Suetonius wrote about Augustus in his De Vitae Caesarum, in English known as “Of the Lives of the Caesars”, about a hundred years after Augustus’ death (Wikipedia). By this time Augustus had come to be known as a sort of god on earth, which is referenced in Suetonius’ title for the Augustan chapter, “Divus Augustus” meaning Divine Augustus. Although the piece references many great works of Augustus, the general tone of the work and the particular way Suetonius wrote about the Julian descendant gives the impression that it was not at all a laudation of Augustan prowess as it could be interpreted to be, but rather an open vituperative recalling his faults and even rescinding his post-mortem deification.
This agenda of Suetonius’ is displayed in two major ways. First is that he discusses Augustus’ more positive aspects in a very unmemorable sort of way, dissolving any facts into the realm of myth and hearsay and therefore denegrating the veracity of the proof of such actions by defining them as been “generally agreed” upon (Suet., 30, 39), or rumours, not allied with recognized people or events but rather hearsay and legend. Second, any negative aspects of August he amplifies by his use of adjectives, vivid explanation, and proof from actual people, giving quotes and well-known events, as well as direct contradiction between paragraphs of what Augustus said and what actually happened. In this way he displays his distaste for the generally accepted glory of Augustus.
As to the first of the two methods vilifying Augustus, some elaboration is necessary. Suetonius first makes things unmemorable by creating huge lists: I.E. Augustus did this, and this and this and this, and this and this, each one of the numerous things or persons commemorated in these lists melting into one big conglomeration of meaningless stuff in people’s minds as they read the essay. Using conjunctions like also, then, and massive amounts of punctuation, he can both be perceived by the masses as praising Augustus’ many works, and by the more analytical as being sarcastic concerning those same works by droning on and on and on about them. An example of this:
“Some of Augustus’ public works were undertaken in the names of relatives: such as the colonnade and basilica of his grandsons Gaius and Lucius; the colonnades of his wife Livia and his sister Octavia; the theatre of his nephew Marcellus. He also often urged leading citizens to embellish the city with new public monuments or to resture and improve ancient ones, according to their means. Many responded: thus the temple of Hercules and the Muses was raised by Marcius Phillipus; that of Diana by Lucius Cornificus; the Hall of Liberty by Asinius Pollio; the Temple of Saturn by Munatius Plancus; … ” (Suet. De Vitae 29)
This goes on for a long time. This sort of writing makes all these names, Augustus’ actions, and anything else spoken of in Augustus’ favour become quite indistinct in one’s memory as one reads this essay because of boredom due to droning, and only the other things that Augustus did will be remembered. It may be noted that in Latin this passage is filled with even more conjunctions, and over time the endings all start to sound the same: “basilicaque”, “theatrumque”, “Gai et Luci” ” Liviae et Octaviae”, et cetera. This assonance in the original text only helps to prove the tedium displayed in such long lists, most of which had already been mentioned in Augustus’ own memoirs.
On the other hand, there is still the matter of the veracity of these lists, which Suetonius deliberately makes vague. The accomplishments of Augustus, the auguries by which his fame became accepted, and other positive aspects of his life and rule are made to seem like myths and hearsay. Suetonius does this by rarely if ever referencing sources concerning these actions, and when giving proof using terms like “generally agreed” (Suet., 10, 72) or “everyone believes this” (94), the latter seeming sarcastic in the strength of its allegation and the former being notoriously imprecise concerning the actual nature of the proof.
