Narrative works as the most important source on Roman history. Roman historiography and Roman historians Historians of the Roman Empire

Roman historiography, being influenced by Greek, has some peculiarities. Among the literary genres, historiography in ancient Rome enjoyed the greatest authority. Its representatives belonged to the ruling strata of society, as politicians they energetically intervened in history, and later devoted themselves to historiography (Livy was an exception), seeing in it an opportunity to pursue their policy by other means. So Roman historiography served primarily purposes of political propaganda, clarification and justification of external and domestic policy ancient rome.

Historiography was engaged predominantly history of Rome, the history of Italy and the provinces was reflected to a lesser extent. The consciousness of historical continuity was based on the history of the achievements of their ancestors, so the Roman the story was told from the founding of Rome like the history of ruling dynasties.

In Greek historiography, stronger than in Roman, manifested features of moral and educational teachings(Greek history was presented as exemplary). Roman historiography, especially in the initial period of development, experienced a strong influence ( both in form and content) compiled by the Pontiff Grand annual tables ( annals) .

Most early Roman historical writings were written in Greek, they pursued goal to justify foreign policy Rome in the Greek speaking world. In conditions when there was no Latin prose, Roman historiography replaced literature.

Roman poets . Neviy and Kv. Ennius reflected Roman history in the historical epic. M. Portia Cato was the first to use the Latin language in his historical work ("Primary Sources"). He sought to influence the Romans for political and educational purposes and eliminate Greek language from Roman national historiography.

Soon the first historical works appeared: Caesar's reports on the conquest of Gaul and the civil war, in which his military and political actions were justified; after the assassination of Caesar - works Sallust, which convincingly depicted the internal political and moral decline of Rome.

Livy set himself the daunting task of creating complete history Rome since its foundation. The main task of Livy is to collect the traditions of early Roman history and fuse them into a single coherent story, the history of Rome. It was the first time that such an undertaking was carried out. The Romans were quite serious about their superiority over all other peoples., considered only their history worthy of attention. That is why the history of Rome, told by Livy, was for the Roman spirit a universal history. Livy was philosophical historian. The purpose of his work is moralistic. He says that his readers would undoubtedly prefer a story about events in the recent past. However, he wants them to read about the distant past, because wishes to teach them the moral lesson of those distant days when Roman society was simple and uncorrupted. It is clear to him that history is humanistic. “Our vanity is flattered,” he says, to deduce our origin from the gods, but the historian’s business is not to flatter the reader, but to depict the deeds and customs of people.

None of them ever again turned to the task set by Livy. After him, historians either simply rewrote it, or limited themselves to a simple narrative about the events of the recent past. In terms of method, Tacitus is already decadent.

Tacitus however, he made an enormous contribution to historical literature, but it is quite appropriate to raise the question whether he was a historian at all. The history of events that took place in Rome itself completely owns his thought, he neglects the history of the Roman Empire or considers it from the standpoint of a homebody Roman. And his view of purely Roman affairs is extremely narrow. In fact, Tacitus is bad, first of all, because he never thought about the main problems of the business he undertook. His attitude to the philosophical principles of history is frivolous, he simply picks up the common pragmatic assessment of its goals in the spirit of a rhetorician rather than a serious thinker.

He wants to teach the readers of his narrative that "good citizens can be under bad rulers." "Not just fate and not a combination of favorable circumstances are the best protection for a noble senator, but the character of his personality, prudence, noble restraint and moderation."

This attitude leads Tacitus to distort history, to the fact that he portrays her in fact like a clash of personalities, exaggeratedly good with exaggeratedly bad. Tacitus considers his characters not from the inside, but from the outside, without sympathy and understanding, as a simple personification of vices and virtues.

The subsequent historians of the era of the Roman Empire not only failed to overcome the difficulties that Livy and Tacitus fought in vain, but never reached their level. These historians more and more limited themselves to the pitiful task of compilation, uncritically piling up in their works everything that they found in the writings of earlier times.

Historians of Rome

TRANSLATIONS FROM LATIN

The publication is carried out under the general editorship of: S. Apta, M. Grabar-Passek, F. Petrovsky, A. Takho-Godi and S. Shervinsky

Introductory article by S. UTCHENKO

Translation editor S. MARKIS

TRANSLATORS' NOTES

The proposed book should give the reader an idea of ​​ancient Roman historiography in its most striking and characteristic patterns, that is, in relevant (and rather extensive) extracts from the works of Roman historians themselves. However, Roman historiography arose long before the works of the authors presented in this volume appeared and were published. Therefore, acquaintance with their works, perhaps, it is advisable to precede at least the most cursory review of the development of Roman historiography, the definition of its main trends, as well as brief characteristics and an assessment of the activities of the most prominent Roman historians, extracts from whose works the reader will meet in this volume. But in order to catch some general, fundamental trends in the development of ancient Roman historiography, it is necessary, first of all, to clearly enough imagine the conditions, the cultural and ideological environment in which this historiography arose and continued to exist. Consequently, we should be talking about some characteristic of the spiritual life of Roman society (approximately from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD).

The widespread thesis about the close relationship or even unity of the Greco-Roman world, perhaps, does not find itself in anything more vividly confirmed than in the fact of proximity and mutual influence of cultures. But what is usually meant when one speaks of "mutual influence"? What is the nature of this process?

It is usually believed that the Greek (or, more broadly, Hellenistic) culture, as a more “higher” culture, fertilized the Roman one, and the latter is thereby already recognized as both dependent and eclectic. No less often - and, in our opinion, just as unjustified - the penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome is portrayed as "the conquest of defeated Greece by its harsh conqueror", a peaceful, "bloodless" conquest that did not meet visible opposition in Roman society. Is it really? Was it such a peaceful and painless process? Let us try - at least in general terms - to consider its course and development.

We can also speak about individual facts proving the penetration of Greek culture into Rome in relation to the so-called "royal period" and to the period of the early republic. According to Livy, in the middle of the 5th century, a special delegation was sent to Athens from Rome in order to “write off the laws of Solon and learn the institutions, customs and rights of other Greek states” (3, 31). But still, in those days, we could only talk about scattered and isolated examples - we can talk about the systematic and ever-increasing influence of Hellenistic culture and ideology, already referring to the era when the Romans, after defeating Pyrrhus, subjugated the Greek cities of the South Italy (that is, the so-called "Greater Greece"),

In the III century, especially in its second half, the Greek language spreads in the upper strata of Roman society, knowledge of which soon becomes, as it were, a sign of “good taste”. Numerous examples testify to this. As early as the beginning of the 3rd century, Quintus Ogulnius, head of the embassy to Epidaurus, mastered the Greek language. In the second half of the 3rd century, the early Roman annalists Fabius Pictor and Cincius Aliment—they will be discussed later—write their works in Greek. In the 2nd century, most senators speak Greek. Ducius Aemilius Paulus was already a real philhellene; in particular, he sought to give his children a Greek education. Scipio Aemilianus and, apparently, all the members of his circle, this peculiar club of the Roman "intelligentsia", spoke Greek fluently. Publius Crassus even studied Greek dialects. In the 1st century, when, for example, Molon, the head of the Rhodes embassy, ​​spoke before the senate on his mother tongue, the senators did not need an interpreter. Cicero is known to have been fluent in Greek; Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony, Octavian Augustus knew him no less well.

Along with the language, Hellenistic education also penetrates into Rome. The great Greek writers were well known. So, for example, it is known that Scipio reacted to the news of the death of Tiberius Gracchus with Homer's poems. It is also known that the last phrase of Pompey, addressed to him a few minutes before his tragic death to his wife and son, was a quotation from Sophocles. Among young Romans from aristocratic families, the custom of traveling for educational purposes is spreading - mainly to Athens or Rhodes in order to study philosophy, rhetoric, philology, in general, everything that was part of the Roman ideas about " higher education". There is a growing number of Romans who are seriously interested in philosophy and adhere to one or another philosophical school: such, for example, are Lucretius, a follower of Epicureanism, Cato the Younger, an adherent not only in theory, but also in practice of the Stoic doctrine, Nigidius Figulus, a representative of neo-Pythagoreanism that was emerging at that time and, finally, Cicero, an eclecticist, who, however, leaned most towards the academic school.

On the other hand, in Rome itself, the number of Greek rhetoricians and philosophers is constantly growing. A number of "intelligent" professions were, as it were, monopolized by the Greeks. Moreover, it should be noted that slaves often came across among the representatives of these professions. These were, as a rule, actors, teachers, grammarians, orators, doctors. The layer of the slave intelligentsia in Rome - especially in the last years of the existence of the republic - was numerous, and the contribution made by it to the creation of Roman culture is very tangible.

