|
|
CLICK HERE FOR PDF FILE OF ENTIRE BOOK
BOOK V, A.D. 70
EARLY in this year Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father
to complete the subjugation of Judaea, and who had gained distinction as
a soldier while both were still subjects, began to rise in power and
reputation, as armies and provinces emulated each other in their
attachment to him. The young man himself, anxious to be thought superior
to his station, was ever displaying his gracefulness and his energy in
war. By his courtesy and affability he called forth a willing obedience,
and he often mixed with the common soldiers, while working or marching,
without impairing his dignity as general. He found in Judaea three
legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian’s.
To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the
18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was
accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied troops and eight squadrons of
cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces
of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews
with the usual hatred of neighbours, and, lastly, by many persons
brought from the capital and from Italy by private hopes of securing the
yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus entered
the enemy’s territory, preserving strict order on his march,
reconnoitring every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last he
encamped near Jerusalem.
As I am about to relate the last days of a famous city, it seems
appropriate to throw some light on its origin.
Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who
settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was
driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is
sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the
neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous
lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of
Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas,
discharged itself into the neighbouring countries. Many, again, say that
they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus
were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbours to seek a new
dwelling–place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not
having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and
founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying
on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished
origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation
celebrated in the poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded
Hierosolyma after their own name.
Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which
horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris,
seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to
cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race
detested by the gods. The people, who had been collected after diligent
search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a
stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not
to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both,
but to trust to themselves, taking for their heaven–sent leader that man
who should first help them to be quit of their present misery. They
agreed, and in utter ignorance began to advance at random. Nothing,
however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had
sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of
wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by
trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy
spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief.
After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed
themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and
in which they founded a city and a temple.
Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation,
gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practised by
other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they
allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have
consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found
deliverance from their long and thirsty wanderings. They slay the ram,
seemingly in derision of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the
Egyptians worship it as Apis. They abstain from swine’s flesh, in
consideration of what they suffered when they were infected by the
leprosy to which this animal is liable. By their frequent fasts they
still bear witness to the long hunger of former days, and the Jewish
bread, made without leaven, is retained as a memorial of their hurried
seizure of corn. We are told that the rest of the seventh day was
adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils;
after a while the charm of indolence beguilded them into giving up the
seventh year also to inaction. But others say that it is an observance
in honour of Saturn, either from the primitive elements of their faith
having been transmitted from the Idaei, who are said to have shared the
flight of that God, and to have founded the race, or from the
circumstance that of the seven stars which rule the destinies of men
Saturn moves in the highest orbit and with the mightiest power, and that
many of the heavenly bodies complete their revolutions and courses in
multiples of seven.
This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their
other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their
strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races,
scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and
presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact,
that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew
compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred
of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a
nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse
with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision
was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who
come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson
first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country,
and set at nought parents, children, and brethren. Still they provide
for the increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them to kill any
newly–born infant. They hold that the souls of all who perish in battle
or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence a passion for
propagating their race and a contempt for death. They are wont to bury
rather than to burn their dead, following in this the Egyptian cus tom;
they bestow the same care on the dead, and they hold the same belief
about the lower world. Quite different is their faith about things
divine. The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form;
the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence.
They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape
out of perishable materials. They believe that Being to be supreme and
eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay. They therefore
do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their
temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to
our Emperors. From the fact, however, that their priests used to chant
to the music of flutes and cymbals, and to wear garlands of ivy, and
that a golden vine was found in the temple, some have thought that they
worshipped father Liber, the conqueror of the East, though their
institutions do not by any means harmonize with the theory; for Liber
established a festive and cheerful worship, while the Jewish religion is
tasteless and mean.
Eastward the country is bounded by Arabia; to the south lies Egypt; on
the west are Phoenicia and the Mediterranean. Northward it commands an
extensive prospect over Syria. The inhabitants are healthy and able to
bear fatigue. Rain is uncommon, but the soil is fertile. Its products
resemble our own. They have, besides, the balsam–tree and the palm. The
palm–groves are tall and graceful. The balsam is a shrub; each branch,
as it fills with sap, may be pierced with a fragment of stone or
pottery. If steel is employed, the veins shrink up. The sap is used by
physicians. Libanus is the principal mountain, and has, strange to say,
amidst these burning heats, a summit shaded with trees and never
deserted by its snows. The same range supplies and sends forth the
stream of the Jordan. This river does not discharge itself into the sea,
but flows entire through two lakes, and is lost in the third. This is a
lake of vast circumference; it resembles the sea, but is more nauseous
in taste; it breeds pestilence among those who live near by its noisome
odour; it cannot be moved by the wind, and it affords no home either to
fish or water–birds. These strange waters support what is thrown upon
them, as on a solid surface, and all persons, whether they can swim or
no, are equally buoyed up by the waves. At a certain season of the year
the lake throws up bitumen, and the method of collecting it has been
taught by that experience which teaches all other arts. It is naturally
a fluid of dark colour; when vinegar is sprinkled upon it, it coagulates
and floats upon the surface. Those whose business it is take it with the
hand, and draw it on to the deck of the boat; it then continues of
itself to flow in and lade the vessel till the stream is cut off. Nor
can this be done by any instrument of brass or iron. It shrinks from
blood or any cloth stained by the menstrua of women. Such is the account
of old authors; but those who know the country say that the bitumen
moves in heaving masses on the water, that it is drawn by hand to the
shore, and that there, when dried by the evaporation of the earth and
the power of the sun, it is cut into pieces with axes and wedges just as
timber or stone would be.
Not far from this lake lies a plain, once fertile, they say, and the
site of great cities, but afterwards struck by lightning and consumed.
Of this event, they declare, traces still remain, for the soil, which is
scorched in appearance, has lost its productive power. Everything that
grows spontaneously, as well as what is planted by hand, either when the
leaf or flower have been developed, or after maturing in the usual form,
becomes black and rotten, and crumbles into a kind of dust. I am ready
to allow, on the one hand, that cities, once famous, may have been
consumed by fire from heaven, while, on the other, I imagine that the
earth is infected by the exhalations of the lake, that the surrounding
air is tainted, and that thus the growth of harvest and the fruits of
autumn decay under the equally noxious influences of soil and climate.
The river Belus also flows into the Jewish sea. About its mouth is a
kind of sand which is collected, mixed with nitre, and fused into glass.
This shore is of limited extent, but furnishes an inexhaustible supply
to the exporter.
A great part of Judaea consists of scattered villages. They have also
towns. Jersualem is the capital. There stood a temple of immense wealth.
