Boccaccio's efforts brought the works of Tacitus back into public circulation—where they were largely passed over by the
Humanists of the 14th and 15th centuries, who preferred the smooth style of Cicero and the patriotic history of
Livy, who was by far their favorite historian. The first to read his works—they were four: Boccacio, Benvenuto Rambaldi, Domenico Bandini, and
Coluccio Salutati—read them solely for their historical information and their literary style. On the merits of these they were divided. Bandini called him "[a] most eloquent orator and historian", while Salutati commented: For what shall I say about Cornelius Tacitus? Although a very learned man, he wasn't able to equal those closest [to Cicero]. But he was even way behind Livy—whom he proposed to follow—not only in historical series but in imitation of eloquence. The use of Tacitus as a source for
political philosophy, however, began in this era, triggered by the
Florentine Republic's struggle against the imperial ambitions of
Giangaleazzo Visconti. Visconti's death from an illness did more than lift his siege of Florence; it sparked
Leonardo Bruni to write his
Panegyric to the City of Florence (c. 1403), in which he quoted Tacitus (
Histories, 1.1) to buttress his
republican theory that monarchy was inimical to virtue, nobility, and (especially) genius. The inspiration was novel—Bruni had probably learned of Tacitus from Salutati. The thesis likewise: Tacitus himself had acknowledged that the good emperors Nerva and Trajan posed no threat to his endeavors. Tacitus, and the theory that Bruni based on him, played a vital role in the spirited debate between the republicans of Florence and the proponents of monarchy and aristocracy elsewhere.
Guarino da Verona, in 1435, used the literary flowering of
Augustus's era—which included Livy,
Horace,
Virgil, and
Seneca—to argue against Bruni's contention;
Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini countered with the argument that all the authors had been born during the waning years of the
Roman Republic.
Pier Candido Decembrio, a
Milanese courtier, addressed the same argument to Bruni in the following year, which Bruni did not bother to rebut, the best counterargument having been made already. The rule of
Cosimo de Medici, however, saw the end of these political readings of Tacitus, though his works were now readily available in the public library of Florence. Instead, scholars such as
Leone Battista Alberti and
Flavio Biondo used him in academic works on the history and architecture of 1st century Rome. His laconic style and bleak outlook remained unpopular. At the beginning of the 15th century, following the expulsion of the
Medici from Florence, their return, and the
foreign invasions of Italy, Tacitus returned to prominence among the theorists of
classical republicanism.
Niccolò Machiavelli was the first to revive him, but not (at first) in the republican model which Bruni and others had followed. One quotation from the
Annals (13.19) appears in
The Prince (ch. 13), advising the ruler that "it has always been the opinion and judgment of wise men that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on its own strength". The idealized Prince bears some resemblance to Tacitus's Tiberius; a few (most notably Giuseppe Toffanin) have argued that Machiavelli had made more use of Tacitus than he let on. In fact, though, Machiavelli had probably not read the first books of the
Annals at that time—they were published after
The Prince. In his work focused mainly on republicanism,
Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, Machiavelli returned to Bruni's republican perspective on Tacitus. Four overt references appear in the work. Chapter 1.10 follows Tacitus (
Histories 1.1), and Bruni, on the chilling effects of monarchy. Chapter 1.29 quotes the
Histories (4.3) on the burden of gratitude and the pleasure of revenge. Chapter 3.6 quotes Tacitus: "men have to honor things past but obey the present, and ought to desire good Princes, but tolerate the ones they have". 3.19 twists a line from Tacitus (3.55) into something very similar to Machiavelli's famous maxim that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved. (The original made a very different point: that respect for the Emperor and a desire to conform, not fear and punishment, kept certain senators in line.) Many covert references appear: Machiavelli generally follows Tacitus's decidedly negative slant on the history of Rome under the
Emperors. In the late 16th century Tacitus came to be regarded as the repository of the “secrets of the power” (“arcana imperii”, as Tacitus had called them in his
Annals, 2.36.1). Tacitus's description of the artifices, stratagems, and utterly lawless reign of power politics at the Roman imperial court fascinated European scholars. By the first half of the seventeenth century editions of and commentaries upon Tacitus were flourishing. The Roman historian was compulsory reading in the political education of any learned man, notably senior magistrates. While authors like
Casaubon and
Pasquier deemed the precepts of Tacitus pernicious, writers like
Justus Lipsius,
Scipione Ammirato and
Baltasar Alamos de Barrientos set out their
reason of state in the form of commentaries on his work. Even the Jesuit political philosopher
Giovanni Botero, who put together Tacitus with Machiavelli as the leading authorities for those who advocated an amoral reason of state, was thoroughly acquainted with the work of the Roman historian.
Gerolamo Cardano in his 1562 book
Encomium Neronis describes Tacitus as a scoundrel of the worst kind, belonging to the rich senatorial class and always taking their side against the common people. ==Enlightenment and French Revolution==