« Jordan fact of the day | Main | Volatility isn't rising »
The Annals of Tacitus
This book has an implicit public choice theory, which I read as follows. Division of powers is ultimately impossible, so there is either rule by one man or rule by the crowd, or as it will turn out, both at the same time. Augustus represented the perfect fulfillment of the Roman ideal of statehood, and thus his reign heralded the beginning of the end. Augustus had replaced all institutions with his perfect yet ultimately destructive personhood. Given the importance of fortune, rule by a single man then meant an eventual downward ratchet in the quality of rule. Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero were successively worse, but even a lucky break in the genetic lottery would only have put off this trend; there is more downside than upside in the weak-institutions version of this game. The insane Nero plays all the different Roman roles on the stage and metaphorically Nero becomes Rome. He plays to the crowd, and the suicide of Nero is the suicide of Rome itself. Hope lies in the civilizations of the less historically conscious barbarians, who live on the fringe of the story, never becoming memorable but the modern reader knows they will allow Europe to one day live again.
For related points, I am grateful to fellow participants at a Liberty Fund conference this last weekend.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 24, 2007 at 01:28 PM in History | Permalink
Comments
Division of powers is ultimately impossible, so there is either rule by one man or rule by the crowd, or as it will turn out, both at the same time.
This leaves out Senatorial oligarchy, which IIRC was Tacitus's own preference; his complaint is that the Principate has degraded the Senate to where the choice does indeed collapse into TC's either/or.
As for "hope," that is obviously not where Tacitus found it; what he thought of the Senate of his own day is an excellent question.
Posted by: Anderson at Apr 24, 2007 1:59:37 PM
Tacitus pretty clearly regarded Tiberius as the prime mover of the decline -- the reigns after his were not so much progressively worse (indeed, they reined in the maiestas prosecutions that were Tacitus' major outrage) as variations on the theme.
That said, I do thing that Tacitus is probably one of the most relevant ancient authors to modern times. Just as this country's founders were inspired by the (somewhat deluded) idealism of Cicero, so the folks trying to make it work today should be informed by the difficult but deeply committed Tacitus, who chronicled what happened when the Republic of Cicero's dreams got too close to the realities of imperial power.
Posted by: Grant Gould at Apr 24, 2007 2:19:04 PM
Although Nero and some of these others make for quite a spectacle and fun to
rant about at Liberty Fund conferences, in fact most evidence suggests that living
standards in Rome continued to improve up until at least the time of Trajan and Hadrian
in the early second century, and really did not begin to decline until after Marcus
Aurelius at the end of the second century. The big factors in the decline include
a combination of high taxes, inflation, breakdown of market insitutions, and neglect
of the upkeep of urban infrastructure, the efficient building and managing of which
was central to the earlier economic growth of the Roman Republic and Empire.
Interestingly, at least in some places, conquering "barbarians" occasionally did fix
up the infrastructure, with Ravenna being an example, with nothing having been done to
the water and sewer systems since the time of Trajan, until after conquest by Arian
Ostrogothic barbarians who fixed it up. Of course, the real problem with this line
about hope lying in the barbarian periphery looks pretty silly when we look at the
broader picture. Living standards almost certainly declined with the fall of the Roman
Empire, and did not recover to their peak levels again in Europe until the dawn of the
Industrial Revolution.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 24, 2007 5:12:19 PM
With respect to Hope lies in the civilizations of the less historically conscious barbarians, have you read his Germania? It's short, entertaining (because of his decreasing stock of reliable information as you move east), and illuminating. Tacitus is clearly conflicted about the Germans, who on the one hand represent unlettered rudeness, and on the other the manly, violent virtues, rough-hewn and unsullied; he looks down on them for the former and admires them for the latter, unhappy to admit there's a lesson there for his too-decadent race.
Posted by: Andromeda at Apr 24, 2007 5:26:23 PM
Augustus represented the perfect fulfillment of the Roman ideal of statehood, ...
A little revisionism? For 400 years, Rome extremely worked well as a Republic (we should be so lucky). During this period, no Consul ruled alone or for more than a year. Fear of a reestablished kingship led to a strong ethic that no Senator be elevated above others. Indeed, the main complaint against Julius Caesar by his assassins was that he was taking on the trappings of a king.
Augustus as Imperator was the compromise when the Republic could not quell three generations of civil wars. Senators swallowed their pride, accepted a "strong executive," but retained a role for the Senate (Augustus was careful to co-opt the Senate, not disband it). Centuries after Augustus, Roman patricians still believed in a nominal republic. The Roman ideal of statehood was still a republic.
