The third case was more complicated. Granius Marcellus, the Governor of Bithynia, was accused by two different men at once of two different crimes: his subordinate, Cæpio Crispinus, charged him with extortion in the government of his province; Hispo, a professional informer, according to Tacitus, accused him of defamation of the character of Tiberius, of placing his own statue higher than that of the Cæsars, of cutting the head off a statue of Augustus and replacing it by one of Tiberius. Marcellus was acquitted of the charges brought by Hispo, which came under the “Lex Majestatis”; the charge of extortion was referred to the court appointed to hear such causes. Here again there is absolutely no evidence that Tiberius was inclined to press charges under the “Lex Majestatis”; the evidence is all in the contrary direction, but Tacitus, with an absolutely diabolical ingenuity, contrives to give his story the necessary twist. “Hispo pretended that Marcellus had made libellous speeches about Tiberius, a charge which it was impossible to escape, since the accuser picked out all the most abominable things in the character of the Emperor, and imputed the statement of them to the defendant. For because they were true charges they were believed to have been uttered.” And yet it was precisely on these charges that the man was acquitted. Tacitus, however, succeeded in stating that Tiberius was a man of abominable moral character, that everybody knew it, and in further suggesting that the statements were made in a court of justice with the acquiescence of the audience. It is not likely that the speech of Hispo was preserved, even if the case went so far as to allow him to make one, but the influence of the senatorial record in favour of Tiberius had to be dispelled, and is cleverly dispelled by the suggestion that the calumnies against Tiberius received a quasi-official sanction in the law court; if they were listened to, their truth was so obvious that nobody protested. After recounting the points in Hispo’s indictment, Tacitus continues: “Thereupon he (Tiberius) lost his temper to such an extent, that breaking his usual silence he declared that he would give his opinion on that case openly and on his oath, in order that the other senators might be obliged to do the same.” Tacitus would like us to think that the display of indignation was caused by the charge of defamation, but there were two other and better reasons for wrath. In the first place, extortionate proceedings in the provinces always stirred the wrath of Tiberius; Bithynia was a Senatorial Province; the Senate were still apt to deal leniently with one of their own order, and Tiberius may have detected indications that they were likely to take this line; in the second place, to couple a charge of extortion with a charge of defamation of the Emperor was a bit of sharp practice; the informer hoped to get his reward under the “Lex Majestatis,” because he believed