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 particular 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. The Caesars charged the triumvirs (long before the burning of books at the stakes of Nazi Germany) to burn in the forum, where sentences are usually carried out, "the creations of these 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 Priscus - the most "few and all-powerful" (princeps , consuls, prefects, commanders of army groups, etc.). This made it possible to be in the center major events 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 teaching as a kind of path to goodness ... Disappointed by the impressions he had experienced from reality, 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, accept US envoys in the form of puppet rulers today) 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 its geographical position” (being on the borders of the empire, he is always ready to play on disagreements 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, more mature years A. I. Herzen recalled the “gloomy sorrow of Tacitus”, about the “courageous, reproaching 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 keep themselves completely out of 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 a detailed description of the Apennines, but Polybius's information is based on the work of Roman farmers, whose records are 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 order. 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. So, the English historian P. Connolly, recognizing that Livy is the main source for early era Rome, however, 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, because the events in his writings 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, free from the need to justify his intellectual leisure, as Sallust did quite recently, gets the opportunity 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 aims to encourage the reader to think about the past life, customs 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 the 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 various forms of socio-political organization in various countries, but also turned to the work of Titus Livius. 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 generals, nor citizens who turned to for examples to the ancients. Machiavelli is convinced that this is not so much due to the 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 charge him with allegedly immoral 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 - " 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), "The Yugurtin War" (111-106 BC), as well as the "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 allow captivating presentation of the material. 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. main idea his works 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 it dominates, it is impossible to be in order either in private life or in

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, the theoretical basis for which was the concept of the moral degeneration of society developed by the Greek thinker Posidonius after the fall of Carthage. 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 - master historical portrait, manifested 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 ancient literature. P. 399.), and his main task, apparently, was to glorify national glory in sonorous language, as if 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 its 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 history and contemplated, which is why his scientific work is written in the language fiction. For historians, this may be a disadvantage, but what a blessing for the reader!

"History ..." Livia is a book that can be read just 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 pure 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 the historical works proper followed: 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 the true face of a despotic monarchy, hidden under the mask 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 history of Tacitus reveals not only the external side of the political life of the capital, but also its behind the scenes secrets grouping and motivating the facts accordingly.

The grouping of facts is the articulation of episodes, the appearance of characters, the arrangement of general pictures and particular phenomena, the intensification and resolution of tension: it is precisely in this way 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."

In approximately one historical period, the empire had three major historians: the Greek writer Plutarch, Tacitus, about whom you have just read, 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 intelligence 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 a general 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 "objects": state activities- positions held, political innovations, social policy, 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, much less philosophy or psychological picture like 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 ”. debauchery of some 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. IN

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 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 unjustifiably - the penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome is portrayed as "the conquest by defeated Greece of 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 included in the Roman ideas of "higher education". The number of Romans who are seriously interested in philosophy and adhere to one or another philosophical school is growing: 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. Whole line"intelligent" professions was, 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.

In ancient culture and ideology, there are a number of phenomena that turn out to be, as it were, a link, an intermediate environment between “pure antiquity” and “pure East”. Such are Orphism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and, at a later time, Neo-Platonism. Reflecting to some extent the aspirations of broad sections of the population, especially the politically disenfranchised masses of non-citizens who flooded Rome in those days (and who very often came from the same East), such moods and trends at a "higher level" resulted in such historical facts , as, for example, the activities of Nigidia Figulus, already mentioned above, a friend of Cicero, who can be considered one of the earliest representatives of neo-Pythagoreanism in Rome, with its quite definite oriental coloring. It is no less well known how strong oriental motifs were in the work of Virgil. Not to mention the famous fourth eclogue, one can note the presence of very significant oriental elements in other works of Virgil, as well as in Horace and a number of other poets of the "golden age".

From all that has been said above, from the examples and facts cited, one can really get the impression of a “peaceful conquest” of Roman society by foreign, Hellenistic influences. It is time, obviously, to pay attention to the other side of the same process - to the reaction of the Romans themselves, of Roman public opinion.

If we keep in mind the period of the early republic, then the ideological environment that surrounded the Roman in the family, clan, community was undoubtedly an environment that counteracted such influences. It goes without saying that an accurate and detailed definition of the ideological values ​​of such a distant era is hardly possible. Perhaps only an analysis of some vestiges of ancient polis morality can give an approximate and, of course, far from complete idea of ​​this ideological milieu.

Cicero said: our ancestors in peacetime always followed tradition, and in war - good. (“Speech in support of the law of Manilius,” 60.) This admiration for tradition, usually expressed in the form of unconditional recognition and praise of the “morals of the ancestors” (mos maiorum), determined one of the most characteristic features of Roman ideology: conservatism, hostility to all innovations.

The moral categories of Rome-polis by no means coincided with and were not exhausted by the four canonical virtues of Greek ethics: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. The Romans, on the contrary, demanded from every citizen an infinite number of virtues (virtutes), which involuntarily suggest an analogy with the Roman religion and its huge number of different gods. In this case, we will neither list nor define these virtutes, we will only say that the Roman citizen was required by no means that he possessed this or that valor (for example, courage, dignity, stamina, etc.), but necessarily “ set" of all virtues, and only their sum, their totality is the Roman virtus in the general sense of the word - a comprehensive expression of the proper and worthy behavior of every citizen within the Roman civil community.

The hierarchy of moral duties in ancient Rome is known, and, perhaps, with greater certainty than any other relationship. A brief and precise definition of this hierarchy is given to us by Gaius Lucilius, the creator of the literary genre of satire:

You must first think about the highest good of the fatherland, After about the welfare of relatives and then only about ours.

Somewhat later and in a slightly different form, but essentially the same idea is developed by Cicero. He says: there are many degrees of commonality of people, for example, a common language or origin. But the closest, closest and dearest connection is that which arises by virtue of belonging to the same civil community (civitas). The homeland - and only it - contains common attachments. (“On Duties”, I, 17, 53-57.)

And, indeed, the highest value that a Roman knows is his hometown, his fatherland (patria). Rome is an eternal and immortal quantity that will surely outlive every single person. Therefore, the interests of this individual always recede into the background before the interests of the community as a whole. On the other hand, only the community is the only and highest authority for approbation of the virtus of a certain citizen, only the community can bestow honor, glory, distinction on its fellow member. Therefore, virtus cannot exist apart from Roman public life or be independent of the judgment of fellow citizens. The content of the most ancient inscriptions (from those that have come down to us on the tombs of the Scipios) perfectly illustrates this situation (the enumeration of virtutes and deeds in the name of res publica, supported by the opinions of members of the community).

As long as these norms and maxims of ancient Roman polis morality were alive, the penetration of foreign influences into Rome was by no means easy and painless. On the contrary, we are dealing with a difficult and at times painful process. In any case, it was not so much a readiness to accept Hellenistic, and even more so Eastern culture, as a struggle for its development, or rather, even overcoming it.

Suffice it to recall the famous trial and decree of the Senate on Bacchanalia (186), according to which members of the communities of worshipers of Bacchus - a cult that entered Rome from the Hellenistic East - were subjected to severe punishments and persecution. No less characteristic is the activity of Cato the Elder, whose political program was based on the struggle against the "new abominations" (nova flagitia) and on the restoration of ancient customs (prisci mores). His election as censor for 184 indicates that this program enjoyed the support of certain and, apparently, fairly wide sections of Roman society.

Under nova flagitia, a whole “set” of vices was meant (no less numerous and diverse than the list of virtues at one time), but in the first place there were undoubtedly such vices, allegedly brought from a foreign land to Rome, such as, for example, greed and greed (avaritia), desire for luxury (luxuria), vanity (ambitus). The penetration of even these vices into Roman society was, according to Cato, the main reason for the decline of morals, and, consequently, the power of Rome. By the way, if an innumerable multitude of virtues were united, as it were, by a common and single core, namely, the interests, the good of the state, then all flagitia, against which Cato fought, can be reduced to a single desire underlying them - the desire to please purely personal interests, which take precedence over the interests of civil, public. This contradiction already shows the first (but quite convincing) signs of the loosening of the ancient moral foundations. Thus, Cato can be considered the ancestor of the theory of moral decay, in its explicit political interpretation. By the way, this theory played a prominent role in the history of Roman political doctrines.