When Octavian was declared Imperator, it was not clear that the role would be hereditary. But if it was expected, and it was expected that some heirs would not live up to Augustus's stature, wouldn't this be better than the civil strife of the late Republic?
... and thus his reign heralded the beginning of the end.
Perhaps a peak but the beginning of the end? The end came centuries later in the Western Empire and a millennium later in the Eastern Empire.
He plays to the crowd, and the suicide of Nero is the suicide of Rome itself.
Um, this suicide takes another two centuries or more, no? If only all suicides took so long.
Posted by: MW at Apr 24, 2007 5:29:53 PM
Tacitus pretty clearly regarded Tiberius as the prime mover of the decline
I see what you mean, but isn't it truer to say that Augustus degraded the state to the point that it *could* and did simper to a Tiberius?
"... when he [Augustus] had enticed the soldiery with gifts, the people with food, and everyone with the sweetness of inactivity, he rose up gradually and drew to himself the ressponsibilities of senate, magistrates, and laws -- without a single adversary, since ... the rest of the nobles, each in proportion to his readiness for servitude, were being exalted by wealth and honors and, enhanced by the revolution, preferred the protection of the present to the perils of old."
That's just not consistent with Augustus as "the perfect fulfillment" of anything.
See also the famous pro/con perspectives at I.9-10, the latter of which has it that Augustus "extorted the consulship from an unwilling senate, and the arms which he had been given to deal with Antonius were turned against the state." One could argue against the usual view that the "con" statement reflects Tacitus's own views, but it would be an uphill struggle.
Posted by: Anderson at Apr 24, 2007 5:40:03 PM
Why are we willing to take the word of an obvious partisan such as Tacitus about his conteporary polity? Would we put up Markos Moulitsas or Ann Coulter as authorities on the presidencies of Bush and Clinton, respectively? The fact is that Rome became much greater under the emperors than it was as a republic, and its decline occurred hundreds of years after Augustus.
Posted by: djg at Apr 24, 2007 6:06:10 PM
Before the Empire , Sulla was dictator by two years.He was maned sine die , but after killing his political enemies( almost every man in the gens Julia) resign.He was dictator based in the army.
Cicero, the dreamer, killed 100 hundred citizens without due procees to show a lesson after Catilinas Conspiracy.
The first five emperors were not directly related or were adopted so the genetics lottery was not a factor .Caligula was the choice of the army to make fun of institutions.
And Nero was a populist , loved by the people , and supported by intelectuals like Seneca , Lucano and Petronius.
And i agree a, failed empire ? It lasted 1100 years in the West. and until 1454 in the East?.
Posted by: jcm at Apr 24, 2007 6:54:11 PM
Before the Empire , Sulla was dictator by two years.He was maned sine die , but after killing his political enemies( almost every man in the gens Julia) resign.He was dictator based in the army.
Cicero, the dreamer, killed 100 hundred citizens without due procees to show a lesson after Catilinas Conspiracy.
The first five emperors were not directly related or were adopted so the genetics lottery was not a factor .Caligula was the choice of the army to make fun of institutions.
And Nero was a populist , loved by the people , and supported by intelectuals like Seneca , Lucano and Petronius.
And i agree a, failed empire ? It lasted 1100 years in the West. and until 1454 in the East?.
Posted by: jcm at Apr 24, 2007 6:54:18 PM
Why are we willing to take the word of an obvious partisan such as Tacitus about his contemporary polity?
Tacitus was not a "contemporary" of Augustus or Nero; he lived a few generations later, under Domitian and Trajan.
As for "taking his word," please: we don't. Classical studies is a serious discipline (much more so than "English," says this former English Ph.D. student). Much of Tacitus's attack on Tiberius, for instance, has been discredited; Tacitus was projecting backward the tyranny of Domitian.
Nevertheless, Tacitus was a smart guy who had access to a great many documents we shall never see, and who wrote 50-100 years after the events he describes in the Annals; we would be foolish not to give him a great deal of consideration. Much of what he writes checks out against archaeological & other sources.
As for Rome's "greatness," well, define your terms. (The "1100 years" is a bit odd -- Rome was a basket case by A.D. 400, and a collection of mud huts 1100 years before that.)
--Changing subjects, I wish TC would expand upon his Liberty Fund conference. Did he present on Tacitus, or listen to a panel thereon? The reverence for Augustus seems very odd from a "Liberty" Fund. I recommend a dose of Syme, every night before bed for a week (or, knowing TC, one night would do).
Posted by: Anderson at Apr 24, 2007 9:30:33 PM
"When Octavian was declared Imperator, it was not clear that the role would be hereditary. But if it was expected, and it was expected that some heirs would not live up to Augustus's stature, wouldn't this be better than the civil strife of the late Republic?"
