Annals I.11

After this all prayers were addressed to Tiberius. He, on his part, urged various considerations, the greatness of the empire, his distrust of himself. "Only," he said, "the intellect of the Divine Augustus was equal to such a burden. Called as he had been by him to share his anxieties, he had learnt by experience how exposed to fortune's caprices was the task of universal rule. Consequently, in a state which had the support of so many great men, they should not put everything on one man, as many, by uniting their efforts would more easily discharge public functions." There was more grand sentiment than good faith in such words. Tiberius's language even in matters which he did not care to conceal, either from nature or habit, was always hesitating and obscure, and now that he was struggling to hide his feelings completely, it was all the more involved in uncertainty and doubt. The Senators, however, whose only fear was lest they might seem to understand him, burst into complaints, tears, and prayers. They raised their hands to the gods, to the statue of Augustus, and to the knees of Tiberius, when he ordered a document to be produced and read. This contained a description of the resources of the State, of the number of citizens and allies under arms, of the fleets, subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes, direct and indirect, necessary expenses and customary bounties. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand, and had added a counsel, that the empire should be confined to its present limits, either from fear or out of jealousy.

Tiberius takes the stage again and claims that he doesn't want the full power of Emperor. Only Divine Augustus could possibly handle the authority, he claims. The humility of a new leader is a reoccurring theme in Tacitus. Tacitus mentioned Tiberius' humility in I.7 with more detail as well. Of course, it's all bull. The leader claims a return to republican ways, but ends up acting dictatorial (i.e. the "uniter not a divider' speech). Tacitus is setting the story up with some foreshadowing.

Oddly, though, Tacitus speaks of Tiberius not being able to hide his uncertainty, as if he actually might believe that republican rule is best, or that he just isn't strong enough personally to take control. Could Tiberius really be a reluctant ruler? Well, if he were, it would certainly go against all the grooming by Augustus and the alleged plotting by him and Livia and the murder of Postumus. It seems pretty unlikely. Tiberius' rise was a long, planned ordeal. He knew for a decade he was next in line and was paraded around as the next ruler. On top of this, he was expected to be the ruler by the Claudian faction. Despite Tacitus' claims, uncertainty did not seem to be a real part of the time.

The last two sentences are quite interesting. Augustus first asked for a census to be read of all of Rome's citizens and property. I guess Augustus wanted people to know the state of affairs when he died as a benchmark or so his memory wouldn't be tainted if Tiberius screwed up. Augustus then recommends that there be a maintenance of Pax Romana. Keep the borders of Rome stable. The Julio-Claudians, Tiberius especially, listen to Augustus for the most part.

Annals I.10

It was said, on the other hand, "that filial duty and State necessity were merely assumed as a mask. It was really from a lust of sovereignty that he had excited the veterans by bribery, had, when a young man and a subject, raised an army, tampered with the Consul's legions, and feigned an attachment to the faction of Pompeius. Then, when by a decree of the Senate he had usurped the high functions and authority of Praetor when Hirtius and Pansa were slain - whether they were destroyed by the enemy, or Pansa by poison infused into a wound, Hirtius by his own soldiers and Caesar's treacherous machinations - he at once possessed himself of both their armies, wrested the consulate from a reluctant Senate, and turned against the State the arms with which he had been intrusted against Antonius. Citizens were proscribed, lands divided, without so much as the approval of those who executed these deeds. Even granting that the deaths of Cassius and of the Bruti were sacrifices to a hereditary enmity (though duty requires us to waive private feuds for the sake of the public welfare), still Pompeius had been deluded by the phantom of peace, and Lepidus by the mask of friendship. Subsequently, Antonius had been lured on by the treaties of Tarentum and Brundisium, and by his marriage with the sister, and paid by his death the penalty of a treacherous alliance. No doubt, there was peace after all this, but it was a peace stained with blood; there were the disasters of Lollius and Varus, the murders at Rome of the Varros, Egnatii, and Juli." The domestic life too of Augustus was not spared. "Nero's wife had been taken from him, and there had been the farce of consulting the pontiffs, whether, with a child conceived and not yet born, she could properly marry. There were the excesses of Quintus Tedius and Vedius Pollio; last of all, there was Livia, terrible to the State as a mother, terrible to the house of the Caesars as a stepmother. No honour was left for the gods, when Augustus chose to be himself worshipped with temples and statues, like those of the deities, and with flamens and priests. He had not even adopted Tiberius as his successor out of affection or any regard to the State, but, having thoroughly seen his arrogant and savage temper, he had sought glory for himself by a contrast of extreme wickedness." For, in fact, Augustus, a few years before, when he was a second time asking from the Senate the tribunitian power for Tiberius, though his speech was complimentary, had thrown out certain hints as to his manners, style, and habits of life, which he meant as reproaches, while he seemed to excuse. However, when his obsequies had been duly performed, a temple with a religious ritual was decreed him.


Tacitus uses the passive voice to spew out another long opinion on Augustus. This one is much more negative, thus there is even more need for him to say that someone else saying it. It is almost comical how long the speech is, yet the passive voice is used like it was general hearsay. Who is saying this is, of course, not revealed.

