98 



certain mimic actor, Cassius, who led a notoriously infamous life. 

 This was construed to be a sacrilege against the deified Augustus. 

 Another charge of a similar nature was, that in selling a certain 

 estate he had also sold a statue of the late Emperor. A charge not 

 less futile was brought against Rubrius, an equally obscure individual. 

 It was, that he had sworn a false oath by the deity of Augustus. It 

 Beems clear, that these accusations, brought in the very commencement 

 of Tiberius' reign, were feelers put forth by certain political parties to 

 test the disposition of Tiberius, and to try, what use could be made of 

 the law of high treason. If so, the accusers must have been sadly dis- 

 appointed, for Tiberius sent a letter to the consuls to this effect : " The 

 decree of the apotheosis of Augustus had not been adopted, in order 

 that this honour should turn out to be the destruction of any citizen ; 

 the actor Cassius had frequently assisted in plays, consecrated to the 

 memory of Augustus by Livia, nor was there any sacrilege in including 

 the statues of Augustus or any other gods in a general sale. The 

 false oath should be looked upon as if Rubrius had sworn it by Jupiter; 

 the gods would themselves take care to punish such offences." 



Thus these two knights escaped punishment, owing to the straight- 

 forward good sense and justice of Tiberius. Now let us remark, how 

 the Emperor has been systematically maligned by his historians, 

 Tacitus has not a word to say in commendation of this act of justice, 

 but Dion Cassius (57, 24) goes so far as to assert, that Tiberius would 

 have condemned Falanius to death, if at the trial the consul had not 

 asked him first to give his verdict ; that shame compelled him to vote 

 for an acquittal, as it was a matter, in which he was personally concerned. 

 Now this is ungracious in an historian. To suggest a bad motive for 

 a good deed we must be furnished with most satisfactory and convincing 

 evidence. So far was Dion from this, that he is guilty of a downright 

 misstatement; for it appears from the full report of Tacitus, that 

 Tiberius was not present at the trial, could therefore not be called 

 upon to speak first or to give an opinion at all, but that he embodied 

 his view of the case in a letter to the consuls. The truth of Tacitus' 

 narrative is moreover confirmed by the conduct of Tiberius in a similar 

 case, which occurred several years later. L. Euuius was impeached 

 of high treason (A. D. 22) because he had melted down a silver 

 statue of the Emperor (Tac. Ann. iii. 70). The learned jurist Capito 

 degraded himself by strongly speaking for the impeachment, but 

 Tiberius would not hear of it and quashed the whole affair. 



The next case is one of several charges of a different nature (Tac. Ann. 

 i. 74.) Grannius Marcellus, the Praetor of Bithynia, was accused by his 

 own quaestor, Csepia Crispinus, of extortion during his provincial adminis- 



