Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

TACITUS
Tacitus begins his Histories in annalistic manner, with the consular year 69,
but compensates somewhat for thus starting in mediis rebus by his memorable
survey of the state of the empire (Hist. 1.4—11). He begins the Annals, originally
titled or subtitled ab excessu divi Augusti, non-annalistically, but then,
in Ann. 1-6 at least, adheres quite strictly to an annalistic layout. How, we
may wonder, did he conclude the work? If with Nero's death, not the end of
A.D. 68, then he nowhere recorded about six months of that year, a curious
gap in an otherwise complete narration. Some scholars have criticized his
decision to commence with Tiberius' accession. Other starting-points, they
say, would have been better historically. Perhaps so, but none would have been
perfect.
Several structural questions remain unanswerable: how, for instance, did
Tacitus dispose his material in the missing portions of the Histories and Annals,
and did he attach special importance to grouping in sections comprising six
books? Again, having virtually no firm evidence for date, we cannot say much
about stages of composition. We may detect some considerable linguistic
differences between Hist. 1—5, Ann. 1—6, and Ann. n—16, but they prove
only that Tacitus was incessantly experimenting. Again, in these three sections,
we observe changes in historiographical technique: in Hist. 1—5 the material
is tightly packed, the narrative rapid, the centre of interest often shifting, in
Ann. 1—6 Tacitus proceeds in more leisurely manner, diverging little from a
simple framework, and centring attention on one dominant figure, while in
Ann. 11—16 the structure is looser, the presentation of material varied and
episodic. But these changes are largely imputable to the subject matter; the
momentous events of A.D. 69 required a wide scale and sustained intensity of
treatment, Tiberius, as an individual, was more interesting than his three
successors, and under Claudius and Nero there were distinct phases, historical
and dramatic, for which soberly annalistic narration, focused on Princeps and
Senate, was not altogether ideal. But we still face the disquieting possibility
that the Annals were never completed and that Books 13—16 are unrevised.
The occasional laxity in structure, certain inconsistencies, some imprecision
in nomenclature, and arguable lack of polish in expression may so suggest.
Much of this can, however, be explained by carelessness over detail (such as
we sometimes find elsewhere in his work) or mere exhaustion or increasing
self-assurance.
Tacitus claims (Hist. 1.1.3 and Ann. 1.1.3) to write dispassionately, untouched
by malice or partisanship. That conventional assertion appears in
many writers, Greek and Roman. Historians were expected to tell the truth
and the whole truth (cf. Cic. De or. 2.62), but, of course, not all of them did.
In his prefaces and at Hist. 2.101.1 Tacitus scathingly castigates certain predecessors,
some of whom he must have employed as sources: they falsified
647
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008