Analysing Tacitus
A dive into commenting on Latin Prose
Tacitus is one of the greatest writers of the Roman period, and we're going to have a look at some of his best writing from Annals 15:38.
In my previous post I talked about Tacitus' life and why he's so important. You can find that post in the archive but I’ll just recap quickly.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus
He was an orator, a public speaker - hilarious, because his name Tacitus means “the quiet one”. He was a politician, and he was a fantastic historian, and that is why we know about him today: because of his writings.
Tacitus’ Writings
We have five of his works left. We have three Monographs, the Histories, and we have the Annals. If you want to know a bit about each of these, you can read about them more in my previous post.
The Annals are what we're going to look at today.
Tacitus’ Annals
It was published around AD 117 and it was originally called ab excessu divi Augsuti, which means “from the departure of the Divine Augustus”. So it begins after the death of Augustus in AD 14 and tells the history of Rome by year (annus = “year”, hence the name Annals). It goes all the way up to AD 68, and it's sort of a prequel to his work that he had earlier published called Histories, which goes from AD 69 onwards.
It covers the reigns of Emperor Tiberius, the second emperor who took over after Augustus's death, and it goes through the three other Julio-Claudian emperors (Caligula, Claudius, and Nero), all the way to Nero's death. We're going to have a look at an important event in Nero's reign in the bit we're looking at today.
The Annals was 16 books long, we think. We're not entirely sure because there are bits of various books missing, and we're not entirely certain that the 16th book is the last one, as the last half of it is missing, but it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that some of it survived. In fact, quite a lot of it survived, and it gives us a really good look into different parts of Roman history!
Annals: 15.38
We're going to look at Book 15, Section 38.
Quick note: when we talk about books in Latin texts, we often mean something about the length of a long chapter in a modern text. This is sort of “chapter 15, section 38” in terms of modern lengths, but we call it book because each one would probably have been written on a separate scroll. So this is the 15th scroll, part 38 of the Annals.
This section deals with the 19th of July, AD 64, and the really important event on this date is the Great Fire of Rome. This is during Nero's reign, and it was a complete disaster for parts of Rome. Much of Rome burned down.
Now Tacitus is very keen not to say anything about whose fault this fire is. He says who Nero blames, but just after the section we will look at, Tacitus also relates an interesting rumour that while the great fire of Rome was raging on, Nero was in his country estate singing a song about Troy. Troy was an ancient city that was burned to the ground, and in Rome after the fire Nero built a grand palace over much of the destroyed city. So areas that had been people's houses and shops became Nero’s golden palace.
Tacitus doesn't say anything explicitly about this link with singing about the destruction of Troy, but the impression here is that maybe Nero wasn't quite as upset as he should have been about a part of Rome burning down. There is in fact a hint of the idea that possibly Nero was slightly more involved in the Great Fire of Rome. Did he know the fire was going to start, and therefore sang about the destruction of Troy? Or was it a mere coincidence, or a later rumour spread by his enemies?
This is also, incidentally, where the slightly apocryphal phrase that “Nero fiddled while Rome burned” comes from. He definitely didn't, as violins and fiddles hadn’t been invented, but he possibly was singing or playing a lyre, and singing of the destruction of a great city, while in the distance, Rome was burning.
Section 38 analysis.
Let's have a look at some Latin. I’ll give each part, and my translation of it, and then underneath each small part I will analyse some aspects of the prose. When you comment on Latin prose, it's a bit different to Latin verse. You can't talk about word order. You have to talk more about style and technique.
sequiter clades, forte an dolo principis incertum (nam utrumque auctores prodidere), sed omnibus quae huic urbi per violentiam ignium acciderunt gravior atque atrocior.
