The different tone of the 'History' and 'Annals' has already been hinted at; probably had the reign of Domitian come down to us, it would be found that the later books of the 'History' were a preparation, at least in the spirit pervading them, for the records of the Julian and Claudian Cæsars. That the 'Annals' place the emperors in a most unfavourable light has often been noted. Voltaire, who was by no means a partisan of kings in general, and Napoleon the First, who may have had a fellow-feeling with military despots, have bath pointed out the bias of Tacitus, and maintained that in the 'Annals' at least we have a political satire, rather than a fair or trustworthy narrative.
Could we read some of the authors whom Tacitus had before him while engaged on his latest work,—still more, could we peep into some of the family journals of the time—for the upper classes in Rome at all times kept journals of public events or private feuds,—we might very probably obtain a clue to the spirit which guided him in the selection and structure of the 'Annals.' Vanity, or the desire for sympathy from an audience, led the keepers of such journals or memoirs to read them occasionally to a few particular friends, and these friends appear to have been not always discreet, and even occasionally faithless, and so the contents of these private papers got wind, and reached the ears of some vigilant informer, and the journalist had every reason to repent of having been so communicative. "I remember," writes Seneca the rhetorician, "hearing Labienus recite portions of a manuscript which he entitled 'History:' now and then he would pass over many pages of the scroll in his hand, saying, this must not be read until after my