MW is, I think, entirely right to bring up the instability of the Republic in during the 1st cen BC.
Moreover, while there was certainly an expectation that succession would be hereditary in the Principate (cf. Augustus and the incident with Caesarion), jcm is also correct to point out that very few of the early emperors had a consanguine relation to a previous emperor (in the first two centuries, there is Commodus, of course, and maybe Domitian (?)). In large part this is due simply to the fact that some emperors didn't produce any sons or that many sons didn't survive to adulthood (cursus honorum, etc). But in a couple of cases, there was one--I think Claudius had a son. In any event, the overwhelming majority of early emperors attained the position through adoption. At least since Gibbon, the standard line has been that this system served the Empire very well at times--i.e. the period from Trajan to Aurelius (and perhaps you could back to Vespasian).
Max Weber went so far as to argue that this represented a fundamental rationalization of succession, since it enabled meritocratic considerations to enter into the selection process, overlain with the fig leaf of blood ties.
This is probably too simplistic a view, but it's hard to argue that things didn't go extremely well during the century prior to Commodus.
Posted by: eweininger at Apr 25, 2007 10:02:31 AM
Correction: it appears that Vespasian's sons--Domitian and Titus--are the main examples of consanguine succession. Who can keep em all straight. Anyway: Trajan to Aurelius is indeed a pretty good run.
Posted by: eweininger at Apr 25, 2007 10:09:33 AM
Excellent comments by E. Weininger, which lead me to wonder:
The fundamental changes in the nature of the Roman military have been cited as a major cause for the Republic's late instability & collapse. When generals had legions loyal to them & looking for booty and pensions, the institutions of the Republic couldn't hold the military in check.
Now, that may be a debatable thesis, but if it's plausible, then the question becomes: what kept the soldiers in check during the period of the Annals, failed in A.D. 69, and again kept them in check during the Five Good Emperors' reigns? Do we know?
Posted by: Anderson at Apr 25, 2007 10:46:58 AM
Anderson: looks like your credentials are at least mine, so you've probably already thought of this, but:
"What kept the soldiers in check during the period of the Annals?"
Under Augustus, the transfer to his adopted son of their loyalty to Caesar. In the Augustus-Nero period, earlier comments notwithstanding, emperors were related -- not in a direct line but related nonetheless, and clearly the whole Julio-Claudian thing provided legitimacy (Claudians by way of Livia's first marriage, adopted and legitimized by Augustus -- a funny choice of word as I am led to believe Livia's son by her first marriage was, in point of fact, her son (genetically) by her second). Hence the ascension of Claudius, the Julio-Claudian the praetorians were able to get their hands on in the post-Caligula chaos.
"...failed in A.D. 69..." After Nero IIRC everyone was pretty much out of male Julio-Claudians. (And didn't Nero die in 68, 69 being the year of the 4 emperors Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian -- not Nero?) "Lack of an obvious successor" has always been a good way for chaos to ensue. The combatants in 69 were, I believe, all generals, keeping their own portions of the military in check, but there wasn't anyone with enough obvious cred for the entire military's loyalty to settle upon. Vespasian was an obvious claimant to military loyalty, not only because he won the war and had been a general, but also because he had/cultivated this salt-of-the-earth persona. His son Titus wins on similar grounds (salt-of-the-earth, Vespasian's son, destroying Jerusalem), whereas his son Domitian loses on grounds of being enough of a loon that a power vacuum ensues. (Although that was about losing the Senate's loyalty, but vacuums is vacuums, I guess.)
"and again kept them in check during the Five Good Emperors' reigns?"
Prosperity helped, I should think. The Roman army always seemed more like a corrective, wiping the slate clean when Roman governance had gotten too far out of hand, than a perennial contender for rule. I'd also think it helped that Trajan had had a successful military career before his adoption and was something of a war emperor, which gave his line legitimacy in the eyes of the military. (Er, well, his "line", what with all the adoptions.)
Posted by: Andromeda at Apr 25, 2007 4:38:59 PM
Tiberius, to the best of my recollection, was Augustus' "step"-child only. If this isn't the case, please clarify.
Regarding the larger point: blood ties unquestionably carried the greater legitimacy in the early Principate. This actually comes up in the case of Tiberius' succession, since, iirc, Augustus only turned to him after his two grandsons died prematurely.
On the other hand, there is the odd case of Nero's accession, and its recognition as legitimate despite the fact that Claudius had a surviving son (his name escapes me, but again iirc, he was quickly dispatched by his stepbrother). An idiosyncratic case, presumably.
