Narrative works as the most important source on Roman history. Roman historians Famous Roman historians

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

History and historians The museum into which the fortress is being turned is trying to rise. That’s why the surviving bits of the past only intensify the pain. A murdered city. Tormented. Its restoration is being carried out haphazardly, without the participation of science, without thinking about beauty and eternity; the museum sees only income.

The proposed book should give the reader an idea of ​​ancient Roman historiography in its most striking and characteristic examples, that is, in relevant (and quite 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, it is perhaps advisable to preface acquaintance with their works with at least a very cursory overview of the development of Roman historiography, identifying its main trends, as well as brief characteristics and assessment of the activities of the most outstanding Roman historians, extracts from whose works the reader will find in this volume. But in order to grasp 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 characteristics of the spiritual life of Roman society (from approximately the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD).

The widespread thesis about the close kinship or even unity of the Greco-Roman world, perhaps, finds no clearer confirmation in anything than in the fact of proximity and mutual influence of cultures. But what do we usually mean when we talk about “mutual influence”? What is the nature of this process? Greek culture rhetorician annalistics

It is usually believed that Greek (or, more broadly, Hellenistic) culture, as a “higher” culture, fertilized the Roman one, and the latter is thereby recognized as both dependent and eclectic. No less often - and, in our opinion, just as wrongfully - the penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome is depicted as “the conquest of its stern conqueror by defeated Greece,” a peaceful, “bloodless” conquest that did not encounter 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.

Individual facts proving the penetration of Greek culture into Rome can also be discussed in relation to the so-called “royal period” and the period of the early republic. If you believe Livy, then in the middle of the 5th century a special delegation was sent from Rome to Athens in order to “copy the laws of Solon and learn the institutions, customs and rights of other Greek states” (3, 31). But still, in those days we could talk only about scattered and isolated examples - we can talk about the systematic and ever-increasing influence of Hellenistic culture and ideology, bearing in mind already the era when the Romans, after the victory over Pyrrhus, subjugated the Greek cities Southern Italy (that is, the so-called “Magna Graecia”),

In the 3rd century, especially in its second half, the Greek language spread among the upper strata of Roman society, knowledge of which soon became a sign of “good taste.” Numerous examples demonstrate this. At the beginning of the 3rd century, Quintus Ogulnius, the head of the embassy in Epidaurus, mastered the Greek language. In the second half of the 3rd century, the early Roman annalists Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus - more about them later - wrote their works in Greek. In the 2nd century, most senators spoke Greek. Ducius Aemilius Paulus was already a true 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 Rhodian embassy, ​​gave a speech to the Senate in his native language, the senators did not need a translator. Cicero was known to be fluent in Greek; Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony, and Octavian Augustus knew him no less well.

Along with the language, Hellenistic education also penetrates into Rome. The great Greek writers were well known. For example, it is known that Scipio reacted to the news of the death of Tiberius Gracchus with the verses of Homer. It is also known that Pompey’s last phrase, addressed to his wife and son a few minutes before his tragic death, was a quote 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 about “higher education”. The number of Romans who are seriously interested in philosophy and adhere to one or another philosophical school is increasing: such are, say, Lucretius - a follower of Epicureanism, Cato the Younger - an adherent not only in theory, but also in practice of Stoic teaching, Nigidius Figulus - a representative of the emerging that time of neo-Pythagoreanism and, finally, Cicero - an eclectic 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. A whole series of “intelligent” professions were, as it were, monopolized by the Greeks. Moreover, it should be noted that among the representatives of these professions there were often slaves. These were, as a rule, actors, teachers, grammarians, rhetoricians, and doctors. The layer of slave intelligentsia in Rome - especially in the last years of the republic - was numerous, and the contribution it made to the creation of Roman culture was very noticeable.

Certain circles of the Roman nobility willingly accommodated Hellenistic influences, valued their reputation in Greece, and even pursued a patronizing “philhellenic” policy. For example, the famous Titus Quinctius Flamininus, who proclaimed the freedom of Greece at the Isthmian Games of 196, was accused of almost treason against the state interests of Rome when he yielded to the demands of the Aetolians and, contrary to the decision of the Senate commission, freed such important strongholds from Roman garrisons, like Corinth, Chalcis, Demetrias (Plutarch, Titus Quinctius, 10). Subsequently, the philhellenic sentiments of individual representatives of the Roman nobility pushed them to even more unusual and unacceptable actions from the point of view of an “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 fact: he emphasized his commitment 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 Panaetius, during his exile took citizenship of Smyrna and then rejected the offer made to him to return to Rome. The last act was regarded by old Roman customs and tradition not so much as treason, but rather as blasphemy.

These are some facts and examples of the penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome. However, it would be completely incorrect to portray these influences as “purely Greek.” The historical period we are referring to was the Hellenistic era, hence "classical" Greek culture underwent major internal changes and was largely Orientalized. Therefore, the cultural influences of the East begin to penetrate into Rome - first, still through the Greeks, and then, after the establishment of the Romans in Asia Minor, in a more direct way.

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. Official recognition of soterpological symbols occurs during 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 sentiments. Ideas of this kind penetrate into Rome, where they merge with Etruscan eschatology, which may also have Eastern origins. These ideas and sentiments become especially relevant during years of major social upheaval (the dictatorship of Sulla, civil wars before and after the death of Caesar). All this indicates that eschatological and messianistic 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 a kind of connecting link, an intermediate environment between “pure antiquity” and “pure East”. Such are Orphism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and at a later time Neoplatonism. Reflecting to some extent the aspirations of broad sections of the population, especially the politically disenfranchised masses of non-citizens who flooded Rome at that time (and were very often immigrants from the same East), such sentiments and trends are more “ high level“resulted in such historical facts as, for example, the activities of the above-mentioned Nigidius Figulus, a friend of Cicero, who can be considered one of the earliest representatives of neo-Pythagoreanism in Rome, with its very definite oriental coloring. It is no less well known how strong oriental motifs were in Virgil’s work. 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 everything said above, from the examples and facts given, 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 this 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 determination of the ideological values ​​of such a distant era is hardly possible. Perhaps only an analysis of some rudiments of ancient polis morality can give an approximate and, of course, far from complete idea of ​​this ideological environment.

