99 



tration, and of liigli treason for uttering malevolent words respecting 

 Tiberius, for placing his own statue in a higher position than those of 

 the Caesars, and lastly for taking down the head of a statue of Augustus 

 and replacing it by one of Tiberius. This last contrivance which now- 

 a-days would appear merely ridiculous, seems to have exasperated 

 Tibei'ius to a high degree.^* But he soon relented and allowed 

 Marcellus to be acquitted on the charge of high treason. The charge 

 of extortion was tried before the civil tribunal established for that 

 particular case (the Recuperatores). Tacitus does not report the issue ; 

 but even if Marcellus was found guilty, the punishment would only 

 be a fine, as the Court of Recuperatores had only civil jurisdiction. 



In this case again we can discover the malevolence of the historians. 

 Tacitus characterizes the charge of hostile language against Tiberius 

 as an accusation, from which it was impossible to escape,^" implying of 

 course, that Tiberius was unforgiving to those, who offended him 

 personally. We have seen, that his disposition was the very contrary. 

 Suetonius (Suet Tib. 58) goes farther, and after stating, that Tiberius 

 wished the law to be enforced, and adding, that he did enforce it " most 

 cruelly,"^* he relates the act of changing the head of a statue of 

 Augustus, and adds, that the accused was condemned. This evident 

 perversion of facts indicates the animus of the writer. In this 

 instance we are by good luck enabled to discover and correct the 

 error. Who will say, in how many other instances we should be 

 able to do the same, if we had a fuller and less partial account of the 

 events of this reign. Even Tacitus, with all his bias against Tiberius, 

 is immensely superior to Dion or Suetonius, because he is generally 

 reliable as a witness to facts which careful historical criticism can divest 

 of the rhetorical colouring given them by the annalist. 



But the irreparable loss of that portion of Tacitus' work, which 

 referred to the years following the conspiracy of Sejanus and its 

 suppression compels us to take as our chief guides these two historians, 

 whose want of^accuracy and veracity we have now found means to lay 

 bare. 



The next impeachment for high treason is prefaced by Tacitus (Ann. 

 ii. 50) with words which prepare u3 for scenes of terror and blood. 

 " In the meanwhile," he says, " the law of high treason assumed 

 greater dimensions." The unfortunate victim iu this instance is a 



** Tlie cause of this is sufTicieutly explained by the practice of decapitating the statues of 

 tyrants, alhided to by Hierouyuius in Habacuc 4. " Cum tyrannus detruncatur, imaginines 

 quoque eius dnponuutur ct statua: vultu tantuir.modo conimutato, ablatoqae capite eius facies, 

 qui vicerit, superponitur." 



*' luevitabile crimen. 



'" Atrocinsiiae' 



