THE LAST SIX BOOKS OF THE ANNALS.
Quum itaque multa ex Taciti
operibus deessent, ut Nicoli
voluntati morem gereret Poggius,
nil omisit intentatum, ut per
Monachum nescio quem e Germania
Tacitum erueret.
MEHUS, Praefat. ad
Lat. Epistol. Traversarii.
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”.
I. There is a great difference between the first six
books of the Annals and the last six books; the latter
portion is more historical, and less biographical
than the first portion: there is an obvious attempt
to assimilate it as closely as possible to the work
of Tacitus; and any material difference in the character
of the two productions is not to be detected at a
superficial glance. Hence many most intelligent
readers are led astray in believing that the Annals
and the History of Tacitus proceeded from the same
hand, from not sufficiently bearing in mind that whatever
a history may be, the general character must always
be the same; plots and intrigues being alike, as well
as stratagems and revolutions; also persons and passions:
the reason is clear: man ever remains the same,
affording the same examples of virtues and vices,
and carrying on wars in the same way, according to
interest and ambition, while the most important events
in which he plays a part resemble in having their
origin from trivial causes, as rivers, even the mightiest,
take their source from insignificant springs.
But while nobody discerns any such material difference
in the character of the Annals and the History of
Tacitus as to be struck with wonder, everybody is
filled with amazement at there being in the two works
two such very different conceptions of historical
composition. In the History only full light is
thrown on important events and leading characters:
that this may shine the brighter every common action
is thrown into the shade, and every small individual
passed over unmentioned. But the pages in the
last six books of the Annals are crowded with incidents,
great and small, and figures, good, bad and indifferent.
Contrary also to Tacitus, who disposes materials in
a just order, arranging those together that refer
to the same thing at different times, the writer of
the Annals speaks of cognate things, that should be
associated, separately, as they occur from year to
year, thus reducing his narrative from the height
of a general history to the level of a mere diary.