Certain circles of the Roman nobility willingly met Hellenistic influences, valued their reputation in Greece, and even pursued a patronizing "Phihellenic" policy. So, for example, the famous Titus Quinctius Flamininus, who proclaimed the freedom of Greece at the Isthmian Games of 196, was accused of almost betraying the state interests of Rome, when he yielded to the demands of the Aetolians and liberated, contrary to the decision of the Senate commission, from the Roman garrisons such important strongholds, like Corinth, Chalkis, Demetrias (Plutarch, Titus Quinctius, 10). In the future, the philhellenic moods of individual representatives of the Roman nobility pushed them to even more unusual and unacceptable actions from the point of view of the "old Roman" citizen and patriot. The praetor of 104 Titus Albutius, who lived for quite a long time in Athens and turned into a Greek, openly flaunted this circumstance: he emphasized his adherence to Epicureanism and did not want to be considered a Roman. The consul of 105 Publius Rutilius Rufus, a follower of Stoicism, a friend of the philosopher Panetius, during his exile took the citizenship of Smyrna and then rejected the offer made to him to return to Rome. The last act was regarded by the old Roman customs and tradition not so much as treason, but rather as blasphemy.

These are some of the facts and examples of the penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome. However, it would be completely wrong to portray these influences as "purely Greek". The historical period we have in mind was the era of Hellenism, therefore, the "classical" Greek culture underwent serious internal changes and was largely orientalized. Therefore, in Rome - first, nevertheless, through the Greeks, and then, after the establishment of the Romans in Asia Minor, in a more direct way - the cultural influences of the East begin to penetrate.

If the Greek language, knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy spread among the upper strata of Roman society, then some Eastern cults, as well as eschatological and soteriological ideas coming from the East, spread primarily among the general population. The official recognition of soterpological symbols occurs in the time of Sulla. The movement of Mithridates contributes to the widespread dissemination in Asia Minor of teachings about the imminent onset of the golden age, and the defeat of this movement by the Romans revives pessimistic moods. Ideas of this kind make their way to Rome, where they merge with Etruscan eschatology, which may also have an Eastern origin. These ideas and sentiments become especially relevant in the years of major social upheavals (Sulla's dictatorship, civil wars before and after Caesar's death). All this indicates that eschatological and messianic motives were not limited to religious content, but also included some socio-political aspects.

Rome and the world.

Empire Historians

The Romans loved their state, one might even say, admired it and tirelessly sang it. How the poets did this will be discussed in the second part of the book, but here we will talk about the historians themselves. At the same time, it should be noted right away that all the best Roman historians (including the Greek Plutarch, who, as you remember, was mentioned on the pages of the second book of Essays ...) were wonderful writers, authors of subtle psychological historical literary portraits.

In his youth, he was engaged in political activities and fought on the side of Caesar, and later wrote a number of exemplary historical works "The Catiline Conspiracy", "History", "Yugurtin War". He worked on these books after the assassination of Caesar, in deep solitude, one might say, in self-exile, which is why they are marked with the seal of deep pessimism, theoretical basis for which the concept of the moral degeneration of society after the fall of Carthage, developed by the Greek thinker Posidonius, served. Sallust believed that such degeneration is an inevitable consequence of the tragic duality of human nature itself, in which the high spirit and the vicious body are irreconcilably hostile to each other. For the history of literature, the significance of the ethical concept and the books of Sallust is that they bring psychologism to Roman literature. Sallust is a master of a historical portrait, which manifests itself primarily in the direct speech of the heroes of his books. And this is the rebel Catiline, the great Caesar, Cato already familiar to us, Sulla and other historical figures. The history and language of Sallust bring genuine drama and a high level of artistry to his books. Yes, and Sallust himself understood this, since the secretary prepared the historical outline of his books, while the historian himself focused mainly on their artistic depiction. Here is a small example - a description of Catiline:

“His vile soul, hostile to gods and people, could not calm down either awake or resting: remorse of conscience exhausted his troubled mind to such an extent. , his expression showed madness. "(Gaius Sallust Crisp. Works. - M., Nauka, 1981. S. 12.)

The great prose writer of the Augustan era was not an artist, but the historian TITUS LIVIUS, "Libya, who does not err," as Dante spoke of him.

However, his multi-volume "History of Rome from the founding of the city" can be considered a work of art, since "Livy is a narrator, not a researcher" (I.M. Tronsky. History of ancient literature. S. 399.), and its main task, according to apparently, it was sonorous language to sing national glory, as it were, in parallel with Virgil.

Titus Livius was born in Padua (Patavia) in 59 BC, studied rhetoric and philosophy in the capital, and devoted the last forty years of his life (from 23 BC to 17 AD) to creation of "History ..." Unfortunately, of these 142 books, only thirty-five initial ones (from 1 to 10 and 21 - 45) have come down to us, but they also make up three full-length volumes. Augustus favored a historian who began his work where Virgil ended his, despite even a number of frankly republican passages of Livy. After all, the writer through history made visible the primordial Roman virtues. The empire was presented to the reader "as a moral imperative, divine order and law, imposed on the chaos of the East and the barbarism of the West. Polybius attributed the triumph of Rome to the form of his state structure; Livy would like to make it a natural consequence of the Roman character "(W. Durant).

In many ways, Livy followed Cicero, who considered history to be the mentor of life, calling it "a highly oratorical work", but still disagreed on the main thing: Cicero offered to separate poetic, practical and business languages, always proceeded from the practical needs of modern activity. Livy is a dreamy man, a pure writer. He loved and contemplated history, which is why his scientific work is written in the language of fiction. For historians, this may be a disadvantage, but what a blessing for the reader!

"History..." Livia is a book that can be read simply for pleasure, as we read beautiful poetry or even a long family romance feeling at home among its vicissitudes. The main idea of ​​this work is the valor of the Roman people, patriotism. It is they who determine, according to Livy, the course of Roman history. It was their fall that caused civil unrest. The book begins with mythology, but tells mainly about man. It introduces the speeches of the characters, which are brilliant examples of oratory. It gives stunning pictures of the Punic Wars. Of course, "History ..." Livia sometimes sins with tendentiousness, does not always critically use the works of her predecessors, but excellent language, a wealth of colorful pictures easily atone for all her shortcomings. It is this book that first justifies the definition of Rome as the "eternal city". It is this book that for eighteen centuries has determined the views on the Roman character. Livy was read, loved and honored not only by contemporaries, even from countries conquered by the empire, but also by Renaissance humanists, Russian Decembrists, and even modern readers.

The next great, and perhaps the greatest Roman historian is PUBLIUS CORNELIUS TACITOUS. French poet of the 18th century M.-J. Chenier said of him: "The name of Tacitus makes tyrants turn pale." And this is true, since Tacitus himself was an influential senator, and since his work is clean water opposition to the despotism of the emperor Domitian and the senate obedient to him.

We give the story about Tacitus and the last major historian of the empire of Suetonius, following mainly the text of M.L. Gasparova.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 54 - 123) belonged to the generation of Pliny and Juvenal, was a prominent judicial orator, reached the highest state position - the consulate, and then turned to history.

His first work was the biography of his father-in-law Agricola, the famous commander, which, apparently, was supposed to prove that even under criminal emperors honest people can live and achieve glory; the next is an excellent ethnographic and geographical essay "Germany", even for our time, about the life and customs of the Germanic peoples with an extensive digression on the topic of Britain; then the key to understanding his themes, style and outlook work "Conversation about speakers" (on the popular theme of the reasons for the decline of eloquence); after which they actually followed historical writings: the monumental "History" (in 12 books, about the time of the Flavians), of which the first five books have been preserved, and the "Annals", i.e. "Chronicle" (in 18 books, about the time of Julius-Claudian, 14 - 68 years), of which books 1 - 4, 6 and 11 - 16 have been preserved.

In "A Conversation about Orators" Tacitus argues with the main stronghold of ancient eloquence and republican consciousness, Cicero. The book is structured as a dialogue with him and explains the reasons for Tacitus's choice of the "new style" for his writings and their historical genre.