In the course of the struggle against those foreign influences that in Rome, for one reason or another, were recognized as harmful, even administrative measures were sometimes applied. So, for example, we know that in 161 a group of philosophers and rhetors was expelled from Rome, in 155 the same Cato proposed to remove the embassy consisting of philosophers, and even in the 90s there was mention of an unfriendly attitude in Rome towards rhetors.

As for the later time - the period of rather wide distribution of Hellenistic influences - in this case too, in our opinion, we have to talk about the "defensive reaction" of Roman society. She could not be ignored. Some Greek philosophers, such as Panetius, taking into account the needs and tastes of the Romans, went to soften the rigorism of the old schools. Cicero, as you know, was also forced to prove his right to engage in philosophy, and even then justifying them by forced (through no fault of his!) political inactivity. Horace throughout his life fought for the recognition of poetry as a serious occupation. Ever since drama arose in Greece, the actors there were free and respected people, but in Rome they were slaves who were beaten if they did not play well; it was considered a dishonor and sufficient reason for the reprimand of the censors if a freeborn appeared on the stage. Even such a profession as a doctor, for a long time (until the 1st century AD) was represented by foreigners and was hardly considered honorable.

All this testifies to the fact that for many years in Roman society there was a long and stubborn struggle against foreign influences and "innovations", and she accepted the most various forms: sometimes it was an ideological struggle (the theory of moral decay), sometimes it was political and administrative measures (senatus consul turn about bacchanalia, the expulsion of philosophers from Rome), but, be that as it may, these facts speak of a “defensive reaction” that sometimes occurred among the Roman nobility itself (where the Hellenistic influences were, of course, most successful and widespread), and sometimes even among the broader sections of the population.

What was the inner meaning of this "defensive reaction", this resistance?

It can be understood only if we recognize that the process of the penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome is by no means a blind, imitative acceptance of them, not epigonism, but, on the contrary, a process of assimilation, processing, fusion, mutual concessions. As long as the Hellenistic influences were only a foreign product, they ran into, and could not help but run into, staunch, sometimes even desperate resistance. Hellenistic culture, in fact, was accepted by society only when it was finally overcome as something alien, when it came into fruitful contact with the Roman original forces. But if this is so, then the thesis about the lack of independence, epigonism and creative impotence of the Romans is thus completely refuted and must be removed. The result of all this long and by no means peaceful process - in essence, the process of interpenetration of two intensive spheres: the old Roman and the Eastern Hellenistic - should be considered the formation of a "mature" Roman culture (the era of the crisis of the republic and the establishment of the principate).

The Roman historical tradition tells about the history of the city of Rome from ancient times. No wonder Cicero proudly said that there is no people on earth who, like the Romans, would know the history of their native city not only from the day it was founded, but also from the moment the founder of the city was conceived. Now that we have become familiar with the ideological milieu that fed, in particular, the Roman historical tradition, Roman historiography, we can proceed to a brief overview of its origin and development.

Roman historiography - unlike Greek - developed from the annals. According to legend, almost from the middle of the 5th century. BC e. in Rome there were so-called "tables of the pontiffs". The high priest - pontifex maximus - used to put up a white board at his house, on which he entered for general information the most important events of recent years (Cicero, "On the Orator", 2, 52). These were, as a rule, information about crop failures, epidemics, wars, omens, temple dedications, etc.

What was the purpose of setting up such tables? It can be assumed that they were exhibited - at least initially - not at all to satisfy historical, but purely practical interests. The entries in these tables were of a calendar nature. At the same time, we know that one of the duties of the pontiffs was to take care of the correct keeping of the calendar. Under those conditions, this duty could be considered quite complicated: the Romans did not have a strictly fixed calendar, and therefore they had to coordinate the solar year with the lunar year, monitor mobile holidays, determine “favorable” and “unfavorable” days, etc. Thus, it is quite plausible it seems to be suggested that the maintenance of the tables was primarily connected with the duty of the pontiffs to regulate and observe the calendar.

On the other hand, there is reason to consider the tables of the pontiffs as a kind of skeleton of ancient Roman historiography. Weather tabulation made it possible to compile lists or lists of those persons by whose names the year was designated in Ancient Rome. Such persons in Rome were the highest magistrates, that is, the consuls. The first lists (consular fasts) appeared presumably at the end of the 4th century. BC e. Around the same time, the first processing of tables, that is, the first Roman chronicle, arose.

The nature of the tables and the chronicles based on them gradually changed over time. The number of headings in the tables increased, in addition to wars and natural disasters, they contain information about domestic political events, the activities of the senate and the people's assembly, the results of elections, etc. It can be assumed that in this era (III-II and centuries BC. BC) historical interest woke up in Roman society, in particular the interest of noble families and families in their “glorious past”. In the II century. BC e. by order of the supreme pontiff Publius Mucius Scaevola, a processed summary of all weather records was published, starting from the founding of Rome (in 80 books) under the title " Great Chronicle» (Annales maximi).

As for the literary processing of the history of Rome - that is, historiography in the exact sense of the word - its emergence refers to 3rd century and is indisputably connected with the penetration of Hellenistic cultural influences into Roman society. It is no coincidence that the first historical works written by the Romans were written in Greek. Since the early Roman historians processed the material of official annals (and family chronicles) in a literary manner, they are usually called annalists. Annalists are usually divided into senior and junior.

Modern historical criticism has long ceased to recognize Roman annalistics as historically valuable material, that is, material that gives a reliable idea of ​​the events depicted in it. But the value of early Roman historiography does not lie in this at all. The study of some of its characteristic features and tendencies can supplement our understanding of the ideological life of Roman society, and of such aspects of this life that were insufficiently or not at all covered by other sources.

Quintus Fabius Pictor (3rd century), a representative of one of the most noble and ancient families, a senator, a contemporary of the second Punic War, is considered to be the founder of the literary processing of Roman chronicles. He wrote (in Greek!) the history of the Romans from the arrival of Aeneas in Italy and up to contemporary events. Pathetic passages have been preserved from the work, and even then in the form of a retelling. It is interesting to note that although Fabius wrote in Greek, his patriotic sympathies are so clear and definite that Polybius twice accuses him of being biased towards his compatriots.

The successors of Quintus Fabius are considered to be his younger contemporary and participant in the Second Punic War, Lucius Cincius Aliment, who wrote the history of Rome “from the founding of the city” (ab urbe condita), and Gaius Acilius, the author of a similar work. Both of these works were also written in Greek, but the work of Acilius was subsequently translated into Latin.

The first historical work written by the author himself in his native language was Cato's Origins. In addition, in this work - it did not reach us, and we judge it on the basis of small fragments and testimonies of other authors - the material was presented not in an annalistic form, but rather in the form of a study of the ancient fates of the tribes and cities of Italy. Thus, the work of Cato concerned not only Rome. In addition, he differed from the works of other annalists in that he had a certain claim to "scientific": Cato, apparently, carefully collected and checked his material, relied on facts, annals of individual communities, personal inspection of the area, etc. All this, taken together, made Cato a peculiar and lonely figure in early Roman historiography.

Usually, Lucius Cassius Gemina, a contemporary of the third Punic War, and the consul of 133, Lucius Calpurnius Pison Fruga, are also referred to senior annalistics. Both of them already wrote in Latin, but constructively their works go back to the samples of early annalistics. For the work of Cassius Gemina, the name Annales, not without intent, is more or less accurately attested, the work itself repeats the traditional scheme of the tables of the pontiffs - the events are set out from the founding of Rome, at the beginning of each year the names of the consuls are always indicated.

Insignificant fragments, and even then preserved, as a rule, in the retelling of later authors, do not make it possible to characterize the manner and peculiar features of the work of older annalists separately, but it is possible to quite clearly determine the general direction of older annalists as a historical and literary genre, mainly in terms of its differences, its differences from the younger annalistics.

The works of the senior annalists were (perhaps, with the exception of Cato's "Beginnings" only) chronicles that had undergone some literary processing. In them, relatively conscientiously, in a purely external sequence, the events were described, the tradition was transmitted, however, without a critical assessment of it, but also without consciously introduced “additions” and “improvements”. Common features and "settings" of senior annalists: Romanocentrism, cultivation of patriotic sentiments, presentation of history as in chronicles - "from the very beginning", that is, ab urbe condita, and, finally, the interpretation of history in a purely political aspect, with a clear predilection for describing the military and foreign policy events. It is these common features that characterize the older annalistics as a whole as a certain ideological phenomenon and as a certain historical and literary genre.

