ページの画像
PDF
ePub

improvements, by Orellius, appended to his Phaedrus (8vo. Turic. 1832).

(Cic. ad Fam. xii. 18; Senec. Controv. vii. 3; Senec Ep. 8, 94, 108, de Tranquill. An. 11, Consolat. ad Marc. 9; Petron. 55; Plin. H. N. viii. 51; Gell. xvii. 14; Macrob. Sat. ii. 2, 7; Hieron. Chron. Euseb. ad Olymp. clxxxiv. 2, comp. Ep. ad Laetam; Johann. Sarisb. viii. 14.)

T.

[W. R.]

TA'BALUS (Tábaλos), a Persian, whom Cyrus, after he had taken Sardis, left there in command of the garrison. Here Tabalus was soon after besieged by the rebel Pactyas, but was delivered by Mazares (Herod. i. 153, &c.) [MAZARES; PACTYAS.] [E. E.]

TABUS (Tábos), a hero in Lydia, from whom the town of Tabae in Lydia was believed to have derived its name. (Steph. Byz. s. v. Tábai.) [L.S.] | TACFARINAS, a Numidian, who gave some trouble to the Romans in the reign of Tiberius. He had originally served among the auxiliary troops in the Roman army, but he deserted; and, having collected a body of freebooters, among whom he gradually introduced the Roman discipline, he became at length the acknowledged leader of the Musulamii, a powerful people in the interior of Numidia, bordering on Mauritania. Having been joined by the Mauri under the command of Mazippa, he ventured, in A. D. 18, to measure his strength with Furius Camillus, the proconsul of Africa, but was defeated with considerable loss. In a. D. 20 Tacfarinas again attacked the Roman province. He carried his devastations far and wide, and defeated a Roman cohort which was stationed not far from the river Pagyda (perhaps the modern Abeadh), but, after meeting with considerable success, he was defeated in his turn by Apronius, who had succeeded Camillus, and was compelled to retire into the deserts. Nothing daunted by these defeats, Tacfarinas found means to collect a fresh army, and in A. D. 22 had the impudence to send ambassadors to Tiberius, soli- | citing abodes for himself and his troops, and menacing the emperor, in case of refusal, with perpetual war. Tiberius was indignant at receiving such a message from a deserter and a robber, and gave strict injunctions to Junius Blaesus, who had been appointed governor of Africa, to use every effort to obtain possession of the person of Tacfa- | rinas. In this, however, Blaesus was unable to succeed, for although he defeated Tacfarinas, and took his brother prisoner, Tacfarinas himself succeeded in making his escape. At length, in a. D. 24, the Romans were delivered from this troublesome foe. In this year Tacfarinas, having again collected a large force, attacked the Roman province, but P. Dolabella, more fortunate than his predecessors in the government, not only defeated but slew Tacfarinas in battle. Dolabella was assisted in this campaign by Ptolemaeus, king of Mauritania, the son and successor of Juba II., who was rewarded by Tiberius, after the ancient fashion, with the presents of a toga picta and sceptre, as a sign of the friendship of the Roman people. (Tac. Ann. ii. 52, iii. 20, 21, 73, 74, iv. 23-26.)

TACHOS (Taxús), king of Egypt, succeeded Acoris, and maintained the independence of his

