Historiographical Essay

12 Pages·2014·0.15 MB·English

by  Matthew Ferguson

Ferguson
  1

Matthew
 Ferguson

March
 21,
 2014

Suetonius
 and
 the
 Ancient
 Biographical
 Tradition

The
 compositional
 structure
 and
 biographical
 technique
 of
 Suetonius’
 De
 Vita

Caesarum
 has
 been
 a
 relatively
 underappreciated
 aspect
 of
 the
 author’s
 style.
 Suetonius

arranges
 his
 material
 per
 species
 (“under
 subject
 headings,”
 Aug.
 9.1)
 without
 a
 strict

chronological
 order,
 nor
 a
 fluid
 narrative
 between
 chapters.
 Instead,
 material
 is
 arranged

thematically,
 with
 different
 anecdotes
 and
 pieces
 of
 information
 being
 grouped
 based
 along

similar
 themes.
 This
 method
 of
 organization
 has
 been
 treated
 by
 some
 scholars
 as
 a
 sign

that
 Suetonius
 lacked
 literary
 talent
 and
 creativity.1
 However,
 the
 greater
 puzzle
 is
 where

Suetonius’
 unusual
 style
 fits
 into
 the
 ancient
 biographical
 tradition,
 or
 Latin
 literature
 more

broadly.
 To
 answer
 this
 question,
 several
 points
 of
 genre
 and
 methodology
 must
 be

addressed,
 which
 touch
 on
 wide
 range
 of
 ancient
 biographical
 issues.
 This
 paper
 analyzes

the
 course
 of
 Suetonian
 scholarship
 over
 the
 last
 several
 decades
 in
 order
 to
 suggest
 new

angles
 for
 future
 research
 on
 the
 author.

1
 In
 fact,
 the
 two
 most
 recent
 monographs
 on
 Suetonius
 in
 English
 have
 both
 echoed
 this

sentiment.
 Wallace-­‐Hadrill
 (1995
 [1983]:
 19)
 claims,
 Suetonius
 “is
 mundane:
 has
 no

poetry,
 no
 pathos,
 no
 persuasion,
 no
 epigram.
 Stylistically
 he
 has
 no
 pretensions.
 No
 writer

who
 sees
 himself
 as
 an
 artist,
 one
 of
 the
 elect,
 could
 tolerate
 the
 pervasive
 rubric;
 the

repetitiveness
 of
 the
 headings,
 the
 monotony
 of
 the
 items
 that
 fallow.”
 Baldwin
 (1983:
 516)

further
 asserts,
 “Suetonius
 Tranquillus
 was
 not
 a
 great
 biographer,
 in
 any
 sense
 …
 his

technical
 artistry
 is
 limited
 (albeit
 real
 enough),
 his
 power
 of
 probing
 and
 creating
 minds

and
 character
 very
 much
 more
 so.
 What
 may
 be
 claimed
 for
 him
 is
 the
 ability
 to
 leave

potent
 an
 affecting
 impressions.”
 Nevertheless,
 these
 views
 have
 also
 been
 criticized
 by

reviewers,
 such
 as
 Lounsbury
 (1986:
 161)
 who
 concludes,
 “To
 both,
 Suetonius
 is
 a
 heap
 of

dung
 out
 of
 which
 roses
 bloom
 to
 be
 plucked
 by
 the
 gardeners
 of
 Academe.”
 The
 main
 point

to
 consider
 from
 these
 observations
 is
 that
 Suetonius
 has
 often
 been
 treated
 more
 as
 a

historical
 source
 for
 information
 about
 the
 early
 Roman
 Empire,
 rather
 than
 a
 literary

artist
 whose
 style
 and
 technique
 are
 to
 be
 explored
 for
 their
 own
 sake.
 This
 has
 left

somewhat
 of
 a
 dearth
 in
 English
 scholarship
 about
 Suetonius’
 style,
 which
 makes
 the

subject
 worth
 exploring
 more
 extensively.
Ferguson
  2

One
 difficulty
 in
 assessing
 Suetonius’
 literary
 style
 is
 that
 the
 genre
 of
 ancient

biography
 is
 one
 that
 is
 highly
 diverse
 and
 already
 difficult
 to
 define.2
 We
 have
 a
 wide

range
 of
 biographical
 exempla
 from
 antiquity,
 ranging
 from
 Greek
 Lives
 of
 poets
 and

philosophers,
 to
 fictional
 biographies
 of
 Aesop,
 to
 hagiographies
 of
 saints
 and
 martyrs,
 and

finally
 to
 the
 political
 biographies
 of
 the
 Imperial
 period,
 to
 which
 Suetonius,
 as
 well
 as