First came the city with its fortifications, then the royal palace,
then, within the innermost defences, the temple itself. Only the Jew
might approach the gates; all but priests were forbidden to pass the
threshold. While the East was under the sway of the Assyrians, the
Medes, and the Persians, Jews were the most contemptible of the subject
tribes. When the Macedonians became supreme, King Antiochus strove to
destroy the national superstition, and to introduce Greek civilization,
but was prevented by his war with the Parthians from at all improving
this vilest of nations; for at this time the revolt of Arsaces had taken
place. The Macedonian power was now weak, while the Parthian had not yet
reached its full strength, and, as the Romans were still far off, the
Jews chose kings for themselves. Expelled by the fickle populace, and
regaining their throne by force of arms, these princes, while they
ventured on the wholesale banishment of their subjects, on the
destruction of cities, on the murder of brothers, wives, and parents,
and the other usual atrocities of despots, fostered the national
superstition by appropriating the dignity of the priesthood as the
support of their political power.
Cneius Pompeius was the first of our countrymen to subdue the Jews.
Availing himself of the right of conquest, he entered the temple. Thus
it became commonly known that the place stood empty with no similitude
of gods within, and that the shrine had nothing to reveal. The walls of
Jerusalem were destroyed, the temple was left standing. After these
provinces had fallen, in the course of our civil wars, into the hands of
Marcus Antonius, Pacorus, king of the Parthians, seized Judaea. He was
slain by Publius Ventidius, and the Parthians were driven back over the
Euphrates. Caius Sosius reduced the Jews to subjection. The royal power,
which had been bestowed by Antony on Herod, was augmented by the
victorious Augustus. On Herod’s death, one Simon, without waiting for
the approbation of the Emperor, usurped the title of king. He was
punished by Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation,
with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the
sons of Herod. Under Tiberius all was quiet. But when the Jews were
ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred
the alternative of war. The death of the Emperor put an end to the
disturbance. The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance,
when Claudius entrusted the province of Judaea to the Roman Knights or
to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius Felix, indulging in every
kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit
of a slave. He had married Drusilla, the granddaughter of Antony and
Cleopatra, and so was the grandson–in–law, as Claudius was the grandson,
of Antony.
Yet the endurance of the Jews lasted till Gessius Florus was procurator.
In his time the war broke out. Cestius Gallus, legate of Syria, who
attempted to crush it, had to fight several battles, generally with
ill–success. Cestius dying, either in the course of nature, or from
vexation, Vespasian was sent by Nero, and by help of his good fortune,
his high reputation, and his excellent subordinates, succeeded within
the space of two summers in occupying with his victorious army the whole
of the level country and all the cities, except Jerusalem. The following
year had been wholly taken up with civil strife, and had passed, as far
as the Jews were concerned, in inaction. Peace having been established
in Italy, foreign affairs were once more remembered. Our indignation was
heightened by the circumstance that the Jews alone had not submitted. At
the same time it was held to be more expedient, in reference to the
possible results and contingencies of the new reign, that Titus should
remain with the army.
Accordingly he pitched his camp, as I have related, before the walls of
Jerusalem, and displayed his legions in order of battle.
The Jews formed their line close under their walls, whence, if
successful, they might venture to advance, and where, if repulsed, they
had a refuge at hand. The cavalry with some light infantry was sent to
attack them, and fought without any decisive result. Shortly afterwards
the enemy retreated. During the following days they fought a series of
engagements in front of the gates, till they were driven within the
walls by continual defeats. The Romans then began to prepare for an
assault. It seemed beneath them to await the result of famine. The army
demanded the more perilous alternative, some prompted by courage, many
by sheer ferocity and greed of gain. Titus himself had Rome with all its
wealth and pleasures before his eyes. Jerusalem must fall at once, or it
would delay his enjoyment of them. But the commanding situation of the
city had been strengthened by enormous works which would have been a
thorough defence even for level ground. Two hills of great height were
fenced in by walls which had been skilfully obliqued or bent inwards, in
such a manner that the flank of an assailant was exposed to missiles.
The rock terminated in a precipice; the towers were raised to a height
of sixty feet, where the hill lent its aid to the fortifications, where
the ground fell, to a height of one hundred and twenty. They had a
marvellous appearance, and to a distant spectator seemed to be of
uniform elevation. Within were other walls surrounding the palace, and,
rising to a conspicuous height, the tower Antonia, so called by Herod,
in honour of Marcus Antonius.
The temple resembled a citadel, and had its own walls, which were more
laboriously constructed than the others. Even the colonnades with which
it was surrounded formed an admirable outwork. It contained an
inexhaustible spring; there were subterranean excavations in the hill,
and tanks and cisterns for holding rain water. The founders of the state
had foreseen that frequent wars would result from the singularity of its
customs, and so had made every provision against the most protracted
siege. After the capture of their city by Pompey, experience and
apprehension taught them much. Availing themselves of the sordid policy
of the Claudian era to purchase the right of fortification, they raised
in time of peace such walls as were suited for war. Their numbers were
increased by a vast rabble collected from the overthrow of the other
cities. All the most obstinate rebels had escaped into the place, and
perpetual seditions were the consequence. There were three generals, and
as many armies. Simon held the outer and larger circuit of walls. John,
also called Bargioras, occupied the middle city. Eleazar had fortified
the temple. John and Simon were strong in numbers and equipment, Eleazar
in position. There were continual skirmishes, surprises, and incendiary
fires, and a vast quantity of corn was burnt. Before long John sent some
emissaries, who, under pretence of sacrificing, slaughtered Eleazar and
his partisans, and gained possession of the temple. The city was thus
divided between two factions, till, as the Romans approached, war with
the foreigner brought about a reconciliation.
Prodigies had occurred, which this nation, prone to superstition, but
hating all religious rites, did not deem it lawful to expiate by
offering and sacrifice. There had been seen hosts joining battle in the
skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden
radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly
thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that
the Gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as
of departure. Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in
most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their
priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was
to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire
universal empire. These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian
and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition,
had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be
brought even by disasters to believe the truth. I have heard that the
total number of the besieged, of every age and both sexes, amounted to
six hundred thousand. All who were able bore arms, and a number, more
than proportionate to the population, had the courage to do so. Men and
women showed equal resolution, and life seemed more terrible than death,
if they were to be forced to leave their country. Such was this city and
nation; and Titus Caesar, seeing that the position forbad an assault or
any of the more rapid operations of war, determined to proceed by
earthworks and covered approaches. The legions had their respective
duties assigned to them, and there was a cessation from fighting, till
all the inventions, used in ancient warfare, or devised by modern
ingenuity for the reduction of cities, were constructed.
Meanwhile Civilis, having recruited his army from Germany after his
defeat among the Treveri, took up his position at the Old Camp, where
his situation would protect him, and where the courage of his barbarian
troops would be raised by the recollection of successes gained on the
spot. He was followed to this place by Cerialis, whose forces had now
been doubled by the arrival of the 2nd, 6th, and 14th legions. The
auxiliary infantry and cavalry, summoned long before, had hastened to
join him after his victory. Neither of the generals loved delay. But a
wide extent of plain naturally saturated with water kept them apart.
Civilis had also thrown a dam obliquely across the Rhine, so that the
stream, diverted by the obstacle, might overflow the adjacent country.
