Produced by the PG Online Distributed Proofreaders.
TACITUS AND BRACCIOLINI.
THE ANNALS FORGED IN THE XVth CENTURY.
by JOHN WILSON ROSS (1818-1887)
Originally published anonymously in 1878.
Non ulli Tacitus patuit manifestius unquam.
SOSSAGO. _Epigrammata_.
Excellentissimum Poggium, immortalem quidem virum, sed prope
hac aetate sepultum, redivivium donaveris nobis.
BICCIONI. _Epistola Hyacintho de Lan inscripta._
Is ... reliquit, quae et facundiam, et mirificam ingenii
facilitatem ostendunt. Tendebat toto animo, et quotidiano
quodam usu ad EFFINGENDUM ... Sed habet hoc dilucida illa
divini hominis in dicendo copia, ut estimanti se imitabilem
praebeat, _experienti spem imitationis eripiat_. Eam
igitur dicendi laudem POGGIUS si non facultate, at _certe
voluntate_ complectebatur. Scripsit ... Historiam ...
magnuum munus.
PAOLO CORTESE (Bishop of Urbino). _De Hominibus Doctis_.
Quaestio ... contra communem totius orbis traditionem ac fidem,
contra tot historicocum ... nemine contradicente, consensum,
demum agitari coepta est; et a nobis ... tam abunde ventilate,
ut magis copia quam inopia laborare videamur.
GISBERT VOET. _Spicilegium ad Disceptationem Historicam de
Papissa Johanna._
LONDON: 1878
I DEDICATE
TO MY ESTEEMED AND ESTIMABLE BROTHER
ROBERT DALRYMPLE ROSS
This Research
into
The Authorship of the Annals of Tacitus
AS A VERY SLIGHT TOKEN
OF MY AFFECTION
AND ALSO
OF MY ADMIRATION
FOR HIS RARE ASSEMBLAGE OF QUALITIES
LOFTY MORAL RECTITUDE
THE KINDLIEST FEELINGS OF THE HEART
DEVOTION TO HIGH OCCUPATION
APTITUDE FOR BOOKS AS FOR AFFAIRS
AND
A REFINED ENLIGHTENMENT
TO APPRECIATE
THE GENIUS OF TACITUS AND OF BRACCIOLINI
AND
FULLY TO APPREHEND
AN INVESTIGATION UNDERTAKEN
IN THE TRUE INTERESTS OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE.
PREFACE
The theory broached in this book involves a charge of the
grossest fraud against a most distinguished man, who rose to high
posts in public affairs and won imperishable fame in letters.
There being blots on his moral character, it would be censurable
to fasten upon his memory this new imputation of dishonesty, were
it not substantiated by irresistible evidence.
The title of this book quite explains what its design is,--to
contribute something towards settling the authorship of the Annals
of Tacitus, which encomiastic admirers imagine to be the most
extraordinary history ever penned, and the writer "but one degree
removed from inspiration, if not inspired." This wondrous writer I
assert to be the famous Florentine of the Renaissance, Poggio
Bracciolini, in favour of which view I have tried to make out a
case by bringing forward a variety of passages from the "History"
and the "Annals" to show an extensive series of contradictions as
to facts and characters, departures from truth about matters
connected with ancient Roman life, laches in grammar and use of
words that never could have proceeded from any patrician or
plebian of the world-renowned old Commonwealth, with a number of
other things that will readily strike the intelligent and sober
mind as utterly inconsistent with the existing belief of the
"Annals" being the production of Tacitus. All this is case in the
shade for the fullest light to be thrown on the subject, when not
wishing to make my theory a matter of speculation but founded in
common sense, I give a detailed history of the forgery, from its
conception to its completion, the sum that was paid for it, the
abbey where it was transcribed, and other such convincing minutiae
taken from a correspondence that Poggio carried on with a familiar
friend who resided in Florence.
A reader of acumen and critical faculty following a writer in an
inquiry of this nature places himself in the position of a lawyer
who will not accept the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, or
even a clause in it, as correct, except,--as his phrase goes,--it
"runs upon all fours:" he knows that it is with a speculation in a
literary matter as with a chapter of a statute: he struggles to
raise only a single valid objection against what is advanced: if
successful he at one destroys the whole of the theory, from thus
exposing it to view as not "running upon all fours;" the fabric
is, in fact, discovered to be reared on a false foundation; it
must, therefore, fall as at the slightest breath a child's house
built of cards; and the theory becomes one more added to the list
of those that are apocryphal. If on examination it should be
agreed that the theory in this book is without a flaw, I conceived
that I shall have done not a small, but a considerable service to
the cause of true history.
LONDON, _April_ 3, 1878.
CONTENTS.
BOOK THE FIRST.
TACITUS.
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.
CHAPTER II.
A FEW REASONS FOR BELIEVING THE ANNALS TO BE A FORGERY.
I. The fifteenth century an age of imposture, shown in the
invention of printing.
II. The curious discovery of the first six books of the Annals.
III. The blunders it has in common with all forged documents.
IV. The Twelve Tables.
V. The Speech of Claudius in the Eleventh Book of the Annals.
VI. Brutus creating the second class of nobility.
VII. Camillus and his grandson.
VIII. The Marching of Germanicus.
IX. Description of London in the time of Nero.
X. Labeo Antistius and Capito Ateius; the number of people
executed for their attachment to Sejanus; and the
marriage of Drusus, the brother of Tiberius, to the
Elder Antonia.