As to Anderson's question about the loyalty of the armies in the Republic versus the Principate: Andromeda's discussion of the civil wars, the Flavians, etc. all sound good to me. But let's not overlook the obvious: wouldn't Augustus and his successors have had greater access to the fisc and greater control over things like taxation policy than republican consuls and generals, thereby enabling them to better provide the armies with what they really wanted--regular wages, bonuses, pensions, land grants, and the like? Augustus certainly knew better than to rely on his ties (both adoptive and blood) to Caeser in this regard.
Posted by: eweininger at Apr 25, 2007 10:35:10 PM
eweininger: Yes. Tiberius Claudius Nero (that is, the emperor Tiberius, not to be confused with the emperors Claudius or Nero of the same name -- gotta love those Romans) was the son of Tiberius Claudius Nero (...yup!) and his wife Livia. I believe Augustus adopted him subsequent to marrying Livia. And he married Augustus's daughter. But adoption, notably adult adoption, had all kinds of social legitimacy among the Romans.
It has been credibly speculated that Tiberius's younger brother was in fact Augustus's, not TCN #1's, son, despite being conceived while Livia was married to TCN #1. Well, well, well. But that's the younger brother, not necessarily Tiberius, and regardless shouldn't have been much of a factor in how he was viewed by his contemporaries, since it didn't officially happen.
Posted by: Andromeda at Apr 26, 2007 6:30:46 PM
On the other hand, there is the odd case of Nero's accession, and its recognition as legitimate despite the fact that Claudius had a surviving son (his name escapes me, but again iirc, he was quickly dispatched by his stepbrother).
Tiberius Claudius Britannicus.
The cynical view is presumably that it was Augustus' establishment of the aerarium militare and the tight control of charismatic generals on glorious campaigns beyond the imperial frontiers that stabilised the empire. (On the latter point see, for example, the career of Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo.)
Posted by: Rich at Apr 27, 2007 4:09:39 PM
Rich: I find the story of Corbulo (who I didn't know of before) fascinating, and certainly agree with what you say, except for the idea that this view is somehow cynical. Consider the Res Gestae:
"I paid the towns money for the fields which I had assigned to soldiers in my fourth consulate (30 B.C.E.) ...; the sum was about HS 600,000,000 which I paid out for Italian estates, and about HS 260,000,000 which I paid for provincial fields. I was first and alone who did this among all who founded military colonies in Italy or the provinces according to the memory of my age. And afterwards,...I paid out rewards in cash to the soldiers whom I had led into their towns when their service was completed, and in this venture I spent about HS 400,000,000. "
(I assume HS denotes sesterces, but I'm not sure.)
Presumably, promises both heavenly and earthly had been made to soldiers since time immemorial; Augustus wanted to be remembered as someone who actually _kept_ them.
Andromeda: Roman naming conventions are aggravating. But the Roman practice of adoption is absolutely fascinating. Although it obviously predates Augustus (by how much?), I can think of no other case in which a political system that even vaguely resembles a hereditary monarchy so willingly flaunts the blood tie. Can you?
Posted by: eweininger at Apr 28, 2007 11:22:49 PM
There's an short biography of Corbulo (as well as biographies of a number of other Roman military leaders) in Adrian Goldsworthy's In the Name of Rome.
Another interesting question is why Augustus' system for taming the legions broke down in AD68, AD193, and at more times than I care to enumerate in the third century.
Adoption for political - or more accurately dynastic - reasons predates the Julio-Claudians by at least 150 years. The famous Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Numantinus, final destroyer of Carthage was adopted by Publius Cornelius Scipio, for example. (The "Aemilianus" indicates that his previous name was "Aemilius" - he was the son of Lucius Aemilius Paulus, conqueror of Macedonia.)
As for political adoption, perhaps the transition from the 18th to the 19th dynasties of the Egyptian New Kingdom provides the best parallel: Ay may have been a member of the family of Queen Tiy or Queen Nefertiti but became pharaoh after the premature death of Tutankhamun. After that there was a succession of generals, each chosen by his predecessor. Ay chose first the Nakhtmin and then Horemheb as his successor. Horemheb chose Ramesses I. Only with Ramesses did the succession become once more hereditary.
(There also are plenty of examples of successful generals marrying into royal families and going on to be ruler. Earlier in the New Kingdom, for example, Tuthmose I married Ahmose, a daughter of the pharaoh Ahmose I, and then went on to become pharaoh. Less peaceful examples abound too.)
Posted by: Rich at Apr 29, 2007 2:55:41 PM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 2, 2008 2:33:02 AM
Please come to conan gold, we will give you a great surprise.
Posted by: cheap aoc gold at Dec 31, 2008 2:23:40 AM
