Tacitus and Bracciolini | Page 4

Tacitus's. VIII. Words not used by Tacitus, "distinctus" and "codicillus"
IX. Peculiar alliterations in the Annals and works of Bracciolini. X.
Monotonous repetition of accent on penultimate syllables. XI. Peculiar
use of words: (_a_) "properus" (_b_) "annales" and "scriptura" (_c_)
"totiens" XII. Words not used by Tacitus: (_a_) "addubitare" (_b_)
"extitere" XIII. Polysyllabic words ending consecutive sentences. XIV.
Omissions of prepositions: (_a_) in. (_b_) with names of nations.
CHAPTER III

.
MISTAKES THAT PROVE FORGERY
I. The gift for the recovery of Livia. II. Julius Caesar and the
Pomoerium. III. Julia, the wife of Tiberius. IV. The statement about her
proved false by a coin. V. Value of coins in detecting historical errors.
VI. Another coin shows an error about Cornatus. VII. Suspicion of
spuriousness from mention of the Quinquennale Ludicrum. VIII.
Account of cities destroyed by earthquake contradicted by a monument.
IX. Bracciolini's hand shown by reference to the Plague. X. Fawning of
Roman senators more like conduct of Italians in the fifteenth century.
XI. Same exaggeration with respect to Pomponia Graecina. XII. Wrong
statement of the images borne at the funeral of Drusus. XIII. Similar
kind of error committed by Bracciolini in his "Varietate Fortunae". XIV.
Errors about the Red Sea. XV. About the Caspian Sea. XVI. Accounted
for. XVII. A passage clearly written by Bracciolini.
CHAPTER THE
LAST.
FURTHER PROOFS OF BRACCIOLINI BEING THE AUTHOR OF
THE FIRST SIX BOOKS OF THE ANNALS.
I. The descriptive powers of Bracciolini and Tacitus. II. The different
mode of writing of both. III. Their different manners of digressing. IV.
Two statements in the Fourth Book of the Annals that could not have
been made by Tacitus. V. The spirit of the Renaissance shown in both
parts of the Annals. VI. That both parts proceeded from the same hand
shown in the writer pretending to know the feelings of the characters in
the narrative. VII. The contradictions in the two parts of the Annals and
in the works of Bracciolini. VIII. The Second Florence MS. a forgery.
IX. Conclusion.

BOOK THE FIRST.
TACITUS.
"Allusiones saepe subobscurae ... mihi conjectandi aliquando, et
aliquando exploratae veritatis fundamento innitendi materiam
praebuere." DE TONELLIS. Praef. ad Poggii Epist.

TACITUS AND BRACCIOLINI.
CHAPTER I
.
TACITUS COULD BARELY HAVE WRITTEN THE ANNALS.
I. From the chronological point of view.--II. The silence preserved
about that work by all writers till the fifteenth century.--III. The age of
the MSS. containing the Annals.
I. The Annals and the History of Tacitus are like two houses in ruins:
dismantled of their original proportions they perpetuate the splendour
of Roman historiography, as the crumbling remnants of the Coliseum
preserve from oblivion the magnificence of Roman architecture. Some
of the subtlest intellects, keen in criticism and expert in scholarship,
have, for centuries, endeavoured with considerable pains, though not
with success in every instance, to free the imperfect pieces from
difficulties, as the priesthood of the Quindecimvirs, generation after
generation, assiduously, yet vainly, strove to clear from perplexities the
mutilated books of the Sibyls. I purpose to bring,--parodying a passage
of the good Sieur Chanvallon,--not freestone and marble for their
restoration, but a critical hammer to knock down the loose bricks that,
for more than four centuries, have shown large holes in several places.
Tacitus is raised by his genius to a height, which lifts him above the
reach of the critic. He shines in the firmament of letters like a sun
before whose lustre all, Parsee-like, bow down in worship. Preceding
generations have read him with reverence and admiration: as one of the
greatest masters of history, he must continue to be so read. But though
neither praise nor censure can exalt or impair his fame, truth and justice
call for a passionless inquiry into the nature and character of works
presenting such difference in structure, and such contradictions in a
variety of matters as the History and the Annals.
The belief is general that Tacitus wrote Roman history in the retrograde
order, in which Hume wrote the History of England. Why Hume
pursued that method is obvious: eager to gain fame in letters,--seeing
his opportunity by supplying a good History of England,--knowing how
interest attaches to times near us while all but absence of sympathy
accompanies those that are remote,--and meaning to exclude from his
plan the incompleted dynasty under which he lived,--he commenced
with the House of Stuart, continued with that of Tudor, and finished

with the remaining portion from the Roman Invasion to the Accession
of Henry VII. But why Tacitus should have decided in favour of the
inverse of chronological order is by no means clear. He could not have
been actuated by any of the motives which influenced Hume. Rome,
with respect to her history, was not in the position that England was,
with respect to hers, in the