The REAL Tiberius

[CiceroD]

I thought that the Romans had little concept of 'Pornography' as we do.

 

much in the same way that the kama sutra is a holy text.

 

Almost all of the houses in Pompeii had newd figures or a depiction of Priapus. Didnt they?

I had heard that the forum baths there contained sex positions in the cloakroom.

 

I guess Im saying that I dont think that finding '*or*' at Capri will prove anything

[phil25]

I think the Romans did have a concept of "*or*" - but I agree it was entirely different to ours.

 

Taking Pompeii alone, I see significant differences in ancient perceptions of, for instance

 

* phallic images (meaning good luck, or even as direction signs to brothels);

 

* the Priapic images as in the fauces of the House of the Vetii and elsewhere

 

* the erotic paintings over the doors of cubicles in the brothel, and in some bedrooms of private houses (which were, I believe, in some sense intended as "*or*" - i.e. as a stimulus and inspiration).

 

We also have the erotioc scenes on cups, often with a third "voyeuristic" person present, which may have been intended as titillating in part.

 

But I would agree that finding *or* would tell us nothing - even if an image or some other artwork was found. There are questions of period and dating, but also of interpretation. Hence my certainty in challenging Caldrail's claim. I need not even go into the area of "proving" that any item had an association with Tiberius himself.

 

But more than that, the Villa Iovis is not that SORT of site. It is rivetingly fascinating to anyone with any sensibility or romance, because of its associations, but it is NOT a place to seek surviving artwork, and has never been "lost".

 

But my main argument, of course, is that the character of Tiberius was NOT as painted by Suetonius, but quite the opposite - a reclusive, fastidious philosopher.

 

Widening the subject, I welcome your post because it provides an opportunity once again to challenge anachronistic thinking or attitudes. Romans in C1st, as we have discussed elsewhere not long ago, had wholly different perceptions (compared to modern western ones) of morality (in was not Judeao-Christian and had no concept of "sin"); looked on nudity in a different way; were surrounded by images that to us might be considered "naughty" but to them had different meanings and associations.

 

I have a small collection of glossy publications bought at historic sites in Italy with titles such as "Erotic Pompeii", or "Hidden Pompeii" - full of photos of the so-called "dirty" murals, priapic sculptures etc. Why do I have them? In part because I find them laughable in their crassness. It's like Korda dressing up his Vestal "Virgins" in gauze and underwear and having 300 of them!! How the staid originals would have disapproved.

 

Phil

[spittle]

There are Temples in a city of Nothern India (Khajuraho, I think?) that have sculptures of couples having sex in all manner of positions. I don't know what the Victorian 'masters' thought of this or the Muslim Mughals who preceeded them but I found some of them a bit much.

Anal, manage-a-trois, oral.......Its like Husler in stone!

[CiceroD]

But - back to topic,

 

It was my understanding that Romans (male and female) had many sexual peccadilloes that were tolerated. (as long as not displayed)

I also know that, at least during the Republic such aspects of a public figure's life were often overblown.

 

So I'm saying that its probable that Tiberius would rate as "a dirty old man" in our society. After all didnt he have great affinity for Hellenic Culture? Pederasty was a part of the culture too!

 

But thank you Phil. You are very right that the legends surrounding Capri could of been a figment of the public imagination!

 

But do you have any evidence? I'm really interested.

[phil25]

The best "evidence" I can suggest, is to visit the Villa Iovis. I know that there are something like 12 villas on Capri, but Iovis is the one most associated with Tiberius.

 

It is built around two massive cisterms which held water - presumably otherwise not readily available in such a position. There are no swimming pools, no vast halls. The strongest feature of the buildings is a semi-circular "loggia" which looks out over the sea.

 

The surviving rooms otheriwise appear small and routine. There is a summer triclinium (dining room) down a steepish stair set on a terrace on the hillside, again with superb views.

 

I do not know and have never been able to fathom how much of the extant building relates to C1st, or its subsequent use. But it does not look as though it has been the subject of many rebuildings, and is certainly no "pleasure palace" at least as it struck me subjectively.

 

It does however fit with a view of Tiberius as enjoying philosophic discussion while strolling, or sitting reading in cool shade, or consulting Thrasyllus on astrology.

 

If I can get my scanner to work, I might try to post some of my pictures of the site.

 

All MHO of course,

 

Phil

[spittle]

What is the relevence of NERVA ?

Why does his friendship lessen the likleyhood of Tiberius being depraved?

 

Also, pederasts may have been accepted in Ancient Greece but wasn't this also the birthplace of modern thought?

My point is that the two 'attitudes' are not mutually exclusive.

[phil25]

Nerva was not the later Emperor (his father, I seem to recall). He was a much respected philosopher who would have been unlikely to condone or participate in anything licentious.

 

Hence his presence makes it unlikely that any such thing was going on.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever for Tiberius having a taste for either children or boys in his earlier life. It all depends on the rumours about his Capri years, and the Roman tendency to assume that, as a man was at his end, so he must have been, latently at least, from his birth. This is patently absurd and would not for a moment be accepted as logical by a modern biographer.

