In Praise Of Suetonius

[phil25]

To be absolutely clear, I have NEVER suggested we throw Suetonius out as a source.

 

We have all too few sources as it is, and his essential narrative is clearly broadly in line with what happened - ie the events tally with those related in other sources or from inscriptions etc.

 

My problem is with his relentless focus on scandal and the acceptance of some of the stories he tells as a basis for eveluating and even judging the reputations of leading politicians.

 

I do not believe his account of Tiberius, I think Gaius needs to be reassessed seriously, and I think Nero needs to be looked at in the round.

 

Interestingly, every pornographic movie maker (or even the BBC and Robert Graves) hones in on Tiberius' supposed "spintriae" (highly unlikely in my view); or Gaius and Drusilla; yet we rarely see Augustus damned for violating virgins.

 

Phil

[The Augusta]

I am bumping this thread because I was about to start a new one on the values of Suetonius, but sensibly did a search first - and hey presto!

 

There was quite a bit of conversation here and there at our UK meet about Suetonius, and at one point I was having a little banter with Caldrail about this man whom I have always referred to as 'The Max Clifford of the Roman World'. (Clifford, for our US cousins, is a scurrilous journalist who made the Sun newspaper what it is - the National Enquirer with a busty girl on Page 3 and a bit of sports reporting on the back!). However, when I got back home I began to rethink all this, and I realise that there are things to be found in Suetonius that are not found anywhere else. Little facts or observations that are quite invaluable.

 

Phil's post above singles out movie makers' and novelists' indebtedness to Suetonius, and it is easy to see the attraction. Where else, in our ancient sources, for instance, are we told that Augustus had blond hair? Or that he was 5'7" tall? Or that Caligula was very tall? Now, none of these things are scurrilous, but to a dramatist or novelist they are like gold-dust. Serious historians such as Tacitus, Dio etc. would not consider it important to record the habits of their subjects or their appearance, but it is precisely these little details that bring the man of history alive for the reader. In this regard, even the gossip is invaluable. Let it be true or false it was obviously accepted as gossip, and at least gives us a view of what Suetonius' readers would accept as titillating little anecdotes, or horrifying scandal. Phil also singled out above the age-old preoccupation of the anti-Tiberian camp with that emperor's 'spintrii', while in Augustus' biography, by comparison, Suetonius mentions him enjoying the company of little boys quite innocently! However - I mention this only as a difference in treatment - let us not go down that road again....

 

I think the reason we are still loathe to renounce our 'Tranquillus' is precisely because he brings the characters alive for us, as a biographer should. For more serious treatment of a period, however, I should think that most serious students would turn to other sources eventually, if only to check whether they corroborate him.

 

Any more thoughts to add, anyone? Especially our newer members?

[caldrail]

I think there's a danger that we read into Suetonius what we want to. For some he will always be a gossip columnist, for others a roman Jerry Springer. For me, as I've already mentioned, he's an invaluable witness and commentator of times past. How many of us are truly objective when we watch the tv news? Suetonius tries to be and goes to some effort to record details that give his work authenticity. Thats why I read him. For all the inaccuracies and wild tales, something real survives there.

[The Augusta]

I think there's a danger that we read into Suetonius what we want to. For some he will always be a gossip columnist, for others a roman Jerry Springer. For me, as I've already mentioned, he's an invaluable witness and commentator of times past. How many of us are truly objective when we watch the tv news? Suetonius tries to be and goes to some effort to record details that give his work authenticity. Thats why I read him. For all the inaccuracies and wild tales, something real survives there.

 

And perhaps his greatest testament is that he accurately reflects the tastes and beliefs of his day - i.e. his audience wanted vivid accounts of the great figures of history - Suetonius provided them. He is invaluable as evidence of the attitudes of his readers as much as anything else.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Phil also singled out above the age-old preoccupation of the anti-Tiberian camp with that emperor's 'spintrii', while in Augustus' biography, by comparison, Suetonius mentions him enjoying the company of little boys quite innocently!

 

From the life of Tiberius:

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. Left a painting of Parrhasius's depicting Atalanta pleasuring Meleager with her lips on condition that if the theme displeased him he was to have a million sesterces instead, he chose to keep it and actually hung it in his bedroom. The story is also told that once at a sacrifice, attracted by the acolyte's beauty, he lost control of himself and, hardly waiting for the ceremony to end, rushed him off and debauched him and his brother, the flute-player, too; and subsequently, when they complained of the assault, he had their legs broken.

 

Where in the life of Augustus does Suetonius discuss Tiberius' innocent enjoyment of boys?

[The Augusta]

Phil also singled out above the age-old preoccupation of the anti-Tiberian camp with that emperor's 'spintrii', while in Augustus' biography, by comparison, Suetonius mentions him enjoying the company of little boys quite innocently!