Cornelius
 Nepos
 and
 Plutarch,
 belong.
 Scholars
 in
 the
 last
 several
 decades
 have
 struggled
 to

find
 a
 working
 definition
 of
 ancient
 biography.3
 Momigliano
 (1993
 [1971]:
 9)
 in
 his

monograph
 study
 of
 the
 development
 of
 Greek
 biography
 was
 content
 to
 use
 a
 minimalist

2
 A
 good
 example
 illustrating
 the
 difficulties
 in
 defining
 the
 genre
 of
 ancient
 biography
 can

be
 found
 in
 the
 scholarly
 debate
 over
 the
 genre
 of
 the
 canonical
 Gospels
 in
 the
 New

Testament.
 Richard
 Burridge
 (1992)
 in
 What
 Are
 The
 Gospels?
 argues,
 based
 on
 a
 number

of
 statistical
 arguments,
 that
 the
 Gospels
 were
 thought
 of
 as
 Lives
 of
 Jesus.
 Burridge’s

statistical
 comparison
 is
 based
 on
 taking
 ten
 examples
 of
 Greco-­‐Roman
 biography
 –
 five

pre-­‐Christian
 (Isocrates’
 Evagoras,
 Xenophon’s
 Agesilaus,
 Satyrus’
 Euripides,
 Nepos’
 Atticus,

and
 Philo’s
 Moses)
 and
 the
 other
 five
 belonging
 to
 the
 Christian
 era
 (Tacitus’
 Agricola,

Plutarch’s
 Cato
 Minor,
 Suetonius’
 Lives
 of
 the
 Caesars,
 Lucian’s
 Demonax,
 and
 Philostratus’

Apollonius)
 –
 and
 drawing
 parallels
 between
 them
 and
 the
 Gospels.

 However,
 Hägg
 (2012:

154)
 critiques
 this
 approach,
 arguing,
 “there
 is
 a
 great
 diversity
 within
 each
 of
 the
 two

groups,
 the
 four
 gospels
 and
 the
 ten
 ancient
 biographies;
 and
 it
 is
 this
 very
 diversity,
 we

should
 note,
 that
 makes
 it
 possible
 always
 to
 find
 a
 parallel
 in
 one
 or
 several
 of
 the
 ten
 Lives

for
 each
 feature
 occurring
 in
 one
 or
 more
 of
 the
 gospels.
 What
 is
 proven
 is
 that
 the

investigated
 features
 of
 the
 gospels
 are
 not
 unique
 in
 ancient
 biographical
 literature;
 but
 no

control
 group
 is
 established
 to
 show
 which
 features
 may
 be
 regarded
 as
 significantly

typical
 of
 this
 literature.”
 Likewise,
 Edwards
 (2006:
 60-­‐61)
 in
 The
 Limits
 of
 Ancient

Biography
 expresses
 a
 number
 of
 reservations
 about
 such
 a
 classification,
 noting
 in
 the

very
 least
 that
 “Mark
 …
 fills
 his
 book
 with
 miracles
 …
 more
 abundantly
 than
 any
 surviving

Pagan
 texts”
 and
 “could
 not
 have
 written
 a
 conventional
 life
 of
 such
 an
 unconventional

figure
 as
 Jesus.”
 It
 is
 useful
 to
 point
 out
 these
 problems
 to
 show
 how
 it
 is
 difficult
 for

classifying
 and
 understanding
 more
 texts
 than
 just
 those
 of
 Suetonius
 within
 the
 ancient

biographical
 tradition.

3
 Another
 related
 question
 to
 the
 problem
 of
 genre
 is
 how
 to
 define
 the
 features
 of
 ancient

autobiography.
 Misch
 (1951:
 4)
 notes,
 “Autobiography
 is
 unlike
 any
 other
 form
 of
 literary

composition.
 Its
 boundaries
 are
 more
 fluid
 and
 less
 definable
 in
 relation
 to
 form
 than
 those

of
 lyric
 or
 epic
 poetry
 or
 of
 drama.”
 The
 genre
 of
 ancient
 autobiography
 raises
 further

questions
 that
 are
 related
 to
 this
 study,
 but
 which
 also
 extend
 to
 a
 much
 larger
 scope
 than

what
 can
 be
 addressed
 here.
 However,
 for
 the
 sake
 of
 clarification,
 this
 present
 study
 will

assume
 that
 biography
 and
 autobiography
 are
 two
 separate
 genres,
 as
 scholars
 have
 noted

that
 the
 latter
 genre
 is
 considerably
 more
 fluid
 than
 even
 our
 biographical
 exempla.
Ferguson
  3

definition
 of
 the
 genre,
 which
 encompass
 as
 much
 of
 the
 spectrum
 as
 possible,
 stating,
 “An

account
 of
 the
 life
 of
 a
 man
 from
 birth
 to
 death
 is
 what
 I
 call
 biography.”
 Traces
 of
 this

definition
 can
 also
 be
 found
 in
 very
 early
 Suetonian
 scholarship,
 as
 Pauly
 and
 Wissowa

