Tacitus and Tiberius

The emperor Tiberius emerges from Tacitus' Annals as a hypocritical, cruel and immoral character. Yet a closer study of the factual evidence given by Tacitus illustrates a totally different emperor. Indeed, it would appear that Tiberius, at least in the first half of his reign, was exceedingly capable. It is interesting to note that the negative impression created by Tacitus—despite the factual evidence—arises from his seductive writing style and innuendoes, and not so much from tangible evidence. The reason why Tacitus depict Tiberius as such is of interest because it shows his bias, perhaps based on his background, and brings into question the reliability of Tacitus' history writing. It is also representative of the hostile senatorial tradition towards the emperors. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The reign of Tiberius according to Tacitus can be separated into two different periods, demarcated by the death of Drusus and the ascendancy of Sejanus. The initial period was regarded by Tacitus as "a time of reserve and crafty assumptions of virtue", while the days in Capri were a time of paranoid politics and moral depravity, "[plunging] into every wickedness and disgrace" (Annals VI.51). The general picture painted of 'Tiberius is that he was a man with inherent character flaws, which he hid as long as there were external reasons, perhaps with hypocritical acts of goodness or kindness. Eventually, though, he cast off his pretences and "indulged his own inclination"’ (ibid). from http://janusquirinus.org/

The main charge against Tiberius is that he brought about public ruin. During the early part of his reign, he had supposedly endorsed and encouraged maiestas trials, which resulted in a large number of informers or delatores, who were "a class invented to destroy the commonwealth" (IV.30). Essentially, the social fabric was destroyed in the resulting fear and distrust of fellow Romans. Moreover, an inversion of power resentful such that it was no longer one's position, such as on the cursus honorum, which determined power. Instead, power fell into the hands of the ignoble. Tacitus describes Caepio Crispinus, an informer, as follows: "Needy, obscure, and restless, he wormed himself by stealthy informations into the confidence of a vindictive prince, and soon imperiled all the most distinguished citizens; and having thus gained influence with one, hatred from all besides, he left an example in following which beggars became wealthy, the insignificant, formidable, and brought ruin first on others, finally on themselves" (I.74). It is clear from this description that not only were the informers hated for bringing about public ruin, but that Tiberius was regarded as ultimately responsible because he abetted them. This sentiment is also corroborated by another passage describing how Tiberius stood up for the informers and said "Better to subvert the constitution than to remove its guardians" (VI.30). from http://janusquirinus.org/

Tiberius was also regarded as having brought about public ruin though his persecution of Sejanus' allies after Sejanus' fall, which ultimately resulted in the abuse of the process and which served to illustrate his cruelty:

...he ordered the death of all who were lying in prison under accusation of complicity with Sejanus. There lay, singly or in heaps, the unnumbered dead, of every age and sex, the illustrious with the obscure. Kinsfolk and friends were not allowed to be near them, to weep over them, or even to gaze on them too long. Spies were set round them, who noted the sorrow of each mourner and followed the rotting corpses, till they were dragged to the Tiber, where, floating or driven on the bank, no one dared to burn or to touch them. The force of terror had utterly extinguished the sense of human fellowship, and wish the growth of cruelty, pity was thrust aside. (IV.19)

Tiberius' cruelty, first foretold by Augustus (I.10), is an ominous theme thoughout the six books of the Annals. His cruelty was also own associated with his scheming nature, reflected mainly alleged involvement or even plotting of various murders. Indeed, the opening paragraph on Tacitus' account of Tiberius' reign begins with a grim statement that "The first crime of the new reign was the of Postumus Agrippa" (I.6). Tiberius was also suspected of having orchestrated the death of Germanicus, of whom he was supposed to be jealous. The lack of conspicuous honours to Germanicus, and Tiberius' cutting short of public mourning were regards either an indication of guilt or a result of his jealousy. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The death of Germanicus is also used to demonstrate Tiberius' hypocritical character: "Tiberius and Augusta retained from showing themselves, thinking it below their dignity to shed tears in public, or else fearing that, if all eyes scrutinised their faces, their hypocrisy would be revealed" (III.3). Tiberius is also said to have prided himself in being able to dissemble (IV.71). This allegd hypocrisy or dissemblance is then Tacitus' blanket explanation for all the good deeds Tiberius carried out during his reign. In the main text, this point is not explicitly brought up beyond the statement that "To his splendid public liberality the emperor added bounties no less popular" (II.48), which implies that such deeds were for show. However, the obituary to Tiberius states clearly that the first half of his reign, which corresponded to the period in which Tacitus describes most of Tiberius' good actions, "a time of reserve and crafty assumption of virtue" (VI.51). Such a conclusion as the final passage Tacitus writes on Tiberius, has the effect of annulling all the good actions Tiberius had done by attributing them to deceit. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Such hypocrisy of Tiberius was also reflected in the general Roman population, perhaps not directly through his own example, but Tacitus implies that Tiberius' reign encouraged an inversion of morality. Indeed, "at Rome people plunged into slavery-consuls, senators, knights. The higher a man's rank, the more eager his hypocrisy, and his looks the more carefully studied...while he mingled delight and lamentations" (I.7). "So corrupted indeed and debased was that age by sycophancy that not only the foremost citizens who were forced to save their grandeur by servility, but every ex-consul, most of the ex-praetors and a host of inferior senators would rise in eager rivalry to propose shameful and preposterous motions" (III.65). The reign of Tiberius also saw the immorality of Livia, "the niece of Augustus, the daughter-in-law of Tiberius, the mother of children by Drusus...[who] for a provincial paramour, foully disgraced herself, her ancestors, and her descendants, giving up honour and a sure position for prospects as base as they were uncertain" (IV.3). from http://janusquirinus.org/