As for the so-called younger annalistics, this, in essence, a new genre or a new direction in Roman historiography arises around the time of the Gracchi. The works of the younger annalists have not come down to us either, so very little can be said about each of them, but some general features can be outlined in this case as well.

Lucius Celius Antipater is usually considered one of the first representatives of the younger annalistics. His work, apparently, was already distinguished by the features characteristic of the new genre. It was not built in the form of a chronicle, but rather a historical monograph, in particular, the account of events did not begin ab urbe condita, but with a description of the Second Punic War. In addition, the author paid a very noticeable tribute to his passion for rhetoric, believing that in historical narration the main thing is the power of influence, the effect produced on the reader.

The work of another annalist who also lived in the time of the Gracchi, Sempronius Azellion, was distinguished by the same features. His work is known to us from small extracts from the compiler Aulus Gellius (2nd century AD). Azellion deliberately abandoned the annalistic mode of presentation. He said: "The chronicle is not able to induce a more ardent defense of the fatherland or stop people from bad deeds." The story of what happened is also not yet history, and it is not so important to tell under which consuls this or that war began (or ended), who received the triumph, how important it is to explain for what reason and for what purpose the described event occurred. In this attitude of the author, it is not difficult to reveal a rather clearly expressed pragmatic approach, which makes Azellion a likely follower of his older contemporary, the outstanding Greek historian Polybius.

The most famous representatives of the younger annalistics - Claudius Quadrigarus, Valery Anziatus, Licinius Macr, Cornelius Sisenna - lived during the time of Sulla (80-70 years of the 1st century BC). In the works of some of them, there are attempts to revive the chronicle genre, but otherwise they are marked by all the characteristic features of younger annalistics, that is, these historical works are characterized by large rhetorical digressions, deliberate embellishment of events, and sometimes their direct distortion, pretentiousness of language, etc. A characteristic feature of all younger annalistics can be considered the projection of the political struggle contemporary to the authors of historical works into the distant past and the illumination of this past from the point of view of the political relations of the present.

For the younger annalists, history becomes a section of rhetoric and an instrument of political struggle. They - and this is their difference from the representatives of older annalistics - do not refuse in the interests of one or another political grouping from direct falsification of historical material (doubling events, transferring later events to an earlier era, borrowing facts and details from Greek history, etc.). ). Younger annalistics - seemingly quite harmonious, complete construction, without gaps and contradictions, but in fact - a construction through and through artificial, where historical facts are closely intertwined with legends and fiction and where the story of events is presented from the point of view of later political groupings and embellished with numerous rhetorical effects.

The phenomenon of junior annalistics ends the early period of development of Roman historiography. From all of the above, we have extracted some general and comparative characteristics of older and younger annalistics. Is it possible to talk about some common features of these genres, about some features or specific features of early Roman historiography as a whole?

Obviously it's possible. Moreover, as we shall see below, many of the characteristic features of early Roman historiography persist into later times, during the period of its maturity and flourishing. Without striving for an exhaustive enumeration, we will focus only on those of them that can be considered the most general and most indisputable.

First of all, it is easy to see that the Roman annalists - both early and late - always write for the sake of a certain practical purpose: active promotion of the good of society, the good of the state. Some kind of abstract investigation of historical truth for the sake of truth cannot even occur to them. Just as the tables of the pontiffs served the practical and everyday interests of the community, and the family chronicles served the interests of the clan, so the Roman annalists wrote in the interests of the res publica, and, of course, to the extent of their own understanding of these interests.

Another no less characteristic feature of early Roman historiography as a whole is its Romanocentric and patriotic attitude. Rome was always not only in the center of the exposition, but, in fact, the entire exposition was limited to the framework of Rome (again, with the exception of Cato's Elements). In this sense, Roman historiography took a step backwards in comparison with Hellenistic historiography, because for the latter - in the person of its most prominent representatives and, in particular, Polybius - one can already state the desire to create a universal, world history. As for the openly expressed, and often emphasized, patriotic attitude of the Roman annalists, it logically followed from the above-mentioned practical goal that confronted each author - to put his work at the service of the interests of the res publica.

And, finally, it should be noted that the Roman annalists, to a large extent, belonged to the highest, that is, the senatorial class. This determined their political positions and sympathies, as well as the unity we observed, or, more precisely, “one-pointedness”. These sympathies (with the obvious exception of Licinius Macra, who tried - as far as we can judge - to introduce a democratic stream into Roman historiography). As for the objectivity of the presentation of historical material, it has long been known that the ambitious competition of individual noble families was one of the main reasons for the distortion of facts. So, for example, Fabius Pictor, who belonged to the ancient gens Fabia, which has long been at enmity with the no less ancient gens Cornelia, undoubtedly, more clearly set off the activities of the Fabius family, while the exploits of the Cornelii (and, consequently, representatives of such a branch of this family as the Scipios) relegated to the background. A supporter of Scipio's politics, such as, say, Gaius Fannius, undoubtedly did the opposite. In this way, various variants of "improvement" or, conversely, "deterioration" of history arose, especially when depicting events of early times, for which there were no more reliable sources.

These are some of the common features and features of early Roman historiography. However, before turning to Roman historiography of the period of its maturity, it seems appropriate to identify some fundamental trends in the development of ancient historiography in general (and, against its background, in particular, Roman historiography!).

Roman historiography, even in the period of its maturity and its highest prosperity, could not completely free itself from a number of specific features and attitudes that are characteristic - as just noted - for annalistics, in particular the younger annalistics. Therefore, being an organic and integral part of ancient historiography as a whole, Roman historiography, as it were, personified a certain direction in its development. In general, if we have in mind ancient historiography as such, then we can perhaps talk about the two most striking, most cardinal directions (or trends). Let's try to define them, especially since they - of course, in a rather altered, modified form - continue not only to exist, but also actively oppose each other even in the newest, that is, modern historical literature. What are the directions in this case?

One of them is represented in ancient historiography - if we mean Roman times - by the name of Polybius. Let us dwell, first of all, on the characteristics of this particular direction.

Polybius (205-125 BC) was a Greek by birth. He was born in the Arcadian city of Megalopolis, which was part of the Achaean Union. The personal fate of the future historian developed in such a way that he himself turned out to be, as it were, an intermediate link between Greece and Rome. This happened due to the fact that after the Macedonian wars, Polybius ended up in Rome, where he lived for sixteen years as a hostage (he was among the thousands of aristocratic hostages sent to Rome). Here Polybius was accepted into the "higher" Roman society, was a member of the famous Scipio circle. Apparently, in 150 he received the right to return to Greece, but then he often came to Rome, which became his second home. In 146 he was in Africa with Scipio Aemilianus.

Years of stay in Rome turned Polybius into an ardent admirer of the Roman state system. He believed that it can be regarded as exemplary, since it implements the ideal of a "mixed structure", which includes elements of royal power (Roman consuls), aristocracy (Senate) and democracy ( popular assemblies).

The main work of Polybius is the General History (in 40 books). Unfortunately, this great work has not come down to us intact: only the first five books have been completely preserved, more or less extensive fragments of the rest have survived. The chronological framework of Polybius's work is as follows: a detailed account of events begins in 221 and goes up to 146 (although the first two books give a summary overview of events from an earlier time - from the First Punic War). The historical work of Polybius fully justifies the title given to it: the author draws a broad picture of the history of all countries that in one way or another came into contact with Rome in this era. Such a broad scale and a “world-historical” aspect were inevitable, even necessary, because Polybius set out to answer the question with his work, how and why did all known parts of the inhabited earth fall under the rule of Rome within fifty-three years? Here, by the way, as an answer, the doctrine of a mixed state system as the best form of government arose.

What does such a program of the historian testify to? First of all, that the work of Polybius is a definite historical study, and such a study in which the center of gravity lies not on the story of events, not on their description, but on their motivation, on clarifying the causal connection of events. Such an interpretation of the material forms the basis of the so-called "pragmatic history".

