The next statement, “For he had revived the ‘Lex Majestatis,’ etc.,” is simply a lie, for the words would naturally be held to imply that the law in question had fallen into abeyance, and was now recalled to activity. Tacitus himself tells us in the very next sentence, that Augustus had extended the application of this law from deeds to libellous writings; nor was the “revival” of this application anything that we should understand as a revival. The Prætors, on entering office each year, made an official announcement of the sense in which they proposed to interpret the laws during their term of office, and of any modifications which were to be introduced in their procedure. Pompeius Macro, who was one of the Prætors for the year A.D. 15, asked Tiberius whether cases under the “Lex Majestatis” were to be heard. Tiberius replied that the laws must be enforced; he neither made a new law nor revived an old one, nor announced a fresh interpretation of a previous law; he simply announced that the previous practice should be continued, and this in the customary routine of business; it was the duty of Macro the Prætor, not of Tiberius the Princeps, to announce any proposed change in procedure. Tacitus may be right in assuming that it was in the power of Tiberius at this moment to take the sting out of the actions under the “Lex Majestatis,” and that he would have been wise in doing so, but he has totally misrepresented the facts in stating that Tiberius revived the operation of this law.