M. Iunius M. F. Silanus, C. Norbanus C. F. Flaccus or Balbus. (A.D. 19 = a. u. 772 = Sixth of Tiberius.)
M. Valerius M. F. Messala, M. Aurelius M. F. Cotta. (A.D. 20 = a. u. 773
= Seventh of Tiberius.)
Tib. Cæsar Augusti F. (IV), Drusus Iulius Tib. F. (II). (A.D. 21 = a. u. 774 = Eighth of Tiberius.)
Decimus Haterius C. F. Agrippa, C. Sulpicius Serg. F. Galba. (A.D. 22 = a. u. 775 = Ninth of Tiberius.)
C. Asinius C. F. Pollio, C. Antistius C. F. Vetus. (A.D. 23 = a. u. 776 =
Tenth of Tiberius.)
Sergius Cornelius Sergi F. Cethego, L. Visellius L. F. Varro. (A.D. 24 = a. u. 777 = Eleventh of Tiberius.)
M. [or C.] Asinius [M. or] C. F. Agrippa, Cossus Cornelius Cossi F.
Lentulus. (A.D. 25 = a. u. 778 = Twelfth of Tiberius.)
(BOOK 57 BOISSEVAIN)
[A.D. 14 (a. u. 767)]
[-1-] Tiberius was a patrician of good education, but he had a most peculiar nature. He never let what he desired appear in his talk, and about what he said he wished he usually cared nothing at all. Thus his words indicated just the opposite of his real purpose: be denied any interest in what he longed for and urged the claims of what he hated. He would exhibit anger over matters that were very far from arousing his rage and made a show of affability where he was most vexed. He would pity those whom he severely punished and retain a grudge against those whom he pardoned. Sometimes he would regard his dearest foe as his nearest friend and again he would act toward his most intimate companion as if the latter were thoroughly hostile. In general, he thought it bad policy for the independent sovereign to reveal his state of mind; this was the source, he said, of great failures, but by the opposite course even more successes, and greater, were attained. If he had merely followed this method without complications, he would have had no protection against such as had come to know him; they would have taken everything by contraries and would have deemed his saying that he did not wish something to be equivalent to his ardently desiring it, and that he was eager for something equivalent to his not being concerned about it. It happened, however, that he became angry if any one gave evidence of understanding him. Many were those he put to death for no other offence than having comprehended him. It was a dangerous matter, then, to fail to understand him—for many were ruined by approving what he said instead of what he wished,—but still more dangerous to understand him. Such persons were suspected of discovering his practice and being consequently displeased with it. Practically the only sort of man that could maintain himself,—and such a person is rarely found,—was one who did not misunderstand his nature yet did not subject it to uncomfortable exposure. Under these conditions men would not be deceived by believing him nor be hated for revealing their comprehension of his policy. For he gave plenty of trouble both to any one who opposed what he said and to any one who favored it. As he was really anxious for one thing to be done but wanted to appear to desire something different, he invariably regarded those who took either side as his opponents and therefore was hostile to the one class because of his real feelings, and to the other for the sake of appearances.