'how Accurate An Historian Was Tacitus?'

The factual accuracy of Tacitus work is indeed questionable. It is based largely on a secondary source of unknown reliability and obvious mistakes are apparent exemplified in his confusion between the daughters of Mark Anthony and Octavia, both named Antonia. This question focuses on the 'accuracy' of the historian but to debate through a thorough questioning of content is not appropriate. Tacitus 'must not be damned because they (his works) are not accompanied by footnotes stating the chapter and verse of their authority.' The question we should be asking is to the extent to which Tacitus wrote appropriate history in terms of his own personal aims and the historiographical context of the times in which he himself lived. It is not our place to dictate the parameters of accurate or appropriate history; the present is not the exemplar of correct historical method. This does not mean that any discussion of the merits and failings of Tacitus' work is fruitless, he can and must still be examined but through a method compatible with the contextual outlook that produced his work. This essay will attempt to do so and answer the accusations of inconsistency, bias, falsification of evidence and narrowness of scope.

There is a repeated presence of inconsistency that permeates the writings of the 'Annals' and 'Agricola.' This is typified in the personality of Germanics who is introduced to us as a man with 'affable nature and a remarkable capacity for getting on with people.' But this initial presentation is deeply at odds with his later presentation as an inept leader evident in the scene where 'Calusidius offered him a drawn sword saying that it was sharper than his own' and again where his attempt at conciliation is 'received in silence.' One attempt to maintain his consistency in light of these passages is to argue that Tacitus himself was consistent in his attitude and was simply obliged by fact but this is wholly incompatible with the length with which Tacitus addresses the mutiny. An alternative approach is to argue that characterization remains consistent, but the outcomes they produce remain variable. The argument is compelling as one key consistent feature of Germanics is his inclination towards drama, this attribute does not change but its consequences remain varied; it results in a weak response to the mutiny in Book I but the same action is responsible for the successes of Book II.

This interpretation must be questioned however, as it is predicated on Tacitus' view of the individual as a fixed expression of unalienable pre-determined virtues. While this is hinted at in part, Tacitus does not apply a consistent historical method and his scepticism forces an ambiguity to pervade the narrative undermining the possibility of a coherent explanation. Furthermore, a fixed human condition is wholly at odds with his overriding teleological understanding of history as a moral exemplar, if the individual is not in control of his personality and subsequent actions then this exercise seems fruitless. Instead, we should celebrate Tacitus' inconsistency as a realistic reflection of the dynamism of human existence. It is an affirmation of the variety of human life and the open-ended nature of our existence. If his historical method painted a coherent and unchanging expression of individuals then we would find ourselves alienated from any relationship with his work. People do not operate in absolute expressions of good and bad predicated on unchangeable internal characteristics. Tacitus accepts this and employs a relative and realist interpretation, which can be seen throughout the Annals. Germanicus is not the binary opposite of Tiberius just as the Republican past is not presented as the perfect contrast to the Imperial present shown in his acceptance that 'not everything was better in the past.' This realist worldview is best exemplified in his acceptance of the principate as 'there was no one cure for the faction ridden state except a single ruler.' Thus, it is impossible to refute this inconsistency but it is precisely for this reason that Tacitus should represent accurate and appropriate history. He writes about real events and real people and the inconsistency of life must be represented in an incoherent reflection in history.

Tacitus' failure to be impartial is often considered a breach of accurate history. He himself, certainly claims to be objective evident in his comparative analysis of other historians whose works he criticizes as 'falsified through fear, written under the irritation of recent hatred.' In contrast Tacitus aims to 'relate a few facts.without either bitterness or partiality.' The typical example of Tacitus' partiality reflected in his historical narrative is in his broadly negative portrayal of Tiberius, which is often interpreted just as much as a venting of his own personal disillusionment with Domitian as it is with an accurate representation of Tiberius. In fact, the personality of Tiberius has been re-evaluated, especially by Mommsen who argues that he should in fact represent the pinnacle of principate expression. This casts doubts over the accuracy of Tacitus as a historian; 'with depreciation of Tacitus reappraisal of Tiberius was necessarily linked.' However, this re-evaluation is by no means concrete and there is huge scholarly debate as to the extent to which Tiberius merits any re-appraisal at all. Furthermore, despite Tacitus own expression, total impartiality in historical writing has never been possible. A fact extended to its hyperbolic extremity by current 'Post-modern' interpretations of history. Every individual operates from within a particular paradigm and it is impossible to ignore one's own distinctive social matrix when writing history. Therefore, to say that Tacitus' history is impartial is synonymous with the statement that Tacitus is simply writing history as impartiality is a necessarily by-product of any historical narrative.

