Suetonius
Lives of the Twelve Caesars
Caius Suetonius Tranquillus was
born around 69AD (the year of the four
emperors). With Tacitus, he is one of the
two main sources for the early Roman
empire. But where Tacitus (writing Annals
and Histories) was an out-and-out historian,
Suetonius’ instincts are those of the gossip
columnist. Lives of the Caesars is tabloid
journalism 2000 years ahead of its time.
Suetonius was well placed to pick up
gossip. His father commanded a legion for
Otho in 69AD, and he himself entered the
imperial civil service, which gave him access
to imperial libraries and archives. He was
dismissed by Hadrian for some indiscretion
involving Hadrian’s wife Sabina, which is
probably why he quotes documents
verbatim for Julius and Augustus, but not
for the later emperors.
He is not interested in political or social
history, giving us instead a series of intimate
memoirs—indelible portraits drawn with the
skill of the cartoonist who differentiates
individuals by stressing their most
prominent characteristics. The banqueting
hall and the bedchamber figure more largely in his narrative than the forum or the
camp. We do not get a complete picture of
Roman society. Instead we see the homely,
the ludicrous, the horrendous: Julius Caesar
trying to disguise his baldness; Augustus
adopting platform soles so as to appear
taller; the luxuries provided (and consulship
planned) by Caius for his horse Incitatus;
and the failure of the collapsible boat
constructed by Nero for the murder of his
mother.
But Suetonius offers us more than
entertainment. He is objective and nonjudgmental
where Tacitus is biased and
censorious. And he reminds us, usefully and
unfashionably, that individuals in history do
make a difference. It is hard to read the lives
of Julius and Augustus, and believe the
Mediterranean world would have turned
out exactly the same with two different
individuals in charge.
The Emperors
Despite Suetonius, it is arguable that Julius
and Augustus were not really emperors,
though they did call themselves ‘imperator’ (meaning ‘commander’). Julius was consul
for life and dictator for life, and Augustus
always called himself ‘princeps’. By the time
of Tiberius the word ‘imperator’ had come
to mean ‘emperor’, so the other ten rulers
certainly were emperors.
Julius (born 100BC; dictator 46–44BC)
The life and the death of Julius Caesar make
sense if we remember three things about
him. He was intensely ambitious. He was
clearsighted enough to see that political
arrangements which worked for an Italian
city-state were inadequate for governing an
empire covering half the Mediterranean.
And he was not prepared to pretend that
the autocracy he established was anything
other than an autocracy. He was too
honest, too impatient, and too proud to
make a pretence of consulting the senate
about things they had proved themselves
incompetent to deal with over the previous
60 years. This is why he was murdered.
Augustus was to establish the same
autocracy, but disguise it as the republic
restored. As an individual, Julius has been
described as a ‘cool-headed man of genius
with an erratic vein of sexual exuberance’,
and this is certainly the picture of him
presented by Suetonius.
Augustus (born 63BC; princeps 31BC–14AD)
Augustus was born Caius Octavius, taking
the name Caesar Octavianus when he was
adopted by his great-uncle Julius, and the
title ‘Augustus’ from the senate after
bringing peace and prosperity to the Greco-
Roman world. Cold, ruthless and perhaps
unlovable, he was also patient, efficient and
energetic. Possessing, as Julius had not, a
very strong instinct for self-preservation, he
did not claim dictatorial powers. He asked
only for the power of a tribune (to veto any
unpalatable legislation) and proconsular (i.e.
military) authority over those provinces with
sizeable armies in them. With these powers,
he ruled the Mediterranean world for forty
years. His dynastic plans were thwarted by
the deaths of his chosen candidates, and he
would no doubt have been appalled to
know he was founding a dynasty which
would include Caligula, Claudius and Nero.