Cicero said: our ancestors always followed tradition in peacetime, and benefit in war. (“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 the Rome polis did not at all coincide 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 not list or define these virtutes, we will only say that what was required of a Roman citizen was not that he possess this or that valor (for example, courage, dignity, fortitude, etc.), but necessarily “ a 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 framework of 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 the creator of the literary genre of satire, Gaius Lucilius:

One must first think about the highest good of the fatherland,

Then about the good of our 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 community among people, for example, community of language or origin. But the closest, closest and dearest connection is the one that 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 certainly outlive each individual person. Therefore, the interests of this individual always take a back seat to 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, and distinction on its fellow member. Therefore, virtus cannot exist in isolation from Roman public life or be independent of the verdict of fellow citizens. The contents of the oldest inscriptions (from those that have come down to us on the tombs of the Scipios) perfectly illustrate this position (a listing of virtutes and acts in the name of the res publica, supported by the opinions of members of the community).

While these norms and maxims of ancient Roman polis morality were alive, the penetration of foreign influences into Rome was not at all easy and not 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 especially Eastern culture, as a struggle to master it, or rather, even overcome it.

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

Nova flagitia meant a whole “set” of vices (no less numerous and varied than the list of virtues at one time), but in the first place were, undoubtedly, vices allegedly brought from a foreign land to Rome, such as self-interest and greed (avaritia), desire for luxury (luxuria), vanity (ambitus). The penetration of even just these vices into Roman society was, according to Cato, main reason the decline of morals, and consequently the power of Rome. By the way, if countless virtues were united by a common and single core, namely the interests, the good of the state, then all the flagitia that Cato fought against can be reduced to the single desire underlying them - the desire to satisfy purely personal interests, which take precedence over civil and public interests. This contradiction already reveals the first (but quite convincing) signs of the weakening of ancient moral foundations. Thus, Cato can be considered the founder of the theory of the decline of morals, in its explicitly political interpretation. By the way, this theory played a significant 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, sometimes even administrative measures were taken. So, for example, we know that in 161 a group of philosophers and rhetoricians was expelled from Rome, in 155 the same Cato proposed removing an embassy consisting of philosophers, and even in the 90s there was mention of an unfriendly attitude towards rhetoricians in Rome.

As for later times, a period of fairly wide spread of Hellenistic influences, then in this case too, in our opinion, we have to talk about a “defensive reaction” of Roman society. It was impossible not to take her into account. Some Greek philosophers, for example Panaetius, taking into account the needs and tastes of the Romans, went to soften the rigorism of the old schools. Cicero, as we know, was also forced to prove his right to practice philosophy, and even then justifying it by forced (not his fault!) political inactivity. Horace fought throughout his life for poetry to be recognized as a serious activity. Since drama arose in Greece, the actors there were free and respected people, but in Rome they were slaves who were beaten if they played poorly; It was considered dishonor and sufficient grounds for censure by the censors if a freeborn appeared on stage. Even such a profession as medicine was represented by foreigners for a long time (until the 1st century AD) and was hardly considered honorable.

All this indicates that for many years in Roman society there was a long and persistent struggle against foreign influences and “innovations”, and it took a variety of forms: sometimes it was an ideological struggle (the theory of the decline of morals), sometimes political and administrative measures (senatus consul turn about bacchanalia, expulsion of philosophers from Rome), but, be that as it may, these facts speak of a “defensive reaction” that sometimes arose among the Roman nobility itself (where Hellenistic influences had, of course, greatest success and distribution), and sometimes in the wider population.

The proposed book should give the reader an idea of ​​ancient Roman historiography in its most striking and characteristic examples, that is, in relevant (and quite 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, it is perhaps advisable to preface acquaintance with their works with at least a very cursory overview of the development of Roman historiography, identifying its main trends, as well as brief characteristics and assessment of the activities of the most outstanding Roman historians, extracts from whose works the reader will find in this volume. But in order to grasp 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 characteristics of the spiritual life of Roman society (from approximately the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD).

The widespread thesis about the close kinship or even unity of the Greco-Roman world, perhaps, finds no clearer confirmation in anything than in the fact of proximity and mutual influence of cultures. But what do we usually mean when we talk about “mutual influence”? What is the nature of this process?

It is usually believed that Greek (or, more broadly, Hellenistic) culture, as a “higher” culture, fertilized the Roman one, and the latter is thereby recognized as both dependent and eclectic. No less often - and, in our opinion, just as wrongfully - the penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome is depicted as “the conquest of its stern conqueror by defeated Greece,” a peaceful, “bloodless” conquest that did not encounter 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.

Individual facts proving the penetration of Greek culture into Rome can also be discussed in relation to the so-called “royal period” and the period of the early republic. If you believe Livy, then in the middle of the 5th century a special delegation was sent from Rome to Athens in order to “copy the laws of Solon and learn the institutions, customs and rights of other Greek states” (3, 31). But still, in those days we could talk only about scattered and isolated examples - we can talk about the systematic and ever-increasing influence of Hellenistic culture and ideology, bearing in mind already the era when the Romans, after the victory over Pyrrhus, subjugated the Greek cities of Southern Italy (that is, the so-called “Magna Graecia”),

In the 3rd century, especially in its second half, the Greek language spread among the upper strata of Roman society, knowledge of which soon became a sign of “good taste.” Numerous examples demonstrate this. At the beginning of the 3rd century, Quintus Ogulnius, the head of the embassy in Epidaurus, mastered the Greek language. In the second half of the 3rd century, the early Roman annalists Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus - more about them later - wrote their works in Greek. In the 2nd century, most senators spoke Greek. Ducius Aemilius Paulus was already a true 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 Rhodian embassy, ​​gave a speech to the Senate in his native language, the senators did not need a translator. Cicero was known to be fluent in Greek; Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony, and Octavian Augustus knew him no less well.

