The Twelve Caesars

“Because of [various omens]—and because his health was poor—Caesar long debated whether to stay in and postpone the business he had meant to undertake in the senate. In the end, when Decimus Brutus pressed him not to disappoint the packed meeting which had now been waiting for some time, he made up his mind and set out, when it was almost the fifth hour. […] When he was seated, the conspirators gathered around him, as if to show their respect, and immediately Tillius Cimber, who had taken on the task of initiating the action, came up close to Caesar, as though about to make a request. When Caesar shook his head and waved him away, putting off his business for another time, Cimber grabbed his toga at the shoulders. Caesar then cried out ‘But this is force!’ and one of the Casca brothers stabbed him from behind, just below the throat. Caesar grabbed Casca’s arm and ran him through with a writing implement but, as he tried to leap forward, he was held back by another wound. When he realized that he was being attacked on all sides with drawn daggers, he wrapped his toga around his head, at the same time using his left hand to pull it down over his thighs, so that, with the lower part of his body also covered, his fall would be more decent. And so it was that he was stabbed twenty-three times, saying nothing and letting out merely a single groan, at the first blow—though some people relate that when Marcus Brutus came at him, he said in Greek, ‘You, too, my son?’

Other ancient sources reported that Brutus was Caesar’s illegitimate son. However, both ancient and modern historians generally agree that “son” is meant figuratively and that Brutus was merely seen as a close, younger friend and protégé of Caesar’s. The story of “You, too, my son?”—which Suetonius does not fully endorse—dramatizes the sense of betrayal felt by Caesar’s supporters, and perhaps even Caesar himself, in response to the conspiracy and assassination. Again, this passage reveals how important omens were to the Roman outlook. Caesar ignored the omens of disaster, but at the same time, his death, like his successes, was preordained.

“Caesar left some of those close to him with the suspicion that he had no wish to live much longer and had taken no precautions, since his health was deteriorating, and that it was for this reason that he took little notice either of portents or of the advice of his friends. There are those who think that he had such faith in the most recent decree of the senate and their oath that he dismissed the armed guard of Spanish troops who had previously attended him. Others take a different view, holding that he preferred to fall victim just once to the plots that threatened him from all sides, rather than be perpetually on guard against them. Some say that he was even in the habit of remarking that his safety was more a matter of concern for the republic than it was for him. After all, he had long ago achieved outstanding powers and honours. However, if anything happened to him, the republic would not remain at peace but, its condition quickly deteriorating, it would soon suffer civil war.”

This passage exemplifies how Suetonius follows the historical method by evaluating different accounts concerning Caesar’s last days, even though he does not source them. Whether or not Suetonius’s claim that Caesar identified his personal safety with that of the Roman Republic is historically accurate, it is a rhetorical knock against the conspirators. Suetonius expects his readers to know that the assassination of Caesar reignited the civil wars and cost the Senate its control of the government.

“For ten years he ruled as part of the triumvirate for reconstituting the state. Although he resisted somewhat longer than his colleagues the option of proscriptions, once they were embarked upon he was more severe than either of the others. For while they were swayed in many cases by personal considerations and entreaties in favour of particular individuals, he alone argued strongly that no one should be spared. He proscribed even Gaius Toranius, his own guardian, who had been his father Octavius’ colleague as aedile.”

This passage contrasts with Suetonius’s generally positive depiction of Augustus and his reign. Before he truly gained control over the Roman Empire, Augustus was part of a triumvirate with Mark Anthony and Marcus Lepidus that shared control over the Roman state. Suetonius acknowledges that Augustus was more ruthless than either Lepidus or Anthony in ordering the executions of rivals. Although Suetonius’s biographies can be accurately divided between “good” and “bad” Caesars for the most part, his portrayals of the Caesars are not always black and white, at least not by the standards of modern readers.

“When he spoke in the senate, someone might say to him: ‘I do not understand’ or another: ‘I would argue against you, if I had the chance.’ From time to time when he stormed out of the senate in anger at the unbridled exchanges between the speakers, people would remind him that senators would be allowed to speak their minds on matters of state. When, during a senate review, each man was selecting his own candidate, Antistius Labeo chose Marcus Lepidus who had been the emperor’s enemy and was now in exile. Asked if there were not other men more worthy, Labeo replied that each man made his own judgment. Yet no one suffered for his outspokenness or rudeness.”

