
Most of the historical works written by the Romans disappeared long ago. But while other books were lost, Tacitus' works survived--though, sometimes, just barely. Can you guess why this might later figures thought the works of Tacitus worth preserving? Please read the
first few paragraphs of Tacitus' Histories, and see if you can find a line or two that explains the appeal of Tacitus and his approach to history.
From the very start, we have an opening where Tacitus admits that he began his work at a specific time in history. He also makes it clear that while he isn't the first, the other writers have had plenty of their own problems when it came to notating history - either incompetence, insolence, hatred of the subject in particular, etc.
ReplyDeleteHe also tells us that he is not perfect either. He is not completely knowledgeable, but he sure will try to be as impartial as he possibly can. And, while he's at it, he tell the readers that he had the added benefit of someone who uplifted him, a perk that others do not share, as well as the thankfully peaceful times in which he was writing in - he had no fear of writing the truth as he knew it.
Finally, he makes it clear that the history he is covering will not be full of rainbows and sunshine. It will be painful, miserable, and horrifying even in peace.
Such unabashed honesty likely pulled readers in, or lulled them into a sense that he was telling the complete truth, as he had no reason to change them. He could have easily began praising a specific emperor, or waited to push an agenda - and maybe he still did that.
But at least in this way, he is telling the reader, "Do not trust me completely. I will mess up. I may have already messed up. I am not all-knowing, and I am lucky that I can write what I *do* know."