What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lives of the Twelve Caesars #1-12
Жизнь двенадцати цезарей
Когда Светоний около 120 г. н. э. опубликовал наиболее известную из своих книг «Жизнь двенадцати цезарей», римская империя существовала уже полтора века. Окончились длившиеся почти двадцать лет гражданские войны, окончилась и эпоха римской республики.
Светоний не был ни глубоким мыслителем, ни гениальным художником. Но он был достаточно чуток, чтобы уловить требования своего времени, и достаточно умен и смел, чтобы найти для своего отклика лучшую из всех возможных форм. Поэтому его книга в равной мере осталась ценнейшим литературным памятником как для эпохи, описываемой в ней, так и для эпохи писавшего.
Светоний не был ни глубоким мыслителем, ни гениальным художником. Но он был достаточно чуток, чтобы уловить требования своего времени, и достаточно умен и смел, чтобы найти для своего отклика лучшую из всех возможных форм. Поэтому его книга в равной мере осталась ценнейшим литературным памятником как для эпохи, описываемой в ней, так и для эпохи писавшего.
188 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 121
2619 people are currently reading
36904 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,090 reviews
Read
December 12, 2019This Roman bedtime reading gives the reader a mixed experience. The length of the lives is uneven - the first three lives in the Robert Graves (he'd go on to recycle much of the material here into his novels I Claudius and Claudius the God) translation alone make up half the book, the division of each life into public (civil and military exploits), and private parts (adventures in bedroom and dining room) works against presenting each life as an organic whole and Suetonius' sense of cause and effect seems oddly haphazard, as though Suetonius had a sense that actions and attitudes have causes but couldn't quite link these in a logical way. Even so, or perhaps precisely because of this, these short accounts of the lives of the twelve Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian became a literary model imitated by the writer of the later Augustan History and Einhard in his Life of Charlemagne. Suetonius had succeeded in devising a scalable and adaptable model for a biography.
Suetonius was employed in the Imperial administration under the Flavian emperors before being dismissed by Hadrian for allegedly having an affair with his Empress . In the lives of Julius Caesar and Augustus, Suetonius talks about their correspondence and ciphers in a way that suggests he had access to their archives but this doesn't seem to have been the case for the later lives (which might support an enforced and unexpected early retirement). Despite his background he doesn't give a description of the Imperial administration, or better said the way in which the Emperor conveyed his wishes, or ascertained that they were carried out. The 'administration' emerges as a curious affair. It was normal for the Emperor to receive a visitor on official business in the bedroom for instance (Domitian), business might include sitting as judge in court cases (Claudius), the Emperor was expected to be available to hear petitions (Vespasian), yet at the same time space had to found in the diary for having feasts and attending sports events (of the kind that generally involved people dying). Bureaucracy as we think of it doesn't seem to exist, at this period the equivalents of ministries, or a professional staff to execute the Emperor's will do not seem to have existed (except in the literal case of the army). This is slightly curious because according to The Oxford History of the Classical World (which incidentally doesn't recommend the Robert Graves translation) there were, on the evidence of the admittedly later Cassius Dio, something along the lines of ministers, but the focus in The Twelve Caesars is on the personality, not the mechanics of government. So instead there are slaves, freedmen and private contractors working in the Imperial household. Nero at the end is alone with a couple of slaves and Freedmen and struggles to even find a quiet spot to end his own existence .
The lack of internal consistency is puzzling. For instance Tiberius disliking his son Drusus for the latter's dissolute behaviour which comes in the middle of Suetonius' descriptions of Tiberius' own heavy drinking and team of sexual gymnasts (etc, etc). Nero on one page lusts after his mother and allegedly the two consummate an incestuous relationship while being carried around in a litter, shortly after Nero decides to kill his mother for being too overbearing (The Annals of Imperial Rome has a much more detailed account of the bizarre way he chooses to murder her - building a ship designed to sink and inviting her to go for a lake cruise on it, inevitably she survives (for the mean time), by swimming to shore ). Later 'everybody' hates and despises Domitian even though he hasn't done much more, according to Suetonius, than change a couple of the names of the months. Augustus apparently didn't like odd looking people, even though he had a limp, scabs that looked like ringworm (but really weren't Suetonius hastens to assure us) and just the one eyebrow (although that one was very long).
The basic issue here is that Suetonius is uncritical. He simply lays out anecdotes that he has come across. For example the infamous account of children nibbling Tiberius' genitals while he was swimming. Perhaps if he found children with gills this could be done. Otherwise it seems physically awkward, if not impossible, however debauched you are. Typically here and in all of the Capri anecdotes (some of which get retold in Fuentes' Terra Nostra) and many others, it is easier to imagine that these were simply tall tales, urban legends, that were told about the Emperors. Frequently there either aren't witnesses at all or witnesses who might talk, who could have reported on these particular deeds.
Reading through the life of Julius Caesar, noticing the interplay of politics, the law and money, how bribery and debt won him political office, then in office he gained the wealth to pay off the debt and build a power base and to avoid being prosecuted and the description of his hair: "His baldness was a disfigurement which his enemies harped upon, much to his exasperation; but he used to comb the thin strands of hair forward" he suddenly reminded me of Silvio Berlusconi , I felt from Suetonius that this is not a book from the distant past that describes another, now lost, world but a book about politics, how people look at politicians, how they struggle to be remembered and how people do remember them. A contemporary version might for some countries be less bloody, but probably otherwise would be much of a muchness.
Similarly in the middle of the life of Augustus something flipped in my mind and I realised I was reading about a Mao (particularly with his habit of deflowering girls - although Suetonius sees this as part of the "decent normalcy of his sex-life" which certainly tells us something about Imperial Rome) or a Stalin. He may have definitively ended Republican government, but at least he kept the aqueducts flowing, as they might have said in those days before they had trains or timetables. Suetonius says that on occasion he would attend the Senate and greet every senator by name. There were six hundred senators. Assuming Augustus could greet four a minute that would have taken two and a half hours, since he'd also say goodbye to each of them that would have left enough time for a quick eulogy to his divine leadership and masterful reorganisation of the calender (even assuming that only one hundred were present it would have still have been 25 minutes at a fast and perfunctory pace). Perhaps Mussolini's imagining of Fascist Italy as a rebirth of the Roman Empire wasn't so far off the mark after all.
In a sense the doings of Caligula - providing a marble stable with an ivory manager for his favourite horse or Nero bolting the doors of the theatre when he was performing, obliging pregnant women to give birth in the aisles and desperate men to pretend that they had died so they would be removed as though for their own funeral - was a form of political theatre. A cross between the extravagances of a contemporary pop-star and a modern politician designed as much maybe to distract, amuse and depoliticise the Roman public as to indulge themselves.
Although of course since Roman times no political unit has ever invaded another, over thrown its government and imposed its own puppet ruler who turns out to be reliably interested in only lining his own pockets and advancing the fortune of his large family. The behaviour of the Emperors is evergreen, if slightly more extreme than we tend to hear on the evening news, government as theatre, the most senior politician as rock star idol (possibly just in his own eyes), the politics of friendship and networking (once all rivals are dead or in exile), the prematurely dried up and disillusioned political heir - groomed for the job but who can't be bothered to do it, the anxious and suspicious leader who knows how fickle and fleeting political power is, these are political archetypes that reoccur consciously and unconsciously through history.
That these stories and the generally unpeaceful succession of one emperor to another, can blind the reader to how odd and unusual this has been in world history. On the whole supreme leaders have been far more successful in establishing dynasties and secure successions. The turnover of leaders starts to look suspiciously like democracy, although election is by means of the sword rather than the ballot box.
Anyway, it is all here. Dreams, omens (this a book rich in signs and portents), curious forms of punishment (poor Nero has to ask what an 'old fashioned execution' is, and the answer persuades him that suicide is preferable ) and the wit and wisdom of the Emperor Vespasian who declared it better to allow a poor man to earn a days wage than to have mechanical cranes and that of his son Titus who declared a day wasted in which he hadn't done a good deed (presumably good by Roman rather than commonly held standards, he did sack Jerusalem after-all since his Dad was busy elsewhere in the Empire - nice of him to tidy up the old Jewish revolt for his old man).
Because of all the anecdotes, I can recommend this as light reading, I could follow along while coughing and sneezing with a cold, though I wouldn't recommend reading this if you had diarrhoea or were vomiting - the descriptions of poisonings and attempted poisonings would only serve to make the reader fretful and nervous - only three of the twelve Caesars here described got to die an unambiguously natural death.
Suetonius was employed in the Imperial administration under the Flavian emperors before being dismissed by Hadrian for allegedly having an affair with his Empress . In the lives of Julius Caesar and Augustus, Suetonius talks about their correspondence and ciphers in a way that suggests he had access to their archives but this doesn't seem to have been the case for the later lives (which might support an enforced and unexpected early retirement). Despite his background he doesn't give a description of the Imperial administration, or better said the way in which the Emperor conveyed his wishes, or ascertained that they were carried out. The 'administration' emerges as a curious affair. It was normal for the Emperor to receive a visitor on official business in the bedroom for instance (Domitian), business might include sitting as judge in court cases (Claudius), the Emperor was expected to be available to hear petitions (Vespasian), yet at the same time space had to found in the diary for having feasts and attending sports events (of the kind that generally involved people dying). Bureaucracy as we think of it doesn't seem to exist, at this period the equivalents of ministries, or a professional staff to execute the Emperor's will do not seem to have existed (except in the literal case of the army). This is slightly curious because according to The Oxford History of the Classical World (which incidentally doesn't recommend the Robert Graves translation) there were, on the evidence of the admittedly later Cassius Dio, something along the lines of ministers, but the focus in The Twelve Caesars is on the personality, not the mechanics of government. So instead there are slaves, freedmen and private contractors working in the Imperial household. Nero at the end is alone with a couple of slaves and Freedmen and struggles to even find a quiet spot to end his own existence .
The lack of internal consistency is puzzling. For instance Tiberius disliking his son Drusus for the latter's dissolute behaviour which comes in the middle of Suetonius' descriptions of Tiberius' own heavy drinking and team of sexual gymnasts (etc, etc). Nero on one page lusts after his mother and allegedly the two consummate an incestuous relationship while being carried around in a litter, shortly after Nero decides to kill his mother for being too overbearing (The Annals of Imperial Rome has a much more detailed account of the bizarre way he chooses to murder her - building a ship designed to sink and inviting her to go for a lake cruise on it, inevitably she survives (for the mean time), by swimming to shore ). Later 'everybody' hates and despises Domitian even though he hasn't done much more, according to Suetonius, than change a couple of the names of the months. Augustus apparently didn't like odd looking people, even though he had a limp, scabs that looked like ringworm (but really weren't Suetonius hastens to assure us) and just the one eyebrow (although that one was very long).
The basic issue here is that Suetonius is uncritical. He simply lays out anecdotes that he has come across. For example the infamous account of children nibbling Tiberius' genitals while he was swimming. Perhaps if he found children with gills this could be done. Otherwise it seems physically awkward, if not impossible, however debauched you are. Typically here and in all of the Capri anecdotes (some of which get retold in Fuentes' Terra Nostra) and many others, it is easier to imagine that these were simply tall tales, urban legends, that were told about the Emperors. Frequently there either aren't witnesses at all or witnesses who might talk, who could have reported on these particular deeds.
Reading through the life of Julius Caesar, noticing the interplay of politics, the law and money, how bribery and debt won him political office, then in office he gained the wealth to pay off the debt and build a power base and to avoid being prosecuted and the description of his hair: "His baldness was a disfigurement which his enemies harped upon, much to his exasperation; but he used to comb the thin strands of hair forward" he suddenly reminded me of Silvio Berlusconi , I felt from Suetonius that this is not a book from the distant past that describes another, now lost, world but a book about politics, how people look at politicians, how they struggle to be remembered and how people do remember them. A contemporary version might for some countries be less bloody, but probably otherwise would be much of a muchness.