Such was the character of the district, full of hidden perils from the
varying depth of the fords, and unfavourable to our troops. The Roman
soldier is heavily armed and afraid to swim, while the German, who is
accustomed to rivers, is favoured by the lightness of his equipment and
the height of his stature.
The Batavi provoking a conflict, the struggle was at once begun by all
the boldest spirits among our troops, but a panic arose, when they saw
arms and horses swallowed up in the vast depths of the marshes. The
Germans leapt lightly through the well–known shallows, and frequently,
quitting the front, hung on the rear and flanks of our army. It was
neither the close nor the distant fighting of a land–battle; it was more
like a naval contest. Struggling among the waters, or exerting every
limb where they found any firm footing, the wounded and the unhurt,
those who could swim and those who could not, were involved in one
common destruction. The loss however was less than might have been
expected from the confusion, for the Germans, not venturing to leave the
morass, returned to their camp. The result of this battle roused both
generals, though from different motives, to hasten on the final
struggle. Civilis was anxious to follow up his success; Cerialis to wipe
out his disgrace. The Germans were flushed with success; the Romans were
thoroughly roused by shame. The barbarians spent the night in singing
and shouting; our men in rage and threats of vengeance.
Next morning Cerialis formed his front with the cavalry and auxiliary
infantry; in the second line were posted the legions, the general
reserving a picked force for unforeseen contingencies. Civilis
confronted him with his troops ranged, not in line, but in columns. On
the right were the Batavi and the Gugerni; the left, which was nearer
the river, was occupied by the Transrhenane tribes. The exhortations of
the generals were not addressed as formal harangues to the assembled
armies, but to the divisions separately, as they rode along the line.
Cerialis spoke of the old glory of the Roman name, of former and of
recent victories; he told them that in destroying for ever their
treacherous, cowardly, and beaten foe, they had to execute a punishment,
rather than to fight a battle. They had lately contended with a superior
force, and yet the Germans, the strength of the hostile army, had been
routed; a few were left, who carried terror in their hearts and scars
upon their backs. He addressed to the several legions appropriate
appeals. The 14th were styled the “Conquerors of Britain”; the powerful
influence of the 6th had made Galba Emperor; the men of the 2nd were in
that battle first to consecrate their new standards and new eagle. Then
riding up to the army of Germany, he stretched forth his hand, and
implored them to recover their river bank and their camp by the
slaughter of the foe. A joyful shout arose from the whole army, some of
whom after long peace lusted for battle, while others, weary of war,
desired peace; all were looking for rewards and for future repose.
Nor did Civilis marshal his army in silence. He called the field of
battle to bear witness to their valour. He told the Germans and
Batavians that they were standing on the monuments of their glory, that
they were treading under foot the ashes and bones of legions.
“Wherever,” he said, “the Roman turns his eyes, captivity, disaster, and
everything that is terrible, confront him. Do not be alarmed by the
adverse result of the battle among the Treveri. There, their own success
proved hurtful to the Germans, for, throwing away their arms, they
hampered their hands with plunder. Since then everything has been
favourable to us, and against the foe. All precautions, which the skill
of a general should take, have been taken. Here are these flooded plains
which we know so well, here the marshes so fatal to the enemy. The Rhine
and the Gods of Germany are in your sight. Under their auspices give
battle, remembering your wives, your parents, and your father–land. This
day will either be the most glorious among the deeds of the past, or
will be infamous in the eyes of posterity.” These words were hailed,
according to their custom, with the clash of arms and with wild antics,
and then the battle was commenced by a discharge of stones, leaden
balls, and other missiles, our soldiers not entering the morass, while
the Germans sought to provoke, and so draw them on.
When their store of missiles was spent, and the battle grew hotter, a
fiercer onslaught was made by the enemy. Their tall stature and very
long spears enabled them, without closing, to wound our men, who were
wavering and unsteady. At the same time a column of the Bructeri swam
across from the dam, which I have described as carried out into the
river. Here there was some confusion. The line of the allied infantry
was being driven back, when the legions took up the contest. The fury of
the enemy was checked, and the battle again became equal. At the same
time a Batavian deserter came up to Cerialis, offering an opportunity of
attacking the enemy’s rear, if some cavalry were sent along the edge of
the morass. The ground there was firm, and the Gugerni, to whom the post
had been allotted, were careless. Two squadrons were sent with the
deserter, and outflanked the unsuspecting enemy. At the shout that
announced this success, the legions charged in front. The Germans were
routed, and fled towards the Rhine. The war would have been finished
that day, if the fleet had hastened to come up. As it was, the cavalry
did not pursue, for a storm of rain suddenly fell, and night was at
hand.
The next day the 14th legion was sent into the Upper Province to join
Gallus Annius. The 10th, which had arrived from Spain, supplied its
place in the army of Cerialis. Civilis was joined by some auxiliaries
from the Chauci. Nevertheless he did not venture to fight for the
defence of the Batavian capital, but carrying off property that could be
removed, and setting fire to the remainder, he retreated into the
island, aware that there were not vessels enough for constructing a
bridge, and that the Roman army could not cross the river in any other
way. He also demolished the dyke, constructed by Drusus Germanicus, and,
by destroying this barrier, sent the river flowing down a steep channel
on the side of Gaul. The river having been thus, so to speak, diverted,
the narrowness of the channel between the island and Germany created an
appearance of an uninterrupted surface of dry ground. Tutor, Classicus,
and one hundred and thirteen senators of the Treveri, also crossed the
Rhine. Among them was Alpinius Montanus, of whose mission into Gaul by
Antonius I have already spoken. He was accompanied by his brother
Decimus Alpinius. His other adherents were now endeavouring to collect
auxiliaries among these danger–loving tribes by appeals to their pity
and their greed.
The war was so far from being at an end, that Civilis in one day
attacked on four points the positions of the auxiliary infantry and
cavalry and of the legions, assailing the tenth legion at Arenacum, the
second at Batavodurum, and the camp of the auxiliary infantry and
cavalry at Grinnes and Vada, and so dividing his forces, that he
himself, his sister’s son Verax, Classicus, and Tutor, led each his own
division. They were not confident of accomplishing all these objects,
but they hoped that, if they made many ventures, fortune would favour
them on some one point. Besides, Cerialis was not cautious, and might
easily be intercepted, as the multiplicity of tidings hurried him from
place to place. The force, which had to attack the tenth legion,
thinking it a hard matter to storm a legionary encampment, surprised
some troops, who had gone out, and were busy felling timber, killed the
prefect of the camp, five centurions of the first rank, and a few
soldiers; the rest found shelter behind the fortifications. At
Batavodurum the German troops tried to break down the bridge partly
built. Night terminated an indecisive conflict.
