Analyzing Ancient Historians

[P.Clodius]

Another point here: I'm surprised at the knocking of Suetonius (not just by you, Cato, but others too of course!) In the early biographies (of people who died before he was born, down to about Claudius) he cites more sources by far than any surviving ancient historian, any other biographer ... He quotes verbatim, too, and practically no other ancient historian does that (Polybius, yes, occasionally). I'm surprised by a claim of 'fairly consistent unreliability'.

Didn't he have access to the Arval Records too?

[Pantagathus]

Consider with regard to Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Tacitus, Gibbon, etc. All these people make errors of fact, sometimes because it would have been impossible for them to do better, sometimes because other issues mattered to them more. They are still greater historians by far (I say) than most academic historians who get all the footnote references right, never make an unsupported statement, are unchallengeably reliable and get their Ph. D.s. Not that I'm against academics, I just use this as a convenient example.

 

I totally agree Andrew

 

And furthermore, even though there are elements of Herodotus that are grossly in error (mostly due to the 'he didn't know better' issue) he is more than just the 'Father of History' to me. There are endless facinating anecdotes in his work even if you could care less about Cyrus the Great.

 

He breaths such life into the people of his history that you can really feel initimate with the men and women of his age. That is what a good historian does.

[Primus Pilus]

Another point here: I'm surprised at the knocking of Suetonius (not just by you, Cato, but others too of course!) In the early biographies (of people who died before he was born, down to about Claudius) he cites more sources by far than any surviving ancient historian, any other biographer ... He quotes verbatim, too, and practically no other ancient historian does that (Polybius, yes, occasionally). I'm surprised by a claim of 'fairly consistent unreliability'.

 

For me its always been a matter of perception... If Suetonius had unfettered access to all the imperial archives, why is there so much negativity recorded? (and despite the differences in our cultures, we surely understand that much of Suetonius' reports shows the Caesars in a negative light even to their contemporaries) It seems unlikely that the 'princeps' and their courts would record so much information in such a damaging light, so where did it come from. Perhaps Suetonius was overly selective in what he decided to print (just because he had unfettered access does not mean he chose to use it all, nor can we be sure that he actually had any access to these archives outside of the letters of Augustus and earlier authors like Cluvius Rufus), or perhaps he prepared his work in such a way as to truly glorify the 'current' achievements of men such as Trajan and his patron Hadrian.

 

I generally give him the benefit of the doubt (he truly is the most rewarding read from a pure gratification standpoint in my opinion) but I do resist some notions.

 

For instance (I only use this example because its fresh in my memory from previous discussions):

it is even believed that he caused his death at the hands of Gnaeus Piso, governor of Syria, and some think that when Piso was tried on that charge, he would have produced his instructions, had not Tiberius caused them to be taken from him when Piso privately showed them, and the man himself to be put to death. Because of this the words, "Give us back Germanicus," were posted in many places, and shouted at night all over the city. And Tiberius afterwards strengthened this suspicion by cruelly abusing the wife and children of Germanicus as well.

 

I accept and acknowledge the possibility that Tiberius had Germanicus killed, but Suetonius clearly has no real evidence. He simply makes the suggestion... 'it is even believed'. However, when this line of thinking is coupled with other possible aspersions on his character there is an accumulative effect that makes it all easier to swallow. However, some of it seems so extraordinary (especially the following bit) that I can't help but wonder who on earth was the keeper of this information and how many people possibly could've had a reasonable knowledge of the activities on Capri, nearly a century later.

 

He acquired a reputation for still grosser depravities that one can hardly bear to tell or be told, let alone believe. For example, he trained little boys (whom he termed tiddlers) to crawl between his thighs when he went swimming and tease him with their licks and nibbles; and unweaned babies he would put to his organ as though to the breast, being by both nature and age rather fond of this form of satisfaction.

 

Outside of some of these specific character oriented evidences, I gladly and openly concede Suetonius general reliability on historical matters. At any rate, its certainly difficult to not enjoy reading him.

 

(all just in my opinion of course)

[Virgil61]

...

Another point here: I'm surprised at the knocking of Suetonius (not just by you, Cato, but others too of course!) In the early biographies (of people who died before he was born, down to about Claudius) he cites more sources by far than any surviving ancient historian, any other biographer ... He quotes verbatim, too, and practically no other ancient historian does that (Polybius, yes, occasionally). I'm surprised by a claim of 'fairly consistent unreliability'.

