Universita' degli Studi di Cassino : Rankings, Fees ...

By John Lord, LL. D. THOMAS AQUINAS. THE SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY. (ii.) With the Crusades arose a new spirit, which gave an impulse to philosophy as well as to art and enterprise. "The primum mobile of the new system was Motion, in distinction from the Rest which marked the old monas- tic retreats." An immense enthusiasm for knowledge had been kindled by Abélard, which was further in- tensified by the Scholastic doctors of the thirteenth century, especially such of them as belonged to the Dominican and Franciscan friars. These celebrated Orders arose at a great crisis in the Papal history, when rival popes aspired to the throne of Saint Peter, when the Church was rent with divisions, when princes were contending for the right of investiture, and when heretical opinions were de- fended by men of genius. At this crisis a great Pope was called to the government of the Church,——Inno- cent III., under whose able rule the papal power culminated. He belonged to an illustrious Roman family, and received an unusual education, being versed in theology, philosophy, and canon law. His name was Lothario, of the family of the Conti; he was nephew of a pope, and counted three cardinals among his relatives. At the age of twenty-one, about the year 1181, he was one of the canons of Saint Peter's Church; at twenty-four he was sent by the Pope on important missions. In 1188 he was created cardinal by his uncle, Clement III.; and in 1198 he was elected Pope, at the age of thirty-eight, when the Crusades were at their height, when the south of France was agitated by the opinions of the Albigenses, and the provinces on the Rhine by those of the Waldenses. It was a turbulent age, full of tumults insurrections, wars, and theological dissensions. The old monastic orders had degenerated and lost influence through idleness and self-indulgence, while the secular clergy were scarcely any better. Innocent cast his eagle eye into all the abuses which disgraced the age and Church, and made fearless war upon those princes who usurped his pre- rogatives. He excommunicated princes, humbled the Emperor of Germany and the King of England, put kingdoms under their interdict, exempted abbots from the jurisdiction of bishops, punished heretics, formed cru- sades, laid down new canons, regulated taxes, and di- rected all ecclesiastical movements. His activity was ceaseless, and his ambition was boundless. He in- stituted important changes, and added new orders of monks to the Church. It was this Pope who made auricular confession obligatory, thus laying the founda- tion of an imperious spiritual sway in the form of inquisitions. A firm guardian of public morals, his private life was above reproach. His habits were simple and his tastes were cultivated. He was charitable and kind to the poor and unfortunate. He spent his enormous revenues in building churches, endowing hospitals, and rewarding learned men; and otherwise showed himself the friend of scholars, and the patron of benevolent movements. He was a reformer of abuses, publishing the most se- vere acts against venality, and deciding quarrels on prin- ciples of justice. He had no dramatic conflicts like Hildebrand, for his authority was established. As the supreme guardian of the interests of the Church he sel- dom made demands which he had not the power to en- force. John of England attempted resistance, but was compelled to submit. Innocent even gave the arch- bishopric of Canterbury to one of his cardinals, Stephen Langton, against the wishes of a Norman king. He made Philip II take back his lawful wife; he nominated an emperor to the throne of Constantine; he compelled France to make war on England, and incited the barons to rebellion against John. Ten years' civil war in Ger- many were the fruit of his astute policy, and the only great failure of his administration was that he could not exempt Italy from the dominion of the Emperors of Germany, thus giving rise to the two great political par- ties of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,——the Guelphs and Ghibellines. To cement his vast spiritual power and to add to the usefulness and glory of the Church, he not only countenanced but encouraged the Mendicant Friars, established by Saint Francis of Assisi, and Saint Dominic of the great family of the Guzmans in Spain. These men made substantially the same offers to the Pope that Ignatius Loyola did in after times,——to go where they were sent as teachers, preachers, and missionaries without condition or reward. They renounced riches, professed absolute poverty, and wandered from village to city bare- footed, and subsisting entirely on alms as beggars. The Dominican friar in his black habit, and the Fran- ciscan in his gray, became the ablest and most effective preachers of the thirteenth century. The Dominicans confined their teachings to the upper classes, and be- came their favorite confessors. They were the most learned men of the thirteenth century, and also the most reproachless in morals. The Franciscans were itinerary preachers to the common people, and created among them the same religious revival that the Meth- odists did later in England under the guidance of Wes- ley. The founder of the Franciscans was a man who seemed to be "inebriated with love," so unquenchable was his charity, rapt his devotions, and supernal his sympathy. He found his way to Rome in the year 1215, and in twenty-two years after his death there were nine thousand religious houses of his Order. In a century from his death the friars numbered one hundred and fifty thousand. The increase of the Do- minicans was not so rapid, but more illustrious men belonged to this institution. It is affirmed that it produced seventy cardinals, four hundred and sixty bishops, and four popes. It was in the palmy days of these celebrated monks, before corruption had set in, that the Dominican Order was recruited with one of the most extraordinary men of the Middle Ages. This man was Saint Thomas, born 1225 or 1227, son of a Count of Aquino in the kingdom of Naples, known in history as Thomas Aqui- nas, "the most successful organizer of knowledge," says Archbishop Trench, "the world has known since Aris- totle." He was called "the angelical doctor," exciting the enthusiasm of his age for his learning and piety and genius alike. He was a prodigy and a marvel of dialectical skill, and Catholic writers have exhausted language to find expressions for their admiration. Their Lives of him are an unbounded panegyric for the sweetness of his temper, his wonderful self-control, his lofty devotion to study, his indifference to praises and rewards, his spiritual devotion, his loyalty to the Church, his marvellous acuteness of intellect, his in- dustry, and his unparalleled logical victories. When he was five years of age his father, a noble of very high rank sent him to Monte Cassino with the hope that he would become a Benedictine monk, and ulti- mately abbot of that famous monastery, with the control of its vast revenues and patronage. Here he remained seven years, until the convent was taken and sacked by the soldiers of the Emperor Frederic in his war with the Pope. The young Aquino returned to his father's castle, and was then sent to Naples to be edu- cated at the university, living in a Benedictine abbey, and not in lodgings like other students. The Domini- cans and Franciscans held chairs in the university, one of which was filled with a man of great ability, whose preaching and teaching had such great influence on the youthful Thomas that he resolved to join the Order, and at the age of seventeen became a Dominican friar, to the disappointment of his family. His mother Theodora went to Naples to extricate him from the hands of the Dominicans, who secretly hurried him off to Rome and guarded him in their convent, from which he was rescued by violence. But the youth persisted in his intentions against the most passionate entreaties of his mother, made his escape, and was carried back to Naples. The Pope, at the solicitation of his family, offered to make him Abbot of Monte Cassino, but he remained a poor Dominican. His superior, seeing his remarkable talents, sent him to Cologne to attend the lectures of Albertus Magnus, then the most able ex- pounder of the Scholastic Philosophy, and the oracle of the universities, who continued his lectures after he was made a bishop, and even until he was eighty-five. When Albertus was transferred from Cologne to Paris, where the Dominicans held two chairs of theology, Thomas followed him, and soon after was made bach- elor. Again was Albert sent back to Cologne, and Thomas was made his assistant professor. He at once attracted attention, was ordained priest, and became as famous for his sermons as for his lectures. After four years at Cologne Thomas was ordered back to Paris, travelling on foot, and begging his way, yet stopping to preach in the large cities. He was still magister and Albert professor, but had greatly distinguished himself by his lectures. His appearance at this time was marked. His body was tall and massive, but spare and lean from fasting and labor. His eyes were bright, but their expression was most modest. His face was oblong, his complex- ion sallow; his forehead depressed, his head large, his person erect. His first great work was a commentary of about twelve hundred pages on the "Book of Sentences," in the Parma edition, which was received with great ad- miration for its logical precision, and its opposition to the rationalistic tendencies of the times. In it