 

From the life of Tiberius:

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. Left a painting of Parrhasius's depicting Atalanta pleasuring Meleager with her lips on condition that if the theme displeased him he was to have a million sesterces instead, he chose to keep it and actually hung it in his bedroom. The story is also told that once at a sacrifice, attracted by the acolyte's beauty, he lost control of himself and, hardly waiting for the ceremony to end, rushed him off and debauched him and his brother, the flute-player, too; and subsequently, when they complained of the assault, he had their legs broken.

 

Where in the life of Augustus does Suetonius discuss Tiberius' innocent enjoyment of boys?

 

Cato - despite my caveat 'not to go down this road again' I did not say that Suetonius discussed Tiberius'

innocence in consorting with little boys - it was Augustus whom Suetonius mentions as enjoying the company of cheerful Moors and Syrians. Here's the reference: (Div.Aug, 83):

 

Sometimes he went fishing as a relaxation: sometimes he played at dice, marbles, or nuts in the company of little boys, and was always on the lookout for ones with pretty faces and cheerful chatter, especially Syrians and Moors - he loathed people who were in any way deformed, regarding them as freaks of nature and bringers of bad luck.

 

ETA: Having re-read my post, I can see where you may have been misled. Hopefully, this clears things up.

Edited April 18, 2007 by The Augusta

[georgious]

A lot of us get into roman history by reading Suetonius. Its usually the first stop after watching Hollywoods version of history. Suetonius gives us a warts and all tale of the first twelve caesars, and he deliberately includes Julius Caesar for reasons I agree with, because the man became a permanent dictator therefore no different from an emperor. He describes their faults, their virtues, their lives, and anything else that illustrates the kind of person he wants to describe.

 

Lets be clear about this. Suetonius was a roman. He lived in Rome, amongst romans, going about his business as a roman would. When we read his accounts, we see events second-hand through the eyes of someone who lived in that era. He cannot be discounted.

 

Now Suetonius got his information from eye witnesses. Some of these people may not have clearly understood what was happening, or twisted the event to suit their purpose, or simply lied that they were ever there to see it. So although Suetonius may not be 100% accurate, his work has a basis in truth.

 

It is true you need to be wary about his conclusions. That can be said for any journalist, and there are plenty of wierd and wonderful tales, theories, and speculations today that defy belief. But we do believe them don't we? For instance Von Daniken writes a book about a half-baked theory of alien visitation and spawns a whole new literary genre.

 

Are we any different from the romans? Not really. We come from the same bloodlines, we have the same reactions, thoughts, desires, sins, and virtues. Their culture was different of course. They were much crueller than us for one thing, but then so were so many cultures of that time. It wasn't unusual. Yet in Suetonius we see a common thread - he compares the behaviour of these men with the everyday expectations of Rome. If you read more closely, there is a fantastic parallel with our modern age.

 

I for one will continue to read him with fascination. I don't believe everything happened quite the way he depicts it, yet there's a compelling truth hidden away within his writings.

I have heard about Suetonius as a source and read him about a year ago in a Penguin edition. I was impressed by his style which is very different from that of Tacitus-at least the Tacitus of Germania.Those two people are galaxies apart. The point is the writings of Mr.Tacitus and Mr.Suetonius are adequate tools for the reconstruction of a whole epoch? I mean our sources are desperately few compared with the vastness of the epoch we want to ressurect.How can so few people from a very specific backround and social milieu serve as adequate guides to the history of a city that was supposedly the mistress of the world!

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Suetonius was the first of the ancients that I'd read, after reading a few of the modern(er) historians I thought it was about time I got stuck into the "proper" stuff, I approached Suetonius with a bit of apprehension, thinking it was going to be really hard going hard to keep track of, but after the first few pages of The Twelve Caesars I was amazed how easy going and entertaining it was, he spoke more about the person rather than the period and really made the Emperors come to life something you don't get with the later historians.

 

Yes he was a bit scurrilous and maybe he did stretch the truth a bit but what a fantastic storyteller and what a fascinating insight into the first Emperors of Rome.

[Andrew Dalby]

I have heard about Suetonius as a source and read him about a year ago in a Penguin edition. I was impressed by his style which is very different from that of Tacitus-at least the Tacitus of Germania.Those two people are galaxies apart. The point is the writings of Mr.Tacitus and Mr.Suetonius are adequate tools for the reconstruction of a whole epoch? I mean our sources are desperately few compared with the vastness of the epoch we want to ressurect.How can so few people from a very specific backround and social milieu serve as adequate guides to the history of a city that was supposedly the mistress of the world!

 

This is very true -- and yet, think how much worse off we are for some other periods! For Trajan's rule, with the conquest of Dacia and many other events, there is only one worthwhile narrative source, and it's incomplete: I mean Dio Cassius's History (written more than a century after), which doesn't survive in full, we only have a Byzantine abridgement.

 

For the whole period from Severus Alexander to Diocletian the sources are again very brief and in some cases seem to have had little information to go on themselves.

 

As for Alexander the Great, the earliest narrative source we have (Diodorus) was written nearly 300 years after Alexander's death. And the best (Arrian) 450 years after Alexander's death.