Similarly in the middle of the life of Augustus something flipped in my mind and I realised I was reading about a Mao (particularly with his habit of deflowering girls - although Suetonius sees this as part of the "decent normalcy of his sex-life" which certainly tells us something about Imperial Rome) or a Stalin. He may have definitively ended Republican government, but at least he kept the aqueducts flowing, as they might have said in those days before they had trains or timetables. Suetonius says that on occasion he would attend the Senate and greet every senator by name. There were six hundred senators. Assuming Augustus could greet four a minute that would have taken two and a half hours, since he'd also say goodbye to each of them that would have left enough time for a quick eulogy to his divine leadership and masterful reorganisation of the calender (even assuming that only one hundred were present it would have still have been 25 minutes at a fast and perfunctory pace). Perhaps Mussolini's imagining of Fascist Italy as a rebirth of the Roman Empire wasn't so far off the mark after all.
In a sense the doings of Caligula - providing a marble stable with an ivory manager for his favourite horse or Nero bolting the doors of the theatre when he was performing, obliging pregnant women to give birth in the aisles and desperate men to pretend that they had died so they would be removed as though for their own funeral - was a form of political theatre. A cross between the extravagances of a contemporary pop-star and a modern politician designed as much maybe to distract, amuse and depoliticise the Roman public as to indulge themselves.
Although of course since Roman times no political unit has ever invaded another, over thrown its government and imposed its own puppet ruler who turns out to be reliably interested in only lining his own pockets and advancing the fortune of his large family. The behaviour of the Emperors is evergreen, if slightly more extreme than we tend to hear on the evening news, government as theatre, the most senior politician as rock star idol (possibly just in his own eyes), the politics of friendship and networking (once all rivals are dead or in exile), the prematurely dried up and disillusioned political heir - groomed for the job but who can't be bothered to do it, the anxious and suspicious leader who knows how fickle and fleeting political power is, these are political archetypes that reoccur consciously and unconsciously through history.
That these stories and the generally unpeaceful succession of one emperor to another, can blind the reader to how odd and unusual this has been in world history. On the whole supreme leaders have been far more successful in establishing dynasties and secure successions. The turnover of leaders starts to look suspiciously like democracy, although election is by means of the sword rather than the ballot box.
Anyway, it is all here. Dreams, omens (this a book rich in signs and portents), curious forms of punishment (poor Nero has to ask what an 'old fashioned execution' is, and the answer persuades him that suicide is preferable ) and the wit and wisdom of the Emperor Vespasian who declared it better to allow a poor man to earn a days wage than to have mechanical cranes and that of his son Titus who declared a day wasted in which he hadn't done a good deed (presumably good by Roman rather than commonly held standards, he did sack Jerusalem after-all since his Dad was busy elsewhere in the Empire - nice of him to tidy up the old Jewish revolt for his old man).
Because of all the anecdotes, I can recommend this as light reading, I could follow along while coughing and sneezing with a cold, though I wouldn't recommend reading this if you had diarrhoea or were vomiting - the descriptions of poisonings and attempted poisonings would only serve to make the reader fretful and nervous - only three of the twelve Caesars here described got to die an unambiguously natural death.
January 14, 2015
This Penguin Classic of The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius is the perfect place to start for anybody interested in ancient Greco-Roman history and culture. Not only is this a most engaging translation by Robert Graves, author of I Claudius, but there is a short Forward by classics scholar, Michael Grant. Additionally, there are ten maps of the city of Rome and the Roman Empire along with a glossary of key terms. From my own experience, once I started reading, I couldn’t stop. Matter of fact, I was inspired to write a Goodreads review of each of the twelve Caesars – Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian.
Specifically, here are a couple of quotes from Michael Grant along with my brief comments:
“Suetonius’ principal contribution lies in his relatively high degree of objectivity. With him, we have moved away from the traditional eulogistic treatment, and have entered a much more astringent atmosphere, in which the men whom he is describing are looked at with a cooler and more disenchanted eye.” ---------- This ‘disenchanted eye’ is a thoroughly modern perspective, one having synchronicity with our 21st century sensibilities.
“The best quality of his work is his power to create rapid, dramatic, and often moving narratives, including, at times, impressive set-pieces, among which the death of Nero is especially notable.” ---------- Unlike a dry academic writing, Suetonius is lively, vivid and sometimes racy.
And excerpts from the translation by Robert Graves:
“During gladiatorial shows he would have the canopies removed as the hottest time of the day and forbid anyone to leave; or take away the usual equipment and pit feeble old fighters against decrepit wild animals; or stage comic duels between respectable householders who happened to be physically disabled in some way or other.”
“Nero’s unreasonable craving for immortal fame made him change a number of well-known names of things and places in his own favor. The month of April, for instance, became Neroneus; and Rome was on the point of being renamed ‘Neropolis’.
Again, once I started reading this book, I couldn't stop. Who would think a classic work of history and biography would be so engaging?
January 2, 2021
Suetonius (70 - 140 AD) was a biographer, librarian and high official under Trajanus and head of the royal archives under Hadrian. This biography of the twelve emperors is thought to have been published around 121 AD. The lives of the emperors of the Caesarian-Claudian lineage, thus up to and including Nero, are extensively discussed, while there are only concise biographies of the emperors following Nero. It is thought that this was due to the fact that Hadrian dismissed Suetonius for having an affair with his wife. Consequently, Suetonius did not have access to the imperial archives any longer and just had to rely on oral history which should have been quite possible at that time, as there must have been enough people still alive to be able to give first hand accounts of facts and events.
It is quite remarkable that the biography is still so enjoyable to read. I will refrain to comment on each emperor’s life. The life stories of especially the Caesarian-Claudian emperors are generally well-known. Suetonius used the same formula to describe the life of an emperor, first starting with family connections vis-a-vis the previous emperor, how he gained power, description of vice and virtues, whether he was a mild or murderous person and, if so, how murderous (factually, most of them very murderous beyond belief!), and ending each biography in a gossipy way as to what this particular emperor’s general behaviour was, also elaborating extensively on sexual preferences, description and names of wives, sons and daughters, how he looked and how his life ended. As to the latter, I think there were only three emperors who died natural deaths. All the others were murdered and quite a few certainly deserved it as did Caligula and Nero.
If you are interested in imperial Rome and have read other novels or biographies on the subject, I still think it is enjoyable to read this biography as it is amazing how accessible it is to the 21st century reader.
It is quite remarkable that the biography is still so enjoyable to read. I will refrain to comment on each emperor’s life. The life stories of especially the Caesarian-Claudian emperors are generally well-known. Suetonius used the same formula to describe the life of an emperor, first starting with family connections vis-a-vis the previous emperor, how he gained power, description of vice and virtues, whether he was a mild or murderous person and, if so, how murderous (factually, most of them very murderous beyond belief!), and ending each biography in a gossipy way as to what this particular emperor’s general behaviour was, also elaborating extensively on sexual preferences, description and names of wives, sons and daughters, how he looked and how his life ended. As to the latter, I think there were only three emperors who died natural deaths. All the others were murdered and quite a few certainly deserved it as did Caligula and Nero.
If you are interested in imperial Rome and have read other novels or biographies on the subject, I still think it is enjoyable to read this biography as it is amazing how accessible it is to the 21st century reader.
November 17, 2010
No words. Each and every member of that "family" and ahherm non family who acquired that infamous title ceasar is such a massive wrecking case of extreams that I can't even begin to fathom that these men are real. Let alone contemplate what citizens must of thought of them in their day. Really? If Suetonius is to be belived how many of these men would in our day be catergorized as legally insane? I literally about fell out of my chair this weekend when I read that Nero had the gates blocked during his preformances and women were forced to bear children in the audience while listening to his work with the lyre. Its hysterical, and who is around to counter suetoniuses descriptions of these men? No one. Therefore he gets five stars because seriously this is the best ancient gossip column still in print.
December 12, 2025
Stranger than any fiction - the chapter on Caligula is truly disturbing. The fact that Suetonius had access to material that others could not get makes this a very interesting examination of Julius Caesar and the first eleven emperors of the Rome. It is amazing to see power that corrupts so absolutely - and yet we still keep giving power to the same people.
December 21, 2022
Underwhelming
November 25, 2021
The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius is a classic. Suetonius was the son of a Roman Night who was born towards the end of the reign of Vespasian (69 CE) and died sometime after 122 CE. He wrote this collection of biographies during the reign of Emperor Hadrian.
He intended to write memoirs rather than a detailed history of events such as significant battles and civil wars. It seems he concentrated on the person, the type of thing we all wonder about when thinking about a significant figure of history. What was this person like? What were their peccadilloes, perversions and atrocities?
Well Suetonius certainly has a unique style, it’s a bit ‘tabloid’ for want of a better word and there’s countless stories, bits of gossip, hearsay, and rumour – this all makes for a juicy read. For those who would like to enter this crazy world of Roman Emperors, this might be a good place to start – it’s not dry, it’s engaging.
An example of this style, when discussing Tiberius:
…..marrying Augustus’s daughter Julia. But this he did with extreme reluctance; for, besides having the warmest attachment to Agrippina, he was disgusted with the conduct of Julia, who had made indecent advances to him during the lifetime of her former husband
When discussing Nero:
Petulancy, lewdness, luxury, avarice, and cruelty he practised at first with reserve and in private, as if prompted to them only by the folly of youth
When discussing Vespasian:
Afterwards he got by lot, the province of Africa, which he governed with great reputation, excepting that once, in an insurrection at Adrumetum, he was pelted by turnips
The great shame about this turnip anecdote is (and I have heard scholars on podcasts state this with some degree of frustration) – nobody seems to know why Vespasian was pelted with turnips. It all sounds a bit odd as this Emperor was very good. Also, when he was describing Vespasian he writes:
He was broad-set, strong limbed and his features gave the idea of a man in the act of straining himself
I don’t know about you – but I reckon that’s a hilarious description of a person.
When describing Vespasian’s son, Titus:
Titus, who had the same cognomen with his father, was the darling and delight of mankind; so much did the natural genius, address, or good fortune he possessed tend to conciliate the favour of all
What a great wrap!! He was good – but he wasn’t around that long (around 2 years), so who knows what he might’ve turned into if he reigned for a longer time.
The 12 Caesars were – Julius Caesar (Dictator) then 11 Emperors - Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. There’s plenty of interesting stuff about all of them – perhaps, one of the things I enjoyed the most was the good coverage he gave of the seldom heard Emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius. This trio had very short reigns, their show was a bit of a disaster until Vespasian came along and showed everyone how it was done.
In summary, this was a lot of fun to read and I loved it.
5-Stars
NB: I edited this review from a wholesome 120,000-word effort to a workable, kindly and easily digestible 524 word summary. Let me know if you want the longer version.
He intended to write memoirs rather than a detailed history of events such as significant battles and civil wars. It seems he concentrated on the person, the type of thing we all wonder about when thinking about a significant figure of history. What was this person like? What were their peccadilloes, perversions and atrocities?
Well Suetonius certainly has a unique style, it’s a bit ‘tabloid’ for want of a better word and there’s countless stories, bits of gossip, hearsay, and rumour – this all makes for a juicy read. For those who would like to enter this crazy world of Roman Emperors, this might be a good place to start – it’s not dry, it’s engaging.
An example of this style, when discussing Tiberius:
…..marrying Augustus’s daughter Julia. But this he did with extreme reluctance; for, besides having the warmest attachment to Agrippina, he was disgusted with the conduct of Julia, who had made indecent advances to him during the lifetime of her former husband
When discussing Nero:
Petulancy, lewdness, luxury, avarice, and cruelty he practised at first with reserve and in private, as if prompted to them only by the folly of youth
When discussing Vespasian:
Afterwards he got by lot, the province of Africa, which he governed with great reputation, excepting that once, in an insurrection at Adrumetum, he was pelted by turnips
The great shame about this turnip anecdote is (and I have heard scholars on podcasts state this with some degree of frustration) – nobody seems to know why Vespasian was pelted with turnips. It all sounds a bit odd as this Emperor was very good. Also, when he was describing Vespasian he writes:
He was broad-set, strong limbed and his features gave the idea of a man in the act of straining himself
I don’t know about you – but I reckon that’s a hilarious description of a person.
When describing Vespasian’s son, Titus:
Titus, who had the same cognomen with his father, was the darling and delight of mankind; so much did the natural genius, address, or good fortune he possessed tend to conciliate the favour of all
What a great wrap!! He was good – but he wasn’t around that long (around 2 years), so who knows what he might’ve turned into if he reigned for a longer time.
The 12 Caesars were – Julius Caesar (Dictator) then 11 Emperors - Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. There’s plenty of interesting stuff about all of them – perhaps, one of the things I enjoyed the most was the good coverage he gave of the seldom heard Emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius. This trio had very short reigns, their show was a bit of a disaster until Vespasian came along and showed everyone how it was done.
