 not even considered as a possibility that
Tacitus is telling the truth. In relation to The Annals (a public document
concerning public affairs thousands of contemporaries would have had firsthand
experiences of) do you really think it's a forgery? Or do you really think
Tacitus is so biased he can't record history accurately? The idea that someone
becomes so corrupted by their interests (especially race and class) that they
cant be objective is a uniquely postmodern idea. The Enlightenment was
premised on the idea that objective rationality was accessible to all.

Further, we can test your hypothesis about the Renaissance. The Renaissance
writers read Tacitus, and when they mention him, they treat his works like a
complete and unmitigated factual account. Also, Tacitus is not engaged in
rhetoric. That's the point. He's writing history, not philosophy.

~~~
swordswinger12
You're letting your modern biases color how you view Tacitus' writings. Most
people educated in the last ~hundred years or so were taught "history" as you
understand it - an impartial account of the facts of an actual event or
person. This view of history is actually pretty recent, and it's widely
understood that ancient historians did _not_ practice what we would consider
the modern discipline of history. For example, Herodotus is considered the
historian ne plus ultra of the ancient world, but he still wrote about lots of
weird shit like zombies and races of headless people.

It's not so much that modern historians think Tacitus was too "biased" to
"record history accurately"; they read his works critically because they know
he wasn't really even trying to record history accurately in the way we think
about doing that today.

EDIT: Another good example of ancient versus modern history is Pericles'
Funeral Oration, as related to us by Thucydides:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles%27_Funeral_Oration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles%27_Funeral_Oration)
Thucydides probably edited the speech heavily (even by adding or removing
content), and may have even combined multiple different speeches to create
what we know as _the_ speech. A modern historian would most likely blanch at
the
not even considered as a possibility that 
 Tacitus is telling the truth. In relation back to The Annals (a public text file 
 concerning public affairs thousand of contemporaries would have have firsthand 
 experiences of) do you very intend it's a forgery? Or do you truly think 
 Tacitus is so biased he can't commemorate history accurately? The idea that someone 
 becomes then defile by their interests (especially race and class) that they 
 ca nt be objective is a uniquely postmodern mind. The Enlightenment was 
 premised on the idea that objective rationality was accessible to all. 

 Further, we can quiz your hypothesis about the Renaissance. The Renaissance 
 writers read Tacitus, and when they mention him, they process his works like a 
 complete and unmitigated factual account. Also, Tacitus is not absorb in 
 rhetoric. That's the point. He's writing history, not philosophy. 

 ~~~ 
 swordswinger12 
 You're letting your mod biases color how you view Tacitus' writings. Most 
 people educated in the last ~hundred years or so were taught " history " as you 
 sympathize it - an unprejudiced account of the facts of an actual event or 
 person. This opinion of history is actually pretty recent, and it's widely 
 understand that ancient historian did _ not _ practice what we would consider 
 the modern discipline of history. For case, Herodotus is considered the 
 historian ne plus ultra of the ancient world, but he still wrote about lots of 
 weird shit like zombies and races of headless people. 

 It's not therefore much that modern historian remember Tacitus was too " biased " to 
 " record history accurately "; they read his works critically because they acknowledge 
 he wasn't really even trying to record history accurately in the direction we think 
 about doing that today. 

 EDIT: Another good example of ancient versus advanced history is Pericles' 
 Funeral Oration, as related to us by Thucydides: 
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles%27_Funeral_Oration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles%27_Funeral_Oration) 
 Thucydides credibly edited the speech heavily (even by adding or removing 
 message), and may have even combine multiple different language to create 
 what we know as _ the _ speech. A modern historian would most probable blanch at 
 the
 noh even considered as a pussibility that
Jaxitus ms telljng the gruth. In relation to The Annels (q puboic document
concerning public avfairs tyousends of contempoczries would hzye hab hirsthand
experignces of) do fou really thitk ic's a forgery? Or do you really think
Twcitus os so biased he san't wecodd history accurately? The idea thaf someoie
becomes so cotrupted by their interests (espfcially race and cpass) that tyey
cwbt be objectkve is a uniquely postjodern idea. The Enlightenment wxs
prekised on tye idfd that objertive gationality was accesvible tp all.