The manner of Tiberius is also a source of attack from Tacitus. He was regarded as haughty and arrogant and Tacitus criticises Tiberius as "[being] harsh even where he acted on right grounds" (1.75). For instance, even when acknowledging Tiberius thriftiness and law-abiding practices, Tacitus complains that he did "all this, not indeed with any graciousness, but in a blunt fashion which often alarmed" (IV.7). from http://janusquirinus.org/

In short, the flaws of Tiberius are best summed up by the popular gossip discussing the prospective heir to Augustus that Tacitus cites: from http://janusquirinus.org/

Tiberius Nero was of mature years, and had established his fame in war, but he had the old arrogance inbred in the Claudian family, and many symptoms of a cruel temper, though they were repressed, now and then broke out...even in the years which, on the pretext of seclusion he spent in exile on Rhodes, he had no thoughts but of wrath, hypocrisy, and secret sensuality (I.4).

Curiously though, despite Tacitus' powerful portrayal of Tiberius as a villainous emperor, it is obvious even in the evidence Tacitus cites against him that Tiberius was an exceptional emperor. This can be seen from his generosity to Asia after the earthquake, grants to impoverished senators, effective financial administration, lack of personal avarice or profligacy, refusal of excessive titles and divine honours even in the provinces. The use of "moderatio" on coins may not then seem an exaggeration (1). While Tacitus may attribute all this to dissemblance, Tiberius' scorn for flatteners, informers and sycophants shows otherwise. As Suetonius explicitly states, Tiberius showed himself "a citizen on equal terms" (Tiberius 26). This is corroborated in the Annals by fact by the if Tiberius ever had a dispute with a private person, it was decided in the law courts (IV.7). Tacitus' description of the maiestas trial of Falanius and Rubrius also proves Tiberius' clear-minded impartiality (I.72), while Tiberius' advice to the public after the death of Germanicus that "Princes were mortal; the State was everlasting" (III.6), contrary to illustrating his jealousy of Germanicus, shows his practical-mindedness, or even his dignitas. As Mellor puts it, from http://janusquirinus.org/

And yet this Tiberius retains considerable stature in Tacitus's eyes; he may be bitter, angry, and finally corrupt, but he is no sniveling incompetent. He had no Caligulan madness, Neronian frivolity, or Vitellian sloth. Tacitus report that he led the armies well, that he balanced the imperial budget, that he chose good administrators, that (except in a handful of treason trials) he enforced the laws, and that he did not raise taxes. Few rulers can boast such a record, much less in an account from an admittedly hostile source (2).

In the same passage cited by Mellor (IV.6), Tacitus also points out, contradictory to his innuendoes in other parts of the Annals, that Tiberius also honoured the worthy and enabled the nobility to retain their prestige. A close analysis of the hard evidence in the Annals then gives some justification to Mommsen's assertion that Tiberius was the most capable emperor Rome ever had (3). from http://janusquirinus.org/

How then does Tacitus turn the illustrious career of such an emperor into a tragic tale of depravity, cruelty and hypocrisy, despite the evidence he himself gives? Tacitly' powerful and passionate rhetorical skills contribute most of the answer. Unfortunately for Tiberius, Tacitus is scrupulous about factual details, but he is willing to select and interpret them to create a false impression (4). The most common methods of maligning Tiberius are to misinterpret or attribute extraneous meanings to his actions and his political analysis. This is obvious from the examples of the maiestas trials and the mourning for Germanicus given above. His attempt to resist power too is regarded as insincere. At other time, Tacitus freely includes descriptions with no evidence, more a style of fiction-writing, such as describing Tiberius as speaking "in the tone of a demagogue" (I.17). This is intensified by ascribes speeches, more probably reconstrucbd by Tacitus than based on actual records, to Tiberius. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Tacitus also freely employs the use of gossip and rumours, such as the analysis of Tiberius by public given above. Such gossip and rumours are also mentioned under the guise of asioposis. As Tacitus puts it in reference to the rumour that Piso died with a letter from Tiberius which allegedly contained instructions to kill Germanicus, "Neither of these statements would I positively affirm; still it would not have been right for me to conceal what was related by those who lived up to the time of my youth" (III.16). from http://janusquirinus.org/

