Madeira; for the first time, in modern days, the French
nobleman in the service of Spain, Jean de Bethencourt,
reached the Canaries; the Flemings, too, for the first
time got as far as the Azores; above all, Gilianez,
in 1433, doubling Cape Boyador, or Nun, arrived on
the West Coast of Africa to a few degrees above the
equator: every one of them returned with wonderful
news of his voyage which was looked upon as something
marvellous:—accordingly their great contemp-orary,
Bracciolini, wrote thus, thinking of the miraculous
narrative that was told by each adventurous navigator
of his time:—“Ut quis ex longinquo
venerat, miracula narrabant, vim turbinum, et inauditas
volucres, monstra maris, ambiguas hominum et belluarum
formas, —visa, sive ex motu credita”
(An. II. 24). Nothing was going on in the
days of Tacitus, which could have put such a notion
in his head; nor is the passage from which it is taken
at all in his style, as will be admitted when I immediately
proceed to compare and contrast certain passages in
Bracciolini and himself with the view of examining
the graphic powers which they both possessed.
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.
I. The graphic powers possessed by Tacitus and Bracciolini
were considerably influenced by their respective characters,
which were widely different: no one can read
the works of Tacitus, and not come to the conclusion
that he was unassuming; whereas no one can read the
works of Bracciolini, without being struck by his
inordinate vanity, no matter what he maybe doing, describing
the Ruins of Rome, discoursing on the Unhappiness
of Princes, moralizing on Avarice or wailing in rhetorical
magniloquence over the remains of friends: still
he displays himself for admiration. The same
thing occurs throughout the Annals. From the first
to the last the author stands before his reader on
account of the extraordinary manner of his narrative
which is ever filling one with surprize from Emperors
and Generals, like Tiberius and Germanicus, weeping
like Homer’s heroes, and Queens and captive
women, like Boadicea and the wife of Armin, exhibiting
none of the frailties of their sex, being above the
timorous passions, and not shedding a tear even when
