Anali

Sine ira et studio is Tacitus' motto that he had in mind when writing his works, the best historical and biographical texts of Roman literature. But is it possible to write about emperors, tyrants and their sycophants without anger and bias if you are a born anti-monarchist, if you tend to understand history skeptically, tragically, and even fatalistically, if you are not interested in external causes and events, but in their protagonists whose fate and action more determines their bad character?

Maybe it is possible, but only if, like Tacitus, you can be poetic and pathetic, while using a lot of ironic and sarcastic remarks; or, if you convince the reader that as an observer and chronicler you are completely objective, even though you are subjective, because you wouldn't want to be different when you are primarily interested in the drama of characters, events and details, the characterization and psychology of the protagonist, and in fact you are writing about human passions, because you deeply believe how in all things the capriciousness of human destiny shows itself more and more! And this is precisely where the literary genius of the historian Tacitus is hidden: there is no good literature without good protagonists and even better antagonists. That is why in Tacitus we find psychological nuances and dramatization of personal and collective failures. That's why Tacitus' historical works are not only history, or more precisely the historical interpretation of a period, but also literary portraits of emperors and politicians, fascinatingly evil characters, strong, wickedly strong villains.