The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius

[duchess of malfi]

Suetonius was one of the top aids of the Roman Emperor Hadrian and had access to the Imperial archives. He had also been an aid to Pliny the Younger when he had been the governor of part of Asia. Pliny described him as a quiet and studious man, devoted to his writing. Suetonius was born in about the year AD 69 (the year of the four emperors) and probably died about AD 140, a long life for that time period.

While drawn to writing history, he was a contemporary of the famous historian Tactitus, and did not want to directly compete with him in writing linear histories. So Suetonius, with his access to the archives and the letters and personal papers of the Emperors, decided to write biographies.

One of these is now known to us as The Twelve Caesars.

In it, he covers the lives of the first twelve Roman emperors:

Julius Caesar
Augustus Caesar
Tiberius
Gaius (Caligula)
Claudius
Nero
Galba
Otho
Vitellius
Vespasian
Titus
Domitian

He tells them in sort of an odd way. He tells their family background, then the positive things they did and their good character traits (if any) and then the bad things they did and their negative character traits. He adds in physical descriptions (if available) and sexual preferences. He tries to be nonjudgemental, though that was impossible with some cases, such as Caligula and Nero.

Some of them come across as very human, such as Julius Caesar being bothered by receding hairline and having a comb-over. Other, such as Caligula and Nero, come across as mad and violent, without much (if any) recognizable humanity there.

Some parts, such as Tiberius's sexual practices, made me ill and I had to put the book down for a couple of days...

Some of these men seemed to be pretty decent human beings, such as Vespasian. Others were...anything but. Most were a mixture...

Enough of them were twisted enough that I had to start wondering how they got to be so screwed up. Was it absolute power absolutely corrupting, some more than others? Was it the constant fear of being assassinated? Was it the inbreeding of the Roman great houses? Domitian, who was one of the monsters (though his father and older brother were two of the kindest) was said to be sexually molested as a child.

[Variol Farseer]

With the exception of Augustus, who was a genius and sui generis, there seems to be a rough and ready correlation between the sanity of an emperor and the age at which he reached the throne:

Tiberius, 55
Caligula, 25*
Claudius, 50
Nero, 17*
Galba, 70
Otho, 36
Vitellius, 53
Vespasian, 60
Titus, 39
Domitian, 29*

* marks the three of Suetonius's Caesars who were pretty obviously insane, or went insane during their reigns; and, sure enough, they were the ones who became emperor before age 30.

If you look at later Roman history, the rule seems to hold up. The next young emperor was Commodus, who reached the imperium at 19, and was a good deal worse than he was portrayed in Gladiator. Caracalla was 25, his brother Geta 22, when they inherited the throne, and they were two of the worst. Elagabalus was a puppet installed as emperor at 14, and managed to richly deserve assassination by the time he was 18.

Alexander Severus is an exception, a remarkably sane and capable emperor who, like his cousin Elagabalus, started off as a 14-year-old puppet. Wikipedia offers this opinion: 'There is no doubt that, had Alexander's many excellent qualities been supported by the energy and strength of will necessary for the government of a military empire, he would have been one of the greatest of the Roman emperors.' Still, it was his inexperience, and his inability to hold the respect of the army, that caused his downfall, so even he did not escape unscathed from the ill effects of coming to power too young.

Now, in Republican times, there was a prescribed minimum age for each office on the cursus honorum. A man was not supposed to become a senator before age 30, praetor before 38, consul before 42. Sulla enacted a law allowing patricians to become praetor and consul two years younger than plebeians. Other exceptions were made for military heroes — a wise concession, since the consuls were expected to lead armies in the field. But in general, it was felt that a man was not sufficiently mature or experienced to hold the supreme command before his early forties.

A good republican Roman, shown the data in Suetonius, would have been horrified by these autocrats and madmen, and wondered why Romans would lie down under kings again. But he would have pointed out, quite correctly, that all the best emperors were those who had gone through the old-fashioned cursus honorum at pretty much the old-fashioned ages. It's one up to the republican system.

[VON GAK]

A great book,as you would know it was the source of Robert Grave's I Claudius Series.

[Montresor]

One of my favourite books of all time. An excellent and thoroughly entertaining read. Suetonius' unique approach to history, as well as his oft' times dramatic narrative, has ensured this one's immortality.

A side note, I personally disagree with the idea that Caligula was insane. Unhinged, most probably, but I think his excesses show genuine calculation, though also a serious lack of restraint. He made a farce of the Senate because he could. He didn't make his horse senator because he thought his horse could be a good one, or had any ability; he did it to show the senate just exactly what he thought of them, and their relevance. Not a totally sane man, but not the raving lunatic he is often portrayed as. In many respects, actually, some of the absurdist tricks Caligula pulled on his peers remind me of the very calculated absurdities of the Sun King.

Anyway, I digress. Love Suetonius.

[hpty603]

I read The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus and was greatly disappointed at the loss of many sections on Nero and Caligula. After I finish reading Ab Urbe Condita (over halfway there....) and AATE of course, I will definitely have to pick this up. Though if you haven't, read The Annals. They're excellent books. Being written as a story rather than history makes it very interesting.

Edit: Whoops, thought that said 2010 on the last post. Major necropost =0

[3rd warrior on the left]

The western Romans have been gone for 1600 years, what's ressurecting a 2 year old thread compared to that
Read The Twelve Caesars years ago, and still remember a link in Caligula's chapter "So much for the man, now for the monster", or somthing like that.
There is a sort of sequel in the 'Lives of the Later Ceasars' written in the 4th centuary, covering from Hadrian to Heliogabalus (117 - 222AD) with a few made up ones thrown in! (4th centurary romans eh... all that lead in the pipes was getting to them )
The translator of this book (Antony Birtley) goes one better, and writes the missing lives of Nerva and Trajan in the style of Suetonius, linking the later book with the earlier ( imo)
Ceaser himself is still a thumping good read even after 2060 years, it would take a really bad traslator to louse him up.