No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
II. Histories and Annals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Extract
Tacitus’ historiography and style, as seen in the Histories and Annals, will be discussed in chapters III and IV. Here, with all brevity, I attempt to deal with questions of structure and date.
The work we call the Histories covered the years A.D. 69 to 96, from the beginning of the calendar year 69 to Domitian’s death. Our surviving text breaks off in its fifth book, before the year 70 has been completed. The work we call the Annals covered the years A.D. 14 to 68, from Augustus’ death and Tiberius’ accession (August-September A.D. 14) to either Nero’s death (June A.D. 68) or the end of that year. We have most of the treatment of Tiberius in the first six books, but, since only a fragment of book 5 survives, the dramatic climax of Tiberius’ principate, the fall of Sejanus, is lost.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1970
References
page no 17 note 1 The titles Histories and Annals have no ancient authority, but were attached to the works by sixteenth-century editors. Ab excessu diui Augusti is supported by analogy and the weighty authority of the first Medicean manuscript, which transmits Ann. 1-6, but it may be a sub-title rather than the general title. See on this whole question Oliver’s, R.P. fascinating paper ‘The first Medicean manuscript of Tacitus and the titulature of ancient books’, TAPA lxxxii (1951), 232-61Google Scholar. Whatever the truth, the modern titles are convenient enough.
page no 17 note 2 Our sole or main authority for Ann. 11-16 and Hist. 1-5.
page no 17 note 3 Op. cit. app. 35.
page no 18 note 1 Whether it ended with Nero’s death or the calendar year 68 has been long debated (see Borzsák, op. cit. 478). The former conclusion would have been very effective dramatically, but it seems strange that Tacitus should narrate all that happened from Tiberius to Domitian, except for six months of A.D. 68. Hainsworth, J. B., Greece & Rome N.s. xi (1964), 128-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues that a personal motive, attachment and perhaps obligation to Verginius Rufus, prevented Tacitus from telling the truth about the latter part of A.D. 68 and induced him to begin his Histories with the year 69. Perhaps, but this motive, as Hainsworth sees, scarcely applied later when Tacitus wrote the Annals, and Nymphidius, pars Romanarum cladium, must have been an inviting subject.
page no 18 note 2 Still Bretschneider, C., Quo ordine ediderit Tacitus singulas Annalium partes (Diss. Strasbourg, 1905)Google Scholar, is worth consulting.
page no 19 note 1 See Mensching, E., ‘Zu den namentlichen Zitaten in Tacitus’ Historien und An nalen’, Hermes xcv (1967), 457-62Google Scholar, who argues that Tacitus’ mention of sources in books 13—16 does not serve the same purpose as citations elsewhere in his work, and sees in this evidence for lack of revision—an interesting view, but disputable.
page no 19 note 2 Indeed there are two, for why does Tacitus leave his programmatic statement until so late in the Annals? Perhaps because he had adumbrated his procedure at 4. 10. 1 and 4. 57. 1, and also anticipated disagreement in his sources towards the end of the work.
page no 19 note 3 JRS lviii (1968), 22-31.
page no 20 note 1 It is illusory to suppose that the stylistic difference between Hist. 1-5 and Ann. 1-6 argues for a considerable lapse of time between the two works, since obviously the lost later books of the Histories may have approximated in style to the early books of the Annals, much as Ann. 11-12 approximate to Ann. 13-16.
page no 20 note 2 Such is the general view of this famous passage, which has occasioned voluminous discussion. Other interpretations have been found.
page no 20 note 3 If, as I believe, Suetonius at Nero 52 shows knowledge of Ann. 14. 16. 1, this suggests completion by about A.D. 120.
page no 20 note 4 Phoenix xiii (1959), 40. Crook is equally sceptical (and rightly) about the alleged allusions to Nerva.