A disaster followed, whether by chance or having been contrived by the emperor, it is uncertain (for authors have put forward both explanations), but of all the things that have happened to this city through the violence of fire, [it was] more serious and worse.
sequitur clades, this is how section 38 starts, “a disaster followed”. clades is quite a vague statement. It doesn't say what kind of disaster it was, and we have to wait for quite a long time to find out that it is ignium “fire” that is causing the problem. This is dramatic tension. Tacitus is heightening our expectation of what's coming. This is quite an emotive start to this section.
forte an dolo principis incertum: “whether by chance or having been contrived by the emperor”. Tacitus is putting forward both points of view. This is to create a sense of anticipation and a bit of intrigue. It could have been an accident, or it could have been contrived by the Emperor, by Nero. Then we get this bit in brackets,
nam utrumque auctores prodidere: “for authors have put forward both explanations”. Other authors, other people, not me. Tacitus is almost distancing himself from the blame. He is very careful not to say “I think it was Nero” or “I think it wasn't Nero”, he's just giving a very impartial view. He also doesn't give the names of which authors say which. So it's a very clever way of telling his readers that there are two different opinions, but he's not putting himself in the firing line for anyone who might be offended by this point of view.
omnibus quae huic urbi: “of all the things which have happened to the city”. omnibus quae, we still don't know what the disaster is. So this heightens the sense of tension. This section is all about raising the drama to make it more interesting for the reader. It's a history, so you have to give the really exciting parts to keep your readers entertained.
NB: huic urbi, that's Rome. It's often just called “the city” in Roman texts.
per violentiam ignium: “through the violence of fire”. Finally we understand what the disaster is. It's the Great Fire of Rome.
gravior atque atrocior. These are both comparatives, which means we are comparing this disaster with anything else that has happened by fire before, and this is “more serious and worse”. We don't necessarily need both of those words, one would have done. We call this stylistic choice pleonasm or tautology. It is giving more description than necessary to give more of a sense of drama.
initium in ea parte circi ortum quae Palatino Caelioque montibus contigua est, ubi per tabernas, quibus id mercimonium inerat quo flamma alitur, simul coeptus ignis et statim validus ac vento citus longitudinem circi corripuit.
It’s beginning started in that part of the Circus which joins the Palatine and Caelian hills, where, amidst the shops (in which there was merchandise which feeds flame) at the same time as the fire began it also at once was strong and fast because of the wind, it seized the whole length of the Circus.
In this section we get a snapshot of where the fire started and how it grew.
initium ortum: “its beginning began”. We don't need both those words, so this is tautology. It’s a technique being used to hone in right on that very beginning, almost as if a film director has zoomed in on one very specific bit before a great disaster. It might be the spark that we're looking at. So “it's beginning began” draws us in, and makes it very clear where we are in the story.
Palatino Caelioque montibus: Rome was built on Seven Hills. This is two of them. We get a location for start of the fire, between these two hills, in the Circus Maximus.
per tabernas: “amidst the shops”. This was quite a common thing in ancient Rome, there were fires because things were very close together, especially shops which might have had wine or other merchandise, which is what feeds the flames (quo flamma alitur). This is why the fire has started here. We're getting an explanation from Tacitus. He doesn't just say where it started. He explains it was in the shops, then describes that in those shops were things that made it worse. So there might have been clothing or fabric, there might have been wine, there might have been food stores, things that feed flames. So again, this is heightening this tension. We get more and more information about why the fire became so bad.
simul, statim. “at the same time” as the fire began, “at once” it was strong and quick. These are both temporal words, and both of them together heighten the sense of how quickly this happened, which adds to the drama.
validus ac vento citus: “it was strong and fast because of the wind”. These are two other things that make the fire so devastating. Tacitus gives us more and more information about why this fire was terrible. He's increasing the pathos, the sympathy, the emotion we have about this event
corripuit: “it seized” the whole length of the circus. The fire is almost being personified here. This almost gives us an enemy to target in our minds. We don't want the fire to succeed. This is a really clever way for Tacitus to bind his readers into the same headspace. We want Rome to beat the fire, and this almost makes it sound like an evil fire that is seizing the city. So it's a really interesting way for him to write about an inanimate thing (fire) which doesn't have a motive. corripuit is an incredibly emotive and dramatic verb, often used when talking about conquering armies seizing property, or tyrannical leaders seizing slaves.
longitudinem: “the whole length” gives us more descriptive information so we can try and picture the circus Maximus, the big chariot racing arena in Rome, completely on fire down the whole length of it (probably one side). Those shops that sold souvenirs and wine on race days have been completely engulfed.
neque enim domus munimentis saeptae vel templa muris cincta aut quid aliud morae interiacebat. impetu pervagatum incendium plana primum, deinde in edita adsurgens et rursus inferiora populando, antiit remedia velocitate mali et obnoxia urbe artis itineribus hucque et illuc flexis atque enormibus vicis, qualis vetus Roma fuit.