In summary, this was a lot of fun to read and I loved it.
5-Stars
NB: I edited this review from a wholesome 120,000-word effort to a workable, kindly and easily digestible 524 word summary. Let me know if you want the longer version.
August 15, 2015
Ovako: da je Svetonije novinar, radio bi u Kuriru. Jer, iskreni da budemo, dobar deo njegovih pisanija treba uzeti cum grano salis, budući da se dotični potrudio da nam prenese ne samo potvrđene činjenice, već i rekla-kazala tračeve od kojih su neki čisto preterivanje - kao, na primer, opisi Tiberijevih orgija na ostrvu Kapri kojima niko nije prisustvovao ali, logično, svi znaju šta se tamo događalo, ili izuzetno oštar portret apsolutiste Domicijana koji, mada vrlo neprijatna osoba, i nije bio tako (po Rim) loš vladar kakvim je prikazan u knjizi. (Inače, da li ste znali da je Domicijan napisao knjigu o nezi kose, a bio je ćelav?)
Ozbiljni istoričari često naglašavaju da su Svetonijevi i Diovi spisi u velikoj meri obično smeće, uzdižući u nebesa Tacita i smatrajući ga za najverodostojnijeg od njih trojice. Međutim, u tome i jeste problem sa ozbiljnim istoričarima - tako su prokleto ozbiljni. Jer, da nema masnih tračeva koje su nam preneli Svetonije i Dio, kako bismo mogli znati kako je rimska svetina uopšte doživljavala svoje vladare? Morate priznati da oblik trača često svedoči o duhu vremena i naglašava aktuelne probleme u kojima se rađa.
I tako, Kaligula je bio lud k'o kruška, Avgust je bio najbolji od svih mogućih, Neron je bio zreo za Frojdov kauč, a da nije bilo veselog dede Vespazijana, odavno bi velika rimska imperija nestala u tami istorije i turisti danas ne bi imali Koloseum da se pored njega slikaju.
Eto, još jedan dokaz da je knjiga nezamenljiv medij koji nikad ne zastareva. :)
Ozbiljni istoričari često naglašavaju da su Svetonijevi i Diovi spisi u velikoj meri obično smeće, uzdižući u nebesa Tacita i smatrajući ga za najverodostojnijeg od njih trojice. Međutim, u tome i jeste problem sa ozbiljnim istoričarima - tako su prokleto ozbiljni. Jer, da nema masnih tračeva koje su nam preneli Svetonije i Dio, kako bismo mogli znati kako je rimska svetina uopšte doživljavala svoje vladare? Morate priznati da oblik trača često svedoči o duhu vremena i naglašava aktuelne probleme u kojima se rađa.
I tako, Kaligula je bio lud k'o kruška, Avgust je bio najbolji od svih mogućih, Neron je bio zreo za Frojdov kauč, a da nije bilo veselog dede Vespazijana, odavno bi velika rimska imperija nestala u tami istorije i turisti danas ne bi imali Koloseum da se pored njega slikaju.
Eto, još jedan dokaz da je knjiga nezamenljiv medij koji nikad ne zastareva. :)
June 6, 2024
Fantastic! Full of fascinating and entertaining anecdotal tales from the lives of 12 Caesars. I’m glad I started here before diving into more of the history of Rome. This is a great place to jump in. This definitely sparked my interest. Basically a book of gossip from the ancient world. If even a small percentage of this book is true, the Caesars were absolutely insane dudes.
May 28, 2018
It is a great overview of Rome's emperors from the Julians to the Flavians. The mixture of historical biography and, what must have been, a political gossip tatler. Suetonius was a senator during the reign of Hadrian (2 Caesars after Domitian), so the futher back, the less direct knowledge Suetonius had (which given his style of writing could be both good and bad). Still, despite some reservations about Suetonius' style and accuracy, it is hard to underestimate his influence on the narrative of the Caesars. He was a grand story teller and many of the narratives we have about these men (and some of the women around them) comes from his writing.
The book comprises (shocker) 12 chapters:
1 Julius Caesar
2 Augustus
3 Tiberius
4 Caligula
5 Claudius
6 Nero
7 Galba
8 Otho
9 Vitellius
10 Vespasian
11 Titus
12 Domitian
The book comprises (shocker) 12 chapters:
1 Julius Caesar
2 Augustus
3 Tiberius
4 Caligula
5 Claudius
6 Nero
7 Galba
8 Otho
9 Vitellius
10 Vespasian
11 Titus
12 Domitian
August 26, 2025
Those who Ruled
In order to understand or love Roman history you have to read Suetonius. His work The Twelve Caesars is one of the most fascinating and influential works of ancient Roman literature and has contributed to the development of how we write and study history ever since. Suetonius was a Greek who served under the emperor Hadrian in the early Second Century AD and as such had access to imperial archives and classified documents, allowing him unprecedented and unique freedom to provide detailed information on his subject matter. As a result he produced biographical studies of the lives of the first eleven Roman emperors, from Augustus to Domitian, with the added study of Julius Caesar who of course was never technically an emperor. Each book focuses on a different emperor, in chronological order from Julius Caesar, then his great nephew Augustus, through to Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. The fall of Domitian marked the end of the Flavian dynasty and uncertainty in the Roman world until Suetonius’ time when there was a golden age. Each biography follows a similar structure, covering the emperor's ancestry, rise to power, personal habits, public deeds, and, often, a sensational account of their deaths.
What makes Suetonius rememberable and likely why his work was copied down the ages is his focus on personal details. He delves into the private lives, quirks, and scandals of the emperors, revealing aspects of their character that would otherwise be lost to history. Suetonius doesn't shy away from discussing their vices and virtues, presenting a candid and often unflattering portrayal of these powerful men. This work is notable for its blend of historical narrative and anecdote. While he does provide valuable historical information, his real interest seems to lie in the personalities of the emperors and the moral lessons that can be drawn from their lives. This focus on character, rather than on historical events or military campaigns, makes The Twelve Caesars more of a biographical and moralistic work than a traditional history. There are multiple themes, however the key one is the corrupting influence of absolute power. Suetonius highlights how many of the emperors, particularly figures like Caligula and Nero, descended into cruelty and excess once they attained supreme power. The work is filled with tales of debauchery, madness, and tyranny, reflecting the moral decadence that Suetonius believed accompanied the decline of the Roman Empire.
Suetonius writes in a straightforward and accessible style, making The Twelve Caesars a relatively easy read even for modern audiences. His tone is often detached, sometimes bordering on the gossipy, as he reports both the grand achievements and the salacious details of his subjects' lives. This approach gives the work a certain liveliness, but it also raises questions about Suetonius's reliability as a historian. He occasionally includes rumors and stories that seem more sensational than factual, leaving readers to wonder about the accuracy of some of his accounts. Despite these concerns, this work remains an invaluable resource for historians and anyone interested in Roman history. Suetonius provides insights into the workings of the imperial court, the personalities of the emperors, and the social and political climate of the time. His work has had a lasting influence on the way subsequent generations have viewed the Roman emperors, shaping their legacy in the popular imagination.
The Twelve Caesars is a captivating blend of history, biography, and scandal. Suetonius offers readers an intimate look at the lives of Rome's most powerful men, revealing both their greatness and their flaws. While the book should be read with an awareness of its potential biases and limitations, it remains a classic of ancient literature and a must-read for anyone interested in the Roman Empire. Suetonius's vivid portraits of the emperors have ensured that their deeds and misdeeds will be remembered for centuries to come. They were the men at the top of a he of the greatest empires ever to have existed. They were those who ruled.
In order to understand or love Roman history you have to read Suetonius. His work The Twelve Caesars is one of the most fascinating and influential works of ancient Roman literature and has contributed to the development of how we write and study history ever since. Suetonius was a Greek who served under the emperor Hadrian in the early Second Century AD and as such had access to imperial archives and classified documents, allowing him unprecedented and unique freedom to provide detailed information on his subject matter. As a result he produced biographical studies of the lives of the first eleven Roman emperors, from Augustus to Domitian, with the added study of Julius Caesar who of course was never technically an emperor. Each book focuses on a different emperor, in chronological order from Julius Caesar, then his great nephew Augustus, through to Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. The fall of Domitian marked the end of the Flavian dynasty and uncertainty in the Roman world until Suetonius’ time when there was a golden age. Each biography follows a similar structure, covering the emperor's ancestry, rise to power, personal habits, public deeds, and, often, a sensational account of their deaths.
What makes Suetonius rememberable and likely why his work was copied down the ages is his focus on personal details. He delves into the private lives, quirks, and scandals of the emperors, revealing aspects of their character that would otherwise be lost to history. Suetonius doesn't shy away from discussing their vices and virtues, presenting a candid and often unflattering portrayal of these powerful men. This work is notable for its blend of historical narrative and anecdote. While he does provide valuable historical information, his real interest seems to lie in the personalities of the emperors and the moral lessons that can be drawn from their lives. This focus on character, rather than on historical events or military campaigns, makes The Twelve Caesars more of a biographical and moralistic work than a traditional history. There are multiple themes, however the key one is the corrupting influence of absolute power. Suetonius highlights how many of the emperors, particularly figures like Caligula and Nero, descended into cruelty and excess once they attained supreme power. The work is filled with tales of debauchery, madness, and tyranny, reflecting the moral decadence that Suetonius believed accompanied the decline of the Roman Empire.
Suetonius writes in a straightforward and accessible style, making The Twelve Caesars a relatively easy read even for modern audiences. His tone is often detached, sometimes bordering on the gossipy, as he reports both the grand achievements and the salacious details of his subjects' lives. This approach gives the work a certain liveliness, but it also raises questions about Suetonius's reliability as a historian. He occasionally includes rumors and stories that seem more sensational than factual, leaving readers to wonder about the accuracy of some of his accounts. Despite these concerns, this work remains an invaluable resource for historians and anyone interested in Roman history. Suetonius provides insights into the workings of the imperial court, the personalities of the emperors, and the social and political climate of the time. His work has had a lasting influence on the way subsequent generations have viewed the Roman emperors, shaping their legacy in the popular imagination.
The Twelve Caesars is a captivating blend of history, biography, and scandal. Suetonius offers readers an intimate look at the lives of Rome's most powerful men, revealing both their greatness and their flaws. While the book should be read with an awareness of its potential biases and limitations, it remains a classic of ancient literature and a must-read for anyone interested in the Roman Empire. Suetonius's vivid portraits of the emperors have ensured that their deeds and misdeeds will be remembered for centuries to come. They were the men at the top of a he of the greatest empires ever to have existed. They were those who ruled.
July 8, 2007
This is in my Top 10 books. I love it so much, i think i have read it 3 times (no joke). I took this book with me on my travels in Rome and I bored Matt with my constant readings whilst we were visiting all of the historic sites. I have a huge facination with Roman History, so I do appreciate that most people will find this utterly boring, but i love it, love it, love it, love it.
April 25, 2020
This is a book I have wanted to read for many years.
Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Thoroughly enjoyed it.
March 18, 2008
This was a fascinating book. Translated by Graves, who wrote I, Claudius, it is, in many ways, a shorter version of those books. Although, Claudius does not come out of this history nearly as well as he does from Graves’ novels.
You may never have seen Monty Python’s The Piranha Brothers, if not you should really try looking it up on youtube. If only because I’m quite certain that Nero is Doug Piranha in a toga.
There were bits of this where I laughed outright and other bits where I’ve laughed after thinking about it for a while. The best example of the later is how often we are told one of the Caesars was ‘cruel’. It was the way this was brought up that amused me the most – almost like it was one of their many hobbies, as if they were saying, he liked to go to the theatre and also watch people being tortured to death.
The bits that made me laugh outright were mostly sexual illusions. Such as the quote about Julius having sex with just about anyone – “He was a man to every woman and a woman to every man”. Gaius (also known as Caligula) was an utter maniac, but was probably bettered by Nero. I really didn’t think I would ever be shocked by anything anyone could do after Caligula, but Nero having sex with his mother as he was being driven around Rome (like an incestuous version of Madame Bovary without the tissues) and then having his mother killed after his elaborate plans to have houses fall on her or getting her to take a boat that would fall apart on schedule, really takes the cake.
