The Twelve Caesars

Ha! Here's a massive must-read about Roman history; especially the rise of the Empire - from Julius Caesar's death and its consequences upon the establishment of the Principate, up to the fall of Domitian. The problem is, this is not history how I personally like it; if it can be called 'history' at all!

I get it: Suetonius writes biographies, and biography, for him, means mainly focusing on private lives. This is not an innocent approach. Private lives are his way to gauge the personalities and characters of his subjects, and, so, 'explain' their achievements as rulers. What's the issue with that, then? Well...

Then as now, I don't see how bringing forth the family issues, sexuality, eccentricities, vices and individual shortcomings of show more people in power can serve as a reliable tool to judge of their deeds as politicians. What goes on in private is what goes on in private; and public life is often all other and unrelated. True, in Ancient Rome both were often going hand-in-hand (eg. one cannot understand the political feuds within a dynasty without knowing about the familial and marital conflicts plaguing it). But, then as now, such failures of characters and supposed feuds and how they went on is more often than not relying on gossips, libels, hearsays, and, so, should be taken with a serious pinch of salt! Is this all true and reliable? Or are these 'supposed' vices and outrageous behaviours just deliberate slanders playing into political agendas? Politics was a dirtier business back then that it is now! But, I get that too: then as now, Suetonius's delights in dragging most of his subjects into the mud by overplaying the scandalous will be as entertaining and crusty as the crass and vulgar tabloids of our days. Such gossips and lurid details, after all, became the stuff of history (Tiberius, Caligula, Nero... it's all in there!). So what did I expect?

Well, when it comes to such primary sources, I like history as a narrative. I like reading about achievements (military, political...) and, so, I have no patience for the privy and gossipy. I'm not saying Suetonius has no historical interest! He relies on primary sources too (eg letters from Augustus and Mark Anthony, memoirs of Tiberius and Claudius, poetry of Nero... all quoted verbatim). He also quotes popular songs and jokes which tells a lot about how rulers were perceived by their subjects. But, you would be very hard-pressed to find anything detailed about their deeds (eg Julius Caesar might have been a great conqueror, you wouldn't know it reading this!).

Now, some are clearly admired (Julius Caesar again, Augustus, even Vespasian comes out fine...). The other biographical snapshots, however, are striking (and, to me, annoying) for their downright and always predictable negativity. Tiberius? He claims: 'Some aspects of his criminal obscenities are almost too vile to discuss, much less to believe' (before, of course, discussing them at length!). Claudius? He is completely dismissed: 'all these acts, and others like them - indeed, one might say throughout his reign - were dictated by his wives and freedmen: he practically always obeyed their whims rather than his own judgement.' And it goes on. And on. And on. And on! The negativity, in fact, is quite boring; especially when coupled with the lack of depth when it comes to public achievements.

So? Well... These biographies might be crusty for their sensationalism, nearly all men here exposed in their supposed trashy behaviours; and, this might make for an entertaining read. However, I, for one, rather go and read Tacitus... There: Suetonius is not for me. show less

Suetonius is a greater chore to read than Tacitus, but his gossip is juicier. Pliny the Younger (of Letters fame) was Suetonius' patron, helping to secure him a sequence of senior positions in the empire. He rose to this height on the strength of his scholarship, and that is on display here in the greatest of his works. His format, however, is prone to challenge. It is not a chronological history, as in Plutarch, but a categorized listing of the key elements which stand out about each of the first twelve Caesars of Rome. This may have suited conventions of the time but perhaps not the subject matter.

Robert Graves did a famous translation of this work, and it shows in his novel "I, Claudius" which I read a couple of years ago. I'm glad I show more read that first, so that I could read through its source material after the fact and make all the connections. Suetonius paints a very dark portrait of Tiberius, and makes it clear that the loss of Germanicus as an alternative heir to Augustus was a terrible blow to Rome. Tiberius was malicious, and Caligula was such a horror show it's only a wonder he wasn't murdered sooner. Claudius feels more maligned than he deserves; that might be Graves rubbing off on me but surely he could have been more appreciated for not being a monster, as they soon got again in Nero (and again foregoing a better choice, Britannicus.) The next six Caesars are covered more briefly as the title was tossed around for a few months until Vespasian caught it, handing it down to his sons.