(1893-­‐1963:
 614),
 while
 observing
 the
 lack
 of
 chronological
 progression
 in
 Suetonius,
 still

point
 out,
 der
 chronologische
 Untergrund
 ...
 ist
 uns
 genommen
 mit
 Ausnahme
 der
 Endpunkte,

Geburt
 und
 Tod
 (“the
 chronological
 background
 …
 is
 taken
 from
 us
 except
 for
 the

endpoints,
 birth
 and
 death”).

Defining
 an
 entire
 genre,
 however,
 through
 no
 other
 criteria
 than
 that
 it
 must
 begin

with
 a
 man’s
 birth
 and
 end
 with
 his
 death,
 does
 not
 provide
 very
 many
 stylistic
 details
 that

can
 aid
 in
 interpreting
 Suetonius’
 style.
 Other
 approaches
 have
 sought
 to
 categorize

biographies
 into
 different
 groups
 more
 along
 the
 lines
 of
 their
 narrative
 structure.
 Leo

(1965
 [1901])
 at
 the
 turn
 of
 the
 20th
 century
 distinguished
 between
 ‘Plutarchean’
 and

‘Suetonian”
 styles
 of
 biography,
 where
 the
 former
 was
 more
 peripatetic
 and
 literarily

stylistic
 in
 its
 compositions
 and
 the
 latter
 more
 factual
 and
 secretarial.
 However,
 Leo
 also

interpreted
 this
 distinction
 to
 mean
 that
 Suetonius,
 in
 writing
 more
 encyclopedic

biographies
 of
 emperors
 in
 his
 De
 Vita
 Caesarum,
 as
 he
 had
 likewise
 done
 with
 biographies

of
 grammarians
 and
 poets
 in
 his
 De
 Viris
 Illustribus,
 had
 actually
 used
 the
 wrong
 style
 of

biography.
 Critiquing
 this
 approach,
 Hägg
 (2012:
 233)
 explains:

“Leo
 had
 concluded
 that
 the
 form
 of
 Suetonius’
 Caesars
 was
 a
 working

accident:
 he
 had
 first
 composed
 his
 Famous
 Men
 according
 to
 the

Alexandrian
 scheme
 for
 Lives
 of
 poets
 and
 philosophers;
 and
 when
 he
 turned

next
 to
 emperors,
 he
 simply
 continued
 in
 the
 same
 manner,
 instead
 of
 using

the
 ‘correct’
 model,
 the
 Peripatetic
 type
 of
 Life,
 meant
 for
 men
 of
 action
 and

thus
 chronologically
 arranged
 rather
 than
 systematically.
 This
 would
 imply
 a

total
 dependence
 on
 Hellenistic
 models,
 combined
 with
 a
 rather
 foolish
 error.

Assuming
 instead
 that
 Suetonius
 made
 his
 formal
 choices
 deliberately,

according
 to
 the
 nature
 of
 his
 material
 and
 what
 he
 wanted
 to
 convey,
 some

interesting
 facts
 emerge.
 A
 biographical
 account
 of
 a
 Roman
 emperor
 –
 and,
Ferguson
  4

in
 particular,
 a
 series
 of
 such
 accounts
 of
 successive
 emperors
 –
 cannot
 with

any
 advantage
 follow
 the
 same
 pattern
 as
 an
 account
 of
 the
 life
 of
 a
 Greek

general
 or
 politician
 (or,
 for
 that
 matter,
 a
 Roman
 official
 like
 Agricola).
 The

beginning,
 before
 the
 accession
 to
 the
 throne,
 is
 naturally
 narrated
 in

chronological
 order;
 and
 the
 emperor’s
 end
 may
 also
 be
 a
 personal
 matter

open
 to
 continuous
 narration,
 as
 we
 saw
 in
 Nero.
 But
 his
 very
 activity
 as

emperor,
 especially
 in
 peace
 (or
 in
 war
 conducted
 by
 generals
 other
 than
 the

emperor
 himself),
 is
 almost
 by
 necessity
 to
 be
 treated
 systematically,
 as

Suetonius
 has
 chosen
 to
 do.
 A
 detailed
 annalistic
 account
 of
 an
 emperor’s

building
 activities,
 relations
 with
 senate
 and
 people,
 legislation,
 games,
 not
 to

speak
 of
 family
 arrangements,
 sexual
 habits,
 or
 artistic
 activities,
 would

create
 a
 total
 mess,
 given
 the
 restricted
 compass
 of
 each
 Life.
 Hence
 the

typical
 rubric
 style,
 the
 enumeration
 instead
 of
 narration,
 the
 necessary

repetition
 of
 some
 items
 from
 different
 points
 of
 view.”