Along with the language, Hellenistic education also penetrates into Rome. The great Greek writers were well known. For example, it is known that Scipio reacted to the news of the death of Tiberius Gracchus with the verses of Homer. It is also known that Pompey’s last phrase, addressed to his wife and son a few minutes before his tragic death, was a quote 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 about “higher education”. The number of Romans who are seriously interested in philosophy and adhere to one or another philosophical school is increasing: such are, say, Lucretius - a follower of Epicureanism, Cato the Younger - an adherent not only in theory, but also in practice of Stoic teaching, Nigidius Figulus - a representative of neo-Pythagoreanism that was emerging at that time and, finally, Cicero - an eclectic 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. A whole series of “intelligent” professions were, as it were, monopolized by the Greeks. Moreover, it should be noted that among the representatives of these professions there were often slaves. These were, as a rule, actors, teachers, grammarians, rhetoricians, and doctors. The layer of slave intelligentsia in Rome - especially in the last years of the republic - was numerous, and the contribution it made to the creation of Roman culture was very noticeable.

Certain circles of the Roman nobility willingly accommodated Hellenistic influences, valued their reputation in Greece, and even pursued a patronizing “philhellenic” policy. For example, the famous Titus Quinctius Flamininus, who proclaimed the freedom of Greece at the Isthmian Games of 196, was accused of almost treason against the state interests of Rome when he yielded to the demands of the Aetolians and, contrary to the decision of the Senate commission, freed such important strongholds from Roman garrisons, like Corinth, Chalcis, Demetrias (Plutarch, Titus Quinctius, 10). Subsequently, the philhellenic sentiments of individual representatives of the Roman nobility pushed them to even more unusual and unacceptable actions from the point of view of an “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 fact: he emphasized his commitment 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 Panaetius, during his exile took citizenship of Smyrna and then rejected the offer made to him to return to Rome. The last act was regarded by old Roman customs and tradition not so much as treason, but rather as blasphemy.

These are some facts and examples of the penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome. However, it would be completely incorrect to portray these influences as “purely Greek.” The historical period we are referring to was the Hellenistic era, hence "classical" Greek culture underwent major internal changes and was largely Orientalized. Therefore, cultural influences from the East begin to penetrate into Rome - first through the Greeks, and then, after the Romans established themselves in Asia Minor, in a more direct way.

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. Official recognition of soterpological symbols occurs during 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 sentiments. Ideas of this kind penetrate into Rome, where they merge with Etruscan eschatology, which may also have Eastern origins. These ideas and sentiments become especially relevant during years of major social upheaval (the dictatorship of Sulla, civil wars before and after the death of Caesar). All this indicates that eschatological and messianistic 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 a kind of connecting link, an intermediate environment between “pure antiquity” and “pure East”. Such are Orphism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and, at a later time, Neoplatonism. Reflecting to some extent the aspirations of broad sections of the population, especially the politically disenfranchised masses of non-citizens who flooded Rome at that time (and were very often immigrants from the same East), such sentiments and trends at a “higher level” resulted in such historical facts , such as, for example, the activities of the above-mentioned Nigidius Figulus, a friend of Cicero, who can be considered one of the earliest representatives of neo-Pythagoreanism in Rome, with its very definite oriental coloring. It is no less well known how strong oriental motifs were in Virgil’s work. 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 everything said above, from the examples and facts given, 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 this 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 determination of the ideological values ​​of such a distant era is hardly possible. Perhaps only an analysis of some rudiments of ancient polis morality can give an approximate and, of course, far from complete idea of ​​this ideological environment.

Cicero said: our ancestors always followed tradition in peacetime, and benefit in war. (“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 the Rome polis did not at all coincide 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 not list or define these virtutes, we will only say that what was required of a Roman citizen was not that he possess this or that valor (for example, courage, dignity, fortitude, etc.), but necessarily “ a 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 framework of the Roman civil community.

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

One must first think about the highest good of the fatherland, Then about the good of our 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 community among people, for example, community of language or origin. But the closest, closest and dearest connection is the one that arises by virtue of belonging to the same civil community (civitas). The homeland - and only it - contains common affections. (“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 certainly outlive each individual person. Therefore, the interests of this individual always take a back seat to 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, and distinction on its fellow member. Therefore, virtus cannot exist in isolation from Roman public life or be independent of the verdict of fellow citizens. The contents of the oldest inscriptions (from those that have come down to us on the tombs of the Scipios) perfectly illustrate this position (a listing of virtutes and acts in the name of the res publica, supported by the opinions of members of the community).

While these norms and maxims of ancient Roman polis morality were alive, the penetration of foreign influences into Rome was not at all easy and not 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 especially Eastern culture, as a struggle to master it, or rather, even overcome it.

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

Nova flagitia meant a whole “set” of vices (no less numerous and varied than the list of virtues at one time), but in the first place were, undoubtedly, vices allegedly brought from a foreign land to Rome, such as self-interest and greed (avaritia), desire for luxury (luxuria), vanity (ambitus). The penetration of even just 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 countless virtues were united by a common and single core, namely the interests, the good of the state, then all the flagitia that Cato fought against can be reduced to the single desire underlying them - the desire to satisfy purely personal interests that take precedence over civil and public interests. This contradiction already reveals the first (but quite convincing) signs of the weakening of ancient moral foundations. Thus, Cato can be considered the founder of the theory of the decline of morals, in its explicitly political interpretation. By the way, this theory played a significant 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, sometimes even administrative measures were taken. So, for example, we know that in 161 a group of philosophers and rhetoricians was expelled from Rome, in 155 the same Cato proposed removing an embassy consisting of philosophers, and even in the 90s there was mention of an unfriendly attitude towards rhetoricians in Rome.

As for later times, a period of fairly wide spread of Hellenistic influences, in this case too, in our opinion, we have to talk about a “defensive reaction” of Roman society. It was impossible not to take her into account. Some Greek philosophers, for example Panaetius, taking into account the needs and tastes of the Romans, went to soften the rigorism of the old schools. Cicero, as we know, was also forced to prove his right to practice philosophy, and even then justifying it by forced (not his fault!) political inactivity. Horace fought throughout his life for poetry to be recognized as a serious activity. Since drama arose in Greece, the actors there were free and respected people, but in Rome they were slaves who were beaten if they played poorly; It was considered dishonor and sufficient grounds for censure by the censors if a freeborn appeared on stage. Even such a profession as medicine was represented by foreigners for a long time (until the 1st century AD) and was hardly considered honorable.

All this indicates that for many years in Roman society there was a long and persistent struggle against foreign influences and “innovations”, and it took a variety of forms: either it was an ideological struggle (the theory of the decline of morals), or 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 arose among the Roman nobility itself (where Hellenistic influences had, of course, the greatest success and spread ), and sometimes in the wider population.