There was greater danger at Grinnes and Vada. Civilis attacked Vada,
Classicus Grinnes, and they could not be checked, for our bravest men
had fallen, among them Briganticus, who commanded a squadron of cavalry,
and of whose loyalty to the Roman cause and enmity to his uncle Civilis
I have already spoken. But when Cerialis came up with a picked body of
cavalry, the fortune of the day changed, and the Germans were driven
headlong into the river. Civilis, who was recognised while seeking to
stop his flying troops, became the mark of many missiles, left his
horse, and swam across the river. Verax escaped in the same way. Some
light vessels were brought up, and carried off Tutor and Classicus. Even
on this occasion the Roman fleet was not present at the engagement,
though orders had been given to that effect. Fear kept them away, and
their crews were dispersed about other military duties. Cerialis in fact
allowed too little time for executing his commands; he was hasty in his
plans, though eminently successful in their results. Fortune helped him
even where skill had failed, and so both the general and his army became
less careful about discipline. A few days after this he escaped the
peril of actual capture, but not without great disgrace.
He had gone to Novesium and Bonna, to inspect the camps which were then
in course of erection for the winter abode of the legions, and was
making his way back with the fleet, his escort being in disorder, and
his sentries negligent. This was observed by the Germans, and they
planned a surprise. They chose a dark and cloudy night, and moving
rapidly down the stream, entered the entrenchments without opposition.
The carnage was at first helped on by a cunning device. They cut the
ropes of the tents, and slaughtered the soldiers as they lay buried
beneath their own dwellings. Another force put the fleet into confusion,
threw their grapling irons on the vessels, and dragged them away by the
sterns. They sought at first to elude notice by silence, but when the
slaughter was begun, by way of increasing the panic they raised on all
sides a deafening shout. The Romans, awakened by sounds, looked for
their arms and rushed through the passages of the camp, some few with
their proper accoutrements, but most with their garments wrapped round
their shoulders, and with drawn swords in their hands. The general, who
was half asleep, and all but naked, was saved by the enemy’s mistake.
They carried off the praetorian vessel, which was distinguished by a
flag, believing that the general was on board. Cerialis indeed had
passed the night elsewhere, in the company, as many believed, of an
Ubian woman, Claudia Sacrata. The sentinels sought to excuse their own
scandalous neglect by the disgraceful conduct of the general, alleging
that they had been ordered to be silent, that they might not disturb his
rest, and that, from omitting the watchwords and the usual challenges,
they had themselves fallen asleep. The enemy rowed back in broad
daylight with the captured vessels. The praetorian trireme they towed up
the river Lupia as a present to Veleda.
Civilis was seized by a desire to make a naval demonstration. He manned
all the triremes that he had, and such vessels as were propelled by a
single bank of oars. To these he added a vast number of boats. He put in
each three or four hundred men, the usual complement of a Liburnian
galley. With these were the captured vessels, in which, picturesquely
enough, plaids of various colours were used for sails. The place
selected was an expanse of water, not unlike the sea, where the mouth of
the Mosa serves to discharge the Rhine into the ocean. The motive for
equipping this fleet was, to say nothing of the natural vanity of this
people, a desire to intercept, by this alarming demonstration, the
supplies that were approaching from Gaul. Cerialis, more in astonishment
than alarm, drew up his fleet in line, and, though inferior in numbers,
it had the advantage in the experience of the crews, the skill of the
pilots, and the size of the vessels. The Romans had the stream with
them, the enemy’s vessels were propelled by the wind. Thus passing each
other, they separated after a brief discharge of light missiles. Civilis
attempted nothing more, and retired to the other side of the Rhine.
Cerialis mercilessly ravaged the Island of the Batavi, but, with a
policy familiar to commanders, left untouched the estates and houses of
Civilis. Meanwhile, however, the autumn was far advanced, and the river,
swollen by the continual rains of the season, overflowed the island,
marshy and low–lying as it is, till it resembled a lake. There were no
ships, no provisions at hand, and the camp, which was situated on low
ground, was in process of being carried away by the force of the stream.
That the legions might then have been crushed, and that the Germans
wished to crush them, but were turned from their purpose by his own
craft, was claimed as a merit by Civilis; nor is it unlike the truth,
since a capitulation followed in a few days. Cerialis, sending secret
emissaries, had held out the prospect of peace to the Batavi, and of
pardon to Civilis, while he advised Veleda and her relatives to change
by a well–timed service to the Roman people the fortune of war, which so
many disasters had shewn to be adverse. He reminded them that the
Treveri had been beaten, that the Ubii had submitted, that the Batavi
had had their country taken from them, and that from the friendship of
Civilis nothing else had been gained but wounds, defeat, and mourning;
an exile and a fugitive he could only be a burden to those who
entertained him, and they had already trespassed enough in crossing the
Rhine so often. If they attempted anything more, on their side would be
the wrong and the guilt, with the Romans the vengeance of heaven.
Thus promises were mingled with threats. When the fidelity of the
Transrhenane tribes had been thus shaken, among the Batavi also there
arose debates. “We can no longer,” they said, “postpone our ruin. The
servitude of the whole world cannot be averted by a single nation. What
has been accomplished by destroying legions with fire and sword, but
that more legions and stronger have been brought up? If it was for
Vespasian that we fought this war, then Vespasian rules the world; if we
meant to challenge to battle the Roman people, then what a mere fraction
of the human race are the Batavi! Look at the Rhaetians and Noricans, at
the burdens borne by the other allies. No tribute, but valour and
manhood are demanded of us. This is the next thing to liberty, and if we
must choose between masters, then we may more honourably bear with the
Emperors of Rome, than with the women of the Germans.” Such were the
murmurs of the lower class; the nobles spoke in fiercer language. “We
have been driven into war,” they said, “by the fury of Civilis. He
sought to counterbalance his private wrongs by the destruction of his
nation. Then were the Gods angry with the Batavi when the legions were
besieged, when the legates were slain, when the war, so necessary to
that one man, so fatal to us, was begun. We are at the last extremity,
unless we think of repenting, and avow our repentance by punishing the
guilty.”
These dispositions did not escape the notice of Civilis. He determined
to anticipate them, moved not only by weariness of his sufferings, but
also by that clinging to life which often breaks the noblest spirits. He
asked for a conference. The bridge over the river Nabalia was cut down,
and the two generals advanced to the broken extremities. Civilis thus
opened the conference:– “If it were before a legate of Vitellius that I
were defending myself, my acts would deserve no pardon, my words no
credit. All the relations between us were those of hatred and hostility,
first made so by him, and afterwards embittered by me. My respect for
Vespasian is of long standing. While he was still a subject, we were
called friends. This was known to Primus Antonius, whose letters urged
me to take up arms, for he feared lest the legions of Germany and the
youth of Gaul should cross the Alps. What Antonius advised by his
letters, Hordeonius suggested by word of mouth. I fought the same battle
in Germany, as did Mucianus in Syria, Aponius in Moesia, Flavianus in
Pannonia.”
[At this point the Histories break off. We do not know what happened to
Civilis. The Batavians seem to have received favorable treatment.]
THE END
Tacitus and his
manuscripts1
By Roger Pearse
Introduction
There are quite a number of misleading statements about this subject
circulating on the internet, including the curious idea that Tacitus was
forged in the 14th century by Poggio Bracciolini. This page has been
written to place the facts at the disposal of those interested, and
references to more information. The intended audience is the interested
layman. All this material is derived from the sources listed.
