05-12-2010, 08:38 AM
That quote about the Fenni is my favourite from Tacitus. One time I was joking with a friend, saying that the Fenni were Finns, and he said: “Hey! We have horses now!” :lol:
Back to Tacitus. I understand healthy scepticism, but I suppose that I am with the backlash against the school of ancient sources hyper-criticism. Some of the proponents of radical scepticism seem to think that no ancient writer can be trusted and they were all making up things out of their own imagination. Some things can be shown, with a high degree of confidence, to be fabrications. Speeches stuck in the mouths of people centuries removed from the writer are the best example.
Cornell says that “there is always a distinction to be drawn between the structural data on which it is based and the narrative superstructure.” The narrative superstructure can be quite extensive, such as with Dionysius of Halicarnassus who had a theme that Romans were Greek.
But do we have reason to believe that Tacitus’ statement that Germans were taller than Romans is a fabrication or was part of a “narrative superstructure”? So far I’m not seeing much that convinces me. To reject something he says we have to replace it with something of our own construction, which is coloured by our own prejudices just like their work was coloured with theirs.
I suppose that I am a believer in what the writers say as long as there is no concrete reason to doubt them. Even today, if this source is to be trusted, there are significant height differences among people in different areas of the world. (2 inches between modern Italians and Germans, if this is right!) In an era of comparatively less interaction and more regional differences in diet I think it is safe to assume that these differences would remain, or even be more pronounced.
If someone can show a reason why Tacitus should be disbelieved – such as studies on German remains of the same time period or a demonstration that tall Germans fit into some Roman belief system then I’ll change my tune. :wink:
Back to Tacitus. I understand healthy scepticism, but I suppose that I am with the backlash against the school of ancient sources hyper-criticism. Some of the proponents of radical scepticism seem to think that no ancient writer can be trusted and they were all making up things out of their own imagination. Some things can be shown, with a high degree of confidence, to be fabrications. Speeches stuck in the mouths of people centuries removed from the writer are the best example.
Cornell says that “there is always a distinction to be drawn between the structural data on which it is based and the narrative superstructure.” The narrative superstructure can be quite extensive, such as with Dionysius of Halicarnassus who had a theme that Romans were Greek.
But do we have reason to believe that Tacitus’ statement that Germans were taller than Romans is a fabrication or was part of a “narrative superstructure”? So far I’m not seeing much that convinces me. To reject something he says we have to replace it with something of our own construction, which is coloured by our own prejudices just like their work was coloured with theirs.
I suppose that I am a believer in what the writers say as long as there is no concrete reason to doubt them. Even today, if this source is to be trusted, there are significant height differences among people in different areas of the world. (2 inches between modern Italians and Germans, if this is right!) In an era of comparatively less interaction and more regional differences in diet I think it is safe to assume that these differences would remain, or even be more pronounced.
If someone can show a reason why Tacitus should be disbelieved – such as studies on German remains of the same time period or a demonstration that tall Germans fit into some Roman belief system then I’ll change my tune. :wink:
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