The task of Tacitus the historian was not to tell, since Rome had many other historians who had already told about all these events (their writings have not reached us), but to comprehend past events on the basis of new historical experience. The most important thing in this new experience was the recently experienced despotism of the emperor Domitian, which showed true face despotic monarchy, hidden under the guise of the so-called "golden age". Tacitus goes further than his critical contemporaries and points out the guilt of his entire class for allowing Domitian's tyranny. He portrays the history of his age as a tragedy, following in this manner Sallust. Hence the two most important qualities of his artistic manner: drama and psychologism.

The story of Tacitus reveals not only the external side political life capital, but also its behind-the-scenes secrets, grouping and motivating the facts accordingly.

The grouping of facts is the division of episodes, the appearance actors, the arrangement of general pictures and particular phenomena, the intensification and resolution of tension: it is precisely by this that Tacitus achieves a dramatic presentation that has no equal in ancient historiography.

Motivation of facts is an image of the feelings and moods of the characters, both individual characters and the masses, the transfer of spiritual movements. This reveals the psychologism of Tacitus. Often without sufficient facts, the author convinces the reader through the remarkable power of rhetoric, combining emotion with logic, and often preferring the former. Thus the harmony of the psychologist overcomes the algebra of logic.

Tacitus is the best master of the literary and historical portrait of antiquity, along with Plutarch, his style is individual and unique. His phrases are the same unity of contradictions as the reality he depicts: "He seemed to be a private person above a private one, and he could rule if he weren't a ruler," it is said about the unfortunate emperor Galba. And this characteristic, contradictory in every word, probably best of all represents Galba to us.

Both as an artist and as a thinker, Tacitus surpasses all the authors of his time. Maybe that's why antiquity underestimated him. But the New Age endowed him with immortality. The work of Tacitus provided extensive material for numerous tragedies ("Otho" by Corneille, "Britanic" by Racine, "Octavia" by Alfieri, and many others). The revolutionary bourgeoisie of all countries considered him almost their banner. The Decembrists spoke tirelessly about him, discussing plans for their uprising. Pushkin, while working on "Boris Godunov", studied in detail the works of this historian and thinker.

If Tacitus "managed to put his outstanding pen at the service of a mind unblinked by prejudices," notes V. Durant, "his name would be at the head of the list of those who worked to mold and perpetuate the memory and heritage of mankind."

At about one historical period the empire had three major historians: the Greek writer Plutarch, Tacitus, whom you have just read about, and Suetonius, whose name you have already met in the chapter "Two Caesars". About them, as well as about many other famous Romans, Suetonius left detailed essays. The list of his writings that have not come down to us is huge: "On children's games among the Greeks", "On spectacles and competitions among the Romans", "On bookmarks", "On types of clothing", "On swearing or swearing and on the origin of each", "About Rome and Roman customs and manners", "About kings", "About famous harlots", "About various subjects"... What kind of a historian is he who writes about harlots, or about abuse, or even about children's games, you ask. Or exclaim: what kind of encyclopedist is this! Scholastic (Later we will meet with this term, however, in a different sense. For now, let's remember its original concept - a book man.), Pliny called him a book man. The author would dare to define him as a journalist before journalism. But all this is only on the basis of the variety of names of books that have not come down to us that have come down to us.

What has come down to us is, without any doubt, historical works, inferior in systematicity and strength of moral requirements to Livy, in the brightness of psychologism and language - to Sallust, in moral and psychological strength - to Plutarch, in mind and subtlety - to Tacitus, but surpassing them. in the brilliance, so to speak, of physiological portraits of prominent people of the empire, and therefore of Rome itself. If in the Russian classics it was customary to compile literary physiological sketches of the capitals, then The Life of the Twelve Caesars, the main work of Suetonius that has come down to our time, is the same physiological sketch of the Eternal City.

A native of an equestrian family, GAI SVETONIUS TRANQUILLE (about 70 - after 140) in his youth was a member of the circle of Pliny the Younger, for some time he was engaged in political activities and practice as a lawyer, even served at the court of the learned emperor Hadrian, but then he got into disgrace and lived out his life as a private and bookish man.

Apparently, the purpose of his historical writings was to assess the events that took place in the empire and with the empire during the reign of the twelve Caesars, from Julius to Domitian. He gives a chain of biographies, supplying each with a whole scattering of facts, from which today we know the personal life of Roman emperors sometimes better than the life of Russian tsars. Suetonius explains nothing in his entertaining book; he simply offers the facts, choosing them so that the reader can appreciate the person about whom he writes. And these personalities are, first of all, emperors. And their habitat, which is in the field of view of the author, is not an empire, but a courtyard. Suetonius writes more about Caesar's love affairs than about his conquest of Gaul, Vespasian's jokes are carefully collected from him, and the famous decree on the separation between the Senate and Vespasian is not even mentioned. But all the emperors are given by him in comparison with each other, the facts are grouped in such a way that a certain general logic appears not only in each portrait, but in their entire string. Everything is systematized, everything is given in overall plan. The biographical scheme of Suetonius consists of four sections: the life of the emperor before coming to power - state activities - private life - death and burial. His attention is mainly occupied by the following "subjects": in terms of state activity - positions held, political innovations, social politics, court and legislation, military enterprises, buildings, distributions, spectacles; in the section of personal life - appearance, health, lifestyle, disposition (more often - immorality), education, scientific and literary pursuits, faith and superstition.

The basis of Svetoniev's presentation is not so much a coherent story as a list. Therefore, it is not so important for him the liveliness of the story, the brightness of the pictures, and even more so, philosophy or psychological portrait, as accuracy, clarity and brevity. Hence his style - not scientific, not artistic, but business speech. Fact - that's the main thing for Suetonius. As Mayakovsky said: "With an inflamed lip, fall down and drink / from the river named" fact ". It seems that under this line ancient roman subscribe to would be abhorrent. Sometimes, however, he cannot restrain his emotions when he has to write about the particular atrocities or debauchery of certain emperors.

What new things did Suetonius bring to the history of literature? Apparently, a new type of biography of a statesman, in which the main thing was - a fact. V

Great countries always give rise to great historians... Life and society need them even more than builders, doctors and teachers, because they, that is, outstanding historians, simultaneously erect the edifice of civilization, treat social diseases and strengthen the spirit of the nation, educate and educate the young generation, preserve the memory, give immortal glory to the worthy, like the deities they judge. Antiquity knew many outstanding historians. Some of them, as was the case with Plutarch, focused on revealing the characters of the characters, creating moralizing writings. Others, like Suetonius, tried to analyze various aspects of their life and work in their biography. Bakhtin wrote: “If Plutarch had a huge influence on literature, especially on drama (after all, the energy type of biography is essentially dramatic), then Suetonius had a predominant influence on the narrowly biographical genre ...” Still others, especially the Stoics, gave free rein to the flow of self-consciousness, reflection in private letters or in private conversations and confessions (examples of this kind were the letters of Cicero and Seneca, the books of Marcus Aurelius or Augustine).
If Marcus Aurelius is the last Roman philosopher, then Cornelius Tacitus (c. 57-120 AD) is the last great Roman historian. Tacitus' primary school years fell on the era of Nero, whose atrocities shocked Rome. It was a monstrous time. It was "fierce and hostile" to truth and virtues, but favorable and generous to meanness, servility, treachery and crimes. Tacitus, who hated tyranny, recalled with condemnation those years when "not only the writers themselves, but also their books" were condemned to death and executed. Caesars were charged with the duty of the triumvirs (long before the burning of books at the stake Nazi Germany) burn in the forum, where sentences are usually carried out, "the creations of these so bright minds." “Those who gave this order,” writes Tacitus, “of course, believed that such a fire would silence the Roman people, stop freedom-loving speeches in the Senate, strangle the very conscience of the human race; moreover, the teachers of philosophy were expelled and a ban was imposed on all other sublime sciences, so that henceforth nothing honest could be found anywhere else. We have shown a truly great example of patience; and if past generations saw what unlimited freedom is, then we are the same enslavement, because endless persecution has taken away our ability to communicate, express our thoughts and listen to others. And along with the voice, we would also lose memory itself, if it were as much in our power to forget as it is to remain silent. However, while historians are alive, there is a secret and unspoken judgment. And let the scoundrels not hope that their voice will be silent, and our verdict will not be known. Therefore, M. Chenier, who rightly saw in Tacitus the personification of the "conscience of the human race", aptly and rightly called his works "a tribunal for the oppressed and oppressors." As he said of his role in civilization, the mere name of Tacitus "makes tyrants turn pale."