More sinister an accusation is that which suggests Tacitus deliberately falsifies evidence and manipulates the reader towards certain conclusions. This charge is far harder to refute. Tacitus does seem to employ a number of techniques to direct the reader towards certain interpretations such as the persistent use of gossip in causal explanation evident in the mention that 'rumour had gone abroad.' While many attempt to mount a defence on the fact that Tacitus doesn't bind the reader to a particular explanation, citing ambiguous expressions, 'whatever the fact may be,' the very act of highlighting the rumour inclines the reader to believe it. Furthermore, situations in which Tacitus remains ambiguous in the face of rumour indicate a tacit approval of their validity as elsewhere he directly refutes rumours he believes to be false as in the poisoning of Germanicus. Thus, areas in which there is ambiguity of expression the reader is directed towards the mores sinister interpretation. This manipulation of the reader is evident in style and syntactical expression just as much as it is in content. Tacitus is very careful in the construction of his sentences such that the interpretive focus is solely on areas that Tacitus himself desires.

'Meanwhile the commotion in the East was rather pleasing to Tiberius, as it was a pretext for withdrawing Germanicus from the legions which knew him well, and placing him over new provinces where he would be exposed both to treachery and to disasters.'

This example demonstrates the extent to which subtle syntactical variation is employed to allow Tacitus to shape the readers interpretation. Here, 'the main clause is completed early such that the centre of gravity is displaced to subordinate elements.' Such deliberate construction of language cannot be interpreted as passive; he acts as a puppeteer guiding the reader towards his conclusions manufactured not in his own mind, but in those of Tacitus. This significantly questions the extent to which Tacitus can be described as an accurate historian.

However, the end goal to which Tacitus guides his reader is not a coherent picture. As Goodyear highlights this is impossible as he 'doesn't have a consistent impression to impose anyway as there is no cohesive agenda.' The only trait Tacitus exhibits repeatedly is his scepticism and this is a vital ingredient of his success as a historian rather than a critique. Thus, the end to which Tacitus directs his reader is open to interpretation. Just as Tacitus is active in the manufacture of interpretation so too is the reader. Tacitus in fact encourages the reader to form a critical aspect of this process by repeating his ambiguous attitude towards causality in the very first passage of the Annals.

'Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus. Dictatorships were held for a temporary crisis . The power of the decemvirs did not last beyond two years, nor was the consular jurisdiction of the military tribunes of long duration. The despotisms of Cinna and Sulla were brief; the rule of Pompeius and of Crassus soon yielded before Caesar; the arms of Lepidus and Antonius before Augustus; who, when the world was wearied by civil strife, subjected it to empire under the title of 'Prince.'

Tacitus does not interject the narrative of imperial foundation to state his views at any point. He doesn't categorize the movement from one form of rule to another, and this critically binds the reader to an involvement in historical construction; 'whether they read successive modes of power as progress or decline or cycle they are implicated from the outset in the process of historical interpretation.' Thus, Tacitus direction of the reader sets up an appropriate hermeneutical relationship in which both the reader and the author are both active. While, his personal partiality is inevitable the open-ended ambiguity of the narrative doesn't bind the reader to a particular position but lets them formulate it for themselves, and this process does nothing other than improve as oppose to reduce the accuracy of Tacitus as a historian.

A final criticism is that Tacitus is limited by a narrowness of scope in that the majority of his work focuses around military and political history. His 'great men' interpretation of history marginalizes so much that the modern historian has come to cherish. Modern historiography has caused a proliferation in avenues of study such that 'the modern historian must discuss the incidence of taxation on the masses and the incidents of tea-drinking among the classes.' One possible avenue of refutation to this accusation could be to cite the relatively expansive nature of Tacitus' commentary relative to the more limited focus of contemporary writers. His geographical scope covers a vast area including Rome, Eastern Europe, Germany, Africa, Spain, Gaul and a number of Eastern provinces. The presence of what modern historians would call social history is also and especially prevalent in his descri ption of the Britons in Agricola. Indeed, his analysis in this area is most thorough including a constitutional analysis of government; 'The Britons were formerly governed by kings but at present they are divided,' a geographical analysis; 'the sky in this country is deformed by clouds and frequent rains' and even an ethnic categorization in his discussion of the 'ruddy hair and large limbs of the Caledonians.' Thus in many ways Tacitus' scope seems increasingly varied in relative comparison to the authors of the time who were rigid in their attention to the glorious deeds of great men.

However, competitive analysis should not be the tool with which one should seek to address such a criticism. No history is comprehensive; no work will ever be the single and complete representation of the spirit of the age. Instead, when we assess the accuracy of Tacitus' history we must do so against its aims. He successfully wrote history in such a way that was accessible for its target audience by offering a realist interpretation of human action in history, an essential feature of any history hoping to affect in any way the world of its audience. He thought the best way to achieve such a goal would be to encourage the reader to participate in his own moral analysis under loose direction. It is this ambiguity that enables the works to perpetuate their relevance through time as it lends itself to a variety of settings and a variety of people. Crucial to this impact is the ability to entertain, and thus while Tacitus may have marginalized some aspects of history and written in a certain style that added drama they are both essential ingredients in achieving his original aims as a historian. In my view these goals were broadly achieved and thus Tacitus must be described as a fundamentally accurate and appropriate historian.