Polybius put forward three main demands to historians. Firstly, a thorough study of the sources, then - acquaintance with the area where the events took place (mainly battles, battles) and, finally, personal, practical experience in military and political affairs. Polybius himself met these requirements to the highest degree. He knew military affairs in practice (in 183 he was a strategist of the Achaean Union), had sufficient experience in political matters and traveled a lot, getting acquainted with the theater of military operations. Polybius was critical of his sources, by no means taking them on faith, often using archival and documentary material, as well as eyewitness accounts.

These demands put forward by Polybius were not an end in themselves. The fulfillment of these conditions, combined with the installation to clarify the causal connection of events - all this should have served the ultimate goal: a truthful and reasonable presentation of the material. Polybius himself emphasized this as the main task of the historian. He said that the historian is obliged, in the interests of observing the truth, to praise enemies and blame friends when they both deserve it, and even compared the historical narrative, devoid of truth and objectivity, with the helplessness, unfitness of a person deprived of sight (1, 14, 5-6 ).

These principles and attitudes of Polybius as a researcher make him related and put him on a par with his great predecessor, the Greek historian Thucydides (460-395 BC), who can be considered the founder of source criticism and a master of political analysis of the events described. A characteristic feature of Thucydides was also the desire for objectivity, impartiality of presentation, although, of course, this condition was not always observed by him, especially when it came to domestic political events (for example, an assessment of Cleon's activities). But be that as it may, Thucydides and Polybius are two related and at the same time the two most prominent figures of ancient historiography.

Like Thucydides, Polybius is not an artist, not a master of words, his narrative is dry, businesslike, “without embellishment”, as he himself says (9, 1-2), but on the other hand, he is a sober, objective researcher, always striving for a clear, accurate and well-founded presentation of the material. The form of presentation for him is in the background, because the task is not to show or impress, but to explain.

Everything that has been said already seems to make it possible to determine the direction of ancient historiography, one of the most prominent representatives of which was Polybius. There is every reason to talk about him, as well as about his great predecessor Thucydides, as the founders of the scientific (or even research) direction in ancient historiography.

Another brilliant name, personifying a different direction, is Titus Livius (59 BC - 17 AD). He was a native of Patavia (now Padua), a city located in northern Italy, in the region of the Veneti. Livy probably came from a wealthy family and received a thorough rhetorical and philosophical education. About 31 BC. e. he moved to Rome, in subsequent years was close to the court of Emperor Augustus. According to his political sympathies, Livy was a "republican", in the old Roman sense of the word, that is, a supporter of a republic led by an aristocratic senate. However, Livy did not take a direct part in political life and kept aloof from it, devoting himself to literary pursuits.

The main work of Livy is his huge historical work (in 142 books), which is usually entitled "History from the Foundation of Rome" (although Livy himself called it "Annals"). Only 35 books (the so-called I, III, IV and half of the fifth "decades") and fragments of the rest have come down to us in full. For all books (except 136 and 137) there are brief lists of contents (it is not known by whom and when compiled). The chronological framework of Livy's work is as follows: from mythical times, from the landing of Aeneas in Italy to the death of Drusus in 9 AD. e.

The historical work of Livy gained immense popularity and brought fame to its author during his lifetime. The popularity of the work is evidenced by at least the fact that a short list of content was compiled. There were, apparently, abridged "editions" of a huge work (this is mentioned, for example, by Martial). It is indisputable that even in ancient times the historical work of Titus Livius became canonical and formed the basis of those ideas about the past of his native city and his state that every educated Roman received.

How did Livy himself understand the task of the historian? His profession de foi is set out in the author's introduction to the entire work: “This is the main benefit and the best fruit of acquaintance with the events of the past, that you see all kinds of instructive examples framed by a majestic whole; here, for yourself and for the state, you will find something to imitate, but here you will find something to avoid.” But if the business of history is to teach by examples, then the examples, of course, should be chosen as the most vivid, the most obvious and convincing, acting not only on the mind, but also on the imagination. Such an attitude brings together - in terms of the commonality of the tasks facing - history and art.

As for Livy's attitude to his sources, he mainly used - and, moreover, rather uncritically - literary sources, that is, the works of his predecessors (junior annalists, Polybius). As a rule, he did not go back to documents, archival materials, although the opportunity to use such monuments in his time undoubtedly existed. Livy's internal criticism of the source is also peculiar, that is, the principles of highlighting and highlighting the main facts and events. Of decisive importance for him is the moral criterion, and, consequently, the opportunity to develop oratorical and artistic talent. So, for example, he himself hardly believed the legends associated with the founding of Rome, but they attracted him with material that was grateful for the artist. Often in Livy, some important decision of the senate or comitia, a new law, is mentioned briefly and in passing, while some obviously legendary feat is described in detail and with great skill. The connection of events with him is purely external; it is no coincidence that the general plan of Livy's enormous work is essentially primitive and goes back to the patterns known to us from annalistics: the presentation of events is given sequentially, by years, in annalistic order.

A large role in the work of Livy is played by speeches and characteristics. The "generosity" of the historian for detailed, detailed characteristics of prominent figures was noted even in antiquity itself. As for the speeches of the characters, they constitute the artistically most brilliant pages of Livy's work, but their historical value, of course, is small, and they bear the stamp of an era contemporary to Livy himself.

So, in Livy in the foreground - the artistry of the image. Not so much to explain as to show and impress - this is the main direction of his work, his main task. He is a historian-artist, a historian-dramatist. Therefore, he personifies - with the greatest brightness and completeness - another direction in ancient historiography, a direction that can be defined as artistic (more precisely, artistic and didactic).

These are the two main directions (trends) that characterize the development of ancient historiography. But, strictly speaking, we can have both of these trends in mind only when we are talking about ancient historiography as a whole. If only Roman historiography is meant, then one direction should be considered represented in it, namely the one that, using the example of Livy, we defined as artistic and didactic. Neither Thucydides nor Polybius had followers in Rome. In addition, not to mention Thucydides, even Polybius, who, as was said, lived for a long time in Rome, was nevertheless - both in language and in general "spirit" - a genuine and typical representative of not just Hellenistic historiography, but also more broadly - Hellenistic culture as a whole.

How, after all, to explain that the direction, personified by the names of two prominent Greek historians and defined by us as scientific research, did not receive noticeable development in Rome? This phenomenon seems natural to us and finds, in our opinion, its explanation primarily in the resistance to outside influences, which has already been pointed out above. Therefore, Roman historiography, even at the time of its heyday and maturity, represented, to a large extent, only further development, only a more perfect modification of the same ancient Roman annalistics. There were almost no fundamental changes, and therefore, precisely in the sense of their fundamental principles, the luminaries of Roman historiography, for example, Livy (we have already partially seen this), Tacitus, Ammian Marcellinus, did not go so far from the representatives of the late (and sometimes early) listed in their place. !) Roman annalistics.

Such characteristic features of the annalistic genre as a roman-centric and patriotic point of view, as a love of rhetorical embellishments, a general moralizing tone, and, finally, even such a detail as a preference for annalistic form of presentation of events - all this we can more or less find in any representative of Roman historiography, up to recent decades the existence of the Roman state. Of course, all that has been said by no means can and should not be considered as a denial of any development of Roman historiography over the centuries. This is sheer absurdity. For example, we are well aware that even new historical-literary genres arose, such as, say, the genre of historical biographies. However, the authors of works of this kind according to their fundamental principles - and we are talking about them! - nevertheless, much closer to the artistic and didactic direction than to that which was represented by the names of Thucydides and Polybius.

And, finally, it was said above that both directions (or trends) of ancient historiography - this time in a rather modified form - exist even in modern science. Of course, this statement cannot be taken literally. But the dispute, which began more than a hundred years ago, about the knowability or unknowability historical fact, about the presence or absence of regularities historical process, led in his time to the conclusion (widely spread in bourgeois historiography) about the descriptive nature of historical science. The consistent development of such a conclusion undoubtedly brings history closer to art and can be considered a kind of modification of one of the areas of ancient historiography described above.

It does not hurt to note that the recognition of the educational value of history - recognition, by the way, in our time, is characteristic to one degree or another of historians of the most diverse trends and camps - can ultimately be elevated to the idea of ​​history as a mentor of life, as a treasury examples that arose precisely in antiquity among supporters and representatives of the "artistic and didactic" direction.

