97 



If after these remarks we are prepared to find the popular idea of a 

 cruel, bloodthirsty and relentless Tiberius borne out by the history of 

 the state trials during his reign, we shall be disappointed. To get at 

 the truth however, we must carefully investigate every reported case of 

 which we know sufficient to give to it importance as historical evidence. 

 We must not take the general remarks of historians, ancient or modern. 

 Their misrepresentations in summing up are the primary cause of the 

 caricature, which history has hitherto exhibited as the portrait of 

 Tiberius. We must avoid— 



1. To take for granted, that all persons accused of high treason were 

 found guilty and condemned. 



2. To look upon persons condemned for other offences, when they 

 were charged with, but acquitted of high treasoa, as victims of the 

 latter charge. 



3. To sympathize with all those as innocent victims of tyranny, who 

 were found guilty of high tr'eason, as if the reality of such an offence 

 had been impossible. 



Misrepresentations on these three heads are common. Their causes 

 are traceable to the original historians and shall be pointed out in the 

 sequel, 



Tacitus prefaces his narrative of trials for high treason with the in- 

 vidious remark, that Tiberius gave his sanction for putting that law in 

 force, as if an ancient law of the republic, as essential as any for the very 

 existence of the state, could have been thrown aside as useless, and 

 that by a prince, whose own authority would have been thus exposed, 

 without any legal protection, to the attacks of any discontented party. 

 In addition to this unreasonable and unfair remark, Tacitus indulges 

 in liis dislike of Tiberius at the expense of truth. He says, that the 

 law was under the Emperors first employed to punish offensive words, 

 whilst formerly actions only came under its cognizance.*^ This 'is a 

 decided error, if not a wilful misrepresentation; for we know, that in 

 the third century B.C. the sister of Claudius Pulcher was tried for high 

 treason on account of some silly words spoken in public."* It was therefore 

 no new engine of despotic power, that Tiberius introduced, but an old 

 law, never abolished, and never in abeyance, that he preserved in force 

 not only for his own security, but for that of the state as well. 



The first accusation brought under this law was directed against 

 Falanius, an obscure knight (Tac. Ann. i. 73). Like other persons, he 

 had established in his house certain religious rites in honour of 

 Augustus. Among the fellowship of worshippers he had admitted a 



" Tac. Ann. i. 73. Facta argiiebantur, dicta impuno erant. — Suet. Tib. 2, 



*' Sec above, Proceedings of the Society, vol. x. p. 78. Cf. Cicero ad fain, iii, 11. 