CHAPTER III.
SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER OF THE ANNALS FROM THE POINT OF TREATMENT.
I. Nature of the history.
II. Arrangement of the narrative.
III. Completeness in form.
IV. Incongruities, contradictions and disagreements from the
History of Tacitus.
V. Craftiness of the writer.
VI. Subordination of history to biography.
VII. The author of the Annals and Tacitus differently illustrate
Roman history.
VIII. Characters and events corresponding to characters and
events in the XVth century.
IX. Greatness of the Author of the Annals.
CHAPTER IV.
HOW THE ANNALS DIFFERS FROM THE HISTORY.
I. In the qualities of the writers; and why that difference.
II. In the narrative, and in what respect.
III. In style and language.
IV. The reputation Tacitus has of writing bad Latin due to the
mistakes of his imitator.
CHAPTER V.
THE LATIN AND THE ALLITERATIONS IN THE ANNALS.
I. Errors in Latin, (_a_) on the part of the transcriber;
(_b_) on the part of the writer.
II. Diction and Alliterations: Wherein they differ from those
of Tacitus.
BOOK THE SECOND.
BRACCIOLINI.
CHAPTER I.
BRACCIOLINI IN ROME.
I. His genius and the greatness of his age.
II. His qualifications.
III. His early career.
IV. The character of Niccolo Niccoli, who abetted him in the
forgery
V. Bracciolini's descriptive writing of the Burning of Jerome
of Prague compared with the descriptive writing of the
sham sea fight in the Twelfth Book of the Annals.
CHAPTER II.
BRACCIOLINI IN LONDON.
I. Gaining insight into the darkest passions from associating
with Cardinal Beaufort.
II. His passage about London in the Fourteenth Book of the
Annals examined.
III. About the Parliament of England in the Fourth Book.
CHAPTER III.
BRACCIOLINI SETTING ABOUT THE FORGERY OF THE ANNALS
I. The Proposal made in February, 1422, by a Florentine, named
Lamberteschi, and backed by Niccoli.
II. Correspondence on the matter, and Mr. Shepherd's view that
it referred to a Professorship refuted.
III. Professional disappointments in England determine
Bracciolini to persevere in his intention of forging
the Annals.
IV. He returns to the Papal Secretaryship, and begins the
forgery in Rome in October, 1423.
CHAPTER IV.
BRACCIOLINI AS A BOOKFINDER
I. Doubts on the authenticity of the Latin, but not the
Greek Classics.
II. At the revival of letters Popes and Princes offered large
rewards for the recovery of the ancient classics.
III. The labours of Bracciolini as a bookfinder.
IV. Belief put about by the professional bookfinders that
MSS. were soonest found in obscure convents in barbarous
lands.
V. How this reasoning throws the door open to fraud and
forgery.
VI. The bands of bookfinders consisted of men of genius in
every department of literature and science.
VII. Bracciolini endeavours to escape from forging the Annals by
forging the whole lost History of Livy.
VIII. His Letter on the subject to Niccoli quoted, and examined.
IX. Failure of his attempt, and he proceeds with the forgery of
the Annals.
BOOK THE THIRD.
THE LAST SIX BOOKS OF THE ANNALS.
CHAPTER I.
THE CHARACTER OF BRACCIOLINI.
I. The audacity of the forgery accounted for by the mean
opinion Bracciolini had of the intelligence of men.
II. The character and tone of the last Six Books of the Annals
exemplified by what is said of Sabina Poppaea, Sagitta,
Pontia and Messalina.
III. A few errors that must have proceeded from Bracciolini
about the Colophonian Oracle of Apollo Clarius, the
Household Gods of the Germans, Gotarzes, Bardanes and,
above all, Nineveh.
IV. The estimate taken of human nature by the writer of the
Annals the same as that taken by Bracciolini.
V. The general depravity of mankind as shown in the
Annals insisted upon in Bracciolini's Dialogue
"De Infelicitate Principum".
CHAPTER II.
THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.
I. The intellect and depravity of the age.
II. Bracciolini as its exponent.
III. Hunter's accurate description of him.
IV. Bracciolini gave way to the impulses of his age.
V. The Claudius, Nero and Tiberius of the Annals
personifications of the Church of Rome in the
fifteenth century.
VI. Schildius and his doubts.
VII. Bracciolini not covetous of martyrdom: communicates his
fears to Niccoli.
VIII. The princes and great men in the Annals the princes and
great men of the XVth century, not of the opening period
of the Christian aera.
IX. Bracciolini, and not Tacitus, a disparager of persons in
high places.
CHAPTER III.
FURTHER PROOFS OF FORGERY.
I. "Octavianus" as the name of Augustus Caesar.
II. Cumanus and Felix as joint governors of Judaea.
III. The blood relationship of Italians and Romans.
IV. Fatal error in the _oratio obliqua_.
V. Mistake made about "locus".
VI. Objections of some critics to the language of Tacitus
examined.
VII. Some improprieties that occur in the Annals found also in
Bracciolini's works.
