's disposal of averting an armed coup d'etat. In contrast to the idyllic portrait of Trajan as me Optimus Princeps, he had more than a little common ground with Domitian, as his comments reveal; Donation was, indeed, a most evil man but had righteous friends' (SHA Severus Alexander LXV.5; p.309). For an account of his interesting reign, see Bennett; 1997

^hotter, 1991; p.3268

Homblower & Spawforth; 1996; p. 1469.

In this sense, speech writing could be said to be a form of interpretation (Miller in Dorey, 1969; p. 110).

Shotter, 1991; p.3294

Annals ?

Shotter, 1991; p.3276.

Agncola n; p.52.

astonesll;p.2l

SeeAoiate XVL14; p.388 and XVI.32; p.396.

Annals n.30-48; pp.50-60.

Shotter, 1991; p.3311

Walker, 1960; p.l7; Mellor, 1993; p.41.

Walker, 1960; Appendix Hp.263

Compare me accounts ofAD16: Dio's record is concerned with administrative detail (LVIL15.1-2; .15.3; .16.1 and .16.2), whilst Tacitus is more interested in me senate's relationship with Tiberius (Annals H5-26; .27-32; .33-38 and .39-40). For an account see Ginsburg; 1984;pp.81-82.

Annals Lll-12; pp.40-41.

Wellesey, 1954; pp. 13-33

As with Agricola's awareness of his officers' feelings (Agricola XDC; p. 70).

In contrast to Mellor, who holds that the presence of rumour shows a lack of better source material (1993; p.32).

Shotter, 1991; p.3294.

Annals'a.'SZ,2-3

Agricola XLDL2; p.95.

^B(I;5@L4;p.34

ibid; L5-6; pp.34-35.

Syme; 1958a; p.254 & p.418; MeHor, 1993; p.42

Walker, 1960; p.9.

Another critic is Martin, who sees the division of me Tiberian narrative into two halves as; 'over-simplified and over-theoretical' (1981; p.l05).

Shotter, 1991; p.3310.

Annals t52\f>.62. Grant's translation reads; 'military success' where the Latin actually refers to his love of gloria, which is a small but important difference.

Armalsl.^v.SZ.

Syme; 1958a; p.316.

ibidip^ll. This demonstrated by his criticism of those who preferred to commit suicide for the sake of the old respublica (see Annals XVLU; p.SSS

andXVI.32;p.396

Annals rn.l6.Z-, p.l26.

speech which Tacitus attributes to the Scottish leader Calgacus (^gncola XXX, p.81) highlights Ihis point

Agricola Xt pp. 61-62.

Annals XTV.36-37; pp. 330-331.

See his account of the beginning of the Boudiccan revolt (ibid. XIV.28-35; pp.327-330) and his comparison of Roman and German morality

KJermania V; p. 105 & Xm; p. 112).

Walker, 1960; p.34 and Syme; 1958a; p.407 amongst many others

^^gnco/aXLIlip^.

SHA Tacitus X.3; p.313.