Hägg’s
 view
 places
 a
 greater
 emphasis
 on
 understanding
 Suetonius
 in
 the
 context
 of
 the

Imperial
 age,
 in
 which
 an
 emperor
 was
 more
 than
 a
 Greek
 general,
 but
 also
 a
 figure
 whose

whole
 style
 of
 administration,
 rather
 than
 solely
 his
 actions
 in
 a
 chronological
 sequence,

needs
 to
 be
 evaluated.
 Likewise,
 Hägg
 cautions
 against
 viewing
 Suetonius
 as
 wholly

dependent
 on
 Greek
 models
 for
 his
 biographical
 structure.

A
 perhaps
 more
 fruitful
 approach
 for
 understanding
 Suetonius
 is
 to
 view
 the
 author

as
 operating
 more
 specifically
 within
 the
 genre
 of
 political
 biography.
 Political
 biography

was
 a
 genre
 that
 developed
 later
 during
 the
 Imperial
 age.4
 As
 Geiger
 (1985:
 116)
 explains:

“Political
 biography,
 different
 from
 the
 Lives
 of
 men
 prominent
 in
 the

spheres
 of
 the
 intellect
 in
 its
 subjects
 as
 well
 as
 in
 its
 aims
 and
 sources,
 was

late
 to
 develop
 because
 historiography
 provided
 a
 convenient
 genre
 to
 deal

with
 kings,
 statesmen,
 and
 generals.
 Thus,
 the
 Hellenistic
 Age,
 in
 which

biographies
 of
 poets,
 philosophers
 and
 other
 intellectuals
 were
 composed
 in

great
 numbers
 by
 a
 variety
 of
 writers,
 did
 not
 discover
 political
 biography
 …

it
 was
 left
 to
 a
 later
 age,
 the
 Roman
 Empire,
 to
 provide
 the
 social
 and
 political

4
 A
 further
 note
 is
 that
 the
 genre
 of
 biography,
 more
 broadly,
 seems
 also
 to
 risen
 in

popularity
 during
 the
 Imperial
 period.
 As
 Momigliano
 (1993
 [1971]:
 9)
 notes,
 the
 most

famous
 and
 extensive
 biographical
 works
 to
 survive,
 such
 as
 those
 of
 “Plutarch,
 Suetonius,

Diogenes
 Laertius,
 Philostratus,
 the
 Scriptores
 Historiae
 Augustae
 …
 all
 belong
 to
 the

Imperial
 age.”
 In
 such
 a
 context,
 Momigliano
 argues,
 “Biography
 was
 the
 natural
 form
 of

telling
 the
 story
 of
 a
 Caesar.”
Ferguson
  5

context
 in
 which
 political
 biography
 could
 flourish
 and
 attain
 its
 highest

development,
 eventually
 to
 all
 but
 supplant
 historiography.”

Political
 biography
 is
 significant
 in
 that
 it
 is
 the
 form
 of
 biography
 that
 most
 closely
 relates

to
 (and
 even
 eventually
 replaces)
 ancient
 historiography.
 One
 important
 question
 to
 ask,
 in

regards
 to
 the
 genre
 of
 ancient
 biography,
 is
 how
 it
 relates
 to
 history.
 Momigliano
 (1993

[1971]:
 12)
 argues,
 “Biography
 was
 never
 considered
 as
 history
 in
 the
 classical
 world.
 The

relationship
 between
 history
 and
 biography
 varied
 in
 different
 periods.”
 Some
 scholars

have
 regarded
 Suetonius
 as
 an
 author
 who
 was
 less
 interested
 in
 history
 than
 gathering

anecdotes
 and
 stories
 about
 the
 Roman
 emperors.
 Kendall
 (1965:
 39)
 observes,
 “several

modern
 critics”
 dismiss
 “Suetonius
 as
 a
 ‘mere
 compiler,’
 or
 ‘a
 gossip,’
 as
 lacking
 historical

perspective
 and
 literary
 graces
 and
 ethical
 considerations.”
 Likewise,
 Townend
 (1967:
 91)

observes,
 “many
 of
 the
 least
 favorable
 verdicts
 passed
 on
 [Suetonius’
 Lives]
 come
 from

historians
 who
 are
 disappointed
 that
 Suetonius
 was
 not
 an
 historian.”
 However,
 many
 of

these
 criticisms
 stem
 from
 viewing
 Suetonius
 in
 opposition
 to
 Tacitus’
 Annals
 and

