The Twelve Caesars

After reading I Claudius, my interest wanted to learn more of early Roman history after the Claudian reign.
This book provided what I was looking for and I enjoyed it immensley.
Would recommend it to any person interested in early Rome as regards to the Ceasars.

This is an adequate version of the Twelve Caesars if you are looking to stray from the more mainstream translations. It contains more detail but not enough context regarding the detail to make it a compelling read. If you can read only one stick to the Robert Graves version.

I started looking for the translation of this book by Robert Graves, but, was directed to this version. I bought it without looking more carefully at the product. The good part was this translation didn't cost much, so, the pain was somewhat tolerable. I did find Robert Graves's translation from the store.uk.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus is more of political tattle-tale than a historian.
However, when he isn't serving up scandal, one can get some usable history-like information.

The English translation is certainly more useful than the Latin version, because Suetonius' scandal mongering is boring.

A rational presentation, but a quaint, old translation. I suggest a more modern translation that would be more understandable. It would have helped if I had first read a history of Rome so I could have better placed the characters in context and time.

Thanks

I read this book as I knew that Caesars were delicious salads.

I had a rough time in the beginning as the names and the translated writing style didn't flow. After chapter 2 I was ok.

I would recommend it to a friend.

Interesting translation of an ancient work by Suetonius - a well though of historian. Definitely for thos with a real interest in the Roman Empire although the Complete Works of Suetonius would be a better buy!

This does not have an active table of contents and it is very difficult to navigate without one. I just bookmarked each chapter for an easier way to get to the individual Caesars'. But this takes a bit of time. Overall, the content of the book is very good. Again, just difficult to navigate.

Clearly aimed at famous Suetonius’s work by the same title, Grant’s book supplements the former account with many more sources (from Tacitus and Dio Cassius to modern researchers in Roman History and new findings). Even more important, mere narration of the events is combined with an attempt to analyze and explain them.

Even for those familiar with the subject, there are many discoveries to be made. The Author does a great job demonstrating just what a tremendously back breaking duty the “job” of a Roman Emperor was and how it indeed broke even the strongest of people. Time and again we see how - without a well executed transition plan - a rule of a Caesar ended in a [often violent] disruption and a crisis - only Augustus and Vespasian were lucky enough to grow a fitting successor.

Thanks to the Author, we are able to see each of the Caesars not as a superficial one-dimensional collection of pop-history facts (“Caligula? Of course, he made his horse a Consul!”) but as complex multi-faceted characters. Everyone started with the best intentions, everyone got broken by the duty, sometimes in an ugly way. The Author quotes the famous Lord Acton’s maxim: “Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and there is hardly a better book to drive that point home.

Still, it is amazing to witness how the “eternal” Republic rather quickly transitions into an absolute monarchy (while still loudly proclaiming the adherence to the Republican ideals). As uncomfortable as it might be, there are some lessons for all of us to learn: it is indeed a very short way from LIBERTAS POPVLI to LIBERTAS AVGVSTI.

In nuce: what a pleasure! Probably the best book on one of the most interesting and important periods of Roman History - highly accessible, yet deep enough. Most importantly, the Author undertook a titanic work of combining multiple sources both ancient and new to present a well rounded picture. I you plan to read Suetonius, I highly recommend reading this one first.

This is a collection of essays about the first twelve Roman rulers to bear the name Caesar. It is the definitive collection of eyewitness stories about the early emperors as they were seen by their contemporaries.

The rulers covered by this book include Julius Caesar; his adopted son Octavian who ruled as Augustus, and his descendents; the warlords who contended for power in the "Year of Four Caesars" after Nero was overthrown, and the Flavians who came out on top in that struggle.

In other words, the full list of twelve is:

Julius Caesar
Augustus
Tiberius
Gaius Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Galba
Otho
Vitellius
Vespasian
Titus
Domitian.

If you want to understand the early Roman Empire, you need to read this book. If you are a budding novelist and want to write about the early Empire, you need to read this book. Reading Suetonius is not perhaps a sufficient condition to allow you to understand or write convincingly about the period, but it is a necessary condition.

Robert Graves, author of "I Claudius" and "Claudius the God" translated this version: not surprisingly many of the snippets of gossip and fascinating little stories from Suetonius find their way into his novels. They also find their way into every good novel about first century Rome that I have ever read, absolutely without exception.

You should not take for granted that every word of Suetonius's account is accurate. Reading carefully, you will see that where he heard two conflicting accounts of an issue or event he quotes both, usually without attempt to reconcile them. And a number of stories find their way into this account with, shall we say, less critical scrutiny than we would hope for today, though probably no less than you would expect from XXX - insert the name of a modern popular news medium you don't approve of here.)

For example, repeats uncritially the story that Nero set fire to the city of Rome, and then sang an aria as he watched the city burn. (This is story is often misquoted as Nero having fiddled while Rome burned - an impossibility since the violin had not been invented.)

Some modern historians have made a strong case that this was a clever libel spread by Nero's contemporary opponents. They argue that Nero was actually away from the city when the fire broke out, and hurried back to Rome to personally lead the fire-fighting efforts.

If they are right it does not cast doubt on Suetonius's integrity as a reporter of what was said about the emperor, because there is no dispute that the story of Nero singing while Rome burned was widely believed at the time. It was a perfect example of the old saying, "Si non e vero, e ben trovato" - if it's not true, it's well invented.

Aspects of the story certainly seem in character with many of Nero's other proclivities including his love of art, enormous vanity, and complete ruthlessness. However, the fact that it is reported as fact may illustrate that Suetonius does seem to have a propensity to repeat every snippet of gossip he heard about the early emperors, with rather less selectivity and critical judgement than other great ancient historians, such as Herodotus and Thucydides.

However, for this very reason, though perhaps he is a whisker behind Herodotus and Thucydides, or indeed Tacitus and Plutarch as a historian, Suetonius is far and away the most entertaining of the five.

The translation by Graves is very easy to read. This is one of the most important, fascinating, and informative works of ancient history which was ever written.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (69 A.D.-140 A.D.), though distanced by dozens of years from many of his subjects, weaves a fascinating tale of decadence, debauchery, courage, cowardice, death, destruction and Realpolitik, which flourished throughout the various reigns of the 12 Caesars. Having the good fortune of interviewing eye witnesses with first hand knowledge, various sources validated many of Suetonius's assertions.

1-Did Caesar marry and then divorce Pompeia (Sulla's granddaughter) on suspicion of committing adultry with Publius Clodius? (Who is said to have disguised himself as a woman inorder to "seduce" her during a religious ceremony)

2-Did Publius indeed get to de-flower her first before the mighty genetically "divine" Caesar?

3-Was Caesar plagued by the incestuous dream he had of lying /sleeping with his mother, while still a youth? (Freud would've had a field day with that one)

4-Did Caligua actually appoint his horse (Incitatus) a Consul?

5-Were the licentious tales of debauchery and decadence a daily pastime of Nero? And was Petronius Arbiter's lewd character "Trimalcius" ( in his masterpiece "The Satyricon") actually based on Nero?

6-Were the Roman banquets /dining events of the murderous Nero and the gluttonous Vitellius truly opulent scenes of decadent orgies and extravagent feasting?

[Side Note]: A great cookbook to read to gauge the vast gastronomic delicacies that were possibly served during many of these extravagant banquets is:

*Cookery and Dining in Imperial Rome (by Apicius and Joseph Dommers Vehling)

Suetonius seems to think so. So being two thousand years or so removed from witnessing these events first hand, I guess we'll simply have to take his word for it.The 12 Caesars is truly a remarkable work. Suetonius's masterpiece provides us a titillating voyeuristic view into the lives of the 12 Caesars.