Tacitus is also given to exaggerations. As Dudley points out, research has shown that maiestas trials and their victims under Tiberius were not on the scale Tacitus would have us suppose (5). Indeed, Tacitus records fewer than a hundred treason trials in the twenty-three years of Tiberius' reign, and what is referred to at the end of Tiberius' reign as continual slaughter was actually a handful of judicial executions and seven suicides in three years (6). Tacitus also creates false impressions through unfavorable topic sentences. For instance, Tiberius' intervention in Appuleia Varilla's trial (II.50) should have been in his favor, but Tacitus colours it by introducing the episode with "the law of maiestas was growing apace" (7). Alternatively, Tacitus camouflages or associates historical facts with unfavorable analysis. For example, he describes the oath of allegiance to Tiberius by the consuls and prefects within a chapter lamenting the hypocrisy of the consuls, senators and equestrians (I.7). In another instance, Tacitus complains that Tiberius' participation in judicial proceedings in the Senate in person, "though it promoted justice, ruined freedom" (I.75). Ironically, what Tacitus calls "freedom" here is what he himself refers to as "improper influence and the solicitors of of great men" (ibid.). from http://janusquirinus.org/

The use of the charismatic Germanicus as a foil to Tiberius (8) also serves to illustrate the unpopularity of Tiberius, as well as his unpleasant chactacter. This is also evidence to the impartial reader of the unfair treatment accorded to Tiberius. The many good actions of Tiberius are attributed hypocrisy, but the self-serving and foolish ones on the part of Germanicus (and Agrippina) are excused. For instance, Germanicus' near-fatal miscalcalation of sending his troops back by ship, despite the fact that "Germany is conspicuous for the terrors of its climate", not only does not illicit criticism from Tacitus, but has the romantic ending of everyone "from some far-distant region, [telling] of wonders" (II.24). Similarly, it was pointed out by Tacitus himself that Germanicus' kind treatment of the soldiers was for the purpose of "strengthening their ardour for himself and battle" (I.71) (9), and yet Germanicus still retain the role of hero in Tacitus' eyes. Another good example of Tacitus' unfairness is in his treatment of what Furneaux refers to as Germanicus' "futile obsequies" for Varus' legions (10) just prior to battle with Anninius. Tiberius' disapproval was highly justified and his reasoning that "the spectacle of the slain and unburied made the army slow to fight and more afraid of the enemy" astute, but instead is suspected by Tacitus to be partly because Tiberius " [interprets] unfavourably every act of Germanicus" (I.62). from http://janusquirinus.org/

Woodman also identifies an interesting technique used by Tacitus-the use of language which is more appropriate to describing a disaster resulting from war to create an impression that Tiberius during his Capri years was a besieger of his own capital city (11). His evidence includes the following of Quintilian's advice on how the fall of a besieged city should be described in the account of the collapse of the amphitheater and the similarity in the language used in describing one of Tiberius' visits to Rome and the language employed by Thucydides in describing the beginning of the Peloponnesian War and the annihilation of Athenians in Sicily. It is also interesting to note, though not brought up in Woodman's analysis, that Tacitus in describing the collapse of the amphitheater explicitly states that "the losses of a great war were matched" (IV.62 ) or as in the translation Woodman used, "its effects resembled those of a major military defeat." This depiction of Tiberius as the besieger of his own capital city is reinforced by the descriptions of his visits to Rome. A good example is the use of the ambiguous Latin verb adsidere, which can also mean "besiege", to describe Tiberius' visits to Rome, as in the phrase "on frequent occasions he stationed himself (aisidens) near the city walls"(IV.58) (12). from http://janusquirinus.org/

In addition, Tacitus' description of Capri (IV.67) also uses four of the five standard elements conventionally used by ancient writers to describe a foreign country, namely the physical geography of area, its climate, its original inhabitant and its social organization (13). He left out only the description of the area's mineral resources and agricultural produce. This further emphasizes the idea Tiberius had deserted his own capital city. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The most poignant feature of Tacitus' description of Tiberius' reign is the passionate language used, which transforms an account of history to tragedy, and Tiberius into a tragic character. This is best shown by the conclusion from Tiberius' letter defending Cotta Messalinus that:

So completely had his crimes and infamies recoiled, as a penalty, on himself. With profound meaning was it often affirmed by the greatest teacher of philosophy that, could the minds of tyrants be laid bare, there would be seen gashes and wounds; for, as the body is lacerated by scourging, so is the spirit by brutality, by lust and by evil thoughts. Assuredly, Tiberius was not saved by his elevation or his solitude from having to confess the anguish of his heart and his self-inflicted punishment (VI.6).