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

It can only be understood if we recognize that the process of penetration of Hellenistic influences into Rome is by no means a blind, imitative acceptance of them, not an epigonism, but, on the contrary, a process of assimilation, processing, fusion, and mutual concessions. While Hellenistic influences were only a foreign product, they encountered and could not help but encounter persistent, sometimes even desperate resistance. Hellenistic culture, strictly speaking, only found itself accepted by society when it was finally overcome as something alien, when it came into fruitful contact with Roman original forces. But if this is so, then the thesis about the lack of independence, epigonism and creative impotence of the Romans is completely refuted and must be removed. The result of this entire long and by no means peaceful process - essentially, the process of interpenetration of two intensive spheres: Old Roman and 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 the story of the city of Rome from ancient times. No wonder Cicero proudly said that there is no people on earth who, like the Romans, knew the history of their hometown not only from the day of its foundation, but also from the moment of conception of the founder of the city. Now that we have become familiar with the ideological environment that nourished, in particular, the Roman historical tradition, Roman historiography, we can move on to a brief overview of its emergence and development.

Roman historiography - unlike Greek - developed from the chronicle. 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 - had the custom of placing a white board near his house, on which he recorded the most important events for public information. recent years(Cicero, “On the Orator”, 2, 52). This was, as a rule, information about crop failures, epidemics, wars, omens, temple dedications, etc.

What was the purpose of displaying 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 maintenance of the calendar. Under those conditions, this duty could be considered quite complex: the Romans did not have a strictly fixed calendar, and therefore 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 the case that the maintenance of tables was primarily associated with the duty of the pontiffs to regulate and supervise the calendar.

On the other hand, there is reason to consider the tables of the pontiffs as a kind of skeleton of the most ancient Roman historiography. Keeping weather tables 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, 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 arose, that is, the first Roman chronicle.

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 internal political events, the activities of the Senate and the People's Assembly, election results, etc. It can be assumed that in this era (III-II and centuries BC. BC) historical interest awoke 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 starting from the founding of Rome (in 80 books) was published under the title “The Great Chronicle” (Annales maximi).

As for the literary treatment of the history of Rome - that is, historiography in the strict sense of the word - its emergence dates back to the 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 early Roman historians literary processed the material of official chronicles (and family chronicles), they are usually called annalists. Annalists are usually divided into senior and junior.

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

As is known, Quintus Fabius Pictor (III century), a representative of one of the most noble and ancient families, a senator, a contemporary of the Second Punic War, is considered the founder of the literary treatment of Roman chronicles. He wrote (in Greek!) the history of the Romans from the arrival of Aeneas in Italy up to contemporary events. From the work, pitiful fragments have survived, and only 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 foundation 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 Atsilius’s work was later translated into Latin language.

The first historical work that the author himself wrote in his native language was Cato's Origins. In addition, in this work - it has not reached us, and we judge it on the basis of small fragments and evidence from other authors - the material was not presented in chronicle form, but rather in the form of a study of the ancient destinies of the tribes and cities of Italy. Thus, Cato’s work no longer concerned only Rome. In addition, he differed from the works of other annalists in that he had a certain claim to be “scientific”: Cato, apparently, carefully collected and checked his material, relied on facts, chronicles of individual communities, personal inspection of the area, etc. All this, taken together, made Cato a unique and lonely figure in early Roman historiography.

Usually, the contemporary of the third Punic War, Lucius Cassius Gemina, and the consul of 133, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, are also included in the older annalistics. Both of them already wrote in Latin, but constructively their works go back to the examples of early annals. For the work of Cassius Gemina, the name Annales, which was taken not without intention, is more or less accurately attested; the work itself repeats the traditional scheme of tables of pontiffs - 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 individually, but it is possible to quite clearly determine the general direction of older annalistics as a historical and literary genre, mainly in terms of its discrepancies, its differences from younger annalistics.

The works of the older annalists were (perhaps with the exception of Cato's Elements) chronicles that had undergone some literary processing. In them, relatively conscientiously, in a purely external sequence, events were presented, tradition was transmitted, however, without a critical assessment of it, but also without consciously introducing “additions” and “improvements.” Common features and “attitudes” of the older annalists: Romanocentrism, cultivation of patriotic sentiments, presentation of history as in chronicles - “from the very beginning,” that is, ab urbe condita, and, finally, 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 older annals as a whole as a certain ideological phenomenon and as a certain historical and literary genre.

As for the so-called younger annalistics, this essentially new genre or new direction in Roman historiography arose around the era of the Gracchi. The works of younger annalists have also not reached us, so very little can be said about each of them, but some general features can be outlined in this case as well.

Lucius Caelius Antipater is usually considered one of the first representatives of younger annalistics. His work, apparently, was already distinguished by features characteristic of the new genre. It was not built in the form of a chronicle, but rather a historical monograph; in particular, the presentation of events began not 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 a historical narrative the main thing is the power of influence, the effect produced on the reader.

The same features distinguished the work of another annalist, who also lived during the time of the Gracchi - Sempronius Azellion. His work is known to us from small extracts from the compiler Aulus Gellius (2nd century AD). Azellion consciously abandoned the chronicle method of presentation. He said: “The chronicle is not able to motivate a more ardent defense of the fatherland or stop people from doing bad things.” The story of what happened is also not yet a story, and it is not so important to tell about 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 younger annalistics - Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Anziat, Licinius Macrus, Cornelius Sisenna - lived during the time of Sulla (80-70 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, conscious embellishment of events, and sometimes their direct distortion, pretentiousness of language, etc. A characteristic feature of all younger annals can be considered the projection of the contemporary political struggle of the authors of historical works into the distant past and the coverage of this past from the point of view of the political relationships of our time.

For younger annalists, history turns into a section of rhetoric and a weapon of political struggle. They - and this is their difference from representatives of older annalistics - do not refuse, in the interests of one or another political group, direct falsification of historical material (doubling events, transferring later events to an earlier era, borrowing facts and details from Greek history, etc. ). Younger annalistics is a seemingly rather harmonious, complete construction, without gaps and contradictions, but in fact it is a completely artificial construction, 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 groups and embellished by numerous rhetorical effects.