The historian of ancient Greece and Rome, Michael Grant, has been a favorite of mine since I happened upon his survey, "History of Rome" (copyright 1978), 25 years ago. Though a popularizer who wrote for a broad audience over 70 books on aspects of the history of the ancient Mediterranean world, Grant was a serious scholar who was trained in Classics at Harrow School and Trinity College, Cambridge. Grant wrote several scholarly monographs on ancient Greek and Roman coins, as well as standard Penguin Classics translations of Cicero and Tacitus, thus assuring his scholarly credentials.
To my mind, Michael Grant is at his best in writing on Roman history, and the 1970s saw Grant complete many of his best works in this field. Grant's book, "The Twelve Caesars," was published in 1975.
As he makes clear in his superb introduction to "The Twelve Caesars," Grant is following the model of Suetonius' "Lives of the Caesars" in treating the first 12 Roman "Caesars," beginning with Julius Caesar (died 44 B.C.) and ending with Emperor Domitian (died A.D. 96), including the short-lived reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in "the year of four emperors," A.D. 68-69. The rich variety of these imperial personalities is fertile ground for the modern historian of ancient Rome, and Grant's portraits of these Roman rulers (usually in the vicinity of 20 pages in length) are succinct but fairly complete. Thus there is the manically driven military genius Julius Caesar; the sickly but masterly constitutional artificer, Augustus; the reluctant but responsible and thoroughly able Tiberius; the gifted yet disillusioned Caligula; the frail and scholarly Claudius; the frustrated poet, Nero; etc., etc.
Though future generations of Rome would deem some of these Caesars "good" and others "bad," Grant makes clear that the office of emperor demanded immense amounts of work and energy from its respective holders. To lead military campaigns, supervise the bureaucracy of a far-flung empire, keep a lid on the senators, soldiers, and populace in the city of Rome, and serve as a final judge in the legal affairs of great and small, an observer could pity the emperor his lot and wonder why any man would wish to take it on.
In his introduction, Grant makes clear the strengths and weaknesses of the principal Latin literary sources: Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius. Suetonius was considered a "biographer," and thus, even by his own judgment, inferior to "historians" such as Tacitus and Dio Cassius. But Suetonius has the virtue of including in his imperial portraits all the information he comes across and allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions about a particular ruler. Tacitus, though a gifted stylist and chronicler, is not always a good judge of character. And Dio Cassius can be a perceptive judge of the inherent limitations of any historian attempting to adduce what really transpires in the imperial chambers.
As for Grant's own historical efforts, he includes the modern disciplines of numismatics (study of coins), epigraphy (inscriptions), archaeology, and papyrology (study of surviving papyrus manuscripts), in addition to his impeccable grounding in the ancient historians and modern secondary literature to flesh out satisfying, colorful portraits of Rome's first twelve imperial rulers. The end result is a book that is enjoyable and educational to read, though it may not be ideal for the complete novice to Roman history, in which case I would suggest supplementing it with Grant's excellent "History of Rome."

British ancient historian Michael Grant is a legend of sorts, although I’m sure that plenty of classically trained Roman historians shutter at that appellation. Here, with “The Twelve Caesars,” originally published in 1975, he seeks to deliver to a modern audience in plain English and shorn of contemporary prejudice the men who ruled Rome from the bloody transition from the Republic through the halcyon days of the first century Empire.

Grant breaks his biographical collection into four parts. Here are my semi-educated reactions to each.

Part I looks at the period “From Republic to Empire” and covers just two, but eventful and influential lives: Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Grant writes that not only did Caesar usurp the rights and honors of the Republic, but he also elevated the non-aristocratic Oppius and Balbus from the Knight class as personal secretaries and assistants wielding tremendous influence and power, a fact that many senators bridled at, especially given Caesar’s planned campaign against the Parthians meant that these two non-nobles would essentially be in charge politically at Rome. Moreover, Caesar introduced sweeping reform policies for debtors, expanded Senate membership from to 600 to 900, including many from the extended empire, put his image on coinage, and declared himself dictator for life, thus depriving an entire generation of elites the game of competing for honors. In the end, Grant writes, Caesar was a broken man physically, overwhelmed by the strains of empire management. If he had not been assassinated before heading his army east in 44BC, he almost certainly would have died shortly on campaign, according to the author. And, thus, Grant introduces the two main themes of his book: 1) the role of emperor was an enormous responsibility that simply crushed most men under its tremendous weight and pressure; and 2) the senatorial elites may have lost the policy influence they wielded under the Republic, but the combined weight of their opinion still mattered greatly during the early Empire.

Augustus, adopted son of Caesar, Grant writes, was physically weak and, unlike his adopted father, not conspicuously brave. Yet, he made great decisions under difficult circumstances. The author writes that Augustus strove mightily to make the new empire look-and-feel like the old Republic. Augustus had divorced imperator from official power. Now consuls retained control of the provinces and the armies. The army and veterans were well taken care of, as were the people of Rome, who were treated to circuses and festivals like never before. The author stresses that Augustus lived in constant fear of his life and was always surrounded by bodyguards. He further claims that only Augustus could maintain the delicate machinery of the new empire because of his unique gifts of leadership and management. He leaned heavily on the new Senate, which had shrunk from a population of 1,000 to 600, but increasingly consulted on policy decisions. Augustus himself attended Senate meetings regularly and kept a small group of key senators as a valued inner circle. By the end of his life in 14AD, Grant writes, Augustus was increasingly irritable and was beginning to lose is grip on power, a theme that the author says was played out again and again over the course of the next century with those that inherited the all-powerful position of emperor.

Part II, “The Julio-Claudian Emperors,” covers four emperors from 14AD to the Civil War year of 69AD. Tiberius, first of the Julio-Claudian emperors, reigned for 23 years, from 14AD to 37AD, the longest reign of any first century emperor besides Augustus himself. Dour, suspicious, and taciturn by nature, Grant claims that Tiberius was nevertheless a man of “outstanding ability,” but who lacked Augustus’ gift of getting along with people. A republican by birth as well as conviction, the author writes that Tiberius “showed almost painful eagerness to preserve the traditional dignity of the senior senators and holders of official posts.” However, after half a century of imperial authority the Senate had lost the ability to initiate policy on their own account. The most historically significant events of Tiberius’ reign – the life, preaching, and death of Jesus – are not mentioned, but rather are dominated by the weighty contemporary events surrounding the emperor’s close aide, Sejanus, a knight by birth and the sole prefect of the consolidated 9 cohorts of the Praetorian Guard. By 23 AD, Sejanus had emerged as a new Agrippa, the most trusted partner to the emperor. In 26AD, Tiberius took the unusual step of leaving Rome for Capri, where he could escape the two terrors that dominated his life, according to the author: regular contact with people, both senators and the common man; and fear of assassination. Sejanus was elected co-consul with Tiberius in 31AD, but shortly thereafter Tiberius turned on him, sending an incriminating letter to the Senate that was read in his, Sejanus’, presence. Sejanus was executed on the spot, culminating what Grant calls “one of the most spectacular downfalls of all time.” The last six years of Tiberius’ life were a “reign of terror” of sorts as treason trials took the lives of dozens. Grant maintains that Tiberius simply cracked under the strain of the unmanageable system that Augustus had bequeathed to him. It is a common theme in nearly every biographical vignette of emperors who served more than at least a few years.

Caligula became emperor in 37AD at the tender age of 25 and after an upbringing of tragedy, including the murder of several close family members. A “megalomaniac,” a sadist, “unstable and unboundedly conceited,” possessing a “sardonic, malicious wit,” the young emperor was nevertheless not mad in any modern sense of the term, according to the author. Perhaps Caligula’s most daring and original policy was to tear away the legal fictions employed by Augustus and Tiberius; he unapologetically embraced a fully autocratic imperial seat. Even if by 37AD the storied “dignatas” of the Senate was largely fictional, appearances still mattered. Bucking tradition, Caligula claimed for himself unprecedented honors, including his own deification. In 41AD, after just four years in power, the very same Praetorian Guard that had taken an oath to protect him, assassinated Caligula. Grant writes that Caligula had fatally miscalculated in his brazen alienation of the seemingly emasculated upper class. The author concedes that “if even the able and hard-working Tiberius had found the Augustan inheritance intractable, then his young, inexperienced, impetuous, unindustrious successor could not be expected to grapple with its formidable problems with any likelihood of success whatsoever.”

Claudius succeeded his nephew Caligula in 41AD at the age of 50, the explicit pick of the Praetorian Guard that had just eliminated the emperor. Grant stresses that Claudius was a man of immense learning, “an erudite antiquarian and a writer of modern history,” and not the simpleton portrayed in Robert Graves’ classic historical novel. Nevertheless, the new emperor did suffer from significant personal handicaps: “timidity, suspicion, and alarm…were perhaps his dominant characteristics.” The author notes that Claudius’ reign was a curious mix of “progressiveness and antiquarianism.” He sought to expand and liberalize the senate while simultaneously pursuing a regimen of treason trials at least as aggressive as any of his predecessors and continued the “process of insidious centralization” that Caligula had begun. The role of two women – Claudius’ third and fourth wives, Messalina and Agrippina, respectively – figure prominently in his story. The former, whom he married around 40AD right before he became emperor, is described by Grant and the ancients as insatiably licentious, taking on a string of lovers, the last of which conspired with her to assassinate the emperor in 48AD. The plot was uncovered and the conspirators executed, but it was a shock from which Claudius never fully recovered, according to the author. A year later he married Agrippina, mother of Nero, a woman that Grant suggests virtually ruled Rome in Claudius’ final days, aiming mainly to rule after his death as regent to the heir apparent, Nero.

Nero’s infamous reign (54-68AD) highlights the primary themes that Grant asserts about the fate of the emperors. First, Augustus had established a centralized and autocratic system that required enormous talent, fortitude, and endurance to manage. It was a job with a workload and stress level that few could handle. Nero, who came to the purple at the absurdly young age of 17, quickly tired of the job; his genuinely progressive policy ideas were stymied by a conservative, aristocratic senate. Instead, he devoted his time to the arts, eventually even performing publically in Rome, a situation that the elites in the senate considered a scandal. Second, even though the senate had been politically neutered by Augustus, the men who made up the senate and their opinions still mattered, according to the author. If you lost their support, eventually the Praetorian Guard would waver, and then all would be lost. For Nero, Grant says, he lost the senate for a combination of reasons, but mainly because of his eccentric behavior as a poet and actor; his murder of his mother and one-time powerful regent, Agrippina; the death of noble and cooperative senior advisors, Seneca and Burrus; and his overaggressive response to news of conspiracies against his rule, which tended to enflame the sedition it sought to stamp out. The great irony of Nero’s reign is that it started with perhaps the most dramatic and sincere call for restoring the senate to its Republican position of prestige and authority. Yet, 14 years later, it was that very senate, grown impatient and intolerant of an absentee-emperor-cum-poet only too willing to execute any noble touched with a whiff of conspiracy that triggered his downfall. Thus, the circle was closed: with Nero died the last of the emperors tied directly to Augustus.

