[41] See T. S. Jerome, “The Tacitean Tiberius: A study in Historiographic Method,” Class. Phil., VII, pp. 265-292. In this valuable study two main conclusions are reached: (1) That the disharmonies between data and generalizations in the Annals are so constant and glaring as to give conclusive evidence of Tacitus’ untrustworthiness in that work; (2) that the Annals are “an example of historical writing done according to the method of the rhetorician, and that this is the true explanation of those disharmonies which are not explicable on the theories that Tacitus told the truth, or followed an established tradition, or that a strong bias against Tiberius entered into the composition thereof.”
[42] Ann., I, 55.
[43] Ibid., I, 56.
[44] Ann., I, 57.
[45] Ibid., I, 60.
[46] Ibid., I, 63.
[47] Ibid., I, 68.
[48] Ibid., II, 5.
[49] Ibid., II, 17-18.
[50] Ibid., II, 19-22.