The Marxist historian obviously cannot agree with the definition of history as an "ideographic" science, that is, a descriptive one (or rather, only a descriptive one!). A historian who recognizes the reality and cognizability of historical phenomena is obliged to go further - up to certain generalizations, or, in other words, up to the derivation of certain laws. Therefore, for a Marxist, historical science - however, like any other science - is always "nomothetic", always based on the study of the laws of development.

Of course, the notorious dispute about the "ideographic" or "nomothetic" nature of historical science cannot and should not be identified with two trends in ancient historiography, but to some extent it certainly goes back to this era, to this ideological heritage of antiquity. ,

This section should at least briefly characterize some of the historians of the “mature” period of Roman historiography presented in this book. Even from these brief characteristics, it will not be difficult, in our opinion, to make sure that all of them, in principle, belong to the direction that has just been defined as artistic and didactic.

Let us dwell first of all on Gaius Sallust Crispus (86-35 BC). He came from the Sabine city of Amiterna, belonged to the class of horsemen. Sallust began his socio-political career - as far as we know - with the Questura (54), then he was elected tribune of the people (52). However, in 1950, his career almost ended forever: he was expelled from the Senate, allegedly for an immoral lifestyle (obviously, there was also a political reason for the expulsion). Even during the years of his tribunate, Sallust acquired a reputation as a supporter of "democracy"; later (49) he becomes a quaestor with one of the leaders of the Roman democratic circles - with Caesar and is again introduced into the Senate. In the years civil war Sallust is in the ranks of the Caesarians, and after the end of hostilities he is appointed proconsul of the province of Africa nova. The management of this province enriched him so much that, returning to Rome after the death of Caesar, he was able to buy his villa and huge gardens, for a long time called Sallust. Upon his return to Rome, Sallust no longer engaged in political activities, but devoted himself entirely to historical research.

Sallust is the author of three historical works: "The Conspiracy of Catiline", "War with Jugurtha" and "History". The first two works, bearing the character of historical monographs, have come down to us in full, "History", covering the period from 78 to 66, has survived only in fragments. In addition, Sallust is credited - and with fairly serious reasons - with the authorship of two letters to Caesar "On the Structure of the State."

The political views of Sallust are quite complex. Of course, there is every reason to consider him as an exponent of the Roman "democratic" ideology, since his hatred of the nobility is clearly expressed, perhaps even growing. Thus, for example, the criticism of the Roman aristocracy and, in particular, its methods of governing the state in the "War with Jugurtha" (and according to some sources - in the "History") is sharper and more implacable than in the "Conspiracy of Catiline" (and in "Letters to Caesar "). However, the political ideal of Sallust is not distinguished by sufficient clarity and consistency in this sense. he is a supporter of a certain system of political balance based on the correct distribution of the functions of government between the Senate and the people. This correct distribution consists in the fact that the senate, with the help of its authority (auctoritas), should restrain, direct in a certain direction the strength and power of the people. Thus, the ideal state structure, according to Sallust, should rest on two mutually complementary sources (and bearers) of supreme power: the senate and the popular assembly.

Sallust, perhaps, can be considered one of the first representatives (along with Cornelius Sisenna and others) of Roman historiography of the period of its maturity. What are the basic attitudes of the historian? First of all, it should be noted that Sallust is usually regarded as the founder of a new genre - the historical monograph. Of course, his first historical works - "The Conspiracy of Catiline" and "War with Jugurtha" - may well be attributed (as already done above) to works of this genre, but it is also undoubted that the genre itself arose much earlier - it is enough to recall junior annalists, and then, to some extent, Caesar's monographs on the Gallic and civil wars.

In addition, the emergence of a new historical and literary genre (monographic, biographical, etc.) does not always imply a revision of the tasks or goals historical research. Sallust is perhaps the most striking example of this: having departed in the field of form (or genre) from the Roman annalists at a fairly considerable distance, he at the same time remains very close to them in his understanding of the tasks of the historian. So, he believes that the events of the history of Athens and the exploits of their political and military figures are glorified throughout the world solely due to the fact that the Athenians had outstanding historians with brilliant writing talents. The Romans, on the contrary, were not rich in them until now. Consequently, the task is to vividly and talentedly “write the history of the Roman people in parts that seemed to me memorable” (“Conspiracy of Catiline”, IV, 2). Since the choice of our author, after this statement, stops at the story of the Catiline conspiracy, then, apparently, events worthy of mention and attention of the historian may turn out to be not only feats or manifestations of valor, but also "unheard of crimes."

This consideration is further supported by the fact that, in addition to the narration of the Catiline conspiracy, the subject of another historical monograph by Sallust was the description of an equally significant event in the history of Rome - the “heavy and cruel” war with the Numidian king Jugurtha, a war that, by the way, for the first time and with stunning clarity revealed the decay, corruption and even open betrayal and betrayal of the ruling elite of Rome, that is, many prominent representatives of the Roman nobility.

Both of the most famous historical works of Sallust testify to the fact that their author attached great importance to the role of individuals in history. He does not deny the power of fate, fortune, but at the same time, after “long reflection”, he comes to the conclusion that “everything was achieved by the rare valor of a few citizens” (“Catilina’s Conspiracy”, LIII, 4). Therefore, it is not surprising that he pays great attention to the characteristics of historical figures. These characteristics, as a rule, are given vividly, colorfully, often in comparison, and play such a role in the development of the historical narrative that many researchers recognize Sallust, first of all, as a master of the historical portrait: one has only to recall the impressive image of Catiline himself, the famous comparative characteristics of Caesar and Cato, portraits -characteristics of Jugurtha, Metellus, Maria, etc. It goes without saying that the indicated feature of Sallust, as a writer and historian, is not at all accidental - it is in organic connection with his own declared general task of a colorful, talented presentation of historical events and phenomena.

If we follow the chronological sequence in the review of Roman historiography, then Sallust is followed by - among the authors presented in this book - Titus Livius. But a brief description of this famous historian has already been given above, so we will now focus on another no less glorious name - the name of Tacitus.

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55 - c. 120) is known to us only for his writings; Almost no biographical information has survived. We do not know for sure either the personal name of the historian (praenomen), or the dates of his life, or the family from which he came (probably the equestrian class), or the place of his birth (presumably Narbonne Gaul). It is only certain that he began his career and became famous as an orator, was married to the daughter of the commander Julius Agricola (whose life and deeds he described), under Emperor Titus he apparently took the position of quaestor (which opened access to the senatorial estate), in 97 (under Emperor Nerva) was consul, and in 112-113 proconsul in the province of Asia. That's all the more or less reliably known dates and events from the life of Tacitus - we don't even know the exact year of his death.

Although contemporaries of Tacitus (for example, Pliny the Younger) mentioned him as a famous orator, unfortunately, his speeches, samples of his eloquence, have not been preserved. It is possible that they were not published by the author at all. Also, in all likelihood, the early works of Tacitus have not come down to us; the same works of his that have been preserved were written by him already at a fairly mature age.

The works of the Roman historian that have come down to us are arranged in the following chronological order: “The Dialogue on Orators” (end of the 1st century AD), “On the Life and Character of Julius Agricola” (98 AD), “On the Origin and location of Germany "(98 AD) and, finally, the two most capital works of Tacitus "History" (c. 110 AD) and "Annals" (after 117 AD. These last have not come down to us in full: the first four books and the beginning of the fifth have been preserved from the History, the first six books (with lacunae) and books XI-XVI have survived from the Annals; in total, about half of the entire work has been preserved, which even in ancient times often considered as a single (and consisting of a total of thirty books.) And, indeed, both of the main historical works of Tacitus complement each other in a peculiar way: in the Annals, written, as we have just noted, later than the History, an exposition of earlier events - from 14 to 68 AD (the period of the reign of the emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero), while the "History" already describes the events of 69-96 years. n. e. (during the reign of the Flavian dynasty). Due to the loss of some of the books, the specified chronological framework is not fully maintained (in the manuscripts that have come down to us), but we have ancient evidence that both works of Tacitus actually gave a single and consistent presentation of the events of Roman history “from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian” (that is, from 14 to 96 AD).

