In a 1995 article Géza Alföldy made a strong case that a fragmentary inscription (CILvi 1574) probably belonged to the funerary monument of P. Cornelius Tacitus. While it adds little to our knowledge of his biography, this scrap of writing from what seems to have been an imposing monument is a good way to adjust our perspective on his literary monument. Everything we are accustomed to think about Tacitus is filtered through the prism of his writing: much of our information about his biography comes from his books, and our first instinct is to use that information as a means of shedding light on those books. So, for instance, knowing that he was a senator and consul matters because it justifies our confidence in his grasp, and therefore treatment, of politics; knowing that he was a star advocate illuminates his linguistic virtuosity; knowing his place of origin might explain the orientation and interests of his narrative; knowing when he died would tell us whether we can read parts of his last work, Annals, as bearing on the principate of Hadrian. Few would value this information for its own sake; we want it because it helps us interpret what he wrote. But this inscription would not have aimed to explain Annals or Histories, nor is there any reason to think it would have referred to them at all.