Histories.5

Nevertheless,
 biography
 appears
 to
 have
 become
 a
 more
 dominant
 form
 of
 writing

about
 history
 later
 in
 antiquity.
 The
 Historiae
 Augustae,
 for
 example,
 is
 one
 of
 the
 major

historical
 sources
 for
 the
 period
 of
 the
 Antonine-­‐Dynasty
 and
 the
 3rd
 century.
 Moreover,

telling
 about
 emperors
 in
 succession
 over
 century
 time
 span
 does
 not
 suggest
 an
 approach

that
 is
 oblivious
 to
 historical
 sequence.
 Rather,
 the
 emphasis
 in
 De
 Vita
 Caesarum
 seems
 to

be
 apart
 from
 concerns
 that
 would
 grace
 Tacitus’
 Annals.
 Moreover,
 even
 within
 the
 genre

5
 Such
 criticism
 can
 be
 found
 from
 very
 early
 writings
 about
 the
 author.
 Francis Bacon in
The Advancement of Learning (2.8.5) bluntly claimed that Suetonius’ accounts of the Caesars
“gathered into titles and bundles and not in order of time” seemed “monstrous and incredible,”
when contrasting with Tacitus’ annalistic account of the same events.
Ferguson
  6

of
 biography
 itself,
 the
 emphasis
 that
 Suetonius
 places
 on
 offices,
 civic
 achievements,

personal
 habits,
 etc.
 is
 still
 very
 different
 than
 the
 ethical
 concerns
 of
 a
 biographer
 like

Plutarch.

The
 distinction
 between
 history
 and
 biography
 seems
 to
 be
 more
 of
 a
 distinction

between
 thematic
 emphasis
 and
 organization
 rather
 than
 subject
 matter.
 This
 distinction

can
 be
 found
 in
 programmatic
 statements
 of
 the
 ancient
 biographers
 themselves.
 Plutarch,

in
 prefacing
 his
 biography
 of
 Alexander
 (which
 is
 likewise
 the
 preface
 to
 Plutarch’s

biography
 of
 Julius
 Caesar),
 states:

παραιτησόμεθα
 τοὺς
 ἀναγινώσκοντας,
 ἐὰν
 μὴ
 πάντα
 μηδὲ
 καθ᾽
 ἕκαστον

ἐξειργασμένως
 τι
 τῶν
 περιβοήτων
 ἀπαγγέλλωμεν,
 ἀλλὰ
 ἐπιτέμνοντες
 τὰ

πλεῖστα,
 μὴ
 συκοφαντεῖν.
 οὔτε
 γὰρ
 ἱστορίας
 γράφομεν,
 ἀλλὰ
 βίους
 οὔτε
 ταῖς

ἐπιφανεστάταις
 πράξεσι
 πάντως
 ἔνεστι
 δήλωσις
 ἀρετῆς
 ἢ
 κακίας,
 ἀλλὰ

πρᾶγμα
 βραχὺ
 πολλάκις
 καὶ
 ῥῆμα
 καὶ
 παιδιά
 τις
 ἔμφασιν
 ἤθους
 ἐποίησε

(Plut.
 Alex.
 1.1-­‐2).6

I
 entreat
 my
 readers,
 in
 case
 I
 do
 not
 meticulously
 report
 every
 famous

action
 of
 these
 men,
 nor
 even
 speak
 exhaustively
 in
 each
 particular
 case,
 but

instead
 for
 the
 most
 part
 write
 through
 epitomes,
 not
 to
 complain.
 For
 I
 am

not
 writing
 Histories,
 but
 Lives,
 nor
 in
 the
 most
 illustrious
 deeds
 is
 there

always
 a
 manifestation
 of
 virtue
 or
 vice,
 but
 rather
 a
 thing
 like
 a
 phrase
 or
 a

jest
 often
 makes
 a
 greater
 revelation
 of
 character.

A
 similar
 statement
 about
 biographical
 methodology
 and
 placing
 priority
 on
 anecdote,

rather
 than
 on
 an
 exhaustive
 historical
 narrative,
 is
 likewise
 found
 at
 the
 beginning
 of

Suetonius’
 biography
 of
 Augustus:

Proposita
 uitae
 eius
 uelut
 summa
 parte<s>
 singillatim
 neque
 per
 tempora

sed
 per
 species
 exsequar,
 quo
 distinctius
 demonstrari
 cognoscique
 possint

(Aug.
 9.1).7

With
 a
 summary,
 as
 it
 were,
 of
 his
 life
 set
 forth,
 I
 will
 follow
 the
 parts
 one
 by

one,
 not
 chronologically,
 but
 through
 subject
 headings,
 whereby
 they
 can
 be

demonstrated
 and
 understood
 more
 distinctly
 from
 one
 another.

