|
|
Source Analysis | |
|
The conflict between sources generally entails Tiberius’ motives. Plutarch looks towards many opinions before drawing his conclusions, as does Silverman. Roberts however combines Tiberius with his brother and gives them the same goals in a broad overview. Knox offers a well thought argument but does not back it with any sources, diminishing the reliability. Appian offers a reason that appears to be based on what Tiberius said publicly and therefore is not as trustworthy. The statue of Tiberius suggests that Tiberius’ aims were pure and noble, using Tiberius’ stance and expression to portray this. It also suggests that the bill was something that was important to Tiberius. Though this source too cannot be trusted as it an amplification of all Tiberius’ good points with a disregard for any bad. Greg Ong looks at this subject in detail closely examining a variety of sources before giving his answer. The reliability of the sources also varies. Of the most reliable would have to be Silverman. He considers the views of a number of historians before concluding; with the fact he deems the most viable, giving a reason for why he thinks it’s so. J. M. Roberts, while his view is less reliable it is also a valuable source. Roberts does not go into as much detail as other sources and his work suggests a lack of research. Although because he is not focusing on Tiberius specifically unlike many other sources and he give a good idea as to the importance of Tiberius in the big picture. Knox appears to have a wide understanding regarding Tiberius, offering a highly developed argument as to many aspects of his life. However he does not show evidence in his work of any other possibilities other than his own conclusions, so his reliability has an ambiguous quality. Therefore his work must be considered as less accurate and viewed suspiciously. Plutarch is another reasonably reliable source whose work was written a longtime prior to the modern sources and so for that fact alone may be more relevant. He probably had access to more primary sources than are available today, and he does regularly demonstrate that he has considered them. Appian is not as reliable as Phutarch as he borrows heavily from many other sources. Party because of this however, he is still invaluable to the study of Tiberius as lost sources can be accessed through his work. As far as bias goes Knox would have to be the guiltiest. It is obvious that he looks affectionately on Tiberius painting him as noble. He does not suggest that Tiberous was trying to do something for the common man, but rather do something for his entire country. Roberts sees Tiberius in a very socialist light. This may not be because he admires him, is a socialist and wants to put him in a socialist light, but is more probably because it suits his theories regarding the state of the Roman empire more so than any other view on Tiberius would. This could mean that his view is more accurate because it does fit in with the big picture while others may not be able to be accounted for. Finally care must be taken to observe Plutarch’s bias. While at times he appears to be providing a very subjective argument, he is in fact being rather bias. Plutarch too, admires Tiberius and can at times overlook some negative evidence towards Tiberius. |
||
