top of page
National Museum of Roman Art
Screenshot 2026-09-28 at 16.48.04.png

Literature published in Ancient Rome during the Imperial period began with strict loyalty to the newfound emperor, Augustus.  Virgil, through his “Aeneid”, provided a nationalistic epic that recounted the foundations of their country from its very beginnings.  Virgil’s friend and fellow writer, Horace, published eloquent poems that saluted the induction of this newfound imperial period.  Even the slightly ambivalent historian, Livy, took the opportunity to admire the magnificence the Roman Empire had become.

 

However, when the writer Tacitus emerged in the late 1st century AD, he assumed a contrastingly different approach to characterising the state and emperor.  In effect, what he constructed via his literature was a satirical denouncement of the emperor and his court that at the time were so steeped in privilege.  It was, in nature, an arrival of irreverence.  It was an arrival of freedom and loosening over how far leading writers could dissent against the imperial throne.

​

His famous book, the “Annals”, came in 117 AD.  It was therefore read amongst Roman society roughly a hundred years after the first emperor, Augustus, had died in 14 AD.  Here we find ourselves amongst a literary era, known as “silver Latin”.  However, it was a prime opportunity where Tacitus could deploy literary devices such as innuendo and loaded phrases to satirize his victims.

​

One of Tacitus’ principle literary devices was a form reconstruction regarding the scenarios he describes in his narratives.  Evidently swaying from truth, the writer presents a version of the events that whether true or not, certainly are amusing to the reader.  For instance, in Book 12 of the “Annals”, Tacitus reconstructs the debate surrounding Claudius’ choice of wife.  Sophistication and sophistry are absent and are replaced by farcical scenarios.  In Tacitus’ account, the emperor’s most influential freedmen select and advocate their own choice, something that presents Claudius himself as a foolish puppet.

​

Emerging as one distinct oeuvre, the “Annals” was Tacitus’ final work.  It covered the period from the death of Augustus in 14 AD.  Commentators have established that Tacitus wrote at least 16 books, however books 7 -10 and part of books 5,6, 11 and 16 are missing.  Since Book 6 ends with the death of Tiberius and Book 12 features the life of Claudius, books 7 – 10 presumably covered the reign of Caligula and Claudius.  It is precisely the “Annals” that I have chosen to focus upon, since it is here that Tacitus’ craft of language and narratives becomes most majestically apparent.

Describing the “Annals” in the most proficient manner, chronologically the work is a history of the Roman Empire from the reign of Tiberius to that of Nero, altogether encompassing the years 14 – 68 AD.  Summarily, Tacitus offers a style of portraiture, depicting the emperors and their courts with his individual venom.  His portrayals of Tiberius and Nero are blemishing in character, and ultimately the emperors come across as tyrants who treat their subjects terribly.  Whereas Tiberius is described as someone who had once been a great man, Tacitus considers Nero as contemptible in totality.

 

Another prolific literary device Tacitus employs is a form of cultic investigation of personalities.  The feature runs right to the core of his criticism of dynastic power.  In a passage surrounding the life of Tiberius, Tiberius sought to assume imperial power, because, Tacitus alleges, he was personally anxious about the military situation on the Roman frontier.  Tacitus directs an attack on his personality, aiming to expose Tiberius hypocritical judgement with irony and style.

 

Considering himself as a conscious literary stylist, articles of Tacitus’ greatest success appear in his manner of expression that gave life to his work. Perhaps as man whose motive was irreverence to the emperor, it is fitting that he styled his writings against the conformity of the historiographical tradition.  Greek historiography dictated a set of determined parameters that formed its literature.  The writer, the tradition held, could analyse events in plain terms, set the scene with personalities, or heighten the dramatic appeal of human action.  Majestic works such as the writings of Thucydides or Livy in effect offered an amalgamation of these criteria. The Roman “annalistic” form, however, was a new addition.  After the development of the genre, Tacitus precisely could gloss separate and significant episodes with the quintessential Grecian effects that he had come to learn.

​

Almost all Roman authors were knights or senators.  They were, in essence, the leading class of Roman society. As such, they operated in a complex and sometimes troubled relationship with the emperor.  Tacitus was born shortly after Nero became emperor, in 55 or 56 AD, and continued the trend by having distinguished family in the provinces of Gaul.   Under Nero, the relationship between the aristocracy and himself became under particular strain, a feature that led to particularly hostile accounts.  This would be the start of aristocratic irreverence to the imperial throne.​

Tacitus arrives at his infamous “irreverence” following several different command posts.  The author had embarked on a successful political career under the Flavians and their successors, Nerva and Trajan. When writing his historical works, Tacitus frames himself as an experienced elder statesman.  For romans who were members of the senatorial class, they had recently witnessed the assassination of Domitian in 96 AD (the last ruler of the Flavian dynasty) and accession of Nerva and Trajan following him.  To them, the situation in 98 AD appeared like the happy arrival of victory after what had been a struggle.