are discussed all the great theological questions treated by Saint Augustine,——God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, grace, predestination, faith, free-will, Providence, and the like,——blended with metaphysical discussions on the soul, the existence of evil, the nature of angels, and other subjects which interested the Middle Ages. Such was his fame and dialectical skill that he was taken away from his teachings and sent to Rome to defend his Order and the cause of orthodoxy against the slander of William of Saint Amour, an aristo- cratic doctor, who hated the Mendicant Friars and their wandering and begging habits. William had written a book called "Perils," in which he exposed the dangers to be apprehended from the new order of monks, in which he proved himself a true prophet, for ultimately the Mendicant Friars became subjects of ridicule and reproach. But the Pope came to the rescue of his best supporters. On the return of Thomas to Paris he was made doc- tor of theology, at the same time with Bonaventura the Franciscan, called "the seraphic doctor," between whom and Thomas were intimate ties of friendship. He had now reached the highest honor that the uni- versity could bestow, which was conferred with such extraordinary ceremony that it would seem to have been a great event in Paris at that time. His fame chiefly rests on the ablest treatise written in the Middle Ages,——the "Summa Theologica,"——in which all the great questions in theology and philosophy are minutely discussed, in the most exhaustive manner. He took the side of the Realists, his object being to uphold Saint Augustine. He was more a Platonist in his spirit than an Aristotelian, although he was in- debted to Aristotle for his method. He appealed to both reason and authority. He presented the Christian religion in a scientific form. His book is an assimila- tion of all that is precious in the thinking of the Church. If he learned many things at Paris, Cologne, and Naples, he was also educated by Chrysostom, by Augustine, and Ambrose. "It is impossible," says Car- dinal Newman, and no authority is higher than his, "to read the Catena of Saint Thomas without being struck by the masterly skill with which he put it together. A learning of the highest kind,——not merely literary book knowledge which may have supplied the place of in- dexes and tables in ages destitute of these helps, and when they had to be read in unarranged and frag- mentary manuscripts, but a thorough acquaintance with the whole range of ecclesiastical antiquity, so as to be able to bring the substance of all that had been written on any point to bear upon the text which in- volved it,——a familiarity with the style of each writer so as to compress in a few words the pith of the whole page, and a power of clear and orderly arrangement in this mass of knowledge, are qualities which make this Catena nearly perfect as an interpretation of Patristic literature." Dr. Vaughan, in eulogistic language, says: "The 'Summa Theologica' may be likened to one of the great cathedrals of the Middle Ages, infinite in detail but massive in the groupings of pillars and arches, forming a complete unity that must have taxed the brain of the architect to its greatest extent. But greater as work of intellect is this digest of all theologi- cal richness for one thousand years, in which the thread of discourse is never lost sight of, but winds through a labyrinth of important discussions and digressions, all bearing on the fundamental truths which Paul declared and Augustine systematized." This treatise would seem to be a thesaurus of both Patristic and Mediæval learning; not a dictionary of knowledge, but a system of truth severely elaborated in every part,——a work to be studied by the Mediæval students as Calvin's "Institutes" were by the scholars of the Reformation, and not far different in its scope and end; for the Patristic, the Mediæval, and the Protestant divines did not materially differ in refer- ence to the fundamental truths pertaining to God, the Incarnation, and Redemption. The Catholic and Protestant divines differ chiefly on the ideas pertain- ing to government and ecclesiastical institutions, and the various inventions of the Middle Ages to uphold the authority of the Church, not on dogmas strictly theological. A student in theology could even in our times sit at the feet of Thomas Aquinas, as he could at the feet of Augustine or Calvin; except that in the theology which Thomas Aquinas commented upon there is a cumbrous method, borrowed from Aristotle, which introduced infinite distinctions and questions and defi- nitions and deductions and ramifications which have no charm to men who have other things to occupy their minds than Scholastic subtilties, acute and logical as they may be. Thomas Aquinas was raised to combat, with the weapons most esteemed in his day, the various forms of Rationalism, Pantheism, and Mysticism which then existed, and were included in the Nominalism of his antagonists. And as long as universities are cen- tres of inquiry the same errors, under other names, will have to be combated, but probably not with the same methods which marked the teachings of the "angelical doctor." In demolishing errors and systematizing truth he was the greatest benefactor to the cause of "ortho- oxy" that appeared in Europe for several centuries, admired for his genius as much as Spencer and other great lights of science are in our day, but standing pre- eminent and lofty over all, like a beacon light to give both guidance and warning to inquiring minds in every part of Christendom. Nor could popes and sovereigns render too great honor to such a prodigy of genius. They offered him the abbacy of Monte Cassino and the archbishopric of Naples, but he preferred the life of a quiet student, finding in knowledge and study, for their own sake, the highest reward, and pursuing his labors without the impedimenta of those high posi- tions which involve ceremonies and cares and pomps, yet which most ambitious men love better than freedom, placidity, and intellectual repose. He lived not in a palace, as he might have lived, surrounded with flatterers, luxuries, and dignities, but in a cell, wearing his simple black gown, and walking bare- footed wherever he went, begging his daily bread ac- cording to the rules of his Order. His black gown was not an academic badge, but the Dominican dress. His only badge of distinction was the doctors' cap. Dr. Vaughan, in his heavy and unartistic life of Thomas Aquinas, has drawn a striking resemblance be- tween Plato and the Mediæval doctor: "Both," he says, "were nobly born, both were grave from youth, both loved truth with an intensity of devotion. If Plato was instructed by Socrates, Aquinas was taught by Albertus Magnus; if Plato travelled into Italy, Greece, and Egypt, Aquinas went to Cologne, Naples, Bologna, and Rome; if Plato was famous for his erudition, Aqui- nas was no less noted for his universal knowledge. Both were naturally meek and gentle; both led lives of retirement and contemplation; both loved solitude; both were celebrated for self-control; both were brave; both held their pupils spell-bound by their brilliant mental gifts; both passed their time in lecturing to the schools (what the Pythagoreans were to Plato, the Benedictines were to the angelical); both shrank from the display of self; both were great dialecti- cians; both reposed on eternal ideas; both were ora- cles to their generation." But if Aquinas had the soul of Plato, he also had the scholastic gifts of Aris- totle, to whom the Church is indebted for method and nomenclature as it was to Plato for synthesis and that exalted Realism which went hand in hand with Chris- tianity. How far he was indebted to Plato it is diffi- cult to say. He certainly had not studied his dialec- tics through translations or in the original, but had probably imbibed the spirit of this great philosopher through Saint Augustine and other orthodox Fathers who were his admirers. Although both Plato and Aristotle accepted "uni- versals" as the foundation of scientific inquiry, the former arrived at them by consciousness, and the other by reasoning. The spirit of the two great masters of thought was as essentially different as their habits and lives. Plato believed that God governed the world; Aristotle believed that it was governed by chance. The former maintained that mind is divine and eter- nal; the latter that it is a form of the body, and con- sequently mortal. Plato thought that the source of happiness was in virtue and resemblance to God; while Aristotle placed it in riches and outward prosperity. Plato believed in prayer; but Aristotle thought that God would not hear or answer it, and therefore that it was useless. Plato believed in happiness after death; while Aristotle supposed that death ended all pleasure. Plato lived in the world of abstract ideas; Aristotle in the realm of sense and observation. The one was reli- gious; the other secular and worldly. With both the passion for knowledge was boundless, but they differed in their conceptions of knowledge; the one basing it on eternal ideas and the deductions to be drawn from them, and the other on physical science,——the phenomena of Nature,——those things which are cognizable by the senses. The spiritual life of Plato was "a longing after love and of eternal ideas, by the contemplation of which the soul sustains itself and becomes partici- pant in immortality." The life of Aristotle was not spiritual but intellectual. He was an incarnation of mere intellect, the architect of a great temple of knowl- edge, which