In this era of "post-truth", the "Tacitus Trap" became a hot concept for a while. Baidu Encyclopedia explains it like this: "(It) in layman's terms means that when a government department loses credibility, whether it is telling the truth or lying, doing good or bad, it will be considered to be lying and doing bad."
Putting aside the debate that has been raging in recent days, we may find a history of the political changes in the Roman Empire behind this word. Publius Cornelius Tacitus, born in 56 AD and died in 120 AD, was an ancient Roman historian. He was actively involved in imperial politics in his early years and became a Roman consul in 97 AD. At the end of his political career he began writing biographies and history books, the most famous of which were Historiae and Annales. However, neither Tacitus himself nor the scholars who studied Tacitus in the future have ever proposed the concept of the "Tacitus Trap". Where exactly did the term come from?
The source of the "Tacitus Trap" is a passage from the first chapter of history, verse seven: "When a ruler has become unpopular, whatever he does, for better or worse, will not be accepted." (ceterum utraque caedes sinistre accepta, et inviso semel principi seu bene seu male facta parem invidiam adferebant.) "The "ruler" mentioned here means principi in the original Latin text, meaning the first speaker in the Senate, in this case referring specifically to the emperor of the Roman Empire. If we replace the "emperor" in the original text with "government" today, then we will change the subject of Tacitus's narrative, and we will not be able to understand the meaning he really wants to express. To understand Tacitus' original meaning, we need to return to the origins of the Roman emperor system.
<h3>The Struggle Between Nobles and Commoners: The Main Thread of Roman Politics</h3>
The Roman "emperor" was not a concept that appeared out of thin air, and it was different from the emperor as we understand it today. It is a political product of Rome after seven hundred years of royal and republican history, and it is the solution to the social problems of these two historical periods.
Legend has it that Romulus, the father of Rome, after becoming the first king, chose a hundred men as his courtiers, the prototype of the Senate. This hundred were known as patris, and they were the ancestors of the later Roman nobility (patricius). The rest of Rome's population was called plebs. In 509 BC, the aristocrat Lucius Junius Brutus led the Roman people against the tyrant's royal system to establish the Roman Republic, and each year the Comitia Centuriata elected two consuls to exercise rome's highest executive, legislative and judicial powers. But voting to produce senior government officials is not one person, one vote, but rather all citizens divided into different groups according to the degree of income, with only one vote per income group, regardless of the number of people. Thus, populous commoners held far fewer votes than the small but high-income nobles. Early republics stipulated that high-ranking government officials could only be held by nobles, so the so-called republic was actually an oligarchy of minorities.
The first clash between nobles and commoners took place in 494 BC. That year Rome was at war with the surrounding city-states, but the civilian army refused to participate in the war, but instead put forward the political demands of civilians to run for high-ranking government officials. At this time, the Senate, composed of nobles, ensured the smooth progress of the war and established tribunus plebis (tribunus plebis) who could only be elected by civilians. Although the original protector had the right to convene a commoner's assembly and had a veto right over the decrees of the Senate, he could only make decrees that affected the commoners, so he still did not break the monopoly of the nobility in the decision-making bodies.
From the fifth century BC onwards, Rome continued to acquire new territories in the war to defend against foreign invasions, and the division of land intensified the contradictions between nobles and commoners. For example, in 486 BC, the consul Spurius Cassius Viscellinus tried to distribute the land cut up during the war to civilians and allies, but was strongly opposed by the aristocracy. In 471 BC, the commoners succeeded in securing the right to vote for the protectors, who were elected by the comitia populi tributa. The tribal assembly was based on geographically divided constituencies, with one vote per constituency, protecting the interests of a large number of civilians.
In 445 BC, the commoners proposed to run for consul, which was strongly opposed by the Senate. As a result of the compromise between the two sides, a tribuni militares consulari potestate (tribuni militares consulari potestate) was created to enter the decision-making body of the government. Since then, the commoners, led by generations of protectors, have slowly expanded their right to participate in politics, and by the end of the fourth century BC, the commoners have been able to hold basically all the positions in the decision-making bodies.
The aristocratic and commoner conflicts of this period did not shake the political foundations of the republic enough. However, as the crisis widened, the Roman republican system gradually slid towards imperial system.
<h3>From Struggle to Imperialism: How the Roman Republic Went to Empire</h3>
In the third century BC, a series of wars took place that greatly affected the republican system, and the most important turning point was the Second Punic War with Carthage. The war was so costly that the four legions established since the beginning of the Republic were completely unable to cope with the seventeen-year war. It should be noted that the previous Roman military system was a compulsory military system, and only Roman citizens with certain assets could join the army, which was a special tax system of the republic - the commoners basically did not pay taxes, the nobles provided money and goods, and the civilians provided military and political support for the nobles. The gap between rich and poor was small during this period, so even as plebeians continued to try to enter the decision-making apparatus, the Roman Republic remained in the hands of a small number of nobles.