country for a short time during the latter end of the reign of Artaxerxes II. When the formidable revolt of the western satraps was put down in B. C. 362, by the treachery of Orontes, the satrap of Mysia [ORONTES, No. 3], Tachos feared that he might have to resist the whole power of the Persian empire, and he therefore resolved to obtain the aid of Greek mercenaries. He prevailed upon Chabrias, the Athenian, to take the command of his fleet, and sent an embassy to Sparta, soliciting Agesilaus to undertake the supreme command of all his forces. The Spartan government gave their consent, and Agesilaus readily complied with the request; for, although he was now upwards of eighty, his vigour of mind and body remained unimpaired, and he was anxious to escape from the control to which a Spartan king was subject at home. Upon his arrival in Egypt, Agesilaus was greatly disappointed in having only the command of the mercenaries entrusted to him, Tachos reserving to himself the supreme command of all his forces, both by sea and land. Nevertheless he submitted to this affront, and accompanied the Egyptian monarch into Syria, in B. c. 361, along with Chabrias, and, according to Plutarch, endured for some time in patience the insolence and arrogance of Tachos. Meanwhile Nectanabis, probably the nephew of Tachos, and a certain Mendesian, disputed with Tachos for the crown. Agesilaus forthwith espoused the cause of Nectanabis; and Tachos, thus deserted by his own subjects as well as by his mercenaries, took refuge in Sidon, and from thence fled to the Persian monarch, by whom he was favourably received, and at whose court he died. By the help of Agesilaus, Nectanabis defeated the other competitor, who had collected a large army, and became firmly established on the throne. This is the account of Xenophon and Plutarch, and is in accordance with incidental notices in other writers. The statement of Diodorus, that Tachos returned from Persia, and was again placed upon the throne by Agesilaus, is undoubtedly an error. (Diod. xv. 92, 93; Xen. Ages. ii. §§ 28-31; Plut. Ages. 36-40; Corn. Nep. Chabr. 2, 3, Ages. 8; Polyaen. ii. 1. § 22; Ath. xiv. p. 616, d. e.; Aelian, V. H. v. 1.)

[ocr errors]

TACITA, the silent," one of the Camenae, whose worship was believed to have been introduced at Rome by Numa. He is, moreover, said to have particularly recommended the worship of Tacita, as the most important among the Camenae. (Plut. Numa, 8.) [L. S.]

TA'CITUS, M. CLAUDIUS, Roman emperor from the 25th September, a. n. 275, until April, A. D. 276. After the death of Aurelian, the army in Thrace, filled with remorse on account of their fatal mistake [AURELIANUS], and eager to testify their penitence, instead of proclaiming a new emperor with tumultuous haste, despatched a submissive letter to the senate, requesting that assembly to nominate out of their own body a successor to the vacant throne, and pledging themselves to ratify the choice. The senate at first received this most unlooked-for communication with mingled surprise and distrust, and, fearing to take advantage of what might prove a very transient ebullition of feeling, courteously declined to accede to the proposal. At the same time, expressing their full confidence in the discretion of the soldiers, they referred the election to the voice of the legions. The troops, however,

[blocks in formation]

vastations across the peninsula to the confines of Cilicia.

But the advanced years and failing strength of Tacitus were unable any longer to support the cares and toils so suddenly imposed upon him, and his anxieties were still farther increased by the mutinous spirit of the army, which soon ceased to respect a leader whose bodily and mental energies were fast hurrying to decay. After a short struggle, he sunk under the attack of a fever, either at Tarsus or at Tyana, about the 9th of April, A. D. 276; according to Victor, exactly two hundred days after his accession. By one account, he fell a victim to the anger of the soldiers; but the weight of evidence tends to prove that they were not the direct instruments, at least, of his destruction.

Our best authority is the biography of Vopiscus, who, if not actually an eyewitness of what he recounts, had an opportunity of consulting the rich collection of state papers stored up in the Ulpian Library; and from these he gives several remarkable extracts. He refers also to a more complete life of Tacitus by a certain Suetonius Optatianus, but of this no fragment remains. See likewise Eutrop. ix. 10; Aurel. Vict. de Caes. xxxvi. Epit. xxxvi.; Zonar. xii. 28, who says that he was seventy-five years old, and in Campania, when proclaimed emperor. [W. R.]

[ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed]

Such a state of things could not however long endure. The barbarians on the frontiers, who had been quelled and daunted by the skill and daring valour of Aurelian, were not slow to take advantage of the opportunity presented by this strange position of public affairs. The Germans had already crossed the Rhine: Persia, Syria, Africa, Illyria and Egypt were in commotion, when the senate, at length convinced that the soldiers were sincere, joyfully prepared to discharge a duty so unexpectedly devolved upon them. At a meeting convoked on the 25th of September, A. D. 275, by the consul Velius Cornificius Gordianus, all with one voice declared that no one could be found so worthy of the throne as M. Claudius Tacitus, an aged consular, a native of Interamna (Vopisc. Florian. 2), who claimed descent from the great historian whose name he bore, who was celebrated for his devotion to literature, for his vast wealth, for his pure and upright character, and who stood first on the roll. The real or feigned earnestness with which he declined the proffered honour, on account of his advanced age and infirmities, was encountered by the reiterated acclamations of his brethren, who overwhelmed him with arguments and precedents, until at length, yielding to their importunate zeal, he consented to proceed to the Campus Martius, and there received the greetings of the people, and the praetorians assembled to do homage to their new ruler. Quitting the city, he repaired to the great army still quartered in Thrace, by whom, on their being promised the arrears of pay and the customary donative, he was favourably received. One of his first acts was to seek out and put to death all who had been concerned in the murder of his predecessor, whose character he held in high honour, commanding statues of gold and silver to be erected to his memory in the most frequented thoroughfares of the metropolis. He likewise directed his attention to the improvement of public morals by the enactment of various sumptuary laws regulating the amusements, luxurious indulgences, and dress of the citizens, he himself setting an example to all around, by the abstemiousness, simplicity, and frugality of his own habits. His great object was to revive the authority of the senate, which now for a brief period asserted and maintained a semblance of its ancient dignity, and the private letters preserved by Vopiscus (Florian. 6) exhibit an amusing picture of the sacrifices and banquets by which the senators manifested their exultation at the prospect opening up before them of a complete restoration of their ancient privileges. The only military achievement of this reign was the defeat and expulsion from Asia Minor of a party of Goths, natives of the shores of the sea of Asof, who having been invited by Aurelian to cooperate in his meditated invasion of the East, and having been disappointed of their promised reward by the death of that prince, had turned their arms against the peaceful provinces on the southern coasts of the Euxine, and had carried their de

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

COIN OF M. CLAUDIUS TACITUS.

TA'CITUS, C. CORNELIUS, the historian. The time and place of the birth of Tacitus are unknown. He was nearly of the same age as the younger Plinius (Plin. Ep. vii. 20) who was born about A.D. 61 [C. PLINIUS CAECILIUS SECUNDUS], but a little older. His gentile name is not sufficient evidence that he belonged to the Cornelia Gens; nor is there proof of his having been born at Interamna (Terni), as it is sometimes affirmed. Some facts relative to his biography may be collected from his own writings and from the letters of his friend, the younger Plinius.

Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman eques, is mentioned by Plinius (H. N. vii. 16, note, ed. Hardouin) as a procurator in Gallia Belgica. Plinius died A. D. 79, and the procurator cannot have been the historian; but he may have been his father. In an inscription of doubtful authority he is named Cornelius Verus Tacitus. Tacitus was first promoted by the emperor Vespasian (Hist. i. 1), and he received other favours from his sons Titus and Domitian. C. Julius Agricola, who was consul A. D. 77, betrothed his daughter to Tacitus in that year, but the marriage did not take place until the following year. In the reign of Domitian, and in A. D. 88, Tacitus was praetor, and he assisted as one of the quindecemviri at the solemnity of the Ludi Seculares which were celebrated in that year

[blocks in formation]

year.

Agricola died at Rome A. D. 93, but neither Tacitus nor the daughter of Agricola was then with him. It is not known where Tacitus was during the last illness of Agricola, for the assump tion that he ever visited either Britain or Germany cannot be proved. He appears to say that he was himself a witness of some of the atrocities of Domitian (Agricola, c. 45). In the reign of Nerva, A.D. 97, Tacitus was appointed consul suffectus, in the place of T. Virginius Rufus, who had died in that Tacitus pronounced the funeral oration of Rufus, "and it was," says Plinius, "the completion of the felicity of Rufus to have his panegyric pronounced by so eloquent a man.” (Plin. Ep. ii. 1.) Tacitus had attained oratorical distinction when Plinius was commencing his career. He and Tacitus were appointed in the reign of Nerva (A. D. 99) to conduct the prosecution of Marius, proconsul of Africa, who had grossly misconducted himself in his province. Salvius Liberalis, a man of great acuteness and eloquence, was one of the advocates of Marius. Tacitus made a most eloquent and dignified reply to Liberalis.

