Evolution and creation

by Herbert Junius Hardwicke

Arrived in Rome, Bracciolini was offered and accepted the post of Principal Secretary to the Pope, and, consequently, did not go, as previously arranged, to Hungary, but set himself to work instead, examining the old MSS. in the Vatican Library, for which he had ample time, as his new post was almost a sinecure. He also wrote to his friend Niccoli on May 15th, 1423, asking him to forward to him without the least delay all his notes and extracts from the various books which he had read; after receiving which he commenced in earnest his labour. He had not worked long, however, before he discovered what an arduous task he had undertaken, and again fear overcame him lest he should find himself unequal to the effort; but, pulling himself together again, he determined once more to keep up his courage and persevere to the end, the gold sequins probably acting as a stimulus to him.

Writing to his friend Niccoli on October 8th, 1423, he says that “ beginnings of any kind are arduous and difficult;” and continues: “What the ancients did pleasantly, quickly, and easily, is to me troublesome, tedious, and burdensome.” In another letter to Niccoli, dated Rome, November 6th, 1423, he begs his friend to make every effort to procure for him some map of Ptolemy’s “Geography,” and not to forget Suetonius and the other historians, above all Plutarch’s “Lives of Illustrious Men.”

For upwards of three years after this period Bracciolini shut himself up with his papers, extracts, maps, etc., and worked steadily and laboriously at his task, and, at the end of that time, had completed the first instalment of his forgery. The next part of the process was to find a suitable place in which the forged MS. could be discovered; consequently, Bracciolini and Niccoli put their heads together in consultation, finally settling upon Hirschfeldt, a small Saxon town on the borders of Bohemia, which was celebrated for an old abbey of the Benedictine monks. Bracciolini had accidentally met with one of the monks from this place in Rome, and had managed to place this man under an obligation to him; so, finding that he was needy, ignorant, and stupid, he determined to make use of him for producing his MS. to the public. Speaking of this monk in one of his letters to Niccoli, he says: “The good fellow, who has not our attainments, thought that we were equally ignorant of what he found he did not know himself.” To this ignorant fellow he gave a long list of books that he wished him to hunt up in the Abbey library, including a copy of Tacitus, telling him to send a full description of each as soon as found. The object of this was to find out whether the Abbey possessed a copy of Tacitus in the oldest writing possible, which could be used as a guide to the transcriber of the forgery; and the reason of giving such a long list was to throw the monk off the scent.

With all their precautions, however, their scheme was all but discovered in the summer of 1427, for we find Bracciolini, on September 25th of that year, writing to Niccoli that, “when Tacitus came, he would keep it a secret; that he knew all the tittle-tattle that was going on—whence it came, through whom, and how it was got up; but that he need have no fear, for that not a syllable should escape him.... I hear nothing of the Tacitus that is in Germany. I am expecting an answer from the monk.” From this it would appear that the monk had not yet supplied the information about the books; but, in the following October, Niccoli had forwarded to Bracciolini an old copy of Tacitus that he had become possessed of. Bracciolini, however, returned it at once, saying that it was so badly damaged as to be illegible to an ordinary transcriber, and continuing: “Take care, therefore, that I have another, if it can be done; but you can do it, if you will strive your utmost.... You have sent me the book without the parchment. I know not the state of mind you were in when you did this, except that you were as mad as a March hare. For what book can be transcribed if there be not the parchment? Have a care to it, then, and also to a second manuscript; but, above all, keep in mind the vellum.” After a while the parchment arrived, together with an old copy of Tacitus that could be easily read by a transcriber; and then all was silence again for about a year. During this period the old monk was busily engaged transcribing the forged writings into very ancient characters, using the old copy of Tacitus supplied by Niccoli as an example of style, the forgery being intended as an introduction to the “History.”

On September 11th, 1428, Bracciolini was evidently becoming impatient with the work, for he wrote to Niccoli as follows: “Not a word of Cornelius Tacitus from Germany; nor have I heard thence any further news of his work.” Then, again, he writes February 26th, 1429: “The Hirschfeldt monk has come without the book, and I gave him a sound rating for it. He has given me his assurance that he will be back again soon, for he is carrying on a suit about his abbey in the law courts, and will bring the book. He made heavy demands upon me; but I told him I would do nothing for him until I have the book; I am, therefore, in hopes that I shall have it, as he is in need of my good offices.” The book at length arrived, and Bracciolini wrote to Niccoli that, so far as he was himself concerned, everything was “now complete with respect to the Little Work, concerning which he would, on some future opportunity, write to him; and, at the same time, send it to him to read, in order to get his opinion of it.”