For here no houses enclosed by stone, nor temples ringed with walls, or any other delay was lying in the path [of the fire]. In fury the blaze spread through the flat ground at first, then surging to the hills, and again plundering the lower places, it surpassed any preventitive measures, so quick was the mischief and so exposed was the city with these narrow streets and those winding and irregular paths, as was the sort of Old Rome.
enim: “for”. enim is always a really good word to talk about because it means something's going to happen. It creates tension in the audience about what new disaster is coming.
neque… vel… aut: “no houses… nor temples… nor any other delay...” This is a tricolon (rule of three, triple, etc) of reasons why the fire kept spreading. The point is that the fire wouldn't have got the houses if they had stone areas surrounding them. Its the same with the temples. If they had stone walls, they wouldn't have been overcome by the fire. There were no other delays, nothing else to act as a firebreak. So he's giving us a tricolon of reasons that the fire kept spreading as fast as it did.
impetu: “in fury” the blaze spread. This is again personifying the fire. impetu gives it a sense of aggression. This fire's not going to stop.
plana primum, edita and inferiora. This is all about where the fire goes. So at first it's “the flat ground”, the plana primum (which is also alliterative, so you could talk about how that draws our attention directly to that bit). We start in the low areas because the Circus Maximus was in a low valley. Then it surges (adsurgens) to the edita, “the high points”, to the hills. So you can see the progression of the flames up the hill. And then again it plunders “the lower places”, the inferiora. Now that does mean lower places, but I suppose there's also the sense of the poorer districts. You can track the path of the fire because of how Tacitus has described it, rushing up and down the hills. He’s showing us the path the fire takes as it rages through the city. Lots of description to help us picture this disaster.
pervagatum, adsurgens, populando, antiit. This sentence is very full of movement verbs in quick succession, so you get the sense of speed of the fire.
artis intineribus hucque et illuc flexis atque enormibus vicis: “with these narrow streets and those winding and irregular paths”. This is the key. This is the important quality of Old Rome, vetus Roma. These types of streets are winding, they're narrow, so it's really easy for fire to spread across the way. If there were wide avenues, the fire might get to one side of the street, but wouldn't be able to cross the road and keep spreading. But because they're so small and so narrow and winding and built up it's very easy for the fire to spread. This also contains tautology. You don't need all those words to describe the streets. If Tacitus had just said it was narrow, you'd get the impression, but he's giving more and more description so that we get a really good view of these flexible, winding, really close and irregular streets.
Interestingly, Tacitus says vetus Roma - this was the quality of old Rome. This was the type of street we found in Old Rome. The implication is that we don't find these anymore in New Rome. We have had to rebuild. It's a bit of a tantalizing sense of the end of the story. The Romans are going to have to rebuild. So we get a bit of dramatic irony as we know more than the people who are in this part of history.
ad hoc lamenta paventium feminarum, fessa aetate aut rudis pueritiae aetas, quique sibi quique aliis consulebant, dum trahunt invalidos aut opperiuntur, pars mora, pars festinans, cuncta impediebant.
To this [was added] the wailing of terrified women, those worn out by age or inexperienced due to the age of youth, those who were saving themselves and those saving others, while dragging the sick or waiting for them, partially by delay, partially by hurrying, everything was entangled.
Tacitus is drawing in more senses for his audience to flesh out their picture of the scene, which is really good to heighten the sense of drama and to make you feel like you're really there to make you feel very present in the situation.
ad hoc lamenta: “to this was added wailing”. So this is in addition to all the problems with the fire. Tacitus tells us who you can hear. First, we get a tricolon of vulnerable people who are being affected by the fire. So the terrified women (paventium feminarum), those weary because they’re old (fessa aetate) and the inexperienced young (rudis pueritiae aetas). This gives a sense of the human cost of this fire. Tacitus is trying to evoke our pity and emotions for these people by telling us a bit more about them.
quique sibi quique aliis. Next we have “those who are saving themselves”, and “those who are saving others”. There's no judgment here about which one is which, but we have a really nice repeated pattern here, with the added contrast of sibi and aliis.
