Tacitus and Bracciolini by John Wilson Ross

[Геннадий Воля]

Tacitus and Bracciolini by John Wilson Ross

LONDON: 1878

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8tcbr10.txt

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.

[Last roman]

another bullshit.

[glishev]

No, my little green Roman, it's no bullshit. You see, it all makes sense. Suddenly, Geoffrey of Monmouth emerges as the most important source for British history! Tacitus' "Agricola" is a work of fantasy. Speakin' o' that, "Farmer Giles of Ham" is very probably a work of great historical gravity

[Last roman]

So, according your respectful notification, maybe Pliny the Younger is also a fantasy person, because in his letters he mentioned about Tacitus, and his "Annales". This is a great conspiracy, my friend, I'm concerned about our safety and lifes, because THEY are watching us.

Very interesting indeed, it's seems, that Bracciolini was some kind of medium, how did he know about the round room in Nero's palace, that was only discovered three years ago?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1216986/Roman-Emperor-Neros-legendary-rotating-dining-room-uncovered-archaeologists.html

Редактирано Октомври 11, 2012 от Last roman

[glishev]

He has built it in order to promote his fantasy works.

[Last roman]

of course! You got them right! That is definitely an italian fake built to prove the phantasmagoric "Annales"!

But we, my friend... We will bring the truth in this science of deception, called history!

His story is not My story!

[glishev]

'Tis not correct to speak about history. There's her story now

[Геннадий Воля]

Very interesting indeed, it's seems, that Bracciolini was some kind of medium, how did he know about the round room in Nero's palace, that was only discovered three years ago?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1216986/Roman-Emperor-Neros-legendary-rotating-dining-room-uncovered-archaeologists.html

1. Archaeologists have uncovered what they believe to be the Roman emperor Nero's fabled rotating dining room.

2. An 18th Century print by J Blundell shows the scale of Nero's Golden Palace,

it is an art work!

Редактирано Октомври 12, 2012 от Геннадий Воля

[glishev]

It's not just an art work. It incidentally shows what an artist has actually seen in Rome. And, of course, Poggio didn't write the "Annales". Tacitus is quoted in earlier works... and part of his data is met also in Suetonius, Plutarch and others. If a fake at all, it must have been a very complex one. Incredibly complex It just goes against the logic of Okham.

[Геннадий Воля]

It's not just an art work. It incidentally shows what an artist has actually seen in Rome.

Rome (Italy) -- Antiquities

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchresult.cfm?word=Rome%20%28Italy%29%20--%20Antiquities&s=3&notword=&f=2

Rome (Italy) -- Pictorial works

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchresult.cfm?word=Rome%20%28Italy%29%20--%20Pictorial%20works&s=3&notword=&f=2

Rome (Italy) -- Aerial views

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchresult.cfm?word=Rome%20%28Italy%29%20--%20%20Aerial%20views&s=3&notword=&f=2

[Last roman]

ancient 'art work' from roman era /reliefs from tomb of Haterius Tychius, roman engineer 1-2 AD/:

You can see a Colosseum /second building from left to right/.

http://www.centocelle.hochfeiler.it/museo/frame_js_museo.html?nome=http://www.centocelle.hochfeiler.it/museo/ritrovamenti/haterii.html

Редактирано Октомври 12, 2012 от Last roman

[Last roman]

It's not just an art work. It incidentally shows what an artist has actually seen in Rome. And, of course, Poggio didn't write the "Annales". Tacitus is quoted in earlier works... and part of his data is met also in Suetonius, Plutarch and others. If a fake at all, it must have been a very complex one. Incredibly complex It just goes against the logic of Okham.

of course ruins of roman buildings is not from yesterday, and people from past centuries saw and painted them, which confirms their authenticity.

Here is a picture from 16 century /you can see ruins from Maxentius basilica/:

Now:

View of the Campo Vaccino (the old Roman Forum), ca. 1636 /with Arch of Septimus Severus, column from Temple of Saturn and Dioscures, Temple of Antoninus and Faustina, arch of Titus and Coliseum/:

Modern look from Capitoline hill from last year - all monuments are in their place:)/checked by me/:

This historic painting of the Roman Forum dates from 1859 /with columns from the temple of Dioscures, Saturn, also Capitoline hill and Ach of Septimus Severus/:

Now:

Roman Forum /circa 1850/, centered by the Temple of Saturn, with the three surviving corinthian columns of the Temple of Vespasian and Arch of Septimius Severus:

Nowadays:

Also we have a variety of archeological finds, that also cannot be fakes. But people, who didn't have appropriate level of knowledge about subject which criticized always want to believe in some conspiracies. I guess it's more interesting for them to full their time in meaningless pursuits, rather than sit down to read something really valuable about. But 'different peoples - different ideals', as one famous autor said.