Suetonius demonstrates Augustus’s tolerance of free speech in the Senate, a key characteristic of a “good” Caesar. The senator, Antistius Labeo, acknowledged a political rival of Augustus’s, his former co-triumvir Marcus Lepidus, and was not punished for a deliberate slight against Augustus. However, Lepidus’s exile suggests Augustus certainly had the power to retaliate against criticism.

“He so educated his daughter and granddaughters that they even acquired the habit of working wool, and forbade them to say or do anything underhand or which might not be reported in the daily chronicles. So strictly did he prohibit them from associating with anyone outside the family that he wrote to Lucius Vinicius, a distinguished and honourable young man, to reprove him for his immodest action in once coming to pay his respects to his daughter at Baiae. He himself taught his grandsons to read, to take notes, and many other skills, particularly insisting that they take his handwriting as their model.”

Augustus’s private life and that of his family became part of his political program. On top in taking an interest in the private lives of the aristocracy by demanding that they marry and have families, and by enacting laws against female adultery, Augustus made his daughters and granddaughters behave like Roman matrons. This helps explain Augustus’s harsh response to his daughter and granddaughter’s adultery—banishment for life. It is also a strong example of how, with the rise of the emperors, private life took on much more political significance than it had previously.

“On returning to [Capri], however, he threw off all concern for public affairs, to such a degree that he never thereafter filled vacancies in the equestrian jury divisions, nor did he change any appointments among the military tribunes, nor the prefects, nor the provincial governors. For several years he ruled Spain and Syria without consular governors. He allowed Armenia to be taken over by the Parthians, and Moesia to be laid waste by the Dacians and Sarmatians and the provinces of Gaul by the Germans. Great was the disgrace to the empire and no less great the danger. Nevertheless, having obtained the license afforded by seclusion, far from the eyes of the city, he finally gave in simultaneously to all the vices he had so long struggled to conceal.”

Suetonius illustrates one of Tiberius’s tyrannical characteristics: prioritizing his own pleasure over his political responsibilities. Readers are understandably more drawn to the list of anecdotes that describe Tiberius’s alleged sexual deviances, but this passage is essential to understanding the full context. It is not just that Tiberius had abusive and abnormal sexual desires, but that Tiberius’s sexuality and neglect of political responsibilities were symptoms of the same problem: a dangerous impulsiveness and lack of moral restraint. Further, Suetonius again asserts that Tiberius did not develop his vices as a result of his experiences; he always had these vices, and his seclusion meant he no longer had to “conceal” them.

“As emperor he completed no public works of any splendor and the few things which he made a start on, the Temple of Augustus and the restoration of Pompey’s Theatre, were still unfinished many years later. He gave no games at all himself and attended those given by others only very rarely lest any demands should be made of him, particularly after he was forced to buy the freedom of the comic actor Actius. Having provided assistance for a few impoverished senators, he avoided helping any more by declaring he would assist no one else, unless they could give the senate proof that their circumstances were no fault of their own.”

Suetonius has already shown how Tiberius was a tyrant; here he demonstrates how Tiberius failed to display virtue as a ruler. Traditionally, before the rise of the Caesars, Roman politicians courted public support by sponsoring games and funding the construction of public spaces like theaters and parks. The emperors were likewise expected to spend on building projects and games, and Suetonius ties such spending up with virtues of generosity and concern for the public good. Still, these virtues can be taken to extremes, as Suetonius shows with Caligula, Nero, and Domitian.

“Sejanus’ plans to usurp his power—though Tiberius was already aware of the public celebrations of his birthday and the golden images of him which were everywhere honored—he only just managed to overturn; and even then rather through cunning and deceit than through his authority as emperor. For first of all, in order to get him away while appearing to honor him, he made his colleague in his own fifth consulship, which he took on after a long interval and in absence for precisely this purpose. Then, having given him the false hope that he might marry into the imperial family and receive tribunician powers, he made accusations against him, when he least expected it, with a shameful and wretched speech in which, among other things, he begged the senators to send one of the consuls to bring him, a lonely old man, into their presence, along with a military escort for protection.”

Even when discussing Sejanus’s role in manipulating his position as Tiberius’s right-hand man to further his own ambitions, Suetonius makes it explicit that Tiberius is still at fault. Even when Tiberius finally acted against Sejanus by getting rid of a vicious man plotting against him, Tiberius behaved like a tyrant, displaying cowardice, deception, and cruelty.

