Already a subscriber? Log in
The greatest of Roman historians, Tacitus (ad 56-117), was well aware how hard it was to get solid information. Though an insider himself — consul and provincial governor — time and again he found himself up against a brick wall. The reason was that all the real decisions were taken no longer by the senate but behind closed doors in the emperor’s inner circle. Even basic information was not circulated. At one stage, the first Roman emperor, Augustus, was at death’s door and had to tell the senate which of his imperial slaves to approach to get information about the state of the finances, the army and the empire. So Tacitus often had to rely on rumour, and said so.
But not if he could help it. For example, when one Piso was accused of plotting against the hated emperor Nero, resulting in the murder or exile of countless suspect conspirators, many people thought it was a put-up job by Nero to get rid of rivals. But Tacitus ferreted out evidence from exiles returning after Nero’s death that confirmed its truth.
It never seems to have occurred to the hacks that a tribunal would be heard in public, and that it was civil servants who decided to award the settlement, so that it would not be heard. Could there conceivably have been a reason for that? Tacitus would have seen that at once, and wondered exactly where the real problem lay — with the Spads, or with a civil service keen for its own shortcomings not to be revealed? The point is that Tacitus felt that the Rome he loved was being debased and corrupted. He wanted the truth, and knew the questions that needed to be asked to get it. The hacks seem less motivated by anything so trivial.
Also in Society
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in