this apparent excess I believe that some justification can be offered.

1

It should be borne in mind that the whole time covered is somewhat longer; the narrative having been supplemented by summaries so as to extend over the thirty-one years from the death of Tiberius to that of Nero. Also this period is far more fruitful in important events and has attracted considerably more notice from recent writers than that preceding it. The full investigation of the life and rule of Claudius by Lehmann 2, and the still more learned and elaborate treatise of H. Schiller on the Neronian period 3, have no counterpart on a similar scale relating to the time of Tiberius. Special attention has also been bestowed by recent scholars on the narrative of Eastern affairs during this period; and the chapters relating to the conquest of Britain, though but a small portion of the narrative of Tacitus, have deeply interested all antiquaries in this country, and form a subject on which more is naturally expected from an English than from a German editor of the Annals. Even the single chapter, or portion of a chapter, on the persecution of the Christians, has received special attention from the chief recent ecclesiastical historians, and has raised many questions which could not be here passed over 6.

Under these circumstances it has seemed desirable to place before general students such a statement and criticism of the chief results of special investigation in these subjects as could be fairly based on the narrative of

1 See Introd. ch. ii. and Appendix iii.

* See note on p. 5.

3

See note on p. 49. The importance of this work and that above mentioned

will be seen from the constant references made to them.

* See note on p. 96.

5 See note on p. 126. It may be also noted that, both in this chapter of the Introduction and in that on Parthia and Armenia, the whole period is reviewed from the death of Julius Caesar to that of Nero.

⚫ See Appendix ii. after Book 15.

Tacitus, and should help them to estimate the general value of his work as a historical authority. I may add that it has also been my wish to make as complete as I fairly could the commentary on a part of the author which is not generally so much studied in England as to be likely often to encourage the undertaking of fresh editions by future scholars.

In conclusion, I have to return my best thanks to the Delegates of the University Press for accepting this work, and to their staff for the care and accuracy shown in the printing and revision.

97, line 2, for Atrabanus read Artabanus.

line 15, for to any other part of the empire, read on any other frontier of

the empire.

,, 377, note on 1. 10, for c. 48, 7, read c. 42, 7.

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I. On the Text of these Books, and the second Medicean manuscript.

CHAPTER II. Summary of the principal events between the end of the Sixth and beginning of the Eleventh Book.

CHAPTER III. On the view given by Tacitus of the character and government of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero.

CHAPTER IV. The Roman relations with Parthia and Armenia from the time of Augustus to the death of Nero.

CHAPTER V. The conquest of Britain under Claudius and Nero.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE TEXT OF THESE BOOKS AND THE SECOND
MEDICEAN MANUSCRIPT 1.

THAT which is now known as the second Medicean MS. of Tacitus is a manuscript in Lombard characters, generally assigned to the latter half of the eleventh century, and thought by Ritter to have been one of the many transcripts of works of ancient authors made at that date in the great monastery of Monte Casino,

The latter part of the MS. consists of the works of Apuleius, and contains the following subscription, 'Ego Sallustius legi et emendavi Romae felix Olybrio et Probino cons. . . . Rursus Constantinopoli recognovi Caesario et Attico conss.' These dates are respectively A.D. 395 and 397, and are taken to be those of the transcription and revision of the archetypal MS.; but whether the same archetype or another of the same date contained the Tacitus, as well as the Apuleius here copied, is in no way evident.

Nothing appears to be known of the history of this MS. until the time of Poggio Bracciolini, who received it at Rome in 1427 from Nicola

The matter of this chapter is chiefly derived from the Preface of Baiter to the

second edition of Orelli, and from that of Ritter to his edition of 1864.

VOL. II.

