Talk:Lyon Tablet

Tacitus

"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)

I've also changed the external link descriptions, which supposed the Lyon Text as the original and authoritative, as against a Tacitean "version". Haploidavey (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tacitus, like other historians of the time, will present speeches in a heavily edited (or wholly invented) form which summarizes the speaker's position and gives additional background and motivation. Speeches are used for dramatic effect and to clarify the historian's narrative. They were never intended to be read as authentic literal excerpts of actual records. It's entirely unremarkable that Tacitus version differs from the engraved text. (This is really commonplace stuff and should be noted here.) 2A02:AA1:1647:9593:E6:3466:267C:ED26 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)