which he lived,--he commenced with the House of Stuart, continued
with that of Tudor, and finished with the remaining portion from
the Roman Invasion to the Accession of Henry VII. But why Tacitus
should have decided in favour of the inverse of chronological
order is by no means clear. He could not have been actuated by any
of the motives which influenced Hume. Rome, with respect to her
history, was not in the position that England was, with respect to
hers, in the middle of the last century. All the remarkable
occurrences during the 820 years from her Foundation to the office
of Emperor ceasing as the inheritance of the Julian Family on the
death of Nero, had been recorded by many writers that rendered
needless the further labours of the historian. Tacitus states this
at the commencement of his history, and as a reason why he began
that work with the accession of Galba: "Initium mihi operis
Servius Galba iterum, Titus Vinius consules erunt; nam post
conditam urbem, octingentos et viginti prioris aevi annos multi
auctores retulerunt." (Hist. I. 1.) After this admission, it is
absolutely unaccountable that he should revert to the year since
the building of the City 769, and continue writing to the year
819, going over ground that, according to his own account, had
been gone over before most admirably, every one of the numerous
historians having written in his view, "with an equal amount of
forcible expression and independent opinion"--"pari eloquentia ac
libertate." Thus, by his own showing, he performed a work which he
knew to be superfluous in recounting events that occurred in the
time of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero.

What authority have we that he did this? Certainly, not the
authority of those who knew best--the ancients. They do not
mention, in their meagre accounts of him, the names of his