What methods and writing styles does Tacitus use in The Annals of Imperial Rome?

Tacitus's writings are known for their instantly deep-cutting and dense prose, seldom glossy, in contrast with the more placable style of some of his contemporaries, like Plutarch.





When he describes a near-to-defeat of the Roman army in Ann. I, 63 this is one of the rare occasions where he applies some kind of gloss, but then still rather by the brevity with which he describes the end of the hostilities, than by embellishing phrases.





In most of his writings he keeps to a strictly chronological ordering of his narration, with only seldom an outline of the bigger picture, as if he leaves it to the reader to construct that "bigger picture" for himself.





Nonetheless, when he sketches the bigger picture, for example in the opening paragraphs of the Annals, summarizing the situation at the end of the reign of Augustus, he needs no more than a few condensed phrases to take the reader to the heart of the story.





Tacitus's historical style combines various approaches to history into a method of his own (owing some debt to Sallust): seamlessly blending straightforward descriptions of events, pointed moral lessons, and tightly-focused dramatic accounts, his history writing contains deep, and often pessimistic, insights into the workings of the human mind and the nature of power.





Tacitus's own declaration regarding his approach to history is famous (Ann. I,1):





inde consilium mihi . . . tradere . . . sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo. Hence my purpose is to relate . . . without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.





Although this is probably as close as one can get to a neutral point of view intention in antiquity, there has been much scholarly discussion about Tacitus's alleged "neutrality" (or "partiality" to others, which would make the quote above no more than a figure of speech).





Throughout his writings, Tacitus appears primarily concerned with the balance of power between the Roman Senate and the Roman Emperors. His writings are filled with tales of corruption and tyranny in the governing class of Rome as they failed to adjust to the new imperial régime; they squandered their cherished cultural traditions of free speech and self-respect as they fell over themselves to please the often bemused (and rarely benign) emperor.





Another important recurring theme is the role of having the sympathy of the army in the coming to power (and staying there) of an Emperor: throughout the period Tacitus is describing, the leading role in that respect sways between (some of) the legions defending the outer borders of the Empire, and the troops residing in the city of Rome, most prominently the Praetorian Guard.





Tacitus's political career was largely spent under the emperor Domitian; his experience of the tyranny, corruption, and decadence prevalent in the era (81–96) may explain his bitter and ironic political analysis. He warned against the dangers of unaccountable power, against the love of power untempered by principle, and against the popular apathy and corruption, engendered by the wealth of the empire, which allowed such evils to flourish. The experience of Domitian's tyrannical reign is generally also seen as the cause of the sometimes unfairly bitter and ironic cast to his portrayal of the Julio-Claudian emperors.





Nonetheless the image he builds of Tiberius throughout the first six books of the Annals is neither exclusively bleak nor approving: most scholars analyse the image of Tiberius as predominantly positive in the first books, becoming predominantly negative in the following books relating the intrigues of Sejanus. Even then, the entrance of Tiberius in the first chapters of the first book is a crimson tale dominated by hypocrisy by and around the new emperor coming to power; and in the later books some kind of respect for the wisdom and cleverness of the old emperor, keeping out of Rome to secure his position, is often transparent.





In general Tacitus does not fear to give words of praise and words of rejection to the same person, often explaining openly which he thinks the commendable and which the despicable properties. Not conclusively taking sides for or against the persons he describes is his hallmark, and led thinkers in later times to interpret his works as well as a defense of an imperial system, as a rejection of the same (see Tacitean studies, Black vs. Red Tacitists). A better illustration of Tacitus's "sine ira et studio" is scarcely imaginable.





Tacitus's skill with written Latin is unsurpassed; no other author is considered his equal, except perhaps for Cicero. His style differs both from the prevalent style of the Silver Age and from that of the Golden Age; though it has a calculated grandeur and eloquence (largely thanks to Tacitus's education in rhetoric), it is extremely concise, even epigrammatic—the sentences are rarely flowing or beautiful, but their point is always clear. The same style has been both derided as "harsh, unpleasant, and thorny" and praised as "grave, concise, and pithily eloquent".





His historical works focus on the psyches and inner motivations of the characters, often with penetrating insight—though it is questionable how much of his insight is correct, and how much is convincing only because of his rhetorical skill. He is at his best when exposing hypocrisy and dissimulation; for example, he follows a narrative recounting Tiberius' refusal of the title pater patriae by recalling the institution of a law forbidding any "treasonous" speech or writings—and the frivolous prosecutions which resulted (Annals, 1.72). Elsewhere (Annals 4.64–66) he compares Tiberius' public distribution of fire relief to his failure to stop the perversions and abuses of justice which he had begun. Though this kind of insight has earned him praise, he has also been criticized for ignoring the larger context of the events which he describes.





Tacitus owes the most, both in language and in method, to Sallust; Ammianus Marcellinus is the later historian whose work most closely approaches him in style.

What methods and writing styles does Tacitus use in The Annals of Imperial Rome?
Temporary documents were written on wax tablets with a stylus. Permanent documents were written on parchment with ink. Sometimes, papyrus imported from egypt was used in place of parchment. Both cursive and printed writing styles were used.