Tacitus and Bracciolini | Page 5

middle of the last century. All the
remarkable occurrences during the 820 years from her Foundation to
the office of Emperor ceasing as the inheritance of the Julian Family on
the death of Nero, had been recorded by many writers that rendered
needless the further labours of the historian. Tacitus states this at the
commencement of his history, and as a reason why he began that work
with the accession of Galba: "Initium mihi operis Servius Galba iterum,
Titus Vinius consules erunt; nam post conditam urbem, octingentos et
viginti prioris aevi annos multi auctores retulerunt." (Hist. I. 1.) After
this admission, it is absolutely unaccountable that he should revert to
the year since the building of the City 769, and continue writing to the
year 819, going over ground that, according to his own account, had
been gone over before most admirably, every one of the numerous
historians having written in his view, "with an equal amount of forcible
expression and independent opinion"--"pari eloquentia ac libertate."
Thus, by his own showing, he performed a work which he knew to be
superfluous in recounting events that occurred in the time of Tiberius,
Caligula, Claudius and Nero.
What authority have we that he did this? Certainly, not the authority of
those who knew best--the ancients. They do not mention, in their
meagre accounts of him, the names of his writings, the number of
which we, perhaps, glean from casual remarks dropped by Pliny the
Younger in his Epistles. He says (vii. 20), "I have read your book, and
with the utmost care have made remarks upon such passages, as I think
ought to be altered or expunged." "Librum tuum legi, et quam
diligentissime potui, adnotavi, quae commutanda, quae eximenda
arbitrarer." In a second letter (viii. 7) he alludes to another (or it might
be the same) "book," which his friend had sent him "not as a master to
a master, nor as a disciple to a disciple, but as a master to a disciple:"
"neque ut magistro magister, neque ut discipulo discipulus ... sed ut
discipulo magister ... librum misisti." That Tacitus was not the author
of one work only is clear from Pliny in another of his letters (vi. 16)

speaking in the plural of what his friend had written: "the immortality
of your writings:"-- "scriptorum tuorum aeternitas;" also of "my uncle
both by his own, and your works:"--"avunculus meus et suis libris et
tuis." In the letter already referred to (vii. 20), Tacitus is further spoken
of as having written, at least, two historical works, the immortality of
which Pliny predicted without fear of proving a false prophet: "auguror,
nec me fallit augurium, historias tuas immortales futuras." From these
passages it would seem that the works of Tacitus were, at the most,
three.
If his works were only three in number, everything points in preference
to the Books of History, of which we possess but five; the Treatise on
the different manners of the various tribes that peopled Germany in his
day; and the Life of his father-in-law, Agricola. Nobody but Fabius
Planciades Fulgentius, Bishop of Carthage, supposes that he wrote a
book of Facetiae or pleasant tales and anecdotes, as may be seen by
reference to the episcopal writer's Treatise on Archaic or Obsolete
Words, where explaining "Elogium" to mean "hereditary disease," he
continues, "as Cornelius Tacitus says in his book of Facetiae; 'therefore
pained in the cutting off of children who had hereditary disease left to
them'": "Elogium est haereditas in malo; sicut Cornelius Tacitus ait in
libro Facetiarum: 'caesis itaque motum elogio in filiis derelicto.'" (De
Vocibus Antiquis. p. 151. Basle ed. 1549). Justus Lipsius doubts
whether the Discourse on the Causes of the Corruption of Latin
Eloquence proceeded from Tacitus, or the other Roman to whom many
impute it, Quintilian, for he says in his Preface to that Dialogue: "What
will it matter whether we attribute it to Tacitus, or, as I once thought, to
Marcus Fabius Quinctilianus? ... Though the age of Quinctilianus
seems to have been a little too old for this Discourse to be by that
young man. Therefore, I have my doubts." "Incommodi quid erit, sive
Tacito tribuamus; sive M. Fabio Quinctiliano, ut mihi olim visim? ...
Aetas tamen Quinctiliani paullo grandior fuisse videtur, quam ut hic
sermo illo juvene. Itaque ambigo." (p. 470. Antwerp ed. 1607.) Enough
will be said in the course of this discussion to carry conviction to the
minds of those who can be convinced by facts and arguments that
Tacitus did not write the Annals.
Chronology, in the first place, prevents our regarding him as the author.
Though we know as little of his life as of his writings-- and though no

ancient mentions the date or place of his birth, or the time of his
death,--we can form