The world known to the Romans

This is a controversial era. The ancient Roman traditions, for which the state was famous, died out and were expelled. The ideals of the aristocracy, the early republic, could not be preserved unchanged. Little is known about Tacitus. Born into an aristocratic family. None of the later authors gave a clear description of his life. A number of biographies of Virgil are known, there is also an outline of the life of Horace, written by Suetonius. The letters of Pliny the Younger to Tacitus provide meager information about him. His "History" and "Annals" (chronicle) have come down to us, only partially preserved. He owns a number of other works ("Germany", "Dialogue about speakers", etc.). Although his contemporaries did not classify him among the classics of Roman literature, and he was not studied in the Roman school, Tacitus had an excellent style and language. Glory came to him much later. He doubted it would ever happen at all. However, history put everything in its place. Already Pliny the Younger set himself an example of the works of Tacitus. The Russian historian I. Grevs writes: “Tacitus is undeniably the best Roman historian. According to the general recognition of criticism, he also has an honorable place among the first-class representatives of fiction in world literature; he was in all respects a great personality and, in particular, an exemplary bearer and creative engine of the culture of his day. His books are important because they were written by a man who witnessed many events that took place then. After all, Tacitus was a consul, that is, "special, close to the emperors" (he served as a proconsul in Asia). He had to stay in the inner circle of such statesmen as Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, Fabricius, Julius Frontinus, Verginius Rufus, Celsa Polemean, Licinius Sura, Glitius Agricola, Annius Vera, Javolen and Neratius Priskov - the most "few and all-powerful" (princeps , consuls, prefects, commanders of army groups, etc.). This made it possible to be in the center of the most important events of the time. He described them as a direct eyewitness of events, in the first person. The value of such sources is extremely high. Therefore, the fame of such authors, as a rule, survives their century, reaching distant descendants. Today, his works arouse our interest not only as a historical source, but also as a kind of textbook of civil morality and political culture. Many pages of Tacitus' works are devoted to the conflict between the human personality and authoritarian power, which is relevant today.

Mouth of Truth

In addition, he was always a brilliant orator, gathering young people who wanted to comprehend the art of eloquence. Pliny the Younger noted that at the beginning of his oratorical activity (at the end of the 70s of the 1st century AD), "Tacitus's loud glory was already in its prime." But above all, he showed the gift of a great writer. Racine called Tacitus "the greatest painter of antiquity". About his deeds and works, as well as about his philosophy of life, I. Grevs wrote: “Educated and believing in the power of knowledge, Tacitus sought in philosophy not only consolation, but also light, the discovery of truth, although the Roman mind usually belonged to the philosophical theories with some prejudice. Most of all, the stoic doctrine approached the ideological direction and moral inclination of Tacitus, offering its follower the development of a strong will in life and fearlessness in death. In the tragic crisis that Tacitus fell into as a result of his life experience, this teaching most corresponded to the inexorable basis of his spirit ... Stoicism, which taught a person how to find happiness, or at least the balance of personality, by achieving the ideal of virtue through self-detachment from constant connection with a vicious world, could lead to hopeless conclusions, which, of course, separated the philosopher from the society of other people. A stoic sage could turn into a dry proud man, self-sufficient in his seeming perfection and fleeing under the armor of indifference and invulnerability in the surrounding evil. But he could also give a person a temper that would help him resist temptations and sorrows, without losing a living source of active ties with life and people. Thus, the Stoic teaching did not wither Tacitus, did not shut him up in itself, did not turn him into stone. He did not accept the contempt for the world characteristic of the Stoics. Stoicism acted on him with a stream of humanity, which was also inherent in this philosophical doctrine as a kind of path to goodness ... Disappointed by the impressions of reality experienced, but in the hope of a near better future for his native state, Tacitus discovered through philosophy a source that revived the balance of his spirit. Faith in man returned to him, or, perhaps more correctly, was born again in him, precisely in the form of admiration for the great strength of the spirit that a human personality can develop in itself, growing close to the arbitrariness of imperial power.

Historian of antiquity I. M. Grevs (1860–1941)

With all our reverence and love for the great Tacitus, one cannot fail to mention other national prejudices of the Romans inherent in him. They firmly connected the concepts of "East" (Oriens) and "Asia" (Asia) with barbarism, slavery, savagery and despotism. By the way, the Greeks, Macedonians, Punians, etc. behaved in exactly the same way. Therefore, his whole history is replete with such remarks and characteristics. In the "History" of Tacitus, one can read the following lines: "Let Syria, Asia, let the whole East, accustomed to demolish the power of kings, continue to be in slavery." Media, Persia, Parthia appear to him as despotic monarchies, where one king is master, all the rest are slaves. Under the rule of the Parthian king, he thinks, there are "indomitable and wild" tribes and peoples. The Pontian Aniket is characterized by him contemptuously, briefly and succinctly - a barbarian and a slave. All barbarians are characterized by treachery, deceit, cowardice, lack of courage. The fact that the Parthians from time to time accepted Roman proteges as kings (as other "free" countries, the former republics of the USSR, now accept US envoys in the form of puppet rulers) was regarded by Roman imperial ideology as proof of the "leadership of the Romans." Against this background, the anti-Semitic tone of his statements against the Jews stands out especially sharply. Recognizing their "deep antiquity", noting immediately that Jerusalem is a "glorious city", Tacitus nevertheless not only emphasizes "sharp differences between the Jews and the peoples surrounding them", but also calls them "meaningless and unclean", "disgusting and heinous." What's the matter here? Apparently, the point is not at all in some signs of special depravity, depravity, and similar properties of this people. We have previously written extensively on this topic. In our opinion, a certain subjectivity of Tacitus in his assessments is caused primarily, as we would say, by international responses, as well as the attitude of the Romans themselves towards them.

Mosaic "Muse"

Mosaic "Venus and Triton"

The fact is that by that time the Jews actually lived in isolated communities, not allowing strangers into their closed circle. However, with the help of usury, they held in their hands many threads of power. We would say this: even then the world felt the presence of two empires - one proper Roman (or military? political), the other - the Jewish Empire (financial? usurious). Of course, Tacitus’ sharp assessment of the Jews can also be explained by the fact that in the memory of the representatives of his generation of historians, the memories of the bloody seven-year Jewish war (66–73 AD), as well as the terrible scenes of the storm, the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, were still fresh ( 70 AD), as well as the triumphs of the emperors Vespasian and Titus (71 AD). Tacitus was 13–14 years old.

Philosopher. Mosaic

Young men especially sharply remember all large-scale events. And yet it is difficult to explain such sharp lines dedicated by Tacitus to the Jews with one sharpness of vision: it also increased because the Jews willingly help each other, but all other people are treated with hostility and hatred. In addition, the historian notes such traits inherent in them as “idleness”, “idleness”, characterizing them also as “the most contemptible slaves”. In this detailed description, three main points of reproach and condemnation stand out: 1) they (that is, the Jews) capture the world not with the help of weapons and wars, which, according to ancient tradition, would be honorable and worthy of a strong nation, but with the help of deceit and the strength of the “despicable” money; 2) they do not like normal labor (although slavery was not very conducive to it, yet Rome and Greece, be that as it may, treated creative labor with much greater reverence), but the Jews strove to stay in “laziness” and “idleness”, engaging not even in trade, which would be understandable and permissible, but in usury and speculation; 3) they are “closed”, like no other people in the world, which among the Romans and Greeks was a very serious reason for suspicion and hatred: after all, Rome created an empire, he saw how many barbarian peoples, even fighting Rome for life, but to death, they nevertheless gradually adopted Roman customs. But this is more expensive than military victories. But the Jews were adamant in their customs, traditions, religion and way of life.
I must say that Tacitus does not favor all the others. His Armenians are "cowardly and treacherous", "two-faced and fickle". According to him, “this people has long been unreliable, both due to its innate human qualities, and due to geographical location"(being on the borders of the empire, he is always ready to play on the differences between Rome and the Parthians). Tacitus also noted the carelessness of the Armenians during military operations (incautos barbaros), cunning (barbara astutia) and cowardice (ignavia) of them. They are completely ignorant of military equipment and the siege of fortresses. In the same spirit, he evaluates Africans, Egyptians, Thracians, Scythians. Among the Egyptians, however, he singles out the Alexandrian Greeks, the people of Ptolemy, as "the most cultured people of the whole human race." The rest are wild and superstitious, prone to liberty and rebellion. The Thracians are distinguished by love of freedom, love for unbridled feasts and drunkenness. He also writes very little about the Scythians, unlike Herodotus, because he knows almost nothing about them. For him, they are a "bear's corner", a backwater inhabited by wild, cruel and ferocious tribes. In a word, even in such an outstanding historian as Tacitus, we see the same signs, as they say today, of "narrow" and "cultural nationalism."
And yet, in general, we have every right to say about this famous and glorious historian of Rome during the Empire in the words of such an outstanding German philologist and teacher as Friedrich Lübker, the creator of the most famous in Europe and Russia in the first half of the 19th - half of the 20th centuries. dictionary of names, terms and concepts of antiquity - "The Real Dictionary of Classical Antiquity". The German author gives Tacitus a very accurate description: “Tacitus is as clear as Caesar, although more colorful than him, as noble as Livy, although simpler than him; therefore, it can also serve as entertaining and useful reading for young people.