But the best bit of the book is all the omens that happen. Eagles fighting and lightning striking and branches of trees growing or not growing – and how these all foretold who was going to be the next Caesar or win a war or whatever else people where interested in. Vespasian is a good example because when he saw the signs that would signify the end of his life – a comet in this case – he made a joke about it being a bad sign for some other king of another kingdom of the time. Imagine living at a time when omens like wandering chickens would be taken quite so seriously!
I also liked the idea of Caligula changing the heads of all the gods so that they all had his head. If you are going to have ultimate power…
Some people say power corrupts – if you ever wondered, this is the book for you. Here are people of near infinite power for their time and what did they do with it? If you ever wanted to convert to being a misanthrope – I can think of no better book. This is the sort of book that makes one despair about human nature.
At times this book is a bit like a Russian novel, with many names too hard to remember, it is an incredible insight into life at the time. And unlike the Piranha Brothers it would be hard to say the Caesars were ‘cruel, but fair’ – though definitely cruel, there really is no question about them being cruel.
You may never have seen Monty Python’s The Piranha Brothers, if not you should really try looking it up on youtube. If only because I’m quite certain that Nero is Doug Piranha in a toga.
There were bits of this where I laughed outright and other bits where I’ve laughed after thinking about it for a while. The best example of the later is how often we are told one of the Caesars was ‘cruel’. It was the way this was brought up that amused me the most – almost like it was one of their many hobbies, as if they were saying, he liked to go to the theatre and also watch people being tortured to death.
The bits that made me laugh outright were mostly sexual illusions. Such as the quote about Julius having sex with just about anyone – “He was a man to every woman and a woman to every man”. Gaius (also known as Caligula) was an utter maniac, but was probably bettered by Nero. I really didn’t think I would ever be shocked by anything anyone could do after Caligula, but Nero having sex with his mother as he was being driven around Rome (like an incestuous version of Madame Bovary without the tissues) and then having his mother killed after his elaborate plans to have houses fall on her or getting her to take a boat that would fall apart on schedule, really takes the cake.
But the best bit of the book is all the omens that happen. Eagles fighting and lightning striking and branches of trees growing or not growing – and how these all foretold who was going to be the next Caesar or win a war or whatever else people where interested in. Vespasian is a good example because when he saw the signs that would signify the end of his life – a comet in this case – he made a joke about it being a bad sign for some other king of another kingdom of the time. Imagine living at a time when omens like wandering chickens would be taken quite so seriously!
I also liked the idea of Caligula changing the heads of all the gods so that they all had his head. If you are going to have ultimate power…
Some people say power corrupts – if you ever wondered, this is the book for you. Here are people of near infinite power for their time and what did they do with it? If you ever wanted to convert to being a misanthrope – I can think of no better book. This is the sort of book that makes one despair about human nature.
At times this book is a bit like a Russian novel, with many names too hard to remember, it is an incredible insight into life at the time. And unlike the Piranha Brothers it would be hard to say the Caesars were ‘cruel, but fair’ – though definitely cruel, there really is no question about them being cruel.
October 25, 2025
The Twelve Caesars was written in 121 CE by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (called "Suetonius" by scholars) while he served as a personal secretary to the emperor Hadrian. The biographies included in the book are the following: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian.
One would think that these biographies would be a source of information about civil wars and military expeditions of the Empire since there were plenty of that sort of activity taking place in this era. But no, only brief mention is made of wars. Instead primary emphasis is placed on the private lives and anecdotes recalled about the emperors. At times the book's narrative reminded me of a gossip column. But it did provide surprising—sometimes trivial—details about individuals who lived many years ago.
Suetonius was writing about those who had been emperor from 165 to 23 years prior to the time he was writing. That is the equivalent of today writing about American Presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Bill Clinton. One wonders why he didn’t continue on to his present time. He didn’t know it at the time but the author was writing in the middle of the time that historians would later consider to be the era of the five good emperors.
It's interesting to note that the legacy remnants of the Republic—Senate & Consulships—continued to exist under the emperors, but after the long term of Augustus it seems Romans just assumed there had be an emperor. It was probably the Roman army that expected someone in charge other than the Senate and their consuls. Some of the emperors improved their initial favorability with the Senate by hinting at a possible return to the Republic style of government, but of course once in power they didn't do it. After the short terms of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius one would think that they might consider going back to the way things were during the years of the Republic. But no, if you have an empire you need an emperor.
One wonders what caused Caligula and Nero to become such evil persons. Suetonius describes Tiberius as being unpopular, but at least he got the treasury back in order. Claudius wasn't too bad as emperor, and it is clear that the only reason Claudius wasn't assassinated prior to his coming to power was because he seemed harmless because of his physical infirmities. Vespasian and his son Titus were good emperors.
I listened to the translation by Alexander Thomson published in 1796 as edited and corrected by T. Forester in 1855. The commentary by Thomson is included, and was I was baffled by the lack of demarcation between the portions written by Suetonius and that written by Thomson. I had to check out a print edition to help distinguish between the two, but even in the print version the only division between the two was an asterisk. Much of the commentary by Thomson consisted of listing works of Roman literature and writers of the time, so its style wasn’t very different from that of Suetonius.
One would think that these biographies would be a source of information about civil wars and military expeditions of the Empire since there were plenty of that sort of activity taking place in this era. But no, only brief mention is made of wars. Instead primary emphasis is placed on the private lives and anecdotes recalled about the emperors. At times the book's narrative reminded me of a gossip column. But it did provide surprising—sometimes trivial—details about individuals who lived many years ago.
Suetonius was writing about those who had been emperor from 165 to 23 years prior to the time he was writing. That is the equivalent of today writing about American Presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Bill Clinton. One wonders why he didn’t continue on to his present time. He didn’t know it at the time but the author was writing in the middle of the time that historians would later consider to be the era of the five good emperors.
It's interesting to note that the legacy remnants of the Republic—Senate & Consulships—continued to exist under the emperors, but after the long term of Augustus it seems Romans just assumed there had be an emperor. It was probably the Roman army that expected someone in charge other than the Senate and their consuls. Some of the emperors improved their initial favorability with the Senate by hinting at a possible return to the Republic style of government, but of course once in power they didn't do it. After the short terms of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius one would think that they might consider going back to the way things were during the years of the Republic. But no, if you have an empire you need an emperor.
One wonders what caused Caligula and Nero to become such evil persons. Suetonius describes Tiberius as being unpopular, but at least he got the treasury back in order. Claudius wasn't too bad as emperor, and it is clear that the only reason Claudius wasn't assassinated prior to his coming to power was because he seemed harmless because of his physical infirmities. Vespasian and his son Titus were good emperors.
I listened to the translation by Alexander Thomson published in 1796 as edited and corrected by T. Forester in 1855. The commentary by Thomson is included, and was I was baffled by the lack of demarcation between the portions written by Suetonius and that written by Thomson. I had to check out a print edition to help distinguish between the two, but even in the print version the only division between the two was an asterisk. Much of the commentary by Thomson consisted of listing works of Roman literature and writers of the time, so its style wasn’t very different from that of Suetonius.
December 29, 2008
Reading this book makes me kind of thankful that the sociopaths who we choose to govern us are relatively harmless men with only strange dreams of imperialism and desires for fame, riches, and adulation. Sure we have a Vice President who shot a friend in the face and who brazenly admits to authorizing acts that make him a war criminal, and yes there are Greek bastards who have made a living off of sanctioning genocide for their own twisted ends, and this is just naming two high points in the Hall of Fame of War Criminals that we have allowed to consistently run and or advise this country for the past forty years or so. Yes we have allowed a constant stream of sociopaths to be our guiding light for so many unbroken years (I'm trying to come up with a number, I'm having trouble figuring if Carter and Ford were war criminals, all the rest of the leaders since Reagen have been, and the ones before Ford going back quite a bit were too, oh it hurts the mind to think of all the charges our living former leaders could face at Hague and which would put nooses around their necks).
We have our fair share of these people, but not one of them even holds a candle to 11 out of 12 of the leaders of Rome covered in this book. Even the 'nice' ones still had a brutality to them that would make Jeffery Dhamer probably say, 'hey wait a minute that shit is just fucked up.' Rape, murder, torture, incest, more torture, more murder, all kinds of killing of family members, add some more torture and then throw in a whole bunch of sexual deviancy and you get the outlines of the Caesars. Fun times.
We have our fair share of these people, but not one of them even holds a candle to 11 out of 12 of the leaders of Rome covered in this book. Even the 'nice' ones still had a brutality to them that would make Jeffery Dhamer probably say, 'hey wait a minute that shit is just fucked up.' Rape, murder, torture, incest, more torture, more murder, all kinds of killing of family members, add some more torture and then throw in a whole bunch of sexual deviancy and you get the outlines of the Caesars. Fun times.
August 9, 2007
Julius Caesar the catamite of King of Bithnyia?? Augustus singeing off his leg hair with hot walnut shells!! Caligula's seductive maiden dance!! Oh my! Simply delicious!
April 24, 2020
Само за хард фенове , обичащи историята на древния свят , специално Рим и неговите класически 12 императори.
February 25, 2015
This edition is based on Robert Graves' translation, revised with an Introduction and Notes by JB Rives. Rives explains that he has removed the interpolations Graves inserted to provide context to remarks that non-specialist readers would not be able to follow otherwise, and has used a glossary and footnotes to provide extra information to help out. Despite this I still found I floundered a bit, because I just don't know enough about ancient Roman government and social hierarchies, which were clearly very rigid unless you had enough money to buy your way into a higher class or a particularly profitable office.
The Twelve Caesars on the whole were an appalling group of men, not only willing to go to any lengths to gain and hold on to power but most of them actively relishing cruelty. Suetonius had a very orderly mind and each of his biographies is broken down into headings and subheadings. Vices he identifies frequently, in addition to cruelty, are: greed, gluttony, sexual excess, duplicity, arrogance, extravagance. There are others, but I won't list them all. One regular piece of behaviour that Suetonius records but doesn't regards as a vice, apparently, is the utter ruthlessness with which women were taken up and pushed away. Some were taken from existing husbands to marry the emperor, who was just as likely to divorce and replace them with another as he was to stay married to them. All seemed to be sexually licentious. As I said, a nasty lot.
During the period covered by the lives of the first twelve Caesars, the Roman empire was expanding and the centre was juggling local competing claims for positions of power and the jostling of regional governors, princes and kings as well. I hadn't realised before what power was wielded by the legions posted throughout the empire, as they shifted their support from one emperor to another, especially during the times of open civil war.
Neither had I taken in before the extraordinary reliance placed on astrologers, readers of horoscopes and auspices. Having a so-called imperial horoscope could be, according to Suetonius, motivation for an already powerful man to grab for the imperial throne. It could also be a death sentence in the reigns of insecure emperors - more than once we read of an unfortunate man who is murdered on emperor's orders because he is said to have an imperial horoscope. Propitious omens for each emperor are given at the beginning of each life, and omens and portents of death and disaster appear near the end of each section.
All in all, it's a fascinating read. But there is nothing here that would lead one anywhere near the adulation of Roman culture that pervaded Western Europe for centuries. The sources of that don't lie in the imperial palaces.
The Twelve Caesars on the whole were an appalling group of men, not only willing to go to any lengths to gain and hold on to power but most of them actively relishing cruelty. Suetonius had a very orderly mind and each of his biographies is broken down into headings and subheadings. Vices he identifies frequently, in addition to cruelty, are: greed, gluttony, sexual excess, duplicity, arrogance, extravagance. There are others, but I won't list them all. One regular piece of behaviour that Suetonius records but doesn't regards as a vice, apparently, is the utter ruthlessness with which women were taken up and pushed away. Some were taken from existing husbands to marry the emperor, who was just as likely to divorce and replace them with another as he was to stay married to them. All seemed to be sexually licentious. As I said, a nasty lot.
During the period covered by the lives of the first twelve Caesars, the Roman empire was expanding and the centre was juggling local competing claims for positions of power and the jostling of regional governors, princes and kings as well. I hadn't realised before what power was wielded by the legions posted throughout the empire, as they shifted their support from one emperor to another, especially during the times of open civil war.
Neither had I taken in before the extraordinary reliance placed on astrologers, readers of horoscopes and auspices. Having a so-called imperial horoscope could be, according to Suetonius, motivation for an already powerful man to grab for the imperial throne. It could also be a death sentence in the reigns of insecure emperors - more than once we read of an unfortunate man who is murdered on emperor's orders because he is said to have an imperial horoscope. Propitious omens for each emperor are given at the beginning of each life, and omens and portents of death and disaster appear near the end of each section.
