mountainman

What's the opinion on Ross' work?

The Tacitus Reference (Annals 15:44)

TACITUS AND BRACCIOLINI:
THE ANNALS FORGED IN THE 15th CENTURY
by JOHN WILSON ROSS (1818-1887)
Originally published anonymously in 1878.
The text of this work is available at the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Here is a brief sketch by way of a reproduction of the claims made at the index to the book:



BOOK ONE - TACITUS

CHAPTER I - TACITUS COULD BARELY HAVE WRITTEN THE ANNALS.

1. From the chronological point of view.
2. The silence preserved about that work by all writers
till the fifteenth century.
3. The age of the MSS. containing the Annals.


CHAPTER II - A FEW REASONS FOR BELIEVING THE ANNALS TO BE A FORGERY.

1. The fifteenth century an age of imposture, shown in the
invention of printing.
2. The curious discovery of the first six books of the Annals.
3. The blunders it has in common with all forged documents.
4. The Twelve Tables.
5. The Speech of Claudius in the Eleventh Book of the Annals.
6. Brutus creating the second class of nobility.
7. Camillus and his grandson.
8. The Marching of Germanicus.
9. Description of London in the time of Nero.
10. Labeo Antistius and Capito Ateius; the number of people executed
for their attachment to Sejanus; and the marriage of Drusus, the
brother of Tiberius, to the Elder Antonia.


CHAPTER III - SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER OF THE ANNALS FROM THE POINT OF TREATMENT.

1. Nature of the history.
2. Arrangement of the narrative.
3. Completeness in form.
4. Incongruities, contradictions and disagreements from the
History of Tacitus.
5. Craftiness of the writer.
6. Subordination of history to biography.
7. The author of the Annals and Tacitus differently illustrate
Roman history.
8. Characters and events corresponding to characters and
events in the XVth century.
9. Greatness of the Author of the Annals.


CHAPTER IV - HOW THE ANNALS DIFFERS FROM THE HISTORY.

1. In the qualities of the writers; and why that difference.
2. In the narrative, and in what respect.
3. In style and language.
4. The reputation Tacitus has of writing bad Latin due to the
mistakes of his imitator.


CHAPTER V - THE LATIN AND THE ALLITERATIONS IN THE ANNALS.

1. Errors in Latin, (_a_) on the part of the transcriber;
(_b_) on the part of the writer.
2. Diction and Alliterations: Wherein they differ from those
of Tacitus.



BOOK TWO - BRACCIOLINI.

CHAPTER I - BRACCIOLINI IN ROME.

1. His genius and the greatness of his age.
2. His qualifications.
3. His early career.
4. The character of Niccolo Niccoli, who abetted him in the
forgery
5. Bracciolini's descriptive writing of the Burning of Jerome
of Prague compared with the descriptive writing of the
sham sea fight in the Twelfth Book of the Annals.

CHAPTER II - BRACCIOLINI IN LONDON.

1. Gaining insight into the darkest passions from associating
with Cardinal Beaufort.
2. His passage about London in the Fourteenth Book of the
Annals examined.
3. About the Parliament of England in the Fourth Book.


CHAPTER III - BRACCIOLINI SETTING ABOUT THE FORGERY OF THE ANNALS

1. The Proposal made in February, 1422, by a Florentine, named
Lamberteschi, and backed by Niccoli.
2. Correspondence on the matter, and Mr. Shepherd's view that
it referred to a Professorship refuted.
3. Professional disappointments in England determine
Bracciolini to persevere in his intention of forging
the Annals.
4. He returns to the Papal Secretaryship, and begins the
forgery in Rome in October, 1423.


CHAPTER IV - BRACCIOLINI AS A BOOKFINDER

1. Doubts on the authenticity of the Latin, but not the
Greek Classics.
2. At the revival of letters Popes and Princes offered large
rewards for the recovery of the ancient classics.
3. The labours of Bracciolini as a bookfinder.
4. Belief put about by the professional bookfinders that
MSS. were soonest found in obscure convents in barbarous
lands.
5. How this reasoning throws the door open to fraud and
forgery.
6. The bands of bookfinders consisted of men of genius in
every department of literature and science.
7. Bracciolini endeavours to escape from forging the Annals by
forging the whole lost History of Livy.
8. His Letter on the subject to Niccoli quoted, and examined.
9. Failure of his attempt, and he proceeds with the forgery of
the Annals.


