^{page 14 note 1} Walker, B., The Annals of Tacitus (Manchester, 1952), 99–100Google Scholar; Marsh, F. B., The Reign of Tiberius (Oxford, 1931)Google Scholar, in and 293–4; Rogers, R. S., Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Middletown, 1935), 62–4.Google Scholar Accounts of the trial are to be found in Ann. iii. 49–51Google Scholar and Dio Cassius, lvii. 20. 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} Ann. i. 72. 4.Google Scholar With regard to Marsh's idea that Clutorius may not have been guilty under the maiestas law, since the latter might not have been applicable to the person of Drusus, it can be seen that Cassius Severus' writings covered ‘viri feminaeque inlustres’.

^{page 14 note 3} For a discussion of the proper sentence under the maiestas law see Furneaux, H., The Annals of Tacitus (Oxford, 1896), i. 451 (note on ‘quod perinde’).Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} Ann. ii. 51. For another occasion on which it may have looked as if Haterius had been ‘planted’ see Ann. i. 7 7. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 2} Ann. iii. 65. 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 3} Only Rubellius Blandus supported Marcus Lepidus' proposal for mitigation of sentence (Ann. iii. 51. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 4} Libo Drusus (Ann. ii. 29. 1)Google Scholar; Cn. Piso (Ann. iii. 11. 2)Google Scholar; Junius Silanus (Ann. iii. 67. 3Google Scholar—‘Et ne quis necessariorum iuvaret periclitantem, maiestatis crimina subdebantur, vinclum et necessitas silendi.’ The meaning of this passage is slightly doubtful, but it may possibly mean that people who might otherwise have gone to Silanus' aid were intimidated by means of threatened ‘maiestas’ charges against themselves.).

^{page 15 note 5} e.g., Ann. ii. 32. 2–4.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 6} Ann. iv. 20. 4Google Scholar—‘Nam pleraque ab saevis adulationibus aliorum in melius flexit.’

^{page 15 note 7} Ann. i. 73. 1Google Scholar; i. 74. 1–2; ii. 27. 1.

^{page 15 note 8} For Tiberius' moderatio see Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘Two “Virtues” of Tiberius: a Numismatic Contribution to the History of his Reign,’ JRS xxviii (1938), 129 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 1} Both of these after some hesitation, because disrespect to Augustus was involved. See my article, ‘Tiberius and the Spirit of Augustus’, Greece & Rome xiii (1966), 207 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 2} He was prepared to defend Cn. Piso (Ann. iii. 11. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 3} See Tiberius' remark after the suicide of Libo Drusus (Ann. ii. 31.Google Scholar 4—‘iuravitque Tiberius petiturum se vitam quamvis nocenti, nisi voluntariam mortem properavisset’). Cf. Dio lvii. 20. 4, who seems to miss the point—“ὁ οὗν τιβέριος ἀγανακτήσας, οὐχ ὃτι ἐκεῑνος ἐκολάσθη ἀλλ' ὅτι τις ὕπὸ τῶν βουλευτῶν ἄνευ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γνμης ἐθανατώθη …”

^{page 16 note 4} His belief that the informers were acting as the ‘guardians’ of the laws illustrates the depth of his blindness (Ann. iv. 30. 4–5—‘Subverterent potius iura quam custodes eorum amoverent. sic delatores, genus hominum publico exitio repertum et ne poenis quidem umquam satis coercitum, per praemia eliciebantur.’)Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 1} Vibius Serenus (Ann. iv. 28)Google Scholar and Cominius Proculus (Ann. iv. 31).Google Scholar The cases of Q. Servaeus and Minucius Thermus (Ann. vi. 7)Google Scholar are rather different, for they ‘earned’ their reprieve by turning State's evidence.

^{page 17 note 2} For example, in this case only one man had the courage to support Lepidus.

^{page 17 note 3} For Tiberius' storing up of his anger see Ann. i. 7. 11Google Scholar, i. 13. 5, and i. 69. 7. Cf. his anger with Gaius Silius (Ann. iv. 18. 2–3)Google Scholar, which seems to have been at least partly responsible for Tiberius' unsympathetic attitude which drove Silius to suicide. In any case, Tiberius usually saw through flagrant injustices, and dealt with them on the spot (e.g. Ann. i. 73).Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 4} Ann. iv. 6. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Ann. ii. 50. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 2} Statistics are eloquent; up to A.d. 23 Tacitus mentions 16 cases, of which 5 resulted in punishment, 2 in suicide, and 9 in acquittal or dismissal without trial (7 of these at the instigation of Tiberius). In over 50 per cent of these cases, then, the guardians' of the law had to be overruled. This shows at once the emperor's moderatio and the need for reform. It might also have raised the question in the minds of some as“ to what would happen, should Tiberius at some time not take such an active interest in the City's affairs.