The death of Nero demonstrated quite clearly the anarchy of an open succession. Part III, “The Civil Wars,” looks at three short-lived claimants to the throne. Galba’s seven-month reign was important for several reasons, according to Grant. First, it showed that “it was possible,” as Tacitus wrote, “for an emperor to be chosen outside of Rome.” Second, because of the strain and grueling workload, the counselors to the emperor needed to work together harmoniously, like Agrippa and Maecenas under Augustus or Seneca and Burrus under Claudius. Galba’s top counselors were motivated by mutual hatred and suspicion from the start. Third, the troops, especially the Praetorian Guards, must be enriched before anyone else. Perhaps Galba’s biggest mistake was his belief that “I select my troops, I don’t buy them!” Finally, Galba’s choice of an heir, Piso, who was not a blood relative, set the precedent that the emperorship was open to merit, not birth or lineage. That said, Galba’s short and disastrous reign undermined the future claims of ancient Republican families to control the Roman Empire. Indeed, Grant writes that Galba’s brief administration “extinguished the imperial prospects of Republican noblemen forever.”

The author further claims that the 95-day reign of the next emperor, Otho, was important for several reasons. First, he showed that a relative “new man” could be made emperor. Second, for the first time an emperor assassinated his predecessor, a precedent that would become a recurring feature of Roman imperial rule. And, third, the new emperor was immediately a slave of the army that had created him, in this case the Praetorian Guard, although other provincial legions were to quickly demonstrate the same power. Worse yet, inter-garrison rivalry ensured that any new emperor created by any army unit would be resisted by those not directly positioned to benefit.

Vetellius, the last of the three emperors, is described by Grant as a gluttonous, sycophantic mediocrity; a man that stumbled into the opportunity to seize the purple, an effort inevitably cut short by a combination of “torpid hangover, military inexperience, and reliance on two mutually hostile advisors [Caecina and Valens].” Vitellius was nevertheless conscience of the need to establish a new family dynasty, introducing his 6-year-old son as a general and future successor. It was a model that his conqueror, Vespasian, seemingly no better positioned to succeed than Galba, Otho, or Vitellius, embraced and succeeded with.

Part IV looks at “The Flavian Emperors” that served from 69 to 96AD. Vespasian was governor of Judea, suppressing the First Jewish Revolt, when he leapt into action after Otho’s violent ascension. Grant notes that one of Vespasian’s main strength’s was that he was the father of two sons. By this time the dynastic nature of the Roman ruling class was clear. But beyond that, Vespasian was clearly “a new kind of ruler,” a man of “modest rank, and correspondingly plain tastes,” a man with “peasant’s accent” and conspicuous for his “old-fashioned, unpretentious way of life.” Like many of the unfortunate emperors of the year 69AD, Vespasian’s inner circle was riven with rivalry and animosity. And yet, somehow, he succeeded where Galba, Otho and Vitellius had failed – and failed fast. Vespasian, on the other hand, was quick to honor the Roman Army before the senate – and to treat the troops with “a tactful blend of fairness and firmness.” Perhaps the greatest impact of Vespasian’s decade-long rule was that “the olds days when Republican pretensions [such as pretending that the senate was an independent body] might still mean something were gone forever.” Grant writes that the “Civil Wars had shown the necessity of a strong monarchy,” and that’s precisely what Vespasian delivered. Gone were the days of the “melodramatic eccentrics of the Julio-Claudian type” and instead were replaced with a new breed of “industrious, public servants,” that blended hard work with humility and political acumen.

Emperor Titus glided into the purple in 79AD at the healthy age 42, the first ever to succeed his natural father (a feat not to be repeated for another 100 years). Considered “extravagant and greedy,” Titus further damaged his reputation by taking the Jewish collaborationist queen Berenice as his mistress – and almost his wife. Furthermore, his brief reign was marred by two calamities: the destruction of Pompeii in 79 and the Great Roman Fire of 80. When he died in 81 after just two years as Caesar he is reported to have held just one regret in life: having not murdered his younger brother and successor, Domitian.

Domitian became emperor at age 30 in 81AD, determined to follow a “meticulously thought out policy of systemic absolutism.” Unlike his estranged older brother, Domitian was denied honors during his father Vespasian’s regime. For example, he received no meaningful military commands and shared the ceremonial consulship with his father only once (compared to Titus’ six times). Thus, Grant writes that Domitian came to the throne “seething with disappointed ambition.” Like Nero, he loved poetry and the theater, but never let his ambitions affect his imperial work. He also wasn’t above enjoying gladiatorial fights between women and dwarves, an odd anecdote I couldn’t help highlighting. Domitian’s eccentricities aside, Grant claims that he nevertheless governed the empire in a manner “firm, far-sighted, and meticulous.” He launched an extensive building campaign, gave the Roman troops their first pay raise since Augustus, and funded fabulous public works projects. Keynes, had he been a Roman citizen in the 80s AD, no doubt would have been proud.

A central theme of this book is the imperial leadership’s century-long attempt to restore classic and deeply held Republican traditions, such as the positive and weighty influence of the Senate, while balancing threats from senatorial conspiracies against the crown. Over the course of the first century the imperial system became more-and-more unabashedly authoritarian while the senate became more diluted of ancient Republican families. A familiar narrative developed: a new emperor would be crowned; he would embark on a program of wise, just, and usually progressive leadership; eventually, elements in the senate would become disaffected and conspiracies against the emperor would emerge, both real and imagined; the emperor, his suspicions aroused, would crack down ruthlessly; treason trials and wholesale executions would follow; more often than not, like Domitian, his excessive reaction would lead to his own assassination. Or, as Tacitus put it rather drably, “emperors generally deteriorated.”

In closing, Grant delivers a crisp, engaging, and informative review of Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire, while making a consistent and compelling argument that the lofty position of emperor was, sooner or later, impossible for any mortal many to handle.

The Robert Graves translation is what you want. Unfortunately, the store has zero clue about how to deal with translations. So they link to a completely different translation for the Kindle version. This basically operates like a bait-and-switch, where users think they are getting Penguin-quality editing, and the Robert Graves translation, but they get something completely different, and basically useless.

Yeah, it's only a buck, but ... it shouldn't be linked to the Robert Graves translation. They do the same thing with Russian novels, and pretty much anything that is in the public domain. You may not be getting the same edition, because the store, despite all the things I appreciate about them, are not book people.

The twelve Caesars who Suetonius wrote about had less of an effect on the history of the world than the events recorded in the New Testament. Nevertheless, these twelve Caesars shaped the society in which the events of the New Testament happened.

Luke 2:1 reads, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

Luke 3:1,2 reads, Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Tiberius followed Augustus in 14 AD.

Acts 11:28 reads, And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Acts 18:2 reads, And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

This is how Suetonius confirms the expulsion of the Jews under Caesar Claudius, “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled then from the City.”

Scholars interpret “Chrestus” as “Christ.” Claudius was emperor from 41 to 54 AD, so Christianity had time to spread to Rome, and become a contentious issue among Jews living there: some accepted Jesus as their Messiah; others did not.

Acts 25:21 and Acts 25:25 mention Augustus as the reigning emperor. This is puzzling, because Tiberius was emperor at the time. It may be that because Augustus was the first emperor, the position was associated with him.

Julius Caesar was assassinated before he could establish himself as the first Roman emperor. That honor went to Julius Caesar’s relative Augustus.

By the time Augustus became the emperor, the borders of the Roman Empire had increased about as far as they were going to. Augustus’ efforts to conquer Germany and the Arabian peninsula failed.

Because of the Roman prejudice against a king, the position of emperor never became hereditary, although Titus did follow his father Vespasian. In theory the Roman Senate chose the new emperor at the death of the former emperor. In practice, there was usually a power struggle similar to the power struggles that followed the death of each dictator of the Soviet Union. At times these power struggles became civil wars, as Roman generals fought for power. This created an element of instability in the Roman Empire.

Another element of instability was that many of the emperors were appallingly evil. Nero had some of his relatives executed and committed incest with others. As an additional amusement Nero liked to walk around Rome after dark, murder men who were alone, and throw the bodies into sewers.

Suetonius details the vices of these Caesars. The only complaint I have about this edition of The Twelve Caesars is that it lacks an index.

Augustus was a capable ruler, and usually a just one. He died 15 AD. Vespasian, who was also competent, became emperor on 69 AD. Between them emperors were either depraved like Caligula and Nero, or incompetent like Claudius.