Tiberius (born 42BC; emperor 14–37AD)
Under Augustus, Tiberius showed military
and administrative ability of the highest
order, his campaigns in Germany bringing to
the Rhine frontier a peace which lasted for
150 years. He also showed himself loyal and
dutiful, retiring from public life to make the way clear for Augustus’ chosen successors,
only to be summoned back when those
successors died. As emperor he was no less
capable, at least until the closing years of
his life, and he left the Roman Empire, at his
death, prosperous and stable. He is said to
have vetoed a proposal to name a month
after him, asking drily ‘And what will you do
if you have thirteen emperors?’ His chief
fault was the severity he showed to senators
suspected of disloyalty, and this has led to
his being harshly treated by history—notably by Tacitus, whose judgment
Suetonius follows.
Caius (born 12AD; emperor 37–41AD)
Better known as Caligula (Little Boot), the
nickname given him by the soldiers of his
father Germanicus. The deaths of his father,
mother, and two elder brothers (for which
Tiberius was, probably wrongly, blamed) left
Caius as Tiberius’ heir. He made a good
start as emperor, but was then severely ill
seven months after his accession; after
which he emarked on a career of cruelty
and caprice. His plan to make his horse
Incitatus a consul may have been insanity—or a wry comment on the by now debased
value of the consulship. He also built a
three-and-a-half-mile bridge of ships from Baiae to Puteoli, either to rival the bridge
built by Xerxes 500 years earlier, or perhaps
in response to a prediction of the astrologer
Thrasyllus, who said that Caius ‘would no
more be emperor than he would ride on
horseback across the gulf of Baiae’.
Claudius
(born 10BC; emperor 41–54AD)
Claudius in his youth suffered from ill
health, clumsiness of manner, and
coarseness of taste. Augustus wrote of him
(to Livia): ‘if he be right in his intellects, why
should we hesitate to promote him by the
same steps and degrees as we did his
brother? But if we find him deficient in
body and mind, we must beware of giving
occasion for him and ourselves to be
laughed at by the world, which is ready
enough to make such matters the subject of
mirth and derision.’ The decision was to
exclude him from public life, and he became
something of a domestic buffoon. When
Caius was murdered, the Praetorian Guards
found Claudius hiding behind a curtain. He
was dragged out expecting to be murdered,
but was made emperor. He had the last
laugh on everybody by making a very good
job of it.
Nero (born 37AD; emperor 54–68AD)
The star of Nero’s life is his mother
Agrippina. Sister to Caligula and wife to
Claudius (whom she is believed to have
poisoned), she was ambitious, ruthless, and
determined that her son should be emperor.
Had she known her own murder, on his
orders, would be the result, that probably
would not have stopped her. Nero inherited
her cruelty, but little else, his ambitions
being restricted to competing in musical
and dramatic contests. Weak, shallow and
vain, he demonstrates how badly the
hereditary principle can work when applied
to an autocracy as absolute as the Roman
empire. What is surprising is how long it
took for somebody to decide to get rid of
him. The story that he set fire to Rome, and
sang of the destruction of Troy as he
watched it burn, may not be true, but is
certainly in character.
Galba (born c.3BC; emperor 68–69AD)
When Gaul rose in revolt against Nero, the
rebels appealed to Galba (governor of part
of Spain) to head the rebellion. Galba
agreed, gained the empire with ease, and
then as easily lost it. He executed the
praetorian prefect responsible for his
accession. His rewards to the Gallic states alienated the Lower Rhine army, which
proclaimed Vitellius emperor. Galba also
refused to pay the praetorian guard a
reward for having deserted Nero. Finally, he
adopted Lucius Piso as his successor instead
of Otho, the former governor of Lusitania.
Otho won the support of the Praetorians,
who then killed both Galba and Piso in
the Forum. It is impossible not to agree
with Tacitus’ famous verdict on Galba:
‘everybody’s choice of emperor—too bad he
became one’.
Otho (born 32AD; emperor 69AD)
Otho joined Galba’s rebellion against Nero,
in the hope of becoming Galba’s successor.
When Galba adopted Piso instead, Otho
prepared to seize power himself. The
praetorian guard rebelled, Galba and Piso
were murdered, and Otho was acclaimed
emperor. But the legions in Germany
had declared for Vitellius, whose troops
were already moving toward Italy. Otho
summoned the Danube legions, and
marched out to meet them. The Vitellian
forces were stronger, but poorly supplied.