The phenomenon of younger 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 annals. 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 will see below, many of the characteristic features of early Roman historiography persisted into later times, during the period of its maturity and flourishing. Without attempting an exhaustive listing, we will dwell only on those of them that can be considered the most general and most indisputable.

First of all, it is not difficult to see that Roman annalists - both early and late - always write for a specific practical purpose: active promotion of the good of society, the good of the state. Some abstract study 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 in general is its Romanocentric and patriotic attitude. Rome was always not only at the center of the exposition, but, strictly speaking, 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 back in comparison with Hellenistic historiography, for for the latter - in the person of its most prominent representatives and, in particular, Polybius - the desire to create a universal, world history. As for the openly expressed and often emphasized patriotic attitude of the Roman annalists, it naturally flowed from the above-mentioned practical goal facing each author - to put his work in the service of the interests of the res publica.

And finally, it should be noted that the Roman annalists largely belonged to the upper class, 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 exception, obviously, of Licinius Macra, who tried - as far as we can judge - to introduce a democratic current 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 had long been at enmity with the no less ancient gens Cornelia, undoubtedly highlighted the activities of the Fabian family more clearly, while the exploits of the Cornelii (and, consequently, representatives of such a branch of this family as the Scipios) pushed into the background. A supporter of Scipio's policy, like, say, Gaius Fannius, undoubtedly did the opposite. This is how the most various options"improvement" or, conversely, "deterioration" of history, especially when depicting events of an early time for which no more reliable sources existed.

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

Roman historiography, even in the period of its maturity and greatest flourishing, was not able to completely free itself from a number of specific features and attitudes characteristic - as just noted - of annalistics, in particular younger annalistics. Therefore, being an organic and integral part of ancient historiography as a whole, Roman historiography seemed to personify a certain direction in its development. In general, if we keep in mind ancient historiography as such, then we can, perhaps, talk about two of the brightest, most cardinal directions (or trends). Let's try to define them, especially since they - of course, in a rather changed, modified form - continue not only to exist, but also to actively oppose each other even in the newest, that is, modern historical literature. What directions are we talking about 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 of Greek origin. He was born in the Arcadian city of Megalopolis, which was part of the Achaean League. The personal fate of the future historian was such that he himself found himself as a kind of 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 and was a member of the famous Scipio circle. Apparently, in 150 he received the right to return to Greece, but then 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 government. He believed that it could be considered exemplary, since it realized the ideal of a “mixed structure”, including elements of royal power (Roman consuls), aristocracy (Senate) and democracy (popular assemblies).

Polybius's main work is “General History” (in 40 books). Unfortunately, this great work has not reached 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 of an earlier time - from the First Punic War). Polybius's historical work fully justifies its name: the author paints 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 “world-historical” aspect were inevitable, even necessary, because Polybius set out to answer with his work the question of how and why all known parts of the inhabited earth fell under the rule of Rome within fifty-three years? Here, by the way, as an answer, the doctrine of a mixed government structure as the best form of government arose.

What does such a historian’s program indicate? First of all, that the work of Polybius is a certain historical research, and such a research in which the center of gravity lies not on the story of events, not on their description, but on their motivation, on elucidating the causal relationship of events. Such an interpretation of the material creates the basis of the so-called “pragmatic history.”

Polybius put forward three main demands to historians. Firstly, a thorough study of the sources, then familiarity with the area where the events took place (mainly battles, battles) and, finally, personal, practical experience in military and political affairs. Polybius himself satisfied these requirements to the highest degree. He knew military affairs in practice (in 183 he was the strategist of the Achaean League), had sufficient experience in political matters and traveled a lot, becoming familiar with the theater of military operations. Polybius was critical of his sources, not taking them on faith; he often used archival and documentary material, as well as eyewitness testimony.

These demands put forward by Polybius were not at all an end in themselves. Fulfillment of the above conditions in combination with a focus on clarifying the causal relationship of events - all this was supposed to serve 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 maintaining the truth, to praise enemies and blame friends when both deserve it, and even compared the historical narrative, devoid of truth and objectivity, with the helplessness and unfitness of a person deprived of sight (1, 14, 5-6 ).

These principles and attitudes of Polybius as a researcher make him similar and place 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 and impartiality of presentation, although, of course, he did not always comply with this condition, especially when it came to domestic political events (for example, an assessment of the activities of Cleon). But be that as it may, Thucydides and Polybius are two related and at the same time two of the most outstanding figures of ancient historiography.

Like Thucydides, Polybius is not an artist, not a master of words, his narration is rather dry, businesslike, “without embellishment,” as he himself says (9, 1-2), but he is a sober, objective researcher, always striving for the clear, accurate and reasonable 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 makes it possible to determine the direction of ancient historiography, one of the most prominent representatives of which was Polybius. There is every reason to speak of him, as well as of his great predecessor Thucydides, as the founders of the scientific (or even scientific research) trend in ancient historiography.

Another brilliant name, representing 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. Around 31 BC e. he moved to Rome, and in subsequent years was close to the court of Emperor Augustus. In terms of 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 direct part in political life and stayed away from it, devoting himself to literary pursuits.

Livy's main work 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 V “decades”) and fragments of the rest have reached us completely. For all books (except 136 and 137) there are short lists of contents (it is unknown by whom and when compiled). The chronological scope 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.

Livy's historical work gained enormous popularity and brought fame to its author during his lifetime. The popularity of the work is evidenced by at least the fact of compiling a short list of contents. Apparently, there were abridged “editions” of the huge work (for example, Martial mentions this). It is indisputable that even in ancient times, the historical work of Titus Livy became canonical and formed the basis of those ideas about the past of his hometown 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 the majestic whole; here, both for yourself and for the state, you will find something to imitate, and here - something to avoid.” But if the business of history is to teach by examples, then the examples should undoubtedly be chosen the most vivid, the most visual and convincing, acting not only on the mind, but also on the imagination. This attitude brings together - in terms of the commonality of the tasks at hand - history and art.

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

Speeches and characterizations play a large role in Livy’s work. The historian’s “generosity” in providing detailed, detailed characteristics of outstanding figures was noted even in ancient times. Regarding speeches characters, then they constitute Livy’s most artistically brilliant pages of his work, but their historical value, of course, is small, and they bear the stamp of an era contemporary with Livy himself.

So, for Livy, the artistry of the image is in the foreground. 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-playwright. 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-didactic).