VIII. Instanced in (_a_) "nec--aut".
(_b_) rhyming and the peculiar use of "pariter".
IX. The harmony of Tacitus and the ruggedness of Bracciolini
illustrated.
X. Other peculiarities of Bracciolini's not shared by Tacitus:
Two words terminating alike following two others with like
terminations; prefixes that have no meaning; and playing
on a single letter for alliterative purposes.
CHAPTER IV.
THE TERMINATION OF THE FORGERY.
I. The literary merit and avaricious humour of Bracciolini.
II. He is aided in his scheme by a monk of the Abbey of Fulda.
III. Expressions indicating forgery.
IV. Efforts to obtain a very old copy of Tacitus.
V. The forgery transcribed in the Abbey of Fulda.
VI. First saw the light in the spring of 1429.
CHAPTER V.
THE FORGED MANUSCRIPT.
I. Recapitulation, showing the certainty of forgery.
II. The Second Florence MS. the forged MS.
III. Cosmo de' Medici the man imposed upon.
IV. Digressions about Cosmo de' Medici's position, and fondness
for books, especially Tacitus.
V. The many suspicious marks of forgery about the Second
Florence MS.; the Lombard characters; the attestation
of Salustius.
VI. The headings, and Tacitus being bound up with Apuleius,
seem to connect Bracciolini with the forged MS.
VII. The first authentic mention of the Annals.
VIII. Nothing invalidates the theory in this book.
IX. Brief recapitulation of the whole argument.
BOOK THE FOURTH.
THE FIRST SIX BOOKS OF THE ANNALS.
CHAPTER I.
REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT BRACCIOLINI WROTE BOTH PARTS OF THE ANNALS.
I. Improvement in Bracciolini's means after the completion
of the forgery of the last part of the Annals.
II. Discovery of the first six books, and theory about their
forgery.
III. Internal evidence the only proof of their being forged.
IV. Superiority of workmanship a strong proof.
V. Further departure than in the last six books from Tacitus's
method another proof.
VI. The symmetry of the framework a third proof.
VII. Fourth evidence, the close resemblance in the openings of
the two parts.
VIII. The same tone and colouring prove the same authorship.
IX. False statements made about Sejanus and Antonius Natalis
for the purpose of blackening Tiberius and Nero.
X. This spirit of detraction runs through Bracciolini's works.
XI. Other resemblances denoting the same author.
XII. Policy given to every subject another cause to believe both
parts composed by a single writer.
XIII. An absence of the power to depict differences in persons
and things.
CHAPTER II.
LANGUAGE, ALLITERATION, ACCENT AND WORDS.
I. The poetic diction of Tacitus, and its fabrication in
the Annals.
II. Florid passages in the Annals.
III. Metrical composition of Bracciolini.
IV. Figurative words: (_a_) "pessum dare"
(_b_) "voluntas"
V. The verb "foedare" and the Ciceronian use of "foedus".
VI. The language of other Roman writers,--Livy, Quintus Curtius
and Sallust.
VII. The phrase "non modo--sed", and other anomalous expressions,
not 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 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 a conjecture when he
flourished by comparing his age with that of his friend, Pliny the
Younger. Pliny died in the year 13 of the second century at the
age of 52, so that Pliny was born A.D. 61. Tacitus was by several
years his senior. Otherwise Pliny would not have spoken of himself
as a disciple looking up to him with reverence as to "a master";
"the duty of submitting to his influence," and "a desire to obey
his advice":--"tu magister, ego contra"--(Ep. viii. 7): "cedere
auctoritati tuae debeam" (Ep. i. 20): "cupio praeceptis tuis
parere" (Ep. ix. 10); nor would he describe himself as "a mere
stripling when his friend was at the height of fame and in a proud
position": "equidem adolescentulus, quum jam tu fama gloriaque
floreres" (Ep. vii. 20); nor of their being, "all but
contemporaries in age": "duos homines, aetate propemodum aequales"
(Ep. vii. 20). From these remarks chiefly and a few other
circumstances, the modern biographers of Tacitus suppose there was
a difference of ten or eleven years between that ancient historian
and Pliny, and fix the date of his birth about A.D. 52.
This is reconcilable with the belief of Tacitus being the author
of the Annals; for when the boundaries of Rome are spoken of in
that work as being extended to the Red Sea in terms as if it were
a recent extension--"claustra ... Romani imperii, quod _nunc_
Rubrum ad mare patescit" (ii. 61),--he would be 63, the extension
having been effected as we learn from Xiphilinus, by Trajan A.D.
115. It is also reconcilable with Agricola when Consul offering to
him his daughter in marriage, he being then "a young man": "Consul
egregiae tum spei filiam juveni mihi despondit" (Agr. 9); for,
according as Agricola was Consul A.D. 76 or 77, he would be 24 or
25. But it is by no means reconcilable with the time when he
administered the several offices in the State. He tells us himself
that he "began holding office under Vespasian, was promoted by
Titus, and still further advanced by Domitian": "dignitatem
nostram a Vespasiano inchoatam, a Tito auctam, a Domitiano longius
provectam" (Hist. i. 1). To have "held office" under Vespasian he
must have been quaestor; to have been "promoted" by Titus he must
have been aedile; and as for his further advancement we know that
he was praetor under Domitian. By the Lex Villia Annalis, passed
by the Tribune Lucius Villius during the time of the Republic in
573 after the Building of the City, the years were fixed wherein
the different offices were to be entered on--in the language of
Livy; "eo anno rogatio primum lata est ab Lucio Villio tribuno
plebis, quot annos nati quemque magistratum peterent caperentque"
(xl. 44); and the custom was never departed from, in conformity
with Ovid's statement in his Fasti with respect to the mature
years of those who legislated for his countrymen, and the special
enactment which strictly prescribed the age when Romans could be
candidates for public offices:
"Jura dabat populo senior, finitaque certis
Legibus est aetas, unde petatur honos."