6
 All
 citations
 of
 Plutarch
 are
 to
 the
 Lindskog
 and
 Ziegler
 Teubner.

7
 All
 citations
 of
 Suetonius
 are
 to
 the
 Ihm
 Teubner.
Ferguson
  7

Both
 authors
 emphasize
 a
 lack
 of
 chronological
 structure
 and
 a
 higher
 priority
 being
 placed

on
 character-­‐defining
 attributes,
 phrases,
 and
 anecdotes.
 However,
 from
 that
 point
 onward,

the
 two
 authors’
 styles
 differ
 dramatically
 based
 on
 the
 differences
 noted
 above.
 The

question
 is
 to
 what
 causes
 and
 factors
 we
 can
 attribute
 both
 the
 similarities
 and
 unique

differences
 between
 the
 styles.
 Gentili
 (1988:
 68)
 argues:

“The
 frequently
 repeated
 distinction
 between
 a
 biography
 of
 an
 erudite

nature
 and
 a
 biography
 with
 a
 more
 complex
 structure,
 including
 historical,

political,
 ideological
 and
 ethical
 elements,
 [might]
 not
 be
 understood
 in
 a

schematic
 sense,
 but
 in
 relation
 to
 the
 function
 and
 to
 the
 type
 of
 audience

for
 which
 the
 individual
 biographical
 narrative
 is
 intended.”

Suetonius
 is
 writing
 Latin
 biographies
 for
 a
 Roman
 audience,
 which
 could
 perhaps
 be
 the

best
 way
 to
 understand
 the
 author’s
 differences
 with
 Plutarch.8
 Hägg
 notes
 that
 there
 is
 a

“Romanness”
 to
 Roman
 biography.
 He
 argues
 that
 Roman
 laudationes
 funebres
 provided
 an

organizational
 structure
 that
 was
 focused
 on
 a
 man’s
 offices,
 honors,
 and
 deeds,
 rather
 than

a
 continual
 chronological
 narrative.
 Augustus’
 Res
 Gestae,
 which
 catalogues
 the
 emperor’s

achievements
 by
 category,
 is
 a
 perfect
 example
 of
 a
 previously
 existing
 Roman
 biographical

form
 that
 ,ay
 have
 influenced
 the
 structure
 of
 Suetonius’
 biographies.
 Furthermore,
 Hägg

(2012:
 234)
 argues,
 “The
 cursus
 honorum
 so
 diligently
 recorded
 in
 Roman
 inscriptions
 of

various
 categories
 is
 one
 well-­‐known
 manifestation,
 a
 kind
 of
 mini-­‐biography
 in
 stone.”

8
 Likewise,
 evaluating
 the
 intended
 audience
 may
 also
 be
 crucial
 for
 understanding

Suetonius’
 differences
 with
 Tacitus.
 Tacitus
 was
 a
 Roman
 senator,
 whereas
 Suetonius
 never

rose
 above
 the
 rank
 of
 equestrian.
 As
 Mellor
 (1999:
 4)
 explains,
 “History
 at
 Rome
 was

written
 mostly
 by
 senators
 for
 senators:
 this
 explains
 its
 narrow
 focus
 on
 political

conduct.”
 This
 is
 not
 the
 case
 for
 Suetonius;
 he
 writes
 from
 the
 perspective
 of
 the

administrative
 class.
 Mellor
 (152)
 continues,
 “The
 loss
 of
 freedom
 lamented
 by
 Tacitus
 and

others
 was
 the
 political
 freedom
 of
 a
 few
 hundred
 members
 of
 the
 senatorial
 elite;
 the

equestrians
 never
 had
 such
 freedom
 and
 preferred
 to
 judge
 the
 emperors
 on
 their

effectiveness.”
 Thus,
 Suetonius’
 emphasis
 on
 the
 emperor’s
 administrative
 habits
 and

capabilities
 may
 be
 best
 understood
 as
 an
 evaluation
 the
 emperor
 from
 the
 perspective
 of

the
 equestrian
 order.
 Suetonius’
 concern
 for
 letters,
 fiscal
 administration,
 and
 secretarial

matters
 can
 be
 explained
 admirably
 within
 this
 light.
Ferguson
  8

Thus,
 the
 differences
 in
 the
 Roman
 political
 system
 and
 political
 culture
 provide
 a
 separate

context
 in
 which
 Roman
 biography
 emerged.