All in all, it's a fascinating read. But there is nothing here that would lead one anywhere near the adulation of Roman culture that pervaded Western Europe for centuries. The sources of that don't lie in the imperial palaces.
August 20, 2019
This book is really about six Caesars (Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero) and six men I never heard of before. Of the over 17 hours of the audiobook, just a little over 3 hours are devoted to the last six, but I was fine with that because I learned more about the Caesars I care about. Caligula and Nero are clearly the most entertaining, but Augustus is my favorite.
June 26, 2020
Suetonius would've had no trouble finding work at a tabloid if he were alive in our time. This account of the first twelve emperors of Rome lacks in historical seriousness and accuracy, but he sure makes up for that in storytelling and by providing lots of entertainment.
January 31, 2019
It's hard to rate the raging lunatics of the Roman Caesars. One star, definitely, for the heinous acts that happened under their reign in Roman history, but five stars for Suetonius's recounting of it all.
On one hand, the recounts were wonderfully retold. Everything was gruesomely and point-blank honestly laid out on the table. No details, it seems, were left untold. Even Suetonius said that though this was hard for him to write, he would write every bit of it. And he did.
All the gross, grotesque, unimaginable things.
I remember reading this with a sort of morbid intrigue for school a few years back. Part of you has to wonder, "This happened? This really, really happened?" You can almost hear the pain in Suetonius as he writes, indeed, that it did.
Power, it seems, had a dampening effect on Roman Caesars. Respectable men turned horrifyingly, historically horrible. Some people compare these men with Adolf Hitler and other people in our history.
Rome was not a great place. I mean, it was, technologically speaking. Not so humanely speaking. It was pretty bad. Genocide was encouraged, "looking out for number one" was warranted, and many, many other terrible things. I'm not exactly a history buff, so I can't reveal-all. But, this book would be a great place to start if you want to understand the psyche behind the Twelve Caesars of Rome.
On one hand, the recounts were wonderfully retold. Everything was gruesomely and point-blank honestly laid out on the table. No details, it seems, were left untold. Even Suetonius said that though this was hard for him to write, he would write every bit of it. And he did.
All the gross, grotesque, unimaginable things.
I remember reading this with a sort of morbid intrigue for school a few years back. Part of you has to wonder, "This happened? This really, really happened?" You can almost hear the pain in Suetonius as he writes, indeed, that it did.
Power, it seems, had a dampening effect on Roman Caesars. Respectable men turned horrifyingly, historically horrible. Some people compare these men with Adolf Hitler and other people in our history.
Rome was not a great place. I mean, it was, technologically speaking. Not so humanely speaking. It was pretty bad. Genocide was encouraged, "looking out for number one" was warranted, and many, many other terrible things. I'm not exactly a history buff, so I can't reveal-all. But, this book would be a great place to start if you want to understand the psyche behind the Twelve Caesars of Rome.
April 30, 2019
Opera enorme di Svetonio;
lettura lenta ed eterna....ma che meraviglia!!Ho colto l'occasione di rileggere Svetonio cogliendo al balzo l'aiuto richiesto da mia figlia per latino... e io mi ritrovo a riscoprire dei tesori denigrati allora sui banchi del liceo.
lettura lenta ed eterna....ma che meraviglia!!Ho colto l'occasione di rileggere Svetonio cogliendo al balzo l'aiuto richiesto da mia figlia per latino... e io mi ritrovo a riscoprire dei tesori denigrati allora sui banchi del liceo.
March 28, 2023
Ladies, and gentlemen before I went to bed to find the warrior's rest, and faced a new day I wanted to write this review.
Without further ado, I comment on this work by Suetonius, which is a classic. Pliny https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... said of him that he was one of the best men he had ever known, and that is why he recommended him to the emperors Trajan, and Hadrian. Although it seems that he lost the confidence of the latter because of the enormous trusts, which he took with his wife. Suetonius has a very enjoyable way of telling history, and his way of narrating is what historians call Cleopatra's Nose History, which dazzled me so much in my youth. My father says that he is the model, that I follow as an anecdote, telling rumors, and gossip. More than the academic style following the bibliographic system, and Harvard. I will issue a tip to my followers, who, if they have the opportunity to publish, publish in indexed journals, and of quality either the career, that they have chosen. It is what my partner, and Chief Dr. Rebeca tries to explain to the medical students for their good, and I supported it from my little pulpit. Otherwise they may find themselves in a situation similar to mine, which is not enviable at all. But returning to Suetonius has an advantage over the Tacitus of "The Annals" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (I did not read "Germania", nor "Agrícola")https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... (Tacitus influenced a current, which tried to incorporate a new political tendency in the seventeenth century tacitism, which incorporated some of the teachings of Machiavelli https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...). The style of Suetonius is more enjoyable, and simpler than that of Tacitus, more accessible, and is not mutilated, or lost as in the case of Tacitus. But as Professor Manuel Alfonseca has very wisely indicated to me https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... most of the historians we take as sources of this period are not contemporaries, and can write to dictate (Tacitus only lived the last years of Nero's reign), and many of his analyses may be interested in flattering the previous dynasty as seen at the end of the life of Emperor Domitian. We must seek balance, and not do as Michael Pselo https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (who is a Byzantine chronicler, who really existed) to criticize previous emperors, and praise contemporaries.
Although in my opinion if it has been tried to be fair. After reading Suetonius, and Tacitus I think I am missing Flavius Josephus (who appears named in the life of Vespasian), Cassius Dio https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Ammianus Marcellinus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Eusebius of Caesarea https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Livy https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... etc... (From the Greeks Herodotus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Thucydides https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Strabo https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...). The system I have used to analyze this book has been to analyze each emperor separately.
Caesar I put (4) I expected, (and this has surprised me very pleasantly) a much more hagiographic tone, but Suetonius is much closer to critics to Julius Caesar (Robert Harris in his trilogy Cicero), a G.K. Chesterton https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., than for example to the model Ayn Randiano https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... of Colleen McCullough https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/series/4371... , or the veneration paid to him by George Bernard Shaw https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . First of all, Caesar is shown as a very ambitious being, and a textbook schemer. There is talk of his effeminacy (he had the belt strap untied, as Cicero https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... said), and that he deceived everyone by wearing a loose belt. There was no conspiracy in which he was not involved in some cases abandoning his accomplices, there is talk of his sexual incontinence, sleeping with the wives of his colleagues, in some cases he tells us that in the https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Gallic Wars https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... He lengthened it for his own benefit. He had only three defeats, one to the Germans, Gergovia, and Dirrachius to Pompey. He severely punished soldiers who deserted or did not remain at his command. His desire to be King is not ruled out. Among his good qualities his clemency, he was not vindictive, great orator, good general, the reform of the calendar. He got a quick death, as he didn't want a slow decline (4/5) PS. I was surprised that Caesar did not fare better, and I told Professor Manuel Alfonseca, who told me that Suetonius was quite anti-Julio.
With Augustus I was somewhat surprised because he is much more lenient with him than with Caesar he shows him brutal, and ruthless at first is included the possibility that he prostituted, or killed Hirtius, and his companion in the consulate (in the campaign against Decimus Brutus). It talks about the different civil wars (a total of six civil wars). Of his very cruel revenge against enemies executing for anything it seems that when he came to power he softened and was a great ruler who gave just laws, in favor of birth, modesty, and moderation in luxury that could be applied today (very possibly it is the longest book of Suetonius, and rightly so) his greatest misfortune was the defeat of Teutoburg coming to say "Give me back my legions Varus" wrote poems (he tried to publish a tragedy of Ayax) he did not like grandiloquent speeches, nor the affected letters, and when he got the power already, he was not so abrupt. The death of Augustus was very curious when he died he said goodbye as an actor who played a role, and said that if he had liked his interpretation he should be applauded (4/5).
The case of Tiberius is very tragic excellent while he was not emperor in Germania, and where he was, but he had the misfortune to divorce his wife whom he loved (Vipsania), and to be married to Julia whom he hated (although at first he was considerate of her). Octavian trembled with terror, and took pity on Rome when he died for leaving it in the hands of such a ruler. At first the portrait that Suetonius makes is closer to that made by Axel Munthe in "The Story of San Michel" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., but then he tells us his long history of crimes especially against his family as he reviled Germanicus, poisoning people, killing centurions, sailors who brought him gifts, expelled the Jews, He practiced pedophilia, believed in astrology, and divination. Especially cruel was the death of Agrippina, she also broke up with her mother (Livia), killed her son of starvation (Drusus). He left the city in the hands of a monster like Sejanus, and then killed him (upon learning that he was plotting against him). It is said that he may have been killed by Marcion, and that Caligula had previously poisoned him. This Tiberium is very close to the one described by Kirk Mitchell in "Anno Domini" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... (better to refer to this one than the "Kingdom of the Reprobates" of Anthony Burgess https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... that often seems the parody of the other)(3/5).
Caligula this is an emperor who could not be known what Tacitus thought of him, because everything he had written about him was lost. What Suetonius tells is not a surprise son of Germanicus (Augustus thought of Germanicus as his heir, but opted for Tiberius) bravely endured Tiberius' mistreatment of his person, but he could have planned his death (he boasted about it). He started very well, but he began to see himself as a God, and he made the jokes, killing arbitrarily, marrying, and divorcing to his liking with the wives of the senators, this the horse Incitatus, the circus of Britannia, and that of Germania (leaving his German guard loose), his incest with his sisters, although he only truly loved Drusilla (if he wanted anyone). He had four wives, but the main one was in Suetonius' judgment the depraved Caesonia. He wanted the Roman people to have only one head, to cut off. He squandered as Nero would later do. Finally, Cassius Chaeroneus, fed up with Caligula's mockery, killed him (it was not for something as noble as declaring the Republic) (3/5).
Regarding Claudius Suetonius' approach is not the duology of Robert Graves, https://www.goodreads.com/series/5744... (this Claudius is closer to that of Louis de Wohl's "The glorius Folly" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9... ) but I think he is not as hard as Tacitus. (I forgot to say that another of Caligula's kindnesses was to kill Claudio Antonia's mother, who when he wanted to insult said he was as foolish as his son Claudio) speaks of his stutter, lapses of memory, of his judgments that seem those of Dandin of Racine's "Pleiteantes" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... . He tells us about the senators he killed. On Messalina you spend some tiptoe. It tells of its history of Rome, its alphabet, the books of the Etruscans. How he married Agrippina on the advice of her freedman Pallas, and repented. He was going to divorce her, and to cede the throne to Britannicus (he was waiting for his coming of age to proclaim him Caesar, and get rid of Nero, and Agrippina) (there is also talk of his campaigns in Britain, of the expulsion of the Jews by Chrestos, but it seems that he is not Jesus but a Greek) at the age of majority, but it is not known whether Agrippina, or Nero, poisoned him. The mythical phrase of Nero accuses him "Divine delicacy, who of a poor imbecile made a God" (four marriages are spoken of) (4/5).
The reign of Nero I do not know why I liked it better as Tacitus tells it, despite his mutilation tells the typical good beginning the murders of Britannicus, Octavia, all the freedmen of Claudius, Donkey (he would also be among the victims of Nero), with his mother. Here Tacitus, and Suetonius differ the first said that it was the mother who wanted to sleep with the son, and in this case it was Nero who wanted to sleep with his mother as in the movie Boudica Queen of War (which shows us an incest between them. In The Roman, Mika Waltari causes him to sleep with a slave who looks like his mother https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...), but who was convinced by Agrippina's enemies not to. He tells us how Nero abused the son of Aulus Plautius, his wasteful character, how he persecuted the Christians (although this in a laudatory tone, since Suetonius calls them a very dangerous sect), how he embellished Rome with his buildings, his triumphs in Achaea, his talent as a singer the compositions would be his. As negative the disaster in Britain, and with the Parthians (it is surprising that unlike Tiberius who was hated by the Parthians by Vinion Nero is very dear to them) although something was recovered. He sees as negative his love for Actea, the deaths of tells us about the conspiracies of Pison, and that of Vinicio (let's hope that this Vinicio is not that of Quo Vadis https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...). His marriages to Octavia, Poppaea (also his death from a kick), to another wife Statilia Messalina. His wedding to Sporo with the mythical phrase of wish his mother had done the same (they meant castrating him). There is the Vindex uprising "Sing, sing until the Gauls woke up." He thought of murdering the whole of Rome (but they did not dare to do his bidding. According to Suetonius Nero if he would have burned Rome, so it is not a Christian lie, he gave one of the months a name of his), Rome thought to call it Neropolis, also changed the month of April with his name. He intended to convince his enemies with his singing. Faon took him in, and thinking that he was going to be captured with the help of his freedmen he committed suicide and his wet nurse, and Actea mourned him. Some Roman put flowers on his tombstone, and the Parthians liked it very much, in fact a party of his was created in Parthia, and it cost the Parthians a lot to deliver the impostor to Rome (4/5).