Fast. v. 65-6.
After the promulgation of his famous plebiscitum by the old
Tribune of the People in the year 179 A.C., a Roman could not fill
the office of quaestor till he was 31, nor aedile till he was 37,--as,
guided by the antiquaries, Sigonius and Pighius, Doujat, the
Delphin editor of Livy, states: "quaestores ante annum aetatis
trigesimum primum non crearentur, nec aediles curules ante
septimum ac trigesimum";--and the ages for the two offices were
usually 32 and 38.
From Vespasian's rule extending to ten years we cannot arrive at
the date when Tacitus was quaestor; but we can guess when he was
aedile, as Titus was emperor only from the spring of 79 to the
autumn of 81.
Had his appointment to the aedileship taken place on the last day
of the reign of Titus, he would then be but 29 years old; and
though in the time of the Emperors, after the year 9 of our aera,
there might be a remission of one or more years by the Lex Julia
or the Lex Pappia Poppaea, those laws enacted rewards and
privileges to encourage marriage and the begetting of children;
the remission could, therefore, be in favour only of married men,
especially those who had children; so that any such indulgence in
the competition for the place of honours could not have been
granted to Tacitus, he not being, as will be immediately seen, yet
married. In order, then, that he should have been aedile under
Titus,--even admitting that he could boast, like Cicero, of having
obtained all his honours in the prescribed years--"omnes honores
anno suo"--and been aedile the moment he was qualified by age for
the office,--he must have been born, at least, as far back as the
year 44.
This will be reconcilable with all that Pliny says, as well as
with his being married when "young"; for he would then be 32 or
33, and his bride 22 or 23; for the daughter of Agricola was born
when her father was quaestor in Asia--"sors quaesturae provinciam
Asiam dedit ... auctus est ibi filiâ." (Agr. 9). Nor let it be
supposed that a Roman would not have used the epithet "young" to a
man of 32 or 33, seeing that the Romans applied the term to men in
their best years, from 20 to 40, or a little under or over. Hence
Livy terms Alexander the Great at the time of his death, when he
was 31, "a young man," "egregium ducem fuisse Alexandrum ...
adolescens ... decessit" (ix. 17): so Cicero styles Lucius Crassus
at the age of 34;--"talem vero exsistere eloquentiam qualis fuerit
in Crasso et Antonio ... alter non multum (quod quidem exstaret),
et id ipsum adolescens, alter nihil admodum scripti reliquisset".
(De Orat. ii. 2): so also does Cornelius Nepos speak of Marcus
Brutus, when the latter was praetor, Brutus being then 43 years of
age:--"sic Marco Bruto usus est, ut nullo ille adolescens aequali
familiarius" (Att. 8); to this passage of Nepos's, Nicholas
Courtin, his Delphin editor, adds that the ancients called men
"young" from the age of 17 to the age of 46; notwithstanding that
Varro limited youth to 30 years:--"a 17 ad 46 annum, adolescentia
antiquitus pertingebat, ut ab antiquis observatum est. Nihilominus
Varro ad 30 tantum pertingere ait." But Tacitus being born in 44
is not reconcilable with his being the Author of the Annals, as
thus:--
Some time in the nineteen years that Trajan was Emperor,--from 98
to ll7,--Tacitus, being then between the ages of 54 and 73,
composed his History. He paused when he had carried it on to the
reign of Domitian; the narrative had then extended to twenty-three
years, and was comprised in "thirty books," if we are to believe
St. Jerome in his Commentary on the Fourteenth Chapter of
Zechariah:
"Cornelius Tacitus ... post Augustum usque ad mortem Domitiani
vitas Caesarum triginta voluminibus exaravit." [Endnote 013] It was
scarcely possible for Tacitus to have executed his History in a
shorter compass;--indeed, it is surprising that the compass was so
short, looking at the probability of his having observed the
symmetry attended to by the ancients in their writings, and having
continued his work on the plan he pursued at the commencement, the
important fragment which we have of four books, and a part of the
fifth, embracing but little more than one year. Whether he ever
carried into execution the design he had reserved for his old
age,--writing of Nerva and Trajan,--we have no record. But two
things seem tolerably certain; that he would have gone on with
that continuation to his History in preference to writing the
Annals; and that he would not have written that continuation until
after the death of the Emperor Trajan. He would then have been 73.