“That Germanicus had all the virtues of body and spirit to a degree achieved by no other man is generally agreed. His person was striking, his valour conspicuous, his talent for eloquence and learning, both Greek and Roman, was outstanding. He was noted for his kindliness of disposition and was remarkably successful in his endeavors to secure people’s goodwill and to merit their affection.”

In contrast to Tiberius, Caligula, and others, Germanicus is presented as an ideal Roman aristocrat. He was highly educated, athletic, brave, generous, and selfless. In addition, he was aware of his public image and sought to cultivate friendships.

“Among [Caligula’s] other jokes, he once asked the actor Apelles, when he was next to a statue of Jupiter, which of them was the greater and when Apelles hesitated to answer, he had him flayed with scourges, praising the quality of his voice, as he cried out for mercy, as delightful even when groaning.”

Suetonius’s shares numerous anecdotes about Caligula’s alleged cruelty and insanity. Although he claimed to be divine, he was willing to associate with people who were at the bottom of Roman society, like actors. This passage also highlights Caligula’s sadism, often expressed through a cruel sense of humor.

“Those conspiring against Caligula had shut him out along with everyone else, when they cleared people out of the way, pretending the emperor wanted privacy. Claudius had retreated to a chamber, known as the Hermaeum. Shortly afterwards, terrified by rumours of the assassination, he crept to an adjacent balcony and concealed himself among the curtains which hung by the door. By chance, a common soldier who was wandering about, noticed his feet, as he hid there, and pulled him out, meaning to ask who he was. When he recognized Claudius, who had fallen to his knees in fear, he hailed him as emperor. […] On the next day, however, when the senate was proving rather slow in executing its plans, since there was much disagreement between those advocating different courses, and the crowd of people standing around were by now demanding a single leader and calling for Claudius by name, he allowed the armed assembly of soldiers to swear allegiance to him and promised fifteen thousand sesterces to each man. He was the first of the Caesars to have won the loyalty of the soldiers with bribery.”

Suetonius’s account of Claudius’s ascension to the imperial throne has drawn much attention from modern historians. While it is impossible to tell if this account is partially or fully true to history, it does fit Suetonius’s narrative about Claudius being cowardly and easily manipulated. It also suggests another story of how Claudius came to power, given he had the political acumen to have the soldiers swear loyalty and to offer them a large amount of money, despite his supposed reluctance to rule. It is possible to interpret this passage as a clue that Claudius became emperor against the wishes of the Senate by deliberately courting the support of the army.

“[Claudius] undertook just one military campaign and even that was a modest one. When the senate voted him the triumphal ornaments and he considered the honour insufficient to an emperor’s dignity, wishing for the glory of a full triumph, he chose Britain on the grounds that it offered the greatest potential as a place to win it, for no one had made the attempt since Julius Caesar and the island was currently in a state of unrest because some deserters had not been returned […] Without a battle or a drop of blood being shed, part of the island surrendered within a very few days and, in the sixth month after setting out, he returned to Rome and held a triumph of the greatest splendor.”

Despite admitting that Claudius’s military victory in Britain rivaled the conquests of Julius Caesar, Suetonius depicts Claudius’s defeat of Britain as an easy victory. However, the passage shows how important military success was to the emperors. It was particularly essential for Claudius to prove himself as emperor by having a successful campaign, given his lack of military experience.

“At first the signs he showed of insolence, lust, luxury, greed, and cruelty were gradual and covert and could be put down to the errors of youth, but even then it was clear to all that these vices were due not to his age but to his nature.”

In contrast to his discussion of Titus’s youthful indiscretions, Suetonius gives credence to Nero’s bad behavior as a young man. This is where Suetonius explicitly states his view of human nature. Rather than attributing Nero’s tyrannical behavior to his becoming emperor at a young age, Suetonius attributes it to “his nature.”

“[Nero] believed that the proper use for riches and wealth was extravagance and that people who kept an account of their expenses were vulgar and miserly, while those who squandered and fritted away their money were refined and truly splendid. He praised and admired his uncle Caligula, above all because, in so brief a period, he had worked his way through the vast fortune left him by Tiberius. Accordingly there was no limit to his gift-giving or consumption. On Tiridates—which might seem scarcely credible—he lavished eight hundred thousand sesterces in one day and, when he left, made him a gift of a hundred million […] When gambling he would lay bets of four hundred thousand sesterces for each point. He went fishing with a net of gold interwoven with purple and scarlet threads. It is said that he always travelled with at least a thousand carriages, the mules shod with silver and mule-drivers clothed in Canusian wool, and with a train of Mauretanian horsemen and couriers, decked out with bracelets and breastplates.”