Galba's reign tells us of his family background that the Purple was prophesied to him but Tiberius did not bother him. Of his rule in Germania, and Hispania, but when he came to power he did not punish Hallato, and Tigellinus hardening against the people for attacking them. He slept with children, adopted Frugi Pison for money was dominated by Asiatic and his favorites. Apart from that he was stingy and was killed (3/5).
Otto is certainly the surprise nobody expected anything from a sovereign so pusillanimous that it took I do not know how many hours to comb his hair he went from bullying the weak to governing Lusitania well, he was the first husband of Poppaea and died with dignity in battle, being mourned by his troops (4/5).
Not much will be said about Vitellius who preceded Vespasian, and was defeated by him, but apart from being a friend of Nero, rumored to be his family of humble origins and eating does not have to be said much about him (3/5).
As we advance each emperor is better, and we approach the Flavian dynasty that are the three best Vespasian tells us his origin of how his grandfather helped Pompey how they became rich, how he fought in Britain being loved by Aulus Plautius, how he lost the favor of Nero by falling asleep during his singing sessions, his campaign in Jerusalem as Basilides and Josephus prophesied to him that he would be emperor, his excellent government, as he loved his freedman Cenis (although he hardened social conditions, and marriage between slaves, and free men, since the son was born a slave), as he associated Titus with power. An affable person, and campechana. As he was a great administrator, the only bad thing is that taxes were very high, and that his son Tito reproached him for taking money from (even) the sewers and doing so. He never allowed flattery, nor to be praised for his lineage, and only in the end did he consent to divine honors at his death. When he died he said he was beginning to become a God (4/5).
Titus is undoubtedly the best emperor of all (this was the only emperor I read many years ago in a bookstore. I didn't read The Other Emperors until this year.) He was "The Delight of the Human Race" friend of Britannica whom he loved as a brother. As William Shakespeare's Henry V was https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... improving despite killing Cecina, and his love affairs with Berenice, he was very magnanimous, and generous forgiving even conspirators invited them to eat and dissuaded them from trying more plots wrote to the mother of one of them saying that nothing was going to happen to her son, and that it was fine. He did not act against his brother, and I treat him with kindness. He was brave in the fight against the Jews, and succored the Roman people with the plague, and the eruption of Vesuvius. Life was taken from him very briefly, and he was saddened to die so young is the difference between the best of pagans, a Christian would have reacted differently knowing that the best of his life was about to begin. He said he only committed one deplorable act. Suetonius said that it may have been that he fell in love with Domitian's wife Domitia, but that the rumor is not true, as Domitia herself denied it. Perhaps (I add this) he regretted abandoning Berenice, or perhaps the murder of Cecina (5/5).
The last emperor Domitian is reached, of course the black sheep of the Flavians did not go to war like his father, and his brother stayed in Rome, and fought against Vitellius with his uncle Flavius Sabinus, proclaimed himself emperor. He put obstacles in the way of his brother who say hastened his death. He speaks of unequal rule, of the wars Cuados, Sarmatians, and Dacias two of them on a whim. He doesn't talk about his disasters with Decebalo. He talks about how he killed senators, and relatives like Clemente Flavio with the best of their smiles. As he raped his niece Julia, in a conspiracy made by Stephen he was murdered. On the contrary, in a dream he was seen with a golden hump. The dream meant that glory would come from his successors. In my opinion, Suetonius could very well have dispensed with this unnecessary, which is currently very bad. Although there are historians who point out that the Empire reached its maximum splendor with the Antonines, and it is especially at this time when Rome becomes a great civilization. But it is from there when in the wake of the plague of Marcus Aurelius https://www.goodreads.com/series/2495... begins its fall. As the prologue of The Fall of the Roman Empire says, the great mystery of Rome is its rise, and its fall, but the merit of having arrived as a Spanish poet says. In the end it is in the fate of things to be born, grow, and die and as Will Durant says usually a civilization is destroyed from within. My final grade is (4/5).
Without further ado, I comment on this work by Suetonius, which is a classic. Pliny https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... said of him that he was one of the best men he had ever known, and that is why he recommended him to the emperors Trajan, and Hadrian. Although it seems that he lost the confidence of the latter because of the enormous trusts, which he took with his wife. Suetonius has a very enjoyable way of telling history, and his way of narrating is what historians call Cleopatra's Nose History, which dazzled me so much in my youth. My father says that he is the model, that I follow as an anecdote, telling rumors, and gossip. More than the academic style following the bibliographic system, and Harvard. I will issue a tip to my followers, who, if they have the opportunity to publish, publish in indexed journals, and of quality either the career, that they have chosen. It is what my partner, and Chief Dr. Rebeca tries to explain to the medical students for their good, and I supported it from my little pulpit. Otherwise they may find themselves in a situation similar to mine, which is not enviable at all. But returning to Suetonius has an advantage over the Tacitus of "The Annals" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (I did not read "Germania", nor "Agrícola")https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... (Tacitus influenced a current, which tried to incorporate a new political tendency in the seventeenth century tacitism, which incorporated some of the teachings of Machiavelli https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...). The style of Suetonius is more enjoyable, and simpler than that of Tacitus, more accessible, and is not mutilated, or lost as in the case of Tacitus. But as Professor Manuel Alfonseca has very wisely indicated to me https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... most of the historians we take as sources of this period are not contemporaries, and can write to dictate (Tacitus only lived the last years of Nero's reign), and many of his analyses may be interested in flattering the previous dynasty as seen at the end of the life of Emperor Domitian. We must seek balance, and not do as Michael Pselo https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (who is a Byzantine chronicler, who really existed) to criticize previous emperors, and praise contemporaries.
Although in my opinion if it has been tried to be fair. After reading Suetonius, and Tacitus I think I am missing Flavius Josephus (who appears named in the life of Vespasian), Cassius Dio https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Ammianus Marcellinus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Eusebius of Caesarea https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Livy https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... etc... (From the Greeks Herodotus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Thucydides https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Strabo https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...). The system I have used to analyze this book has been to analyze each emperor separately.
Caesar I put (4) I expected, (and this has surprised me very pleasantly) a much more hagiographic tone, but Suetonius is much closer to critics to Julius Caesar (Robert Harris in his trilogy Cicero), a G.K. Chesterton https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., than for example to the model Ayn Randiano https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... of Colleen McCullough https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/series/4371... , or the veneration paid to him by George Bernard Shaw https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . First of all, Caesar is shown as a very ambitious being, and a textbook schemer. There is talk of his effeminacy (he had the belt strap untied, as Cicero https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... said), and that he deceived everyone by wearing a loose belt. There was no conspiracy in which he was not involved in some cases abandoning his accomplices, there is talk of his sexual incontinence, sleeping with the wives of his colleagues, in some cases he tells us that in the https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Gallic Wars https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... He lengthened it for his own benefit. He had only three defeats, one to the Germans, Gergovia, and Dirrachius to Pompey. He severely punished soldiers who deserted or did not remain at his command. His desire to be King is not ruled out. Among his good qualities his clemency, he was not vindictive, great orator, good general, the reform of the calendar. He got a quick death, as he didn't want a slow decline (4/5) PS. I was surprised that Caesar did not fare better, and I told Professor Manuel Alfonseca, who told me that Suetonius was quite anti-Julio.
With Augustus I was somewhat surprised because he is much more lenient with him than with Caesar he shows him brutal, and ruthless at first is included the possibility that he prostituted, or killed Hirtius, and his companion in the consulate (in the campaign against Decimus Brutus). It talks about the different civil wars (a total of six civil wars). Of his very cruel revenge against enemies executing for anything it seems that when he came to power he softened and was a great ruler who gave just laws, in favor of birth, modesty, and moderation in luxury that could be applied today (very possibly it is the longest book of Suetonius, and rightly so) his greatest misfortune was the defeat of Teutoburg coming to say "Give me back my legions Varus" wrote poems (he tried to publish a tragedy of Ayax) he did not like grandiloquent speeches, nor the affected letters, and when he got the power already, he was not so abrupt. The death of Augustus was very curious when he died he said goodbye as an actor who played a role, and said that if he had liked his interpretation he should be applauded (4/5).
The case of Tiberius is very tragic excellent while he was not emperor in Germania, and where he was, but he had the misfortune to divorce his wife whom he loved (Vipsania), and to be married to Julia whom he hated (although at first he was considerate of her). Octavian trembled with terror, and took pity on Rome when he died for leaving it in the hands of such a ruler. At first the portrait that Suetonius makes is closer to that made by Axel Munthe in "The Story of San Michel" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., but then he tells us his long history of crimes especially against his family as he reviled Germanicus, poisoning people, killing centurions, sailors who brought him gifts, expelled the Jews, He practiced pedophilia, believed in astrology, and divination. Especially cruel was the death of Agrippina, she also broke up with her mother (Livia), killed her son of starvation (Drusus). He left the city in the hands of a monster like Sejanus, and then killed him (upon learning that he was plotting against him). It is said that he may have been killed by Marcion, and that Caligula had previously poisoned him. This Tiberium is very close to the one described by Kirk Mitchell in "Anno Domini" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... (better to refer to this one than the "Kingdom of the Reprobates" of Anthony Burgess https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... that often seems the parody of the other)(3/5).
Caligula this is an emperor who could not be known what Tacitus thought of him, because everything he had written about him was lost. What Suetonius tells is not a surprise son of Germanicus (Augustus thought of Germanicus as his heir, but opted for Tiberius) bravely endured Tiberius' mistreatment of his person, but he could have planned his death (he boasted about it). He started very well, but he began to see himself as a God, and he made the jokes, killing arbitrarily, marrying, and divorcing to his liking with the wives of the senators, this the horse Incitatus, the circus of Britannia, and that of Germania (leaving his German guard loose), his incest with his sisters, although he only truly loved Drusilla (if he wanted anyone). He had four wives, but the main one was in Suetonius' judgment the depraved Caesonia. He wanted the Roman people to have only one head, to cut off. He squandered as Nero would later do. Finally, Cassius Chaeroneus, fed up with Caligula's mockery, killed him (it was not for something as noble as declaring the Republic) (3/5).
Regarding Claudius Suetonius' approach is not the duology of Robert Graves, https://www.goodreads.com/series/5744... (this Claudius is closer to that of Louis de Wohl's "The glorius Folly" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9... ) but I think he is not as hard as Tacitus. (I forgot to say that another of Caligula's kindnesses was to kill Claudio Antonia's mother, who when he wanted to insult said he was as foolish as his son Claudio) speaks of his stutter, lapses of memory, of his judgments that seem those of Dandin of Racine's "Pleiteantes" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... . He tells us about the senators he killed. On Messalina you spend some tiptoe. It tells of its history of Rome, its alphabet, the books of the Etruscans. How he married Agrippina on the advice of her freedman Pallas, and repented. He was going to divorce her, and to cede the throne to Britannicus (he was waiting for his coming of age to proclaim him Caesar, and get rid of Nero, and Agrippina) (there is also talk of his campaigns in Britain, of the expulsion of the Jews by Chrestos, but it seems that he is not Jesus but a Greek) at the age of majority, but it is not known whether Agrippina, or Nero, poisoned him. The mythical phrase of Nero accuses him "Divine delicacy, who of a poor imbecile made a God" (four marriages are spoken of) (4/5).
