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.