written By Ben Clarke
19/10/2025
Tacitus, born under Nero (c. AD 55) and promoted under the Flavians, most significantly under Domitian, wrote a series of works focussing predominantly upon one-man rule and its effect upon the Roman state. His depiction of the various emperors is scathing, which has been argued to suggest that Tacitus condemned monarchical government. However, as is expressed throughout his histories, Tacitus was no republican, but merely condemned individual “bad” emperors. Mommsen convincingly argues that “Tacitus is a monarchist, but from necessity, one could say from despair”. Tacitus himself claimed to write “without anger and partisanship.” However, by this he was not claiming to write an objective history of truth, but, as he outlines in his preface, he was only claiming to write without censorship or flattery (Ann. 1.1.). His opinion of one-man rule certainly influenced his work; it is a personal truth. This article will focus largely upon Tacitus’ depiction of Tiberius’ principate given the themes expressed under the reign of Tiberius remain largely consistent throughout.
Looking at the context in which Tacitus was writing, he himself acknowledges that he was promoted under the Flavians, most significantly under Domitian. Given he grew up under Nero, and rose up the cursus honorum under Domitian, the more widely considered “bad emperors,” it probably left a negative impression upon Tacitus. This negative attitude towards the emperor is highlighted within his Histories, stating that Vespasian was the first princeps that changed for the better (Hist. 1.50). Despite his promotion under him, Tacitus expresses very little sympathy for Domitian as an individual. Considering within the preface to Tacitus’ Annals he condemns the censorship of history under the principate, his stating that Domitian repressed writing and free speech within his Agricola stresses this animosity towards him (Agr. 3). Contrary to Sailor, who argues that Tacitus’ cooperation with the cursus honorum was a “badge of total compliance and therefore perhaps utter servility,” Tacitus’ narrative certainly refutes this as a sentiment, writing that those who spoke out against the system for virtue’s sake faced certain death (Hist. 1.2.3). Tacitus, here, stresses that refusing to cooperate with the system achieved nothing, implying that pursuing a political career was nonsynonymous with an individual’s political identity. Furthermore, Tacitus’ Agricola, written for his father-in-law, was written with the purpose of stressing Agricola’s achievements, “in spite of the princeps, who was the greatest threat to virtue.” Contrary to Sailor, while considering the context under which Tacitus was writing is certainly important in understanding Tacitus, to use his political career as a gauge for his political outlook is unhelpful.
Much can be ascertained regarding Tacitus’ attitudes towards one-man rule from the opening passages of his Annals and Histories. Within the introduction to Annals, Tacitus summarises the history of Roman government. He states that from the outset Rome was governed by kings and, even under the Republic, Rome was led by a series of temporary dictatorships, such as under Pompey and Caesar (Ann. 1.1). Despite being more optimistic about the Republican period, Tacitus acknowledges that one-man rule was certainly not a novel concept within Rome, and in a de facto sense existed even under the Republic. However, under the Republic, despite there being men with more power than others, the ability of the Senate and historians to speak freely had largely remained intact; that changed under the principate.
In terms of the extent to which Tacitus was a “monarchist […] from necessity,” Galba’s speech explicitly addresses this line of argument. Within Galba’s speech, which has been called “Tacitus’ political creed,” Tacitus narrates that Galba stated that if the empire could stand without a ruler then the Republic would begin with him, but, since it could not, the best form of government would be one-man rule, but through succession via adoption and not hereditary dynasties (Hist. 1.16.1). As is stressed in Galba’s speech, Tacitus was concerned about the libertas that existed under the Republic, which was oppressed under the principate. The sentiment that Tacitus felt that Republicanism was impossible is highlighted via his account of the supposed discussions after Augustus’ death (Ann. 1.9). He narrates that people spoke of the benefits of liberty, but it was a purely theoretical discussion as few could remember Republican government. At no point does Tacitus ever advocate for a Republican government, but, if we take Galba’s speech to be a reflection of his own political opinion, he advocates for succession via adoption. This was the case for Nerva, whom he presents in a positive light.
This scepticism towards the motives of the principes arguably stems from his senatorial background. Given he was writing in a period where the authority of the Senate had been undermined, it is not surprising that he pays attention to false pretences of the emperor. Tacitus uses main and subordinate clauses whereby the subordinate clause holds the weight of the sentence, but is still dependant on the main clause. This, as a theme is exhibited vividly in Annals 2.5.1, where he states that it was not unpleasing for Tiberius that there was turmoil in the East as it gave him a reason to move Germanicus in the way of disaster and deceit in new provinces. The only real evidence of Tacitus’ is that Germanicus was moved to deal with the turmoil, but he uses the subordinate clause to provide his own interpretation on Tiberius’ pretence.
