Augustus Literary Sources
Following Augustus’ establishment of the Principate, emperors became a key topic for Roman historians and biographers due to their position at the heart of politics and the state. With this natural emphasis on emperors, an intriguing question is whether writers conceived of and presented an idea of ‘bad emperors’ in their works. Meanwhile, owing to the importance of such ancient accounts for understanding Rome and its rulers during the imperial period, it is vital to assess their reliability with regard to emperors. Before addressing these issues, it is necessary to recognise the difficulties faced when dealing with the literary sources of the Roman imperial period. First, several major works such as the imperial biographies of Marius Maximus
…show more content…
have been lost in their entirety. Moreover, many important accounts like Tacitus’ Annals and Histories are missing sections which have not survived. To ascertain whether ‘bad emperors’ exist in ancient sources, three extant Roman authors will be examined in turn: Suetonius, Tacitus, and Ammianus Marcellinus. This analysis will show that ‘bad emperors’ and by extension, ‘good emperors’, are present in both early and late imperial accounts, although, amongst these writers, the concept is only clearly articulated by Suetonius. Subsequently, it will be argued that despite being subject to practical limitations and expressing varying degrees of bias and prejudice, our sources generally provide accurate information. Hence, ancient accounts of Roman Emperors are moderately reliable.
In his Lives of the Caesars, one of Suetonius’ key aims is to assess his subjects in their role as emperors.
As part of his thematic approach, he collates the deeds of each emperor, sorting them into separate ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ sections. This division is explicitly marked in Nero’s biography: “These deeds, some of them meriting no reproach, others even deserving some praise, I have gathered together to separate them from the shameful deeds and crimes with which I shall henceforth be concerned.”[1] Within these ‘chapters’, actions are grouped together and used as “items of evidence” for the emperor’s character traits, which are either virtues or vices.[2] For instance, Augustus’ generosity is exemplified by “the frequency, variety and magnificence of the games he provided” for the people.[3] Meanwhile, Tiberius’ refusal to provide “a salary for those who accompanied him on his travels and military expeditions” acts as an example of his rapacity.[4] Across his imperial biographies, Suetonius consistently interprets the behaviour of emperors using pairs of opposing virtues and vices: liberality and avarice, clemency and cruelty, civility and incivility, and restraint and extravagance.[5]Suetonius chooses this set of attributes, because, together, they convey the manner in which his emperors “treated their people”, making them ideal standards for judging them as rulers.[6] Based on this, Suetonius clearly distinguishes between entirely virtuous ‘good emperors’ such as Augustus and ‘bad emperors’ like Tiberius who possess most, if not all the aforementioned
vices.
This idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors is reinforced by the correlation between the moral conduct of each ruler and their popularity in Suetonius’ biographies. Nero earned “the hatred of all” during his reign while Domitian’s actions “made himself an object of terror and hatred to everyone.”[7] Conversely, good emperors were universally liked such as Titus, who “was loved and doted upon by all humanity.”[8]An extension of this is the manner in which people reacted to an emperor’s death. The death of bad emperors is often met with widespread celebration, shown by the immediate reaction to Tiberius’ demise: “The people were so delighted by his death that when they first heard the news some ran about shouting ‘Into the Tiber with Tiberius!”[9] Equally, good emperors were mourned. When Titus died, “everyone engaged in public mourning as if they had lost a member of their own family.”[10]Overall, in his Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius evaluates his subjects’ actions using a set of criteria and demonstrates that public opinion directly reflects their behaviour. In this way, Suetonius presents a well-defined model of ‘bad’ (and ‘good’) emperors.
[1] Suetonius, Life of Nero 19.3
[2] Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1983). Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars, p. 143
[3] Suetonius, The Deified Augustus 43.1
[4] Suetonius, Tiberius 46
[5] Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius, p. 142
[6] Ibid, p. 157
[7] Suet. Ner. 45.1; Suetonius, Life of Domitian 14.1
[8] Suetonius, The Deified Titus 1
[9] Suet. Tib.
[10] Suet. Tit.
have been lost in their entirety. Moreover, many important accounts like Tacitus’ Annals and Histories are missing sections which have not survived. To ascertain whether ‘bad emperors’ exist in ancient sources, three extant Roman authors will be examined in turn: Suetonius, Tacitus, and Ammianus Marcellinus. This analysis will show that ‘bad emperors’ and by extension, ‘good emperors’, are present in both early and late imperial accounts, although, amongst these writers, the concept is only clearly articulated by Suetonius. Subsequently, it will be argued that despite being subject to practical limitations and expressing varying degrees of bias and prejudice, our sources generally provide accurate information. Hence, ancient accounts of Roman Emperors are moderately reliable.
In his Lives of the Caesars, one of Suetonius’ key aims is to assess his subjects in their role as emperors.
As part of his thematic approach, he collates the deeds of each emperor, sorting them into separate ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ sections. This division is explicitly marked in Nero’s biography: “These deeds, some of them meriting no reproach, others even deserving some praise, I have gathered together to separate them from the shameful deeds and crimes with which I shall henceforth be concerned.”[1] Within these ‘chapters’, actions are grouped together and used as “items of evidence” for the emperor’s character traits, which are either virtues or vices.[2] For instance, Augustus’ generosity is exemplified by “the frequency, variety and magnificence of the games he provided” for the people.[3] Meanwhile, Tiberius’ refusal to provide “a salary for those who accompanied him on his travels and military expeditions” acts as an example of his rapacity.[4] Across his imperial biographies, Suetonius consistently interprets the behaviour of emperors using pairs of opposing virtues and vices: liberality and avarice, clemency and cruelty, civility and incivility, and restraint and extravagance.[5]Suetonius chooses this set of attributes, because, together, they convey the manner in which his emperors “treated their people”, making them ideal standards for judging them as rulers.[6] Based on this, Suetonius clearly distinguishes between entirely virtuous ‘good emperors’ such as Augustus and ‘bad emperors’ like Tiberius who possess most, if not all the aforementioned
vices.
This idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors is reinforced by the correlation between the moral conduct of each ruler and their popularity in Suetonius’ biographies. Nero earned “the hatred of all” during his reign while Domitian’s actions “made himself an object of terror and hatred to everyone.”[7] Conversely, good emperors were universally liked such as Titus, who “was loved and doted upon by all humanity.”[8]An extension of this is the manner in which people reacted to an emperor’s death. The death of bad emperors is often met with widespread celebration, shown by the immediate reaction to Tiberius’ demise: “The people were so delighted by his death that when they first heard the news some ran about shouting ‘Into the Tiber with Tiberius!”[9] Equally, good emperors were mourned. When Titus died, “everyone engaged in public mourning as if they had lost a member of their own family.”[10]Overall, in his Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius evaluates his subjects’ actions using a set of criteria and demonstrates that public opinion directly reflects their behaviour. In this way, Suetonius presents a well-defined model of ‘bad’ (and ‘good’) emperors.
[1] Suetonius, Life of Nero 19.3
[2] Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1983). Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars, p. 143
[3] Suetonius, The Deified Augustus 43.1
[4] Suetonius, Tiberius 46
[5] Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius, p. 142
[6] Ibid, p. 157
[7] Suet. Ner. 45.1; Suetonius, Life of Domitian 14.1
[8] Suetonius, The Deified Titus 1
[9] Suet. Tib.
[10] Suet. Tit.