"In Tacitus, individuals are seldom virtuous without flaws or flawed without virtues, and the flaws are normally closely related to the virtues." Discuss.

What we first recognise about Tacitus and his characters is that, in spite of his notorious claim “consilium mihi pauca […] tradere […] sina ira et studio”, “my aim is to relate a few accounts without anger or bias”, his style of history is to blend the truth with gossip and, occasionally, his own opinions, creating a kaleidoscope patchwork combining truth, the dubious and sheer rumour to produce a far more engaging version of the truth than our modern history has a tendency to. Given that Tacitus views the Annals as an opportunity to retell history from arguably a more creative angle, his characters can be considered a key plot device, enhancing the plot he weaves in their interactions, own desires and vices in a Rome riddled with corruption and jealousy at every social stratum. Thus, those who others might portray as figures of purity or morally upright standing are given flaws to add to their depth, whilst those who would otherwise be cardboard cut-out villains are given redeeming, or at least admirable, traits, often using the weaknesses of others, rather than their own, to fulfil their aims.

The first major character we encounter in Annals IV is the Tiberius himself, and, at first, it seems that Rome is prospering under his guidance, “the year was the ninth for Tiberius of a peaceful republic and of a flourishing house”, yet, sure enough, we soon see that this is no two-dimensional, wholly virtuous Emperor, but a shady character whose own priorities seem detrimental to his Empire. The reason this year is a particularly fruitful one for him is the death of Germanicus, which “he considered […] as among his successes”, with Tacitus’ reference to a death shrouded in such shade in connection with Tiberius perhaps implying to more insightful readers that the Emperor was involved in the conspiracy. Moreover, once the capital falls into difficulty and “fortune began to wreak havoc”, he is unable to halt the chaos, stoking the coals of the blaze as “he himself began to fall into a frenzy or to provide the strength to those who were in a frenzy”, reflecting his flaws, and implied questionable practices, as leader.