The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero

by Tacitus

Book Overview

Here is a lively new translation of Cornelius Tacitus' timeless history of three of Rome's most memorable emperors. Tacitus, who condemns the depravity of these rulers, which he saw as proof of the corrupting force of absolute power, writes caustically of the brutal and lecherous Tiberius, the weak and cuckolded Claudius, and "the artist" Nero. In particular, his gripping account of the bloody reigns of Tiberius and Nero brims with plots, murder,...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 019282421X
• ISBN13: 9780192824219
• Release Date: August 2008
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Length: 592 Pages
• Weight: 0.92 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.2" x 5.0" x 7.6"

Customer Reviews

Definitive Primary Source On the History Of Imperial Roman

I read this book for a graduate course in Roman history. It is an indispensable primary source for students of Roman history. On the first page of his Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus wrote that Octavian "seduced the army with bonuses, and his cheap food policy was successful bait for civilians." Tacitus' description of Augustus' transformation of Rome from a republic into an empire is most illuminating as well. "Upper-class survivors found that slavish obedience was the way to succeed, both politically and financially. They had profited from the revolution, and so now they liked the security of the existing arrangement better than the dangerous uncertainties of the old regime." Sir Ronald Syme relied heavily on the work of Tacitus for his cogent narrative of Octavian's rise to power as Augustus. Syme's in-depth study of Tacitus' life and work was published in 1958. Tacitus' historical accuracy was doubted for centuries and Syme made a project of re-evaluating the accuracy of his historical writings. Syme believed that Tacitus was in a unique position to write about the birth and early political history of the Imperial period in Rome due to his very active political life. Tacitus had served as a senator, consul, and proconsul of Asia. In addition, he was known to be an excellent orator in his day. In his writings, Syme believed that Tacitus provided excellent accounts of Augustus' rise to power and his career as Rome's first Emperor. Tacitus delved into the machinery of the new government, including Augustus' use of patronage as well as his many thwarted attempts at planning for his own succession. What Syme found was a man that grew very adept politically and whose political maturity rapidly developed at an early age. At eighteen, he was named as heir to Julius Caesar. He grew into the greatest Roman princeps spanning fifty-six years until his death. Augustus knew that to retain power he had to maintain the general consent of the governed. He astutely maintained order not by following the constitution or past precedent, but by using the tremendous resources at his disposal. Augustus kept the plebeians in check making sure they were fed, kept them amused with games, and constantly reminded them that he was protecting them from the oppression of the nobiles. Augustus became the "leader of a large and well organized political party as the source and fount of patronage and advancement." Recommended reading for those interested in Roman history, military history.

Great literature, questionable politics.

The more I've read and re-read this book, the less Tacitus' politics appeal to me, and I wonder that his antiquarian, narrow idealization of Old Republican Rome as against the realities of his own time must have made him a superlative bore to his colleagues in the Roman Senate, who must have wondered that, if the Old Republic was so much better, then how the Empire could even begin existing? However, there's his grasp of the art of the psychological portrait, an art in which he excelled, and that made him the first historian of mentalities and ideologies ever, something for which he used his oppulent, crisp prose, something that in my view fares far better than, say, Caesar's dry record of his military campaigns. Therefore, one cannot but surrender to his powers of expression and read his book for the nth. time as we allow ourselves to become, again, and again, fascinated by it.

Superb, mordant, brilliant: one of the best books written.

Not only is Tacitus one of the sharpest narrative historians who has ever lived, not only are we incredibly fortunate to have this poignant account of his view of history, but we have Michael Grant's accurate and superb translation. I can't imagine anyone not thinking this is a superb edition: the bloke who compared it negatively with Gibbon (ALTHOUGH I OF COURSE RESPECT HIS OPINION) might try comparing it instead to Herodotus, Sallust, Xenophon, Polybius, Livy, Suetonius, Josephus, and Philo as they are a little closer to Tacitus' era. This is a major intellectual work by a marvelous writer of the first century AD who lived through some interesting times and had an opinion. Of course he is "biased" (in other words, HE HAS AN OPINION). Who isn't ? Everyone should know by 2003 that the historian's bias is one of the first things to look at. Tacitus was a conservative who pined for the golden days of a senatorial republic that he never knew. Of course he hated Tiberius and reserved much of his best invective against him: this may be the first non-hagiographic biographical portrait of such fulness that was ever written, or at least that survived, and is incredibly valuable just for that. I don't think I need to defend Tacitus much more from anyone who gave him, or who gave this edition, less than a five star rating, (you don't like M. Grant's translation? Then learn to read Latin, fellows -- if you work hard you'll be able to read Tacitus in one year) but I shall say this: Tacitus is like Homer and Aeschylus in the sense that if you think they are boring, it is because you have the problem, not them.

A translation of an ancient historian

This is a translation of Roman history written in the 2nd century. If it seems dry, that is because it was originally written in what has been called a "jarring style" of Latin. The Latin of Tacitus differs greatly from say Caesar or Cicero. It is very difficult, full of long subordinate clauses, one word ablative absolutes, etc. The average Roman citizen may have found his work to be a bit over his head. The average college student finds Tacitus over his head and the cause for premature baldness. This translation is a very good however. Michael Grant gives a scholarly translation and includes notes for clarification of some of the more ambiguous passages.I would recommend this book to someone who is perusing a serious academic paper, and to one who does not have time to translate the text. Compare what Tacitus writes of Augustus with the "Res Gustae Divi Augusti". You will find a historian risking his neck to expose the propaganda of the imperial family. Criticizing someone who calls himself a god is risky business.I would not recommend this book to someone who is reading about Roman history for fun. This is a scholarly translation of the original text that is suitable as a source for your own writings. Tacitus was read by Machiavelli, Locke, and other ground-breaking political writers. In reference to the negative feedback on this book, it seems that the authors of some of these reviews might have believed that Tacitus wrote this in English (sigh).Dr. Grant gives us a "bene fecit" translation that stays true to the original. He leaves his own opinions to the footnotes allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions on historical truth. If you translate an ancient text and spice it up to please Americans, you run the risk of not being taken seriously by smart people (a perilous position to be in when everyone is called doctor).

A guidebook to history's repetition!

What a book! I'm not a classical scholar, just "well-read," so I'm can't say much about the translation or the author's accuracy or the rest of the scholarly details. To you people who are embarassed to read black Penguin classics outside of a forced curriculum -- think again! Here's what you get in the Annals: (more in the lines of modern journalism, if you ask me -- pretended objectivity with obvious leanings) a historian is perched precariously on the edge of what just might be the end of his world-wide civilization. He gives a rundown on how this great republic started from a little country(a few noble Founding Fathers, some great principles, lots of national honor, and good, hard work) and then goes over the next hundred years of so of its decline. The reasons? Well, the leaders are increasingly nuts, the entertainment business gets immoral and out of hand, there's a lot of cynical P.R. in Rome (parades, games, festivals) while the foreign service fights pointless wars where their high-tech legions are slaughtered by guerillas in the swamps. A new multicultural society means the old "Eurocentric" worldview is less convincing. Cheap, militarily-supervised international trade means laziness at home and discontent in the "member states." Then there are the big distractions - the public works, highways and stadiums -- plus the silencing of dissenters -- the censorship and obsession with immorality in the capitol. True -- you get a lot of names in this book; just concentrate on the key ones, and let the story take you. I would say this is one classic that really is coming into its own time right about now. Things are hauntingly familiar, and readers of more heroic classical historians could be in for a big awakening. I would recommend that anyone interested in the present American situation read this book and re-seize it for the common person!