​

Therefore, what they wanted, while accepting the need for an emperor, was to be respected by this ruler and be afforded exclusive access to the highest offices and privileges.  However, at the crux of their attitudes lay a fervent will to reject any notion of automatic hereditary succession.  This was something that had been created by the Julio-Claudian dynasty and continued by the Flavians.  Writers subscribing to this school located their most reprehensible character in the form of Nero.  To them, Nero’s rule was an aberration and an existential threat.   It is a culmination of Tacitus’ “Annals” and “Histories” that provides his most stringent denouncement of Emperor Nero.  The “Annals” elaborates upon the ruler’s perceived moral depravity and consequential grave political failings.  The “Histories”, alternatively, accounts the resulting breakdown that his inadequacy caused, primarily proclaiming a decline in discipline revolving around orders rewarded by Nero and other parties.

 

What culminated into a climax of anti-Nero sentiment were opportune personal and political factors. Tacitus wrote his “Annals” and “Histories” while the emperor Trajan was in power.  Trajan was a great-nephew of one of the figures embroiled in the Pisonian conspiracy that occurred during the reign of Nero.  This was a man called Barea Soranus.  Taking place in 65 AD, this was a major turning point within the reign of Emperor Nero (54-68 AD).  The plot illustrated the growing discontent of the Roman ruling class in the face of Nero’s increasingly despotic leadership.  It came to be regarded as a crucial stepping stone towards Nero’s eventual suicide and the chaotic Year of the Four Emperors that ensued. 

​

Supporting these views in later years, anti-Nero sentiment was swept up eagerly by Christian Church Fathers.  They wanted and succeeded in presenting Nero as an ultimate tyrannical monster.  However, this was met in contrast by Rome’s pagan senatorial aristocracy from late antiquity.  They conversely viewed Nero as a symbol of traditional Roman customs.  This is attested by a “Contorniate”, or medallion, that has been discovered and judged to have dated to between the late 4th and 5th century AD.  The medallion depicts a laureate bust of Nero on the obverse and a race in the Circus Maximus on the reverse (British Museum, R.5026).  These “Contorniates” were produced roughly between 355-410 AD and are thought to have been distributed as New Year’s gifts.  Nero, in fact, was the second most portrayed emperor, after Trajan.

Tacitus, therefore, ultimately failed to induce endless shame upon the emperor he so venomously criticised.  Assessing the writer’s veracity, it is apparent time after time that he has a strong bias towards the senatorial classes.  When Tacitus recounts the final death of Nero, he claims that the senators and leading knights rejoiced (the emperor Galba being away from Rome), along with what he calls as the “respectable” people.  Conversely, what Tacitus labels as the “plebs sordida” (vulgar crowd) along with those “used to the circus and theatre”, “poorest slaves” and those who had “squandered their property”, he says were dejected and concerned.  Tacitus’ contempt has been historically examined to be at odds with others adverse to the senatorial view, who, for instance decorated Nero’s tomb with flowers and hung images.

   

We can take a swan dive into Tacitus’ literary prowess.  There is no mediocrity in his views.  Absolution is the only answer he has for the emperors he is describing.  In section 7 of Book 1 of the “Annals”, he describes Tiberius as having feebly crept into power, using the denigrative phrase “per uxorium ambitum” (“through the canvassing of his wife”) and attaches the condescending verb, “inrepisse”, (“to creep”).  The language is also flagrant when Tacitus contrasts Tiberius with Germanicus, who he prefers.  Again in Book 1 the structure “tot legiones, immensa …, mirus…” and verb “mallet” (“prefer”), as if Germanicus could take the Empire easily if wanted, indirectly reduce the impression of security of Tiberius’ command.

​

Germanicus is clearly the preferred character.  Tacitus describes him pleasantly.  He wrote, “ “nam iuveni civile ingenium, mira comitas etdiversa ab Tiberii sermone vultu, adrogantibus et obscuris.” (“For the young man possessed a courteous nature and remarkable affability—qualities contrasting sharply with the speech and bearing of Tiberius, which were haughty and inscrutable.” (“Annals”, Book 1).  In the debate of his succession, Tacitus interjects to comment on the insincerity of Tiberius’ ostensive rejection of power: “plus in oratione tali dignitatis quam fidei erat.” (“There was more dignity than faith in such a speech” (11)  Tiberius’ phrase, “dissimulatio” (“disguise”), combined with Tacitus’ allusions to the weakness of his rule lead to an impression of the Principate as devious and complex.

​

It is something, he believes, as requiring the senatorial class to shape as the backbone of Roman society.  It is distaste of disenfranchisement suffered by the senatorial class that Tacitus is most weariful of.  

The writer of several books appeared at the forefront of Roman society in 81or 82 AD, at the age of 26, when he became a questor under the reign of Emperor Titus.  Tacitus’ “Annals” contained18 or 16 books and was probably written at first during the reign of Trajan and completed at the start of Hadrian’s reign.   It was a natural development from his previous work, the “Histories”, which cast a negative criticism over the empire.  The “Annals”, in effect, represented a diagnosis of this sorry state.

 

Tacitus’ “Annals” permeated an elite collection of interested readers throughout the Dark and Medieval ages.  However, it was rediscovered during the Renaissance and from then onwards disseminated widely.  The writings have been adapted across different media in the modern era, including film and television productions.  They also continue to be read and studied widely across the globe. 

bottom of page