These are the two main directions (trends) characterizing the development of ancient historiography. But, strictly speaking, we can have both of these directions 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, but even Polybius, who, as was said, lived for a long time in Rome, was still - both in language and in the general “spirit” - a genuine and typical representative of not just Hellenistic historiography, but also more broadly - Hellenistic culture as a whole.

How can we explain that the direction, personified by the names of two outstanding Greek historians and defined by us as scientific research, did not receive noticeable development in Rome? This phenomenon seems natural to us and, in our opinion, finds its explanation primarily in the resistance to influences coming from outside, 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 a further development, only a more perfect modification of the same ancient Roman annals. Almost no fundamental changes occurred, 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, Ammianus Marcellinus, did not go so far from the representatives of the later (and sometimes early) listed in their place !) Roman annalistics.

Such characteristic features of the annalistic genre as a novel-centric and patriotic point of view, a love of rhetorical embellishment, a general moralizing tone and, finally, even such a detail as a preference for the chronicle form of presentation of events - we can all find this to a greater or lesser extent in any representative of Roman historiography, right up to the last decades of the existence of the Roman state. Of course, everything that has been said cannot 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 and literary genres arose, such as, say, the genre of historical biographies. However, the authors of works of this kind, in their own way, fundamental principles- and that’s what we’re talking about! - still much closer to the artistic and didactic direction than to the one 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 debate, which began more than a hundred years ago, about knowability or unknowability historical fact, about the presence or absence of patterns in the historical process, led at one time to the conclusion (widespread 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 significance of history - recognition, by the way, in our time, to one degree or another, is characteristic of historians of the most diverse directions and camps - can ultimately be elevated to the idea of ​​history as a teacher of life, as a treasury examples that arose precisely in antiquity among supporters and representatives of the “artistic-didactic” movement.

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

Of course, the notorious debate 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, its roots certainly go 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 be convinced that all of them, in principle, belong to the direction that has just been defined as artistic and didactic.

Let us first focus on Gaius Sallust Crispus (86-35 BC). He came from the Sabine city of Amiterna and belonged to the class of horsemen. Sallust began his socio-political career - as far as we know - from the quaesture (54), then 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 a political background to the expulsion). Even during the years of his tribunate, Sallust acquired a reputation as a supporter of “democracy”; later (49) he becomes a quaestor for one of the leaders of Roman democratic circles - Caesar and is again reintroduced to the Senate. During the civil war, Sallust was in the ranks of the Caesarians, and after the end of hostilities he was 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's. Upon returning to Rome, Sallust was no longer involved in political activities, but devoted himself entirely to historical research.

Sallust is the author of three historical works: “The Conspiracy of Catiline,” “The War with Jugurtha,” and “History.” The first two works, which are historical monographs, have reached us in their entirety; the History, which covered the period from 78 to 66, has survived only in fragments. In addition, Sallust is credited - and with quite serious reasons - with the authorship of two letters to Caesar “On the structure of the state.”

Sallust's political views 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 pronounced, perhaps even growing. For example, criticism of the Roman aristocracy and, in particular, its methods of leading the state in the “War with Jugurtha” (and, according to some sources, in the “History”) is sharper and more irreconcilable than in the “Conspiracy of Catiline” (and in the “Letters to Caesar "). However, Sallust’s political ideal 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 government functions between the Senate and the people. This correct distribution consists in the fact that the Senate, with the help of its authority (auctoritas), must restrain and direct the strength and power of the people in a certain direction. Thus, the ideal state structure, according to Sallust, should rest on two mutually complementary sources (and bearers) of supreme power: the Senate and the people's assembly.

Sallust, perhaps, can be considered one of the first representatives (along with Cornelius Sizenna and others) of Roman historiography of the period of its maturity. What are the main principles of a historian? First of all, it should be noted that Sallust is usually considered as the founder of a new genre - the historical monograph. Of course, his first historical works - “The Conspiracy of Catiline” and “The War with Jugurtha” - can well be attributed (as was already done above) to works of a similar genre, but there is no doubt that the genre itself arose much earlier - just remember younger 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 of historical research. Sallust is perhaps the most striking example of this: having moved quite a considerable distance from the Roman annalists in the area of ​​form (or genre), he at the same time remains very close to them in his understanding of the tasks of the historian. Thus, he believes that the events of the history of Athens and the exploits of their political and military leaders were 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 memorable to me” (“Conspiracy of Catiline”, IV, 2). Since our author’s choice, after this statement, stops at the story of Catiline’s conspiracy, then, apparently, events worthy of mention and the attention of a historian may turn out to be not only exploits or manifestations of valor, but also “unheard-of crimes.”

This consideration is also reinforced by the fact that, in addition to the story of the conspiracy of Catiline, the theme of another historical monograph by Sallust was chosen to describe an equally significant event in the history of Rome - the “difficult and cruel” war with the Numidian king Jugurtha, a war which, by the way, for the first time and with stunning clarity, it revealed the corruption, corruption and even open treason and betrayal of the ruling elite of Rome, that is, many prominent representatives of the Roman nobility.

Both of Sallust's most famous historical works indicate that their author attached great importance to the role of individuals in history. He does not deny the power of fate and 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” (“Conspiracy of Catiline”, LIII, 4). Therefore, it is not surprising that he pays great attention to the characteristics 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 primarily as a master of historical portrait: one only has to remember the impressive image of Catiline himself, the famous comparative characteristics Caesar and Cato, character portraits of Jugurtha, Metella, Maria, etc. It goes without saying that the indicated feature of Sallust as a writer and historian is not at all an accident - it is in an organic connection with his own declared general task of a colorful, talented presentation of historical events and phenomena.

If we adhere to the chronological sequence in the review of Roman historiography, then Sallust is followed - from 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 works; Almost no biographical information has been preserved. We do not know exactly the personal name of the historian (praenomen), nor the dates of his life, nor the family from which he came (probably the equestrian class), nor the place of his birth (presumably Narbonese Gaul). What is certain is 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 gave access to the senatorial class), in 97 (under Emperor Nerva) was consul, and in 112-113 proconsul in the province of Asia. These are all the dates and events from the life of Tacitus that are more or less reliably known to us - we don’t even know the year of his death for sure.