 

Tiberius, in a rhyme, was characterised as being a drunkard, but never so far as i know as a homosexual (as was Caesar) or as a pederast.

 

Astrology was his main area of study, he read philosophy and he enjoyed debate. All quite consistently through his life. He appears to have been fastidious by nature.

 

Where is the need or cause for scandal.

 

Phil

[CiceroD]

Nerva was not the later Emperor (his father, I seem to recall). He was a much respected philosopher who would have been unlikely to condone or participate in anything licentious.

 

Hence his presence makes it unlikely that any such thing was going on.

 

Phil I have to agree with Spittle. Sexual habits and Intelligence are independent qualities.

Nerva may have had the same sexual preferences as Tiberius

 

or Capri was really a large stoa where they debated the nature of air

 

or both

 

either way we dont know

[Primus Pilus]

Just a minor clarification... The Nerva in the circle of Tiberius was the grand father of the future emperor.

 

As for the subject at hand... While I have always agreed that Tiberius was overzealously vilified by contemporary historians, I can never quite be completely sure on what details to dismiss. It's easy to understand Tacitus' position as a closet Republican and the general disdain he shows for the Princeps throughout his works, but why the sordid details unless there was at least some basis for them. What I mean is, did Tacitus and Suetonius invent the rumors or simply expand upon that which already existed? It's interesting that Tacitus definitely leaves a poor impression of Tiberius by the end of his works, but he is not without praise for him either.

 

As Ronald Mellor put it:

 

And yet this Tiberius retains considerable stature in Tacitus's eyes; he may be bitter, angry, and finally corrupt, but he is no sniveling incompetent. He had no Caligulan madness, Neronian frivolity, or Vitellian sloth. Tacitus report that he led the armies well, that he balanced the imperial budget, that he chose good administrators, that (except in a handful of treason trials) he enforced the laws, and that he did not raise taxes. Few rulers can boast such a record, much less in an account from an admittedly hostile source.

[caldrail]

Caldrail, I doubt ANY 1st century *or* has been found at the Villa Iovis. If you have a source, I'd be VERY interested to hear it.

Phil

 

I might be able to dig that one up so to speak. I'll let you know.

 

Its time for me to eat humble pie. As to whether the '*or*' in question was actually found I can't say, but I tracked the reference down to a book called Caligula:Divine Carnage ( by Stephen Barber and Jeremy Reed, both of whom should be ashamed of themselves).

 

Under no circumstances whatsoever should ever bother reading this book. Its just sexual fantasy pretending to be history. Truly awful stuff.

 

Phil 1, Caldrail 0

[phil25]

Its just sexual fantasy pretending to be history. Truly awful stuff.

 

Just like Suetonius then!!

 

Please don't apologise Caldrail, you had a source, even if an unreliable one. I have seen the book, though I was not tempted to buy - you know my revisionist tendencies re Gaius.

 

On the elder Nerva - I thought he had an upright reputation. It was that which led people to think him likely to be disapproving of sexual frolics.

 

Perhaps we must disagree on Tiberius. I see no reason to question his Roman uprightness. If it were not for a couple of historians with a KNOWN bias against him, would we infer what they claim? I think not. There is nothing similar alleged at any other period of his life.

 

And if we are going to rar Tiberius with that brush - where are the threads painting Augustus (supplied with virgins by Livia was he not, amongst other things) in the same lurid colours? Or Antonius - accused of homosexuality - but that is brushed off.

 

I see Tiberius as stuck with a "black legend" (rather like Richard III) which continues to stick because some are unprepared to question it, or to drop colourful tales.

 

But I have no more to say on this. I have stated my position and the reasons for it. I rest my case.

 

Phil

[spittle]

There is much about Bakers Tiberius that doesn't fit the known facts.

 

The only action I cannot imagine Morell's portrayal doing is following Vipsania around like a love sick teen.

He does say to livia that he could love, once. But he is so removed and aloof that I cannot picture him feeling those feelings ever. It was decades before.....

 

Can you suggest a good biog of Tiberius?

[The Augusta]

Can you suggest a good biog of Tiberius?

 

 

Robin Seager 'Tiberius' and Barbara Levick 'Tiberius: The Politician' (both available at Amazon UK and both worth buying, Paul. They've been on my shelves for years.

[spittle]

Thanks, Gail.

If you had to choose between the two which would you suggest?

[The Augusta]

Thanks, Gail.

If you had to choose between the two which would you suggest?

 

 

I'd go for them both! But if you want to use me as a case study, I started with the Seager. He provides a good overall view and has some very interesting insights into the Agrippina v Tiberius factions which are quite enlightening. The fact that this book is still in print, shows, to my mind, that his argument is still valid. (It was originally published in 1972, with a 2nd edition commissioned in 2005.) He is very pro-Tiberian, however, whereas Levick tends to be more objective, although still comes out largely with a more favourable view of the emperor. Levick concentrates more on his political personality (obviously, from the title) than his military expertise. Levick's was first published in 1976 - again with a 2nd edition commissioned in 2004. If it's a question of budget, I think the Seager is a bit cheaper at around