Tacitus’ work is highly colourful and descriptive and may seem to be more akin to fiction than fact. It is indistinguishable from what many would class as ‘history’. What this method does do, however, is imprint the scene firmly in the mind of the reader. This is seen, for example, in the description of the Messalina’s indulgence just before her affair is discovered. Tacitus presents Messalina as a ‘Maenad’, carefully describing her dress and surroundings. A very clear image of autumn and harvest are presented. Tacitus’ language, particularly in his narrative is highly complex – he is fond of antiquated language and is often fastidious, especially in regards to language – as is seen in his particularity over the origins of certain Latin characters introduced by Claudius. He is even snobbish, for example, in his details of the lineage of Curtius Rufus, who is not noble born. It is these specific details that make Tacitus’ narrative different from Thucydides’.
Thucydides concentrated more on factual history, which does have a tendency to make his work slightly colourless in comparison to that of Tacitus. It could be said that this does make it more valid and accurate, as it shows less bias and opinion. Thucydides’ narrative is very dense and contains much information. It does differ from Tacitus, who uses a more sophisticated form of language that often loses some of its impact in translation. The way each historian uses the narrative is, in itself, unique. Although Thucydides does attempt to be objective, this is not always the case. It is clear that he considers some characters of more importance than others, and he has a clear bias towards Pericles, despite the fact that other politicians, e.g. Cleon, were also prominent at the time. Thucydides himself was Athenian, so his bias is understandable; he considers Pericles to be a great leader. There is very little emphasis on the individual – something Tacitus does tend to focus on. Although, there do seem to be very few individuals that Tacitus does actually like! He is highly critical, but this does make for interesting reading and it does reflect his purpose. Thucydides’ neutral attitude does mean that his account can be seen to lack interest.
Tacitus’ work, on the other hand, does not even attempt to be objective, and is littered with opinion and judgement. You only have to look at the way he describes Agrippina, Claudius’ wife, to see that he dislikes her immensely. But, whereas Thucydides’ opinion is accidental and found in his analysis of events, Tacitus’ is consistent throughout. Again, we have to remember the purpose of each historian. As Tacitus concentrates more on morality, a certain degree of moral judgment is required. Individual action is of much greater importance to Tacitus than to Thucydides; there are very few individuals in Thucydides accounts.
Tacitus is greatly interested in the psychology behind actions and the distinction between real and professed motives; we can see why morality is an important aspect of his works. He understands that the reasons people give for actions are not always the reality of the case. If we look at the case of Gaius Silius and Messalina; the reason he gives for marrying her, appears to be love, but in reality, we know that he actually has very little choice, as any other option is likely to lead to death. Tacitus illustrates this through the effective use of techniques such as direct and indirect speech. Direct speech often indicates a professed motive – as this is the motive that the majority recognise. Indirect speech is often representative of thoughts, and allows character development, such as in the case of
It must also be noted that Thucydides only recognises speakers of great importance, and that the majority are relatively anonymous. Only figures such as Pericles and Phormio are actually given identity and allowed character development through speeches. In the majority of cases, Thucydides develops his own ideas through speeches; Pericles’ Funeral Oration explores Thucydides ideas about politics and democracy. And, he clearly states that speeches contain what he felt was ‘appropriate’ - so, they can represent differing viewpoints, such as those of different states – for example, Corinth and Corcyra, but they are not actually as ‘factual’ as Thucydides claims they are. He has, in some cases, rewritten entire speeches. This is one of the major criticisms of his work, as it can be seen to be somewhat contradictory.
Tacitus’ use of speeches is different, but it is clear that he has also rewritten speeches or included what he thought was appropriate. This is most obviously the case in the speech of Claudius regarding the inclusion of foreigners in the senate. In comparison to the original speech, there are clear differences, but Tacitus’ reinterpretation possibly is an improvement as Tacitus’ writing style makes the content more relevant to the events in progress. Again, like Thucydides, Tacitus, does use speeches to explore his own ideas on subjects such as politics, particularly imperialism. Much of the speeches regarding the Roman occupation of Britain are clear examples of this. Caratacus’ speech in particular shows Tacitus’ tendency to display pity for the underdog; in the case the British.
As a Roman, it is highly likely that Tacitus took an atheistic attitude to the divine and supernatural. But, he does not omit it from his work, as the annalistic writing style traditionally sees the inclusion of omens and portends, such as the death of consuls and the birth of malformed animals and children prior to the death of Claudius. This is clearly a literary device and it is doubtful that Tacitus believed them himself. It does, however, create dramatic tension and suspense in anticipation of the final event. Thucydides, although adopting a rational approach to writing history, also includes the divine. Unlike other authors, such as Herodotus, however, he does not take a credulous attitude towards it. He uses it to analyse the responses of people in events such as the plague in Athens, and how they can be interpreted in different ways after an event.
It is clear that there are large differences between Tacitus and Thucydides, and that both have very different intentions as historians. It is difficult to say who is the more accurate, as they both cover very different subject matter; Tacitus, imperial Rome, and Thucydides, the Peloponnesian War. But, as far as correct factual information is concerned; Thucydides is possibly the more accurate. But, if you want to discover more than just the facts, Tacitus is possibly the more compelling of the two authors.