I've also added a short paragraph on the allegations that Tacitus' works
were forged.
The works of Tacitus that have come down to us are as follows:
Annales, 1-6
Annales, 11-16, Historiae
Minor Works
The titles Annales and Historiae are 16th century, as the
manuscripts present both works under the title Ab excessu divi Augusti.
Historiae 1-5 appear as books 17-21 in the MS.
It is generally accepted "that Tacitus completed the Historiae in
14 books, and then wrote 16 books Ab excessu Divi Augusti, but did
not complete the prolegomenary and supplemental works which he had
projected. The result, therefore, was two historical works which were
subsequently combined, possibly by the author but more probably by a later
editor, into a single sequence of 30 books numbered consecutively. The
existence of such a consolidated edition is implied in Jerome's oft-quoted
reference (Comm. ad Zach. 3, 14; = Migne, 25, 1522) to the
triginta volumina (= libri) of the Tacitean 'vitae Caesarum,' and
confirmed by the subscriptions in the Second Medicean manuscript, in which
we clearly have the remains of a consolidated edition. At the end of the
second book of Historiae, for example, the colophon reads: Cornelij
tacitj. || Liber octauus decim; expljcit. || Incipit nonus decimus. This
numbering is certainly taken from the mutilated archetype from which the
Second Medicean was copied, and may therefore be presumed to be ancient.".2
Annales 1-67
The first 6 books of the Annales survive in a single manuscript, now in
the Biblioteca Laurenziana in
Florence, where it is MS. plut. 68.1. Since this is the library of the
Medici prince, Lorenzo the Magnificent, it is naturally called the Codex
Mediceus, or M for short.
This MS was written around 850AD in Germany. The distinctive type of
script suggests the event took place in the scriptorium of the Benedictine
abbey of Fulda, and this is supported by an explicit reference to Tacitus in
the Annales Fuldenses for 852 (Cornelius Tacitus, scriptor rerum a
Romanis in ea gente gestarum) which seems to show knowledge of Ann.
2,9.
The script is a pre-carolingian hand which the scribe is changing to
Carolingian minuscule, together with occasional small plain majuscules (a
9th century derivative of rustic capitals), a more ornamental version of
these letters with decorative shading and some uncial elements, and also a
few much larger and heavier capitals of essentially rustic form. It is
generally agreed that it was copied from a text written in 'insular' script
which was copied from a manuscript in 'rustic capitals', and it has been
suggested that this latter was at least 4th and probably 3rd century, based
on an analysis of errors made in copying the titulature and colophons of
each book, which are most easily explained if these errors occurred in
copying a volume written in the early period in which prose texts were
normally written in comparatively large letters and very narrow columns, and
the colophons were not laid out in the manner common in 5th century and
later books.2
The MS as originally written also included a good copy of the 9-book
version of the letters of the younger Pliny (now separately bound as
Laurentianus plut. 47.36).
At some time after it was written, the MS was transferred to the
monastery of Corvey, in Saxony. There it remained, apparently without ever
being copied.
In 1508 the volume was removed from the library. A letter of Pope Leo X
of December 1, 1517 indicates that it had been stolen, and that Leo had paid
a large amount of money for it4. At all events
it passed into the hands of Pope Leo X.3
Leo gave the MS to Filippo Beraldo the Younger, who used it to produce
the first edition in 1515, and left numerous annotations in the margins of
the MS. The monks of Corvey, who petitioned the Pope for the return of
their treasure, were instead sent a copy of the printed volume together with
an indulgence to make up the balance.
The number of letters to a page is identical with M. II, which led Dom
Henri Quentin to the conclusion that M originally contained the complete
Annals, and Histories, and was the ancestor of M.II also. The
suggestion is that the rebinding of the first part with Pliny created
separate volumes, and the latter portion proceeded to lead a separate life4.
However not all scholars agree that the statistic is significant, and it has
been suggested that the text of M.II is more seriously corrupt than that of
M, and in ways that make it likely that they are not related in this way1.
Annales 11-16, Historiae [Image of
Folio 6v (end of 11, start of 12)]
All of the late Italian manuscripts - some 31 at the last count - are
copies of a single mediaeval manuscript, also in the Laurentian library,
where it is number 68.2. It is referred to as M. II or 'second Medicean',
to distinguish it from the unique codex of Annals 1-6. Bound with it
are the major works of Apuleius, written slightly later than the Tacitus but
at the same place.
The copies are discussed by Mendell.6
This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at
Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD). It
derives from an ancestor in written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains
errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence
that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was
made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier,8
but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate
copy written in a minuscule hand.9
How the MS came to leave Monte Cassino is a matter of mystery. It was
still at Monte Cassino, and was used by Paulus Venetus, Bishop of Puzzuoli,
sometime between 1331 and 1344. However Boccaccio had certainly seen the
text by 1371, and the MS is listed among the books given by him at his death
to the monastery of S. Spirito in Florence. Whether he had 'liberated' it,
or acquired it from another collector who had done so has been extensively
debated, without final result.
The MS is next seen in 1427, in the hands of the book-collector Niccolo
Niccoli, who had furnished bookcases for Boccaccio's collection at S.Spirito.
That Niccolo had not acquired the MS legitimately is suggested by a letter
to him from his friend Poggio Bracciolini, asking to see it and promising to
keep quiet about it. Knowledge of the text among the humanists is
correspondingly limited in this period.
Poggio returned the MS to Niccolo, complaining about its barbarous
script, and comparing it unfavourably with a copy of it in humanist script
held by another mutual friend, Salutati.
At Niccolo's death in 1437, the MS passed with his books to the monastery
of San Marco at Florence with the Medici as executors, and the humanist
copies all date from this period or later.
The editio princeps was from the press of 'Spira' at
Venice, a folio volume containing only the last 6 books of the annals and
the first five of the histories. It is undated, but supposed to be from
either 1468 or 1470. (Dibdin, Thomas Frognall, An introduction to the
knowledge of rare and valuable editions of the Greek and Latin classics,
4th edn., London (1827), vol II. p.466 checked).
(The plate is plate XIV from Reynolds & Wilson, Scribes and Scholars.)
Minor Works
[image of Aesinas Lat. 8
f.63v (Agricola 38.3-4);
image of start of Germania, from same ms]
The three minor works of Tacitus - the Dialogus, the Agricola,
and the Germania - were little known before the renaissance. However
a number of manuscripts did survive at that time, and were copied.
Unfortunately most of the originals were then lost, and the details are
disputed. The monasteries were very reluctant to part with their treasures
(even if they didn't look bother after them) and so the process whereby the
MSS were 'liberated' is usually very unclear.
