1

How can we be confident that Tacitus really wrote any of the works attributed to him, namely his Histories and Annals?

The background here is that when we discuss the historicity and/or accuracy of Tacitus' reports, we often appeal to Tacitus himself as perhaps being in a position to know these things. For instance, he is said to have lived ca. 56-120 CE or so, and so when he speaks on events in this period it makes us more inclined to believe him.

Compare this to something like the Acts of the Apostles, where "Luke" claims that he is a companion of Paul who accompanied him on a few of his missionary journeys; and yet historians are divided on whether this is true. What makes historians so confident, in contrast, that Tacitus did and saw the things he claimed he did?

Of course Tacitus did not claim to be an eyewitness for most of his Histories or Annals, but the principle is the same. How do we know that what Tacitus does claim about himself is correct?

One starting point might be Pliny the Younger, who mentions that 7.33 of his own letters that he anticipates Tacitus' Histories to be published in the future and achieve high popularity. If we accept the authenticity of Pliny's letter then this would be helpful, even if not completely persuasive. And even so, what of Annals?

I suspect that both Histories and Annals would have been quoted or referenced soon after their publication. Perhaps this can help establish a terminus ante quem, which in turn might bolster its authenticity? But then, where can we find these early references?

Any thoughts---or especially references!---would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Improve this question
14
  • 6
    This touches on the very interesting question of how we know anything about the source of any ancient writing, but as written misses the target. How do I know that you asked this question? We never "know" anything with certainty! And of what consequence is the author's name, anyway? (We know practically nothing about Tacitus beyond that -- we don't even know his full name!) See the Wikipedia article for what few details there are. A much better question might be to ask why we accept Tacitus's writing as a real and pretty reliable product of a late 1st/early 2nd century Roman senator.
    – Mark Olson
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 11:44
  • 4
    You seem more concerned with the identity of the author than with the authenticity of the book! If it turned out that the author was really named Fred but otherwise of similar background would that really change anything? (Granted "Fred" would be a very surprising name for a Roman senator...) ((Cue the old joke of the scholar who proved that the Iliad was not written by Homer but by another Greek of the same name!)) Unless we know something substantial about the author from other sources -- and in neither Tacitus's case nor in Luke's do we -- the author's name is little more than a curiosity.
    – Mark Olson
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 13:57
  • 1
    @MarkOlson Well but that is exactly what I am asking. The author tells us many things about himself, that he was a quaestor under Titus, more generally that he lived during the timeframe we think he lived, etc. How can we be confident that these things are true?
    – Ben W
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 14:02
  • 1
    Perhaps you could edit your question to make this more clear -- it was not clear to me. You are asking a very good question -- I think that far too few people remember to ask "How do we know this?" when talking about history, and classical history in particular.
    – Mark Olson
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 14:16
  • 4
    @cmw The point -- at least for me -- is that since all we know about Homer is that he was a Greek named Homer, saying it was actually a different Greek named Homer who wrote about the Trojan War is a distinction without a difference. Once legend and speculation is set aside, we know very, very little about most named people in classical history and our discussions can unknowingly skate perilously close to juggling Homers.
    – Mark Olson
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 15:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-3

The most compelling fact that Tacitus wrote the Histories, is evinced by his opening statement:

Initium mihi operis Servius Galba iterum Titus Vinius consules erunt. Nam post conditam urbem octingentos et viginti prioris aevi annos multi auctores rettulerunt, dum res populi Romani memorabautur pari eloquentia ac libertate:

Translation (me): At the beginning of my operation Servius Galba again and Titus Vinius will be consuls. Since after was founded the city eight hundred and twenty years ago there are many writers who will be writing, therefore the things of the Roman populace shall have been remembered with equal eloquence and liberty:

Now I have been able to determine that Christ was crucified on the Friday full moon of passover on

April 1st, 26 AD [Augustinian] = Aprilius 1, 777 AUC

The consuls for 26 AD were

26 Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus C. Calvisius Sabinus

Servius Galba II, and Titus Vinius were consuls in

69 Ser. Galba Caesar Augustus T. Vinius

Now do the math.

69 - 26 = 43 years

777 AUC + 43 years = 820 AUC

820 AUC is precisely when Tacitus stated he was writing. Since the Romans were notorious liars, but Tacitus gave posterity the correct AUC year he was writing, we may infer he was an honest source. He states that he is an old man at the time of his writing, and that old age is a rare time where you can feel what you want and say what you feel. Approximating his age at 60 in 70 AD, he was born ca. 10 AD, thus he lived through the crucifixion year of Christ.

There's much more evidence that a single Roman historian in old age wrote the Histories, but his opening line proves he knew when Rome was founded, and gave his readers that knowledge. On the basis of this fact alone, I have concluded Tacitus wrote the Histories.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.