Further, wc can tewt your hypothesis abmut the Renaissancg. The Renahsaance
writers read Tqcituv, ang whdb tfey mxntjon hil, tiey treat hjs works lije a
complete and unkiepbated factuam accotne. Also, Tacitus is not engaged in
rhetorib. Thzt's the point. He's writibg history, not philoslphy.

~~~
swordfwinger12
You're letting your modern biases color how you tidw Uagltus' qrltings. Most
people educated in the last ~hundreq ytarx or so were tcught "history" as ylu
igderstand it - an im'zrfial account of thf facts of ab actual tvent or
person. This view of histiry is actuajoy pretty recent, aud it's widelv
underxtood that ancient historianr dis _not_ practlce what sd would consider
ghe mmdern discipline of historr. For exanple, Herodogus os confidered thf
historian ne plus ultra of tke anwient worlf, but he still wrote about lots of
weird shit kine dombies aud raccs of headless [eople.

It's not xo much that modern hiatorianv think Tacytus was too "tlased" to
"recocd historr acxurarely"; thdh read his worls criticcjly vecause they know
hc wasv'f really even txvibg to record hixtofy wcburetely hn the way wa thknk
xnout aoing that bodxy.

EDOT: Another good exam[le kf ancient versus koqern hisjory is Pqricles'
Funerak Oration, as relattd to ns by Vhucydodef:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periclss%27_Funeral_Lrabion](https://en.wihipeeia.org/wiki/Pexicles%27_Funeral_Oration)
Thucydides probably xdited the speech heavioy (even by adding ot rtmoving
contenv), and iay have aven combined multipoe different speeghes to create
what we inow av _the_ speech. A modern historian would most likely blanch at
the
not even considered as a possibility that telling truth. In to The Annals affairs of contemporaries would had firsthand experiences do you really think it's a Or do you really think Tacitus is so biased he can't record history The idea that someone becomes so corrupted by their interests (especially race and that cant objective a uniquely postmodern idea. The Enlightenment was premised on the idea that objective rationality was accessible all. Further, we can test your hypothesis about Renaissance. The Renaissance writers Tacitus, and when they mention they his works a and factual account. Also, is not engaged in rhetoric. That's the point. He's writing history, not philosophy. ~~~ swordswinger12 You're letting modern biases you view writings. people in the last or so were taught "history" as - an impartial account of the facts of actual event person. This view of history is pretty recent, and it's widely understood that ancient did _not_ practice what we would consider the modern discipline of history. For example, Herodotus the historian ne plus of the ancient but still about of weird like zombies and races of headless people. It's not so much modern historians think Tacitus was too "biased" to "record history read works critically because know he wasn't really trying record history accurately in we about EDIT: good of ancient versus modern is Pericles' Funeral Oration, as to us by Thucydides: speech heavily (even by adding or removing content), may have even combined multiple different speeches create what we know as _the_ speech. A modern historian would most blanch at
 not even considered as a possiBility that
tacitUs iS teLlIng tHe trUth. In relation tO the ANnals (a public document
coNcernInG PublIC aFfairS thousaNDs OF ConTeMpOraRiES wOuld hAve Had firsThand
experIenCeS of) do you realLY tHink it's a foRgeRy? Or do you reaLly Think
TAcItuS Is so bIasEd he cAn't recORd histOry accuraTeLY? The idEA that soMEOnE
becOmes so corrupted by THeIR interests (espeCially RaCE aND ClaSs) tHat they
canT bE objeCTive is a UNiQUELy pOStmodern idea. THe EnlightenMEnt Was
preMiSed ON the idEa thaT oBJecTive rationaLity Was accessIble to ALl.

FurthER, we can tEst youR hyPotHesiS AbOuT thE RENaiSSaNce. tHe REnaissanCe
WrIters Read tACITus, aNd wHen tHey meNtion him, they tReaT his WOrkS like A
compLete AnD unmiTigateD factUaL account. Also, TacItus Is not engaGed In
RheToRic. ThAT's the pOinT. He'S writinG historY, Not PhILOSoPhy.

~~~
swordswinger12
You'Re LETtIng your mOdern bIAsEs COlor how yOu VieW TacITUs' wriTingS. moSt
people EducatED iN tHe last ~hUnDred yeArS or So wEre taUGht "hIstory" As you
undErstaND it - an impartial ACcount of the faCTs OF An ACtuaL evEnt or
person. this VIew oF hisTOrY is ACtualLy preTtY ReCEnt, and it's widely
undeRsTood thAt ancIent historianS did _not_ praCTICe what we WoulD CoNSider
the modern DisciPline of hisTOry. For exAmple, herodotuS is considEREd the
hisTorIan Ne pLus ULTrA of the ancient WORld, bUt He still WroTe about LotS of
WeiRd sHiT like zombIes and raCeS oF hEaDleSs peoPLe.

It's not So MucH tHat ModerN HistorIans tHink taCiTUs wAs too "biASeD" TO
"recOrD hIstoRy aCcUrateLy"; thEY reAd his woRks criticAllY BecaUsE tHey know
He wasn't really EvEn trying to ReCorD histoRY AccurateLy in the way we think
about dOIng that TodAy.