received the name of Organum, or the philosophy of first principles. Thomas Aquinas, we may see from what has been said, was both Platonic and Aristotelian. He resembled Plato in his deep and pious meditations on the eternal realities of the spiritual world, while in the severity of his logic he resembled Aristotle, from whom he learned precision of language, lucidity of statement, and a syllogistic mode of argument well calculated to confirm what was already known, but not to make attainments in new fields of thought or knowledge. If he was gentle and loving and pious like Plato, he was also as calm and passionless as Aristotle. This great man died at the age of forty-eight, in the year 1274, a few years after Saint Louis, before his sum of theology was completed. He died prematurely, exhausted by his intense studies; leaving, however, treatises which filled seventeen printed folio volumes, ——one of the most voluminous writers of the world. His fame was prodigious, both as a dialectician and a saint, and he was in due time canonized as one of the great pillars of the Church, ranking after Chrysos- tom, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great,—— the standard authority for centuries of the Catholic theology. The Scholastic Philosophy, which culminated in Thomas Aquinas, maintained its position in the uni- versities of Europe until the Reformation, but declined in earnestness. It descended to the discussion of unim- portant and often frivolous questions. Even the "an- gelical doctor" is quoted as discussing the absurd question as to how many angels could dance together on the point of a needle. The play of words became interminable. Things were lost sight of in a barbarous jargon about questions which have no interest to hu- manity, and which are utterly unintelligible. At the best, logical processes can add nothing to the ideas from which they start. When these ideas are lofty, discussion upon them elevates the mind and doubtless strengthens its powers. But when the subjects them- selves are frivolous, the logical tournaments in their defence degrade the intellect and narrow it. Nothing destroys intellectual dignity more effectually than the waste of energies in the defence of what is of no practical utility, and which cannot be applied to the acquisition of solid knowledge. Hence the Scholastic Philosophy did not advance knowledge, since it did not seek the acquisition of new truths, but only the estab- lishment of the old. Its utility consisted in training the human mind to logical reasonings. It exercised the intellect and strengthening it, as gymnastics do the body, without enlarging it. It was nothing but barren dialectics,——"dry bones," a perpetual fencing. The soul cries out for bread; the Scholastics gave it a stone. We are amazed that intellectual giants, equal to the old Greeks in acuteness and logical powers, could waste their time on the frivolous questions and dialectical subtilties to which they devoted their mighty powers. However interesting to them, nothing is drier and duller to us, nothing more barren and unsatisfying, than their logical sports. Their treatises are like trees with endless branches, each leading to new ramifica- tions, with no central point in view, and hence never finished, and which might be carried on ad infini- tum. To attempt to read their disquisitions is like walking in labyrinths of ever-opening intricacies. By such a method no ultimate truth could be arrived at, beyond what was assumed. There is now and then a man who professes to have derived light and wisdom from those dialectical displays, since they were doubt- less marvels of logical precision and clearness of state- ment. But in a practical point of view those "master- pieces of logic" are utterly useless to most modern inquirers. These are interesting only as they exhibit the waste of gigantic energies; they do not even have the merit of illustrative rhetoric or eloquence. The earlier monks were devout and spiritual, and we can still read their lofty meditations with profit, since they ele- vate the soul and make it pant for the beatitudes of spiritual communion with God. But the writings of the Scholastic doctors are cold, calm, passionless, and purely intellectual,——logical without being edifying. We turn from them, however acute and able, with blended disappointment and despair. They are fig- trees, bearing nothing but leaves, such as out Lord did curse. The distinctions are simply metaphysical, and not moral. Why the whole force of an awakening age should have been so devoted to such subtilties and barren dis- cussion it is difficult to see, unless they were found use- ful in supporting a theology made up of metaphysical deductions rather than an interpretation of the meaning of Scripture texts. But there was then no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew; there was no exegetical research; there was no science and no real learning. There was nothing but theology, with the exception of Lives of the Saint. The horizon of human inquiries was ex- tremely narrow. But when the minds of very intel- lectual men were directed to one particular field, it would be natural to expect something remarkable and marvellously elaborate of its kind. Such was the Scholastic Philosophy. As a mere exhibition of dia- lectical acumen, minute distinctions, and logical pre- cision in the use of words, it was wonderful. The intricacy and detail and ramifications of this system were an intellectual feat which astonishes us, yet which does not instruct us, certainly outside of a metaphys- ical divinity which had more charm to the men of the Middle Ages than it can have to us, even in a theologi- cal school where dogmatic divinity is made the most important study. The day will soon come when the principal chair in the theological school will be for the explanation of the Scripture texts on which dogmas are based; and for this, great learning and scholar- ship will be indispensable. To me it is surprising that metaphysics have so long retained their hold on the minds of Protestant divines. Nothing is more unsatis- factory, and to many more repellent, than metaphysical divinity. It is a perversion of the spirit of Christian teachings. "What says our Lord?" should be the great inquiry in our schools of theology; not, What deduc- tions can be drawn from them by a process of ingenious reasoning which often, without reference to other im- portant truths, lands one in absurdities, or at least in one-sided systems? But the metaphysical divinity of the Schoolmen had great attractions to the students of the Middle Ages. And there must have been something in it which we do not appreciate, or it would not have maintained itself in the schools for three hundred years. Perhaps it was what those ages needed,——the discipline through which the mind must go before it could be prepared for the sci- entific investigations of our own times. In an important sense the Scholastic doctors were the teachers of Luther and Bacon. Certainly their unsatisfactory science was one of the marked developments of the civilization of Europe, through which the Gothic nations must need pass. It has been the fashion to ridicule it and depre- ciate it in our modern times, especially among Prot- estants, who have ridiculed and slandered the papal power and all the institutions of the Middle Ages. Yet scholars might as well ridicule the text-books they were required to study fifty years ago, because they are not up to our times. We should not disdain the early steps by which future progress is made easy. We can- not despise men who gave up their lives to the contem- plation of subjects which demand the highest tension of the intellectual faculties, even if these exercises were barren of utilitarian results. Some future age may be surprised at the comparative unimportance of questions which interest this generation. The Scholastic Philos- ophy cannot indeed be utilized by us in the pursuit of scientific knowledge; nor (to recur to Vaughan's simile for the great work of Aquinas) can a mediæval cathedral be utilized for purposes of oratory or business. But the cathedral is nevertheless a grand monument, suggesting lofty sentiments, which it would be senseless and ruth- less barbarism to destroy or allow to fall into decay, but which should rather be preserved as a precious memento of what is most poetic and attractive in the Middle Ages. When any modern philosopher shall rear so gigantic a symmetrical monument of logical disquisitions as the "Summa Theologica" is said to be by the most com- petent authorities, then the sneers of a Macaulay or a Lewes will be entitled to more consideration. It is said that a new edition of this great Mediæval work is about to be published under the direct auspices of the Pope, as the best and most comprehensive system of Christian theology ever written by man. AUTHORITIES. Dr. Vaughan's Life of Thomas Aquinas; Histoire de la Vie et des Écrits de St. Thomas d'Aquin, par l'Abbé Bareille; Lacordaire's Life of Saint Dom- inic; Dr. Hampden's Life of Thomas Aquinas; article on Thomas Aquinas, in London Quarterly, July, 1881; Summa Theologica; Neander, Milman, Fleury, Dupin, and Ecclesiastical Histories generally; Biographie Univer- selle; Werner's Leben des Heiligen Thomas von Aquino; Trench's Lectures on Mediæval History; Ueberweg & Rousselot's History of Philosophy. Dr. Hampden's article, in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana, on Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastic Philosophy, is regarded by Hallam as the ablest view of this subject which has appeared in English. 