Although Tacitus's contemporaries (for example, Pliny the Younger) mentioned him as a famous orator, his speeches and examples of his eloquence, unfortunately, have not survived. It is possible that they were not published by the author at all. Also, in all likelihood, the early works of Tacitus have not reached us; the same works of his that have survived 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: “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 important works of Tacitus, "History" (c. 110 AD) and "Annals" (after 117 AD. These latter have not reached us in full: from the “History” the first four books and the beginning of the fifth have been preserved, from the “Annals” - the first six books (with gaps) and books XI-XVI; in total, about half of the entire work has been preserved, which even in ancient times was often considered as a single (and consisting of thirty books in total).And, indeed, both main historical works of Tacitus complement each other in a peculiar way: in the “Annals”, written, as we just noted, later than the “History”, an account is given of the 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. n. e. (during the reign of the Flavian dynasty). Due to the loss of part of the books, the indicated chronological framework is not fully maintained (in the manuscripts that have reached us), but we have evidence from the ancients that both works of Tacitus actually gave a single and consistent account 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 easiest to define in a negative way. Tacitus, in accordance with the state theories of antiquity, knows three main types of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, as well as “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, since there are not sufficiently reliable means to prevent its transition (“degeneration”) into tyranny. Hatred for tyranny permeates all the works of Tacitus, which gave Pushkin the basis 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 structure, that is, the Senate, at least the contemporary Senate. He is disgusted 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 “they have no other state concerns except concern for bread” (“History”, 4, 38), or that it “usually thirsts for 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 of little originality - the “golden age”, the era of the heyday of Rome, attributed by some to the more distant past, by others to the less distant past (but always to the past!), is a common place for a number of historical and philosophical constructions of antiquity. Moreover, the picture of the heyday of the Roman state, the dominance of mores maiorum, etc. looks in Tacitus, perhaps, even paler, more general and vague than in some of his predecessors (for example, Sallust, Cicero). The political appearance of Tacitus was, at one time, very aptly defined by Engels, who considered him the last of the Old Romans of the “patrician mindset and way of thinking.”

Tacitus is one of the most famous figures of Roman culture over 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 developing and describing dramatic situations, his characteristic style, characterized by conciseness, asymmetrical construction of sentences, his characteristics and digressions, the whole set of techniques of an experienced rhetorician and orator - all this turns the historian’s narrative into an extremely intense, impressive and at the same time highly artistic story . This 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 guidelines”, he should be considered no less, and, perhaps, even - due to the brilliant talent of the writer - to a greater extent, as his famous predecessor Livy, to the representatives of the so-called artistic-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 and benefit him. The historian must bring to light both good deeds and exploits and “ugliness” - one for imitation, the other for “shame in posterity.” This moral and didactic attitude requires, first of 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 the 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 importance 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 of a habitually traditional nature, and one inevitably gets the impression that the historian was not so much interested and occupied with the analysis of the causes, but rather with the opportunity to vividly, impressively and instructively depict the very events of the political and military history of the 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 apparently grew up in Rome and received the usual education at that time for a child from a wealthy family, that is, he graduated from a grammar school and then a rhetoric school. Soon after this he ends up in the circle of Pliny the Younger, one of the centers cultural life then Rome. Pliny, right up to his death, provided patronage to Suetonius and tried more than once to promote his military career, which, however, did not appeal to Suetonius; he preferred lawyering and literary pursuits to her.

The accession of Emperor Hadrian to the throne in 117 marked a turning point in the fate and career of Suetonius. He was brought close to the court and assigned to the department of “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. The listed posts gave Suetonius access to state archives, which he undoubtedly took advantage of for his scientific and literary pursuits. However, relatively soon - in 122 - Suetonius, for reasons unclear to us, earned the disfavor of the emperor and was removed from office. This ends his court career, and the further life and fate of Suetonius is 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 reached us, although the works themselves have not survived. Their titles speak of the extraordinary breadth and versatility of Suetonius’ interests; he truly was an encyclopedist, continuing to some extent the line of Varro and Pliny the Elder. Of the works of Suetonius, we currently have, strictly speaking, only one - the historical and biographical work “The Lives of the Twelve Caesars”, as well as more or less significant fragments from the work called “On Famous People” (mainly from the books “On Grammar and rhetoricians" and "About poets").

Thus, Suetonius appears before us as a historian, and of 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, never openly expresses his political views and convictions, but they can be determined without much difficulty. He was an adherent of the theory of “enlightened monarchy” that arose in his time and even became fashionable. Therefore, he divides emperors into “good” and “bad”, being sure that the fate of the empire depends entirely on their good or evil will. An emperor qualifies as “good” first of all if he treats the Senate with respect, provides economic assistance to large sections of the population, and if he - a new motive in the views of Roman historians - cares about the welfare of the provinces. And although, along with this, Suetonius considers it his duty to “objectively” illuminate the personal properties and contradictory character traits of each emperor, even the most unsightly ones, nevertheless, he firmly believes in the divine origin of imperial power.

“The Lives of the Twelve Caesars” gives biographies of the first emperors of Rome, starting with Julius Caesar (his biography has not reached us in full; the very beginning has been 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 emperor’s pedigree, b) time and place of birth, c) childhood years, all sorts of omens, d) description of the rise to power, e) listing of the most important events and activities during his reign, f) description of appearance the emperor, g) a description of character traits (literary tastes) and h) a description of the circumstances of death and related omens.

Suetonius, as has been repeatedly noted, was unlucky in the assessments of subsequent generations. As a historian he was always overshadowed by the brilliant talent of Tacitus, and as a biographer he was, of course, inferior to Plutarch. Suetonius has been accused more than once and rightly of the fact that he seems to isolate the statesmen he describes, taking 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 leveled at 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 we know, does not require documentary accuracy!) and is oriented in this direction. Most likely, this is how this work was perceived in Rome itself, and, perhaps, this was the secret of Suetonius’s lifetime glory, a glory that his elder contemporary Tacitus could hardly boast of in those days.

The last historian brief description which we must dwell on, belongs not so much to the era of maturity and flowering 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 a Greek by birth.

The information preserved about the life of Ammianus Marcellinus is extremely scarce. The year of birth of the historian 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 Julian’s campaigns. During his military service, he had to visit Mesopotamia, Italy, Gaul, and 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 hometown, then moved to Rome, where he began his historical work.

