I. Before proceeding to point out the imitations, and show where,
in the efforts to write, and make history after the likeness of
Tacitus, the author of the Annals fails; and, from the signal
nature of his failures, his efforts are seen to be counterfeit, I
may observe that a constant endeavour on his part to escape
detection renders his imposture difficult to perceive and still
more difficult to expose. A man of his penetration and power to
enter far into subjects was, of course, deep enough to contrive
every species of artifice to conceal his fraud; and as we have no
record of his having been seen in the act of fabrication, or of
his ever having been even suspected of so doing, I must prove the
forgery by a detail of facts and circumstances. I can do this only
by going through the Annals minutely,--examining the matter,
manner, treatment, knowledge, views, sentiments, language, style,
--in fact, a variety of circumstances,--everything that can be
thought of;--for if it really be a forgery, it cannot be exactly
like the History of Tacitus in any one thing, whatever that one
thing be;--then I shall leave the reader to himself, to take into
account the whole of the circumstances, and judge whether such a
combination could have existed in a genuine work by Tacitus, and
is compatible with such a production.

We are to look, first, what the nature of the history purports to
be;--whether there is nothing peculiar as to its character.

It will be obvious to the least sagacious that the most paramount
and absolutely necessary thing to be accomplished was a vast and
comprehensive execution that should correspond to the vast and
comprehensive execution of Tacitus. Here was something to be done
seemingly insuperable; for how can any one hope to imitate the