The facts relating to these men are an excellent illustration of the reckless inconsistency of statement which is indulged in by Tacitus. Fortunately, the historian prided himself upon his impartiality, and does not suppress facts which happen to be in contradiction with his main contention. Stripped of its comments and insinuations, as also of its rhetoric, his narrative gives a favourable picture of Tiberius and his reign, but Tacitus possessed such a mastery of innuendo that his statements of facts are forgotten, while his comments are remembered. It is, unfortunately, not the custom of modern scholars to read the Latin stylists for the purpose of acquiring information, or in large masses; and while they are minutely perpending the significance of isolated phrases, or enumerating instances of unusual grammatical constructions, they forget that any other interest attaches to the works upon which their industry is expended. The stylist and grammarian alike find so much material for their own special industries in Tacitus that his claims as a historian are forgotten, and in fact he is not a historian; he is a bitter pamphleteer of consummate ability; his affectation of impartiality is a well-considered pose, whose insincerity becomes manifest as soon as we study the effect produced by his writing upon the minds of his readers. When we have read the first six books of the _Annals_, we are left with a very strong impression of horror; we seem to have waded through seas of misery, and to have assisted at the ruin of the Roman Empire. In the midst of the gloomy scene stalks the gaunt figure of Tiberius, equally terrifying in anger or in silence; his very virtues are more horrible than the vices of other people, for there is no knowing what hideous wickedness they were assumed to conceal. The question may reasonably be asked, why should Tacitus have directed his bitterness especially against Tiberius? Surely Nero or even Claudius would have been a better target for his venomed sentences. But to begin with, there was no object in further damaging the reputation of an Emperor universally acknowledged to be a villain or a fool. So far as Caligula, Claudius, and Nero were concerned, judgment had been passed in the sense in which Tacitus wished it to be passed, but there were numerous documents in evidence of the fact that Tiberius had been a good Emperor, and that Greater Rome, if not the City of Rome, had prospered under his rule.