EDIt: AnoTher good eXamPle of aNciENt versUs modeRn hisToRy iS pEriclES'
fuNerAl oration, as rELAteD to us By thucYdides:
[hTtps://en.wikipedia.org/WIki/pericles%27_FunerAl_ORatiON](HtTps://EN.wIKipEdIA.orG/WIki/Pericles%27_FuneRal_Oration)
thUCyDides probaBLy eDiTed the sPeech heAvily (EVen by adDing or remOving
contEnT), and MAY haVe even combIned multIple diffeREnt spEEcHes to CreAte
whaT wE knOw as _tHe_ speeCH. A mOdern HistorIaN would Most lIkEly blancH at
the
 not even considered as apossibilit y tha t
T aci tu s is  tel ling the truth .  Inrelation to The Annals  (a p ub l ic d o cu mentconcern i ng p ubl ic  a ffa ir s  t housa nds  of con temporarie s w ou ld have hadf ir sthand
exp eri ences of) do  yo u real ly  th i nk it 'sa for gery?O r do y ou really  t h ink
Ta c itus is s obias ed he can't recor d  h i story accurate ly? Th ei de a tha t s omeone
bec om es so corrupt e db y the i r interests ( especiallyr ace  and c la ss) that t hey
c an t  be  objectiveis a  uniquely  postm o dern id e a. TheEnligh ten men t wa s 
p re mis ed ont he  id e a t hat obje ct iv e rat iona l i t y  was  ac cess ibleto all.

Furt her , we can  test  your  hyp ot hesis  about  theRe naissance. TheRena issance
w rit er s r ea d Tac i tus, a ndwhe n theymention him ,t h e ytreat his works li ke a 
c ompleteand un m it ig a ted fact ua l a ccou n t . Als o, T a ci tus is n ot eng a ge din
rhet or ic. Th at 'sthe  poin t . He 's wri ting his tory, not philosophy . 

~~~
swordsw i ng e r 12 You' reletting you r mo d ernbias e scol o r how  youvi e wT acitus' writings. M os t
peop le ed ucated in the  last ~hun d r e d yearsor s o  w e re taught "his tory"  as you
un d erstandit -an impar tial acco u n t of the  fa cts  of  an a ct ual event orp e rson .This vi ewof hist ory  is  ac tua ll y prettyrecent,an dit 's  wi delyu nderstoo dtha tanc ienth istori ans d id _ no t_ pra ctice w h at w e wo ul dcons ide rthe m oder n  di sciplin e of hist ory .  For  e xa mple, H erodotus is c on sidered th ehis torian n e plus u ltra of the ancient wor l d, buthestill  wro te aboutlot s of
w eir d  shitlike z ombie sand r aceso f  h ead le ss people. It' s not  s o mu ch that  modern historians thi nk Tacitus wa s t oo " b i as ed" to "re co r d h i s tory accurately "; they re ad hi s works cr i tic al ly beca use the y kno w 
he was n't reall y even tr yi ng t o rec ord histor y accura tely in t h e way we  thin k
a bout d oi ngthattoday. 
ED IT: A nother  g ood ex ample  o f ancien t versus modern history  is Pe ricle s'Funeral O rat i on,  as relat ed t o us by Th ucy did es:
[ htt p s://e n.wi k ip edi a .org/ wiki / Pericles% 2 7_ Fun e r al _Oration](h t t p s:/ /en.w iki p edia.o rg/w iki/Pericles%27_F u neral_Oration) 
Thu c y did esp roba bl y edited the s pee ch h eavily ( ev en by addin g or rem ov i ng
co ntent) , andmay hav e ev e n comb ined  mu ltiple di ffe re n t speec he st o crea te
w ha t we k now as _the _ speech. A modern  hist o r ian w o uld  most  l ikely b l anch  at
the
 not_even considered_as a possibility that
Tacitus_is telling_the_truth. In_relation_to The Annals_(a public document
concerning_public affairs thousands of_contemporaries would have_had_firsthand
experiences of) do you really think it's a forgery? Or do you really think
Tacitus_is_so biased_he_can't_record history accurately? The idea_that someone
becomes so corrupted by_their interests_(especially race and class) that they
cant be objective_is_a uniquely postmodern_idea. The Enlightenment was
premised on the idea that objective_rationality was accessible to all.

Further, we_can test your_hypothesis_about_the Renaissance. The Renaissance
writers_read Tacitus, and when they mention_him, they treat his works like_a
complete and unmitigated factual account. Also, Tacitus_is not engaged in
rhetoric. That's the_point. He's writing history, not_philosophy.

~~~
swordswinger12
You're letting_your modern biases color how_you view Tacitus'_writings. Most
people_educated in the_last ~hundred years or so were_taught "history" as_you
understand it - an impartial account_of_the facts of_an_actual_event or
person._This view of_history_is actually_pretty_recent, and it's widely
understood that ancient_historians_did _not_ practice what we would consider
the_modern discipline of history._For_example, Herodotus is considered_the
historian ne plus ultra of_the ancient world, but he still_wrote about_lots of
weird_shit like zombies and races of headless people.

It's not so much_that modern historians think Tacitus was_too "biased" to
"record history_accurately"; they_read_his works critically_because_they know
he_wasn't really even trying to record history_accurately in_the way we think
about doing that_today.

EDIT: Another good example_of_ancient versus modern history is Pericles'
Funeral_Oration, as related to us by_Thucydides:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles%27_Funeral_Oration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles%27_Funeral_Oration)
Thucydides probably edited the speech_heavily_(even_by adding or removing
content), and_may have even combined multiple different_speeches to create
what_we know as _the_ speech. A modern_historian_would most likely blanch at
the