The sole survivor is the Codex Aesinas Latinus 8 (E), which was
discovered by Prof. Cesare Annibaldi in the private library of Count Aurelio
Guglielmi Balleani of Iesi in the autumn of 1902. The MS was thought lost
again, but in 1980 was in the hands of Count Balleschi-Balleani, the
great-nephew of Count Aurelio Guglielmi Balleani of Iesi.5
It was on loan to the Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence, and was
damaged in the flooding of the Arno in the 1960's. However in recent years
it was sold to the Biblioteca Nazionale in Rome, where it is now Cod. Vitt.
Em. 1631.11
The manuscript nearly ended up in Germany, however, during the
intervening period. At a meeting in 1936 the German dictator Adolf Hitler
asked Mussolini for the Iesi manuscript. Mussolini agreed, but changed his
mind on finding how unpopular the promise was in Italy. Hitler had not been
serious, it seems, thinking that the text only showed what barbarians the
Germans were compared to the Romans at that time. But his ideologist Alfred
Rosenberg was seriously interested, as was Heinrich Himmler. In July 1944 a
sonderkommando of SS men arrived at the Palazzo of the Balleani in
Fontedamo, a couple of miles west of Ancona. On finding the house empty,
they broke in, searched for the Ms. and vandalised the house on finding it
not present. They then searched, somewhat less roughly, two further
properties of the Balleani family; a house in Osimo, where the family
remained undetected in a cellar, and the Palazzo on the Piazza in Iesi. The
Ms. was in fact in a kitchen cellar in the Iesi palazzo in a wooden trunk
bound with tin, but was undiscovered. 12
The Aesinas contains Dictys Cretensis, Bellum Troianum, partly in
the 15th century hand of Stefano Guarnieri; Agricola 13.1-40.2 (ff.
56-63) in a hand from the second quarter of the 9th century, together with a
palimpsest (f. 69) with some decipherable readings from 40.2 to 43.4; with
the missing start and end added in Guarnieri's hand; and the Germania,
entirely in Guarnieri's hand.
In November 1425 Poggio wrote to Niccolo of the discovery in a German
Abbey of some volumes, including Julius Frontinus and some works of Tacitus
unknown to them (ignota nobis). The information had been brought to
him by a monk of Hersfeld, Heinrich von Grebenstein, who had visited the
Papal Curia (where Poggio worked) in search of money. Poggio specified that
the book should be brought to Nuremburg, where it would be exchanged for
some other contemporary works that the monk wanted.
In May 1427 Poggio writes to Niccolo that the monk had let him down,
"many words, but nothing". It seemed that Poggio would not meet his price;
and Poggio seems to have become discouraged on learning that the MS did not
contain any more of the Annals.
By 1431, Niccolo knew that a volume at the abbey of Hersfeld contained
the Germania, Agricola, Dialogus and the fragments of Suetonius'
De grammaticis et rhetoribus, and lists it in a sheet of 'things to get'
(his Commentarium,
which is online) he handed to two Cardinals travelling in Germany. The
Commentarium has a note in the margin that the book was actually found.
In 1432, a letter from Francesco Pizzolpasso, Archbishop of Milan, to
Nicolaus Cusanus also discusses what sound like the same MSS4.
In 1455 an MS of this description was seen in Rome by Pier Candido
Decembrio. Decembrio describes the MS in detail. It seems to be in
columns, and to contain the Germania, the Agricola, the
Dialogus, and the Suetonius fragments. Associated with it - perhaps
bound together - is a copy of Frontinus, De aquaeductibus, with the
two volumes of that work reversed.4
In the same year an MS was brought to Rome by Enoch of Ascoli, one of
Poggio's rivals - and Poggio consequently belittles the find in a letter.
Enoch had worked for Pope Nicholas V, but as he was dead Enoch was allowing
no copies to be made and standing out for a large price. Enoch died in
1457, and left his MSS to Stefano de Nardini of Ancona, according to a
letter from Carlo de Medici to his half-brother Giovanni. The four good
finds included Apicius, Porphyrio, Suetonius de viris illustribus and the
Itinerarium Augusti. However a Leiden MS (Leiden 18) copied from his MSS
contains the Suetonius fragments (not the De viris illustribus), and on the
back of this the Dialogus and the Germania. It does not
contain the Agricola, which suggests that the Enoch MS did not
contain it either. It has thus been suggested that Enoch's MS is not the
same as the Hersfeld MS, seen by Decembrio in the same year.4
However others do not agree with this, and treat the Leiden MS as a copy of
a Vatican copy of the Hersfeld MS1.
It is usually accepted that this now lost MS is the original of all the
later copies of these works, which include the Codex Toletanus 49,2 (T);
codex Vaticanus 3429 (A); codex Vaticanus lat. 4498 (B). The
standard view is that the Aesinas is part of the lost MS from Hersfeld.
However a case has been made that in fact the Aesinas is independant of the
Hersfeld MS1. It has also been suggested that
it in fact came from Monte Cassino, and was assembled for the Iesi library
by Guarini.4
So it would seem that informed opinions range from one to three surviving
copies, from which the various modern texts take their origins.
[The first plate is Tacitus Agricola 38, 3-4, Codex
Aesinas latinus 8, folio 63, verso (from Till's Untersuchungen),
obtained from Stan Wolfson's clearly well-informed,
which, adds the following further notes on the scholarship:]
E is the Oxford abbreviation for the codex.
Further refinements are added by Murgia (1977, 324 n.2). Till (1979,
7-10) uses H (Hersfeld) for the Caroline section and E for
the fifteenth century transcriptions. Delz (1983) assumed that the
Hersfeld and Aesinas were the same. That they were different was
proposed by Mendell (1949, 134-135; 1957, 257-293) and Schaps (1979,
28-42) and supported by Winterbottom (1983, 411). This was challenged by
Murgia and Rodgers (1984, 145-153, cf. Magnaldi 1997, 133). For the fate
of the codex, cf. Schama (1995, 75-81) and Niutta (1996, 172-202).
Marginal notes in E are contemporary and
often superior where proper names are concerned: cf. Perret 1950,
99-100; Koestermann 1964, xii; Murgia 1977, 339.
Delz, J. 1983: P. Cornelii Taciti qui
supersunt libri, Agricola, Stuttgart
Koestermann, E. 1964: P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt, tom
ii. Fasc. 2 Germania Agricola, Leipzig
Magnaldi, G. 1997: 'Suetonio, Tacito e il codice Hersfeldense',
Prometheus 23, 119- 144, 229-246
Mendell, C.W. 1935: 'Discovery of the minor works of Tacitus',
AJP 56, 111-130
Mendell, C.W. 1949: 'Manuscripts of Tacitus' minor works', MAAR
135-145
Mendell, C.W. 1957: Tacitus: the man and his work, Newhaven
and London
Murgia, C.E. 1977: 'The Minor Works of Tacitus: a study in textual
criticism' CP 72, 323-345
Murgia, C.E. 1978: 'Loci Conclamati in the Minor Works of Tacitus',
CSCA 11, 159-178
Murgia, C.E. and Rodgers, R.H. 1984: 'A Tale of Two Manuscripts',
CP 79, 145- 153
Niutta, F. 1996: 'sul codice Esinate di Tacito', Quad. di storia
43, 173-202
Perret, J. 1950: Recherches sur le texte de la 'Germanie',
Paris
Schama, S. 1995: Landscape and Memory, London
Schaps, D. 1979: 'The found and lost manuscripts of Tacitus'
Agricola' CP 74, 28-42
Till, R. 1943: Handschriftliche Untersuchungen zu Tacitus
Agricola und Germania, Berlin-Dahlem
Is Tacitus a forgery?4
The modern editions of Tacitus that I have seen do not refer to the
allegations of forgery that have been made at various times. The following
account is summarised from Mendell4, who gives
the same data at more length. If anyone has more data or more recent
bibliographic references on this, so that this story can be put to bed, I
would be grateful to receive it.