Tacitus and Plinius were most intimate friends. In the collection of the letters of Plinius, there are eleven letters addressed to Tacitus. In a letter to his friend Maximus (ix. 23), Plinius shows that he considered his friendship with Tacitus a great distinction, and he tells the following anecdote : — On one occasion, when Tacitus was a spectator at the Ludi Circenses, he fell into conversation with a Roman eques, who, after they had discoursed on various literary subjects for some time, asked Tacitus if he was an Italian or a provincial; to which Tacitus replied, "You are acquainted with me, and by my pursuits." "Are you," rejoined the stranger, Tacitus or Plinius?" The sixteenth letter of the sixth book, in which Plinius describes the great eruption of Vesuvius and the death of his uncle, is addressed to Tacitus ; and for the purpose of enabling him to state the facts in his historical writings. Among other contemporaries of Tacitus were Quintilian, Julius Florus, Maternus, M. Aper, and Vipsanius Messala.

The time of the death of Tacitus is unknown, but we may perhaps infer that he survived Trajan, who died A. D. 117. (Hist. i. 1.) Nothing is recorded of any children of his, though the emperor Tacitus claimed a descent from the historian, and ordered his works to be placed in all (public) . libraries; and ten copies to be made every year at the public expense, and deposited in the Archeia. (Vopiscus, Tacitus Imp. c. 10.) Sidonius Apolli naris mentions the historian as an ancestor of Polemius, who was a prefect of Gaul in the fifth century.

to the memory of a good man and an able commander and administrator, by an affectionate sonin-law, who has portrayed in his peculiar manner and with many masterly touches, the virtues of one of the most illustrious of the Romans. To Englishmen this life is peculiarly interesting, as Britain was the scene of Agricola's great exploits, who carried the Roman eagles even to the base of the Grampian mountains. It was during his invasion of Caledonia that Britain was first circumnavigated by a Roman fleet. (Agricola, c. 38.) The Agricola is not contained in the earliest edition of Tacitus ; and it was first edited by Puteolanus.

The Historiae were written after the death of Nerva, A. D. 98, and before the Annales. They comprehended the period from the second consulship of Galba, A. D. 68, to the death of Domitian, and the author designed to add the reigns of Nerva and Trajan (Hist. i. 1). The first four books alone are extant in a complete form, and they comprehend only the events of about one year. The fifth book is imperfect, and goes no further than the commencement of the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, and the war of Civilis in Germany. It is not known how many books of the Histories there were, but it must have been a large work, if it was all written on the same scale as the first five books.

The Annales commence with the death of Augustus, A. D. 14, and comprise the period to the death of Nero, A. D. 68, a space of four and fifty years. The greater part of the fifth book is lost; and also the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, the beginning of the eleventh, and the end of the sixteenth, which is the last book. These lost parts comprised the whole of Caligula's reign, the first five years of Claudius, and the two last of Nero. The imperfections of the Annals and the Histories are probably owing to the few copies which were made during the later empire; for the care of the emperor Tacitus to have them copied seems to imply that without it these works might have been forgotten. If they had been as popular as some other works, copies would have been multiplied to satisfy the demand. The first five books of the Annals were found, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, in the Abbey of Corvey in Westphalia, and they were first published at Rome, by Philippus Beroaldus, in 1515.