Tacitus quickly sums up Augustus’ rise to power, which is incredibly complex. Originally, we have a divide between the military-backed Julius and the Republic-backed Pompey, in which Julius is the victor. Julius was assassinated by Brutus and Cassius with the help of leftover factions of Pompey. After the assassination, Brutus and Cassius flee and take up arms in Greece. Mark Antony was first consul, but steps down and takes up arms against the Republic in Gaul and northern Italy. Hirtius and Pansa, who are Julians, control the armies of the Republic. Augustus as consul is able to ally himself with both Hirtius and Pansa and the leftover factions of Pompey. Hirtius and Pansa die leaving Augustus in control of the Republic’s army against Mark Antony. Augustus is able to make peace with Mark Antony and defeats Brutus and Cassius’ forces in Greece. Augustus then focuses on Pompey’s son’s forces in southern Italy. He makes peace with Lepidus and Mark Antony, forming the second Triumverate, and then defeats Mark Antony to become Emperor.

It is interesting that in this version, Tacitus attempts to show that Augustus achieved his throne through trickery, treachery and selfishness. Augustus tricked the Pompey Republican faction into supporting him (clearly Augustus was no Republican). He then murders the heads of the Julian faction. Defeating Brutus and Cassius is nothing more than a personal vendetta. He tricks Lepidus into peace and catches both Pompey’s son and Mark Antony off guard with promises of peace as well. There is no self-preservation, no protection of the state and no luck in this version of Augustus’ rise.

There is peace, according to Tacitus, except for defeats against German barbarians in 16 BC (Lollius) and AD 9 (Varus). He also mentions a series of murders against three families (Varros, Egnatii, and Juli) and the execesses of Quintus Tedius and Vedius Pollio. Historians have no idea what Tacitus is talking about with these family murders and excesses. Again, there is no mention of the many conspiracies again Augustus. Tacitus wraps things up by, once again, bashing Livia and claiming Augustus wanted to be worshiped (a little Caligula in Augustus?)

The final insult is a claim that Tiberius was chosen to rule not for the good of the State (as publically claimed) or because of manipulation from Livia (as Tacitus had previously claimed). Of course, in truth, Augustus probably chose Tiberius to rule to placate the Claudian factions and stay in power longer. But, Tacitus’ now claims that Augustus did it because he knew Tiberius would be a bad ruler and it would make him look better. Right.

Annals I.9

Then followed much talk about Augustus himself, and many expressed an idle wonder that the same day marked the beginning of his assumption of empire and the close of his life, and, again, that he had ended his days at Nola in the same house and room as his father Octavius. People extolled too the number of his consulships, in which he had equalled Valerius Corvus and Caius Marius combined, the continuance for thirty-seven years of the tribunitian power, the title of Imperator twenty-one times earned, and his other honours which had either frequently repeated or were wholly new. Sensible men, however, spoke variously of his life with praise and censure. Some said "that dutiful feeling towards a father, and the necessities of the State in which laws had then no place, drove him into civil war, which can neither be planned nor conducted on any right principles. He had often yielded to Antonius, while he was taking vengeance on his father's murderers, often also to Lepidus. When the latter sank into feeble dotage and the former had been ruined by his profligacy, the only remedy for his distracted country was the rule of a single man. Yet the State had been organized under the name neither of a kingdom nor a dictatorship, but under that of a prince. The ocean and remote rivers were the boundaries of the empire; the legions, provinces, fleets, all things were linked together; there was law for the citizens; there was respect shown to the allies. The capital had been embellished on a grand scale; only in a few instances had he resorted to force, simply to secure general tranquillity."

Here Tacitus gives another apology of Augustus. Tacitus seems to have conflicting feelings about Augustus or feels he must tread softly when speaking about him. Tacitus hates tyrants, which Augustus most certainly is. He also hates too much praising (is 21 times imperator too many?). Yet, he justifies tyranny in the face of chaos. Of course, this has always been the case for tyranny. Sulla and Julius also claimed they were protecting the state (as did Hitler and Stalin). But, Tacitus claims that Augustus was forced into tyranny by Lepidus' mental feebleness and Mark Antony's extravagance. Yeah, right.

I know I keep harping on this, but Tacitus' story is just illogical. If Augustus took control for domestic tranquillity and achieved transquility, then his tyranny is no longer justified and the Republic ought to be restored in the tradition of Sulla and other dictators. Tacitus clearly is a fan of the Republic, but does not blame Augustus for not restoring it despite claiming domestic tranquility. Instead, he blames Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero for their tyranny during supposedly less tranquil times. It makes no sense. According to Tacitus, Augustus had tranquility, but his tyranny was okay. The next four emperors had less tranquility, but their tyranny was not okay.

In truth, though, we know that Tacitus is lying. Augustus never achieved tranquility. This presents a rub to the idea that tyranny is okay if it brings tranquility. On the one hand, a lack of tranquility justifies Augustus' continued tyranny, but on the other hand, if Augustus never achieved tranquility, what was the point of taking over?

This is probably why Tacitus has been lying about everyone loving Augustus. He needs tranquility to justify Augustus' tyranny. It appears even Tacitus is scared to trash Augustus. But, of course, by justifying Augustus' tyranny, he shatters his argument for denouncing Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero's tyrannies.