B

Nicol of Florence, one of the agents employed by him for collecting manuscripts. In acknowledging its receipt, Bracciolini writes as follows (Oct. 21); - Misisti mihi librum Senecae, et Cornelium Tacitum, quod est mihi gratum: at is est litteris longobardis et maiori ex parte caducis, quod si scissem, liberassem te eo labore. Legi olim quemdam apud uos manens litteris antiquis; nescio Coluciine esset an alterius. Illum cupio habere uel alium qui legi possit: nam difficile erit reperire scriptorem, qui hunc codicem recte legat; ideo cura ut alium habeam, si fieri potest.' On further examination, he appears to have determined not to keep it, and writes again to Nicoli (June 5, 1428): Dedi Bartholomaeo de Bardis decadem Livii et Cornelium Tacitum, ut illos ad te mittat in tuo Cornelio deficiunt plures chartae uariis in locis.' The manuscript thus returned to Nicoli was bequeathed by him to the Convent of St. Mark; as appears by an inscription upon it, 'Conventus S. Marci de Florentia Ordinis Praedicatorum de hereditate Nicolai Nicoli Florentini viri doctissimi.' From thence it was transferred to the Laurentian Library, where it is at present preserved. The manuscript is written on parchment, and the portion containing Tacitus must have consisted when complete of 105 leaves (now reduced to 103 by the loss of two leaves containing respectively Hist. 1. 69-75, and H. 1. 86-2. 2), and contains all that we have of these later Books of the Annals and the whole extant part of the Histories, all numbered consecutively as Books XVI-XXI. At the end of the several Books is a subscription, Cornelii Taciti Liber explicit, incipit...' The abrupt conclusion of the 16th Book of the Annals has however no such subscription, and the first sentence of the Histories is written in red letters of larger size, so as in some sort to mark a new commencement. Also there is no subscription at the end of Book XXI (Hist. 5), which leaves off in the middle of a column, so as to show that there was no more in the exemplar.

...

It will be seen above, that, even in the time of Bracciolini, the handwriting, besides being in the difficult Lombard character, had in many places become faded and indistinct by time1. Since that date, a later hand has endeavoured to reproduce the text of these passages in the interlinear spaces; and, through errors committed in this attempt, many false readings have subsequently passed current as the true Medicean

text.

2

Many other manuscripts of this portion of the works of Tacitus exist,

A facsimile of part of 15. 44, executed by Professor Vitelli, of Florence, is given by Dr. C. F. Arnold and M. Hochart, in their treatises on this chapter. This would give a specimen of the char

acter used, but not of its faded and indistinct condition.

2 Some twenty or more now existing are enumerated in the Prefaces of Walther and Ruperti.

but none of them can claim any earlier date than the middle of the 15th century. Many are known not to have been direct transcripts of the Medicean, and very few are even supposed to be such. The best known

of them are classed by Walther and Ruperti in two main groups. The one consists of five1 expressly stated to have been transcribed from a 'Codex Genuensis' now lost, and a sixth, the text of which closely resembles theirs. Another group of six3, called by Walther (with less propriety) the Roman group, shows traces of a common exemplar, distinct from the 'Genuensis.' To these a third group should be added comprising two Florentine manuscripts in the Laurentian Library *, which appear to approach most nearly to the Medicean text. affinities of the others have not been traced.

5

The

Respecting the source of the 'Genuensis' and other parents of these MSS. nothing can now be known. It should however be noted that the loss of the two leaves in the First and Second Books of the Histories had certainly taken place before 15427, and may have been one of the mutilations complained of by Bracciolini in 1428; but the lost matter is preserved in all the inferior manuscripts. This would show that the Medicean, if it is their ultimate source, had been already transcribed before this mutilation happened to it; and it is also evident from the correspondence that some other copy of Tacitus had been seen by Bracciolini 10. An alternative theory, that these MSS. were not derived from the Medicean, but from some other old MS. coordinate with it and

1 Two in the Vatican Library (1958 and 2965), and three in England, erroneously called 'tres Oxonienses.' Two of these are indeed in Oxford, one in the Bodleian Library, the other in that of Jesus College; but the third ('Harleianus') is with the other Harleian MSS. in the British Museum.

'Guelferbytanus' (also called 'Gudianus') in the Library of the Duke of Brunswick at Wolfenbüttel. This manuscript, generally called 'G,' is very often cited by editors.

Two in the Vatican (1863 and 1864), two in Paris ('Regius Parisiensis' and 'Corbinelli'), the Farnesianus' (now in the Library at Naples), and the 'Rudolphi Agricolae' (used by Lipsius and other editors), cited frequently as 'Agr.'

An account of these and a third in the same Library is given by Baiter. The two cited as 'a' and 'b' are so far considered the best of all the inferior manuscripts, that the most recent editors base the text upon them in the two places of

the Histories where the Medicean text is now lost.

5 Among these is that called 'Budensis,' once belonging to Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, collated by Rhenanus and afterwards by Oberlin. Its text is said to be intermediate between the two first families above noted.

See above, p. 2.

This appears from the collation of Victorius, noted below (p. 4).

See above, p. 2. It has been thought possible that he only refers to the abrupt beginning of Book 11, and to the abrupt endings of Book 16, and Hist. Book 5: but these would hardly justify the expression 'deficiunt plures chartae uariis in locis'; which indeed is in any case exaggerated, as must also have been the 'litteris . . . maiori ex parte caducis' of the earlier letter.

It is however to be noted that they mostly fail to note the end of the First and beginning of the Second Book of the Histories.

10 See above, p. 2.