Tacitus' identity

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Did contemporary historians or writers (let say since 100 CE until 150) mentioned him in their works ? By his full name, part of his name or by a clue ?

 

Thanks

Edited January 12, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Primus Pilus]

Did contemporary historians or writers (let say since 100 CE until 150) mentioned him in their works ? By his full name, part of his name or by a clue ?

 

Thanks

 

I suppose Pliny the Younger did if you count letters addressed to him (regarding the eruption of Vesuvius and the role of Pliny the Elder). Otherwise I can't recall Plutarch, Suetonius or Josephus mentioning Tacitus by name. Doesn't mean they didn't but the notion's not ringing any bells for me. Since most mentions of sources by the ancients are rather vague (ie "It has been said that..." or "Some have suggested that...) it would be difficult to know if the writers may be referring to other historians.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I suppose Pliny the Younger did if you count letters addressed to him (regarding the eruption of Vesuvius and the role of Pliny the Elder). Otherwise I can't recall Plutarch, Suetonius or Josephus mentioning Tacitus by name. Doesn't mean they didn't but the notion's not ringing any bells for me. Since most mentions of sources by the ancients are rather vague (ie "It has been said that..." or "Some have suggested that...) it would be difficult to know if the writers may be referring to other historians.

 

 

P.P.

Are you aware to the notion (running in the net) about Tacitus being somone else ? There is even a book "THE TRUE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" by Abelard Reuchlin who says "...First, the Pisos used their friend Cornelius Palma, the jurist. Writing under the name Cornelius Tacitus between 115 and 120..."

 

There is another version that he was Neratius Priscus and so on . I know that Syme dealt with the subject but did not came to such an extreme conclusions .

 

Personally I alwayes tend to dismiss such bizar hypothesis but it is intriguing .

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I suppose Pliny the Younger did if you count letters addressed to him (regarding the eruption of Vesuvius and the role of Pliny the Elder). Otherwise I can't recall Plutarch, Suetonius or Josephus mentioning Tacitus by name. Doesn't mean they didn't but the notion's not ringing any bells for me. Since most mentions of sources by the ancients are rather vague (ie "It has been said that..." or "Some have suggested that...) it would be difficult to know if the writers may be referring to other historians.

 

 

P.P.

Are you aware to the notion (running in the net) about Tacitus being somone else ? There is even a book "THE TRUE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" by Abelard Reuchlin who says "...First, the Pisos used their friend Cornelius Palma, the jurist. Writing under the name Cornelius Tacitus between 115 and 120..."

 

There is another version that he was Neratius Priscus and so on . I know that Syme dealt with the subject but did not came to such an extreme conclusions .

 

Personally I alwayes tend to dismiss such bizar hypothesis but it is intriguing .

 

 

 

Indeed it is very intriguing, I've come across this before. If you read further on in the book it goes onto say that infact ,Tacitus also used the names "Cornutus Tetullus" and "Cornelius Priscus" as well.

 

But probably the most interesting part is the connection he makes between Tacitus and Neratius Priscus, he goes onto say............

 

When one reads, for instance, "The Life of Hadrian," by Aelius Spartianus, one learns that (at least supposedly); "There was, to be sure, a widely prevailing belief that Trajan, with the approval of many of his friends, had planned to appoint as his successor not Hadrian but Neratius Priscus, even to the extent of once saying to Priscus: "I entrust the provinces to your care in case anything happens to me."

One would wonder just how it is that Trajan had thought to make Neratius Priscus (Tacitus) his successor. Well, having looked into this further by comparing the alias names of the emperor Nerva and those of Neratius Priscus, as well as doing more studies into the various alias names used by other persons of the time the reality of the matter has now come to light. "Neratius Priscus" is now seen as "Ner(va) Atius Priscus", and this along with other facts reveal that Neratius Priscus or the person that history knows as Tacitus was actually son of emperor Nerva. You may see this in the genealogical charts that give the true relation-ship between ALL of the Roman emperors Galba up to Constantine I.

 

 

 

I've also read that In 100, he, along with his friend Pliny the Younger prosecuted Marius Priscus (proconsul of Africa) for corruption. Priscus was found guilty and sent into exile; Pliny wrote a few days later that Tacitus had spoken "with all the majesty which characterizes his usual style of oratory" (wiki)

 

There's almost some definite connection between Tacitus and Priscus but just what it is we'll probably never know.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I suppose Pliny the Younger did if you count letters addressed to him (regarding the eruption of Vesuvius and the role of Pliny the Elder). Otherwise I can't recall Plutarch, Suetonius or Josephus mentioning Tacitus by name. Doesn't mean they didn't but the notion's not ringing any bells for me. Since most mentions of sources by the ancients are rather vague (ie "It has been said that..." or "Some have suggested that...) it would be difficult to know if the writers may be referring to other historians.