BOOK THREE - THE LAST SIX BOOKS OF THE ANNALS.


CHAPTER I - THE CHARACTER OF BRACCIOLINI.

1. The audacity of the forgery accounted for by the mean
opinion Bracciolini had of the intelligence of men.
2. The character and tone of the last Six Books of the Annals
exemplified by what is said of Sabina Poppaea, Sagitta,
Pontia and Messalina.
3. A few errors that must have proceeded from Bracciolini
about the Colophonian Oracle of Apollo Clarius, the
Household Gods of the Germans, Gotarzes, Bardanes and,
above all, Nineveh.
4. The estimate taken of human nature by the writer of the
Annals the same as that taken by Bracciolini.
5. The general depravity of mankind as shown in the
Annals insisted upon in Bracciolini's Dialogue
"De Infelicitate Principum".


CHAPTER II - THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

1. The intellect and depravity of the age.
2. Bracciolini as its exponent.
3. Hunter's accurate description of him.
4. Bracciolini gave way to the impulses of his age.
5. The Claudius, Nero and Tiberius of the Annals
personifications of the Church of Rome in the
fifteenth century.
6. Schildius and his doubts.
7. Bracciolini not covetous of martyrdom: communicates his
fears to Niccoli.
8. The princes and great men in the Annals the princes and
great men of the XVth century, not of the opening period
of the Christian aera.
9. Bracciolini, and not Tacitus, a disparager of persons in
high places.


CHAPTER III - FURTHER PROOFS OF FORGERY.

1. "Octavianus" as the name of Augustus Caesar.
2. Cumanus and Felix as joint governors of Judaea.
3. The blood relationship of Italians and Romans.
4. Fatal error in the _oratio obliqua_.
5. Mistake made about "locus".
6. Objections of some critics to the language of Tacitus
examined.
7. Some improprieties that occur in the Annals found also in
Bracciolini's works.
8. Instanced in (_a_) "nec--aut".
(_b_) rhyming and the peculiar use of "pariter".
9. The harmony of Tacitus and the ruggedness of Bracciolini
illustrated.
10. Other peculiarities of Bracciolini's not shared by Tacitus:
Two words terminating alike following two others with like
terminations; prefixes that have no meaning; and playing
on a single letter for alliterative purposes.

CHAPTER IV - THE TERMINATION OF THE FORGERY.

1. The literary merit and avaricious humour of Bracciolini.
2. He is aided in his scheme by a monk of the Abbey of Fulda.
3. Expressions indicating forgery.
4. Efforts to obtain a very old copy of Tacitus.
5. The forgery transcribed in the Abbey of Fulda.
6. First saw the light in the spring of 1429.

CHAPTER V - THE FORGED MANUSCRIPT.

1. Recapitulation, showing the certainty of forgery.
2. The Second Florence MS. the forged MS.
3. Cosmo de' Medici the man imposed upon.
4. Digressions about Cosmo de' Medici's position, and fondness
for books, especially Tacitus.
5. The many suspicious marks of forgery about the Second
Florence MS.; the Lombard characters; the attestation
of Salustius.
6. The headings, and Tacitus being bound up with Apuleius,
seem to connect Bracciolini with the forged MS.
7. The first authentic mention of the Annals.
8. Nothing invalidates the theory in this book.
9. Brief recapitulation of the whole argument.


BOOK FOUR - THE FIRST SIX BOOKS OF THE ANNALS.

CHAPTER I - REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT BRACCIOLINI
WROTE BOTH PARTS OF THE ANNALS.