Редактирано Октомври 12, 2012 от Last roman

[Геннадий Воля]

Please show me Nero's Golden Palace pictures, only real and actual to the time of painting, not eventaul reconstruction, bur real view in 16-18-19-20 cent.

[Last roman]

Please show me Nero's Golden Palace pictures, only real and actual to the time of painting, not eventaul reconstruction, bur real view in 16-18-19-20 cent.

The Nero's palace did not survived at all. The Vespian and Trajan destroyed it /Trajan made a baths from part of Domus/.

In this picture there are part of the baths.

Nowadays:

Only dungeons were preserved. That's why there is excavations now. If you knew the history of this building, you would't ask so stupid question:

The Domus Aurea still lies under the ruins of the Baths of Trajan and the surrounding park. After Nero's death, the Golden House was a severe embarrassment to his successors. It was stripped of its marble, its jewels and its ivory within a decade. Soon after Nero's death, the palace and grounds, were filled with earth and built over: the Baths of Titus were already being built on part of the site in 79 AD. On the site of the lake, in the middle of the palace grounds, Vespasian built the Flavian Amphitheatre, which could be reflooded at will, with the Colossus Neronis beside it. The Baths of Trajan, and the Temple of Venus and Rome were also built on the site. Within 40 years, the Golden House was completely obliterated, buried beneath the new constructions, but paradoxically this ensured the wallpaintings' survival by protecting them from dampness.

Renaissance

When a young Roman inadvertently fell through a cleft in the Esquiline hillside at the end of the 15th century, he found himself in a strange cave or grotta filled with painted figures. Soon the young artists of Rome were having themselves let down on boards knotted to ropes to see for themselves. The fourth style frescoes that were uncovered then have faded to pale gray stains on the plaster now, but the effect of these freshly rediscovered grottesche decorations was electrifying in the early Renaissance, which was just arriving in Rome. When Pinturicchio, Raphael and Michelangelo crawled underground and were let down shafts to study them, carving their names on the walls to let the world know they had been there, the paintings were a revelation of the true world of antiquity. Beside the graffiti signatures of later tourists, like Casanova and the Marquis de Sade scratched into a fresco inches apart (British Archaeology June 1999), are the autographs of Domenico Ghirlandaio, Martin van Heemskerck, and Filippino Lippi.

It was even claimed that various classical artworks found at this time - such as the Laocoön and his Sons and Venus Kallipygos - were found within or near the Domus's remains, though this is now accepted as unlikely (high quality artworks would have been removed - to the Temple of Peace, for example - before the Domus was covered over with earth). The frescoes' effect on Renaissance artists was instant and profound (it can be seen most obviously in Raphael's decoration for the loggias in the Vatican), and the white walls, delicate swags, and bands of frieze - framed reserves containing figures or landscapes - have returned at intervals ever since, notably in late 18th century Neoclassicism, making Famulus one of the most influential painters in the history of art.

So I repeat my question - how could Poggio know about Nero's dining room, that is discovered nowadays?

Редактирано Октомври 12, 2012 от Last roman

[Геннадий Воля]

If you knew the history of this building, you would't ask so stupid question:

1. Baths and Palace are so different buildings.

2. Baths have so many undeground constructions that it is difficult and even impossble to change palace rooms to watersystems.

Редактирано Октомври 12, 2012 от Геннадий Воля

[Last roman]

If you knew the history of this building, you would't ask so stupid question:

1. Baths and Palace are so different buildings.

2. Baths have so many undeground constructions that it is difficult and even impossble to change palace rooms to watersystems.

Do you actually understand what I explain to you?

Или может лучше попробуем по русски????

The palace and grounds, were filled with earth and over them the Trajan's baths were built. Part of Nero's halls with domes were used for the new building /baths/. But the rest was destroyed. Frescoes in the grounds were preserved just because of this. They were buried under the new structure.

Редактирано Октомври 12, 2012 от Last roman

[Геннадий Воля]

Please show me Nero's Golden Palace pictures,

Ok. I understand you can not show me Golden Palace ruines pictures.

Thanks.

[Last roman]

Just go to Rome and take them. Like I did. Of course it's easier to spoke nonsense about things you've never seen:)

Редактирано Октомври 13, 2012 от Last roman

[Warlord]

Actually each roman palace have bathrooms inside(with underground construction) , so what's the problem with this?