The reign of Nero I do not know why I liked it better as Tacitus tells it, despite his mutilation tells the typical good beginning the murders of Britannicus, Octavia, all the freedmen of Claudius, Donkey (he would also be among the victims of Nero), with his mother. Here Tacitus, and Suetonius differ the first said that it was the mother who wanted to sleep with the son, and in this case it was Nero who wanted to sleep with his mother as in the movie Boudica Queen of War (which shows us an incest between them. In The Roman, Mika Waltari causes him to sleep with a slave who looks like his mother https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...), but who was convinced by Agrippina's enemies not to. He tells us how Nero abused the son of Aulus Plautius, his wasteful character, how he persecuted the Christians (although this in a laudatory tone, since Suetonius calls them a very dangerous sect), how he embellished Rome with his buildings, his triumphs in Achaea, his talent as a singer the compositions would be his. As negative the disaster in Britain, and with the Parthians (it is surprising that unlike Tiberius who was hated by the Parthians by Vinion Nero is very dear to them) although something was recovered. He sees as negative his love for Actea, the deaths of tells us about the conspiracies of Pison, and that of Vinicio (let's hope that this Vinicio is not that of Quo Vadis https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...). His marriages to Octavia, Poppaea (also his death from a kick), to another wife Statilia Messalina. His wedding to Sporo with the mythical phrase of wish his mother had done the same (they meant castrating him). There is the Vindex uprising "Sing, sing until the Gauls woke up." He thought of murdering the whole of Rome (but they did not dare to do his bidding. According to Suetonius Nero if he would have burned Rome, so it is not a Christian lie, he gave one of the months a name of his), Rome thought to call it Neropolis, also changed the month of April with his name. He intended to convince his enemies with his singing. Faon took him in, and thinking that he was going to be captured with the help of his freedmen he committed suicide and his wet nurse, and Actea mourned him. Some Roman put flowers on his tombstone, and the Parthians liked it very much, in fact a party of his was created in Parthia, and it cost the Parthians a lot to deliver the impostor to Rome (4/5).
Galba's reign tells us of his family background that the Purple was prophesied to him but Tiberius did not bother him. Of his rule in Germania, and Hispania, but when he came to power he did not punish Hallato, and Tigellinus hardening against the people for attacking them. He slept with children, adopted Frugi Pison for money was dominated by Asiatic and his favorites. Apart from that he was stingy and was killed (3/5).
Otto is certainly the surprise nobody expected anything from a sovereign so pusillanimous that it took I do not know how many hours to comb his hair he went from bullying the weak to governing Lusitania well, he was the first husband of Poppaea and died with dignity in battle, being mourned by his troops (4/5).
Not much will be said about Vitellius who preceded Vespasian, and was defeated by him, but apart from being a friend of Nero, rumored to be his family of humble origins and eating does not have to be said much about him (3/5).
As we advance each emperor is better, and we approach the Flavian dynasty that are the three best Vespasian tells us his origin of how his grandfather helped Pompey how they became rich, how he fought in Britain being loved by Aulus Plautius, how he lost the favor of Nero by falling asleep during his singing sessions, his campaign in Jerusalem as Basilides and Josephus prophesied to him that he would be emperor, his excellent government, as he loved his freedman Cenis (although he hardened social conditions, and marriage between slaves, and free men, since the son was born a slave), as he associated Titus with power. An affable person, and campechana. As he was a great administrator, the only bad thing is that taxes were very high, and that his son Tito reproached him for taking money from (even) the sewers and doing so. He never allowed flattery, nor to be praised for his lineage, and only in the end did he consent to divine honors at his death. When he died he said he was beginning to become a God (4/5).
Titus is undoubtedly the best emperor of all (this was the only emperor I read many years ago in a bookstore. I didn't read The Other Emperors until this year.) He was "The Delight of the Human Race" friend of Britannica whom he loved as a brother. As William Shakespeare's Henry V was https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... improving despite killing Cecina, and his love affairs with Berenice, he was very magnanimous, and generous forgiving even conspirators invited them to eat and dissuaded them from trying more plots wrote to the mother of one of them saying that nothing was going to happen to her son, and that it was fine. He did not act against his brother, and I treat him with kindness. He was brave in the fight against the Jews, and succored the Roman people with the plague, and the eruption of Vesuvius. Life was taken from him very briefly, and he was saddened to die so young is the difference between the best of pagans, a Christian would have reacted differently knowing that the best of his life was about to begin. He said he only committed one deplorable act. Suetonius said that it may have been that he fell in love with Domitian's wife Domitia, but that the rumor is not true, as Domitia herself denied it. Perhaps (I add this) he regretted abandoning Berenice, or perhaps the murder of Cecina (5/5).
The last emperor Domitian is reached, of course the black sheep of the Flavians did not go to war like his father, and his brother stayed in Rome, and fought against Vitellius with his uncle Flavius Sabinus, proclaimed himself emperor. He put obstacles in the way of his brother who say hastened his death. He speaks of unequal rule, of the wars Cuados, Sarmatians, and Dacias two of them on a whim. He doesn't talk about his disasters with Decebalo. He talks about how he killed senators, and relatives like Clemente Flavio with the best of their smiles. As he raped his niece Julia, in a conspiracy made by Stephen he was murdered. On the contrary, in a dream he was seen with a golden hump. The dream meant that glory would come from his successors. In my opinion, Suetonius could very well have dispensed with this unnecessary, which is currently very bad. Although there are historians who point out that the Empire reached its maximum splendor with the Antonines, and it is especially at this time when Rome becomes a great civilization. But it is from there when in the wake of the plague of Marcus Aurelius https://www.goodreads.com/series/2495... begins its fall. As the prologue of The Fall of the Roman Empire says, the great mystery of Rome is its rise, and its fall, but the merit of having arrived as a Spanish poet says. In the end it is in the fate of things to be born, grow, and die and as Will Durant says usually a civilization is destroyed from within. My final grade is (4/5).
June 1, 2023
Terminada la primera parte (o primer libro, son dos). Constan las biografías de Julio César, Octavio Augusto y Tiberio. En la reseña que hice sobre Vidas paralelas, de Plutarco, decía que Suetonio era menos formal y más visceral (y chismoso) que Plutarco, y quizás por aquello es que fue durante mucho tiempo demeritado como biógrafo e historiador. Pero creo que simplemente Suetonio tiene un estilo muy definido, y, por algún motivo personal, gustos particulares, interpretaciones subjetivas (lo cual es completamente lícito en la Historia) le mete más leña a Julio César que Plutarco. Está matizado, sí, entre lo bueno y lo malo del personaje, pero ahonda en situaciones o anécdotas morbosas (como cuando se le acusó a Julio César de haberse dejado sodomizar por un rey para conseguir favores, Plutarco no menciona aquello y se limita a decir algo así como "las cosas que se decían por muy vulgares, no quisiera repetirlas aquí"). Pero Suetonio le da con todo. Sobre Octavio Augusto, también muestra sus pros y sus contras, pero el personaje sale muy bien librado y quizás queda como el más ecuánime de los tres. A Tiberio también le canta sus bemoles, sus aciertos, pero no se guarda en describir sus perversiones, en el momento en el que se retira de Roma y según Suetonio, "se desató". Yo, como Plutarco, no quisiera repetir aquí aquellos actos por "muy vulgares", pero ya se podrán imaginar por la talla de los personajes. Estos son los tres primeros Césares, faltan nueve, entre ellos, el que sucedió a Tiberio, Calígula, que, conocido es por todos que fue un loco sanguinario, y bueno, supongo que la narración de Suetonio contribuyó en gran medida a esa imagen que ha trascendido de él. Como conozco la historia de Calígula, sé que lo de Tiberio no es nada al lado de lo suyo, así que el segundo libro empezará fuerte. Para dar nada más un pequeño contexto histórico: César no fue emperador, no dejó descendencia, pero su sobrino-nieto fue Augusto, quien ascendió al poder después de gobernar Roma junto con Marco Antonio; a la muerte de éste queda nombrado como el primer César. Tuvo una hija, Julia, pero la repudió a ella y a su descendencia, así que su heredero al trono fue su hijo adoptivo Tiberio, quien era hijo de su esposa Livia de un anterior matrimonio. A Tiberio no le sucederán sus hijos Germánico (adoptivo, hijo de su hermano) y Druso (hijo de su primer matrimonio) porque murieron (aunque Suetonio dice que él mismo los mandaría a matar), y también se deshizo de sus nietos, a quienes sí repudió, encerró, torturó y les hizo morir de hambre. De ellos, solo quedó Calígula, su otro nieto, que extrañamente no se lo nombra más que un par de veces, pero no se habla de por qué él no fue repudiado por Tiberio ni de su cercanía con él. Supongo hablará de eso en el capítulo de Calígula...
April 3, 2025
I enjoyed this first time reading in full (though I’d read the salacious bits as a schoolboy) not least because immediately before it I’d read Ammianus Marcellinus. My chronology was in the wrong order, but no matter. In some ways this was light relief after Marcellinus – Suetonius is such a gossipy old scandal monger, whereas Marcellinus can be a bit dry and high minded.
Some things surprised me. They are all such a vile lot that it was interesting to read that Nero had some supporters even after his death – unlike Tiberius or Caligula. And Suetonius finds it noteworthy that Claudius is the only one of the twelve who was exclusively attracted to women, while Galba had the distinction of being attracted to men – big tough hairy men at that. The interesting thing about this is that for Suetonius both these preferences were so unusual as to be noteworthy, and possibly also amusing and/or a bit perverse. O tempora, O mores, as Cicero would say.
This is much lighter and easier to read than Marcellinus and it is certainly entertaining. But, of course, one wonders how much of it is reliable. I am quite sure a lot of it is embellished and exaggerated. But not all of it. Otho, for example, commits suicide in a hopeless situation. Suetonius acknowledges that such an heroic death conflicts with the moral portrait he has painted of Otho’s effeminacy, which strongly suggests that his death is accurately portrayed. Overall, this is very entertaining, but not to be trusted in detail. When some of the details are pretty disgusting, maybe that’s just as well.
Suetonius wrote almost three hundred years before the Empire fell. And yet we can see what he could not – that the seeds of destruction were sprouting almost from the very start.
Some things surprised me. They are all such a vile lot that it was interesting to read that Nero had some supporters even after his death – unlike Tiberius or Caligula. And Suetonius finds it noteworthy that Claudius is the only one of the twelve who was exclusively attracted to women, while Galba had the distinction of being attracted to men – big tough hairy men at that. The interesting thing about this is that for Suetonius both these preferences were so unusual as to be noteworthy, and possibly also amusing and/or a bit perverse. O tempora, O mores, as Cicero would say.
This is much lighter and easier to read than Marcellinus and it is certainly entertaining. But, of course, one wonders how much of it is reliable. I am quite sure a lot of it is embellished and exaggerated. But not all of it. Otho, for example, commits suicide in a hopeless situation. Suetonius acknowledges that such an heroic death conflicts with the moral portrait he has painted of Otho’s effeminacy, which strongly suggests that his death is accurately portrayed. Overall, this is very entertaining, but not to be trusted in detail. When some of the details are pretty disgusting, maybe that’s just as well.
Suetonius wrote almost three hundred years before the Empire fell. And yet we can see what he could not – that the seeds of destruction were sprouting almost from the very start.
July 2, 2020
Una visión de los once primeros emperadores + Julio César.
Uno no deja de preguntarse hasta qué punto son reales todas las anécdotas, teniendo en cuenta lo siguiente:
1. El carácter dubitativo y propenso a las magufadas del autor.
2. La dificultad de acceso a datos registrados o testigos de primera mano (imposible al menos hasta los Flavios, considerando la edad de Suetonio)
En favor de la verosimilitud, el hecho de que en ocasiones se presenten versiones contrapuestas de un mismo hecho.
Más allá de la exactitud historiográfica, "se non è vero, è ben trovato", al menos para la época; y eso ya nos dice bastante.
Uno no deja de preguntarse hasta qué punto son reales todas las anécdotas, teniendo en cuenta lo siguiente:
1. El carácter dubitativo y propenso a las magufadas del autor.
2. La dificultad de acceso a datos registrados o testigos de primera mano (imposible al menos hasta los Flavios, considerando la edad de Suetonio)
En favor de la verosimilitud, el hecho de que en ocasiones se presenten versiones contrapuestas de un mismo hecho.
Más allá de la exactitud historiográfica, "se non è vero, è ben trovato", al menos para la época; y eso ya nos dice bastante.
August 26, 2016
The Lives of the Caesars is one of the best surviving sources covering the early Roman Empire. In these 12 biographies, Suetonius discusses the lives of Julius Caesar and his 11 successors, from the mid first century BC to the death of Domitian in 96 AD.