 

I think the speculation was that Suetonius wrote these while still an advisor to Hadrian w/ access to what must have been a treasure trove of information from the early Principate. Once he fell out with Hadrian's wife and was kicked out of service his biographical sketches take a turn for the worse reliability-wise. It's a shame how much information has been lost as a result of this.

[phil25]

With Suetonius, we must also not forget that ancient writers believed that a man's (person's for the PC) character was fixed from birth - so, if caesar ended a tyrant, he must have been a tyrant all his life (he just hid it well). If Tiberius was a pervert, he must have been a pervert all his life, however well-concealed that was.

 

We now know this is nionsense of course, but it makes a mockery of some of the judegements that Suetonius, in particular, makes.

 

It is quite possible, reading between the lines and using other sources, such as Tacitus, to perceive an entirely different explanation of the lives of Tiberius and Gaius, or Nero. They emerge as much more serious, believable people. Suetonius makes them almost "soap-operaish".

 

Tiberius emerges as a reclusive, introverted but capable man, inclined to philosophy. His privacy and remoteness in his later years fuelled by ignorance of what went on at the Villa Jovis, gave rise to feverish speculation about orgies and naked children. In fact that lofty residence was probably used for philosophic discussion and reading. Tiberius emerges not as a pervert, but as a much more believable man of his times - touched by the republicanism of his father, a reluctant princeps, a man thwarted in his one great love and married to a political heiress who was enmeshed in conspiracy, and harnessed to an equally determined and political mother who dominated him. No wonder he escaped for 12 wonderful years at Rhodes!!

 

Similarly Gaius can be perceived as the first princeps born to the purple, knowing nothing other than the Augustan regime, conscious of Sejanus' failed ideas, and perhaps with an Antonian dream of hellenistic glory and monarchy bequeathed him by his grandmother. He may have been close to his sisters (who would not have been after their childhood and seeing the fate of their siblings); and he may have suffered an illness that affected his mind later on - or is that just a falsification by political rivals who were the but of a harsh and sarcastic wit.

 

We must, it seems to me, be judicious. What I have set out above is no more than informed speculation. Suetonius was far closer to the events, and the spirit of the age than am I.

 

But look at our own age. How partisan, even 20 years after their day, are biographies of Mrs Thatcher or Ronald Reagan (or of Nixon)? Then, in C1st Rome, biography was a political tool - look at the way allegations of sexual misconduct and sodomy were thrown around to besmirch the likes of Antonius and Octavian. How close, given the effectiveness of Augustan propaganda (I put him on a par with Goebbels, perhaps even rate him higher given that his means of communication were more limited) can we get to Antonius and Cleopatra, their genuine political agenda, or the meaning of the (so-called) Donations of Alexandria?

 

Moving forward - I enjoy the Scriptores Historiae Augustae - SHA - (we don't have much else as sources on fascinating figures like Caracalla, Elagabalus, or Commodus). I have well thumbed Loeb editions by my hand as I type. But dip into the scholarship and one immediately finds that these "biographies are not what they seem. That said, how difficult it is to dispense with them - we WANT to believe that we can rely on them. We cannot, or at least not without enormous care.

 

Suetonius, as others have noted, is beguiling precisely because he is so racy and glittering, so saucy and indiscreet. he seems to pull back the sheets on many an imperial sleeping couch!! But would we take the word of The Sun or the National Enquirer seriously - or the work of anyone who used those as his main sources.

 

When any ancient author quotes a letter, document or speech, how do we know it is accurate. Battle orations we KNOW were invented - why not documents and other quotes. How would readers, even in the authors day have known?

 

But we HAVE to make some use of Suetonius and Tacitus and SHA because we have comparatively so few other surviving records But these are different from say the Armana tablets or the Hittite archives, because although they are even more ancient, they are (to an extent) original documents. Those quoted by Tacitus, Suetonius et al, we have to take on trust.

 

But I think we have to admit that the APPARENT charcater we can put on ancient Roman personalities, in comparison to (for example) Egyptian Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, may be spurious. Like detectives, we need to proceed with care and sift the evidence carefully.