As for the political views of Tacitus, they are perhaps the easiest to define negatively. Tacitus, in accordance with the state studies theories of antiquity, knows three main types of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, as well as the “perverted” forms corresponding to these main types. Strictly speaking, Tacitus does not give preference and even has a negative attitude towards all three types of government. The monarchy does not suit him, because there are no sufficiently reliable means to prevent its transition (“degeneration”) into tyranny. Hatred of tyranny permeates all the works of Tacitus, which gave Pushkin reason to call the Roman historian "the scourge of tyrants." Tacitus is very skeptical and, in fact, no less negative about the aristocratic "element" of the Roman state system, that is, the senate, in any case, the contemporary senate. He is sickened by the servility and subservience of senators to emperors, their "disgusting" flattery. He also has a very low opinion of the Roman people, by which Tacitus traditionally understands the population of Rome itself and about which he contemptuously says that “he has no other state concerns, except for the care of bread” (“History”, 4, 38), or that it "usually craves revolutions", but at the same time behaves too cowardly ("Annals", 15, 46).

Tacitus does not directly declare his political ideal anywhere, but, judging by some of his hints and indirect statements, this ideal lies in the past for him, appearing in somewhat vague and very embellished images of the ancient Roman Republic, when justice, virtue and equality of citizens. In this regard, Tacitus is not very original - the “golden age”, the heyday of Rome, attributed by some to a more, others to a less distant past (but always to the past!), This is a common place for a number of historical and philosophical constructions of antiquity. Moreover, the picture of the flourishing of the Roman state, the dominance of mores maiorum, etc., looks in Tacitus, perhaps even more pale, more general and vague than in some of his predecessors (for example, Sallust, Cicero). The political image of Tacitus was, in his time, very aptly defined by Engels, who considered him the last of the old Romans of the "patrician warehouse and way of thinking."

Tacitus is one of the most famous figures of Roman culture in the centuries. But, of course, this fame is deserved not so much by Tacitus the historian as by Tacitus the writer. He is an outstanding master of deploying and describing dramatic situations, his characteristic style, characterized by conciseness, asymmetric construction of sentences, his characteristics and digressions, the entire set of techniques of an experienced rhetorician and orator - all this turns the historian's narrative into an extremely tense, impressive and at the same time highly artistic story. . Such is Tacitus - writer, playwright. If we talk about Tacitus the historian, then he should be regarded as a typical phenomenon of Roman historiography: according to his “programmatic settings”, he should not be less, and perhaps even - due to the brilliant talent of the writer - should be attributed to a greater extent, like his famous predecessor Livy, to the representatives of the so-called artistic and didactic direction.

Like Livy, Tacitus believes that the main task of the historian is not to entertain or amuse the reader, but to instruct him, to benefit him. The historian must bring to light both good deeds and deeds, and "ugliness" - one for imitation, the other - for "shame in posterity." This moral and didactic attitude requires, above all, an eloquent presentation of events and impartiality (sine ira et studio - without anger and affection).

As for the analysis of the causes of the events he describes, Tacitus here does not go beyond the usual ideas and norms: in some cases, the cause is a whim of fate, in others - anger or, conversely, the mercy of the gods, events are often preceded by oracles, omens, etc. However, it cannot be said that Tacitus attached unconditional significance and himself unshakably believed both in the intervention of the gods and in all sorts of miracles and omens. Such explanations of the causes of historical events are rather habitually traditional in him, and involuntarily one gets the impression that the historian was not so much interested in and occupied with the analysis of causes, as with the opportunity to vividly, impressively and instructively portray the very events of political and military history Roman Empire.

A younger contemporary of Tacitus was Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 70 - c. 160). Information about his life is also extremely scarce. We do not know exactly either the year of birth or the year of death of Suetonius. He belonged to the equestrian class, his father was a legionary tribune. Suetonius grew up, apparently, in Rome and received the usual education for those times for a child from a wealthy family, that is, he graduated from a grammar school, and then a rhetorical school. Soon after that, he falls into the circle of Pliny the Younger, one of the centers of the cultural life of the then Rome. Pliny, right up to his death, patronized Suetonius and tried more than once to promote his military career, which, however, did not appeal to Suetonius; he preferred her advocacy and literary pursuits.

The accession in 117 to the throne of Emperor Hadrian marked a turning point in the fate and career of Suetonius. He was close to the court and enrolled in the department "for scientific affairs", then he was entrusted with the supervision of public libraries, and, finally, he was appointed to the high post of secretary of the emperor. These posts gave Suetonius access to the state archives, which he undoubtedly took advantage of for his scientific and literary pursuits. However, comparatively soon - in 122 - Suetonius, for reasons unclear to us, earned the emperor's disfavor and was dismissed from his post. This is where his court career ends, and the further life and fate of Suetonius are unknown to us, although he lived for quite a long time.

Suetonius was a very prolific writer. The titles of more than a dozen of his works have come down to us, although the works themselves have not been preserved. Their titles speak of the extraordinary breadth and versatility of Suetonius' interests; he was truly an encyclopedic scientist, continuing to some extent the line of Varro and Pliny the Elder. Of the writings of Suetonius, we currently have, strictly speaking, only one - the historical and biographical work "The Life of the Twelve Caesars", as well as more or less significant fragments from the work called "On Famous People" (mainly from the books "On Grammars and Rhetors" and "On Poets").

Thus, Suetonius appears before us as a historian, and a special direction or genre - biographical (more precisely, the genre of "rhetorical biography"). As a representative of the biographical genre in Rome, he had some predecessors (up to Varro), but their works are almost unknown to us, since they (with the exception of the work of Cornelius Nepos) have not survived to our time.

Suetonius, like Tacitus, nowhere expresses openly his political views and convictions, but they can be determined without much difficulty. He was an adherent of the “enlightened monarchy” theory, which was born in his time and even became fashionable. Therefore, he divides the emperors into "good" and "bad", being sure that the fate of the empire depends entirely on their evil or good will. An emperor qualifies as "good" above all if he treats the senate with respect, provides economic assistance to the general population, and if he - a new motive in the views of Roman historians - takes care of the welfare of the provinces. And although, along with this, Suetonius considers it his duty to "objectively" illuminate the personal properties and contradictory traits of each emperor, even the most unattractive, nevertheless he firmly believes in the divine origin of imperial power.

The "Life of the Twelve Caesars" gives biographies of the first emperors of Rome, starting with Julius Caesar (his biography has not come down to us in full, the very beginning is lost). All biographies are built according to a certain scheme, which Suetonius himself defines as follows: “not in the sequence of time, but in the sequence of objects” (“August”, 9). This sequence of “objects” is approximately as follows: a) the genealogy of the emperor, b) time and place of birth, c) childhood, all sorts of omens, d) a description of coming to power, e) a list of the most important events and activities during the reign, f) a description of appearance emperor, g) a description of character traits (literary tastes), and h) a description of the circumstances of death and the corresponding omens.

Suetonius, as has been repeatedly noted, was unlucky in the assessments of subsequent generations. As a historian, he was always overshadowed by the bright talent of Tacitus, as a biographer, of course, he was inferior to Plutarch. Suetonius has been repeatedly and rightly accused of isolating the statesmen he describes, pulling them out of the historical situation, that he pays great attention to trifles and details, omitting really important events, that he is, finally, superficial and strives only for naked entertainment.

All these reproaches, fair, perhaps, from the point of view of the modern reader, should hardly be presented to Suetonius himself and his era. His Life of the Twelve Caesars, even more than the works of Tacitus or the monographs of Sallust, has the character of a work of art, even a novel (which, as you know, does not require documentary accuracy!) And is oriented in this direction. Most likely, this work was perceived in Rome itself, and perhaps this was the secret of Suetonius' lifetime glory, a glory that his elder contemporary Tacitus could hardly boast of in those days.

The last historian, on brief description which we must stop, belongs not so much to the era of maturity and flourishing of Roman literature and, in particular, historiography, as to the era of its decline. This is generally the last major Roman historian - Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 330 - c. 400). We consider him - and this is generally accepted - a Roman historian, although it is known that he was Greek by origin.

The information that has been preserved about the life of Ammianus Marcellinus is extremely scarce. The year of the historian's birth can only be determined approximately, but more precisely, we know the place of his birth - the city of Antioch. He came from a fairly noble Greek family, so he received a thorough education. Ammianus Marcellinus spent many years in the army; his military career began in 353, and ten years later, in 363, he still participated in the campaigns of Julian. During his military service, he had to visit Mesopotamia, Italy, Gaul, it is also known that he visited Egypt and the Balkan Peninsula (Peloponnese, Thrace). Apparently, after the death of Emperor Jovian, he left military service and returned to his native city, then moved to Rome, where he took up his historical work.