In other instances, however, his proof becomes very clear and verifiable. Every time he mentions something negative about Augustus, he references someone real or an actual event. Proof was very important to the Romans: even Augustus, after his death, found it necessary to prove his greatness by having an inscription made of all the things he did in life (Englert). Therefore this unprecedented veracity in the text becomes very important towards the interpretation of it, because it puts much greater importance on the things Suetonius makes to seem authentic. There is also the interpretation that Suetonius was actually praising Augustus and covering his ass in including these features and stories, because he could not easily come to believe that anyone might ever think ill of Augustus or perceive Augustus as doing terrible things: but if he were praising Augustus why would he include such terrible images, and in such vibrant detail? The more repugnant actions of Augustus are the things we most remember from reading the Divus Augustus because of the way he describes them and the proof attributed to them. Take, for example, the many letters of Mark Antony referenced in the text, a contemporary and equal to Augustus and therefore a quite reliable source. No less than seven times does Suetonius refer to Mark chastising or insulting Augustus. The first of these times, and most notably of which, mentions Mark’s conception of Augustus’ paternal line, in which he lambasts his grandfather and great grandfather as being in order a hated “money-changer” and a mere “freedman” (Suet., 2), a freedman being of the second lowest social status in Roman rank, preceded only by slaves. Suetonius disagrees with this insult beforehand by giving a history of Augustus’ commonly known ancestors, but he reminds us very discreetly that “this information is given by others; it is not derived from Augustus’ own memoirs, which merely record that he came of a rich old equestrian family” (2), alluding that Mark’s perception of Augustus’ heritage is more correct and reliable than the more common assumptions of his parentage, not only because Augustus neglects to actually speak of his own family (perhaps out of shame) but also because the information is practically said to be rumour.
As well as dependable proof towards more negative aspects of Augustus, Suetonius uses some strong contrasts between what Augustus did and what Augustus promised, or forced upon others as his set of morals. The most exemplary of these shows up in the last paragraph of chapter 25 and the first of 26. In the last paragraph of 25, Suetonius speaks of “the two faults which [Augustus] condemned most strongly in a military commander… Haste and recklessness”, continuing on to quote Augustus quoting various proverbs concerning the two. In the very next paragraph, though, he subtly turns those words back at Augustus, relating the tale of how at the age of nineteen he took it upon himself to march his army to Rome “as though it were an enemy city” and sending messengers ahead to the senate to proclaim himself Consul- “when the senate hesitated to obey, one Cornelius, a centurion leading his deputation, opened his military cloak, displayed the hilt of his sword, and boldly said ‘If you do not make him Consul, this will!’.” Do note the naming and quoting of actual people- definitive proof of the authenticity of this event. As well, the presence of the adverbial “boldly” could just as easily be replaced by the word rashly because, although they are not synonyms, the brazen behaviour of the centurion under Augustus’ command is at once both audacious and impulsive, reflecting upon and exemplifying Augustus’ own actions as being the same. This story, told by Suetonius so shortly after the previous one, makes light of the inconsistencies in Augustus’ character, and therefore his flaws.
Concerning the vibrancy of his commentary, on the other hand- we have just seen the vividness of Suetonius’ storytelling in the seizing of the Consulship, but the most memorable of all the passages in the text are the ones devoted to the description of the man himself. We get the impression reading the text, even though Suetonius uses terms like “remarkably handsome” and “beautifully proportioned” (Suet., 79), that Augustus was a very plain, even ugly old man. He was “negligent of his personal appearance”; “his teeth were small, few, and decayed” and “his body… [was] marred by blemishes of various sorts” (80). Suet continues by describing graphically Augustus’ urinary problems, arthritic tendencies, constant discomfort and apparent weakness. Clearly anyone who read this could see the mortality of this man, discern the illegitimate divinity by nature of his faults: perhaps some could even be disgusted by the image that Suetonius draws.
There are many other attacks on Augustus’ dignity and divinity throughout the text, but upon close examination of these few examples it becomes clear that Suetonius’ intent was not to praise Augustus but to artfully attack and invalidate the deification of his character, making apparent his flaws and misgivings. With the use of such literary devices as vivid explanation, contrasting indistinct achievements with colorful failures, and resolutely proving some facts while attributing others to common lore, Suetonius proves easily the misuse of the word “Divine” in accordance with Augustus’ name. Although some people may easily imply his use of language as just trying to cover all his bases trying to explain all the things the Caesar had ever done, there is no doubt that Suetonius thought Augustus a mere mortal, grown large in the eyes of men through his political bloodlust and the passing years.
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (Penguin, 1979)
Walter Englert; “Livy and the Re-Creation of Rome” 1.30.2006
Suetonius, Divus Augustus (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/suetonius/suet.aug.html)
Wikipedia, “Suetonius” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius)
Reference:
- Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (Penguin, 1979) Walter Englert; “Livy and the Re-Creation of Rome” Reed College 1.30.2006 Suetonius, Divus Augustus (www.thelatinlibrary.com/suetonius/suet.aug.html) Wikipedia, “Suetonius” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius)
