Note 1732 — Chapter II · TACITUS

The question of Tiberius’s character is older than the histories of Ihne and Duruy, and goes back to the 17th cent., when a justification of Tiberius was attempted by De la Houssaye, Tibère, Amst., 1686. For some modern views, see Stahr, Tiberius, Berl., 1863; Freytag, Tib. und Tac., Berl., 1870 (indicates inconsistencies in Tac.); Beesly, Catiline, Clodius and Tib., Lond., 1878 (a rehabilitation); Furneaux, ed. Ann., I.-VI., 1884, on “Char. and Govt. of Tib.” (moderate view); Gentile, Il imp. Tiberio secondo la moderna critica storica, Mil., 1887 (summarizes points at issue); Faust, De Vellei Pat. fide, Giessen, 1891; Tarver, Tib. the Tyrant, Westm., 1902 (a defence of Tib.); Jerome, Roman Memories, Lond., 1914, pp. 220-248 (refutation of “Orgy in Capri”); J. S. Reid, “Tac. as a Historian,” J.R.S., XI. 2, 1921 (protest against too high an estimate). Bacha, Le génie de T., la création des annales, Par., 1906, takes the extreme line that the work is a mendacious and poetic romance.