‘Tacitus’ historiography seeks to establish an accurate and impartial presentation of the principate’ discuss.

To some degree Tacitus seeks to establish an accurate presentation of the principate in Annals I, and this is evidenced through his engagement with contemporary sources and references to widely known events, and potentially the dense prose in which he writes. However, to categorise Tacitus’ historiography as merely accurate and impartial, fails to acknowledge the subtle undertones of questioning and criticism that he establishes , under the guise of historiography, within the new political world. This is achieved through his use of euphemisms, focus on the concept of the façade, and his depiction of the imperial household itself. 
Annals I is introduced with his purpose to relate, ‘sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo’ - without anger or bias, motives from which I am far removed - and this in itself establishes Tacitus’s aim for his historiography to be, in essence, impartial. However, this is potentially undermined by the nature of his language and often the truth that is conveyed through this use. For example, as Michael Roth says in Irony and misreading in the Annals of Tacitus, ‘words are used as a veil to obscure the truth and…words directly and transparently represent the truth’ . A paradox arises over whether ‘words’ themselves are a vehicle for his accurate historiography, or potentially a further form of corrupting the truth. This is particularly relevant when looking at Tacitus’ use of euphemisms, for example Tacitus uses the word ‘regendi’ - rule, subtly to connote an image of Eastern and monarchical influence. As a result this undermines the nature of the principate; particularly with the forming of the republican government in 509 BC, the concept of monarchy was synonymous with tyranny and therefore ‘rex’ - king had highly loaded connotations. It seems that Tacitus, although not ostensibly, is criticising the principate and this is done so subtly, as if not to influence the readers’ interpretation of his historiography as an impartial source. 
Tacitus does arguably establish a form of accuracy and impartiality in his presentation of the principate. For example, it is believed that Tacitus used the ‘acta senatus’ and ‘acta diurna populi Romani’ as sources of information when forming his historiography, thus it is fair to argue that he does in fact reflect a reliable and accurate source of authority on the passing of events. Likewise, the style in which Tacitus writes is one of clear brevity (often described as ‘dense prose’), and as Ronald Syme describes it: ‘The omission of words and connectives goes…for the sake of speed, concentration, and antithesis’. As a result, the medium itself is direct in it its brevity and, therefore, arguably presents the truth in a transparent and pointed way. Following on from this, Tacitus refers to events within Annals I, such as Augustus’ cause of death, and he compares in his presentation with other historians, such as Cassius Dio and (less assuredly) with Suetonius. As a result, this bolsters his credibility and accuracy, which arguably extends to his presentation of the principate. 
Tacitus’ partiality is often, arguably, evident through his focus on the imperial household; and the context of his position within this political sphere amplifies this. For example, Ellen O’Gorman wrote in Irony and misreading in the Annals of Tacitus, ‘Tacitus wrote under the principate…while watching the encroachment of the imperial household onto the senate’s executive power’. Therefore, Tacitus who held various public roles such as praetor in 88 AD, potentially falls victim to misrepresent, through his historiography. This is evident when Tacitus focuses on the concept of the façade within Annals I, for example he uses a multiplicity of words, such as: ‘simulationem’ and ‘specie’ to describe the pretence that the ‘domo regnatrice’ - Imperial household - project. This effectively establishes his attempts to present the principate in a potentially inaccurate and partial way. Following on from this, Tacitus often uses the main clause to contrast the established truth (accurate presentation) to that of the subordinate clause, which is often the historical analysis of explanation. For example: ‘gnarum id Caesari;…dubium an quaesita morte’ - It had become known to Caesar…possibly because he sought his own death’. This use appears to emphasise the subordinate clause, and therefore its meaning, which O’Gorman describes as carrying ‘the weight of the sentence’s meaning’ whilst remaining ‘syntactically dependent’. Therefore, the historical explanation, or Tacitus’ subtle comment is afforded importance within the line and therefore appears to act as a source of truth within his historiography. As a result, Tacitus arguably does not seek to an accurate and impartial presentation of the principate as he undermines the accuracy with his cause for bias. 
Ultimately, Tacitus potentially seeks to present the principate accurately and impartially through his engagement with sources and his unembellished, and therefore direct style of writing. However Tacitus’ historiography, arguably, submits to neither accuracy nor inaccuracy as he undermines the empirical nature of his writing through his subverted presentation of the principate.