Polemic in Tacitus

Abstract

ABSTRACT: In contrast with his predecessors in ancient historiography such as Polybius or Livy, Tacitus avoids attacks on named predecessors. He does claim superiority for his own writings in his prefaces, but on the grounds that he was free from the influences that distorted earlier efforts, such as concern about political disfavour or apparent flattery in a contemporary context. The desire for vengeful self-justification after an emperor, now seen as a tyrant, had died also called into question authors’ impartiality. While the critique of imperial activities has often been taken as the basis of Tacitus’ writing, this paper argues that the most important feature of his histories is the emphasis on the behaviour of the ruling class, the historian’s senatorial peers. The social etiquette of this group is a strong influence on the nature of Tacitus’ criticism and reflects the continuing difficulties in writing about the past even under ‘good’ emperors.