The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-09-09

NA.1NA - - 49,
them by tho direct favor Of the princeps.
A man by hAtur Of such sturdy sincerity
and integrity would not have persistently
accepted once under a regime Of which
he thoroughly disapprovod. Moreover In
what seems to have been the hrst pub
llshed work Of his that survives, the
Dialogue OF the Orators,' he draws q
picture Of the ancient republic which m
phasizes it's bad more than It's good features
and points out the pcrils OF that anarchy
which fools call freedom In the same
composition, he says, speaking OF the older
republic, which the principate had sup
planted, Rome was wasting away her
strength in party contentious; there was
neither peace In the Forum, nor concord
in the senate, nor regularity in Judgments.
nor respect for superiors, nor settled Iimita-
tions Of the power OF magistrates Taoitus
could see nothing there on which to look
back with regret; on the contrary, all things
| considered, his own epoch seemed to him
the happier. Affairs are better ordered
in II, il is no longer In ignorant mob that
rules; on tho contrary, so far at least as the
provinces are concerned, IL IL the wisest
who discharge the functions OF govern
ment, and the sovereignty OF n alone
assures public tranquility. In a word,
the author Of the Dialogue fully accepts
the Empire-we must bear IN mind, how
ever, that although We do not know when
that treatise was written he is ostensibly
speaking OF Vespasian's principate-and
mot only accepts it for himself but would
fain take with him those young men, in
famed by school successes, who dream
OF a great future. He Toes not conceal
from them the fact that under the Republic
their eloquence would have found worthier
subject matter and that there they might
have attained more brilliant political
fortunes, but at the same time he points
out what those fortunes cost, what dangers
il was needful to run in order TO chiev
them and what price Cicero paid for his
glory" On the whole Tscitus's conclusion
is that one would best take ones epoch as
one finds il and adapt oneself to it with a
good grace. ~Since it IL not possible TO
obtain at once great renown n tranquil
ease, let each enjoy the advantages OF the
age in which he lives without decrying
that in which he does not Here, M.
Boissier submits, are wisdom n modera-
ton in perfection. although nothing could
be more remote from the conception that
some people would offer us Of Tacitus.
How comes IL, then, that 30 many readers
rave misoonceived the attitude Of Tacitus
toward the principate, to the official service
Of which much il not most OF his adult
life had been devoted? 1t seems to us
that the conclusion ultimately reached
in the essay before us is well founded, the
conclusion, namely. that IL We look at his
work as a whole and not at q few isolated
passages Tacitus, alike in his History"
and in his Annals, " is in reality a moralist
rather than a politician. To be convinced
OF this M. Boissier suggests that we should
but note what specially g~ratifes the his
torian in the record Of the past, the subjects
to which he feels most attraction, which
he treats Of heartily and in great detail.
What he slurs over IL equally significant.
From the fact that he writes as a moralist
rather than as a statesman result great
beauties, but also regrettable acunR M.
Boissier mentions one OF the omissions
which seems to him to have grave conse-
quences. AT the end Of the prologue to
the History Tacitus speaks OF the prov
inces, and 1t would have been difficult TO
abstain from saying something about them
on that occasion, since the movement that
overthrow Nero proceeded from a province.
As a rule he is little concerned about them.
II Is Rome that attracts him and holds
him fast" Our essayist believes that had
Tacitus in actual life or in his narrative
made a longer stay in the provinces, had
he only consented TO study them from a
point nearer at hand and with more atten-
ton, the opinion which he expresses Of
his era would have been at least slightly
modified. He would have seen that there
that is to say, in the greater part Of the
Empire-the manner were simpler, the
life less dissolute than at Rome and in its
vicinity Corruption, indeed, seemed TO
decrease in the ratio Of the distance from
the great city. Italy already was worthier,
Gaul and Spain were better still; even the
least c~ommendsble prooonsuls despatched
thither, Petronius or Vitellius, improved
in the healthier atmosphere
Not only were the provinces more virtu-
GUS, they were happier. The catastrophes
which appalled, Roman society reacted
but feebly on the provinces. "A good
princeps profited the whole world, a bad
burdened only his neighbors.' The saying,
Of course. is one Of Tacitus's own; but, as
NJ. Boissier remarks, it is only an observa-
ton dropped in passing; it il not dwelt
upon enough. Tacitus ought to have
insisted on il further and occurred to it
more frequently; he would thus nave af-
fOrOed US q DeJUer comprehension OF now
it happens to-day that in the ancient Roman
provinces, in Gaul, in Spain, in Africa, we
come across so many erected
in all sincerity by private individuals and
municipalities for the salvation and pre-
~servation' Of the very Emperors against
whom conspiracies were being daily Matched
at Rome" An explanation OF this phe-
nomenon would have facilitated the solu-
ton Of a problem which obsesses the reader
Of the works OF Tacitus, aud to which, in
our essayist's opinion, he has given no
adequate response; the problem, namely.
how it came TO pass that the Empire could
survive the succession Of bad Emperors.
from Tiberius to Nero. Our authors solu-
ton is substantially that given by Momm-
sen. Evidently it was that the provinces
did not suffer so much as Rome. Those
princes, detestable as they were, and de-
tested by those Immediately around them.
did not govern the provinces badly. Ii
berius and Domitian were even good ad-
illustrators, who chose intelligent pro-
curators and legates, and kept an eye upon
them. Under madmen like CaliguIa and