This was a time when the Roman Empire consisted of recently conquered nations who were resentful about their subordination to Rome, and prone to revolt, as the Jews did from 66 to 73 AD. Vespasian and Titus crushed the Jewish Uprising. In addition, Rome was threatened from the north by German barbarian tribes and from the south by the Parthian Empire.

Nevertheless, the Western Roman Empire lasted until 476 AD. The Eastern Roman Empire, which became known as the Byzantine Empire, lasted until 1453. The Holy Roman Empire, which considered itself to be the restoration of the Western Roman Empire, lasted until 1806.

What seems to have happened is that the Roman Empire was stable enough that it could survive the reigns of several depraved emperors as long as someone capable rose to the throne in time to straighten things out.

In addition, the Roman Empire bred the population against physical aggressiveness. The criminal justice system of the empire executed criminals. The Roman Army killed rebels. The Roman Army not only killed physically aggressive men. It attracted them, while reducing the descendants they would have. It was virtually impossible for an enlisted man in the Roman Army to raise a family. Enlistments were usually for twenty years. The mortality of the Roman Army was high. Soldiers who lived for twenty years were usually too old to start families.

As the population of the Roman Empire became innately less violent, it became receptive to the gentle message of Christianity.

Tacitus is generally considered the greatest of the Roman historians, but Suetonius holds a special place in readers' hearts because "his history is the most vivid and the raciest account we have of the scandalous and amusing incidents in the domestic lives of the first Caesars." (That quote is from the book's back cover.) You can always count on Suetonius for salacious details, but he also provides fascinating little slices of everyday life which make the era come alive. For example, who knew that the reason why Julius Caesar wore a laurel wreath on all occasions was because he was self-conscious about his baldness? Who knew that raising the middle finger was considered an obscene gesture even in Augustus' time? From Suetonius, I have learned that the punishment for parricide was to be sewn up in a sack with a dog, a cock, a snake, and a monkey, and cast into a river. I have learned that the emperor Domitian spent hours alone every day doing nothing but catching flies and stabbing them with a needle-sharp pen. I have learned that Tiberius was a mythology nerd (like me!) who walked around quizzing people on the more obscure points of Greek mythos, rattling off questions like: "What song did the Sirens sing?" "Who was Hecuba's mother?" "What name did Achilles assume when he was disguised as a girl in the court of Lycomedes?"

Speaking of Tiberius, his biography and those of Caligula and Nero are probably the most compelling, mainly because these three were the biggest nutcases of all the Caesars. They offer an excellent example of what happens when you combine absolute power with extreme, albeit justified, paranoia. Tiberius is depicted as the worst of the sadist-pervert Roman emperors (with Caligula not far behind). During his reign, not a day passed without an execution, and he delighted in torture. Tiberius authorized terrible deeds - for example, "Tradition forbade the strangling of virgins; so, when little girls had been condemned to die in this way, the executioner began by violating them" - and after retiring to Capri, he completely gave himself over to debauchery and cruelty. As Suetonius gleefully reports: "Some aspects of his criminal obscenity are almost too vile to discuss, much less believe. Imagine training little boys, whom he called his `minnows,' to chase him while he went swimming and get between his legs to lick and nibble him. Or letting babies not yet weaned from their mother's breast suck at his breast or groin - such a filthy old man he had become!" (Let me assure you: you won't find details such as this in Tacitus.)

Gaius (Caligula) is portrayed as mentally ill and just as savage and debased as his predecessor, Tiberius. People who criticized his wild beast shows were sawn in half. He forced parents to attend their sons' executions. Suetonius notes that Caligula "frequently had trials by torture held in his presence while he was eating or otherwise enjoying himself." He watched one man "being flogged with chains for several days running, and had him killed only when the smell of suppurating brains became insupportable." Caligula spent ungodly amounts of money on pointless and impossible ventures. After less than a year in office, he had squandered the entire treasury with his extravagances. Pressed for cash, he began appropriating entire estates on the slightest pretext, "using wickedly ingenious methods of raising funds by false accusations." Fortunately, Caligula was murdered at the age of twenty-nine after ruling for less than four years.

The biography of Nero is possibly my favorite. He believed himself to be a talented singer and lyre-player, and held frequent (and endless) performances for the "benefit" of the Roman people. Suetonius tells us, "No one was allowed to leave the theatre during his recitals, however pressing the reason. We read of women in the audience giving birth, and of men being so bored with listening and applauding that they furtively dropped down from the wall at the rear, since the gates were kept barred, or shammed dead and were carried away for burial." After using public funds to build an enormous golden palace for himself - the pillared arcade ran for a whole mile; the entrance-hall was large enough to contain a 120-foot high statue of himself; the main dining room had a circular roof that revolved, day and night, in time with the sky - we are told that Nero condescended to remark: `Good, now I can at last begin to live like a human being!'" He was also a pervert on par with Tiberius and Caligula. Suetonius writes: "Nero practiced every kind of obscenity, and after defiling almost every part of his body finally invented a novel game: he was released from a cage dressed in the skins of wild animals, and attacked the private parts of men and women who stood bound to stakes." Nero eventually wound up being forced to kill himself to avoid being murdered. While hemming and hawing about whether or not to go through with the suicide, he was awash in self-pity and was overheard muttering to himself through his tears: "Dead! And so great an artist!"

Some of the other Caesars fare better in Seutonius' hands. We are told that all of Rome went into mourning after Titus' death. Although Claudius is described as cruel, bloodthirsty, and stupid, he could also be kind: he planned an edict to legitimize farting at the dinner table -- "either silently or noisily" -- after hearing about a man who was so modest that he endangered his health by an attempt to restrain himself. Vespasian, of all people (who?), comes across as the best emperor of the bunch. His only real vice was stinginess. Suetonius says that after Vespasian died, "the famous actor Favor, who wore Vespasian's funeral mask in the procession and gave the customary imitations of his gestures and words, shouted to the imperial agents `How much will all this cost?' `A hundred thousand,' they answered. `Then I'll take a thousand down, and you can just pitch me in the Tiber.'"

In short, Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars" is Roman history at its most entertaining. Believe it or not, Suetonius is also considered a very credible source. Five stars.

Suetonius reads a bit like a gossip columnist at times, not sparing the details of rumour, even quoting derisive songs about his subject. He paints a rounded, if not slightly over exaggerated picture: did Julius Caesar tear down a house he had built because he did not like it? Maybe. Did he build/demolish that house with his own hands? Unlikely, since he was a very busy man in town (beng a politician and womaniser) or in foreign parts (leading armies), his being out in the country with a trowel or hammer doesn't sound at all like him.

Is Suetonius accurate? Yes and no. It's really important to read those annotations. Is Suetonius entertaining? Definitely. There are funny bits, gory bits and even the odd saucy bit. One gets a sense that if he had been able to live in the times he describes and had the equipment, he would have been lurking in the Forum with his camera and tape recorder at the ready- a real paparazzo.

But I'm not one to gossip. You don't need a Classics background to read this. It sets you up nicely for a generally sweeping work like Gibbon (again, a annotated/corrected version) and then a swan dive into Livy (who is a joy to read) and for Caesar fans, his ego boost/propaganda works on his campaigns (military fans will love this).

Which goes to prove, Classics can be fun.

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, I could not stop reading 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 that 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?

Suetonius' Twelve Caesars is a key narrative source for the period it covers and, unlike Tacitus, it has survived entire and is uninterrupted. Beginning with Caesar himself, in the mid first century BC, it ends in AD 96 with Domitian and covers the reigns of such emperors as Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero. Organised according to each of these twelve emperors' lives, it contains more or less self-contained if unequal chapters (long reigns are given more space). Thus the story progresses from the civil wars that surrounded Caesar's rise to power, the establishment of the principate under Augustus, and on to the more debauched reigns of their descendents in the early first century AD. It closes with the establishment of a new dynasty, the Flavians, represented by Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

The introduction appositely remarks that Suetonius was following, in this work, the classical format of eulogy or biography, rather than history, according to classical forms. As a result, each reign is organised topically, beginning with ancestry, going on to civic achievements, then military campaigns, then the given emperor's vices or crimes, and the manner of his death complete with warnings and omens. This means that a reader completely unacquainted with the period may find the overarching story hard to follow, and it is best to be armed with basic knowledge of it. At the same time, firstly, Suetonius does follow a loose chronological progression within each topic he addresses and within each life, and secondly his writing is really clear and easy to follow. Suetonius as historian was impressive, moreover: in addition to testimonies and oral sources, he examined written sources including letters written by the protagonists, e.g. Augustus, and official Roman records, e.g. the treasury's. This is exceptional, indeed to my knowledge unprecedented, for a classical writer. Though sometimes his sources appear to fail him, this is rare and his account is authoritative. Twelve Caesars, in addition to being easy to read, is an essential source on the early Roman Empire.