The great demand for troops in the Second Punic War caused almost all male Roman citizens, even many teenagers, to abandon farming and go to the battlefield. The loss of a large number of male servants by commoner families had no choice but to sell their land to merchants and nobles at low prices. Although merchants and nobles also had to provide soldiers according to the number of assets, they also had many slaves who were not allowed to join the army to continue farming. Thus, after the end of the Second Punic War, the gap between the rich and the poor in the Roman Republic became wider and wider, and the main force in the war, the middle-class self-cultivators, became smaller and smaller.
After the war, thousands of veterans had no land to cultivate, and their wages were not competitive with those of slaves, so unemployment became the first trigger for the chaos of the last period of the Roman Republic. Although the number of private landowners had been limited as early as the Licinian Act, the nobility could continue to acquire and lease large amounts of land in the name of relatives. When Tiberius Gracchus was elected protector in 133 BC, the first thing he did was to legislate the repossession of state-owned land in the hands of the magnates and attempt to redistribute it to unemployed peasants. Tiberius also intended to distribute all the taxes of the newly conquered provinces to the unemployed civilians as their "reemployment fund". Tiberius' approach was directly in touch with the interests of the nobility, and he became the victim of the first violence in Rome after 509 BC, and was killed in the streets of Rome along with more than three hundred of his supporters. Ten years later, his brother Gaius Gracchus was persecuted to death along with his 3,000 supporters in order to fulfill his brother's legacy and consolidate land reform. The politics of Rome as a whole remained in the hands of the nobility, and no one or group could really endanger the interests of the nobility.
In 107 BC, Gaius Marius became consul and implemented military reforms, abolishing the compulsory military system that Rome had insisted on for many years and replacing it with a voluntary military system. The voluntary military system solves the problem of unemployment to some extent, because unemployed civilians can earn remuneration by serving as soldiers and there is no longer a threshold for assets. The establishment of the voluntary military system made the army begin to become personal. Soldiers were chosen to enlist based on their remuneration and the general's ability, which also fueled the Roman Civil War for nearly seven decades. Beginning with the voluntary military system, the intersection between civilians and the military has become increasing. The nobles still did not have to go to the front line in person, but the commoners realized that large-scale participation in the army allowed the civilians to take the initiative in the political game and have the power to truly compete directly with the nobles.
If Malleus's reform of the military system was the trigger for the demise of the Roman Republic, julius Caesar's victory and reform formally sentenced the Republic to death. In 49 BC, upon learning that Caesar had crossed the Rubicon River with his elite legions, Pompey, the leader of the aristocratic faction supported by the elders, fled to the land. Caesar also once again cemented his position in the minds of the civilians in this brief civil war. Caesar, who belonged to the commoner faction with Malleus, began a large-scale reorganization of the aristocratic Senate, further weakening the aristocracy by installing supporters of the plebeian faction into the Senate, expanding the number from 600 to 900. However, Caesar's reforms were unusually radical, sparking fears of a restoration of the monarchy, and a group of senators later known as liberals stabbed Caesar to death at a rally, but the rebellion was like the last straw that crushed the camel and completely destroyed hope of maintaining the republic. The angry plebeian class did not support their actions, and Caesar's legions successively declared allegiance to the only heir in Caesar's will, the young Octavian. He gained Caesar's army, fame, and wealth, easily defeated his political rival Mark Antoni, and was awarded the title of "Augustus" by the Senate in 27 BC, becoming the first emperor of the Julius Claudius dynasty of the Roman Empire.
From Caesar to Octavian, the birth of the Roman imperial system had a lot to do with the support of the commoners. However, the stability of the imperial system stemmed precisely from its ability to balance the contradictions between the commoners and the nobility.
<h3>The "good emperor" and "bad emperor" in the eyes of the Romans</h3>
The emperors of Rome are different from the emperors of ancient China. Roman emperors were never born, and they needed to win the trust of their predecessors and senators through their political and military achievements in order to gain the succession rights of their predecessors. On the one hand, Augustus, who had been granted the titleps of Rome by the Senate, organized a cabinet elected by the Senate for most of the participants, casting himself as the leader and spokesman of the Senate; on the other hand, Augustus, who had all the powers of the protectors, could speak directly with the plebeians by convening a general meeting of the commoners; in addition, he was also the supreme commander of the Roman army (Imperator), commanding 15 powerful Roman legions in all provinces. Although the final effect was still a real monarchy, in Augustus's own words: "Although my prestige is above that of all men, my power has never surpassed that of any of my colleagues." Thus, nominally, the Roman Empire was characterized by the use of the imperial system to balance the conflict between the nobility and the plebeians—the core of the republic's society for 700 years—to maintain a "Senatus Populusque Romanus" (Senator and People's Rome), and the history of the republic came to an end.
Although Augustus did have supreme power, the most powerful instrument of his rule was his authority. In the face of different political forces, when an emperor loses his prestige, his fate will be very bleak. How the previous emperor chose an heir who would not lose his prestige was even more difficult to solve. During the Julian-Claudite dynasty, the choice of emperor's heir came from the fact that each emperor of Kai chose a young man from his relatives earlier, adopted him as an adopted son, and became the future emperor. However, although such a system similar to the Zen system can guarantee to a certain extent that the emperor is not a person without political experience, it is difficult to erase the risk of becoming a "bad emperor".