Tacitus. Gold coin. 275–276 AD

In the future, Tacitus will be considered in most countries of Europe as a mentor of sovereigns. Although when the republic was replaced by an empire, Napoleon opposed him ... His rejection of the French emperor is understandable, because he did not want to praise the emperors. In Russia, Tacitus was deeply revered by all thinking people. Pushkin, before starting to write Boris Godunov, studied his Annals. He was admired by the Decembrists A. Bestuzhev, N. Muravyov, N. Turgenev, M. Lunin. Others learned from Tacitus and the art of free thinking (A. Bryggen). F. Glinka called him "the great Tacitus", and A. Kornilovich called him "the most eloquent historian of his own and almost all subsequent centuries", a thoughtful philosopher, politician. Herzen, during his exile in Vladimir, looked for his books for reading and consolation. “I finally came across one that swallowed me until late at night - that was Tacitus. Breathless, with cold sweat on my forehead, I read a terrible story. Later, in his more mature years, A. I. Herzen recalled the “gloomy sorrow of Tacitus”, about the “courageous, reproachful Tacitus” sadness.
Engels, on the other hand, will say: “General lack of rights and loss of hope for the possibility of a better order corresponded to general apathy and demoralization. The few surviving old Romans of patrician stock and mentality were eliminated or dying out; the last of these is Tacitus. The rest were glad if they could stay completely out of the way. public life. Their existence was filled with acquisitiveness and enjoyment of wealth, philistine gossip and intrigue. The poor free, who were state pensioners in Rome, in the provinces, on the contrary, were in a difficult situation ... We will see that the character of the ideologists of that time also corresponded to this. Philosophers were either just making a living school teachers, or jesters on the salary of rich revelers. Many were even slaves.” Don't you think that Time goes in circles just like the Earth revolves around the Sun in the cold void of space?!
Tell us who governs the state, who makes up its elite, and I will say, almost without fear of making a mistake, what is the future of this country and people ... Therefore, the history of Rome is, first of all, the history of its leaders. For this reason, today we read the biographies of the Caesars, books about great politicians, philosophers, orators and heroes, their letters. Probably the most famous book on Roman emperors is by Suetonius Tranquillus (born 69 AD). They say that Tacitus overshadowed him as a historian, and Plutarch as a biographer. Maybe. There is no doubt that in his face we see an excellent scientist and an honest person. He is accurate and objective in his assessments of the authorities. Perhaps the impartiality of Suetonius's work is his main advantage. Compare the assessments given to the Roman emperors by Pliny the Younger. With regard to Trajan, he will say: “The best of the sovereigns, upon adoption, gave you his name, the senate awarded you the title of“ the best ”. This name is just as suitable for you as your father's. If someone calls you Trajan, then by this he designates you no more clearly and definitely, calling you "the best." After all, in the same way, Pisons were once designated by the nickname "honest", Lellia - by the nickname "wise", Metals - by the nickname "pious". All these qualities are combined in one of your name. The ratings are far from sincere. Suetonius, on the other hand, describes much more reliably the mores of imperial Rome. If you subtract more about the state affairs of Rome and about its leaders from Tacitus, Plutarch, Dio Cassius or Mommsen, then Suetonius best of all gives the domestic, intimate side of life.


Plan of the Roman Forum

Polybius is also an outstanding historian, the author of a unique General History(forty books). Polybius was the son of the strategist of the Achaean League, Likont. His date of birth is unknown. He held important posts in the Achaean League, but after the Third Macedonian War he ended up as a hostage in Rome (from 167 BC). Rome was then on its way to supreme power and triumph.
There he became friends with the future great commander Scipio, the conqueror of Carthage. He himself will take part in the battle for Carthage. As a historian, he developed the idea of ​​"pragmatic history", that is, a history based on an objective and accurate depiction of real events. Polybius believed that it is desirable for the historian to be on the scene himself, which makes his work really valuable, accurate and convincing. Those who note that Polybius surpasses all ancient historians known to us are right in his deeply thought-out approach to solving problems, thorough knowledge of sources, and general understanding of the philosophy of history. One of the main tasks of his work ("General History"), he considered showing the reasons for how and why the Roman state moved into the world leaders. He was aware of not only the military operations of both sides (Rome and Carthage), but also owned materials on the history of the creation of the fleet. A detailed picture of his life and work can be obtained by reading the work of G. S. Samokhina “Polybius. Epoch, fate, labor.

Square house in Nimes

It is worth mentioning the contribution of Polybius to geographical science. Accompanying the famous Roman commander Scipio Aemilian on campaigns, he collected various kinds of data about Spain and Italy. He described Italy from the Alps to the far south as a single entity, and set out his observations in a General History. No author of that time gave detailed description Apennines, but the information of Polybius is based on the work of Roman farmers, whose records provide valuable historical and geographical material. By the way, Polybius was the first to use road poles with which the Romans framed their roads throughout Europe, quite accurately determining the length of the strip of Italy.
A special place among historians is occupied by Titus Livius (59 BC - 17 AD). He was a younger contemporary of Cicero, Sallust and Virgil, an older one of the poets Ovid and Propertius, almost the same age as Horace and Tibullus. I could say about him in the words of Pushkin: “And you, my first favorite ...” (from Horace). Little is known about his biography. Perhaps he was close to the government and familiar with the emperors Augustus and Claudius. As I. Ten will say about him, this historian of Rome "had no history." Livy also composed social-philosophical dialogues and treatises on rhetoric, but all of them, unfortunately, have disappeared. Only one of his works has come down to us (and even then not completely) - “The History of Rome from the Foundation of the City”. Of the 142 books that made up a grandiose epic (much more impressive than Homer's works), we know of 35 books that cover events up to 293 BC. e. and from 219 to 167 BC. e. Contemporaries, as a rule, evaluated his books in the highest degree enthusiastically. Most of the facts reported by him find direct or indirect confirmation in other sources. No person, whether a professional historian or just an amateur, who wants to clearly imagine the history of Rome in the era of the kings, or the Early and Middle Republics, can do without recourse to an analysis of his writings. Livy is a master of historical storytelling that feels like an artist. In the ancient era, he is valued for the perfection of style and storytelling in the first place. We turned to his help - in describing the character traits of Brutus, Hannibal, Cato, Scipio, Fabius Maximus. Republican Rome in his coverage appears as a citadel of legality and law, an example of civil and military virtues, as the embodiment of a perfect social system. And although even in the era of the Republic, Rome is far from the ideal portrait as it appears in the description of Titus Livius, the proposed image is memorable and close to reality. The reader will draw the line between reality and Roman myth.

Private housing. wall painting

Apparently a combination of talent great historian and a bright artist and made the works of Livy attractive to all mankind - from Dante and Machiavelli to Pushkin and the Decembrists. Grant in The Civilization of Ancient Rome rightly remarks: “Indeed, history, as a branch of science, needs a good style no less than absolute certainty. In his magnificent romantic work celebrating the history of Rome (which was like Virgil's epic, but written in prose), the historian Livy, who lived during the reign of Augustus, achieved even greater certainty than Sallust. His excellent Latin was distinguished by an ear-sweet appeal. The main contribution of Livy to the awareness of humanity of its potentialities is that he showed great interest in great people. These people and their deeds, committed in the course of great historical events, served as examples of the virtue that was the ideal of Renaissance educators. This ideal was subsequently inherited by many schools and higher educational institutions. True, some modern historians advise to approach critically everything that is written by Livy. Thus, the English historian P. Connolly, recognizing that Livy is the main source for the early era of Rome, nevertheless states: “Our main source of information on this period is the Roman author Titus Livius, who was a wonderful writer, but a very mediocre historian. Being a conservative and a patriot, he lays the blame for many of the mistakes of Rome on the lower strata of society, who then fought for the recognition of their rights. Titus Livius constantly obscures facts that speak against Rome, he pays little attention to topography and military tactics, freely replaces ancient terms with modern ones, without the slightest reverence for accuracy. Worst of all, he constantly uses sources that he should know for sure that they are unreliable. Although the historian is distinguished by a non-general expression on his face, he is also captivated by the myths and errors of the eras in which he lives. And rare of them have that depth of vision and insight (along with duty and a sense of truth) that allows them to rise above passions, mistakes, the interests of classes and clans, countries and peoples. Such a historian, if he appeared to us, would become a living god.