 

 

P.P.

Are you aware to the notion (running in the net) about Tacitus being somone else ? There is even a book "THE TRUE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" by Abelard Reuchlin who says "...First, the Pisos used their friend Cornelius Palma, the jurist. Writing under the name Cornelius Tacitus between 115 and 120..."

 

There is another version that he was Neratius Priscus and so on . I know that Syme dealt with the subject but did not came to such an extreme conclusions .

 

Personally I alwayes tend to dismiss such bizar hypothesis but it is intriguing .

 

 

 

Indeed it is very intriguing, I've come across this before. If you read further on in the book it goes onto say that infact ,Tacitus also used the names "Cornutus Tetullus" and "Cornelius Priscus" as well.

 

But probably the most interesting part is the connection he makes between Tacitus and Neratius Priscus, he goes onto say............

 

When one reads, for instance, "The Life of Hadrian," by Aelius Spartianus, one learns that (at least supposedly); "There was, to be sure, a widely prevailing belief that Trajan, with the approval of many of his friends, had planned to appoint as his successor not Hadrian but Neratius Priscus, even to the extent of once saying to Priscus: "I entrust the provinces to your care in case anything happens to me."

One would wonder just how it is that Trajan had thought to make Neratius Priscus (Tacitus) his successor. Well, having looked into this further by comparing the alias names of the emperor Nerva and those of Neratius Priscus, as well as doing more studies into the various alias names used by other persons of the time the reality of the matter has now come to light. "Neratius Priscus" is now seen as "Ner(va) Atius Priscus", and this along with other facts reveal that Neratius Priscus or the person that history knows as Tacitus was actually son of emperor Nerva. You may see this in the genealogical charts that give the true relation-ship between ALL of the Roman emperors Galba up to Constantine I.

 

 

 

I've also read that In 100, he, along with his friend Pliny the Younger prosecuted Marius Priscus (proconsul of Africa) for corruption. Priscus was found guilty and sent into exile; Pliny wrote a few days later that Tacitus had spoken "with all the majesty which characterizes his usual style of oratory" (wiki)

 

There's almost some definite connection between Tacitus and Priscus but just what it is we'll probably never know.

 

 

 

So, GPM, Tacitus is an enigmatic figure. A son of an emperor - This is too much for me . The possibilities are endless . It seems that we don't know exactly what happened there in the years 95-100 and 115-117 . There is a strong feeling that "Tacitus" and others were hiding something very important .

[Primus Pilus]

Yes, I've heard of it, but don't really understand the point. Assuming Tacitus were the son of Nerva (or some other variable possibility), does it really change his historical record, in light of the guarded skepticism with which we already regard it?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Yes, I've heard of it, but don't really understand the point. Assuming Tacitus were the son of Nerva (or some other variable possibility), does it really change his historical record, in light of the guarded skepticism with which we already regard it?

 

 

The point is to figure out the identity of Tacitus .

And if Tacitus was someone else, let say the son of Nerva (I would say no more than 2% chance) this makes "his" words very problematic . More than that, if Nerva had a son don't you think that it changes history ?

[Primus Pilus]

Yes, I've heard of it, but don't really understand the point. Assuming Tacitus were the son of Nerva (or some other variable possibility), does it really change his historical record, in light of the guarded skepticism with which we already regard it?

 

 

The point is to figure out the identity of Tacitus .

More than that, if Nerva had a son don't you think that it changes history ?

 

How would it change history? It would make the adoption of Trajan a bit more unusual in that a biological son was bypassed, but it wouldn't have been the first time. (Nero over Britannicus by Claudius). The course of history still follows the same path regardless of the geneology or identity of Tacitus.

 

Would it make Tacitus account more likely to be biased based on particular relationships? Possibly, but that the general sentiment of bias or propaganda is already assumed by many. In any case, I personally feel it's clear that Tacitus was the son-in-law of Agricola and an obviously prominent individual, regardless of what his patronage may have been.

[The Augusta]

This all sounds very familiar - who's the real Shakespeare, anyone? And just as knowing his real identity (if he is NOT the man from Stratford) wouldn't change a damned thing about his work, nor would learning the origins of Tacitus change anything about his work either. I really think these sort of speculations are just something for academics to do on their days off. They are a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. Conspiracy theory gone mad sort of stuff - alas, it's a symptom of our age.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I really think these sort of speculations are just something for academics to do on their days off. They are a complete waste of everyone's time and energy.

 

 

Damn ! The whole idea of forum is to burn some time, no ? Better than that - to burn time at work...