Talk:Annals (Tacitus)

Validity/Provenance of MSS

I'd be interested in learning more about how the documents survived, where the remaining copies were found, and if relevant, are stored. Any information connecting that to the conclusion about missing books etc would also help the make this article more complete.

I think we should mention claims that Annals is forgery:http://library.beau.org/gutenberg/etext05/8tcbr10.txt

I agree we should mention claims that Annals were forged in the 15th century; they were never referred to before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs) 23 April 2011

Here is something about manuscripts, and rebuttal to forgery hypothesis: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm

Vid512 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My dear, that is not a rebuttal, that is a dismissal. The second website you introduce simply refers to the opinions of others and makes no attempt--systemic or otherwise--to refute the allegations made in the Ross book. In fact he admits that these claims were taken up by others and with more merit. His only response is to make a show of incredulity at the idea that an MSS could be forged. Anyone familiar with antiquities is well aware that forgery is a fact of life. Ross makes a good case for Bracciolini possessing the means, motive, and opportunity. If Pearce wishes to dismiss the idea of forgery he would have to make a very careful case from the MSS extant using physical and visual evidence. There is no attempt here to do so. I believe a new investigation using modern techniques would be quite illuminating. Even Pearce reports a wide range of opinions (=wild-assed guesses) as to the proper dating of the MSS, and he eventually makes Ross' point for him in his attempt to attribute the Annals before the 15th century, mentioning authors who quoted still lost work of Tacitus, rather than the portions that were 'found', precisely what we would expect if the 'found' portion were a fake, as well as the alleged quoting by Severus, which is disputed.

In my opinion it would be irresponsible not to mention the controversies surrounding this work, especially as the Annals have quite recently come under fire in the "existence of Jesus/1st century Christians" debate (a matter not even on Ross' radar--or even mentioned as late as the 1990's, as far as I know). 98.180.8.57 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are arguing the truth of this position, which isn't how the encyclopedia gets written. If a position does not have active defenders who count as reliable sources, then WP:UNDUE argues against mentioning the theory. If it has only a few defenders, WP:FRINGE comes into play. I'm not familiar enough with the current state of the literature, but are there classics professors publishing in peer-reviewed outlets who argue that the Annals was a forgery? According to the website dedicated to rebutting the forgery hypothesis, no recent critical edition makes mention of there being any controversy. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Title of Annals

The article begins with the statement that "Annals" was "probably" not the name given by Tacitus. There is no "probably"--the name Annals dates to the 16th century and was specifically given to that work by the editor Justus Lipsius in 1574 to distinguish it from the Histories. The title from the MSS is "Ab Excessu divi Augusti Historiarum Libri" = "Books of history (stories) since the death of Augustus (the Divine)". 98.180.8.57 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Content section & suicide

I haven't edited the page, but hope the author will consider my comments:

The notion that the suicides of men such as Seneca and Thrasea Paetus were motivated by vanity seems incorrect to me. Roman law held that a man convicted of treason, (interpreted by tyrants like Nero and Domitian to mean political opposition), would have his wealth confiscated by the state, and his family subject to banishment. Given that conviction was assured, these men committed suicide to spare their loved ones, as under Roman law you could not try a dead man. No trial, no conviction, no punitive action against the family.

We have a modern day analogy in the WWII general, Erwin Rommel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)