The venomous obituary to Tiberius (VI.51), as the last word on Tiberius, has the deadly effect of leaving a lasting and extremely negative impression of the emperor, in addition to nullifying every good action described in the preceding six books, as mentioned above. Thus, it can be seen that Tacitus' disclaimer at the opening of the Annals that "my purpose is to relate...without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed" (I.l) is contradictory to his portrayal of Tiberius. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Tacitus' antagonism toward Tiberius is not entirely surprising since the senatorial tradition had always been hostile to Tiberius. Yet it is interesting to note that the exaggeration with regards to the maiestas trials reflect less of Tiberius' reign than Domitian's. Domitian was an emperor under whom Tacitus served loyally and to whom he was indebted. Perhaps it is as Mellor suggests that for Tacitus, Domitian was a microcosm of the Empire, and Tacitus' own relation to Domitian becomes the model the relations of the Senate with the emperors', including collaboration and the resulting resentment and hatred (14). from http://janusquirinus.org/

An alternative, but not mutually exclusive, explanation for Tacitus' antagonism towards Tiberius lies in the fact that it is with the accession of Tiberius that the Republic was truly over and the empire and the dynastic transition of power became a reality. After all, Rome had witnessed the rule of one man many times, such as that of Sulla. This explanation is plausible in the view of Tacitus' nostalgia for the days of the Republic, which he regarded as synonymous with libertas. The capable administration of Tiberius' reign might also have fueled this antagonism, because it was only in a capable or benevolent regime that the power of the Senate was dissipated and all power controlled by emperor. Ironically, the Annals were written in the reign of Trajan, the optimus princeps. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Mellor also suggests that Tacitus' obsession with Tiberius, albeit based on hatred and moral disapproval, is so powerful that there may even be a psychological link between them, since a penetrating mind, a sarcastic tongue, and an abiding bitterness define them both (15). While psychological analysis is seldom a sufficient explanation, it probably contributes to the passion with which Tacitus describes Tiberius. Indeed, he distrusted emperors so much that he may have been too credulous of negative sources about them. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Regardless of the reasons for Tacitus' venomous portrayal of Tiberius, it suffices to say that his account of Tiberius illustrates that Tacitus writes history not without bias, After all, as he himself saw it, "history's highest function [is] to let no worthy action by uncommemorated, and to hold out the reprobation of posterity as a terror to evil words and deeds" (III.65) (16), and such an objective is predicated upon the opinion of the historian. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Bibliography

Primary Sources
Suetonius. Tiberius in The Twelve Caesars. Translated by R. Graves. Revised with an introduction by M. Grant. Revised Edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1989.
Tacitus. The Annals in Complete Works of Tacitus. Translated by A.J. Church and W.J. Brodribb. Edited with an introduction by M. Hadas. New York: The Modern Library, 1942.

Secondary Sources
Dudley D. The World of Tacitus. London: Seeker & Wafburg, 1968.
Marten R, Tacitus. London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd, 1981.
Mellor R. Tacitus. New York: Routledge, 1993.
Mommsen T, A History of Rome under the Emperors. London: Routledge, 1996.
Pelling C. "Tacitus add Germanicus" in Luce T. and Woodman A., ed., Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Woodman A, Tacitus and Tiberius: The Alternative Annals. Durham: University of Durham, 1985).

1. Mellor 1993: 43.
   
2. Ibid: 104.
   
3. Ibid: 43. Mommsen also asserted that "Tiberius was someone who always wanted to rule in accordance with the constitution - the most constitutional monarch Rome ever had ... If anyone could have the sense of having ruled well it was Tiberius, and yet he was rewarded for it with bitter hatred. No wonder his misanthropy was so overwhelming." (Mommsen 1996: 130, 150).
   
4. Ibid.
   
5. Dudley 1968: 79.
   
6. Mellor 1993: 43.
   
7. Marten 1981: 121.
   
8. Pelling 1993.
   
9. My italics.
   
10. Pelling 1993.
    
11. Woodman 1985: 14-18.
    
12. Ibid.
    
13. Ibid.
    
14. Mellor 1993: 8.
    
15. Ibid: 86.
    
16. My italics.