This is a very readable history of the first twelve Caesars. Mostly focusing on the biographical, I wouldn't recommend the book to someone wanting a military or cultural history of the empire. As a matter of fact, Grant regularly admits that most of his discussion affected few outside of the small senatorial class of Rome. Furthermore, the individual biographies might be a little scant for anyone looking for a more in-depth knowledge of any one of the first twelve. Nonetheless, given the amount of ground covered and the scarcity of good primary resources for discussion, Grant does an excellent job of providing an overview of these important historical personalities. Perhaps most impressive is the even-handed tone which Grant takes when considering his sources. He openly admits where his sources may have inherent biases or where there isn't sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. I found this read to be both educational and easy. This is a watermark for how I'd like others to write about ancient history.

The Twelve Caesars written by C. Suetonius Tranquillus begins with an in-depth preface about Suetonius himself. Suetonius with the idea of writing a book on the twelve Caesars that made such influences over Rome, wanted to writ a book not only on the commonly known triumphs and downfalls, but “be more diffuse on their personal conduct and habits” (Tranquillus, 3). With how Suetonius planned on writing this book- it is aimed that we learn more than just surface level information but dig into specifics that some may have wanted to sweep under the rug.
The very first chapter begins with Suetonius giving the reader some background information on our very own Julius Caesar. With this we get to know about Julius before he made his tremendous strides into power over Rome. At the age of 16 years old the reader finds out that Julius suddenly loses his father and by the age of 17 was “… nominated to the office of the high-priest of Jupiter.” Followed by his marriage to the daughter of Cinna (who had been four times consul), Cornelia they bore a daughter Julia.
This of course not being his only wife within his lifetime, Julius is to later marry Pompeia who was evidentially the granddaughter of the man Sulla who had banished Julius from Rome in previous years. This marriage did not last long due to a said conspiracy of Pompeia being “debauched by Publius Clodius,” in which somehow Clodius had found access to her disguised as a woman, during the celebration of a religious solemnity…” (Suetonnius, 8). Of course like any other man of high ranking fell to his bodily sins and illegitimately fathered a child with the queen of Egypt, Cleopatra but could not marry her due to the fact that Julius was not allowed to join hands with a foreigner. Then finally he marries his last wife Calpurnica whom was the daughter of another senator by the name of Piso. With Calpurnica marks the final days of Julius’ life as on the Ides of March it is said that Calpurnica woke up after having a terrible dream of her holding her husbands dead body in her arms. Begging Julius not to leave that day, she was ignored and continued on his day to the senate- where he was later murdered.
Julius Caesar thrived on the sense of victories and was often jealous of Alexander the Great and his numerous successes (Suetonius, 8). Although his end goal was to reach the highest rank, Julius could not do so without the help of the people. Julius put into rule several laws for the wellbeing of his people. He would put in place a permanent law against extortion and many other social incompetencies’ that were lingering around in society during those days. “He was extremely assiduous and strict in the administration of justice. He expelled from the senate such members as were convicted of bribery” (Suetonius, 22).
With Alexander the Great as his underlying motivation, Julius ought out to expand his geographical boundaries and grow the city of Rome. Suetonius dives into many of Julius’ successes such as his influence over the capture of Gaul, the Roman invasion of Britain and so on. Although he had many successes, Julius also endured many personal losses. During one of his most successful time periods conquering regions Julius had lost both his mother and his daughter- and not long after, his grand daughter (Suetonius, 12). Because of his great success, fear struck in the eyes of his conspirators pushing them to assassinate him before he could attain the title as King of Rome.
Suetonius although having written The Twelve Caesars with a completely different vernacular than today, he was able to clearly paint a picture of the inside and out of his life from the small things and what people thought of his actions all the way to large scale events such as hi major triumphs and victories both politically as well as on the battlefield. Suetonius having gone over the ins and outs of the life of Julius Caesar helped me as a reader to fully understand the struggles and how life was lived in a time that was so much different then, than it is today. Suetonius not only puts in his own knowledge and opinions but also implements commentary from other writers and scholar on the subject to make his writing more diverse and give more than just one perspective on the subject. In Julius’ lifetime many aspects were covered by Suetonius. In a lifetime Julius Caesar was able to attain the ranks of orator, a historian, a statesman, a lawgiver, and an army general with an unforeseen end.
In my paper I focused on Julius wives because under that topic is where I learned the most about Julius Caesar. It is common knowledge that Julius by his own knowledge and manipulation was able to slowly raise to the top but then quickly falls due to a successful assassination attempt by his own consul and senate. But there has never been much to be said about what happened in his home life, rather than public and political. Learning about Julius and how he viewed marriage and family gives a huge in take on who he is as not only a leader but just as a person.

Suetonius reads a bit like a gossip columnist at times, not sparing the details of rumour, even quoting derisive songs about his subject. He paints a rounded, if not slightly over exaggerated picture: did Julius Caesar tear down a house he had built because he did not like it? Maybe. Did he build/demolish that house with his own hands? Unlikely, since he was a very busy man in town (beng a politician and womaniser) or in foreign parts (leading armies), his being out in the country with a trowel or hammer doesn't sound at all like him.

Is Suetonius accurate? Yes and no. It's really important to read those annotations. Is Suetonius entertaining? Definitely. There are funny bits, gory bits and even the odd saucy bit. One gets a sense that if he had been able to live in the times he describes and had the equipment, he would have been lurking in the Forum with his camera and tape recorder at the ready- a real paparazzo.

But I'm not one to gossip. You don't need a Classics background to read this. It sets you up nicely for a generally sweeping work like Gibbon (again, a annotated/corrected version) and then a swan dive into Livy (who is a joy to read) and for Caesar fans, his ego boost/propaganda works on his campaigns (military fans will love this).

Which goes to prove, Classics can be fun.

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, I could not stop reading 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 that 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?

Suetonius' Twelve Caesars is a key narrative source for the period it covers and, unlike Tacitus, it has survived entire and is uninterrupted. Beginning with Caesar himself, in the mid first century BC, it ends in AD 96 with Domitian and covers the reigns of such emperors as Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero. Organised according to each of these twelve emperors' lives, it contains more or less self-contained if unequal chapters (long reigns are given more space). Thus the story progresses from the civil wars that surrounded Caesar's rise to power, the establishment of the principate under Augustus, and on to the more debauched reigns of their descendents in the early first century AD. It closes with the establishment of a new dynasty, the Flavians, represented by Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

The introduction appositely remarks that Suetonius was following, in this work, the classical format of eulogy or biography, rather than history, according to classical forms. As a result, each reign is organised topically, beginning with ancestry, going on to civic achievements, then military campaigns, then the given emperor's vices or crimes, and the manner of his death complete with warnings and omens. This means that a reader completely unacquainted with the period may find the overarching story hard to follow, and it is best to be armed with basic knowledge of it. At the same time, firstly, Suetonius does follow a loose chronological progression within each topic he addresses and within each life, and secondly his writing is really clear and easy to follow. Suetonius as historian was impressive, moreover: in addition to testimonies and oral sources, he examined written sources including letters written by the protagonists, e.g. Augustus, and official Roman records, e.g. the treasury's. This is exceptional, indeed to my knowledge unprecedented, for a classical writer. Though sometimes his sources appear to fail him, this is rare and his account is authoritative. Twelve Caesars, in addition to being easy to read, is an essential source on the early Roman Empire.

This is a very readable history of the first twelve Caesars. Mostly focusing on the biographical, I wouldn't recommend the book to someone wanting a military or cultural history of the empire. As a matter of fact, Grant regularly admits that most of his discussion affected few outside of the small senatorial class of Rome. Furthermore, the individual biographies might be a little scant for anyone looking for a more in-depth knowledge of any one of the first twelve. Nonetheless, given the amount of ground covered and the scarcity of good primary resources for discussion, Grant does an excellent job of providing an overview of these important historical personalities. Perhaps most impressive is the even-handed tone which Grant takes when considering his sources. He openly admits where his sources may have inherent biases or where there isn't sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. I found this read to be both educational and easy. This is a watermark for how I'd like others to write about ancient history.