from Beacon Lights of History, by John Lord, LL. D., Volume III, Part I: The Middle Ages, pp. 227 - 247. Copyright, 1883, by John Lord. Copyright, 1921, By Wm. H. Wise & Co., New York
این فضای شماست با یکدیگر مهربان باشید https://old.reddit.com/thesee [♘] [♰] [☮] 雨

Unit 1
ANTIQUE LITHERATURE
Prg 1. Tacitus and Poggio Bracciolini
Compositions of the famous Tacitus who gave us his expanded picture of The Emperors' Rome from Tiberius till Vespasian (for example see I. M. Troysky's article "Cornelius Tacitus" in ref 48) in masterly dramatic exposition appear to be one of our main sources on The Ancient Rome history.
Tacitus' personality and his compositions
PUBLIUS CORNELIUS TACITUS considered to be born during Nero about 55AD (this date is calculated according to cloudy designations of other authors, Plinius Jr. for example) and died during Adriane about 120AD. Tacitus' feather possesses "Biography of Agricola", "On origins, residence and mores of German people" etc. But the main studies by Tacitus appear the following:

1. "Chronicles" ("Annals"), containing The Roman Empire history during Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero;
   
2. "History", describing Galba, Ottone and Vitelius' "Time of Troubles" till Vespasian’s rise to power.
   

