The major divisions of Tacitean studies seem to be based on whether one rehydrates his dry narrative with anger* or with zeal?

  le rouge  ira
  le noir   studio

(what line might white or green Taciteans take?)

> Gesetze sind wie Würste, man sollte besser nicht dabei sein, wenn sie gemacht werden. —OELvB

> Les empires sont comme des saucisses ; pour les déguster, mieux vaut ne pas savoir comment ils sont fabriquées —not NB

("empires are like sausages: to enjoy them, better not see how they're made")

* The Onion was not supposed to be a how-to guide

EDIT: (in defence of Bonaparte re. Wieland: having both read Linebarger's Psychological Warfare covering the general theory, and myself noted a tendency, in modern US corporations as in ancient chinese imperial tales, to attach great importance to making your predecessor look bad, it's certainly a consistent position for one emperor, in reading about others, to be annoyed less by any red anti-tyrannical subtext, and more by a certain willingness to believe told tales that smacks more of cluelessness than psychopathy. I would not be surprised if Bonaparte would've claimed Bulgakov's Pilate to have been more realistically depicted.)

EDIT2: Tacitus was born (as the web seems to agree) an Equestrian, yet followed the cursus honorum (ought to be in official records), which implies imperial Rome was less vertically stratified than republican Rome?