This work was called "Acts" (Res gestae) and consisted of thirty-one books. Only books XIV-XXXI have come down to us, but according to the historian himself, it is known that the work as a whole covered the period of Roman history from the reign of Emperor Nerva (96) until the death of Valens (378). Thus, Ammianus Marcellinus, apparently quite consciously and "programmatically" acted as the successor of Tacitus and built his work to a large extent on the model of the "History" and "Annals".

The surviving books of the historical work of Ammianus Marcellinus are perhaps of the greatest value: they describe events from 352, that is, events contemporary to the historian himself, of which he was an observer or participant. The time of Julian is extremely detailed and brightly covered: his wars in Gaul and Germany, the break with Constantius, the struggle with the Persians and, finally, his death are described. A feature of the historical narrative of Ammianus Marcellinus can be considered the presence of numerous digressions and digressions of the most diverse content: sometimes this is information of a geographical nature, sometimes essays on morals, and sometimes even reasoning of a religious and philosophical persuasion.

Ammian's work is written in Latin (which gives, in the first place, the basis for referring its author to Roman historians and writers). It is possible that in the field of language (or style) Ammian considered himself a follower of Tacitus and tried to imitate him: his exposition is pathetic, colorful, even ornate; it is full of rhetorical embellishments in the spirit of complicated and pompous - the so-called "Asiatic" - eloquence. If at present such a manner of presentation seems artificial, unnatural, and the language of Ammianus, in the words of some modern researchers, is “a true torment for the reader”, then we should not forget that in the 4th century. n. e. it was precisely the Asian school of eloquence that triumphed and the views were still quite alive, according to which a certain kinship of methods of historical narration was declared, on the one hand, and oratory- with another.

Ammianus Marcellinus is a Roman writer and historian not only because he wrote in Latin. He is a true patriot of Rome, an admirer and admirer of his power, his greatness. As a military man, he glorifies the successes of Roman weapons, - as a historian and thinker, he bows before the "eternal" city. As for political sympathies, Ammianus is an unconditional supporter of the empire, but this is only natural: in his time, no one even thought about restoring the republican system.

The historian Ammian Marcellinus quite naturally (and, at the same time, quite worthy!) completes the circle of the most prominent representatives of Roman historiography. To some extent, he, like his chosen model, that is, Tacitus (see, for example, the Annals), according to the general plan for presenting historical material, returns almost to the ancient annalists. The genre of historical-monographic or historical-biographical was not perceived by him, he prefers to stick to the weather chronological presentation of events.

In general, in the guise of Ammianus Marcellinus as the last Roman historian, many characteristic features of Roman historiography as such intersect, techniques and attitudes typical of most Roman historians appear. This is primarily a Roman-patriotic attitude, which almost paradoxically completes its development in a historical work written by a Greek by origin. Then, this belief is not so much in the gods, which looked like in the 4th century. n. e. already somewhat “old-fashioned” (by the way, Ammianus is distinguished by features of religious tolerance even in relation to Christians!), how much faith in fate, fortune, combined, however, with no less faith (which is also typical!) in all sorts of miraculous signs and predictions.

And, finally, Ammianus Marcellinus, like all other Roman historians, belonged to the direction that we described above as artistic and didactic. As a representative of this particular trend, he sought in his work as a historian to embody two basic principles formulated by Sallust and Tacitus: impartiality (objectivity) and, at the same time, colorful presentation.

As for the objective presentation of events, Ammianus emphasized this principle more than once in his work, and, indeed, it should be recognized that even in the characteristics of historical figures and, in particular, his favorite hero, before whom he bowed, the emperor Julian, Ammian conscientiously listed both positive and negative traits. It is interesting to note that the historian considered the intentional silence about this or that important event an unacceptable deception of the reader, no less than groundless fiction (29, 1, 15). The brilliance of the presentation, from his point of view, was determined by the selection of facts (Ammian repeatedly emphasized the need to select precisely important events) and, of course, those rhetorical devices and "tricks" that he so generously used in his work.

Such is the image of the last Roman historian, who was at the same time the last representative of ancient historiography in general. For the Christian historiography that arose already in his time and developed in parallel, if it was repelled in its external methods from ancient models, then in its internal, ideological content was not only alien to it, but, as a rule, deeply hostile.

Prominent Roman Historians

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 particular 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. The Caesars charged the triumvirs (long before the burning of books at the stakes of Nazi Germany) to burn in the forum, where sentences are usually carried out, "the creations of these 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. 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 Priscus - 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 fame 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 teaching as a kind of path to goodness ... Disappointed by the impressions he had experienced from reality, 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, debauchery 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 and 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 its geographical position” (being on the borders of the empire, he is always ready to play on disagreements 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 speak 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 keep themselves completely out of 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", Lellii - 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, the author of the unique "General History" (forty books), is also an outstanding historian. 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 a detailed description of the Apennines, but Polybius' information 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 dialogues of a socio-philosophical content and treatises on rhetoric, but all of them, unfortunately, 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 order. 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, the combination of the talent of a great historian and a bright artist 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 other historian, 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, because the events in his writings 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, free from the need to justify his intellectual leisure, as Sallust did quite recently, gets the opportunity 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 aims to encourage the reader to think about the past life, customs 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 the 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 need them, 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 generals, nor citizens who turned to for examples to the ancients. Machiavelli is convinced that this is not so much due to the 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 charge him with allegedly immoral 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), "The Yugurtin War" (111-106 BC), as well as the "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 allow captivating presentation of the material. 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 sounds topical today. 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 it dominates, it is impossible to be in order either in private life, or in public, or in war, or in peace. An interesting thought, despite the general idealistic tone of the letters, lies in the idea of ​​giving way, as we would say, to small businesses. Commodity-money relations in society should be more healthy and moral: “Then all intermediaries will disappear from the face of the earth, and everyone will be content with their own means. This is a sure means leading to the fact that officials serve not the creditor, but the people.

Depictions of female figures from Herculaneum

In general, the history of the Ancient World, it turns out, is far from fully covered. With a strictly scientific approach, much in the history of knowledge and sciences, ideas and theories of the ancient world turns out to be unreliable or poorly documented. Among the Greeks and Romans, myth-making still reigns over knowledge. By the way, other reproaches of Spengler, which he throws against antiquity, are not without justice. So, he believes that the whole history of the Spartan state is an invention of the Hellenistic time, and the details given by Thucydides are more reminiscent of myth-making, Roman history before Hannibal contains many far-fetched moments, that Plato and Aristotle did not have any observatory at all, and the ancients held back science and persecuted (in the last years of the reign of Pericles in Athens, the popular assembly passed a law directed against astronomical theories). Thucydides, in the opinion of Spengler (very, by the way, lightweight), "would have failed already on the theme of the Persian wars, not to mention the general Greek or even Egyptian history." One could add to the list of examples he cites of the "anti-scientific approach of the ancients." Each of the current narrow specialists, of course, could present his account to the ancients. The historian will say, together with Mommsen, that colleagues talked about what should have been kept silent, wrote about things now uninteresting (campaigns and wars). The geographer will be dissatisfied with the stinginess of their geographical information. The ethnologist learns almost nothing about the life of the conquered peoples, etc., etc. But just as numerous streams, springs and rivers serve to create seas and oceans, so various sources fill the historical ocean.