So the forgery was complete, and there can be no doubt that Bracciolini from this date was a rich man, living in his own villa at Valdarno in Tuscany. The forged writings were handed over to Cosmo de Medici in return for 500 gold sequins, according to arrangement, and remained in the Library at Florence ever after. It was not, however, published before 1468, when Johannes de Spire produced what are now known as the last six books of the “Annals” of Tacitus, which he declared had been copied from an (imaginary) original in St. Mark’s, Venice, but which we now know were really copied from the forgery of Bracciolini, in possession of the Medicis at Florence.

What are now known as the first six books of the “Annals” did not make their appearance until 1514, and most probably had also been forged by Bracciolini immediately after he had finished the last six books. The delight of the clergy at the sudden and unexpected discovery of these hitherto altogether unknown writings knew no bounds; for they now possessed the most precious heathen testimony to the sufferings of the early Christians on account of their religion, which would form a valuable addition to the evidence in course of collection by pious monks intended to show forth clearly and indisputably the divine origin of Christianity. The wily Pope knew well enough the enormous value of such a record as this; for it was quite evident that a vein of scepticism was permeating every class of society, in spite of the vigilance of the Inquisitioners.

The reformers who succeeded Wicliffe, Jerome, and Huss had been waxing bolder day by day, and had even repulsed a large army sent against them by his Holiness and led by Cardinal Cesarini and a host of German princes, since which they had boldly and openly preached against the papal supremacy, and were in many districts publicly distributing copies of the writings of Aristotle and Averroes. The Church and the Papacy were thus in real and imminent danger, for hitherto the people had believed whatever the priests had told them, whereas now they appeared determined to investigate the whole matter themselves and to dispense with the services of the priestly mediator. At such a time the discovery of the “Annals” came as a windfall to the Church; every one apparently accepting them as having been originally written by Tacitus; and every author, from this time forward, quoted them repeatedly. The strangest thing about the affair is that no one even thought of questioning the genuineness of the writings, especially when it must have been well known that not one historian or writer, from the time of Tacitus, who lived in the first century, down to the end of the fifteenth century, when the “Annals” (so-called for the first time by Beatus Rhenanus in 1533) were discovered, had ever once quoted or even referred to them; not even Christian writers had as much as once noticed them, which they could not have failed to do had such valuable evidence of the sufferings of their brethren really existed. Besides the “Annals” other MSS. were produced by pious monks and passed off as ancient writings, until at length the Vatican and other papal libraries were literally swarming with them; but all these writings paled into insignificance before such a record as the “Annals,” which was destined henceforth to be the chief evidence in support of Christianity. Together with the passages in the writings of Josephus, which were forged beyond doubt by Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, and the doubtful letter of the younger Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, which time most assuredly will prove to be as great a forgery as the other two, the Church had now heathen testimony in abundance to prove that the religion was divinely instituted and that many suffered death in defence of it. Neither Averroism nor Arianism could shake this testimony, which would be a powerful prop to the religion for centuries to come. It remained for Dr. Lardner and others, in the commencement of last century, to expose the forgery in Josephus; to the present century has been reserved the honour of unveiling the real authorship of the forged “Annals” of Tacitus; and to future searchers after truth is left the duty of discovering the real perpetrator of the forged letter which has hitherto been known as from Pliny to Trajan.

If any one should still doubt that Bracciolini forged the “Annals,” let me recommend him to carefully read a work entitled “Tacitus and Bracciolini,” and published by Messrs. Diprose & Bateman, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, in which will be found the most convincing proofs that Bracciolini, and no other than he, was the real author of the work. In that able indictment, from which I have drawn extensively for this essay, the writings and peculiarities of both Tacitus and Bracciolini have been most carefully detailed, with the result that no one can help arriving at the conclusion that one person could not have written both the “History” and the “Annals;” that Tacitus could not possibly have written the “Annals,” owing to chronological difficulties; and that suspicion points so forcibly to Bracciolini as the author that it almost amounts to positive proof.

What I have endeavoured to show is (1) that, owing to the teachings of Abelard, Arnold, Wicliffe, Jerome, Huss, and other fifteenth-century reformers, the authority of the Church and the very existence of Christianity were seriously menaced; (2) that, on account of the failure of the Inquisition to stem the current of scepticism, large sums of money were offered for the discovery of ancient writings which would bear testimony to the divine authority of the Church and the divine establishment of Christianity; (3) that, in consequence of this bribe, shoals of writings were forged by needy monks and scholars, and attributed to ancient authors; and (4) that among these forgeries were the “Annals” of Tacitus, which were composed by Bracciolini and re-written by the Hirschfeldt monk in a style as nearly as possible like a very old copy of the “History” of Tacitus, which was supplied to him as a guide.