Tacitus has a very brilliant view of this. He dates back to the "Year of the Four Emperors", the year after Nero's death in '68-69, during which Rome experienced four emperors. The careers of these four confirmed the influence of the Romans and the army on the emperor, and the importance of "prestige" was reflected in it.
Nero was the fifth emperor of the Roman Empire and the last emperor of the Julian-Claudian Dynasty. He was not a mediocre man, and would use most of the tax, which belonged to the emperor's private ownership, for theatrical festivals and gladiator competitions; but such an "artist emperor" was completely denied by the Senate after his death by passing a bill to "erase memories" (damnatio memoriae). The real damage to Nero's prestige was the fire that swept through the city of Rome in 64 AD.
According to Tacitus, the fire began with flammable goods in shops and spread rapidly along the arena range between the Sirrio and Palatine mountains. Because there are no large stone temples or open spaces here, the dense and low ordinary houses are basically wooden structures, coupled with the strong winds between the valleys, the fire is out of control, and once burned to two mountains. Most later Roman historians believed that it was man-made arson, and the mastermind was none other than the emperor Nero. Both Cassius Dio and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus claim that Nero was playing the harp in his palace on the top of his hill while watching the fire spread. One theory of Nero's motives is that he wanted to build his own Domus Aurea, but because the emperor had no right to occupy the private property of the Romans, he set fire to the area; another theory is that Nero, in order to drive out the unpopular Christians in the city, claimed that the fire was caused by Christians, and thus began the first collective persecution of Christians, expelling a large number of people from the city.
This fire was not necessarily the direct trigger for Nero's suicide by the rebels 4 years later, but the people's hatred of Nero deepened, which eventually led to the rebellion led by other provincial governors to eliminate the tyrant.
Servius Sulpicius Galba Caesar Augustus, who succeeded nero after his death, was one of the rebels in the governorship of the province, and he was conferred the title of emperor by the Senate on 9 June 68. In order to secure his power, he levied high taxes on provinces that did not recognize him in time as emperor, executed political opponents several times without trial, and rarely accepted applications for Roman citizenship. Since Garba did not fulfill the additional reward promised to the Guards, his political enemies easily bribed the Guards, who killed Garba on the Roman Forum on January 15, 69. On the same day, the Senate recognized Otto as the 7th Emperor of the Roman Empire. Although described by Tacitus as a greedy careerist, Otto did not have too many deeds of brutal rule, but intended to restore peace and restore order. However, another local governor, Vitellius, uncompromisingly waged a civil war for the throne, and Otto ended his life in the early morning of April 16, 69 AD. Vitellius became the eighth emperor of the Roman Empire.
There are few positive reviews of Vitellius, portraying him as a cruel monarch who overeats. Vitellius, who borrowed money for a banquet, tortured and executed his creditors, invited his political enemies or opponents to negotiate and murdered him. Meanwhile, the army of Egypt, Judea, and the syrian provinces announced that the emperor Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, after leading his army into the city of Rome, had his soldiers knock Vitryus to death on the steps of the cliff side of the Collis Capitolinus, a well-known execution site in Rome. The day after Vitellius' death, on December 21, 69 AD, the Senate officially recognized Vespasian as the 9th Emperor of the Roman Empire, ending the year of the Four Emperors.
The text in "Tacitus' Trap" comes from his chapter about Garba, but Tacitus is not just evaluating Garba. In the Historia and later Chronicles, Tacitus never skimped on his criticism of all the emperors, and rather than judging Garba, he expressed his attitude toward the imperial government with the help of words. He was evaluating the past and warning all the future emperors, telling them not to have any intention of harming Rome and the Roman people, otherwise the Roman people would not let the emperor do whatever he did. Thus, the Roman people, who still retained the memory of the Republic, had not forgotten their method of dealing with the "bad emperors." Of the 70 emperors in the many years of the Roman Empire's three kingdoms, only 20 died of natural causes, and the remaining emperors were either assassinated, executed, forced to commit suicide or died on the battlefield.
Returning to Tacitus' judgment, when he says that "when the ruler has become unpopular, everything he does will not be accepted, good or bad," he is not criticizing the people's irrational attitude towards the emperor that makes the emperor's "good deeds" look bad, and even if he thinks that the "emperor" in the original text refers to Garba, he does not see that Tacitus has much sympathy for such an incompetent emperor. Tacitus supported the imperial system, and he hoped that the emperor would have enough power to form prestige and maintain Rome's imperial form. However, as an inevitable result of the expansion of the republic, the imperial system of the Roman Empire was an important tool for dissolving internal class conflicts and maintaining centralized rule over the vast empire. The real "masters" of the empire were probably the nobles and commoners who had carved up the interests of aggression and expansion together—the two classes that eventually blurred and dissolved together under the name "Roman people."
……………………………………
Welcome to find us on Weibo, please click here.
You can also pay attention to our WeChat public account "Interface Culture" [ID: BooksAndFun]