Then we have three really interesting verbs. consulebant “saving”, trahunt “dragging” and opperiuntur “waiting for”. Three different actions taking place in a really short space of time. So we get this sense of this crowd. Some people are actively saving others, some have already saved them and are dragging them along behind them. And some people are waiting because they've lost family or friends.
pars mora, pars festinans: “partially by delay, partially by hurrying”. With the repeated use of pars to draw our attention to how different groups are acting.
And this all adds to the sense of cuncta impediebant. This is the most important part. “Everything was entangled”. Everyone was getting in each other's way in the panic that is being caused by the fire. So all these stylistic and linguistic choices add to the dramatic motion and the human events of the fire. We've had the impartial bit about how the fire raged up and down in the city, but now we're looking at the people that this is affecting. Tacitus has really cleverly done this. He's given us an almost cinematic view of the fire, and now we've zoomed in onto one street and we can see how this is affecting the real people.
et saepe dum in tergum respectant lateribus aut fronte circumveniebantur, vel si in proxima evaserant, illis quoque igni correptis, etiam quae longinqua crediderant in eodem casu reperiebant.
And often while they were looking behind them, they were surrounded [by flames] at the sides or in front, or if they had escaped to somewhere nearby, when these places too were seized by the fire, even those places which they had believed were far removed, they discovered in the same misfortune.
Now Tacitus is talking about the people trying to escape and finding nowhere is safe from the flames.
in tergam respectant: “looking behind them”. lateribus and fronte mean “at the sides” and “in front”. So while they're looking behind them, the fire has gone down different paths and has cut off their escape route. They see the flames ahead of them or to the side, and it's almost snuck up on them. This is again the idea of the personification of the flames with circumveniebantur “they were surrounded”. The flames are almost like an evil presence.
si evaserant: “if they had escaped”. evaserant is a pluperfect verb. In analysing prose, you can talk about the tenses of verbs if they make a really interesting point. Often it’s the historic present tense, as above (respectant) but here I'm going to talk about the pluperfect. Here, if they had escaped, they have a very slight brief moment of light, of hope. If they had escaped to somewhere nearby, proxima. However, the implication with si + the pluperfect is that even if they had escaped, they aren't going to have escaped for very long.
illis and quae: “these places” and “those places”. We have a little contrast here. Even the ones that they think are so far away and must be safe are not going to be an escape route.
crediderant is also pluperfect. Even those places which “they had believed” were far enough removed, indicates they were soon disenchanted of that idea. longinque gives us that sense of distance. longina gives us the word long in English.
eodem casu: “in the same misfortune”. Tacitus doesn't need to say the word fire again. He's used it before, igni correptis. He knows we will remember what the misfortune is, and by not naming it he almost heightens our fear of the fire. We've also got that correptis verb again. We had it before with corripuit, now “it has been seized by fire” and they find all the other parts in the same misfortune.
I hope you can see from this post that this a very emotive and dramatic reading of the fire of Rome.
Pointers for Analysing Prose
When you are analysing Latin prose there are some really key things to think about:
Description.
How much description is being used? How clearly can you visualize what is being said?
Repetition or Alliteration. These things draw your attention to a specific point, so talk about it.
Personification. Giving inanimate things human characteristics is an excellent technique to manipulate the emotions of an audience. In this case, the fire has been personified. How does it make you feel?
Senses. If any other senses are drawn into the story, it’s for a reason. A really great one for prose is direct speech. We didn't have any in this passage, but we talked about the wails of the women. Tacitus could have talked about the burning smell. Using sensory descriptions that bring a reader into the very moment that you are describing make narrative history really interesting.
So that's analysing Tacitus! It's a great section of the Annals. I would recommend you especially read the Nero section of Tacitus' Annals, and maybe the Tiberius bit as well.
If you would like to get to the point where you can read this in the original Latin on your own, then why not start by watching my free Latin workshop where you can learn the basics in just one hour. You also get all my free guides, so it's a really great way to start your Latin journey and eventually read Tacitus on your own in Latin!
I hope you've enjoyed this analysing Tacitus post! If you want me to do any other authors, let me know. If you didn't see my Analysing Virgil’s Aeneid post, you can find that here in the archive, and I'll see you next time on bambasbat!