Lucretius

In general and in this particular instance I would say that Imperial policy would have remained exactly the same,in that only if Tacitus had written in glowing terms in favour of Christ and Christianity ,that would be seen as opposed to Imperial "religious authority" would there be any reason for the supression of his works about this particular period and this would hold true no matter which Emperor was in charge.
We are I think left with two options as to why the Christian monasteries did not see fit to preserve the relevant books
1) They did mention a "Messiah figure" but in less than glowing terms and so were useless for the Church or
2) They did not even mention Jesus or a "Messiah figure" at all and so were useless for the Church

Clouseau

But we know very well that it didn't. Christianity went from illegality to apparent sponsorship in a very short time. This is the second most suspicious fact in history, imv. The most suspicious fact in the known cosmos is the total absence of the history of the church after the close of Acts, or perhaps 2 Tim.

Roger Pearse

These conspiracy theories are not a good way to think about how texts are preserved, tho. 99% of texts were lost. Those that remain did so largely accidentally. Long texts were split up into groups of books which travelled down the centuries separately; evidently some of those 'chunks' could get lost, and so it often proves. For Livy most of the chunks are lost. Eusebius' "Demonstratio" in 20 books; only 1-10 survive. Cyril of Alexandria "Against Julian" in either 20 or 30 books; only 1-10 survive. Chance is the main factor. Dark ages monks had other things to worry about.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

FWIW I think Imperial censorship of Tacitus is unlikely as an explanation for the loss of some of his works.

However, Tacitus was a senator, deeply hostile to the way in which the Imperial system had undermined the rebublican values of the Senate.

This underlying hostility is an issue when deciding for example how far he is presenting an unfairly negative view of Tiberius.


Andrew Criddle

Lucretius

I do agree with you about conspiracy theories I accept what you say about the monks having "other things to worry about " TO AN EXTENT but surely if they had some copies of a work which provided "historical evidence" of Jesus I still maintain that they would do all in their power to preserve it.

Clouseau

Modern historians are much more conscious of how 'winners' have determined how history has been transmitted, and 'conspiracy theory' and 'cock-up theory' have both been largely discarded in favour of 'What would they say and do?' Tacitus himself complained of 'spies everywhere', and it is quite conceivable that he developed this theme in a way that became an embarrassment to later administrations.

Lucretius

Perhaps I should have said "openly critical" and being hostile to an Emperor such as Tiberius would have been acceptable to a degree but being ciritcal of the whole system of Roman rule Imperial AND Republican by accepting Jesus as in effect the "true ruler of the world" would have been a complelety different kettle of fish