This work was called “Acts” (Res gestae) and consisted of thirty-one books. Only books XIV-XXXI have reached us, but from the words of 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 a successor to Tacitus and built his work largely 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 set out events since 352, that is, events contemporary to the historian himself, in which he was an observer or participant. The time of Julian is extremely detailed and vividly covered: his wars in Gaul and Germany, the break with Constantius, the fight against the Persians and, finally, his death are described. A feature of the historical narrative of Ammianus Marcellinus can be considered the presence of numerous excursions and digressions of the most diverse content: sometimes this is information of a geographical nature, sometimes - essays on morals, and sometimes - even arguments of a religious and philosophical nature.

Ammianus's work was written in Latin (which, first of all, gives reason to classify its author as a Roman historian and writer). It is possible that in the field of language (or style) Ammianus considered himself a follower of Tacitus and tried to imitate him: his presentation is pathetic, colorful, even ornate; it is full of rhetorical embellishments in the spirit of complicated and pompous - the so-called “Asian” - eloquence. If at the present time such a manner of presentation seems artificial, unnatural, and the language of Ammianus, as some modern researchers put it, “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 views were still quite alive, according to which a certain kinship was declared between the techniques of historical storytelling, on the one hand, and oratory, on the other.

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 its power, its greatness. As a military man, he glorifies the successes of Roman weapons; as a historian and thinker, he admires 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 thought about restoring the republican system.

The historian Ammianus Marcellinus quite naturally (and, at the same time, quite worthy!) completes the circle of the most outstanding representatives of Roman historiography. To some extent, like his chosen model, that is, Tacitus (see, for example, “Annals”), in terms of the general plan of presentation of historical material, he returns almost to the ancient annalists. The genre of historical-monographic or historical-biographical was not accepted 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 are crossed, 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 birth. Then, this is a belief not so much in gods, which looked like in the 4th century. n. e. already somewhat “old-fashioned” (by the way, Ammianus is distinguished by traits of religious tolerance even towards Christians!), as much as 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 precisely this direction, 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, whom he bowed to, Emperor Julian, Ammianus conscientiously listed both positive and negative traits. It is interesting to note that the historian considered deliberate silence about one or another important event to be an unacceptable deception of the reader, no less than groundless fiction (29, 1, 15). The colorfulness of the presentation, from his point of view, was determined by the selection of facts (Ammianus more than once emphasized the need to select important events) and, of course, by those rhetorical techniques and “tricks” that he so generously used in his work.

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

Roman historiography, influenced by Greek, has some peculiarities. Among literary genres, historiography in Ancient Rome enjoyed the greatest authority. Its representatives belonged to the ruling strata of society, as politicians they energetically intervened in history, and subsequently devoted themselves to historiography (with the exception of Livy), seeing in it an opportunity to pursue their policies by other means. That's why Roman historiography served first of all the purposes of political propaganda, explanation and justification of the foreign and domestic policies of Ancient Rome.

Historiography was studying mainly history of Rome, the history of Italy and the provinces was reflected to a lesser extent. The consciousness of historical continuity was based on the history of the achievements of its ancestors, therefore the Roman the story was told from the founding of Rome like the history of ruling dynasties.

In Greek historiography, more strongly than in Roman, features of moral and educational teachings(Greek history was presented as exemplary). Roman historiography, especially in the initial period of development, felt strong influence ( both in form and content) compiled by the Pontifex Maximus annual tables ( annals) .

Most early Roman historical works were written in Greek, they pursued goal to justify Rome's foreign policy in the Greek-speaking world. In conditions where there was no Latin prose, Roman historiography replaced literature.

Roman poets G . Nevius and Kv. Ennius reflected Roman history in historical epic. M. Portius Cato was the first to use the Latin language in his historical work (“Primary Sources”). He sought to influence the Romans for political and educational purposes And eliminate Greek from Roman national historiography.

Soon the first historical works appeared: Caesar's messages about the conquest of Gaul and civil war, which justified his military and political actions; after the assassination of Caesar - works Sallust, which convincingly depicted the internal political and moral decline of Rome.

Livy set himself the majestic task of creating a complete history of Rome from its founding. Livy's main task is to collect the traditions of early Roman history and fuse them into a single coherent story, the history of Rome. This was the first time an enterprise of this kind had been carried out. The Romans were quite seriously confident in their superiority over all other nations, considered only their own history worthy of attention. That is why the history of Rome, told by Livy, was universal history for the Roman spirit. Livy was philosophizing historian. The purpose of his work is moralistic. He says that his readers would undoubtedly prefer a story about events of the recent past. However, he wants them to read about the distant past because wishes to teach them a moral lesson from those distant days when Roman society was simple and unspoiled. It is clear to him that history is humanistic. “It flatters our vanity,” he says, to deduce our origin from the gods, but the historian’s job is not to flatter the reader, but to depict the deeds and morals of people.”

None of them ever turned again to the task posed by Livy. After him, historians either simply rewrote it or limited themselves to a simple narration of events of the recent past. From the point of view of method, Tacitus is already a decline.

Tacitus However, he made an enormous contribution to historical literature, but it is quite appropriate to raise the question whether he was a historian at all. The history of events that took place in Rome itself completely dominates his thoughts, he neglects the history of the Roman Empire or considers it from the position of a stay-at-home Roman. And his view of purely Roman affairs is extremely narrow. In fact, Tacitus is bad primarily because he never thought about the main problems of the business he took on. His attitude towards the philosophical principles of history is frivolous, he simply takes up the common pragmatic assessment of its goals in the spirit of a rhetorician rather than a serious thinker.

He wants to teach readers of his story that “good citizens can exist under bad rulers.” “It is not just fate and not a combination of favorable circumstances that is the best protection for a noble senator, but the character of his personality, prudence, noble restraint and moderation.”

This attitude leads Tacitus to distort history, to the fact that he depicts her in fact like a clash of personalities, exaggerated good with exaggerated bad. Tacitus views his characters not from the inside, but from the outside, without sympathy and understanding, as simple personifications of vices and virtues.

Subsequent historians of the era of the Roman Empire not only did not overcome the difficulties with which Livy and Tacitus struggled in vain, but never reached their level. These historians increasingly limited themselves to the miserable task of compilation, uncritically piling into their works everything that they found in the works of early times.