Offering to Priapus. 1st century AD

There are even those who are dissatisfied with Tacitus. For example, Whipper reproached him for the fact that the historian saw in a significant part of the Roman people only a dirty mob (plebs sordida), spoiled by the circus, theaters or other spectacles. The author writes: “For Tacitus, there is no longer a “people” in the sense of a set of citizens with full rights and proud of their independence; the mass of the capital's inhabitants is divided into two groups - "clean" and "dirty", the old word "plebs" has become abusive in the mouths of people moving in government circles; but the compliment of "incorruptibility" is awarded only to those inhabitants of Rome who adjoin noble aristocratic houses, serve magnates and are dependent on them. Would any writer or orator have dared to speak of the Roman people in the time of the Gracchi or Marius in such a way! But then in Rome there were large popular assemblies, comitia and conventions, there was at least a semblance of political freedom, and now an unlimited monarchy has been established, "the people were silent." Tacitus has neither respect nor sympathy for the plebeians. In his eyes, the “rabble” seems to be always to blame, and at the moment she is being reproached for her depravity with the spectacles with which the tyrant and villain Nero spoiled her, and the enlightened and virtuous author forgets that the ruler idolized by him feeds the crowd with the same handouts and circuses Trajan. To reproach Tacitus for depicting the people as they are is not only a thankless task, but, frankly, absolutely unconstructive. After all, this is tantamount to as if we began to reproach our fellow citizens for trusting the scoundrels, who actually took everything from them without giving anything. Of course, the naivete and stupidity of the plebs can piss anyone off. But it would be better for the wise in regard to these greedy and vile gentlemen to follow the advice that sounds in the spirit of Juvenal: “There is no trust in persons” (Fronti nulla fides).

Dog on the floor of the Tragic Poet's house

Among the historians of Rome, we should also mention the names of two Plinies - the Elder and the Younger. Very little is known about them. Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79) was born in New Coma in northern Italy. He died while actively participating in rescue work during the eruption of Vesuvius. Pliny the Elder was not only a historian, but also a statesman, commander of the fleet in Mizena. Before, as expected, he served as a horseman in Lower and Upper Germany, in the Roman provinces on the left bank of the Rhine. Probably, he carried out military service together with the future princeps Titus, when he was still a military tribune, for he mentions their "companionship" (life in the same military tent). This is typical of almost all writing Romans. Everyone was obliged to serve in the army, which no one could pass by. Then he began to write his first works, of which only Natural History (Natural History) has survived. Pliny the Younger, who was his nephew, brought to us how this outstanding Roman worked. In his letter to Bebiy Makr, he says: “I am very pleased that you read and re-read the works of my uncle so diligently, you want to have them in full and ask them to list them ... You are surprised that there are so many volumes, often devoted to difficult and confusing questions, a busy man could finish. You will be even more surprised to learn that for some time he was engaged in judicial practice, he died in the fifty-sixth year, and during this interval both high positions and the friendship of princeps were an obstacle to him. But he was a man of sharp mind, incredible diligence and ability to stay awake. He began to work in the light immediately from the Volcanals - not by virtue of a sign, but for the sake of the lessons themselves, long before dawn: in winter from seven, at the latest from eight o'clock, often from six. He could fall asleep at any moment; sometimes sleep overcame him and left him in the middle of his studies. At dusk, he went to the emperor Vespasian, and then, returning home, he devoted the remaining time to studies. After the afternoon meal (light and simple food) in the summer, if there was time, he lay in the sun.

Atrium of a rich house. Pompeii

Pliny was read while he took notes and notes. Without extracts, he did not read anything and liked to say that there is no such bad book in which there is nothing useful. After lying in the sun, he usually doused himself with cold water, had a snack and slept a little. Then, as if starting a new day, he studied until lunch. At dinner I read and made quick notes. He valued his own time, as well as the time of the readers, and did not like it very much when they were interrupted. In the summer he rose from dinner before dark, in the winter with the onset of twilight - as if obeying some inviolable law. Such was his daily routine during city labors, in the midst of city troubles. In the village, he allowed himself to take time away from classes, usually only to visit his favorite bathhouse.

After accepting the procedure itself, when he was cleaned and wiped, he already listened to something or dictated. On the road, he completely devoted himself to books or writing: next to him was always a cursive writer with a book and a notebook. In winter, in order to be able to work constantly, he wore clothes with long sleeves that protected his hands from the cold. This made it possible, even in severe weather, not to waste a minute and practice. Probably for this reason, even in Rome, he preferred to use a stretcher when moving. Once he even reproached his nephew, Pliny the Younger, for allowing himself to waste time on walks (“you could not waste these hours for nothing”). He considered lost all the time given not to any useful pursuits, but to empty leisure. Thanks to such hard work, he completed so many books, leaving his nephew 160 notebooks covered with the smallest handwriting on both sides. Pliny the Younger admires his industriousness and perseverance and says that, compared to his uncle, he is “a lazy lazy”. And he adds: let those who “all their lives just sit at books” compare themselves with him, then they may blush with shame, for it will seem to them that they only did that they slept and messed around. His only work that has come down to us is usually called an encyclopedia. It really is such, if the concept of the present time is applied to it, although there were no encyclopedias as such in the era of antiquity (the term appears in cultural use only in the 16th century). Apparently, we should recognize his right and the title of "collector" of historical and scientific data and facts. Pliny the Elder collected a huge amount of material, scattered both in specialized and non-specialized literature. Like a historical mother hen, pecking grain after grain, he put it all into the womb of scientific knowledge... And even with regard to his description of ancient art, perhaps we can say that his work is “the only surviving ancient history of art, and most art critics and researchers use it as the most important source."

Small baths. Caldaria. Pompeii

Perhaps his creation was not a completely finished picture, a picture carefully written out, as if it were a canvas of the highest artist, but still, using his own definition (when he speaks of shields with the image of ancestors), we can firmly state: Pliny the Elder is quite worthy of being ranked among the ancient nest, from which many excellent masters and the most remarkable works of art of Renaissance Italy and medieval Europe will fly out in the future. This is just as true as the fact that future orators will draw examples of eloquence from the writings of Cicero, Isocrates, Varro, Quintilian, as they drew wisdom from Egypt and the Chaldeans.

This text is an introductory piece. From the book Ancient Rome author Mironov Vladimir Borisovich

Roman matrons: virtues and vices The history of Rome is, of course, primarily the history of men ... However, Roman women also played an important role in it. As we know, the history of the country began with the abduction of the Sabine women. Describe all aspects of being and raising women

From the book Everyday life of the nobility of Pushkin's time. Omens and superstitions. author Lavrentieva Elena Vladimirovna

Roman customs, way of life and everyday life How they spent free time? Let us turn to P. Giro's book "Life and customs of the ancient Romans." In Rome, the capital of a huge Empire, it was always noisy. Here you can see anyone - merchants, artisans, soldiers, scientists, a slave, a teacher,

Roman Gods In Rome, the twelve great Olympians became Romans. The influence of Greek art and literature there was so great that the ancient Roman deities acquired similarities with the corresponding Greek gods, and then completely merged with them.

From the book Dagestan shrines. Book Three author Shikhsaidov Amri Rzayevich

From the book of Lezgins. History, culture, traditions author

From the book of Avars. History, culture, traditions author Gadzhieva Madelena Narimanovna

From the book Bridge over the Abyss. Book 1. Commentary on Antiquity author Volkova Paola Dmitrievna

From the book How grandmother Ladoga and father Veliky Novgorod forced the Khazar girl Kyiv to be the mother of Russian cities author Averkov Stanislav Ivanovich

From the book Saga of the Great Steppe by Aji Murad

From book Medieval Europe. East and West author Team of authors

III. Roman masks It is well known that the influence, in the literal sense of the word, that Greek culture had on Rome. Philosophy, reading circle, theater, architecture. But Greek culture, grafted onto the Latin stem, was not popular, but elitist. Only in privileged

From the author's book

From the author's book

History and historians The museum is trying to climb into which the fortress is being turned. That's why the surviving bits of the past only increase the pain. Killed city. Tortured. Its restoration is carried out somehow, without the participation of science, without thinking about beauty and eternity, they see only earnings in the museum.

Page 1

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 particular 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. The Caesars charged the triumvirs (long before the burning of books at the stakes of Nazi Germany) to burn in the forum, where sentences are usually carried out, "the creations of these 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."

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. 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 Priscus - 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.

see also

Science and Politics. War and Peace
Ever since my studies of the ancient world assumed a conscious and independent character, it has been for me not quiet and distracting from modern life a museum, but a living part of the latest culture; ...

The collapse and fall of the Roman Empire
Like Cato the Censor, Tiberius also condemned the growing luxury of the nobility, which contributed to depravity, vices and effeminacy and exported to India and China in exchange for silk and precious stones.

Turkic peoples from the X century. BC e. according to the 5th century n. uh
World history testifies that there was not and could not be an ethnos originating from one ancestor. All ethnic groups have two or more ancestors, just as all people have a father and a mother, and this has been confirmed by many...