Throughout the entirety of his narrative, he attacks the pretence of “republicanism” of the Augustan principate. This is stressed by the debate in the Senate regarding the accession of Tiberius. Here, the pretence within the system is highlighted by Tacitus through Gallus’ question, “I ask you, Caesar, what department you wish to be assigned you?” (Ann. 1.12). Indubitably, as is also highlighted in Annals 2.87, which states that libertas could not be experienced under an emperor who hated freedom and sycophancy at the same time, Tacitus’ experience under his Senatorial career influenced his writing to stress the suppression of the Senate as a key theme throughout the narrative. Indeed, the theme of one-man rule being a dominatio and an oppression on libertas runs consistently throughout. He viewed the principate as necessary for stability of government, but the peace and stability of this government was one of servitude, not freedom. Tacitus states in his Annals that people should not criticize his work for being dull compared to the histories of old Rome, as his history was of “peace wholly unbroken or only slightly disturbed, dismal misery in the capital” (Ann. 4.32). This extract explicitly gives testimony to this argument, with Tacitus writing that although Rome experienced greater stability than it did under the late Republic, the trade-off was a deprivation of libertas.
Tacitus’ criticism of one-man rule, and the principate as a whole, is not as simple as a condemnation of “bad emperors” and their repression of libertas within the state. Tacitus conceived of libertas in two ways: the first of which was libertas in terms of freedom from dominatio; second, he thought libertas was freedom in terms of participation with politics without coercion or flattery. As referenced earlier, Tacitus states that great men can live even under great emperors (Agricola. 42). His criticisms also extended to the supposedly sycophantic Senate, not exclusively the princeps. Extracts such as Annals 3.35.1, which stress that even when Tiberius stepped back from the Senate, they remained incapable of acting independently highlight that the oppression of liberty did not exclusively stem from the emperor. This is expressed on numerous occasions throughout his works (e.g. Ann. 2.87/3.47). Conversely, Tacitus also marks out “great men” within the Annals in order to stress that, through the actions of individuals, libertas could be restored. A cogent example of this is the senator Paetus Thrasea who spoke against Nero and the rest of the senatorial body; as a result, the Senate were reportedly less servile (Ann. 14.48). Clearly, Tacitus felt that under one-man rule libertas could only be preserved if the princeps could accommodate non-cooperation. This was, according to Tacitus’ prefaces of Annals and Histories, something that had been lacking throughout the entirety of the imperial period up until the reign of Nerva, as is stressed through his comments on history during the imperial period.
It is apparent throughout Tacitus’ various works that he felt one-man rule and the libertas of the people and the Senate were incompatible. As established, Tacitus never set out to write an objective history, as is commonly suggested through his “without anger and partisanship” comment. Certainly, Tacitus’ political career influenced his opinion on the principate as a form of government, as is exhibited by his depiction of the Senatorial body as a sycophantic servant with no de facto authority in Rome. Tacitus used sentence structure to highlight the pretence of “republican” libertas throughout his works. Clearly, Tacitus was opposed to the effects of one-man rule upon libertas and the authority of the senate and historians but saw it as an unavoidable sacrifice.
Bibliography
Shotter. D. C. A. (1991). ‘Tacitus’ view of emperors and the principate’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt : Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, 3263-3331.
Fontana, B. (1993). Tacitus on empire and republic. History of Political Thought, 27-40.
Griffin, M. (1982). The Lyons Tablet and Tacitean Hindsight. The Classical Quarterly , 404-418.
Griffin, M. (2018). Tacitus, Tiberius and the Principate. In M. Griffin, Politics and philosophy at Rome : collected papers (pp. 134-148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mommsen, T. (1886). Reden und Aufsätze. Adamant Media Corporation.
O’Gorman, E. (2009). Irony and Misreading in the Annals of Tacitus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Percival, J. (1980). Tacitus and the Principate. Greece and Rome, 119-133.
Raaflaub, K. (2008). The truth about tyranny: Tacitus and the historian’s responsibility in early imperial Rome. In J. Pigon, The children of Herodotus: Greek and Roman historiography and related genres (pp. 253-270). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Romer, F. (2008). Reconsiderations on the Intention and Structure of Tacitus’ Annals. In J. Pigon, The children of Herodotus: Greek and Roman historiography and related genres (pp. 271-286). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Sailor, D. (2009). Writing and Empire in Tacitus. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strunk, T. (2017). History After Liberty : Tacitus on Tyrants, Sycophants, and Republicans. University of Michigan Press.
image credit: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian
Retrospect Journal 