An appetite for luxury is a common characteristic in Suetonius’s depictions of tyrants. In fact, Suetonius emphasizes the point by linking Nero’s spending habits to Caligula and explicitly saying that Nero admired Caligula. Further, Suetonius links luxury to another common vice of “bad” Caesars—their need to glorify their own person.

“For, as if he were upset by the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow and twisting streets, he set fire to the city, so openly indeed that some ex-consuls, when they came upon his servants equipped with kindling and torches on their property, did not stop them. He greatly desired some land near the Golden House, then occupied by granaries, and had them torn down and burnt using military machinery because their walls were made of stone. For six days and seven nights destruction raged and the people were forced to take shelter in monuments and tombs.”

This is where Suetonius accuses Nero of starting the Great Fire of Rome. Modern historians are skeptical of this claim, but here it serves as an extreme example of the tyrant’s selfishness and lack of regard for the public good. It should be noted that this alleged incident conflicts with Suetonius’s claim that Nero was mourned by average Romans for years after his death.

“Galba went forth to meet them with such confidence that, when a soldier boasted that he had killed Otho, he asked on whose authority, and made his way into the Forum. The cavalrymen, who were entrusted with the task of killing him, driving their horses through the streets and pushing aside a crowd of civilians, caught sight of him there from a distance and paused for a short time before rushing in and slaughtering him, abandoned as he was by his attendants. There are those who report that, as the disturbance erupted, he cried out: ‘What are you doing, my fellow soldiers? I am yours and you are mine’, and that he even promised a donative. More, however, favour the tradition that, of his own accord, he bared his throat and urged them to do their work and strike, if that seemed right to them. One fact was notable, that of those present no one attempted to give the emperor any help and all who were summoned disdained the message, with the exception of a detachment from the German army.”

The Year of the Four Emperors represented the dangers of the imperial office being open to almost anyone with enough military support, rather than being determined by orderly succession. Galba relied on the military to achieve power, but that very strategy left him vulnerable to being overthrown and killed. Beyond that, the imperial office being left wide open undermined the military ethics of Rome itself. The comradery of the Roman military and the sense of loyalty to one’s commander were completely abandoned, much to Galba’s detriment.

“[Otho] was party to all Nero’s schemes and secrets, even arranging, for the day on which Nero planned to kill his mother, a most lavish and refined dinner party, to which both were invited in order to allay suspicion. It was Otho, too, who took on in a sham marriage Poppaea Sabina, when she was already Nero’s mistress. Nero induced her to leae her husband and entrusted her for the time being to Otho. Otho himself, however, seduced her and not content with this loved her so much that he could not with equanimity endure to have even Nero as a rival.”

Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, and even Vespasian and Titus, all benefited from their connections to the defunct Julio-Claudian dynasty. Suetonius indirectly illustrates how essential these court connections were for anyone hoping to rise through the empire’s political and social ranks. Otho and Nero’s relationship was an extreme example, however. Other examples, like Galba’s friendships with Livia and Claudius, and Titus being educated with Claudius’s son Britannicus, are less salacious.

“Different authorities give quite separate accounts of the origins of the family of the Vitellii, some reputing it an ancient and noble line, others by contrast describing it as recent, obscure, and even disgraceful. I would attribute this to their respective enthusiasm for or hostility towards the emperor Vitellius, if it were not the case that there was already previously disagreement about the family’s standing.”

This is a prime example of Suetonius actually using historical methods, rather than writing down gossip, as was his reputation. It also reflects Suetonius’s concern with accurately reporting the ancestry of the Caesars. The question is not so much why Suetonius finds this issue important, but why Suetonius anticipated that his readers would. In short, Vitellius’s family background mattered to his supporters and critics. Having an aristocratic background bolstered Vitellius’s legitimacy. If Vitellius was from undistinguished origins, however, it validated his critics’ view of Vitellius as an inept, even illegitimate emperor.