1. Improvement in Bracciolini's means after the completion
of the forgery of the last part of the Annals.
2. Discovery of the first six books, and theory about their
forgery.
3. Internal evidence the only proof of their being forged.
4. Superiority of workmanship a strong proof.
5. Further departure than in the last six books from Tacitus's
method another proof.
6. The symmetry of the framework a third proof.
7. Fourth evidence, the close resemblance in the openings of
the two parts.
8. The same tone and colouring prove the same authorship.
9. False statements made about Sejanus and Antonius Natalis
for the purpose of blackening Tiberius and Nero.
10. This spirit of detraction runs through Bracciolini's works.
11. Other resemblances denoting the same author.
12. Policy given to every subject another cause to believe both
parts composed by a single writer.
13. An absence of the power to depict differences in persons
and things.

CHAPTER II - LANGUAGE, ALLITERATION, ACCENT AND WORDS.

1. The poetic diction of Tacitus, and its fabrication in
the Annals.
2. Florid passages in the Annals.
3. Metrical composition of Bracciolini.
4. Figurative words: (_a_) "pessum dare"
(_b_) "voluntas"
5. The verb "foedare" and the Ciceronian use of "foedus".
6. The language of other Roman writers,--Livy, Quintus Curtius
and Sallust.
7. The phrase "non modo--sed", and other anomalous expressions,
not Tacitus's.
8. Words not used by Tacitus, "distinctus" and "codicillus"
9. Peculiar alliterations in the Annals and works of
Bracciolini.
10. Monotonous repetition of accent on penultimate syllables.
11. Peculiar use of words: (_a_) "properus"
(_b_) "annales" and "scriptura"
(_c_) "totiens"
12. Words not used by Tacitus: (_a_) "addubitare"
(_b_) "extitere"
13. Polysyllabic words ending consecutive sentences.
14. Omissions of prepositions: (_a_) in.
(_b_) with names of nations.


CHAPTER III - MISTAKES THAT PROVE FORGERY

1. The gift for the recovery of Livia.
2. Julius Caesar and the Pomoerium.
3. Julia, the wife of Tiberius.
4. The statement about her proved false by a coin.
5. Value of coins in detecting historical errors.
6. Another coin shows an error about Cornatus.
7. Suspicion of spuriousness from mention of the
Quinquennale Ludicrum.
8. Account of cities destroyed by earthquake contradicted by
a monument.
9. Bracciolini's hand shown by reference to the Plague.
10. Fawning of Roman senators more like conduct of Italians in
the fifteenth century.
11. Same exaggeration with respect to Pomponia Graecina.
12. Wrong statement of the images borne at the funeral
of Drusus.
13. Similar kind of error committed by Bracciolini in his
"Varietate Fortunae".
14. Errors about the Red Sea.
15. About the Caspian Sea.
16. Accounted for.
17. A passage clearly written by Bracciolini.


CHAPTER THE LAST - FURTHER PROOFS OF BRACCIOLINI BEING THE AUTHOR
OF THE FIRST SIX BOOKS OF THE ANNALS.

1. The descriptive powers of Bracciolini and Tacitus.
2. The different mode of writing of both.
3. Their different manners of digressing.
4. Two statements in the Fourth Book of the Annals that could
not have been made by Tacitus.
5. The spirit of the Renaissance shown in both parts of the
Annals.
6. That both parts proceeded from the same hand shown in the
writer pretending to know the feelings of the characters
in the narrative.
7. The contradictions in the two parts of the Annals and in
the works of Bracciolini.
8. The Second Florence MS. a forgery.
9. Conclusion.

fta

See this previous thread: Tacitus

Also this article: Tacitus and his Manuscripts

For more arguments against the authenticity of the "Christus" passage in Tacitus see W.B. Smith's Ecce Deus and Arthur Drews' Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus. Be it noted however that Smith and Drews don't actually question the genuineness of the Annals as a whole, just the paragraph about Christians. Smith even dismisses Ross's argument as "specious".

Roger Pearse

Ross plainly didn't understand paleography at all. In his book, when dealing with that issue, iirc he resorted to conspiracy theory instead.

schilling.klaus

Paleography is pseudoscientific nonsense,
as it naively relies on the availability of correctly dated manuscript
which is fraudulent.
Thus paleographic arguments may be ignored rigorously.

Klaus Schilling

Doug Shaver

I"ve seen that alleged several times in this forum, but never, not once, have I seen anyone offer evidence to back it up with.