Now, how long would he have been on that separate history? Then at
what age could he have commenced the Annals? And how long would he
have been engaged in its composition? We see that he must have
been bordering on 80, if not 90: consequently with impaired
faculties, and thus altogether disqualified for producing such a
vigorous historical masterpiece; for though we have instances of
poets writing successfully at a very advanced age, as Pindar
composing one of his grandest lyrics at 84, and Sophocles his
Oedipus Coloneus at 90, we have no instance of any great
historian, except Livy, attempting to write at a very old age, and
then Livy rambled into inordinate diffuseness.
II. The silence maintained with respect to the Annals by all
writers till the first half of the fifteenth century is much more
striking than chronology in raising the very strongest suspicion
that Tacitus did not write that book. This is the more remarkable
as after the first publication of the last portion of that work by
Vindelinus of Spire at Venice in 1469 or 1470, all sorts and
degrees of writers began referring to or quoting the Annals, and
have continued doing so to the present day with a frequency which
has given to its supposed writer as great a celebrity as any name
in antiquity. Kings, princes, ministers and politicians have
studied it with diligence and curiosity, while scholars,
professors, authors and historians in Italy, Spain, France,
England, Holland, Germany, Denmark and Sweden have applied their
minds to it with an enthusiasm, which has been like a kind of
worship. Yet, after the most minute investigation, it cannot be
discovered that a single reference was made to the Annals by any
person from the time when Tacitus lived until shortly before the
day when Vindelinus of Spire first ushered the last six books to
the admiring world from the mediaeval Athens. When it appeared it
was at once pronounced to be the brightest gem among histories;
its author was greeted as a most wonderful man,--the "unique
historian", for so went the phrase--"inter historicos unicus."
Now, are we to be asked quietly to believe that there never lived
from the first quarter of the second century till after the second
quarter of the fifteenth, a single individual possessed of
sufficient capacity to discern such eminent and obvious excellence
as is contained in the Annals? Are we to believe that that could
have been so? in a slowly revolving cycle of 1,000 years and more?
ay, upwards of 1,300! If that really was the case, it is enough to
strike us dumb with stupor in contemplating such a miraculous
instance of perpetuated inanity,--among the lettered, too!--the
learned! the studious! the critical! If that was not the case,
what a long neglect! Anyhow, the silence is inexplicable. It
indicates one of two things,--duncelike stupidity or studious
contempt. Both these surmises must be dismissed,--the first as too
absurd, the second as too improbable. There can arise a third
conjecture--Taste for intellectual achievements, and appreciation
of literary merit, had vanished for awhile from the earth, to
return after an absence of forty generations of mankind. Again,
this supposed probability is too preposterously extravagant to be
for an instant credited because it cannot for a moment be
comprehended. In short, how marvellous it is! how utterly
unaccountable! how inexpressibly mysterious!
Pliny does not say a word about the Annals. The earliest Latin
father, Tertullian, quotes only the History (Apol. c. 16).
St. Jerome, in his Commentary on Zechariah (iii. 14), cites the
passage in the fifth book of the History about the origin of the
Jews; he also notices what Tacitus says of another important
event, the Fall of Jerusalem, which, having occurred in the reign
of Vespasian, must have been narrated in the History. The "single
book" treating of the Caesars, which Vopiscus says Tacitus wrote,
must have been the "History," ten copies of which the Emperor
Tacitus ordered to be placed every year in the public libraries
among the national archives. (Tac. Imp. x.) Orosius, the Spanish
ecclesiastic, who flourished at the commencement of the fifth
century, has several references to Tacitus in his famous work,
Hormesta. This great proficient in knowledge of the Scriptures and
disciple of St. Augustin quotes the fifth book of the History
thrice (Lib. V., cc. 5 and 10), and thrice alludes to facts
recorded by Tacitus,--the Temple of Janus being open from the time
of Augustus to Vespasian (vii. 3);--the number of the Jews who
perished at the siege of Jerusalem (vii. 9); and the possibly
large number of Romans who were killed in the wars with the Daci
during the reign of Domitian (vii. 10):--all which passages must
have been in the lost portions of the History.