Titus Livius, Roman historian. Engraving of the 16th century.

Titus Livy did not take part in political life and had no military experience, but this does not mean at all that he did not know both. Being a native of Patavia, which is located in Cis-Alpine Gaul, he was a republican in spirit and a fighter for the ideals of republican Rome. In him, more than in any of the other historians, lived a philosopher. His dialogues of a historical and philosophical nature and books of a purely philosophical content enjoyed considerable fame in antiquity. Unfortunately, these writings have been lost, as well as his Epistle to the Son. Among the Roman historians of that time, there was, perhaps, no other person of such a level that he would so skillfully combine the qualities and talents of a historian, writer and educator. It was an ideal combination of the harmonic principles of science and poetics. Outwardly, his method can be called annalistic, for the events in his works are presented in chronological order year after year. “But precisely because Livy wanted to be a national historian, he went beyond the rigid framework of ancient annalistics, revising all the significant events of Roman history from a new angle. For the first time in Roman historiography, the historian, freed from the need to justify his intellectual leisure, as Sallust did quite recently, is able to devote himself entirely to literary activity and look at the history of Rome as a closed cycle that ended under Augustus,” notes V.S. Durov in the "History of Roman Literature" is a feature of Livy's work. Livy also understood something else: the purpose of any good book is to awaken the consciousness, to excite the mind and feelings of the reader. And in this regard, he succeeded, succeeded primarily as an artist who conveyed to us the images of the people of that distant era. Brutus, the elder Cato, Fabius Maximus, Scipio, Hannibal are bright and unforgettable personalities. The historian's task is to encourage the reader to think about past life, morals and behavior of the citizens of his country, so that they understand to whom "the state owes its birth and growth." However, the times of rise and glory are not all... It often happens that in the name of the health of the state, one must also drink the bitter mixture of the historical past. It is necessary to understand “how discord first appeared in morals, how then they staggered and, finally, began to fall uncontrollably, until it came to the present times, when we cannot endure either our vices or the medicine for them.” It is the moral component of the work of the great historian, in our opinion, that is the most important and valuable for the modern Russian reader. In his books we will find instructive examples "framed by a majestic whole", what to imitate, what to avoid - that is, "inglorious beginnings, inglorious ends." In some cases, however, he deviates from historical truth... Such is the story of the Gallic invasion of Italy in 390 BC. e. The Gauls then calmly left, having received a ransom. They did not arrange shameful unworthy bargaining. Apparently, there was no scene with the leader of the Gauls, Brenn, when he threw his sword on the scales, saying the famous "Vae victis" ("Woe to the vanquished!"). However, out of patriotic motives, Titus Livius introduced the final scene with the victorious Camillus into the text. In the main pages of the narrative, all the most authoritative writers of antiquity consider Titus Livius an honest and outstanding historian (Seneca the Elder, Quintilian, Tacitus), with the exception of the emperor Caligula (but he is not a historian, but only an emperor).
For us, Livy is especially significant, modern and topical, because we, citizens of the 21st century, found ourselves in a similar situation - at the end of the great Republic ... He lived in the era of Augustus. The Republic is gone. Before his eyes (as well as ours) there appears a system that is very, very doubtful from the point of view of both spiritual and moral, and material human guidelines. Nevertheless, the historian managed to take part in what could be called the correction of historical injustice. With his great book, if he did not restore the old Republic, then at least he preserved in the life of Rome everything valuable that the former system carried in itself. This was possible primarily because Augustus was smart and educated enough to understand the meaning of history (and the role of the great historian in it, in which he has to live). The appearance in Rome of such authors as Tacitus, Suetonius, Livy testify to the deep interest of the emperors in historical science (Augustus and Claudius). The time when emperors include in their inner circle such persons as Virgil, Horace, Maecenas, Livy, can be called truly remarkable and phenomenal. Someday, our government, having wised up, will understand that it needs historians, like science in general, much more than they do - it, my dear ...
When the great Machiavelli thought about the structure of a strong and wise state, about the reasons for the prosperity of some countries and the decline of others, he not only studied in detail the different forms of socio-political organization in different countries, but also turned to the work of Titus Livy. There would be no happiness, but misfortune helped. In 1512, he was deprived of his post and the right to hold any public office and was exiled for a year to remote lands and possessions of Florence. In 1513, he began to work on his most fundamental work - "Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livius" (mainly devoted to the era of the Republic). He explained the reason for turning to Livy simply: the books of the Roman historian "avoided the ravages of time." He basically finishes his work in 1519. In his introduction to Machiavelli's book, he formulates an idea that I consider it necessary to repeat today.
He sees with surprise that in civil disagreements that arise between citizens, in diseases that befall people, everyone usually resorts to solutions and medicines decreed or prescribed by the ancients. After all, even our civil laws are based on the decisions of ancient jurists, put in order and serving as a direct guide for the decisions of modern jurists. Also, after all, medicine necessarily inherits the experience of ancient doctors. But as soon as it concerns the organization of republics, the preservation of states, the administration of kingdoms, the establishment of troops, following the canons of justice, finding out the reasons for the power or weakness of countries and leaders, unfortunately, there are neither sovereigns, nor republics, nor commanders, nor citizens who turned to for examples to the ancients. Machiavelli is convinced that this is not so much due to impotence, to which modern upbringing and education has brought the world, not so much from the evil caused by laziness or parasitism (apparently, in this case it is more correct to speak of the “intellectual laziness” of the ruling elites), but rather “from a lack of true knowledge of history." The lack of deep historical knowledge does not allow the authorities, even if it descends to smart books, to comprehend the true meaning of great creations, because, alas, their minds and souls have become dead.
It is astonishing that even those who read historical and philosophical books, enjoying familiarity with entertaining and moralizing examples, do not consider it their duty to follow them. As if the sky, the sun, the elements and people changed the movement, order, characters and became different than they were in antiquity. Desiring to rectify this situation, Montesquieu decided to take the books of Titus Livius as the most suitable material for comparison with his time, so that readers of his book could see what benefit the knowledge of history gives.
Gaius Sallust Crispus (86-35 BC) can also be attributed to the number of prominent historians. Sallust was an opponent of the power of the nobles and a supporter of the people's party. He was a quaestor and supported Caesar in the political arena, hoping that he would strengthen the democratic-republican foundation of Rome. Participated in the political struggle (52 BC), actively opposed Cicero. This was the reason that, at the insistence of the nobles, he was struck off the list of senators (let us accuse him of allegedly amoral behavior). As always, someone's interests were behind the persecution. Caesar not only reinstated him in the Senate, but also sent him as governor to the newly formed Roman province of New Africa. Sallust was supposed to watch the cities of Thaps and Uttica pay Rome 50 million denarii indemnities for three years (46 BC). At the same time, Sallust managed to get fairly rich and, returning to Rome, created the so-called Sallust Gardens (a luxurious park).


Villa Sallust in Pompeii

After the assassination of Caesar, he moved away from politics and turned to history. Looking at other Russian historians, political scientists and writers, you understand: it would be better for them to be shop assistants or usurers. Sallust's Peru owns the so-called small works (Sallustiana minora), the authenticity of which has long been disputed by historians. Among the indisputable works are the “Conspiracy of Catiline” (63 BC), “Jugurtin War” (111-106 BC), as well as “History”, from which individual fragments have come down to us , speech and writing. His view of the history of the development of Rome is interesting. He believed that Rome entered a period of internal decay in 146 BC. e., after the death of Carthage. It was then that the moral crisis of the nobility began, the struggle for power within various social groups intensified, and differentiation in Roman society intensified. Experts assess his sharp, bright, inspired style as follows: “Sallust sets out his view of history in introductions and excursuses, which, along with the characteristics and direct speech of the main characters, are the favorite means of the artistic method, which make it possible to present the material in a fascinating way. Stylistically, Sallust is a kind of antipode of Cicero. Relying on Thucydides and Cato the Elder, he strives for a precise, thoughtful brevity, deliberately achieves the unevenness of parallel syntactic figures, ... the language is rich and unusual due to the abundance of archaic poetic words and expressions.