Loads of strange obscurities and anachronisms in "Chronicles" and "History" was directing historical criticism to a doubt in reliability of Tacitus' legends for long time already. Here we will limit ourselves with giving a short exposition of criticism in regard to Tacitus, mainly following A. Amfiteatrov (see ref 8). A. Amfiteatrov's book is providing an objective exposition of history of Tacitus' criticism, namely Ross and Hoshar's works and this exposition is even more valuable for us because Amfiteatrov himself still doesn't want to reject the idea of Tacitus' reliability. Citing ref 8 we will allow ourselves to replace transcription "PoggIo Bracciolini" that Amfiteatrov is using with modern "Poggio Bracciolini". In the rest of cases we leave all the features of Amfiteatrov's text unchanged.
Criticism on Tacitus
It looks like the beginning of critical wave was set by Walter in his "The Philosophy Vocabulary". Lengeau The Advocate's polemical study whom Marabou has called "The Nero Advocate" is less known. One of the first people in Russia who's got a doubt even if not in Tacitus' facts themselves but at least in his assessment of these facts was Pushkin but only since the late XIX century serious historical studies completely rejecting authenticity of Tacitus' books have began to appear. Walter's criticism was more of a political kind: heyday of Tacitus' negative treatment was still ahead and it has reached its apogee in Germany, France and England. In Germany Tacitus has undergone thorough criticism of Mommsen, Shtare, Leman and especially Sivers and German Schiller when the latter in his two capital studies ("History of The Roman Empire during Nero's reign" and "History of The Roman Emperors' epoch") treated Tacitus almost just like tendentious pamphleteer, very talented and abundant in material but unscrupulous with it. In France Amadeus Tierrie was calling to careful treatment of Tacitus' data, warning against his aristocratically-nationalistic viewpoints. In England Charles Merival had similar opinion and basing off his studies M. A. Dragomanov's book "Question of historical meaning of The Roman Empire and Tacitus" appeared in Russia in 60s of XIX century. In this criticism we are interested the most about an alarming fact how in his political views Tacitus appear as a supporter of Italian type aristocratic republic of XIII-XIV centuries' period.
"New skeptical onflow has begun in late 70s on XIX century and continued in 80s and 90s now denying not facts or visions of Tacitus but Tacitus himself: authenticity and ancientry of his compositions. It's interesting how a hypothesis about forgery of Tacitus' manuscripts appeared in England and France at the same time. Englishman Ross has started it with his book of "Tacitus and Bracciolini" published in 1878... In France P. Hoshar... also known as G. Dakber... took the same route in his main three studies: "Etudes on Seneca's life" (1882-1885), "Etudes on the matter of persecution of Christians during Nero" (1885) and "On authenticity of "Annals" and "History" by Tacitus" (1890)... in which he's (Hoshar - Auth) revealing absolutely new views of facts putting faithful confidence in Tacitus' authority into hopeless deadlocks.
Hoshar's system of forgery evidences for imaginary historical compositions of Tacitus (and their attribution to Poggio Bracciolini's feather - Auth) is combined out of several basic statements.

1. Doubtfulness both of manuscripts in whose form compositions of Tacitus has come to us and of circumstances in which these manuscripts were discovered through the involvement of Poggio Bracciolini.
   
2. Complete or relative impossibility of Tacitus to write many things included in "Annals" and "Stories" according to conditions of his era.
   
3. Signs of The Renaissance in the text of pseudo-Tacitus. (I didn't add anything-tr)
   
4. Exaggerated opinion about Tacitus' dignity as Latin classicist. (By the way typical for XV century love to secular pornography combined with other circumstances also immediately makes similar suspicions to arouse in regard to Petronius (also found by Poggio) and in regard to Juvenal, Marcial and many other classicists. - Auth)
   
5. Latest (according to commonly accepted chronology of literature) main historians-witnesses of Rome (Joseph Flavius, Plutarch, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Tertullian, Pavel Orosius, Sulpicius Sever etc.) didn't borrow his data from Tacitus but on opposite imaginary Tacitus is just a distributor and amplificator of intelligence that he drawn from ones named above having them all at his disposal and assorting them the way he liked.
   
6. Litheraturical talent, classical education and fraudful personality of Poggio Bracciolini worked exactly on the benefit of taste and demands of his age demanding revival of dead ancient gods, artists and authors.
   
7. Poggio Bracciolini was interested and capable of committing this great forgery - and he committed it.
   

Let's begin with biography of suggested pseudo-Tacitus, Poggio Bracciolini." (ref 8, p 356-358)
Poggio Bracciolini
"Poggio Bracciolini was born 1380 in Terra Nuova, small town nearby Florence and in early age he has already became known as young man of outstanding education and sharp mind. He has began his serving career during cardinal Barrie but we can soon see him at pope Bonifatio IX's court in rank of copyist...
Little by little he rose to a rank of secretary... one of editor officials whose duty was correcting official documents (correspondence, charters, resolutions) sent from pope's name.
He still remained in this rank during popes Innokentius VII and Gregory XII. In Bologna where apostolic throne was moved temporarily he was with Alexander V when this pope died from poisoning - at least that's what everyone's voice of rumor was saying - by Balthazar Cossa, a former pirate, later archidiaconal at Diocese of Rolone and finally Alexander V's successor, pope of Rome with a name of Jonah XXIII. Poggio, a man of complaisant conscience and typical representative of his unscrupulous age remained secretary with a new pope too. He followed Jonah to 1414 congress in Constance. But when Jonah was dethroned by this congress (1415) Poggio lost his position and as one would say, was left in a void.
Sometime later he has entered the service of Henry Bothore who was brother of king Henrico IV, bishop and later cardinal of Winchester. He met this rich and powerful prelate in Constance. Bothore was playing vital role in The Church affairs back then as an Authorized Representative from English people. Poggio has arrived in England in September 1418 as a part of entourage of his new patron. But realizing he's made a mistake in his calculations of coming rich profits, in 1422 he's already in Florence again and then in Rome. Johan XXIII's successor pope Martin V has returned Poggio his old position of secretary at the holy throne.
Italy of XV century is rich with educated minds but Bracciolini is one of the brightest and remarkable among them.
He learnt Latin from Giovanni Malpagini of Ravenna, friend of Petrarch; he learnt Greek from Chrisolore... he also knew Jewish. He studied ancientry with ardent passion. He could almost never be seen other way than reading Latin or Greek book or writing notes about it. He was a real library swallower. When he was young he had at his disposal the richest collection of library of Colucho Salutati, The Florence Republic chancellor whose books "more belonged to any sciences' hunter than himself". In London he used Bothore's magnificent book storage, who's

wandering eternally like a Scythian while I'm digging myself into books in my free time.