According to Mendell, since 1775 there have been at least 6 attempts to
discredit the works of Tacitus as either forgeries or fiction:
- The allegation originated with Voltaire, and his claims were
elaborated by a lawyer named Linguet. However the position was only
taken seriously with Napoleon. The French Revolutionaries had found
"tremendous comfort in Tacitus' republicanism. The modern successor to
the Caesars" had therefore a strong political motive to discredit him.
But these efforts ceased with the collapse of the First Empire.
- John Wilson ROSS published (anonymously!)
a book entitled
Tacitus and Bracciolini:: the Annals forged in the XVth century,
London (1878) intended to prove that Poggio had forged the works of
Tacitus. (It would be interesting to know how Ross believed Poggio
could forge 9th century MSS.) This work has now been added to Project
Gutenberg and is online.
- In 1890 P. HOCHART, De l'Authenticite
des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite, maintained the same idea
"with a much greater show of learning, and followed up with a
supplementary volume". Apparently neither Ross or Hochart was able to
convince scholarly opinion at the time.
- In 1920 Leo WEINER, Tacitus' Germania
and other forgeries, "attempted in vain to prove by a bewildering
display of linguistic fireworks that the Germania and, by
implication, other works of Tacitus were forgeries made after Arabic
influence had extended into Europe".
- "After Gaston Boissier's brilliant book (Tacite, 1903) had
roused new enthusiasm for the historian, Eugene Bacha (Le Genie de
Tacite, 1906) attempted to prove Tacitus was a master of Romantic
fiction... Bacha's book does have some value for his comments on
stylistic matters."
- T.S.Jerome, Aspects of the Study of History, 1923, presented
Tacitus as "a consistent liar by nature and deliberate choice. The book
has no value because of its overall inaccuracy, the confusion of
narratio in a legal speech with narratio in history, and its
wholly unconvincing method".
According to Mendell, none of these writers have won general acceptance of
their estimates of Tacitus, the extreme positions have been abandoned, and
the general integrity of Tacitus vindicated. However as with all history,
the personal element of selection and interpretation means that scholars do
not necessarily accept Tacitus' view as the final and just interpretation of
first-century Roman history.
It would seem that the arguments for forgery have failed to find
acceptance.
Mendell also gives an extensive list of witnesses to the text from the
1st century onwards. From this we can see thatTacitus is mentioned or
quoted in every century down to and including the Sixth. The Seventh and
Eighth centuries are the only ones that have left no trace of knowledge of
our author4. Without quoting every reference,
here are some which I found of interest.
Around 400:
- Ammianus Marcellinus publishes his history, starting where Tacitus
left off.
- Sulpicius Severus of Aquitaine,
Chronicorum Libri
II, 29, uses Annals 15.37 and 15.44 as his source, for the
marriage of Nero to Pythagoras and the punishment of the Christians. (I
should add I don't know exactly what ties to what). English in ANF;
Latin text is Sulpicius Severus. Sulpicii Severi libri qui supersunt.
Ed. C. Halm. CSEL 1, Wien (1866). See also E.Laupot,
Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the
Nazoreans, Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000) 233-47
- Jerome in his commentary on Zacchariah 14.1, 2 cites Tacitus as the
author of a history from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian,
in 30 volumes.
Around 500:
- Servius quotes a lost portion of the text in his commentary on the
Aeneid 3.399.
- Orosius used Tacitus, and quotes from now lost portions of the
text. Cassiodorus quotes from the Germania 45. Jordanes quotes
from the Agricola 10, and is the last author of antiquity to do
so.
Poggio Bracciolini and the works of Tacitus
Since an English version of his letters to Niccolo Niccoli on this
subject is readily available,10 I thought
perhaps it might be of interest to reproduce portions of them.
From Letter X
... As for the monastery of Corvey, which is in Germany, you have no
grounds for hope. There are supposed to be a lot of books there; I do
not believe the tales of fools but even if what they say were true, the
whole country is a den of thieves. Even those natives who stay in the
Curia do not go back safely to their own country. So give up that idea.
... The twenty-ninth day of October [1420].
Poggio had been persuaded to come to England when the Papal curia was in
particular danger, but had been deceived by his new patron, Cardinal
Beaufort, who kept him very short of money. All his letters from this
period are very depressed, and he was pining to go home. In the end he
managed to get enough money to escape and promptly felt much happier.
From Letter XLII
... You have almost all the news, but I am keeping the honey for the
last. A friend of mine, who is a monk from a monastery in Germany and
who left us lately, sent me a letter which I received three days ago.
He writes that he has found several volumes of the kind you and I like
which he wants to exchange for the Novella of Joannes Andreae or
for both the Speculum and its supplements, and he sends the names
of the books enclosed in the letter. The Speculum and the
supplements are volumes of great value; so see if you think the exchange
should be made. Among these volumes are Julius Frontinus and several
works of Cornelius Tacitus still unknown to us. You will see the
inventory and find out whether these law books can be bought for a
decent price. The books will be deposited in Nuremberg where the
Speculum and supplements ought also to be taken; it is easy to bring
books from there as you will see in the inventory. This is a selection;
there are many other books. For he writes in this vein. 'As you asked
me to mark the poets for you to choose those you would like from the
list I have found many from which I chose some which you will find on
the enclosed inventory'. Dear Nicolaus, write to me as soon as you can
what to answer him so that everything may be done according to your
judgement; I care for only a few things, which you will see for
yourself. Goodbye, I have written this in great haste. Rome, the third
day of November [1425].-Tell Nicolaus as soon as possible not to send
his copy of the De finibus because I have found one, and the one
which I am getting ready will be finished before his comes. So your
affairs go stumbling on. [End]
This refers to a monk from Hersfeld. The law-books in question were very
large and expensive volumes.
From Letter XLVII
... I shall say no more about the books from Germany except that
unlike you I am not asleep but awake. But hopefully if the man I count
on keeps his promise, the book will come to us either by force or
willingly. Even so I have made an effort to have an inventory of one of
the very old monasteries in Germany where there is a large collection of
books, but I shall not tell you any more so that you will not annoy me
with your sarcasm. If you want to have the Spartianus, see that I have
the Aulus Gellius ...Goodbye, at Rome in haste, September the twelfth
[1426].