 

All just my opinion, of course,

 

Phil

[tflex]

Livy's history reflects his admiration for the civilization of the early republic, and he believed history should be applied in daily life. I think he was a romantic but not a scientific historian. His sources were mainly writings of previous authors, yet he does not attempt to critique them but rather adds his own suporting view. Livy's accuracy is definately questionable, he ignored certain sources that did not align with his political and patriotic views, yet he chose to write about the things that he himself was enthusiastic about. It seems to me his historical accounts were personal and his emotions and patriotic duty must have interfered with his writings. A good example of this, is his attempt to sugar coat the sack of Rome by the Gauls by giving it a typical hollywood ending. When writing about a time period that lacks historical data, the reader cannot disprove the authors findings, so I think most ancient historians take advantage of the situation and through their writings they apply their own personal convictions. Thats why, one must examine the authors background to judge their work accordingly. We know Livy was a native of Padua on the Po River in northern Italy which was Roman territory at the time, he was alive around 59 BC - 17 AD, we know he was an admirer of the republic because he often questioned the new system that replaced it, we also know his views did not affect his relationship with Augustus but rather influenced the future emperor Claudius. So we can assume that Livy was a Roman patriot and that he probably sympathized with the republic system. I think in this case genetic fallacy is justified and it supports the idea that Livy attempted to turn a humilaiting defeat to Rome by the Gauls into a triumphant victory for Marcus Furius Camillus.

 

Herodotus and Plutarch are good examples of inaccuracy and exaguration. For example, Plutarch estimated Caesar and his army slaughtered 3 million in the battlefileds during their campaign in Gaul, and Herodotus when commenting on the 300 spartans heroic stand at the battle of thermopylae, estimated the opposing persian forces at 3.4 million.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that most ancient historians were not technical but romantic authors. They had little to none first hand data and evidence to work with, so they added a lot of fiction to their work. In the case of Livy we can accurately conclude that the Gauls besieged Rome but the rest of the story cannot be proven, with Plutarch we know Caesar defeated the Gauls but the numbers can be disproved if you consider the Gauls population at the time, and with Herodotus the Spartans were severly outnumbered but still made a heroic stand against the Persian army, but his figure of 3.4 million Persians is not only ridicolous but pure propoganda. We should only rely on the overview of their account but not the details unless there is archaelogical evidence or numerous sources to support their claims.

 

These 3 historians are highly regarded and my favorite read is Herodotus, he is unique in the way he sheds light on the way ancients use to think and behave, but if you are reading his work for accuracy you have to approach it with strict reservations.

Edited January 22, 2006 by tflex

[phil25]

tflex - I thought I had read recent estimates that tended to confirm the 3 million figure for Caesar's Gallic campaigns, if you include those sold into slavery, made hiomeless etc (ie the figure is not JUST thosde killed).

 

Are you saying that the figure should be smaller - if so, what is your estimate, or which modern writers do you cite?

 

Phil

[tflex]

tflex - I thought I had read recent estimates that tended to confirm the 3 million figure for Caesar's Gallic campaigns, if you include those sold into slavery, made hiomeless etc (ie the figure is not JUST thosde killed).

 

Are you saying that the figure should be smaller - if so, what is your estimate, or which modern writers do you cite?

 

Phil

 

According to Plutarch, the 3 million figure applies only to the Gauls who died in the battlefield, thats independant from the other 1 million that were sold into slavery.

 

Phil, where did you read the confirming estimates?

 

Check this http://www.answers.com/topic/demographics-of-france (This could be inaccurate too) just gives you an idea of Gaul's population around 50 BC.

Edited January 22, 2006 by tflex

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Quite frankly, in my opinion, statiscal data about the aftermath does not matter at all. What matters is the 'fallout' and consequences of the Gallic War such as famine, mass starvation, resources become devastated, et alia and many of it is due to the scorch earth policy and our course Caesar.

Edited January 22, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[tflex]

Quite frankly, in my opinion, statiscal data about the aftermath does not matter at all. What matters is the 'fallout' and consequences of the Gallic War such as famine, mass starvation, resources become devastated, et alia and many of it is due to the scorch earth policy and our course Caesar.

 

Agreed, what matters is Gaul was devestated by Caesar and incorporated into the empire. Thats the point I was trying to make earlier, we should only take the overview and consequences of a situation not the little details.

[Primus Pilus]

Quite frankly, in my opinion, statiscal data about the aftermath does not matter at all. What matters is the 'fallout' and consequences of the Gallic War such as famine, mass starvation, resources become devastated, et alia and many of it is due to the scorch earth policy and our course Caesar.

 

Agreed, what matters is Gaul was devestated by Caesar and incorporated into the empire. Thats the point I was trying to make earlier, we should only take the overview and consequences of a situation not the little details.

 

And this thread is about the validity/accuracy etc. of the ancient sources. Discussing Caesar as a historian is fine, but lets not have this go into another debate about his deeds in Gaul or elsewhere.