The treatise entitled De Moribus et Populis Germaniae treats of the Germanic nations, or of those whom Tacitus comprehended under that name, and whose limits he defines by the Rhine and the Danube on the west and south, the Sarmatae and Daci on the east, and on the north-west and north by the sea. It is of no value as a geographical description; the first few chapters contain as much of the geography of Germany as Tacitus knew. The main matter is the description of the political institutions, the religion, and the habits, of the various tribes included under the denomination of Germani. The sources of the author's information are not stated, but as there is no reason to suppose that he had seen Germany, all that he could know The life of Agricola was written after the death must have been derived from the Roman expeditions of Domitian, A. D. 96, as we may probably con- east of the Rhine and north of the Danube, and clude from the introduction, which was certainly from the accounts of traders, who went at least as written after Trajan's accession. This life is justly far as the Roman eagles, and perhaps farther. The admired as a specimen of biography, though it is value of the information contained in this treatise sometimes very obscure; but this is partly owing has often been discussed, and its credibility atto the corruption of the text. It is a monument | tacked; but we may estimate its true character by

The extant works of Tacitus are, the Life of Julius Agricola, a treatise on the Germans, Annals, Histories, and a Dialogue on the Causes of the Decline of Eloquence. It is not certain if Tacitus left any orations: no fragments are extant. (Meyer, Oratorum Roman. Fragm. p. 604, 2d ed.)

observing the precision of the writer as to those Germans who were best known to the Romans from being near the Rhine. That the hearsay accounts of more remote tribes must partake of the defects of all such evidence, is obvious; and we cannot easily tell whether Tacitus embellished that which he heard obscurely told. But to consider the Germany as a fiction, is one of those absurdities which need only be recorded, not refuted. Much has been written as to the special end that Tacitus had in view in writing this work; but this discussion is merely an offshoot of ill-directed labour; a sample of literary intemperance. [SENECA, p. 782.] The dialogue entitled De Oratoribus, if it is the work of Tacitus, and it probably is, must be his earliest work, for it was written in the sixth year of Vespasian (c. 17). The style is more easy than that of the Annals, more diffuse, less condensed; but there is no obvious difference between the style of this Dialogue and the Histories, nothing so striking as to make us contend for a different authorship. Besides this, it is nothing unusual for works of the same author which are written at different times to vary greatly in style, especially if they treat of different matters. The old MSS. attribute this Dialogue to Tacitus. One of the speakers in the dialogue attributes the decline of eloquence at Rome to the neglect of the arduous study of the old Roman orators, to which Cicero has left his testimony; but another speaker, Maternus, has assigned a direct and immediate cause, which was the change in the political constitution. Oratory is not the product of any system of government, except one in which the popular ele-volution which was accepted in Rome, and the ment is strong.

convey the political instruction that is derived from the history of a free people. Tacitus claims the merit of impartiality (Annal. i. 1), because he lived after the events that he describes; but a writer who is not a contemporary may have passions or prejudices as well as one who is. In his Histories │(i. 1) he states that neither to Galba, nor to Otho, nor to Vitellius, did he owe obligations, nor had he received from them any wrong. From Vespasian and his sons, Titus and Domitian, he had received favours; yet, in the commencement of his life of Agricola, he has recorded the horrors of Domitian's reign; nor can we suppose that in the lost books of the Histories, he allowed the tyrant to escape without merited chastisement.

The Annals of Tacitus, the work of a mature age, contain the chief events of the period which they embrace, arranged under their several years (Annal. iv. 71). There seems no peculiar propriety in giving the name of Annales to this work, simply because the events are arranged in the order of time. The work of Livy may just as well be called Annals. In the Annals of Tacitus the Princeps or Emperor is the centre about which events are grouped, a mode of treating history which cannot be entirely thrown aside in a monarchical system, but which in feeble hands merges the history of a people in the personality of their ruler. Thus in Tacitus, the personal history of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero, fill up a large space. Yet the most important public events, both in Italy and the provinces, are not omitted, though every thing is treated as subordinate to the exhibition of imperial power. The Histories which were written before the Annals, are in a more diffuse style, and the treatment of the extant part is different from that of the Annals. Tacitus wrote the Histories as a contemporary; the Annals as not a contemporary. They are two distinct works, not parts of one; which is clearly shown by the very different proportions of the two works: the first four books of the Histories comprise about a year, and the first four books of the Annals comprise fourteen years.