In his Epistles and Poems, that man of wit and fancy, with an
intellect and learning above the fifth century in which he lived,
--Sidonius Apollinaris,--has one quotation from Tacitus and three
references to him. The quotation, which occurs in the fourteenth
chapter of the fourth book of his Epistles, is from the last
section of the History, (that part of the speech of Civilis where
the seditious Batavian touches on the friendship which existed
between himself and Vespasian); and his three references are,
first, to the "ancient mode of narrative," combined with the
greatest "literary excellence" (iv. 22); secondly, to "genius for
eloquence" (Carm. xxiii. 153-4); and thirdly, to "pomp of manner"
(Carm. ii. 192); the not inelegant Christian writer enumerating
qualities that specially commend themselves in the History. When
Spartian praises Tacitus for "good faith," the eulogy is more
appropriate to the writer of the History than the Annals, howbeit
that so many moderns, including the famous philologist and
polygrapher, Justus Lipsius; the Pomeranian scholar of the last
century, Meierotto; Boetticher and Prutz all question the veracity
of Tacitus; while for what he says of the Jews Tertullian
vituperates him in language so outrageous as to be altogether
unbecoming the capacious mind of the Patristic worthy, who calls
him, "the most loquacious of liars,"--"mendaciorum loquacissimus;"
--in which strain of calumny he was, from the same cause of religious
fervour, followed centuries after,--in the seventeenth,--by two
of the most renowned preachers and orators of their day, the famous
Jesuit, Famianus Strada, and his less known contemporary, but most
able Chamberlain of Urban VIII., Augustino Mascardi,--as if all
these pious Christians found it quite impossible to pardon a heathen,
blinded by the prejudices of paganism, for believing what he did
of the Hebrews; and for recording which belief he ought to receive
immediate forgiveness, seeing that Justin, Plutarch, Strabo and
Democritus said as bad, if not worse things of that ancient people
and their sacred books. [Endnote 019]
Cassiodorus, the Senator, is the only writer of the sixth century,
who makes any allusion to Tacitus, and that but once, in the fifth
book of his Epistles, to what the Roman says in his Germany of the
origin of amber, about which naturalists are still divided, that
it is a distillation from certain trees. Freculphus (otherwise
written Radulphus), Bishop of Lisieux, who died in the middle of
the ninth century (856), in the second volume of his Chronicles,
--the sixth chapter of the second book,--quotes Tacitus as the
author of the History, the passage being in reference to the
Romans who fell in the Dacian war. We have no proof that the
Annals was in existence in the twelfth century from what John of
Salisbury says in his Polycraticon (viii. 18), that Tacitus is
among the number of those historians, "qui tyrannorum atrocitates
et exitus miseros plenius scribunt;" for in his completed History
Tacitus must have expatiated pretty freely on the "atrocious
tyranny" of Domitian, and the "unfortunate termination of the
lives of tyrants."
From the time of John of Salisbury till shortly before the
publication of the Annals, no further reference is made to Tacitus
by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, not even of
erudite Germany, beginning with Abbot Hermannus, who wrote in the
twelfth century the history of his own monastery of St. Martin's
at Dornick, and ending with Caspar Bruschius, who, in the
sixteenth century, wrote an Epitome of the Archbishoprics and
Bishoprics of Germany, and the Centuria Prima (as Daniel Nessel in
the next century wrote the Centuria Secunda) of the German
monasteries. And yet in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
all kinds of writers quote the Annals about as freely and
frequently as they quote the History, and that not once or twice,
but five or six, and even seven and eight times, in the same work.
It would be impossible to mention them all, the writers being "as
numerous as the leaves in Vallambrosa's vale";--a figure that can
hardly be considered hyperbolic when the enormous number of these
writers can be partially guessed from the following catalogue of
those who delighted in antiquarian researches, whose productions
cited are archaeological, and who made all their references to the
Annals for the purpose of merely illustrating archaic matters;
nevertheless, the number of such writers alone amounts to as many
as a score; moreover, the whole twenty are to be found in one
compilation comprised in but five volumes,--Polenus's New
Supplement to the collections of Graevius and Gronovius, entitled
"Utriusque Thesauri Antiquitatum Romanarum Graecarumque Nova
Supplementa";--the Friesland scholar, Titus Popma in his
"De Operis Servorum"; the Italian antiquary, Lorenzo Pignorio,
Canon of Trevigo, in his treatise "De Servis"; the renowned critic,
Salmasius, in his explanation of two ancient inscriptions found on
a Temple in the island of Crete ("Notae ad Consecrationem Templi
in Agro Herodis Attici Triopio"); Peter Burmann in his "De
Vectigalibus"; Albertinus Barrisonus in his "De Archivis"; Merula,
the jurist, historian and polygrapher, in his "De Legibus
Romanorum"; Carolus Patinus in his Commentary "In Antiquum
Monumentum Marcellinae"; Polletus in his "Historia Fori Romani";
Aegyptius in his "De Bacchanalibus Explicatio"; Gisbert Cuper in
his "Monumenta Antiqua Inedita"; Octavius Ferrarius in his
"Dissertatio de Gladiatoribus"; William à Loon in his
"Eleutheria"; Schaeffer in his "De Re Vehiculari"; Johannes
Jacobus Claudius in his "Diatribê de Nutricibus et Paedagogis";
Antonius Bombardinus in his "De Carcere Tractatus"; Gutherlethus
in his work on the "Salii," or Priests of Mars; the learned
Spaniard, Miniana, in his "De Theatro Saguntino Dialogus"; Gorius
in his "Columbarium Libertorum et Servorum"; Spon in his
"Miscellanea Erudita Antiquitatis" and Jaques Leroy in his
"Achates Tiberianus." In fact, the Annals of Tacitus is noticed,
or quoted, or referred to, or commented upon at length (as at the
commencement of the sixteenth century by Scipione Ammirato), in an
endless list of works, with or without the names of the authors,
which by itself is all but conclusive that the Annals was not in
existence till the fifteenth century, and not generally known till
the sixteenth and seventeenth.
But to return for a moment to what was done by two writers, who
lived before the fifteenth century,--Sulpicius Severus, who died
A.D. 420; and Jornandez, who, in the time of Justinian, was
Secretary to the Gothic kings in Italy. Now, it must not be
withheld,--for it would be too uncandid,--that identical passages
are found in the Annals ascribed to Tacitus and the Sacred History
of Sulpicius Severus.
In order that the reader may see the identity of the passages, we
place them in juxtaposition, italicising the words that are found
in both works:--
Sulpicius (ii. 28). "_Inditum imperatori flammeum, dos et
genialis torus et faces nuptiales; cuncta denique, quae_ vel
_in feminis_ non sine verecundia conspiciuntur,
_spectata_."