The
 problem
 with
 these
 examples,
 however,
 is
 that
 they
 fail
 to
 account
 for
 the

negative
 material
 in
 Suetonius’
 biographies.
 Suetonius
 does
 not
 just
 list
 a
 man’s

achievements,
 but
 also
 his
 vices,
 and
 his
 Caligula,
 Nero,
 and
 Domitian
 are
 distinctly
 hostile

biographies.
 Neither
 the
 Res
 Gestae,
 nor
 funeral
 orations,
 nor
 Latin
 inscriptions
 containing

the
 cursus
 honorum
 can
 account
 for
 the
 distinctly
 negative
 material
 in
 Suetonius’

biographies.
 However,
 there
 a
 few
 other
 potential
 sources
 from
 which
 an
 emphasis
 on

negative
 material
 could
 have
 been
 derived.
 First,
 Lives
 that
 contain
 both
 negative
 and

positive
 material
 were
 not
 unprecedented
 in
 the
 Greek
 ancient
 biographical
 tradition.

There
 is
 Phanias’
 On
 the
 Tyrants
 of
 Sicily,
 which,
 although
 lost,
 is
 reputed
 to
 have
 been
 a

collection
 that
 focused
 on
 both
 the
 positive
 and
 negative
 attributes
 of
 the
 biographical

subjects.
 Then,
 there
 is
 the
 negative
 material
 for
 Alexander
 the
 Great
 that
 survives
 in
 our

Greek
 biographical
 tradition.
 Such
 material
 likewise
 had
 already
 made
 itself
 into
 the

Roman
 biographical
 tradition,
 as
 Curtius
 Rufus’
 Historiae
 Alexandri
 Magni
 predates

Suetonius’
 biographies,
 providing
 a
 precedent
 for
 negative
 biographical
 material
 already
 in

the
 Latin
 tradition.
 Finally,
 there
 are
 also
 trends
 of
 negative
 biographical
 material
 already

in
 other
 Latin
 works
 treating
 the
 same
 subject
 matter.
 For
 example,
 Tacitus’
 account
 of
 the

emperor
 Tiberius’
 death
 contains
 a
 biographical
 statement
 that
 is
 distinctly
 negative:

morum
 quoque
 tempora
 illi
 diversa:
 egregium
 vita
 famaque
 quoad
 privatus

vel
 in
 imperiis
 sub
 Augusto
 fuit;
 occultum
 ac
 subdolum
 fingendis
 virtutibus

donec
 Germanicus
 ac
 Drusus
 superfuere;
 idem
 inter
 bona
 malaque
 mixtus

incolumi
 matre;
 intestabilis
 saevitia
 sed
 obtectis
 libidinibus
 dum
 Seianum

dilexit
 timuitve:
 postremo
 in
 scelera
 simul
 ac
 dedecora
 prorupit
 postquam

remoto
 pudore
 et
 metu
 suo
 tantum
 ingenio
 utebatur
 (Ann.
 6.51).9

9
 All
 citations
 of
 Tacitus
 are
 to
 the
 Heubner
 Teubner.
Ferguson
  9

There
 were
 also
 distinct
 periods
 of
 his
 character.
 He
 was
 noteworthy
 in
 his

life
 and
 reputation,
 while
 he
 was
 a
 private
 citizen
 or
 held
 high
 offices
 during

the
 time
 of
 Augustus;
 secretive
 and
 shrewd
 in
 his
 assumption
 of
 virtue,
 so

long
 as
 Germanicus
 and
 Drusus
 were
 still
 alive.
 Again,
 while
 his
 mother

remained,
 he
 was
 a
 mixture
 of
 good
 and
 evil;
 he
 was
 infamous
 for
 his

brutality,
 although
 his
 debaucheries
 were
 still
 veiled,
 while
 he
 esteemed
 or

feared
 Sejanus.
 At
 last,
 he
 plunged
 into
 wicked
 deeds
 and
 disgrace,
 after,
 his

fear
 and
 shame
 being
 removed,
 he
 had
 full
 use
 of
 his
 own
 inclination.

This
 statement
 of
 Tacitus
 likewise
 predates
 Suetonius
 and
 provides
 a
 good
 example
 of

focusing
 on
 negative
 material
 when
 providing
 a
 summation
 of
 an
 emperor’s
 life.

Other
 areas
 to
 look
 for
 assessing
 Suetonius’
 literary
 style
 in
 his
 De
 Vita
 Caesarum
 are

in
 Suetonius’
 other
 written
 works.
 As
 noted
 by
 Leo,
 Suetonius’
 rubric
 style
 is
 not
 just
 found

in
 his
 Imperial
 biographies,
 but
 this
 may
 have
 been
 less
 of
 an
 accident
 than
 Leo
 believed.

Wallace-­‐Hadrill
 (1995:
 44)
 explains,
 “An
 essay
 on
 customs
 or
 institutions,
 as
 the
 surviving

On
 Greek
 Games,
 lends
 itself
 to
 subdivisions
 and
 quotation
 of
 examples.
 There
 are
 board

games,
 party
 games,
 and
 children’s
 games
 …
 The
 Caesars
 is
 the
 same
 thing
 on
 a
 large
 scale.”

Suetonius
 may
 not
 have
 been
 obliged
 to
 change
 his
 style
 simply
 because
 he
 was
 crossing

into
 a
 new
 genre.

Finally,
 there
 is
 question
 of
 how
 Suetonius
 arranges
 the
 rubric
 headings
 within
 the

biography
 itself.
 Seager
 (2005:238)
 describes
 Suetonius’
 style
 as
 an
 “arid,
 mechanical,
 and

tedious
 way
 of
 writing,”
 asserting
 that
 “all
 Suetonius
 does
 is
 to
 clothe
 [his]
 traditional

skeleton
 with
 a
 patchwork
 of
 dubious
 anecdotes
 and
 garbled
 examples.”
 However,

Banedikston
 (1997)
 in
 “Structure
 and
 Fate
 in
 Suetonius’
 Life
 of
 Galba”
 has
 observed
 more

complex
 and
 creative
 chiastic
 structures
 in
 the
 biography.
 Although
 broken
 into
 rubrics

with
 subject
 headings,
 this
 in
 no
 way
 implies
 that
 Suetonius
 did
 not
 arrange
 the
 material

creatively.
 However,
 there
 remain
 questions
 over
 how
 much
 a
 man’s
 life
 influenced
 the
Ferguson
 10

biographical
 structure,
 as
 opposed
 to
 the
 biographical
 structure
 determining
 Suetonius’

version
 of
 a
 man’s
 life.
 Cox
 (1983:
 15)
 argues,
 “Suetonius’
 biographies
 are
 good
 examples
 of

a
 major
 dynamic
 operative
 in
 biography
 writing:
 the
 molding
 of
 a
 man’s
 character
 to
 a

preconceived
 model.”

As
 this
 survey
 of
 issues
 has
 demonstrated,
 there
 are
 a
 number
 of
 problems
 that

need
 to
 be
 addressed
 in
 understanding
 Suetonius’
 literary
 style.
 First,
 there
 is
 the
 problem

of
 expanding
 upon
 the
 defining
 features
 of
 the
 genre
 of
 ancient
 biography
 itself
 (which
 has

challenged
 many
 previous
 scholars),
 as
 well
 as
 finding
 a
 place
 for
 the
 political
 biographies

of
 the
 Imperial
 age
 within
 that
 spectrum.
 Next,
 there
 is
 the
 problem
 of
 working
 out
 the

unique
 literary
 techniques
 of
 Suetonius
 and
 finding
 a
 literary
 precedent
 from
 which
 he
 may

have
 formed
 a
 model.
 These
 sources
 of
 influence
 span
 from
 the
 more
 critical
 biographies

within
 the
 Greek
 biographical
 tradition,
 Latin
 funeral
 orations,
 the
 cursus
 honorum
 found
 in

Latin
 inscriptions,
 and
 the
 negative
 material
 about
 the
 Roman
 emperors
 in
 non-­‐
biographical
 works.
 Finally,
 there
 is
 the
 question
 of
 how
 Suetonius
 arranges
 the
 material

within
 the
 Lives
 using
 the
 rubric
 system.
 Benediktson
 has
 presented
 a
 compelling
 case
 for

ring
 composition
 and
 chiastic
 organization,
 which
 would
 challenge
 some
 of
 the
 previous

notions
 that
 Suetonius
 lacked
 a
 complex
 and
 creative
 biographical
 technique.
 However,

ring
 composition
 would
 only
 be
 one
 plausible
 model
 through
 with
 which
 the
 thematically

arranged
 material
 might
 be
 interpreted.
 Thus,
 situating
 Suetonius
 within
 the
 ancient

biographical
 tradition
 and
 interpreting
 his
 style
 is
 no
 easy
 matter,
 and
 exploring
 each
 of
 the

issues
 outlined
 above
 could
 make
 for
 an
 extensive
 project
 to
 carry
 research
 forward.