From Letter XLVIII
... See that I have the books which I asked you for and the paper too
and especially the Aulus Gellius. I shall be truly pleased if you send
the Cornelius Tacitus; if you do so, I shall return your Spartianus; I
ask you for this very insistently. ... Goodby and answer me even if you
are angry, for then your letters bring me the greatest pleasure. Rome,
the twenty-first of October [1426].
This is a reference to M. II. Niccolo was a man in constant poor health
and very nervous, which made him irritable, and gave him a considerable
ability to make enemies.
From Letter XLIX
XLIX. I had told our friend Cosmus, just as you write, that that
monk from Hersfeld had told someone that he had brought an inventory of
more books according to my list. Afterward when I questioned the man
thoroughly he came to me bringing the inventory, full of words and empty
of matter. He is a good man, but ignorant of our studies, and he
thought that whatever he found that was unknown to him would be unknown
to us too and so he crammed it with books which we have, the same books
that you have known elsewhere. However I am sending you the part of his
inventory which describes the volume of Cornelius Tacitus and of other
authors whom we lack; since these are short little texts, they must not
be considered of great importance. I have given up the great hope which
I built on his promises; that is the reason why I did not make a
particular effort to write you this, for if there had been anything
unusual or worthy of our wisdom, I should not only have written to you
but flown to you to tell you about it in person. This monk is in need
of money; I have discussed helping him, provided only that he gives me
for this money the Ammianus Marcellinus, the first Decade of Livy, and
one volume of the Orations of Cicero, to mention works we both
have, and quite a few others, which although we have them are not to be
disdained. I asked furthermore that they be carried at his risk to
Nuremberg. This I am handling. I do not known how it will turn out;
however you will find it all out from me in due course. ... Rome, the
fifteenth of May [1427] ...
From Letter LI
... Now to more important matters. When the Cornelius Tacitus comes
I shall keep it hidden with me for I know that whole song, "Where did it
come from and who brought it here? Who claims it for his own?" But do
not worry, not a word shall escape me. ... I have heard nothing about
the Cornelius Tacitus which is in Germany. I am waiting for an answer
from that monk. ... Rome, the twenty-fifth of September 1427.
This indicates that there was something doubtful about the ownership of
the volume. It has been suggested that this is because Niccolo had
'acquired' it from the estate of Boccaccio.
Gordan gives here a couple of references on the subject of the
rediscovery of Tacitus, and Poggio and Niccoli.
- P. HOCHART, De l'authenticité des annales et des histoires de
Tacite, Bordeaux: imprimerie G. Gounouilhou, 1889. (But see above)
- R. SABBADINI, Le Scoperte dei codici latini et greci ne' secoli
XIV e XV, 2 vols, in the revised version of E. Garin 1967. II,
p.254.
- L. PRALLE, Die Wiederentdeckung des Tacitus: Ein beitrag zur
Geistesgeschichte Fuldas und zur Biographie des jungen Cusanus,
Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Abtei und der Diözese Fulda
XVII, Fulda: Parzeller & Co, (1952). includes a scholarly discussion of
the matter with the order and dating of Poggio's letters on the subject.
From Letter LVII
... Goodbye, the fifth day of June, 1428. I gave Bartholemew de
Bardis the Decade of Livy and the Cornelius Tacitus to send you. In
your Cornelius there are several pages missing in various places and in
the Decade a whole column, as you will be able to see. 1428. [End]
The reference is to a copy of M. II which Niccolo had.
From Letter LIX
... Cornelius Tacitus is silent in Germany and I have heard nothing
new from there about his activities. ... Goodbye, in haste, the eleventh
day of September 1428.
Constructive feedback is welcomed to
Roger Pearse.
Bibliography
1. This account is taken primarily from L.D. REYNOLDS, Texts and
Transmission: A survey of the Latin Classics, Clarendon Press, Oxford
(1983), ISBN 0-19-814456-3. Tacitus occupies page 406-411. The pages on
the major works are by R.J. TARRANT; those on the minor works by M.
WINTERBOTTOM. The references are also from this volume, except where
indicated, but I have only reproduced a few of them. Anyone at all
interested in the transmission of the classics should read this volume. It
is in print, and available from Amazon. The only downside is the price -
$150 - which will exclude most people.
2. See the article by Revilo P. OLIVER, The First Medicean MS of
Tacitus and the Titulature of Ancient Books, Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association 82 (1951), pp.232-261.
(Checked)
3. P. LEHMANN, Corveyer Studien, ABAW 30.5 (1919), pp. 22 and 38.
(Not checked)
4. Clarence W. MENDELL, Tacitus: The Man and his Work, Yale
University Press/Oxford University Press (1957). (This reference is not
from Texts and Transmission). This book contains an enormous amount
of detail about the transmission and MSS of Tacitus. (Checked)
5. James S. HIRSTEIN, Tacitus' Germania and Beatus Rhenanus
(1485-1547): A study of the Editorial and Exegetical Contribution of a
Sixteenth Century Scholar, Studien zur klassischen Philologie
vol. 91, Frankfurt am Main/New York, 1995. (This reference is not from
Texts and Transmission). (Checked)
6. C.W. MENDELL, Manuscripts of Tacitus XI-XXI, YCS 6 (1939),
pp.41-70. (Ref. from Oliver). (Not checked)
7. A facsimile edition of the main MSS exists: Tacitus. Codex
Laurentianus Mediceus 68 phototypice editus; praefatus est Henricus
Rostagno, Lugdunum Batavorum (1902). (Ref. from Oliver, listed in
Bodleian). (Not checked)
8. E.A. LOWE, The Unique Manuscript of Tacitus' Histories,
Casinensia, Monte Cassino, 1929, vol. I pp. 257-272. (Ref. from Oliver). (Not
checked)
9. C.W. MENDELL and S.A. IVES, Rycks's Manuscript of
Tacitus, American Journal of Philology 72 (1951), pp.337-345. (Ref. from
Oliver). (Not checked)
10. P. W. G. GORDAN, Two Renaissance Book Hunters: The
letters of Poggius Bracciolini to Nicolaus de Niccolis, New York
(1974). This seems easy to obtain online second-hand.
11. I owe this information to the kindness of Prof. Michael
Reeve.
12. Many thanks to Edgar Wright who emailed me about a
German article online which describes these events, and gives "Landscape
and Memory" by Simon Schama (London 1996) as the source. The image of the
incipit of the Germania comes from this article. Unfortunately Mr. Wright
failed to supply a valid email address, so I was unable to thank him!
Note that there is also a
Tacitus Home Page.
Updated 25th May, 2000.
Updated 17th August 2001. Material from Oliver and Gordan added.
Updated 1st October 2003. Note on the Iesi manuscript added, thanks to MDR.
Updated 8th April 2005. Hitler and the Iesi manuscript details added,
thanks for Edgar Wright.
What do YOU think ?
Send an email with your comments to
todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name.
They will be posted shortly
upon receipt
|