Library of the pope's palace in Rome doesn't satisfy Poggio, he's writing to his friends every now and then: send me this and this composition. A list of antique writers he has researched, both Pagan and Christian is truly grandiose. He's an antiquary and numismatist parsing and interpreting inscriptions and medals; at his villa in Val-d'Arno he's collected beautiful museum of antiquities purchased by himself personally or on his instructions in Italy, Greece and in The East. He's a first-class Latinist. "Chiropody" by Xenophon and of first five books by Diodore The Sicilian translated from Greek to Latin by his feather. In his original studies he's a writer of the first-class talent shining not only with almost impossible erudition but also with talent's flexibility on the same scale. His philosophical and ethical tractates ("On miserliness", "On nobleness", "On misfortune of sovereigns", "On wretchedness of human existence") are worthy of Cicero and Seneca. He can discuss theological questions and Christianic virtues with a language that without Bracciolini's signature anyone would mistake for language of one of the Fathers of The Church. Trying to keep up with Plinius who's enraptured Bracciolini he has wrote "On mores of The Indians" book. He has made extremely interesting archeological guide for research of roman monuments (De varietate fortunae). He tells a story of Venice man Niccoli de Conti's journey in Persia. Translates Manilius’ "Astronomicon" to Italian. Does a good sir want a satire of Petronius style? Poggio offers his extremely acrimonious "Historia convivales" ("The Tableful History") scourging lawyer and medic charlatans who has become lords of their age and profiteer both huge power and huge capital with human stupidity. Does good sir want historical study like Tacitus' "Chronicles"? That's what "Historia Florentina" ("The Florence History") is like, a story of clear and accurate tone, solid picture, bright coloring and full of artistic images and personalities and also deeply insightful in its judgment and foresight. After all Poggio's great glory was continuously strengthened and supported with witty and sage letters he was exchanging with the great people of this world (with Nikolai, Laurentius and Cosmos Medici, with Herzogs Sforza, Visconti, Leonello D'Este, with king Alfonso The Aragonian), with a majority of modern cardinals and with almost all of the remarkable personalities of his age. Poggio Bracciolini's splendid letters were going through many hands to be reread, rewritten, replacing newspapers and magazines for Italian intelligentsia of XV century. In a word, this resplendent imitator was his century's ruler of the minds in a full sense of these words. Criticism was placing him on the same level with the greatest authors of The Renaissance. His honorariums prove how high he was valued: for dedication of "The Chiropody" to Alfonso The Aragonian, Poggio was given 600 gold - 7200 franks. With a value of money back then this was a huge capital. Literature has advanced him to a rank of statesmen and he has ended his life at a height of important and powerful rank as a chancellor of The Florence Republic. He was a center of his modern literature to such an extent that many people used to find it possible to define first half of Italian XV century as "The Poggio Age". Even in France his name has disappeared in a family abbreviation of historical common knowledge - "Le Pogge". During his lifetime Florence has erected for him a statue of his own that was cut with Donatello's chisel. At first it stood under portico of Santa Maria del Fiere cathedral, now it’s carried inside the church itself.
These were light sides of this remarkable person. Now let's observe shadow ones.
The great writer had a disgusting personality which made him to quarrel all the Litheraturical celebrities of his age (Aurispa, Guarino, Vissarionus, but Filelfo and Valla especially). In their polemics all of these big people are not a bit better of a person than their poisonous and ferocious opponent though. Ploicianus called Poggio "the most vile-speeched person in a world: he's always either jumping towards sovereigns or attacking human customs without any distinguishing or either he rankle writings of a scientist of some kind - nobody can rest of him!". Seems like he was quite voluptuary and closer to an old age he have raised this little passion if his to a size of a fair shamelessness. When he was an old man already he has married a young girl and in his tractate "Should old men marry?" dedicated to Cosmos Medici he cynically explained his marriage with an aphorism that it’s never too late for a person to find his way towards decent lifestyle...
In a city of Constance he lives a grand style of reveler and womanizer everywhere, he likes lewd artworks stories and poems much and in an old age he's also its diligent and unbridled composer himself which makes Valla to reproach him harshly. In one word, in this scientist we can see just as big talent of living on his own pleasure as big his creative talent is: typical Florence baron aesthete and bourgeois, XV century epicurean with a beautiful dream and lowland life, the volcano man having either living flame sprinkling or smelly dirt flowing out of him all the time" (ref 8 p 358-363).
Poggio's activity of search and publishing of antique compositions
"Grand style of his life was cost much for Poggio Bracciolini surpassing his income since his young age and making him to live in eternal need of money. His source of additional income appeared to be his search, preparation and editing of the antique authors' copies (literally lists or write-offs - tr) basing on authentic manuscripts. Back in XV century that have aspired to resurrecting ancientry greedily this was very profitable budget item. With a help of Florence city scientist, book publisher and bookseller Niccolo Niccoli (1363-1437) who was a king of literature market at the time, Poggio Bracciolini set up something like a permanent studio for processing of antique literature, attracting a whole series of employees and contractors into this business who had very good education and abilities but everyone of them had dark spots on their reputation: here we can see Cinco The Roman, Bartolommeo di Montepulchano, Piero Lamberteski. Niccolo Niccoli was lending Poggio his working capital and served him as his agent for manuscript selling which means he basically was his publisher - and a very jealous and commanding publisher. This was a very imperious and irascible person. Even such aces of literature like Leonardo Aretin, Manuil Chrisolor, Guarino and Arispa he could twist like a ram's horn and when he quarreled with them he has literally forced them to leave Florence.
During the age of gathering in a city of Constance, Poggio Bracciolini and Bartolommeo di Montepulcano have made their first discoveries and then deposition of Johan XXIII's have put them in quite a critical position as abolished secretaries of the pope. In a forgotten and damp tower of The Saint Gallen Monastery "a tower in which a prisoner wouldn't survive for three days" they were happy to find a bunch of ancient manuscripts: compositions of Quintilian, Valerius Flakkus, Asconius Pedianus, Nonius Marcellus, Probus etc. (we want to emphasize how here it was a first time for all of these authors to be found - Auth). This discovery has not only made a sensation but also an entire age of literature. There can't be any doubt how Niccoli who had a lion's share of this treasure, has amassed very good out of it and was dreaming of amassing even more. Poggio who was encouraged with a huge success was digging diligently (from his own words - Auth) through monastery libraries of England and Germany but he couldn't find anything or he could only find bits and pieces. From his words though he still could deliver "Bucolicas" by Calpurneus and several units of Petronius to Niccoli (most likely fragments of his previous compositions; nobody and never has explained circumstances of these and all the later findings - Auth).
But even if no new original manuscripts could be found yet trade of copies was still going strong. A manuscript that was coming out of Poggio's workshop was valued very high. Meanwhile in his letters he's every now and then demanding paper, parchment, bookbindery buttstock from Niccoli and if publisher is late with delivery Poggio begins crying how he has to feed his artisan for free because of untidy workflow. One has to think how these artisans were not people of a pleasant kind. For XV century society scribes had a poor reputation. One notarius from late XIV century in his letter to a friend exclaim with a kind of a triumph that could look surprising for us:

I have found an excellent scribe and - believe you or not! - he wasn't in prison for people in a hard labor.