The Twelve Caesars written by C. Suetonius Tranquillus begins with an in-depth preface about Suetonius himself. Suetonius with the idea of writing a book on the twelve Caesars that made such influences over Rome, wanted to writ a book not only on the commonly known triumphs and downfalls, but “be more diffuse on their personal conduct and habits” (Tranquillus, 3). With how Suetonius planned on writing this book- it is aimed that we learn more than just surface level information but dig into specifics that some may have wanted to sweep under the rug.
The very first chapter begins with Suetonius giving the reader some background information on our very own Julius Caesar. With this we get to know about Julius before he made his tremendous strides into power over Rome. At the age of 16 years old the reader finds out that Julius suddenly loses his father and by the age of 17 was “… nominated to the office of the high-priest of Jupiter.” Followed by his marriage to the daughter of Cinna (who had been four times consul), Cornelia they bore a daughter Julia.
This of course not being his only wife within his lifetime, Julius is to later marry Pompeia who was evidentially the granddaughter of the man Sulla who had banished Julius from Rome in previous years. This marriage did not last long due to a said conspiracy of Pompeia being “debauched by Publius Clodius,” in which somehow Clodius had found access to her disguised as a woman, during the celebration of a religious solemnity…” (Suetonnius, 8). Of course like any other man of high ranking fell to his bodily sins and illegitimately fathered a child with the queen of Egypt, Cleopatra but could not marry her due to the fact that Julius was not allowed to join hands with a foreigner. Then finally he marries his last wife Calpurnica whom was the daughter of another senator by the name of Piso. With Calpurnica marks the final days of Julius’ life as on the Ides of March it is said that Calpurnica woke up after having a terrible dream of her holding her husbands dead body in her arms. Begging Julius not to leave that day, she was ignored and continued on his day to the senate- where he was later murdered.
Julius Caesar thrived on the sense of victories and was often jealous of Alexander the Great and his numerous successes (Suetonius, 8). Although his end goal was to reach the highest rank, Julius could not do so without the help of the people. Julius put into rule several laws for the wellbeing of his people. He would put in place a permanent law against extortion and many other social incompetencies’ that were lingering around in society during those days. “He was extremely assiduous and strict in the administration of justice. He expelled from the senate such members as were convicted of bribery” (Suetonius, 22).
With Alexander the Great as his underlying motivation, Julius ought out to expand his geographical boundaries and grow the city of Rome. Suetonius dives into many of Julius’ successes such as his influence over the capture of Gaul, the Roman invasion of Britain and so on. Although he had many successes, Julius also endured many personal losses. During one of his most successful time periods conquering regions Julius had lost both his mother and his daughter- and not long after, his grand daughter (Suetonius, 12). Because of his great success, fear struck in the eyes of his conspirators pushing them to assassinate him before he could attain the title as King of Rome.
Suetonius although having written The Twelve Caesars with a completely different vernacular than today, he was able to clearly paint a picture of the inside and out of his life from the small things and what people thought of his actions all the way to large scale events such as hi major triumphs and victories both politically as well as on the battlefield. Suetonius having gone over the ins and outs of the life of Julius Caesar helped me as a reader to fully understand the struggles and how life was lived in a time that was so much different then, than it is today. Suetonius not only puts in his own knowledge and opinions but also implements commentary from other writers and scholar on the subject to make his writing more diverse and give more than just one perspective on the subject. In Julius’ lifetime many aspects were covered by Suetonius. In a lifetime Julius Caesar was able to attain the ranks of orator, a historian, a statesman, a lawgiver, and an army general with an unforeseen end.
In my paper I focused on Julius wives because under that topic is where I learned the most about Julius Caesar. It is common knowledge that Julius by his own knowledge and manipulation was able to slowly raise to the top but then quickly falls due to a successful assassination attempt by his own consul and senate. But there has never been much to be said about what happened in his home life, rather than public and political. Learning about Julius and how he viewed marriage and family gives a huge in take on who he is as not only a leader but just as a person.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, commonly known as Suetonius (c. 69 - c. 122), was a Roman historian in the early Imperial era.

He begins with Julius Caesar; about Caesar's murder, he says, "some say that when he saw Marcus Brutus about to deliver the second blow, he reproached him in Greek with, 'You, too, my son?'" (Pg. 46) He notes that Augustus "spared Cleopatra's children by Antony, brought them up no less tenderly than if they had been members of his own family, and gave them the education which their rank deserved." (Pg. 59)

Tiberius "abolished all foreign cults at Rome, particularly the Egyptian and Jewish, forcing all citizens who had embraced those superstitious faiths to burn their religious vestments and other accessories... Tiberius also banished all astrologers except such as asked for his forgiveness and undertook to make no more predictions." (Pg. 128)

Caligula "loved watching tortures and executions; and, disguised in wig and robe, abandoned himself nightly to the pleasures of feasting and scandalous living..." (Pg. 154) He concludes, "Gradually Nero's vices gained the upper hand: he no longer tried to laugh them off, or hide, or deny them, but turned quite brazen." (Pg. 223) Later, he added, "Nero was now so unversally loathed that no bad enough abuse could be found for him." (Pg. 235)

There is a famous quotation which has been thought to refer to Christians: "Because the (Jewish people) at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, (Claudius) expelled them from the City." (Pg. 197) Claudius' expulsion of the Christians from Rome is mentioned in Acts 18:2, by the way. [I think it's a doubtful reference to Christians; "Chrestus" was a common slave name, and "continuous disturbances" and "instigation" don't seem to characterize the relation of Jesus and early Christians; even assuming that Suetonius couldn't distinguish between Judaism and Christianity---which he could and did---and that he misspelled "Christus."]

The most famous quotation is that Nero inflicted "Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief..." (Pg. 217)

Suetonius's book is absolutely essential reading for any students of Roman (or early Christian/Jewish) history.

Suetonius gives us several characteristics of Roman society and the Caesars themselves.He gives us the vices and virtues of the Caesars. With their great power, great was their good and great was their evil. Some were good rulers with good morals, such as Titus and Vespian. Some were good rulers with some vices such as Julius Caesar and Augustus. And some were bad rulers with bad morals such as Nero and Caligula.

Nero's chapter is the most entertaining. I got a good chuckle out of it. No one could do decadence with such artistry as Nero. At his death, he mentioned amusingly, "Dead, and such a great artist!", mourning his own passing. Nero was also the vainest Caesar. He took up singing, although he was not very good at it. He entered and won all the contests because no one wanted to offend him. The captive audience would often fall asleep or try to escape somehow. He was jealous of anyone who had a better voice than him. He was a primadonna with no talent. Nero also lusted after his mother. Later on, he turned against her because of her controlling ways and her inability to keep her mouth shut. He tried to kill her in many different ways that seem cartoonish and comical, including pretending that he had forgiven her and inviting her to a party so that he could kill her. He sniffed her breasts one last time before seeing her off. But she got out of his trap that time too. Eventually, he did kill her, though he felt guilty about it afterwards. When Nero married a boy and turned him into a girl, a joke was made that the world would have been a better place, if Nero's father had done the same. (Nero would not have been born in a homosexual relationship). Like most Caesars, he was known for lust, greed, and cruelty. Added to this, he was also mad.

Tiberius was a good general, but he was remembered more for his greed, cruelty and lust. He turned into a dirty old man and was sexually interested in men, women, boys, and babies. Tiberius raped two young men and then broke their legs for complaining about it. He also invented a torture of tying the genitals of a victim after tricking them into drinking a lot of wine. This made it impossible to urinate.

Vespian and Titus were remarkable in that they did not knowingly put innocent people to death, unlike the other Caesars. They had a sensitive side that the others lacked which made them better rulers.

Supernatural events are recorded as factual. Caesars took omens and the way the entrails lay seriously. Many portents are given that are said to predict winning, losing, dying, and becoming a Caesar. Caesars used astrologers.

There was a lot of arbitrary cruelty and violence in Roman society. A chef was set in irons for serving the wrong kind of bread. There were many instances of torture and killing innocent people. One could easily be killed by the Caesar over trivialities, even though there was supposedly rule of law. Violence was a way of life and occurred frequently. Caesars had to be careful that they were not killed by those around him.

Roman society was nearly pansexual. Incest, pedophilia, prostitution, homosexuality, and adultery were all practiced and there seems to be just mild disapproval against such things. Julius Caesar was referred to as "Every woman's man, and every man's woman".

The greatness of a Caesar was determined by building colossal buildings, winning wars and territory, ruling justly, providing good entertainment, reducing taxes, and being generous with the public treasury, Caesars were often judged by how generous or stingy they were with the public purse or how much they taxed or cheated the populace.

Laws were made, enforced, and broken by the Caesars. Caesars were above the law. Only assassination was a punishment that they could not avoid. They did not hide their immorality they way politicians do today. They would enforce morality, but were not necessarily moral themselves. For example, a law was made to keep noble women from becoming prostitutes by choice. But the Caesar would not set a good moral example by remaining chaste or faithful.

But just because Caesars might torture people, does not mean that were not students of the liberal arts. After ordering torture, a Caesar might read or write a good book. Sort of proves that being highly literate does not make you ethical.

Romans loved a good show. Entertainment on a colossal scale frequently occurred. Chariot races, plays, gladiator shows, fake battles, feasts, and wild beast hunts were some of the entertainments.

Gluttony was on display. One Caesar ate to the point of puking. When he fell asleep, servants would try to induce vomiting. He would then administer an enema on himself.

Everything was done on a grand scale. Caesars were artists who painted with bold strokes and their canvass was their empire.

This is my first time reading a Michael Grant book. I'll agree with other reviewers that his writing style is a little difficult to follow. He routinely makes five sentences into one which sometimes leaves you forgetting the subject of the sentence before you reach the end. Despite this I find his analysis of Roman history and its historians very interesting.

The Twelve Caesars recaps the lives of the first twelve emperors of Rome. Starting with Julius Caesar's takeover of Rome as dictator and continues recounting the lives of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero), the short lives of the civil war emperors (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius), and the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian). The book is written in chronological order with the beginning of each chapter giving a quick synopsis of how the emperor came to power, the major events of his life, and how he met his end. I felt all of these were well written and made the rest of story much easier to understand despite Grant's difficult writing style.