Courtyard of the Villa Sallust in Pompeii

His pen is also credited with "Letters to Caesar on the organization of the state." This is a kind of socio-political utopia, which today sounds topical. The fact is that the time of Caesar and Sallust, like our time, is an era of transition. After all, Rome then said goodbye to the democratic-aristocratic republic, while we said goodbye to the people's democratic republic. The author of the letters (whoever he may be) considers the nascent system to be abnormal, disastrous and unjust. Sallust himself (if he was the author of the Letters) is a supporter of the old-style republic with its simple manners and customs. The main idea of ​​his work is the idea that all evil lies in money and wealth. The possession of them pushes people to immoderate luxury, to the construction of palaces and villas, the acquisition of insanely expensive things and jewelry, sculptures and paintings. All this makes people not better, but worse - greedy, vile, weak, depraved, etc. . No troops, no walls will stop her from sneaking in; it takes away from people the most cherished feelings - love for the fatherland, family love, love for virtue and purity. What does Sallust propose to Rome? In the spirit of Proudhon's future theories, he proposes to Caesar to eradicate money. “You would do the greatest good deed for the fatherland, for fellow citizens, for yourself and your family, and finally, for the whole human race, if you would completely eradicate, or, if this is impossible, then at least reduce the love of money. When she dominates, it is impossible to be in order in any way. privacy, n

Narrative works, subject to their critical analysis, provide specific historical information of a sufficiently high degree of reliability. In this work, we mainly use literary works historical and political content, but not only them. According to Ya.Yu. Mezheritsky, the reliability of information is determined not by the genre, but by the author's belonging to a given mentality. While agreeing with this statement only in part, we still note that the most interesting and important for us are the testimonies of contemporaries (including younger contemporaries) of the events under consideration.

Let's call Velleius Paterculus the first. (Born in Capua. 19 BC - 31 AD. The main work is "Roman History" in the form of biographical sketches.) His works are not often used, considering the information contained in them to be unreliable, since the historian was indebted to the emperor for his brilliant military and political career ( honorary title he received a senator for his loyalty to Tiberius). However, much more important than the personal attitude of the historian to the highest authority is that he fully met the requirements of "belonging to the mentality" and knew very well what he was writing about. Velleius Paterculus expressed his attitude to the ongoing political processes and events as a representative of equestrian circles and municipal nobility, enthusiastically describing the formation and development of the principate as the restoration of the ancient Republic. “Confidence has been called to the forum, rebellion has been removed from the forum, harassment from the Field of Mars, discord from the curia, and justice, justice, energy, decrepit from long inaction and buried, have been returned to the state; authority came to the magistrates, greatness to the senate, weight to the judges; everyone is inspired with a desire or charged with the obligation to do what is right; everything right is surrounded by honor, and the bad is punished. Velleius Paterculus had access to official information and was able to provide us with valuable historical facts not found in other sources.

The grandiose work of another ancient Roman historian - Titus Livius (born in Padua, 59 BC - 17 AD) "Roman history from the founding of the city" sets out the events of the weather. Of the 142 books, mainly those that belong to more ancient times have been preserved. The work covering very distant events was treated with distrust for a long time, until new information was received confirming the significant reliability of the factual material presented by Livy. Titus of Livy is the first of the Roman historians who had no experience in political activity, but he enjoyed the patronage of Augustus. It is all the more significant that in his work the patriotic tendency and the glorification of the Republic are clearly expressed. "Roman History" by Titus Livy explains the course of historical events by changing the moral foundations of society and substantiates a new political system as a continuation of the ancient Republic.

Guy Sallust Crispus (86 - c. 35 BC), a master of historical portrait, as well as the two previous authors, owes a lot personally to the head of state, in this case Julius Caesar, on whose side he participated in civil wars, and then was proconsul in the province of New Africa. His monographs are known: “The Catalina Conspiracy”, “Yugurtinskaya War”, “History”, from which it is clear that his ideal is moderately democratic republic. The disaster of the Romans, according to Gaius Sallust Crispus (as well as Livy), consisted in the moral decay of society. Being an opponent of the Senate oligarchy, he shows the inability of the Senate to govern the state.

Julius Caesar's Notes on the Gallic and Civil Wars are of great importance. Thoughtful, clear composition, precise language, specificity of images and subtle characteristics of the participants in the events, the reliability of the factual material, and most importantly, the opportunity to look at political events through the eyes of the "first person" in the state - make the "Notes" an indispensable source for this study.

The treatises, speeches and letters of the brilliant judicial and political orator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC) contain not only an exposition historical course events, but also, as it were, a “two-sided” analysis (from the point of view of a statesman and from the point of view of the layman) of the causes of these events, justification of the necessity or unacceptability of a particular political decision for the state, forecasts of state-legal changes.

Several writers of the 1st century BC. belong to the direction of "historical studies" (otherwise - antiquarians). This is, first of all, Cornelius Nepos, who lived ca. 100 BC - 32 BC, from whose works the biographies of Cato the Elder and Pomponius Atticus, the well-known correspondent of Cicero, who had personal ties with Antony and Octavian and who fundamentally did not participate in civil strife, have been preserved. Mark Terrencius Varro (116 - 27 BC) adjoins the same direction, who, like Lucius Junius Moderatus (c. 36 - tribune in Syria and Cilicia), Cato and Columella wrote agronomic works, providing material on the economic and social conditions of that time.

The "History" of Annaeus Seneca the Elder (55 BC - c. 40 AD) covers the time of civil wars and brought up to 30 AD. His "Contraversion", "Suazoria" have been preserved. Of even greater importance for us are the works of his son, the famous writer, philosopher, moralist and major political figure Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC - 65 AD). He was the ideologist of the Senate opposition to the despotic tendencies of the first Roman emperors, for which he ended up in exile. After returning, he was appointed teacher of Nero, then he was one of the leaders of Roman politics until the 60s. Annei Seneca wrote treatises and poetic compositions, the main idea of ​​which is the need to overcome passions and achieve spiritual independence. He was the first to clearly and definitely outline the opposite of the republic to the form of government that had developed under the principate. From a political point of view, for him it was a fact that did not require proof, the foundation of a new regime by Augustus.

Well-known is the work “The Jewish War” by Josephus Flavius ​​(37 - 100 AD), a participant in the named war, first on one side, then on the other side, who received the rights of a Roman citizen and was appointed by the Flavian historiographer. His book, covering events from 167 B.C. to 73 AD, in addition to describing the actual military operations, it also contains information about the internal life of Rome. Another Jewish aristocrat - Nicholas of Damascus (64 BC - early AD), was at first close to Herod, then close to Agrippa, observed Antony and Cleopatra in Egypt, i.e. was in the midst of government affairs. His "History" in 144 books has almost not come down to us, but an apologetic biography of Augustus (written, which is significant, after the death of the latter) has been preserved under the title "Life of Caesar", which contains information not known from other sources.

The work of Pliny the Elder (23 or 24 - 79 AD), an encyclopedic scientist and a major imperial official, "Natural History" includes information not only natural science, but also historical. His works on history have not come down to us, but were used by Tacitus. “9 Books of Memorable Words and Deeds” by Valery Maximus, containing historical examples to help rhetoricians, were written during the reign of Tiberius and dedicated to him, but flattery can also be seen in them in relation to Augustus (enough rare case praise to the preceding, and not to the living emperor).

The Greeks also wrote about Roman history. So, Diodorus Siculus (c. 90 -21 BC) left a "Historical Library" in 40 books, the surviving parts of which cover the history of Rome in the 5th - 4th centuries, as well as the end of the 2nd - the beginning of the 1st century BC. e. and report on the class struggle in Rome, emphasizing the author's negative attitude towards Roman domination in the conquered countries. Diodorus used the work “History” by Posidonius (end of the 2nd - first half of the 1st century BC), which has not survived to our time. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in contrast to his first two compatriots, showed the wisdom of Roman laws and the kinship of the Romans with the Greeks; he lived in Rome at the time of interest to us, but expounded ancient history. Strabo (64 BC - 23/24 AD) also spent most of his life in Rome. His "Historical Notes" have not come down to us, but the work "Geography" in 17 books - a description of the ecumene - has been preserved, which contains information of a historical nature, including a general view of the principate from the standpoint of an educated Greek. About the power of Augustus, in particular, Strabo speaks as legitimate, and about Augustus himself - as a wise ruler.