Of course scribes were mostly working on saleable secondary product only valuable with Poggio's editing. Amateur specimen were made by master himself and from the following example we can figure out how cruel his pricing was: after selling Alfonso The Aragonian a copy of Titus Livius he has made himself Poggio has spent a money he was paid to buy a villa in Florence. He has accepted a hundred of ducats (1200 franks) from Herzog d'Este for letters of Saint Hieronymus - doing this with a great dissatisfaction which looked like he was forced into it either by being low on money or late to complete his work and we should also consider how in an age of The Renaissance Fathers of the Church could not be sold from hands to hands as easily as Pagan philosophers. Among his clients Poggio had Medici, Sforza, d'Este, aristocratic families of England, Herzog house of Burgundy, Orsini cardinals, Cologne, just rich people like Bartolommeo di Bardio, universities using that exact times and a generosity of enlightened rulers for either establishing a library or widening their old book storages intensively. Poggio was making very big money so he has left his children with an excellent capital that they have wasted with an extreme rapidity. But there can be no doubt how for a very long time - till he was 40 at least - he lived bigger than his constant income was so I he wanted to get himself out of debt he needed some kind of emergency big score that he had to mine using equally emergent ways. And when he had to choose these ways he can never choose wisely.
This was the person who has found Tacitus. Now let's see what exactly did he found and how he did this" (ref 8 p 363-386)
Manuscripts of Tacitus
"Main manuscripts of Tacitus' "Chronicles" and "History" known as The First and The Second Medicean Copies are stored in Florence in book storage of "Bibliotheca Laurentiana". This book storage was founded by Cosmos Medici who donated his own library here along with Niccoli's library that Herzog has purchased after death of this famous publisher (1437). Poggio Bracciolini and Buondelmonti who was his father-in-law were among organizing directors of book storage. The Second Medicean Copy is more ancient than The First one even if not by origin then by publishing undoubtedly for 80 years. It's first page says clearly:

Cornelius Tacitus et Opera Apuleii.
Conventus sancti Marci de Florentia, ord.
Praedic. De heriditate Nicolai Nicoli
Florentissimi, viri Doctissimi

(Cornelius Tacitus and compositions of Apulei from books of Saint Mark monastery in Florence, of Preacher rank (?-tr). As a heritage from Niccolo Niccoli, valiant Florence citizen and extremely educated man)
From Tacitus this list contains 6 last books of "Chronicles" and 5 first books of "History". At these parts it appears as a prototype for all the rest copies claiming their ancientry: Farnes copy in Vatican, Budapest copy, Wolfenbuttel copy etc. First printed publishing of Tacitus released in Venice by Giovanni Spira or his brother Vandelline about 1470 they printed from The Second Medicean Copy or - according to a legend - from its precise copy that was stored in Venice in a library of Saint Mark cathedral. But copy has disappeared from it or may be never even been there: legend have just mixed two libraries with similar names. A usual and commonly accepted opinion on this copy says how it’s a product of work performed by scribe monks from the famous benedictian desert of Monte-Cassino in Italy halfway between Rome and Neapol.
The First Medicean Copy was purchased by pope Lion X and then immediately published by him (1515) in Rome under control of Philippe Beroalde Jr.:
Comelii Tasiti historiarum libri quinque nuper in Germania inventi.
(5 books of "History" by Cornelius Tacitus recently found in Germany.)
These 5 books are initial "Chronicles" hugging the reign of Tiberius. This way it turned out how according to Beroalde's picturesque expression

Cornelius never did lost his head through the ages just hiding it instead.

People think (not any kind of proof in present - Auth) how this copy was found in Corvei monastery and after being carried to Rome from there by some monk it was purchased for a pope by a certain Archimboldi who later has become a bishop of Milano. Corvei are a small town in Westphalia 65 kilometers southeast from Minden. It's benedictian monastery was founded by Ludovic The Good Soul in IX century played vital role during The Middle Ages as very important religious and political center.
Two Medicean Copies combined give us complete set of everything that has come to us out of Tacitus' historical compositions. Language, manner of presentation, tone - all the Litheraturical advantages and disadvantages - demonstrate undoubted unity of both copies proving how in both copies we've got a study of the same author on our hands. Before Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) all Tacitus' material contained in both collections was considered one solid composition. Justus Lipsius was the first who could see how despite visionary succession of contents "Annals" and "History" are actually two different studies - even if they do belong to the same author - so he has established its division approved ever since.
Style of handwriting appears to be an essential difference between two Medicean Copies. The Second Copy is performed with so called Lombardian writing, but The First is done with Caroling one (see figure in ref 5 - Auth).
Broadly speaking these are the most important features of two main Tacitus' copies that science acknowledged to be authentic in a course of over 3 centuries before Ross and Hoshar have touched this virgin reputation with their daring hands (In particular reviving suspicions of Poggio's contemporaries themselves - Auth). How exactly do they carry their attack?" (ref 8 p 366-368).
Legends of Tacitus' manuscripts
"Hoshar undoubtedly acknowledge how The Second Medicean Copy originates from Niccolo Niccoli's library but at the same time this attachment is the exact thing in which Hoshar can see a key to expose Poggio Bracciolini's forgery.
...How he (Tacitus - Auth) was known and read we know from his contemporaries (Plinius Jr.), from Christianity apologist Tertullian who was his enemy in 3rd century AD, from Flavius Vopisqus and blissful Hieronymus of 4th century, from Pablo Orosius and Sidonius Appolinarius of 5th century and from Cassiodorus of 6th century. (Let's make a comment how manuscripts of all these authors were also "discovered" in the same era with Tacitus' books mentioned above so actually these authors can't be used as a proof of Tacitus' authenticity - Auth). And then name of Tacitus disappeared from the memory of civilized world for many centuries. But it was much earlier when it has actually begun disappearing. Even though F. Vopisqus tells us quite flattering stories of Tacitus - how Tacitus The Emperor was proud to be his descendant and how he has commanded to all the public libraries of the empire to have copies of works of his great predecessor - but literature haven't kept even smallest signs of Tacitus' authority for us and how Servius, Priscionus, Nonius, Marcell who were The Latin Grammars at the end of The Roman Empire, diligent citers and numeraires of names of their literature don't recall Tacitus and obviously know nothing about him" (ref 8 p 368-369). So there's no way we can believe statement by apologists of Tacitus how "Tacitus wasn't there but a memory of him lived on".
I. M. Troysky (ref 48) is beginning his article about Tacitus saying

unlike his predecessors who were writing about the republic Tacitus when he was describing his activity of historian of The Roman Empire made a notion how his study is limited by narrow confines and will not bring him any glory ("Annals", IV, 32). To a certain extent these words have turned out to be prophetic.