“I found a city of brick and left it marble.” – Augustus Caesar
Now given that these biographies come from the second century, this could make for dry reading. Fortunately, two things prevent this. First, many of the emperors under discussion here were depraved, tyrannical, borderline insane despots. Second, Suetonius’ gossipy, salacious nature keeps things interesting. Our author duly documents the momentous events of each emperor’s reign, but his heart is truly set on describing more curious aspects of his subjects: their physical appearances, their dietary preferences, relationships with friends and family, and (especially) their sex lives. For example:
• Julius Caesar: “He regretted most bitterly the loss of his looks through baldness and was often the butt of jokes on the subject from his detractors.”
• Augustus Caesar: “It is said that his body was mottled with birthmarks spread out over his chest and stomach which in their shape, number, and arrangement resembled the constellation of the bear.”
• Tiberius: Pedophilia hidden behind spoiler
• Caligula: “He habitually indulged in incestuous relations with all his sisters and at a crowded banquet he would make them take turns in lying beneath him, while his wife lay above.”
• Claudius: “He had a speech impediment and his head twitched all the time, but especially when he made even the slightest movement.”
• Nero: “He prostituted his own body to such a degree that, when virtually every part of his person had been employed in filthy lusts, he devised a new and unprecedented practice as a kind of game, in which, disguised in the pelt of a wild animal, he would rush out of a den and attack the private parts of men and women who had been tied to stakes, and, when he had wearied of playing the beast, he would be ‘run through’ by his freedman Doryphorus.”
Etcetera; John Adams this is not. It all makes for pretty entertaining reading. The question is how much of it is actually fact. Suetonius is not noted for his reliability; it’s not that he was just making stuff up, but one is left with the impression that he reported as gospel the things he read in earlier historians without thinking too critically about what was true (he reminds me of Pliny the Elder in this respect). Some of the stuff he reports, like the incredible portents predicting each emperor’s demise, is just bunk. He also seems unnecessarily harsh on some emperors (Tiberius and Claudius) who look like pretty capable rulers in hindsight. Written in 121, over a century later than some of the events he reports on, the Lives of the Caesars undoubtedly contains a certain amount of fiction. It’s up to the individual reader to determine how much of the Lives are true.
This dubious reliability is one mark against Suetonius. The other is his style, which is solid but unspectacular (at least in my English translation, anyway). Compared to his contemporary Tacitus and that historian’s magisterial style, Suetonius comes off as decidedly second-rate. The organization of the Lives is also somewhat curious; instead of going through each life chronologically, inserting personal details where appropriate, Suetonius chose to organize his biographies by subject area: chronology of reign, personal appearance, sexual preferences, etc. This is not bad per se, and didn’t affect my rating, but it’s definitely different and may surprise some modern readers.
Overall, this is an interesting and engaging ancient work and an important (if not completely reliable) source of Roman history. Good racy fun. 3 stars, recommended*.
*The book is worth the cover price for the biography of Caligula alone, who was probably insane and got up to no end of mischief in his colorful four year reign.
“I found a city of brick and left it marble.” – Augustus Caesar
Now given that these biographies come from the second century, this could make for dry reading. Fortunately, two things prevent this. First, many of the emperors under discussion here were depraved, tyrannical, borderline insane despots. Second, Suetonius’ gossipy, salacious nature keeps things interesting. Our author duly documents the momentous events of each emperor’s reign, but his heart is truly set on describing more curious aspects of his subjects: their physical appearances, their dietary preferences, relationships with friends and family, and (especially) their sex lives. For example:
• Julius Caesar: “He regretted most bitterly the loss of his looks through baldness and was often the butt of jokes on the subject from his detractors.”
• Augustus Caesar: “It is said that his body was mottled with birthmarks spread out over his chest and stomach which in their shape, number, and arrangement resembled the constellation of the bear.”
• Tiberius: Pedophilia hidden behind spoiler
• Caligula: “He habitually indulged in incestuous relations with all his sisters and at a crowded banquet he would make them take turns in lying beneath him, while his wife lay above.”
• Claudius: “He had a speech impediment and his head twitched all the time, but especially when he made even the slightest movement.”
• Nero: “He prostituted his own body to such a degree that, when virtually every part of his person had been employed in filthy lusts, he devised a new and unprecedented practice as a kind of game, in which, disguised in the pelt of a wild animal, he would rush out of a den and attack the private parts of men and women who had been tied to stakes, and, when he had wearied of playing the beast, he would be ‘run through’ by his freedman Doryphorus.”
Etcetera; John Adams this is not. It all makes for pretty entertaining reading. The question is how much of it is actually fact. Suetonius is not noted for his reliability; it’s not that he was just making stuff up, but one is left with the impression that he reported as gospel the things he read in earlier historians without thinking too critically about what was true (he reminds me of Pliny the Elder in this respect). Some of the stuff he reports, like the incredible portents predicting each emperor’s demise, is just bunk. He also seems unnecessarily harsh on some emperors (Tiberius and Claudius) who look like pretty capable rulers in hindsight. Written in 121, over a century later than some of the events he reports on, the Lives of the Caesars undoubtedly contains a certain amount of fiction. It’s up to the individual reader to determine how much of the Lives are true.
This dubious reliability is one mark against Suetonius. The other is his style, which is solid but unspectacular (at least in my English translation, anyway). Compared to his contemporary Tacitus and that historian’s magisterial style, Suetonius comes off as decidedly second-rate. The organization of the Lives is also somewhat curious; instead of going through each life chronologically, inserting personal details where appropriate, Suetonius chose to organize his biographies by subject area: chronology of reign, personal appearance, sexual preferences, etc. This is not bad per se, and didn’t affect my rating, but it’s definitely different and may surprise some modern readers.
Overall, this is an interesting and engaging ancient work and an important (if not completely reliable) source of Roman history. Good racy fun. 3 stars, recommended*.
*The book is worth the cover price for the biography of Caligula alone, who was probably insane and got up to no end of mischief in his colorful four year reign.
December 23, 2012
While reading this biography of 'The Twelve Caesars', one word popped in my mind, that is, 'nobility' since all emperors in question were of course noble, feared and thus honored according to their own deeds. However, such nobility and deeds might intensify admiration or hatred due to each emperor himself. You can compare or assess each reign from your views acquired from reading unbelievably episodes of kindness or ruthlessness since they wielded absolute power within their families, colleages, subjects, etc. as written by Suetonius and read by posterity interested in their biographies.
I think I won't waste my time here describing unspeakble, unthinkable and notorius horror instigated/done by Tiberius, Caligula or Nero because many scholars have written in volumes for those readers to read and condemn them more or less. Therefore, I can't help admiring Divus Julius (aka Julius Caesar) as one of the great 'Caesars' since, as far as I know, he never claimed/called himself 'emperor' but I guess it's the celebrated aftermath by Augustus, his imperial successor.
I've long admired Julius Caesar because he did his assigned tasks with greatness, with a heart of gold. From his famous "The Conquest of Gauls" written in Latin, he wrote about his expeditions as a matter of fact without any boastful words or complacency. For instance: "Moreover, when given the chance, he would always cheerfully come to terms with his bitterest enemies. He supported Gaius Memmius' candidature for the consulship, though they had both spoken most damagingly against each other. ... Valerius Catullus had also libelled him in his verses about Mamurra, yet Caesar, while admitting that these were a permanent blot on his name, accepted Catullus' apology and invited him to dinner that same afternoon, and never interrupted his friendship with Catullus' father." (p. 33)
Moreover, captivated by his educated mind and sense of humour, I've respected him more when I came across his tolerance and mercy towards those native Britons, "from whom he exacted a large sum of money as well as hostages for future good behaviour." (p. 12) I think this is still one of the key strategic policies essential to charismatic leaders in politcal organizations in the world nowadays.
Finally, I'd like to invite my Goodreads friends to find a copy and browse any 'Caesar' you like and you'd be delighted to be more informed and thus learned on those obscure famous/notorius twelve Roman 'Caesars'. As for me, I will definitely reread my favourite Julius Caesar to learn more from his character and nobility.
Endnote: I think I'd post my review/comments (briefly scribbled as my notes in the book) as soon as I have some ideas on writing some for my GR friends, this takes time to reflect and decide what I should say to share my view as part of our pleasure derived from reading.
I think I won't waste my time here describing unspeakble, unthinkable and notorius horror instigated/done by Tiberius, Caligula or Nero because many scholars have written in volumes for those readers to read and condemn them more or less. Therefore, I can't help admiring Divus Julius (aka Julius Caesar) as one of the great 'Caesars' since, as far as I know, he never claimed/called himself 'emperor' but I guess it's the celebrated aftermath by Augustus, his imperial successor.
I've long admired Julius Caesar because he did his assigned tasks with greatness, with a heart of gold. From his famous "The Conquest of Gauls" written in Latin, he wrote about his expeditions as a matter of fact without any boastful words or complacency. For instance: "Moreover, when given the chance, he would always cheerfully come to terms with his bitterest enemies. He supported Gaius Memmius' candidature for the consulship, though they had both spoken most damagingly against each other. ... Valerius Catullus had also libelled him in his verses about Mamurra, yet Caesar, while admitting that these were a permanent blot on his name, accepted Catullus' apology and invited him to dinner that same afternoon, and never interrupted his friendship with Catullus' father." (p. 33)
Moreover, captivated by his educated mind and sense of humour, I've respected him more when I came across his tolerance and mercy towards those native Britons, "from whom he exacted a large sum of money as well as hostages for future good behaviour." (p. 12) I think this is still one of the key strategic policies essential to charismatic leaders in politcal organizations in the world nowadays.
Finally, I'd like to invite my Goodreads friends to find a copy and browse any 'Caesar' you like and you'd be delighted to be more informed and thus learned on those obscure famous/notorius twelve Roman 'Caesars'. As for me, I will definitely reread my favourite Julius Caesar to learn more from his character and nobility.
Endnote: I think I'd post my review/comments (briefly scribbled as my notes in the book) as soon as I have some ideas on writing some for my GR friends, this takes time to reflect and decide what I should say to share my view as part of our pleasure derived from reading.
October 15, 2014
Suetonius compiles lists of accomplishments, good and bad, for each emperor almost like an accountant weighing the debits against the credits. This presentation lacks flow and makes The Twelve Caesars a more cumbersome read than novels like John Williams’ “Augustus” or Robert Graves’ “I Claudius”. However his biography is informative particularly with regard to Julius Caesar and Augustus and gives us all the salacious details about the degenerate emperors Caligula, Nero and Tiberius.
It also depicts some interesting patterns in the rule of the different emperors. First they spend too much to influence others and show off then they must tax too heavily or simply confiscate property to make ends meet. Their greed, perceived and real, then leads to dissatisfaction from the people leading to threats and plots and harsh reaction by the emperor who ends up killing and torturing his rivals, perceived and real. This cruelty on top of economic hardship then leads to assassination, revolt or coup and a new emperor and the pattern repeats.
Despite the juicy parts which begin to lose their impact after depravity is piled upon depravity, I found reading The Twelve Caesars to be a bit tedious. For those who find the grocery store tabloids are not enough, skim reading this for Roman sexual depravity and extreme brutality might be worthwhile. Otherwise I would recommend it primarily for those with a strong interest in Roman history. I found myself having to look up quite a bit of background. Those who can put Suetonius’ antidotes and cryptic descriptions in context will get the most out of this nineteen hundred year old text.
It also depicts some interesting patterns in the rule of the different emperors. First they spend too much to influence others and show off then they must tax too heavily or simply confiscate property to make ends meet. Their greed, perceived and real, then leads to dissatisfaction from the people leading to threats and plots and harsh reaction by the emperor who ends up killing and torturing his rivals, perceived and real. This cruelty on top of economic hardship then leads to assassination, revolt or coup and a new emperor and the pattern repeats.
Despite the juicy parts which begin to lose their impact after depravity is piled upon depravity, I found reading The Twelve Caesars to be a bit tedious. For those who find the grocery store tabloids are not enough, skim reading this for Roman sexual depravity and extreme brutality might be worthwhile. Otherwise I would recommend it primarily for those with a strong interest in Roman history. I found myself having to look up quite a bit of background. Those who can put Suetonius’ antidotes and cryptic descriptions in context will get the most out of this nineteen hundred year old text.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,090 reviews