Tacitus, Rhetoric, and Reporting Power

What does it mean to be unbiased? Is it possible to report and record the actions of the powerful without praise or blame? How does one go about criticising those who rule when the powerful become authoritarian?

These questions are not new to those familiar with politics and journalism, and in recent years they have become the centre of more intense discussion. Over the past decade, politicians around the world have increasingly taken a more adversarial approach to the press in their rhetoric; they have sought to centralise power and to avoid political accountability.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian, politician, and writer who lived in the first and early second centuries CE, explored similar questions in an equally bleak political landscape. At the time he was writing, Rome had effectively been a monarchy for roughly a century. Republican institutions such as the Senate had become mere vestiges of a past long gone, and the ideal of a morally virtuous imperial Principate – a vision that some had embraced – had devolved into villainy and vice.

Tacitus’ most famous historical accounts are his Annals and Histories. The Histories is the earlier of the two works, and covers events taking place between the “Year of the Four Emperors” following the death of Nero in 69 CE and up to the death of Domitian in 96 CE. The Annals is Tacitus’ final work. Detailing the events of the early Principate from the death of Augustus to the death of Nero, it provides the foundations of Tacitus’ relationship with contemporary politics and his commentary on the constraints which absolute power imposes on free speech.

In the space of two opening paragraphs, Tacitus provides a succinct summary of the history of Rome from its monarchy to the end of the Republic and introduces his themes: the gradual centralisation of power into the hands of one individual, and the suppression of respectable historiographical practices by those recording the actions of the powerful.

One of the most striking lines in this introduction is Tacitus’ statement of method: he would relate the actions of the Principate sine ira et studio (‘without anger and bias’). This claim, made at the beginning of his work, invites his readers – be they ancient or modern – to keep an eye out for moments where his journalistic integrity slips, or where he secretly editorialises his historical narrative to comment on power, the powerful, and the power that free speech has in politics and historiography.

It is around this claim that we have centred our study of the Annals. The key aspects of Tacitus’ discourse all relate to this one phrase. We have examined the author’s tacit editorialisation of the narrative of events during the Julio-Claudian dynasty and his ability to paint a damning picture of authoritarian rule while avoiding direct partiality.

Our project takes the form of a political magazine or newspaper’s in-depth analytical article (see below). This form suited the journalistic quality and modern resonance of the phrase sine ira et studio. In response to attacks from politicians, different media organisations have recently stressed their unbiased and factual accounts of the actions world leaders take. Appropriating, somewhat anachronistically, a modern genre such as a newspaper article for the examination of Tacitus’ work highlights both the universality of the issues Tacitus deals with and the relevance the Annals can have for the contemporary reader.

The Annals, because it is critical of the powerful at a time when those in positions of authority were hostile to critics, must deal with its intended targets in a very oblique manner. As such, Tacitus conceals his meaning in rhetorical ambiguity and in his subtly tendentious construction of larger themes and characterisations.

Tacitus’ use of rhetorical devices ranges from his choice of words to larger structural and thematic features. In particular, we explored devices and techniques found in Book 1 and in Book 14 of the Annals. Much of the work no longer survives, and these two books are taken from the extreme ends of the narrative: Book 1 from the early years of Tiberius, and Book 14 from the reign of Nero. This decision made it possible to see clearly which devices were deliberately deployed to build his grand narrative of a slowly corrupting autocracy.

Our journalistic piece is divided into five equal sections, each studying a different Tacitean technique: the loaded terminology Tacitus adopts when talking about power; Tacitus’ characterisation of the imperial family; his elaboration of the themes of liberty and dissent; his use of indirect speech to avoid the impression of bias, shifting responsibility from the historian’s voice to rumour and public opinion. Our aim is to highlight Tacitus’ thorough editorialising and the diversity of his narrative strategies.

Such is the relevance of Tacitus for the modern journalist: the Annals offer a damning criticism of those with authority without explicitly stating the author’s partiality or editorialising. In similar circumstances, it is possible for modern-day journalists to hold those in power to account without jeopardising their respectability, and, ultimately, their credibility.

Read our ‘newspaper’ article, ‘Sine Ira et Studio: Tacitus, Rhetoric and Reporting Power’, below