It was his purpose in the Annals to show the general condition of the empire of which Rome was the centre, and the emperor the representative: not only to show the course of events, but also their causes (Hist. i. 4); for this remark, which is made in the Histories, may be applied also to the Annals. But the history of despotism in any form does not

The history of the empire presents the spectacle of a state without any political organisation, by which the tyranny of a ruler could be checked when it became insupportable. The only means were assassination; and the only power that either the emperor could use to maintain himself, or a conspirator could employ to seize the power or secure it for another, was the soldiery. From this alternate subjection to imperial tyranny and military violence, there were no means of escape, nor does Tacitus ever give even the most distant hint that the restoration of the republic was either possible or desirable; or that there were any means of public security, except in the accident of an able emperor to whom a revolution might give the supreme power. Yet this empire, a prey to the vices of its rulers, and to intestine commotion, had its favourable side. The civilised world obeyed a re

provinces were at peace with one another under this despotic yoke. France did not invade Italy nor Spain; Greece was not invaded by barbarians from the north; Asia Minor and Syria were protected from the worse than Roman despotism, the despotism of Asia; and Egypt and the north of Africa enjoyed protection against invaders, even though they sometimes felt the rapacity of a governor. The political condition of the Roman empire under the Caesars is a peculiar phase of European history. Tacitus has furnished some materials for it; but his method excluded a large and comprehensive view of the period which is comprised withinhis Annals. The treatment in the Histories has a wider range. The general review of the condition of the empire at the time of Nero's death is a rapid, but comprehensive sketch (i. 1, &c.).

The moral dignity of Tacitus is impressed upon his works; the consciousness of a love of truth, of the integrity of his purpose. His great power is in the knowledge of the human mind, his insight into the motives of human conduct; and he found materials for this study in the history of the emperors, and particularly Tiberius, the arch-hypocrite, and perhaps half madman. We know men's intellectual powers, because they seek to display them: their moral character is veiled under silence and reserve, which are sometimes diffidence, but more frequently dissimulation. But dissimulation alone is not a sufficient cloke; it merely seeks to hide and cover, and, as the attempt to conceal excites suspicion, it is necessary to divert the vigilance of this active inquisitor. The dissembler, therefore, assumes the garb of goodness; and thus he is hypocrite complete. The hypocrite is a better citizen than the shameless man, because by his hypocrisy he acknowledges the supremacy of goodness, while

the shameless man rebels against it. The hypocritical is the common character, or society could not exist. In the Annals of Tacitus we have all characters; but the hypocritical prevails in a despotic government and a state of loose positive morality. There may be great immorality and also great shamelessness, but then society is near its dissolution. Under the empire there was fear, for the government was despotic; but there was not universal shamelessness, at least under Tiberius: there was an outward respect paid to virtue. The reign of Tiberius was the reign of hypocrisy in all its forms, and the emperor himself was the great adept in the science; affectation in Tiberius of unwillingness to exercise power, a lesson that he learned from Augustus, and a show of regard to decency; flattery and servility on the part of the great, sometimes under the form of freedom of speech. To penetrate such a cloud of deception, we must attend even to the most insignificant external signs; for a man's nature will show itself, be he ever so cautious and cunning. In detecting these slight indications of character lies the great power of Tacitus: he penetrates to the hidden thoughts through the smallest avenue. But the possession of such a power implies something of a suspicious temper, and also cherishes it; and thus Tacitus sometimes discovers a hidden cause, where an open one seems to offer a sufficient explanation. Tacitus employed this power in the history of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Suetonius tells us of a man's vices simply and barely; Tacitus discovers what a man tries to conceal. His Annals are filled with dramatic scenes and striking catastrophes. He laboured to produce effect by the exhibition of great personages on the stage; but this is not the business of an historian. The real matter of history is a whole people; and their activity or suffering, mainly as affected by systems of government, is that which the historian has to contemplate. This is not the method of Tacitus in his Annals; his treatment is directly biographical, only indirectly political. His method is inferior to that of Thucydides, and even of Polybius, but it is a method almost necessitated by the existence of political power in the hands of an individual, and modern historians, except within the present century, have generally followed in the same track from the same cause.