Annals (xv. 37). "_Inditum imperatori flammeum_, visi
auspices, _dos et genialis torus et faces nuptiales; cuncta
denique spectata, quae_ etiam _in femina_ nox operit."
Sulpicius (ii. 29). "Sed opinio omnium invidiam incendii in
principem retorquebat, _credebaturque imperator gloriam
innovandae urbis quaesisse_."
Annals (xv. 10). "_Videbaturque Nero condendae urbis novae_
et cognomento suo adpellandae _gloriam quaerere_."
Sulpicius (v. 2). "Quin et novae mortes excogitatae, _ut ferarum
tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent_. Multi _crucibus
affixi, aut flamma usti_. Plerique in id reservati, ut, CUM
_defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur_."
Annals (xv. 44). "Et pereuntibus addita ludibria, _ut ferarum
tergis contecti, laniatu canum interirent_, aut _crucibus
affixi, aut flammandi_, atque, UBI _defecisset dies, in usum
nocturni luminis urerentur_."
These passages, of course, have, till this moment, been regarded
as taken by Sulpicius Severus from the Annals, on the unquestioned
assumption that that work was the composition of Tacitus. The
passages, however, were taken from the Historia Sacra: they bear
traces of having been so appropriated, from Sulpicius Severus
composing with a harmony almost equal to Tacitus, and a
grammatical correctness on a par with the Roman, while the author
of the Annals mars that harmony, here by the change of a word, and
there by the reconstruction of a sentence; and the grammatical
correctness by substituting for "cum," which strictly signifies
"when," "ubi," which strictly signifies "where": hence, from
resembling Tacitus less than Sulpicius Severus, he seems, of two
writers convicted of plagiarism, to be the one who purloined the
passages from the other; and if he introduced but trifling
alterations, it was because the accomplished presbyter of the
fifth century was the master of a neat Latin style, which will
bear comparison with that of the best classical writers. Indeed,
Sulpicius Severus is likened for style and eloquence to Sallust;
he is known as the "Christian Sallust"; and Leclerc in the
twentieth volume of his Bibliothèque Choisie, is loud in praise of
his Latin, which is, certainly, purer than could have been
imagined for his time. He was, nevertheless the very last
authority that the author of the Annals ought to have followed for
authentic particulars with respect to Nero; for as that emperor
was the first persecutor of the Christians, there was nothing too
bad that the church-building ecclesiastical writer did not think
it right to state of him, as (in his own language) "the worst, not
only of princes, but of all mankind, and even brute beasts"; he
went, in fact, to the extreme length of believing, being a
ridiculously credulous Chiliast, that Nero would live again as
Anti-Christ in the millennian kingdom before the end of the world.
It is generally supposed that Jornandez,--whose works are so
valuable for their history of the fifth and sixth centuries of our
aera,--when speaking, in the second chapter of his History of the
Goths, of one "Cornelius as the author of Annals," is speaking of
Tacitus,--"Cornelius etiam Annalium scriptor." Camden in his
Britannia questions whether Tacitus is meant by "Cornelius"; and,
certainly the passage quoted, which is about Meneg in Cornwall, is
nowhere to be found in any of the works written by the ancient
Roman. But if Tacitus be meant, the passage is an interpolation,
because the historical books ascribed to Tacitus bear in all the
MSS. either the title "Augustae Historiae Libri," or "Ab Excessu
divi Augusti Historiarum Libri," and so in all the first published
editions--that of Vindelinus of Spire about 1470, of Puteolanus
and Lanterius about 1475, of Beroaldus in 1515, and the early
editions of Venice 1484, 1497 and 1512; of Rome in 1485; Milan
1517; Basle 1519, and Florence (the Juntine Edition) 1527--it not
being till 1533, that Beatus Rhenanus first gave those books the
name "Annals" (it being Justus Lipsius who, close at the
commencement of the last quarter of that century,--in 1574,--first
divided the books into two parts, to one of which he gave the name
"Annals," and to the other, "Histories"). Then how could
Jornandez, who lived in the sixth century, have known any writings
of Tacitus by the name of "Annals," when that title was not given
to them until the sixteenth century?
We may now, after close research, advance this with extreme
caution, and certainty:--no support can be derived from citations
or statements made by any writer till the fifteenth century that
Tacitus wrote a number of books of the Annals. Should any one
extensively read known authors, living between the second and the
fifteenth century, besides those mentioned, who quote Tacitus, it
will be found that their quotations are from the History, the
Germany, or the Agricola; and this can be predicted with just as
much confidence, as an astronomer predicts eclipses of the sun and
the moon, and, for their verification, needs not wait to see the
actual obscuration of those heavenly bodies.
III. In turning to the different MSS., we find that the age of all
of them confirms in an equally corroborative manner the theory
that Tacitus did not write the Annals. Here let it be noted that
the age of a MS. can easily be discovered; and that, too, in a
variety of ways:--by the formation of the characters, such as the
roundness of the letters; or their largeness or smallness;--the
writing of the final l's; the use of the Gothic s's and the Gothic
j's; the dotting, or no dotting of the i's; the absence or
presence of diphthongs; the length of the lines; the punctuation;
the accentuation; the form or size; the parchment or the paper;
the ink;--or some other mode of detection. Those MSS. need only be
examined which contain either the whole or the concluding books of
the Annals.