The meat of the story provided by Grant is the work of the Roman historians, but what makes the book important is Grant's evaluation of the historical records provided on the emperors based on the prejudices and politics of the writers. Reading Suetonius, Tacitus, or Dio Cassius in a vacuum would lead the reader into an erroneous view of their lives, but Grant digs through the stories and tries to reflect the most likely truth. Of course, Grant would be the first to say that even his well researched analysis may not always be correct since the lives of the Caesars were cloaked in secrecy.

This is a great addition to anyone interested in ancient history, Rome, or even the mind of a dictator. Grant's forward is enlightening in itself. His logical evaluation of the character and actions of the emperors gave me an appreciation for their challenges and abilities. I recommend reading as much of the ancient historians as possible, but having a modern evaluation of the subject is equally important.

'Not much is known about the life of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillis. He was probably born in A.D. 69--the famous "year of four Emperors"--when his father, a Roman knight, served as a colonel in a regular legion and took part in the Battle of Baetricum.'
Suetonius became a scribe and noted secretary to the military set, eventually ending up in the service of Hadrian, who was emperor from A.D. 117-138. He was dismissed for 'indiscreet behaviour' with Hadrian's empress, Sabina, but not before doing sufficient research to complete many books of a historical nature. His attempts at philosophy were much less well received, and most of his history has been overlooked by all but classical scholars, but this work, 'The Twelve Caesars' has held the imagination of more than just the scholarly set since it was first written.
Suetonius had the good fortune of speaking to eyewitnesses from the time of the early Caesars. Much of his information about Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero in fact comes from those who observed and/or participated in their lives. Suetonius is in many ways more of a reporter than an historian--he would record conflicting statements without worrying about the reconciliation (this set him apart from Tacitus and other classical historians who tried to find a consistency in stories and facts.
Suetonius has been described as the tabloid journalist of ancient Rome, because not only did he not appear to check facts (which in fact is not true--he did check, he just didn't try to smooth over the conflicting facts), but he choose to concentrate on the private lives, motivations and personality quirks of his subjects rather than their grand plans, policies and military/political victories. Thus, many details of the lurid scene appear. Suetonius, and this volume in particular, formed much of the basis for Robert Graves' I, Claudius and Claudius the God, which in turn pulled up the popularity of Suetonius in this generation.
Suetonius had first hand knowledge of many of the Caesars who followed the Claudians, and ready access to the archives of the imperial family and the Senate, given his imperial posting.
This translation is not intended to be a faithful rendering of the language (which might well result in a stilted English construct) but rather a faithful account of the stories Suetonius tells. Graves has taken the liberty of changing monetary, date, and technical terms into standard English measurements of close kinship of meaning.
For the record, the twelve Caesars, about whom Suetonius writes, are:
+ Julius Caesar
+ Augustus
+ Tiberius
+ Gaius Caligula
+ Claudius
+ Nero
+ Galba
+ Otho
+ Vitellius
+ Vespasian
+ Titus
+ Domitian
Suetonius held nothing back in writing about the personal habits of the emperors and their families, nor did he hold back in his moral judgement of them. Of Tiberius, for instance, he wrote: 'Tiberius did so many other wicked deeds under the pretext of reforming public morals--but in reality to gratify his lust for seeing people suffer--that many satires were written against the evils of the day, incidentally expressing gloomy fears about the future.... At first Tiberius dismissed these verses as the work of bilious malcontents who were impatient with his reforms and did not really mean what they said. He would remark: "Let them hate me, so long as they fear me!" But, as time went on, his conduct justified every line they had written.'
Graves' edition of Suetonius is available under many covers, from hard-back study editions to Penguin paperbacks, including a wonderful, finely printed edition by the Folio Society. Take a step back into the seemier side of ancient Rome, the side most history courses overlook in favour of more traditional historical events, and hie thee to the bookstore for this work.

Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars, writing in the early second century, provides the modern reader with details of all the depraved decadence and ruthless violence of the ancient Roman Empire, an association that has become so very much engrained into our present collective memory. This Roman historian, unlike most ancient sources, concentrates not on the large events, such as battles (for instance, he barely mentions anything of Caesar's epic campaigns in Gaul), but rather he chooses to place his emphasis on the personal lives and characters of the Caesars. If Suetonius were alive today, we would be reading him in the National Enquirer, or some other paparazzi infested tabloid riddled with cheating movie stars or pop musicians with love handles. He enjoys telling the gossip, but most of all, he seems to revel in the stories of perversion and crime, of torture and bloodshed - the more scandal, the better.

He presents each life at first as a short political biography, beginning with a genealogical background and then a brief summary of the accomplishments they made as both politicians and emperors. He assesses their most honorable, or at least satisfactory, traits and actions. However, this rarely lasts more than ten pages, out of a thirty-or-so page biography, and usually consists of mundane government actions, or the different places they moved to when they were young. He then frankly informs the reader that he will proceed to list their crimes, which are always much longer and more descriptive than any of their virtuous elements, with the clear intent to prove what pathetic monstrosities they truly were (according to him, that is). His method certainly leaves the desired effect with the reader, for by the time one is done reading the revolting acts and descriptions that Suetonius provides, one is apt to forget all the acceptable and praise-worthy points that they had read a few dozen pages before.

The one exception to this trend appears to be the only emperor whom Suetonius admired - Augustus. Although he goes fairly easy on Julius Caesar (compared with the later Caesars, that is), the figure nevertheless fails to make his approval. Augustus' crimes, which are relatively few, seem to occur mostly in his youth, before he was emperor, such as killing prisoners where others would have allowed them to live. The virtue of Augustus that to Suetonius seems most admirable is his unyielding prudence. For instance, Augustus, throughout his reign, refrains from the title of "Emperor," shows the utmost humbleness in the Senate, and never seems to overindulge in decadence. He disallows even his image to be placed among the gods in the temples, insisting that he is a servant of the people, and rules only with their consent. Likewise, his reasoning is consistently sound and his justice fair, usually preferring not to punish critics or rebels, but rather redirect their efforts or cripple their attempts through clever ruses. He seems to appreciate Augustus' seemingly indirect approach to ruling. Although he, of course, recognizes that it is often a masquerade, he nevertheless condones it.

All of the emperors after Augustus, however, fail to find redemption in Suetonius' critical, scandal-seeking eye. Tiberius, who at first seems to find approval in his early career, ultimately falls into depravity and vicious homicide. Claudius is an insane, scatter-brained tyrant. And Nero proves himself to be a neglectful, atrociously doomed creature that nearly destroys the Empire. Even with all these abhorrent figures, the Emperor who seems to most find the author's loathing is Caligula. Even in the early part of the biography, where Suetonius is normally tame, the young man is shown to "not control his natural brutality and viciousness" (Suetonius 155). The rest of his governmental account, perhaps the shortest of all the Julio-Claudian emperors, ends with: "So much for the Emperor; the rest of this history must deal with the Monster" (Suetonius 161). Caligula is presented as almost the exact antithesis of Augustus. Whereas Augustus presented praiseworthy prudence, Caligula showed outrageous decadence, humiliated the Senate, believed him to be a god, and took part in nearly every sexual and violent depravity imaginable. Also, Augustus cared little for his appearance where Caligula scalped the back of a man's head for having a thicker head of hair than he. The counterpoints are endless, and Suetonius gives no mercy in his telling.

In all of these condemnable Caesars, the lust of power seems the most objectionable trait in them. Of course, Suetonius was of the senatorial class, traditionally hostile to the imperial rule, and it is therefore understandable that he would prefer the emperor that was most humble and consenting to the Senate than the one who openly grabbed the most control. This should make one question the reliability of him as a source. Another reason is his admitted insertion of hearsay and rumors into the telling, often painting a very unsavory picture to prove his point. This is not to say that all that he writes should be subject to such suspicion and assumed false, however, the casual reader should keep in mind that Suetonius is writing with a purpose - to prove the evil and depravity of the imperial institution. Nevertheless, Suetonius provides modern readers with a fascinating, shameless account of debauchery and political intrigue that is as guilty a pleasure to read now as it undoubtedly was nearly two millennia ago.

The Twelve Caesars, by the ancient Roman historian Gaius Suetonius, is one of the major sources of information about the early Roman Empire, from Julius Caesar to Domitian. In this entertaining "remake", Michael Grant revisits the twelve rulers profiled in the original, and discusses them from the standpoint of modern scholarship. He refers to Suetonius, but also Tacitus, Juvenal, and Plutarch, among others.

While somewhat scholarly in tone, this book is a brisk, absorbing read. I first read it when it was published in 1975, and it was a pleasure to read it again. I find it difficult to put down.

While there is probably not much new material here to interest serious students, for those (like me) whose knowledge is fairly general, this is a good introduction to the subject. I found the later chapters (post-Nero) to be particularly worthwhile, as these men have not been written about as extensively as Julius and the first five emperors.