Tacitus knew nothing of Christianity, which, says Montaigne, was his misfortune, not his fault. His practical morality was the Stoical, the only one that could give consolation in the age in which he lived. The highest example of Stoical morality among the Romans is the emperor Aurelius, whose golden book is the noblest monument that a Roman has left behind him. Great and good men were not wanting under the worst emperors, and Tacitus has immortalised their names. Germanicus Caesar, a humane man, and his intrepid wife, lived under Tiberius; Corbulo, an honest and able soldier, fell a victim to his fidelity to Nero. The memory of Agricola, and his virtues, greater than his talents, has been perpetuated by the affection of his son-inlaw; and his prediction that Agricola will survive to future generations is accomplished. Thrasea Paetus and Helvidius Priscus were models of virtue; and Arria, the wife of Paetus, remembered the virtues of her mother. The jurists of Rome under the empire never forgot the bright example of the Scaevolae of the republic: strange, though true,

the great lawyers of Rome were among the best men and the best citizens that she produced. As to the mass of the people we learn little from Tacitus: they have only become matter for history in recent days. The superficial suppose, that when rulers are vicious the people are so too; but the mass of the people in all ages are the most virtuous, if not for other reasons, they are so because labour is the condition of their existence. The Satires of Juvenal touch the wealthy and the great, whose vices are the result of idleness and the command of money.

Tacitus had not the belief in a moral government of the world which Aurelius had; or if he had this belief, he has not expressed it distinctly. He loved virtue, he abhorred vice; but he has not shown that the constitution of things has an order impressed upon it by the law of its existence, which implies a law-giver. His theology looks something like the Epicurean, as exhibited by Lucretius. belief in existence independent of a corporeal form, of a life after death, is rather a hope with him than a conviction. (Compare Agricola, c. 46, Annals, iii. 18, vi. 22, and the ambiguous or corrupt passage, | Hist. i. 4.)

A

The style of Tacitus is peculiar, though it bears some resemblance to Sallust. In the Annals it is concise, vigorous, and pregnant with meaning; laboured, but elaborated with art, and stripped of every superfluity. A single word sometimes gives effect to a sentence, and if the meaning of the word is missed, the sense of the writer is not reached. He leaves something for the reader to fill up, and does not overpower him with words. The words that he does use are all intended to have a meaning. Such a work is probably the result of many transcriptions by the author; if it was produced at once in its present form, the author must have practised himself till he could write in no other way. Those who have studied Tacitus much, end with admiring a form of expression which at first is harsh and almost repulsive. One might conjecture that Tacitus, when he wrote his Annals, had by much labour acquired the art of writing with difficulty.

The materials which Tacitus had for his historical writings were abundant; public documents; memoirs, as those of Agrippina; histories, as those of Fabius Kusticus and Vipsanius Messala; the Fasti, Orationes Principum, and the Acta of the Senate ; the conversation of his friends, and his own experience. It is not his practice to give authorities textually, a method which adds to the value of a history, but impairs its effect simply as a work of art. He who would erect an historical monument to his own fame will follow the method of Tacitus, compress his own researches into a narrow compass, and give them a form which is stamped with the individuality of the author. Time will confer on him the authority which the rigid critic only allows to real evidence. That Tacitus, in his Annals, purposely omitted every thing that could impair the effect of his work as a composition, is evident. The Annals are not longer than an epitome would be of a more diffuse history; but they differ altogether from those worthless literary labours. In the Annals Tacitus is generally brief and rapid in his sketches; but he is sometimes minute, and almost tedious, when he comes to work out a dramatic scene. Nor does he altogether neglect his rhetorical art when he has an

« 前へ次へ »