15] (_Ann._ xiii. 20).

Other writers are sparingly mentioned, as Sisenna (_H._ iii. 51),
Caesar (_Germ._ 28). It is certain that Tacitus made use of other
historians, but he generally refers to his sources without mentioning
names (as _Ann._ i. 29, 'tradunt plerique'). He sometimes weighs the
value of two conflicting accounts, or mentions a story only to reject
it.

_Ann._ iv. 11, 'Haec vulgo iactata, super id quod nullo auctore certo
firmantur, prompte refutaveris.'

Tacitus' credibility has been attacked, particularly as regards his
representation of the characters of Tiberius and Nero, but not very
successfully. He has, however, made mistakes, the most striking of
which are his view of the Christians (_Ann._ xv. 44) and his account
of the Jews (_H._ v. 2 _sqq._). The explanation is that he held the
view current in the upper classes, and did not take the trouble to
investigate these matters, as the Jews and Christians belonged mostly
to the lower orders.

Tacitus is not free from superstition (_Ann._ xi. 21; _H._ ii. 50,
etc.), but one must not suppose he believes the fables he relates (as
_Ann._ vi. 28; _H._ iv. 83) simply because he expresses no opinion of
them.

Tacitus is free from party spirit (_Ann._ i. 1, 'sine ira et studio,
quorum causas procul habeo'; cf. _H._ i. 1) and just in his judgment,
except in a few passages in the _Histories_, where he is rather unfair
(i. 42, ii. 95). He is milder in the _Annals_ through advancing years,
and from the better times he lived in. Generally he takes a lenient
view of things, except (1) in offences against the state (cf. the
character of Tiberius); (2) when the religious element comes in; cf.
what he says of Claudius' marriage with his brother's daughter
Agrippina: _Ann._ xiv. 2, 'Agrippina ... exercita ad omne flagitium
patrui nuptiis.'

He shows a somewhat lax morality occasionally, as in _Ann._ xiii. 17
_sqq._, when speaking of Nero's murder of his brother Britannicus. In
_Ann._ xi. 19 he approves of compassing a barbarian's death by
treachery.

For Tacitus' conception of history as dealing with great events cf.
_Ann._ xiii. 31, 'pauca memoria digna evenere, nisi cui libeat
laudandis fundamentis et trabibus, quis molem amphitheatri apud campum
Martis Caesar extruxerat, volumina implere, cum ex dignitate populi
Romani repertum sit res inlustres annalibus, talia diurnis urbis actis
mandare.'

His complaints as to his subject-matter in _Ann._ iv. 32, 'Nobis