Annals I.2

When after the destruction of Brutus and Cassius there was no longer any army of the Commonwealth, when Pompeius was crushed in Sicily, and when, with Lepidus pushed aside and Antonius slain, even the Julian faction had only Caesar left to lead it, then, dropping the title of triumvir, and giving out that he was a Consul, and was satisfied with a tribune's authority for the protection of the people, Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws. He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest spirits had fallen in battle, or in the proscription, while the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion, so that, aggrandized by revolution, they preferred the safety of the present to the dangerous past. Nor did the provinces dislike that condition of affairs, for they distrusted the government of the Senate and the people, because of the rivalries between the leading men and the rapacity of the officials, while the protection of the laws was unavailing, as they were continually deranged by violence, intrigue, and finally by corruption.

After giving a complete history of liberty versus tyranny and the fall of the Republic in I.1, Tacitus now focuses on the princeps, starting with Augustus. Augustus and his triumvirate with Lepidus and Mark Antony defeated Brutus and Cassius (who fled after killing Julius Caesar and usurped the eastern provinces). They then defeated Sextus Pompeius (Pompey’s son) at Sicily. Augustus then turned on the rest of the triumvirate. He politically pushed aside Lepidus and defeated Mark Antony.

After battle came the bribes. He bribed the military with money, the people with food and everyone with good speeches. Somehow, I think the first one is the important one. Tacitus claims that Augustus was wholly unopposed. This is a bit of an overstatement. Augustus was met with no fewer than eight conspiracies against him during his rule (Cassius Dio, Roman History LIII.15, LIII.23, LIV.3, LIV.15, LV.14, LV.4, LV.10, LV.27)

Tacitus again spares trashing Augustus. He admits that he is tyrant and that history on him is flawed. He claims that his power was held by bribes and corruption. Yet, Tacitus then shies away from really digging into Augustus and claims that his rule was preferred for the sake of peace. What a load! By this logic, Tacitus should praise Nero as well for his peacemaking with Parthia and because, as a result of his death, civil war broke out.

Tacitus knew these conspiracies existed and that Augustus’ history was probably “falsified through terror” as well. He undermines his own thesis of “tyranny: bad; liberty: good” by amending it this way. Why not throw him under the bus with Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero? Why not complete the set? I guess that even a century after his death, it was in bad taste to insult Divine Augustus. Maybe insulting Augustus and really claiming that all princeps were bad would be too much for Trajan.