Not one of these Caesars, not even the kinder ones, envisioned the concept of restraining their power in some codified way. There is only the occasional discussion about restoring the Republic, an idea that never got serious wheels under it. Thus whenever the new Caesar started delivering random off-with-their-heads orders, off went the heads, until the inevitable assasination so that the next Caesar could start it all over again. I'm looking forward to Gibbon's story of how well that turned out for them. show less

I find it heartening to enjoy with such gusto a 2,000 year old historical account by the Emperor Hadrian's secretary, he being one Suetonius! In his narrative, he describes the biographies of twelve members of Rome's ruling class who led its Empire at its height, beginning with Julius Caesar and ending over a century later with the hapless Domitian. This was a groundbreaking work because, for the first time a writer relied on what we know today as "primary" sources, either direct interviews or documents from those times. There was little heresay and religious or otherworldly accounts, for the most part, were left out of his narrative. What was left in, however, was an entirely different matter: all kinds of depravity and mayhem and show more violence, and, best of all, decadence, of the most titillating sort, are described with a descriptive delight bordering on the salacious! Keep in mind that, among these Caesars we have Caligula and Nero, two despots we still talk about today! And most of these rulers came to very bad ends, all described with a zeal that makes the reader want to turn the page to find out about the next one and the next one after that! Of note is the masterful translation by Robert Graves who used his ability and knowledge to novelize the life of the Emperor Claudius into two exquisite novels. show less

Para no alargar esto puedo decir que de verdad me sorprendio cuán adictivo resulto la lectura de este compendio: una delicia de chisme viscoso con mucha pus que lo ha convertido en un aparente favorito del publico.

Compre el libro por ser una fuente de la vida de Julio Cesar mas o menos contemporanea, que contrasta en algunas aristas con la escrita por Plutarco, y presenta una biografia de un personaje importante, cuya estructura dista mucho de las actuales biografias ya que el orden cronologico no dicta los párrafos; esta desorganización es un elemento constante durante todas las reseñas posteriores, que puede ser confuso debido a lo errático de su desarrollo.

Volviendo a Julio Cesar, se lega al lector un personaje que aun con show more debilidades y fallas humanas, este es aun queda como un héroe de leyenda, como un modelo de vida. luego sigue con Augusto, quien es casi casi el personaje principal, con muchas más cosas testificadas (y más páginas escritas) e incluso condonando sus vicios como parte de su perfección más completa, lo que me lleva a pensar que este blindaje está otorgado como un momento pesado con respecto a los tiempos del Biógrafo. También la duración parece estar pesada de esta manera.

Pero con la siguiente vida el tono y la materia cambia de héroes nacionales hacia los personajes más disfrutables: Tiberio, Caligula, Claudio y Nerón, cuyas vidas ya no están protegidas por el velo de misticismo que otorgó a los otros, y es en las vidas de estos famosos hombres que uno de los mensajes principales del libro se muestra ad nauseam: el poder corrompe, pero el poder absoluto corrompe absolutamente: esto es ejemplificado con las gráficas descripciones de cómo todos estos personajes en su largo o corto reinado recorrieron la misma trayectoria que los llevó desde buenos y hasta abnegados en un espiral de perversiones sexuales y sadismo gradual, acotado solo por el hartazgo generado en sus conciudadanos. Las marranadas de game of thrones se quedan cortas con la disciplina olímpica de obscenidades, intrigas y caprichos que dejaban la vara muy alta para el siguiente. No obstante a pesar de que el escritor calca claramente quien le agrada y quien no, no le impide enumerar también los aciertos y las distintas obras que se cada uno realizó, que están abrigadas de anécdotas también memorables, como cerrar cada vida con los preámbulos de la muerte y sus cada una vicisitudes. La verdad esta parte es muy disfrutable, el instinto del chisme es perpetuo.