Not a single historian of The Emperors’ Rome including Tacitus has become a "classic" of roman literature. Tacitus was not taught in roman schools: philologists (so-called grammars) who were keepers of scholar tradition were not interested in his works. For latest roman scientists an effect of this lack of attention appeared in complete absence of information about a life of this historian" (ref 48 v2 p203) By the way it means how the rest of roman historians of emperors' period didn't get any better treatment than Tacitus himself.
"In IX century (five hundred years later!) a name of Tacitus strangely surfaces in a chronicle by Freculf who was a bishop of Lisiex and in XI century it also surfaces in Johan The Salisburian's "Polycraticon" pamphlet directed against royalty. But Hoshar makes a notion how in both of these cases Tacitus is mentioned in such a general way not saying anything notable or anything its own about him that there's no any need to think how Freculf and Johan The Salusburean's libraries could possibly have Tacitus' compositions... (Actually we have to remember for the future how mention of Tacitus' name alone in any kind of source that doesn't have any details doesn't necessarily mean that very Tacitus that was found by Poggio - Auth).
There are monk legends of Tacitus' manuscripts allegedly preserved in monastery libraries in the famous benedictian desert at Monte-Cassino and in similar monastery of Fuld (in Germany nearby Cassel). First legend have grown out of mention in "Chronicle" by Desiderius who later (1086) has become pope Victor III how back in the day when he was a Hegumen of Monte-Cassini desert his monks under his control have made copies of 61 volumes of creations written by church and Pagan writers including "Cornelius' history with Homer" (Historiam Comelii cum Omero). According to monastery's chronicle majority of these books was stolen by thieves and soldiers of fortune robbing the desert. Hoshar is puzzled: what was the reason for these respected industrialists to rob monastery library at all and even if they still had to do this why would they carry away not something else but Tacitus exactly? Tacitus is not even mentioned in Desiderius' chronicle - this "History by Cornelius" could be for example Cornelius Nepot or any other of numerous roman writers all named Cornelius. Hoshar generally is quite skeptical in treating legends of treasures of The Middle Ages monastery libraries and he consider unnatural the very legend of Desiderius, a friend of Peter Damian - both are worst enemies of secular education - to make any kind of effort for preserving Pagan scriptures when both charter and personal antipathy were commanding him to destroy it. This is a late artifice and a concession for humanistic age. Abbot Rappe (abbe de la Trappe, 1626-1700, reformer of trappist order and author of "Life of St. Benedict") consider legends of written works of benedictians to be a guess not worthy to stop at. But the majority of historians still consider (without any documental reasons - Auth) The Second Medicean Copy to originate from Monte-Cassino and to be copied in the middle of IX or in XI century from some manuscript of IV or V century taken from Germany or France.
Fuld's legend is held on a citing in local monastery chronicle:

So in a city of Mimida on a river that Cornelius Tacitus the historian of feats committed by Romans among these people has called Visurgis (Veser) and historians of today call Visaraka.

Basing on this people has made a conclusion how the chronicler had an authentic text of Tacitus' "Annals" in front of him...
Another legendary copy of Tacitus was allegedly made by hand of Giovanni Boccaccio for his own library. This library is intact but Tacitus - looks like this is just a fate of this writer - has disappeared from it and nobody knows where it went and when did this happened. Hoshar is puzzled: if this exemplar (did they miss "not"?-tr) existed then where would Boccaccio take original to rewrite from? People assume that he did from Monte-Cassino during his stay in Neapol. But since Hoshar rejects a legend of Tacitus' manuscript in Monte-Cassino library then naturally he can't approve a reference to it in Boccaccio legend. And Boccaccio himself says how his stay at Monte-Cassino was extremely short and how he was met in a very poor manner: so how and when could he possibly copy a manuscript if he needed not less than a solid month of work sitting at the table and using the fastest writing style to do that? And the main thing is - if Boccaccio would know Tacitus this historian would leave at least some kind of mark in his works - but none can be noticed. This effect is even more vivid in his historically-anecdotic work of "De casibus virorum et ferminarum illustrum" ("On adventures of the famous men and women") among other things Boccaccio speak about Tiberius, Nero, Galba, Otone, Vitellius - using Suetonius' data exclusively with a certain borrowings from Juvenalus and - about Christians from church legend. (?-tr) If Boccaccio would know Tacitus then being a great artist he was how would he speak of Agrippina’s death without mentioning a great marine drama written by Tacitus or speak of the death of apostles Peter and Pavel without saying a single word about persecution of The Christians connected to the great fire of Rome? In a word, the most striking pages of Tacitus were left colorless and mute for Boccaccio; clearly he just didn't read them" (ref 8 p 369-373).
These are all the mentions of Tacitus before he was found by Poggio Bracciolini. So the entire length of The Middle Ages haven't had any kind of information stored anywhere that would speak of Tacitus' manuscripts existence so

we have to agree with Ross and Hoshar when they state how in late XIV and early XV centuries nobody of educated people had the smallest idea of Tacitus. This was an ancientry's great and cloudy myth stored in hints of the antique books. The greats believed in its obscurity and of course they were dreaming: if only I could find it! Idealistic-minded scientists were dreaming about it, practically minded scientists were dreaming about it too. At that time palace pantries, monastery basements and trash of rag pickers have revealed many Litheraturical treasures of The Ancient World and brought many antique dead back to life of The Renaissance. There was a need to conclude a series of findings of The Roman Literature with Tacitus and every bookseller was understanding how finding Tacitus meant amassing a capital. So in the end the demand has created the supply: Tacitus was found.

(ref 8 p 373-374)
this post tuned up to be more than twice larger than a reddit's limit so I had to split it
to be continued...