It does rely on manuscripts that are believed to be correctly dated. If paleography is never to be trusted, then this belief is never justified. Where is the evidence that it is never justified?

Roger Pearse

I wonder if it might help some interested readers if I outline how paleography came to be invented? (The details may be found in L.D.Reynolds and N.G.Wilson, Scribes and Scholars (or via: amazon.co.uk), 3rd edition, Oxford, so please make allowances for my flaky memory on minor details).

In France before the revolution, the church formed a significant part of the ancien regime. The various orders fought among themselves for the favour of the king, which meant money and power and property.

A Jesuit scholar, Papebroch, asserted that various ancient charters, conferring lands on the older orders, were in fact forgeries. Among these was a charter dated to 690 and given to the Benedictines by king Dagobert.

This was a power-play. The Dominicans treated it as such and called for the Inquisition to be involved.

But the Benedictine order had reorganised itself in France after the Reformation as the Congregation of Saint-Maur, and achieved a high level of scholarship. Some of their editions of the Fathers are still valid today. The Maurist Fathers treated the matter as a challenge to their scholarship. The job of determining the authenticity of the charters was assigned to one of their foremost scholars, Dom Jean Mabillon.

Mabillion began by collecting all the examples of charters and books that actually contained a date at which they were supposed to have been written in them. He then tabulated the various types of book-hand against these dates and also against countries. (In practise he found that country was much less important, but of course he didn't know that in advance).

With this massive database, certain facts became clear. Firstly the various types of formal book-hand became visible; Capitalis, Merovingian, Insular, Beneventan, Carolingian, and Gothic. Secondly the general period to which each belonged also became clear. Confusion over this had led the humanists in the renaissance to label one type of letters 'Roman' (as in 'Times Roman'), but in fact these were a late form of Carolingian minuscule.

Secondly, those charters and books that were written in a book-hand very much more recent than the date they carried stuck out like sore thumbs. Among these was the supposed charter of Dagobert, the copies of which clearly were NOT Merovingian in date.

Mabillon published his database and his methods in De re diplomatica, and the work was immediately acclaimed as a triumph, including by Papebroch. The same methods are used today for any new field; gather all the data, see what it says, and then let the genuine reveal the false.

This method does presuppose a substantial volume of base texts, of course; but these certainly exist for Latin and Greek.

Over time scholars have refined the system for Latin paleography, as the various scriptoria have become known. But the method is the same; work from the known to the unknown.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

You must have missed various posts by me.
To repeat the essence of these, paleography
is a handy tool, and has its major and minor uses.

One of these does not include the role of a primary
dating process, since all handwriting experts and all
paleographic experts will admit that they cannot in
certain instance detect intentional forgeries.

C14 does not have this problem, and has thus become
in the last few decades, a primary reliant in dating things.
The BC&H people are going "Who let the physicists in?"

Unfortunately, the door has been opened, and the role
of paleography has as a result, been comparitively down
graded in the sense of "scientific analysis of evidence".


It does rely on manuscripts that are believed to be correctly dated. If paleography is never to be trusted, then this belief is never justified. Where is the evidence that it is never justified?[/QUOTE]

In the caution over saying "proven" on the basis
of the paleographic assessment alone. It places one's
credibility out on a limb, so to speak, since C14 testing
may (not the word may) reverse the paleographic.

We have two extant NT C14 citations.
They are within the boundaries of the 4th century.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Thanks for the references.

Does he provide any substantiation? Ross apparently was a good classical scholar. His index to his book, which I copied from the eText, indicates he has put a fair bit of effort into his thesis. What arguments does Smith raise?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

fta

None actually - Smith just dismisses Ross with a single sentence.

It would be interesting to compare Ross's book with the work of the French scholar Polydore Hochart, but Hochart's works are not online and have never been translated into English AFAIK.

mountainman

Classic tactics.



Yes it would. If you can point at any summary pages in French by Polydore Hochart, then I might be able to arrange for an english translation therefrom, sincde I happen to have a tenuous association with one of the students of Marcel Marceau, who is seeking supplementary income. Thanks for the data.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown