This interpretation must be questioned however, as it is predicated on Tacitus' view of the individual as a fixed expression of unalienable pre-determined virtues. While this is hinted at in part, Tacitus does not apply a consistent historical method and his scepticism forces an ambiguity to pervade the narrative undermining the possibility of a coherent explanation. Furthermore, a fixed human condition is wholly at odds with his overriding teleological understanding of history as a moral exemplar, if the individual is not in control of his personality and subsequent actions then this exercise seems fruitless. Instead, we should celebrate Tacitus' inconsistency as a realistic reflection of the dynamism of human existence. It is an affirmation of the variety of human life and the open-ended nature of our existence. If his historical method painted a coherent and unchanging expression of individuals then we would find ourselves alienated from any relationship with his work. People do not operate in absolute expressions of good and bad predicated on unchangeable internal characteristics. Tacitus accepts this and employs a relative and realist interpretation, which can be seen throughout the Annals. Germanicus is not the binary opposite of Tiberius just as the Republican past is not presented as the perfect contrast to the Imperial present shown in his acceptance that 'not everything was better in the past.' This realist worldview is best exemplified in his acceptance of the principate as 'there was no one cure for the faction ridden state except a single ruler.' Thus, it is impossible to refute this inconsistency but it is precisely for this reason that Tacitus should represent accurate and appropriate history. He writes about real events and real people and the inconsistency of life must be represented in an incoherent reflection in history.