A number of works that have not come down to us are known only from excerpts and quotations or from references to other authors. Thus, we know that Timogenes wrote pamphlets and "Histories" hostile to Augustus, in whose house the writer lived before the quarrel with the princeps. The dictionary of Verria Flaccus is known from extracts from it made in the 2nd century by Festus. The work of Cremutius Korda was used by subsequent historians, in particular, Suetonius refers to it.

The later ancient tradition is also of great importance for this study: firstly, the writers of the 2nd - 4th centuries were not far removed from the time we are considering, and therefore the course of events at the end of the 1st century. BC e. - middle of the 1st c. n. e. well enough known to them; secondly, they saw with their own eyes what the result of these events was. However, using the writings of the era of the Empire, one has to take into account that their authors sometimes poorly understood the specifics of republican traditions, either lost or unrecognizably transformed, and the political terminology of the 2nd-4th centuries did not coincide with the corresponding terminology of the 1st century. BC e. - 1 in. n. e., nor, of course, with the modern.

A native of Alexandria, a major imperial official, the Greek historian Appian (c. 100 - 170 AD), who received the rights of Roman citizenship and was assigned to the equestrian class, created a work on the history of Rome in 24 books, the last 7 of which have not survived. The seventeenth part - "Civil Wars", chronologically brought to 36 BC, contains rich factual material on the preparation of the principate of Augustus and on the development of the powers of the future Roman emperor. This is the only monument of ancient historiography that has come down to us, in which events are consistently and strictly factually stated, starting from the era of the Gracchi and ending with the threshold for the last struggle between Antony and Octavian. Therefore, referring to specific material, we will most often refer to the "Civil Wars". Appian used the works of Asinius Pollio, Cremucius Korda, Valerius Messala, which have not come down to us, and, therefore, are reported. their information is quite reliable, but they, like information obtained from other sources, need to be compared and verified.

Another Greek historian Dion Cassius Koktseyyan (c. 155 - 235) was born into the family of a provincial aristocrat, adopted among the Roman senators, he himself was a senator, held high government positions. In his "Roman History" in 80 books, written in Greek, and therefore addressed to Greeks or very educated Romans, events are elucidated from the point of view of a convinced supporter of the monarchy, although an opponent of extreme manifestations of despotism. The state, according to Dio Cassius, should be ruled by the emperor in agreement with the senate. In the best preservation, books containing history from the 60s BC have come down to us. and before the fall of the Republic, as well as the history of Augustus, which is very valuable for the present study.

Appian's contemporary Annaeus Florus, in his Epitomes of Roman History, describing Rome from the royal era to Augustus inclusive, talks mainly about wars, allowing some inaccuracies in names and dates. However, his work also contains some important information about state-legal issues and, in particular, about the powers of the Roman magistrates.

A lot of historical information, the significance of which is difficult to overestimate, we find in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (70 - 160), the son of a legionary tribune from the estate of horsemen, with early years devoted himself to science and writing, served at one time under Adrian as a correspondence adviser, well acquainted with the works of his predecessors and with the materials of state archives. Suetonius set as his goal to collect everything good and bad about the Julio-Claudian and Flavian Caesars and used for this a wide variety of sources, sometimes deliberately biased, deliberately preferring the "extreme" versions. His "Life of 12 Caesars" is not a history, but a description of the personalities of the rulers, and the description is fractional, subject to a certain logical scheme, and not chronology; the main thing for him is a clear and vivid delimitation of the positive and the negative. The ideal rulers for him are Augustus and Titus. From Suetonius, we obtain information concerning both the powers of the emperors and their relations with other state bodies and magistrates.

Particularly noteworthy are the works of the outstanding historian Cornelius Tacitus (c. 58 - after 177) - "History" in fourteen books and "Annals" in sixteen. Tacitus belonged to an equestrian family, came from Gaul, but achieved a high position in Rome, becoming a senator and being successively quaestor, consul, and then proconsul. His interest is focused on rethinking the internal history of Rome, in particular, on the relationship of emperors with the senatorial class. He described the process of the transformation of the political orders of Republican Rome into the tyranny and despotism of individual emperors - and it is unlikely that he succeeded in doing this “sine ira et studio” (without anger and predilection). At the same time, as G.S. Knabe, the "Annals" and "History" contain a substantiation of the historical necessity of imperial power. At the same time, Tacitus condemns both the Senate opposition to the new system, and even more so the attempts of resistance to it by the plebs, and the destruction of traditional forms by the emperors. state organization which he perceives as the elimination of social and moral norms. The course of history, from his point of view, is determined by the moral qualities of people.

The Greek historian and philosopher - moralist Plutarch (c. 46 - c. 127), according to not entirely clear information, received at the end of his life from the emperors Trajan and Hadrian some special powers that allowed him to limit the arbitrariness of the Roman governors, created the canons of exemplary heroes antiquity, including individual Roman emperors. His "Biographies" also vividly and colorfully describe the events that accompanied changes in political life, in particular, a change in the form of government of the Roman state.

A lot of information on the state law of Rome can be gleaned from Polybius (c. 201 - c. 120 BC), in particular, in his "General History" in forty books. The Roman state system that existed during his life, Polybius considered perfect, based on a mixture of basileia, aristocracy and democracy. Interesting for us, although belonging to a later era, are the works of the emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius, in particular, his appeal “To himself”. Among others, it is worth mentioning the historian of the 2nd century AD. Aulus Gellius, who wrote Attic Nights as a collection of historical examples for rhetoricians; as well as IV century historians Eutropius and Sextus Aurelius Victor. The humble origin of Aurelius Victor did not prevent him from ruling the province under Julian and being prefect of Rome; He wrote summary history of Rome, as well as the work "On the Caesars", starting with Augustus. Eutropius, commissioned by Emperor Valens, wrote a Brief History of Rome. The status of “court historians” made it necessary to be wary of information known to be pleasing to the emperors, but at the same time, it is this status that makes it possible to be sure that Eutropius and Sextus Aurelius had the most complete information on the structure of the state apparatus, the powers of individuals etc.

Literature is also an important source. Although many writers, like historians, enjoyed the patronage of the emperors, and this sometimes causes distrust of the information they report on the part of critical researchers, there are no serious grounds to believe that they wrote under pressure or as a result of bribery.

The poets of the "August Age" have preserved the greatest fame to this day. Quintus Horace Flaccus (65 - 8 BC), close to Maecenas and Augustus, judging by the verses, did not immediately positively perceive the change in political life, but over time he gradually became convinced of the necessity and "beneficence" of the established order. Horace described in his works the vicissitudes of civil wars, sang the foreign policy of Augustus, and even wrote the "Secular Hymn" by order of the latter. Another poet of the same circle, Publius Virgil Maron (c. 70-19 BC), in the poem "Aeneid", begun on the advice of Augustus, proclaimed the official political program of the princeps, and in "Bukoliki" and "Georgics" he developed ideas this program. Virgil reflected in his works the ideological foundation of the new regime - the spirit of patriotism and orientation to ancient patterns. In the Aeneid, the imperial idea is also clearly read: “Your Roman duty is to rule the people with sovereignty!”. A younger contemporary of Virgil and Horace Publius Ovid Nason (43 BC - c. 18 AD .) in his poems expressed the mood of another part of Roman society, running counter to the official ideology of Augustus, for which, apparently, he was exiled. From exile, Ovid wrote letters and poems containing immoderate doxology to the princeps.

Most of the works of another poet of the Maecenas circle - Propertius (60 - 15 BC) are devoted to the past of Rome, which fits very well into the ideology of the "restored republic". On the contrary, Mark Annaeus Lucan (AD 39, Cordova - 65, Rome), Seneca's nephew, who participated in the conspiracy against Nero, reflected in his poems the sentiments of the Senate opposition. The Pharsalia of Lucan traces the themes of the civil wars of the late Republic. The poems of Gaius Valerius Catullus (who created the “golden age” before Augustus: c. 87 - c. 54 BC) contain a political assessment of Caesar and his entourage, but the real world is opposed to the ideal. Ti-bull was a member of the "circle" of the commander and orator M. Valery Messala Corvinus, who adhered to a special political orientation; he contrasted the calamities of war with the joys of peaceful life. Of the later poets, the author of the Satyricon, Gaius Petronius the Arbiter (died in 66 AD), close to Nero, and Valerius Flaccus (died ca. 90 AD), who dedicated the poem to the emperor Vespasian, should be noted.

For historical and legal research, the value of works of fiction, from which it is difficult to draw reliable historical facts; lies in the fact that their authors expressed the most complex range of moods and thoughts of their contemporaries, including those associated with political transformations.