Grant's overall theme is that the job of emperor was really too much for one person, and all of the rulers, good and bad, suffered from a combination of overwork and fear, as plots were a constant threat. Indeed, you have to wonder why anyone would want to be an Emperor, considering how few of them lasted, and how hard they had to work. In the case of Caligula and Nero, who shirked their duties for personal amusement, this course led to disaster.

Suetonius is essential reading, but this more balanced view is an excellent and compelling account of the remarkable men who attempted to rule a vast empire.

Here is history with all the boring stuff left out. Suetonius, a historian around the time of Hadrian (117-138 C.E.), had access to many of the Imperial records, and apparently from them gleaned most of the incredibly juicy information regarding the 12 Caesars included here. Wars, campaigns, laws, affairs of state, and all the other matters one might expect to read about in a book of historical biographies was not the major concern of Suetonius. He was more interested in the personal (often dastardly) deeds of these rulers and the behaviors they exhibited, many of which were very unflattering, to say the least. Many of these guys - Claudius, Caligula, Nero, Vitellius - were veritable monsters: mass murder, theft of private property and national treasure, incest, patricide, ostentation and audacity, material devastation were routine to many of them. Suetonius almost revels in dishing the dirt. It's not just a list of one cruelty after another, either, for Suetonius also knows a funny story when he sees it: the time, for example, when Augustus expelled a man from Italy for giving him the finger. Is this the earliest account on record of that particular obscene gesture? If the National Inquirer existed back then Suetonius would be its editor-in-chief. Some of what he tells is exaggeration or hearsay and perhaps not extremely accurate, but he is often still considered the best source on the Caesars after Tacitus. The book is a lot of fun to read and I would think it would be required reading in most high schools, if for no other reason than it would get a lot of kids interested in ancient history in a hurry.

This is a collection of essays about the first twelve rulers to bear the name Caesar. It is the definitive collection of eyewitness stories about the early emperors as they were seen by their contemporaries.

The rulers covered by this book include Julius Caesar, his adopted son Augustus and his descendents, the warlords who contended for power in the "Year of Four Caesars" after Nero was overthrown, and the Flavians.

In other words, the full list of twelve is:

Julius Caesar
Augustus
Tiberius
Gaius Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Galba
Otho
Vitellius
Vespasian
Titus
Domitian.

If you want to understand the early Roman Empire, you need to read this book. If you are a budding novelist and want to write about the early Empire, you need to read this book.

Robert Graves, author of "I Claudius" and "Claudius the God" translated this version: not surprisingly many of the snippets of gossip and fascinating little stories from Suetonius find their way into his novels. They also find their way into every good novel about first century Rome that I have ever read, absolutely without exception.

You should not take for granted that every word of Suetonius's account is accurate. For example, he supports the story that Nero set fire to the city of Rome, and then sang an aria as he watched the city burn. (This is story is often misquoted as Nero having fiddled while Rome burned - an impossibility since the violin had not been invented.)

Some modern historians have made a strong case that this was a clever libel spread by Nero's contemporary opponents, that Nero was actually away from the city when the fire broke out and hurried back to Rome to personally lead the fire-fighting efforts.

If they are right it does not cast doubt on Suetonius's integrity as a reporter of what was said about the emperor, because there is no dispute that the story of Nero singing while Rome burned was widely believed at the time. As the saying goes, "Si non e vero, e ben trovato" - if it's not true, it's well invented. Aspects of the story certainly seem in character with many of Nero's other proclivities including his love of art, enormous vanity, and complete ruthlessness. However, it illustrates that Suetonius does seem to have a propensity to repeat every snippet of gossip he heard about the early emperors, with rather less selectivity and critical judgement than the other great ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides.

However, for this very reason, though perhaps he is a whisker behind Herodotus and Thucydides as a historian, Suetonius is far and away the most entertaining of the three.

The translation by Graves is very easy to read. This is one of the most important, fascinating, and informative works of ancient history which was ever written.

'Not much is known about the life of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillis. He was probably born in A.D. 69--the famous "year of four Emperors"--when his father, a Roman knight, served as a colonel in a regular legion and took part in the Battle of Baetricum.'
Suetonius became a scribe and noted secretary to the military set, eventually ending up in the service of Hadrian, who was emperor from A.D. 117-138. He was dismissed for 'indiscreet behaviour' with Hadrian's empress, Sabina, but not before doing sufficient research to complete many books of a historical nature. His attempts at philosophy were much less well received, and most of his history has been overlooked by all but classical scholars, but this work, 'The Twelve Caesars' has held the imagination of more than just the scholarly set since it was first written.
Suetonius had the good fortune of speaking to eyewitnesses from the time of the early Caesars. Much of his information about Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero in fact comes from those who observed and/or participated in their lives. Suetonius is in many ways more of a reporter than an historian--he would record conflicting statements without worrying about the reconciliation (this set him apart from Tacitus and other classical historians who tried to find a consistency in stories and facts.
Suetonius has been described as the tabloid journalist of ancient Rome, because not only did he not appear to check facts (which in fact is not true--he did check, he just didn't try to smooth over the conflicting facts), but he choose to concentrate on the private lives, motivations and personality quirks of his subjects rather than their grand plans, policies and military/political victories. Thus, many details of the lurid scene appear. Suetonius, and this volume in particular, formed much of the basis for Robert Graves' I, Claudius and Claudius the God, which in turn pulled up the popularity of Suetonius in this generation.
Suetonius had first hand knowledge of many of the Caesars who followed the Claudians, and ready access to the archives of the imperial family and the Senate, given his imperial posting.
This translation is not intended to be a faithful rendering of the language (which might well result in a stilted English construct) but rather a faithful account of the stories Suetonius tells. Graves has taken the liberty of changing monetary, date, and technical terms into standard English measurements of close kinship of meaning.
For the record, the twelve Caesars, about whom Suetonius writes, are:
+ Julius Caesar
+ Augustus
+ Tiberius
+ Gaius Caligula
+ Claudius
+ Nero
+ Galba
+ Otho
+ Vitellius
+ Vespasian
+ Titus
+ Domitian
Suetonius held nothing back in writing about the personal habits of the emperors and their families, nor did he hold back in his moral judgement of them. Of Tiberius, for instance, he wrote: 'Tiberius did so many other wicked deeds under the pretext of reforming public morals--but in reality to gratify his lust for seeing people suffer--that many satires were written against the evils of the day, incidentally expressing gloomy fears about the future.... At first Tiberius dismissed these verses as the work of bilious malcontents who were impatient with his reforms and did not really mean what they said. He would remark: "Let them hate me, so long as they fear me!" But, as time went on, his conduct justified every line they had written.'
Graves' edition of Suetonius is available under many covers, from hard-back study editions to Penguin paperbacks, including a wonderful, finely printed edition by the Folio Society. Take a step back into the seemier side of ancient Rome, the side most history courses overlook in favour of more traditional historical events, and hie thee to the bookstore for this work.

Suetonius was a master historian, and the material he has to work with here--the insanity, sheer brutality, and fabulous riches of the Roman emperors--falls into the category of: nobody could make this stuff up. It's that strange. Even if you didn't know you were interested in Roman history, you're still going to be glued to the page.

Robert Graves, the translator, does a brilliant job. I found it far superior to anything else I have read. Also, those people who have seen the PBS series "I, Claudius" will be fascinated to learn that Robert Graves used history here as background for that series (albeit with a good deal of fictionalizing of Livia).

The biographies of Nero and Caligula are frankly superb. Even if you've read them before, it is simply staggering to read it all again and revel in the lunacy of their reigns. Nero left the palace at night to stalk the dark streets of Rome. Then, finding innocent men on their way "home from dinner, stab them if they offered resistance, and then drop their bodies in the sewers" (p 195).) The emperor was a serial killer.

Suetonius shows every evidence of weighing the facts carefully. Take, for example, "An ancient superstition was current in the East that out of Judaea would come the rulers of the world. This prediction, as the event later proved, referred to a Roman Emperor, but the rebellious Jews, who read it as referring to themselves" (p 242) and not Vespasian. Hmm.

Suetonius, the author, was a contemporary of many of the Roman emperors that he wrote about. It starts from Augustus and goes through the life of Domitian. This is the history that the book and BBC series, I, Claudius, is based on.

This history gives us almost the only glances we have of Caligula, and goes into sordid detail on the corrupt lives of most of these emperors. Most of these men did not die by natural means, and the author brings up known facts where he has them, but many times talks of then current rumors explaining the lives and deaths of these men. Suetonius would not be considered a good historian by today's standards, but more of a good tabloid reporter. Still, this is the best information we have of many of these men today.

One thing that fascinated me was the amount of superstition that was around during that time. We are told of the signs signaling the fall or rise of the Caesars. Almost any natural occurrence was considered a good or bad omen, and Suetonius is sure to tell about all of them.

This was a very fun book and I not only learned more about these 12 men, but also about how the people thought back then. The reader, Charlton Griffin, was excellent and had a very appropriate voice for this history. The translation is that of Robert Graves and I thought it was excellent. I highly recommend this audio book.