Abstract

Recently, the studies on the sources of Tacitus have frequently ad- dressed the question in the terms of his originality in the rewriting of these. Primarily, I would like to highlight his originality in the selection of the material. In that matter, Tacitus had in common with Cassius Dio an annalistic source that provided them with the plot of their history. I called it here the source filrouge (“guiding source”). It could be with great caution identified with Aufidius Bassus. In order to supplement, extend or correct this source fil-rouge, Tacitus used massively a variety of materials drawn from several subsidiary sources. In some of these sources (Servilius Nonianus, acta senatus), he found mainly information that allowed him to develop the senatorial part of his history and to give consistency to some figures of senators. Simultaneously he sought other sources that enabled him to get a better understanding of the members of the dynasty as Germanicus and his family (Commentarii of Agrippina the Younger, Bella Germaniae Pliny the Elder), of Augustus and his time (Cremutius Cordus, Res gestae) and of the channels of imperial self-representation (monuments, inscriptions). Seneca the Elder is most probably one of these subsidiary sources. If so, Tacitus would have consulted him especially on the government of Augustus and on the beginnings of Tiberius as an emperor. He would also have established with him a link of intertextuality.