"The tablet also raised some questions about the trust-worthiness of the historian Tacitus, who records a version of the speech in his annals. Tacitus' version is almost completely different from Claudius' original as presented on the tablet, and excludes many details."
It would be useful to know who made this comparison, and on what grounds they drew their conclusions. As the article stands, the question of accuracy regarding differing versions of Claudius' speech seems to presume that things officially "writ in stone" (so OK, it's bronze) are somehow more reliable than things writ on paper. Please, some scholarly evidence. Haploidavey (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is "trust-worthiness" an appropriate scale here? I really don't think so. Tacitus is much more than a simple annalist or encyclopedist. It's surely enough to state that Tacitus' version of the speech is different - which is what the external links show. I've edited accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)