Write the first paragraph of your page here.
The events Tacitus descibed in the exerpt from "Annals" is usually accepted by society. His documentation provided a solid thesis (The Burning of Rome); however, Tacitus' objectivity was clouded by rhetoric and invective to suggest the popular opinion of Romans in 54 A.D. If Nero's right-hand man documented the same occurences, the style would drastically differ and many aspects of the historical accounts would be inconsistent with each other. Clearly Tacitus wrote this piece for an objective other than to inform becuase with the clever use of language and innuendo, he portrayed the emperor as a vile man within a text meant for unbiased documentation.
Opinion or Truth?Edit
"But guilty as these men were and worthy of direst punishment, the fact that they were being sacraficed for no public good, but only to glut the cruelty of one man, aroused a feeling of pity on their behalf" (Greek and Roman Literatures, 434). Tacitus is telling us, the reader, that Nero publically sacraficed hedonists by crucifying them and using the flames as lamps in the night. Rather than allowing us to infer the personality of Nero. Tacitus offers his interpretation of the situation and fires off his invective towards Nero. Nero's a big Jerk. We get that. It's just redundant for Tacitus to offer an axiomatic belief. Looking at this piece from a different perspective, one could also conclude that language also sustains the power to discredit a work, meaning that the style of one's writing could impose upon the true purpose of writing.