Otho should have waited. Instead he
insisted on action, apparently from a horror
of civil war and a determination to bring it
to an end as quickly as possible. After a clear-cut but not overwhelming defeat,
with reinforcements on their way, Otho
committed suicide to avoid further
bloodshed.
Vitellius (born 14AD; emperor 69AD)
Aulus Vitellius has few claims to fame apart
from his gluttony. According to Suetonius,
he was a favourite of three emperors: of
Tiberius, for his good looks as a boy; of
Caius, for his skill as a charioteer; and of
Claudius for his skill at dice. He presided
over games held in Nero’s honour, in which
his chief function was to persuade a far
from reluctant emperor to take part himself.
After Nero’s death, Galba appointed
Vitellius governor of Lower Germany,
believing him to be too indolent to pose any
threat. When Galba in turn was murdered,
Vitellius was elevated to the position of
emperor by the ambition of the troops
under his command more than any
ambition of his own. Out of his depth as
emperor, he offered no serious resistance to
the challenge of Vespasian.
Vespasian (born 9AD; emperor 69–79AD)
Vespasian was not an aristocrat, and his
wife was not even a Roman citizen. He was
appointed to military command by Nero
because he was competent and because
Nero (almost certainly rightly) did not think
someone of such low birth could have
ambitions to become emperor. However,
Nero had no descendants, the year of the
four emperors removed several leading
contenders for the throne, and once
Vespasian had been acclaimed as emperor
by part of the army, he became a contender,
and had no choice but to pursue his claim
with vigour. Vespasian was a man of great
energy, humility and common sense, the
best emperor Rome had had since
Augustus. Under him, the peoples of the
Roman world enjoyed political stability and
economic security. Had his son Titus not
died young, he might have founded a
remarkable dynasty.
Titus (born 41AD; emperor 79–81AD)
Titus was the older son of Vespasian.
In 70AD, while Vespasian was busy
consolidating his position as emperor, Titus
completed the four-year war against the
Jewish Zealots, who had rebelled against Roman rapacity and the demand for
emperor-worship. Titus captured Jerusalem,
in the face of fanatical and heroic
resistance, and destroyed its temple. He
then became Vespasian’s colleague and coruler,
and on Vespasian’s death in 79AD,
emperor. After only two years, however, he
died unexpectedly of a fever. Suetonius
does not accuse Domitian of poisoning
him, and this is in itself surprising in an age
when unexpected deaths were routinely
(and perhaps often rightly) attributed to
poisoning. Titus was not hugely popular
during his lifetime, but his reputation rose
steadily during the ensuing tyranny of his
brother Domitian.
Domitian
(born 51AD; emperor 81–96AD)
Domitian was the younger, less favoured,
son of Vespasian, and became emperor on
the death of his brother Titus. He is known
chiefly for his lust, gratuitous cruelty (one of
his leisure pursuits was sticking pins in flies),
and the reign of terror which he directed
first against the Senate, but then widened
to embrace all classes in society. When even
his close friends and household servants no
longer felt safe, they conspired to murder
him, and so ushered in the golden age of the Roman empire (the period from Hadrian
to Marcus Aurelius). Suetonius tells a story
of Domitian’s father once laughing at him
for refusing to eat some mushrooms, saying
that if he knew his fate, he would be afraid
of the sword instead. The story, if true, is
further evidence of Vespasian’s good sense.
Notes by Tom Griffith
The music on this recording is taken from the NAXOS catalogue
SCHUMANN Overtures Julius Caesar Op. 128
8.550608
Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra / Johannes Wildner
SCHUMANN Overtures Faust
8.550608
Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra / Johannes Wildner
SCHUMANN Overtures Bride of Messina Op. 100
8.550608
Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra / Johannes Wildner
SCHUMANN Overtures Manfred Op. 115
8.550608
Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra / Johannes Wildner
FRANCK Symphony in D minor
8.550155
Royal Flanders Philharmonic / Günter Neuhold
BEETHOVEN Overtures Egmont
8.550072
Slovak Philharmonic Orchestra / Stephen Gunzenhauser
BEETHOVEN Overtures Consecration of the House
8.550072
Slovak Philharmonic Orchestra / Stephen Gunzenhauser
