coede” (V. 22); “oequoris electum”
(V. 23); “merito mutare” (V. 24).
This peculiarity of composition, so distinctive of
Tacitus, unfortunately for his forgery, ENTIRELY escaped
the attention of the author of the Annals; he seems
to have thought that any kind of alliteration, so
long as it was constantly carried on, would sufficiently
mark the style of Tacitus. Accordingly he has
all kinds of alliterations, except the right ones,
for they are quite different from, and, indeed, the
very reverse of those of Tacitus; sometimes they are
twofold (I. 6); sometimes threefold (I. 5); sometimes
even four together—“posita, puerili
praetexta principes” (I. 8);—from
which last Tacitus would have shrunk with horror at
the sight, as Mozart is stated to have rebounded and
swooned at the discordant blare of a trumpet.
As to using in the middle of sentences words that
differ in length as a rule they do not, from the first
of the kind, “ortum octo” (I. 3),
to the last of the kind, “voce vultu”
(XVI. 29); at the end of sentences, he uses words that,
instead of not differing, do differ in from the first
of the kind, “Augustum adsumebatur”
(I. 8), to the last of the kind “sortem subiret”
(XVI. 32) and “sestertium singulis”
(XVI. 33).
After this overwhelming proof of forgery, I need not
press another syllable upon the reader. If not
convinced by this, he will be convinced by nothing;
for here is just that little blunder which a forger
is sure to make: so far from being insignificant
it is all-important; it swells out into proportions
of colossal magnitude, at once disclosing the whole
imposture, it being absolutely impossible that Tacitus
should have so systematically adhered to a particular
kind of alliteration in that part of his history which
deals with Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian, and
have so suddenly and utterly neglected or ignored
it in that part of the history which deals with Tiberius,
Caligula, Claudius and Nero.
BRACCIOLINI.
Si per se virtus sine fortuna
ponderanda sit, dubito an hunc
primum omnium ponam.
CORNELIUS NEPOS. Thrasybulus.
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.