Luego llega el año de los 4 emperadores que termina con la dinastía flavia, que ya parece un rebote hacia estabilidad política y social, estas biografías ya son flacas, además de entretejidas al haberse desarrollado las vidas de estos desde las actividades de Tiberio y Calígula.

El libro fuera de la pulpa tiene mensajes políticos importantes, nos muestra un imperio romano en crecimiento pero con mucha inestabilidad interna; muchos de los conflictos que acontecieron fueron guerras civiles y sublevaciones de cabecillas. Mucho trabajo legislativo y económico es descrito, otro mensaje también ya muy conocido pero aquí plasmado es que al pueblo pan y circo, ¿verdad Neron? show less

If you thought salacious tell-all celebrity biographies were a 20th Century phenomenon, think again! Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was a 1st Century Roman nobleman who worked as secretary for both the emperors Trajan and Hadrian: his position in the Imperial household did not stop him penning the most gossipy and scandalous histories of former holders of the highest office.

Tellingly, he did not write about the two men under whom he had served: I don't know what the laws of libel were like back in 75 AD [roughly the time of writing] but many of the things Suetonius said would have got him killed had the charges been leveled against someone strill living.

Caligula, for example, was not only insane, he was also incestuous, pimped out his show more royal sisters, turned the palace into a brothel and tried to make his horse a consul - the rough equivalent of a Prime Minister.

However, Caligula's name is a byword by depravity and we would expect no less: we might be surprised however at his description of Julius Caesar as an epileptic with a high-pitched voice and a comb-over, he enjoyed taking it up the bum, or Tiberius as a perverse and vicious brute.

Claudius drooled, had a bad stutter and was also prone to fits: he was a greedy drunkard, weak, cruel and stupid - but still a paragon of all the virtues when compared with his successor, the infamous Nero, about whom the only good thing he has to say is that he was a gifted musician. On the other hand, Suetonius started the rumour that Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Great stuff, a real page turned even now. If you thought the Romans were stuffy, read the Twelve Caesars and think again! Also pity our poor modern biographers who have such tame fodder to work with... show less

Accurate? Probably not. Entertaining? Yes. It's hard to believe that the emperors who weren't popular with the aristocrats or senate, but were popular with the people, were the only ones with truly revolting sexual habits. On the other hand, Suetonius is obviously and admittedly recording rumors rather than facts, and it seems pretty likely that the bad sex habits correlate to something a bit wonky. I would have liked a bit more annotation, and a longer introduction, too.

The Penguin Classics volume: “Suetonius - The Twelve Caesars” is a difficult book to rate. From a classics standpoint it is a must read for anyone interested in the history of Rome, and the Penguin Classics treatment is well done and provides a wealth of information to help the reader understand the context and meaning, as well as where Suetonius is the only source and where he appears to be wrong in what he has written. From this standpoint, I would give it 5 stars, but when it comes to the actual content and the uneven way it is presented, and the non-chronological information, it is hardly the greatest biographical or historical work from ancient times.
We know from what he writes, that Suetonius had information from his family, show more as well as from his positions working for emperors such as Trajan and Hadrian, though it is possible that it was only under Hadrian that he held them. The biographies have the same basic format, a chronological section about the ancestry and emperor’s birth and life prior to accession. This is followed by a topical discussion of what took place during the reign of the person, and then a section on the death of the individual. The topical section is handled differently, in the case of the longer serving emperors there appear to be public and private sections, whereas with those emperors who are viewed as bad, the topical section is divided into the good and neutral vs. the negative.
Regardless of its flaws, these works are important to read for anyone interested in the history of Rome, and the Penguin Classics edition adds tremendously to that experience. show less