Of the seven MSS. in the Vatican, that numbered 1,864, (referred
to by John Frederic Gronovius, and other editors of Tacitus as the
"Farnesian," from its having been transferred from the Farnese
Palace to the Vatican,) is supposed to be the oldest, for it is
believed to be of the fourteenth century; but the vellum on which
it is written is of the sixteenth; so is the vellum of No. 1,422.
No. 1,863 was thought by Justus Lipsius to be almost as old as No.
1,864, to have been of the close of the fourteenth century; but it
is written on vellum of the middle of the fifteenth century.
Nothing can be ascertained, either from its form or the substance
on which it is written, of No. 2,965, but the Bipontine editors
declared its date to be 1449. No. 1,958, which Puteolanus used in
1475, for his edition (containing the concluding books of the
Annals) was copied at Genoa in the year 1448. The two others,
numbered 412 and 1,478, are both written on vellum of the
fifteenth century.
The oldest Paris MS. is in the Bibliothèque Nationale, and is
written on paper of the close of the fifteenth century. Nobody
knows what has become of the MS., which is supposed to have been
anterior to the editions at the end of the fifteenth century, and
was in the library of the Congrégation de l'Oratoire, to whom it
was presented by Henri Harlai de Sancy, who brought it from Italy
and died in the Oratory in 1667.
The MS. of Wolfenbuttel (Guelferbytana), used by Ernesti in his
edition, was bought at Ferrara on the 28th of September, 1461;
beyond that nothing is known of it. The MS. in the library of
Jesus College, Oxford, is of the year 1458; the Bodleian, numbered
2,764, is of the century after, though the great Benedictine
antiquary, Montfaucon, in that monument of labour and erudition,
Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum MSS. Nova, is of opinion that it is as
old as 1463; and that in the Harleian collection of MSS. in the
British Museum, also numbered 2,764, stated to date back to 1412,
can scarcely be older than 1440 or 1450, from the diphthongal
writing, first introduced by Guarino of Verona, who died in 1460.
The MS. of Grenoble, written on very fine vellum, and containing
the whole of the Annals, is of the sixteenth century. The three
Medicean, the Neapolitan and the other Italian MSS. are all of
very modern writing. As to the MSS. of Wurzburg and Mirandola, the
former is not to be found, and the latter was not in existence
even in the time of Justus Lipsius.
The four most important MSS. are those known as the First and
Second Florence, the Buda and that from which Vindelinus of Spire
published the last six books. The two oldest are the "Second
Florence" and the "Buda." It would seem that the "Second
Florence", from the note at the end, dates back to the year 395,
though the Benedictines in their Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique
(vol. iii. pp. 278-9) thought they recognized in it a Lombard
writing of the tenth or eleventh century; Ernesti modified that to
the ninth; others again changed it to the seventh and even the
sixth; but it will be shown to satisfaction in the course of this
treatise that it belongs to the fifteenth century. So the Buda
MS., believed by Justus Lipsius to be as ancient as the Second
Florence (which he thought with the Benedictines was of the tenth
or eleventh century) was considered by James Gronovius to be very
modern; and very modern it is, being traceable to a little after
the same period as the Second Florence, namely, the fifteenth
century. The First Florence, which was stated to have been found
in the Abbey of Corvey, and which furnished the opening six books
of the Annals as first given to the world by Beroaldus, is of an
age that has hitherto never been determined; but that age will be
shown, towards the close of this work, to be the first quarter of
the sixteenth century. The MS. from which Vindelinus of Spire
published his edition, was in the Library of St Mark's, Venice,
but,--according, to Croll and Exter,--it is no longer to be found.
The case, then, stands thus with respect to the MSS.;--no MS. of
the works of Tacitus, whose existence can be traced back further
than the sixteenth century, contains the whole of the Annals; and
no MS. of the works of Tacitus, whose existence can be traced back
further than the first half of the preceding century, has the
closing books of the Annals.
Here let me briefly recapitulate;--it being very important for the
reader to bear in mind that three things have now been shown:--
first, that, from the chronological point of view, Tacitus could
barely have written the Annals; secondly, that, from the silence
preserved about that book by all writers for upwards of 1300 years
from the death of Tacitus, there is cause for supposing it was not
in existence from his time, that is, the second century to the
fifteenth and sixteenth (the commencement of the fifteenth century
being the time of the forgery of the last six books, and the
commencement of the sixteenth the time of the publication of the
forged first six books);--and thirdly, that there is nothing to
contradict this theory of mine in the age of any of the known MSS.
containing a part, or the whole of the Annals; but, on the
contrary, to verify it, from the age of the oldest being limited
to the fifteenth century; and that if there be, or ever have been
others older, it is singular, and puzzling to account for, that
one of two things should have occurred; either that they are lost,
or else that their age cannot be determined,--both which latter
things are actually the case with respect to the two MSS. from
which the Annals was originally printed,--that which supplied the
concluding books being lost, and that which contains the whole of
it being of an age that nobody up till now has been able to
determine.