“On his arrival the army—which was ill-disposed towards the emperor and ready and willing for a change of ruler—welcomed him with hands raised to heaven, as if he were a gift from the gods, since he was son of a man three times consul, in the prime of life, and of easy-going and lavish disposition. Vitellius had managed to reinforce the support he already enjoyed with his recent behavior, throughout the journey greeting any common soldiers he met with a kiss […] And so it was that scarcely a month had passed when, with no regard to the day and time (for it was already evening), he was carried off from his chamber by some soldiers, just as he was, in his off-duty clothes, hailed as emperor, and taken around the most crowded streets, bearing in his hand the drawn sword of the Deified Julius Caesar which someone had taken from the shrine of Mars and handed to him amid the first wave of enthusiasm.”

A major point in the text’s later biographies is the military’s growing role in appointing emperors. Suetonius calls attention to this tendency when he names Claudius as the first Caesar who paid for the support of the army. This was a disturbing trend in the eyes of Suetonius, who believed the legitimacy of an emperor was something that should be conferred by the Senate. As this passage implies, having soldiers wield such power led to political instability and a lack of discipline among the army itself.

“The soldiers, some made bold by their victory, others ashamed of their defeat, were indulging in every kind of license and recklessness. Moreover, the provinces and the free cities and some of the kingdoms, too, were suffering from internal disorder. For this reason he discharged many of Vitellius’ soldiers and punished many of them.”

Unlike Vitellius, who was too lenient toward his soldiers, and Galba, who was strict to the point of sadism, Vespasian successfully restored military discipline and kept the imperial office. This is very much in contrast to the short-lived emperors of the Year of the Four Emperors who were completely dependent on the military. This implies that Vespasian succeeded because he reasserted traditional structures of authority, specifically that of the emperor over the army.

“Some hold that [Vespasian] was very grasping by nature—such was the force of the criticism made by an old herdsman of his who had begged humbly for his freedom as a gift when Vespasian became emperor, but had been refused: ‘The fox changes his coat but not his customs.’ On the other hand, some argue that the drained resources of the treasury and the imperial fund absolutely compelled him to pursue spoil and plunder, and that he himself had borne witness to this at the start of his reign, declaring that forty thousand million sesterces were needed to set the state to rights. And this seems more plausible, for even when he acquired money improperly he always made excellent use of it.”

Here is an interesting example of Suetonius arguing against a negative view of one of the Caesars. After admitting that some still believed Vespasian had exploited the people out of greed, Suetonius makes a historical argument as to why Vespasian’s actions were politically justified rather than a reflection of innate tendencies. Significantly, this is an approach Suetonius rarely takes with the “bad” Caesars like Caligula, Tiberius, and Domitian.

“Besides being suspected of cruelty, he was also suspected of self-indulgence, on the grounds that he would engage in drinking bouts with the most dissolute of his companions which would go on until midnight. He was also suspected of lustfulness both because of his troupes of catamites and eunuchs and because of his great passion for Queen Berenice, to whom he is even said to have promised marriage. There were also stories of his rapaciousness, for it was understood that when his father heard court cases, he was in the habit of selling his influence and taking bribes. To sum up, people thought of him and even publicly spoke of him as another Nero. Yet this reputation turned out to be to his advantage for, when he was found to have no vices but instead the greatest virtues, it was succeeded by the greatest praise.”

We cannot really verify Suetonius’s claims that these rumors comparing Titus to Nero were inaccurate. However, these stories of Titus’s decadence were prominent enough that Suetonius found it necessary to address them. In particular, Titus’s relationship with foreign royalty, Berenice, must have stirred memories of Julius Caesar’s and Mark Anthony’s affairs with Queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt. In particular, Berenice, like Cleopatra, came from a region of the world, “the East,” that Romans had long associated with extravagance and tyranny. To justify his portrait of Titus as a virtuous emperor, Suetonius must explain why these stories do not contradict his image of Titus.

“With no less arrogance, when [Domitian] was dictating a formal letter in the name of his procurators he would begin: ‘Our master and god issues the following orders.’ Thus after this it became customary for him always to be addressed by everyone, even in writing and conversation.”

While Suetonius’s description of Domitian’s hubris is not nearly as detailed as that of Caligula, there is a similar implication. Domitian rejected Augustus’s construction of the imperial office as a republican institution, in which the emperor was just a leading statesman. Like Caligula and Nero, Domitian acted like a monarch rather than just having the power of one, and this shapes how Suetonius portrays him.